ML20196C873

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 0 to GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Fracture Mechanics Evaluation on Observed Indications at Two Welds in Recirculation Piping of Quad Cities,Unit 1 Station
ML20196C873
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/30/1998
From: Caine T, Mehta H, Stark R
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20196C822 List:
References
GE-NE-B13-01980, GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, GE-NE-B13-1980, GE-NE-B13-1980-30-1, NUDOCS 9812020112
Download: ML20196C873 (21)
v • d • e


Text

+'

m

-n.n %~waA ,: W pswn"h %.m W@@$,65V6.,0$w:rw'W

m. am wv m.

58 omw w Abh?h.m? w- d>Yk'$ Ww N Y. i' 2 ;n$. '

^

  • m,d <y;4 'dhy,TCl[%' @pu.s* ,f af P OO7 N y:w wa b, g~*

W ,I unw n4 se n s

mAa.n mcp gL+mv 3 W, g dYe<m w. &  !.k E ' ", u>c mm az.:dt;7q' w1Mcwa-< - w ~3-- u no:.w  : m s

4"y e, . U.w' ,

r' '

+ /g n

m
  • p. 7 L

g%m V  %+v.J&m$ br vyp$.,%gn y res p 9N :w %w'fe. n- o ng.

y m ;M.u e > ,s e, x t e#~

. mly4 v. s

p >

- - i q

W $s{peM g.#-mb' w-1 e&W . & m% 'r

$hU$(g %N - .k$$W ?e 1Wn.u <$:ghW%

  • SN 4

yr.

c

^

+

w Me m%m& n%n@ngm M#g?g n

Jm w'y.Q &u , w'.e'$ wb.i;- ,. , .-o ' p-@Y u N M';, W , i. mY>'l  : .' ,

~.,-

E f. D, )%.m.f 1

j%kil'm Q

M W f' (uvyy.

1 .$3 y py r: w r- ,V.

ac (

'm,[;h' [g i

'b h D' f;g.'O .h 0-4-

s n

j f

, w n.

  • 'Y

t

,[h 7r J' f

  • u f ?GENuclearEnery 5 .f d

',,V h,!N'

h lI"r gtdhk, wm 4; p q%W4 ga"un'ek;;MiM)p
5MDM% $NhD x ,.,.wN MP ^ t @W b- .

Qw~ b '

5:J a"g. .k

':c QW '..-

. - .p

%%yp.$%;QEaskickSERVIdESflquw M;y; )6;%[. , _ lGE-NE-B13-019'

  • c

./- y '

80-30-1,Rev. O; w  %

?kkk&h$GENibedsEmerW;MA,ck9 sus '

W l . J?OI

  • K-? ~0I9% j$W. D 0, %k  ?

kingd Eh7s M cuksk%m G="II:\

y Wnema W W M@s ag k; &s.w%,w;m;:, M +

n wgewwww%w.

N y 4xg ';w; y 2 %,zn >

o , , WN;mm.}ber1998 w jd w w w%g y&paym t mA1 :44 ,u- mu ,o , s --

w, "

n%m~e. non qiggMMun'hW u M wW@L &% n ~w +&

r
#
  • A,/ s:V.

r - .n

,ySwshenn,g  %: ~~.bn':e n q t , a y V h%.kW!

t g>4 < q ~ s. ,

n~ n.y%A n, b.

, ,t i: fy;i%e  : y-g'M L. J:K ' -.' ?:2)

~ =

,a.u9" Nph %e >\

y 3 , ;w

~ < > d '; W' , s q?. L. , ,

, ,ri ag:m y * ,1 w-d Mn,hSm. Wjg%n, ;.QT' t. WI% % m%.4 ", ' ~6': .., g.

f: i r s- -  : %.

,'3 &.*%

Q ds 3 y 1 c 1

( .

My ' 4

')

ww w' "g ' '

i

~ a. ' ..w'. &' Q '

%gw%WMWT emam - ~ mSi w% g R wnm m n%, ~ . M M ,c,MMw W &< z wx+w & . %- 8 '

,a, m.?s~ w w %wMf +

Q- wk k - a u - + -

1- m- R s yph &WhWhQh :a +fh-.l? mm,f ymmm ,

f  %%A,e$'. ^

ny'Y l:Eh3 r, i Q g$(.u ?

m(!.-e ', s ;f; n$

a >

h mk n i wk' ,

i q& plf s m n f,.'g ...y,.

h$;hf? , . nY h.N Y.h ;

g

$ k , \ ^ .v ,.

' ,L V s ,ge m<

~ . ~ ? k, e

, ?ka ee v:W ,

MM 3d$$@MFRAd[NfREMECHINICSEy':ALUAT $$$ fMD$OBSER EI(IND$ATIONSATk .

yff

$$@6@%MW[@TVf0IWELDS? J h

@@$$hh3

@% m w% > , ~ ,, "%@D D)lC}~I'l]ES[UNITsSTATIONF

~ .

g/ l:;

N% eggs e,4. m y q'.g" e, Y

uv gYk0'b t ,& ' rw w",my idkMMIdE8'9+ :@[ @'1 c ..

u+

4

$ #I

  • b%.' T ff  %

~kh5k_$"

4

p. m

, s h~ YNhh,,$$'hh mn n w'%m;. '

c LDx.

y a^ b g8c A* +

y/-f 2

e A m.M.j p?

f 4

eW #

  • Q gg}' % r Nr s -

_Mf t

ye q. _ R 4 w

>- gcc te1. v)-44_,

4 , t. ;j

~..! N su-iv +

e_

w u.

s v. v .

s r (f 9

^

. _q v g_. ,x- , _@q-

j. M

[ge .. N6N g&2m 'hf::d, Ow h b ~

.' +c ,

s n: a 9evau v l[t x, '..  %

. . . .,i n %mmo Mpf bkh

'3 Q,, ,,qk'?h,Q%f%N4fh%w-

~

?f%M-MQ%m +l> %m  % '" $

pymp 1

.' 7 %N '

.As,m wn ~ 7 :w- qf PY ~'.- u fM, M , AW ww y ea o 1-u% ,

pn 4 OdMNSY n.

Mcmv -@n: , *S - o iPrepahd zy$p M.a:M4$:m#pm@g4qs, ~. S ,-

J MP  : ~ ;

vg 4;MWMfMMW%g$&w@ww$a$gy Q  % m @$%@sM y

v%

h g;

@sem@ '&&~- s"g . ;Q 1 Y

+

,  : sM QQ an exmu ys ,

yr  ;

a w CMW MMpWW e,

~J Commoweeh Edho(wa%mm$u$w um

@e?w, s

Madn a.6

.% wwp ww w wum y% 4npn

@wo@um? w d m&c!w#x, , f$[y MMM ape w

4

, w,-

mmn% d @rN. mm%mgu MHS y 4

,a3y@

vg gmb,@w

%gr8 -m $/i p%M.m&. w,a%, :

+

eWa .waww gn% .am4 y y

?; [%ypygd,%gake ,

y g 34 my gw:

'h%gM h $$ m W ?1 *hf p" ,,

' l %;h . yk gy$M y$$w- 1j.d Ng g ,.

A ME ,aw,R2 M <

+

>g^iPrw% pared Wby&g%$fgy eW@g aM %pu F -. kdfM d$ \, Wt W Q . g[gh s

$a Mf g nk M T Q $. $Y ,-:

n

&n kWW$

ge q dp .4 kMM Mk AMphk p M

O w ~ [4 m0$J Ny n m @k [/ [7 M.

  1. E14eleirEnergy f 7

&g$ &g e A $  :&h%~ # pM .E p+gy -sm hrNNMNhQ o y, .

w_ ~ }% %we $$% W -43 N k Aw ke%n hwu&

wma c E k [,f u$Nyhhih kg k , Yh k hlM M e n~wggyemsw ,

r nu-b$.y ~Ws g:

efpy sn gn '<>p ,g!,,

nh Q:s&y ;; &..

a -

wgsy%s Ag s%kw#%ay4.

amp qp y gge n

p spy +. p b NMg%;n t

mtMW%w,$w&.T% * ,y- n m n .

am aut sp g

j4F  %~- ;s c 4Wq 4 % m%%s: 4 W Ws W nv Wau% n % ,g;
f, $

k ; ww&e A;qw4 MMgpV Qu%q

' & &gM2m9 wwwe,ma c wmus we m m- s"w- - w wwv ammer m gwy a s. as s sa ekwts am N

Y 9812O20112 981124 >gqdhgwg*g eg pw mg gM ADOCK 050002S4 gggggggg pggy jpgp g Lg gg .tp wp (y)g g; g- g@sw gg A PDR gm

.. __ . . .. ._. .. .._ ._ .~._ . - _ . . _ . - - _ - _ . . . . _ . _ _ - _

L p  ;

L GENuclearEnergy ,

! ' TECHNICAL SERVICES GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. 0

GE Nuclear Energy. DRF# R13-01980

' 175 Curtner Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125 ClassII November 1998 i

/  !

1 1

i A FRACTURE MECHANICS EVALUATION ON OBSERVED INDICATIONS AT TWO WELDS IN RECIRCULATION PIPING OF QUAD CITIES, UNIT 1 STATION

\

November 1998 - ,

4

[. .' W ,,

w w,. ') t

Prepared for"

~ '

"~

Commonwealth Edison Co. -  ;-

..w'../.

g A E J

' 'l. j Prephrsd byj ' ,  ;

ei GE Nuclear Energy

-f l ,

~

9 ,

?

) r l ':

, c.a.-

J 1

9812020112 981124  !

PDR ADOCK 05000254 ~

g' p PDR +.

x. -)
t. .. , e ,

y

.- -. _ - _ - - . - - . - . _ _ _ . . _ . _ ~ . .- . . . . - - .._

l GENuclearEnergy l

TECHNICAL SERVICES GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. 0 GE Nuclear Energy DRF # E13-01980 175 Curtner Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125 ClassII November 1998 A FRACTURE MECHANICS EVALUATION ON OBSERVED INDICATIONS AT TWO WELDS IN RECIRCULATION PIPING OF QUAD CITIES, UNIT 1 STATION 1

November 1998 Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Co.

Prepared by GE Nuclear Energy i

GEN: clear Energy GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. 0 l

A FRACTURE MECHANICS EVALUATION 1 ON OBSERVED INDICATIONS AT TWO WELDS IN RECIRCULATION PIPING OF QUAD CITIES, UNIT 1 STATION i

November 1998 1

l Prepared by: ' kd bh R.R. Star @ Engineer Structural Mechanics & Materials Verified by: Ib bw Mer H.S. Mehta, Principal Engineer Structural Mechanics & Materials e

Approved by.dY [6%h b T. A. Caine, Mdhkge'r Structural Mechanics & Materials 1

i

[-

GENedentEnerv GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. O l

I I

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING  ;

j CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefully The only undertakings of the General Electric Company (GE) respecting information in this document are contained in the Purchase Order between Comed ud GE-Nuclear Energy, Purchase Order No.100009, and nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing the contract. The use of this information by anyone other than Comed, or for any purpose other than that for which it is intended is not authorized: and with respect to any unauthorized use, GE makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy or usefulness of the information contained in this document, or that its use may not infringe privately owned rights.

I 1

r

+

l 2 l

l

m _ . . .. ___ . . . . . _ . - . ~ _ _ . . _ . . . _ . ~ . _ . _ _ . ~ __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . .

GENuclearEnaEY GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. 0 l

Table of Contents Subiect Pane No.

l

1. BACKGROUND / OBJECTIVE 4 I

l 2. DESIGN INPUTS 4

3. ASSUMPTIONS 4 i

j 4. UNITS IN EQUATIONS 4 i

5. CALCULATION / ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 5 5.1. Limit Load Analysis Methodology 5 5.2. Applied Piping Stresses 6 5.3. Crack Growth Evaluation 7

! 5.4. Limit Load Evaluation 9 l

l L 6. CONCLUSIONS 9 l

7. REFERENCES 10 l

i l

l

!. 3 1

GENednerEnergy GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. 0

1. Background / Objective The 1998 ultrasonic (UT) examination of recirculation piping system welds at Quad Cities Station, Unit 1 identified several relevant indications. The objective of this report is to evaluate the indications identified at welds 02BS-F4 and 02BS-F7. The indications are on the pump suction side of the recirculation piping. The pipe nominal size is 28-inches and the material is Type 304 stainless steel. Table 1 shows the indication dimensions and the pipe thickness at the location as obtained from the UT examination report.

The fracture mechanics evaluation was conducted using the procedures of Appendix C and Paragraph IWB-3640, ASME Section XI [1]. The crack growth evaluation to determine the projected crack depth at the end of next fuel cycle was conducted using the procedures outlined in NUREG-0313, Revision 2 [2]. The fuel cycle length was assumed as 24 months or approx.17500 hours.

l

2. Design Inputs l

The design inputs and the associated references are indicated in the following:

[1] UT examination report for the two welds.

[2] Piping forces and moments for various loading conditions at the two welds. .

1 L

3. Assumptions l

There are no explicit assumptions used in the evaluation.

4. Units in Equations L

English units (lbs, inches, psi, etc.) were used in the equations and the evaluations.

i I

i 4

._. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _m._... . _. _ .. ,_ _ _ _ -_

GENxdearEnergy GE-NE-B13-Ol980-30-1, Rev. 0

5. Calculation / Analysis Methodology 5.1. Limit Load Analysis Methodology The limit load analysis method used in the analysis is consistent with the procedures outlined in Section XI of the ASME Code [1]. A brief description of the method is provided next.

Consider a circumferential crack oflength, l = 2Rcx and constant depth, d. In order to determine the point at which limit load is achieved, it is necessarf to apply the equations of

. equilibrium assuming that the cracked section behaves like a hinge. For this condition, the assumed stress state at the cracked section is as shown in Figure I where the maximum stress is the flow stress of the material, of. Equilibrium oflongitudinal forces and moments about the axis gives the following equations:

p = [(x- ad/t)-(P,/o r)n]/2 (1)

Pb' = (2a/x)(2 sin p - d/t sin cx) (2) ,

Where, t = pipe thickness a = crack half-angle as shown in Figure 1 p = angle that defines the location of the neutral axis P, = Primary membrane stress j P[ = Failure bending stress l l

The safety factor, SF, is then incorporated as follows: 1 Pl = Z*SF (P. + P,+ P,/SF) - P. (3) l P, and P, are primary membrane and bending stresses, respectively. P, is secondary stress

! and includes stresses from all displacement-controlled loadings such as thermal expansion l and dynamic anchor motion. All three quantities are calculated from the analysis of applied loading. The safety factor value is 2.77 for normal / upset conditions and 1.39 for j emergency / faulted conditions. 'Ihe Z factor is discussed next.

)

5

GENrdearEnergy GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. 0 Z Factor The test data considered by the ASME Code in developing the flaw evaluation procedure (Appendix C,Section XI) indicated that the welds produced by a process without using a flux had fracture toughness as good or better than the base metal. However, the flux welds had lower toughness. To account for the reduced toughness of the flux welds (as compared to non-flux welds) the Section XI procedures prescribe a penalty factor, called a 'Z' factor. The examples of flux welds are submerged arc welds (SAW) and shielded metal arc welds (SMAW). Gas metal-arc welds (GMAW) and gas tungsten-arc welds (GTAW) are examples of non-flux welds. Figure IWB-3641-1 of Reference 1 may be used to define the weld-base metal interface. The expressions for the value of the Z factor in Appendix C of Section XI are given as follows:

i Z= 1.15 [1 + 0.013(OD-4)] for SMAW (4) i

=

1.30 [1 + 0.010(OD-4)] for SAW l 1

i where OD is the nominal pipe size (NPS) in iriches. Except for the root pass, the remaining weld was completed at both the welds using a SMAW process. Therefore, the Z factor in the j evaluation war e.alculated using the expression for SMAW.

5.2. AppliedPipingStresses The applied piping stresses were calculated from the reported axial and bending loads at the subject welds. Table 2 shows the calculated values of the stresses for various load cases.

The three thermal load cases are the following: (1) System at 546 F, except between MO 0202-6A and -6B and from MO-1001-50 to penetration X-12 which is at 135'F; (2) System at 546*F, except between MO-1-0202-6A and -6B and all of the line 1-1025-20"-A to penetration X-12 which is at 135*F; and (3) System at 340 F, except between MO-1-0202-6A and -6B which is at 135'F.

For the purposes of cross-section area and section modulus calculations, the pipe OD was taken as 28-inches and the pipe thickness at each weld was obtained from Table 1. The j stresses due to weight and seismic were treated as primary stresses (P, and P 3) and those due l to thermal load cases as secondary (P,).

l 6

GEN:dentEnerxy a5.y5 5j3 0;9g0 30.j, ggy, o \

5.3. Crack Growth Evaluation The crack growth due to stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is expected to be significant compared to any fatigue crack growth. The SCC growth rate is a function of sustained stress field including that due to weld residual stresses and the relationship between stress intensity  :

factor, K, and da/dt.  !

i Both the welds have been subjected to induction heating stress improvement (IHSI) process.

The IHSI treatment was intended to eliminate the tensile weld residual stress pattern and produce a compressive residual stress pattern at the inside diameter surfaces of the girth welds. Fully effective IHSI produces compressive stresses up to the inner 50% of the pipe wall. Therefore, even if the IHSI was partially effective, the as-welded residual stresses would have been considerably reduced. For conservatism, this beneficial effect ofIHSI was not considered in this evaluation and as-welded residual stress distribution was used. The as-weld residual stress distribution was obtained from Reference 2 and is represented in the polynomial form as the following:

1 I

c a= 30.0 [ c -o ci(x/t) + c2(x/t)2 - c3(x/t)' - c (x/t)*] (5) where, ao = 1.0 ai = -6.910 a2 = 8.687 j c3 = -0.480 o, = -2.027 x = Radial distance from inside diameter surface of pipe j t = Pipe thickness  ;

l l The unit of stress is ksi. The multiplier 30 ksi is based on the fitted stress distribution curve l shown in Figure 3 of Reference 2.

The stress intensity factor, Km due to weld residual stress distribution was calculated using the following expression from

Reference:

Km = 30.0 {V(na)}[ c io o + oi(a)i +i o2(a)2i2 + c3(a)'i 3 + o (a)'i 4] (6) where, 7

I

~ GENadearEnergy GE-NE-B]3-01980-30-1, Rev. O a = Crack depth,in.

l c o, oi,0 , 2a sand o, are as defined in Equation (5) io, ii, i2is and i, are as defined in Reference 2.

l The stress intensity factor due to sustained applied loading was calculated using the following expression from Reference 2:

K% = o,[4(ca)][1.122 + 0.3989(a/t) + 1.5778(a/t)2 + 0.6049(a/t)'] (7) l where, l e, = Applied sustained stress t = Pipe thickness The applied stress was calculated by summing the pressure stress and the membrane and bending stresses from weight and thermal loadings. The internal pressure was assumed as 1000 psi. Stresses from only the most limiting thermal case were considered.

The total stress intensity factor, Krr was obtained by:

Krr =K+K m  % (8)

The SCC growth rate relationship used was the following [2]:

4 da/dt = 3.590x10 (Krr)2" inches / hour (9) where, Krr is in ksiVin units.

The crack growth rate predicted by Equation (9) is quite conservative considering the fact that the plant is expected to operate with hydrogen water chemistry (HWC) conditions, j Equation (9) reflects SCC growth rate for plants with normal water chemistry (NWC). A l companion report [3] provides a detailed comparison of the crack growth rates predicted by I Equation (9) with those predicted using relationships that take into account plant-specific reactor water chemistry. For example, at a Krr value of 20 ksiVin, Equation (9) predicts a crack growth rate of 2.3x10 5 in/ hour whereas the calculations using PLEDGE Code [4],

which considered the HWC conditions such as hydrogen injection rate and reactor water conductivity expected during the next fuel cycle, predicted a crack growth rate of only 7x104 l  ;

\

l 8

GENudeer Energy GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. O in/hr. This clearly illustrates the conservative nature of the crack growth rate relationship used in this evaluation.

I Furthermore, the Krr calculation in this evaluation is also conservative since it does not consider the beneficial effect ofIHSI treatment on the as-welded residual stress distribution.

Figures 2a and 2b show the results of crack growth calculations for welds 02BS-F4 and )

02BS-F7, respectively. It is seen that the crack growth is modest even with a conservative crack growth rate relationship.  ;

i i

S4. LimitLoadEvaluation j Figures 3a and 3b graphically show the results oflimit load evaluation for the two welds.

The projected end-of-cycle depths and lengths of the indications are also shown on the same plots. The projected indication lengths were calculated using the conservative approach outlined in Section 4.2 of Reference 2. All of the calculated allowable flaw depths are greater that the maximum limit of 0.6t for flux welds. It should be noted that this limit has been raised to 0.75t, same as that for the base metal and non-flux welds, in the later editions i 1

of the ASME Section XI. Thus, the use of 0.6t limit is conservative.

A review of Figures 3a and 3b shows that both the projected indication sizes at the end of  ;

next fuel cycle are well within the allowable values and are thus acceptable for as-is 1 operation for at least one fuel cycle of operation. l l

6. Conclusions The 1998 UT examination of recirculation piping system welds at Quad Cities Station, Unit 1 identified several relevant indications. This report presents fracture mechanics evaluation results for indications identified at welds 02BS-F4 and 02BS-F7. The fracture mechanics evaluation was conducted using the procedures of Appendix C and Paragraph IWB-3640, ASME Section XI. The crack growth evaluation to determine the projected crack depth at the end of next fuel cycle was conducted using the procedures outlined in NUREG-0313, Revision 2. The fuel cycle length was assumed as 24 months or approx.17500 hours.

9

.. - ... -.._ - . . .. - . _. - .. - .~.. .____ - .- --- . .- _-.. -..~.. -._ -. - ....- . -~

GENcdearEnagy GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1. Rev. O The evaluation results show that the subject indications meet the criteria ofIWB-3640,Section XI of the ASME Code. Therefore, continued operation for at least one fuel cycle is technicallyjustified with welds 02BS-F4 and 02BS-F7 in as is condition.

l l 7. References

[1] ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI,1989 Edition, No Addenda.

1 I

l [2] " Technical Report on Material Selection and Processing Guidelines for BWR Coolant

! Pressure Boundary Piping," NUREG-0313, Revision 2, January 1998.

[3] " Assessment of Crack Growth Rates Applicable to IHSI Treated Recirculation Piping l at Quad Cities Station, Unit 1," GE Report No. GE-NE-B13-01980-030-2, November '

l 1998.

I

[4] F.P. Ford and P.L. Andresen, " Prediction of Environmentally Assisted Cracking in Boiling Water Reactors, Part I: Unitradiated Stainless Steel Components," GE NEDC-32613, June 1996.

a 10 L

GENudentEnergy GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. O i

Table 1 Indication sizes and Pipe Thicknesses Weld ID Indication Indication Pipe  ;

Depth (in.) Length (in.) Thickness (in.)  :

02BS-F4 0.25 27.0 1.24 e 02BS-F7 0.32 8.8 1.23 Table 2 Calculated Stresses for various Applied Loadings I Load Weld 02BS-F4 Weld 02BSF7 '

~

Stresses (ksi) Stresses (ksi)

Membrane Bending Membrane Bending Weight 0.154 0.175 0.072 0.457 Thermal 1 0.036 3.%5 0.024 1.016 l Thermal 2 0.061 3.014 0.036 0.485 l Thermal 3 0.001 1.905 0.005 0.999 Seismic OBE 0.032 0.193 0.010 0.253 Seismic DBE 0.063 0.387 0.021 0.5 %

(

i i

11 l

l .,.

GENudsar Energy G&NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. O l.

Nommal Strose in the Uncracked j s.c6on of Pipe '

Crack Length = 2Ra p,,,,p, 4 4 4-- Flow Stroes, c, 4-->

l 4-I I d 4-

{ a}4-/ 4- ________ l

/a /

4-4~~ MI I

\ / h i i

\ ,[ / h l

t -> 4- I W , I

_ 2

\ _%. _ . _ . _ _

4

)

i I

\

s --____ __ l

-> l M P,,, -> 4-Strees Ehetribution in P,,, = Apphed Membrane Stroes in Uncracked Section  !

the Cracked Soctson at P. = Apphed Bending Strees in Uncracked Section the Point of CoNepee i

1 Figure 1 Stress Distribution in a Cracked Pipe at the Point of Collapse 4

1 4

12

GENacientEnerKY GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. O l

l l

Quad Cities W.ld No. 0285-F4 crack o. pen vs. Tim.

0.5 l

0.45 0.4 -

E f 0.ss -

1 o

0.3 -

0.25 <

l 02 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 The (hrs) i Figure 2a Predicted Crack Growth for Weld 02BS-F4 l

I l

l a

13

GENudearEnerD GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. O i

i l

Quad Cities Wold No. 02BS-F7 Crack Depth vs. Time 0.5 ,

o.45 -

4 g o4 I

a l

u o.35 -

0.3 -

I l

o.25 o 2000 4000 sooo sooo 10000 12000 14000 isooo isooo I Time (hrs)

Figure 2b Predicted Crack Growth for Weld 02BS-F7 ,

I l

l 14 f

l

GENudentEnerEY GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rev. O l

I Quad Cities Wold No. 0288-F4 Allowable Fisw 1.000 -

0.900 -

0.000 - Allowetne Flow 0.700 60% Lrne for Fha Wolds ,

n_gon b E

0.500 Flow includW412 Cycles of Crack Growth 0.300 <

0.200 -

mwrw 0.100 -

0.000 ,

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 OA00 0.500 0.600 0,700 0.800 0.900 1D00 Length WQ Figure 3a Comparison with Allowable Flaw Size for Weld 02BS-F4 1 i l

l I I l

l l

l i

l 15

l GENuclearEnerW GE-NE-B13-01980-30-1, Rn. O l

l l

Quod Cities Wold No. 02BS-F7 l l Alloweble Flow l 1.000 -

0. 00 MowaNe Flow

! 0.000 e

" 700 '

e0% uma for Fhm Weids

:  : j 0.000
  1. j 1

0.500 gg, Finw includeg 2 Cycles of Crack Growth l

0.300 l

0.200 , initial Flow j i

0.1M . )

1' O.000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.6C3 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 Length (aN) l l Figure 3b Comparison with Allowable Flaw So.: for Weld 02BS-F7 l

s 1

16

l l

Attachment C Summary of Weld Overlay Design SVP-98 353 The Original Code of Construction for the Recirculation System Piping is ASME Section I,1965 and USAS B.31.1-1967. The station is currently committed to ASME Section XI, 1989 for Code inspection and repair activities. For these weld overlays, we elected to invoke Code Case N-504. With the incorporation of Code Case N-504 into Regulatory Guide 1.147 (Revision 11), this overlay is an ASME Code repair. These designs also l

meet the requirements of NUREG 0313, Revision 2. I l

l Weld Assumed Design Attached j Number Flaw Dimensions Figure l to A B 02AD-F8 Axial 3/8" Long 0.2" Deep 0.15" 4.5" 4.5" Fig 1  !

02AS-F9 360 Cire. Through Wall Flaw 1/2" 4.5" 4.5" Fig.1 02BS-F7 360 Cire. Through Wall Flaw 1/2" 4.5" 4.5" Fig.1 02BS-F14 360 Cire. Through Wall Flaw 0.43" 4.5" 4.5" Fig.1 Weld 02BS-F14 had flaws identified in 1996.

l COMPONENT T COMPONENT Y QWELD l

l

= = = z g" A 8

  1. 45' WIN. (TYP.)

v l

$ A I

TOE OF OVERLAY TO BLEND WITH COMPONENT TRANSITION.

FIGURE 1

Attachment D Summary of Flaw Indications Found  ;

SVP-98-353 Flaw Characterization 1996 1998 1998 '

' WELD CONFIG ACTION Number TAKEN Length Depth Length Depth 02AD-F12 P-PmP 2.05" < 10'7e 2.05" <10% Analyze

  • i 2.5" 0.18" 2.5" 0.18" t

02AS-S4 E-P 1.25" 0.206" 1.25" 0.206" Analyze

  • 02BS-F4 P-P 360 Geometry 26.5" 0.25" Analyze i Root ~

02AD-F8 E-V 360 Geometry Axial 0.20" Repair Root 02BS-F7 V-P 360 Geometry 8.0" 0.32" Repair Root 02AS-F9 V-E 360 Root Geometry 360 0.25" Repair Intermittent 02BS-F14 P-E 22.0" 0.401" 45.5" 0.83" Repair *

!~

  • Previously Found Acceptable by Analysis in 3/96.  !
j. P-PmP = Pipe to Pump l

P-P = Pipe to Pipe  !

E-P = Elbow to Pipe E-V = Elbow to Valve l'

l I

V-P = Valve to Pipe J

l. 1 V-E = Valve to Elbow

[ P-E = Pipe to Elbow  !

1 i l l

l l

1 I

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20196C873&oldid=2986734"