ML20206E980
| ML20206E980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kewaunee  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1988 |
| From: | Bamford W, Lee Y, Rishel R WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML111751449 | List: |
| References | |
| WCAP-11476, WCAP-11476-R02, WCAP-11476-R2, NUDOCS 8811180283 | |
| Download: ML20206E980 (118) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . *
. - . g .
4 , ,. e " ..
. j; - - *
.A \ .
g ..g . . ' .A- '
- 6 4
, ,p 6 .
n
~ r
* * . . .y .
.. = . . ' . - ' ' . - : ,, , -
j . , *,.' .,
. ,e;
. , . _ ., . 3.
7- ,. r . . ' s
- 2 - '
..,. tw .
., 6 ~ *
.g; , ?
* ' ; ,.,.'3.,.^. .' . . , . . .s,.. ., g,, y'; . ,. , g ,, ,, , g .A s-
. '. ' . 3
- t 4
.* I%. ' \ g,. .
.. .. s :. ' .
k,. g , , ( i [ ; ),c . :4 b . * . .
~
*~
,- ',. G .-
n' a 8'!. t g; 4 .'.S ,.e 4
. , c.
. s gg { 1* 4[- f
- f. va .ug t .. ;d "
-.f.. .. J*',. f ./,I . '*,
? 0. . _ ;, ~ .. ;l. p.V' , .y ):
q, ..'".'{f. ..' y. q;.bcf g ':t , , . ,,. g
'A f ' <
t - j..
'? ? y *_ O p.; '. , g
,. ,, , , _ . . .. ,, , ~
- p. : .'~
' j q.. .e .. . . f vi d . ( s-
.. - ; :s . ;
.1 4. .. .- t *. ~ R. . ' . .. .
..,."_ . 8 .c - o .
. . . , sf @- <1 -
r - t' .
-?.' ". ' j N , ;' ' , ; '
,? *
. . .. . . . , .[- . ,,
. t .
l< <. g .
- . , . .. . * . c.
- r
..- - .- ~.- .
. . .L . _ g - . '
4, s.... g.
,e.
* - e
,-
- e. * .e ;t* - " - . .
t
+ *'
"4-O.
5., y
' ' , n%
l .. . ,; . e . '- * ** . . -'g . .v:<*. .> c . .r - 4 ...,c.
, . ...r.
- ,, . i .- . .< , ., .
-- .i. ..
n
. . . p ..A.
- v. . .
le . 4. y .- . gg
, * . _ . . .- q ..G ;_ .', .' .. 'ed b :ht .
... *
- f
. .... ...4 .
9' _..
. E, *
- a' ,
* ~ '
.s....;....-... ., , .
.. v. .
4,.. n .
,a .
)- . . '. t ,....j.. .,-s
. . m. ; ,. . ,.s . .-. ,.
,7 r .
. c. . .
.> s q ' ..-
.. .. ' m ; .. '
9 .
. . ' ' .. t
... f .- :, g . ,
; ' ?,
w
.a
.p .. .d ...*
h
'p.. .. 4
_. .+ $
.
- 2
,'.*l-
.g * . * . r' . . +t J.g * -
e 6 '
,t
=..',(.-s' #-
, ' M. t .
r.
. ,3;
* ,y * ,
e , . . , ,
,bf . . , . 4:- .. . , , . * . e t, .
s -
. ; g_ - . . .. . .
? ..
\
, _- e,, -. - . ..
g u. ,
. ,4 . .
., . .6 -
*q g
. g ,
. s...,.. -( s. . . , * .
...,. 4.. ... .p ..- . .. . .. . . ,
m.
- - .. . . ,- s.
, _ b . .. .. .
*',* . ...~
. - '*,.p .
O q *
. e e 1 * . **
, , . I t
*'.,4 ,, , .. g O O ,
4
. I g . .
- e
.g ..,' ..'
4 - . l g-
'. d' '
.- e g
9
'. s
'8. **
g A % N g g ,
. - F .. g , , 34
* .
- e . , . , .
.,g .
.. v, e , - ,
{ . . .= 0
- e. . . .. .
nw
. ; @u o m..;. , -
.. . . / .. ; . ,
'L', 3_'A ,*3 } . *b., *
.;.8
, , . :, /1
. . . .+, .' .. ..-.
l- :
.,m g [ .'. , ,*n .
'. m. :%) ..:...w .,'. y e " Q . ' ) .,. Ne i . s.
- g. . . o,m6 . ..'C w u ..gw9 .* .r. s . ;-i.r .~ ( w,;. ,.,... Q .(ip
- .4 , ..
Nf'- _...h.
. t ' 3 U *f.i y . .I y; ('
e . l,, ', .<
'c , g n . ; \ ;a' .4 h g,Q c....
.p-L .. - . ..
3, p 3 e;,,y, . - .. p ,, . .. g. '.3e ; g , e 1 *:,,.,:.,
.U f , . , i...g.
>,. ,a 4..
7.;x i y; e ,.:n y ; .. W: . 4 ., p. w.
., i
-t..- p : ..
i
. < 4 w
, ; 3, n a
- 4. a.q..$,M,e/y. y.,i y ; .y <s i. <: r . y.,
1. x L g , t, , . s.. s ; d.. v. 1,; , . , j , ;. - ,. . . , . . . p . *. . . ,1; . .ob, %' *': .-.i. ',', .$ :y . . . , .,.y. .-:. .. q,, p. )>. -a 3 ...
. . ,. m q. . .
- U .
e g". . ..
, ... .< . w . a . ,. ,3 : s % , .x);S ., . .. _ ; -
4 .
+ .,. . . . *. N $ 1. y -
. :. r, t. t p a
, .. J..,- v ,. m. '
M.) Vgt.ly/ jw.
, -,' $ 'N : ? f,f . g 1 e
+? i l.i.. k h .. .; -) (i,y sfy f np.3 , G>;.g qs v-)ngn k; rgM .
j p m 11 m.m .- y.
- p. pr, m.
i p .. . m.., S , J. ~A 4 e,q gOs
- d.. s.
u.g1p;3 cgQ;o nd i p " ,7c
.3,
.p.
a.
.[
y f,. y- j-
.v - . . -
8.. s. . ....: Y. ; L! ' A
.- ,,y
. e % ~g g"'
* *= , ge W il
- y a;-. e
(, a w -
. .. a
'fM i T [. ~1 M ,. -
. Jm 1
l l
WESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3 WCAP-11476 Revision 2 HANDBOOK ON FLAW EVALUATION KEWAUNEE UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATORS UPPER SHELL TO CONE WELD June 1988 W. H. Bamford Y. S. Lee R. D. Rishel D. Kurek . w r4
, ggsitittt0 Verified by:
/
A/$/74 - 6,/:v/66 w ..g.@Y Mg
~
'Aston C. Chan A./C. Chan, P.E. , na st.' hps J
- paes t gp
,kavs W
- j Approved by: * / 4 ' P 2^ ** j ._ 2
- 5. 5. Falusamfi Manager Structural Materials Engineering Although information contained in this report is non proprietary, no distribution shall be made outside Westinghouse or its licensees without the customer's approval. ct 76 Rio s ptc :2t g , ,7 7 a y a w (}i. a .es )
m rd wis c usou s% tic sw,ct (c y L'EST!N3 HOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Power Systems Division P.O. Box 2728 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230-2728 m mnu ie .
TABLE OF C0hTENTS SiCTION TITLE PAGE , i 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Code Acceptance Crite ia. 1-2 i 1.1.1 Criteria Based on Flaw Size 1-2 l, 1.1.2 Criteria Based on Stress Intensity Factor 1-3 1.1.3 Primary Stress Limits 1-4 1.2 Geonetry 1-4 2 LOAD CONDITIONS, FRACTURE ANALYSIS METHODS i AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES 2-1 [ 2.1 Transients for the Steam Generator 2-1 l' 2.2 Stress Intensity Factor Calculations 2-1 2.3 Fracture Toughness 2-3 p 2.4 Critical Flaw Size Determination 2-5 . 3 FA'!GUE CRACK GROWTH 3-1 f i 3.1 Analysis Methodology 3-1 : i j 3.2 Stress Intensity Factor Expressions 3-2 j 3.3 Crack Growth Rate Reference Curves 3-3 [ l 3.4 Fatigue Crack Growth Results 3-5 4 SURFACE FLA9 EVALUATION 4-1 y 4.1 Scope cf Evaluation 41 4.2 Code Criteria 4-1 l 4.3 Basic Data 4-?- 4.4 Typical Surface Flaw Evaluation Chart 4-4 ! 4.5 Procedure for the Construction of a 4-5 i Surface Flaw Evaluation Chart ! 5 EMBEDDED FLAW EVALUATION 5-1 ) 5.1 Scope of Evaluation 5-1 l mx m.w m ne ji t I i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 5.2 Esbedded vs. Surface Flaws 5-1 5.3 Code Criteria 52 5.4 8asic Data 5-3 5.5 Fatigue Crack Growth for Embedded flaws 5-4 5.6 Typical Es6edded Flaw Evaluation Chart 5-5 5.7 Procedure for the Construction of Esbedded 5-7 Flaw Evaluation Charts 5.8 Comparison of Embedded Flaw Charts with 5-8 Acceptance Standards of IWS 3500 6 FLAW EVALUATION CHARTS-UPPER SHELL TO CONE WELD 6-1 6.1 Evaluation Procedure 6-1 6.2 Modification of Hydrotest and Leak Test 6-4 Teeperatures 7 REFERENCES 7-1 APPENDIX A RESULTS OF THE INSPECTION OF SPRING 1987 A-1 APPEhDIX B RESULTS OF THE INSPECTION OF WARCH 1988 ON STEAM B-1 GENERATOR 'A' se.e.mm n
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This flaw
- evaluation handbook has been designed for the evaluation of indications which may be discovered during inservice inspection of the Kewaunee Unit 1 steam generators. The tables and charts provided herein allow the evaluation of any indication discovered in the upper shell to cone weld [
region without further fracture mechanics Iculations. The fracture analysis work is documented in this report. Use of the handbook will allow the [ acceptability (by analysis) of larger indications than would be allowable by [ only using the standards tables of the ASME Code Section XI. This report also provides the background and tech.ical basis for the handbook charts. This , handbook was prepared as a rt sult of the discovery of indications in the upper shell to cone weld of the 'B steam generator in spring of 1987. Details of
- these indications and their evaluations are contained in Appendix A.
The geometry of this region is shown in Figure 1-1. f The 'tighlight of the handbook is the design of a series of flaw evaluation charts for both surface flaws and the embedded flaws. Since the fracture rnechanics characteristics of the two types of flaws are different, the evaluation charts are distinctively different in style. One section of this handbook deals with surface flaws, and another section concentrates on the ! evaluation of embedded flaws. [ Thw flaw evaluation charts mere 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 by code criteria instantaneously, and no follow-up hand calculation i' required. Most important of all, no fracture 7 i mechanics knowledge is needed by the user of the handbook charts. l
- The i,se 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.
I m u... . . . . . g I
It 1 important to note that indications which are large enough that they exceed tb standards limits, and must be evaluated by fracture mechanics, will also require Odditional inservice inspection in the future, as di. cussed in r Section XI, par n raph IWC-2420(1). Note that subsection IWC applies speci-fically to the upyr shell to cone weld, but it is not yet complete, tnd the 'ser is often refs red to sutsection !WB. This is presently the case for subsection IWC-3600, which refers the user to IWB 3600. 1.1 CODE t.CCEPTANCE C,11TERIA There are two alterr.ative sets of flaw acceptance criteria for continued ser-vice without repair in paragraph IWB-3600 of ASME Code Section XI (1). Namely,
- 1. Acceptance Criteria Based on Flar Size (IWS-3R 5)
- 2. Acceptance Criteria Based on Stress Intensity Factor (!WB-3612)
The choice of criteria is at the convenience of the user, per IWB-3510. Both criteria are comparable in accuracy fer thick sections, and the acceptance criteria (2) have been assessed by past experience to be generally less restrictive for thin sections, and for outside surface flaws in many cases. In all cases, the most beneficial criteria has ben used, generally criteria (2). Although the steam generator wall thickness in the region of concern is slightly less than 4 inches, faoth sets of criteria from IWB 360C may be applied. 1.1.1 CRITERIA BASED ON r AW SIZE The code acceptance criteria stated in !WB-3611 of Section XI are: af
< .1 a g For normal conditions (upset & test conditions inclusive) and af
< .5 ag For faulted conditions (emergency condition inclusive) where af
= The maximum size to which the detected flaw is calculated to grow in a specified time period, which can be the next scheduled inspection of the component, or until the end of vessel design lifetime.
ux.nu.m ew 12
a, = The minimum critical flaw size under normal operating conditions (upset and test conditions inclusive) ag
= The minimum critical flaw size for initiation of nonarresting growth under postulated faulted conditions. (emergency conditions inclusive) !
To determine whether a 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 l restrictive results were used in the charts. : \ 1.1.2 CRITERIA BASED ON STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR As mentioned in the proceeding paragraphs, the criteria used for the construction of the charts in this handbook are from the least restrictive of IWB-3511 or IWB-3612 of Section XI. The criteria in IWB-3612 are based on safety margins between tht applied stress intensity factor and the fracture toughness of the material. , The term stress intensity factor (Kg ) is defined as the driving force on a crack, it is a function of the size of the crack and the applied stresses, as cell as the overall geometry of the structure. In contrast, the fracture toughness (K g ,, Kyg) is a measure of the resistance of the material to propagation of a crack. It is a material property, and varies as a function of temperature. ; I The criteria are stated in !KB-3612: l Kg< For normal conditions (upset & test conditions inclusive) Kg e For faulted conditiens (emergency conditiens inclusive) nn. sm.aw w 13
? \ l where Kg = The maximum applied stress intensity factor for the flaw slze af to which a detected flaw will grow, for a specified time I period, which must equal or exceed the time until the next inspection. K,g
= Fractura toughness based on crack arrest for the corresponding crack tip temperature.
K = Fractur6 toughness based on fracture initiation for the
!c corresponding crack tip temperature.
To aetermine whether a flaw is acceptable for continued service without repair, both criteria for normal and faulted conditions must be met simultaneously, hwever, both criteria have been considered in advance before the charts were constructed. Only the most restrictive results (for either normal or faulted conditians) were used in the charts. 1.1.3 PRIMARY STRESS LIMITS In addition to satisfying the fracture criteria, it is r quired that the primary stress limits of Section !!!, paragraph N8 3000 be satisfied. A local area reduction of the pressure retaining mee6rane 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. Tne allowable flaw depth
*a' determined using this criterion is 1.20 in, for a surface flaw in the upper shell to cone weld region, and for an embedded flaw the a11o able depth "2a* is 2.6 inches. Thus the fracture mechanics criteria are governing.
i.2 GEOMITRY The geometry of the upper shell to cone mold region of the Kewsunee Unit i steam generaters is shown in Figure 1-1. The viirensions shown are the minimus values from the design derwings. For purposes if heat transfer, 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 1-2. nmm.wune 14
i
\
P FIGURE 1-1 ' Geometry of Upper Shell to Cone Intersection for Kewaunte Unit 1
>u- n . <
p su /L-tu soio, c' ' r r db -
.h k; [ Id.' its ee
*,kI' _
l l l
,-( , -- -
u' . > j Yl f 5 m es !
,.. .._ i
. . )@s i
j l 0 J I 3N
/ J s yg g I i
--\./
- m T 1
o r ri ! C 3 I
- r sisoo r b iag iO 138 00 2 42 -
i 1 , i I t t m --- tra sc io i . n 1 i i n
; c ,
, i 1 l I
, in n i l *i .
1 1 i< > t
>/> j 11 s e o ij-3 2$ ,
, i , o i rs =
4 t e 00 t - p p g 80 il ' g
. z, . . .f T f ~T tr oo g ot a is so, 4 4_
d u 00 sino - - , i 3 'y __ _- e e l i Note: All dimensions in inches. um.u =ne 1-5 l
ftl l 1 1 I 1 C j ,
~
.- i i
4 l r
)
i 3 e N'. H l E 3" IMD.' -
-t g g i 1 b
i. 1 w 5 s 8 n f 2 1
!. Ie s c
I 3 . I 5 = s u r., L i 7 M I e s k
\
t 1-6
SECTION 2 , LOAD CONDITIONS, FRACTURE ANALYSls ETHODS AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES 2.1 TRANS!ENTS FOR THE STEAM GENERATOR The design transients for the Kewaunee Unit 1 steam generators are listed in ; Table 2-1. Both the minimum critical flaw sizes, such as o gunder norr.al , operating conditions, or ag under faulted conditions for criteria (1) of (
!WB 3611, and the str6as intensity f actors,g K , for criteria (2) of It'B-3612, are a function of the stresses at the cross section where the flaw of interest is located, and the material properties. Therefore, the first i step for the evaluation of a flaw indication is to determine the appropriate limiting lead r.onditions for the location of interest.
L For the region of interest, the upper shell *,o cone weld, the full range of l design transients mas considered. Transients such as pressure tests, including both hydrostatic and leakage tests, can be controlled by sretting the test temperature. Therefore, in determining the governing normal ut.dition i orly the operational transients were considered, and a separate determination cas made as to any required changes in the pressure test temperatures, to f ensure that they would not be limiting. A dise,ussion of this subject is l provided in Section 6.2. On this besis, the governing normal condition is the i
! heatup condition, ahile the governing emergency and faulted condition is the )
4 feed ater-line break. All the transients mere considered in calculation of l i
) fatigue crack growth, as discussed in Section 3.
l ! 4 2.2 STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR CALCttLATIONS i ~ i { One of the key elements of the critical flew size calculations is the 4- l determination of the driving force or stress intensity factor (Kg ). This ; eas dere using expressions available from the literature. In all cases the j stress intensity factor for the c"itical llaw size calculations utilized a representation of the actual stress profile rather than a linearization. This ass necessary te provide the most accurate determination possible of the f critical flaw size, and is particularly irportant for consideration of entgency and faulted conditions, where the stress profile is gene.* ally l l i
- n u m. " " 2-1 ,
nonlinear and often very steep. The stress profile was represented by a cubic p>1ynomial: o(x) = A0+Ag{+A2() +A 3({} where x is the coordinata distance into the wall t = wall thickness o = stress perpendicular to the plane of the crack In construction of the surface flaw charts (Section 4) three flaw shapes were used, continuous (a/t = 0.0) semielliptical, with length six times the depth (a/t = 0.167) and semi circular (a/t = 0.5). As will be seen in Section 4, the charts cover the full range of shapes bet =cen these values. For the surface fla.' with length six times its depth (a/t = 0.167), the stress intensity facisr expressien of McGowan and Raymund (2) was used. The stress intensity factor Kg (e) can be calculated anywhere along the crack front, where e is the angular position, as defined in Figure 1-2. The point of maximum crack depth is represented by e = 0. The following expression is used for cal .;1 sting Kg(e):
,0.5 2 1/4 Kg (e) = (cete+aC 2 'I I ') IS NOO**t #1El 1a 2 4 ,3
*77t 2 H2
- 37 7t ^3 H)
A 3 The r.agnification factors H O I')' E 1I')* N (e) 2 and H (e) 3 were obtained by the procedure outlined in hference (2). The stress intenu ty ' m v *alculation for a semi-circular surface f'4w, (a/t = 0.5) was carth out using the expressions developed by Raju and Necan (3). Their expression utilizes tne same cubic representation of the stress profile and gives precisely the sare result as the expression of McGowan and Raymund for the flaw with a/t = 0.167 and the form of the a::uation is similar to that of McGeaan and Rayeu'.d above.
The stress intensity factor expression used for a continuous surfaca flaw was that developed by Buchalet and Bamford (4). Again the stress profile is represented as a cubic polynomial, as shown above and these coefficients as well as the magnification factors are combined in the expression for Kg below: 2 3 K g = (sa)0.5 (A 0 F1+ A F2+ hA2 F 3+ha 1 A3 F) 4 where gF , F2 , F3 , F4 are magnification factors, available in (4). The embedded flaw charts were constructed for a wide range of flaw sizes and shapes. The stress intensity factor calculation for embedded flaws was taken from work by Shah and 6 <ashi (5) which is applicable to an embedded flaw in an infinite medium, subjteted to an arbitrary stress profile. This expression has been shown to be applicable to embedded flaws in a pressure vessel in a recent paper by Lee 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
%ransition temperature region, these curves can be representes by the following equations:
l K3 , = 33.2 + 2.806 exp. (0.02 (T-RTND; + 100*F)) X;, = 26.8 + 1.233 exp. (0.0145 (T-RTNDT + 160'F)) where X;g and Ky , are in ksi / in. l The upper shelf temperature regime requires utilization of a shelf toughness l which is not specified in the ASME Code. A value of 200 ksi/in has ! been ased here. 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.
mum.wune 2-3
\!
The fracture toughness of steam generator malerials has been examined in recent years relative to the reference toughness curves of the ASME code. Dynamic fracture toughness tests were conducted on base metal, weldments, and heat-affected zones, and were all found to be bounded by the ASME K;, curve. Behavior was found to be "ery similar to that of the reactor vessel steels and weldments for which the K;, curve was developed. Thus, even though the minimum specified yield strength of these materials is in excess of the 50 ksi value specified for the ASME reference K;, curve, these results show that these materials should also be covered. Further discussion and details are found in References 8-11. The other key element in the determination of the fracture toughness is the ; value of RTNDT, which is a perameter determined from Charpy V-notch and drop-weight tests. To allow determination of RT NDT for the upper shell and cone materials, a compilation was made of the properties listed on the original material test certificates. The materials used in the steam generators were tested after a post-weld heat treatment cycle of 1050-1150'F for approximately 7 hours, as shown in Table 2-2. The Charpy impact proper:les of these materiait are listed in Table 2-3. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has established guidelines for estimating the value of RTNDT from Charpy properties in their Standard Review Plan (12). Review of Table 2-3 shows that in general the materials in the shell and cone region have excellent Charpy properties, and therefore the value of RTNDT is equal to the test temperature, which is 10*F for all the materials. This value has been used in the development of the flaw evaluation charts. , Once the value of RT NDT is established, the reference toughness curves of the ASME Code discussed above my be used directly, since the materials are SA533 grade A clacs 1 which has a minimum specified yield strength of 65 ksi. I 1
,,,_.4,,,,. 2-4
2.4 CRITICA' FLAW
. SIZE DETERMINATION j The applied stress intensity factor (K )y and the material fracture toughness values (Kg, and K;c) were used to determine the allowable flaw size values used to construct the handbook charts. For normal, upset and test conditir>ns, '
the critical flaw size a is determined as the depth at which the applied c ' stress intensity factor Kg exceeds the arrest fracture toughness Kg ,. For emergency and faulted conditio..r .:aimum flaw size for crack
' initiation is obtained from the first intersection of the applied stress intensity factor (K g) ctrve with the static fracture tcughness (K;c) curve.
I i l i 1 i mw 4n u. 2-5
TABLE 2-1 TRANSIENT GROUPING FOR FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH ANALYSIS Transient Description Cycles Total-Cycles Group In Group 1 Heatup and Cooldown* 200 210 Turbine Roll Test 10 2 Plant Loading 15% to 100% 18300 18300 and Plant Unicading 100% to 15% 3 Large Step Lead Decrease
- 200 4200 Small Step Load Increase 2000 Small Step Load Decrease 2000 4 Hot Standby Operation
- 18300 18300 (includes feedwater cycling) 5 Loss of Load 80 80 6 Loss of Power 40 40 7 Loss of Flow 80 80 8 Reactor Trip 400 400 9 Secondary Side Pipe Break 1 1 l
10 Secondary Hydrostatic Test 5 5 11 OBE 50 50 12 RCS Pipe Break 1 13 Primsry Hydrostatic 5 b Notes i
- l'mbrella Transient
**These transients do not affect this region l
l 1 nn.xm.vinno 2-6
TABLE 2-2 POSTWELD HEAT TREATMENT OF UPPER SHELL - CONE WELOS Steam Generator A Heatup to 1120*F 11.5 hours Soak at 1050-1150*F 7 hours cooldown in air 6 hours e Steam Generator B Soak at 1050 - 1150 7.5 Sours Cooldown in air 6 hours i j e 1 i l nx m.4nwoe 2-7 l
TABLE 2-3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF UPPER SHELL-CONE REGION KEWAUNNE NUCLEAR PLANT Charpy Values (10'F) Lateral Expansion Location Material Type . (ft-lb) (inches) RT NDT Cone materials, SG/A heat C5798-1 SA 533-65 Gr A C1 67,63,72 0.067, 0.060, 0.068 10*F heat C5798-5 SA 533-65 Gr A C1 110,132,111 0.088, 0.092, 0.076 10'F heat 5816-4 SA 533-65 Gr A C1 110,82,110 0.082, 0.084, 0.087 10'F Upper shell materials, SG/A heat 75E553 SA 533-68 Gr A C1 75,65,51 0.050, 0.044, 0.040 10'F heat 6589-4 SA 533-67 Gr A C1 44,95,71 0.036, 0.056, 0.040 10*F Cone materials, SG/B heat 5798-1 SA 533-65 Gr A C1 67,63,72 0.067, 0.060, 0.066 10*F heat 5798-3 SA 533-65 Gr A C1 96,80,114 0.063, 0.078, 0.087 10*F heat 5816-4 SA 533-65 Gr A C1 110,82,110 0.082, 0.084, 0.087 10*F Upper shell materials SG/B heat 216891 SA 533-58 Gr A C1 79,70,95 0.053, 0.048, 0.067 10'F heat 796419 SA 533-66 Gr A C1 95,70,86 0.065, 0.057, 0.064 10*F Wald - Shieldad Metal Arc top location 104,105,102 Not 10'F 1/4 T location 95,45,103 Available 10*F i i nm4m m mne 28
1 l SECTION 3 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH in applying code acceptance criteria as introduced in Section 1 of this report, the final flaw size af used in criteria (1) is defined as the flaw size to which the detected flaw is calculated to grow at the end of the , specified service period. In this handbook, ten , twenty , and thirty year f service periods are assumed. 4 These crack growth calculations have been carried out for the upper shell to cone weld of the Kewaunee Unit 1 steam generators for which evaluation charts have baan constructed. This section will examine the calculations, and
~
provide the methodology used as well as the assumptions. The crack growth calculations reported here are rather extensive, bee";use a range of flaw shapes have been considered, to encompass the range of flew shapes which could be encountered in service. 3.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The fatigue crack growth analysis procedure involves postulating an initial , flaw at e specific regica and predicting the growth of that flaw due to an imposed series of loading transients. The input recuired for a fatigue crack growth analysis is basically the information necessary to calculate the parameter AKg which depends on crack and structure geometry and tha range of applied stresses in the area where the crack exists. Once AK g is calculated, the growth due to that particula
- stress cycle can be calculcted [
by equations given in Section 3.3 and Figure 3-1. This in:rawnt of growth is , t then added to the original crack size, and the analysis proceeds to the next ; Bransient. The procedure is continuad in this manner until all the transients ; l known to occur in the paried of evaluation have been analyzed. i l The transients considered in the analysis are all the design transients con-l tained in the Final Safety Analysis Report and the steam generator equipment f specification, as shown in Section 2, Table 2-1. These transients are spread : equally over the design lifetime of the vessel, with the exception that the ; preoperational tests are considered first. Faulted conditions are not ma tm.awne 31 ;
considered in the crack growth analysis because their frequency of occurrence is too low to affect fatigue crack growth. Crack growth calculations were carried out for a range of flaw depths, and three basic types. The first type was a surface flaw uith length equal to six times its depth (a/t = 0.1667), and whose analysis was previously reported. The second was a continuous surface flaw (a/t = 0.0), which represents a worst case for surface flaws, and the third was an embedded flaw, with length equal to five times its width. For all cases the flaw was assumed to maintain a constant shape as it grew. Calculations for other flaw shapes were unnecessary because the selected types conservatively model the crack growth of the other flaws of interest for construction of the charts. 3.2 STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR EXPRESSIONS Stress inteniity 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 Kg is calculated from the actual stress profile through the wall at the location of interest. The maximum and minimum stress profiles corresponding to each transient are re;: resented by a third order polynomial, such that: 2 3
+A o (X) = A0+A1 2h+A 3 The streu intensity factor K; (9) can be calculated anywhere along the crack front. The oeint of maximum crack depth is represented by e = 0. The following express on is used for calculating K; (e), where e is the angular location defined in Figure 1-1.
2 2 K;(e) = (})0.5(e,3,,a- 2 sin e) ( A OH O' t A gH g C 2 3
+ H) hA 2 H
2*bh# 3 3 nn.ui .em
- 3-2 l I
The magnification factors 0H (')' N1 (')' N (e) 2 and H (9) 3 are obtained by the procedure outlined in reference (2), The stress intensity factor for a continuous surface flaw was calculated using an expression for an edge cracked plate (13). The stress distribution is linearized through the wall thickness to determine membrane and bending stress ' and the applicd Kg is calculated from: K; = o, Y, / a + B B
- The magnification factors Y,and YB are taken from (13) and a is the crack depth.
i For embedded flaws, the stress intensity factor expression of Shah and Kobayashi (5) was used, as discussed earlier in Section 2.2. The flaw shape was set with length equal to five times the width (a/t = 0.10), and the eccentricity was varied, as shown in the Table 3-2. This flaw shape was - chosen to provide a worst case calculation of stress intensity factor for embedded flaws. The calculated crack growth was very small for this case, so i no other shapes were considered necessary to analyze. 3.3 CRACK GROWTH RATE REFERENCE CURVES 4 The crack growth rate curves used in the analyses were taken directly from i rigure A4300-1 of Appendix A of Section XI of the ASME Code. Water 1 environment curves were used for all inside surface flaws, and the air , environment curve was used for embedded flaws and outside surface flaws. The materials used for the pressure boundary of steam generators are basically higher strength versions of the reactor vessel steels, SA508 Class 2 and 3 and SA533 Gr B Cl, and early designs had exactly the same materials as the reactor vessel. A large number of specimens of steam generator materials, SA508 C 2a, SA553 Gr. A C1. 2, SA508 Cl. 3a, and SA533 Gr. B C2 materials and two associated submerged are weldments were tested at Westinghouse. The environments used n>wm.eum 33
were low and high temperature air, PWR. primary water, and secondary side steam. These environments cover all the possible environments for both the primary and secondary side of the steam generator, but do not include any c.ontaminants which could be present in the secondary side environment. Load-ratios of 0.2 and 0.7 were employed for the air environment, and values of 0.2 ; and 0.5 were used in the PWR and steam environments. Results showed that the reference crack growth rate curves for ferritic steel contained in Section XI were also applicable to these steels. The PWR environment was found to produce the highest growth rates, but the data were well below the ASME reference curves. The data obtained in the steam - , environment showed crack growth rates equal to or below the rates obtained in ; the PWR environment under the same conditions. These results are discussed in j references 14-16. Therefore the ASME Code reference curves are applicable. for water environments the reference crack growth curves are shown in Fig. l 3-1, and growth rate is a function of both the applied stress intensity factor l range, and the R ratio (Kain/Emax) for the transient. r l For R10.25 l (AKg$19 ksi / in)h = (1.02 x . 0-6)3g}5.95 l.95 (AKg >19 kai / in)h = (1.01 x 10 )AK g whereh=CrackGrowthrate, micro-inches / cycle. l For R>0.65 ) (AKg$12 ksi / in)h = (1.20 x 10-5)3g}5.95 a f i I l.95 (AKg >12 ksi / in)h = (2.52 x 10'I) AK g i i i i For R ratio between these two extremes, interpolation is recorrrnended. ! i I
- i j uks4Mos171eet.to 34 f
i The crack growth rate reference' curve for air environments is a single curve, aith growth rate being only a function of applied AK. This reference curve
~
is also shown in Figure 3-1. h=(0.0267x10-3) 3g 3.726 where, h = Crack growth rate, micro-inches / cycle AK y = stress intensity factor range, ksi/in
* (E Imax -KImin) 3.4 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RESULTS The fatigue crack growth results upon which handbook charts were developed are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, and shown graphically in Figure 3-2.
i i i t-E i p i ! l n ,:, u . v i w i. 35 i i
Table 3-1 7atigue Crack Growth Results - Kewaunee Unit 1 Steam Generator Upper Shell to Cone Weld Region - Surface Flaws i Continuous Flaw (a/t = 0) , i INITTAt CRACK DEPTH AFTER YEAR DLr A 10 20 30 40 . 0.500 0.71154 U.99030 1.35720 1.88252 o t I 0.600 0.84452 1.16395 1.59752 2.26478 0.700 0.97438 1.33694 1.84992 2.70801 l 4 0.800 1.10453 1.51543 2.12762 3.23917 i a/t = 0.1667 3 ; INITIAL CRACK DEPTH AFTER YEAR DEPTH 10 20 30 40
- 0.700 0.79232 0.90274 1.03399 1.19217 l :
0.800 0.91140 1.04488 1.20470 1.39380 t 0.000 1.03072 1.18819 1.37449 1.57976 I f l 1.000 1.19063 1.33190 1.53259 1.75105 1.500 1.71524 1.94732 2.19663 2.46658 1 j am.4m.4,ims i. 36
'5 Table 3-2 Fatigue Crack Growth Results - Kewaunee Unit 1 Steam Generator Upper Shell to Cone Wald Region - Embedded Flaws 6 = T/16 INITIAL CRACK DEPTH AFTER YEAR DEPTH 10 20 30 40 1
0.120 0.12015 0.12031 0.12046 0.12061 0.150 0.15024 0.15049 0.15073 0.15097 0.160 0.16027 0.16056 0.16083 0.16112 j, 0.165 0.16529 0.16559 0.16589 0.16619 6 = 3T/32 INITIAL CRACK DEPTH AFTER YEAR DEPTH 10 20 30 40 ^
'O.150 0.15017 0.15035 0.15052 0.15070 0,200 0.20032 0.20064 0.20096 0.20129 0.240 0.24047 0.24096 0.24144 0.24194
, 6 = T/8 3 . INITIAL CRACK DEFTH AFTER YEAR
- DEPTH 10 20 30 40 1
0.280 0.28048 0.28098 0.28147 0.28198 0.300 0.30057 0.30116 0.30173 0.30232 4 0.320 0.32066 0.32135 0.32202 0.32271 0.330 0.33071 0.33145 0.33217 0.33292 6 = 3T/16 l l INITIAL CRACK DEPTH AFTER YEAR DEPTH 10 20 30 40
- . 0.400 0.40059 0.40121 0.40180 0.40243 O.440 0.44076 0.44154 0.44231 0.44310 i 0.450 0.45080 0.45164 0.45245 0.45329 l 0.460 0.46085 0.46174 0.46259 0.46349
! 6 = T/4 INITIAL CRACK DEPTH AFTER YEAR DEPTH 10 20 30 40 0.400 0.40031 0,40063 0.40095 0.40127 0.440 0.44040 0.44081 0.44121 0.44162 l 0,450 0.45042 0.45086 0.45128 0.45172 0.460 0.46044 0.46091 0.46136 0.46182 l l
.,,,,,4,,.. 37 l l J
ng. A Oe81 SECHON XI - DMSION 1 1980 EDITION 1000
,. y
~ '
' Lineer inwrpolet>on is recom- [
~
monded to account for retic ,k / dependence of weier eneronment & / p85h 500 - curws, for 0.25 <A < 0.85 for / i sheikPw sJope:
~
/
8 = (1.01 X 10*1) 02 A K i'9$ ** dN 7 p [
~
0 2= 3.75 A + 0.06 ,# / i A=Kan IKme, $ f .g
/
,00 _
l
/
/
Suteurface flows / { 100 - (e.t encronment) ,k [ . fit = 40.0267 X 100) a K g3.726 g3 lm - j f$
~
u.,m.a. ~ a e, - ~ tow changes try colevnetton of
, :l
= _
- ,oreen o, - two / e[4' i
~- titj 2 Surf ace flows
/
g (nowe reactor 3 20 . oneronment) epoicee6efor G
^ A < 029 j
f *0.25 < A < 0.65 A > 0.6s f 10 - g . flm, fg,,, 7 3 I S
,4 /
o f
$,3 u..,6n.*eoon i. ,em,n nonda to account for 11 retto decendence
= g
- el wowr enverert curses, for q f 0.25 < A < C.65 for swie skee:
f !
- 8'8
= (1.02 X 10 36 o, 3gE95 j e 6tl U/I I/I og = 26 A4 5.72%
A=Km,e IVme, I I i l i l l I I t il l i I I IIII 1 2 5 7 10 20 60 70 100 Strees latensity Factor Menge targ kei .[2.) l Figure 3-1 Reference Fatigue Crack Growth Curves for ! Carbon and Low Alloy Ferritic Steels mc.*:,ine 3-8
cp= =j=- =} = :=i:4.=24 = =-}=. =et=r_1g sl- = g = = sgq:;j, 4
. f 3.=: cii!:! . c {f =p= pop ,-qa
; , {. . == Er hii}j= ;ij-E q Continuous Flaw, a/1 = 0.0iH= 7tE = = ':i=-=iE_. .@.~.
=4=
=P -
a.J %=;=_ =ie e s Fie _n{= ;-ip
+
b( .E t= + -Eis . 1 , .o .,. g;5j=- P -- -iegt# .. j.y =p.:x=a_2 =1 =eij= =4. - qq2 = -}y =- . ej=- sp.i.e(=E =et .= =-4: e}= s-}-5 sis =t_ .gg :gs =gs- ==pe ir qq e-j== =j = . . mi-9ei=+34 a/1 = 0*167
!, n 5f# #M15i?
. i=?%El Eli kit ; # Ety i2 mis =ip
T =i# ==t=.' 2-F= Mis! siis=1 =li= iMMie ;-#- = Eses = a#3fi-E=
-- y=L=. ~=14 g
. .. .= p .gy .
_. p=- - . _r_
-a _ __- . . ~ . -
Qm=..y. --
.t- =.- ., . . .
c .~ - . . . . . . E1= ~-j=~ -EiE :$E- --ts$Z'i f f '. "P- MM._11ZMf=Eh E=lGi =g;g=.
.gg= =. =.. . y_ .=t==_=r_3_g.-=_5__-,y_ S
= +
=s...g.=. . =_.
a.. = r. . m- . . _a.. _ -
,s
=A.,_.,__ f_ _ -._. :i=
wg- .-. __ _ . . , . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . f.__. w 2,
-f=_ _=tz -.. . _ . . _a- = -<=L -_. ==
-s =
r+- .=- .--
+
Ar- ._s_. w
;= == f=>=.= -= ~r . ==
- :- = k= =.a: =..
= - -=_=. s-. . _ . -- . r-- = _~.
. ,: =
,8 w; .
~F_. =.=_. 55._=_ _ =.-=_=5'
.= =f= _ .
2-- _3y g_.t2 /= . _ a=:g .
.t. gt-
-_._--__.{
r u.= g___f. _... i 6 . # _ ._. n.n.__ . - :; = = ._ ==t= _
= y.__ ,u _.
~
_ . _ , t_ ._a._n.
.4=_=
.r- 2_ .r-__._23.3.g_
h Nh -5 h
. _ . . -b E N fbh a- . . g33_s p.=..
t t i, e m. . . - . ..- _, 4.. =.g=_-s. =7- m.7. . . -
=_
_.'_.p_..
- 3. 3=. .=. ;
x.. .= v =s :,p-A= _ 4===-=. , 1 : _---=,__w _g =T::f_ , - arr- L. _.
=pyspi Embedded Flaw . L EH =~ZNEME st=i- sg !.2=
Fi=15 5 =te#$ W May% =i@%--La i =E~ 6 = T/8 y' : /ts ;fF. .isj=.a. .s. .a. s_ . =. r. .
- a/1 = 0.10 . _ _.
_ gs_s si_=_ ... i - #2 =i y=r==g.,_ts=1=-st==p.=. p. g_wma s__.1
=g.= =ig t . ;_ f pep =i sies sps ==jeeis ==jss=ii=: a;s==.i=.;E sj=E ; tr -sis
==j=2 l
l ~ _'n wib =i iMf" i= h=- t 4= :-ig/t= =M"=MMScip =h-
.P = = ' @4.yi=;= $* M =@E? I ril: P 4=FN15E7dsidiaE=r_ ass.425)
=
l A0 U"III"I ""# ' I"'} t 1 Figure 3 2 Fatigue Crack Growth Results - Upper Shell Cone Weld Section Circumferential Flaws for 10 Year feriod nw.*oene 39 1 1
SECTION 4
$URFACE FLAW EVALUATION 4.1 SCOPE OF EVALUATION The surface flaw evaluation covers the upper shell to cone weld region. This section describes the development of the inside surface flaw charts for that region.
4.2 CODE CRITERIA The acceptance criteria for flaws have been readily presented in Section 1. For convenience they are repeated as follows: af < 0.1 a, For normal conditions (upset & test conditions inclusive) and af < 0.5 aj For faulted conditions (emergency condit8cn inclusive) where The maximurr size to which the detected flaw is calculated to af grow for a specified period, which must can be tac next scheduled inspection of the component or until the end of vessel design lifetime. a, = The minieum critical flaw size under normal operating conditions (upset and test conditions inclusive) ag
= The minimum critical flaw size for initiation of nonarresting )
growth under postulated faulted conditions. (emergency conditions inclusive) nw.ame. w e 41
Alternatively, criteria based on applied stress intensity factors may be used: K K g < [{0For normal conditions (upset & test conditions inclusive) K Kg< For faulted conditions (emergency conditioris inclusive) where Kg = The maximum applied stress intensity factor for the fla'< size a, to which a detected flaw will grow, for a specified period, which must be at least until the next inspect'an. K;, = Fracture toughness based on crack arrest for the corresponding crack tip temperature. K gg = Fracture toughness based on fracture initiation for the corresponding crack tip temperature. The larger fla. size determined by these two criteria is used to develop the flaw charts. 4.3 BASIC DATA In view of the criteria, it is noticed that three groups of basic data are required for the ccnstruction of charts for surface flaw evaluation. Namely., af, driving force (K ),g and fracture toughness (K g, and Kge). The preparation of these three groups of basic data will be discussed in the following paragraphs. They are the key elements of the allowable flaw size and fatigue crack growth calculations upon which tha evaluation charts are based. A schematic diagram of the evaluation pecudure is shown in Figure 4-1. K gg and Kg , are the initiation and arrest fracture toughnesses (respectively) of the vessel material at which the flaw is located. They can be calculated by formulas: m:.uu.vinne 42
l Kg , = 33.2 + 2.806 exp. (0.02(T-RTNDT + 100*F)] (1) and l Kg , = 26.8 + 1.233 exp. (0.0145(T-RTNDT + 160*F)) (2) i Notice that both K ge and Kg , are a function of crack tip temperature T, t and the material property of RTNDT at the tip of the flaw as discussed esrlier, in Section 2.3. The upper shelf fracture toughness of the vessel steel is assumed to be 200 ksi/in, as discussed in Section 2. The driving force, Kg, used in the determination of the flaw evaluation l charts is the maximum stress intensity factor of the surface flaw under evaluation. The methods used for determining the stress intensity factors for surface flaws have been discussed in Section 2. It is important to note that
%he flaw size used for the calculation of Kg is not the flaw size detected by inservice inspection. Instead, it is the calculated flaw size which is projected to grow from the flaw size detected by inservice inspection. That
- means that the surface flaw size used for the calculation of Kg had to be I determined by using fatigue crack growth results. This is equivalent to
- working backward in the chart of Figure 4-1 to determine the largest allowable j flaw size.
As defined in IWB-3611 of Section XI, af is the maximum size resulting from l j growth during a specific time period, which can be the next scheduled ! inspection of the component, or until the end of vessel design lifetime. Therefore, the final depth, af after a specific service period of time must i be used as the basis for esaluation. 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 f of detection. l The final flaw size af has been calculated by fatigue crack growth analysis, chich has been performed covering the range of postulated flaw sizes, and flaw shapes and locations within the wall needed fer the construction of surface flaw evaluation charte in this handbook. All crack growth results have been sumarized in Table 3-1, and a sample plotted in Figure 3-2. nx. m.* ene 43
i 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 (a/t) greater than 0.167 have utilized the results of 0.167. ; and for any flaw with aspect ratio less than 0.167, the results of the continuous flaw are used. This is conservative in both cases. It is noted l. that only the crack growth analysis for circumferential flaws was performed, ! because of the orientation of the indications found in the spring inspection , of 1987, and the orientation of the upper shell-to-cone weld. Charts were not prepared for longitudinal flaws. 4.4 TYPICAL SURFACE FLAW EVALUATION CHART j t The two basic dimensionless parameters, which can fully address the l characteristics of a surface flaw are used for the evaluation chart construction. Namely, ! t o Flaw Shape Parameter a/t , o Flaw Depth Parameter a/t ' l where, i l i t - wall thickness, in. t l a - flaw depth, in. , flaw length, in. t [; Now, consider the chart for the governing transient. Sectisn 2.1 indicated ! that the most limiting normal condition expected to occur during the remaining j plant life is the heatup transient. In addition, the governing emergency and j faulted condition is the feedwater line break. The fracture and fatigue ! analyses showed that the heatup is the most governing of these transients. Figure 4-2 shows the results for the heatup transient, and it is constructed l as follows: ! i o The flow shape parameter a/t was plotted as the abscissa from 0 j (continuous flaw) to 0.5 (semi-circular flaw) o The flaw depth parameter a/t in % was plotted as the ordinate. ! I tm.we.wasne 44 ) l l l
l o The lower curves are the code acceptable flaw depths tabulated in j Section XI. These curves indicate the acceptance standards below 1 which analytical evaluation is not required. Three curves are provided for the code acceptance standards, covering the versions of l the ASME Code from 1980 until the present. The lowest curve is from
,able IWB-3511, which was revised with the 1983 Winter Addendum i resulting in the middle curve. Beginning with the 1986 edition of the ASME Code, acceptance standards for this region are provided in Table IWC 3510-1 and these have also been plotted, and are slightly more 4 liberal. [
t 5 o The upper boundary curves show the maximum acceptable flaw depth by : 4 code criteria beyond which no surface flaw is acceptable for continued :
- service without repair. These upper bound curves have been determined by the fracture and fatigue evaluations described herein, and they are applicable for 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years as indicated.
] l 4 o Any surface indication which falls between the two sets of boundary curves will be acceptable by the code, with the analytical
; justification provided herein. However, IWC-2420 of ASME Section XI
! requires futuro monitoririg of such indications. j The inside surface flaw evaluation charts censtructed for the upper shall to j cone weld region of the Kewaunee Unit 1 steam generators are presented in Figure 4-2, and reputed in Section 6, whero instructions are given for their
- use.
I 4.5 PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SURFACE FLAW EVALUATION CHART 1 This section describes how the inside surface flaw evaluation charts were constructed for the upper shall to cone weld region. l nu, sm,a:m u 45
Step 1 , Determine the critical flaw sizes from Table 4-1. These flaw sizes sre used to determine allowable flaw sizes per IWB-3611. f a Load Flaw Cr'.ical Flaw Depth (in.) ; Condition Orientation a/t = 0.0 a/t = 0.167 a/t = 0.5 N/U/T* Circumf'erential ac = 3.70 ag = 3.70 ae = 3.70 } s E/F* Circumferential ag = 2.246 ag = 3.70 ag a 3.70 i 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 flaws never exceeds the fracture toughness, regardless of flaw , 4 depth, i. The maximum code allowable flaw depths using the criteria of IWB-3611 are then j determined, using a factor of 10 for normal upset and test conditions and a i factor of 2 for emergency and faulted conditions. The results arv presented f below: l I ? , Lead Allowable Flaw Dapth (in) Condition a/t = 0.0 a/t = 0.167 a/t = 0.5 N/U/T 0.37 0.37 0.37 I 1
- E/F 1.123 1.85 1.85 !
l j 1 ) j i i ,, , .. 43
f~ Step 2 Determine the maximum code allowa!.e flaw depth (a r aq), per IWB-3612: c 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 K la/ /10 1.20 2.17 2.55 E/F Circarfarential Kge// 2 1.51 2.74 3.70 Step 3 The allowable flaw depth is ther determined from Step 1 and Step 2 allowable flaw depths. The most liberal results are taken for each type of load condi-tion. Then the load condition which prod::ces the smallest allowable is chosen, and this becomes the final allowable. For normal, upset and test conditions the allowable depths of step 2 are larger, and this is also the case for emergency and faulted conditions. Thus, from the results of step 2 we find: a/t = 0.0 allowable a = 1.20 in, a/t = 0.167 a = 2.17 in, s/2 = 0.5 a = 2.55 in. Stepj Determine the corresponding initial flaw sizes which will grow to the above critical flaw sizes af ter 10. e,, t.: 30 years of service. I ( L'e define the above limiting critical flaw depth as af. The initial flaw l size a, can be found from the fatigue crack growth results of Table 3-1 and have been plotted in Figure 3-2. l o N/U/T normal, upset, and test conditions E/F emergency and faulted conditions nn.num suo se 47
k' 3r The values of a, which are applicable to 10 years of service, for example, are listed as follows l Continuous Flaw a/t = 0.167 a/t = 0.5 , aj 1.20 2.17 2.55 . a, 0.87 1.90 2.24 i i This shows that the effect of fatigue crack growth in this region is very small. , i Step 5 t i . Determine a/t vs. a/t% in the upper shell to cone weld region where t = 3.7", and a = a,. For 10 years of service, the values ?.re-E i, Continuous Finite Surface Finite Semicircular Flaws Flaws, a/t = 0.167 Surface Flaws l a/t 0 .157 .5 l ; a : ! a/t 0.235 0.514 0.605 1 l ] Note that the allowable fl.w depths here exceed 20 percent of the wail _ j thickness, which has been set as an arbitrary limit, based on engineering j judgement. The charts therefore reflect this value as an upper limit. ~ J i Step 6 } 1 4 i
) The upper bound curves result from the picts of a/t vs. a/t for 10, 20, 30 l years of service as shown by Figure 4-2. ;
1 4 nr 4m.mne 43
4 Step 7 : r I Plot a/t vs. a/t data from the standards tables of Section XI as the lower , cerve of Figure 4-2. I The values of the accep ince standards for this region from the various ! editions of the ASME f. 'e are: f , t Aspect IWB-3511-1 IWB-3510-1 IWC-3510-1 , Ratio, (1980) (1983, W85 Add.) (1986) I l a/t a/t,% a/t, % a/t, % ( l i 0.00 2.0 1.9 1.9 0.05 2.1 2.0 2.0 ! l l 0.10 2.3 2.2 2.2 0.15 2.6 2.5 2.5 0.20 2.9 2.8 2.8 < l 0.25 3.2 3.3 3.3 ! 0.30 3.7 3.8 3.8 [ O.35 3.7 4.4 4.4 . 0.40 3.7 5.0 5.0 ; I 0.45 3.7 5.1 5.1 0.50 3.7 5.2 5.2 The above six steps would complete the procedure for the construction of the surface flaw evaluation charts for 10 years 20 years, or 30 years of operating life. In the interest of prudence, Figure 4-2 only shows the allowable flaw depths for these inside surface flaws up to 20 percent of the section thickness. nx. m.*mn e 49
TABLE 4-1 i i BASIC DATA FOR SURFACE FLAW EVALUATION AT UPPER SHELL 10 CV_ wet.D SECTION 4 l ) i i MININM CRITICAL FLM SIZE FLM REGION CO WITION ORhENTA-
" ' I" CONTINUOUS FLM ASPECT NATIO = 6:1 ASPECT NATIO = 2:1 LOCATION INCHES INCHES INCHES
({} ({} ({} J
- l g IWl/T LONG. ac = -- ---
a, = -- --- a, = -_ ___ I i c 33 CIRCUN. a, = 3.70 1.0 ab = 3.70 1.0 %" 3.70 1.0 2-3 E/F LONG. a; = -- --- a. = -- __. at = __ ___ su* 2EE l ggg CIROM. a; = 2.25 0.61 a; = 3.70 1.0 at "3.70 1.0 I LEGES : - l a, ,Minlaun critical flaw size unser normal conditions l
- a. [ Minimum critical flaw size under faulted conditions j nuesseomr se I__ - - . _ _ - - .-- -_. - . - . . _ -. . .- - _ - -. . -. - . . . . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - - . . . . . . - _ . _ - - - - - _ _ - . . _ . . _ _ . - ~ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - ~ _ . _ ... . .
,_n, _ - -
Must be Taenseents s 2 M4 Eeected WO ] After Fleur Dmcrevery 4 peng ci I m N ree,se Fleurle Csack w , M* ac 10eg lYeo
, og > %]L Yet Accowa 8or Constnised Opereston Uned
=
r y - { y> y
-F r '
,a
( ,; - .t - i i I M WId
% Mic "88 Assest SeneIIest K g, Cesnse l SmeBest b' NN Frechee c,w Flow y,% Sire for Mechanics _ sgo go, geg )J * *
- N W N Normal.UDeet
**==es - EEFW Test Conselone Severest.
-- . EEFMB 3,unesen leenoievat y- a Must Areest vuuhout arrest WWiseln 75% of VueB TNctweese Enhanced Mondsetsuc*e Ememenemen Figure 4-1 Schematic representatio. of Appendix A flaw evaluatioc. process' n-me se
10 years 20 years 30 years 20 7 ' ' ' ' ' i iil fi lllf i l i1 1 "I!! .! I ti l'I ll i i ii 1,4
. 111 ytp 1.l ill itil iL i ni i r J ! l ! .O III il i iiii ii. !
I -ill l . , . I fi l, l
,, L l ! 'l :lll
! I, li lli iini ill ilil Ih ih i:ii illi iii, lit i Jll i l! !
i(I
! ! ] IIIIl lili lll i ti illi ili llli 'ii I!!
,, I! I .i iil liti liii il l i l il! . I l l l ! s!Ui.I li l~ l illi di iif ii!i N! !-
' i !
ili lhi iil~ li i' i 'i I ! ! ! II g ,, .bii n; 'i i I! i..I ;! ii t I ' ' t l idi llit t i il i l ilii ; il El. !i'i ! !!! l {. lIn h
, g d.
w 1 ' 1 , . l I 11 il l' all 11I ll 1111 i ili 1.i,i i lit 11I il f; i 10 iiil lii .li ii 11, hj j iiii .,; < l Q.. :!! .!!! !!I wmnN d 91 Tms ZONE THE SURFACE FtAwis ACCEPTABLE BY CODE [ ,, F iii !Ili.i i iil 'i' hIf' lil! !L! i! ii N i. i 11 l' i Li i:il it Hlil i lii! 11!' !!I ANALYTICAL CRITERIA (fWS 3800l
!U l'!H! ;'ll idl7 ifini i i i it ! dijj ii 11i ii!! i, i : i'l i.i! !' d !!'N li i i
.0 , , , 1 .
A '!!- H !DHi ut illi il il i i i 1 i' I o ifl iiii iil , lii! lli ! .
!!!! I' ! 0!! !! ! i!! 'ol
~ I li. IL J11li lii !!ii l1i li ii! !: ! L i; ! l I lii' !! ! iP. d!! F I I ll I! I li i i! !
!* !IHlii tili ilii ii ii i P' In i ! ! :
j:
? li! !!
!!!! . .! 1 11!!!Iilil l! !!!! !!! Il lili iiii
![] [$
ili illi d. tIhil! tiiuiii i ! .i i ! !. ! : !!! I
. I il IU
/ !1!!'l .I- ! !- ! !!!! !!!I (' .l]Ii !j! Ii illi E i' i a t Coot AuOwastE LMNT
!ituilisU% ! !! !! ! L i !
1983. Wlnter 83 Add. through 1986 I!ll I!! l!!! E ti Il li!! ijji yi
.! l
! !! j ll illi if d IM!
!! lI l ll . ! !, . I .
, I ll tiiU .A Iji I! lid 11I lli!I! JII L Ii!I,4d ili 1:li lii 9i ~ra : .: :; - .- f: ' Prior to 1983. Winter 83 Addenda gjh;
;j;; u, t,n :Ti! ni; !.c u-
,,g g 3 j.p g p jg pjj jgj j; gj[. [; 3ll ,
p i gj 2 lg gjuj jlLj j jr j ; ,j j 3 ,l g j il. lllj Ijjj f00 ANALYTICALJUSTIFICATION
; p 3p; ;j ;jjj y,j jj;; ;gg;g gjjj j q g j !
ii 1s REOUmED Hiiil iifili!iilifuillII16 iitiili liisili.ll.t ili;i:.1l I 'l i tr Dii ali; 1 I - O. 0.5 O O.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 FL)W SHAPE (e//) Figure 4-2 Flaw Evaluation Chart for Circumferential Inside Surface Flaws in the Upper
" " ""' Shell to Cone Region
7 7-3 SECTION 5 ; EMBE00E0 FLAW EVALUATION c 5.1 SC0!E OF EVALUATION i I Embedded flaw evaluations were performed for the upper shell to cone weld . region. This section describes the development of the embedded flaw charts I for tt.at region. 5.2 IMBEDDED VS. SURFACE FLAWS
) .
According to IWA-3300 of the ASME Code Section XI. a flaw is defined as embedded, as shown in Figure 5-1 whenever, l l ! 1 - S 3 0.4 a (5-1) i ( j t j where S- the minimum distance from the flaw edge to the nearest vessel wall [ i surface I a a- the embedded flaw depth, (defined as the semi-minor axis of the l ellipticalflaw.) [ f ] I The parameter o has been defined in this document to facilitate the use of ; J i l the charts. 6 is defined as the distance from the centerline of the flaw to l l the surface of the vessel. Therefore, 6 = $ + s. Substituting into the i ,i proximity limit in equation 5-1 gives a limiting definition of 6 as a I } function of a. for the proximity limit. ( ! r ) i a = 6-S (5-2) f I
- 6 3 1.4 a (5-3) l t
i i l l
- i i
I i
- nx.4 . n. l 5-1 i !,
I i
l Therefore, the limit for a flaw to be considered embedded is a,= 0.714 6. i A flaw lying within the embedded flaw domu n 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 4 of the handbook instead. The demarcation lines between the two domains are shown graphically in figure l 5-2. In other words, for any flaw indication detected by inservice inspection, the first step of evaluation is to define to which category the flaw actually j belongs, and then to choose the appropriate charts for evaluation. 3 5.3 CODE CRITERIA i As mentioned in Section 1, the criteria used in most of the cases for embedded l flaws are of IWB-3612 of Code Section XI. Namely, t Kg< For normal conditions (upset & test cenditions inclusive) (5-4) O K K; < h For faulted conditicas (emergency tenditions inclusive) (5-5) I i where I t t Kg
- The maximum applied stress intensity factor for the flaw j size af to which a detected flaw will grow, during the {
period of evaluation, which must be at least until the next inspection. [ I K., = fracture toughness b!;ed on crack arrest for the j corresponding crack tip temperature. ! l i K, = Fracture toughness based on fracture initiation for the 3 corrssponding crack tip temperature. ; l l 3 2na tancee l
..~.____..__________.._______.____._j
The above two criteria must both be met. In this handbook only the most limiting results have been used as the basis of the flaw evaluatioa charts. 5.4 BASIC DATA In view of the criteria based on stress intensity factor, three basic groups of data are needed for construction of embedded flaw evaluation charts. They are: af, driving force (K;), and frceture toughness (Kg , and K!cI ' K yg and K y , are the initiation and arrest fracture toughness (respectively) of the vessel material at which the flaw is located. They can be calculated by formulas: Kg , = 33.2 + 2.806 exp. (0.02(T-RTNDT + 100*F)) (5-6) and Kg , = 26.8 + 1.233 exp. (0.0145(T-RTNDT + 160*F)) (5-7) Kg is the maximum stress intensity factor for the embedded flaw of interest. The methods used for detarmining the stress intensity factors for embedded flaws have been referenced in Section 2. Notice that both K3 , and K3 , are a function of crack tip temperature T. and the material property of RTNDT at the tip of the flaw as discussed in Section 2. The upper shelf fracture toughness of .he vessel steel is assumed to be 200 ksi / in. K y used in the determination of the flaw evaluation charts is the maximum stress intensity factor of the embedded flaw under evaluation. it is important to note that the flaw size used for the calculation of K y is not the flaw size detected by inservice inspection. Instead, it is tne calculated flaw size which is projected to grow from the flaw size detected by inservice mamm vwo s.3 i _ w
inspectinn. That means that the embedded flaw size used for the calculation of K ghad to be determined by using fatigue crack growth results; similar to the approach used for surface flaw evaluation, as illustrated in the previous section. However, unlike the surface flaw case, the fatigue crack growth for an embedded flaw (even af ter 30 years of additional service life) is very small in comparison with that of a surface flaw with the same initial depth. Consequently, in the handbook evaluations, the measured fit.w size has been used for evaluation by the charts independent of the service period
- oecause fatigue has little or no influence for embedded flaws as discussed below.
This sir,,lifies the evaluation procedure without sacrificing the accuracy of the results. A detailed justification of this conclusion is provided in the next section. 5.5 FAT!G'IE CRACK GROWTH FOR EMBEDDED FLAWS The environment of an embedded flaw is considered to be inert, or air. The crack growth r:te for air environment is far smaller than that of the water environment, to which th9 surface flaw is conservatively considered to be exposed. Consequently, the fatigue crack growth for an embedded flow is far smaller thsn that of an inside surface flaw (of the same size and under the l 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, as demonstrated in Table 3 2 for the upper shell to cone weld. Therefore, in the construction of the evaluation enarts for erbedded flaws, ' the recuracy of the charts =2uld not be impair ed using the flaw size found by inservice inspection dire:tly.
- This 'conclusien holds for the range of flaw sizes acceptable by the rules of Section XI, IWB-3600. It would net necessarily hold for very large ;
flaws of the order of 50 percent of the vessel wall thickness.
- x.w.. mun e 54
5.6 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. In this section, instructions for developing a chart are provided by going through a typical chart, step by step. This would 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 demarcation criteria of the code, as discussed earlier. Following are the highlights of auxiliary charts used to construct the embedded flaw evaluation chart for the upper shell to cone weld region.
- 1. The abscissa of the chart in Figures 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5 represents the flaw depth a, of tne embedded flaw.
- 2. As defined by code, 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 eebedded flaw is 6, the distance l between the centerline of the embedded flaw and the neatest surfar.e of the steam generator wall.
Arangeof6betweenf6tandfthasbeenconsideredin constructing Figures 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5. , 4 Foreachspecificvalueof6,suchasft,ht,kt,etc.,afamilyof curves were plotted for a range of a/t values ranging from .333 to .100. For any specific flaw depth a at the abscissa, a corresponding value K g at the ordinate can be found in Figures 5-3 through 5-5, for any distance to the surface, 6. na. mms vmm 55
+
.I i. t
- 5. The range of a/t values from 0.333 to 0.10 was chosen to encompass l
~ the rar',e of flaws which might be detected. For the upper shell to i cone region, fracture results are independent of the aspect ratio, as ! will be discussed further below.
- 6. In developing this specific chart, the code acceptance limit line of ;
Kg ,//10 as a function of flaw depth is shown in Figures 5-3 through 5-5. ]. I
- 7. The intarsection of the Kg curve with the code acceptance limit line is the maximum flaw size acceptable by code for the specific curve, in l
accordance with the Kg$ Kg ,//10 from IWB-3612. l r 1 I I 8. In view of Figures 5-3 through 5-5, it is seen that none of the curves [ intersect with the code acceptance limit line. That means that, up to a f
- distance of 6 = k t (= 0.925"), all embedded flaws are acceptable by the [
code criteria so long as their depth is within the domain of a, = 0.714 6. j 4 l [ 9. The maximum acceptable flaw size can be found from the chart by [ 3 determining the abscissa of the intersection points. Namely, for 6 = 0.25 t, i Maximus Acceptable f j af Flaw Depth a*(in.) l i l
. 100 0.4625 :
- . 167 0.4625 (= a, = 0.4625) 0.4625
- . 333 ,
i i ! l
- Maximum Acceptable Flaw Depth a is set at ht, based on engineering
! judgement, to limit the allowable through-wall penetration to 25 percent j of the wall thickness, i
. l m = ,. e . 5-6 !
] I l: !
----a ,-- , .-~.,,,.y.-.-,.,-,,,,y_m, m, , _.- - - - _ ~. _.,y--.,--.,._,,,n_,
, ,, ,,_,_ -.., _ _ ,n- , . , _ . . .,,m _.,_,,,._y _. ,_
10.Themaximumacceptableembeddedflawsizefor6=fthasbeen f depicted in Figure 5-2. This simple flaw evaluation chart, described l in the following paragraph, is the type to be used for evaluation, as may be seen in Section 6. These embedded flaw evaluation charts, constructed for the upper shell to cone ! weld region of the steam generators, are presented in Figure 5-2 and are repeated along with instructions in Section 6. 5.7 PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF EMBEDDED FLAW EVALVATION CHARTS This section shows how an embedded flaw evaluation chart was constructed for the upper shell to cone weld region during the governing transient which is the heatup (including feedwater cycling). The example here is for the case of RTNDT = 10'F. Step 1 Calculate Kg values for embedded flaws of various size, various aspect ratios, and at varicus distances underneath the surface. In total, 129 cases were analyzed by closed form stress intensity factor expressions. These 129 cases are listed in Table 5-1. Stop 2 The Kg results of the 129 cases were plotted in Figures 5-3 through 5-5. Step 3 Determine the allowable flaw size, from ag/10 or K g < K g ,//10 criteria as determined by Figures 5-3 through 5-5. Similar results could be obtained for the emergency / faulted conditions, but it can be seen from the surface flaw evaluation that they will not be gaverning so they have not been included here. n xem. """' 5-7
5.8 COMPARISON OF EMBEDDED FLAW CHARTS WITH ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS OF IWB-3500 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 l standards tables contained in IWB-3500. Such a comparison cannot be made l dit.tetly on the embedded flaw handbook charts, because the charts are soplicable for a full range of sizes, shapes and locations. The purpose of tsis tee'. ion is to provide such comparisons, and to discuss the results of these :omparisons. 1 ' ndbook chart value? have been compared with the acceptance standards is s in Figure 5-6. In this figure the values from Table IWB-3511-1 have Laen plotted as the base curve, and the limit curve for embedded flaws , justified by analysis is shown as the other line. It can be seen that the range of embedded flaw shapes and depths justifiable by analysis is related to the flaw location within the wall. The deeper the indication, the more benefit is obtained from the analysis. l l i I unsm,5wse 5-8
t
\
SURFACE
'N )
N
\
\ !
\
\ .
\ !
y ' i
/ ;
/ i:
/
< l .
/ a0= the maxirum e-6edded flaw size
' / (in depth direction) allowable . l EMEEDDID
/
/ per ASME XI*
5, e the correspondi minisum depth i FLAW of an embedded aw(lessthan , MIN which it rust be considered a a e a, -
' surface flaw) 5, e, ,
FOR ALL EMEIDDID ; FLAW 5: asa 8
- NDTE: If a > a , the flaw sust be I charactefized as a surfa:4 i
flaw, with depth a a
- 4. ;
[ao= 0.7146 for the 1980 Edition of the ASME Code and later editions] ! t l l l l
\
1 l \ Figure 5-1 EMBEDDED VS. SURFACE FLAW i am.un.wmne 5-9 i
SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEMARCATION LINE, BEGINNING WITH 1980 CODE 0.13 . . . . - . . _ . , d
~
, oumA% ;I ; + FLAWS WITH i 43 ,
O.12 ;=3.:;.
-i .- --
- #8 y ..e 7--
u f.. a-ine ..f - - ALOVE THis LINE ARE NOT ALLOWABLE 0.11
' = ' "" f
- Nrhi" b h ;-:2[ hh *i.UI.i- NX :hf ~ 'E ifi Q} {3. :
22 25 - f y ;- 7 d:i . 0.10 .: .:-
- . .; c'
. . .. ,.. -/.ji[, .3
. : .j +c
- j:::.
r::'
! *h i -- -
LR ::.: :) ::
- kE b' 7 i:IN ~ !{fhi 5[N I O'09
.T., Mc .
A L:: .J fi-ifgi id ~; 9 4.: ;i'ri
;%i ** ::a .. . . . .
j.. . ; I j.-[ j, -,.:. u.: ..t.: ::l:j 7:
' ~ -
g 0.08 - --
,s eeae iii f :-"w A 1 ::ii.:- .
r.m:
,3 1.: i . 7.:f;t= ,* ....i;pi: r:i: .-
0.07 .iwinfi:.suntAct; a .. il 'ilMTi ii'i[ {Id. .::- , --- r :
-"'m h . i-z 0.06 i' FUi'Ws I'N T'His di[$ zI} 'iii.fi $ 55 75'5 ;$
r mtoioN uusisE gp:!" . .. . :: u.*~ .- . . . . C JCONstDEmED F--
. . . .2:'
~~. . . .
'd.:' "
j 'i sum F ACE [." -
"E-'- :y- .:
.. -zii{F ,
O'05 "ri.Aws J. p b =- : - :--
- /
g g, t [. - "p =
- t.L .tu : *
- gi -f- .i- 313 =*i -
3%
;f ul- -n- ..
- }..
0.03 .-- m:=: ./. .t: # nii ' 0.02 4.i r/i- = ii4 -A !=i
. .-rp p
m ;; .}.. . . . . .... . . . . . .
= :
! { : j-j . :.g . . :.:.: ;
- :.:: H..g 0.01
,- :. ji: ,@. = ..,e 1 j; 1
..n.
j j. j -
. H= i. i. ;
O 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE ({lC Westinghouw 1987 FIGURE 5-2 EMBEDDED FLAW EVALUATION CHART FOR CIRCUMFERENTI AL INDICATIONS IN THE UPPER SHELL TO CONE m:om.w=no 5-10
i , hl l
!.,h, ,!
i 0 u [ II ~,ij.l. il; .. ! jN
' l i
3 l ! l ! !, ! .I! , n,l hl l F! !
'.il 1
ll l
! ,i.
i i i
' i I
- 1
! n hq tqhn .n. 4 ; p h..
- li .
e l ,l ,i l ! i 4l i n, , g,! $. i.
. n a a*
- n. p. i, . kE .., .. .... ..
i d9 1$ 1 i ... .
. r .
.l
- j . ..
i J L 4 ,; :j!. t' l- tw i I ! J
; o .
j i q ; j fj .. .7- L r i L i : l F y , pl i d, h.
)s ilno d ' l a L 4
!; + -
l l ! l.
- ' . y[
I. l l l i l - l p
- l i a
1 r _.{ i 1 1 i i mioW l l i I 1 4 , j l i ! L : t j ' r 3 gl' j ~ t I t i i t. 1
. i i i '-
l i, q' eh
- !l i i i
t i l-l - I i 1 l i l t e c i '} l
, L e i^
q.si
! i i g1 I j ? W lb .i ji 3 [ 1 il ! !
l j
? i F1 1 i h i vt-- c F l, ; l
- D1U' !.7
-t"1 "-t- 1 1 n 7 7 "d- ' ..
+- + ,
L
,r l I-i lk. ', i -
l : i , i 1
- P
,l l, 1 !
e, o . . i a l g l..
- 7 j
t { q.. ; ( [ t. i [ , . j
., l l ,
l. l . . i
,2 l.l .l l l
; l j
i , I 1 i t giq.; I ..I l Ij ..
- 3 I
l i l' ! f 'i P { i {
' [.
l il 1 n: , j i .; . .o,
; g- n:n t , ,
r 1 ; ; ,. l
. ; ; L i
; [ 2 p .;i 4
..3 4 Fr iri mn .' pl am .
I i i . t . . u . . .... m
,! A e 1 i rt t L .....n i
@,;'y %r ymx&m;. r.n.
! 1a ,
l i
.d; l'm e'g i
M:y rjl b}p;jl]. .. _
.J
+Ja%uD h u ,,4L .1 .u , .
p 4 .-
.t.
1 I 2 l F ' y. . ,j'- ; i' :
'8.j j i i
gi
,- :5 -
l h l:i
},
'..i,. . . .
..i 4 i
,. ,1 .
i ! i a ., ., ' . .. I l.
' e t I. ; '
.l ll. ;' ! i i M*
sr a - sV A ,: :. ,sr. IIII h[ "l [i t! lj.1' dln i l!
~
III Y'i: 1'hhh N ' Heg3 3aep 3 au61y )gu-(( 7 ]' [lII]i.. .51! I P 8 i' ' ! ] 319083 S-E S153SS iN13NSllA JV31 Oil dl01S 308 e/3 = O'CE( 1fS30 IN 3ONSIH03110N 03 3M930030 u .. 31VM 3livfliS
1 I s 7 r
~~. . .
==-___
f._
-. m -
- 4. 7 _
-__ %lt
_ --- t w.--
-.~
I
+ -
. _~ 4- .- -~ :.
---'-"._/
w
- i. ..._ . _ _ _,_ - = ---t
*I
_._3 Q
== . -
g _ _ . . . _ _ . - . _ _ . _ . ._.:__t._-- --
.a <
s
==_y t
r- , . ,
=_u ._ e2._ -_ ~ __ _ - . _ e_ . - ~.__ _
w_ . ra :... . .. ...,- : I~~ '
. ----- : :- t . .- r_
-- -t m
._1 .
m _--t----- $
&.=. .a
. ,c e . e _ _ - . __ a=- , - ,. - t-- - r-= .- >
; n
= g- - -- . :_ ,; .
- g ,
. u
_g, q - o - g
--. _ _ . . . - r_t-5 q. -__. - . .
V= = = mi
~
, ': s
-b- =- =. _. F-n=+ : ~ .
i ~~ %+-.=' - - a cn C_ ..:~ ~ '. ~.: . _.' . : . t .E .O ly =.. _-- .i. a r LA .1_-_ _ . __ _. ~-w
~ - - -
- ~ L, _.+t_ i. =__s- : q N y ,
F-' " # ~-i . .~~ r' ~=-". E' C-4-"-$ d r ' .. ' ~ ' Iikl p r_ - - . . - p,.
;. . __ p..--- g.=. ;a=- N -- - ~ 77 $
.- . . A =-- ,._
- =
- f. p- .-- . .. . -
o 1 i _.2 a =- : ~ f
.: : .=+_a- >_=.-p .=. 4 . = p:=. .:_ _ ._::: : ; - ;- .;-4. :. - + c ,,
A. ; : ._".=n. - - + .- 4- . ._; _- . _- u_ _ - . 3 h- 4o .. . . .. - _4 ____ _ . _. -M. .: . . -- 1 _ ,,_
. -, 1. . - . t .-- a($ a e V - c. - 7 :: j. : .:- .t-- ,- p- .- J t- - . t =:- $ ~.; _ . . .._-.==.={.(:k* g [ g F.J ,_ . . Mc:-j .i:: :4; _:;-: ==.i .;---J q -- - c- -
-- s . p-3 p 4 g _ _:. #3 "
i n . - =:i = =
, I i
m . . p:-. . -c. .- -- . ; . -_. . L. x. ._==_=_1. ----=2. L , . t I-. . .w v C , 4 p- - - - p u, ti 9,. c
>. .. . . - - a----- w . _ . _- M __._+.. p. .a.. r. U
..-. _+_ _ .- M d \ g r . uu i y _= m . __.
[ :- .. _ __. . t- r.r ?__. - r :_._' - - - * - - - - - Ng ,_ ,_ ! Wg 3 4 - Tt + t
.u....
. :c l \ - a . -
. ._4__==
; -_.-,.-_u - - _ w. . : . w. . -__--_..u._,,._.___
- . . _ ..=._: __ __. . _- .k \ \_ -
w 5 :
, _ .-.. gw . . _
y; ; O , ( ' u:
.=:=r-d- **
5 _._=-..__.;..=..-6.__.-4;---- -- =_ _=.d.- { - l .
, t. - -
W -E.i;;;-__3"r~_ __ . r-~*. =.I'=-__*'*- I . '1_"~~*#'~~~ - .. '--~~'==#~~'.' " M b. X 1
. 2 a _.:_ _._ . . _ ;.,. .w i w < ,
! =_ .:. . u _ r ---. __ - - ,r -- * :_: - 1: y - - o
_ _ _ 1 ra _=t =: - : . -t - -- N d i :.a ,
==
x
?
z,--- -~r:_ a. ; 3
. .: - --- - - . - 4* '
.;t . :
- :._ __ ; . . c ! .
= _ - - :-
; .._. . a . . . , _ .: 'o *=
l
. . _ ...._...r i
.=..==.u.. - _ _;.-.-=. _- __ _ ,9m . mw t 4
m y _. . . . . . _._-.-._ w
- .g ul ;; 2..
___ag2..-. ;____.__ - - - g g
; _t- . _._v_ . : . _ > .. . _ . - _ - _ . _ _ . . -_..___&-._ - , .\ ,
,,a i d .. _..._ _-
- ----- - - - 1_ m. u.:. ; - ____ v. _.:_ .__. 2 - -- i
. _i____ . .w aa mw I q .. . ..__..__=:.. _ . -
_ - -___,._._;._"_..,A
._e..---.--____. ._.______;,
e -- . . -
. . +- - - _ - = - - - , w
< i . . - . - , . ._.
.._:_.cr..--- e---- g _ m_-.- er-- n- - -
.-=-
e
. .=u. ::. . t. - -- r .=. a:L: ._ a .=_ . e.a;=. :A.___ r. a. . a. = , ,9,-
e _- _ w
. a li . _2 n 1 " --- -
_-A-t ( g !.sy) J013e3 /2)suagul ssaats _ - __ m _ . . _ _ . _ i g
. ^
A_ :~: L.:. ' .- L ._ --- :.: -- ?-- ' k r . 5 I 4,
.a EU 1
5-12 ) s
- - - - - - - , , . - . - . _ - . -- . - - . _ . - - - - - - _ _ , _ - - .c - - - _ , - -, . - - - - - - - . - , . _ , - - , -
5 i b a. 4 1 8
._ =. - m
*----4
=
~-g.-_.._.,.
_ . .. _ _ _ .. _. ,=- -. Der'*;- _ . _ . ____a._- -
- - -. -w --_ y , - . _ . _ . _ _
-- v :- _z
+__s=_-_
- w ._.__
-=t-- .. -,
1 __ ; _- .. L_ _ __ ___ m . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .__. t u . 3 i 1 i__..u___.__.__ 4- E , I e ---
; , ~.y i _. -+-~g
-- s _ : __
; _c o -
>- I l J"-" a
_ _ - _T+:.____._.. .Er~u .-t--'-
, __ _ _ - . _- :-- ~ ._ W
- I _ , _
ma t y_ ,._ _ _ , _ y . y__ ___ _. 41 ir --h= ; +
~ -._.t :.t----) -t---.
_1 m .- a s__,, - - - - - . _ _ _ . - >= Y 4--
. = h-
+
,,_a__.__-n._. -- - ._.: - r- _n -
5
~ .
s . _a ,J
=g : r -- -- m . __ u
-_m _
. _ , - _- _a -.___.
i . . - - _ ._:_. _ _ _ _ _ . _. +e.. _, , .. -. _, _ r _ t ( , ,,. _ . g _... _ __ . ___
...__7._.._. ..._i _.
4 5 ._ ..g_ i _ 1 i *~ _ = = ===.-- ;-C .' ana 2 - i =F r -
-H ci !
l t - + F 7===:-T ~~1 3 i=-#i= . J. ~ q= h- :.=- i @
=- . . :r::.M == == {:- = =..=. y,- g= c = - = == 2 y 4 e
, j -- - ri L:_ . _ : _ 5 :--L___. 4_ _:-' i i Z ~ ~ Q -\- r e::
y 4 ~. l 5 r..=_ =, ._ =. _->. . . _ _ _ n- _ . _ m...: ._..r- y _ - -
- 1
-+ - --p. = t h=.E= ; _-_. L - 4=:;=-i = =-+ ..__. , 4rp
_1 g F- 4 -_.' h - "
.'_.y _ ___.r -
p: : := ; - .:,_ --r.\\: ,c, ) i t o . . , i ii g i 1 e i- -- 1:; =: i- _ r_- : ! . - :
- 1 =. =- y.- -- t .r.-
m----..u- "4\l " n6 4 m F' a = . ,. _ : - . -= == a_. u,\ . \ \ . ,. : ;- = .
- c. .a
- ; - - g i v---- + A
- - n. m _= = v . .: L - ; - \ \. \ a a t=
;ys <
- .a D-y l . :. p.
, . =.1- = >
. f . _: =x_._ +. . 4 - _3 1 - . r.
i-- .u _u h .\ \ -v 2 5C _ h. \ \ g
.. . : .. : .y _u= ; _ : --.
_q, .v c ? y -d---- _:. p t. - + " , =-! -- - i - r i :- a
\{\\ j .= *.;g;; >-
O ) g. q :~ r . i . .a _ : - .-:. .m . _ : . i 6 L .w _U \T T e- E
-i. O
?:u - n:. d=== ?-
-- =WL - G .~ = :=r==-M = + -\\\ - \ \ -
w .c
~:
( :. : =. ? +=.F_ _=: k. =s .: . ; = ;.- : ;. : c 1 .
..\\,\ : \ ,
Y_ . . t *r- .. ; t. :..: - - . :_
- .T . . - t . -- _ $ - A - i. .;- a.:! r t 4a .h(\ , \ "
- s h ~ :h N - h*nF-,~-[.'5- h "_.'. -):5[J.-+. .'l-.* *
~4. .' ?. ~4 ' -4 0 k
), E==E _ e.= :1-- 1 -- 4 22 " -b b r: -- _ := . . :_lc_:#%)\ W IE
.. s 1A. ! : : ; : - == -: - . .
l - ::_i==- u- q_ :==1. = -
. &\ v: -
__--4 . . _r= _5 _- -; - ~ _ _ t 1. 3_ _ . -z.
-r. - W I o f
-- : " i r ~ = j ._ -~ 1 _.I _.E." -_'~~ 2:J. - ;-iE' . . . M i 34" --
_ 1_ ,_, A
.i -- T-
==p ==_ ,:-= ew;..w.__ .
e _-_. gy 8_ ;,,n_- g__.
; .:. ,e.
w
--- C-
--- r .--.u =
..:. =: e._:
. a , --- ; . .; , - - .s._ *t =
}
l _ ~ F== 1-('u,j))sz) actnj /2 6suetut ssaats c -
.-.___=w- ' - -
L... ?? ': .- - .: . T_~.
; - _- .:7--_._
- == ._ - ,
9 e
. 9m 4
I r e 85 5-13 l _. _ __ _ ._ __ ~- __
.IV
.l1 . .
,fg 4= M : 3 % .,~% ;; h ; %
. .. s s.a .'.;- =.+ L....
==. .
. Il .
,lg.- NN-
.09 {
7 [ -
. i 2 ...
[ A
.48
( r ANALYSIS
-. REQUIRED..
b S ~ Q
.07 s
- Y= S/a = 1.0 3 '
'g,
] ** l p g. _ . _ _
- f. :: . . g *- Y,= S/a = 0.8
- f. -
7
.,.. y ..
/- j e- Y= S/a = 0.6
- l-
- j. f : - '
7, f ! j-~d ,V= S/a = 0.4
', p
/
- i
-! i .
1 eCl-
. i l i ! . ; ;
i i : , i . . O.I o'. 2 c.3 0,y o,y FLAW SHAPE (4/4) FIGURE 5-6 ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS FOR EMBEDDED FLAWS, FRON TABLE IWB-3511-1 (Note that for Y < 0.4 the flaw must be assumed to be a surface flaw)
- m. w:= is 5-14
IABLE 5-1 EMBEDDED FLAW CASES ANALYZE 0 FOR THE UPPER a ' rdit 10 CONE WELD REGION DISTANCE OF FLAW EMBEDDED FLAW DEPTH (IN.) TO SURFACE I' I" I a/1 = 0.1 a/1 = 0.167 a/l = 0.333 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.12 T/16 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.1652 0.15 0.1652 0.15 0.1652 . 6 = 0.2313 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.06 31/32 0.03 0.120 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.150 0.180 6 = 0.3469 0.15 0.2478 0.21 0.2478 0.21 0.2478 0.210 t% 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.16 T/8 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.24 0.20 0.24 0.20 0.24 0.20 0.3304 6 = 0.4625 0.28 0.3304 0.28 0.3304 0.28 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.20 3T/16 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.30 0.25 . 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.40 6 = 0.6938 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.4955 0.45 0.4955 0.45 0.4955 0.45 0.12 0.06 0.12 C.06 0.12 0.06 0.24 0.18 0.24 0.08 0.24 0.o8 T/4 0.30 0.36 0.30 0.36 0.30 0.36 0.48 0.42 0.48 0.42 0.48 6 = 0.925 0.42 0.60 0.54 0.50 0.54 0.60 0.54 0.6607 0.6607 0.6607
SECTION 6 FLAW EVALUATION CHARTS-UPPER SHELL TO CONE WELD 6.1 EVALUATION PROCEDURE The evaluation procedures contained in ASME Section XI are clearly specified in paragraph IWB-3600. Use of ths evaluation charts herein follows these procedures directly, but the steps are greatly simplified. Once the indication is discovered, it must be characterized as to its location, length (t) and depth dimension (a for surface flaws, 2a for embedded flaws), including its distance frem the inside surface (S) for cabedded 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 %he charts (see Figure 1 2): , I o FlawShapeparameter,f o Flawdepthparameter,{ o Surfaceproximityparameter(forarbeddedflawsonly),f chere t a wall thickness of region where indication is located j t = length of indication a = depth of surface fisw; or half depth of orbedded flaw in the width direction 6 = distance from flaw centerline to surface (for embedded flaws i t only) (6 = s + a) s = smallest distance from edge of erbedded flaw to surface i j n u. x m. ""' 6-1
l 1 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 evaluation chart. Its location on the chart determines its acceptability immed'ately. Imoortant Observations on the Handbook Charts Although the use of the handbook charts is conceptually straight forward, experience in their development and use has led to a number of observations , which will be helpful. Surface Flaws The handbook chart for inside surface flaws is shown in Figure 6-1. For outside surface flaws the chart is shown in Figure 6-2. The flaw indication parameters (whose calculation is described above) may be plotted directly on the chart to determine acceptability. The lower curve shown (labelled ' code allowable limit") are simply the acceptance standards from IWB-3500 (or IWC-3500, for the newer code edition), which is tabulated in Section XI. If the plotted point falls below the appropriate line, the indication is acceptable without analytical justification having been required. If the plotted point falls between the code allowable limit line and the lines labelled ' upper limits of acceptance by analysis' it is acceptable by virtue of its meeting the requirements of IWC 3600, which allow acceptance by fracture analysis. (Flaws between these lines would, however, require future monitoring per IWC-2420 of Section XI.) The analysis used to develop these lines is documented in this report. There are three of these lines shown in the charts, labelled 10, 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 crack growth calculations. As may be seen for example in Figure 6-1, the chart gives results for surface flaa shapes up to a semi-circular flaw (a/t = 0.5). For the unlikely occurrence of flaws which the value of a/t exceeds 0.5, the limits on acceptance for a/a = 0.5 should be used as required by article IWA-3300 of Section XI. The upper limits of acceptance have been set at (a maximum of) twenty percent of the wall thickness in all cases, as discussed in Section 4 ux. im.ae n 6-2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )
Embedded flaws The evaluation chart for embedded flaws is sho.vn in Figure 6-3. The heavy > diagonal line in the figure can be used directly to determine W thar the indication should be characterized as an e.Thedded flaw or whether it is sufficiently close to the surface that it must be considered is a surface flaw (by the rules of Section XI). If the flaw parameters produce a plotted point ( below the heavy diagonal line, it is acceptable by analys'.s. If it is above
%he line, it must be considered su,f ace flaw and evaluated using the surface flaw chart in Figure 6-1 or Figure 6-2.
Vhe standsrds for flaw acceptance without analysis cannot be shown in tiie ! orrbedded flaw charts because of their generrlity. Therefore, they have been > t 4 plotted separately in Figure 6 4. Detailed examples of the use of the charts for both surface and atrbedded flaws , are presented in the following sections. i l 4 Surface Flaw Exaeele ; l Suppose an indicatien has been discovered which is an inside surface flaw and j has the following characterized dimensions: c i a = 0.12' t = 1.2* i t = 3.7' 4 l The flaw parameters for the use of the charts are
. I j
{ = 0.0324 (3.24%) , I {=0.10 7 l l Plotting these parameters on Figure 6-1 it is quickly seen that the indication is acceptable by analysis. To support operation without repair it is l l nx.tm.w:* " 6-3 : r
necessary to submit this plot along with this document to the regulatory authorities. Embedded Flaw Example Assume that a circumferential embedded flaw of 0.24 x 5.00", located within 0.2817" free the surface, was detected. Determine whether this flaw should be considered as an embedded flaw. 2a = 0.24" t S = 0.2817' 6 = 5 + a = 0.2817 + 1/2 (0.24) = 0.4017" t = 3.7" t = 5.0"
- and, a =
1/2 x 0.24"
= 0.12" Using Figure 6-3:
j = h = 0.0324 5t = 0.4017 3.7
= 0.109 Since the plotted point (X) is below the diagonal demarcation line, the flaw must be considered embedded. Since it is below the a/t = .125 limit line, the indication is acceptable, i
6.2 Modification of Hydrestatic and Leakage Test Temperatures If an indication is discovered in the Kewaunee Unit I steam generaters which is justified for further service without repair by the flaw evaluation charts of this report, an increase in the minimum temperature at which the hydrotest and leak tests murt be conducted may be necessary to ensure the required l margins of Section XI are maintained. In this sectien, charts are provided u nsne.w ane 6-4
for determination of this temperature, which is a function of the size and location of the indications discovered. Separate treatments have been developed for embedded and surface indications. 602.1 Embedded Flaw Hydrostatic and Leakage Test Temperature Requirements l The charts herein provide a simple method for determining the required minimum tomperature for any subsequent hydrostatic or leakage tests. Once an indication has been characterized, its size and location within the wall of
%he vessel (6/t) determine the alloaable hydrostat'. sr leakage test temperature. This may be done by simply plotti's the indication on the appropriate chart.
This determination has been made using the same methodology described earlier in Section 5. As discussed in Section 2 of this report, the value of RTNOT
- 20'F is conservatively applicable to all the steam generators. Figure 6-5 therefore covers the steam generator vessels for the hydrostatic test tempera-Bure, and Figures 6-6 through 6-8 cover test temperatures for a range of leakage test pressures. These figures cover the entire range of embedded flaw sizes and shapes.
6.2.2 Surface Flaw Hydro and Leak Test Temperature Figures 6-9 through 6-12 provide charts for the determination of hydrostatic and leakage test temperature requirements in the event that surface flaws are detected and shown to be acceptable by the surface flaw evaluation charts of Section 6. These figures provide test temperatures for a range of pressures, and it can I be seen from these charts that in some cases the test temperature must be increased above the presently specified value, for flaws in a small range of sizes. The figures show that slightly more restrictive temperatures are required as the test pressure increases. ma tm. wmns g.5 4
10 years 20 years
/ 30 years 20
" #
- UPPER LIMITS OF -
' l i ' I il jl !![ [ [ j ] ll ACCEPTANCE BY f Ill[ i Ti
! ! I 8! 1
!! l l: ~
l hl li liii I, i ii !{ [j U J! $. V 1 . l I lll 1 ! ((i
- il lll1 HI ! t ANALYSIS
.lf ! l. {l jlll 11i ilil IS! !l All ' I !!l !I I
I I II l}4 l 13il illi ili ! !!! l k Il
" 11 i , i ti .li hiii
.l I! ! ! !!I liN! [b!lf. fill.!Il Iit illi it i ;lii s!
L1s iiL i i iL! , I . I I !. l!If i,1l lh!1.1 J11 i! iin hii iiii lili !9! 4l!
" lilt (ti gy q .h !
' I -
t l I.
- ) t 11 i tIH 1 lii! iiiUiihi!! !!l[ -
y l ! II'! ;llIl WmMN TMS ZONE THE SURFACE
!L .l LI '
e1 I ll{ [l lil lll .lj} [j {ll1 i {e II i i . , , { ' !! I lif
? ia 't il l IIL ll I lili l !!i illi I
..I i l ll 1i n; I! { FLAW IS ACCEPTABLE BY CODE l lI .
}l : : is g
dld h y jlL Y4 !!il }UIl' [lj f i.
- I!E I
! I 1! JI I [
li ib 'i l iil
}i 'l ili Ii i 1. iill fljlR 1 .
l 1 iL HI llj[ i i il it li' illi i n 'i M I i j i !!'l ! it ANALYDCAL CRITERSA (fWS 30009 iiii iil iiil Illi !' l O 1 ! I
!!: I h I !! ill 11 !! Li i i !i 1 i !U' !!'i l!!J!
!II !!.IbSll I IL i li ui liti 'liUi i li Li . l- ! i . i.
, iii' i! !
if! !!!! ! !! II $ I II I a i ilI 1111ll11 Illi l'i U l' i !"' !l !i - dI ! E. Fl iU.Id! 0]I!jil IlI ljl! lili li'! ! l I i !! I lb !'j[8!I.!.h b Ill1 !Ili !tiillii ilt >k
- 1Il 1ill ild 1
- i ;
! i! il
'Wg!' N E MOWAM N O!i l]! !! hill iOS
! MI I !l 0! IllI N lii! !lli E ! ! !! l1 ! i !
iii; ii' ii .! l ' I !l . . 1;
> I! ! l . 13N1 b.EtU'II Mi illi il!I !IY !$^1983* W!"t*" 83 Add' through 198(
rli !! l li I llI !lli!II Il
$MJ '
N l %u y!1@ 4 ' ,!
; ;- ;,m ' Prior to 1983. Winter 83 Addenda j!l;,iMUE44d,!E il 11 i Il liiHN [III II'idi till in l! 9!! 'ih;
" liioiii ao maAtvT'CatausviF. Carson g igi ui ri, titi a ll utij n !I 4i ih Illnli! ri lii :n 0 IRi lejjj 2 ~
is REOWRED i$ ini lilij ii 11Liliiin 4 nili i i n il i 11 i ill 310 l11190 !!!!!!h 10 l O. U.4 0.5 O O.1 0.2 0.3 riAwsHars wl FIGURE 6-1 FLAW EVALUATION CllARI FOR CIRCUMFERENilAL INSIDE SURFACE FLAWS IN lilE UPPER SHELL TO CONE REGION n m m ..
10 years 20 years [ 30 years 20
- UPPER LIMITS OF Nh $ h hifh u , :;d j qjjjW Nh " "
i .b , hh
!ill k I I!!! V Rl! HH !!
. h bh lii H1 in lpj ip jli ;
!!! !Il mi ITl1ml 0Illii IIH. ii iii it! iii lii i,n k,n '; f 3 I Ii
?i u. ik
;ii; i
1
. ap li tj' 4
i ,' 1
.ifin i; M iiiii,3 i;%i' !Ilh:li
!!!! 'I hlD !H !ik !i !Iliilli ili :Ik 1U Wi Ill iili IIi li'i ff iill iiii ili iii i ii i 'iii i i i gm!
b yl lm !! IIIif 7 p I i i;h
$'"ij,p!':
!!!i 9!I ifD @! [h O lil $ i!!i hi i Igi' l jij R@ i.F lli! WiTn:N TaiS zone THE SURFACE lill I i
'F l l "1l I! i i l ltii d l ' i lii !' .' .!I FLAWIS ACCEPTADLE BY CODE 12 ;:!!
E T' i; h!$ l[ jiii h!! 1i !ij g 4" W i
- !!!! !I ;ili :l:I gi i ii i 1 !!!i 'lh ANALYTDCAL CRITERIA (lWB 3600) o, $ T ?!/l! iiil III li$ ili[ tsi jil [ h ili in llliith i$ IW iii 1: [: m;ji b ":fl!W ;I IIU III O
5
! I I!
)FIIii $!
$ $1 1ii ((i
% h hihial[j h,id[ jjli !!! i! I'!! !!!! !!!i !!! $l! d!!
j!! % !!Il !I!i @!!!!! i!!: Ilii til; ii; !!1i lH ,lh .i 1 r dh :11 l' : ; di i l' [.- E!! i l i i i t
! ! } ; li:
- d, iiip.
4
.a jj i: ::li :~h '.l!' $ !!!! 11 ;i!! id! O!! llli I;li 'Hi 11 0 !! 'jil l ill! ili; :il; CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT:
T : h 1F !!ir 'ii! !III @i !ft Tii! '!L! iii; $1 iiliilIi ll'i 3jS&jiil ;;;' ;j;; ;jj; ti !!P 1983. Winter 83 Add. through 1986
- 3. R M!.' di! !ib '.ll! !!h !ij' lill 4:I tii' 13A n i a iiii gj. .n. c .ip y .!F 7 Prior to 1983. Winter 83 Addenda g qq ;,;, jijj q]; iig j jg gj iiii r
= v 'g4 gi .... ,m ,,..
, g 3,..!@l th..!'g !JJi;;T '
2 y .jg ij ,in 41; iiii ;ii! illi itil $j thi ilh is i!j 2'f lq NO ANALYTICALJUSTIFICATION ith jf' "! !IF III' illi llh 0. I E I! ill 5: lt? $ K (i!il![ , lli [th ith iFi III Uh 6 i p :11! iiji g ;i] IS REQUIRED 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 FLAW SHAPE (a//) FIGURE 6-2 TLAM EVALUATION OIARI FOR CIRClMTERENTIAL OUISIDE SURFACE FLAW IN Tile UPPER S!! ELL TO CCNE WELD
1 SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION LINE, BEGINNING WITH 1980 CODE I 0.13 d- :t=:I i n - i tuato'ono rdw . r/ r: e
. . . . ... g ..3. , . . ,, a r co,wrioumatiow r -:- r--- - r- rl : .ilm. r-
+ FLAWS WITH 7 0.12 E AtOVE THIS LINE ARE
...;. A+=.==g. .g "..
- -i:- .: .: d . .
- i. f".- . . ~ --
NOT ALLOWABLE
.= .
.;;: -l Q. ... . .) .=_fp
; =; : .
n g
- a4 r. ,ic; . ).;;g, ..,_. ,.
=.
- 2. . . . : :. -
- :.. _ . gf :;-
.gn T 0.10 :. .
. l _/.l./.!. p.y ,. :: . ._
i= = ' '~ =" 'I {i 4L I ih ' "i 5 EiE aI 0'09 ht. e if4 i !!h i! -
+
t # : su:=~" : . ..r. :_: .m H 3 0.08
' * ' ' ' " * #6
# i~ "~
5 d ~ " -i I 0.07 7=1+ ~ sunrAbt.
';1 PT Y!IiE5 'S
~ *
"O. .
i N '= o - z
- k. 0.06 iIdws im This' meoiow uustet c..
=fil : .
bl.
~
- @ "=i O acoNsiormto t"- -
rh .-
- 'm g isvarAct j (.' s.it : - . . . .
7 -ni4 0.05 -Flaws :- u--
$ :---/ .
I I 2 0.04 - l' 'i"
,u.
f- .t-u.p q:: .
;./ ni-r: ::} .
- y. j 0.03 1 ,
f .
. xg.
/t
..i ai- p 0.02 r . ..
p :=. u 0.01
"! *bi "" "
, :r 4 u . p; -
ir
} } ::h: :ft t- l: .:l : I l
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE h C Westinghouse 1987 l l 1 FIGURE 6-3 ER3EDDED FLAW EVALUATION CHART FOR CIRCUVFERENTIAL INDICATIONS IN l THE UPPER SHELL TO CONE l nx. e :"' " 6-8
.lY
,l1 . ..
E = %/a . 3ML .Afs ..<3. , Y.11_3A . t eld - i
.--- =. 2:..
. ll .
~%.
.10 - -
,,.3
.09 I ---
n ed I f g
- 1 me<
~
i: p ( , ANALYSIS
. REQUIRED.,g .g; ,3 S - -
c *g) s + Y= S/a = 1.0 il
/
5 1a I
~
i u . / ... . f, u . . , -
-- Y= S/a = 0.8 j.
- y. _ , .
M .. .
.,. .- y .. I
'~
f- j - Y= S/a = 0.6
; , . g, , . _ _
.03 _p
/ ,
+ V= S/a = 0.4 i
l l
.01 ~
; i .
3
; i
- t
.01' -
. i : i . . t l *
' : j i , I . 0.1 o'. 2. oh 0.9 c.5 FLAW SHAPE (a/4) 1 l 1 I FIGURE 6-4 ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS FOR EMSEDDED FLAWS, FROM TABLr, twg.3511-1 (Note that for Y < 0.4 the flaw must be assumed to t.: a surface flaw) m:. t.:w n: 6-9 -
l SURPACE/ EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION UNE 0.1 3 . . _ . _ . 160
._ 1. ..,. _ - - . . _ _ _ . _ . .
= . . . .:.::s:-' _.:.
. . 1 ~.1:1:. .. : %, (M s g DDR D FL.AW :F[ N:
2 .:ciaE:] ': 3.40
.ijii:E .. W 4 ===+ tr C0%fl0VR -~~*" AT80N 7l r.
.r . - ....
0.12 ..: : .".
'ri)
. . m .4 ;ii: if; -i:!;.ii: .;;it] y :'
55:iW' t</:r: + /* N " %'7 - (I :'b ' '! 5 [$ !!IIli j:$ di 9" O.11 -
= rE u ra E ._ir[ :L=0 # u /. .. ..-. = .sr. .y, .5.e.
_'E .
~~_.
~ I" 5/ 'iI i'?5IM !SiHE I! #
0.10 9 _'.
.!w=- c _u"I .. . -
~, ' ' '-
' ~
@.3 = .::faf.y g ggg:i 4 a.g ,...9 120
. . - - ~ ,
0.09
;"IU = ~
'#i '
- I._ '" U "# ilj .;'!EI P0' 5'HM:ie" #E
#[w f,'l-y- ' n. 'i 9 r(! Mff if H *.:jf2<, .j ::iij& .i:ly. g 3 0.08 ? ts pgabONN'Y p E #U . h.Fi% T' : .
M- @ fgij);,: =g4d gigy::Rg .g '; g 0.07 Ii [svN,Nai E Y 5M i- F;d I!i3 : 8 E Jii+T::.q : L @9II/P tfG.gi".t.-N -;rg U.: din.i.:=. g ,:3.1_..i.s. i. . . E 0.06 j'uws IN ms Pfs # MW3P:.; W. @g'e .:N ~ i jCONsIDERIDR E GION IiME MusT-II" StI: E 79 "E' -MlE :!'FiE 0.05
- s WA 7 ACE [:E :::- p: g ---(:"; ;
.. :: a:
= =,: .;4; 2:
- :r-
+m euws.mg (7:s =. .a: .: =. : : E.q. : .s.. ., (.:.: ...a
.n. .= , . . .=..: .
i + :// =W ++ Y - z 0.04 "; E
.i4= g3dw-y 70 l
~7
.r= s n==: // . Et, 3.: .t+.: ei: . ... e.g.. .
.., l
!M F T Y-
'~
~
0.03
'.W=_ :
. f/ --n.ID.wi.s..
#, E'"5 DV
.c ;,y..,."i..e fiMT' lH'
.. w
=
!= E-
*- E 50 l
0.02 Z55".
- ij 'W"&.s&Th, p3- d:' usin + -@ .
0.01 Y5NE# "E @ 4 '~ %,5 ! -M 3is
+;
dM :r-i=xr
..a .q - .u- w
.,- mm .. . 4:.2.:. q:.
.1.s. ..= ..
w'm n ~ w~
..p;nym' 'r.-.. =
m o .- u- ,, 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE d) i FIGURE 6-5 DETERWINATION OF HYDROSTATIC TEST TEMPERATURES FOR CIRCUWERENTIAL EP3EDDED FLAWS (P = 1355 psi) 1 nmwinne 6-10 l l l
t 1 SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION UNE 140 0.13
.==.==,,:e ,= A r. .t l.--: tuntoono s raw. -"4 (Fr .. =. +m . . - 120 . -
+ 5. 8. 1.+. :; .c _r 0 N F iO V..A A..f. TON .i . ,g.r .r- .?..
sit .E. . . . . . @. . _f 0.12 .: -
;: / J ..
-.q. ..:-- .- . u,
- g. 55.s< :::
/._ ; . . . _. 0 b' ..* - -
p :_- _< ..
- :.- L, 3:. t..,,=, -f :. 2::a e::j. pg.: ,f:5.~. .;;/
- 2. :.:
- _:f._..
s .::- T1. ; . f. .-;._ :p.. f. a. . . tier ,,; 2.. , F'
... ,. . e.:.: . . . . .. . . .
?: ,S -:
-_- =- t !:: :.1."] ::q :".
5;- -JT:' 'i r rd ', .:9 : .tj-i:ijf :2- :@/; '.t2 3:! :T:. t:- i
.iEbi~ !. - t t- 3.; N TE-5 "- -
I.Nh NU. M-E ldiib 3Ei.O ii '.: s O .W..i rif #fiit Eniii4!L~ 1 : 0.09 .-..
.t :. --
- i".:
aTw r. .:
. . . . ?., /-
. . . .! :.:. :: . ::_ r." _ . -::.td:~.r-:.=
=:--
. .Mf; : .z' %;k,,;;; '[;(,i .2:li'. di- .-if.{::,';9 Q:yliijj@
g 0.os ::tb -
. .".-. .C_ l_ r_t.. e. t '-:_::n. .: :. r. . }_':-_=.._:=. . .
,e.,. g past 8 Du :. :
C*07
; . .jp ;:
-svafae *
.I'.La
"- f[5 :$; .0,J,1-C -- -
*p,7-,,5, 3igijji;Tg-j:p-g Ei.!=. i' T q o ? 1J #as'~h#k c.s' i:sii% ~:..:PMf
...4 . .
70 g 0.0S jFLAWsINTMi8 Ty~J f "! i- " E'W i# "~t' T:dE.":3~~~. '"a, -
.: . : .:: : .: ~"::'" .: r r. .r:::
macios wusT esS =" ~ "" '- 2" = : A. '= - 50 1 4coNsionato tiisuaesca /tn+ din = :Tr ~:it .' r" 1:4M'+W 0.05 *:..*.u w s. r.:' .- ' " - T ? ' ." / e.+ =1
- - :=zn.. a. . :. r.. in. . t.:: a.
.r. .v>/.w ]T ..u ... .
35:2_ l' ' . ' . i:22 fiit:' # db 4 ' . . 'Xh?. .ib ifi'_[
*~ P?;
0.04 - - - -- -
/ "
n.= :.s.: -,r." :4
,.rGi.
,.:: f::' .i a..,f. :
i.i. :. 2.W.
. .,a -- . -
. "m. . .r.h. . ...
V:TV M/ -
== =y<T w;M : = ::E V *e n :"
0.03 ; __; 37,
- :a g __y. .3 . , = j; .7 jg ,
9 j, r"F:.0 ?. 1-r =. :!ri- in '- 3:: !=' rc- ri: Er 0M .tvMit/ td.- h 33.; r ;,gf;,,. g :=j ;;g;; 73;;., _ r . , ,,g j< , j;7a 3 ,g.g ii !f' '~ ~" '
~
#* ~I ~ i 0*01 fff:nJ g: E,n i- :. .:m:! fM. . t; . ad. u: dii. :,:-
.w :4
- 4
, KiE -1:
1- { age:1;r:1 ii.- . i 7.] ; - - C Westinghouse 1987 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE h FIGURE 6-6 DETERV.INATION OF LEAKAGE TEST TEMPERATURES FOR CIRCUW.FERENTI AL EW.3EDDED FLA'n's (P = 1085 psi) m.w:e e 6-11
1 ' SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION UNE Y 0.13 . . . . . . , . . -
.14;IlaetDDED FL.AW : [l; I d1 E' E. l i
-E-".aV ":1
':i$P '.,
- c. ;
- u. -- -- q. -a3 .. +
.. .rC.0. .W 10. .y. a. A T.io..N f ".. .i r- = . - .+' + r. ::,!
'g t' t5 W
#Pd v -
':t1WM"
- Mu j"Hf-#nu '
E5' dr' ] -% .!P: ? $ f. i
- ii-R PE.ru Jf g*g g .
J.iF.i-. _ : 3-- ,
- f. .j .;y:5 f:
- f. . ,2:. .:.!En:fr#Al:.: 70'F 5?: :pb S:. ~1- .r. _
#9;i,ffI e.':ii : j(:( .:Eify
..=at . ; .- p :... :' .7.:,: r. p.y 5://.:.E l: ,., - 50 ..,.
f ~&'Ni 4iT' G 1 & '
k "# 'l
'i y};,, 0 09 p=+ ::3 :i.l \fi-f- .f .y =. ; -
pA: .:=i; =;piyi .,a.
- i
.=. } dp F ii a' : Nam (gj[:E]d .- :K ii< . n) * .j ._5Myhiil';i 3 0.0s ri C.:- (
ea s p $,a tu t:
/. u:)/
...c . . if. ; .
. " . .,a,t:= . := :nu.::. . .r t- 86g . -
/:.:sumeact: . t. -.
1
- :: e:ugf".: .-:.= /. -r. :-- :::p I
g :.=:
~ -
1}. r
- f.:
0.07
- T. E.
- . p. ... . _
g .a. sT.: p. .. .:n. .:=: 1'
.:- .r. .....p,... .
- m. :.::,:.r, ; :=.p. :.. . .
~'~
.li.UNd'i 0.06 fj p Laws IN THis l'[iMFf# r"- SiE:
. . p-kE. - . .; .
- f:- . .. .r g :-
sa7I'"r .,/ " b. T "' 2.
.i..Rtoion CONstDE Rwust "I
* ~ -
i O ED - l liisuRf Act M(=3/;ul:i Q(. '.E.' yt" .%n[:Id@:5 O.05 9 7 t.Aws #fn. ...i.
!.t: .-+----/,rW .:$.
- - t--
., :is
'h * -
IS5i'[ ~~" ~ E' 'I) 5 0.04 _j J'/l .. .
, . r -r.1 .- u(
%Q.4//.gj3:: .= :rta 1 - .
ri[:r. ? .
- )
0.03 gg. cj7 .: . , .,. f .; ,, , ,y ,jg ,,, . , , d l - t ii'. : -
- [:d .}E ;.. q...
-i/{i 0.02 ,.y. r' I, . . ) .- .
. a.,. . n.;
.. . n. .
.::..::ar-
. n :t . u' a t t p~ .
u.
' ' ~
.- .u. ;
.. .:: l A "i5 -
0'01 iipi.- -itt? 1 i: al.; ...
.K l
.f; i ti+ u F ri - 1- i ei n- i 1: a:la i o wmwee lse'; t 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE (Il t FIGURE 6-7 DETERMINATION OF LEAKAGE TEST TERFERATURES EM3EDDED FLAWS (p = 750 ps0 6-12 i
i I
i
} }
SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEMARCATION LINE 0.13 , _
=
70' 50'F i t:. Ai:b..[.d . rJ Uh-dfr t M BI DDID PLAW FY. h.l " --
'" E :[-
e, ; . g. - .>, 3;a, O..N C
- 1. f rh:-- T 8 6m 0. V..R , . .
At.l.0..N
. f La. 4.T ,.1::. '7; ? a.; ;. h.,. 'n 0.12 g" :". .. ...
g_...g""*
.:=_ .1.:. . 7. .-. *.r . ;:. . " . :}. . .. p:. ::... ;. ~nq t,tj 4::.. :h..: .;.:- .:
- r. - . . .
_ g , . 0 11
# ' I 'I- ' -
i I' - 55 34I2~ MN N7 = " th LN'N: [! h5hb. N Niih$!. ii.~ N.b
- 5'.' ;
- .j / ;y 5 :u .iii E-;
0.10 :n-: ,m. -Q - -i] v.p -
,.: i.:-i:QT: ::
. . . ..g. := ... p_
- g. M. _ ._e ._:...:n: _
- 4_. . _. ,:: .. .
..=.2..:_. 2
+-
- n. n :. : s. . :=
'~ ...l~~:
-~ R --
1:;:::.:J 4,, ,~; .;.:
=M ,, r . ;;;-
't : ' "
i .-- .a r:- -
=: : -a :":=--
0M _: L--- e ,en 'YY I. TH -5 s
$5:N q
k$ ' t. . ::d. 5i
'. :.U
?
g p = :.:r' . . .;;: . a:: . 5:...::
-.: 'l: r:
. . .3:
g 0.0$ 'M@,
" ' ' =,..-~~7'*::=
m :- -' .<
+ s >!g a p
- I 3 .-
6/t liiW !!#:i s' i'# M . . . ... . . . .a
=@
.n. '::....::r. r:::'=
- =::n- *
.:::.: .*r [r;: =-=-- .;:::r" _..J :.2- . . .
O*n
's .
, . ';e%.u E
g
' :.; J :_: : m a, ::r.n' 1cI .3.::
- .1 -.:.:1 : :
e: ',T::- 1=..,
~.. *:
r.r-
..y" -- m.
'a . :g;r.
M= 5 0.06 J., nio,3% Pt.awsu,*N37 tesis,E P ,f fif ', F# . #d '95W 3 CON 8tDE RIO -)" :2.;u
... ~" ,:
"U " . y# **'"" "' #
, ex .;;; , ..~~ .
'~
ijsVAfACE :' 1,iE id? -ihiIir2 1 0 .05 -
= .:. d:,
g gw,s ,t _ r,_fi y'i 4'= g,' !4t, =p=g} y,'i.:_=j
- 0M
}' f?.'t
#5 ' 'I f! '
. i.d. d. , f.:.'N
[ '==' #
- . .ng.i?
~ ' ='
'" Ni @ I E'; $t
. .9. .r .
- i'
. u." 9 ._.- . .n. ,i..n dii -:
W me. iE=p.W / :d 'i! EiliiW:0 Arn- ;:. :-T+. =. 0.03 . .s . , > -n,,,
...n ..,.,i.
. .f .
. . . . .~... .. . . . .. . .i;. .;. , . .. . 3. .
0.02
,tjiR/ :i- 'E3-
.E Ai . .
'=: 'J . :id*b.NM . ...
i= Lac -3: di
=. .. -
_ 1 . : u.
. :-...-r.=. . a.::
-- . w :_..,.. = . .
=...-n =::: . .=- .--.
- r. :3 f .;;gi.L;;; 0,.[:: :ih iMQ N.3 di ;di "-
. .p . ;.*'[
- n3 0,01 . .
- :-3. : n._ ..: .-_: r.. .. .-.a (:-:.
, r.
..1 =. .
u..y. ,
+
.t .. .m. aj.mq;;4. ..:_:
. }. .. i. -
e c3. . 4 n;-. . . e c w,,gingnovee Iggy 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE h FICURE 6-8 DETER 41NAi!ON OF LEAKAGE TEST TEM.FIRATURES FOR CIRCUV.FERENTI AL i EM3EDDED FLAWS (p = 500 ps0 r 6-13 i
4 t O w m o O N n f O e m
@ O N $
.r;n.:: ., . . .. ... : :m. . .._-. w . ; y ; 3, :.M. . . .=. .g 7. m. . ..g o
. -n
. . .m. . . . .. .. .. .. .g
.m..... . . . .. . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . .
fi "
.:i .: di W- :-- - . n: nr: -n--&#- b 4.iiiEi 3ihiii:i:
hie::irf! C:(? :i li :- .fi:iH fi n :::i E HeiE L. iMi.1 . ? ; H Sin;;;:.:i - - - : : ::: :: : 7. :. . :: ::nu
- n :::: .' c ar ' ' . : . . : ' ' .: ;
e
. . . . . , S ; . . ,.. . . . / . .
4........3.....;g .......;.,...q;;..
- : . :: : =::::4 :-:;.... n y~ .:; ::. =:. . :.:: .. w w
7:- 2C m :* :-{n:.r
.. = : : v ru zn..n. :: .=.:x m.nz:. n .17 :p: z ;,. .::7. :.. ': .
g.n n.y . ::.n.. ..!'..n.;..;
, g:m n . . : : :mm. .. _ l ': . : : T '
- n!".
- '.
.. . ..: n n. . :'. ' .. - .:.: .'.: .' . . .' .:'g. (.
.. ..-r--
-. -: . -:: -n - d
- i nr ::.t . :-
%, m, 3
- k. : : : .:. :c r.n. n . n n r ....,: . n..: : . .n 3
- : - 2
.nn3.p :: n
.n=n
- nn . - / :. :; :::. -. ::. ,
- z= n ==
....:.n.-
- a. . h. z::. . . . .r N N i a
.. - . . ." : : b. .u . :I :::
'.*m*- "d. .. . ;: .;. :r4. . .:_ . ;;;. ...; .. :. ..I... - .. '. U.. n... .... . ;;!- .. 1.: .. .::
f n - t .: - : . .:::: .. =n:. n.
- n-:t u.nr.:.n.:.- ...
ri:-:
- . .n_n. ..
i: - : n... n.. ..: . ..- .
- r. . . n.. 4;. ..u.; .:. .:n.a,
. : := =:u... . .w..:C :-; ... A. . n
- n - - 8 M
nn
. . . . :. . . . .. . . . : .:g*: . . - :... ".::: . m. : . r.....
. .:.= . . ;.n.. :. .g. . -. n. .M. .. . . . .
* : na
.::n;;; . :::.. ::::: :; . .
nnn ~;: --
- m. .;-.~ n .t
- 7 -- : n : .. .
- ' -:.. ..t
-- ' .4.:;.-. -:: :-
g p s j
;7-- :- p' m p- n ..n .: :, n - - . ; .;; } ;' -" {:: - .. y CL m n n:, .. : . .. : :.m: . : : r. - im u so
.nnn_t: .n n .. x.n.. . . .. .;: - : - ..a... . .
i-
- m n : . . . :n : .. r : w..... . :......... :.
- - .' .:"...;:r.. . -' .g -'. ;.7 . .
3 -- .. '.-:. > M
- n::: .: nr:: .Tn:n--:--
- .:. ; n .
g g
- .n. . .~. . ...-.. .
- . - :. E..:: . -?n ' .; u.
i.:. n. : n r ..:.: . :n . :.. . . . : 8m a.. Hi.m.. _ . m. . .. .M. . . . D.. .n i.t. W., . .X.../. E.. . . -. K. . . W,: y
- n. m.m.
k'. b .t
* $ ~- o w
,l
. .a =r :n W <
-n, - : 7 .. - . . *. . . . . .-;i .c : .: .:=-
l l Kihi::
- n:;..n .
.' .:n:*:
.z : ...: n . . . . .. / . .. n :
r .. ._- ' Cn r . . i:.3 .:.a..;. ;.. : au . -. Ce ... nc: 6 M O ::3 i l
. :.: . .. . - . :m .: . : . .: ...: . . . . - ... .
NO
.n;;2 : : .
.=,+ . :;.---
.. . k . ;- ' ' -
; - a
- U. x ,.. . - - w. : . n a'
. .. I: ... . . : . .t g l l
j
.'- %: * ~~ . * m::'. -:;
'" .* :: - -~.-: :';. . .: .. ...:'.
.-' ..T- .
O n. ~. ~. . ; ;.'.:.'~........ .:: .. :._.[ -- ' :'. A.' . .c'.'...- 1.' .. - p
< p-- i e .. . - ..
.n.
; - rc . : -- e r -- - p
- : :..c: n::: . : .: :
@; ': fi~ jizi- .-.j- R n- r
{. ' iP > j; i '.- f-t . f 53 w cic l
- .. c -. .; Tj . , - .. . . . . . ' ^ .m.
J... ...-.. g y
.: n. .:..c. . . -. =-- . . a. :.. . . .,
.. . .:....- kJ j ,::, ::n;: . ~. . .;.. ^ . ;. ..:. _. d.t
W
'~. n'_: . ;n '..'. . ' . ....;_'.. -..'"...::... . ;
. . ' ... -. - ..y.... g
;. n .
g ._n . l g ::. ;.n .:;9 U ":~ r d'n . : . .j r: .:- x". Q O r-~ N 1
; i ;.
' . . .. ......;.. . . '- ...... ' . . .. .. m
'iUE'..M.r.9.
_..m..
........u... . ... .n..- n: . : ' .- :- . . . . . .
mu ' y.,,_, m .n: ..; n .. . . -.c- .~.,. . . .. .. : '.n. . c . : : i r*.;n:;_ ; ._ c
- .: rn :n:s:.r.;:n. nasc... :.nn . . ' _. n* @
t
*32,C . -- *: T h.:-
- ..r..-
n..
.. '. * :.n :T. '.n'. ' : n . ! -- : r-'.
- '-*.'-'..- g u o e e , a o w
- - =
l R - - - 8 6-14 4 i
f 0 2 1 0 4 0 1 7 5 _ !!1!!:!!!!
- ! nnj:!!! bl.n::!!1!in!i!i
! ii! ,! i:
l 0 !!!!
! !a!
l n!!!gnj!!!:! : ! l!:!
!is;,!!1ii
!l j!
in!!!I i
!!!l E .n!!nl:'!;! i!:!In y.l. i i! II!n!!i" R
- in.in:!iE;!
l.
! u:!i n!i
!!ii;!iin:n !n!j:Ii
!i!;!k!
f!::nn!
!.n
!j
!!! jai!i3 !H" iiI!j !
O R nl:!i~i!i!;! n!:: !:i:n!i N;;! !i !in.nnnl P!!i !!!" ! jt i-! !! F En!nln:"I!;!H i.nnn!iiIin!!H"" l!!Ii
- !::i ! ::!i ! ! W.::: i ! ! I i n ! ! ! !!!
- !!i!i!ii!!"
!!!! i!
S i!;!Ni:nn.n!WnI!.I!!"
!;! i:
! ui:i n!nH !
j::
.:i! n.n;n!ij! !!;!
j:! b.!:;.n!i!" iin;. i i !
!n!!! E.
P
;!:n ! ;.:! !!
n !:! !!i!l" U ) n!n!!- ;n!!j;!! ! -l!l!' !n!!:I _ !i! 4 E::!:! n ;3:!!;! O!nnin!!i" n-l!li" !n! j!!! !!!" T i
!i !;! ! i::::: ! !-i8!
! !i" !: ! .!!!
0 A s
!i!;!
i !.! !!" i: i!i R p
!i!;! ! in :nnl !i" 0 'En!n! n!:! n" nn!! !i!;!!
!! !;! ! i :
!;! ! l n ::n!!i"
- ! !;! !f n
i!i in!
!n!!!i
! i!ii !ii E
P 5 8 W;i:!u:!n! :T:! !!;! g.:!!;! i;!! !. !i: ni! i"nn :! nj!!i i
!nI ! !ii
!ii 1
!n!! n: :!!;! !i:l:n- l -!! ni!ii! ;;:
!n!ii: !!ii M 8 n!:!:n" !!;!NI'nung"Hn" En,inin:!i!:!h;n.unj H:"* !.!li!i E 0
!!;! !:!ii!
0 l n!tI!i ilH liI !
! !n!I! !
!i l'ii !t T 1
- !!!:nn!!Hi' ! ln" t l;: !!
6 1 E ir;:ni: I t ! i
! i.!
nn!ii !; i .H ln!!
- ! ! " n
!! n
!i nil!
iiHi!i
!n!!li
!ii )
T = S l
- !!"!!!! !!li 3 #a E p Egin!:n!"! ;n:!::!:
niin;:ii !;i !;! N!*jan!!j!!n!ii!!! ina!ii!! !ipii i 0 ( T (
- l Hn!:!n::iii !;i!!-!n! !i:i!!;i j.t!I!
i-!.! !-!! u.g!!l!!u!!!!!
.nil:!!!
- n. iin!!!!! :!
E E S W ;: i i ; .i! U;;!
]:
!!!-j. ij i!
!!!n!!!!
I!
!n!!!!
i!!! P GW A E;;n.::lg ;! ;: n:!i
!sl;!!N l;! ! ls!H:!!iI!!! A A n nll!
ill:! ii!gn ! l
!!n!!i!!B!
!l"5iuI!!! !! !! !
K L H
!i E ;u;n.aiF!.! n.!
! l; ;i g !iIj:l.l h'!
8 ijill.! n ! j:! i !
! fl*i
.i-
. Ij:
!i!
!nI i
-i
-ln!!!! ! !!!
!l-S A F E
j gl- !i! W L E Eili .n l
.i~I I! !
l. I! ili
! ! 'lI
-n n
il j:I' iH88
!!E i!
l 2 L A F A O F C E ;s hl.n
! il:i ll
!ln .!
- 0 F R I
! "l!;a h*!.u N U
- I g"- n O S E
! l lj
!.. l;
}
I Wgl:
- I!
I! T L
;-l - !;:
III I Ii HI ! A A _ !g Il i l N I T Ei8ln
! l I 0 !;
I l. l 8 6
!l I
= i ll M N
- 1 '
! i:;:!
! !.;. ! :.I R E E R R
8 1 ibI !H,."! tl . jl T E l I a .! ,l p1, g 0 E F "l"lg, E j.! 'lii s !i
!i !
" i D F i
i
!l l !ii. Il" i ! i!"
!i! U
- i
!! l. ln'!l!' .!li" C R ;!' n N !
!l!i I!I!2 us i! !! ,!!in 0 R 0 I I i.j!H : ! ,l i
1 I 8 R
- i l
r :fI ! NH !fl.' - C
.! l !J !! ' i.I' 6 f
E ::g]! - i
- 8
.l epfl:
d juU l.I ij I 83H!H.I ll!
.I!
E R
' ulI i! . -li1I i8 :lIIll!'i:!ii" o U O G 2 0 8 s 4 2 4
_ I 0 8 6 1 1 F 2 1 1 _ i :
*3 i '
i I>g O 34a_u.
- E df 3.:, .~
- i .
m0*
g
' eq.
I f 4'
!F i a r ,
a 2 r
.~
s 120 20 !Mi :iiM .in!!Hl!!!hn!!!!!!hn ininth MH 1 :x. mb: M ;: hi : ::::!i# 1 70 l 1:n . . . ~::.. .- . .,- : :::::::,....:m: ::::n::: :: ::n: ::: ' : : . . . : .:::.:: :: -: .: : - . . :::::- :- 18 .?!:j P.F.l f f ILis !U5.M 5.1, F.5 ! i ?, UF_.: T ;... . : i z1 . =.Z . , : .M
~
- n:= ;; ; ..- x - : : .-
- . x. , 7
- m. . . . . .: -
=. . . . m.g. . . n. . : : : m. ; n. :. ; ;; .
. n.
. 7 ;... ,
...s...:
a:.: b ; ' '...:.-
$. ' . .. . . :::;:: . ;; .:::::: . : .::: . . .. . ::,, . . . .. ..S
- N..
10 . g :. ; :
. '. : : : :: : . : :n:::::
' . . : ' : . : : ;.; : : ' r :!: : ; : .::. ::'... : : . . . ' : .' : : . ' ' ' - - S; .
4: - ;
- :1 - : :9 ::' ![F -
u=: =4 i: 1 E : ; ' ll I 14 " i - I @.m :jis h= m: c: 5M.. : : -.
, c : .. H . ' 5 h.! [ ! [..
sA I 6.- . . . . m.: . ' ." i E!
) 12 # - "
M His : ".:
.... - :+- - . . m H .5: H u'-. : . . : . .::. .. ' . . '. : : . : : : . ::
;; .: . . . u. : : : . : .........,..........::.....-
. : . ": : ::r:::: ::::::
A
- n. '
. . . : . a. . . . . . .
tua: p. n a
- ..~'=:' : m".
m --' e w 10 x :..Hm=:1 n ..r Hir::
-m = m n =: :n ::::.= m n ::
'i.py inR ::;;n.
T c- ...,.'.-...;'.' M
- - *: :' ! 3 E ! !H Hi.
- H!
R T H:'i E :..i: H :H:n Eni! !HiH~ UH H.L:: ! s~.rm:- ' :.i.. 4 0 'i'- : . . : . . . . . E H H ' H i: . : . . M. i . E E.; i . E. 1 : n:. - -
- .....:.:on.:..r
_J ... : u :::. :. ::: = .:::mn
- . :::H;i iHH!!H ::::n..: iiiHE : iii!HHI ::= :. :::.m iiiEE.t i:' -: i...:! -i ":'M-. " ;-i ' . .::(: ' - t: . H E Ti -
. ::.:.n g --:. . r . . .m: . =. : . . . . . . ; .;;;
=. . .. r... . . n =. . = : =. ..;.n:n .y . ,
. .. ; . . n M ::: . .:. . :::'.1': .: n.: : ::: :: :. -
......:..:.n:: .m:m: :::n:u: :::::::n :.:
n ::: :
- :: . : :: :::: ,. . ::: n:: :. : = ::::.. : .::::: : '..- : :- .
,..........'.~'.':..'....:. . . . . . , . '-::
#:::": ::::: -. . . . " ~ ~ " '
=": - '-
4 =sm":i.":..' m +m""n:H=H:n ="n "H H i: h . L = - - - - : o .- - . . . . . . . .-. . ;r: r.:. .
.. . . s.-...e.....
i
- , . . . . n. . n.: .:. =.
- a. . . . o. . . . :..o. =.. m. . m. : ..:: ..: :
- . . n. . : . m. . .
- m. . : ::::
......, :::::. :; ::::t n. :.n. .::. ::......r....-
. .-.. - . x.- . ...:-
f 8 ' . ' Y:
'!f ij!H .i3h!:n !!;!E :'. n'l ,: . :: : :
k
- .:':': :! ':;t: . - - : .:
n: r n n :n. :::n.n c - - -
- n ..' : ... n=:: nn
- !h i 'h' ' :5i! !!!'t f h!! fi !!) hh !f !I i - - '" ' ' !
0= : ":========== " ' =- 0.5 3
! 0.2 0.3 0.4
' O 0.1 ! 4 , FLAW SHAPE lam i l FIGURE 6-12 DETERMINATION OF LEAKAGE TEST TEMPERATURES FOR CIRCUNFERENTIAL i
; SURFACE FLAWS (p = 500 psi) -
1
s n
. . a
~. -
~
I a i a
=
E y 140 120 -
. . . m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20....-............................................un::r. n::.:::::.:::: nan:n:n:n.n::n:n:::n:nn n.:n:.:w:n :...:n:. r nann u.::.:n :.n n::;.n.:::e u::n .: n::n:n ann:n.;nu:n: nu::u: ::uu:nm un:::n:::r:::::: ' ....n n.n on.::nunw nun:nn n :n: inn: unn ::n: n
- .:.n.n :nn::n :nnn::. ann:n n.;::n: :nn:.: . n u m " ..n :n:: n:n:n: :e n::n .q:n. =.. n:n::::
nun:n n:: n:r.:n un:n:. nun:ns::n;n:n un:n:: ::n:n:3n:::n:: - :
- : : . . . - . n. . . a : :. m m: >
13 r.:. . . r. . :. n. .: ~. : n. . . u. . n. . . e. . n. . . .. n.
. . .. n. u.. .. .....: g. . . .n.. g. .:
r..F :.nu.. n. ~ m.m.: .. :.. nr.n.: :.: n': :mm. = "n.=n.nnE. . u. .n::.: ...
.. u n : ::n n.:: :n nnn:::nn:n :::~n.. nn:::n.::n no r m.m : n:nn n: .. ::.: n:nne nn
- ::n n : n.::nn ::::n n: n:::::n . unn: unn:n :n:m .
- . . o. m. ::run. : . x. . . : : : n. . , u . . . n . x. n. : . : . x . r. :. :. n. : :. :, :.
. . n. n. . n. . . ; : n. :. : :. . ;:. .: n. n. . u. . : : n. : : : n. . n. . n. . :. m. . . :. n. ,: :. :. n. . n. . :. n. . m. . . . . : ..3..
- m. . . :.. :..n.. . .n. ::
- n. :.. :. n. o...n. n. : . =. . . . . n . m. . . n w : : n. . n . n. . . n. . . . .
J..
- n. . :. : n. . : n. n. . w. n. ::. . . . . u. . . : n. . . n. : n . . : n. :. : n. . . n.
. : .. .n...: : .:. n m ;::: :n; ?
n n n : n . : n m.n : n:::::r..:nn::: n::n n: :::.:n:: :r; an :: :m:: :n. . . . . o :: ...n:: :: n t n .::.n .n:::n. :::n .:.n:::nn un::.::. :::nn:: :::::m: .:..:.n:.::,. ..
- m :. : r::
M : n . :: : : ::: ....n....n..u..n...n....n...m.......n..r..,.=.....,.....:
- : n : :::: ::: : ~: . :: : : : .
- . . - : a :: -
- - . . 4 : .::
. . . . m, . %n. . . r. . ~. . n. .. : . n. : . n. . :.
n...... m:::r. :. : m. : . :. e n. . ". . : m. n. . n. :.
- n. :.. n. . :. :
n; ; . y ad!H: H T .:::H! mhit nn: iHHHH n:nn::HHHHi n: n nHiHHH:iHH.i o n :: . n.: m . ..E . . n :: = :- - - . i iN - c: . m.- pLi' n r::. H:iH!: i:H: r- !IE-N'm: ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ': . : . . ::::'::
- . n . n .' o n . . 'n : . n u. : n o n : an::n
' ' :: . : '. : : : ' '. . : n ' ' :n : n a u :m:n
;. :nn: :.
- : ' :* :no:. : ' :. '. .o.
- n:nn: m m.: m t:= m :: = :: n.
;: ;: :or'au o.;r n :.u:
;: :u' . :x n:
.::n..r ;. d:::'n n .:..n:::::..:' o n:r::::;;;;;;; ::n:nn::::':::: :nn:n:::;;$:':: n::r . :::;;;; nun:n . , :: : . ;;. . : :' ::..:;:..':':' : . :!. . :: ::.:::: : :::'
g . S.
- ;n : u n ; n o :n n n:: in:nn; ::n::u: n; nun ann:n :::m:n :: ny: n-- .: .run nmn: :n::
m 10 . 'n,'. n . . ; . . . . m m . n H i .i p=. n . .s .,n; = . . . .n u .......:....... m := = n' m m .=. .m- 1.
=nH=i " 70* 50 r
c-O m.= m m :: == "..m :n m m .c "m=: : ' . . :. :. : :. n. . . ::: ..... . . n. . . .. : : : :
- . =.
o*
- . :. n. . . :. n. . . . : :.m. =. . . :. . ...
.. : :. ::: .............n......'..m..n...m.. 4
...'.. '.... ."n. . n. . ::::. ::. .:: 3. . . : n. . u. n. : :
5 ' 4
.J 0 m.iH:i'H iH m n..: :n
- .. : ..a.=:..: HmLnnH!HiHHHiHH :::::.: ::: = .: :::. . . : n :n;:...
.=.===::===:::nn=: := =:3 m:=:m:. !H:HHi : o n .. m: !HlHi! = .n: =:.HiHH:t : . ...= :::;:n ::..a . !HT:: nn:
= :n En.nl iG::i :+F H=i: iHH ,
y E ~ S.U!HHi !Hi!!H !NHHH HHidkH!H!H! HHH:H i:H:HE i.E:H E:HH ii H:Hi i:H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L:HHH " . . . . . . . . . . . . - . , . r :::: mm: .~.nnan:nn:n:n mm m=:
- n:=:::nnan=::: nn::n: omm.-mu-
. . . . . .r 6m........... n:nn:: n:nn:: :n:nn: nn:: :n::nn n . .:: . n . . ::: : .:n.n: :n:,
==: mum: m=.: .o n.:. :.m::n - ::= g: ,
- = :::. nmm= . = r = = . :n = n = = n : = :: = = n = : .m : n :: . : m =: n ::= n -: m m n = m m :g..c ..m
- n = :
n n .n= n =q:: = n::n ::=::: =::n =:= m m:.: m a n n.=:. n .m :. :=...=::
.. m :m : .:
4 =n: ::::=r: : ::r:= cm =m:::n= :r:: n:n::n : ::=::: n:=:: n:=n:=:: , ::=:r:.. mr;=nm=...xn
- nu:nn
- =: n .m::
nn:nr =: :nnr nun:n = :~ :::: rn m m om.: :: m :: n n = : u = n::.
- n n n :nn.::. :n::nn :nnnn :nnn:: :n:n:n n:.:n::n.m n =::::r :n:= n:=r =:n:4ar = ::
=: ::
- n :. n r:nnn :nn:n: :n:n:~: uu:un n.: .::. -. n o o 'n :::r e - . 'n:
- : : n: : -'. .=:n::n . : . ' : 'n
- ' '. . : n
. ' : :..{.......'...*.:
. .::;.' . . ':.:. .'... .' M:. ' ' ' ; .. .. .: '. ::::::::
. . . .. ..... .. .. .=nm:= . . . . . . . '. . n. . .:.. : :. . . . ' . . . ' . . ' .
2 ::un: n n = :.:: n = n :m = =====n: == =: : :: . =: n: n : =n = : r ===: . = : o = m
- m.:r: n m ::m:n.n m :a=tn -
n: =: m=: n : :
- n
- :::::': n : ::- - ::: : : :': : :
=:m: m n=n=x=m======: '
0 ':::::: ::': : ::::: ::: :::::::: :':n:::: ::::::::: ::::': :: OA 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 FLAW SHAPE (aM ' FIGURE 6-11 DETERMINATION OF LEAKAGE TEST TEMPERATURES FOR CIRCUMFEREN SURFACE FLAWS (p = 750 psi) b n-www-- - . . , w- - =.wwm. w. - w=ww - - --i.-- ---w-e w..-.---=-m--..=,--w. - , - . - - -==-* . m.. -- - -e. - , - - - - + -.---- e +
SECTION 7 REFERENCES
- 1. ASME Code Section XI, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components",1980 Edition;~ 1983 and 1986 editions (used for updated standards tables, Section 4.5), and 1980 edition (Winter 1981 Addendum)
(for revised reference crack growth curves),
- 2. McGowan, J. J. and Raymund, M., "Stress Inteasity Factor Solutions for Internal Longitudinal Semi-siliptic Surface f law in a Cylinder Under Arbitrary Loading", ASTM STP 677, 1979, pp. ' 65-380,
- 3. Newman, J. C. Jr. and Raju, I. S., "Stress Intensity Factor s for Internal Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels", ASME Trans., Journal of Pressure Vessel 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 Crack Under Arbitrary Luading", 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 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Portland Oregon, June 1983. Paper 83-PVP-92. j
- 7. Marston, T. U. et. al. "Flaw Evaluation Procedures: ASME Section XI" l
Electri: Power Research Institute Report EPRI-NP-719-SR, August 1978.
- 8. Logsdon, W. A., "Dynamic Fracture Toughness of ASME SA508 C2a Base and l
Heat-Affected Zone Material, in Elastic-Plastic Fracture, ASTM STP 668, 1979. m:,uw.m.mm 71
- 9. Logsdon, W. A., "Dynamic Fracture Toughness of Heavy Section, Narrow Gap Gas Tungsten Arc Weldments" Engineer
- 7eacture Mechanics, Vol. 16, No.
6, 1982.
- 10. Logsdon, W. A., "Dynamic Fracture Toughness and Fatigue Crack Growth Rate '
Properties of ASME SA508 C1.3 and SA508 C1.3a Base and Heat Affected Zone Materials" in ASTM Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol.10, July 1981.
- 11. Logsdon, W. A., and Begley, J. A., "Dynamic Fracture Toughness of SA533 Grade A Class 2 Base Plate and Weidments" in F~iaw Growth and Fracture, ASTM STP 631, 1977.
r
- 12. U.S. N.R.C Standard Review Plan, (Rev.1), Section 5.3.2, Report NUREG 0800, July 1981.
- 13. Plane Strain Crack Toughness Testing of High Strength Metallic Materials, ASTM STP 410, March 1969.
- 14. Logsden, W. A. , Liaw, P. K., and Begley, J. A., "Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Properties of SA508 and SA533 Pressure Vessel Steels and Submerged Arc Weldments in Room and Elevated Temperature Air Environments" Engr.
Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1985. 1 I l me,mu.enno 72 !
l l APPENDIX A
' RESULTS OF THE INSPECTION OF SFRING 1987 A-1
SUMMARY
During the Spring 1987 ultrasonic examination of the Kewaunee Unit 1 Steam Generator "B" upper shell to cone weld, nine recordable indications were noted. Two of these were detected with the 45 degree, 2.25 MHz shear wave examinations, and the remaining seven wre detected with the 60 degree, 2.25 MHz sheer wave examinations. The location of these indications in the weld and past experience with the same weld in other steam generators at oi.her plants indicates that all these indications are volumetric in nature, i.e., small slag inclusions and/or voids. An evaluation of thess indications (using 50% DAC sizing criteria) to the acceptance standards in Table IWB-3511-1 of She ASME Code Section XI,1980 Edition results in seven indications which are
- unaccepteble. In a similar evaluation using the acceptancer standards in Table
- IWC-3510-1 of the ASME Code Section XI, 1986 Edition results in six.
unacceptable indications. [ Using the fracture analysis rules of IWB-3600 and the guidelines of Appendix
- A, both from the ASME Code Section XI, 1980 Edition, all the indications are acceptable using 50% DAC sizing levels (2.25 and 5.0 MHz transducer data), and
- 20% DAC sizing levels without beam spread correction factors (5.0 MHz l %ransducerdata).
4
- A-2 ULTRASONIC EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION
.I Nine recordable indications were noted during the recent examinations of the
- Kewaunee Unit 1 Steam Generator "B" upper shall to cone weld. Summary tables
! of the indications are presented in Tables A-1 and A-2. Table A-1 provides the measured "2a" value, the measured "S" value, and the measured length all i with respect to the normal to the inside pressure retaining surface of the component and determined using a 5.0 MHz transducer and 50% DAC sizing criteria. Table A-2 shows the same parameters using 2.25 MHz transtucer and 50% DAC sizing criteria. These values ara measured using indication plots l I 3330s4 Mes46046710 A-1 l L
rather than calculated from the raw data due to the geometry of the weld. The majority of the indications were detected from the outer d'iameter surface of the transition cone but are physically located in the upper shell portion of the weld. The indication parametars ("2a", "t", and "S") therefore have been taken from the surfaces of the upper shell, The 45 degree sizing data was taken using a 2.25 MHz transducer and a 50% DAC sizing criteria. The 60 degree sizing data, with the exception of Indication C, was taken using a 5.0 , MHz transducer and the same 50% DAC sizing criteria. Sizing data using a 60 degree, 2.25 MHz transducer and 50% DAC sizing criteria were also taken. Although both 2.25 MH: and 5.0 MHz sizing data were taken, the primary sizing data used for the fracture mechanics analysis was based on that taken with the 5.0 MHz transducer. Experience has shown that 2.25 MHz testing is excellent for detection in this application, but tends to oversize when used in conjunction evith the Section XI criteria. The 2.25 MHz transducer produces a beam spread which is wider than that of a similar size 5.0 MHz transducer. This factor typically results in an unavoidable overestimate of the true size of volumetric reflectors such as slag, which is believed to be present in this case. An example will illustrate this fact. Consider an indication which is being sized with a 2.25 MHz, 45' shear wave transducer, as shown in Figure A-1. As the transducer is moved along the examination surface it picks up an indication (shown by the dot), and the first step is to locate the peak response of the indication, as shown in illustration (b). For illustration purposes, assume the amplitude is 100% of the distance amplitude correction curve (DAC). The peak response of the indication is then plotted in illustration (e), at an angle of 45 degrees from the transducer location. The distance along the 45 degree line is determined from the time base of the ultrasonic test instrument, which is a function of the speed of sound in the material. The extent of the indication is then determined by moving the transdt :er along the surface until the amplitude drops to 50% DAC. This point is shown in illustration (c) for one direction, and corresponds to a reduction in the n n, w., e u u' A-2
signal amplitude of the indication of 6 dB or one half. Section XI requires this point to also be plotted at an angle of 45 degrees (see (f)] even though L
-it is clear from (c) that the angle is less than 45 degrees. A similar procedure is then fellowed to get the extent of the indication in the other direction (d) and th'. location is again plotted at 45 degrees (see (g)) even though in this cari, t se angle is clearly greater than 45 degrees. The through wall dimension of the indication, "2a", is then determined from projection of a line through the peak point perpendicular to the vessel inside surface, as shownin(g). The through wall dimension then follows from projection of the
- and points onto the perpendicular. 1 An illustration of how the flaw sizing and location changes with a narrower beam is shown in Figure A 2. Here the example is exactly the aame, but a 5.0 MHz transducer of similar size is used. The peak location or_ center of the indication is found to be identical to the previous example, as shown in (e) > but the outer extent of the indication is considerably different, because the beam is narrower, and the projection of the oute- 50% DAC limits of the indication is less, as shown in (f) and (g). The through wall depth is much i smaller, and also the distance from the inside surface is also much greater. i This is exactly the situation which occurred with the indications in steam generator B, although the actual details were more complex. Therefore in the case of volumetric flaws a reduction in beam spread is desired. There are a number of ways to minimize the beam speed, including use of a higher frequency transducer, a focused transducer, a larger transducer size or a combination of these. The beam spread, e, can be shown by simple physics (All to be related to the diameter (D) of the transducer and its frequency (f) as follows: f k kC sin e = gk = g chere K = a constart C = speed of rund in the material i = wave length e = beam spread ang e, defined in Figures A-1 and A-2 i 1 > nx.mu,*ee A-3 i i i
- - - , - , - - - - - - - . - - , . - - , , - , - - - - , ,---.,,..- ~ --- --,n r -
--- - , - -- ,r-
Beam spread effects can also be minimized by use of beam spread correction, which is essentially a correction on the plotted extremities of the indications, but data to support the accuracy of these calculations is limited. The use of other transducers is permitted by Paragraph T-451.1 of the ASME Code Section V, Article 4 which states that "other ultrasonic techniques and nondestructive examination methods may be helpful in determining a reflector's true position, size, and orientation". A-2.2 Experience With Other Plants The indications in steam generator B appear to be quite characteristic of experience with various welds in steam gc wrators and pressurizers at other plants where preservice ultrasonic examination results based on 2.25 MHz. 50% DAC sizing methods predicted reflectors detected in weld backchip regions had dimensions in excess of those allowable values provided in Section XI of the ASME Code. Attempts were made to confirm the size, location, and orientation of these indications by complementary nondestru:tive examination methods, i.e. O degree longitudinal wave examinations, and both fabrication and field radiography. No reliable responses could be observed from the shear wave indications using the straight beam examinations. In terms of the radiography, the fabrication radiographs of the areas in question were reviewed with no conclusive results. Additionally, field radiography was performed in selected areas but again no cor.firmation of the shear ways examination indications could be obtained. These inconclusive results led to physical removal of some of the suspect indications by mechanical means for complete metallurgical characterization. The indications were found to have been caused by small slag inclusions and voids between weld passes in the weld backchip area near the inside surface. Measurements made during the destructive analysis showed that the ultrasonic sizing using 2.25 MHz, 50% DAC sizing methods exaggerated the true size of the discontinuities in terms of length and/or through-wall dimensions. These results are presented in Table A.3, and plotted in Figure A-3. These results , agree closely with the illustrations previously presented, i l l im.sm.m mne A-4
v . i ll
'Furthermere, this axperience correlates well with investigations to date which h' ave shown that when sizing voinetric-type reflectors by amplitude drop methods, i.e. 2.25 MHz, .50". PAC, the typical result is that the beam size rather than the reflector size is reasured. For e(ampla, the lower the test frequency, the larger the beam width resulting in a larger than actual apparent flaw size (References A2-A7).
A-2.3 1987 Inspection Conclusions Since the indications found in these examinations are ultrascnically similar to those detected at other plants it was appropriate to use higher frequency transducers to obtain more realistic data concerning the through-wall dimensions of the indications. Since the 45 degree indications sized with 2.25 MHz, 50% DAC methods were within the acceptance standards in lable IWC-3510-1 (ASME Section XI,1986 Edition), no high frequency data were taken. This is shown in Table A-5. J' sing the data in Tables A-1 and A-2, two sets of evaluation calculations were performed. The first evaluation compared the characteristics of the indications to the acceptance standards described in Table IWB-3511-1 of the ASME Code Section XI, 1980 Edition. This evaluation resulted in seven indications which were unacceptable (Table A-4). The second evaluation used the acceptance standards of Table IWC-3510-1 of the ASME Code Section XI, 1986 Edition as the acceptance criteria. This evaluation resulted in six unacceptable indications (Table A-5). The latter ASME Code was considered for information only because it contained acceptance standards strictly for Class 2 component welds such as the upper shell to cone weld. To be more conservative, additional data were taken using a 20% DAC sizing criteria but without the use of beam spread correction factors. The use of this sizing criteria is specified in Nuclear Regulatory Guide 1.150 but with
%he use of beam spread correction factors. Of course, the size of the indication as delineated in this same regulatory guide is determined, though, by using the greater of the values obtained by the 50% DAC sizing criteria and I the 20% DAC sizing criteria with beam spread correction. The 5.0 MHz, 20% DAC sizing data are summarized on Table A-6.
u m n w ue.c.u A.5 t
A.3 FRACTURE ANALYSIS There are two alternative sets of acceptance criteria for continued service without repair in paragraph IWB-3600 of the ASME Code Section XI:
- 1. Acceptance criteria based on flaw size (IWB-36?l)
- 2. Acceptance critoria based on stress intensity factor (IWB-3612)
The .nore beneficial criteria of IWB-3612 have be3n used for evaluating the nine indications. To determine the allowable flaw sizes in a weld, finite element anelysis methods were used. All applicable plant transients were analysed to select the most severe stress profiles through the thickness of the weld. The actual stress profiles were then approximated by third order polynomials and used for calculating the stress intensity factor (K g) for various crack :izes and aspect ratios. The resulting Kg values were compared to fracture toughness values (Kg , and Kye). Critical flaw sizos were then obtained, and allowable flaw sizes determined using the acceptance criteria discussed above. The final step involves calculation of crack growth due to fatigue loading. All anticipated plant transients were utilized in determining the resulting flaw size for a specified period of time. This was done for 10, 20, and 30 year intervals. In addition to satisfying the fracture criteria, it is required that the primary stress limits of Section 111 paragraph NC-3000 be satisfied. A local area reduction of pressure retaining membrane must be usud, equal to the area of indication; and the stresses increased to reflect the smaller cross section. l mwem.mmne A-6
The nine indications found are all subsurface flaws es defined by IWB-3500. As shown in Figures A-1 and A-2, all nine indications are acceptable per the fracture analysis criteria of IWB-3600. The fracture evaluation met. hods used for these analyses have been documented in the main body of this report. h should be mentioned that some elevation of the hydrotest and leak test temperatures over the spccified temperature will be required to ensure the margins of IWB-3600 are maintained, and these temperatures have been provided along with the complete technical details of the analysis in the main body of this report. The revised hydrotest and leak test temperatures from this inspection are provided in Figures A-6 and A-7. A-4 REFERENCES A1. Krautkramer, J., and H. Krautkramer, Ultrasonic Testina of Materials, Springer-Verlag New York Inc., New York,1969, page 83. A2. Gruber, G. J., Hendrix, G. J. and Schick, W. R., "Characterization of Flaws in Piping Welds Using Satellite Pulses", MATERIALS EVALUATION, April 1984. A3. Cook, R. V. , Latimer, P. J. and McClung, R. W., "Flaw Measurement Using Ultrascaics in Thick Pressure Vessel Steel, " final report on Contract No. W-7405-eng-26, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Aug. 1982, Oak Ridge, TN. A4. Doctor, S.R., Becker, F. L., Heasier, P. G. and Selby, G. P.,
"Effectiveness of U.S. Inservice Inspection Techniques - A Round Robin Test," Proceedings of Specialist Meeting on Defect Detection and Sizing, Ispra, Itlay, May 3-6, 1983. JointResearchCenter,Ispra(Va), Italy.
AS. Jessop, T. J., Mudge, P. J. and Harrison, J. D., "Ultrasonic Measurement of Weld Flaw Size," National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 242, prepared for the Transportation Research Board by The Welding Institute, Dec. 1981. The Welding Institute, Cambridge, England. n n. ui., * * " A-7
A6. Mudge, P. J. and Jessop, T. J., " Size Measurement and Characterization of Feld Defects by Ultrasonic Testing: Findings of a Collaborative Programme," Proceedings of NDE in Relation to Structural Integrity, Paris, France, Aug. 24-25, 1981. Applied Science Publishers, Ltd., London, England. i Rishel, R.D., "Summary Report: Volumetric Flaw Depth Sizing," A7. MT-SMART-807, September 12, 1985 (submitted to Seabrock Power Station). i 1 1
'I I
L I I i i nx.4m.4 nun o A-8 l 1 _ . . _ . . . . . . _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . ~ . . _ . . , , , _ _ , _ , - _ _ _ , _ _ , , _ . . _ _ , , - _
TABLE A-1
SUMMARY
OF ULTRASONIC TEST INDICATIONS FOUND IN THE KEWAUNEE UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATOR "B" WELD 2-5 (5.0 MHZ TRANSDUCER, 50% DAC SIZING) DATA INDICATION MEASURED "S" LENGTH "2a" (inside surface)
- 1. 45 degree A -- --
- 2. 45 degree B
- 3. 60 degree A 0.37" 1.02" 0.75"
- 4. 60 degree B 0.35" 0.75" 0.50"
- 5. 60 degree ** C
- 6. 60 degree D 0.28" 0.69" 1.10"
- 7. 60 degree E 0.65" 0.7B" 0.63"
- 8. 60 degree F 0.26" 1.93" 1.00"
- 9. 60 degree G 0.35" 1.79" 2.75" NOTE:
** Using the 5.0 MHz transducer this indication enly had a ultrasonic signal response of 504 DAC. According to the examination procedure no further sizing data needed to be taken. As a result ths 2.25 MHz transducer data is given, nn. 5m. $nm is A-9 1
TABLE A-3 NONDESTRUCTIVE VERSUS DESTRUCTIVE TESTING RESULTS USING 2.25 MHZ, 50% DAC SIZING PHYSICAL. DISTANCE FROM ID THROUGH-WALL LENGTH SAMPLE SURFACE DEPTH UT ACTUAL UT ACTUAL UT ACTUAL
** ** .37" 0.09" 1.18" 1.15" CORE #1 (Plant 1) - to 1.03 to 3.18"
** ** .16" 0.02" .63" 0.45" CORE #2 (Plant 1) to .58" to .75" CORE #1 0.00" 0.08" to 0.24" 0.01" 0.88" 0.25" to (Plant 2) 0.33"
- to 0.33" 0.28" CORE #2 0.16" :.82" 0.53" 0.18" 0.88" 0.27" (Plant 2)
** ** 1.00" **
GRINDING 0.05" 0.37" (Plant 2) 0.00" 0.375" 0.45" 0.094" 3.5" ** GRINDING (Plant 2) 0.51" 0.156" 3.25" ** GRINDING 0.00" 0.125" (Plant 2) GRINDING 0.02" 0.156" 0.43" 0.219" 0.75" 0.375" (Plant 2)
** 0.24" ** 0.75" **
GRINDING 0.00" (Plant 2) GRINDING 0.00" 0.219" 0.33" 0.343" 1.0" 0.438" (Plant 2) ,
- One UT indication was found to be four indications upon metallurgi-cal evaluation. The values show the range of sizes for these four :
defects.
'* Dimensions not reported.
I sm.uw. vins ie A-11 i l
TABLE A-2
SUMMARY
OF ULTRASONIC TEST INDICATIONS FOUND IN THE KEWAUNEE UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATOR "B" WELD 2-5 (2.25 MHZ TRANSDUCER, 50% DAC SIZING) DATA INDICATION MEASURED "S" LENGTH "2a" (inside surface)
- 1. 45 degree A 0.61" 0.37" 0.60"
- 2. 45 degree B 0.43" 0.45" 0.10"
- 3. 60 degree A 0.69" 0.67" 1.20"
- 4. 60 cegree B 0.B1" 0.24" 1.50"
- 5. GO degree C 0.65" 0.63" 0.90"
- 6. 60 degree 0 0.55" 0.53" 1.10"
- 7. 60 degree E 0.46" 0.37" 1.50"
- 8. 60 degree F 0.61" 1.67" 3.10"
- 9. 60 degree G 0.41" 1.63" 1.80" mc. tn .ea' a A-10
TABLE A , RESULTS OF THE ASNE SECTION X!, 1980 EDITION CALCULATIONS USING . THE ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS OF TABLE IWB-3511-1~ h DATA. IND. MEASURED TYPE OF "a" "S" "t" a/t a/t *
"2a (1) IND. ALLOW. ACT.
- 1. 45 deg. A 0.61" subsurf. 0.31" 0.37" 0.60" 7.2% 8'.4%
- 2. 45 deg. B 0.43" subsurf. 0.22" 0.45" 0.10" 7.2% 5.9% l
- 3. 60 deg. A 0.37" subsurf. 0.19" 1.02" 0.75" 4.1% 5.1% l 4, 60 deg. B 0.35" subsurf. 0.18" 0.75" 0.50" 5.3% 4.9%
- 5. 60 deg. C 0.65" subsurf. 0.33" 0.63" 0.90" 5.4% 8.9%
- 6. 60 deg. D 0.28" subsurf. 0.14" 0.69" 1.10" 3.1% 3.8% f
- 7. 60 deg. E 0.65" subsurf. 0.33" 0.75" 0.63" 7.2% 8.9%
- 8. 60 deg. F 0.26" subsurf. 0.13" 1.93" 1.00" 3.1% 3.5%
- 9. 60 deg. G 0.35" subsurf. 0.18" 1.79" 2.75" 2.8% 4.9% r i
NOTES:
- The measured base metal thickness of 3.7" was used rather than the measured weld thickness of 3.9" due to the irregular nature of the j weld crown. l (1) From Table A-1, except for indications 1.2 and 5 which are from Table l A-2. ;
i h I h i (
+ I me ne.*""' " A-12 .
1 1
TABLE A-6
SUMMARY
OF ULTRASONIC TEST INDICATIONS FOUND IN THE KEWAUNEE UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATOR "B" WELD 2-5 . (5 MHZ TRANSOUCER, 20% DAC SIZING) DATA IND. MEASURED "S" LENGTH I.D. "2a" (insidesurface)
- 1. 45 deg. A
- 2. 45 deg. B
- 3. 60 deg. A 0.52" 0.96" 1.05"
- 4. 60 deg. B 0.47" 0.79" 1.05"
- 5. 60 deg. C 0.57" 0.65" 0.90"
- 6. 60 deg. D 0.73" 0.51" 1.50" i 7. 60 deg. E 0.65" 0.83" 0.95"
- 8. 60 deg. F 0.39" 1.89" ** 1.20"
- 9. 60 deg. G 0.35" 1.67" 3.13" Data not taken.
** The reflector is nearer to the outside surface than the inside surface. "S" to the outside surface is 1.77".
a
% 5m.<n u ne A-14
i TABLE A-5 RESULTS OF THE ASME SECTION XI, 1986 EDITION CALCULATIONS USING
~ THE ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS OF TABLE IWC-3510-1 DATA IND. MEASURED TYPE OF "a" "S" "t" a/t a/t "
"2a" (1) IND. ' ALLOW. ACT.
- 1. 45 deg. A 0.61" suosurf. 0.31" 0.37" 0.60" 8.9% 8.4%
- 2. 45 deg. B 0.43" subsurf. 0.22" 0.45" 0.10" 8.9% 5.9%
- 3. 60 deg. A 0.37" subsurf, 0.19" 1.02" 0.75" 4.4% 5.1%
- 4. 60 deg. B 0.35" subsurf. 0.18" 0.75" 0.50" 6.0% 4.9%
- 5. 60 deg. C 0.65" subsurf. 0.33" 0.63" 0.90" 6.2% 8.9%
- 6. 60'deg. D 0.28" subsurf. 0.14" 0.69" 1.10" 3.1% 3.8%
- 7. 60 deg. E 0.65" subsurf. 0.33" 0.75" 0.63" 8.9% 8.9%
- 8. 60 deg. F 0.26" subsurf. 0.13" 1.93" 1.00" 3.1% 3.5%
- 9. 60 deg. G 0.35" subsurf. 0.18" 1.79" 2.75" 2.6% 4.9%
- The measured base metal thickness of 3.7" was used rather than the measured weld thickness of 3.9" due to the irregular nature of the weld crown.
(1) From Table A-1, except for indications, 1, 2, and 5 which are from Table A-2. nw.4m.e mne A-13
E1 AMPLE OF 2.25 teII, 45 3EIAR. 505 DAC SIZING E11MPLE ASStBeTIONS : ,,
' - MLIINUM AMPLITUDE OF RESP 0MSI, 1005 DAC
\ . DIAMETER OF TRAISDOCER e D l
,N
\
-A l j (e)
(O
\.-
- \
\ .
i t
~
l I N (&) 1
,r
\# I
- s. we
\ [.'.*$-
- I
- l (4) (g)
I FIGURE A-1 SCHEMATIC EXAMPLE OF FLAW SIZING WITH 2.25 MHZ TRANSDUCER, USING 50% DAC. e x.s n..Stiu r u A-15
ERAMPLE OF 5 0 21, 45 anAR, 505 D&C SIZINO s g EIAMPLE ASSWFTIONS : ., ,
. MAIIMON AMFLITUDE OF EESPORSE,1005 D&C
. DIAMETER OF TRAR$DUCER e D l
(a) -
\
+646 18" y' . \
\
l Ib) (e) It
\m s.64
\ ,
4% \ l l (c) (f)
, \.
\ t s i i
~ '
\ 1.M
..e i
i l- l (d) ()) i FIGURE A-2 SCHEMATIC EXAMPLE OF FLAW SIZING WITH 5.0 MHZ TRANSDUCER, USING 50% DAC. , ma 4 m.< > i u, i. A-16
so . . 5 e . 5 d -
, n
- d-a!
.E s h
E m
$5 0 O
v g Y f . gb or
- E
~
d$ Y
. a g W s a o E N W o C U
WE O E 0
*W 2A
$ ~ -8 w G
- C O O $W U
9 -9 iE C O ME
, . . . . . . .O. . .g
-o en m m e in v n N - oo d d d d d d d d d d ;
CH3NI) Hid30 ~1lWM-H9008H1 038nSW3W w
$r ci i
A-17
SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION LIN E . 0.13 . . . _., ...
- !: EMBEDDED FLAW; i/ I. 2n :iiTM r:r - . :i " - - - ::j ' -- ....p".. FLAWS WITH et
..' :gr. :
w' ' 'a- :4"CONFIGUR ATION '" i -- ...
.t, .
0'12 EFm"i.. i -) ABOVE THIS LINE ARE A: . '~%' "".* *':'i y:- ;:3.i.j gj g
.. i ::.i.y ifp - ..:xn: NOT ACCEPTABLE 0.1 1 E
. . . . _E
-iij :!="f - -;\ :- =--.:= si - -- - ' - .-u:i.x -"=
i'.:':!"
~~
- n . :::.. - :'_d :!Eif i 5 I"}i.ii[ii[Ei :iji:i'i!iiii'ih ;p45
=- i E2i!.- . ".: iii:,--:i i .::
- . ::, ".; ..:ni,j[ '.41 jiii "- - l:- -
!!r --~~-
0.10
.i.id55 -
- iii! . :iiii.' c.i ./. .![ ji, .:) .
ri_ii ::.fii ig(;i : li,l' j ; ( U
- I I'E![f' E i"I ' '5 i'E '"1:~ -
sI O'09 5: ; : n.: 1:i iM u-E!f!. ! lH W. 1:ii+.i M "5Ei!! ,7,3 1 %C =lii - : g C iglisnii!s {
==
g,g, Eiii : iihl-
'iii' ([:: . ;ij)[i? Sl::: j,:,"" , "- "p ;; g{p-5 m !wiii-/ r M"**t. '
Si 5 a >
. i a.p-fd_E :isii= .:+a.-- --: ..--:r. a p-t=. iip.:-
"n e Act - -~ '- -- --
0.07 sU h 3fI.fi.k'd.T. *::: .: :~~5i([iii}5i .'!if.N: i ::0_,55:i ;i.hi:u- Ei};j_. .:.j y Z
- 0*06 j rLAws IN NS ::[$ 5Mf S : MilE ap 9 in
.i. REGION MUST BE t b. . :u .s ~ " - ""'(
. .r- .r :. :. y- ,
O "
. . . .?" :
_:: C O N SID E R E D
' " . =='r: -: -: = ".a.~-" .:.n J xin = s scE :idae: .
.::r"
~
2" 0.05 iFLAws ? f.: u ::
- a:r :r - :;-:.- m. :: .- pqq a .--/ : : F: .:..: " : 15:: n.u: i
- n .ii iju ;
1' "* ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS Z 0.04 + . . !!- " ' ' --=l'i". _ . . . . _" t.. . iii
- =Hei :iHL: f.- } . ;i.: fit. :! L - .:n .
.s: :qp : (ON THIS SIDE OF Mi;q:
'gj-f DEMARKATION LINE)
Th: :.ji/ Eijiisiir] -- an- --
~"J" : ARE ACCEPTABLE PER 0.03 :1. ..
-,-.."/-
- 12 -
~
. .Hir.- :iillir i1.=
in.- Sn.i ;ij;,; CRITERI A OF IWB 3600 u= .
..~
AS LONG AS 2,,at. 0.25
...t...
.. k.
0.02 '.5 "' ; .
._'y.FLAvsinints
- . H-~ -iir!!!! Er6:Ce Aar n un u. -: ii.1" :
Q " x t
. .,y '
I"f '!P I ; } .' '. i.it.hi A C C E P f AIL [ . : ..i:Li:: 0.01
': :. ..!jl:ih i-J: f 4 9:. ug:- li, g g 4-i a i:j . i@:1 linii ji .
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 . DISTANCE FROM SURFACE d) om m. _ ,m . .,' .,' m. u ._ acie?
'2s' IJC . A."T .
sessf. 0.37' O.60' 8.41 0.182 Tes
- 1. 45 seg. A 0.61*
0.43' sutesf. 0.45' O.10' 5 95 0.180 fu
- 2. 45 seg. 3 sassf. 1.02' 0.75' 5.11 0 326 Tes
- 3. 60 e*6 A 0 37'
- 4. 60 e.g. 3 0.35' suessf. 0.75' O.50' 4.91 0.25 0 fu 5 C 0. H ' sessf. 0.43' O.90* 8.91 0 258 fu 60 e*8
- 6. 60 e.g. D 0.2t' setssf. 0.69* 1.10* 3 01 0.22 a fu
- 7. 60 seg. t 0.H' sessf. 0.75' O.43' 8.91 0.Pti Tes 0.557 Tes
- 4. 60 8es. F 0.26 ' sucesf. 1.93* 1.00* 3.51 9.' 60 e. . 0 0 35' sa.,f. i.7,' a.75' a.95 0 531 su FIGURE A-4 FRACTURE ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR INDICATIONS FOUND IN THE KEWAUNEE UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATOR "B' WELD 2-5 (50% DAC SIZING, 5.0 MHz) m:.ms. wsne A 18
LW;WQ(9G/GG200@8GLO
~
FLAW DEMARCATION LINE I 0.13 4: :iiii: ' i 5#:Eli!M :d i .MJWEo'6i5EssN/0: FLAWS WITH a* 0'12
--" '-~
w"3 " . ~coNFIGUR
~ " * ' " " ' ATION
' ' " :f "I". -
ABOVE THIS LlHE ARE EEii' - Jai A:: :n J-Wir -i[:t in-i.! I:!iEi .u:i Mq s:;dit fiii# iiri: .:!_gi.. . : . :i;-g ACCEPTABLE 0.11 iiii'is: .:4[.
- iij I- :iii R$N !![ith5
~
5 E2Wii2
. c . :i: ;"i EE. .i_ii.; i ri! .5 ::,
Eiji'"- ... ..:: . . :.= . . . ..E. g,q n
- .ii."7;iif. -.
- 5 i 50 -
-Mii! ,
W ! . .c = 4Vi!::ihir !=3::- ='- L 6
~' U N # 5 eT 0'09 : .iIl'. :. . !d "-! iii' [:iJ. :
!!I !!.i#ii[ i' ": ilir df
~
Eiijiiii 7 ~
. \[fjirjii 1 3" '::-
- ij i ; ii:ijiiii: i. .Y g 0.0F1 ea 5 Map :T:' ii,j!1t .i isi,ij jiiijii .;:.i.:l':= ij.ic i 5 yd [:
s :iihii~ l" +
.:::t.:.- - :== :: q-- -
" -[:"
+ .-
~~j i i -iif. ~
~ ~ "
0.07 suaract' 3 liiiiij t.iU! .I :::t:: N!l[ k ::d - . :" i ."lE; N:: 9: - -i;iiij iiij=' h Z
- 0*06 j. rLAws iN mis W/2 E N@ M :@ W 4 REGION MUST BE : .' .s .: - ....
O !i CO N SID E R E D
'I . . - - - . : k.:.--
-l :- .b:: -
g li5URFACE .l jjE- iiil:i
- i " ':!!l"~
~~
. .L .h: .::?iit!!
piC - g g 0.05 7 flaws .. . .. M.; ; :.pi :( g
- . :it n e:. ' riu
. .i :
- l" - .i l I 0.04
^
i:ii4 Ti ' :, er mi1 + ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS
.nf =i :i:i f.i. ;ffi- ;;_j . . :n 1 .; -
(ON THIS SIDE OF
.p! :. . _ . . . . .
.1 j. ::-. : DEMARKATION LINE)
"-) . . ,
1.. :J . " pf' .' ARE ACCEPTABLE PER
' ~ '
0.03 T: .iii:r i:2'in :. =.j-nr ! './ .V :: - ::H CRITERI A OF lWB 3600 ns..
. .:2 . a y '.. . . ..
3: AS LONG AS 2,a 0.25 0.02
- i. .... . . . L a* 5 B ?"M . . . ' ..g :!: !.
- 7. "' ,
.: .1. . . . ',ts m mit " ': :Fi:7' t
~
'T "
- t.i at:t**stit i ! !a:: 4:-
0.01 l* [ f.- uj . .:iji! il . ~
.D 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE (f
$#PApt Cf 1,*.!RJ.%r.: 71.!* h:::J ::M FCtc In T).E IrraAshu a:71 :*LAr CINEpai:P 'P WL.C 2.$
( 2C4 J: 3;;*C ) CATA IT. MEA? E: *C' WCTr 1.0. 'is* at ( vstce se fa:e? //t 1
*! de6 A ' '
- 2. 45 ces. 8 *
- e 3 60 ceg. A C.$ta C.C7;) C . 9' ' C.3); 1.C 5 '
4 6: ces. I C.4?' C. :4 )! C.?P C.;"l i.C!* 5 6; ces. C C.5?' C.Ca?' C t!" C.i!) C.90*
- 6. 60 oet. t C.71* C . C*ild C.!i' C.2)t i 50*
?. 6: eeg. I c.15' C.C??t c.8)* C.312 C.6!*
- f. 6; eeg. F C.JP C.Ct): 1. t P H C.!t; 1.20-9 6 cet. C :.)!' C.c=*: 1.t ? ' C .6 6 8 3 13'
- Cata r.ct te.er, u it rerie te .: res e tc tre ev.s.se sere:e tra tr e v m e sera:e. 's tc u e u ..e .erece a i.n .
FIGURE A-5
SUMMARY
0: ULTRASONIC TEST INDICATIONS FOUND IN THE KEWAUNEE UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATOR "B" WELD 2-5 (20% DAC SIZING. 5.0 MH:) m:. :m. nine A-19
\
SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION - LINE 160 0.13 . . ._ . . t 2-- ":' 140 _. . _ . _ .k.
..r . .. N.dk.E ::n: !b EMBEDDED FLAW i i[ II
~i:
- : q. . .w3 E
==-
n- . n :.m .::-
**p.
.:-: C,--O N FlO,U..R . . -ATIO . N j' :.u.i;:;.'r' r.- - - . ." . . .rt:..
f.55Y5 5 15}i5 NNDliiiii*: 2:/ii 15N U!Nl N5 0'11 asu e- .giMi is =.M =. 05#.i:=.. !sim!E E unti: m.2t. .s . .. .. .
- =: = ;r- . . t .:
= = a:! n: :a s == -4
-.:. . .: =-.. _ .:.::. :::: =
0.10 a" n = " " " ""
"m r 7 "
120 11 5N" :li"L.! - N5'1iis"5 iN /p:):!If .N: I55.":N55
. . . '.. -$2:5 E/
5iE i sii 5 g-li iM ~.3jf.:[i ii:ij@T:i. IEjiij-hiljE jf') 0.09
. .f.. ::=; J ininn _:= ,3-f. , .};..23 ;y
,y :== n:. : ru- ..h un. nn /=. u h 0 08 Ei 5 ~. W "H s pe4ap hiji ![is/jijb i!!!@: 5j!pfliii}51 hi:Ei
'"'is#itfy1E iiME= Jimpsi !E15:lii E u.
0.07 lEimWsuRFAct O \EN ~ II#"D" l'"1'E W F' =i -' w-H o'og j:a Fuws x REGION MUST BE : _;}an~'"' iN ms @ WWWM ~.:::
- - . .. r s:: an .n :
E :2 .;. .:=
.c
'-7 :-d'n .
Q "~ -*2"'"~ "" ~2" ' "*N
- " CON SIDER ED g SURFACE 5E
-h :..:r" [i: iiEf:i 3 #i': i ii.
- :7 f-ii:Elif -
8 ffi 0.05 H PLAws :..._.~ ef. IM '::is s!-=c s
$ :ii.+m=
-; ==4.:: 6 5 0.04 W* = ' 'MI! Wi*
- E!E EM i.it.id.i.i. E..E, ..:i.: E.. . +E=. .: . n. =. . . ..
si
.c. .. : n. - : =. .i s:- M. . . . ...:c- .
N55'$: f Yh:? kkE ;
- W :5k 5 *
- 0.03 .g ;yj. =.
t 5pgg ;;;7 i i gi,7 igg = ; i, E ti!# E15 Ci4= ii fi- Vfili E=hi. - :ii: E: 0.02 :9Miif4!= m ' :l= : :-u:u..
.x.. ..=
-n E..fi:I . !!!M,=iits... . =ih:i: ~
.ii f. :ipS= ~= ma=.n g:i.- ..: no =t c +; ji ig i ji:i
- li:
l g , .: Mj;:: - _e =n mi 4 - gi .u!. . ii: T J -T c Watinghouw 1987 l o l 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE h iIGURE A-6 DETERMINATION OF HYDROSTATIC TEST TEMPERATURES FROM RES'ATS OF THE SPRING 1981 INSPECTION m:.w.. win. A-20
l l SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION LINE 140 MiiE'iiiii4 9=itU:.:at uaeooeori.Aw!W/.p.i,i : g.. iisi 120
~:c=- :: e. ..::.g,.::m+ 7: .n O. NFIG U..R,A.T.IO..N
;r.:= se C . . . -.
7 :::J:- r..= m:....J 6 M'.} fE *IiM 'E- /NNEM!Jji[ii !5iI$55 2-0 11 i!5
- T = 'I i U; 'it fi = = ti ~i d5 : -IEI:E:f:i
- !!= NIN IN! i.$bitN 5S5$.Ni'sN!
N5 0.10 %. :._ i I" 5 -ih ^ _ :*:
# ill['i.4 55: 2~/.E5 iiii$N5 5 .. . . . . . . . . .-.
=._."s..:.. /.I..m r. .
- _ n. :..:=. :
. ::.=
._- :z:.: ... . . :v1,a.ca.n.
m - .=.n. - L_n._ t ti: : sii '::i g9] ::. ] $((.!j:i:ityk@ Ejiij-iit 5jii eT, [5'f5 '= iii 5 4 is"iiils.ifi'!?MI:.!: t i:SMM".". 'i5 :s5
$ O'08 +:i@ '. A +.s ega= Ei / Welds 5%i E EE isMims i
.J rI; : : .: .n.:en i- ;:2nu : ::.c n;2- z.: :::: r.: 2:
A ; mu:: T ;/"n ::.:- :::e _.: _.=:n: . ._ ..r..- r :r- : r 0.07 . sun 7Ac . . . . :. - ..- . 4
- rn. : ._ . . L. . .. t . . . .h. . . .-- - -
.- :.S.._
.:-_.-- _ - - .=_ .:."--il=. .. .n
- =2:::.:-rr---- =
O W 70 j; REQlON Fes iN mis @5 MMmMWW q E C o'06 MU3T BE fgn:: :=
='~
.t :
;==
- :.4au ::: . . .
= = ~ = - ~^ == gig. :- .:.p# c.: ==j:~
- ACONstotRED
% F:i SUmFACE [FHii52 = ~filifilii E:#i iiniiE li'In'jbZI CII ~.h;ii b
0.05 gj gj jgQyyf];i ;};gfg53
;g_ ;f ,j
$ 0.04 NN}.~.?
- n. .:.h_:
. .. :: .r_
_~...
"hk[P N"N
- r.:f n. . :....:u..:_. :: ::=
. .. . .s. : -,r. ...
- n: a.::.:.- - !$'n_:.Y. ..:1 .
NN
..:.n. ..:. :. n. ::
-@ =iH/ i = :1 :n pT " u .
M: uir iiiiEi T - O.03 333;g ;7,; .i,,,, ;gggp;; a 3:; ;;;3 .3;; ,. ;33: ;3(;,4 :9 i,; . W-- :sili - 3 =-
~
i -
.nu,; ij= m.:. di: .iir 0.02 /, . .::,
- .t .t:-i ..- ..
7 nu..-::m n-.._ n. : ,- ~e a.:12..- ..yA.. . .::.. . .:e... . . :a. . .:::
.a:
)i3 4 [:MiEl: 'E '.d2 ilt : *i .- :n. -;'" "di. . Jii ."i iis i*: -i si
- .'.?:r%::E 0.01 .;:-
.: -T ils.: :::
=t:_.
10.=i! !I:/ 1 -di !!; "ai :tr ui -* er=. aii$..
- iM S. .:Li ... =- .. = - -
- ' ' ' ~
C Westinghouw 1987 0 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE di FIGURE A-7 DETERN! NATION OF LEAKAGE TEST TEMPERATURES FROM RESULTS OF THE SPRING 1987 INSPECTIONS ma m. "" " A-21
I APPENDIX B RESULTS OF THE INSPECTION OF MARCH 1988 ON STEAM GENERATOR "A" B-1
SUMMARY
During the March 1988 ultrasonic examination of the Kewaunee Unit 1 steam generator "A" upper shell to cone weld (SG W2 (Weld 1-5)], nineteen recordable indications were noted. Seven of these were detected with the 45 degree, 2.25 MHz shear wave exeminations, and the remaining twelve were detected with the C'1 degree, 2.25 MHz shear wave examinations. The location of these indications in the weld, past experience with the same weld in other steam generators at other plants, and supplemental examinations performed on this steam generator indicate that all these indications are volumetric in nature, i.e., small slag inclusions and/or voids. An evaluation of these indications (using -6 dB drop or half maximum amplitude sizing criteria) to the acceptance standards in table IWB-3511-1 of the ASME Code Section XI,1980 Edition with the Winter 1981 Addenda results in fourteen indications which are unacceptable. Using the fracture analysis rules of IWB-3600 and the guidelines of appendix A, both from the ASME Code Section XI,19P0 Edition with the Winter 1981 Addenda, all tha indications are acceptable ucing 50% DAC sizing levels (2.25 MHz transducer data), and using -6 dB drop or half maximum amplitude sizing levels (5.0 MHz transducer data). These examinations were performed with the same personnel and procedures utilized en nmerous ot',.sr plants. These o'.oer plants exhibited both inner diameter cracking conditions, subsurface fabrication flaws, or a coebination of both at the recording levels established in the test procedures. The evaluation of examination data and the performance of supplemental investigations were conducted by engineering personnel directly involved with the evaluation of data from the same plants as specified above. n, -* '" " B-1
B-2 ULTRASONIC EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION Nineteen recordable indications were noted during the recent examinations rf < the Kewaunee Unit 1 steam generator "A" upper shell to cone weld. Summary tables of the indications are pre:,ented in tables B-1 and B-2. Tabla B-1 provides the measured "2a" value, the measured "S" value, and the measured length all with respect to the normal to the inside pressure retaining surface of the component and determined using a 5.0 MHz trsnsducer and -6 dB drop or half maximum amplitude sizing criteria. Table B-2 shows the same parameters using a 2.25 MHz transducer and 50% DAC sizing criteria. These values are measured using indication plots rather than calculated from the raw data due to the geometry of the weld. This evaluation .cheme is to maintain adherence to the flaw indication characterization criteria provided in !WA-3300 and table IWB-3511-1 of Section XI. The majority of the indications were detected i from the outer diameter surface of the transition cone but are physically located in the upper shell portion of the weld. The indication parameters l ("2a", "t", and "S") therefore have been taken primarily from the surfaces l of the upper shell. The 45 degree sizing data, with the exception of indications 4, 5, and 6, was taken using a 5.0 MHz, 45 degree shear wave transducer and a -6 dB drop cr half maximum amplitude sizing criteria. The 45 degree shear wave indicat ens 4, 5, and 6 were sized only using the detection data (2.25 MHz, /,5 degree sh u r wave transduent, and 50% DAC siring criteria.) The 60 degree siziig data was taken using a 5.0 MHz, 60 degree shear wave transducer and -6 d: drop or half maximum amplitude sizing l l criteria. Sizing data using a 60 degree, 2.25 MHz transducer and 50% DAC sizing criteria were also taken. Although both 2.25 MHz and 5.0 MHz sizing data were taken, the primary sizing data used for the fracture mechanics analysis was based on that taken with the 5.0 MHz transducer. Experience has shown that 2.25 MHz testing is excellent for detection in this application, but tends to oversize when used in conjunction with the Section XI criteria, and volumetric-type reflectors. The 2.25 MK'; transducer produces a beam spread which is widar than that of a similar size 5.0 MHz transducer. This factor typically results in an ! unavoidable overestimate of the true size of volumetric reflectors such as l m . nse ,, B.2
i slag, which is believed to be present in this case. An example will . illustrate this fact. Consider an indication which is being sized with a 2.25 ( I Ez, 45' shear wave transducer and 50% DAC sizing criteria, as shown in figure B-1. As the transducer is moved along the examination , surface it picks up an j indication (shown by 'he dot), and the first step is to locate the peak response of the indication, as shown in illustration (b). For illustration l purposes, assume the amplitude is 100% of the distance amplitude correction i I curve (DAC). The' peak response of the indication is then plotted in illustration (e), at an angle of 45 degrees from the transducer location. The ! I distance alor.g the 45 degree line is determined from the time base of the ultrasonic test instrument, which is a * ' tion m the speed of sound in the material. , The extent of the indication is ther determined by moving the transducer along l the surface until the amplitude drops to 50% DAC. This point is showa in . illustration (c) for one direction, and corresponds to a reduction in the i 3 signal amplitude of the indication of 6 dB or one half in this case. Section XI requires this point to a'..o be plotted at an angle of 45 degrees (ssa (f)] even though it is clear from (c) that the angle is less than 45 degrees. A similar procedure is then followed to get the extent of the indication in the 5 other direction (d) and the location is again plotted at 45 degrees (see (g)) ! even though in this case the angle is clearly greater than 45 degrees. The through wall dimension of tne indication, "2a", is then determined from projection of a line through the peak point perpendicular to the vessel inside surface,asshownin(g). The through wall dimension then follows from projection of the end points onto the perpendicular. l Y An illustration of how the flaw sizing and location changes with a narrower l beam is shown in figure B-2. Here the example is exactly the same, but a 5.0 Mz transducer of similar size is used. The peak location or center of the indication is found to be , identical to the 'revious example, as shown in (e) but the outer extent of the indication is considerably different, because the beans is aarrower, and the projection of the outer 50% DAC limits (or in this I am m e B-3
case -6 dB drop or half rtaximum amplitude limits) of the indication is less, as shown in (f) and (g). The through wall depth is much smaller, and also the distance from the inside surface is also much greater. This is exactly the situation which occurred with the indications in steam generator A, although the actual details were more complex. Therefore, in the case of volumetric flaws a reduction in beam spread is desired to obtain a more realistic size. There are a number of ways to minimize the beam spread, including use of a higher frequency transducer, a focused transducer, a 'iarger transducer size or a combination of these. The beam spread, e, can be shown by simple ph.ysics (B1] to be related to the diameter (D) of the transducer and its frequency (f) as follows: ki kC sin e = 7 = g where K = a constant C = speed of souvid in the material i = wave length , e = beam spread angle, defined in figures B-1 and B-2 f = frequency Beam spread effects can also be minimized by use of beam spread corroction, which is essentially a correction on tr,e plotted sxtremities o' the indications, but data tn support the accuracy of those calculations is limited. The use of other transducers is permitted by Paragraph T-451.1 of the ASME Code 'Jection V, Article 4 which states that 'other ultrasonic techniques and nondestructive examint. tion methods may be helpful in determining a reflector's true position, size, and orientation". The raw indication data from the detection examinations in steam generator A clea-ly indicate that the detected reflectors are embedded rather than surface. This is seen in ths location of the peak responses. No peak response is observed at or nect the inner diameter surface which would be expected for a surface breaking flaw. In addition ths test operators did not observe any low level aeplitude signals below the recording level located at
.. a n u ie B-4
the inner diameter surface indicative of those found in plants having an inner diameter surface cracking condition. Supplemental examinations on three of the 60 degree shear wave indications originally determined to be surface by the rules established in Section XI resulted in the fact that these indications could be observed from both sides of the weld in a normal half-ves technique fashion as well as a 5/8-node technique with the peak locations embedded within tho weld. The longest indication (approximately 12 inches long) was scanned with a O degree, 5 MHz longitudinal wave probe resulting in a confirmation of a cluster of reflectors at positions approximately 3.2 to 3.4 inches below the outer diameter surface for the entire length of the indication. At the same transducer position that this cluster was detected, a backwall response at 3.9 inches below the outer diameter surface was noted. This indicates a thickness of 3.9 inches and a difference in position between the volumetric reflectors and the inner diameter surface of 0.5 to 0.7 inch. All examination data, therefore, clearly suggest embedded flaws. B-2.2 Experience With Other Plants The indications in ceam generator A at KNPP appear to be quite enaracteristic of experience with various welds in steam generators and pressurizers at other plants where preservice ultrasonic examination results based on 2.25 MHz, 50% DAC sizing methods predicted reflectors detected in weld backchip regions had dimensions in exesss of those allowable values provided in Section XI of the ASNE Code. Attempts were uade at other plants to confirm the size, location, and orientation of these indications by complementary nondestructive examination methods, i.e. O degree longitudinal wave examinations, and both fabrication and field radiography. No reliable i responses could be observed from the shear wave indications using the straight beam examinations. In terms of the radiography, the fabrication radiographs of the areas in question were reviewed with no conclusive results. Additionally, field radiography was performed in selected areas at these plants but again no confirmation of the shear wave examination indications could be obtained. i These inconclusive results led to physical removal of some of the suspect indications by mechanical means for complete metallurgical characterization. m -w= is B-5 J
The indications were found to have been caused by small slag inclusions and voids between weld passes in the weld backchip area near the inside surface. Measurements made durirg the destructive analysis showed that the ultrasonic sizing using 2.25 MHz, 50% DAC sizing methods exaggerated the true size of the discontir.uities in terms of length and/or through wall dimensions. These results are presented in table B-3, and plotted in figure B-3. These results agree closely with the illustrations previously presented. Furthermore, this experience correlates well with investigations to date which have shown that when sizing volumetric-type reflectors by amplitude drop methods, i.e. 2.25 MHz, 50% DAC, the typical result is that the beam size rather than the reflector size is measured. For example, the lower the test frequency, the larger the beam width resulting in a larger than actual apparont flaw size (references B2-B7). B-2.3 1988 Inspection Conclusions Since the data clearly suggested volumetric-type reflectors at KNPP the use of a more realistic volumetric flaw sizing approach was implemented. This sizing approach consisted of using a 5.0 MHz transducer and a -6 dB er half maximum amplitude sizing criteria. The angle used in sizing was dependent on the angle which detected the indication. The 5.0 MHz transducer resulted in a smaller beam spread in comparison with the true size of the suspect reflectors. The -6 dB or half maximum sizing criteria was selected because it i has provided the better accuracies when compared with 50% DAC or 20% DAC i sizing levels (reference B8). l l Using the data in tables B-3 and B-4, two sets of evaluation calculations were performed. The first evaluation compared the characteristics of the 2.25 MHz detection data to the acceptance standards described in table IWB-3511-1 of the ASME Code Section XI,1980 Edition with the Winter 1981 Addenda. This i evaluation resulted in sixteen indications which were unacceptable (table B-5). The second evaluation compared the characteristics of the data composite sizing (5.0 MHz and 2.25 MHz data) to the acceptance standards described in table IWB-3511-1 of the ASME Code Section XI, 1980 Edition with m eu in B-6
the Winter 1981 Addenda. This resulted in fourteen. indications which were
- unacceptable (tableB-4). All indications sized with the 5.0 MHz transducer l are classified as subsurface indications. .
1 Since the indications found in these examinations are ultrasonically similar to those detected at other plants it was appropriate to use higher frequency F transducers to obtain more realistic data concerning the through-wall dimensions of the indications. Since 45 degree indications numbers 4, 5, and 6 sized with 2.25 MHz, 50% DAC meth Ws were within the acceptance standards in tab 1'e IWB-3511-1 (ASME Section XI,1980 Edition with the Winter 1981 Addenda), l no high frequency data were taken. ! B.3 FRACTURE ANA!.YSIS , 4 r There are two alternative sets of acceptance criteria for continued service ; J without repair in paragraph IWB-3600 of the ASNE Code Section XI: c i
- 1. Acceptance criteria based on flaw size (IW8-3611)
- 2. Acceptance criteria based on stress intensity factor (IWB-3612)
' The choice of criteria is at the convenience of the user per IWB-3610. The more beneficial criteria of IWB-3612 have been used for evaluating the j ) nineteen indications. To determine the allowable flaw sizes in a weld, finite element analysis ! I methods were used. I All applicable plant transients were analyzed to select the most severe stress profiles through the thi:kness of the weld. The actual stress profiles were i ! then approximated by third order polynomials and used for calculating the l str ss intensity factor (K )y for various crack sizes and aspect ratios. l I The resulting K yvalues were compared to fraecure tougeess values (Kg , j and Kge). Critical flaw sizes were then abtained, and allowable flaw sizes l determined using the acceptance criter'a discussed above, j ] I l 1 ] ==-a m e B-7 ! l I
The final step involves calculation of crack growth due to fatigue loading. All anticipated plant transients were utilized in determining the resulting flaw size for a specified period of time. This was done for 10, 20, and 30 year intervals. In addition to satisfying the fracture criteria, it is required that the primary stress limits of Section III paragraph NC-3000 be satisfied. A local area reduction of prassure retaining membrane must be used, equal to the area of indication; and the stresses incret. sed to reflect the smaller cross section. 9 The nineteen indications found are all subsurface flaws as defined by IWB-3500.- As shown in figure B-4, all nineteen indications are acceptable per the fracture analysis criteria of IWB-3600. The fracture evaluatico methods used for these analyses have been documented in the main body of this report. It should be mentioned that some elevation of the hydrotest and leak test temperatures over the specified temperature will be required to ensure the margins of IWB-3600 are maintained, and these temperatures have been provided along with the complete technical details of the analysis in the main body of this report. The revised hydrotest and leak test temperatures from this inspection are provided in figures B-5, B-6 and B-7. B-4 SECONDARY WATER CHEMISTRY AND TUBE MATERIAL l Between 1979 and 1988 copper tubing in all the major secondary side heat l exchangers and the condenser were replaced with stainless steel. The Plant Chemistry Group has interfaced with the Plant Operations Group to ensure favorable secondary side water chemistry. (TableB-6) KNPP S/G Chemistry limits are based on both EPRI and Westinghouse chemistry guideline philosophy. Efforts towards the optimization of water chemistry inside the steam generators has resulted in maintaining a suitable environment in terms of preventing the corrosion of the steam generator girth weld. l
* * - * * " B-8
All of the indications noted during the 1988 inspections of Steam Generator "A" are volumetric in nature, subsurface, and are prior existing slag inclusions and/or voids. Further, the steam generator water chemistry and sludge data would support the conclusion the indications are not corrosion induced or crack-like. B-5 REFERENCES Bl. Krautkramer, J., and H. Krautkramer. Ultrasonic Testing of Materials, Springer-Verlag New York Inc., New York,1969, page 83, i B2. Gruber, G. J. , Hendrix, G. J. and Schick, W. R. "Characterization of Flaws in Piping Welds Using Satellite Pulses', Materials Evaluation. April 1984. Cook, R. V. , Latimer, P. J. and McClung, R. W. Flaw Measurement Using B3. i Ultrasonics in Thick Pressure Vessel Steel, final report on Contract No. W-7405-eng-26, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Aug.1982, Oak Ridge, TN. B4. Doctor, S.R., Becker, F. L., Haasler, P. G. and Selby, G. P.
"Effectiveness of U.S. Inservice Inspection Techniquss - A Round Robin Test," Proceedings of Specialist Meetira on Defect Detection and Sizing.
Ispra, Italy, May 3-6, 1983. Joint Research Center, Ispra (Va) Italy. B5. Jessop, T. J. , Mudge, P. J. and Harrison, J. D. Ultrasonic Naasurement of Wald Flaw Size, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 242, prepared for the Transportation Research Board by The Welding Institute, Dec. 1981. The Welding Institut'e, Cambridge, England. B6. Mudge, P. J. and Jessop, T. J. "Size Measurement and Characterization of Weld Defects by Ultrasonic Testing: Findings of a Collaborative I Programe," Proceedings of NDE in Relation to Structural Integrity, Paris, France, Aug. 24-25, 1981. Applied Science Publishers, Ltd., f I London, England. l l
* * - * * " B-9
B7. Rishel, R.D. "Sumary Report: Volumetric Flaw Depth Sizing," MT-SNART-807, September 12, 1985 (submitted to Seabrook Power Station). B8. Willetts, A. J., Amirato, F. V., and Kietzman, E. K., Jones, J. A. Applied Research Company. Accuracy of Ultrasonic Flaw Sizing Techniques for Reactor Pressure Vessels, EPRI RP1570-2 Draft Interim Report, March 1988.
- 89. Letter, Tomes WPS to Kurek W PSD.,
June 10, 1988,
Subject:
"Secondary Side Water Chemistry."
l b i j d L i i I i ' me.-est m ie B-10 I
, . . , - . . _ - . . - - -,, ,,---.--...n_.- .
TABLE B-1 :
SUMMARY
OF VLTRASONIC TEST INDICATIONS FOUND IN THE KEWAUNEE UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATOR "A" WELD 1-5 (5.0 MHZ TRANSDUCER, -6 dB DROP SIZING, SIZING DATA) f MEASURED "S" DA7A INDICATION '2a* (insidesurface) LENGTH
- 1. 45 degree 1 0.14' O.08' O.35"
- 2. 45 degree 2 0.30' 1.04" 0.50' i
- 3. 45 degree 3 0.37' O.28' O.95'
- 4. 45 degree 4 --
S. 45 degree 5
- 6. 45 degree 6 --
- 7. 45 degree 7 0.31' O.59" 1.0" ;
- 8. 60 degree 1 0.23' O.35' O.75"
- 9. 60 degree 2 0.52' O.26" 1.2" 10, 60 degree 3 0.35' O.12' 1.55"
- 11. 60 degree 4 0.52' O.26" 1.5" 12, 60 degree 5 0.30" 0.65' 2.1"
- 13. 60 degree 6 0.47" 0.41" 1.4'
; 14. 60 degree 7 0.30' O.69' 2.9'
- 15. 60 degree 8 0.47" 0.20' 12.1' ;
- 16. 60 degree 9 0.35' O.69" 13.25" l
- 17. 60 degree 10 0.41' O.71' 1.0" l
- 18. 60 degree 11 0.47' O.37" 1.8" 19, 60 degree 12 0.37' O.30" 2.8' '
?
?
l N [ l l i
- i j .=-wim ie B-11 .
TABLE B-2
SUMMARY
OF ULTRASONIC TEST INDICATIONS FOUND IN THE KEWAUNEE UNIT 1 STEAM GENERATOR "A" WELD 1-5 (2.25 MHZ TRANSDUCER, 50% DAC SIZING, DETECTION DA1A) MEASURED "S" DATA INDICATION "2a" (inside surface) LENGTH
- 1. 45 degree 1 0.35' O.12" 1.25' 0.43" 0.51" 0.85"
- 2. 45 degree 2
- 3. 45 degree 3 0.39" 0.39' O.85"
- 4. 45 degree 4 0.12' O.59" 0.60"
- 5. 45 degree 5 0.23' O.67" 45 degree
- 0.87" *
- 6. 6
- 7. 45 degree 7 0.23' O.53" 1.4"
- 8. 60 degree 1 0.76' O.0" 0.75"
- 9. 60 degree 2 0.46" 0.35" 1.0" 10, 60 degree 3 0.76" 0.12" 1.55"
- 11. 60 degree 4 0.52' O.41" 0.9'
- 12. 60 degree 5 0.41' O.34" 0.75"
- 13. 60 degru 6 0.64' O.41" 1.0" l
- 14. 60 degree 7 0.47' O.64" 0.7"
- 15. 60 degree 8 0.42' O.07" 12.1"
- 16. 60 degree 9 0.29" 0.82* 13.25" l
17, 60 degree 10 0.46" 0.65" 1.0"
- 18. 60 degru 11 0.46" 0.47" 1.8"
- 19. 60 degree 12 0.58' O.23" 1.8" r 6
l
*To small to measure l
1 1 m * = is B-12 l l
TABLE B-3 NONDESTRUCTIVE VERSUS DESTRUCTIVE TESTING RESULTS USING 2.25 MHZ, 50% DAC SIZING PHYSICAL DISTANCE FRON ID THROUGH-WALL LENGTH SAMPLE SURFACE DEPTH UT ACTUAL UT ACTUAL UT ACTUAL CORE #1 ** ** .37' O.09" 1.18' 1.15" (Plant 1) to 1.03 to 3.18" CORE #2 ** ** .16' O.02" .63" 0.45' (Plant 1) to .58" to .75" CORE #1 0.00" 0.08' to 0.24" 0.01" 0.88" 0.25" to (Plant 2) 0.33'
- to 0.33' O.28" CORE #2 0.16' O.82* 0.53" 0.18' O.88" 0.27' (Plant 2)
** ** 1.00" **
GRINDING 0.05" 0.37' (Plant 2) 3.5" ** GRINDING 0.00' O.375' O.45" 0.094' (Plant 2) 3.25" ** i GRINDING 0.00' O.125" 0.51" 0.156' (Plant 2) GRINDING 0.02" 0.156' O.43" 0.219' O.75" 0.375" (Plant 2)
** 0.75' **
GRINDING 0.00" ** 0.24" (Plant 2) GRINDING 0.00' O.219' O.33" 0.343' 1.0" 0.438' (Plant 2)
- One UT indication was found to be four indications upon metallurgi-cal evaluation. The values show the range of sizes for these four defects.
** Dimensions not reported.
l l l -ai m ie 8-13
TABLE B-4 RESULTS OF THE ASME SECTION XI, 1980 EDITION WITH THE WINTER 1981 ADDENDA CALCULATIONS USING THE ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS OF TABLE IWS-3511-1 (COMPOSITE SIZING DATA) IN0! CATION MEASURED . TYPE OF a/t a/t DATA NO. "2a"(1) IND. "a" "$' "1" ALLOW. ACTUAL
- 1. 45 deg. 1 0.14" subsurf. 0.07" 0.06" 0.35" 3.6% 1.9%
- 2. 45 deg. 2 0.30" subsurf. 0.15' 1.04" 0.50' 4.6% 4.0%
- 3. 45 deg. 3 0.37' subsurf. 0.19" 0.28" C.95" 3.6% 5.1%
- 4. 45 deg. 4 0.12" subsurf. 0.06" 0.59" 0.60' 2.9% 1.6%
- 5. 45 deg. 5 0.23" subsurf. 0.12" 0.67"
- 7.2% 3.2%
l 6. 45 deg. 6
- subsurf. 0.87' 1
- 7. 45 deg. 7 0.31' subsurf. 0.16" 0.59" 1.0" 3.3% 4.2%
- 8. 60 deg. 1 0.23' subsurf. 0.12" 0.35' O.75" 3.2% 3.2%
- 9. 60 deg. 2 0.52" subsurf. 0.26' O.26" 1.2" 3.8% 6.8%
- 10. 60 deg. 3 0.35" subsurf. 0.35" 0.12" 1.55" 2.0% 4.8%
- 11. 60 deg. 4 0.52' subsurf. 0.26' O.26" 1.5" 3.4% 7.0%
- 12. 60 deg. 5 0.30' subsarf. 0.15" 0.65" 2.1" 2.8% 4.0%
- 13. 60 dog. 6 0.47" subsurf. 0.24" 0.41" 1.4" 3.4% 6.44
- 14. 60 deg. 7 0.30" subsurf. 0.15" 0.69' 2.9" 2.8% 4.05 15, 60 deg. 8 0.47" subsurf. 0.24" 0.20" 12.1" 2.2% 6.1%
16, 60 deg. 9 0.35" subsurf. 0.18" 0.69" 13.25" 2.6% 4.9%
- 17. 60 deg. 10 0.41' subsurf. 0.21" 0.71' 1.0" 3.7% 5.7%
- 18. 60 deg. 11 0.47' subsurf. 0.24" 0.37" 1.8" 3.1% 6.4%
19, 60 deg. 12 0.37' subsurf. 0.19" 0.30" 2.8' 2.8% 5.1%
- To small to measure.
[1] From table B-1 except for 45 degree indications 4, 5, and 6 which are from table B-2.
==*im ie ,,34 l
TABLE B-5 RESULTS OF THE ASME SECTION XI, 1980 EDITION WITH THE 1981 WINTER ADDENDA IWB CALCULATIONS USING THE ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS OF TABLE 3511-1 2.25 MHZ TRANSDUCER, 50% DAC SIZING DETECTION DATA INDICATION MEASURED TYPE OF a/t a/t DATA NO. "2a' IND. "a" "S" *t" ALLOW. ACTUAL
- 1. 45 deg. 1 0.35" subsurf. 0.18" 0.12" 1.25" 2.1% 4.8%
- 2. 45 deg. 2 0.43' subsurf. 0.22' O.51' O 85" 4.2% 5.9%
- 3. 45 deg. 3 0.39" subsurf. 0.20" 0.39' O.85" 4.0% 5.4%
- 4. 45 deg. 4 0.12" subsurf. 0.00" 0.59" 0.60" 2.9% 1.6%
- 5. 45 dog. 5 0.23" subsurf. 0.12' O.67'
- 7.2% 3.2%
- 6. 45 deg. 6
- sebsurf.
- 0.87'
- 7. 45 deg. 7 0.23' subrurf. 0.12' O.53" 1.4' 2.9% 3.1%
- 8. 60 deg. 1 0.76" surface 0.76' O.0" 0.75' 3.7% 20.4%
- 9. 60 deg. 2 0.46' subsurf. 0.23' O.35" 1.0" 3.9% 6.2%
10, 60 deg. 3 0.76' surface 0.76' O.12" 1.55' 3.7% 20.4% 11, 60 deg. 4 0.52' subsurf. 0.26' O.41" 0.9' 4.5% 7.0%
- 12. 60 deg. 5 0.41' subsurf. 0.21' O.34' O.75" 4.3% 5.5%
- 13. 60 deg. 6 0.64' subsurf. 0.32' O.41" 1.0" 4.8% 8.6%
14, 60 deg. 7 0.47' subsurf. 0 23' O.64" 0.7' 5.1% 6.17% 15, 60 deg, 8 0.42' surface 0. .'2 " 0.07' 12.1" 1.7% 11.4%
- 16. 60 deg. 9 0.29" subsurf. 0.1P 0.82" 13.25' 2.64% 4.1%
17, 60 deg. 10 0.46" subsurf. 0.21 ' O.65" 1.0" 3.9% 6.3% 18, 60 deg. 11 0.46" subsurf. 0.23' O.47' 1.8' 3.08% 6.17%
- 19. 60 deg. 12 0.58" subsurf. 0.29" 0.23" 1.8' 2.59% 7.77%
- To small to measure, w e. a n n is g.15
}
~
TABLE 8-6 SECONDARY SIDE HEAT EXCHANGER TUBING MATERIALS COMPONENT MATERIAL Condenser 439 Stainless Steel Feedwater Heaters 439 Stainless Steel 11A, 118, 12A, 128, 13A and 138 Feedwater Heaters 304 Stainless Steel 14A, 14B, 15A and 158 Woisture Separator Reheaters 439 Stainless Steel 1A1, 1A2, 1B1 and 182 Gland Steam Condenser 439 Stainless Steel SECONDARY SIDE CHEMISTR): Phos > hates were eliminated from the secondary water during the middle of tw first cycle.
- The in-line chemistry monitors, their ranges end the alarm setpoints are based on vendor recommendations, EPRI guidelines and plant experience.
- KNPP cleans-up the secondary water systems during start-ups.
Sludge lancing, tube bundle washdowns, and wet lay-up are routine steam generator activities during refueling outages.
- Feedwater heater tube cleaning is routinely performed during refueling outages.
- There are chemistry hold points at low power operations at KNPP.
mim ie B 46
IIAMLB 0F 2 25187. 45 3 Etat. 401 DAC S!!I'0 (ALSO - t, De DIt0P OR Half MAXIMM AME SIZING IN 1 MIS CASE ONLT) N ' EEAMLE AS5tlB9'4 IONS :
\ = MAIINUM AM LITUDE OF RSSPONSB. 1001 D&C 4h 31485753 0F TRAMED9CER e 3 l
(A)
.7
\
s s ** i .s k I (B) (E) l 546 \
, ~q \c I l (C) (F) i
% -6 46
\gg l
~~
\ 5..V
.r 6a\
(D) l l Figure B-1. Schematic Example of Flaw Sizing with 2.25 MHz Transducer Using 50% DAC Sizing levels. (This particular example also shows -6 dB drop or half maximum amplitude sizing.) mume 3 17
gg"."o!?#*& %d"#x@#iSE"szuma zu m a casa cu m RAM Ls Asseletrous
. ItalfMggt AWL 27UDE Of REstouss,1006 D&C
"\ i
. zamm of Tumoocan . D (A) 44 t
\<
* \
(B) (E)
\"
\
l s.64.
-44
\
(C) (F) i hw
\ :p.p-(D) (G)
Figure B-2. Schematic Example of Flaw Sizing With 5.0 MHz Transducer Using 50% DAC Sizing Levels. (This particular example also shows -6dB drop or half maximum amplitude sizing.) mme " B-18
---r I
U. o h fm n % t
.e - E ~
- E
~ t! v m ,
J h" 0 iE 2
.J -
- .t s i
E r s il-EI O 0
~
~
d J E
!E O%
tw b 5 a= 4 ~ -M a5 O le g$ , C O
- z. ,
r
=4
, . . o.". o jj J
e J o d d d
=
o e-o o n~- o o o oo o 4 (KNI) HicBO WM-HONE GES g C , e i l l l B-19 ' l I
SURFACE /EM8EDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION LIN E 0.13 .. .
- !E i '!i:" 'i:0 db EMBEDDED FLAW i I. . Y "S".~ ^ *-
g ...4 3. -+ a.yCO..P FIG.u..N . . A.T. ION .::.. .. .,. . , , , ,
,,. . . ... FLAWS WITH t 0.12 =g; :g m, , ,
" g=:.:=T.Z ;,,, :. : g; ' ': :.
.;: ABOVE THIS LINE ARE
- r.::. :"
- "a J NOT ALLOWABLE
./. n:
n5De = 0 11
. ./ .4- . . . . . .
= .= =:
- g n :g = ;.q . . . .. g i=i a= ;i e s -
sii ;E 'i : ri! -: m . Ij;!jii
/ iEjij - '. 2 u ;;;gi i iGi :::] .
.i r:i -
. . .mgt g .
- " -. !/;i: i.:j iji- ji:j}iii; " i Uit _
0.M 53 !:2 i -'* 6"
~
!F :'a d! [I 5555 lilt!- M^~ EI I Ni g*
i31 , ,
, ==gy gg;; g;;(7 , ._g . g.;;;,3 g; g; =;;;7qp; iiii' : '
%enddMiE i #2 . .;: [$I': i-ii iiii :iiWi' 3 0.08 , . . . . , a e. "ii f
. . R-- !.h 3 Ek i; ~ I I - :;a . fg Mii iiiiiii g
0.07 r :sunFACa. :.. :':... .
.M E . . .... . ... . . .
MT.:.1 :::p: li ::!IEi. O .
! .t_..[.
. . . . . . '_.. _ . .. .".. k8l .._..
- n
.=,,
"-t-t - :-:
. . . .a Z R FLAWS IN THIS t- n' r.33 i Ti" d4 . . I"I "I*e" : Olli
> 0.06 -'mEoioN uusf sE 7.p: ~ ..--
' ""' "" ' :'ja#~
O m: CONSIDE R E D " '"b :t . . . . .
~
- "7,7 g il sumFt.cE /illiE n q f.h"- i=r
~""
.iy u 0.05 '- flaws ,_.u.. .. .... .~~.g ..
- er.m a - . - -.
~
;,m . .. . . . . .. . . . .
. 0: . :
at :itg i-ii!!!-i- :-qii r. Z 0.04 nii. y4
- ii.5 7 -ii% .N ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS g -
aj'd- eq (ON THIS SIDE OF p,,.
.u-.
.u . ..- h:
.:/. : un ;:r- . ,. e -p@;-ju :sg DEMARKATION LINE) 0.03 ARE ACCEPTABLE PER
; ;. un
;;f,; . .
93_; 3 .
; 3;;. .;; ,
.p;; . : :iilii CRITERIA OF IWB 3600 26 i / '
. Flaws la tuts.
Ni' ~ ~ E AS LONO AS2,a40.25 0*02 ii f if t . .. atstee set #fii % :5 i. : -- -}j t
'n yr 0.01 ACCEPfa8Lt .
"Fi"
}:
.nI..
- r g - ri .. !
! %i fi" 4 J' O Westinghouse 1987 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE (f) fATA 12 7TPt OF MEAStTfD WEAND ED MIASL9tD s/t 8/t ACCEPT
- 12 'Fa' '3' 't' AM2 1 45 est. I sutowf. 0.14' O 09' .7 3* 0.019 0.040 yet
- 2. 45 seg. 7 sutawf. 0.ic* 1.04' '7 )' O.040 0 320 yes
). 45 seg. 3 outow f. 0.)T* 0.29' .7 3' O.051 0.1M yes 4 45 e.g . 4 outowf. 0.12 0.59* 3.7 P 0.016 0.174 yes
- 5. a5 eet. 5 outowf. 0.23' O.67* 3.73* c.052 0.212 yes
- 6. a5og. 6 outawf. 0.00* 0.87' 3.73' O.000 0.233 yes
- 7. 45 eg. 7 sessf. 0.31' O 59* 3.P5' O.042 0.195 res
- 8. 60 seg. 1 outswr. 0.23' O.35 ' 3.73' O.032 0.1M yes
- 9. 60 eg. 2 seowf. 0.52* 0. ?6 ' ).7 P 0.0t>4 0 .1 49 res
- 10. 60 seg. ) outowf. 0.35' O.12* 3 73* 0.048 Od io yes
- 11. 60 e*6 4 seawf. 0.52' O.M' 3 73* 0.070 0 .1 79 yes
- 12. 60 og . 5 outowf. 0.30' O.65' 3.79' O.040 0.211 yes 13, 60 og. 6 s e swf. 0.47' O.41' ).? P 0.064 0.17e yes
- 14. 60 set. 7 sutowf. 0.30* 0.49' 3.37' O.040 0.225 yes 15, 60 esg. $ s&swf. 0.47' O.20* ).93* 0.C41 0.112 yes
- 16. 60 og. 9 sutowf. 0 35 ' O.69' 3.6
- 0.049 0.236 yes 17, 60 ees. 10 seawf. 0,41' O.71' 3 68* 0.057 0.2*0 res
- 18. 60 ees. It sweewf. 0.47= 0.37' 3.73' O.064 0.164 yes it. 60 eg. 12 esser. 0 37' O.}ca ).f r 0.051 0.131 yes Figure B-4. Fracture Analysis Results for Indications Found in the Kewaunee Unit 1 Steam Generator "A" Wald 1-5 (Ccmposite Si:ing Data) ro.4.uma to B-20
SURFACE / EMBEDDED
. FLAW DEM ARCATION UNE 160 0 13 ,
E M e i D D E D F L.AW ;- [..
- .: a- -.".-" . , 140' dadd: de.r. :'
=:ur:r s
3:r =- .. 4 e3.-- e :: CON 780Um ATION IJ ,, i. ,,
.g"~p'a
" ~ ',*'"'"" #
~
0*12 .:~='"~~..":._: . . ~ ~. :'. . -:'j'c' { ::p .jfg :.g.gi ., i jj.i; r 0'M N; E I' 'Ih 'I#I? fi t I
- : :' ". .'. . .4, .: :. .3n;: :s". .:-:. ;t : ..
f - . --.: : . . . :.g-I. :::
. .:- rj7. .:: ::::a
.: --: _ . . ::: .n e: : : ir:.
E H 120 0 10 /- Iti5 *; u. :.i :i$':r!!# ',4 Y !! .!:! ri_ Vile's 5 !!E HID
# iiF i ~ii -5 L: i"- :E:i hE![ $EIi'[d iS 55iE! 5 "-/I!i eT g g P5 :n. i .-ii- d 'iE 5iifi: ' /, 'H F/2.iiii.:5i.5W7'5 .
_. . . . . .. r.- 45
%,/"'"'".-
- = :::: a:-
- .=:
a: l /. ::..- .: :' :a .:--rr'-_ : ='
. . . J. __:..- :::.:-
' ' ~
O'M -
~i G 4
.. i,
- a e # /Mii riueii g"itimit9E -1:n'"
rgE/.
' ::.::..: /" . : L :1 a ...a. Y::
.:-- rre ::= ll ,..r-r- : .. <. . ./. rf .-- :-! :M:: .:u: . .:
--cr-0.07 .. .
..a svarace ::.
_- .' g;w.__.r. m , t. 7: . . t . _. . . t . . .. . .. . . 17. E .::: _. 3. .3 . f'.
- =. ::2. . .....: '. . .
._: r O.06 j rL.Aws in Twis Ff:'ii i #JiiFii68 m :=
?.4.il!!-' !!E-3: 'q
- .neoroN wust et f;i.:.r =-- . -Mf. :-
4 . . . .
.a:-=: . 4n :.= . . m. . r.u. . .
o =cousiogago J 0'O' 9sumpAct '", # y p:'ia.23. # +;iEliE"E -+is'!L 5 YW* t- . j# 6tn: i:r;=! W iiit.'.:- d= #9 -
'!!I*E Y 4" SI ~O'UE 5 0.04 '"-IOil-I' /A : !*u. . E
. = .w. . ii.n.Ii.i if./ . . .
- is.:. .. -#. . ...i.si
. =- .+ sr z. - - ,ii.p ...
-@#:li/6c ci.E ir 1- 5s;nr c:.PG EP .Ws 2 : 50 0.03 t g g jf. 5 g,;g!g ;g ,2;,pg..,g Eii. /d:!H'"iis-i D F ' ': M iii4i != ni- s: ij:i 0.02 }j g g 3t 7;aj ._T 1, ,
.f u, y,wgijgg i i= ii'i' 0'01 JiY 'UK
'~'"
'i{*
~
*i i M
+j dd:: :::3 ~.
'.2 3 II* ',.
H - Ji --
"9 L 'ii: .. :1 05. -
-1. '
y ....: .fu- ..y. a
. _.< 4
- p. t- .
,g -1 C Westinghouse 1987 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE h Figure B-5. Determination of Hydrostatic Test Temperatures from Results of the March 1988 Inspection (Composite Sizing Data) (p = 1356 psi)
~ *c = " B-21
. SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEMARCATION UNE 140 0.13 .; .. .;;; .i. .l .d,m ,m :, (M BIDDID FLAW .;[ ,.. ,.
=9~ 120
- _ :.erv : _- -
- t 1:-
m =~
+ .e m. 3%- :: .C.O.~N 810,.U..R AT..IO.N_ .. r.,
1 s.-t J r. r . ::.; r:y/.
. " < ..J .
- - ,. :.- r . .
he h .=:_:. ^.- g . :. :p.: it. :: :=:.::: . - .::.:.=.. A':
- . . .: :: :., . .. c,. a. p,
_._u_. _ .. 0.11 E' 9= 'l.~-
..=:
,: . :=.
NI *.Ii[.:h 5$MI*.M: ~[ $5-D. N[i-5 N
.= . . .a , .= x =
_s -
.= ::.- : r- _- ":rl ; -:: t.- ..t.j. .r...-,=- :..s :-:a r:: .-=: ":::::
. :=.:
0.10 N!$E
'~# :
'3 riI:
if T![ i i'. . :W.. Ei ':$ $i 55
~.m. ./.I- .-. ..:.:
- -:- ,: . . :.n
- r.: ., . : =_
. - , .t r. _ = . 2:f.:u
. . . : ::...-. - v. =. a.r. ...
0.09 .'Yi 33
~ii 4 L: F- E i I~[lE7!E- i5 ihi U ::E 4 -
- . r.::
.n .--a := . . -. e. , ..
...d,. *;5' -- :... . :-
9 Top . . - . _ = ... ...
.gEi(i:*: ' }i! 4 \n,2,;,;,: 1%ip:lij . :' i' .:{gL:. j :'.i:6 "'
3 0.08 ::t s m a su
._-.. : t_-:::.. ::: ::::
__t ". r_. .:: =,
- an.: .:. t . t a :. .. :- . . .::- - -:. -:- p= ::j -.: :
0.07
."a .. Buneace . ,"
- - :: . /./ r -0 t-- ;_ .
=.=.. rs. _-.
- r. .. :'./..._ ... -4..
r< . :: ..t. . . . g . 3 . . .. . _ . . - :::.: .. .:: .:.= 3
... .::: . . f. . :. .n.: :. . = . _. .n.-.- =_-
,0
]:u:: " ..:.
-1, es
'P u.::- u-n::. -.
- d. ' '# * * ' " T "' '- ' I~l ". . ' ' i' '" '" " # '
x#'a
~; -
$ 0*04 REGloN WUST SEE :f:g.:.:i"- :: 4- a.. . .
"Up' "r-*%';
(CONSIDERED
- ~ "" P 3" :=~ ~ " ~ '
' 50
=- n" a "= '- "=
8 ;nsuuAct #':=::.F..i=. .
=;
? , r. . . :-:
- )' . : " :+- -y
":"g-0.05 7lgwg_,,g;pg. ;g .n, 3"q"g" ,; ; it,3,3g .' - ,_ jg g
__ a . . . m-.. .:6.- 'r86.
. . 'er .
- av
.::-- .nc :-.. . + . .
. _= .- c.-- -
E 0.04 -- - - - uts iriii :/it : ':E-t it= -#re v@WMin ;ti:m.'
!?'0- #/ it si i=.yT 16: 29 s t= s, , u i 0.03 33 ; g7, ygr,;,;g "_-d g,; 4 ,.,,# ..
;g g, ,. 9j
- m. . ar ii=. g.
, . ,:: ss.. . il.n., .
T a:. :::i a n :
.. ..=. .s.r
/_ .
.gM4. . :.jr.=1 ,sii . -.. *- n- 'l93 j iii :35r" t :4.h iWiii' U ! iiiI i'=I#
0 fI# l= '#5'!K"; ' 0'01 [I'8:~i [/T.iE :j r.
"ir I!i ii:
*:- :-E 5 5 '<
a.Y.F Si -!! - -
- . ti- ai =
U
'u Niii
- n. :::, .. : ii[ - j?iM C West'@ te19878 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE h Figure B-6. Determination of Leakage Test Temperatures from Results of the 5 1988 Inspections (Composite Sizing Data) (p = 1035 psi) mu te . B-22
SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEMARCATION UNE 0.13 .. 4
- r~;;13% . ."i[ ::$ :. .
I 8-IW S10080 FLAW ;"[ l. "1- F '"
-r. e. v .g - e. .. C.O. y hmfl0 . RVA T.I.O..N, , ,,.. .!-
...c.
c.t : In. ! O. g ; g j;M .,, . j g. A g, ,j.. ,3f; .;g:3; g*q g 5I ".; -
- 5 7 *C % :!E: dN:: [d.Nii";5 iiF.bj . i,d
.;5 Edi
_ li:' ,,, I- M lia'3 5 ::jf': .5 :Fi!N ;i:1,[: '. . 70'F p:: 7 :.. ? ?~: #. , ;.r. . Ji j- 9:{f V: .ii'. u: .tij(i,i .=Ti E
.:9 . ;;3f.: :j ': -i' ' !.![y ; r. ;i,i: ;.2:T:M t% :::., ..
, 50 tii i .] rih [.:p!"M :r 4(7:1+4ji:i' ijjiC::
l':Jii : .
. .] g-M?:j. :ll Nrh 'IN b[ , .!5 ". .IWS: 5:! 5M -ih e.T . ;._,
- = . , :
c.: . ..r. .. n. . ,p?..:s- ::::.;a.:
,.c
. . . :. -r g g'gg i2 .. sg e. s M a su -u f.i :Jiig ..:it' a diff':. Er .!!s:
I 0.07 ii:ii /;sv eaeE :Ludtfri.8/:[in i!M5 M%UF. \!?-:
._:.- :._ , ..T....
. . =i . . . : . . t... ,
.u
...._i=. :. .. .. .. .:=. . : r.m.u.n.:.
. t. . ..
- .;;;;,: ; .a. .:.:
F 4. .e4 as.Ia .: :; -. i:a .
..PLAws IN TMis *:id m. .A.1: . :- - :, . :. : ::: :--
0*04 ,,;; .. REGION Mulf St * : .. .. -. . .s . . . . .
.nga- .:' ..i!
# uY '
"P"'-. "' M t
JCONBtDERED lii SUR F ACE l m : :. t ' "8: .:g :' .!.Y :iisi' " '"' bi:
- u. 0.05 m rLAws [r ='[T . = .r-r ~-
8
- .t.i . . .E.. .... ..
. . . . . t,-..-
s j li. ... . //gr' !.id . ,tF ~;
. i... .p YfVit.; qf at s= e w r-
//h . .t m ;t# += " .. :- r m.:
A i:1 i,
~
"; rpff/.., ' ::i ,i2f"i.iWi::D '- .; - - 2
'i; 3 .:l .
0.03 3 ;g. .. fj . ,.<
- _j __
;;g;. ; .,
- r. ;;;, ;;;,;; . .,j 3 *. : i,/dj - : - - ri . li . ; . .c :$;"
0.02 ..y g. 4;".3y.. .. . , . .
.g ,7 .3 ..,, ,.;.,= ,. p. ,.
s. w .
- ip. n .;i tg. 4 -
- it - .
. .u g- ;ii: uig 0.01
- .-: 4li n:l:;. + nr .,. . t. . . . .
i- ' l.i - ri 0 UF ri - i- ai 9: - '. " C Watinghouse 1987 g m 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE di Figure B-7. Determination of Leakage Test Temperatures from Results of the March 1988 Inspections (Co'r.posite Sizing Data) (p = 750 psi) l , I w:2a B-23 \
- __ _}}