ML20235G945
| ML20235G945 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1989 |
| From: | Chang K WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011C539 | List: |
| References | |
| WCAP-12133, NUDOCS 8902230412 | |
| Download: ML20235G945 (83) | |
Text
._. ._ _ . _ _ _ _ . .
o 1 ..
!- WESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3 4
L L'
l WCAP-12133' l
- l. >
..e
)-
l- ..
w- ,
l Surge Line Stratification Presentation Overheads -
l-Georgia Power /NRC Meeting - 1/24/89 Prepared by: 'K. C. Chang Plant Engineering Department January 1989 1
A' WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Power Systems Business Unit P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 l l
8902230412 890215 2 ,
PDR ADOCK 050004'5 ! ;;-
A PDC
_i. ,
1
~
{
l VOGTLE UNIT 2 -
l PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION UPDATE OF DESIGN TRANSIENTS l
STRESS ANALYSIS i d
ASME Ill FATIGUE USAGE FACTOR
~
FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK CONCLUSION l
m 1
_-------.--___J
v v bo bo I
s Q
LO Mw l i
w l
% l 1v J vs D/o Wo se /v w
o w
~
l l ,
l Isometric vi*W Of PWR 2
J
\
' =
8 R-
~
h !
~
N w E m
~
O y w n a ,s 8 5
s .
a:
M m
. W g 8 , $
~
N W y a
" E g e E $ f f w e N
>= C N g "
E o N
2 I
M r N
- 3 g
E 8 n A
. ! N e,
l l
3
--- --.-- j
i i
0
~
PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION UPDATE OF DESIGN TRANSIENTS STRESS ANALYSIS
~ '
ASME Ill FATIGUE USAGE FACTOR FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK CONCLUSION
~
l et i
A
I PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE TRANSIENT DEVELOPMENT WITH STRATIFICATION l
o Design Documentation o Thermal Hydraulics of Stratification o Monitoring Programs i
o Operations Survey I
o Heat Transfer and Stress Analysis o Stratification Profiles o Transient Types o Heatup - Cooldown Transients !
o Design Transients w/ Stratification O
e 5
L _ ________---________--_a
i
, TRANSIENT DEVELOPMENT FLOW CHART a
SYSTEM DESIGN MONITORED INFORMATION DATA (1) (3)
STRATIFICATION HE AT TRANSFER
- EFFICTS CRITERIA - STRESS ANALYSl3 (2) (4) 8,C,e HISTORICAL DATA
~
(8) l _
TRANSIENTS '
(10) e Event Design
- Cycles. Design + Monitored e Transient Type Structures =
Design + Monitored Transient Magnitude i
o_
l l
l 6
. _A
'") J r
$'c f
- v r t on "
t cl am r I
ao u g eoP )
RC p o
)
S o
L
- t R
H l
a aR e(
Hp = i c
p o y l r o ta o T oL (
mt a ra d l o
sa y
r yS
)
ml t
ee Se n G
I ev Ro
- R m
e i
D m
a r
g a
, ia aC )
l ir x pV " ,
[
S w o
uSC ( C l A Ye v
V F C
a
) MW'VL J
la f
1 r
, i n L
(
e t
m e
s n y mN. w o
S
- d t n
) le a laS L l l
vR o gl ) a oH o e ac umR C ti t p de({
isRm r oy et e o HT( Rat es t c
Hy a
.' ,s S e
\ , R ole k /
a' ,E t
R c s a e e V s
g )
gt ) n i S ea geC r n tc i dp y h aLiVC lo T C (
C(
< k a
1 l
i I . l l-Aux. Spray
- M1 4 bd
- - Spray From Loop CL 4W l.
~
h ,_, e Spray From '
Loop CL Surge Line Connecting
- to Loop HL
~
RCS Pressurizer 8
)
s r
u o
H
(
e i
m T
)
F
(
e r
t u
a r
e i . p m
e T_ _
e
e, c,
n w
) o s
r d
l o
u C o
o e H
d
( o M
. e l e
m b b
i u
T B m
a t
e S
)
F
(
e r
t u
a r
.. e p
m e
T -
E
l i,*
e l
z ,
i
=
- 16 5
- g a
s W
~ j Q& j 11
e.
c, a -
- ~
r - ~
e =
i z t y
r ic
- e. o d, nu c, l
e i,
u os a V _
_ l F
i t s - _
_ d l
ae o 7.___yC-crP /
r[_ / t i
f ~=
n a d l
i y n g c o
t r _ _
ae rd i
l t
c o
_~ S t
aT e
t n V SU
- r ._ _
e s ~
z' a
ww i
r u' N' \
~
o s
l o s]
e m' f jt1I1t
\
Fb l P
r ltII4 m[ vr wltIIg
\
f E o" i o n f r t o
\
ei wh t' oT e" ltII4 arn t l _
F t
o i
me t t t
H sa EP
~
r1Illlllll1jll
e, C,
, 8 O )
e
, p e
r i
D P
t u I h
c a
r i
n 3
e 4 p 1
(
m l e
i e f o
. T P r
e s r u
. s t a
l e e r
n p i
o e m
T s s n s e
e l n
) o s m i s
e i
n e D e m
r i D
g e
d
(
l e _
g _
.. n A
t
MONITORING PROGRAMS i
~
o General Criteria Drwelop Sufficient Data to Characterize All Critical Operating Transients Heatup and Cooldown Most Critical Times (Continuous Monitorlag)
Temperature Data Needed:
o Characterize Temperature Profiles o Capture Transient Effects o Develop input for Structural Analysis o Externally Mounted RTD's/TC Used Displacement Needed:
o Check Potential interferences o Benchmark Structural Analysis o LVDT's (Lanyards) Used 3
14
MONITORING PROGRAMS Plant-System Data Needed Obtain Actual Fluid Temperatures / Pressures Identify Critical System Operations Correlate Operations to Transients
.P O
O en e
15
_ _ _ ___]
s
$ t' i
= .a :
. !. :4, 1
nn ma .a .- .
- t
- , - - ar* = '
x . ...
. ors on t 2.N "g 1
- rr m L la.
1.
E e
,y y g gs yg-I2Ol.gg}.MOOL b
D z 1 2
U< _. , , ,..
4 e
i f
-A MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION LgATlW
- l. s 1
16
, 1 N ,
I O ,
T ,
A ,
C I
F I
T ,
A ,
, 0 R , 0
, 7 T ,
, 0 S D N ,
EE ,
NF EA I
. LS ,
A T ,
EA D ,
G 8 ,
R8 - ,
U3 1 0
S- 9 ,
0 0 ,3
,0 2 ,
T I
N U ,
E ,
L ,
T ,
G ,
O ,
,0 V - - - - - - - - - -
,0 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
8
- 1 Odw 3hwa.3F O
, 1 N
O I
T ,
A C
I F
I T ,
A ,
, 0 R ,
- 7 0
T _
_ 0 S ,
E6 0 ,
N0 H I ,
LA T ,
A ,
D ,
. E 8 G8 -
R3 1 ,
. U- 9 ,
, 0 S0 ,
, 3 0
0 2 ,
T I
N _
U ,
E ..
L ,
T ,
G ;
. O ,
0 V - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
, 0 3
2
. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 0
- 8 1
C g w S Wo3 c
k $ a. 3 V-M
0 0:
u 1 m
m 1
._ u
_ u
.'~ u u
u N u u
u O
u u
I u
=
T -.
A u u
u C
I u
u u
u u
F I
u u
u u
T u m
A m u
s.
0 R . 0:
. 7 T e
- 0 S -
w w
0 =
=
E5 '
=
NE T4 I
. )
LA . S T
_ R A _ U D O E 8
. H G8 - .
(E M :_
, R3 .
I T
U1 - .
0 S9 0 s u
u 3 0:
m0 m
2 u s.
T I
e s
u N -
U s
u E =_
L ._
T _
G O u s
u 0 V - - - - - - - - - - - -
m0:
3 2
,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 00 8
1 nin Ovy3Na:wIw1 -
M
.O O
E
. ( :"
R Z i O
/
i F-'
<C i O E LL.
F- i
$ $C Z EC
-s H EC O !
E W C I ZE i
= ^
A n<< I
=
N 2
o " 5 W g ! Z OO a !!
=
tf 1
- 19 E
- G Di =
CA S
!m!
EC b !
E I
Z i D iB E
W E J i F- E O E O i EE i i i i i i i i i l i i i M O C C C C C C C C C C C C C CJ T N O CO LD T N O EC LD T N C 10 O T T T M M M M M N N N N N - *-
O C to
. e Croso)3anivasan31 20
1 OPERATIONS SURVEY-
. i
~
o Summary of Plants Surveyed NO. OF YEARS OF OPERATION PLANT LOOPS (MAXIMUM)
V0GTLE 4 2 a,c.e l
o Reviewed Typical Heatup Cooldown Process o Reviewed Administrative / Tech Spec Limitations o Reviewed Historical Events and Time Durations
.- o Developed Heatup - Cooldown Profiles 21
__ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -a
STRATIFICATION PROFILES
-- 8 , C , e e
6 5
e i
4 4
(
0 22
a,c e Surge Line Hot Cold Interface Locations 23
C) e P
O e
C a.
3 m
'4 W'
I e
w i' w
3 S
w e
b
>~
E
. O
=
. 6 C
O 4-w 0
J W
w 4
Te w
C 30 V
4 0
Z e
O l
l 24 I
1 TRANSIENT TYPES e
a,C,0 C
e 4
0 e
1 i
4 6
25
TRANSIENT TYPES
~
o Historical Data o Reviewed Records of Past Heatups and Cooldowns Obtained Maximum Press. - Hot Leg Temp Diff.
Approximate Time at Temp Plateaus O
O 6
9 9
e 26
a,c,e l
l
\
3 e
i l
l I
l.-
l t
l=
1 I r a,c.e Typkal[ ,, emperature Profiles 27
( - _ - - _ - - _ - __ -__ - -_-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
HEATUP - COOLDOWN TRANSIENTS o Transients Were Developed Based On:
Typical Heatup Cooldown Curves Envelope (Plus Margin) of Events (Transients) Monitored Historical Data on Temperature Plateaus a,c.e ;
l e
f l
I l
l.*
i 28
)
DESIGN TRANSIENTS WITH STRATIFICATION o Heatup and Cooldown Combined With Other Events-o Design Transient Criteria a,c.e l
l 1
o input for Local and Structural Analysis Defined - Plus Nozzle o Striping Transients Defined to Consider Maximum Stratification Cycles Regardless of Range 29 I 1
1
[7,'k ..
- SURGELINE TRANSIENTS'WITH' STRATIFICATION HEATUP (H)_AND C00LDOWN .(C) 200 CYCLES TOTAL. - a ,c.e JG
, D--
f .'
l r
e e
i4
[ ,
e e
.W I
30
SURGE'LINE TRANSIENTS WITH STRATIFICATION NORMAL AND UPSET TRANSIENT LIST
^
a,c.e O
O d
e
' 9 e
4 e
O L :
31
SURGE LINE TRANSIENTS WITH STRATIFICATION NORMAL AND UPSET TRANSIENT LIST a.c,e 9
e O
e a
F e
O BubuMD 9
32
I a,C,0 SURGE LINE TRANSIENTS - STRIPING LOADS FOR HEATUP (H) and C00LDOWN (C)
S i
S 0
4 l
l.-
33
1 CONCLUSIONS o All Current Design Transients Enveloped 1
- -a,c,e
{
o Monitoring Programs From Plants Contained Sufficient Data to Develop Conservative understanding of Stratification o Operations Surveys Provided for' Interpretation of 1 onitored Results o Stratification Profiles Developed For Entire Line o Transient Types Developed l o Revised Design Transients Developed With Stratification l
i l
e l
e 34
)
i
\
. PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION l
UPDATE OF DESIGN TRANSIENTS !
l STRESS ANALYSIS l
ASME lil FATIGUE USAGE FACTOR l O
FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH LEAK-BEFORE BREAK CONCLUSION i
e 0
35
i l'
l i l l l
l l
DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THERMAL STRATIFICATION a,C,0 e
l l
R 4
e a
w O
d .
36 F
_J
1 i
STRESS ANALYSIS
.c ^
Piping System Structural Analysis Local Stress Analysis Striping Stress Analysis O
e a
i e
e 37
_a
d HOT COLD A A UMU MM/
SIMPLY SUPPORTED SEAM
. /
. /
/ - - - - - _ _ _ -
/
~
l
/ Hot h
/
OLc CANTILEVER BEAM ;
Figure 9 Bowing of Beams Subject to Top to Bottom Temperature Gradient 38
8,C,e A
e d
4 4
0 O
m Y
e 8,C,e Profile 39 i
i.
g; .
' e V
e-5 l "
It' 6
- .E och a
W EW wa N
= E
.C
==
e N b-
, A att w U E =
ch. L N N
- - C.
>= 2
= W w
e' man -
8
'W es 40
1 TEMPERATURE. PROFILES IN PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE e - - a,c,e
- (
i O
e 9
e e
e e
41
CONCLUSION - GLOBAL STRESS ANALYSIS l
e Temperature Profiles Established Through Parametric Study e Rigid Support H006 Replaced by Spring and Snubber to Reduce Support Loads e Eleven (11) Cases Analyzed to Calculate All Required Loading Conditions e Pressurizer Nozzle Loads Under Evaluation e Hot Leg Nozzle Loads Acceptable o Piping Stress Within Code Limits Using CMTR for Reducer
- e Stratification Loads on Support H002 Within Design Allowable
- e Pipe Movements to be Reviewed Against Clearance and Verified Duri.ng the Next Heatup 4
9 42
LCCAL STRESS CONSIDERATIONS O
o Stresses Due to Non-Linear Thermal Gradient o Striping t
a e
4 e
I l
e e
43
LOCAL STRESS - FINITE ELEMENT MODELS/ LOADING ;
~
8,C,0 e .
9
. t k
i l
e
=
e 44 1
I
t
. a,c.e 1
4 Piping Thermal Boundary Conditions 45
-- _ - ~ ~ - - ~ - - - - - ~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l l-l a,c.e d
f qa,c.e
. Surge Line Local Axial Stress on inside Surface a
] Axial Locations 46
7-i-
. a ,c .e .
.t
-- - - a,c,e Surge Line Local Axial Stress on Outside Surface at Axial Locations 47
HOT LEG NOZZLE STRESS ANALYSIS
~
o Two 3-Dimensional Models Developed o Loading included Pressure Bending Moments Stratification o Stratification Profile Based on Observation During RCP
- Trlp e
l l
4 9
l i
48
i O
e U.
N 8
1 E
S P
T C
2 2
v W
O.
O C
U W
D w
)
m 0
4 9
49
^
~t-e i
. Q,
- 4
.*~ .
- . e
$ i
'1 I
i
.i i
i f
i
{
i I. :
f
. ( -!
W i w -
n l
.g_
{
W i
..C
- M
.W I e
w-t
'3 e, .i !
i k
a 1
j e -l a j l
e e
.)
LOCAL STRESS CONSERVATISM
- 8,C,0 e
e e
I l
l 1
l O
O e
D i
51
1 RESULTS ;
1
_ a,c.e o Stress Profiles Developed for Pipe Cross-Section -'
l o Maximum Stresses Occur on inside Surface Near Interface-o Results Consistent with Theory o Stresses to be Combined with Structural Bending g . e a
O 8
6 m
5 52
________ - ___ ____ ________________-________________]
PRESSURIZER-SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION
. THERMAL STRIPING ANALYSIS i
BACKGROUND:
Feedwater Line it 7#R's Flow Tests For L)'t RR Experimental Tests in Japan Mitsubishi Heavy industries, Ltd. ;
. Thermal Striping Affects ASME Fatigue Analysis
- Temperature Fluctuations at Boundary Thermal Discontinuity Stresses '
Usage Factor for Fatigue Life !
)
'4 h
D O
53
PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION
." THERMAL STRIPING ANALYSIS Factors Which Affect Striping Stress:
Fluid Temperature Delta T & Cycles Frequency of Oscillation Surface Film Coefficient Material Properties -
(Thermal Conductivity)
(Thermal Diffusivity)
. (Modulus of Elasticity)
, (Coefficient of Thermal Expansion)
Wall Thickness Thermal Striping Potential (a T Level vs. Time)
D 9
54
. PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION THERMAL STRIPING ANALYSIS 1
Therrnal Striping Stresses j d
o Peak Stress Range and Stress Intensity Calculated l Surface Nodes o Through Wall Stress at High Peak Stress Locations a,c,e O
9 e
i e
9 55 ,
PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION
~
- . THERMAL STRIPING ANALYSIS I
Conservatism:
o Striping Occurs at One Location o Surface Film Coefficient High & Constant Flow o Thermal Transient AT and Cycles O
C O
O m
l 56
i i
l Pressurizer Surge Line Stratification Thermal Striping i
^* 1 Boundary Between Hot & Cold Stratified Ft.sid Hot Fluid / See Detail 1
[ Boundary Between Hot & Coid
~
h CLSurge Pipe Cold \ ______ __
.' Fluid Hot Fluid i h = 1.125 in.
A+ - ,Ct Cold Fluid Section A A Do i3 026954 027 9 -
+
57
a 4
e Pressurizer Surge Line Stratification Thermal Striaing th = 1.125 in h /
& o ,
O is Time r i T insulated g ii Outside Surface g
T Amphtude of Flued Temperature b Oscillation Versus Trne h - inside surface Heat Transfer Pipe Wall Film Coemeent
.t Surface Temperature f
t
- Intenor Temperature 9
9 58
\ e ; ;
-.. 'I J
9 6
e 1
. m. .
U.
E 2 .
9 e
~ W
.5
. E u.
e U
M-I I 59
PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION UPDATE OF DESIGN TRANSIENTS l
STRESS ANALYSIS
. i ASME !!! FATIGUE USAGE FACTOR
~
FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK CONCLUSION 1
l 60
f 9
)
CUMULATIVE USAGE FACTOR: EVALUATION .
e
- 1 o Code / Criteria o Previous Design Method o Stress input o Stress Classification / Combination o Load Combinations / Usage Evaluation I
o Results .
o Conservatism 1
9 I
~
)
61
CODE / CRITERIA o ASME B&PV Code, Sec. Ill,1986 Edition NB3600 NB3200 o Level A/B Service Limits Primary Plus Secondary Stress intensity s 3Sm (Eq.10)
Simplified Elastic-Plastic Analysis Expansion Stress, S, s 3Sm (Eq.12) -
Global Analysis Primary Plus Secondary Excluding Thermal Bending 5 3Sm (Eq.13)
Elastic-Plastic Penalty Factor 1.0 s K, s 3.333 Peak Stress (Eq.11)/ Cumulative Usage Factor (Ucum) alt = K,Sp /2 (Eq.14)
S Design Fatigue Curve U s 1.0 cum 62
e STRESS INPUT o Pressure Stress Transient Pressure WECAN 2-D Unit Pressure Stress o Moment Stress ANSYS Global Moments WECAN 2-D Unit Moment Stress.
I - - a,c.e e
( -
m l
l l
I 63
CONSERVATISM - FATlGUE USAGE o ASME Code Methodology / Fatigue Curve o Enveloping Peak Stress Intensification, K, = 1.8, at Butt Welds NB3681:' K g = 1.2, K 2 =
.8, K3"
- i l
O W
I I
$4 4
e 1
e i 64 i
4 CONCLUSIONS -' FATIGUE USAGE i i
. l l
o Maximum Usage Factor Less Than ASME Code Allowable of 1.0 (NB-3653) At Most Locations j l
o Evaluation Continuing On l 1
14 x 16 Reducer . j Pressurizer Nozzle 4
1 O
, i t
en 9
65
- t. - _ _ _ .
_ 9 e
+
9 PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION
~ UPDATE OF DESIGN TRANSIENTS STRESS ANALYSIS ASME Ill FATIGUE USAGE FACTOR 4
FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK l l
CONCLUSION i
e e
66
FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH o Standard ASME Section XI Methods Used o Crack Growth Law Based on Current Proposed Curve for Austenitic SS in Air Environment o initial Flaw Sizes Selected Based on Section XI inspection Detection Tolerances o All Locations Checked for FCG o Results
~
Crack Growth at All Locations Remain Well Within 0.6T e
e 67
1 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH EQUATION FOR
,' AUSTENITIC STMNLESE STEEL 3
)
(
3 d
= C F S E AK .30 where
=
d Crack Growth Rate in micro-inches / cycle e
C= -0 2.42 x 10
,' F= frequency fac' tor (F = 1.0 for temperature below 800*F)
S= R ratio correction (S = 1.0 for R = 0; S = 1 + 1.8R for .
O < R < .8; and S = -43.35 + 57.97R for R > 0.8)
E= Environmental Factor (E = 1.0 for PWR) aK = range of stress intensity factor, in psi /in l
l
, and R is the ratio of the minimum K, (Kimin) to the maximum K, (K, , ).
1 6
68
c 3.0= WT*
I, f I I.
l.. f._.f..'; l.. . ,.
soUD UNtl FOR 70T /. 3 3
' l / l I'.
g* . OASMCD D'15 FOR 550T
- f. ,
r .. ' s......'.w,...,,..
,.7
../.. j .. [..
f, .
f.. _p[f...;..
' 5 i q i..
.7 -.
l . . ,. . . .
_,/. ,/:.. f../:..._., .
p.
,/ ,/ ,/. ,
.{n . c.s ,. ,.. .,.
f .. . ., ;,,......,.. ,.
%. .i.. ,.4.. . . . . . .. _....
j ..
IR e c. .7s 1 I .I. 3-i .
. . : ... ./.
i :
_f.,
.1 I? I
,/. . .,... . ./. ..
fi / /
fi. !! ,
._.......~
, _,._, ./. . . .. . .. r . . /. .
.__...._._.._......t...... 3._...,...,..
.i + . .
a._s_, ......= ; . .
g(.. .. /. . . . _ . . ;..
.. o.oq 1..y...q- , i-
,fi t .af;. ..,
r I ' I i
. . . _, ./. , ../! ..i .
l i /. ./.; . .. . . . . .. ._ .,
/,./. /# /+
' i e, . /' :/ ' / ' .
2.0 uf sd &.
u (ksh/in.)
o Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Curve for Austenitic Stainless Steel 69
r 1
. )
PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION !
i l
l I
UPDATE OF DESIGN TRANSIENTS l
STRESS ANALYSIS A5ME Ill FATIGUE USAGE FACTOR FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK CONCLUSION a
i 70 l
4
' REASSESSMENT OF LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK )
Leak-before-break methodology involves the following: !
(1) Establishing material properties including fracture toughness values (2) Performing stress analyses of the structure (3) Review of operating history of the structure j (4) Selection of locations for postulating flaws (5) Determining a flaw size giving a detectable leak rate (6) Establishing stability of the selected flaw (7) Establishing adequate margins in terms of leak rate a detection, flaw size and load.
(8) Showing that a flaw indication acceptable by inspection remains small throughout service life.
O e
e
=
71 4
-- _...j
LBB CONSERVATISM i
. o Factor of 10 on Leak Rate o Factor of 2 on Leakage Flaw o Algebraic Sum of Loads for Leakage o Absolute Sum of Loads for Stability o Average Properties for Leakage
~
o Minimum Properties for Stability l
e 72
1 l
l .
l
- 1
=
l J
- l i
l (This page intentionally left blank.)
9 s
0 e
a e
73
4 4
TYPES OF LOADINGS m
PRESSURE (P)
DEAD WEIGHT (DW)
NORMAL OPERATING THERMAL EXPANSION (TH)
SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE AND SEISMIC
, ANCHO,R MOTION (SSE)
' - a,c.e 4
m 0
m m k
e 74
{
l r
e e
- m <
l
-i =-
E "if 2
o P N'
eJ G'
l I i 9 E2 s<
N p 5
l
. M h.
2 8 o(
0 0 dool tampg 6 E.2 6
2e E u
- aj j b l 2 =y o 5
$ S 3 4 Z 1rr<
< = n g
n o7 E<
gI
.m I
75
1 o ;r Case A: This is a normal operating case at 653*F consisting of
, the algebraic sum of the loading components due to P, DW and TH. a,c.e Case B:
Case C:
Case D: This is a faulted operating case at 653*F consisting of the absolute sum (overy component load is taken as positive of P, DW, TH and SSE. ,,c,e- !
a Case E:
-4 Case F:
4 b
e b
76
_m _a
CASES FOR ANALYSES a
M A/D This is here-to-fore standard leak-before-break evaluation !
8,C,e A/F B/E l
B/F e
9 C/F enusmas 4-a m.
F 77
. e.
' c.
a
- i n
g r
a M -
w l
a F
e g 5 5 a 9 8 4 9 k
a 2 2 6 4 e
L e.
N c, S
wO ad a
T l
F e0 s 4
, L
' U l
a a6 S i cB3 -
E t eB R
zW i
, r i
~ B CS I _ _
B L
l c
a t C s 0 le 4 a e6 l
z3 S
mi- S B f
oaI wW 0 6
0 6
0 0 2 2 l 0 0 7 7 nF n 2 2 2 2 ol o i
t ad c
ai te ci s or L CB a
d e a s D E/ /F/ F L C oa /
A B A B
\ l
i i i s s s k k k 7 7 8 1 8 6 1 3 0 c, 2
7 ,
2 _
N O
I T
A .
- C O
L T
A S s D s A r e
s O S t
e L l g u i
n R t g a
r n i
e t s
p i O x l
E a o t
m r t o c e
N p
_ s A B F e R
n n n h o o o i i i i t
t t t
, i i i d d d w n n n y l
o o o a
. C C C m o
n
- e e A
6 PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION UPDATE OF DESIGN TRANSIENTS STRESS ANALYSIS 9,
+- ASME Ill FATIGUE USAGE FACTOR o
FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH LEAK BEFORE-BREAK
. c,,, ,.
r-
. . .;waa :;ue ti 9
e e
80
1 VOGTLE UNIT 2 i ' SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION CONCLUSION -
(PENDING FINAL VERIFICATION) i i
e Design Transients Updated to Reflect Stratification in The Surge Line e Monitoring of Unit 2 Will Continue 1
,. o ASME ill Fatigue Usage Factor For Piping Within Code All'owable for 40 Years Design Life e Fatig'ue Crack Growth Results Acceptable e . Leak Before-Break is Demonstrated a
9
.9
'o ,
81 L.