ML23347A008
| ML23347A008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/2023 |
| From: | Dickson T, Dyszel A, Patrick Raynaud, Matthew Smith NRC/RES/DE/CIB, Numark Associates |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML23348A087 | List: |
| References | |
| TLR-RES/DE/REB-2023-11 | |
| Download: ML23347A008 (1) | |
Text
Technical Letter Report TLR-RES/DE/REB-2023-11 FAVOR v20.1 Testing and Verification and Validation Report Date Prepared:
February 2021 Date Published:
December 2023 Prepared in response to Subtask 1.5 of task order 31310020D0005 / 31310020F0103 entitled FAVOR, REAP, and RPV Analysis by:
Andrew Dyszel NUMARK Associates, Inc.
Terry Dickson NUMARK Associates, Inc.
NUMARK Project Manager:
Marvin Smith NUMARK Associates, Inc.
NRC Project Manager:
Patrick Raynaud Senior Materials Engineer Reactor Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government.
Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this publication, or represents that its use by such third party complies with applicable law.
This report does not contain or imply legally binding requirements. Nor does this report establish or modify any regulatory guidance or positions of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is not binding on the Commission.
i Contents 1 Purpose & Scope............................................................................................................................ 1 2 Reference Documents.................................................................................................................... 3 3 Roles & Responsibilities.................................................................................................................. 3 4 FAVOR V&V Plan and FAVOR Test Plan for FAVPFM v20.1............................................................ 7 5 Summary of FAVOR V&V and Test Results for v20.1 FAVPFM.....................................................13 5.1 Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaw for IPFLAW=4...............................14 5.2 Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for Internal Surface Breaking (ISB) flaws for IPFLAW=1 and 4....................................................................................................................14 5.3 Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for Generalized Case - Combination of Flaw Types, Orientations, and Geometries for IPFLAW=4........................................................................14 5.4 Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for Generalized Case - Different Ordering of Flaws....15 5.5 Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for Embedded Flaws for IPFLAW=2.............................15 5.6 Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaws for IPFLAW=3..............................15 5.7 Verification of v20.1 FAVPFM Input Filter............................................................................16 5.8 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................16 Appendix A Software Quality Assurance Forms................................................................................17 A.1 Software Verification and Validation Plan Criteria...............................................................18 A.2 Software Test Plan Criteria...................................................................................................19 A.3 Software Test Results Report Criteria...................................................................................21 A.4 Software Verification and Validation Report Criteria...........................................................22 Appendix B FAVOR version 20.1 Incremental Verification and Validation Plan................................23 Appendix C v20.1 FAVPFM Software Test Plan..................................................................................25 Appendix D FAVPFM Software Test Results......................................................................................27 D.1 Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaw for IPFLAW=4...............................27 D.2 Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for Internal Surface Breaking (ISB) flaws for IPFLAW=1 and 4....................................................................................................................33 D.3 Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for Generalized Case - Combination of Flaw Types, Orientations, and Geometries for IPFLAW=4........................................................................41
ii D.4 Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for Generalized Case - Different Ordering of Flaws....43 D.5 Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for Embedded Flaws for IPFLAW=2.............................45 D.6 Verification of 20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaws for IPFLAW=3................................47 D.7 Verification of v20.1 FAVPFM Input Filter............................................................................51
iii List of Figures Figure D - 1: Verification of AFF PFM Solutions vs FAVOR 16.1 for Single Embedded Flaw Geometry in Weld Material...................................................................................................................28 Figure D - 2: Verification of AFF PFM solutions vs FAVOR 16.1 for Single Axial Embedded Flaw Geometry in Plate Material...................................................................................................29 Figure D - 3: Verification of AFF PFM Solutions vs FAVOR 16.1 for Single Circumferential Embedded Flaw Geometry in Weld Material..........................................................................................30 Figure D - 4: Verification of AFF PFM solutions vs FAVOR 16.1 for Single Circumferential Embedded Flaw Geometry in Plate Material..........................................................................................31 Figure D - 5: Re-Pressurization Transient Used in Verification of PFM Solutions......................................32 Figure D - 6: LOCA Transient Used in Verification of PFM Solutions - No WPS.........................................32 Figure D - 7: Verification of v20.1 AFF Solutions vs FAVOR 16.2 make AFF for Stack of 5254 Flaws -
Combination of Flaw Types, Geometries, and Orientations.................................................42 Figure D - 8: Illustration that PFM Converged Solutions for 20.1 (IPFLAW=4) has no Dependency on Ordering of As-Found Flaws..................................................................................................44
iv List of Tables Table 3-1: Functional Responsibility Matrix................................................................................................. 4 Table 3-2: Key Process Documents/Outputs............................................................................................... 6 Table 4-1: Software Verification Against Software Requirements Summary.............................................. 9 Table 4-2: FAVOR Critical Inputs, Functions, and Outputs........................................................................12 Table 5-1: Summary of V&V tests for as-found embedded flaws.............................................................14 Table 5-2: Summary of V&V tests for internal surface breaking flaws......................................................14 Table D - 1: Data for Verification of PFM solutions for Embedded Flaws.................................................27 Table D - 2: Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for ISB flaws for IPFLAW=4............................................34 Table D - 3: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single ISB flaw in Plate Subregion as a Function of Aspect Ratio, and Orientation, Flaw Depth = 0.08t..............................................................35 Table D - 4: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single ISB flaw in Weld Subregion as a Function of Aspect Ratio, and Orientation, Flaw Depth = 0.08t..............................................................36 Table D - 5: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single ISB Flaw in Plate Subregion as a Function of Aspect Ratio, and Orientation, Flaw Depth = 0.15t..............................................................37 Table D - 6: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single ISB Flaw in Weld Subregion as a Function of Aspect Ratio, and Orientation, Flaw Depth = 0.15t..............................................................38 Table D - 7: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single ISB Flaw in Plate Subregion as a Function of Aspect Ratio, and Orientation, Flaw Depth = 0.25t..............................................................39 Table D - 8: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single ISB Flaw in Weld Subregion as a Function of Aspect Ratio, and Orientation, Flaw Depth = 0.25t..............................................................40 Table D - 9: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single External Surface Breaking; Flaw depth = 0.25t -
Severe Heat-up Transient - with Warm Pre-Stress - Eason 2006 (1000 RPV trials).............45 Table D - 10: Verification of PFM Solutions for Embedded Flaws in Plate Material - Severe Heat-up Transient - with Warm Pre-Stress - Eason 2006 (1000 RPV trials).......................................45 Table D - 11: Verification of PFM Solutions for Embedded Flaws in Weld Material Severe Heat-up Transient - with Warm Pre-Stress - Eason 2006 (1000 RPV trials).......................................46
v Table D - 12: Verification of PFM Solutions Generalized Flaw Types ESB + Embedded Flaws in Weld Material + Embedded Flaws in Plate Material, Severe Heat-up Transient - with Warm Pre-Stress - Eason 2006, (1000 RPV trials)...........................................................................46 Table D - 13: Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for IPFLAW=3 - ISB and ESB Surface Breaking Flaws only - Cooldown and Severe Heat-up Transient, Model Includes Warm Pre-Stress and Eason 2006............................................................................................................................47 Table D - 14: Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for IPFLAW=3 - Embedded Flaws - Weld Material only - Cooldown and Severe Heat-up Transient, Model Includes Warm Pre-Stress and Eason 2006............................................................................................................................48 Table D - 15: Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for IPFLAW=3 - Embedded Flaws - Weld Material only - Cooldown and Severe Heat-up Transient, Modified Weld Embedded Flaw File (Relative to Table D.6 - 2) to have Non-Zero PFM Solutions - Model Includes Warm Pre-Stress and Eason 2006..........................................................................................................48 Table D - 16: Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for IPFLAW=3 - Embedded Flaws - Plate Material only - Cooldown and Severe Heat-up Transient, Model Includes Warm Pre-Stress and Eason 2006............................................................................................................................49 Table D - 17: Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for IPFLAW=3 - Embedded Flaws - Plate Material only - Cooldown and Severe Heat-up Transient, Modified Plate Embedded Flaw File (Relative to Table D.6 - 4) to have Non-Zero PFM Solutions................................................49 Table D - 18: Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for IPFLAW=3 - Generalized Case: Surface breaking
+ Weld Embedded + Plate Embedded, Severe Heat-up Transient - with Warm Pre-Stress
- Eason 2006 (100 RPV trials)...............................................................................................50 Table D - 19: As-Found Flaw Test Input File for Filtering User Entry Errors..............................................52 Table D - 20: As-Found Flaw Test Output Echo for Filtering User Entry Errors.........................................53 Table D - 21: As-Found Flaw Test Output Echo for Filtering User Entry Errors - (Continued)..................54
vi Revision History Revision Date Comments 0
12/08/2023 Original Approvals Role Name Signature Date Preparer Andrew Dyszel Technical Reviewer Marvin Smith Project Manager Marvin Smith NRC Project Manager Patrick Raynaud 12/08/2023 12/12/2023 12/12/2023 12/08/2023 Andrew Dyszel (affiliate)
Digitally signed by Andrew Dyszel (affiliate)
Date: 2023.12.08 10:32:51
-05'00' Marvin Smith Digitally signed by Marvin Smith Date: 2023.12.12 15:40:10
-08'00' Marvin Smith Digitally signed by Marvin Smith Date: 2023.12.12 15:40:53
-08'00' Patrick A.
Raynaud Digitally signed by Patrick A. Raynaud Date: 2023.12.08 08:43:49
-05'00'
vii Acronyms and Abbreviations This section provides abbreviations and acronyms specific to this plan and software project.
AFF As-Found Flaw ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers BWR Boiling Water Reactor CM Configuration Management CMMP Configuration Management & Maintenance Plan COTS Commercial Off-The-Shelf JIRA Software Work Management and Issue Management Tool NDE Non-Destructive Examination NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission NQA-1 Nuclear Quality Assurance - 1 PFM Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics PM Project Manager PMP Project Management Plan PWR Pressurized Water Reactor QA Quality Assurance SDD Software Design Document SOW Statement of Work SQA Software Quality Assurance SQAP Software Quality Assurance Plan
viii SQE Software Quality Engineer SRD Software Requirements Document STP Software Test Plan STRR Software Test Results Report SVVP Software Verification and Validation Plan SVVR Software Verification and Validation Report TWCF Through-Wall Cracking Frequency, which is calculated as a product of the CPF and a matrix defining the sequence (or event) frequency of the loading transients. Calculating a mean TWCF for RPVs subjected to pressure and temperature curves requires a statistical representation of the possible transients and their frequencies of occurrence.
V&V Verification and Validation
ix Definitions This section provides definitions specific to this plan and software project.
Assessment A review, evaluation, inspection, test, check, surveillance, or audit to determine and document whether items, processes, systems, or services meet specified requirements and perform effectively. (NQA-1-2017)
Acceptance Testing The process of exercising or evaluating a system or system component by manual or automated means to ensure that it satisfies the specific requirements and to identify differences between expected and actual results in the operating environment. (NQA-1)
Baseline A specification or product that has been formally reviewed and agreed upon, that thereafter serves as the basis for use and further development, and that can be changed only by using an approved control process. (NQA-1)
Configuration Item A collection of hardware or software elements treated as unit for the purpose of configuration control. (NQA-1)
Configuration Management (Software)
The process of identifying and defining the configuration items in a system (i.e.
software and hardware), controlling the release and change of those items throughout the systems life cycle, and recording and reporting the status of configuration items and change requests. (NQA-1)
Contractor The organization or organizations contracted by the NRC to work on the FAVOR project.
Error A condition deviating from an established baseline, including deviations from the current approved computer program and its baseline requirements. (NQA-1)
Graded Approach The process of ensuring that the level of analysis, documentation, and actions used to comply with a requirement is commensurate with:
- 1) relative importance to safety, safeguards, and security,
- 2) magnitude of any hazard involved,
- 3) the life-cycle stage of a facility or item,
- 4) programmatic mission of a facility,
- 5) characteristics of a facility or item,
- 6) relative importance of radiological and non-radiological hazards, and
- 7) any other relevant factors (NQA-1)
x Independent Reviews/Testing Person sufficiently independent with respect to the material/product they are reviewing/testing; they did not perform the work they are reviewing or testing.
Staff also possess enough subject matter expertise to adequately review/test/evaluate.
Module A program unit that is discrete and identifiable with respect to compiling; combining with other units, and loading; a logically separable part of a program that can be verified independently and performs a specific limited function, such as modeling physical phenomena, handling user input, output, data storage, etc.;
contained, cohesive parts that can be combined to create the final product.
Operating Environment A collection of software, firmware, and hardware elements that provide for the execution of computer programs. (NQA-1)
Regression Testing Selective re-testing of a system or component to verify that modifications have not caused unintended effects and that the system or component still complies with its specified requirements.
Software Design Document A document that describes the design of a system or component. Typical contents include system or component architecture, control logic, data structures, input/output formats, interface descriptions, theoretical bases, embodied mathematical models, control flow, and subroutines used in the software, and the allowed or prescribed ranges for data inputs and outputs in a manner that can be implemented. Currently described in the FAVOR Theory Manual [1].
Software Design Verification The process of determining if the product of the software design activity fulfills the software design requirements. (NQA-1)
Software Requirements Document Documentation of the essential requirements (functional performance, design constraints, and attributes (including acceptance criteria)) of the software and its external interfaces.
Software Verification and Validation Plan (SVVP)
A comprehensive, project-level plan which is a roadmap document that describes the elements, processes, and sequence of actions to ensure that the software properly fulfills its intended use as identified in the Software Requirements Document and Software Design Description Document. These actions may include peer reviews, audits, walkthroughs, analyses, architecture evaluations, simulations, testing, and demonstrations.
Test Case A set of test inputs, execution conditions, and expected results developed for an objective, such as to exercise a program path or to verify compliance with a specific requirement. (NQA-1)
xi Test Plan A document that describes the approach to be followed for testing a system or component. Typical contents identify items to be tested, tasks to be performed, and responsibilities for the testing activities. (NQA-1)
Validation The process of evaluating software to determine whether it satisfies specified requirements, by comparing code predictions to experimental data or independent benchmark standards. Specifically, per the IEEE Std 730'-2014 standard (Reference [2]), the process of providing evidence that the system, software, or hardware and its associated products satisfy requirements allocated to it at the end of each life cycle activity, solve the right problem (e.g., correctly model physical laws and use the proper system assumptions), and satisfy intended use and user needs.
Verification Mathematical proof of the correctness of algorithms, by confirming that code subroutines and functions produce the expected numerical output as the software goes through each life cycle activity. As Noted in IEEE Std 730'-2014 standard (Reference [2]), Verified designates the corresponding status. In design and development, verification includes examining the result of a given activity to determine conformity with the stated requirement for that activity. A system may be verified to meet the stated requirements yet be unsuitable for operation by the actual users.
Unit Test Process or code developed to test the numeric accuracy and functionality of new or modified subroutines and functions.
Unit Test Suite Set of unit tests created while developing and maintaining FAVOR.
Verification Test Suite Set of input files that exercise all the code options, used to verify that code changes do not negatively impact code performance, and that results are as expected.
Validation Test Suite Set of input files used to validate the codes predictions against experimental measurements, to quantify the accuracy, bias, and uncertainty of code predictions.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 1
1 Purpose & Scope The purpose is to document the Verification and Validation (V&V) plan, the V&V results, sub tier software test plans, and the test plan results. The FAVOR V&V Plan and its sub-task Test Plan describes the approach to be followed for testing the modifications made to the FAVOR code, in particular the FAVPFM module, to provide the ability to specify as-found flaws from in-service reactor vessel inspection results.
With respect to the FAVOR Software V&V plan (see Appendix B), a typical plan includes a comprehensive, project-level plan which is a roadmap document that describes the elements, processes, and sequence of actions to ensure that the software properly fulfills its intended use as identified in the Software Requirements Document and Software Design Description Document. These actions may include peer reviews, audits, walkthroughs, analyses, architecture evaluations, simulations, testing, and demonstrations.
For the activities planned for v20.1, simple peer reviews and analyses will be performed due to the type of modification and impact on the current v16.1 capabilities. For v20.1, verification involved the use of mathematical proof of the correctness of algorithms, by confirming that the relevant FAVOR code subroutines and functions produce the expected numerical output. Numerical output should be either identical or close (i.e., within 1% of the original v16.1 results unless there is a change to a more accurate method/model), because the main FAVPFM thermal hydraulic and fracture mechanic modeling, algorithms, and functions are not changing: only the flaw distribution input is changed in FAVOR v20.1. Since no new models, functions, or algorithms are being used as a basis for calculating CPI or CPF, or other critical key outputs, validation was simply that the code still produces identical results to v16.1, which was validated in the past against benchmarks to ABAQUS and experimental data (see Reference [3]).
The resulting test plans from the V&V plan contain the items to be tested, the tasks to be performed, and a description of the responsibilities for the testing activities. The test plan also provides the set of test inputs, execution conditions, and expected results to test the specific requirements stated in the FAVOR Software Requirements and Design Document (SRD and SDD) (Reference [4]). Due to the type and risk impact of the modifications identified in the SRD and SDD (Reference [4]), much of the testing described herein is regression testing, which is selective re-testing of the FAVPFM module to verify that modifications have not caused unintended effects and that FAVPFM still is consistent with the algorithms and methods as described in the FAVOR Theory Manual (Reference [1]). A number of unit/integral tests were also performed to ensure the numeric accuracy and functionality of the new and modified subroutines and functions. The software design document section within the FAVOR v20.1 SRD and SDD document (Reference [4]) lists all the modified subroutines and functions.
Although this specific work was not done under a qualified SQA program, this document is intended to meet the content and intent of such a program. Consistent with the FAVOR Software Quality Assurance Plan (Reference [5]), unit testing is performed on new subroutines/functions that are added to ensure that information is properly calculated. The Software developer and/or software tester designs an appropriate unit test and documents the results of the testing for inclusion in the V&V section of the technical basis document. Any modification made to existing subroutines shall require the developer or tester to ensure
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 2
that the existing unit tests are adequate and, if not, to develop additional unit tests corresponding to the modifications made.
Unit testing shall be performed to ensure the following:
xx The numerical problem is being solved correctly (i.e., numerical verification),
x The code is continuous within the range of possible input conditions, and x
All new functionality is working properly.
All the existing unit tests must be run and documented in Software Test Reports to be included as appendices before releasing the FAVLoad, FAVPFM, and/or FAVPost changes. Representative unit tests shall be added to the existing unit test suite for continued use.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 3
2 Reference Documents The following documents were utilized to develop the test plans and results in this document:
[1] P. T. Williams, T. L. Dickson, B. R. Bass and H. B. Klasky, "ORNL/LTR-2016/309: Fracture Analysis of Vessels
- Oak Ridge FAVOR, v16.1, Computer Code: Theory and Implementation of Algorithms, Methods, and Correlations (ML16273A033)," Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN, August 2016.
[2] IEEE Computer Society, "IEEE Standard for Software Quality," The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, NY, 2014.
[3] A. Ayszel, T. L. Dickson, M. Smith and P. Raynaud, "TLR-RE/DE/CIB-2020-002: Assessment of V&V Efforts of Fracture Analysis of Vessels - Oak Ridge (FAVOR) Software Product - Version 16.1 (ML20017A170),"
U.S. Nuclear REgulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
[4] T. Dickson, A. Dyszel, M. Smith and P. Raynaud, "Fracture Analysis of Vessels - Oak Ridge (FAVOR) for v20.1 Pre-Release - Software Requirements and Design Document," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 2020.
[5] A. Dyszel and P. A. C. Raynaud, "FAVOR Software Quality Assurance Plan (SQAP)," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 2020.
3 Roles & Responsibilities The organizational structure and responsibility assignments shall be such that:
x Software development and maintenance is well planned, verified, and documented under quality assurance procedures.
x Quality is achieved and maintained by those who have been assigned responsibility for performing work, and x
Quality achievement is verified by those not directly responsible for performing the work.
The responsibilities are laid out in the FAVOR Software Quality Assurance Plan (Reference [5]) and not repeated herein. Overall, code development is performed by the NRC and/or the Contractor. The NRC is responsible for high level oversight and direction and assigns work based on staffing resources and knowledge.
A summary of the project team responsibilities is shown in Table 3-1, and a list of key documents that the project team creates during the life cycle of FAVOR development is shown in Table 3-2. This report focuses on the four green highlighted documents shown in these tables.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 4
Table 3-1: Functional Responsibility Matrix0F1 P=Prepare/Perform A=Approve I=Input R=Review S=Surveillance OD=Own & Distribute NRC PM Contractor PM Code Custodian Records Custodian Software Developer Software Tester SQE1F2 QA Manager2 Documents/Actions FAVOR Software QA Plan (SQAP)
I, R, A I, A I
I, OD I, R I, R P, R4 I, R, A Configuration Mgmt. Plan and Procedures (CMMP)
I, R, A I, A I
I, OD I, R P, R4 I, R, A Software Requirements Document (SRD)
I, R, A I, R P, I, R4 OD P, I, R4 I, R4 S
Software Design Document (SDD)
I, R I, R, A I, OD P
Source Codes I, R I, R, A I, OD P
Acceptance test input files I, R I, R, A I, OD I, R P
Unit & Integral Test Plans2F3 (STPs)
A I, R3F4 I, R P
I, R, A I, R, A R4 OD I, R P
I, R4 R, A Unit & Integral Tests and Results Reports2 (STRRs)
R, A I, R4 OD I, R P
V&V Tests and Results Reports (SVVR)
R, A I, R, A R4 OD I, R P
S S
1 Note that this document does not meet the full requirements of this matrix as the document was not developed under a fully qualified Software QA program.
2 Positions in the Quality Assurance Organization of the Contractor. These positions can be filled by one person, depending on the organization and simplicity of the code change.
3 Per NUREG/BR-0167, these are classified as informal.
4 Independent Technical Review
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 5
P=Prepare/Perform A=Approve I=Input R=Review S=Surveillance OD=Own & Distribute NRC PM Contractor PM Code Custodian Records Custodian Software Developer Software Tester SQE1F2 QA Manager2 Documents/Actions Technical Reviews (e.g.,
assessments/surveillances)
P, I P
S S
Software Changes R, A I, R I, R4 P
Change Documents (Appendices D
- L)
R, A I, R P, I, R4 OD P
I S
User Input Guide, Theory Manual I, R, A I, R P, I, R4 OD P, I, R4 S
S Maintaining Problem Reporting, Corrective Action, & Change Control R, A R
P OD I
S S
QA Records A
I, R R4 OD S
S
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 6
Table 3-2: Key Process Documents/Outputs Process Document/Output Software Quality Assurance Plan (SQAP)
Configuration Management and Maintenance Plan (CMMP)
Software Requirements Document (SRD)
Software Verification & Validation Plan (SVVP)
Software Verification & Validation Report (SVVR)
Software Design Document (SDD) - may be a part of the FAVOR Theory Manual Software Test Plan(s) (STPs)
Software Test Results Report(s) (STRRs)
JIRA Testing Issues Implementation Documentation
- 1. FAVLoad, FAVPFM, FAVPost source code and executables
- 2. Users Manual
- 3. FAVOR Theory Manual
- 4. Acceptance Test Problems
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 7
4 FAVOR V&V Plan and FAVOR Test Plan for FAVPFM v20.1 The FAVOR SRD and SDD for v20.1 (Reference [4]) describes in detail the affected subroutines and new subroutines used in the software modification to read in as-found flaw input to FAVPFM. Table 4-1 provides a listing of the software requirements, which provide a basis for the number and type of tests to be performed. That is, all requirements must be verified to be implemented correctly. Details of the FAVOR version 20.1 Incremental Verification and Validation Plan are in Appendix B. The details of the v20.1 FAVPFM Software Test Plan are in Appendix C.
Overall, to ensure backward capability to v16.1, the following tests were performed comparing the output of v20.1 to that of v16.1:
x Use of IPFLAW values of 1, 2, and 3 using VFLAW based flaw files x
Flaws in only weld x
Flaws in only plate x
Internal surface breaking flaws and embedded flaws x
Transient stack reversal x
Axial flaws x
Circumferential flaws For the as-found flaw option (IPFLAW=4), testing involved verifying that PFM solutions of FAVPFM v20.1 yield consistent results when compared to those generated by FAVPFM v16.1 for IPFLAW=1. The full set of verifications includes:
(1)
Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaw for IPFLAW=4,
- a.
Axial flaw in plate,
- b.
Axial flaw in weld,
- c.
Circumferential flaw in plate, and
- d.
Circumferential flaw in weld.
(2)
Verification of 20.1 PFM solutions for Internal Surface Breaking (ISB) flaws for IPFLAW=1 and 4,
- a.
Axial flaw in weld with aspect ratios 2, 6, 10, and infinite,
- b.
Axial flaw in plate with aspect ratios 2, 6, 10, and infinite,
- c.
Circumferential flaw in weld with aspect ratios 2, 6, 10, and infinite, and
- d.
Circumferential flaw in plate with aspect ratios 2, 6, 10, and infinite.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 8
(3)
Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for generalized case - combination of flaw types, orientations, and geometries for IPFLAW=4, (4)
Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for generalized case - different ordering of flaws, (5)
Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaws for IPFLAW=2, (6)
Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaws for IPFLAW=3, and (7)
Verification of v20.1 input filter.
Note that since the FAVLoad and the FAVPost modules were not changed, testing focused on the FAVPFM module. Since FAVPFM output impacts FAVPost input, testing also focused on ensuring that the CPI and CPF history output files are not adversely impacted by the change.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 9
Table 4-1: Software Verification Against Software Requirements Summary Software Requirement4F5 Affected FAVPFM5 Subroutine(s) /
Function(s)
Appendix D Test Case(s) to Verify Implementation Input Requirement 1 - Additional option to v16.1 abilities.
FAVPFM16_1, FILE_INIT, RD17, RDFOUND, FLWDIS, PFM, ACCOUNT, REPORT, FLAW, PROP, get_Kapplied, BANNER, KEMB Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Input Requirement 2 - Use IPFLAW to activate as-found flaw.
FAVPFM16_1, FILE_INIT Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Input Requirement 3 - Allow the use of both VFLAW and as-found flaw input.
FAVPFM16_1, FILE_INIT, FLWDIS Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8, Sections D.5 and D.6 Input Requirement 4 - Use IPFLAW=4 to prompt user for as-found flaw file.
FAVPFM16_1, FILE_INIT Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Input Requirement 5 - As-found flaw input file specifications.
RDFOUND Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Input Requirement 6 - Free format input and require 201 as first record.
RDFOUND Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Functional Requirement 1 - Read in as-found input file.
FAVPFM16_1, FILE_INIT, RDFOUND Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Functional Requirement 2 - Filter potential user errors in input file.
FAVPFM16_1, RDFOUND, RD17 Section D.7 Functional Requirement 3 - Use existing FAVOR PFM Monte Carlo loop structure.
PFM Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Functional Requirement 4 - For each RPV trial, include all user specified as-found flaws.
PFM Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Functional Requirement 5 - Prior to entering PFM loop, calculate crack tip temperature and applied stress intensity factor for all user specified flaws.
FAVPFM16_1, TMPTIP, AMNKSE, AMNK99, KEMB Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Functional Requirement 6 - Use existing cubic spline methodology for the as-found flaw specification to determine temperature and applied KI.
FAVPFM16_1, TMPTIP, PFM Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 5 Based on Table 7-1 of FAVOR v20.1 SRD and SDD document (Reference [4]).
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 10 Software Requirement4F5 Affected FAVPFM5 Subroutine(s) /
Function(s)
Appendix D Test Case(s) to Verify Implementation Functional Requirement 7 - Minimize modifications to FAVLoad and FAVPFM.
NA5F6 No changes made to FAVLoad and FAVPFM. Also no changes to CPI and CPF history files.
Functional Requirement 8 - Calculate the appropriate RTNDT for as-found flaw input.
PFM Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Functional Requirement 9 - Assign the appropriate KI time history during the PFM analysis.
FAVPFM16_1, TMPTIP, AMNKSE, AMNK99, KEMB. PFM Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Functional Requirement 10 - Use consistent methodology as v16.1 for flaw propagation.
ACCOUNT, FLWDIS, FLAW,PROP, get Kapplied Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Functional Requirement 11 - Maintain security controls for source and code executable.
NA6F7 Not Required.
Output Requirement 1 - Provide error messages in output.
RDFOUND, RD17 Section D.7 Output Requirement 2 - Provide CPI and CPF values for specified as-found flaws.
PFM, ACCOUNT, REPORT Table D - 1, Table D - 2, Figure D - 7, Figure D - 8 Output Requirement 3 - Provide sorted list of significant flaws (i.e., CPI values >
0.01%).
REPORT PFM output files for cases supporting Figure D - 7 and Figure D - 8 Output Requirement 4 - Update RTNDT.out file with more descriptive output.
PFM RTNDT.out files for cases supporting Figure D - 7 and Figure D - 8 Performance Requirement 1 - Limit run times and file sizes to be less than a 100% increase from those of v16.1 of FAVPFM.
RDFOUND, MINZ, MCASE1, MCASE2, MCASE3, MCASE4, MCASE5, AMNKSE, AMNK99, TMPTIP, KEMB, CLCHK No noticeable degradation other than IPFLAW=3 option due to use of more accurate cubic spline fit for temperature versus linear interpolation.
A list of key inputs to FAVOR, the important functions and algorithms used in FAVOR, and the FAVOR outputs used in critical decisions is shown in Table 4-2. Some key calculated outputs of FAVOR are KI (applied stress-intensity factor) time history, through-wall temperature time history, and RTNDT (Reference Nil-Ductility 6 No changes were made to FAVLoad nor FAVPFM to incorporate the as-found flaw input capability.
7 The FAVOR Configuration Management Plan describes a GitHub platform which is protected by unauthorized use and modification to the source code
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 11 Transition Temperature) at the crack tip. These FAVOR outputs are further used in determining flaw propagation and determining CPI (Conditional Probability of crack Initiation) and CPF (Conditional Probability of Failure).
The intent of the as-found flaw modification is to not impact the fundamental models and algorithms in the existing FAVOR theory manual (Reference [1]) listed in Table 4-2, but to use them in the same fashion as a VFLAW based approach. The current FAVOR models and algorithms have been tested and validated against ABAQUS and used widely in the industry (Reference [3]). As the design intent was to maintaining consistency with the existing models and algorithms, the testing focused on ensuring consistent results to v16.1 of FAVOR.
The metrics of interest in the various tests are based on the critical outputs from FAVOR, particularly those of FAVPFM. Critical outputs from FAVOR, which were previously benchmarked, are identified in a recent assessment of past software quality assurance activities on FAVOR code modifications (See Reference [3])
and are reproduced below. Those characteristics highlighted in yellow in Table 4-2 are potentially impacted by the v20.1 code modifications. Testing therefore focused on verifying that the following outputs had values consistent with those of v16.1:
x Temperature as a function of time throughout vessel wall location, x
Stress as a function of time throughout vessel wall (circumferential and axial),
x KI as a function of time throughout vessel wall, x
Probability distributions of crack initiation and vessel failure (i.e., CPI and CPF),
x Crack initiation frequency per reactor operating year, and x
Through-wall crack frequency per reactor operating year.
The last two will were logically proven by confirming that the CPI and CPF history files that are input to FAVPost did not change.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 12 Table 4-2: FAVOR Critical Inputs, Functions, and Outputs Type Description Key Inputs x
Thermo-Mechanical Material Properties for clad and base metal of the RPV (i.e.,
thermal conductivity, specific heat, density, Youngs Elastic Modulus, thermal expansion coefficient, Poissons ratio) x RPV geometry x
Thermal Hydraulic boundary conditions (from RELAP or similar Transient T-H code) x Fast Neutron fluence maps (entered as fo on Embrittlement Data, described below) x Flaw densities, size, and location (plates, welds, and forgings)7F8 x
Embrittlement Data (i.e., Cu, Ni, P, Mn, fo, RTNDT0) x Transient Initiating Frequency distributions (from PRA) x Probability distributions (aleatory and epistemic)
Important Functions and Algorithms x
FAVLoad Deterministic analyses o
Thermal analysis o
Stress analysis o
Linear-Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) o Handling of residual stresses in welds o
Handling of crack-face pressure for surface breaking flaws x
Calculation of Nil-Ductility Transition Temperature, RTNDT x
Radiation embrittlement correlations x
Fast neutron fluence attenuation and sampling x
Handling of KIC and KIa Databases and calculations of KIC and KIa x
Sampling of RTNDT and RTArrest x
Sampling of Material Chemistry x
Flaw characterizations and uncertainty x
FAVPFM algorithms and models o
Warm prestressing logic o
Truncation for probability distributions o
Conditional Probability of Initiation (CPI) and Failure (CPF) o Post initiation of flaw geometries and orientation o
Ductile tearing models o
Initiation-Growth-Arrest (IGA) model x
FAVPost algorithm using FAVPFM distributions of conditional probabilities of initiation and failure with input transient initiating frequencies to create fracture and failure frequencies Critical Outputs x
Temperature as a function of time throughout vessel wall location x
Stress as a function of time throughout vessel wall (circumferential and axial) x KI as a function of time throughout vessel wall x
Probability distributions of crack initiation and vessel failure x
Crack initiation frequency per reactor operating year x
Through-wall crack frequency per reactor operating year 8 Highlighted characteristics are being impacted by this Software Requirements and Software Design
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 13 5 Summary of FAVOR V&V and Test Results for v20.1 FAVPFM The FAVOR V&V and tests for v20.1 FAVPFM were performed to meet both the FAVOR version 20.1 Incremental Verification and Validation Plan in Appendix B and the v20.1 FAVPFM Software Test Plan in Appendix C. As noted in the SVVP, because FAVOR has been previously verified and validated (see Reference
[3]), and the modification to FAVPFM only is to add an additional method to enter flaw data (i.e., as-found flaw input), an incremental V&V approach is being used to test v20.1 FAVPFM.
The V&V results, which would normally be in a separate software verification and validation report (SVVR),
are summarized in this section. Appendix D provides a detailed discussion of the verification results, which ensures that the software fulfills specified requirements as defined in the FAVOR Software Requirements and Design Document (Reference [4]). Verification is based on documentation that provides a traceable record of the software design requirements and development. Table 4-1 provides the record of the software requirements against the test activities and results of that testing.
As stated in the SVVP and the STP in Section 4, testing was simply focused on: 1) ensuring that backward capability exists for the new version of the program and 2) ensuring that cases for the as-found flaw input generate results consistent with those expected from the use of the current functions and algorithms in FAVPFM.
The following statements can be made regarding how the test cases were run consistent with the V&V plan and STP:
x Regarding method for verification, v20.1 FAVPFM was run against v16.1 of FAVPFM using standard comparative techniques to verify v20.1 of FAVPFM.
x Verification testing took place on the current version of Microsoft Windows 10.
x Acceptance criteria were established and defined as producing either identical results or if justified, results within 5% of the base v16.1 FAVPFM case.
x The testing covered the software life cycle phases of Requirements, Design, and Implementation.
x Test Phases consisting of acceptance test planning, integration test execution, acceptance test execution, and SVVR generation were not completed for v20.1.
The details of the testing are in the software test result report (STRR) as presented in Appendix D. The overall results of the testing are that (1) backward capability exists for v20.1 FAVPFM and that (2) cases for the as-found flaw input generate results consistent with those expected from the use of the current functions and algorithms in v16.1 FAVPFM. Note that v16.1 FAVLoad and v16.1 FAVPost required no change to implement the software requirements and design. Table 4-1 along with the tables and figures within Appendix D provide the documentation showing that the overall testing objectives have been met. A summary of the Appendix D results is provided below.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 14 5.1 Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaw for IPFLAW=4 Table 5-1: Summary of V&V tests for as-found embedded flaws Flaw Type Depth Flaw Orientation Material Xinner Aspect Ratio Transient Figure Acceptance Criteria Met (Y/N) embedded range axial weld 0.3 6.0 LOCA Figure D - 1 Y
embedded range axial plate 0.3 6.0 LOCA Figure D - 2 Y
embedded range circ weld 0.3 6.0 REPR Figure D - 3 Y
embedded range circ Plate 0.3 6.0 REPR Figure D - 4 Y
All cases met the acceptance criteria.
5.2 Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for Internal Surface Breaking (ISB) flaws for IPFLAW=1 and 4 Table 5-2: Summary of V&V tests for internal surface breaking flaws Flaw Type Depth Orientation Material Aspect Ratio Transient Tables Acceptance Criteria Met (Y/N)
- Infinite, 10, 6, &
2 LOCA Table D - 4 Table D - 6 Table D - 8 Y
ISB range axial Plate
- Infinite, 10, 6, &
2 LOCA Table D - 3 Table D - 5 Table D - 7 Y
- Infinite, 10, 6, &
2 LOCA Table D - 4 Table D - 6 Table D - 8 Y
ISB range circ Plate
- Infinite, 10, 6, &
2 LOCA Table D - 3 Table D - 5 Table D - 7 Y
All cases met the acceptance criteria.
5.3 Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for Generalized Case - Combination of Flaw Types, Orientations, and Geometries for IPFLAW=4 The PFM solutions are identical for the first RPV trial; however, are slightly different for subsequent RPV trials. This is due to the fact that the sequence of random numbers is not maintained after the first RPV trial between the two code versions. However, Figure D - 7 (se section D.3) shows that, with enough trials, the converged solutions of mean value of CPI and CPF are very close for the two codes; therefore, the goal of
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 15 mutual validation and backward compatibility is achieved. It is also important to note that the same allocation of flaws by category, orientation, and material (weld or plate) for various cases were obtained by both codes.
This test used a set of flaws that are not expected to actually be found in an RPV, but rather to illustrate the ability of the AFF option FAVOR 20.1 to properly analyze a very general combination of flaws. Also, the number and type of flaws resulted in relatively quick convergence of PFM solutions, which was desirable for the purposes of V&V testing.
5.4 Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for Generalized Case - Different Ordering of Flaws A PFM analysis was executed using an AFF file containing a stack of 5254 flaw characterizations in original and reverse order. Figure D - 8 (see section D.4) shows that the PFM solutions are nearly identical regardless of the order in which flaws are specified - providing assurance that the PFM solutions have little dependence on the ordering of flaws and thereby meeting the acceptance criteria.
The allocation of CPI and CPF to the stack of AFF flaws also had negligible differences between cases for original and reverse ordering.
5.5 Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for Embedded Flaws for IPFLAW=2 The IPFLAW=2 option places all surface breaking flaws on the external surface of the RPV and embedded flaws distributed uniformly thru the outer 3/8 of the RPV thickness. This option of FAVOR was designed primarily to perform fracture analyses of heat-up transients where the larger axial and hoop tensile stresses occur in the outer part of the RPV wall.
The testing documented in section D.5illustrates that v20.1 FAVPFM generates nearly identical solutions (for embedded flaws, external surface breaking flaws, and generalized combinations of flaw types) as the v16.1 FAVPFM. The largest difference observed was <1% and the difference is most likely due to the improved cubic spline interpolations scheme used in determining the crack tip temperature for embedded flaws. Since the cubic spline is a better fit than linear interpolation, the v20.1 FAVPFM should provide more accurate solutions.
5.6 Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaws for IPFLAW=3 The IPFLAW=3 option places surface breaking flaws on both the internal and external surfaces and places embedded flaws uniformly distributed throughout the thickness of the base ferritic material. This option was designed for leak test transients which exhibit both a heat-up phase and a cooldown phase.
The testing documented in section D.6 illustrates that v20.1 FAVPFM generates nearly identical solutions (for embedded flaws, external surface breaking flaws, and generalized combinations of flaw types) as the v16.1 FAVPFM. For the same reason as for IPFLAW=2, slight differences were noticed due to the use of the cubic
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 16 spline fit for crack tip temperature for embedded flaws. Most differences were zero with a few differences well within 5%, with the maximum being 3%.
5.7 Verification of v20.1 FAVPFM Input Filter To test the ability of v20.1 FAVPFM to identify user input errors for the as-found flaw files, an as-found flaw input file with 15 identified errors was created to test each input parameter (IKIND, NSUBR, IORNT, DEPTH, ASPECT RATIO, and flaw ID). Error messages were appropriately printed to both the output file (Fortran unit
- 29) and as-found echo file (Fortran unit 31), thus confirming the error checking capability in v20.1. In addition, all the erroneous entries were identified, and explanations were made available to the user in both the output file and echo file.
5.8 Conclusion In summary, the testing based on the STP and SVVP meets the two overall objectives: 1) ensuring that backward capability exists for the new version of the program and 2) ensuring that cases for the as-found flaw input generate results consistent with those expected from the use of the current functions and algorithms in FAVPFM.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 17 Appendix A Software Quality Assurance Forms The following quality assurance forms should be used to assess the V&V of version 20.1 of FAVOR.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 18 A.1 Software Verification and Validation Plan Criteria FAVOR Software Quality Assurance Software Verification and Validation Plan Criteria FAVOR-SQA-4 Document Name: _____________________________________________
Document Number: __________
Author: _____________________________________________________ Document Version: __________
Technical Reviewer: __________________________________________
Prior to approval of the Software Verification and Validation Plan (SVVP), all items shall be appropriately addressed so that Yes or N/A may be checked.
Methods: Are the methods to be used to perform the verification of each work product defined?
Yes N/A Environment: Has the environment to be used for the verification of each work product been specified?
Yes N/A Acceptance Criteria: Has criteria been developed that align with each work product, requirements, methods, and characteristics of the verification environment and provide traceability to previous work products?
Yes N/A Requirements Phase V&V Does the SVVP specify requirements for a software requirements traceability analysis, software requirements evaluation, software requirements interface analysis, and system test plan?
Yes N/A Design Phase V&V Does the SVVP specify requirements for a software design traceability analysis, software design evaluation, software design interface analysis, unit test plan, integration test plan, unit test design, and integration test design?
Yes N/A Implementation Phase V&V Does the SVVP specify requirements for a source code traceability analysis, source code evaluation, source code interface analysis, source code documentation analysis, unit test cases, integration test cases, unit test procedures, integration test procedures, and unit test execution?
Yes N/A Test Phase V&V Does the SVVP specify requirements for acceptance test procedures, integration test execution, acceptance test execution, and SVVR generation?
Yes N/A Key for check boxes above:
Check Yes for each item reviewed and found acceptable. Check N/A for items which are not applicable.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 19 A.2 Software Test Plan Criteria FAVOR Software Quality Assurance Software Test Plan Criteria FAVOR-SQA-8 Document Name: _____________________________________________
Document Number: __________
Author: _____________________________________________________ Document Version: __________
Technical Reviewer: __________________________________________
Prior to approval of the software test plan (STP), all items shall be appropriately addressed so that Yes or N/A may be checked.
Required Tests, Test Sequences, and Staging Does the STP identify required tests, appropriate sequence, verification methods, and the stages at which testing is required and acceptance criteria to ensure the final software satisfies the requirements of the software requirements document (SRD)?
Check Yes if peer review is identified to fulfill the validation requirements.
Yes N/A Required Ranges of Input Parameters and Assumptions Are acceptable ranges of inputs specified to assure the software performs within its defined capabilities and limitations during testing?
Yes N/A Do the test cases demonstrate that the code adequately performs all intended functions and produces valid results for problems encompassing the range of permitted usage?
Yes N/A Does user interface testing exercise the success and failure paths for each input and provide the appropriate look of the output?
Yes N/A Test Case Criteria Are the criteria for establishing test cases defined?
Yes N/A Requirements for Testing Logic Branches and Failure Paths Does the STP specify requirements for testing logic branches to ensure proper flow?
Yes N/A Does the STP specify requirements for testing failure paths to ensure there are no abnormal terminations?
Yes N/A Requirements for Hardware Integration Are all hardware interfaces identified with necessary testing to assure functionality?
Yes N/A
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 20 Requirements for COTS Software Providing Necessary Functionality Is all commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software that provides necessary functionality to the code identified and the associated critical characteristics and their capabilities and limitations for the intended use identified with necessary testing to assure functionality?
Yes N/A Anticipated Output Values Does the STP identify expected values that the code should produce and test the boundary of anticipated values to ensure that out of range values are properly handled?
Yes N/A Acceptance Criteria Does the STP identify acceptance criteria that are traceable to requirements specified in the SRD?
Yes N/A Test Result Validation Methods Check one or more, where applicable, as based on code functionality:
The test results will be compared to the following:
x Hand Calculations Yes N/A x
Manual Inspection Yes N/A x
Calculations using comparable proven problems Yes N/A x
Empirical data and information form confirmed published data and correlation and/or technical literature (e.g., Oak Ridge HSST tests)
Yes N/A x
Other validated software of similar purpose (e.g., ABAQUS)
Yes N/A x
Other independent software of similar purpose (e.g., ABAQUS)
Yes N/A A documented peer review will be performed.
Yes N/A Key for check boxes above:
Check Yes for each item reviewed and found acceptable. Check N/A for items which are not applicable.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 21 A.3 Software Test Results Report Criteria FAVOR Software Quality Assurance Software Test Results Report Criteria FAVOR-SQA-9 Document Name: _____________________________________________
Document Number: __________
Author: _____________________________________________________ Document Version: __________
Technical Reviewer: __________________________________________
Prior to approval of the software test results report (STRR), all items shall be appropriately addressed so that Yes or N/A may be checked.
Test Report Contents Does the STRR contain a summary of test results compared to expected results from the software test plan (STP) captured in the software test log?
Yes N/A Do test results meet the acceptance criteria identified in the software requirements description and STP?
Yes N/A Are test cases and test results documented in sufficient detail so they can be repeated?
Yes N/A Does the STRR contain a summary of anomalies including status, disposition, and resolutions?
Yes N/A Is the STRR written in a manner that can be understood by an independent, technically competent individual?
Yes N/A Key for check boxes above:
Check Yes for each item reviewed and found acceptable. Check N/A for items which are not applicable.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 22 A.4 Software Verification and Validation Report Criteria FAVOR Software Quality Assurance Software Verification and Validation Report Criteria FAVOR-SQA-10 Document Name: _____________________________________________
Document Number: __________
Author: _____________________________________________________ Document Version: __________
Technical Reviewer: __________________________________________
Prior to approval of the Software Verification and Validation Report (SVVR), all items shall be appropriately addressed so that Yes or N/A may be checked.
Does the SVVR contain a summary of the V&V activities for lifecycle phase that aligns to the Software Verification and Validation Plan?
x Requirements Phase V&V Yes N/A x
Design Phase V&V Yes N/A x
Implementation Phase V&V Yes N/A x
Test Phase V&V Yes N/A Does the SVVR contain a summary of task results compared to expected results captured in module STRRs?
Yes N/A Do V&V activities meet the acceptance criteria identified in the SVVP allowable or prescribed ranges for inputs and outputs specified?
Yes N/A Are V&V activities documented in sufficient detail so they can be repeated?
Yes N/A Does the SVVR contain a summary of anomalies including status, disposition, and resolutions?
Yes N/A Does the SVVR contain an assessment of overall software quality?
Yes N/A Does the SVVR contain lessons learned and best practices (to include deficiencies in the V&V process)?
Yes N/A Does the SVVR contain recommendations for software acceptance?
Yes N/A Is the SVVR written in a manner that can be understood by an independent, technically competent individual?
Yes N/A Key for check boxes above:
Check Yes for each item reviewed and found acceptable. Check N/A for items which are not applicable.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 23 Appendix B FAVOR version 20.1 Incremental Verification and Validation Plan As FAVOR has been previously verified and validated, and the modification to FAVPFM only is to add an additional method to enter flaw data (i.e., as-found flaw input), an incremental V&V approach is being used to establish the plan. This V&V plan defines the test cases, acceptance criteria, procedures for reporting and resolving reviewer concerns and discrepancies identified during the validation testing, and version control to be used for the FAVOR software. The guide in section A.1 provides a means to establish the SVVP.
The purpose of verification is to ensure that the software fulfills specified requirements as defined in the FAVOR Software Requirements and Design Document (Reference [4]). Verification is based on documentation that provides a traceable record of the software design requirements and development. The software development objectives must be sufficient to be understood by knowledgeable persons other than the originator. If it is determined that an accurate translation of these objectives has been performed, then that step has been verified. Verification activities do not replace industry practices, compliance with industry standards, or design guidelines.
Since FAVOR has been extensively validated in the past (see Reference [3]), the purpose of validation herein is to provide overall assurance that the main functions and algorithms correctly calculate the key outputs and are unaffected. The following key functions and algorithm should not be affected, unless noted:
x Thermal analysis x
Stress analysis x
Linear-Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) x Handling of residual stresses in welds x
Handling of crack-face pressure for surface breaking flaws x
Calculation of Nil-Ductility Transition Temperature, RTNDT x
Radiation embrittlement correlations x
Fast neutron fluence attenuation and sampling x
Handling of KIc and KIa Databases and calculations of KIc and KIa x
Sampling of RTNDT and RTArrest x
Sampling of Material Chemistry x
Flaw characterizations and uncertainty: the as-found flaw input bypasses the VFLAW based methodology and therefore the VFLAW methodology will not be used when IPFLAW is set to 4, as designed. However, the algorithms used for the VFLAW based approach should not be affected.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 24 x
Warm prestressing logic x
Truncation for probability distributions x
Conditional Probability of Initiation (CPI) and Failure (CPF) x Post initiation of flaw geometries and orientation x
Ductile tearing models x
Initiation-Growth-Arrest (IGA) model x
FAVPost algorithm using FAVPFM distributions of conditional probabilities of initiation and failure with input transient initiating frequencies to create fracture and failure frequencies The following FAVOR critical outputs should also not be affected:
x Temperature as a function of time throughout vessel wall location x
Stress as a function of time throughout vessel wall (circumferential and axial) x KI as a function of time throughout vessel wall x
Probability distributions of crack initiation and vessel failure x
Crack initiation frequency per reactor operating year x
Through-wall crack frequency per reactor operating year Based on the above, the SVVP is simply focused on: 1) ensuring that backward capability exists for the new version of the program and 2) ensuring that cases for the as-found flaw input generate results consistent with those expected from the use of the current functions and algorithms stated above.
The following statements can be made regarding the section A.1 guide on criteria for a SVVP.
x Regarding method for verification, v20.1 FAVPFM was run against v16.1 of FAVPFM using standard comparative techniques to verify v20.1 of FAVPFM.
x The operating environment that verification will take place is on Microsoft Windows 10 or later.
x Acceptance criteria were established and defined as producing either identical results or if justified, results within 5% of the base v16.1 FAVPFM case.
x This SVVP covers the software life cycle phases of Requirements, Design, and Implementation phases.
Test Phases consisting of acceptance test planning, integration test execution, acceptance test execution, and SVVR generation were not completed for v20.1.
The V&V results, which would normally be in a separate software verification and validation report (SVVR),
are reported in Section 5. The software test plan (STP) used to support the V&V plan and report is presented in Appendix C and the software test result report (STRR) is presented in Appendix D.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 25 Appendix C v20.1 FAVPFM Software Test Plan The software testing strategy is to meet the following objectives in the Software V&V plan:
(1)
Verify FAVOR 20.1 PFM solutions has backward compatibility with FAVOR 16.1 for options IPFLAW=1, 2, and 3.
(2)
Verify that PFM solutions of FAVOR 20.1 for the as-found flaw (AFF) option (IPFLAW=4) yield consistent results when compared to those generated by the 16.1 FAVPFM module for IPFLAW=1.
Satisfying the first condition above was relatively simple to verify and simply involved running both codes using the identical three input flaw files. Identical probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) solutions were obtained, as should be the case. This confirmed that the changes made to FAVPFM 16.1 to add the AFF option did not change PFM results for options IPFLAW=1,2, and 3.
Satisfying the second condition was more complex because in some cases FAVPFM 16.1 had to be slightly modified to perform verification testing.
Using section A.2 as a guide, a series of tests involving IPFLAW settings, flaw types, and embrittlement map complexity provided a means to confidently test and ultimately verify and validate the use of v20.1. Here is a summary of the various tests:
(1)
Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaw for IPFLAW=4,
- a. Axial flaw in plate,
- b. Axial flaw in weld,
- c. Circumferential flaw in plate, and
- d. Circumferential flaw in weld.
(2)
Verification of 20.1 PFM solutions for Internal Surface Breaking (ISB) flaws for IPFLAW=1 and 4,
- a. Axial flaw in weld with aspect ratios 2, 6, 10, and infinite,
- b. Axial flaw in plate with aspect ratios 2, 6, 10, and infinite, (Note that for a. and b. above, FAVPFM v16.1 will need to be slightly modified to allow for axial orientation for ISB type flaws. Currently FAVPFM v16.1 PFM solutions use only circumferential flaws for ISB type flaws.)
- c. Circumferential flaw in weld with aspect ratios 2, 6, 10, and infinite, and
- d. Circumferential flaw in plate with aspect ratios 2, 6, 10, and infinite.
(3)
Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for generalized case - combination of flaw types, orientations, and geometries for IPFLAW=4,
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 26 (4)
Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for generalized case - different ordering of flaws, (5)
Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaws for IPFLAW=2, (6)
Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaws for IPFLAW=3, and (7)
Verification of v20.1 input filter.
Using section A.2, Software Test Plan Criteria, the following statements can be made:
x Testing was done prior to release of v20.1 of FAVPFM.
x Acceptance criteria were defined as producing either identical results, or if justified, results within 3% of the base v16.1 FAVPFM case.
x Full range of IPFLAW was tested. This is the key input variable that was modified.
x Test cases exercise those potentially impacted routines specified in the SRD and SDD (Reference [4]) and Table 4-1. If run satisfactorily, the test cases demonstrate that the code adequately performs all intended functions and produces valid results for problems encompassing the range of permitted IPFLAW values.
x The identified test cases exercise different logic branches (e.g., use of weld, plate, axial flaw, circumferential flaw, aspect ratio, internal surface breaking, embedded, varying number of flaws, etc.)
to ensure proper flow through the whole FAVPFM module.
x Test cases check for different potential failure paths due to user input error on the as-found flaw input file.
x Test cases exercise FAVLoad interface and FAVPost interface. FAVPFM requires the FAVLoad generated output file, and therefore interface issues will surface when running v20.1 of FAVPFM. In addition, FAVPost uses the CPI and CPF history files from FAVPFM. If test cases produce identical results for these files, FAVPost interface is unaffected.
x Test cases require no commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software other than MS Excel and MS Word to report results from the testing.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 27 Appendix D FAVPFM Software Test Results D.1 Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaw for IPFLAW=4 Testing was performed incrementally, i.e., the simplest case being a single flaw in a single beltline region subjected to a single transient. Table D - 1 provides details of testing for individual embedded flaws (in a single region subjected to a single transient) and specifies the Figures in this document that illustrate the results of the testing that provide the desired verification. All cases in Table D - 1 met the acceptance criteria.
Figure D - 1 illustrates the verification of PFM solutions (CPImean and CPFmean) for a single axially oriented embedded flaw geometry (aspect ratio = 6, inner crack tip located 0.3 inches from the wetted inner surface) subjected to a specified transient as a function of flaw depth. The embrittlement model consists of a single subregion that is weld material. Since the flaw resides in weld material, the load would include the thru-wall weld residual stress.
Figure D - 2 is similar to Figure D - 1 except the flaw is in plate material and therefore the load does not include the thru-wall weld residual stress. In Figure D - 3, the flaw is circumferentially oriented and is in weld material. In Figure D - 4, the flaw is circumferentially oriented and is in plate material.
Figure D - 3 and Figure D - 4 are similar to Figure D - 1 and Figure D - 2 except the embedded flaws are circumferentially oriented.
In a traditional FAVPFM analysis of embedded flaws in v16.1 (and earlier versions), each embedded flaw in a PFM analysis has 3 geometrical variables that are sampled: (1) depth, (2) aspect ratio, and (3) thru-wall location of crack tip nearest the RPV wetted inner surface. Therefore, to mimic the AFF option, the FAVPFM v16.1 source code had to be modified to execute each of the analyses in Figure D - 1 through Figure D - 4, where the geometry of a specific flaw remains the same for all flaws and RPV trials.
The tests for the individual embedded flaws were the simplest initial tests. The testing then increased in complexity to more general cases: multiple embedded flaws, embrittlement maps consisting of multiple beltline regions, and multiple transients. The results of these many tests were successful and could be easily reproduced; however, they are not included here for the sake of brevity.
Table D - 1: Data for Verification of PFM solutions for Embedded Flaws Flaw Type Depth Flaw Orientation Material Xinner Aspect Ratio Transient Figure Acceptance Criteria Met (Y/N) embedded range axial weld 0.3 6.0 LOCA Figure D - 1 Y
embedded range axial plate 0.3 6.0 LOCA Figure D - 2 Y
embedded range circ weld 0.3 6.0 REPR Figure D - 3 Y
embedded range circ Plate 0.3 6.0 REPR Figure D - 4 Y
Notes: LOCA is Loss of Coolant Accident and REPR is Re-Pressurization Transient
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 28 Figure D - 1: Verification of AFF PFM Solutions vs FAVOR 16.1 for Single Embedded Flaw Geometry in Weld Material
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 29 Figure D - 2: Verification of AFF PFM solutions vs FAVOR 16.1 for Single Axial Embedded Flaw Geometry in Plate Material
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 30 Figure D - 3: Verification of AFF PFM Solutions vs FAVOR 16.1 for Single Circumferential Embedded Flaw Geometry in Weld Material
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 31 Figure D - 4: Verification of AFF PFM solutions vs FAVOR 16.1 for Single Circumferential Embedded Flaw Geometry in Plate Material
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 32 Figure D - 5: Re-Pressurization Transient Used in Verification of PFM Solutions Figure D - 6: LOCA Transient Used in Verification of PFM Solutions - No WPS
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 33 D.2 Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for Internal Surface Breaking (ISB) flaws for IPFLAW=1 and 4 Table D - 2 provides a summary of the v20.1 PFM solutions for internal surface breaking flaws. The table references Table D - 3 through Table D - 8 that contain the results of verification testing (of FAVOR v20.1) for Internal Surface Breaking (ISB) flaws. Table D - 3 provides the verification of PFM solutions for a single ISB flaw, with a depth of 0.08t, residing in a plate region as a function of aspect ratio, and orientation. Table D -
3 consists of 4 sub-tables: one for each of the aspect ratios 2, 6, 10 and infinite, with each sub-table containing 5 cases for each aspect ratio. As shown in Table D - 2 all cases met the acceptance criteria.
The first and second cases are for verification of axially oriented ISB flaws. The 1st case is the FAVPFM v16.1 PFM solution for axially oriented ISB flaws generated using the usual 3 flaw files based on VFLAW methodology. FAVPFM v16.1 had to be modified such that ISB flaws would be axially oriented rather than the normal rule of making all ISB flaws circumferentially oriented. The second case is the FAVOR v20.1 PFM solution for axial flaws when the as-found flaw (AFF) option has been activated (IPFLAW=4).
Cases 3-5 are for the verification of circumferentially oriented ISB flaws. Case 3 is the FAVOR v20.1 AFF solution for a circumferentially oriented flaw (IPFLAW=4). Case 4 is the FAVOR 20.1 version PFM solution for a circumferentially oriented flaw (IPFLAW=1) generated using the usual three flaw files based on VFLAW methodology.
Case 5 is the FAVOR 16.1 version PFM solution for a circumferentially oriented flaw (IPFLAW=1) generated using the usual three flaw files. All flaw files had to be specifically designed to have the correct flaw depth and aspect ratio.
These 5 cases have met the acceptance criteria for all aspect ratios and provide verification of (1) backward compatibility for PFM solutions generated by FAVOR v20.1 (for both IPFLAW=1 and IPFLAW=4) with those generated by FAVOR v16.1 and (2) consistency of PFM solutions generated by v20.1 between IPFLAW=1 and
- 4.
Table D - 4 is identical to Table D - 3 except it is for weld material and therefore the load includes the thru wall weld residual stress. Table D - 5 and Table D - 6 are identical to Table D - 3 and Table D - 4 except a normalized flaw depth of 0.15t was used in the generation of these results. Table D - 7 and Table D - 8 are also identical to Table D - 3 and Table D - 4 except a normalized flaw depth of 0.25t was used in the generation of these results.
A LOCA transient was used in these verification exercises. Warm pre-stress was not included in the model.
The Eason 2006 embrittlement correlation was used. Each PFM analysis was executed for 1000 RPV trials.
The computer codes, input datasets, and output datasets used to generate these tables are available in the controlled test directory.
The tests for the individual embedded flaws were the simplest initial tests. The testing then increased in complexity to more general cases: multiple ISB flaws, embrittlement maps consisting of multiple beltline
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 34 regions, and multiple transients. The results of these many tests were successful and could be easily reproduced; however, they are not included here for the sake of brevity.
Table D - 2: Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for ISB flaws for IPFLAW=4 Flaw Type Depth Orientation Material Aspect Ratio Transient Tables Acceptance Criteria Met (Y/N)
ISB range axial Weld Infinite LOCA Table D - 4 Table D - 6 Table D - 8 Y
ISB range axial Weld 10 LOCA Y
LOCA Y
LOCA Y
ISB range axial Plate Infinite LOCA Table D - 3 Table D - 5 Table D - 7 Y
ISB range axial Plate 10 LOCA Y
ISB range axial Plate 6
LOCA Y
ISB range axial plate 2
LOCA Y
ISB range circ Weld Infinite LOCA Table D - 4 Table D - 6 Table D - 8 Y
LOCA Y
LOCA Y
ISB range circ Plate Infinite LOCA Table D - 3 Table D - 5 Table D - 7 Y
ISB range circ Plate 10 LOCA Y
ISB range circ Plate 6
LOCA Y
ISB range circ plate 2
LOCA Y
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 35 Table D - 3: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single ISB flaw in Plate Subregion as a Function of Aspect Ratio, and Orientation, Flaw Depth = 0.08t Aspect Ratio = Infinite - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.08t Plate Infinite axial 104.29 3.218e-2 1.578e-3 128.8 2
20.1AFF 4
0.08t Plate Infinite axial 104.29 3.218e-2 1.578e-3 128.8 3
20.1AFF 4
0.08t Plate Infinite circ 104.29 3.686e-3 6.164e-6 128.8 4
20.1 1
0.08t Plate Infinite circ 104.29 3.686e-3 6.164e-6 128.8 5
16.1 1
0.08t Plate Infinite circ 104.29 3.686e-3 6.164e-6 128.8 Aspect Ratio = 10 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.08t Plate 10 axial 104.29 7.550e-4 3.848e-4 128.8 2
20.1AFF 4
0.08t Plate 10 axial 104.29 7.550e-4 3.848e-4 128.8 3
20.1AFF 4
0.08t Plate 10 circ 104.29 7.450e-4 1.211e-6 128.8 4
20.1 1
0.08t Plate 10 circ 104.29 7.450e-4 1.211e-6 128.8 5
16.1 1
0.08t Plate 10 circ 104.29 7.450e-4 1.211e-6 128.8 Aspect Ratio = 6 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.08t Plate 6
axial 104.29 4.057e-4 2.080e-4 128.8 2
20.1AFF 4
0.08t Plate 6
axial 104.29 4.057e-4 2.080e-4 128.8 3
20.1AFF 4
0.08t Plate 6
circ 104.29 4.006e-4 6.243e-7 128.8 4
20.1 1
0.08t Plate 6
circ 104.29 4.006e-4 6.243e-7 128.8 5
16.1 1
0.08t Plate 6
circ 104.29 4.006e-4 6.243e-7 128.8 Aspect Ratio = 2 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.08t Plate 2
axial 104.29 3.322e-6 1.545e-6 128.8 2
20.1AFF 4
0.08t Plate 2
axial 104.29 3.322e-6 1.545e-6 128.8 3
20.1AFF 4
0.08t Plate 2
circ 104.29 3.357e-6 9.145e-10 128.8 4
20.1 1
0.08t Plate 2
circ 104.29 3.357e-6 9.145e-10 128.8 5
16.1 1
0.08t Plate 2
circ 104.29 3.357e-6 9.145e-10 128.8
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 36 Table D - 4: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single ISB flaw in Weld Subregion as a Function of Aspect Ratio, and Orientation, Flaw Depth = 0.08t Aspect Ratio = Infinite - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1 0.08t weld Infinite axial 145.23 1.132e-1 3.129e-2 190.6 2
20.1 4
0.08t weld Infinite axial 145.23 1.132e-1 3.129e-2 190.6 3
20.1 4
0.08t weld Infinite circ 145.23 1.220e-1 8.148e-4 190.6 4
20.1 1
0.08t weld Infinite circ 145.23 1.220e-1 8.148e-4 190.6 5
16.1 1
0.08t weld Infinite circ 145.23 1.220e-1 8.148e-4 190.6 Aspect Ratio = 10 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1 0.08t weld 10 axial 145.23 5.358e-2 1.474e-2 190.6 2
20.1 4
0.08t weld 10 axial 145.23 5.358e-2 1.474e-2 190.6 3
20.1 4
0.08t weld 10 circ 145.23 5.350e-2 3.419e-4 190.6 4
20.1 1
0.08t weld 10 circ 145.23 5.350e-2 3.419e-4 190.6 5
16.1 1
0.08t weld 10 circ 145.23 5.350e-2 3.419e-4 190.6 Aspect Ratio = 6 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1 0.08t weld 6
axial 145.23 3.483e-2 1.054e-2 190.6 2
20.1 4
0.08t weld 6
axial 145.23 3.483e-2 1.054e-2 190.6 3
20.1 4
0.08t weld 6
circ 145.23 3.480e-2 2.539e-4 190.6 4
20.1 1
0.08t weld 6
circ 145.23 3.480e-2 2.539e-4 190.6 5
16.1 1
0.08t weld 6
circ 145.23 3.480e-2 2.539e-4 190.6 Aspect Ratio = 2 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1 0.08t weld 2
axial 145.23 2.800e-3 7.254e-4 190.6 2
20.1 4
0.08t weld 2
axial 145.23 2.800e-3 7.260e-4 190.6 3
20.1 4
0.08t weld 2
circ 145.23 2.811e-3 1.897e-5 190.6 4
20.1 1
0.08t weld 2
circ 145.23 2.811e-3 1.897e-5 190.6 5
16.1 1
0.08t weld 2
circ 145.23 2.811e-3 1.897e-5 190.6
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 37 Table D - 5: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single ISB Flaw in Plate Subregion as a Function of Aspect Ratio, and Orientation, Flaw Depth = 0.15t Aspect Ratio = Infinite - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.15t Plate Infinite axial 100.94 3.793e-3 2.761e-3 128.8 2
20.1AFF 4
0.15t Plate Infinite axial 100.94 3.793e-3 2.761e-3 128.8 3
20.1AFF 4
0.15t Plate Infinite circ 100.94 2.997e-3 1.284e-5 128.8 4
20.1 1
0.15t Plate Infinite circ 100.94 2.997e-3 1.284e-5 128.8 5
16.1 1
0.15t Plate Infinite circ 100.94 2.997e-3 1.284e-5 128.8 Aspect Ratio = 10 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.15t Plate 10 axial 100.94 6.994e-4.
5.205e-4 128.8 2
20.1AFF 4
0.15t Plate 10 axial 100.94 6.994e-4.
5.205e-4 128.8 3
20.1AFF 4
0.15t Plate 10 circ 100.94 6.987e-4 3.058e-6 128.8 4
20.1 1
0.15t Plate 10 circ 100.94 6.987e-4 3.058e-6 128.8 5
16.1 1
0.15t Plate 10 circ 100.94 6.987e-4 3.058e-6 128.8 Aspect Ratio = 6 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.15t Plate 6
axial 100.94 2.969e-4 2.217e-4 128.8 2
20.1AFF 4
0.15t Plate 6
axial 100.94 2.969e-4 2.217e-4 128.8 3
20.1AFF 4
0.15t Plate 6
circ 100.94 2.992e-4 1.283e-6 128.8 4
20.1 1
0.15t Plate 6
circ 100.94 2.992e-4 1.283e-6 128.8 5
16.1 1
0.15t Plate 6
circ 100.94 2.992e-4 1.283e-6 128.8 Aspect Ratio = 2 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.15t Plate 2
axial 100.94 1.313e-6 8.779e-7 128.8 2
20.1AFF 4
0.15t Plate 2
axial 100.94 1.313e-6 8.779e-7 128.8 3
20.1AFF 4
0.15t Plate 2
circ 100.94 1.411e-6 6.277e-10 128.8 4
20.1 1
0.15t Plate 2
circ 100.94 1.411e-6 6.277e-10 128.8 5
16.1 1
0.15t Plate 2
circ 100.94 1.411e-6 6.277e-10 128.8
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 38 Table D - 6: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single ISB Flaw in Weld Subregion as a Function of Aspect Ratio, and Orientation, Flaw Depth = 0.15t Aspect Ratio = Infinite - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1 0.15t weld Infinite axial 142.29 1.344e-1 4.747e-2 190.6 2
20.1 4
0.15t weld Infinite axial 142.29 1.344e-1 4.747e-2 190.6 3
20.1 4
0.15t weld Infinite circ 142.29 1.210e-1 8.879e-4 190.6 4
20.1 1
0.15t weld Infinite circ 142.29 1.210e-1 8.879e-4 190.6 5
16.1 1
0.15t weld Infinite circ 142.29 1.210e-1 8.879e-4 190.6 Aspect Ratio = 10 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1 0.15t weld 10 axial 142.29 5.858e-2 2.008e-2 190.6 2
20.1 4
0.15t weld 10 axial 142.29 5.858e-2 2.008e-2 190.6 3
20.1 4
0.15t weld 10 circ 142.29 5.858e-2 3.969e-4 190.6 4
20.1 1
0.15t weld 10 circ 142.29 5.858e-2 3.969e-4 190.6 5
16.1 1
0.15t weld 10 circ 142.29 5.858e-2 3.969e-4 190.6 Aspect Ratio = 6 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1 0.15t weld 6
axial 142.29 3.757e-2 1.269e-2 190.6 2
20.1 4
0.15t weld 6
axial 142.29 3.757e-2 1.269e-2 190.6 3
20.1 4
0.15t weld 6
circ 142.29 3.799e-2 2.438e-4 190.6 4
20.1 1
0.15t weld 6
circ 142.29 3.799e-2 2.438e-4 190.6 5
16.1 1
0.15t weld 6
circ 142.29 3.799e-2 2.438e-4 190.6 Aspect Ratio = 2 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1 0.15t weld 2
axial 142.29 1.998e-3 6.188e-4 190.6 2
20.1 4
0.15t weld 2
axial 142.29 1.998e-3 6.188e-4 190.6 3
20.1 4
0.15t weld 2
circ 142.29 2.079e-3 1.072e-5 190.6 4
20.1 1
0.15t weld 2
circ 142.29 2.079e-3 1.072e-5 190.6 5
16.1 1
0.15t weld 2
circ 142.29 2.079e-3 1.072e-5 190.6
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 39 Table D - 7: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single ISB Flaw in Plate Subregion as a Function of Aspect Ratio, and Orientation, Flaw Depth = 0.25t Aspect Ratio = Infinite - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.25t Plate Infinite axial 96.31 3.037e-3 2.925e-3 128.8 2
20.1AFF 4
0.25t Plate Infinite axial 96.31 3.037e-3 2.925e-3 128.8 3
20.1AFF 4
0.25t Plate Infinite circ 96.31 1.269e-3 3.180e-5 128.8 4
20.1 1
0.25t Plate Infinite circ 96.31 1.269e-3 3.180e-5 128.8 5
16.1 1
0.25t Plate Infinite circ 96.31 1.269e-3 3.180e-5 128.8 Aspect Ratio = 10 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.25t Plate 10 axial 96.31 2.082e-4 2.018e-4 128.8 2
20.1AFF 4
0.25t Plate 10 axial 96.31 2.082e-4 2.018e-4 128.8 3
20.1AFF 4
0.25t Plate 10 circ 96.31 2.243e-4 5.706e-6 128.8 4
20.1 1
0.25t Plate 10 circ 96.31 2.243e-4 5.706e-6 128.8 5
16.1 1
0.25t Plate 10 circ 96.31 2.243e-4 5.706e-6 128.8 Aspect Ratio = 6 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.25t Plate 6
axial 96.31 4.697e-5 4.560e-5 128.8 2
20.1AFF 4
0.25t Plate 6
axial 96.31 4.697e-5 4.560e-5 128.8 3
20.1AFF 4
0.25t Plate 6
circ 96.31 5.037e-5 1.229e-6 128.8 4
20.1 1
0.25t Plate 6
circ 96.31 5.037e-5 1.229e-6 128.8 5
16.1 1
0.25t Plate 6
circ 96.31 5.037e-5 1.229e-6 128.8 Aspect Ratio = 2 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.25t Plate 2
axial 96.31 7.616e-9 7.615e-9 128.8 2
20.1AFF 4
0.25t Plate 2
axial 96.31 7.616e-9 7.615e-9 128.8 3
20.1AFF 4
0.25t Plate 2
circ 96.31 1.041e-8 3.345e-10 128.8 4
20.1 1
0.25t Plate 2
circ 96.31 1.041e-8 3.345e-10 128.8 5
16.1 1
0.25t Plate 2
circ 96.31 1.041e-8 3.345e-10 128.8
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 40 Table D - 8: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single ISB Flaw in Weld Subregion as a Function of Aspect Ratio, and Orientation, Flaw Depth = 0.25t Aspect Ratio = Infinite - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.25t weld Infinite axial 138.17 1.163e-1 5.567e-2 190.6 2
20.1 4
0.25t weld Infinite axial 138.17 1.163e-1 5.566e-2 190.6 3
20.1 4
0.25t weld Infinite circ 138.17 7.666e-2 1.228e-3 190.6 4
20.1 1
0.25t weld Infinite circ 138.17 7.666e-2 1.228e-3 190.6 5
16.1 1
0.25t weld Infinite circ 138.17 7.666e-2 1.228e-3 190.6 Aspect Ratio = 10 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.25t weld 10 axial 138.17 2.925e-2 1.342e-2 190.6 2
20.1 4
0.25t weld 10 axial 138.17 2.925e-2 1.342e-2 190.6 3
20.1 4
0.25t weld 10 circ 138.17 3.076e-2 4.567e-4 190.6 4
20.1 1
0.25t weld 10 circ 138.17 3.076e-2 4.567e-4 190.6 5
16.1 1
0.25t weld 10 circ 138.17 3.076e-2 4.567e-4 190.6 Aspect Ratio = 6 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.25t weld 6
axial 138.17 1.271e-2 5.721e-3 190.6 2
20.1 4
0.25t weld 6
axial 138.17 1.271e-2 5.721e-3 190.6 3
20.1 4
0.25t weld 6
circ 138.17 1.337e-2 1.864e-4 190.6 4
20.1 1
0.25t weld 6
circ 138.17 1.337e-2 1.864e-4 190.6 5
16.1 1
0.25t weld 6
circ 138.17 1.337e-2 1.864e-4 190.6 Aspect Ratio = 2 - Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results for axial and circ flaws Case Code IPFLAW Depth Material Aspect Orient RTavg CPImean CPFmean RTmax 1
16.1ax 1
0.25t weld 2
axial 138.17 1.227e-4 5.147e-5 190.6 2
20.1 4
0.25t weld 2
axial 138.17 1.227e-4 5.147e-5 190.6 3
20.1 4
0.25t weld 2
circ 138.17 1.400e-4 1.612e-6 190.6 4
20.1 1
0.25t weld 2
circ 138.17 1.400e-4 1.612e-6 190.6 5
16.1 1
0.25t weld 2
circ 138.17 1.400e-4 1.612e-6 190.6
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 41 D.3 Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for Generalized Case - Combination of Flaw Types, Orientations, and Geometries for IPFLAW=4 When IPFLAW=1, 2, or 3, v16.1 and v20.1 of FAVPFM determine the flaw characteristics (type, category, depth, aspect ratio, subregion, and orientation) for each flaw by application of the usual sampling method(s),
i.e., creation and application of probability distribution functions (PDFs) and cumulative probability distribution functions (CDFs) using data from the 3 VLFAW based flaw files (surface flaw distribution, weld embedded flaw distribution, and plate embedded flaw distribution). Therefore, the flaw distribution will be different for each RPV trial.
v16.1 of FAVPFM was modified such that the characteristics of each flaw in the first RPV trial were saved internally such as to be applied for all subsequent RPV trials. Therefore, the characteristics of flaw number n would be identical for each RPV trial. In theory, this should be identical to the same PFM analysis performed by the as-found flaw (AFF) option of v20.1 FAVPFM (IPFLAW=4), assuming that the as-found flaw specification matches the distribution sampled at the first RPV trial using IPFLAW=1.
The flaw characteristics for each of the flaws were also saved to an external file during the PFM analysis of the first flaw such that this file can be used as AFF input file when applying the AFF option of v20.1 FAVPFM.
For purposes of documentation, this modified version of FAVPFM v16.1 was called FAV161_MAKEAFF.
The resultant flaw file from this modified version resulted in 5254 flaws, with various combinations of flaw type (embedded and ISB flaws), geometry, orientation, and material (weld and plate).
An additional modified FAVPFM v16.1 was developed called FAV162_MAKEAFF. This version included a change to the interpolation scheme from a linear to cubic spline for determining the crack tip temperature of embedded flaws. FAVPFM v20.1 had already incorporated the cubic spline interpolation scheme and the impact of that change required evaluation.
The PFM solutions are identical for the first RPV trial; however, are slightly different for subsequent RPV trials. This is due to the sequence of random numbers not being maintained after the first RPV trial between the two code versions. It is possible that further time and effort could identify exactly those locations in the code where the random number sequence is disrupted, and adjusted to maintain the one-to-one correspondence of the two PFM solutions for RPV trials > 1.
Figure D - 7 is a graphical illustration of PFM solutions generated by FAV162_MAKEAFF and the AFF option of v20.1 FAVPFM. Figure D - 7 provides illustration that the converged solutions of mean value of CPI and CPF are very close for the two codes; therefore, the goal of mutual validation and backward compatibility is achieved. It is also important to note that the same allocation of flaws by category, orientation, and material (weld or plate) for various cases was obtained by both codes.
The PFM solutions in Figure D - 7 were generated using a simplified embrittlement map consisting of 13 major regions - 7 weld regions and 6 plate regions. This map is a simplified version of the map used for the Palisades PWR. The LOCA transient illustrated in Figure D - 6 was used as the transient. The model included type 1 WPS.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 42 Figure D - 8 is identical to Figure D - 7 except that PFM embrittlement model corresponded to 60 EFPY. It should be noted that this was not in any way intended to be an exercise for set of flaws expected to actually be found in an RPV, but rather to illustrate the ability of the AFF option FAVOR 20.1 to properly analyze a very general combination of flaws. Also, the number and type of flaws provided for relatively quick convergence of PFM solutions, which was desirable for the purposes of V&V testing.
Figure D - 7: Verification of v20.1 AFF Solutions vs FAVOR 16.2 make AFF for Stack of 5254 Flaws -
Combination of Flaw Types, Geometries, and Orientations
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 43 D.4 Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for Generalized Case - Different Ordering of Flaws A PFM analysis was executed using an AFF file containing the stack of 5254 flaw characterizations in reverse order. Figure D - 8 illustrates the PFM solutions for the original and reverse ordering of flaws. The PFM solutions are nearly identical, thus providing assurance that the PFM solutions have little dependence on the ordering of flaws, and thereby meeting the acceptance criteria.
The allocation of CPI and CPF to the stack of AFF flaws also had negligible differences between cases for original and reverse ordering.
Further informal consistency tests were performed to illustrate that the PFM solutions had no dependencies, including the allocations of CPI and CPF to individual flaws, or the location of a particular transient in an analysis in which there are multiple transients.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 44 Figure D - 8: Illustration that PFM Converged Solutions for 20.1 (IPFLAW=4) has no Dependency on Ordering of As-Found Flaws
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 45 D.5 Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for Embedded Flaws for IPFLAW=2 The IPFLAW=2 option places all surface breaking flaws on the external surface of the RPV and embedded flaws distributed uniformly thru the outer 3/8 of the RPV thickness. This option of FAVOR was designed primarily to perform fracture analyses of heat-up transients where the larger axial and hoop tensile stresses occur in the outer part of the RPV wall.
The testing documented in this section illustrates that the v20.1 FAVPFM solutions generate nearly identical solutions (for embedded flaws, external surface breaking flaws, and generalized combinations of flaw types) to the v16.1 FAVPFM. The largest difference observed was <1% and the difference is most likely due to the improved cubic spline interpolations scheme used in determining the crack tip temperature for embedded flaws. Since the cubic spline is a better fit than linear interpolation, the v20.1 FAVPFM should provide more accurate solutions.
For IPFLAW=2, the number and geometry of flaws are characterized by reading three flaw files into FAVPFM:
a surface breaking flaw distribution file, a file that numerically characterizes the distribution of embedded flaws in welds, and a file that numerically characterizes the distribution of embedded flaws in plates and forgings.
Table D - 9: Verification of PFM Solutions for Single External Surface Breaking; Flaw depth = 0.25t - Severe Heat-up Transient - with Warm Pre-Stress - Eason 2006 (1000 RPV trials)
Case Code IPFLAW Depth Aspect RTavg CPImean and CPFmean 1
16.1 2
0.25t Infinite 123.58 2.858e-2 2
20.1 2
0.25t Infinite 123.58 2.858e-2 Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results 3
16.1 2
0.25t 6
123.58 4.649e-3 4
20.1 2
0.25t 6
123.58 4.649e-3 Table D - 10: Verification of PFM Solutions for Embedded Flaws in Plate Material - Severe Heat-up Transient - with Warm Pre-Stress - Eason 2006 (1000 RPV trials)
Case Code IPFLAW Depth Aspect RTavg CPImean and CPFmean 1
16.1 2
range range 118.37 7.852E-8 2
20.1 2
range range 118.37 7.852E-8 Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 46 Table D - 11: Verification of PFM Solutions for Embedded Flaws in Weld Material Severe Heat-up Transient - with Warm Pre-Stress - Eason 2006 (1000 RPV trials)
Case Code IPFLAW Depth Aspect RTavg CPImean and CPFmean 1
16.1 2
range range 188.87 1.128e-4 2
20.1 2
range range 188.87 1.129e-4 Acceptance Criteria met: Essentially Identical results (within roundoff)
Table D - 12: Verification of PFM Solutions Generalized Flaw Types ESB + Embedded Flaws in Weld Material + Embedded Flaws in Plate Material, Severe Heat-up Transient - with Warm Pre-Stress - Eason 2006, (1000 RPV trials)
Case Code IPFLAW Depth Aspect RTavg CPImean and CPFmean 1
16.1 2
range range 149.11 2.825e-2 2
20.1 2
range range 149.11 2.825e-2 Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 47 D.6 Verification of 20.1 PFM solutions for embedded flaws for IPFLAW=3 The IPFLAW=3 option places surface breaking flaws on both the internal and external surfaces and places embedded flaws uniformly distributed thru the thickness of the base ferritic material. This option was designed for leak test transients which exhibit both a heat-up phase and a cooldown phase.
The testing documented in this section illustrates that v20.1 FAVPFM generates nearly identical solutions (for embedded flaws, external surface breaking flaws, and generalized combinations of flaw types) to v16.1 FAVPFM. As for IPFLAW=2, slight differences are noticed due to the use of the cubic spline fit for crack tip temperature for embedded flaws. Most differences were zero with a few differences well within 5%, with the maximum being 3%.
For this test, the FAVLoad output file contained 2 transients: a cooldown transient with a late re-pressurization and a heat-up transient. The number and geometry of flaws are characterized by reading three flaw files into FAVPFM: a surface breaking flaw distribution file, a file that numerically characterizes the distribution of embedded flaws in welds, and a file that numerically characterizes the distribution of embedded flaws in plates and forgings.
Table D - 13: Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for IPFLAW=3 - ISB and ESB Surface Breaking Flaws only -
Cooldown and Severe Heat-up Transient, Model Includes Warm Pre-Stress and Eason 2006 Case Code IPFLAW Depth Aspect RTavg RPV trials CPImean CPFmean Transient 1 - cooldown 1
16.1 3
0.23t range 16.10 10000 5.056e-7 0.000e-0 2
20.1 3
0.23t range 16.10 10000 5.056e-7 0.000e-0 Transient 2 - heatup 1
161 3
range range 16.10 10000 4.515e-5 3.515e-5 2
20.1 3
range range 16.10 10000 4.515e-5 3.515e-5 Acceptance Criteria met: Identical results
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 48 Table D - 14: Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for IPFLAW=3 - Embedded Flaws - Weld Material only -
Cooldown and Severe Heat-up Transient, Model Includes Warm Pre-Stress and Eason 2006 Case Code IPFLAW Depth Aspect RTavg RPV trials CPImean CPFmean Transient 1 - cooldown 1
16.1 3
range range 45.83 100 5.163e-5 4.980e-5 2
20.1 3
range range 45.83 100 5.143e-5 4.962e-5 Transient 2 - heatup 1
16.1 3
range range 45.83 100 0.000e-0 0.000e-0 2
20.1 3
range range 45.83 100 0.000e-0 0.000e-0 Acceptance Criteria met: Essentially Identical results (well within 1%)
Table D - 15: Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for IPFLAW=3 - Embedded Flaws - Weld Material only -
Cooldown and Severe Heat-up Transient, Modified Weld Embedded Flaw File (Relative to Table D.6 - 2) to have Non-Zero PFM Solutions - Model Includes Warm Pre-Stress and Eason 2006 Case Code IPFLAW Depth Aspect RTavg RPV trials CPImean CPFmean Transient 1 - cooldown 1
16.1 3
range range 41.01 100 4.528e-1 4.443e-1 2
20.1 3
range range 41.01 100 4.516e-1 4.443e-1 Transient 2 - heatup 1
16.1 3
range range 41.01 100 3.939e-3 3.743e-3 2
20.1 3
range range 41.01 100 3.939e-3 3.743e-3 Acceptance Criteria met: Essentially Identical results (well within 1%)
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 49 Table D - 16: Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for IPFLAW=3 - Embedded Flaws - Plate Material only -
Cooldown and Severe Heat-up Transient, Model Includes Warm Pre-Stress and Eason 2006 Case Code IPFLAW Depth Aspect RTavg RPV trials CPImean CPFmean Transient 1 - cooldown 1
161 3
range range 15.90 100 4.765e-8 4.765e-8 2
20.1 3
range range 15.90 100 4.762e-8 4.762e-8 Transient 2 - heatup 1
16.1 3
range range 15.90 100 0.000e-0 0.000e-0 2
20.1 3
range range 15.90 100 0.000e-0 0.000e-0 Acceptance Criteria met: Essentially Identical results (well within 1%)
Table D - 17: Verification of v20.1 PFM solutions for IPFLAW=3 - Embedded Flaws - Plate Material only -
Cooldown and Severe Heat-up Transient, Modified Plate Embedded Flaw File (Relative to Table D.6 - 4) to have Non-Zero PFM Solutions Case Code IPFLAW Depth Aspect RTavg RPV trials CPImean CPFmean Transient 1 - cooldown 1
16.1 3
range range 14.28 100 7.849e-3 7.849e-3 2
20.1 3
range range 14.28 100 7.691e-3 7.691e-3 Transient 2 - heatup 1
16.1 3
range range 14.28 100 1.487e-7 1.487e-7 2
20.1 3
range range 14.28 100 1.487e-7 1.487e-7 Acceptance Criteria met: Essentially Identical results (well within 5%)
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 50 Table D - 18: Verification of v20.1 PFM Solutions for IPFLAW=3 - Generalized Case: Surface breaking +
Weld Embedded + Plate Embedded, Severe Heat-up Transient - with Warm Pre-Stress - Eason 2006 (100 RPV trials)
Case Code IPFLAW Depth Aspect RTavg RPV trials CPImean CPFmean Transient 1 - cooldown 1
16.1 3
range range 27.64 100 1.168e-4 1.150e-4 2
20.1 3
range range 27.64 100 1.150e-4 1.131e-4 Transient 2 - heatup 1
16.1 3
range range 27.64 100 4.349e-6 3.912e-6 2
20.1 3
range range 27.64 100 4.349e-6 3.912e-6 Acceptance Criteria met: Essentially Identical results (within 2%)
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 51 D.7 Verification of v20.1 FAVPFM Input Filter To test the ability of v20.1 FAVPFM to identify user input errors for the as-found flaw files, an as-found flaw input file with identified errors in all of the following categories was created:
- 1. IKIND must be 1 or 2 (1=Internal surface-breaking or 2=embedded). Specified IKIND value of 3 for flaw ID 33.
- 2. NSUBR must not be greater than the number of subregions. (NUSBR=subregion number where flaw resides). Specified NSUBR value of 14 for flaw ID 13 and 28 for flaw ID 21, where 13 subregions are only allowed.
- 3. IORNT must be 1 or 2 (1=axial or 2=circumferential). Specified IORNT value of 3 for flaw ID 50 and value of 0 for flaw ID 51ZERO.
- 4. For internal-surface breaking flaws (IKIND=1), 0 d DEPTH d 0.5*wall thickness. Specified DEPTH value of 5.312 for ISB flaw ID 29. This is greater than maximum allowable 4.375 in, which is 50% of total wall thickness.
- 5. For embedded flaws (IKIND=2), CLTH < DEPTH d (0.9*wall thickness - XINNER), where CLTH is the clad thickness and XINNER is radial location of crack tip from inner surface. Also, XINNER (xinner +
depth) < 0.90
- thick. Specified DEPTH value of 5.312 for embedded flaw ID 42 with xinner equal to 3.3 in. DEPTH is greater than maximum allowable 4.575 in., and XINNER is greater than 4.575.
- 6. Aspect ratio for IKIND = 1 (Internal surface-breaking), must be 2, 6, 10, or 99. Specified aspect ratio value of 7 for flaw ID 1XBDDF, 100 for flaw ID 8ABCD, and 1 for flaw ID 7.
- 7. Aspect ratio for IKIND = 2 (Embedded), must be 1 d aspect d 20. Specified aspect ratio value of 25 for embedded flaw ID 242xy.
- 8. Duplicate FLAWIDs now allowed. Specified flaw ID 242xy three times.
Error messages are printed to both the output file (Fortran unit 29) and as-found echo file (Fortran unit 31).
This section provides the input file and excerpts of the output file obtained when testing the above user entry errors. Results of the test showed that all of the above errors were identified and reported to the user in both the output file and echo file.
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 52 Table D - 19: As-Found Flaw Test Input File for Filtering User Entry Errors no./col.
1.......10........20........30........40........50........60........70........80........90.......
100 1 201 2 1XBDDFEG 1 1 1.3125 7 0.3 3 8ABCD 1 2 1.3125 100 0.3 4 7 1 3 1.3125 1 0.3 5 3 1 4 1.3125 6 0.3 6 4 1 5 1.3125 6 0.3 7 242xy 1 6 1.3125 6 0.3 8 5 1 7 1.3125 6 0.3 9 6 1 8 1.3125 6 0.3 10 9 1 9 1.3125 6 0.3 11 10 1 10 1.3125 6 0.3 12 11 1 11 1.3125 6 0.3 13 12 1 12 1.3125 6 0.3 14 13 1 14 1.3125 6 0.3 15 14 2 1 1.3125 1 0.3 16 25 2 2 1.3125 19.5 0.3 17 242xy 2 3 1.3125 25.0 0.3 18 17 2 4 1.3125 6 0.3 19 23 2 5 1.3125 6 0.3 20 19 2 6 1.3125 6 0.3 21 22 2 7 1.3125 6 0.3 22 21 2 28 1.3125 6 0.3 23 15 2 9 1.3125 6 0.3 24 16 2 10 1.3125 6 0.3 25 18 2 11 1.3125 6 0.3 26 20 2 12 1.3125 6 0.3 27 26 2 13 1.3125 6 0.3 28 27ABCD 1
1 2
0.25 6
0.3 29 28 1 2
2 0.3125 6 0.3 30 29 1 3
2 5.3125 6 0.3 31 30 1 4
2 0.3125 6 0.3 32 31 1 5
2 0.3125 6 0.3 33 242xy 1
6 2
0.3125 6 0.3 34 33 3 7
2 0.3125 6 0.3 35 34 1 8
2 0.3125 6 0.3 36 35 1 9
2 0.3125 6 0.3 37 36 1 10 2
0.3125 6 0.3 38 37 1 11 2
0.3125 6 0.3 39 38 1 12 2
0.3125 6 0.3 40 39 1 13 2
0.3125 6 0.3 41 40CLAD 2
1 2
0.25 6
0.3 42 41 2 2
2 5.3125 6 0.3 43 42 2 3
2 5.3125 6 3.3 44 43 2 4
2 0.3125 6 0.3 45 44 2 5
2 0.3125 6 0.3 46 45 2 6
2 0.3125 6 0.3 47 46 2 7
2 0.3125 6 0.3 48 47 2 8
2 0.3125 6 0.3 49 48 2 9
2 0.3125 6 0.3 50 49 2 10 2
0.3125 6 0.3 51 50 2 11 3
0.3125 6 0.3 52 51ZERO 2
12 0
0.3125 6 0.3 53 52 2 13 2
0.3125 6 0.3
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 53 Table D - 20: As-Found Flaw Test Output Echo for Filtering User Entry Errors
==================================
- Characteristics of As-Found Flaws *
==================================
Flaw Flaw Depth Crack tip Aspect Flaw Sub ID# KIND (inch) (inch) ratio ORNT region 1XBDDF 1 0.312 0.312 7 1 1 Aspect ratio must be 2,6,10, or 99 for flaw ID 1XBDDF 8ABCD 1 0.312 0.312 100 1 2 Aspect ratio must be 2,6,10, or 99 for flaw ID 8ABCD 7 1 0.312 0.312 1 1 3 Aspect ratio must be 2,6,10, or 99 for flaw ID 7 3 1 0.312 0.312 6 1 4 4 1 0.312 0.312 6 1 5 242xy 1 0.312 0.312 6 1 6 5 1 0.312 0.312 6 1 7 6 1 0.312 0.312 6 1 8 9 1 0.312 0.312 6 1 9 10 1 0.312 0.312 6 1 10 11 1 0.312 0.312 6 1 11 12 1 0.312 0.312 6 1 12 13 1 0.312 0.312 6 1 14 For flaw ID 13 subregion number 14 is greater than total number of subregions 13 14 2 0.312 0.300 1 1 1 25 2 0.312 0.300 19 1 2 242xy 2 0.312 0.300 25 1 3 Aspect ratio for embedded flaw with flaw ID 242xy must be 1 < AR < 20 17 2 0.312 0.300 6 1 4 23 2 0.312 0.300 6 1 5 19 2 0.312 0.300 6 1 6 22 2 0.312 0.300 6 1 7 21 2 0.312 0.300 6 1 28 For flaw ID 21 subregion number 28 is greater than total number of subregions 13 15 2 0.312 0.300 6 1 9 16 2 0.312 0.300 6 1 10 18 2 0.312 0.300 6 1 11 20 2 0.312 0.300 6 1 12 26 2 0.312 0.300 6 1 13 27ABCD 1 0.250 0.250 6 2 1 28 1 0.312 0.312 6 2 2 29 1 5.312 5.312 6 2 3 ISB flaw depth for flaw ID 29 is 5.312 This is greater than maximum allowable 4.375 which is 50% of total wall thickness 30 1 0.312 0.312 6 2 4 31 1 0.312 0.312 6 2 5 242xy 1 0.312 0.312 6 2 6 33 3 0.312 0.300 6 2 7 IKIND for flaw ID 33 must be 1 or 2
FAVOR Software Testing and V and V Document 54 Table D - 21: As-Found Flaw Test Output Echo for Filtering User Entry Errors - (Continued) 34 1 0.312 0.312 6 2 8 35 1 0.312 0.312 6 2 9 36 1 0.312 0.312 6 2 10 37 1 0.312 0.312 6 2 11 38 1 0.312 0.312 6 2 12 39 1 0.312 0.312 6 2 13 40CLAD 2 0.250 0.300 6 2 1 41 2 5.312 0.300 6 2 2 42 2 5.312 3.300 6 2 3 Embedded flaw depth for flaw ID 42 is 5.312 This is greater than maximum allowable 4.575 xinner for flaw ID 42 is 3.300 This is greater than maximum allowable 2.562 43 2 0.312 0.300 6 2 4 44 2 0.312 0.300 6 2 5 45 2 0.312 0.300 6 2 6 46 2 0.312 0.300 6 2 7 47 2 0.312 0.300 6 2 8 48 2 0.312 0.300 6 2 9 49 2 0.312 0.300 6 2 10 50 2 0.312 0.300 6 3 11 Orientation for flaw ID 50 must be 1 or 2 51ZERO 2 0.312 0.300 6 0 12 Orientation for flaw ID 51ZERO must be 1 or 2 52 2 0.312 0.300 6 2 13 Flaw ID 242xy has duplicate Flaw ID 242xy has duplicate Flaw ID 242xy has duplicate 15 Incidents of errors in AFF data Correct errors and try again