ML12088A430

Entergy Pre-Filed Evidentiary Hearing Exhibit ENT000065 - Engineering Standard EN-CS-S-008-MULTI, Rev. 0, Pipe Wall Thinning Structural Evaluation

ML12088A430
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	10/26/2009
From:	Lo K Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML12088A422	List: ML12088A423 ML12088A424 ML12088A425 ML12088A426 ML12088A427 ML12088A428 ML12088A429 ML12088A430 ML12088A431 ML12088A432 ML12088A434 ML12088A435 ML12088A436 ML12088A437 ML12088A439 ML12088A440 ML12093A110
References
RAS 22102, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 EN-CS-S-008-MULTI, Rev 0
Download: ML12088A430 (132)

Text

ENT000065 Submitted: March 28, 2012 ENTERGY

[ ENGINEERING STANDARD PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALuAtioN EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Page 1 of Rev. 0 132 Entergy ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Rev. 0 Effective Date: 1-1-2010 Pipe Wall ThinninQ Structural Evaluation Effective Date Effective Date Applicable Sites Applicable Sites Exception Exception lP-1 ANO-1 1P-2 ANO-2 1P-3 GGNS JAF RBS PLP WF3 PNPS NP HON Safety Related: X Yes No EC No(s).

Prepared by: Kai Lo 4 4

Approved by: //;f Date:

R.Drake EngineMg StandardOwn / I Process Applicability Exclusion (ENLl1OO) / Proramrnatic Exclusion All Sites: Specific Sites: ANO U GGNS U IPECU JAF U PLP LI PNPS Li ABS [1 VY Li W3 U]

CD m

-ø C z 4

3 m CD 0

2) z CD to 0 -n z -U m

U)

C 3 r 9 r

-4 m x z z z C)

Cl)

C Cl)

C) -

-l C Z r D rn

<1 r

C 0

z m

2 n

-G Cfl C()

CD C 0

PS)

C r

Ht C..)

33 PS)

CD 0

ENTERGY ENGINEERING SmroARD EN-CS..S-008-MULTI Rev. 0 Page 3 ot 132 PIPE WALL THINNING SmucruRAl. Ev.tuArIoN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Iii PURPOSE .............. 4 1.0 ..,............

REFERENCES 4 2.0 DEFINITIONS 5 3.0 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 7 DETAILS 7 5.0 RECORDS 17 6.0 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 17 Attachment 7.1 Example of Wall Thinning Evaluation Based on Uniformly Thinned Section 18 Attachment 7.2 Example of Axial Stress Calcul ation with Actual Thinned Section 20 Attachment 7.3A Example of ASME Code Case N-513 Evaluation for a Through-Wall Flaw for Carbon Steel 22 Attachment 7.38 Example of ASME Code Case N-51 3 Evaluation for a Through-Wall Flaw for Austenitic Steel 24 Attachment 7,4 Example of Minimum Wall Evaluation at Reinforcement Area of Tee 26 Attachment 7.5 Plant Specific Allowable Stress Factors 27 Attachment 7.6 Recommenda tion for Safety Relate d Moder ate Energy Class 213 and Non-Safety Related Piping 28 Attachment 7.7 Recommended Guidan ce and Metho ds for Calculation of Wear Rates 35 Attachment 7.8 Guide for using PS-S-aOl as Informational Attachment 38 Attachment 7.9 Informational Attachment 40

ENTERGV L. ENGINEERING STANDARD PuE WALL. THINNING STRuCTURAL EVALUATIO N

EN-CS-S.008-MULTI Page 4 of Rev. 0 132 1.0 PURPOSE methodology for performing structural 1.1 The purpose of this standard is to provide consistent Sectio n Xl Class 1, 2, and 3, carbon and low evaluations of pipe wall thinning for ASME non-safety related piping using ailoy steel piping. This standard is also applicable for Attachment 7.6 of this procedure.

tion of internal or external thinning 1.2 This standard can be used for, but not limited to, evalua iologic ally Induced Corrosion (MIC), and due to Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC), Microb dology for evalua tion of thinning due to MIC and general erosion/corrosion. The metho er, wall thinning rates are different general erosion/corrosion is the same as FAG; howev 5.1.

and should be calculated as shown in Section nuclear power plants for which the 1.3 This standard is applicable to Entergy Nuclear (EN) the ASME Sectio n Ill, ANSI 831.7 and piping was designed in accordance with USAS/ANSI 831.1 code [2.1, 2.20, 2.211.

can not be used to evaluate other 1.4 This standard is applicable to piping and fittings and components such as valves, pump casings, etc.

2.0 REFERENCES

year, see indMdual plant FSAR) 2.1 USAS/ANSI 831.1, Power Piping, (For applicable code 2.2 1P3 FSAR 2.3 JAFFSAR 2.4 ASME B & PV Code Case N-597, Rev. 2 Crack Like Flaw Evaluation Standard 2.5 PS-S-001 Rev.I, Localized Pipe Wall Thinning and 2.6 ASME B & PV Code Case N-513-2 ics, ASME 1993, P51-55 2.7 PVPVolume 264, Piping, Supports, and Structural Dynam 2.8 lP2 FSAR 2.9 PNPSFSAR 2,10 VYFSAR 2.11 ASME 2001 8 & PV Code, Section Xl, Appendix C 2.12 EN-DC-126, Engineering Calculation Process 2.13 USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.147 2,14 EN-DC-315, Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program Xl Class 3 Moderate Energy Piping 2.15 ENN-DC-185, Through-Wall Leaks in ASME Section Systems ve Flow Accelerated Corrosion 2.16 EPRI NSAC-202L-R3. Recommandations for an Effecti Program, May 2006 ines for Plant Modeling and 2.17 EPRI CHECWORKS Steam/Feedwater Application Guidel Report No. 100959 9, Final Report, Sept. 2004 Evaluation of Component Inspection Data, 2.18 ASME B & PV Code Case N-661 Edition 2.19 Roarks Formulas for Stress & Strain, W.C. Young, Sixth code year, see individual plant 2.20 USAS 831.7, Nuclear Power Piping, (For applicable FSAA)

rENTERGY [ ENGINEER STANDARD EN-CS-S-008.-MULTI Rev, oj

[ PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 5 of 132 j

2.21 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III ,(For applicable code year, see individual plant FSAR) 2.22 ANO-1 FSAR 2.23 ANO-2 FSAR 2,24 GGNS FSAR 2.25 WF3 FSAR 2.26 PLP FSAR 2.27 ABS FSAR 2.28 EN-DC-i 15, Engineering Change Process 30 DEFINiTIONS 3.1 A Additional thickness per ANSI B31.i code, (in)

-

3.2 A Predicted inside cross-section area with pipe wall thinning, (in

-

)

2 3.3 A, Predicted metal cross-section area with pipe wall thinning, (in

-

)

2 3.4 0 Total cross-section area of pipe based on outside diameter, ie0 A -

/4, (in 2

0 )

2 3.5 D Pipe outside diameter, (in)

-

3.6 i Stress Intensification Factor for nominal thickness (See Appendix D of Ref. 2.1)

-

3.7 i Stress Intensification Factor based on average measured thinned thickness

-

3.8 151 In-Service Inspection. Piping components are classified as 151 Class 1, 2, and 3 in

-

accordance with Regulatory Guide 1 .26, 1 OCFR5O.2V and br the ISI Program Plan 3.9 - Allowable stress factor for Normal (or Design) Conditions. (See Attachment 7,5 for 0

K plant specific values) 3.10 Allowable stress factor for Upset Conditions. (See Attachment 7.5 for plant specific 8

Ku values) 3.11 2 KEm Allowable stress factor for Emergency Conditions. (See Attachment 7.5 for plant specific values) 3.12 KFau Allowable stress factor for Faulted Conditions. (See Attachment 7.5 for plant specific values) 3.13 L Maximum extent of a local thinned area with wall thickness less than t, (in.),

-

(see Figure A-i of Attachment 7.6) 3.14 L, Maximum extent of a local thinned area with wall thickness less than

-

trnfl, (in.),

(see Figure A-i of Attachment 7,6) 3.15 Lrna) Maximum axial extent of a local thinned area with wall thickness less than

-

trnfl, (in.),

(see Figure A-I of Attachment 7.6) 3.16 Lrna).rnax Maximum of the axial extent of two adjacent local thinned areas with wall

-

thickness less than tmn, (in.), (see Figure A-3 of Attachment 7.6)

[ENTERGY

[ ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-SO08-MULTI Rev. 0 I Pic WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvAwATI0N Page 6 of 132 317 Lmti Maximum transverse extent of a local thinned area with wall thickness less than t,,

(in,),

(see Figure A-i of Attachment 7.6) 3.18 - Average of the extent of thickness less than tm,,for two adjacent thinned areas.

(in.).

(see Figure A-2 of Attachment 7.6) 3.19 ME - Moderate Energy; Piping system operating pressure <275 psig and operating temperature <200 F 3.20 Mb Resulting bending moment from the design analysis of record for each loading

-

condition under consideration, (in-Ib) 3.21 P - Design pressure, (psi) 3.22 P Thermal expansion stress, (ksi) 3.23 Pm Piping axial stress due to design pressure, (ksi) 3.24 Pb Piping bending stress, (ksi) 3.25 R - Pipe mean radius, (D. t,)!2, (in)

-

3.26 Rb- Pipe elbow bend radius, (in) 3.27 Rmn Mean radius of piping item based on the minimum wall thickness, (in) 3.28 Rn,jm Pipe nominal radius, (in)

-

3.29 0 Pipe outside radius, D R - /2, (in) 0 3.30 S Piping axial stress = Pm

-

+ b, (ksi) 3.31 SA- Pipe thermal expansion allowable stress, (psi) 3.32 Sb Pipe axial stress due to bending moments, (psi)

-

3.33 r Pipe axial stress at Normal Conditions or Stress Due to Sustained Loads [2.1], (psi) 0 S

3.34 Smg Pipe axial stress at Emergency Conditions or Stress Due to Occasional Loads [2.1],

(psi) 3.35 3 Pipe axial stress at Faulted Conditions, (psi)

S -

3.36 S- Pipe allowable stress at operating temperature, (psi), [see Appendix A of Ref. 2.1].

3.37 S Pipe thermal expansion stress or Additive Stress [2.1], (psi)

-

3.38 ST- Pipe thermal expansion stress for the thinned section. (psi) 3.39 S Pipe axial stress due to pressure, (psi)

-

3,40 S- Pipe axial stress at Upset Conditions or Stress Due to Occasional Loads [2.1], (psi) 3.41 SF Safety Factor for Wear Rate, (1.1 is recommended per EN-DC-31 5)

-

3.42 tm - Minimum measured pipe wall thickness of the latest inspection, (in) 3.43 Minimum required pipe wall thickness for internal pressure, (in) 3.44 t,.,-.- Minimum required pipe wall thickness for straight pipe, (in) 3.45 - Minimum required pipe wall thickness for axial stress, (in) 3.46 t,- Minimum required pipe wall thickness required for hoop stress, axial stress and larger than [3t.,, (in)

ENTERGY ENGINEERING STANDARD PIPE WALL THINNINO STRUcTuRAL EVALUATION J EN.-CS.S-008-MULTI Page 7 of Rev. 0 132 3.47 t, Pipe nominal wall thickness, (in) tion, (in) 3.48 t Minimum predicted pipe wall thickness at the next inspec (years, or time unit) 3.49 Y Service years between the latest and the next inspections,

-

section, including 3.50 Z,,,. Predicted minimum section modulus for the thinned pipe consideration of the shift of the neutral axis of the thinned pipe section, (in )

3 3.51 W,- Wear Rate, (in/year. or in/time unit) 3.52 Other A factor: 0.3 for Class 1 and 0.2 for Class 2 or 3 piping pipe metal thinned The distance from the center of pipe to the center of gravity of the section, (in)

Afactorof 1.143 (= 1/0.875)

Maximum angle (in degrees) from center of outer one-half of elbow to the location of 0

thinned area being evaluated, as measu red in the pipe cross section (see Figure 2) 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES g the proper 4.1 Manager of Design Engineering at each site is responsible for assurin implem entation of this standa rd.

tions generated from this 4.2 Implementing Engineer is responsible for ensuring that calcula with the EN calcula tion procedure, EN-DC-126.

standard shall be performed in accordance responsibility of the FAC 4.3 Wear rates for inspections performed under EN-DC-31 5 is the engineer.

ral evaluation for 4.4 Civil/Mechanical Engineering Section is responsible to perform structu pipe wall thinning and flaws.

50 DETAILS are steps to assess the acceptability The methods of pipe wall thinning evaluation in this standard Figure 1 for illustra tion). First an initial screening is of the minimum predicted thickness, t (See to determ ine action to be taken. The actions are: Accept-as-Is, performed using the t value ed, it shall satisfy the pipe code Evaluate, or Repair/Replace. If a structural evaluation is perform stress requirements for both hoop and axial directi ons [2.4].

thinned section for the structural The approaches of the uniformly thinned section and the actual rd. The uniform ly thinned section methodology evaluation are both provided in this standa s a uniform ly thinned section with the minim um measured illustrated in Figure 4 assume vative results when the pipe wall thickness. This approach is simple but it may give overly conser d to reduce thinned section may be require thinning is localized. Re-evaluation using the actual the conservatism.

OSs criterta that are not included n For non-safety related piping components, minimum wail thiCkn justfed by Oocurn erted site specfic evaluations.

this standard can be used if it is 5.1 Predicted Thickness at Next Inspection, tp ble. Otherwise, it The wear rate (Wr) shall be obtained from the FAC engineer, as applica shall be determined as provided in Attach ment 7.7.

Calculate t

ENTERGY L ENGINEERING STANDARD PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALUA110N EN-CS-S-0O8MULTl Page 8 of Rev. 0 132 tpt_SFW,Y Wall thinning (wear) rates for phenomenon other than FAC may be difficult to predict and therefore should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the engineer.

5.2 Screening Rules Determine actions for the acceptability of t by the screening criteria as follows:

Screening Criteria Actions 2

tp 0.875 Accept as is 0,875 tnom> t > 0.3

• for Class 1 Evaluate

> 0.2 t*

0 for Class 2 & 3 0.3 t,,,, > t for Class 1 Repair or replace 0.2 *

> tp for Class 2 & 3 (If piping meets the ANSI B31 .1 code requirements, then immediate repair is not required. Repair or replace during the current operating cycle not to exceed the next refueling outage)

(For moderate energy Section XI Class 2 or 3 piping, perform ASME Code Case N-513-2 evaluation for through-wall flaws, if necessary>

Notes:

(1) The is the multiplication sign herein.

(2) The rule is not applicable for the following cases;

a. Class 1 short radius elbows, an evaluation shall be conducted to show that requirements of NB-3642.2 are met.

b. Reinforcement area of tees or branch connections (see Figure 6), an evaluation of reinforcement area per ANSI 831.1 is shown in Attachment 7.4,

c. Specific designed items as stated in Reference 2.4, Section 3500(a)(4>.

ENTERGY ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-O08-MULTI Rev 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUA11ON Page 9 of 132 5.3 Structural Evaluation 5.3.1 Hoop Stress Requirements Minimum Wall Thickness, trnn:

tmn ((P D

) I [2*(Sh +0.4*P)1) 0 + A Hoop Stress Requirements Actions tp tm,i Accept for hoop stress tp < tmn Replace or repair (A local thinning evaluation can be performed based on Code Case 597, however NRC approval is required for acceptance)

For Class 2/3 moderate energy pipe, ASME CC N..51 3-2 can be used without NRC approval.

Note: (3) a. For reducers (see Figure 3), t shall be equal to tmfl of straight pipe connected to the reducer end. For the conical portion of the reducer, t shall be that of the larger diameter end.

b. For inner portion of elbows and pipe bends (see Figure 2), excluding a region within 1 .5*(R*t)OS of butt welds, t shall be equal to

[0.5+0,5/(1 +(RJRb)*cos0)J*trn.,.,.

c. For branch connections and tees, except at regions providing reinforcement of the opening required by 531.1 Code, tmfl shall be as required for straight pipe.

Caution: When pressure is very low, t may be unrealistically low.

5.3.2 Axial Stress Requirements 5.3.2.1 Uniformly Thinned Section Approach Obtain axial stresses (SNøc, SUp, SEmq SFau, & STe) and their allowable stresses [KN*Sh, (KErn*Sh, (KFau*Sh, & SA] at the thinned area due to pressure and mechanical loads for Normal (or Design). Upset, Emergency, Faulted Conditions, and Thermal Expansion.

Determine the new stress intensification factor (SIF), i, if required, by using the average predicted wall thickness or conservatively using twice of the original SIF value around the thinning area of the component. The formulation of the stress intensification factors are listed in Appendix D of 531.1 Code [2.1].

Select the minimum thickness required for axial stress, to calculate the ratio of old and new section modulus; 7p7 rr 4 + iirr 4 ,a \4 LJnom) iL-o k-o 4.L The new stresses due to pipe wall thinning shall satisfy the following

I ENTERGY L ENGINEERING STANDARD PIPE WAIL THINNING STRucTuRAL EvALuATIoN EN.CS..S-008-MUL11 Page 10 of Rev. 0 132 conditions:

Normal Conditions:

y KN.,,*Sr, [P*D,.J4t,,. + U,i)(SN, P*D4t.orj*(Z!Z)J > 0 [Eq 11 Upset Conditions:

- [P*Do/4trn,n + (i/i)(Sup PDo/4tnorn)*(Z/Z)1 0 [Eq. 2]

Emergency Conditions:

iKErng*Sh - [P*D J

0 4ta + (i/i)*(SErnq P*Do/4tnorn)*(Z/Z)] 0 [Eq. 3]

Faulted Conditions: (if required)

• KFaU*Sh [p*Dcl4tarnn + (iii)*(SFau /4tnom)*(ZiZ)]

0 P*D > 0 [Eq. 4]

Normal + Thermal Expansion:

+ S) - [PDJ4t, + ,

0 (i/tY(S P*Do/4trorn + SThe)*(Z/Z)1 > 0[Eq. 5]

The minimum of tam,n can be obtained by the Trial and Error Method until one of the above four equations is close to zero.

It is noted that if tp/tKm > 0.75, and subject to no more than 150 equivalent full temperature cycles from the measurement date to the time of the next examination, then the thermal expansion stress need not to be considered.

Axial Stress Requirements Actions t > ta Accept for axial stress Repair or replace, or tp < calculate stresses based on actual thinned section in accordance with paragraph 5.3.2.2; For Class 2/3 moderate energy pipe, ASME CC N-513-2 can be used.

An example of the wall thinning evaluation with the uniform thinned section approach is shown in Attachment 7,1.

5.3.2.2 Actual Thinned Section Approach 5.3.2 2.1 Primary Piping Stress A detailed stress analysis may be conducted based on the complete set of the wall thickness measurements around the circumferential direction of the actual thinned section of the pipe (See Figure 4). The nominal axial pressure stress, S, shall be determined by:

P A/A,

ENTERGY ENGRrc.SvoARD EN-CSS-OO8..MULTl Rev. 0 PIPE WALL ThINNING STRUCTURAL EvALUATION Page 11 of 132 The axial bending stress, Sb, for various Loading condibons shall be determined by:

Sb = (Mb +P*A)/Z The total axial stress, S, for various loading conditions shall satisfy their limits as follows; S S + Sb < K*Sh where K = yKEmq, and are for Normal (or Design),

Upset, Emergency, and Faulted Conditions, respectively. The detailed methodology of this approach is described in Reference 2.4.

5.3.2.2.2 Thermal Expansion Stress Determine the new thermal expansion stress as following:

C jI \*/7 17

• C *C

ç The ,I it ) / Qo, An example of the detail calculation is shown in Attachment 7.2.

5.4 Potential Buckling of Thinned Region When the ratio R It is greater than 50, the potential for buckling of the thinned region shall 0

be evaluated. Following criteria is recommended to be used for evaluation of buckling.

Local Buckling: Buckling can only be caused by axial compressive stresses due to bending moments. Calculate local critical buckling stress as:

Critical Buckling Stress 2 8.46*E*(taveIb)

(Note: This equation is based on Reference 2.19 Table 35 Case I b, square plate with all edges clamped for a Poissons ratio equal to 0.3) where: tauC = average measured thickness in the flawed area b = length of flaw in the circumferential direction E = Modulus of Elasticity for pipe Overall Buckling: Check piping overall buckling by methodology contained in ASME B & P V code Section Ill, NB/NC-3133.6 for cylinders under compression or any equivalent methodology.

5,5 Evaluation of Through-Wall Flaws The through-wall flaw evaluation is applicable to only Class 2 or 3 moderate energy (ME) piping for through-wall flaws and flaws where t is less than the required thickness for hoop and axial stress. The geometry of through-wall planar flaws is shown in Figure 5. The flaw evaluation is based on the requirements of ASME Code Case N-SI 3 [2.63 with the following limitations:

1. Specific structural factors in paragraph 4.0 of reference 2.6 must be satisfied.

2. Code Case N-513-2 may not be applied to:

ENTERGY

[ ENGINEERING STANDARD PIPE WALL THiNNING STRUcTURAL EVALUATION EN-CS-SOO8-MULTI Page 12 of Rev. 0 1 32_J (a) Components other than pipe and tube.

(b) Leakage through a flanged joint.

e (c) Threaded connections employing nonstructural seal welds for leakag prevention (through seal weld leakag e is not a structu ral flaw; thread integrity must be mainta ined).

(d) Degraded socket welds.

3. Code Case N-513-2 may be applied to adjoining fittings and flanges to a maximum distance of 5 t)° from the weld centerline.

0 (R

4. When the width of wall thinning Wm that exceeds tmfl, is 5 t)° where W 0

O.5(R 1 is ied as a defined in Fig. A-i (partial through wall thinning), the flaw can be classif planar flaw, Attachment 7.3A or 7,36 can be used. If the above requirement is not satisfied, Attachment 7.6 can be used.

of the The acceptance is limited to the next scheduled outage. The detailed methodology Code Case N-51 3 also require s evaluation is described in Reference 2.6. ASME are covered augmented examinations to determine extent of condition. These requirements in ENN-DC-185 [2.15].

An example of a through-wall flaw evaluation is given ri Attachment 7.3A and 7.36.

5.6 Remaining Service Life (RSL) Estimation inspection.

The remaining service life of a thinned pipe shall be used to schedule the next Calculate RSL:

RSL (teas tr)!(SFWr)

)*>

Where trnr, Maximum Of ( tarnin, 5.7 Restoration of Wall Thickness for Class 2 and 3 Carbon Steel Piping Service If necessary, wall thickness restoration of Classes 2 and 3 carbon steel Raw Water piping can be performed in accord ance with ASME Code Case N-661 [2.18] with the limitations of Regulatory Guide 1.147 [2.13].

ENTERGY ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS S-OO8 MULTi Rev 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUcmRAL EvALuATIoN Page 13 of 132 Yes Operable but monitoring required per N-513, Repair or replace at next scheduled outaqe Figure 1: Logic Diagram for Pipe Wall Thinning Evaluation

ENTERGY

[ ENGINEERING STANDARD PIPEWALLThINNINGSTRUcruRALEVALuATI0N j EN-CS-S-008-MULT!

Page 14 of Rev.

132_J ol I

Figure 2: Elbow and Nomenclature Large end transition zone Central conical section Small end transition zone GENERAL NOTE:

Transition zones extend from the point on the ends weze the diemeter begn8 to change to the point on the central cone where the cone angie is ccnant, Figure 3: Zone of 94er

ENTERGY ENGiNEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Rev. 0 PIPE WALL THINNNG STRUCmRAL EVALUATION Page 15 of 132 tIi.1.ttl.tl Figure 4: A Typical Thinned Pipe Cross-Section

-4 t

() Cirtm etW iw (b) Aii flaw Figure 5: Through-Wall Flaw Geometry

-i m

C)

I 3.

-n C 33 3

C (T CL CL

-I z CL Cl) a, 3 C Cl C) -

-4 I>

3 C 2

3. 0

-n 3.

3 Ill CL 3.

3 CL C 3

0 3.

0 2

> 3 LIl L LI c.

m z

33 C,

I.

-o D 0 0

H

-a.

C., m 1) 0

ENTERGY

[ ENGINEERING STANDARD PIPE WALL THINNING STRUcTuRAL EvwAnoN EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Page 17 of Rev. U 132 6.0 RECORDS Use of this standard in conjunction with EN-DC-i 26 and EN-DC-il 5 process.

7.0 ATTACHMENTS 7.1 Example of WaB Thinning Evaluation Based on Uniformly Thinned Section 7.2 Example of Axial Stress Calculation With Actual Thinned Section 7.3A Example of ASME Code Case N-513 Evaluation for A Through-Wall Flaw for Carbon Steel 73B Example of ASME Code Case N-513 Evaluation for A Through-Wall Flaw for Austenitic steel 7.4 Example of Minimum Wall Evaluation at Reinforcement Area of Tee 7.5 Plant Specific Allowable Stress lactors 7,6 Recommendation for Safety Related Moderate Energy Class 213 and Non-Safety Related Piping 7.7 Recommended Guidance and Methods for Calculation of Wear Rates 7.8 Guide for using PS-S-OOl as Informational Attachment 7.9 Informational Attachment

_________________

___________________

_____________________

__________

_______________________

____________________

_________

________________

______

ENTERGY ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Rev. 0 PIPE WALL THINNING SrRucTURAL EvALUATIoN Page 18 of 132 .1 Example of Wall Thinning Evaluation Based on Uniformly Thinned Section Sheet 1 of 2

1. Design Parameters Boxed values are input)

Outside Diameter, (in) 0 D 3.5 Nominal Thickness, (irrl 0.216 Material A106 GB, SML P: Design Pressure. (psi) 325 T Design Temperature, (CF) 280 5

S Allowable Stress at Design Temperature. (psi) (See App. A of 831.1) 15000 Thermal Expansion Allowable Stress (psi) 22500 A An additional thickness per Section 106.1 of 831,1, (in) 0

2. PredictIon of Mm. Thickness at Next Inspection, tp tms: Measured thickness of latest inspection, (in> 0.080 (I I W : Wear Rate (in/yr) 0.00250 Y : Service years between the latest and next inspections, (yr) 2 SF: Safety factor 1.1 Projected thermal cycles between the latest and next inspections 70 tp = tnea -

SFWrY, (in) 0.0745 RcJtp 50, OK; or > 50, 8uckling Evaluation Required 5 flit = 23 OK

3. Screening Rules for Pipe Wall Thinning 2, t3)

Rule 1: Acceptance Standard = O.875t 0.189 Rule 2: Minimum Required Thickness 0.3t for Class 1 0,065 for Class 2 or 3 0.043 Rule 3: Between the above two limits, wall thinning can be accepted by a structural evaluation Action required based on the above screening rules for the inspected thinned pipe Class I piping Structural Evaluation Reqd Class 2 or 3 piping Structural Evaluation Reqd

4. Structural Evaluation

a. Minimum Thickness for Hoop Stress:

tmn = J[2) .+.4P)j +/- A 0

PD (in) 0038

b. Mrnmum Thickness for Axial Stress Is the lhermal expansion stress requred to be evaluated 9 Yes (No for t O.75t and cycles < 150: Yes for otherwise)

Ailowable stress increase factor for Normal Condition ______ 1.0 0 : AIlowab stress ncrease laclor for Upset Condtion K 1.2 Allowabre stress increase factor for Emergency Condition  : 1.8 h

y: Allowable stress norease factor for CCN-597 1143

ENTERGY [ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Rev 0

[

[

j PIPE WALL THINNING STRucTuRAL EVALUATION Page 19 of 132 Attachment 7i Example of Wall Thinning Evaluation Based on Uniformly Thinned Section Sheet 2 of 2 Original Piping Stresses

5 S Normal Condition Stress, (psi) 2500 Upset Condition Stress. (psi) 5600 5 Emergency Condition Stress, (psi)

Strn Sm  : Thermal Expansion Stress. (psi) 8000 Let ,O53 (1 1 i/i I Z/Z 4 0

[D 1/[D (Do2tmm)

(Oo2tnom) 4 0 1 4 3.55 Allowable Stress Axial Stress> 0

-

Normal conditions: *Sm 0

y*Ke PDJ4t + (iVi)(S P*Dj4t)(Z/Z)] > 0 7568 Upset conditions: ymKupSm (PDcJ4tm + (lVl)(Sup P*Dm/4troRJ2)) 0 0 Emergency conditions: KEmgS [P*Do/4t+ + (iIl)(Sr,re P*DmJ4tr)*(Z/Z)] 0

- 2483 Normal and Ther. Expansion conditions: 1 (S +/- S) [PD,14tm + (i/i)*(So PDi4t ÷ ST>*(Z/Z> 0 4907

c. Minimum Required Thickness Class 1: t, Max. (in): Acceptable if t > 0065 Yes Class 2 & 3: t,, = Max. (in); Acceptable if Ip > 0.053 Yes

5. RemainIng Service Life (RSL)

Class 1; RSL = [t tJ/(SF*Wj, (yr) 5.5 Class 2 & 3: ASL = [tm tj/(SF*W,), (yr)

-

9,9 Notes:

(1) The wear rate will be obtained from Responsible FAC Engineer or based on the Attachment 7.7.

(2) The acceptance standard (0.875L) can not be applied to:

1. Class 1 short radius elbows,

2. Reinforcement area of a tee or branch connection, and

3. For regions of piping designed to specific wall thickness requirements, such as counterbores or weld attachments.

(3) For the small end of reducers, the standard shall be based on the of the pipe size at the small end. For the large end, the large end transition and the conical portion, it shall be based on the t of the pipe size at the larger end.

(4) The formula is applicable for straight pipes, bends, and elbows.

For reducers, t at each end shatl be equal to of straight pipe of the same nominal size as the reducer end.

For the conical portion and transition at larger end of reducers, t shall be that of the large diameter pipe end.

For branch connections and tees, the reinforcement area of the opemng shall be based on the 831.1 code.

(5) can be obfained by the Trial and ErrorS method until the Allowable Stress Axial Stress due to Normal, Upset, Emergency, and combined Normal and Thermal Expansion conditions are all positive and one of them shall be close to zero.

(6) (i) can be calculated from Appendix Dot ANSI B31.1. (i) needs to be adjusted for the pipe wall thinning.

lt is suggested that the average thickness or 2 times of the original value be used for the 1 calculalion.

• Jntergy I I ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S008-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 20 of 132 .2 Example of Axial Stress Calculation With Actual Thinned Section Sheet 1 of 2 (Boxed values are input.l

Pipe OD. (in) 4 D

R..: Pipe outside radius. D

/

1 2. lin)

L,,, Pipe nominal wall thickness, (in)

V Total service years up to latest Inspection, (yr)

V Service years between latest inspection and next inspection, (yr;r N Tota! no. of thickness measurements (equal grid) in circumferential direction

.O = 2mN, angle of each grid, (tad) (where it = 3.142 0314 fl (tmnm)n tt,jn Rn On A Am,, 14 B

,, Inn L I,,,,

(in.) (in.) (rad) )

2 (in )

2 (in )

3 (in )

3 (in )

4 (in )

4 (in )

4 (in 1 [21 0.207 8.79 0.00 12.1 0.58 71.2 0.0 45.8 0.0 0.0 2 0.226 0.212 8.79 0.31 12 1 0.59 67.6 22.0 42.5 4.5 13.8 3 0.222 0.208 8.79 0.83 12.1 0.58 57.6 41.8 30.1 15.9 21.9 4 0280 0.271 8.73 0.94 12.0 0.76 40.9 56.3 20.5 38.9 28.2 5 0.295 0.288 8.71 1.26 11.9 0.80 21.4 65.9 6.0 56.8 18.5 6 0.297 0.290 8.71 1.57 119 0.81 00 69.2 0.0 63.2 0.1) 7 0.294 0.287 8.71 1.88 11.9 0.80 -21.4 65.9 6.0 56.6 -18.4 8 0.292 0.284 8.72 2.20 11.9 0.79 -40.8 58.1 21.5 40.7 -29.5 9 0.292 0.284 8.72 2.51 11.9 0.79 -56.1 40.8 40.7 21.5 -29.5 10 0.283 0.275 8.73 2.83 12.0 0.76 -66.2 21.5 54.3 5.7 -17.7 11 0.314 0.308 8.69 3.14 11.9 0.86 -68.8 0.0 67.1 0.0 0.0 12 0.304 0.297 8.70 3.46 11.9 0.83 -65.6 -21.3 58.6 6.2 19.1 13 0.304 0.297 8.70 3.77 11.9 0.83 -55.8 -40.6 42.4 22.4 30.8 14 0.138 0.116 8.88 4.08 12.4 0.33 -43.2 -59.4 9.0 17.1 12.4 15 0.137 0.115 8.88 4.40 12.4 0.32 -22.7 -69.9 2.5 23.4 7.6 16 0.139 0.117 8.88 4.71 12.4 0.33 0.0 -73.4 0.0 26.4 0.0 17 18

[ 0.140 0.118 0.130 8.88 8.87 5.03 5.34 12.4 12.4 0.33 0.37 22.7 42.9

-69.8

-59.1 2.5 10.1 24.1 19.1

-7.8

-13.9 19 i I

0.161 I 0.141 8.86 5.65 12.3 0.40 58.9 -42.8 20.7 10.9 -15 0 20 0.309 ) 0.303 8.70 5.97 11.9 0.84 65.5 -21.3 59.7 6.3 -19.4 tvlin. 0.137 0.115 A Am 1 B B, I,, I I,,,,

Ave. 0.240 0.228 Total 241.8 12.7 8.2 -18.1 539.9 459.6 1.0 Where ii Icenirficalion ot measurement nd around crrcumference Mm. thickness measured in nth grid Mm. oredicted thiesness of nIb grid at next insoection. (t.).. SPVW.. where W,=it (t ..,,. V

• (ns;de thinned radius A, t.- of nth grid 9; Circumferential angle clockwise of nth grid if rote verlical axis of pipe sectionl

=1R -RnY(;\9)12.

2 A R..O)/2 B,. = Rcos)0.)(.\9)J3, Bvr = Rr*sin(9r(,X0)!3,

= (2 y

4 lR-R coS O$(\0):4, = (

0

(

2 (R-RsinO

\O)4, l = (Rr RsIn(0)*coS(0(.\9)/4.

4 A,,., similar for A,. B, 84, t, L. and I.. (The origin of x-y coordinates is at the center of pipe section.)

Eri STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 Entergy PIPE WALL THINNING STRuCmRAL EVALUATION Page 21 of 132

çment72ExamleofialStres8 Calculation With Actual Thinned Section SHEET 2 OF 2 Gravity center of pressure area Y, B, A Xi, B/A On) 0 034 0075 Gravity center of metal area X - ,; Y,,

1 A,A,,X -A/A,,Y,,: (rr) 1425 0649 Moment nertias at C.G. of metal area I, I, -A,,Y, , ti I, 1 & I,, Ixy -Ai, X,Y,, on 5346 4338 1274 Actual thinned Section. I,. , {ti÷l, -[(I-l,) +4i9 [/2, R, ,= B + (X,, +Y,, 4322 1057 40.9 Nominal sectiorr I i,i,, B Z, (for t,,i,,,= 0375 in); (in, in, in

)

2 806.6 900 89.6 Uniformly thinned section. I, R

, Z 0 (for (t,) 0115 in ); (In

, in, in) 2 258.8 900 28.8

2. AxIal Stress tor Actual Thinned Section P: Design pressure. (psi) L.jci PAJA. /1000 Axial stress for pressure based on the actual thinned section, (ksi) 2.86 Eccentricity of thinned section, (in) 1 57 Mi, = (1r*Ro yP3/1 000, Bending moment due to eccentricity of pressure force, (k-in) 2 59.8 Operating Condition Normal U set S : Pipe axial stress based on nominal thickness [From Piping Stress Reporti, (ksi) 0.75i : [I Stress Intensification for nominal thickness]

Mi, (S - P*D,i4t,J1 000)*Zi,i,, /(0,75i): Bending moment due code loadings, (k-in) 376 466 735

= Mi, + Mi, Total bending moment for thinned section, (k-in) 436 526 - 795 0,75i [I Stress Intensification for average thinned thickness} EZo 5 = Si, + (075i)*M/Zi,,, : Actual stress based on the actual thinned section, (ksi) 13.5 157 22.3 yS,,i,,,,,: Allowable stress, (ksi)

Acceptable if ySi,,,> S lj I 7

L 6

.

20 Yes Yes Yes Cyclic Operation Smi,: Thermal stress range (ksi) 10 1 (l i)Srio*(Z,om/Zrn,n); (ksi) 219 Thermal allowabe stress: (ksi) 25,7 I Acceptable if ySi, Yes Notes:

(1) It is recommended at least 18 measured wall thickness points around the circumference (2) y=1.l43isused.

ATTACHMENT 7.3A EXAMPLE OF ASME CODE CASE N-513 EvALuATIoN FOR A TI-IROuGH-WALL FLAw FOR CARBON STEEL Sheet I of 2 A. Pipe Parameters 0 Pine 00 On)

= Pipe wall thickness at flaw location un) 015

= average wall thickness of pipe circumference based on UT report (in) at section

= nominal pipe wall thickness (in) 5 p = Design Pressure (psi) 150 0

p Operational Pressure Ipsi) (<275 psig)

I Metal Temperature at evaluation(

F) 0 1< 200Fl E = elastic modulus at I (ksi) v poison ratio H

.

1 J material toughness (lb/in) 45.

S = allowable stress for pipe (ksi)

= SIP = stress intensification factor used in the stress analysis too Service Level A B C 0 pD)t) or loom stress summery Axial stress due to desiqri pressure lksil TT F F 1 s p fl,/(4t) ÷ (O.75i)u: Piping Axial Stress (ksi, from stress output) 5 278 J 3.18 . 3.18]

0 SF Level A = 27; Level B = 2.4; Level c 1.8; Level D = 1.3 (C-2621& 2622] 27 24 1.8 13

.

5 SF Level A 0023; Level B = 2.0; Level c = 1.6: Level 0 = 1.4 [C-2621] 2.3 20 1.6 1.4

= pipe mean radius (in) = (D 0 t)/2 9.925 E=E/(1 -v )

2 30549 K

1 0 material critical stress intensity factor 10

=J E

0 /1 000)° (ksilin)O0) 37.08 B. Evaluate as a planar flaw in axial direction (Based on LEFM C-7400 & N513.-2, 1-3.0)

Service Level A B C D o Half axial flaw length (in) tty c to make K

- K 5 >= r I 00 00 0.0 L ilL p pressure for the service level condition On l0 iSO 150 pDj(2t)/1 000 (l<si) 60 10.00 10.00 10.00 For through wall flaw, a C:

? oc:(tP.) 0.76 0.47 0.68 0.96 F=1÷A+8÷C

÷ 3 D÷EX 1.34 1.15 1.28 1.49 Where A= 00724 8= 06486 C= 02327 000 00382 E= 00023 K K 0 00K K

. 00 00 (ksilirr)°°) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 flaw length 020 1.86 1.14 1.65 2.33 Allowable Axial Flaw LengTh Smaller 2c of four service levels (in.) = 11.14

ATrAcHMENT 7.3A ExAMPLE OF ASME CODE CASE N-513 EVALUATION FOR A THROUGH-WALL FLAW FOR CARBON SrEEL Sheet 2 of 2 C. Evaluate as a planar flaw in circumferential direction Service Level A B C D 10 750 >= 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Ot =19 p,D,i(4t)>(0.,5r1 ksi) 0.15 0.78 1.18 1.18 o ojD> -(DC - 2t l]!lD - ID. - 2t,l) 1kw) 0.221 1.148 1 737 1 737 p = pressure at the service level 90 1 50 150 150 a, = pDJ(4L): Axial stress due to service pressure (ksi) 1 80 3.00 3.00 3.00 K= 37.1 37.1 37.1 37.1 For through wail flaw, based on a = C C: Half circumferential flaw length try c to make K K - > 0.0 1

0.045 0.030 0.034 0.041 r = R,,/t 662 66.2 66.2 662

= 0 1 2 3 A.,,=A,,--A.,r+A.,r ÷A, r>

3 1 A.,, 20292 1 6776 -0.0799 00018 269.1 269.1 269.1 269.1 8,,=B,--B,,r+B.,>r> +B,,,>r 1 B,, 70999 -4 4239 0.2104 -00046 -706 -706 -706 -706 C=C,,>+Cr+C,,r> +C,,,, r 1 C,,, 77966 S 1668 -0 2668 0.0064 8408 8408 840.8 840.8 A= A,,> + A ,*r -f A,,,r 4 3 1 ,>r 1

A A 3 2654 1.5278 -00727 0.0016 243.4 243.4 24.3.4 24.3.4 Bf= B,,,, + B,,,r + E3,,>r + Br Bb1 11 363 -3.9141 0 1862 -0.0041 -620 -620 -620 -620 Cr> C>,, ÷ C,, r +C 1 ,,r> + C,,.r 1 C,, -3 1861 3.8476 0.1830 0.0040 617.5 617.5 617.5 617 5 F>r 1+ Arn*csl +B,,cz>+C,.rx>

5 3,30 2.30 2.54 100 F,,= 1+ A,,r,, >B,,*a>+Ct,*c,,>> 3.09 2.18 2.39 2 81

,, K 1

K - 1 K,, - )(SFm)(1tC)°C1,,F,,) + (rtc)°(a,F,,)]

1 SF > 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 Flaw length (2c) = 2.82 1.88 211 255 Allowable Circumferential Crack Length Smaller 2c> of 4 service levels (in.) = I 1.88 I D. Check the hole penetration flow area

= pDdI2(S + 0 4p)] (inch) 0.100 L = length of through wall crack for the hole penetration in the axial direction of the pipe (inch) length of through wall crack for the hole penetration in the circumferential direction of the pipe (inch)

A = flow area of pipe (in>)

A> = flow area per CC N-513-2 (in>) 20 A. allowable flow area smaller of A. and A 20 A.-fowaieaof hole 0 72 Yes

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008 Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING SimIcTURAL EvALuATIoN Page 24 of 132 ATTACHMENT 7.3B ExAMPLE OF ASME CODE CASE N-51 3 EvALuATION FOR A THROUGH-WALL FLAW FOR AOSTENrnc STEEL Sh. 1 of 2 A. Pipe Parameters D.. Pipe 00 (in)

Pipe wall thickness at flaw location (In) average wall thickness of pipe circumferential based on UT report(in) at scction

= nominal pipe wall thickness (in) 0S 1

p Design Pressure (psi) p = Operational Pressure pm (<275 psig)

T = Metal Temperature at evaluation(

F) 5 (.r 200SF)

E elastic modulus at T (ksi)

V poison ratio

= material toughness (lb/in)

= Material yield stress at T (ksi)

S = Material ultimate tensile strength at T (ksi)

= SIF = stress intensification factor 1Q Service Level A B C 0 fl.) or from UE&C stress summery, Axial stress due to design pressure Ike) pD=(

f 4 aDo 20O 2.00 1 aO s = p,DJ(4t) + (0 75l)a 1  : Piping Axial Stress (ksi, from stress output) 5 aa 1 7.00 7.B2 I SF,,,: LevelA =2.7; Level8=2.4; Levelc= 1,8; LevelD= I [0-2621 &2622) 27 24 18 13

5 SF Level A = 23; Level B = 2.0 Level c = 1.6; Level D = 1 [0.2621] 23 20 16 14 a/t = depth of flaw to wall thickness ratio (for through wall flaw, a/t = 1.0) 1,00 A,,. = pipe mean radius (in) = (Do ((/2 9.925

= EI(1 - )

2 v 30549 K material cutical stress Intensity factor .d*E/1 000)05 (ksi(in)° 37.06 B. Evaluate as a planar flaw in axial direction LBased on ASME CC N513-2 3b, eqn 1,2 & 3]

Service Level A B C 0 p = pressure at service level 90 150 150 150 pD/t2t) (psi) 6000 10000 10000 10000

= (S 5 ÷ S)i2 tpsb 47500 47500 47500 47500

= allow through wall axial flaw (inch) = 1 ({o./SF,)aj -

5.3 3.3 4.7 6.8 Allowable Axial Flaw Length = I of four service levels (in.) =

I I

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-SOO8 Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING SmUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 25 of 132 .38 Example of ASME Code Case N-513 Evaluation for a Through-Wall Flaw for Austenitic_Steel Sh. 2 of 2 C. Evaluate as a planar flaw in circumferential direction (Based on Limit Load C-5320)

Service Level A B C 0 lO.75i) >ic 1.0 1.00 100 100 100 crc 75 i

4 ..(I:iO.

pcDd(

) 1 88 5.06 5 82 5.82 (0,- 2,j,(D - (0- - ]

4 2t. 2.763 7.442 8564 8.564 p pressure at the service level (psi) 90 150 150 150 pDJ(4t) Axial stress due to internal pressure lksi) 1.80 3.00 3.00 3.00 C half crack length, trial S errol until a Ic appears for both primary bendnq and membrane stress I .i .H 125 [ 1 0 = c/R,, (radtan) 1.592 1.179 1.259 1.360 (S + S)/2 (psi) 47500 47500 47500 47500 If 13 +/- (ft <= it then flaws not penetrating the compresstve side of pipe

= 0.5[it. (ait)0 - rc/43.4] 0,71 0.87 0.83 0.78

= (2a/st)[2sin(lf (alt)sind] (psi) 9175 18388 15945 13053 1119 ÷ [1) > it then flaws penetrating the compressive side of pipe (1 = ir(1 - aft - O/Oi}!( -alt) -0.12 -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 crC = (2cry3t)(2 - (alt))sin() pat) 16760 27817 27817 27817 Use & I m [s.sj I 13853j Check primary bending stress Allowable bending stress S 5 j

1 a SF [1 it (psi) 2856 7444 8633 8631 Sc O, > 0 93 2 68 67 o.k. o.k. o.k. o.k.

Check primary membrane stress arcsin[0.5(a/t)sin9( 0.52 0.48 0.50 0.51

= cr41 - (a/t)i9 it) - 2qs it) (pail 7601 15151 13457 11485 Allowable membrane stress = S 2815 6313 7476 8835 1

S - 0,,. >lrc 0 1015 3313 4476 5836 o.k. o.k. o.k. o.k.

Flaw length (2c) = 31.6 23,4 25.0 27 0 Allowable circumferential Flaw Length Smaller 2c of four service levels (in.) 23.4 F. Check the hole penetration flow area 1=. p,,Dj2S 0.4p.; (tnch, 0.100 L length of through wall flaw for the hole penetration to the axial deection of the pipe (Inch) G.6 length o t through wall flaw for the hole penelrahen n the circumferential direction of the p pa inich)

A - flow area cf ppe ()

flow area per CC N-513-2 (to I 20 A = Oi(CwablC flow area smaller of A. and A:. 20 A. = flow area .f hole = LL,. 0.72 A <= Aa Yes

ENGINEERING SmroARo EN-CS-SOO8 Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING SWucTURAL EvALuATIoN Page 26 of 132 .4 Example of Minimum Wall Evaluation at Reinforcement Area of Tee Sheet 1 of 1

1. Branch Connection Dimensions (See Figure 6 for nomenclature and dimensions)

(Boxed values are input.)

(5 Angle between axes of run and branch, (Deg.) 90 ci ID of branch, (in) 25.25 0 : 00 of branch, (in) d 26 tm mm Mm, predicted branch wall thickness, (in)

Mm. required branch wall thickness, (in) r 0.244 0, 00 of run, (in)

Mm. predicted run wall thickness, (in) 0 T 0.244 Tm: Mm, required run wall thickness, (in> 0.092

2. Reinforcement Area Dimensions 1

d d/sin(o,), (in) 25.25 2 °Haif width of reinforcing zone d = Max(di, t÷T÷di2) but not more d (in) 25.25 L : Altitude of reinforcement zone outside of run = , (in) 9 2.5t 0.61 te Thickness of reiniorcement ring, pad or saddle, (in) 0.0 OD of reinforcement ring, pad or saddle (Effective only up to 22*d

)  : (in)

L0.0

3. Reinforcement Area Required for Pressure A, =1 .07*Tmfl*d,*[2510((5)], (in

)

2 2.486

4. Reinforcement Area Provided 1 : Excess wall thickness in run A = d

(

2 T )

2 (in 3.838 2 Excess wall thickness in branch = 2L*(tp A )

2 (in 0.206 A, Area provided by deposited weld metal beyond 00 of run and branch, (in 3 )

2 LfJ 4 : Area provided by a reinforcing ring or pad A = (D d-t m

)

1 m )

2 (in 0 5 Area provided by a reinforcing saddle A m dc)tmm (D )

2 (in 0 Total Area Provided A,.., A, + 3 +(A.m or Ar.)

2 +A A (in) 4.11

5. Acceptability of Thinning at Reinforcement Area Acceptable if 5 A

. .> A.mm Yes

ENGINEERINc STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 Entergy PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATt0N Page 27 of 132 .5 Plant Specific Allowable Stress Factors Sheet 1 of 1 particular The following plant specific factors are for a typical piping system. It should be noted that some piping systems mght have different factors. In such case, the particular factors for that piping system shall be used.

Allowable Stress Factors Site Normal KNOr Upset Emergency KEmq 1 fiie1 KFau 1.2 1.8 1.812) lP2 1.0 1.0 t2 1.8 JAF 1.0 1.2 1.8 PNPS 1.0 1.2 1.8 2.4 VY 1.0 1,2 1.8 i Notes (1) The typical load combinations for various operating conditions are defined as follows;

- Normal (or Design) Pressure + Dead Weight,

- Upset = Normal ÷ Operational Basis Earthquake,

- Emergency Normal + Design Basis Earthquake or Safe Shutdown Earthquake Loadings such as pressure transient or pipe rupture, etc. should be added to the appropriate load combination according to the individual plant design basis.

(2> Also see Table 1.11-2 of P2 UFSAR.

(3) Also see Table 16.1-2 of 1P3 FSAR.

(4) Use of this factor is acceptable for piping included in the Mark I Program Analysis. Otherwise, use 1.8.

- Entergy i-I ENGINEERING STANDARD

EN-CS-S-OO841ULTI Revision 0 j PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 28 of 132 Attachment 76 Recommendation for Safety Related Moderate Energy Class 213 and NoN-SAFry RELATED PIPING Sheet 1 of 7 For non-safety-related piping, the following restrictions of Code Case N-597 and Regulatory Guide 1.147 can be ignored.

(1) Thermal expansion stress need not be considered.

(2) Localized wall thinning evaluation is acceptable.

It is noted that NRC approval is required to apply the local thinning evaluation to Class 1, 2, & 3 piping. For moderate energy Class 2 & 3 piping, NRC granted unconditional acceptance to evaluation method prescribed in ASME CC N-513-2, Acceptable Local Wall Thickness, t 0 [2.41 A. t can be equal to O. tm,fl without further calculation, or perform following steps 9

B. Obtain local thinning area dimensions: L, Lm, Lmt  ;, L 5 > (See Figure A-i) 1 C. Calculate pipe characteristic length, (Rrnritmm)°, where R, 5= A 5 0, Calculate Lmiar/ (Rsn*tmn)O E. Determine taioc/trnir, by performing Case 1 and 2 in order. If the limits of Case 1 and 2 are not satisfied, determine tacjtrn,fl from Column 3622.4 of Table A1 2, Case Conditions Applicable Limits Limited i Transverse Extent (Rrn;s*tm;n ) > Lm From Column 3622.2 of Table A-i Limited Axial 2.65*(Rm*t )05 Larger value of

&

2 Transverse Extent and )05(

1 - 1 t,,,.Jt,-.-1)/L arid t, >1 .13*tm;s O,353*L 1

5 (R,nt >0.5 3 Unlimited Transverse Extent -

Case 1 or Case 2 not met I From Column 3622.4 of Table A-i F. Local Wall Thickness Requirements Hoop Stress Criteria Actions tp > ta Accept for Hoop stress tp < t Repair or replace An example of local thinning evaluation for hoop stress is shown in this Attachment [ShI 6 &

71 Notes: (1) For multiple thinned areas, tOe wail thickness is required to exceed for a distance that is the greater of 2.5(Rt.r,-.) or 2L.. . between adjacent th;nned reg;ons. Otherwise, the adjacent thinned ewes shall be considered as a single thinned region in the evaluation.

(2) For mu tiple thinned a; sos the e a I thickness shat exceed t for n axial d stan..e the greater of a 5(R t ) or 2L between adjacent thinned regions. Otherwise, the adjacent thinned areas shalt be considered as a single thinned region in the evaluation.

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0

-I!th?rgy -..

Page 29 of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Attachment 7.6 Recommendation for Safety Related Moderate Energy Class 2/3 and NoN-SAFETY RELATED PIPING Sheet 2 of 7 AllvabI* LDc Thlcknes 4*PI*ft4e 3622 2 -3622 4 0 0.100 0.100 0.20 0.100 0261 0.23 0.100 0.300 0.26 0.100 0.373 032 0,100 0.477 0.38 0.100 0.531 0.45 0300 0.616 0.30 0.100 0.651 0.60 0.100 0.703 0.70 0.182 0,742 0.83 0300 0.778 0.83 0.315 0.782 0.90 0.349 0.7 L00 0.410 0.813 1.20 0.505 0.841 1.40 0.572 0.860 1.60 0.622 0.873 1.80 0.659 0.883 2.00 0.687 0.891 2.25 0.714 0.897 2.50 0.734 0.900 2.73 0.750 0,900 3.00 0.763 0.900 3.50 0.787 0.900 4.00 0.811 0.900 4.50 0.834 0.900 5.00 Q.:58 0.900 3.50 0.882 0.900 oo 0.900 o.oo

>6.00 0.900 0.900 GENERAL NOTE:

lnterpotatlon may be used for intermedl.ate aIueL Table A-i

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN Cs S 008 MULTI Revision 0 Lrztergy PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 30 of 132 .6 Recommendation for Safety Related Moderate Energy Class 213 and NoN-SAFElY RELATED PIPING Sheet 3 of 7 SAcioii A-A N

Aa freclofl 4

Figure A-i Illustration of Nonpianar Flaw Due To Wall Thinning

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S..008.MULTI Revision Eritergy ____

PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATiON Page 31 of 132 .6 Recommendation for Safety Related Moderate Energy Class 2/3 and NoN-SAFETY RELATED PIPING Sheet 4 of 7 f

n aucount.nq area Area S

(

3 minimumdtancebeiweenaeasiand/

maxrniurn axta4e of ihinnad area i G4Lm .

NRAL Nbt Cembiiaton of da*t areea into an equvalnt srne aroa sali be based on metsions end axten4s pro to cornbnation Figure A-2: Separation Requirements for Adjacent Thinned Areas

• Entergy ENGINEERING STANDARD

-

-- I I EN-CS-SOO8-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRucrunAL EVALUATION Page 32 of 132 Attachment L6 Recommendation for Safety Related Moderate Energy Class 213 and NON-SAFETY RELATED PIPING SHEET 5 OF 7 Axial Direction r

in surrounding area INote I2 minimum distanc, between areas I dj at any d.c ferantial location on pipe

• maximum ext of thinned area i in axial direction

• maximum of the extents and two adjacent areas NOTES:

(1) Areas need not be eomblned into skile areas based on separation in the transverse dwection provided Ikat tranwerse axtaMa of indMdul adjacent thinned areas do nat overlap Combination of adjacent areas Into an equivalent *inQla area shaH be based on dimensions and etante prier to ao cembinmon o a4acent areas.

Figure A-3: Separation Requirements for Adjacent Thinned Areas

I I Entergy II ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 Pipe WAu. THINNtNG STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 33 of 132 Attachment 7.6 Recommendation for Safety Related Moderate Energy Class 2/3 and NoN-SAFETY RELAmD PIPING Sheet6of7 Attachment 7.6 : RECOMMENDATION FOR SAFEtY RELATED MODERATE ENERGY CLASS 213 AND NON-SAFETY RELATED PIPING (NRC review and approval is required for Class 1 and High Energy Piping>

• 1 Design Parameters .

(Boxed values are nput):

D 0Outside Diameter, (in) 16 0 5 tflom Pipe nommal thtcknesi Un)

(for N-Si 31 275 p design pressure [for N597-21 or mamum operating pressure at flaw location S : allowable stress for pipe (psi) is000 tmIf Mnimurn thickness required for hoop stress due to pressure, = pOdt2(S +/- O4p)] (in) 0.146

. tP : Mnimum predicted walithickness at next inspeciion, (in) 0.330

-,  : nominal pipe longitudinal bending stress resulting from all primary pipe loading (psi) 7000 R: is used for CC N-597-2; R 0 is used for CC N-51 3-2 0 Pipe mean radius R = (0 t)/2 (in) 7 93

R

/

0 2,(in Piperadius,= )

D 8.00

2 Local Thinning Area Dimensions (See FIgure 2 for illustration)

The following dimensions shall be the dimensions predicted at the next inspection,:

L Maximum length of area where thickness is less than t,, (in) 4 Maximum length of area where thickness is less than t,, (in) 2 L: Maximum length in transverse direction of area where thickness is less than (in) 1.5 L,,: Maximum length in axial direction of area where thickness is less than t, (in) 1.2 L, /(R*t, )05. Dimensionless length of local thinning in axial direction 1.12 Is CC N51 3 2 applicable input s or no

)°from weld center line t(R 0

L no Note For CC N 5132 applyto pipe &fitting ata distance <=

3. Acceptance Thickness for Local Thinning, t N-597-2 N-513-2:

(Rtj°: Pipe characteristic length, (in) 1.07 1.08 Case 1: Local Thinning for Limited Trasverse Extent Applicable if (Fi 5 tj° > L Na nla 1

C (tai/t,,): see note 1 0.90 n/a Note 1: N513-2:trcmcurve 1 of 15g. 3 it applicable; N597-2: fromtable 3622-1, -3622.2 ii applicable Case 2: Local Thinning for Limited Axial arid Transverse Extent Applicable if 2.65*(Rt)O> L,, and I> 1.13t, Yes n/a (1 5*(R*.)O.&.L)(1 - tJt,) + 1 .0 0.019 n/a c=0 353 L,,,(R I. )° 0657 nfl c -. Larger of c c if applic3ble jr 1 0 if nO 0657 n a Case 3: Unlimited Transverse Extent C 1 (t+r,t=,.) see note 2 na

+ ( t)(cx/S)}/1 .8 Larger of (631, c) 0.830 n/a tbte 2: N513-2: fromcurve 2 of Fig. 3; N597-2: from table 3622-1, -3622.4 taj=Mfl(Ci. 3 ,c t,,(in) 2 c

r 0096

,Aceptabte if t Yes

b. Elbow and 8ent Pipe

Entergy 1F-- ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 Page 34 of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUcTuRAL EvALuATIoN ate Energy Class 213 and ,6 Recommendation for Safety Related Moder NON-SAFETY RELA1tO PIPING Sheet 7 OF 7

b. Elbow and Bent Pipe 24 0 Elbow radius, (in)

R 0

O : Thinning location angle, See Fig. 2 for illustration (Deg.)

0128 (05-fO5/(1+(RP.RbcosO) t, (in>

• yes Acceptable if t>

c. Reducer

Maximum outside diameter of piping item at the thinned locatio 0

d n, (in) { 24 24 Reducer larger end outside diamet er 0 (xD assum ed), (in) a: Maximum cone angle at the center of a reducer, (degree> L

• 0103

= (d,/Di)/cosa trO, (in>

yes Acceptable if t >

Notes applicable to Code Case N5972:

ing:

(1) Local thinning evaluation shall not be allowed for the follow At the reinfor cemen t area of openin g for any branch connec tion or tee on the run piping. The reinforcement area is a region adjacent to the branch connection on the run piping, unless the distance between the ed to be less than trnfl exceeds D, center of the branch connection and the edge of thinned area predict where D is the nominal inside diameter of the branch connection.

2. At the small end transition of a reducer.

S9)]*tmn,ppe, see details in Section 36221(3) of [2.4].

3. Inner portion of elbows, tr. 0.5[1 +11(1 +(RbIR)*CO of separation, see details in Section (2> Case I shall not be used to evaluate a reducer. For the rule the 3622.2(a) of [2.4.

(3) Case 2 is not applicable for the following conditions:

tion.

1 Thinned area overlaps the reinforcement of the branch connec er transit ion zone of a reducgr

2. Thinned area lies on the conical or small diamet the reinfor cemen t zones associated with each 3, Adjacent thinned area qualified by this approach when area would overlap.

(4)As an alternative, C21 1- 0.935A&r/(Lt.,*): where =the reinforcement area available in the pipe wall based on t distribution in excess of and within the limits of reinforcement of B31 .1 Code, see Section 3622.3(d) of [2.41.

(5) Case 3 shall not be used to evaluate a reducer.

see details in Section 36225(a) of [2.41.

For the rule of the separation requirements for adjacent thinned area,

• ENGINEERING STANDARD EN..CS-S-OO8-MULTI Revision 0 Lntergy -___________

PIPE WALL THINNING STRUcmRAi.. EVALUATION Page 35 of 132 .7 Recommended Guidance and Methods for Calculation of Wear Rates Sheet 1 of 3 Wear rate calculations fall into two categories. The first category is for components without baseline or previous inspection data (Le, no initial thickness data is available for the component). rhe second category is for components which have initial (baseline> thickness data or data is available from previous inspections.

Due to uncertainties in original thickness, operating history, UT measurement errors, and other factors, establishing accurate wear rates can be difficult. it requires some judgment. EPRI has developed methodologies for wear rate calculations on both initial and repeat inspections. These are described in detail in Section 4.6 of Reference 2.16.

There are four methods commonly used for determining wear of piping components from UT inspection data. The methods are:

Band Method The band method is based on the assumption that wear caused by FAC is localized and the thickness variations observed around circumferential bands is an indication of wear experienced by the component.

The inspection data is divided into circumferential bands of one grid width each.

The initial thickness (t) of each band is assumed to be the larger of the nominal thickness or the maximum thickness found in each band (tm). The band wear is the initial thickness minus the minimum thickness found in the band (tm).

For each band: t larger of tflm or tmax Wear = t -

The component maximum wear is the largest of the individual band wear values. The component initial thickness is than taken as the initial thickness of the band of maximum wear. The use of the nominal wall thickness in the calculations above address the possibility that the entire band may have thinned uniformly, which may have caused most or all of the thickness to be under nominal wall thickness.

Area Method The area method uses a local rectangular region, identified as the wear region. It is based on the assumption that the entire wear area, and a thickness representative of the initial thickness, is encompassed within the rectangular region. More than one area can be defined for a given component.

The initial thickness (t) of each area is assumed to be the larger of the nominal thickness or the maximum thickness found in each area. (t.aj.

For each area: t = arger of t or t Wear = - tfl The component maximum wear is the largest of the individual area wear values. The component initial thickness is than taken as the initial thickness of the area of maximum wear. The use of the nominal wall thickness in the calculations above address the possibility that the entire area may have thinned uniformly, which may have caused most or all of the thickness to be under nominal wall thickness.

• ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 01 Lntery PIPE W,L THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALUArI0N Page 36 of 132 Calculation of Wear Rates .7 Recommended Guidance and Methods for Sheet 2 of 3 Moving Blanket Method of Area Method. It automates the The moving blanket method in CHECWORKS is a refinement the ts minimize the effect of measurement process of identifying the region of maximum wear and attemp to or blank et. The data within the blanket is errors. The method uses a predetermined size wear area ess and the wear. The blanke t is then moved to another evaluated to estimate both the initial thickn s continues until all possible locations location on the component and the process is repeated. The proces on the component have been covered.

Point to Point Method grid locations exists from two or The Point to Point Method can be used when data taken at the same The wear at each location is the more outages (or baseline data plus data from one or more outages).

ess taken at the later inspection. The largest of thickness taken at the earlier inspection minus the thickn maxim um wear betwee n the two outage s. The Point to Point the grid wear values is the component Method does not estima te the initial compo nent thickn ess.

(Initial Inspections)

Wear Rates for Components Without Prior Inspection Data the initial wall thickness in the When no initial thickness data is available some value must be used for in compo nent wall from the manuf acturin g process can impact the wear rate calculation, Variations the degree wroug ht elbows.

wear rate calculations. This is most evident in reducers and in 90 d be used to evaluate components The Band Method, Area Method, and the Moving Blanket Metho can that the wear caused by FAC is with single inspection data. All the methods are based on the theory typically found in a localized area or region.

recommended methods and the The following table taken partially from Reference 2.17 shows the limitations for each method to determine wear on compo nents with single outage inspection data. Only table below are recomm ended to be used for components with single methods marked YES in the outage inspection data.

TABLE 1 Band Method Area Method Moving Blanket Method Component Type NO NO YES Elbow Tee YES () NO YES NO YES htPi YES NO NO Concentric Reducer4ggander .

.--

NO NO YES Eccentric ReduceriExder Nozzle tion data should be Initial thickness and measured wear determined from single outage inspec interpreted conservativel y and only be used for structu ral integnt y.

s:

Alternately, a conservative Wear and Wear Rate may be calculated as follow

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-0O8MULTI Revision 0 Enteny Page 37 of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING STRucTuRAL. EvALuArioN .7 Recommended Guidance and Methods for Calculation of Wear Rates Sht 3 of 3 The lowest recorded thickness value for all grid points is used as the measured thickness (t-as)

= .,

larger of t.

1 Of VV ear =

Wear Rate (Wr) = Wear / Time Wear Rate for Components With Baseline or Prior Inspection Data (Repeat Inspections)

Multiple inspection data are considered valid only if the identical grids were used for each inspection. The point-to-point method is used to calculate the component wear rate. The wear at each grid location is the thickness taken at the earlier inspection minus the thickness taken at the later inspection The largest of the grid wear values is the component maximum wear between the two outages.

The following methods for calculating total wear from multiple inspections are recommended by EPRI in Reference 2.17 TABLE 2 Cases Moving Blanket Point-to-Point Baseline data and subsequent NO YES outages LU No baseline data with 1 or 2 YES YES qes__ -

No baseline data with more than

[1] Point-to-point method can be used when there is data trom at east two outages. However, the wear rate should be compared to the lifetime wear rate obtained from single inspection (Table 1). The maximum wear rate obtained from Table 1 and 2 should be used to determine acceptability of the component. Care must be taken when using the point to point method in cases where the wear between the outages is small. Two large numbers (wall thickness>

are subtracted to obtain a small number (wear since previous outage) and then divided by another relatively small number tinterval between outages> to determine the wear rate UT measurement inaccuracies could cause significant calculation error with this method. However, in most cases where inspection data from several inspection outages is available, the point to point method will provide more accurate determinations of wear than other methods

[2J Use single inspection method (Table 1) at first inspection plus Pcint-to-Point method thereafter

• Lritergy I1-

-

ENGINEERING STANDARD

--H I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0

-__--

PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATiON Page 38 of 132 .8: Guide for using PS-S-O01 as informational attachment Page 1 of 2 PS-S-OOi Title Acceptability Remark Attachment I References for pipe wall Yes References are either built into thinning PWT) and crack-like (see Attachment section 2.0 or the spread flaw eva[uation (CLF_ 7.9) sheets in the EN standard.

II Terminology and Nomenclature Yes Nomenclature s either built for PWT and CLFE (see Attachment into section 3.0 or the spread 7.9) sheets in the EN standard.

Ill Inputs / Requirements common Yes Inputs are built into the spread for PWT and CLFE (see Attachment sheets in the EN standard.

_

-_

IV Inputs I Requirements for Yes Inputs are built into the spread evaluation of PWT (see Attachment sheets in the EN standard.

7.9)

V Inputs I Requirements for CLFE Yes Inputs are built into the spread (see Attachment sheets in the EN standard.

7.9)

VI Definition of PWT and CLFE Yes (see Attachment VII PWT Evaluation: Code No See Figure 1, Att. 7.1, 7.2, 7.6 (removed) Evaluation Procedure CC N-480 was in the EN standard.

superseded VIII PWT Evaluation: NRC Generic No. See Figure 1, Att 7.1, 7.2, 7.6 (removed) Letter 90-05 Methods CC N-480, for wall thinning, Att. 7.3 for methodology through-wall flaw in the EN required NRC standard. Unconditional NRC approval acceptance using CC N-51 3-2 for moderate energy class 2 &

n.

IX PWT Evaluation: Alternate No EN standard is based on CC (removed) Methods CC N-480 was N-597-2. The code is superseded applicable to non-planar flaws.

Att. 7.6 need NRC approval when Class 1, 2 & 3 piping local thinning tac < tp < trnn evaluation. Moderate energy class 2 & 3 piping does not need to have NRC approval.

___

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 En!ergy PIPE WALL THINNiNG STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 39 of 132 .8: Guide for using PS-S-OO1 as informational attachment Page 2 of 2 X PWT Evaluation: Finite Element Yes See Ati. 7.2 in the EN Analysis Methods (see Attachment standard. 2D finite element 7.9) need method will solve majority of edoalup the case Xl CLFE: Section XL Flaw Yes Evaluation Standards (see Attachment 7.9)

From EPRI &

Sect. XI documents XII CLFE: Procedure for Austenitic Yes For moderate energy piping, Piping (see Attachment use ATT. 7.3B in the EN 7,8) standard for through-wall flaw, Safety factor changed (use as ence__

XIII Flaw Evaluation Procedure for Yes For moderate energy piping, Ferritic Piping (see Attachment use ATT. 7.3A in the EN 7.9) standard for through-wall flaw.

Safety factor changed (use as jence_

XIV CLFE: Fracture Mechanics Yes Software (see Attachment 7.9)

Safety factor changed (use as ence)

XV CLFE: Alternate Fracture Yes Mechanics Solutions XVI Derivation of Approaches for No (removed) PWT Evaluation Given in CC N-480 was Attachment VII prseded XVII Figures Yes, Fig. 1 & 3 Use figure 1 of the EN Figure 2 is no standard instead of Figure 2 of longer valid and PS-S-OO1 k vuechqd

I I

[..

EN-CS-S-oo8-MULTI Revision a

[Entergy ENGINEERING STANDARD LL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 40 of 132 j Attachment 7.9: Informational Attachment Page 1 of 93 Attachment I: References for Pipe Wall Thinning and Crack-Like Flaw Evaluation REFERENCES A. Additional References Used in This Standard and Attachments:

A.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsections NB, NC. and ND 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda.

A,2 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section Ill, Subsections NB. NC, and ND 1971 Edition with Winter 1972 Addenda.

A.3 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsections NB, NC. and ND 1971 Edition with Summer 1971 Addenda.

A.4 A.5 AG A.7 Summer 1971.

ANSI 831.1 ANSI 831.1

-

USAS 831.7 1969 Edition and Nuclear Power Piping, with Addenda through

-

-

-

1973, through Summer Addenda 831.lb -

ANSI B31.1 1973, with all Addenda through and including Summer 1974.

1973.

1973, with all addenda up to and including Winter 1973 Addenda.

A.8 USAS 8311.0-1967.

A.9 USAS B31 1.0-1967 and Addenda ANSI 831 .7b - 1971.

A.9a USAS 831.1.0-1967 and Addenda ANSI 831.7b - 1973 to ANSI B31,1 -1973.

A.10 ASME Section XI, IWB-3000, 1986 Edition, without Addenda.

A.1 1 ASME Section Xl. 1980 Edition with Winter 1981 Addenda.

A.12 ASME Section XI, 1977 Edition through Summer 1979 Addenda.

A.13 EPRI Report No. NP-6045, Evaluation of Flaws in Ferritic Piping, Novtech Corporation, Rockville. MD, 1988.

A.14 EPRI Report No. NP-5911 SP & M.Acceptance Criteria for Structural Evaluation of Erosion/Corrosion Thinning in Carbon Steel Piping, Structural Integrity Associates, San Jose, CA, July 1988.

A,15 EPRI Report NP-3607, Advances in Elastic Plastic Fracture Analysis General Electric Company, Schenectady. NY, August 1984.

A.16 l.S. Raju and J.C. Newman, Jr.. Stress Intensity Factor infuence Coefficients for Internal and External Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Vessels, ASME PVP-Vol.

58, Aspects of Fracture Mechanics in Pressure Vessels and Piping. 1982, pp. 37-48.

A.17 J. C. Newman, Jr. and IS. Raju, Stress-intensity Factors for Circumferential Surface Cracks in Pipes and Rods Under Tension and Bending Loads. Special Technical Publication 905. ASTM, Philadelphia. PA. 1986.

A,18 EPRI Report NP-1406-SR, Nondestructive Examination Acceptance Standards, Technical Basis and Development for Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, ASME Section Xl. Division 1, Special Report, May 1980.

A.19 Section Xl Task Group for Piping Flaw Evaluation. ASME Code. Evaluation of Flaws in Austenitic Steel Pipno. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Vol.

108. August 1986.

.9: Informational Attachment Page 2 of 93 A.20 NUREG-0313, Rev. 2, Technical Report on Material Selection and Processing Guideilnes for BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping, USNRC, January 1988.

A21 NUREG-1061, Volume 1, Report of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Piping Review Committee investigation and Evaluation of Stress Corrosion

-

Cracking in Piping of Boiling Water Reactor Plants, August 1984.

A.22 F,P. Ford and P.L. Andresen, The Theoretical Prediction of the Effect of System Variables on the Cracking of Stainless Steel and Its Use in Design, Corrosion 87, Paper No. 83, Moscone Center, San Francisco, CA, March 9-13, 1987.

A.23 H. Tada, P. C. Paris. and G. R. Irwin, The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, Paris Productions Inc. and Del Research Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri, Second Edition, 1985.

A.24 G. C. Shih, Handbook of Stress Intensity Factors, Lehigh University, Bethelham. PA, 1973.

A.25 0. P. Rooke and D. J. Cartwright, Compendium of Stress Intensity Factors, The Hillingdon Press, Uxbridge, Middx, England, 1976.

A.26 EPRI NP-5596, Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis of Through-Wall and Surface Flaws in Cylinders, January 1988.

A.27 EPRI NP.6301.D, Ductile Fracture Handbook, Vols. I, II, and III, 1990.

A.28 A.

Deardorfi,

G. Randall, and B. Chexal, An Update on Section Xl Approach for Evaluation of Piping Thinning Due to Flow Accelerated Corrosion, PVP-VoI. 264, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1993.

A.29 Specification for Evaluation and Acceptance of Local Areas of Material, Parts, and Components that are Less Than the Specified Thickness, Reedy Associates. July 28, 1993.

A.30 N. Cofie and C. Froehlich, Plastic Collapse Analysis of Pipes with Arbitrarily Shaped Circumferential Cracks, in PVP-Volume 135, Fracture Mechaj Creep and Fatique Analysis, ASME, 1988, A.31 ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Evaluation of Flaws in Austenitic Piping, Vol. 108, August 1986.

A,32 ASME Cases of B&PV Code, Code Case N-480, Examination Requirements for Pipe Wall Thinning Due to Single Phase Erosion and Corrosion,Section XI, Division 1. pp. 787-795, Approval date May 10. 1990.

A.33 ANSI/ASME B31G. Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines. 1984.

A.34 EPRI 6793-CCML, CHECK-T Software for the Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning:

Description and Users Manual, Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., San Jose.

CA. and Miller-Norris Associates. Santa Cruz. CA, April 1990.

A.35 intentionally Left Blank.

A.36 Warren C. Young, Roarks Formulas (or Stress and Strain, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 6th ed, A.37 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Section Xl. 1989 Edition.

A.38 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section Ill Appendices, 1989 Edition.

• ENGINEERING STANDARO EN-CS-S-008-MULTI RevIsion 0

- En!ergy

> PIPE WALL THINN1NG STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 42 of 132 .9: InformatIonal Attachment Page 3 of 93 A.39 BWR Vessel and Internal Project Topical Report: Evaluation of Crack Growth in

-

BWR Stainless Steel RPV Internals (Proprietary Information prepared by BWR Vessel and Internals Project Crack Growth Working Group, SIA, GE, EPRI, Entergy Operations, Inc. et a!), 1955.

A.40 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Generic Letter 88-01: NRC Position on IGSCC in BWR Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping, Jan 25, 1988.

A.41 John M. Barsom and S. T. Rolfe, Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures -

Applications of Structural Mechanics, Prentice Hall, Inglewood Cliffs, NJ, 2nd Ed., 1987 A.42 EPRI Report No. NP-1931, An Engineering Approach for Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis, V. Kumar, M.D. German, and C.F. Shih, July 1981, A.43 NAVCO Piping Datalog, ed. No, 10, 1974. National Valve and Manufacturing Co.,

Pittsburgh, PA B. References Provided For Information:

B.1 M. F. Kanninen and C. H. Popelar, Advanced Fracture Mechanics, Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y., 1985.

8.2 EPRI Document NP-5064M, Corrosion-Assisted Cracking of Stainless and Low Alloy Steels in LWR Environments, February 1987, 8.3 EPRI Document TR-100399, Volume 2, Stress Corrosion Monitoring and Component Life Prediction in SWAs, March 1992.

8.4 P.L. Andresen, L. F. Coffin, and F. P. Ford, Corrosion Cracking Monitor -

Feasibility Il, EPRI Contract RP2006-14, GE CR0 Report 87SRD022, Final Report, February 1988.

8.5 EOl formulations using Fracture Mechanics Approach.

8.6 pc-CRACK Fracture Mechanics Software Users Manual, Structural Integrity Associates, Version 2.1, 1991.

8.7 ENDURE Users Manual for Fatigue and Fracture Analysis, Engineering

-

Mechanics Research Corporation, Troy, Ml.

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-Cs-soo8-MULTI Revision 0 I ALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALuATIoN Page 43 of 132 j f .9: Informational Attachment Page 4 of 93 Attachment II: Terminology and Nomenclature for Pipe Wall Thinning And Crack-Like Flaw Evaluation a Maximum depth of surface flaw. inch a Final flaw size, inch A Corrosion allowance. inch (includes any additional wall thickness for general loss) 1 A Area of wall thinning that exceeds tm. inch 2

2 A Compensating area for local wall thinning, inch 2

A, Internal Area of pipe, in 2

a Coefficient of thermal expansion of pipe; Maximum cone angle at the center of the reducer, degrees

. B 1

B 2 Primary stress indices Angle to neutral axis of flawed pipe, radians c Half length of surface flaw, inch CVN Charpy V-notched absorbed energy, ft-lb

. d 1

d 2 Depth of flaws as shown in figures of generic letter 90-05 evaluations.

inch d Distance from the pipe nominal center to the center of pressure for the thinned section, inch Distance from the pipe nominal center to the centroid of the pipe wall metal at the thinned section, inch Da Mean Diameter of corroded pipe and outer pipe, inch D Nominal pipe internal diameter, inch D Nominal pipe diameter, inch DN Inside diameter of corroded pipe, inch Outside pipe diameter, inch D Inside pipe diameter based on projected pipe wall thickness, inch 1

D Outside diameter at the large end of the reducer, inch 2

D Outside diameter at the small end of the reducer. inch E Modulus of elasticity or weld joint efficiency. psi E Modulus of elasticity at room temperature, psi 1

E Modulus of elasticity at pipe temperature, psi Stress range reduction factor for cyclic conditions F Boundary correction factor or a parameter for normalized (axial) flaw stress intensity factor

___________

___________

__

F Lntery ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-0O8-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRucTURAL EVALUATION Page 44 of 132 Attachment 7.9: Informational Attachment Page 5 of 93 F A parameter for circumferential flaw bending stress intensity factor F A parameter for circumferential flaw membrane stress intensity factor FAC Flow Accelerated Corrosion Flaw Generic term used to describe cracking or locally thinned area of a pipe wall GTAW Gas Tungsten Arc Welding GMAW Gas Metal Arc Welding Code stress intensification factor, 0.75i 1 Predicted minimum centroidal moment of inertia at the pipe section, in 4 Measure of material toughness due to crack extension at upper shelf, transition, and lower shelf temperatures, J integral at first flaw extension, in-lb/in 2

Jlairn Measure of fracture toughness at 1 mm of crack growth at upper shelf temperature, in-lb/in 2

Kia Applied Fracture Toughness, ksi in Kib Mode I stress intensity factor for bending loading, ksi din.

Critical Fracture Toughness, ksi Iin A component of the screening criterion (SC), the ratio of the stress intensity factor to material toughness Mode I stress intensity factor for membrane loading, ksi /in.

Total flaw length, inch L Length of locally thinned area less than t, inch L Maximum length of thinned area less than tm. inch La Axial length of locally thinned area less than t,,, inch 1

L Tangential (transverse) length of locally thinned area in less than tm, inch Ln.m.. Minimum Lrn measured. inch L Length of reinforcement area, inch M Margin of stress M Resultant moment loading due to weight and other sustained loads, in-I b M Resultant loading moment due to occasional load, in-lb M Range of resultant moment due to thermal expansion. in-lb MIC Microbiologically Induced Corrosion N Number of cles P Internal (or external) design pressure, psi

Entergy ENGINEERING STANDARD

-

- I I EN-CSS-OO8MULTl Revision 0 PIPE WALL ThINNING STRUctuRAL EvALuArIoN Page 45 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 6 of 93 Total axial load including pressure, kip (see Att. XIII)

P Applied pnmary bending stress, psi Applied expansion stress. psi Primary membrane stress at flaw location, psi P Normal operating pressure, psi P Maximum internal operating pressure (peak pressure), psi Total axial load on pipe including pressure, lb r Radius of opening in a pipe (br pipe branch reinforcement), inch R Mean pipe radius, inch Rb Elbow bend radius, inch R Outside pipe radius. inch RatiooiZntoZi Ratio of tn to R Internal Radius, inch R Mean pipe radius based on nominal pipe diameter, inch Rm Mean pipe radius based on minimum pipe wall thickness as determined for hoop pressure, inch Rrn,r Mean pipe radius based on wall thickness t.

S Maximum allowable stress at design temperature in ASME Code hoop stress equation, psi Allowable stress range for expansion stress in Code stress equations 10 and 11, psi SAW Submerged Arc Welding SMAW Shielded Metal Arc Welding S Basic material allowable stress at cold temperature. psi SC Screening Criterion SE Marnum allowable stress in material due to internal presure at design temperature and joint efficiency E. psi S Basic material allowable stress at design (hot) temperature in ASME Code stress equations 8, 9 and 11 psi Distance between multiple flaws in GL 90-05 evaluation, inch Longitudinal pressure stress from internal pressure, psi S, Design stress intensity at design operating temperatures, psi Maximum design stress due to occasional loads, psi

I ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI RevIsion 0 I Entergy F-- ------ -

PirE WALL THINNING STRucTURAL EvALUATIoN H Page 46 of 132 Attachment 7.9: Informational Attachment Page 7 of 93 S A component of screening critera (SC), the ratio of the sum of primary bending and expansion stresses to the bending stress at limit load Maximum design stress due to sustained loads, psi 5

S Thermal expansion stress, psi STE Maximum design stress due to sustained loads plus thermal expansion, psi a bending stress at the flawed location for dead weight, pressure, thermal expansion, and SSE as used in GL 90-05, psi

,

1 a Reference bending stress at the limit load, psi a Material ultimate strength, psi a Material yield stress. psi 1

a Material yield stress at temperature, psi Nominal pipe wall thickness, inch aoc Allowable local wall thickness, inch Average projected thickness remote from flaw location, inch Uniform thickness of piping with outside diameter D required to withstand sustained and occasional bending loadings as considered in the design analysis of record, in the absence of pressure, anchor movement and thermal expansion loadings, inch tm Code minimum wall thickness satisfying hoop stress criteria, inch tm Minimum pipe wall thickness based on Code Equations for axial pressure and bending, inch tM Larger of tm and trn , inch tm t for large end of reducer, inch t, for small end of reducer, inch Nominal pipe wall thickness, inch t Minimum projected pipe wall thickness at the next scheduled inspection, inch T Ppe design temperature. F T,,ijL) Range of temperatute on side a(b) of gross structural discontnuity or material dscontinuity. F (see ASME Section Ill NB 3653) 9 One-half of the final flaw angle, radian v Poisson Ratio x at 1 Coefficient 0.4 for temperature 900 F and below Z Section modulus based on projected pipe wall thickness t. inch 3

ZM Predicted minimum sectoi modulus for the thinned section, inch

II---

ENGNEEnING STANDARD I

I EN-CSS-OO8MULTi Revision 0 Lntery of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUcmRAL EvALuAIi0N j Page 47 9: Informational Attachment Page 8 of 93 Z Secton moduus based on nomInal waU thIckness t, Inch 3

• Entergy I

-

ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 Ptc WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALUATIoN Page 48 of 132 .9: informational Attachment Page 9 of 93 Attachment Ill: Inputs! Requirements Common For Pipe WaH Thinning and Crack-Like Flaw Evaluation The information contained in the following tables is considered as given conditions and known values. The lurPose of collecting this information is to perform an acceptability evaluation of locally thinned areas (indications) and crack-like flaws.

Table 1: Location and Other Piping Information Relating to the Indication or Flaw Component or Subeomponeni Location:

Location: Plant System Location: Building Location: Elevation Location; Other Details, if any Piping or Component -

Description:

Pipe I Branch I Tee / Elbow / -

Rducer or other Line Class: ASME Class 1, 2, 3 or ANSI B31i ANSI B31.7 Class 1,2,3 or Section Xl Line Class: Class 1, 2, 3 Non-Safety iso brawing No.

P&IDor Other Id No.

Stress Problem No.

Line No.

Node No(s) Used In the Stress Math Model Type of Piping: CS I SS Component Identification No.

_________

• ENGINEERiNG STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 Lritery Pipe WALL ThINNING STRuCTURAL EvALuATIoN Page 49 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 10 of 93 Table 2; Other Piping Related Information Required for Localized Pipe Wall Thinning and Crack Like Flaw Evaluation:

Material Ultimate Strength (c) psi Material Yield Stress by) psi Material Yield Stress at Temperature (a) psi Modulus of Elasticity (E) psi Mocfulus of Elasticity at Room Temperature (Es) psi Modulus of Elasticity at Pipe Temperature (Et) Psi Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Pipe Material over a range from 70°F to Temperature (a)

Poissofls Ratio (v) at ati Temperatures

• Applied Fracture Toughness (Kia) ksiJ

• Critical Fracture Toughness {Kj) ks[v

• Information required for Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of Crack-like Flaws

____________________

ENGINEERING STANDARD j ENCSSOO8MULTl RevIsion 0 Entergy PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCmRAL EVALUATION Page 50 of 132 j 9: informational Attachment Page 11 of93 Table 3: MaterIal and Geometry of the Pipe and Description of Weld:

Material of Pipe ficaon Type or Grade Class ProdUct Form GeometrV of Pipe Nominal diameter (d) inch Schedtiie Pipe 0.0, {D

) inch 0

Nominal Thickness (t) inch if Weld l Involved for Pipe Wall thinning or Cvack-lfle Flaw Evaluation:

Loation of Weld with respect to the Pipe Flaw and any Pipe Discontinufty Type of Weld

II- ENGINEERING STANDARD H

I EN-CSS-OO8-MULTI Revision 0 Enterf2y -- Page 51 of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALuATIoN .9: Informational Attachment Page 12 of 93 Table 4: Loading Parameters:

PIPING PRESSURES (psi):

Normal Operating (Pr.)

Maximum Operating (P )

0 -__________

__________

__

Internal Design 1P)

External Design, if applicable (P)

(eci.. Condenser Lines .)

PIPING TEMPERATURES ( F):

Duerating Maximum Operating Design T)

HIGH ENERGY PIPING CONSIDERATIONS Is Pip;rig Hgn Energy (1 ?0OF and P 275 nsiq or Moderate_Energy jT 200F or P275 pic SEISMIC CATEGORY: ( I. II. tIll. III)

RESULTANT MOMENT LOAD INGS (in-tb)

(For Class 2 & 3 and B31.

Due to Weight and Other Sustained Loans (i1)

Due 10 Occasional Loads IM.,)

Due to Thermal Expanson Loads M)

RESULTANT MOMENT LOADINGS (in-tb)

(ForClass1)

______

______

____

• In some cases there may he multiple loading conditions that have to he considered.

Entey ENGINEERING STANDARD 1

I EN-CS-SOO8MULTI Revislon]

PipE WALL THINNING STRucTuRAL EvALUATIoN Page 52 of 132 9: Informational Attachment Page 13 of 93 Table 5: DesIgn Allowables:

ALLOWABLE PIPING STRESSES (psi):

Class 1 and B31 I Piping:

Design Stress Intensity (Sm) at Design I Operating Temperature Class 2, 3 and B 31.1 Piping Maximum Allowable Stress at Design Temperature in Code Hoop Stress Equations (S)

Basic Material Stress at Cold Temperature (Sc)

Basic Material Allowable Stress at Design (hot)

Temperature (Sh) in Code Stress Equations 8, 9 and 11 Allowable Stress Range for Expansion Stress (SA) in Code Stress Equations 10 and 11

• Weld Joint Efficiency (E)

• Required For Pipe Wall Thinning (Indication) Evaluation

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-O08-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING SrsiucmnAL EVALUATION Page 53 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Pagel4of93 Table 6: Applicable Codes for the Evaluation of Indications and Flaws:

PLANT: ReL CbD Check No

• Applicable Code ANO-1 A4 USAS Bl .7 1969 Piping Classes I, ti, and III with

-

Addenda through Summer 1971 (Per Piping Spec: ANSI Bat .7c I 971, ASME 71 Winter 1972 Addenda)

-

ANO1 A.9a tJSAS 8311.0 1967 (Par Piping Spec: ANSI 831 lb -

1373to ANSi 831.1 -1973).

ANO-1 All 1St: ASME Section Xl, 19S0d. with WInter 1981 Addnda.

4.10 Repair & Replacement: ASME Section Xl, 1986 Ed. wlb Addenda ANO-2 4.3 ASME Boiler and Ptessra Vessel Code,Section III, Subsections 148, NC, Nt) 1971 with Sn1mer 1971 Addenda ANO-2 A9 1JSAS 831.1.0- 1967 and Addenda ANSi 831.1 b 1971 -

ANO-2 A.l0 ISI: ASME Section Xl, 1986 Ed. wfo Addenda.

Repair & Replacements: AS14E Section XI, 1986 Ed. wlo Addenda.

GGNS A.l ASME Boiler and PressUre Vessel Code, Section lii, Subsections NB, NC, Nt) 1974, tWough Summer 1975 Addenda.

GGNS A.7 ANSI 831.1 1973 thtough Winter 1973 Addenda

- ,

GGNS A.12 ASME Section XI, 1977 Ed. through Summer 1979 Addenda R Al ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 111.

Subsections NB, NC, ND 1974, through Summer 1975 Addenda RBS 4.5 ANSI 931,1 - 1973 ,lhrough Summer 1974 Addenda fiBS All ASME Section XI, 19B0 Ed: through Wirifer 1981 Addenda W-3 A. I ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III Subsection NB 1974. with Summer 1975 Addenda.

W-3 A.2 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III.

Subsections NC, ND 1971 with Winter 1972 Addenda.

W4 A.5 ANSI 831.1 1973 with All Addenda through and including

- ,

Summer 1974 W4 A. 11 ASME Section Xl, 1980 Ed. with Winter 1581 Addenda,

______

• Enteqy I [__--

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S0O8-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL Ti-fINNING STRUCTURAL EvALUATION Page 54 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Pagel5of93 -

Attachment IV: Inputs / Requirements for Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning Table 1: Description of Locally Thinned Area:

Define initiating Mechanism:

Corrosion Mechanisms such as:

(1) Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC)r (2) Microbilogically Induced Corrosion (MIC), Solid Particle Impingement & Fouling in SSW (3) Cavitation & Flashing Downstream of Orifices. Flow Control Valves And Level Control Valves (4) Mechanical Abrasion, Manufacturing Process, Pipe Wall Gnnding and (5) Environmental Conditions.

Geometry of Locally Thinned Area: (see Figure 1)

Internal or External Minimum Projected WaN Thickness (tn), inch Length of Locally Thinned Area Less Than t,, (L), inch Maximum Length of Thinned Area Less Than t, (Lw), inch Axial Length of Locally Thinned Area Less than t,,

L,, inch Tangential (transverse) Length of Locally Thinned Area Less Thaii tm, L, inch Additional Information Required for Local Pipe Wall Thinning Evaluation:

Location of locally thinned area with respect to a fitting or weld on a specific isomelric drawing.

4. Orientation circumfercntiallv. looking downstream, with 0 being at the top and the measured length clockwise around ihe pipe to the center of the locally thinned area.

Orientation to show the view north, south, east, or west has 0 at the north when viewed 1mm above (plan view).

3. Detailed results of pipe wall inspection, including both asmeasured arid prolecled pipe wall thickness in both the axial and circumferential direction. The extent of the thickness mapping shall he at least +/-R in the axial direction and shall include all of the thinned location in the circumferential direction.

mEntergy ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CSS-OO8-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUcTuRAL EVALUATION Page 55 of 132 Attachment 79: Informational Attachment Pagel6of93 Attachment V: Inputs / Requirements for CrackLike Flaw Evaluation transverse 1 (Hoop>

4 Direction A

Lm(t)

Lm L

Figure 1: Local Pipe Wall Thinning Parameters

________

___________

_____

[ I ENGINEERING STANDARD I in! ergy PIPE WALL THINNING STRucrURAL EVALUATION EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Page 56 of Revision 0 132 Attachment 7.9: Informational Attachment Page 17 of 93 Attachment V: Inputs! Requirements for Crack-Like Flaw Evaluation Table 1 :Description of the Flaw Location:

Define Initiating Mechanism:

Fatigue / SCC / FAC / MIC I Other such as Mechanical abrasion, Manufacturing process, Pipe wall surface grinding.

Environmental conditions or Other Geometry of Flaw Location:

Pipe OD (Do). inch Nominal Pipe Wall Thickness ft). inch Flaw Orientation Flaw Length (If), inch Maximum Flaw Depth for Surface Flaws (a). nch Maximum Flaw Depth for Subsurface Flaws (2a). inch Figures Describing Cracklike Flaws:

1. l..ocalion of flawed area ith lespecilo a fitting or weld on a specific isometric dra lug.

2. Orientation circumferentially, looking downstream, with 0 being at the top and the measured length clockwise around the pipe to the center of the locally thinned area.

Orientation to show the view north, south, east. or west has 0 at the north when viewed from above (plan view).

3. Exact description of the flawed area (e.g., depth versus position along flaw, depth within the wall, etc.)

4. For multiple flaws, a map showing the location of the flaws (start and end points of the individual flaws) should be provided.

____

• .Lntergy IH- ENGINEERING STANDARD [ EN-CS-S-DaB-MULTI Revision 0

---H f PwE WALL THINNING SmUcruAL EVALUATION Page 57 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 18 of 93 Attachment VI: Definition of Pipe Wall Thinning and Crack-Like Flaw Evaluation 1.0 CharacterIzation of Flaws and Wall Thinning I I

. Flaws and/or wall thinning may occur in nuclear plant piping due to a number of degradation mechanisms. Pipe wall degradation may occur in many different forms, ranging from general thinning (uniform loss of wall thickness) to local cracking (e.g., due to fatigue or intergranular stress corrosion cracking). This section provides guidance on how to characterize pipe wall degradation and recommends which sections of this manual may be appropriate for evaluation of the flaw or wall thinning detected by inspections.

2.0 Wall Thinning 2.1 Pipe wall thinning is characterized by a general loss of pipe wall thickness. The most common form of wall thinning is that due to erosion-corrosion (flow-accelerated corrosion). This type of degradation occurs due to a wearing away of protective metal oxides at the pipe wall, and is localized due to local flow turbulence or lack of alloying in carbon steel piping. Wall thinning can also result from general corrosion and wastage, due to wet steam erosion, flashing downstream of orifices or valves, or solid particle erosion.

2.2 The degradation can generally be quantified by a predicted minimum wall thickness at the location of interest. ri cases of severe thinning, additional information may be required to quantify the transverse and axial extent of the thinning that is less than that required to meet minimum pipe wall thickness requirements.

2.3 Evaluation of wall thinning is addressed in Attachments VII to X.

3.0 Cracking 3.1 Cracking is the breakdown of the metal structure due to fatigue cycling or intergranular attack.

leading to crack-like detects. There is no observable degradation at the surface of the metal, except for the evidence of cracking intersecting the metal surface. Pure cracking produces very localized stresses in the vicinity of the crack tip which lead to further growth of the cracks due to fatigue cycles (for fatigue cracking) or constant applied stresses (for intergranular stress corrosion cracking). Cracking may be either surface connected or sub-surface.

3.2 Cracks are characterized by a crack depth, crack length and orientation relative to the axis of the pipe. With this characterization, appropriate fracture mechanics models may be used to determine future crack growth and the allowable flaw size.

3.3 Attachments Xl to XV address evaluation of crack-like defects.

4.0 Other Pipe Degradation 3.1 There are other corrosion mechanisms that produce pipe wall degradation that is neither thinning nor cracking.

.9: Informational Attachment Page 19 of 93 Attachment VI: Definition of Pipe Wall Thinning and Crack-Like Flaw Evaluation 4.2 Pitting corrosion may occur as a result of certain material and water chemis try combinations. It is generally characterized by relatively deep local defects, although there may also be some general loss of pipe wall thickness, In many cases, the presence of pitting is discovered by local leakage through the pipe wall. The pits may be extremely localized or they may exhibit characteristics of a general indentation of the wall surface. In general, there will be adjacent areas which are affected by the pitting phenomenon, such that inspection of adjacent areas is required when pitting is discovered.

4.3 Microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC) is another form of degrad ation caused by microbial action at the pipe inside surface. The effect may be a general loss of pipe wall material beneath microbial scale or tubercles. For some cases, MIC may produce local pits that will lead to through-wall leakage.

4.4 In general, these other types of local wall degradation can be evalua ted as wall thinning as described in Attachments VII to X. Of special interest would be evaluations using local wall thinning concepts of area reinforcement (such as is used for branch piping connections).

However, in certain cases, evaluating the defect as a crack-like defect may also produce an acceptable answer (such as is used in the through-wall flaw approach in Attachment VIII).

• Enterjy ENGINEER1NG SrANDAAD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revi&on 0 PIPE WALL THlNNNG STRucTuRAL EVALUATION Page 59 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 20 of 93 Attachment X: Pipe Wall Thinning Evaluation: Finite Element Analysis Methods

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.1 The option of using finite element element analysis is provided primarily as a last gasp alternative when the methods described in Attachments VII through lX are either not applicable or because they fail to provide adequate relief due to conservative simplifying assumptions which form the basis of these methods. The following conservatisms regarding calculation of hoop stresses in the EPRI NP-59I1SP methodology, which also exist in Code Case N-480, and Generic Letter 90-05 can be reduced by use of finite element analysis:

1 .1.1 The Local Membrane and B31 .G methods are based on the assumption that the nominal pipe wall thickness t, is equal to the minimum wall thickness required for internal pressure, tM, and no credit for t> t is taken.

1.1.2 As can be seen in Figure 5 attachment IX, it is assumed in the Branch Reinforcement method that the area which must be replaced (A,) is equal to (tm tjLm. Depending on the shape of the locally thinned area, the true value of A1 may be significantly less than this.

In addition, the area available for reinforcement, A, is conservatively calculated, with not all of the local area with a projected wall thickness greater than trn being included.

1 .2 For the calculation of axial stresses due to internal pressure and bending moment, it is assumed in NP-591 iSP, Code Case N-480, and Generic Letter 90-05 that the pipe wall is uniformly thinned to the projected wall thickness t for the entire 360 degree circumference. If a three dimensional (3D) finite element model is used, the variation of wall thickness around the pipe circumference can be accurately modeled.

I .3 Figure 1 shows a flow chart which describes the recommended procedure for evaluation of locally thinned areas by finite element analysis. The first step is to develop a finite element model of the locally thinned area. The type of model used will be dependent on the shape and extent of the locally thinned area. If the locally thinned area has a fairly constant t, around the pipe circumference, an axisymmetric (20) finite element model should be used. A 3D finite element is best suited for locally thinned areas that are limited in the transverse extent or in the transverse and axial extent.

1 .4 After development of the finite element model, internal pressure and bending moment loads are applied to the model. It is suggested that the following separate load cases be run:

1 .4 1 Load Case 1: Internal pressure with no end cap loadings for hoop stress.

I .4.2 Load Case 2: Axial end cap loadings from internal pressure.

I .4.3 Load Case 3: Moment loadings from axial bending stresses.

• Eritergy i------

I ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 60 of 132

- .9: InformatIonal Attachment Page 21 of 93 Attachment X: Pipe Wall Thinning Evaluation: Finite Element Analysis Methods 1.4,4 For the first case (hoop stress), some normalized value of internal pressure, such as 1, 100 or 1000 psi, is applied to the inside surface of the piping model. The ends of the piping model must be open. One end is free (no restraints) and the other is fixed (all degrees of freedom restrained), The axial length of the model should be sufficiently long so that the boundary conditions at either end will not affect the stress distribution at the locally thinned area. The only significant stresses calculated by the model for this load case will be hoop stresses, since there is rio applied axial loading.

1.4.5 The second load case (for longitudinal pressure stresses>, is the axial loading due to the internal pressure end cap force. This force is equal to the normalized internal pressure used in the first load case times the actual (effects of thinning included) inside area of the pipe. It is applied to the free end of the model as a uniformly distributed force/unit length around the full pipe circumference. It is important that the free end be at least one pipe diameter from the near edge of the locally thinned area so that accurate local stresses are calculated in the thinned area. This is also true for additional resultant bending moment loading, where the resultant bending moment is applied at the free end. A normalized value such as 1000 in-lbs is recommended. The stress analysis will typically provide actual moments on each side ot the thinned region. The larger of the two moments should be applied to the finite element analysis normalized stress when performing the actual stress analysis.

• EiileLigy 1 ENGINEERING SmNDARO ENCS-S-OO8-MULTI 1 Revisio PIPE WALL THINNING SwucruRAL EVALUATION Page 61 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 22 of 93 Attachment X: Pipe Wall Thinning Evaluation: Finite Element Analysis Methods 1.5 Once the stress results for the three normalized load cases have been obtained, the maximum hoop and axial stresses at the locally thinned areas due to design and operational loadings can be obtained. Hoop stresses due to design pressure can be obtained by ratioing the results from the first load case. Axial stresses due to internal pressure. primary (mechanical> bending moments and secondary (thermal expansion, thermal anchor movements and seismic anchor movements) can be obtained by ratioing the results of the second and third load cases. Axial and hoop stresses can be obtained in this manner for all design and operating conditions defined in the licensing basis documentation for the piping.

1 .6 Once the maximum hoop and axial stresses have been calculated, they must be compared with the allowable values defined in the Code of Construction. Since ASME Class 1 requires the evaluation of through.wall thermal bending stresses and a fatigue evaluation for cyclic operation, Figure 1 defines a separate evaluation procedure for Class 1 piping. This procedure is described in Section 2. The evaluation procedure recommended for ASME Class 2 and Class 3 piping and ANSI B31 .1 piping is included in Section 3.

2.0 CLASS 1 PIPING EVALUATION PROCEDURE 2.1 The first step defined in Figure 1 for the Class 1 piping evaluation procedure is to check that the stress requirements for the design conditions have been met. Hoop stresses are calculated for design internal pressure using the finite element model in the manner described above. The hoop stresses can be evaluated for acceptance by use of paragraph NB-3213.10 of the ASME Code. Figure 2 illustrates the concept of local primary membrane stress which is defined by this paragraph of the Code. From the Code, a stressed region may be considered local if the distance over which the membrane stress intensity exceeds l.lSm does not extend in the meridional direction more than 1 5 )° For application to locally thinned pipes, the 1

.0(Rt

.

meridional direction is axial to the pipe, and t is t,. N8-32 13.10 also sets a limit on the proximity of areas where membrane stresses can be considered as local. Regions of local 2.2 primary stress intensity involving axisymmetric membrane stress distributions which exceed 1.1S, shall not be closer in the meridional direction than 2.5(Rt,)°. If both of these conditions are met by the hoop stress distribution calculated by the finite element analysis, then the allowable stress of 1.5S defined in Figure NB-3221-1 of the ASME Code for local membrane stresses can be used to qualify the hoop stresses resulting from design pressure.

2.3 Axial stresses due to design conditions are checked by equation (9) of NB-3652 of the ASME Code (see Attachment VII). The PDJ2t portion of the first term in this equation is replaced by the maximum axial stress in the locally thinned area calculated by the finite element model for the second load case described above, The D /2l portion of the second term is replaced by 1

M 0

the maximum axial stress obtained from the finite element model for the third load case. The finite element stresses implicitly include stress concentration effects, and stress intensification terms in the Code equations should be set to unity, i.e.. the finite element stresses should not be modified by a stress intensification factor. if the limitations of equation (9) of NS-3652 are met, the axial stresses in the locally thinned area meet the Class 1 requirements for design conditions.

En!ergy I

F--

ENGINEERING STANOARD I EN-CS-S-008-MLJLTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STrnJcThRAL EVALUATiON Page 62 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 23 of 93 Attachment X: Pipe Wall Thinning Evaluation: Finite Element Analysis Methods 23 For Service Level A and B conditions, equation (10> of NB-3653 must be met. This equation includes the temperature ranges Ta Tb and AT

- . These terms can be taken from the original 1

piping evaluation. The smaller thickness will result in smaller temperature gradient across the thickness, and therefore, it is conservative to use the AT1 from the original piping evaluation.

The thinning also decreases the stiffness of the pipe which makes it conservative to use the Ta

- Tb terms from the original analysis. In general, it is not expected that local thinning will have a significant effect on the AT 1 and Ta T, stresses. The first two terms are evaluated in the

-

same manner as in equation (9), with the exception that operating pressure and moment ranges resulting from the Service Level A and B loading conditions are substituted in the pressure and bending moment terms.

2.5 If the Service Level A and B stress requirements are met, the Class 1 fatigue requirements for cyclic operation must also be checked. The basis of this fatigue evaluation for Class 1 piping is Code equation (11) of NB-3653. The additional through-wall thermal term corresponding to 2 should be taken from the original piping evaluation, since the thinned pipe will have actual AT 2 c the original AT AT . The pressure and M, terms from Code equation (10) are the same 2

except they are multiplied by l<1 and K , respectively, in Code equation (11). The K 2 1 and K2 terms are used to multiply the finite element stresses if the model is not expected to include all necessary details (stress concentrations at butt weld). For a very refined model that is expected to accurately model all stress concentration effects, it may be justified to set K 1 =K 2

= 1.0. The remainder of the fatigue evaluation is the same as in the original piping evaluation.

3.9 EvaluatIon Procedure for Non-Class 1 Piping 3.1 For ASME Class 2 and 3 piping, and ANSI 831.1 piping, hoop stresses calculated by the finite element model may be evaluated using the same method as described above, except the allowable stress for local membrane stresses is taken as I .5S instead of 1 .5Sm. For the axial stresses due to internal pressure and primary bending moments, the PD !4t, MAJZ and (MA ÷ 0

)/Z terms in the Code of Construction piping equations are replaced with the corresponding 5

M results from the finite element analysis. The finite element stresses implicitly include stress concentration effects, and stress intensification terms in the Code equations should be set to unity, i.e., the finite element stresses should not be modified by a stress intensification factor.

Axial stresses due to secondary loadings (thermal expansion. thermal anchor movement and seismic anchor movement) are checked for compliance with the original Code of Construction by substituting the appropriate results from the finite element analysis into the M/Z term in the Code equations for thermal expansion.

3.2 To determine if an evaluation for cyclic operation is necessary. use the criteria described in Section 3.7 of Attachment IX,

ENGINEERING STANDARD j ENCS-S-OO8MULTI Revision 0 Entergy Page 63 of 132 PIPE WALL ThINNING STRUCTURAL EvALuATIoN 9: Informational Attachment Page 24 of 93 Attachment X: Pipe Wall Thinning Evaluation: Finite Element Analysis Methods Finite Element Analysis Methods

[ Develop Finite Element Model

[

Mechanical and Calculate Maximum ternal Thermal Bending Hoop and Axial Stresses 4 Pressure Moments in Locally Thinned Area Yes No rements for Primary Stresses Met?

Yes rements for Secondary Stresses Met?

Yes ervice Level A & B Stress No-H Requirements ation for Met? Cyclic Operation Required?

Yes I Yes 0

>

Monitor Figure 1: Finite Element Analysis Method

_

Lntergy 1H ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CSS-OO8MULTI Revision]

PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 64 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 25 of 93 Attachment Xc Pipe Wall Thinning Evaluation: Finite Element Analysis Methods 4 2.5\Rt 4 1.5 I 0 S rn Ill Sm 1

?ial Dim.

= (Lm + L1 )/2

= Larger of L, 1 Lm2 Figure 2: Illustration of Local Primary Membrane Stress

_________________

0 En!ergy 1[--

-

ENGINEERING STANDARD

-1 1 EN-CS-SOO8-MULTI RevisIon 0 PIPE WAL.L THINNING STRucTuRAL EVALUATION j Page 65 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page2Sof93 Attachment Xl: CLFE: Section Xl Flaw Evaluation Standards.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.1 This attachment utilizes later editions of the Section Xl Codes, as detailed below, which may not be addressed in the Codes referenced by Table 6 in Attachment Ill. Approval from the plant licensing department, and/or NRC, may be required prior to utilizing the provisions of this attachment.

.1,1 Tables 3 and 4 may not be addressed in the Codes referenced by Table 6 in Attachment Ill for ANO-1 (IS I), GGNS, R8S and W3.

1 .2 Flaw indications in piping which are characterized as cracklike should be evaluated in accordance with ASME Section Xi. The steps in the process include:

1.2.1 Flaw characterization and sizing to determine its length and depth in accordance with ASME Section Xi Article IWA-3300.

1.2.2 Comparison of the flaw dimensions to the appropriate acceptance standards of Section Xl Articles IWB-3500, IWC-3000, or IWD-3000 as appropriate.

1.2.3 Analytical evaluation for flaws which exceed the acceptance standards.

1.2.4 This attachment provides a detailed standard for characterizing cracklike flaws in Entergy nuclear plant piping and for determining their acceptability in accordance with ASME Section Xl acceptance standards, Analytical evaluation procedures for flaws which exceed the standards are provided in Attachments XII through XV. The technical basis for the standards is documented in Reference A.18 of Attachment I.

2.0 FLAW CHARACTERIZATION AND SIZING 2.0,1 Cracklike flaws should first be characterized as planar, laminar, or linear flaws, in accordance with the following definitions.

2.0.2 Planar flaws are flaws which are cracklike in nature and oriented, at least partly, in the through-walt direction of the pipe. They are planar in nature, possessing only two dimensions, length and depth, and the depth dimension has a significant component which is perpendicular to the inside or outside surfaces of the pipe (see figure 1).

Entergy I1 ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 66 of 132 j Pp WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALuATioN Page .9: lnformation& Attachment Page 27 of 93 2.02.1 Planar flaw indications are further characterized as surface or subsurface flaws depending upon their proximity to the nearest surface of the pipe. Flaws which intersect the surface, or are within a prescribed distance 5 from the surface are classified as surface flaws, see figures 1 and 2. All other planar flaws are considered subsurface flaws. Non-cracklike flaws. such as weld porosity or slag, which are volumetric in nature (possess three dimensions), may be conservatively assumed to be planar flaws for purposes of evaluation. In this case, the minimum of the three directions is ignored, and the other two dimensions are assigned as the flaw length and depth, in accordance with the planar flaw sizing rules. The ultrasonic examination techniques used for inservice inspections are in general incapable of distinguishing between volumetric and planar defects, so this assumption is a common one.

2.03 Laminar flaws are similar to planar flaws, but are oriented in a plane that is essentially parallel (within 10) to the inside or outside surface of the pipe (see figure 6),

2.04 Linear flaws are planar flaws which have been detected by radiography (RT) or surface examination (PT or MT), such that the depth dimension has not been measured and only the length dimension is known.

2.05 The basic flaw sizing approach consists of bounding the observed flaw with a rectangle that fully contains the area of the flaw, as illustrated in Figure 1. The length of the flaw I corresponds to the length dimension of the rectangle, which is parallel to the surface of the pipe. The depth dimension corresponds to the through-wall component of the rectangle, which is perpendicular to the surface of the pipe. For surface flaws, the depth of the rectangle is denoted a, while for subsurface flaws, the through-wall depth is denoted 2a (see Figure 1).

The a and I dimensions are assumed to correspond to the minor half-axis and major axis of an ellipse for purposes of fracture mechancis analysis. Special rules are provided for determining a and I in the case of multiple flaws, flaws which are close to the pipe surface, or flaws oriented in curved or parallel planes. These are described in the following paragraphs.

2.1 Surface Flaw Proximity Rules 2.1.1 Characterization of planar flaws which are close to the surface of a component, but do not intersect the surface is illustrated in Figure 2. ln this case, the non-destructive examination technique is used to determine the minimum separation distance S from the surface to the closest point of the flaw. The through-wall depth of the flaw is then determined, which is temporarily denoted 2d. If S is greater than or equal to 0.4d. then the flaw is a subsurface flaw, and the characteristic flaw depth a is set equal to d. If S is less than 0.4d, then the flaw must be assumed to be a surface flaw, and the uncracked ligament S is added to the crack depth to create a total surface flaw depth a 2d + S.

Note that for cases in which the uncracked ligament S is between 0.4d and d, the flaw is classified as subsurface, but there is an adjustment to the subsurface flaw acceptance standards using a Y factor as described in section 3,1.

2.1.2 In the case of clad piping, proximity to the clad surface is determined assuming the clad-base metal interface to be the inside surface of the pipe. The location of the clad-base metal interface may be determined by non-destructive testing. or estimated from design drawings.

10

[--Entergy ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-OOB-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvuAnoN Page 67 of 132 Attachment 7.9: Informational Attachment Page 28 of 93 2.2 Multiple Flaw Proximity Rules 2.2.1 Characterization of multiple, closely-spaced planar fiaws is also performed using proximity rules, as illustrated in Figure 3. Each individual flaw is characterized in terms of a through-wall depth dimension d,. (i=1 .2,.. .n. where n is the total number of flaws). The largest characteristic depth is used as the basis for the proximity rules. If the spacing between the flaws, S. is less than twice the largest characteristic depth, 2 dmax, either in the length or depth direction, then the flaws must be combined into a single planar flaw with length and depth equal to the complete flawed area, as illustrated in the figure. If the flaw spacing is greater than 2 dmdx, then each flaw may be individually sized with its own length and depth dimension, and evaluated separately.

2.3 Skewed or Non-planar Flaws 2.3.1 Flaws which are not oriented perpendicular to one of the principal stress directions (axial or hoop) may be evaluated based on their projected areas (I and a dimensions) in the principal stress plane closest to the actual plane of the flaw. This rule also applies to flaws in a curved or non-planar surface (Figure 4).

2.4 Flaws in Multiple Planes (see IWA-3300) 2.4. 1 Proximity rules for flaws in multiple planes are illustrated in Figures 5 and 6. For planar flaws, the multiple flaw proximity rules must be applied for combining flaws if the two planes are within a 1/2 inch spacing of one another at the flaw locations (Figure 5). If the spacing of the planes is greater than 1/2 inch, the flaws do not need to be combined.

2.4.2 For laminar oriented flaws (i.e., within 1OC of parallel to the pipe surface), flaws in any plane between the front and back surface must be combined if their projections are within a 1 inch spacing (Figure 6).

.9: Informational Attachment Page 29 of 93 3.0 FLAW ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS 3.0.1 Acceptance of flaws in piping is governed by ASME Section Xl Paragraph lWB-3514 for Class 1 piping, IWC-3514 for Class 2 piping and IWD-3000 for Class 3 piping. At the present time, however, Section Xl states that the Class 2 and Class 3 Standards are in the course of preparation, and that the Standards of IWB-3514 may be applied to these classes of piping.

3.1 Acceptance of Planar Flaws 3.1 I The ASME Section Xl acceptance standards for planar flaws detected during inservice

.

inspection are reproduced in Table 1 and 2. and are illustrated graphically in Figures 7 and 8. Table 1 and Figure 7 apply to ferritic steel piping with a specified minimum yield strength of 50 ksi or less, and which met the ASME Section III minimum fracture toughness requirements of NB-2300, NC-2300, or ND-2300, as applicable, Table 2 and Figure 8 apply to austenitic steel piping with a specified minimum yield strength of 35 ksi or less. Standards are not provided for other piping materials or for materials which do not satisfy these restrictions. In such cases, component specific standards must be developed, or the evaluator must proceed directly to analytical evaluation as described in Attachments XII and XIII. Dissimilar metal welds, such as nozzle safe-ends, are governed by the appropriate piping standards for the side of the weld being evaluated. Flaws in the carbon or low-alloy steel side of a dissimilar metal weld are evaluated by the ferritic steel standards, and flaws on the high alloy steel side, including the weld metal (typically> are evaluated by the austenitic steel standards.

3.1.2 The standards consist of allowable values of normalized flaw depth (alt) in percent, versus flaw aspect ratio (all), where a and I are the flaw depth and length, determined in accordance with the rules of section 2.0, and t is the piping wall thickness at the location of the observed flaw. The piping wall thickness may be determined by nor-destructive testing or estimated from design drawings. Separate columns of allowable flaw depth are provided for different piping wall thicknesses, and for surface and subsurface flaws. For near-surface flaws, the subsurface flaw allowables are modified with a Y factor.

3.1.3 Application of the standards is straightforward. Simply compute alt and all for the observed flaw, and compare it to the appropriate column in the tables (or curve in the figures). If the pipe wall thickness or flaw aspect ratio falls between any of the specified values, interpolation is permitted. If the flaw is a subsurface flaw, with distance, S. from the nearest surface in the range of 0.4a < S <a, then multiply the allowable flaw depth by the ratio Y S/a. For S <0.4a the flaw is classified as a surface flaw, and a new a is defined as described in section 2.1 and Figure 2. If S > a, set V 1.0.

3 1.4 Example applications of the acceptance standards to some typical piping problems are discussed in section 3.4.

3.2 Acceptance of Laminar Fiaw 3.2.1 Acceptance standards for laminar flaw indications (laminations) are governed by a single set of standards for both types of material. These standards are presented in Table 3, and consist of allowable lamination areas as a function of pipe wall thickness. The areas are determined in accordance with the characterization rules of section 2.0 above. Once again, interpolation is permitted for intermediate ope thicknesses.

__________ _______________

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 Eritergy PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALuATIoN Page 69 of 132 .9: InformatIonal Attachment Page 30 of 93 3.3 Acceptance of Linear Flaws 3.3,1 Acceptance standards for linear flaws in ferritic and austenitic steel piping are presented in Table 4. These are presented in the form of allowable lengths for various pipe wall thicknesses. These are further broken down into allowable lengths of surface flaws (typically from surface examinations such as PT or MT). and allowable lengths for subsurface flaws (typically from radiography, RT, by which method depth generally is unavailable). The linear flaw acceptance standards are generally more conservative than the planar flaw acceptance standards described in section 3.1 because of the uncertainty of the depth dimension. An acceptable option, for flaws which fail to meet these standards, is to perform augmented inspections (typically UT), to define both the length and depth of the observed indication, following which the flaw can be evaluated by the planar flaw standards.

3.4 Example applications 3.4.1 Figure 9 illustrates two typical subsurface flaw indications in a nominally 1-inch thick, carbon steel pipe weld. Flaw A is a typical subsurface flaw, located along a weld fusion line essentially at the mid-wall of the pipe. It is 0.5 inches long, circumferentially oriented, and has a through-wall depth of 0.14 inches. Evaluation of this flaw in accordance with the acceptance standards is illustrated by the calculations in the lower portion of the figure. Since it is a subsurface flaw, the total through-wall depth is denoted 2a, and the flaw depth dimension to be used for evaluation purposes is one-half this value, or 0.07 inches. The normalized flaw evaluation parameters are all = 0.14 and a/t = 0.07.

Referring to the 1-inch wall thickness subsurface flaw column of Table 1, and interpolating for the aspect ratio of 0.14 (between 0.10 and 0.15), the allowable flaw depth is 15,4% or 0.154. Note that the Y factor is set equal to 1.0 in this case, since the flaw is well removed from the surface (S/a>> 1). Therefore, flaw A is acceptable by a comfortable margin (a/t of 0.07 versus an allowable of 0.154).

3.4.2 Flaw B (Figure 9) is located fairly close to the surface of the pipe, such that application of the surface proximity rule is required. This flaw is 2.7 inches long, with a through wall dimension of 0.1 inches, but is located 0.03 inches from the inside surface of the pipe.

The through-wall dimension is temporarily denoted 2d (since we are not yet sure whether this will be the depth used for evaluation). S/d is thus equal to 0,6, from which we conclude that the flaw may be evaluated as a subsurface flaw. but that the standards must be adjusted via a Y-factor. Since the flaw is subsurface, a may be set equal to d.

or 0.05 inches. from which the flaw evaluation parameters are all = 0.019 and alt = 0.05.

Again referring to the 1-inch wall thickness, subsurface flaw column of Table 1, and interpolating for a/l 0.019 (between 0.0 and 0.05) yields an allowable flaw depth of 12.75%. which must be multiplied by Y of 0.6. Thus the actual allowable flaw depth is 7.6% or 0.076, and the observed flaw, with at of 0.05 is acceptable. Note however, that the combined effects of surface proximity and the longer flaw length considerably reduced the allowable flaw size relative to Flaw A.

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI flevision 0 iJziitergy Page 70 of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING STRucTURAL EvALUATION

[,__

Attachment 7.9: Informational Attachment Page 31 of 93 3.4.3 Figure 10 illustrates a pair of near-surface indications (Flaw C> in a 1.75 inch thick stainless steel pipe, which are close enough to the surface and to each other to require checking in accordance with the proximity rules of sections 2.1 and 2.2. To provide a basis for comparison, the two individual flaws are sized exactly the same as Flaws A and B of Figure 9, but they have been placed closer together, with only a 0.02 inch spacing between the flaws. The near surface flaw is also 0.03 inches from the surface, identical to Flaw B. Denoting the two flaw depth dimensions, d 1 0.07 inches and d 2 = 0.05 inches, the proximity rules require the two flaws to be combined, since the 0.02 inch spacing is less than 2d. Thus the combined depth, 2d, is the sum of the two flaw depths plus the spacing, or 0.26 inches, and the flaw length is the combined length of 3.2 inches. Next the surface flaw proximity must be checked. S/d = 0.231 which is less than 0.4, so that Flaw C must be treated as a surface flaw.

3.4.4 As a surface flaw, the flaw evaluation depth a is the total through-wall dimension, 0,26 inches, plus the surface spacing dimension 0.03 inches, or 0.29 inches. The flaw evaluation parameters are thus a/l = 0.091, and a/t 0.166, Referring to Table 2 for austenitic steel piping, and interpolating both for the 1.75 inch thickness (between 1-inch and 2-inch) and for the 0.091 aspect ratio (between 0.05 and 0.10), yields an allowable surface flaw depth of a/t. = 0.105. Thus Flaw C is unacceptable, and detailed fracture mechanics evaluation or repair is required. This example illustrates the importance of multiple flaw and surface proximity rules. Two flaws which were acceptable by comfortable margins (in a 1-inch thick pipe), became unacceptable (even in a 1 .75-inch thick pipe> when they were moved close enough together that they had to be combined, and thus became close enough to the surface that they had to be treated as surface flaw.

3.4.5 Figure 10 also illustrates a lamination in the base metal adjacent to the weld, Flaw D, which must be evaluated in accordance with the laminar flaw standards. The total cross-sectional area of this lamination, assuming it to be rectangular, is 3 in

. Referring to Table 2

3, for a 1.75-inch thick pipe (between 0.625-inch and 3.5-inch). the allowable lamination

, (using ref. A.37), so the lamination is acceptable.

area is 7.5 in 2

3.4.6 As a final example, it is instructive to assume that Flaws A, B, and C were detected by radiography, and that depth information is therefore unavailable. The flaws must thus be evaluated using the linear flaw acceptance standards of Table 4. Referring to these tables, Flaw A for 1 pipe thickness, is unacceptable (0.5-inch length versus an allowable of 3/8-inch), flaw B is unacceptable (2.7-inch length versus an allowable of 3/8-inch), and for 1.75 pipe wall thickness Flaw C is also unacceptable (3.2-inch length, versus an interpolated allowable of 0.656-inch). This example illustrates the advantage of performing supplemental examinations to define flaw depth in the case of unacceptable linear indications. Two of the three indications were acceptable when the depth dimensions were defined.

_____

F*

Eritergy ENGiNEERiNG STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision U PIPE WL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALuATIoN Page 71 of 132 .9: Informational_Attachment Page 32 of 93 TABLE 1: ASME Section Xl Allowable Flaw Size Standards (alt %) Planar Flaws in Ferritic Steel Piping (with minimum yield strength of 50 ksi or less at 1000 F) r

--.--- -

t surface

= 0.312 subsurf. I I

t surface 1.0 in.

I subsurf.

-

t surface 2.0 in.

I subsurf. surface

= 3.0 in.

subsurf.

0.00 11.1 13.8Y 10.0 12.6Y 8.5 lO.8Y 7.0 8.7Y 0.05 11,8 14,4Y 10.8 13.OY 9.3 1l.2Y 7.5 9.1Y 0.10 13.0 15.6Y 11.8 14.2Y 10.2 12.1Y 8.2 9.9V 0.15 14.4 17.2Y 13.2 15,7Y 11.2 13.5Y 9.1 10.9Y 0.20 14.4 17.2Y 14.8 17.7Y 12.6 15.1Y 10.3 12.3Y 0.25 14.4 17.2Y 14.8 17.7Y 14.2 17.1Y 11.7 13.9Y 0.30 14.4 17.2Y 14.8 17.7Y 14.2 17.1Y 13.2 15.7Y 0.35 14.4 17.2Y 14.8 17,7Y 14,2 17.1Y 13.2 17.7Y 0.40 14.4 17.2Y 14.8 17.7Y 14.2 17.1Y 13.2 17.7V 0.45 14.4 17.2Y 14.8 17.7V 14,2 17.1Y 13.2 17.7Y 0.50 14.4 17.2Y 14.8 17.7Y 14.2 17.1Y 13.2 17.7Y Notes: Y s/a. If S < 0.4d, the flaw is classified as a surface flaw. If Y> 1.0, use V = 1.0.

Source: Inservice Inspection Table IWB-3514- 2 [All] and Table lWB-3514 1 [A.10]

mEnteigy

-

ENGINEERING STANDAr1D I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 Pipe WALL THINNING STRucTURAL EVALUATION Page 72 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page33of93 TABLE 2: ASME Section Xl Allowable Flaw Size Standards (alt %)Planar Flaws in Austenitic Steel Piping (with minimum yield strength of 35 ksi or less at 1000 F) all I t 0.312 in. t 1.0 in. t 2.0 In. I = 3.0 in.

__

surface I subsurf.

1 surface iubsurf.j,urface I

subsurt. II surface subsurt.

000 11,7 11.7Y 10.6 10,6Y 10.0 10,0? 9.5 9.5Y 0.05 12.0 12.0? 10.7 10.7? 10.2 10.2Y 9.6 9.6Y 0.10 12.2 12.2? 11,0 11.0? 10.4 10.4Y 9.7 9.7Y 0.15 12.4 12.4? 11.1 11.1? 10.5 10.5? 9.9 9.9?

0.20 12.5 12.5? 11.4 11.4? 10.7 10.7? 10.1 10.1?

0.25 12.5 12.5? 11.5 11.5? 10.9 10.9? 10.2 10.2?

0.30 12.5 12.5? 11.7 11.7? 11.1 11.1? 10.4 10.4?

0.35 12.5 12.5? 11.9 11.9? 11.2 11.2? 10.6 10.6?

0.40 12.5 12.5? 12.1 12.1? 11.4 11.4? 10.7 10.7Y 0.45 12.5 12.5? 12.2 12.2? 11.6 11.6? 10.9 10,9?

0.50 12.5 12.5? 12.5 12.5? 11.7 11.7? 11.1 11.1?

Notes: Y = s/a. If S <0.4d, the flaw is classified as a surface flaw. If Y> 1.0, use Y = 1.0.

Source: Inservice Inspection Table IWB-3514-2 [A.10] and Table IWB-3514-3[A.11j.

-

___________________ _________

Entery I ENGINEERING STANDARD ENCS-S-O08-MULTl Revision 0

/ ------

PIPE WALL THINNING STRucTuRAL EvALuATioN Page 73 of 132 L

Attachment_7.9: Informational Attachment Page 34 of 93 TABLE 3: ASME Section Xl Allowable Flaw Size Standards Laminar Flaws in Piping (Allowable Areas, sq.in.)

Nominal Pipe Laminar Area Walt Thickness sqin.

0.625 in, & less 1.25 (7,5*)

2.0 in. (3.5 *) 4.0 (7.5) 6.0 in. 12.0 Notes: Linear interpolation with respect to nominal pipe wall thickness is permissible to determine value of allowable laminar area; see IWA-3200(c).

Source: Table lWB-3514-6 [All] and Table lWB-35143 [A.10J Since References A.10 and A.11 provide conservative values in lieu Reference A. 37, Table IWB-3514.3 can be used.

TABLE 4: ASME Section Xl Allowable Flaw Size Standards Linear Flaws in Piping (Allowable Lengths, in) r Nominal Pipe Wall Thickness Ferritic Steel Surf.

} Subsurf.

Austenitic Steel Surf.

2 Subsurf.

0.312 in. 0.1875 0.25 0.2 0.25 1.0 in. 0.3125 0.375 0.25 0.375 2.0 in. 0.625 0.75 0.45 0.75 3.0 in. 0.875 1.2 0.65 t2 4,0 in. 0.875 1.4 0.65 1.4 Notes: For intermediate values of nominal pipe wall thickness. interpolation with respect to linear interpolation is permissible, see IWA-3200(c).

Source: 1 Table IWB-3514-4 IA 101. (Applicable to Ferritic steels ith yield strength of 50 ksi or less at 100*F) 2 For Auslenitic steels in the absence of allowable flaw size standards for linear flaws standards use allowable flaw size standards for allowable planar flaws. References A.10: Table lWB36142. Also, in the absence of information of subsurface flaws conservatively use same as ferritic steels.

• Eritery I_-----_

I ENGINEERING STANDAIRD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALUA110N Page 74 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 35 of 93 Unclad Surface Clad Surface surface flaws a

Pressure retaining surface of unclad component or clad S 4 2a 4 S base metal interface or clad component subsurface flaw 4 wall thickness t Figure 1 Basic Flaw Sizing Method tram ASME Section Xl Source: Ref. A.iO and All, Fig. IWA-33l0-1.

• ri kry IH---II ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING SilIUcTURAL EVALUATION Page 75 of 132 9: Informational Attachment Page 36 of 93 4 S 4 2d 4 S

• If S 04d, Flaw is subsurface, a = d 4 If S <O4d, Flaw is surface, a = 2d + S S 4 4 Clad Surface Pressure retaining surface of unclad component or ciad base metal interface of clad component wail thickness t Figure 2 Near-Surface Flaw Proximity Rule from ASME Section XI Source: Ref. AlO and All, Fig IWA3310-l and IWA-3320-1

F Lntergy ENGlNEERIN STANDARD I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALuATIoN Page 76 of 132 Attachment 7.9: Informational Attachment Page 37 of 93 S O.4a Surface 1

S2d (whichever is greater)

Pressure retaining Unclad surface of unclad Surface component or clad base metal interface of clad component S 2or2d 3

2d (whichever is 1 or 2d2 greater>

S 2d(whichever is greater)

I wall thickness t Figure 3 Flaw-to-Flaw Proximity Rule from ASME Section Xl Sourrce: Ret. A.1O and A.1 1 Figure lWA-333O1.

0Eritergy Ii--

-

ENGINEERING STANDARD

-i I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revisionj 77 of 132 j PIPE WALL THINNING SmUcTURAL EVALUATION Page .9: Informational Attachment Page 38 of 93 circular plane Flaw #1 plane GENERAL NOTE:

Flaw area shall be projected in planes normal to principal stresses a 1 and a 2 to determine critical orientation for comparison with allowable indication standards.

FIgure 4: Flaw Sizing Method for Skewed or Non-Planar Flaws from ASME Section Xl Source: Ref.A.lO and All, Fig. IWA-3340-l.

• Enteigy h I ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-GOB-MULTI Revis]

--

1 Pi WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALuATIoN j Page 78 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 39 of 93 Surface Flaws Figure 5: Flaw Sizing Rules for Planar Flaws in Multiple Planes Source: Ref. A.lOancl All. Fig. IWA-3350-l,

ENGNEERING STANDARD j EN.CS-SOO8-MULTI Revision 0 j Lnteigy Page 79 of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING STRucTuRAl. EvALuATioN 9: Informational Attachment Page 40 of 93 Back Surface a

plane Figure 6: Flaw Sizing Rules for Laminar Flaws in Multiple Planes Source: Ret, AlO and All Fig. IWA-336Oi.

9: Informational Attachment Page 41 of 93 Surface Flaws 16 14 12 10 8

C 8 .tO312 in a 1.0 in 4 *2.() in 3.0 in 2

0 0 005 0.1 015 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 045 0.5 Aspect Ratio (all)

Figure 7A Ferritic Flaw Standards Source: See Table 1

Reference:

AlO and All, Table lWB3514l. Inservice Inspection.

• En!ergy ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-DOS-MULTI Revisio]

PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 81 of 132 9: Informational_Attachment Page 42 of 93 Subsurface Flaws 20 18 16 14 12 J) 10 ---1=0.312 in

--l.Oin 8

• 2.O in 6 *-3.Oin 4

2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 GA 0.45 0.5 Aspect Ratio (a/I)

Figure 78 Ferritic Flaw Standards Source: See Table 1

Reference:

Inservice Inspection Table lWB-3514-1 [A 10] and

-

Table IWB-3514-2 [A.11j.

ENGINEEriNG STANDARD EN-CS-S-OO84vIULTI Revision 0 Entergy -

PIPE WALL THINNING SmucTuRAt. EVALUATION Page 82 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 43 of 93 Surface & Subsurface Flaws 6 .--tO.312in.I

= 4 2 3.Oin.

0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 Aspect Ratio (a/1 Figure 8 Austenitic Flaw Standards Source: See Table 2

Reference:

Inservice Inspection -Table IWB-3514-2 [AlO] and Table 1W8-3514-3 [A.111.

.9: Informational Attachment Page 44 of 93 Inside Pipe Surface Flaw A (Subsurface) Flaw B (Subsurface) 2a = 0.14 2d 0.1 a = 0.07 d 0.05; 0.4d = .02

= 0. 5 S = 0.03 a/I 0.14 .4d > S < d; Subsurface Flaw; > d = a; alt = 0.07 = 0.05 Allowable alt = 0.154 Subsurface Flaw S/a = 0.6 = V (see table 1) = 1 Flaw is acceptable aJl=0.019 a/t=0.05 Allowable alt = 0.127Y = 0,076 (see table 1)

Flaw is acceptable Figure 9: Subsurface Flaw Evaluation Examples

_______ _____

,

I nIer&y ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS.S-008-MULTI Rovisio]

I PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALuAnoN Page 84 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 45 of 93 Type 304 Stainless Steel Pipe FiawD t75 Flaw C (Subsurface) Flaw D (Near Surface) 2d = 0.14; d 1 1 0.07; Area = 3.0 in 2 (= 2.0 x 15)

= 0.1; d 2

2d = 0.05; 2 Allowable Area 7.5 in S 0.02 <2d 1 (greater of d 1 and d) 2 Flaw is Acceptable 2d = 0.26 (=2d 1 + 2d 2 + S) d =0.13

= 3.2 (=2.7 + 0.5)

S = 0.03 to surface Sld = 0.231 Surface flaw (i S<0.4) a = surface flaw depth = 2d + S = 0.26 + 0.3 a =0.29 I =3.2 all =0.091 alt =0.166 Allowable alt = 0.105 (from table 2)

Flaw is unacceptable Figure 10: Surface and Laminar Flaw Evaluation Examples

________

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 Entergy Page 85 of 132 PiPE WALL THINNING STRucTuRAL EVALUATION .9: Informational Attachment Page 46 of 93 Attachment XII: CLFE: Procedure for Austenitic Piping

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.1 This attachment utilizes the 1989 Edition of the Section Xl Code which is not addressed in the Codes referenced by Table 6 in Attachment Ill. Approval from the plant licensing department, and/or NRC, may be required prior to utilizing the provisions of this attachment.

1 .2 This attachment provides for evaluations of crack-like flaws in austenitic steels, a formalized approach to explain the terminology and salient equations in select references available for such evaluations. A case by case approach and appropriate methodology has to be selected to solve an individual problem. Since most of the problems involving crack-like flaw evaluations in stainless steel are of an extremely complex nature, it is not recommended to select any approach without first understanding the root cause and nature of the crack-like flaw. For example inter-granular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) is a phenomenon most common to crack-like flaws occurring in austenitic steel, and considering the complexities of this phenomenon this has been excluded from the scope of this attachment except for occasional references to this phenomenon, Thus, this atlachment should be used as an introductory material and needs to be supplemented from other sources. This attachment can be used after it has been determined that the Code approaches discussed In this attachment are appropriate for any particular problem.

1 .3 The procedure for evaluation of flaws in austenitic stainless steel piping material is provided in Subsection IWB-3640 and Appendix C of the ASME Code, Section Xl [A.37J for Class 1 piping. Currently, there are no evaluation procedures in the Code for Class 2 and 3 piping. so the procedure for Class 1 is generally applied to Class 2 and 3 piping systems. The procedure is summarized in the flow chart presented in Figure 1. The technical basis for the evaluation procedure is provided in Reference A. 19, I ,4 Austenitic stainless steel piping material can be classified into two basic groups. The first group consists of wrought product and non-flux welds. Experimental studies have shown that these materials have adequate toughness such that in the presence of a flaw they fail by net section collapse (limit load) when subjected to piping loads. The second group consists of the flux weldments (shielded metal arc weidments (SMAW) and submerged arc weidments (SAW). Experimental studies have shown that materials in this group have lower toughness compared to the wrought material and the non-flux welds, These materials fail by unstable ductile tearing prior to reaching limit load. Because of this, allowable flaw sizes for flux welds were developed from elastic-plastic fracture mechanics using the J-integral and ductile tearing modulus instability criterion.

1 .5 It is to be noted that as indicated in the flow chart for evaluation of crack-like flaws. Figure 7.3 of this DEAM. if evaluation methods using IWB-3600 (Class 1) or IWC 3600 (Class 2) and IWD 3600 (Class3) are used. a prompt reporting has to be submitted for regulatory concurrence. The system, however can be operable until the regulatory approval.

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CSS-008-MULTI Revision 0 Enfergy Page 86 of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING STRucnJRAL EVALUATION .9: InformatIonal Attachment Page 47 of 93 1 .6 The evaluation procedures in this attachment are applicable to pipes NPS 4 in, or greater. In general, crack-like defects are found in welds and the adjacent discontinuities or heat-affected zones. The evaluation procedures are applicable to a distance of from the centerline of a girth butt weld, where R0 is the nominal outside radius and t is the nominal pipe wall thickness. Components / fittings outside these limitations should be treated on a case-by-case basis.

2.0 STRESSES 2.1 Stresses are provided separately for allowable flaw size determination and flaw growth analysis. For allowable flaw size determination (section 2.2) primary stresses are considered, and in some cases secondary stresses may be considered. For flaw growth analysis (section 2.3) secondary stresses are considered in addition to the piping and expansion stresses.

2.2 Stresses for Allowable Flaw Size Determination 2.2.1 In the evaluation of flaw in austenitic piping, three classes of stresses are required:

2.2.1. 1 Primary membrane stress(Pm) 2.2.1,2 Primary bending stress(Pb) 2.2.1.3 Thermal expansion stress(P) 2.2.2 These stresses can be obtained from the piping stress report. m is associated with pressure stress, Pb is generally associated with dead weight and seismic loads, and Pe is restraint stresses arising from thermal expansion.

2.2.3 The above Pm and b stresses correspond to unconcentrated (without stress intensification factors) primary stress intensity values defined in Equation 9 of ASME Section III NB-3650. P is unconcentrated stress intensity value for moment loads defined in Equation 10 of ASME Section Ill, NB-3650.

2.3 Stresses and Flaw Growth 2.3.1 It is important to determine the loads that contribute to the flaw growth.

2.3.1.1 For fatigue. both the magnitude of the stress and cyclic information should be obtained from the stress report or any supplementary evaluation that may have been performed as part of the root cause evaluation.

2.3.1.2 For IGSCC evaluation, the sustained stress which contributes to 5CC must be considered. The sustained stresses consist of Pm. r and P from section 2.2 above and weld residual stresses, when applicable.

_____

[* ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S008-MULT1 Revision 0 I Ltteiy Page 87 of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION I

__

---

L Attachment 7.9: Informational Attachment Page 48 of 93 2.3.2 Butt weld residual stresses play a major role in flaw growth evaluation. A through-wall butt welding residual stress profile has been provided in NUREG-0313 IA.20] and shown in Figure 2. This residual stress profile is appropriate for large diameter piping (thickness greater than 1.0 inch> and is consistent with note 3 of the figure. For small diameter piping, linear through-wall bending residual stress distribution provided in Reference A.19 and NUREG-1061 [A.211 is recommended.

3.0 LOAD COMBINATION Section 3.1 For allowable flaw size determination, two load combinations are considered in ASME XI [A.371 3.1. 1 Normal operating (including Upset and Test> Level NB 3.1 .2 Emergency / faulted Level C/D the 3,2 The load combinations are generally reported in the piping Stress Report but, in general, following load combinations are typical.

3.2.1 LeveIA/B Pm Pressure Deadweight + OGE Seismic Pe - Thermal expansion 3.2.2 Level CID Pm - Pressure Pb - Deadweight + SSE Seismic

- Thermal expansion 3.3 For fatigue crack growth analysis, only the cyclic loads in the above load combinations are considered.

3.4 For 1GSCC crack growth evaluation, only the sustained stresses are considered. This generally includes a combination of Pressure, Deadweight, Thermal Expansion and Weld Residual Stress.

4.0 Material Properties

4. In performing ASME Section Xl allowable flaw size evaluation, the important material property is the ASME Section Ill allowable stress intensity limit: Sm. The value of S, for various types of austenitic stainless steel is provided in Table -1 .2 of the ASME Section Ill appendices. for Class 1 materials [A.38j.

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S..008-MULTI Revision 0

• Entery Page 88 of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING SnwcTuRAL EvALUATIoN ,9: Informational Attachment Page 49 of 93 4.2 When a J-lntegral/ Tearing Modulus analysis is performed for the flux weld, additional material properties are required. These include the Rarnberg-Osgood stress-strain curve parameters a and n, the yield stress cs, the flow stress i. Modulus of Elasticity E, and the fracture toughness J.. Typical values for SAW and SMAW welds have been provided as follows [A.19):

Submerged Shielded metal Parameter arc weld arc weld a 11.0 9.0 6.9 9.8

,

2 CT ksi 33.7 49.4

, ksi 42.1 55.4 E, ksi 25,000.0 25,000.0 J, in-lb/in 2 650.0 990.0 4.3 In addition, the JT material resistance curve will also be required. Typical curves used in Reference A.19 are shown in Figures 3 and 4.

4.4 The material properties used for flaw growth evaluation are discussed in Section 7.

4.5 Attachment XV, Section 3,0 provides the methodology for performing elastic plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) analysis using the J-integral / Tearing Modulus Approach.

5.0 Initial Flaw Size and Flaw Orientation 5.1 Initial flaw size and flaw orientation are obtained from ISI reports. Flaws can be either axial or circumferentially oriented. Flaws can also be surface or subsurface. Rules for determining flaw orientation and flaw type are provided in ASME Section Xi, IWA-3000.

5.2 In some cases, multiple flaws are encountered. Rules for combining multiple flaws are also provided in IWA-3000. Additional rules for combining multiple IGSCC flaws are provided in NUREG-0313, Rev. 2 [A.20].

6.0 Determination of Stress Intensity Factor (Kl) versus Flaw SIZE 6.1 Determine the fracture mechanics model for calculation of stress intensity factor (K) as a function of flaw size. This is determined from the knowledge of the pipe geometry and the flaw orientation. Use of select computer software is pertinent as mentioned in Attachment XIV or methodology provided in Attachment XV.

7.0 Flaw Growth 7.1 The mechanisms for flaw growth should be established from the root cause evaluation. The flaw growth mechanism in austenitic stainless steels could be attributed to either 1GSCC or fatigue from cyclic loadings.

7.2 lntergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC) 7,2.1 IGSCC in general occurs in BWR austenitic stainless steel piping.

ENGINEERING STANDARD ENCS-S-0O8-MULTI Revision 0

• Entergy ---

-

Page 89 of 132 PWE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION .9: Informational Attachment Page 50 of 93 7.2.2 The procedure for performing IGSCC flaw growth evaluation is beyond the scope of this attachment and thus is excluded due to the extremely complex nature of the flaw growth from IGSCC. The procedure for performing flaw evaluation in BWR austenitic stainless steel piping is provided in NRC documents Generic Letter 88-01 [A.40] and NUREG-0313 Rev. 2 [A.201. The BWR Vessel and Internals Project is in the process of developing a Topical Report on 1GSCC crack growth rate [A.39j. On approval from the USNRCC this information will be helpful in developing this subsection.

7,2.3 Other methods consider the environment as well as the material condition of the austenitic stainless steel. A detailed discussion regarding these is beyond the scope of this attachment, but references are provided in A.22 and 8.2.

7.3 Fatigue 7.3.1 ASME Code Section Xl currently has a fatigue crack growth law for air environment but does not have one for water environment.

7.3.2 The ASME Section XI, Appendix C fatigue crack growth law for air is given as:

Eqn. 2 V

2 d

where:

n = 3.3. and C,, = C(S) Eqn.3 and C is a scaling parameter to account for temperature, which is given by C= Eqn. 4 Kmx - Kmin, ksi 7.3.3 Tis the metal temperature in F (T 800 CF). S is a scaling parameter to account for the

. ), and is given by:

R ratio (Krn, / K.

11 S 1.0 whenR 0 1.0 + 1 .8R when 0 < A 0.79

-43,35 + 57.9Th when 0.79< A <1.0

EN.CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 ENGINEERING STANDARD a Entergy ----

PIPE WALL THINNING SmUcTuRAL EvALuATIoN Page 90 of 132 Attachment 7.9: Informational Attachment Page 51 of 93 7.3 4 For water environment, the fatigue crack growth law provided in Reference A.19 can be used, However, due to the complexity of this method its recommended that all the ramifications are completely understood before this can be applied This subsection has been provded for information for an understanding of the basic material required in case of any review. This law is based on work sponsored by the Pressure Vessel Research Committee and Metals Properties Council and has the form:

da/dN C E S(.\K) Eqn. 5 where:

LIaJdI = change in crack depth. a, per fatigue cycle.

in/cycle C, a = material constants 1 = 3.3 C = 2 x 10 S = R ratio correction factor = 11.0 05R} 4 R = Knvi/Krna

= environmental factor (equal 1.0, 2.0, and 10.0 for air. PWR, and BWR environments, respectively)

JK Kmax Kmin, ksi(in)

-

Kmin. 1,K,,, = minimum and maximum values, respectively, of applied stress intensity factor 7.3.5 There are currently efforts in the ASME Code Working Group on Flaw Evaluation to provide an environment fatigue crack growth law for stainless steel.

8.0 Determination of Allowable Flaw Size 8,1 Determination of allowable flaw size for austenitic stainless steel piping is provided in IWS 3640 and Appendix C of Section Xl. Allowable flaw sizes for base metal and non-flux welds (GTAW and GMAW> are based on plastic collapse (limit load> Allowable flaw sizes for flux welds (SAW and SMAW) are based on ductile tearing (J-lntegral Tearing Modulus analysis>.

8.2 The first step in determining the allowable flaw size is to use the tables provided in IWB-3640.

The flow chart (Figure 5) provdes guidance for use of these tables. The tabies are also summarized below 82.1 IWB-3641-l - Circumferential Flaws,Normal and Upset

$ 2.2 IWB-3641-2 - Crcurnferential Flaws/Emergency and Faulted

Entergy I ENGINEERING STANDARD

___

ENCS-SOOa-MULTI RevisIon 0 P1PE WALL THiNNING STRucTuRAL EvALuAI10N Page 91 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 52 of 93 8.2.3 IWB-3641-3 Axial Flaws/Normal and Upset 8.2.4 IWB-3641-4 - Axial Flaws, Emergency and Faulted 8.2.5 IWB-3641-5 - Circumferential Flaws/Normal and Upset (SMAW/SAW) 8.2.6 IWB-3641-6 - Circumferential Flaws/Emergency and Faulted (SMAW/SAW) 8.3 Table IWB-3641-1 The following are the applicability and assumptions used in developmg this table [A.19J. The differences between the base metal, flux and non-flux weld are provided in Section 1 3. Non-fluxed weidments have more toughness than fluxed weldments 8.3.1 Circ. Flaws - Normal Operating (including Upset and Test> Conditions 8.3.2 For Base Metal and Non-flux GTAW and GMAW Weldments 8.3.3 Based Purely on Plastic Collapse (Limit Load Source Equations>

8.3,4 Only Primary Stresses (No Secondary-Thermal Stresses>

8.3.5 ljnintensified Stresses 8.3.6 Safety Factor = 277 8.3.7 Assumes cy = 3S 8.3.8 Assumes Pm0.5Sm 8.3.9 Maximum Allowable alt = 0 75 8.4 Table IWB-3641-2 8.4.1 Circ. Flaws - Emergency and Faulted Conditions 8.4.2 For Base Metal and Non-flux GTAW and GMAW Weldments 8.4 5 Based Pure y on Plastic Collapse (Limit Load Source Equations 8.4 4 Only Primary Stresses (No Secondary-Thermal Stresses) 8.4.5 Unintensified Stresses 8.4 ( Safety Factor 1 39 8.4.7 Assumes n 3S.

______

Entergy I

i_----

ENGINEERING STANDARD ENCS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 92 of 132 ,9: InformatIonal Attachment Page 53 of 93 8.4.8 Assumes Pm 1.0S.

8.4 q Maximum Allowable au 0.75 8 5 Table IWB-3641-3 8.5.1 Axial Flaws Normal Operating (including Test and Upset) Conditions

-

8.5.2 For Base Metal and Non-fluxed GTAW and GMAW Weldments 8.5.3 Based on Plastic Collapse 8.5.4 Only Primary Hoop Stress 8.5.5 Unintensified Stresses 8.5.6 Safety Factor = 3.0 8.5.7 =3S 8.5.8 Maximum a / t 0.75 8.6 Table IWB-3641-4 8.6.1 Axial Flaws Emergency and Faulted Conditions

-

8.6.2 For Base Metal and Non-Flux GTAW and GMAW Weldments 8.6.3 Based on Plastic Collapse 8.6.4 Only Primary Hoop Stresses 8.6.5 Unintensified Stress 8.6.6 Safety Factor 1 5 8.6.7 (T 3Srn 8.6,8 Maximum a / t =0.75 8.7 Table 1WB-3641-5

8. I Circumferential Flaws Normal Operating (including Upset and Test) Conditions

-

8.7.2 For Fluxed SAW and SMAW Weldments s, 3 Based on Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics (J T anaysis

-

I ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 Lnteigy 1 Pp WALL THINNING STRUCTuRAL EVALUATION

---

___

Page 93 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 54 of 93 8.7.4 Stress Muhiphers Provided to Convert to Equivalent Plastic Collapse Analysis 8.7.5 Both Primary and Secondary Stresses Considered. For non-fluxed welds, only primary stresses are considered.

8.7.6 Safety Factor 2.77 for Primary Loads 8.7.7 Safety Factor = 1.0 for Thermal Loads 8.7.8 Maximum Allowable alt 0.60 8.8 Table IWB-3641-6 8.8.1 Circumferential Flaws Emergency and Faulted Conditions 8.8.2 For fluxed SAW and SMAW Weidments 8.8.3 Based on Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics (J/T Analysis>

8.8.4 Stress Multipliers Provided to Convert to Equivalent Plastic Collapse analysis 8.8,5 Both Primary and Secondary Stresses Considered. For non-fluxed welds, only primary stresses are considered.

8.8.6 Safety Factor = 1.39 for Primary Loads 8.8.7 Safety Factor = 1.0 for Thermal Loads 8.8.8 Maximum Allowable alt 0.60 8.9 The above tables 1 through 6 are the Code allowable tables. No tables are provided in the Code for axial flaws for fluxed weldments.

______

Entergy ENGINEERING STANDARD H

I ENCS-SOO8-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALuATIoN Page 94 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 55 of 93 8.10 When more relief is desired than by using the preceding tables in IWB-3640, the source equations provided in Appendix C of Section Xl [A.37] can be used directly. These source equations are based on plastic collapse with adjustments for the flux welds. The stress distribution of a circumferential flawed pipe at plastic collapse is shown in Figure 6. The plastic collapse equations for circumferential flaws are given as:

For 0 + [1 it

=-2sinflsin&? Eqn, 6 a

Eqn.7

2. z 3S,:}

For 0+ 11 > it 6S,,

I, =__2_jsan/i

( u Eqn.8

/1=

it ( a jl---l Eqn.9

)

t 3Sf,,)

where all the terms are shown in Figure 6 and o =3S, Eqn. 10 8.11 For base metal and non-flux welds, the relationship between the failure bending stress Pb and the applied stresses (P and Pb) is given as:

f, =SF(f+1,)F Eqn. 11 8.12 For the flux welds (SAW and SMAW weldments), from Appendix C of Section Xl [A,37]

Pb SF(P + Pb+PC I SF)J Eqn. 12 1,15 [i + 0.013(D-4) firSMAW Eqn, 13 1.31) [I + 0,Ol0(D 4)] fr SAW where D s the nominal pipe size. NPS and for NPS 24 in.: use D = 24.

Enfer&y IF.- ENGINEERING STANDARD

EN-CS-S-COB-MULTI Revision;]

PIPE WALLTHINNINGSTRUCTIJRALEVALUATION Page 95 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 56 of 93

8. 13 For axial Part-through Flaws:

35, F t/a1 I

= H Lqn. 14 Sf [1 I (1 1 / M.

where:

= [i + L611f I(4Rt)J

= nominal hoop stress PD/21

1) nominal outside diameter of the pipe

= total flaw length a flaw depth. The flaw depth is limited to 75% of thickness R = mean radius of the pipe

= nominal thickness SF = Safety Factor: 3.0 for Level A and B Service Loadings, 1.5 for Level C and D Service Loadings 8.14 The evaluation can also be performed using appropriate computer programs. Alternate methods for plastic collapse which take into account the shape of the flaw and also cases involving multiple flaws are discussed in Attachment XV Section 4.0.

I ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CSS-OO8-MULTl Revision 0 Entergy PIPE WALL THINNING S1-fucTuRA L EVALUATIOj N Page 96 of 132

[---

Attachment .9: Informational Page 57 of 93 Austenftic Stainless Steni Piping WE3 - 3640 / Appendnc C termine Stresses Normal Operating (NOC)

F (Including Test / Upset)

Determine Load Combinations L_Emergency Faulted (EOC)

Determine Material Properties Zj Sm j

Circumferential i Determine Flaw Orientation Axial Initial Flaw Size q Determination of K Fatigue Flaw Growth Analysis ioscc Other Inspection Interval Final Flaw Size Yes and EOC See Figure 5 Determine Allowable Flaw Size: NOC j

ienN LeOf Yes No E Repair / Replace H inued Orateptable, Austenitic Steel Piping Figure 1: Flaw Evaluation Procedure for

• ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision biteigy PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALU ATIoN Page 97 of 132 chment .9: Informational Atta Page 58 of 93 Through-Wail Residual Stress Wail Thickness Axial Circumferential

<1 inch o ID ID 1 inch See Note 3 0

1 S = 30 ksi t.

2 Considerable variation with weld heat inpu

[1.0 6.91 (alt) + 8.69 2 (alt) - 0.48 3 (alt) - 2.03 4(alt) 1 y -

= stres s at inne r surfa ce (a = 0) e and Figure 2 Residual Stress Distribution in Larg ll Diam eter Pipin g Weld s [A.19, A.21]

Sma

DIntergy I ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S008-MULTI Revision 0

[

PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 98 of 132 j .9: Informational Attachment Page 59 of 93 6000 5000 4000

-z 3000 Regkrn

-4 2000 Material 1000 J=65O 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 T, t)F Figure 3: Material J-R Resistance Curve for SAW Weldment at 5500 F [A19]

6000 4000 Extrapolated 3000 2000 ria1 3 lc=

990 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 1, F Figure 4 Material J-R Resistance Curve for SMAW Weldment at 55OF [A.1 9]

• Entergy I ENGINEERING STAr.oARD EN-CS-S-008-MULT1 RevIsion 0 IPIPE WALL. THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 99 of 132 ent .9: Informational Attachm Page 60 of 93

.J JI 31 V

EOC F0C COO NOC EC}C EO 1__*

V4Mi2 36413 641-Figure 5 How Chart for Allowable Size Determination of ustenitic Stainless Steel Piping

EN-CS-S-OO8-MLJLTI Revision 0 ENGINEERING STANDARD Entergy Page 100 of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION .9: Informational Attachment Page 61 of 93 Nominal stress in the N

[]

Pm

e 7xis -

Limit Load (Net section plastic collapse)

Figure 6: Stress Distribution In a Cracked Pipe Basis for Net Section Collapse Criteria for Austenitic Steel Pipe

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CSS-0O8-MULTI Revision 0

.

-Lntergy

-> PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALuAT10N Page 101 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 62 of 93 Attachment XIII: Flaw Evaluation Procedure for Ferritic Pipmg 10 INTRODUCTiON

.1 This attachment utilizes later editions of the Section Xl Code which may not be addressed in the Codes referenced by Table 6 in Attachment III. Approval from the plant licensing department. and/or NRC, may be required prior to utilizing the pertinent provisions of this attachment.

1 .2 This attachment provides for evaluations of crack-like flaws in ferritic steels, a formalized approach to explain the terminology, and salient equations in select references available for such evaluations. A case by case approach and appropriate methodology has to be selected to solve an individual problem. Since problems involving crack-like flaw evaluations could be of a complex nature, it is not recommended to select any approach without first understanding the root cause and nature of the crack-like flaw. Thus, this attachment should be used as an introductory material and needs to be supplemented from other sources. This attachment can be used after it has been determined that the Code approaches discussed in this attachment are appropriate for any particular problem.

1 .3 The procedure for evaluation of flaws in Class 1 ferritic piping is provided in Subsection IWB 3650 and Appendix H of ASME Code Section XI [A.37]. The technical basis for the procedure is provided in EPRI Report No. NP-6045 [A.13]. The flow chart shown in Figure 1 summarizes the procedure. There are currently no rules for Class 2 and 3 piping, therefore, the rules of Class 1 piping are generally used for Class 2 and 3.

1.4 As explained in Reference A.13, the load carrying capacity of flawed ferritic piping can vary significantly within the LWR operating temperature range. This temperature dependence results in three distinct regions of fracture behavior, hence each requires a different fracture mechanics analysis technique.

1 .4.1 The lower shelf region, where the fracture toughness of the material is a minimum and does not change significantly with increasing temperature. In this region, the behavior of the material is generally assumed to be linear elastic because ductility is negligible and therefore, linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) techniques are applicable.

1.4.2 The transition temperature region where the fracture toughness increases significantly above the lower shelf value with increasing temperature. In this region, elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) techniques involving the use of the J-lntegral/Tearing Modulus analyses are typically employed.

1 .4,3 The supper shelf region, where the fracture toughness reaches a maximum and ideally remains constant with increasing temperature. in this region, the material is very ductile and limit load (net section plastic collapse) analyses are employed in fracture mechanics evaluation.

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-SO0B-MULTl Revision 0 Irttergy Page 102 of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING STRucTuRAL EvALuATIoN 9: Informational Attachment Page 63 of 93 1.5 To determine which regions and analyses methods to use, the flow chart shown in Figure 2 is provided in ASME Code.Section XI. Appendix H.

The key to the determination of the analysis method is the determination of a screening criterion (SC). For an exp:anation of screening criteria see section 2.1.1. Figure 2 indicates that if SC is below 0.2. limit load analysis shall be used. If SC falls between 0.2 and 1.8. elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) techniques shall be used. Linear elastic fracture mechanics techniques are used if SC is greater than or equal to 1 .8. The computational method for calculating SC is provided in ASME Section Xl Appendix H, (ref. A.37).

1.6 The evaluation procedures in this attachment are applicable to pipes NPS 4 or greater. In general, crack-like defects are found in welds and the adjacent discontinuities or heat-affected zones. The evaluation procedures are applicable to a distance of from the centerline of a girth butt weld, where R is the nominal outside radius and t is the nominal pipe wall thickness. Components / fittings outside these limitations should be treated on a case-by-case basis.

2.0 STRESSES 2.1 Screening Criteria and Allowable Flaw Size

2. 1.1 Screening criterion (SC) parameter to define the applicable failure mode is [A.37: H-4421 and A.13]:

sc

= []

where Eqn. I K=F-_1 Eqn,2

= J.,.E/100() J ksi -/in. Equ. 3

= Measure of material toughness due to crack extension at upper shelf, transition, and lower shelf temperatures. J integral at first flaw extension. in-lh/in E = IE / 2(1v

) 1 ksi Eqo. 4 wlwre E = Modulus of Elasticity V = Poisson Ratio

• I ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CSS.008MULTI Revision 0 1 Lntergy [---- Page 103 of 132

[PE WALL THINNING STRucTuRAL EvALuATIoN .9: Informational Attachment Page 64 of 93 1

K = Total applied stress intensity factor ( as defined in sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 for circumferential and axial flaws) ksi in-For circumferential flaws, (see section 7.4. 1);

1

,

Eqn.

= I where:

= Eqn. 6a

= bending stress at limit load Eqn. 6h For axial flaws. (see section 7.4.2):

Sr Eqn.7 J

1

[J where:

Eqn. 7a 0, = reference stress at limit load Eqn. 7b 2.1.2 For determination of the screening criterion (SC) and allowable flaw size, three classes of stresses are required:

2.1.2.1 Primary membrane (Pm) 2.1.2.2 Primary bending (Pb) 2.1 .2.3 Thermal expansion (Pe) 2.1.3 These stresses are obtained from the piping Stress Report, P. is associated with pressure stress, Pb is generally associated with dead weight and seismic loads, and P is restraint stresses arising from thermal expansion.

2. 1 .4 The above P. and Pr stresses correspond to unconcentrated (without stress intensification factors) primary stress intensity values defined in Equation 9 of ASME Section Ill NB-3650. Pr is unconcentrated stress intensity value for moment loads defined in Equation 12 of ASME Section Ii, N8-3650.

2.1.5 When LEFM analysis is performed. butt weld residual stresses should also be considered in the determination of allowable flaw size, since these stresses are not expected to relax under LEFM condition. Through-wall butt weld stress distribution for ferritic piping recommended in Reference A.13 is shown in Figure 3.

[ ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 iLritergy PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 104 of 132

[

Attachment 7.9: Informational Attachment Page 65 of 93 2.2 Flaw Growth is fatigue. Ferritic piping is 2.2.1 For ferritic piping. the predominant flaw growth mechanism In flaw growth generally immune from intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC).

that contrib ute to the flaw growth. For evaluation, it is important to determine the loads stresse s and expect ed numbe r of cycles for all normal fatigue, both the magnitude of the be obtained and upset operating conditions must be included. This information should tion that may have been from the stress report or from any supplementary evalua s should also performed as part of the root cause evaluation. Butt weld residual stresse be considered in the evalua tion.

3.0 LOAD COMBINATION s are considered in ASME 3.1 For allowable flaw size determination, two load combination Section Xl:

3.1 .1 Normal operating (including Upset and Test) Level A/B 3.1.2 Emergency and Faulted Level C/D Report but, in general, the 3.2 The load combinations are generally reported in the piping Stress following load combinations are typical.

3.2.1 Level NB m - Pressure Pb - Deadweight + OBE Seismic Pe - Thermal expansion 3.2.2 Level C/D Pm Pressure Pb - Deadweight + SSE Seismic

- Thermal expansion ute to the crack growth 3.3 For fatigue crack growth analysis. all the cyclic loads which contrib must be considered.

4.0 MATERIAL PROPERTIES materials are categorized 4.1 For the purpose of determining material properties. ferritic piping into two groups in ASME Section Xi, Appendix H, also see ref. A,13, and pipe fittings that

4. 1 .1 Material Category 1: Seamless or welded wrought carbon steel pipe ed um yield strengt h not greater than 40 ksi and we[ds made with have a specifi minim or post weld heat treated E7015. E7016, and E7018 electrodes in the as-welded conditions.

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-DUB-MULTI Revision 0 Entery -

Page 105 of 132 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUcTuRAL EvALUATIoN .9: Informational Attachment Page 66 of 93 4.1.2 Material Category 2: All other ferritic shielded metal arc and submerged arc welds with specified minimum tensile strengths not greater than 80 ksi in the as-welded or post weld heat treated conditions.

4.2 In determining the screening criteria and allowable flaw size. certain material property data is required. This includes:

Yield Stress, a, Ultimate Strength, a Youngs Modulus. E Poisson Ratio. V Design Stress Intensity. S Fracture roughness. J 1 4.3 The values of rr a . E, and Sm are provided in Appendix I of ASME Section III [A.38}. The 1

value of v is typically taken as 0.3. Minimum values of Jare provided in ASME Section Xl Appendix H if actual values are not available for the evaluation. J. shall be obtained directly from heat-specific J experiments, or correlations with heat-specific Charpy V-notched absorbed energy (CVN) data or reasonable lower bound CVN data.

4.4 The correlation at upper shelf temperatures for use with CVN data for circumferential flaws is given as:

10 CVN Eqn. 8 where, 2 and is flaw extension in in-lb/in CVN is heat specific energy in ft-lb units.

Note that the operating temperature is considered as greater than 200° F. If actual CVN values are available, correlation between fracture toughness and CVN values provided in literature (e.g., ref. A.41) can be used.

4,5 In the absence of specific data, the upper shelf temperature for terrific piping is specified as 2O0F,

__________ ____

Lntery

-

I ENGINEERING STANDARD ENCS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 J PIPE WALL THINNING StRucTuRAL EvALUATIoN Page 106 of 132 9: Informational Attachment Page 67 of 93 4.6 When a J-integraUTearing Modulus analysis is performed, additional material properties are required. These include the Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain curve parameters a and n, and reference stress a,. Lower bound values for these parameters were determined in Reference A.13 for A106 Gr. B and SA-333-6 materials based on the lower bound stress-strain curve shown in Figure 4.

Parameter Submerged arc weld 251 n 4.2 at,, ksi 27.1 4.7 In addition, the J-T material resistance curve will also be required. Typical curves used in Reference A.13 are shown in Figures 5 through 8.

5.0 INITIAL FLAW SIZE AND FLAW ORIENTATION 5.1 Initial flaw size and flaw orientation are obtained from lSi reports. Flaws can be either axial or circumferentially oriented. Flaws can also be surface or subsurface. Rules (or determining flaw orientation and flaw type are provided in ASME Section Xl, IWA-3000. In some cases, multiple flaws are encountered. Rules for combining multiple flaws are also provided in IWA-3000.

6.0 FLAW GROWTH 6.1 The mechanisms for flaw growth should be established from the root cause evaluation. The flaw growth mechanism in ferritic steels is attributed mainly to fatigue. Per Appendix H of Section XI, the fatigue crack growth law for ferritic vessels in Appendix A of Section Xl is used.

Separate laws are provided for air and water environments. These crack growth laws are included in software programs which address these applications, see attachment XIV.

7.0 DETERMINATION OF ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE 7.1 The first step in the allowable flaw size determination is to determine the appropriate analysis method for using the screening criteria (SC> provided in Appendix H of ASME Section XI and shown in Figure 2. The screening criteria and the allowable flaw size can be determined using software programs which address these applications, see attachment XIV.

7.2 If SC < 0.2, the limit load analysis technique should be used in determining the allowable flaw size. Flow chart for materials meeting the limit load criteria is provided in Section Xl, Appendix H. Article H-5000 and shown in Figure 9. As can be seen from this flow chart, tables are provided in Appendix H as follows:

7.2.1 Table H-5310-1 - Circ. Flaws - Normal/Upset/Test Conditions 7.2.2 Table H-5410-2 Circ. Flaws Emergency/Faulted Conditions

- -

7.2.3 Table H-5410-3 Axial Flaws Normal/Upset/Test Conditions

- -

7.2.4 Table H-5310-4 Axial Flaws Emergency/Faulted Conditions

- -

_______

• Entery I ENGiNEERING STANDARD FCS-S0O8-MULT) Revision 0 I

[--_---

PIPE WALL THINNING STRucWRAL EvALuATIoN Page 107 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 68 of 93 7.2.5 In lieu of usina the above tables, the source equations given in Appendix H may be used.

These equations are given as follows:

7.2.5.1. For circumferential flaws [A.37: H-5320]

ForO + it 2o J, -- 2.sin,6-sin?j Eqn. 9 (I P Eqn.1O For 0 + [3 > it 2

= __+/-.2 Jsin /i Eqn. 11 it ( a l-----j Eqn. 12 2 I O) where all the terms are shown in Figure 9 and a shall be taken as the average of yield and ultimate stress, or 2.4 S 1 when these values are not available.

7.2.5.2 The above formulas are valid for Pb/Pm 1.0 and P,,, 0.5 S 1 for normal operating (including upset and test> conditions or Pm 1.0 Sm for emergency and faulted conditions.

7.2.5.3 The allowable bending stress S is given as:

r 1l/.)]

i Eqn. 13 (SF) where:

SF = safety factor

= 2,77 for normal operating condition (including upset at test) conditions

= 1 .39 for emergency and faulted conditiOnS 7.2.5.4 The maximum allowable flaw depth is limited to 75% of pipe wall thickness.

For axial flaws [A.37: H-54201 r i/aI

°ir l11 14 Sf It/ali MI

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0

- Eritergy PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EvALUATIoN Page 108 of 132 Attachment_7.9: Informational Attachment Page 69 of 93 where:

= [i + 1.6 I/ / (.4R1)J Fqn. 15

= 01 2.4S

= nominal hoop stress = PD/2 I) = nominal outside diameter of the pipe

= total flaw length a = flaw depth R = mean radius of the pipe

= nominal thickness SF = Safety Factor: 3.0 for Level A and B Service Loadings. 1 .5 for Level C and D Service Loadings 7.2.5.5 Furthermore i < l where l is determined by the condition for the stability of through-wall flaws o. = Tf I M.

2 72.5.6 Note flaw depths a 0 and a , determined from eqn. 14 shall be used in the 0

acceptance criteria of IWB 3652(a) [A,37} to determine the acceptability of the flawed pipe for continued service.

7.3 If 0.2 SC<1.8, elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) techniques should be used in determining the allowable flaw size. Flow chart for materials meeting the EPFM criteria is provided in Section Xl, Appendix H Article H-6000 and shown in Figure 10, Tables are provided in Appendix H for the determination of allowable flaw size. These tables are based on limit load analyses. but stress multipliers are provided to convert the EPFM analyses to equivalent limit load analyses using Z-factors provided in the Code.

7.3.1 Table H-5310-1 (Modified) Circ. Flaws

- - Normal/Upset/Test Conditions 7.3.2 Table 1+/-5310-2 (Modified) Circ. Flaws Emergency/Faulted Conditions

- -

73.3 Table H-6410-1 -Axial Flaws Norma[UpsetiTest Conditions

-

7.34 Table H-6410-2 Axial Flaws

- - Emergency/Faulted Conditions

___

FErileray F I

I ENGINEERING STANDARD

---

ENCS-S-008-MULT! Revision 0 L

-

PIPE WALLTHINNINGSTRUCTURALEVALuATION Page 109 of 132 Attachment 7.9: Informational Attachment Page 70 of 93 7.3.5 Circumferential Flaws:

In using Tables H-53 10-1 aiid H-53 10-2 for circumfercntiallv flawed welds, the primary membrane stress Pm, primary bending stress Ph, and expansion stress PC are considered in the load combination. The Stress Ratio (SR) for normal operating/upset/test conditions is calculated as:

Eqn. 16 7.3.6 The stress ratio for emergency/faulted condition is calculated as:

SR = Z( I. + + / 1.39) / S, Equ. 17 where Z is the Z-faetor provided in Tables 11-6310-1 or Table 63 10-2 of ASME Section Xl. Appendix H.

7.3.7 In lieu of using these tables, an analytical solution based on modified limit load analysis may be used. The limit load equations provided in Section 7,2.5 are used. The allowable bending stress S is determined as:

I JP (SF)Z J Z(SF))

Equ. 18 where:

SF safety factor 2.77 for normal operating/upset/test conditions 1 .39 for emergency and faulted conditions.

= E3ending stresses at limit load for primary and expansion loads 7 = Load multiplier For ductile flaw extension 7.3.8 If more margin in the allowable flaw size is desired for territic pipe material exhibiting EPFM characteristics (0.2SC<1.8). actual J-IntegraliTearing Modulus instability analysis can be performed. Models for performing such analyses are discussed in Attachment XV and provided n software programs which address these applications, see attachment Xlv, 7.4 If SC >1 .8, linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) techniques should be used in determining the allowable flaw size. A flow chart for materials meeting the LEFM criteria is provided in Section Xl, Appendix H, Article 7000 and shown in Figure 11. This involves the evaluation of the applied stress intensity factor (K) and comparing it to allowable stress intensity factor (K).

7.4.1 For circumferential flaws, [A.37. H-7300, H-4221)

K, K,. +/- K,. + K.. K Eqn. 1 9

___________

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 Entergy PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 110 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 71 of 93 where:

E/l00( ksi in Eqn. 3

= Measure of material toughness due to crack extension at upper shelf, transition, and lower shelf temperatures. J integral at first flaw extension, in-lh/in

= IE/(1-v)1ksi Eqn.3 Kim = (SF) [J(,i)°5 !. ksiin Eqn. 20 where.

= ksi Eqn.21 2gRi where P = Total axial load on pipe including pressure. kips Kb Eqn. 22 5

=[sF{a

, h}+J(i) ksi v Kir = stress intensity factor due to residual stress with a safety factor of 1 .0, ksi in 1

K total applied stress intensity factor, ksi qin 1

F 1.10 +x 10.15241 + 16.722 (xO/lt)° 855 -

14.944 Cr0/it)] Eqn. 23

= 1,10 +x 1-0.09967 + 5.0057 (x0I)5 -

2.8329 Cr0/it)] Eqn. 24

= a/t Eqn. 25 9/it = ratio of crack length to pipe circumference iSF) = Salery Factor

= 2.77 for normal operating/upset 1.39 for emergency/faulted Note: K from transients are not considered per Code, ]A.37 J.

7.4.2 For axial flaws. [A.37. H-7400. H-4221]:

____

____

___

Entergy ---

ENGINEERING STANDARD

--- __ -

I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINN ING SrRucTuRAL EVAL UATION l Page 111 of 132 .9: Informational Attachment Page 72 of 93 1

K = K + 1 K 1 K

Eqn. 26 where:

pR Kim = (SF)(ita/Q) F ksitn Eqn.27 here (SF) = Safety factor

= 3.0 for not mal operating (including upset and test) conditions

= 1.5 for emergency and faulted conditions Q=1+4.593()

Eqn.28 F = 1.12 2÷0.053+0,0055a -f(l.0+0,02(

+0.0l91)(20-R/t 1400

/

2 Eqn. 29

= (alt)(afl)

Eqn. 30

,

1 K = stress intensity factor due to residual stress with a safety factor of 1 .0, ksi Jin 1

K = (Ji 1000 E/l 5) ksi in Eqn. 3

0 U

b a I

0

.9

$

U UI I

0 C,,

l.

ENGINEERING STANoAR EN-CS-S-OO8MULTI Entergy ____

__

Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUcTURAL EvALuATIoN Page 113 of 132 9: Informational Attachment Page 74 of 93 r Is J. available? -No Use actual Obtain J from JiG Article H4210 T

Usea= 27.1 ksi and

= 181 ksi Screening Criterion (SC) 1 S jr (SC)>= 1.8 LEFM Ho Figure 2: ASME Code Section XI Appendix H Flow Chart for Screening Criteria to Establish the Analysis Method

[A37J

TØEntergy i i

-

I --- ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0

--i

[ jIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTUR AL. EvALuATIoN Page 114 of 132 Attachment 79: Informational Atta chment ge 75 of 93 Through-Wall Residual Stress Wall Thickness Axial Circumferential S

S

< 1 inch 0

IDND ID 1 inch See Note 3 0

1 s Yield stress Considerable variation with weld heat input.

a = a, [1.0 6.91 (alt) + &69 (alt) 2 0.48 (alt)

-

- 3 2.03 (a/t)j a = stress at inner surface (a 0)

Figure 3: Recommended Axial and Circumfe rential Residual Stress Distributions for Circumferential Welds in Ferritic Pipe

[Al 3]

9: Informational Attachment Page 76of 93 90 80 6

5 70 60 Ramherg-Osgood Fit 30 20 1, 2, 4, 5. aii 7: SAIO6GrB, Different Heats 3 and 6: SA333-6, Different 10 Heats 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 TRUE STRAIN, PERCENT Figure 4: True Stress-Strain Curves for SAl 06 Gr. B and SA333 Gr. 6 at 5500 F [A.13]

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 j Entergy PIPE WALL TaNNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION Page 118 of 132 Attachment 7.9: Informational Attachment Page 77 of 93 4500 4 k = 1050 4000 ©jI ° 3500 A106 GrB 3000 2500

-c 2000 1500 Gr70 1000 500 0

0 0,05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Crack Growth. a inches

-

Figure 5: J-Resistance Behavior for A106 Gr. B (L-C Orientation) and A51 6 Gr. 70 (T-L Orientation) at 550° F [A.13]

F*Lntergy I ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-008MULTI I----- .1 Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING S11u cTuRAL EVALUATION

-

j Page 117 of 132 9: Informational Atta chment Page 78 of 93 5000 4500 A J = 105()

4000

• 1OO J

=6 4 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

° T F Figure 6: J iT Curves for Category 1 Materials

[A.131

hriIery.y ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL. THINNING STRUCT URAL EvALuATIoN 1

Page 118 of 132 9: Informational Attachment Page 79 of 93 2000 (800

• J350 1600 200 0.

0 &0S 0.1 0.15 Crack GTowth, inch Figure 7: J.R Curve for Catego ry 2 Matenals [A.1 31

___

__

---

iI

• ENGINEERING STANDARD Entergy EN-CS-S-GOB-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURA L EVALUATION Page 119 of 132 9: Informational Atta chment Page 80 of 93 2500 2000 1500 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 TF Figure 8: jir Curve for Category 2 Materials

[Ai3]

[Ii1tP ENGINEERING STAtDARD r/y ----

EN CS S 008 MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRucTuRAL EvALuATIoN Page 120 of 132 9: Informational Attachment Page 81 of 93 Figure 9: Flow Chart for Materials Meeting the Load Limit Criteria [A.37]

tEntry I 1--

ENGINEERING STANDARD 1 EN-CS-S-008-MUL TI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURA L EVALUATION Page 121 of 132 Attachment 7.9: Information Attac al hment Page 82 of 93 Flgur. 10: Row Chart for M ateriats for which Ouctile Fl Extension May Occur Prior aw to Limit Load (EPFM)

(k371

14 iEnfeigy ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-OO8MULTl Revision 1

[ PIPE WALL THINNING STRUcmRAL EvALUATIoN Page 122 of 132 Attachment 7.9: Informational Atta chment Page 83 of 93 Figure 11: Flow Chart for Materials Meeting the Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEF M) Criteria

[A.37]

F Entrgy I ENGINEERING STANDARD i--------i j ENCSS-OO8-MULTl Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRucTURAL EvALuAiioN Page 123 of 132 Attachment 7.9: Intormational Attachment Page 84 of 93 Nominal stress in the uncracked section of pipe

+ Pb I

I I

N axis Pm

- Flow stress Limit Load (Net section plastic collapse)

Figure 12: Stress Distribution In a Cracked Pipe Basis

--

for Net Section Collapse Criteria for Austenitic Steel Pipe

____

___

____

____

____

__

T Entergy I I---- ---jI ENG1NEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-OO8MULTI Revision 0

[ PIPE WALL THINNING STRucTuRAL EVALUATION Page 124 of 132 .9: lnformationa) Atta chment Page 85 of 93 Attachment XIV: CLFE: Fracture Mechani cs Software 1.0 Several personal computer-based softw are programs for performing fracture mech a wide variety of structural components and anics analysis of materials are available. The programs usua many features and capabilities which are lly have directly applicable to piping flaw and wall evaluations addressed by this standard. Thes thinning e programs can be covered under vendors quality assurance programs safety relat nuclear ed applications. Software programs can fracture mechanics-based pipe flaw and be used to perform wall-thinning evaluations described in this standard.

2.0 Typically the capabilities of these prog rams include:

2.1 Codes and Standards Evaluation 2,2 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) 2.3 Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPF M) 3.0 Generally these software packages have majo r modules listed above which contain num modules and options. These allow the user erous sub-to input spec ific problem parameters, to perform the necessary analyses, to save all relevant data from the analyses for future use, and to and graphical output of results. They also cont obtain tabular ain detailed program description, inclu problems and a program verification man ding sample ual in the program users manual.

4.0 Two of such software programs are mentione d in the list of references as B.6 and B.7

___

_

FEnteçgy I ENGINEERING STANDARO I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 l-.----__ ---_--I PIPE WALL THINNING STRUcTuRAL EvA LuATION Page 125 of 132 .9: Informational Atta chment Page 86 of 93 Attachment XV: CLFE: Alternate Fracture Mechanics Softitions

1.0 INTRODUCTION

I I The evaluation procedures provided in Attachments XII and XIII are base Section Xl, Appendices C and H, respe d on ASME Code ctively. It should be recognized that are non-mandatory, hence, alternate solu these appendices tions can be obtained elsewhere in the However, the acceptance criteria of IWB literature.

-3640 and IWB-3650 must be satisfied.

acceptance criteria can be satisfied The by ensuring that the Code safety margins Attachments XII and XIII are maintained presented in at all times if alternate methods are used attachment, alternate solutions are prov . In this ided for linear elastic fracture mechanics elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPF (LEFM),

M) and limit load analysis.

2.0 LINEAR ELASTIC FRACTURE MEC HANICS 2.1 Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEF M) is used for the determination of allow for ferritic steels for which the screening able flaw size criteria discussed in Attachment Xlll equal to 1.8. LEFM is also used to perfo is greater than or rm crack growth evaluations for both ferri austenitic stainless steel pipe. tic and 2.2 LEFM assumes elastic behavior of the stresses in the pipe, including the crack tip. The stress distribution near the region around the crack tip depends on a single quantity stress intensity, generally designated termed the as K. For loadings which produce an open displacement between the crack surfaces, ing mode of the stress intensity factor is further desig

. Expressions have been developed in 1

K nated as the literature for the calculation of the valu terms of the applied load and the crack e of K1 in size for various combinations and shap of applied loading. All of these equations es, and types have an identical format:

K, Ccr-.L Eqn. 1 where:

a = nominal applied stress a = characteristic crack dimension such as crack depth for surface cracks C = non-dimensional constant whose value depends on crack geometry, the ratio of the crack size to the size of the structural member and tYpe of loading (tension, bending, etc.)

Entergy I ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI F --- Revision J PIPE WALL THINNING SmUcWRAL EVA LUATION Page 126 of 132 Attachment 7.9: Information al Attachment Page 87 of 93 2.3 Formulations for K 1 for various surface, subsurface presented in several sources [A.23 and throughwall geometnes have been to A. 271. Some of these references cases where the stress varies through have K 1 solutions for the thickness of pipe. One of the mos solutions for K1 are the formulations developed t widely used formulations assume an elliptical surfa by Raju and Newman [A.16 and A.17 ce flaw in a cylinder in tension and ]. The advantage of Raju-Newman solution bending. The is that K can be determined at vario crack front. There are also several us locations on the software programs to solve for K (see fact. solutions for K versus crack size Attachment XIV). In found in References A.23 through directly to the calculation procedure A.27 can be imported in Reference A.37 to perform fract evaluations such as crack growth. ure mechanics 2.4 The basic principle of LEFM is that unstable propagation of an existing the value of K 1 attains a critical value design flaw will occur when toughness of the material, is a tem ated as K

. The K 1 , generally called the fracture 1

perature-dependent material property.

recommended for use by ASME Sect The value of K 1 ion XI for ferritic materials in the LEF presented in Attachment XIII. Reco M regime is mmendations for K 1 values for ferritic steels in the LEFM regime are provided in ASME Section Xl, Appendix H, Article H-40 1

K are provided in Reference A.27. In som 00 [A.37]. Other values for e cases, the value of K1 for a material is not readily available. However, in LEFM regim e only, another parameter called fracture toughness) when available can be converted to K J (the elastic-plastic 1 using the relationship

_(EJ 1

K ksi Eqn. 2 where, is in in-l 2 b/in units 2.5 In summary, the implementation of alternate LEFM fracture mechanics of flawed piping consists of two concept for evaluation steps:

2.5.1 Determine K properties of the mate rial from the Code or from other Reference A.27, references such as 2.5.2 Determine the anticipated flaw size in the pipe and calculate the valu References A.23 through A.27. Safe e of K1 from the ty factors shall be applied to the stre Code safety margins. Compare K sses to maintain to K to ensure K 1 is less than K.

1 3.0 ELASTIC-PLASTIC FRACTURE MECHANICS 3,1 Background

3. 1 I

.

Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics princ iples are used for determination sizes for austenitic stainless steel pipin of allowable flaw g flux weidments and ferritic pipin screening criterion discussed in Atta g for which the chment XIII is between 0.2 and 1.8.

are ductile such that there is significa These materials nt plastic deformation around the rest of the structure exhibits elastic crack tip while the behavior.

____

____

_

T[ntPrgy I

-

ENGINEERING STANDARD EN-CS-S-O08-MULTI RevIsion 0

[ ---

PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCTURAL EVALUATIoN Page 127 of 132 .9: Informational Atta chment Page 88 of 93 3.1.2 In the presence of the crack, the stres s and strain at the tip can be characterized parameter called J, where J is a path inde by a pendent integral which is a measure of the work done around the vicinity of the crack under the applied loading. For loadings whic produce an opening mode of displacement h between the crack surfaces. the J-integra further designated as J,. l is 3.1 .3 For linear elastic cases, K,

1 --(1--tI)

J Eqn.3 3.1.4 Similar to the LEFM case, there is a parameter designated as J 1 which measures the fracture toughness of the material. The valu es of K 1 can be converted to using the above expression. However, unlike the linea r elastic case, unstable crack growth does not occur when the value of J is reached.

Figure 1 shows the crack growth behavior typical ductile material. Upon reaching J, of a there is a region of stable crack growth unstable growth occurs. before 3.2 Engineering Approach for Calculati ng J 3.2.1 In lieu of determining the value of J using very sophisticated finite element analy several simple expressions have been enve ses, loped for various cracked pipe configurations in References A.15, A,26, A.27 and A.42

. The formulations in all these reference assume that the material stress-strain beha s vior can be represented by the Ramberg Osgood power law equation of the form:

e (V E,, O \7) Eqn.4 where:

s and = strain and stress, respectively e and o = yield strain and yield stress. respectively aand n Ramherg--Osgood material coefficients 3.2.2 Values of aand n for typical piping mate rials used in the nuclear industry have provided in Reference A.27, been 323 For materials that can be represente d by the Ramberg-Osgood stress-str j is generally represented as [A.42J ain relationship,

I = L + ,J Eqn. 5 where:

= the elastic contribution

= the plastic contribution

___

__

___

__

___

___

__

rmEritergy

--

ENGINEERING STANDARD I EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0 PIPE WALL THINNING STRUCT URAL EvALUATION Page 128 of 132 .9: Informatio nal Attachment Page 89 of 93 3.2.4 The expressions for Je and J have been provided in Referen A.42 for various cracked pip ces A.15, A.26, A.27 and e and loaduiq configurations as listed below:

36O part-wall crack in a cylinde r under remote tension [A.27.

A.42J 32.4.1 Through-wallflaws in a cylinder under remote tens ion. [A.15j; 3.2.4.2 Through-wall flaws in a cylinder under remote ben ding. [A.15]:

3.2.4.3 Through-wallflaws in a cylinder subjected to com bined, tension and bending,

[A,26J:

3.2.4.4 Internally pressurize d cylinder with an internal axia l crack, [A.42].

3.2.5 Some of the J expression s have readily available for use. As a been incorporated into computer programs and are firs above references can be com t step in the EPFM evaluation, the J calculated from the pared to J . It should be emphasized though 1

safety factors should be applied that the Code to the piping loads to maintai 1 for typical piping materials have J n Code margins. Values of been provided in Reference A.27.

3.3 Tearing Modulus Concep t

3.3.1 Referring to Figure 1, it can be seen that even greater than J, there is a region of stable crac if the applied J from the piping loads is 1

cracked piping before instability k growth that can be sustain ed by summarized as follows: occ urs. The thre e regions shown in Figure 1 can the be 3.3.2 For Equilibrium:

Jk.d = = (No Crack Propagation) 3,3.3 For Stability: Eqn, 8

> Crack Propagation di Eqn. 9 di da = Stability (1(1 Eqn. 10 (LI L1

- . ..cW

,,

> = Instability do (1(1 Eqn. 11 3.3.4 For convenience, a par ameter called the Tearing Mo dulus (T) is defined as (see figure 2):

di E dr Eqn.12 3.3.5 Hence, if the relationship between J and a has been com using the handbook solutions puted for the applied loading from relationship between J and for References A.15, A.26, A.27 and A,42. the T the applied loading can be dete rmined.

3.3.6 The relationship between J and the crack extension a suc a material is known as the J-R h as that shown in Figure 1 curve. The J-R curve is a mat for the resistance of a given mat erial property that describes erial to continued ductile, stab monotonic loading. From the le crack extension under J-R curve, a J-T curve can be using the above expression constructed for the material as shown in Figure 2. The J-T the instability point as shown curve is appied to determine in Figure 2. The J-R curve is gen erally represented as:

Attachment 79: Informational Attachment Page 90 of 93 I = Cf Au)

Eqn. 13 where C and N are Power Law material coefficients dependent material. The typical values of on the type of C and N used for austenitic piping ferritic piping are provided in flux welds and Reference A.27, It should be cau performing a J-T analysis in lieu tioned again that in of using the acceptance criteria 3650, the Code safety factors mu of lWB-3640 or IWB st be applied to the piping load be performed using computer pro s. J-T analyses can grams.

4.0 LIMIT LOAD ANALYSIS 4.1 Limit load analysis is use d for the determination of allo flux weldments in austenitic stai wable flaw size for base metal nless steel piping as well as ferr and non-screening criterion, discussed itic piping for which the in Attachment XIII, is less than tough, and therefore there is no 02. These materials are very crack extension until the flaw net section. The allowable flaw ed pipe fails by collapse of the sizes for austenitic stainless stee ferritic piping in Attachment XIII l piping in Attachment XII and are based on the procedures C and H. In the development of of ASME Section Xl, Append the allowable flaw sizes in thes ices that the flaw geometry can be e appendices, it is assumed represented by a single flaw wit flaw> along the entire length. h constant depth (rectangular In the case where the actual sha the flaw shape conservatism pe of the flaw is not rectang in the Code procedures can ular, shown that some relief in the be reduced. Some studies have allowable flaw size can be obt to be elliptical or parabolic [A, ained if the flaw shape is assu 30]. An example of the compar med various flaw shapes is shown ison of allowable flaw size with in Figure 3. When multiple flaw inspection, the conservative way s are encountered during to treat them is to assume a depth associated with the flaw 360° flaw with the maximum

s. However, it can also be sho reduced by treating these flaw wn that this conservatism s as individual flaws [A.3 can be presented in Reference A.30 01. The evaluation methodology is only applicable to flaws with symmetrical shapes.

4.2 For non-symmetric flaw s and also for cases involving mu load equations becomes slightly ltiple flaws, development of complicated because a closed the limit Hence, in these cases. an iter form solution is not possible.

ative process is used to determi bending moment on the cross ne the allowable plastic collaps section for a given axial load. For e tension-to-compression axis can any arbitrary angle, the be determined and the two orth calculated by integrating over ogonal moments can be the cross section. The resultan the square of the sum of these t moment can be calculated as two moments. This process discrete angles around the circ can be repeated at various umference of the pipe. The coll all the resultant moments. Thi apse moment is the minimu s can be compared with the app m of the safety margin which should lied bending load to determi be equal to or greater than the ne Code allowable for acceptance

.

5.0 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYS IS 5.1 The methods presented in this section as well as in Att solve almost all flawed pipe con achment XII through XV can figurations that are encountered be used to Most of the solutions presented in nuclear power plant piping in this attachment were develop .

sophisticated finite element ana ed as a result of very lyses. in a very extreme case.

used to add margins beyond finite element analysis can the solutions presented in this be attachment. In such analyse s

5.2 special elements with ver y fine mesh refinements are req determine K 11 orJ

. uired around the crack tip to

rnEntergy

-

I ENG1NEERNG STANDA 1--_------ RD EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revlsion 0 PIPE WALLTHINNINGS TRUC TVRALEv

__.i ALUATION Page 130 of 132 .9: Informatio nal Attachment Page 91 of 93 XVI: Figures

- -

Accepiablc &ept ithContintedJ Yes-

..

No _-.-j.

1 Rvp.(ir Vm Covered in this QEAM 1ignre I: Overall Flow Ch art For Evaluations

-- Entergy I ENGINEERING STANDARD

-

-

EN-CS-S-008-MULTI Revision 0

[PE WALL THINNING

--

STRUCTURAL EvALUATIoN Page 131 of 132 Attachment_79: Informatio nal Attachment Page 92 of 93 L LocthZediipeWaIlThinnin gEvaIuatR)nAttuchmcnts III X) oted sfyicensin No below EEEE godeEqua using in Global Pipe Sec tion_

tion Accept As-ISa ropeies (Aff. VII)

No Code

} Repairl Replace I

/

Notes:

k = 0.3 for Class 1 and 2 Piping k

(ref. A.32 of Aft. 1) or 0.2 for Class 3 High Energy Piping (ref. A.14 of Aft, or kt, = lesser of 0.3 t and 0.5 t, for Class 3 Low I)

(non-safety) (ref. A.28 of Energy and B31.1 Piping AU. I)

Fgure 2: Flow Chart for EvaIt,atin f Localized Pipe Wall Thinnini

-Iinterty ENGINEEFuNG STANDAR PIPE WALL THINNING Sm D

I ENCSSOO8MULTl Revision 0 UcTURAL EVALUATIO N Page 132 of 132 Attachment 79: Inform ational Attachment Page 93 of 93

-

Repair I Replace

( Determine Operability and Operate until NRC Appmval (Ref. 2.11: GL 9118)

-

-

I )

For FERRITIC STEEL PIP Class 1 Pimng Att. XIII ING:

I For AUS. STAINLESS STE (ASME Sec. Xl EL PIPING:

IWB 3650 & App. H) Class 1 Piping Ati. XII

ASME Sec Xl Class 2 Piping Art. XIII IWB 3640 & App. Ci (ASME Sec. Xl IWC 3650 & App. H) Class 2 Piping Att. Xli (ASME Sec. XI Class 3 Piping: (Same IWC 3640 & App. C) as Class 2 &

Mod, Energy Piping GL Class 3 Piping Ati.Xll (AS 90.05) ME Sec. Xl 831 1 831.7 Piping: Att. IWO 3640 & App. C)

XIII (Same as ASME Class 3 wiO GL 831.1 1831.7 Piping Art.

90.05) XII : (Same as ASME CIass3)

Figure 3: Flow Chart for Evaluation of Crack-like Flaws