ML13127A333: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Poehier, Jeffrey J From: Sent: To: | {{#Wiki_filter:Poehier, Jeffrey J From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:34 PM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
FW: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248) | |||
Attachments: Core Plate Hold Down Bolt SE Input ME6248 - (2-14-12).docx Ganesh, I meant to include you as well. | |||
From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:34 PM To: Purtscher, Patrick | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Pat, the whole 1 st paragraph of Section 3.2.1 could be clearer. I reworded this paragraph to eliminate some unnecessary details.I fixed footnote 2.For Figure H-7, I agree that the lower bound could be higher at 0.1 dpa especially if you only considered the data points that are Type 304. However, I'm not sure | RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248) | ||
The stress analysis only showed 113% margin over the ASME Code allowable for some scenarios. | Pat, the whole 1 st paragraph of Section 3.2.1 could be clearer. I reworded this paragraph to eliminate some unnecessary details. | ||
I'm not sure an additional 11% of preload reduction would result in a one-to-one reduction in the percent margin, but would definitely reduce it. At any rate, Figure H-7 is just one data point supporting VYNPS's estimate. | I fixed footnote 2. | ||
If you look at the GEH curve, it is also a best-estimate curve.Please review the changes which are marked up in the attached revision.Thanks, Jeff From: Purtscher, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, February I4V2012 1:53 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey | For Figure H-7, I agree that the lower bound could be higher at 0.1 dpa especially if you only considered the data points that are Type 304. However, I'm not sure ifthe 75% would work with the stress analysis for VYNPS since they determined 14% relaxation. The stress analysis only showed 113% margin over the ASME Code allowable for some scenarios. I'm not sure an additional 11% of preload reduction would result in a one-to-one reduction in the percent margin, but would definitely reduce it. At any rate, Figure H-7 is just one data point supporting VYNPS's estimate. If you look at the GEH curve, it is also a best-estimate curve. | ||
Please review the changes which are marked up in the attached revision. | |||
: Thanks, Jeff From: Purtscher, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, February I4V2012 1:53 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Jeff, The 3 rd sentence in Section 3.2.1 doesn't seem clear enough for the reader, I think it needs rewording. | RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248) | ||
Footnote 2, don't you mean displacement per atom?Regarding Figure H-7 from MRP-1 75, I looked at it and I think 75% is a realistic lower bound, still better than the 50% line that is drawn, but more relaxation than the mean value. Would that 25% relaxation be a problem based on what we know?Pat From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:25 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh 15 Cc: Purtscher, Patrick | : Jeff, The 3 rd sentence in Section 3.2.1 doesn't seem clear enough for the reader, I think it needs rewording. | ||
Footnote 2, don't you mean displacement per atom? | |||
Regarding Figure H-7 from MRP-1 75, I looked at it and I think 75% is a realistic lower bound, still better than the 50% line that is drawn, but more relaxation than the mean value. Would that 25% relaxation be a problem based on what we know? | |||
Pat From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:25 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh 15 | |||
Cc: Purtscher, Patrick | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Did you guys have time to comment?From: Cheruvenki, Ganesh.. ..Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:07 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey | RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248) | ||
Did you guys have time to comment? | |||
From: Cheruvenki, Ganesh.. .. | |||
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:07 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Will do.From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:45 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Cc: Purtscher, Patrick | RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248) | ||
Will do. | |||
From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:45 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Cc: Purtscher, Patrick | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)Ganesh, As discussed yesterday, please peer review (technical only) my SE input for Vermont Yankee. Use TAC ME6248. Note that it is not a complete SE because Pani has the lead on the SE. He can integrate my inputs into the structure of his SE.If you can give me comments by the end of the week that would be fine.Pat, I copied you so if you have time to review your comments would also be appreciated. | Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248) | ||
Thanks, Jeff 16}} | : Ganesh, As discussed yesterday, please peer review (technical only) my SE input for Vermont Yankee. Use TAC ME6248. Note that it is not a complete SE because Pani has the lead on the SE. He can integrate my inputs into the structure of his SE. | ||
If you can give me comments by the end of the week that would be fine. | |||
Pat, I copied you so if you have time to review your comments would also be appreciated. | |||
: Thanks, Jeff 16}} |
Latest revision as of 19:40, 4 November 2019
ML13127A333 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Vermont Yankee ![]() |
Issue date: | 02/14/2012 |
From: | Jeffrey Poehler NRC/NRR/DE/EVIB |
To: | Ganesh Cheruvenki NRC/NRR/DE/EVIB |
References | |
FOIA/PA-2013-0030 | |
Download: ML13127A333 (2) | |
Text
Poehier, Jeffrey J From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:34 PM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh
Subject:
FW: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)
Attachments: Core Plate Hold Down Bolt SE Input ME6248 - (2-14-12).docx Ganesh, I meant to include you as well.
From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:34 PM To: Purtscher, Patrick
Subject:
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)
Pat, the whole 1 st paragraph of Section 3.2.1 could be clearer. I reworded this paragraph to eliminate some unnecessary details.
I fixed footnote 2.
For Figure H-7, I agree that the lower bound could be higher at 0.1 dpa especially if you only considered the data points that are Type 304. However, I'm not sure ifthe 75% would work with the stress analysis for VYNPS since they determined 14% relaxation. The stress analysis only showed 113% margin over the ASME Code allowable for some scenarios. I'm not sure an additional 11% of preload reduction would result in a one-to-one reduction in the percent margin, but would definitely reduce it. At any rate, Figure H-7 is just one data point supporting VYNPS's estimate. If you look at the GEH curve, it is also a best-estimate curve.
Please review the changes which are marked up in the attached revision.
- Thanks, Jeff From: Purtscher, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, February I4V2012 1:53 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey
Subject:
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)
- Jeff, The 3 rd sentence in Section 3.2.1 doesn't seem clear enough for the reader, I think it needs rewording.
Footnote 2, don't you mean displacement per atom?
Regarding Figure H-7 from MRP-1 75, I looked at it and I think 75% is a realistic lower bound, still better than the 50% line that is drawn, but more relaxation than the mean value. Would that 25% relaxation be a problem based on what we know?
Pat From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:25 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh 15
Cc: Purtscher, Patrick
Subject:
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)
Did you guys have time to comment?
From: Cheruvenki, Ganesh.. ..
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:07 PM To: Poehler, Jeffrey
Subject:
RE: Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)
Will do.
From: Poehler, Jeffrey Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:45 AM To: Cheruvenki, Ganesh Cc: Purtscher, Patrick
Subject:
Peer Review of SE Input for Vermont Yankee Core Plate Bolt Analysis (ME6248)
- Ganesh, As discussed yesterday, please peer review (technical only) my SE input for Vermont Yankee. Use TAC ME6248. Note that it is not a complete SE because Pani has the lead on the SE. He can integrate my inputs into the structure of his SE.
If you can give me comments by the end of the week that would be fine.
Pat, I copied you so if you have time to review your comments would also be appreciated.
- Thanks, Jeff 16