ML18110A292: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[HNP-18-047, Relief Request I4R-18, Reactor Vessel Closure Head Nozzle Repair Technique, Inservice Inspection Program, Fourth Ten-Year Interval, Non-Proprietary Version of Calculation]]
| number = ML18110A292
| issue date = 04/20/2018
| title = Relief Request I4R-18, Reactor Vessel Closure Head Nozzle Repair Technique, Inservice Inspection Program, Fourth Ten-Year Interval, Non-Proprietary Version of Calculation
| author name = Hamilton T M
| author affiliation = Duke Energy Progress, LLC
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NRR
| docket = 05000400
| license number = NPF-063
| contact person =
| case reference number = HNP-18-047
| document type = Letter
| page count = 122
| project =
| stage = Other
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Tanya M. Hamilton Vice President Harris Nuclear Plant 5413 Shearon Harris Rd New Hill NC 27562-9300  919-362-2 502          10 CFR 50.55a  April 20, 2018 Serial: HNP-18-047 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Docket No. 50
-400/Renewed License No. NPF
-63
 
==Subject:==
Relief Request I4R-18, Reactor Vessel Closure Head Nozzle Repair Technique , Inservice Inspection Program, Fourth Ten-Year Interval, Non-Proprietary Version of Calculation Ladies and Gentlemen:
Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy), requested NRC approval of relief request I4R-18 for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP) inservice inspection program in a letter dated April 18, 2018 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos. ML18108A094 and ML18108A095). The April 18, 201 8, letter contained the relief request and the proprietary version of the AREVA Inc. calculation to support this request. The purpose of this letter is to provide the non
-proprietary version of the calculation provided in the April 18, 201 8, letter. This letter does not contain a ny regulatory commitments. Please refer any questions regarding this submittal to Jeffrey Robertson, HNP Regulatory Affairs Manager, at (919) 362
-3137.
Sincerely, Tanya M. Hamilton 
 
==Enclosure:==
Calculation 32-9215680-003, Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As
-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non-Proprietary
)  cc: J. Zeiler , NRC Senior Resident Inspector, HNP M. Barillas, NRC Project Manager, HNP NRC Regional Administrator, Region II
 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Relief Request I4R-18 HNP-18-047 Enclosure
 
HNP-18-047  Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Docket No. 50
-400/Renewed License No. NPF
-63  Relief Request I4R-18, Reactor Vessel Closure Head Nozzle Repair Technique,  Inservice Inspection Program , Fourth Ten-Year Interval Enclosure Calculation 32-9215680-003 Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As
-Left J-groove Weld Analysis  (Non-Proprietary)
 
Page 1 of 119 0402-01-F01 (Rev. 021, 03/12/2018)
PROPRIETARY CALCULATION
 
==SUMMARY==
SHEET (CSS) Document No. 32 - 9215680 - 003  Safety Related:  Yes    No Title Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
PURPOSE AND
 
==SUMMARY==
OF RESULTS: Framatome Proprietary information in the document are indicated by pairs of brackets " [  ] ". The proprietary version of this document is Framatome document 32- 9176350-006. Purpose The purpose of the present fracture mechanics analysis is to determine the suitability of leaving degraded J-groove weld and butter material in the Shearon Harris Unit 1 reactor vessel head following the repair of either a Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) nozzle or Core Exit Thermocouple (CET) nozzle by the ID temper bead (IDTB) weld procedure. It is postulated that a small flaw in the head would combine with a large stress corrosion crack in the weld and butter to form a radial corner flaw that would propagate into the low alloy steel head by fatigue crack growth under cyclic loading conditions. For the purpose of Rev 001 and 002, see Rev 002.
The purpose of Rev 003 is to:
* revise Sub-Section C.7 and in Appendix C to address reinforcement at penetrations 30, 40 and 51, and to add Sub-Section C.8 to address the flaw grinding at Nozzle 23;
* reconcile the applicable difference between ASME Section XI, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003 and the 2007 Edition with Addenda through 2008 (added Appendix D);
* add a brief evaluation for nozzle repair at penetration 33 using assumed j-groove weld sizes and head thickness. Summary of Results Based on a combination of linear elastic and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics analysis of a postulated remaining flaw in the original Alloy 182 J-groove weld and butter material, a Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM or CET nozzle is considered to be acceptable for 30 years of operation following an IDTB weld repair based on EPFM analysis consideration only. The controlling loading condition is a large loss of c oolant accident, for which it was shown that with safety factors of 1.5 on primary loads and 1.0 on secondary loads that the applied J-integral (2.359 kips/in) was still less than the J-integral of the low alloy steel head material (2.474 kips/in) at a crack extension of 0.1 inch. For the results of Rev 001 and 002, see Rev 002. The results from Rev 003 are:
* Nozzle repairs at penetrations 30, 40 and 51 are acceptable for additional 15 years beyond the repair (Fall 2016 outage). Therefore, the limiting RVCH life determined in Rev 002, considering all the Nozzle penetration repairs made to-date at the Shearon Harris pla nt, is an additional 10.5 years from the current Fall 2016 outage. Additionally, grinding of a PT indication in the IDTB weld at Nozzle 2 3 does not invalidate the reinforcement requirement of Appendix C.
* Requirements of ASME Section XI, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003 are equivalent to or more conservative than ASME Secti on XI, 2007 Edition with Addenda through 2008; Therefore, the existing analysis performed in accordance with ASME Section XI, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003 remains applicable. The results and conclusions are unchanged.
* Prior conclusion for the twelve repaired nozzles remains valid. Nozzle repair at penetration 33 is acceptable for an additiona l 5 years beyond the repair (Spring 2018 outage) based on the assumptions listed in Sub-Sections 3.1 and 3.2, and the analysis presented in Section C.9 of Appendix C. The limiting service life of all nozzle repairs is 5 years from the Spring 2018 outage. The complete document is 119 pages: 1-3, 3a, 4-114, 114a, 114b, 115-116 FRAMATOME INC. PROPRIETARY This document and any information contained herein is the property of Framatome Inc. (Framatome) and is to be considered proprietary and may not be reproduced or copied in whole or in part. This document shall not be furnished to others without the express written consent of Framatome and is not to be used in any way which is or may be detrimental to Framatome. This document and any copies that may have been made must be returned to Framatome upon request. If the computer software used herein is not the latest version per the EASI list, AP 0402-01 requires that justification be provided.THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS ASSUMPTIONS THAT SHALL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO USE THE FOLLOWING COMPUTER CODES HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS DOCUMENT:
CODE/VERSION/REV CODE/VERSION/REV Yes  No  ANSYS 12.1 (Rev 000)             
 
Document No. 32-9215680-0030402-01-F01 (Rev. 021, 03/12/2018)
PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 3 Record of Revision Revision No. Pages/Sections/Paragraphs Changed Brief Description / Change Authorization 000 All Original release. The corresponding proprietary version is in AREVA document 32- 9176350-001. 001 All Updated with the latest form (0402-01-F01 Rev. 018).
CSS page Added purpose and summary of Rev 001.
Section 6.5 Text deleted and replaced with statement referencing Appendix C for Limit Load Analysis.
Section 7.0 Added statements to address the service life of the RVCH considering all the CRDM repaired configurations to-date as of April 2015.
Appendix C Added the updated Limit Load Analysis to address each of the repaired CRDM configurations to-date as of April 2015. 002 All Updated with the latest form (0402-01-F01 Rev. 019).
CSS page Added purpose and summary of Rev 002.
Throughout Changed terminology from "limit load analysis" to "primary stress limit analysis" since limit load analysis is only one of the possible methods for satisfying primary stress limits.
Pages 2-3 Updated for Rev 002.
Section 3.1 Revised to include two unverified assumptions.
Section 3.2 Added clarification to second paragraph.
Added a justified assumption (last paragraph).
Section 6.5 Updated service life discussion based on Appendix C revision.
Section 7.1 Deleted discussion of service life due to primary stress limit, which was redundant with discussion in Section
 
===7.2 Section===
7.2 Updated service life discussion based on Appendix C revision.
Section 8.0 Updated Reference 1 to latest revision.
Section C.2 Revised second paragraph and inserted a table.
Sections C.4, C.6 Corrected table titles for Tables C9 and C10.
Section C.7 Added to address the three nozzle repairs (#30, #40 and #51). Section C.8 Updated from C.7; added References C14 to C16; updated revision for References C2 and C12.
Document No. 32-9215680-0030402-01-F01 (Rev. 021, 03/12/2018)
PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Record of Revision (continued)
Page 3a Revision No. Pages/Sections/Paragraphs Changed Brief Description / Change Authorization 003 Page 1 Updated template, corrected typos, removed purpose of and results from older revisions to conserve space. Changed AREVA to Framatome. Added purpose and results for Rev 003. Added list of pages.
Page 2 Updated for Rev 003 3a Inserted page.
4-5 Table of contents updated to reflect new Appendix D. Added note regarding location of additional references.
Section 3.1 Updated unverified assumptions.
Section 3.2 Deleted last sentence in the last paragraph.
Section 6.5 Revised to remove outage specific conclusions.
Section 7.2 Updated service life based on Appendix C revision.
Section 8.0 Updated Reference 1 to latest revision. Updated revision levels of References [2] and [3]. Added Reference [14].
Section C.2 Replaced Reference C11 with Reference C5. Revised to include Nozzle #33; added Reference C18.
Section C.7 Revised to evaluate three repairs for 15 years operation. Replaced "Rev. 002" with "32-9176350-002
" for clarity. Replaced "Rev. 003" with "32-9176350-003
" for clarity.
Section C.8 Added to address the impact of flaw grinding at Nozzle 23.
Section C.9 Added to address the nozzle repairs (#33).
Section C.10 Section number updated from C.8; added References C17 and C18. Updated the revision levels of References C2, C3, C5 and C6; removed Reference C11.
Updated note of PM approval of customer references to reflect latest calc procedure.
Appendix D Added.
Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 4 Table of Contents Page  SIGNATURE BLOCK ...............................................................................................................
................. 2 RECORD OF REVISION ............................................................................................................
.............. 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................
..................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................
.................... 7
 
==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
..................................................................................................................
......... 8
 
===2.0 ANALYTICAL===
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 10
 
===2.1 Stress===
Intensity Factor Solution ..............................................................................................
........ 12
 
====2.1.1 Finite====
Element Crack Models ............................................................................................ 12
 
====2.1.2 Stress====
Mapping ................................................................................................................. 12 2.1.3 Crack Growth Considerations ........................................................................................... 15
 
====2.1.4 Plastic====
Zone Correction .................................................................................................... 15
 
===2.2 Linear===
Elastic Fracture Mechanics .............................................................................................
..... 16 2.3 Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics ............................................................................................
..... 17 2.3.1 Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................. 17 2.3.2 Primary Stress Limit Analysis ........................................................................................... 17 2.3.3 Flaw Stability and Crac k Driving Force ............................................................................. 18
 
===3.0 ASSUMPTIONS===
...................................................................................................................
....... 20
 
===3.1 Unverified===
Assumptions.........................................................................................................
.......... 20
 
===3.2 Justified===
Assumptions
...................................................................................................................... 20
 
===3.3 Modeling===
Simplifications ......................................................................................................
............ 20
 
===4.0 DESIGN===
INPUTS .................................................................................................................
....... 21
 
===4.1 Materials===
.....................................................................................................................
..................... 21
 
====4.1.1 Mechanical====
and Thermal Properties ................................................................................. 21
 
====4.1.2 Toughness====
Prope rties ....................................................................................................... 23
 
====4.1.3 Fracture====
Toughness .......................................................................................................... 2 3 4.1.4 J-integral Resistance Curve
.............................................................................................. 23
 
====4.1.5 Fatigue====
Crack Growth Rate .............................................................................................. 25
 
===4.2 Basic===
Geometry ................................................................................................................
............... 26
 
===4.3 Operating===
Transients ..........................................................................................................
............. 26
 
===4.4 Applied===
Stresses ..............................................................................................................
............... 28
 
====4.4.1 Residual====
Stresses .............................................................................................................
28 4.4.2 Operating Stresses ...........................................................................................................
28 5.0 COMPUTER USAGE ................................................................................................................
.. 29 5.1 Hardware/Software
.......................................................................................................................... 29
 
Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Table of Contents (continued)
Page    Page 5 5.2 Installation/Validation Test ..................................................................................................
............ 29
 
===5.3 Computer===
Files ................................................................................................................
................ 31
 
===6.0 CALCULATIONS===
..................................................................................................................
....... 35
 
===6.1 Initial===
Flaw Size .............................................................................................................
.................. 35
 
===6.2 Fatigue===
Crack Growth ..........................................................................................................
........... 35 6.3 LEFM Flaw Evaluations
................................................................................................................... 39
 
====6.3.1 Normal====
and Upset Conditions ........................................................................................... 39
 
====6.3.2 Faulted====
Cond itions ............................................................................................................
40 6.4 EPFM Flaw Ev aluations .........................................................................................................
......... 41
 
====6.4.1 Operating====
Conditions ........................................................................................................ 4 1 6.4.2 Low Temperature Conditions
............................................................................................ 43
 
====6.4.3 Faulted====
Cond itions ............................................................................................................
45 6.5 Primary Stress Limit Analysis .................................................................................................
......... 47 7.0
 
==SUMMARY==
OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
....................................................................... 48
 
===7.1 Summary===
of Results ............................................................................................................
............ 48
 
===7.2 Conclusion===
....................................................................................................................
................... 49
 
==8.0 REFERENCES==
(SEE NOTE) ...................................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX A :
DETAILED FLAW EVALUATIONS FOR UPHILL SIDE ............................................... 51 APPENDIX B :
DETAILED FLAW EVALUATIONS FOR DOWNHILL SIDE ......................................... 69 APPENDIX C :
CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE YEARS OF SERVICE BASED ON AVAILABLE REINFORCEMENT AREA DUE TO CRACK GROWTH .......................... 89 APPENDIX D :
ASME SECTION XI CODE YEAR RECONCILIATION .............................................. 116 Note: Additional references can be found on page 115 Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 6 List of Tables Page Table 1-1:  Safety Factors for Flaw Acceptance ................................................................................
....... 9 Table 4-1:  Material Properties for Head ......................................................................................
........... 21 Table 4-2:  Material Properties for Weld Metal ................................................................................
....... 22 Table 4-3:  Material Properties for Cladding ..................................................................................
......... 22 Table 4-4:  Bounding Transients for Normal and Upset Conditions
........................................................ 27 Table 4-5:  Emergency and Faulted Condition Transients
...................................................................... 27 Table 5-1:  Test Case Results .................................................................................................
............... 30 Table 6-1:  LEFM Fracture Toughness Margins for Uphill Side .............................................................. 37 Table 6-2:  LEFM Fracture Toughness Margins for Downhill Side ......................................................... 38
 
Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 7 List of Figures Page Figure 1-1:  ID Temper Bead Weld Repair .......................................................................................
........ 8 Figure 2-1:  Postulated Radial Flaw on Uphill Side
................................................................................. 11 Figure 2-2:  Postulated Radial Flaw on Downhill Side ..........................................................................
.. 11 Figure 2-3:  Finite Element Crack Model - Uphill Side .........................................................................
.. 13 Figure 2-4:  Finite Element Crack Model - Downhill Side
....................................................................... 14 Figure 4-1:  Correlation of Coefficient, C, of Power Law with Charpy V-Notch Upper Shelf Energy ........................................................................................................................
........... 24 Figure 4-2:  Correlation of Exponent, m, of Power Law with Coefficient, C, and Flow Stress, o ........... 24
 
Page 8 Due to the susceptibility of Alloy 600 partial penetration nozzles to primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC), the Progress Energy plans to inspect the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) and Core Exit Thermocouple (CET) nozzles in the Shearon Harris Unit 1 reactor vessel head. In the event that a repair is necessary, an ID temper bead weld repair procedure has been developed wherein the lower portion of the nozzle is removed by a boring procedure and the remaining portion is welded to the low alloy steel reactor vessel head above the original Alloy 82/182 J-groove attachment weld. The repair concept is illustrated in Figure 1-1, bot h with and without an overlap between the original J-groove weld and the new IDTB weld. The IDTB repair is more fully described by the design drawing [1] and the technical requirements document [2]. Since a potential flaw in the J-groove weld cannot be sized by currently available non-destructive examination techniques, it is assumed that the "as-left" condition of the remaining J-groove weld includes degraded or cracked weld material extending through the entire J-groove weld and Alloy 82/182 butter material.    (a) With Weld Overlap (b) With Overlap Removed Page 9 Since it is known from the residual stress analysis of the Shearon Harris reactor vessel head outermost nozzle penetration [3] that the hoop stress in the J-groove weld is greater than the axial stress at the same location, the preferential direction for cracking would be axial, or radial relative to the nozzle. It is postulated that a radial crack in the Alloy 82/182 weld metal would propagate by PWSCC, through the weld and butter, to the interface with the low alloy steel head material, where it is fully expected that such a crack would then blunt, or arrest, as discussed in Reference [4]. Since the vertical distance along the bored surface between the inside corner of the remnant J-groove weld and the point where the butter meets the head is more than two inches, a crack extending from the corner of the weld to the low alloy steel head would be very deep. Although primary water stress corrosion cracking would not extend into the head, it is further postulated that a small fatigue initiated flaw forms in the low alloy steel head and combines with the stress corrosion crack in the weld to form a large radial corner flaw that would propagate into the head by fatigue crack growth under cyclic loading conditions. Linear-elastic (LEFM) and elastic-plastic (EPFM) fracture mechanics procedures are utilized to evaluate this worst case flaw in the original J-groove weld and butter. Key features of the fracture mechanics analysis are:  This analysis applies specifically to the CRDM nozzle penetrations in the Shearon Harris Unit 1 reactor vessel closure head. A J-integral resistance curve is developed based on the Charpy V-notch upper-shelf energy for the Shearon Harris Unit 1 head plate material. Flaw growth is calculated for a 30 year period of operation, corresponding to 20 18-month fuel cycles. Final flaw acceptance is based on the available fracture toughness and ductile tearing resistance of the RVCH material considering the safety factors listed in Table 1-1. Since the same design is used at Shearon Harris Unit 1 for both the CRDM and CET nozzles and the CET nozzles are located within the same outermost penetration "circle" as the CRDM nozzles, the analysis performed herein for the CRDM nozzles is also applicable to the CET nozzles. Linear-Elastic Fracture Mechanics Operating Condition Evaluation Method Fracture Toughness / K I Normal/Upset K Ia fracture toughness 10 = 3.16 Emergency/Faulted K Ic fracture toughness 2 = 1.41 Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Operating Condition Evaluation Method Primary Secondary Normal/Upset J/T based flaw stability 3.0 1.5 Normal/Upset J
 
===0.1 limited===
flaw extension 1.5 1.0 Emergency/Faulted J/T based flaw stability 1.5 1.0 Emergency/Faulted J
 
===0.1 limited===
flaw extension 1.5 1.0 Page 10 A radial flaw at the inside corner of non-radial head penetration is evaluated based on a combination of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM), as outlined
 
below. 1. Postulate radial flaws in the J-groove weld, extending from the inside corner of the penetration to the interface between the butter and head, as shown in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 for the uphill and downhill sides of the penetration, respectively. Initial flaw size, a o, is arbitrarily characterized by the vertical distance along the uphill side penetration bore, from the inside surface of the cladding to the weld-to-butter/head interface, as shown Figure 2-1. For the "constant depth" J-groove design used for the Shearon Harris head, this same flaw depth is also used for the downhill side flaw evaluations. 2. Develop finite element models of the reactor vessel head in the vicinity of the outermost nozzle penetration, with crack tip elements along the interface between the Alloy 82/182 butter and the low alloy steel base metal. These models will be used to obtain stress intensity factors at various positions along the crack front for linearly superimposed residual and operating stresses. 3. Develop a mapping procedure to transfer stresses from an uncracked finite element stress model to the crack face of each crack model. This will enable stress intensity factors to be calculated for arbitrary stress distributions over the crack face utilizing the principle of superposition. 4. Calculate fatigue crack growth, in one year increments, for cyclic loading conditions using operational stresses from pressure and thermal loads. Since the stresses used in the fatigue crack growth analysis are the combined residual plus operating stresses, the effect of the residual stresses on fatigue crack growth is captured by the R ratio, or K min/Kmax. Starting from the stress intensity factor calculated by the finite element crack model for the initial flaw size, stress intensity factors are updated for each increment of crack growth by the square root of the flaw size. 5. Utilize the screening criteria of ASME Code Section XI, Appendix C to determine the failure mode and appropriate method of analysis (LEFM, EPFM, or limit load) for flaws in ferritic materials, considering the applied stress, temperature, and material toughness. For LEFM flaw evaluations, compare the stress intensity factor at the final flaw size to the available fracture toughness, with appropriate safety factors, as discussed in Section 2.2. When the material is more ductile and EPFM is the appropriate analysis method, evaluate flaw stability and crack driving force as described in Section 2.3. A primary stress limit analysis would be performed to satisfy the primary stress limits of the ASME Code, as described in Section 2.3.2.
Page 11 Page 12 Stress intensity factors for corner flaws at a non-radial nozzle penetration are best determined by finite element analysis using three-dimensional models with crack tip elements along the crack front. Although loads can be applied to finite element crack models like any other structural model, the crack models were developed to serve as a flaw evaluation tool that could accept stresses from separate stress analyses. This strategy makes it possible, for example, to obtain pressure and thermal stresses from an independent thermal/structural analysis and then transfer these stresses to a crack model for flaw evaluations. Using the principle of superposition common to fracture mechanics analysis, the only stresses that need be considered for these flaw evaluations are the stresses on the crack face. A mapping procedure is developed to transfer stresses from a separate stress analysis to the crack face of the crack model. Three-dimensional finite element models are developed for the reactor vessel head in the vicinity of the outermost nozzle penetration, by modeling a portion of the head, cladding, and butter with the ANSYS finite element computer program [5]. Since stresses increase with penetration angle, it is conservative to base the finite element models on the outermost nozzle penetration. A three-dimensional finite element model is first constructed to represent an unflawed non-radial nozzle penetration in the reactor vessel head using the ANSYS SOLID186 20-node structural element. Elements along the crack front are then replaced by a sub-model of crack tip elements along the interface between the Alloy 82/182 butter and the low alloy steel base metal. These elements consist of 20-node isoparametric elements that are collapsed to form a wedge with the appropriate mid-side nodes shifted to quarter-point locations to simulate the singularity at the crack tip. The final crack models are shown in Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 for the uphill and downhill sides of the nozzle, respectively. Stress intensity factors will be obtained using the ANSYS CINT contour integral procedure at 17 positions along each crack front, as indicated in Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 for the two crack models.
Position 1 is located on the cladding surface, Position 3 at the cladding/base metal interface, Position 11 at the "kink" in the crack profile, and Position 17 is at the bored surface in the head. Stresses from the finite element stress model are mapped onto the crack faces of the uphill and downhill finite element crack models (Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4). An ANSYS scripting language instruction (macro) has been developed to query the residual and operating stress models for nodal locations associated with each crack face node of the crack model. The nodal stress from the stress model is then transferred to the corresponding node on the crack model.
 
Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 The fundamental expression for the crack tip stress intensity factor is I K = a Since each crack model is developed for a single flaw size, stress intensity factors are updated at each increment of crack growth by the square root of the flaw size; i.e.,  )a(K1iI = i1iiI a a)a(K, where a = flaw size i = increment of crack growth. Since the stress intensity factor is directly proportional to the magnitude of the stress and both residual and operating stresses decrease in the direction of crack growth, this procedure produces conservative estimates of stress intensity factor as the crack extends into the head and stresses diminish over the expanding crack face. The Irwin plasticity correction is used to account for a moderate amount of yielding at the crack tip. For plane strain conditions, this correction is 2 y I y)a(K 6 1 r, [ Ref. 6, Eqn. (2.63) ]
where )a(K I = stress intensity factor based on the actual crack size, a y = material yield strength. A stress intensity factor, )a(KeI, is then calculated for an effective crack size, y eraa, based on the same scaling technique utilized for crack growth; i.e, a aaKaK eIeI.
Page 16 Section XI, Article IWB-3612 [11] requires that the applied stress intensity factor, K I , at the final flaw size be less than the available fracture toughness at the crack tip temperature, with appropriate safety factors, as outlined below. Normal Conditions: 10/KKIaI where K Ia is the fracture toughness based on crack arrest.
Faulted Conditions: 2/KKIcI where K Ic is the fracture toughness based on crack initiation. Section XI, Article IWB-3613 [11] provides alternate fracture toughness requirements for shell regions near structural discontinuities, such as nozzle penetrations, when the pressure does not exceed 20% of the design pressure and the temperature is not less than RT NDT + 60 F. Within these operational limits a lower safety factor may be used to evaluate fracture toughness margin. For the Shearon Harris Unit 1 reactor vessel head, the design pressure is  psig [13] and the fracture toughness reference temperature is  [9]. Thus for pressures at or below  psig and crack tip temperatures at or above  the acceptance criterion for applied stress intensity factor is as follows: At pressures  psig and temperatures    2/KKIaI Page 17 Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) will be used as alterative acceptance criteria when the flaw related failure mechanism is unstable ductile tearing. This type of failure falls between rapid, non-ductile crack extension and plastic collapse. Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) would be used to assess the potential for non-ductile failure, whereas primary stress limit analysis would be used to check for plastic collapse. Screening criteria for determining failure modes in ferritic materials may be found in Appendix C of Section XI. Although Appendix C, Article C-4221 [11] contains specific rules for evaluating flaws in Class 1 ferritic piping, its screening criteria may be adapted to other ferritic components, such as the
 
reactor vessel head, as follows:  Let, K r' = K Iapp / K Ic  S r' = max /  f Then the appropriate method of analysis is determined by the following limits:  LEFM Regime:  K r' / S r'  1.8  EPFM Regime: 1.8 > K r' / S r'  0.2  Limit Load Regime: 0.2 > K r' / S r'  While in most instances the screening criteria identify EPFM as the appropriate method of analysis, there are cases where low stress intensity factors (K r') relative to the applied stress (S r') places the analysis in the limit load regime. Such cases are analyzed through consideration of the primary stress
 
limits of ASME Code Section III as embodied in the equation in Article NB-3324 [7] for the minimum required thickness (t min) of the spherical closure head, m o minS2 PR t, where P = design pressure,  psig [13]
R o = outside radius, [1]  S m = design stress intensity, 26.7 ksi [12] A conservative primary stress limit analysis would be to limit the remaining net-section of the head after "removal" of the final volume of weld material (after fatigue crack growth) to the minimum required
 
design thickness, t min. This is equivalent to removing a uniform depth of material along the inner surface of the vessel to encompass the final flaw and comparing the remaining thickness to min t = 3.74 in.
Page 18 Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics analysis will be performed using a J-integral/tearing modulus (J-T) diagram to evaluate flaw stability under ductile tearing, where J is either the applied (J app) or the material (Jmat) J-integral, and T is the tearing modulus, defined as (E/ f 2)(dJ/da). The crack driving force, as measured by Japp, is also checked against the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch (J 0.1). Consistent with industry practice for the evaluation of flaws in partial penetration welds used to attach nozzles to vessels, different safety factors will be utilized for primary and secondary loads. Flaw stability assessments for normal and upset conditions will consider a safety factor of 3 on the stress intensity factor due to primary (pressure) stresses and a safety factor of 1.5 for secondary (residual plus thermal) stresses. The crack driving force will be calculated using safety factors of 1.5 and 1 for primary and secondary stresses, respectively. For EPFM analysis of faulted conditions, safety factors of 1.5 and 1 will be used for flaw stability assessments and 1.5 and 1 for evaluations of crack driving force. The general methodology for performing an EPFM analyses is outlined below.
Let E' = E/(1- 2)  Final flaw depth = a  Total applied K I = K Iapp  K I due to pressure (primary) = K Ip  K I due to residual plus thermal (secondary) = K Is = KIapp - K Ip  Safety factor on primary loads = SF p  Safety factor on secondary loads = SF s For small scale yielding at the crack tip, a plastic zone correction is used to calculate an effective flaw depth based on a e = a + [1/(6)] [ (K Ip + K Is) /  y ]2 , which is used to update the stress intensity factors based on Ip'K = a a K e Ip  and Is'K = a a K e Is. The applied J-integral is then calculated using the relationship J app = (SF p*K'Ip + SF s*K'Is)2/E'.
Page 19 The final parameter needed to construct the J-T diagram is the tearing modulus. The applied tearing modulus, T app, is calculated by numerical differentiation for small increments of crack size (da) about the final crack size (a), according to )da(2)daa(J)daa(J E T app app 2 f app. Using the power law expression for the J-R curve, J R = C(a)m , the material tearing modulus, T mat, can be expressed as T mat = (E/ f 2)Cm(a)m-1. Constructing the J-T diagram,  flaw stability is demonstrated at an applied J-integral when the applied tearing modulus is less than the material tearing modulus. Alternately, the applied J-integral is less than the J-integral at the point of
 
instability. To complete the EPFM analysis, it must be shown that the applied J-integral is less than J 0.1 , demonstrating that the crack driving force falls belo w the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch. Unstable Region Tapp  Tmat Stable Region Tapp < Tmat Material Applied Instability Point Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 20 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS This section discusses assumptions and modeling simplifications applicable to the present analysis. 3.1 Unverified Assumptions Revision 003 contains the following two assumptions used in Appendix C for Nozzle 33 that must be verified before structural integrity of the ASME Code Class 1 Reactor Vessel is assured. 1) The RV head wall thickness at the penetration (33) is assumed to be no less than
[  ] inches. 2) The J-groove weld size (in terms of cross-sectional area) of penetration 30 ( [  ]  before crack growth) is assumed for penetration 33. 3.2 Justified Assumptions The austenitic cladding is assumed to be adequately represented by 18Cr-8Ni (Type 304) stainless steel material. In the body of the document, the size of the J-groove weld prep and the thickness of the buttering are based on nominal dimensions. This is considered to be standard practice in stress analysis and fracture mechanics analysis. It is conservatively assumed that the postulated flaw extends through the entire J-groove weld and butter. In Appendix C, the crack growth areas at the three penetrations 30, 40 and 51 are estimated by the crack growth areas at Nozzles 14 and 37 (Figures C8 to C10). A review of Figures C8 to C10 indicates that nozzles closer to the center of the head experience higher losses of area due to crack growth. Therefore the crack growth area of Nozzle 14 for 15 years operation is taken as the bounding case for the three nozzles. 3.3 Modeling Simplifications The finite element computer models used to generate residual stresses do not include the ID temper bead repair weld. This is deemed to be an appropriate modeling simplification since compressive stresses induced in the material adjacent to the repair weld would lower stresses on the uphill side of
 
the J-groove weld (in close proximity to the repair weld) and have negligible effect on the downhill side of the J-groove weld (far removed from the repair weld).
 
Page 21 This section provides basic input data needed to perform a fatigue crack growth analysis and a flaw evaluation of the final flaw size. Table 4-1, Table 4-2, and Table 4-3 list the temper ature dependent values of modulus of elasticity (E), Poisson's ratio (), and coefficient of thermal expansion () properties used in the finite element crack models. These properties are obtained from the ASME Code, Section II [8], except for Poisson's ratio, where 0.3 is a typical value used in structural analysis. The flow stress in Table 4-1 is the average of the yield and ultimate strengths. Component Material  Head SA-533, Grade B Class 1 [Ref. 2, Par. 6.1.1]  Cladding use Type 304 stainless steel (SA-240)  J-groove weld filler Equivalent to Alloy 600, SB-167 [Ref. 2, Par. 6.1.5]  J-groove weld butter use Alloy 600, SB-167  Component Head Material SA-533 Grade B Class 1 (Mn-1/2Mo-1/2 Ni) Temperature E (10 6 psi)  (10-6 in./in./o F) y (ksi)  u (ksi)  f (ksi) 70 29.20 0.3 7.0 50.0 80.0 65.0 100 29.04 0.3 7.1 50.0 80.0 65.0 150 28.77 0.3 7.2 48.1 80.0 64.1 200 28.50 0.3 7.3 47.0 80.0 63.5 250 28.25 0.3 7.3 46.2 80.0 63.1 300 28.00 0.3 7.4 45.5 80.0 62.8 350 27.70 0.3 7.5 44.9 80.0 62.4 400 27.40 0.3 7.6 44.2 80.0 62.1 450 27.20 0.3 7.6 43.7 80.0 61.9 500 27.00 0.3 7.7 43.2 80.0 61.6 550 26.70 0.3 7.8 42.7 80.0 61.3 600 26.40 0.3 7.8 42.1 80.0 61.1 650 25.85 0.3 7.9 41.5 80.0 60.8 700 25.30 0.3 7.9 40.7 80.0 60.4 Page 22 Component Weld Butter and Weld Filler Material Use Alloy 600, SB-167 (72Ni-15Cr-8Fe) - UNS N06600 Temperature E (10 6 psi)  (10-6 in./in./o F) 70 31.00 0.3 6.8 100 30.82 0.3 6.9 150 30.51 0.3 7.0 200 30.20 0.3 7.1 250 30.00 0.3 7.2 300 29.80 0.3 7.3 350 29.65 0.3 7.4 400 29.50 0.3 7.5 450 29.25 0.3 7.6 500 29.00 0.3 7.6 550 28.85 0.3 7.7 600 28.70 0.3 7.8 650 28.45 0.3 7.8 700 28.20 0.3 7.9 Component Cladding Material Use Type 304 Stainless Steel (18Cr-8Ni) Temperature E (10 6 psi)  (10-6 in./in./o F) 70 28.30 0.3 8.5 100 28.14 0.3 8.6 150 27.87 0.3 8.8 200 27.60 0.3 8.9 250 27.30 0.3 9.1 300 27.00 0.3 9.2 350 26.75 0.3 9.3 400 26.50 0.3 9.5 450 26.15 0.3 9.6 500 25.80 0.3 9.7 550 25.55 0.3 9.8 600 25.30 0.3 9.8 650 25.05 0.3 9.9 700 24.80 0.3 10.0 Page 23 The reference temperature for nil-ductility transition for the SA-533 Grade B Class 1 plate material in the dome portion of the Shearon Harris reactor vessel closure head is reported as RT NDT =  [9] and the Charpy upper-shelf energy is  [9] in the transverse (weak) direction. Based on the welding procedure qualification record [10] for the ID temperature bead weld, a temperature of +5  F should be added to the RT NDT of the base material to account for embrittlement in the heat affected zone, so that the effective RT NDT is  for flaw evaluations in the head. From Article A-4200 of Section XI [11], the lower bound K Ia fracture toughness for crack arrest can be expressed as K Ia = 26.8 + 12.445 exp [ 0.0145 (T - RT NDT) ], where T is the crack tip temperature, RT NDT is the reference nil-ductility temperature of the material, K Ia is in units of ksiin, and T and RT NDT are in units of F. In the present flaw evaluations, K Ia is limited to a maximum value of 200 ksiin (upper-shelf fracture toughness). Using the above equation with an RT NDT of  K Ia equals 200 ksiin at a crack tip temperature of  . A higher measure of fracture toughness is provided by the K Ic fracture toughness for crack initiation, approximated in Article A-4200 of Section XI [11] by
 
K Ic = 33.2 + 20.734 exp [ 0.02 (T - RT NDT) ]. The J-integral resistance (J-R) curve, needed for the EPFM method of analysis, is obtained from the following power law expression for nuclear reactor pressure vessel steels, J R = C(a)m , where the coefficient, C, and exponent, m, depend on the Charpy V-notch upper-shelf energy, CVN, and the flow stress,  o or  f, as shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2. Using the above referenced Charpy V-notch upper-shelf energy correlation for the J-integral resistance curve with a Charpy V-notch upper-shelf energy of  the coefficients of the power law equation over a wide range of temperatures are:
C =  m =
Page 24 Page 25 Flaw growth due to cyclic loading is calculated using the fatigue crack growth rate model from Article A-4300 of Section XI [11],  , )K(C = dN da nIo where K I is the stress intensity factor range in ksiin and da/dN is in inches/cycle. The crack growth rates for a surface flaw will be used for the evaluation of the corner crack since it is assumed that the degraded condition of the J-groove weld and butter exposes the low alloy steel head material to the primary water environment. The following equations from Section XI [11] are used to model fatigue crack growth.
 
KI = KImax - KI min  R = KI min / KImax 0  R  0.25:  K I < 17.74,  n = 5.95
 
C o = 1.02  10-12  S  S = 1.0    K I  17.74,  n = 1.95 C o = 1.01  10-7  S  S = 1.0 0.25  R  0.65: K I < 17.74 [ (3.75R + 0.06) / (26.9R - 5.725) ]
0.25 ,  n = 5.95  C o = 1.02  10-12  S  S = 26.9R - 5.725 K I  17.74 [ (3.75R + 0.06) / (26.9R - 5.725) ]
0.25 ,  n = 1.95  C o = 1.01  10-7  S  S = 3.75R + 0.06 0.65  R < 1.0: K I < 12.04,  n = 5.95 C o = 1.02  10-12  S  S = 11.76 K I  12.04,  n = 1.95 C o = 1.01  10-7  S  S = 2.5 Page 26 The reactor vessel head and CRDM nozzle penetration are described by the following key dimensions:  Spherical radius to base metal = in. [9]  Head thickness = in. [9]  Cladding thickness = in. [9]  Butter thickness = in. [9]  Penetration bore = in. [9]  Horizontal radius to outermost penetration = in. [9]  Penetration angle at outermost nozzle = deg. (derived*)  * (sin-1(horizontal radius/spherical radius)) Based on bounding transients developed for the companion ASME Code Section III fatigue stress analysis [12], fatigue crack growth will be calculated for the normal and upset condition transients listed in Table 4-4. Since crack growth will be calculated in one-year increments, the number of cycles is obtained by dividing the forty-year design life cycles by 40. While not physically meaningful, a fractional yearly cycle count is computationally acceptable since it is merely used to determine an increment of crack growth from a calculated value of da/dN. Table 4-5 lists the emergency and faulted condition transients applicable to Shearon Harris reactor vessel components [13]. From a review of the pressure and temperature time-history definitions for these transients, it is clear that the large LOCA and large steam line break transients would bound the remaining transients for emergency and faulted condition flaw evaluations.
 
Page 27
* Bounding transients to be considered in emer gency and faulted condition flaw evaluations Page 28 Two sources of applied stress are considered for the present flaw evaluations, residual stresses from welding and stresses that occur during plant operation. Residual stresses are obtained from a three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite element stress analysis [3] that simulates fabrication of the outermost nozzle to head partial penetration weld and the effect of subsequent hydrostatic tests and operating cycles on stresses in the welded joint. It is widely accepted that stresses at the outermost CRDM nozzle location conservatively bound stresses at all other nozzle locations exhibiting a smaller penetration angle (the angle between the nozzle and inside surface of the head on the downhill side of the penetration). Stresses are transferred from the finite element residual stress model in the form of nodal arrays contained in ANSYS parameter save files. Operating stresses are obtained from the three-dimensional finite element stress analysis [12] used to qualify the nozzle repair to ASME Code Section III requirements. Hoop stresses from the Section III analysis are conservatively superimposed on the residual stresses to represent the crack face opening stresses during operation. Stresses are transferred from the finite element operating stress model in the form of nodal arrays contained in ANSYS parameter save files. Pressure is added to the operating stresses to account for the additional loading on the crack face due to pressure.
Page 29 This section describes computer resources, software testing, and stored computer files.
Page 30  Verification Problem VM256 Fracture Mechanics Analysis of a Crack in a Plate File: vm256.vrt
---------------------------------------- VM256 RESULTS COMPARISON ----------------------------------------
l  TARGET  l  ANSYS  l  RATIO
  ***************************************************************************** USING PLANE 183 ELEMENT (2-D ANALYSIS) *****************************************************************************                                              KI            1.0249      1.0038      0.979
 
***************************************************************************** USING SOLID 185 ELEMENT (3-D ANALYSIS) *****************************************************************************                                              KI            1.0249      1.0383      1.013
***************************************************************************** USING SOLID 186 ELEMENT - SURFACE CRACK (3-D ANALYSIS) *****************************************************************************                                              KI            1.4000      1.4132      1.009
 
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Page 31 The computer files listed below are stored in the AREVA ColdStor repository in the directory "\cold\41304\32-9176350-000\official". File Name Description ColdStor Storage Date ColdStor Storage Time Checksum    04-15-12 09:01:06 22856    04-15-12 09:00:56 18509 File Name Description ColdStor Storage Date ColdStor Storage Time Checksum  04-15-12 09:01:22 15845  04-15-12 09:01:21 11056 File Name Description ColdStor Storage Date ColdStor Storage Time Checksum    04-15-12 09:01:42 32454    04-15-12 09:01:41 08793 Page 32 File Name Loading Condition ColdStor Storage Date ColdStor Storage Time Checksum  04-15-12 09:04:35 22371 04-15-12 09:04:07 16344 04-15-12 09:04:03 19578    04-15-12 09:04:10 45340    04-15-12 09:04:10 36382 04-15-12 09:04:09 50736 04-15-12 09:04:08 46959 04-15-12 09:04:09 35163  04-15-12 09:04:07 46631 04-15-12 09:04:04 15882 04-15-12 09:04:05 54622    04-15-12 09:04:08 25345 04-15-12 09:04:04 17221 04-15-12 09:04:03 01071    04-15-12 09:04:06 55706  04-15-12 09:04:05 62230  04-15-12 09:04:06 06099 Page 33 File Name Loading Condition ColdStor Storage Date ColdStor Storage Time Checksum  04-15-12 09:04:34 59428 04-15-12 09:03:13 59492 04-15-12 09:03:10 49475    04-15-12 09:03:16 50217    04-15-12 09:03:17 37165 04-15-12 09:03:16 34304 04-15-12 09:03:15 19734 04-15-12 09:03:16 29947  04-15-12 09:03:14 23156 04-15-12 09:03:11 35585 04-15-12 09:03:12 60112    04-15-12 09:03:15 42106 04-15-12 09:03:11 65275 04-15-12 09:03:10 04872    04-15-12 09:03:13 36168  04-15-12 09:03:12 09825  04-15-12 09:03:13 31095
 
Page 34 File Name Description ColdStor Storage Date ColdStor Storage Time Checksum    04-15-12 09:06:58 58102 04-15-12 09:06:57 00505 04-15-12 09:06:57 38955 04-15-12 09:06:57 63694 04-15-12 09:06:56 21575 04-15-12 09:06:56 25218 File Name Description ColdStor Storage Date ColdStor Storage Time Checksum  04-15-12 09:07:25 49343
 
Page 35 Propagation of a postulated initial flaw in the J-groove weld and butter is calculated to determine the final flaw size after 30 years of service. Flaw evaluations are then performed to assess the acceptability
 
of the final flaw size. It is both difficult and unnecessary to prescribe initial flaw sizes for the "non-classical" flaw shapes comprising the postulated uphill and downhill flaws in the J-groove weld and butter. Since the explicit
 
finite element crack models described in Section 2.1.1 were developed to realistically capture the basic geometry of the J-shaped flaws, any characteristic dimension of the flaws may be used to track flaw growth during cyclic fatigue. The "constant depth" J-groove design suggests that a common value can be utilized to describe the initial depth of the uphill and downhill flaws. Accordingly, the vertical distance along the uphill side penetration bore, from the inside surface of the cladding to the weld-to-butter/head interface, is used to define the initial flaw size, a o (as shown Figure 2-1). From the uphill crack model, the initial flaw size value is determined to be 2.1482. As discussed in Section 2.1.3, crack tip stress intensity factors are calculated directly from the finite element crack models for the initial flaw size and then updated based on incremental crack growth according to 
)a(K1iI = i1iiI a a)a(K, so that after the first increment of crack growth,
)a(KiI = 0 10I a a)a(K. Although it is believed that a PWSCC flaw would be confined to the J-groove weld and butter, it is postulated that a fatigue flaw would initiate in the low alloy steel head, combine with the PWSCC flaw, and propagate farther into the head under cyclic loads. Fatigue crack growth is calculated from finite element based stress intensity factors using residual and operational stresses from References [3] and [12], respectively. The actual flaw growth calculations are presented in Appendix A for the uphill flaw and Appendix B for the downhill flaw, along with a comparison of the final stress intensity factor for each transient with the fracture toughness requirements of Section XI. Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 summarize the flaw growth analyses for the uphill and downhill sides of the flaw, respectively. These tables serve several purposes; they present the final flaw size at the end the design life, they compare stress intensity factors at the final flaw size with LEFM acceptance criteria, and they serve as a means of screening for the worst case loading conditions and stress intensity factors for subsequent EPFM
 
analysis. Crack growth is calculated in one-year increments for each of the analyzed transients, while uniformly distributing the growth over the service life by linking the yearly crack growth between the crack growth tables in Appendix A for the uphill flaw and the tables in Appendix B for the downhill flaw.
Page 36 Stress intensity factors are provided in the crack growth tables for all locations along the postulated crack fronts, including the cladding. It is apparent from the tables in Appendix A that on the uphill side of the penetration, the highest stress intensity factors in the low alloy steel head occur near the cladding surface (Position 3) for residual stresses and near the penetration bore (Position 16) for operating stresses. It is noted that due to residual tensile strain in the cladding material, cladding stresses and the associated stress intensity factors may be higher than those in the adjacent head material. However, stress intensity factors within the stainless steel cladding portion of the crack front need not be considered in the evaluation of the potential for non-ductile failure of the low alloy steel head. Fatigue crack growth analysis performed for both Position 3 and 16 showed that the operating stresses controlled, producing higher final stress intensity factors at Position 16. Thus Position 16 on the uphill side will be used to calculate fatigue crack growth and evaluate the final stress intensity factors for each transient considering flaw acceptance standards for the low alloy steel head material. The downhill side crack growth tables in Appendix B, use Position 7 to calculate crack growth and evaluate fracture toughness margins since the highest stress intensity factors occur either at or near this crack front position for both the residual and operating stresses.
 
Page 37 Period of Operation:Time =30yearsFlaw Size:a =Loading ConditionsTemperaturePressureFracture Toughness, KIc200.0200.098.0200.0200.0200.063.5200.0200.0200.0200.0200.0200.063.5200.0ksiinFracture Toughness, KIa200.085.555.2200.0200.0200.043.2200.0200.0200.0200.0200.0200.043.2200.0ksiinPosition 16KI(a)73.54650.73631.53178.32579.22594.84364.19982.08572.962109.07773.54096.41389.569233.116190.113ksiin a e3.19713.09553.06023.21633.22193.28833.12663.23813.19443.37083.19723.29883.23694.19233.9097in.KI(a e)75.43451.20431.64080.57681.57398.65365.11784.72974.802114.87475.428100.44892.437273.795215.630ksiinMargin = KIc / KI(a e)n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a0.230.93Margin = KIa / KI(a e)2.651.671.752.482.452.030.662.362.671.742.651.992.16n/an/aRequired Margin3.161.411.413.163.163.161.413.163.163.163.163.163.161.411.41Acceptable by LEFM?NoYesYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNowhere:ae =a + 1/(6) [KI(a)/Sy]
2KI(a e) =KI(a)*(a e/a)
Page 38 Period of Operation:Time =30yearsFlaw Size:a =Loading ConditionsTemperaturePressureFracture Toughness, KIc200.0200.098.0200.0200.0200.063.5200.0200.0200.0200.0200.0200.063.5200.0ksiinFracture Toughness, KIa200.085.555.2200.0200.0200.043.2200.0200.0200.0200.0200.0200.043.2200.0ksiinPosition 7KI(a)56.22022.49917.07658.31458.71665.54055.13059.91355.96972.03956.21666.75665.58577.40963.626ksiin a e2.32012.23882.23392.32592.32792.34672.29232.33372.31912.37242.32012.35152.33382.35492.3255in.KI(a e)57.37322.55517.09959.58560.02167.26755.92361.32257.10574.34157.36968.58467.12779.58765.007ksiinMargin = KIc / KI(a e)n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a0.803.08Margin = KIa / KI(a e)3.493.793.233.363.332.970.773.263.502.693.492.922.98n/an/aRequired Margin3.161.411.413.163.163.161.413.163.163.163.163.163.161.411.41Acceptable by LEFM?YesYesYesYesYesNoNoYesYesNoYesNoNoNoYeswhere:ae =a + 1/(6) [KI(a)/Sy]
2KI(a e) =KI(a)*(a e/a)
Page 39 Results of the linear-elastic fracture mechanics flaw evaluations are summarized below for the final flaw size after 30 years of crack growth. Listed below are the controlling LEFM fracture toughness margins from the fatigue crack growth tables. Uphill Side Downhill Side Flaw Sizes Initial flaw size, a i = 2.148 in. 2.148 in. Final flaw size, a f =  in. in. Flaw growth, a =  in. in. Operating Conditions Reactor Trip Reactor Trip Temperature, T = o F  o F  Fracture toughness, K Ia = 200.0 ksiin 200.0 ksiin  Final stress intensity factor, K I (a f) = 109.1 ksiin 72.04 ksiin  Effective flaw size, a e = 3.371 in. 2.372 in. Effective stress intensity factor, K I (a e) = 114.9 ksiin 74.34 ksiin  Fracture toughness margin (> 3.16), K Ia/K I (a e) = 1.74 2.69  Low Temperature Conditions Refueling Refueling Temperature, T = o F  o F  Fracture toughness, K Ia = 43.2 ksiin 43.2 ksiin  Final stress intensity factor, K I (a f) = 64.20 ksiin 55.13 ksiin  Effective flaw size, a e = 3.127 in. 2.292 in. Effective stress intensity factor, K I (a e) = 65.12 ksiin  55.92 ksiin  Fracture toughness margin (> 1.41), K Ia/K I (a e) = 0.66 0.77 Since the above fracture toughness margins for the controlling normal and upset conditions are less than the Code required minimums, EPFM flaw evaluations will be performed in Section 6.4 to account for the ductile behavior of the low alloy steel under stable crack propagation.
 
Page 40 The bounding faulted condition stress intensity factors are evaluated below for the final flaw size after 30 years of crack growth.
Uphill Side Downhill Side Flaw Sizes Final flaw size, a f =  in. in. Large Loss of Coolant Accident Temperature, T = o F  o F  Fracture toughness, K Ic = 63.5 ksiin 63.5 ksiin  Final stress intensity factor, K I (a f) = 233.1 ksiin 77.41 ksiin  Effective flaw size, a e = 4.192 in. 2.355 in. Effective stress intensity factor, K I (a e) = 273.8 ksiin 79.59 ksiin  Fracture toughness margin (> 1.41), K Ic/K I (a e) = 0.23 0.80  Large Steam Line Break Temperature, T = o F  o F  Fracture toughness, K Ic = 200.0 ksiin 200.0 ksiin  Final stress intensity factor, K I (a f) = 190.1 ksiin 63.63 ksiin  Effective flaw size, a e = 3.910 in. 2.326 in. Effective stress intensity factor, K I (a e) = 215.6 ksiin  65.01 ksiin  Fracture toughness margin (> 1.41), K Ic/K I (a e) = 0.93 3.08 Since some of the above fracture toughness margins for the controlling faulted conditions are less than the Code required minimums, EPFM flaw evaluations will be performed in Section 6.4 to account for the ductile behavior of the low alloy steel under stable crack propagation.
Page 41 The EPFM analysis is used to evaluate the limiting loading conditions that fail the LEFM-based Code margins. In this context, EPFM is meant to include either classical elastic-plastic fracture mechanics or primary stress limit analysis, as applicable. Uphill Side Downhill Side Controlling Conditions Reactor Trip Reactor Trip Flaw size at 30 years of service, a =  in. in. Effective flaw size, a e = 3.371 in. 2.373 in.
T =  o F  o F  E = 27200 ksi 27200 ksi
  = 0.3 0.3  E' = E/(1- 2) = 29890 ksi 29890 ksi y = 43.6 ksi 43.6 ksi  u = 80.0 ksi 80.0 ksi  f = 61.8 ksi 61.8 ksi  Crack initiation toughness, K Ic = 200.0 ksiin 200.0 ksiin Total applied K I , K I (a e) = 114.9 ksiin 74.34 ksiin  K r' = K I (a e) / K Ic = 0.574 0.372  From finite element analysis, the maximum crack face stresses due to residual stress, pressure, and thermal gradients are
 
max = 68.3 ksi 70.9 ksi  S r' = max /  f = 1.105 1.147 Screening ratio, K r' / S r' = 0.520 0.324  (1.8 > K r' / S r'  0.2) (1.8 > K r' / S r'  0.2) Analysis regime:
EPFM EPFM Page 42  Uphill Side Downhill Side Controlling Conditions Reactor Trip Reactor Trip K I primary, K Ip(a) = 190.8 ksiin 86.02 ksiin K I secondary (residual plus thermal), K Is(a) = 68.19 ksiin 65.05 ksiin Total K I , K I(a) = 259.0 ksiin 151.1 ksiin  Effective flaw size, a e = 4.912 in. 2.865 in.
Total K I , K I'(a e) = 329.3 ksiin 171.3 ksiin  Table A-14 (uphill side) and Table B-14 (downhill side) develop all the data necessary to construct J-T diagrams for the controlling operating conditions. The J-T diagrams are presented in Figures A-1 and B-1 for the uphill and downhill sides, respectively. Uphill Side: It can be seen from Table A-14 that for an applied J-integral of 3.628 kips/in, corresponding to safety factors of 3 and 1.5, the applied tearing modulus, 8.502, is less than the material tearing modulus, 50.70, indicating flaw stability. Alternately, the applied J-integral is less than the J-integral, 8.181 kips/in, at the point of instability. For safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied J-integral of 0.785 kips/in is less than the J
 
===0.1 value===
of 2.473 kips/in, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.
Downhill Side:
Table B-14 shows that for an applied J-integral of 0.982 kips/in, corresponding to safety factors of 3 and 1.5, the applied tearing modulus, 3.139, is less than the material tearing modulus, 242.0, indicating flaw stability. The applied J-integral is also less than the J-integral, 7.102 kips/in, at the point of instability. For safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied J-integral of 0.273 kips/in is less than the J
 
===0.1 value===
of 2.473 kips/in, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.
Page 43  Uphill Side Downhill Side Controlling Conditions Refueling Refueling Flaw size at 30 years of service, a =  in. in. Effective flaw size, a e = 3.127 in. 2.292 in.
T =  o F  o F  E = 29200 ksi 29200 ksi
  = 0.3 0.3  E' = E/(1- 2) = 32080 ksi 32080 ksi y = 50.0 ksi 50.0 ksi  u = 80.0 ksi 80.0 ksi  f = 65.0 ksi 65.0 ksi  Crack initiation toughness, K Ic = 63.5 ksiin 63.5 ksiin Total applied K I , K I (a e) = 65.12 ksiin 55.92 ksiin  K r' = K I (a e) / K Ic = 1.025 0.880  From finite element analysis, the maximum crack face stresses due to residual stress, pressure, and thermal gradients are
 
max = 59.1 ksi 49.5 ksi  S r' = max /  f = 0.909 0.762 Screening ratio, K r' / S r' = 1.127 1.156  (1.8 > K r' / S r'  0.2) (1.8 > K r' / S r'  0.2) Analysis regime:
EPFM EPFM Page 44  Uphill Side Downhill Side Controlling Conditions Refueling Refueling K I primary, K Ip(a) = 0.0 ksiin 0.0 ksiin K I secondary (residual plus thermal), K Is(a) = 96.30 ksiin 82.70 ksiin Total K I , K I(a) = 96.30 ksiin 82.70 ksiin  Effective flaw size, a e = 3.236 in. 2.373 in.
Total K I , K I'(a e) = 99.37 ksiin 85.35 ksiin  Table A-15 (uphill side) and Table B-15 (downhill side) develop all the data necessary to construct J-T diagrams for the controlling operating conditions. The J-T diagrams are presented in Figures A-2 and B-2 for the uphill and downhill sides, respectively. Uphill Side: It can be seen from Table A-15 that for an applied J-integral of 0.308 kips/in, corresponding to safety factors of 3 and 1.5, the applied tearing modulus, 0.700, is less than the material tearing modulus, 942.9, indicating flaw stability. Alternately, the applied J-integral is less than the J-integral, 8.179 kips/in, at the point of instability. For safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied J-integral of 0.132 kips/in is less than the J
 
===0.1 value===
of 2.474 kips/in, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.
Downhill Side:
Table B-15 shows that for an applied J-integral of 0.227 kips/in, corresponding to safety factors of 3 and 1.5, the applied tearing modulus, 0.704, is less than the material tearing modulus, 1357, indicating flaw stability. The applied J-integral is also less than the J-integral, 7.101 kips/in, at the point of instability. For safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied J-integral of 0.097 kips/in is less than the J
 
===0.1 value===
of 2.474 kips/in, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.
Page 45  Uphill Side Downhill Side Controlling Conditions LLOCA LLOCA  Flaw size at 30 years of service, a =  in. in. Effective flaw size, a e = 4.192 in. 2.355 in.
T =  o F  o F  E = 29200 ksi 29200 ksi
  = 0.3 0.3  E' = E/(1- 2) = 32080 ksi 32080 ksi y = 50.0 ksi 50.0 ksi  u = 80.0 ksi 80.0 ksi  f = 65.0 ksi 65.0 ksi  Crack initiation toughness, K Ic = 63.5 ksiin 63.5 ksiin Total applied K I , K I (a e) = 273.8 ksiin 79.59 ksiin  K r' = K I (a e) / K Ic = 4.310 1.253  From finite element analysis, the maximum crack face stresses due to residual stress, pressure, and thermal gradients are
 
max = 198.3 ksi 163.2 ksi S r' = max /  f = 3.051 2.511 Screening ratio, K r' / S r' = 1.413 0.499  (1.8 > K r' / S r'  0.2) (1.8 > K r' / S r'  0.2) Analysis regime:
EPFM EPFM Page 46  Uphill Side Downhill Side Controlling Conditions LLOCA LLOCA  K I primary, K Ip(a) = 2.596 ksiin 1.170 ksiin K I secondary (residual plus thermal), K Is(a) = 231.4 ksiin 76.63 ksiin Total K I , K I(a) = 234.0 ksiin 77.80 ksiin  Effective flaw size, a e = 4.201 in. 2.356 in.
Total K I , K I'(a e) = 275.1 ksiin 80.01 ksiin  Table A-16 (uphill side) and Table B-16 (downhill side) develop all the data necessary to construct J-T diagrams for the controlling operating conditions. The J-T diagrams are presented in Figures A-3 and B-3 for the uphill and downhill sides, respectively. Uphill Side: It can be seen from Table A-16 that for an applied J-integral of 2.359 kips/in, corresponding to safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied tearing modulus, 5.364, is less than the material tearing modulus, 82.38, indicating flaw stability. Alternately, the applied J-integral is less than the J-integral, 8.179 kips/in, at the point of instability. For safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied J-integral of 2.359 kips/in is less than the J
 
===0.1 value===
of 2.474 kips/in, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.
Downhill Side:
Table B-16 shows that for an applied J-integral of 0.200 kips/in, corresponding to safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied tearing modulus, 0.619, is less than the material tearing modulus, 1584, indicating flaw stability. The applied J-integral is also less than the J-integral, 7.101 kips/in, at the point of instability. For safety factors of 1.5 and 1, the applied J-integral of 0.200 kips/in is less than the J0.1 value of 2.474 kips/in, demonstrating that the crack driving force falls below the J-R curve at a crack extension of 0.1 inch.
Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 47 6.5 Primary Stress Limit Analysis The primary stress limit analysis (also referred to as primary stress limits of NB-3000) that addresses all the Shearon Harris repaired configurations is provided in Appendix C. 
 
Page 48 Linear-elastic and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics has been used to evaluate a postulated radial flaw in the J-groove weld and butter of an outermost CRDM nozzle reactor vessel head penetration. It was determined that an acceptable flaw size would be present after 30 years of fatigue crack growth, based on EPFM analysis consideration only, as summarized below. Uphill Side Downhill Side Flaw Sizes Initial flaw size, a i = 2.148 in. 2.148 in. Final flaw size after 30 years, a f =  in. in. Flaw growth, a =  in. in. Operating Conditions  Reactor Trip Reactor Trip Temperature, T = o F  o F  Material tearing modulus, T mat = 50.70 242.0  Material J-integral at 0.1" crack extension, J 0.1 = 2.473 kips/in. 2.473 kips/in. Safety factors (primary/secondary), SF = 3 / 1.5 3 / 1.5  Applied tearing modulus (< T mat) T app = 8.502 3.139  Safety factors (primary/secondary), SF = 1.5 / 1 1.5 / 1  Applied J-integral (< J 0.1) J app = 0.785 kips/in 0.273 kips/in  Low Temperature Conditions  Refueling Refueling Temperature, T = o F  o F  Material tearing modulus, T mat = 942.9 1357  Material J-integral at 0.1" crack extension, J 0.1 = 2.474 kips/in. 2.474 kips/in. Safety factors (primary/secondary), SF = 3 / 1.5 3 / 1.5  Applied tearing modulus (< T mat) T app = 0.700 0.704  Safety factors (primary/secondary), SF = 1.5 / 1 1.5 / 1  Applied J-integral (< J 0.1) J app = 0.132 kips/in 0.097 kips/in Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 49 Summary of Results (Cont'd)
Faulted Conditions  LLOCA LLOCA Temperature, T =
[    ]  [    ]  Material tearing modulus, T mat = 82.38 1584  Material J-integral at 0.1" crack extension, J 0.1 = 2.474 kips/in. 2.474 kips/in. Safety factors (primary/secondary), SF = 1.5 / 1 1.5 / 1  Applied tearing modulus (< T mat) T app = 5.364 0.619  Safety factors (primary/secondary), SF = 1.5 / 1 1.5 / 1  Applied J-integral (< J 0.1) J app = 2.359 kips/in 0.200 kips/in  7.2 Conclusion Based on a combination of linear elastic and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics analysis of a postulated remaining flaw in the original Alloy 182 J-groove weld and butter material, the Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM and CET nozzles are considered to be acceptable for at least 30 years of operation following an IDTB weld repair. However, based on primary stress limit analysis, considering all the CRDM repaired configurations as of the Spring 2018 Outage, the overall service life of the Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH is 5 years from the Spring 2018 Outage, as determined in Appendix C of the document.
 
==8.0 REFERENCES==
(SEE NOTE) Note:  Additional reference lists are located on page 115.
: 1. AREVA Drawing 02-9175500E-008, "Shearon Harris CRDM ID Temper Bead Weld Repair" 2. AREVA Document 08-9172870-004, "Shearon Harris RVCH CRDM and CET Nozzle Penetration Modification" 3. AREVA Document 32-9176344-001, "Shearon Harris Unit 1 IDTB CRDM/CET Nozzle Weld Residual Stress Analysis" - Proprietary Document 4. AREVA Document 51-5012047-00, "Stress Corrosion Cracking of Low Alloy Steel"
: 5. ANSYS Finite Element Computer Code, Version 12.1, ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
: 6. T.L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, CRC Press, 1991.
: 7. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, Division 1, Subsection NB, Class 1 Components, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003.
 
Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 50  8. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Materials, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003. 9. AREVA Document 38-2200979-000, "Shearon Harris - Proprietary Document Transmittal 1" 10. AREVA Document 55-PQ7183-005, "Procedure Qualification Record PQ7183-005"
: 11. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003. 12. AREVA Document 32-9175220-003, "Shearon Harris Unit 1 Contingency CRDM IDTB Weld Repair Analysis" 13. AREVA Document 38-2201004-000, "Shearon Harris - Proprietary Document Transmittal 4"
: 14. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, 2007 Edition with Addenda through 2008.
 
Page 51 This appendix presents the fatigue crack growth tables and the elastic-plastic fracture mechanics flaw evaluations for the uphill side of the CRDM penetration.
ConditionWRSTemperature70.0FPressuren/apsigSy50.0ksiKIc98.0ksiinKIa55.2ksiinCrack FrontKIPosition(ksiin)145.118241.056338.435431.191 527.747624.365720.513814.773918.055109.77211-2.101127.352 1314.3441418.7631522.133 1626.5091717.849 Page 52  Condition*HU1HU2CDSDTransient
 
== Description:==
200cyclesover40yearsTemperature557.0349.0120.070.0FPressure23174674670psigN =5.0cycles/yearSy42.644.949.250.0ksiKIc200.0200.0200.098.0ksiinPosition 16KIa200.0200.085.555.2ksiinOperatingHU1HU2CDSDCrack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaKI(a)KI(a)Position(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)118.527-18.92013.2500.00000.061.83313.24748.58642.65626.509218.826-17.43812.7380.00015.061.85713.25248.60442.67226.519319.351-15.93412.2570.000210.062.21713.32948.88842.92126.674418.420-13.07810.8200.000315.062.57913.40749.17243.17126.829518.505-11.27210.0970.000420.062.94313.48549.45843.42226.985618.197-9.4629.2890.000525.063.30913.56349.74643.67427.142716.954-7.5898.1950.000630.063.67813.64250.03543.92927.300812.946-5.6786.1690.000735.064.04813.72250.32644.18427.459916.968-5.6467.5080.000840.064.42013.80150.61944.44127.618108.787-3.5294.0850.000945.064.79513.88150.91344.69927.77911-3.688-1.066-0.8980.0001050.065.17113.96251.20944.95927.940127.147-2.7123.2640.0001155.065.55014.04351.50645.22028.1021314.991-4.9966.6230.0001260.065.93014.12551.80545.48328.2661420.357-7.1869.1210.0001365.066.31314.20752.10645.74728.4301525.782-9.74311.7770.0001470.066.69814.28952.40946.01228.5951635.324-13.26216.1470.0001575.067.08514.37252.71346.27928.7611723.491-9.49510.9950.0001680.067.47414.45553.01846.54728.9271785.067.86514.53953.32646.81729.095* Condition Description1890.068.25814.62453.63547.08929.264HU1Time step 6 at 7.67 hr. (Heatup) - Maximum KI1995.068.65414.70853.94647.36229.433HU2Time step 3 at 2.29 hr. (Heatup) - Minimum KI20100.069.05214.79454.25847.63629.604CDTime step 15 at 14.37 hr. - Maximum KI at Low Temperature21105.069.45214.87954.57247.91229.775SDShutdown at Ambient Conditions22110.069.85414.96554.88848.18929.94823115.070.25815.05255.20648.46830.12124120.070.66515.13955.52648.74930.29525125.071.07315.22755.84749.03130.47126130.071.48415.31556.17049.31430.64727135.071.89815.40356.49449.59930.82428140.072.31315.49256.82149.88631.00229145.072.73115.58257.14950.17431.18130150.073.15115.67257.47950.46431.361Stress Intensity Factor, KI Page 53  Condition*ULUUTransient
 
== Description:==
18300cyclesover40yearsTemperature533.8574.3FPressure22652209psigN =457.5cycles/yearSy42.942.4ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingULUUCrack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)123.00710.65900.065.85153.62912.222223.01811.3711457.565.89153.66212.229323.24912.2952915.066.27553.97412.301421.71012.33431372.566.66154.28812.372521.43012.95441830.067.04954.60412.444620.76013.21452287.567.43954.92212.517719.11512.65862745.067.83155.24112.589814.5509.72273202.568.22555.56312.663918.79513.19783660.068.62255.88612.736109.8296.67994117.569.02156.21012.81011-3.731-3.452104575.069.42256.53712.885127.9645.477115032.569.82556.86512.9601316.59611.668125490.070.23057.19613.0351422.59315.748135947.570.63857.52813.1101528.71619.782146405.071.04857.86113.1871639.34227.120156862.571.46058.19713.2631726.28717.846167320.071.87558.53513.340177777.572.29158.87413.417* Condition Description188235.072.71059.21513.495ULTime step 12 at 0.29 hr. - Maximum KI198692.573.13259.55913.573UUTime step 11 at 0.29 hr. - Minimum KI209150.073.55559.90413.652219607.573.98160.25013.7312210065.074.41060.59913.8112310522.574.84160.95013.8902410980.075.27461.30313.9712511437.575.70961.65714.0522611895.076.14762.01414.1332712352.576.58762.37214.2152812810.077.03062.73314.2972913267.577.47563.09514.3793013725.077.92263.46014.462 KIPosition 16 Page 54  Condition*SLISLDTransient
 
== Description:==
4000cyclesover40yearsTemperature551.4570.8FPressure23672246psigN =100.0cycles/yearSy42.742.5ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingSLISLDCrack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)122.97411.04300.066.60854.16812.440223.07011.7331100.066.88454.39312.492323.43412.6202200.067.27454.70912.564421.98112.6143300.067.66555.02812.637521.80313.2094400.068.05955.34812.711621.19113.4515500.068.45555.67012.785719.54612.8786600.068.85355.99412.859814.8879.8967700.069.25356.31912.934919.26813.4148800.069.65656.64713.0091010.0616.7969900.070.06156.97613.08511-3.874-3.486101000.070.46857.30713.161128.1465.579111100.070.87757.64013.2371316.99011.874121200.071.28857.97413.3141423.10816.034131300.071.70258.31113.3911529.31820.161141400.072.11858.64913.4691640.09927.659151500.072.53658.98913.5471726.77118.203161600.072.95759.33113.626171700.073.38059.67513.705* Condition Description181800.073.80560.02113.784SLITime step 10 at 0.05 hr. - Maximum KI191900.074.23360.36913.864SLDTime step 10 at 0.042 hr. - Minimum KI202000.074.66360.71813.944212100.075.09561.07014.025222200.075.53061.42414.106232300.075.96761.77914.188242400.076.40662.13614.270252500.076.84862.49614.353262600.077.29362.85714.436272700.077.73963.22114.519282800.078.18963.58614.603292900.078.64063.95314.687303000.079.09564.32314.772Position 16 KI Page 55  Condition*TRT1TRT2Transient
 
== Description:==
80cyclesover40yearsTemperature443.4557.4FPressure16922317psigN =2.0cycles/yearSy43.842.6ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingTRT1TRT2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)140.5877.35400.079.73850.44729.291239.3048.26012.080.13350.69729.436338.1589.37824.080.59950.99229.607434.0619.84536.081.06951.28929.780532.16110.71348.081.54051.58729.953629.93511.230510.082.01551.88730.127726.68710.973612.082.49252.18930.303820.1158.468714.082.97152.49330.479924.92111.756816.083.45352.79830.6561013.4135.859918.083.93853.10430.83411-3.551-3.4091020.084.42653.41331.0131210.7524.8351122.084.91653.72331.1931321.98710.4001224.085.40954.03531.3741430.17313.9811326.085.90554.34831.5561538.79917.4631428.086.40354.66431.7391653.22923.9381530.086.90454.98131.9231736.06015.6421632.087.40855.30032.1091734.087.91555.62032.295* Condition Description1836.088.42455.94332.482TRT1Time step 5 at 0.278 hr. - Maximum KI1938.088.93756.26732.670TRT2Time step 8 at 1.418 hr. - Minimum KI2040.089.45256.59332.8592142.089.97056.92033.0502244.090.49157.25033.2412346.091.01457.58133.4332448.091.54157.91433.6272550.092.07058.24933.8212652.092.60358.58634.0172754.093.13858.92434.2132856.093.67659.26534.4112958.094.21759.60734.6103060.094.76159.95234.810Position 16 KI Page 56  Condition*RF1RF2Transient
 
== Description:==
80cyclesover40yearsTemperature32.0140.0FPressure00psigN =2.0cycles/yearSy50.048.5ksiKIc63.5200.0ksiinKIa43.2105.3ksiinOperatingRF1RF2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)127.949-4.88500.053.97522.70531.270226.345-4.53612.054.24722.81931.427324.683-4.19424.054.56322.95231.610421.095-3.49136.054.88023.08631.794518.978-3.06348.055.20023.22031.979616.815-2.617510.055.52123.35532.165714.330-2.135612.055.84423.49132.353810.707-1.614714.056.16823.62832.541912.277-1.643816.056.49523.76532.730106.961-1.007918.056.82323.90332.92011-0.430-0.2431020.057.15324.04233.111125.491-0.7811122.057.48524.18133.3031310.857-1.4571224.057.81924.32233.4971415.170-2.0841326.058.15424.46333.6911519.962-2.8021428.058.49224.60533.8871627.466-3.8041530.058.83124.74834.0831719.022-2.6991632.059.17224.89134.2811734.059.51525.03534.480* Condition Description1836.059.86025.18034.679RF1Time step 7 at 0.171 hr. - Maximum KI1938.060.20725.32634.880RF2Time step 1 at 0.0001 hr. - Minimum KI2040.060.55525.47335.0822142.060.90625.62135.2852244.061.25925.76935.4902346.061.61325.91835.6952448.061.96926.06835.9022550.062.32826.21936.1092652.062.68826.37036.3182754.063.05126.52336.5282856.063.41526.67636.7392958.063.78126.83036.9513060.064.15026.98537.165Position 16 KI Page 57  Condition*LL1LL2Transient
 
== Description:==
210cyclesover40yearsTemperature575.8588.8FPressure27101844psigN =5.25cycles/yearSy42.442.2ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingLL1LL2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)123.554-4.47400.069.01237.23631.776223.806-3.02215.369.36437.42631.938324.444-1.387210.569.76837.64432.124423.1140.461315.870.17437.86332.311523.1112.069421.070.58238.08332.499622.5763.396526.370.99338.30532.688720.8734.163631.571.40638.52732.878815.9233.330736.871.82138.75133.069920.6465.710842.072.23838.97733.2611010.7542.498947.372.65839.20333.45511-4.216-2.9661052.573.08039.43133.649128.7022.1601157.873.50439.66033.8441318.1635.0541263.073.93139.89034.0411424.6686.5661368.374.36040.12234.2381531.1907.8151473.574.79240.35434.4371642.50310.7271578.875.22540.58834.6371728.3706.5841684.075.66240.82434.8381789.376.10041.06035.040* Condition Description1894.576.54141.29835.243LL1Time step 2 at 0.003 hr. - Maximum KI1999.876.98541.53835.447LL2Time step 12 at 0.033 hr. - Minimum KI20105.077.43041.77835.65221110.377.87942.02035.85922115.578.33042.26336.06623120.878.78342.50836.27524126.079.23942.75436.48525131.379.69743.00136.69626136.580.15843.25036.90827141.880.62143.50037.12128147.081.08743.75137.33629152.381.55544.00437.55130157.582.02644.25837.768Position 16 KI Page 58  Condition*LP1LP2Transient
 
== Description:==
100cyclesover40yearsTemperature553.8600.5FPressure22952464psigN =2.5cycles/yearSy42.742.1ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingLP1LP2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)118.1772.40400.061.34246.87114.471218.4843.68512.561.66847.12014.548319.0145.18025.062.02747.39514.633418.1166.38737.562.38847.67114.718518.2127.727410.062.75147.94814.803617.9228.703512.563.11648.22714.890716.7088.918615.063.48348.50714.976812.7596.975717.563.85248.78915.063916.74010.142820.064.22449.07315.151108.6634.906922.564.59749.35815.23911-3.661-3.4981025.064.97249.64515.327127.0474.1051127.565.34949.93315.4161314.7899.0011230.065.72950.22315.5061420.07812.0111332.566.11050.51415.5961525.42314.8461435.066.49450.80715.6861634.83320.3621537.566.87951.10215.7771723.15913.0951640.067.26751.39815.8691742.567.65751.69615.961* Condition Description1845.068.04951.99616.053LP1Time step 2 at 0.003 hr. - Maximum KI1947.568.44352.29716.146LP2Time step 11 at 0.053 hr. - Minimum KI2050.068.84052.60016.2402152.569.23852.90516.3342255.069.63953.21116.4282357.570.04253.51916.5232460.070.44753.82816.6192562.570.85554.14016.7152665.071.26454.45316.8122767.571.67654.76716.9092870.072.09055.08417.0072972.572.50755.40217.1053075.072.92655.72217.204Position 16 KI Page 59  Condition*RT1RT2Transient
 
== Description:==
250cyclesover40yearsTemperature457.4537.4FPressure22051803psigN =6.25cycles/yearSy43.642.8ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingRT1RT2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)150.10915.13000.091.70555.56736.138248.50215.36816.392.19555.86436.331347.09715.728212.592.73256.18936.543442.01014.966318.893.27256.51636.755539.65114.995425.093.81456.84536.969636.86414.741531.394.36057.17637.184732.80813.760637.594.90957.50837.401824.76010.481743.895.46157.84337.618930.51713.823850.096.01658.17937.8371016.4747.136956.396.57358.51738.05611-4.144-3.1101062.597.13458.85738.2781213.1975.8171168.897.69859.19938.5001326.92412.2411275.098.26659.54238.7231436.98016.6291381.398.83659.88838.9481547.57521.1081487.599.40960.23539.1741665.19629.0581593.899.98660.58539.4011744.20219.32216100.0100.56660.93639.63017106.3101.14961.28939.859* Condition Description18112.5101.73561.64440.090RT1Time step 13 at 0.171 hr. - Maximum KI19118.8102.32462.00140.323RT2Time step 8 at 0.025 hr. - Minimum KI20125.0102.91762.36140.55621131.3103.51362.72240.79122137.5104.11263.08541.02723143.8104.71463.45041.26524150.0105.32063.81741.50325156.3105.92964.18641.74326162.5106.54264.55741.98527168.8107.15764.93042.22728175.0107.77765.30542.47129181.3108.39965.68342.71730187.5109.02566.06242.963Position 16 KI Page 60  Condition*ID1ID2Transient
 
== Description:==
100cyclesover40yearsTemperature557.4556.6FPressure23171161psigN =2.5cycles/yearSy42.642.6ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingID1ID2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)118.517-4.17000.061.82833.92327.905218.817-3.03412.562.18234.11728.065319.343-1.80125.062.54434.31628.228418.414-0.31037.562.90834.51528.392518.5000.933410.063.27434.71628.558618.1931.996512.563.64234.91828.724716.9512.674615.064.01235.12128.891812.9442.112717.564.38435.32529.059916.9663.967820.064.75835.53129.228108.7861.655922.565.13535.73729.39711-3.689-2.3831025.065.51335.94529.568127.1461.4501127.565.89336.15429.7401314.9893.5091230.066.27636.36329.9121420.3544.5141332.566.66036.57430.0861525.7795.3271435.067.04736.78730.2611635.3197.4141537.567.43637.00030.4361723.4884.4901640.067.82737.21530.6131742.568.22037.43030.790* Condition Description1845.068.61637.64730.968ID1Time step 1 at 0.0001 hr. - Maximum KI1947.569.01337.86531.148ID2Time step 9 at 0.022 hr. - Minimum KI2050.069.41338.08531.3282152.569.81538.30531.5102255.070.21938.52731.6922357.570.62538.75031.8752460.071.03438.97432.0602562.571.44539.19932.2452665.071.85839.42632.4322767.572.27339.65432.6192870.072.69139.88332.8082972.573.11040.11332.9973075.073.53340.34533.188Position 16 KI Page 61  Condition*EFF1EFF2Transient
 
== Description:==
40cyclesover40yearsTemperature462.4557.4FPressure19772317psigN =1.0cycles/yearSy43.642.6ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingEFF1EFF2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)140.20618.51700.081.05861.82819.230239.09318.81711.081.52962.18719.342338.17419.34322.082.00362.54919.454434.28118.41433.082.48062.91319.567532.58418.50044.082.96063.27919.681630.50318.19355.083.44363.64719.796727.31116.95166.083.92864.01719.911820.62612.94477.084.41664.38920.027925.68316.96688.084.90764.76420.1431013.7718.78699.085.40065.14020.26011-3.839-3.6891010.085.89665.51820.3781211.0517.1461111.086.39565.89920.4961322.64714.9891212.086.89666.28120.6151431.03620.3541313.087.40166.66620.7351539.81525.7791414.087.90867.05320.8551654.54935.3191515.088.41867.44220.9761736.88123.4881616.088.93067.83321.0981717.089.44668.22621.220* Condition Description1818.089.96468.62121.343EFF1Time step 30 at 0.167 hr. - Maximum KI1919.090.48569.01921.466EFF2Time step 1 at 0.0001 hr. - Minimum KI2020.091.00969.41821.5912121.091.53669.82021.7162222.092.06670.22521.8422323.092.59970.63121.9682424.093.13471.03922.0952525.093.67371.45022.2232626.094.21571.86322.3512727.094.75972.27922.4802828.095.30772.69622.6102929.095.85773.11622.7413030.096.41173.53922.872Position 16 KI Page 62 Condition*LT1LT2Transient
 
== Description:==
280cyclesover40yearsTemperature238.082.0FPressure2351602psigN =7.0cycles/yearSy46.450.0ksiKIc200.0115.6ksiinKIa200.060.6ksiinOperatingLT1LT2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)136.2037.92400.075.30437.27038.034235.1887.71617.075.74337.48738.255334.3767.578214.076.18437.70538.478430.8526.820321.076.62737.92538.702529.3186.511428.077.07338.14538.927627.4256.103535.077.52138.36739.154724.5245.455642.077.97238.59039.381818.5854.155749.078.42538.81539.610922.9705.093856.078.88139.04039.8411012.3512.750963.079.33939.26740.07211-3.258-0.6681070.079.80039.49540.305129.9232.2081177.080.26339.72540.5391320.2724.4931284.080.72939.95540.7741427.8066.1661391.081.19840.18741.0111535.6777.9011498.081.66940.42041.2491648.79510.76115105.082.14340.65541.4881733.0197.28216112.082.61940.89041.72917119.083.09841.12741.970* Condition Description18126.083.57941.36642.214LT1Time step 6 at 3.92 hr. - Maximum KI19133.084.06441.60542.458LT2Time step 2 at 0.12 hr. - Minimum KI20140.084.55041.84642.70421147.085.04042.08942.95122154.085.53242.33243.20023161.086.02742.57743.45024168.086.52542.82343.70125175.087.02543.07143.95426182.087.52843.32044.20827189.088.03443.57144.46428196.088.54343.82244.72129203.089.05444.07544.97930210.089.56944.33045.239Position 16 KI Page 63 Condition*LLOCALSLBTemperature32.0204.3FPressure601331psig a o =2.1482in.Sy50.046.9ksiKIc63.5200.0ksiinKIa43.2200.0ksiinCondition*LLOCALSLBCrack FrontCrack FrontPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)Position(ksiin)(ksiin)1172.666125.3101217.784170.4282162.695118.9712203.751160.0273152.220112.7243190.655151.159 4129.97697.5104161.167128.7015116.73389.0735144.480116.8206103.33680.1616127.701104.526788.07569.2857108.58889.798865.63451.855880.40766.628975.59161.179993.64679.2341042.75834.0171052.53043.789 11-3.101-4.60611-5.202-6.7071233.73426.9371241.08634.2891366.84053.8931381.18468.2371493.35474.68614112.11793.44915122.91197.23715145.044119.37016169.481133.32716195.990159.836 17117.36091.67017135.209109.519* Condition DescriptionLLOCATime step 15 at 0.03889 hr. (140 sec.) - Maximum KILSLBTime step 10 at 0.09889 hr. (356 sec.) - Maximum KIKIKI Page 64  EPFM Equations:
Jmat =C(a)m C =Tmat =(E/ f 2)*Cm(a)m-1 m =J app =[KI'(a e)]2/E'T app =(E/ f 2)*(dJapp/da)Tapp <TmatAt instability:
Tapp =TmatKI*pKI*sKI*(a)a eKI'(a e)J app TappStable?PrimarySecondary(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(kips/in)1.001.0063.61445.463109.0773.3712114.8810.4421.035Yes2.001.00127.22745.463172.6903.8714194.9071.2712.978Yes3.001.50190.84168.194259.0354.9117329.3073.6288.502Yes4.001.00254.45545.463299.9185.5495405.2775.49512.877Yes6.001.00381.68245.463427.1458.1310698.66916.33138.270NoIterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability
: Jinstability Tapp Tmat3.14373.1437199.980142.920342.9006.3206494.5038.18119.17119.171at Jmat =3.628kips/in,Tmat =50.698Japp <J0.1where,J0.1 =Jmat at a = 0.1 in.KI*pKI*sKI*(a)a eKI'(a e)J app J0.1OK?PrimarySecondary(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(kips/in)(kips/in)1.501.0095.42145.463140.8833.5931153.1850.7852.473YesSafety FactorsSafety Factors Page 65 0 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1005101520253035404550J-Integral (kips/in)Tearing ModulusJ-T AppliedJ-T MaterialSF = 3 & 1.5Instablility Point Page 66 EPFM Equations:
Jmat =C(a)m C =Tmat =(E/ f 2)*Cm(a)m-1 m =J app =[KI'(a e)]2/E'T app =(E/ f 2)*(dJapp/da)Tapp <TmatAt instability:
Tapp =TmatKI*pKI*sKI*(a)a eKI'(a e)J app TappStable?PrimarySecondary(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(kips/in)1.001.000.00064.19964.1993.126665.1170.1320.301Yes3.001.500.00096.29996.2993.235999.3680.3080.700Yes10.003.000.000192.598192.5983.8263216.1061.4563.311Yes 10.004.000.000256.798256.7984.4385310.3383.0026.827Yes10.007.000.000449.396449.3967.3248697.67215.17334.504NoIterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability
: Jinstability Tapp Tmat5.72415.72410.000367.482367.4825.9048512.2308.17918.59918.599at Jmat =0.308kips/in,Tmat =942.947Japp <J0.1where,J0.1 =Jmat at a = 0.1 in.KI*pKI*sKI*(a)a eKI'(a e)J app J0.1OK?PrimarySecondary(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(kips/in)(kips/in)1.501.000.00064.19964.1993.126665.1170.1322.474YesSafety FactorsSafety Factors Page 67 0 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1005101520253035404550J-Integral (kips/in)Tearing ModulusJ-T AppliedJ-T MaterialSF = 3 & 1.5Instablility Point Page 68 EPFM Equations:
Jmat =C(a)m C =Tmat =(E/ f 2)*Cm(a)m-1 m =J app =[KI'(a e)]2/E'T app =(E/ f 2)*(dJapp/da)Tapp <TmatAt instability:
Tapp =TmatKI*pKI*sKI*(a)a eKI'(a e)J app TappStable?PrimarySecondary(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(kips/in)1.001.001.731231.385233.1164.1923273.7952.3375.314Yes1.501.002.596231.385233.9824.2009275.0922.3595.364Yes20.001.0034.620231.385266.0054.5407325.1433.2957.494Yes 50.001.0086.549231.385317.9345.1842415.2425.37512.223Yes100.001.00173.098231.385404.4846.5110592.03710.92624.847NoIterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability
: Jinstability Tapp Tmat1.57641.57642.729364.753367.4825.9048512.2308.17918.59918.599at Jmat =2.359kips/in,Tmat =82.380Japp <J0.1where,J0.1 =Jmat at a = 0.1 in.KI*pKI*sKI*(a)a eKI'(a e)J app J0.1OK?PrimarySecondary(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(kips/in)(kips/in)1.501.002.596231.385233.9824.2009275.0922.3592.474YesSafety FactorsSafety Factors Page 69 0 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1005101520253035404550J-Integral (kips/in)Tearing ModulusJ-T AppliedJ-T MaterialSF = 1.5 & 1Instablility Point Page 70 This appendix presents the fatigue crack growth tables and the elastic-plastic fracture mechanics flaw evaluations for the downhill side of the CRDM penetration.
ConditionWRSTemperature70.0FPressuren/apsigSy50.0ksiKIc98.0ksiinKIa55.2ksiinCrack FrontKIPosition(ksiin)1-1.701213.932315.717427.178 533.890637.604740.501840.098937.6381033.4471124.6731227.528 1326.9261424.3891521.701 1616.768175.776 Page 71  Condition*HU1HU2CDSDTransient
 
== Description:==
200cyclesover40yearsTemperature557.0349.0120.070.0FPressure23174674670psigN =5.0cycles/yearSy42.644.949.250.0ksiKIc200.0200.0200.098.0ksiinKIa200.0200.085.555.2ksiinOperatingHU1HU2CDSDCrack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaKI(a)KI(a)Position(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)10.9431.525-0.2070.00000.055.20731.28623.92122.09416.76822.680-5.3112.5910.00015.055.21431.29023.92422.09716.77033.692-5.5352.9560.000210.055.24731.30923.93822.11016.78047.332-8.6375.1170.000315.055.28031.32723.95322.12316.790510.761-9.2726.3700.000420.055.31331.34623.96722.13716.800612.898-9.2946.9730.000525.055.34731.36523.98222.15016.810714.706-9.2157.3860.000630.055.38031.38423.99622.16316.821815.467-8.8537.3810.000735.055.41431.40324.01122.17716.831915.906-8.2877.2650.000840.055.44731.42224.02522.19016.8411015.601-7.6856.9430.000945.055.48131.44124.04022.20416.8511112.347-6.2885.5710.0001050.055.51431.46024.05422.21716.8611214.585-7.3406.5660.0001155.055.54831.47924.06922.23016.8721315.201-7.8486.9620.0001260.055.58231.49824.08322.24416.8821414.925-7.8266.9450.0001365.055.61531.51724.09822.25716.8921514.388-7.5786.7470.0001470.055.64931.53624.11222.27116.9021611.322-5.9835.3260.0001575.055.68331.55624.12722.28416.912172.718-1.7621.3680.0001680.055.71631.57524.14222.29816.9231785.055.75031.59424.15622.31116.933* Condition Description1890.055.78431.61324.17122.32516.943HU1Time step 6 at 7.67 hr. (Heatup) - Maximum KI1995.055.81831.63224.18622.33816.954HU2Time step 3 at 2.29 hr. (Heatup) - Minimum KI20100.055.85231.65124.20022.35216.964CDTime step 15 at 14.37 hr. - Maximum KI at Low Temperature21105.055.88631.67124.21522.36616.974SDShutdown at Ambient Conditions22110.055.92031.69024.23022.37916.98423115.055.95331.70924.24422.39316.99524120.055.98831.72824.25922.40617.00525125.056.02231.74824.27422.42017.01526130.056.05631.76724.28922.43417.02627135.056.09031.78624.30322.44717.03628140.056.12431.80624.31822.46117.04629145.056.15831.82524.33322.47517.05730150.056.19231.84424.34822.48817.067Stress Intensity Factor, KIPosition 7 Page 72  Condition*ULUUTransient
 
== Description:==
18300cyclesover40yearsTemperature533.8574.3FPressure22652209psigN =457.5cycles/yearSy42.942.4ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingULUUCrack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)10.7461.22900.057.26350.9686.29523.6710.9111457.557.27750.9806.29734.7551.7482915.057.31151.0116.30049.0724.08631372.557.34651.0426.304512.7516.91841830.057.38151.0736.308614.9508.81352287.557.41551.1046.312716.76210.46762745.057.45051.1346.316817.43011.28673202.557.48551.1656.319917.75611.85583660.057.51951.1966.3231017.31711.77294117.557.55451.2276.3271113.7379.268104575.057.58951.2586.3311216.21310.975115032.557.62451.2896.3351316.95111.372125490.057.65951.3206.3391416.69111.113135947.557.69451.3516.3421516.11210.692146405.057.72951.3826.3461612.6878.404156862.557.76451.4146.350173.0911.937167320.057.79951.4456.354177777.557.83451.4766.358* Condition Description188235.057.86951.5076.362ULTime step 12 at 0.29 hr. - Maximum KI198692.557.90451.5386.365UUTime step 11 at 0.29 hr. - Minimum KI209150.057.93951.5706.369219607.557.97451.6016.3732210065.058.00951.6326.3772310522.558.04551.6646.3812410980.058.08051.6956.3852511437.558.11551.7266.3892611895.058.15151.7586.3932712352.558.18651.7896.3962812810.058.22151.8216.4002913267.558.25751.8536.4043013725.058.29251.8846.408 KIPosition 7 Page 73  Condition*SLISLDTransient
 
== Description:==
4000cyclesover40yearsTemperature546.7577.3FPressure23002290psigN =100.0cycles/yearSy42.742.4ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingSLISLDCrack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)10.7721.28500.057.65851.1146.54423.7220.7481100.057.67651.1306.54634.8351.5912200.057.71151.1616.55049.2383.8713300.057.74651.1926.554513.0106.7784400.057.78151.2236.558615.2768.7925500.057.81651.2546.562717.15710.6136600.057.85151.2856.566817.86411.5827700.057.88551.3166.570918.20612.2608800.057.92051.3476.5741017.75112.2159900.057.95551.3786.5781114.0729.584101000.057.99151.4096.5821216.59811.333111100.058.02651.4406.5861317.33611.683121200.058.06151.4716.5901417.05011.350131300.058.09651.5026.5941516.44010.878141400.058.13151.5336.5981612.9438.536151500.058.16651.5656.602173.1701.973161600.058.20251.5966.606171700.058.23751.6276.610* Condition Description181800.058.27251.6596.614SLITime step 9 at 0.041 hr. - Maximum KI191900.058.30851.6906.618SLDTime step 9 at 0.028 hr. - Minimum KI202000.058.34351.7216.622212100.058.37851.7536.626222200.058.41451.7846.630232300.058.44951.8166.634242400.058.48551.8476.638252500.058.52151.8796.642262600.058.55651.9106.646272700.058.59251.9426.650282800.058.62751.9736.654292900.058.66352.0056.658303000.058.69952.0376.662Position 7 KI Page 74  Condition*TRT1TRT2Transient
 
== Description:==
80cyclesover40yearsTemperature443.4557.4FPressure16922317psigN =2.0cycles/yearSy43.842.6ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingTRT1TRT2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)1-0.0971.29600.064.35949.62814.73127.5960.31412.064.38149.64514.73638.9261.07324.064.41949.67514.745415.7992.96536.064.45849.70514.754520.1995.60948.064.49749.73514.763622.3747.456510.064.53649.76514.772723.8589.127612.064.57549.79514.780823.89510.028714.064.61449.82514.789923.59110.686816.064.65349.85514.7981022.57510.691918.064.69249.88514.8071118.0788.3721020.064.73249.91514.8161221.3119.9161122.064.77149.94514.8251322.58810.2051224.064.81049.97614.8341422.5469.9051326.064.84950.00614.8431521.9289.4911428.064.88850.03614.8521617.3267.4461530.064.92850.06714.861174.3671.6841632.064.96750.09714.8701734.065.00750.12714.879* Condition Description1836.065.04650.15814.888TRT1Time step 5 at 0.278 hr. - Maximum KI1938.065.08550.18814.897TRT2Time step 8 at 1.418 hr. - Minimum KI2040.065.12550.21914.9062142.065.16550.24914.9152244.065.20450.28014.9242346.065.24450.31014.9342448.065.28350.34114.9432550.065.32350.37114.9522652.065.36350.40214.9612754.065.40350.43314.9702856.065.44350.46414.9792958.065.48250.49414.9883060.065.52250.52514.997Position 7 KI Page 75  Condition*RF1RF2Transient
 
== Description:==
80cyclesover40yearsTemperature32.0140.0FPressure00psigN =2.0cycles/yearSy50.048.5ksiKIc63.5200.0ksiinKIa43.2105.3ksiinOperatingRF1RF2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)1-1.0340.41000.054.13737.68516.45226.136-1.47812.054.15637.69816.45836.728-1.55424.054.18937.72116.468411.118-2.44736.054.22237.74416.478512.933-2.68448.054.25437.76716.488613.508-2.754510.054.28737.79016.498713.636-2.816612.054.32037.81216.508813.111-2.783714.054.35337.83516.518912.453-2.669816.054.38637.85816.5281011.656-2.515918.054.41937.88116.538119.511-2.0351020.054.45237.90416.5481211.218-2.3751122.054.48537.92716.5581312.125-2.5021224.054.51737.95016.5681412.312-2.4561326.054.55137.97316.5781512.086-2.3551428.054.58437.99616.588169.579-1.8521530.054.61738.01916.598172.556-0.5381632.054.65038.04216.6081734.054.68338.06516.618* Condition Description1836.054.71638.08816.628RF1Time step 7 at 0.171 hr. - Maximum KI1938.054.74938.11116.638RF2Time step 1 at 0.0001 hr. - Minimum KI2040.054.78338.13416.6482142.054.81638.15816.6582244.054.84938.18116.6682346.054.88238.20416.6792448.054.91638.22716.6892550.054.94938.25016.6992652.054.98338.27416.7092754.055.01638.29716.7192856.055.05038.32016.7292958.055.08338.34416.7403060.055.11738.36716.750Position 7 KI Page 76  Condition*LL1LL2Transient
 
== Description:==
210cyclesover40yearsTemperature575.8588.8FPressure27101844psigN =5.25cycles/yearSy42.442.2ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingLL1LL2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)10.9501.76600.058.83442.23916.59523.481-2.66315.358.85742.25516.60134.682-2.204210.558.89242.28116.61149.183-2.532315.858.92842.30616.621513.346-0.958421.058.96342.33216.631615.9910.418526.358.99942.35716.642718.3331.738631.559.03542.38316.652819.3922.668736.859.07042.40916.662919.9733.496842.059.10642.43416.6721019.5853.858947.359.14242.46016.6821115.4682.9021052.559.17742.48616.6921218.2163.5021157.859.21342.51116.7021318.8703.4481263.059.24942.53716.7121418.3703.2231368.359.28542.56316.7221517.5733.0411473.559.32142.58916.7321613.8022.3601578.859.35742.61416.742173.4400.3261684.059.39342.64016.7531789.359.42942.66616.763* Condition Description1894.559.46542.69216.773LL1Time step 2 at 0.003 hr. - Maximum KI1999.859.50142.71816.783LL2Time step 12 at 0.033 hr. - Minimum KI20105.059.53742.74416.79321110.359.57342.77016.80422115.559.61042.79616.81423120.859.64642.82216.82424126.059.68242.84816.83425131.359.71842.87416.84426136.559.75542.90016.85527141.859.79142.92616.86528147.059.82842.95216.87529152.359.86442.97816.88630157.559.90043.00516.896Position 7 KI Page 77  Condition*LP1LP2Transient
 
== Description:==
100cyclesover40yearsTemperature553.8600.5FPressure22952464psigN =2.5cycles/yearSy42.742.1ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingLP1LP2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)10.9461.58300.054.96147.3947.56722.604-0.93312.554.98647.4167.57033.602-0.23525.055.01947.4447.57547.1740.85137.555.05347.4737.580510.5603.271410.055.08647.5027.584612.6725.130512.555.11947.5307.589714.4606.893615.055.15247.5597.593815.2137.988717.555.18647.5887.598915.6528.849820.055.21947.6177.6031015.3559.056922.555.25347.6457.6071112.1507.0481025.055.28647.6747.6121214.3538.3811127.555.31947.7037.6161314.9588.5361230.055.35347.7327.6211414.6868.1991332.555.38647.7617.6261514.1577.8231435.055.42047.7907.6301611.1416.1201537.555.45447.8197.635172.6711.2941640.055.48747.8487.6391742.555.52147.8777.644* Condition Description1845.055.55547.9067.649LP1Time step 2 at 0.003 hr. - Maximum KI1947.555.58847.9357.653LP2Time step 11 at 0.053 hr. - Minimum KI2050.055.62247.9647.6582152.555.65647.9937.6632255.055.69048.0227.6672357.555.72348.0527.6722460.055.75748.0817.6772562.555.79148.1107.6812665.055.82548.1397.6862767.555.85948.1697.6912870.055.89348.1987.6952972.555.92748.2277.7003075.055.96148.2577.705Position 7 KI Page 78  Condition*RT1RT2Transient
 
== Description:==
250cyclesover40yearsTemperature457.4537.4FPressure22051803psigN =6.25cycles/yearSy43.642.8ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingRT1RT2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)1-0.3440.92700.070.74152.01618.72529.8132.01716.370.77452.04018.734311.4372.874212.570.81652.07118.745420.1065.810318.870.85952.10318.756525.5418.607425.070.90252.13418.768628.27310.252531.370.94552.16618.779730.24011.515637.570.98752.19718.790830.41111.924743.871.03052.22918.802930.08212.163850.071.07352.26018.8131028.81911.886956.371.11652.29218.8241123.0519.4511062.571.15952.32418.8361227.14311.2041168.871.20252.35518.8471328.67711.7911275.071.24652.38718.8591428.50911.7141381.371.28952.41918.8701527.64811.3871487.571.33252.45018.8811621.8248.9891593.871.37552.48218.893175.5572.09916100.071.41852.51418.90417106.371.46252.54618.916* Condition Description18112.571.50552.57818.927RT1Time step 13 at 0.171 hr. - Maximum KI19118.871.54852.61018.939RT2Time step 8 at 0.025 hr. - Minimum KI20125.071.59252.64218.95021131.371.63552.67418.96222137.571.67952.70618.97323143.871.72252.73818.98524150.071.76652.77018.99625156.371.81052.80219.00826162.571.85352.83419.01927168.871.89752.86619.03128175.071.94152.89819.04329181.371.98552.93119.05430187.572.02952.96319.066Position 7 KI Page 79  Condition*ID1ID2Transient
 
== Description:==
100cyclesover40yearsTemperature557.4556.6FPressure23171161psigN =2.5cycles/yearSy42.642.6ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingID1ID2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)10.9441.60600.055.20340.50814.69522.677-2.58312.555.23540.53114.70333.690-2.22625.055.26840.55614.71247.328-2.75337.555.30140.58014.721510.757-1.643410.055.33540.60514.730612.894-0.738512.555.36840.62914.739714.7020.007615.055.40240.65414.748815.4630.486717.555.43540.67814.757915.9021.001820.055.46840.70314.7661015.5981.266922.555.50240.72714.7751112.3450.9141025.055.53640.75214.7841214.5831.1721127.555.56940.77714.7921315.1991.1771230.055.60340.80114.8011414.9221.1721332.555.63740.82614.8101514.3851.1751435.055.67040.85114.8191611.3200.9281537.555.70440.87614.828172.717-0.0291640.055.73840.90014.8371742.555.77240.92514.846* Condition Description1845.055.80540.95014.855ID1Time step 1 at 0.0001 hr. - Maximum KI1947.555.83940.97514.864ID2Time step 9 at 0.022 hr. - Minimum KI2050.055.87341.00014.8732152.555.90741.02514.8822255.055.94141.05014.8912357.555.97541.07514.9012460.056.00941.10014.9102562.556.04341.12514.9192665.056.07741.15014.9282767.556.11141.17514.9372870.056.14641.20014.9462972.556.18041.22514.9553075.056.21441.25014.964Position 7 KI Page 80  Condition*EFF1EFF2Transient
 
== Description:==
40cyclesover40yearsTemperature448.6557.4FPressure18092317psigN =1.0cycles/yearSy43.742.6ksiKIc200.0200.0ksiinKIa200.0200.0ksiinOperatingEFF1EFF2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)1-0.5190.94400.065.55355.20310.35029.4522.67711.065.59255.23610.356310.8713.69022.065.63255.26910.362418.7787.32833.065.67255.30310.369523.04010.75744.065.71155.33610.375624.57612.89455.065.75155.37010.381725.05214.70266.065.79155.40310.388824.10115.46377.065.83055.43710.394923.12315.90288.065.87055.47010.4001021.90015.59899.065.91055.50410.4061117.87112.3451010.065.95055.53710.4131221.25614.5831111.065.99055.57110.4191323.04815.1991212.066.03055.60410.4251423.52914.9221313.066.07055.63810.4321523.25914.3851414.066.11055.67210.4381618.48711.3201515.066.15055.70610.444174.5242.7171616.066.19055.73910.4511717.066.23055.77310.457* Condition Description1818.066.27055.80710.463EFF1Time step 4 at 0.013 hr. - Maximum KI1919.066.31055.84110.470EFF2Time step 1 at 0.0001 hr. - Minimum KI2020.066.35155.87510.4762121.066.39155.90910.4822222.066.43155.94310.4892323.066.47255.97710.4952424.066.51256.01110.5012525.066.55356.04510.5082626.066.59356.07910.5142727.066.63456.11310.5212828.066.67456.14710.5272929.066.71556.18110.5333030.066.75656.21610.540Position 7 KI Page 81 Condition*LT1LT2Transient
 
== Description:==
280cyclesover40yearsTemperature238.082.0FPressure2351602psigN =7.0cycles/yearSy46.450.0ksiKIc200.0115.6ksiinKIa200.060.6ksiinOperatingLT1LT2Crack FrontTimeCycleaKI(a)KI(a)KIaPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)(end of yr.)(in.)(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)1-0.484-0.18000.064.40346.19718.20627.6561.84317.064.44246.22518.21738.8202.100214.064.48146.25318.228415.4683.646321.064.52046.28118.239519.6874.609428.064.55946.30918.250621.9875.170535.064.59846.33718.261723.9025.696642.064.63746.36518.272824.4235.902749.064.67646.39318.283924.4375.952856.064.71546.42118.2941023.5715.765963.064.75446.44918.3051118.7414.5661070.064.79346.47718.3161222.0275.3511177.064.83246.50518.3271323.0415.5451284.064.87246.53318.3381422.6435.3861391.064.91146.56118.3501521.7855.1391498.064.95046.58918.3611617.1374.03015105.064.99046.61818.372174.3981.05516112.065.02946.64618.38317119.065.06846.67418.394* Condition Description18126.065.10846.70318.405LT1Time step 6 at 3.92 hr. - Maximum KI19133.065.14746.73118.416LT2Time step 2 at 0.12 hr. - Minimum KI20140.065.18746.75918.42821147.065.22746.78818.43922154.065.26646.81618.45023161.065.30646.84518.46124168.065.34646.87318.47225175.065.38546.90218.48426182.065.42546.93018.49527189.065.46546.95918.50628196.065.50546.98718.51729203.065.54547.01618.52930210.065.58547.04518.540Position 7 KI Page 82 Condition*LLOCALSLBTemperature32.0207.8FPressure601316psig a o =2.1482in.Sy50.046.9ksiKIc63.5200.0ksiinKIa43.2200.0ksiinCondition*LLOCALSLBCrack FrontCrack FrontPosition(ksiin)(ksiin)Position(ksiin)(ksiin)1-6.103-3.5331-7.804-5.234238.63026.671252.56240.603342.41129.689358.12845.406 470.34350.026497.52177.204581.92459.8285115.81493.718685.19563.6516122.799101.255785.36465.5587125.865106.059881.30564.0208121.403104.118976.65361.6449114.29199.2821071.33358.06010104.78091.507 1158.18346.8641182.85671.5371268.59855.1181296.12682.6461374.39558.94113101.32185.8671475.85359.25614100.24283.6451574.66357.7921596.36479.4931659.24645.7121676.01462.480 1715.67512.0591721.45117.835* Condition DescriptionLLOCATime step 15 at 0.03889 hr. (140 sec.) - Maximum KILSLBTime step 9 at 0.09222 hr. (332 sec.) - Maximum KIKIKI Page 83 EPFM Equations:
Jmat =C(a)m C =Tmat =(E/ f 2)*Cm(a)m-1 m =J app =[KI'(a e)]2/E'T app =(E/ f 2)*(dJapp/da)Tapp <TmatAt instability:
Tapp =TmatKI*pKI*sKI*(a)a eKI'(a e)J app TappStable?PrimarySecondary(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(kips/in)1.001.0028.67243.36772.0392.372674.3440.1850.591Yes2.001.0057.34543.367100.7112.5108106.9180.3821.223Yes3.001.5086.01765.050151.0672.8646171.3050.9823.139Yes8.001.00229.37843.367272.7454.3038379.0964.80815.371Yes15.001.00430.08443.367473.4518.4835923.90628.55891.296NoIterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability
: Jinstability Tapp Tmat4.30644.3064123.476186.756310.2324.9137460.7427.10222.70522.705at Jmat =0.982kips/in,Tmat =242.047Japp <J0.1where,J0.1 =Jmat at a = 0.1 in.KI*pKI*sKI*(a)a eKI'(a e)J app J0.1OK?PrimarySecondary(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(kips/in)(kips/in)1.501.0043.00843.36786.3752.436090.3210.2732.473YesSafety FactorsSafety Factors Page 84 0 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1005101520253035404550J-Integral (kips/in)Tearing ModulusJ-T AppliedJ-T MaterialSF = 3 & 1.5Instablility Point Page 85 EPFM Equations:
Jmat =C(a)m C =Tmat =(E/ f 2)*Cm(a)m-1 m =J app =[KI'(a e)]2/E'T app =(E/ f 2)*(dJapp/da)Tapp <TmatAt instability:
Tapp =TmatKI*pKI*sKI*(a)a eKI'(a e)J app TappStable?PrimarySecondary(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(kips/in)1.001.000.00055.13055.1302.292355.9230.0970.302Yes3.001.500.00082.69582.6952.372985.3460.2270.704Yes10.003.000.000165.391165.3912.8082185.6921.0753.335Yes 10.004.000.000220.521220.5213.2597266.7512.2186.881Yes10.007.000.000385.912385.9125.3881600.16811.22834.834NoIterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability
: Jinstability Tapp Tmat6.03826.03820.000332.889332.8894.5793477.2737.10122.02922.029at Jmat =0.227kips/in,Tmat =1357.163Japp <J0.1where,J0.1 =Jmat at a = 0.1 in.KI*pKI*sKI*(a)a eKI'(a e)J app J0.1OK?PrimarySecondary(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(kips/in)(kips/in)1.501.000.00055.13055.1302.292355.9230.0972.474YesSafety FactorsSafety Factors Page 86 0 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1005101520253035404550J-Integral (kips/in)Tearing ModulusJ-T AppliedJ-T MaterialSF = 3 & 1.5Instablility Point Page 87 EPFM Equations:
Jmat =C(a)m C =Tmat =(E/ f 2)*Cm(a)m-1 m =J app =[KI'(a e)]2/E'T app =(E/ f 2)*(dJapp/da)Tapp <TmatAt instability:
Tapp =TmatKI*pKI*sKI*(a)a eKI'(a e)J app TappStable?PrimarySecondary(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(kips/in)1.001.000.78076.62977.4092.354979.5870.1970.613Yes1.501.001.17076.62977.7992.356280.0100.2000.619Yes200.001.00156.04076.629232.6683.3765286.4432.5587.935Yes 300.001.00234.05976.629310.6884.2761430.4435.77617.918Yes400.001.00312.07976.629388.7085.4341607.08811.48935.642NoIterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability
: Jinstability Tapp Tmat4.30044.30043.355329.534332.8894.5793477.2737.10122.02922.029at Jmat =0.200kips/in,Tmat =1584.010Japp <J0.1where,J0.1 =Jmat at a = 0.1 in.KI*pKI*sKI*(a)a eKI'(a e)J app J0.1OK?PrimarySecondary(ksiin)(ksiin)(ksiin)(in.)(ksiin)(kips/in)(kips/in)1.501.001.17076.62977.7992.356280.0100.2002.474YesSafety FactorsSafety Factors Page 88 0 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1005101520253035404550J-Integral (kips/in)Tearing ModulusJ-T AppliedJ-T MaterialSF = 1.5 & 1Instablility Point Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 89 APPENDIX C: CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE YEARS OF SERVICE BASED ON AVAILABLE REINFORCEMENT AR EA DUE TO CRACK GROWTH C.1 Purpose The purpose of this appendix is to demonstrate that the as-repaired RVCH continues to satisfy the primary stress limits of NB-3000, considering postulated flaws emanating from the original J-groove weld. This is accomplished by comparing the available reinforcement areas in the vicinity of the repaired nozzles with the areas removed from consideration of carrying primary load, in accordance with NB-3330. The acceptable life for crack growth is determined, and the limiting case is reported.
C.2  Analytical Methodology The approach of calculating available years of service is based on determining the available area of reinforcement as required per NB-3330 Reference [C1]. The repair results in removal of the structural material. In addition for repaired nozzles, as left Alloy 600 region of the original J-groove weld is not considered as structural material as it contains flaws.
Finally, additional area due to postulated crack growth into the carbon steel of the head is also discounted from the available structural area. Analyzed nozzles are those already repaired and in operation as well as those being repaired. Nozzles previously repaired and in operation are: # 5, #14, #17, #18, #23, #37,
#38, #49 and #63 (Reference [C5]); #30, #40 and #51 (References [C14] to [C16]). Nozzle being repaired in the 2018 outage is #33 (Reference [C18]). The dates for these repairs are listed as follows: Nozzle Repair Date 5 May 2012 14 May 2015 17 May 2012 18 May 2015 23 May 2015 30 October 2016 33 Current April-2018 Outage 37 Nov 2013 38 May 2012 40 October 2016 49 May 2013 51 October 2016 63 May 2012 Note that for the previously repaired nozzles the detailed evaluations are contained in Sub-Sections C.3.6, C.4 to C.5, C.7 to C.8, while for the current (2018) nozzle repairs the detailed evaluations are provided in Sub-Section C.9.
The calculation of the available years of service is performed in MS Excel spread sheet Harris_Sizing_Tables.xlsx. The spread sheet has the same filename but is stored in different sub-folder corresponding to the revision of calculation, which contains the calculation up to, or updated by, that revision.
There are two approaches which are used in this calculation. Both of them follow the guidelines of NB-3330 Reference [C1]. These approaches are described below:
Page 90 Approach 1 is the more conservative approach and evaluates each repaired nozzle on an individual basis by imposing a limit of reinforcement equal to half the distance to the nearest nozzle. This is roughly equivalent to assuming that the repaired nozzle is surrounded by other nozzles that have been repaired. This approach is described below: 1) Calculation of structural area removed due to nozzle bore, repair and corrosion 2) Structural area of flawed J-groove weld is determined and considered as area removed 3) Calculation of limits of reinforcement for determination of area of reinforcement
: 4) Calculation of available head area of reinforcement 
: 5) Calculation of reinforcement area of portion of the IDTB weld
: 6) Determination of structural area lost due to postulated crack growth in Alloy 600 and into the carbon steel of the head 7) Calculation of available area of reinforcement by adding all areas of reinforcement and subtracting areas lost due to bore and crack growth 8) Available years of service is determined as an iterative process by calculating loss of structural area due to corrosion and postulated crack growth until area of reinforcement is exhausted. Approach 2 removes some of the conservatism of Approach 1 and was used to examine the bounding case as determined by Approach 1. This approach analyzes the ligament between adjacent nozzles, where one nozzle is in the repaired condition and one nozzle is unrepaired. This approach is appropriate for use as long as there are no repaired nozzles in neighboring penetrations. This approach is described below: 1) Calculation of structural area removed due to nozzle bore, repair and corrosion 2) Structural area of flawed J-groove weld (i.e. repaired nozzle) is determined and considered as area removed; the structural area of the unflawed J-groove weld (i.e.
unrepaired nozzle) is determined and discounted based upon the material strength ratio 3) Calculation of limits of reinforcement for determination of area of reinforcement
: 4) Calculation of available head area of reinforcement  5) Calculation of reinforcement area of portion of the IDTB weld for the repaired nozzle only 6) Determination of structural area lost due to postulated crack growth in Alloy 600 and into the carbon steel of the head for the repaired nozzle location 7) Calculation of available area of reinforcement by adding all areas of reinforcement and subtracting areas lost due to bore, crack growth, and a portion of the unflawed J-groove area as determined by material strength ratio Page 91 8) Available years of service is determined as an iterative process by calculating loss of structural area due to corrosion and postulated crack growth until area of reinforcement is exhausted. Crack growth is considered to be linear over the course of 30 years. This slightly overestimates flaw growth in the early years. The crack growth area at the IDTB weld anomaly was conservatively taken as  . This crack is specified to have a maximum flaw radius of , which would produce a smaller area when calculated (maximum flaw depth 2 x  / 4) [C6]. For the IDTB Weld, the area is calculated assuming machining to remove IDTB overlap onto the original weld (Detail D, Ref. [C2], conservatively, doubled to account for the larger side of the weld in Approach 1. This method does not account for load distribution from weak ligament to stronger/larger structural area, compared to detailed limit load analysis. For Nozzle 23 Overbore, the diameter of the overbore is considered for the entire length of the opening. For all other repaired openings, the diameter is conservatively considered to be . This accounts for the counterbore from the outer surface of the head. In Section C.4, using Approach 2, the downhill J-groove weld for Nozzle 7 is conservatively considered to be 1.15 times larger than the value of the downhill J-groove weld for Nozzle 14 Minimum. This is conservative because J-groove weld areas should increase as the nozzle moves further from the head center and Nozzle 14 Minimum is further from center than Nozzle 7. Approach 2 uses the minimum design thickness for the head at the unrepaired nozzle. The following approach is used for calculation of the available reinforcement area. The tentative thickness of the Reactor Vessel Closure Head (RVCH) is determined by the approach specified in NB-3324 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Reference [C1]. As stated in the article, except in local areas, the wall thickness of a vessel shall never be less than that obtained from the formula in NB-3324.2 for spherical shells.
Formula NB-3324.2 (Spherical Shells):  (Equation 1)
Page 92 Where:  t = Tentative thickness of shell or head, in.
P = Design Pressure, psi R = Inside radius of shell or head, in.
Sm = Design stress intensity values, psi      Reference [C3]
Reference [C2]  Temperature, design Reference [C3]  Sm = 26,700 psi at the design temperature for SA-533 Grade B Class 1, Reference [C1] Substituting these values into Equation (1) yields the tentative thickness (t t) of the RVCH to be:  The following table shows the calculation of area lost due to nozzle bore used in MS Excel spread sheet . Figure C1 shows used parameters. Nozzle Plane Coordinate x, in.  [C10] Nozzle Plane Coordinate y, in.  [C10] (1) Opening Diameter, d o , in.    [C5][C4][C13] Plane Distance of center of nozzle, C, in.  [C10] Inside radius of the head,  , in.  [C2] Tentative thickness of RVCH, , in. Calculated Tentative outside radius of head,  , in. Calculated Vertical Distance to inside radius, H i , in. Calculated Vertical Distance to outer tentative thickness, H t, in. Calculated Depth of opening, t o, in. Calculated Opening area removed Armv , in 2  Calculated Page 93 Note(s): (1) The corrosion rate is considered to , reference [C4]. This is multiplied by 2 to account for corrosion on both sides of the diameter. The following calculations for the minimum required reinforcement are based on the approach listed in ASME Boiler and Pressure Code, Reference [C1]. Per NB-3334, the boundaries of the cross-sectional area in any plane normal to the vessel wall and passing through the center of the opening and within which metal shall be located in order to have value as reinforcement are designated as the limits of
 
reinforcement for that plane. NB-3335 (b) and (e) of the ASME code require that the reinforcing metal be continuous with vessel wall metal or joined to it by full penetration weld. Since the nozzles are joined by partial penetration welds, the nozzle wall metal is not considered for reinforcement.
NB-3335 (c) states that "weld metal which is fully continuous with the vessel wall" may be considered for reinforcement. The IDTB weld satisfies this criterion and can contribute towards reinforcement; the j-groove weld and buttering do not satisfy this criterion under cracked conditions and therefore will not be considered as contributing towards reinforcement. NB-3335 (d) of the ASME Code requires that the mean coefficient of thermal expansion of the reinforcing metal (including weld metal) be within 15% of the value of the vessel wall material. NB-3334 establishes the limits of reinforcement area along and normal to the vessel surface. Since the nozzle wall metal is not considered for reinforcement, only the limit along the surface of the head mean radius (Lw) is relevant for this calculation. For the limit of reinforcement measured along the mid-surface of the nominal vessel wall thickness, NB-3334.1 requires: a) One hundred percent of the required reinforcement shall be within a distance on each side of the axis of the opening equal to the greater of the following:  1) The diameter of finished opening in the corroded condition, Lw1 2) The sum of the radius of the finished opening in the corroded condition, the thickness of the nozzle wall, and the thickness of the vessel wall, Lw2 b) Two-thirds of the required reinforcement shall be within a distance on each side of the axis of the opening equal to the greater of the following:
Page 94 1) , where R is the mean radius of t he shell or head, t is the nominal vessel wall thickness, and r is the radius of the finished opening in the corroded condition 2) The radius of the finished opening in the corroded condition plus two-thirds the sum of the thicknesses of the vessel wall and the nozzle wall Furthermore, the ASME Code prohibits the same reinforcing material from being applied to more than one opening and requires that one half of the reinforcing material lie on each side of the opening.
These conditions restrict Lw to one-half of the distance between similar adjacent penetrations less the radius of the opening. Axis-to-axis distances between adjacent nozzles are considered rather than distances along the curved surface of the RVCH
 
mean radius. The following table shows the calculation of limits of reinforcement used in MS Excel spread sheet. Figure C1 shows used parameters. Diameter , in. (upper) Specific for each nozzle [C5][C13] Radius,  , in. (upper)  = /2 RVCH wall thickness,  , in. Specific for each nozzle [C5][C4] Nozzle wall thickness, , in. No credit taken - Inside radius of RVCH,  , in.  [C2] Mean radius of RVCH, , in. Calculated Distance to accommodate 100% reinforcement NB-3334.1 (a)(1)
Lw 1 = 2Calculated NB-3334.1 (a)(2)Lw 2 = ++ Calculated
> of Lw 1 & Lw 2 Calculated Distance to accommodate 2/3 reinforcement NB-3334.1 (b)(1)  Calculated NB-3334.1 (b)(2) Calculated > of (b)(1) & (b)(2)
Calculated Grid distance for nozzles, in.  [C10] Center line distance between this opening and the nearest CRDM opening, in.  [C10] Max. length available for reinforcement, L r, in. (see note below)
Calculated The following considerations were taken in Table C2:  Since the nozzle wall is not fully continuous with the head, the metal cannot be counted as contributing to the area of reinforcement per NB-3335. Therefore, the nozzle wall thickness is considered to be zero (t n = 0 in.).
Page 95  The reinforcement limit (L r) for the CRDM nozzle is calculated by one half of the centerline distance between the two nearest consecutive openings 
(). NB-3332.2 indicates that reinforcement is required for the RVCH with the tentative thickness calculated in C.3.1 By NB-3332.2, the total cross-sectional area of reinforcement, A, shall not be less than: Where d = finished diameter of a circular opening (or chord of an elliptical opening) in the corroded condition, F = a correction factor which compensates for the variation in pressure stresses on different planes with respect to the axis of a vessel (correlates to F = 1.00 with a 0.00&deg; angle of the plane with the longitudinal axis), and tr (in this case) is the minimum required thickness in the absence of the opening. The body of this calculation will refer to d o as the diameter of the circular opening and tr as the depth of reinforcement. Not less than half the required material shall be on each side of the center line. Figure C1 diagrams the reinforcement area above the tentative thickness.
Page 96 Page 97 The following table shows calculation of IDTB weld reinforcement area used in MS Excel spread sheet. Outside Diameter at IDTB Weld, dwo in.  [C2] Inside Diameter at IDTB Weld, d wi in. [C2] Width of IDTB Weld, w in. Calculated Min. Ligament Thickness, t lig in.  [C2] Area of IDTB Weld Anamoly, Aanamoly in 2 Section C.2.1 Area of IDTB Weld for Reinforcement, AIDTB in 2    Calculated Note 1:      The mean coefficient of thermal expansion at  of the reinforcing metal of the IDTB weld ( per Reference [C3]) is within of 15% of the mean coefficient of thermal expansion at 650 F of the head material. The ASME requirement is satisfied. Values are taken from the ASME code, Reference [C12].
Note 2: Reduction coefficient of  for the IDTB weld area of reinforcement used in Table C3 is calculated as SmIDTB /Smvessel = . Values are taken from the ASME code, Reference [C1]. Note 3: Nozzle 23 Over Bore conservatively uses the smaller geometry for the standard IDTB welds. The following table shows the calculation of head reinforcement area used in MS Excel spread sheet. Figure C1 shows used parameters. TableC4:ActualReinforcementMarginOpening Diameter, d o , in. Reinforcement limit, L r, in. Outer RVCH surface radius, R o , in. Plane Distance of center of nozzle
 
C, in. Vertical Distance to outer tentative thickness, H t, in. Vertical Distance to outer RVCH surface, H, in. Depth of reinforcement, t r, in. Head reinforcement area, A h , in.2 Page 98 The entire area of Alloy 600 is considered removed due to presence of flaws for repaired nozzles. In addition, area lost due to postulated crack growth into the carbon steel is considered. Area removed of the Alloy 600 is taken from Reference [C5]. These drawings give as-built areas of the uphill and downhill J-groove welds for each nozzle of interest. Those numbers are tabulated below in Table C5.
TableC5:Alloy600weldarealostJGrooveWeldAreaUphillDownhillNozzleMinCondition In 2MaxCondition In 2MinCondition In 2MaxCondition In 251417182323OB37384963Area lost due to postulated crack growth is determined using a CAD feature of the Workbench program. The weld profiles of the uphill and downhill side taken from Reference [C5] are used and offset by the postulated crack growth. The area of the cracked carbon steel section is taken from the ANSYS Workbench program. The crack growth on the uphill side is for      years of service and the downhill crack growth is inches for years of service taken from Section 6.3.1. Conservatively, crack growth per year is calculated as
  . for the uphill side and      for the downhill side. This growth is conservative for service that is less than 30 years since the crack propagates with slower rate at the beginning of the repair service. In addition, the reinforcement area lost due to crack growth at the weld anomaly in the IDTB weld is also accounted for and reduced based upon a ratio of material strength. Min and Max Conditions refer to minimum and maximum head thickness configurations.
Page 99 QA Note: The crack growth areas have been checked with approximate hand calculations to verify the Workbench computer program results, based on the weld profiles give in Ref. [C5].
Page 100 The total remaining reinforcement area is calculated by adding A h (see Table C4), area of reinforcement available in the carbon steel head portion, to area of reinforcement due to portion of the IDTB weld (AIDTB - see Table C3) and subtracting areas lost due to nozzle bore (A rmv - see Table C1), Alloy 600 J-groove weld area (see Table C5), and crack growth at the weld anomaly point. This is calculated in MS Excel spread sheet without corrosion and without J-groove crack growth, initially to identify limiting nozzles (i.e. for screening purposes). 
 
Based on Table C6, Nozzle 14 Minimum and Nozzle 37 Minimum are identified as potential limiting cases. Since neither of these nozzles have an adjacent nozzle in the repaired configuration, they will be analyzed using Approach 2.
Page 101 Since Nozzle 17 Minimum and 18 Minimum are adjacent and each nozzle is in the repaired configuration, these nozzles are analyzed using Approach 1 considering corrosion and crack growth for  years. The J-groove weld crack growth areas are documented in Figures C3 - C6.
Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 The calculation for Nozzle 17 Minimum and 18 Minimum is documented in MS Excel spread sheet Harris_Sizing_Tables.xlsx and the results are represented below in Table C7 for  years of operation. Nozzle 17 Minimum Nozzle 18 Minimum As shown above in Table C7, the area of reinforcement exceeds the area removed for the limiting case (Nozzle 17 Minimum) and therefore since Nozzle 17 was repaired in May 2012, this nozzle is acceptable for an additional  years beyond this date to May . The purpose of this section is to remove some of the conservatisms presented in Section C.3 for the reinforcement calculation when a repaired nozzle is  adjacent to another repaired nozzle. Section C.3 looked at each nozzle individually without considering additional reinforcement that could be gained from neighboring nozzles. This approach is overly conservative when no neighboring nozzles have been repaired. To remove some conservatism, a second approach was taken to calculate the available reinforcement area and area removed for a repaired nozzle neighboring an unrepaired nozzle. This approach will utilize an iterative process to determine when reinforcement area is exhausted. The limiting condition will occur on the uphill side of the repaired nozzle as a result of the significantly greater crack growth rate on the uphill J-groove weld side. Nozzle 14 Minimum was chosen as the limiting case based upon information from Table C6, and by comparing the growth in the J-Groove uphill weld between Nozzle 14 Minimum and Nozzle 37 Minimum. Since Nozzle 14 Minimum has a greater growth in the area of the uphill weld (    in 2 - see Figure C8) as opposed to Nozzle 37 Minimum (    in 2 - see Figure C10), Nozzle 14 Minimum is still the bounding location. For this analysis, Nozzle 14 Minimum is paired with its uphill neighbor Nozzle 7. Nozzle 5 Minimum will also be evaluated since this nozzle has close proximity to the
 
vent pipe. The area removed was calculated by determining the area below the tentative thickness between each nozzle's respective axis and the outside of the nozzle wall in the corroded condition. The J-groove weld area with crack propagation area (shown in Figure C8) was removed for the uphill weld at Nozzle 14 Minimum. In addition, the J-groove weld area was discounted for Nozzle 7 downhill based upon the material strength in comparison with the RVCH, as specified in NB-3330 [C1]. The downhill J-groove weld for Nozzle 7 was conservatively considered to be times larger than the value of the downhill J-groove weld for Nozzle 14 Minimum (Figure C9). This is conservative Page 106 because J-groove weld areas should increase as the nozzle moves further from the center and Nozzle 14 Minimum is further from center than Nozzle 7.
The length for the area of reinforcement was calculated by determining the distance between the two nozzles and subtracting the radius of each nozzle. This value was multiplied by the average thickness between the tentative thickness and the outer radius of the RVCH measured at each location. Since the as-built thickness was not available for Nozzle 7, the design minimum thickness was conservatively used (    in [C2]). In addition to this reinforcement area, the IDTB weld on the uphill side was credited for reinforcement on Nozzle 14 Minimum. The IDTB weld was discounted for material strength and the weld anomaly, as described in Note 2 of Table C3.
 
Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 The available years of service are calculated using an iterative process utilizing Approach 2. Area lost due to crack growth into the carbon steel is calculated for each year of service. The maximum number of years is determined at the point when the available reinforcement area is exhausted. The calculation for Nozzle 14 Minimum and Nozzle 7 is documented in MS Excel spread sheet Harris_Sizing_Tables.xlsx and the results are represented below in Table C8 for15 years of operation. Ligament between Nozzle 14 Min / Nozzle 7 Total Area of Reinforcement, in 2    Total Area Removed, in 2  Reinforcement Remaining, in 2  A special case exists for Nozzle 5, and therefore the lifetime of Nozzle 5 will be verified separately below. Nozzle 5 does not border any repaired nozzles, but it lies within a closer proximity to an opening than the other cases as a result of the placement of the vent line. The Nozzle 5 Minimum case was modeled using Approach 2 in which the ligament between Nozzle 5 Minimum and the vent line was examined. The Nozzle 5 Uphill weld was used for this analysis, because the crack growth on the uphill weld produces a larger area which requires reinforcement. For conservatism, the minimum design thickness was used for the vent line and a  in 2 weld was conservatively used for the vent line J-groove weld. This J-groove weld area is conservative because it is larger than the J-groove weld areas on Nozzle 5 Minimum and the vent line does not
 
require as large of a J-groove weld as the CRDM nozzles [C10]. In addition, corrosion was applied to the penetration diameter of the vent line to calculate area removed, despite the knowledge that this area would be protected by the vent line pipe. The calculation for Nozzle 5 Minimum and the vent line is documented in MS Excel spread sheet Harris_Sizing_Tables.xlsx and the results are represented below in Table C9 for 15years of operation. This calculation uses the crack growth area for the uphill J-groove weld after 15years for Nozzle 5 Minimum as shown in Figure C11.
Page 111
 
Page 112 Ligament between Nozzle 5 Min / Vent Pipe Total Area of Reinforcement, in 2  Total Area Removed, in 2  Reinforcement Remaining, in 2  Based upon the results represented in Table C9, it can still be concluded that Nozzle 14 Minimum is the bounding case for 15 years of operation. After analyzing all the critical nozzle locations, Nozzle 14 was identified as the limiting condition. Table C8 displays that Nozzle 14 is acceptable for 15years of service from the date of the repair. Since this value is bounding for the other nozzles, this conclusion is applicable to all other cases. By this conclusion, and since the earliest repairs were performed in May 2012, the RVCH nozzles are acceptable for 12years of additional operation, from April 2015. \cold\GeneralAccess\32\329000000\329176350002\DateTimeSizeFileName4/29/1514:47:22(EST)36172BytesHarris_Sizing_Tables.xlsxThis computer file inputs dimensions from References [C 2], [C4], [C5], [C6], and [C10]. During the recent outage inspection according to References [C14], [C15] and [C16], additional nozzle repair is needed for Nozzles 30, 40 and 51. Original and after-repair J-groove weld areas as well as RV head thickness at the three nozzle penetrations are contained in Reference [C5]. Table C11 listed the RV head thickness, and the Alloy 600 J-groove weld area lost after the repair is listed in Table C12.
 
Page 113 Nozzle Min. Condition, in Max. Condition, in 30 40 51J-Groove Weld Area Uphill Downhill Nozzle Min. Condition In 2 Max. Condition In 2 Min. Condition In 2 Max. Condition In 2 30    40    51    Crack growth areas at the three nozzle penetrations are estimated by the crack growth areas at Nozzles 14 and 37 (Figures C8 to C10). A review of Figures C8 to C10 indicates that closer the nozzle to the head center higher the crack growth area results (in contrast to that away from the center the J-groove weld size is larger). Therefore the crack growth area of Nozzle 14 for 15 years operation is taken as the bounding case for the three nozzles. The crack growth area of 15 years is listed in Table C13:  Crack growth area (in
: 2) Area in in 2 Eq. Crack growth area of Nozzle 14 (15 years), upper hill Crack growth area of Nozzle 14 (15 years), down hill  Total crack growth area of 15 years Nozzle 30 is adjacent to Nozzle 38, and Nozzle 51 is adjacent to Nozzle 63. Approach 1 mentioned in Section C.2 is used. The calculation procedure is the same as in Section C.3.6 for Nozzles 17 and 18. MS Excel spread sheet "Harris_Sizing_Tables.xlsx" from is used in the c alculation, and the results are presented in Table C14. Listed in Table C14 are results from the Minimum Condition as it bounds t hat of the Maximum Condition of the same n ozzle.
Page 114 Penetration area (in 2)30 40 51 Eq.Head reinforcement area    IDTB weld reinforcement area    Total area of reinforcement      J-groove weld area before crack growth    J-groove weld area after crack growth    Area removed due to opening and corrosion Total area removed    Total area remaining      Updated MS Excel spread sheet of the same file name is uploaded to the COLDStor at \cold\General-Access\32\32-9000000\32-9176350-004\: Date Time Size File Name10/29/2016 9:13 AM (CT) 49667 Bytes Harris_Sizing_Tables.xlsx Nozzle #23 was repaired using an IDTB weld repair during the 2015 spring outage. After one operating cycle, an inspection revealed a PT indication of a possible flaw in the IDTB weld. Per Reference [C17], this flaw was ground off with the following dimensions: Length in penetration circumferential direction: Width of the grinding:  Depth of the grinding:  Considering the postulated crack growth as well as corrosion, the excess reinforcement area that is bounding for the repaired nozzles as analyzed by Approach 1 is  (see Table C7). The area of reinforcement removed due to grinding is    Therefore the excess area of reinforcement at Nozzle 23 is at least      The limiting excess area of reinforcement is at Nozzle 14, which is  (seeTable C8) for 15 years of operation from the spring 2015 outage - It is still the bounding value for all repaired nozzles including Nozzle 23.
Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 114a C.9 Additional Evaluation at Penetrations #33  During the recent outage inspection according to Reference [C18], additional nozzle repair is needed for nozzle 33. However, no original J-groove weld dimensions nor RV head thickness at the nozzle penetration are available for a complete evaluation at the time this revision is prepared. The results presented in the Sections C.1 to C.7 for the twelve repaired nozzles are then used as the basis to justify a 5-year operation for the nozzle 33 repair and the two adjacent nozzle repairs at Nozzles 17 and 18. RV head thickness at the nozzle: As shown in previous sections, the head thickness is the most critical parameter in the evaluation. The following analysis is based on the assumption that the RV head wall thickness (t in Table C2) is no less than
[  ]  inches, i.e., t  [  ]  J-groove weld size: Table C6 indicates that the total remaining reinforcement area for a particular nozzle of the "minimum condition" is always less than that of the "maximum condition." Therefore the J- groove weld size of the "minimum condition" is considered herein. Furthermore, the geometric symmetry of the nozzle penetrations indicates that the J- groove weld size of Nozzle 30 may be assumed for Nozzle 33.
Crack growth area: Since no detailed J-groove weld dimensions are available, crack growth areas at the three nozzle penetrations are estimated by the crack growth areas at Nozzles 14 and 37 (Figures C8 to C10). A review of Figures C8 to C10 indicates that closer the nozzle to the head center higher the crack growth area (in contrast to that away from the center the J-groove weld size is larger). Therefore the crack growth area of Nozzle 14 for 15 years operation is taken as the bounding case for the nozzle. It is conservative to consider a linear crack growth for the first 5 years, as the crack growth area in earlier years is less than that in later years. The crack growth area of 5 years is estimated as follows in Table C16: Table C16: Estimate of Crack Growth area at Penetration 33 for 5 Years of Operation Crack growth area (in
: 2) Area in in 2 Eq. Crack growth area of Nozzle 14 (15 years), upper hill Crack growth area of Nozzle 14 (15 years), down hill Total crack growth area of 15 years Crack growth area of 5 years Nozzle 33 is adjacent to Nozzle 17. Approach 1 mentioned in Section C.2 is used. The calculation procedure is the same as in Section C.3.6 for Nozzles 17 and 18.
Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 114b MS Excel spread sheet "Harris_Sizing_Tables.xlsx" from 32-9176350-004 is used in the calculation, and the results are presented in Table C17. Updated spread sheet of the same file name is stored in the 32-9176350-006 sub-folder.
Table C17: Results of Nozzle Repair at Penetration 33 for 5 Years of Operation Penetration area (in
: 2) Value Eq.
Head reinforcement area IDTB weld reinforcement area Total area of reinforcement J-groove weld area before crack growth J-groove weld area after crack growth Area removed due to opening and corrosion Total area removed Total area remaining Computer File:
Updated MS Excel spread sheet of the same file name is uploaded to the COLDStor at
\cold\General-Access\32\32-9000000\32-9176350-006\: Table C18: COLDStor - Official Computer File of 32-9176350-006 Date Time Size File Name 4/14/2016 10:19 AM (CT) 51,306 Bytes Harris_Sizing_Tables.xlsx Based on the primary stress limit analysis of all the CRDM repaired configurations as of the Spring 2018 Outage, the overall service life of the Shearon Harris Unit 1 RVCH is 5
 
years from the Spring 2018 Outage.
 
Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 115 C.10 Appendix References References identified with an (*) are maintained within Duke Energy Records System and are not retrievable from Framatome Records Management. These are acceptable references per Framatome Administrative Procedure 0402-01, Attachment 7. See page 2 for Project Manager Approval of customer references C1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003. C2 AREVA Drawing 02-9175500E-008, "Shearon Harris CRDM ID Temper Bead Weld Repair" C3 AREVA Document 08-9172870-004, "Design Specification for Shearon Harris RVCH CRDM and CET Nozzle Penetration Modification" C4 AREVA Document 51-9176114-002, "Corrosion Evaluation of Shearon Harris RV Head Penetration IDTB Weld Repair." C5 AREVA Drawing 02-9239552B-002, "Shearon Harris RVCH Repaired Penetration J-Groove Details" C6 AREVA Document 32-9176345-003, "Shearon Harri s Unit 1 RVCH CRDM/CET Nozzle IDTB Repair Weld Anomaly" C7  Reference Removed C8 Reference Removed C9 ANSYS/Workbench Finite Element Computer Code, Version 15.0, ANSYS Inc. Canonsburg, P.A.
C10 AREVA Document 38-2200979-000, "Shearon Harris - Proprietary Document LTR-MRCDA-12-8 C11 Reference Removed C12 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003. C13 CR 2015-3494  C14 *Duke Energy NCR #02070424 C15 *Duke Energy NCR #02070179 C16  *Duke Energy NCR #02070259 C17 CR 2016-6998, "Harris - PT Indication on Previously Repaired CRDM Nozzle" C18 *Duke Energy Action Request (NCR) 021197974, "PWSCC Found in Nozzle 33"
 
Document No. 32-9215680-003 PROPRIETARY Shearon Harris Unit 1 CRDM/CET Nozzle As-Left J-groove Weld Analysis (Non Proprietary)
Page 116 APPENDIX D: ASME SECTION XI CODE YEAR RECONCILIATION D.1 Purpose The main body and Appendices A-C are performed utilizing the requirements of the ASME Section XI, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003 [11]. Harris is updating the applicable Code year to the 2007 Edition with Addenda through 2008 version of ASME Section XI [14]. The purpose of this Appendix is to perform a reconciliation effort to address the impact of the updated applicable Code year by
 
comparing the differences between these two Code years.
D.2 Reconciliation As described in Section 2.2, Articles IWB-3612 and IWB-3613 provide requirements applicable for LEFM fracture toughness evaluation. In the 2007 Edition with 2008 Addenda [14] the following changes are noted: 1. IWB-3612(a) - The applicable fracture toughness curve is changed from K Ia in [11] to K Ic in [14].
Since K Ic is always greater than or equal (at upper shelf toughness of 200 ksi in) to K Ia , the existing analysis is conservative compared to this new requirement. 2. IWB-3613(a) - The applicable fracture toughness curve is changed from K Ia in [11] to K Ic in [14], and the minimum temperature where this rule may be applied is changed from RTNDT+60&deg;F in [11] to RT NDT in [14]. Both of the updated requirements from [14] are less conservative than the 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003 [11], and therefore the existing analysis based on [11] remains applicable. As described in Section 2.3.1, the screening criteria from Appendix C, Article C-4221 are adapted for determining the appropriate analysis regime. There are no changes to this requirement in the 2007 Edition with 2008 Addenda [14].
The K Ia and K Ic fracture toughness curves described in Section 4.3.1 are provided in Appendix A, Article A-4200. There are no changes to these curves in the 2007 Edition with 2008 Addenda [14].
The fatigue crack growth rate provided in Section 4.1.5 is taken from Appendix A, Article A-4300. There are no changes to these fatigue crack growth rate equations in the 2007 Edition with 2008 Addenda [14].
D.3 Conclusion The applicable requirements of References [11] and [14] were reviewed and it was found that requirements are equivalent to or less conservative in the current applicable ASME Section XI, 2007 Edition with Addenda through 2008 [14]; therefore, the analysis performed in accordance with ASME Section XI, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003 [11] in the main body and Appendices A through C remains acceptable.}}

Latest revision as of 11:37, 5 April 2019

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18110A292&oldid=1401659"