ML13323A763

Response to Request for Additional Information - American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code,Section XI, Request for Approval of an Alternative to Flaw Removal and Characterization - Relief Request 51

ML13323A763
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	11/18/2013
From:	Cadogan J Arizona Public Service Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
102-06797-JJC/RKR/DCE
Download: ML13323A763 (64)

Text

10 CFR 50.55a Qaps John J. Cadogan, Jr Vice President, Nuclear Engineering Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 52034 Phoenix, AZ 85072 102-06797-JJC/RKR/DCE Mail Station 7602 November 18, 2013 Tel 623 393 4083 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)

Unit 3 Docket No. 50-530 Response to Request for Additional Information - American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code,Section XI, Request for Approval of an Alternative to Flaw Removal and Characterization - Relief Request 51 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i), Arizona Public Service Company (APS) requested the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approve Relief Request 51, by letter number 102-06794, dated November 8, 2013 [Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13317A070]. APS proposed an alternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI requirements related to axial flaw indications identified in a Unit 3 reactor vessel bottom mounted instrument (BMI) nozzle.

Specifically, APS proposed a half-nozzle repair and a flaw evaluation as alternatives to the requirements for flaw removal of IWA-4421 and flaw characterization of IWA-3300.

By email dated November 15, 2013, the NRC staff provided a request for additional information (RAI). The enclosure to this letter contains the APS response to the NRC RAI.

No commitments are being made to the NRC by this letter.

A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway

• Comanche Peak - Diablo Canyon

• Palo Verde

• South Texas

• Wolf Creek

ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Response to Request for Additional Information - Relief Request 51 Page 2 Should you need further information regarding this relief request, please contact Robert K. Roehler, Licensing Section Leader at (623) 393-5241.

Sincerely, JJC/RKR/DCE/hsc

Enclosure:

APS Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) - Relief Request 51 cc: M. L. Dapas NRC Region IV Regional Administrator J. K. Rankin NRC NRR Project Manager for PVNGS M. A. Brown NRC Senior Resident Inspector for PVNGS

Enclosure APS Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) - Relief Request 51

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i) Arizona Public Service Company (APS) requested the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approve Relief Request 51, by letter number 102-06794, dated November 8, 2013 [Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13317A070]. APS proposed an alternative to the ASME Code requirements of Section Xl related to axial flaw indications identified in a Unit 3 reactor vessel bottom mounted instrument (BMI) nozzle.

Specifically, APS proposed a half-nozzle repair and a flaw evaluation as alternatives to the requirements for flaw removal of IWA-4421 and flaw characterization of IWA-3300.

By email dated November 15, 2013, the NRC staff requested additional information (RAI). The APS responses to the NRC RAI items are provided in this enclosure.

List of Attachments Thermal Stress during Loss of Secondary Pressure Transient in the Lower Head of Palo Verde Reactor Vessel Dominion Engineering, Inc., Calculation No. C-7789-00-2, Revision No. 1, Palo Verde Bottom Head InstrumentationNozzle Stress Analysis I

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 NRC RAI-1 Section 4.1 of Attachment 2 [of Relief Request 51] reported that the nil-ductility reference temperature (RTNDT) of -60 Degrees Fahrenheit (OF) for the RPV bottom head

[RVBH] is from Reference 1 of this Attachment. Please confirm that this value is from the Certified Material Test Report for the RVBH. If not, please justify the use of this RTNDT value in this application.

APS Response The RVBH is fabricated from two plates with different heat numbers. The RTNDT value of

-60°F is from the Certified Material Test Reports (CMTRs) for the RVBH with an adjustment in accordance with ASME Code,Section III, Article NB-2331(al), (a2), (a3),

as provided in UFSAR Table 5.2-5B, "PVNGS Unit 3 Fracture Toughness Data Reactor Vessel (Plates)" as described below.

The CMTRs provide data for both Unit 3 RVBH plate material heat numbers and indicate that the drop weight NDT (TNDT) is -70OF for both heat numbers. In accordance with ASME Code,Section III, Article NB-2331, the RTNDT is established as the greater of TNDT and [Tcv - 60 0F], where Tcv is the temperature at which the specified Charpy Impact test requirements of NB-2331(a2) are met. From the CMTRs, the Charpy Impact test requirements are met at -10°F for one heat number and 0°F for the other.

Based on the above, the RTNDT was conservatively established as -60°F (0°F - 60 0F) in accordance with NB-2331(a3).

NRC RAI-2 A typical flaw evaluation in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code),Section XI requires consideration of emergency and faulted conditions in addition to the normal condition (e.g., Appendix A of the ASME Code, Section Xl). The applied stresses for the flaw evaluation in Section 4.4 of Attachment 2 of Relief Request 51 are for the normal conditions only. Please address the flaw evaluation under the emergency and faulted conditions.

APS Response Emergency and faulted conditions have been considered as described below, and were determined not to be significant to the results of the flaw evaluation.

Emergency Condition The emergency condition is defined as the external piping loads applied to the BMI nozzle resulting from a postulated in-core instrumentation tubing leak. These thermal loads are applied to the new J-groove weld and weld pad at the relocated pressure boundary on the outer surface of the lower head. Since these loads would create 2

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 relatively minor stress changes at the inner surface of the lower head, they were not considered further in the current flaw evaluation of the remnant J-groove weld.

Faulted Conditions The combined safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and branch line pipe break (BLPB) represents one of two faulted conditions. These external loads are applied to the new J-groove weld and weld pad at the relocated pressure boundary on the outer surface of the lower head. Since these external loads would create relatively minor stresses at the inner surface of the lower head, they were not considered further in the current flaw evaluations of the remnant J-groove weld.

The second faulted condition is the loss of secondary pressure (LSP) transient described in the Palo Verde Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Table 3.9.1-1. This transient is illustrated by the temperature and pressure time-history plots provided in Figure 1 of Attachment 1 to this enclosure.

The evaluation of this transient was performed in the same manner as the steady state (SS) + cooldown (CD) analysis submitted as part of the original submittal of Relief Request 51. The faulted condition stresses are added to the residual plus SS pressure and thermal stresses, as tabulated below. The maximum faulted condition, Loss of Secondary Pressure stresses, derived in Attachment 1 to this enclosure, occur at about 118 seconds into the transient (at the maximum through-wall temperature gradient) when the cold leg temperature is 344 OF and the pressure is less than 300 psia. It is therefore conservative to add the maximum thermal stresses for this transient to the SS pressure stresses.

Position SS LSP SS+LSP x Hoop Stress (in.) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) 0.0000 50.014 46.34 96.35 0.2980 61.709 36.78 98.49 0.5950 73.123 28.35 101.48 0.8920 71.136 20.95 92.08 1.1890 74.007 14.50 88.50 1.4860 57.094 8.94 66.03 1.7830 24.199 4.21 28.41 2.0330 3.862 0.83 4.69 2.2460 40.983 -1.66 39.32 SS = Steady State LSP = Loss of Secondary Pressure Key portions of the flaw evaluations performed for the Residual + SS + CD normal condition stresses in Section 6-2 of Attachment 2 of Relief Request 51 are similarly provided here for the Residual + SS + Loss of Secondary Pressure faulted condition.

The updated KI(a) stress intensity factor is 145.2 ksi'lin. and the fracture toughness 3

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 margin is 1.39, which is just slightly below the code required value of 1.41. Therefore, the elastic plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) flaw evaluation for the loss of secondary pressure transient is presented below with the appropriate safety factors for faulted conditions.

Ductile Crack Growth Stability Criterion: Tapp < Tmat At instability: Tapp = Tmat Safety Factors KI*p KIs Kl*(a) a. Kl'(ae) Japp Tapp Stable?

Primary Secondary (ksiqin) (ksi/in) (ksi in) (in.) (ksiWin) (kips/in) 1.00 1.00 63.870 81.305 145.175 2.6334 163.625 0.882 3.025 Yes 1.25 1.00 79.838 81.305 161.143 2.7634 186.053 1.141 3.911 Yes 1.50 1.00 95.805 81.305 177.110 2.9071 209.735 1.450 4.970 Yes 5.00 1.00 319.350 81.305 400.655 6.3412 700.741 16.185 55.477 No 7.00 1.00 447.090 81.305 528.395 9.4968 1130.958 42.158 144.509 No Iterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability:

Jinstability Tapp Tmat 2.1737 2.1737 138.835 176.733 315.568 4.7208 476.215 7.475 25.622 25.622 at Jmat = 1.450 kips/in, Trat = 184.170 ( Tapp - Tmat = 0.000 Applied J4ntegral Criterion: Japp < J0.1 where, J0.1 = Jmat at Aa = 0.1 in.

Safety Factors KI*p Kl*s Kl*(a) ae Kr(ae) Japp JO.1 OK?

Primary Secondary (ksi~in) (ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiWin) (kips/in) (kips/in) 1.50 1.00 95.805 81.305 177.110 2.9071 209.735 1.450 2.701 Yes The applied tearing modulus (Tapp) of 4.970 is less than the material tearing modulus (Tmat) of 25.622 and the applied J-integral (Japp) of 1.450 kips/in is less than the material J-integral (Jo.1) of 2.701 kips/in at a flaw extension of 0.1 inch. Therefore, these results demonstrate that both EPFM acceptance criteria are satisfied using a safety factor of 1.5 for primary loads and 1.0 for secondary loads.

NRC RAI-3 Appendix A to Attachment 2 [of Relief Request 51] documented the thermal stresses during cooldown which were obtained using a 2-dimensional axisymmetric finite element model (FEM). The NRC staff needs further clarification regarding the FEM results to gain confidence in the FEM model:

Please confirm that the results shown in Figures A-1 to A-5 and Table A-3 are 1-dimensional, i.e., the results (temperature and stresses) are the same for all points at inner diameter (ID), outer diameter (OD), or any surface that is defined by a specific depth of the RVBH. Demonstrate that the 1-dimensional results are realistic in this application.

4

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 APS Response Yes, the results shown in Figures A-1 to A-5 and Table A-3 are 1-dimensional even though the model is constructed in 2-dimensions. The RVBH ID is exposed to the reactor coolant cooldown transient analyzed in Attachment 2 of Relief Request 51 (cooldown from Tc 565 0F at 100°F/hr). The ID surfaces of the BMI nozzle halves are subject to a lesser cooldown rate when compared to the RVBH ID surface. The gap between the OD of the BMI nozzle halves and ID of the RVBH bore is filled with stagnant water. This limits heat transfer between the BMI nozzle halves and the RVBH wall. Since the boundary conditions and RVBH are symmetrical, the heat transfer in the RVBH is primarily in the radial direction. Accordingly, it is reasonable to simplify the thermal analysis as 1-dimensional.

0 Please confirm that the temperature difference-time plot (right figure) in Figure A-2 is a plot of the maximum thermal gradient mentioned in Paragraph A.2 Item 4. If it is not, explain the significance of this parameter. Regardless of the confirmation, please identify the location (depth) where this temperature difference-time plot was obtained and explain the physical meaning of such a unique shape of the temperature difference-time plot.

APS Response Yes, the temperature difference-time plot (right figure) in Figure A-2 is a plot of the maximum through wall temperature gradient for the RVBH, i.e., the plot of temperature difference (ID minus OD) of the modeled lower head noted as TEMP_4.

The initial status of the entire lower head is assumed to have a uniform temperature of 5650 F. During the 100°F/hr cooldown transient, the fluid bulk temperature of the reactor coolant drops to 70°F in 4.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. Because the convection heat transfer coefficient at the inner surface of the lower head is much higher than that of the outer surface, the temperature on the inner surface drops faster than the outer surface at the beginning of the transient. After about 1.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />, the absolute value of the temperature difference reaches its maximum. After that, the temperature difference between ID and OD of the lower head starts to decrease and eventually approaches zero. After 4.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, there is no further cooling of the inside surface and the temperature difference is driven by conduction from the warmer outer surface to the cooler inner surface. At a time point about 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> after the start of the cooldown transient, the lower head reaches a thermal balance at 70°F.

NRC RAI-4 Section 4.4 of Attachment 2 [of Relief Request 51] states, "Residual plus operating stresses are obtained from Reference [7]." Demonstrate that the residual stresses used in the flaw evaluation are consistent with what were approved by the NRC staff in 5

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 published safety evaluations (SEs), NUREGs, or other NRC documents. If this cannot be demonstrated, please provide Reference 7 to support this review.

APS Response The requested Reference 7, Dominion Engineering, Inc., Calculation No. C-7789-00-2, Revision No. 1, Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis, is provided in Attachment 2 of this enclosure. The document reports the results of a three dimensional elastic plastic finite element analysis (FEA) performed as part of a Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) initiative on Bottom Mounted Instrument Nozzles related to WCAP 16468-NP, Risk Assessment of Potential Cracking in Bottom Mounted Instrumentation Nozzles, September 2005.

NRC RAI-5 Table 4-3 of Attachment 2 [of Relief Request 51] presents the hoop stresses at different depths of the RVBH wall for the steady state (SS), cooldown (CD), and their combined effect. The NRC staff has the following requests:

• Identify the loads that were considered in the SS condition (i.e., any of the three:

pressure, steady state thermal load, and residual stresses). Repeat the similar identification for the CD condition.

APS Response Attachment 2 of this enclosure provides the combined hoop and axial stresses from operating pressure, operating temperature and residual stresses.

The operating parameters used to represent the SS condition are as follows:

o Operating Pressure: 2235 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) o Operating Temperature (Cold Leg Temperature): 565 0 F o Weld residual stresses from FEA simulation (where the hoop stresses are bounding)

The parameters used to calculate the CD condition used the same total stresses as defined for the SS condition above and included a cooldown transient of 100°F/hour.

6

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 Confirm that the thermal state associated with the SS condition is the starting point of the CD condition.

APS Response The starting temperature is 565 0 F, which is the same value used for the normal operating temperature at steady state conditions for the RVBH (Cold Leg Temperature).

The stress pattern for the SS condition (Column 2 of Table 4-3 under SS) is very unusual. Please provide the corresponding stress components due to pressure, thermal, and residual stresses for each position (or depth) in Table 4-3. Explain the unusual zigzag stress pattern to demonstrate that it is not caused by modeling errors.

APS Response of this enclosure does not provide each stress component separately.

The total stress at each nozzle node location is shown along its vertical axis from the top to the bottom of the weld. Below the weld, the FEA provides nodal stresses at the nozzle as well as the lower head material. It is at this location that the lower head hoop stresses drop by a larger amount than the nozzle nodes because the weld no longer restrains the bore. The lower head hoop stresses then increase to provide equilibrium in the local region of the lower head. This is the reason for the unusual zigzag stress pattern.

To investigate the sensitivity of the results to the stress field, the EPFM flaw evaluations were repeated using only nozzle stresses for Column 2 of Table 4-3. In this manner, the value of the stress at the eighth position changed from 3.862 to 37.480 ksi and the last stress changed from 40.983 to 23.501 ksi. When only nozzle stresses are considered in the flaw evaluations, the applied J-integral changed from 0.953 to 1.002 kips/in and the applied tearing modulus changed from 17.508 to 18.405. This demonstrates that the final results are relatively insensitive to the stresses near the crack tip.

If residual stresses are not included in the SS condition, confirm that residual stresses are considered in the subsequent applied stress intensity factor (K) or applied J calculations (Tables 6-1 and 6-2 do not show explicitly the contribution due to residual stresses).

7

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 APS Response Residual stresses are considered in the SS condition, which is combined with the normal operating pressure and temperature in Attachment 2 of this enclosure, as described earlier in this RAI. This total stress is utilized in subsequent applied stress intensity factor (K) and applied J calculations in the fracture mechanics evaluation.

NRC RAI-6 Section 4.1.4 of Attachment 2 [of Relief Request 51] presents the generic J-R curve used in the elastic plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) evaluation. This J-R curve is based on the J model from Appendix D to NUREG-0744, Vol. 2, Rev. 1, "Resolution of the Task A-11 Reactor Vessel Materials Toughness Safety Issue," 1982. The generic J-R curve models for various low upper-shelf RPV materials are presented in RG 1.161, "Evaluation of Reactor Pressure Vessels with Charpy Upper-Shelf Energy Less Than 50 FT-LB," 1995. Please provide J-R curves based on both approaches to demonstrate that your J-R curve based on NUREG-0744, Vol. 2, Rev. 1 is not significantly different from the RG 1.161 model. Provide correction and reassess your final conclusion if the difference is significant. Please note that the database underlying the J-R model for RPV base metals in RG 1.161 contains not just low upper-shelf energy materials.

APS Response The EPFM flaw evaluations performed to demonstrate that a remnant flaw in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Unit 3 bottom mounted instrument nozzle number 3 is acceptable for one fuel cycle utilized methodology previously approved by the NRC for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 (ML042890174), Watts Bar Unit 1 (ML073532246),

and Davis Besse (ML102571569). These submittals were based on the same NUREG-0744 J-R curve correlation and the same EPFM safety factors that were used in the present submittal for Palo Verde, which are higher than those specified in Regulatory Guide 1.161.

The basic differences between the NUREG-744 and RG 1.161 approaches are the J-R correlations and the EPFM safety factors.

J-R Curve correlations for a Charpy upper shelf energy value of 119 ft-lbs:

NUREG-0744 RG 1.161 Jmat = C(Aa) m JR = (MF) { C1 (Aa)c 2

exp[ C3 (Aa)c 4 ] }

C= 7.68 C1 = exp[ -2.44 + 1.13 1n(CVN) - 0.00277T]

M= 0.45 C2 = 0.077 + 0.116 In(cl)

C3 = - 0.0812 - 0.0092 In(Cl)

C4 = - 0.409 MF = Margin factor 8

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 At a temperature of T = 565 'F, the RG 1.161 J-R curve constants are:

C1 = 4.0364 C2 = 0.2389 C3 = -0.0940 C4 = -0.4090 Margin factors for the RG 1.161 approach are 0.749 for the Service Levels A (normal),

B (upset), and C (emergency), and 1.0 for Service Level D (faulted). The following figure illustrates a lower J-integral resistance to ductile tearing curve provided by the RG 1.161 correlation for normal, upset, and emergency conditions compared to the NUREG-0744 correlation.

J-R Curves 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 tX 1500 1000  ;

500 0

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Crack Extension, in.

Equivalent safety factors are listed below for the two methodologies.

Operatingq Conditions Evaluation Method Primary Loads Secondary Loads NUREG/RG NUREG/RG Normal conditions: Limited flaw extension 1.5/1.4(1) 1.0/1.0 Stable flaw extension 3.0/ 1.5(2) 1.5/1.0 Faulted conditions: Limited flaw extension 1.5/1.0 1.0/1.0 Stable flaw extension 1.5/1.0 1.0 / 1.0 (1) Equivalent safety factor derived from 1.15

• 1.1 (ratio of maximum accumulation pressure*/design pressure) * -1.1 (ratio of design pressure/operating pressure) = -1.4 (2) Equivalent safety factor derived from 1.25

• 1.1 (ratio of maximum accumulation pressure*/design pressure) * -1.1 (ratio of design pressure/operating pressure) = -1.5

• Regulatory Guide 1.161 defines the maximum accumulation pressure as the value from the plant Overpressure Protection Report, but not exceeding 1.1 times the design pressure.

9

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 In order to address the different safety factors specified in the two standards, additional calculations have been performed using the complete RG 1.161 methodology (J-R curve and safety factors) to perform EPFM flaw evaluations for the residual + steady state + cooldown loads. In order to use the same analytical procedure for performing EPFM flaw evaluations, the RG 1.161 J-R curve is fitted to the same power law model that is used for the NUREG-0744 approach. The results of this evaluation are provided below:

EPFM Equations: Jma. = C(Aa)= C = 3.69 2

Tral = (E/or )*Cm(Aa)r'l m = 0.38 2

Japp = [Kr(ae)] /E' 2

Tapp = (E/R )*(dJapplda)

Ductile Crack Growth Stability Criterion: Tapp < Tmat At instability: Tapp = Trat Safety Factors Kl-p Kl1% Kl*(a) a. Kl'(ae) Japp Tapp Stable?

Primary Secondary (ksi-in) (ksi~in) (ksi-in) (in.) (ksiin) (kips/in) 1.00 1.00 63.870 52.592 116.462 2.4733 127.209 0.533 1.897 Yes 1.25 1.00 79.838 52.592 132.429 2.5905 148.040 0.722 2.569 Yes 1.50 1.00 95.805 52.592 148.397 2.7229 170.073 0.953 3.390 Yes 5.00 1.00 319.350 52.592 371.942 6.1554 640.920 13.539 48.146 No 7.00 1.00 447.090 52.592 499.682 9.4411 1066.361 37.479 133.278 No Iterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability:

Jinstability "Tapp Tmat 2.0414 2.0414 130.386 107.362 237.748 3.7410 319.384 3.362 11.956 11.956 at J_,,, = 0.953 kips/in, Trt = 94.708 ( T0 pp- T = 0.000 Applied J-lntegral Criterion: Japp < JO.1 where, J 0 .1 = Jmat at Aa = 0.1 in.

Safety Factors Klp KIl Kl*(a) a, Kl'(ae) Japp Jo.1 OK?

Primary Secondary (ksiin) (ksi in) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiWin) (kips/in) (kips/in) 1.40 1.00 89.418 52.592 142.010 2.6681 161.109 0.856 1.542 Yes These results demonstrate that both EPFM acceptance criteria are satisfied using safety factors of 1.5 and 1.0 (primary and secondary) for stabile flaw extension and 1.4 and 1.0 for limited flaw extension. The applied tearing modulus of 3.390 is less than the material tearing modulus of 11.956 (indicated in the J-T diagram on the following page) and the applied J-integral of 0.856 kips/in is less than the material J-integral of 1.542 kips/in at a flaw extension of 0.1 inch.

The results of this EPFM flaw evaluation demonstrate that using the J-R curve and safety factors in RG 1.161 confirms the acceptability of the current remnant flaw evaluations based on the NUREG-0744 material J-R curve and previously NRC approved safety factors.

10

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 10 9

8 7

6

-*5 4

3 2

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Tearing Modulus J-T Diagram for EPFM Using Regulatory Guide 1.161 I1

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 NRC RAI-7 Table 6-2 of Attachment 2 [of Relief Request 51] provides results for a number of parameters which were calculated during the EPFM evaluation. Please provide the flow stress of at the operating temperature of 565 'F and a sample calculation for the applied tearing modulus Tapp appeared in Column 9 of this table.

APS Response The flow stress at 565 'F is 61.2 ksi, derived from the average of the minimum yield (42.4 ksi) and the minimum ultimate (80.0 ksi) strengths of the reactor vessel bottom head material. The applied tearing modulus with safety factors of 3 on primary loads and 1.5 on secondary loads, reported in Table 6-2 as 17.508, was calculated as follows:

At Flaw At Flaw At Flaw Parameters Depth Depth Depth Units a a - 0.01" a + 0.01" a 2.073 in.

KI 116.46 ksi'lin Kip 63.87 ksi!in Aa 0 -0.01 0.01 in.

E 27610 ksi v 0.3 2

E' = E/(1-v ) 30341 ksi oy 42.4 ksi ou 80.0 ksi of =0.5*(ay+au) 61.2 ksi a + Aa 2.073 2.063 2.083 in.

KI = KI V(a+Aa/a) 116.46 116.18 116.74 ksi'lin Kip = Kip V(a+Aa/a) 63.87 63.72 64.02 ksi*in Kit = KI -Kip 52.59 52.46 52.72 ksNin SFp 3 3 3 SFs 1.5 1.5 1.5 Kl*p = SFp Kip 191.610 191.147 192.072 kshiin Kl*s = SFs Kis 78.888 78.697 79.078 ksi/in KI" = Kl*p + Kl*s 270.498 269.845 271.150 ksi/in ae = a + (1/67c) (KI*/oy) 2 4.2322 4.2118 4.2526 in.

Kl'(ae) = KIV(ae/a) 386.50 385.57 387.43 ksi/in Japp = [ Kl' (ae) ]2 / E' 4.923 4.900 4.947 kips/in 2

Tapp = (E/of ) [(Japp(a+Aa) -Japp(a-Aa))/2Aa] 17.508 12

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 ATTACHMENT 1 THERMAL STRESS DURING LOSS OF SECONDARY PRESSURE TRANSIENT IN THE LOWER HEAD OF PALO VERDE REACTOR VESSEL 13

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 Attachment 1 Thermal Stress during Loss of Secondary Pressure Transient in the Lower Head of Palo Verde Reactor Vessel Purpose The purpose of the analysis is to determine the maximum hoop thermal stress in the Palo Verde reactor vessel lower head developed during loss of secondary pressure transient in support of the response to RAI #2.

Methodology

1. Generate a 2D axisymmetric finite element model to simulate a simplified reactor vessel lower head with an inner radius of 93.3 inches and a thickness of 6.5 inches (Reference [A.1]);

2. Perform thermal transient analysis for loss of secondary pressure condition to determine the temperature field of the reactor vessel lower head;

3. Get temperature field and thermal gradients for each time point;

4. Identify maximum thermal gradient across thickness and the time point of its occurrence;

5. Perform structural analysis, using temperature field identified in Step 4, to determine the thermal stress distribution through the thickness of the lower head.

Assumptions

1. The finite element model represents a perfect hemisphere. Any feature other than the sphere portion of the base metal of the lower head, such as cladding, weld, and penetration elements are not included;

2. The fluid temperature data during Loss of Secondary Pressure transient are taken from Figure 5 of Reference [A.2] (see curve TCOLD in Figure 1). It has an approximately 22.5 °F/sec temperature drop rate during the first 100 seconds;

3. The initial condition of the lower head is assumed to be a uniformly distributed temperature of 565 OF.

Material Properties Per Reference [A.1], the material of the reactor vessel lower head is SA-533 Gr. B Class 1 (C-Mn-Mo-0.4-0.7Ni). The material properties are taken from Reference [A.3]

except the material densities are taken from Reference [A.5].

Page 1 of 8

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 Attachment 1 Table 1: Material Properties Modulus of Thermal Thermal Specific Heat Density Temp. Elasticity Expansion Conductivity (k) (C)

Coefficient (cc) (p)

OF x 106, psi X 10-6, 1/OF Btu/hr-in-°F Btu/lb-°F lb/in 3 100 29.80 6.13 2.5833 0.1147 0.2839 200 29.50 6.38 2.5000 0.1169 0.2831 300 29.00 6.60 2.4250 0.1210 0.2823 400 28.60 6.82 2.3417 0.1251 0.2817 500 28.00 7.02 2.2667 0.1292 0.2809 600 27.40 7.23 2.1833 0.1333 0.2802 700 26.60 7.44 2.1083 0.1393 0.2794 Reference [A.3] [A.3] [A.3] Calculated* [A.5]

Note: *C = K/(p Td), where Tdis thermal diffusivity from the same source as thermal conductivity (k in the table).

Finite Element Model and Boundary Conditions and Results Definition of the reactor coolant temperature history for Loss of Secondary Pressure transient is listed in Table 2 (see curve TCOLD in Figure 1 and Figure 5 of Reference

[A.2]). The temperature data are input as bulk temperatures of the inner surface of the lower head in the thermal transient analysis.

Table 2: Reactor Coolant Temperature during Loss of Secondary Pressure Transient Loss of Secondary Pressure Transient No No Time Time (Sec) Temp. (F) Time (Sec) Temp. (F) No. (Sec) Temp. (F) 1 0.00010 565.000 13 109.98600 343.322 25 255.06500 403.888 2 6.87838 464.089 14 118.69400 344.362 26 291.30900 406.988 3 14.58130 433.842 15 128.97200 349.265 27 324.68400 410.796 4 21.16600 413.791 16 132.03300 354.534 28 363.84200 414.595 5 25.18680 403.940 17 135.55700 364.369 29 403.01200 418.745 6 33.54480 394.082 18 136.68700 379.834 30 459.56400 423.919 7 41.89150 383.872 19 138.62900 374.215 31 519.01800 429.439 8 50.26070 374.365 20 144.57000 384.746 32 566.89600 434.629 9 62.97840 365.202 21 159.17400 389.291 33 601.68300 437.380 10 74.32940 358.502 22 181.01800 394.174 34 622.35200 495.703 11 89.96100 350.037 23 199.92500 397.656 35 639.72300 496.376 12 102.76900 343.687 24 223.14600 400.428 Page 2 of 8

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 Attachment I T J Z f~

, RC-,R/. _,

.theevalut- ion-o curve,. is used. for.

e-~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~e

~ ~w...LlrdlD*  :,,4==*,l - c ='*I**..

.. T hT c o Nte

'

• ,* ....,l . " ...  :.! I;, NNthe:

the BMTnzze of#3 evaluation _

• I:L * *J .T 4... :i .. . .. I:........

, the BM I nozzle #3. #0'*

0 Al0 ,cl  : M 4W ""

J*4 X iA= -a1,1xfl* I= A

-0 AV KI 0 0 AT Z P5 X504 X0.,X ~ ~ ~ ~4 77,WE-77---,

Title:

PL4/T74L//EATC La..5O ~ I, S t3 Irof

• . $ecificafton o.00000-PE..1O Revision I.,"

Figure 1: Plant Transient - Loss of Secondary Pressure Page 3 of 8

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 Attachment I A convection coefficient of 1000 Btu/hr-ft2 -°F is applied on the inner surface of the base metal of the lower head. This value is based on experiences from similar projects performed in the past. The convection coefficient on the outer surface of the lower head is assumed to be 0.150 Btu/hr-ft2-OF and the ambient air temperature is assumed to be 70°F during Loss of Secondary Pressure transient. The lower head is assumed to be initially under uniformly distributed temperature of 565°F.

Figure 2 shows Finite element model boundary conditions and the temperature field.

Figure 3 shows the history of temperature vs. time and the history of temperature gradient between inside and outside surface of the lower head vs. time. Note that curves identified with TEMP_1, TEMP_2 and TEMP_3 in the left graph of this figure are temperature histories for node located on inner surface, at depth of 1.5 inches from inner surface, and on outer surface. Figure 4 shows radial and hoop thermal stresses in the lower head at the maximum temperature difference time point during Loss of Secondary Pressure transient (at time of 0.032971 hours, i.e. 118.694 seconds). Table 3 lists radial and hoop thermal stresses in a path across the thickness of the lower head (path is shown in Figure 2). Figure 5 provides graphs for the thermal stresses vs. depth from IDto 0D of the lower head. Figure 6 shows the temperature vs. depth from ID to OD.

It is seen that the maximum hoop thermal stress on the inner surface of the lower head during Loss of Secondary Pressure transient is about 46 ksi.

141If,1

40 2013 AN 74 PL00r W. I SW.P-14 Convection I..-169 .91 Coefficient on inner I -37.46 3J764(36 surface of the head m9 EM *. 5 4418.204 2

1000 Btu/hr-ft -'F

¶9 073 459.941 Path for 5(4.20'7 temperature extraction Convection Temperature field at time point with Coefficient on outer maximum temperature difference.

surface of the head 0.15 Btu/hr-ft 2 -F Figure 2: Finite Element Model, Boundary Condition (Left) and Temperature field (Right)

Page 4 of 8

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 Attachment I AN W

V422

¢-t I4 T1W4 Figure 3: Temperature vs. Time (Left) and Temperature Difference vs. Time (Right)

Note: TEMP_1, TEMP_2, and TEMP_3 represents locations at inner surface, 1.5 inches from the inner surface, and the outer surface of the lower head, respectively. Units: 'F for vertical axis, hours for horizontal axis.

420300 14.0 M40 15 2013 002* 10 2013 18: 35: 39 14135133 5420241[l.

04L010 FIDLSCUMC1.

SA, -1 Z4 '-1 1M 230:33 2120-1

• ayl ýAW-3 030S-1 Sw -422. -- 205

315143-1

40C 511

-A.416 4'2I 039 ,A',4 50407.25

-305. 164 4 64&4 12 0154-4.41.0 am 3N.:

1354*4-424 0 310 S13 .6 434 TeweoJtuzoc.JJ Figure 4: Thermal Stress in Radial (Left) and Hoop (Right) Directions Note: Thermal stresses are calculated based on temperature field at the time point, during Loss of Secondary Pressure transient, with maximum temperature difference between ID and OD of the lower head.

Page 5 of 8

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 Attachment 1 Table 3: Maximum Thermal Stresses in Lower Head during Loss of Secondary Pressure Transient Palo Verde (Ri--93.35", Thk=6.5")

Depth from ID to OD Temperature (F) SX* (psi) SY*(psi), SZ* (psi) 0 377 17 46342 1.3 483 843 12365 2.6 539 903 -5281 3.9 559 655 -10908 5.2 564 335 -11999 6.5 564 16 -11950 Note:

• The stresses are under spherical coordinate system. *SX represents the stress in radial direction, and SY and SZ represent the stresses in the hoop directions.

Maximum Radial & Hoop Stresses during Loss of Secondary Pressure Transient 1000 -__ _ 50000 900 __--_ - - - Radial Thermal Stress (PSI) 84-oo Thral Stress (PSI)} 400 I'+............*l.... / -i+*Radiall Stress I " ,. . . . ..++.. . +........ + + -'

70030000~a

.2400 5300 ----------

200 Hoop Stres ......... 10

-10000 100 0 ------ -20000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 Depth from IDof Lower Head (in)

Figure 5: Thermal Stress in Radial (Left) and Hoop (Right) Directions vs. Depth from ID to OD Note: Thermal stresses are calculated based on temperature field at the time point, during Loss of Secondary Pressure transient, with maximum temperature difference between ID and OD of the lower head.

Page 6 of 8

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 Attachment I Temperature vs. Depth from IDof Lower Head 600-06 450 350 j 300 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 Depth from 10 of Lower Head (in)

Figure 6: Temperature vs. Depth from ID to OD Hardware, Software and Computer Files Hardware and software The EASI listed computer program ANSYS Release 14.0 (Reference [A.4]) is used in this calculation.

Verification tests of similar applications are listed as follows:

" Error notices for ANSYS Release 14.0 are reviewed and none apply for this analysis.

" Computer hardware used:

o Dell Precision (Computer Name: MOCAO2, Service Tag #: 5VKT5S1) with Intel CoreTM i7-2640M CPU @ 2.80GHz, 2.80 GHz, 8.00 GB of RAM and Operating System is Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise Version 2009 Service Pack 1.

o Name of person running tests: Jasmine Cao

" Date of tests:

o October 27, 2013 on computer "MOCAO2" (Service Tag #: 5VKT5S1)

• Acceptability: Results shown in files vm5.out and vm28.out show that the test runs are acceptable.

Computer Files The computer files for the installation test have been stored in in the ColdStor under

/cold/General-Access/32/32-9000000/32-9212942-000/official/ directory. The computer files for the thermal analysis are listed below:

Page 7 of 8

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 Attachment I Table 4: Computer Files Name Date modified Type Size

1. 1 LSP tr.inp 11/15/2013 5:20 PM INP File 8 KB F post-pvLSP.out 11A15/2013 5:22 PM OUT File 14 KB

• rpvypvLSP.out 11A15/2013 5:22 PM OUT File 154 KB References References identified with an (*) are maintained within [PVNGS3] Records System and are not retrievable from AREVA Records Management. These are acceptable references per AREVA Administrative Procedure 0402-01, Attachment 8.

[A.1]. *Report N001-0301-00214, Revision 007, "Reactor Vessel, Unit 3, Analytical Report, V-CE-30869, 30AU84."

[A.2]. *Customer Document, N001-0301-00006, Rev. 06, OEM Document No. 00000-PE-110, Rev. 05, B3, OEM Title "General Specification for Reactor Vessel Assembly."

[A.3]. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsection NB, 1971 Edition, through Winter 1973 Addenda.

[A.4]. ANSYS Finite Element Computer Code, Version 14.0, ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA.

[A.5]. AREVA Document NPGD-TM-500 Rev. D, "NPGMAT, NPGD Material Properties Program, User's Manual (03/1985)"

Page 8 of 8

Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) - Relief Request 51 ATTACHMENT 2 Dominion Engineering, Inc., Calculation No. C-7789-00-2, Revision No. 1, Palo Verde Bottom Head InstrumentationNozzle Stress Analysis

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Page 1 of 13 Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Record of Revisions Rev. Description Prepared by Checked by Reviewed by Date Date Date 0 Original Issue M.R. Fleming J.E. Broussard J.E. Broussard 5/28/04 5/28/04 5/28/04 I Added explicit statements in Sections 3 and 4 that head temperature and operating pressure are assumed values. Interchanged "above" and "below" in first paragraph of Section 5.2. $,a SA X, .000554' Corrected figurettable descriptions in Section 5.3 to account for orientation of BMI nozzle penetration. Introduced Section 5.5 regarding z/*

QA control of software; added Reference 5.

Changed "Top" to "Bottom" in title of Table 5-2. Corrected "Uphill" and "Downhill" labels in Table 5-4. Provided closer view of weld region in Figures 5-2 to 5.5. Corrected Figures 5-6 to 5-9: changed "Top" to "Bottom" in captions and corrected stress plot (now based on appropriate element selections per Westpost8). Replaced Westpost6 with Westpost8 in Attachment 2 (and Section 5.3).

The last revision number to reflect any changes for each section of the calculation is shown in the Table of Contents. The last revision numbers to reflect any changes for tables and figures are shown in the List of Tables and the List of Figures. Changes made in the latest revision, except for Rev. 0 and revisions which change the calculation in its entirety, are indicated by a double line in the right hand margin as shown here.

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Page 2 of 13 Table of Contents Sect. Page Last Mod.

Rev.

1.0 Purpose 4 0 2.0 Summary of Results 4 0 3.0 Input Requirements 4 1 4.0 Assumptions 5 1 5.0 Analysis 6 1 6.0 References 12 1 List of Tables Table No. Last Mod.

Rev.

5-1 Nozzle Through Wall Hoop Stress at Selected Axial Locations 0 5-2 Nozzle Through Wall Axial Stress Along the Bottom of the Weld - Element-Oriented 1 Coordinate System 5-3a Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (0.0' BMI Nozzle Case) 0 5-3b Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (26.60 BMI Nozzle Case) 0 5-3c Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (37.90 BMI Nozzle Case) 0 5-3d Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (49.0' BMI Nozzle Case) 0 5-4 Change in Inner Diameter at Selected Axial Locations 1

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Page 3 of 13 List of Figures Fig. No. Last Mod.

Rev.

5-1 Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Node Numbering Scheme 0 5-2 Operating Plus Residual Hoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress (0.0' BMI Nozzle) 1 5-3 Operating Plus Residual Hoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress (26.60 BMI Nozzle) 1 5-4 Operating Plus Residual Hoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress (37.90 BMI Nozzle) 1 5-5 Operating Plus Residual Hoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress (49.00 BMI Nozzle) 1 5-6 Operating Plus Residual Axial Stress at Bottom of Weld - Element-Oriented Coordinate 1 System - 0.0' BMI Nozzle 5-7 Operating Plus Residual Axial Stress at Bottom of Weld - Element-Oriented Coordinate I System - 26.60 BMI Nozzle 5-8 Operating Plus Residual Axial Stress at Bottom of Weld - Element-Oriented Coordinate 1 System - 37.9' BMI Nozzle 5-9 Operating Plus Residual Axial Stress at Bottom of Weld - Element-Oriented Coordinate 1 System - 49.00 BMI Nozzle List of Attachments Att. No. Last Mod.

Rev.

1 Palo Verde BMI Model Results Summaries 0 2 File "Westpost8.txt" 0

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Page 4 of 13 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this calculation is to document the results of finite element stress analyses of the Palo Verde bottom-mounted instrumentation (BMI) nozzle penetrations. In this analysis, a number of nozzle geometries spanning the range of BMI penetration angles in the Palo Verde reactor bottom head are investigated.

2.0 Summary of Results Four BMI nozzle geometries were analyzed: the center penetration (0.0' nozzle), 26.6' nozzle, 37.9' nozzle, and outermost penetration (49.00 nozzle). The cases support the following conclusions:

1. The maximum nozzle ID hoop stresses are in the vicinity of the J-groove weld and are in excess of the corresponding axial stresses, suggesting that PWSCC cracking should be axially oriented.

2. Residual hoop stresses in the head shell region just beyond the J-groove weld are largely compressive.

3.0 Input Requirements The following values are used in this calculation:

1. The local configuration of the J-groove weld attaching the BMI nozzles to the RPV bottom head. The details used for each model are taken from Combustion Engineering (CE) drawings (References 2a, 2c, 2f, 2h, 2k, 2m).

2. Detailed dimensions of the RPV bottom head and BMI nozzles. These values are taken from the set of CE drawings presented as Reference (2):

Nozzles:

- BMI Nozzle OD = 3.001 inches (in region of J-groove weld) - Ref. (2d, 2i, 2n)

- BMI Nozzle ID = 0.750 inches (in region of J-groove weld) - Ref. (2d, 2i, 2n)

Reactor Vessel:

- Cladding thickness = 0.16 inches - Ref. (2e, j)

- RPV Bottom Head Inner Radius (to cladding) = 93.19 inches - Ref. (2e, 2j)

- RPV Head Thickness (minimum, excluding cladding) = 6.5 inches - Ref. (Le, 2j

4. Operating pressure and temperature. An operating temperature and pressure of 5657F and 2,235 psig were used for the current analysis. As is noted in Section 4, these values were assumed for this analysis.

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Page 5 of 13 4.0 Assumptions The following modeling assumptions were used for the BMI nozzle modeling described in this calculation:

1. The range of clearance fits for the Palo Verde BMI nozzles may be calculated from References (2c) and (2d) (for Unit 1), (2h) and (2i) (for Unit 2), and (2m) and (2n) (for Unit 3). For the current analysis, the nominal 1.5 mil radial clearance fit was used.

2. Based on experimental stress-strain data and certified mill test report data for the materials listed below, the following room-temperature and 600'F elastic limit values were used in association with the elastic-perfectly plastic hardening laws described in Section 5.1:

Material 70OF 600°F Alloy 182 Welds (Original and Replacement) 75.0 ksi 60.0 ksi Low-Alloy Steel Shell 70.0 ksi 57.6 ksi Stainless Steel Cladding 40.0 ksi 28.9 ksi The elastic limit values for the base materials (head shell and cladding), which undergo small strains during the analysis, are based on the 0.2% offset yield strength for the material. The elastic limit values for the weld materials, which undergo large strains during the analysis, are based on an average of the reported yield and tensile strengths.

3. Based on high temperature yield strength data for Alloy 600 bar in Ref. (6), the following temperature scaling factors were applied to the Alloy 600 multi-linear isotropic hardening curve described in Section 5.1:

0 70 OF: 1.15

• 1,600 OF: 0.29 0 600 OF: 1.00

• 2,300 OF: 0.05

• 1,200 °F: 0.83

• 3,500 OF: 0.05

4. Prior to the J-groove welding process, a stress relief pass at 1,100°F is performed by applying a uniform temperature to the model. The stress-strain properties of the head, J-groove weld, and stainless cladding have been selected such that the low alloy steel material relaxes to a stress no greater than 25 ksi, while the other materials relax to stresses no greater than 30 ksi.

5. For the J-groove weld simulation, two passes of welding were performed: an inner pass and an outer pass. The model geometry was designed such that each weld pass is approximately the same volume.

6. The model geometries for each of the BMI nozzle cases were based on nominal as-designed dimensions. In addition, as noted in Section 3, the minimum dimensioned bottom head thickness (6.5 inches per Reference 2i) was used.

7. The BMI nozzle in each of the four cases was modeled such that the nozzle end (of length "D," as indicated in References 2d and 2h) at which the nozzle ID and OD are not equal to 0.750 and 3.001 inches is neglected. Omission of the nozzle end from the model is justified by the stress results presented in Figures 5-2 through 5-5, which show that both hoop (Sy) and axial (Sz) stresses decay

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Page 6 of 13 rapidly in the nozzle over a very short distance from the top of the weld, such that nozzle stresses have reached negligible levels at the end of the modeled length. This rapid reduction in stress is attributable to the comparably stiff BMI nozzles at Palo Verde (due to the high wall thickness/diameter ratio of the nozzles).

8. Operating pressure and temperature. An operating temperature and pressure of 565°F and 2,235 psig, respectively, were assumed for the current analysis.

5.0 Analysis 5.1 Finite Element Analyses Finite element analyses of the BMI nozzles were performed for a total of four cases, selected to bracket the range of BMI penetration angles in the Palo Verde reactor vessel heads. The four BMI geometry cases analyzed are: 0.00 (penetration no. 1), 26.6' (penetration nos. 21 and 22), 37.9' (penetration no. 41), and 49.00 (penetration nos. 60 and 61). Figure 5-1 shows the element geometry and node numbering scheme for the 37.9' BMI nozzle model. The numbering scheme used for the BMI model is identical for all four cases considered in this calculation.

ANSYS finite element analyses were performed using a model based on work developed for commercial customers and described in a 1994 EPRI report on the subject of PWSCC of Alloy 600 components in PWR primary system service (Ref. 1).

All nozzles were analyzed using 3D models. The model includes a sector of the alloy steel head with stainless steel cladding on the inside surface, the Alloy 600 nozzle, the Inconel buttering layer in the J-groove weld preparation (simulated as a single weld pass for this analysis), and the Inconel weld material divided into two "passes" of approximately equal volume. The stainless steel cladding and Inconel buttering layers were included in the model since these materials have significantly different coefficients of thermal conductivity compared to the carbon steel vessel head, and therefore influence the weld cooling process.

The boundary conditions on the conical surfaces are such that only radial deflections in the spherical coordinate system are permitted. The nozzles are modeled as being installed in holes in the vessel head using gap elements with an initial radial clearance of 1.5 mils (as discussed in Section 4.0).

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Page 7 of 13 The current analysis model simulates the butter weld deposition process and the 1,100°F thermal stress relief of the head shell and butter (prior to J-groove welding). The butter weld deposition process is simulated using a single pass; i.e., the butter region is deposited as a single ring of material. After completion of the butter deposition step, the entire model (with the exception of the nozzle and J-groove weld elements, which are not yet active in the model) is uniformly raised to 1,100°F. As noted below, the elastic limit material properties of the head shell and butter at 1,100°F are reduced relative to those used in Reference (Q)in order to simulate the stress relaxation caused by a multiple-hour stress relief at 1,1 00°F.

This analysis includes steps for weld depositing the butter and stress relieving the head and butter prior to the J-groove welding steps. In order to accurately model the stress relaxation in the weld region due to time at elevated temperature, the elastic limit for the Alloy 182 weld and stainless steel cladding at temperatures near 1,100°F are reduced relative to curves used in the Reference (1) analyses. The reduced elastic limits are set at values consistent with the lower residual stress levels brought about by the multiple-hour stress relief. This reduction in elastic limit allows stresses in the pressurizer shell, cladding, and buttering to redistribute at the lower residual stress levels.

The welds (both the weld butter and J-groove weld) are modeled as rings of weld metal which are heated and cooled. As noted above, weld buttering is simulated as a single weld pass; the J-groove weld is simulated as two weld passes. The welding process is simulated by combined thermal and structural analyses. The thermal analysis is used to generate nodal temperature distributions throughout the model at several points in time during the welding process. These nodal temperatures are then used as input conditions to the structural analysis, which calculates the thermally induced stresses. Once welding is completed, a hydrostatic pressure load is applied to, then removed from, the wetted regions of the model at ambient temperature. Finally, the model is loaded with operating temperature and pressure.

The combination of thermal and structural analyses required the use of both thermal and structural finite element types, as follows:

Thermal Analysis. For the 3-D thermal analysis, eight-node thermal solids (SOLID70) and null elements (Type 0) were used. Use of null elements between the nozzle and head penetration has the effect of limiting heat transfer between the nozzle and head to conduction through the J-groove region.

This assumption was made because the head penetrations are counterbored both at the upper and lower

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: I Page 8 of 13 portions of the penetration, and because thermal communication between the surfaces that are nominally in contact was assumed to be poor.

Structural Analysis. Eight-node 3-D isoparametric solid elements (SOLID45) and two-node interface elements (COMBIN40) were used for the 3-D structural analyses. The SOLID45 and COMBIN40 elements replaced the SOLID70 and null elements, respectively, which had been used for the thermal analysis. Degenerate four- and six-node solid elements were not used in areas of high stress gradient since they can lead to significant errors when used in these regions (7). Higher order elements were not used since they provide no greater accuracy for elastic-plastic analyses than the eight-node solids (7_).

Further details of the finite element modeling process are available in Reference (1_).

In Reference (1), the analytical results of the finite element model were correlated with the experimental and field data that were available at the time. This study showed that the locations of observed cracking correlated well with regions of highest stress in the analytical model. Additionally, the measured ovality at EdF and Ringhals CRDM nozzles was found to correlate well with the analytically predicted ovality for these nozzles. Further details of the correlation between analytical and experimental/field data are available in Reference (1).

It is noted that the finite element model has been improved and refined since it was described in Reference (1). Among the improvements over the model described in Reference (1) are the following:

I. While the material properties used for the nozzle material continue to make use of multi-linear isotropic hardening, the material properties for the weld and weld buttering, head shell, and stainless steel cladding are now modeled using elastic-perfectly plastic hardening laws. Experience has shown that using multi-linear hardening properties in the analysis of materials that experience a high degree of plastic strain at elevated temperatures (such as those within the J-groove welds) results in significant work hardening once the material has cooled to lower temperatures. Using elastic-perfectly plastic hardening laws does not allow this artificial work hardening to occur, which yields more realistic stresses in the weld portions of the model.

2. The ability to refine the mesh in the various regions of the model. The model geometry used in this calculation makes use of approximately four times the mesh refinement in the J-groove weld areas as is shown in Reference (1), and uses greater mesh refinement in other areas of the model, such as the nozzle.

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Page 9 of 13

3. The ability to perform four-pass welding, as an alternative to two passes. This feature produces more satisfactory results with J-groove welds that are deep compared to the wall thickness of the adjacent nozzle, such as for head vent and thermocouple RPV head penetrations.

In addition to these improvements, the finite element model has been modified for work specific to Westinghouse. In particular, the stress versus strain values for the multi-linear isotropic hardening used for the Alloy 600 nozzle material have been changed to be consistent with Alloy 600 cyclic stress-strain curve (CSSC) data obtained in Reference (3). The curve input for the analytical model is found in Figure 2-29 of (3), and is labeled "Reference Curve for Analysis." Because the CSSC curve in (3) is for only one temperature (600 'F), the reference curve was scaled to a number of other temperatures as follows. At each of the five strain values used to define the multi-linear isotropic hardening behavior of the nozzle material at 600 'F, the corresponding stress was linearly scaled up or down according to the scaling factors listed in Section 4.0, which are based on high temperature yield strength data for Alloy 600 in Reference (6). These scaling factors are consistent with the work performed using the version of the finite element model that is not specific to Westinghouse work. The ANSYS code that creates the finite element model with these changes has now been incorporated into DEI's "cirse.base" file. Version 2.4.6 of the cirse.base code was used for the four BMI cases considered in this calculation.

5.2 Analytical Results Summary Summaries of the analytical results for each of the models analyzed are contained in Attachment 1 to this calculation. These summaries show the maximum hoop and axial stresses at the ID of the nozzle, at the "uphill" and "downhill" (closest to the center of the head) circumferential planes, as well as "below" the weld (axial portion of the nozzle including the weld region and extending through the head shell) and "above" the weld (axial portion of the nozzle extending into the RPV). Plots of the hoop (SY) and axial (SZ) stresses in each of the four BMI model cases are shown in Figures 5-2 through 5-5.

Figures 5-2 through 5-5 and Attachment I show that the maximum hoop stresses are in the vicinity of the J-groove weld, and are in excess of the corresponding axial stresses, suggesting that PWSCC cracking should be axially oriented. The results also show that operating plus residual stresses are influenced by penetration angle, with higher angles generally leading to higher maximum hoop and axial stresses.

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRG[NIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Page 10 of 13 5.3 Additional Post-Processingof Analysis Results In addition to the condensed post-processing included in Attachment 1 to this calculation, further post-processing was performed to determine the stresses and deflections at a number of other locations specified by Westinghouse personnel. The additional post-processing was performed using the file "Westpost8.txt,"

included as Attachment 2 to this calculation.

The results of the additional post-processing are presented in Tables 5-1 through 5-4 and in Figures 5-6 through 5-9. With the exception of Table 5-4, all data and stress plots are for the operating plus weld residual stress load condition. Table 5-1 presents the hoop stress distribution through the nozzle thickness at five specific axial locations for both the downhill and uphill sides of the nozzle. These locations are:

0.5" above the top of the weld, the top of the weld, the middle of the weld, the bottom of the weld, and 0.5" below the bottom of the weld. Table 5-2 presents the axial stress distribution through the nozzle thickness at the bottom of the weld, following the sweep of the weld from downhill to uphill. Data are tabulated for each of the nine circumferential planes in the model. For Table 5-2, the axial stress results are in an element-oriented coordinate system which follows the path of the weld; the axial stress results presented in Table 5-2 are normal to the path of the weld. Tables 5-3a through 5-3d present the hoop stress distribution along the ID and the OD of the four BMI nozzle geometries at both the downhill and uphill sides. Table 5-4 presents the weld residual deflection at the inner diameter of the nozzle at each of the nine circumferential planes in the model for four axial locations. These data are used to calculate the change in inner diameter at each of the locations. The four axial locations are presented as defined in Reference (4), and are as follows:

Location 2 - 0.5" above the top of the uphill weld, Location 3 - top of the uphill weld, Location 4 - bottom of the uphill weld, and Location "X" - top of the downhill weld. Figures 5-6 through 5-9 are axial stress plots of the nozzle wall cross section at the bottom of the weld and following the sweep of the weld from uphill to downhill. As in Table 5-2, the stresses are in an element-oriented coordinate system which follows the path of the weld; the axial stress results presented are normal to the path of the weld.

5.4 Additional Files Stored Electronically In addition to the condensed post-processing included in this calculation, more voluminous output results have been saved electronically in the following directories and filenames:

/data/t7789/PVB-OA/PVB-OA.nodelocs.txt

/data/t7789/PVB-OA/PVB-OA.results.txt

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Page 11 of 13

/data/t7789/PVB-26A/PVB-26A.nodelocs.txt

/data/t7789/PVB-26A/PVB-26A.results.txt

/data/t7789/PVB-3 7A/PVB-3 7A.nodelocs.txt

/data/t7789/PVB-3 7A/PVB-3 7A.results.txt

/data/t7789/PVB-49A/PVB-49A.nodelocs.txt

/data/t7789/PVB-49A/PVB-49A.results.txt These files (created using "Westpost6.txt"-see Attachment 2) have been transmitted to Westinghouse via e-mail and on CD-ROM on disk D-7789-00-1, Revision 0.

5.5 Quality Assurance Software Controls The Palo Verde BMI nozzle analyses were performed on an HP J6700 workstation, under the HP-UX 11.0 operating system and ANSYS Revision 8.0, which is maintained in accordance with the provisions for control of software described in Dominion Engineering, Inc.'s (DEI's) quality assurance (QA) program for safety-related nuclear work (5). 1 In addition to QA controls associated with the procurement and use of the ANSYS software (e.g., maintenance of the ANSYS Inc. as an approved supplier of the software based on formal auditing and surveillance, formal periodic verification of ANSYS software installation), QA controls associated with all ANSYS batch input listings are also carried out by DEL. These include independent checks of a batch input listing each time it is used; review of all ANSYS Class 3 error reports and QA notices to assess their potential impact on a batch listing; and independent "check calculations" (e.g.,

comparison of model-computed nozzle and reactor vessel head stresses to theoretical closed-form solutions; confirmation that computed weld pass temperatures fell within target temperature ranges; and, for symmetric (00 nozzle angle) geometry cases, confirmation of the applied pressure loading and results symmetry) to ensure that the project-specific application of the analysis is appropriate. The review of ANSYS error reports and QA notices as well as the project-specific check calculations are documented formally in a QA memo to the project file (this project is DEI Task 77-89).

1 DEI's quality assurance program for safety-related work (DEI-002) commits to applicable requirements of 10 CFR 21, Appendix B of 10 CFR 50, and ASME/ANSI NQA-1. This QA program is independently audited periodically by both NUPIC (the Nuclear Procurement Issues Committee) and NIAC (the Nuclear Industry Assessment Committee).

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: I Page 12 of 13 6.0 References I1. PWSCC ofAlloy 600 Materials in PWR PrimarySystem Penetrations,EPRI TR-103696, July 1994.

2. Combustion Engineering (CE) drawings of Palo Verde reactor vessel bottom head, nozzle and weld geometry (182.25" ID PWR):

Palo Verde Unit 1:

a. CE Drawing E-78173-141-003, Revision 2, Lower Vessel Final Assembly

b. CE Drawing E-78173-151-001, Revision 3, Bottom Head Welded Assembly

c. CE Drawing E-78173-151-002, Revision 2, Bottom Head Penetrations

d. CE Drawing E-78173-184-001, Revision 4, Bottom Head Instrument Tubes

e. CE Drawing E-78173-171-003, Revision 7, General Arrangement Palo Verde Unit 2:

f. CE Drawing E-79173-141-003, Revision 1, Lower Vessel Final Assembly

g. CE Drawing E-79173-151-001, Revision 4, Bottom Head Welded Assembly

h. CE Drawing E-79173-151-002, Revision 1, Bottom Head Penetrations

i. CE Drawing E-STD 11-184-033, Revision 4, Bottom Head Instrument Tubes

j. CE Drawing E-79173-171-003, Revision 1, General Arrangement Palo Verde Unit 3:

k. CE Drawing E-65173-141-003, Revision 0, Lower Vessel Final Assembly

1. CE Drawing E-65173-151-001, Revision 1, Bottom Head Welded Assembly m CE Drawing E-65173-151-002, Revision 0, Bottom Head Penetrations

n. CE Drawing E-STD 11-184-033, Revision 4, Bottom Head Instrument Tubes

3. Ball, M. G., et al., "RV Closure Head Penetration Alloy 600 PWSCC," WCAP-13525, Revision 1, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 1992.

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.

11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190

Title:

Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis Task No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Page 13 of 13

4. Incoming Correspondence IC-7736-00-3, Fax from Warren Bamford (Westinghouse) to John Broussard (Dominion Engineering, Inc.) defining diameter measurement elevations, dated January 8, 2002. (Note: This document was transmitted to DEI in support of work performed for Task 7736 and is filed in the Task 77-36 Project File.)

5. Dominion Engineering, Inc. Quality Assurance Manual for Safety-Related Nuclear Work, DEI-002, March 30, 2004.

6. Properties and Selection: Stainless Steels, Tool Materials, and Special-Purpose Metals, ASM Materials Handbook Volume 3, Ninth Edition, p. 218, 1980.

7. "Modeling and Meshing Guide," ANSYS 8.0 Documentation, ANSYS, Inc.

DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC. Enclosure - Attachment 2 C-7789-00-2 Rev. I Table 5-1 Nozzle Through Wall Hoop Stress at Selected Axial Locations Percent _____ Downhill Side Hoop Stress (psi) _____ ____ Uphill Side Hoop Stress (psi)

Nozzle Angle Through 0.5" Above Top of Middle of Bottom of 0.5" Below 0.5" Above Top of Middle of Bottom of 0.5" Below Wall Weld Weld Weld Weld Weld Weld Weld Weld Weld Weld 0.0 ID -13,785 -22,532 3,690 14,725 21,851 -13,785 -22,532 3,690 14,725 21,851 0.0 13% -10,954 -16,817 3,287 12,880 16,738 -10,954 -16,817 3,287 12,880 16,738 0.0 25% -8,129 -10,764 3,571 15,636 14,306 -8,129 -10,764 3,571 15,636 14,306 0.0 38% -5,627 -4,115 7,066 20,683 15,549 -5,627 -4,115 7,066 20,683 15,549 0.0 50% -3,051 6,517 15,457 27,495 20,932 -3,051 6,517 15,457 27,495 20,932 0.0 63% 506 21,110 29,941 34,945 29,239 506 21,110 29,941 34,945 29,239 0.0 75% 4,150 36,194 50,007 45,980 30,834 4,150 36,194 50,007 45,980 30,834 0.0 88% 5,567 49,807 66,371 53,320 25,883 5,567 49,807 66,371 53,320 25,883 0.0 OD 14,627 50,014 71,136 124,199 23,501 4,627 150,014 71,136 24,199 23,501 26.6 ID 28,436 33,371 32,823 34,545 13,336 -4,885 -17,537 4,051 17,454 33,997 26.6 13% 21,943 25,422 31,560 30,609 7,624 -3,168 -12,577 8,001 15,315 23,645 26.6 25% 19,303 23,018 33,841 33,657 7,544 -2,670 -9,997 11,687 16,509 19,479 26.6 38% 18,959 24,180 36,204 38,896 9,804 -3,213 -6,705 16,393 18,479 18,093 26.6 500/0 21,399 29,721 41,373 45,536 12,310 -3,979 1,468 23,807 23,652 19,803 26.6 63% 25,11I 41,869 51,155 53,468 14,254 -4,907 17,001 33,269 29,996 24,913 26.6 75% 27,889 53,913 64,951 58,250 12,'594 -5,801 32,050 45,804 42,756 33,263 26.6 88% 24,312 62,486 69,723 55,093 6,171 -6,269 43,321 55,175 39,909 43,541 26.6 OD 123,084 59,897 68,511 145,873 2,368 -9,486 139,386 59,288 2,734 48,174 37.9 ID 43,700 41,628 43,308 22,896 8,496 -3,299 -14,779 497 24,164 40,322 37.9 13% 33,720 35,393 41,289 18,700 2,371 -3,762 -11,034 5,395 18,608 29,175 37.9 25% 29,650 36,295 45,524 21,752 1,843 -4,510 -11,124 11,161 19,654 23,475 37.9 38% 29,230 37,927 49,070 26,647 3,042 -5,554 -10,863 18,046 21,264 20,742 37.9 500/0 30,675 41,823 55,978 34,044 3,897 -6,533 -4,062 27,288 25,452 21,267 37.9 63% 35,377 49,496 66,014 43,807 4,576 -7,572 13,282 37,834 30,770 23,541 37.9 75% 40,949 57,373 77,036 50,263 823 -8,607 32,053 48,996 41,816 29,216 37.9 88% 47,721 59,023 75,126 47,473 -10,570 -9,183 36,231 52,487 30,749 34,317 37.9 OD 143,538 48,004 67,306 153,576 -18,301 -12,435 28,012 52,298 -1,327 34,890 49.0 ID 52,035 54,862 46,672 13,099 3,968 -4,271 -14,636 -5,445 29,289 44,282 49.0 13% 41,307 46,038 42,751 8,050 -2,553 -3,430 -11,770 1,033 18,711 31,099 49.0 25% 38,179 47,341 46,966 9,663 -3,051 -4,050 -14,478 7,740 19,185 24,444 49.0 38% 36,873 48,094 50,819 13,829 -1,315 -5,010 -15,617 16,413 22,231 20,904 49.0 50% 36,936 51,194 58,318 20,814 -209 -6,060 -8,234 27,662 25,663 20,136 49.0 63% 38,509 55,154 67,620 28,630 -552 -7,040 9,937 39,024 29,432 19,491 49.0 75% 39,441 57,180 74,629 37,256 -5,634 -7,613 31,203 46,212 37,072 21,984 49.0 88% 40,196 51,830 68,347 35,242 -19,341 -8,261 30,597 45,334 22,477 17,036 49.0 OD 33,717 137,236 161,176 146,778 1-30,370 1-10,584 1I7,751 148,644 1-846 12,297 Note: Nozzle yield strength at 600OF operating temperature is 39.3 ksi.

DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC. Enclosure - Attachment 2 C-7789-00-2 Table 5-2 Rev. 1 Nozzle Through Wall Axial Stress Along the Bottom of the Weld -- Element-Oriented Coordinate System Percent Downhill Local Axial Stress (psi) at Circumferential Location Nozzle Angle Through Downhill I Uphill UphiIl Wall - 90 -67.5' -45' -22.5-I 0- 22.50 450 67.50 900 0.0 ID -35,191 -35,191 -35,192 -35,192 -35,192 -35,192 -35,192 -35,191 -35,191 0.0 13% -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 0.0 25% -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 0.0 38% -28,709 -28,709 -28,708 -28,708 -28,708 -28,708 -28,708 -28,709 -28,709 0.0 50% -23,744 -23,744 -23,743 -23,743 -23,743 -23,743 -23,743 -23,744 -23,744 0.0 63% -15,472 -15,474 -15,472 -15,472 -15,472 -15,472 -15,472 -15,474 -15,472 0.0 75% -3,073 -3,074 -3,071 -3,072 -3,072 -3,072 -3,071 -3,074 -3,073 0.0 88% 15,477 15,476 15,478 15,477 15,477 15,477 15,478 15,476 15,477 0.0 OD 5,743 5,739 5,739 5,740 5,740 5,740 5,739 5,739 5,743 26.6 ID 16,455 18,431 18,105 10,848 3,528 -1,815 -6,234 -14,229 -20,455 26.6 13% 10,611 10,577 9,478 4,289 -1,138 -5,508 -9,781 -17,664 -23,646 26.6 25% 5,134 4,458 3,109 -576 -4,619 -8,338 -12,149 -18,699 -23,267 26.6 38% 2,417 1,167 -321 -3,391 -6,722 -9,573 -12,375 -17,579 -21,088 26.6 50% 2,690 688 -1,315 -4,237 -6,630 -8,249 -9,917 -13,536 -15,970 26.6 63% 1,760 -37 -1,777 -2,942 -3,004 -3,047 -3,995 -6,962 -9,001 26.6 75% 1,962 615 275 917 3,530 6,644 8,501 7,775 6,913 26.6 88% 14,001 13,619 14,127 15,626 20,165 27,803 31,348 29,932 27,982 26.6 OD 9,472 8,712 9,735 11,435 11,385 9,411 5,877 3,298 1,353 37.9 ID 22,467 27,881 30,808 21,920 8,676 419 -935 -243 -1,120 37.9 13% 18,847 21,064 21,928 15,838 6,593 -675 -2,747 -4,691 -7,554 37.9 25% 15,116 15,755 15,308 10,770 4,290 -1,342 -3,254 -6,015 -8,560 37.9 38% 13,422 12,308 10,711 7,022 1,970 -2,234 -3,203 -5,848 -7,761 37.9 50% 13,266 10,371 7,997 4,640 676 -1,708 -1,298 -2,792 -3,761 37.9 63% 11,114 7,255 5,103 3,043 2,237 2,241 3,572 2,605 1,891 37.9 75% 9,782 5,652 3,664 2,951 6,095 10,311 14,452 15,495 16,117 37.9 88% 11,902 12,619 14,340 16,242 22,340 31,713 35,991 32,700 30,255 37.9 OD 14,345 13,454 11,893 13,226 13,497 11,057 7,472 4,207 1,092 49.0 ID 15,395 22,427 31,115 23,697 2,729 -7,304 -3,268 8,877 14,330 49.0 13% 12,338 16,144 22,301 19,687 6,300 -3,359 -1,519 3,811 3,958 49.0 25% 11,846 14,153 17,206 14,008 5,885 -999 206 3,573 4,689 49.0 38% 13,189 13,501 13,949 9,774 4,325 -494 1,013 4,270 6,413 49.0 50% 15,885 14,390 12,262 7,541 3,275 233 3,374 7,087 9,644 49.0 63% 16,391 12,615 9,035 5,557 3,919 4,348 8,349 12,178 14,454 49.0 75% 11,598 8,380 5,611 3,326 6,849 13,168 18,939 22,891 24,867 49.0 88% 5,484 7,941 10,517 13,606 22,285 35,276 37,657 32,909 29,861 49.0 OD 13,455 12,549 9,628 12,680 12,378 11,107 6,970 2,668 -2,693

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC. C-7789-00-2 Rev. 1 Table 5-3a Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (0.00 BMI Nozzle Case)

Downhill Side Uphill Side J Axial [IDHoop) ODHoop [ Axial ID Hoop ODHoop Nodes I Height Stress (psi) Stress (psi) Nodes Height Stress (psi) Stress (psi)

Nozzle Top 80001,80009 0.00 16,457 7,289 1,9 0.00 16,457 7,289 0101,80109 0.30 1,701 5,111 101, 109 0.30 1,701 5,111 0201,80209 0.54 -13,785 4,627 201,209 0.54 -13,785 4,627 0301,80309 0.73 -22,054 6,339 301,309 0.73 -22,054 6,339 0401, 80409 0.88 -25,439 22,325 401,409 0.88 -25,439 22,325 0501,80509 1.01 -25,618 35,694 501,509 1.01 -25,618 35,694 Weld Top *0601,80609 1.11 -22,532 50,014 601,609 1.11 -22,532 50,014 0701,80709 1.40 -6,979 61,709 701,709 1.40 -6,979 61,709 0801,80809 1.70 4,693 73,123 801,809 1.70 4,693 73,123 80901,80909 2.00 3,690 71,136 901,909 2.00 3,690 71,136 81001,81009 2.29 4,615 74,007 1001, 1009 2.29 4,615 74,007 1101,81009 2.59 8,205 57,094 1101, 1009 2.59 8,205 57,094 Weld Bottom 81201,81209 2.89 14,725 24,199 1201,1209 2.89 14,725 24,199 1301, 81309 3.14 18,147 37,480 1301, 1309 3.14 18,147 37,480 1401, 81409 3.35 21,851 23,501 1401, 1409 3.35 21,851 23,501 1501,81509 3.61 20,231 13,797 1501, 1509 3.61 20,231 13,797 1601,81609 3.91 9,738 6,732 1601, 1609 3.91 9,738 6,732 1701,81709 4.27 6,103 1,736 1701,1709 4.27 6,103 1,736 1801,81809 4.71 4,382 912 1801, 1809 4.71 4,382 912 1901,81909 5.23 3,118 206 1901, 1909 5.23 3,118 206 2001,82009 5.85 2,527 202 2001,2009 5.85 2,527 202 2101,82109 6.60 2,446 228 2101,2109 6.60 2,446 228 2201, 82209 7.48 2,505 274 2201,2209 7.48 2,505 274 2301,82309 8.55 2,526 281 2301,2309 8.55 2,526 281 2401,82409 9.30 2,528 280 2401,2409 9.30 2,528 280 Nozzle Bottom 2501,82509 10.06 2,499 277 2501,2509 10.06 2,499 277

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC. C-7789-00-2 Rev. 1 Table 5-3b Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (26.60 BMI Nozzle Case)

Downhill Side Uphill Side IDHop OD Hoop VAxial IDHoop. 1SODHoo Nodes Height Stress (si) Stress (psi) Nodes Height Stress (psi) Stress (psi)

Nozzle Top 0001,80009 0.00 -2,426 -2,223 1,9 0.00 3,125 -2,523 0101,80109 0.83 -2,672 -298 101,109 0.27 162 -3,897 0201, 80209 1.50 -10,206 4,112 201,209 0.49 -4,885 -9,486 0301,80309 2.03 5,781 10,010 301,309 0.66 -12,518 -10,675 0401,80409 2.46 28,436 23,084 401,409 0.80 -16,477 5,995 80501,80509 2.80 34,552 48,931 501,509 0.91 -17,755 28,534 Weld Top 80601,80609 3.07 33,371 59,897 601,609 1.00 -17,537 39,386 80701,80709 3.35 29,802 68,922 701,709 1.31 -14,008 66,712 80801, 80809 3.63 30,558 67,159 801,809 1.62 -3,563 73,838 80901,80909 3.91 32,823 68,511 901,909 1.93 4,051 59,288 81001,81009 4.19 36,388 78,814 1001, 1009 2.24 8,021 39,518 81101,81009 4.47 38,921 60,206 1101, 1009 2.55 8,709 20,376 Weld Bottom 81201, 81209 4.74 34,545 45,873 1201, 1209 2.86 17,454 2,734 81301,81309 4.99 22,180 20,541 1301, 1309 3.11 29,151 29,529 81401,81409 5.17 13,336 2,368 1401, 1409 3.34 33,997 48,174 81501,81509 5.40 5,200 -3,461 1501, 1509 3.62 35,655 21,802 81601,81609 5.68 -776 2,634 1601,1609 3.96 31,781 8,542 81701,81709 6.02 1,056 -150 1701,1709 4.37 22,421 1,559 81801, 81809 6.45 2,194 502 1801, 1809 4.86 3,972 -292 1901,81909 6.97 2,648 395 1901,1909 5.45 544 -170 82001,82009 7.63 2,819 589 2001,2009 6.16 2,254 457 82101,82109 8.43 3,380 -948 2101,2109 7.01 2,731 458 82201,82209 9.43 4,173 -3,181 2201,2209 8.04 2,935 304 82301,82309 10.66 4,433 -5,339 2301,2309 9.28 3,522 199 V2401,82409 11.42 3,548 1,180 2401,2409 10.73 3,666 208 Nozzle Bottom P2501,82509 12.18 2,828 56 2501,2509 12.18 2,874 181

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC. C-7789-00-2 Rev. 1 Table 5-3c Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (37.9' BMI Nozzle Case)

Downhill Side Uphill Side JAxial ~ID Hoop jOD Hoop[ AxialIDHoop jOD -oop Nodes I Height Stress (psi) I Stress (psi) Nodes Height Stress (psi) Stress (psi)

Nozzle Top 80001,80009 0.00 -3,564 -2,603 1,9 0.00 651 -3,725 0101,80109 1.12 -3,571 -1,919 101,109 0.25 -2,555 -6,490 0201,80209 2.02 730 703 201,209 0.46 -3,299 -12,435 0301,80309 2.74 30,410 7,583 301,309 0.62 -7,476 -10,789 0401,80409 3.31 43,165 21,810 401,409 0.75 -11,690 2,576 0501,80509 3.77 43,700 43,538 501,509 0.86 -14,064 21,760 Weld Top 0601,80609 4.14 41,628 48,004 601,609 0.94 -14,779 28,012 0701,80709 4.42 43,987 66,924 701,709 1.26 -13,354 69,191 0801,80809 4.69 44,617 61,564 801,809 1.58 -7,519 74,168 0901,80909 4.97 43,308 67,306 901,909 1.90 497 52,298 1001,81009 5.24 44,038 76,958 1001, 1009 2.22 10,202 25,356 1101,81009 5.51 38,226 60,103 1101,1009 2.54 16,113 9,089 Weld Bottom 1201,81209 5.79 22,896 53,576 1201, 1209 2.86 24,164 -1,327 1301,81309 6.03 13,248 831 1301, 1309 3.11 33,721 29,567 1401,81409 6.22 8,496 -18,301 1401, 1409 3.37 40,322 34,890 1501,81509 6.46 2,652 -19,265 1501, 1509 3.69 42,995 21,975 1601,81609 6.75 722 -6,024 1601, 1609 4.08 40,637 7,484 1701,81709 7.12 3,035 -398 1701,1709 4.54 30,928 -1,532 1801,81809 7.58 3,482 93 1801, 1809 5.10 13,118 -1,793 1901,81909 8.16 3,272 385 1901, 1909 5.78 -1,786 -886 2001,82009 8.88 3,026 138 2001,2009 6.60 1,598 557 2101,82109 9.78 3,136 -1,071 2101,2109 7.58 3,956 714 2201,82209 10.90 3,506 -1,616 2201,2209 8.77 2,989 327 2301, 82309 12.31 3,537 -2,482 2301,2309 10.21 2,902 205 2401,82409 13.07 3,037 827 2401,2409 12.02 3,210 235 Nozzle Bottom 82501,82509 13.83 2,551 168 2501,2509 13.83 2,625 199

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC. C-7789-00-2 Rev. 1 Table 5-3d Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (49.0' DM1 Nozzle Case)

_ ~Downhill Side _Ujphill Side_

AxFia IDHoop jOD Hoop ~ Aial~~K IDHoop) OD Hoop Nodes JHeight IStress (psi) Stress (psi)J Nodes jHeight jStress (psi) Stress (psi)

Nozzle Top 80001, 80009 0.00 -3,722 -1,868 1,9 0.00 621 -5,289 30101,80109 1.40 -6,680 -2,104 101,109 0.21 -4,271 -10,584 30201, 80209 2.53 9,655 -2,346 201, 209 0.38 -5,211 -15,056 30301, 80309 3.43 39,134 3,915 301, 309 0.52 -7,466 -8,573 30401,80409 4.15 48,236 17,281 401,409 0.63 -10,584 1,437 30501, 805091 4.72 52,035 133,717 501, 509 0.72 -12,967 17,428 Weld Top 30601, 80609 5.19 54,862 37,236 601, 609 0.79 -14,636 17,751 30701,80709 5.51 55,735 60,921 701,709 1.13 -14,658 66,848 30801,80809 5.83 50,873 55,490 801,809 1.47 -12,418 71,984 30901,80909 6.16 46,672 61,176 901,909 1.81 -5,445 48,644 31001, 81009 6.48 38,565 69,994 1001, 1009 2.15 7,670 21,440 31101, 810091 6.80 24,141 62,170 1101, 1009 2.49 21,677 2,532 Weld Bottom 31201, 81209 7.13 13,099 46,778 1201, 1209 2.83 29,289 -846 31301, 81309 7.37 6,658 -12,381 1301, 1309 3.09 37,203 17,684 31401, 81409 7.58 3,968 -30,370 1401, 1409 3.41 44,282 12,297 31501, 81509 7.84 1,277 -21,886 1501, 1509 3.79 47,413 13,649 31601, 81609 8.18 2,934 -4,790 1601, 1609 4.26 45,514 8,968 31701, 81709 8.60 4,072 -778 1701, 1709 4.82 38,280 -4,341 31801, 81809 9.12 3,860 176 1801, 1809 5.50 23,009 -5,588 1901, 81909 9.79 3,187 338 1901, 1909 6.32 -1,728 -1,774 32001,82009 10.63 2,641 296 2001,2009 7.31 -1,986 846

2101.,82109 11.69 2,439 279 2101,2109 8.51 4,724 969 32201,82209 13.02 2,588 311 2201,2209 9.97 3,264 282 32301,82309 14.70 2,804 -686 2301,2309 11.72 2,223 251 32401, 82409 15.47 2,731 468 dl2401, 2409 13.98 2,705 27'5 Nozzle Bottom 2501,82509 16.24 2,514 265 F2501,2509 16.24 _2,588 227

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC. C-7789-00-2 Rev. 1 Table 5-4 Change in Inner Diameter at Selected Axial Locations Location 2 Location 4 Location "X" 0.5" Above Uphill Weld Location 3 Uphill Weld Downhill Weld Top Uphill Weld Top Bottom Top Radial Change in Radial Change in Radial Change in Radial Change in Circ Deflection Diameter Deflection Diameter Deflection Diameter Deflection Diameter Location (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils)

Uph ill -90.0 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.34

-67.5 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.34

-45.0 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.34

-22.5 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.34 0.00 Nozz le 0.0 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.34 22.5 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.34 45.0 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.34 67.5 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.34 Downh ill 90.0 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.34 Uph ill -90.0 23.10 0.16 19.75 -0.01 5.60 -0.34 3.97 -0.24

-67.5 21.35 0.16 18.31 0.08 5.41 0.09 3.99 0.31

-45.0 16.37 0.17 14.13 0.25 4.84 1.25 3.82 1.61

-22.5 8.90 0.17 7.80 0.41 3.52 2.36 3.15 2.95 26.60 Nozz le 0.0 0.08 0.16 0.23 0.46 1.41 2.82 1.75 3.50 22.5 -8.73 0.17 -7.39 0.41 -1.16 2.36 -0.20 2.95 45.0 -16.20 0.17 -13.88 0.25 -3.59 1.25 -2.21 1.61 67.5 -21.19 0.16 -18.23 0.08 -5.32 0.09 -3.68 0.31 Downh ill 90.0 -22.94 0.16 -19.76 -0.01 -5.94 -0.34 -4.21 -0.24 Uph ill -90.0 32.09 0.09 28.08 -0.18 9.18 -3.40 0.50 -0.05

-67.5 29.65 0.09 25.99 -0.11 8.79 -2.61 0.59 0.38

-45.0 22.70 0.07 19.98 0.03 7.53 -0.73 0.85 1.63

-22.5 12.29 0.04 10.90 0.17 4.99 1.29 1.40 2.99 37.90 Nozz le 0.0 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.22 1.06 2.12 1.82 3.64 22.5 -12.25 0.04 -10.73 0.17 -3.70 1.29 1.59 2.99 45.0 -22.63 0.07 -19.95 0.03 -8.26 -0.73 0.78 1.63 67.5 -29.56 0.09 -26.10 -0.11 -11.40 -2.61 -0.21 0.38 Downh ill 90.0 -32.00 0.09 -28.26 -0.18 -12.58 -3.40 -0.55 -0.05 Uph ill -90.0 39.29 0.20 34.97 -0.14 13.58 -4.82 -0.50 0.55

-67.5 36.29 0.16 32.34 -0.10 12.92 -3.92 -0.46 0.79

-45.0 27.75 0.07 24.80 -0.03 10.87 -1.60 -0.20 1.51

-22.5 15.00 -0.01 13.46 0.03 6.93 0.90 0.33 2.15 49.0' Nozz le 0.0 -0.03 -0.06 0.02 0.04 0.97 1.94 1.20 2.40 22.5 -15.01 -0.01 -13.43 0.03 -6.03 0.90 1.82 2.15 45.0 -27.68 0.07 -24.83 -0.03 -12.47 -1.60 1.71 1.51 67.5 -36.13 0.16 -32.44 -0.10 -16.84 -3.92 1.25 0.79 Downhiil 90.0 -39.09 0.20 -35.11 -0.14 -18.40 -4.82 1.05 0.55

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENG[NEERING, INC. C-7789-00-2 Revision 1 2323 609 9 80009 16 2309 (Nozzle) 2310 (Shell) 2509 Uphill Plane Nodes are O's Series Downhill Plane Nodes are 80,000's Series Original Nozzle Node Series: El's at Nozzle ID, 9's at Nozzle OD Weld Node Series:LJ 9's at Original Nozzle OD (merged w/ nozzle OD) 0 16's at Weld Edge Shell Node Series:U0 10's at Penetration ID below weld region U 23's at edge of shell section Node Numbers Increase by 100 up the length of the tube and shell Node Numbers Increase by I along the tube and shell radius Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Node Numbering Scheme nstr.entat.o.Nozzl..ode.umb ring ........

BottomH ad Figure 5-1

Enclosure - Attachment 2 C-7789-00-2 ANSYS 8.0 Revision 1 JUL 23 2004 16:06:22 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=7004 SY (AVG)

RSYS=11 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=A11 DMX =.44721 SMN =-61422 SMX =78551 l -61422 i -10000 10 1 10000 1 20000 30000 40000 1 50000 100000 ANSYS 8.0 JUL 23 2004 16:06:23 PLOT NO. 2 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=7004 SZ (AVG)

RSYS=11 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=A11 DMX =.44721 SIMN =-82639 SMX =81784 l -82639 1 -10000 10 1

10000 1 20000 30000 40000 50000 100000 Figure 5-2 Operating plus Residual Hoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress 0.0' BMI Nozzle

Enclosure - Attachment 2 C-7789-00-2 ANSYS 8.0 Revision I JUL 23 2004 16:06:32 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=7004 SY (AVG)

RSYS=11 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=A11 DMX = .443919 SMN =-71059 SMX =78814 I -71059 I -10000 I0 10000 I 20000 30000 40000 I 50000 100000 ANSYS 8.0 JUL 23 2004 16:06:33 PLOT NO. 2 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=7004 SZ (AVG)

RSYS=11 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=A11 DMX =.443919 SMN =-82736 SMX =85580 I -82736

-10000

~0

- 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 100000 Figure 5-3 Operating plus Residual Hoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress 26.60 BMI Nozzle

Enclosure - Attachment 2 C-7789-00-2 ANSYS 8.0 Revision I JUL 23 2004 16:06:42 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=7004 SY (AVG)

RSYS=11 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=A11 DMX =.440476 SMN =-70462 SMX =80177

-70462 1 -10000 10 10000 1 20000 30000

- 40000 1 50000 100000 ANSYS 8.0 JUL 23 2004 16:06:43 PLOT NO. 2 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=7004 SZ (AVG)

RSYS=11 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=A11 DMX =.440476 SMN =-81501 SMX =89427 S-81501

-10000 10 10000 1 20000 30000 40000 i 50000 100000 Figure 5-4 Operating plus Residual Hoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress 37.90 BMI Nozzle

Enclosure - Attachment 2 C-7789-00-2 ANSYS 8.0 Revision 1 JUL 23 2004 16:06:53 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=7004 SY (AVG)

RSYS=11 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=A11 DMX =.444361 SMN =-60928 SMX =81967

-60928

-10000 0

10000 I 20000 30000

- 40000 50000 100000 ANSYS 8.0 JUL 23 2004 16:06:54 PLOT NO. 2 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=7004 SZ (AVG)

RSYS=11 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES=A11 DMX =.444361 SMN =-80944 SMX =88533 1 -80944 1 -10000 0

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 100000 Figure 5-5 Operating plus Residual Hoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress 49.00 BMI Nozzle

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC. C-7789-00-2 Revision 1 ANSYS 8.0 JUL 23 2004 16:06:26 PLOT NO. 5 DISPLACEMENT TIME=7004 RSYS=SOLU DMX =.44721

• DSCA=10 XV =-i ZV =1 DIST=4.639 XF =-.649465 ZF =100.66 VUP =Z PRECISE HIDDEN NODAL SOLUTION TIME=7004 SZ (AVG)

RSYS=SOLU DMX =.42079 SMN =-32423 SMX =20118

-32423

- -10000

- 0 10000 20000 30000

- 40000 50000 100000 PV BMI(Od,CYC SS,3.001/0.75,0,A) - Operating Operating Plus Residual Axial Stress at Bottom of Weld - Element-Oriented Coordinate System - 0.00 BMI Figure 5-6

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC. C-7789-00-2 Revision 1 ANSYS 8.0 JUL 23 2004 16:06:36 PLOT NO. 5 DISPLACEMENT TIME=7004 RSYS=SOLU DMX =.443919

• DSCA=10 XV =-I ZV =1 DIST=6.698 XF =-.168747 YF =41.199 ZF =90.659 VUP =Z PRECISE HIDDEN NODAL SOLUTION TIME=7004 SZ (AVG)

RSYS=SOLU DMX =.420854 SMN =-20393 SMX =30984

-20393 II -10000

~0 10000 20000 30000 40000 100000 PV BMI(26.59d,CYC SS,3.001/0.75,0,A) - Operating Operating Plus Residual Axial Stress at Bottom of Weld - Element-Oriented Coordinate System - 26.60 BMI Figure 5-7 I

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC. C-7789-00-2 Revision 1 ANSYS 8.0 JUL 23 2004 16:06:46 PLOT NO. 5 DISPLACEMENT TIME=7004 RSYS=SOLU DMX =.440476

• DSCA=10 XV =-1 ZV =1 DIST=7.945 XF =-.120191 YF =56.409 ZF =80.806 VUP =Z PRECISE HIDDEN NODAL SOLUTION TIME=7004 SZ (AVG)

RSYS=SOLU DMX =.420279 SMN =-6783 SMX =35539

-20000

- -10000 o0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 100000 PV BMI(37.91d,CYC SS,3.001/0.75,0,A) Operating Operating Plus Residual Axial Stress at Bottom of Weld - Element-Oriented Coordinate System - 37.9' BMI Figure 5-8

Enclosure - Attachment 2 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC. C-7789-00-2 Revision 1 ANSYS 8.0 JUL 23 2004 16:06:57 PLOT NO. 5 DISPLACEMENT TIME=7004 RSYS=SOLU DMX =.444361

• DSCA=10 XV =-1 ZV =2 DIST=7.733 XF =-.095437 YF =69.224 ZF =68.543 VUP =Z PRECISE HIDDEN NODAL SOLUTION TIME=7004 SZ (AVG)

RSYS=SOLU DMX =.422224 SMN =-3893 SMX =37550

-20000 1 -10000

~0 10000 20000 30000 40000

- 50000 100000 PV BMI(49.03d,CYC SS,3.001/0.75,0,A) Operating Operating Plus Residual Axial Stress at Bottom of Weld - Element-Oriented Coordinate System - 49.00 BMI Figure 5-9

Enclosure - Attachment 2 Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Attachment Page: 1 of 4 DESCRIPTION: FEA of Palo Verde BMI NOZZLES (0.0 DEG)

REVISION A: Westinghouse Cyclic Stress-Strain Nozzle Props ANALYSIS DATE (YYMMDD): 20040524. ANSYS VERSION: 8.0 cirse.base MODEL VERSION: 2.4.6 TITLE: PV BMI ( 0.0d, 45.2k, 3.00/0.75, 0.000,A)

Max. Hoop Stress (psi) Max. Axial Stress (psi)

Downhill Uphill Downhill Uphill I.S. Below Weld 21851. 21851. 817. 817.

I.S. Above Weld 16457. 16457. -576. -576.

Midwall Below Weld 27495. 27495.

Midwall Above Weld 12575. 12575.

Max. Lateral Deflection: -. 0000" Max. Ovality: .0000"

• • • • • • • • • • • • INSIDE SURFACE STRESSES (psi) ************

• • Uphill side, above weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 1. Hoop : 16457. Axial: -576. Ratio:-28.55 Max Axial @ Node 1. Axial: -576. Hoop : 16457. Ratio:-28.55 Max Uphill side, b elow weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 1401. Hoop : 21851. Axial: -11924. Ratio: -1.83 Axial @ Node 1901. Axial: 817. Hoop : 3118. Ratio: 3.82 Max Downhill side, above weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 80001. Hoop 16457. Axial: -576. Ratio:-28.55 Axial @ Node 80001. Axial: -576. Hoop : 16457. Ratio:-28.55 Max Downhill side, below weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 81401. Hoop 21851. Axial: -11924. Ratio: -1.83 Axial @ Node 81901. Axial: 817. Hoop : 3118. Ratio: 3.82

• • • • • • • • • • • • INPUT PARAMETERS

• SYD=45172. HDALLOY=533. HPRESS=3110. OPRESS=2250.

CTHK=0.1600 STHK=6.6600 SA=96.5200 THETA= 0.00 TOR=I.5005 TIR=0.3750 HCBORE=0.000 HCBOTZ= 0.000 LTIP=I.9000 HGRATE= 75. TRIMFLAG=0. OTEMP=565. BUTTFIX=2.

BOTZAUTO=0. HCBOTINC= 0.000 PARATRIM=0. TRIMANG= 0.00 FOURPASS=0. PRESSFLG=0.

CYLSHELL=0. NOBUTTER=0. STRRLF=l.

DDl= 1.0000 DD2= 1.2500 DD3= 0.6325 DD4= 0.8145 DD5= 0.8094 DD6= 1.0397 DD7= 0.8795 DD8= 1.1295 DD9= 1.1119 DD10= 0.4397 DDlI=-0.3450 DDRF= 0.7824 UUl= 1.0000 UU2= 1.2500 UU3= 0.6325 UU4= 0.8145 UU5= 0.8094 UU6= 1.0397 UU7= 0.8795 UU8= 1.1295 UU9= 1.1119 UUI0= 0.4397 UU1I=-0.3450 UURF= 0.7824 NCIRC= 8. CIRC EXT=180. NRTUBE= 8. NRWELD= 6. NRBUTT= 1.

NRBASE= 6. NATTIP= 6. NACLAD= 2. NlAWELD= 6. NAHOLE=10.

NAEXTN= 2. GRADl= 6.0 GRAD2= 4.0 G0RAD3= 4.0 GRAD4= 5.0 GRAD5= 5.5 GRAD6= 7.9 GSTIF=0.50E+09 FREP= 0. WREP= 0.

EMBFLAW= 0.

Head Counterbore Unselect Flags (0-8 in order): 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

Tube Counterbore Unselect Flags (0-8 in order): 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

HGTARG=3350.0 PASSlMXT=3337.2 PASS2MXT=3362.6 Attachment 1: Palo Verde BMI Model Results Summaries

Enclosure - Attachment 2 Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Attachment Page: 2 of 4 DESCRIPTION: FEA of Palo Verde BMI NOZZLES (26.59 DEG)

REVISION A: Westinghouse Cyclic Stress-Strain Nozzle Props ANALYSIS DATE (YYMMDD) : 20040524. ANSYS VERSION: 8.0 cirse.base MODEL VERSION: 2.4.6 TITLE: PV BMI ( 26.6d, 45.2k, 3.00/0.75, 0.000,A)

Max. Hoop Stress (psi) Max. Axial Stress (psi)

Downhill Uphill Downhill Uphill I.S. Below Weld 38921. 35655. 10586. 8477.

I.S. Above Weld 34552. 3125. -931. -3457.

Midwall Below Weld 46568. 23807.

Midwall Above Weld 29721. 1468.

Max. Lateral Deflection: 0.0261" Max. Ovality: 0.0039"

• • • • • • • • • • • • INSIDE SURFACE STRESSES (psi) ************

• • Uphill side, above weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 1. Hoop 3125. Axial: -3457. Ratio: -0.90 Max Axial @ Node 1. Axial: -3457. Hoop : 3125. Ratio: -0.90

• • Uphill side, below weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 1501. Hoop 35655. Axial: 2908. Ratio: 12.26 Max Axial @ Node 1601. Axial: 8477. Hoop : 31781. Ratio: 3.75

• • Downhill side, above weld *k Max Hoop @ Node 80501. Hoop 34552. Axial: -9428. Ratio: -3.66 Max Axial @ Node 80101. Axial: -931. Hoop : -2672. Ratio: 2.87

• • Downhill side, below weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 81101. Hoop 38921. Axial: 572. Ratio: 68.04 Max Axial @ Node 81401. Axial: 10586. Hoop : 13336. Ratio: 1.26 INPUT PARAMETERS ******* *********

SYD=45172. HDALLOY=533. HPRESS=3110. OPRESS=2250.

CTHK=0.1600 STHK=6.6600 SA=96.5200 THETA=26.59 TOR=I.5005 TIR=0.3750 HCBORE=0.000 HCBOTZ= 0.000 LTIP=2.6000 HGRATE= 75. TRIMFLAG=0. OTEMP=565. BUTTFIX=2.

BOTZAUTO=0. HCBOTINC= 0.000 PARATRIM=0. TRIMANG= 0.00 FOURPASS=0. PRESSFLG=0.

CYLSHELL=0. NOBUTTER=0. STRRLF=1.

DD1= 0.9080 DD2= 1.1315 DD3= 0.89( DD4= 1.1317 DD5= 0.8905 DD6= 1.1150 DD7= 0.8795 DD8= 1.121 DD9= 1.1295 DDl0= 0.4398 DD1I=-0.3016 DDRF= 0.7338 UU1= 1.2739 UU2= 1.4975 UU3= 0.68( UU4= 0.6694 UU5= 0.7894 UU6= 1.0194 UU7= 0.8795 UU8= 1.121 UU9= 1.1032 UU10= 0.4398 UU11=-0.1187 UURF= 0.2373 NCIRC= 8. CIRC EXT=180. NRTUBE= 8. NRWELD= 6. NRBUTT= 1.

NRBASE= 6. NATTIP= 6. IACLAD= 2. NAWELD= 6. NAHOLE=10.

NAEXTN= 2. GRAD1= 6.0 CRAD2= 4.0 GRAD3= 4.0 GRAD4= 5.0 GRAD5= 5.5 GRAD6= 7.9 CSTIF=0.50E+01 FREP= 0. WREP= 0.

EMBFLAW= 0.

Head Counterbore Unselect Flags (0-8 in order): 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

Tube Counterbore Unselect Flags (0-8 in order): 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

HGTARG=3350.0 PASSlMXT=3347.7 PASS2MXT=3354.0 Attachment 1: Palo Verde BMI Model Results Summaries

Enclosure - Attachment 2 Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Attachment Page: 3 of 4 DESCRIPTION: FEA of Palo Verde BMI NOZZLES (37.91 DEG)

REVISION A: Westinghouse Cyclic Stress-Strain Nozzle Props ANALYSIS DATE (YYMMDD): 20040524. ANSYS VERSION: 8.0 cirse.base MODEL VERSION: 2.4.6 TITLE: PV BMI ( 37.9d, 45.2k, 3.00/0.75, 0.000,A)

Max. Hoop Stress (psi) Max. Axial Stress (psi)

Downhill Uphill Downhill Uphill I.S. Below Weld 44617. 42995. 16799. 20096.

I.S. Above Weld 43700. 651. 19201. -2706.

Midwall Below Weld 55978. 27288.

Midwall Above Weld 41823. 0.

Max. Lateral Deflection: 0.0354" Max. Ovality: 0073"

• • • • • • • • • • • • INSIDE SURFACE STRESSES (psi) *************

Uphill side, a bove weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 1. Hoop 651. Axial: -3471. Ratio: -0.19 Max Axial @ Node 501. Axial: -2706. Hoop : -14064. Ratio: 5.20 Max Uphill side, b elow weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 1501. Hoop : 42995. Axial: 14196. Ratio: 3.03 Axial @ Node 1601. Axial: 20096. Hoop : 40637. Ratio: 2.02 Max Downhill side, above weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 80501. Hoop 43700. Axial: 7472. Ratio: 5.85 Axial @ Node 80401. Axial: 19201. Hoop : 43165. Ratio: 2.25

• • Downhill side, below weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 80801. Hoop 44617. Axial: -1712. Ratio:-26.06 Max Axial @ Node 81101. Axial: 16799. Hoop : 38226. Ratio: 2.28

• • • • • • • • • • • • INPUT PARAMETERS

• SYD=45172. HDALLOY=533. HPRESS=3110. OPRESS=2250.

CTHK=0.1600 STHK=6.6600 SA=96.5200 THETA=37.91 TOR=1.5005 TIR=0.3750 HCBORE=0.000 HCBOTZ= 0.000 LTIP=3.0000 HGRATE= 75. TRIMFLAG=0. OTEMP=565. BUTTFIX=2.

BOTZAUTO=0. HCBOTINC= 0.000 PARATRIM=0. TRIMANG= 0.00 FOURPASS=0. PRESSFLG=0.

CYLSHELL=0. NOBUTTER=0. STRRLF=1.

DD1= 0.8167 DD2= 1.0139 DD3= 0.9825 DD4= 1.2118 DD5= 0.8795 DD6= 1.1295 DD7= 0.8795 DD8= 1.1295 DD9= 1.1295 DD10= 0.4397 DD11=-0.2584 DDRF= 0.6718 UU1= 1.3215 UU2= 1.5187 UU3= 0.5118 UU4= 0.5006 UU5= 0.8277 UU6= 1.0325 UU7= 0.8795 UU8= 1.1284 UU9= 1.0978 UU10= 0.4397 UUll=-0.0000 UURF= 0.0000 NCIRC= 8. CIRCEXT=180. NRTUBE= 8. NRWELD= 6. NRBUTT= 1.

NRBASE= 6. NATTIP= 6. NACLAD= 2. NAWELD= 6. NAHOLE=10.

NAEXTN= 2. GRAD1= 6.0 GRAD2= 4.0 GRAD3= 4.0 GRAD4= 5.0 GRAD5= 5.5 GRAD6= 7.9 GSTIF=0.50E+09 FREP= 0. WREP= 0.

EMBFLAW= 0.

Head Counterbore Unselect Flags (0-8 in order): 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

Tube Counterbore Unselect Flags (0-8 in order): 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

HGTARG=3350.0 PASSIMXT=3346.6 PASS2MXT=3355.3 Attachment 1: Palo Verde BMI Model Results Summaries

Enclosure - Attachment 2 Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Attachment Page: 4 of 4 DESCRIPTION: FEA of Palo Verde BMI NOZZLES (49.03 DEG)

REVISION A: Westinghouse Cyclic Stress-Strain Nozzle Props ANALYSIS DATE (YYMMDD) : 20040524. ANSYS VERSION: 8.0 cirse.base MODEL VERSION: 2.4.6 TITLE: PV BMI ( 49.0d, 45.2k, 3.00/0.75, 0.000,A)

Max. Hoop Stress (psi) Max. Axial Stress (psi)

Downhill Uphill Downhill Uphill I.S. Below Weld 55735. 47413. 20399. 28412.

I.S. Above Weld 54862. 621. 32703. -1200.

Midwall Below Weld 62227. 27662.

Midwall Above Weld 51194. 0.

Max. Lateral Deflection: 0.0416" Max. Ovality: 0.0099" r*********** INSIDE SURFACE STRESSES (psi) *

• • Uphill side, above weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 1. Hoop 621. Axial: -3368. Ratio: -0.18 Max Axial @ Node 401. Axial: -1200. Hoop : -10584. Ratio: 8.82

• • Uphill side, below weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 1501. Hoop : 47413. Axial: 24156. Ratio: 1.96 Max Axial @ Node 1601. Axial: 28412. Hoop : 45514. Ratio: 1.60 Max Downhill side, above weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 80601. Hoop 54862. Axial: 18023. Ratio: 3.04 Axial @ Node 80401. Axial: 32703. Hoop : 48236. Ratio: 1.48 Max Downhill side, below weld **

Max Hoop @ Node 80701. Hoop 55735. Axial: 18405. Ratio: 3.03 Axial @ Node 81001. Axial: 20399. Hoop : 38565. Ratio: 1.89 INPUT PARAMETERS *********************

SYD=45172. HDALLOY=533. HPRESS=3110. OPRESS=2250.

CTHK=0.1600 STHK=6.6600 SA=96.5200 THETA=49.03 TOR=1.5005 TIR=0.3750 HCBORE=0.000 HCBOTZ= 0.000 LTIP=3.5000 HGRATE= 75. TRIMFLAG=0. OTEMP=565. BUTTFIX=2.

BOTZAUTO=0. HCBOTINC= 0.000 PARATRIM=0. TRIMANG= 0.00 FOURPASS=0. PRESSFLG=0.

CYLSHELL=0. NOBUTTER=0. STRRLF=1.

DD1= 0.7071 DD2= 0.8710 DD3= 1.0086 DD4= 1.2719 DD5= 0.8795 DD6= 1.1295 DD7= 0.8795 DD8= 1.1295 DD9= 1.1295 DD10= 0.4397 DD11=-0.2005 DDRF= 0.5947 UUl= 1.3189 UU2= 1.4828 UU3= 0.4519 UU4= 0.4687 UU5= 0.8288 UU6= 0.9909 UU7= 0.8795 UU8= 1.1288 UU9= 1.0817 UUl0= 0.4397 UU11=-0.0000 UURF= 0.0000 NCIRC= 8. CIRC EXT=180. NRTUBE= 8. qRWELD= 6. NRBUTT= 1.

NRBASE= 6. NATTIP= 6. NACLAD= 2. NJAWELD= 6. NAHOLE=I0.

NAEXTN= 2. GRAD1= 6.0 GRAD2= 4.0 GERAD3= 4.0 GRAD4= 5.0 GRAD5= 5.5 GRAD6= 7.9 GSTIF=0.50E+09 FREP= 0. WREP= 0.

EMBFLAW= 0.

Head Counterbore Unselect Flags (0-8 in order): 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

Tube Counterbore Unselect Flags (0-8 in order): 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

HGTARG=3350.0 PASSlMXT=3341.9 PASS2MXT=3357.9 Attachment 1: Palo Verde BMI Model Results Summaries

Enclosure - Attachment 2 Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Attachment Page: 1 of 6 RESU,,dbs,../

/PAGE, ,,10000,200

/POST1 file,,rst,../

TW4=l.5 zoom in for weld plots

/GRAPHICS, FULL CSYS, 11 CLOCAL,71,1,0,0,NZ(l+NRTUBE) Local CSYS at lower tube edge CSYS 11 RSYS, 11

/COM,

/COM-

/COM, **** Get lateral deflection and ovality ****

/COM,

/COM, SET, ,,,, TO+I.0

• DO, ,0, ncirc, 1

• DIM,DEFCOL%I%,TABLE, (NNUM23-1)/l00+i

• ENDDO

• DIM, LOC2DEF,ARRAY, ncirc+ Location 2 is 0.5" below downhill weld

• DIM, LOC3DEF,ARRAY,ncirc+I Location 3 is at the bottom of the downhill weld

• DIM,LOC4DEF,ARRAY,ncirc+l I Location 4 is at the top of the downhill weld

• DIM,LOCXDEF,ARRAY,ncirc+l Location "X" is at the bottom of the uphill weld RSYS, 1i

/COM,

/COM, ** Fill node axial distance vs. radial deflection table arrays

• DO, I,0, ncirc, 1 K=1

• DO, J,I*10000+1, I*10000+NNUM23, 100 DEFCOL%I% (K) =UX (J)

DEFCOL%I% (K, 0) =NZ (J)

K=K+l

• ENDDO

• ENDDO

• DO, I,0, ncirc, 1 DEFCOL%I% (0,1) =1.0

• ENDDO

/COM,

/COM, ** Interpolate to get deflection and ovality at desired locations

• DO, 1, 0, ncirc, 0 LOC2DEF(I+l)=DEFCOL%I%(NZ(NNUMI)-0.5)

LOC3DEF(I+l)=DEFCOL%I% (NZ (NNUMl))

LOC4DEF(I+1)=DEFCOL%I%(NZ(NNUMI4))

LOCXDEF(I+1)=DEFCOL%I%(NZ(ncirc*l0000+NNUMI))

• ENDDO

• GET, FNAME, ACTIVE, 0, JOBNAM

/OUT, %FNAME% .WData, out

/COM,

/COM, RADIAL DEF RADIAL DEF RADIAL DEF RADIAL DEF

/COM,COL # @ LOC 2 @ LOC 3 @ LOC 4 @ LOC "X"

• VWRITE,SEQU,LOC2DEF(1),LOC3DEF(1),LOC4DEF(1),LOCXDEF(1)

(F5.0,3X, 5 (FlO.5,3X))

/COM,

/COM,

/CON, * ** * *** ** * ** * *** * **** ** * *** ** * ** **w* * ** ** * **

/COM,

/COM,

/OUT

/COM,

/COM,

/COM, **** Get gap force data ****

Attachment 2: File "Westpost8.txt"

Enclosure - Attachment 2 Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: I Attachment Page: 2 of 6

/CON,

/CON, SET, ,,,, TO+4.0 ETABLE,GAPFORCE, SMISC,2 ESEL, S,TYPE,,2 ESEL, R, REAL,,1

/OUT,%FNAME%.WData,out,,APPEND

/COM, Force in all gap elements in interference region PRETAB

/COM,

/COM,

/OUT, NSLE NSELR,NODE,,l+NRTUBE, (ncirc+l)*10000,100 NSEL, A, NODE,,l+NRTUBE DSYS, 71

/OUT, %FNAME%.W Data,out,,APPEND

/COM, Location of all gap elements in interference region - Rel to tube bottom OD NLIST

/COM,

/COMN

/COM,

/OUT,

/COM,

/COMN

/COM, **** Get stress data ****

/COMN

/COMN NSEL, ALL ESEL, ALL NTMPl=NODE(NX(l),NY(l),NZ(NNUMl)-0.5) Node 0.5" below downhill weld NTMP2=NODE(NX(ncirc*I0000+I),NY(ncirc*I0000+l),NZ(ncirc*l0000+NNUMl)-0.5) Node 0.5" below uphill weld NSEL, S,NODE,,NTMP1,NTMPI+NRTUBE NSEL,A,NODE,,NTMP2,NTMP2+NRTUBE

/OUT,%FNAME%.W Data, out,,APPEND

/COM, Tube through-thickness stress at 0.5" below weld bottom PRNS,COMP

/COM,

/COM,

/COM,

/OUT, NSEL, S,NODE,,NNUM1,NNUM2 NSEL,A, NODE,,ncirc*10000+NNUMl,ncirc*10000+NNUM2

/OUT,%FNAME%.W Data,out,,APPEND

/COM, Tube through-thickness stress at weld bottom PRNS,COMP

ICOM,

/COM,

/COM,

/OUT, NSEL, S,NODE,,NNUM9,NNUMN0 NSEL,A,NODE,,ncirc*10000+NNUM9,ncirc*10000+NNUMI0

/OUT,%FNAME%.W Data, out,,APPEND

/COM, Tube through-thickness stress at weld middle PRNS,COMP

/COM,

/COM,

/COM,

/OUT, Attachment 2: File "Westpost8.txt"

Enclosure - Attachment 2 Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: I Attachment Page: 3 of 6 NSELS,NODE,,NNUMI4,NNUMI5,1 NSELA, NODE,,ncirc*10000+NNUMI4,ncirc*10000+NNUMI5,1

/OUT,%FNAME%.W Data,out,,APPEND

/COM, Tube through-thickness stress at weld top PRNS, COMP

/COM,

/COM-

/COM,

/OUT, NSEL,ALL NTMPI=NODE(NX(l),NY(l),NZ(NNUMI4)+0.5) Node 0.5" above downhill weld NTMP2=NODE(NX(ncirc*I0000+I),NY(ncirc*I0000+I),NZ(ncirc*I0000+NNUMI4)+0.5) Node 0.5" above uphill weld NSEL, S,NODE,,NTMP1,NTMPI+NRTUBE NSEL,A, NODE,,NTMP2,NTMP2+NRTUBE

/OUT,%FNAME%.W Data,out,,APPEND

/COM, Tube through-thickness stress at 0.5" above weld top PRNS,COMP

/COM,

/COM,

/COM,

/OUT, NSEL,S,NODE,,l,NNUM23,100 NSEL,A, NODE,,ncirc*I0000+l,ncirc*l0000+NNUM23,100

/OUT,%FNAME%.WData, out,,APPEND

/COM, Tube ID stresses at uphill and downhill PRNS,COMP

/COM,

/COM,

/COM, Location of ID nodes relative to tube bottom OD NLIST

/OUT NSEL, S,NODE,,l+NRTUBE,NNUM23+NRTUBE,100 NSEL,A, NODE,,ncirc*10000+I+NRTUBE,ncirc*10000+NNUM23+NRTUBE, 100

/OUT,%FNAME%.WData, out,,APPEND

/COM,

/COM,

/COM, Tube OD stresses at uphill and downhill PRNS,COMP

/COM,

/COM,

/COM, Location of OD nodes relative to tube bottom OD NLIST

/COM,

/COM,

/COM,

/OUT, RSYS,SOLU NSEL,NONE NSEL,A, NODE,,NNUMI4,NNUMI5,1

• REPEAT,ncirc+l, ,,,10000,10000

/OUT,%FNAME%.WData,out,,APPEND

/COM, Tube stresses along plane opposite top of weld (Element-oriented CS)

PRNS,COMP

/COM,

/COM,

/COM,

/OUT, nsel, all Attachment 2: File "Westpost8.txt"

Enclosure - Attachment 2 Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: I Attachment Page: 4 of 6 esel,all dsys, 0 csys, 11

/show,pscr pscr,color, l pscr, scale,.180 pscr,tranx,60 pscr,trany,200 pscr, rotate,0

• CREATE, WELDPLOT

/COM,

/COM, This macro makes tube stress plots with the ge ometry of the rest of

/COM, The model in the background. Use the followin g arguments for ARGI:

/COM,

/COM, ARG1 = 1 (hoop plot)

/COM, ARGI = 2 (axial plot)

/COM, ARGI = 3 (stress intensity plot)

/COM, ARG2 = results co-ordinate system (RSYS)

/COM,

/COM,

/COM, Set up for frontal view of model:

/VIEW, 1,1

/ANG, 1,VANG

/DIST, 1,TW4*2.75*TOR

/FOCUS,I,-8.02,Y,SQRT(FILLETR**2-Y**2)

/DSC, 1,OFF ESEL, S,LIVE NSLE Select tube nodes and element,s

/TYPE, 1,4

/EDGE,I,1 Alternate contours for stress plot

/PLOPTS,DEFA Standard legend

/PLOPTS,INFO,l Control style of EPLO

/COLOR, DEFA

/CVAL, 1,-10000,0,10000,20000,30000,40000,50000,100000

/graphics,power ADDED THIS avres, 1 ADDED THIS RSYS,ARG2

• IF,ARG1,EQ, I,THEN PLNS,S,Y Make hoop plot

• ELSEIF,ARGI,EQ,2,THEN PLNS,S,Z Make axial plot

• ELSE PLNS,S,INT Make stress intensity plot

• ENDIF ESEL,ALL NSEL,ALL

/graphics,full

• END SET, ,,,, TO+4.0

• USE,WELDPLOT, 1,11

• USE,WELDPLOT,2,11

• USE,WELDPLOT, 3,11 RSYS,SOLU

/pnum, type,l

/num, l

/color,num,blac, l

/view, l,-i

/type,1,4

/ang, l Attachment 2: File "Westpost8.txt"

Enclosure - Attachment 2 Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1 Attachment Page: 5 of 6

/vup, 1,z

/CVAL, 1,-10000,0,10000,20000,30000,40000,50000,100000

/era

/auto

/edge, 1 esel,s,mat, ,1 nsle

• IF,THETA, LT,40.0,THEN

/view, 1,-l,,+1

• ELSE

/view, 1,-1,,+2

• ENDIF

/dsc, 1,10

/type, 1,4 pldi

/user

/noera esel,all esel,u,elem,,1,NNUM14-1

• repeat,ncirc, ,,,10000,10000 esel,u,elem,,NNUM14+100,10000

• repeat,ncirc,,,,10000,10000

/edge,1,1 nsel,none nsel,a,node,,nnuml4,nnuml5

• repeat,ncirc+1,,,,10000,10000

/type,1,0 plns,s,y

/era

/auto

/edge, 1 esel,s,mat,,l nsle

• IF,THETA, LT,40.0,THEN

/view, 1,-1,,+1

• ELSE

/view,1,-1,,+2

• ENDIF

/dsc, 1,10

/type,1,4 pidi

/user

/noera eselall esel,u,elem,,l,NNUM14-1

• repeat,ncirc,,,, 10000,10000 esel,u,elem,,NNUM14+100,10000

• repeat,ncirc,,,,10000,10000

/edge, 1,1 nsel,none nsel,a,node,,nnuml4,nnuml5

• repeat,ncirc+1,,,,10000,10000

/type, 1,0 plns,s,z

/GRAPHICS,FULL

• CREATE,WELDTAB ESEL, S,LIVE Attachment 2: File "Westpost8.txt"

Enclosure - Attachment 2 Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: I Attachment Page: 6 of 6 NSLE PRNS, S, COMP NSEL, ALL ESEL, ALL

• END SET, , , , , TC+4.0 RSYS, SOLU

/OUT, %FNAME%. results, txt

• USE, WELDTAB

/OUT, %FNAME%. nodelocs, txt DSYS, 11 NLIST

/OUT FINISH

/DELETE, WELDTAB

/DELETE, WELDPLOT FINISH

/exit, nosav Attachment 2: File "Westpost8.txt"