ML13323A763

Palo Verde, Unit 3, 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 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 50.55aQapsJohn J. Cadogan, JrVice President, Nuclear Engineering Palo VerdeNuclear Generating StationP.O. Box 52034Phoenix, AZ 85072Mail Station 7602Tel 623 393 4083102-06797-JJC/RKR/DCE November 18, 2013ATTN: Document Control DeskU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)Unit 3Docket No. 50-530Response to Request for Additional Information

-AmericanSociety of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code,Section XI,Request for Approval of an Alternative to Flaw Removal andCharacterization

-Relief Request 51Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i),

Arizona Public Service Company (APS)requested the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approve Relief Request 51, byletter number 102-06794, dated November 8, 2013 [Agencywide Documents Accessand Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13317A070].

APS proposed analternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler andPressure 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 ofIWA-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 NRCRAI.No commitments are being made to the NRC by this letter.A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing)

AllianceCallaway

• Comanche Peak -Diablo Canyon

• Palo Verde

• South Texas

• Wolf Creek ATTN: Document Control DeskU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Response to Request for Additional Information

-Relief Request 51Page 2Should you need further information regarding this relief request, please contactRobert K. Roehler, Licensing Section Leader at (623) 393-5241.

Sincerely, JJC/RKR/DCE/hsc

Enclosure:

APS Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) -ReliefRequest 51cc: M. L. Dapas NRC Region IV Regional Administrator J. K. Rankin NRC NRR Project Manager for PVNGSM. 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 51Introduction 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 letternumber 102-06794, dated November 8, 2013 [Agencywide Documents Access andManagement System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML13317A070].

APS proposed analternative to the ASME Code requirements of Section Xl related to axial flawindications 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 tothe 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 Attachment 1 Thermal Stress during Loss of Secondary Pressure Transient in theLower Head of Palo Verde Reactor VesselAttachment 2 Dominion Engineering, Inc., Calculation No. C-7789-00-2, RevisionNo. 1, Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle StressAnalysisI Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 51NRC RAI-1Section 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 fromthe Certified Material Test Report for the RVBH. If not, please justify the use of thisRTNDT value in this application.

APS ResponseThe 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 anadjustment 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 ReactorVessel (Plates)"

as described below.The CMTRs provide data for both Unit 3 RVBH plate material heat numbers andindicate 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 ofTNDT and [Tcv -600F], where Tcv is the temperature at which the specified CharpyImpact test requirements of NB-2331(a2) are met. From the CMTRs, the CharpyImpact 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 -600F) inaccordance with NB-2331(a3).

NRC RAI-2A typical flaw evaluation in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code),Section XI requiresconsideration 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 flawevaluation in Section 4.4 of Attachment 2 of Relief Request 51 are for the normalconditions only. Please address the flaw evaluation under the emergency and faultedconditions.

APS ResponseEmergency and faulted conditions have been considered as described below, and weredetermined 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 BMInozzle resulting from a postulated in-core instrumentation tubing leak. These thermalloads are applied to the new J-groove weld and weld pad at the relocated pressureboundary on the outer surface of the lower head. Since these loads would create2 Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 51relatively minor stress changes at the inner surface of the lower head, they were notconsidered 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 newJ-groove weld and weld pad at the relocated pressure boundary on the outer surface ofthe lower head. Since these external loads would create relatively minor stresses at theinner surface of the lower head, they were not considered further in the current flawevaluations 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) Table3.9.1-1.

This transient is illustrated by the temperature and pressure time-history plotsprovided 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 ReliefRequest 51. The faulted condition stresses are added to the residual plus SS pressureand thermal stresses, as tabulated below. The maximum faulted condition, Loss ofSecondary Pressure

stresses, derived in Attachment 1 to this enclosure, occur at about118 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 istherefore conservative to add the maximum thermal stresses for this transient to the SSpressure stresses.

Position SS LSP SS+LSPx Hoop Stress(in.) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)0.0000 50.014 46.34 96.350.2980 61.709 36.78 98.490.5950 73.123 28.35 101.480.8920 71.136 20.95 92.081.1890 74.007 14.50 88.501.4860 57.094 8.94 66.031.7830 24.199 4.21 28.412.0330 3.862 0.83 4.692.2460 40.983 -1.66 39.32SS = Steady StateLSP = Loss of Secondary PressureKey portions of the flaw evaluations performed for the Residual

+ SS + CD normalcondition 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 51margin 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 faultedconditions.

Ductile Crack Growth Stability Criterion:

Tapp < TmatAt instability:

Tapp = TmatSafety 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 Yes1.25 1.00 79.838 81.305 161.143 2.7634 186.053 1.141 3.911 Yes1.50 1.00 95.805 81.305 177.110 2.9071 209.735 1.450 4.970 Yes5.00 1.00 319.350 81.305 400.655 6.3412 700.741 16.185 55.477 No7.00 1.00 447.090 81.305 528.395 9.4968 1130.958 42.158 144.509 NoIterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability:

2.1737 2.1737 138.835 176.733 315.568Jinstability Tapp4.7208 476.215 7.475 25.622Tmat25.622at Jmat = 1.450 kips/in,Trat = 184.170( Tapp -Tmat = 0.000Applied J4ntegral Criterion:

where,Safety Factors KI*pPrimary Secondary (ksi~in)Japp < J0.1J0.1 = Jmat at Aa = 0.1 in.Kl*s Kl*(a) ae Kr(ae) Japp JO.1(ksiin) (ksiin) (in.) (ksiWin)

(kips/in)

(kips/in)

OK?1.50 1.00 95.805 81.305 177.110 2.9071209.735 1.450 2.701YesThe 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 materialJ-integral (Jo.1) of 2.701 kips/in at a flaw extension of 0.1 inch. Therefore, these resultsdemonstrate that both EPFM acceptance criteria are satisfied using a safety factor of1.5 for primary loads and 1.0 for secondary loads.NRC RAI-3Appendix A to Attachment 2 [of Relief Request 51] documented the thermal stressesduring cooldown which were obtained using a 2-dimensional axisymmetric finiteelement model (FEM). The NRC staff needs further clarification regarding the FEMresults 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 pointsat inner diameter (ID), outer diameter (OD), or any surface that is defined by aspecific 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 51APS ResponseYes, the results shown in Figures A-1 to A-5 and Table A-3 are 1-dimensional eventhough the model is constructed in 2-dimensions.

The RVBH ID is exposed to thereactor coolant cooldown transient analyzed in Attachment 2 of Relief Request 51(cooldown from Tc 5650F at 100°F/hr).

The ID surfaces of the BMI nozzle halves aresubject to a lesser cooldown rate when compared to the RVBH ID surface.

The gapbetween the OD of the BMI nozzle halves and ID of the RVBH bore is filled withstagnant water. This limits heat transfer between the BMI nozzle halves and theRVBH wall. Since the boundary conditions and RVBH are symmetrical, the heattransfer 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 isa plot of the maximum thermal gradient mentioned in Paragraph A.2 Item 4. If it isnot, explain the significance of this parameter.

Regardless of the confirmation, please identify the location (depth) where this temperature difference-time plot wasobtained and explain the physical meaning of such a unique shape of thetemperature difference-time plot.APS ResponseYes, the temperature difference-time plot (right figure) in Figure A-2 is a plot of themaximum through wall temperature gradient for the RVBH, i.e., the plot oftemperature 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 5650F. During the 100°F/hr cooldown transient, the fluid bulk temperature of thereactor 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 transfercoefficient at the inner surface of the lower head is much higher than that of theouter surface, the temperature on the inner surface drops faster than the outersurface 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 valueof 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 surfaceand the temperature difference is driven by conduction from the warmer outersurface 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 ofthe cooldown transient, the lower head reaches a thermal balance at 70°F.NRC RAI-4Section 4.4 of Attachment 2 [of Relief Request 51] states, "Residual plus operating stresses are obtained from Reference

[7]." Demonstrate that the residual stresses usedin the flaw evaluation are consistent with what were approved by the NRC staff in5 Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 51published safety evaluations (SEs), NUREGs, or other NRC documents.

If this cannotbe demonstrated, please provide Reference 7 to support this review.APS ResponseThe requested Reference 7, Dominion Engineering, Inc., Calculation No. C-7789-00-2, Revision No. 1, Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress Analysis, isprovided in Attachment 2 of this enclosure.

The document reports the results of a threedimensional elastic plastic finite element analysis (FEA) performed as part of aWestinghouse Owners Group (WOG) initiative on Bottom Mounted Instrument Nozzlesrelated to WCAP 16468-NP, Risk Assessment of Potential Cracking in Bottom MountedInstrumentation

Nozzles, September 2005.NRC RAI-5Table 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 combinedeffect. 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 similaridentification for the CD condition.

APS ResponseAttachment 2 of this enclosure provides the combined hoop and axial stresses fromoperating

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):

5650Fo Weld residual stresses from FEA simulation (where the hoop stresses arebounding)

The parameters used to calculate the CD condition used the same total stresses asdefined for the SS condition above and included a cooldown transient of100°F/hour.

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

APS ResponseThe starting temperature is 5650F, which is the same value used for the normaloperating temperature at steady state conditions for the RVBH (Cold LegTemperature).

The stress pattern for the SS condition (Column 2 of Table 4-3 under SS) is veryunusual.

Please provide the corresponding stress components due to pressure,

thermal, and residual stresses for each position (or depth) in Table 4-3. Explain theunusual zigzag stress pattern to demonstrate that it is not caused by modelingerrors.APS ResponseAttachment 2 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 thetop to the bottom of the weld. Below the weld, the FEA provides nodal stresses atthe nozzle as well as the lower head material.

It is at this location that the lowerhead hoop stresses drop by a larger amount than the nozzle nodes because theweld no longer restrains the bore. The lower head hoop stresses then increase toprovide equilibrium in the local region of the lower head. This is the reason for theunusual zigzag stress pattern.To investigate the sensitivity of the results to the stress field, the EPFM flawevaluations were repeated using only nozzle stresses for Column 2 of Table 4-3. Inthis manner, the value of the stress at the eighth position changed from 3.862 to37.480 ksi and the last stress changed from 40.983 to 23.501 ksi. When only nozzlestresses are considered in the flaw evaluations, the applied J-integral changed from0.953 to 1.002 kips/in and the applied tearing modulus changed from 17.508 to18.405. This demonstrates that the final results are relatively insensitive to thestresses near the crack tip.If residual stresses are not included in the SS condition, confirm that residualstresses are considered in the subsequent applied stress intensity factor (K) orapplied J calculations (Tables 6-1 and 6-2 do not show explicitly the contribution dueto residual stresses).

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

NRC RAI-6Section 4.1.4 of Attachment 2 [of Relief Request 51] presents the generic J-R curveused in the elastic plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) evaluation.

This J-R curve isbased on the J model from Appendix D to NUREG-0744, Vol. 2, Rev. 1, "Resolution ofthe 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 50FT-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 thedifference is significant.

Please note that the database underlying the J-R model forRPV base metals in RG 1.161 contains not just low upper-shelf energy materials.

APS ResponseThe EPFM flaw evaluations performed to demonstrate that a remnant flaw in the PaloVerde Nuclear Generating Station Unit 3 bottom mounted instrument nozzle number 3is acceptable for one fuel cycle utilized methodology previously approved by the NRCfor 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 thepresent 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-Rcorrelations and the EPFM safety factors.J-R Curve correlations for a Charpy upper shelf energy value of 119 ft-lbs:NUREG-0744 RG 1.161Jmat = C(Aa)m JR = (MF) { C1 (Aa)c2 exp[ C3 (Aa)c4] }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 = -0.409MF = Margin factor8 Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 51At a temperature of T = 565 'F, the RG 1.161 J-R curve constants are:C1 = 4.0364C2 = 0.2389C3 = -0.0940C4 = -0.4090Margin 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 figureillustrates a lower J-integral resistance to ductile tearing curve provided by the RG 1.161correlation for normal, upset, and emergency conditions compared to the NUREG-0744 correlation.

J-R CurvestX4000350030002500200015001000 ;50000.000.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25Crack Extension, in.Equivalent safety factors are listed below for the two methodologies.

Operatingq Conditions Evaluation MethodPrimary LoadsNUREG/RGSecondary LoadsNUREG/RGNormal conditions:

Faulted conditions:

Limited flaw extension Stable flaw extension Limited flaw extension Stable flaw extension 1.5/1.4(1) 3.0/ 1.5(2)1.5/1.01.5/1.01.0/1.01.5/1.01.0/1.01.0 / 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 plantOverpressure Protection Report, but not exceeding 1.1 times the design pressure.

9 Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 51In 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-Rcurve and safety factors) to perform EPFM flaw evaluations for the residual

+ steadystate + 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 modelthat is used for the NUREG-0744 approach.

The results of this evaluation are providedbelow:EPFM Equations:

Jma. = C(Aa)= C = 3.69Tral = (E/or2)*Cm(Aa)r'l m = 0.38Japp = [Kr(ae)]2/E'Tapp = (E/R2)*(dJapplda)

Ductile Crack Growth Stability Criterion:

Tapp < TmatAt instability:

Tapp = TratSafety 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 Yes1.25 1.00 79.838 52.592 132.429 2.5905 148.040 0.722 2.569 Yes1.50 1.00 95.805 52.592 148.397 2.7229 170.073 0.953 3.390 Yes5.00 1.00 319.350 52.592 371.942 6.1554 640.920 13.539 48.146 No7.00 1.00 447.090 52.592 499.682 9.4411 1066.361 37.479 133.278 NoIterate on safety factor until Tapp = Tmat to determine Jinstability:

Jinstability "Tapp Tmat2.0414 2.0414 130.386 107.362 237.748 3.7410 319.384 3.362 11.956 11.956at J_,,, = 0.953 kips/in, Trt = 94.708 ( T0pp -T = 0.000Applied J-lntegral Criterion:

Japp < JO.1where, J0.1 = 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 YesThese results demonstrate that both EPFM acceptance criteria are satisfied usingsafety factors of 1.5 and 1.0 (primary and secondary) for stabile flaw extension and 1.4and 1.0 for limited flaw extension.

The applied tearing modulus of 3.390 is less than thematerial 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 1.542kips/in at a flaw extension of 0.1 inch.The results of this EPFM flaw evaluation demonstrate that using the J-R curve andsafety factors in RG 1.161 confirms the acceptability of the current remnant flawevaluations based on the NUREG-0744 material J-R curve and previously NRCapproved safety factors.10 Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 5110987643200 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Tearing ModulusJ-T Diagram for EPFM Using Regulatory Guide 1.161I1 Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 51NRC RAI-7Table 6-2 of Attachment 2 [of Relief Request 51] provides results for a number ofparameters which were calculated during the EPFM evaluation.

Please provide the flowstress of at the operating temperature of 565 'F and a sample calculation for the appliedtearing modulus Tapp appeared in Column 9 of this table.APS ResponseThe 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 bottomhead material.

The applied tearing modulus with safety factors of 3 on primary loadsand 1.5 on secondary loads, reported in Table 6-2 as 17.508, was calculated as follows:At Flaw At Flaw At FlawParameters Depth Depth Depth Unitsa a -0.01" a + 0.01"a 2.073 in.KI 116.46 ksi'linKip 63.87 ksi!inAa 0 -0.01 0.01 in.E 27610 ksiv 0.3E' = E/(1-v2) 30341 ksioy 42.4 ksiou 80.0 ksiof =0.5*(ay+au) 61.2 ksia + Aa 2.073 2.063 2.083 in.KI = KI V(a+Aa/a) 116.46 116.18 116.74 ksi'linKip = Kip V(a+Aa/a) 63.87 63.72 64.02 Kit = KI -Kip 52.59 52.46 52.72 ksNinSFp 3 3 3SFs 1.5 1.5 1.5Kl*p = SFp Kip 191.610 191.147 192.072 kshiinKl*s = SFs Kis 78.888 78.697 79.078 ksi/inKI" = Kl*p + Kl*s 270.498 269.845 271.150 ksi/inae = 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/inJapp = [ Kl' (ae) ]2 / E' 4.923 4.900 4.947 kips/inTapp = (E/of2) [(Japp(a+Aa)

-Japp(a-Aa))/2Aa]

17.50812 Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 51ATTACHMENT 1THERMAL STRESS DURING LOSS OF SECONDARY PRESSURE TRANSIENT INTHE LOWER HEAD OF PALO VERDE REACTOR VESSEL13 Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 51Attachment 1Thermal Stress during Loss of Secondary Pressure Transient in the Lower Headof Palo Verde Reactor VesselPurposeThe purpose of the analysis is to determine the maximum hoop thermal stress in thePalo Verde reactor vessel lower head developed during loss of secondary pressuretransient in support of the response to RAI #2.Methodology

1. Generate a 2D axisymmetric finite element model to simulate a simplified reactorvessel lower head with an inner radius of 93.3 inches and a thickness of 6.5inches (Reference

[A.1]);2. Perform thermal transient analysis for loss of secondary pressure condition todetermine 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 itsoccurrence;

5. Perform structural

analysis, using temperature field identified in Step 4, todetermine the thermal stress distribution through the thickness of the lower head.Assumptions

1. The finite element model represents a perfect hemisphere.

Any feature otherthan 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 aretaken from Figure 5 of Reference

[A.2] (see curve TCOLD in Figure 1). It has anapproximately 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. BClass 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 51Attachment 1Table 1: Material Properties Modulus of Thermal Thermal Specific Heat DensityTemp. Elasticity Expansion Conductivity (k) (C) (p)Coefficient (cc)OF x 106, psi X 10-6, 1 /OF Btu/hr-in-°F Btu/lb-°F lb/in3100 29.80 6.13 2.5833 0.1147 0.2839200 29.50 6.38 2.5000 0.1169 0.2831300 29.00 6.60 2.4250 0.1210 0.2823400 28.60 6.82 2.3417 0.1251 0.2817500 28.00 7.02 2.2667 0.1292 0.2809600 27.40 7.23 2.1833 0.1333 0.2802700 26.60 7.44 2.1083 0.1393 0.2794Reference

[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 thetable).Finite Element Model and Boundary Conditions and ResultsDefinition of the reactor coolant temperature history for Loss of Secondary Pressuretransient 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 thelower head in the thermal transient analysis.

Table 2: Reactor Coolant Temperature during Loss of Secondary Pressure Transient Loss of Secondary Pressure Transient No No TimeTime (Sec) Temp. (F) Time (Sec) Temp. (F) No. (Sec) Temp. (F)1 0.00010 565.000 13 109.98600 343.322 25 255.06500 403.8882 6.87838 464.089 14 118.69400 344.362 26 291.30900 406.9883 14.58130 433.842 15 128.97200 349.265 27 324.68400 410.7964 21.16600 413.791 16 132.03300 354.534 28 363.84200 414.5955 25.18680 403.940 17 135.55700 364.369 29 403.01200 418.7456 33.54480 394.082 18 136.68700 379.834 30 459.56400 423.9197 41.89150 383.872 19 138.62900 374.215 31 519.01800 429.4398 50.26070 374.365 20 144.57000 384.746 32 566.89600 434.6299 62.97840 365.202 21 159.17400 389.291 33 601.68300 437.38010 74.32940 358.502 22 181.01800 394.174 34 622.35200 495.70311 89.96100 350.037 23 199.92500 397.656 35 639.72300 496.37612 102.76900 343.687 24 223.14600 400.428Page 2 of 8 Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 51Attachment Icurve, .is used. for., RC-, R/. Z f~ T J _,.theevalut-ion-oNNthe: BMTnzze #3 _0 Al0 M ,cl 4. .: I e-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~e c

-; .. Nte :' T h T c o,l .... ." ... :.! I;, the evaluation ofL T I: .. :i .. .........

..: , the BM I nozzle #3.-0 AV 4W J*4 "" X iA= -a1,1x I= AKI 00 AT Z X50 P5 4 X0.,X ~ ~ ~ ~477,WE-77---,

Title: PL4/T74L//EATC La..5O ~ I,* .$ecificafton o.00000-PE..1O Revision t3 Ir S ofI.,"Figure 1: Plant Transient

-Loss of Secondary PressurePage 3 of 8 Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 51Attachment IA convection coefficient of 1000 Btu/hr-ft 2-°F is applied on the inner surface of the basemetal of the lower head. This value is based on experiences from similar projectsperformed in the past. The convection coefficient on the outer surface of the lower headis assumed to be 0.150 Btu/hr-ft 2-OF and the ambient air temperature is assumed to be70°F during Loss of Secondary Pressure transient.

The lower head is assumed to beinitially 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 thatcurves identified with TEMP_1, TEMP_2 and TEMP_3 in the left graph of this figure aretemperature histories for node located on inner surface, at depth of 1.5 inches frominner surface, and on outer surface.

Figure 4 shows radial and hoop thermal stresses inthe lower head at the maximum temperature difference time point during Loss ofSecondary Pressure transient (at time of 0.032971 hours, i.e. 118.694 seconds).

Table3 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. depthfrom ID to 0D of the lower head. Figure 6 shows the temperature vs. depth from ID toOD.It is seen that the maximum hoop thermal stress on the inner surface of the lower headduring Loss of Secondary Pressure transient is about 46 ksi.1If,1 201314 :40 74AN PL00r W. ISW.P- 14Convection I..-169 .91Coefficient on inner I -37.463J76 4(36surface of the head m9 5EM 4418.2041000 Btu/hr-ft 2-'F ¶9 073459.941Path for 5(4.20'7temperature extraction Convection Temperature field at time point withCoefficient on outer maximum temperature difference.

surface of the head0.15 Btu/hr-ft 2-FFigure 2: Finite Element Model, Boundary Condition (Left) and Temperature field (Right)Page 4 of 8 Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 51Attachment I.-W -ANV422¢-tT1W4I 4Figure 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 inchesfrom the inner surface, and the outer surface of the lower head, respectively.

Units: 'Ffor vertical axis, hours for horizontal axis.M40 15 201318: 35: 39FIDLSCUMC1.

SA, -1ýAW-31M 230:33Sw -422.:40C 4'2I50407.2551 1 -A.416-305. 64am 4 64&43N.: 12 1-' 310420300 14.010 2013141351335420241[l.

04L010Z4 '-12120 -1315143-1039 ,A',4030S-1; --2050154-4.41.0 0S13 .6434TeweoJtuzoc.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 51Attachment 1Table 3: Maximum Thermal Stresses in Lower Head during Loss of Secondary PressureTransient Palo Verde (Ri--93.35",

Thk=6.5")

Depth from ID to OD Temperature (F) SX* (psi) SY*(psi),

SZ* (psi)0 377 17 463421.3 483 843 123652.6 539 903 -52813.9 559 655 -109085.2 564 335 -119996.5 564 16 -11950Note:

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

Maximum Radial & Hoop Stresses during Loss of Secondary Pressure Transient 1000 -__ _ 50000900 -__--_ --Radial Thermal Stress (PSI)84-oo Thral Stress (PSI)} 40070030000~a

.... /

Stress I " ,.......

..++.... + ........+ + -'.24005300 ----------

-10000200 Hoop Stres .........

101000 ------ -200000 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5Depth from ID of Lower Head (in)Figure 5: Thermal Stress inRadial (Left) and Hoop (Right) Directions vs. Depth from IDto ODNote: 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 51Attachment ITemperature vs. Depth from ID of Lower Head600-45006350 j3000 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5Depth from 10 of Lower Head (in)Figure 6: Temperature vs. Depth from ID to ODHardware, Software and Computer FilesHardware and softwareThe EASI listed computer program ANSYS Release 14.0 (Reference

[A.4]) is used inthis calculation.

Verification tests of similar applications are listed as follows:" Error notices for ANSYS Release 14.0 are reviewed and none apply for thisanalysis.

" Computer hardware used:o Dell Precision (Computer Name: MOCAO2, Service Tag #: 5VKT5S1) withIntel CoreTM i7-2640M CPU @ 2.80GHz, 2.80 GHz, 8.00 GB of RAM andOperating System is Microsoft Windows 7 Enterprise Version 2009Service 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 testruns are acceptable.

Computer FilesThe 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 computerfiles for the thermal analysis are listed below:Page 7 of 8 Enclosure APS Response to Response to (RAI) -Relief Request 51Attachment ITable 4: Computer FilesName Date modified Type Size#1 LSP tr.inp 11/15/2013 5:20 PM INP File 8 KBF post-pvLSP.out 11A15/2013 5:22 PM OUT File 14 KBrpvypvLSP.out 11A15/2013 5:22 PM OUT File 154 KBReferences References identified with an (*) are maintained within [PVNGS3]

Records System andare 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 VesselAssembly."

[A.3]. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsection NB, 1971Edition, 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 51ATTACHMENT 2Dominion Engineering, Inc., Calculation No. C-7789-00-2, RevisionNo. 1, Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle StressAnalysis Enclosure

-Attachment 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Page 1 of 13Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisRecord of Revisions Rev. Description Prepared by Checked by Reviewed byDate Date Date0 Original Issue M.R. Fleming J.E. Broussard J.E. Broussard 5/28/04 5/28/04 5/28/04I Added explicit statements in Sections 3 and 4that head temperature and operating pressureare assumed values. Interchanged "above"and "below" in first paragraph of Section 5.2. $,a SA X, .000554'Corrected figurettable descriptions in Section5.3 to account for orientation of BMI nozzlepenetration.

Introduced Section 5.5 regarding z/*QA control of software; added Reference 5.Changed "Top" to "Bottom" in title of Table5-2. Corrected "Uphill" and "Downhill" labelsin Table 5-4. Provided closer view of weldregion 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 withWestpost8 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 ofContents.

The last revision numbers to reflect any changes for tables and figures are shown in the List ofTables and the List of Figures.

Changes made in the latest revision, except for Rev. 0 and revisions whichchange the calculation in its entirety, are indicated by a double line in the right hand margin as shown here.

Enclosure

-Attachment 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Page 2 of 13Table of ContentsSect. Page Last Mod.Rev.1.0 Purpose 4 02.0 Summary of Results 4 03.0 Input Requirements 4 14.0 Assumptions 5 15.0 Analysis 6 16.0 References 12 1List of TablesTable No. Last Mod.Rev.5-1 Nozzle Through Wall Hoop Stress at Selected Axial Locations 05-2 Nozzle Through Wall Axial Stress Along the Bottom of the Weld -Element-Oriented 1Coordinate System5-3a Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (0.0' BMI Nozzle Case) 05-3b Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (26.60 BMI Nozzle Case) 05-3c Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (37.90 BMI Nozzle Case) 05-3d Nozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (49.0' BMI Nozzle Case) 05-4 Change in Inner Diameter at Selected Axial Locations 1

Enclosure

-Attachment 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Page 3 of 13List of FiguresFig. No. Last Mod.Rev.5-1 Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Node Numbering Scheme 05-2 Operating Plus Residual Hoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress (0.0' BMI Nozzle) 15-3 Operating Plus Residual Hoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress (26.60 BMI Nozzle) 15-4 Operating Plus Residual Hoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress (37.90 BMI Nozzle) 15-5 Operating Plus Residual Hoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress (49.00 BMI Nozzle) 15-6 Operating Plus Residual Axial Stress at Bottom of Weld -Element-Oriented Coordinate 1System -0.0' BMI Nozzle5-7 Operating Plus Residual Axial Stress at Bottom of Weld -Element-Oriented Coordinate ISystem -26.60 BMI Nozzle5-8 Operating Plus Residual Axial Stress at Bottom of Weld -Element-Oriented Coordinate 1System -37.9' BMI Nozzle5-9 Operating Plus Residual Axial Stress at Bottom of Weld -Element-Oriented Coordinate 1System -49.00 BMI NozzleList of Attachments Att. No. Last Mod.Rev.1 Palo Verde BMI Model Results Summaries 02 File "Westpost8.txt" 0

Enclosure

-Attachment 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Page 4 of 131.0 PurposeThe purpose of this calculation is to document the results of finite element stress analyses of the Palo Verdebottom-mounted instrumentation (BMI) nozzle penetrations.

In this analysis, a number of nozzlegeometries spanning the range of BMI penetration angles in the Palo Verde reactor bottom head areinvestigated.

2.0 Summary of ResultsFour 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 thecorresponding 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. Thedetails 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 setof 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, 2j4. Operating pressure and temperature.

An operating temperature and pressure of 5657F and 2,235 psigwere used for the current analysis.

As is noted in Section 4, these values were assumed for thisanalysis.

Enclosure

-Attachment 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Page 5 of 134.0 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 currentanalysis, 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 listedbelow, the following room-temperature and 600'F elastic limit values were used in association withthe elastic-perfectly plastic hardening laws described in Section 5. 1:Material 70OF 600°FAlloy 182 Welds (Original and Replacement) 75.0 ksi 60.0 ksiLow-Alloy Steel Shell 70.0 ksi 57.6 ksiStainless Steel Cladding 40.0 ksi 28.9 ksiThe elastic limit values for the base materials (head shell and cladding),

which undergo small strainsduring the analysis, are based on the 0.2% offset yield strength for the material.

The elastic limitvalues for the weld materials, which undergo large strains during the analysis, are based on an averageof 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 inSection 5. 1:0 70 OF: 1.15

• 1,600 OF: 0.290 600 OF: 1.00

• 2,300 OF: 0.05* 1,200 °F: 0.83

• 3,500 OF: 0.054. Prior to the J-groove welding process, a stress relief pass at 1,100°F is performed by applying auniform temperature to the model. The stress-strain properties of the head, J-groove weld, andstainless cladding have been selected such that the low alloy steel material relaxes to a stress nogreater 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 outerpass. 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 (6.5inches 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," asindicated in References 2d and 2h) at which the nozzle ID and OD are not equal to 0.750 and 3.001inches is neglected.

Omission of the nozzle end from the model is justified by the stress resultspresented in Figures 5-2 through 5-5, which show that both hoop (Sy) and axial (Sz) stresses decay Enclosure

-Attachment 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Page 6 of 13rapidly in the nozzle over a very short distance from the top of the weld, such that nozzle stresses havereached negligible levels at the end of the modeled length. This rapid reduction in stress isattributable to the comparably stiff BMI nozzles at Palo Verde (due to the high wallthickness/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 Analysis5.1 Finite Element AnalysesFinite element analyses of the BMI nozzles were performed for a total of four cases, selected to bracket therange of BMI penetration angles in the Palo Verde reactor vessel heads. The four BMI geometry casesanalyzed are: 0.00 (penetration no. 1), 26.6' (penetration nos. 21 and 22), 37.9' (penetration no. 41), and49.00 (penetration nos. 60 and 61). Figure 5-1 shows the element geometry and node numbering scheme forthe 37.9' BMI nozzle model. The numbering scheme used for the BMI model is identical for all four casesconsidered 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 PWRprimary system service (Ref. 1).All nozzles were analyzed using 3D models. The model includes a sector of the alloy steel head withstainless 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 materialdivided into two "passes" of approximately equal volume. The stainless steel cladding and Inconelbuttering layers were included in the model since these materials have significantly different coefficients ofthermal conductivity compared to the carbon steel vessel head, and therefore influence the weld coolingprocess.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 headusing gap elements with an initial radial clearance of 1.5 mils (as discussed in Section 4.0).

Enclosure

-Attachment 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Page 7 of 13The current analysis model simulates the butter weld deposition process and the 1,100°F thermal stressrelief of the head shell and butter (prior to J-groove welding).

The butter weld deposition process issimulated using a single pass; i.e., the butter region is deposited as a single ring of material.

Aftercompletion of the butter deposition step, the entire model (with the exception of the nozzle and J-grooveweld elements, which are not yet active in the model) is uniformly raised to 1,100°F.

As noted below, theelastic limit material properties of the head shell and butter at 1,100°F are reduced relative to those used inReference (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 tothe J-groove welding steps. In order to accurately model the stress relaxation in the weld region due to timeat 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 limitsare set at values consistent with the lower residual stress levels brought about by the multiple-hour stressrelief. This reduction in elastic limit allows stresses in the pressurizer shell, cladding, and buttering toredistribute 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 heatedand cooled. As noted above, weld buttering is simulated as a single weld pass; the J-groove weld issimulated 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 atseveral points in time during the welding process.

These nodal temperatures are then used as inputconditions to the structural

analysis, which calculates the thermally induced stresses.

Once welding iscompleted, a hydrostatic pressure load is applied to, then removed from, the wetted regions of the model atambient 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 finiteelement types, as follows:Thermal Analysis.

For the 3-D thermal analysis, eight-node thermal solids (SOLID70) and nullelements (Type 0) were used. Use of null elements between the nozzle and head penetration has theeffect 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 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: IPage 8 of 13portions 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 COMBIN40elements replaced the SOLID70 and null elements, respectively, which had been used for the thermalanalysis.

Degenerate four- and six-node solid elements were not used in areas of high stress gradientsince they can lead to significant errors when used in these regions (7). Higher order elements were notused 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 crackingcorrelated well with regions of highest stress in the analytical model. Additionally, the measured ovality atEdF and Ringhals CRDM nozzles was found to correlate well with the analytically predicted ovality forthese 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 shownthat using multi-linear hardening properties in the analysis of materials that experience a high degreeof plastic strain at elevated temperatures (such as those within the J-groove welds) results insignificant 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 yieldsmore 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 thiscalculation makes use of approximately four times the mesh refinement in the J-groove weld areas asis shown in Reference (1), and uses greater mesh refinement in other areas of the model, such as thenozzle.

Enclosure

-Attachment 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Page 9 of 133. The ability to perform four-pass

welding, as an alternative to two passes. This feature produces moresatisfactory results with J-groove welds that are deep compared to the wall thickness of the adjacentnozzle, 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 toWestinghouse.

In particular, the stress versus strain values for the multi-linear isotropic hardening used forthe 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 onetemperature (600 'F), the reference curve was scaled to a number of other temperatures as follows.

At eachof the five strain values used to define the multi-linear isotropic hardening behavior of the nozzle material at600 'F, the corresponding stress was linearly scaled up or down according to the scaling factors listed inSection 4.0, which are based on high temperature yield strength data for Alloy 600 in Reference (6). Thesescaling factors are consistent with the work performed using the version of the finite element model that isnot specific to Westinghouse work. The ANSYS code that creates the finite element model with thesechanges has now been incorporated into DEI's "cirse.base" file. Version 2.4.6 of the cirse.base code wasused for the four BMI cases considered in this calculation.

5.2 Analytical Results SummarySummaries of the analytical results for each of the models analyzed are contained in Attachment 1 to thiscalculation.

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" theweld (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 theJ-groove weld, and are in excess of the corresponding axial stresses, suggesting that PWSCC crackingshould be axially oriented.

The results also show that operating plus residual stresses are influenced bypenetration angle, with higher angles generally leading to higher maximum hoop and axial stresses.

Enclosure

-Attachment 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRG[NIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Page 10 of 135.3 Additional Post-Processing of Analysis ResultsIn 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 5-6through 5-9. With the exception of Table 5-4, all data and stress plots are for the operating plus weldresidual 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 foreach of the nine circumferential planes in the model. For Table 5-2, the axial stress results are in anelement-oriented coordinate system which follows the path of the weld; the axial stress results presented inTable 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 5-4presents 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 ateach 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 -bottomof the uphill weld, and Location "X" -top of the downhill weld. Figures 5-6 through 5-9 are axial stressplots of the nozzle wall cross section at the bottom of the weld and following the sweep of the weld fromuphill to downhill.

As in Table 5-2, the stresses are in an element-oriented coordinate system which followsthe 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 resultshave 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 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Page 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 viae-mail and on CD-ROM on disk D-7789-00-1, Revision 0.5.5 Quality Assurance Software ControlsThe Palo Verde BMI nozzle analyses were performed on an HP J6700 workstation, under the HP-UX 11.0operating system and ANSYS Revision 8.0, which is maintained in accordance with the provisions forcontrol of software described in Dominion Engineering, Inc.'s (DEI's) quality assurance (QA) program forsafety-related nuclear work (5). 1 In addition to QA controls associated with the procurement and use of theANSYS software (e.g., maintenance of the ANSYS Inc. as an approved supplier of the software based onformal auditing and surveillance, formal periodic verification of ANSYS software installation),

QA controlsassociated 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 QAnotices 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, forsymmetric (00 nozzle angle) geometry cases, confirmation of the applied pressure loading and resultssymmetry) to ensure that the project-specific application of the analysis is appropriate.

The review ofANSYS 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 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: IPage 12 of 136.0 References I1. PWSCC ofAlloy 600 Materials in PWR Primary System Penetrations, EPRI TR-103696, July 1994.2. Combustion Engineering (CE) drawings of Palo Verde reactor vessel bottom head, nozzle and weldgeometry (182.25" ID PWR):Palo Verde Unit 1:a. CE Drawing E-78173-141-003, Revision 2, Lower Vessel Final Assemblyb. CE Drawing E-78173-151-001, Revision 3, Bottom Head Welded Assemblyc. CE Drawing E-78173-151-002, Revision 2, Bottom Head Penetrations

d. CE Drawing E-78173-184-001, Revision 4, Bottom Head Instrument Tubese. 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 Assemblyg. CE Drawing E-79173-151-001, Revision 4, Bottom Head Welded Assemblyh. CE Drawing E-79173-151-002, Revision 1, Bottom Head Penetrations

i. CE Drawing E-STD 11-184-033, Revision 4, Bottom Head Instrument Tubesj. 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 Assembly1. CE Drawing E-65173-151-001, Revision 1, Bottom Head Welded Assemblym CE Drawing E-65173-151-002, Revision 0, Bottom Head Penetrations

n. CE Drawing E-STD 11-184-033, Revision 4, Bottom Head Instrument Tubes3. Ball, M. G., et al., "RV Closure Head Penetration Alloy 600 PWSCC," WCAP-13525, Revision 1,Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 1992.

Enclosure

-Attachment 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.11730 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE #310 RESTON, VIRGINIA 20190Title: Palo Verde Bottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Stress AnalysisTask No.: 77-89 Calculation No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Page 13 of 134. Incoming Correspondence IC-7736-00-3, Fax from Warren Bamford (Westinghouse) to JohnBroussard (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 andis 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, ASMMaterials 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. ITable 5-1Nozzle 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" BelowWall Weld Weld Weld Weld Weld Weld Weld Weld Weld Weld0.0 ID -13,785 -22,532 3,690 14,725 21,851 -13,785 -22,532 3,690 14,725 21,8510.0 13% -10,954 -16,817 3,287 12,880 16,738 -10,954 -16,817 3,287 12,880 16,7380.0 25% -8,129 -10,764 3,571 15,636 14,306 -8,129 -10,764 3,571 15,636 14,3060.0 38% -5,627 -4,115 7,066 20,683 15,549 -5,627 -4,115 7,066 20,683 15,5490.0 50% -3,051 6,517 15,457 27,495 20,932 -3,051 6,517 15,457 27,495 20,9320.0 63% 506 21,110 29,941 34,945 29,239 506 21,110 29,941 34,945 29,2390.0 75% 4,150 36,194 50,007 45,980 30,834 4,150 36,194 50,007 45,980 30,8340.0 88% 5,567 49,807 66,371 53,320 25,883 5,567 49,807 66,371 53,320 25,8830.0 OD 14,627 50,014 71,136 124,199 23,501 4,627 150,014 71,136 24,199 23,50126.6 ID 28,436 33,371 32,823 34,545 13,336 -4,885 -17,537 4,051 17,454 33,99726.6 13% 21,943 25,422 31,560 30,609 7,624 -3,168 -12,577 8,001 15,315 23,64526.6 25% 19,303 23,018 33,841 33,657 7,544 -2,670 -9,997 11,687 16,509 19,47926.6 38% 18,959 24,180 36,204 38,896 9,804 -3,213 -6,705 16,393 18,479 18,09326.6 500/0 21,399 29,721 41,373 45,536 12,310 -3,979 1,468 23,807 23,652 19,80326.6 63% 25,11I 41,869 51,155 53,468 14,254 -4,907 17,001 33,269 29,996 24,91326.6 75% 27,889 53,913 64,951 58,250 12,'594 -5,801 32,050 45,804 42,756 33,26326.6 88% 24,312 62,486 69,723 55,093 6,171 -6,269 43,321 55,175 39,909 43,54126.6 OD 123,084 59,897 68,511 145,873 2,368 -9,486 139,386 59,288 2,734 48,17437.9 ID 43,700 41,628 43,308 22,896 8,496 -3,299 -14,779 497 24,164 40,32237.9 13% 33,720 35,393 41,289 18,700 2,371 -3,762 -11,034 5,395 18,608 29,17537.9 25% 29,650 36,295 45,524 21,752 1,843 -4,510 -11,124 11,161 19,654 23,47537.9 38% 29,230 37,927 49,070 26,647 3,042 -5,554 -10,863 18,046 21,264 20,74237.9 500/0 30,675 41,823 55,978 34,044 3,897 -6,533 -4,062 27,288 25,452 21,26737.9 63% 35,377 49,496 66,014 43,807 4,576 -7,572 13,282 37,834 30,770 23,54137.9 75% 40,949 57,373 77,036 50,263 823 -8,607 32,053 48,996 41,816 29,21637.9 88% 47,721 59,023 75,126 47,473 -10,570 -9,183 36,231 52,487 30,749 34,31737.9 OD 143,538 48,004 67,306 153,576 -18,301 -12,435 28,012 52,298 -1,327 34,89049.0 ID 52,035 54,862 46,672 13,099 3,968 -4,271 -14,636 -5,445 29,289 44,28249.0 13% 41,307 46,038 42,751 8,050 -2,553 -3,430 -11,770 1,033 18,711 31,09949.0 25% 38,179 47,341 46,966 9,663 -3,051 -4,050 -14,478 7,740 19,185 24,44449.0 38% 36,873 48,094 50,819 13,829 -1,315 -5,010 -15,617 16,413 22,231 20,90449.0 50% 36,936 51,194 58,318 20,814 -209 -6,060 -8,234 27,662 25,663 20,13649.0 63% 38,509 55,154 67,620 28,630 -552 -7,040 9,937 39,024 29,432 19,49149.0 75% 39,441 57,180 74,629 37,256 -5,634 -7,613 31,203 46,212 37,072 21,98449.0 88% 40,196 51,830 68,347 35,242 -19,341 -8,261 30,597 45,334 22,477 17,03649.0 OD 33,717 137,236 161,176 146,778 1-30,370 1-10,584 1I7,751 148,644 1-846 12,297Note: 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. 1Nozzle Through Wall Axial Stress Along the Bottom of the Weld -- Element-Oriented Coordinate SystemPercent Downhill Local Axial Stress (psi) at Circumferential Location UphillNozzle Angle Through Downhill I UphiIlWall 67.5' -45' -22.5-I 0- 22.50 450 67.50 9000.0 ID -35,191 -35,191 -35,192 -35,192 -35,192 -35,192 -35,192 -35,191 -35,1910.0 13% -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 -36,030 -36,0300.0 25% -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 -32,602 -32,6020.0 38% -28,709 -28,709 -28,708 -28,708 -28,708 -28,708 -28,708 -28,709 -28,7090.0 50% -23,744 -23,744 -23,743 -23,743 -23,743 -23,743 -23,743 -23,744 -23,7440.0 63% -15,472 -15,474 -15,472 -15,472 -15,472 -15,472 -15,472 -15,474 -15,4720.0 75% -3,073 -3,074 -3,071 -3,072 -3,072 -3,072 -3,071 -3,074 -3,0730.0 88% 15,477 15,476 15,478 15,477 15,477 15,477 15,478 15,476 15,4770.0 OD 5,743 5,739 5,739 5,740 5,740 5,740 5,739 5,739 5,74326.6 ID 16,455 18,431 18,105 10,848 3,528 -1,815 -6,234 -14,229 -20,45526.6 13% 10,611 10,577 9,478 4,289 -1,138 -5,508 -9,781 -17,664 -23,64626.6 25% 5,134 4,458 3,109 -576 -4,619 -8,338 -12,149 -18,699 -23,26726.6 38% 2,417 1,167 -321 -3,391 -6,722 -9,573 -12,375 -17,579 -21,08826.6 50% 2,690 688 -1,315 -4,237 -6,630 -8,249 -9,917 -13,536 -15,97026.6 63% 1,760 1,777 -2,942 -3,004 -3,047 -3,995 -6,962 -9,00126.6 75% 1,962 615 275 917 3,530 6,644 8,501 7,775 6,91326.6 88% 14,001 13,619 14,127 15,626 20,165 27,803 31,348 29,932 27,98226.6 OD 9,472 8,712 9,735 11,435 11,385 9,411 5,877 3,298 1,35337.9 ID 22,467 27,881 30,808 21,920 8,676 419 -935 -243 -1,12037.9 13% 18,847 21,064 21,928 15,838 6,593 -675 -2,747 -4,691 -7,55437.9 25% 15,116 15,755 15,308 10,770 4,290 -1,342 -3,254 -6,015 -8,56037.9 38% 13,422 12,308 10,711 7,022 1,970 -2,234 -3,203 -5,848 -7,76137.9 50% 13,266 10,371 7,997 4,640 676 -1,708 -1,298 -2,792 -3,76137.9 63% 11,114 7,255 5,103 3,043 2,237 2,241 3,572 2,605 1,89137.9 75% 9,782 5,652 3,664 2,951 6,095 10,311 14,452 15,495 16,11737.9 88% 11,902 12,619 14,340 16,242 22,340 31,713 35,991 32,700 30,25537.9 OD 14,345 13,454 11,893 13,226 13,497 11,057 7,472 4,207 1,09249.0 ID 15,395 22,427 31,115 23,697 2,729 -7,304 -3,268 8,877 14,33049.0 13% 12,338 16,144 22,301 19,687 6,300 -3,359 -1,519 3,811 3,95849.0 25% 11,846 14,153 17,206 14,008 5,885 -999 206 3,573 4,68949.0 38% 13,189 13,501 13,949 9,774 4,325 -494 1,013 4,270 6,41349.0 50% 15,885 14,390 12,262 7,541 3,275 233 3,374 7,087 9,64449.0 63% 16,391 12,615 9,035 5,557 3,919 4,348 8,349 12,178 14,45449.0 75% 11,598 8,380 5,611 3,326 6,849 13,168 18,939 22,891 24,86749.0 88% 5,484 7,941 10,517 13,606 22,285 35,276 37,657 32,909 29,86149.0 OD 13,455 12,549 9,628 12,680 12,378 11,107 6,970 2,668 -2,693 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Rev. 1Table 5-3aNozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (0.00 BMI Nozzle Case)Nozzle TopWeld TopWeld BottomDownhill Side Uphill SideJ Axial [IDHoop)

ODHoop [ Axial ID Hoop ODHoopNodes I Height Stress (psi) Stress (psi) Nodes Height Stress (psi) Stress (psi)80001,80009 0.00 16,457 7,289 1,9 0.00 16,457 7,2890101,80109 0.30 1,701 5,111 101, 109 0.30 1,701 5,1110201,80209 0.54 -13,785 4,627 201,209 0.54 -13,785 4,6270301,80309 0.73 -22,054 6,339 301,309 0.73 -22,054 6,3390401, 80409 0.88 -25,439 22,325 401,409 0.88 -25,439 22,3250501,80509 1.01 -25,618 35,694 501,509 1.01 -25,618 35,694*0601,80609 1.11 -22,532 50,014 601,609 1.11 -22,532 50,0140701,80709 1.40 -6,979 61,709 701,709 1.40 -6,979 61,7090801,80809 1.70 4,693 73,123 801,809 1.70 4,693 73,12380901,80909 2.00 3,690 71,136 901,909 2.00 3,690 71,13681001,81009 2.29 4,615 74,007 1001, 1009 2.29 4,615 74,0071101,81009 2.59 8,205 57,094 1101, 1009 2.59 8,205 57,09481201,81209 2.89 14,725 24,199 1201,1209 2.89 14,725 24,1991301, 81309 3.14 18,147 37,480 1301, 1309 3.14 18,147 37,4801401, 81409 3.35 21,851 23,501 1401, 1409 3.35 21,851 23,5011501,81509 3.61 20,231 13,797 1501, 1509 3.61 20,231 13,7971601,81609 3.91 9,738 6,732 1601, 1609 3.91 9,738 6,7321701,81709 4.27 6,103 1,736 1701,1709 4.27 6,103 1,7361801,81809 4.71 4,382 912 1801, 1809 4.71 4,382 9121901,81909 5.23 3,118 206 1901, 1909 5.23 3,118 2062001,82009 5.85 2,527 202 2001,2009 5.85 2,527 2022101,82109 6.60 2,446 228 2101,2109 6.60 2,446 2282201, 82209 7.48 2,505 274 2201,2209 7.48 2,505 2742301,82309 8.55 2,526 281 2301,2309 8.55 2,526 2812401,82409 9.30 2,528 280 2401,2409 9.30 2,528 2802501,82509 10.06 2,499 277 2501,2509 10.06 2,499 277Nozzle Bottom DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Rev. 1Table 5-3bNozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (26.60 BMI Nozzle Case)Nozzle TopWeld TopWeld BottomDownhill Side Uphill SideIDHop OD Hoop VAxial ID Hoop. 1SODHooNodes Height Stress (si) Stress (psi) Nodes Height Stress (psi) Stress (psi)0001,80009 0.00 -2,426 -2,223 1,9 0.00 3,125 -2,5230101,80109 0.83 -2,672 -298 101,109 0.27 162 -3,8970201, 80209 1.50 -10,206 4,112 201,209 0.49 -4,885 -9,4860301,80309 2.03 5,781 10,010 301,309 0.66 -12,518 -10,6750401,80409 2.46 28,436 23,084 401,409 0.80 -16,477 5,99580501,80509 2.80 34,552 48,931 501,509 0.91 -17,755 28,53480601,80609 3.07 33,371 59,897 601,609 1.00 -17,537 39,38680701,80709 3.35 29,802 68,922 701,709 1.31 -14,008 66,71280801, 80809 3.63 30,558 67,159 801,809 1.62 -3,563 73,83880901,80909 3.91 32,823 68,511 901,909 1.93 4,051 59,28881001,81009 4.19 36,388 78,814 1001, 1009 2.24 8,021 39,51881101,81009 4.47 38,921 60,206 1101, 1009 2.55 8,709 20,37681201, 81209 4.74 34,545 45,873 1201, 1209 2.86 17,454 2,73481301,81309 4.99 22,180 20,541 1301, 1309 3.11 29,151 29,52981401,81409 5.17 13,336 2,368 1401, 1409 3.34 33,997 48,17481501,81509 5.40 5,200 -3,461 1501, 1509 3.62 35,655 21,80281601,81609 5.68 -776 2,634 1601,1609 3.96 31,781 8,54281701,81709 6.02 1,056 -150 1701,1709 4.37 22,421 1,55981801, 81809 6.45 2,194 502 1801, 1809 4.86 3,972 -2921901,81909 6.97 2,648 395 1901,1909 5.45 544 -17082001,82009 7.63 2,819 589 2001,2009 6.16 2,254 45782101,82109 8.43 3,380 -948 2101,2109 7.01 2,731 45882201,82209 9.43 4,173 -3,181 2201,2209 8.04 2,935 30482301,82309 10.66 4,433 -5,339 2301,2309 9.28 3,522 199V2401,82409 11.42 3,548 1,180 2401,2409 10.73 3,666 208P2501,82509 12.18 2,828 56 2501,2509 12.18 2,874 181Nozzle Bottom DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Rev. 1Table 5-3cNozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (37.9' BMI Nozzle Case)Nozzle TopWeld TopWeld BottomDownhill Side Uphill SideJAxial ~ID Hoop jOD Hoop[ AxialIDHoop jOD -oopNodes I Height Stress (psi) I Stress (psi) Nodes Height Stress (psi) Stress (psi)80001,80009 0.00 -3,564 -2,603 1,9 0.00 651 -3,7250101,80109 1.12 -3,571 -1,919 101,109 0.25 -2,555 -6,4900201,80209 2.02 730 703 201,209 0.46 -3,299 -12,4350301,80309 2.74 30,410 7,583 301,309 0.62 -7,476 -10,7890401,80409 3.31 43,165 21,810 401,409 0.75 -11,690 2,5760501,80509 3.77 43,700 43,538 501,509 0.86 -14,064 21,7600601,80609 4.14 41,628 48,004 601,609 0.94 -14,779 28,0120701,80709 4.42 43,987 66,924 701,709 1.26 -13,354 69,1910801,80809 4.69 44,617 61,564 801,809 1.58 -7,519 74,1680901,80909 4.97 43,308 67,306 901,909 1.90 497 52,2981001,81009 5.24 44,038 76,958 1001, 1009 2.22 10,202 25,3561101,81009 5.51 38,226 60,103 1101,1009 2.54 16,113 9,0891201,81209 5.79 22,896 53,576 1201, 1209 2.86 24,164 -1,3271301,81309 6.03 13,248 831 1301, 1309 3.11 33,721 29,5671401,81409 6.22 8,496 -18,301 1401, 1409 3.37 40,322 34,8901501,81509 6.46 2,652 -19,265 1501, 1509 3.69 42,995 21,9751601,81609 6.75 722 -6,024 1601, 1609 4.08 40,637 7,4841701,81709 7.12 3,035 -398 1701,1709 4.54 30,928 -1,5321801,81809 7.58 3,482 93 1801, 1809 5.10 13,118 -1,7931901,81909 8.16 3,272 385 1901, 1909 5.78 -1,786 -8862001,82009 8.88 3,026 138 2001,2009 6.60 1,598 5572101,82109 9.78 3,136 -1,071 2101,2109 7.58 3,956 7142201,82209 10.90 3,506 -1,616 2201,2209 8.77 2,989 3272301, 82309 12.31 3,537 -2,482 2301,2309 10.21 2,902 2052401,82409 13.07 3,037 827 2401,2409 12.02 3,210 23582501,82509 13.83 2,551 168 2501,2509 13.83 2,625 199Nozzle Bottom DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Rev. 1Table 5-3dNozzle ID and OD Hoop Stress (49.0' DM1 Nozzle Case)Nozzle TopWeld TopWeld Bottom_ ~Downhill Side _Ujphill Side_AxFia ID Hoop jOD Hoop ~ Aial~~K ID Hoop) OD HoopNodes JHeight IStress (psi) Stress (psi)J Nodes jHeight jStress (psi) Stress (psi)80001, 80009 0.00 -3,722 -1,868 1,9 0.00 621 -5,28930101,80109 1.40 -6,680 -2,104 101,109 0.21 -4,271 -10,58430201, 80209 2.53 9,655 -2,346 201, 209 0.38 -5,211 -15,05630301, 80309 3.43 39,134 3,915 301, 309 0.52 -7,466 -8,57330401,80409 4.15 48,236 17,281 401,409 0.63 -10,584 1,43730501, 805091 4.72 52,035 133,717 501, 509 0.72 -12,967 17,42830601, 80609 5.19 54,862 37,236 601, 609 0.79 -14,636 17,75130701,80709 5.51 55,735 60,921 701,709 1.13 -14,658 66,84830801,80809 5.83 50,873 55,490 801,809 1.47 -12,418 71,98430901,80909 6.16 46,672 61,176 901,909 1.81 -5,445 48,64431001, 81009 6.48 38,565 69,994 1001, 1009 2.15 7,670 21,44031101, 810091 6.80 24,141 62,170 1101, 1009 2.49 21,677 2,53231201, 81209 7.13 13,099 46,778 1201, 1209 2.83 29,289 -84631301, 81309 7.37 6,658 -12,381 1301, 1309 3.09 37,203 17,68431401, 81409 7.58 3,968 -30,370 1401, 1409 3.41 44,282 12,29731501, 81509 7.84 1,277 -21,886 1501, 1509 3.79 47,413 13,64931601, 81609 8.18 2,934 -4,790 1601, 1609 4.26 45,514 8,96831701, 81709 8.60 4,072 -778 1701, 1709 4.82 38,280 -4,34131801, 81809 9.12 3,860 176 1801, 1809 5.50 23,009 -5,5881901, 81909 9.79 3,187 338 1901, 1909 6.32 -1,728 -1,77432001,82009 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 96932201,82209 13.02 2,588 311 2201,2209 9.97 3,264 28232301,82309 14.70 2,804 -686 2301,2309 11.72 2,223 25132401, 82409 15.47 2,731 468 dl2401, 2409 13.98 2,705 27'52501,82509 16.24 2,514 265 F2501,2509 16.24 _2,588 227Nozzle Bottom DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Rev. 1Table 5-4Change in Inner Diameter at Selected Axial Locations Uph0.00 NozzDownhUph26.60 NozzDownhUph37.90 NozzDownhUph49.0' NozzLocation 2 Location 4 Location "X"0.5" Above Uphill Weld Location 3 Uphill Weld Downhill WeldTop Uphill Weld Top Bottom TopRadial Change in Radial Change in Radial Change in Radial Change inCirc Deflection Diameter Deflection Diameter Deflection Diameter Deflection DiameterLocation (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils)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 0.34le 0.0 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.3422.5 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.3445.0 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.3467.5 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.34ill 90.0 0.47 0.94 0.17 0.34 0.85 1.70 0.17 0.34ill -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 2.95le 0.0 0.08 0.16 0.23 0.46 1.41 2.82 1.75 3.5022.5 -8.73 0.17 -7.39 0.41 -1.16 2.36 -0.20 2.9545.0 -16.20 0.17 -13.88 0.25 -3.59 1.25 -2.21 1.6167.5 -21.19 0.16 -18.23 0.08 -5.32 0.09 -3.68 0.31ill 90.0 -22.94 0.16 -19.76 -0.01 -5.94 -0.34 -4.21 -0.24ill -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 2.99le 0.0 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.22 1.06 2.12 1.82 3.6422.5 -12.25 0.04 -10.73 0.17 -3.70 1.29 1.59 2.9945.0 -22.63 0.07 -19.95 0.03 -8.26 -0.73 0.78 1.6367.5 -29.56 0.09 -26.10 -0.11 -11.40 -2.61 -0.21 0.38ill 90.0 -32.00 0.09 -28.26 -0.18 -12.58 -3.40 -0.55 -0.05ill -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 2.15le 0.0 -0.03 -0.06 0.02 0.04 0.97 1.94 1.20 2.4022.5 -15.01 -0.01 -13.43 0.03 -6.03 0.90 1.82 2.1545.0 -27.68 0.07 -24.83 -0.03 -12.47 -1.60 1.71 1.5167.5 -36.13 0.16 -32.44 -0.10 -16.84 -3.92 1.25 0.79il 90.0 -39.09 0.20 -35.11 -0.14 -18.40 -4.82 1.05 0.55Downhi DOMINION ENG[NEERING, INC.Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Revision 12323609 980009162309 (Nozzle)2310 (Shell)2509Uphill Plane Nodes are O's SeriesDownhill Plane Nodes are 80,000's SeriesOriginal Nozzle Node Series: El's at Nozzle ID, 9's at Nozzle ODWeld Node Series:LJ 9's at Original Nozzle OD (merged w/ nozzle OD)0 16's at Weld EdgeShell Node Series:U0 10's at Penetration ID below weld regionU 23's at edge of shell sectionNode Numbers Increase by 100 up the length of the tube and shellNode Numbers Increase by I along the tube and shell radiusBottom Head Instrumentation Nozzle Node Numbering SchemeBottomH ad ..nstr.entat.o.Nozzl..ode.umb ring ........Figure 5-1 Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Revision 1ANSYS 8.0JUL 23 200416:06:22PLOT NO. 1NODAL SOLUTIONTIME=7004 SY (AVG)RSYS=11PowerGraphics EFACET=1AVRES=A11 DMX =.44721SMN =-61422SMX =78551l -61422i -10000101 100001 2000030000400001 50000100000ANSYS 8.0JUL 23 200416:06:23PLOT NO. 2NODAL SOLUTIONTIME=7004 SZ (AVG)RSYS=11PowerGraphics EFACET=1AVRES=A11 DMX =.44721SIMN =-82639SMX =81784l -826391 -10000101 100001 20000300004000050000100000Figure 5-2Operating plus ResidualHoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress0.0' BMI Nozzle Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Revision IANSYS 8.0JUL 23 200416:06:32PLOT NO. 1NODAL SOLUTIONTIME=7004 SY (AVG)RSYS=11PowerGraphics EFACET=1AVRES=A11 DMX = .443919SMN =-71059SMX =78814I -71059I -10000I010000I 200003000040000I 50000100000ANSYS 8.0JUL 23 200416:06:33PLOT NO. 2NODAL SOLUTIONTIME=7004 SZ (AVG)RSYS=11PowerGraphics EFACET=1AVRES=A11 DMX =.443919SMN =-82736SMX =85580I -82736-10000~0-1000020000300004000050000100000Figure 5-3Operating plus ResidualHoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress26.60 BMI Nozzle Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Revision IANSYS 8.0JUL 23 200416:06:42PLOT NO. 1NODAL SOLUTIONTIME=7004 SY (AVG)RSYS=11PowerGraphics EFACET=1AVRES=A11 DMX =.440476SMN =-70462SMX =80177-704621 -1000010100001 2000030000-400001 50000100000ANSYS 8.0JUL 23 200416:06:43PLOT NO. 2NODAL SOLUTIONTIME=7004 SZ (AVG)RSYS=11PowerGraphics EFACET=1AVRES=A11 DMX =.440476SMN =-81501SMX =89427S-81501-1000010100001 200003000040000i 50000100000Figure 5-4Operating plus ResidualHoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress37.90 BMI Nozzle Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Revision 1ANSYS 8.0JUL 23 200416:06:53PLOT NO. 1NODAL SOLUTIONTIME=7004 SY (AVG)RSYS=11PowerGraphics EFACET=1AVRES=A11 DMX =.444361SMN =-60928SMX =81967-60928-10000010000I 2000030000-4000050000100000ANSYS 8.0JUL 23 200416:06:54PLOT NO. 2NODAL SOLUTIONTIME=7004 SZ (AVG)RSYS=11PowerGraphics EFACET=1AVRES=A11 DMX =.444361SMN =-80944SMX =885331 -809441 -1000001000020000300004000050000100000Figure 5-5Operating plus ResidualHoop (SY) and Axial (SZ) Stress49.00 BMI Nozzle DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Revision 1ANSYS 8.0JUL 23 200416:06:26PLOT NO. 5DISPLACEMENT TIME=7004 RSYS=SOLU DMX =.44721*DSCA=10XV =-iZV =1DIST=4.639 XF =-.649465 ZF =100.66VUP =ZPRECISE HIDDENNODAL SOLUTIONTIME=7004 SZ (AVG)RSYS=SOLU DMX =.42079SMN =-32423SMX =20118-32423--10000-0100002000030000-4000050000100000PV 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 BMIFigure 5-6 DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Revision 1ANSYS 8.0JUL 23 200416:06:36PLOT NO. 5DISPLACEMENT TIME=7004 RSYS=SOLU DMX =.443919*DSCA=10XV =-IZV =1DIST=6.698 XF =-.168747 YF =41.199ZF =90.659VUP =ZPRECISE HIDDENNODAL SOLUTIONTIME=7004 SZ (AVG)RSYS=SOLU DMX =.420854SMN =-20393SMX =30984-20393II -10000~010000200003000040000100000PV 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 BMIFigure 5-7I DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC.Enclosure

-Attachment 2C-7789-00-2 Revision 1ANSYS 8.0JUL 23 200416:06:46PLOT NO. 5DISPLACEMENT TIME=7004 RSYS=SOLU DMX =.440476*DSCA=10XV =-1ZV =1DIST=7.945 XF =-.120191 YF =56.409ZF =80.806VUP =ZPRECISE HIDDENNODAL SOLUTIONTIME=7004 SZ (AVG)RSYS=SOLU DMX =.420279SMN =-6783SMX =35539-20000--10000o01000020000300004000050000100000PV 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' BMIFigure 5-8 Enclosure

-Attachment 2DOMINION ENGINEERING, INC. C-7789-00-2 Revision 1ANSYS 8.0JUL 23 200416:06:57PLOT NO. 5DISPLACEMENT TIME=7004 RSYS=SOLU DMX =.444361*DSCA=10XV =-1ZV =2DIST=7.733 XF =-.095437 YF =69.224ZF =68.543VUP =ZPRECISE HIDDENNODAL SOLUTIONTIME=7004 SZ (AVG)RSYS=SOLU DMX =.422224SMN =-3893SMX =37550-200001 -10000~010000200003000040000-50000100000PV 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 BMIFigure 5-9 Enclosure

-Attachment 2Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Attachment Page: 1 of 4DESCRIPTION:

FEA of Palo Verde BMI NOZZLES (0.0 DEG)REVISION A: Westinghouse Cyclic Stress-Strain Nozzle PropsANALYSIS DATE (YYMMDD):

20040524.

ANSYS VERSION:

8.0cirse.base MODEL VERSION:

2.4.6TITLE: PV BMI ( 0.0d, 45.2k, 3.00/0.75, 0.000,A)I.S. Below WeldI.S. Above WeldMidwall Below WeldMidwall Above WeldMax. Hoop Stress (psi)Downhill Uphill21851. 21851.16457. 16457.27495. 27495.12575. 12575.Max. AxialDownhill817.-576.Stress (psi)Uphill817.-576..0000"Max. Lateral Deflection:

-.0000"Max. Ovality:************

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

• • Uphill side, above weld **MaxMaxMaxMaxMaxMaxMaxMaxHoop @ NodeAxial @ NodeUphill side, bHoop @ NodeAxial @ NodeDownhill side,Hoop @ NodeAxial @ NodeDownhill side,Hoop @ NodeAxial @ Node1. Hoop :1. Axial:elow weld **16457. Axial: -576. Ratio:-28.55

-576. Hoop : 16457. Ratio:-28.55 1401.1901.above80001.80001.below81401.81901.Hoop :Axial:weld **HoopAxial:weld **HoopAxial:21851. Axial: -11924.817. Hoop : 3118.Ratio: -1.83Ratio: 3.8216457. Axial:-576. Hoop :-576. Ratio:-28.55 16457. Ratio:-28.55 21851. Axial: -11924.817. Hoop : 3118.Ratio: -1.83Ratio: 3.82************

INPUT PARAMETERS

• SYD=45172.

CTHK=0.1600 TIR=0.3750 HGRATE= 75.BOTZAUTO=0.

FOURPASS=0.

CYLSHELL=0.

DDl= 1.0000DD6= 1.0397DDlI=-0.3450 UUl= 1.0000UU6= 1.0397UU1I=-0.3450 NCIRC= 8.NRBASE= 6.NAEXTN= 2.GRAD5= 5.5HDALLOY=533.

HPRESS=3110.

STHK=6.6600 SA=96.5200 HCBORE=0.000 HCBOTZ= 0.000TRIMFLAG=0.

OTEMP=565.

HCBOTINC=

0.000 PARATRIM=0.

PRESSFLG=0.

NOBUTTER=0.

STRRLF=l.

OPRESS=2250.

THETA= 0.00LTIP=I.9000 BUTTFIX=2.

TRIMANG=

0.00DD4= 0.8145DD9= 1.1119UU4= 0.8145UU9= 1.1119TOR=I.5005 DD5= 0.8094DD10= 0.4397UU5= 0.8094UUI0= 0.4397DD2= 1.2500DD7= 0.8795DDRF= 0.7824UU2= 1.2500UU7= 0.8795UURF= 0.7824CIRC EXT=180.NATTIP= 6.GRADl= 6.0GRAD6= 7.9DD3= 0.6325DD8= 1.1295UU3= 0.6325UU8= 1.1295NRTUBE= 8.NACLAD= 2. NlGRAD2= 4.0 G0GSTIF=0.50E+09 NRWELD= 6.AWELD= 6.RAD3= 4.0NRBUTT= 1.NAHOLE=10.

GRAD4= 5.0FREP= 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 2Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Attachment Page: 2 of 4DESCRIPTION:

FEA of Palo Verde BMI NOZZLES (26.59 DEG)REVISION A: Westinghouse Cyclic Stress-Strain Nozzle PropsANALYSIS DATE (YYMMDD)

20040524.

ANSYS VERSION:

8.0cirse.base MODEL VERSION:

2.4.6TITLE: PV BMI ( 26.6d, 45.2k, 3.00/0.75, 0.000,A)I.S. Below WeldI.S. Above WeldMidwall Below WeldMidwall Above WeldMax. Hoop Stress (psi)Downhill Uphill38921. 35655.34552. 3125.46568. 23807.29721. 1468.Max. AxialDownhill10586.-931.Stress (psi)Uphill8477.-3457.Max. Lateral Deflection:

0.0261"Max. Ovality:0.0039"************

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

• • Uphill side, above weld **Max Hoop @ Node 1. HoopMax Axial @ Node 1. Axial:** Uphill side, below weld **Max Hoop @ Node 1501. HoopMax Axial @ Node 1601. Axial:** Downhill side, above weld *kMax Hoop @ Node 80501. HoopMax Axial @ Node 80101. Axial:** Downhill side, below weld **Max Hoop @ Node 81101. HoopMax Axial @ Node 81401. Axial:3125. Axial:-3457. Hoop :-3457.3125.Ratio: -0.90Ratio: -0.9035655. Axial: 2908. Ratio: 12.268477. Hoop : 31781. Ratio: 3.7534552. Axial: -9428. Ratio: -3.66-931. Hoop : -2672. Ratio: 2.8738921. Axial:10586. Hoop :572. Ratio: 68.0413336. Ratio: 1.26INPUT PARAMETERS

• • • • • • • *********

SYD=45172.

CTHK=0.1600 TIR=0.3750 HGRATE= 75.BOTZAUTO=0.

FOURPASS=0.

CYLSHELL=0.

DD1= 0.9080DD6= 1.1150DD1I=-0.3016 UU1= 1.2739UU6= 1.0194UU11=-0.1187 NCIRC= 8.NRBASE= 6.NAEXTN= 2.GRAD5= 5.5HDALLOY=533.

HPRESS=3110.

STHK=6.6600 SA=96.5200 HCBORE=0.000 HCBOTZ= 0.000TRIMFLAG=0.

OTEMP=565.

HCBOTINC=

0.000 PARATRIM=0.

PRESSFLG=0.

NOBUTTER=0.

STRRLF=1.

OPRESS=2250.

THETA=26.59 LTIP=2.6000 BUTTFIX=2.

TRIMANG=

0.00DD4= 1.1317DD9= 1.1295UU4= 0.6694UU9= 1.1032TOR=I.5005 DD5= 0.8905DDl0= 0.4398UU5= 0.7894UU10= 0.4398DD2= 1.1315DD7= 0.8795DDRF= 0.7338UU2= 1.4975UU7= 0.8795UURF= 0.2373CIRC EXT=180.NATTIP= 6.GRAD1= 6.0 CGRAD6= 7.9 CDD3= 0.89(DD8= 1.121UU3= 0.68(UU8= 1.121NRTUBE= 8.IACLAD= 2.RAD2= 4.0STIF=0.50E+01 NRWELD= 6.NAWELD= 6.GRAD3= 4.0NRBUTT= 1.NAHOLE=10.

GRAD4= 5.0FREP= 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 2Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Attachment Page: 3 of 4DESCRIPTION:

FEA of Palo Verde BMI NOZZLES (37.91 DEG)REVISION A: Westinghouse Cyclic Stress-Strain Nozzle PropsANALYSIS DATE (YYMMDD):

20040524.

ANSYS VERSION:

8.0cirse.base MODEL VERSION:

2.4.6TITLE: PV BMI ( 37.9d, 45.2k, 3.00/0.75, 0.000,A)I.S. Below WeldI.S. Above WeldMidwall Below WeldMidwall Above WeldMax. Hoop Stress (psi)Downhill Uphill44617. 42995.43700. 651.55978. 27288.41823. 0.Max. AxialDownhill16799.19201.Stress (psi)Uphill20096.-2706.0073"Max. Lateral Deflection:

0.0354"Max. Ovality:************

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

MaxMaxMaxMaxMaxMaxUphill side, aHoop @ NodeAxial @ NodeUphill side, bHoop @ NodeAxial @ NodeDownhill side,Hoop @ NodeAxial @ Nodebove weld **1. Hoop501. Axial:elow weld **651. Axial: -3471.-2706. Hoop : -14064.Ratio: -0.19Ratio: 5.201501.1601.above80501.80401.Hoop :Axial:weld **HoopAxial:weld **HoopAxial:42995. Axial: 14196. Ratio: 3.0320096. Hoop : 40637. Ratio: 2.0243700. Axial: 7472.19201. Hoop : 43165.** Downhill side, belowMax Hoop @ Node 80801.Max Axial @ Node 81101.Ratio: 5.85Ratio: 2.25Ratio:-26.06 Ratio: 2.2844617. Axial:16799. Hoop :-1712.38226.************

INPUT PARAMETERS

• SYD=45172.

CTHK=0.1600 TIR=0.3750 HGRATE= 75.BOTZAUTO=0.

FOURPASS=0.

CYLSHELL=0.

DD1= 0.8167DD6= 1.1295DD11=-0.2584 UU1= 1.3215UU6= 1.0325UUll=-0.0000 NCIRC= 8.NRBASE= 6.NAEXTN= 2.GRAD5= 5.5HDALLOY=533.

HPRESS=3110.

STHK=6.6600 SA=96.5200 HCBORE=0.000 HCBOTZ= 0.000TRIMFLAG=0.

OTEMP=565.

HCBOTINC=

0.000 PARATRIM=0.

PRESSFLG=0.

NOBUTTER=0.

STRRLF=1.

OPRESS=2250.

THETA=37.91 LTIP=3.0000 BUTTFIX=2.

TRIMANG=

0.00DD4= 1.2118DD9= 1.1295TOR=1.5005 DD5= 0.8795DD10= 0.4397DD2= 1.0139DD7= 0.8795DDRF= 0.6718UU2= 1.5187UU7= 0.8795UURF= 0.0000DD3= 0.9825DD8= 1.1295UU3= 0.5118UU8= 1.1284UU4= 0.5006 UU5= 0.8277UU9= 1.0978 UU10= 0.4397CIRCEXT=180.

NATTIP= 6.GRAD1= 6.0GRAD6= 7.9NRTUBE= 8. NRWELD= 6.NACLAD= 2. NAWELD= 6.GRAD2= 4.0 GRAD3= 4.0GSTIF=0.50E+09 NRBUTT= 1.NAHOLE=10.

GRAD4= 5.0FREP= 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 2Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Attachment Page: 4 of 4DESCRIPTION:

FEA of Palo Verde BMI NOZZLES (49.03 DEG)REVISION A: Westinghouse Cyclic Stress-Strain Nozzle PropsANALYSIS DATE (YYMMDD)

20040524.

ANSYS VERSION:

8.0cirse.base MODEL VERSION:

2.4.6TITLE: PV BMI ( 49.0d, 45.2k, 3.00/0.75, 0.000,A)I.S. Below WeldI.S. Above WeldMidwall Below WeldMidwall Above WeldMax. Hoop Stress (psi)Downhill Uphill55735. 47413.54862. 621.62227. 27662.51194. 0.Max. AxialDownhill20399.32703.Stress (psi)Uphill28412.-1200.Max. Lateral Deflection:

0.0416"Max. Ovality:0.0099"r***********

INSIDE SURFACE STRESSES (psi) *** Uphill side, above weld **Max Hoop @ Node 1. HoopMax Axial @ Node 401. Axial:** Uphill side, below weld **MaxMaxMaxMaxMaxMaxHoop @ Node 1501.Axial @ Node 1601.Downhill side, aboveHoop @ Node 80601.Axial @ Node 80401.Downhill side, belowHoop @ Node 80701.Axial @ Node 81001.Hoop :Axial:weld **HoopAxial:weld **HoopAxial:621. Axial: -3368.-1200. Hoop : -10584.47413. Axial: 24156.28412. Hoop : 45514.54862. Axial: 18023.32703. Hoop : 48236.55735. Axial: 18405.20399. Hoop : 38565.Ratio: -0.18Ratio: 8.82Ratio: 1.96Ratio: 1.60Ratio: 3.04Ratio: 1.48Ratio: 3.03Ratio: 1.89INPUT PARAMETERS

SYD=45172.

CTHK=0.1600 TIR=0.3750 HGRATE= 75.BOTZAUTO=0.

FOURPASS=0.

CYLSHELL=0.

DD1= 0.7071DD6= 1.1295DD11=-0.2005 UUl= 1.3189UU6= 0.9909UU11=-0.0000 NCIRC= 8.NRBASE= 6.NAEXTN= 2.GRAD5= 5.5HDALLOY=533.

HPRESS=3110.

STHK=6.6600 SA=96.5200 HCBORE=0.000 HCBOTZ= 0.000TRIMFLAG=0.

OTEMP=565.

HCBOTINC=

0.000 PARATRIM=0.

PRESSFLG=0.

NOBUTTER=0.

STRRLF=1.

OPRESS=2250.

THETA=49.03 LTIP=3.5000 BUTTFIX=2.

TRIMANG=

0.00DD4= 1.2719DD9= 1.1295UU4= 0.4687UU9= 1.0817TOR=1.5005 DD5= 0.8795DD10= 0.4397UU5= 0.8288UUl0= 0.4397DD2= 0.8710DD7= 0.8795DDRF= 0.5947UU2= 1.4828UU7= 0.8795UURF= 0.0000CIRC EXT=180.NATTIP= 6.GRAD1= 6.0GRAD6= 7.9DD3= 1.0086DD8= 1.1295UU3= 0.4519UU8= 1.1288NRTUBE= 8.NACLAD= 2. NJGRAD2= 4.0 GEGSTIF=0.50E+09 qRWELD= 6.AWELD= 6.RAD3= 4.0NRBUTT= 1.NAHOLE=I0.

GRAD4= 5.0FREP= 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 2Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Attachment Page: 1 of 6RESU,,dbs,../

/PAGE, ,,10000,200

/POST1file,,rst,../

TW4=l.5 zoom in for weld plots/GRAPHICS, FULLCSYS, 11CLOCAL,71,1,0,0,NZ(l+NRTUBE)

Local CSYS at lower tube edgeCSYS 11RSYS, 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 weldRSYS, 1i/COM,/COM, ** Fill node axial distance vs. radial deflection table arrays*DO, I,0, ncirc, 1K=1*DO, J,I*10000+1, I*10000+NNUM23, 100DEFCOL%I%

(K) =UX (J)DEFCOL%I%

(K, 0) =NZ (J)K=K+l*ENDDO*ENDDO*DO, I,0, ncirc, 1DEFCOL%I%

(0,1) =1.0*ENDDO/COM,/COM, ** Interpolate to get deflection and ovality at desired locations

• DO, 1, 0, ncirc, 0LOC2DEF(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

1. @ 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 2Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: IAttachment Page: 2 of 6/CON,/CON,SET, ,,,, TO+4.0ETABLE,GAPFORCE, SMISC,2ESEL, S,TYPE,,2 ESEL, R, REAL,,1/OUT,%FNAME%.WData,out,,APPEND

/COM, Force in all gap elements in interference regionPRETAB/COM,/COM,/OUT,NSLENSELR,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 ODNLIST/COM,/COMN/COM,/OUT,/COM,/COMN/COM, **** Get stress data ****/COMN/COMNNSEL, ALLESEL, ALLNTMPl=NODE(NX(l),NY(l),NZ(NNUMl)-0.5)

Node 0.5" below downhill weldNTMP2=NODE(NX(ncirc*I0000+I),NY(ncirc*I0000+l),NZ(ncirc*l0000+NNUMl)-0.5)

Node 0.5"below uphill weldNSEL, 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 bottomPRNS,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 bottomPRNS,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 middlePRNS,COMP

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

-Attachment 2Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: IAttachment Page: 3 of 6NSELS,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 topPRNS, COMP/COM,/COM-/COM,/OUT,NSEL,ALLNTMPI=NODE(NX(l),NY(l),NZ(NNUMI4)+0.5)

Node 0.5" above downhill weldNTMP2=NODE(NX(ncirc*I0000+I),NY(ncirc*I0000+I),NZ(ncirc*I0000+NNUMI4)+0.5)

Node 0.5"above uphill weldNSEL, 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 topPRNS,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 downhillPRNS,COMP

/COM,/COM,/COM, Location of ID nodes relative to tube bottom ODNLIST/OUTNSEL, 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 downhillPRNS,COMP

/COM,/COM,/COM, Location of OD nodes relative to tube bottom ODNLIST/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, allAttachment 2: File "Westpost8.txt" Enclosure

-Attachment 2Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: IAttachment Page: 4 of 6esel,alldsys, 0csys, 11/show,pscr pscr,color, lpscr, scale,.180 pscr,tranx,60 pscr,trany,200 pscr, rotate,0*CREATE, WELDPLOT/COM,/COM, This macro makes tube stress plots with the ge/COM, The model in the background.

Use the followin/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,OFFESEL, S,LIVENSLE Select tube nodes and element,/TYPE, 1,4/EDGE,I,1 Alternate contours for stress/PLOPTS,DEFA Standard legend/PLOPTS,INFO,l Control style of/COLOR, DEFA/CVAL, 1,-10000,0,10000,20000,30000,40000,50000,100000

/graphics,power avres, 1RSYS,ARG2

• IF,ARG1,EQ, I,THENPLNS,S,Y Make hoop plot*ELSEIF,ARGI,EQ,2,THEN PLNS,S,Z Make axial plot*ELSEPLNS,S,INT Make stress intensity plot*ENDIFESEL,ALLNSEL,ALLometry of the rest ofg arguments for ARGI:splotEPLOADDED THISADDED THIS/graphics,full

• ENDSET, ,,,, TO+4.0*USE,WELDPLOT, 1,11*USE,WELDPLOT,2,11

• USE,WELDPLOT, 3,11RSYS,SOLU

/pnum, type,l/num, l/color,num,blac, l/view, l,-i/type,1,4

/ang, lAttachment 2: File "Westpost8.txt" Enclosure

-Attachment 2Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: 1Attachment Page: 5 of 6/vup, 1, z/CVAL, 1,-10000,0,10000,20000,30000,40000,50000,100000

/era/auto/edge, 1esel,s,mat,

,1nsle*IF,THETA, LT,40.0,THEN

/view, 1,-l,,+1*ELSE/view, 1,-1,,+2*ENDIF/dsc, 1,10/type, 1,4pldi/user/noeraesel,allesel,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, 1esel,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/noeraeselallesel,u,elem,,l,NNUM14-1

• repeat,ncirc,,,,

10000,10000 esel,u,elem,,NNUM14+100,10000

• repeat,ncirc,,,,10000,10000

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

• repeat,ncirc+1,,,,10000,10000

/type, 1,0plns,s,z/GRAPHICS,FULL

• CREATE,WELDTAB ESEL, S,LIVEAttachment 2: File "Westpost8.txt" Enclosure

-Attachment 2Document No.: C-7789-00-2 Revision No.: IAttachment Page: 6 of 6NSLEPRNS, S, COMPNSEL, ALLESEL, ALL*ENDSET, , , , , TC+4.0RSYS, SOLU/OUT, %FNAME%.

results, txt*USE, WELDTAB/OUT, %FNAME%.

nodelocs, txtDSYS, 11NLIST/OUTFINISH/DELETE, WELDTAB/DELETE, WELDPLOTFINISH/exit, nosavAttachment 2: File "Westpost8.txt"