ML15190A264
ML15190A264 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Palisades ![]() |
Issue date: | 05/11/2015 |
From: | Fong M Structural Integrity Associates |
To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
Shared Package | |
ML15190A274 | List: |
References | |
10426669, 1400669 1400669.313, Rev. 0 | |
Download: ML15190A264 (25) | |
Text
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. File No.: 1400669.313 Project No.: 1400669 CALCULATION PACKAGE Quality Program Type: Z Nuclear E] Commercial PROJECT NAME: Palisades Flaw Readiness Program for 1R24 NDE Inspection CONTRACT NO.: 10426669 CLIENT: PLANT: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Palisades Nuclear Plant CALCULATION TITLE: Crack Growth Analysis of the Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Document Affected Project Manager Preparer(s)
&Revision Pages Revision Description Approval Checker(s)
Signature
& Date Signatures
& Date 0 1 -23 Initial Issue Preparer: A-i -A-3 Computer Files Norman Eng NE 5/11/15 Minji Fong MF 5/11/15 Checkers: Wilson Wong WW 5/11/15 Gole Mukhim GSM 5/11/15 Page 1 of 23 F0306-01R2 S&NwbiMral lhfe y Associates, IncO Table of Contents 1.0 O B JE C TIV E .........................................................................................................
4 2.0 D E SIG N IN PU T S ....................................................................................................
4 2.1 Piping Interface Loads .................................................................................
4 2.2 Residual Stresses at Normal Operating Temperature and Pressure ..............
5 2.3 Mechanical Load Boundary Conditions
......................................................
5 2.4 C rack G row th R ate ........................................................................................
5 3.0 A SSU M PTIO N S ......................................................................................................
6 4.0 DETERMINATION OF STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR ......................................
6 4.1 Crack Face Pressure Application
..................................................................
6 4.2 K Calculation for Circumferential Flaws .....................................................
7 4.2.1 Finite Element Model with Circumferential Flaws .....................................
7 4.2.2 Stress Intensity Factor Results .......................................................................
8 4.3 K Calculation for Axial Flaws ......................................................................
8 4.3.1 Finite Element Model with Axial Flaws ........................................................
8 4.3.2 Stress Intensity Factor Results .......................................................................
8 5.0 CRACK GROWTH CALCULATION
....................................................................
9 6.0 C O N C LU SIO N S ......................................................................................................
9 7.0 R E FE R E N C E S ........................................................................................................
11 APPENDIX A COMPUTER FILES LISTING ...............................................................
A-1 File No.: 1400669.313 Page 2 of 23 Revision:
0 F0306-01R2 jSiniuorai lateurify Associates, inc.List of Tables Table 1: Stress Intensity Factors for Circumferential Flaws ............................................
12 Table 2: Stress Intensity Factors for Axial Flaws .............................................................
12 Table 3: Crack Growth Time to 75% Through-Wall
........................................................
12 Table 4: Crack Growth Time to 95% Through-Wall
..................................
............................
12 Table 5: Allowable Detected Flaw Size ............................................................................
13 List of Figures Figure 1. Base Finite Element M odel M esh ......................................................................
14 Figure 2. Applied Mechanical Load Boundary Conditions
...............................................
15 Figure 3. Circumferential Flaw with Crack Tip Elements Inserted ...................................
16 Figure 4. Transferred Residual Stress + NOC + Pressure Stress for Circumferential Flaws. 17 Figure 5. Stress Intensity Factors as a Function of Depth for Circumferential Flaws ..... 18 Figure 6. Axial Flaws with Crack Tip Elements Inserted .................................................
19 Figure 7. Transferred Residual Stress + NOC + Pressure Stress for Axial Flaws ........ 20 Figure 8. Stress Intensity Factors as a Function of Depth for Axial Flaws .......................
21 Figure 9. Crack Growth for All Flaw Types with 0.025" Initial Flaw Size .....................
22 Figure 10. Crack Growth for All Flaw Types with 0.1" Initial Flaw Size ........................
23 File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 3 of 23 F0306-01R2 V smnI ur IWihurily Associates, Inc.1.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this calculation package is to determine maximum allowable flaw sizes for 18 and 36 months of continued operation based on crack growth analyses for a series of postulated flaws in the hot leg drain nozzle boss weld in support of a Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC)susceptibility study at the Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades).
The stresses due to the hot leg pipe interface loads which are determined in this calculation, and residual stresses extracted from a previous analysis [1] are used to calculate stress intensity factors (K) which are used to perform crack growth analyses.
The PWSCC crack growth analyses are performed using the pc-CRACK [2] program for both circumferential and axial flaws. The allowable detected flaw sizes are determined by back-calculating the predicted growth time to a maximum flaw size of 75% through wall thickness per ASME Code Section XI, IWB-3643.2.0 DESIGN INPUTS The finite element model shown in Figure 1 was developed in Reference
[3] and is used for the determination of stress intensity factors.2.1 Piping Interface Loads Reference 4 (PDF file, page 88) indicates that, for the hot leg, the bounding thermal transient stress of 1.010 ksi is due to case Thermal 002, the deadweight (DW) stress is 0.096 ksi and the friction stress is 1.056 ksi. The hot leg loads are applied as an equivalent bending moment to the axial free end of the modeled hot leg. The equivalent bending moment is based on the combined stress which is assumed to occur at the outside surface of the hot leg. The maximum combined bending stress is: DW + Friction + Thermal = 0.096 + 1.056 + 1.010 = 2.162 ksi The moment based on the bending stress is calculated as: M u.I i" (24.81254-20.81254).2.162 M=- =-- _= 13099in -/kips OR 4 24.8125 where, M = Moment (in-kips)S = Stress on hot leg pipe free end (ksi)I = Moment of Inertia -(7/4)(OR 4 -IR 4) (in 4)IR = Inside radius of hot leg pipe (in) = 20.8125" [3]OR = Outside radius of hot leg pipe (in) = 24.8125" [3]Since half the hot leg pipe is modeled, the equivalent moment applied to the model is 6549.5 in-kips (= 13099 in-kips /2). The moment is applied to the axial end of the hot leg run piping by means of a pilot File No.: 1400669.313 Page 4 of 23 Revision:
0 F0306-01R2 j ruIUcrwl IitMUrly Associates, Inc.node pair to transfer the loading. The pilot node pair is composed of a target node at the center of the pipe (ANSYS TARGE170 element) and a set of surface contact elements on the axial end of the pipe (ANSYS CONTA 174 element).
The surface elements are bonded to the pilot node in a slave/master coupling relationship, so that the moment load applied to the pilot node is transferred to the end of the pipe. The hot leg drain nozzle piping loads are considered to have negligible effects on the resulting K's for the boss weld, and are therefore not considered.
2.2 Residual
Stresses at Normal Operating Temperature and Pressure Residual stresses at the fifth operating condition cycle (at time = 2484 minutes) are taken from Reference
- 1. These stresses include the effects of normal operating temperature of 583°F and pressure of 2085 psig [1].2.3 Mechanical Load Boundary Conditions The mechanical load boundary conditions for the stress analysis are symmetric boundary conditions at the symmetry planes of the model, axial displacement restraint at the end of the nozzle, and axial displacement restraint on the pilot node, as shown in Figure 2. In the case where axial flaws are modeled on the symmetry planes, the boundary conditions are released at the nodes where the flaw exists.2.4 Crack Growth Rate The default PWSCC crack growth rate in pc-CRACK [2] is used. This relation is based on expressions in Reference
[5, Section 4.3] and the resulting equation for the crack growth rate is as follows: da Cexp[L Q 1 1 (K-Kh)'3 for K > Kai dt T+460 T,ref +460 For times (t) in hours, temperatures (T and Tref) in 'F, crack length (a) in inches and K in ksi-4in, the following reference values are used: Tref = 617°F C = 2.47x10-7 (constant) 0 1.6 (constant)
Q 28181.8°R (constant)
Ka, = 0 (threshold stress intensity factor below which there is no crack growth)T = operating temperature at location of crack File No.: 1400669.313 Page 5 of 23 Revision:
0 F0306-01R2 V an" Ibf Assoas, Inc0 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions are used in this analyses: " The hot leg drain nozzle piping loads are not considered in calculating stress intensity factors since loads on the drain nozzle do not produce Mode I crack opening stress intensity factors that contribute to crack growth in the boss weld.* The maximum combined stress on the hot leg piping is assumed to occur at the outside surface of the hot leg.4.0 DETERMINATION OF STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR The stresses described in this section are used with a modified version of the finite element model (FEM) developed previously in Reference
[3] to determine stress intensity factors. The modification of the FEM consists of adding crack tip elements as addressed in Section 4.2 and 4.3. The stress intensity factors (Ks) are calculated using the KCALC feature in ANSYS [6] which is based on linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) principles.
For the LEFM evaluations, only the elastic properties are used in the FEA.4.1 Crack Face Pressure Application In order to determine the Ks for the circumferential and axial flaws due to residual stresses, the stresses on the boss weld-to-nozzle interface, at the fifth operating condition (at time = 2484 minutes in the residual stress analysis [1]), are extracted from the residual stress analysis and reapplied on the crack face as surface pressure loading.This approach is based on the load superposition principle
[7], which is utilized to transfer the stresses from the weld residual stress finite element model onto the fracture mechanics finite element model that contains crack tip elements.
The superposition technique is based on the principle that, in the linear elastic regime, stress intensity factors of the same mode, which are due to different loads, are additive (similar to stress components in the same direction).
The superposition method can be summarized with the following sketches [7, page 66]: PFW PWx PWx PW x P(x)(a) (b) (c) (d)File No.: 1400669.313 Page 6 of 23 Revision:
0 F0306-01 R2 7 ankinal grlty Associates, Inc?A load p(x) on an uncracked body, Sketch (a), produces a normal stress distribution p(x) on Plane A-B.The superposition principle is illustrated by Sketches (b), (c), and (d) of the same body with a crack at Plane A-B. The stress intensity factors resulting from these loading cases are such that: Ki(b) = Ki(c) + Ki(d)Thus, Ki(d) = 0 because the crack is closed, and: Ki(b) = Ki(c)This means that the stress intensity factor obtained from subjecting the cracked body to a nominal load p(x) is equal to the stress intensity factor resulting from loading the crack faces with the same stress distribution p(x) at the same crack location in the uncracked body.4.2 K Calculation for Circumferential Flaws 4.2.1 Finite Element Model with Circumferential Flaws The stress intensity factors for full circumferential flaws in the nozzle boss weld are determined by finite element analysis using deterministic linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) principles.
As a result, five fracture mechanics finite element models are derived to include "collapsed" crack meshing that represent full (3600) circumferential flaws surrounding the nozzle at various depths within the boss weld.The circumferential flaws align with the interface between the boss weld and the nozzle. The modeled crack depths are: 0.13", 1.17", 2.05", 3.13", and 3.97" as measured at the 00 axial side of the hot leg pipe.The modeling of the flaws, or cracks, involves splitting the crack plane and then inserting "collapsed" mesh around the crack tips followed by concentrated mesh refinements that surround the "collapsed" mesh, and are referred to as "crack tip elements".
This step is implemented on a source finite element model without the cracks (the FEM developed in Reference
- 3) where the crack tip elements are inserted by an in-house developed ANSYS macro.For the fracture mechanics models, 20-node quadratic solid elements (ANSYS SOLID95) are used in the crack tip region, while 8-node solid elements (ANSYS SOLID 185) are used everywhere else in the model. The mid-side nodes for the SOLID95 elements around the crack tips are shifted to the "quarter point" locations to properly capture the singularities at the crack tips, consistent with ANSYS recommendations.
The finite element model for the 3.97" deep circumferential flaw, with the crack tip mesh, is shown in Figure 3 as an example; the crack tip mesh for the other crack depths follows the same pattern.File No.: 1400669.313 Page 7 of 23 Revision:
0 F0306-01R2 jsftatbrnI IntegriAy Associates, Inc.The quarter point mid-side nodes combined with the extra layers of concentrated elements around the crack tips provide sufficient mesh refinement to determine the stress intensity factors for the fracture mechanics analyses.4.2.2 Stress Intensity Factor Results The radial stresses (radial to the nozzle axis) on the weld/nozzle interface are transferred to the circumferential flaws as crack face pressure per the superposition principle described in Section 4.1.Figure 4 depicts, as an example, the transferred radial stresses as crack face pressure for the 3.97" circumferential flaw depth. During the crack face pressure transfer, the operating pressure of 2085 psi [1] is added to the crack face pressure to account for the internal pressure acting on the crack face due to cracking.
A far field in-plane bending moment per Section 2.1 is also applied to the free end of the hot leg run piping to account for piping moments in the main loop piping.Each crack model is analyzed as a steady state stress pass at the operating and reference temperature of 583°F [1] in order to use the material properties at the operating temperature, but without inducing additional thermal stresses.At the completion of each analysis, the ANSYS KCALC post-processing is performed to extract the K's at each crack tip node around the nozzle. The maximum K results are summarized in Table 1 for various crack depth ratios "a/t". Since the crack tip location is same in the circumferential flaw, the maximum K from all locations at each crack size is conservatively used for the K vs. a profile. The "K vs. a/t" trends are then plotted in Figure 5.4.3 K Calculation for Axial Flaws 4.3.1 Finite Element Model with Axial Flaws The stress intensity factors for axial flaws are determined using the same methodology as the circumferential flaws. However, the mesh of weld nuggets was removed to insert thumbnail shape flaws in the model. Also, the orientation and shape of the flaws allow all crack depths at the 0' and 900 faces of the symmetric hot leg pipe model to be inserted simultaneously.
Figure 6 shows the five modeled crack depths (0.25", 1.06", 1.90", 2.91", and 3.85") on the 0' face (hot leg axial face) and the 90' face with crack tip elements inserted.The modeling of the axial flaws uses the same crack tip elements as described in Section 4.2.1. The crack tip mesh is the same pattern used in the circumferential flaws and is shown in Figure 6 for the axial flaws at the 0' and 90' faces.4.3.2 Stress Intensity Factor Results Similar to the circumferential flaw analyses, the crack opening residual stresses and additional operating pressure are transferred to the axial flaws as crack face pressure.
Figure 7 depicts, as an example, the File No.: 1400669.313 Page 8 of 23 Revision:
0 F0306-01R2 C mumral bItrify Associates, Inc.transferred hoop stresses as crack face pressure for the axial flaws. In addition, a far field in-plane bending moment per Section 2.1 is applied to the free end of the hot leg run piping to account for piping moments in the main loop piping. The K results at the deepest point of the flaws are summarized in Table 2 for various crack depth ratios "a/t" and plotted in Figure 8. Since the deepest point of the postulated axial flaws has the smallest remaining wall thickness, the K at the deepest point is used for the K vs. a profile.5.0 CRACK GROWTH CALCULATION Stress intensity factors (Ks) at four depths for 3600 inside surface connected, part-through-wall circumferential flaws as well as two axial thumbnail flaws at the 0-and 90-degree azimuthal locations of the nozzle, are calculated using finite element analysis (FEA). For the circumferential flaw, the maximum K values around the nozzle circumference for each flaw depth are extracted and used as input into pc-CRACK to perform the PWSCC crack growth analyses.
For the axial flaws, the K at the deep point of the thumbnail shape is used as input for performing the PWSCC crack growth analyses.
Since the K vs. a profile is used as input, the shape of the component is not relevant.For the crack growth analyses, two initial flaw sizes are chosen. These are based on expected engineering flaw sizes that could be present for a flaw that would then grow by PWSCC. The final flaw size for these analyses is 75% of the wall thickness.
This final depth is chosen as it is the maximum allowable flaw depth per Section XI of the ASME Code for pipe flaw evaluations.
Additionally, a final flaw size of 95% of the wall thickness is also considered in this calculation.
The key parameters used in the crack growth calculations included: Two initial crack depths = 0.025" and 0.1" (assumed)Temperature
= 583 °F (operating temperature
[1])Wall thickness
= 4.0" (hot leg pipe thickness
[3])The resulting crack depths for the circumferential and axial flaws, as a function of time, as calculated by pc-CRACK are shown in Figure 9 for the 0.025" initial flaw size, and Figure 10 for the 0.1" initial flaw size. The time for a flaw to grow from the initial flaw size to 75% and 95% through-wall is tabulated in Table 3 and Table 4 for both circumferential and axial flaw types, respectively.
Table 5 shows the maximum allowable detected flaw sizes for the postulated flaws if continued operation for 18 and 36 months is considered.
6.0 CONCLUSION
S Stress intensity factors were calculated for the 360' circumferential flaws as well as the axial flaws at the 0' and 90' locations.
The stress intensity factors were calculated using residual stress distributions for residual stress plus normal operating conditions.
In addition, a far field in-plane bending moment is File No.: 1400669.313 Page 9 of 23 Revision:
0 F0306-01R2
,shin rai hitegrlfy AssociaMes, Inc.applied to the free end of the hot leg run piping to account for piping moments in the main loop piping.This combined loading is used for the determination of the stress intensity factors for both the circumferential and axial flaws. Figure 5 and Figure 8, as well as Table 1 and Table 2, show the calculated stress intensity factors for the circumferential and axial flaws.Crack growth evaluations were performed for circumferential and axial flaw configurations using two different initial flaw sizes. As shown in Figure 9 and Table 3, the shortest time for an initial 0.025" deep flaw to grow to 75% through-wall in all cases is 30.5 years for an axial flaw on the 0' plane. Figure 10 and Table 3 show that the shortest time for an initial 0.1" deep flaw to grow to 75% through-wall in all cases is 29.7 years for an axial flaw on the 00 plane. Table 5 shows the maximum allowable detected flaw sizes for 18 and 36 months continued operation.
File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 10 of 23 F0306-01R2 7 whtnorel te grily Associates, Inc.
7.0 REFERENCES
- 1. SI Calculation No. 1400669.312, Rev. 0, "Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Weld Residual Stress Analysis." 2. pc-CRACK 4.1, Version 4.1 CS, Structural Integrity Associates, December 2013.3. SI Calculation No. 1400669.3 10, Rev. 0, "Finite Element Model for Hot Leg Drain Nozzle." 4. Palisades Document, Report No. CENC- 1115, "Analytical Report for Consumers Power Piping," SI File No. 1300086.204.
- 5. Materials Reliability Program: Crack Growth Rates for Evaluating Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC) ofAlloy 82, 182 and 132 Welds (MRP-115), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004, 1006696.6. ANSYS Mechanical APDL and PrepPost, Release 14.5 (w/ Service Pack 1), ANSYS, Inc., September 2012.7. Anderson, T. L., "Fracture Mechanics Fundamentals and Applications," Second Edition, CRC Press, 1995.File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 11 of 23 F0306-01R2 CsfaffreMOMAssocbels, Inc.Table 1: Stress Intensity Factors for Circumferential Flaws Crack Depth a/t Max. K (in) (ksi-in°.5)0.13 0.03 19.61 1.12 0.28 22.76 2.04 0.51 14.78 3.15 0.79 13.03 3.97 0.99 35.15 Table 2: Stress Intensity Factors for Axial Flaws HL Axial Plane 00 HL Circ. Plane 900 Crack Depth a/t K at Deep Pt Crack Depth a/t K at Deep Pt (in) (ksi-in°'5) (in) (ksi-in°'5)0.25 0.06 18.50 0.25 0.06 14.16 1.06 0.26 18.64 1.10 0.27 14.43 1.90 0.47 17.60 1.96 0.49 14.77 2.91 0.73 19.34 2.95 0.74 16.98 3.85 0.96 23.44 3.81 0.95 21.41 Table 3: Crack Growth Time to 75% Through-Wall Initial Flaw Size Axial Crack Axial Crack Circ. Crack (in) (00 plane) (900 plane) (years)_ (years) (years) (years)0.025 30.5 42.9 33.9 0.100 29.7 41.7 33.1 Table 4: Crack Growth Time to 95% Through-Wall Initial Flaw Size Axial Crack Axial Crack Circ. Crack (in) (0' plane) (900 plane) (years)(years) (years) (years)0.025 36.7 50.3 42.1 0.100 36.0 49.2 41.4 File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 12 of 23 F0306-01R2 jSIvrura I~tegrlfy Associatos, Inc.Table 5: Allowable Detected Flaw Size Allowable Detected Flaw Size (a/t)Hot Leg Thickness, t = 4.00" Months of Axial Flaw Axial Flaw Circumferential Continued at 0° plane at 900 plane Flaw Operation a/t a (in) a/t a (in) a/t a (in)18 0.7070 2.83 0.7165 2.87 0.7260 2.90 36 0.6690 2.68 0.6785 2.71 0.6975 2.79 File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 13 of 23 F0306-01R2 tj s bwftn Associates, k=6 ANSYS R14.5 Figure 1. Base Finite Element Model Mesh File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 14 of 23 F0306-01 R2 C an"s~iru lMq*rl Assocates, Inc.0'RFAI, NNfl Coupled to pilot node I Pilot node and axial restraints Axial displacement restraint//Figure 2. Applied Mechanical Load Boundary Conditions File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 15 of 23 F0306-OIR2 5SVOW&W bft wE Assocates, 1=Figure 3. Circumferential Flaw with Crack Tip Elements Inserted (Note: Deepest circumferential flaw shown for example)File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 16 of 23 F0306-01R2 C OW&*~re lWabdY ASSOciats, InW Figure 4. Transferred Residual Stress + NOC + Pressure Stress for Circumferential Flaws (Note: Deepest circumferential flaw shown for example)File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 17 of 23 F0306-01 R2 can&* MW* Assadates, /me in"-7 1'40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Depth (a/t)Figure 5. Stress Intensity Factors as a Function of Depth for Circumferential Flaws File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 18 of 23 F0306-01R2 Van&* MWW ASWCWOS, kas I00 900 Figure 6. Axial Flaws with Crack Tip Elements Inserted File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 19 of 23 F0306-01R2 CSbam"r MOMgr Assocates, #M KCAU~ anal1l-ksi 1.96433 6.99' 15.950, 24.9077 33.865 iKCgrC a__ 7. ira sfrred cReiu S a+cs s+ Pressure...
............
.. ..... s Figure 7. Transferred Residual Stress + NOC + Pressure Stress for Axial Flaws File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 20 of 23 F0306-01R2
~jSVOW& ruwl py Associates, ln.25 20 T un e-, 15 10 50.0-0.0 0.2 OA 0.6 0.8 1.0 Depth (a/t)Figure 8. Stress Intensity Factors as a Function of Depth for Axial Flaws File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 21 of 23 F0306-01R2 cjanswfGuu MW*f Assocades, hmD.1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7" 0.6 m 0.5 c' 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0/I-Circ. Crack---Axial Crack_0--Axial Crack_90/ 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (years)Figure 9. Crack Growth for All Flaw Types with 0.025" Initial Flaw Size File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 22 of 23 F0306-01R2 cjbh.airwI Iabpf AssCIatS, kne.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0-m 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 e-Circ. Crack---Axial Crack_0--Axial Crack_90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (years)Figure 10. Crack Growth for All Flaw Types with 0.1" Initial Flaw Size File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page 23 of 23 F0306-01R2 SkuowiraI Iiegrlty Associates, Inc.APPENDIX A COMPUTER FILES LISTING File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page A- I of A-3 F0306-01R2 Vj asiofrraI Integffly Assocades, hIWO File Name Description Palisades HL Drain.INP Input file to create base geometry model [3]MPropMISO.INP Elastic-plastic material properties inputs [3]BCNODES.INP Component setting for the boundary conditions.
Crack tip node inputs for fracture mechanics model conversion for NODESC##.INP circumferential flaws. ##=03, 30, 50, 75, and 95 with 03 = 0.13", 30 =1.17", 50 = 2.05, 75 = 3.13", 95 = 3.97" of flaw size FMHLC##.INP Geometry input files to create circumferential flaw at specified depth.-##=03, 30, 50, 75, and 95 FM HL C## COORD.INP Input files to determine circumferential crack face element centroid FMHLC# Ccoordinates.
- =03, 30, 50, 75, and 95_EHLCH##COORDl.txt Circumferential crack face element centroid coordinate outputs.F -##=03, 30, 50, 75, and 95 FMHLC##_GETSTR.INP Input files to extract circumferential crack face stresses from residual stress analysis.
- =03, 30, 50, 75, and 95 Extracted circumferential crack face stresses from residual stress analysis.
- =03, 30, 50, 75, and 95 Input files to transfer stresses into circumferential crack face pressure FMHLC##_IMPORT.INP (plus operating pressure on crack face and applied pipe moment).##=03, 30, 50, 75, and 95 Formatted K result outputs for circumferential flaws. ##=03, 30, 50, FMHLC## IMPORTK.CSV 75ad9.... 75, and 95 HLAXIAL.INP Input file to modify base mesh for axial crack tip insertion Crack tip node inputs for fracture mechanics model conversion for A _ saxial flaws. **=00 and 90 with 00 = 00 plane and 90 = 900 plane FM HLAXL**.INP Geometry input files to create axial flaws on the plane. **= 00 and 90 FM HL AXL** COORD.INP Input files to determine axial crack face element centroid coordinates.
FM _- C**=00, and 90 FM HL AXL**_COORDI.txt Axial crack face element centroid coordinate outputs. **=00, and 90 FMHLLAXL**
GETSTR.INP Input files to extract axial crack face stresses from residual stress analysis.
- =00, and 90 Extracted axial crack face stresses from residual stress analysis.STR_FieldOperAXL**1.txt
- =00, and 90 Input files to transfer stresses into axial crack face pressure (plus FMHLAXL**_IMPORT.INP operating pressure on crack face and applied pipe moment). **=00, and 90 FMHLAXL**
IMPORT K.CSV Formatted K result outputs for axial flaws. **=00, and 90 AnTip8 IKCALC.INP KCALC post-processing input file pc-CRACK PWSCC growth input file for circumferential flaw.CirFlaw_$$$$.pcf
$$$$=0.025 and 0.1 with 0.025 = 0.025" and 0.1 = 0.1" initial flaw size File No.: 1400669.313 Revision:
0 Page A-2 of A-3 F0306-01R2