ML071350653

From kanterella
Revision as of 01:11, 13 July 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

05/08/2007 Slides, Recommendations for Critical Flaw Size Calculations (in Wolf Creek Advanced Fea Project).
ML071350653
Person / Time
Site: Wolf Creek Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation icon.png
Issue date: 05/08/2007
From: Riccardella P
Structural Integrity Associates
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Mensah T
References
Download: ML071350653 (15)


Text

Recommendations for Critical Flaw Size Calculations (in Wolf Creek Advanced FEA Project)

By Peter C. Riccardella May 8, 2007 Summary of Key Issues from [1] (Reference list on last slide)

  • EPFM vs. Limit Load
  • Material Properties for Use in Evaluation
  • Inclusion of Secondary Stresses EPFM vs. Limit Load
  • Plot of data from Battelle/NRC Full Scale Pipe Tests on SS and A-600 indicates that Limit Load (ANSC) works well for all flaw types tested
  • Comparison of Fracture Toughness (J-R Curves)

indicates Alloy 182 not si gnificantly less tough than tested materials

  • DPZP screening criteria [2] adapted to complex

crack tests gives reasonable results Can be used to screen current analyses of A-182 for appropriate analysis type Limit Load (ANSC) Applied to Battelle/NRC Full Scale Pipe Tests [4, 5]0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.00.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%CF(Pm+Pb)/SmComplexThru-wallSurfaceWOL (Surf)ANSC-A-600;complexANSC-SS;complexANSC-SS;thruANSC-SS, surfANSC-SS surf;Pm=9ksiPure Axial LoadTests w/ Pressure + Bending (large symbols)42" Pipe Definition of Various Flaw Types Tested [4]

Compilation of J-R Curve Toughness Data for Relevant Materials [4-7]

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 140000.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.3000.3500.4000.4500.500Crack Extension (in)J (in-lb/in^2)A-182 (BT-4;600F)A-182 (BT-3;600F)A-182 (WT-4;600F)A-182 (BR-1;600F)A-82 (Mills 640F)A-600 (Mills 640F)A-600 (Mills 640F)A-600 (I1C; 550F)304SS (Landes;550F)304SS (Landes;550F)316SS (Landes;550F)304SS (A24C; 550F)304SS (A8; 550F)304 SAW (Landes;550F)CS DP2-F30C Dimensionless Plastic Zone (DPZP)

Screening Parameter [2]

where:= 1/2crack angle of through-wall crackd/t= fractional depth of surface crack D = OD of pipe DPZP Screening Criteria Adapted to Complex Cracks DPZP = (EJ i/ 2 f) Ú{-[+ d/t(-)]}D/4 where:= 1/2crack angle of through-wall portion of crackd/t= fractional depth of part through wall portion D = OD of pipe0.00.20.40.6 0.81.01.21.41.60123456789101112DPZPRatio (Pmax / P-NSC)A-182; 8" Dia.A-182; 16" Dia.

Inclusion of Secondary Stresses

  • Dynamic tests cited in [1] as reason for including secondary stresses not compelling
  • Static tests with large complex cracks indicate

large displacements required prior to crack

instability many times larger than expected displacements due to thermal loadings in plants, including stratification Schematic of Compliant Load Complex Crack Pipe Test [4]

~40 ft.Springs for Added Compliance16"NPS Pipe Load-Line Displacement to Fracture [4] (large in comparison to applied thermal displacements in plants)

At Actuator At Pipe Typical Surge Line Geometry (Westinghouse Plant)

~28 ft.~20 ft.~10 ft.14"NPSMax. Disp.

Locations Thermal Stratification Displacements in Surge Line Max. Dis p. Locations Recommendations

  • Limit Load vs. EPFM -Apply DPZP Screening Criteria For DPZP > 1.0, use limit load (ANSC for actual flaw shape)For DPZP < 1.0, use limit lo ad with Wilkowski Z-Factor Correction
  • Material Properties Use SS Base Metal Tensile Propertied (Flow Stress, Stress-Strain Curve)
  • Secondary Stresses Overly Conservative to Include Full Value of Large

Stratification Moments in Surge Nozzle Limit Load Evaluations Include Piping Geometry of Typical Plant(s) to Determine

Effect of Secondary Stress on J-T Analyses References1.G. Wilkowski et al, "Draft Techni cal Note on Critical Flaw Size Evaluations for Circumferential Cr acks in Dissimilar Metal Welds", EMC2, April 9, 2007.2.Gery M. Wilkowski and Paul M. Scott, "A Statistical Based Circumferentially Cracked Pipe Fr acture Mechanics Analysis For Design or Code Implementation", Nuclear Engineering and Design 111 (1989) 173-187 3.G. Wilkowski et al, "Determinati on of the Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Z-Factor for Alloy 82/182 Weld Metal Flaws for Use in the ASME Section XI Appendix C Flaw Evaluation Procedures", (Draft)

ASME PVP2007-26733 4.NUREG/CR-4082, Volumes 7 & 8, "Degraded Piping Program -Phase 2", March 1984-January 19895.Pipe Fracture Encyclopedia, U.S. NRC, 1997 (A collection of NUREG Reports and Data Files from the DP2 and other programs distributed on CDs)6.W.J. Mills, C.M. Brown, "Fract ure Toughness of Alloy 600 and EN82H Weld in Air and Water", B-T-3264, BettisAPL, 7.J.D. Landes, J. McCabe, Toughness of Austenitic Stainless Steel Pipe Welds, EPRI NP-4768, October, 1988