ML20151Y734
| ML20151Y734 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1988 |
| From: | Balkey K, Bamford W, Lee Y WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151Y729 | List: |
| References | |
| MT-SME-186, NUDOCS 8805050093 | |
| Download: ML20151Y734 (143) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:wsSTINGHOUSE CLASS 3 CUSTOMER DESIONATED DISulSUTION ENCLOSURE 3
, MT-SME-186
. ' BACKGROUND AND TECHNICAL BASIS FOR THE HANDBOOK ON FLAW EVALUATION 10R THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 REACTOR VESSEL BEL'LINE & N0ZZLE-TQ-SHELL WELDS April 1988 W. H. Bamford K. R. Balkey Y. S. Lee Verified by: [j[
L. Eranford ( Approved by:
- 5. 5. falusamy, Manager Strue'tural Waterials Engineering I Although information contained in this report is nonproprietary, no distribution shall be made outside Westinghouse or its licensees l
without the customer's approval. VER$4L og red w
)\ $71t TELecoNQo71o @ .' fDoc0 meur comtet.- &OCrlVEN O REEvf2 fn) OY S.ByMJ
\
- WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION j Nuclear Energy Systems
' P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 ( . l 8805050093 880428 [DF< ADOCK 05000348 oco t
TABLE OF CONTENTS i Title Page Section , 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1-2 1.1 CODE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 1-3 1.1.1 ' Criteria Based on Flaw Size 1.1.2 Criteria Based on Stress Intensity Factor 1-3 1.1.3 Primary Stress Limits 1-5 1-5 1.2 GEOMETRY , 1-5 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS WORK LOAD CONDITIONS, FRACTURE ANALYSIS METHODS, AND 2-1 2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES 2-1 2.1 TRANSIENTS FOR THE REACTOR VESSEL 2-1 2.2 STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR CALCULATIONS 2-3 ( 2.3 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS 2-4 2.4 IRRADIATION EFFECTS 2-6 2.5 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE DETERMINATION 3-1 3 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH 3-1 3.1 ANALYSIS METH000 LOGY 3-2 3.2 STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR EXPRESSIONS 3-3 3.3 CRACK GROWTH RATE REFERENCE CURVES 3-4 3.4 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RESULTS 4-1 4 DETERMINATION OF LIMITING TRANSIENTS 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION
-u gg
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) ( Section Title Page 4.2 SELECTION OF GOVERNING EMERGENCY AND FAULTED 4-1 TRANS!ENTS 4.2.1 Background and History 4-1 4.2.2 PTS Risk for a Typical Westinghouse PWR 4-3 4.2.3 Treatment of Transient Severity 4-4 4.2.4 Emergency and faulted Conditions - Beltline 4-7 Region . 4.2.5 Faulted Conditions Evaluation for Other 4-8 Regions 5 SURFACE FLAW EVALUATION 5-1 5.1 CODE CRITERIA 5-1 5.2 LONGITUDINAL FLAWS VS. CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAWS 5-2 5.3 BASIC DATA 5-2 5.3.1 Fatigue Crack Growth 5-2 5.3.2 Minimum Critical Flaw Size acand ag 5-3 5.4 TYPICAL SURFACE FLAW EVALUATION CHART 5-4 5.5 PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SURFACE FLAW 5-5 EVALUATION CHART 6 EMBEDDED FLAW EVALUATION 6-1 6.1 EMBEDDED VS. SURFACE FLAWS 6-1 6.2 CODE CRITERIA 6-2 6.3 BASIC DATA 6-3 l 6.4 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH FOR EMBEDDED FLAWS 6-4 6.5 TYPICAL EMBEDDED FLAW EVALUATION CHART 6-6 l l l t l l
= = . i . i. 3gg
TABLEOFCONTENTS(Cont'd.) { Page Title Section 6-9 6.6 PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF EMBEDDED FLAW EVALUATION CHARTS 6-11 6.7 COMPARISON OF EMBEDDED FLAW CHARTS WITH ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS OF IWB-3500 7-1 7 REFERENCES APPENDIX-A FLAW EVALUATION A-1 A-1 INTRODUCT10N TO EVALUATION PROCEDURE A-11 A-2 BELTLINE (INCLUDING MIDDLE-TO-UPPER SHELL CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD, LOWER-TO-MIDDLE SHELL CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD AND LONGITUDINAL A-11 SEAM WELDS) A-2.1 SURFACE FLAWS A-12 A-2.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS A-19 A-3 INLETN0ZZLETOSHELLWELD(PENETRATION) A-19 A-3.1 SURFACE FLAWS A-20 A-3.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS A-26 A-4 OUTLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELD' A-26 A 4.1 SURFACE FLAWS A-27 A-4.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS A-33 A-5 LOWER HEAD RING TO LOWER SHELL WELD A-33 A-15.1 SURFACE FLAWS A-34 A-15.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS B-1 i APPENDIX B-CRITICAL FLAW SIZE RESULTS . C-1 APPENDIX C-FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RESULTS I assmenenes is jy I
SECTION 1 ( INTRODUCTION _ This flaw
- evaluation handbook, has been designed.for the evaluation of indications which may be discovered during inservice inspection of the Joseph The tables and charts provided Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactor vessels.
herein allow the evaluation of any indication discovered in the regions listed The fracture analysis below without further fracture mechanics calculations. Use of the work has been done in advance, and is documented in this report. handbook will allow the acceptability of much larger indications than would be allowable by only using the standards tables of the ASME Code, Section XI [1]. This report provides the background and technical basis for the handbook, as well as the handbook charts themselves. The handbook has been developed for the following locations in the Joseph Farley Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels: o Beltline (core region) (Fig.1-1) ( o Inlet nozzle to shell weld (Fig.1-3) o Outlet nozzle to shall weld (Fig.1-4) o Lower head ring to lower shell weld (Fig.1-2) The geometry of each of these regions is shown in figures 1-1 through 1-4. The highlight of the handbook is the design of a series of flaw evaluation Since the characteris-charts for both surface flaws and the embedded flaws. tics of the two types of flaws are different, the evaluation charts designed for each are distinctively different in style. One section of this technical basis document deals with surface flaws at various locations, and another section concentrates on the evaluation of embedded flaws. (
" The use of the term "flaw' in this document should be taken to be synonymous with the term ' indication" as used in Section XI of the ASME Code
( u i. 31 1 _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ , _ . , - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . , . . _ _ _ - -_ , .m ,,
The flaw evaluation charts were designed based on the Section XI code criteria I of acceptance for continued serv'.ce without repair. Through use of the charts, a flaw can be evaluated in)tantaneously, and no follow-up hand calcu-lation is required. Most important of all, no fracture mechanics knowledge is needed by the user of the handbook crarts.
\
\
It is important to note that indication) which are large enough that thcy exceed the standards limits .,and must b$ evaluated by fracture mechanics, will also require additional i'nservice inspect en in the future, as discussed in Section XI, paragraph IWB-2420. 1.1 CODE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA s
\
There are two alternative sets of flaw acceptante criteria for continued service without repair in paragraph IWB-3600 of ASME Code Section XI [1]. Either of the criteria below may be used, at the c3nvenience of the user.
- 1. Acceptance Criteria Based on Flaw Size (IWB '611)
- 2. Acceptance Criteria Based on Stress Intensityfactor (IWB-3612)
Both criteria are comparable in accuracy for thi,ck sectIsns, and the acceptance criteria (2) have been assessed by past experiance to be less restrictive for thin sections, and for outside surface flass in many cases. In all cases, the most beneficial criteria have been used ard only one calculation has been made. The criteria actually used for each region are listed in Table 1-1.
\
'\
l Since the fracture mechanics results for surface flaws have been\ presented in terms of critical flaw size, it is more straight forward to const uct the l i surface flaw evaluation charts by using criteria (1) in this handbt.ok. This has been done for inside surface flaws in all cases except the safe'end region, where criteria (2) are more beneficial because of the small isction thickness. All of the embedded flaw and most outside surface flaw eva'!uation charts in this handbook were constructed using acceptance criteria (2), for ease of use, as well as to obtain the maximum benefit, since these criteria I will generally be less restrictive for em5edded flaws. u n. . a in 12
~ 't 1.1.1 CRITERIA BASED ON FLAW SIZE The code acceptance criteria stated in IWB-3611 of Section XI are:
5 .1 a c For Normal Conditions af (Upset &TestConditionsInclusive) and 1 .5 ag For Faulted Conditions af (EmergencyConditionInclusive) where ,
= The maximum size to which the detected flaw af is calculated to grow at the end of a specified period, or until the next inspection time.
a
= The minimum critical flaw size under normal e
operating conditions (upset and test conditions inclusive) i ag
= The minimum critical flaw size for initiation of nonarresting growth under postulated faulted conditions. (emergency conditions inclusive)
' To determine whether a surface flaw is acceptable for continued service without repair, both criteria must be met simultaneously. However, both l criteria have been considered in advance before the charts were constructed. Only the most restrictive results were used in these charts. 1.1.2 CRITERIA BASED ON STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR l ] : As mentioned in the proceeding paragraphs, the criteria used for the evaluation of embedded flaws, including most outside surface flaws and those f in the nozzle safe-end regions are from IWB-3612 of Section XI. l l . I l t I L l sen. " ' 1-3
The term stress intensity factor (Kg ) is defined as the driving force en a crack. It is a function of the size of the crack and the applied stresses, as well as the overall geometry of the structure. In contrast, the fracture toughness (K g ,, KIc) is a measure of the resistance of the material to propagation of a crack. It is a material property, and a function of temperature. The criteria are: K KI " For normal conditions (upset & test conditions inclusive) y ~< /10 K K Ic For faulted conditions (emergency conditions inclusive) I < /2 where Ky
= The maximum applied stress intensity factor for the flaw size af to which a detected flaw will grow, during the
( conditions under consideration, for a specified period, or to the next inspection. Fracture toughness based on crack arrest for the K,g a corresponding crack tip temperature.
= Fracture toughness based on fracture initiation for the K jg corresponding crack tip temperature.
To determine whether a surface flaw is acceptable for continued service without repair, both criteria must be met simultaneously. However, both criteria have been considered in advance before the charts were construct Only the most restrictive results were used in the charts. imm asse se 14
1.1.3 PRIMARY STRESS LIMITS In addition to istisfying the fracture criteria, it is required that the primary stress limits of the ASME Code Section !!!, paragraph NB-3000 be satisfied. A local area reduction of the pressure retaining membrane must be used, equal to the area of the indication, and the stresses increased to reflect the smaller cross section. All the flaw acceptance tables provided in this handbook have included this consideration, as demonstrated herein. The allowable flaw depths determined using this criterion have been sunnarized in Table 1-2 for each of the locations for which handbook charts have been constructed. 1.2 GEONETRY The geometry of the reactor vessel is shown in Figures 1-1 through 1-4. The cladding on the inside of the vessel has been neglected in the stress ) analysis. It has been accounted for in the thermal analysis by adjusting the film coefficient for the conditions enalyzed. The outside surfaces have been i , assumed to be insulated. The notation used for both surface and embedded ! flaws in this work is illustrated in Figure 1-5. 2.3 SCOPE OF THIS WORK The fracture and f atigue crack growth evaluations carried out to develop the handbook charts have employed the recommended procedures and material properties for low alloy steels, as contained in Section XI, Appendix A, i Therefore, the enarts apply strictly to those materials. I i w is 1-5 I l
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY
OF CRITERIA USED IN PREPARATION OF HANDBOOK CHARTS INSIDE SURFACE OUTSIDE SURFACE EMBEDDED FLAW CHARTS FLAW CHARTS FLAWS REGION 2 2 Beltline 1 2 2 Inlet Nozzle to Shell Wald 1 2 2 Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld 1 Lower Head Ring to Shell Weld 1 2 2 ( t l KEY: 1 Criteria on Flaw Size (IWB-3611) l 2 Criteria on Kg (IWB-3612) { l t l am a - is 1-6 ,
TABLE 1-2 (
SUMMARY
OF ALLOWABLE FLAd DEPTHS BASED ON PRIMARY STRESS LIMIT CRITERIA ALLOWABLE DEPTH ALLOWABLE DEPTH DF FLAW, a/t OF FLAW, a/t (longitudinal) (circumferential) REGION 0.49 . 0.54 Beltline 0.63 0.51 Inlet Nozzle to Shell Wald 0.65 0.58 Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld 0.41 0.96 Lower Head Ring to Shell Weld NOTE: Allowable depths indicated are relative to the inside surface.
\
m a m m ate 17
h4 -= 35'06" skbEND = n I 96.07" ( o MIDDLE-TO-UPPER - o CIRCUMFERENTIAL 1_ WELD F 100.53" ~ - - - 7.88" LOWER-TO-MIDDLE ~ -~~~~ ~~~~~ CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD 100.66" i o LOWER HEAD RING TO ^ o n LOWER SHELL WELD - 4 LOWER HEAD RING TO LOWER HEAD WELD n
/////
1, 5.00" NOTE: THICKNESSES DO NOT INCLUDE I INSIDE CLADDING 044-A-2SOO4-IA Figure 1-1. Reactor Ve'ssel Welds ( , m us e ausin 1-8
(~
# B.03
- 2 (BASE METAL) v' .
79.53R (BASE METAL) LOWER HEAD RING TO LOWER HEAD WELD LOWER HEAD RING 79 2SR TO LOWER SHELL WELD (B SE METAL) s.OO l ( BELTLINE AND LOWER HEAD REGIONc l l . NOTES: 1. DIMENSIONS DO NOT INCLUDE CLADDING
- 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
) l l 044-A-2soo4-3 Figure 1-2. Baltijne and Lower Head Region (dimnsions in inches) asu.mesma. 1-9 9
( TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW O.156 MIN. - - 155.5 ID. CLADDING ' p U H 9.12 - il n l i k t NOZZLE TO SHELL WELD T l 0.25 CLADDING l L 38.48 I U
+ 27.47 +
= -33.07
' = -55.5 -
NOTES: I. DIMENSIONS DO NOT INCLUDE CLAD
- 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES 044-A-2SOO4-4 Figure 1-3. Reactor Vessel Inlet Nozzle I
** 1-10
( ' 77.75 TO TNNER RADIUS VESSEL Q, (CORNER) O.156 MIN. - 3.25 CLADDING U 9.12 - y U NOZZLE TO VESSEL WELD 44.53 U N N
+
20'97 CLAD 35.4I 12.13 \ N l
< u o u 3 i 3 i
i c 35.50 r, c 51.00 = NOTES:
- 1. DIMENSIONS DO NOT INCLUDE CLAD
- 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES 044-A-25004-2A i
Figure 1-4. Longitudinal Cross Section of Outlet Nozzle to Vessel
. Juncture Region (Side View Only) 8"a*aa n 1 11
- - - - ~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
t A . N
- O
- I T
A C I D N [ I t W A s L s F e n - D k I E c D i g E h s T r g M E n l -
. i t
i o a c l W a
= f F isI
\
L A C I P Y d 6 s T n I _ w a l _ F d e d d e b m E d n a
- e c
a f r u S r f o N n
- O I
o T i - t A a C M I _ t - D _ o N _ N I t l a s W c s A i e L p n F I y k 1 E T i h c f g C A F . . T R _ 5 ~ U - 1
- l l .
- S a -
L _ e W = ' A r .
? C
_ u g I i o v P _ Y - F l T w w
=
- =
=
a"
SECTION 2 I LOAD CONDITIONS, FRACTURE ANALYSIS METHODS AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES 2.1 TRANSIENTS FOR THE REACTOR VESSEL The design transients for the Joseph Farley Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels are listed in Table 2-1. Both the minimum critical flaw sizes, such as se under normal operating conditions, or ag under faulted conditions for criteria (1) of IWB-3611, and the stress intensity factors,g K , for criteria (2) of IWB-3612 are a function of the stresses at the cross-section where the flaw of interest is located, along with the material properties. Therefore, the first step for the evaluation of a flaw indication is to determine the appropriate limiting load conditions for the location of intercst. i The selection of the most limiting transient for normal / upset / test conditions was straightforward. The transient with the highest surface stress in the area where the flaw was postulated was chosen as the worst case. Note that this can result in a different limiting transient for an inside flaw as
' opposed to an outside flaw, as may be seen m the detailed treatments
' the individual locations. The governing transient for each region is listed in the tables of Appendix B where the critical flaw depths are provided. The transients listed in these tables are the governing ones for the region involved, regardless of the criterion used to ccnstruct the flaw evaluation charts, [either the criteria on flaw size (Section 1.1.1) or on applied K g (Section 1.1.2)]. The selection of the most limiting emergency and faulted condition transient is discussed in Section 4.
1 2.2 STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR CALCULATIONS One of the key elements of the critical flaw size calculations is the determination of the driving force or stress intensity factor (Kg ). This was done for each of the regions using expressions available from the literature. In all cases the stress intensity factor for the critical flaw size calculations utilized a representation of the actual stress profile rather than a linearization. This was necessary to provide the most accurate ( determination possible of the critical flaw size, and is particularly m.a m e 2-1 l
important for consideration of emergency and faulted conditions, where the ( stress profile is generally nonlinear and often very steep. The stress profile was represented by a cubic polynomial: (2-1) o(x) = 0A + Al{+A2({} +A3({} . where x is the coordinate distance into the wall t = wall thicknass ,. e = stress perpendicufar to the plane of the crack Aj = coefficients of the cubic fit For the surface flaw wi:h length six times its depth, the stress intensity factor expression of WrSowan and Raymund (2) was used. The stress intensity The point factor K g (e) can be calculated anywhere along the crack front. of maximum crack depth is represented by # = 0. The following expression is used for calculating K; (+), where , is the angular location around the crack. . 2 2 1/4 2 Ky (e) = (%) 0.5(cos , ,ag sin 9)(A H0O+ kAl H1 c (2-2) 1a 2 4 ,3 A H)
+7}A 2 H +37 p 3 2 3 The magnification factors0H ('I' N1 (')' H 2(v) and H3 (v) are obtained by the procedure outlined in Reference (2).
The stress intensity factor calculation for a semi-circular surface flaw, (aspect ratio 2:1) was carried out using the expressions developed by Raju and Newman (3). Their expression utilizes the same cubic representation of the stress profile and gives precisely the same result as the expression of McGowan and Raymund for the 6:1 aspect ratio flaw, and the form of the equation is similar to that of McGowan and Raymund above. i t . mwme so g.g
-_ .-----..---_....._____.____,_.,.__-,_--..._.,_,,_-_,_,._.~_,__,..__,-m-,m_,, - . . _ _ . - - _ , , . , - - . . , - , - , . , - , _ _ . - . - - . - - - . , ,
. s .
The stress intensity factor expression used for a continuous surface flaw was ( that developed by Buchalet and Bamford (4). Again the stress profile is represented as a cubic polynomial, as shown above, and these coefficients as well as the magnification factors are combined in the expression for Ky 2 3 K y = /sa (A0 F 3hA y F2b A2 F 3h a A3 F) 4 (2-3) where yF , F , F3 , F4 are magnification factors, available in (6). 2 The stress intensity factor calculation for an embedded flaw was taken from work by Shah and Kobayashi (5) which is applicable to an embedded flaw in an infinite medium, subjected to an arbitrary stress profile. This expression has been shown to be applicable to embedded flaws in a thick-walled pressure vessel in a paper by Lee and Bamford (6]. 2.3 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS The other key element in the determination of critical flaw sizes is the fracture toughness of the material. The fracture toughness has been ien directly from the reference curves of appendix A, section XI. In the transition temperature region, these curves can be represented by the following equations: Kyc = 33.2 + 2.806 exp. (0.02 (T-RTNDT + 100'F)) (2-4) Kg , = 26.8 + 1.233 exp. (0.0145 (T-RTNDT + 160*F)) (2-5) where K yc and Ky , are in ksi/ in. The upper shelf temperature regime requires utilization of a shelf toughness which is not specified in the ASME Code. A value of 200 ksi/in has been used here in all the regions. This value is consistent with general practics in such evaluations, as shown for example in reference (7), which provides the background and technical basis of Appendix A of Section XI.
\
un,mw o g.3
i The other key element in the determination of the fracture toughness is the ( value of RTNDT, which is a parameter determined from Charpy V-notch and drop-weight tests. The material chemistry and initial RTNDT values for aH the welds, plates and forgings in the Joseph Farley Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels are provided in Tables 2-2 and 2-3. The~ core region materials are identified in Figures 2-1 and 2-2 for Units 1 and 2 respectively. This information was determined from the vendors material certification reports, surveillance capsule tests, and weld chemistry studies by Westinghouse, EPRI, and others. When no information on the chemistry or RTNDT was available, conservative assumptions were made, and these cases are clearly marked in the tables. The limiting material properties from both the Unit 1 and Unit 2 vessels were used in the analyses here, taken from references 8 and 9. This has very little impact on the results, however, as the properties are similar in both units, and differences in allowable flaw size are not significant. 2.4 IRRADIATION EFFECTS l Neutron irradiation has been shown to produce embrittlement which reduces the q toughness properties of reactor vessel steels. The decrease in the toughness l properties can be assessed by determining the shift to higher temper.. ares of the reference nil-ductility transition temperature, RTNDT. Because the chemistry (especisily copper and nickel content) of reactor vessel steel has been identified i.s a major contributor to radiation embrittlement, trend l curves have been developed to relate the magnitude of the shift to RTNDT to the amount of neutron fluence. The reference fracture toughness curve, indexed to RTNDT, will shift along the temperature scale with a value equal to the increase in the RTNDT f r given levels of irradiation. l value and the material chemistry of the limiting l Based on the initial RTNDT l core region materials, the post irradiation RTNDT values are determined from l the trend curves. These final RT NDT values are subsequently used to I calculate K g3 and Ky , as a function of the fractional depth through the wall. Irradiation effects were accounted for in all regions analyzed, but only had a significant impact on the properties in the beltline region, t 1 1 manmoau to 2-4 l
is enhanced by certain chemical elements The utent of the shif t in RTNDT l ( (such ao cepper, nickel and phosphorus) present in reactor vessel steels. , Westinghouse, other NSSS vendors, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission and as a others have developed trend curves for predicting. adjustment of RT NDT function of fluence and copper, nickel and/or phosphorus content. The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) trend curve is published in Regulatory Guide 1.99. Regulatory Guide.l.99 was originally published in July 1975 with a Revision 1 being issued in April 1977. Currently, a Revision 2 (10] to Regulatory Guide 1.99 has teen finalized by the NRC and is in the final stages of printing. The chemistry facter, "CF" ('F), a function of copper and nickel content identified in Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2 is given in Table 2-4 for welds and Table 2-5 for base tetal (plates and forgings). Interpolation is permitted. The value, "f", is the calculated value of the neutron fluence at the location of interest in the vessel at the location of the postulated 19 defect, n/cm2 (E > 1 MeV) divided by 10 The fluence factor is determined from Figure 2-3. The Adjusted Reference Temperature (ART) based on the methods of Reg. Guide g 1.99 Revision 2 (Draft) can be compactly described by the sequence r equations listed below: (2-6) ART = Initial RTNDT + ARTNDT + Margin SURFACE][EXP(-0.067X)) (2-7) ARTNDT = [ARTNDT X = Depth into vessel wall from inner (wetted) surface (1/4T and 3/4T) (2-8) SURFACE = (cop (0.28 - 0.10 LOG F) (2-9) ART NDT I9 (2-10) F = Neutron fluence divided by 10 CF = Chemistry factor from tables * (if no data use 0.35% Cu and1.0%Hi) (2-11) (
*See tables 2-4 and 2-5.
i.et - e 2-5
MARGIN = 2 [og2 , ,,2)0.5 (2-12) ( measured, oy = Mean value of initial RTHDT; if initial RTNDT og = 0, otherwise og obtained from set of data to get initial RT NDT (2-13) o = Standard deviation of initial RTNDT (2-14) 3 28'F for welds 17'F for base metal (o3need not exceed 1/2 times RTNDT surface] J 2.5 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE DETERMINATION The applied stress intensity factor (K y) and the material fracture toughness values (Ky , and KIc) can be used to determine the critical flaw size values used to construct the handbook charts. For normal, upset and test conditions, the critical flaw size a, is determined as the depth at which ( the applied stress intensity factor Ky exceeds the arrest fracture 'aughness Ky ,. For emergency and faulted conditions the minimum flaw size for crack initia-tion is obtained from the first intersection of the applied stress intensity factor (K y) curve with the static fracture toughness (KIc) curve. dntersection of the K; curve with the crack arrest toughness (Kg,) curve determines the crack arrest size. The critical flaw depth for emergency and faulted conditions (ag) as defined earlier, is the minimum flaw depth for initiation of non-arresting growth. Non-arresting growth is defined as gr-<th which arrests at a depth greater than 75 percent of the wall depth. An example of this type of calculation is shown in Figure 2-4. The critical flaw ( depth is determined at point A in this figure. - 1 { l 5 an. - o 2-6
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY
OF REACTOR VESSEL TRANSIENTS ( NUMBER OF OCCURRENCE 5 USE0 IN THE TRANSIENT IDENTIFICATION SPECIFIED ANALYSIS NUMBER Normal Conditions 1 Heatup and Cooldown at 100*F/hr (pressurizercooldown200*F/hr) 200 200 2 Load Follow Cycler (Unit loading and unloading at 5% of full power / min) 18300* 18300 3 Step load increase and decrease of 10% of full power 2000 2000 4 Large step load decrease, with steam dump 200 200 6 5 Steady state fluctuations Infinite 10 Upset Conditions t Loss of load, without immediate turbine 80 80 6 or reactor trip 7 Loss of power (blackout with natural circulation in the Reactor Coolant System 40 40 8 Loss of flow (partial loss of flow, one 80 80 pump only) Reactor trip from full power 400 400 9 Inadvertent Auxiliary Spray 10 10 10
\
Faulted Conditions 1 1 11 Large Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) 12 Large Steam Line Break (LSB). (other 1 1 l transients described in section 4) 1 1 13 Safe Shutdown Earthquake
- This number is 29,000 for Farley Unit 1, and 18,300 for Farley Unit 2.
( 18,300 cycles were used in the analysis. l mn. - e 2-7 l l
l l l TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY
OF REACTOR VESSEL TRANSIENTS (cont.) NUMBER OF OCCURRENCE 5 l USED IN THE SPECIFIED ANALYSIS NUMBER TRANSIENT IDENTIFICATION Test Conditions 10 10 14 Turbine roll test 50 50 15 Primary Side Hydr $ta' tic test conditions 5 5 16 Cold Hydrostatic test 9 3105 psig e ( mea - o 2-8
-.-.,,,.,-----.,,,,,.--,w e.- ,- - - - ,
~ ~
TABLE 2-2 CHEMISTRY AND PROPERTIES OF JOSEPH FARLEY UNIT 1 REACTOR VESSEL MATERIALS T RT Upper Shelf Energy Material Cu P Ni NDT NOT Code No. Type (%) (%) (%) (*F) (*F) NMWO Id) MWO IC) Com onent Closure head done B6901 A533,B C1.1 0.16 0.009 0.50 -30 -20[a] - 140 Closure head segment B6902-1 A533,B,C1.1 0.17 0.007 0.52 -20 -20[a] - 138 Closure head flange B6915-1 A508, C1.2 0.10 0.012 0.64 60[a] 60[a] - 75[a] Vessel flange B6913-1 A508, C1.2 0.17 0.011 0.69 60[a] 60[a] - 106[a] Inlet nozzle B6917-1 A508, C1.2 - 0.010 0.83 60[a] 60[a] 110 - Inlet nozzle B6917-2 A508, C1.2 - 0.008 0.80 60[a] 60[a]^ 80 - Inlet nozzle B6917-3 A508, C1.2 - 0.008 0.87 60[a] 60[a] 98 - Outlet nozzle B6916-1 A508, C1.2 - 0.007 0.77 60[a] 600a] 96.5 - Outlet nozzle B6916-2 A508, C1.2 - 0.011 0.78 60[a] 60[a] 97.5 - Outlet nozzle B6916-3 A508, C1.2 - 0.009 0.78 60[a] 60[a] 100 - Upper shell B6914-1 A508, C1.2 - 0.010 0.68 30 30[a] - 148 Inter. shell B6903-2 A533,B,C1.1 0.13 0.011 0.60 0 0 97 151.5 Inter, shell B6903-3 A533,B,C1.1 0.12 0.014 0.56 10 10 100 134.5 i' Lower shell B6919-1 A533,B,C1.1 0.14 0.015 0.55 -20 15 90.5 133 Lower shell 86919-2 A533,B,C1.1 0.14 0.015 0.56 -10 5 97 134 Bottom head ring B6912-1 A508, C1.2 - 0.010 0.72 10 10[a] - 163.5 Bottom head segment B6906-1 A533,B,C1.1 0.15 0.011 0.52 -30 -30[a] - 147 Bottom head done B6907-1 A533,B,CI.1 0.17 0.014 0.60 -30 -30[a] - 143.5 Inter. shell long. MI.33 Sub Arc Weld 0.25 0.017 0.21 0[a] 0[a] - - weld seam Inter. to lower G1.18 Sub Arc Weld 0.22 0.011 <0.20[b] 0[a] 0[a] - - shell weld seams Lower shell long. Gl.18 Sub Arc Weld 0.17 0.022 <0.20[b] 0[a] 0[a] - - weld seams [a] Estimate per NUREG-0800 "USNRC Standard Review Plan" Branch Technical Position MTEB 5-2. [11] [b] Estimated (Iow nickel weld wire used in fabricating vessel weld seams). [c] Major working direction. [d] Normal to major working direction.
- m. i.
^ ^
TABLE 2-3 CHEMISTRY AND PROPERTIES OF JOSEPH FARLEY UNIT 2 REACTOR VESSEL MATERIALS Average Upper Shelf Energy Normal to _ Principal Principal
"" "9 U" "9 T RT Direction Cu P Ni NDT NOT Direction (ft-Ib)
Component Code No. Grade (%) (%) (%) (*F) (*F) (ft-lb) A533,B.CL.1 0.17 0.010 0.49 -30 16(a) 83(a) 128 CL. HD. Dome 87215-1 >86(c) CL. HD. Flange B7207-1 A508,CL.2 0.14 0.011 0.65 60(a) 60(a) >S6(a) A508,CL.2 0.10 0.012 0.67 60(a) 60(a) >71(a) >109 Vessel Flange B7206-1 158 Inlet Noz. B7218-2 A508,CL.2 - 0.010 0.68 50(a) 50(a) 103(a) 0.010 0.71 32(a) 32(a) 112(a) 172 Inlet Noz. B7218-1 A508,CL.2 - A508,CL.2 - 0.010 0.72 60(a) 60(a) 98(a) 150 Inlet Noz. 87218-3 154 B7217-1 A508,CL.2 - 0.010 0.73 60(a) 60(a) 100(a) Outlet Noz. 108(a) 167 Outlet Noz. B7217-2 A508,CL.2 - 0.010 0.72 6(a) 6(a) 0.010 0.72 48(a) 48(a) 103(a) 158 Outlet Noz. B7217-3 A508,CL.2 - 0.010 0.73 30 30(a) 97(a) 149 7 Upper Shell B7216-1 A508,CL.2 - 0.010 0.60 -40 15 99 140 5 Inter Shell 87203-1 A533.B.CL.1 0.14 0.20 0.018 0.60 -30 -10 99 134 Inter Shell B7212-1 A533,B,CL.1 0.13 0.010 0.56 -40 18 103 128
' Lower Shell B7210-1 A533,B,CL.1 0.14 0.015 0.57 -30 0 99 145 Lower Shell B7210-2 A533 B.CL.1 137 Bottom Head Ring B7208-1 A508,CL.2 -
0.010 0.73 40 40(a) 89(a) , 0.11 0.007 0.48 -30 -2(a) 87(a) 134 A533,B,CL.1 Bottom Head Dome B7214-1 >131 - Inter. Shell A1.46 SMAW 0.02 0.009 0.% 0(a) O(a) 0.010 0.93' -60 . -60 >106 - Long Seams A1.40 SMAW 0.02 , Inter Shell -40 >102 -
'O.016 <.20(b) -40 to Lower Shell G1.50 SAW 0.13 ;
Lower Shell -70 >126 ; 0.006 <.20(b) -70 Long Seams 61.39 SAW 0.05 i (a) Estimate per NUREG 0800 "USNRC Standard Review Plan" Branch Technical Position MTEB 5-2. [11] (b) Estimated. (c) Upper shelf not available, value represents minimum energy at the highest test temperature.
L TABLE 2-4 CHEMISTRY FACTOR FOR WELDS, 'F ( . Copper, Nickel, Wt-% 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 Wt-% 0 20 20 20 20 20 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.01 20 20 27 27 27 27 27 0.02 21 26 41 41 41 41 41 0.03 22 35 54 55 54 54 54 0.04 24 43 49 67 68 68 68 68 0.05 26 82 77 82 82 82 0.06 29 52 85 95 95 95 95 0.07 32 55 90 106 108 108 108 0.08 36 58 94 115 122 122 122 0.09 40 61 97 122 133 135 135 0.10 44 65 101 130 144 148 146 0.11 49 68 103 135 153 161 161 0.12 52 72 106 139 162 172 176 0.13 58 76 - 109 142 168 182 188 0.14 61 79 112 146 175 191 200 0.15 66 84 115 149 178 199 211 l 0.16 70 88
, 151 184 207 221 75 92 119 0.17 154 187 214 230 79 ~95 122 0.18 157 191 220 238 83 100 126 0.19 160 194 223 245 88 104 129 0.20 164 197 229 252 32 108 133 0.21 167 200 232 257 97 112 137 0.22 169 203 236 263 101 117 140 0.23 173 206 236 268 105 121 144 0.24 176 209 243 272 110 126 148 0.25 180 212 246 276 113 130 151 0.26 184 216 249 280 119 134 155 0.27 187 218 251 284 122 138 160 0.28 191 222 254 287 128 142 164 0.29 167 194 225 257 290 0.30 131 146 172 198 228 260 293 0.31 136 151 175 202 231 263 296 0.32 140 155 1
205 231 266 299 144 160 180 l 0.33 209 238 269 302 149 164 184 O.34 187 212 241 272 305 0.35 153 168 216 245 275 308 158 172 191 l 0.36 220 248 278 311 162 177 196 l 0.37 223 250 281 314 166 182 200 (~ 0.38 227 254 285 317 171 185 203 0.39 231 257 IS8 320 175 189 207 0.40 1
*****" 2-11
TABLE 2-5 CHEMISTRY FACTOR FOR BASE METAL, 'F ( Copper, Nickel, Wt-% 0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 Wt-% 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.01 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.02 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.03 26 26 26 22 26 26 26 0.04 31 31 31 31 31 0.05 25 31 37 37 37 37 37 0.06 28 37 43 44 44 44 44 44 0.07 31 51 51 51 51 51 0.08 34 48 58 58 58 58 58 0.09 37 53 65 65 67 67 67 0.10 41 5B 72 74 77 77 77 0.11 45 62 79 83 86 86 86 0.12 49 67 85 91 96 96 96 0.13 53 71 91 100 105 106 106 0.14 57 75 110 115 117 117 0.15 61 80 99 104 118 123 125 125 0.16 65 84 110 7 132 135 135 0.17 69 88 . _s4 141 144 144 0.18 73 92 115 142 150 154 154 0,19 78 97 120 125 149 159 164 165 0.20 82 102 129 155 167 172 174 0.21 86 107 134 1161 176 181 184 0.22 91 112 167 184 190 194 0.23 95 117 138 143 172 191 199 204 0.24 100 121 148 176 199 208 214 0.25 104 126 180 205 216 221 0.26 109 130 151 155 184 211 22S 230 0.27 114 134 160 187 218 233 239 0.28 119 138 164 191 221 241 248 0.29 124 142 194 225 249 257 129 146 167 0.30 198 228 255 266 0.31 134 151 172 175 202 231 260 274 0.32 139 155 180 205 234 264 282 0.33 144 160 184 209 238 268 290 0.34 149 164 212 241 272 298 153 168 187 0.35 216 245 275 303 0.36 - 158 173 191 220 248 278 308 0.37 162 177 196 223 250 281 313 0.38 166 182 200 ( 227 254 285 317 0.39 171 185 203 231 257 288 320 0.40 175 189 207
" * "
- 2-12
Figure 2-1. Identification and Location of Beltline Region Waterial ( for the Joseph Farley Unit No.1 Reactor Vessel VttTICAL StAM5 CIRCtw ittNTIAL ttAMI 86903 3 19-4944 QL 10-894 45 ' 8.4"
' ~
~
CORE _
" '=
I CORI
=
1,44.0* 3 19 894A 4 86903 2 , 1 4 g gg,gg4 20.1" _ 20 8948 i 56919-2 f y
\
,s L .
48.75" f E6 '
' B6919 1 20494A I
I
.. i i. 2-13 - - - - , . , . - - , . ~.- - - ,_.. _ . _ - - . . . . . - - - - - . . - - - . . - . . - - - - - - - - -
( VrtTICAL stAMI cfRCU w terwTtAt stAMI _
, B7212-1 19-923B f(
4* 10-923 , 9 45 8.4= E . g I
" \
C0A1
=
N s
,,c:./
3 B7203-1 ," 19-923A l.44.0* 1 1 20.1" 11-923 . u 4 - B7210-2 20-923B r v
'45 3 CORI .
g u
.i.
48.75"
"- . B7210-1 20-923A^
Figure 2-2. Identification and Location of Beltlina Region Material 7 for the Joseph Farley Onit No. 2 Reactor Vessel 2-14 amumu io .
4 I O
- u n q !E. ! M
!!i !! !I m !:esi . h
_9 _S _w
= :
bM" M M 1, E, ,I .I . .E .I I - M. . 1 E
.I I I I 1 1 X I E E
I I i E lt i [] ] I E I I I I I E i . . I E I 1 ] l 1- 3 . I r E
, l l E I l l i i l I l. I E
[ ] L I I l' I l l i i '
- E 1
l 1, 1, I. .. I. . .. I. .i . I. e i m i I 4 i j - { . g g. l l.. l- {- * .ei }. . t ], S
=
+.
u
--. O i :N w
- e C
g _- .e-
"W H M
r- @ E
- t. i _-
%, = e L S
i A E W
=
=_ _
- n
.l >=
- . 1 C I I
=N E
m 1 E I I E. J, 1 I
, i m o i
i, w i i i i r i a g i i i e i E i. k i I I I I E g s i i 1 l 1 I o 1 1 I I I I' f I 6
%l'I i i l i U l i I' 'l I, h
. U
~ -
-_ , 4 6
- ' _ jk g
'_! We E
= : @
!! E !! ! E E@ l E E N E
- e
~
mI __-_- im N 3 @ 6
'. . D
=
"N .C) e i
m : a b
; M' E I E j
M l I y I l I W I e I i t i E
) j s I E l { li I i i 11 1
- 5 I,
- I l
!2 1
It q El 819 % 9 81 % 9 D D
- N e P
(' , m uten' 'e = 1 A 2-15
( 300 800 SECONDS CRITICAL CRACK = 0.3596 Kg y 100 ykiC [*3^ 1 Pt. A . 8 l G ! 5 C i W i B 100 a 2 I I I I I I I I I 0 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 c.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 FRACTIONAL DISTANCE (A/T) K! PLOT l l l Figure 2-4. Example of Critical Flaw Size Determination ( i sus.mosu,o 2-16 1 1 1.--. - -
SECTION 3 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH ( I In applying code acceptance criteria as introduced in Section 1, the final flaw size af used in criteria (1) is defined as the minimum flaw size to which the detected flaw is calculated to grow at the end of a specified period, or until the next inspection time. In this handbook, ten , twenty-and thirty year inspection periods are assumed. These crack growth calculations have been carried out for all the regions in the Joseph Farley reactor vessels for which evaluation charts have been constructed. This section will examine each of the calculations, and provide the methedology used as well as the assumptions. 3.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The methods used in the crack growth analysis reported here are the same as t those suggested by Section XI of the ASME Code. The analysis procedure involves postulating an initial flaw at specific regions and predicting the The input growth of that flaw due to an imposed series of loading transients. required for a fatigue crack growth analysis is basically the information necessary to calculate the parameter AKg which depends on crack and structure geometry and the range of applied stresses in the area where the crack exists. Once AKy is calculated, the growth due to that particular stress cycle can be calculated by equations given in Section 3.3 and Figure 3-1. This increment of growth is then added to the original crack size, and the analysis proceeds to the next transient. The procedure is continued in this manner until all the transients known to occur in the period of evaluation have been analyzed. The transients considered in the analysis are all the design transients contained in the vessel equipment specification, as shown in Section 2, Table i 2-1. These transients are spread equally over the design lifetime of the i vessel, with the exception that the preoperational tests are considered first. Faulted conditions are not considered because their frequency of ( ( occurrence is too low to affect fatigue crack growth. suume 31
Crack growth calculations were carried out for a range of flaw depths, and ( three basic types. The first type was a surface flaw with length equal to six times its depth. The second was a continuous surface flaw, which represents a worst case for surface flaws, and the third was an embedded flaw, with length equal to three times its width. For all cases the flaw was assumed to maintain a constant shape as it grew. 3.2 STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR EXPRESSIONS Stress intensity factors were calculated from methods available in the literature for each of the flaw types analyzed. The surface flaw with aspect ratio 6:1 was analyzed using an expression developed by McGowan and Raymund (2) where the stress intensity factor K is calculated from the actual stress profile through the wall at the location of interest. The maximum and minimum stress profiles corresponding to each transient are represented by a third order polynomial, such that: 2 3 o (X) = A0+Ay{+A2h+A3h (3-1) t t The stress intensity factor Kg (v) can be calculated anywhere along the crack front. The point of maximum crack depth is represented by # = 0. The following expression is used for calculating Kg(v). 2 (cos 9 + sin2 ,)1/4 (A0 H0+ {A 1 H3 K(v)=(%) g (3-2)
+
AH2+ 2 A3 H) 3 The magnification factors 0H (')' N1 (')' N (v) 2 and H (#) 3 are obtained by the l procedure outlined in reference (2). l mwwo 3-2 l
l 4 The stress intensity factor for a continuous surface flaw was calculated using (~ an expression for an edge cracked plate (20). The stress distribution is linearized through the wall thickness to determine membrane and bending stress and the applied K is calculated from: K g = o, Y, / a + eB YB " I3~3) The magnification factors Y, and YB are taken from (12) and a is the crack depth. For an embedded flaw, the stress intensity factor expression provided in Appendix A of section XI was used directly, which again' requires linearizing the stresses. The flaw shape was set with length equal to three times the width, and the eccentricity was set at 2.5, which corresponds to a flew near the inside surface of the vessel, although still embedded. This flaw will p ovide a worst cise calculation of stress intensity factor for embedded flaws. Since the calculated e, rack growth was very small for this case, no furt,er consideratioa of other flaw shapes or locations was deemed necessary I for ar, embedded flaw. 3.3 CRACX GROWTH RATE REFERENCE CURVES The crack graith rate curves used in the analyses were taken directly from App 6ndix A of Sectica XI of the ASME Code. Water environment curves were used l for all inside surface flaws, and the air environment curve was used for embedded flaws and outside surface flaws.
\
For water environments the reference crack growth curves are shown in Fig. ' 3-1, and growth rate ic a function of both the applied stress intensity factor range, and the R ratio (Xmin#' max) .f r the transient. i For R<0.25 , 6 5.95 (AKg <19 ksi/in)h = (1.02 x 16 ) 3g (3 4) (
- ma-o 3, 3 l
l l -
.. . .s . . . ., .
l ( (AK; >19 ksi / in)h = (1.01 x 10~3) gAK l.95 ! l whereh=CrackGrowthrate, micro-inches / cycle. For R>0.65 (oK; <12 ksi / in)h =*,(1.20 x 10-5)I 3g 5.H(3-5) (AK; >12 ksi / in)h = (2.52 x 10-1)3g}1.95 For R ratio between these two extremes, interpolation is recomended. The crack growth rate reference curve for air environments is a single curve, with growth rate being only a function of applied AK. This reference curve is also shown in Figure 3-1.
- O (3-6) l h=(0.0267x10-3) AK g l t where, h = Crack growth rate, micro-inches / cycle AK; = stress intensity factor range, ksi/in
! = (Kg ,,, - KImin) 3.4 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RESULTS l The fatigue crack growth results for all locations for which handbook charts were developed are sumarized in the tables which are included in Appendix C. An example is included in Table 3-1. j l mwme i. 34
- 1
- - -~-. .........J... ..J. . , _
M - I
~
- Unser hors.es n is rees=-
[
* ~
ae s e as - tserrose f /
- .e 4 4 #
= . .mes, ter o.25 ( A < o AS for 30 swis-ve o: ioI /
~
g.tiatxto1ogax188
+ # j 4
~
as.s.n n eens ,4 / me - n.c ". tt4 /
/
/
m no /
- sur - a 5 g soo ~
g . eass7 x to% x,s.rse j jY 3 h* ~_- _ a e, i
/
/l
~
b - 1- _
- v. ww.aw .r e.
_ e.
/
e 4* i l
.am. */tj j ~
- e. ne r-j 30 - eet) 88WdeW' W
# < o.25 f
I { f
'9.25 < A < o Al 6 noo .
to -
- n. u _ 1x _
v - 4 / g
~ N I N 'u w w m.e ae4 s - f w assewnt for A retie esponease f I et ren
- w w .ntsw ee,for l o.as < a < oss s. n.,es.o:
- ac 4 /
J!r. . tima x 1o 4 : o, axia'
~
/ :
au
; o tit ,
sit o, as4.s.m l n K a* e : j I i l I I I i 111 I I I I IIII i 1 a s 7 to ao so a iso arous W.nsity Faner Menos (AKg hel gj gure 3-1. Reference Fatigue Crack Growth Curves for I Carbon and Low Alloy Ferritic Steels l mewemu is 3-5
TABLE 3-1 BELTLINE REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH (
- CIRCUWFERENTIAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK' LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 a/t = 0.0 0.100 0.10029 0.10051 0.10071 0.10093 0.300 0.30559 0.30980 0.31392 0.31842 0.500 0.51655 0.53068 0.54518 0.56063 0.800 0.83247 0.86220 0.89248 0.92424 1.000 1.04105 1.07914 1.11826 1.15934 1.200 1.25608 1.30162 1.34794 1.39615 1.300 1.35949 1.40802 1.45890 1.51202 1.550 1.61870 1.67575 1.73367 1.79345 0.100 0.10010 0.10018 0.10024 0.10032 a/t = 0.167 0.300 0.30188 0.30329 0.30463 0.30608
( 0.500 0.50722 0.51287 0.51841 0.52425 0.800 0.81267 0.82270 0.83265 0.84294 1.000 1.01548 1.02830 1.04104 1.05429 1.200 1.22245 1.23762 1.25260 1.26808 1.300 1.32275 1.33802 1.35302 1.36841 1.550 1.57467 1.59177 1.60868 1.62596 l mwow .. 36 l
SECTION 4 ( DETERMINATION OF LIMITING TRANSIENTS . A
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The key parameters used in the evaluation of any indications discovered during inservice inspection are the critical flaw depths; first, that governing normal, upset, and test conditions and second, that governing emergency and faulted conditions. The selection of the governing transient for normal, upset, and test l conditions was done based on the highest surface stre s for each location for which a chart was to be constructed. For emergency and faulted conditions, this choice was not as straightforward, as a result of developments on the pressurized thermal shock issse. This issue has resulted in a great deal of , study of various transients which could occur in operating plants, including consideration of the overall frequency of each transient in addition to its severity. An extensive set of analyses have been carried out (13,14] to consider other thermal shock transients in addition to the large loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and large steamline break (LSB) transients evaluated f inpreviousreports(15,16). l The following section will provide a summary of the generic work performed for 1 PTS, along with a detailed comparison of the various emergency and faulted transients that are possible in the beltline region of the Joseph Farley Unit 1 and 2 reactor vessels. 4.2 SELECTION OF GOVERNING EMERGENCY AND FAULTEC IRANSIENTS 4.
2.1 BACKGROUND
AND HISTORY The issue of reactor vessel pressurized thersial shock (DTS) has focused significant at.tention to the evaluation of the vessel beltline location. Until early 1982 reactor vessel integrity was evaluated for PTS ( ' ""*'""" 4-1
events, which generally fall into the category of emergency and faulted ( conditions, usually using only design basis transient scenarios. For instance, a sunenary report on reactor vessel integrity for Westinghouse plants, WCAP-10019 (13), was submitted to the NRC staff in December 1981 and addressed the large LOCA and large steamline break transients along with a conservative evaluation of the small break LOCA and small steamline break events. The Joseph Farley Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels were evaluated as part of this generic evaluation supported by the Westinghouse Owners Group. Following the submittal of this information, the NRC was, concerned, as a result of recent plant operating events, that other more likely events with dominating transient characteristics were not being addressed. l To respond to the above concern, an innovative methodology was developed that coupled probabilistic event sequence analysis results with thermal hydraulic and fracture mechanics analysis results to identify all potential transient This methodology efficiently scenarios of concern for reactor vessel PTS. evaluated over 8,000 possible transient scenarios on a generic basis and the results demonstrated adequate safety margin for the Westinghouse domestic operating plants. This work, which was submitted to the NRC via the I Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) in References (17,18,19] was extensively ' used by the NRC Staff in the development and improvement of their own position on PTS. The NRC used the Westinghouse probabilistic results to better quantify total plant risk from PTS and to support their licensing position as described in NRC Policy Issue SECY-82-465, November 1982 (20). (Thisdocument l provides the technical basis for the PTS Rule (21] that was issued in 1985.) l A key aspect of this work is that the principal contributors (dominating transients) to the total frequency of significant flaw extension in the vessel from PT3 can be identified. However, this ' work was done in an approximate generic manner and both the Westinghouse Owners Group and the NRC ayeed that more work should be c'one to investigate additional candidate transient sequences and characterizations and to validate some of the approximations f made in the supporting analyses. For instance, the 2"-6' small LOCA results l used detailed calculations of system response (including fluid mixing effects j in the cold leg and vessel downcomer as predicted from experimental results, l f heat input from hot piping walls, and assumed benefits from the effect of warm
""" 4-2
prestressing) whereas the extended high pressure injection category (i.e., events that could lead to extended high pressure safety injection operation (~ with stagnated loop (s)) used vsry conservative transient characterizations.- This approach lead to a conservative assessment of the total frequency of significant flaw extension. 4.2.2 PTS RISK FOR A TYPICAL WESTINGHOUSE PWR In order to address all ca'ndidate transient scenarios in a thorough manner, the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) undertook a Stagnant Loop Code Evaluation Program in late 1982. One key purpose of this program was to demonstrate that the overall risk from PTS on a typical Westinghouse plant is dominated by small steamline breaks, small LOCA's, and steam generator tube ruptures, as suggested in previous WOG work during 1982, and not by other transient scenarios, including those involving loop stagnation. WCAP-10319 (14] The important results and the presents the results of this exhaustive study. relationship of them to previous fracture analyses performed for the Joseph Farley Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels are discussed below, i The event sequence analysis performed in the WOG Stagnant Loop Code Evaluation l re:ulted in the following broad categories of events that could potentially l result in a pressurized thermal shock of the reactor vessel: l
- 1. Secondary Depressurization (SD)
- 2. Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA)
- 3. Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR)
- 4. LossofSecondaryHeatSink(LOHS)
- 5. Excessive feedwater (EXFW)
- 6. Anticipated Transients Without SCRAM (ATWS)
- 7. FeedlineBreak(FB) ,
( Combinations of these categcries were also considered if they met certain criteriadefinedinWCAP-10319(14). Some of these PTS-categories were further subdivided into a number of small bins to offer greater resolution and accuracy in the risk assessment and in the identification of the dominating ( transient scenarios. , l assa. massas to 43 1 L
The sumary results of the above WOG risk assessment for PTS (see Figure 4-1) showed that the key contributors to the total risk occur from the LOCA and ( SGTR categories because of the combination of severe transient characteristics with relatively high frequencies of transient occurrence. The LOHS transient, while much lower than LOCA or SGTk, was the third most dominating transient in terms of contributing to the total PTS risk. This is primarily because LOCA transient characteristics were conservatively used for the LOHS analysis. If the true LOHS transient results had been used, it is believed that the resulting transient characteristics would be less severe than those that were used. The other PTS transient scenarios, including those involving loop stagnation (i. e., SD, EXFW, ATWS, and FB), do not contribute significantly to the overali risk. The ASME Code in its present form, however, does not take transient frequencies into consideration and requires an evaluation of flaw indications Therefore, the using the most limiting emergency / faulted condition transient. above PTS risk analysis results could not be used directly, but they were used to guide tb determination of the key transients to be considered further, as i will be seen in the next section. 4.2.3 TREATHENT OF TRANSIENT SEVERITY Probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) results, used in the above WOG risk assessment f;r PTS, were utilized to evaluate the severity of the transients used in the generic study that were major contributors to the risk of vessel failure. Figure 4-2 shows an example of PFM results that quantify the conditional probability of reactor vessel failure (i. e., significant flaw extension) Th results shown in figure 4-2 were based given that a PTS event occurs. upon the evaluation of stylized expnential cooldown transients characterized by three quantities: a final temperature (Tf ) reflecting the depth of the cooldown, a tisw. constant (6) reflecting the rate of the cooldown, and a The curves in figure characteristic pressure (P) as described in figure 4-3. A 4-2 were generated from PFM analyses using the Monte Carlo technique. matrix of cases for given T , 6, and inner surfaca RTNDT values were f j muwwo 44
\
evaluated to obtain results for generation of the curves. The RT NDT values l ( are calculated as a function of initial RTNDT, material residual elements l and fluence using the methodology discussed in Section 2. For each case, a 0 , large number of deterministic fracture mechanics analysis trials (~10 ) were simulated using random values selected by a' random generator from distributions defined for the pertinent input properties. The input properties that have been treated as random variables include: initial crack depth, initial RTNDT, copper content, fluence, and the critical stress intensity values for flaw initiation and arrest. The probability of vessel failure for sach case was determined by dividing the number of failures by the number of trials. The curves in Figure 4-2 were plotted from the matrix of results by normalizing Tf against RTNDT f r assumed longitudinally oriented flaws. The pertinent aspect of the PFM results for determining the governing transient (s) is that, at a given inner surface RTNDT value, the higher the conditional probability of vessel failure, the more limiting the transient. i Using the stylized transient characteristics for the WOG generic transients within all of the various transient categories (14), the most limiting transients were determined from the WOG PFM results as shown in Table 4-1. The transients are shown in order of decreasing severity. The associated transient frequencies of occurrence are also given for the purpose of information.
-2 The conditional probability of failure values ranged from 1 x 10 to
-2 5 x 10 for the above transients at an inner surface RTNDT value which is near the projected end-of-life (32 EFPY) RTNDT value for the Joseph Farley 1 and 2 reactor vessels (see Section 2). For all other transient events, the conditional probability of failure values were much less than 1 x 10-2, From the standpoint of statistics, however, the conditional probability of failure values were essentially the same for the above limiting transients, and any one of them could be the "governing" event. The fact that stylized j transient characteristics were used in the evaluation rather than the actual transient histories lands further support to the above statement.
e i f anuwa i. 45
-. - - _ - - - - . . - _ - - - - - - - - - . - . = ,
Although the large LOCA and LSB events are not significant contributors to the overall risk of failure because the frequency of occurrence for these events isnegligible(~1x10'7/r yr), the severity of these events still needs to be considered in the selection of the most limiting event for the flaw handbook. The plant specific results for these events from prior Joseph Farley analyses are considered as shown in the next section. Therefore, we see that the large number of thermal shock and pressurized thermal shock transients (>8000) can be reduced to a list of a few key transients, as shown in Table 4-1. Fracture analysis was then concentrated on these transients, as discussed in the following section. 4.2.4 EMERGENCY AND FAULTED CONDITIONS EVALUATION -- BELTLINE REGION To determine the governing emergency and faulted conditions for the Joseph Farley reactor vessels, a series of transients were studied. These transients included the large LOCA and large steamline break (LSB) already analyzed (15, 16), and the dominating transients from the Westinghouse Owners Grcup pressurized thermal shock studies. This work, which took into account the differences in plant system characteristics between Joseph Farley and the typical plant in the generic WOG evaluation, led to the conclusion that the following transients should be ! considered in the deterministic asses:ments for the beltline regions to be used for this handbook, o steamgeneratortuberupture(SGTR) o small LOCA o large LOCA o large steamline break (LSB) The transient frequencies for these limiting events are also given in the table in Section 4.2.3. i l ( i su u m mu se 45 1
+ 1 Thermal, stress, and fracture analyses were performed for the beltline region,
( utilizing the characteristics of the above fcur transients, represented in the form of Figure 4-3. The limiting circumferential weld and the limitino longitudinal weld for both units were used in performing the fracture analyses. The resulting critical flaw depths for a range of shapes are shown in Table 4-1. From this table it may os seen that the large steamline break transient evaluated previously is the governing transient for the beltline region. The detailed assessments performed for the tube rupture and small LOCA transients serve to verify this conclusion. Also, from the standpoint of total risk it is worthy of note that these latter two transients are the dominant ones. Section XI of the ASME Code presently requires that only the most severe transient be evaluated, regardless of its probability of occurrence, so the large steamline break is the governing transient for the handbook. 4.2.5 FAULTED CONDITIONS EVALUATION FOR OTHER REGIONS A number of analyses were performed by means of linear elastic fracture mechanics methods to determine the postulated minimum critical flaw size at which unstable flaw growth could occur in the Joseph Farley Units 1 and 2 reactor vessel beltline regions, as discussed above. The critical flaw size required for unstable flaw growth was determined from the intersection of the curve, as described in Section 2.
- Kg curve with the Kgg The conclusions reached as to the governing transients for the beltline region will not necessarily be applicable to the other regions, because the fracture toughness is not reduced from irradiation. The conditions which could lead to fracture in these other regions will be governed primarily by pressure stresses, while the conditions for the beltline regions are governed by thermal stresses. This conclusion is even more true for regions of stress discontinuity, where most of the welds are found. For this reason the severe thermal transient with the largest pressurization level was found to be generally the governing transient, i.e., the large steamline break (LSB).
Although not true in general for all plants, this is the same transient found to be governing for the beltline region. The critical flaw size results for ( the regions analyzed are provided in Appendix B. ww.m i. 47 l l
TABLE 4-1 I KEY PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK TRANSIENTS 't WOG Frequency of Occurrence Per Reactor Year For Transient Limitina Events
-5 o 3" Small Break LOCA in Hot Leg 6.1 x 10 at Zero Power with Accumulator InjectionFlow
~4 o 3" Stal) Break LOCA in Hot Leg 4.6 x 10 at Full Power
-5 n Loss of Secondary Heat Sink 1.0 x 10
-5 o Steam Generator Tube Rupture at 1.2 x 10 Zero Power, 30 Ninute Delay in i SI Termination
-5 o Steam Generator Tube Rupture at 1.9 x 10 Moderate Decay Heat, 30 Minute Delay in 51 Termination l
t e
- - . 4.s l _
- -~
TABLE 4-1 . CRITICAi. FLAW SIZE SIM4ARY FOR BELTLINE REGION Aspect Ratio = 2.0 Flaw Continuous Flaw Aspect Ratio = 6.0 Condition Drient. inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t Long. ag = 2.50 (0.323) ag = 5.51 (0.711) a)=7.75 (1.0) E/F , Cire. (1.0) a g = 7.75 (1.0) ag = 7.75 (1.0) (Steam Gen. Tube ,g a = 7.75 Rupture) . t e N/A ag = 3.39 (0.44) ag = N/A N/A E/F'(LSB) long. ag = N/A Cire. ag = 2.21 (0.34) a g = 7.75 (1.00) aj = 7.75 (1.0) long. ag = 2.25 (0.33) ag = 5.74 (0.74) og = 7.75 (1.0) ! E/F (Small LOCA) ) Cire. a g = 7.75 (1.00) a g = 7.75 (1.00) a g = 7.75 (1.0) i E/F(LargeLOCA) long. ag = 7.75 (1.00) ag = 7.75 (1.00) ag = 7.75 (1.0) Cire. ag = 7.75 (1.00) ag = 7.75 (1.00) ag = 7.75 (1.0) Long. ac = 3.83 (0.494) ac= 7.75 (1.00) ac= 7.75 (1.0) N/U (Excessive Cire. ac = 7.75 (1.00) ac= 7.75 (1.00) ac= 7.75 (1.0) Feedwater Flow) mw i.
100 [ ,
~
( ,10~1 p 10-2. 7 ' WCAP-10319 3 NRC TOTAL. WOG TOTAL a .
-;b h
g 10 4 [Accident- Loss of Coolant ' U
/ ,ft J,. " '" , #
s p.hu '**
, ,/
! M. 10-s y,/
/
- /
/
g l 10-7 j j"> s S**
; / \
"p#
10-s 7/ . 10"I - i i Excessive
- Feedwater ,,.
/, .
o-10200 210 220 230 240 250 250 270 280 290 300 ,
. WEAN SURFACE RTNOT Figure 4-1. Frequency of Significant Flaw Extension for Longitudinal Flaws in a Typical Westinghouse PWR
( I -a is 4 10 l
( -
.o 2
N II e wa *
- II '
c. g . - I t
- a -
.e m ' .
< mc T .
E 5
w
- s. .
N. s Do 2s a
- 9 -
eg i...... i........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gu l w e m o - o e e n e i o i o e e To o o o .o .- - - - g} ==J N W 3HnllVJ 13SS3A JO Ailll8V80Hd 1VN01110N00 h
-W O- @ .
.*, I h * *!.!
t I - . 9 to 11 w
>a< .
ll 1, g !E 8 ii . T.
>- g - tt 9Ca o
- y *a A
gg gg - u ns W-l ga E l >'* -- _ i........ 6....... . i........ E n...... i........ a i....... . m e e s eo o i e e e e o o o o 1-u D, . o t)
. 3snilVJ 13ss3A Jo Aillisys0Wd 1VN0lllONO3 }
i t l 4-11
T , y,
. . * . , =-'e~----T
( Pcharacteristic
'T g 8 I ,f A, P T ,
T, , , , , , , , , , , , , , _ , , , , _ _ _ _ Time LARGE STEAM STEAM GEN. LINE BREAX TUBE RUPTURE SMALL LOCA LARGE LOCA PARAMETER
-1 1 0.25 min -0.10 min
$ .1 Min'I -
70'F 225'F 174'F Tp 100*F 550*F 550*F 557'F Tg 550*F ( 1550 psig 1000-1800 psig P 1000 psig 0 psig Figure 4-3. Schematic Representation of Emergency and Faulted Transients for Joseph Farley, along with actual values used for Transients ( Evaluated. .
" ' " ' ' 4-12 3 -
l
SECTION 5 SURFACE FLAW EVALUATION ( . 5.1 CODE CRITERIA The acceptance criteria for surface flaws have been presented in paragraph 1.1. For convenience they are repeated as follows: af 5 1 a, For Normal Conditions ! (Upset &TestConditionsinclusive)
- L and af 55aj for Faulted Conditions (EmergencyConditioninclusive) where
= The maximum size to which the detected flaw is calculated to af grow until the next inspection. 10, 20, and 30 year periods have j been considered in this handbook.
a = The minimum critical flaw size under normal operating g conditions (upset and test conditions inclusive) ag
= The minimum critical flaw size for initiation of nonarresting growth under postulated faulted conditions. (emergency conditions inclusive)
Alternatively criteria based on applied stress intensity factors may be used: K K g$hFornormalconditions(upset &testconditionsinclusive) K KshForfaultedconditions(emergencyconditionsinclusive) (
- ie 5-1
where Xg = The maximum applied stress intensity factor for the flaw size to which a detected flaw will grow, during the conditions af under consideration. Fracture toughness based on crack arrest for the corresponding K,g
=
crack tip temperature. Fracture toughness based on fracture initiation for the K,g
=
corresponding crack tip temperature. 5.2 LONGITUDINAL FLAWS VS, CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAWS Longitudinal flaws may be defined as flaws orientedOn in the a radial other plane, such that circumferential or hoop stresses would tend to open them. hand, circumferential flaws would be oriented in a radial plane such that These two types of flaws are longitudinal or axial stresses would open then. portrayed graphically in the geometry figure of each section of Appendix 5.3 BASIC DATA In view of the criteria, it is noticed that' three groups of basic data are Namely, required for the construction of charts for surface flaw evaluation. ef, a g, and ag, respectively. The preparation of these three groups of basic data will be discussed in t following pa*agraphs. 5.3.1 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH . The first group of basic data required for surface flaw chart construction is l determined from fatigue crack growth. As defined in l the final flaw size af is the maximum size resulting from growth IWB-3611 of Code section XI, af during a specific time period, which is the next scheduled inspection of t m w a n ie 5-2
L I ( component. Therefore, the final depth, af after a specific service period l The charts have been of time must be used as the basis for evaluation. constructed to allow the initial (measured) indication size to be used directly. Charts have been constructed for operational periods of 10, 20, and , 30 years from the time of detection. can be calculated by fatigue crack growth analysis, The final flaw size af l which has been performed covering the range of postulated flaw sizes, and flaw i shapes at various location's of the reactor vessel needed for the construction I All crack growth results of surface flaw evaluation charts in this handbook. have been summarized in Appendix C. Notice that all the finite surface flaws and embedded flaws analyzed are semi-elliptical in shape. Crack growth analyses for finite surface flaws with I aspect ratio (length to depth) less than 6:1 have utilized the results of 6:1, and for any flaw with aspect ratio larger than 6:1, the results of the continuous flaw are used. This is conservative in both cases. e In some of the regions, it is noted that only the crack growth analysis for longitudinal flaws was performed. The crack growth results for the longitudinal flaws can be used for circumferential flaws at the same location : with some slight conservatism. In regions where differences are significant, separate analyses have been done, as may be seen in the various sections of Appendix A. l 5.3.2 NINIMUM CRITICAL FLAW SIZE ac and ag i By definition s e is the minimum critical flaw size for normal operating conditions. It is calculated based on the load of the most limiting transient j for normal operating conditions. By the same token, ag is defined as the ' It is calculated based on minimum critical flaw size for faulted conditions. the most governing transient of faulted conditions. The governing transients are of ten different for different regions, and those for each category of load The theory and conditions have been identified in tables in Appendix B. t methodology for the calculation of ag and ag, has been provided in , Section 2. ! l w i. 5-3
5.4 TYP! CAL SURFACE FLAW EVALUATION CHART ( Two basic dimensionless parameters can fully address the characteristics of a surface flaw, and are used for the evaluation chart construction, Namely: o Flaw Shape Parameter a/t o Flaw Depth Parameter a/t where, t - wall thickness, in. a - flaw depth, in, t
- flaw length, in.
' A typical chart was chosen for illustration purpose as follows: (Referto Figure 5-1) i i
, o The flaw shape parameter a/t was plotted as the abscissa from 0 (continuous flaw) to .5 (AR = 2.0) l o The flaw depth parameter a/t in % was plotted as the ordinate, o The lower curves were the Code acceptable flaw depth tabulated in Table IWB-3510-1 of ASME Section XI. These curves indicate the acceptance standards of the Code, below which analytical evaluation is not required. Two curves are provided, since the code acceptance The standards were revised with the Winter Addendum of the 1983 Code.
revised curves remain in effect through the present time (1986 Code, 1988 Addenda). o The upper boundary curve shows the maximum acceptable flaw depth beyond which no surface flaw is acceptable for continued service without repair. This upper bound curve has been determined by the fracture and fatigue evaluations described herein. (
'"" " " 5-4
o Any surface indication which falls between the two boundary curves ( will be acceptable by the Code, with the analytical justification provided herein. However, IWB-2420 of ASME Section XI requires future monitoring of such indications. The surface flaw evaluation charts constructed for various locations of the reactor vessel are presented in Appendix A. 5.5 PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SURFACE FLAW EVALUATION CHART A numerical example is used here to show how a surface flaw evaluation chart was constructed. Example Required: To construct a surface flaw evaluation chart for the longitudinal flaws at the beltline region, at the inside surface. Step 1 Determine the critical flaw sizes from Table 4-1. These flaw sizes are used to determine allowable flaw sizes per IW3-3611. Load Flaw Criticel Flaw Depth (in.) Condition Orientation a/t = 0.0 a/t = 0.167 a/t = 0.5 N/U/T* Circumferential a, = 7.75 a, = 7.75 a, = 7.75 E/F* Circumferential ag = 2.21 ag = 7.75 ag = 7.75 Note that in some cases here the critical flaw depth is set equal to the wall thickness. This is for the case where the stress intensity factor for postulated flaws never exceeds the fracture toughness, regardless of flaw depth. N/U/T normal, upset, and test conditions ( E/F emergency and faulted conditions mu,mo 55
The maximum code allowable flaw depths using the criteria of IWB-3611 are then i determined, using a factor of 10 for normal upset and test conditions and a ' factor of 2 for emergency and faulted conditions. The results are presented below: . Load Allowable Flaw Depth (in) Condition a/t = 0.0 a/t = 0.167 a/t = 0.5 N/U/T 0.775 0.775 0.775 E/F 1.105 3.875 3.875 Therefore, the allowable flaw depth for the normal and upset conditions is more limiting, and the governing transient can be considered as the excessive feedwater flow transient. This is because much larger safety factors are applied to the normal / upset conditions than to the emergency and faulted conditions. i Step 2 Determine the maximum Code allowable flaw depth per IWB-3612, which is based on allowable stress intensity factor criteria. i Load Flaw Code Allowable Flaw Depth (in) Condition Orientation Criteria a/t = 0.0 a/t = 0.167 a/t = 0.5 Circumferential Ky ,//10 3.18 3.84 4.078 N/U/T Step 3 The allowable flaw depth is then determined from the Step 1 and Step 2 allowable flaw depths. The most liberal results are taken for each set of criteria, and this becomes the final allowable. Thus, from the results of Step 2 we find: ( m.wwa.= io 5-6
a/t = 0.0 allowable a = 3.18 in. ( a/t = 0.167 a = 3.84 in, a/t = 0.5 a = 4.078 in. : 1 Step 4_ Determine the corresponding initial flaw sizes which will grow to the above critical flaw sizes af ter 10, 20, and 30 years of service. We define the above limiting critical flaw depth as af. The initial flaw size a can be found from the fatigue crack growth results of Table 3-1. o The values of c, which are applicable to 10 years of service, for example, are listed as follows: Continuous , Flaw a/t = 0.167 a/t = 0.5 3.18 3.84 4.078 af 4.034 3.056 3.80 a, This shows that the effect of fatigue crack growth in this region is very small. Step 5 Determine a/t vs. a/tX in the beltline region where t = 7.75", and a = a ,. For 10 years of service, the values are: Continuous Finite Surface Finite Semicircular l Flaws Flaws, a/t = 0.167 Surface Flaws I
.167 .5 a/t 0 0.490 0.5205 a/t O.394
( . m-e 5-7
Note that the allowable flaw depths here exceed 20 percent of the wall ( thickness, which has been set as an arbitrary limit, based on engineering judgement. The charts therefore reflect this value as an upper limit. Step 6 The upper bound curves result from the plots of a/t vs. a/t for 10, 20, 30 years of service, as obtained from the crack growth results. These curves are shown in Figure 5-2. Step 7 Plot a/t vs. a/t data from the standards tables of Section XI as the lower curve of Figure 5-2. For example, the values of Table IWB-3510-1 for Code editions up until the Winter '83 addendum are: Aspect Surface Ratio, Indication, a/t, % a/t _ 0.00 1.8 0.05 2.0 0.10 , 2.2 0.15 2.4 0.20 2.7 ' O.25 3.1 0.30 3.5
- 0.35 3.5 0.40 3.5 0.45 3.5 0.50 3.5 The above seven steps would complete the procedure for the construction of the surface flaw evaluation charts for 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years of operating life.
1 In the interest of prudence, Figure 5-2 only shows the allowable flaw depths l for these inside surface flaws up to 20 percent of the section thickness.
- (
me*""" " 5-8 +
UPPER UMITS OF ACCEPTANCE BY ANALYSIS INDICATIONS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE . ABOVE THE ANALYSIS LIMIT LINES . 10 I - -
/-
d:* s'M.sp.'1
/ .-
s ' -
.. , . . -.. . . .. . , # ~
IN THIS ZONE. INDICATIONS It y rar s. ,
,- (
-7 to grs n
{-]' pgg ., , y -
--y ; -- -
T ARE* ACCEPTABLE BY ANALYSIS
..- 5 ?. . :- /- / .- PER IWB 3600 y /.. y
-7
. ;. _ &- t.. - -
%.\ \ / / /
.- w
\ -> 3
/ .
g
.~ ~
Y ;. : Q ,2.y
/s .s. . ? .. ___
~ . ,
s.
<# ' ~
4 J
/-G m E ~,- :.
/ '
3 .. -
- i CODE ALLOWABLE LMWItT
. h.
SINCE 1983 WINTER g .- .
/ . :.. . .
-A > - - -- - - -
-p ---
7 agognonu
-[)/ ~;- ,
(; ,; f? *-
$ /.
s p,n*, - sa 1 L pW#
. .' @ c:, i
,s -
ii:
/:;;.
FLAWS PLOTTED BELOW THE APPLICABLE
- . .1 .::h... . j ,4sad __:. :- .-
7 : CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT : -
"CODE ALLOWA8LE LIMIT" LINE ARE 2 ,s #
W ,
' : PRIOR TO 1983 WINTER .- - ' ACCEPTABLE WITHOUT ANALYSIS OR 4
FUTURE MONITORING.
. A.DDEN. DUM . . .
... [ . . .. .:
- f. .u. L... .= .. ... 1 .
.3
)
g . l l O.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 O FLAW SHAPE to/fl . Figure 5-1. Sample Surface Flaw Evaluation Chart mu .. ..
~
l e e r b c o. im
. al n ru s epc .
ta i s . pd t .. rm i hei0 tct0 eu m een ld
.al3,ld c y6 ai el y
w ep s snS a-bn ee wd od bd aA w or D N 0a 3l eiaD r we lA l l e lt E ,f are ani G sedn w E 0e il oi et eW a L 2l hfC d t a dn l
.b a eEi oi o3 wF 0t ncMr CW C89 a 1 p iaSe l l e hfAt E3 M8 E1 F a ec hc tr f uyr i
S9 f 5o . l i t Ta Wsbc A1 At a n n e i r d e A B C D uf t m i u _ c D 5- e g c gs n n r i oi _ 0 l L C t l e B X l e s e w aw 11II I 4 s il }1 0 V a l l F rF
- ll!1 I o d
]1 t e e c c d a a d n
g ]1 ll Ii I ef e R rub m 3 0 0 M rS E o _ 3* II1! ! l E f
}1 P t X o A H
r a 2 }1 l!1]il S h C e
- 1[ ll o W n e c c a A o a f s 2 L i f r 1 0 F t r u
/ l1 1II l l a uS uS a ed v d i E i s s t e
n u 1 2 I O L 0 5
!i eX
, - r u
g l i
]j lII F
*0
' ' 4
- 0 2 " 4 1
2 1 " .
- iI!2 .
u.
SECTION 6 EMBEDDED FLAW EVALUATION g 6.1 EMBEDDED VS. SURFACE FLAWS According to IWA-3300 of the ASME Code Section XI, a flaw is defined as embedded, as shown in Figure 6-1, whenever, S 3 a (For Editions prior to 1980) or S3 0.4 a (For Editions of 1980 and thereafter) where 5 - the minimum distance from the flaw edge to the nearest vessel wall surface (clad-base metal interface for flaws near the inside of the vessel) i a - the embedded flaw depth, (defined as the semi-minor axis of the elliptical flaw.) Surface Proximity Rules. The surface proximity rules were liberalized with the 1980 Code, allowing flaws as near the surface as four-tenths their width to be considered embedded. This change resulted from the finding that the original proximity rules had been more restrictive for near-surface embedded flaws than for known surface flaws, which is clearly not technically correct. Specifically, the criterion for a flaw to be considered embedded was changed to S 3 0 4 a, so substituting into the definition for 6 we now find: \ www. 6-1
.c a = 6-S
( 6 > 1.4 a Therefore, the limit for a flaw to be considered embedded is a, = 0.714 6 for Code editions of 1980 and thereafter. This more accurate criterion has been used throughout this handbook, and is recommended for all inspections, regardless of the edition of the Code which is used for the inspection. A flaw lying within the embedded flaw domain is to be evaluated by the embedded flaw evaluation charts generated in this section of the handbook. On the other hand, a flaw lying beyond this domain should be evaluated as a surface flaw using the charts developed in Section 5 of the handbook instead. ! The demarcation lines between the two domains are shown graphically in Figure 6-3, for both earlier and later Code editions. In other words, for any flaw indication detected by inservice inspection, the first step of evaluation is to define the category to which the flaw actually l belongs, then, choose the appropriate charts for evaluation. 6.2 CODE CRITERIA As mentioned in Section 1, the criteria used for the safe end and all the Namely, embedded flaws are of IWB-3612 of ASME Code Section XI. K Ks Fornormalconditions(upset &testconditionsinclusive) y K K g $ h For faulted conditions (emergency conditions inclusive) l - l ( l - un.. is 6-2 [
where i Kg
= The maximum applied stress intensity factor for the flaw size af to which a detected flaw will grow, during the conditions under consideration.
K, = Fracture toughness based on crack arrest for the g N corresponding crack tip temperature. K je = Fracture toughness bas,ed on fracture initiation for the corresponding crack tip temperature. The above two criteria must be met simultaneously. In this handbook only the most limiting results have been used as the basis of the flaw evaluation
\
charts. 6.3 BASIC DATA In view cf the criteria based on stress intensity factor, three basic groups They j of data are needed for construction of embr.dded flaw evaluation charts. are: K je, Kg,, and Kg , respectively. The units used herein for all these three parameters are kst /in. 1 K gg and Kg , are the initiation and arrest fracture toughness values (respectively) of the vessel material at which the flaw is located. They can be calculated by formulae: K gg = 33.2 + 2.806 exp( 02(T-RTNDT+100'F)] (6-1) and Kg , a 26.8 + 1.233 exp(.016(T-ATNDT+160*F)) (6-2) K is the maximum stress intensity factor for toe embedded flaw of g interest. The methods used for determining the stress intensity factors for ( embedded flaws have been referenced in Section 2. men-. 6-3
~ .
netton of crack tip temperature T, Notice that both Ky , and Ky , are a I and the material property of RTNDT st the tip of the flaw. The upper shelf fracture toughness of the reactor vessel steel is assumed to be 200 ' ksi/in in all regions. , Kg used in the determination of the flaw evaluation charts is the maximum stress intensity factor of the embedded flaw under evaluation. It is important to note that the flaw size used for the calculation of Kg is not the flaw size detected by inservice inspection. Instead, it is the calculated flaw size which will have grown from the flaw size detected by inservice inspection. That means that the embedded flaw size used for the calculation ' of K had to be determined by using fatigue crack growth results, similar to y the approach used for surface flaw evaluation, as illustrated in the previous section. 6.4 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH FOR EMBEDDED FLAWS Unlike the surface flaw case, the fatigue crack growth for an embedded flaw (even after 40 years of service life) is very small in comparison with that of a surface flaw with the same initial depth. Consequently, in the handbook evaluations, tha detected flaw size has been used for evaluation by the charts without any epreciable error.* This simplifies the evaluation procedure without sacrificing the accuracy of the re'sults. A detailed justification of this conclusion is provided in this section. The l The environment of an embedded flaw is considered to be inert, or air. crack growth rate for air environment is far smaller than that of the water environment, to which the surface flaw is conservatively considered to be exposed. Consequently, the fatigue crack growth for an embedded flaw must be far smaller than that of an inside surface flaw (of the same size and under ,
- This conclusion holds for the range of flaw sizes acceptable by the rules of section XI, IWS-3600. It would not necessarily hold for very large flaws of the order of 50 percent of the vessel wall thickness.
I muvme n 6-4 l
thesametransientconditions). Numerically. ...a fatigue crack growth of an , i embedded flaw is so low that the difference beween the initial flaw depth and its final crack depth is negligible. ; This engineering judgment has been demonstrated by an illustrative example, as follows: Example , The beltline region of the Joseph Farley reactor vessels was used as a demonstration. The crack growth results for circumferential inside surface flaws (a/t = 0.167) are as follows, as also shown in Appendix C. These flaws were assumed exposed to the water environment. Postulated Initial Crack Depth Crack Depth (in.) After Year 20 30 40 10 1
.813 0.823 0.833 0.843 0.80 1.028 1.041 1.054 1.00 1.015 1.222 1.237 1.253 1.268 1.20 1.338 1.353 1.368
~ 1.30 1.323 1.575 1.592 1.609 1.626 1.550 A similar crack growth analysis was performed for an embedded flaw, using the same set of transients
- and the number of cycles
- as the surface flaw run, and the results follow. The air crack growth reference law was used.
- As specified in Table 2-1. ,
i mume s.s .
.. s h'tialCrackDepth Crack Depth (in.) After Year
( 10 20 30 40 0.900 0.900 O.901 0.901 0.90 1.050 1.051 1.051 1.051 1.050 1.200 1.201 1.201 1.201 1.200 1.351 1.351 1.352 1.352 1.350 In comparing tne results of the two types of flaws under the same service conditiont, it is seen that the final crack growth for an embedded flaw is lest than 1% of that for a surface flaw under the same operating conditions as tabulated below: Final Crack Depth (in) Crack Growth for Postulated Embedded Flaws, Init*.a1 Crack After 40 Years Depth, (in) Embedded Flaws in (%) 0.90075 0.1%
! 0.90 1.05108 0.1%
1.050 1.20149 0.1% 1.200 1.35202 0.15% 1.350 In conclusion: in the construction of the evaluation charts for the embedded flaws, the accuracy of the charts would not be impaired using the flaw size found by inservice inspection directly. 6.5 TYPICAL EMBEDDED / LAW EVALUATION CHART The details of the procedures for the construction of an embajded flaw evaluation chart are provided in the next section. l mu.ma.= io 6-6
* .M F
In this section, instructions for reading a chart are provided by going This will through construction of a typical chart, Figure 6-3, step by step. help the users to become familiar with the characteristics of each part of the chart, and make it easier to apply. This example. utilizes the surface / embedded flaw demarkation criteria of the 1980 Code, and later editions. Following are the highlights of a typical embedded flaw evaluation chart. (Refer to Figures 6-2 and 6-3).
- 1. The absicissa of the chart in Figure 6-2 represents the flaw depth a, of the embedded flaw.
- 2. As defined by the Code, the embsdded flaws with a depth less than Any embedded a, = 0.714 6 should be considered as embedded flaws.
flaws beyond the domain of a, = 0.714 6, should be evaluated by means of surface flaw charts instead.
- 3. A key parameter for evaluating an embedded flaw is 6, the distance between the flaw centerline and the nearest surface of the vessel wall (clad-base metal interface for the inside surface).
l A range of 6 between ht and ft have been considered in constructing Figure 6-2.
- 4. For each specific value of 6, such as ht, ht, ft, etc., a family of curves were plotted for a range of aspect ratios *, for 3:1 through 10:1. This corresponds to a/t values ranging from 0.333 to 0.1.
For any specific flaw depth a at the abscissa, a corresponding value K at the ordinate can be found in Figure 6-2, for any distance to g the surface, 6.
- Note that aspect ratio AR = t/a newwo 6-7
- 5. The range of aspect ratios from 3:1 to 10:1 was chosen to encompass.
the range of flaws which might be detected. Within this range, i ( ' interpolation can be used for any other aspect ratio. Use the 3:1 curve as a lower bound and the 10:1 curve as an upper bound, f
- 6. In this specific chart, the Code acceptance limit line was
= h = 63.3 ksi in because governing condition was an upset conditica, and the operating temperature of the transient was over l 500'F across the wall thickness at all times. The~ shelf value of 200 ksi/ir, for K , ywas used.
- 7. The intersection of the Kg curve with the code acceptance limit line is the maximum flaw size acceptable by Code for the specific curve.
- 8. In view of Figure 6-2, it is seen that only the curves for 6 = ft intersect with the code acceptance limit line. That means that, up
( toadistanceof6=ht(=1.453"),allembeddedflawsare acceptable by code criterion so long as their depth is within the ) On the other hand, for flaws located at a
- domain of a, = 0.714 6.
distanceupto6=ft(=1.938"),themaximumacceptableflaw sizes for various aspect ratios are less than the domain of a,= .714 6.
- Therefore, for flaws centered at this depth, separate allowable flaw l
lines are produced in the evaluation charts, as shown in Figure 6-3.
- 9. The maximum acceptable flaw size can be found from the chart by l
l determining the abscissa of the intersection points. Namely, for 6 = 0.25 t, m w me" 6-8
2 Aspect Ratio Maximum Acceptable of the Flaw a/t Flaw Size (in) ( 10:1 0.1 0.968 6:1 0.167 0.968 (< a, = 0.969) 3:1 0.333 0.968
- 10. The maximuta acceptable embedded flaw size for 6 = ft has been depicted in Figure 6-3. This simpler flaw evaluation chart, described in the following paragraph, is the type included in the handbook, as may be seen in Appendix A.
These embedded flaw evaluation charts, constructed for various locations of the reactor vessel, are presented in Appendix A. 6.6 PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF EMBEDDED FLAW EVALUATION CHARTS A numerical example was used in this section to show how an embedded flaw evaluation chart was constructed step by step as follows: Example To construct an embedded flaw evaluation chart for circuraferential flaws at the beltline. The excess feedwater flow transient was determined to be the governing condition for this example. Step 1 ( Calculate Xg , for various distances underneath the inside vessel wall surface (clad-base metal interface) (in). The procedures of the calculation are as follows: m.*""" " 6-9
---- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \
i
)
f o Plot the temperature across the wall thickness during the worst time step (610.86 sec.) of the excess feedwater flow transient. The ( miniv1.n temperature is 472.5'F for this transient. o Calculate the corresponding Kg , by the formula given in equation , (6-1). The values of RTNDT at various 6 locations wore also determined, o Calculate the values of Step 2 . Calculate Ky values for embedded flaws of various sizes, various aspect In total, 141 cases ratios, and at various distances underneath the surface. were analyzed by closed form stress intensity factor expressions (5). The 141 analyzed cases are tabulated in Table 6-1. Steo 3 The Ky results of the 141 cases were plotted in Figure 6-2. These curves were combined into one single plot as the final chart, as shown in Figure 6-3. t K The Ccde acceptance limit of h was plotted on all these figures as a guideline for evaluation. Step 4 l Determine the maximum acceptable flaw size: e e l men - e 6-10
.. ..m The basic concept of the evaluation is that the part of the curves under the
( K. Therefore, the intersection - l
% lir.2 are acceptable by the Code criteria.
with the driving force K1 curve indicates the maximum flaw of a curve depth acceptable by the Code criteria. The acceptable maximum flaw sizes for various distances of flaws beneath the vessel surface, 6, were plo,tted as shown in Figure 6-3, which is the final
~
flaw evaluation chart. By examining Figure 6-4 for instance, for a flaw
' located at 6 = ft with an aspect ratio of 3:1, the maximum flaw size acceptable is .0.692". For an aspect ratio of 10:1, a maximum flaw depth of 0.692d is acceptable.
The above four steps have completely described the procedures of the construction of an embedded flaw evaluation chart for circumferential flaws . the inlet nozzle to shell weld. The basic concept for the interpretation of the curves in a typical evaluation chart is that any flaw size which lies on the curve above the Code acceptance The limit line is not acceptable for continued service without repai'. intersection of a curve with the Code acceptance limit line is therefore, the maximum acceptable flaw size for that particular ca.se. 6.7 COMPARISON OF EMBEDDED FLAW CHARTS WITH ACCEPTANCE S The handbook charts for embedded flaws do not show the acceptance standards of Section XI, as the surface flaw charts do. Therefore, it is not clear from the charts themselves how much is gained from the analysis process over the standards tables contained in IWB-3510. Such a comparison cannot be made directly on the embedded flaw handbook charts, because the charts are The purpose of applicable for a full range of sizes, shapes and locations. this section is to provide such comparisons, and to discuss the results of those comparisons. e mu-e 6-11 _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _____r,, . . _ , , . . - -
The example will be for the inlet nozzle to shell weld, whose handbook chart ( is provided in the appendix, and also in Figure 6-3. The handbook chart values have been compared with the acceptance standards tables in Figure 6-4. This example is applicable to the cases where all flaws which are embedded are acceptable, up to a depth of 2a/t = 0.25. Again it can be seen that the advantage gained by use of the analysis is greater for flaws located further from the inside surface. The largest allowable flaw shown here is centered at one quarter the wall thickness from the surface. Note that the allowable depth for this type of embedded flaw is a/t = 0.125, or a total flaw width (2a/t) equal to 25 percent of the wall thickness. Carrying the calculations further would result in an allowable flaw depth for a mid-wall flaw (6 = 1/2t) equal to 50 percent of the wall thickness, but it is clearly not prudent ! to allow flaws of this size to remain. Therefore, the allowable flaw depths for embedded flaws have been limited to 25 percent of the wall thickness in total depth, and the upper curve of Fig re 6-3 has been labelled accordingly. ( l l ( l . mnwo.= io 6-12
TABLE 6-1 EMBEDDED FLAW CASES ANALY2ED FOR THE INLET N0ZZLE l ( TO SHELL WELD "I***"** ' Embedded Flaw Depth (in.)
,g,,g ,
surface A.R. 101 1 A.R. 4t i A.R. 3
- l 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 T/14 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.40
$s0.08 0.35 0.40 0.470 0.450 0.470 0.450 0.470 0.450 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 3T/.32. 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 05 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.70504 Sm o.987 0.7 0.70504 0.7 0.70504 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 pg 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 046 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8
$a1.3tb 0.7 0.9400 0.9 0.9400 0.9 0.9400 0.9 0.30 0.15 0.30 0.15 0.30 ST/j g 0.15 0.60 0.45 0.60 0.45 0.60 0.45 0.90 0.75 0.90 0.75 0.90 0.75 1.20 1.20 1.05 1.20 1.05
$s t.97+ 1.05 1.35 1.40 1.35 u in 1.40 gg 1.35 1.4101 40 0.2 0.4 T[ 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.6
' ' O.4 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.6
$8 2 45t 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.8801 1.8 1.8801 1.8 1.8801
\
f i w . i. 6-13
. --- --~ ~
(
. 1 SURFACE
\
\
\
\
\
\
J __ l 7
/
/
' /
/
/ a = the maximum embedded flaw size 0 (in depth direction) allowable
/
- / per ASME XI*
l f S = the corresponding minimum depth EMBEDDED / o FLAW of an embedded flaw (less than l DOMAIN which it must be considered a a=a, : a surface flaw) o o FOR ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS:
- NOTE: If a > a , the flaw must be asa 0 I charactefized as a surface flaw, with depth = a + 6.
Figure 6-1. Embedded vs. Surface Flaw ( l m ue 6-14
.e - . . ,
s. n
- .4.. .
ed.
.n c
.9 -
- 8 3
I weo- -
\ M -
Ed- ~ .W: .:t."- =:: . .d== : :d.:! :n:... . h-- ::--J =_ ... . . --..
- - f; .I m
M. .::= _:__ .-_.:.u.i.= .:.::.L. _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . _=..y_. :. s = m: _ :.a_ . - ,.. . :. :. .: .... .=. y_._- ::~_ =__ _ _ .=_--
. _- g _ _ _ . .:._ ._ _.=_1.=_- ..-
- v. -: :_M_. .. _ . :;. ..,..:- . . . . _:~_u. . . .
- :: :.; ==. :- = J . ._ .4: . : .. .o w
r .:: ::-_h=. , . =.,.;. n: =--..
. _ ::2 _ _ _
= : 2=
- = -- .r_ -r- =_
e
-:n: :
.:. . = -:::.:: =.= -...:;- :. .:
,,=,:=. ~- = _ ~..-
= . -::_:. = . .
_ r_-
.:=.:
. . r ::: - :~: . .r= - - = . .
n
.: -..i - -
N
- .: .. .- := = - . . - : .:.O.. :. :. .r- -- _
. .? : . ' :. .:f N
- .:g-. J --
. .: = .:. ;.. : _- - _r:
? .:. .;. ; . : .J .
;. .: . .;. L 4. r. * * : _* % .. : .1... :*.. k'. .!! *.: .
- .; - n _ : :- - r r- \. .n :._. ::.= -
- -:=.:: .:- := .:- 2. . . o 7: . . . . . . . . .
. . . . -_ . . 2:
. ..r. . . . .:_-, - A-
. .:. : c.. c .;;. =.
.:::.r . - .. :. . :.. :r_:n. r : : r.= m. . .. .....
..:-6
- _ _ .u...=._
y e
. .;. .: - . : _'i .: - J..'.. : 2.:. : . : A__i"_ _.-i. !9. "...: ....i..- ::.:. - ' :.d. _'. ;- ...:. ..
. . . _ _ 5. ..:ir-
.. . f... . ..
- .-- ::2 : ::- . . :.:.c. . . . ..r...
. "c
. ... .:. . ..::... :.i.. .:. : ::- - r..'\: n u.;. . . .: .
... . _.- : .. .r. .__...s:. s. ... ..:. . .. .
- ...=.m u
. r.=_. ._. : ..:u... :_ .)
.=..a.x_..._
e
- .:: :.w --
.- :. : : .._.u_.- - :
p ].J. _
\.. -- . _ 4.:
e 3 1 . . . .:-w.a__u_.. . _n.:.u_._{ . .~. ra . ._- . _~. :. . . _::. _ p. . . :. =. _ .: . _ .. - -
. . r.. . ,
- . :.._= . . .e :: ::=.
w
- --r.-- ..=--;
. - - w . . . .a.::\ :- = - :_s .:- . .a
=
g
, s d._:.:. -
s_l.;.i.:+.. :. ~: . ._ i'. : ._._:. _'.- :::h' W .:7. .: _\. ._ @:.E. . .. _: ~ . ;.i-2. :_b. : i.-0!. =_ =. F_:.. . . _ W.' $'~#i 4 f~5 ;5EE: ifi? i:* . ~ r k M
-2? :5. .:- -
- Y:-N r j. y
- .iE. . . r. _. . Q.:=_:.&. .i.:.=_:i_F,'L. .;^=. =.. =."? :.i. E.. ' ". .t .=._=..=. e
- f. ;ii;:=_.i. '._. .i : . .:.i. ..F. _f
- _ _= ._T..'i-J_ .=..-
_ . ..:.__._. _ ._.. . _ .:: _.. r .: ..:. .: . ._r _.:=. . . - n :: . . ..._.:.. tn
. . . . . .. r. .:=_:.u r. _n ... ~..:
._ _; e
- =_ _n_:..2_=. _. i o
. =. _:r. .:.. :_.::.. ._'\. .:. _ = = a : = :.:_ . . _ .
- .. . ._%' u:.:<
- _ _.r.:.:. u. . _=_.:._=..
_ :.l ' .. ...::. -
.s a
=.y. :. _-=.: - . . =--.----:- =. _.
.._..- ;=-- ,.=s: .
- _ =g..._...: , . _ - :.-: : : .::. -- u .=.=_ ::r.:..
. t :.:.=. _- . .-
-:.- 4 . .- . .: . -
e :. -
, L o
- .
- :_: :::.:. . .: 2.
... v &.. -1 ::.
u .
- - - - b . . 1.--.- -
-.~ d s.
.: $. ;_;=2., w :n-- : :-- :- r i:. .__-:.:.-
He: -
' .a.i - ~ - - - T-:1. a
- % .-= :. .. \ .' ~=_.h r._. _.i
- ' . : :- :_~.-- - : .: . .
; .'. d. 3: _-.
. . _ .._ '. ..e. _ 5.
e
* .- - - . - . . . _. =-.-- := - ::.=-=__
- e. . . . ._ .. .
~
w .---.. .._
.:= :: .=-. : _..-. . _ :.::= --._. . t C
- _;:: .;:n: . =-: . CD; "3 (.)
. . .: r:: _ _ == -:=. -
i__ :~- :::=. ._-.
- -- :_ :. = m.-= .::. - -=.:=__. =.:. :-+% =~ _ m. . r _
o
. .: . - - - .:==: ===- - = _ - =_: -- .v.=\ ==. _.= ._ _ _ -_- :--= : -
a:=.=r.k..:- :=: .O e4 o gg --
- =:: . ...: . : -:: p ...._. ._: :_:: : . q....g.. _ .
_.j __ .. . ... p... ... - (._._.n . . . .
."3 C a te .. . . .. <
e w :.4 4..:t _ _ - . _ .._ - ___.. s ___:_-.= :. _ . . _.:... . a_.: i
- 4. _._ . . _..
a . _ . - _.
- - + - -v--
_~
"e
- - - - -- - + ~ -r - _ -- #. - y
. . . .--: . . _ = . _ :: ___._.c :---
'. . 1 _- --_.. 1. . _.
y _ .-- :=. - .. - _b _ _ _ . . . . . _
. . ."- =:: - . 0--
D.
- ...^ _ r _._ . _. _ __ . _. _ . . _ .
L 4 c._:r.: . .=:, *
- ___.- _%-t ' . . - -- a- =::- *
= -
.:--=.= ~ _ . .w __ s_ __.-n.-k _---_ - .+ . t-- ==.:a: -:
e n.:.": :.. : .: :=.r _.:._:::-
- :: .; r..-
. ._.;:___ w 4 .=- : = -\- -n . . : '. \, - __.
t H.. u
= -_ . ::::
.. _ =.= = =_=.=
s : ,, ,. ,
-__.i_ s,n. _ __ . . . _ . _._ . __
. = > .c_
.--u.-- .: . . ._.. -. . . . b._'.
g :=_.-- x
=- =__.. _. = _._y..g_ =
g ny_-": - -v:::
.- - g.
, . - -_ _f . _g - . - _ ____;. ,;;. _ .
a_7,;. ._- D.~:
% __.y .
- n. _ .- =7 := -
't. - ::: .
- ~r : ::v : =::_ _ - *t .- - h. . '. -. --. =.ib:.- ..-=- :_ :
. =- : r:_- . _ :. r
- .- . . . u-- _::.
n .:. _ . -- vi.= _= :.-- . : .. ::: . -
- e .hA. _- \. :_M-
__ ::: :. --.:::=- - _--- 8
= _ - .=.= ::.n r :T.N.%g- c::
- ;--._.:.1%. .---- :: .s y- >
- ::: :.:. = ==.::.:..-.-
=;.:=-: :: : :.:s = 2_
_ _ . . : .r:: .e.
- : _-= _ _.:=- - = _ . :
aog r.---- :: = ~:_.g
=.u =:=.:. :.;
~
2 : :=- - :s
- .=c=1_yt .\ y
.g:A -
5=.--..a r _a . . -- a: 4
.: .r.. = _ . -..=_. : =_=-=. .c= C.: : - --- - ._ -- %
- :. . . .- W
. _ _ . . -'"- - r-
- :- :: =.=: =: e =- :~ -w ---- : :. =_ .
- - .e y_:,: m Au Q.: w'r---
_. v e _ . _ ._.....:. . T- . _2= :.---- -_ - .._,._.,;,,_---.._ u m w::.: =. _ ; ;.=_ .,,, 4
,,_2_.,
,._,_. g
, .:.__u., _ __
. _ _ . . _ _ _ p
.,7._.g,2 _
__ .-. __ _. _. . . . - - - - "e., y.;
- ' . --'t.~.:- = ::~-
..t._ . _ . , -.: : .-- _ - = -.
p. l . . . ..---r. -- , ._.
.: :. ::.r.. . _.. :-;,,
r.rfT-T- :. .-:1.:. - .t_:. . =. :.Nn...= **. t .
... .R .:.-h~: -- _ C:_:.
- _e._. . _ . . ::._ :;.:.:r.
-~
.. s_ :..s._., _.
- .__ _ ._ . _ . _. ~. ::; ,.:"._-
_*_ _~_
-{ .1;:- N,
- .m' _'=*_: ._....._....._._ag_._._
.. , _ _ . .a . .A * .
;.-- * " _ .._ _:7. . b, _._= :. . ?.:- . . .. . . . _. .
en we wsy 5%s u-3 2
/ h tn "]
w.
\
6-15 i
"L 1
l l
, 1 3 ...
i 44/45/10030 1 ( SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION UNE. BEGINNING WITH 1980 CODE 0.13 8
.._.m ....
Lis di EMBIDDED FLAW .I . . .I:II"Ih"-_"3
-S
= ==i: '-E ;dT:s -
- . .., _ FLAWS WITH 7
.a =2. _:- "-
m.: =r eg g == .. _:=:: x.rp. : n =-: :=: 4.. ::. n .- a-CONFIGU..R. A.. TION Jr : :'J - f -
.1 ABOVE THIS LINE ARE 0.12 ;=u a=.. . = . ..;= . _ . = . . g. . .-- . . . , ' . ==.,.:.n. .(.;
.- . . _: =..=._==:.....
. . . u;_
L _:
'I.. 2...
- .C
. . . ".- Zr "i NOT ALLOWABLE
== s E I s-.T i-! :.1 :' :::== =ir M i:~
. (. .- .
- ' = : f,x::==c :=_.= . . _=.
.4= -iib,5.
p- N
'F. =:.: .:= :1 a == =:"m.
';= =:
- ,.-. ~.: SURFACE /EMBEf)DED
=- : == ==: == .~tr g== =__ a= -
- = ... R.E._EE. .3. "_i. .f.5J..E_.s_G_. FLAW DEM ARC ATION
.E.i.s. E_! : il. E. .
E.;:.!lm
==.E_=.=.=_ UNE UP TIL 1980 CODE a=-. :=
0 10 _a , _; == = =- e : _= . . . = _,s. =,_ _- .=c 3_.3=:
== .
.=...
=
- =_:=__=. - .,s r.:...- ... . . g
.- ..=
in; 't l'E L--EEi E: :ii:. *F.i'=i-:n if == - - =:- g .5~ii i3E bi tin
- AWEE 9:niE EElidi:=a F; i=E=i' gT- == e .:n ..= g c:n=. ---J f=:. :- === = . - --
~ =:: .. . . .
=. - -
r = n: . . , .,
=_=._ =
3: 0.08 ;. =.. _- =. (_=. =. ._a =r;===
-f.1.===.
= 4 e .s.pigap ;- = .
sa ===:.s =-ur- =:._
.- _;=:=-
==:.ar u rtm 4 ::=- =:=:r= r
~
. =. = . . , . . .p. . = .
0.07 = . -.: .
- a.. . SURFACE: ::.: .. ..
u=t=
- l;. .A. Y -- ---
E _. O - - 4
""k'*.^......
"".: 3 p= = :l
==
"a :".:;.=
r == = == =: = .== =: === n_.
===
2" .. FLAWSunsy IN THIS,, f: _== .xj=* ( F 0.06 gngoion . _g.g
'F-" 2 ==TJg. -
.:= = = ;; = =
~
'"#2 =^ ~
Q .= CON SID E R ED '~ 33~; ~I 9?! Els :.s=# .. h 0.05 58URFACE [y
~
I g;, G __i$2 ::'.1;] EE~-$G .~' ; [..[E b t FLAWS
= = -e., . . e= = /T ==== = = === =- ==== =-
4 Emir - if:HiFs:" f E Ti"55E 2 ?~-E & i:sa + ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS i l X OM .==== f;- =.-) 7,.__ '_E_ .. _
=
= ;
-=-
= -
1- =. = =.
== --:.p.= = . ..=_
(ON THIS SIDE OF
=_=. ._ = . .=... _=. .== ...
. DEM ARKATION LINE)
- =. = =.:. - ._s-..E.=...=t __.r.J. s=i
- / .i:f.:tn
.i -:Is ARE ACCEPTABLE PER Ei5tdF?f5Mf=.* E HE Edi" * " G55 55 CRITERIA OF IWB 3600 2
AS LONG AS ,,at ,0.25 O'02 ?
= . _ .== =_.=.= . . . -. . ==-n.
.=_._:. = ==.
t
'/ .:'. = . . _a. r =.=. ..=_=.
I .=_._..j . _ - ==__t. .
=
i
= r .:. -
. :_: ... . =: :=: = : ..-=n = =
=_:::. .= ^
w.
- f") =.-n= :.::: ..
- - . . . -. =
-: . . ~ _ ..
=_.=. ...=.. =.
=_.. _ = = . .__==-
0.01 ..
. . . == .e-. = . ...= ....
.jf - ,=. .= :._-
=. ._=... . . .:a2 = . . _.:=- . = a.:.:.
.-1:.f=.s s :s 4 .i= = g s s 95 = s es
, O2.=. : :=g.:ali ns 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 c
DISTANCE FROM SURFACE d) Figure 6-3'. Embedded Flaw Evaluation Chart for Inlet Nonle to Shell ife (for Longitudinal and Circumferential Flaws) ( an=mewe 6-16
- - - .. . ~ ,_
** 1. .
t.
~
p.
, ~l S
, n.
NI ( , I V ! 1
. s%
1 1 I
.14 - . .
T i ! : ,, ,
# "' M 'IIIi ' '
*13 i
' l' i -
l l .
- i -
.- : I j : i 4 . :
i
.12 _,
i . .
- i i i -
.n i i i . i : :
l
.D._ .' , ,
( . ~
.10 :
4
- ft
_.___...L. i _. ' ' *
- .i _
.09 . 1 i .
t g i
- l i ! ! . 1 g ,og
- 1
; l l ..
e - - g i ' '
.07 -
6 = &. t [ . "i I /- -# y l!A i
,
- y,,, d"a,j
- J i ! -
E *06 8 "!iyt : : . g .05 ' I* i : .' 1 s~- I
/sr ,
I . : . . g,,,, 7 . . y
- i 245 i i
I
.03 i !
l; i i ! . t " ' . l : i. . I i L i py.4 7 '0.5' l - l =i i j . i_........ l i , -
' !== ACCEPTMCE 5 rANDMDS OF TABl.ES
.01 . ; ; .,, , , . .1ws mg mv. Awu .niz ,uveu toitT5h1 -
.00 l
. ! ? riinwqs f40f. 70 D8010! TION
.3 .4 .5
' .0 .1 .2 FLAW SHAPE (a/4)
! Figure 6-4' . Illustration of Advantages gained by Analysis for Embedded Flaws at the Inlet No nle,to Vessel Wald ( s 1 - ,e 6-17
l SECTION 7 REFERENCES (
- 1. ASME Code Section XI, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components",1974 Edition (Summer 75 Addendum) and 1983 Edition (Sunner 83 Addenduml; In addition these specific addenda contain updates in standards and data used for the evaluation charts: 1983 edition (used for updated standards tables, and 1980 edition (Winter 1981 Addendum] (for revisedreferencecrackgrowthcurves).
- 2. McGowan, J. J. and Raymund, M., "Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Internal Longitudinal Semi-Elliptic Surface Flaws in a Cylinder Under Arbitrary Loading," ASTM STP-677, 1979, pp. 365-380.
- 3. Newman, J. C. Jr. and Raju, I. S., "Stress Intensity factors for Internal Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels", ASME Trans., Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 102, 1980, pp. 342-346.
- 4. Buchalet, C. B. and Bamford, W. H., "Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Continuous Surface Flaws in Reactor Pressure Vessels", in Mechanics of Crack Growth, ASTH, STP 590,1976, pp. 385-402.
f l
- 5. Shah, R. C. and Kobayashi, A. S., "Stress Intensity Factor for an Elliptical Crack Under Arbitrary Leading", Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 3, 1981, pp. 71-96.
- 6. Lee, Y. S. and Bamford, W. H., "Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for a Longitudinal Buried Elliptical Flaw in a Cylinder Under Arbitrary Loads",
presented at ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Portland Oregon, June 1983. Paper 83-PVP-92.
- 7. Marston, T. U. et. al. "Flaw Evaluation Procedures: ASME Section XI" l
C1ectric Power Research Institute Regort EPRI-NP-719-SR, August 1978. l l (
*=== u 7-1 I
i
- 8. Congedo, T. V., et. al. "Heatup and Cooldown Limit Curves for the Alabama Power Co. Joseph M. Farley Unit 2 Reactor Vessel," Westinghouse Electric Co.
( WCAP 10910 Rev. 1, February 1986.
- 9. Congedo, T. V., et. al. "Heatup and Cooldown' Limit Curves for the Alabama Power Co. Joeseph M. Farley Unit 1 Reactor Vessel," Westinghouse Electric WCAP 10934, April 1986.
- 10. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.99, Effects of Residual Elements on Predicting Radiation Damage to Reactor Vessel Materials, July 1975; Rev. 1: April 1977; Rev. 2 (in printing) 1988.
- 11. USNRC Standard Review Plan, NUREG 0800.
- 12. Plane Strain Crack Toughness Testing of High Strength Metallic Materials, ASTM STP 410, March 1969.
- 13. WCAP-10019, "Sumary Report on Reactor Vessel Integrity for Westinghouse Operating Plants," December, 1981.
- 14. WCAP-10319, "A Generic Assessment of Risk from Pressurized Thermal Shock of Roactor Vessels on Westinghouse Nuclear Power Plants," July, 1983.
t
- 15. Meyer, T. A., et. al. "Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of the Farley Unit 1 Reactor Vessel" Westinghouse Report WCAP-9623, Nov. 1979.
- 16. Schmertz, J. C., et. al. "Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of the Farley Unit 2
! Reactor Vessel," Westinghouse Electric WCAP 9641, Dec. 1979. l I
- 17. "Sumary of Evaluations Related to Reactor Vessel Integrity," report performed for the Westinghouse Owner's Group, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, May, 1982.
- 18. Letter 0. D. Kingsley, WOG, to H. Denton, NRC, "Westinghouse Owner's Group Activities Related to Pressurized Thermal Shock," OG-73, July 15,1982.
( l Mt94M 10 7-2
- 19. Letter from O. D. Kingsley, WOG, to H. Centon, NRC, "Westinghouse Owner's
( Group Activities Related to Pressurized Thermal Shock," OG-79, September 2, 1982.
- 90. SECY-82-465, United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission Policy Issue, "Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS)," November 23, 1982.
- 21. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission,10CFR50, "Analysis of Potential Pressurized Thermal Shock Events," Federal Register Vol. 50. No. 141, July 23, 1985.
a e www i. 73
APPENDIX A FLAW EVALUATION ( A-1 INTRODUCTION TO EVALUATION PROCEDURE The evaluation procedures contained in ASME Section XI are clearly specified in paragraph IWB-3600. Use of the evaluation charts herein follows these procedures directly, but the steps are greatly simplified. Once the indication is discovered, it must be characterized as to its location, length (t) and depth dimension (a) for surface flaws, (2a) for
- embedded flaws, including its distance from the clad-base metal interface (S) I for embedded indications. This characterization is discussed in further detail in pt.ragraph IWA-3000 of Section XI.
The following parameters must he calculated from the above dimensions to use thecharts(seeFigure1-5inthemaintext): o Flawshapeparameter,f o Flaw depth parameter, *g o surface proximity parameter (for embedded flaws only), f i where t = wall thickness of region where indication is located (not includingcladthickness) 1 = length of indication mi - i. g.1
~"
_ .__ _ ~ _. 1 1.. _ _ _ _ .
i a = depth of surface flaw; or half depth of embedded flaw in the I width direction 6 = distance from flaw centerline to, surface (for embedded flaws only, 6 = S + a) S = smallest distance from edge of embedded flaw to surface Once the above parameters have been determined and the determination made as to whether the indication is embedded or surface, then the two parameters may be plotted directly on the appropriate evaluation chart. Its location on the chart determines its acceptability immediately. Important Observations on the Handbook Charts Although the use of the handbook charts is conceptually straight forward, ' experience in their development and use has led to a number of observations which will be helpful. Surface Flaws The An example handbook chart for surface flaws is shown in Figure A-1,1. flav. %dication parameters (whose calculation is described above) may te plotted directly on the chart to determine acceptability. The lower two curves shown (labelled code allowable limit) are singly the acceptance standards from IWB-3500, which are tabulated in Section XI. If the plotted point falls below these lines, the indication is acceptable without analytical justification having been required. If the plotted point falls between the Code allowable limit lines, and the lines labelled "upper limits of acceptance by analysis" it is acceptible by virtue of its meeting the requirements of IWB-3600, which allow acceptance by fracture analysis. (Flawsbetweenthese lines would, however, require future monitoring per IWB-2420 of Section XI.) The analysis used to develop these lines is documented in the main body of this report. eThere are three of these lines shown in the charts, labelled 10, 20 and 30 years. The years indicate for how long the acceptance limit ' k applies, from the date that a flaw indication is discovered, based on fatigue crack growth calculations.
" * " A-2 ,
r
^ 7 G M W. t(*****'*
- As may be seen in Figure A-1.1, the chart gives results for surface flaw
( shapes up to a semi-circular flaw (a/t = 0.5). For the unlikely occurrence , of flaws which the value of a/t exceeds 0.5, the limits on acceptance for a/t = 0.5 should be used, according to ASME Code. requirements. Embedded flaws An example chart for embedded flaws is shown in Figure A-1.2. The heavy diagonal line in the figure can be used directly to determine whether the indication should be characterized as an embedded flaw or whether it is sufficiently close to the surface that it must be considered as a surface flaw (by the rules of Section XI). If the flaw parameters produce a plotted point below the heavy diagonal line, it is acceptable by analysis if the point is below the appropriate a/t limit line. If it is above the line, it cannot be justified by analysis, and is, therefore, not acceptable. For cases where there are several acceptance limit lines, interpolation between adjacent lines is recommended. A worked example is provided as embedded flaw Ext.mple 5. The outermost lines should be used as the limits, with no interpolation beyond them. For example, for a/t values greater than l 0.333, use the line for a/t = 0.333 in the figure, and for a/t values less than 0.167, use the line for a/t = 0.167. Beyond these outer limits, the analyses have shown that the sensitivity to flaw shape is small. For cases where there are no branching limit lines below the heavy diagonal line (see Figure A-2.6 for example) then all flaws classified as embedded are acceptable. The only limitation is, as discussed in Section 6.5: 1 f<0.25 Note that the embedded flaw evaluation charts are applicable for flaws near l either the inner or outer vessel surface, and the parameters "S" and "6 are defined from the nearest surface. l n u. a ie A-3 l I _
~ e-Another important observation is the procedure to be used for an embedded flaw ( whose plotted point falls above the heavy diagonal line, and must therefore be considered a surface flaw. An example of this is provided in "Embedded Flaw Example l' below, but it is important to note that when this must be done, the depth of the flaw is redefined. The new depth is equal to 2a + S, as shown in the example, which becomes the effective crack depth a* to be used in the surface flaw chart in such cases. Surface Flaw Example 1 Suppose an indication has been discovered which is a surface flaw, and has the
.ollowing characterized dimensions:
a = 0.357 in. t = 1.783 in, t = 7.75 in. The flaw parameters for the use of the charts are ( a g
= 0.046 0.20
{= Plotting these parameters on Figure A-1.1 it is quickly seen that the indication is acceptable by analysis. To justify operation without repair it is necessary to submit this plot along with this technical basis document to the regulatory authorities. Embedded Flaw Example 1 A longitudinal
- embedded flaw of 2.0" x 5.00", located within 0.10" from the surface, was detected. Determine whether this flaw should be considered as an embedded ilaw.
m u. .<=o . A.4
]
2a = 2.0" ( S = 0.16" 6 = S + a = 0.16 + 1/2 (2.0) = 1.16 t = 7.75' . t = 5.0"
- Note: longitudinal herein means relative to the vessel or nozzle centerline, not the weld length. For the nozzle inner radius, and other regions of a nozzle, longitudinal is relative to the nozzle centerline.
and, . a = 1/2 x 2.0"
= 1.0" Using figure A-1.2:
a = 1.0 7 7 75 = 0.13 6 = 1.16 7 T5= 0.15 Since the plotted point (X) is above the diagonal line, the flaw must be considered a surface flaw instead. Now, since the flaw must be considered as a surface flaw, the depth must be redefined as the distance from the surface to the deepest point of the flaw. This is equivalent to circumscribing 'the embedded flaw with a semi-elliptical surface flaw. Operationally, the parameters are recalculated as follows. Defining a* as the corrected crack depth for the surface flaw, s a* = 2a + S = 2.16" ( t = 5.0" ( p = 0.278 mm ma. A-5 l l
.--.,-I
l l {=0.432 Referring to Figure A-1.1 for the surface flaw,.it is quickly seen that this flaw is much too large to be acceptable, and must be repaired. Embedded Flaw Example 2 (Point A) Suppose an indication has been discovered which is embedded, and has the following characterized dimensions: 2a = 1.15 in, t = 1.72 in, t = 10,53 in. S = 0.86 in. Calculating the flaw parameters, we have: I a = 0.0545 j = 0.333 6 = S + a = 1.43 in. {=0.136 Plotting these parameters on the embedded flaw evaluation chart, Figure A-1.2 it may be quickly seen that the indication is embedded, and is acceptable by analysis (point A), since it lies below the a/A = 0.333 limit case. mi=-wone is A.6
- . _ _ _ . ___:::_ : x_w _-
. +
Embedded Flaw Example 3 (Point B) l I Suppose an indication has been discovered which is embedded, and has the following characterized dimensions: 2a = 1.68 a = 0.84 1 = 2.55 t = 10.53 S = 1.52 Calculating the flaw parameters, we have: 0.08 {= {= 0.33 6 = S + a = 2.37
= 0.225
{ Plotting these parameters on Figure A-1.2 (point B) we see that the indication is acceptable, since it falls below the line which is applicable to a/t = 0.333. (Note that if a/t = 0.167, for example, the indication would not be acceptable, since point B would lie above that line, as may be seen in the figure.) i mm- mus A-7
Embedded Flaw Example 4 (Point C) ( A longitudinal embedded flaw of 1.15" x 5.38" was detected at a distance S = 1.075 in. underneath the surface. Evaluate the flaw for code acceptance for continued service without repair. The flaw geometry parameters are determined as follows: t = 7.75' S = 1.24" 6 = S + a = 1.937" , t = 6.52" and a = 1/2 x 1.395"
= .698"
(=(h) = 0.25 { = h = 0.107 a . 698 7 = 7 7 = 0.09 Evaluate the fin by referring to Fig. A-1.2 and plotting the point (as point C). This is above the code acceptance limit line for a/t = 0.167, which should also be used for a/t < 0.167; therefore, the flaw is not acceptable, and must be repaired. 1 mm-ea.= ie A-8
,-y. .-y.------ ,.--*-y - . , - - - - - - , - - - . , , . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --r - m y - -- - -
n I i UPPER UMITS OF l ACCEPTANCE BY ANALYSIS INDICATIONS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AB0VE THE ANALYSIS LIMIT LINES . 10 f z_- 2 s . ' 'M.'. T
- m. - _.. . . ..
.:- --.- . . . - . .. . f- 's ' ..:. 4
..,y -. IN THIS ZONE, INDICATIONS
;... y,ar s. ,,,
[ ", it
-~ # + + '. k
' ~~ - '"
@[ ~ " ARE ACCEPTABLE BY ANALYSIS 9
~ N Ya = /
PER IWB 3600 5 N. b4 ,y d,p 4. - - -
. 3=MM
-: .;L- .:.
.m. K,\. ;/ ,- .
, e, y.
g . ,
,ke_/s-2
; .:- - i.:. 2 d.L . .
4 ' e
'e . . .. r .. r.
X :-. t x ,- ,,X .:- 2 _ . .'.. .
;CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT
~
Y t y .- / ' .;, . SINCE 1983 WINTER
} [../
E -- pE :. m p.C..'-- "~ ADDENDUM g gy ..
~~
-f -
/ . .
(:
' - pf . ' . .
y ..,..
;/
E** nd C J. . ---
=. .:- -. o
/:::: i __ .O ..
jissp8 n
. . .:: _._ _.:. : . 2 ,, f. - -
iF FLAWS PLOTTED BELOW THE APPLICABLE "CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT" LINE ARE 1 .. - CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT :- 2 #".*$"" se
- PRIOR TO 1983 WINTER .- * -- ' ACCEPTABLE WITHOUT ANALYSIS OR FUTURE MONITORING.
.! A.DDENDUM, . .... . . f
.+ .:. .
. l
.:g 2. :
.. .u. .:.:j. . .. u _-
...c ._ l . . . .
; .. . l
, 0.10 O.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 O
FLAW SHAPE (a/f) si Figure A-1.1 Exagle of Surface Flaw Evaluation i a .
! mn :. .
48/45/10030 1 ( SURFACE / EMBEDDED l FLAW DEMARCATION LINE, BEGINNING WITH 1980 CODE X O .1 3 . . . _ . . . . . . . .. ........................ = iE'idh?!it ' ': 'il
- li iEMSEDOEO FLAW 10E.j[. 'im[.~.' :m3 '.',': :. :-SURFACE / EMBEDDED CONFIOuR ATION i .;u""" $
li itus :+ "'3%..: "- ' --~I = = = / FLAW DEM ARCATION LINE, UP TIL 1880 CODE
~ - "
i #! /i
~
.: 1 0.12 -: '_ . . T:
/*W.EE iiriiif. "Mi!E iiii T
- = == ~.." :'='::. . . .: :- ...
. . . . =. = au eI- =5 ' 5- "=
- = .
- .:nh.
r".=
=
4-EMBEDDED FLAWS i=.s:..il:.. !=~E - =; : !! m= siiffii 3J 0.11 ...:;:: 1t= =".:. :!:c _ p
-i _N=
!- "/. 1:
1 PLOTIiiD IN THIS
~ ii / !! ii@?.i -/li. -i i = REGlGN (ABOV APPLICABLE a/ LINE)
'ijf.!/.j; j-:i ;jj- Ti iif g =yi!E:p 0.10 := q]iti:
ird:E :. ..
==-:_ =-~ :- '-. '" =-. :w= ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE
- = "-uu= .:a
.. .:: =. . -u: - .
= . . ..:."" = =~ "~
"' '" ~ "
;:fui E in:iitM a/4 = 0.333 ,
aT., 0'09 "fih2:i .: -: jAsf" /i! .ifiabi! ;; -
- :== = an a. t. :. y.:g, . .
~
=: e -
- . ....v2 g- . :;: ,..
r..
- . e.=,a h 6 E ,
* = . .= - - -
I*'~ . j ..
.Y %$ $0 f:di: d, iih_ .
.u: -.. e
.'biE'. .~: p"= . ..:y
,# = " ' -
f". -. = 1 6 "4 0.07 =ii:1:'.,/':": :i:1.'u. ig:ui J .j.ir---j :1fi:liEl s nrAct! :/jg=jii..iiii:i." :4 ;E ..[ .:6 g , lI: iYllWs l'N T'His' ii[:li i @ li[5: :: "L E5 i@iiiifri ifi .
+
( s 0.06 intoioN Musi at 1;gi~- 3 2. ge up A' mi H E ..: Ei.. !!! mif:i- - .- ~~ O Jconsio3Rgo 7-.
...: :rn n.:
g i sumF Act piiw 4 - 13 - 0.05 = :!n 5- +
- n :. -r "3
+"rLAws
- =. i!-- .
;f. i=1 :..::/:' =c; =:= . - *i!-i
- Y YE 8 :" i *i! '
s :; "ii -'
- EMBEDDED FLAWS IN 5 0.04
- .: : e i- :i.i.i. .... . . THIS REGION ARE i..E.i.!.:..: =, .- i' P: . ..i.u.. . : .
. =.. . .. ACCEPTABLE PER
.. = . . = . . -
- ,. ... ... =_ :. . =_. =. , .. .
u. CRITERIA OF IWB 3600 0.03 .
- ...:::'. ~ " .~ ::: ..
-.an ...-- .:. . .
- n n- :---
IF PLOTTED POINT FALLS
-n-.
.m; g: ni:
BE OW THE APPLICABLE
.;;: ni i -. s i=- = ..
i:-i fi/ ... .... .. . a LINE 0.02 ..r.
.i
=. :
=
c- u =. :::: :n.:. :.:.~n.:
'!: 24 Ei! " E M # ~ ' '
"i Si "
0.01 liii !!!! Ii!'
~
- s !!: ' .: it'
-M. ! '
i ' O 0.25 O 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE h Figure A-1.2 Example of Embedded Flaw Treatment A-10
--.,.m , _ . . , _ . , - - _
A-2 BELTLINE (INCLUDING MIDDLE-TO-UPPER SHELL CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD, AND j LOWER-TO- MIDDLE SHELL CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELDS, AND LONGITUDINAL SEAM WELDS) A-2.1 SURFACE FLAWS The geometry and terminology used for flaws in the beltline region is depicted in Figure A-2.1. The following parameters must be determined for surface flaw l evaluation with the charts, o Flawshapeparameterj a o Flaw depth parameter where a - the surface flaw depth detected, (in.) 1 - the surface flaw length detected, (in.) t - wall thickness at the beltline (t = 7.75") The surface evaluation charts for the beltline are listed below: o Figure A-2,2 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw 'X Longitudinal Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw ,_, Circumferential Flaw o Figure A-2.3 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw _ Longitudinal Flaw l Outside Surface ___ Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw o Figure A-2,4 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface Embedded Flaw Circumferential Flaw o Figure A-2.5 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline Inside Surface X Surface Flaw _ Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface _ Embedded Flaw , X_, Circumferential Flaw l ( .- (
=u. mae A.31
)
A-2.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS (~ The geometry and terminology used for embedded flaws at beltline is depicted in Figure A-1.1. Basic Data: - t = 7.75 in. 6 = Distance of the centerline of the embedded flaw to the surface (in.) a = Flaw depth (Defined as one half of the minor diameter) (in.)
, t = Flawlength(Majordiameter)(in.)
= Maximum embedded flaw size in depth direction, beyond which f a, it must be considered a surface flaw, per Section XI l
characterization criteria. The following parameters must be calculated from the above dinensions to use I the charts for evaluating the acceptability of an embedded flaw I ( o Flawshapeparameter,{ o Flawdepthparameter,{ o surfaceproximityparameter,f , l The evaluation chart for embedded flaws in the beltline is shown in Figure A-2.6. h embedded flaw in this region will be acceptable regardless of its a size, shape and location (as long as g < 0.125) as shown in Figure A-2.6 and discussed in Section A-1. This determination can be easily made by ploi, ting the indication parameters on the figure, to determine if it lies below the appropriate demarcation line (i.e. embedded not surface). l - ( .
'.i.i. A-12 i . . . . . . - . - - - . . - - - . . -
l, - __ , . _ _ _ _ . , , _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ - . _ - _ - . . _ . _ . . - - _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ , _ . - _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _- . - - . . - . -
WALL l THICKNESSt i I i ( o~ > (
.-Fl-7 V_.
-- -- e I
- 35.06" FLANGE TO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ M N WEW e -
f i 96.07" 1 L - WLO
!aasia=- TYPICAL EMBEDED FLAW INDICATION I00,53" - ~ 7.68" WALL o
LO'aER-TO-MI DDLE""* *~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ " " - THICMNESSt CIRCUHFERENTIAL WW g 100.66" . I LOWER FEAD RING TO* - *-~~~~ - " - - - - " - - " - LOWER SHELL WW 29.72" o I LOWER HEAD RING TO LOWER HEAD WELD -- ( f 5.00" l t NOTE: THICKNESSES DO NOT INCLUDE I INSIDE CLADOING TYPICAL SURTACE FLAW INDICATION
~
Figure A-2.1 Geometry and Terminology for Flaws at the Beltline ( miw i. g.33 l 1
~~
^E._..__
e e l b c n r. o
. al im s ta i ru t epc . s . pd i h ei0 m n rm tct0 eu ee ld 7 ai c y6 ld el ,al3 bn bd 8 y e a- ae aA 9 w nsn8 wd w 1 D 0a oia6 od or l e s e
N 3l z 1 lA E ,f sadn we l are lt ani u o G il oi hg E 0e eW L 2l hfC t a dn et d n O w a
.b a eEi oi o3 i
e s 0 l 0t ncMr CM C8 s 7 wF 1 p iaSe 9 u 2 a ec hc e hfAt tr iuyr i E3 M8 S9 E1 So t e < F a l l i Ta Wsbc A1 At Tl t
- - - - Da n Nn e D I i r A B C R d e
( uf B C D t m f1 5 ei u
]
I n g c
] 0 i n r l oi t L C l
e B 1 i l X e
, fl 4 s
s a e w 1i V w a a l l r l F oF l' t d
- l' l
c e e a c d i Re afr ba l 1
. 3 #a r u m 0 ( oS E m
i E f
, P t A
,, r X H a nr S h
*fi\
j C o W a n A n e c 1 1 i.' i,, : 2 L l o ca f a i q;, 0 F t f r _ 0 5 ,
,, ' a r u u u S 3 ;
. ' I L,, l S e a
- i v ed E d i i .i
_ ,i i s 2 s t 0 qA f,' L l'i'J t l
' 0 1
2 I O n u A 2 o g i','f' ' V i i' ,' I e X
,', r
,I
',3.'l u
g 1 pt < { ['
, , ' ,l,'
1,' i i F
. J',,
p# i 1 _ a
$~l l i
.I:
9 6 4
,. 0 8 s 4 2 o 3' 1 1 3 1
_En.1(wa kaL u _ m
>b 3 .* ,. ., ,f !\l!
$i 4 _
e e r l b c n o.
. al i m
_. s epc . t a 'i s . ru pd - t _ i hei0 rm tct0 c y6 eu ld m een ld ai 7 _ e* ,al3 bn bd 8 _ y e a- ae aA 9 _ w nsn8 wd w 1 D 0a oia1 od or s N 3l z 1 lA l e e
,f we l are l t ani m E
E 0e sadn il oi hg a L_ 2l hfC t a et dn d eW e
,ba eEi oi o3 i t
)
F w 0t ncMr CW C8 e s
- a 1 p i aSe 9 0 l e hfAt E3 E1 W 2 wF ec hc i t r uyr i M8 S9 So C 2 a l l Ta W ',b c A1 At < F a i
- - - - Tl t Da n A B C D Nn e T i r 3 R d e C O ( u f g ; 5 t m l
l' 0 ei n g c u I i n r l oi t L C j l e I B l X 4 e s . l 0 s
e w V w a I a l rl F oF 3 '.
t d 7o ll c a c d e e
- t l e a d l
l 3 #a R f e r b _ 3 0 l r u m
- E oS E o . ! P f A t 2 ;
" H r X
- l n jb S a o
o n j W h C 2 LA i u e [ n n e c
/
n o c a
'" ;j 0 F i a f
" t f r IT a ru Su s
t l S e
"l l
a l v ed E E d i i s 1 3 s t _ n ! 0 n u O i
" i 2 I
_ - l
". N i A
].l eX 01 r l
. u g
'.. . i j ,,
l F r ,, O 0 3 5 4 2 g a 5 4 2 3 l 1 1 1 1 gW1 ?$G ke e, n u. n T= _ ii ' _ i
, l l
~
e e l b c r. o
. al n i m ru - s epc.
ta i s . pd t hei0 een ehld i rm ai tct0 c y6 l 7
.al3 b bd 8 el aA 9 y e a-
_ C 0a w nsn oia8 z 1 1 lA w a& o w or l e
. 1 so N 3l m E .f sadn ue l ar lt ani e o
G E L 0e 2l iCC h t oi a eu dn d eW fs s
.b oi o3 es w a eEi C C89 e a 0t ncMr 1 p iaSe W wF l
ec hc e ht 'n A t iuyr i E M S E1 So C l a l Ta Wsbc A1 At F ai
- - - - l t a n A B C 0 n e i r g D d e k 5 u f g 1 0 ei g t m u c t
" i n r l oi t L C l
' e B
ln@i j' 0 <i l X 4 e s 0 s e w 0 V w a a l 3 - ; rl E o F E t d
~
c a c d e e 1 3 # e a d R f e a y'l 0 l E r ur bm l i i P oS E f 0 g A 1
. , " I H t r X g
' i S a ll ,
i n W h C A e i i i 2 L n o e c c i, l
' l' ,,
u gI 0 F i a f a l l I. t f r p , H a r u d u u S l S p a e v ed E d i g 1 i s 4 s t
-u 0 n u D
# 8 2 I A
l l 1 8 { e X r u
..y' <
i F g 9' 0 2 0 . 6 4 2 o 0 s i 6 1 4 1 1 1 2 g i ES $< au e s
. e.
e e n e m TE ljll}l [ .l
^
LEGEND A - The 10, 20, 30 year ! acceptable flaw limits. 8 - Within this zone, the g surface flaw is acceptable
.,g '
;j by ASME Code analytical
; 1 j }
l l ' criteria in 12 -3600. l l I 18 , ! i I l l l C - ASME Code al?owable since I I I ' 1983 Winter Addendum. is . f ; D - ASE Code allowable prior 14 (B to 1983 Winter Addendum. g - . l l 12 --
, II I f
-1 T
5 1 O. 10 ,--,
' (ll I-i :
l l^l 2
}}
l O l, I I U-I j .-q
$ 1 il gl- j lll I il # -
4 ll It -
-l l
. lI lt I{} i l
1 lp !,li l - lll j ll ! C c ausinske== ies7 l ' II 2 Il llWilWlf J[MW ! 03 H 0.4 lt ) 05 l O E1 02
. y FLAW SHAPE (at)
Il
. 4 Figure A-2.5 Evsluation Chart for Peactor Vessel Beltline X Surface Flaw Longitudinal Flaw
_ inside Surface X Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw l
- 2. u. - i.
~ ' .
i l l l l l l ( SURFACE / EMBEDDED ; FLAW DEMARCATION j LINE, BEGINNING WITH 1 1980 CODE l 0.13 . . _ - . _ . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . - .m
; ; "" # " 4 Ein-iii #- "id .ni H: -E EMBEDDED FLAW FI. .
,- FLAWS WITH 7 m.
au--
==
,.qn.q=.
C.ON, .FIG.U..R. .A..T.IO.,.N. 4f=- ,: :: -.a.....t. : u / ABOVETHIS LINE ARE 0.12 : r- n. :1;. :. .::
.n a_: p. s an =.-::i .
.r
.,u.fu. a .a.=.: uu :=
u: n- = a/1. u
=. .., = . . .... ..._. . . =_. NOT ALLOWABLE
- .. :na. = . ... .=._ :._ . = . . .=u. my.J r:., +. . . =
m.. .._
, . . .J
-:: =. : .. ::- .y
- A. m. .
t:
].
M :m!F W M'U$nM its"'!Efi-M ' \ SURFACE / EMBEDDED
!5Eif :!- /: 'l
!!#E" =i .i i . init M E- :
D? 'Ei".M5 i'fi-"n = # FLAW DEMARCATION 0.10 != g; =_ 3g_,,, =; g;3;3g; ;
@[Ts/ yi jf. g: ug7 assp,g LINE UP'i.L 1980 CODE
- =.:-.""
m:e:."~~~" =_=:-
-" d
-_ . . .~"' " ' ' ' ~
.T 0'09 * - 'M it: . : di A ~ 5% s" it/ iM ii=riWi M is=i:3=#!i=
~
iEE 5
=" : M .i %4MfdLEii 5/-! REMMMHEEi!
g 0.Os .. .. .
-_: =.,., ---i_..m ..:.Ein
.J + ,s yrt a e :!; f.:ni s;..)!!-fi-4 iEi iEEf~ "9 iiC :s g E_=. i:j A""1Vdi:r.lig"ii~ ~' ~ '
"- '"~ EHi!"i:-5'
~~" ~ ~
g- . SURFACE'
' . .""iEl .=a==
- .; = =- :
u m ~: ":-- n u" =.
- . - :*n:I:c:l:: . :: f aF:n: / a. .. =-:. L=i.
- .n :; :==
g : Z MFLAW8 IN THIS Ni[iI: M ![UN5.": :'MN$5 -$$:' . . p O.06 f.REoioN uusi sE y.= = := = .: = .= .= == Q 3 CONSIDERED W= A r'. *=. "":u
"#~' = ** ..*
- h 0.05 j 5U9 FACE [EljEifs i@ ii '35."E'. 'lii I5:~-.$3i'Ei -.91
( b ggws, w,_j; 3;7 =9 =gp; j,ii g;qg;5 73 ; ggi 3ia g 4 mi ua . -- i 'd.j iis; :=E- i . -iiFi= . : =ii i=: i:+5.
- ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS
- li .ri-_~Y - - -
z o 04 ..u".
. ..: r..; -.a". . . .. :._;. = : = u m
=lnu (ON THIS SIDE OF
=:--fr.:
- 2. :
n>- :; = =: -- .- = =i:===. cu
=.- : -= -=.. DEMARKATION LINE)
_=.. _ . . . . . . . .. -
. . ;= a = = =" m..+- ni=:
nr.m :-..R/ u/.ats__= .
-u tir i:i; ARE ACCEPTABLE PER g -d si 11l: 11;g1 ):.1 gg Eii:=- Mi is
's s a:/ "f :.( iqga CRITERIA OF IWB 3600 i
= " OU AS LONG AS 2a t. 0.25 0'02 Eii#1":s "li E):ii M isEli@ it. t M/ i " Jsti i- t .u..
E ai. = E in- "iMi E E E 0.01 =ff fi s=. _sM = i:E Esijn- iniFE. . . .ni JEi g -::]=ii :s .._ut-E a .:ii:.-m ?=. =iil: .. . . . . . . .. . . . .
.. ~
.-1: ?!
rn. ep sn- ..;.gms :m i. g;-m s =: == a; g O 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE d) Figure A-2.6 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline X Insids Surface Surface flaw X Longitudinal Flaw
,)L Gutside Surf.ce X Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw
( .
=w == io A.18
A-3 INLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELD (PENETRATION) t' ( A-3.1 SURFACE FLAWS The geometry and terminology for surface flaws at the inlet nozzle to shell weld is depicted in figure A-3.1. The following parameters must be determined for surface flaw evaluation with the charts o Flawshapeparameterj a o Flaw depth parameter { where a=Thesurfaceflawdepthdetected(in.) t = The surface flaw length detected (in.) t = Wall thickness at the inlet nozzle to vessel weld (t = 10.53') The surface flaw evaluation charts for the inlet nozzle to vessel weld are listed below: o Figure A-3.2 Evaluation Char for Inlet Nozzle to Shell Weld Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface Embedded Flaw Circumferential Flaw o Figure A-3.3 Evaluation Chart for Inlet Nozzle to Shell Wald Longitudinal Flaw X Inside Surface 1 Surface Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw o Figure A-3.4 Evaluation Chart for Inlut Nozzle to Shell Weld X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw Inside Surface X Outside farface Embedded Flaw 1 Circumferential Flaw
=m - . A.ig
- . - - . . _ _ _ ___ __ _- n ..
A-3.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS The geometrical description of an embedded flaw at the inlet nozzle to shell weld is depleted in Figure A-3.1. Basic Data: t = 10.53 in. 6 = Distance of the centerline of the embedded flaw to the surface (in.) a = Flaw depth (defined as one half of the minor diameter) (in.) t = Flaw length (major diameter) (in.) l a, = Maximum embedded flaw size in depth direction, beyond which it must be considered a surface flaw, per Section XI characterization rules. The following parameters must be calculated from the above dimensions to use the charts for evaluating the acceptability of an embedded flaw o Flawshapeparameter,f o Flaw depth parameter, a{ o surface proximity parameter, f The evaluation chart for embedded flaws: o Figure A-3.5 Evaluation Chart for Inlet Nozzle to Shell Weld a X Inside Surface Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface X ' "' edded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw a m-== i. A-20
anut r I - knek Vtisti ELD
... _ r t
FLAW AT - PERITRAT!WL_
/(-. f SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW OMgh'- - 155.5 10.
- U 9.12 - U
- NOZZLE TO f SHELL WLO l 0.25 CLADOING l
38.40 L 1 l . U g e 27.47 + h- 33.07 =
= 55.5 NOTES:
I. Dil4INSIONS DO NOT INCLUDE CLAD
- 2. ALL DIENSIONS ARE IN INCES Figure A-3.1 Geometry and Terminology for Flaws at the Inlet Nozzle to Shell Wald (Penetration)
( , wu+a.m 5. A-21
e e r l _ b c o .
. al n im s ta epc .
i s . ru pd t i hei0 m n rm tct0 c y6 eu ee ai ld ld 7 el ,al3 bn bd e y e a- ae aA s D 0a w nsns oial* Iod wd w or 1 e N 3l z lA l e s E ,f sadn we l ar lt ani m e G il oi e e w E 0e et eW W a L 2l hfC e
,b t a d :r d m i a eEi oi o3 e wF 0t ncMr CW C8 s a a 1 p iaSe 9 B l l ac e hfAt hc iuyr tr i E3 M8 S9 E1 So 9
0 F a l i t Ta Wsbc A1 At a n n e i r d e A B C D u f t m B d i gu c l
)
k ) 5 e n r 0 W oi L C l l e h S X
!' o t w 4 e a w al
' 0 l l F z F z d o e e N c d a d l t f e l
e ru bm
- l nS E 3 #a I 0 (
r E oX P f A t H r S a
" h
" W C
'll A e 2 L n e c i
0 F o c a _ liu i a f n t f r a r u u u S c,,. l S a e v ed
' E d i l i s
" 1 2 s t
!n 0 n u u 3 I O E n a,
l A U eX 3 , I' r u g i 2@ 3ly l
,n F l]
1 [ ;lli g 0 2 0 e 6 4 2 0 s 6 4 3 I 1 1 1 1 gi 5"a i n z$ a.n . i m Y% 1
~
LEEND l A - The 10. 20. 30 year acceptable flau limits. B - Within this zone the surface flau is acceptable 20 , ,,
, , by ASME fode analytical
** },
u Ij, j h, ,,, .. criteria la 115-3600. 1. l l , . . l Ill I ! II l C - ASME Code alleuable slace i I' t 6 : 1983 Winter Addendum. 16 D - A9E Code alleunble prior g ' 14 to 1983 Winter Addendum. i i l j l { r -3 12 I ' ' ' w 10 Jl i ll I Y
- jj 3
I ; l l : ll -. 1_j-g l-l illll ll "" j l ll ll[ ~~ l ]lN]l LW U!uFhiiililliiHl !Il llll l' 0 IEEIR klIl1 R R 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 l - FLAW SHAPE (a#1 1
- Figure A-3.3 Evaluation Chart for Inlet Nozzle to Shell Weld X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw Longitudinal Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw 3.u.- i.
6 e _ l e r _ o. b c _ _ . al n im ru s epc.ta i _ t s . pd _ i hei0 m n _ rm tct0 eu ee ld ai c y6 ld el , al3 bn bd _ y e a- ae wd aA w W D 0a w nsn8 oia6 od or 1 _ N 3l z 1 lA l e we E ,f l lt w _ G sadn are ani a E 0e il oi L 2l hfC a et dn d eW wF l t a
.ba eEi oi o3 l l 0t ncMr CW C8 F a 1p iaSe 9 i e E3 ec hfAt tr i M8 E1 0 l t a n Wsbu y r.
hc i S9 So n e Ta A1 At i r
- - - - d e uf C D t m A 8 d i gu c l
a e n r W oi 5 L C
' l 0 l e
h r S X X o i t w
' w a l j e a l F
4 l l z F
- l' i10 z d j
1' o N c d e e a d
, i t f e e r b l u m - n S E
{l j ii !l i
.h H 3
)
t I r a
.I I' ~ 0 (
E f oX 1!'! jIl! jy
'i
_i P A t r H a
.?
3 y h S C II ll ; e
- !i !
g '
'! 2 LA W n e c o c a i a f MI 1j I 0 F t f r I l' a r u u u S Nll!:1i l S a e v ed lj g I E d i I
.l i s
.i 4 s t l l'lI l n u l
1 2 I O ni0
~
.. l A
_ l lIl e X _ 'l r k' 'llhH u ly .N I W g kE l l ll I l[ i
.R I I
,! l l i i l V
F _ l !l _ ;l 0 s 0 s g 4 , O 0 s I 4 3 2 1 1 2 I i
,' 75EE0m5 i Y2
_ ,.I :I!!'
, i
, . 8 -
l l
( SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION LINE, S EGINNING WITH 1980 CODE 0.13 . . . .. . . . .. MN Ei .' ;:!!F W-lEdi F .: d' EMSEDDED FLAW 2'i [;
- =.: =- .- g..dm:,. .:: C O N, FIG. ,U..R. .A. T.IO,.N .:f-..:.-
.r,2:
.m. . ./
FLAWS WITH 8 t nu :-: : .. : : - .:. .
, -:. ;u 0.12 -. m .,,,,:=:
= . yf. :: ABOVE THIS LINE ARE n
2::-n. .m., -e .. . x. . . ,-. . = . . f .
=,l_6 G ':-
Eii G ' $ =n i." ss NOT ALLOWABLE
~
E:;" ..En, r. .,
=
~
..'" -i:r "
'"* b ** " "
O 11 ':: == a= ...:., = .n-:.. ,. a u.: . ..:= = en .' . . :. N
- .=:: "..
. :=
.. r: = n=a ::::
= ui = := u=mc r:== SURFACE / EMBEDDED -
E; i":i=: mi s' . : .- ::: :- E.p ;jiif iti-EE 'di t fge:!#ii !'r FLAW DEMARCATION id 9 /WiiEd" LINE UP TIL 1980 CODE
...' ii#iM='
16E = 'i tw
.. s- . . .. -z_... . Lfi!!f.'. " ' . :j.is, U"
*E _.N "
e7 0'09 fI5 I =. iii 5 k i'F.$ 51 [Hi5. :Eil@hi5i'rT= 5 fi: h 0.08 = . . =_. .W g.,: egap :n. . f.nn.::. = = . _ =:=,(_
. b
. . ..=.
.. = . . = _:m=. ==. .- .
r: :- t = s ..: ga := u=-1 :. .u
-~
=
6 ;rnj .
< --l
.=.
.. ..2r. . . f.= . ... : . .= . . . .=. . . . .. = _ .
g 0.07 ..sunrACE ... .. W O
" ._**^5= t=t" - ~
l ". ...' Y, "E5E "'*'"h5 E55. _ . j flaws lN THis N[il! 5 DEN 5= . .5-5 ~* NN5 555
% 0.06 m RtoiON uusi et .7~.p*= : g.~ =.; :
"*# " = "#
=
""= . .
' . =." :=*
Q ::: CONSIDERED "J 9suAFAct :t=i: .i' : :J. sii J 0.05 4 flaws f:ili..: E? f.:.9iisii . .-:R . .. ::: : ~ .::r.": r Z
... . ::".:liif:
-s me e- /!: 1:= /:P =T Mi-ErE :s !!eE. =5:..n! E I :!!- t E
y o'y a 1 =1s ya ! yA= :s #1-L=# .:
- ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS
- " =ri - Ti b"i- .
E air n- (ON THIS SIDE OF
. ii.i__si.:.im_.5: .
. (:i ".. .f.:: s... .i. ==. .i .:.i. .E.. . i._. .:. ' as.;i._:in.ui
_ ZL. DEM ARKATION LINE) id6
- = =!: =:i"- i= :- :!d=.i:
'g :8 E F.. / = = , = =i; ---
ARE ACCEPTABLE PER
=i-M ?.ifi/r.;stM+ FE iE E 15 i!iiiii lii? ai iEli 5 id CRITERlA OF IW8 3600 2
AS LONG AS ,,ad,0.2 5 i ' '
~ ~" . -
0 02 g "5i.:: igi :ig iMEiii a p .t=.t g /3 p al.=w i. .: _ t
'iifff;ijiE: .a; ri ..;;: .urj:n t'- ni iiii. "di ia- n:._ ,i .iiiHiilEi..E j 0.01 t .. . -
.r :- E = =m=
m 3: = f: :=i= =i =! = . . _m r0 E i
-~9.11 =~
~
~
'ij fir -
udf.ii 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE d) Figure A-3.5 ' Evaluation Chart for Inlet Nozzle to Shell Wald ( X Inside Surface _ Surface Flaw _X Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface X Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw m u.** ' ' A-25
l A-4 OUTLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELD I The analyses of the outlet nozzle to vessel weld showed a very complex stress state in this region. Consequently two separate sets of evaluation charts wer. constructed. The geometry most nearly corresponding to the angle of the indication should be used, or if there is some doubt, use both sets of charts, and take the mort limiting result. A-4.1 SURFACE FLAWS The geometry and terminology for surface flaws at the Outlet Nozzle Penetration is depicted in figure A-4.1. The following parameters must be prepared for surface flaw evaluation with charts. o Flawshapeparameterf o Flawdepthparameter{ where a - the surface flaw depth detected (in.) 1 - the surface flaw hngth detected (in.) t - wall thickness (t = 11.11) t The surface flaw evaluation chart for the Outlet Nozzle Penetration is listed
~below:
o Figure A-4.2 Evaluation Chart for Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw Circumferential Flaw o Figure A-4.3 Evaluation Chart for Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld Leng;tudinal Flaw 1 Inside Surface X Surface Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw min-. g.26
o Figure A-4.4: Outside Surface Flaw Evaluation Chart - outlet nozzle full penetration, (longitudinal and circumferential) ( . A-4.2 EMBEDDFD FLAWS The geometry of embedded flaws at the Outlet Nozzlv to Shell Weld is depicted in Figure A-4.1. Basic Data: t = 11.11 in. . 6 = Distance from the centerline of the embedded flaw to the surface (in.) a = Flaw depth (Defined as one half of the minor diameter) (in.) . t = Flaw length (Major diameter) (in.) ( 6 = Distance of the flaw i;o surface. (in terms of wall thickness e.g.6=1/8T,etc.)
= Maximum embedded flaw size in depth direction, beyond which a, '
it must be considered a surface flaw, per Section XI characterization rules. The following parameters must be calculated from the above dimensions to use the charts for evaluating the acceptability of an embedded flaw o Flawshapeparameter,{ o Flawdepthparruter,{ ! o surfaceproxiettyparameter,(
~
Figure A-4.5 l Evaluation ch' art for embedded flaws: l f mu. - e A-27
- --- - ~ . . .... ,, ..__._
l l g 9~ ,_. t~ LCIE!TUCIIIAL 9.12 *
. 9.12 ES ((q$DlW O. 56 HI .
3.25 3 9.12 - 1r 44.53 th) unuu 35.41 h \ 12,13 \ l
\
u o u 5 . 5 I
-- ss. 50 -
= 5l.00 =
NOTES: I. OIMNSIONS DO NOT INCLUDE CLAD
- 2. ALL OlHENSIONS ARE IN INCT S Figure A-4.1 Geometry and Terminology for Flaws at the Outlet Nozzle to
( Shell Wald mu. a==1s A-28
LEGEND 20
- A - The 10, 20, 30 year io acceptable flaw limits.
"D 8 - Within this zone, the 20
'f
~A surface flaw is acceptable by ASME Code analytical g
[, } criteria in 118 -3600. I' I li C - ASME Code alkowable since
,, Ij l I ! 1983 Wi.ter Adde .
D - ASE Code allowable prior
- 14 1 I- to 1983 Winter Addendum.
y 1
-;l II
,.l l-f 8 .'
4 12 g to : - .
> k e 1 fl ll n'
~
- >l l >
' tn} i i L <
Ilu !.i!iiii -
, L I i l
. l [
o e.1 e.2 0.3 84 8:3 > FLAW SHAPE la#1 ; j Figure A-4.2 Evaluation Chart for Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw l _ Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw , MIN 19 I
^
^ '
20 t.EGEND A - The 10, 20e 30 year iO
' acceptable flaw limits.
3 B - Within this zone, the A g surface flaw is acceptable 20 g u ; by ASME Co's analytical criteria in IWB-3600. l ,.
! is g C - ASME Code allowable since 1983 Winter Addendum.
16 i D - ASE Code allowable prior 14 4' ' to 1983 Winter Addendum. 7 ,
)
12 1 (s
, b l [
t to O ! i E I
< s Y d 8 s ;
C
'i ,f ,
,,,,,3 ,,,,,,,1 ,,7 l ,..
D 2 , ; i l il i l ll L 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 FLAW SHAPE (a#) . . Figure A-4.3 Evaluation Chart for Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longttudinal Flaw l Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw f i asiwmenee ne
LEGEND A - The 10, 20, 30 year acceptable flaw limits. s o,2 o,30Y" 3 - Within this zone, the . surface flaw is acceptable
.- by ASME Code analytical 3 ll .}.
f{! j4i '!.llt !! , lp: Il '
} f, criteria in 118-3600.
. ,. ll .
, i, ,
u , I C - ASME Code allowable since I : 18
'l
! s f !
I ill f ]. l ! 1983 Winter Addendum. D - ASE Code allowable prior
} l .
to 1983 Winter Addendum.
~ i- >-
g 14 l .I l{ t } , I i f' 12 l'; -
!g l $mn.! g
~
lb'l i l 0,.; T k I k
* # 8 ! l !' i !ll
. ' hll
!{$l Il l{I. l l lll I l "'l niillllI C
a e % ==
., H H l11111 M N ! M l M i iriHfi i T """" .
0 - 0.4 0.5 l 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 ,
' f FLAW SHAPE (afi ,
Figure A-4.4 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Baltline Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw l Circumferential Flaw X h tside Surface Embedded Flaw X 3s83e-98080819
l 1 1 4 l l f ! SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION LINE, SEGINNING WITH 1980 CODE 0.13 .._ . .. _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . . . 20 .~#
. . ."2 ti: i= :~n EMBEDDED FLAW Hi [; HF*
j ii:~ iisfif ':: . . .^Nd
. - .r/:.:-r..
/ _ IbSNI NIIN ~8I e: =r .
q ui %*p : .~-CON,,F.IQ,u. U..R A.T.IO,.N.
- =r.: a:: .r. :
0.12 a=.:a .u.:..=_ x. p..y.
. -.u.
2 . . . .,,
,, r:... n;..,w. . .f..
a;a - u.. z..., .: . = . . t x). ABOVETHIS LINE ARE E-=u;.s
~
E6 2 =;: NOT ALLOWABLE
. ' ' : 2%" a.eea .. i.c b- . n :u2n "T) r.. u r .i 0.11 = . =. . . :.= , .
. nt] ..=.
- f. . . = .=.
. _: . = -
./il: EiE:!#..
. if. m-_
PEE i='.i!E, : Es_ as !! E i
=
- SURFACE / EMBEDDED EE EEi" 9 iril
~
'i; M ;RFii "
.E:i'EM[se# i FLAW DEMARCATION 0.10 LINE UP TIL 19B0 CODE
- =n- nM2fu!f
- g;3=:
= : t . :..=: ::,
.gua ;;
7 ;,
-n-..
m a; M
.m. .n = _f ===:.: .=_.
. = . ._t.
eT 0'09 -*4W4E- t it A L-=e ii'. fi '.7uis Eiri9k-i s '.tEMnM ;n e
.ux.: =:1= :
'='" = : :. --::
= ?
=- .: 'tg . .:haa:=:-::==::f.
.m 1Mt
~= :rJ : :-= .: .=:: ::- :t=:n g .
lEf: .W+ ,s pg a si sii 'f:it:MiM(sMi W Eis=M i-a:i'=.
$ !EEi'fii. 1": 8 '4 ==9 fii EEj E/9li- .i Ei n.1:iErii E g
0.07 7 :- -: sunFace : ."~ :- T. r- :..::: : :r . .: _. I '. :2. I,:EEE E g ~
#E-EE O ~ " O "I = 8" -- t'=
Z i3 FLAWS IN THis F$I:I! 5 i$ IIN N iY:'5~= Ei 55 : r 0.06 jngo,oN uusT et g-- 3= ;.3:J r.- -igi ,. :g =- . .. ;.---g=g . .3 -- " -
- n ;g --
O qCON5'DERED . aSURFACE g :dl E [.:idi E #:E E ii:'Mi:~ " . Z M Ei l 0.05 .4 flaws :::
- n. .: ::: 1 . .. r. 7: Z:22 : : ' :' . r . a ii. = - -- - .- -fi = / .ii EEU E .:FE:
i:EE==?: b *A EMBEDDED MWS j 0 04 a fi r W=: Y -
.@ # l: 5
=. = .=--:: ::: ur u .ai:
=. =.= (ON THIS stDE OF
. a
=. == --f-r.: 9 ...: == =
ua
- :.=- ;; =
.. =.. =..= - -.- .
DEM ARKATION LINE)
= an =ur. _:: ..: . -
=
=_-u: :. : - 2".1".: ==::. -e -. . .m.: .:
ARE ACCEPTABLE PER 0.03 f.- ::: :. ~- x .. = - --
- "ti
. . .-:i=
-= .Af =T.utan = r- -,-. :- = E :ni" CRITERIA OF IWB 3600 2
i i - d " AS LONG AS ,,,at.0.25 0'02 " MMim- "!! iS~AM #E.EE= E Wm t
? fff "--4):
a;#wMi SEE 454 a'g fr1/nia W lii sM rt !E ?E
=i
[ :Ei. !E 3E:E5 5 lu :Jn t $5 5 N: 5#5L51 3 : 'i 3.E
-s,: :- '
.::f .iiE H i 'i! . :. hrili E =
rij fna 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE d) Figure A-4.5 Evauation Chart for Outlet Nozzle to Shell Wald Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw X Ir. side Surface X Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flew ( X Outside Surface mm ui. A.32
A-5 LOWER HEAD RING TO LOWER SHELL WELO I A-5.1 SURFACE FLAWS . The geometry and terminology for surface flaws at the Lower Head Ring to Lower The following parameters must be Hiad Weld is depicted in figure A-5.1. prepared for surface flaw evaluation with charts. o Flawshapeparametersj o Flawdepthparameter{ where a - the surface flaw depth detected (in.) 1 - the surface flaw length detected (in.) t - wall thickness (t = 4.875") The surface flaw evaluation charts for the Lower Head Ring to Lower Head Weld . are listed below: o Figure A-5.2 Evaluation Chart for Lower Head Ring to Lower Head Wald X Surface Flaw X_ Longitudinal Flaw 1 Inside Surface Circumferential Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw o Figure A-5.3 Evaluation Chart for Lower Head Ring to Lower Head Wald X Surface Flaw Longitudinal Flaw Inside Surface X Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw _ Outside Surface o Figure A-5.4 Evaluation Chart for Lower Head Ring to Lower Head Weld X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw Inside Surface f Embedded Flaw 1 Circumferential Flaw X Outside Surface _ l l l I l
= =- is A.33
A-5.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS ( The geometry of embedded flaws at the Lower Head Ring to Lower Head Weld is depicted in figure A-5.1. Basic Data: t = 4.875 in. 6 = Distance from the centerline of the embedded flaw to the surface (in.) . a = Flaw depth (Defined as one half of the minor diameter) (in.) 1 = Flawlength(Majordiameter)(in.) a = Maximum embedded flaw size in depth direction, beyond which n it must be considered a surface flaw, per Section XI characterization rules. ( The following parameters must be calculated from the above dimensions to use the charts for evaluating the acceptability of an embedded flaw o Flawshapeparameter.{ o Flaw depth parameter, *g o surface proximity parameter, 6 Evaluation chart for embedded flaws: Figure A-5.5.
~
i l i m-. A.34
mish , mruN=g _ .____,._ _: ; ;
- r
- i g M.07' E
m R fi b T s) 100 53'
=
~ 7. M*
s_ si f I.i pag _ g .____ ____. j -- s s iM M- , g s 4 I
.______ _ _ _ _ . m ,C , , coco g *,, g a g ,To -[ FLAW INDICATION LO ci ><Ao mtNo to _ _ _ _ ,
,'E I 3',,, _
LOSER >(.AD W
%!Cu 55 t 5.00* i NOTEe TH!CKTSSES 00 NOT INillDE INS 10E CLAD 0!NG 1
~
# .03 "~
* " BASE ETAL) l
= 79.53R .
(SASE ETAL) l LOWER HEAD RING TO LCNER EAD HELD LOWER HEAD RING 79.25R f TO LOWER SHELL % ELD (BASE ETAL) TYP! CAL SURFACE FLAW IPCICA710N 5.00
\
t BELTLIE Ato LCNER EAD REGIOtS l NOTES: 1. DIMEN510NS DO NOT INCLUDE CLAD 0!NG
- 2. ALL DIMENS1ONS ARE IN INCE S Figure Ai5.1 Geometry and Terminology for Flaws at the Lower Head Ring
( to Lower Head Wald miawn. i. A.35
^ ^
c LEGEN0 A - The 10, 20, 30 year acceptable flaw limits. to 20 o36 8 - Within this zone. the 20N\'g i
} [
A surface flaw is acceptable by ASME Code analytical
* ' ) criteria in IMI-3600.
. iu .
18 -,: q, C - ASME Code allowable since gg l' 1983 Winter Addendum.
'\\
I l
" i D - ASE Code allowable prior
- 14 to 1983 Winter Addendum.
g g I 12 6 i Ei 10 o 1 l l T ! s i E $ i , 5 /
" C C + 1ggy 4
" 0
,,,,,,,,,,,niin,onono" 2 iiii.iii. .i". "' "'i'm
- 4. ; i .
I 'I !" l O 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 FLAW SHAPE la#l i-Figure A-5.2 Evaluation Chart for Lower Head Ring to Lower Head Weld X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw Circumferential Flaw w w ,.
i ;
;I m e l e r b c n
o.
. al im t
s epc ta. i s . ru pd hei0 m een i rm tct0 eu _ ai c y6 ld ld i _ el e
,al3 a
bn ae bd s y w n s ar. 2- wd aA w n O N 0a 3l o'i z 1 lA od or l e i E G .f sadn we l are l t ani . E L 0e 2l il oi hfC et eW m s w
,ba t a dn d = a eEi oi o3 l 0t ncMr CW C8 = wF 1 p i aSe 9 d a ec e hfAt tr i E3 M8 E1 M
= l eF a l l hc Ta 1 uyr Wsbc S9 A1 S o, At e W l it d a n
- - - - a n e ei r A 8 C 0 H d e uf r t m f C e i u 5 w g c o n r c
I L oi
, 1 L C
- ] i
.ll L t
o l1 g l L i n X l R i Il i 4 d w il f ! c a w a e a l H l F F r d 7 . i il ! e e e 2 w c d 8
- h o a d L f e r ur m o !
9
. L[ b l
) b l 3 # oS E 3, a l o ( f 0 ' E t b P
;! ,I lI A r X 2.,
I a H h og jl ' 4 l ' H S C e W n e c o c a
^
2 LA i a f t f r
/,, ;
0 F a r u lI u u S
;j , ! ' 1- !;
iN l l S a v ed e i E d i l
,k i s l
3 s t
.H n u l
5 I O
.S 10 I
I A N l eX r u
;y O
l i k g l i i , L; t F i
' ! ' i i
o h . - s o 0 8 a 4 2 . s ' 2 1 l 1 1 i N= 5 m. e Y
e e r
^ l b c o
. al n i r
s ta i p t epc. s . i hei0 m rm tct0 eu e , ai c y6 ld l el ,al3 bn b . y w e nsn8 a- aewd a w ,. D 0a oia1 od o N 3l z I lA l E ,f sadn we l are l a E 0e il oi e L 2l hfC et w t a dn d a
.b a eEi oi o l 0t ncMr CW C wF 1 p iaSe d a ec e hfAt tr i E3 M8 E l l eF a l
hc iuyr S9 f S A
. . W i t
Ta Wsbc A1 l d a n
- - - - a n e ei r A 8 C D H d e uf
$ rt m ei w guc
_ u 0
=
o n r l L oi i i t o L C I"l - g n X X l i
!I f
l i R l 4 d w iH d, 0 a w a e a l i H l F F r d e e e Ql il lI hl w c d o a d l L f e lhil 1
) r b
' j !l l
3 ta r u m 0 l oS E i f l l
' i 1
4l M , E A S P H t h C r X a e iI 1 ! I
' i ll L1 il l4I!
I 2 0 F L W A n o e i a f t f r a c ca r u
!' u u S I
l S a e
. I v e d i 1 i
l l E d ii s I 4 s t n uO [ l; 1l
. 1 5 I h
I w 0 A e X W' r
] .
l u g
!MEgJ I'
i ll I F . l l l! I! 0 _ 0 s 4 2 , 2 O _ i 3 1 , 2 l: . i i i' ! .l)i l! j l : : i Ii
1 I l l i 1
]
i ( . SURFACE / EMBEDDED s FLAW DEM ARCATION LINE, BEGINNING WITH 1980 CODE 0.13 . . .. . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . __ f2. . . =F "i:di!U ':._. lN$ *.. h:di: EMBEDDED FLAW 52..[ '-FLAWS WITH 8 wa__ . ..s. 9.. _g....p. . _.
.i cO N,,F.IG.U..R A.,T_IO N t/-. ._:ii:. .; ;,, ,. /.. . . ._ . ..
ABOVE THIS LINE ARE 0 12 ,- = _= . ._ . = .. .. = .. = -_.n.p %m. .. . ., . 2_4= = . . .f:: =_a.. n. .z.u..
"~
' ..annf
. ' Z F" E=- i. T :e 7 T. NOT ALLOWABLE E. L ~ . J:"a r:ru V '"W==i f a= .. : ::j r..i$-
- .=_ .=. . . . ,. .. . _ . . = 1 n=
.._=_= .gg
=.~g
. . .=.. _ . . .g..)
.r -
0.11 ._.
.. 7 .g . . g.g . ._.. s SURFACE /EMDEDDED
~~
" ' ~
- OEMRCA M 0'10 Egli :-i. =_=i:1 -i til!1.=:5 k-i /.ef;i.:yi= :i7.gEgE:ig l LiNE UP TlL 1980 CODE
.._=_ =_ :.-
.j._. . .. .. . . . . .
L. ... - . . . eT., 55 Iir :5 5 $ 553EM-[ !5
. :: ::=
Ei$hi5 :._a.=u 52- - I}5
- "- =;.=:
**" == ..::
n'
= ..U .A t =
=*::(T.*Tf:.=
g 0.08 "f
." - 7 _. . . "f5n1 !
=. :' =. .W9 .8 pm.4ae :.n. .. ./. n.
* "_-=. .l=. ,I_== _ . =.* . .= . . .=. .
q y =. n_=.= . . . "3*.??" -;== g= = :-+ =:.= = n= -- A
- ==f.= = t : t .= :u== :: ;r:n.= n.. :=.
an n :::r.
=._ . = _=. ...
0.07 s--T_. su n r Ac t .: _
. . = .....iE=i g
. - _= ::{i 6 : E
= ..= *- t:.nl=t:::_ =.i./.
.:- n--=: /. . .. .== ,
g r-m
== =ux.: ~_: :-n = =
ws m ms Fg.u 2
== aJ
- n- = , : g== -=_ ==:=: -
% 0*06 p, REGION MusT BE f: j"::='
- u. an u_. . . : =- :.. : un = .=: ==
(~~=='*= "= === u u:=
= =
C ACONstOERED *- -M SsuRPAcl Ef.E E=E.? E= sME : t=i J 0.05 9 n.Aws f:m . .:
~
- n .::.1: r Z... ' :' ..
-- /i a/ =.m:r ..ss =i :!: ==r =- e?:EE
=
"I 9= --- -n -n-Erik .= V:st=fE iEEE ~=+ iga @ ti 5 ii
- ALL EMBEDDED l' LAWS E y a o4 = un == m r. ._ =: .=.: --
== ua = = :- = p:. = =; (ON THIS SIDE OF
=_.=. =:.- - -f:.: -) .=__= . . .=._
. _ = .. .-.=
=
- ==
~
- = =. =.:. . .; DEMARKATION LINE)
..(. . . . . . .. ._.
;-= :. . . . .
ARE ACCEPTABLE PER 2 ::~._:: . ._.T"
. . . "' ~
'"7_::: :-
0.03 Z :".' ::~/:pf ::...._ ...
= == :E 51: a =ie3== . . .-::.-.i=- CRITERIA OF IW8 3600
-fE 7== 2:-...i=:
= =i ". E g Eg g_f.f= Ea Ei=.M = .i E :; iip. !. g,4 Egg: AS LONG AS 2.a & O.25 ii i:ff a_ c:itE g:;Hiii =ga.=.ih j=i i;gau gi da.t t 9,o, ?//e fi=X=i :=-"=M tiIdii E ~E f:,i:=s !E E Ei 5.~
1: =0E =u = =.=m :iv::= -. - - m: E w Em= =s= = a s l
, f gi
=p:. = : =e-lu n =.5 : -
e ; =. rm E m 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 i DISTANCE FROM SURFACE h 1 I Figure A-5.5 Evaluation Chart for Lower Head Ring to Lower Head Weld Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw X Inside Surface X Outside Surface X Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw (
= m- a i . A-39
J-- - . ~ . . . , e APPENDIX B CRITICAL FLAW SIZE RESULTS I l l I - I ( mi=+=s io B-1 f
TABLE 8-1 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE
SUMMARY
FOR BELTLINE REGION (INSIDE SURFACE) . Flaw Continuous Flaw Aspect Ratio = 6.0 Aspect Ratio = 2.0 Condition Orient. inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t Long. ag = 2.50 (0.323) ag = 5.51 (0.711) ag = 7.75 (1.0) E/F Cire. a g = 7.75 (1.0) a g = 7.75 (1.0) ag = 7.75 (1.0) (Steam Gen. Tube Rupture) r%, (0.44) ag = N/A N/A E/F (LSB) long. ag = N/A N/A ag = 3.39 Cire. ~(0.34) a g = 7.75 (1.00) ag = 7.75 (1.0) - ag = 2.21 long. (0.33) ag = 5.74 (0.74) ag = 7.75 (1.0) - E/F (Small LOCA) ag = 2.25 Circ. a g = 7.75 (1.00) ag = 7.75 (1.00) ag = 7.75 (1.0) - E/F (Large LOCA) Long. ag = 7.75 (1.00) ag = 7.75 (1.00) ag = 7.75 (1.0) , Circ. ag = 7.75 (1.00) a g = 7.75 (1.00) ag = 7.75 (1.0) Long. a = 3.83 (0.494) a = 7.75 (1.00) a = 7.75 c (1.0) .- M/U (Excessive c c Circ. ac = 7.75 (1.00) ac= 7.75 (1.00) ac= 7.75 (1.0) . FeedwaterFlow) 3D1N 99
TABLE 8-2 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE Sl*94ARY FOR BELTLINE REGION - OUTSIDE SURFACE Flaw Continuous Flaw Aspect Ratio = 6:1 Aspect Ratio = 2:1 l inches inches a/t : Condition Orient. inches a/t a/t , Long. a = 3.54 7.75 a = 7.75 1.0- a = 7.75 1.0 N/U/T c c c Cire. ac= 7.75 7.75 a = 7.75 1.0 a = 7.75 1.0 Cold Hydro c c
?
w Long. N/A* a N/A* ag = N/A* N/A* : E/F' ag = N/A* 3 = N/A* Cire. a g = N/A* N/A* a g = N/A* N/A* ag = N/A* N/A* LEGEN0: > a c Minimum critical flew size under normal conditions , a g Minimum critical flaw size under faulted conditions
*The emergency / faulted (E/F) case was found to be less critical at the outside surface than the normal / upset / test ;
(N/U/T) conditions, because the stresses are compressive for the E/F conditions. Therefore, these cases were not ; subjected to fracture analyses. MIPs/WAESIG 19
n TABLE B-3 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE SIM4ARY FOR INLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELD - INSIDE SURFACE Aspect Ratio = 6:1 Aspect Ratio = 2:1 Flaw Continuous Flaw inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t Condition Orient. ac= 10.53 1.0 ac= 10.53 1.0 N/U/T Long. ac = 5.41 .514 1.0 Excessive Circ. ac= N/A N/A a c" A A "c = 9.16 i Feedwater Flow 1.0 ag = 10.53 . 1.0 E/F Long. ay = 1.032 .098 ag = 10.53 a g = 10.53 1.0 ag = 10.53 1.0 LOCA Cire. ag = 1.27 .121 i l LEGEND: i a c Minimum critical flaw size under normal conditions ag Minimum critical flaw size under faulted conditions
- Governing transient for charts mium .
n m I TABLE B-4 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE S'DG4ARY FOR INLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELD - OUTSIDE SURFACE s i Aspect Ratio = 6:1 Aspect Ratio = 2:1 Flow Continums Flaw l a/t inches a/t inches a/t Condition Orient. inches a = 7.16 .68 ac= 10.53 1.0 i N/U/T Long. ac = 4.10 .389 c
- ac= 10.53 1.0 ac= 10.53 1.0 Loss of Flow
- Cire. ac = 8.29 .788
) N//
- ag = N/A* N/A*
E/F Long. ag = N/A* N/A* ag = N/A* N/A* sg = N/A* N/A* Cire. a g = M/A* N/A* ag = N/A* LEGEND: ag Minimum critical flaw size under normal conditions ag Minimune critical flaw size under faulted conditions
*The emergency / faulted (E/F) case was found to be less critical at the outside surface than the normal / ups Therefore, these cases were not (N/U/T) conditions, because the stresses are compressive for the E/F conditions.
subjected to fracture analyses. . M N
m, .- t _a - i TABLE B-5 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE SUW4ARY FOR OUTLET N0Z7tE TO SHELL WELD (Inside Surface) Aspect Ratio = 6:1 Aspect Ratio = 2:1 Flaw Continuous Flaw inches a/t inches a/t Condition Orient. inches a/t
= 5.11 0.23 ac= 11.11 1.0 ac= 11.11 1.0 N/U/T Long. a c
ac = 1.11 1.0 ac= 11.11 1.0 Turbine Roll
- Circ. ac= 11.11 1.0
?
oi 0.245 ay =11.11 1.0 E/F Long. ay = 1.29 0.116 ag = 2.72 a g = W/A N/A ag = N/A N/A LSB Circ. ag = N/A N/A LEGEND: a Min hum e,ritical flaw size imder norral conditions, cold hydro c .' ag Minimum critical flaw size under faulted conditions N/A Results not available
- Governing transient for charts 3992smeeSEB te
0
^
^ :
TABLE B-6 CRITICAL FLAN SIZE
SUMMARY
FOR OUTLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELD (Outside Surface) i 1 Aspect Ratio = 6:1 Aspect Ratio = 2:1 Flaw Continuous Flaw
- inches Condition Orient. inches a/t inches a/t a/t 1
= 0.45 ac= 11.11 1.0 N/U/T Long. ac= 3.22 0.29 a c
ac= N/A N/A ac= N/A N/A ac= N/A N/A Cold Hydro Cire. L . N/A ag = N/A N/A E/F Long. ag N/A N/A' ag = N/A a g = N/A N/A ag = N/A - N/A Circ. ay = H/A N/A l
; t' i
i LEGEND: a Minimum critical flaw size under normal conditions, co7d hydro c :* ag Minimum critical flaw size under faulted conditions 9
*The emergency / faulted (E/F) case was found to be less critical at the outside surface than the normal / upset / test Therefore, these cases were not (N/U/T) conditions, because the stresses are compressive for the E/F conditions.
subjected to fracture analyses. . N/A Results not available niw
+ ^ -
TABLE 8-7 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE SUW4ARY FOR LOWER HEAD RING TO LOWER SHELL WELD (INSIDE SURFACE) Flaw Continuous Flaw Aspect Ratio = 6:1 Aspect Ratio = 2:1 Condition Orient. inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t Long. ac = 2.93 0.M ac= 4.875 1.0 ac= 4.875 1.0
, N/U/T e's Excessive Cire. ac= 4.875 1.0 ac= 4.875 1.0 ac= 4.875 1.0
~
Feedwater Flow
- Long. ag 0.436 ag = 4.875 1.000 ag = 4.875 1.0
- E/F = 2.12 Cire. 1.000 aj = 4.875 1.000 ag = 4.375 1.0 LS8 a3 = 4.875 l <
1 LEGEND. I j I a c Minimum critical flaw size under normal conditions ag Minimum critical flaw size under faulted conditions l
- Governing transient for charts ,
291N 90 l
r
" n .
1 i TABLE B-8 i i CRITICAL FLAW SIZE SUIWARY FOR ' LOWER HEAD RING TO LOWER HEAD WELD (OUTSIDE SURFACE) l Continuous Flaw Aspect Ratio = 6:1 . Aspect Ratio = 2:1 ' Flaw
- 1 inches a/t inches a/t i
Condition Orient. inches a/t , i ac= 4.875 1.0 ac= 4.875 1.0 I , N/U/T Long. ac = 2.3% 0.492 ac= 3.193 ac= 4.875 1.0 ac= 4.875 1.0 ; j e Turbine Roll
- Cire. 0.655 Long. 4.875 ag = 4.875 1.0 ag = 4.875 - 1.0 E/F ag = 2.672 4.875 a g = 4.875 1.0 a g = 4.875 1.0 ta Cire. a3 = 4.051 i
LEGEN0: a c Minimum critical flaw size under normal conditions ag Minimum critical flaw size under faulted conditions
- Governing transient for charts
==
m?' 4 8 e f e ( APPENDIX C FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RESULTS l l m u.+m o C-1 I
l 8ELTLINE REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH
- LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR-CRACK ;
LENGTH 10 20 30 40 l 0.100 0.10297 0.10560 0.10834 0.11141 a/t = 0.0 0,300 0.31799 0.33316 0.34905 0.36636 0.500 0.53457 0.56587 0.59941 0.63366G O.800 0.86544 0.92893 0.99871 1.07716 l 1.000 1.08915 1.17854 . 1.27B80 1.39385 ; 1.200 1.31613 1.43681 1.57620 1.74225 1.300 1.43140 1.57062 1.73477 1.93512 1.550 1.72659 1.92503 2.17617 2.48940 0.100 0.10112 0.10194 0.10276 0.10362 a/t = 0.167 0.300 0.30905 0.31666 0.32432 0.33239 0.500 0.51781 0.53233 0.54707 0.56250 0.82772 0.85118 0.87491 0.89958 0.800 1.03325 1.06173 1.09053 1.12031 l 1.000 ' 1.200 1.23805 1.27093 1.30415 1.33830 1.300 1.34018 1.37499 1.41018 1.44626 - 1.550 1.59475 1.63402 1.67375 1.71434 i I i i [ m,u-osease se c.g t
,_. - . . _ , . . _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ . _ , . _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ . ~ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ . _ ,
BELTLINE REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH I - CIRCVNFERENTIAL FLAW , INITIAL CRACK. LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK 10 20 30 40 LENGTH 0.100 0.10029 0.10051 0.10071 0.10093 a/t = 0.0 0.300 0.30559 0.30980 0.31392 0.31842 0.51655 0.53068 0.54518 0.56063 0.500 0.83247 0.86220 0.89248 0.92424 0.800 1.04105 1.07914 1.11826 1.15934 1.000 1.25608 1.30162 1.34794 1.39615 1.200 1.35949 1.40802 1.45890 1.51202 1.300 1.61870 1.67575 1.73367 1.79345 1.550 0.10010 0.10018 0.10024 0.10032 a/t = 0.167 0.100 0.30188 0.30329 0.30463 0.30608 0.300 0.50722 0.51287 0.51841 0.52425 0.500 0.81267 0.82270 0.83265 0.84294 0.800 1.01548 1.02830 1.04104 1.05429 1.000 1.22245 1.23762 1.25260 1.26808 1.200 1.32275 1.33802 1.35302 1.36841 1.300 1.57467 1.59177 1.60868 1.62596 1.550 i I l ma- i. C-3 L
. . . . . m,m,-
BELTLINE REGION EMBEDDED FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH (ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK 10 20 30 40 LENGTH 0.20023 0.20041 0.20060 0.20078 0.200 0.25035 0.25064 0.25092 0.25120 T = 7.75 in. 0.250 0.30050 0.30091 0.30131 0.30171 6 = 0.484s8 in. 0.300 0.32057 0.32103 0.32148 'O.32194 0.320 0.35061 0.35108 0.35156 0.35205 0.350 0.40079 0.40141 0.40203 0.40266 T = 7.75 in. 0.400 0.45099 0.45178 0.45257 0.45336 6 = 0.72656 in. 0.450 0.50122 0.50219 0.50317 0.50415 0.500 0.56138 0.56247 0.56356 0.56465 O.560 0.64180 0.64322 0.64465 0.64609 T = 7.75 in. 0.640 0.65186 0.65333 0.65480 0.65628 6 = 0.96875 in. 0.650 . 0.70184 0.70324 0.70465 0 70607 0.700 j 0.80239 0.80423 0.80608 0.80794 T = 7.75 in. 0.800 0.90303 0.90537 0.90773 0.91009 6 = 1.45313 in. 0.900 1.00375 1.00667 1.00960 1.01255 1.000 0.90256 0.90445 0.90635 0.90826 0.900 1.05353 1.05616 1.05881 1.06147 T = 7.75 in. 1.050 1.20468 1.20822 1.21178 1.21536 6 = 1.9375 in. 1.200 1.35605 1.36067 1.36533 1.37003 1.350 l ( mm- no C-4 l j
8ELTLINE REGION EMBEDDEO FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH (ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 0.200 0.20005 0.20009 0.20013 0.20017 0.25008 0.25014 0.250?0 0.25026 T = 7.75 in. 0.250 0.300 0.30012 0.30021 0.30030 0.30039 6 = 0.4E4 in. 0.320 0.32014 0.32024 0.32034 0.32045 0.350 0.35011 0.35020 0.35028 0.35037 0.40015 0.40026 0.40038 0.40049 'T = 7.75 in. 0.400 0.450 0.45020 0.45034 0.45049 0.45064 6 = 0.726 in. 0.500 0.50025 0.50044 0.50062 0.50081 0.560 0.56022 0.56039 0.56056 0.50073 0.64031 0.64054 0.64076 0.64100 T = 7.75 in. 0.640 0.65032 0.65056 0.65079 0.65103 6 = 0.968 in. 0.650 1 0.70020 0.70035 0.70051 0.70066 0.700 0.80027 0.80048 0.80069 0.80090 T = 7.75 in. 0.800 0.90036 0.90064 0.90092 0.90120 6 = 1.453 in. 0.900 l'.00047 1.00084 1.00120 1.00157 1.000 0.90022 0.90040 0.90058 0.90075 0.900 1.05032 1.05057 ' 1.05082 1.05108 T = 7.75 in. 1.050 1.20044 1.20079 1.20114 1.20149 6 = 1.9375 in. 1.200 1.35060 1.35107 1.35155 1.35202 1.350 seiw is C-5
( BOTTOM HEAD TRANSITION REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH
- LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 0.200 0.20611 0.21181 0.21765 0.22403 a/t = 0.0 0.400 ., 0.41674 0.43204 0.44779 0.46462 0.600 O.62901 0.65583 0.68379 0.71390 0.800 0.84305 0.88375 0.92696 0.97401 1.000 1.05994 1.11881 . 1.18331 1.25582 1.200 1.28289 1.36900 1.46790 1.58561 0.200 0.20284 0.20537 0.20787 0.21056 a/t = 0.167 0.400 0.40789 0.41500 0.42208 0.42946 0.600 0.61219 0.62322 0.63425 0.64567 0.800 0.81567 0.82979 0.84391 0.85839
( 1.000 1.01836 1.03480 1.05132 1.06812 1.22093 1.23958 1.25836 1.27741 1.200 l t
. i
( . . I mia is C-6
, - - - . - , , - - - - - ~ - - ~ - ,-_. - , , , -. ,- , , ,
, ,, _ _ . , , ,7 .
BOTTOM HEAD TRANSITION REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH
- CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 a/t = 0.0 0.200 0.20867 0.21455 0.22044 0.22694 0.400 0.42194 0.43971 0.45805 0.47791 0.600 0.63691 0.66909 0.70256 0.73844 0.800 0.84B89 0.89244 0.93771 0.98568 1.000 1.09942 1.11310 1.16874 1.22748 1.200 1.26925 1.33273 1.39853 1.46793 0.200 0.20395 0.20667 0.20930 0.21218 a/t = 0.167 0.400 0.41127 0.41934 0.42739 0.43597 0.600 0.61745 0.63097 0.64448 0.65855 0.800 0.82088 0.83734 0.85373 0.87057 1.000 1.02307 1.04152 1.05989 1.07863 1.200 1.22461 1.24463 1.26452 1.28475
( I ! a n.4=.w ie C-7
80TTOM HEAD TRANSITION REGION EMBE00E0 FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWT ( (ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR ' CRACK 10 20 30 40 LENGTH 0.20015 0.20027 0.20039 0.20051 0.200 0.25023 0.25042 0.25060 0.25ui9 T = 4.875 in. 0.250 0.30033 0.30060 0.30086 0.30113 6 = 0.304 0.300 0.32037 0.32068 0.32098 0.32128 0.320 0.21015 0.21027 0.21039 0.21051 l 0.210 0.24019 0.24035 0.24050 0.24056 T = 4.875 in. 0.240 0.27024 0.27044 0.27063 0.27083 4
- 0.457 in. 0.270 0.30030 0.30054 0.30078 0.30102 0.300 0.25065 0.250 0.25019 0.25035 0.25050 0.30027 0.30049 0.30071 0.30093 T = 4.875 in. 0.300 0.35037 0.35067 0.35096 0.35126 6 = 0.609 in. 0.350 0.40087 0.40126 0.40164
- 0.400 0.40048 0.40042 0.40074 0.40107 0.40139 0.400 0.48107 0.48154 0.48201 T = 4.875 in. 0.480 0.48060 0.56146 0.56210 0.56274 6 = 0.914 in. 0.560 0.56081 0.60167 0.60241 0.60316 0.600 0.60094 0.70195 0.70280 0.70365 0.700 0.70110 0.80258 0.80371 0.80484 T = 4.875 in. 0.800 0.80145 0,83279 0.83401 0.83524 4 = 1.218 0.830 0.83157
- - . C-8
-~
80TTON HEAD TRANSITION REGION EMBEDDED FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH g (ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 0.200 0.20016 0.20029 0.20042 0.20055 0.250 0.25025 0.25045 0.25065 0.25086 T = 4.875 in. 0,300 0.30036 0.30066 0.30095 0.30124 6 = 0.304 in. 0.320 0.32041 0.32075 0.32108 0.32142 0.210 0.21015 0.21026 0.21038 0.21050 0.240 0.24019 0.24035 0.24050 0.24066 T = 4.875 in. 0.270 0.27024 0.27044 0.27063 0.27083 6 = 0.457 in. - 0.300 0.30030 0.30054 0.30079 0.30103 ( 0.25060 0.250 0.25017 0.25032 0.25046 0.300 0.30025 0.30046 0.30066 0.30087 T = 4.875 in. 0.350 0.35035 0.35063 0.35091 0.35119 6 = 0.609 in. 0.400 0.40046 0.40083 0.40120 0.40158 0.40034 0.40061 0.40088 0.40115 0.400 0.480 0.48049 0.48089 0.48129 0.48169 T = 4.875 in. 0.56068 0.56124 0.56179 0.56235 6 = 0.914 in. 0.560 0.60079 0.60144 0.60209 0.60274 0.600 i anim m ie C-9
DUTLET N0ZZLE FULL PENETRATION REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH - LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 0.600 0.62372 0.64156 0.65967 0.67874 a/t = 0.0 0.800 0.83187 0.85678 0.88216 0.90881 0.900 0.93587 0.96436 0.99342 1.02389 1.000 1.03981 1.07187 1.10460 1.13888 0.600 0.61408 0.62411 0.63412 0.64448 a/t = 0.167 0.800 0.81786 0.83094 0.84403 0.85750 0.900 0.91955 0.93410 0.94862 0.96354 1.000 1.02113 1.03707 1.05298 1.06935 ( f h ( mur*=*= ie C-10
f, , , ', . .. . . . I DUTLET NOIILE FULL PENETRATION REGION SURFACE FLAW ( FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH - CIRCUHFERENTIAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK' LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 a/t = 0.0 0.600 0.61789 0.63146 0.64506 0.65951 0.700 0.72180 0.73886 0.75607 0.77435 0.900 0.93645 0.96804 1.00083 1.03600 1.000 1.04240 1.07995 1.11910 1.16114 1.300 1.57806 1.65196 1.72992 1.81322 2.000 2.11111 2.21849 2.33122 2.63124 a/t = 0.167 0.600 0.61026 0.61740 0.62442 0.63132 0.700 0.71254 0.72168 0.73071 0.74020 0.900 0.91728 0.93052 0.94367 0.95737
, 1.000 1.01931 1.03433 1.04926 1.06480 1.300 1.52902 1.557.82 1.57657 1.60099 2.000 2.03642 2.05730 2.09793 2.12925 t
wn-esmu se c.11
.. y a.n -
OUTLET NOIILE TO VESSEL WELD REGION EMBE00E0 FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GR I (ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK. LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK 10 20 30 40 LENGTH 0.10002 0.10004 0.10006 0.10008 0.100 0.30019 0.30034 0.30050 0.30065 T = 11.11 in. 0.300 . . , 0.40060 0.40087 0.40114 6 = 0.694 in. 0.400 ' O.40034 0.50052 0.50094 0.50135 0.50177 0.500 0.20008 0.20014 0.20020 0.20026 0.200 0.40029 0.40052 0.40075 0.40099 T = 11.11 in. 0.400 0.60064 0.60116 0.60167 0.60219 6 = 1.041 in. 0.600 0.70088 0.70158 0.70228 0.70298 0.700 0.30015 0.30027 0.30039 0.30051 0.300 0.60058 0.60103 0.60149 0.60194 T = 11.11 in. 0.600 0.90129 0.90231 0.90334 0.90437 6 = 1.388 in. 0.900 0.95144 0.95258 0.95373 0.95488 0.950 0.50035 0.50062 0.50088 0.50115 0.500 0.90109 0.90192 0.90276 0.90360 T = 11.11 in. 0.900 1.30226 1.30402 1.30578 1.30755 6 = 2.083 in. 1.300 1.40263 1.40468 1.40674 1.40881 1.400 0.50051 0.50073 0.50094 0.500 0.50030 0.90094 0.90162 0.90230 0.90298 T = 11.11 in. 0.900 1.30195 1.30339 1.30483 1.30629 6 = 2.777 in. 1.300 1.40226 1.40395 1.40563 1.40733 1.400 (. m u.-esoeu se c.1g
. .e -
QUTLET N0ZZLE TO VE5SEL WELD REGION FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH [ l (ASPECTRATIO1:10)-CIRCUNFERENTIALFLAW t i INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR 1 CRACK 10 20 30 40 ! LENGTH 1 l O.100 0.10002 0.10004 0.10006 0.10008 ! T = 11.11 in. 0.300 0.30021 0.30037 0.30063 0.30069 : ^ 6 = 0.694 in. 0.400 0.40038 0.40067 0.40096 0.40125 0.500 0.50061 0.50108 0.50154 0.50202 i
. i
} i 0.200 0.20006 0.20011 0.20015 0.20020 l a=1 . 60 0 . 07 0.6 5 6 i 0.700 0.70085 0.70153 0.70219 0.70287 ; a ( O.300 0.30009 0.30016 0.30023 0.30030 T = 11.11 in. 0.600 0.60039 0.60070 0.60101 0.60133 l 6 = 1. 388 in. 0.900 0.90101 0.90183 0.90263 0.90345 [ 0.950 0.95116 0.95209 0.95301 0.95395 0.500 0.50010 0.50018 0.50023 0.50034 l T = 11.11 in. 0.900 0.90040 0.90073 0.90106 0.90139 l 1.30382 i 4 = 2.083 1.300 1.30109 1.30200 1.30290 1.400 1.40135 1.40247 1.40358 1.40471 , 0.500 0.50004 0.50006 0.50009 0.50012 [ T = 11.11 in. 0.900 0.90015 0.90026 0.90037 0.90049 l 1.300/1 1.30103 1.30135 l 4 = 2.777 in. 1.300 1.30039
. 1.400 1.40049 1.40089 1.40128 1.40169 k
-. c.33 !
' ~ ~' '
i
.~ l
( INLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELO REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH - LONGITUDINAL FLAW i INITIAL CRACK' LENGTH AFTER YEAR ASPECT CRACK 10 20 30 40 RATIO LENGTH 0.52595 0.54453 0.56368 0.58450 a/t = 0.0 0.500 0.74109 0.77358 0.80773 0.84500 0.700 0.95764 1.00601 1.05734 1.11288 0.900 1.17359 1.23695 1.30396 1.37652 i 1.100 1.49720 1.58445 1.67839 1.78131 1.400 1.71485 1.82101 1.93612 2.06368 1.600 0.51307 0.52074 0.52827 0.53630 a/t = 0.167 0.500 0.71856 0.73045 0.74219 0.75451 0.700 0.92308 0.93856 0.95389 0.96986 0.900 1.18252 () 1.100 1.12676 1.43070 1.14524 1.45251 1.16356 1.47414 1.49632 1.400 1.63262 1.65624 1.67959 1.70352 1.600 Note: Crack growth analysis not performed for circumferential flaws because of low stress values. The longitudinal flaw results were used in developing the flaw charts. m - ie C-14
I
- n '
.... .. . . . M .. . .?.
_u. . ~ - ( INLET N0ZZLE TO VESSEL WELD REGION EMBEDDED FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH (ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITI AL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 0.200 0.20009 0.20013 0.20017 0.20021 0.300 0.30020 0.30029 0.30037 0.30046 T = 10.53 in. 0.400 0.40030 0.40052 0.40067 0.40083 6 = 0.658 in. 0.450 0.45046 0.45066 0.45086 0.45106 0.500 0.50042 0.50061 0.50081 0.50100 0.600 0.60062 0.60090 0.60118 0.60146 T = 10.53 in. 0.700 0.70087 0.70126 0.70165 0.70204 6 = 0.987 in. . 0.700 0.70067 0.70099 0.70130 0.70162
. 6 = T/8 0.80090 0.P0132 0.80173 0.80215 l T = 10.53 in. 0.800 0.900 0.90117 0.90171 0.90224 0.90279 6 = 1.316 in.
l 1.10122 1.10186 1.10250 1.10314 1.100 1.20148 1.20224 1.20301 1.20377 T = 10.53 in. 1.200 1.30178 1.30267 1.30357 1.30448 6 = 1.974 in. 1.300 1.40211 1.40316 1.40421 1.40527 l 1.400 I 1.10099 1.10158 1.10218 1.10278 1 1.100 1.20118 1.20188 1.20258 1.20329 T = 10.53 in. 1.200 1.30139 1.30221 1.30303 1.30385 l 6 = 2.632 in. 1.300 1.40162 1.40257 1.40351 1.40446 1.400 Note: Crack growth analysis not performed for circumferential flaws because of low stress values. The longitudinal flaw results were used in m m W eveloping the flaw charts. C 15 [ ( _ . _ . _ . . . _._ _ . _ . . . ___ _.__.. _ .__._. _____ ..._ _, __ _ _ . __ ._ ____ _ ___ __}}