ML20214W997

From kanterella
Revision as of 22:12, 3 May 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 870521 Meeting W/Util in Bethesda,Md Re Results from Recent Tests of Steam Generator Tubes in TMI-1.Util Plans to Request Review of Proposed Change in Tube Plugging Criteria.Attendance List & Util Presentation Encl
ML20214W997
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 06/10/1987
From: Edison G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Stolz J
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8706160289
Download: ML20214W997 (61)
v • d • e


Text

-

r

.\1 # i June 10,1987 Docket No.: 50-289 MEMORANDUM TO: John F. Stolz, Project Director Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects I/II FROM: Gordon E. Edison, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects I/II

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

FOR MEETING WITH GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION CONCERNING TEST RESULTS FOR TMI-1 STEAM GENERATOR TUBES A meeting was held on May 21, 1987 in Bethesda, Maryland with representatives of GPUN to discuss the results from recent tests of steam generator tubes in TMI-1. An attendance list from the meeting is attached as Enclosure 1, and the GPUN presentation (including meeting agenda) is provided as Enclosure 2.

GPUN stated they plan to request the staff to review a proposed change-in the tube plugging criteria.

/s/

Gordon E. Edison, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects I/II DISTRIBUTION

Dockettn le.

NRC & Local PDRs PDI-4 Reading JStolz GEdison OGC-Bethesda EJordan JPartlow RWichman HConrad CCheng CMcCracken EMurphy PWu 8706160289 s70610 ACRS (10) PDR ADOCK 05000289 HBClayton, Rg I P PDR _

cc: Licensee / Applicant & Service List LAP -4 PDI-4 P

$N s QEdison;sr 4SL b/ /87 g/87 pf/ /87

p je +

Mr. Henry D. Hukill Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, GPU Nuclear Corporation Unit No. I cc:

Mr. R. J. Toole Mr. Richard Conte OAM Director, TMI-1 -Senior Resident Inspector-(TMI-1)

GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S.N.R.C.-

.Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 P.O. Box 311 -- .

Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Richard J. McGoey Manager, PWR Licensing Regional Administrator, Region I GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission 100 Interpace Parkway 631 Park Avenue Parsippany, New Jersey 70754 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. C. W.'Smyth .Mr. Robert B. Borsum TMI-1 Licensing Manager Babcock & Wilcox GPU Nuclear Corporation Nuclear Power Generation Division P. O. Box 480 Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq. Governor's Office of State Planning Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge and Development 2300 N Street, F.W. ATTN: Coordinator, Pennsylvania Washington, D.C. 70037 State Clearinghouse P. O. Box 1323 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Larry Hochendoner

' Washington, D.C. 20555 Dauphin County Commissioner Dauphin County Courthouse Mr. Frederick J. Shon Front and Market Streets Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. David D. Maxwell, Chairman Board of Supervisors Dr. Oscar H. Paris Londonderry Township Atomic Safety and Licensing Board RFDil - Geyers Church Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Bureau of Radiation Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pennsylvania Department of Washington, DC 20555 Environmental Resources P. O. Box 2063 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Poard Panel (8)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission Thomas Y. Au, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of Chief Counsel Department of Environmental Resources Docketing and Service Section 505 Executive House Office of the Secretary P. O. Box 2357 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Louise Bradford TMIA khhi!h,9eNylvania 17102

e >

Mr. Henry D. Hukill Three Mile Island Nuclear Station GPU Nuclear Corporation Unit I cc:-

TMIA 315 Feffer Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Bruce W. Churchill, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 l

l

{

l

, o Enclosure 1 ATTENDANCE LIST FOR MAY 20, 1987 MEETING

-WITH GPUN ON STEAM GENERATOR TEST RESULTS NAME ORGANIZATION G. E. Edison- NRC K. R. Wichman NRC/EMTB H. F. Conrad NRCEMTB(301)492-7065 S. M. Kowkabany GPUN Licensing F. S. Giacobbe GPUN Materials Energy C. Y. Cheng NRC/NRR/EMTB Conrad McCracken NRR/ DEST R. J. M'Goey GPUN Licensing E. Blake GPUN Counsel M.-A. Schoppman Florida Power & Light / Licensing T. L. Gerber SIA/GPUN Emmett Murphy NRC/EMTB Paul Wu NRC/CEB S. M. Otto GPUN Licensing J. S. Jandovitz GPUN ISI R. O. Barley GPUN/TMI-1 Plant Engineering i

l

, o Enclosure 2 THREEMILEISLANDUNIT1 ONCETHROUGHSTEAMGENERATORS OUTAGE 6RASSESSMENTS

. .. a Ii i .m GPUNUCLEARCORPORATION MAY21,1987

.. o AGENDA Overview- S.Kowkabany InserviceInspection-Outage 6R EddyCurrentExamination J.Jandovitz AbsenceofLeakage R. Barley B&WLaboratoryEvaluation TubeSelection S.Kowkabany Metallography F.S.Giacobbe BurstTest F.S.Giacobbe TubeSurfaceMicroanalysis F.S.Giacobbe DetectionCapabilityConfirmation J.Jandovitz StructuralAssessment-LehighData S.Leshnoff NetSectionCollapseMethodology StrainCon,trolledLoading js '

Conclusions I5 S.Kowkabany

OVERVIEW HistoricalPerspective PrimarySideDegradationExperiencedinPast o Primary to Secondary Leakage Discovered in 1981 o ECT (1982, 1983) DeterminedSignificantDamage o Failure Mechanism Established as Sulfur Attack o Failure Mechanism Arrested RCSCleanup ChemistryControlsinPlace o OTSG'S Repaired KineticExpansioninTubesheet PluggingTubeswithFreespanDefects 0 StructurallySignificantDefectSizeDefined 0 PrimarySideECCapabilityEstablishedandDemonstrated Adequathi f!

TR-008 "Assessinent of TMI-l Plant Safety for Return to ServiceAfterSteamGeneratorRepair"ProvidesDocumentation o Augmented 0TSG Inspection Program in Place Through Outage 6R AtomicSafetyandLicensingBoardandNRCStaffConcurred withTR-008 Conclusions

m C 1984ECTUncoveredNewIndications o HFT(1984)ExercisedPreviousDegradationintoECT Detectability 0 Comparisonof1984ECTResultswith1982/1983TapesShowed NoTrendofThroughWallGrowth ASLBDeterminedPreviousConclusionsUnchanged OutageSM(March 1986) o ECTResultsShowedNoTrendofT.W. Growth o BubbleTestsShowedNoLeakage Conclusions o DegradationNotOngoingMechanism o CapabilityExiststoSizeStructurallySignificantDefects

o PrimarySideECCapabilityEstablishedandDemonstrated Adequate j%
!R 1

OVERVIEW (Cont)

SignificantRecentEfforts InserviceTesting-Outage 6R o ECT Showed No Trend of Ongoing Degradation a Bubble Test Showed No Leakage LaboratoryEvaluationofPulledTubes o Metallography to Confirm ECT Capability o Microanalysis to Confirm Absence of Cortodant o Burst Test to Establish Strength of Tubes ArchiveTubesPulledtoDestruction o Demonstrate Conservative Results of Net Section CollapshAnalysis o Prov de$ata on Inconel 600 Behavior (Inder ControlledLoadingConditions, i

INSERVICE INSPECTION OUTAGE 6R i .x i 85

,1__.,,s x _e_ s k a d

-- - ~ ^

OUTAGE 6R INSPECTION BASIS A. EXAMINATIONS REQUIRED BY TMI TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS B. EXAMINATIONS REQUIRED BY TOPICAL REPORT TR-008 C. GPUN ELECTIVE EXAMINATIONS y.

!E l

i i

m s..

(/r j

~

g, a P t , ,

i. ,

ECT TECHNIQUES UTli17 ZED ,

j- -

A. DUAL EXAMINATION- METHOD  :-

(t '

BOBBIN PROBE (.540 HGSD)

-DEPTH .

l

^ '

-AXlA,L LOCATION ,

-\OLTS

- AXIAL EXTENT i. -

i

, /,-

r t' ,..

8X1 ABSO OTE(.187"dOILS)

-CONRRMATION OF BOBBIN INDICATIONS

-CIRCUMFERENTIAL EXTENT

. B. BOBBIN c LABSOLUTE TECHNIQUE 0;" ^-

-WEAR

. C. 8X1 ABSOLUTE l -KINETIC EXPANSION AREA 1

a s OUTAGE 6R INSPECTION SCOPE AND RESULTS (REFERENCE TDR 839)

NUMBER OF PLUGGED DEGRADED EXAM BASIS TUBES INSPECTED

________________ TUBES TUBES SUBSET A B A B A B T.S. 4.19

- DEWADED TUBES 245 21 16 6 MA WA

- RAPOOM SAMPLES 1412 3279 0 8 8 9 TR 008

- TUBES ADJ TO 68 111 0 0 1 1 PLDGGED TUBES

- HGH PLUG 43 58 1 0 1 0 DENSITY AREAS

- HNETIC EXPANSION j _A_ 3- 33 0 -1,1_. 0' 0

  1. EEAS , m '~ '

GPUN ELECTIVES

- DOICATIONS NOT 18 7 0 2 5 1 CONFIRMED IN SM

- LAME / WEDGE 415 418 1 1 2 0

-LOWSIGNAL TO 97 13 2 1 9 1 NolSE I TOTAL 2321 3938 20 19 26 12

A a e OUTAGE 6R PLUGGING

SUMMARY

(REFERENCE TDR 839)

PLUGGING NUMBER BASIS A B TOTAL 1- INDICATIONS GE 40% 1d') 14 30 2-- DISTORTED TUBESHEET 1 1 2 ENTRY SIGNALS 3- LANE / WEDGE O 1 1 EXCLUSION ZONE 4- KINETIC EXPANSION O 1 1 ZONE 5- STUCK ECT PROBES 0 2 2 4 . -s= -

6- TUBES REMOVED FROM 3* O 3 OTSG TOTAL 20 19 39 NOTE 1 - OETLAIE WITH A SECTION REMOVED ALSO HAD AN NDICATION > 39% T.W. AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN ITEM 1.

STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF DEGRADED TUBES DEPTH COMPARISON 1984-19866R 19865M-1986 6R A B TOTAL A B TOTAL NUMBER OF 83 5 88 105 15 120 INDICATIONS EVALUATED NUMBER OF INDS. 34 4 38 43 9 52 WITH INCREASED

% T.W. DEPTH NUMBER OF INDS. 44 0 44 37 1 G8 WITH DECREASED

% T.W. DEPTH NUMBER OF 5 1 6 25 5 30 INDICATIONS WHICH STAYED THE SAME t- -s - --

) II s

MEAN CHANGE -0.9 + 5.3 -0.4 + 0.7 +3.9 + 1.1 STANDARD DEVIATION 7.9 3.6 8.0 6.7 5.4 6.6 NOTE 1- NCLIA)ES ONLY I.D. INDICATIONS >19% T.W. IN BOTH EXAhWMTIONS #D CONFIRMED BY 8X1 IN BOTH YEARS.

. -~ - -- . . . . . - , . - . . _ . - - - _ _ _ . - . - .. . - -

i l

1 STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF DEGRADED TUBES VOLTAGE COMPARISON 1984-19866R 19865M-1986 6R A B TOTAL A B TOTAL NUMBER OF 83 5 88 105 15 120 INDICATIONS EVALUATED NUMBER OF INDS. 24 0 24 51 9 60 WITH INCREASED VOLTAGE NUMBER OF INDS. 40 5 45 31 5 36 WITH DECREASED VOLTAGE NUMBER OF 19 0 19 23 1 24 INDICATIONS WHICH STAYED THE SAME J. -i

, s m k

MEAN CHANGE +0.1 - 0.5 - 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 STANDARD DEVIATION 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 NOTE 1- NCt.UDES ONLY 1.D. INDICATIONS >19% T.W. IN BOTH EXAhWMTIONS APO CONFIRMED BY 8X1 IN BOTH YEARS.

w.wm,.e4% gt' =f -4 CONCLUSIONS 1 - NO TREND OF ONGOING DEGRADATION s

2- NO TREND OF NEW DEGRADATION (l.D. OR O.D.) -

l 3- NO EVIDENCE OF WEAR -

4- THE REQUIREMENTS OF TR-008 HAVE BEEN SATISFIED

a i

i 1

i TEST

. 2 1 EE 1 lj i

1 895 e

' O Oh g$ g

. w..m. . . . . . . . .

_-_.___.__m. _ _ _ . _

1 -

. Watan

Pke Lawls danws pabbis Tis 17 4 tod nbovs %hrehas1~

o Seseu '

ANO tr -P 4dyasTobla, beftpie.n/ly y 4s%sts m7sp Partsu n : 1to 1

sids va,y7 ysg. tio -0., supplisd Wo**h sseandny f --

Het Les s 1

  1. C) -

ae, asuwe f

i t

i N*m~n I Pamany N W ana Lava.

S_. - -

Ne s.rely

/

We,ws

/

4 is tsp Skull

_ =

14 tsp SEconohE1 LUntra

%/ v -

/

i i Tuka5 ' \

l

OTSG" BUBBLE" TEST LEAKAGERESULTS SINCETMI-lRESTART DATEOFTEST OUTAGE RESULT March 24,1986 SM NoLeakageObserved In"A"and"B" 0TSG's(Secondary SideLevelAbove 10thTubeSupport Plate)

November 12,1986 6R NoLeakageObserved In"A"and"B" (SecondarySide LevelAbove14th

. TubeSupportPlate)

,=

OTSGBUBBLETEST LEAKAGESENSITIVITY

(

Reference:

GPUN Topical Report #008) o LeakageSensitivity(AtNormilOperatingPressure andTemperatureConditions) 0.1 gal / day / tube (or4x10 gal /hr/ tube) o ReferenceStatesSensitivityValueWasBasedon ExperienceatSimilarPlants J

l i.

4

-- - - ,- - - .. , , . . . - , , , - , - - , , - - , , - - - - , - - , , - , - . , - - - - - , - - . ~ . - , , - - - - . - - , , - , . - - - - - , . , . - - - - - - - - . - . . , . . - , , . - -

, A m ,

e O.

e e

IM0RATORY WALUATION

~

OF' PULLED TUBES i

i f ID 1 N'

' ~ ~ - . .

j J 4

e i

. . ~ _ _ , , , _ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ . . . _ _ _ , . . - . _ . . . _ . - - , _ . _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - . . . _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ __-

TUBE SELECTION CANDIDATE IDENTIFICATION:

1. IN SERVICE -0TSG A 2.

GOOD SIGNALS (20-50% TW)

CANDIDATE EVALUATION:

1.

IGA POTENTIAL - MULTIPLE INDICATIONS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY 2.

" GRAIN DROPOUT"- DECREASE IN T.N. CALL WITH INCREASED SIGNAL AMPLITUDE

3. T.W.

EXTENT APPROACHING PLUGGING LIMIT 4.

REMOVAL CAPABILITY - ADEQUATE SAMPLE LENGTH 5.

SCREENED INDICATIONS - UNCONFIRMED BY 8 X 1 CANDIDATES IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE *:

A-141-3 (1, 2, 5)

A-8-45(1[

A-35-83 (3, 4)

J ~^

  • SUBJECT TO REVISION
5 BASED ON 6R EDDY CURRENT E

}

'E..,

PRESENTED AT MEETING MTH NRC SEPTEMBER 22, 1986

LABORATORY ANALYSIS - 3 TUBES OBJECTIVES:

1.

CORRELATE FIELD EDDY CURRENT DATA WITH DESTRUCTIVE ANALYSIS RESULTS 2.

FURTHER EVALUATE EDDY CURRENT SENSITIVITY AND ACCURACY 3.

DETERMINE IN EACH TUBE EXTENT AND TYPE OF DEGRADATION 4.

CHARACTERIZE SURFACE FILM OXIDE BY MICROANALYTICAL TECHNIQUE

. _a f

} ,,

i PRESENTED AT MEETING WITH NRC SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 S

- - - , - - a- w,-,--e_.,,. ,,,,,,n._.,n--, , - , , , - , ,,,,-,,wny,,,e_,,,n,,,,-o,-,,,,, nm,,, , , -

1 LABORATORY WORKSCOPE AND APPROACH Nondestructive Examinations Visual and Photography X-ray Radiography (0*,90* Orientations)

Destructive Examinations Metallography Incremental grind and polish. technique Burst Test I?-

Hydraulic method Microchemical Analyses 1

Electron Spectroscopy for Compound Analysis (ESCA) l

! 2 1 -dit l l Sfl

\ r l

l l

9 l

l t

l l

1 - -- ... - - -_ - - . - - .- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

LABORATORY RESULTS Visual No evidence of cracks, pits or other degradation on ID or OD surfaces Radiography No visible defects

.=.

55 : ,

9

e O METALLOGRAPHIC SPECIMENS Axlal Location of Tube No. Piece No. EC Indication A-35-83 2 15 + 35.T' A-141 -3 6 15 + 30.3" A-8-45 3 15 + 39.4"

)

i 1 'E 9

METALLOGRAPHIC OBSERVATIONS Tube 141-3 pc 6 (15 TSP + 30.3")

One Small Patch of IGA with Max. Penetration of 42% T.W.

Some Grain Dropout at ID Surface Fine IGA Away From ID Tube 8-45 pc 3 (15 TSP + 39.4")

One Small Patch of IGA with Max. Penetration of 48% T.W.

Fine, Tight IG A Extending From 10-25% T.W. to 48% T.W.

Some Grain Dropout at ID Surface -

Tube 35-83 pc 2 (15 TSP + 35.7")

Primarily One Small Patch of IGA With Max. Penetration of 16%

T.W.

Some Grain Dropout at ID Surface Fine IGA Away From ID Large Globular inclusions Skewed Across Tube Wall (Titanium l Cyanonitrides) i l 'i5i -

i l

l L

t f 3 4

I I

l 1

%= *% y '- wvww-ww-*=-mvm,w ~* o-> wWe w e= _ _ y w we w mm

e .

l i

IGA DIMENSIONS Max Axial Circ.

Max % Extent Extent

, Tube No. Location T.W. (mils) (mils)

A 141-3 pc 6 15 + 30.3 42 47 63 A 8-45 pc 3 15 + 39.4 48 60 76 -

A 35-83 pc 2 15 + 35.7 16 17 64 l

l l

l 9

l

,_ . _ . . - _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - ~ ^ -

O O IGA IN 8/45-3-2A3 r i i

l 1
e_

-[D" " ]t't'_ _ _ _ _ .

39.65 _

i l of-+. 5- mm 1 ' ~

m l i IDenW1

c. .~.---- '

- x i i

" 39.64 --

>~

=c

! ,/ 'n'

'y. . .) _.

g . _ , f . . . . _ _ .

~ 39.63- ' e eu ._ N0%- -

y . _ ..p __ ____- . _ _ _ . . _ _ .

8 '

._i w E22I 10220% ..- -

39.62 - -

E ~.: 7~i ._E  : 20-30%

bMD W 39.61

-- ~ ~

~ ri . .

.. x -

/ ' i ans..JGi401' .

z . . . . . x p_ ._f o x c/

A l

~

+- 39 60 i x 4 - - - = -

i

, i n

. i i i

, t - > ova - -

~

M - - F-  ;

lV- l /- -i  !

39.59 \ '

q

. __ . ;  ; ) ' . __ L '-

Q -_. e. . .3p

.r --

E < -

..__._i - i i M0 mf W~ _ .

39.58- ~

,  ; 'l

_ t_.. . Q, _ .

l . p._. ,

_ ._L.650X)'.

--p .. .'. _ _ 7

. - .  : 1 r-- ,

I s e. s e s . s  : 1 265* 267' 269' 271' 273* 275' 277* 279' CIRCUMFERENTIAL LOCATION (DEGREES) .

IGA EXTENT AXIAL  : 60 mils CIRCUMFERENTIAL: 76 mils THROUGHWALL  : 48%

VOLUME  : 0.35 m 3

e. >

t IGA IN 35/83-2-2A3

. I i f

L T

/ n,w ;. N.<

,f

a. -- ' i of - 0, w- ' ,i --

N 35.50 --

x p.

('"x W - '

/

e . . . . - ~ N /

~

35.49_ -

' ^ ' "~~~

g . _ - - i s -

i

' T v, ~0% -

O

, t ___

< 3 _. .

9 W'10t20%.-

d 2

u _.- - - '

i x1

,,e

,m, -.- .-

x ' r -

35.43- t u , irinrirrm mu 20' T30% ~-

~ ,

a <- . num 1111111u - --

f --

. x . x1111w .

8-

._ . i w

,i s

._. 30/r407, --

- 35.42- __ i i

i. ---

Q i l t- '

>4 0%__, , '

.a i .' . ,

35.41-

. e a + i i

5 a .

q i

l l  : _; .

35.40--  !

l l l l 0mm I

a -

y i '

,- i e i

, t.50_X) 4

v. . . . _-.e. v- i i i .,

22d* E3*,224*

a 226* 228* 230*

CIRCUMFERENTIAL LOCATION (DEGREES) ,

IGA EXTENT AXIAL  : 17 mils CIRCUMFERENTIAL : 64 mils ,

THROUGHWALL  : 16%

VOLUME  : 0.02 m 3

--- -, - ,, - - - e,, n-,- - - - - - ,-<---,,-,m- e,.---- n a ----v,, - - , - - - - , -----.m---m,, ---------e

)

i 1

1

)

IGA IN 141/3-6-2A2 I

- x 30.35 -- ,f u , .'.. r . r1 c.

g -

3 r

lE m

30.34' ,

i

< ~_-'sx (e. g_i.u / '

x , ,

I - s x , ,

W f V//W\  ;

__.- I VHa/HfA 1 8 30.33 - i v-us i y

i <; ci a __-

!6Ahl7 1 0

z 30.32

'iW -is ;h mr-v I \

z s -u,1- x c wvase u- x Eh pnf- -

y 30.30 _. l l X f

; i ' _. -i -

i l i's ,' ,' l ,' .>l0i g . ..

30.29 1 i i ' -

i l l l  ;

' I i

~

? *Uj 30.28 -- i

! . i ,

. . . , .. i i ,.50X )

.. . . i i .

8 . 1. ._ . 1.- . .L. . _ t. _ . . . . _ ___ r 181* 184* 185* 187* 189' 191* 193*

i cu i 101 CIRCUMFERENTIALLOCATION(DEGREES)

IGA EXTENT AXIAL  : 47 mils CIRCUMFERENTIAL: 63 mils THROUGHWALL  : 425

  • VOLUME  : 0.16 m 3

,-,--.,,----<-,,---..~e----- - . . - - - - - - - , , , . . . - - - , - . . - . - - - - - . . , . - - - - , , -

t 1

4 OD IGA INVESTIGATION Cross Sectional Metallography on Tube Sections:

A 141-3 pc 6 A 8-45 pc 3 i

A 35-83 pc 2 (Burst Spec.)

Result .

IG A 15% TW Was Observed on OD Surface IGA Was Extremely Fine IGA Was Randomly Scattered Both Axially and Circumferentially.

i l

! 2 U .

l l

3

- . -- - - - ., e-,,-- -e,. r vv--, ,m-,. ,_ ,,--.mm -

_.. .o BURST SPECIMEN TUBE NO. PIECE NO. LOCATION A-35-83 2 15 + 18" - 15 + 28" Control Sample * - -

  • As received B&W Alloy 600 tube BURST TEST RESULTS THl-1 TUB _E CONTROL Burst Pressure (psi) 11,700 12,550 Max Hoop Stress (psi) 96,310 96,620 Uniform Ductility 16.6% 16.9%

Note: Slightly smaller wall thickness for TMI-1 tube sample.

! i!

o

  • 1981 ESCA Analysis of Tube ID Surface Depth Sputtered Binding Energy / Ratio A

Sulfur Sta te [2/S04 at. %

~

None 168 SO4 0 .9 30 162 S -2 1.4 1.2

~

169 504 530 162 S-2 3 1.0 169 S0 4 -2 1130 162 S -2 4 1.5

~

169 SO 4

~

2330 162 .s .. 10 .9

~

3530 162 S 10 1.2 h 4 9

1986 ESCA RESULTS ON SPECIMEN 141/3-5-2A3 Element Analysis Depth (Angstroms) or Compound 0 2.000 4.000 6,000 8.000 10.000 Elemental Composition. Atomic Percent Ni 6.2 30.1 34.3 Fe 33.5 42.9 65.7 2.7 14.5 17.7 12.7 Cr 3.6 16.3 13.2 16.4 21.0 10.7 11.6 0 41.6 13.1 31.5 24.6 21.5 14.4 C 28.1 8.1 5.1 2. 4 18.0 9.3 ---

Ti 0.7 --- --- --- --- ---

N 1.1 --- --- --- --- ---

Ca 0.6 --- --- --- --- ---

C1 0.3 0.2 ---

1. 5 1.1 ---

B 2.1 2.1 ---

2.1 Zr 4.3 ---

0.1 --- --- --- --- ---

Pb 0.1 --- --- --- --- ---

Al 2. 0 --- --- --- --- ---

F 10.7 --- --- --- --- ---

Binding Energies, eV Ni 856.4 856.0 856.5 856.6 856.5 852.8 852.9 852.9 852.9 Fe 707.0 852.6 707.0 707.0 707.0 707.0 709.2 712.0 707.5 707.0 Cr 577. 0 ap 576.2 706.6 0 576.2 576.2 575.1 530.95 530.9 530.8 530.7 530.6

. o

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS

1. In all three tube samples the EC indications ars due to IGA.
2. Much of the IGA away from the ID surface was extremely fine.
3. The IG A defects are of limited extent - less than 80 mils axial extent and 76 mils circumferential extent.
4. No sulfur or sulfur compounds were found in the ID surface scale by ESCA analysis.
5. Some very fine, secondary side IGA of limited depth (15% T.W.), was observed.
8. Neither the OD or the ID IGA produced any measurable degradation in the
burst properties of the material.

t

7. The ID IGA observed in these tubes does not suggest the occurrence of any different form of corrosion damage than that previously observed in 1981.
8. The morphology of the ID IG A suggests that it is a remnant of the 1981

, corrosion damage.

9. Review of metallography from tubes removed in 1981-1982 show the presence of some minor CD IGA which suggests the attack observed in 1986 may have existed previously.

i l  : 3:s P

I 9

4 f

. , - . . , . , . - - , , , , - - - . - ._,nn-,-n,_ ,,n,g, ,.,,,,ne_ _,,.nw,__-a

-M'- _. 2.__ _

e e PURPOSE CONFIRM THE ADEQUACY OF THE l EDDY CURRENT (ECT) TECHNIQUES USED TO EXAMINE THE OTSG TUBES 1

-lNDICATION CONFIRMATION l

-AXIAL LOCATION

.3 ~

-DEPTH (% THRU WALL)

-CIRCUMFERENTIAL EXTENT l

l

COMPARISON OF ECT RESULTS AND METALLURGICAL RESULTS AX1AL LOCATION MET ECT ECT TUBEI.D. RESULT RESULT RANGE A-8-45 15 + 39.6 15 + 39.4 15 + 38.9 - 15 + 39.9 A-35-83 15 + 35.4 15 + 35.7 15 + 35.2- 15 +36.2 A- 141 - 3 15 + 30.3 15 + 30.3 15 + 29.8 - 15 + 30.8 CIRCUMFERENTIAL EXTENT MET ECT ECT TUBEI.D. RESULT RESULT RANGE A-8-45 ' O.g6 1 COIL < .300 .. .

A-35-83 0.064 1 C OIL <.300 A-141 -3 0.063 1 COIL < .300

.a,._ a._,-a. ----e. w w_h-, sue .mu-.h ah--ar.asmwaseA-,m._m, m.__-. 2a **-e-O AMe*.e .Sa .-mi-4m mm---4AMA_4m' 4,

_ -hS X m.1.-- -AA- mi A.haMh- - + .

1

.\ 0 0

! g ~ ,'r :.

3 . r ,. A i 3 >*?

.p e t.s .

=e d ' e I i w (,'i, , d 8

u t.. .'. '

a0 ** '

= .

x O 8 f ,

  • O 7 * *a 7 '4

, 80 g.. .. *, <

e .!

$$h , y - 4g..

~

$(

' . s. . ,

1 j '

l j

i

) e, ' ~

q h 4

7.pyfip -

} .. . -

s g .

q;p g.+ .  ; '

E, e-r s

is -

d-

. t

. f. ;. J  :- 4- -  ;

g

.. e .. -: s' x

... . .. \

"['N

g Ill ,_

p# *" :

, . e. .c- .

. . :.. x a.;

,a N - '

i s

e p l, t

SM'. , .

l'

^f 1,6 '

i,

.s, oo .

b MW

. 0

  • t \

F s

i.

h

o o TMI-1 OUTAGE 6R TUBEPULL RESULTS TUBE A-35-83 PIECE 2 A) GAL LOCATION N INCHES ABOVE T.S.P.

R 15 + 34.4 15 + 34.9 15 + 35.4 15 + 35.9 15 + 36.4 A

D I O AREA BOUNDING 90 IGA PATCH . c.5MM PENCIL LR (.064W X.017H)

I.EAD TOP OE 180 OF CE g TUBE As T 270 1

O N O SCALE = 2:1

. .: t' *:, 6 l

')

  • . : .b; , . ,

V":,.::'l::".;<

E W. .'::;;;:::.' c..; t s ..'...

.::.:.;:;';;;;?.'$:5..hij.i(:;.:.'::::,:::6.  ?

.: '<^.....

g:

[ :I... ... . f..:: : : ,':'.' .....!:f:..: . ; yI
.:.. .. n1...*. 4

..N.;:.:::;:::y.

.: :>. ...::,.::::n.,;;,

.....:::..::::;::;;;.i:..::..:$iI

.. .. b h : :... . . . . . ...::

, . . . . ...".,.. .t .... .. . .

,'*.... .'.*:.,:2,',. ' .. g 5 g /

1'

I

. . i i

TMI-1 OUTAGE 6R TUBEPULL RESULTS TUBE A-8-45 PIECE 3 AXIAL LOCATION HINCHES ABOVE T.S.P.

15 + 38.6 15 + 39.1 15 + 39.6 15 + 40.1 15 + 40.6 R

A D 0 i

A D AREA BOUNDING L 90 IGA PATCH E . c.5MM G (.076WX.060H) PENCIL TOP

' 180 LEAD OF O E E C E A s 270 0 i

O o SCALE = 2:1

~:-

l 1

1

TMI-1 OUTAGE 6R TUBEPULL RESULTS TUBE A-141 -3 PIECE 6 A)4AL LOCATION N INCHES ABOVE T.S.P.

15 + 29.3 15 + 29.8 15 + 30.3 15 + 30.8 15 + 31.3 0

R A AREA BOUNDING D o 9C IGA PATCH . . c. 5MM i E (.063WX.047H) \ PENCIL TOP A G \' LEAD L R 180 ME E

L E O S 270 C .

A T 0 g

SCALE = 2:1 O

N

~ '

i

~

M 'if !{f. M #

3 pfi?Q[' h.

D!!!!.$3..

f j$$ -

Qd[4 *%,)

705$'"$h:..::h ' $'

A :J.':l't";ll::.Q:;!!l':::':

Y::

) 10 s

.;']i.189jf!j'tT5'1 pe%+'

  • e

COMPARISON OF ECT RESULTS AND METALLURGICAL RESULTS DEPTH TUBEI.D'

^

DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH A-8-45 20 % 18% 48 %

A-35-83 36 % 7% 16 %

. A- 141 - 3 26 % 21 % 42 %

4

CONCLUSIONS THE RESULTS OFTHE TUBE PULL PROGRAM CONFIRMED THE ABILITY OF THE GPUN ECT TECHNIQUES TO DETECT AND CHARACTERIZE I.D.

DEGRADATION i

THE TECHNIQUES WERE L CAPABLE OFDETERMINING THE MEAN DEPTH OF l.G.A C

THE TECHNIQUES WERE CAPABLE OF BOUNDING-THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL EXTENT OF l.G.A.

a 0 0 ,

)

i i

g e 1

e s .

O e

ASSESSENT

? hPh 3d i

4*we em -og , - ,p, ,

h

, n,-.,--,-.------ .,n,- -, - - , , ,n----,,,e-, --,n, , an- -,,,-a, ., ,, ,,. . . , -, , - - , - - ~ . , , - - , , n. e-,,.

_.. 2_ _ _

4 STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT OF DEGRADED TUBES -

REVIEW 0F NEW INFORMATION LEHIGH NOTCHED TUBE RUPTURE EXPERIMENTS COMPARISON OF RUPTURE LOADS WITH NET SECTION COLLAPSE - (NSC) PREDICTIONS COMPARISON OF RUPTURE STRAINS WITH YIELD BEHAVIOR CONCLUSIONS AND PLANS

. cg l

. - , , _,- .. . - , - . _ . _ . , . . - - - . , , , . . . . . , . - - - . . . . . . . . - - , , - ~ . - - , , -

TUBE RUPTURE EXPERIMENTS PURPOSE: DEVELOP EXPERIMENTAL TUBE RUPTURE DATA FOR CIRCUMFERENTIALLY NOTCHED TUBES UNDER AXIAL LOAD.

TEST SPECIMENS FABRICATED FROM THI-1 OTSG ARCHIVAL TUBE MATERIAL CIRCUMFERENTIALLY ORIENTED NOTCHES MACHINED FROM ID TUBES AXIALLY LOADED TO FAILURE TUBE LOAD AND DISPLACEMENT MONITORED AND RECORDED

e. 9 P o A o = 0.1 :4/g ,a ,

i V/ / / / / / / //) ~~

l l d l I I

I I

I I

I l N&T S 8IOTiO d l

5 I I

t I I

c i l n ocrrcs s.L. k = 4, I

o I I

I I

b I TDue swA w = /$.L. I I I I l l l Tu be Lc A c =. p I I I

I

~

l l// /////fl p l h SCHEMATIC 0F TEST CONFIGURATION

A A r~ i f/////tt LA ////////////// I t

,  ; .oosw - -

a.

/

,/~

pp 7u~ 8&~ f.20 S S Sec770Af TEST a/t 1/ CIRC.

N0 %TW % CIRC.

1 40 50 2 50 50 3 50 26 4 60 40 5 70 33 6 100 22 7 40 100 8 40 100 9 40 75 10 0 0 (unnotched)

NOTCHED TUBE TEST MATRIX

e 9 I

I

, vi i , . ," e .... . . . ,* *.* 9 . . .

.****,".1.***-,- * - . .g t

I6,.)4

+ l6e9 ,.4.. 44 - + .=J ,***.* ..=

em J-

. , . . . , J f.+, .e 4.

d .I.*.

4 :: - - -

- e., . + . . - .... . . 6. .

- : :_ e e: e4.:

o. p 7

4 . 6.,,.

' ._ a.%,e3 **..

4e ae 6,eL. . ,e.== I. -

'**... 4 - . ...g 9_,,,

g 4., ., ,J .

. ' . 4.,,, a. . .. i 5 ,

.e4.1, . . ,...

. 4-

..f. .. A.&-

  • .p.- -.. .

.1 4... y ;a,. l:.. .

..*. 4.,

-4 T.s.. g. ~4i.l.. d

. s 2 .

i 4. .4. .

.. . s.

43_ . [ .

9 M .% 4 A9 .,4.* a *.l L* , . * *4 . t . i k'1 4 .3. a * . .. ... - . " = -. . . . . .

~

., 3.. . . . .

.. , . . . ~I . ... '. .' ". . . b . - . . ..... . . -..a. ..

...4...-.. .

o . ,a . e.,. a. .,. . a L ,. .\. .. , e .. . . . . . - '

( h.I .,

... . .. L , &....., . . . .

-.... q. _

..W .. .. ..

, . . .! $ c

. . - - .L _ -. ..p.. - .

.. 8 . ,. .. . . . . , , . ' . -, - e. . ...

.... .. . .. ,. . . l

. .. p4 ,,

I

.4 t .e , .4 . , * *

.*t9 - .

1

.P--**"**

- P-

  • e... 1.

_e i.

a.. .a. 4 . . . ..l.

.. . . ,. .4_ 4 . - - - g.s

.. . .. .... . . . ..  ; 71.Q.. .- ...' f

.l..

.. ... .. 9,. .. . .

. .. !...c. ,.r.! . .-

. _6.1. ,

l

.. 4 .

. - ... ..... i. . .

.. ., .l.. . . .ea. .,

..n.. - .

v- .. .

. .. ... . g 1

. . . ..., ,. , . . . . . . .y . .=. t ( . ..=,., 6==. ...... . F . ,.. ..e. . . .. ..

......... .,. ... e...

. .. . . .. .. . .. +

.ee . ..Ii ..le ji 4 . . 9.... -. .e.p . L4 .= .e.- .e *4

.+..t..e".- *. d f... . 64. ..

. .. .. . ..a .t &

en, n..; ,;,g gp .4 - -

4= ..,= ...-. . . .. .

s ,..,..

.je

.... .p. . (

T...

......I..

.. .. ..+.,."I.., -.., .

..9 _ ...

.l. ..

.. .e- ...

, ..=.t..== . . . -..i ,... . . .< . . . - . .

g .g .g 6...

g, _ . . ..  !

..... ,. ._ _ y. .- , _ . , . . - sun 4 : . . .

....y t.g..g..

.a . .

.Ia e*..

4

.4... . y. . . 4 .. . . .

4.A+ .

.y _ ...

N

, , . .I. ... .-. ,.. .d.

..I..... ,.p A .. ..l..

.e (

s l .Ie.

6; sseI

.44 .

e s s 9,

.e g. I .

.4.I.

., I y

....e8 6

+ J.- g .n.s44..-a

.p., ., ,,.

4 4,. . __,1.

4s..

...6.. ..

.l..

.. . ... .. ~, . ',L a + 1..

..!. .. 1.,, . . .I ,).m

, .< ",3 N.- .r -

. ,; ,T, .

. l

.- 4.4 ..Jl l 4 4
4. .

..4-= ,

.n k.J ,

,..p,..

. . m. . - - ..-I _-

N.

c. . .. - ..

'g'

. . 96 . . . . g. .,.4. ,...1 *

t. .6 ,,p...p
t. o . . . . .

4,.I.4 a .. ,,g, .

g 1 .

i1-; '

.. p. ..

, u ,

.5 ..

p.. .l . p.e _ - . ,1': .--> . . .

pe 6.. 4. ' ' . 2 4 3 4 4.4.lg .t

' i =

.. g,

..i..

.,.. 1. . a

.1.1'. 4.,

4.a.a.+. ....

, g, ,y m i,  ;

.g...

7 , ,

. .s

.) A ... . . , , ,.<,. .

I-

'*.i 4 ; - 1-- 9 ,.-9 f 7. +,L , - , ~',

~"

y- ,-.. ..

6.. ,

- .6

.g 64 )4 6a..I.

a< 6 6,n I

,... , p.f. ..,!

- - t - -

__ _(-

i-

- +

. 3 [< ,4

..p. ... .

,m64,., i 4.43 ., '

~4. p - ,', , . . . . - .

.r..,,, ee 1 . *.

i, , 4 -0 y, 6.}, 4. a.,

.d.% - .

,) ...

M.. ,.6

, . . , 4 .-.

i ,

i

. J. . &4 4.

4-  : . ..J..

1 -

, 1 ', . a. . . .

em

.,c.., .. 3 6 a . .. ,.; ,,-

3 ,p.74, 9 (. . ..

64,.<

69 ..

a J.

. . 4.4..,

e 4

9 6,

4,..- -

,4 e 9 ;

44 .,,

,4A

.4 ' ' '.}--__ .

...-.. .,- c

=.%

. t. *

.. 4

+.4e m,.e a

+. '&- m4:

i s, ..

.. . .4

. :.Qh3

( .

j ,.c 7- ,- N

&{.a 6.s. .a

-}.& -'

,(

...a. L .. .

,, ' .4 4JQ 4#U./.4 = " - 1 L 7 m.., - . .  %,,,

W .,' . it ..-,'

  • c.

..E* s*. ~,'  : 1 m 2L . h*~~1*-v*t- W --f 4*h*f. ' 21* --

i^ _ . -*\ ..

a ,,, a

  • ..*~.1.~, 4 j .; ... 4 .,.4 a.r Md' '
4. ,9-6y.4 -': ' ' '

,(

6 4 .. ... ..

q

,.p., n .. .4 - -

f y , ,,

,e, 7y . . -

g I 6

.l

, I .. f .. 4 6

,4.. ..' '...M4M.J43

..[ .. y <

y ' -:

I9;a.

dr ' M;,"!. .e .- : ,

J.a -

. . _ ' !. .\, . 4.

...a4 -

. O,

a. . 4. a .I.'l . ...64

..,6 . t .

.e. 4

, 1., .

64

-6

. 4 . ., e4.- .

1, -

-4.+.- -

+. , , c.- +.

.g .,e- ., ,,

.,L p+ d, ..

Mg

.. . . . . I - , ,

q. -

..g ,gr 4.,j .N. .,.

,..9.<

,1a6

, A . . _4 ,.._

.. .c

- f, a

L. 6 . a .e. t .. y; ., #., _

1 j 3 . . _ . . .

.e-e

,+ ...a . -

u . ..t..

4 . ., ..t.

... . ,... ; ... ~.. ... .

._. . . . - y.,.a 1

. n ._,. - .

m.;. ..

. .e l

. . . . . . . . . _ a-mA..,i.,._ m.i . ..

4n .

' i .

... . . .. . m .. . ... .. . m .-. _ ... _ -- ... . .

F o l

l na., &.dafwant G) . . . . . . .

I TYPICAL LOAD-DISPLACEMENT TRACE t

(TEST L 40% TW, 50% CIRC.)

h,,,,

O l

i

SUMMARY

OF N0 TOED TUBE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ELONCATION AT FAILURE LICAMENT NOIUt SIDE BACX SIDE 0.2% OFF-SET MAX. LOAD RUPTURE LOAD 1" CAUCE 2" CAUCE 1" CAUGE 2" CAUCE 41T  % CIRC. IDAD (LB) (LB) (LB)  %  %  %  %

1 40 50 3010 4320 4320 15.0 9.0 12.1 9.3 2 50 50 2940 3870 3870 13.0 7.0 11.0 6.0 3 50 26 3260 4380 4380 16.0 8.9 12.7 10.9 4 60 40 2945 3635 3635 ,

15.0 7.0 10.0 6.0 5 70 33 2720 3155 3155 15.0 7.0 10.0 6.0 6 100 22 2155 3360 N/A 18.0 8.0 11.0 7.0 7 40 100 3155 4710 4710 8.0 5.0 8.0 5.0 8 40 100 3150 4725 4725 7.2 6.1 6.3 5.5 40 75 2975 4460 4460 9.7- 6.2 9.9 7.1 1, 0 0 3350 7140 N/A 28.0 29.0 28.0 29.0 (unnotched)

,. . - . ~

l Soco - _

l V

A gl* g(d 9,M  %

foco -

  1. 40 y g,M2, o _

o7*$ / A

' gonTWU) n gs W

& ' ## ~h y, ys(s) .-

g A-t

  1. p (**

G

% 2000 - _

G0 3

s loco - _

o2%

offsc7-o I t t s e e 2 4 6 8 /c /2.

f

<<-"<="wa ovee / woae umry (7,y TUBE 0.2% OFFSET AND MAXIMUM LOAD AS A FUNCTION OF TUBE STRAIN

EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS ALL TUBES FAILED IN A DUCTILE MANNER AFTER SIGNIFICANT PLASTIC DEFORMATION LOAD / DISPLACEMENT CURVES SIMILAR FOR NOTCHED AND UNNOTCHED TUBES TUBES WITH NOTCHES s 60% TW FAILED AT LOADS ABOVE THE YIELD LOAD MAXIMUM TUBE LOAD OCCURED AT LIGAMENT BREAK THROUGH, ADDITIONAL DISPLACEMENT REQUIRED TO CAUSE RUPTURE l

NET SECTION COLLAPSE (NSC) PREDICTIONS NSC EQUATIONS FROM ASME SECTION XI PIPING FLAW ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT TUBE MAXIMUM LOAD PREDICTIONS MADE WITH AND WITHOUT CORRECTION FOR GRIPS FLOW STRESS BASED ON AVERAGE EXPERIMENTAL YIELD AND ULTIMATE STRENGTH

, - - - - . -- - , .,, .,-,--,,,---w,,v-, ,,,r-.-------,,-

Normnal wress M #w uncracked section of pipe

-+l H P. + P.

d 5

L,________

I \* b R e, $ f N - --

A ~l N

Neuwd

{'L _' _ _ _ _ _; _ _I g

I amis 8: = Flow stress -*jpP.

l I ' I 8 # # I 5 ";

, [n-6(a/t)] - (Pm/of)n 2

2cr Pd = 7-(2 sin g- (a/t) sing)

For (e+ g) > r:

g,y [1-(a/t) - (P m/#f)3 2-(a/t)

P:b n2af(2-(a/t) sin #)

NET SECTION COLLAPSE (NSC) EQUATIONS 1

t s

l' i

COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS WITH NET SECTION COLLAPSE PREDICTIONS TUBE IDAD NSC NSC CAPACITY CAPACITY

  • CAPACITY *

%TW  % CIRC (LBS) NO GRIPS (LBS) GRIPS (LBS) 1 40 50 4320 3524 4196 2 50 50 3870 3089 3933 3 50 26 4380 3945 4558 i 4 60 40 3635 3055 4002 I 5 70 33 3155 3041 3927 i

6 100 22 3360 3499 3978

7 40 100 4710 3147 i,

3147 8 40 100 4125 3147 3147 9 40 75 4460 3197 3671 1

10 0 0 7140 5245 5245 (unnotched)

  • Based on flow stress equal to the average of experimental . yield and ultimate stress.

1 1

, e l

l l

720' ,  ;

i x E39 a nse (no c.a ses)

AN$C((eRlPS) 4 F

\-

\ '

{ n e

t-\. . s. -

3 \ \ y' '

e s N 4em ' \e .

ss7.

3ee. .

"N

\c _ . _

2000 -

10 Zo b to 50 6o io A0 9b see werea i.wATH (.% ciec)

COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND NSC PREDICTIONS FOR 140% AND 50% TW NOTCHES

SIRAE,-TO-RUPTURE CONSIDERATIONS MAXIMUM OTSG TUBE LOADS ARE DuE To TUBESHEET RELATIVE DISPLACEMENTS TUBE YIELDING (SHOULD IT OCCUR) RESULTS IN TUBE LOADS LESS THAN ELASTICALLY CALCULATED TUBE STRAIN-TO-RUPTURE IS AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF ASSESSING STRUCTURAL MARGIN t

I

. 5 i

j i

i NOTCHED TUBE STRAINS AT RUPTURE i

i j ELONGATION

! OVER ALLOWABLE EXPANSION i 1" GUAGE- BEYOND YIELD, '

%TW  % CIRC (%) e ult/ *y I *)

j j 1 40 50 12.1 61 0.121 4

2 50 50 11.0 55 0.110 i 3 50 26 12.7 63 0.127 i

i 4 60 40 10.0 50 0.100 I

i 5 70 33 10.0 50 0.100

6 100 22 -11.0 55 0.110 7 40 100 8.0 40 0.080

]

8 40 100 6.3 32 0.063 i

j 9 40 75 -

9.9 49 0.099 4

10 0 0 21.0 140 0.280 ~

(unnotched) i.

l v

l 1

CONCLUSIONS NOTCHED TUBES UNDER AXIAL LOAD FAIL IN A DUCTILE, PREDICTABLE, MANNER NSC IS A RELIABLE ENGINEERING APPROACH FOR PREDICTING TUBE MAXIMUM LOAD CAPACITY TUBE MAXIMUM LOAD OCCURS AT LIGAMENT BREAK THROUGH WITH ADDITIONAL DISPLACEMENT REQUIRED TO CAUSE RUPTURE TUBE STRAINS AT RUPTURE ARE LARGE MULTIPLES OF YIELD STRAINS 1

l

e GPUN PLANS EVALUATE- TUBE PLUGGING CRITERIA BASED ON EXPERIMENTAL RESULTs, NSC PREDICTIONS AND STRAIN AT RUPTURE CONSIDERATIONS APPLY REG. GUIDE 1.121 RECOMMENDED SAFETY MARGINS TO PRIMARY LOADS; INCLUDE SECONDARY LOADS WITH SAFETY FACTOR OF 1.0 AS WELL.

1

CONCLUSIONS PreviousConclusions.ReconfirmedbyRecent-Efforts o DegradationnotOngoingPhenomenon NoTrendofGrowth(ECT)

NoLeakage(BubbleTests)

NoSulfur(LaboratoryExaminationof PulledTubeSegments) 0 TubesStructurallySound Bursttests o CapabilityExiststoDetectSmallVolumesofDegradation l

! 4758g i

L t

.-. . . - . - - , . . - . . ~ , . . . _ _ . . . - , - . - - - - -

- - - - - - .-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20214W997&oldid=3240719"