ML20092G896
| ML20092G896 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley, Comanche Peak, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1984 |
| From: | Adamonis D, Kaiser W, Prager D TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092G894 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-53266, TAC-54234, NUDOCS 8406250281 | |
| Download: ML20092G896 (31) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:$o ,. - Attachment 2 FRACTURE AND NDE EVALUATIONS FOR THE CLOSURE FLANGE REGIONS OF COMANCHE PEAK UNITS 1 AND 2 W. T. Kaiser D. C. Adamonis D. E. PraCtr
, ,. APRIL, 1984 ,
I
)
APPROVED: N, bn APPROVED:
! dh J.A.'Chirigos, Manage 7 T. R. Mager, nager Structural Materials Metallurgical [and NDE A Engineering MT-SME 3362 8406250281 40618 gDRADOCKOg000
e , e _t e .. PREFACE This report has been reviewed and checked.
- I Ja[--2
$ C. Schmertz 6
.D. D R: LG R.d.Rishel 4
5 8 8
- e D
e 9 iii O
e.' , a TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE + PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 2.0 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL 2 2.1 Mechanical Beundary Conditions 3 2.2 Thermal Boundary Conditions 3 3.0 BOLTUP, PRESSURE AND THERMAL STRESSES 4 4.0 FRACTURE MECHANICS ANALYSIS 4 5.0 FRACTURE MECHANICS RESULTS 5 6.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PRESSURE-TEMPERATURESLIMIT , 7,. 0 NDE METHODS "
- 6 8.0 DETECTION AND SIZING ASSESSMENT 7 V
e - ', ,, - LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE , ' TITLE PAGE 1 CRITICAL CROSS SECTIONS 10 2
. MECHANICAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 11 3
THERMAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 12 4 IMPACT OF NEW 10CFR50 RULE (WITHOUT ADDITIONAL 13 STRESS ANALYSIS) ON COMANCHE PEAK UNITS 1 AND l 2 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM HEATUP LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE UP TO 16 EFPY 5 IMPACT OF NEW 10CFR50 RULE (WIT!!OUT ADDITIONAL t 14 STRESS ANALYSIS) ON COMANCHE PEAK UNITS 1 AND 2 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM C00LDOWN LIMITATIONS
, APPLICABLE UP TO 16 EFPY ,
6 l COMANCHE PEAK UNITS 1 AND 2 REACTOR COOLANT ,15 SYSTE HEATUP LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE UP TO 16 EFPY 7 COMANCHE PEAK UNITS 1 AND 2 REACTOR COOLANT 16 SYSTEM' C00LDOWN LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE UP TO 16 EFPY 8
. 'SHELL.TO-FLANGE WELD JOINT 17
,. 9
,, , HEAD-TO-FLANGE WELD JOINT' - ,
18
)
l vif
LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE 1
- HEATUP TRANSIENT LONGITUDINAL STRESSES FOR 19 CROSS SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 3 2 HEATUP TRANSIENT CIRCtMFERENTIAL STRESSES FOR 19 CROSS SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 3 3
COOLDOWN TRANSIENT LONGITUDINAL STRESSES FOR 20 CROSS SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 3 4 C00LDOWN TRANSIENT CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESSES FOR 20 CROSS SECTIONS 1; 2 AND 3 5
'HEATUPTRANSIENTSTRESSINTENSITYFACTORS(Kg) 21
, FOR INSIDE SURFACE CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAWS 6
HEATUP TRANSIENT STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS (KI) 21 FOR OUTSIDE SURFACE CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAWS 7 HEATUP TRANSIENT STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS (Kg). , 22 .
, FOR INSIDE SURFACE LONGITUDINAL FLAWS , , ,
8 HEATUP TRANSIENT STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS (Kg) 22 FOR OUTSIDE SURFACE LONGITUDINAL FLAWS 9 C00LDOWNTRANSIENTSTRESSINTENSITYFACTORS(Kg) 23
'FOR INSIDE SURFACE CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAWS 10 C00LDOWNTRANSIENTSTRESSINTENSITYFACTORS(Kg) 23 FOR OUTSIDE SURFACE CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAWS Il C00LDOWNTRANSIENTSTRESSINTENSITYFACTORS(Kg) 24 FOR INSIDE SURFACE LONGITUDINAL FLAWS 12 C00LDOWNTRANSIENTSTRESSINTENSITYFACTORS(Kg) 24 FOR OUTSIDE SURFACE LONGITUDINAL FLAWS IX
- = . . - - -.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
- (
This report provides the information requested by Reference 1 on the i i Westinghouse analysis which showed the closure flange regions of Comanche { Peak Units 1 and 2 are less limiting than the beltline regions. As a l
' result of t'his analysis, Westinghouse has shown that the Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2 heatup and cooldown curves are not impacted by the new
{ l 10CFR50[2] rule. I The new 10CFR50 rule states that when the pressure exceeds 20 percent of ! l , the preservice hydrostatic test pressure the temperature of the closure [
- head and vessel flange regions must exceed the material RT t NDT by at least ;
120*F for normal operation and by 90*F for hydrostatic pressure tests and ] leak tests. For the Comanche Peak plants, 20 percent of the preservice j j hydrostatic test pressure is 621 psig. In addition,10CFR50 states that exceptions to the new 10CFR50 rule can be made provided the NRC is in agreement with the analysis techniques used. As a result, Westinghouse f has used a finite element model to show that the Comanche Peak closure l flange, regions do not actually impact the heatup and cooldown curves.
. Details of the analysis are given in this report. The specific informa-l tion provide'd is listed as follows: .
- 1) A description of the finite element analysis used to detemine the !
stresses within the closure flange regions. i
- 2) The bolt-up, pressure and themal stresses detemined by the finite !
4 I element analysis at the inside and outside surface locations of the ; flange to head and flange to shell junctions. i I
- 3) How the bolt-up, presnre and themal stresses were combined to j detemine the applied stress intensity factors. '
, 4) The flaw geometry used to calculate the applied stress intensity j factors. ! ! 5) The applied stress intensity factors for the flange to head and ! ) flange to shell junctions. i 1 f i, l
- 6) Th] Technical Specification pressure-temperature limit that will
' be used to pressurize the reactor vessel from 400 psig to leak test and hydrotest pressure prior to the leak test and hydrotest.
- 7) The non-destructive examination methods that are currently specified for inservice examinations of head flange-to-dome welds and flange- !
to-vessel welds.
- 8) A qualitative assessment of the flaw detection and sizing capabilities of the non-destructive examination methods described in Item 7.
2.0 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL ' A two dimensional finite element model for a typical 4-loop reactor vessel closure head flange and vessel flange geometry was used in the analysis. The WECAN finite element program was used to develop the model. The critical dimensions in this model are within 4 percent of the geometry for Comanche. Peak Units 1 and 2. The finite element model was used to obtain f.emperature and stress gradidnts caused by the heatup and cool-
, down transients. Separate analyses were perfonned to detennine the bolt-up, pressure, and thermal stresses. Figure 1 shows the cross sa:tions '
analyzed. L Two-dimensional axisymmetric elements were used to model the closure flange regions of the reactor vessel. The bulk of the model 1s comprised t of isotropic elements. constant strain elements were used for all the t orthotropic elements as well as for any three node isotropic elements. Four node isoparametric elements were used for all the four node isotropic elements. Orthotropic elements were used to model the nuts, bolts, and the flange material between the bolt holes. These elements 2 i
, v, - were given a very low stiffness value in the hoop direction to account for the absence of any circumferential loads between adjacent members. The stainless steel clad, which covers the internal surfaces of the vessel, was considered to be non-structural and was not included as part of the
. finite element model. The insulating effect of the clad on model temperatures was included.
2.1 MECHANICAL.SOUNDARY CONDITIONS Physically, the reactor vessel shell will displace laterally, and the crown of the head does not displace laterally. To approximate this behavior, the bottom surface of the model in the shell region and the vertical surface of the model at the vessel crown were both assumed to be resting on rollers. This arrangement of restraint is assumed to correspond to the actual behavior of the vessel and prevents any rigid body motion of the model. Figure 2 shows this arrangement. The initial bolt preload tensioning is designed to be so large that the mating flanges of the closure head and shell will never be separated by the contained coolant pressure. Because of this design,.only bearing stresses
~
can exist at the interfaca between' 'the mating flanges of the head and shell.
, When the contained coolant pressure is zero, these bearing stresses exactly l ' balance the bolt preload. As the coolant pressure increases, the flange bearing stresses diminish since the coolant pressure is now helping the flange bearing stresses in opposing the initial bolt preload.
2.2 THERMAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS For themal analysis, all exterior surfaces of the model were assumed to be perfectly insulated and, therefore, adiabatic. Figure 3 shows the themal boundary conditions. When the inside surface of the vessel is subjected to thermal transients, the primary mechanism of heat transfer is forced convection. The themal properties of the metal are computed as linear functions of temperature. A unifom film coefficient was assumed for the entire inside surface of the vessel. Since the themal resistance across the flange mating surfaces will not be significant, al the nodes on the flange mating surfaces were thermally coupled on the finite element model. 3
~ ._ ,_ ._. . -- - - " ~ ~ ^
^3.0'~BOLTUP. PRESSURE'AND THERMAL STRESSES _ - -;
I The boltup, pressure and therinal stresses for the heatup and
- transients are detemined for the temperature range where the new i i 10CFR50 mie impacts the Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2 heal down curves. -
i The minimum tenperature of the Comanche Peak closure I flange regions is 160*F since the limiting RT j NDT is 40*F, and it occurs in the closure head flange region of both units. Figures 4 and 5 show that the 10CFR50 rule (without this special { stress analysis) impacts i the curves in the temperature range fmm 120*F to 160*F. !
- The themal stresses used conservatively cover this temperat for both the heatup,and cooldown transients.
For the heatup transient I i analysis, the themal stresses near the middle of the 100*F/ hour transient are used. ! These stresses are obtained. for a coolant tempera-I ture which is greater than the 120* to 160*F temperature range of interest. !
- For the cooldown transient analysis, the themal stresses at the end of 100*F/ hour cooldown are used. [
These thermal stresses can be applied to the analysis,which shows the new 10CFR50 rule does not } impact the Comanche Peak heatup and cooldown curvas. I-
}
The pressure stresses used iri the* a'rialysis a're based. on an internl ! sure of 7i6 psig since this is the maximum allowable p'ressu! t and 5 in the tamperature range from 120*F to 160*F. j ( I I Tables 1 through 4 contain the boltup, pre sure, and themal stresses for cross sections 1, 2, and 3. i
- Table 1 contains the stresses in the longitudinal direction for the ,heatup transient, and Table 2 lists the {
heatup transient circumferential stresses. For the cooldown transient, Tables 3 and 4 contain the longitudinal and circumferential stresses, respectively. l 4.0 FRACTURE MECHANICS ANALYSIS l The methods of the ASME Cbde Section XI, Appendix AE43 are used to generate { , the fracture analysis results.
- The flaw assumed in the analysis is a 0.625 i inch deep surface flaw with an aspect ratio of 1:6. A safety factor of 2.0
) is applied to the stress intensity factor due to the primary stresses (bolt-t ! G[5]up and pressure stresses) as required by the ASME Code Section IIi ! Therefore, the primary and secondary (thermal) stress intensity l r 4 ! 4 :
'..* i l ' factors (K )g were combined in the following manner:
(Kg ) Total 2 (K )primry + IK )I secondary g (I) In this report, the computed values of K g which are negative are considered to be zero. I I
' The NRC used the same fracture analysis techniques to develop the ne r , mle. l The only difference is that Westinghouse used a finite element model !
to obtain strestas which are more accurate and less than the ben of 40 ksi consonatively assumed by the NRC. ( i 5.0 FRACTURE MECHANICS RESULTS : The resultant primary, secondary, and total stress intensity factors for ) ( the heatup and cooldown transients are listed in Tables 5 through For 12. the heatup transient. Tables 5 and 6 contain the K { y values for inside and out-j side surface circumferential flaws, respectively. Tables 7 and 8 present thl K ; g values for inside and outside surface longitudinal flaws subjected to the heatup transient. } For the cooldown transient, Tables 9 and 10 list the K j y
' values for inside and outside surface c.ircumferential flaws, respectI Tables 11 and 12 contain the K g values.for inside and outside surface' longi-turiinal flaws ' subjected ,to the cooldown transient. , ,. ,
{
' - \i These results indicate that the maximum total K g of 64.74 ksidii occurs for ' an outside surface circumferential flaw at cross section 3 during cooldown .
(Table 10). This K y is relatively small, and all the other K g values in ! Tables 5 through 12 are smaller. 'Therefore, the !4estinghcuse ar.alysis show;{ that the closure flange regions are less limiting than the Comanche Peak Units ! 1 and 2.heatup and cooldown curves.in Figures 6 and 7. ! . .. ~ ,. .. l 6.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PRESSURE-TEMPERATURE LIMIT b ' This section describes the pressure-temperature limit that will be used to , pressurize the reactor vessel fmm 400 psig to the leak test or hydrotest t pres sure'. To reach the test pressure, follow the nonnal heatup curve in i Figure 6 up to the minimum temperatu' re required for the test. Then fellow j j a vertical line (dashed in Figure 6) up to the desired test pressure, 3 t s s ; i
.+ %
7.0 NDE METHODS Nondestructive examinations currently specified for inservice inspection o reactor vessel flange-to-upper shell weld and the vessel head flange-to-dome weld'are in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boile , g Table IWB-2500-1 requires volumetric examination of flange-to-shell welds an volumetric and surface examinations of head flange-to-dome welds. I [ The 1980 Edition of Section XI specifies the boundaries for volumetric examination include thj and adjacent base material for a distance equal to one-half the weld thickne both sides of the weld, Figures 8 and 9. The area specified for surface examination is the radiused or transition section of the flange on the outside surface as s! in Figure 9 between locations C and E.
},< , ' Volumetric coverage of the reactor vessel flange-to-upper shell weld and s adjacent base material is accomplished by two ultrasonic scan routines. Coverage from the flange side of the weld involves use of angled longitudinal waves from the flange seal surface. ;
Beam angles are selected based on their ability to g provide coveiage of the weld and specified adjacent base material and provide n nonnal incidence to the plane of the weld. ; Refracted beam angles in the ra ' to 16' are" typically used for these examinations. of the weld involve O', Examination's.from the shell side 45', and 60* refs; acted angle beam coverage frcm the vessel inside diameter surface. Angle beam scanning is performed in two directions parallel to the weld and perpendicular to the weld from the shell side. Access for the shell side examinations is limited to outages when the core barrel is removed from the reactor vessel. L Volumetric examination of the reactor vessel closure head flange-to-dome weld an 4 specified adjacent base material is accomplished by O*, 45' and 60* refracted
# angle coverage from the head outside surface. Angle beam scanning is performed in two directions parallel to the weld and perpendicular to the weld from the dome side.
Surface examinations of the radiused or transition section of the head! flange outside surface are conducted by a magnetic particle technique. l l i
.: , g i t
[ . _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~
..' 8.0 DETECTION AND SIZING ASSESSMENT I'
*= ~
\
No quantitative infomation concerning detection and sizing capabi techniques currently applied during examinations of closure flange jun has been developed based upon qualification demonstrations, nor are demonstrations specifically required by existing codes and stiindards However, i j certain salient features of the examinations may be considered to establish i '~ > that. flaws of the type postulated in this analysis which fall within the t [ volumes s'ubject to examina' t ion are likely to be detected. i Flaws assumed for this analysis are 0.625 inch deep planar surface flaw 1:6 aspect ratios. t j They may be oriented circumferential1y or axially with respect to the vessel or head and may lie on the OD or ID surface. l The fact that the postulated flaws are surface related is significant from a : detection probability point of view. i Incipient cracks starting at right angles l to a given surface (OD or ID) provide favorable conditions for detection via A Code specified 45' shear wave ultrasonic examinations from the opposite su . l Circumferential flaws are oriented favorably for detection during axial s
' Axial flaws are oriented favorably for detection during circumferential sca5
' ~
t Circumferential1y oriented flaws in the vessel flange weld region also provid favorable cunditions for detection during ultrasonic examinations from the flange seal surface. { Beam angles selected for these particular scans provide near nomal incidence to the anticipated flaw plane thereby enhancing the { i probability of detection. 4 Application of near surface examination methods in i the fom of full node 45* or shallow angle. techniques significantly increases the probability of detecting flaws at the examination surface, i.e., the vessel in side and the head outside. Finally, the probability of detecting flaws which } intersect the OD surface in areas of the vessel head subject to surface examination should be high. ! While the qualitative assessment indicates that detection probabilities are reasonably good for flaws postulated in this analysis, certain unknown factors such as clad effects, defect roughness, orientation, and transparency due to i 7 i
'o ,
I high compressive stresses influence the ability to detect and ultimately p a realistic estimate of the size with current techniques. Defect sizing by ultrasonic methods has been the subject of several recent studies. To date, j no single method has been identified which consistently provides precise data. Typically several different methods must be applied and the most l l conservati'te results used in any analysis that might be necessary. j The state-of-the-art of reactor vessel examination has improved over the past ! several years. l Enhanced near surface detection capabilities, trends toward j lower recording levels, and tip-diffraction sizing methods are examples. ! Continued emphasis on NDE technique development promises to provide further ; i improvements and more quantitative data concerning detection and sizing accurac i I h 8 i 1
- - . .---.,_.y.- , , . , _ . _ . , , , . , , _ . . , _ , ,. , _ _ . , , _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , , , , _ _ ,,,,, ,,,._. ,,,,,,,. , , , , . _ , , . . _,r.._m .,,. ,,, _.
9.0 REFERENCES
. s
* , 1. ,
Peak Technical Specifications", U.S. Nuclear R Washington, D.C., December 9, 1983. 2. Requirements", U.S. Nuclear Regulstory Comm Amended May 17, 1983 (48 Federal Register 24010). 3. house R&D Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 17, 1979. Septem 4 A. " Analysis of Flaw Indications",1983 Edition.ASME Bo ' 5. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1 - Appen-dix G, " Protection Against Nonductile Failure",1983 Edition. 6. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Division 1 - Su Power Plants",1980 Edition. tion IWB, " Requirements for Class , = 6 e
' S 1
9
. ' i
- I FIGURE 1
. CRITICAL CROSS SECTIONS, I l L SECTION 1 s $.
. i SECTION 2 - 7 1
t
. t e
t
. , ..1 , [
d ;;;f,' 3, , , ww dj f SECTION 3
. . 5J i
1 s m.... !
. . .. }
\
. . . . j
. . . . j
. . .un 7 .
1 i I
.. . . 1
..4 . um
. . ,uuum WJJ l
10
FIGURE 2 1 MECHANICAL BOUNDARY'COND8TIONS ' M
/
# O.
#D
#3
/
}
I 1 i
}
t Il I i I I i I e,. I O m m a s y y
- - uz1 h
- - 1r
- r, i ii i
( b 1, ma mm i m u mm i m a mm k,
- amnu usu i
-==m k
- m m -
' m - mM m um m= I I
mae m
--4m :
m um m mam n
. iw = mm= I e ausua l
5?f5 fl////////[ v O-i i
- 11
-w w y-m.- wwa. - -- v--m ,--- --w-w----w,-e--- -wwwww--.---- ww-w--w-- - -------ew-.- w- - ey-syy+egwg--- . - + - --m--+---e-
__ _ - -- -- ~ FIGURE 3 : THERMAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS I
/ I
/
ADIABATIC
/ !
}
i
. - i
. / j i
' 1
{
/
- i
/ i c
/
l// !
\
t
\
/ t
\
i i
~~? T : ~ T V
.:. ::Y r
- :::/
'/ \
g/ !
"/ I
., ADIABATIC !
j
., t
/ ;
7 s
/
w . .
,/
~~
f
./
/ ~7/ ,
12 e..
,._4..--,. .- - _ . - -,,.,_-,.,____,,__,__.,,.,,-.,y,,, _ _
CFPPER CONTENT
. - . : CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO BE 0.10 WTZ !
RT INITIAL i
,, NDT : CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO BE 40*F i
RT AFTER 16 EFPY : 1/47,110*F NDT 3/4T. 87'F . CURVE APPLICABLE FOR REATUP RATES UP TO 60*F/HR FOR !T UP INSTRI.NENT TO 16ERRORS EFPY A10 CONTAINS MARGINS OF 10*F AND 60 PSIG Fi ' mera -
. I
!i *ill li:i li' i j l 1 ' '
! I I !
'!! 'i j i.ii 'ili l ii
. l' .! l ; i j LElur : {' (! . j !! i '
4 l l E i j
, 4 l i ! j ;
.. 1: 15 ii? i ;l! '
! l'i I l i r! j I !
- i! N : ili i 'i !. I I i l l i i i: ! !:li~Wi!I' J f Il ( l/ I' l l
- i:; .iil! !iiliTP A ll t 1
/ 1. y l l
W I, . i f1.ilii ilill !lll i ! [' ; / / l
- j I: i!Ii!!
i i!i ilill l;l I l I
/ Il [ CRITICALITY L:'
. *'liii 'i!Iil :'. i l .I i/ ' / 'f / l fl l1 l "",
I p FOR 60*F/HR l I8!I
' I
- i iiI iiiil l / l/ '/ J l' -
9"
' HEATUP
. ! lii! !il ' -
)
/
li- I ) / / - -
! ,i'li ;
b
.'f;iiII
!jl'ii i l 1 !-/ ) / "
) t i
m lll li l ,i ' h / j 1/1 1 , I CRITICALITY : g .?
= p
, / ./ . .) l t
- , ,, --LIMIT FOR
$! 100*F/HR ;
a .!i..! !! I ! ,l / l fl/ / l -.,, L - -t- HEATUP' !
!F_ i.i3.I11: ! ! ! i i:! LIi l l'/ i/ / / ""
I
\
S r , : ,- : I': ! ! ; i l i i t tili I i J - V / /
;S .
- '!i.: ! e i I l'il s i !/j ' / / !
- i' .-
/
EE : :
!/ { !1/I r sser.s
~~ 1ii!!-!!! / I
< l I
- I ',
!!iiniii /lf f l :
~.!
- !!!; i i lil / f
/ a --
'g.eN
,.l CRITICALITY LIMIT I HEATUF *E L i i~. p"
~~"" ~~~~~~""~~ ""l~ ~~
BASED ON INSERVICli MTE5 % =I *
. 2: =
# lI HYDROSTATIC TEST l i
TEMPERATURE. (255'F" UP TU , 60"FZ *s -
! ' f.} J s# 1 4l =
- - -. FOR THE SERVICE
* ....- PERIOD UP TO 16 Er,
,I ,i ,.r! +
- ' ' '--~~' - - ~~--' ~- -' -
HtArur d urts M.......Dfi .. . . .i !. Y i:. i}.it- . . .- i r - -
'r b'" - ~
};;r),,_ .
.-. + ...
UP TO ,,,...;., t g ; ,I,i g .o { , }
}* , ___
100'F/ i i!ae ... . . .. , HR w
**!*f }i }{r"};"
,Ilh["
"j~ ' J' [
INDICA C TEMPERATURE (*F) Figure 4 IMPACT OF NEW 10CFR50 RULE l COMANCHE PEAK UNITS'.1 REACTOR ANDCOOLANT 2(WITHOUT SYSTEM HEATUP SPECIALLIMITA- STRESS l TIONS APPLICABLE UP T0 16 EFPY . 13
= -
.- *- COPPER (DITENT
- CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO BE 0.10 WT%
, ,* ,, RT
- NDT INITIAL :
RT CONSERVATIVELY ASSINED TO BE 40*F NDT AFTER 16 EFPY : 1/4T,110*F
. 3/4T, 87'F PERIOD (P TO 16 EFPY AND CON POSSIBLE INSTRtMENT ERRORS sees.s
' ti ilisil!l- .:,l'Ilis ,
[!l:::l: ll!i;; i-i ! .1- t l- i . .ii i i i
- i;; ::i i il:i T
!' ' !! I 'l! illf' ;'li l ij' ! !!::.l 8-I ll ti ; Ii !
li i 8ll l.! fi.'lll . i 'l! !!! il! i!:* .' l i-l!
', I '! illi Illli f il l il!l'l:I[ il !! I
-: i !!!: i i'!: I ! i lI/I i ! ! ! i j.; i ! !o :l!!ll!
. i:'.! l' li':li! i ! llIli ilinj ifi liil!iiii iii. li i!!ii i i .i ! l l/ ;llisis j ' '
lij;lil
- 5. asse. '
ii .:!! ill!: l i l l i i j/ i illiflit. iliii i
- li ! ilill '
'i l'Ili! lilll 111 i il!!i!
! ! ! ' ! : :. l 1
!! I i 11 I i l ililli! -
y -
- ili:lii s i <
!I l[1 'Il ii I ,, l l ll s'lci
'. E .
- ! :1 l l l l ff i- l l -l ll' il l l 8 '
1: :!!i :ie'l , li j l. I i l lji 'l it
$' : i;!.il ti!!! ! i liftij e i ' .! ! , 'i l l Il'l y
~
!!: 's.'i i ..i;l j i:/!!l !. :li: 1; I li :
'i
'i: ! !! Iti:l!f f i/l '
l . ii! ! l'i
'i':!il i t;'
filill j ]! ll!!_ !!I Ime.s
- i i!!ill lif j l : li !!! <lieli
. :r. iij glijl if til!l: l l i't !! -Q i .!.i'ii i!ii,l , f I i I
; I lll!!!
C00LDOWN RATES ! Il! i!!I l' i ('F/Mt)- i Ij l ! l jji 1.j {l4 i 'l l
~'-~~
~p . -~fi' o zo _ '_ _i i : :V/. : T~ T_ i,. ,il i .,i . .,!
40 - . ._ _
+ .. ,! .
. ir~4 .^. i
,t !Ii
,o .
j '.i . . . n.7... ...g . S .7,. 7__ 7 2. . 7_ .i 7., .
!!i si _ T. . . ,i
...i r-' t . ::
100- ._ ,[ ,
.~
j 3 jr-jt -4ypp
. . . ,, ..... .... f..--
j [,j - j ;- i. - -p,- - ...... j;j:
+-8 g; .,; p.. i 1
. ) -,. ! ,l >
; ; !! 7 ! I! l
.. a .
.i6 ,.7 . 9. . . .,. .,,
p .. .. ,
- q. , l
,7, .y g;p
..l .
- 1. -
e a B.S . 8.8 800.9 294.8 300.0' 900.0 144.0 INDICATED TEMPERATURE (*F) Figure 5 IMPACT OF NEW 10CFR50 RULE (WITHOUT SPECIAL STRESS ANALYSIS) ON COMANCHE PEAX UNITS 1 AND 2 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM C00LD LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE UP TO 16 EFP.Y . 14 .
, s.
.. COPPER CONTENT : CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO BE 0.10 WT%
l RT l
' ET INITIAL : CONSERVATIVELY ASSLMED TO BE 405F RT ET AFTER 16 EFPY : 1/4T. 110*F 3/47,87'F E
CURVE APRLICABLE FOR HEATUP RATES 'UP TO 60 F/HR FOR UP INSTRlNENT TO 16 ERRORS EFPY AfD CONTAINS MARGINS OF 10'F AND 60 PSIG , o i Bee.9
.i i 'ill:li'"8 li: l i i e i I ! i
: l i.i, ili lii l' .! , j LERx- : !- .i! .ip i '
i l
$T i i, c i i
' II ' :
I' ! I' ' I 1 l i f! I
- i! M : i' i l 'i l. I l l i ,j it! !:;i %i t i. [
J f ;
/ f /I l
- i:; .lil! 1
!iiliM _ i!' j f / JI I l'l l
.titi:ii i li!!ali 7 / / 3 /
lIei'li!! i!i 3131i !! , r r [ r [ i . ~ ' I i. ! I 'i!IiI CRITICALITYLi fl 3 ases.s ~!! l 3
' / ' / 'f / , , FOR 60*F/HR
' 1 L' i i.l8!I iil i iiil 'l
'l / l/ '/ J J ; { t"
~ HEATUP 7;; -
lii! !il 11-l l I ) / l- -- "
'. / <
l- ,
,illi E
'l
! I i ! i'! r lli I/ t f~l :
i!Ii lll li li l) [ j '/t M m
,. i . -
I , CRITICALITY ie t -
= ,1. d / -/ i/ -LIMIT FOR ,
E -' ,,
. i . ! e .s '! l, ,1l/ I f ,/ / 100*F/HR
-t- '~
3 - E i i;i: ' I l i i:! il , HEATUP' ! ll!/ b/ / /"'I I e w n: ,-: I ti;i' l i i ! nil l i l . (/ j - is s
- :':: ! , ! 11ii t !
- i' .-
- !/ ! / / / 1 i 5:=.s iii!!-t!!
!/ ',;.// /
;i : : : :. i .11'I /!/ / llIl CRITICALITY LIMIT,
/
HEATUP
*T'I"'I 4 I!I s'
il / / l['~!.BASED ON INSERVIC:i RATES N* !' ! ...'.: j /ii HYDROSTATIC TEST TEMPERATURE (255'i: UP TO .I ' l,l1 _ . #d _i,,.
- =-
60'F/ 1 i' !' : I
. . . ._ FOR THE SERVICE i
. PERIOD UP TO 16 E,, :,
EATUP i '~ ~' "" '~~~~'~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~
"f RATES -
- - - + + " ; "9 - * "t- " ---'
t- - -- *- l 6 UP TO ,,,...j,; ,Ici , t ) 100*F/ , ;* i g;i . . g { , , '-"{;j 4 . _ { [. _ , , .., }! , , , ..,, ,. . j. HR 6.s
**!*j "
}!4ae}"{ ,g .I 4,
' T[ -
"' '~
'l L
- s. I, see.e ase.s me.s ,
see.s tes.e INDICATED TEMPERATURE (*F) Figure 6 COMANCHE PEAX UNITS 1 AND 2 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM HEATUP LIMITA- i TIONS APPLICABLE UP TO 15 EFPY 15 . '
N BASIS - i s COPPER CDNTENT : CONSERVATIVEl.Y ASSUMED TO BE 0.10 WT% RT INITIAL f NDT : CONSERVATIVELY ASSUMED TO BE 40*F t RT l
' NDT AFTER 16 EFPY : 1/47,110*F 3/47, 87'F !
CURVE APPLICABLE FOR C00LDOWN RATES UP TO 100*F/H
. PERIOD POSSIBLE INSTRtMENT ERRORS (P TO 16 EFPY AND CONTAINS MARGINS OF 10*F Al '
?
3..S.. *
?
!* 'l=!6l!!- .: I'!l!. .
.l;l*l: l: ll!i.l.t '. i
;;; '.!! i I:i i
- ! .i '
l ji .i! illli j
'!! ! '!! ii!8 it ii l'i- ! ll.! l !
. : :; I ll 'li:! li '
i i !1l .! l
- j.:,i! i fi8 IIII i!!' i! b ll ii ! -
~
' A illi l Illi t il i illi'i.I[ liii !! !
i !!!: it'!! ! ! i ji/i' !'lii;it !!;j!!!,1! {
.::'. l' !!':!*l i !r i!]ii jii!! i, l i l l!Iiii [
- ii il i i!'li i i .i! ! !/ l ;lliitti. '
ll'l"l i I
$ as.s..
m
'+:: ir lili: ' i i j l l i i/. I ! ;!!iilii ,iliil
, I
- I i i 2lll2 i
'illi/ i !illl lii i lll!
-- t s ::!' :5.1 i!!! i!!li '
! I i ! 'i i ! ililli!' :
.m 0: :
i!:i;! !! ! !!Il iti ij o I
!. li i' I.I..
g
- !.:Pl!
'. . -i l l i .l~ :/
.! !- !;-ll 11 1 ! i 8 1: !!! !il i ll Ii i/ L !
; li i !! lji Ili i l
$ .- I*ii r!!!l l i i j/ l; !l'l,' i'i !
lll i j j ~ l l' t': j. : j liftil i,j:li li l !! i i il
*i: e lij' ji'l '/ l l iji '!:ifI
'i': !i llli j l /! l!! i L lij j
i i!! 'l i
!!/ l! l I l'
s !!! .!!.ii 19 .. i If
. , . i i;! ii:!lj I lil: I
- i i
- HEATUP TRANSIENT STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS g (K ) FOR '
- .: ::n tu
- ! Errors for the service period up to 4.3 rrrr. !Il! E h I- f! -
- ). pi U 2200 .., ;.. o c. 3. .
- . . ..1 ;3: ;,..
- r 1 L
- t I '. . qll,m F.,:q:
- Materials Basis: 1- ilt ut: ~ ; ;u: .::: n .: ; ;; :
- q. .r 2._ ': .,'
- gl l . RTNDT After 5 EFPY,1/4 T,137'F 3 ' 2 i gI 1.i :tp! ' d 7; N:-
- t
- " "U b' 1~ l Acceptabie f'
- 'l !
- 1 :t e a , ..
- .i, ,. :1 i
- ].3;
- t. . - ..
- iinl
- f. : t
- ft
- N i 'l' t:
- N :: .
- . :tt -
- xs r-rn kjil1 IIii7 i i
- Service Period up to 4.3 EFPI. I
- i l
- I W 1800 iil '! ,".
- i. m
- li lllll
- e 200 .,:
- " L ....
- 8 i I