A' A CALCULATION SUMMARY · 2012-11-30 · A' 20697-10 (3/30/06) A CALCULATION SUMMARY SHEET (CSS)...

A'20697-10 (3/30/06)

A CALCULATION SUMMARY SHEET (CSS)AREVA

Document Identifier 32-9049433-001

Title North Anna 1 & 2 PZR Surge Nozzle Weld Overlay Crack Growth Evaluation,___

PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:

METHOD: [Z DETAILED CHECK [I INDEPENDENT CALCULATION

NAME L. Reno NAME J. A. Brown

SIGNATURE _______SIG NA SIGNATURE __

TITLE Engineer I DATE IZ./4e /04 TITLE Advis ry Engineer DATE/ 7

COST REF., TM STAT'EME NT:CENTER 41324 _ PAGE(S) 87 REVIEWER INDEPENDENCE

NAME T. M. Wiger

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS:

Purpose: This document is a non-proprietary version of AREVA NP Document Number 32-9042735-002. The proprietaryinformation removed from 32-9042735-002 is indicated by a pair of square brackets O[ ]". The geometry and operatingconditions are Dominion Power proprietary. The purpose of the present analysis is to evaluate the fatigue crack growth of apartial through-wall 360° circumferential flaw into the Alloy 52M weld oveday at the North Anna Unit 1 & 2 Pressurizer SurgeNozzle. This evaluation is performed at both the Alloy 82/182 butt weld joining the nozzle to safe end and the stainless steelweld joining the safe end to piping.The purpose of Revision 001 is to incorporate the effects of Insurge and Outsurge transients, apply new methodology indetermining the Stress Intensity Factor (K) and update References to their latest revision levels.Results/Conclusion: After 33 years of operation, fatigue crack growth into the overlay material at both materials (Alloy82/182 and stainless steel) is summarized in the table below:

DM Weld Overlay SS Weld OverlayMin WOL thickness (inch), t., = [Additional WOL thickness for FCG (inch), At.o1 = [ ]Initial flaw size (inch), al = 1 .4700 1.2500Final flaw size after 33 years (inch), af = 1-5573 1,2904Flaw growth (inch), Aa = 0-0873 0.0404Allowable flaw depth to thickness ratio, aa,.A = 0.750 0.750Final flaw depth to thickness ratio, aA = 0.747 0.610

The final configuration at the overlaid locations meets the Section Xl, Appendix C acceptance criteria and the remainingligament also satisfies basic applied membrane stress considerations.

THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS ASSUMPTIONS THATMUST BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO USE ON

THE FOLLOWING COMPUTER CODES HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS DOCUMENT: SAFETY-RELATED WORK

CODE/VERSION/REV CODENERSION/REV El YESkweightvla.)da Z NO

AREVA NP Inc., an AREVA and Siemens company Page i of 93

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

RECORD OF REVISIONS

Revision Date Pages/Sections Changed Brief Description

000 03/2007 All Original Release

001 12/2007 All Complete Revision.

Incorporate the effects of Insurge and Outsurgetransients and apply new methodology indetermining the Stress Intensity Factor (K).

Page 11: Add Note 1 to Table 1.

Page 12: Add Note 2 in Section 4-4.Page 13: Revise Section 4-5 to addexplanation of weight function method of stressintensity factor calculation.Page 14: Revise Name Abbreviation column inTable 3.Page 15: Add Note 4 to Table 4.

Page 16: Add Note 7 to Table 7.

Page 87: Revise Reference 13 and updateReferences to their latest revision level.

2

AARE VA 32-9049433-001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.0 Analytical M ethodology ................................................................................................ 8

3.0 Key Assum ptions ..................................................................................................... 9

4.0 Calculations ................................................................................................................... 104.1 Postulated Flaw Shape .................................................................................. 104.2 Geom etry ........................................................................................................... 104.3 M echanical Properties .................................................................................. 114.4 Fatigue Crack G rowth ..................................................................................... 124.5 Stress Intensity Factor Solution ...................................................................... 134.6 Applied Stresses ........................................................................................... 13

4.6.1 Transient Stresses ........................................................................... 134.6.2 Sustained Stresses .......................................................................... 154.6.3 Therm al Stratification .......................................................................... 164.6.4 Seism ic Event .................................................................................... 174.6.5 Pressurizer System Pressure ............................................................ 184.6.6 Residual Stress in W elds ...................................................... .................. 18

4.7 Flaw G rowth Analysis .................................................................................... 194.8 Lim it Load Check ........................................................................ ................... 194.9 Applied M em brane Stress Check ................................................................. 21

5.0 Results and Conclusion ........................................................................................... 225.1 DM W eld Overlay ...................................................... ................................. 225.2 SS Weld Overlay ............................................ 545.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................ ............. 86

6.0 References 87................................................................................................................ 87

7.0 Com puter O utput .......................................................................................................... 88

Appendix A Verification of kweightvlA.xla ............................... .... 89Al Test Case 5 - internal, circumferential, 3600 surface flaw .............................. 89A2 Test Case 12 - consistency of SlF2 and SlF3 with SIF1 ................................ 90A3 Test Case 13 - Array_SIF and M axM inK ...................................................... 91A4 Test Case 14 - DeltaK and Rratio 9...................................................................... 93

3

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Basic Dimensions for Path Lines .................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 2. Mechanical Properties of Alloy 52M ................................... 11

Table 3. Surge Nozzle Transients ......................................................................................... 14

Table 4. Sustained Loads at SS W eld ............................................................................... 15

Table 5. Sustained Loads at D M W eld 1.................................................................................... 15

Table 6. Axial Stresses Due to DW and TH Loads ............................... 16

Table 7. Stratification Loads at SS Weld ...................................... 16

Table 8. Stratification Loads at DM W eld ........................................................................... 17

Table 9. Axial Stresses Due to Stratification Loads .............................. 17

T able 10. S eism ic Loads ......................................................................................................... 18

Table 11. Axial Stresses due to Seismic Loads ................................................................... 18

Table 12. Loading Conditions for Limit Load Check at SS Weld (Path 1) ........................... 20

Table 13. Loading Conditions for Limit Load Check at DM Weld (Path 2) ........................... 20

Table 14. Evaluation of Partial Through-Wall Circumferential Flaw in DM Weld Overlay .......... 23

Table 15. Limit Load Results at DM Weld Overlay .......... ...... . ............... 52

Table 16. Applied Membrane Stress Check at DM Weld Overlay ......................................... 53

Table 17. Evaluation of Partial Through-Wall Circumferential Flaw in SS Weld Overlay ..... 55

Table 18. Lim it Load Results at SS W eld Overlay .................................................................... 84

Table 19. Applied Membrane Stress Check at SS Weld Overlay ........................................ 85

4

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Weld Overlay Configuration ......................................... 7

Figure 2. Internal Full Circumferential Partial Through-W all Flaw ........................................ 10

Figure 3. Finite Element Model Section with Stress Pathlines Superposed ......................... 19

5

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

1.0 Purpose

Due to the susceptibility of Alloy 600 and its associated Alloy 82/182 weldments to primarywater stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC), Dominion plans to install a full structural weld overlayat the surge nozzle of the pressurizers at North Anna Units 1 and 2 (NA-.1&2). A repairprocedure has been developed where the dissimilar metal (DM) Alloy 82/182 weld and stainlesssteel (SS) safe end weld, and a portion of both the nozzle and attached pipe are overlaid withPWSCC resistant Alloy 52M material, as shown in Figure 1. This repair design is more fullydescribed by the overlay design drawing (Reference 1) and the technical requirementsdocument (Reference 2). It is postulated that a 3600 circumferential flaw would propagate byPWSCC through the thickness of the Alloy 82/182 weld, to the interface with the Alloy 52Moverlay material. Qualification of the welding process (Reference 3) has demonstrated as-deposited weld metal chemistry sufficient to prevent PWSCC growth into the applied weldoverlay and as such, no dilution layer is considered in this analysis. Although PWSCC wouldnot continue to occur in the Alloy 52M overlay, it is further conservatively postulated that a smallfatigue initiated flaw forms in the Alloy 52M overlay and combines with the PWSCC crack in theAlloy 82/182 weld to form a large, partial through-wall, full circumferential flaw that wouldpropagate into the Alloy 52M overlay by fatigue crack growth under cyclic loading conditions.

A fracture mechanics analysis is performed to evaluate this worst case flaw in the repairconfiguration. This evaluation will consider sustained and normal/upset/test condition transientstresses (Reference 4) with the associated number of transient cycles to predict the final flawsize at the end of license extension at NA-I&2, which equates to a 33 year service life. Thisevaluation will demonstrate that the postulated circumferential flaw meets the ASME CodeSection XI, Appendix C acceptance criteria (References 5 and 6). An additional check will bemade on the applied membrane stresses in the remaining ligament under normal operatingconditions. This analysis is performed for both the Alloy 82/182 weld as well as the stainlesssteel weld joining the safe end to the piping.

6

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001AR EVA 32-9049433-001

Figure 1. Weld Overlay Configuration

7

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

2.0 Analytical Methodology

This analysis postulates a 3600 circumferential fla w, which propagates by fatigue crack growthinto the weld overlay, governed by a crack growth rate and stress intensity factor solution asdetailed in Section 4.0. Applied stresses include both transient and sustained normal operatingloads. The crack is grown on an annual incremental basis for 33 years.

As part of the overall effort in designing the weld overlay, a sizing calculation was prepared thatdetermined the minimum thickness required to prevent net section collapse of the overlaid pipe(Reference 7). The sizing calculation design basis is a full circumferential through-wall flaw inthe Alloy 82/182 butt weld or the stainless steel weld. The calculated minimum thickness doesnot take into account fatigue crack growth into the Alloy 52M weld overlay. This fracturemechanics calculation establishes the additional overlay thickness beyond the sizing calculationminimum requirement including the effect of a large initial flaw size and fatigue crack growthbeyond this point while ensuring that the failure criteria detailed below are satisfied.

For highly ductile materials such as Alloy 52M, the acceptance criterion on flaw size is a 75%through-wall limit on depth (References 5 and 6):

a < aalow < 0. 75

t t

Another acceptance criterion for ductile materials is demonstration of sufficient limit load margin.A limit load check is performed to ensure that net section collapse does not occur followingcrack growth as required by ASME B&PV Code, Section Xl, Appendix C (References 5 and 6).

Additionally, applied membrane stresses in the remaining ligament will be compared to the yieldstrength to ensure that failure will not occur due to axial pressure and piping loads undernormal/upset/test conditions and emergency/faulted conditions.

Details of the methodology presented here are provided in Section 4.0 of this document.

8

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

3.0 Key Assumptions

There are no major assumptions for this calculation. Minor assumptions are noted whereapplicable.

The following engineering judgments are used in this analysis:

1. The fatigue crack growth rate for Alloy 600 material in a PWR environment (References 8and 9) modified by a multiplier of 2 based on Reference 10, can be used for Alloy 52M weldmaterial in this analysis. Further discussion of this crack growth rate can be found inSection 4.4.

9

AAR EVA' 32-9049433-001

4.0 Calculations

4.1 Postulated Flaw Shape

A full circumferential partial through-wall internal flaw in a cylinder as shown in Figure 2 ispostulated to exist at the time the overlay is applied. The flaw growth analysis contained withinaddresses the growth of the postulated flaw into the overlay material by cyclic loading.

by 52M Overlay

Original Weld

Figure 2. Internal Full Circumferential Partial Through-Wall Flaw

An axial flaw is considered to be bounded by the full circumferential partial through-wall internalflaw as shown in Figure 2 for several reasons. These include:

* Net section collapse of the axial flaw is not possible as the critical flaw size is very large.* The axial flaw postulated is of 2:1 aspect ratio (length to depth) which generally results in a

reduced stress intensity factor compared to a 3600 circumferential flaw.* The maximum length of an axial flaw is constrained by PWSCC resistant materials (the low

alloy steel nozzle and stainless steel safe end).* No external loads such as deadweight, thermal expansion or (tensile) shrinkage stresses

are present in the hoop direction. Pressure stresses are accounted for in the transientstress results.

* Hoop residual stresses are less significant than axial residual stresses for crack growth.

4.2 Geometry

Basic dimensions at the safe end to nozzle DM weld are

Outside diameter prior to overlay,Inside diameter,

[[ ] in. (Reference 11)] in. (Reference 11)

Basic dimensions at the safe end to piping SS weld are

Outside diameter prior to overlay,Inside diameter,

] in. (Reference 11)] in. (Reference 11)

10

AAREVA 32-9049433-001

The basic dimensions for the path lines at the DM and SS weld locations (Figure 3) are taken fromReference 15 and are listed below. These path lines are considered to be taken perpendicular tothe axial direction of the nozzle.

Table 1. Basic Dimensions for Path Lines(1 )

Path 1 Path 2 Path 3(SSW) (DMW) (DMW)

WOL Outer Diameter (in) [ ]f [ ] [

Inner Diameter (in) [ ] [ ] [

WOL thickness (in) [ ] [ I [ IAdditional WOL thickness (in) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Total Wall Thickness (in) [ ] [ ] [Cross-sectional Area (in2) [ ] [ ] [Moment of Inertia (in4) [ ] [ ] [Section Modulus (in3) [ ] [ ] [Perpendicular Distance Between Path lines in DMW and SSW (in) [ ] [ I [ I

Note: (1) The WOL thickness at the SSW location differs slightly from that used in Revision 000 of this calculationdue to a modification to the length of Path 1 shown in Figure 3 to correct for the slight slant of Path 1. Also,the additional WOL thickness of 0.085 inch is used in the present crack growth calculations over the entireoverlay to reflect the manner in which the overlay is implemented.

4.3 Mechanical Properties

The yield strength for the Alloy 52M overlay material is tabulated below.

Table 2. Mechanical Properties of Alloy 52M

Temperature Yield Strength, oay (ksi)Condition (c)ASME Code(1=:) (Reference 12)

Room Temperature 70 35.0Normal Operating [ ] [ ]

The Design Stress Intensity (Sm) of the weld overlay material is 23.3 ksi at temperatures rangingfrom 1 00=F to 800'F.

11

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

4.4 Fatigue Crack Growth

Flaw growth due to cyclic loading is calculated using the fatigue crack growth model in the NRCflaw evaluation guidelines for Alloy 600 in a PWR environment (References 8 and 9) which isbased on work that was presented in NUREG/CR-6721 (Reference 10). Reference 10 showsthat Alloy 52M materials do not exhibit the enhanced corrosion fatigue crack growth behavior ofAlloy 82/182 materials in simulated 3209C PWR water. Instead, Alloy 52M behaves quitesimilarly to Alloy 600 in PWR water. However, to be conservative, a multiplier of 2 is applied tothe Alloy 600 crack growth rate. Crack growth analysis is then conducted on a cycle-by-cyclebasis or to end of life.

da = 2 * CSRSENv (AK)n (1)

dN

where AK is the stress intensity factor range in terms of MPa'/m and da/dN is the crack growthrate in terms of m/cycle

C = 4.835x10-14 + 1.622x10-16T- 1.490x10-18T2 + 4.355x10-21T3 (2)

SR = [1 - 0.82R]-2 '2

SENV = 1 + A[CSRAKn]m-'TRlrm

A = 4.4x10-7

m = 0.33

n = 4.1

T = degrees C(2)

R = Kmin / Kmax

TR = rise time, set at 30 sec.

Note: (2) Appropriate temperature conversion from degrees Fahrenheit to Centigrade was usedin the calculation of the fatigue crack growth.

12

AR EVA 32-9049433-001

4.5 Stress Intensity Factor Solution

For highly nonlinear stress fields such as those due to weld residual stresses, standard stressintensity factor (K) formulas based on third order polynomials, as used in Revision 000 of thiscalculation, may not accurately represent the stresses. The weight function method fordetermination of stress intensity factors can overcome this inaccuracy. K values can bedetermined for more general crack surface stress profiles. The input stresses for this crackgrowth evaluation are obtained from finite element solutions. Consistent with the finite elementapproximation, it is adequate to consider these stress distributions as piece-wise linear. Thestress intensity factor is calculated by multiplying the weight function by the internal stressdistribution over the crack plane and integrating the product over the crack depth.

This is a well established fracture mechanics methodology which AREVA NP has implementedin a Microsoft Excel macro. The technical basis for this implementation is fully explained inReference 16. This tool can be used to compute K for the flaw and nozzle geometriesconsidered in this analysis, which have been described in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

This new methodology results in a reduction in stress intensity factors when compared toRevision 000 of this calculation. An additional conservatism that is removed by using the weightfunction method is inherent to the Buchalet and Bamford solution previously used in Revision000. The Buchalet and Bamford solution is developed for an inside radius to thickness ratio(RI/t) of 10. This is conservative as the present configuration has an Ri/t Value of approximately3.

4.6 Applied Stresses

There are four categories of stress that need to be considered in this evaluation. Through-wallapplied stresses in the axial direction are quantified. These stresses include:

* Transient through-wall stresses due to fluctuations in pressure and temperature* Thermal stratification stresses* Sustained stresses due to dead weight, piping thermal expansion and pressure" Welding residual stresses

The steady state stresses (i.e. sustained and residual) were combined with the stresses at eachtransient time point to develop the extreme (high and low) stress states for each transient.Thermal stratification stresses are modeled as cyclic events that occur at the steady statecondition. The combined through-wall stresses are used to perform the fatigue crack growthcalculation.

4.6.1 Transient Stresses

The cyclic operating stresses that are needed to calculate fatigue crack growth were obtainedfrom a linear-elastic finite element analysis (Reference 4). These fatigue stresses weredeveloped for each of the transients listed in Table 3 at a number of time points to capture themaximum and minimum stresses due to fluctuations in pressure and temperature. Per thetechnical requirements document (Reference 2), the number of RCS design transientsestablished for the initial 40 year life is applicable to the 60 year licensed life of the plant (40year design life plus 20 year life extension). Using the design transient cycle counts results in aconservative number of remaining plant cycles relative to the actual cycles of each transient that

13

AAREVA 32-9049433-001the plant has experienced during the period of operation up to the installation of the weld

overlays.

Cyclic operating stresses were generated in Reference 4 for the transients listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Surge Nozzle Transients

Transient Operating Cycle Name OccurrencesID Number Abbreviation O__urrenes

1 Unit heatup [ ][Unit cooldown [Plant Loading at 5% power per minute [ ]Plant Unloading at 5% power per minute [

3 10% step load increase [ ] [4 10% step load decrease , [ [5 Large step decrease in load [ ] [ ]

6 Loss of load [ ] []7 Loss of power [ ] [ ]8 Loss of flow in one loop [ ] [9 Feedwater cycling at hot shutdown [ ] [ ]10 Boron Concentration Equalization [ ] [ ]11 Reactor trip with no cooldown [ ] [ ]

12 Reactor trip with cooldown but no safety [ [injection

13 Reactor trip with cooldown and safetyinjection ,_[_]_[

14 Inadvertent reactor coolant system [ [depressurization

15 Inadvertent startup of an inactive loop [ ] [ ]

16 Control rod drop [ I [ I17 Inadvertent safety injection actuation [ ] [ ]18 Turbine roll test [ ] [ ]19 Loop out of service normal loop shutdown I [ I20 Loop out of service normal loop startup [ ] [ ]21 RCS cold overpressurization [ ] [ ]22 Insurge/Outsurge AT = 320°F [ I [ I23 Insurge/Outsurge AT = 110°F [ ] [_ ]

Seismic (OBE) and the stratification events -described in Reference 14 are modeled astransients with cycle counts as listed below. The magnitude of the transient event is calculatedfrom the loads given in Reference 14. The high stress condition is taken to be the stresses dueto each of these events applied at the steady state condition, such that the stresses are cyclingbetween the maximum stresses and steady state as additional transients.

14

AAREVA 32-9049433-001

Load Case

]]

Cycles over 60 years

[ ].[ I[ ][ ][ ]

4.6.2 Sustained Stresses

Loads applied at the safe end (Reference 14) are given below:

Table 4. Sustained Loads at SS Weld

Load Forces (Ibf) Moments (in-lbf)Case Axial(') Fy F, Torsion MY M, SRSS(3)

DW [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]TH(4) [ ]] [ ] _[ _ ]_ [ ] [ (4)

DW +TH [ ] _[ _] [_ ] [_]_ [ ] [Note:

Note:

(3) The axial forces are aligned with the nozzle center line. The SRSS moment does notinclude the torsional, portion as this moment does not contribute to crack growth.

(4) A more accurate method of calculating the axial stresses due to external loads is used inthis calculation and therefore conservative thermal loads are selected as bounding loads.

The loads applied at the safe end can be transferred to the cross sections in the IDMV weld andWOL along the path lines shown in Figure 3 according to the equations

(My)Path Line in Nozzle = (My)Path Line in Safe End - F, h

(Mz)Path Line in Nozzle = (Mz)Path Line in Safe End + FY h

where h is the perpendicular distance between the two path lines as described in Section 4.2.

The results are listed in Table 5.

Table 5. Sustained Loads at DM Weld

DW + Forces (Ibf) Moments (in-lbf)TH Axial(s5 Fy F, Torsion MY M, SRSS(5)

Path2 [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 3 [ 1 [ ]

Note: (5) The axial forces are aligned with the nozzle center line. The SRSS moment does notinclude the torsional portion as this moment does not contribute to crack growth.

These sustained loads are converted to axial stresses as follows:

axial kstress =Axial + (SRSS )bending

A S

where A and S are the cross-sectional area and section modulus, respectively, as given insection 4.2. The results are given in Table 6 where the axial stress is tensile when it is positive.

15

AAREVA 32-9049433-001

Table 6. Axial Stresses Due to DW and TH Loads

DW +TH Axial Stress(psi)

Path3 [Path2 [2]Path1 [ 1

4.6.3 Thermal Stratification

Stratification loads are provided in Reference 14. The bounding set of loads for NA-1&2 arelisted in the table below:

Table 7. Stratification Loads at SS Weld

Load Case Forces (Ibf) Moments (in-lbf)) AxialF6 , F F Torsion M_ Mz SRSS(6)

[ /1 [ ] [ ] [][ ].[[ ] . [] []](7) [ ] .[ I [ ] [ ].[ . [ ]

[ _ _ ]_ _ [ __ ] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [____] [ ] __[_ ] [. _ _ _ ]](7) ] ] .[ I [ ] [ [ I [ I


Note: (7) A more accurate method of calculating the axial stresses due to external loads is used inthis calculation and therefore conservative stratification loads are selected as boundingloads.

The loads applied at the safe end can be transferred to the cross sections in the DM weld and

WOL along the path lines shown in Figure 3 according to the equations

(My)Path Line in Nozzle " (My)Path Line in Safe End - F, h

(Mz)Path Line in Nozzle - (Mz)Path Line in Safe End + Fy h

where h is the perpendicular distance between the two path lines as described in Section 4.2.The results are listed in Table 8.

16

A ,AR EVA 32-9049433-001

Table 8. Stratification Loads at DM Weld

LoadCase Forces (lbf) Moments (in-lbf)

Axial(8) Fy Fz Torsion MY M, SRSS(8)

[ ]_ __[] [_ _ [] [

Path [ ][ '][ ]]]]3 [ ]L [_ __][ ] ] [ I

[ ]_ _]_ _] [ [ ] [ [][ ]I [I [ [ ]I ][ ]I ][]

Path [ ]] [ [ [[ I2 [ ]_ __[] [ ] [ ] [] []

[ ]I [ ] [ [_]_[_ _ _ _ ] [_]_ _


These stratification loads are converted to axial stresses as follows:

Axial ( SRSS )bendingaxial stress A - +

A S

where A and S are the cross-sectional area and section modulus, respectively, as given insection 4.2. The results are given in Table 9 where the axial stress is tensile when it is positive.

Table 9. Axial Stresses Due to Stratification Loads

Axial Stress (psi)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ ] [ ] [ ]I []Path3 [ ] 3[ ] [ ] [ IPath2 [ ] 2[ [ ] [ ]Path1 [ 1 [ ] [ ] [ ]

4.6.4 Seismic Event

The effect of the seismic loads on fatigue crack growth is addressed by modeling the seismicevent as a transient event. The methodology for constructing the cyclic stress distributions for aseismic transient is similar. to that for the thermal stratification transients discussed in section4.6.3. The seismic loads acting on the path lines are shown in Table 10. Since the seismicloads are oscillatory, the forces and bending moments acting on the Stainless Steel Weld (Path1) are transferred conservatively to the DM Weld (Path 2 and Path 3) shown in Figure 3 usingthe equations:

(My)Path Line in Nozzle = IMylPath Line in Safe End + IFzl h

(Mz)Path Line in Nozz1e = IMzjP' ath Line in Safe End + IFyI h

17

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

where h is the perpendicular distance between the two path lines as described in Section 4.2,and the absolute sign denotes the magnitude of either the force or the moment. The. results aregiven in Table 10.

Table 10. Seismic Loads

Seismic Forces (Ibf) Moments (in-lbf) ....Axial Fy F. Torsion MY Mz SRSS

Path3 T3rsion* [ ] _[ _] [_ ]

Path2 [ 2 [ ] [ ] _[ _ ] [[ ]Path1 [ ] ] [ ] [ ] [ ]1[ _ ] [ _]

These seismic loads are converted to axial stresses according to

axil sres= IAxial -I ( SRSS )bendingaxial stress =+

A S

where the absolute sign denotes the magnitude of the axial force. The results are given inTable 11.

Table 11. Axial Stresses due to Seismic Loads

Seismic Axial Stress(psi)

Path 3Path2 2[Path 1

4.6.5 Pressurizer System Pressure

For the fatigue crack growth analysis, it is conservatively assumed that primary water can getinto the flaw and the crack faces will be subjected to pressure load. Per Reference 14, thenormal operating pressure is [ ] psia and the highest pressure among the transientsidentified in Reference 14 for normal and upset conditions is [ ] psia. Thus a pressure loadof [ ] psia will be applied to the crack faces during fatigue crack growth analysis.

For the determination of allowable flaw sizes, maximum pressures for normal/upset/test andemergency/faulted conditions are required. Per IWB-5000 of Reference 5 and 6, the testpressure shall be no higher than 10% of the normal operating pressure. This results in amaximum test pressure of [ ] psia. Thus for allowable flaw size determination, a pressure of

] psia will be used for the normal/upset/test conditions and the design pressure of [ Ipsia for the emergency/faulted conditions.

4.6.6 Residual Stress in Welds

The residual stress profile through the thickness of the DM and SS welds and overlay isobtained from an analysis performed for the NA-I&2 surge nozzle (Reference 15). Stresseswere obtained over multiple paths through the thickness of the DM and SS welds and overlay.The paths over which these stresses are obtained are shown in Figure 3, and axial residualstresses are obtained over these paths. These stresses are combined with the transient stress

18

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

results to obtain-the combined stresses over the path line. From this process, it was determinedthat the stresses at Path 2 were controlling for the DM weld. These results are used to performthe fatigue crack growth calculation.

I,

Figure 3. Finite Element Model Section with Stress Pathlines Superposed

4.7 Flaw Growth Analysis

Flaw growth is calculated in one-year increments for each of the transients. The actual flawgrowth analysis is presented in Table 14 for the DM weld and in Table 17 for the SS weld. Foreach table, the applied cycles are distributed uniformly over the service life by linking theincremental crack growth for each transient.

Through-wall metal temperatures are provided by the Section III analysis (Reference 4). Anevaluation was conducted to determine the highest metal temperature from each path line andfor each transient analyzed.

4.8 Limit Load Check

At the end of the flaw growth analysis, a limit load check is performed to ensure that net sectioncollapse will not occur.

Per the ASME B&PV Code, Section XI, Appendix C (References 5 and 6), only primary stresses(Pm and Pb) are considered. The primary stresses considered in this application result frominternal pressure, dead weight and seismic loads (OBE or DBE). C-3320 of the same referencealso specifies two sets of loading cases with different safety factors (SF) to be used:Normal/Upset (N/U) operating conditions (SF = 2.77), and Emergency/Faulted (E/F) conditions(SF = 1.39). The limiting load combinations for the N/U conditions are: internal pressure + DW+ OBE. The limiting load combinations for the E/F conditions are: internal pressure + DW +DBE. Table 12 lists the maximum loads at the SS weld. The loads applied at the DM weld arelisted in Table 13.

19

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Since the seismic loads are oscillatory, the forces and bending moments acting on the StainlessSteel Weld (Path 1) have been transferred conservatively to the DM Weld (Path 2) shown inFigure 3 using the equations:

(My)Path Line in Nozzle ---= IMylPath Line in Safe End + IFJl h

(Mz)Path Line in Nozzle = IMzIPath Line in Safe End + IFyI h

where h is the perpendicular distance between the two path lines as described in Section 4.2,and the absolute sign denotes the magnitude of either the force or the moment.

Table 12. Loading Conditions for Limit Load Check at SS Weld (Path 1)

Load Case Forces (Ibf)(9) Moments (in-lbf)Axial Fy F, Torsion MY Mz SRSS

InternalPressure [N/U/T(1°)

InternalPressure E/F(10) [_]

DW [ ] [ [ ]_ _

OBE(+) [ ] _ _ [ ]] [ [ _ ]

DBE(+) [ ] [ ] [ I[ I[ ]Total forN/U/T [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [

Total forE/F [ ] [ ] [ ] 1 [ I [ I [Note: (9) The axial forces are aligned with the nozzle center line

(10)Axial force due to internal pressure is the greater of the nozzle load presented inReference 14 or a load due to pressure, where P is [ ] psia for N/U/T conditions and

psia for E/F conditions.

Table 13. Loading Conditions for Limit Load Check.at DM Weld (Path 2)

Load Case Forces (Ibf)(1") Moments (in-lbf)Axial Fy Fz Torsion MY Mz SRSS

InternalPressure [N/U/T(

12 )

InternalPressure E/F(12) ]

DW [ ] [ ]OBE(+) [ ][DBE(+) [ [ ] [ ]__][ _ [_ ]

Total forN/U/T [ ]_[_][_][ _ [[ ][Total forElF [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]I

Note: (11)The axial forces are aligned with the nozzle center line(12)Axial force due to internal pressure is the greater of

Reference 14 or a load due to pressure, where P is [] psia for E/F conditions.

the nozzle load presented in] psia for N/U/T conditions and

20

AARE VA 32-9049433-001

For a circumferentially cracked pipe, the relation between the applied loads and the crack depthat incipient plastic collapse per References 5 and 6 is given by

P' - 6Sm 22- t)sinp (7)

where t is the pipe thickness, /8 is the angle that defines the location of neutral axis (see FigureC-3320-1 of Appendix C, (References 5 and 6) for details), and a is the crack depth. Theassumed circumferential through-wall crack penetrates the compressive bending region suchthat (9 + 8) > n, where 9 is the half crack angle. Therefore the angle ,8 per References 5 and 6is given by

a P2- a t 3S M)

t (8)

where Pm is the piping membrane stress in the axial direction in the uncracked section of thepipe. Per Reference 2 for a weld overlay using Alloy 52M, filler material shall be deposited usingthe ambient temperature temper bead machine GTAW process. The failure bending stress Pb'

is therefore given by

Pb' = SF(Pm + Pb) - Pm (9)

with SF = 2.77 for Normal/Upset/Test conditions and SF = 1.39 for Emergency/Faultedconditions. Pb is the piping bending stress in the intact section of the pipe. If the bending stresscalculated using eqn. (7) exceeds that using eqn. (9) at the final crack depth, the componentmeets limit load requirements.

Results of the limit load check are shown in Table 15 and Table 18.

4.9 Applied Membrane Stress Check

This calculation verifies that the applied axial loads carried by the remaining ligament do notexceed yield stress at the final flaw size. Results are shown in Table 16 and Table 19.

21

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

5.0 Results and Conclusion

5.1 DM Weld Overlay

The stress intensity factors at the crack tip in the DM weld at the Alloy 52M weld overlayinterface are calculated for each transient. The through-wall stress distributions for the residualstress, external stress and transient stress used in the fatigue crack growth calculation for theDM Weld path line 2, which bounds all path lines in the DM Weld, are shown in Table 14.

22

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Table 14. Evaluation of Partial Through-Wall Circumferential Flaw in DM Weld Overlay

23

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Table 14. Evaluation of Partial Through-Wall Circumferential Flaw in DM Weld Overlay (Cont'd)

24

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Table 14. Evaluation of Partial Through-Wall Circumferential Flaw in DM Weld Overlay (Cont'd)I

25

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


26

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


27

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


28

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


29

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


30

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


31

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


32

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


33

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


34

,AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


35

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


36

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


37

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


-I

38

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


39

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


40

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


41

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


42

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


43

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


44

AARE VA 32-9049433-001


45

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


46

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


47

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


48

AAR EVA. 32-9049433-'001


49

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


50

A.AR EVA 32-9049433-001


51

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Flaw Sizes

Initial flaw size,

Final flaw size after 33 years,

Flaw growth,

Final crack depth to thickness ratio,

ai = 1.4700 in.

af = 1.5573 in.

Aa = 0.0873 in.

a/t = 0.747

Results of Limit Load Check

Table 15. Limit Load Results at DM Weld Overlay

Parameters Description N/U/T ElF

do, inch WOL outside diameter [

di, inch Inside diameter [ ] [

af, inch Final crack depth 1.5573 1.5573

F, Ibf Axial force [ ] [M, in-lbf SRSS moment [ ]tLo,0,, inch Weld overlay thickness [ ]t, inch Overall thickness including weld overlay [ ] [A, inch 2 Sectional area [ ]Z, inch3 Section modulus [ ] [

Pm, psi Membrane stress [ ]

Pb, psi Bending stress [ ] [SF Safety factor, References 5 and 6 2.77 1.39Pb', psi Failure bending stress by eqn. (7) [ ] [Pb', psi Failure bending stress by eqn. (9) [ ] [alt Final crack depth to thickness ratio alt 0.747 0.747

52

AAREVA 32-9049433-001

Results of Applied Membrane Stress Check

Table 16. Applied Membrane Stress Check at DM Weld Overlay

Parameters Description N/U/T E/F

d,, inch WOL outside diameter [ ] [ ]

trem, inch Remaining ligament thickness [ ] [_ ]

F, lbf Axial force (DW + TH + Pressure) [ ] [_ ]

Arem, inch2 Sectional area of ligament [ ] [

Pm1 , psi Membrane stress in ligament [ ] [cr, psi 650'F yield stress in ligament [ ] [

Margin 1.46 1.53

53

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

5.2 SS Weld Overlay

The stress intensity factors at the crack tip in the SS weld at the Alloy 52M weld overlayinterface are calculated for each transient. The through-wall stress distributions for the residualstress, external stress and transient stress used in the fatigue crack growth calculation for theSS Weld path line 1 are shown in Table 17.

54

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Table 17. Evaluation of Partial Through-Wall Circumferential Flaw in SS Weld Overlay

55

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Table 17. Evaluation of Partial Through-Wall Circumferential Flaw in SS Weld Overlay (Cont'd)

56

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Table 17.. Evaluation of Partial Through-Wall Circumferential Flaw in SS Weld Overlay (Cont'd)

57

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


58

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


59

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


60

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


61

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


62

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


63

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


64

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


65

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Table 17. Evaluation of Partial Th.rough-Wall Circumferential Flaw in SS Weld Overlay (Cont'd)

66

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Table 17. Evaluation of: Partial Through-Wall Circumferential Flaw in SS Weld Overlay (Cont'd)

67

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


68

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


69

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


70

A .AR VA 32-9049433-001


71

A.AR EVA 32-9049433-001


72

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


73

AAR EVA 32-904943"3'-001


74

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


75

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


76

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


77

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


78

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


79

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


80

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


81

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


82

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001


83

AAREVA 32-9049433-001

Flaw Sizes

Initial flaw size,

Final flaw size after 33 years,

Flaw growth,

Final crack depth to thickness ratio,

ai= 1.2500 in.

af= 1.2904 in.

Aa = 0.0404 in.

a/t= 0.610

Results of Limit Load Check

Table 18. Limit Load Results at SS Weld Overlay


do, inch WOL outside diameter [ ] [

di, inch Inside diameter [ ] [

af, inch Final crack depth 1.2904 1.2904

F, lbf Axial force [ ]M, in-lbf SRSS moment [ ] [

two,, inch Weld overlay thickness [ ] [t, inch Overall thickness including weld overlay [ ] [A, inch 2 Sectional area [ ]Z, inch 3 Section modulus [ ] [

Pm, psi Membrane stress [ ] [

Pb, psi Bending stress [ ] [

SF Safety factor, References 5 and 6 2.77 1.39

PbU, psi Failure bending stress by eqn. (7) [ ] [ ]

Pb, psi Failure bending stress by eqn. (9) [ ] [ ]

alt Final crack depth to thickness ratio 0.610 0.610alt

84

AAREVA 32-9049433-001

Results of Applied Membrane Stress Check

Table 19. Applied Membrane Stress Check at SS Weld Overlay


d., inch WOL outside diameter [ ] [ ]

trem, inch Remaining ligament thickness [ ] [ ]

F, lbf Axial force (DW + TH + Pressure) [ ] [Arem, inch 2 Sectional area of ligament [ ] [

Pm1 , psi Membrane stress in ligament [ ] [ ]cry, psi 650'F yield stress in ligament [ I [

I Margin 2.50 2.62

85

AAREVA 32-9049433-001

5.3 Conclusion

After 33 years of operation, fatigue crack growth into the overlay material is summarized in thetable below:

DM Weld Overlay SS Weld Overlay

Min WOL thickness (inch), two1 = [. ] [ 1Additional WOL thickness for FCG (inch), Atwo, = [ ] [ IInitial flaw size (inch), ai = 1.4700 1.2500

Final flaw size after 33 years (inch), af = 1.5573 1.2904

Flaw growth (inch), Aa = 0.0873 0.0404

Allowable flaw depth to thickness ratio, aaiiow/t = 0.750 0.750

Final flaw depth to thickness ratio, af/t = 0.747 0.610

The final configuration at the overlaid locations meets the Section XI, Appendix C (Reference 6)acceptance criteria and the remaining ligament also satisfies basic applied membrane stressconsiderations.

86

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

6.0 References

1. AREVA Drawing 02-8017167D-000, "North Anna Pressurizer Surge Nozzle OverlayDesign."

2. AREVA Document 51-9031151-003, "North Anna Units 1 and 2 Pressurizer Nozzle WeldOverlays - Technical Requirements."

3. AREVA Document 51-9009149-006, "Alloy 52 Overlay Chemistry Results."

4. AREVA Document 32-9038239-002, "North Anna Units 1&2, Pressurizer Surge Nozzle WeldOverlay Analysis."

5. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1989 Edition, Section XI, Division 1.

6. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1995 Edition with Addenda through 1996, SectionXl, Division 1.

7. AREVA Document 32-9034323-003, "North Anna Unit 1 & 2 Pressurizer Weld OverlaySizing Calculation - Surge Nozzle."

8. NRC Letter from Richard Barrett, Director Division of Engineering, Office of NRR to AlexMarion of Nuclear Energy Institute, "Flaw Evaluation Guidelines," April 11, 2003, AccessionNumber ML030980322.

9. Enclosure 2 to Reference 8, "Appendix A: Evaluation of Flaws in PWR Reactor VesselUpper Head Penetration Nozzles," Accession Number ML030980333.

10. NUREG/CR-6721, "Effects of Alloy Chemistry, Cold Work, and Water Chemistry onCorrosion Fatigue and Stress Corrosion Cracking of Nickel Alloys and Welds," U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission (Argonne National Laboratory), April 2001.

11. AREVA Drawing 02-8016831C-003, "North Anna Pressurizer Surge Nozzle Design."

12. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2001 Edition including Addenda through 2003,Section II, Part D.

13. C.B. Buchalet and W.H. Bamford, "Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Continuous SurfaceFlaws in Reactor Pressure Vessels," Mechanics of Crack Growth, ASTM STP 590,American Society for Testing and Materials, 1976, pp. 385-402.

14. AREVA NP Document 38-9034638-003, Dominion Engineering Transmittal ET-CEM-06-0003, Rev. 3, "Required Engineering Input for North Anna Pressurizer Weld Overlays, NorthAnna Power Station Units 1 and 2."

15. AREVA Document 32-9042543-000, "North Anna Units 1 and 2, Pressurizer Surge NozzleWeld Residual Stress Analysis."

16. AREVA Document 32-9052958-001, "Evaluation of Stress Intensity Factors Using theWeight Function Method."

87

AAR EVA

7.0 Computer Output

Not Applicable

32-9049433-001

88

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Appendix A Verification of kweightvlA.xla

Five test cases are performed to verify the correctness of the Excel Macro Kweightvl a.xla. Thetest cases are no. 5, 12, 13, and 14 of Reference 16. The results presented below are identicalto those documented in Reference 16. Hence, it is verified that Kweightvla.xla executesproperly.

Al Test Case 5 - internal, circumferential, 3600 surface flaw

Crack-face load type: a(u) = 0

Geometry: / = 276.46 in,Stress distribution:

Results:

R, =40 in, t=4 in,variable a

u (in) a (psi)

0.0 10000.5 10001.0 10001.5 10002.0 10002.5 10003.0 10003.5 10004.0 1000

aat K from SIF1 K fromfunction (psiqin) Reference 16

0.00 0.00 0 00.24 0.06 997 9970.48 0.12 1457 14570.72 0.18 1864 18640.96 0.24 2270 22701.20 0.30 2696 26961.44 0.36 3162 31621.68 0.42 3672 36721.92 0.48 4234 42342.16 0.54 4852 48522.40 0.60 5531 55312.64 0.66 6280 62802.88 0.72 7097 70973.12 0.78 7985 7985

89

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

A2 Test Case 12 - consistency of SIF2 and SIF3 with SIF1

Purpose of test case: To check the consistency of the functions SIF2 and SIF3 with SIFI.Crack-face load type:

U(u)=C 0 , o 0 =1000 psi

Geometr: /a = 6, Ri = 16 in, t = 4 in, variable a

Stress distribution:Stress for Stress for SIF2 Stress for SIF3

u (in) SIFi

s (psi) s1 (psi) s2 (psi) s1 (psi) s2 (psi) s3 (psi)

0.0 1000 500 500 333.33 333.33 333.330.5 1000 500 500 333.33 333.33 333.331.0 1000 500 500 333.33 333.33 333.331.5 1000 500 500 333.33 333.33 333.332.0 1000 500 500 333.33 333.33 333.332.5 1000 500 500 333.33 333.33 333.333.0 1000 500 500 333.33 333.33 333.333.5 1000 500 500 333.33 333.33 333.334.0 1000 500 500 333.33, 333.33 333.33

Results:

a (in) I (in) alt K (psiiin) K (psilin) K (psilin)from SIFR from SIF2 from SIF3

0.24 1.44 0.06 806.1 806.1 806.10.48 2.88 0.12 1155.0 1155.0 1155.00.72 4.32 0.18 1432.9 1432.9 1432.90.96 5.76 0.24 1697.1 1697.1 1697.11.20 7.20 0.30 1956.8 1956.8 1956.81.44 8.64 0.36 2208.7 2208.7 2208.71.68 10.08 0.42 2456.0 2456.0 2456.01.92 11.52 0.48 2700.8 2700.8 2700.82.16 12.96 0.54 2988.2 2988.2 2988.22.40 14.40 0.60 3303.2 3303.2 3303.22.64 15.84 0.66 3625.3 3625.3 3625.32.88 17.28 0.72 3954.4 3954.4 3954.43.12 18.72 0.78 4290.8 4290.8 4290.83.36 20.16 0.84 4675.5 4675.5 4675.53.60 21.60 0.90 5091.6 5091.6 5091.63.84 23.04 0.96 5518.8 5518.8 5518.8

90

AAREVA 32-9049433-001

A3 Test Case 13 - ArraySIF and MaxMinK

Purpose of test case: To verify functions ArraySIF and MaxMinK.

The input worksheet is:

A B C D E F1 Path 1 Path 22 aO (in) 0.40 0.203 10 (in) 25.13 23.884 Ri (in) 3.60 3.605 t (in) 1.00 0.75

No. of gridpoints along 5 4

6 each path7 flawtype = 38 flawlocation = 19 Klocation = 110 no. of paths 211

12 xl (in) wrsl (psi) Extl (psi) x2 (in) wrs2 (psi) Ext2 (psi)13 0.00 -1500 300 0.000 -500 30014 0.25 -1500 300 0.250 -500 30015 0.50 -1500 300 0.500 -500 30016 0.75 -1500 '300 0.750 -500 30017 1.00 -1500, 300 F - ::j

91

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Two simple transients, tranl and tran2, shown below are considered.

Transient: Tranl

Path Time (hr) axial sl axial s2 axial s3 axial s4 axial s5

1 0 0 0 0 0 01 10 10000 10000 10000 10000 100001 20 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 02 10 9000 9000 9000 90002 20 0 0 0 0

Transient: Tran2

Path Time (hr) axial sl axial s2 axial s3 axial s4 axial s5

1 0 0 0 0 0.. 01 4 3000 3000 3000 3000 30001 6 3500 3500 3500 3500 35001 10 0 .0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 02 4 1000 1000 1000 10002 6 1000 1000 1000 10002 10 0 0 0 0

Results:The K values determined from the array function Array_the tables below.Transient: tranl

_SIF and the function SIF3 are compared in

Path Time axial sl axial s2 axial s3 axial s4 axial s5

(hr)

1 0 0 0 0 0 01 10 10000 10000 10000 10000 100001 20 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 02 10 9000 9000 9000 90002 20 0 0 0 0

K fromArraySIF

-183213435-1832-2018822-201

K fromSIF3

-183213435-1832-2018822-201

J 92

AAR EVA 32-9049433-001

Transient: tran2

Path Time axial sl axial s2 axial s3 axial s4 axial s5

(hr)

1 0 0 0 0 0 01 4 3000 3000 3000 3000 30001 6 3500 3500 3500 3500 35001 10 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 02 4 1000 1000 1000 10002 6 1000 1000 1000 10002 10 0 0 0 0

K fromArray_SIF

-183227483512-1832-201802802-201

K fromSIF3

-183227483512-1832-201802802-201

The results obtained from using the array function MaxMinK are shown in the table below.

Sheet K value Row TimePath Path axial sl axial s2 axial s3 axial s4 axial s5name (ksi-in° 5) No (h r)

tranl 1 Kmax 13435 3 1 10 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000tranl 1 Kmin -1832 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0tranl 2 Kmax 8822 6 2 10 9000 9000 9000 9000tranl 2 Kmin -201 5 2 0 0 0 0 0tran2 1 Kmax 3512 4 1 6 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500tran2 1 Kmin -1832 .2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0tran2 2 Kmax 802 7 2 4 1000 1000 1000 1000tran2 2 Kmin -201 6 2 0 0 0 0 0

A4 Test Case 14 - DeltaK and Rratio

Purpose of test case: To verify functions DeltaK and Rratio.Input and Results:

AK R-ratioK1 K2 DeltaK cRratio Analytical

function Analfical unction

1500 1000 500 500 0.667 0.6671000 1500 500 500 0.667 0.667

-1000 2000 2000 2000 0 02000 -1000 2000 2000 0 0-5000 -100 0 0 0 0-100 -5000 0 0 0 0

93

A' A CALCULATION SUMMARY · 2012-11-30 · A' 20697-10 (3/30/06) A CALCULATION SUMMARY SHEET (CSS)...

Documents

Transcript of A' A CALCULATION SUMMARY · 2012-11-30 · A' 20697-10 (3/30/06) A CALCULATION SUMMARY SHEET (CSS)...