Attachment Ill to IPN-98-013 Technical Methodology Paper ...

Attachment Ill to IPN-98-013

Technical Methodology Paper Comparing ABB Combustion Engineering Pressure Temperature Curve to ASME Section 111, Appendix G

Non-Proprietary Version

NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY INDIAN POINT 3 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

DOCKET NO. 50-286 DPR-64

9801300156 980128 POR ADOCK 05000288 P PDR

Technical Methodology Paper Comparing ABB/CE PT Curve

to ASME Section 111, Appendix G

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00

January 22, 1998

Prepared for New York Power Authority

Prepared by ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations

2000 Day Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500

Authored by:

Reviewed by:

Approved by:

LI

C. L./Mendrala

K. H. Haslinger

Date: d

Date: /9~

Date: 2

This report has been veri fled by the method of Design Review in accordance with QP 3.10 of QPM-10J, Revision 01. QA VERIFICATION STATUS.- COMPLETE

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 Introduction.........................

2.0 Approach ...................... ........................................................ 4

3.0 Basic Data and Assumptions.......................................................... 4

4.0 ABB/CE PT Curve Methodology ..................................................... 5

4.1 General Approach............................................................. 5 4.2 Analysis of Heatup Transient ..................................8 4.3 Analysis of Cooldown Transient ................................9 4.4 Thermal Analysis Methodology............................................... 9

5.0 ASME PT Curve Method ............................................................ 10

6.0 Discussion of Results......................1

7.0 Conclusion............................................................................. 13

8.0 R eferences ... ........................................... ....... 13

Appendix A: Example of KIT Calculation ABB/CE Method ............................. Al Appendix B: Quality Assurance Forms.................................................... B I

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page 2

List of Tables

Page

100 0Flhr Cooldown

Table 1: Thru-waII temperatures for 100 'F/hr Cooldown ................................. 14 Table 2: Comparison of 100 'F/hr Cooldown KIT, P-Allowable using ASMIE,

ABB/CE Methods .................................................................. 15

100 "F/hr Heatup

Table 3: Thru-wall temperatures for 100 "F/hr Heatup..................................... 16 Table 4: Comparison of 100 "F/hr Heatup KIT, P-Allowable using ASME,

ABBICE Methods .................................................................. 17

List of Figures

100 "F/hr Cooldown

Figure 1: 100 "F/hr Cooldown Transient.................................................... 18 Figure 2: Thru-wall temperatures for 100 "F/hr Cooldown .......................... 19 Figure 3: Comparison of 100 "F/hr Cooldown to ASME Figure G-22 14-3 ........... 20 Figure 4: Comparison of 100 "F/hr Cooldown KIT vs time for 1/4T and 3/4T locations 21 Figure 5: Comparison of 100 "F/hr Cooldown P-Allowable vs time for 1/4T location ... 22 Figure 6: Comparison of 100 "F/hr Cooldown P-Allowable vs time for 3/4T location ... 23 Figure 7: Comparison of 100 "F/hr Cooldown P-Allowable vs Temperature for 1/4T

location ............................................................................. 24 Figure 8: Comparison of 100 "F/hr Cooldown P-Allowable vs Temperature for 3/4T

location............................................................................. 25

100 "F/hr Heat up

Figure 9: 100 "F/hr Heatup Transient ....................................................... 26 Figure 10: Thru-wall temperatures for 100 "F/hr Heatup .................................. 27 Figure 11: Comparison of 100 "F/hr Heatup to ASME Figure G-22 14-3 ........... 28 Figure 12: Comparison of 100 "F/hr Heatup KIT vs time for 1/4T and 3/4T locations .. 29 Figure 13: Comparison of 100 "F/hr Heatup P-Allowable vs time for 1/4T location ....30 Figure 14: Comparison of 100 'F/hr Heatup P-Allowable vs time for 3/4T location .... 31 Figure 15: Comparison of 100 "F/hr Heatup P-Allowable vs Temperature for 1/4T

. location........................................................................... 32 Figure 16: Comparison of 100 "F/hr Heatup P-Allowable vs Temperature for 3/4T

location...........................................................................3

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page 3063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page 3

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this document is to demonstrate that the ABB/CE PT Curve methodology generates similar results to those generated using the "constant rate" based ASME approach. This report will specifically compare calculations of thermal stress intensity, Krr, and P-Allowable using both approaches. Details of the sample Reactor Vessel (RV) geometry used in the calculations below is typical of those analyzed and is deemed sufficient to demonstrate a comparison of the two methods.

2.0 Approach

The evaluation presented in the following sections investigates a typical 100 'F/hr cooldown and heatup event on a typical reactor vessel. For these transients, a heat transfer analysis is performed on the reactor vessel beltline to provide detailed through wall temperatures for the events. These temperature results are used in both the ABB/CE and ASME methods to calculate thermal stress intensity, Krr, and, subsequently, PAllowable. The results are then compared and discussed.

It should be noted that the ABB/CE method continues to ensure that the vessel is protected against non-ductile. failure, which is the underlying purpose of I1OCFR5O.60. The benefit of using the ABB/CE methodology is that the calculational approach provides for greater operational flexibility at critical modes of operation.

3.0 Basic Data and Assumptions

Reactor Vessel Data

Design Pressure Design Temperature Operating Pressure Beltline Thickness Inside Radius (Base Metal) Outside Radius (Base Metal) Cladding Thickness

Material-SA 302 Grade B

Thermal Conductivity

You ngs Modulus

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Specific Heat

Density

2500 psia 650 OF 2250 psia 8.625 in 86.906 in 95.53 in 0.2 187 in (7/32")

- 24.7 BTU/hr-ft-0 F

- 28 x106 psi

- 7.77 x 10O6 in/in/oF

- 0. 12 BTU/lb- 0 F

- 0.283 lb/in 3


Stainless Steel Cladding

Thermal Conductivity = 10 BTU/hr-ft-0 F

Adjusted Reference Temperature Values

1 /4t 3/4t

202 OF 163 OF

Film coefficient on inside surface = 1000 BTU/hr~ft2 -oF

Required Data for ASME Methodolog

Base Metal Wall Thickness, t = 8.625 in

Base Metal Inner Radius, r =86.906 in

From Figure G-2214-1, Mm =2.85 (@ assumed o/ary = 0.7, this value is representative of a stress state in the vessel approximately equal to Sm.)

From Figure G-2214-2, M, = 0. 35 for both 1/4t and 3/4t

Reference Stress Intensity. K1 A

For the purposes of this evaluation, the value of KRA is limited to 400 Ksi- 4in for both methods being compared. This assumed material limit allows calculation of allowable pressure of up to 7000 psi over the temperature ranges being investigated. This limit is sufficient for the Pressure-Temperature curves being developed.

4.0 ABB/CE_ PT Curve Methodology

4.1 General approach

The general method utilizes Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics procedures. Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics relates the size of a flaw with the allowable loading which precludes crack initiation. This relationship is based upon a mathematical stress analysis of the reactor vessel beltline and upon experimental measurements of the beltline material fracture toughness properties as prescribed in Appendix G to Section III of the ASME Code, Reference 8.2.

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 PageS063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page 5

The reactor vessel beltline region is analyzed assuming a semi-elliptical surface flaw oriented in the axial direction with a depth of one quarter of the reactor vessel beitline thickness and an aspect ratio of one to six. To assure the most limiting condition is achieved, this postulated flaw is analyzed at both the inside diameter location (referred to as the 1/4t location) and the outside diameter location (referred to as the 3/4t location). The above flaw geometry and orientation is the maximum postulated defect size (reference flaw) described in Appendix G to Section III of the ASME Code.

Reference Stress Intensity. KA

At each of the postulated flaw locations the Mode I stress intensity factor, K1, produced by each of the specified loadings is calculated and the summation of the K, values is compared to a reference stress intensity, KRA.

KRA is the critical value of K1 for the material involved. The result of this method is a relationship of pressure versus temperature for reactor vessel operating limits which preclude brittle fracture. KRA is obtained from a reference fracture toughness curve for reactor pressure vessel low alloy steels as defined in Appendix G to Section III of the ASME Code, Figure G-22 10-1. This governing curve is defined by the following expression:

KRA 26.78 + 1.223e [Ol145(T-RT NT'160)] Reference 8.2

where,

KRA = reference stress intensity factor, Ksi 4 i T = temperature at the postulated crack tip, OF RTNDT = adjusted reference nil ductility temperature at postulated crack

tip, OF

For any instant during the postulated heatup or cooldown, KRA is calculated at the flaw tip location using both the metal temperature and the value of adjusted RTNDT at the tip of the flaw. Also, for any instant during the heatup or cooldown, the temperature gradients across the reactor vessel wall are calculated (see Section 4.4) and the corresponding thermal stress intensity factor, Krr, is determined. Through the use of superposition, the thermal stress intensity is subtracted from the available KRA to determine the allowable pressure stress intensity factor and consequently the allowable pressure. In this analysis, the calculated maximum allowable pressure was limited to 2500 psig, even though the calculated KRA may indicate allowable pressures higher than 2500 psig.

ADDendix G Recjuirement


In accordance with the ASME Code Section III Appendix G requirements, the general equation for determining the allowable pressure for any assumed rate of temperature change during Service Level A and B operation is:

2Km4 + Krr < KRA Reference 8.2

where,

Km Membrane pressure stress intensity factor, Ksi .-fiH =r Thermal stress intensity factor, Ksi ,4-n

Ku Reference stress intensity factor, Ksi V iH

Calculation of Allowable Pressure

Using the thermal analysis methodology described in Section 4.4, the temperature profile through the wall and the metal temperatures at the crack tips are calculated for the transient history. These temperatures are used with the adjusted RTNDT to calculate the reference stress intensity factor, KRA, for the l/4t and 3/4t locations. The same temperature profile is then used to calculate thermal stress intensity factor, Krr, at the same locations.

The Appendix G equation relating Kml, Krr, and KRA is rearranged as shown below to solve for the allowable pressure stress intensity factor as a function of time with the calculated KRA and Krr values.

KM KI - Kr 1% 2

where,

KN = Allowable pressure stress intensity factor as a function of time or coolant temperature, K i in

KRA = Reference stress intensity factor as a function of time or coolant temperature, Ksi Viiin

Kr = Thermal stress intensity factor as a function of time or coolant temperature, Ksi V-iH

The allowable pressure is derived from the calculated allowable pressure stress intensity factor, shown above. For calculational purposes, the allowable pressure can be represented by the following expression once the allowable pressure stress intensity factor is determined.


where,

P = allowable pressure as a fumnction of time or coolant temperature, Ksi Ki = allowable pressure stress intensity factor, Ksi -.IiHn K*= pressure stress intensity factor for 1000 psig internal pressure as

determined from a finite element mo del, Ksi .-/iH

Application of Output

The pressure-temperature limits provided in this report account for the temperature differential between the reactor vessel base metal and the reactor coolant bulk fluid temperature. However, uncertainties for instrumentation error, elevation, and flow induced differential pressure corrections are not accounted for and should be incorporated when final limits are developed.

4.2 Analysis of Heatup Transient

During a heatup transient, the thermal bending stress is compressive at the reactor vessel inside wall and is tensile at the reactor vessel outside wall. Internal pressure creates a tensile stress at the inside wall as well as the outside wall locations. Consequently, the outside wall location has the larger total stress when compared to the inside wall. However, neutron embrittlement, shift in material RTNDT and reduction in fracture toughness are greater at the inside location than the outside. Therefore, results from both the inside and outside, flaw locations must be compared to assure that the most limiting condition is recognized.

It is important to note that, during a heatup transient a sign change occurs in the thermal stress through the reactor vessel beltline wall. Assuming a reference flaw at the 1/4t location, the thermal stress tends to alleviate the pressure stress indicating that the isothermal steady state condition would represent the limiting P-T limit. However, the isothermal condition may not always provide the limiting pressure-temperature limit for the 1 /4t location during a heatup transient. This is due to the difference between the base metal temperature and the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) fluid temperature at the inside wall. For a given heatup rate (non-isothermal), the differential temperature through the clad and film increases as a fu~nction of thermal rate resulting in a crack tip temperature which is lower than the RCS fluid temperature. Therefore, to ensure that the accurate representation of the 1/4t pressure-temperature limit during heatup, both the isothermal and heatup rate dependent pressure-temperature limits are calculated to ensure the limiting condition is recognized. These limits account for clad and film differential temperatures and for the gradual buildup of wall differential temperatures with time.

To develop composite pressure-temperature limits for the heatup transient, the isothermal conditions at 1/4t and 3/4t, 1/4t heatup, and 3/4t heatup pressure temperature limits are compared for a given thermal transient. The most restrictive pressure-temperature limits


are then combined over the complete temperature interval resulting in a composite limit curve for the reactor vessel beltline for the heatup event.

4.3 Analysis of Cooldown Transient

During cooldown, membrane and thermal bending stresses act together in tension at the reactor vessel inside wall. This results in the pressure stress intensity factor, Km, and the thermal stress intensity factor, Krr, acting in unison creating a high stress intensity. At the reactor vessel outside wall, the tensile pressure stress and the compressive thermal stress act in opposition resulting in a lower total stress than at the inside wall location. Also neutron embrittlement, the shift in RTNDT and the reduction in fracture toughness are less severe at the outside wall compared to the inside wall location. Consequently, the inside flaw location is limiting for the cooldown event.

To develop a composite pressure-temperature limit for the cooldown event, the isothermal pressure-temperature limit must be calculated. The isothermal pressure-temperature limit is then compared to the pressure-temperature limit associated with a cooling rate and the, more restrictive allowable pressure-temperature limit is chosen resulting in a composite limit curve for the reactor vessel beltline.

4.4 Thermal Analysis Methodology

The PTCI.RVE computer code performs the detailed thermal analysis of the reactor vessel beltline wall required to calculate the Mode I thermal stress intensity factor, Krr. One dimensional, three noded, isoparametric finite elements suitable for one dimensional axisymmetric radial conduction-convection heat transfer are used. The vessel wall is divided into elements and an accurate distribution of temperature as a fumnction of radial location and transient time is calculated. The code utilizes convective boundary conditions on the inside wall of the vessel and an insulation boundary on the outside wall of the vessel. Variation of material properties through the vessel wall are permitted allowing for the change in material thermal properties between the clauding and the base metal. In general, the temperature distribution through the reactor vessel wall is governed by the partial differential equation,

T a2 T liT] pC- = K I + - -]I (Reference 8.3, p. 109) at r-6 r &j

subject to the following boundary conditions at the inside and outside wall surface locations (Reference 8.3, p. 109):

At r=r, -K-6 = h(T-Tc)

At r=r. - 0


where,

p density, lb/ft3

C = specific heat, Btu/lb-0 F K = thermal conductivity, Btu/hr-ft-0 F T = vessel wall temperature, OF r = radius, ft t = time, hr h = convective heat transfer coefficient, Btu/hr-ft'-OF

T = RCS coolant temperature, OF ri, r. inside and outside radii of vessel wall, ft

The above is solved numerically using a finite element model to determine wall temperature as a function of radius, time, and thermal rate. Thermal stress intensity factors are determined from the calculated temperature profile through the beltline wall using thermal influence coefficients specifically generated for this purpose. The method employed used a polynomial fit of the temperature profile and superposition using influence coefficients to calculate Krr. The influence coefficients depend upon geometrical parameters associated with the postulated defect, and the geometry of the reactor vessel beltline region, along with the assumed unit loading. These influence coefficients were calculated using a 2-dimensional finite element model of the reactor vessel. The influence coefficients were corrected for 3 dimensional effects using ASME Section XI Appendix A procedures (Reference 8.2).

A detailed calculation of Krr and P-Allowable is provided in Appendix A of this document.

5.0 ASME PT Curve Method

As intended, ASME Section III, Appendix G provides sufficient guidance and direction through figures and text to perform Pressure Temperature calculations in a straightforward fashion. The following outlines the ASME Appendix G calculational procedure used in this report to generate the allowable pressure for comparison to the ABB/CE approach described above. Beginning with Equation (1) of G-22 15, the general equation for determining the allowable pressure for any assumed rate of temperature change during Service Level A and B operation is:

2Km + Krr < KI

then, solving for Kw., we have

where Ka1 4 = Mm, * a.= Mm * Pr/t (Membrane hoop stress)


substituting and solving for P-Allowable (ksi), we have

P-Allowable < (KIA - Kff)*t / (2*r*Mm)

where,

P-Allowable = Allowable pressure, Ksi Krr ~ = Thermal 'stress intensity factor, Ksi v iH ,

from Figure G-2214-2, Krr = M,* AT,, KRA = Reference stress intensity factor, Ksi V-iH, per Figure G-22 10- 1

M. = From Figure G-2214-1 @ a/ay = 0.7 (assumed) t = Base Metal Wall Thickness, in r = Base Metal Inner Radius, in

This formulation is used in conjunction with the basic data identified above and a common thru-wall temperature analysis of the heatup and cooldown transients being evaluated to generate P-Allowable.

6.0 Discussion of Results

This section presents the results of the analyses performed to compare the ABB/CE approach to generate Pressure-Temperature Curves to the simplified approach defined in ASME Section III, Appendix G for both cooldown and heatup constant rate transients. For each transient, calculations of Krr and P-Allowable are specifically compared and discussed using both approaches.

Please note that for the purposes of this comparison, the isothermal P-T curves are not generated as discussed above. However, the composite P-T curve is typically defined as the lower bound of the isothermal conditions and several uniform rate PT curves, such as, 100, 80, 60, 40, 30, 10 0F/hr.

Cooldown

The cooldown transient profile used in the evaluation is presented in Figure 1. This is a standard constant rate cooldown of 100 'F/hr and was used in conjunction with an initial condition of 550 'F in the temperature analysis.

The results of the temperature analysis performed for the cooldown transient is presented in Table 1 and Figure 2. Table I is a condensed presentation of temperatures at several locations in the vessel wall at selected time points in the transient. Figure 2 presents the same information in more detailed graphical form for the same selected time points. Together these show the behavior of the thru-wall temperature profile of the vessel throughout the transient. This information will be used by both methods to calculate the thermal stress intensity, Krr.

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page I I

Figure 3 presents a comparison of the temperature analysis results to the normalized temperature profile in Figure G-2214-3 of ASME Section III, Appendix G. Again, the same selected time points from Table I are used for consistency. As can be seen from the figure, with the exception of the profile defining an early portion of the transient, the thruwall profile quickly conforms to the normalized ASME profile. This indicates that the ASME approach is appropriate to analyze this example constant rate transient.

Table 2 presents a numerical comparison of the calculated thermal stress intensity, Krr, and the allowable pressure for the 1/4t and 3/4t locations for both methods. Again, the same selected time points from Table 1 are presented for consistency. Figure 4 presents the Krr information in more detailed graphical form for the entire cooldown transient analyzed. Figures 5 and 6 present the calculated allowable pressure of the transient for pressures below 2500 psig for the 1/4t and'3/4t thru-wall locations, respectively. As can be seen from these figures, both methods agree well in the calculation of allowable pressure. As shown in Table 2 and Figure 4, the Krr calculated by the ABB/CE finite element method for the 3/4t location is consistently lower than the Krr from the ASME Code chart because the Code value was determined by an analysis of an ID crack, and the ABB/CE finite element analysis explicitly considers an OD crack. In Table 2, the KN4 calculated by the ABB/CE finite element method for the 3/4t location is marginally lower than the KIm from the ASME Code chart because the Code value is based on a flat plate solution, and the ABB/CE finite element method explicitly considers an OD crack in a cylinder. However, because these Ki values are of opposite signs the excess conservatism in each of the ASME Code K, values cancel out and the resulting allowable pressure computed by both methods is essentially the same for this uniform rate case.

However, the ABBICE method does result in slightly less conservative P-allowable which results in greater operational flexibility for the plant operators, especially in the lower temperature regions where the window of operation is the most constrained. This is shown graphically in Figures 7 and 8 which present the Pressure-Temperature curves for the transient at the 1/4t and 3/At thfu- -wall locations, respectively.

H eat up

The heatup transient profile used in the evaluation is presented in Figure 9. This is a standard constant rate heatup of 100 'F/hr and was used in conjunction with an initial condition of 50 'F in the temperature analysis.

The results of the temperature analysis performed for the heatup transient is presented in Table 3 and Figure 10. Table 3 is a condensed presentation of temperatures at several locations in the vessel wall at selected time points in the transient. Figure 10 presents the same information in more detailed graphical form for the same selected time points. Together these show the behavior of the thru-wall temperature profile of the vessel throughout the transient. This information will be used by both methods to calculate the thermal stress intensity, Krr.

063-PENG-ER -096, Rev. 00 Page 12063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page 12

Figure I11 presents a comparison of the temperature analysis results to the normalized temperature profile in Figure G-2214-3 of ASME Section 111, Appendix G. Again, the same selected time points from Table 3 are used for consistency. As can be seen from the figure, with the exception of the profile defining an early portion of the transient, the thruwall profile quickly conforms to the normalized ASMfE profile. This indicates that the ASME approach is appropriate to analyze this constant rate transient.

Table 4 presents a numerical comparison of the calculated thermal stress intensity, Krr, and the allowable pressure for the 1/4t and 3/4t locations for both methods. Again, the same selected time points from Table 3 are presented for consistency. Figure 12 presents the Krr information in more detailed graphical form for the entire heatup transient analyzed. Figures 13 and 14 present the calculated allowable pressure of the transient for pressures below 2500 psig for the 1 /4t and 3/4t thai-wall locations, respectively. As can be seen from these figures, the ABB/CE method generates different results relative to the ASME approach which calculates more conservative values of allowable pressure.

This is a major benefit to using the ABB/CE methodology where the higher P-allowables provide for greater operational flexibility versus the ASME results. This is shown graphically in Figures 15 and 16 which present the Pressure-Temperature curves for the transient at the 1/4t and 3/4t thru-wall locations, respectively.

7.0 Conclusion

The above discussion demonstrates that, although different in rigor, the two methods provide essentially the same results for the cooldown transient analyzed. However, for the heatup transient the use of the ABB/CE methodology to calculate thermal stress intensity, Krr, and allowable pressure provides more operational flexibility while still ensuring that the reactor vessel is protected against non-ductile failure. Therefore, the ABB/CE PT curve methodology is appropriate as a substitute for the method outlined in ASME Section 111, Appendix G.

8.0 References

8. 1 ABB/CE Calculation, MISC-MfECH-CALC-085, "Reactor Vessel PT Limits Computer Code Verification (PTCURVE 1.2B), J. Ghergurovich, January 27, 1993.

8.2 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III Appendix G, Section XI Appendix A, 1986 edition.

8.3 Heat Transfer A Basic Approach, M. Cecati Ozisik, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1985.

8.4 ABB/CE Calculation, 063 -PENG-CALC-069, "Technical Methodology Paper Comparing ABB/CE PT Curve to ASME Section 111, Appendix G," J. Ghergurovich, January 22, 1998.

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page 1 -4

TABLE 1: THROUGH-WALL TEMPERATURES FOR I100 0 F(HR COOLOOWN

Transient 1 oln Wetted Clad Basemetal 1/14t Basemetal 3/4t Basemetal OD Temp. Time (min) JTemp. (OF) jSurface (OF) Interface (OF) j Temp. (OF) Temp. (O F) (OF)

2 546.67 547.20 548.08 549.67 549.99 550.00

20 516.67 518.89 522.85 534.99 545.53 546.59

50 466.67 470.16 476.43 497.23 519.20 521.80

100 383.33 387.60 395.27 421.32 450.25 453.80

150 300.00 304.47 312.51 339.97 370.77 374.57

200 216.67 221.19 229.34 257.17 288.46 292.34

250 133.33 137.87 146.04 173.98 205.41 209.30

300 50.00 54.54 L 62.72 90.68 122.15 126.04


TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF I OOOFIHR COOLDOWN KIT, P-ALL USING ASME, ABB/CE METHODS

I...........

_____1/4t____ - 1/4t K____ - 1/4t______ - 3/4tIEVUII~ KT_____ -3/4t Km__ -3/Tt _____

Transient Stress Stress Stress P-All - 1/4t Stress Stress Stress P-All - 3/4t

Time (min) Intensity JIntensity Intensity j (ksi) Intensity Intensity Intensity (ksi) _______ (ki-li) ksi-4in) (ksi4n) jI(ksi-In) (ksi-'ln) (ksi-'lin) _____

2 400 0.49 199.76 7.44 400 -0.20 200.11 7.98

20 400 7.69 196.16 7.30 400 -5.14 202.57 8.07

50 400.00 14.98 192.51 7.17 400.00 -10.69 205.35 8.18

100 326.10 19.41 153.34 5.71 400.00 -14.07 207.03 8.25

150 118.81 20.60 49.10 1.83 279.90 -14.98 147.47 5.88

200 54.50 20.92 16.79 0.63 103.50 -15.22 59.39 2.37

250 35.09 21.00 7.04 0.26 49.82 -15.29 32.54 1.30

300 29.28 21.02 4.14 0.15 33.68 -15.30 24.49 0.98

50 1400 188 m 192.06 -/4 6.69/ 40.0 -1.8 207.4t 72

10 326.0 20.49 152.81 5.32 4000 -20.49 210.24 7.32

150 118.81 21.72 48.54 1.69 279.90 -21.72 150.83 5.25

200 54.50 22.05 16.22 0.56 103.50 -22.05 62.80 2.19

250 35.09 22.14 .6.48 0.23 49.82 -22.14 35.98 1.25

300 29.28 22.16 3.56 0.12 33.68 -22.16 27.92 0.97

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page ISPage 15

:: :j :j:j I i*i*.- xx : ::xo:

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00

TABLE 3: THROUGH-WALL TEMPERATURES FOR I100FIHR HEATUP


Transient Coolant) S Wetted 7Clad Basemetal 1/4t Basemetal 314t Basemetal OD Temp. rime (min) jTemp. (OF) jurface (OF) Interface (OF) j Temp. (OF) Temp. (OF) (OF)

2 53.33 52.81 51.92 50.33 50.01 50.00

20 83.33 81.11 77.15 65.01 54.47 53.41

50 133.33 129.84 123.57 102.77 80.80 78.20

100 216.67 212.40 204.73 178.68 149.75 146.20

150 300.00 295.53 287.49 260.03 229.23 225.43

200 383.33 378.81 370.67 342.83 311.54 307.66

250 466.67 462.13 453.96 426.02 394.59 390.70

300 550.00 545.46 537.28 509.32 477.85 473.96J


TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF 100*FIHR HEATUP KIT, P-ALL USING ASME, ABO/CE METHODS

KIA -1/4t KIT-1/4t Kim -1/4t KIA -3/4t KIT -34t Kim -3/4t Transient Stress Stress Stress P-All - 1/4t Stress Stress Stress P-All - 3/4t

Time (min) Intensity Intensity Intensity (ksi) Intensity Intensity Intensity (ksi) ks-i (ksi-'l in) (ksi-l n) (ksi-'4in) _____ (ksi-4in) (ksi-'l in)____ _____

2 28.18 -0.49 14.34 0.53 29.22 0.20 14.50 0.58

20 28.51 -7.69 18.10 0.67 29.38 5.14 12.12 0.48

50 29.75 -14.98 22.37 0.83 30.58 10.69 9.94 0.40

100 35.67 -19.41 27.53 1.03 37.07 14.07 11.49 0.46

150 55.67 -20.60 38.14 1.42 59.31 14.98 22.16 0.88

200 122.70 -20.92 71.80 2.67 134.00 15.22 59.42 2.37

250 347.21 -21.00 184.10 6.85 384.40 15.29 184.55 7.36

300 400.00 -21.02 121 0.50 7.84 400.00 15.30 192.36 7.67

2 8.8 0.7 1443 0.0 292 06 1.2 05

20 28.518 -8.31 18.41 0.64 29.38 8.31 10.54 0.37

50 29.75 -15.88 22.82 0.79 30.58 15.88 7.35 0.26

100 35.67 -20.49 28.08 0.98 37.07 20.49 8.29 0.29

150 55.67 -21.72 38.69 1.35 59.31 21.72 18.80 0.65

200 122.70 -22.05 72.38 2.52 134.00 22.05 56.00 1.95

250 347.21 -22.14 184.67 6.43 384.40 22.14 181.12 6.31

300 400.00 -22.16 211.08 7.3.5 400.00 22.16 188.92 6.58

063-PENG-ER -096, Rev. 00 Page 17Page 17

::: : . . I .......... ......... . :- X :

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00

FIGUFE 1: 100*F/HR COOLDOWN TRANSIENT PTCURVE CALCULATION - 1P3 P-T Limits Method 1000F/Hr Cooldown

50 100 150 200 250

Time (min)

600

500

400

1300 E S!

FIGURE 2: THRU-WALL TEMPERATURES FOR 1000F/HR COOLDOWN PTCURVE CALCULATION - IP3 P-T Limits Method 1000F/Hr Cooldown

-x------xxxxx------

- - - - - -

-4-20 min 50-S mini

-1100 mini -X- 150 mini

1&-106 min -4-250 min -B--300 mini

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10( Wall Thickness, %

400

00

200

100

1111 1: ''If ir " IIIII; ........ .. IIIIII ''I',,',',,"",',, 11111111111111 111111111 III III; ............,, "I "I "I "I "I "I "I "I "I "I "I "I III III !I! III III

500 1

0Z,

%" FIGURE 3: COMPARISON OF IO0OFIHR COOLDOWN TO ASME FIGURE G-2214-3 tri

PTCURVE CALCULATION - 1P3 P-T Limits Method 100*FIHr Cooldown 120

100

0 4

0

o -fr50 min

-0-100 mnn 140 -+-150 min

E-4200 min

-~250 min 20

--- 300 min

-I--ASME

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Wall Thickness, %

FIGURE 4: COMPARISON OF 1000F/HR COOLDOWN KIT VS TIME FOR 114T AND 314T LOCATIONS

PTCURVE CALCJLATION - 1P3 P-T Limits Method 1000F/Hr Cooldown 25

KIT-/41 ASME 0% 20

15

ac 10

.-- Kit-i /41 ASME

5 -- Kit-1/4t CE

-- Kit-3/4t CE c 0*- Kit-3/1 ASME

-1: KT-3/4t

C

-25 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

C Time (mini)

FIGURE 5: COMPARISON OF 100 0FIHR COOLDOWN P-ALLOWABLE VS TIME FOR 114T LOCATION PTCURVE CALCULATION - 1P3 P-T Limits Method IOO*FIHr Cooldown

2.5

-4P-All 1/4T ASME -u-P-All 1/4T CE

2

1.5

Lp

0.5

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time (min)

011

FIGURE 6: COMPARISON OF 1000F/HR COOLDOWN P-ALLOWABLE VS TIME FOR 314T LOCATION PTCURVE CALCULATION - 1P3 P-T Limits Method 100*F/Hr Cooldown

2.5

-0%

2

U)

0.5

-- P-All 3/4T ASME

-4P-All 3/4T CE]

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time (min)

FIGURE 7: COMPARISON OF IO0 FIHR COOLDOWN P-ALLOWABLE VS TEMP FOR 1/4T LOCATION

2.5 PTCURVL CALCULATION - IP3 P-T Limits Method IOO*FHr Cooldown

2

1.5

0.5

-1/4'T ASME]

-0P-All 1/4T CEj 0A

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Temperature (F)

Z'

FIGURE 8: COMPARISON OF IO0OFIHR COOLDOWN P-ALLOWABLE VS TEMP FOR 3/4T LOCATION PTCURVE CALCULATION - 1P3 P-T Limits Method 10OOFIHr Cooldown

100 200 300 400 500

Temperature (F)

2.5

2

-1.5

FIGURE 9: 100*F/HR HEATUP TRANSIENT

600 PTCURVE CALCULATION - P3 P-T Limits Method 1009F/Hr Heatup 660

500

400

j300 a. E

200

100

0.T~or

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (min)

I-h FIGURE 10: T1 iRU-WALL TEMPERATURES FOR I100FHR HEATUP PTCURVE CALCULATION - 1P3 P-T Limits Method 100'FIHr Heatup

NO0

500

400

-~2 min IL -- 20 min

--w-50 min 300--10m

-x- 100 min CL '----X--X X ~ x-0-- 250 min

200 a B 300 min

100

0* I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Wall Thickness, %

t~j

FIGURE 11: COMPARISON OF 100 OF/HR HEATUP TO ASME FIGURE G-2214-3

PTCURVE CALCULATION - IP3 P-T Limits Method 100*FIHr Heatup 120

1 00 Q>

0

CO

* -42 min

c 60--2 i

-i-50 min

0 -0100min

40-- 150 m in E -4200 min

-*250 min

20--4-300 min

--a-ASME

0 I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Wall Thickness, %

00

FIGURE 12: COMPARISON OF 100 *FIHR HEATUP KIT VS TIME FOR 114T AND 314T LOCATIONS PTCURVE C %LCULATION - 1P3 P-T Limits Method IOO'FIHr Heatup

25

KIT-3/4t ASME CN 20

15

"s. 10 p

.4; 5

-.- Kit 1/4t ASME

0 -Kit- 1/4t CE a -e-Kit-3/4t CE

Kit 3/4t ASME -5

-15

-20

-25 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time (min)

FIGURE 13: COMPARISON OF 100 *FIHR HEATUP P-ALLOWABLE VS TIME FOR 114T LOCATION

PTCURVE CALCULATION - IP3 P-T Limits Method IOO'FIHr Heatup 2.5

2

1.5

01

0.5

--P-All 1/4T ASMl

-UP-All 1/4T CEJ

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time (min)

FIGURE 14: COMPARISON OF 100 0FiHR HEATUP P-ALLOWABLE VS TIME FOR 314T LOCATION PTCURVE CALCULATION - IP3 P-T Limits Method 100*F/Hr Heatup

2.5

2

1.5

0.5

--- P-All 3/4TASE

01 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time (mini)

* FIGURE 15: COMPARISON OF 100 *FIHR HEATUP P-ALLOWABLE VS TEMP FOR 114T LOCATION PTCURVE CALCULATION - IP3 P-T Limits Method 100*F/Hr Heatup

2.5

ON

2

1.5

'A

0.5

I.-P-All 1/4T A M

-UE-P-All 114T CEJ 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Temperature (F)

L44 FIGURE 16: COMPARISON OF 100 OFIHR HEATUP P-ALLOWABLE VS TEMP FOR 314T LOCATION PTCURVE CALCULATION -IP3 P-T Limits Method IO0 F/Hr Heatup

2.5

2

0.5

-- P-All 3/4T ASME2 -i- P-All 3/4T CE__

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Temperature (F)

Appendix A

Example of KIT Calculation ABB/CE method

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page A-i063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page A-]

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page A -2

063-PENG-ER -096, Rev. 00 Page A -3

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page A -4

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page A -S

Appendix B

Quality Assurance Forms

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page B-I063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page B- I

Other Design Document Checklist (Page 1 of 3)

instructions: The Independent Reviewer is to complete this checklist for each Other Design Document. This Checklist is to be made part of the Quality Record package, although it need not be made a part of or distributed with the document itself. The second section of this checklist lists potential topics which could be relevant for a particular "Other Design Document". If they are applicable, then the relevant section of the Design Analysis Verification Checklist shall be completed and attached to this checklist. (Sections of the Design Analysis Verification Checklist which are not used may be left blank.)

Title: Technical Methodology Paper Comparing ABB/CE PT Curve to ASME Section aII Appendix G

Document Number: 063-PENG-ER-096 Revision Number. 00

Section 1! To be completed for all Other Design Documents Yes N/A

Overall Assessment

I Are the results/conclusions correct and appropriate for their intended use?

2 Are all limitations on the results/conclusions documented?

Documentation Requirements

I. Is the documentation legible, reproducible and in a form suitable for filing and retrieving as a Quality Record?

2. Is the document identified by title, document number and date?

3. Are all pages identified with the document number including revision number?

4. Do all pages have a umique page number? E

5. Does the content clearly identify, as applicable:

a. objective

b. design inputs (in accordance with QP 3.2) Zr ED C. conclusions

6. Is the verification status of the document indicated?

7. If an Independent Reviewer is the supervisor or Project Manager, has the appropriateD approval been documented?

Assumptionws

1. Are all assumption identified, justified and documented? E 2. Are all assumptions that must be cleared listed?El r

a. Is a process in place which assures that those which are CENO responsibility will be E E cleared?

b. Is a process in place which assures that those which are the customer's responsibility 0 to clear will be indicated on transmittals to the customer?

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page B-2


Assessment of Significant Design Changes Yes NA

1. Have significant design-related changes that might impact this document been considered?

2. If any such changes have been identified, have they been adequately addressed? o ~

Selection of Design Inputs 1 C 1. Are the design inputs documented? E

2. Are the design inputs correctly selected and traceable to their source?

3. Are references as direct as possible to the original source or documents containing collection/tabulations of inputs?

4. Is the reference notation appropriately specific to the information utilized?

5. Are the bases for selection of all design inputs documented?

6, Is the verification status of design inputs transmitted from customers appropriate and documented?

7. Is the verification status of design inputs transmitted from ABB CENS appropriate and documented?

8. Is the use of customer-controlled sources such as Tech Specs, UFSARs, etc. authorized, and does the authorization specifyr amendment level, revision number, etc.?

References

Section 2: Other Potentially: Applicable.Topic Areas.- use appropriate c:ections of the Design Analysis Verification Checklist (QP. 3.4, Exhibit 3.4-5) and attach.

Yes N/A_

1. Use of Computer Software E 1* 2. Applicable Codes and Standards a~ E

3. Literature Searches and Background Data [a~

4. Methods C 5. Hand Calculations f C 6. List of Computer Software

7. List of Microfiche

8. List of optical disks (CD-ROM)C

9. List of computer disksEl 2



Independent Reviewer's Comments

Comment Reviewer's Comment Response Author's Response Response Number -________________ Required? _________ Accepted?

0/& t76". ,10,4d 14ta/~ 62u- 2 4V IA t"

Chck ist comleedby

Independent)VI:

Reviewe C.Id L.~W M e___ ___ _ _ _

PnA' _ti iiid _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page B-4063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page B-4

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

NOTICE

THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT CONTAINS OR IS CLAIMED TO CONTAIN PROPRIETARY INFORMATION AND SHOULD BE HANDLED AS NRC SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION. IT SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED OR MADE AVAILABLE TO ANY PERSON NOT REQUIRING SUCH INFORMATION IN THE CONDUCT OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS AND SHOULD BE STORED, TRANSFERRED, AND DISPOSED OF BY EACH RECIPIENT IN A MANNER WHICH WILL ASSURE THAT ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS.

COIOY NO._______

DOCKET NO._______

CONTROL NO._______

REPORT NO. _______

REC'D W/LTR DTD.

NRC FORM 190 (1-04) NRIZUD&312 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Appendix B

Quality Assurance Forms

063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page B-I063-PENG-ER-096, Rev. 00 Page B-i

Other Design Document Checklist (Page I of 3)

Instructions: The Independent Reviewer is to complete this checklist for each Other Design Document. This Checklist is to be made part of the Quality Record package, although it need not be made a part of or distributed with the document itself. The second section of this checklist lists potential topics which could be relevant for a particular "Other Design Document". If they are applicable, then the relevant section of the Design Analysis Verification Checklist shall be completed and attached to this checklist. (Sections of the Design Analysis Verification Checklist which are not used may be left blank.)

Title: Technical Methodology Paper Comparing ABB/CE PT Curve to ASME Section all Appendix G

Document Number: 063-PENG-ER-096 Revision Number: 00

2 Are all limitations on the results/conclusions documented?

Documentation Requirements

1. Is the documentation legible, reproducible and in a form suitable for filing and retrieving as a Quality Record?

2. Is the document identified by title, document number and date?

3. Are all pages identified with the document number including revision number?

4. Do all pages have a unique page number?

5. Does the content clearly identify', as applicable:

a. objective

b. design inputs (in accordance with QP 3.2) ~ c. conclusions

6. Is the verification status of the document indicated?

7. If an Independent Reviewer is the supervisor or Project Manager, has the appropriate 0l Z approval been documented?

Assumptions..

1. Are all assumption identified, justified and documented? ~0

2. Are all assumptions that must be cleared listed?

a. Is a process in place which assures that those which are CENO responsibility will be 0 cleared?

b. Is a process in place which assures that those which are the customer's responsibility 0 0 to clear will be indicated on transmittals to the customer?


Other Design Document Checklist I (Page 2 of 3) Assessment of Significant Design Changes Ye N/7f~A

I. Have significant design-related changes that might impact this document been considered?

2. If any such changes have been identified, have they been adequately addressed?I

Selection of Design Inputs i

I. Are the design inputs documented?

2. Are the design inputs correctly selected and traceable to their source?

3. Are references as direct as possible to the original source or documents containing collection/tabulations of inputs?

4. Is the reference notation appropriately specific to the information utilized?

5. Are the bases for selection of all design inputs documented?

6, Is the verification status of design inputs transmitted from customers appropriate and 2 documented?

7. Is the verification status of design inputs transmitted from ABB CENS appropriate and C documented?

8. Is the use of customer-controlled sources such as Tech Specs, UFSARs, etc. authorized, and E h does the authorization specify amendment level, revision number, etc.?

References

Section 2: Other Potentlally Applicable Topic Areas:- use appropriate sections of the Design Analysis Verification Checklist (QP 3.4, Exhibit13.A -5) and attach.

FeINA

1. Use of Computer Software [J[1Z 2. Applicable Codes and Standards a 1

3. Literature Searches and Background Data IJ Er'

4. Methods. Z 7

5. Hand Calculations

6. List of Computer Software

7. List of Microfiche

8. List of optical disks (CD-ROM)

9. List of computer disks



Independent Reviewer's Comments

Comment Reviewer's Comment Response Author's Response Response Number Required? ________Accepted?

,2+Id J-&1AN

Checklist completed by:

Independent Reviewer C .Mnrl 4/.

I1 /,1 063-PENG-E -096, Rev.y 00 Pa e


Attachment Ill to IPN-98-013 Technical Methodology Paper ...

Documents

Transcript of Attachment Ill to IPN-98-013 Technical Methodology Paper ...