ML041070458

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
GE-NE-0000-0027-0575-01, Rev 0, the Upper Shelf Energy Evaluation for RPV Electroslag Welds at Quad Cities Unit 2
ML041070458
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 03/31/2004
From: Mehta H
General Electric Co
To:
Exelon Corp, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
e-DRF 0027-0575, FOIA/PA-2005-0108 GE-NE-0000-0027-0575-01, Rev 00
Download: ML041070458 (31)
v • d • e


Text

GE Nuclear Energy ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY GE Nuclear Energy 175 Curtner Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125 GE-NE-0000-0027-0575-01, Rev. 0 e-DRF No. 0027-0575 Class I March 2004 THE UPPER SHELF ENERGY EVALUATION FOR RPV ELECTROSLAG WELDS AT QUAD CITIES UNIT 2 March 2004 Prepared for Exelon Corp.

Quad Cities Unit 2 I

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 THE UPPER SHELF ENERGY EVALUATION FOR RPV ELECTROSLAG WELDS AT QUAD CITIES UNIT 2 March 2004 Prepared by:_

H.S. Mehta, Engineering Fellow, Fracture Mechanics Structural Analysis & Hardwar Design Verified by:_

D.V. Somrierfille, Engineer Struc ra Analysis & Hardware Design Approved by:

I h

X M.R. Schrag, Manager A MA 'A-OVIA-1 Structural Analysis & Hardware Design i

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 DISCLAIMER OF RESPONSIBILITY Important Notice Regarding the Contents of this Report Please Read Carefully The only undertaking of General Electric Company respecting information in this document are contained in the contract between Exelon Corp. and General Electric Company, and nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing the contract. The use of this information by anyone other than Exelon Corp. or for any purpose other than that for which it is intended is not authorized; and with respect to any unauthorized use, General Electric Company makes no representation or warranty, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information contained in this document.

ii

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 Table of Contents Subiect Paae No.

I.

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

1

2.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND...............................................................I

3.

QUAD CITIES 2 RPV DATA & ELECTROSLAG USE......................................... 3

4.

USE MARGIN EVALUATION METHODOLOGY..........................................

3 4.1.

Acceptance Criteria.....................................................

4 4.2.

Calculation of Applied J-Integral.....................................................

4

5.

SELECTION OF MATERIAL J-R CURVES...........................................

6

6.

EVALUATION LEVEL A & B CONDITIONS...........................................

6 6.1.

Level A and B Service Loadings.....................................................

6 6.2.

Level A and B Conditions Evaluation.....................................................

7 6.3.

Impact of EPU Operation.....................................................

8

7.

EVALUATION LEVEL C & D CONDITIONS...........................................

8 7.1.

Level C Service Loadings

.8 7.2.

Level C Service Evaluation

.9 7.3.

Level D Service Loadings

.9 7.4.

Level D Service Evaluation

.9

8.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS.............................

10

9.

REFERENCES..............................

10 iii

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 List of Tables Table Page No.

Table I Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for 1.15xAccumulation Pressure 13 Table 2 Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for 1.25xAccumulation Pressure 14 Table 3 Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for Level C Transient 15 Table 4 Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for Level D Transient 16 List of Figures Figure Page No.

Figure 1 Illustration of Ductile Crack Growth Stability Evaluation.................................

....... 17 Figure 2 Quad Cities Electroslag Weld J-Integral Resistance Curves.

18 Figure 3 Jo.1 Criterion Evaluation for Axial Flaw with Electroslag J-R Curve 19 Figure 4 Flaw Stability Criterion Evaluation for Axial Flaw with Electroslag J-R Curve...... 20 Figure 5 Required Minimum Electroslag USE to Meet Stability Criterion 21 Figure 6 Pressure & Temperature Conditions During Improper Start of Cold Recirculation Loop Transient (Event 24)...............................................................

22 Figure 7 Jo.1 Evaluation for Level C Condition...............................................................

23 Figure 8 Crack Growth Stability Criterion Evaluation for Level C Condition....................... 24 Figure 9 Limiting level D Transient (Event 27)................................................................

25 Figure 10 Crack Growth Stability Criterion Evaluation for Level D Condition..................... 26 iv

Final Report, Rev. 0 GEANE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFANo. 0027-0575

1.

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

I OCFR50 Appendix G states that the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) must maintain upper shelf energy (USE) throughout its life of no less than 50 fl-lb, unless it is demonstrated in a manner approved by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, that lower values of USE xvill provide margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI the ASME Code.

BWR Owners' Group (BWROG) developed a licensing topical report on equivalent margin analysis for low USE BWR/2 through BWR/6 RPVs, which was reviewed and approved by the NRC for use by individual utilities.

BWRVIP-74 provided a statistical treatment of the initial USE for a variety of base and weld metals used in BWR RPV fabrication. The report provided lower bound (i.e., mean minus K standard deviation) USE values for use in cases where the initial USE values may not be available or may have inadequate pedigree.

At Quad Cities, Unit 2 (QC-2), the plant assumed a lower bound USE for the electroslag welds based on BWRVIP-74. When the larger than expected measured USE reduction in one of the irradiated specimen was taken into account using the guidance provided in position 2.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, the predicted end of life (EOL) USE value (34.2 ft-Ib) didn't meet the minimum required value of 35 ft-lb stated in the topical report. This report documents a plant-specific evaluation that was conducted to show compliance with the USE requirements.

This QC-2 electroslag weld USE evaluation followed essentially the methodology outlined in the topical report.

The applied J-integral calculation formulas and the material J-R curves for various operating conditions were consistent with the guidelines provided in the ASME Code Case N-512-1, Appendix K of ASME Section XI and the Regulatory Guide 1.161. The evaluation showed that the Level B Condition was the governing one. The ductile crack growth stability requirement showed that an USE of 32.4 ft-lb satisfies the criteria compared to the predicted EOL value of 34.2 ft-lb.

Based on the results of this plant-specific evaluation, it is concluded that the electroslag welds in QC-2 RPV meet the margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI the ASME Code. This conclusion is also valid for the extended power uprate (EPU) operation.

2.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The nuclear RPVs are typically made of low-alloy ferritic steels (e.g., SA302B; or SA533, Grade B, Class 1). They are exposed to high energy neutrons in the beltline region; as a result of the constituent parts (i.e., the plates, forgings, and welds) can experience degradation of material properties: yield and ultimate tensile strengths I

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 increase, brittle-to-ductile transition temperature increases, and the upper shelf toughness decreases.

The last two effects are the most important from the point of view of structural margins during operation of a RPV. The impact of low Charpy USE on the QC-2 RPV integrity analyses is the subject of this report.

IOCFR50 Appendix G [1] states that the RPV must maintain USE throughout its life of no less than 50 ft-lb, unless it is demonstrated in a manner approved by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, that lower values of USE will provide margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI the ASME Code [2]. In September 1992, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in discussing the preliminary review of the responses to Generic Letter 92-01, strongly recommended the equivalent margin analyses be done by the Owners' Groups.

In response to this BWROG developed a licensing topical report on equivalent margin analysis for low USE BWR/2 through BWR/6 vessels [3] that was reviewed and approved by the NRC [4]. The topical report, which could be referenced by utilities as part of their licensing basis, can be used to address compliance with the 50 ft-lb requirement. Appendix B of the topical report presents the steps required to show that the USE requirements presented in the report can be applied to individual BWR plants.

The plants always have the option to perform a plant-specific USE margin evaluation.

The topical report followed the methods provided in the then-draft Appendix X of the ASME Code, which has since become Code Case N-512 [5] and subsequently revised as Code Case N-512-1 [6]. This Code Case was incorporated in the Section XI Code as Non-Mandatory Appendix K [7].

The NRC staff reviewed the analysis methods in Appendix K and found them to be technically acceptable but not complete with respect to information on the selection of transients, and the selection of material properties. As a result the NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.161 [8] providing specific guidance on these issues.

BWRVIP-74 [9] provided a statistical treatment of the initial USE for a variety of base and weld metals used in BWR RPV fabrication. The report provided lower bound (i.e.,

mean minus K standard deviation) USE values for use in cases where the initial USE values may not be available or may have inadequate pedigree.

At QC-2, the plant assumed a lower bound USE for the electroslag welds based on BWRVIP-74. When the larger than expected measured USE reduction in one of the irradiated specimen was taken into account using the guidance provided in position 2.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2 [10], the predicted USE value didn't meet the minimum required value of 35 ft-lb stated in the topical report. Therefore, a plant-specific evaluation was conducted to show compliance.

The evaluation essentially followed the methodology outlined in the topical report.

Special care was taken to assure that the applied J-integral calculation formulas and the material J-R curve equations were consistent with the requirements of Section XI Code Case 512-1, Appendix K and the Regulatory Guide 1.161.

Also, the selection of 2

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 transients was justified in relation to QC-2 vessel transients for Levels A through D operating conditions.

3.

QUAD CITIES 2 RPV DATA & ELECTROSLAG USE The QC-2 vessel geometry information is provided in Reference 11. The vessel radius, R, in the beltline region is 125.7 inches. The nominal wall thickness, t, is 6.13 inches excluding the cladding. The nominal clad thickness, tc, is 0.19 inch.

The design pressure of the RPV is 1250 psi. The design pressure remained unchanged with the introduction of EPU.

The Selection of appropriate transients for various operating conditions is discussed in the later sections.

The electroslag weld specimen in the second capsule at QC-2 showed a USE drop of 27.6% with a fluence level of 6.6x1016 n/cm2 compared to the predicted drop of 8.8%

using Reference 10. It is well known that the USE drop at fluence levels less than lXO 17 n/cm2 shows considerable scatter. This is supported by the data from the Dresden and Quad Cities capsule data. Nevertheless, this bounding data was used to predict the end of life (EOL) USE drop for QC-2. Therefore, using the guidance outlined in position 2.2 of Reference 9, the predicted drop at EOL fluence of 3.9x1017 n/cm2 was calculated as 42.7%. Consistent with GE practice, this was rounded up to 43%. Reference 9 (Figure B-6) shows the unirradiated mean minus K sigma USE value for electroslag welds as 60 ft-lb. Applying a 43% reduction to this value gives a predicted EOL USE value of

[60x(100-43)/100] or 34.2 ft-lb. Reference 3 and 9 give the lowest acceptable value of USE for electroslag welds as 35 ft-lbs. Since the predicted value of 34.2 ft-lbs is slightly below the allowable value in References 3 and 9, a plant-specific evaluation was conducted to show compliance as described in the next sections. The J-R curves used in the evaluation are based on the USE value of 34.2 ft-lb.

4.

USE MARGIN EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The USE margin evaluation methodology used in this report is consistent with that prescribed in References 6 through 8. Although the References 5 through 7 were in development at the same time as the topical report [3] was being developed and Reference 8 was published later, a review of the methodology used in Reference 3 indicated that in almost all respects it is consistent with References 6 through 8. If there were any small differences, such as that in the selection of J-R curves, the topical report used a conservative approach. The methodology prescribed in Reference 8 is exclusively followed in this report.

The acceptance criteria and the equations for the calculation of J applied values are described in this section. The selection of appropriate J-R curves is described in the next section.

3

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 4.1.

Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria for Level A and B conditions are described in Section 1.1 (Equations I and 2) of Reference 8:

Japplied < Jo.1 (1) aJappliedfaa < fJmaterial/la, with load held constant at Japplied = Jmaterial (2)

The second equation assures stability under ductile crack growth. Figure 1 illustrates this concept. Both the circumferential and axial flaws are postulated. The postulated flaws for all operating conditions are semi-elliptical surface flaws with an aspect ratio of 6-to-I surface length to flaw depth. The assumed crack depth is one-fourth the base metal wall thickness.

For the Level C conditions, the acceptance criteria are those given in Section 1.2 (Equations 3 and 4) of Reference 8. These are essentially the same as the preceding Equations (1) and (2). However, the postulated flaw depth is one-tenth the base metal wvall thickness, plus the clad thickness, but with total depth not to exceed 1.0 inch. The safety factor for applied pressure loading is 1.0.

For the Level D conditions, the acceptance criteria are those given in Section 1.3 (Equation 5) of Reference 8. Only the ductile crack growth stability is evaluated. The postulated flaw depth is the same as that for Level C conditions. The material J-lntegral resistance curve is based on best estimate. The safety factor on applied loading is 1.0.

4.2.

Calculation ofApplied J-Idtegral The calculation of applied J-Integral consists of three steps: Step I is to calculate the K values from pressure and heatup/cooldown loadings; Step 2 is to calculate the effective flaw depth which includes a plastic zone size correction; and Step 3 is to calculate the J-Integral for small-scale yielding based this effective flaw depth. The calculated K values are in the units of ksilin.

Internal Pressure Loading 4

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 For an axial flaw with depth 'a' equal to (0.25t+0.1 in.), the stress intensity factor from internal pressure, Pa, with a safety factor, SF, on pressure equal to 1.15 using Equation (6) of Reference 8:

K Axial = (SF) Pa [1 + (R1/t)] (na)05 Fl (3)

Fl

= 0.982 + 1.006 (a/t)2 For a circumferential flaw with depth 'a' equal to (0.25t+0.1 in.), the stress intensity factor from internal pressure, Pa, with a safety factor, SF, on pressure equal to 1.15 using Equation (7) of Reference 8:

K1 Circurnm = (SF) pa [1 + {Ri/(2t)}] (na)" F2 (4)

F2

= 0.885 + 0.233 (a/t) + 0.345 (a/t)2 Heatup/Cooldown Loading For an axial or circumferential flaw with depth 'a' equal to (0.25t+0.1 in.), the "steady state" (time independent) stress intensity factor from radial thermal gradients is obtained by using Equation (8) of Reference 8:

Klv = (CR/l 000) t25 F3 (5)

F3

= 0.69 + 3.127 (a/t) - 7.435 (a/t)2 + 3.532 (a/t)3 The above equation for K1t is valid for 0 < CR < 1 00F/hr.

For the transients in which the heatup/cooldown rates are greater than I 00F/hr, Reference 3 used finite element analysis to determine the stress distribution through the RPV wall and the K values were then calculated using the Raju-Newman method [12].

Effective Flaw Depth The effective flaw depth for small-scale yielding, a,, was based on Equation (9) of Reference 8:

a. = a + { 1/(6))} [(Klp + K1t)/aY] 2 (6)

Consistent with the topical report [3], the value for cy was assumed as 69 ksi.

J-Intesral Calculation The J-integral from the K values was calculated using Equation (10) of Reference 8:

5

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 Japplied = 1000 (K'1p + K'lt)/E' Where, the K' values are stress intensity factors based on effective flaw depth and E' is E/(1-v2). The value of v was taken as 0.3 and consistent with Reference 3, the value of E was assumed as 27700 ksi. The units of J are in-lb/in2.

5.

SELECTION OF MATERIAL J-R CURVES The generic J-Integral fracture resistance curve equation is given as Equation (17) in Reference 8:

JR

= (MF) {C1 (Aa)C2 exp [C3 (Aa)C4]}

(6)

For electroslag welds, Section 3.2 (generic Reactor Pressure Welds) of Reference 8 provides the values of various constants in the preceding equation.

For analyses addressing Service Levels A, B, and C, the factor MF was set as 0.629. For analyses addressing Service Level D, the value of MF was set as 1.0.

The mathematical expressions for other constants are given by Equations (22) through (25) of Reference 8:

Cl

= exp [-4.12 + 1.49 In (CVN) - 0.00249T]

(7)

C2

= 0.077 + 0.116 In C1 (8)

C3

= -0.0812 - 0.0092 In CI (9)

C4

= -0.5 (10)

The term 'CVN' is the Charpy USE. As indicated in Section 3, the conservatively predicted EOL Charpy USE for the QC-2 electroslag welds is 34.2 ft-lb. This value was used in calculating the value of constant Cl. The normal operating temperature for region B (that contains the beltline region) of the vessel is specified as 5460F [13].

Therefore, this value was conservatively used in calculating the value of constant CI.

The calculated J-Integral resistance curves for the various operating conditions are shown in Figure 2.

6.

EVALUATION LEVEL A & B CONDITIONS Key steps in this evaluation are the calculation of applied J-integral and the flaw stability evaluation. The impact of EPU operation is also discussed.

6.1.

Level A and B Service Loadings 6

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 The two loadings to be considered are internal pressure and thermal heatup/cooldown rates. The Level A and B heatup/cooldown rates for QC-2 RPV are specified in the associated reactor thermal cycle diagram [13]. The topical report [3] also analyzed an additional transient identified as loss of feedwater pumps that is specified for BWRI6 standard plants in their RPV thermal cycle drawing [15]. However, the analysis in the topical report showed that the 1000F/hr case was still bounding compared to this transient. The difference between the RPV geometry considered in the topical report (R=

126.7 in. and t= 6.19 in.) and the QC-2 RPV geometry (R=125.7 in. and t= 6.13 in.) is less than 1% and thus was considered insignificant in terms of the calculated thermal transient stress. Thus, the conclusion reached in the topical report was also determined to be valid for the QC-2 case and therefore, only the 100WF/hr case was considered in this evaluation.

The specified design pressure for QC-2 RPV is 1250 psi. Consistent with the approved topical report [3], the accumulation pressure is 1.1 times the design pressure and is, thus, equal to 1375 psi. The internal pressure value used in the Jo., criterion is 1.15 times the accumulation pressure (i.e., 1375xl.15 or 1581 psi). Similarly, the internal pressure value used in the flaw stability criterion is 1.25 times the accumulation pressure or 1719 psi.

The QC-2 RPV wall thickness in the beltline region is 6.13 in. Therefore, the postulated 1/4t flaw has a depth of (6.13x0.25) or 1.53 in.

6.2.

Level A and B Conditions Evaluation Table I shows the calculated values of applied J-integral for 1.15 accumulation pressure at several crack depths beginning with the l/4t depth. The calculations for the axial flaw are shown first followed by the circumferential flaw. For the Jo., criterion, the applied J-integral values at a = 1.63 inch are relevant. A review of Table 1 indicates that the applied J-integral values for the axial flaw case bound those for the circumferential flaw case. Therefore, the Jo., criterion check was conducted only for the axial flaw case.

Figure 3 shows a comparison between the calculated applied J-integral value for the axial flaw and the electroslag weld J-R curve. It is seen that the Jo., criterion is satisfied for the limiting case of axial flaw.

Table 2 shows the calculated values of applied J-integral for 1.25 accumulation pressure at several crack depths beginning with l/t depth. The calculations are shown for both the axial and the circumferential flaws. However, a review of Table 2 indicates that the axial flaw case is governing.

Figure 4 shows the plot of applied J-integral curve and the electroslag weld J-R curve. Flaw stability at a given applied load is assured when the slope of the applied J-integral curve is less than the slope of the material J-R curve at the point on the J-R curve where the two curves intersect (see Figure 1). It is seen that the 7

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 stability criterion is satisfied with the assumed EOL USE of 34.2 ft-lb for the QC-2 electroslag welds.

To further assess the margin, the CVN USE energy level was reduced till the slope of the electroslag material J-R curve equaled the slope of the J applied curve. The results are shown in Figure 5. It is seen that this occurs at a CVN USE level of 32.43 ft-lb. At this CVN level, the slope of the J applied curve (PJappliedfaa) equals the slope of the material J-R curve (8Jmateriai 8aa). Thus, the difference between the conservatively estimated EOL USE of 34.2 ft-lb and 32.43 ft-lb is the indication of the margin.

6.3.

Impact of EPU Operation Reference 13 shows the thermal cycle drawing for QC-2 RPV. The impact of EPU on the RPV thermal cycle parameters is discussed in Reference 14.

A review of the equivalent margins calculated in this section (Level A and B) and those in the next section (Level C and D) indicates that the Level B condition is governing. For the governing Level B evaluation, the key parameters are the design pressure and the operating temperature.

According to Reference 14, the design pressure remains unchanged due to EPU and the operating temperature changes from 3467F to 3477F. The 1°F temperature change causes negligible change in the Level B condition material J-R curve and the calculated transient temperature stresses.

For the non-governing Level B case such as the loss of feedwater pumps transient, operating pressures rather than design pressure are used in the evaluation. However, the changes in the operating pressures for this case are less than 0.5% due to EPU and were thus considered insignificant.

Therefore, it is concluded that the margins calculated in this section remain also valid for EPU operation.

7.

EVALUATION LEVEL C & D CONDITIONS The postulated flaw depth for the evaluation of Level C and D loadings is one-tenth the base metal wall thickness, plus the clad thickness, but with total depth not to exceed 1.0 inch. The plate thickness in the beltline region is 6.13 in. The nominal thickness of the clad is 0. 1 9 inch. Therefore, the postulated crack depth is (6.1 3x0. I + 0. 19) or 0.80 inch.

7.1.

Level C Service Loadings The QC-2 RPV thermal cycle drawing [13] does not specify Level C events. The topical report [3] used a RPV thermal cycle drawing to select a limiting Level C transient. The 8

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 topical report [3] determined that for the BWR/3-6 product lines, the Improper Start of Cold Recirculation Loop transient (Transient 24 in Reference [15]) is the most limiting Level C transient. Figure 6 shows this transient. Since the geometry differences between the QC-2 RPV and the RPV geometry analyzed in the topical report [3] were minor (as discussed in Section 6.1), the K values for transient 24 calculated in the topical report were also used in this evaluation. This meant using the same Kt fit coefficients as shown in Table 6-lb of the topical report.

Section 6.1.3 of the topical report [3] discusses the calculation method for the K values due to cladding.

The same technical approach and the clad stress were used in this report.

7.2.

Level CService Evaluation Table 3 shows the calculated values of Level C condition applied J-integral for axial and circumferential flaws.

Since the internal pressure didn't change during the thermal transient (see Figure 6), only one set of applied J-integral calculations (shown in Table 3) was performed to evaluate the Jo., and the flaw stability criteria. As expected the axial flaw case is governing. The material J-R curve for Level C condition is the same as that for the Level A and B conditions. The Jo., criterion and the flaw stability evaluations are graphically shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. It is seen that both the criteria are satisfied.

7.3.

Level D Service Loadings The limiting Level D transient is the pipe rupture condition (Transient or Event 27). The pressure temperature profile is shown* in Figure 9.

Since the geometry differences between the QC-2 RPV and the RPV geometry analyzed in the topical report [3] were minor (as discussed in Section 6.1), the K values for transient 27 calculated in the topical report were also used in this evaluation. Section 6.2.2 of the topical report describes the fracture mechanics methodology used in the derivation of the K values.

The K, fit coefficients shown in Table 6-2 of the topical report wvere therefore also used in this report.

7.4.

Level D Service Evaluation Table 4 shows the calculated values of Level D condition applied J-integral for axial and circumferential flaws. The internal pressure at the end of the transient was used in the applied J integral calculations.

As expected the axial flaw case is governing.

The 9

Final Report, Rev. 0 GEANE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRF No. 0027-0575 material J-R curve for Level D condition is based on the margin factor (MF) of 1.0 as specified in Reference 8. Figure 10 graphically shows the flaw stability evaluation. It is seen that the ductile flaw crack growth stability criterion is satisfied.

8.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 10CFR50 Appendix G states that the RPV must maintain USE throughout its life of no less than 50 fi-lb, unless it is demonstrated in a manner approved by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, that lower values of USE will provide margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI the ASME Code. BWROG developed a licensing topical report on equivalent margin analysis for low USE BWRJ2 through BWR/6 RPVs, which was reviewed and approved by the NRC for use by individual utilities.

BWRVIP-74 provided a statistical treatment of the initial USE for a variety of base and weld metals used in BWR RPV fabrication. The report provided lower bound (i.e., mean minus a standard deviation) USE values for use in cases where the initial USE values may not be available or may have inadequate pedigree.

At QC-2, the plant assumed a lower bound USE for the electroslag welds based on BWRVIP-74. When the larger than expected measured USE reduction in one of the irradiated specimen was taken into account using the guidance provided in position 2.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, the predicted EOL USE value (34.2 ft-lb) didn't meet the minimum required value of 35 ft-lb stated in the topical report.

This report documents a plant-specific evaluation that was conducted to show compliance with the USE requirements.

This QC-2 electroslag weld USE evaluation followed essentially the methodology outlined in the topical report.

The applied J-integral calculation formulas and the material J-R curves for various operating conditions were consistent with the guidelines provided in the ASME Code Case 512-1, Appendix K of ASME Section XI and the Regulatory Guide 1.161. The evaluation showed that the Level B Condition was the governing one. The ductile crack growth stability requirement showed that an USE of 32.4 ft-lb satisfies the criteria compared to the predicted EOL value of 34.2 ft-lb.

Based on the results of this plant-specific evaluation, it is concluded that the electroslag welds in QC-2 RPV meet the margins of safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI the ASME Code. This conclusion is also valid for the EPU operation.

9.

REFERENCES 10

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575

[1]

"Fracture Toughness Requirements," Appendix G to Part 50 of Title 10, the Code of Federal Regulations, July 1983.

[2]

"Fracture Toughness Criteria for Protection Against Failure," Appendix G to Section XI of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, 1989 Edition.

[3]

Mehta, H.S., et al., "IOCFR50 Appendix G Equivalent Margin Analysis for Low Upper Shelf Energy in BWR/2 Through BWR/6 Vessels," NEDO-32205-A, Revision 1, February 1994.

[4]

Safety Evaluation of Reference 3 by NRR, December 08, 1993.

[5]

Code Case N-512, "Assessment of Reactor Vessels with Low Upper Shelf Charpy Impact Energy Levels,"Section XI, Division I Code, February 12, 1993.

[6]

Code Case N-512-1, "Assessment of Reactor Vessels with Low Upper Shelf Charpy Impact Energy Levels,"Section XI, Division 1 Code, August 24, 1995.

[7]

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "Assessment of Reactor Vessels with Low Upper Shelf Charpy Impact Energy Levels," Appendix K, A93, pp. 482.1-482.15,Section XI, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," 1992 Edition, 1993 Addenda, New York, December 1993.

[8]

USNRC, "Evaluation of Reactor Pressure Vessels with Charpy Upper-Shelf Energy Less Than 50 Ft-lb," Regulatory Guide 1.161, June 1995.

[9]

BWR Vessel and Internals Project, BWR Reactor Pressure Vessel Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines (BWRVIP-74), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, and BWRVIP:

1999, TR-113596.

[10] USNRC, "Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials," Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, May 1988.

[11] QC-2 RPV Geometry Drawing, 151827, Revision 2, by The Babcock & Wilcox Company.

[12] Raju, I.S. and Newman, J.C., "Stress Intensity Factor Influence Coefficients for Internal and External Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Vessels," PVP Volume 58, 1982.

[13] Quad Cities Thermal Cycle Diagram, GE Drawing No. 921D265.

[14] GE Document 26A5588, Power Uprate Certified Design Specification for Quad Cities 1, 2 Reactor Vessel, Sept. 2000.

I I

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575

[15] Reactor Cycles - BWR/6 Standard," GE Drawing No. 795E949, Revision 0, July 1981 (GE Proprietary).

12

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFANo. 0027-0575 Table 1 Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for 1.15xAccumulation Pressure Pressure (psi)=

1581 Vessel Ri (in.)=

125.7 Vessel Th (in.)=

6.13 Cooling Rate (F/Hr)=

100 aO (in.)=

1.5325 E (ksi)=

27700 YS (ksi)=

69 a

F1 1.53 1.045 1.58 1.049 1.63 1.053 1.68 1.058 1.73 1.062 1.78 1.067 1.83 1.072 1.88 1.077 1.93 1.082 1.98 1.087 2.03 1.093 2.08 1.098 2.13 1.104 2.18 1.110 2.23 1.115 2.28 1.121 2.33 1.128 2.38 1.134 2.43 1.140 2.48 1.147 2.53 1.154 AXIAL FLAW CALCULATION F3 Kp Kt ae 1.062 77.95 9.88 1.618 1.063 79.53 9.89 1.672 1.062 81.11 9.88 1.725 1.061 82.69 9.87 1.778 1.060 84.27 9.86 1.831 1.057 85.85 9.84 1.885 1.055 87.45 9.81 1.938 1.051 89.04 9.78 1.991 1.048 90.64 9.75 2.045 1.043 92.25 9.70 2.098 1.038 93.87 9.66 2.152 1.033 95.50 9.61 2.206 1.027 97.13 9.55 2.259 1.020 98.78 9.49 2.313 1.013 100.44 9.43 2.367 1.006 102.11 9.36 2.421 0.998 103.79 9.28 2.475 0.990 105.48 9.21 2.529 0.981 107.19 9.12 2.583 0.972 108.91 9.04 2.638 0.962 110.64 8.95 2.692 Fl' 1.052 1.057 1.062 1.067 1.072 1.077 1.083 1.088 1.094 1.100 1.106 1.112 1.119 1.125 1.132 1.139 1.146 1.153 1.161 1.168 1.176 F3 Ktotal J,app 1.062 90.55 269.35 1.061 92.22 279.37 1.060 93.88 289.57 1.058 95.55 299.94 1.055 97.22 310.50 1.051 98.89 321.25 1.047 100.56 332.21 1.042 102.24 343.37 1.037 103.92 354.77 1.031 105.61 366.39 1.024 107.30 378.25 1.017 109.01 390.37 1.009 110.72 402.75 1.001 112.45 415.40 0.992 114.19 428.34 0.983 115.94 441.58 0.973 117.70 455.12 0.963 119.48 468.98 0.952 121.28 483.18 0.940 123.09 497.72 0.929 124.92 512.62 a

F2 1.53 0.965 1.58 0.968 1.63 0.972 1.68 0.975 1.73 0.978 1.78 0.982 1.83 0.985 1.88 0.989 1.93 0.993 1.98 0.996 2.03 1.000 2.08 1.004 2.13 1.008 2.18 1.012 2.23 1.016 2.28 1.020 2.33 1.024 2.38 1.028 2.43 1.032 2.48 1.036 2.53 1.040 CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW CALCULATION F3 Kp Kt ae F2' 1.062 37.66 9.88 1.558 0.966 1.063 38.40 9.89 1.608 0.970 1.062 39.14 9.88 1.659 0.973 1.061 39.88 9.87 1.710 0.977 1.060 40.61 9.86 1.761 0.980 1.057 41.34 9.84 1.812 0.984 1.055 42.07 9.81 1.862 0.988 1.051 42.79 9.78 1.913 0.991 1.048 43.52 9.75 1.964 0.995 1.043 44.24 9.70 2.015 0.999 1.038 44.96 9.66 2.066 1.003 1.033 45.69 9.61 2.117 1.007 1.027 46.41 9.55 2.167 1.011 1.020 47.13 9.49 2.218 1.014 1.013 47.85 9.43 2.269 1.019 1.006 48.57 9.36 2.320 1.023 0.998 49.30 9.28 2.371 1.027 0.990 50.02 9.21 2.422 1.031 0.981 50.74 9.12 2.472 1.035 0.972 51.47 9.04 2.523 1.039 0.962 52.20 8.95 2.574 1.044 F3 1.062 1.062 1.062 1.060 1.058 1.056 1.053 1.049 1.045 1.040 1.035 1.029 1.022 1.015 1.008 1.000 0.992 0.983 0.973 0.964 0.954 K,total J,app 47.92 75.44 48.67 77.83 49.41 80.22 50.15 82.61 50.87 85.02 51.59 87.43 52.30 89.85 53.00 92.28 53.70 94.72 54.39 97.17 55.07 99.63 55.75 102.10 56.42 104.58 57.09 107.08 57.76 109.59 58.42 112.11 59.07 114.65 59.73 117.20 60.38 119.77 61.03 122.36 61.67 124.96 13

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 Table 2 Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for 1.25xAccumulation Pressure Pressure (psi)=

1719 Vessel Ri (in.)=

125.7 Vessel Th (in.)=

6.13 Cooling Rate (FIHr)=

100 aO (in.)=

1.5325 E (ksi)=

27700 YS (ksi)=

69 a

1.53 1.58 1.63 1.68 1.73 1.78 1.83 1.88 1.93 1.98 2.03 2.08 2.13 2.18 2.23 2.28 2.33 2.38 2.43 2.48 2.53 F1 1.045 1.049 1.053 1.058 1.062 1.067 1.072 1.077 1.082 1.087 1.093 1.098 1.104 1.110 1.115 1.121 1.128 1.134 1.140 1.147 1.154 AXIAL FLAW CALCULATION F3 Kp Kt ae 1.062 84.76 9.88 1.632 1.063 86.47 9.89 1.686 1.062 88.19 9.88 1.740 1.061 89.90 9.87 1.793 1.060 91.62 9.86 1.847 1.057 93.35 9.84 1.901 1.055 95.08 9.81 1.955 1.051 96.81 9.78 2.009 1.048 98.56 9.75 2.063 1.043 100.31 9.70 2.117 1.038 102.07 9.66 2.172 1.033 103.83 9.61 2.226 1.027 105.61 9.55 2.280 1.020 107.40 9.49 2.335 1.013 109.21 9.43 2.389 1.006 111.02 9.36 2.444 0.998 112.85 9.28 2.499 0.990 114.69 9.21 2.554 0.981 116.54 9.12 2.608 0.972 118.42 9.04 2.664 0.962 120.30 8.95 2.719 FT' F3' Ktotal J,app 1.053 1.062 98.06 315.91 1.058 1.061 99.90 327.83 1.063 1.059 101.73 339.97 1.068 1.057 103.56 352.32 1.073 1.054 105.39 364.92 1.079 1.050 107.23 377.75 1.084 1.046 109.07 390.85 1.090 1.041 110.92 404.20 1.096 1.035 112.78 417.84 1.102 1.029 114.64 431.77 1.108 1.022 116.52 446.01 1.115 1.014 118.40 460.56 1.121 1.006 120.30 475.44 1.128 0.998 122.21 490.67 1.135 0.988 124.14 506.25 1.142 0.979 126.08 522.20 1.149 0.968 128.04 538.55 1.157 0.958 130.01 555.30 1.164 0.946 132.01 572.46 1.172 0.935 134.02 590.07 1.180 0.923 136.06 608.12 CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW CALCULATION a

F2 F3 Kp Kt ae F2' F3' Kjtotal J,app 1.53 0.965 1.062 40.95 9.88 1.561 0.967 1.062 51.30 86.46 1.58 0.968 1.063 41.76 9.89 1.612 0.970 1.062 52.12 89.24 1.63 0.972 1.062 42.56 9.88 1.663 0.974 1.062 52.93 92.02 1.68 0.975 1.061 43.36 9.87 1.714 0.977 1.060 53.73 94.82 1.73 0.978 1.060 44.15 9.86 1.765 0.981 1.058 54.52 97.64 1.78 0.982 1.057 44.95 9.84 1.816 0.984 1.056 55.30 100.46 1.83 0.985 1.055 45.74 9.81 1.867 0.988 1.052 56.07 103.30 1.88 0.989 1.051 46.53 9.78 1.918 0.992 1.049 56.84 106.15 1.93 0.993 1.048 47.32 9.75 1.969 0.995 1.044 57.60 109.01 1.98 0.996 1.043 48.10 9.70 2.020 0.999 1.039 58.36 111.89 2.03 1.000 1.038 48.89 9.66 2.071 1.003 1.034 59.11 114.78 2.08 1.004 1.033 49.67 9.61 2.122 1.007 1.028 59.85 117.69 2.13 1.008 1.027 50.46 9.55 2.173 1.011 1.022 60.59 120.62 2.18 1.012 1.020 51.24 9.49 2.224 1.015 1.015 61.33 123.56 2.23 1.016 1.013 52.03 9.43 2.275 1.019 1.007 62.06 126.52 2.28 1.020 1.006 52.81 9.36 2.326 1.023 0.999 62.79 129.50 2.33 1.024 0.998 53.60 9.28 2.377 1.027 0.991 63.51 132.50 2.38 1.028 0.990 54.39 9.21 2.428 1.031 0.982 64.23 135.53 2.43 1.032 0.981 55.17 9.12 2.479 1.036 0.972 64.95 138.57 2.48 1.036 0.972 55.96 9.04 2.530 1.040 0.962 65.66 141.64 2.53 1.040 0.962 56.75 8.95 2.581 1.044 0.952 66.37 144.73 14

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 Table 3 Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for Level C Transient Emergency Condition: transient event 24 Pressure (psi)=

Vessel Ri (in.)=

Vessel Th (in.)=

Clad thickness (in.)=

aO (in.)=

E (ksi)=

YS (ksi)=

a F1 Kt K

0.80 0.999 26.55 3

0.85 1.001 26.29 3

0.90 1.004 26.00 3

0.95 1.006 25.68 3

1.00 1.009 25.34 4

1.05 1.012 24.99 4

1.10 1.015 24.63 4

1.15 1.018 24.25 4

1.20 1.021 23.87 4

1.25 1.024 23.47 4

1.30 1.027 23.06 4

1.35 1.031 22.62 4

1.40 1.035 22.15 4

1.45 1.039 21.63 5

1.50 1.042 21.04 5

1.55 1.047 20.39 5

1.60 1.051 19.64 5

1.65 1.055 18.77 5

1.70 1.060 17.77 5

1.75 1.064 16.61 5.

1.80 1.069 15.26 5

1050 125.7 6.13 0.19 0.803 27700 69 Kt Coefficients a=

8.831288 b=

74.92595 c=-

-107.681 d=

63.6289 e=

-14.3416 Clad Stress S (ksi)=

6 AXIAL FLAW CALCULATION Kp 5.84 7.02 8.18 9.32 0.44 1.55 2.65 3.73 4.81 5.88 6.94 8.00 9.05 0.10 1.15 2.20 3.25 4.30 5.35 6.40 7.45 Kc'ad 1.99 1.92 1.86 1.81 1.75 1.71 1.67 1.63 1.59 1.55 1.52 1.49 1.46 1.44 1.41 1.38 1.36 1.34 1.32 1.30 1.28 ae 0.849 0.900 0.952 1.003 1.054 1.105 1.156 1.207 1.258 1.309 1.360 1.411 1.462 1.513 1.563 1.614 1.664 1.715 1.765 1.815 1.864 F1' 1.001 1.004 1.006 1.009 1.012 1.015 1.018 1.021 1.024 1.028 1.032 1.035 1.039 1.043 1.047 1.052 1.056 1.061 1.065 1.070 1.075 Kt 26.31 26.02 25.69 25.34 24.98 24.61 24.23 23.84 23.43 23.01 22.56 22.07 21.53 20.92 20.24 19.46 18.55 17.51 16.31 14.92 13.31 K'p Kclad 36.93 38.12 39.29 40.44 41.57 42.69 43.80 44.89 45.99 47.07 48.15 49.22 50.29 51.35 52.42 53.48 54.54 55.59 56.64 57.70 58.74 1.93 1.86 1.81 1.76 1.71 1.66 1.62 1.59 1.55 1.52 1.49 1.46 1.43 1.40 1.38 1.36 1.33 1.31 1.29 1.28 1.26 CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW CALCULATION Ktotal 65.17 66.00 66.78 67.54 68.26 68.96 69.65 70.32 70.97 71.60 72.19 72.74 73.25 73.68 74.04 74.29 74.43 74.42 74.25 73.89 73.31 Ktotal 45.95 46.19 46.40 46.57 46.72 46.86 46.98 47.09 47.19 47.26 47.32 47.34 47.32 47.24 47.09 46.86 46.53 46.07 45.47 44.70 43.74 Japp 139.52 143.10 146.53 149.84 153.07 156.25 159.37 162.45 165.47 168.40 171.20 173.84 176.25 178.36 180.08 181.32 181.97 181.94 181.10 179.34 176.57 Japp 69.38 70.11 70.72 71.25 71.72 72.14 72.52 72.86 73.15 73.39 73.55 73.62 73.55 73.31 72.86 72.14 71.12 69.73 67.92 65.64 62.85 a

F1 Kt Kp Kc 0.80 0.921 0.85 0.924 0.90 0.927 0.95 0.930 1.00 0.932 1.05 0.935 1.10 0.938 1.15 0.941 1.20 0.944 1.25 0.947 1.30 0.950 1.35 0.953 1.40 0.956 1.45 0.960 1.50 0.963 1.55 0.966 1.60 0.970 1.65 0.973 1.70 0.976 1.75 0.980 1.80 0.983 26.55 17.29 26.29 17.87 26.00 18.44 25.68 19.00 25.34 19.56 24.99 20.10 24.63 20.63 24.25 21.16 23.87 21.68 23.47 22.20 23.06 22.71 22.62 23.22 22.15 23.72 21.63 24.22 21.04 24.72 20.39 25.22 19.64 25.71 18.77 26.20 17.77 26.68 16.61 27.17 15.26 27.65

lad ae 1.99 0.826 1.92 0.877 1.86 0.927 1.81 0.977 1.75 1.027 1.71 1.077 1.67 1.128 1.63 1.178 1.59 1.228 1.55 1.278 1.52 1.328 1.49 1.378 1.46 1.428 1.44 1.478 1.41 1.528 1.38 1.578 1.36 1.627 1.34 1.677 1.32 1.726 1.30 1.776 1.28 1.825 F1' 0.923 0.925 0.928 0.931 0.934 0.937 0.940 0.942 0.946 0.949 0.952 0.955 0.958 0.961 0.965 0.968 0.971 0.975 0.978 0.981 0.985 Kt 26.43 26.16 25.85 25.52 25.17 24.81 24.44 24.07 23.68 23.27 22.84 22.39 21.89 21.34 20.73 20.03 19.23 18.31 17.25 16.02 14.60 K'p 17.57 18.15 18.71 19.27 19.82 20.36 20.89 21.42 21.94 22.46 22.97 23.47 23.97 24.47 24.97 25.46 25.95 26.43 26.91 27.39 27.86 K'clad 1.96 1.89 1.83 1.78 1.73 1.69 1.65 1.61 1.57 1.54 1.51 1.48 1.45 1.42 1.40 1.37 1.35 1.33 1.31 1.29 1.27 15

Final Report, Rev'. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 Table 4 Calculated Values of Applied J-Integral for Level D Transient Faulted Condition: transient event 27 Pressure (psi)=

Vessel Ri (in.)=

Vessel Th (in.)=

Clad thickness (in.)=

aO (in.)=

E (ksi)=

YS (ksi)=

a F1 Kt I

0.80 0.999 56.65 0.85 1.001 57.20 0.90 1.004 57.67 0.95 1.006 58.07 1.00 1.009 58.42 1.05 1.012 58.71 1.10 1.015 58.96 1.15 1.018 59.16 1.20 1.021 59.32 1.25 1.024 59.42 1.30 1.027 59.45 1.35 1.031 59.42 1.40 1.035 59.29 1.45 1.039 59.06 1.50 1.042 58.70 1.55 1.047 58.19 1.60 1.051 57.50 1.65 1.055 56.60 1.70 1.060 55.45 1.75 1.064 54.03 CIR a

F1 Kt 1

0.80 0.921 56.65 0.85 0.924 57.20 0.90 0.927 57.67 0.95 0.930 58.07 1.00 0.932 58.42 1.05 0.935 58.71 1.10 0.938 58.96 1.15 0.941 59.16 1.20 0.944 59.32 1.25 0.947 59.42 1.30 0.950 59.45 1.35 0.953 59.42 1.40 0.956 59.29 1.45 0.960 59.06 1.50 0.963

. 58.70 1.55 0.966 58.19 1.60 0.970 57.50 1.65 0.973 56.60 1.70 0.976 55.45 1.75 0.980 54.03 20 125.7 6.13 0.19 0.803 27700 Kt Coefficients a=

14.01 b=

130.91 c=

-155.73 d=

89.845 S (ksi)=

16.5 69 e=

-20.64 AXIAL FLAW CALCULATION K.p Kclad 0.68 5.47 0.71 5.28 0.73 5.12 0.75 4.96 0.77 4.83 0.79 4.70 0.81 4.58 0.83 4.47 0.85 4.37 0.87 4.27 0.89 4.18 0.91 4.10 0.93 4.02 0.95 3.95 0.97 3.88 0.99 3.81 1.01 3.74 1.03 3.68 1.05 3.63 1.07 3.57 ae F1' 0.847 1.001 0.897 1.004 0.948 1.006 0.998 1.009 1.049 1.011 1.099 1.014 1.149 1.017 1.199 1.021 1.249 1.024 1.299 1.027 1.349 1.031 1.399 1.034 1.449 1.038 1.499 1.042 1.548 1.046 1.597 1.050 1.646 1.055 1.695 1.059 1.743 1.063 1.791 1.068 Clad Stress K't 57.14 57.62 58.03 58.39 58.69 58.94 59.15 59.31 59.41 59.45 59.42 59.31 59.08 58.74 58.25 57.59 56.73 55.66 54.33 52.72 K'p K'clad Ktotal Japp 0.70 0.72 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.09 5.30 5.13 4.98 4.84 4.71 4.59 4.48 4.38 4.28 4.19 4.11 4.03 3.95 3.88 3.82 3.75 3.69 3.64 3.58 3.53 63.15 131.00 63.48 132.39 63.76 133.56 63.99 134.53 64.19 135.35 64.34 136.00 64.46 136.49 64.53 136.82 64.56 136.94 64.54 136.83 64.44 136.43 64.27 135.68 63.99 134.51 63.59 132.85 63.06 130.62 62.35 127.72 61.46 124.08 60.34 119.62 58.98 114.28 57.34 108.02

,CUMFERENTIAL FLAW CALCULATION Kp Kclad ae Fl' K't 0.33 5.47 0.846 0.924 57.14 0.34 5.28 0.897 0.926 57.62 0.35 5.12 0.947 0.929 58.03 0.36 4.96 0.998 0.932 58.38 0.37 4.83 1.048 0.935 58.68 0.38 4.70 1.098 0.938 58.94 0.39 4.58 1.149 0.941 59.15 0.40 4.47 1.199 0.944 59.30 0.41 4.37 1.249 0.947 59.41 0.42 4.27 1.299 0.950 59.45 0.43 4.18 1.349 0.953 59.42 0.44 4.10 1.399 0.956 59.31 0.45 4.02 1.448 0.959 59.09 0.46 3.95 1.498 0.963 58.74 0.47 3.88 1.547 0.966 58.26 0.48 3.81 1.596 0.969 57.60 0.49 3.74 1.645 0.972 56.75 0.50 3.68 1.694 0.976 55.67 0.51 3.63 1.743 0.979 54.35 0.52 3.57 1.791 0.983 52.75 K'p Kclad Ktotal Japp 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.52 5.30 5.14 4.98 4.84 4.71 4.59 4.48 4.38 4.28 4.19 4.11 4.03 3.95 3.88 3.82 3.75 3.69 3.64 3.58 3.53 62.78 129.48 63.10 130.82 63.37 131.93 63.59 132.86 63.78 133.62 63.92 134.23 64.03 134.68 64.09 134.96 64.11 135.04 64.08 134.88 63.97 134.45 63.79 133.67 63.50 132.47 63.10 130.79 62.55 128.54 61.84 125.63 60.94 121.99 59.82 117.55 58.45 112.23 56.80 106.01 16

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 J

aO a

Figure I Illustration of Ductile Crack Growth Stability Evaluation 17

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 QC-2 Electroslag J-R Curves, CVN=34.2, T=546 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Delta a (In.)

0.60 Figure 2 Quad Cities Electroslag Weld J-Integral Resistance Curves 18

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 Normal & Upset Condition Evaluation 453.00

- -T ---

~

- r-

-r--

I.

I I

1 u

400.03 -

I rL Cum, USE-4 I

I I

II 2 0.00 -

0.---

10- --

.2 0-0

.5-05 200.03 11.0 - - - -1

- - - - - - - L IO

.0

- - - - -I

- - - - - - - L 500 Ap e (3t)

-em t Y.33.______

_______0_

0.0

/

l I2 I3 I.4 I.5 0I 203.33~~~~~~~~~~~~~mt

_a 1_______9_______L Figure 3 Jo.1 Criterion Evaluation for Axial Flaw with Electroslag J-R Curve 19

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 Normal & Upset Condtilon Evaluation I

I I

I I

450.00 I

I I

I.

=

II I

40000 30000

--- -I ---

30000 IIII I

k225000 20000.

15000 10000 50 00

/

II

j.

L I

I J -

I 4--.--

i Il -J-R Curve, USE-34 2

.' Apped J (Stabtyj Nomaf & UPed I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

L I

I I

I I

-.1I-I I

I I

I I

-I----

I I

I I

000 050 060 000 0 10 020 030 0.40 Delta a 0 so 0 so Figure 4 Flaw Stability Criterion Evaluation for Axial Flaw with Electroslag J-R Curve 20

Final Report, Rev. 0 GEANE-0000-0 02 7-0575-01 e-DRFANo. 0027-0575 Normal & Upset Condition Evaluation RCuv.

SE3.4 ta 450.00 - - -

- - -J

-t

- -Upset I

II JRC m IS I24 14 25.O --

Ap ie JISaii Nra pe 20 0

-I

-- r I5.0-

-I--

0.00 0-10 0.20 0.30 0 40 0.50 0.60 Deota a Figure 5 Required Minimum Electroslag USE to Meet Stability Criterion 21

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 EVENT 24 Emergency Condition 0oo 550 i,

500

1 450
e.

400 4) 200 250 528 268

-l1 26 sec l-in v*

1100_

lu 1050_

I.

I00 1000 a..

1 1050 Figure 6 Pressure & Temperature Conditions During Improper Start of Cold Recirculation Loop Transient (Event 24) 22

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 Emergency Condition J,0.1 Evaluation 500.00 400.00 -------- -- ------ ---

350.00 I- - - - - - - --

300.00 - - -

j - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - -I I

I

~--*-Appslied J4(0.1). Level C Conditon cmI I

I

  • ]

200.00 ----

j I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 200.00

- - - -t -

J_

- - - - - - - - - - - - -L

@ 50.00 - -- -i--

-- -- -- - -- T -- -- - --

/I I

I I

I II I

I I

.I 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50o 0.60 DOlM a Figure 7 Jo.1 Evaluation for Level C Condition 23

Final Report, Rev. 0 GEANE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 Emergency Condition Stability Evaluation 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 Deota a Figure 8 Crack Growth Stability Criterion Evaluation for Level C Condition 24

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 EVENT 27 Faulted Condition S..

0.

I-.

600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 1200

° 1000 X*

800 w

600 l

400 a

200 0

Figure 9 Limiting level D Transient (Event 27) 25

Final Report, Rev. 0 GENE-0000-0027-0575-01 e-DRFNo. 0027-0575 Faulted Condition Stability Evaluation 800.00.

C e, US-3.

L I

I I

I I

I I

I I

e

/

-LlaAppbleJ(Staby).LevelD 400.00 - -

_I._L I

/I I

I I

I

/I I

I I

I 3 0.00..

1 0_2 0_1

0.

,_________+__

_________40 _.5 I

I l t a p_

  • -a

/I I

I II 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 Deltaa Figure 10 Crack Growth Stability Criterion Evaluation for Level D Condition 26

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML041070458&oldid=5403105"