ML20207H847
| ML20207H847 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1988 |
| From: | Feigenbaum T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207H851 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-88-005, IEB-88-5, NYN-88114, NUDOCS 8808300055 | |
| Download: ML20207H847 (38) | |
Text
-
D U
Ted C. Feigenbaum Vice President iugust 25, 1988 NYN-88114 Now Hampthire Yankee Division United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Document Control Desk
References:
a) Facility Operating License NPF-56, Docket No. 50-443 b) USNRC Bulletin No. 88-05 dated May 6,1988, "Nonconforming Materials Supplied by Piping Supplies, Inc. at Folsom, New Jersey and West Jersey Manufacturing Company at Williamstown, New Jersey" c) USNRC Bulletin No. 88-05, Supplement 1 dated June 15, 1988 d) USNRC Bulletin No. 88-05, Supplement 2 dated August 3, 1988
Subject:
Response to USNRC Bulletin No. 88-05 Gentlemen:
In response to Reference (d), this letter provides the results of New Hampshire Yankee 's (NHY) document review, testing and analysis, as required, of material identified as being supplied by West Jersey Manufacturing (WJM), Piping Supplies Inc. (PSI) and Chews Landing Metal, Manufacturers Incorporated (CL).
This letter contains the information requested aad is presented as follows: - Description of the Program Established to Support Bulletin No. 88-05 Actions. - Review and Testing Summary t - Engineering Evaluation and Analysis Attachments A) NUMARC Generic Testing Program Response to NRC Bulletin 88-05, 7-29-88 B) Report on Generic Analysis and Evaluation of Suspect Material identified in NRC Bulletin 88-05, "Bechtel Power Corp. for NUMARC/EPRI", 7-21-88 C) Test Report Number 64342, Dirats Laboratoies for Heat Number L4517, dated 8-5-88.
l 8808300055 800825 i
PDR ADOCK 05000443 Q
PNU P.O. Box 300. Seabrook, NH 03874. Telephone (603) 474 9574 c
)
Unitsd Stotos Nucicor Rsgulctory Commissien NYN-88114 Attentien! Document CCntrol D:sk Pcgs 2 In summary, based on NHY's testing, evaluation and analysis, performed in
-accordance with NRC IE Bulletin 88-05, it is concluded that ASME Section III and ANSI B31.1 material, installed in safety-related systems is acceptable for its intended use.
This letter satisfies the 120 day reporting requirement of USNRC Bulletin No. 88-05 dated May 6, 1988, "Nonconforming Materials *;pplied by Piping Supplies, Inc. at Folsom, New Jersey and West Jersey Manufacturing Company at Williamstown New Jersey".
Very truly yours, f.gfh Ted C. Feigenbaum.
Enclosure ce; Mr. Victor Nerses, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects United States Nuclear Regulatory Commisston Mr. William T. Russell Regional Administrator United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 425 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Antone C. Cerne NRC Senior Resident Inspector Seabrook Station Seabrook, NH 03874 I
l
Unitdd States Nuc10er R:gulatory Coanissicn NYN-88114 Attsntion:
Document Centrol Dssk Prgs 3 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE August 24, 1988
- Rockingham, ss.
Then personally appeared - before me,. the above-named Ted C.. Feigenbaum who,-
~
being duly _ sworn,-did state that he is Vice President.of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, that he is duly authorized to execute and. file the foregoing information in the name and on the behalf of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, and that-the statements therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
bd b bhtww
'5 Beverly EMilloway, Notary) Public My Commission Expires:
March 6, 1990
.?,
e _. -
I l
l 4
1 I
i j
j
i l
I
{
ENCLOSURE 1 to NYN -88114 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM ESTABLISHED TO SUPPORT BULLETIN NO. 88-05 ACTIONS l
DESCRIPTION OF THE: PROGRAM ESTABLISHED f3 SUPPORT BULLETIN NO. 88-05 ACTIONS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The NRC issued Bulletin No. 88-05 including Supplements 1 and 2 which concluded that some certified material test reports (CMTRs) and/or material
- provided by West Jersey Manuf acturing Company (WJM), Piping Supplies, Inc.
(PSI) and Chew Landing Metal Manufacturers Inc. (CL) were falsified. 'The general scope of the bulletin and supplements required licensees to:
identify WJM/ PSI /CL supplied material in safety related. systems, demonstrate that identified material complies with the code of construc-
~
tion or otherwise provide justification for suitability for service, report to the NRC within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> or in accordance with 10CFR50.72, if applicable, material requiring an analysis to justify continued opera-tion, and provide a final report to the NRC within 120 days of receipt of the bulletin as to the actions taken with regard to material analyzed.
Initially, the NRC's concern in Bulletin No. 88-05 involved fraudulent documentation.
In response to the initial bulletin, Carolina Powar & Light (Harris Plant) tested two blind flanges from inventory' material in a laboratory. The test results indicated that the material failed to meet ASME Code.
Based upon this information the NRC issued Supplement I which required licencees to promptly begin testing of installed material supplied by WJM/ PSI.
2.0 METHODOLOGY TO IDENTIFY, TEST AND EVALUATE WJM/ PSI MATERIAL This section provides an overview of the actions taken by New Nampshire Yankee (NHY) to date, to identify, locate, test ano evaluate material supplied by WJM/ PSI /CL and to outline additional actions taken that inde-pendently verify that this material as installed in safety related systems on Unit I has been identified, tested, and determined to be acceptable.
2.1 Scoping 2.1.1 Suppliers - Upon initial receipt of Bulletin No. 88-05, NHY performed a review of CMTRs to determine the quantity of material supplied by WJM and PSI under existing purchase orders.
This initial review indicated that PSI did not supply material to Seabrook, a finding subsequently confirmed thru extensive document review and field inspections. WJM, however did supply ASME material.
It was also determined during this screening that on certain CMTR's the format, test data and attesting signatures from both WJM and CL, a supplier of ANSI B31.1 material, were identical except for the letterhead.
NHY notified the NRC Senior Resident, NUMARC, and included this information on Nuclear Network.
CL was therefore included within the scope of NHY's review for suspect material, a requirement passed on to the industry by the NRC in Supplement 2.
2.1.2 Inventory - Upon receipt of Bulletin 88-05, NHY, placed the issuance of WJM/ PSI /CL carbon and stainless steel fittings and flanges in a "hold" status. -.
300 DOCUMENT REVIEW An in depth document review and field inspection was performed to deter-mine the location of installed suspect material.
NHY Engineering prepared Engineering Evaluation Number 88-020, entitled "Process For Identification / Location of Non Conforming Material SurPlied by PSI and WJM".
A brief description of the process is provided below.
3.1 PIPING SYSTEMS All safety-related piping systems at Seabrook Station have been designed, fabricated, installed and Code stamped to the ASME Section III Code except as defined below. As required by Code rules, N-5 Code data reports were prepared and certified for each safety related system upon completion of the installation, testing documentation review and engineering reconciliation of the system design.
The N-5 Code Data Report provides an itemization of "N" stamped com-ponents (valves, heat exchangers, pumps, etc.), "NPT" stamped piping subassemblies (provided by Dravo, Ceramic Cooling Tower, etc.), addi-tional material utilized during site installation and "NPT" stamped subassembly modifications.
In addition to specific component and subassembly identification, the records storage location of documentation packages provided with these items was listed on the N-5 data reports. These document packages were examined to determine if suspect material was present.
For additional material used in the system, installation records (e.g.
weld process sheets) were reviewed to determine the source of suspect material and the installed location. -
r Th3 N-5 Code dato rap:rts centcin comprch:nsiva liscs cf materials up-to the "N" stamp date.
Changes made after "N" stamping, however, do not-necessarily require a change to the Code data report and, there-fore,'a different approach was taken.
For this reason,. work control documents (incidding ASME NIS-2 forms) implemented subsequent to the "N"stamp date were examined to deter-l mine if suspect materialLwas' installed.
The source of. pipe fittings and flanges addsd or replaced under the work request program were identified and added to the system' tabulation of suspect material.
The applicable documentation package, when required, was reviewed to
(
determine the source of suspect material.
1 3.2 ' PIPING USED AS DUCTWORK In some applications, piping has been utilized as safety-related ductwork (i.e., Control Building Air remote intakes, Emergency Diesel Generator intake and exhaust). This piping had been designed and installed to the ANSI B31.1 code. ASME Code N-5 data reports were not required to be prepared for these B31.1 systems and, therefore, a dif-ferent review process was used than for ASME piping systems.
For these systems identified in FSAR Table 3.2-2, the applicable piping isometrics, including design changes documents, were identified.
A Bill of Material was created similar to that found on the ASME N-5 Data Reports (i.e., Dravo spools, components, additional material).
Dravo spool sheet sketches were reviewed in the same fashion as for ASME piping systems. All additional material, however, was field traced to determine the source of each item (i.e., fittings / flanges). l 1
F i
.3.3 TUBING Safety-related tubing designs were reviewed for use of products supplied by WJM, PSI and CL.
The results of NHY's review established that there were no WJH/ PSI /CL material furnished or used in~ safety related tubing systems. These systems are identified in FSAR Table 3.2-2.
P 3.4 DOCUMENTATION OF RESULTS Materials identified, or suspected, 'to be from WJM or CL were tabu-lated. Other. pertinent information relative to the installed location of the items was included with this tabulation.
The NHY Document review was independently checked by a review of records at Dravo (primary piping supplier /f abricator) and Guyon (primary small bore piping and fittings supplier). These independent reviews are used to validate and assess the NHY effort and are s
described in the Procurement RevieJ Effort below.
Additionally, in order to augment the review of material installed after "N" stamping, a review of construction and operations store-room material issue tickets was conducted. This provided additional I
verification that material issued for specific work activities was included in the work document package review.
I 4.0 PROCUREMENT REVIEW EFFORT 4.1 CONNEX EFFORT Connex Pipe System Inc., formerly Dravo Corporation from Marietta, Ohio, was the primary shop fabricator of ASME and B31.1 piping systems l
I 4
for S= brook Stati:n.
In crdor to c:nfira tha v lidity cad cccur:cy of the data' collected (e.g. product forms, manufacturer / supplier, heat numbers, material test reports) from NHY's review of site piping records and field inspections, Connex Piping System Inc, reviewed their records (i.e.. spool sheet sketches, purchase orders, material test reports, etc.) and provided NHY with an itemized list of products (e.g.
fittings, flanges, bosses, lugs) furnished to Seabrook Station.
The itemised list identified the applicable spool sheet sketch, revi-sion, unique spool number, type of product, size, material type, material test report serial number, heat number or code, manufacturer and the Dravo purchase order number for each identified product.
This data was collected by Connex under the direction of their Quality Assurance Manager and was surveilled by a senior level UE&C vendor surveillance representative acting on behalf of NHY.
As the data from Connex was received on-site, a comprehensive, inde-pendent review was performed which established and/or confirmed the consistency and accuracy of the data which was developed from NHY's site records and field inspections.
4.2 GUYON /RADNOR EFFORT l
l Cuyon Alloys Inc. was the primary supplier of ASME and B31.1 pipe and fittings two inch and smaller (small products) to Seabrook Station.
The small products division of Guyon Alloys Inc.
which provided pro-ducts to Seabrook Station is no longer in business.
During NHY's attempt to obtain confirmatory data regarding products furnished by Guyon Alloys Inc., it was discovered that a few former of ficers of Guyon Alloy Inc. had established a new corporation, Radnor Alloys Inc..
5: sed cn cur discussicas with Rcdntr Alleys Inc. 's Quality Assur:nco Manager it was learned that.Radnor Alloys Inc. is in possession of certain Guyon procurement records including purchase orders and material test reports.
NHY has requested Radnor Alloys, Inc. to pro-vide us with data for the products furnished to Seabrook Station by Guyon Alloys Inc.
In response to NHY's request, Radnor Alloys,- Inc.
is preparing a report ideatifying' purchase order numbers, job numbers, suppliers, material descriptions, quantities of products shipped, heat identification and shipment dates for products furnished to Seabrook Station.
Upon receipt of the Radnor Alloys Report, the data will be independently reviewed to confirm the accuracy of the data which was developed from our site records and fleid inspections. We have a high level of confidence in our on-site records search process based on the results of the Dravo review process. This effort, however, will pro-vide NHY with further assurance as to the accuracy of our site data.
4.3 VENDOR /NSSS/ CONTRACTOR EFFORTS 9
As part of New Hampshire Ysnkee's efforts to identify all WJM, PSI or CL products, detailed reviews of component data packages were per-formed.
Data package reviews were completed for the original safety-related components purchased by UE&C and those components provided by Westinghouse as part of the Nuclear Steam Supply System. The purpose of this review was to ascertain if any products from WJM, PSI or CL t
l were provided as part of an original component or furnished as bulk material to Seabrook Station.
In order to confirm the results of our component data package reviews, questionaires regarding the use of WJM, PSI or CL products were sent to forty-one (41) previous vendors 1
i 7
I
and/cr sito etntract:rs. Thesa ferty-ona v:ndirs/ site c;ntracters were selected based on a comprehensive review of procurement docu-ments, purchase specifications, and/or a review of component drawings including bills of material. To date, the vendors / contractors respon-ses to our questionaires have been consistent with and have confirmed the results of our site component data package reviews.
The vendor /
contractor que tionaire effort is an on going effort which will provide additional assurance that all WJM, PSI and CL products at Seabrook Sistion are identified and properly dispositioned.
Additionally, comprehensive search of the procurement / inventory data bases has been performed for the purpose of determining if NHY had any direct purchases for products from WJM, PSI or CL, The results of our search indicated that NHY did not directly purchase any WJM, PSI or CL products.
4.4 NUMARC/NRC/WJM PURCHASE INFORMATION NUMARC provided a transmittal of the detailed information of the NRC's purchase order document review of WJM.
NHY reviewed the information for consistency with our internal records review and our vendor inter-face review described above.
The results indicated that the specific procurement information from the NRC records review was included within our internal review and did not require additional records reviews or in-situ testing.
5.0 RESULTS OF DOCUMENT REVIEWS
)
1 The Procurement Review, as described in Section 4.0, is designed to provide a second level of assurance that all suspect flanges and fittings were pro-
]
I perly identified. Elements of this review are still ongoing, however, the l l
NHY Document R; view d;scrib;d in S:etica 3.0 is comp 10to and balcw is a summary of the overall results.
A total of 369 flanges and fittings in safety-related systems were post-tively identified as supplied by WJM or which could not be identified from traced field markings and therefore included in the evaluation.
No flanges and fittings were supplied by PSI.
No flanges and fittings in safety-related systems were supplied by CL.
l One heat (L4517) was a source of material for both WJM and CL.
WJM used it for ASME material; CL for non-safty related B31.1 applications.
The test program methodology and procedures for the in-situ testing of the identified suspect '.ianges and fittings are described in Section 6.0 below.
The results of this program are then sumr.arized and tabulated in Enclosure 2.
The Engineering Evaluation of flangcs and fittings identified as not l
conforming to material specifications is then discussed in Enclosure 3.
l l
Section 7.0 of this enclosure describes the independent laboratory tests performed, including those conducted on the WJM and CL fittings supplied from the same heat as required by Supplement 1 to Bulletin 88-05.
l 6.0 TEST PROGRAM l
6.1 METHODOLOGY A procedure, ES88-0-15, entitled "Testing, Evaluation and Reporting 1
l Methodology", was prepared to address the overall methodology for per-I forming test s, evaluations, reporting and, where necessary, replacing j
suspect material supplied by vendors identified by the NRC Bulletin l
1 l j i
l l
88-05 r:vicw. Th3 centcats of this prec: dure are primarily d:signsd to define responsibilities and outline the flow' path for test activi-
~
ties to ensure that the data collectiot. and evaluation is provided in a consistent manner.
i 6.2 TEST PROCEDURES ~
NHY developed two special process procedures to perform in-situ non-l destructive tests of carbon and stainless steel material. The proce-dures are:
NHY-EHT-1, Equotip Hardness Testing (for carbon steel)
NHY-FN-1, Delta Ferite Inspection (for stainless steel)
{
l The use of the Equotip Hardnesc Te r ~.n or determining the carbon steel hardness number was recomesni PRI and NUMARC.
NHY's material experts concur that the s
.ta Equotip hardness tester is appropriate for this type of in-situ testing.
4 EPRI sponsored a training workshop session on the use of the Equotip -
test equipment and the testing technique to prepare and test material.
1 i
i-In support of this effort, NHY sent two representatives to the i
workshop.
Both individuals have had extensive experience in special processes during the Construction of Seabrook Station and were fami-liar with various techniques utilized in hardness testing.
It should 3
be noted that the Equotip tester was previously used at Seabrook l
Station during construction.
J j 4
.. ~. _
c.,m_
_ _.~
~..r.
Th3 EPRI worksh:p prcvid:d b th individuals with hands on traicing in the Equotip tester as well as additional technical information that augmented the manufacturer's instructions and was incorporated in the procedure.
This included:
Surface contour requirements.
Ambient temperature limitations.
Test and data variance requirements.
Surface preparation requirements.
System operational requirements.
Calibration checks.
Temperature corrections.
Yankee Nuclear Services Division provided an independent review of the procedures used and the testing process.
QC personnel performing the hardness testing were instructed in the use of the procedure and in the use of the equipment by the NHY QA Engineer trained at the EPRI workshop.
A training session was con-ducted and was included in the individual inspector's certification /
qualification records.
The QC inspectors performing the test documented each material test result on a data sheet. The data sheet (s) was submitted to the QA Engineer for review and evaluation to convert Equotip test readings to Brinell Hardness (BHN) and Tensile Strength numbers.
Material tested within 1371BHNfl87 was considered as meeting code requirements in accordance with ASME SA-105 (See Enclosure 3).
Material reported outside these limits required further testing and/or evaluation from NHY Engineering for acceptability to the ASME code. -
n -
NHY also-devolep:d a proceduro to measuro tho delto.forrito -cf custe-nitic stainless. steel weld metal and cast stainless steel using the Ferritescope.
In addition to covering the manufacturer's operating instructions this
. procedure provided for:
correction factors surface preparation prerequisites and initial conditions calibration requirements
' - recording requirements.
QC personnel performing the testing were given a training' session on the use of the test equipment and the procedure by the QA Engineer.
The information was included in the inspector's qualification /'
certification record.
The data sheets for stainless steel material tests were reviewed and evaluated similarly to that for carbon steel test results.
Test Results - The results of the in-situ testing are described in.
7.0 INDEPENDERT LABORATORY TESTS Some carbon steel material furnished by WJM and CL contained identical heat num-bers for socket weld pipe bosses. WJM furnished ASME Code material, heat
[
i L4517, and CL furnished B31.1 code material, heat L4517. CMTRs indicated i
material compliance with code requirements.
~
P e,
l i
i
_=
To ccnfiro Equotip tost results f rom in-situ -testing ocn matorial from hoct L4517, J. Dirate 'and Co. and Bechtel performed independent tests on two separate piects from heat L4517 (See Enclosure 3, Attachment C).
The independent test results correlated closely with the CMTRs furnished by both WJM/CL.
The results are tabulated herein-for information:
i C
MN P
S Si T.S.
Y.S.
El%'
REDI Hardness HRB BHN WJM/
.23
.81
.025
.026
.21 76.9K 46.7K 28 60 CMTR Dirsts
.19
.81
.029
.037
.26 76.6K 47.4K 27.8 59.6 149 79.0 l
l Bechtel
.20
.82
.025
.031
.22
-137 78.0 ASME
.35
.60-
.040 1.050.35 70K 36K 22 30 i
SA105 max 1.05 max max max min min min min '
I Spec.
l Hardness tests were also performed by NHY on the samples sent to Dirats.
i The overall test results from Dirats, Bechtel and NHY, indicate that the material furnished by WJM is acceptable and that the testing performed f
both in-situ and at the Laboratory is consistent with CMTRs furnished with
.\\
l the material.
The actual field data and subsequent conversion to tensile i
I i
strength using the ASTM SA370 conversion values was shown to be conservative when compar i to laboratory testing results, l
l l
NHY also tested carbon steel material from heat number 7218.
This material heat was the same heat reported by CP&L as being substantially below code requirements.
CP&L tested two blind flanges. -
{
Ths material centaining the hcst numbers 7218 eas furnish:d in tws product i
forms to NHY (UE&C) during the construction of Units 1 and 2use follows:
l Material Supplier-l 2 V2" 150f RF Blind Flange '
l WJM to Dravo i
2 V2" X 2" 150# RFSW Reducing Flange
}
WJM to Guyon The above material was included as bulk Unit 2 material and was not L
l included in inventory for Unit 1.
J. Tirats performed tests of the above material.
Seven samples were sub-mitted. The test results confirmed the CP&L' tests for the blind flanges j
L from heat 7218. However, the tests performed on the reducing flanges were essentially at code values with minor variations. The tensile strength for
-t E
the reducing flanges ranged from 68.2KSI to 78.5 KSI with a corresponding hardness test value of BHN 127 to BHN 147.
It should be noted that these results are indicative of the conservatism of the ASTM SA-370 conversion
'I from BHN to tenslie strength in that the tested tensile strength is higher than that yielded by the ASTM SA-370 conversion.
[
NHY also performed Equotip hardness tests on heat 7218 and these tests also i
confirmed the acceptability of the material.
8.0 NUMARC SUPPORT NUMARC, in conjunction with Bechtel and EPRI, developed a methodology to evaluate in-situ and imboratory test data provided by licensees and data taken from material samples analyzed by Bechtel.,
I..
NHY h:s subrittcd tha renults of in-situ and lab:ratcry tosts to NUMARC/
Bechtel and has additionally provided 65 additional WJM material samples consisting of carbon and stainless steel flanges and fittings to Bechtel for laboratory testing.
The results from the tests performed both in-situ and in the laboratory were utilized in the basis of the NUMARC/Bechtel Report listed in Supplement 2 to NRC Bulletin No. 88-05 (See Enclosure 3, Attachment A).
l l
1 i
1 l
l 1
1 l
, l
I P
P h
ENCLOSURE 2 to NYN -88114 REVIEW AND TESTING
SUMMARY
l I
r I
i 1
100 REVIEW AND TESTING
SUMMARY
A' total of 369 flanges and fittings were identified and tested as a result of the records review and field walkdowns in safety related systems as l
shown in Table 1.
A total of thirty (30) fittings and flanges tested below a hardness value of BHN 137. Twenty-nine (29) of the ASNE items have hard-ness values between BHN 124 and BHN 137 by Equotip testing and are listed t
in Table 2.
One non-ASME ites (listed in Table 3) of B31.1 Material also tested below the BHN 137 value by Equotip testing and was included in the eval ua tion.
Please note that a 2" blind flange and a 24" weld neck flange reported to i
the NRC on July 20, 1988 as having high hardness values (above BHN 187) l were subsequently retested satisf actorily.
The NRC Resident Inspector was I
informed on August 8,1988.
s 4
?
I j
r F
I 1
1 i
i 1
l l
j 4
i J l 1
h
TABLE 1 r
MATERIAL EVALUATED IN SAFETY RELATED, SYSTEMS i
i Material Below f
System Installed & Tested 137 BHM ASME Material in Safety Related Systems Chemical and Volume Control (CS) 12 1
Component Cooling (Primary) (CC) 135
-14 Containment Building Spray (CBS) 1 0
Containment On-Line Purge (COP) 4 0
t Control Room Ventilation (CBA) 13 0
l Diesel Generator (DG) 22 2
Demineralized Water (DM) 2 0
I Fire Protection (FP) 1 1
Teed Water (FW) 11 1
Main Steam (MS) 3 l
Residual Heat Removal (RM) 4 0
.l t
Steam Generator Blowdown (SB) 7 i
Service Water (SW) 141 2
l l
l
\\
Non-ASME Material in Safety Related Systetas l
Control Room Ventilation (CBA) 11 1
TOTAL 369 30 1 l 1
L_, _ _ _. _ _ _ _., _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _, _ _, _. _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _, _ _ _ _...
.__,,____,,_________[
.-_m.
~ - - _ _ _
TABLE 2 Sheet I cf 2 LIST OF ASME FI.-IGES AND FITTINGS INSTALLED IN SAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS WITH LESS THAN 137 BHN BY EQUOTIF TESTING ASTM SA370 Freasure Tensile Description Heat No.
Material Class BHN Conversion (PSI)
System 4
3/4" Socket We'd Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 134 64,750 Steam Generator Blowdown 3/4" Socket Weld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 134 64,750 Steam Generator slowdown i
3/4" Socket Ueld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 131 63,700 Steam Generator Blowdc<en 3/4" Socket Weld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 131 63,700 Steam Generator Blowdown
)
3/4" Socket Weld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 133 64,250 Steam Generator Blowdown 3/4" Socket Weld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 134 64,750 Diesel Generator Oil l
3/4" Socket Weld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 127 62,000 Fire Protection-3/4" Socket Weld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 128 62,250 Frimary Component Cooling 3/4" Socket Weld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 131 63,700 Frimary component Cooling.
)
3/4" Socket Weld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB IM 63,000 Frimary component' Cooling d
l 3/4" Bocket Wel:f 30ss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 133 64,250 Primary Component Cooling 3/4" Socket Weld Boss L4517 SA105.
3000 LB 131 63,700 Frimary Component Cooling i
i 3/4" Socket Veld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 134 64,750 Frimary Component Cooling 3/4" Socket Weld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 136 65,350 Frimary Component Cooling i
l 1"
Socket Weld Boss L4517 SAIO5 3000 LB 130 63,000 Primary Component Ceoling i
1" Socket Ueld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 135 65,000 Main Steam i
1" Socke: Weld Boss L4517 SA105 3000 LB 127 62,000 Main Steam i
t j
3/4" Raised Face, Socket 1599 SA105 150 LB 124 60,500 Primary Component Cooling Weld Flange 1
TABLE 2 ShastL2.of'2 i
l i
LIST OF ASME FLANGES AND FITTINGS INSTALLED IN SAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS WITH LESS THAN: 137 BHN BY.EQUOTIP TESTING l
ASTM SA370 Pressure Tensile Description Heat No.
Material Class BHN Conversion System 3/4" Raised Face, Socket CFB SA105 150 LB 127 62,000 Chemical and Volume Control Weld Flange 2"
Raised Face, Socket 22478 SA105 1500 TB 136 65,350 Primary Component Cooling Weld Flange l
2" Raised Face, Socket 22478 SA105 1500 LB 136 65,350 Primary Component Cooling Weld Flange 2"
Raised Face, Socket 22478 SA105 1500 LB 135 65,000 Primary Component Cooling Weld Flange 2"
Raised Face, Socket 22478 SA105 1500 LB 131 63,700 Primary _ Component Cooling.
Raised Face, Socket 22478 SA105 1500 LB 133 64,250 Primary Component Cooling Weld Flange 2"
Socket Weld Flange CW2 SA105 150 LB 133 64,250 Diesel Generator Oil 3"
Weld Neck Flange 4504 SA105 150 LB 127 62,000 Service. Water 4"
Raised Face, Weld 7572 SA105 900 LB 131 63,700 Main Steam Neck Flange 4"
Weld Neck Flange CMP SA105 150 LB 135 65,000 Feed Water 16" Weld Neck Flange T2759 SA105
-150 LB 131
'63,700
'A 1
TABLE 3 i
LIST OF NON ASME FITTINGS INSTALLED IN SAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS WITH LESS THAN 137 BHN y
i ASTM SA370 I
Tensile B31.1 l
Description Material BHN Conversion-(PSI)
System-
^ '
1" x I/2" Bushing SA105 132 64,000
. Control Room Ventilation N
7
?-
4
,,I l
e i
4 4
i 1
i i
1 a
3 i
-l 1
ENCLOSURE 3 to NYN -88116 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS i
l l
1.0' JPURPOSE Determine the effect on piping analyses and ASME Code Com-pliance of components identified as not conforming to material speci-fications in response to NRC Bulletin No. 88-05.
2.0 BACKGROUND
NRC Bulletin-No. 88-05 notified license holders of potentially non-conforming material in piping components supplied by Piping Supplies, (PSI) Inc., West Jersey Manufacturing Co. (WJM) and Chews Landing (CL)..
In response to the Bulletin, New Hampshire Yankee completed a records review and testing program (Enclosure-1) to identify flanges and fittings which were potentially not in conformance with material specifications.
This evaluation reviews this material for impact on the structural integ-rity of piping systems.
3.0 DISCUSSION To comply with NRC Bulletin "o. 88-05 requirements, material selected for evaluation are those with Brinell hardnes. readings less than 137 BHN or greater than 187 BHN.- These are the bounds specified in ASME Material Specification SA-105 as supplemental values for hardness.
The Brinell numbers were derived by converting field measured "Equotip" test readings in accordance with NHY Procedure NHY-ET-1.
An evaluation of each item with a field measured hardness value less than BRN 137 is described in Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2.
All WJM flanges and fittings with BHn' less than 137 identified in Tables 1 and 2, with one exception, are located in Safety Clasa 2 and 3
_1
piping systems, utilize ASME SA-105 material, and were manufactured in-accordance with ANSI B16.5 or ANSI B16.11 standards'as-applicable..The; one exception is a small bore reducing coupling which is located in the safety-related CBA System. This coupling was designed and manufactured to the ANSI /ASME B31.1 Code.
As part of the generic industry program, which was developed to
~
address NRC Bulletin No. 88-05,' laboratory. tests were conducted on WJM material. This testing demonstrated that the material meets tensile -
strength requirements and chemistry requirements of1 the ASME Code (Attachment.A to Enclosure 3).
Included in this data were components supplied by Seabrook Station.
In addition, the laboratory tests have-clearly demonstrated that the use of "Equotip" field' hardness readings which were converted to Brinell Hardness. and subsequently to tensile ntrength per ASME SA-370, provides a very conservative estimate of tensile strength.
A best fit curve correlating "Equotip hardness" to "Ultimate Tensile Strength" (Attachment A to Enclosure 3, Figure 3) has been devel-oped by the industry. Utilizing this correlation, the lowest Equotip-hardness reading recorded at Seabrook, 379 (124 BHN) is indicative of a L
material ultimate tensile strength of 71 KSI which exceeds the ASME Code.
minimum of 70 KSI.
1 Thus, field hardness test data correlated to actual laboratory re-sults reaffirms that WJM material installed at Seabrook satisfies ASME Code material requirements.
To provide additional justification for the acceptability and code comoliance of these components, NHY has evaluated all WJM components with field measured hardnesses less than 137 BHN. A structural evaluation as -
described below was performed on each component to show compliance with; the ASME Code requirements assuming a reduced ' tensile strength as deter-mined through ASME SA-370.
4.0 EVALUATION 4.1-Flange Evaluation 4.1.1 Temperature-pressure ratings for flanges are given in ANSI B16.5 with the method for establishing the ratings presented in Annex D.
From Section D2.0 ANSI B16.5, it can be determined that the.
controlling factor when rating SA-105 flanges is the yield strength.
ASME Class 2 and 3 flanges are qualified per sections NC/ND 3658 of the ASME Section III code. The qualification'is comprised of two parts, flange and bolt qualification. Bolts are qualified by determining a maximum allowable moment that may be applied to the joint. The equation for the maximum moment is linearly dependent on'the yield strength of the flange material.
The flange is qualified by comparing the ANSI B16.5 rated pressure to the flange design pressure. Flange ratings in ANSI B16.5 are linearly dependent on the yield strength of the material.
1 Therefore, it may be concluded that a reduced flange capacity'can be determined which is linearly dependent on the yield strength of the mr.terial.
Table 1 identifies flanges with computed ultimate tensile strengths 1ess than the required 70 KSI. Reduced allowable moments and flange rat-ings are shown in the table along with the design values as determined in the original piping analyses. A review of the table shows that all moments and pressures determined in the original piping analyses are less.-,
1 than the reduced allowables and conform'to the acceptance criteria.of Section'NC/ND-3658.of the ASME,ISection III code.
4.1.2 Flanges and connecting pipe have,successfully passed an ASME code hydrostatic test to a-minimum pressure of.125% system design
-pressure. The hydro test confirms that flange distortion,'at a pressure in excess-of design pressure, is so limited that ASME code leakage cri-teria is satisfied.
4.2 Socket Weld Coupling (Boss) Evaluation 4.2.1 A structural evaluation of each socket weld coupling with field measured hardness less than 137 BHN is provided in Table 2.
This evaluation conservatively utilizes the generic acceptance criteria developed'for NUMARC by Bechtel Corp. (Attachment A to Enclosure 3, Tables Al and A3). Ultimate tensile strengths (UTS) derived from the field hardness tests are conservatively utilized in this evaluation.
The stress ratio given in Table 2 relates the socket weld fitting stress to ASME code allowable which is r' educed'to account for a reduced tensile strength. The fitting stress is based on. moment capacity of the attached branch piping utilizing the stress intensification factor at the socket weld.
In all cases, the actual stress is below the reduced design i
allowables.
4.2.2 Seventeen out of eighteen WJM socket welded couplings which-l had field measured hardnesses less than 137 BHN are identified as being from one heat of material (see Enclosure 2). ' Field hardness values i
ranged from 127 to 136 (about 3% variability) chich indicated that these bosses had a high probability of coming from the same heat.
To j
confirm the chemical and mechanical properties, two bosses from in-ventory with heat L4517 were tested, ont at Dirats and one at Bechtel
{ -l
'l
\\
1 P
(See Enclosure 1, Section 7.0).
Initially, the Equotip portable-hardness tester.was utilized'to' provide a comparison with lab results. Die portable ' tester. produced a -
' hardness of' 131 BHN consistent with' other field readings for this heat.
Dirats-laboratory testing' resulted in the follo ting properties. -
149 BHN 76.6 KSI
.Faclosure 3, Attachment C-
-UTS 47.4 KSI _
YS Thus the field results provide a very conservative estimate of actual hardness and UTS. The chemical and physical test results show that material from heat #4517 satisfies ASME code _-requirements for the SA-105 Specification.. In addition, the chemical and mechanical properties measured are very close to the WJM Certified Material-Test Report.
4.2.3 The results for the specific fittings discussed in Para-graph 4.2.2 are consistent with industry test data' developed in the NUMARC Generic Program (Attachment A to Enclosure 3), wherein an Equotip l
field hardness equivalen: to 131 BHN is indicative of a UTS of 75 KSI.
Based on NUMARC material data, all socket weld fittings listed in i
Table 2 satisfy ASME Code requirements.
4.2.4 Table 2 illustrates that the eighteen WJM couplings are rated at 3000 lbs. Corresponding system design pressures are, as minimum, a factor of 2.5 below this rating.
4.2.5 Small bore socket weld fittings are modeled in Seabrook i
piping analyses as having mechanical properties similar to the piping.
The items identified as being suspect are SA-105 requiring a minimum 4
ansile strength of 70 KSI and attach to SA-106 Cr.B piping with a minimum tensile strength of 60 KSI. Allowable stresses for piping and forged components are one fourth the minimum tensile strength.
As the analyses -.._.,
< are controlled by allowa'le st-esses in the piping material, it may' be concluded that the stress levels in the components;are acceptable provided
'the material meets the minimum tensile strength of the piping material.
Table 2 shows components identified as having a minimum tensile strength ;
less than 70 KSI. The tensile strength of components determined ~from in-situ tests are listed in the table. Each component tensile strength is greater than 60 KS1 which is the basis for the allowable stresses utilized in the piping analysis.
4.2.6 All ASME socket weld fittings and connecting pipe have successfully passed ASME code hydrostatic test to a pressure at least 125% system design pressure. The hydro test and subsequent "no leakage" verification provide an important confirmation of the gross structural integrity of these fittings and connecting welds.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S Weld neck flanges, socket weld f3snges, and socket weld bosses /
couplings identified as potential can-c.caforming material are acceptable and satisfy original design criteria.
The lowest recorded field hardness value on any WJM component installed at Seabrook meets ASME code acceptance criter? a when the most accurate correlation of field data to actual tensile strength is utilized.
In addition, component evaluations utilizing conservatively re-duced tensile strengths demonstrate that the ASME code safety factor of four is maintained on the subject fittings. -
4 FLANGE EVALUATION SUMMAki Sheet 1 of 1 TABLE I REDUCED ALLOWABLES (4)
LINE FLANGE BRINELL (2) COMPUTED (3)
FLG ACTUAL LOADING (5).
SYSTEM DESIGNATION TYPE (1) HARDNESS FLANGE Mfs Mfd RATI 4 Mfs Mfd Ppp S,, (KSI)
(Ft-Lb) (Ft-Lb) (PfI) (Ft-Lb) (Ft-Lb)
(PSI)
COMMENT
- 1. CC CC-770-1-152-3/4 3/4" SWF 124 60.5 277 972 233 18 88 200
- 2. CS
. CS-415-3-15 2-3/4 3/4" SWF 127 62.0 291 1,021 230 19 20 150 1
- 3. CC
.C0-714-1-2503-2 2" SWF 136 65.3 3,911 13,025 2,551 153
'323 2,485 Note 7 4
l
- 4. CC l CC-714-1-2503-2 2" SWF 136 65.3 3,911 13,025 2,551 152 637 2,486 Note 7
- 5. CC
.CC-703-6-250 3-2 2" SWF 135 65.0 4,039 11,820 2,540 203 600 2,485 Note 7
- 6. CC CC-718-1-2503-2 2" SWF 131 63.7 3,815 11,164 2,488 88-233 2,485 Note 7
- 7. CC
.CC-819-1-2503-2 2" SWF 133 64.25 3,848 11,496 2,510 192 1,280 2,485 Note 7
- 8. DG DC-4376-08-152-2 2" SWF 133 64.25 257 120 Note'6-
- 9. SW (SW-1802-10-153-3 3" WNF 127 62.0 229 150 Note 6 j
- 10. MS FS-4000-49-906-4 4" WNF 131 63.7 8,930 26,394 1,484 1,350.
6,046 1,185
- 11. FW l 5"a-4' 10-05-15 2-4 4" WNF 135 65.0 2,853 9,089 258 59 686 200 l
- 12. SW
.SW-1813-1-156-16 16" WNF 131 63.7 40,468 80,935 237 8,833 16,905 206 I
(1) WNF indica *.es welded neck flange, SWF indicates socket welded flange.
(2) Based on In-Situ Test of flange by "Equitip 0. Hacdness Test".
(3) Flange tensile strength correlated from Brinell Hardness (ASME II, Part A SA-370).
(4) Allowabica per Section 3658 of ASME' 111 code, reduced "oy ratio of computed tensile strength to 70.KSI.
(5) As determined in original piping analyses.
(6) No moment applied at flange joint.
l (7). Normal Operating Pressure is -150 psig; This design value, PFD, represents the 'line -pressure underl abnormal Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Leakage.
i
l SOCKET WELD FITTING EVALUATION Sheet 1 of'2~
l TABLE 2 l
~
l RATIO TO LINE DESIGNATION BRANCH COMPUTED MINIMUM ASME PIPE SIZE MAXIMUM PIPE BRINELL COMPONENT REQUIRED STRESS l
PRESSURE PRESSURE SCHEDULE HARDNESS Su (KSI)
Su (KSI) ALLOWABLE SYSTEM MAIN BRANCH CLASS (PSI)(1)
(6)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5) l SB
. S B-1307-1502-3 Plugged 3/4"-3000#
1185 80 134 64.75 41.1
.569 SB SB-1304-2-1502-3 SB-1304-7-1502-3/4 3/4"-3000#.
1185 80 134 64.75 41.1
.569 l
SB S B-1307-2-1502-3 SB-1307-12-1502-3/4 3/4"-3000#
1185 80 131 63.7.
41.1
.569 l
SB SB-1301-2-1502-3 SB-1301-17-1502-3/4 3/4~-3000#
1185 80 131 63.7 41.1
.569 SB SB-1310-2-1502-3 SB-1310-17-1502-3/4 3/4"-30007 1185 80 133 64.25 41.1
.569 DG DG-4405-4-152-10 DG-4405-6-152-3/4 3/4"-3000#
70 40 134 64.75 40
-J57 FP FP-8124-3-159-4 FP-0124-15-159-3/4 3/4"-3000#
150 80 127 62 40
.569 CC CC-712-3-152-3 CC-712-8-153-3/4 3/4"-3000#
550 40 128 62.25
'40
.457 CC CC-804-1-152-3 CC-804-3-152-3/4 3/4~-3000#
600 40 131 63.7
'40
.457 CC C C-7 79-1-15 2-10 3/4"-3000#
150 40 130 63 4.
.569 CC CC-772-2-152-10 3/4"-3000#
150 40 133 64.3 4'O
.569 CC CC-840-2-15 2-8 3/4 -3000#
150 40 131
'63.7 40
.569 CC CC-715-2-152-3 3/4~-3000#
150 40 134 64.8.
40
.569
, CC CC-772-2-152-10 3/4"-3000#
150 40-136-
.65.4 40
.569 l
l CC
.CC-714-3-152-3 Plugged I"
-3000#
550 40 130 63 40
.478 MS MS-4001-42-906-4 MS-4001-36-906 1"
-3000#
1185 80
.135 65.0 40
.594 MS MS-4000-4 2-906-4 MS-4000-3 6-906-1 1"
-3000#
1185~
80 127.
62.0 40-
.594
SOCKET WELD FITTINC EVALUATION Sheet 2 of 2 TABLE 2 s
- RATIO TO LINE DESIGNATION BRANCll COMPUTED MINIMUM ASME PIPE SIZE MAXIMUM PIPE BRINELL COMPONENT REQUIRED STRESS PRESSURE PRESSURE SCHEDULE IIARDNESS Su (KSI)
Su (KSI) ALLOWABLE SYSTEM MAIN BRANCH CLASS (PSI)(1)
(6)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
CBA CBA-9610-01-Al 1"xl/2 -3000f 150 80 132 64 40
.569 I
l 1
?
l 5
i (1) NHY Project Specification 248--43, Appendix G.
(2) Based on In-Situ Test of Component by "Equotip D. Hardness Test."
(3) Component Tensile Strength Carrelated from Brinell hardness (ASME'II, Part A SA-370).
(4) NUMARC/Bechtel Report, Tables Al, A2, Enclosure B.
(5) NUMARC/Bechtel Report, Table A3, Enclosure B.
(6) NHY Project Specification 248-1, and N-5 Data Reports.
r w--
i i
1 I
i i
I t
(
l I
I i
I i
I I
l l
ATTACHMENT A l
l TO I
ENCLOSURE 3 t
(
i
)
NUNARC GENERIC TESTING PROGRAM RESPONSE TO NRC BUILETIN 88-05 INTERIM PRELIMINARY REPORT July 29, 1988 Prepared By Bechtel Hational, Inc.
San Francisco, California 94105 Prepared For Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, California 94203
.gs p6ecl@4 l 'PP -
ABSTRACT The NRC Bulletin 88-05 addressed the alleged falsification of Certified Materials Test Reports (QiTRs) by two suppliers, WJM and PSI, of piping flanges and fittings. NUMARC, through the technical management of EPRI, developed a multifaceted prograa to assist utilities in addressing this bulletin.
1.aboratory testing of euspect material, the compilation of utility test data and analysis of that data tre reported. R ose data show in general that, except for blind flanges, the sui;pect material meets tensile strength requirements and is satisfactory for ASME Code applications. The hardness testing results for the same materials exhibit a broad scatter band which would justify application of a testing tolerance band in comparison to the ASTM A370 conversion from hardness to tensile strength. ne field and laboratory testing results both exhibit the same broad scatter band. A laboratory generated best fit curve is used to relate measured field hardness to tensile strength.
ne field hardness test data for 1334 items show the same scatter band as found in laboratory tests, and follows the same general bell shape hardness distribution as laboratory hardness tests. h e similarity in shapes and the lack of bumps at either the low ends or the high enda of these laboratory and field histograms indicates that there is not a concern for low strength material or high strength material. Applying a best fit approach from laboratory hardness and tensile data to field hardness data results in an estimate of strength.
The best fit approach to the field data indicates that the vast majority are acceptable. Based on the laboratory testing and extensive field testing, it is concluded there is no materials problem, except possibly for some blind flanges.
Blind flanges and other components were addressed analytically in the NUMARC generic analysis report, and it was shown that in the majority of cases there would not be a stress concern even if strength in the order of 40 KSI were to be assumed.
B is interim report concludes that the material has acceptable strength and except for some blind flanges is satisfactory for ASME Code applications.
Th e continued use of these flanges and fittings does not present a safety problem.
Recoassendations are made for follow-up activities.
_i_
1185m
-O
l i
l NUMARC GENERIC TESTING PROGRAM 1
l RESPONSE TO NRC BULLETIN 88-05 INTERIM REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
Pggg j
I ABSTRACT................................................................
i T A BL E O F CO NTE NI S.......................................................
11 L I S T O F I L LU S T RAT I O N S...................................................
iii INTRODUCTION.......................................................
1 BACKGROUND....................................................
1 NUMA RC M ULT I FACE TE D PROG RAM...................................
1 GENERIC STRESS ANALYSIS (Refer to previous letter of transmittal to NRC) 1 NUMAR C TE S T I NG PROG CAM.............................................
1 1
METHODS.......................................................
1 D AT A CO MP I LAT ION AND RE S ULT S..................................
2 ANALYSIS...........................................................
2 LA B O RATO R Y TE S T I N G............................................
2 E QUOTI P-TE NSI LE CORRE LAT ION...................................
2 UTILITY TESTING...............................................
3
)
F I E LD RARDNE S S TO TE NS I LE.....................................
3 1
BLIND FLANGES.................................................
3 DATA QUANTITY AND STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE....................
4 TE S T I N G S UMMARY...............................................
4 T O LE RANC E S LOWE R AND UP PE R....................................
4 S TA I N LE S S.....................................................
5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................
5 RE COMME ND AT I O N.....................................................
5 S U SP E ND R E CO RD S RE VI EW........................................
5 CO MP LETE LA B PROG RAM..........................................
5 CO MP I LE E XIST I NG F IE LD TE ST D ATA..............................
3 W R ITE FO L LO W-O N RE POR T........................................
5
-ii-118 5m
,._,,,_.n
,n,.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS TABLES Table 1 Summary of High Hardness Limits Table 2 Summary of Stainless Steel Tests FIGURES Figure 1 Histogram of Laboratory Tensile Results Figure 2 Equotip as BHN Compared to UTS and ASTM A370 Figure 3 Best Fit Equotip Compared to UTS Figure 4 Histogram of Laboratory Hardness Figure 5 Histogram of Field Hardness Figure 6 Best Fit Data Applied to Fic1d Hardness i
-lii-1185m
INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND i
The NRC issued Bulletin 88-05 regarding alleged falsification of Certified Materials Test Reports (OfrRs) by West Jersey Manufacturing Co. (WJM) and Piping Systems, Inc. (PSI). Specific actions were required of utilities.
Some of these could efficiently be addressed by a generic program.
NUMARC initiated such a program. he NRC issued Supplement 1 to 88-05 subsequent to reports of two blind flanges having low tensile strength.
h e supplement required utilities to perform field tests on identified installed WJM/ PSI items. he supplement also focused effort on piping flanges and fittings.
Be NUMARC program was modified to coordinate and standardige field testing methods and to
)
compile utility generated data.
Concurrently, the generic NUMARC laboratory j
testing program has been in progress.
l NUMARC MULTIFACETED PROGRAM 1
Because several actions were required by 88-05 which eculd be efficiently j
addressed in a generic manner, NUMARC undertook the activities described herein as well as the testing and test data analysis which are the subject of this report.
A.
Review of records to permit scope limitation.
B.
Review of records to identify intermediate and secondary supply routes.
C.
Interf ace with Authorized Inspection Agencies and the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors.
/
D.
Generic stress analysis of fittings and flanges.
\\
E.
Testing, data compilation and evaluation.
~
I GENERIC STRESS ANALYSIS h e generic stress analysis has been completed, reviewed with and provided to I
the NRC.
he analysis indicates that there is little concern for the stress integrity of the fittings or flanges even if the materials were of substantially lower strength when compared to the strength requirements of SA-105. This report was formally transmitted to the NRC by NUMARC on July 22, 1988.
W e testing program is described in the following sections of this report.
NUMARC TESTING PROGRAM METHODS This program contains two main elements: first, comprehensive laboratory testing of suspect items contributed by utilities; and second, utility generated data of destructive laboratory tests and in situ tests of installed suspect items.
1185m _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
NUMARC laboratory test methods follow ASTM standards for tensile testing to produce values for UTS, YS %El and %RA.
Tensile strength correlations were developed based upon Equotip testing.
Chemical analysis utilizes spectrographic analysis and portable X-ray fluorescence, analysis methods.
All laboratory testing equipment is calibrated to appropriate standards.
Utility test data of installed items or warehouse items has principally been portable hardness testing by means of the Equotip device. Other hardness test devices may also have been used in a few instances. The basis for selection of hardness test methods and the NUMARC training / coordination have been described previously.
For austenitic stainless steel items, the principle tests method has been a simple magnetic check. Some alloy analysis and replication metallography have been perf ormed.
To the extent that utilities have contributed laboratory test data, these data has been accepted.
These data are being reviewed for consistency and errors.
1 DATA COMPILATION AND RESULTS i
Generic laboratory test data has been developed for 123 items to date contributed by utilities.
To date, the utilities have provided data regarding 1334 field hardness test items and 108 tensile results.
The results are discussed in the following analysis.
The actual amount of data used in this report is indicated on the plots or charts.
Not all data is in the compuP.er data base.
NUMARC has provided the NRC with computer discs and printouts as of 7/19/88.
Some additional copies were provided during the July 22, 1988 meeting.
ANALYSIS 1
LABORATORY TESTING All tensile test results exceed 70 KSI or are within the anticipated tolerance band.
Figure 1 shows a histogram of laboratory tensile redbits.
In general, field tests were performed with EQUOTIP testers and the data converted to BHN.
For reasons discussed below, EQUOTIP values are used in this report.
l Figure 2 shows a plot of laboratory tensile results and EQUOTIP hardness expressed as BHN data.
Almost all the hardness data points fall at or below the ASTM A370 BHN tensile conversion line, indicating that this is a l
conservative approach, and that a test tolerance factor is required to avoid inappropriate rejection of acceptable material by field hardness test methods.
It is apparent that the BHN tensile conversion approach is no longer appropriate for this application.
EQUOTIP-TENSILE CONVERSION Another more accurate approach to assess the field hardness data is to develop a best fit line for the laboratory hardness using the original EQUOTIP (also referred to as Leeb values) and tensile data.
Th at line, shown in Figure 3, was developed by computer program.
The application of the tolerance or the 1185m.
l best fit approach are discussed below subsequent to a brief analysis of the i
utility field data, ne histogram of laboratory hardness data expressed in EQUOTIP values is shown in Figure 4.
l UfILITY TESTING The utility-provided laboratory data is consistent with the generic program test data.
The utilities have provided one set of data on a blind fla'nge, Heat 7218, which is consister.t with the two tests cited in 88-05 Supplement 1.
his data point is not yet in the computer printout. Other than this, no substrength material has been reported based on tensile tests. These utilities have reported tensile strength for 108 items.
Eight items slightly below 70 KSI have been reported.
The remaining 101 values exceed 70 KSI.
In one case the utility engineer indicated there was a subsite specimen removed from installed flange and was transverse to the primary working direction rather than parallel.
nese slightly low values are readily explained by the test direction, and by published data which confirms that tensile test results from product testing may be as much as 10 percent below the minimum specified strength.
None of these utilities reported strength values are a concern.
he utility generated hardness data is shown in the histogram of Figure 5.
This histogram has the same general bell shape as the histogram of laboratory hardness data.
In simple terms, the bell shapes in both laboratory and field histograms and the lack of bumps at the low hardness ends of the histograms indicates that there is not a concern for low strength material.
his means that the vast majority of field items would exceed 70 KSI if tested and that the remainder would be within the expected tolerance band.
He conclusion is that installed items are acceptable and do not present a material concern, except for some blind flanges.
FIELD HARDNESS TO TENSILE It is appropriate to compare the best fit curves of laboratory hardness and tensile results and apply the results of that plot to the utility generated hardness data. When this is done, refer to Figure 6, all items are shown to be acceptable.
It must be realised that a best fit curve of field hardness should never be used to reject installed items, because some items which fall below the line can be within the acceptable tolerance band.
This is shown by the f act that the original data had some acceptable items I elow the best fit i
cu rve.
he best fit curve any be applied to warehouse items prior to installation, and should not be the sole justification for removal of installed i
items.
This curve increases the confidence that the installed items are as j
initially intended to be.
SLIND FLANGES The best fit curve applied to field data, or a field hardness test tolerance does not eliminate the fact that there are data in the histograss (but not yet in the computer data base) which indicates that blind flanges may be a concern for strength reasons.
However, the stress analytical data provided to the NRC indicates that these substrength blinds are not a stress problem for service conditions.
1185m.. -
i I
The lowest hardness test result in either laboratory or field, aside from the l
suspect blind flanges, is 350 Lp.
nis is the lowest of a continuous spectrum of values. De 13 suspect blind flanges are at approximately 330 LD and appear to be s unique group separate from the general population of i
acceptable material.
DATA QUANTITY AND STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE l
Analysis indicates that there are suf ficient field data upon which to draw conclusions. There is no need for additional field hardness data. here is also substantial tensile test data which permits interim conclusions.
Non parametric tolerance limit statistical calculations were used. he laboratory tensile results of 123 items provide 95 percent confidence that more l
than 97 percent of the population exceeds 60,600 psi tensile strength.
ne utility provided 108 tensile test results provide 95 percent confidence that more than 97 percent of the population exceeds 66,400 psi tensile strength.
Assuming the materials come from the same population, combining boIh sets of tensile data provides 95 percent confidence that more than 98 percent of the population exceed 60,600 psi ultimate tensile strength. Similarly, there is 95 percent confidence that more than 98 percent of the population is less than i
93,200 psi ultimate tensile strength.
TESTING
SUMMARY
The laboratory tensile data indicates there is no technical concern for the SA 105 material.
ne similarities between the laboratory hardness distribution histogram and the field hardness histograms indicates that there should be no 1
concern for installed items given that the laboratory tensile tests indicate no l
concern for this material. De best fit curve of hardness to tensile conversions applied to field hardness tests also indicates that there is no concern for SA 105 material.
.s-g s
TOLERANCES LOWER AND UPPER n e data indicate that there is no real concern for SA 105 material. ne blind flanges of suspect material which have low tensile values have hardness at approximately 330 Ic.
Regarding high hardness, Table 1 shows the precedent to install materials over 187 BHN to 207 BHN which are common in nuclear plant piping. his table shows that 237 BHN is a value commonly applied to f abricated itema, welds, base metals and HAZ, where H S stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is a concern in the 2
petrochemical industry.
Such SCC is not a concern in light water reactor piping and thus a specific upper limit should not be imposed. The Structural Welding Code applies a 265 BHN limit on submerged are welds and HAZ to assure adequate strength, ductility and toughness. When recognised standards apply values such as 237 and 265 BHN to fabricated, velded and installed items, a specific upper hardness limit is not justified.
His paragraph is discussed in BHN terms because the Code uses BHN terms.
We principle high hardness concern is weldability.
If the installed item has acceptable weld inspections, has sustained bolt-up loads, hydrostatic tests, proof testing, functional test and whatever PSI /ISI that is applicable, then 1185m --
there are objective reasons to use as is.
The benefits of replacing installed high hardness items with acceptable welds and RAZ are minimal.
In contrast, the risks in any replacement are greater.
The ALARA considerations also indicate that high hardness items not be replaced unless there is a plant unique overriding concern.
STAINLESS STEEL There is a relatively small amount of stainless steel installed, and very little in warehouses. To date, all tests performed on stainless steel have been acceptable. Approximately four dozen items have been tested. All tensile results are acceptable, all chemical analyses are acceptable and all sensitization tests are acceptable. Approximately 10 dozen magnetic checks were also acceptable. Only one of all these test results is slightly low; that is, one yield strength value was 28.5 KSI vs. 30.0 KSI, and this difference is insignificant.
These tests are sunnarized in Table 2.
While the absolute number of test results is not as great as for carbon steel, the results ind'.eate there is no concern.
CONCLtfSIONS e
The strength of SA 105 material and stainless steel items which were suspect is not a concern.
?
RECONNE NDATIONS 1.
The test results to date indicate there is no concern for materials and thus field testing may be suspended as there is sufficient data for evaluation.
The generic stress analysis al'so indicates there is no concern for plausible low strength materials because it has been shown that even if substrength materials were installed, the vast majority of these cases would be acceptable.
Thus, it is appropriate to suspend document reviews and field testing.
2.
The laboratory program should be completed subject to constraints of available material.
3.
The existing utility generated data should be compiled and analyzed in the NUMARC program.
4.
A summary report should be generated.
1185m -
l LABORATORY TENSILE RESULTS 45<-
40- -
35-
~
30- -
NUMBER OF 25 -
CASES 20< -
15-10 '
i t
t t
t i
t
>60
>65
>70
>75
>80
>85
>90 TENSILE STRENGTH (KSI)
Data as of 7/22/88 FIG. 1 HISTOGRAM OF LABORATORY TENSILE RESULTS
2 4
I LABORATORY HARDNESS VS.
l
= = = <
- TENSILE STRENGTH gS o
22 July 1988 g4 h
1 200-E e
t 190-180-
"l l
A A U
l 170 h
A l
EQUOTIP AS 160-m g
hd BHN 150 A ^ ^^
,A f
A HARDNESS i40 130-A g
f A
A A
i 120-AAA Ag l
110-A 4
i iOO l
60000 65000 70000 75000 80000 85000 90000 95000 TENSILE STRENGTH l
i 1
l l
l l
Equotip Hardnese vs. Ultimate Tenelle Serength Laboratory Test Resulte
)
4eo 44o y.
s E
l.
?a)r h'..r."
~
=
i H
II El ql.= W 5
a l
a n
I
- =
=
=
.IIE I
300
/
Equemen UTS e m'tTH + b
/,
m = rJ
/
6 = 37,488 Cervedenen coctSeclem, t = oL744 5
c. ves= w o m*=nen o.m 340 acoco escoo racao 7soon socco asooo scono secco N Tenete W M Data as of 7/22/88 FIG 3 BEST FIT EQUOTIP VS TENSILE STP.ENGTH j
C
- ** d SA 105 LAB EQUOTIP 22 July 1988 45 40-35-30-NUMBER OF 25-CASES 20-15-10-3 E
lE i
O i
i i
i i
i i
i
<344 348 364 341 396-410 424 437 450 463 475- >486 363 380 395 409 423 436 44W 462 474 486 HARDNESS CATEGORIES Data as of 7/22/88 FIG. 4 HIST 9 GRAM OF LABORATORY j
EQUOTIP HARDNESS f
i
___I-__,m-4
J
?
l D *'* ** o' SA105 FIELD HARDNESS DATA l
20 July 1988 a.
350v 300-250-o MUMBER OF 200 -
3 CASES Eb 150-gg 100-an 50-
~
M-M = --
0
<348 348-304-301-306-410- 424-437-450- 463-475-M 363 380 395 409 423 436 449 462 474 408 HARDNESS CATEGORIES l
)
l l
OYYH 1 01 0311ddY V1YO IId 1S38 9 'DId lJo**2350 I1 I
I E'I I
Elgi i 1
Mi j
maisumumannig.
I t,
a
)
- l. i W
o g
l suonsuesqo
TABLE 1 StM ARY OF HIGH HARDNESS LIMITS MAX. HARDNESS LD(ITS 1
BHN SA 350 197 SA 105 PRE 1972 N/A SA 105 POST 1972 187 ONLY IF QUENCHED SA 234 WP,B-SUPPLEMENTARY 197 SA 181 N/A SA 182 F1 192 F2 192 F 11 207 1
l F 22 207 AWS D1.1 WELD & HAZ, HV280 265 NACE MR-01 75, Rc22 237 BASE METAL, WELDS, HAZ I
w
_a 1
i TABLE 3 SlPHARY OF STAINLESS STEEL TESTS STAINLESS RESULTS 7/19/88 TENSILE 9
HARDNESS 8
CHEMISTRY 44 SENSITIZ/310N 38 MAGNETIC 120 i
1
i i
)
)
ATTACHMENT B TO ENCLOSURE 3
REPORT ON i
GENERIC ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF SUSPECT MATERIAL IDENTIFIED IN NRC BULLETIN 88 05 Prepared for, NUMARC/EPRI By BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION July 21, 1988
\\
e r - e., m _ /,7 OV WJ60gye P 5 f 1
1 PURPOSE The purpose of this generic analysis and evaluation report is to provide a basis for justification of suitability for indefinite service without replacement of potentially substrength material supplied by WMJ or PSI companies as identified in NRC B88 05 and its supplement.
Components of suspect material identified to date include flanges, socket welded fittings, pipe caps and potentially some shear lugs.
Field tests are being conducted to identify substrength componerts among these suspect items.
Where code properties cannot be confirmed, determination of suitability for indefinite service is based on conservatively assuming lower than specified strength values for suspect material and demonstrating that code design rules are satisfied with the assumed values.
This re; ort represents one elemer.t of several in the overall program erganize by NUMARC for the nuclear utilities *.o respond to NRC 88 05. Where generic actlptability of certain items is rot established by the tables of this re;crt or other elements of the NUMARC programs, guidance on plant specific evaluations is provided.
2 APF?LACH 2.1 Conservative strength values of suspect material which are lower than
)
specified code minimums are assumed for the purpose of the generic analysis.
2.2 Refer to related program elements on in situ testing for guidance on material identification and method of determination of inplied strength values.
4
(
7/ 21/!.*
Pelt i
,-,_.e
2.3 Using implied strength values for substandard material, compliance with code design rules is generically established using conservative bounding assumptions. Tables are provided summarizing the results with guidance on required utility actions.
2.4 Refer to flow charts 1 through 3 for an c:/erview of the evaluation process.
2.5 The primary intent of the testing and evaluation process is material identification. Where a material identification can not be confirmed by field tests, this analysis, which considers an assumption of lower strength' material properties, may be used to justify fitness for service.
2.6 Appsndices A through C provide the recommended evaluation procedures for socket welded and threaded fittings, blind flanges, and other flanges.
l l
l j
7/2*/54 Pese + 2
- 4
SOCKET WELDED FITTINGS THRUDED FITTINGS UTS < 70 KSI FITTING PIPE RAT lNG
' DETERMINE ULT SIZE STRENGTH
- SCH, TYPE 1
t PRESSURE
! COLLECT EVAL l
i i
DATA are;rn PER l
TABLES A1 -A5 YES OK ?
DOCUM.
/
NO SUITABLE PERFOR PLANT I
FOR SERVICE UNIOUE ANAL FOR LIFE
' \\ YES OK NO EVAL OPER
, no prei r e 7/21/88 FPw chcrt 1 i
BLIND FLANGES UTS < 70 KSI FLANGE '
pipg CLASS DETERMINE ULT SIZE, SCH.
STRENGTH TEMP.
PRESSURE 1
COLLECT EVAL l
DATA REVIEW PER TABLE B1
\\
YES OK ?
DOCUM.
/
i NO SUirASLE QUALIFY PER FOR SERVICE NC-3300 RULES FOR LIFE YES OK ?
~
NO EVAL OPERAS.
REPLACE F:ca c h e a. 2
FLANGES UTS < 70 KSI FLANGE PIPE CLASS DETERMlNE ULT SIZE, SCH.
STRENGTH TEMP.
COLLECT EVAL DATA l
~
l EVAL MOVENTS,C2 EVAL PRESSURE,C1 NO NO
/OK ?
OK ?
l N
/
YES YES I EVAL PER C3 DOCUM-EVAL FURTHERI' l
C4, OR C5 SUlTABLE i
FOR SERVICE YES FOR LIFE YES K?
CK ?
h NO Ng EVAL OPR I
EVAL OPR QR REPLACE OR REPLACE Flow chert 3 jn.
APPENDIX A SOCKET WELDED AND THREADED FITTINGS PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION OF NRCB 88-05 TEST RESULTS l
l
i 1 General Notes i
1.1 Refer to flow chart 1 for an overview of the avaluation precess.
1.2 Generic evaluation tables should only be used when a suspect material is identified as potentially having lower strength than specified code minimums.
1.3 The generic analysis tables provided here apply when the following conditions exist:
Fittings are located in ASME class 2 and 3 or ANSI B31.1 systers.
o o
Fitting material is carbon steel (SA 105).
o Fittings are manufactured to ANSI B16.ll standards.
1.4 Tabits are provided for socket welded and threaded couplings and half couplings.
1.5 Fittings qualified by Tables Al thru A5 satisfy code design rules using allewables derived from an assumed ultimate strength values (Su) of suspect i
material which are lower than code specified minimums.
Estimates of j
material strength based on the in-situ tests should be made in accordance with the Field Testing program element. Upon confirmation of adequate ductility of suspect substrength material by the generic sample testing program, fittings qualified by these tables may be considered suitable for service for the life of plant without replacement.
A 1
)
7/U /t.!
i
1.6 Moment loading qualification of fittings is based on the assumption that stress levels at the pipe to fitting interface are at the applicable limits allowed by code. This is a conservative bounding assumption.
If a particular fitting fails to qualify per the applicable tables plant specific evaluations per the guidance of paragraph 2.4 of this appendix may be used to qualify the fitting.
2 Evaluation Procedure 2.1 To qualify, each fitting should be determined acceptable for both pressure design (Tables Al or A4), and moment loading capacity (Tables A2, A3 or A5).
2.2 To properly use the qualification tables, the following information is required:
o Fitting type and rating o
Connected pipe size and schedule o
System design pressure o
Specified corrosion allowance, if any o
Stress intensification f actor (SIF) used in the original syste-design at socket welds.
o Ultimate strength Su of fitting material determined from in situ testing.
2.3 Pressure Design Qualification:
Using the appropriate information from paragrap 2.2 above and the applicable table Al or A4 determine the minimum required allowable stress i
of the fitting material and the corresponding minimum tensile strength (Su) values. Compare the minimum Su values thus determined with these obtained 7/21/68 A2 i
-.-..,-_m.
_,, - ~. -.
from the in situ testing to determine acceptability.
Confirm that the Su values determined from testing are equal to or higher than the minimums f
determined from the tables.
2.4 Moment Loading Qualification Using the appropriate information from paragraph 2.2 above determine the applicable margins (ratios) to code allowables from the applicable Tables.
Fittings are generically qualified when their ratios are equal to or less than 1.
Fittings with ratios above 1 require plant unique evaluations to qualify for long term service (for plant life). The plant unique evaluations for these fittings should consider actual moments from the system design calculations and use the following parameters in evaluating applicable design equations, such as equations 9, 10 or 11 of NC/ND 3650; Fitting section Modulus (Ze) and fitting SIF ic from the appropriate columns in tables A2, A3, or A5.
Allowable stress values of the fitting material (S ) determined h
by the following equation:
Sh (fitting) = 0.25 Su Where Su = ultimate strength of fitting material determined fro-in situ testing i
7/29/&t A3 1
m g
aa 1
5 58$222
~:
n
=.
at s33$sa 3
g:
~~
~.
=I
- a :n 2sug ll{l[
-,~~
eAc
[
e.
i c =t l.in.e.l.e
- ~
s
=-
Hei ss 2::::g a
2 :t
=
g s.
s e s t a ;.,
e~Es:=s es-a
=
c
=-
=
=.
a-ex a
t I
4 ed 4 4 4 4 4 d 4 4 4 sidiid i s.'. 6 6 y
4, 3
a i
a g
d ;a esassa seseen N.
- 5. - 9 3 "a.*.
y t
.,., 2 1
~.
3 s
cccccc cccccc 3
2
.~2 2,
i 3_;.
g
=
5 a
t. C 3. c' I:
g '!
$$$kkk kkkkk!
g$)I b
EY
-2 a
s:
edede ededed r
m' 3
~=
gg i
- , l's 3Ei*
2
((((((
(((((( lj 6
6666 6666 6
s:}'e.
ei t
I
- r 350 1* - E j f !
nSt-~
e i
! =5 s!.glc.3 4
~~ta g=.
v:
~
e}**-[g SE i s i d s.'
sididi g
4 7' I-5g 5
tr r
5.E*{SMs-sg-[C.l 3
i
.a-u
~.b..~
e$$c.
3 Es
- E
?-
SU g=
ta g1
.:.:.: a a n
.:.:. a a a 3
~
EfG I.
By.{}
8 y
t
.,;eg._=ig 4.s..
g,_
g g
g og,,
5
-C-*."..*~,E
{3 R
5 5
'O.li l l e 3 e..I
.i g
3, '. '.'
335,.
E.d.
3 I.I,IlII III$$$
I 5
.s
~
~ ~
~~~~~~
3_
t EE
{
ell $
1 38 r
t h
k pg g
=
N N 4
,3 3
2 ;;
T i N 2 2 - - i '* 11 g
+s I
2lllll
==
s.
aa 2
laiss,a 11.1.111 t
~=
2
=
3 g.
33 g
is
=63 lll111 111111
- I
=
a ta e!el:-i=clss:
gg sa
- 1_
~~.
3
~ gang:s ailsec s
s ss-s eas n
at
!s 1
~ ecee!
REBBEe
~.-.
i 5 j
!! si saxas 2
v i
- a.
3 s
s s
a esass; sagees 3a
~.9.a.
. a.
~.
.. ~.. *.
3 n
,32 5
r~i 2
cccccc cccccc
- n
' 3..
a, 5
3 i
s I. I. I. I. I. I.
I. I. I. I. l l.
"l':
2 i
I-
~' I
-5
.ts o
1 sa
.2
.r e
t s
=
v1 2
!~
i 5.;~ij s..s.s sesses,a sp-_l ;g as g,
e,~3 3
=
I
,s,gg.,
=e e!
=
se g.s
=
-[t*"ti su 1
ses.ss sessso
.i r
5g !.*st 3
.a_
e l
75
--~--~
Is g'I saaaas assa<a
~$
c
!sC238 3.3"
%g'[C l
3 5
- s 9t[3t.
6 ty t[
a s
=
..:.3 i
.. =8 ag 5
tee 8".s..ge j
S S
E R
3 i
s g
-s-*.
g'0112#3.=5.:.
5s 333333 RSSSSS 3
E d.
E
."t 3*p*
a*
6 IE 1
Lel
- al E
2 I
I g.
2
.~
.~
13
$$-ff*
35-ff" j
5 e
i t
a h
!s.a"52'ssi l11.1.11
=
==
s
- 3..n i
l.
s.i.
lll111 111!!!
,=
?.! 1_1 111111 Il!Ill i
-eeCes at_,s.ie=3.2=.gn.:.
Ex:
s E
3 8
seme s
xEseen ggage:
ag
=
s:
s, x
.c.
3_._3
- l...,33 3..-
6,
,i s
. 0, 3g~:t_
~
a x
i sessse essses e
3 5
}
g 3
6 a
~
eressa seE.=.=~s e.
3=
s 9 9.=.. M,-
~ c....~.
i 5
L 2' 4 C C C. C. C C.
C ': C C. C C.
E sesssi assiss y
['
3.'
y i,
. ?
E
". :- ]. i5 li
~2 IIIIII " Illit t s
assass sess.s s;
I
=
I J.., 2 E
3 gg i
1;2 i_i 2
IIIIII IIIII!
5A 4:
.sssse s e s s e,-
g e,
,4s.g 35*
L*.lf'-'8 c.-~.
=
.ggE.3E~
(C%%EA g.. !
05 5'
2..
8 7 ' [.i sa
'I sssses sesses
=*,
1.[:l!.4 l~
5g**a%:
~
r a ;:
.s_
~
e.i..g u.~..~
Es
,'I asaaaa asaaes
~s cs.
nseems
-:8 ge.i es e
s t
s 8 3, ! =[
8 a
..s.3 g
a gsg s
1.E 1'ws..
3g j
R E
R 3
.c-*.
..'ss
[3 s
' C e l E + 3.
I l -'i t g.a
- .i.[
5*
=$
.I gI gE 3.' "-
e. r.{
Er t
E e.
g
.e L 3 eej l 2
i w
g I
C 3
I:
tt tt
~.
~.
i,3 3
u k ' '. 7. "
l i
I
l 9
i e
m..====.a-====.em-..-====.e-.-===e-.--.a e
e e
.. N e d &N *
- e. 9 e e d ee
.e ma
. N se n.
e e
.e e.
e m 6 a em A A e d A e A D en.
a e
e e e ece e g % > e em ee e.
e e m
.e O e,
w.
y e en a=
a=
e=
o=
e=
e es e= e=
e we e= so. es==. Q.
e N. e. m.
re. e.
N. q
. en
- s. mO e
- o e
s e
- 3. N.
e e
e a e e
e.
. e e
e e e e
a se e
e e a w e e
e o
e e
e e
e m
- e. O en e e
e e
e.
.e e
e e
e e
e o
e e e
e e
e e
e e I
e e
e e
e.
am-e-useam.
==
m.
= e-. mim. =m em.
-== e ese ame== ese e
a em es i
a e e h e e=
- om e6 e
h em e M
e.
e o
m.
a e
e e
e e
+
=
N. N e o NN e e eN e
4 en *
==
a
==
e e== *==.
6 e a e en e
.e 3
er e
.e 9
. N.
- s. e. e. e W.
a e
e
. e. e.
e s 3 e w.
e i
e
. e 44 3
e e 6
e e e e e
.e.&.
e4
- e. eeO e O. OO e G ** O e S e=
9 e' S ** O
- O **
e*
e e na e %
a
.==
b e
e e
e e @.
e e
e e
4 e
e e
O e w e e
e e
e e
a e
e e
e e
e e
a e 4 k
e e e % e e
e e
+
e e A
-a e.
. w e,
=
.e. -am.
.e===
e=- - m.e e
e en e
= = =.
= = = = = =.
en CL o w e e-.
e a e N N e a
N. p 6=
e e om e e em e.
eu w e
- e. O e.
en e
.C.L e,
- e. N a=
e m a=
N e p
e e
e.
a a=
p e W
O e
S.
. S.
p
- A. > e.
e 6.
e.
e eg.
. e e
&e
.e
.e O ee e eeee eee e 3 ** O e S em G
- O." S*
- A e
e **
em i
e e
e
.i w.
e e
e e
- =
a e e
e e
e e
e e
. O e
e %
a w.
e e
e e
e e
e e
a e
e.
e e
o e
e e
e e
e e
e k
e.
-m. uma em eum.m = --.e.no -.a. m
- a. amus.u= ex-. e emu. -
Em.m.-..-= um e m amm eu. am.e 4 a w.
e e
=
e se.
e a.
. p.a e e a en p e e
e a= W e=
. O 4N e
.b.
y wwa N
- e em.
N. en g
- N.
e M
e M e
a %
@ e NO 4,
e.
. en e
a.
@ e9 e o
e.
O.
O e os e
e e a e
.e e e a
e e a
e e e e
e e e e
. e e
e e
en e e=== P e s=
e
- e. e= e=
e e=
e=
e*
e
- O + es O e en e
e em.
.e e
e e
e a
e e
to i
e e
e b
.e e
e e e a e e
e e
e e O 3.
e
. en
.e te,
e i
e e
- w e og.
8
.n.e.--a-.-.e==.e=====a==-.e e
e e e
e==.=====
. en to e
e.
e.
en e e
e o
e e.
e.
- e. pen e e
==
. m e.. N e.
e e e.
A mA e SD e
O
. w
.. em. g se
. A 4.
- e. S. e=.p e
. e.
.e
- e. O OO
- O e=
e.
. e=. O e C e= 0
'e 4
k.
N.
. N.
.. 0 e.
A.
e g
e.
a.
e es.
eO OO..
O O *= 0 e =
a=
e.
ta e
e
=
p gL I=
e o
e e
==
o,
.e a
.e e
e e
e.
e e
e e
w
[
.e e.
. w e
e em W em
- N.a =a d
.* e4 e
a=
.e
.D.
O e
. eA
==.
0 L
a.
N O a=
e e e N
. N e
F. em e.
c e.
.L e.
. S.
- e.==. p.
s G.
O.
. e e se 4. 4
==...
O. p A.
e.
. O
- G
- O e
e e
m e
g o
e, e
.O e O ** O
- O ** O O
O OO e
O O O e e
e e
w I
I e.
a e
e 4
=
e e
e ee 3
e
. e e
e
. m e
e.
m
.==
--.========-n..=.-
--em..-.-am.m.==..-m-=
- P an e
C e
e.
.L g
. -m em.
g e
e O
J = N O
O
.e 3
=.
a.
3
.e.
. e 3
{
g e
e w
i.
e N
C
... *... e
=..
e I
C e
ee NNN N NN N. N N
.a NNN a
- as
. N NN
- NN N T
..C A.
N e
e w
e e
C
=w y
J
=
w - ge e
e e
e n
a w
e.
e e
.s. su.
3 e
.=-=a-
==
an. em.
.m= a-e.=
== mm em.
am. es.==.== an
.s=
J.
=
e e
e C
e.
eep.==== N
.e 3
e eeN 4
. A e.
a.
.a.a e en e.
e=
sh m
e e=
e=
a a
e=
s=
.* e C E.
g e N N p. sh om en e N N e. N. b.
.=.
=
y a
3 e.
O.
a=. e=.
. e.
N.
- e. om. eA..e.
em. v.A.
- e. A. %. O.
e m
e s
e w
e w e
e.
.. en om N O O em O OO OO O O O
- O O O
.e e
3 e
R
=,
. =. - =.,
.
E
===.-e is e tA
==.am==.
==e-.
e am..m.==.
e-=.m.==
--.- amm=
. eee
.e c.
a=
es e J e
e e
e
- e. e e.
- e. eee e d em e m o
==
.a=.
4 4 e.
a.
si g
s
== e, e% eh em.
eA. 5 D A e A
d 4 e.
m e
.. N.
N. N. eA.
ce. N. em.i. e e.
- O O. O.
e O.
- e. N.
.e e=. e=. e.
e.
C
=
W e
w w
==.
s g*
9O O e S OO e OOO OO O a O O i 3
o.
e e
e e
w
..- =
e,s
==
e e
=
a e
.e, 4 4 4 e
o e
e*.* ee e ne e.
O.a O.e O e o
e i
ee w=
e.
a e
t < d i
% % a q e e
e i
g sh. e.
e p e. p e.
w e
e 5
C. C.
O. O. O.
em
.e w
ee e
e e
w e
e e=
en
. N N es e O OO, es en en o e=
s.
.e
.e a.
E.
o e
e a.
e,e e
w w
e
.=e-===.e-e-
=== ese eu.
e
.m.==
me,
-.... - = = =.
s 3.
.a.a.a R
.e e
e e
3.e emEe e., e %
e e n.
p.
.e y e, =.
e =o=
ei...
e
. e
. N.
. r r
. *. o==.
. O. t p.
- e. O.
O.
s=
e=.
. N.
. O. m.
m.
- e. 6
- O O O e O O O e O O
- O OO e O O. on.
e e
e o
e e
L
== g e
=.
e e
=
== sm E
w=
e G OO b w
=.
e e
e 3E e.
e
.I e
e e
e e.
e
- e -
-e
--.,-e-e - ---. -. - -.
e e
en.e g
.e em sh e a
- e. g
- a. gp o=
em a
64 e
a
. y a.
g g m o p De. en eA, e.
e 5
@ p a w e e e.
e e.
e.g
.=
e e me e n
e=
e es e
.e o=. a=.
- e. es..e e. em.
e
- . e
.. N.
em. ce. eT.
.en e
a=
a=
e e.
e e es >.
e een B
a=
. em e
e SO O e 9 O O
- e. OOO
- OO O e.
e 2 -
E=.
e a
asw e eee
- e. O O O e.
e e aea e
e e
3 e
e e
e 3
o.
e.
a.
.e e
e
==
e
. - = =. = = =
======e-.
==.-.
a e
om.========
-eo
--a,.w e
e e
a e
e e
e e
.e c e c, e.
O e W
e.
O OO.
8.43..O$.. s.
e.e. n.e..=.
a e
y3w e.
e e
e e.
- e. m. e.
e e - - - e e
e.
w
.e
.e e e
s e e
.e e=
e
. NNN e
e
. O. O e.
e.
- e. - -.
.e e.
e.
5 i! -
e e
e a
e e-
. -. _ e e,
.e e
=
e e
e e
e e w We s
- 3 I S : 3 I S :
- t.S : 3 8 3 : S t.s : 3 8 3 :.F 3 e
e e
e e
e e
e.
e.
e.
,ei I
.e
.e
. w 5 e
.e 3 _e e-e e.
e e-e--
e 8
e e
e ee en,
==
e
. e E.
m I
o en e
e e
e g
e.
g 64 e
a=
e 4 e e
e I
e
@ e e
5
.I w e
e
- e. w -
e e
no e
e e
e
==
m, e
m e
o e
3 e.
e.
N, e
6 e
a p
um. -- am..=
.a.==
===e.=.m.
.===
- m. am.
e,-
e e
e, e.
.e A,
e a
e e
e e
e e
i 9
- E.
le
[
N d
e S
e n
e e
5-e g n e.
i a
. E o
o e
emu. g
.u.
Emm..M. - amo e-8E-88 E=W "E=W=*
8 4 E.S W.De-ema. e enu.
- e-gu. a.m. Sum. eu.
m
~~.
e---------------------:
l A.
N
- d b.
- 3. $. ~e.. ~. S. u%.: s. v. $.
v.
E. $....
l l
- me:
- . C.
.o
- 3..
.N.
e.
oee e.
o-o o-o
. eeo.
.eee
...$.eoe
.N
= -.
3... -...eo.:$. $.
r.,,.,. e.- e,,..
N o.
N. $
..Sa*
N
. C. 3.. 3 I
N.
- c. a. e.
- e.,e. r.
eee..
. eao, eoe. eoe. eee eoe.
.~
n.
. S...
e t
.I.,
.= C,o.
- - -.C3
.- = - - - - - - - - - -.
s w
E$
eS u
N e o e,. e. E. S..
N. +
e,,
e
- e. e. e.
e o es 2
- v. c.
- e. e.
...,S.eee......
.s one eee eee
.s.
.e e
. w.
s
.=
. = -
- a..
N.
e.
.u '%~. S... e C. m~. e. $.
- 3..
.. $..e.
N E. $..e.
e
. ee e
. eeo.
oee. eee. eme e-o..
. N
. w
- -. e w
N.
Smm
.# o-oe. N $N e
. C. 3..
e,,
- e. e. e.
- e. U. <e.
- $. $. +,,..,. e.
. w.
oao oao..
.. ooo eoo eoe.,ooo*-
+
e
.c.
i-
. e 3
w
.e
. = = - - - -
w o S C.e.
Ce-8 3,e.
.. u e-.
3 N.e.
.,e
.o
.s.
- e..e.
.o. *. e#.
.m. e..e6
.6
. N
..=
e..
- d. c.
na. c.
e.
. w.
ooo ooe. eoo
,6, m
ooo e
a a
o ooa ome l
+ +
I s
e e
g ga
. 3
=
o k. k. ' k. o k.. o o k.. k. k. k.k. C. k..=
.-. 1k.k.C.:.'=
g 1
. =. - = =
g
.L i
.a o.
.=
g ~. N a
C.
C.
- C. C.
I E
~
c NNN. N NN., N N N,. NN N
. w
.e.'.E
,=
E 5
g e.
. N N N N NN
== 5
. = = =. =.
3 o
. = = = - =. -.=======.=.===.==.i=.-.==
. =.= =.=,. I a
e e.=e N 3
.s.
a e.
.= e.
.m
.e A A.=
. ea$
c.
c.
A m. N N *.
>=. A. o*
e.
g
- e. g 9#.
.e. e. b..
N
..=.c..
- e. e....
.=.
N. N. e.
er w
a 3
.===...*.= N o o.=,
ooo.ooo. eoo ooo e.
I
. - = =. =
- ==
=. =. e b*
==
= = = = = = =.
t
=.
.$. $. $..$. $ C C
- e. e. A
.e) K e.
.e
. J a
.. =.
N.
..=.N.
.. N.
N. N..eM.
,. N. N.
. ee C
W eoo,. oeo g
oao eoe eoe
=
eoo..
5 5=
=
w
- = = =
==..-
==
a
.=E W.
e.,e. e e e
- *.6 ooo.
.e
.s.
5.
Le q
. N
. w y
{
- e. e ca. e.
- i. o. o. o.
. i A.
e
- a.,e.
m oo
-. =
.. =. =.
.=.
w NN N.
-..--O
. = = = = -.. = =. - - -
. - = =
= =. -.
s L
w w
. e
.m
.a,a e.
.e e
. A A.
N.
ec
- e. % >
r a e
.,Ae..N6
.O.4
.=.
J. e N
.6m.
e
'D
.
- p =,.
~
,e.. o. o.
- o. o..=.
N.
I. C
.g
=
.C.Le.
a
.=
ooo.ooe.ooo.ooo o o.=. +
ooo W
=.
lI g
==.---.I.
I h..
-.. - -. =. -. - -
= =. - - -. -
.e e
e m a.
. e.
. ie
- a. a.
w-e e
. er w m.=.
e e
.m. A.
N.
. N. M. e.
. ep
.a.
E.e I e
,.e e.. ooo.eoo.. ooo. oeo ooo e
=.
3.
as
.. es.
w e
ooo A fK a w
3
.e
.a=
.=
.. = = = = =.
= = =.
6
..e a.
== -
.s
aw eoo.
++ +
E. += e
=
=
g
- s. t. s..
r 5 m.=
-.=.=.
. ew % N.,
. eoo
.tc5
_m.-.R.
=,. -.
o
-= - e f.
.=.
.. -F%
I
- 385: 3 8 5 : 3 8 3. :. 3 8 3 : 3 8.8. :. 3 3 3 :
E W
.u:
.n..s
_s
.=. -.- -. =.=
t.e
=
L +r g
.B.
g.
5
.c w
~
t
=
.z.
N
~
=
L L
w aI.~
.s I.
e
~
~
al.
= = = = 3
- - = =
. - = =. -. - = = = = - = = = =
+ ~ -
lIIEll c
t,
- a..n 111111
~:
=.
at t
s:
I
- I
- a :t l!IlEI IIIIII ss
,e g.,
s : s a :: -
- -t assa.s!
a e
- s.
$$2
~4 s
at es~8~.
Ea
-~.5g.
~
22:{:g
.ee S
s~c
--3g x--
s g-s s
na t.
e
^;
III.III.
2[Elff 2
I
)
,1
.n.
n.
n s
s a
3 e I e.
-g3 E.,-~~s s
a--:nai as s
j}
2' *
- ai *' E dd 4d4 j
[*
~
t 5
r~
cccccc cccccc
- n 3
g g
. a q.
g s
e
" ' j 'u E
i
~2 tilll!
Illil!
-=
2 1
5-
- e. a t a.
E.
I
=
IIIIII I!!!!!
!=T gy i
5;;A:
2 '
s-2-6 1
.s.s.s
...s.s l=s=!.l~ge.:
4 t
2-
=
[!-[!
g.
=
l
-e
.=
I:s,.I.
s r
a s
la
-1
~. ~. ~.
n.
._+2.gt.
=,
3 aE,.
g..
h3
- - ^~
I g12bgI
,ccIl3 Is 5.
-1: 5.tc.t ex 1
.:.:.: a, a
.:.: a a a a
=
c a-a
- n-g:
a W'I[3*.
ty
{y B
- l E
1 s.s..
8g j
8 8
s
. _ =5 J-g
.3 1
.a.
R 5
2 5
-s-'.
.2e
[3 5
.! s ' ;;"Ojt21..El!
E
~l~~~~
IIIIII I I i Ed r
I IIII
^
5 1
EE
't l
3 etal 3-r l
g t--
w A
3
$C t2 22
~.
~-
I g:
- ---~
---~
E
.a
s.
t
.~.
{lgt) gggg i
aE 3.
r" ali.l 11.1.1.1.1
~=
o j
g; a3 a.
- I
- 3. =3 111111 11.1.1.1.1 D$$2*
$D)*Ej 31_
g38:c
- $4 $3.
3 s
((2CE*
c 4g2 si.
c*.s-42 E : {- e. :
g 1
I 3,
e 2c2fRS 2E*("{25 c
2 O,
E
- L ggy;;g gg
- g s
I k t h. f k bf.kkhl t
- s 8
d d.
d
""d.*
j i
g 4
j g
}I e
g....
E.f.t~s s
a.c:a~
a:
1 a
s 1
idee's essee"
~
2 cccccc cccccc s
1 ~2
- 3 a,
5 3
g ;.
=
"^]:
E i
2 Ill!Il E
f. c a., __1 I:
2I sosses
..sses s:
1 E
- =
=
5 5A:
2 IIIIII 111111 51 i
g, S c; 2 - & _i i
1 sess.s
.ss.se at 1:3-c l ~g <. :
2 e
2-
!.[!.
=
5-s,t.
- e s.
a r
=
f s.a
-1
- ~.*.
r
,=
,, _ =3 2., i
_3 I
1, y
.s_
,REERI 12c.813 I:
is
- -1
- ddd
- 44##
I 8~3,'gr.r 5 '. s.
3 gt"a n,
g )
g,I
- 3 E
j g
g E5 E
..gsg g
R 8
- ?
1,5 I
es..
s "Ojt2 3..]zl.
-g-g;=
5 R
S
- E 5
]j lj z E e s *.
$.35555 RSR329 5s s
3
.h 3
- E '.
EE b " :'
s*
S t 2*
Ia
- a!
E g.
2
.~
.~
e ec.2:~
te.::~
~
a*
ga a;
-a 5
is
O i.l.i.l.l 11.1.111
=
==
v
- a..t
- E lI.I.I.I.I.
5 isli.l.l
- =
g.
a3 lI
- =5 11.
- .111 111.11.1 1
ye c:gexEac a=
- gl 8xs-
- t e
..l,.:ER
,_if,i,s
~
EE
)
i ai.
g s
- 5
--esgg g
g
[.
!! si 55Ie..
EEecnc xRs
~
i 1
I.I.l. lit EJ.Els,!.
^*
s 2
e
,t s
- n.. n. s.
...x.
1 s
I as s
e E.1.~~:ss a..:e~
i e
s 1
dienii dedia'
}
~
s a
r~2 2
cccccc cccccc
- r 3_ ;.
a, 5
s
":]'.
E ji
~2 Illitt 2
1
.ss.ss
...ess a
s:
e. c s_ _a_
E 3
=
g, 2 I liill!
Li' 1;;A: i i
s j V.
l:3 s...se
..s..s gi a
.s c
r
=-
. : ;. *g 3 e_
. l
- m. I.,._c.
I ~: 8,I _~ i 3_8
=
E!
5
=
sa
-1
. ~. ~. 2
+i 3
.a, I
i 2:
's eIER I
ice,IS I-n Es asaaas asaass E.u- -:,.tr.5 es a
I g
gEf:
3 8
._=ag[.3.:.{}.
s rt s
.g g_
g g
3
~3 1.,eg
,g,',,,
g 8
5 5
- 2 3..s]a E5
.s-*.
l..,r' EE
't Ig3 Ig:' -
- l.t i
3.
E
..I "1
i I'
i, - -
i
.e i s 3s r
r g
w 3
33.E3~
3 3 5 b ~ i3 lf,h E
5 t
s N :
.:6
~
l 3. g. : ~e...:33..:
- 4... %.. R. :.
- 3. :. :
l l
.O=0
. OOO OOO
- OOO
. v OQG OOO N
e
. =.
m.
. $ c.
v 3
N-m. m
,R,
..R
- 3....,. $. ~,,.. *
.,. r. n.
. w
.3...
.a
. -1l I
o..
Oo..
oo I..
~
e I
I
.E l
_ _== _ - _
== _ _
sh w
- m.,,. 2..
~....
2 3 2..
I..
.~m
~.
m.
e ev w
ev.
. m 4..,
ev.
.a.
.j
- e. 4
. ew
. 1 m
.e e
. w.
i t.._ _. _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _.
- a. f..... o.
=. I.. I.
- 3. :.I. n. :.... E. R..s..:
N
- a. f. f.
s x.
o t
3 w
r t.e.
e
.. R. R
. e m.
- e. 3 ev.
6
.9
. c..
N.
. e
=
0 ooo e
. w
. e, ooo ooo
.A e
.e.
i -.
w 1
. e. 3.
=. = = = = =.= = = = = = = =. = = =. = * = = *= = = = = = = =. = = = = =
.=i====
e a.
.=.
w o
p
.=
~.=.e.=
o.e ~e
~
.a
.m.
5 e.
0 E
er.
3 w..*.= N.
ee.
ooo.ooo.ooo 4
.= e.
.e e
d ev.
- m. 6. *
- c. 4. %
ie..o. ev..e m. =t* M. m N.
. m a
- =.
..-.... o
.o c
a
.e a
ooo E
4
. e w
=
3
. u
.m J
l.
e s
]
o
. o
. ooo N.
N
. e
~
. w I
N C
. NN. 15
...... NN.....
e
.as N N Pw N
. N ev N. N NN. ev N N
. N E
J 4
3 eN C
A w
3
. b j
.n.--
.e l.
.n..l-gb
.m 4
l
=
C.
5
..e..
e.a
. e e.n
.. o
.,.e.
6,,
6,.
a
. w
.P a.
,a N.
N e.
e.
g
...a..
,e.
..* p.
.=
- oN w
..p p
w
..*.= m ooo ooo ooo.i
-.-.,h.
..----..---.....-.-.--.-..-.-.==.m.
I
. e
. J e.
.m
.m..
. e
.a
.a.=. es
.a.,
e=
.e c.e I
t.
I
.a
..=
s e
.m
. ee
=..
A.
e e.
N N. e.
S I
'. P P* e.
.r
- "".e
- h
.s
. w. ___
=
185.R.i.R.R.E.!.E.E.E.iE.R.R.i.!.!.!.!!.I.$.!!
e 1
i i.
e i
e~.
___~
~~~.~N.
.. s. s.. o. s.
. ~ ~.
)
r.,. s,, e r.
s.
o e.
.N N
o7 i
... N.
es
. coo coo.
o.
o coo
___3_._..___.___ ___.___.___.___.
e.
x.
...i.i.
. x.
~
- e... S.
~.
6
. r.
N.
...N.
ss_
.coe e_ c e__. _,
....... s...m.....
o.
- a. a. n..
~e N
_ _ _B __. _. ___ ___ __
- 1. 5 w
W, r s. E
- 385:38S: 3 8 3. :. 3 8.5 : 3 8 ' :3.385:.F. 8 t
.I e,
e.
3 aw:
____s_
g e.5 i
g 1
I.t.
e s.
c w e.
e-~
j w.
____s_.___.___.___.___.___.___
N.
L e
s t..,
L
.~.
L
.s.
e l
.~.
.~*
l g @
6
-. - - - -. = -. = = _ -.
APPENDIX B BLIND FLANGES PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION OF NRCB 88 05 TEST RESULTS
'f
1 General 1.1 Refer to flow chart 2 for an overview of the evaluaticn process, 1.2 Generic evaluation tables should only be used when a suspect material is identified as potentially having lower strength than specified code minimums.
1.3 The Generic Analysis table B 1 apply to Blind Flanges when the following conditions are met:
Blind flanges are installed on ASME Class 1, 2, 3 or ANSI B31.1 o
piping systems, o
Material of construction is carbon steel (SA 105).
o Flanges are manufactured to ANSI B16.5 standards.
1.4 Blind flanges qualified by the generic analysis table satisfy code design rules using yield strength values derived from an assumed ultimate f
strength values (Su) of suspect material which are below code specifiec minimums.
Estimates of Su values based on in situ should be made in accordance with the Field Test program element.
Upon confirmation of ade:;uate ductility of suspect material by the generic sample testing program, blind flanges qualified by Table B1 may be considered suitable for service for the life of the plant without replacement.
i 1.5 Allowable pressure / temperature values in Table B 1 are provided for materials with ultimate strength values between 40 and 69 KSi.
f i
?/si/M Bi l
1.6 The allowable pressure values in Table B 1 are based on derating the corresponding ANSI B16.5 Values by a factor of sy 36 where Sy = Yield strength, in KSi, of the suspect Aterial at room temperature, taken as 0.5 Su.
Su = Ultimate strength value of the suspect material as determined from the in situ testing, KSi 2 Evaluation Procedure 2.1 To properly use the qualification table, the following information is required:
o Blind flange pressure class 1
o System design pressure and temperature o
Ultimate strength (Su) of flange material as determined by the in situ testing.
- .2 Using the system design terperature, the pressure class of the blind flange, and the Su value obtained from testing determine the allowable design pressure from table Bl.
Compare the allowable design pressure to system design pressure.
Acceptability is established when the allowable pressure is equal to or greater than the system design pressure.
2.3 If system design pressure exceeds that allowed by Table B1, for the applicable temperature and material strength, then plant unique evaluations should be performed to the rules of paragraph NC 3325.2 of Section Ill Code.
Use allowable material (S) values determined as follows:
S = 0.25 (Su)
(S) value is applicable up to 500'F 7/21/&3 82
TABLE B1: FIANGE PRESStJRE/ DOLT llP OtIALIFICATION HY DERATIhG
=============.-----====...==================================-==========.............=.=,,=.............
1 PRESSURE-TEMPERATURE RATING PER ANSI H16.5 TABLE 2
===============.-------======_-==============e===============
........................=,.
PRESSURE CIASS
.-_-_-_______-____-_-___-_--_____-_--_-__-___________-----l TEnPERAruRE 150f l
3003 l
6005 l
9005 1500f l
25006 deg F
__-_-_________________----___-___----__-__-__-___-____l (1)
(2)
(3) l (1)
(2)
(3) l (1)
(2)
(3) l(1) (2) (3) l(1) (2) (3) l (1)
(2)
(3)
______=___________
-20 to 100 285 222 158 740 576 411 1480 1151 822 2220 1727 1233 3705 2882 2058 6170 4799 3428 200 260 202 144 675 525 375 1350 1050 750 2025 1575 1125 3375 2625 1875 5625 4375 3125 300 230 179 128 655 509 364 1315 1023 731 1970 1532 1094 3280 2551 1822 5470 4254 3039 400 200 156 111 635 494 153 1270 988 706 1900 1478 1056 3170 2466 1761 5280 4107 2933 500 170 132 94 600 467 333 1200 933 667 1795 1396 997 2995 2329 1664 4990 3881 2772 600 140 109 78 550 428 306 1095 852 608 1640 1276 911 2735 2127 1519 4560 3547 2533 650 125 97 69 535 416 297 1075 836 597 1610 1252 894 2685 2088 1492 4475 3481 2486 700 110 86 61 535 416 297 1065 828 592 1600 1244 889 2665 2073 1481 4440 3453 2467 750 95 74 53 505 393 281 1010 786 561 1510 1174 839 2520 1960 1400 4200 3267 2333 800 80 62 44 410 319 228 825 642 458 1235 961 686 2060 1602 1144 3430 26'68 1906
===========.--===================e======================================.-=============_
PRESSURE RATING FOR MATERI AL WIT 11 Su = 70 ksi LEGEND: (1) :
PRESSIIRE RATING FOR MATERI AL WITII Su = 56 ksi (2) :
(3) : PRESSURE RATING FOR MATERI AL WITH Su = 40 ksi INTERPOLATION FOR DIFFERENT Su VALUES MAY BE USED.
NOTES : (1)
(2) THIS TABLE APPLIES TO BLIND FIANGES AND OTHER TYPICALLY USED TYPES OF B16.5 FLANGES emeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.................e****e................... eeeeeeeeeeeee.*
- EVALUATION ACTION :
VERIFY THAT SYSTEM DESIGN PRESSURE IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE APPLICABLE PRESSURE RATING FROM THE ABOVE TAHLE FOR THE Su VAllIE ESTABLISHED FROM TESTING AND SYSTEM TEMPERATtJRE.
- 'eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-eeeeeeeeeeeeeee**eeeeeeeeeeeeeee i
6 APPENDlX C I
9 FLANGES PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION OF NRCB 88 05 TEST RESULTS
1 General Notes 1.1 Refer to flow chart 3 for an overview of the evaluation procets.
1.2 Generic, evaluation tables should only be used when a suspect material is identified as potentially having lower strength than specified code minimums.
1.3 The generic analysis tables provided here apply to flanges when the folk sing conditions arr. mets Flanges are installed in ASME class 1, 2, 3 or ANSI B31.1 piping o
systems.
o Material of construction is carbon steel (SA 105).
o Flanges are manufactured to ANSI B16.5 star.dards.
1.4 Evaluation tables are applicable to al? cortconly used AN51816.5 flanges which are welded to piping.
For 'cose flanges evalua, tion Table C1 need caly be applied.
1.5 Flanges qualified by the generic analysis table satisfy code design rules using yield strength values derived from an assumvd ultimate strength values Su of suspect material below code spec'lfied values.
Estimates of Su values based on the in sitt testing should be made in accordance with the Field Testing element. Upon confirmation of adequate cuctility of suspect substrength material by the generic sample testing program, fianges with Su of 56 K$i or higher qualified by Tables C1 and C2 or C3 may be considered suitable for service for the life of the plant without replacemeni.
1.6 Generic qualification table (C1) fe? pressure design is prov4.ded for l
suspect material with en su values between 40 and 69 K$i.
Genoric qualification table (C2) for moment load design is provided for suspect material with an Su values between 56 and 69 K51. Allowable moment leads 1
1 I/21/&&
Ci I
_, _ _ _.... _ _ _ _ -. ~. _
.,,.,,.. - ~. ~,,, _, _ _ _
Table C3 are provided for flanges not qualified by fable C2. Tables C4 anc C5 provide cceparable qualification ap.d allowable moment idads for flanges with an Su value less than SS KSi.
1.7 Fr a
- qualification Table C1 provide derated ANSI B16.5 allowable pressure r t 9perature. A derrating factor of g 36 is used,
. 2; Sy = Yield strength of suspect material taken as 0.5 Su.
Su = Ultimate strength value of suspe-t material as determined from in-situ tests.
1.8 Generic moment load qualification 7ble C2 provida margio (ratics) to code allowables, per NC 3658 of Section III, for coanon'y used flange / pipe size inix using the following basis; Pipe weight stress = 3000 psi Pipe thermal exp. stress = 0.6 Sa for classes 150, 300 and 600 flanges, and 1.0 Sa for classes 900 and above.
Bending moment equals torsional n.oment.
Equation 12 of NC-3658 is used.
The above basis is conservative and is consistent with the manner of usage of flanges because; o
Flanges are typically located at equipment nozzle connections, where allowables for equipment nozzle loads control.
o Class 150, 300 and 600 flanges are typically used for colder piping systems.
o C'iass 900 ar.d above flanges are typically used for hotter syste-with higher pressures.
C2 7/21/f4
'he above basis autcT.atically envelopes dynamic moment o
Using t
loadings of magnitudes equal to or greater than piping allowable stresses for levels B, C and D.
Thus equations 13 and 17 of NC-3658 are enveloped.
1.9 Tables C-3 and C-5 provide allowable moments for applicable plant condition / service level to be used in evaluating flanges not qualified by Tables C2 or C4.
2 Evaluation Procedure 2.1 To qualify each flange should be determined acceptable for both pressure design (Table Cl), and moment loading (Table C2 or Tables C3 throughCS).
2.2 To properly use tne qualification tables, the following information is required:
o Flange type and rating o
Connected pipe site and schedule o
System design pressure and temperature e
Ultimate strength Su of suspect flange material determined fro-insitu testing.
2.3 Pressure Design (Table C1)
Using the system design temperature, flange pressure class, and Su value of-suspect material, determine the allowable design pressure.
Compare system design pressure to the allowable pressure.
Insur'e that the allowable pressure is greater than the system design pressure.
Table C1 applies to weloec
" as loose flanges.
7/21/84 C3
Flanges not qualified by Table Cl require qualification by Appendix XI of ASME Section III cede rules.
2.4 Moment Loading Qualification (Table C2) o Using applicable data from paragraph 2.2
- above, determine acceptability of the suspect flanges with an Su value of between 56 KS1 and 69 K51.
Flanges with yield stress ratios indicated on the table of 1 or less are acceptable.
should be Flanges with ratios exceeding 1,
marked with ***
evaluated using Table C3 and actual moment loadings from plant calculations.
Use Tables C4 through C to qualify flanges with Su values between o
40 K5i and 56 KSi.
Compare actual moment loading to those allowed by the tables.
Insure actual moments are lower than allowables.
j o
Moment loading evaluations of loose flanges are not requ red, i
j 7/21/f4 C4
~
TABLE C1: FLANGE PRESSURE / DOLT UP QUALIFICATION DY DERATING==============================
===========2=============================================================E 2 1
PRFSSURE-TEMPERATtlRE RATING PER ANSI H16.5 TABL
======================================================-=====n=============================2
=
PRESSURE CLASS TEMPERATURE ----------------------------------5 l
9000 l
15005 l
25008 600 dEg F 1508 l
3001 g
l (1)
(2)
(3) l (1)
(2)
(3) l (1)
(2)
(3) l(1) (2) (3) l(1) (2) (3) l (1)
(2)
(3)
-20 to 100 285 222 158 740 576 411 1480 1151 822 2220 1727 1233 3705 2882 2058 6170 4799 3428 200 260 202 144 675 525 375 1350 1050 750 2025 1575 1125 3375 2625 1875 5625 4375 3125 300 230 179 128 655 509 364 1315 1023 731 1970 1532 1094 3280 2551 1822 5470 4254 3039 400 200 156 111 635 494 353 1270 988 706 1900 1478 1056 3170 2466 1761 5280 4107 2933 500 170 132 94 600 467 333 1200 933 667 1795 1396 997 2995 2329 1664 4990 3881 2772 600 140 109 78 550 428 306 1995 852 608 1640 1276 911 2735 2127 1519 4560 3547 1533 650 125 97 69 535 416 297 1075 16 597 1610 1252 894 2685 2088 1492 4475 3481 2486 700 110 86 61 535 416 297 1065 28 592 1600 1244 889 2665 2073 1481 4440 3453 2467 750 95 74 53 505 393 281 1010 786 561 1510 1174 839 2520 1960 1400 4200 320' 2333 800 80 62 44 410 319 228 825 642 458 1235 961 686 2060 1602 1144 3430 266d 1906
=================================================================================
=
PRESSURE RATING FOR MATERI AL WITH Su = 70 ksi LEGEND: (1) :
PRESSURE RATING FOR MATERI AL WITH Su = 56 ksi (2) :
(3) : PRESSURE RATING FOR MATERI AL WITH Su = 40 ksi NOTES : (1) INTERPOLATION FOR DIFFERENT Su VALUES MAY BE USED.
(2) THIS TABLE APPLIES TO BLIND FLANGES AND OTHER TYPICALLY USED TYPES OF B16.5 FLANGES
- es******ee**************eae*******ene*******eee*********a**********eee***eee****ee**een*
- EVALUATION ACTION :
VERIFY THAT SYSTEM DESIGN PRESSURE IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE APPLICABLE PRESSURE RATING FROM THE ABOVE TABLE FOR THE Su VALUE ESTABLISHED FROM TESTING AND SYSTEM TEMPERATURE.
- ee*****eee***eeeeeeeme***ee*************************************e********************
a, I
TAlit C2: REQUltt: TitLD STREll RAT 10 CALCVLAt!0W BASED cm t0 3658.1 F0s mAttt!At WlfM gy a 28 esi PIPE FLAh t Pipe site 150 lbs 300 ths 300 lbs 600 lbs 600 ths 900 Les 900 LDs 1500 itss 1500 lbs 2500 les Sch.sta sch.80 Sch.160 Sch.160 Sch.In$ sch xts 2.5" PIPE 0.64 7 0.261 0.328 0.217 0.276 0.213 Sch.ste Sch.80 Sch.160 Sch.160 Sch.160 Sch.111 Sch.sts 3.0" PIPE 0.953 0.381 0.509 0.501 0.284 0.34 9 0.2 1 Sch.sta sch.sta Sch.80 Sch.80 Sch.120 Sch.160 scr.zit 4.0" PIPE 0.705 0.649 0.407 0.349 0.4:2 0.379 0.272 Sch.sta Sch.sto sch.60 Sch.80 'Sch.120 Sch.160 sch. ins 6.0" Pl#E 0.975 0.581 0.432 0.449 0.609 0.486 0.330 l
Sch.ste 5th.sta Sch 80
$ch.100 Sch.80 Sch.120 Sch.160 l
8.0" PIPt
" 1.552 0.674 0.573 0.665 0.516 0.703 0.587 Scm.ste Sch.ste Sch.80 Sch.100 Sch.80 Sch.120 fch.160 f
10" PIPE
" 1.090 0.581 0.502 0.593 0.602 0.814 0.684 i
Sca.ste sch.ste Sch.40 Sea.80 Sch.100 Sch.120 Sc h.160 12" PIPE
" 1.333 0.5 79 C.624 0.579 4.692 0.956 0.636
)
Sem.ste Sch.ste Sch.40
$cm.80 Sch.100 Sch.120 j
14" Pipt
" 1.114 0.492 0.564 0.597 0.725 0.981 Sek.ste Sch.ste Sch.40
$sh.80 5th.100 Sch.12.
j 16" Plot 0.970 0.454 0.5 95 0.626 0.746 " 1.112 Scm.ste Sch.ste $ch Il Sen.80 sch.100 Sch.120 18" Plet 0.916 0.437 0.575 0.604 0.834 " 1.053 Sch.ste Sch.11 Sch 40
$ct.80 Sch.100 Sch.120 20" PIPE 0.827 0.654 0.770 0.710 0.859 " 1.160 Sch.ste Sch.I5 Sch.40 Sem.80 Sch.100 Sch.120 24" PIPt 0.791 0.551 0.747 0.774 0.945 " 1.037 h tes: (1) iee perogasch 1.8 of Ascenota 0 for en empleetion of the basis of the ratios cattutetec ade e.
(2) Wetoed flanges genericetty watif y f or wt toeding if the.tated yield stress ratio is e or = 1.0.
Yield stras ratio is oefired as the ratio of the ylete stress roodred to satis *,
oo.mtion 12 of u0 3658.1, usins owts calculated per riote (1) above (Syr), to the s spect esterial ylete stress of 28 Ksi e Syr/28.
(3) table 02 celeststes the retired yield stress ratios for swspect meteriet with a yiele stress of 28 Est one a tem ite stress of 56 Est. For suspect seterial with hipmer Sw them 56 esi.
outtiply the stated ratios trr the f actor 56/$s.
(4) " Denotes Sy retto esteeds city. Plant specific evaluation rewired. See separate tatte for eenhum set and pipires stress ellowed.
(5) Flawes of 2" e us below in site of ow class seeericat ty watify assJairig pipe sherrat st*ess is et 100% of ettousete, mani e ratio cettwLeted is 0.634
l l
TABLE C3: M rtes.m mcythf An0 PlPlh0 Sitt$$ Att M D 704 FLAs0tt wifM $y LAf]O IICit0l%0 UN]ff FOR M fft!AL Wlfa $y. 28 kli (Sw. 56 Est)
Pet n:.3658 uXilt.m ALLMD LOCS AT PIPE Cohnt:fl04 1
f LEVEL A LIVIL 8 LIVtt C/D PIPE FLAu0t Pipt (touAft0u 12)
(toVAflom 13)
(E7JAf l0h 17)
SIZE Pttstve! StalDutt..................................................................
RAT!h0 PlPE PIPE PIPE 80sthf litt$5 Inckt hf
$ftt$5 IEOMthf Sitt$5 8" P!Pt 150s
$fD 68999 7521 137997 15043 218*38 23768 10" PIPE 150s 570 174147 10701 348294 21402 573863 35263 12" Pipt 150s 510 207754 8752 415508 17505 66*294 27817 14" Pipt 150s STD 331328 10410 602656 20819 971'51 33559 16" P181 90**
120 1785911 16222 3571823 32445
'211194 38252 it" PIPE 9008 120 2649313 17119 5378625 34238 M 99337 41372 20" Pipt 900s 120 32952M 15542
, 6596528 31C85 7703125 36299 2." P!Pt 900s 120 EiO955 17366 12E21910 34771 16:34375 (34!3 h::es: (1) A t t r.at e pere-t s s* ows abeve are f or bencirr, servet s or tors t ee.a t serent s ce% ce a ec l
sepa*ately.
(2) Fwit valve cf 1.9 is used as llF for ifJ at flenge eens in calculatirg pipirst stress.
Stress valse allo ec smould be edjwsted if dif f erent 11F value is cesned.
( 3 ) P f c. 150 ps i g f or 1508 a.us 1750 ps i s f or 900s a r e as ss ire i n eve t wa t i ng the re s i pu.
perwet allowed f or Level C/D.
(e) units: m orwe t i n i ne m. post!s ; s t r e s s i n ps i.
(5) m:r9 eats eaus pipe stresses are per specified loading crcination in h*.3658 eau: plamt, as fctton.
Leve. A (ec. 12) : VT + TN (ma.isum themet espaasion)
Levei I (ec. 13) : wt. Tu. Ost. other level B Loads if emy.
Level C/D (ec. 16) : VT + TM + $$t + other level C or 0 loads if emy.
04E e.u: $$f twees may be certined by the se ace root of the sue of s wares (sell) metmed with other spoticable er W toads f ecum levels 8 or C/D ccruditions.
(6) For $g values between 56 aans 70 Est, suttiply the above allowable sopents by a f actor of Sw/56.
(7) Use the elloweble loads pea note (1) above to evolvete the fisages sho e with sucstreasta.
If soment velwes are not avaitecle, the pipe stress cotW't. attowsoles mey be coeser.
vettvely used.
S I l
TAl' E C4: t!QUltto YttLD Stat $$ tafl0 CALO'JLAT!DN Bast 0 Ch h0 3658.1708 MAfte!AL Wlfa $r s 20 cs6 PIPE FLAW 0t Pipe site 150 lbs 300 lbs 300 lbs 600 ths 600 lbs 900 t E 900 tes 1500 lbs 1500 lbs 2500 tes
~
1 Sch.ste Sch.80 Sem.160 Sch.160 Sch.xx5 sem.xx5 2.5" PIPE 0.906 0.365 0.459 0.304 0.387 0.298 Sch.ste Sch.80 Sch.160 Sch.160 '
Sch.160 Sem.XIS sem.xx1 3.0" PIPE
" 1.335 0.533 0.713 0.701 0.398 0.488 0.338
\\
Sem.ste Sch.std Sch.80 Sch.80 sch.120 Sch.160 Sem.xus 4.0" PIPE 0.987 0.629 0.569 0.689 0.605 0.531 0.321 Sch.ste Sch.ste Sch.80 Sch 80 Sch.120 Sch.160 Sem.xx5 6.0" PIPE
" 1.36 0.813 0.605 0.684 0.853 0.681 0.461 i
Sch.ste Scm.sta Sem.80 Scm.100 Sch.80 Sch.120 Scm.160 8.0" PIPE
" 2.172 0.943 0.802 0.931
- 0. 723 0.984 0.822 sem.ste Sem.stc Sem.80 Sen.100 Sem.80 Sch.120 Scm.160 f
l 10" PIPE
" 1.526 0.813 0.703 0.830 0.843 " 1.140 0.958 1
Sem.ste Sem.ste sch.40 Scm.80 sea.100 ScP.120 Sem.160 12" Plet
" 1.866 0.811 0.873 0.810 0.969 " 1.339 0.890 f
l Sem.ste Sem.ste 5cm.40
$cm.80 Sem.100 Sem.120 14" P!PI
" 1.560 0.649 0.796 0.836 " 1.015 " 1.373 Sem.ste Sem.ste Scm.60 Sch.80
$cm.100 Sch.120 16" Pitt
" 1.358 0.635 0.833 0.876 " 1.044 " 1.556 sem.ste Sch.sta Sch.Il Scm.80 sem.100 Sch.120 it" P!PE
" 1.213 0.612 0.805 0.972 " 1.168 " 1.475 Scm.sts Sem.Il Sem.40 Sem.80 Scm.100 Sem.120 20" P!Pt
" 1.158 0.916 " 1.078 0.995 " 1.203 " 1.626 Sem.sta Sch.15 sem.40 Sch.80 5cm.100 Scm.120 24" PIPt
" 1.107 0.772 " 1.045 " 1.083 " 1.323 " 1.452 hetes: (1) See pe og'aph 1.8 of Appe Mis C for em elplehattan of the bests of the ratios calculatec aDeve.
(2) Wetoed flenges generically welify for wt loading if the stated yield stress ratic is
< or 1.0.
Tiets strss retto is defined as the ratio of the field stress rew ired to satis *r emetten 12 of m 3658.1, using scrwets catewletec pe rete (1) aoove (Syr), to the suspect meterlat yield stress of 28 tal e Syr/28.
(3) Table C2 catewtetes the rewirec yield stress rettes for suspect noteriet with a yiele stress of 28 Est ears a tensite stress of 56 tsi. For suspect asteriet with hismer Sw them 56 ssi, euttiply the stated ratios ty the factor $6/$w.
(4) " Demetes Sy ratio saceeds city. Ptent specific evetwetion rewirec. See ses. orate taste fc*
meniu scremt occf piping stress at towed.
(5) Fleases of 2" e m below in sise of eay class genealcelly s atify ess ring pipe toe w t staess is at 1005 of alloweste. Nami e retto calcwlated is 0.848.
TABLt C5:
puxles.ps m0pth? Aho PIPlk0 $It'll ALLCWED Fot FLAW;tl WITH Sy rat 10 EXCsEDlh0 Unity FOR MAftt!'t WlfM Sy 20 tsi (SW = 40 Esi)
Pit hC 3658
.e s..
s s e s s s s s s s s e n e s.n e s...s e s...
.s
.................s e s e s s a s s n e s s e e s s e ma s s e n e s e s s e s s.....m......:
BWU(14.ps ALLCWED LQAOS A1 PIPE C0hhECfloh LtytL A Livil 8 LEVEL C/D P!PI FLAW 0E PIPE (t0VAfl0h 12)
(t0VAf loat 13)
([0g&fl04 17) 512E Pe t l 5Ut t SO M E D ut t RAtit0 PIPE PIPE PIPE postut Statl5 postui STRESS D Ett litist 3" Pipt 150s
$70 8417 8739 16833 17477 27546 28911 6" PIPE 150s stD 9847 8552 79694 17104 132219 28376
)
Sa PlPE 150s stD 49285 5371 98569 10742 155721 16973 10" PIPE 150s STD 124391 7644 248781 15289 409902 25168 10" PIPE 9008 120 5 1639 15821 1083278 31k2 13M800 4:187 12" P!Pt 150s stD 148396 6252 296792 12503 471639 19869 12a PIPE 900s 120 764542 13467 1537083 26933 1864769 32675 14" PIPE 150s si:
215234 7479 430469 14959 693830 24111 14" Pipt 600s 100 759392 11490 1518785 22979 2066459 30963 1."
Pipt 900s 120 968 72 13133 1976944 26266 2449517 325e4 16-slot 15Cs stD 325243 8594 650686 17168 1051874 27794 14= plPE 600s 100 1067101 11174 2i34201 22349 2821486 29550 16" 81Pt 90C8 120 1275651 11587 2551302 23175 3007996 27323 ita pipt 150s STD 437937 9095 875875 18189 14*2415 29332 18" Plpt 600P 100 1354557 9991 2709115 19982 3451878 25461 18" PIPE 9008 120 1920937 12228 3441875 24456 442364 29551 a s s e s s e s e s......es........ s e.....a s s e s s........s e s.... s s........ es.............. s e s s s e s e s s e s s a s s e s
. See metes en nest page.
1ABLE C5:
IntleLpt le0 MINT AND P!PikG Stell$ ALLOWED FDA FLANCtl WlfM Sy RAfl0 EICitolhG Uulff FC2 Mittl AL Wlf M Sy. 20 ksi (Sw. 40 Est)
Pit k: 3658
]
...s................................sse.......ss.s....s............s...as.......s...s.......:.......
kIIIe.as ALLOWED LCADS Af PIPt C0==ttflou LEVEL A LEVEL B LtVIL C/D P!PI FLANGE PIPE
([QuatlCat 12)
(t0VAflom 13)
(10VAflCisif)
SIZE Pt t $ 5Ue t S C M E DVL t " " " " " * " ' " * " "
RAflhG PIPt PIPE P l'Pt i
Isomtut sittit sonthf Efttl5 sepet e.1 Sitttt 20" P!PE 150s
$70 601563 10076 12$3125 20152 1949231 32650
)
10" PIPt 3Xe 40 1001250 10828 2002500 21656 2669680 26871 i
20" PlPE 600s 100 1799063 9696 3596125 19392 4585345 24713 20" PIPE 900s 120 2355903 11102 4711806 22203 5502232 25928 24" PIPt 150s
$70 911632 10537 1823264 21074 2923446 33790 24" Plot 300s 40 1725333 11050 3450667 22101 6655981 30125 24" Pipt 600s 60 2817375 10774 5634750 21547 7064562 27030 24" PIPE 600s 100 2817375 4818 5634750 17t36 7064562 22123 24" PIPt 900s 120 4579253 12418 9158507 24&37 11453125 31059
.s....
.....as...
...s.....s............s..:.... ass.ss..ssess..ssa..s.ss....s.s...ss........
hates: (1) AllCmaele S. rents shown above are for tie *Cirq scPeStl or torsionet geme9ti consi0erec sec4*ately.
(2) Fwil valve of 1.9 is used as $1F f or f f J at flamge eN in calculatin0 pipir1 stress.
Stress vetwe ellowed skovic be adjwsted if dif fereet SIF vetwe is desired.
(3) Pfd. 150 pois for 150s and 173* m ig for 900s are asssiec in evaluating the meninis
.w eat allowed for level C/0.
(4) Vaits: N: rent in inch pcnics; st. ess in pai.
(5) m:reets and pipe str <sses are per specified toedirg ccsseination in m: 3658 ead plant, as fo!!ows:
Level A (eg. 12) : WT + TM (mesisus the* mal enosas t on)
Level B (eg. 13) : VT + TM + 08E
- other level I loscs if emy.
Level C/0 (eq.14) : W1 + fu + $11 + other level C or 0 loads if emy.
Ott a*c S$t toecs ney tie c< reined try the aware rect of the sus of scp ares (5415) method with other applicable Wymanic tooes f rom levels 8 or C/D conditions.
(6) Fo* Sw yetwes between 56 end 70 Est, multiply the above alloweete moments trr a f actor of Sw/56.
(7) Use the allowable toads per re,te (1) above: to evelwate the flenges shoe with s@ strength, if mesent values are ret availette, t's pipe stress eclum allovacles any be conser-vativet) teed.
ATTACHMENT C TO ENCLOSURE 3
_._r,
,.___r_
_m,
.,r,,.,,....,__.
.._,c_,r.,_
_.,e
-