Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOE/ID-10175-5November 1987
Weld Evaluation ProjectSuitability for Service EvaluationEngineering Process
Department of EnergyWeld Evaluation ProjectTVA Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit
Robert K. Blandford
Idaho National Engineering LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy , Idaho Operations Office
8802250139 880217PDR ADOCK 05000390A PDR
DISCLAIMER
This book was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the UnitedStates Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof,nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes anylegal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of anyinformation, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use wouldnot infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercialproduct, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise,does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoringby the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions ofauthors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof.
DOE/lID-10175-5Limited Distribution
WELD EVALUATION PROJECTSUITABILITY FOR SERVICE EVALUATION
ENGINEERING PROCESS
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYWELD EVALUATION PROJECT
TVA WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1
Robert K. Blandford
November 1987
U.S. Department of EnergyIdaho Operations Office
ABSTRACT
The United States Department of Energy/Weld Evaluation Project (DOE/WEP)was formed in December 1985 as the result of an interagency agreement between theDOE and the Tennessee Valley, Authority (TVA). The project was assigned by the DOEto EG&G Idaho, Inc., for implementation. The DOE/WEP was tasked to perform anindependent evaluation of the documented TVA welding program and the as-constructed weld quality with respect to TVA-performed safety-related welds at theWatts Bar Nuclear Plant-Unit 1 (WBNP-1). This is one of ten reports describing theplan, processes, implementation, and results of the DOE/WEP at the plant. Thisreport describes the suitability for service evaluation engineering review process andevaluation methodology for welds found to contain deviations potentially degradingto their safety function.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Acknowledgments are extended to the many participants in the suitability for serv-ice evaluation activities of the DOE/WEP at the TVA WBNP-1. In particular,acknowledgment is extended to T. L. Bridges, T. C. Chung, B. L. Harris, L. D.Kimbro, and S. E. Moore for their expertise and assistance in the preparation of thisreport.
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ....................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................. ii
ACRONYMS ...................................................................... vi
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................... 1
2. TECHNICAL APPROACH...................................................... 2
3. PROJECT INTERFACES........................................................ 3
4. SSEE REVIEW PROCESS....................................................... 4
4.1 Evaluation ................................................................ 4
4.2 Disposition ............................................................... 8
4.3 Summary ................................................................ 10
5. WELD EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .......................................... 11
5.1 Structural Welds ........................................................... 11
5. 1.1 Weld Size Limits.................................................... 115.1.2 Flare Bevel Groove Welds ............................................. 115.1.3 Skewed Connections................................................. 125.1.4 Tack Welds ........................................................ 13
5.2 Pipe Welds ............................................................... 13
5.2.1 Code Analysis...................................................... 135.2.2 Integral Pipe Lugs................................................... 14
6. REFERENCES................................................................ 16
(NOTE: Appendixes A through F to this report are presented on microfiche attached to theinside back cover.)
APPENDIX A-WELD ANALYSIS PROGRAM (WAP) ................................. A-lI
APPENDIX B-SUITABILITY FOR SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR TVA CATEGORY IAND I(L) PIPING AT WBNP-1.................................................. B-i
APPENDIX C-ASME CODE INQUIRY N186-047...................................... C-I
APPENDIX D-ANALYSIS OF INTEGRAL PIPE ATTACHMENTS ....................... D-1
APPENDIX E-APPLICABLE DOE WELD EVALUATION PROJECT STANDARDPRACTICES ................................................................. E-1
APPENDIX F-SUITABILITY FOR SERVICE EVALUATION RELEVANTCOMMUNICATIONS .................................................... F-
FIGURES
1. Weld evaluation program assessment and disposition showing SSEE interfacingfunctions (heavy lines) with other DOE/WEP activities ............................... 3
2. Suitability for service evaluation engineering concurrence process ....................... 4
3. Suitability for service summary sheet, Form 324 ..................................... 9
4. Typical skewed T-joint.............. ............................................. 12
TABLES
1. Weld attributes assessed by visual inspection ......................................... 5
2. Applicable TVA design criteria for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit I ..................... 7
ACRONYMS
AC
AD
AISC
ANSI
ASME
AWS
CA
CAP
CM
DOE/WEP
DR
FSAR
LOF
LOP
NA
NDE
USNRC
NX
PAC
PSDM
SFS
SP
SSEE
SVS
TVA
VWAC
WAP
WBNP-1
WEP
As Constructed
As Designed
American Institute of Steel Construction
American National Standards Institute
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
American Welding Society
Corrective Action
Corrective Action Plan
Configuration Management
Department of Energy/Weld Evaluation Project
Deviation Report
Final Safety Analysis Report
Lack of Fusion
Lack of Penetration
Not Applicable
Nondestructive Examination
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ASME Code Sections NB, NC and ND
Project Administration and Control
Piping System Design Manual
Suitability for Service
Standard Practice
Suitability for Service Evaluation Engineering
Support Variance Sheet
Tennessee Valley Authority
Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria
Weld Analysis Program (a computer code)
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1
Weld Evaluation Project
WELD EVALUATION PROJECTSUITABILITY FOR SERVICE EVALUATION
ENGINEERING PROCESS
1. INTRODUCTION
The United States Department of Energy/WeldEvaluation Project (DOE/WEP) was formed inDecember 1985 as the result of an interagencyagreement between the DOE and the TennesseeValley Authority (TVA) to provide the TVA with anindependent assessment of the quality of safety-related welding performed by the TVA during con-struction of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1(WBNP-1). The DOE/WEP was conducted byEG&G Idaho, Inc., as contractor to the DOE.
The specific objectives of the DOE/WEP wereto:
1. Assess compliance of the TVA's docu-mented weld program to the requirementsin the WBNP Final Safety Analysis Report(FSAR) 1 and amendments throughFebruary 1, 1986.
2. Assess the applicable TVA employee con-cerns (ECs) and quality documents todetermine if they identify quality problemswith the TVA-performed, safety-relatedwelds.
3. Evaluate the TVAs as-constructed plantweld status by conducting an examinationof the plant welds, evaluating the results,and when deviationsa were determined tobe unacceptable, analyzing and concur-ring with the TVA's corrective action pro-posals for these deviations.
4. Provide the TVA with a statement of thecompliance of the plant welds with appli-cable construction welding codes.
a. Deviation or deviant weld denotes a condition that does notmeet the applicable code inspection acceptance criteria for theweldment specified by the engineer. These terms are used beforean evaluation of the condition has been performed in accord-ance with other applicable code provisions to determine theacceptability of the condition.
This report is one of ten reports describing theplan, processes, implementation, and results ofthe DOE/WEP at the WBNP-1. The assessmentto meet Objective 1 was accomplished with thecompletion of the report, "Weld ProgramReview." 2 The other eight reports are listed asReferences-3 through 10. In addition to the WeldProgram Review cited above, these reports deline-ate: the program organization and work scope,the formation of homogeneous groupings ofwelds, the formation of the weld/component database, the data bases for weld reinspection resultsand status reports, the processes of componentinspection and examination, and the generic prob-lem analysis of deviations found during the exami-nations, an aggregate assessment of weldreinspection results, and a final summary.
This report describes the purpose and functionof the suitability for service evaluation processapplied by the DOE/WEP in meeting programobjectives.
Section 2 presents the technical approach usedby the DOE/WEP. The project interfaces are dis-cussed in Section 3, and the review process is pre-sented in Section 4. Section 5 discusses the weldevaluation methodology, and the conclusions aregiven in Section 6. Appendix A contains thecomputer program [Weld Analysis Program(WAP)] developed by the DOE/WEP for evaluat-ing stresses for any weld geometry. Appendix Bpresents the criteria used for determining if theAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineers(ASME) components demonstrate complianceswith the Code. The ASME Code Inquiry is con-tained in Appendix C; Appendix D contains ananalysis of integral pipe attachments;Appendix E contains the WEP standard practicesapplicable to examination and acceptance criteria;and Appendix F contains suitability of servicerelevant communications.
2. TECHNICAL APPROACH
The assessment of TVA's as-constructed plantwelds involved evaluating the suitability for serviceof weld conditions that could potentially jeopard-ize the safety function of a component. The Suit-ability For Service Evaluation Engineering (SSEE)section of the DOE/WEP was responsible for con-firming the suitability for service status of weldsfound to contain deviant attributes. Specifically,SSEE performed a review function to ensure thatengineering evaluations of deviant welds completedby the TVA were correct.
A deviant weld was considered "suitable for serv-ice" (SES) when it could be demonstrated byappropriate evaluations to be in compliance. withthe applicable code requirements committed to inthe FSAR. Governing regulations for the construc-tion of nuclear power plants do not mandate dem-onstration of error free construction. 11 Assurancemust be provided that the as-built facility can beoperated without endangering the public healthand safety. Compliance with relevant codes pro-vides sufficient assurance that the facility will hesafe to operate.
The basis for disposition of deviant welds isunchanged from the requirements of the originalacceptance criteria of the codes and standards com-mitted to by the TVA in the FSAR. The SFS evalua-tion demonstrated that the design containedsufficient conservatism to account for the deviantconditions. If suitability for service could not beestablished, corrective action for the deviant com-ponent was required.
The traditional approach to the development ofweld acceptance criteria by the majority of the cur-rent codes and standards has been one of establish-ing size and extent limits from a workmanshipstandpoint. The codes and standards provide gen-eral conditions intended to cover any situation,blanketing a broad range of users. They are written
to deal with the aesthetic aspects of workmanshipas well as function, and avoid the time and costsassociated with a rigorous engineering evaluation.The American Welding Society 12 (AWS), for exam-ple, states that "The fundamental premise of theCode is to provide general stipulations adequate tocover any situation. .. alternate acceptance criteriacan be based upon evaluation of suitability-for-service using past experience, experimental evi-dence or engineering analysis. . .. " Conformanceto codes provides assurance that safe operation canbe attained. The application of alternate accept-ance criteria, as allowed by the relevant code, doesnot mean that performance and safety have beenjeopardized.
The technical approach taken by the DOE/WEPaccepted the TVA use-as-is disposition of weldsfound deviant from inspection criteria, if a reviewof an appropriate TVA engineering evaluationdemonstrated compliance of the welds with theapplicable code requirements. Design requirementsthat were initially imposed on weld quality atWBNP-1 provide a generally conservative basis forassessment, but in some cases are more conserva-tive than necessary to assure performance and safeoperation. Allowance exists within the originalcodes and quality assurance program requirementsfor use-as-is dispositioning of certain deviant con-ditions based on a demonstration of codecompliance.
Where the engineering evaluation was a stressanalysis accounting for a deviant condition, thecalculated stresses were required to satisfy the stresscriteria of the applicable design code as specified inthe WBNP-lI FSAR. Any welds that were found notmeeting these requirements were identified for cor-rective action to bring the component into compli-ance with the requirements of the original codesand standards.
3. PROJECT INTERFACES
The SSEE's function in the DOE/WEP is illus-trated in Figure 1. Following weld inspection, dis-crepant weld conditions were reported to TVA ondeviation reports. An engineering evaluation,which may have included documentation review,
Figure 1. Weld evaluation program assessment anddisposition showing SSEE interfacingfunctions (heavy lines) with otherDOE/WEP activities.
detailed analysis, or experimental verification wasperformed by TVA using applicable codes andstandards. Upon completion of the TVA evalua-tion, the documented effort was transmitted toSSEE where the SFS independent review processbegan.
The SFS evaluation review procedure is definedin Standard Practice (SP) WEP 3 .3.1 .a All evalua-tion packages received from the TVA were reviewedto the detail necessary to substantiate TVA SFSconclusions. Stresses in welds were reviewed todetermine if they had been correctly calculated andcompared to the applicable code allowables.
When concurrence was reached with TVA engi-neering evaluations and SSEE was satisfied that thecorrect SFS conclusion for the discrepant weld hadbeen made, the approved evaluation package wastransmitted to the DOE/WEP Configuration Man-agement (CM) for storage. Results were reported(as shown in Figure 1) for generic problem analy-sis, project procedures, corrective action, andgroup acceptance, as appropriate. 10
Section 4 of this report contains a detaileddescription of the SSEE review and concurrenceprocess. A discussion of specific design consider-ations for various weld types found at WBNP-1 iscontained in Section 5.
a. The DOE/WEP Standard Practices Manual is a compila-tion of more than 60 written procedures adopted to delineateresponsibilities and practices for accomplishing DOE/WEPfunctions and activities. The SP WEP 3.3.1, "Suitability-For-Service Evaluation Review," provides guidelines for performingreview of the TVA suitability for service evaluations of deficientwelds and is included in Appendix E of this report.
4. SSEE REVIEW PROCESS
The review process, as applied to the TVA pro-posed dispositioning of deviant welds, representsan independent assessment of the engineeringparameters controlling the affected component.The review function, defined in DOE/WEPSP WEP 3.3.1 and illustrated in Figure 2, consistsof a comprehensive evaluation of the solutionmethodology and engineering applied by the TVAto assess the deviant welds. In addition, a reviewwas made of the dispositioning of the deviationsbased on the evaluation results and criteria fromthe applicable codes and standards. Componentsfound unacceptable for service and not in compli-ance with applicable codes required correctiveaction by the TVA with concurrence by theDOE/WEP.
4.1 Evaluation
The review of the TVA engineering evaluationincluded all areas relating to design of the affectedcomponent required to ensure no loss of neededfunction and conformance to the applicable codesand standards. As a minimum, areas of review con-sisted of confirming proper methodology, correct
Figure 2. Suitability for service evaluation engineeringconcurrence process.
geometry, loads and load combinations, accuratedetermination of stresses and correct application ofcode criteria. Engineering parameters required forweld evaluations not identified as a result of theDOF/WEP inspection were obtained from theTVA design documentation.
Component configuration and weld geometrywere verified. Data used in the evaluation werereviewed to establish that they were in accordancewith pertinent drawings and any field conditionsreported by the DOE/WEP insp' ector. When calcu-lations were based on geometries found to be inconflict with design or as-built conditions, all rele-vant dimensions were verified in the field.
Verification of the magnitude of design loadswas outside the scope of the DOE/WEP. Loadsderived by the TVA for the purposes of originaldesign were assumed to be correct when theyappeared reasonable for all required load combina-tions and when the source of the loading was identi-fied. For those cases where load paths within agiven component changed as a result of the discrep-ant weld condition or where new design loads werederived using analysis, all related calculations andSFS conclusions were confirmed by theDOF/WEP.
Actual loads based on as-constructed field con-ditions were often determined to be significantlylower than original design loads that were gener-ated using conservative procedures that improveddesign efficiency by bounding a range of variables.The use of actual loads for the evaluation of devi-ant conditions was acceptable when the loads weredetermined accurately and consistent with originalFSAR requirements.
The review verified that all reported weld defi-ciencies for attributes specified in the assessmentplan,4 had been accounted for in the evaluation.Table 1 lists those weld attributes that wereassessed by visual inspection. Each attributereported as affecting weld quality was addressed ina manner consistent with sound engineering prac-tice. Reducing the effective weld size and neglectingthe deviant weld areas was an acceptable method ofdetermining the load resisting weld properties.
The TVA proposed use-as-is dispositions wereacceptable for certain deviant attributes that haveno effect on weld function. Weld spatter, arcstrikes, porosity, and crater cracks were acceptable
. Table 1. Weld attributes assessed by visual inspection
Acceptance Criteriaa
Attribute
CracksOverlapUndercutLack of fusionIncomplete penetration
SlagVisible porosityWeld spatterArc strikesCoarse ripples
GroovesAbrupt ridgesValleysMinimum section thicknessTaper
Maximum offsetReinforcementFillet/Socket weld sizeWeld sizeUnderfilled craters
Weld profilesLength and locationMissing or inaccessible
ASME/ANSI
3.14.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.45.1, 5.2NANA
NANAAppendix E
AWS(NCIG-01)
a. Acceptance criteria is given in appendixes to WEP Standard Practice WEP 3.2.3, "Visual Examination Methods andAcceptance Criteria." Numbers in "ASME/ANSI" column are numbered sections in Appendix A of SP WEP 3.2.3. Numbers in"AWS (NCIG-01)" column are numbered sections in Appendix C of SP WEP 3.2.3. SP WEP 3.2.3 (with Appendixes A and C) iscontained in Appendix E of this report. Reference 6 provides a complete description of the DOE/WEP weldinspection/examination activities.
were acceptable based on the following justification.aWeld spatter has no metallurgical significance withrespect to weld function. Arc strikes that have no visu-ally detected cracking or reduction in the base materialthickness below design minimum were considered to bea welding-related condition not affecting function orquality of the weld. Porosity 1/16 in. or less in diame-ter observed in welds receiving only visual examinationwas considered as not affecting weld strength. Sus-
a. T. L. Bridges letter to K. G. Therp, "Disposition of WeldSpatter, Arc Strike, Crater Cracks, Porosity, and Overlap WeldDiscrepancies," TLB-05-86, EG&G Idaho, Inc., June 30, 1986.This communication is included in Appendix F as Exhibit 1.
pected crater cracks were confirmed by liquid penetrantexamination. If evaluation to the liquid penetrantacceptance criteria indicates that the weld(s) meet thecriteria, the weld area is acceptable.
Surface slag reported as a result of visual inspec-tion was not in itself considered to affect the staticstrength properties of a weld. The problem withsurface slag is the masking effect on other, moredetrimental weld attributes. Weld areas with sur-face slag were assumed to be a missing weld area indetermining the cross-sectional area of the weld, orthe slag was removed and the quality of the under-lying weld determined.
1.2.2.11.2.2.41.2.2.71.2.2.3NA
1.2.2.111.2.2.81.2.2.111.2.2.10NA
NANANA1.2.2.21.2.2.5
1.2.2.61.2.2.9Appendix E
Areas of overlap, lack of fusion (LOF), and lackof penetration (LOP) required consideration ofpotential propagation in addition to loss of weldarea. Overlap existing within the weld or at weldedges was considered acceptable provided fusion atthe root of the overlap could be confirmed by visualor liquid penetrant examination. The effect ofLOF/LOP on the static strength properties of theweld must be considered from the standpoint ofloss-of-cross-sectional area.
Weld size, length, location and profile are geo-metrical attributes that require an evaluation ofweld strength. Undercut generally has no effect onweld strength; however, it results in a reduction ofthickness of the base metal requiring evaluationincluding the effects of stress concentration.
Cracking, in all forms, is a deviation most detri-mental to performance. A crack, by its very nature,is sharp at its extremities and acts as a stress con-centrator. The stress concentration effect providedby cracks is greater than that of other discontinui-ties and is more intangible. In welds governed byAWS criteria, cracks may be acceptable if assessedby engineering evaluation using a rationalapproach with regard to the true influence of thecrack size, orientation, location, and potential forgrowth. Crack discontinuities may be treated with afracture mechanics approach or it may be demon-strated that crack growth will not be detrimental tothe function of the weldment. For example, a crackin one of a series of intermittent welds can beacceptable if that intermittent weld can beneglected in the strength evaluations.
Crater cracks found in the ductile materials ofAWS civil structural welds used at WBNP-l wouldnot propagate prior to yielding of the welda,l13 andwere not considered to contribute to weld failureprovided other design requirements were satisfied.Areas of weld containing crater cracks wereneglected in the development of weld strength prop-erties. Cracks, including crater type, are not per-mitted in weldments governed by the ASME Code.Cracks must be removed from ASME weldmentsand the welds repaired as required.
Inaccessible welds present a particular problem forassessment of a deviant component because their qual-ity cannot be determined. In these cases for purposesof SFS evaluations, no assumptions were made for rel-evant weld quality. When a component with deviant
a. S. J. Chang notegram to T. L. Bridges, "Safety Signifi-cance of Crater Cracks," EG&G Idaho, Inc.,November 20, 1986 (see Exhibit 2 of Appendix F).
welds was reported to also contain inaccessible welds,an SFS disposition was acceptable if the componentwas shown to meet all appropriate criteria neglectingthe inaccessible weld in its entirety.
If a deviant component failed to satisfy applica-ble criteria, presuming acceptable quality (i.e., notdeviant) for an inaccessible weld, the componentwas declared unsuitable for service. When use of aninaccessible weld was required to demonstrate SFSof a deviant component, the component wasdeclared indeterminate. Indeterminate compo-nents were removed from the group and replacedwith new components selected randomly in accord-ance with defined procedures. Deviant conditionsfound in components declared indeterminate werereported to the TVA for assessment and dispositionindependent of the DOE/WEP.
All aspects of the TVA analysis procedures usedto quantify the as-constructed (AC) and as-designed (AD) stress behavior of the weld werereviewed. Pertinent TVA design criteria documentsare listed in Table 2. The AC stresses were deter-mined for the weld in the deviant condition andwere reviewed for accuracy in establishing suitabil-ity for service. The AD stresses were used to deter-mine the effect of the deviations on weld calculatedstresses (ratio of AC/AD) for performance of rootcause and generic problem analysis. 8 Therefore,the DOE/WEP's review verified that the sameloading was used to calculate the AD stresses as wasused to determine the AC stresses. Assumptionsmade on expected behavior of the component andits various welds under load were reviewed forvalidity and consistency with standard engineeringpractice.
The behavior of the weld and component underthe postulated loading and the manner in whichthese loads were treated in conjunction with othercoexistent loads were reviewed. The effects of tor-sion and unsymmetrical bending, resulting fromchanges in the weldment centroid location, wereappraised when evaluating peak weld stresses.When a weld was reported to contain more thanone deviant attribute, it was verified that cumula-tive effects that decrease the weld load capacity hadbeen properly addressed. Independent analyseswere performed by SSEE when necessary to verifyquestionable results. A computer program devel-oped by SSEE, Weld Analysis Program (WAP),was used to confirm deviant weld stress resultsreported by the TVA (Appendix A).
Fatigue was not considered a controlling factorin the civil structural weld evaluations. Structureswhose design is governed by fatigue are those
Table 2. Applicable TVA design criteria for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1
Document
WB-DC-20-1.2
WB-DC-20-21
WB-DC-20-21.1
WB-DC-20-24
WB-DC-40-31.7
WB-DC-40-31.8
WB-DC-40-31.9
WB-DC-40-31.10
WB-DC-40-31.15
CEB-76-5
CEB-76-20
G-29C
PSDM Vol. 1-4
RAH-143
SAH-63
IssueDate
10/06/80
05/15/72
08/26/86
09/05/72
01/30/76
08/05/74
08/29/75
04/11/75
01/27/77
04/16/76
09/23/75
03/10/75
05/18/82
03/24/83
12/07/84
Revision
R6
R4
R2
R2
R7
Title
Reinforced Concrete Structural, andMiscellaneous Steel (after 07/23/79)
Miscellaneous Steel Components for SeismicClass I Structures (after 07/23/79)
Category I Cable Tray Supports
Dynamic Earthquake Analysis of Category Iand I(L) Piping Systems
Analysis of Category I and I(L) Piping Systems
Seismically Qualifying Round and RectangularDuct
Location and Design of Piping Supports andSupplemental Steel in Category I Structures
Seismically Qualifying Conduit Supports
Piping System Anchors Installed in Category IStructures
Alternate Criteria for Piping Analysis andSupport
Design Data for Rectangular Support LugAttachments to Class 2 and 3 Piping Systems
General Construction Specification
Pipe Support Design Manual
Rigorous Analysis HandbookClass 2 and 3 Analysis
Simplified Analysis HandbookClass 2 and 3 Analysis
structures for which analysis is required for cyclicservice and whose endurance limit must be consid-ered in the design. The design of civil structuralcomponents at WBNP-l are not in this cyclic serv-ice category.a Seismic response represented the gov-erning load condition for the majority ofcomponents evaluated. Fatig~e is not the control-ling design consideration for seismically loadedstructures. The evaluation of piping system weldsincluded the effects of cyclic loading by satisfyingthe ASME Code fatigue requirements.
The allowable stresses used in the evaluationwere reviewed and compared to acceptable limits asspecified in the applicable codes. Basic stress limitsare those of the American Institute of Steel Con-struction (AISC) 14 for AWS structural welds andpipe supports and American National StandardsInstitute (ANSI) B31.115 or ASME Section 11116for pipe welds. Increases in basic allowable stressesfor load combinations, including postulated acci-dent loads with normal loads, were acceptablewhen consistent with the applicable criteria docu-ments listed in Table 2.
In addition to satisfying code stress criteria anddemonstrating that reported deviant attributeswould not cause loss of needed function, all man-datory code requirements had to be satisfied beforea SFS conclusion could be made. Further discus-sion of these requirements and specific weld evalua-tion methods applied by the SSEE are presented inSection 3 of this report.
The DOE/WEP's examination/inspection ofcomponents welds for the plant general and spe-cific groups was consistent with the original inspec-tion requirements for all recreatable weldattributes. The DOE/WEP's special and expansiongroups inspections were limited to those attributesnecessary and sufficient to resolve the issue ofinterest as required by the group assessment plan. 4
For example, the assessment plan for some of theexpansion groups required only inspection of weldsize, profile, length, and location. Weld deviationsoutside of the scope of the DOE/WEP werereported to the TVA on independent discrepancyreports using a TVA form, namely, a Weld TaskGroup (WTG) Discrepancy Report. These devia-
a. J. C. Standifer memorandum to L. E. Martin "Watts BarNuclear Plant Unit 1-Weld Reinspection Program-Applicability and Justification For Using NCIG-01 R2-WeldInspection Criteria," P-104-SB-K, April 22, 1986 (see Exhibit 3in Appendix F).
tions will be trackeda analyzed, evaluated, and dis-positioned by the TVA.
4.2 Disposition
The SSEE concurrence was required for disposi-tioning of deviant weld conditions and was respon-sible for resolution of any questionable areas ofreview regarding the TVA engineering evaluationthat may have affected the final disposition. Whenportions of the analysis were unclear or when sig-nificant errors were discovered during the review,the analysis package was returned to the TVA witha description of the problem area. Package modifi-cations, as required, were performed by the TVAand returned to the SSEE for concurrence. It wasthe policy of the SSEE that minor errors discoveredin the evaluation, which did not affect the conclu-sion, could be corrected by the SSEE and noted inthe summary sheet Form WEP 324 (Figure 3).
Analysis packages that were returned to the TVA forfurther evaluation, following the SSEE review, usedForm WEP 324. Upon resolution of the evaluationissue, the SSEE approved the evaluation package andtransmitted it to the DOE/WEP Configuration Man-agement (CM) for storage. Both AC and AD stressresults were reported on Form WEP 324. The ACstresses reflect the SFS status of the weld and ADstresses were reported for root cause and generic prob-lem evaluation. The package status was furtherreported to the DOE/WEP Project Administrationand Control (PAC) organization for tracking.
When a component or group of components weredetermined to be unsuitable for the performance oftheir intended safety function or in noncompliancewith mandatory code requirements, corrective actionwas required. In response to that requirement, the TVAsubmitted a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to theDOE/WEP for concurrence in accordance with SPWEP 3.3.3,b "Review of TVA Proposed CorrectiveAction for DOE/WEP Identified Hardware and/orProgrammatic Deficiencies." The objective of theDOE/WEP concurrence review was to determine if,upon completion of the proposed CAP, the TVAwould be in compliance with the applicable coderequirements and, as appropriate, the TVAcommitments.
a. Tracking of these activities is accomplished in accordancewith the TVA WBN Administrative Instruction-AI-6. 11, "Weld-ing Evaluation Project Coordination."
b. SP WEP 3.3.3 is included in Appendix E of this report.
Form WEP 324Rev. 7/86
Page - of -SUITABILITY FOR SERVICEREVIEW SUMMARY SHEET
Analysis Package/Examination Package ID:__________________________
Weld ID Numbers of Nonconformance welds evaluated in this package:
___ Attached Analysis Package has been thoroughly reviewed and in the opinion of the reviewercontains sufficient error as to invalidate the conclusions stated as to stresses being withinCode Allowable Values.
___ Attached Analysis Package has been thoroughly reviewed and to the best of my knowledge,stresses have been correctly calculated and conclusions relative to stresses being withinCode Allowables are correctly stated.
___ Comments and/or calculations are attached to support the review conclusion. Number ofattached sheets is ___
___ Do any of the welds require corrective action___
___ Summarize weld stresses on attached Weld Summary Table in terms of percent allowable.
Name Signature Date
Reviewer:
SSEE Manager:
SSEE Manager Date
Additional Comments:
Figure 3. Suitability for service summary sheet, Form 324.
4.3 Summary
This process, which is consistent with applicablecodes, represents a valid engineering approach tothe resolution of weld discrepancies reported as a
result of the DOE/WEP conducted inspections.The process assures the proper engineeringappraisal of problem areas and provides an effec-tive means of assessing the impact of discrepancieson plant safety and the need for specific correctiveactions.
5. WELD EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
This section presents acceptable methods ofdemonstrating code compliance by engineeringevaluation of reported weld deviations for the vari-ous types of welds at WBNP-1. The basic docu-ments related to the evaluation of the reporteddeviant weld conditions of WBNP-1 include theAWS Structural Welding Code, ANSI/AWS D1.1;the AISC Manual of Steel Construction; PowerPiping, ANSI B31.1; and the ASME CodeSection III (References 12, 14, 15, and 16, respec-tively). These documents are supplemented by thedesign criteria listed in Table 2.
5.1 Structural Welds
The Structural Welding Code, ANSI/AWSD1.1-72 Rev. 2, 1974, was the controlling docu-ment for the welding of structures at the WBNP-1.This code covers welding requirements and is usedin conjunction with a complementary code or spec-ification for the design and construction of steelstructures. The AWS Code does not, in general,deal with such design concerns as loading and thecomputation of stresses in members and their con-nections. Such considerations are assumed to becovered elsewhere and at the WBNP-1 the 7thEdition AISC Manual 14 was the governing specifi-cation, supplemented with the numerous criteriadocuments listed in Table 2. As an exception, theAWS Code does provide allowable stresses in weldsfor building and tubular structures, which are con-sistent with the AISC code.
The AWS Code provides acceptance criteria forvisual inspection of structural welds that is in somecases more stringent than the visual weld accept-ance criteria (VWAC) 17 utilized by the DOE/WEPThe use of VWAC meets the code in accordancewith the provisions regarding alternate acceptancecriteria. In addition, the VWAC has been approvedby the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion (USNRC) as a "technically acceptableapproach for visual inspection of structural weld-ments of nuclear power plants that are under thepurview of American Welding Society StandardD1.1 or other non-ASME class structures."a ThusVWAC represents an acceptable way to verify that
a. J. P. Knight letter to D. E. Dutton, "Visual Weld AcceptanceCriteria for Structural Welding at Nuclear Power Plants(VWAC)," Revision 2, June 26, 1985. This letter is included inAppendix F as Exhibit 4.
the visual inspection requirements of the AWS havebeen met. Use of the AISC design techniques andallowable stresses with the VWAC inspection crite-ria does not compromise commitment to or com-pliance with the AWS code.
The general approach to the analysis of deviantweld conditions was to neglect those areas of weldreported to contain unacceptable attributes anddemonstrate that the remaining weld could satisfycode stress criteria for all loading conditions. Anoverstressed weld within a component was not con-sidered to affect suitability for service of the com-ponent when the stresses in all remaining membersand welds of the component were determined to bebelow design allowables assuming failure of theoverstressed weld. This approach requires that suf-ficient conservatism exists in the original design toaccept the deviant conditions.
5.1.1 Weld Size Limits. The AISC Manual hasspecific requirements on the design minimum sizeof welds (AISC Manual Tables 1.17.2A and1.17.2B). Minimum size fillet welds vary from1/8 in. leg size for 1/4 in. or less thickness of mate-rial up to 5/16 in. leg size for material over 3/4 in.in thickness. Minimum size partial-penetrationgroove welds vary from 1/8 in. effective throat for1/4 in. or less material thickness up to 5/8 in.effective throat for materials over 6 in. in thick-ness. The 1/8 in. represents the smallest practicaldesign weld size.
The AISC minimum size requirements are designrequirements. Welds not satisfying these require-ments, reported as a result of the DOE/WEPinspection, could be found acceptable by validengineering analysis. The analyses used the actualweld dimensions and showed compliance withAISC weld stress limits. This was acceptable prac-tice provided all other weld attributes were ofacceptable quality.
5.1.2 Flare Bevel Groove Welds. The TVAdesign drawings called for flare bevel groove weldsagainst the curved edges of tubular structures andunistruts when welded to adjacent surfaces or toeach other. The effective throat of these welds isdependent upon the depth of penetration of weldmetal into the groove that may be limited by theradius of the bevel.
A criterion is required to determine the effectivethroat because the penetration depth cannot be
easily measured in the field, nor can full groovedepth penetration be assured for all bevel radii. The
7th Edition of the AISC Manual, which is the
design code of record, does not provide criteria for
establishing the effective throat of flare bevel
groove welds. The 8th Edition AISC (1980) code
recommends determining the effective throat of
flare bevel groove welds by multiplying the flare
radius by 5/16. Larger effective throats than those
obtained from this calculation are permitted when
the fabricator can establish, by qualification, that
he can consistently provide such larger effectivethroats.
For flare bevel penetration welds associated with
tube steel components, the TVA design criteria
were based on a qualification approach. Criteria
contained in the TVA design documentation Piping
System Design Manual (PSDM) Volume 3 treats
the weld as a fillet weld with a maximum effective
leg size equivalent to the thickness of the tube steel.
This approach was acceptable to the SSEE as satis-
fying AISC Code requirements for the WBNP-1
tube steel structures.For P 1000 and P1001A unistrut connections, the
design of the flare bevel weld is based on the TVA
Mechanical Hanger Drawing Note 64 which states:
"Where a 1/8 in. fillet weld is called for
against the curved surface of P1000 and
P1001A unistrut, a minimum correspondingamount of groove weld is to be substituted,
optional 1/4 in. fillet maximum."
The TVA interprets this note to mean that a flush
flare bevel groove weld satisfies the design require-ment for a weld equivalent to a 1/8 in. fillet.
The AWS D1. 1-72 code does not provide design
criteria for establishing the effective throat of flare
bevel groove welds and the AISC design criteria is
not applicable to material thicknesses less than
1/8 in. Alternate criteria must be applied to the
evaluation of flare bevel welds on the 0.105-in.
thick unistrut. As recommended by later editions
of AWS D1.1, the requirements of AWS D1.3,
Structural Welding Code-Sheet Steel, 18 are
appropriate. The allowable load capacity of flare
bevel groove welds per this standard is considered
to be governed by the thickness of the sheet steel
adjacent to the weld with the stipulation that an
effective throat at least equal to the thickness of the
sheet material is consistently obtained. This would
be established by qualification tests.Qualification testing of unistrut flare bevel welds
was performed by the TVA to demonstrate the
strength of the welds and to establish the effectiveweld throat.a Although the results of these tests did
not support the TVA interpretation of Note 64 as
stated above, a basis was provided from which to
evaluate deviant conditions. Suitability for service
evaluations based on the qualification test resultswere considered by the SSEE to be acceptable andin compliance with the code.
5.1.3 Skewed Connections. Skewed T-joints
(see Figure 4) in civil structures at WBNP-1 were
Legend:
A- Dihedral angleB- Weld leg sizeC - Weld throat
Figure 4. Typical skewed T-joint.
designed with fillet and partial penetration welds or
both at the toe and heel of the skewed jointsdepending upon the dihedral angle of the skew. The
evaluation of these connections was performed in
one of two ways: (a) in accordance with Watts Bar
Design Criteriab when the fillet weld all-aroundsymbol was specified by design or (b) in accord-ance with the TVA Pipe Support Design Manual
when individual fillet weld symbols were specified.
The fillet weld symbol is often used to call out the
partial penetration weld on the heel side of connec-
tions with dihedral angles less than 60 degrees. A
penalty on the effective throat size of partial
a. R. C. Weir memorandum to C. G. Lundin, "Watts BarNuclear Plant (WBNP)-Weld Tests-Unistrut P-1000 Mate-rial," Tennessee Valley Authority RIMS No. B45 870511 254,May 11, 1987 (see Exhibit 5 in Appendix F).
b. Watts Bar Design Criteria, "Location and Design of PipingSupports and Supplemental Steel in Category I Structures,"WB-DC-40-31.9, TVA, August 29, 1975.
8.3013
I B
A-"'
Bt
penetration groove welds, governed by the dihedralangle, was accounted for in the evaluation.
Paragraph 7.15.7.3 of the TVA Pipe SupportDesign Manual defines the weld symbols appliedby the TVA design and describes the intended weldgeometries and dimensions. Because groove weldsare called out as fillet welds, the evaluation of weldstresses must be performed with a thorough under-standing of the design weld symbols and their rela-tionship to weld dimensions determined frominspection. For example, the weld size symbol, S,used by the TVA design on a skewed T-joint withdihedral angle less than 60 degrees is intended toachieve an effective throat equivalent to that of a90 degree fillet weld of leg size S (leg size Simplies effective throat = 0.707S). The welddimension, reported as a result of the DOE/WEPinspection, is the leg size corresponding to theactual measured effective throat size. When evalu-ating deviations from design, the actual effectivethroat obtained in the field must be compared tothe intended design effective throat, not weld legsize.
5.1.4 Tack Welds. Tack welds used as load resist-ing welds were unacceptable . Tack welds onlyrequired to maintain position during installationand not required to transmit load or maintain posi-tion after installation were acceptable. A tack weldrequired to maintain component position duringplant operation was considered load resisting andunacceptable.
5.2 Pipe Welds
Section III of the ASME Code was the govern-ing document for the design, fabrication, andinspection of nuclear piping systems at the WBNP-1. Requirements for nonnuclear power piping weregoverned by the ANSI B31.1 Code.1 5
The ASME Code of record at the WBNP-1, iden-tified in the FSAR, is the 1971 edition includingAddenda through the Summer 1973 edition. The1973 edition of ANSI B31.1 is also noted in theFSAR. The WBNP Design Criteria WB-DC-40-31. 7 a contains the general piping analysis criteriafor piping systems that serve a safety-related func-tion or can affect the function of a safety-relatedsystem. As stated in that criteria, piping systemsrequiring analysis are analyzed to the methods
a. Watts Bar Design Criteria, "Analysis of Category I and I(L)Piping Systems," WB-DC-40-31.7, TVA, January 30 1976.
specified in the ASME Code for either Class 1 orClass 2. Systems classified as B31.1 and requiringanalysis are evaluated to the ASME Code Class 2criteria.
5.2.1 Code Analysis. An engineering evaluationof each piping weld identified by the DOE/WEP asnot satisfying the provisions of Article NX-4000,Section III, of the ASME Code was made to deter-mine whether the affected component will still sat-isfy all the design criteria of Article NX-3000. Anacceptable analysis must include consideration ofthe original design conditions as well as the alteredconditions resulting from the particular deviation.Specifically, the design evaluations must satisfyNB/NC-3100 "General Design," NB/NC-3640"Pressure Design of Piping Products," and NB/NC-3650 "Analysis of Piping Systems" as appro-priate for the class of pipe.
The acceptable approach for satisfying thedesign requirements of NX-3000 of the Code forreported deviant weld conditions is detailed inAppendix B. The analysis procedure consists ofsatisfying the pressure design requirements of NX-3640 using the reduced wall thickness conditioncaused by the deviation and accounting for anystress raisers that could increase the membranestress. Additionally, the piping system analysisrequirements of Subarticle NX-3650, using all rele-vant design loadings, must be satisfied. Code stressequations must be modified to account for anychange in section wall thickness or cross-sectionalmodulus. The deviant condition stress intensifica-tion factor (SIF) or stress indices (B, C, K), asappropriate to the class of pipe, must be consideredin the Code equations.
Section III of the ASME Code does not allowthe use of engineering evaluation for the accept-ance of Code components found in noncomplianceof Article NX-5000, Examination. For weldsdesigned in accordance with Section III of theASME Code to be considered acceptable, alldesign, fabrication, and examination requirementsmust be satisfied. However, minor local deviationsfrom the workmanship standards for welded jointsin Section III components and pipe systems, givenin Subarticle NX-4420, may exist without compro-mising Code compliance- In accordance with arecently submitted and approved Code Inquiry(Appendix C), minor local deviations from the pro-visions of NX-4420 may be acceptable if it is dem-onstrated that existing conditions satisfy the designcriteria of Article NX-3000. Weld deviations thatmay be evaluated for Code compliance by
satisfying the criteria of Article NX-3000 are sur-face conditions such as undercut, minimum taper,minimum section thickness, maximum offset,maximum reinforcement and fillet and socket weldsize.
Visually detected porosity smaller than 1/ 16 in.in diameter was considered as not affecting suit-ability for service. This is consistent with ASMErounded indication acceptance criteria. Arc strikesand surface spatter are not addressed by ASMECode requirements and are therefore not rejectable.Arc strikes, with no associated cracking or viola-tion of minimum wall thickness requirements, werenot considered to affect suitability for service. Sur-face slag, which could mask other indications, isrejectable by NX-5000 and must be removed.
Deviant weld conditions, reported in piping sys-tems designed to the ANSI B331.1 Code, may bedetermined suitable for service when the stressrequirements of ASME Code Article NX-3000 aresatisfied, clearly accounting for all the effects ofthe deviant condition. The use of engineering eval-uation for the acceptance of B331.1 welding doesnot violate commitment to that Code when theapproach demonstrates the use of valid engineeringprinciples.
5.2.2 Integral Pipe Lugs. Integral type pipe sup-port lug attachments on ASME and ANSI B331.1code designed pipe systems at the WBNP-1 wereinspected/examined per DOE/WEP SPWEP 3.2.3. Lug attachments are made integralwith the pipe by being welded to it using a full pene-tration or fillet type weld.
Numerous pipe lugs were reported to have inac-cessible ends because of their proximity to stops.When the quality of the weld at the ends of theselugs could not be determined because of access, thelugs were conservatively evaluated neglecting 20%
of the lug length, in addition to accounting for allother reported deviations.
When evaluating the effects of weld deviationson lug and weld stresses for acceptance to Codecriteria, consideration must be given to stressesinduced in the pipe by the lug. As stated in ASMECode Section III Article NC-3645, the attachmentmust not cause flattening of the pipe or excessivelocalized bending or thermal stresses. Lug inducedpipe stresses must be added to all other designstresses when evaluating Code allowables. Stressesin the pipe are determined using an approach thatsatisfies the conditions of ASME Code CaseN-318-3a and accounts for the reported deviations.This Code case has provisions for both fillet andfull penetration welds. For the fillet weld design,the lug-to-pipe weld stress must be evaluated inaddition to the lug-induced pipe stress. Reducingthe lug size to account for weld defects is a conserv-ative means of evaluating the lug-induced pipestress and a realistic means of evaluating the weldstress.
A detailed procedure for accomplishing such anevaluation is contained in Appendix D. This evalu-ation will provide adequate justification that thepiping and lug will perform its intended safetyfunction for all design loading conditions withoutcompromising the pipe pressure boundary. Thisprocedure is applicable for all ANSI B31.1 pipingintegral lug weld deviations. It is not currentlyASME Code approved for weld deviations notmeeting the examination requirements ofArticle NX-5000. Components with these devia-tions cannot be dispositioned suitable for servicewithout corrective action.
a. Cases of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, N-318-3,Approved September 5, 1985.
6. REFERENCES
1. Tennessee Valley Authority Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Final Safety Analysis Report, and amendmentsthrough February 1, 1986, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN.
2. W. H. Borter, Weld Program Review, DOE/ID-10152, December 1986.
3. S. M. Bradford, WEP Organization and Work Scope, DOE/ID-10175-1, November 1987.
4. S. M. Bradford, WEP Formation of Homogeneous Groupings of Welds, DOE/ID 10175-2, November1987.
5. J. M. Savage, WEP Weld/Component Data Base, DOE/ID-10175-7, November 1987.
6. D. A. Armour, WEP Component Inspection and Examination Process, DOE/ID-10175-4,November 1987.
7. De Lon 'H' Gardner, WEP Data Bases for Weld Reinspection Results and Status Reports, DOE/ID-10175-3, November 1987.
8. L. C. Brown, WEP Generic Problem Analysis Process, DOE/ID-10175-6, November 1987.
9. L. C. Brown and R. J. Wade, WEP Aggregate Results of Weld Assessments, DOE/ID-10175-8,November 1987.
10. F. C. Fogarty, Weld Evaluation Project Final Report, DOE/ID-JO175-9, November 1987.
11. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, Judge-ment 22 USNRC 59 (1985), ALAB-13, July 26, 1985.
12. American Welding Society, Inc., "Structural Welding Code," ANSI/AWS D1.1-86, 1986.
13. R. D. Stout and W. D. Doty, Weldability of Steels, Weld Research Council, New York, 1978.
14. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Manual of Steel Construction, 7th Edition, 1973.
15. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "Power Piping," ANSI B31.1, June 15, 1973, withSummer 1973 Addenda.
16. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power PlantComponents," ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III-Division 1, 1971 Edition withSummer 1973 Addenda.
17. Nuclear Construction Issues Group, "Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria for Structural Welding atNuclear Power Plants," NCIG-01, Rev. 2, May 7, 1985.
18. American Welding Society Inc., "Specification for Welding Sheet Steel in Structures," AWS D1.3-78,1978.
19. R. F. Reedy and W. H. Miller, "ASME Nuclear Code-Construction Turnover and Local Site Issues,"Mechanical Engineering, ASME, September 1984.
APPNDI A
WEDAAYISRGA WP
WEL ANLYI -HGA S S aAP)
* A is - a a wel anal sis prga fo ealuain stressesi arbitrary
cofgue continuou an broke 6edmn gemtis W. wa developed b
th asesmn of wel sutailt fo sevie
lod n aloa e stresses. - - -a
Wel a emer is deie by diidn th ael 4into a number of
sright-line* semns Cuve -edet ca be apprxia te an weld4 -
segments -ca be dijine fro eac oter Th coodiate of th segmen
bas mea l mate Sial ben ea.luated. Eac wel semn ma hav a-
thckes is eqa to th wel efeciv ahoa diesin Fo anlyi of
momeats of inei ar ealuat a abu th calcul ate a eto a Slouation.
By deii- od a bu th.0 .15 - ia l locatio a n efet of anS
Inaddto a o S edmn seto prpris maiu wel atese aare*--
prdue th maxmu stress a . Al stes combinatin ar oupu usn boath
alebai uan abslt summations. .-- aS -
5 @4 - a * . - a aA-3
10 1) :. --ur fo the -owti -f antewl ps /68
*0 FM : all fo i t of tL O : nu 3/08
.0 SP=tl S M : 1
70 0OM i TOISM
so CH E CIR 6 4320 3 A 6 I * A *
-3 SCE 01 S 1
*4 aM 15 5 Vo - hIZ01i i- e m
1* M MY
200 00)0M
21 M$ - "ow, q*
25 IPM NO 1: 6 1~l 66 **ý * "AO
28 IWO -' VW IM TO TAM CM * MZZW = ..
30 A$ = -N=
320 IF A$~ h -'it em O I= 330EM- 0
306 6OM N C @M M M#
34 IXQ #2.
35 n=o MM~6 aji=i S IMi *MIM? P
36 4-,
*370d' .4 i 1
38 NM "4 M
6390* l
406 t-W mi- -- a 6'M *-I Ia *
410 IF A$ w'3 KA$ 9
620 M'6
43 M lS S - * 4 -
*4 M v
45 n= 16D F "N
4 * to m -4 e.I64w . -eSo k
67 '6- N$MS MM0
5.0 O 4480
610 cm 4,-
20 M ***** SSMNE UOF6 IT
63 LI *O)St, W
64 S 4NZ #2, 0 I X- S=" el-FM II-P~
65 m IIr ram INCDmm
700 ~ IrS #2, ~ S r'i'~k
710 M MP- NZ-UM
72 M ItI
73 IR NoS PZ j1~
78 IM Ut liS ,
$3 M INIMIm 3
$40 mm #10 T . 11,
87 * A,0 a .0 ý Ma1.
NO mm #21 S
90 61 #2 u5~a M80 CD scm o
91 m i
99 m - ---------
go I 0 a *a T=, W '
WOI I fat 3
990 3 Ing qa ý s
Ioo I fat x
01 im a 95 N
102 mm -M II, C
U130 I
MO 39( I) XJ (J Wfo?
A-5
110 M
1150 IF L.1) <*0IM a
.10 **JS
117 us= " Nu, I AZi. 1r-i= uf-9. 9.U w my): a7- I
120 AXI 2#M V S 9.1.' 20~l
1210 4'~ AYU=(W l-I9. ) 2.5 12tK
126 IJ(Iw
129 IX()(A~)Al) )11
131 *. I
137 PO Iml7
141 *. I
147 I 4 4
l *s 9. ni4 4 4I
151 (946
1670 Tr -t 3 141a2
160 I - 0 tON T 0I
170 7T S. -S.41/
171 S= 170
-77 TMI 0 Vi *¾s) Iii -l+.5o/1i
178 aLM aoE I SsrFA MM CRE "SSO
a81 SCREE a i
*82 CIM c
183 I S
~ *m a"
1M5 IFAN)M I $-O W21
186 I 5Sm0 t
187 HMT#t "-8S,"-ORN ZP%
158 alI E- & S Sm~
18IS ~~IW IK 11M3 -EMM ;
*9 S X #2tII
*91 S IMA SI S 1N0
192 W--III-MMTM"
1-3 a M - 2, -
*m S S m-a *ttxiiWyes
-m W= aG *ý IN
*9 #2 rl S S¼ S
19IS *FW#2 XNmAIn~mw
2010 SIN= I a 5, 15j4 5 1
*02 IN=AS
203 NM No I b.
20a -U loa arI
2V NM 02t-U
*11 S 5 I p, S Ij IB. A O-l Am
22* SM 0 W = M'- 20nMM -O5Irý C
*13 50 a S S h¾
214 re S0 IP M a*0TW27
W* -7 Ma O RN HM29
2M Gii 2 - SSI'120V I 05 O
23.7 -A o . i s * ai hA 0
SI8 n=C M-.I Xs jXAsY~ L
225 IF.SR - YOl R-"Y7M28
228 to - I
231 cM ----- i.:
233 -M UK= a "~ (27 NP ON antalz a-
235 UM .h(18) IS-0,V
230 II M29
240 LFUI a* "mE~L4 RN y. -rft 1986
*41 *'.) If - -- - - - - - - -- - *0 A M
242 UIS h; e a- aol zm s(nM A
243 M~ - 1M ;- a..
244 - -s ;-.-, -. ., I
a45 MR r-K 00 27P h---ec 12. -~ yIn *, I Wite
240I= *INKIM(7"w'eet1 P1yitf , ufimyi
a.7 --M'M a;-O (15 1- neec I, I -rn c KWne
2520 0 6
254 MM m 0
2560 Nj 1J a --
&60* M ~p X(1Iv Yit w"XJ"mY() fWdh
2*2 I l*'
26.* PO 24* aO N --. i
I64 UK*'II),11 pgl V()vB1
260I S *3 *-- aval e .w,"A am a ae-
270 UV aI 1:11~w Y a 41 1 4 4
271 -- MM
272 -L I 6* mralm Joe3 meS"U
273 -X -a.fa IN wo l
-C
276~0 -FI Ut ToW a -,Mm a.w ."" are Y"
279 10W #2
280 MM
284 IF .4 00 Ii mh107 2) G-
280 41 A
2890 I0W b1#20l IC 0I. 'Il ' *
293 LF 0 -. -. ' .-
2940 UTM0 Toaa.-"So am -. -h am .
2980 M)
290 IF 40W 0 AM I 40 0 0 A 40 I~ 0 Mp 321
3000 *'10W Em,.. i led-win61 I
3050 '*0 w o
30* I R *10 0, #.## .4N~ * bT
300 T m -- + +- 4 401 .. i A Ml
00 4P~f 40 0nd to 40'nt : 0 ea e
332 LWW N Of 0 f0
313 *4i 5:4, * -*.## "M W.
310 000 0
310 CMAff.
310 *L0, 0l Fa N*NwXa faYac r -a
40 IS D Iat . a r
320 M.0 #2.,
324 us=
324 X-I 6 *O0O
327 UIIt= *##### ANtIf
3M -. JXM eI..*M :~s-,
3M M1 UK =$ -.)o NOT Si'. 0>- -M I MOM 0
3300~ rnM ="fME=0ym"I NNN
3320 mm
330 SRE
340I B I)= iM 392
345 37e PM - S W X
340 -- -
349 0x 1i
350 77 MW-IM A).A
350 :5
355 4) mU* M/2 II*W *ITb *
359 FM A SM &M to th I I r op-~ulszx&
3600 L .~ . 4 4
363 CUMP(06(./2
360 374 IM0Me PN0TM30
366 IF 5 R OM. 3720 b'*
372 am 0ý 0
373 OM 3M*ai-p
3740 4- I-54- 5
3750 ~ i*
370T(JOmII26YI4I2
377 UC.I,Q 111 S-O 2S A4B
3780,4 I
37",, *
38W 4*4
381 N* x
382 I *~e -,
3 * -m it S~
3850 MM M
380 1FM CI2,1
380IM #2o USI hi).### "TO (,)jI12,A~o)TI12
3880~ ~ ~~~' hi) '4T~,I) W7 W- NT~~
3920 Ex0 II oo~
3930 NW I
39:0 5 to o S
MOI IF OW0 M42
4000 1 1-
*040 WJ I ' 4 0 tL 10010
*05 SR OBW1'0000
4070 :2R7 a :z' 4 0 00
409 :2'- a :- A U/0000
400 ARM .= W(MWA*0 0000
*11 :' -- ANW10000
4 P 0 M* # -i 0### N;' t .21'.#AM
410 ''II '2,W W 0 2r
417 FEWI #2#U I r #.# ## ' 4 ' 1 :2 ' :2 ' 4
418 #I08 - S F.:: JIWO
400 -K #2IU #.### r >S J>' JrJ :2'
420 LEM
I230IIMP=
424 20M I
427 MM ,- 0
420 10~2 0'2
*i1 tM0
4320 2>' =R8M 30 EM "S
450 0. a 0(4pL
I4310 1'. GOaO i0 a""2 30 E. p 4430
437 - e h dti i ý wt II a1.io a -
400 w $mV
441 tag
442 3 M - NW'
443 *R *JOf V r I
4480 W) -- 0SB MMT IiM 0w 0A~ hi9 4M mbu
450*ct - I *J;)FC M R IE ~451 S.R C - C1000o*0000-u
4 *2 4,N 34336300
453 433 = 3S000000
*54 4' m S000000
*55 43 .3,,,,,
45 I=~ 011 C EMI= ODS"c m
457 Y34 ) *S-4 *0I ( I) ,s J ~ ~ 0 *5 0
*58 5j~)- Wl
459 AF AX()>XR M X-X I
-62 IF U l > A' biL 4' - (I
463 IF A (' hi) <' Amm m-X I
466 AF il hi) <l AMTMY 3~)
470 4rCT~ w4 -4 U (NR ' X431 2
471 040C 53 20 ' /4W33
472 -A~ a4 4 0M0
47U4 40 adS=.6* X *i 2.4 0462m PO
*75 4*C =06; M
47* 4. I 4 I TOC
*80 IF~ I() 0U 40 4:'*p 4w it edsw f
480MI X + X2 + 4O + %4ad
482 3X~l a= 5 ~l R * RX )4 +32
-" 5I~l jw) 5YNI --E *3 4PP A - o
485 r.-I =n ( (I --M n o
4860 FM M
491 M - -- - .
49' 3M 7= 4w V=PO 4 A m
497 IFTiX>3 M =-1
090PR 70 TC
499 XP6 4? I~ * 4F *M 6
*00 6 3 i-e bi)n - 6XX 2
50* YSZ 4? 18 4 I * 04 MI 8 I
531 IF 4M < 196W1 13
516 OW or -
517 UK SI3,78J
518 Pi o
519 S r .NW TM53
*21 *F4* *r+ Scl:Itc-Ii.
524 OKW 4V$+ 6o :Itc 0i.
5260 IF ICI6 > 0 S 7M 337 ICE= M i
530 IF r$=or ý S
531 IF w$ a;"".41 37
532 OM 130,
wo I=~~>O
543 IF G$ a MM- 6
560 II l r ýr
*4 M 7M is ' = m6 Mra a
549 F -- - - - - - - -------- - - - -
650 *jlea
A.1
552 4i I I TO
555 s~Iau * ,J (,... ... -
5560 CU sumi-.- q '*
557 LPS 46 *,27 *. A. Itu en.~
550 L WQ (5 mlc m9sdpitfr1 rne
559 9%M"at M "Tm:" M ie rpt ;$"otu
56 9 M 002)4J trnofg
5610 LOM b9CIM@19. IPM. 11-DM A,~ NE; PAGE
5620 .,-
563 * R-a .I :
*68 ,CFB - -6 B(I - h; /2
572 W*M m6 9(), CC1 31462+ R )* 4~
577 X3 - -'- -XO
58 *I=YX() -*01F
581 Y2/ .0 * PI - Y '56
5820 Y3 9= 4- +YM
583 Y4 a/ .Nl +* 94 4F
5140 M.) *Om= I i v9 ( S
S9M
592 M2... M 9 P O MC M
-sm + )M -. *i9 X= + 2
.3 9 M "M2 92 19.4 w0 mom 0
GM9.9 C) 0.0 M 0.0a0AN9IMm ý G
.609 *M - : T 0 30STE 90S j~
.610 a i S %Sr a 0 - A -
6- MM 5T&W Srbf th da anl
-12 aM ar - S7 2S
613 .- W .0 as S -CE
-140 MON' SBM;U"'po iyotwpit
-150 MW~ DO
-1 0 NEW D r
-170 mum Sm h k nl
* 90 IC 4 4.I TO 0
-20 5ZP win (I -) *XP 500
-210 I X(X - )M * X M +32
*22 sIP "M iM - YEW * 4= 1
-23 4JP roZ-0 (M I 5- YEh; * TF= S
624 M.0
625 Um ME:, or M14< 5 D
62- Nw
CAEOYI an I(L PIIN AT.N
B-1
APENI B
CAEGR I(L IIGATWTSM
I - INROUCIO
copnn wil stl satif al th deig crtr a of Aril N-N30
Secio II of ah AECd osntalwteueoalentv accep-
anc crieri bae on .utblt-o-ev * In patclr. h 91Cd
N*8 ' hoevr Iniae tha mio lo.a deitin ca be acepe under
*Th ter *S Cod a .use heenrfr.oScinIIo h SEB~
and .re ..reVesel.... af 1. Spcii edtosoa h oeaeietfe
- . 9 . .9 . a gg 2
th Cod ru e pr vi e the ex m n t o re u re e t of Ar ic e N N-0 hav
reea as follows:
NX 90. 499Cd -tmedcmoet ndppn ytm
ar evlae an It is deemie tha mio lc lasei
readn wel sufae T N - 2) wel reinorcmen
eN - 2) or siz and shp of weld (.) and th N
cetiict hode ca deosrt that the exstn condi-
tion In th wel met th deig prvsin ofN 00 n
it is shw tha the acetac crtei ofN -00hv
bee *et doe this deosrt copiac wit th roi
sin of Seto III?.. 9 *
Rely Yes."* 99
Ou prmr ob et v is th rfoe to sh wt a roel9xcte utb
9.-orS r c eniern evl ato fo sp cii deitos Identified
laer deosrt compianc wit th deig prvsi n of Arice NC/D9
Thi appoac is cosstn wit Cod Poic as fomlzdbytefl
loin poito st . 9. 9
"Th Bor on Nucea Coe9. tnad eog f htteBle
and Prssr Vese Coe Seto 111 doe not no oI Intne
to, adrs all siutin 99ic mih Cs uig iecn mc
* I * * . .3
(f) Cod Edtos Aded (icudn th us o spcfc rvisin
of Edtin or Adens pemte by (b or (c abv] n Cssue
shl be reiee by th Owe or hi deige fo acepailt to
th reuatr an enocmn auhrte hain juisito at the
nula pln site*" I I . I~
Th wel devaton cnidered heeae hs Idetfe by viua exaina
tio prcdue in WP StnadPatc .. ,Apni 6 inld gudect
coarse~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ripegovs butrdemniu aemnmmscintik
nes maiu ofset maiu reifocemnt an fille or soke wel i
I an It ppn corsodn toA Cls2an3adAN I B31. pipn is
codes Int Seto III A 11197 ad)w th firs ope*eiino
th Cod to ful Inoprt deinrlsfr ohCas2ad ls ula
piig hsewcotid In Arice .C30 an ND0, rsetiey
Sic 197 the MC-60 an .30 einaayi ulshv enIetcl
Prisio to we th 197 Cod bai rahe thnte17CdfRcr
is gie by Sup.gab .5140f an (g 17Sd)whc -dd
a - - .a I' - - a4
Th s pa a rah no onl giv pe m si n t sah 97 d t o n t ed sg
anly i bais but in ef et als i ep ri s o to qa l f th.W t s a
WE i i g wl -d vati n to th dei n rq i e e t f C30 1 7 d ) a
ar e " an as lon as "th en o c m n au h r t e ag e tha th a ce ta c
cri era ar no es rs rci et an f r e e u rmns
3. aUTBLT-FRSVC ANALYSI
To be ful cosst n wit the orgi a deinbss nacetbeaay
si ms inld cosd rt o of th oi nald sg co it ns a wel sth
atrd cn iti n eutn fro th pariua deiain Sp cfial the
N 311ietfe th lodnstat t be cnie d. Itra d asflos
(b Wegh of t copnn and ral cotet
(c ueroe lad*S
no xedth aiu alwbe srs au
saife fo th a i u wal thickes Idetfe In ah aeinSeiiain
a min 0.o6 .1 5 tn n - .7 o
brnesres If t wel dvatio Isat a brnc concion th enfre
ment ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -reurmnso C34 ls edt ecokdfr h eue altik
inest limi on th rih -hn sid * Fo th*q. ai~yfo-evceaay
S D + 0.5 !A 4 1.0 (2
redce secio mouusZ I *~r )2 hr ' i h a rss-etoa
ra iu for, th reue setin an orpae Ib naporaeSP o
the~ patcua deito bein evlatd
7
This paragraph provides access to the Class I rules, and, although class Istress indices for the WEP piping deviation@ are not listed In the Code, in-structions for developing Class 1 stress indices are given. Subparagraphs
NB-3681(d) and (a) 11983 ed., S821 read:
"(d) For piping products not covered by NB-3680, the stress Indicesand flexibility factors shall be established by experimental analysis(Appendix 11) or theoretical analysis. Such test data or theoretical.analysis bhall be Included In the Design Report.
"(a) When determining stress Indices by experimental methods, thenominal stress at the point under consideration (crack site, point ofmazlouis stress Intensity, ate.) shall be usad.0
It is, therefore, appropriate to divide the oultabLilty-fot-servLce SIP,I., Into two parts: one part, I., representing the original design SIP and asecond part, 'd, representing the stress raiser *at the point under considers-tion," Lose,
1 8 a I d I o 31 1 0 (3)
and to define I d in term of Class I stress Indices as the additional peakstress caused by the deviation:
I d - C2d K24 A 1.0 . (4)
A value Of C2d - 1*0 can be used became the prLoar"Im-setcondary stress inthe piping component will not be increased by the presence of the weld devia-tLons being evaluated ander the Watts In W propme
There we two optLoss for developing appropriate values for the peak stress
Index 1K2d- Theme we to (1) determine a stress concestratLoa factor or fatiguereduction factor for esch dovlatLoo being evaluated or (2) determine an upperbound value that would always be conservative. Ve will only pursue the secondoption have becomes the W deviatiom at Watts Mar we #morally located Inregion@ of low maxima stress. In those cuss dwre option 2 is too conserva-
tLve, the designer should a" a value for Kad that is Mrs specific*
Rules for analyslag local structural discontinuities we gives In Subsub-paragraph W-3222.4(a)(2) 11977 ad.h
B-9
"( , Low St u tu a Di o n ini s T e e f ec s hal be va u
ate for all co d ti n usin st e s c n e t a i n f c os d t r i e
fro th o et cl ex ei e tlSrP ~ ~ l s td o ,o u ei a
Th -a~m va ue for A2 gi e nT b eN -6~la eK . o
tions Th s a Aes n b e u p r l a t f r K d i ./ . . . S b t t t n
A d a A. . A5
An ap rpit up e boun ,I to beue E .() ad I h te q ai n
- - - - -. 10
6 ."V s a Ex m n t o 9eh d an*ce t n e0rt r a " WE . - , W l
Evlato Prjet Stndr -9ctce 9l DO Tas Foc9t V'
Watt a Plnt Uni 1, EG& Idho In. , Au. 1 5, 1986.
a. "Dsg CrtrafrAayi9fCtgr I- an 9()Ppn ytm,
-BO -0-1 7 TVA Wa t Bar Nul a Pl n Deig Cit r a HT -
nese Vale Auhriy Rev 7, Jan. .1 1986,
8 . C. G l g s t e s I t n i i a i n F c o # f r B o n s F r y e u y h
99StGN CRI TUIA FOIL A941813 Of CLUCORT I AND IM WI-OC-40-31.7MING SYSTZM__
Notes for Flaule 5.2-1
1 . ASM Boiler and pressure Vessel Wet Section III* Division 1. 1971
9dition through Sumner 1973 Adds&".
2. for the upset condition,, use the greater of 11 of (TT.Vg)-
3, Pips rupture efforts (jet Lapiagessat. pipe whip. eta.) are! cz-taidered
to be faulted condition load sounese The design searnse that &to
takes to Protect against pipe rupture leads &to do-saribed in
va-De-40-31.50 (reference 4). A
4, 0 say be included is the evaluation of squatLea (9).
3, All secosdary toad 9601:409 refultift from PI41* normal Of Spent
conditions TL. V!, end 99 sos& be identified
end evaluated for the
limiting at;2rattag nodes of the systme The offset@ 09 these lead
ourt2cs east be used is evaluating equipment leadinge support loading
ad types, a" active component qualificatiovie Thermal range was used R7is stress equations.
6. gas of cold spring will be limited by the requirements of subparagrapb,
VC-3673.3 of ASS Sectioa 111. The pipe stress 6" to cold spring sioat
be 60-5 ($A + 10-
7. The esergessy conditios is checked only VbeS a system can "Parisace 21
and sigoiftenst VT and/or V11 simultassousl7e
I- The 0490844117 land "Was$ Isfultisig from 4, DMA 079 Cts ON) will bs
evaluated for piping Ukiah penetrates or is supported from the SCV.
A9. Stresses will be assibiaod, aus1k that the stress 4" to lead case BC or
21, does get relieve do stress resultim from otbas load souress.
10. Pipe stress waaltift fan test eosdftleso will get snood 1.2 Sb.
8440184497 $two$# 16"Itigg from test soedftioas wilL be ovelustod, using
4quaties to ff 110
It is set 2044104427 to us bYdz*st&ti$ test PCOSSUS VbOs evaluating
sets" des to test soaditiesse Nowevere desip Pressure should be need
sale" it is detemimed that the test soodkies, does get soon
simstassessely " istexual prolongs
11. Is anserbses with AM III sed the desip syssifteatiess (references
24 "A IS) I desip twosome is wed is squatioa 9 signs Peak pressure
and earthquake sow got be takes as "tin sessulestlys
TVA W361900 OU-7-771 B-15
APPENDIX ,
N -42 prvie rue fo main wede joi*nts. It is unde sto
tha th S rvsin of th paarah une NX42 apl .o making
wed to 555u e copiac wit th Scetac crtei of N.
It is fute unesto tha th prvsin of NX42 apl to in-
prcs wor an shul no be cosdee as * ia acetac ci teri
tain prcdec ove th fia acetac crtei of S-
N-42 "Srfce o.. .. Wls" stte tha th wed shl be "suffiientl
fre fro coase ripls grovs ovras Abup rides an valley
to mee th reureet of (a thog Ite (a reer to 5s5r55ce
codtin an stae th sufcs shl -e "suial fo prpe Sinep -
taio. Ite (b stte "rifreet ar pomt . It. (c addre- I s ses
uneru an reer to "ecocmn on -euie thcns. Ite (d states
cocvt Ni pemte. Ite (e Stfe "car shl be taen during S
grnig Th qute wod use in ths paarah iml tha they are
gudac fo main wed an emhsz tha Jugmn mus be use in
asesn-hcetblt of fia wel conditions..
N-42 *Sz an Shp of File Weds prvie gudac regadin
th noia siz an shp of weds Th adquc of wed readn size
an shpe shul be deemie on th bai of th ovrl Sedan o
on mio loa deito s fro th noia wel szor shae nohrwrs
wel siz an shp acetblt is no deemie soel by th smlls
diesin fon in th ful legt of th copee wed Themtyo
th copee wel ma5etknit con odtriewehro o h
siz an shp of th wel is acepabe
Miudrtnig of th worin of NX42 hav case so seriou
an acepe by th Auhrie Nucea Inpco an h etfct
Hode are subeunl ben qusioe as to thi adequacy-dueto
mio deitin fro th, gudac prvie in NX40 Reiwr of
wed in stme -opnet and piin sytm als questionthe
auhrt of th deige to Jutf loa mio dev.ations-nth
basi of an eniern anlyi shwn th fia wel condition
copl wit the deig reureet of N8 WeI thrfr hav th
folwn question:
"WI
AM 6=,4 M.i/kA k*i/ý ftA
I41WM oLfa40f ' t
Mar, A '-87L,12 O -S" 2 SEIE TE -A--0
lifts
Adwfl
pk gu
-fu desfff~il qa f I -"Afom.Owrs
Af &ki hd~ ;-fo-mb ... ul v"
lq*u *-W I f O4i As -,wmw ft n*qbW a tus
milk -ft . -a.
-*a -A W
4qb .1ier A- --
p." ms
vow
A4 -6
ANALYSI S O NEAPIP ATACMET
* 3. - .B. L. Harris 3
dein genra cii-trcua weds Saifigtedeinrlso
of th wel (se Fiur 1) The stese inte ed a b oudb
asumn tha th wel is siia to tw file weds Appropriate
reuto in aloal stes fo th file wel is use fo copaiono
cotinn the inoplt fusio. Th lu inue piin stes woul be
evlae usn a lug thcns eqa to th eann*hikeso h
no n wed dieso A of Fiur 2. No reuto in aloal stres
th sam mane 3- th seon cas . Th3it flgue dmninBo
Fiur 3) in th anlyi is th sam as th det of th satis-ctory
weld. Agin no reuto of aloal stes is eqire...ceth
remainin wel is a ful penetrationIweld.
No-etutv exmiato CNE an mor analysi ar reqire if 3
the stese caclae usn the sipife metod dicse abv exceed
th aloal vaus Onc th fla is chratrie by N ehd- h
enir wel doe no hav to be nelctd Supos the reio of.C
inoplt fuio is obere -b N as shown in Figure4
The stes anlyi o3f the. . .. .wed hain stese exedn the
aloal vaue ca no be pefre wit th reoa of an amun of wel
maera in bot dietin tae ineednl eqa to th siz of the
deec. It is prpoe to reov an are eqa to th deec siz by
deerinn eihe an eqialn legt or widt acos the wel which
* I I go- * - a a- . 0 IM I I
end or edg of th wed Cnidrto of deec grwt mus be mad if
th equivln are of wel deec is reovd If th stese still I
exee th aloal vaue th wel mus be reoe .n replaced. -
technical* baiS. cmlac Swith -t-e0rul.s*of - S I S
These wed ar not par of the prssr boudar an .re show to be.
caal of suprtn Ih reuie load I 0ing. Ths aproc demontrate
that the deviant lug-to-pipe weld~~s aaaeut opromteritne
B.L. Hari
Th evlato ofdvatwlsbtenppe n uscnb huh
of as6 an exeso of thsedEauto rga rcdr o nlsso
dein geea civ il-structralweld. Saifyn the deig rue of .
NX30 is adqut tehia jutfcto fo dipsto of non-pressure ' - I .
reaiin dein . an ANS B3. wed as abl to peror thei
intended. saet fnto . . * * * 4
Thr r the cae of dein lu-tp wed to be consiered
Th firs cas isfrawl ihicmlt eerto ttero
of th wel (se Fiur 1) Th stese in th wel can be foun by
wel . This wel fla is als idnife byvsuleamnton(e
Fiur 2) Fo thi cas it is prpoe to nelc th enir weld4
cotinn th inoplt fuin Th lu inue piin stes would be
evlae usn a lu thcns equa to th reaiin thcns of the-
nodvin wed dieso A of Fiur 2. No reuto in aloal 4 44 - stress
is neesr for thi cas beas th reaiin wel cosdee in the
anlyi is a ful peerto weld. * * .
Th thr cas to cosie is a cobnto of th fis tw cases.
A n of inoplt peetato an inoplt fuio ar bohietfe
by viua exmnto as shw in 4 iur 3. Thi cas ca be anlye in
th sam mane as the seon cas. Th wit of lu use (dimension Bof
Fiur 3) in th anlsi is th sam as th det of the satifctr
wed Agin no reuto of aloal stes is reuie sic the4
reann wel is a ful penetrationweld.
No-etutv exmi.to (NE and mor anlyi ar reuie if-4 '
th stese caclae usn th sipife mehd dicse abv excee
the aloal vaus Onc th fla is chrceie by * mehos h
eniewlSoe o aet be nelctd Sups the .4....
inoplt fuio is obere (b as shw in Fiur 4 .I - 1
Th stes anlyi of th wed hain stese exedn h
give th corc area (se Fi gure4). The stese ca no be.-
reacuae fo bot cae an copae to aloal values.For
sipict of anlyi th remve are ma be cosdee to occu at the4
I 4 . - - 4 *4 . D-3 ~ 4
th eqivln are of wel deec is reovd If the streSesstill
exee the aloal vaue Sh wel mus be reoe an reSplace-d. 4
Th lu inue piin stese an wel stese deemie usn the6
abov reomene gemtre an * cod Cas N 1- poi d S n adequate
tehia bai for copiac wit th rue of - - *O
Ths wed ar no par of th. prssr -ondr an ar shw to be.I. S
capabl of suprtn the reuie lodig -Si aproc dem5on5.strate
tha th devan lu-opp wed Sr Sdqut to pefr thi intend.ed5S~S -I
,.sNDI E
APPICBL DOE WEDEVsATO
PROJECT3 STADR RCTIE
APENI X E
APLCBL O WEL EVLAIO
PROEC STNDR PRACICE
INE OF APLCAL *; E E STNDR PRACTICES
SP SP 3..3 ViulEaiainMehd*S cetne rtra... -
SPWE 3..1 Sia ltyFrSer eEauto eiw ....... E2
SP5 *1P S..3 Seie Sf TVIrpsdCorcieAtonIo
Idnife Hadwr an/o S rgamai Seiiece ....S.. E-32
CI TS* S36 *,
Tile VIUA EX M N T O ME H D No. WE P 3. 2. 3 ? . - 0
01* *.AI Idh .Inc, AN ACETAC CRTEI Pag of 23
.ate 06/02/87g
1. PUPS AN .SCOPOE - a -
*. To estals Viua Tetn SVT Mehd and Acetac Crieri
I*nd2 ANS 83.1 ANS 03.5 *S 01.1 an NC.IG0
2. REPNIBLT AN .PRA.TICE
2. Th SnpcinExmnto ( I/)Mn rs llb rep si e
fo copiac Iit thi prceur. ~
Th Lee II shl 0e reposil fo th0otn fti
procedure an susqun revisions
The deinae Suevio shl be aepnil to enueta
only cetfe pesne pefr eamiain to thi proedre
Pesone pefrmn exmnain to Shi Brcdr shalSlbS
Setiie So th reureet -f Stndr Prctc (SP
S4..2 an shl pefr th reuie exmnain 5in
SPT -6A 1,,1a 5
aitl- VS AL EXM NTO MTOS No. aE 3..-R v 1
ST ND R aRCTC AN -CETAC CRTEI pag 2 of 23a
exainaio may use -iua aid suc as mirrors
*oecps fie -pi SIers or ote sutal
intumns auc sytm shal hav a resolution
caailit a t leas eqialn to .ha otiabl by
aiec viua obsSvaion
wit SP aP 3.. whe th npco eesi eesr
todtemn a cua matra thcns an athe
Exmnto Pakg requirements a. Vsal Examinatio
legt an loato. a xmnto atrbtsrltdt
Fo det Smia.io of th aprp~a- accepa nc criteaaata
Apn ix E, Reevn Iaa shl be use fo Inpco
Obevain aa ly an is ..t cosdee paS t of .h ea- i-atin
be douene on th appial douet as deie ina
SP~ 3..8 In 3.2.2
OAT 136, AI .0# , 1, ,
2.a. As rqird othe Seeatdt hllb ouetdo
th aprpit Wel EvlainPoet-E)vsa
3.1 Inpco Obevto--S i obevain whc aav been
4. REFEENC.
a.ssr a eses Divisions an 2, 197 Edition. it Sume
197 -ded thog th 94EiinwtUune 96Adna
4.3~ ANS 83.,PwrPpn, mrcnNtoa Sadr nttt
4. ANS B3.-16 U AS S31.-196. ) Rergrto Sipng USS.A
In a., a97 thog 197 Aded as Soiidb V pcfcto
G29.- - I- .
4. Viua S. l Acetac Crtei fo Structaral Wedn .t
Nula . oe Plns NCG 1 Ma U 95 Reiso 32.
4. Stndr Prctc E 4..2 "Tanig Qulfig.n
Cetfyn Sesone So Viua an Nodsrutv Examinatio.s.
4.8 Stndr Prctc U 3.61.8 "PeaainoI xmnto
0.,- I I
m!3J
Acceptance Accept/Attribute Criteria ReJect
Cracks
Overlap 1.1
Undercut
Lack ofFusion
IncwnpletePenetration 1.1
Slaq
visiblePorosity
WeldSpatter
Arc Strikes 1.1
AcceptanceAttribute Criteria
CoarseRipples 2.1
Grooves 2.1
AbruptRidqts 2.1
lalleys 2.1
MinimumSectionThickness 2.2
MaximumOffset
Reinforcement
Fillet/Socket.Weld Size -
Inaccessible SeeI I Appendix E
Acetac Wl N. WedNo elmo. WmdN. medmOAttibue ritriCracksmLackofmFsioCratermmmsUndercut
Porosity•Fle WeldProileUnesz m m m m m
STANDARD PRACTICE
Tile VSULEXmIA O MTOSI
STANDAR PRATIC AND ACETAC CRITERIAi
196SSUE e oAcp/ee
Acetac WedN.m m mmo ed o el O Wl oAtrbt Criteria
Cracks1.2.2.Weld Sizm1.2.2.Icmlt Fuin 1.2.m m
I f-• "I i
Date
-rcptn-rn--atReeAtrbt riei ed wbrWl d ute r edNne eldNub er360 - -s*1acsile SeAoin EdVinur71---eWedNor
3600L JF4inIE4[ 1.Id I i'!dUd144 ~ ~ I ~'IEn~
O~~fS '3'A ,1 5
Dae
ASM SETO 111 DIVIIONS
* 0 S S ETO VII DIISON I AN-
ANSI B3.-N 83 .5 PIIGWL*CETNECIEI
All ~ wed-eurn iuleaiato hl eeaie o h
foloin ie s S
0 Wel defct (cacs pooiy slag etc..)
5- 0 Conou an fiis of th ed ufc
0 Ofse in fia wede Joints
1. Wel S S. - S -
1. All .eld an adacn bas maera shal be fre of cracks,
reuie seto thickness), lac of fuin incmlt
pooiy wel spttr an ar. stie.Oelpi
uncepal if susqun NO is. reuie an th overlap-
codto ma mas an uncepal indication.
2.~~~~~ Cotu Sn iihofteWl ufc
2. Th sufae of weld ar sufcinl fre fro cors riples
grovs abup rigs an valy topror Shrqie
nodsrutv exmnto wihu akigpsil
discotinuties
2. Pip Welds
wal voain. Miiu wal thcns shl not be les tha
noia miu 12.56 .
Al Ote Welds 5 4
Th miiu wal thcns shl bea pcfidi h
Pag 9 of -3
-tIi~ LI;l'o Spent fue poolI2~i~iLo Trasfercan3
o -.e catae
2. 9he copnet 6fdfeetotsd0imtr,6fstedo
ofdfeettikessaewlddtgteteesalbS
grda trnito betee th tw 6ufcs Th legt of th6 e
trnito 6a inld th wed Th slp of th tranitio
3. Maiu Aloal Ofse in Dobl WeldedJoints
TAL 1 IRCI ON OF JOINS
Seto6 h'ýcns ~-~~~ ~ (ich LogtdnlCicmeeta
Up to126/t14
inclusive* 6 *
Ove 6/ to 1-12 . / inc -3/1 -6 6nc
inclusiv
Ove 1-1/ to 2, 1/ inc 61/8t-
inclusive . .
Ove 2 Lese of11to-/ nh Lse f18 r34ic
6. 66i 6oum als appie to 6ont in speia vsses heds an
6ont 6ewe .6inria shll an h6emis .heric888ea.s6
b. In logtuia -ons th midelnso h donn hcnse
PATS 116'J 1iJ ~ ii A A* I. 1.5
Titl-e:VIISUA EXM NTO MEHD NS:E 3.. Pe
ST ND R PR CIC .N3 ACETAC CRTEI .53el of 23~.
* S --, S. .85Date:
4. Fo sigewle but jons th rinfremn lite inS
colun 2of Tble2 sall ppl tothe nsie srfac an th
renocmn lite in coum 1 shl-plgo h usd
sufae Th renocmn shl be mesue fro th higherof
the abttn surfacesinvolved.
4. Wel szs fo brnc conetin an intga atahet shall
be in acodac wit th deig drawings.
NOE Wel bee rprtoSra halb opeeycnue
wit wel mea unes otews spcfe by th de- -sign
TAL 2. WEDRIFOCMN
Maiu Renocmn
(inch
Maera Noia Thcns
(ic ) _ClmnIClm.
Up to 1/,inlsv3/2/2
Ove 1/ to31,icuie 1833
Ove 3/1 to 1/2 inlsv 5/3 1/8
TAL . WEL REIFOCEEN
Max-u Renocmn
(inhes
Noia Thcns ASM ITSSEIIAM
(ice)Dvso iiinI adVI-
5. ae an Thoa SiefrFles(oktWls
Tt U EI
STANDARD PE AD A C C
I- Dae
0~r 006 a AaA -f
TifMtle:hiVISlNS L EXMINTIOW EHOS3.WE ..3Rv1STANARDPRATIC ANDACCPTACE RITEIA ag' 4 f 2
a aDate:
a . .APPENDIX*'B
1. Acp anc aCriteria - * a-
1. aedn aopee Afe a ebruary a3 1 .9a.
exmnto prcs. A wedsal be accpal by a isa l a
anpcto af ah inpcto shw a ht
1.. ah wl h as noc acks a
a.. Throg a uio exst aewe aadjacentlayr of wel
metal an basemtl
1.. Cae s ar file ao ah ful crs-eto ofte ed
a.. aneru doe no axee 1/3 ainch-
1.. hesmo th damtr a.tepiigproiyi
af wel an doe aoxed3/ nhi an on-fo
va .S + 0.0 inh whr S is aS e act al lgsiz
-f th file wed an inhs .-a es ae -t doa
no appl to ausd ar aoe aorneas.
1.1a A filtwedi an Sigl Sotnuu wel sa llb
pemite So a a h noial a ile siz reuie
by 1/1 anc wihu corcin rvddtat h
anesie poto of th wel a oe a o xed1 o
the -legt of th aed Oa we fan a edso
gres, no un u is pemte ao ah and a o a
length~ ~ ~ ~ eqa to twc-h it o h lne
a.. Fiae wed shul S e liie to 1/ inc lagrta
th le ieseiid axiu aile ael .ize sal
*P g l 6f 23 - - -
jons Th conou of T jont 6hr reinforcin
6ilt are no reuie shl haeagaultasto
int bot mebes Filtwl rtrao
Seto 1.. 6 hl appl to renocn filletwelds
reuie on -Jo-ints.
Slr bee grov we6d shl be wede .u atles
fls wit th ousd*ufc f h aemtra
une S tews stte on th drawi6ng.- - S S
1..1 Al Sed 6hl be fre fro ovrlp
1..1 6oplt Son peerto grov wed inbt jit
shl hav no piin porosSity.-6
shl no be cas for reeto. Nosrse mebr
shl 0e 6pcfial idnife byOE
1..1 6hr .ehnia ma s, suc as grnig burig et6.,
wer use S o sufc codtinn an/o 6correct-iv6 e
a c i o t o m e e w o k m n s i r e u 6 e e n s r e d u c t i o n o
of unect The toa of the tw codtin 6 il be
evlute to th 6cetac reureet fo nect
6 6 5 - -A
6 . 6 I ~ 6
SPATtt' J 1.l.S 1361 9e9
Tile VIUA EXMNTO MEHD No. WE9 3.. Re - 3
STNOR PRCTC AN ACETAC CRTEI Page 16 of 23 m
-. Date:
1.2 Wedn Copee -girt Ferur 13 1981
The reureet of Secio 1.9pl owr cmltdpirt
a. Uneru on stese mebr shl no xce
acetbe All wed ar to be consideredi
stese memer * nes idnife oteris by *E.
b. .loal minmu file wel si.e ar shw on
c .Wel sie spcfe to be 3/9nho ls hl
not . e moeta9wc h seiidsz. Wl
d. Rado wel spte and ar stie ar acce-ptable.
if clae by wir brshn an ar iulyfe
of craks
1.. Pip Hangers . 9
.a. Wel sie spcfe to be 9/ inc or lesshl
no be mor tha twc the spcfe sz.Wl
sie spcfe .o be grae tha 3/ inc 9s9a9ll
not be 9or tha 3/ inc 6agrta h pcfe
size. 9
b. Rado wel spte an ar stie r9acpal
if clae by .iebuhn n r iulyfe
PAT 831 8e I 1g 85
c . Wel siz speife to be 3/8 inho-es hl
no be mor tha 3/8 8nc 8 age thntespcfe
d~ ~~~8 .Rado wel spte an-r tie aeacoa
*f clene 8 y wir brshn an are viual free
a. Wel sie spcfe tobe38 inc orls hl
sie seife to be grae hn38 inc S shl
no be mor tha 3/8 inc lage 8ha th pcfe
b* Uneru on stese mebr shl no ex8e-ed 8
1/3 inc in det exep tha uneru ofa
adiioa 1/3 inc (11 8nc toa deth an.dS
1/ inc *egh no to exee 10 Sf th run is
8cetbe Il wed ar to be cosdee 8i8.n I
stress members unle~~ss dniidohrb E
oSr SII *xvI
1. ACETAC CRITERIA
1. Mesrmn Units a a aa
Tal I idnife th salls m asrmn a rt th anspcto
wil us whe inpctn th litdwl trau . We
mesrn an eodn iesoso tewl trbtslse
in Ta bl 1,teedmnin hlaeruddoft h ers
sinfcn unt
TALE1 MESRIE UNT
Reeec Smlls MesrmetUi
Wel Atrb e Seto (Sgii an it- ch
File Wel Sie122211
Inoplt Fuio 1.2.2.31/a
Wel Ovra 1... 1/8-a*. a a
Uneru Det 1... 1/32 ** a
121 TeeAcp anc Criera -ar to be usdfo h
OA t fM's ~ ~ iL f N 13 3 A I- 5
8uio of 3/ - inhi an 4- semet and8/ inhi ed esta i nce long is
acceptable.~ Fo -roewldicmlt
fusion~~~ ~ ~ ~ 8sntacpal.Frfle n
grov weds rone en conditions .ha
ocu 88 wedn (sat an stps shal not8
be cosdee 8niain of inoplt fusion
and ar irrelevant.8 -
3/8 ~ ~ ~ ~ * inc inay4ic8emnad14ic
1.2.2. Sneffe - rtr-Unefle crtr-hl
siz are me . Crtr whic occu ousd th
thr ar nocacs
1.2 2. Wel Pro il s - - - * S 8 8
1.... Th fae offle-elsmyb
covx fl.at or cocae provide
th crtei fo wel 8 iz ar -met.
1.2..6. Th fae ofgov elsmyb
fla or co8nvex.
1.2.2.68 Covxt offle adgov
wed ar no cri 8eria 8fo
acetac an nedntb8 esrd
1..26. Th thcns of grov wed is -
pemte 8o be a maiu of
1/3 8nc les tha th thne
mebe ben joined.
1.... Flr bee groe wed 88al 8be - 8
8ede 8 u 8 t les lshwt h
8usd 8 ufae of th 8 b-s.e
maera unes otews -s8atedoS
th drwn wit th exetin
prvie in Paagap 1.2.2.6.4
IA - MI I A94VI 5
Title:ilu ± U IM SVISUiUAL E A M N TION MET OD N . WE P 32. 3,eSTANARDPRACICEAND CCETANC CRTERI Pae20 f 2
*Date9
1... Undercu
1.-.. Fo maera 3/8 inhadls
noi al thcnes uneru dept
of 1/3 inc on on 0ie o h
ful legt of th weldor
1/3 inc on on sid fo 11 0h
accpt 9l . Fo mebr- eddo
b o t *9 d e wh e r u n e r u e x st *9 i n
the sam pln of a~ mebr h
c u m l a i v l e g h o f u n d e r c u t
s h l b e l i i e t o t h l e g h s o
u n e r u a l l w e o9 9 n s i d e .
M e l - t h o g t h a 9e i t i n a h o l e
i n t h b a s m e a i s u n c c p a b e
1.... For maeil .rae tha 3/ inc
noia thcnes uneru depth
of 1/ 3 i nc f o r t h f l l n t h o
th wel an 1/1 i nc foU/ h
legt of th wel onbt sdso
th Iebe is acetbe When-
either- weld or unecteitol
on In sid of th9ebro r
no i n th sam pl ne t*I he .
aloal uneru det of
1/3 inc may be inrae Io
1 / 1 i n c f o r t h9ul l e g h o
shl be cosdrdrlvn. 99le and
grov wed whc coti Iufc poost
shl be cosdee uncepal *9f:
1.... The su of di meer of rado
poost 9*ced 3/ inc in any
liea inc of 9 el or 3/ inc in
any 12 -nhso wl;o
1.... Iou or mor 9oe r lge n
the poe ar seaatdb
1/1 inc or les edg to edge.I
99E-23. I
SATVVAm71IaUJ;.1gig[,5
Title:VIUAL EXAMNATION MTHODS N.:E 3. 3Re
ST ND R PR CTC AN ACETAC CRTEI . 0 -ofS23
Date
1 .. . W e l L e n g t h an d aoo - - h l e g t a n d 0
be -o e tha spcfe. Fo wel lenth
1/ inh Inemitn we.d shl b pae
wihi I inc of th spcfe loain
1.2.2.10~~.6 Ar .ties r stie n ascae
S mi-Wes r acetal prvie no cra5cking6I S .
.6o- sufc dieso is / in. or les 0 is
*irrlvn. -Isoae sufc sla that
diesin is acp bl. (Sa6scniee
to be isoae whe it doe no occu more
frqenl tha 6nc pe wel or mose than
onc in a 3 inc wel semn. 6 p6 tter
reann afe th 6lann operationi
acceptable. 66 .
*I-264
CAStf.I13l UJ61l[I A Pt,
VIUA EXMNTO OF S 01. SHEAE STU WELDS -5
1. Scetac Criteri-a
1. Al .t d s h l sho S S60 Fl Sh 5.5615
1. Th exele mea arun th bas *f th5tdi eintda l,
It is no a file 5el suc as ths by covninlacwlig
Th exele wel meal whc is exes to thaedrqie o tegh
is no detrimen al aut is eseta to prvd . S oo wed The stu weld
flsh ma hav non fuio on it vetia .e an ovela onit
PASIILUS6uUAX R[e,
Titl: VIUALEXAM NATON MTHO S No: W P 3.2.3Rev :-'
STANDARD~~~~~~~. PRCIEADACPACICIEI ae2 f2
- I. I- *Date:
* - 6 - S -APPENDIX *E
REEVN DA0TA
Reevn Dat -Dsrito Documenta-tio
Mssn 0 ed Wed misn in thi enirt an For W 35
no a reul of confgu 5 54
Welds~- Misn Be I-s Wed misn inter-ir omWP35
of -ofgrain beas of confSig5urationS.
SedTp edtp is not th sam as cale Fom 35
ou on th deig drwnIrsmd
ifiedby te deign otes
*ncesbe Whe wed or. Iotin *f weld are For WP 3022a
Sndicated .in Se aprpit blc Sf S h aplcal fom If no OR iS
OAT 11, Re *,,
Tile SU ITA IL I O - - SEVC No W 3.3.1a-ev
S. - - ah Inc Pag I . . a * a
1 PU PS AN SCOPE - - -
To- dein qe t -o be foloe by th Wel E aluto Proec
Sutailt fo Sevc EvlainEgneig ru hnpromn
Enginerin .S E Manae wil asig thet anlssaet
aj throg an coprhnsv reie to veif tat:
inldn acontn fo th weld defiienies
2.. Deig lod an load cobiaios an thi source, a.
ar aidentified.5
:6.S 13tA64 5
Tile SUT B L T -O -E VC N-: E 3..-e
STNDR PRCTC EVLATO REVIE page 2 of 5
-, -. I 66- 6 ~ - * *gDate. :
2.4~~~~~~~~~~~* The -eiee shl eiwa-osrutd(Ctesst
deterg n 6 F as decie abv and asdsge A)srse
wher reuie fo roo cas an geei rbemeauto
(Rfrec 4.1) Th AD stese wil be bae on th- same
lodn 6 se fo th AC stes determination.
2.Shervewri repnil fo ine ain wit th TVA
anlyi pesone an/o .te . grou *ebr to 6resolve
an par of 6n anlyi pacag that....sno eti lyc ar o
th revewe . Pakg moiiain reuie to saif th
2. Onc a .eie ha been comleed For 32 (Atahmn 1)
th pakg shl be sumte to the SEMngr
2. .h SH .aae shl .eie an aprv eac anlyi pakae
2. An reiint.6mWP 2 fe prvl yteSE aae
shal be as folos
nueia reison Th chang shl be noe byth
2.8. The S. Mange wil inict aprvlo tervso
by intatn an 9 ain nex to th et yblna
th aproa are of For * E 324. 6-
2. Onc th SE Maae has aprvda nayi akg, it shall
be 6rnmte to Cofgrto Maaemn (CM for strg andII
66 shl reor th anlyi pakg sttu to Projec
Admnitraio and Coto (PC fo trcig(eeec5.)
2.1 Copnet deme ineemnt by TV enierngdet
inufiin wel dat (eg. ineemnt det -f peeta-o
wh~r ul pntrtonwa otacive)shllb rmoe -o
3. DEFINI-gTI.ONS0
'Srie 0. S whe !- ha . ee deostae b0 appropriate
evaluat .on t 0 .----- lacewt heapicbecoe nstandards.~ ~ ~ ~ Fo th 0P a0opnetwthadsceat0 edi
fucto for al potlae deig lodn condition. . Wher
t h e .n i e r n e v l a t o i s a s t e s .n l y i a c o n t n f o
th .ein codtin th . alul0e .0ese shl satisfyth
stes crtei of th aplcbe eincoea peiidi
th Wat Ba Nucea Pln Uni 0I -ia Safet Anlyi .eor
*) An ovrtrse wel wihi a copnn doe 0o affec
*F 0 f - h copnn whe th stese 0n al reann members - 0
an wed .0 th copnn ar deemie to be - elo desig
0lo e asumn faiur of the ovrtrse weld.
*M C o. 0 e t o III -o p ne t wi t d e i n .c0ndi ti onms0t o
madaor cod 0 euie -t cano be 0 - . 0 - 0sugtable-f * -sevc wihu corctv acio 0nes .code 0 -
.euiemnt are saife thog agemn amn the owner,--
aplcal cetfct holers) thi .epctv au.0t0h.ori0ze.d
inpcto agnis an aprorit juidcinlado
4.~ .EFRECE
4. Stn.r 0 rctc *E 3..2 0o Cas an Geei Pr.blem
Eva .a io."30 0 . 0 *I
4. Stndr Prctc 3..7 "Tacin of Exmnto Pac..age
Prprain Inpetin 0n 0nlyi Daa.
4.3 tanardPraciceWEP3.1., "denifyig Rndo Samlesfro
PA S131 11 fU5
Tile SUIA IL *T -O -SRVC No:E ..Se
For .324 SUTBL Y FO SEVCEPg - of
Rev** -.. 718 REIE SUMR SHEE
Anlyi Pakg/xmnto Package -10
Wel ID Nubr of Nocnorac wed evlae i th spcae
Atace Anlyi pakg ha bee thruhyrvewdadi h
opno of th reiee cotan sufcin ero as to. .
inaidt th cocuin stte as to stese *en wihi
Cod Aloal Values.
Atace Anlyi Pakg asbe hoogl rvee adt h
best of my knwede strse hav bee corcl aluae n
conclusions~~~ reatv to stes s ben wihnCd Slw r
corcl stated.
Comments~ ~ ~ ~ ~ an/o cacltosaeatce-ospotterve
Aocuin ubrofatce hesiDoanyo h ed eur orcieato
Sumarie wldstrsse o atachd WldSumaryTale n trm
OV'S.1~~~ 36 O ,5
Titl:S ITgLT -FO SR IEN .: . . e
STNDR PRCTC EVLAIOREIWPg 5
a Da te
ATAHMN 1 (contnaed
Tile RVEWOFTA ROOSDNo. E 3. 3 .3 e
CORECIV ATOS FO S ae1 0E a r O ' o I n c I D N I F E H A D W R A N D / O
Reiee By: Se MR73
2. RESPONSIBILITY-sAND-PRACTICE
2. U o re e p of t e p o o e Co r c i e Act o l n ( A ; s m l
At a h m n 1) f ro T e n s e V a l e A u h r t ( T A) the
3ut b l t - o - e v c E v a u a i o E n i e r n 3 S E E M a n a g e
wil asinteCPt-nS nine rdsgae lent
fo review..-. . .3
2. Th -SE enine or deinae alent wil pefr a
coprhnsv reie of th CA fo harwar an/o proramati
of th dfce y. Thi seto ma coti th aft
3*iceny Fo 3 a r deiinis th boundaries m.
be defne by copnet s n loaton personnel3(welder
or inpeto) dae an. an cobnto thref For. 3
*rga ai 3*icecis th bonare ma be deie 33by-. 3 3~
c. Corctv Acin A decito of prpoe reai or 3 ~
codtin Corctv acio ma inld additi.onal
lie of reai or reok Wher prgamai corrctiv
acio is reuie the prpoe CAP shal 3 3
reurec of th codtin .dvrs to quaity
d. Aplcal Code Idniicto 33. Cod-s to meet
appicbl reureet for deiiec conormnce
Tiie RVE OFTA PROgSED No. WE 3.3 5e
SSTANDARDL;L.¶H PRCTC CORCIEATOSFO E ae2o
PRGAMAI DEIIECE .Dateg
e . TV Tr i Mehnim Asoiae reeec doumnt
p e t i n i n t o a s e s m n o f t h e C A . S c h d c m e t t o
inlds: USinfc t Codto Reot (SR) Coreciv
5c i o R e o t ( C R ) 1 0*5 . 5 e) r p r s n
Nocnorac Reot (NCR) -. 5S
2. Duin th Sors of Sheiw fayofteaoeetoe
c r t e i a re 5 n e e v t o r i n o c u i e t h C ASi l b
reure to SV for clarification..
2. .he .he .A .is .eemie to be acetal in acodac S wit-
Pa a r p .. as ap l c b e thS. ..eg ne r .i l o pl t
Cofgrto Maaemn (C) 04 shal be repnil for:
3. DEFINITION
Corciv cin-h prcs ofdcmnig evlai ,ad
rsovn Codtin Ades to Quliy suc Ss eros omissions, a *
tst failrs incurt or indqut douenaio, deito from.
4. I RE E E C S 5 5 5 5 5 5 . - .
SE-3
Title: REVIEW OF TVA PROPOSED - io_:_WEP 3. 3.I30Re
CORECIV ACIN FO WESTADAR PRACJi~InTLICE IDNIFIED HARDy~4mWAR N/R Pae3oPRGAMAI DEIIECE Date
Page of
WEP Group No. Date -Revisi
(TVA) Prepared By: Date(TVA) WTG Concurrence: Date(EG&G) WEP Concurrence: Date
Address the following Corrective ktion Plan (CAP) items in the spaceremaining on this page and on additional pages as needed.
1. Description of Deficiency 4. Applicable Code2. Boundaries of Deficiency S. TVA Tracking Mechanism3. Corrective Action
PAS16 A P* 18
Title: REIE OFTAPOOE o: E .3 e
Rev .4/8 .REIE.......SEE
WEP Gru N.a
APPNDI F
SUITAILI * FO EVC5 EAUTO
REEVN COMUICTIN
APENI F
IUTBIIY sO SEVC EVLA IO
1. . L. BriIe Iete to I. G. ThrOiso fWl
Spater Ar Strik .Crte ..aks Pooiy an- vrlpWl
Diceace. I L-5-6 IG Idho In. Jun 30. 196
CrtrCak, GG Idao In. Noeme 20, 1986.
3. J . *. *tn e meoanu toL .Mri *Wa tt bar Nula
PlanI Uni I-Wl *enpeto Porm- Aplcb t anId
Jutfcto fo snICG0 2Wl npcinCiei.
*-0 -BK Api3*,196
4. I. I. Kngh *t to D. E.Dto,- edAcpac
Auhrt RIMS *o I4 8751 254 Na 11 197
I * * IF-3
I./ - I *Z
Sujet DIPSTOSFWL PTEACSRKCAE RCS
POROSITY,/ AN/VRAPWL ICRPNIS-.L-58
Reference: L. E. Martin. ete Ito .G hr ae un 8 96
Atace ar prpoe *ipsto an jutfcto fo seea attibte
comonl fon duin Ienpc no WtsBrUi I *opnns Th.
prpoe dipsto ha bendscse a n reiee by myel an othe.
cc W . H . a . I S
F. C. Fogrt
*. J. Wad
Proose -id -b Accp a -is no efec onsiaiiyfrserie
Justfictio - Welb spt er a no metalria sinfiac wit
repc to -utbilt *o sevc of th afece wed ti o
*eae to wel inert an is not an iniao *f weld Culiy Some
tpcall requi. red in ore tolae th *el an baemtrili
codto - o faiitt aplcto an adernc Cf coatings. Weld
2. Ar Sti es-4
Prpoe DispoCitCon - Acp asi on IP-1 (Gop I & e) an C-
maeril as lite inTbe--2, M Coe SecCo IX. Thesi e - nclud
suc CCp maera as SA0 -r B, -A05 S 2 an S. whc b cmrs
th maort of pln Cytes Cr strke hav eo efec e- -utailt
for Cevc on ths maeil -n Csoiae Cedpoie hr s
(1 No viual deece - C crCackingS
()N-reuto in th bae maera thcns Ceo CdCsign
minmu
-~~~~he 2 of 2 9 9 .
*.o ~ ~ ATAHMN 1g (Rvso .. a*1) - *.-
Jutia ato aramn as suggeste abv maet appliabl code
4. Poroasity - a
*r e aipsto -Porsit 1/1 ic orls indamee obere an
wed reevn onl viaa 9xmnto ma be cosdee as no affecting
suiablt fo sevie
exmnain Bot strucaual an prssr interit ar -salse ay
5. Overlapa a .9 - - 9
arpoe Dipoito - averap9 existn wihi th wel or at wel 9 dge
ma ae cosdee acetal -o'e c prvie eihe of the following
acan-itioas-are9met:
*1 Fusi9 at th -oo 9f th ovra ca evsalycnimd
(2 9h cnito doe ao reul in a .eet l indca ao
whe M 9 9-Teaiaio spromd
Justfictio - he echncalsigifianc ofoverap s tat t my b
Idh CO EG A We *ov 0h h tsanad orsrie
41 - II I :
S A E0. 4 4. Si*A
0584 -at No e b r *2 .1
T - .I -Rr p From - .1 * 5h- -
Iry Oro .& Wel Evaluation P* I - -
of the weds Fro th reut of reen arice (Re . I .2) Sn deet nwls ,
pro S. frctr fo axa lodig at Soo tepraue Stutua wed at W
Sr mad wit E7018 . el file matria. Th yil stent . n frctr tou.nes
Sf th weld s aif the codtin *3 reuie in th arils Teeoecae
cack wol no prpgt 6.3or th weld yield . auhroe th yiel strengt
the bas stutr wil yil 'bfr yiedn f .h wel file maera. This
Reeec 1: 'edb t of Stes b R. D. Stu an W. D. Doy Wel Reeac
cc G. R.Achbl
T.L.Bi.e
) 6 22 00-
TO :* L. E. 01r n AsitnSf`-ae
C2 I - of ". -;l a Op Ut.n -f ie
S3
DAT S - 6
SUBJECT:~~~ WT S BROCERP.uTMT1-WL ENPCI. O744 AP C3'il
J. Stnie 'k
WAHNTN 0.C.MS S
Mr. Doga E. Dutn Cara
Sothr Copn Serice
Bimnhm Albm 3520
Bar. Mr utn
Sujet Viua Wel Accptnc Criei fo tutrlWliga
Amria Wedn Socet S tand.rd CI or ote n SH classrutrs
-WC ;r in ou opnin noSplcbetD nev eisetosta r
reuie by Seto XI ofteC oe
Aplcat an lie see wihn to ci to he WA mutdc en ter
comtmn in th for ofa Sm oteSft nlssRpr o
eac poe plnt Th stf' prcsigoChs mnmnscnb
cossec o. apliaton Th NR stfpriulryrgoa
Inpcos shul be prvie opotnte to reie you tranin
progam ad t obsrve he ondut ofthetraiing
S .5
TO : .0.LudnWldngPoga Maagr .T- G Sri er 14 JWts a
FRO :5 R. C.WiAtn.hifNcerEgner 1 1 C
SUJET WAT.A.ULERPAT0N - WEL TSS - 55SRTP100MTRA
R~~f~r~nC69* I.Mmrnu rmV . Chl e tC. E. Roet dae
3.~~ ~ ~ *eoanu fo W.. hl stC. 1. Roet date
Thi meoanu i. to prv.e fo you inomto. a sumar oftems
tote in Ocoe 196 Ths tet inole tu. wel cofgrain co
us. in supr aplct.s (a Uns u weddt5 ltsrae n b
S SP. th reut wer maeaalbet te o 5osbe s nrslt
of~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ reae wedn sus uigdsuso ftetsswt E Isoe!
it as eared hatsom weds nvovin Unstrt hd bon ejeted6y hei
C. G. Lun S a m
mYI. I M T SS .
tu r 55 .uLA PLN (wBN - WEL TET - IN U P-00 MAEIA
th shote l5 ben agisSh bs lt. Thi wel prfl ha been
Tes SummaS . -
tu* ste cofiuato. Tw wer of tr nsrtt-l ofgrto
wit 1/61 x 1/8 renfrcn fillets 5nsrt b spcmnswr .wle
*lcroe. ITA spcmn inlue wed maewt /6 /2 , an -18
dimee file mea. Wls weemd nte9whn fa)psto sn
wedn curnsdtrie5ofcltt5tedsrdcniin edn a
pefre by Jam Bu5m 5 . IS .
Wede seimn wor prpae at Sigeo Lab fo mesrmn of wel thoa
and~~~~~~~~~~~~ unefl (a aplcbeS. o tnietss ze o n eeec
3
C. G. Lundin
MAY 111981WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT (WBN) WELD TESTS UNISTRUT P-1000 MATERIAL
2. Failure of all tensile Specimens in which lip deformation was successfullyinhibited by test fixturing, occurred at loads in excess of 9.300 pounds.Average load at failure of these specimens, including those withunderfillod welds, was in excess of 11,000 pounds per inch of weldedconnection. All underfillod specimens failed at values in excess of11,000 pounds.
3. Test results do not indicate a correlation between the degree of underfill(up to the maximm of 0.09419 measured in these tests) and either the weldeffective throat or the tensile strength of the specimens.
4. Welds with effective throats as small as 0.07511 will'd:`evel;ý*tha Unistrutbase material. This observation is consistent with resu s of previoustests (reference 1).
S. Based on observations made during welding of the underfilled testspecimens, it is believed that they are representative of the worstconditions that could be expected on production welds. Attempts toproduce greater underfill by mans of lower welding current and/orincreased travel speed resulted in gross lack of fusion.
6. Tensile test results reported in reference 3. aid discussed in paragraphs2.1, 3., anid 4. above, relate to the properties of only one linear inch ofUnixtrut welded (both sides) to the structural backing.. Mis represents aconservative basis for *valuation of the weld capacity of plantinstallati t t the load applied through a bolted connection to theUnistrut i cmall &cried by more than a single inch of weldedconnection per I tS C;I
Orig:Lnal Signed byR. H. Jessee
R. C. Weir
LIDW.- Rint SL 26 C-KIL B. Bounds% C102 103, Watts BarP. 0. m0calft C115 105, Watts Bar
This was prepared principally by J. 0. White, extension 79M.
SEV
DNE1 - NEI 4,670Q
F-12
