9404260153 9404

PDR ADOCK 0500,

 WESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3

WCAP- 13089
Revision 3 SG-94-02-008

WESTINGHOUSE SERIES 44 AND 51

STEAM GENERATOR GENERIC SLEEVING REPORT

Laser Welded Sleeves

February 1994

©1994 Westinghouse Electric Corporation

All Rights Reserved

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION

NUCLEAR SERVICES DIVISION
P.O. BOX 355
PITrSBURGH, PA 15230

WPF0783:49/021494
 ABSTRACT

Under Plant Technical Specification requirements, steam generator tubes are periodically inspected for
degradation using non-destructive examination techniques. If established inspection criteria are exceeded,
the tube must be removed from service by plugging, or the tube must be brought back into compliance
with the Technical Specification Criteria. Tube sleeving is one technique used to return the tube to an
operable condition. This report summarizes a generic structural analysis of two distinct types of sleeves
for Series 44 and 51 steam generators, a tubesheet sleeve and a support plate sleeve.

The analysis includes a primary stress intensity evaluation, a primary plus secondary stress range
evaluation, and a fatigue evaluation for mechanical and thermal conditions. Calculations are also
performed to establish minimum wall requirements for the sleeve and a corresponding plugging limit for
tubes where sleeves have been installed.

Based on the results of this analysis, the design of the laser welded tubesheet sleeve and the tube support
plate sleeve are concluded to meet the requirements of the ASME Code. The lower bound, applicable
plugging limit for the sleeve is 25% of the initial wall thickness.

Mechanical tests were used to provide additional information related to sleeve joint performance. This
testing was concerned with joint leak resistance and strength. Prototypical sleeve-to-tube joints were
subjected to cyclic thermal and mechanical loads, simulating plant transients. Other joint test specimens
were subjected to loads to the point of failure, beyond the bounding loads which result from normal
operation and accident conditions.

The resistance of the laser welded sleeve joint to in-service corrosion was evaluated by an accelerated
primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) test. Free-span as-welded and post weld heat treated
joints were tested, in comparison with an Alloy 600 tube roll transition, a structure which is potentially
susceptible to PWSCC. The as-welded joints generally exhibited times for throughwall SCC that were
1.3 to 1.6 times longer than the times for the roll transition. No PWSCC or other corrosion was noted
on the Alloy 690 portion of the joint. The post weld heat treated joint exhibited an improvement of over
10 times, compared to the as-welded joint. Similar corrosion testing of the as-welded laser welded lower
joint were performed and a minimum of 3 to 4 time life increase over the control specimens.

The entire sleeve process, from sleeve manufacturing through installation and nondestructive examination
(NDE), was detailed. The installation NDE involves eddy current test (ECT) and ultrasonic test (UT).
The baseline NDE involves ECT and the inservice NDE will require alternate techniques if the inservice
ECT exhibits changes from the baseline inspection.

WPF0783:49/022594
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Report Applicability 1-1
1.2 Sleeving Boundary 1-2

2.0 SLEEVE DESCRIPT'ION AND DESIGN 2-1

2.1 Sleeve Design Description 2-1
2.1.1 Tubesheet Sleeve 2-1
2.1.2 Tube Support Plate Sleeve 2-2
2.1.3 Sleeving of Previously Plugged Tubes 2-2
2.2 Sleeve Design Documentation 2-2
2.2.1 Weld Qualification Program 2-3
2.2.2 Weld Qualification Acceptance Criteria 2-3

3.0 ANALYTICAL VERIFICATION 3-1

3.1 Structural Analysis 3-1
3.1.1 Component Description 3-1
3.1.1.1 Tubesheet Sleeve 3-1
3.1.1.2 Tube Support Plate Sleeve 3-1
3.1.2 Summary of Material Properties 3-2
3.1.3 Applicable Criteria 3-2
3.1.4 Loading Conditions Considered 3-2
3.1.5 Analysis Methodology 3-2
3.1.6 Heat Transfer Analysis 3-3
3.1.7 TubesheetlChannelhead/Shell Evaluation 3-4
3.1.8 Stress Analysis 3-5
3.1.9 ASME Code Evaluation 3-6
3.1.10 Minimum Required Sleeve Wall Thickness 3-7
3.1.11 Determination of Plugging Limits 3-8
3.1.12 Application of Plugging Limits 3-9
3.1.13 Analysis Conclusions 3-10
3.2 Thermal Hydraulic Analysis 3-39
3.2.1 Safety Analyses and Design Transients 3-39
3.2.2 Equivalent Plugging Level 3-39
3.2.3 Fluid Velocity 3-47
3.3 References 3-47

WPF0783:49/022494
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)

Section Title Page

4.0 MECHANICAL TESTS 4-1

4.1 Mechanical Test Conditions 4-1
4.2 Acceptance Criteria 4-3
4.3 Lower Sleeve Joint 4-3
4.3.1 Results of Testing: No Seal Weld 4-3
4.3.2 Description of Additional Test Programs - HEJ Lower Joint with 4-7
Exceptional Conditions and No Seal Weld
4.3.3 Results of Lower Joint Testing with Seal Weld 4-10
4.4 Free Span Joint Mechanical Testing 4-10
4.4.1 Thermal Treatment of Specimens 4-10
4.4.2 Free Span Joint Test Results 4-14
4.4.3 Impact of Tube Fixity on Free Span Weld Performance 4-14
4.4.4 Results of Fixed Tube Free Span Welding 4-14

5.0 STRESS CORROSION TESTING OF LASER WELDED SLEEVE JOINTS 5-1

5.1 Corrosion Test Description 5-1
5.2 Corrosion Resistance of Free-Span Laser Welded Joints - 5-3
As-Welded Condition
5.3 Corrosion Resistance of Free-Span Laser Welded Joints - With Post Weld 5-10
Heat Treatment
5.4 Corrosion Resistance Evaluation of Lower Tubesheet Sleeve 5-10
Laser Welded Joints
5.5 Effects of Sleeving on Tube-to-Tubesheet Weld 5-12
5.5.1 Lower HEJ Joint 5-12
5.5.2 Lower Seal Weld 5-12
5.6 Outside Diameter Surface Condition 5-14
5.7 References 5-15

6.0 INSTALLATION PROCESS DESCRIPTION 6-1

6.1 Tube Preparation 6-1
6.1.1 Tube End Rolling (Contingency) 6-1
6.1.2 Tube Cleaning (Optional) 6-2
6.2 Sleeve Insertion and Expansion 6-2
6.3 Lower Joint Hard Roll (Tubesheet Sleeves) 6-4

WPF0783:49/021694
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)

Section Title Page

6.4 General Description of Laser Weld Operation 6-4

6.5 Rewelding 6-5
6.6 Post-Weld Heat Treatment [(a~ 6-5
6.6.1 Post-Weld Heat Treatment Tooling 6-5
6.6.2 Post-Weld Heat Treatment Process 6-6
6.7 Inspection Plan 6-13
6.8 References 6-13

7.0 NDE INSPECTABILiTY 7-1

7.1 Inspection Plan Logic 7-1
7.2 General Process Overview of Ultrasonic Examination 7-2
7.2.1 Principle of Operation and Data Processing of Ultrasonic Examination 7-2
7.2.2 Ultrasonic Inspection Equipment and Tooling 7-4
7.2.3 Laser Weld Test Sample Results 7-6
7.2.4 Ultrasonic Inspection Summary 7-6
7.3 Eddy Current Inspection 7-6
7.3.1 Eddy Current Inspection Principle of Operation 7-11
7.3.2 Transition Region Eddy Current Inspection 7-12
7.3.3 Laser Weld Region Eddy Current Inspection 7-21
7.3.4 Eddy Current Inspection Summary 7-26
7.4 Alternate Post Installation Acceptance Methods 7-26
7.4.1 Bounding Inspections 7-26
7.4.2 Workmanship Samples 7-27
7.4.3 Other Advanced Examination Techniques 7-27
7.5 Inservice Inspection Plan for Sleeved Tubes 7-27
7.6 References 7-28

WPF0783:49/021694
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

2-1 ASME Code and Regulatory Requirements 2-4

*3-1 Summary of Material Properties Tube Material 3-11

Mill Annealed Alloy 600

3-2 Summary of Material Properties Sleeve Material 3-12

Thermally Treated Alloy 690

3-3 Summary of Material Properties 3-13

Tubesheet Material SA-508 Class 2

3-4 Summary of Material Properties Air 3-14

3-5 Summary of Material Properties Water 3-14

3-6 Criteria for Primary Stress Intensity Evaluation 3-15

(Sleeve) - Alloy 690

3-7 Criteria for Primary Stress Intensity Evaluation 3-15

(Tube) - Alloy 600

3-8 Criteria for Primary Plus Secondary Stress 3-16

Intensity Evaluation Sleeve - Alloy 690

3-9 Criteria for Primary Plus Secondary Stress 3-16

Intensity Evaluation Tube - Alloy 600

3-10 Summary of Transient Events 3-17

3-11 Umbrella Pressure Loads for Design, 3-18

Faulted, and Test Conditions

3-12 Summary of Maximum Primary Stress Intensity 3-19

Full Length Tubesheet Laser Welded Sleeve
Sleeve/Tube Weld Width of [ ] ax

Page Numbers for All Tables. in Section 3 Have Changed

WPF0783:49/022494
 LIST OF TABLES (cont)

Table Title Page

3-13 Summary of Maximum Primary Stress Intensity 3-20

Full Length Tubesheet Laser Welded Sleeve
Sleeve/Tube Weld Width of [] c

3-14 Maximum Range of Stress Intensity and Fatigue 3-21

Full Length Tubesheet Laser Welded Sleeve
Sleeve/Tube Weld Width of [ ~
[ ]a,c

3-15 Generic Tube Sleeving Calculations, 3-43

Flow Reduction and Hydraulic Equivalency
for Series 44 SGs

3-16 Generic Tube Sleeving Calculations, Flow 3-44

Reduction and Hydraulic Equivalency for
Series 51 SGs

4-1. Mechanical Test Program Summary 4-2

4-2 Bounding Maximum Allowable Leak Rates for Series 44 and 51 4-5
Steam Generators

4-3 Test Results for As-Rolled Lower Joints 4-6

4-4 Test Results for Lower Joints with Exceptional Conditions 4-8
for Tube and Sleeve

4-5. Additional Tests Results for Lower Joints with Exceptional 4-9
Conditions for Tube and Sleeve

4-6 Lower Joint Test Results (with Seal Weld) 4-11

4-7 Free Span Joint Maximum Stress Relief Temperature 4-12

4-8 Free Span Joint Leak Rate and Loading Data 4-15

WPF0783:49/021694
 LIST OF TABLES (cont)

Table Title Page

5-1 Summary of Accelerated 750'F Steam Corrosion Test Results 5-8

for YAG Laser Sleeve Welds

5-2 Corrosion Resistance Evaluation of Lower Tubesheet 5-13

Laser Welded Sleeve Joints

6-1 Sleeve Process Sequence Summary 6-3

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

1-1 Example 12-inch Support Plate 1-3

Sleeve Coverage in a Series 51
Steam Generator

2-1 Tubesheet. Laser Welded Sleeve Installed 2-5

Configuration

2-2 Support Plate Laser Welded Sleeve 2-6

Installed Configuration

*3-1 Schematic of Tubesheet Sleeve Configuration 3-22

3-2 Channelhead/TubesheetlShell Model 3-23

3-3 Thermal/Hydraulic Boundary Conditions 3-24

Tubesheet Sleeve Analysis

3-4 Channelhead/Tubesheet/Shell Model 3-25

Primary Pressure Boundary Conditions

3-5 Cbannelheadfl'ubesbeet/Shell Model 3-26

Distorted Geometry Primary Pressure Loading

3-6 Channelhead/TubesheetlShell Model 3-27

Channelbead Thermal Boundary Conditions

3-7 Channelhead/TubesheetlShell Model 3-28

Distorted Geometry Channelhead Thermal Loading

3-8 Boundary Condition for Unit Primary Pressure 3-29

Intact Tube: PPRI > PSEC

3-9 Boundary Condition for Unit Primary Pressure 3-30

Intact Tube: PPRI <PSEC

3-10 Boundary Condition for Unit Primary Pressure 3-31

Severed Tube: PpR > PsEc

Page Numbers for All Figures in Section 3 Have Changed

WPF0783:49/022494
 LIST OF FIGURES (cont)

Figure Title Page

3-11 Boundary Condition for Unit Primary Pressure 3-32

Severed Tube: PPRI < PSEC

3-12 Boundary Condition for Unit Secondary Pressure 3-33

Intact Tube: PPRI > PE

3-13 Boundary Condition for Unit Secondary Pressure 3-34

Intact Tube: PPRI < PSEC

3-14 Boundary Condition for Unit Secondary Pressure 3-35

Severed Tube: PPRI > PSEC

3-15 Boundary Condition for Unit Secondary Pressure 3-36

Severed Tube: PPRI < PSEC

3-16 ASN Location - Upper LWJ 3-37

3-17 ASN Location - Lower LWJ 3-38

3-18 Hydraulic Equivalency Number for Series 44 3-45

Steam Generators

3-19 Hydraulic Equivalency Number for Series 51 3-46

Steam Generators

4-1 Tubesheet Sleeve Lower Joint Test Specimen 4-4

4-2 Free-Span Laser Welded Joint Test Specimen 4-13

5-1 Accelerated Corrosion Test Specimen for Welded Joint 5-2

Configuration

5-2 Accelerated Corrosion Test Specimen for Roll Transition 5-4

Configuration

WPF0783:49/02 1694
 LIST OF FIGURES (cont)

Figure Title Page

5-3 IGSCC in Alloy 600 Tube of YAG Laser Welded Sleeve 5-5
Joint After 109 Hours in 750OF Accelerated Steam
Corrosion Test

5-4 Cumulative Percent Cracking For CO 2 Laser Welded 5-6

Sleeves in 750*1F Accelerated Steam Corrosion Test

5-5 Cumulative Percent Cracking For CO2 Laser Welded 5-7

Sleeves in 750'F Accelerated Steam Corrosion Tests

5-6 Cumulative Percent Cracking For YAG Laser Welded 5-9

Sleeves in 750'F Accelerated Steam Corrosion Test

5-7 Minor IGSCC in Alloy 600 Tube of Stress Relieved 5-11

YAG Laser Welded Joint After 1000 Hours in 750'F
Accelerated Steam Corrosion Test

6-1 Laser Welded Sleeve With Reweld 6-8

6-2 Vertical Test Stand Mock-Up 6-9

6-3 Initial Stress Relief Test Samples Detailed 6-10

6-4 Field Prototypic Test Samples Detailed 6-11

6-5 Typical Stress Relief Power Profile 6-12

7-1 Ultrasonic Inspection of Welded Sleeve Joint 7-3

7-2 Typical Digitized UT Waveform 7-5

7-3 C-Scan From UT Examination of an Acceptable Laser Weld 7-7

7-4 UT Setup Standard 7-8

WPF0783:49/02 1694
 LIST OF FIGURES (cont)

Figure Title Page

7-5 C-Scan from UT Examination of an Equipment Setup 7-9

Standard

7-6 C-Scan from UT Examination of Workmanship Sample 7-10

of a Laser Welded Sleeve with two EDM Notches

7-7 [ jaxc~e Calibration Curve 7-13

7-8 Eddy Current Signals from the ASTM Standard, 7-14

Machined on the Sleeve O.D. of the Sleeve/Tube
Assembly Without Expansion (Cross Wound Coil Probe)

7-9 Eddy Current Signals from the ASTM Standard, 7-15

Machined on the Tube O.D. of the Sleeve/Tube
Assembly Without Expansion (Cross Wound Coil
Probe)

7-10 Eddy Current Signals from the Expansion Transition 7-16

Region of the Tube/Sleeve Assembly (Cross Wound
Coil Probe)

7-11 Eddy Current Calibration Curve for ASTM Tube 7-17

Standard at [ ] c~ and a Mix Using
the Cross Wound Coil Probe

7-12 Eddy Current Signal from a 20% Deep Hole, 7-18

Half the Volume of ASTM Standard, Machined on
the Sleeve O.D. in the Expansion Transition
Region of the Sleeve/Tube Assembly (Cross Wound
Coil Probe)

7-13 Eddy Current Signal from a 40% ASTM 7-19

Standard, Machined on the Tube O.D. in the
Expansion Transition Region of the Sleeve/Tube
Assembly (Cross Wound Coil Probe)

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 LIST OF FIGURES (cont)

Figure Title Page

7-14 Eddy Current Response of the ASTM Tube Standard 7-20

at the End of the Sleeve Using the Cross Wound
Coil Probe and Multifrequency Combination

7-15 Crosswound [ ],e' Eddy Current Baseline of 7-22

Laser Weld

7-16 Crosswound Mix Eddy Current Response Baseline of 7-23

Laser Weld

7-17 Crosswound [ P'~e Eddy Current Response After 7-24

40% Flat Bottomed Hole was Placed in OD of
Tube at Center of Weld

7-18 Crosswound Mix Eddy Current Response After 40% 7-25

Flat Bottomed Hole was placed in OD of Tube at
Center of Weld

WPF0783:49/021494
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Under Plant Technical Specification requirements steam generator tubes are periodically inspected for
degradation using non-destructive examination techniques. If established inspection criteria are exceeded,
the tube must be removed from service by plugging or the tube must be brought back into compliance
with the Technical Specification Criteria. Tube sleeving is one technique used to return the tube to an
operable condition. Tube sleeving is a process in which a smaller diameter tube or sleeve is positioned
to span the area of degradation. It is subsequently secured to the tube, forming a new pressure boundary
and structural element in the area between the attachment points.

This document was prepared to summarize the technical information developed to support licensing of the
laser welded sleeve installation process. This document is not intended to describe the detailed installation
verification steps; those steps are in the installation procedures. The principles of the eddy current test
and ultrasonic test nondestructive examinations for installation and inservice are defined.

This report addresses two distinct types of sleeves - a tubesheet sleeve and a support plate sleeve. Each
of these sleeve types has several installation options which can be applied. The tubesheet sleeve is
appropriate for all plants which have degradation at the top of the tubesheet, and/or within the tubesheet
above the lower joint since the lower joint is formed at the bottom of the tubesheet. The tube support
plate (TSP) sleeve may be installed to bridge degradation located at tube support plate locations or in the
free span section of the tube.

Installation and inspection options will be selected in advance of performing the field campaign. This
determination will be made based on degradation history, current degradation rates, utility steam generator
maintenance strategy, schedule, and cost. Thus, the application can be optimized to utility needs by
applying the proper combination of 'modular' sleeve-tube joint options.

This report serves as the 'reference' design basis for laser welded sleeves for plants with Series 44 and
51 steam generators. However, changes in plant operating parameters can occur as a result of system or
operating modifications. Therefore, prior to installation of laser welded sleeves at any plant with Series 44
or 51 steam generators, a supplementary plant specific review of the applicable operating parameters at
the time of sleeve installation relative to the design basis parameters will be performed. This review will
be documented in a separate report, and the two reports will together form the plant specific design basis
for the laser welded sleeves.

1.1 Report Applicability

This report is applicable to Westinghouse Series 44 and 51 steam generators. These steam generators are
U-tube heat exchangers with mill annealed Alloy 600 heat transfer tubes which have a 0.875 inch nominal
outside diameter (01)) and 0.050 inch nominal wall thickness.

WPF0783:49/02 1494
Data are presented to support the application of two sleeve designs; tubesheet and tube support plate.
Moreover, with each design, several utility selectable application options are provided. The sleeve size
and options are:

Tube support plate sleeve

* 12 inch long
* welding with post weld heat treatment
* welding without post weld heat treatment

Tubesheet sleeve
i
" 27 inches to 36 inches long
" straight or bowed (enhanced for peripheral coverage)
" upper weld Joint with post weld heat treatment
" upper weld joint without post weld heat treatment
" lower joint with seal weld
" lower joint without seal weld

The sleeves described herein have been designed, analyzed, or tested to meet the service requirements of
the Series 44 and 51 steam generators through the use of conservative and enveloping thermal boundary
conditions and structural loadings. The structural analysis and mechanical performance of the sleeves are
based on installation in the hot leg of the steam generator.

1.2 Sleeving Boundary

Tubes to be sleeved will be selected by radial location, tooling access (due to channelhead geometric
constraints), sleeve length, and eddy current analysis of the extent and location of the degradation.

The boundary is determined by the amount of clearance below a given tube, as well as tooling and robot
delivery system constraints. At the time of application the exact sleeving boundary will be developed.
For reference purposes, a typical Series 51 Rosa III sleeving coverage map for 12 inch long support plate
sleeves is shown if Figure 1-1.

WPF0783:49/021494
 Figure 1-1

Example 12-inch Support Plate Sleeve Coverage

in a Series 51 Steam Generator

WPF0783:49/021494
2.0 SLEEVE DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN

2.1 Sleeve Design Description

Tube sleeves effectively restore a degraded tube to a condition consistent with the design requirements
of the tube. The design of the sleeve and sleeving process is predicated on the design rules of Section 111,
Subsection NB, of the ASME Code. Also, the sleeve design addresses dimensional constraints imposed
by the tube inside diameter and installation tooling. These constraints include variations in tube wall
thickness, tube ovality, tube inside diameter, tube to tube sheet joint variations and runout/concentricity
variations.

2.1.1 Tubesheet Sleeve

The reference design of the tubesheet sleeve, as installed, is illustrated on Figure 2-1. At the upper end,
the sleeve configuration consists of a section which is hydraulically expanded. The hydraulic expansion
of the upper joint brings the sleeve into contact with the parent tube to achieve the proper fitup geometry
for welding. Following the hydraulic expansion, an autogenous weld is made between the sleeve and the
tube using the laser welding process. This joint configuration is known as a laser welded joint (LWJ).

The tubesheet sleeve extends from the tubesheet primary face to above the tube degradation. In the process
of sleeve length optimization and allowing for axial tolerance in locating degradation by eddy current
inspection, the guideline is that the welds are to be positioned a
] a,e~c

The upper joint is located so as to provide

I.a,c,e.

At the lower end, the sleeve configuration consists of a section which is

Ia,c,e

WPF0783-2:49/022594
 ] a,c,e

2.1.2 Tube Support Plate Sleeve

The support plate sleeve is shown in Figure 2-2. Each end of the sleeve has a hydraulic expansion region
within which the weld is placed. The weld configuration is the same for both upper and lower joints and
is the same as the upper weld in the tubesheet sleeves. Tube support sleeves are qualified for the second
from-highest support plate elevation through the lowest elevation for both series of steam generators.
(Qualification of the sleeve at the top support plate would require a small structural evaluation and minor
modifications to the tooling. The hydraulic equivalency and flow reduction calculations have already been
made for support plate sleeves at all elevations for both series of steam generators and, are reported in
Section 3.)

Ia~c,e

The sleeve material, thermally treated Alloy 690, was selected to provide additional resistance to stress
corrosion cracking.

2.1.3 Sleeving of Previously Plugged Tubes

Previously plugged tubes must meet the same requirements as sleeving candidates as never-plugged, active
tubes. An example of this requirement is that the minimum distance, as measured along the tube axis
between degradation and the location of the sleeve welds, is the same in both cases. Another example
is that the tube deplugging process performed by Westinghouse as part of the sleeving process is designed
to leave the tube in a condition to be returned to service unsleeved, excluding the degradation which
caused the tube to be plugged in the first place. The deplugging process is designed to leave the tube-to
tubesheet weld and tube portion adjacent to the weld in a condition to perform the pressure boundary
function without any added integrity from the sleeve-to-tube lower joint.

2.2 Sleeve Design Documentation

The sleeves are designed and analyzed according to the 1986 edition of Section HII of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, as well as applicable United

WPF0783-2:49/022494
States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) Regulatory Guides. The associated materials and
processes also meet the rules of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Specific documents
applicable to this program are listed in Table 2-1.

2.2.1 Weld Qualification Program

The laser welding process used to install ]a~c nominal OD sleeves into 0.875 inch nominal OD
tubes was qualified per the guidelines of the ASME Code which specify the generation of a procedure
qualification record and welding procedure specification.

Specific welding processes were generated for:

- Sleeve weld joints made outside of the tubesheet

- Sleeve weld joints made outside of the tubesheet with thermal treatment

- Repair or rewelding of sleeve joints

- Sleeve weld joints made within the tubesheet

These processes address the weld joints necessary for installation of the tubesheet and support plate types
of sleeves discussed earlier.

To provide similitude between the specimens and the actual installed welds, representative field processes
are used to assemble the specimens. The laser welded joints are representative in length and diametral
expansion of the hydraulic expansion zone. The sleeve and tube materials are consistent with the materials'
and dimensional conditions representative of the field application. Essential welding variables, defined in
ASME Code Case N-395, are used to develop the weld process.

1a~de

2.2.2 Weld Qualification Acceptance Criteria

For the qualification of the process, the acceptance criteria specify that the welds shall be free of cracks
and lack of fusion and meet design requirements for weld throat and minimum leakage path. The welds
shall meet the liquid penetrant test requirements of NB-3530.

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 Table 2-1

ASME CODE AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Item Applicable Criteria Reqiuirement

Sleeve Design Section III NB-3200, Analysis

NB-3300, Wall Thickness

Operating Requirements Analysis Conditions

Reg. Guide 1.83 SG Tubing Inspectability

Reg. Guide 1.121 Plugging Margin

Sleeve Material Section II Material Composition

Section III NB-2000, Identification,

Tests and Examinations

Code Case N-20 Mechanical Properties

Sleeve Joint 1OCFR100 Predicted Steam Line

Break Leak Rate

Technical Specifications Operating Primary to

Secondary Leak Rate

Section IX Weld Qualification

Code Case N-395/Section IX Laser Welding Essential

Section XI Variables, Procedure
Qualification Record,
Sleeving Procedure
Specification, Certified
Design Report, etc.

*Denotes Change

WPF0783-2:49/022494
 Figure 2-1

Tubesheet Laser Welded

Sleeve Installed Configuration

WPF0783:49/021494
 Figure 2-2

Support Plate Laser Welded

Sleeve Installed Configuration

WPF0783:49/021494
3.0 ANALYTICAL VERIFICATION

This section of the report provides the analytical justification for the laser welded sleeves. Section 3.1
deals with the structural justification, and Section 3.2 provides the thermal/hydraulic justification.

3.1 Structural Analysis

Section 3.1 summarizes the structural analysis of the tubesheet and tube support plate laser welded sleeves
for plants with Series 44 and 51 steam generators. The loading conditions considered in the analysis
represent an umbrella set of conditions based on the applicable design specifications, and are defined in
Reference (1). The analysis includes finite element model development, a heat transfer and thermal stress
evaluation, a primary stress intensity evaluation, a primary plus secondary stress range evaluation, and a
fatigue evaluation for mechanical and thermal conditions. Calculations are also performed to establish
minimum wall requirements for the sleeve.

3.1.1 Component Description

3.1.1.1 Tubesheet Sleeve

The design of the tubesheet sleeve, as installed, is illustrated in Figure 2-1.[

At the lower tube/sleeve interface, the sleeve configuration consists of a section[

]ax

At the upper end of the sleeve, the sleeve consists of a section that[

]a'c A schematic of the tube / sleeve

interfaces and the various[ ]ax is provided in Figure 3-1.

3.1.1.2 Tube Support Plate Sleeve

The installed configuration of the tube support plate sleeve is shown in Figure 2-2. The sleeve is
12 inches long, and is

aC

WPF0783-3:49/022494
3.1.2 Summary of Material Properties

The material of construction for the tubing in Westinghouse designed Series 44 and 51 steam generators
is a nickel base alloy. Alloy 600 in the mill annealed (MA) condition. The sleeve material is also a nickel
base alloy, thermally treated Alloy 690. Summaries of the applicable mechanical, thermal, and strength
properties for the tube and sleeve materials are provided in Tables 3-1, and 3-2, respectively. The sleeve
evaluation also includes the response of the tubesheet, which is constructed of SA-508, Class 2 Carbon
steel. A summary of the applicable properties for the tubesheet material is provided in Table 3-3.
Thermal properties for air and water, used in performing the heat transfer analysis, are provided in
Tables 3-4 and 3-5. The fatigue curve used in the analysis of the laser welds corresponds to the code
curve for austenitics and nickel-chromium-iron (Inconel).

3.1.3 Applicable Criteria

The applicable criteria for evaluating the sleeves is defined in the ASME Code, Section 1111, Subsection
NB, 1986 Edition, Reference (2). Although the lower joint in the tubesheet sleeve is classified as a seal
weld, it is also evaluated to the ASMIE Code criteria. In establishing minimum wall requirements for
plugging limits, Regulatory Guide 1.121, Reference (3), is used. A summary of the applicable stress and
fatigue limits for the sleeve and tube are summarized in Tables 3-6 through 3-9.

3.1.4 Loading Conditions Considered

The loadings considered in the analysis represent an umbrella set of conditions and are defined in
Reference 1. The analysis considers a full duty cycle of events that includes, design, normal, upset,
faulted, and test conditions. A summary of the applicable transient conditions is provided in Table 3-10.
Two test conditions, primary and secondary hydrostatic tests have been considered that are not defined
in Reference 1, but are judged to be representative of current operating practices. The applicable
temperatures and pressures are based on recent design specifications for modified steam generators.
Umbrella pressure loads for Design, Faulted and Test conditions are summarized in Table 3-11.

3.1.5 Analysis Methodology

The analysis of the laser welded sleeve designs utilizes both conventional and finite element analysis
techniques. Several finite element models are used for the analysis. For the tubesheet sleeve analysis,

]a Typically, the tubesheet sleeve model incorporates

a ] ax in the tubesheet.

WPF0783-3:49/022494
For Series 44 and 51 steam generators, the type and extent [

ais considered in this analysis. The

tolerances used in developing the sleeve models are such that

]a,' The results for the upper joint for the tubesheet sleeve are
concluded to apply conservatively to the tube support plate sleeve. This is based on the temperature and
pressure loads for the tubesheet sleeve for all transient conditions being greater than or equal to those for
the tube support plate sleeve.

The lower laser welded joint (LWJ) for the tubesheet sleeve is[

]ax

The analysis also considers both

]ax

The nominal width (interfacial axial extent) of the laser weld joining the tube and sleeve for all joints is
[ ]',c However, qualification tests for the weld process have shown that the welds may be as
small as [ ]a Thus, in performing this analysis, weld widths of both [ I ~and
I ]',cwere considered. The stress and fatigue results reported later in the report are for the
limiting weld geometry, or the [ ]ax width.

In addition to the sleeve models, a separate model of the tubesheet, channelhead, and lower shell was
developed and used to calculate tubesheet rotations under combined pressure and temperature loadings.
Resulting loads imposed on the sleeve as a result of the tubesheet rotations are applied to the sleeve model
in the form of radial pressures on the model outer boundary.

For both the sleeve model and the tubesheet, channelbead, and shell model, separate models were
developed for the Series 44 and 51 geometries. Separate calculations were then run for the two sets of
models. A plot of the tubesheet, channelbead, and shell model for the Series 51 steam generators is shown
in Figure 3-2.

3.1.6 Heat Transfer Analysis

The first step in calculating the stresses induced in the sleeves as a result of the thermal transients, is to
perform a heat transfer analysis to establish the temperature distribution for the sleeve, tube, and tubesheet.

WPF0783-3:49/022494
Based on a review of the transient descriptions, I"~ transients were selected for evaluation. They
include the following events:

The[
]a,c

In performing the heat transfer analysis,

] ax A sketch of the model boundary conditions for the heat transfer analysis are shown in
Figure 3-3.

In order to determine the appropriate boundary conditions for the heat transfer analysis,

]a,c

3.1.7 Tubesheet/ChannelheadlShell Evaluation

As discussed above, loads are imposed on the sleeve as a result of tubesheet rotations under pressure and
temperature conditions. For this evaluation, tubesheet rotations are established for five reference loading
conditions, and subsequently scaled to actual transient conditions. The five reference loading conditions
consist of [ ax

The I]ax loadings. The

boundary conditions and subsequent deformed geometry for the primary side pressure load for Series 51
steam generators are shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5, respectively.

The [
]a'C A typical set
] ax
of boundary conditions, and the resulting deformed geometry, for the case of
for the Series 51 steam generators is shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7.

WPF0783:49/021494
Once the stress solutions for the reference load cases are obtained,[

] ax

3.1.8 Stress Analysis

In performing the stress evaluation for the sleeve models,

]a,c Sketches of the model boundary conditions for the primary side pressure cases are shown
in Figures 3-8 through 3-11. Sketches of the model boundary conditions for the secondary side pressure
cases are shown in Figures 3-12 through 3-15. It should be noted for both sets of loads that the end cap
load on the tube is not included, but is considered in a separate load case.

The analysis considers[

The effects of [I

Finally, [I

WPF0783:49/021494
The total stress distribution in the sleeve-to-tube assembly is determined by combining the calculated
stresses as follows:
b,c

3.1.9 ASME Code Evaluation

The ASME Code evaluation is performed using a Westinghouse proprietary computer code. The
evaluation is performed for specific "analysis sections" (ASN's) through the finite element model. The
ASN's evaluated to determine the acceptability of the sleeve design are shown in Figure 3-16 for the upper
LWJ and in Figure 3-17 for the lower LWJ.

The umbrella loads for the primary stress intensity evaluation have been given previously in Table 3-1 1.
The largest magnitudes of the ratio "Calculated Stress Intensity / Allowable Stress Intensity" for both the
Series 44 and 51 steam generators are I fCfor design conditions, [ ]a,~ for faulted (feedline break)
conditions, and [ ~Cfor test (primary side hydrostatic) conditions. The analysis results show the
primary stress intensities for the laser welded sleeved tube assembly to satisfy the allowable ASME Code
limits. A summary of the limiting stress conditions are provided in Table 3-12 with the
]ax

WPF0783:49/02 1494
The results for maximum range of stress intensity and fatigue are summarized in Table 3-14 for the tube
being[

]a,c

The analysis results show the ASMEff Code limits to be satisfied.

3.1.10 Minimum Required Sleeve Wail Thickness

In establishing the safe limiting condition of a sleeve in terms of its remaining wall thickness, the effects
of loadings during both the normal operation and the postulated accident conditions must be evaluated.
The applicable stress criteria are in terms of allowables for the primary membrane and
membrane-plus-bending stress intensities. Hence, only the primary loads (loads necessary for equilibrium)
need be considered.

For computing tn, the pressure stress equation NB-3324.1 of the Code is used. That is,

=ni APi x RP

Normal/Upset Operation Loads

The limiting stresses during normal and upset operating conditions are the primary membrane stresses due
to the primary-to-secondary pressure differential AP1 across the tube wall. During normal operation, the
primary side pressure, Pi, is

]ax

The limits on primary stress, Pm, for a primary-to-secondary pressure differential AP,, are as follows:

Normal: Pm < S/
Upset: Pm < S

Using the pressure stress equation, the resulting values for tn are

PI~C

WPF0783-3:49/022494
Accident Condition Loadings

LOCA + SSE
The dominant loading for LOCA and SSE loads occurs[

]ax

FLB/SLB + SSE:
The maximum primary-to-secondary pressure differential. occurs during a postulated feedline break (FLB)
accident. Again, [ ]ax the SSE bending stresses are small. Thus, the
governing stresses for the minimum wall thickness requirement are the pressure membrane stresses. For
the FLB + SSE transient, the applicable pressure loads are

]a, The applicable

criteria for faulted loads is:

Pm < lesser of 0.7 S,, or 2.4 S.

Using the pressure stress equation, the resulting value for t.n is [ ax

In summary, considering all of the applied loadings, the minimum required sleeve wall thickness is
calculated to be I acremaining wall for nominal operating conditions.

3.1.11 Determination of Plugging Limits

The minimum acceptable wall thickness and other recommended practices in Regulatory Guide 1.121 are
used to determine a plugging limit for the sleeve. This Regulatory Guide was written to provide guidance
for the determination of a plugging limit for steam generator tubes undergoing localized tube wall loss
and can be conservatively applied to sleeves. Tubes with sleeves which are determined to have indications
of degradation of the sleeve in excess of the plugging limit, would have to be repaired or removed from
service.

As recommended in paragraph C.2.b. of the Regulatory Guide, an additional thickness degradation

allowance must be added to the minimum acceptable tube wall thickness to establish the operational tube
thickness acceptable for continued service. Paragraph C.31f of the Regulatory Guide specifies that the
basis used in setting the operational degradation allowance include the method and data used in predicting
the continuing degradation and consideration of eddy current measurement errors and other significant

WPF0783-3:49/022494
eddy current testing parameters. An eddy current measurement uncertainty value of [ ]a,, of the tube

wall thickness is applied for use in the determination of the operational tube thickness acceptable for
continued service and thus determination of the plugging limit.

Paragraph C.3.f of the Regulatory Guide specified that the basis used in setting the operational degradation
analysis include the method and data used in predicting the continuing degradation. To develop a value
for continuing degradation, sleeve experience must be reviewed. To date, no degradation has been
detected on Westinghouse designed mechanical joint sleeves and no sleeved tube has been removed from
service due to degradation of any portion of the sleeve. This result can be attributed to the changes in
the sleeve material relative to the tube and the lower heat flux due to the double wall in the sleeved
region. Sleeves installed with the laser weld joint are expected to experience the same performance. As
a conservative measure, the conventional practice of applying a value of [ ]a,c of the sleeve wall is
applied as an allowance for continued degradation is used in this evaluation.

In summary, the operational sleeve thickness acceptable for continued service includes the minimum
acceptable sleeve wall thickness [ I]a and the combined allowance for eddy current
uncertainty and operational degradation [la'. These terms total to []a'C resulting in a plugging
limit as determined by Regulatory Guide 1.121 recommendations of [ ax of the sleeve wall thickness.

3.1.12 Application of Plugging Limits

Sleeves which have eddy current indications of degradation in excess of the plugging limits must be
repaired or plugged. Those portions of the sleeve for which indications of wall degradation must be
evaluated are summarized as follows:
a,c

WPF0783-3:49/022494
3.1.13 Analysis Conclusions

Based on the results of this analysis, the design of the laser welded tubesheet sleeve and the tube support
plate sleeve are concluded to meet the requirements of the ASME Code. The applicable plugging limit
for the sleeve is [ ]a,, of the initial wall thickness.

WPF0783-3:49/022494 31
3-10
 TABLE 3-1

SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES

TUBE MATERIAL
MILL ANNEALED ALLOY 600

TEMPERATURE (-F)

PROPERTY 70. 200 j30014001 500 600 700

Young's Modulus 31.00 30.20 29.90 29.50 29.00 28.70 28.20
psi x 1.E06

Coefficient of Thermal 6.90 7.20 7.40 7.57 7.70 7.82 7.94

Expansion
in/in/0 F x 1 OE-06

Density 7.94 7.92 7.90 7.89 7.87 7.85 7.83

lb-sec 2/in 4 X I OE-04

Thermal Conductivity 2.01 2.11 2.22 2.34 2.45 2.57 2.68

Btu/sec-in- 0 F x 1.OE-04

Specific Heat 41.2 42.6 43.9 44.9 45.6 47.0 47.9

Btu-in~lb-seC2 _'F

STRENGTH PROPERTIES
(ksi)

Sm 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30 23.30

Sy
Su J80.00
35.00 32.70
80.00
31.00
80.00
29.80
80.00
28.80
80.00
27.90
80.00
27.00
80.00

WPF0793:49/02 1494 31
3-11
 TABLE 3-2

SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES

SLEEVE MATERIAL
THERMALLY TREATED ALLOY 690

TEMPERATURE (-F)

PROPERTY 70 J200 300 400 500 600 [ 700

Young's Modulus 30.30 29.70 29.20 28.80 28.30 27.80 27.30

psi x 1.0E06

Coefficient of Thermal 7.76 7.85 7.93 8.02 8.09 8.16 8.25

Expansion
inlin/0 F x I OE-06

Density 7.62 7.59 7.56 7.56 7.54 7.51 7.51

lb-seC2/in 4 X 1.OE-04

Thermal Conductivity 1.62 1.76 1.9 2.04 2.18 2.31 2.45

Btu/sec-in- 0 F x 1.OE-04

Specific Heat 41.7 43.2 44.8 45.9 47.1 47.9 49.0

Btu-inlb-seC2 _'F

STRENGTH PROPERTIES
(ksi)

Sm 26.60 26.60 26.60 26.60 26.60 26.60 26.60

Sy 40.00 36.80 34.60 33.00 31.80 31.10 30.60
Su 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00

WPF0783:49/02 1494 31
3-12
 TABLE 3-3

SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES

TUBESHEET MATERIAL
SA-508 CLASS 2

I TEMPERATURE (-F)

PROPERTY j 70 [200 { ]400 300 500 600 j 700

Young's Modulus 29.20 28.50 28.00 27.40 27.00 26.40 25.30
psi x 1.0E06

Coefficient of Thermal 6.50 6.67 6.87 7.07 7.25 7.42 7.59

Expansion
inlin/0 F x I OE-06

Density 7.32 7.3 7.29 7.27 7.26 7.24 7.22

lb-sec 2/in 4 X 1.OE-04

Thermal Conductivity 5.49 5.56 5.53 5.46 5.35 5.19 5.02

0
Btu/sec-in- F x 1 OE-04

Specific Heat 41.9 44.5 46.8 48.8 50.8 52.8 55.1

Btu-in~lb-sec'-oF

STRENGTH PROPERTIES
(ksi)JJ__________________________________
Sm J26.70 26.70 26.70 26.70 26.70 26.70 26.70
Sy50.00 47.50 46.10 45.10 44.50 43.80 43.10
Su 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00

WPF0783:49/02 1494 31
3-13
 TABLE 3-4

SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES

AIR

J TEMPERATURE (-F)

PROPERTY J J200 [300 J ]500

70 400 600 J700
Density 10.63 8.99 7.79 6.89 6.17 5.59 5.11
2
lb-sec /in 4 X 1 OE-08

Thermal Conductivity 3.56 4.03 4.47 4.91 5.35 5.78 6.20

Btulsec-in-0 F x I .OE-07

Specific Heat 9.27 9.31 9.38 9.46 9.55 9.66 9.78

Btu-inI~b-sec 2 _'F x I OE+01II

TABLE 3-5

SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES

WATER

J TEMPERATURE ('F)

PROPERTY J 70 j200 300 400 500 600 700

Density 9.28 9.01 8.58 8.04 7.34 6.35 4.65

lb-sec2/in 4 X 1 OE-05

Thermal Conductivity 8.46 9.07 9.14 8.89 8.24 6.9 4.42

Btu/sec-in- 0 F x 1 OE-06

Specific Heat 3.82 3.88 3.96 4.12 4.37 5.26 8.51

Btu-inI~b-sec 2 _'F x 1.OE+02II

WPF0783:49/021 494 31
3-14
 TABLE 3-6

CRITERIA FOR PRIMARY STRESS INTENSITY EVALUATION

SLEEVE - ALLOY 690

CONDITION CRITERIA LIMIT (KSI)

DESIGN m' < S_ P_ < 26.60

P1+Pb:< 1.5 S, P1 + Pb< 39.90
FAULTED P. <.7 S, P_ <56.00
P1+ Pb: 1.05 S,, P1 + Pb < 84.00

Pm < 09 5y
TEST P_ < 36.00
P,+ P:! 1.35 Sy 4 0 0
P1 + b <5 .

ALL P1 +P2 + P3 < 4.0 S. P1 +P2 +P3 < 106.4

CONDITIONS

Note: Pi (i=1,2,3) = Principal stresses

TABLE 3-7

CRITERIA FOR PRIMARY STRESS INTENSITY EVALUATION

TUBE - ALLOY 600

CONDITION CRITERIA LIMIT (KSI)

DESIGN P_ < 23.30

P,+ Pb: 1.5 Sm

FAULTED P.< .75, P_ < 56.0

PI + Pb 1.05 S, Pi + Pb 83.88

TEST P_ <31.50
Pi+ Pb < 1.35 S P1 + Pb <47.25
ALL P1 +P 2 +P 3 < 4.0S, P1 +P 2 +P 3 < 93.20
CONDITIONS

Note: Pi (i=1,2,3) = Principal stresses

WPF07 83:49/021494 31
3-15
 TABLE 3-8

CRITERIA FOR PRIMARY PLUS SECONDARY STRESS

INTENSITY EVALUATION
SLEEVE - ALLOY 690

CONDITION CRITERIA LIMIT (KSI)

NORMAL, UPSET, P,+ Pt, + Q:< 3 S, PI + Pb +Q < 79.8

and TEST

NORMAL, UPSET, Cumulative Fatigue Usage

and TEST

*-Range of Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity

TABLE 3-9

CRITERIA FOR PRIMARY PLUS SECONDARY STRESS

INTENSITY EVALUATION
TUBE - ALLOY 600

CONDITION CRITERIA LIMIT (KSI)

3 6
NORMAL, UPSET, PI + Pb+Q:< Sm P1 + Pb + Q: 9.9
and TEST

NORMAL, UPSET, Cumulative Fatigue Usage

and TEST

* - Range of Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity

WPF0783:49/02 1494 31
3-16
 TABLE 3-10

SUMMARY OF TRANSIENT EVENTS

CLASSIFICATION CONDITION CYCLES

Normal a,c,e

Upset

Faulted

Test

WPF0783:49/021694 31
3-17
 TABLE 3-11

UMBRELLA PRESSURE LOADS FOR

DESIGN, FAULTED, AND TEST CONDITIONS

PRESSURE LOAD, PSIG

CONDITIONS PRIMARY SECONDARY

Desigrn b,c
Design Primary
Design Secondary

Faulted
Reactor Coolant Pipe Break
Feedline Break
Steam line Break
Loss of Secondary Pressure

Test
Primary Side Hydrostatic Test
Secondary Side Hydrostatic Test
Tube Leak Test
Primary Side Leak Test
Secondary Side Leak Test

WPF0783:49/02 1494 31
3-18
 TABLE 3-12

SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PRIMARY STRESS INTENSITY

FULL LENGTH TUBESHEET LASER WELDED SLEEVE

Sleeve/Tube Weld Width of[

[ 181C

zzzI] 1z 71
zzzz 1 1 -_~ z 1

____________ U_____________ I_____________ _____________.11

1
_____________ _____________ ____________ II _____________ _____________ I
____________

____________________________ .1. -A JL .1. _____________ L JL I _____________ ____________

WPF07 83:49/021494 31
3-19
 TABLE 3-13

SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PRIMARY STRESS INTENSITY

FULL LENGTH TUBESHEET LASER WELDED SLEEVE

Sleeve/Tube Weld Width of [ ]~

[ ]alc

[ILZ
IZZEZZI~I ZIZI I_

_ _ I_ [ _ IF - - I I Fi
_ I _ _ I _

_ _ I _ _ [ _ _ _ _ I _ I L_ I _ _ I_

WPF0783:49/02 1494 32
3-20
 TABLE 3-14

MAXIMUM RANGE OF STRESS INTENSITY AND FATIGUE

FULL LENGTH TUBESHEET LASER WELDED SLEEVE

Sleeve/Tube Weld Width of [ ]I

Tube Severed and Dented

Calculated Allowable Calculated

Component S.I. (KSI) S.I. (KSI) Allowable

Straight
Sections Sleeve 79.80

Upper LWJ: Sleeve 79.80

Tube 69.90
Weld 69.90

Lower LWJ: Sleeve 79.80

Tube 69.90
Weld 69.90

Cumulative Fatigue Usage Factor

[ ]axc < 1.0

WPF0783:49/021694 32
3-21
 a,c

Figure 3-1

Schematic of Tubesheet Sleeve Configuration

WPF0783:49/02 1694 32
3-22
 axc

Figure 3-2

Channeihead/Tubesheet/Shell Model

WPF0783:49/021794 32
3-23
 Figure 3-3

Thermal/Hydraulic Boundary Conditions

Tubesheet Sleeve Analysis

WPF0783:49/021794 3-24
 a,c,e

Figure 3-4

Channeihead/Tubesheet/Shell Model
Primary Pressure Boundary Conditions

WPF0783:49/02 1694 32
3-25
 a,c,e

Figure 3-5

Channelhead/TubesheetlShell Model
Distorted Geometry Primary Pressure Loading

WPF0783:49/021694 32
3-26
 a,c,e

Figure 3-6

Channelheadl'fubesheetlShell Model
Channelbead Thermal Boundary Conditions

WPF0783:49/021694 32
3-27
 a,c,e

.Figure 3-7

Channelbead/Tubesheet/Shell Model
Distorted Geometry Channeihead Thermal Loading

WPF0783:49/021694 32
3-28
 a,c,e

Figure 3-8

Boundary Condition for Unit Primary Pressure

Intact Tube: PPRI > PSEC

WPF0783:49/021694 32
3-29
 a,c,e

Figure 3-9

Boundary Condition for Unit Primary Pressure

Intact Tube: PPRI < PSECB

WPF0783:49/021694 33
3-30
 a,c,e

Figure 3-10

Boundary Condition for Unit Primary Pressure

Severed tube: ~PRI > PSEC

WPF0783:49/021694 33
3-31
 a,c,e

Figure 3-11

Boundary Condition for Unit Primary Pressure

Severed Tube: PPRI < PSEC

WPF0783:49/021694 33
3-32
 a,c,e

Figure 3-12

Boundary Condition for Unit Secondary Pressure

Intact Tube: PPRI > PSEC

WPF0783:49/021694 33
3-33
 a,c,e

Figure 3-13

Boundary Condition for Unit Secondary Pressure

Intact Tube: PPRI < PSEC

WPF0783:49/021694 33
3-34
 a,c,e

Figure 3-14

Boundary Condition for Unit Secondary Pressure

Severed Tube: PPRI >"PSEC

WPF0783:49/021694 33
3-35
 a,c,e

Figure 3-15

Boundary Condition for Unit Secondary Pressure

Severed Tube: ~PRI < PSEC

WPF0783:49/02 1694 33
3-36
 a,c,e

Figure 3-16

ASN Location - Upper LWJ

WPF0783:49/021694 33
3-37
 a,c,e

Figure 3-17

ASN Location - Lower LWJ

WPF0783:49/02 1694 33
3-38
3.2 Thermal Hydraulic Analysis

3.2.1 Safety Analyses and Design Transients

From the standpoint of system effects, safety analyses and system transients, steam generator tube
sleeving has the same effect as tube plugging. Sleeves, like plugs, increase both the flow resistance
and the thermal resistance of the steam generator.

Each NSSS is analyzed to demonstrate acceptable operation to a level of plugging denoted as the
plugging limit. When the steam generators include both plugs and sleeves, the total effect must be
shown to be within the plugging limit. To do this, an equivalency relationship between plugged
and sleeved tubes needs to be established. The following section derives a hydraulic equivalency
number. This number represents the number of sleeved tubes which are hydraulically equivalent
to a single plugged tube. It is a function of various parameters including 1) the number and
location of sleeves in a tube, 2) the steam generator model, and 3) the operating conditions.
Conservative bounding values are determined so that a single number applies to a given steam
generator model and tube sleeve configuration.

Once the hydraulic equivalency number is established, the equivalent plugging level of a steam
generator and NSSS can be determined. The equivalent plugging level must remain within the
plugging limit established for the plant.

3.2.2 Equivalent Plugging Level

The insertion of a sleeve into a steam generator tube results in an increase in flow resistance and
a reduction in primary coolant flow in the sleeved tube. Furthermore, the insertion of multiple
sleeves (tubesheet and/or tube support plate sleeves) will lead to a larger flow reduction in the
sleeved tube compared to a nominal unsleeved tube. The flow reduction through a tube due to the
installation of one or more sleeves can be considered equivalent to a portion of the flow loss due
to a plugged tube. A parameter termed the "hydraulic equivalency number" (NhYd) has been
developed which indicates the number of sleeved tubes required to result in the same flow loss as
that due to a single plugged tube.

The calculation of the flow reduction and equivalency number for a sleeved tube is dependent upon
several parameters: 1) the tube geometry, 2) the sleeve geometry, and 3) the steam generator
primary flow rate and temperature. These parameters are used to compute the relative difference
in flow resistance of sleeved and unsleeved tubes operating in hydraulic parallel. This difference
in resistance is then used to compute the relative difference in flow between sleeved (%j1~ and
unsleeved (W~v tubes. The hydraulic equivalency number is then simply:

WPF0783-3:49/022494 33
3-39
 Nhyd=I
I -(~v~
1 "'unv

The hydraulic equivalency number can be computed for both normal operating conditions and
off-normal conditions such as a LOCA. For LOCA conditions, the equivalency number is
established using flow rates consistent with the reflood phase of a post-LOCA accident when peak
clad temperatures exist. The equivalency number for normal operation is independent of the fuel
in the reactor. In all cases, the hydraulic equivalency number for normal operation is more limiting
than for postulated LOCA conditions.

As a result of the flow reduction in a sleeved tube and the insulating effect of the double wall at
the sleeve location, the heat transfer capability of a sleeved tube is less than that of an unsleeved
tube. An evaluation of the loss of heat transfer at normal operating conditions indicated that the
percentage loss of heat transfer capability due to sleeving is less than the percentage loss associated
with the reduction in fluid flow. In other words, the heat transfer equivalency number is larger than
the hydraulic equivalency number. Thus, the hydraulic equivalency number is limiting.

The specific LOCA conditions used to evaluate the effect of sleeving on the ECCS analysis occur
during a portion of the postulated accident when the analysis predicts that the fluid in the secondary
side of the steam generator is warmer than the primary side fluid. For this situati on, the reduction
in heat transfer capability of sleeved tubes would have a beneficial reduction on the heat transferred
from secondary to primary fluids.

The goal of the hydraulic equivalency number calculations described below is to generate
conservative results which envelop the results for all plants which have either Series 44 or 51 steam
generators. As such, it was necessary to consider the effect of a wide variation in primary flow
conditions for normal operation. Flow rates for these parametric calculations ranged from[

]acIt was determined that the most limiting results (largest flow
reduction and smallest hydraulic equivalency number for a sleeved tube) occur with
]ace

In addition to the effect of variations in the primary coolant conditions, the effect of differences in
nominal tube geometries was evaluated. For the 51 Series steam generators there are some
differences in the tube geometry in the tubesheet region, specifically, in the length of the expanded
or rolled region. For some plants, this zone is short (2-3 inches), while for others with a full-depth
roll it extends throughout the full thickness of the tubesheet (2 1-22 inches). Parametric calculations
were completed to determine the specific tube configuration which produces the most conservative
result; this geometry was then used in developing the final reported results. No differences exist

WPFO783-3:49/022494 34
3-40
in the nominal length of the expanded region for the plants with Series 44 steam generators.
Therefore, it was necessary to consider only one tube configuration for the Series 44 plants.

Many combinations of tubesheet (both hot and cold legs) and tube support plate sleeves have been
considered in calculating the flow reduction and hydraulic equivalency. However, to ensure that
the results are enveloping, only the longest sleeves were used in the calculations. These included
a 36 inch long tubesheet sleeve and a 12 inch long tube support plate sleeve. The 36 inch long
tubesheet sleeve is expected to be long enough to span the degraded areas in the tubesheet and
places the upper joint above the sludge pile in either the hot or cold legs. The flow effects of this
sleeve length bound a range of possible tubesheet sleeve lengths which could be specified for any
future sleeving program (27 to 36 inches).

The parametric calculations considered four configurations with regard to the location of sleeves:

1) No tubesheet sleeves with various combinations of support plate

sleeves in both hot and cold legs,

2) No tube support plate sleeves - only hot and/or cold leg

tubesheet sleeves,

3) One tubesheet sleeve (cold leg) with various combinations of

cold leg support plate sleeves, and

4) Both hot and cold leg tubesheet sleeves with various

combinations of support plate sleeves.

Note that the third configuration includes only cold leg tube support plate sleeves and no hot leg
sleeves. The reason for this selection is that, because of the effect of the variation in primary fluid
temperature in the two legs of the tube bundle, support plate and tubesheet sleeves located in the
cold leg produce slightly more conservative results (greater flow reduction) compared to an identical
number and placement of hot leg sleeves. Similarly, slightly more conservative results are obtained
when support plate sleeves are located at the higher plate locations. For these reasons, the results
presented herein are generally limited to only those particular sleeve locations which yield the more
conservative results. Support plate sleeves are qualified for the second-from-highest support plate
elevation through the lowest elevation for both series of steam generators. (Qualification of the
sleeve at the top support plate would require a small structural evaluation and minor modifications
to the tooling.) Nonetheless, the hydraulic equivalency and flow reduction calculations were made
for support plate sleeves at all elevations for both series of steam generators.

Table 3-15 presents a summary of the hydraulic equivalency numbers for the limiting combinations
of tubesheet and support plate sleeves in 44 Series steam, generators. Similar results for 51 Series

WPFO783-3:49/022494 34
3-41
steam generators are provided in Table 3-16. From Table 3-15, the hydraulic equivalency number
for a configuration with no tubesheet sleeve and four support plate sleeves is [ i]bc and

occurs when the sleeves are positioned at the top four support plates in the cold leg (#3, #4, #5, and
#6). This means that about [ ] b,c sleeved tubes of the type specified would have the same net

flow reduction as a single plugged tube. Similarly, if sleeves were also installed in both hot and
cold leg tubesheets, the equivalency number would decrease to [ 1'~ for a configuration with four
support plate sleeves (Set #21 for support plate locations #5 and #6 in both legs).

The information presented in Tables 3-15 and 3-16 has also been used to construct Figures 3-18
and 3-19. These figures graphically illustrate the enveloping hydraulic equivalency numbers. for 44
and 51 Series steam generators based on normal operating conditions.

The preceding examples involved sleeves at the top support plate in the Series 44 tube bundle. As
discussed in Section 2.1.2, qualification of sleeves at the top support plates in the respective bundles
would require small structural evaluations and minor modifications to the installation tooling.

The total equivalent number of plugged tubes is the sum of the number of plugs associated with
sleeving (number of sleeves divided by the hydraulic equivalency number) and the actual number
of plugged tubes. In the event that the total plugging equivalency derived from this information
is near the tube plugging limit for a particular plant application, then less conservative,
plant-specific equivalency calculations may be completed to justify increased sleeving. Rather than
using the preceding conservative, enveloping conditions, these calculations could make use of: 1)
actual plant primary side operating conditions, 2) actual tube and sleeve geometries, and 3) actual
locations of the tubesheet and support plate sleeves.

The method and values of hydraulic equivalency and flow loss per sleeved tube outlined above can
be used to represent the equivalent number of sleeves by the following formula:

Pe[

where:
P= Equivalent number of plugged tubes
P= Number of tubes actually plugged
Si= Number of active tubes with a sleeve combination
NhydJ = Hydraulic equivalency number for a sleeve configuration

P= Equivalent number of plugged tubes due to other sleeve designs

WPF0783-3:49/022494 34
3-42
 Table 3-15

Generic Tube Sleeving Calculations

Flow Reduction and Hydraulic Equivalency for Series 44 SGs

Normal Operating
Distribution of Tubesheet and Support Plate Sleeves
Condition LOCA Condition
36" 36" Cold
Hot Leg Tuege Total #
12" Cold Leg
Tubesheet 12" Hot Leg TSP Sleeve Slbesee TSP Flow Flow
Sleeve TSP Sleeve Sleeve Sleeves Reduction yd Reduction

No 6 No

No 65 2
No 654 3
No No 6543 4
Tubesheet
No 6543 2 5
Sleeves
No 65432 1 6

8 No 3 4 56 6 5 43 No 8
9 No 1 2 34 56 6 54 32 1 No 12

No 10 Yes No 0
Support Plate I11 No Yes 0
Sleeve 12 YsYes 0

13 6543 21
14 6
15 65
Tubesheet 16 654
Sleeve
17 654 3
18 65432
19-NA
i
20 6 6
21 56 65
22 45 6 654
2
Tubesheet 23 3 4 56 654 3
Sleeves 24 23 45 6 654 32
25 1 23 45 6 65432 1
26-NA

WPF0783-3:49/021794 4: 10pm 34
3-43
 Table 3-16

Generic Tube Sleeving Calculations

Flow Reduction and Hydraulic Equivalency for Series 51 SGs

Normal Operating
Distribution of Tubesheet and Support Plate Sleeves Condition LOCA Condition
b,c
36" 36" Cold Leg
Total #
Hot Leg Tubesheet
12" Hot LegTSP 12" Cold Leg TSP TSP
Tubesheet Sleeve Sleeve
Set # Sleeve Sleeve Sleeves

No 7 No

2 No 76 No 2

3 No 765 No 3

4 No 7654 No 4
No Tubesheet 5 7654 3 No 5
No
Sleeves
6 No 7 65 4 32 No 6

7 No 76 54 32 1 No 7

8 No 45 677654 No 8

9 No 1 2 34 567 76 54 32 1 No 14

No 10 Yes No 0
Support Plate II No Yes 0
Sleeve 12 Yes Yes 0

13 No 76 54 3 21 Yes 7
14 No 7 Yes I

1 15 No 76 Yes 2
Tubesheet 16 No 7 6 5 Yes 3
Sleeve 17 No 7 65 4 Yes 4

18 No 7 6543 Yes 5

19 No 7 65 4 32 Yes 6

20 Yes 7 7 Yes 2
21 Yes 67 76 Yes 4
567 765
2
Tubesheet 4567 7654
Sleeves 345 67 76543
2 34 56 7 7 65 43 2
1 2 34 567 76 54 32 1

WPm0783-3:49/021794 4:10pm 3-44

34
 a,b,e

Figure 3-18

Hydraulic Equivalency Number for

Series 44 Steam Generator

WPF0783:49/021494 34
3-45
 a,b,e

Figure 3-19

Hydraulic Equivalency Number for

Series 51 Steam Generators

WPF0783:49/021494 34
3-46
3.2.3 Fluid Velocity

As a result of tube plugging and sleeving, primary side fluid velocities in the steam generator tubes will
increase. The effect of this velocity increase on the sleeve and tube has been evaluated assuming a
limiting condition in which 20% of the tubes in either a 44 or 51 Series steam generator are plugged.

Using the conservatively high primary flow rate defined previously [ ]a~c,, for a 0% plugging
condition, the velocity through an unplugged tube is approximately [ P'c'e. With 20% of the tubes
plugged, the fluid velocity through an unplugged and unsleeved tube is about [ ]ace, and for a tube
with a single tube support plate sleeve, the local velocity in the sleeve region is computed to be
[ ]axc'. However, these velocities are unduly conservative as a result of the assumed enveloping
primary flow rate and temperatures.

If these calculations are repeated using more typical primary fluid conditions
] a.C, the estimated velocities are significantly lower

]ac~e .These more typical velocities are smaller than the inception velocities
for fluid impacting, cavitation, or erosion-corrosion for Inconel tubing. As a result, the potential for tube
degradation due to these mechanisms is low.

3.3 References

1. Design Specification 412A19, "Plants with Series 44 and 51 Steam Generators, Steam Generator Heat
Transfer Tube Sleeving, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 111, Code Case I Safety
Class 1," Rev. 0, 12/17/92.

2. "ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, "Rules, For Construction of Nuclear Power Plant
Components," The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, 1986.

3. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.121, "Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes (For
Comment)," August 1976.

WPF0783:49/02 1494 34
3-47
4.0 MECHANICAL TESTS

Mechanical tests are used to provide[

]d,c,e.

Mechanical testing was initially applied to Hybrid Expansion Joint sleeving since it was not possible to
analytically describe the interaction between the sleeve and tube. Because welded joints can be modelled,
these tests have been applied to verify the analytical models used.

4.1 Mechanical Test Conditions

Mechanical testing is primarily concerned with leak resistance and joint strength. During testing,
specimens are subjected to cyclic thermal and mechanical loads, simulating plant transients.[

Iac,e

Other specimens are subjected to tensile and compressive loads to the point of mechanical failure. These
tests demonstrate that the required joint strength exceeds the loading the sleeve joint would receive during
normal plant operations or accident conditions.

These. conditions are summarized in Table 4-1, though specific test conditions (displayed in data tables)
may vary due to evolution of the testing process. Test parameters have also been modified slightly over
time as more refined analysis of plant loading conditions are applied.

WPF0783:49/022494
 Table 4-14

Mechanical Test Program Summary

a,c,e

WPF0783:49/02 1494
4.2 Acceptance Criteria

Generic analyses have been performed to determine the allowable leakage during normal operation for
sleeve application. The leak rate criteria that have been established are based on Technical Specifications
and Regulatory requirements. Table 4-2 shows the generic leak rate criteria for the Series 44 and 51 steam
generators.

]a"'~ indicate acceptable joint performance.

4.3 Lower Sleeve Joint

The lower tubesheet sleeve joint is offered with and without a seal weld. Otherwise the joint construction
is identical with a hydraulic expansion and hard roll zone; the same fabrication parameters are used with
both joints.

As discussed earlier, the joints are formed in unit cell collars. End caps are then installed on the collar
and sleeve (Figure 4-1) to permit the samples to be pressurized. The end caps are threaded to permit
tensile and compressive loading.

4.3.1 Results of Testing: No Seal Weld

The test results for the Series 44 and 51 lower joint specimens are presented in Table 4-3. The specimens

]axc" All of the three as-rolled specimens were leak-tight during the Extended
Operating Period (EOP) test.

WPF0783:49/021694
 a,c,e

Figure 4-1

Tubesbeet Sleeve Lower Joint Test Specimen

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 Table 4-2
Bounding Maximum Allowable Leak Rates for
Series 44 and 51 Steam Generators

Allowable Leak Rate

Most Allowable
Condition Plant Limiting SG, gpm (gpd) Leak Rate per Sleeve*

d,e

*Based on installation of 2000 tubesheet sleeves with non-welded lower joints - for plant.

WPF0783:49/021694
 Table 4-3 lace
Test Results far As-Rolled Lower JointsI
For the tests the following joint performance was noted:

Specimen MS-2: Initial leak rates at all pressures and at normal operating pressure following thermal
cycling were

Ia~b~c~e

Specimen MS-3: [

]a,b,c,e

Specimen MS-7:

] a,b,c,e

4.3.2 Description of Additional Test Programs - HIEJ Lower Joint With Exceptional Conditions and
No Seal Weld

Additional test programs were performed to verify acceptable performance of the sleeve lower mechanical
joint to accommodate exceptional conditions which may exist in the steam generator tubes and anticipated
conditions which may be encountered during installation of sleeves.

These exceptional conditions in steam generator tube characteristics and sleeving operation process
parameters included:

" shorter lengths of roller expanded lower tube joints

" shorter lengths of roller expanded lower sleeve joints

The specific exceptional tube conditions and changes to the sleeving process parameters tested in the first
program, are shown in Table 4-4.

Each process operation and sequence of operations employed in fabricating each test sample was consistent
with those specified for sleeves to be installed by field procedures. In addition, the exceptional tube
conditions and changes to the sleeving process parameters described in Table 4-5 were included in the
assembly of tube and collar subassemblies.

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 Table 4-4
Test Results for Lower Joints with Exceptional Conditions f or Tube and Sleeve
a,c~e

NOTES:
1. The long sleeve end of RT 3 buckled prematurely during the room temperature compression test. Sleeve lengths for all subsequent sleeves were shortened.
2. The weld between the sleeve and the test end cap of RT 2 tailed prematurely.

WIPT
 Table 4-5

Additional Test Results for Lower Joints with Exceptional Conditions for Tube and Sleeve

a,c,e

WPF0783:49/02 1494
4.3.3 Results of Lower Joint Testing with Seal Weld

Nine specimens were fabricated in collars with laser seal welds added to the sleeve end at the elevation
of the tubesheet clad. They were then subjected to the fatigue, thermal cycling, compressive, and tensile
test as defined in Table 4-1. The results of this testing are summarized in Table 4-6.[
]a,c,e

4.4 Free Span Joint Mechanical Testing

Free span joints are representative of the tubesheet sleeve upper joint and both joints of the tube support
plate sleeves. This joint configuration, where there is no tubesheet backing the tube, is simulated using
a test specimen as shown in Figure 4-2.

Eleven free span weld specimens were fabricated using representative field parameters. All specimens
were then stress relieved to account for the mechanical property effects resulting from thermal treatment.

4.4.1 Thermal Treatment of Specimens

All test specimens were given a stress relief heat treatment in the range of
ax The temperature source was a radiant heater installed inside the sleeve which was centered
on the weld. The maximum temperature attained by the tube was measured by thermocouple attached to
the tube outer surface and summarized in Table 4-7. The temperature was ramped up[
a~ Following stress relief the thermocouple attachments
were filed off.

WPF0783:49/02 1494 41
4-10
 Table 4-6
Lower Joint Test Results (with Seal Weld)
a,c,e

Specimen
Number

Ml
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9

(Leak rate in drops per minute)

SPECIMEN COMPRESSIVE TENSILE

NUMBER LOAD (lbs.) LOAD (lbs.)
- a,c ,e
MI
M2
M4
M6
M7
M9

WPF0783:49/021694 41
4-11
 Table 4-7
Free Span Joint Maximum Stress Relief Temperature

Specimen Number Maximum Temperature ('F)

r- -1 a,c,e
L-536
L-540
L-543
L-544
L-546
L-548
L-550
L-551
L-552
L-555

WPF0783:49/021494 41
4-12
 a,b,e

Figure 4-2

Free Span Laser Weld Joint Test Specimen

WPF0783:49/02 1494 41
4-13
4.4.2 Free Span Joint Test Results

The welds were subjected to leak testing

]ace No leakage was exhibited (Table 4-8). Some specimens were subjected to tensile and

compressive loading to failure; acceptable results were obtained.

Two welds were metallurgically examined following fatigue testing (L-552 and L-555). Based on this
examination [I
] a,c,e

Several compressive specimens were examined following testing (L-540, L-543) and

] ace under design loading conditions.

4.4.3 Impact of Tube Fixity on Free Span Weld Performance

Under certain conditions tubes may become locked to the support plate structure of the steam generator,
0
normally during operation at full temperature (approximately 600 F). Upon cool down, differential
thermal expansion rates between the sleeve and steam generator structure can impact tensile loads on the
tube. a

4.4.4 Results of Fixed Tube Free Span Welding

WPF0783:49/02 1494 41
4-14
 Table 4-8
Free Span Joint Leak Rate and Loading Data

Specimen
Number

L-536

L-540

L-543

L-544

L-546

L-548

L-550

L-551I

L-552

L-55

Leak rate is in drops per minute.

WPF0783:49/02 1494 41
4-15
5.0 STRESS CORROSION TESTING.OF LASER WELDED SLEEVE JOINTS

The resistance of the laser welded sleeve joint to in-service corrosion is related to the resistance of the
Alloy 600 tubing to intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC). The sleeve material, Alloy 690 Ti?,
has been demonstrated to be highly resistant to IGSCC under steam generator conditions (Reference 1).
Stresses in the tubing, either service imposed or residual, are a major factor determining the response of
the material in terms of IGSCC. Two sources of residual stress es in the laser welded sleeving process are
a) minor stresses related to the hydraulic expansion during sleeve placement and b) residual stresses that
occur as the molten weld pool solidifies.

This section summarizes results of a testing program to evaluate the Primary Water Stress Corrosion
Cracking (PWSCC) resistance of laser welded upper sleeve joints used to install sleeves in degraded steam
generator tubing. The testing was conducted under conditions which accelerate corrosion in steam
generator materials that may be susceptible to stress corrosion cracking in long term steam generator
service. Some of the laser welding processes included in these corrosion tests are representative of the
weld parameters used but were produced using a CO 2 laser. The CO 2 laser process has been used
previously in a field sleeving applications.

5.1 Corrosion Test Description

An accelerated corrosion test developed by Westinghouse is used as a means to evaluate the resistance
of steam generator materials to degradation in steam generator primary water environments. The test
produces the same type of degradation through intergranular stress corrosion cracking that has been
observ ed in some mill annealed Alloy 600 steam generator tubing. The test has also been found to provide
the same relative ranking of material resistance to IGSCC that has been observed in service.

The accelerated test is conducted in an autoclave operating at 750'F (400'C) with steam at 3000 psig. The
steam contains[
]ac"e The ID of the specimen is exposed to the 3000 psi doped steam while the OD sees
undoped steam at 1500 psi.

The configuration of the laser welded specimen used in this corrosion program is a free-span upper joint
as illustrated in Figure 5-1. The sleeve joints were fabricated using equipment and practices representative
of in field sleeving operations. The Ijaetest environment is introduced to the inside of the
sleeve and has access to the ID of the sleeve and, on one side of the weld joint, to the OD of the sleeve,
the ID of the tube and the weld. The other side of the weld joint and the outside of the tube are exposed
to the 1500 psi steam environment. The 1500 psi differential across the tube wall simulates the active
loading that is present in operating steam generators. In this way it is possible to test the weld under stress
conditions representative of those in the generator.

WPF73:49/02 1494
 a,c,e

Figure 5-1

Accelerated Corrosion Test Specimen for

Welded Joint Configuration

WPF0783:49/021 494
The corrosion performance of the sleeve weld joints is compared with that of tube roll transitions exposed
to the same test environment. The roll transition control samples illustrated in Figure 5-2 are
representative of the transitions found at the top of the tubesheet in full depth, hard rolled steam generator
tubes. The inclusion of the potentially PWSCC susceptible configuration (the roll transition) in the test
provides verification of the aggressiveness of the corrosion test environment. Any variability in the
aggressiveness from one autoclave run to another is accounted for by having roll transition controls in
each run.

The time-to-crack of the test sample is measured in the accelerated test. For both weld samples and roll
transitions, cracking time is defined by the appearance of through wall cracks which is reflected in the loss
of the 1500 psi differential pressure (3000 psi ID, 1500 psi OD) across the weld and tube.

5.2 Corrosion Resistance of Free-Span Laser Welded Joints - As-Welded Condition

Most of the welded joint corrosion samples and all the roll transition sections were fabricated from mill
annealed Alloy 600 tubing from Heat NX-1019. This is a high carbon heat (0.04% C) which previous
testing has shown to be sensitive to PWSCC and has been used in a variety of corrosion test programs
over the past several years. A set of CO2 laser welded samples was also fabricated from a lower carbon
(0.02% C) mill annealed Alloy 600 tubing, Heat NX-9621, which has exhibited susceptibility to PWSCC.
The lower carbon heat was included to determine if the carbon difference produced adverse metallurgical
changes during welding.
]a,c~e

]a,c,e

The response of laser welded joints to the accelerated corrosion conditions is shown in Figures 5-4 and
5-5 for CO 2 laser welds and in Table 5-1 and Figure 5-6 for Nd:YAG laser welds. These figures are
log-normal distribution plots of the cumulative percentage of samples exhibiting cracking as a function
of time. The as-welded joints generally exhibited times for through wall IGSCC in [
]ax than that of the roll transitions. One tubing heat, Heat

NX-272 1, exhibited [a, in the as-welded joint as in the roll transition.

Iac,e

WPF0783:49/02 1694
 a,c,e

Figure 5-2

Accelerated Corrosion Test Specimen for

Roll Transition Configuration

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 a,b,e

Figure 5-3

IGSCC in Alloy 600 Tube of YAG Laser Welded

Sleeve Joint After 109 Hours in 750'F
Accelerated Steam Corrosion Test

WPF0783:49/021694
 a,b,e

Figure 5-4

Cumulative Percent Cracking for CO 2 Laser Welded Sleeves

in 750'F Accelerated Steam Corrosion Test

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 a,b,e

Figure 5-5

Cumulative Percent Cracking for CO 2 Laser Welded Sleeves

in 750'F Accelerated Steam Corrosion Test

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 Table 5-1
Summary of Accelerated 750'F Steam Corrosion Test Results for YAG Laser Sleeve Welds
a,c,e

- CLW - Conduction Limited Weld

CMP - Continuous Molten Pool
*time to SCC is the time of pressure drop in test, i.e., time for through wall

crack to from.
**Test terminated at 1000 hours, no through wall SCC.

WPF0783:49/02 1494

I
 a,b,e

Figure 5-6

Cumulative Percent Cracking for YAG Laser Welded Sleeves

in 750'F Accelerated Steam Corrosion Test

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 ] a~c,e

5.3 Corrosion Resistance of' Free-Span Laser Welded Joints - With Post Weld Heat Treatment

Because stress corrosion cracking is related to a large extent to residual stresses, a reduction in the residual
stress level will enhance the corrosion resistance of the welded joint. During the CO 2 laser weld program,
extensive development of a post weld heat treatment was performed. A local stress relief treatment[
]ace was developed. The development program

determined that []a,c,e would reduce the level

of residual stresses without significant microstructural changes.

The effectiveness of a stress relief is evident in Figure 5-4 where a [ ~in the
time to cracking in heat treated welds over "as-fabricated' welds can be seen. The beneficial effect of
stress relief is also evident in the Nd:YAG laser welds (Figure 5-6) in both the conduction limited weld
(CL) and continuous molten pool (CMP) weld regimes. The test of the stress relieved CL joints [
] a~c. This
represents more than [ c in time to cracking over that of the as-welded joint. The

corrosion test of the stress relieved continuous molten pool weld was also terminated after I ]c hours
with no indication of cracking.

The effect of the stress relief can also be seen in the cross section of the heat treated CL shown in
Figure 5-7.[
]~In addition there was
no evidence of the minor corrosion at the weld surface noted previously in the as-welded, corrosion test
sample.

5.4 Corrosion Resistance Evaluation of Lower Tubesbeet Sleeve Laser Welded Joints

Accelerated steam testing was performed on specimens representative of the lower tubesheet sleeve joint.
These specimens were the same as those used for mechanical testing as illustrated in Figure 4.1, except
a seal weld was added at the elevation of the tube clad (Figure 2-1). For control purposes, tube roll
transition specimens were used as reference standards.

These specimens were subjected to the steam test described in Section 5.1 for a time period of
]a.c The results, tabulated in Table 5-2, demonstrate

a~c

WPF0783:49/02 1494 51
5-10
 a,b,e

Figure 5-7
Minor IGSCC in Alloy 600 Tube of Stress Relieved YAG Laser
Welded Sleeve Joint after 1000 Hours in 750'F Accelerated Steam Corrosion Test

WPF0783:49/021694 51
5-11
5.5 Effects of Sleeving on Tube-to-Tubesheet Weld

5.5.1 Lower HEJ Joint

The effect of hard rolling the sleeve over the tube-to-tubesheet weld was examined in the sleeving of
0.750 inch OD tubes. Although the sleeve installation roll torque used in a 0.750 inch OD tube is less than
a .875 inch OD tube, the radial forces transmitted to the weld are comparable. Evaluation of the
0.750 inch tubes showed no tearing or other degrading effects on the weld after hard rolling. Therefore,
no significant effect on the tube-to-tubesheet weld is expected for the larger 0.875 inch OD tube
configuration.

5.5.2 Lower Seal Weld

Ia,c,e

WPF0783:49/02 1494 51
5-12
 Table 5-2

Corrosion Resistance Evaluation of

Lower Tubesbeet Laser Welded Sleeve Joints

Mockup: Alloy 600 MA (Heat 7368, 0.875 in. OD) tube, mechanically expanded into steel collar

Sleeve: Alloy 690TT'

a,c,e

* A slow leak was present at the start of the last run in Autoclave 11. At a cumulative exposure time
of about 205 hrs, the leak rate during the last run in Autoclave 11I increased, but was not detected
until a pressure plot was made at the end of the run. Specimen CTLSR-01 was found to exhibit
minor leakage at the end of the run. It is assumed that the initiation time of the leak in CTLSR-1
corresponds to the time at which the leak rate increased in Autoclave 11.

WPF0783:49/02 1494 51
5-13
5.6 Outside Diameter Surface Condition

Because the sleeving operation is conducted from the primary side, no operations are conducted on the
tubing OD surface. In operational steam generators, the outside surfaces of the tubes can collect boiler
water deposits and scales. These are typically oxides or minerals in the thermodynamically stable form
of the constituent elements, magnetite being the most prominent deposit. At the temperatures of the tubing
OD during the sleeve weldings and thermal treatment, these compounds are typically stable and do not
thermally decompose. All such compounds have molecular structures that are too large for diffusion into
the lattice of the Alloy 600 tubing. Reactions between these stable oxides and minerals and the alloying
elements of the Alloy 600 tubing are thermodynamically unfavorable. Consequently the presence of boiler
sludge/scale species on the OD surfaces of tubes that receive the temperatures associated with LWS is not
expected to produce deleterious tube-sludge/scale interactions.

Three tests performed as a part of the development of a sleeve brazing technique, also support the
preceding discussions. The first test involved a laboratory evaluation in which a braze cycle was applied
to tubing in contact with simulated plant sludge. The braze cycle involved[
]. Bend tests of longitudinal sections
removed from the brazed area showed no embrittlement as a result of the thermal cycle or exposure to
the sludge stimulant. A second- test involved microprobe analyses of polished metallographic cross
sections. Results indicated the presence of Fe, Ni. Cr, Cu and Zn on the tube OD surface, but no evidence
was found of diffusion into the tubing. A third test involved removal of a tube from an operating plant
which was brazed in the region of sludge. The pulled tube was analyzed for the presence of contaminants
on the OD surface and beneath the OD surface. The microprobe analysis detected Fe, P, Si, Cu, Ca and
Na on the tube OD, but there was no indication of diffusion into the tube.

In addition to the above tests, archive tubes from two plants were welded and a microanalytical
examination was made for contaminant ingress before and after welding. Before welding,

]l.c.

A final test involved metallographic observations of three areas on a U-bend of Alloy 600 tubing which
was coated with sludge and heat treated in air

]a~b

To summarize, several observations have been made for a variety of Alloy 600 samples heated to
temperatures from [ ] ax in the presence of typical secondary side chemical species.
No significant diffusion, corrosion, or embrittlement of the tubing has been found.

WPF0783:49/02 1494 51
5-14
5.7 References

1. "Alloy 690 for Steam Generator Tubing Applications," EPRI Report NP-6997-SD, Final Report for
Program S408-6, October 1990.

WPF0783:491021494 51
5-15
6.0 INSTALLATION PROCESS DESCRIPTION

The following description of the sleeving process pertains to current processes used. Westinghouse
continues to enhance the tooling and processes through development programs. As enhanced techniques
are developed and verified they will be utilized. Use of enhanced techniques which do not materially
affect the technical justification presented in this report and are considered to be acceptable for application.
Section XI, Article IWB-4330 (Reference 1), of the ASME Code is used as a guideline to determine which
variables require requalification.

The sleeves are fabricated under controlled conditions, serialized, cleaned, and inspected. They are
typically placed in polyethylene sleeves, and packaged in protective styrofoamn trays inside wood boxes.
Upon receipt at the site, the boxed sleeves are stored in a controlled area outside containment and as
required moved to a low radiation, controlled region inside containment. Here the sealed sleeve box is
opened and the sleeve removed, inspected and placed in a protective sleeve carrying case for transport to
the steam generator platform. The sleeve packaging specification is extremely stringent and, if unopened,
the sleeve package is suitable for long term storage.

The sleeve installation consists of a series of steps starting with tube end preparation (if necessary) and
progressing through tube cleaning, sleeve insertion, hydraulic expansion at both the lower and upper joint,
hard rolling the lower tubesheet joint locations, welding the upper joint, visual inspection and eddy current
inspection. The sleeving sequence and process are outlined in Table 6-1. These steps are described in
the following sections. More information on the currently used equipment can be obtained from
References 2, 3, and 4.

6.1 Tube Preparation

There are two steps involved in preparing the steam generator tubes for the sleeving operation. These
consist of rolling at the tube mouth and tube cleaning. Tube end rolling is performed only if necessary
to insert a sleeve.

6.1.1 Tube End Rolling (Contingency)

If gaging or inspection of tube inside diameter measurements indicate a need for tube end rolling to
provide a uniform tube opening for sleeve insertion, a light mechanical rolling operation will be
performed. This is sufficient to prepare the mouth of the tube for sleeve insertion without adversely
affecting the original tube hard roll or the tube-to-tubesheet weld. Tube end rolling will be performed
only as a contingency.

Testing of similar lower joint configurations in Series 27 steam generator sleeving programs at a much
higher torque showed no adverse effect on the tube-to-tubesheet weld. Because the radial forces

WPF0783:49/02 1494
transmitted to the tube-to-tubesheet weld would be lower for a larger Series 44 and 51 tube than for the
above test configuration, no effect on the weld as a result of the light roll is expected.

6.1.2 Tube Cleaning (Optional)

The sleeving process includes cleaning the inside diameter area of tubes to be sleeved to prepare the tube
surface for the upper and lower joint formation by removing frangible oxides and foreign material.
Evaluation has demonstrated that this process does not remove any significant fraction of the tube wall
base material. Cleaning also reduces the radiation shine from the tube inside diameter, thus contributing
to reducing man-rem exposure.

The interior surface of each candidate tube will be cleaned by a

The hone brush is mounted on a flexible drive shaft that is driven by an pneumatic
]a,,"

motor and carries reactor grade deionized flushing water to the hone brush. The hone. brush is driven to
a predetermined height in the tube that is greater than the sleeve length in order to adequately clean the
joint area.[

Ia,,e The Tube Cleaning End Effector mounts to a tool delivery robot and consists of a
guide tube sight glass and a flexible seal designed to surround the tube end and contain the spent flushing
water. A flexible conduit is attached to the guide tube and connects to the tube cleaning unit on the steam
generator platform. The conduit acts as a closed loop system which serves to guide the drive shaft/hone
brush assembly through the guide tube to the candidate tube and also to carry the spent flushing water to
an air driven diaphragm pump which routes the water to the radioactive waste drain.

Currently tube cleaning is required as part of the sleeve installation process. However, test programs are
planned to evaluate the necessity of this process step. Should subsequent testing indicate acceptable weld
results without it (as judged by weld performance meeting the mechanical, leakage inspection criteria
defined in this document, honing may be dropped from the installation sequence. To implement welding
without honing, the weld would be requalified and a "no-hone" weld process specification prepared.

6.2 Sleeve Insertion and Expansion

When all the candidate tubes have been cleaned, the tube cleaning end effector will be removed from the
tool delivery robot and the Select and Locate End Effector (SALEE) will be installed. The SALEE
consists of two pneumatic camlocks, dual pneumatic gripper assemblies, a pneumatic translation cylinder,
a motorized drive assembly, and a sleeve delivery conduit.

The tool delivery robot draws the SALEE through the manway into the channel head. It then positions
the SALEE to receive a sleeve, tilting the tool such that the bottom of the tool points toward the manway
and the sleeve delivery conduit provides linear access. At this point, the platform worker pushes a
sleeve/mandrel assembly through the conduit until it is able to be gripped by the translating upper gripper.

WPF0783:49/021494
 Table 6-1

Sleeve Process Sequence Summary

TUBE PREPARATION 1) Light Mechanical Roll Tube Ends

(if necessary)

2) Clean Tube Inside Surface

(Optional)

SLEEVE INSERTION 3) Insert Sleeve/Expansion Mandrel

Assembly

4) Hydraulically Expand Sleeve Top and

Bottom Joints

TUBESHEET LOWER JOINT 5) Roll Expand Tubesheet Lower Sleeve

FORMATION End

WELD OPERATION 6) Weld Upper Tubesheet Sleeve Joints

II ] axc

7) Weld Upper and Lower Support Plate

Sleeve Joints

INSPECTION 8) Visually Inspect Lower Tubesheet

Sleeve Weld (if performed)

9) Ultrasonically Inspect Sleeve Welds

(Free span welds only on a sample plan)

STRESS RELIEF 1) Post Weld Stress Relief Sleeve Welds

[ pax

INSPECTION 11) Baseline Eddy Current Sleeves

WPF0783:49/02 1494
The tool delivery robot then moves the SALEE to the candidate tube., Canilocks are then inserted into
nearby tubes and pressurized to secure the SALEE to the tubesheet.

Insertion of the sleeve/mandrel assembly into the candidate tube is accomplished by a combination of
SALEE's translating gripper assembly and the motorized drive assembly which pushes the sleeve to the
desired axial elevation. For support plate sleeves, the support plate is found by using an eddy current coil
which is an integral part of the expansion mandrel. The sleeve is positioned by using the grippers and
translating cylinder to pull the sleeve into position to bridge the support plate. For tubesheet sleeves, the
sleeve is positioned by use of a positive stop on the delivery system.

At this point, the sleeve is hydraulically expanded. The bladder style hydraulic expansion mandrel is
connected to the high pressure fluid source, the Lightweight Expansion Unit (LEU), via high pressure
flexible stainless tubing. The Lightweight Expansion Unit is controlled by the Sleeve/Tube Expansion
Controller (S/TEC), a microprocessor controlled expansion box which is an expansion control system
previously proven in various sleeving programs. The S/TEC activates, monitors, and terminates the tube
expansion process when proper expansion has been achieved.

The one step process hydraulically expands both the lower and upper expansion zones simultaneously.
The computer controlled expansion system automatically applies the proper controlled pressure depending
upon the respective yield strengths and diametrical clearance between the tube and sleeve. The contact
forces between the sleeve and tube due to the initial hydraulic expansion are sufficient to keep the sleeve
from moving during subsequent operations. At the end of the cycle, the control computer provides an
indication to the operator that the expansion cycle has been properly completed.

When the expansion is complete, the mandrel is removed from the expanded sleeve by reversing the above
insertion sequence. The SALEE is then repositioned-to receive another sleeve/mandrel assembly.

6.3 Lower Joint Hard Roll (Tubesheet Sleeves)

At the primary face of the tubesheet, the sleeve is joined to the tube by a mechanical hard roll (following
the hydraulic expansion) performed with a roll expander [
jaceThe control of the mechanical expansion is maintained through

Iac,e

6.4 General Description of Laser Weld Operation

Welding of the upper tubesheet sleeve joint and the upper and lower tube support plate sleeve joints will
be accomplished by a specially developed laser beam transmission system and rotating weld head. This

WPF0783:49/022494
system employs a Nd:YAG laser energy source located in a trailer outside of containment. The energy of
the laser is delivered to the steam generator platform junction box through a fiber optic cable. The fiber
optic contains an intrinsic safety wire which protects personnel in the case of damage to the fiber. The
weld head is connected to the platform junction box by a prealigned fiber optic coupler. Each weld head
contains the necessary optics, fiber termination and tracking device to correctly focus the laser beam on
the interior of the sleeve.

The weld head/fiber optic assembly is precisely positioned within the hydraulic expansion region using
the SALEE (described earlier) and an eddy current coil located on the weld head. At the initiation of
welding operations, the shielding gas and laser beam are delivered to the welding head. During the
welding process the head is rotated around the inside of the tube to produce the weld. A motor, gear train,
and encoder provide the controlled rotary motion to deliver a 360 degree weld around the sleeve
circumference.

The welding parameters, qualified to the rules of the ASME code, are computer controlled at the weld
operators station. The essential variables per Code Case N-395 are monitored and documented for field
weld acceptance.

6.5 Rewelding

Under some conditions, the initial attempt at making a laser weld may be interrupted before completion.
Also, the ultrasonic test (UT) examination of a completed initial weld may result in the weld being
rejected. In these cases,-an additional weld, having the same nominal characteristics as the initial weld,
will be made close to and either inboard or outboard of the initial weld. If the sleeve/tube has not been
perforated by the interrupted weld, an additional weld, having the same nominal characteristics as the
original weld, will be made in the expansion zone near the original weld either inboard or outboard of this
initial wall. If a perforation of the sleeve is suspected in the initial weld area, the repair weld will be
located inboard of the initial weld. Otherwise, the repair weld will be located outboard of the initial weld.
If the sleeve/tube were perforated during interruption of the initial weld, the tube would be removed from
service.

6.6 Post-Weld Heat Treatment [PIaC

6.6.1 Post-Weld Heat Treatment Tooling

The tooling required to perform the stress relief process consists of four basic items:

a. A fiber optic probe

b. A heater (production) probe
c. A pop-up end effector
d. A production end effector

WPF0783:49/02 1494
The fiber optic probe is used in conjunction with the pop-up end effector. The end effector places a probe
within the proper zone to perform the stress relief operation. [

This is done by using the ROSA robotic armn and the SALEE to sequentially
],,d

place production probes at the proper welded sleeve/tube interfaces, followed by application of the stress
relief process.

6.6.2 Post Weld Heat Treat Process

The laser welded joints (LWJ) exhibit

Pbc

Westinghouse has extensive experience in stress relief processes from prior work on U-Bend and support
plate heat treat programs. The objective of the laser weld post-weld heat treatment is to relieve residual
stresses in. the sleeve/tube that may be introduced by application of the welding process. The length of
sleeve/tube heat treatment spans the weld and the adjacent heat affected zone.

To satisfactorily relieve the residual stresses, it was necessary to develop the optimal heat up, soak, and
ramp down power cycles. Several physical factors affect the control of tube temperature within the
required temperature band:

I1. The tube is predominantly cooled by radiation, with minor effects of conduction and convection.

2. The physical configuration (power density) of the heat source affects heat distribution within the tube.

3. The heat source and the heated portion of the tube cannot be excessively long. Under certain
boundary conditions of tube fixity, excessive compressive stresses can occur within the tube during
heat treatment. This could result in bowing or barreling of the tube.

4. The process has to account for weld axial positional tolerances as well as heater axial positional
tolerances.

To address these factors, the heat source was sized such that it heated the area of interest with sufficient
margin to allow for axial position variations.

WPF0783:49/02 1494
Given the beat source, laboratory tests were performed which addressed the following issues:

a. Nominal heat source power.

b. Initial heat source power profile to expedite t he time required to achieve acceptable tube temperatures.

c. Acceptable soak powers and temperatures.

d. Effect of varying tube emissivities.

e. Effect of a misplaced heater.

f. Circumferential tube temperature profile.

g. Axial tube temperature profile.

h. Sleeve to tube temperature gradient.

The test mockup shown in Figure 6-2 was used for stress relief process testing. The initial sleeve/tube
samples are shown in Figure 6-3.

]a,c

The sleeve/tube samples used for final process development were prototypic of the field sleeve/tube joint
configuration, shown in Figure 6-4. The weld centerline was positioned [ a] below the top of the

expansion zone the samples were equipped with thermocouples.

]a~c

The results of the above laboratory testing led to a typical power profile as shown in Figure 6-5. This
figure represents a typical profile, for a tube with a particular emissivity.

] ax

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 a,c,e

Figure 6-1

Laser Welded Sleeve with Reweld

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 a,c,e

Figure 6-2

Vertical Test Stand Mock-Up

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 a,c,e

Figure 6-3

Initial Stress Relief Test Samples Detailed

WPF0783:49/021494 61
6-10
 a,c,e

Figure 6-4

Field Prototypic Test Samples Detailed

WPF0783:49/02 1494 61
6-11
 a,c,e

Figure 6-5

Typical Stress Relief Power Profile

WPF0783:49/02 1494 61
6-12
6.7 Inspection Plan

In order to verify the final sleeve installation, inspections will be performed on sleeved tubes to verify
installation and to establish a baseline for future eddy current examination of the sleeved tubes. Specific
NDE processes are discussed in Section 7.0.

If it is necessary to remove a sleeved tube from service as judged by an evaluation of a specific

sleeve/tube configuration, tooling and processes are available to plug the tube.

6.8 References

1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Section XI, Article IWB-4300, 1989 Edition, Summer 1989
Addenda.

2. Boone, P. J., "ROSA III,.A Third Generation Steam Generator Service Robot Targeted at Reducing
Steam Generator Maintenance Exposure," CSNIIUNIPEDE Specialists Meeting on Operating
Experience with Steam Generator, paper 6.7, Brussels, Belgium, September 1991.

3. Wagner, T. R., VanHulle, L., "Development of a Steam Generator Sleeving System Using Fiber Optic
Transmission of Laser Light," CSNIIUNIPEDE Specialists Meeting on Operating Experience with
Steam Generators, paper 8.6, Brussels, Belgium, September 1991.

4. Wagner, T. R., "Laser Welded Sleeving in Stem Generators," AWS/EPRI Seminar, Paper IID,
Orlando, Florida, December 1991.

WPF0783 :49/021494 61
6-13
7.0 NDE INSPECTABILITY

The welding parameters are computer controlled at the weld operator's station. The essential variables,
per ASME Code Case N-395, are monitored and documented to produce repeatability of the weld process.
In addition, two non-destructive examination (NDE) capabilities have been developed to evaluate the
efficacy of the sleeving process. One method is used to confirm that the laser welds meet critical process
dimensions and acceptable weld quality. The second method is then applied to establish the necessary
baseline data to facilitate subsequent routine in-service inspection capability.

7.1 Inspection Plan Logic

The basic tubesheet sleeve inspection plan shall consist of:

A. Eddy Current Examination (Section 7.3) [Id

1. Demonstrate presence of upper and lower hydraulic expansions

2. Demonstrate lower roll joint presence
3. Determine location of upper weld
4. Record baseline of entire sleeved tube for future inspections

B. Ultrasonic Inspection (Section 7.2) [d or alternate methods

(Section 7.4).

1. Demonstrate quality of upper weld

2. Determine width of the upper weld

C. Visual Inspection i

1. Exhibit presence and full circumference continuity of lower weld, if seal weld option selected

D. Weld Process Control [d

I. Demonstrate weld process parameters comply with qualified weld process specification

The basic tube support plate sleeve inspection of the sleeved tubes shall consist of:

A. Eddy Current Examination (Section 7.3) [ la

1. Demonstrate presence of upper and lower hydraulic expansions

2. Determine location of upper weld and lower welds
3. Record baseline of entire sleeved tube for future inspections

WPF07 83:49/021494
B. Ultrasonic Inspection (Section 7.2)[ ]or alternate methods (Section 7.4)

I1. Determine quality of the upper and lower welds

2. Determine if minimum width requirement of the upper and lower welds is met.

C. Weld Process Control [I Id

1. Demonstrate weld process parameters comply with qualified weld process specification

7.2 General Process Overview of Ultrasonic Examination

The ultrasonic inspection process is based on further refinements of past well-known and field-proven
techniques used on brazed and CO 2 laser welded sleeves installed by Westinghouse.

The inspection process developed for application to the laser welds incorporates the basic idea of
transmission of ultrasound to the interface region (i.e., the sleeve OD/tube ID boundary) and analyzing
the amount of reflected energy from that region. An acceptable weld joint should present no acoustic
reflections above a calibrated limit at the weld interface, but produce reflection from the tube OD that is
above a calibrated limit.

Appropriate transducer, instrumentation and delivery systems have been- designed and techniques
established to demonstrate detectability and resolution of relevant defects at the interface.

] a,c,e

7.2.1 Principle of Operation and Data Processing of Ultrasonic Examination

The ultrasonic inspection of a laser weld is schematically outlined in Figure 7-1. An ultrasonic wave is
launched by the application of a pulse to a piezoelectric transducer. The wave propagates in the couplant
medium (water) until it strikes the sleeve. Ultrasonic energy is both transmitted and reflected at the
boundary. The reflected wave returns to the transducer where it is converted back to an electrical signal,
which is amplified and displayed on a UT instrument oscilloscope.

WPF0783:49/02 1494
 INPUT SIGNAL

32X1
RETURN SIGNAL

-SLEEVE
JONT
TUBE

IDEALIZED WAVEFORMS

NO
JOINT

'GOOD'
JOINT

Figure 7-1

Ultrasonic Inspection of Welded Sleeve Joint

WPF0783:49/021694
The transmitted wave propagates in the sleeve until it reaches the outside surface of the sleeve. If weld
material is present, the wave continues to propagate through the weld joint into the tube. This wave then
reaches the outer wall (back wall) of the tube and is reflected to the transducer. The resulting UJT
instrument display from a sound weld joint is a large signal from the sleeve-couplant interface, followed
by a back wall 'echo" spaced by the time of travel in the sleeve-weld-tube assembly (T, 2 ,3 ). If no weld
material is present, another pattern is observed with the large signal from the sleeve ID followed by a
reflection from the sleeve OD (T,,,). The spacing of these echoes depends upon the time of travel in the
sleeve alone. If there are some void regions in the weld, a complex combination of these two signal
patterns will result. Thus, by observing the patterns in the reflected pulse, a quality can be assigned to
the weld joint.

The condition of the surface at the entry point of the sound energy, as well as subsequent grain structure
of the weld fusion zone, determines the level of energy that reaches the back wall of a "fused" sleeve/tube
section. To provide the required resolution and ability to maximize energy input to the interface
appropriately focused transducers have been chosen.[

]ac,e

An automated system is used for digitizing and storing the UT wave forms

]a,c,e

7.2.2 Ultrasonic Inspection Equipment and Tooling

The probe system is delivered by the Westinghouse ROSA zero entry system. The various subsystems
include the water couplant, UT, motor drives, electrical systems and data display/storage.

The probe motion is accomplished via rotary and axial drive modules which allow a range of speeds and
axial advance per 3600 scan of the transducer head. The axial advance allows for overlap providing a
high degree of overlapping coverage without sacrificing resolution or sensitivity.

The controls and displays are designed for trailer mounting outside containment. The system also provides
for easy periodic calibration of the UJT subsystem on the steam generator platform.

WPF0783:49/021694
 Figure 7-2

Typical Digitized UT Waveform

WPF0783:49/021694
The permanent record of the inspection is a color pilot C-scan derived from the digitized and stored
A-Scan waveforms. Figure 7-3 is an example of an acceptable laser weld C-scan. The UT instrument
is used with the gate modules synchronized to the front wall (sleeve I.D.) signal.[
Iac,e

7.2.3 Laser Weld Test Sample Results

The calibration standards consist of:

(a) Equipment setup standard--solid Alloy 690 thick-walled tube (wall thickness 0.100").
(b) A sensitivity/resolution check "workmanship" standard, a typical laser welded sleeve/tube assembly.

The UT techniques were developed to assure that the flat bottom holes and notches of the setup standard
(described in Figure 7-4) were detectable and measurable. A hard copy color plot, Figure 7-5 shows the
C-scan of the setup standard.

Iac,e

The "workmanship" standard was prepared using the typical weld process. The sample was inspected
before further processing was done. A set of two notches was introduced in the outside diameter across
the weld. These notches extended across the width of the weld. The notches simulate a "breach" or leak
path across the weld.[
ja,b,e

A "notched workmanship standard" C-scan plot is shown in Figure 7-6. The equipment is set up using
the thick-walled tube standard to allow the operator ease in identifying and setting the UT instrument gates
and gain. The setup standard presents uniform signals and is repeatable for every A-scan.

7.2.4 Ultrasonic Inspection Summary

The UT laser weld inspection system can confirm that there is a metallurgical bond between the sleeve
and the tube. The system is used to determine any existence of leak path across the weld and a minimum
acceptable weld width for 360 degrees around the circumference.

7.3 Eddy Current Inspection

Upon conclusion of the sleeve installation process, a final eddy current inspection is performed on every
installed sleeve to provide interpretable baseline data on the sleeve and tube. This information is gathered
by an eddy current process which utilizes a double cross wound coil. The double crosswound coil is
designed to minimize the effects of geometry and weld zone changes that are 360' in nature, i.e.: upper
and lower hydraulic expansion transition areas, roll expansion transition areas, top of sleeve, the band -of
good weld material, etc.

WPF0783:49/021694
 Figure 7-3

C-Scan from UT Examination of an Acceptable Laser Weld

WPF0783:49/021694
 a,c,e

Figure 7-4

UT Setup Standard

WPF0783:49/021694
 a,c

Figure 7-5

C-Scan from UT Examination of Equipment Setup Standard

WPF0783:49/021694
 axc

Figure 7-6

C-Scan from UT Examination of' Workmanship Sample of a

Laser Welded Sleeve with Two EDM Notches

WPF0783:49/021694 71
7-10
7.3.1 Eddy Current Inspection Principle of Operation

The eddy current inspection equipment, techniques, and results presented herein apply to the proposed
Westinghouse sleeving process. Eddy current inspections are routinely carried out on the steam generators
in accordance with the Plant's Technical Specifications. The purpose of these inspections is to detect at
an early state tube degradation that may have occurred during plant operation so that corrective action can
be taken to minimize further degradation and reduce the potential for significant primary-to-secondary
leakage.

The standard inspection procedure involves the use of a bobbin eddy current probe, with two
circumnferentially wound coils which are displaced axially along the probe body. The coils are connected
in the so-called differential mode; that is, the system responds only when there is a difference in the
properties of the material surrounding the two coils. The coils are excited by using an eddy current
instrument that displays changes in the material surrounding the coils by measuring the electrical
impedance of the coils. Presently, this involves simultaneous excitations of the coils with several different
test frequencies.

The outputs of the various frequencies are combined -and recorded. The combined data yield an output
in which signals resulting from conditions that do not affect the integrity of the tube are reduced. By
reducing unwanted signals, improved inspectability of the tubing results (i.e., a higher signal-to-noise
ratio). Regions in the steam generator such as the tube support plate, tubesheet laser weld area and sleeve
transition zones are examples of areas where multifrequency processing has proven valuable in providing
improved inspectability.

After sleeve installation all sleeved tubes are subjected to an eddy current inspection which includes a
verification of correct sleeve installation for process control, degradation inspection and establishing a
baseline for all subsequent inspection comparison.

There are a number of probe configurations that lend themselves to enhancing the inspection of the
sleeve/tube assembly in the regions of laser weld as well as configuration transitions. The crosswound
coil probe has been selected since it provides an advancement in the state-of-the-art over the conventional
bobbin coil probe, yet retains the simplicity of the inspection procedure.

The inspection for degradation of the sleeve/tube assembly has typically been performed using crosswound
coil probes operated with multifrequency excitation. For the weld free straight length regions of the
sleeve/tube assembly, the inspection of the sleeve and tube is consistent with normal tubing inspections.
In sleeve/tube assembly joint regions, data evaluation becomes more complex. The results discussed below
suggest the limits on the volume of degradation that can be detected in the vicinity of the laser weld and
geometry changes.

WPF0783:49/021694 71
7-11
7.3.2 Transition Region Eddy Current Inspection

The detection and quantification of degradation at the transition regions of the sleeve/tube assembly
depend upon the signal-to-noise ratio between the degradation response and the transition response. As
a general rule, lower frequencies tend to suppress the transition signal relative to the degradation signal
at the expense of the ability to quantify the degradation. Similarly, the inspection of the tube through the
sleeve requires the use of low frequencies to achieve detection with an associated loss in quantification.
Thus, the search for an optimum eddy current inspection represents a trade-off between detection and
quantification. With the crosswound coil type inspection, this optimization leads to a primary inspection
frequency for the sleeve on the order of [ ac~e and for the tube and transition regions on the order

of [ ]a~c~e.

Figure 7-7 shows a typical [ ace calibration curve for the sleeve from which OD sleeve indications
can be assessed.

For the tube/sleeve combination, the use of the crosswound probe, coupled with a multifrequency mixing
technique for further reduction of the remaining noise signals significantly reduces the interference from
all discontinuities (e.g., a diameter transition) which have 360-degree symmetry, providing improved
visibility for discrete discontinuities. As is shown in the accompanying figures, in the laboratory this
technique can detect OD tube wall penetrations with acceptable signal-to-noise ratios at the transitions
when the volume of metal removed is equivalent to the ASME calibration standard.

The response from the sleeve/tube assembly transitions with the crosswound coil is shown in Figures 7-8,
7-9 and 7-10 for the sleeve standards, tube standards and transitions, respectively. Detectability in
transitions is enhanced by the combination of the various frequencies. For the crosswound probe, two
frequency combinations are shown; the [ ]ac,e combination provides the overall detection

capability while the [ ] a~ce combination provides improved sensitivity for the sleeve and some

quantification capability for the tube. Figure 7-1 1 shows the phase/depth curve for the tube using this
combination. As examples of the detection capability at the transitions, Figures 7-12 and 7-13 show the
responses of a 20 percent OD penetration in the sleeve and 40 percent OD penetration in the tube,
respectively.

For the inspection of the region at the top end of the sleeve, the transition response signal-to-noise ratio
is about a factor of four less sensitive than that of the expansions. Some additional inspectability has been
gained by tapering the wall thickness at the top end of the sleeve. This reduces the end-of-sleeve signal
by a factor of approximately two. The crosswound coil, however, again significantly reduces the response
of the sleeve end. Figure 7- 14 shows the response of various ASME tube calibration standards placed at
the end of the sleeve using the cross-wound coil and the []Cefrequency combination. Note
that under these conditions, degradation at the top end of the sleeve/tube assembly can be detected.

WPF0783:49/02 1694 71
7-12
 a,c,e

Figure 7-7

[ ]a',"e Calibration Curve

WPF0783-7:49/02 1794 10:43am 71

7-13
 a,c,e

Figure 7-8
Eddy Current Signals from the ASTM Standard, Machined on the Sleeve O.D. of the
Sleeve/Tube Assembly Without Expansion (Cross Wound Coil Probe)

WPF0783:49/021694 71
7-14
 a,c,e

Figure 7-9
Eddy Current Signals from the ASTM Standard Machined on the Tube O.D. of the
Sleeve/Tube Assembly Without Expansion (Cross Wound Coil Probe)

WPF0783:49/021694 71
7-15
 a,c,e

Figure 7-10

Eddy Current Signals from the Expansion Transition Region

of the Sleeve/Tube Assembly (Cross Wound Coil Probe)

WPF0783:49/02 1694 71
7-16
The cases considered above cover the inspection of laser-welded and mechanical sleeve/tube pressure
boundaries in these areas:

(i) The entire length of the TSP sleeve between the upper and lower welds.

(ii) The entire length of the tubesheet sleeve extending from the upper weld down to the end of the
sleeve.

(iii) The entire length of the tube from the hot leg tube entry to the top support of the cold leg, with the
exception of the following areas:

iiia) The length of tubing between the upper and lower welds of each TSP sleeve.

iiib) The length of tubing between the upper weld of a tubesheet sleeve, down to the tube length
behind the hardroll area of the tubesheet sleeve.

Note that indication of tube degradation of any type including a complete break between the upper
weld joint and the lower weld joint does not require that the tube be removed from service.

Also, in a free span joint with more than one weld, the weld closest to the end of the sleeve
represents the joint to be inspected and the limit of sleeve inspection.

7.3.3 Laser Weld Region Eddy Current Inspection

The only zone not addressed in Section 7.3.2 is the zone where the laser weld exists.

The basis for the ECT of this structure was developed by test, using a prototype laser weld. The test
sample used for this study was a prototypical laser weld in an expanded sleeve zone of a sleeve/tube
assembly. The weld was inspected before and after the introduction of a 40% thru-wall 3/16 inch diameter
flat bottom hole placed on the outside surface of the tube at the centerline of the weld. This weld presents
an axisymnietric condition similar to the transition geometry which is demonstrated by the low phase angle
signal similar to transition signals. The weld also displays a material disturbance by its distinct lobes
which can be successfully mixed out.

Figure 7-15 shows the [ ja,c,e response from the weld zone and Figure 7-16 shows the successful
I ] a~c, mix response using cross-wound coils.

The [ ac,e combination has proven to be optimum for detection in the weld zone, particularly

at the tube I.D./sleeve O.D. interface. Figures 7-17 and Figure 7-18 show the response of the 40% FBH
using [ ]ace and mix, respectively.

WPF0783-7:49/022494 3:31pm 72
7-21
 a,c,e

Figure 7-15
Crosswound [ ]a,c,' Eddy Current
Baseline of Laser Weld

WPF0783-7:49/021794 10:54am 72
7-22
 a,c,e

Figure 7-13

Eddy Current Signal from a 40% ASTM Standard, Machined on the Tube O.D. in the
Expansion Transition Region of the Sleeve/Tube Assembly (Cross Wound Coil Probe)

WPF0783:49/021694 71
7-19
 a,c,e

Figure 7-14

Eddy Current Response of the ASTM Tube Standard at the End of the Sleeve Using
the Cross Wound Coil Probe and Multifrequency Combination

WPF0783:49/021694 72
7-20
 a,c,e

Figure 7-11

Eddy Current Calibration Curve for ASTM Tube Standard at [ ace

and a Mix Using the Cross Wound Coil Probe

WPF0783:49/021694 71
7-17
 a,c,e

Figure 7-12

Eddy Current Signal from a 20% Deep Hole, Half the Volume of ASTM Standard,
Machined on the Sleeve O.D. in the Expansion Transition Region of the
Sleeve/Tube Assembly (Cross Wound Coil Probe)B

WPF0783:49/021694 71
7-18
 a,c,e

Figure 7-16

Crosswound Mix Eddy Current Response

Baseline of Laser Weld

WPF0783:49/021694 72
7-23
 a,c

Figure 7-17

Crosswound [ ~ Eddy Current Response After 40%

Flat Bottomed Hole was Placed in O.D. of Tube at
Center of Weld

WPF0783:49/021694 72
7-24
 axc

Figure 7-18

Crosswound Mix Eddy Current Response After 40%

Flat Bottomed Hole was Placed in O.D. of Tube at
Center of Weld

WPF0783:49/021694 72
7-25
7.3.4 Eddy Current Inspection Summary

Conventional eddy current techniques have been modified to incorporate the most recent technology in the inspection
of the sleeve/tube assembly. The resultant inspection of the sleeve/tube assembly involves the use of a cross-wound
coil for the straight regions of the sleeve/tube assembly and for the transition regions. The advent of digital E/C
instrumentation and its attendant increased dynamic range and the availability of eight channels for four frequencies
has expanded the use of the crosswound coil for sleeve inspection. While there is a significant advancement in the
inspection of portions of the assembly using the cross-wound coil over conventional bobbin coils, efforts continue
to advance the state-of-the-art in eddy current inspection techniques. As enhanced techniques are developed, they
will be utilized after they are verified. For the present, the cross-wound coil probe represents an inspection technique
that provides additional sensitivity and support for eddy current techniques as a viable means of assessing the
sleeve/tube assembly.

7.4 Alternate Post Installation Acceptance Methods

Ultrasonic or volumetric inspection is the prime method for post-installation weld quality evaluation, with eddy
current examination being used as the prime in-service examination technique. However, there are cases, due

In support of accepting UT indeterminate welds, several alternate strategies will be applied, as agreed to by the
implementing utility and Westinghouse. While this summary is not meant to preclude other methods, it is included
to provide an indication of the rigor of the alternate methods.

7.4.1 Bounding Inspections

WPF0783-7:49/022594 3:32pm 72
7-26
7.4.2 Workmanship Samples

7.4.3 Other Advanced Examination Techniques

As other advanced techniques become available and are proven suitable, Westinghouse may elect, with utility
concurrence, to alter its post-installation inspection program.

In summary, Westinghouse proposes to apply alternate inspection techniques with utility concurrence as they become
available. It is intending that this licensing report not preclude the use of these inspections as long as they can be
demonstrated to provide the same degree or greater of inspection rigor as the initial use methods identified in this
report.

7.5 Inservice Inspection Plan for Sleeved Tubes

The need exists to perform periodic inspections of the supplemented pressure boundary. The inservice inspection
program will consist of the following:

a. The sleeve will be eddy current inspected upon completion of installation to obtain a baseline signature to
which all subsequent inspections will be compared.

b. Periodic inspections will be performed to monitor sleeve and tube wall conditions in accordance with the
inspection section of the individual plant Technical Specifications.

The inspection of sleeves will necessitate the use of an eddy current probe that can pass through the sleeve ID. For
the tube span between sleeves, this will result in a reduced fill factor. The possibility for tube degradation in free
span lengths is extremely small, as plant data have shown that this area is less susceptible than other locations. Any
tube indication in this region will require further inspection by alternate techniques (i.e., surface riding probes) prior
to acceptance of that indication. Otherwise the tube shall be removed from service by plugging. Any change in the
eddy current signature of the sleeve and sleeve/tube joint region will require further inspection by alternate techniques
prior to acceptance. Otherwise the tube containing the sleeve in question shall be removed from service by plugging.

WPF0783:49/021694 72
7-27
7.6 References

1. Stubbe, J., Birthe, J. Verbeek, K., "Qualification and Field Experience of Sleeving Repair Techniques:
CSNIIUNIPEDE Specialist Meeting on Operating Experience with Steam Generators, paper 8.7, Brussels,
Belgium, September 1991.

WPF0783:49/021694 72
7-28