0
Research Papers: Seismic Engineering

Leak-Before-Break Under Beyond Design Basis Seismic Loading

[+] Author and Article Information
Tao Zhang

e-mail: tzhang@emc-sq.com

Heqin Xu

Engineering Mechanics
Corporation of Columbus,
3518 Riverside Dr. - Suite 202,
Columbus, OH 43221

Oscar Mazzantini

Nucleoelectrica Argentina S. A.,
Buenos Aires 2806, Argentina

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Manuscript received March 16, 2012; final manuscript received December 2, 2012; published online September 16, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Chong-Shien Tsai.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 135(5), 051801 (Sep 16, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: PVT-12-1030; doi: 10.1115/1.4024442 History: Received August 16, 2012; Revised December 02, 2012

The Atucha II nuclear power plant is a unique pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR) being constructed in Argentina. The original plant design was by Kraftwerk Union (KWU) in the 1970's using the German methodology of break preclusion. The plant construction was halted for several decades, but a recent need for power was the driver for restarting the construction. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) developed leak-before-break (LBB) procedures in standard review plan (SRP) 3.6.3 Revision 1 for the purpose of eliminating the need to design for dynamic effects that allowed the elimination of pipe whip restraints and jet impingement shields. This SRP was originally written in 1987. The US NRC is currently developing a draft Regulatory Guide on what is called the transition break size (TBS). However, modeling crack pipe response in large complex primary piping systems under seismic loading is a difficult analysis challenge due to many factors. The initial published work (Wilkowski et al., “Robust LBB Analysis for Atucha II Nuclear Plant,” 2011 ASME PVP Conference, July 17–21, Baltimore, MD) on the seismic evaluations for the Atucha II plant showed that even with a seismic event with the amplitudes corresponding to the amplitudes for an event with a probability of 1 × 10−6 per year, that a double-ended guillotine break (DEGB) was pragmatically impossible due to the high leakage rates and total loss of make-up water inventory. The critical circumferential through-wall flaw size in that case was 94% of the circumference. This paper discusses further efforts to show how much higher the applied accelerations would have to be to cause a DEGB for an initial circumferential through-wall crack that was 33% around the circumference. This flaw length would also be easily detected by leakage and loss of make-up water inventory. These analyses showed that the applied seismic peak-ground accelerations had to exceed 25 g's for the case of this through-wall-crack to become a DEGB during a single seismic loading event. This is a factor of 80 times higher than the 1 × 10−6 seismic event accelerations, or 240 times higher than the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) accelerations.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Olson, R., Scott, P., and Wilkowski, G., 1992, “Application of a Nonlinear-Spring Element to Analysis of Circumferentially Cracked Pipe Under Dynamic Loading,” ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, June 21–25, New Orleans, LA.
Olson, R., Wolterman, R., Scott, P., Krishnaswamy, P., and Wilkowski, G., 1994, “The Next Generation Analysis Methodology for Cracked Pipe Systems Subjected to Dynamic Loads,” ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, June 19–23, Minneapolis, MN.
ABAQUS 6.10-1, Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, 2010.
Zhang, T., Brust, F. W., Shim, D. J., Wilkowski, G., Nie, J., and Hofmayer, C., 2010, “Analysis of JNES Seismic Tests on Degraded Piping,” NRC NUREG/CR-7015 (BNL-NUREG-91346-2010) Report, July.
Zhang, T., Brust, F. W., Wilkowski, G., Shim, D. J., Nie, J., Hofmayer, C., and Ali, S., 2012, “Numerical Analysis of JNES Seismic Tests on Degraded Combined Piping System,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 134, p. 011801. [CrossRef]
Suzuki, K., Kawauchi, H., and Abe, H., 2006, “Test Programs For Degraded Core Shroud and BWR Piping (Simulated Crack Models and Input Seismic Waves For Shaking Test),” ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, July 23–27, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Suzuki, K., and Kawauchi, H., 2008, “Test Programs for Degraded Core Shroud and PLR System Piping (Seismic Test Results and Discussion on JSME Rules Application),” 2008 ASME PVP Conference, July 27–31, Chicago, IL.
Wilkowski, G., Brust, F., Zhang, T., Hattery, G., Kalyanam, S., Shim, D., Kurth, E., Hioe, H., Uddin, M., Johnson, J., Maslenikov, O., Gurpinar, A., Asfura, A., Sumodobila, B., Betervide, A., and Mazzantini, O., 2011, “Robust LBB Analysis for Atucha II Nuclear Plant,” 2011 ASME PVP Conference, July 17–21, Baltimore, MD.
Zhang, T., Brust, F., and Wilkowski, G., 2011, “Weld Residual Stress in Large Diameter Nuclear Nozzles,” 2011 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, July 17–21, Baltimore, MD.
Rudland, D., Zhang, T., Wilkowski, G., and Csontos, A., 2008, “Welding Residual Stress Solutions for Dissimilar Metal Surge Line Nozzles Welds,” 2008 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, July 27–31, Chicago, IL.
Rudland, D., Chen, Y., Zhang, T., Wilkowski, G., Broussard, J., and White, G., 2007, “Comparison of Welding Residual Stress Solutions for Control Rod Drive Mechanism Nozzles,” 2007 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, July 22–26, San Antonio, TX.
Zhang, T., Brust, F., Wilkowski, G., Rudland, D., and Csontos, A., 2009, “Welding Residual Stress and Multiple Flaw Evaluation for Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Replacement Welds With Alloy 52,” 2009 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, July 26–30, Prague, Czech Republic.
Ansys 11.0, Ansys, Inc., 2007.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

FE model of NSSS system and containment building

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Moment versus rotation-due-to-the-crack curves from initial loading to full break of a pipe with a circumferential crack

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Simulation of a crack in IPIRG program during the early 1990's

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Simulation of a crack in current program using abaqus with validation in separate-effect pipe tests

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Crack pipe element locations in primary piping with element numbers

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Moment versus rotation due to the crack for 55.5 deg circumferential through-wall crack

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Moment versus rotation due to the crack for 152.8 deg circumferential through-wall crack

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Moment versus rotation due to the crack for 180 deg circumferential through-wall crack

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Moment versus rotation due to the crack for 210 deg circumferential through-wall crack

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Moment versus rotation due to the crack for 229.5 deg circumferential through-wall crack

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Moment versus rotation histories at different locations for 55.5 deg circumferential through-wall crack with embedment effects and best-estimated soil properties using free-field motion artificial time histories

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Moment versus rotation histories at different locations for 152.8 deg circumferential through-wall crack with embedment effects and best-estimated soil properties using free-field motion artificial time histories

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Moment versus rotation histories at different locations for 180 deg circumferential through-wall crack with embedment effects and best-estimated soil properties using free-field motion artificial time histories

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Moment versus rotation histories at different locations for 210 deg circumferential through-wall crack with embedment effects and best-estimated soil properties using free-field motion artificial time histories

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Moment versus rotation histories at different locations for 229.5 deg circumferential through-wall crack with embedment effects and best-estimated soil properties using free-field motion artificial time histories

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Moment versus rotation due to crack relation for 320 deg crack without pressure effect from LBB.ENG2 pure-bending analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Moment versus rotation histories at different locations for 320 deg crack with embedment effects and best-estimated soil properties using as free-field motion artificial time histories (without pressure offset)—using cracked-pipe element analysis from LBB.ENG2 for pure bending

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Moment versus rotation histories at different locations for 120 deg crack under 80 times higher than the 10 × 10−6 seismic event accelerations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Rotation histories at different locations for 120 deg crack under 80 times higher than the 10 × 10−6 seismic event accelerations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Rotation history comparisons for different cases at pump weld of loop 2 for 120 deg crack under 80 times higher than the 10 × 10−6 seismic event accelerations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Rotation history comparisons for different cases at pump weld of loop 1 for 120 deg crack under 80 times higher than the 10 × 10−6 seismic event accelerations

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In