0
Research Papers: Operations, Applications & Components

Benchmarking PRAISE-CANDU 1.0 With Nuclear Risk Based Inspection Methodology Project Fatigue Cases

[+] Author and Article Information
Xinjian Duan, Min Wang, Michael J. Kozluk

Candu Energy Inc.,
Mississauga, ON L5K 1B1, Canada

®Registered trademark of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., used under exclusive license by Candu Energy Inc.

There were also some carefully selected Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) cases studied in the NURBIM Project.

According to Ref. [2], PRODIGAL was based on direct integration.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 27, 2013; final manuscript received June 8, 2014; published online October 15, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Kunio Hasegawa.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 137(2), 021601 (Oct 15, 2014) (10 pages) Paper No: PVT-13-1217; doi: 10.1115/1.4028202 History: Received December 27, 2013; Revised June 08, 2014

A probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) code, PRAISE-CANDU 1.0, has been developed under a software quality assurance (QA) program in full compliance with Canadian Standards Association (CSA) N286.7-99, and was initially released in June 2012 and officially approved for use in August 2013. Extensive verification and validation has been performed on PRAISE-CANDU 1.0 for the purpose of software QA. This paper presents the fatigue benchmarking against NURBIM (nuclear risk based inspection methodology for passive components) fatigue cases between PRAISE-CANDU 1.0 and six other PFM codes. This benchmarking is considered to be an important element of the validation of PRAISE-CANDU. Excellent agreement is observed in spite of the differences between the codes. The comparison of the predicted leak probability at the 40th year shows that PRAISE-CANDU not only captures the same trend but also bounds (higher predicted failure probability) the majority of the NURBIM results. In addition to the leak probability, the rupture probability, and uncertainty analysis, which were not reported in the NURBIM Project, are also calculated with PRAISE-CANDU and presented.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Canadian Standards Association, 1999, “Quality Assurance of Analytical, Scientific and Design Computer Programs for Nuclear Power Plants,” Report No. CSA N286.7-99.
Brickstad, B., Dillstrom, P., Schimpfke, T., Chapman, O. J. V., Cueto-Felgueroso, C., and Bell, C. D., 2004, “Project NURBIM (Nuclear RI-ISI Methodology for Passive Components), Benchmarking of Structural Reliability Models and Associated Software,” ASME Paper No. PVP2004-2551. [CrossRef]
Schimpfke, T., 2004, “WP-4, Review and Benchmarking of SRMs and Associated Software. Appendix B, Fatigue Benchmark Study,” NURBIM Report No. D4.
Bishop, B., and Anderson, R., 2008, “NURBIM Fatigue Benchmarking of SRRA Code for Risk-Informed ISI,” CNSI&JRC Workshop on Risk-Informed Piping Integrity Management, Madrid, Spain, June 2–4.
Duan, X., Wang, M., and Kozluk, M. J., 2011, “Comparison of PRO-LOCA 2009 With WinPRAISE 2007 for Estimating Rupture Probability of Dissimilar Metal Weld Susceptible to PWSCC,” Proceedings of 19th International Conference of Nuclear Engineering (ICONE19), Makuhari, Japan, May 16–20, Paper No. ICONE19-43921.
Harris, D. O., Lim, E. Y., and Dedhia, D., 1981, “Probability of Pipe Fracture in the Primary Coolant Loop of a PWR Plant, Volume 5: Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Analysis,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Volume 5, Washington, D.C., Report No. NUREG/CR-2189.
Lim, E. Y., 1981, “Probability of Pipe Fracture in the Primary Coolant Loop of a PWR Plant, Volume 9: PRAISE Computer Code User's Manual,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Volume 5, Washington, D.C., Report No. NUREG/CR-2189.
Wang, M.,2013, “Benchmark PRAISE-CANDU 1.0 with xLPR 1.0,” ASME Paper No. PVP2013-98010. [CrossRef]
OECD NEA, 2011, “CODAP-Component Operational Experience, Degradation and Ageing Programme Database.” Available at: https://www.oecd-nea.org/codap.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1999, “Technical Elements of Risk-Informed Inservice Inspection Programs for Piping,” Draft Report No. NUREG-1661.
The Nuclear Regulators' Working Group Task Force on Risk-Informed Inservice Inspection, 2004, “Report on the Regulatory Experience of Risk-Informed Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components and Common Views,” Report No. EUR 21320 EN.
European Network for Inspection Qualification, 2007, “Recommended Practice 9: Verification and Validation of Structural Reliability Models and Associated Software to Be Used in Risk-Informed In-Service Inspection Programmes,” ENIQ Report No. 30, EUR Report No. 22228 EN.
International Atomic Energy Agency, 2010, “Risk-Informed In-Service Inspection of Piping Systems of Nuclear Power Plants: Process, Status, Issues and Development,” IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-3.1.
Moolayil, T. M., 2007, “Mitigation of Degradation of High Energy Secondary Cycle Piping due to FAC and Life Management in Indian NPP's,” Second International Symposium on Nuclear Power Plant Life Management, Shanghai, China, October 15–18.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

PRAISE-CANDU analysis options

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Leak probability at the 40th year–base case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Effect of crack aspect ratio on leak probability

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Effect of crack depth on leak probability

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Effect of yield strength on leak probability

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Effect of flow stress on leak probability of medium pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Effect of flow stress on leak probability of large pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of fracture toughness on leak probability

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effect of load on leak probability

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effect of fatigue cycles on leak probability

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Effect of crack growth rate on leak probability

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of PODs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Effect of POD on leak probability of small pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Effect of POD on leak probability of medium pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Effect of POD on leak probability of large pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Effect of POD on leak and rupture probability of small pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Effect of POD on leak and rupture probability of medium pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Effect of POD on leak and rupture probability of large pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Effect of inspection frequency on leak probability of small pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Effect of inspection frequency on leak probability of medium pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Effect of inspection frequency on leak probability of large pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Effect of inspection frequency on leak and rupture probability of small pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Effect of inspection frequency on leak and rupture probability of medium pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Effect of inspection frequency on leak and rupture probability of large pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Crack transition assumptions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Accumulated leak probability versus time for medium pipe with materials properties as epistemic uncertainty

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Accumulated leak probability versus time for medium pipe with materials properties and initial crack size as epistemic uncertainty

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Accumulated leak probability versus time for large pipe with materials properties and initial crack size as epistemic uncertainty

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Accumulated leak probability versus time for large pipe with materials properties, initial crack size and POD as epistemic uncertainty

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Comparison of rupture probability between WinPRAISE07 and PRAISE-CANDU 1.0 for a small bore piping subject to PWSCC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Comparison of mean rupture probability between xLPR 1.0, PRO-LOCA 3.0 and PRAISE-CANDU 1.0 for xLPR 1.0 project base case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 32

Comparison with FAC OPEX at KAPS-2

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