0
Research Papers: Design and Analysis

Probabilistic Pressurized Thermal Shocks Analyses for a Reactor Pressure Vessel

[+] Author and Article Information
Guian Qian

Laboratory for Nuclear Materials,
Nuclear Energy and Safety Research Department,
Paul Scherrer Institute,
OHSA/06,
5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland
e-mail: guian.qian@psi.ch

Markus Niffenegger

Laboratory for Nuclear Materials,
Nuclear Energy and Safety Research Department,
Paul Scherrer Institute,
OHSA/06,
5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 6, 2014; final manuscript received March 31, 2015; published online May 20, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Kunio Hasegawa.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 137(6), 061206 (Dec 01, 2015) (7 pages) Paper No: PVT-14-1129; doi: 10.1115/1.4030299 History: Received August 06, 2014; Revised March 31, 2015; Online May 20, 2015

Both deterministic and probabilistic methods are used to assess the integrity of a reactor pressure vessel (RPV) subjected to pressurized thermal shocks (PTSs). The FAVOR code is applied to calculate the probabilities for crack initiation and failure of the RPV subjected to two transients, by considering crack distributions based on cracks observed in the Shoreham and pressure vessel research user facility (PVRUF) RPVs. The crack parameters, i.e., crack density, depth, aspect ratio, orientation, and location are assumed as random variables following different distributions. KI of the cracks with the same depth increases with its aspect ratio. Both KI and KIc at the crack tip increase with crack depth, which is the reason why a deeper crack does not necessarily lead to a higher failure probability. The underclad crack is the most critical crack and the deeper crack is the least critical one in this study. Considering uncertainties of the transients results in higher failure probabilities.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Qian, G., Niffenegger, M., and Li, S., 2011, “Probabilistic Analysis of Pipelines With Corrosion Defects by Using FITNET FFS Procedure,” Corros. Sci., 53(3), pp. 855–861. [CrossRef]
Qian, G., and Niffenegger, M., 2011, “Probabilistic Fracture Assessment of Piping Systems Based on FITNET FFS Procedure,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 241(3), pp. 714–722. [CrossRef]
Qian, G., Niffenegger, M., Zhou, W., and Li, S., 2013, “Effect of Correlated Input Parameters on the Failure Probability of Pipelines With Corrosion Defects by Using FITNET FFS Procedure,” Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip., 105–106, pp. 19–27. [CrossRef]
Qian, G., Niffenegger, M., Karanki, D., and Li, S., 2013, “Probabilistic Leak-Before-Break Analysis With Correlated Input Parameters,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 254, pp. 266–271. [CrossRef]
Qian, G., and Niffenegger, M., 2013, “Procedures, Methods and Computer Codes for the Probabilistic Assessment of Reactor Pressure Vessels Subjected to Pressurized Thermal Shocks,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 258, pp. 35–50. [CrossRef]
Qian, G., and Niffenegger, M., 2014, “Deterministic and Probabilistic Analysis of a Reactor Pressure Vessel Subjected to Pressurized Thermal Shocks,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 273, pp. 381–395. [CrossRef]
Qian, G., Gonzalez-Albuixech, V. F., and Niffenegger, M., 2014, “Probabilistic PTS Analysis of a Reactor Pressure Vessel by Considering Realistic Crack Distributions,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 270, pp. 312–324. [CrossRef]
Niffenegger, M., and Reichlin, K., 2012, “The Proper Use of Thermal Expansion Coefficients in Finite Element Calculations,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 243, pp. 356–359. [CrossRef]
Qian, G., and Niffenegger, M., 2013, “Investigation on Constraint Effect of a Reactor Pressure Vessel Subjected to Pressurized Thermal Shocks,” ASME Paper No. PVP2013-98161. [CrossRef]
Qian, G., and Niffenegger, M., 2013, “Integrity Analysis of a Reactor Pressure Vessel Subjected to Pressurized Thermal Shocks by Considering Constraint Effect,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 112–113, pp. 14–25. [CrossRef]
Qian, G., Gonzalez-Albuixech, V. F., and Niffenegger, M., 2014, “In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Constraint Effects Under Pressurized Thermal Shocks,” Int. J. Solids Struc., 51(6), pp. 1311–1321. [CrossRef]
Simonen, F. A., Doctor, S. R., Schuster, G. J., and Heasler, P. G., 2004, A Generalized Procedure for Generating Flaw-Related Inputs for the FAVOR Code, NRC Paper No. NUREG/CR-6817 Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6817
Williams, P. T., Dickson, T. L., and Yin, S., 2004, Fracture Analysis of Vessels-Oak Ridge FAVOR, v 04.1, Computer Code: Theory and Implementation of Algorithms, Methods, and Correlations, NRC Paper No. NUREG/CR-685, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6854
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2010, 50.61a Alternate Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events, NRC Paper No. 5061a. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-00
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1988, Regulatory Guide, No. 1.99, Revision 2, Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials, NRC Paper No. 1.99. http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0037/ML003740284.pdf
VISA-II—A Computer Code for Predicting the Probability of Reactor Pressure Vessel Failure, NUREG/CR-4486.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the Beltline region of the studied RPV (dimensions are not proportional to the real ones)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

MLOCA and SLOCA transients (a) water temperature history, (b) pressure history, and (c) heat transfer coefficient history

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Crack depth distribution in welding region and (b) crack length distribution in welding region

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) Crack depth distribution for cracks in ring region and (b) crack length distribution cracks in ring region

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of KI and KIc subjected to the MLOCA and SLOCA considering different types of cracks

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of KI, KIa, and KIc at different neutron fluences versus a/t for cracks with different aspect ratios at time of 18 min during the MLOCA transient (a) for axial surface cracks and (b) for circumferential surface cracks

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of KI, KIa, and KIc at different neutron fluences versus a/t for cracks with different aspect ratios at time of 250 min during the SLOCA transient (a) for axial surface cracks and (b) for circumferential surface cracks

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Conditional crack initiation and failure probability of the RPV considering the WPS effect (a) subjected to the MLOCA and (b) subjected to the SLOCA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a) Statistical consideration of the PTS transients and (b) crack initiation and failure probability subjected to the MLOCA and SLOCA considering the transient and geometry uncertainties

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