Structural Integrity Research of the Electric Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, California, USA

Netherlands

PREFACE

The thirteen papers of this issue give an overview of the Structural Integrity Research effort supported by the Electric Power Research Institute, (EPRI).

The work described is a result of the mission of EPRI to conduct research and development which promotes the safe, clean, and economical generation of power by the utility industry. Thus, the research areas covered are the ones currently receiving the most attention. They address (1) nuclear plant design, licensing and regulation questions, (2) design and construction costs of components and structures and the overconservatism that has crept into the process, and (3) safety questions that are subject to probabilistic risk assessment.

The material is arranged in five sectors: (1) methods of analysis and design, (2) earthquake response, (3) fluid-structure interactions, (4) response of components and structures to impact, and (5) the performance of components and structures.

In view of the current state of nuclear energy the material is very timely. Thanks are extended to all authors of the EPRI contractors for the prompt preparation of their papers, and to EPRI for accepting my invitation to initiate this special issue.

Stanley H. Fistedis

Principal Editor

OVERVIEW OF EPRI RESEARCH IN STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

H.T. TANG, G.E. SLITER, Y.K. TANG and I.B. WALL,     Electric Power Research Institute, 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94303, USA

August 1983

This paper is an overview of the structural integrity research within the Nuclear Safety and Analysis Department of the Electric Power Research Institute. This research addresses structurally related safety issues in light water reactors. Five major technical areas are covered: Analysis/Design Methods, Seismic/Vibratory Response, Fluid/Structure Response, Impact/Impulse Response, and Structure/Component Performance. Each technical area is briefly described and research results are highlighted. This paper puts in perspective the research and development work described in this special issue of the journal in addressing such safety and licensing issues as soil-structure interaction, seismic response of piping systems, hydrodynamic loads in pipes and vessels, pipe rupture and whip, jet impingement, missile impact, and concrete containment integrity.

1 Introduction

The mission of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is to conduct research and development which promotes the safe, clean, and economical generation of power by the U.S. electric utility industry. In this context, the focus of the Structural Integrity program within the Nuclear Power Division is upon improving the design, safety, licensing, and thereby the cost and availability of light water reactor power plants with respect to their structural performance under normal operating conditions and postulated accident conditions. The mission-oriented nature of EPRI’s research places stringent criteria on the selection of projects with near-term payoffs and a high success rate.

The primary motivations for structural integrity research include (a) evolving nuclear plant design and licensing issues, (b) the large and increasing costs of plant structural components coupled with the prevailing observation that many design/licensing practices are grossly conservative, and (c) insights into reactor safety from probabilistic risk assessments. These motivations are closely interrelated.

In the past decade or so, the nuclear utilities have been confronted with increasing licensing requirements imposed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for assuring the safety operation of nuclear plants. Many of these requirements are related to structural issues. One root cause for the changing regulatory requirements has been the desire to keep regulations abreast of rapidly advancing technology. Another has been the occurrence of unforeseen events, not anticipated in the original design, as operating experience grew in a maturing industry.

Example issues raised by advancing technology include improved methods for addressing plant seismic response, analysis of piping seismic stresses, PWR hydrodynamic loads, and BWR pressure suppression loads. Under NRC’s Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) [1], operating plants designed with minimal seismic requirements are being reviewed to assess their earthquake resistance capacity. The use of advanced technology during the licensing of a U.S. plant [2] led to the recognition of asymmetric hydrodynamic loads propagating across a PWR reactor core barrel under a postulated loss of coolant accident. For BWRs, pressure suppression system loads such as those from pool swell, steam condensation, and chugging were identified. Further examples in this category include missile impact, pipe whip, and combinations of loads from operating and accident conditions.

Example issues raised by unanticipated plant operating events include water hammer (about 142 BWR events between 1969 and 1980 [3]), pressurized thermal shock (3 events reported in 1982 alone [4]) and potential overpressurization of containment under degraded core conditions (TMI-2 led to an interim rulemaking [5] which addresses this issue).

These issues and resulting licensing requirements have placed a significant demand on electric utility resources (and ultimately ratepayer costs) due to reanalysis and retrofit, sometimes coupled with plant shutdown and the expense of replacement power. A prevailing question is whether requirements have gone beyond their ability to pay off in terms of improved safety. For example, the cumulative conservatisms that have been applied in tracing seismic motion through the ground, coupling with building response, and being amplified by assuming low damping in piping systems have led to stiff, complex piping and cable support systems. Such systems are difficult to maintain and may be suppressing the flexibility commonly inherent in earthquake-resistant structures.

A typical LWR contains 45 miles of piping and 550 miles of cables which are supported by 6000 hangers and snubbers each of which is seismically engineered. It has been estimated [6,7] that the total costs for seismic design and construction ranges from 6% ($160 million) of capital cost for a 0.2g SSE (typical of eastern U.S. sites) to 15% ($400 million) for a 0.5g SSE (typical of a site in California). These estimates assume that the engineering is only done once; in fact, changing requirements probably result in a doubling or more of these capital costs. As described in section 3, EPRI is sponsoring several projects in the area of seismic design and analysis which are identifying conservatisms and aiming toward simplifications in piping support systems.

Another design basis event that has had a substantial impact on piping, supports, and other structural components is the assumed double-ended guillotine break of the largest pipe in the primary coolant system. Typically, a current generation PWR can have 250 to 400 pipe whip restraints. Estimated total costs for design, procurement, and construction are in the range of $20 to 40 million per unit [8]. This amount does not include additional operating costs associated with in-service inspection and maintenance due to difficult access and other design problems. Possibly even more important, the difficult access leads to increased occupational radiation doses. EPRI has under way several experiments to measure pipe opening times, pipe whip, and jet impingement forces, as described in sections 4.2 and 5.2. Measurements to date have shown substantial margins which, when incorporated in design practice and licensing requirements, should significantly reduce the cost of pipe restraints.

In 1975, NRC published the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400) [9] which systematically analyzed the probabilities and consequences of postulated reactor accidents. The study found that public risk is dominated not by large pipe breaks but by small pipe breaks and transients (e.g., loss of offsite power [10]). This insight is leading to the consideration of using a less demanding Design Basis Accident [11,12]. A further insight from the study was that public risk is dominated by accidents in which the fuel is severely degraded: For such accident sequences, a critical parameter is the failure mode of the containment when it is internally pressurized. The usual assumption [9,13] is a gross rupture of containment which maximizes the public health consequences. However, if the containment experienced a slow leakage, the public health consequences would be much smaller. As described in section 6.1, EPRI has initiated experiments and analyses in order to substantiate the containment failure mode.

With this perspective, EPRI initiated in 1974 a Structural Integrity program within the Nuclear Power Division to sponsor and manage a wide range of research projects to address structurally related safety issues associated with light water reactors*. These research projects are organized into the following five major technical areas:

– Analysis/Design Methods,

– Seismic/Vibratory Response,

– Fluid/Structure Response,

– Impact/Impulse Response,

– Structure/Component Performance.

Embedded in this organization is a balanced technical approach, with equal emphasis on analysis and testing. Fig. 1 is a graphic overview showing the relationship among the five technical areas. The three areas that focus on structural response induced by ground motion, fluid motion, or short-duration dynamic excitation, consist mainly of testing to provide benchmark data on load definitions which feed into the other areas. To provide reliable data, the program strongly emphasizes the conduct of experiments at the largest scale possible. The area on performance concerns load carrying capacity of plant structures. The area on methods provides evaluation tools that can be applied in all of the other areas. Table 1 summarizes the topics covered in each area.

Table 1

Research topics covered under technical areas in the Structural Integrity program

Fig. 1 Organization of the Structural Integrity program according to technical areas.

In this paper, research needs and technical approaches in each technical area are briefly described. Results achieved to date are highlighted. Papers in the rest of this special issue give more detailed information on progress in selected research topics.

2 Analysis/Design Methods

A suitable set of analytical tools has always been a fundamental requirement for reactor design and safety evaluation. Currently available design tools are often supplemented with the application of more sophisticated computer codes at the later stages of design. But, because of the impracticality of using ultra-sophisticated methods for design, simplifying assumptions that err on the safe side are built into the analytical and design methods selected. These conservatisms provide not only the desired margin of safety, but also a cushion against calculational uncertainties and the unanticipated extreme loads that are invariably identified as technology and experience grow. It is there that advanced analysis methods can play a key role by using more sophisticated theories to account for realistic, but complex modes of structural response that demonstrate increased performance capability.

Two types of general purpose nonlinear computer codes have been developed within the Structural Integrity program. One, formulated in finite difference form, is suited for addressing severe dynamic transients involving wave propagation in continuum bodies of structural materials, soils, and fluids (e.g., PWR hydrodynamic load, BWR pool swell, seismic soil–structure interaction, impact penetration, and water hammer). The other, formulated in finite element form, is more suited for addressing static, quasi-static, and dynamic nonlinear structural response (e.g., containment over-pressurization, creep, pipe whip, structural response to impact, and seismic response of buildings and piping). (Requests for information on the use and availability of either of these codes described below should be addressed to the Electric Power Software Center (EPSC), 1930 Hi Line Drive, Dallas, TX 75207, USA, tel. (214) 655-8883.)

2.1 Transient continuum mechanics code

The STEALTH*family of codes as shown in table 2 has been developed to analyze reactor transient events. STEALTH–GEN (GENeral purpose) is the basic version that has both thermal and mechanical capabilities. The rest are spin-offs for efficient analysis of special classes of problems. Refs. [14] and [15] provide an overview of the STEALTH family of codes and their capabilities.

Table 2

STEALTH family of codes (Version 4-1 A)

STEALTH has had many applications. One paper in this issue [16] reports a particular application in the soil-structure interaction area. It is shown that proper account of nonlinearity in a strong motion environment is very important in reproducing experimentally observed characteristics, such as the downward shift of a containment building’s rocking frequency. This and the result of an earlier parametric study [17] demonstrate the inappropriateness of using linear methods to calculate foundation input if indeed nonlinearity becomes influential because of strong ground motion. As shown in fig. 2, an important finding is that nonlinear effects produce a substantial reduction of low frequency amplitude. This difference could significantly impact predicted dynamic structural response, particularly the low-frequency response of reactor building structures and components.

Fig. 2 Surface response spectra displaying nonlinear soil effects under strong ground motion [17].

Other STEALTH applications have included simulation of transient piping flow (fig. 3) [18] and missile impact (fig. 4) [19]. Another paper in this issue [20] describes the STEALTH–WHAMSE analysis of a PWR asymmetric load situation to be discussed further in section 4.1.

Fig. 3a Sketch of feedwater for steam generator.

Fig. 3b Simulation schematic of feedwater branch used for STEALTH calculation of shutdown transient flow.

Fig. 3c Typical pressure history calculated by STEALTH (near tee junction − 24.6 ft from check valve) [18].

Fig. 4 Deformed STEALTH grid showing penetration of turbine missile into reinforced concrete target at time (t) [19].

Static or quasi-static problems can also be analyzed with STEALTH by using a dynamic relaxation technique. The waste isolation study sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation [21] and a small fuel-pin thermal mechanical behavior study sponsored by EPRI [22] are two examples.

In light of the many validation efforts performed, the STEALTH family of codes is qualified to perform sophisticated transient analysis to meet many reactor design, safety and licensing needs.

2.2 Nonlinear structural analysis code

Subsequent to the initiation of the STEALTH code work, EPRI recognized the need for developing a general purpose code for nonlinear structural response analysis, particularly in the dynamic situation, where inertia rather than wave propagation dominates the physics. The initial effort was to sponsor the development of a general purpose nonlinear finite element code architecture with the special capability of handling large rotation, elastic-plastic impact problems such as pipe whip [23]. Attention to the architecture aspect was motivated by the fact that most finite element codes had been developed originally without the benefit of a good data management structure. Consequently, subsequent development and qualification suffered from the inherent inadequacies of the architecture. EPRI’s aim, therefore, was not only to develop a user-oriented reliable code but also one versatile enough for efficient code development and maintenance. The pipe whip capability offered a good starting point since it involves both geometric nonlinearity such as large pipe rotations, pipe–target impact, pipe crushing, etc. and material nonlinearity such as plasticity and strain-rate dependent behavior. Numerically, this problem also offered a challenge in generating reliable and convergent solutions.

The challenge of generating numerical code calculations that converge to an accurate and correct solution has always plagued numerical analysts. This is especially true for nonlinear problems, for which it is known that implicit operators are not unconditionally stable. The user has had the burden of selecting appropriate time or load steps, as well as solution accuracy. From the very beginning of EPRI’s finite element code development, taking this judgment off the hands of users, if at all possible, was given high priority. An automatic time stepping algorithm was formulated in terms of a nodal equilibrium-balance parameter (R1/2) which is a measure of desired solution accuracy. As shown in fig. 5, this algorithm leads to convergent solutions [24]. It has also proven to be efficient because time steps are continuously optimized during the solution execution.

Fig. 5 Automatic time stepping results from ABAQUS-EPGEN for a fixed-ended elastic-plastic beam with an initial velocity field [24].

The first version of the code that resulted from these considerations is ABAQUS–ND (Nonlinear Dynamic) [25]. The finite element formulation enables the code to perform pipe whip analysis and general nonlinear dynamic piping and shell analysis. It should be noted that the code is not suited for linear dynamic problems.

Following this initial effort, the need for a more general code to include dynamic, static, temperature, fracture, and additional nonlinear features arose. In a cooperative effort with the code developers, Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen, EPRI cosponsored the general purpose version of the ABAQUS code, which EPRI calls ABAQUS–EPGEN (EPRI GENeral purpose) [24] for licensing to utility users. This code has extensive nonlinear capabilities for a wide class of applications. A paper in this issue describes it in more detail [26].

Application studies sponsored by EPRI using the ABAQUS code include pipe whip, seismic, piping vibration [27], pressure vessel thermal shock [28], steam generator tube denting [29], and concrete containment overpressurization [30]. Although the code development is in an advanced, well-documented state at present, the constant fine tuning so vital to improving solution efficiency and accuracy of a nonlinear code continues to be implemented.

3 Seismic/Vibratory response

Because of increasing safety concerns, regulatory requirements on seismic design of nuclear power plants have become more stringent in the past several years. Under NRCs Systematic Evaluation Program, older plants which were designed with minimum seismic considerations are being evaluated for their seismic structural and system integrity. Piping systems, which are important to safety, have been undergoing extensive reviews with regard to seismic adequacy. Recent examples include the algebraic summation procedure for determining total piping response which led to the temporary shutdown of five plants [31], the as-built inspection and confirmation of all power plants [32], and the Diablo Canyon piping support design incident. In the overall risk assessment of Zion nuclear plant [13], seismic risk was identified as a major risk contributor.

According to the categorization adopted in NRCs Seismic Safety Margins Research Programs (SSMRP) [33], four aspects of nuclear plant design are:

– seismic input,

– soil–structure interaction (SSI),

– major structure response,

– subsystem response.

This categorization follows the normal path of the seismic excitation starting with source motion and ending with component motion. The Structural Integrity program’s research has emphasized nonlinear SSI and subsystem response, particularly piping system response. These are described in the following sections.

To address the aspect of seismic input, EPRI has recently started a parallel research program on seismology. The initial short-term effort will be the industry program to develop a basis for reassessing the seismic hazard for all reactor sites in Eastern U.S. in response to the change of position [34] by the U.S. Geological Survey on the 1886 Charleston earthquake. The existing licensing criteria embodied in 10 CFR 100 Appendix A are predicated upon the assumption that large earthquakes in Eastern U.S. are temporally and geographically stationary. Recent data has eroded this assumption and the new approach by NRC [35] and EPRI [36] will treat the different tectonic hypotheses within a probabilistic framework as a basis for reassessing the Safe Shutdown Earthquake for each site.

3.1 Soil–structure interaction

The primary effort in this area has been the development of experimental data bases to quantify nonlinear SSI under strong ground motion. These data bases were needed to validate analysis codes such as STEALTH–SEISMIC, developed in conjunction with the Analysis/Design Methods effort.

The importance of SSI has long been recognized in nuclear plant seismic design practice. During a strong motion earthquake, the dynamic coupling between massive plant buildings and their underlying soil media can significantly influence the responses of structures, components, and equipment. However, due to the complexity of the seismic environment, and the lack of recorded real earthquake data at plant sites, the interpretation of SSI phenomena is subject to a high degree of uncertainty. Recognizing the lack of actual earthquake and controlled experimental data as a major barrier to improving SSI technology, EPRI sponsored a series of strong-motion SSI experiments [37,38] by using explosives to simulate earthquake motion. Containment models ranging in scale from 1/48 to 1/8 were constructed in the field with various embedment and foundation conditions.

In these SIMQUAKE (SIMulated earthQUAKE) experiments, the detonation of vertical arrays of explosives propagated wave motions through the ground to the model structures (fig. 6). Underneath the foundation, accelerometers were installed around a soil island boundary to pick up the input motion. This controlled input motion together with the responses measured on the structures provide a base for analytical modeling and validation. Although the wave characteristics generated by explosives are not the same as those under actual earthquakes (the former is rich in P-waves and the latter is normally rich in S-waves), the soil-structure dynamic characteristics occurring during the ringdown phase of the excitation should qualitatively simulate actual earthquake-induced response. The explosive spectrum as seen from fig. 7 has a dominant frequency content in the range of 1 to 4 Hz. Comparison with the NRC spectrum specified in Reg. Guide 1.60 [39] shows that the simulated motion duplicates many of the dominant frequencies and provides a reasonable input to simulate earthquake-induced strong ground