1 Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Nuclear Piping Considering Variation of Seismic Loading 2002 International Journal of Pressure Vessels An

© All Rights Reserved

5 views

1 Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Nuclear Piping Considering Variation of Seismic Loading 2002 International Journal of Pressure Vessels An

© All Rights Reserved

- Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures VIII
- Hazard Analysis
- Shukla 2012
- CBC_2013_SEAOSC[1]
- topic- earthquakes 1
- Chile
- MTECH CASAD CUSAT DEPARTMENT OF SHIP TECHNOLOGY
- M.E.(Autonomous)
- Chapter 2
- Tinh Dong Dat Va Gio Cho Tank-full_outer Tank
- Fracture Mechanics
- STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES IN SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
- Sismos en Plantas Nucleares
- How to Undertake Fracture Mechanics Analysis With Finite Elements by Hellen
- Settlement and Load Sharing Behavior
- CZM Formulation and ABAQUS
- Psha India
- eirch45
- Drv Ind Vol 64 3 Merhar
- Upper Tabuk Hydropower Finite Element Analysis Notes

You are on page 1of 10

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

variation of seismic loading

Hideo Machida a,*, Shinobu Yoshimura b

a

Tepco Systems Corporation, Tokyo Bijyutsu Club Building, 6-19-15 Shimbashi, Minato, Tokyo 105-0004, Japan

b

Institute of Environmental Studies, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan

Received 7 August 2001; revised 11 January 2002; accepted 12 January 2002

Abstract

In conventional probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) analyses, seismic loading is considered as a large deterministic value, although

there exists the variation of the seismic load as well as response of building and components. On the other hand, such stochastic behaviours

have already been taken into account in the eld of seismic probabilistic safety assessment. This paper proposes a new PFM model for

nuclear piping that takes into account the variation of seismic loading. The distribution in ground acceleration is modelled with the seismic

hazard curve. The distribution in piping response during a seismic event is modelled with a lognormal distribution. Since the seismic load

has large variation, when not adopting an upper limit to the distribution in seismic stress, the break probability calculated from the present

PFM analysis becomes equal to the probability that the seismic stress exceeds the collapse stress of a sound pipe. This implies that the

existence of a crack has no effect in these PFM analyses, and this result does not satisfy the purpose of PFM analysis to evaluate the failure

probability per crack. Therefore, the seismic stress was limited to the collapse stress of a sound pipe in the present PFM analysis to evaluate

the conditional break probability per crack. q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Probabilistic fracture mechanics; Earthquake; Seismic load; Variation; Break; Probability

1. Introduction

Design and structural integrity evaluation of components

in nuclear power plants are usually performed using a deterministic method. Here, the results obtained usually involve

excessive margin, because a certain safety margin is taken

into account in every evaluation process. Such a situation

inevitably causes an increase in plant construction cost. A

probabilistic method is one of the candidates to reduce such

excessive margin. In a probabilistic structural integrity

evaluation, the failure probability is calculated using mathematical models, which include the dominant factors

concerning failure behaviours. Here structural integrity is

assessed by the failure probability. As the safety margin is

considered only once in the nal stage of failure probability,

the probabilistic evaluation is regarded to give a rational

estimation compared to the conventional deterministic

evaluation. Fracture mechanics considering probabilistic

issues is called probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM).

The study on PFM started in the middle of the 1970s to

assess structural reliability of an aircraft and a pressurized

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 181-3-4586-6723; fax: 181-3-4586-1190.

E-mail address: machida-hideo@tepsys.co.jp (H. Machida).

important part in safety design of nuclear power plants,

reliability assessments of aircraft and so on. In PFM

analyses, crack size, material strength, crack growth rate

and other variables are expressed using probabilistic

models, and then leak and break probabilities are calculated.

Generally, the load contributions to pipe break are mainly

internal pressure, dead weight, thermal expansion and seismic load. The loads except the seismic load are always

applied to the pipe, and can be evaluated considering the

conditions of a piping system and its support structures. On

the other hand, for the seismic load, the stress is large, but its

frequency is very small, and it has complicated load transfer

paths from a seismic source to the components to be considered. Therefore, variation of the stress on a pipe under a

seismic event tends to be very large. Consequently, in the

PFM analysis considering seismic loading, it is important to

take into account the variation of the seismic loading.

In conventional PFM analysis codes, for instance

`PRAISE' developed by Lawrence Livermore National

0308-0161/02/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0308- 016 1( 02) 00011- X

194

H. Machida, S. Yoshimura / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 193202

deterministic value. Fig. 1 shows the conventional procedure to deal with the seismic loading in PFM analyses.

Although it is basically possible to take uncertainty and

variation into consideration in each step of Fig. 1, the

conventional PFM codes estimate them as follows.

Probabilistic treatment is not employed in steps 2 and 3

because this is not included in the PFM analysis codes. The

stress calculated by a deterministic seismic analysis is used

in the PFM analysis. Here stress occurring in piping is

assumed to be proportional to ground acceleration.

Although the evaluation of Step 1 is not included in the

PFM code, the relationship between the amplitude of the

ground acceleration and frequency of earthquake is taken

into consideration using a seismic hazard curve. The load

using the relationship between the load calculated in Step 3

and the ground acceleration postulated in Step 1. Step 4 is

taken into account in the PFM analysis even when the seismic load is not considered. Steps 5 and 6 are particularly

taken into consideration with respect to the seismic load.

When considering an earthquake, it is assumed to occur

for the rst time during an evaluation period. In the PRAISE

code, the time of an earthquake is specied by the user.

Fig. 2 shows a typical crack growth trajectory in a nondimensional aspect ratio vs. crack depth map of the PRAISE

code [4]. When an earthquake occurs at time t1, the crack

grows from a1 to a 0 1, and its stability is assessed using this

crack size (a 0 1). After this assessment, the crack size is

returned to a1, and the crack growth due to transient loads

H. Machida, S. Yoshimura / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 193202

195

the crack of size a2, the crack tentatively grows from a2 to

a 0 2, and its stability is assessed using this crack size. After

this, the crack size is returned to a2. Such a procedure is

repeated until the crack penetrates the pipe wall or the

evaluation period reaches the pre-determined plant life.

This analysis procedure does not consider two or more

earthquakes. The case that multiple earthquakes occur at

different times is evaluated on the same basis as crack

growth analysis by multiple thermal transients.

3.1. Two kinds of variation of seismic loading

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of crack growth trajectories including

inuence of earthquake.

classied into the following two parts (see Fig. 3). One is the

variation of the ground acceleration and frequency of the

196

H. Machida, S. Yoshimura / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 193202

variation is estimated using a seismic hazard curve. The

other is the variation of piping response under a seismic

event, which is caused by the variation of a seismic analysis

model, material properties, etc. of the building and piping.

The way of dealing with these two kinds of variation in a

PFM analysis is investigated in the present study.

3.2. Model of ground acceleration

The ground acceleration and frequency of an earthquake

are quantitatively expressed with a seismic hazard curve as

shown in Fig. 4. Using the hazard curve, Step 1 of Fig. 1 can

be evaluated. Compared with thermal transients, which

occur several times during a plant life, the earthquake has

the following features: very low in frequency and very large

in loading. In usual PFM analyses not considering the variation of seismic loading, the stratied Monte Carlo simulation is applied taking the initial depth and aspect ratio of a

crack as random variables, both of which have signicant

effects on failure probability. The variation of the initial

crack size has a much larger inuence on failure probability

than that in crack growth rate or material strength. Therefore, for the stratied Monte Carlo simulation, separating a

failure region from a non-failure region and employing a

suitable number of samples in each cell, is effective in

performing efcient calculations. However, if an earthquake

causes large stress in a pipe, failure might occur even when

a crack is very small. In such a case, the failure probability

depends not only on the crack size but also on the variation

of the seismic loading. When a usual Monte Carlo simulation is applied to the case of large variation of loading, the

failure probability is very sensitive to the probability of

existence of a failed sample. When increasing the number

of samples to avoid this problem, calculation time also

very low. In order to perform efcient calculations, importance sampling is employed in the proposed method. An

earthquake is assumed to occur once a year, and the break

probability of the sample (Pf) failed by the earthquake is

calculated as the existence probability of the failed sample

(Ps) multiplied by the occurrence frequency of an earthquake (Pe):

Pf Ps Pe

calculated by the proposed method and that of the conventional method. A thin line denotes the result using the

conventional method, while a thick line that of the proposed

method. The number of cells and the number of samples are

the same in both calculations. In the conventional method,

failure probability oscillates signicantly because of the

large difference of existence probability of the broken

samples. On the other hand, the proposed method gives a

smooth result, which is in the middle of the oscillatory result

of the conventional method. Thus, it is concluded that the

proposed method can evaluate pertinently the break probability without increasing the number of samples, even if

considering an earthquake with large variation of the ground

acceleration and frequency.

3.3. Model of variation of seismic stress

The stress occurring in a pipe due to a building shaking is

calculated by the procedure of steps 2 and 3 shown in Fig. 1.

In a deterministic evaluation method, the responses of the

building, components or piping are evaluated with a large

margin, because a safety margin is taken into account for

every process of the evaluation. Although the objective of

H. Machida, S. Yoshimura / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 193202

as shown in steps 2 and 3, the cause of variation is common

in both the steps. The variation arises from the analysis

model, material properties used for the analysis, the difference between a design and an actual construction, damping

factor and so on. In Step 2, the interaction between the

ground and the building is also taken into account. It is

necessary to calculate the stress of the piping considering

variation of all these factors. However, it is difcult to deal

with all of them as random variables in a PFM analysis,

because the stochastic process between the ground acceleration and the stress occurring in piping is very complicated.

In the eld of the seismic probabilistic safety assessment

(PSA), SMACSprecise probabilistic seismic response

analysis code, which estimates directly the response of

components from the ground motionwas developed in

the seismic safety margins research program (SSMRP)

[5], which was carried out by LLNL. However, since it

required much expense and time for calculation, the code

has not been used since its development. In the seismic PSA,

a simplied method is generally used instead of such

detailed analysis codes. In the simplied method, seismic

response and variation of components are estimated based

on the published information such as design documents.

This technique is called `response factor method'. In the

present study, the stress occurring in a pipe is calculated

by referring to the realistic response of piping, which is

assessed by the response factor method.

Ebisawa et al. [6] reported that the probability density

function for the stress in piping caused by the earthquake

(SE) can be expressed by the following lognormal distribution.

"

#

1

1 ln SE =m 2

p exp 2

f SE

;

2

s

sS E 2p

SD

S

D

RF

3:92

s 0:95;

(2)

technique, RF is the response factor that Ebisawa et al.

proposed for piping, and m is the mean value. Eq. (2)

shows that stress is expressed by a lognormal distribution with a mean value of SD =3:92: When using the

seismic hazard curve, it is necessary to dene the deterministic stress (SD) and median value (m ) according to

the ground acceleration. The ground acceleration of the

S2 earthquake and the piping stress caused by this

acceleration are denoted a S2 and SDS2, respectively.

Since the ground acceleration and the stress in the

piping are in a proportional relation, the stress in the

piping for ground acceleration (a ) can be calculated

from

SE a

a

S

aS2 DS2

197

Table 1

Analysed pipe dimensions

Pipe

4B

16B

26B

Diameter (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Radius/thickness ratio

114.3

11.1

5.1

406.4

26.2

7.8

660.4

33.3

9.9

In usual PFM analyses, the cumulative failure probability

is calculated. If a plant is in operation below an emergency

condition, continuous operation is carried out. Therefore, it

is appropriate that the probability of failure is calculated as a

cumulative value. On the other hand, it is required to secure

the coolant boundary when a large earthquake, such as an S2

earthquake (categorized in emergency condition), occurs.

After the earthquake occurs, continuous operation of the

plant would not be required. When considering an earthquake, the earthquake is assumed to occur for the rst

time during an evaluation period. Not taking failure probability for the earthquake as a cumulative probability is the

same as in the conventional PFM analyses described in

Section 2.

4. Comparative evaluation

Break probabilities are compared for the two cases for

which the seismic load is treated as either deterministic or

probabilistic value.

4.1. Analysis conditions

The inelastic PFM analysis code named `PEPPER: probabilistic evaluation program for pipe aiming economical and

reliable design [7]` is employed in this comparison study.

Main steam pipes of a Japanese BWR are considered. These

are made of carbon steel, STS410 in JIS Standard. Dimensions of the pipes are given in Table 1. Material properties

of the pipes at 573 K (normal operating condition of BWR)

are given in Table 2. An initial crack is postulated as a

circumferential, inner semi-elliptical crack. The depth of

the initial crack is expressed by the exponential distribution

[2]

2a

exp

6:25

f a

4

6:25

Table 2

Material constants of pipe

Design stress intensity

Design yield strength

Design ultimate strength

Flow stress

Young modulus

Poisson ratio

122.6 MPa

183.4 MPa

404 MPa

293.7 MPa

178.5 GPa

0.3

198

H. Machida, S. Yoshimura / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 193202

Table 3

Loading conditions for crack growth analysis

Load no.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Frequency (cycles/year)

7

18

320

8

16

330

Min.

Max.

Min.

Max.

0

49.0

92.0

0

0

0

122.6

183.9

122.6

0

0

0

0

0

0

2122.6

261.3

212.3

0

0

0

122.6

61.3

12.3

expressed by the lognormal distribution [8]

2

92 3

8

b

>

>

>

= 7

6 1 < ln 1:336 >

1:419

6

7

p exp62

f b

7;

4 2>

5

0:5382 >

0:5382b 2p

>

>

:

;

5

s m 0:5Sm

crack.

The applied loads contributing to crack growth are

summarized in Table 3. These loads are estimated by referring to the design loads of the Japanese BWR plants [9].

They are considered in order to evaluate crack growth, but

not to assess crack stability. Thus, a large seismic load, such

as an S2 earthquake, is not considered in the loads to evaluate crack growth. The fracture mechanics parameter used

in the crack growth analysis is the stress intensity factor

range (DK). The formula proposed by Raju and Newman

[10] is employed in this calculation. Crack growth rate is

calculated based on the following Paris' law [11]:

p

DK , 13:2 MPa m

p

DK $ 13:2 MPa m

penetrated crack. For the penetrated crack, crack growth

analysis is not performed. If stable, the failure mode of

the crack is judged as `LEAK', while if unstable, its failure

mode is judged as `BREAK'.

Loads used for the crack stability assessment, except the

seismic load, to which the piping is always subjected, are

shown in Table 4. Here P and Q are primary and secondary

stresses, respectively, and subscripts m and bg denote

membrane and global bending M=Z; respectively.

Membrane stress is caused by internal pressure, while bending stress is caused by thermal expansion. The stresses used

for the crack stability assessment are determined by referring to the design allowable stress. The membrane stress

(s m) due to the internal pressure and the global bending

3Sm

C2

s bg

c

b .1

a

da

m=cycle

dn

8

< 1:738 10213 DK 5:95 ;

applied perpendicularly to the postulated circumferential

crack, are assumed as follows:

C2 is the stress index [12].

The seismic load is only applied to perform the crack

stability assessment. The primary stress caused by the S2

earthquake (allowable stress condition; IVAS) is limited to

3Sm in the case of grade-1 piping as follows [13]:

B2 Mip

B1 Pin Do

1

# 3Sm

2t

Zi

where B1 and B2 are the stress indices [12], Pin and Mip are

the internal pressure and the bending moment due to the

mechanical load, and Do, t and Zi are the outer diameter of

the pipe, pipe thickness, and the secondary section moment,

respectively. The rst term of the left hand side of Eq. (9)

denotes the stress caused by internal pressure, which is

assumed to be 0.5Sm as mentioned above. Therefore, the

stress caused by all the mechanical loads including the seismic stress is limited to 2.5Sm 3Sm 2 0:5Sm : Since the

moment caused by dead weight usually has only a small

inuence, the global bending stress of the pipe caused by

an earthquake is given by the following equation with the

stress index, B2:

sb

2:5Sm

B2

10

Table 4

Loads applied for crack stability assessment except seismic load

Pipe size

Pm (MPa)

Pbg (MPa)

Qm (MPa)

Qbg (MPa)

4B

16B

26B

61.3

61.3

61.3

0

0

0

0

0

0

151.0

109.8

91.1

H. Machida, S. Yoshimura / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 193202

199

Table 5

Seismic load and frequency which were evaluated by the deterministic technique

Pipe size

Frequency

(per year)

Pm (MPa)

Pbg (MPa)

Qm (MPa)

Qbg (MPa)

4B

16B

26B

0.0125

0.0125

0.0125

61.3

61.3

61.3

125.5

91.2

75.9

0

0

0

151.0

109.8

91.1

assessment when dealing with the seismic load as a deterministic value. In the table, Pbg is the seismic stress.

When considering variation, the seismic stress is evaluated using a seismic hazard curve and Eq. (2). Corresponding to the seismic hazard curve, it is necessary to assume the

ground acceleration of an S2 earthquake as a standard point.

In this study, the ground acceleration of an S2 earthquake is

postulated as 4 m/s 2. In Eq. (3), a S2 becomes 4 m/s 2 and SDS2

is the primary bending stress (Pbg) given in Table 5. The

relation between the ground acceleration and the frequency

of the earthquake is expressed with the seismic hazard curve

as shown in Fig. 6. The relations between the mean value (m

of Eq. (3)) and the frequency of the earthquake are shown in

Fig. 7. In the case of the probabilistic seismic load, the

thermal expansion stress (Qbg in Table 5) is not taken into

account because the effect of the secondary stress on failure

behaviour is negligible compared with the large primary

stress due to the earthquake.

The net-section criterion is used for the crack stability

assessment. From the past unstable fracture tests of the

pipes, the net-section criterion does not always give

pessimistic results for the carbon steel pipes, because

of tearing instability. The G-factor, which was a modication factor allowing for the effect of tearing instability, was

critical moment, Mcr, at the time of using the G-factor is

given by

Mcr GM0 ;

2 # DB , 6

G1

9

>

=

G max

180

>

>

Q ;

: 0:692 2 0:0115DB 1 0:188 1 0:0104DB log

p

8

>

<1

6 # G B

(11)

where M0 is the critical moment calculated using the netsection criterion [14], DB is the nominal size of pipe in inch,

and Q is the crack angle in radian.

Pre-service inspection (PSI) is considered in the analyses.

The non-detection probability, PND, is given by [8]

P ND

(

1

2 ZV

1 2 1 1 2 p

2

p 0

lnA=Ap

)

e

2t2

dt 1 1

12

seismic stress.

200

H. Machida, S. Yoshimura / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 193202

Fig. 8. Conditional break probabilities with deterministic and probabilistic seismic loads.

where

8 p

>

< 2 ac;

A

>

: p aD ;

B

4

1 0:005;

2c # DB

2c . DB

Variation of seismic stress: Eq. (2).

;

Ap

DB 25:4 mm;

p p

a DB ;

4

V 1:33;

formulae in the net-section criterion.

a

M0 2r 2 ts f 2 sin b 2 sin u

13

t

ap 6:35 mm

b

4.2. Reference analysis

Based on the conditions described in Section 4.1, a PFM

analysis considering the variation of an earthquake was

carried out. Fig. 8 shows the break probabilities of all

cases. Since the ratio of the areas of the crack and the

ligament is large, the break probability of the smaller

diameter pipe is large. When considering the deterministic

seismic load, the break probability is almost identical to that

without considering the seismic load. On the other hand,

when considering the probabilistic seismic load, the break

probability increases notably especially for larger diameter

pipes. For smaller diameter pipes, the inuence of the earthquake tends to be much less since the failure probability due

to the loads, except the earthquake, are relatively larger.

4.3. Upper limit of seismic stress

The inuence of variability (expressed by Eq. (2)) of

the seismic stress on the break probability of the pipe

is assessed. The conditions for the calculation are as

follows:

Ground acceleration: 4 m/s 2.

1

a

P

p2 u2 mp

2

t

sf

angle, and Pm is primary membrane stress. If it is assumed

that u 0 and P m 0 in Eq. (13), the critical moment and

the critical stress (Sc) are given by:

M0 4r 2 ts f

Sc

M0

4r 2 ts f

4

s f 373 MPa

2

p

Z

pr t

14

15

stress shown in Eq. (15), the piping breaks regardless of

the crack size. The probability that the seismic stress

exceeds the critical stress (Pc) is calculated from the following equation:

"

#

1 Z1

1

1 ln S=m 2

p exp 2

Pc

dS

16

80 Sc sS 2p

2

s

Fig. 9 shows the calculated break probabilities, while Table

6 shows the results obtained from Eq. (14). Both results are

almost the same. This means that the inuence of the crack

is negligible in these results. The purpose of PFM analysis is

basically to evaluate the break probability per crack. In this

H. Machida, S. Yoshimura / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 193202

201

Table 6

Probabilities that seismic stress exceeds collapse stress

Pipe size

4B

16B

26B

6.16 10 25

2.21 10 25

1.17 10 25

piping regardless of crack size. Therefore, it is proposed

that the seismic stress used for PFM analysis should be

limited in the range where the inuence of the crack

still appears. Thus, the stress occurring in the piping is

limited so as not to exceed the collapse stress in the

proposed PFM analysis. In addition, the distribution of seismic stress should also be limited below 99% of the lower

condence limit (LCL). For the results, the smaller of these

two limits is used.

years).

purpose of the PFM analysis. The response factor

method used in this study, which expresses variability

in the pipe response with a probability density function,

is a simple and convenient technique. However, it lacks

accuracy. The probability density function dened using

the response factor method aims at evaluating the relationship between the failure probability of a sound

(uncracked) component and the seismic load. For this

reason, the higher stress region is especially important

for the seismic PSA. On the other hand, it is not of

Using the technique described in Section 4.3, i.e. adopting an upper limit to seismic stress, the break probability is

calculated. The results are shown in Fig. 10. For 16B and

26B pipes, the break probability becomes about 1/10 of that

obtained by not adopting the upper limit to the seismic

stress. Such a large decrease in break probability implies

that the effect of the distribution in seismic stress is much

larger than that of the existence of a crack. Even though it is

important to consider the distribution in seismic stress, engineering judgment such as setting an upper limit should be

considered. Actual components of nuclear power plant are

designed so that their functions are maintained under an S2

earthquake. However, the functions are not guaranteed

Fig. 10. Conditional break probabilities with and without upper limit to seismic stress.

202

H. Machida, S. Yoshimura / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 193202

when ground acceleration exceeds the level of an S2 earthquake. For the piping system, it is expected that a support

structure loses its function before spoiling the soundness of

the piping itself. Therefore, a proportional relation between

the actual stress in a pipe and the ground acceleration acting

on a building is not guaranteed, and then Eq. (2) is not

applicable. In the PFM analysis considering an earthquake,

it is difcult to determine the distribution in piping stress,

although this has a very large inuence on the results.

Therefore, more precise studies on the probability density

function of the seismic stress and its upper limit are necessary to improve calculation accuracy.

5. Conclusions

This paper has described a new PFM analysis considering

two kinds of distribution in the seismic stress acting on

nuclear piping. One is the distribution in ground acceleration, which is modelled with the seismic hazard curve. The

other is the distribution in piping response during a seismic

event, which is modelled with a lognormal distribution.

The function shape is determined by referring to the

response factor method used in a seismic PSA. It is found

from sensitivity analyses that the inuence of the latter

distribution dominates break probabilities. When not adopting an upper limit to the distribution in seismic stress, the

break probability calculated from the present PFM analysis

becomes equal to the probability that the seismic stress

exceeds the collapse stress of a sound pipe. This implies

that the existence of a crack has no effect in these PFM

analyses. This contradiction is caused by the simple adoption of the lognormal distribution to model the distribution

in seismic stress, although this is often adopted in seismic

PSAs. Therefore, the seismic stress was limited to the

collapse stress of a sound pipe in the present PFM analysis

to evaluate the conditional break probability per crack. The

results clearly show that effects of seismic stress are more

signicant in larger diameter pipes. More precise studies on

the probability density function of seismic stress and its

upper limit will be necessary to improve calculation

accuracy.

Acknowledgements

This study was performed as a part of the activities of the

PFM research subcommittee organized within the Japan

Welding Engineering Society sponsored by the Japan

Atomic Energy Research Institute.

References

[1] Becher PE, Pedersen A. Application of statistical linear elastic fracture mechanics to pressure vessel reliability analysis. Nucl Engng Des

1974;27:41325.

[2] W. Marshall, et al. An assessment of the integrity of PWR pressure

vessels. H.M. Stationery Ofce, London, 1976.

[3] Sinozuka M. Development of reliability-based aircraft safety criteria.

AFFDL-TR-76-31 1976.

[4] Harris DO, Lim EY, Dedhia DD. Probability of pipe fracture in the

primary coolant loop of a PWR plant. NUREG/CR-2189 1981.

[5] Wells JE, George LL, Cummings GE. Seismic safety margins

research program phase I nal report, systems analysis (project

VII). NUREG/CR-2015, UCRL-53021 1981;8.

[6] Ebisawa K, Abe K, Muramatsu K, Itoh M, Kohno K, Tanaka T.

Evaluation of response factors for seismic probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants. Nucl Engng Des 1994;147:197210.

[7] Machida H. Effect of variation of seismic load on integrity of nuclear

power plant piping. SMiRT-16, MK03/2 2001.

[8] Lo TY, Mensing RW, Woo HH, Holman GS. Probability of pipe

failure in the reactor coolant loops of combustion engineering PWR

plants. Pipe failure induced by crack growth. NUREG/CR-3663

1984;2.

[9] Asada Y, Takumi K, Hata H, Yamamoto Y. Development of criteria

for protection against pipe breaks in LWR plants. Int J Pressure

Vessels Piping 1990;43:95111.

[10] Raju IS, Newman Jr JC. An empirical stressintensity factor equation

for the surface crack. Engng Fract Mech 1981;15:18592.

[11] ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, 1973.

[12] Technical standards for construction of nuclear power plant components, MITI Notication No. 501, 1994.

[13] Technical guidelines for aseismic design of nuclear power plants,

JEAG4601-1991.

[14] Kanninen MF, Broek D, Marschal CW, Rybicki EF, Sampath CG,

Simonen FA, Wilkowski GM. Mechanical fracture predictions for

sensitized stainless steel piping with circumferential crack. EPRI

NP-192 1976.

- Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures VIIIUploaded byMohamed
- Hazard AnalysisUploaded byRonnie1478
- Shukla 2012Uploaded byfleaxx
- CBC_2013_SEAOSC[1]Uploaded byUALU333
- topic- earthquakes 1Uploaded byapi-280976423
- ChileUploaded byRodrigo Vazquez
- MTECH CASAD CUSAT DEPARTMENT OF SHIP TECHNOLOGYUploaded bymtechcasad
- M.E.(Autonomous)Uploaded byBhanu Tej
- Chapter 2Uploaded byUmesg
- Tinh Dong Dat Va Gio Cho Tank-full_outer TankUploaded byThinh Vipro
- Fracture MechanicsUploaded byluke102582
- STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES IN SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATIONS IN THE UNITED STATESUploaded byÖzkan Kale
- Sismos en Plantas NuclearesUploaded byjota_vivar
- How to Undertake Fracture Mechanics Analysis With Finite Elements by HellenUploaded byGilberto Jarvio
- Settlement and Load Sharing BehaviorUploaded bybusyspider
- CZM Formulation and ABAQUSUploaded byaravind kumar
- Psha IndiaUploaded byMohammad Aslam
- eirch45Uploaded byFila Merah
- Drv Ind Vol 64 3 MerharUploaded byN Cendrella
- Upper Tabuk Hydropower Finite Element Analysis NotesUploaded byyamiyuugi
- GeoscienceUploaded byapi-78198042
- LEAFLET_4_Correlating Damage Condition With Historical Seismic ActivityUploaded byStelios Agapiou
- Earthquake Geology (Revised)Uploaded byGyle trisha Hapa
- Jeong Dissertation 2013Uploaded byRory Cristian Cordero Rojo
- Kandidat.rapport Investigation and Comparison of Cohesive ZoneUploaded bykeletsomphahlele
- ExtremeEnvironment Chapter3 by IvoVegterUploaded byAshleigh Hein
- EDITED NICOLEs PART. Read and Do the Notes Included Here.Uploaded byNicole Ann Asistio
- 1-s2.0-S0167844218305688-main.pdfUploaded byHamza
- cdc_9278DS1Uploaded byedu_bric
- Indonesia TsunamiUploaded byTURK ENDON

- Structural Steel Design Data, Principles and ToolsUploaded bywasif78
- 1-Reliability Assessment and Design Load Factors for Reinforced Concrete Containment StructuresUploaded byEric Chien
- ReliabilityUploaded byEric Chien
- Reliability Analysis of Composite Wing Subjected to Gust LoadsUploaded byEric Chien
- A Method for Risk-Informed Safety Significance Categorization UsingUploaded byEric Chien
- 3-材力公式Uploaded byEric Chien
- Evaluation of the Welfare of Cattle Housed in Outdoor Feedlot Pens1Uploaded byEric Chien
- 3-Numerical Simulation Solutions for Wind-Induced Vibration of Ship Rearview Mirrors Caused by Airﬂow Noise in Shallow SeasUploaded byEric Chien
- 102_3_3_11_1953Uploaded byEric Chien
- NTOU-EXAM-STRUCTUREUploaded byEric Chien
- NTOU-MASTER EXAMUploaded byEric Chien
- Prediction of Wind-Induced Fatigue on Claddings of LowUploaded byEric Chien
- ENERGY AND CFD MODELING OF ROOF INTEGRATED .pdfUploaded byEric Chien
- Houston SolarUploaded byVaranasi Anil
- 1-Wind Loading on Full-scale Solar Panels.pdfUploaded byEric Chien
- 2-Installation and Maintenance ManualUploaded byEric Chien
- IJMT-v4n0p37-en.pdfUploaded byEric Chien
- Case Study1Uploaded bylankymalnad
- Small wind turbineUploaded byEric Chien
- Os-C103.Structural Design of Column Stabilised units.pdfUploaded byBHARANI
- Manwell Jim IEC61400 3DesignStandardsUpdateUploaded byEric Chien
- NPP-RiskUploaded byEric Chien
- 3-Development of the DQFM Method to Consider the Effect of Correlation OfUploaded byEric Chien
- 2-An Advanced Seismic Analysis of an NPP Powerful Turbogenerator on an Isolation PedestalUploaded byEric Chien
- 3-AC428-Acceptance Criteria for ModularUploaded byEric Chien
- 16-Wind Loads on Solar Collector Models Blockage EffectsUploaded byEric Chien
- 11-Aerodynamics of Ground Mounted Solar Panels TestUploaded byEric Chien

- SME FCC Sr Analyst Inspector-Aug 03Uploaded bytommy
- Level 2(Mechanical)Uploaded bydvanupkle
- Conveyor BeltUploaded byJatin Darve
- DESIGN OF CORBELS(BS CODE).xlsUploaded bymoseslugtu6324
- USP FriabilityUploaded byshdph
- Reliability Based Design and Quality Control of Driven PilesUploaded byZaher J. Yazeji
- Effect of Ti on MA SteelsUploaded bylillyren2808
- Problem Solving on Stress ConcentrationUploaded byvarshasdm1987
- Sgs Ind Mat Lab a4 en 13Uploaded byManivannanMudhaliar
- En 14509 (Hőszigetelő Szendvicspanelek)Uploaded byUroborosz
- MCEGS-Geomechanics and StructuresUploaded byHari Ram
- 4_desarrolo Metodologia MAUploaded byMaria Cristina Rivero Olarte
- HVZ dynamikUploaded byceca89
- Chengdou PaperUploaded byTrí Hồ Minh Lê
- 17905Uploaded byThomas Trung
- Sagar Sherpa ReportUploaded byMishal Limbu
- Carbon Steel Spiralweld Pipe Miter Bends- NaylorPipe-Catalog.pdfUploaded byanescobar0001
- PVC Conduits, Fittings & Accessories.pdfUploaded byHaytham Bafo
- Blast-resistant Analysis for a Tunnel Passing Beneath Taipei Shongsan Airport–a Parametric StudyUploaded byali153624
- V9PIIi1xUploaded bySung Jin Kang
- A Review on Analysis and Optimization of Parameters For Spheroidal Graphite (SG) Iron CastingUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- RFI 135 Valve Box.pdfUploaded byalfonso garcia
- IS:11384-(1985)Uploaded byAnonymous ye0Lza
- ASTM C 497.pdfUploaded bySerdarYumuk
- ANSI RD1.0_2006 - Standard for Steel Roof DeckUploaded byDaniel Pereira
- Property Modification Factors for Seismic Isolators: Design Guidance for BuildingsUploaded byTim Van Oss
- assakof Lecture 1Uploaded bysatyam_arora_6
- Dic Pps Weld StrengthUploaded byWoong Kim
- A 193 EsparragosUploaded byVictor Castellanos Alegria
- China Display 2011 Kevin Long FINALUploaded byPedro Reynoso