Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fatigue Verification of Class 1 Nuclear Power Piping According To ASME BPV Code PDF
Fatigue Verification of Class 1 Nuclear Power Piping According To ASME BPV Code PDF
DAVID
PUBLISHING
1. Introduction
A nuclear piping system which is found to be
disqualified, i.e. overstressed, in design evaluation
using linear analysis software e.g. PIPESTRESS [1] in
accordance with ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code
[2], Section III, can still be qualified if further design
requirements can be satisfied in refined nonlinear finite
element analyses in which material plasticity and other
non-linear conditions are taken into account. For
convenience and clarity, a design evaluation using such
linear analysis software will throughout this paper be
called a linear design evaluation, and a design
evaluation using non-linear finite element analyses a
non-linear design evaluation.
In recent years, many non-linear analyses and
Corresponding author: Lingfu Zeng, Ph.D., Mem. ASME.,
research fields: pressure vessel and piping, nuclear power,
computational solid & structural mechanics, finite element
methods. E-mail: Lingfu.zeng@afconsult.com.
520
Fatigue Verification of Class 1 Nuclear Power Piping According to ASME BPV Code
Fatigue Verification of Class 1 Nuclear Power Piping According to ASME BPV Code
521
Load-combinations
in
Swedish
design
specifications.
Furthermore,
522
Fatigue Verification of Class 1 Nuclear Power Piping According to ASME BPV Code
F(t) (N)
Mean load
Non-reversing load
Time (s)
s n C1
(1)
Steady
state
Time (s)
Fatigue Verification of Class 1 Nuclear Power Piping According to ASME BPV Code
S p K 1C 1
Po D o
D
K 2C 2 o M i
2t
2I
(2a)
1
K 3 E T1
2( 1 )
K 3 C 3 E ab a T a b T b
1
E T2 3 S m
1
Sp
(2b)
2
This is in turn used to find the allowable number of
salt
523
(3)
Po Do
D
C 2 o M i C3' Eab
2t
2I
aTa bTb 3 S m
(4)
S e C2
C1
524
Fatigue Verification of Class 1 Nuclear Power Piping According to ASME BPV Code
Fig. 3 The linear and non-linear temperature differences through the wall-thickness.
Table 2 Stress indices C3 used for linear and simplified
elastic-plastic fatigue verification according to Table
NB-3681-(a)-1.
Straight pipe
Butt weld reducer
Girth fillet weld
Butt weld tee
C3
C3'
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
Ke
1.0
1/n=3.33~5.0
1.0
2.0
Sn/(3Sm)
Fatigue Verification of Class 1 Nuclear Power Piping According to ASME BPV Code
525
5.
Alternative
Verification
Non-linear
Fatigue
526
Fatigue Verification of Class 1 Nuclear Power Piping According to ASME BPV Code
Fatigue Verification of Class 1 Nuclear Power Piping According to ASME BPV Code
527
e
alt
12 re 12 p rp
(7)
(8)
p rp a rp
b rp
(9)
e
S alt E alt
12 E re rp 12 E rt
(10)
528
Fatigue Verification of Class 1 Nuclear Power Piping According to ASME BPV Code
6. Concluding Remarks
In this paper, fatigue verification of Class 1 nuclear
power piping according to ASME III is addressed.
The emphasis is placed on alternative verification
procedures, which do not violate the general design
principles upon which ASME III NB-3600 is built,
when unaccepted damage is predicted by the
simplified elastic-plastic discontinuity analysis. An
alternative which employs a non-linear finite element
computation and a refined numerical approach for
re-evaluating the cumulative damage factors is
suggested.
Moreover, the alternative fatigue verification is
naturally made in connection with non-linear finite
element analyses required for the thermal ratchet
verification. Hence, it does not require a large amount
of additional work. However, it brings a more
reasonable verification than those given by the linear
and the simplified elastic-plastic verification.
It is noted that general-purpose finite element
software such as ANSYS and others have become
widely available and affordable for large-scale
computations with an accuracy and reliability that can
never be achieved by other analysis tools. The
alternative suggested in this paper is therefore practical.
Using this alternative, unavoidable plastic strains can
be correctly taken into account without being affected
by uncertainties introduced in the simplified
elastic-plastic analysis through the penalty factor Ke
and other simplifications. Hence, the alternative is the
only approach towards an accurate and reliable fatigue
assessment.
Fatigue Verification of Class 1 Nuclear Power Piping According to ASME BPV Code
Acknowledgments
The work presented in this paper is funded by
FORSK, Agreement Ref. No. 10-174 and 11-334,
which is gratefully acknowledged.
[6]
[7]
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
529