You are on page 1of 8

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267612906

Comparison of German KTA and ASME Nuclear


Design Codes for Class 1, 2, 3 Components and
Piping

Conference Paper January 2011


DOI: 10.1115/PVP2011-58090

CITATIONS READS

0 608

4 authors, including:

Henry Schau Hseyin Ertugrul Karabaki


TV SD Energietechnik GmbH, Mannheim, E.ON Kernkraft GmbH, Hannover, Germany
14 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

B2 stress indices for thin walled straight pipes with D/t > 50 View project

INcreasing Safety in NPPs by Covering gaps in Environmental Fatigue Assessment (NFRP-2014-2015


662320) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Schau on 07 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference
PVP2011
July 17-21, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

PVP2011-58090

Comparison of German KTA and ASME Nuclear Design Codes for Class 1, 2, 3
Components and Piping
Dr. Daniel Hofer Dr. Henry Schau Hseyin Ertugrul Karabaki
Plant Engineering Technical Service Component Technology
Mechanics Corporation E.ON Kernkraft GmbH
Westinghouse Electric TV SD Energietechnik Hannover, Germany
Germany Mannheim, Germany Phone: +49 511 439 3834
Mannheim, Germany Phone: +49 (621) 395-465 Ertugrul.Karabaki@eon-energie.com
Phone: +49 621 388 2190 henry.schau@tuev-sued.de
hoferd@westinghouse.com

Ralph Hill
Westinghouse Electric Company
Nuclear Services
Walls Mill, PA, USA
Phone: +1 724 722 6332
hillrs@westinghouse.com

Keywords: ASME, Section III, KTA, Comparison of design codes.

ABSTRACT is focused on a comparison of the equations for Design by


This paper compares the design rules of the ASME Boiler Analysis and on Piping equations.
and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Rules for The comparison is focused on light water reactor designs
Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, with German for temperatures below 400 C (no creep consideration) and
nuclear design standards for Class 1, 2, 3 components and is based on the current editions of the subject codes and
piping. The paper is focused on a comparison of the standards. It includes all standards and reports referenced by
equations for Design by Analysis and on Piping equations. the corresponding code or standard.
The ASME Section III Code has been used in combination A general description of boiler and pressure vessel
with design specifications for design of German nuclear standards in Germany is presented in volume three of the
power plants. Together with manufacturers, inspectors and Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
power plant owners, the German regulatory authority decided Code [10]. The differences between US and European codes
to develop their own nuclear design standards. The current and standards for the Construction of LWR Pressure
versions being used are from 1992 and 1996. New versions of Components were analyzed by [9]. The KTA design standard
KTA design standards for pressure retaining components for the primary loop (KTA 3201.2) was contrasted with
(KTA 3201.2 and KTA 3211.2) are currently under international standards by [2]. This paper provides an
development. in-depth comparison of specific design rules for the KTA and
This comparison will cover the major differences between the ASME Section III design codes and standards related to
design rules for ASME Section III, Div. 1 and KTA standards pressure retaining components. In particular, KTA 3201.2
3201.2 and 3211.2 as well as code or standard organization and KTA 3211.2 are compared with ASME Section III,
by sections, paragraphs, articles and code development. Div. 1.
Section 3 of this paper gives a general overview of all
1. INTRODUCTION German design standards. The design rules of KTA 3211.2
The objective of this paper is to compare the design rules are compared with Subsections NB, NC and ND of the
of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, ASME Code in Section 4 of this paper. For piping, this
Division 1, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility section contrasts the methods of Pressure Design, Design by
Components, (ASME Code) with German nuclear safety Analysis and Design by Rule. Stress intensity values of
standards for Class 1, 2, 3 components and piping. The paper materials are compared in Section 5. Special features of the
1 Copyright 2011 by ASME
analysis of German primary system components (KTA rules. The basic ideas about design analysis have been kept,
3201.2) are outlined in Section 6. while adding some design rules from German industrial
experience with pressure equipment. KTA design standards
2. NOMENCLATURE are generally compatible with the ASME Code but are
restricted to specific systems of light water reactors. For
A additional thickness to account for material erosion example, KTA 3211.2 is restricted to design rules for
and corrosion (ASME) pressure and activity retaining components and piping outside
c1 absolute value of the minus tolerance of wall the primary loop for light water reactors. Here, activity
thickness (KTA) retaining components are e. g. piping-systems or vessels,
c2 value accounting for wall thickness reduction which contain radioactive fluids or steam. In contrast, the
due to chemical or mechanical wear (KTA) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code has a broader scope
da outside diameter of pipe (KTA) and is not restricted to specific systems or types of power
di inside diameter of pipe (KTA) plants. It can even be used for the design of advanced nuclear
D0 outside diameter of pipe (ASME) power plants such as high temperature reactors.
F multiplier applied to average stress for rupture in KTA standards apply for specific systems of power plants
100 000 hr (ASME) and contain rules and regulations for specific subjects like
p internal design pressure (KTA) materials or in-service inspection. A typical division of
P internal design pressure (ASME) subjects is presented with the standards for Pressure and
RmRT specified minimum tensile strength at room Activity Retaining Components of Systems Outside the
temperature (KTA) Primary Circuit. Here, KTA 3211.1 details materials, KTA
RmT specified minimum tensile strength above room 3211.2 outlines design and analysis, KTA 3211.3 contains
temperature (KTA) rules for manufacturing and KTA 3211.4 covers in-service
Rp0.2RT specified minimum yield strength at room inspection and operational monitoring. However, not all KTA
temperature (KTA) standards are divided in this manner.
Rp0.2T specified minimum yield strength above room There are 92 KTA standards in total and 15 are in
temperature (KTA) development. These standards cover radiation protection,
SC average stress to produce creep rate of transportation of nuclear waste and all other aspects of the
0.01 % / 1000 hr (ASME) safe operation of nuclear power plants. One of these aspects
Sm stress intensity (ASME and KTA) is the mechanical design, which is described in the following
SRavg average stress to cause rupture at the end of 9 safety standards:
100 000 hr (ASME)
SRmin minimum stress to cause rupture at the end of 3101.3: Design of Reactor Cores of Pressurized Water
100 000 hr (ASME) and Boiling Water Reactors; Part 3: Mechanical and
ST specified minimum tensile strength at room Thermal Design (under development)
temperature (ASME) 3201.2: Components of the Reactor Coolant Pressure
S TR T specified minimum tensile strength above room Boundary of Light Water Reactors; Part 2: Design and
temperature (ASME) Analysis
SY specified minimum yield strength at room 3211.2: Pressure and Activity Retaining Components
temperature (ASME) of Systems Outside the Primary Circuit; Part 2: Design
S YR Y specified minimum yield strength above room and Analysis
temperature (ASME) 3204: Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals
s0 calculated wall thickness (KTA) 3205.1: Component Support Structures with
sn nominal wall thickness (KTA) Non-integral Connections; Part 1: Component Support
tm minimum required wall thickness (ASME) Structures with Non-integral Connections for
y parameter to adjust the Boardman equation to the Components of the Reactor Coolant Pressure
Lam equation (ASME) Boundary of Light Water Reactors
3205.2: Component Support Structures with
3. KTA-DESIGN STANDARDS Non-integral Connections; Part 2: Component Support
In Germany, the Nuclear Safety Standards Commission Structures with Non-Integral Connections for Pressure
(KTA) has the task to issue nuclear safety standards for topics and Activity-Retaining Components in Systems
in the area of nuclear technology. The KTA standards are Outside the Primary Circuit
issued where a consensus between experts of the 3401.2: Steel Containment Vessels; Part 2: Analysis
manufacturers, the operators of nuclear power plants, and Design
authorized experts and state officials is apparent and supports 3902: Design of Lifting Equipment in Nuclear Power
their application. The KTA standards are published by the Plants
German authorities, are therefore required by federal 3905: Load Attaching Points on Loads in Nuclear
regulation and thereby made into law. The standards are Power Plants
published online, too (www.kta-gs.de). Some standards are
translated to English (e. g. KTA 3201.2 or KTA 3211.2). The equivalent KTA design standards for ASME Section III
KTA design rules were originally derived from ASME Div. 1 Subsections are given in Table I of this paper. Each
2 Copyright 2011 by ASME
design standard is developed by a workgroup of 10 20 4. COMPARISON OF DESIGN RULES FOR
people. These workgroups typically consist of one KTA PRESSURE AND ACTIVITY RETAINING
representative and stakeholders from various organizations COMPONENTS
related to nuclear power, such as BMU representatives
(Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation 4.1 Pressure design
and Nuclear Safety), nuclear power plant engineers, ASME outlines rules for pressure design in NB-, NC-,
inspectors, manufacturers, scientists from research institutes ND-3132. The formula given to calculate the required wall
and reactor safety institute representatives. The workgroups thickness of straight pipes tm is based on the following
review the standards to ensure that the information is still equation [3]:
state-of-the-art and additionally change or add rules if needed.
PD0
Standard revisions are submitted for approval to tm = +A (1)
Unterausschuss Mechanische Komponenten, the 2(S m + Py )
KTA-subcommittee for mechanical design. Upon approval a The value of A is used to represent an additional thickness
new version of the safety standard is published by the to account for material erosion and corrosion and to provide
German government. However, if a standard revision is resistance against mechanical damage. All other variables and
rejected, the workgroup has to resubmit a new version. The tolerances are explained in NB-, NC-, ND-3641.1. The stress
aim of KTA is to have stricter design rules for nuclear power intensity Sm must be replaced by S in the equation for Class 2
plants than those of conventional industry. KTA standards and 3 components. This equation is called the Boardman
quote other Industry standards such as codes of Deutsches equation when y = 0.4 [10]. It was introduced as an
Institut fr Normung (DIN), which is the German Institute for approximation of the Lam equation, which calculates the
Standardization, and are not stand-alone documents like elastic hoop stress at the inside diameter of a thick-walled
ASME. straight pipe under internal pressure. The Boardman equation
In Germany, the most current standard editions of KTA must duplicates the results of the Lam equation with an error not
be used for design work in existing power plants. Currently, more than plus or minus 1 per cent for the range D0/tm 5,
the editions of KTA 3211.2 and 3201.2, which are being used which is the entire useful range. For D0/tm 6 the error is
are from 1992 and 1996, respectively. These editions have entirely on the safe side [4]. The use of either the Boardman
not been updated because there has not been any new or Lame equation implies brittle fracture and is therefore not
construction and any design standard changes affect compatible with Tresca (shear stress theory). This is
modification and installation work in operating plants. In the questionable from a mechanical perspective, but leads to
US, modifications in plants are generally performed more conservative results.
according to the ASME code edition which was used during The required wall thickness tm determines which pipe
the construction phase of the plant. Therefore, code changes schedule is used. All components and fittings must
do not affect design work in existing power plants. Unlike correspond with the schedule of the straight pipe and are
KTA, ASME publishes a new code edition every three years generally chosen in accordance with design codes such as
and an annually published addenda, keeping the code up to B16.5, B16.9 or B16.11, which list pressure tested products
date. (see Table NCA-7100-1) for flanges, fittings and socket
welds. This is because the burst pressure of a pressure tested
TABLE I. STRUCTURE OF ASME, SECTION III, DIV. 1 AND product is greater than that of a straight pipe of the same
CORRESPONDING KTA DESIGN STANDARDS
schedule. In order to design special products, appendices or
ASME Section III, Div. code cases may have to be used. For example Class 2 and
corresponding KTA standard Class 3 flanges are designed using the rules provided in
1 Subsection Mandatory Appendix XI, Rules for Bolted Flange
NB (Class 1 Components) KTA 3201.2 and KTA 3211.2 Connections for Class 2 and 3 Components and Class MC
Vessels, or lugs are designed according to Code Case
NC (Class 2 Components) KTA 3211.2 N-318-5.
ND (Class 3 Components) KTA 3211.2 Dimensioning is detailed in Section 6 of KTA. Unlike
ASME, in KTA dimensioning is required even in cases of
NE (Class MC Components) KTA 3401.2
standard product design. It has to be done according to one of
primary system: the following procedures:
KTA 3201.2 Sections 5.3.6 and
8.5 for integral areas of 1. in accordance with Annex A of KTA
component support structures 2. verification of primary stresses
KTA 3205.1 for non-integral
3. limit analysis
areas
NF (Supports) 4. shakedown analysis
other than primary system:
5. strain limiting load method
KTA 3211.2 Sections 5.3.6 and 6. proof of stability
8.6 for integral areas of
component support structures
KTA 3205.2 for non-integral Annex A of KTA 3211.2 contains rules for standard
areas product design but any of procedures 1- 6 may be used. The
NG (Core Support Structures) KTA 3204 stress allowables for pressure design are given in Table 6.7-1
3 Copyright 2011 by ASME
of KTA 3211.2, Section 6. For non-standard product design 4.2 Design by Analysis
only methods 2 6 may be used. There are no explanations or Design rules for Design by Analysis are defined in
safety-margins provided for methods 4 and 5 in KTA 3211.2. subsection NB-3200 for Class 1 components. Subsection
The methods of Annex A (A 2, dimensioning of parts of the NC-3200 contains Alternative Design Rules for Vessels. The
pressure retaining wall) are based on German design rules were intended to be a duplicate of the former ASME
standards for non-nuclear plants: Section VIII, Division 2 rules for pressure vessels. There is
no subsection ND-3200. Therefore, a general analysis can
AD-Merkbltter (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Druckbehlter only be performed according to Section NB and NC.
= workgroup pressure vessels) The Design Basis of ASME is described in NCA-2140. It
TRD (Technischen Regeln fr Dampfkessel = addresses the operating plant design, service, and test
Technical Regulations for Boilers) loadings that are required to be considered in design. Four
DIN-Normen (Deutsches Institut fr Normung = Service Limits are established and designated as Service
German Institute for Standardization) Limit, which are defined as follows: Level A, Level B, Level
VDI-Richtlinien (Verein Deutscher Ingenieure = C and Level D. These correspond, respectively, to plant and
Association for German Engineers) system operating conditions commonly referred to as normal,
upset, emergency, and faulted. The integrity for Design,
The KTA formula for Pressure Design of straight pipes is Service and Test Loadings has to be proven. The stress
derived from the equation for hoop stress p of a thick walled intensity factors Sm (Class 1) and S (Classes 2 and 3) have to
cylinder using Tresca theory and is not based on the be used to calculate the Design, Service and Test Limits with
Lam-equation like ASME. It is assumed that the material the analysis methods listed below:
behavior is elastic-ideal plastic with yield stress Sm. The
series expansion of the logarithmic equation is then as 1. elastic analysis
follows: 2. plastic analysis (e. g. limit analysis)
d 3. collapse load analysis
p = S m ln a
di 4. plastic instability analysis
(2) 5. interaction method
2 s0 1 s0
2

= Sm 1 + + ...
3 (d a s0 )
2
d a s0 Not all of the given analysis methods are permitted for use
for all service levels. For Level D Service Limits, inelastic
The variables p, da, di and s0 are design pressure, outside analysis-methods are permitted in accordance with
diameter, inside diameter and wall thickness, respectively. Nonmandatory Appendix, Rules for Evaluation of Service
The KTA formula is the antecedent of the series expansion Loadings With Level D Service Limits, Appendix, F-1320.
(KTA 3211.2, A 2.2-1): Tresca theory (maximum shear stress theory) has to be
da p used to perform proof of structural integrity. If plastic
s0 = (3) analyses are performed with FEM-software the computer
2S m + p
code automatically uses v. Mises theory (maximum distortion
The discrepancy between the exact solution and the strain energy theory) to calculate the plastic behavior, which
approximation of KTA is less than 1% for ratios da/di < 1.4. conflicts with the ASME Code. NB-3227.4 contains design
KTA allows for a discrepancy of 2% by restricting the criteria to limit triaxial stress states for all Service Levels
equation for ratios of da/di < 1.7. As in ASME, the stress except Level D:
intensity Sm must be replaced by S in the equation for Class 2
and 3 components. The nominal wall thickness sn, which is 4.3 Design by Rule
comparable to the required wall thickness tm of ASME, is Design rules for component specific analysis of ASME are
then calculated by adding c1 and c2 to the wall thickness s0: defined in Subsections NB, NC and ND 3300-3600. The
exception is Subsection NC, in which ASME provides
sn = s0 + c1 + c2 (4) alternative design rules for vessels in NC-3200 for Class 2
c1 is the absolute value of the minus tolerance, which is components in addition to those of NC-3300. Design criteria
based on the fabrication tolerance and c2 is a value that for the following components are presented in both codes
accounts for wall thickness reduction due to wear (details see (NX represents Subsections NB, NC and ND):
Section 6.5 of KTA 3211.2).
The calculated minimum wall thicknesses of both Vessels (ASME: NX-3300, KTA: Sec. 8.2)
equations are nearly identical. For a specific example Pumps (ASME: NX-3400, KTA: Sec. 8.3)
(Tdesign = 700 F, Pdesign = 2000 psig, D0 = 16 and Valves (ASME: NX-3500, KTA: Sec. 8.4)
Sm = 15.1 kSi) the required wall thickness of ASME is 1 % Piping (ASME: NX-3600, KTA: Sec. 8.5)
higher than for KTA. In this example, extremes of values for
Pdesign and Sm were chosen in order to highlight the The component specific design criteria of KTA 3211.2 are
discrepancy between the equations. Despite this discrepancy nearly identical to the methods of ASME. However, there are
the values only differ by 1%. In most cases the results of both some exceptions. In this paper, only the design rules for
equations are nearly identical, differing by less than 1%. piping are compared.
For Class 2 and 3 piping the limitation of the primary stress
4 Copyright 2011 by ASME
intensity can be performed based on identical equations in margins for tensile strengths are at least 14% higher in KTA
KTA and ASME or an additional equation in KTA which whereas the safety margins for yield strengths are only
contains an i-value instead of B-index. An additional slightly higher (7%) than those of ASME. Therefore, KTA is
difference is that for KTA, B-indices can only be used for slightly conservative compared to ASME as a result of the
d/t 50 (d: outside diameter, t: wall thickness). The range of higher safety margins. For Class 1 components, the safety
resultant moments and amplitudes of longitudinal forces margins are comparable.
resulting from anchor motions due to reversing type dynamic
level D loadings are not limited in KTA. In NB-3656 (4) TABLE II. COMPARISON BETWEEN CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING
ALLOWABLE STRESS VALUES FOR CLASS 2 AND 3 DESIGN OF
ASME provides a limit of 6.0 Sm for the amplitude of ASME (SECTION II, TABLE 1-100) AND KTA 3211.2 (TABLE
reversing bending stresses and a limit of Sm for axial 6.6-1)
stresses caused by normal forces. In KTA 3211.2, dynamic
anchor motions have to be evaluated with equations (8.5-82) Criteria KTA 3211.2 Comparison
and (8.5-84) for the integrity proofs of service levels A and B. ASME
for S ferritic austenitic ASME/KTA

5. MATERIALS Tensile
ASME Section II provides all information for the design Strength ST/3.5 RmRT/4.0 RmRT/4.0 1.14
at RT
analysis regarding material properties. If a material is not Tensile
listed in Section II, it generally cannot be used. When Strength 1.1STRT/3.5 - - -
sufficient data is available for a non-listed material, an above RT
application for a code case can be submitted to ASME for Yield
Strength 2/3 SY Rp0.2RT/1.6 Rp0.2RT/1.6 1.07
approval. at RT
KTA does not have a general section dedicated to materials 2/3 SYRY Rp0.2T/1.1
comparable to ASME Section II. The regulations are Yield
non-uniform in the different KTA standards. For KTA 3211.2, Strength or Rp0.2T/1.6 or 1.07 (ferritic)
above RT
the materials which are permitted are listed in KTA 3211.1. 0.9 SYRY Rp0.2T/1.5
The stress intensities S and Sm are calculated with Table 6.6-1
of KTA 3211.2 based on the material properties, which are Favg SR avg
Stress
- - -
provided in Annex A of KTA 3211.1. The criteria to Rupture
0.8 SR min
calculate S and Sm correspond nearly with Tables 1-100 Creep
(criteria for establishing allowable stress values for tables 1A 1.0 Sc - - -
Rate
and 1B) and 2-100(a) (criteria for establishing allowable
stress values for tables 2A and 2B) of ASME Section II, Part TABLE III. COMPARISON BETWEEN CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING
ALLOWABLE STRESS VALUES FOR CLASS 1 DESIGN OF ASME
D, respectively (see Tables II and III of this paper). In case of
(SECTION II, TABLE 2-100(A)) AND KTA 3211.2 (TABLE 6.6-1)
the pressure design, KTA 3211.2 has additional requirements
for determining stress intensities, which are based on German KTA 3211.2
Criteria Comparison
design standards of non-nuclear plants. In the case of KTA, ASME
the allowable stresses are based on yield- and tensile strength for Sm ferritic austenitic ASME/KTA
of the material at room- and elevated temperature. The yield Tensile
strength (Rp0.2) is defined as the stress value that results in a Strength ST/3.0 RmRT/3.0 RmRT/3.0 1.00
plastic strain of 0.2 % after unloading. For some austenitic at RT
materials (criteria see KTA 3211.2, Table 6.6 1) Rp1.0 may be Tensile
Strength 1.1STRT/3.0 RmT/2.7 RmT/2.7 0.99
taken in lieu of Rp0.2. In this case, Rp1.0 is defined as the stress above RT
value that results in a plastic strain of 1.0 % after unloading. Yield
KTA limits the design temperature to 400 C whereas the Strength 2/3 SY - Rp0.2RT/1.5 1.00
at RT
temperature limit of ASME is provided by the temperature
range for which the allowable stresses and material properties 2/3 SYRY Rp0.2T/1.1
Yield
are listed in Section II. Typically this limit is around 400 C Strength or Rp0.2T/1.5 or 1.00 (ferritic)
but there are materials that are permitted to be used at higher above RT
0.9 SYRY Rp0.2T/1.5
temperatures. In case of ASME, stress rupture and creep rate
are taken into consideration at high temperatures to determine
the allowable stresses for Class 2 and 3 design. All criteria 6. SPECIAL FEATURES OF KTA 3201.2
for establishing the allowable stress values S and Sm are KTA 3201.2 is the German design and analysis standard for
provided in tables 1-100 and 2-100(a) of ASME Section II, components of the reactor coolant pressure boundary
Part D, respectively. There are no detailed explanations (primary circuit). The general structure is similar to KTA
presented in Section II, Appendices 1 and 2, regarding when 3211.2 except that it only contains design rules for Class 1
to use 2/3 or 0.9 times the yield strength above room components and piping. It provides additional analysis
temperature. The safety-factors of KTA and ASME are procedures for the general analysis of mechanical behavior.
different for Class 2 and 3. E. g. for S-values KTA divides the Similar to ASME, NB-3228.1, limit analysis is permitted
tensile strength by 4 and ASME by 3.5 (see Tables II and III and detailed in KTA 3201.2, Chapter 7.7.4. However, this
of this paper). For Class 2 and 3 components, the safety method is prohibited for use in KTA 3211.2. Borrowing from
5 Copyright 2011 by ASME
ASME, KTA 3201.2 contains Table 7.7-8 with factors for specifications are needed for the analysis and there are no
limiting strains for non-linear elastic materials (Table Y-2 in restrictions on reactor designs. KTA standards have a
ASME 2007 Section II, Part D). The tables are nearly temperature restriction of 400 C and are focused on the
identical except for two differences. In KTA 3201.2 a factor design of light water reactors.
of 1.0 is added for a permanent strain of 20%, and, as in In the comparison of ASME and KTA consider these
ASME, the table is not restricted to nickel, high nickel alloys major points:
and high alloy steels.
A concept for the analysis of brittle fracture is incorporated The equations to determine stress intensities for Class
into KTA 3201.2 (Section 7.9). This section includes a NDT 1 components are nearly identical in both codes and
temperature concept, fracture mechanics concept and rules standards, but KTA has higher requirements for the
for in-service inspection. ASME covers fracture mechanics in stress intensities of Class 2 and 3 components.
Section XI and does not provide any equations in Section III. Although the equations for pressure design for KTA
KTA has plans to publish an in-depth fracture mechanics and ASME are based on different failure theories, the
standard for pressure retaining components, which will be resulting required wall thicknesses for straight pipes
KTA 3206 (Nachweise zum Bruchausschluss fr are almost identical.
druckfhrende Komponenten in Kernkraftwerken). For Design by Analysis, KTA allows the use of v.
Design criteria for the avoidance of thermal stress Mises theory in addition to Tresca while ASME is
ratcheting are given in KTA 3201.2, Section 7.13 and ASME restricted to Tresca but allows more analysis methods.
NB-3222.5, but the concepts differ. In KTA 3201.2 four The equations for piping analysis in both codes are
methods are provided for proving that thermal stress almost identical but the stress intensification factors
ratcheting remains within acceptable limits: differ.

Evaluation by limitation of stress (7.13.2.2) REFERENCES


Evaluation by limitation of strain (7.13.2.3)
General evaluation by elastic-plastic analysis (7.13.3) [1] 2007 ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, 2007
Specific evaluation by measurement (7.13.4) Edition. Juli 1, 2007

The first method is based on the Bree-Diagram [5]. Elastic [2] Bieniussa K.W., 1987, German codes and standards
shakedown occurs when the combination of primary and concerning metallic nuclear power plant components
secondary stresses are within the stress limits of the equations Present state and trends expected. Nuclear Engineering
(7.13-5) (7.13-7). For method 2, the plastic strain increment and Design, Volume 98, Issue 3, Pages 279-281.
of each thermal cycle is calculated. Then the sum of all
plastic strain increments is determined and the value must be [3] Braun, C F & CO, 1969, A Review of Piping and
2%. Pressure Vessel. Code Design Criteria. San Francisco,
KTA provides strain limits in 7.13.3 (3) for method 3, CA, Technical Report 217 prepared for US Atomic
which is the general evaluation by elastic-plastic analysis. Energy Commission.
These limits are 5% for base metal and 2.5% for welded
joints, respectively. However, ASME does not distinguish [4] Buxton, W J Burrows, W R , 1951, Formula for pipe
between base metal and welded joints and provides a general thickness. Transactions of the ASME.
limit of 5.0% in NB-3228.4 for shakedown analyses. Within
the section, KTA explicitly notes that the material model [5] Bree J., 1967, Elastic-plastic behaviour of thin tubes
used in this analysis shall be suited to realistically the cyclic subjected to internal pressure and intermittent high-heat
strain (7.13.3 (1)). Therefore, one is not obligated to use the fluxes with application to fast-nuclear-reactor fuel
Chaboche hardening rule; other hardening rules such as elements. Journal of strain analysis, vol. 2 no. 3.
Ohno-Wang, which provide a more realistic description of
the hardening behavior, may be utilized. As a fourth method, [6] KTA 3201.2, Components of the Reactor Coolant
KTA outlines that the avoidance of thermal stress ratcheting Pressure Boundary of Light Water Reactors; Part 2:
can be proved by measurement (7.13.4). In this case the strain Design and Analysis. Safety Standards of the Nuclear
limits are identical to method 3. ASME only offers methods 1 Safety Standards Commission (KTA), June 1996 (incl.
and 3 in NB-3222.5 and NB-3228.4(b), respectively. rectification from BAnz 129, 13.07.00).

7. CONCLUSION [7] KTA 3211.2, Pressure and Activity Retaining


The established ASME Section III and KTA codes and Components of Systems Outside the Primary Circuit;
standards provide comprehensive methods for the design and Part 2: Design and Analysis. Safety Standards of the
analysis of nuclear components, which are broadly equivalent. Nuclear Safety Standards Commission (KTA), June
There are some detailed variations between the codes and 1992.
standards. For example, ASME is a fully integrated code with
a more general scope than KTA, which quotes other Industry [8] KTA Standards, Der Kerntechnische Ausschuss (KTA).
standards and regulatory guides and therefore is not http://www.kta-gs.de
integrated. Within ASME, no additional codes or
6 Copyright 2011 by ASME
[9] Maurer H. A. Deckers, J., 1983, Comparison of US and [10] Rao, K. R. 2002, Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler
European Codes and Regulations for the Construction and Pressure Vessel Code; Criteria and Commentary on
of LWR. Chicago, IL, presented at SMIRT 7. Select Aspects of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel
and Piping Codes. ASME Press.

7 Copyright 2011 by ASME

View publication stats