You are on page 1of 17

W S R C: MS- 9 5 -0 0 0 8

Analytical Considerations in the Code Qualification of Piping

Systems (U)

G. A. Antaki
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Savannah River Site
Aiken, South Carolina 29808


This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or respnsi-
bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer-
ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom-
mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views
and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof.

A document prepared for ASME PRESSURE VESSELS & PIPING CONFERENCE at Honolulufrom 07124/95-

DOE Contra& No. DE-AC09-89SR18035

This paper was prepared in connection with work done under the above contract number with the U. S.
Department of Energy. By acceptance of this paper, the publisher and/or recipient acknowledges the U. S.
Government's right to retain a nonexclusive, royalty-free license in and to any copyright covering this paper,
along with the right to reproduce and to authorize others to reproduce all or part of the copyrighted paper.
This report was prcparcd as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the
United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any
agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed. or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, o r service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the
United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United-
States - Government or any agency thereof.

This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.

., Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and
Technical Information, P. 0. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831: prices available from
(615) 576-8401.

Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service. U. S.

Deparunent of Commerce, 528s Port Royal Rd.. Springfield. V A 22161

Portions of this document may be illegible

in electronic image products. Images are
produced from the best available original
Analytical Considerations in the
Code Qlalification of Piping Systems
George A. Antaki
Westinghouse Savannah River Co.
The paper addresses several analytical
topics in the design and qualification
of piping systems which have a direct
bearing on the prediction of stresses in
the pipe and hence on the application
of the equations of NB, NC and ND-3600
of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code. For each of the analytical topics,
the paper summarizes the current code
requirements, if any, and the industry
In 1984 and again in 1990, several Figure 1. Localstresses at pipe - support interface
issues related to the analysis of piping
systems were documented by the
Pressure Vessel Research Council
(PVRC) in WRC Bulletins 300 and 353 [l,
21. More recently, within PVRC, a joint
Section I11 and XI Review Committee WRC-300 part 111 and WRC-353
provided further recommendations on Section 2.3.5 recognize that localized
the analysis and qualification of stresses are generated in the contact
nuclear piping systems [3]. A Task area between a pipe and a pipe support.
Group on Analytical Methods was Rules are needed to specify (a) when
formed within the ASME Section I11 these stresses should be quantified and
Working Group on Piping Design, to (b) how they should be evaluated.
compile the topics addressed by the
above PVRC reports and present, in WRC-353 Section 2.3.5 states that
each case, the industry practice and "industry experience has shown that
recommendations for improvements to common forms of attachment, such as
Section I11 where appropriate. standard clamps and U-bolts and
Members of the Task Group included bearing on structural members,
Mesrs. T.M. Adams, K.C. Chang, G. produce stresses in the pipe which are
Karshafdjian, J.E. Lucena, M.S. Sills, localized in the pipe wall and are
G.G. Thomas, E. Wais and G.A. Antaki. secondary in nature, and hence can be
neglected". The bulletin goes on
Following is a summary of the topics however to say the "in any case, the
researched by the Task Group. Several localized stresses must be evaluated and
of these topics are under review by the combined with other stresses or
Working Group on Piping Design to compared to a predefined allowable
decide whether they warrant any established for localized stress". The
changes to Section III. designer is cautioned to use load-
distributing features (such as cradles) Code Cases N-122, N-318, N-391 and N-
when supporting Schedule 10 piping. 392 address stresses generated on the
WRC-300 Part 111 warns that "High pipe by integral welded attachments.
strength pipe clamp designs should be The Code Cases provide equations for
either avoided or carefully evaluated calculating stresses from the applied
for their effect on local pipe wall loads on the welded attachments, which
stress". are added to the code stress equations
and compared to the code allowables.

3) 1
Section 111 NB, NC and ND address the Position
question of interaction between the
pressure boundary and its attachments. The effect of pipe support loads on the
The Code requires that "the interaction pipe wall has been the subject of early
effects of attachments on the pressure studies in piping design. The Kellogg
boundary, producing thermal manual "Design of Piping Systems"
gradien ts, localized bending stresses, (1955) suggests that "when such local
stress concentrations or restraint of stresses are evaluated they should be
the pressure boundary shall be treated in the category of secondary or
considered by the piping designer" localized stresses...the allowable limit
(NB.3651.3). Requirements for Class 2 for such stresses when due to sustained
(NC.3645) and Class 3 (ND.3645) are loadings cannot reasonably be set a t
similar to Class 1 although the wording the limit for sustained primary stress
is somewhat different. The Code Sh; instead it is recommended t h a t a
provides relief to the extent that limit o f 2Sh be used for design
"standard clamps generally have a purposes".
negligible effect on the pressure
boundary" [if thick-wall] (NB.3651.3). Today, there is no uniform commercial
nuclear industry practice for the
Subsection 3200 classifies the stress due analysis of contact stresses in piping
to a pipe attachment as secondary. from non-welded (non-integral)
supports. Most design applications did
Section NB-3 227.1 addresses bearing not explicitly analyze stresses induced
loads and states that "the average in piping by localized contact loads. In
bearing stress f o r resistance to some cases, mostly a later 1980's
crushing under the maximum load ... practice, pipe-to-support contact
shall be limited to Sy a t temperature, stresses are computed and added to the
except that when the distance to a free code stress equation.
edge is larger than the distance over
which the bearing load is applied [i.e. Where contact stresses are calculated,
no risk o f shear failure], a stress of they typically cover:
1.5Sy a t temperature is pem'tted".
(a) line load from a longitudinal
The closest Subsection NF comes to contact between the pipe and
addressing the contact load from the the flat surface of a support
support onto the pipe is in NF-3412.4(d) member.
where it states that "design of (b) circumferential loads from a
functional [support] members such as circular line load between the
interconnections ... shall consider the pipe and a circular stiff clamp,
effect o f internal pressure, thermal strap or collar plate.
expansion and vibration loadings'!
Each of the loads is, in turn, comprised In conclusion, the industry practice
of four contributions: varies from no explicit analysis (in
(a) preload (such as tight fit or most cases) to analysis based on stress
torque) formulas (mostly in the late 1980's).
(b) internal pressure (constrained There is no evidence through tests or
radial expansion of pipe wall) operational experience that contact
(c) thermal expansion (constrained stresses are a credible source of pipe
radial expansion and, for Class 1, failure.
thermal discontinuity). Note
that in non-nuclear plants, the
effects of thermal radial DESIGN - BY - RULE
expansion are at times accounted FOR
for by construction rules, such SMALL BORE PIPING SYSTEMS
as leaving the pipe clamp
sufficiently loose to allow for a
gap around the pipe.
support reactor loads.
The pipe stress due to contact load, WRC-300 P a r t I11 Section 4.7
when calculated, is typically based on recommends "rather than to continue
solutions such as "Formulas for Stress to insist on complex analytical
and Strain" by R.J. Roark and W.C. solutions, it may be more beneficial to
Yound or WRC Bulletin 198.. take our experience and develop
detailed design by rule requirements
The Roark formula for contact stresses that control geometry for envelopes of
is adopted by the American Water conditions".
Works Association (AWWA) "Guide for
Design and Installation" (Manual M l l ) . WRC-300 Part 11, recommendations
The AWWA manual states that "the 4.15 and 4.16 state:
ability of steel pipe to resist saddle load
has sometimes been greatly "4.15 The piping codes should be
underestimated by designers' and, revised to require a simple analysis
consistently with Roark, recommends related to the expected mode of failure
an allowable of 2Sy for the maximum coupled with specified standard design
localized stress at the saddle. and fabrication details, and
Surveys of earthquake damage to "4.16 Experience and judgment must be
piping systems (EPRI research project relied on as much as complicated
RP-2635-1) does not indicate failure analytical solutions."
from contact stress effects.
Recommendation F-05(3) of the PVRC
The NRC has issued Information Notice C o m m i t t e e on R e v i e w of ASME
83-80 "Use of Specialized Stiff Pipe Nuclear Codes and Standards (1988-
Clamps" to warn that "piping designers 1991) states "Bounding spectra with
who are accustomed to neglecting applicable limitations as developed by
these localized [pipe-to-s upport NCIG-EPH should be permitted as the
contact] stresses because of the low basis for layout and design of supports
magnitude stresses associated with for all small bore piping (Do= or < 2 112
conventional pipe clamps might inches)".
incorrectly assume that such stresses
can be neglected with these new [stiffl
which were based on limiting span
lengths and layouts to certain pre-
analyzed configurations.
The Code provides rules for evaluation
of stresses resulting from Design and Recognizing the excessive costs and
Service Loads. However, the definition the limited value added of wholesale
of these loads is the responsibility of analysis, the nuclear industry,
the Owner and certificate holder, through EPRI, has developed rules for
through the Design Specification. the seismic evaluation of small bore
piping systems.
The Code does require a stress analysis
in NB-3625: "StressAnalysis : Recently (1990) EPRI and NCIG have
"A Stress analysis shall be issued a "Procedure For Seismic
prepared in sufficient detail to show Evaluation and Design of Small Bore
that each of the stress limitations of Piping (NCIG-I 4) EPRI NP-6628, which
NB-3640 and NB-3650 is satisfied when provides criteria to design against
the piping is subjected to the loadings realistic seismic failure modes. The
required to be considered by this Sub- criteria are based on the investigation
article.'' of earthquake experience and test data.
NP 6628 does not change current use of
Appendix N, Section N-1100, states 'I... a code rules for the evaluation of seismic
dynamic system andysis is required to anchor movements and non seismic
show how seismic loading i s loads, but does not require including
transmitted If. seismic inertia stress in the
qualification process.
In NB-3672.6, the Code allows for some
qualification per comparison: NUMARC submitted NP-6628/NCIG14
for NRC review, and TVA requested
"NB-3672.6 Method Of Analysis. All approval of use of NP 6628 for
systems shall be analyzed for adequate Bellefonte completion. The NRC
flexibility by a rigorous structural responded with a request for additional
analysis unless they can be judged information. EPRI developed a
technically adequate by an response to the NRC request consistent
engineering comparison with with recent work done by the SGD
previously analyzed systems. If Special Task Group and work done for
the Advanced Reactor Corporation First
of a Kind Engineering activity related
3) h d u s t r v and R e n d atorv to ASME piping. This response was
position provided to the NRC in October 1993
with a request from NUMARC for an
The original piping Codes (B31 Series) estimate of review cost to complete the
were based on rules for proper layout effort.
and detailing of piping systems. The
rules evolved to focus on analysis for In Generic Letter 81-14, the NRC had
operating loads (thermal expansion endorsed the use of an experience
stress evaluation introduced by Markl based approach including "walkdown
in the 1950's) and, later, analysis for b y personnel experienced in the
accident loads. The practice since the analysis, design and evaluation I' to
early-1970's and through the 1980's has identify flagrant weaknesses in the
been to qualify nuclear safety related seismic adequacy of auxiliary
piping by analysis. For small bore feedwater systems. The Generic Letter
piping (2'' and smaller) various "cook stated "Given the time
books" were developed over time, explicit analyses are requested to
demonstrate system qualification included designing pipe support
unless deemed necessary by you". restraint to a minimum stiffness or a
minimum frequency of either 20HZ or
SUPPORT STIFFNESS RULE 33HZ, modeling the actual stiffness
(mostly in Class 1 applications), or
Source and Descnxmm
. . using a deflection criterion ranging
Qm2Qk from 1/32" to 1/8".

WRC-353 Section 2.3.2 provides EPRI Research Project 2967-2

several rules for the treatment of the developed seismic restraint stiffness
effects of support stiffness on a piping criteria as part of a study on support
system. The Bulletin does not make a modeling, based on numerous papers,
recommendation on whether to studies, laboratory tests and reviews of
introduce this topic into the ASME Code. actual earthquakes.
The recommendations of the EPRI
project for ductile piping systems
(with no brittle joints and with stable
restraints) is that the total maximum
restraint deformation, under maximum
dynamic loads, not exceed a small
nominal predetermined value. This
value could be less than 5% of the
average piping system dynamic
response displacement or a fraction of
an inch such as 1/8" or 1/4" total
displacement. The Research Project is
also recommending the use of
minimum design loads based on the
average loads for a subsystem or a fixed
value based on pipe size.
Figure 2. Supports are modeled
as spring stiffhesses

Current Code Position

Section HI NB, NC and ND do not address
modeling details, such as support
stiffness to be used in determining
stresses for comparison against the
limits in 3600. NF 3122 states that
"deformation limits for the supported
piping or component shall be Gap Gap
stipulated in the Design Specifications,
if required 'I.

3) 1
Figure 3. Small gaps can exist around the
Among U.S. nuclear plants, a variety of pipe in the restrainted direction
piping supports/restraint stiffness
criteria have been used. They have

W R C 353, Section 2.3.3 provides

guidelines for the treatment of pipe-to-
support gaps (clearances). The
Bulletin does not make a
recommendation on whether to
introduce this topic into the ASME Code.

ent Code Positlnn
Section 111 NB, NC and ND do not address
modeling details, such as gaps between
pipe and restraint to be considered in t
determining the stresses for pipe
comparison against the limits of 3650. Weight
In various places, NF 3000 requires the
pipe support to provide for movement Figure 4. In certain cases part of the
of the piping or component. support weight is carried by the pipe.

3) Ipdustrv and Remlatory

A thorough discussion of pipe support
gaps is provided in WRC-353. Gaps are W R C 353, Section 2.3.4 provides
used to allow unrestrained movements rules for judging the significance of
of piping in the non-load directions support mass on a piping system. The
while being sufficiently small to be Bulletin does not make a
negligible in the loaded direction. The recommendation on whether to
industry practice for the analysis of introduce this topic into the ASME Code.
piping with small gaps (usually 1/16"
per side or 1/8" total clearance) is to
ignore the pipe support gaps where
they are small. Section I11 NB, NC and ND 3623 states
that "piping systems shall provide for
The recent EPRI Research Project 2967- the effects of live and dead weights"
2 identified several studies of the and defines dead weight as "the weight
effects of support gaps. In almost all of the piping, insulation, and other
cases, when a non-linear analysis was loads permanently imposed upon the
performed considering small gaps, the piping".
restraint loads and pipe stresses were
enveloped by the linear analysis
methods. Small support gaps
(including snubber clearances)
acquire more importance in the The industry practice is to generally
vicinity of equipment nozzles which neglect the weight of the support mass
are particularly sensitive to small load in considering piping stresses.
redistributions. Normally, if proportionally sized
support components are used, the ratio
of the support mass to the piping mass
is sufficiently low to justify Section I11 NB, NC and ND address the
neglecting the effects of the support question of intersections in piping.
component. However, when For class 1 piping, NB-3683.1 requires
disproportionally sized components are that branch and run moments be
used, results have shown the mass of combined to calculate the total stress at
the support components can have an a branch connection. For Class 2 and 3
effect on the piping stresses and piping, the branch and run moments
should be factored into the piping are calculated separately, each with its
analysis. EPRI Research Project 2967-2 own stress intensification factor.
identified isolated cases where support There is no explicit Code Criteria on
component mass was factored into the how to decouple branch lines from run
piping analysis, particularly for piping to accomplish this.
certain types of configurations and
primarily on small bore pipes. Application Subsections: NE3643, NC-
3643 and ND-3643.

There is no uniform commercial

nuclear industry practice for pipe
WRC-300 Part 111 recommends the branch and run decoupling
"use[of3 a moment of inertia ratio of 25 techniques. In dynamic and flexibility
to 1 for analysis decoupling of small analysis, a piping run is typically used
branch lines from major runs" further as an anchor point for a branch line, if
clarifications and exceptions are it meets certain criteria. Criteria
provided in Section 2.2.2 of the usually include that the ratio of run to
Bulletin. branch diameter, moment of inertia or
section modulus should exceed a
The Bulletin does not make a specified ratio. Decoupling criteria for
recommendation on whether to moment of inertia typically ranged
introduce this topic into the ASME Code. from 1O:l to 25:l and 41 for diameter.
A moment in inertia ratio of 25:l was
used in the industry recommendation
Branch of WRC Bulletin 300, with the additional
recommendation that lower values
should be considered where applicable.
An analysis of a branch pipe that
meets these criteria typically use the
connection to the run pipe as a rigid
anchor. The practice has been not to
develop run pipe amplified response
spectra at the decoupling point, but
rather to apply anchor motions and to
H&pipe envelope run pipe support attachment
points response spectra. This approach
gets to be less accurate as the run pipe
Figure 5. Certain branch lines are decoupled is more flexible-
fromthe header system analytical model.
Run pipe SIF's were typically not
included in the original piping
analyses in the late 1960's and early
1970's for most branch connection WRC Bulletin 300 Part I11 Section
locations. This is because the Code did 2.2.6 advises that "using the system
not provide formulas for calculation of design temperature in place of the
SIF's except for the connections. The operating temperature for thermal
SIF's for branch connection point, and flexibility analyses should be
for the run pipe at the branch avoided........The design specification
connection point in the run pipe should reflect the appropriate
analysis (when applicable). temperature f o r analysis". The
Bulletin recommends considering
Vent or drain lines are seldom included temperature decay in stagnant lines;
in the model of the run pipe as they and limiting thermal expansion
meet the requirements for decoupling analysis to normal and upset operating
as described in the preceding modes. A similar warning is provided
paragraphs. in Section 3.3, which states "A common
mistake leading to increasingly
In a 1980 memorandum, the NRC conservative nozzle loads is to use the
Mechanical Engineering Branch system design temperature rather than
accepted a moment of inertia ratio of actual operating temperatures when
7:l for a specific plant application. A anal'irzg piping".
broader decoupling criterion is
provided in Section 3.7.2 of the 2) Current C ode Position
Standard Review Plan.
ASME Code Section I11 addresses design
DESIGN TEMPERATURE loadings in NCA-2 142.1. The design
FOR temperature is defined as follows:
"Design temperature shall not be less
1: than the expected maximum mean
metal temperature through the
thickness of the part considered for
T desim which Level A service limits are
The Level A service limits are "those
set of limits which must be satisfied for
all Level A service loading identified in
the Design Specification to which the
component or support m a y be
subjected in the performance of its
specified service function".
From the above definitions, it is clear
t that design temperature is the
maximum metal temperature which is
Figure 6. The Design Temperature may be expected to occur during normal plant
set significantly higher than actual operations.
system operating temperatures.
3) 1with the thermal expansion are
Position relatively small and not required to be
explicitly calculated. The source of the
The design process requires the topic is two fold
identification of all operating
conditions by system engineers. The (a) recommendation F-05 (4) of the
design temperature is then defined, PVRC Committee on Review
typically by the equipment vendor, as of ASME Nuclear Codes and
a temperature higher than all the Standards (1988-1991( which
operating temperatures, regardless of states: "Thermal Stress analysis
their service levels. For large bore and (flexibility analysis) of piping
ASME Class 1 systems, this process may systems is not required only
not be overly conservative. However, [SIC] for ASME Class 2 and 3
for small bore Class 2, 3 and non- where To = or (150OFand Do= or
nuclear safety piping, whose design < 6 inches."
does not require design specification, (b) an upcoming PVRC Position
this process leads to unnecessary Paper that proposes a
conservatism in both high thermal temperature of 150°F as a
expansion stresses and low allowable boundary between cold and hot
stress intensities. piping.

The use of unnecessarily large design 2)

Current Code P o s m
temperatures for small bore piping
systems can also lead to the addition of Section I11 NB, NC, ND do not address
expansion loops, with the the definition of cold piping. The Code
corresponding increase in congestion, requirements for evaluation of
material procurement, construction, thermal expansion are as follows:
support structures and risk of leaks at
pipe joints. "The design of piping systems shall
take account of the forces and moments
Advancement in nuclear piping design resulting from thermal expansion and
proved that the old design process does contraction and from the effects of
not necessarily lead to a safer system. expansion joints'' NC,ND-3624.1.
Thermal sleeve failures at branch
nozzles with reinforcement are typical "The design of the complete piping
examples. system shall be analyzed between
anchors for the effects of thermal
In conclusion, the industry design expansion, weight, and other sustained
practice tends to select conservatively and occasional loads". NC/ND-3651 (a).
high design temperature which in
turn penalize system design with no "....piping systems subject to thermal
obvious benefits. This penalty is expansion or contraction... shall be
especially severe for small bore designed in accordance with the
piping. requirements for the evaluation and
analysis o f flexibility and stress
DEFINITION OF "COLD" PIPING specified in this paragraph". NC/ND-
3672.1 (a).
1) Source and DescriDtion
Qmmk "All systems shall be analyzed for
adequate flexibility by a structural
The term "Cold" piping refers to piping analysis unless they can be judged
that operates at low temperature and as technically adequate by an
a consequence, the stresses associated engineering comparison with
previously analyzed systems. I' NC/ND- The draft version of the upcoming
3673.1 "PVRC Position Paper-Piping Analysis
Techniques" proposes the following
Subsection NB has similar criterion: "The definition of "cold"
requirements NB-3624.1, 3672 (a), versus "hot"piping as a dividing line
3672.7. between piping that is analyzed for
thermal expansion and that which is
In summary, the Code requires a not, is important. A reasonable
thermal expansion analysis except criterion establishes piping
when an engineering comparison with containing fluids at 15OOF or greater as
previously analyzed systems indicates "hot" and therefore requiring
that the system is technically adequate. expansion analysis.
3) Jndustrv and Reeulatory EPRI Report NP-5 184M "Snubber
Position Reduction Program" in page 1-2, when
dealing with snubber reduction
There have been several attempts in techniques for cold piping systems,
the piping industry to develop states: "...Those systems that are
simplified rules to screen those piping ..."
essentially cold (<2OO0F)
systems that require a detailed
flexibility analysis. The only one rule We are not aware of a regulatory
that is part of a code appeared in the position on the definition of "cold
1955 edition of the Piping Code (ASA piping. Many nuclear power plants
B31.1) and can still be found in the have used and justified the absence of
current editions of the ASME B31 codes. detailed thermal expansion analysis for
This rule is not based on a temperature piping systems below a certain
threshold, but on a formula that relates operating temperature. For example, a
various parameters such as, pipe size, 1980 NRC Mechanical Engineering
movements to be absorbed, developed Branch memo for a plant specific
length and minimum length between application accepts "Thermal
piping anchors. This formula tries to expansion stress analyses...not to be
quantify the relative flexibility of the performed when the design
piping system in a simplified manner. temperature is less than 15oOF" as a
There are however so many cautions reasonable and conservative
that the rule becomes practically engineering practice that has been
useless. widely adopted throughout the
industry. It should be noted that the
Current industry practice in fossil and NRC's definition of "high energy
co-generation plants is to analyze piping system" is partially based on a
piping systems with a temperature at simple temperature criteria. Piping
or above 2500F. systems with an operating temperature
above 20O0F are defined as high
WRC Bulletin #300 refers to cold piping energy.
in the chapter related to the piping
restraint selection criteria indicating None of the above criteria takes into
that "For piping systems where the account the differences in the piping
analyst has determined that thermal material coefficient of thermal
expansion stresses, loads and expansion. If one establishes a criteria
deflections are minimal, rod or frame for defining cold piping based on the
type restraints in lieu of snubbers rate of thermal expansion (product of
should be specified". alpha x delta T) and sets a limiting
value at say, 0.0008 in/in, then the
limiting temperature for cold piping
would be 195OF = 2 W F for carbon steel
piping and 1550F = l5WF for stainless pipe. The specified allowable loads on
steels. This appears to be a more nozzles are often so low that they
reasonable criteria. require additional restraints on the
piping. Also, quite often the nozzles
NOZZLE FLEXIBILITY are modeled as rigid anchors in the
piping system analysis.
The combination of using low
allowable nozzle loads and ignoring
nozzle flexibility may lead to additional
restraint which by a more rational
approach, could be shown to be
unnecessary. these additional
restraints may reduce the reliability of
the piping system and will add to its
Typically, the nozzle on a plate or shell
Figure 7. Equipment nozzles and shells is more flexible than the attached pipe.
have flexibilitieswhich canreduce Use of the correct flexibility in static,
pipe reaction loads. thermal and dynamic analyses will
frequently reduce predicted nozzle
loads by a significant amount.
Source and DescriDtion Flexibility can be computed using
equations from plate and shell theory,
Qmmk with proper considerations of
stiffening members and internals.
WRC - 300 Part I11 recommendation 3.5 WRC Bulletin 297 provides data from
states that "the flexibility analysis of which the nozzle flexibility can be
equipment nozzles and foundation obtained.
supports should be considered in the
analysis". Recommendation 3.8 states WRC Bulletin 300, published in 1984,
that "A coupled piping analysis, recommend that flexibility of the
in eluding nozzle flexibility an d nozzle should be included in the piping
foundation support flexibility, can model.
reduce calculated nozzle loads". The
Bulletin does not make a NUREG-1061, published in 1985,
recommendation on whether to recognizes that the design of piping
introduce this topic into the ASME Code. branch connections and tank and
Current Code Positloa
.. vessel nozzles do not generally take
credit for nozzle flexibility, resulting
in higher calculated stresses.
Section 111 of the Code does not address Improving nozzle design procedures
nozzle flexibility in piping system could help reduce the number of
analysis. seismic restraints required in current
piping design.
3) 1
Position NUREG-1061 report made the following
recommendations with regard to nozzle
Terminations of piping systems quite loads and flexibility:
often consist of nozzles in pressure
vessels and tanks or nozzles of rotating 1) Request that WGPD revise the
equipment such as pumps or steam Code sections addressing pipe
turbines in branch connections to run system flexibility calculation to
also consider tank and vessel results as dynamic analysis, should be
nozzle flexibility. permitted for large bore class 2 and 3
Revise Standard Review Plan
3.9.2 to consider nozzle
flexibility in piping analysis.
Appendix N. Article N-100 "Dynamic
3) Develop improved design Analysis Methods" currently states:
guidance on nozzle stress limits "In order to determine the specific
and flexibilities. seismic designs for each component,
dynamic system analysis is required to
SEISMIC show how seismic loadings if
STATIC m O D S transmitted form the defined ground
FOR motions to all parts of the buildings,
PIPING SYSTEMS structures, equipment and
components I t . The common
interpretation of the requirement is
time history that floor spectra will be developed by
dynamic analysis of the building
structures. However, this requirement

may be interpreted textually to mean
that a dynamic analysis is required for
"equipment and components" and
therefore for piping systems.

While lateral load design for
earthquake resistant buildings was
introduced into practice in the 1930's,

t t
the concept of lateral load design for
static piping systems has been introduce
much more recently (.20g static design
of nuclear plant piping in the 1960;s)
and published in the early 1970's (J.D.
Figure 8. Applied loadings for various Stevenson, 1973; J.M. Gwinn and N.A.
analytical methods. Coldstein, 1974; T.R. Simonson and G.
Kost, 1976). At the time, it was judged
that rigorous dynamic analysis was not
required for the "tens of thousands of
feet of conduits consisting of smaller
PVRC recommendation F05 "Section I11 diameter piping, tubing, electrical
Analysis Requirements for Piping" conduit raceways and ductwork which
proposes that "ASME Section I11 Code serve a safety function and therefore
rules should be modified to include the require a determination of seismic
following: (1) The use of rigorous design adequacy" (J.D. Stevenson and
dynamic seismic analysis methods W.S. W a y , 1975). It was estimated that
(response spectra, time history) for a coefficient of 0.67 to 1.50 could be
piping systems is not always required. applied to the input response
(2) Simplified static load procedures acceleration to determine the lateral
(e.g., Code Case N-468), which on the load. A coefficient of 1.20 was later
average give higher or the same
proposed (C.W. Lin and T.C. Esselman, documentation of the method is being
1982). developed through the PVRC
Subcommittee on Dynamic Stress
The NRC Standard Review Plan (SRP) Criteria.
adopted the equivalent static load
method with a factor of 1.5 applied to Recently, the Seismic Qualification
the peak floor acceleration if "the Utilities Group (SQUG) established that
system can be realistically represented a 1.0 equivalent static coefficient was
by a simple model" (SRP 3.9.2-7, July to be used for determining seismic
1981). The "simple model" condition inertial equipment loads. The 1.0
does not make the SRP 1.5 factor coefficient for equipment anchorage is
necessarily applicable to piping based on closed form solutions
systems. documented in EPRI NP-5228 Volume 1
'' D ev el o pm e n t of An c h o r a g e
Currently, the California Uniform Guidelines", Appendix D. Piping
Building Code specifies lateral load systems are not addressed by the SQUG.
p r ovi si on s for l1 no n - s t ru c tu r a 1
components supported by structures", NON-LINEAR DESIGN
including "plumbing" and "machinery OF
and associated piping" as Fp = ZICpWp, DUCTILE PIPING
where Z is a seismic zone factor, the
importance factor I is 1.5 for hazardous
contents and Cp is 2x0.75 = 1.5 for
flexible ( f 4 7 hz) systems.
Recommendation F-05 (5) of the PVRC
A similar form of static load factor was Committee on Review of ASME Nuclear
introduce in the IAEA "Earthquake Codes and Standards (1988 - 1991) states
Resistant Design of Nuclear Facilities "Limited non-linear behavior o f
with Limited Radioactive Inventory" ductile piping and other mechanical
(1985) and has been pursued by the systems should be permitted for seismic
ASME Working Group on Dynamic design ".
Analysis since 1986. the later effort
resulted in ASME Code Case N-468 2) t Code P osm
. I

"Alternate Method of Earthquake

Description for Class 2 and 3 Piping at Appendix N, N-1222.2 provides
Low Seismicity Sites Section 111, acceptable numerical methods to
Division 1" now expired. In its latest analyze nonlinear problems,
form, (as presented in 4-468), the load including:
coefficient is developed by a statistical (1) material non-iinearities
process based on comparative static (plasticity);
and dynamic (response spectra) (2) geometric non-linearities
analysis of representative piping (large displacement);
configurations. A review of the (3) combination of material and
methods in N-468 by concluded that "it geometric non-linearities
is not ready for incorporation into (impact and fiction)".
Appendix N" (attachment 10 to 9/14/92
WGPD meeting minutes). A revised Appendix F provides for the inelastic
proposal is being reviewed by the analysis of vessels, pumps, valves,
Special Working Group on Dynamic piping and core support structures
Analysis. The revised proposal subject to level D loadings. The
includes static coefficients of S O , .75 or Appendix F, "Inelastic analysis" is
1.0 depending on applied to the peak of defined as a class of methods which
the floor response spectra. Further includes "limit analysis" (elastic-
perfectly plastic model) and "plastic membrane stress and the minimum of
analysis 'I (strain hardening model). (0.6 Su or 1.6 Sy) when primary
Appendix F also allows for the use of bending is included.
collapse load methods (unstable hinge
mechanisms). The non-linear behavior of ductile
piping has been correlated to the ASME
For piping, Appendix F, F-1430 permits I11 faulted stress allowables by
as an alternative to either elastic or Rodabaugh and Moore (NUREG/CR-
plastic analysis to apply the pipe stress 0261) and more recently by Rodabaugh
equations of NB-3652 limited to the and Terao (NUREG1367).
lesser of 2SM or 2Sy. In this context,
the increased allowable is viewed as a In the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-
simplified alternative (a substitute) for 0800, 3.7.2-5 Rev. 2) the NRC states " m e
plastic analysis. The allowables are SRP criteria generally deal with linear
specified in NX-3655. elastic analysis coupled with allowable
stresses near elastic limits of the
3) hdustrv and ReeuIatory structures. However, for certain
Position special cases (e.g., evaluation of as-
built structures), the staff has accepted
In the late 1960's Newmark and Hall the concept of limited
proposed that for "small excursions inelas tic/n onlin ear behavior wh en
into the inelastic range" the seismic appropriate. The actual analysis,
response spectrum be decreased by the in corpora ting inel as ti c/n onlin ear
ductility factor (mu) as follows: considerations, is reviewed on a case-
l/(mu) below approximately 2 hz; by-case basis".
1 d G between 2 hz and 8 hz; and The NRC Piping Review Committee
no decrease beyond about 33 hz. The concluded in 1985 (NUREG-1061) that
ductility factor (mu) was defined as the "since SSE is a low-probability event, it
ratio of the maximum allowable is appropriate to accept some inelastic
displacement of a structure to its elastic behavior in the design o f piping
displacement. They suggested that systems in order to fully use their
equipment and components that can capability to absorb and dissipate
deform "inelastically to a moderate en ergy. Ps e u d o linear- ela s tic
extent" be allowed a ductility factor of 2 estimation methods should be
to 3. The method later evolved into the developed and procedures designed to
"inela s tic response spec tr um account for inelastic response".
approach. This and other analytical
methods for estimating the non-linear REFERENCES
response of piping systems are
discussed in the recent WRC Bulletin 1 Welding Research Council
379 "Alternative method for seismic Bulletin 300 "Technical Position on
Analysis of Piping Systems". Industry Practice", December 1984.
In a 1976 commentary on the newly 2 Welding Research Council
developed faulted stress limits for class Bulletin 353 "Position Paper on Nuclear
2 and 3 components (76-PVP-61), Plant Pipe Supports", May 1990.
Branch and Gascoyne recognized that
faulted condition limits were selected 3 Welding Research Council
on the basis of "ultimate tensile Bulletin 370 "Recommendations
strength, rather than yield", allowing Proposed by the PVRC Committee on
therefore yielding. The faulted stress Review of ASME Nuclear Codes and
allowable being the minimum of (0.5 Standards", February 1992.
SU or 1.25 Sy) for general primary