Seismic Analysis of Large-Scale Piping Systems for the JNES ... - NRC
Seismic Analysis of Large-Scale Piping Systems for the JNES ... - NRC
Seismic Analysis of Large-Scale Piping Systems for the JNES ... - NRC
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
limits and specified that stresses shall be computed by linear response spectrum analyses with 5 percent<br />
modal damping. The 2004 Edition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ASME Code modified <strong>the</strong> alternative piping seismic stress<br />
limits and specified that <strong>the</strong> stresses shall be computed by linear response spectrum analyses with<br />
damping values as specified in Appendix N (5 percent modal damping). As discussed in Section 3.2<br />
above, <strong>the</strong> <strong>NRC</strong> has not endorsed <strong>the</strong> 1994 or later ASME Code Addenda.<br />
Linear analyses were carried out <strong>for</strong> pressure, deadweight and seismic loading <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> DM2-2, DM4-2(2),<br />
and US2 load cases. For each load case, multiple analyses were per<strong>for</strong>med to calculate stresses in<br />
accordance with <strong>the</strong> three different ASME Code versions (1993, 1994 and 2004) <strong>for</strong> Service Level D<br />
loading. For <strong>the</strong> <strong>NRC</strong>-endorsed 1993 Addenda, <strong>the</strong> seismic response spectrum analyses were repeated <strong>for</strong><br />
2 percent, 4 percent, and frequency dependent (N-411) damping. For <strong>the</strong> 1994 Addenda and 2004 Edition,<br />
<strong>the</strong> response spectrum analyses used 5 percent damping. The highest stresses in <strong>the</strong> critical components<br />
(elbows, tee, and nozzles) were determined in accordance with <strong>the</strong> different equations, stress indices and<br />
stress allowables <strong>of</strong> each code version. The component with <strong>the</strong> largest ratio <strong>of</strong> stress to allowable stress<br />
was identified as <strong>the</strong> critical component. The results <strong>for</strong> each load case are presented below.<br />
3.3.3 <strong>Analysis</strong> and Code Evaluation Results<br />
The results <strong>for</strong> each load case are summarized in Table 3-1 through Table 3-6. The tables provide <strong>the</strong><br />
maximum calculated stress in <strong>the</strong> highest stressed elbow, <strong>the</strong> highest stressed nozzle, and <strong>the</strong> tee. The<br />
first three rows <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tables give <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> analyses per<strong>for</strong>med in accordance with <strong>the</strong> <strong>NRC</strong>endorsed<br />
1993 ASME Code Addenda <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> three damping values acceptable to <strong>NRC</strong>. The last two rows<br />
give <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> analyses per<strong>for</strong>med in accordance with <strong>the</strong> 1994 Addenda and <strong>the</strong> 2004 Edition<br />
which have not been endorsed by <strong>the</strong> staff. The tables provide <strong>the</strong> highest stress in each component and<br />
<strong>the</strong> stress margin (maximum stress divided by Code allowable) <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> highest stressed component. As<br />
discussed in Section 3.2, <strong>the</strong> Service Level D stress allowable is 3Sm except <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1994 Addenda<br />
analyses which used an allowable <strong>of</strong> 4.5Sm. The value <strong>of</strong> Sm provided by <strong>JNES</strong>/NUPEC is 137 MPa. The<br />
tables present <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> analyses using both piping design dimensions and as-built dimensions.<br />
In order to properly interpret <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se analyses, it should be understood that <strong>the</strong> “margins”<br />
presented in Tables 3-1 through 3-6 represent <strong>the</strong> ratios <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> highest stress in a piping system (calculated<br />
in accordance with <strong>the</strong> specific code version rules which include <strong>the</strong> stress equation, stress indices, and<br />
damping) divided by <strong>the</strong> allowable stress (defined by <strong>the</strong> specific code version). None <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> piping<br />
systems failed during a single seismic load application. The ultimate strength test US2 resulted in a<br />
fatigue failure after five applications <strong>of</strong> high level earthquake motion. There<strong>for</strong>e <strong>the</strong>se should not be<br />
interpreted as margins to failure. Instead <strong>the</strong>y should be considered minimum margins to failure or<br />
minimum Code stress margins.<br />
3.3.3.1 DM2-2 Test<br />
Maximum Code stresses and stress margins <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> DM2-2 test are presented in Table 3-1 <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> analyses<br />
that used pipe design dimensions and in Table 3-2 <strong>for</strong> analyses that used as-built dimensions. For all<br />
cases, <strong>the</strong> critical location is <strong>the</strong> elbow. It is noted that <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> design dimension case analyzed in<br />
accordance with <strong>the</strong> 1993 Code and R.G. 1.61 Rev 0 (2%) damping, <strong>the</strong> stress margin is consistent with<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>JNES</strong>/NUPEC goal <strong>of</strong> achieving 1.5 times <strong>the</strong> S2 earthquake allowable <strong>of</strong> 3Sm. Due to <strong>the</strong> relatively<br />
low excitation level, <strong>the</strong> stresses and stress margins are low and are <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e not useful indicators <strong>of</strong><br />
margins to failure. A comparison <strong>of</strong> stress margins between <strong>the</strong> design and as-built dimension cases show<br />
that as-built system stresses are much lower. This is attributed to <strong>the</strong> shift in piping frequency and <strong>the</strong><br />
thicker elbow dimensions. A comparison <strong>of</strong> stresses between <strong>the</strong> different Code Editions show that <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>NRC</strong>-endorsed 1993 Code edition provides higher margins than <strong>the</strong> 1994 or 2004 ASME Code. As<br />
expected, <strong>the</strong> 1993 Edition with 2% damping gives <strong>the</strong> highest margins followed by <strong>the</strong> 4% damping and<br />
41