Scribd
Upload
109 views6 pages

The Evolution of ASME Pipe Codes

The document traces the evolution of pipe stress equations in ASME nuclear codes from the pre-1955 era which provided rules of good design practice without quantitative criteria, to the modern era which incorporates factors like stress intensification, fatigue analysis using (S,N) curves, elastic finite element analysis, and plasticity corrections. Key developments include the 1955 introduction of stress intensification factors, the 1963 adoption of fatigue design and finite element analysis from nuclear vessels codes, the 1969 introduction of stress indices to avoid costly component-level FEA for piping, and revisions to seismic stress equations informed by extensive shake table testing programs in the 1980s and 1990s. Current research focuses on corrosion fatigue life and seismic criteria.

Uploaded by

Luis Ortiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
109 views6 pages

The Evolution of ASME Pipe Codes

The document traces the evolution of pipe stress equations in ASME nuclear codes from the pre-1955 era which provided rules of good design practice without quantitative criteria, to the modern era which incorporates factors like stress intensification, fatigue analysis using (S,N) curves, elastic finite element analysis, and plasticity corrections. Key developments include the 1955 introduction of stress intensification factors, the 1963 adoption of fatigue design and finite element analysis from nuclear vessels codes, the 1969 introduction of stress indices to avoid costly component-level FEA for piping, and revisions to seismic stress equations informed by extensive shake table testing programs in the 1980s and 1990s. Current research focuses on corrosion fatigue life and seismic criteria.

Uploaded by

Luis Ortiz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Evolution of Pipe Stress Equations in the

ASME Nuclear Codes (and where we are


today)
By: George Antaki Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Becht Nuclear

The Pre-1955 Era

Until 1955, the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes, and the ASME B31
Pressure Piping code provided rules of good design practice with
quantitative criteria for pressure design. For example, quoting from ASME
VIII Rules for the Construction of Unfired Pressure Vessels Section VIII A. S. M.
E. Boiler Construction Code, 1927:

U-20. For Internal Pressure. The maximum allowable working pressure on


the shell of a pressure vessel shall be determined by the strength of the
weakest course, computed from the thickness of the plate, the efficiency of
the longitudinal joint, the inside diameter of the course, and the maximum
allowable unit working stress.
(S×t×E)/R = maximum allowable working pressure

Where

S = maximum allowable unit working stress in lb. per sq. in.

= 11,000 lb. per sq. in. for steel plate stamped 55,000 lb. per sq. in., 10,000 lb.
per sq. in. for steel plate stamped less than 55,0-00 lb. per sq. in., and
9,000 lb. per sq. in. for material used in seamless shells.

t = minimum thickness of shell plates in weakest course, inches.

E = efficiency of riveted longitudinal joint, per cent.

R = inside radius of the weakest course of the shell, in., provided the
thickness of the shell does not exceed 10 per cent of the radius. If the
thickness is over 10 per cent of the radius, the outer radius shall be used.

Markl’s 1955 Breakthrough

The 1955 stress equation introduced the concept of “stress intensification


factors”, as part of piping flexibility stress analysis, which at the time was
implemented mostly through charts. The B31.1 1955 flexibility stress equation
reflected the experimental work conducted by by Markl and George on full -
size pipe fittings and joints (tees, butt welds, flange joints, etc.). Quoting
from Piping-Flexibility Analysis, by A. R. C. Markl, presented in 1953 at a joint
session of the Power, Applied Mechanics, Heat Transfer, Safety, Metals
Engineering, and Petroleum Divisions, ASME:

(b) The expansion stresses shall be combined in accordance with the


following formula

SE=√(〖Sb〗2+4〖St〗2 )

Where

Sb = I Mb /Z = resultant bending stress, psi

S, = Mt/2Z = torsional stress, psi …

i = stress-intensification factor …
(c) The maximum computed expansion stress, S E shall not exceed the
allowable stress, S A, where

SA = f(1.25 Sc+0.5 Sh)”

The Advent of Elastic FEA and the (S,N) Fatigue Curves

The first Nuclear Vessels code was published in 1963. It included fatigue
design using rules using stress-cycles (S,N) curves. The new ASME III (S,N)
fatigue curves for nuclear vessels were based on the work of Bernie Langer
and others. The 1963 Code relied on elastic finite element stress analysis of
nuclear vessel components to calculate the stress intensities that would be
used to enter the (S,N) curves and obtain a fatigue usage factor. The 1963
Nuclear Vessels code introduced the concept of shakedown to elastic
action as a pre-condition to fatigue analysis. Shakedown was achieved by
limiting the primary-plus-secondary stress intensity to 3S m. ASME III Nuclear
Vessels also permitted shakedown to be demonstrated by plastic analysis,
without specifying the method of plastic analysis. For 1963, plastic analysis
was a bold option since few engineers had this numerical capability. To
quote from ASME III Nuclear Vessels, 1963:

N-417.5(b)(2) In lieu of satisfying the specific requirements [ primary-plus-


secondary stress intensity limit of 3S m ] at a specific location, the structural
action is calculated on a plastic basis and the design shall be considered
to be acceptable if shakedown occurs, as opposed to continuing
deformation, and if the deformations which occur prior to shakedown
exceed specified limits.

The Piping Stress Indices to Minimize Costly FEA

In 1969 the ANSI B31.7 Code for Nuclear Power Piping was published. It
introduced new stress equations for Class 1 piping systems, whereas Class
2 and 3 piping systems were referred back to B31.1. The B31.7 code wanted
to apply the same (S,N) curve as ASME III but without having to perform FEA
on every pipe fitting and component. To quote from the Draft USA Standard
B31.7, 1968 “Design Philosophy”:
Application of the A.SME Nuclear Vessels Code design philosophy to piping
systems presents different problems than application of that philosophy to
nuclear pressure vessels in two aspects.

• First,pressure vessels for nuclear power generation typically


represent a large investment and an extensive stress analysis
thereof represents a relatively small portion of the total cost of the
vessel. In contrast, a typical piping system will include many
different piping components, each of which individually represents
a relatively small investment. The detailed stress analysis of these
piping components, however, can be quite costly.
• The second aspect is that, because of the complex shapes involved
in some piping components (e.g., straight tees), an accurate
theoretical stress analysis is difficult and recourse to experimental
analysis may be necessary.

The objective of avoiding costly FEA of piping components, for a multitude


of thermal transients, was achieved by using “stress indices” applied to
pressures, moments, and temperature gradients. A second important
novelty in B31.7 Nuclear Power Piping, compared to ASME III Nuclear Vessels,
was the introduction of a plasticity correction factor Ke. Whereas ASME III
permitted fatigue analysis using plastic strains (as quoted above), B31.7
provided the formulas for a plastic-equivalency by applying a plastic
correction factor Ke to the peak stress intensity, before entering the (S,N)
curve. The origin of the K factor can be found in “Plastic Fatigue Analysis of
Pressure Components,” by S.W. Tagart, presented at the ASME Joint
Conference of the Petroleum and the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division,
Dallas TX, September 1968. Paper No. 68-PVP-3.

The Merger of 1971

It is in 1971 that nuclear piping was transferred from B31.7 to ASME III, which
also added nuclear pumps and valves, to become ASME III Nuclear
Components. Technically, not much changed as B31.7 Class 1 became ASME
III NB-3600 Class 1. But for Class 2 and 3, the primary stress equation was
introduced for the analysis of seismic and other postulated loads such as
fluid transients. The new ASME III Class 2 and 3 primary stress equation had
the following form, where “k” was a function of the Service Level of the load
(normal, upset, emergency, faulted; later changed to Service Levels A, B, C,
and D). This is the most common piping design equations in the US nuclear
power industry, as more and more nuclear plants were being designed and
constructed in that period.

(PD)/(4t)+0.75i M/Z ≤ k Sh

The 1981 Class 2 and 3 Stress Indices

In 1981, the Class 2 and 3 stress intensification factor 0.75i was replaced by
the stress index B 2 to better align itself with Class 1 and the prevention of
failure by structural instability or buckling under large seismic or fluid
transient loads. The replacement of 0.75i by B 2 is best described in
NUREG/CR-0261 Evaluation Of The Plastic Characteristics of Piping Products
in Relation to ASME Code Criteria by E. C. Rodabaugh and S. E. Moore, 1978;
and NUREG/CR-3243 Comparisons of ASME Code Fatigue Evaluation
Methods for Nuclear Class 1 Piping with Class 2 or 3 Piping, by E. C.
Rodabaugh, 1983.

(PD)/(4t)+0.75i M/Z ≤ k Sh→B1 (PD)/(2t)+B2 M/Z ≤k Sh

The New Seismic Stress Equations of 1994

In the period 1985-1988 EPRI and NRC sponsored a comprehensive seismic


shake table test program of piping systems and 41 pipe components. This
program was documented in a five-volume report entitled Piping and
Fitting Dynamic Reliability Program, EPRI TR-102792, published in 1994. The
seismic shake table tests indicated that failure of piping systems was
primarily caused by fatigue, and by fatigue ratcheting where high
pressure-induced hoop stresses were superimposed to the seismic
stresses. These tests lead to the introduction of an alternative set of stress
equations and limits for what was then labeled reversing dynamic loads
(i.e. seismic, and building-filtered BWR transients, but not waterhammers).
The alternative for reversing dynamic loads consists mainly of replacing
B2 by B2’ which is lower than B 2 for some fittings, a relaxation of limits on
anchor motion stresses, additional limits on deadweight stresses, and new
limits on anchor motion forces. These changes evolved as a result of the US
NRC review and comments, and were finalized and approved, 12 years later,
in 10CFR50.55(a) for the 2006 addenda of ASME III Div.1.

Where we are Today – 2017

Much of the international research in nuclear piping systems centers on the


effects of corrosion on the fatigue life of nuclear piping components, and
the influence of environmental effects on life extension and in-service
inspections of nuclear plant piping systems. These efforts are best
captured in the US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.207, Guidelines for Evaluating
Fatigue Analyses Incorporating the Life Reduction of Metal Components
due to the Effects of the Light-Water Reactor Environment for New Reactors.

In the area of seismic design of a piping system, there is an international


collaborative effort, sponsored by the OECD (Organization for Economic
Co-Operation and Development), Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), and the
Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI) to re-visit, and
improve where necessary, the seismic design criteria of nuclear power
plants. In light of past and more recent shake table tests in various
countries, the seismic performance of piping systems in nuclear power
plants during recent large earthquakes should be reviewed.

Have a question or would like more information? You may post to this
blog or click the link below for more help.

Request Info
Share This Article:

Tags: ASME Code, Equations, NRC, Nuclear, Piping

You might also like