Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of RPV according to alternative fracture toughness requirements

  • Lee, Sin-Ae (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Lee, Sang-Hwan (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Chang, Yoon-Suk (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University)
  • Received : 2014.12.11
  • Accepted : 2015.02.13
  • Published : 2015.03.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recently, US NRC revised fracture toughness requirements as 10CFR50.61a to reduce the conservatism of 10CFR50.61. However, unlike previous studies relating to the initial regulation, structural integrity evaluations based on the alternative regulation are not sufficient. In the present study, PTS and P-T limit curve evaluations were carried out by using both regulations and resulting data were compared. With regard to the PTS evaluation, the results obtained from the alternative requirements were satisfied with the criterion whereas those obtained from the initial requirements did not meet the criterion. Also, with regard to the P-T limit curve evaluation, operating margin by 10CFR50.61a was greater than that by 10CFR50.61.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Grant : 원자력 지식계승 인재양성 사업팀

References

  1. ABAQUS version 6.13 (2013), ABAQUS Standard/User's Manual, Simulia Inc.
  2. ASME (2007), Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Fracture Toughness Criteria for Protection against Failure, Appendix G.
  3. Chen, M., Lu, F., Wang, R. and Ren, A. (2014), "Structural integrity assessment of the reactor pressure vessel under the pressurized thermal shock loading", Nucl. Eng. Des., 272, 84-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.01.021
  4. Chou, H.W. and Huang, C.C. (2014), "Effects of fracture toughness curves of ASME section XI- Appendix G on a reactor pressure vessel under pressure-temperature limit operation", Nucl. Eng. Des., 280, 404- 412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.09.002
  5. Dickson, T.L., Fochr, E. and Kirk, M. (2010), "Review of proposed methodology for a risk-informed relaxation to ASME Section XI - Appendix G", Proceedings of ASME 2010 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference, PVP2010-25010 in CD-ROM, Bellevue, Washington, USA.
  6. Dickson, T.L., Yin, S.J., Kirk, M. and Chou, H.W. (2011), "Derivation of the new pressurized thermal shock screening criteria", Proceedings of ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference, PVP2011-57008 in CD-ROM, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  7. Gonzalez-Albuixech, V.F., Qian, G. and Niffenegger, M. (2014), "Integrity analysis of reactor pressure vessels subjected to pressurized thermal shocks by XFEM", Nucl. Eng. Des., 275, 336-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.04.038
  8. Huang, C.C., Chou, H.W., Chen, B.Y., Liu, R.F. and Lin, H.C. (2012), "Probabilistic fracture analysis for boiling water reactor pressure vessels subjected to low temperature over-pressure event", Annal. Nucl. Energy, 43, 61-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2011.12.028
  9. Jang, C.H. (2002), "Construction of the P-T limit curve for the nuclear reactor pressure vessel using influence coefficient methods: cooldown curve", J. Mech. Sci. Tech., 26(3), 505-513.
  10. Jhung, M.J., Choi, Y.H. and Chang, Y.S. (2011), "Comparison of vessel failure probabilities during PTS for Korean nuclear power plants", Struct. Eng. Mech., 37(3), 257-265. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2011.37.3.257
  11. Jhung, M.J., Park, Y.W. and Lee, J.B. (1997), "Integrity evaluation of Kori 1 reactor vessel for Rancho Seco transient", J. KSME, 21(7), 1089-1096.
  12. KINS (2008), Reactor Probabilistic Integrity Evaluation (R-PIE) Code: User's Guide, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, Daejeon.
  13. Lee, T.J., Choi, J.B., Kim, Y.J. and Park, Y.W. (2002), "A parametric study on pressure-temperature limit curve using 3D finite element analyses", Nucl. Eng. Des., 214, 73-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-5493(02)00016-X
  14. Park, S.Y., Kim, J.Y. and Kim, T.W. (2010), "Evaluation of P-T limit curve for reactor pressure vessel using finite element analysis", The KSME Fall Annual Conference, Jeju, Korea.
  15. Qian, G. and Niffenegger, M. (2013a), "Integrity analysis of a reactor pressure vessel subjected to pressurized thermal shocks by considering constraint effect", Eng. Fract. Mech., 112-113, 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2013.09.009
  16. Qian, G. and Niffenegger, M. (2013b), "Procedures, methods and computer codes for the probabilistic assessment of reactor pressure vessels subjected to pressurized thermal shocks", Nucl. Eng. Des., 258, 35- 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2013.01.030
  17. Qian, G., Gonzalez-Albuixech, V.F. and Niffenegger, M. (2014), "Probabilistic assessment of a reactor pressure vessel subjected to pressurized thermal shocks by using crack distributions", Nucl. Eng. Des., 270, 312-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2013.12.062
  18. Qian, G. and Niffenegger, M. (2014), "Deterministic and probabilistic analysis of a reactor pressure vessel subjected to pressurized thermal shocks", Nucl. Eng. Des., 273, 381-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.03.032
  19. Ren, A., Lu, F., Chen, M. and Wu, H. (2013), "Influence of temperature related parameters on P-T limit curves for RPV", J. Mech. Strength, 35(4), 454-459.
  20. Song, D.S. and Yoo, S.S. (2009), "LTOP evaluation for continued operation for NPP", The KSME Fall Annual Conference, Pyeongchang, Gangwon, Korea.
  21. US NRC (1985), Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events, 10CFR50.61, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
  22. US NRC (1987), Format and Content of Plant-specific Pressurized Thermal Shock Analysis Reports for Pressurized Water Reactor, Regulatory Guide 1.154, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
  23. US NRC (1988), Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials, Regulatory Guide 1.99, Rev.2, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
  24. US NRC (2010), Alternative Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events, 10CFR50.61a, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

Cited by

  1. Direct and indirect methods for determination of mode I fracture toughness using PFC2D vol.20, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2017.20.1.039
  2. Experimental and numerical investigation of the effect of sample shapes on point load index vol.13, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2017.13.6.1045
  3. The discrete element method simulation and experimental study of determining the mode I stress-intensity factor vol.66, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2018.66.3.379
  4. The effect of ball size on the hollow center cracked disc (HCCD) in Brazilian test vol.22, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2018.22.4.373
  5. Numerical simulation of shear mechanism of concrete specimens containing two coplanar flaws under biaxial loading vol.22, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2018.22.4.459
  6. Numerical simulation of the effect of bedding layer geometrical properties on the shear failure mechanism using PFC3D vol.22, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2018.22.5.611
  7. Investigation of shear behavior of soil-concrete interface vol.23, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2019.23.1.081
  8. Relationship between point load index and mode II fracture toughness of granite vol.28, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2021.28.1.025