Probabilistic Leak-Before-Break Using the R6 Procedure

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Gill
Keyword(s):  
2015 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 712-718 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuming Lv ◽  
Shilei Li ◽  
Hailong Zhang ◽  
Yanli Wang ◽  
Zhaoxi Wang ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Ki Woo Nam ◽  
Kotoji Ando ◽  
Sakai Yuzuru ◽  
Nobukazu Ogura

1986 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 337-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Grüter ◽  
H. Zeibig ◽  
B.Percie du Sert ◽  
S. Bhandari
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Peter Gill ◽  
John Sharples ◽  
Chris Aird

This study is focussed on establishing more simplified Leak-before-Break (LbB) guidance for inclusion into Section III.11 of the R6 procedure. The approach adopted has involved the development of a universal software tool for LbB simplified assessments which can be used to perform initial scoping calculations to demonstrate typical LbB cases. It is envisaged that this simplified methodology will enable plant assessment engineers to be more informed on which sites on plant are likely to have LbB successfully applied and to be able to undertake LbB assessments in a more simplistic way than is currently available. Using the developed software tool, a range of LbB calculations for different cracks and loading conditions have been performed to provide guidance on where LbB is more likely to be applied on plant. Loading conditions include primary and secondary stresses, where through-wall changes have been accounted for. The pipe geometries included in this study have been defined by the inner radius and the wall thickness, calculated by minimum pipe thickness required according to meet the design rules of ASME III. The pipe inner radius varies from 40mm to 200mm (80mm to 400mm inner diameter (ID)). All pipe outer diameters are less than 0.5m. All cracks considered in this study are through-wall and circumferential. Pipe material properties are chosen to be broadly representative of an Austenitic Stainless Steel, where the fracture toughness varies from 100 to 180MPa√m and the yield stress is 150MPa.


Author(s):  
Bert Kroes ◽  
Edmond Gobert ◽  
Xavier Delhaye ◽  
Peter Devolder ◽  
Michel Sonville

The Doel 1 and 2 PWR Nuclear Power Stations are the oldest commercially operating units in Belgium and the last to replace their two Steam Generators. The Doel 2 Steam Generators were replaced in 2004 and those of Doel 1 will be replaced late 2009. The replacement poses a particular challenge as these are the only stations in Belgium requiring the creation of primary and secondary containment opening for the SG exchange operation. Other construction challenges result from the a-typical SG support configuration which dates from the period well before the more or less standardized support configuration as used for later PWR units. The current paper discusses the construction approaches selected to facilitate the exchange operation and to minimize the outage duration and radiation worker exposure. The main particularities of the construction effort concern the secondary containment opening and closing using a structural formwork assembly, the use of containment platforms hanging inside the primary containment allowing for parallel primary and secondary containment reconstruction and the de-activation of some of the primary coolant piping and SG restraints following the licensing acceptance of the Leak Before Break concept for the primary piping. The specific construction options that made the Doel 2 replacement a success will be presented in this paper.


2015 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 369-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
X.B. Ren ◽  
B. Nyhus ◽  
H.L. Lange ◽  
M. Hauge

1989 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. Mukherjee ◽  
J. J. Szy Slow Ski ◽  
V. Chexal ◽  
D. M. Norris ◽  
N. A. Goldstein ◽  
...  

For much of the high-energy piping in light water reactor systems, fracture mechanics calculations can be used to assure pipe failure resistance, thus allowing the elimination of excessive rupture restraint hardware both inside and outside containment. These calculations use the concept of leak-before-break (LBB) and include part-through-wall flaw fatigue crack propagation, through-wall flaw detectable leakage, and through-wall flaw stability analyses. Performing these analyses not only reduces initial construction, future maintenance, and radiation exposure costs, but also improves the overall safety and integrity of the plant since much more is known about the piping and its capabilities than would be the case had the analyses not been performed. This paper presents the LBB methodology applied at Beaver Valley Power Station—Unit 2 (BVPS-2); the application for two specific lines, one inside containment (stainless steel) and the other outside containment (ferritic steel), is shown in a generic sense using a simple parametric matrix. The overall results for BVPS-2 indicate that pipe rupture hardware is not necessary for stainless steel lines inside containment greater than or equal to 6-in. (152-mm) nominal pipe size that have passed a screening criteria designed to eliminate potential problem systems (such as the feedwater system). Similarly, some ferritic steel line as small as 3-in. (76-mm) diameter (outside containment) can qualify for pipe rupture hardware elimination.


2017 ◽  
pp. 625-630
Author(s):  
R. Jiang ◽  
D. Weerasinghe ◽  
C. Zhang ◽  
X.L. Zhao ◽  
J. Kodikara ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Claude Faidy

Based on ASME Boilers and Pressure Vessels Code the major fracture mechanic analysis is limited to protection of class 1 components to brittle fracture. All the Operators of future plants have to enlarge the scope of these analyses to different concepts, at design or operation stage: - brittle and ductile analysis of hypothetical large flaw - leak before break approach - break exclusion concept - incredibility of failure of high integrity components - end of fabrication acceptable defect - in-service inspection performance - acceptable standards in operation - Long Term Operation (LTO) All these requirements needs a procedure, an analysis method with material properties and criteria. After a short overview of each topic, the paper will present how RCC-M, RSE-M French Codes and ASME III and XI take care of all these new modern regulatory requirements.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document