Test Method for Static Load Limit

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Gerry Ferris

Abstract Over the past 10 years inspections (site visits, boat based surveys or diver surveys) have been completed at nearly 20,000 pipeline watercourse crossings for 20 different pipeline owners. During the last 10 years there have been 721 unique locations where an exposed pipeline was found and at 213 of these locations a freespan was encountered. Only one of the freespans resulted in the failure (loss of product) of the pipeline. This record illustrates what is now become widely accepted, that pipeline exposure does not necessarily lead to pipeline failure. The record adds to this, pipeline freespan does not necessarily lead to failure. This highlights that the relevant question for “water loading caused pipeline failure” is: Does the combination of freespan length and water velocity exceed a combination that would lead to vortex induced vibration or the exceedance of the static load limit of the pipe?


Author(s):  
Gerry C. Slagis

Seismic stress limits for nuclear piping were published by the Section III code in 1994. Because of concerns on the technical bases for the rules, NRC has not approved their use. Modifications to the rules have been made in 2001. The 1994 seismic stress limits are reduced, and one type of joint now has a seismic stress limit that is less that the static load limit. A limit for seismic that is less than the limit for a static load contradicts the test data. Most of the technical concerns were valid. The 1994 rules are based on the premise that collapse is not a potential failure mode for a seismic event. However, collapse occurred in two of the EPRI component tests. Seismic margins in the component tests were overestimated. Revisions to the seismic margin data do not support the higher stress limits. A different approach has been taken to justify the 2001 rules. A probability approach is used where seismic capacity is related to a strength factor. The strength factor is based on the measured ultimate moment in the component tests. The capacity is the strength factor multiplied by a nonlinear dynamic factor. A small nonlinear dynamic factor is used because of concerns with off-resonance margin in stiff components. In contrast, the tests demonstrate large nonlinear dynamic factors. The intent of the new rules is to limit piping response to the SSE to the linear elastic range.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document