scholarly journals Computational method to perform the flaw evaluation procedure as specified in the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix A. Part I. General description and background. [PWR; BWR]

1979 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. C. Cipolla
Keyword(s):  
Computational Method ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
General Description ◽  
Asme Code

Evaluation of P-T Limit Curves According to Alternative Fracture Toughness Requirements

2014 ◽  
Vol 1051 ◽  
pp. 896-901
Author(s):  
Sin Ae Lee ◽  
Sung Jun Lee ◽  
Sang Hwan Lee ◽  
Yoon Suk Chang
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Toughness ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Ductile Failure ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Limit Curve ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Temperature And Pressure ◽  
Reactor Pressure

During the heat-up and cool-down processes of nuclear power plants, temperature and pressure histories are to be maintained below the P-T limit curve to prevent the non-ductile failure of the RPV(Reactor Pressure Vessel). The ASME Code Sec. XI, App. G describe the detailed procedure for generating the P-T limit curve. The evaluation procedure is containing the evaluation methods of RTNDT using 10CFR50.61. However, recently, Alternative fracture toughness requirements were released 10CFR50.61a. Therefore, in this study, RTNDT of RPV according to the 10CFR50.61a was calculated and used for evaluation of P-T limit curve of a typical RPV under cool-down condition. As a result, it was proven that the P-T curve obtained from 10CFR50.61 is conservative because RTNDT value obtained from the alternative fracture toughness requirements are significantly low.

Technical Basis for Flaw Acceptance Criteria for Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping

2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Do Jun Shim ◽  
Nathanial Cofie ◽  
Dilipkumar Dedhia ◽  
Tim Griesbach ◽  
Kyle Amberge
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Austenitic Stainless Steel ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Correction Factors ◽  
Acceptance Criteria ◽  
Regulatory Guidance ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Tensile Data ◽  
Equivalent Factor ◽  
Technical Basis

Abstract According to the current ASME Code Section XI, IWB-3640 and Appendix C flaw evaluation procedure, cast austenitic stainless steel (CASS) piping with ferrite content (FC) less than 20% is treated as wrought stainless steel. For CASS piping with FC equal or greater than 20%, there was no flaw evaluation procedure in the ASME Code prior to the 2019 Edition. In this paper, the technical basis for the recently approved Code change containing flaw acceptance criteria for CASS piping is presented. The procedure utilizes the current rules in ASME Code Section XI, IWB 3640/Appendix C and the existing elastic-plastic correction factors (i.e., Z-factors) for other materials in the Code. The appropriate Z-factor to use for the CASS piping is determined based on the FC (using Hull's equivalent factor). Experimentally measured fully saturated fracture toughness and tensile data of the three most common grades of CASS material in the U.S. (CF3, CF8, and CF8M) were used to determine the flaw acceptance criteria in the Appendix C Code method. As described here, the method is conservative since it utilizes the fully saturated condition of CASS materials. In addition, it is simple and consistent with the current regulatory guidance on aging management of CASS piping.

Development of Analytical Evaluation Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Pipe Wall Thinning in ASME Code Section XI

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunio Hasegawa ◽  
Gery M. Wilkowski ◽  
Lee F. Goyette ◽  
Douglas A. Scarth
Keyword(s):  
Pipe Wall ◽  
Evaluation Methodology ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Analytical Evaluation ◽  
Acceptance Criteria ◽  
New Class ◽  
Wall Thinning ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Asme Code

As the worldwide fleet of nuclear power plants ages, the need to address wall thinning in pressure boundary materials becomes more acute. The 2001 ASME Code Case N-597-1, “Requirements for Analytical Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning,” provides procedures and criteria for the evaluation of wall thinning that are based on Construction Code design concepts. These procedures and criteria have proven useful for Code Class 2 and 3 piping; but, they provide relatively little flexibility for Class 1 applications. Recent full-scale experiments conducted in Japan and Korea on thinned piping have supported the development of a more contemporary failure strength evaluation methodology applicable to Class 1 piping. The ASME B&PV Code Section XI Working Group on Pipe Flaw Evaluation has undertaken the codification of new Class 1 evaluation methodology, together with the existing Code Case N-597-1 rules for Class 2 and 3 piping, as a non-mandatory Appendix to Section XI. This paper describes the current status of the development of the proposed new Class 1 piping acceptance criteria, along with a brief review of the current Code Case N-597-1 evaluation procedure in general.

Round Robin Calculations of Collapse Loads—A Torispherical Pressure Vessel Head With a Conical Transition

1997 ◽  
Vol 119 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Yamamoto ◽  
S. Asada ◽  
A. Okamoto
Keyword(s):  
Limit Analysis ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Round Robin ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Calculation Methods ◽  
Secondary Stress ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Limit Analysis Method

Round robin calculations of collapse loads for a pressure vessel were made by 16 teams in Japan. The model is composed of a cylinder and a torispherical head with a conical transition. The structure is an example in which the stress classifications specified in the ASME Code are not strictly applicable. The calculations were performed to clarify the issue of the evaluation procedure using the limit analysis method specified in the ASME Code, Sect. III, and to check the sensitivity of calculation models and programs. It is found that the stress in the knuckle region has certain characteristics of secondary stress, yet still dominates the collapse of the vessel. Using the limit analysis to prove the validity of stress classifications is recommended. The sensitivity of the calculation methods is not so significant. Therefore, it is concluded that the limit analysis can be used as a standard procedure in regulations.

Technical Basis for Proposed Fifth Revision to ASME Code Case N-513

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dylan Cimock ◽  
Eric J. Houston ◽  
Russell C. Cipolla ◽  
Robert O. McGill
Keyword(s):  
Gate Valve ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Straight Pipe ◽  
System Operation ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Valve Body ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Moderate Energy ◽  
Technical Basis

Code Case N-513 provides evaluation rules and criteria for temporary acceptance of flaws, including through-wall flaws, in moderate energy piping. The application of the Code Case is restricted to moderate energy, Class 2 and 3 systems, so that safety issues regarding short-term, degraded system operation are minimized. The first version of the Code Case was published in 1997. Since then, there have been four revisions to augment and clarify the evaluation requirements and acceptance criteria of the Code Case that have been published by ASME. The technical bases for the original version of the Code Case and the four revisions have been previously published [1, 2, and 3]. There is currently work underway to incorporate additional changes to the Code Case and this paper provides the technical basis for the changes proposed in a fifth revision. These changes include clarification for buried piping, investigation of various radii used in the Code Case, removal of the 0.1 limit on the flexibility characteristic for elbow flaw evaluation, and an update of the stress intensity factor parameters for circumferential through-wall flaws. In addition, a new flaw evaluation procedure is given for through-wall flaws in gate valve body ends. This procedure evaluates flaws in the end of the valve body as if in straight pipe. These changes and their technical bases are described in this paper. Clarifications and changes deemed editorial are not documented in this paper.

scholarly journals EVALUATION OF PROFESSION-ORIENTED FOREIGN LANGUAGE COMPETENCY OF CADETS IN COMPETENCY-BASED APPROACH

2020 ◽  
pp. 37-42
Author(s):  
M. Yu. Koroleva
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
General Description ◽  
Outcome Monitoring ◽  
Language Competency ◽  
Competency Based ◽  
Competency Evaluation

The article addresses the problem of evaluating the profession-oriented foreign language competency of cadets of a military educational establishment of higher education on the basis of the competency-based approach. The quality of education given to military specialists is an important task for any military educational organization of higher education and its chairs. To ensure a high level of training, it is necessary to organize the educational process and the competency evaluation in such a way as to create the necessary conditions for the formation of competencies required by the educational program, and also for the development of cadets' personalities. The article considers the evaluation system for the profession-oriented foreign language competency of cadets in the competency-based approach. A general description of the competency evaluation procedure is given. The proposed recommendations for making evaluation rely on the European experience in education and evaluation according to the competency-based approach. The article specifies twelve types of assignments for evaluation, which are divided into four groups, and gives a practical example of their use in the learning outcome monitoring and the midterm attestation for the foreign language discipline in a higher naval school. It is highlighted that using various types and methods of evaluation is important, and the continuous and differentiated character of such evaluation can provide feedback and ensure the implementation of the competency-based approach in foreign language learning.

Development of EPFM Procedure for Axially Flawed Pipe Using Z Factor Based on CVN

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunio Hasegawa ◽  
Katsumasa Miyazaki ◽  
Naoki Miura ◽  
Koich Kashima ◽  
Douglas A. Scarth
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Mechanics ◽  
Ductile Fracture ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Empirical Equations ◽  
Shelf Energy ◽  
Evaluation Procedures ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Semi Empirical

Evaluation procedures on an allowable axial flaw in a pipe for fully plastic fracture is provided by limit load criteria in Appendix C-5000 of the ASME Code Section XI. However, flaw evaluation for ductile fracture using EPFM (Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics) criteria is not provided for axial flaw in the Appendix. Methodology of the flaw evaluation for ductile fracture using EPFM criteria is discussing at the Working Group on Pipe Flaw Evaluation of ASME Code Section XI. Many failure experiments on axially flawed pressurized pipes made of moderate toughness materials had been performed at Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Semi-empirical equations for predicting failure stresses were developed from these experiments. This paper describes a derivation of load multiplier, Z factor, based on Charpy V notch upper shelf energy (CVN) from failure stresses for moderate toughness materials based on the experiments, and proposes a flaw evaluation procedure to determine allowable axial flaw for a ductile fractured pipe using the EPFM criteria.

Technical Basis for Flaw Acceptance Criteria for Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J. Shim ◽  
N. G. Cofie ◽  
D. Dedhia ◽  
D. O. Harris ◽  
T. J. Griesbach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Austenitic Stainless Steel ◽  
Ferrite Content ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Acceptance Criteria ◽  
Regulatory Guidance ◽  
The Us ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Tensile Data ◽  
Technical Basis

According to the current ASME Code Section XI, IWB-3640 and Appendix C flaw evaluation procedure, cast austenitic stainless steel (CASS) piping with ferrite content less than 20% is treated as wrought stainless steel. For CASS piping with ferrite content equal or greater than 20%, there is currently no flaw evaluation procedure in the ASME Code. In this paper, the technical basis for a proposed flaw acceptance criteria for CASS piping is presented. The procedure utilizes the current rules in ASME Code Section XI, IWB 3640/Appendix C and the existing elastic-plastic correction factors (i.e., Z-factors) for other materials in the Code. The appropriate Z-factor to use for the CASS piping is determined based on the ferrite content (using Hull’s equivalent factor). Experimentally measured fully saturated fracture toughness and tensile data of the three most common grades of CASS material in the US (CF3, CF8 and CF8M) were used to determine the flaw acceptance criteria in the proposed method. The proposed method is conservative since it utilizes the fully saturated condition of CASS materials. In addition, it is simple and consistent with current regulatory guidance on aging management of CASS piping.

Adaptation of RCC-M Design and Construction Rules to the Evolution of Projects Needs, Regulatory Evolutions and International Exchanges

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Marie Grandemange
Keyword(s):  
Material Properties ◽  
Present Status ◽  
International Comparisons ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Design Evaluation ◽  
Pressure Test ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Non Destructive ◽  
Code Provisions ◽  
Design And Construction

The design and construction rules for mechanical components of LWR nuclear islands (RCC-M) constantly evolve to reflect the needs of the industry with the objective to fulfill the regulatory demands. Each year, an addendum is thus prepared by Afcen. The December 2008 addendum includes in particular new grades for products procurement, evolutions on destructive and non destructive examination provisions, consideration of new editions of standards, improvements of text for an easier application. For a better consistency with regulatory demands, technical code requirements have been updated (pressure test, overpressure protection, examination requirements or material properties), and in certain cases, provisions have been shifted in non-mandatory appendices established for various regulatory contexts for a better adaptation to applications abroad. In parallel, the conditions for consistency with the European Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) and the French Nuclear Pressure Equipment regulation (ESPN Order dated December 12, 2005) have been deepened and a comparison work was done in the context of the MDEP (Multinational Design Evaluation Procedure initiative of OECD) with equivalent ASME code provisions. The paper will present the content of the 2008 addendum of RCC-M, and the present status of these two studies on regulatory conformance and international comparisons, as well as some orientations for further evolutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document