Special Seismic Problems

SPECIAL SEISMIC PROBLEMS OF HIGH
ENERGY PIPING
L. PENKA
IAGE Workshop, 2011

30.11.2011
DEFINITION AND TASK

High energy fluid systems: Fluid systems that, during normal
plant conditions are either in operation or maintained pressurized
under conditions
either or both of the following are met
maximum operation temperature exceeds 100C (200F) or
maximum operating pressure exceeds 2MPa (275 psig.)
Tasks
development of ASME Code Section III
break postulation: history and rules
ageing management: Dynamic Behavious of Piping Systems with
Local Degradation
redefinition of L LOCA: influence of SSE
30.11.2011
DEVELOPMENT OF ASME CODE Section III :

HISTORICAL MILESTONES
1915 : STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POWER PIPING
1935 : AMERICAN TENTATIVE STANDARD FOR PRESSURE
PIPING
1942 : ASA B 31.1 AMERICAN STANDARD CODE FOR PRESSURE
PIPING
1953 : REVISION OF THE 1942 CODE ASA B 31.1a 1953
TYPICAL FEATURE: ALLOWABLE STRESSES IDENTICAL
WITH BOILER CODE
1955 : REVISION OF THE 1953 CODE: B31.1 1955
PRESSURE DESIGN
30.11.2011
Minimum thiskness of pipe wall

Allowable working pressure of pipe
Only in words: sustained external loadings S h
Formulated eq. (10) for thermal expansions including i
milestone!
DEVELOPMENT OF ASME CODE SECTION III :

cont. 1
1963 issued Section III Nuclear Pressure Vessels

Design-by-analysis approach published
B 31.1 1953 not included
1969 issued USAS B31.7 Nuclear Power Plant Piping Class 1, 2

and 3
Simplified Design-by-analysis approach used for Class 1
PDo
Do
C1
C2
Mi
2t
2I
1
10
E T1 C3 Eab aTa BTB 3Sm

21
Class 2/3 nearly identical with B 31.7
1971 issued ASME Code Section III. B 31.7 included

Article NB 3600 Piping Design for Class 1
Article NB 3600 Piping Design for Class 2/3
Seismic event not included for Class 2
30.11.2011

cont. 2
1972 issued Winter Addenda of Section III.

Seismic event included
For Class 2/3 Piping following equations formulaten
For sustained loads
0.5
PDo
M Mb
0.75i a
Sh
2tn
W
For occasional loads
0.5
30.11.2011
PDo
M Mb
0.75i a
1.2 S h
2tn
W

cont. 3
Introduced eq (11) as a sum of eqs (8) and (10) in form

0.5
PD0
M
M
0.75i a 0.75i c S h S A
2tn
W
W
S A f 1.25 S h 0.25 S A
Introduced Servis Limits

normal, upset, emergency, faulted
1974 : Service Limits in 1972 Winter Addenda changed to Service
Limits A, B, C, D
1981 : introduced PRIMARY STRESS INDICES B1 and B2
INCREASED ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR SERVICE LIMITS A and B
P D
M
8
B1 max B2 A 1.5S h
2tn
W
30.11.2011

cont. 4
Pmax D
M MB
B2 A
1.8S h
2tn
W
Mc
SA
i
W
B1
or 1.5S y
9
10
Eq. (9) : allowable stresses for Level C and D increased to

Level C: 2.25Sh or 1.8S y
Level D: 3.05Sh or 2.0S y
effect of non repeated single anchor movement
M
i D 3S C
W
for Class 1 Eq. (10) has been changed to
C1
30.11.2011
P D
D
C2 M i C3 Eab aTa BTB 3Sm
2t
2I
7

cont. 5
GENERAL COMMENTS
In revision of ASME CODE Section III. Articles NB 3600 and NC 3600
after 1981 the allowable stresses have been increased
At present US NCR accepted only Revision 1992
It is evident that develpment of Class 2 Code was ahead of Class 1
After 1981 NB 3600 and NC 3600 both Articles are partly unified
introduction of B1 and B2 indices in Eq. (8) and (9) of NC 3653
30.11.2011
BREAK POSTULATION: HISTORY AND RULES

HISTORICAL DATA
1959 : US NPP SHIPPINGPORT DESIGN: MAXIMUM CREDIBLE
ACCIDENT
1975 : US NRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 3.6.2 MEB 3-1: PIPE
BREAK OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT
RG 1.46 for piping inside containment
Definition of high energy piping
1981 : EXTENSION OF MEB 3-1 TO INSIDE AND OUTSIDE PIPINGS

1987 : MEB 3-1 WENT THROUGH SOME SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES
1986 : SRP 3.6.3 LBB
2005: APPARITION PRBABILISTIC LBB
REDEFINITION OF L LOCA
30.11.2011

HISTORICAL DATA
cont. 1
1975 : SRP 3.6.2, MEB 3-1

FOR ASME CODE Section III. Class 1 Piping
in containment penetration area: breaks need not be postulated if
-
C1
2.4S m
P D
M
C 2 i C3 Eab aTa bTb 0.8
3S m
2t
W
10
The cumulative usage factor (CUF) should be less than 0.1
in aress other than containment penetration: breaks should be

postulated
-
At therminal ends
At intermediate locations where
C1
30.11.2011
2.4S m
P D
M
C2 i C3 Eab aTa bTb 0.8
3Sm
2t
W
At intermediate locations where CUF exced 0.1

10

cont. 2
If two intermediate location cannot be determinated, two highest

stress location should be selected. If the piping run has only one
change or no change of direction, only one intermediate location
should be postulated
FOR ASME Code Section III., Class 2 Piping
in contaiment penetration area: breaks need not be postulated if
PD
M MB
M
0.5 0.75i A
i i 0.81.2 S h S A
2t
W
W
in areas other than containment penetration: breaks should be
postulated
At terminal ends
30.11.2011
11

cont. 3
0.5
P D
M MB
M
0.75i A
i c 0.81.2 S h S A
2t
W
W
9 10
At two locations with at least 10% diference in stress, or if stresses

differ by less than 10%, two location separated by a change of
direction of the pipe run
At each location where breaks shall be postulated, pipe whip
restrainst shall be postulated and calculated
1986: US NRC issued Generic Letter 87-11: Relaxation in Arbitrary
Intermediate Pipe Rupture Requirements
Arbitrary intermediate pipe reptures as specified in 1975 SRP edition
for Class 1 and Class 2/3 piping are now no longer mentioned or
defined in MEB 3-1
30.11.2011
12

cont. 4
For Class 2 piping Eqs. (8) and (9) of ASME Code Section III
Article NC 3600 the stress indices B1 and B2 where introduced
and stress limits to 1.5. S h (Eq.(8)) and 1.8 S h (Eq.(9))
PIPE WHIP RESTRAINTS
Design features are based on
Displacement and bending or
Displacement and rotation
Typical transverse restaint based on displacement: coper bumpers and celluar concretering
30.11.2011
13

cont. 5
30.11.2011
Stainless steel rods: fixed
Stainless steel rods: fixed
U shape rods aroung sleeve
U shape rods without sleeve
14

cont. 6
Stainless steel rods:

pipe following U shaped rods
30.11.2011
Stainless steel rods:

pipe following U shaped rods
15

cont. 7
Attachment of stainless steel bar
to steel frame
for hinge mechanism
30.11.2011
16

cont. 8

to concrete embedment
An Experimental Study on Dynamic Behavior of

Piping Systems with Local Degradation
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention

30.11.2011
18
Purpose
Degradation of piping systems caused by Aging Effects
(Wall thinning / Cracks)
How does the piping systems

with local degradation
behave under the destructive earthquake?
An experimental research program is being conducted.

(1996 2000)
30.11.2011
19
Pipe Element Tests

Cyclic 4-point bending tests using straight pipes with degradation
Purpose : To clarify the failure mode of degraded pipes under
the high level bending loading
Piping System Tests

Shaking table tests using piping systm models with degradation
Purpose : To clarify the effect of degradation on piping

systems dynamic behavior and failure mode
30.11.2011
20
Pipe Element Tests

Specimens with Wall Thinning
Degradation : Full circumferential thinned wall (Made by machining)
Material : Carbn Steel STS410
Internal Pressure : 11MPa / 0MPa
The Figure of the Thinned Wall Specimens

t = 4.3mm for 50% wall thinning, 2.15mm for 75% wall thinning
30.11.2011
21
Failure mode of thinned wall pipes

#01 Low cycle fatigue with
ratcher deformation
Pressurized specimens with
50% of wall thinning
Hoop stress by internal pressure

at thinned wall part : 0.45 y
Circumferential cracks were

caused by cyclic bending load.
Before the bending test
Swelling by ratchet
Crack
After the bending test

30.11.2011
22

#02 Buckling and Low cycle fatigue
The 50% of thinned wall specimen
without internal pressure and water
Local buckling occurred at the thinned

wall part during cyclic loading.
Cracks caused at the bottom of
buckling deformation.
A full circumferential break was caused
(View from loading direction)
by the following a few cycles.
(View from the upper side)
30.11.2011
23

#03 Combined mode with ratchet,
low cycle fatigue and burst
Pressurized specimens with
75% of wall thinning
Hoop stress by internal pressure

at thinned wall part: 0.9 y
The wall thickness decreased from 2.15 mm
to 1.1 1.6 mm because of ratcheting.
Cracks penetrated in the circumferential direction,
and in the axial direction as well.
30.11.2011
Axial cracks
Circumferential cracks
24
Piping System Tests

3D_A01
Material: Carbon Steel STPT370
Defect type: No degradation Internal Pressure: 10 MPa
3D_C01
Material: Carbon Steel FSGP Elbow & Carbon Steel STPT370
Defect type: Wall thinning at Elbow Internal Pressure: 10 MPa
3D_D01
Material: Stainless Steel SUS304 & Carbon Steel STP370
Defect type: Partial EDM notch Internal Pressure: 8 MPa
30.11.2011
25
3-D Piping model for piping system tests
Wall thickness of Elbow1 and Elbow2 were thinned for 3D_C01

A narrow band random wave was used for the excitation tests
30.11.2011
26
Test Results of 3-D Piping System Tests

3D_A01: 2.78Hz
(Without defects)
3D_C01: 2.42Hz
(Wall thinning at Elbow)
Relation between Input Acceleration

and Response Acceleration at Elbow 3
30.11.2011
3D_D01: 2.79Hz
(Partial EDM notch
at straight pipe)
Relation between Input Acceleration

and Range of Elbow Deformation Angle
27
Test Results of 3-D Piping System Tests

Failure mode
3D_A01: 20 times excitation

in elastic plastic level
Fatigue cracks in the longitudinal direction at

the side surgace of Elbow1
3D_C01: 6 times excitation

in elastic plastic level
30.11.2011
28
Conclusion
The failure mode of thinned wall pipe changes according to the
condition of wall thinning and internal pressure.
Wall thinning at elbows in a piping system affects its natural
frequency, reduces the strength, and increases the deformation
of the piping system. A small crack has little or no influence
on the piping systems vibration characteristic.
The failure mode of 3-D piping models with and without
wall thinning was low-cycle fatigue failure at an elbow.
30.11.2011
29
REDEFINITION OF LARGE LOCA

US NRC NUREG 1829, Vol. 1
Estimating Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) Frequencies
Through the Elicitation Process
What is elicitation process?
Results of the elicitation process
30.11.2011
30
BACKGROUND
SOLUTION OF MANY MECHANICAL PROBLEMS (DESIGN,
INTEGRITY) IS COMPLICATED
ADVANTAGES OF ELICITATION APPROACH
ESTABLISHED PROCESS USED US NRC (NUREG/CR-5424, US NRC,

1990)
NO DEVELOP WORK NEEDED
USABLE QUICKLY
USED BEFORE FOR COMPLEX PROBLEMS WITH LITTLE DATA

ABLE TO CONSOLIDATE AND QUANTIFY VARIOUS DATA STREAMS
SERVICE HISTORY
PFM INSIGHTS
EXPERT KNOWLEDGE ON PROBLEMS OF INTEREST
30.11.2011
31
PANEL SELECTION
POTENTIAL PANEL MEMBERS MAY BE SEEKED WITHIN
INDUSTRY
ACADEMIA
NATIONAL LABORATORIES
CONTRACTING AGENCIES
INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES
30.11.2011
32
FLOWCHART OF THE OVERALL ELICITAION

PROCESS
30.11.2011
33
ELICITATION TRAINING
CONSTRUCTING THE PANEL WITH EXPERTS FROM ALL
RELEVANT TECHNICAL AREAS AND
INSTITUTIONAL/ORGANISATIONAL AFFILIATIONS
CONDUCTING ELICITATION TRAINING TO IDENTIFY POSSIBLE
SOURCES OF BIAS AND CONDUCT AN EXERCISE INVOLVING
ALMANAC-TYPE QUESTIONS WITH KNOWN ANSWERS
PROVIDING OPERATING EXPERIENCE DATA AND BASE CASE
SCENARIOS FOR ANCHORING AND VALIDATING RESPONSES
TO THE PANEL
FORMULATING THE ELICITATION QUESTIONS TO AVOID

RESPONSE BIAS
CONDUCTING INDIVIDUAL ELICITATION QUESTIONS TO
ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF GROUP DYNAMICS
INFLUENCING PANELLIST RESPONSES
30.11.2011
34
ELICITATION TRAINING cont. 1

THE ELICITATION PROCESS HAS THREE SPECIFIC PURPOSES
TO DISCUSS SOURCES OF BIAS IN THE ELICITATION
PROCEDURE
TO FAMILIARISE THE PANELLIST WITH THE TYPE OF
RESPONSES WHICH THEY WILL BE ASKED TO MAKE
TO PROVIDE THE PANELLISTS WITH PRACTICE IN MAKING
ELICITATION RESPONSES USING TRAINING EXERCISE
30.11.2011
35

MOTIVATION BIASES
SOCIAL PRESSURE (LOBBING)
MISINTERPRETATION IF THE ELICITATION QUESTION STRUCTURE
IS INCONSISTENT WITH A PANELLISTS THOUGHT PROCESS
MISINTERPRETATION DUE TO INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT
THE DATA OR THE MODELS USED TO ANALYZE THE ISSUE
WITHFUL THINKING AS THE RESULT OF INSTITUTIONAL BIAS
30.11.2011
36

COGNITIVE BIASES
INCONSISTENCY DUE TO MULTIPLE ISSUES, ASSUMPTIONS,
DEFINITIONS OR ALGORITHMS INVOLVED
PANELLIST MAKES A RELATIVE COMPARISON TO A BASE CASE
AND DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY ADJUST HIS RESPONSE WITH
RESPECT TO THE BASE CASE ESTIMATES
PANELLISTS OPINION IS OVERLY INFLUENCED BY THE RECENT
OCCURENCE OF A DRAMATIC EVENT
UNDERESTIMATING OF UNCERTAINTY
30.11.2011
37
TRAINING EXERCISE
CONDUCTED AS A PART OF FIRST GROUP MEETING
CONSISTED OF ASKING THE PANELLISTS A NUMBER OF
QUANTITATIVE QUESTIONS WITH KNOWN ANSWERS BUT IN A
SUBJECT AREA WITH WHICH THEY ARE RELATIVELY
UNFAMILIAR
THE PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTIONS
TO ACCUSTOM THE PANELLISTS TO THE TYPE OF RESPONSES
THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IN THEIR ELICITATIONS
TO DEMONSTRATED TO THE PANELLISTS THAT ALTHOUGH
INDIVIDUALLY MAY BE HIGHLY UNCERTAIN ABOUT THEIR
RESPONDSED, THE GROUP RESPONSE IS CLOSER TO THE
CORRECT ANSWER THAN THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES.
30.11.2011
38
INDIVIDUAL ELICITATIONS
EACH PANEL MEMBER HAS CERTAIN TIME (IN MONTHS) TO
PREPARE THEIR ELICITATION RESPONSES
DURING THIS TIME PERIOD INDIVIDUAL ELICITATION SESSIONS
ARE CONDUCTED SEPARATELY BETWEEN EACH PANEL
MEMBER AND THE FACILITATION TEAM
THE OBJECTIVES FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ELICITATION SESSIONS
IDENTIFY ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE QUANTITATIVE
AND QUALITATIVE RESPONSE
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION TO THE ELICITATION
QUESTIONS, IF NECESSARY
IDENTIFY NECESSARY FOLLOW-ON WORK FOR EACH PANEL
MEMBER
30.11.2011
39
PRACTICAL APPLICATION TRANSITION

BREAK SIZE ELICITATION STRUCTURE
30.11.2011
40
MATERIAL AGEING DEGRADATION

MECHANISMS
30.11.2011
41
REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL FAILURE

MODES
30.11.2011
42
LOADING HISTORY VARIABLES
30.11.2011
43
CONCLUSIONS
EXPERT ELICITATION IS FORMAL PROCESS FOR PROVIDING
QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES OF THE FREQUENCIES OF
PHYSICAL PHENOMENA WHEN THE REQUIRED DATA IS
SPARSE AND WHEN THE SUBJECT IS TOO COMPLEX TO
ADEQUATE MODEL
THE PROCESS CONSISTED OF A NUMBER OF STEPS

THE PROJECT STAFF IDENTIFIED MANY OF ISSUES TO BE
EVALUATED THROUGH A PILOT ELICITATION
THE PANEL MEMBERS ARE SELECTED FOR THE FORMAL
ELICITATION
30.11.2011
44
CONCLUSIONS cont. 1
THE PROJECT STAFF GATHERS BACKGROUND MATERIAL AND
PREPARES AN INITIAL FORMULATION OF THE TECHNICAL ISSUES
AT THE INITIAL MEETING THE PANEL DISCUSES THE ISSUES AND
DEVELOPED A FINAL FORMULATION FOR THE ELICITATION
STRUCTURE
AFTER INITIAL MEETING THE STAFF PREPARE A DRAFT
ELICITATION QUESTIONNAIRE AND ITERATED WITH THE PANEL TO
DEVELOPED FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE
THE PANELLISTS DEVELOP THEIR INITIAL ESTIMATES
A SECOND MEETING IS HELD WITH ENTIRE PANEL TO REVIEW THE
ELICITATION QUESTIONS AND TO FINALIZE THE FORMULATION OF
REMAINING TECHNICAL ISSUES
AT HOME INSTITUTIONS THE PANEL MEMBERS PERFORMED
ANALYSES AND COMPUTATIONS TO DEVELOPED ANSWERS TO
THE ELICITATION QUESTIONNAIRE
30.11.2011
45
CONCLUSIONS cont. 2
IN THE CASE OF PROBABILISTIC QUESTIONS THE INDIVIDUAL
AND GROUP ESTIMATES FOR THE MEANS, MEDIANS, 5TH AND
95TH PERCENTILES OF THE EVENT UNDER EVALUATION
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS SHALL BE CALCULATED
THE STAFF DEFINE PRINCIPAL ASSUMPTIONS AND CHOICES
THE EXPERT ELICITATION PROCESS US NRC USED TO
EVALUATE REACTOR RISK (NUREG-1150)
DEVELOP SEISMIC HAZARD CURVES (NUREG/CR-6372)
ASSESS THE PERFORMANCE OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE
REPOSITORIES (NUREG/CR-5411)
30.11.2011
46
CONCLUSIONS - RESULTS
DEFINITION OF THE TRANSITION BREAK SIZE:
Is a break of area equal to the cross-sectional flow area of the inside

diametr of specified piping for a specific reactor
The specified piping for a PWR is the largest piping attached to
the reactor coolant system
For BWR is the feed water line inside containment or RHR
system inside containment
TBS for PWRs : 12 to 14 inch = 30.5 to 35.6 cm
TBS for BWR : 20 inch = 50.8 cm
QUESTION: CAN SSE INFLUENCET TBS?
30.11.2011
47
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE

TRANSITION BREAK SIZE
Approach and Key Steps for Unflawed Pipe Evaluation:
ACC / SSE PGA
Approach and Key Steps for Unflawed Pipe Evaluation; = ACC/SSEPGA

30.11.2011
48
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE TRANSITION

BREAK SIZE
cont. 1
Example of the Seismic Hazard Curves
30.11.2011
49

cont. 2
Factor of Safety
THE GENERALIZED FORM OF THE FACTOR OF SAFETY IS AS
FOLLOWS
AC F AMVZ
F Fc Frs
Ac , F
LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION, LOGARITHMIC

STANDARD DEVIATIONS
Fc . Capacity factor
STRUCTURE RESPONSE Frs FSS Fgmth FSSI Fincoh Fd Fm Fmc Fec Fnl
PIPING, EQUIPMENT, COMPONENTS
F Frs Fre Fc
Fre Fess Fd Fem Fean Fmc Fec Fenl
SF = 1/F
30.11.2011
50

cont. 3
Estimates of Normalized Stress Ratios and Probability of

Exceedance
30.11.2011
....................
....................
..
..
4,1 E-4
....................
0,102
1,0
Value)/Sm
..
1,21 E-3
(N+Seismic
....................
0,051
0,5
..
..
m s-2
Probability of
Exceedance
=
A/MVZPG
....................
Acceleration
....................
Acceleration
Corrected
Seismic
stresses
x SF x SSE
..
Hazard Curve for Plant of Interest Probability
51

cont. 4
Probability of exceedance versus maximum normal + seismic

stress
30.11.2011
52

cont. 5
CONCLUSIONS
The US NCR has been considering revision of the regulatory

requirements for the ECCS
State of the art: ECCS shall be sized to provide adequate makeup water
to compensate LLOCA
Concept of the transition break size proposed
Methodology of evaluation of seismic effects presented
30.11.2011
53
Thank you for your attention
www.ujv.cz
30.11.2011
54

Special Seismic Problems

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Special Seismic Problems

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SPECIAL SEISMIC PROBLEMS OF HIGH

IAGE Workshop, 2011

DEFINITION AND TASK

DEVELOPMENT OF ASME CODE Section III :

Minimum thiskness of pipe wall

DEVELOPMENT OF ASME CODE SECTION III :

1963 issued Section III Nuclear Pressure Vessels

1969 issued USAS B31.7 Nuclear Power Plant Piping Class 1, 2

E T1 C3 Eab aTa BTB 3Sm

Class 2/3 nearly identical with B 31.7

1971 issued ASME Code Section III. B 31.7 included

DEVELOPMENT OF ASME CODE SECTION III :

1972 issued Winter Addenda of Section III.

For sustained loads

For occasional loads

DEVELOPMENT OF ASME CODE SECTION III :

Introduced eq (11) as a sum of eqs (8) and (10) in form

Introduced Servis Limits

DEVELOPMENT OF ASME CODE SECTION III :

Eq. (9) : allowable stresses for Level C and D increased to

DEVELOPMENT OF ASME CODE SECTION III :

BREAK POSTULATION: HISTORY AND RULES

1981 : EXTENSION OF MEB 3-1 TO INSIDE AND OUTSIDE PIPINGS

BREAK POSTULATION: HISTORY AND RULES

1975 : SRP 3.6.2, MEB 3-1

The cumulative usage factor (CUF) should be less than 0.1

in aress other than containment penetration: breaks should be

At intermediate locations where

At intermediate locations where CUF exced 0.1

BREAK POSTULATION: HISTORY AND RULES

If two intermediate location cannot be determinated, two highest

BREAK POSTULATION: HISTORY AND RULES

At two locations with at least 10% diference in stress, or if stresses

BREAK POSTULATION: HISTORY AND RULES

BREAK POSTULATION: HISTORY AND RULES

Stainless steel rods: fixed

Stainless steel rods: fixed

U shape rods aroung sleeve

U shape rods without sleeve

BREAK POSTULATION: HISTORY AND RULES

Stainless steel rods:

Stainless steel rods:

BREAK POSTULATION: HISTORY AND RULES

Attachment of stainless steel bar

Attachment of stainless steel bar

for hinge mechanism

BREAK POSTULATION: HISTORY AND RULES

Attachment of stainless steel bar

An Experimental Study on Dynamic Behavior of

National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention

How does the piping systems

An experimental research program is being conducted.

Pipe Element Tests

Piping System Tests

Purpose : To clarify the effect of degradation on piping

Pipe Element Tests

The Figure of the Thinned Wall Specimens

Failure mode of thinned wall pipes

Hoop stress by internal pressure

Circumferential cracks were

Before the bending test

After the bending test

Failure mode of thinned wall pipes

Local buckling occurred at the thinned