See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267612906

Comparison of German KTA and ASME Nuclear

Design Codes for Class 1, 2, 3 Components and
Piping

Conference Paper January 2011

DOI: 10.1115/PVP2011-58090

CITATIONS READS

0 608

4 authors, including:

Henry Schau Hseyin Ertugrul Karabaki

TV SD Energietechnik GmbH, Mannheim, E.ON Kernkraft GmbH, Hannover, Germany
14 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

B2 stress indices for thin walled straight pipes with D/t > 50 View project

INcreasing Safety in NPPs by Covering gaps in Environmental Fatigue Assessment (NFRP-2014-2015

662320) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Schau on 07 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference
PVP2011
July 17-21, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

PVP2011-58090

Comparison of German KTA and ASME Nuclear Design Codes for Class 1, 2, 3
Components and Piping
Dr. Daniel Hofer Dr. Henry Schau Hseyin Ertugrul Karabaki
Plant Engineering Technical Service Component Technology
Mechanics Corporation E.ON Kernkraft GmbH
Westinghouse Electric TV SD Energietechnik Hannover, Germany
Germany Mannheim, Germany Phone: +49 511 439 3834
Mannheim, Germany Phone: +49 (621) 395-465 Ertugrul.Karabaki@eon-energie.com
Phone: +49 621 388 2190 henry.schau@tuev-sued.de
hoferd@westinghouse.com

Ralph Hill
Westinghouse Electric Company
Nuclear Services
Walls Mill, PA, USA
Phone: +1 724 722 6332
hillrs@westinghouse.com

Keywords: ASME, Section III, KTA, Comparison of design codes.

ABSTRACT is focused on a comparison of the equations for Design by

This paper compares the design rules of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Rules for
Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, with German
nuclear design standards for Class 1, 2, 3 components and
piping. The paper is focused on a comparison of the
equations for Design by Analysis and on Piping equations.
The ASME Section III Code has been used in combination
with design specifications for design of German nuclear
power plants. Together with manufacturers, inspectors and
power plant owners, the German regulatory authority decided
to develop their own nuclear design standards. The current
versions being used are from 1992 and 1996. New versions of
KTA design standards for pressure retaining components
(KTA 3201.2 and KTA 3211.2) are currently under
development.
This comparison will cover the major differences between the
design rules for ASME Section III, Div. 1 and KTA standards
3201.2 and 3211.2 as well as code or standard organization
by sections, paragraphs, articles and code development.
1. INTRODUCTION
The objective of this paper is to compare the design rules
of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III,
Division 1, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility
Components, (ASME Code) with German nuclear safety
standards for Class 1, 2, 3 components and piping. The paper
1 Copyright 2011 by ASME
Analysis and on Piping equations.
The comparison is focused on light water reactor designs
for temperatures below 400 C (no creep consideration) and
is based on the current editions of the subject codes and
standards. It includes all standards and reports referenced by
the corresponding code or standard.
A general description of boiler and pressure vessel
standards in Germany is presented in volume three of the
Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code [10]. The differences between US and European codes
and standards for the Construction of LWR Pressure
Components were analyzed by [9]. The KTA design standard
for the primary loop (KTA 3201.2) was contrasted with
international standards by [2]. This paper provides an
in-depth comparison of specific design rules for the KTA and
ASME Section III design codes and standards related to
pressure retaining components. In particular, KTA 3201.2
and KTA 3211.2 are compared with ASME Section III,
Div. 1.
Section 3 of this paper gives a general overview of all
German design standards. The design rules of KTA 3211.2
are compared with Subsections NB, NC and ND of the
ASME Code in Section 4 of this paper. For piping, this
section contrasts the methods of Pressure Design, Design by
Analysis and Design by Rule. Stress intensity values of
materials are compared in Section 5. Special features of the
analysis of German primary system components (KTA rules. The basic ideas about design analysis have been kept,
3201.2) are outlined in Section 6. while adding some design rules from German industrial
experience with pressure equipment. KTA design standards
2. NOMENCLATURE are generally compatible with the ASME Code but are
restricted to specific systems of light water reactors. For
A additional thickness to account for material erosion example, KTA 3211.2 is restricted to design rules for
and corrosion (ASME) pressure and activity retaining components and piping outside
c1 absolute value of the minus tolerance of wall the primary loop for light water reactors. Here, activity
thickness (KTA) retaining components are e. g. piping-systems or vessels,
c2 value accounting for wall thickness reduction which contain radioactive fluids or steam. In contrast, the
due to chemical or mechanical wear (KTA) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code has a broader scope
da outside diameter of pipe (KTA) and is not restricted to specific systems or types of power
di inside diameter of pipe (KTA) plants. It can even be used for the design of advanced nuclear
D0 outside diameter of pipe (ASME) power plants such as high temperature reactors.
F multiplier applied to average stress for rupture in KTA standards apply for specific systems of power plants
100 000 hr (ASME) and contain rules and regulations for specific subjects like
p internal design pressure (KTA) materials or in-service inspection. A typical division of
P internal design pressure (ASME) subjects is presented with the standards for Pressure and
RmRT specified minimum tensile strength at room Activity Retaining Components of Systems Outside the
temperature (KTA) Primary Circuit. Here, KTA 3211.1 details materials, KTA
RmT specified minimum tensile strength above room 3211.2 outlines design and analysis, KTA 3211.3 contains
temperature (KTA) rules for manufacturing and KTA 3211.4 covers in-service
Rp0.2RT specified minimum yield strength at room inspection and operational monitoring. However, not all KTA
temperature (KTA) standards are divided in this manner.
Rp0.2T specified minimum yield strength above room There are 92 KTA standards in total and 15 are in
temperature (KTA) development. These standards cover radiation protection,
SC average stress to produce creep rate of transportation of nuclear waste and all other aspects of the
0.01 % / 1000 hr (ASME) safe operation of nuclear power plants. One of these aspects
Sm stress intensity (ASME and KTA) is the mechanical design, which is described in the following
SRavg average stress to cause rupture at the end of 9 safety standards:
100 000 hr (ASME)
SRmin minimum stress to cause rupture at the end of 3101.3: Design of Reactor Cores of Pressurized Water
100 000 hr (ASME) and Boiling Water Reactors; Part 3: Mechanical and
ST specified minimum tensile strength at room Thermal Design (under development)
temperature (ASME) 3201.2: Components of the Reactor Coolant Pressure
S TR T specified minimum tensile strength above room Boundary of Light Water Reactors; Part 2: Design and
temperature (ASME) Analysis
SY specified minimum yield strength at room 3211.2: Pressure and Activity Retaining Components
temperature (ASME) of Systems Outside the Primary Circuit; Part 2: Design
S YR Y specified minimum yield strength above room and Analysis
temperature (ASME) 3204: Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals
s0 calculated wall thickness (KTA) 3205.1: Component Support Structures with
sn nominal wall thickness (KTA) Non-integral Connections; Part 1: Component Support
tm minimum required wall thickness (ASME) Structures with Non-integral Connections for
y parameter to adjust the Boardman equation to the Components of the Reactor Coolant Pressure
Lam equation (ASME) Boundary of Light Water Reactors
3205.2: Component Support Structures with
3. KTA-DESIGN STANDARDS Non-integral Connections; Part 2: Component Support
In Germany, the Nuclear Safety Standards Commission Structures with Non-Integral Connections for Pressure
(KTA) has the task to issue nuclear safety standards for topics and Activity-Retaining Components in Systems
in the area of nuclear technology. The KTA standards are Outside the Primary Circuit
issued where a consensus between experts of the 3401.2: Steel Containment Vessels; Part 2: Analysis
manufacturers, the operators of nuclear power plants, and Design
authorized experts and state officials is apparent and supports 3902: Design of Lifting Equipment in Nuclear Power
their application. The KTA standards are published by the Plants
German authorities, are therefore required by federal 3905: Load Attaching Points on Loads in Nuclear
regulation and thereby made into law. The standards are Power Plants
published online, too (www.kta-gs.de). Some standards are
translated to English (e. g. KTA 3201.2 or KTA 3211.2). The equivalent KTA design standards for ASME Section III
KTA design rules were originally derived from ASME Div. 1 Subsections are given in Table I of this paper. Each
2 Copyright 2011 by ASME
design standard is developed by a workgroup of 10 20
people. These workgroups typically consist of one KTA
representative and stakeholders from various organizations
related to nuclear power, such as BMU representatives
(Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation
and Nuclear Safety), nuclear power plant engineers,
inspectors, manufacturers, scientists from research institutes
and reactor safety institute representatives. The workgroups
review the standards to ensure that the information is still
state-of-the-art and additionally change or add rules if needed.
Standard revisions are submitted for approval to
Unterausschuss Mechanische Komponenten, the
KTA-subcommittee for mechanical design. Upon approval a
new version of the safety standard is published by the
German government. However, if a standard revision is
rejected, the workgroup has to resubmit a new version. The
aim of KTA is to have stricter design rules for nuclear power
plants than those of conventional industry. KTA standards
quote other Industry standards such as codes of Deutsches
Institut fr Normung (DIN), which is the German Institute for
Standardization, and are not stand-alone documents like
ASME.
In Germany, the most current standard editions of KTA must
be used for design work in existing power plants. Currently,
the editions of KTA 3211.2 and 3201.2, which are being used
are from 1992 and 1996, respectively. These editions have
not been updated because there has not been any new
construction and any design standard changes affect
modification and installation work in operating plants. In the
US, modifications in plants are generally performed
according to the ASME code edition which was used during
the construction phase of the plant. Therefore, code changes
do not affect design work in existing power plants. Unlike
KTA, ASME publishes a new code edition every three years
and an annually published addenda, keeping the code up to
date.
TABLE I. STRUCTURE OF ASME, SECTION III, DIV. 1 AND
CORRESPONDING KTA DESIGN STANDARDS
ASME Section III, Div.
corresponding KTA standard
1 Subsection
NB (Class 1 Components) KTA 3201.2 and KTA 3211.2
NC (Class 2 Components) KTA 3211.2
ND (Class 3 Components) KTA 3211.2
NE (Class MC Components) KTA 3401.2
primary system:
KTA 3201.2 Sections 5.3.6 and
8.5 for integral areas of
component support structures
KTA 3205.1 for non-integral
areas
NF (Supports)
other than primary system:
KTA 3211.2 Sections 5.3.6 and
8.6 for integral areas of
component support structures
KTA 3205.2 for non-integral
areas
NG (Core Support Structures) KTA 3204
3 Copyright 2011 by ASME
4. COMPARISON OF DESIGN RULES FOR
PRESSURE AND ACTIVITY RETAINING
COMPONENTS
4.1 Pressure design
ASME outlines rules for pressure design in NB-, NC-,
ND-3132. The formula given to calculate the required wall
thickness of straight pipes tm is based on the following
equation [3]:
PD0
tm = +A (1)
2(S m + Py )
The value of A is used to represent an additional thickness
to account for material erosion and corrosion and to provide
resistance against mechanical damage. All other variables and
tolerances are explained in NB-, NC-, ND-3641.1. The stress
intensity Sm must be replaced by S in the equation for Class 2
and 3 components. This equation is called the Boardman
equation when y = 0.4 [10]. It was introduced as an
approximation of the Lam equation, which calculates the
elastic hoop stress at the inside diameter of a thick-walled
straight pipe under internal pressure. The Boardman equation
duplicates the results of the Lam equation with an error not
more than plus or minus 1 per cent for the range D0/tm 5,
which is the entire useful range. For D0/tm 6 the error is
entirely on the safe side [4]. The use of either the Boardman
or Lame equation implies brittle fracture and is therefore not
compatible with Tresca (shear stress theory). This is
questionable from a mechanical perspective, but leads to
more conservative results.
The required wall thickness tm determines which pipe
schedule is used. All components and fittings must
correspond with the schedule of the straight pipe and are
generally chosen in accordance with design codes such as
B16.5, B16.9 or B16.11, which list pressure tested products
(see Table NCA-7100-1) for flanges, fittings and socket
welds. This is because the burst pressure of a pressure tested
product is greater than that of a straight pipe of the same
schedule. In order to design special products, appendices or
code cases may have to be used. For example Class 2 and
Class 3 flanges are designed using the rules provided in
Mandatory Appendix XI, Rules for Bolted Flange
Connections for Class 2 and 3 Components and Class MC
Vessels, or lugs are designed according to Code Case
N-318-5.
Dimensioning is detailed in Section 6 of KTA. Unlike
ASME, in KTA dimensioning is required even in cases of
standard product design. It has to be done according to one of
the following procedures:
1. in accordance with Annex A of KTA
2. verification of primary stresses
3. limit analysis
4. shakedown analysis
5. strain limiting load method
6. proof of stability
Annex A of KTA 3211.2 contains rules for standard
product design but any of procedures 1- 6 may be used. The
stress allowables for pressure design are given in Table 6.7-1
of KTA 3211.2, Section 6. For non-standard product design
only methods 2 6 may be used. There are no explanations or
safety-margins provided for methods 4 and 5 in KTA 3211.2.
The methods of Annex A (A 2, dimensioning of parts of the
pressure retaining wall) are based on German design
standards for non-nuclear plants:
AD-Merkbltter (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Druckbehlter
= workgroup pressure vessels)
TRD (Technischen Regeln fr Dampfkessel =
Technical Regulations for Boilers)
DIN-Normen (Deutsches Institut fr Normung =
German Institute for Standardization)
VDI-Richtlinien (Verein Deutscher Ingenieure =
Association for German Engineers)
The KTA formula for Pressure Design of straight pipes is
derived from the equation for hoop stress p of a thick walled
cylinder using Tresca theory and is not based on the
Lam-equation like ASME. It is assumed that the material
behavior is elastic-ideal plastic with yield stress Sm. The
series expansion of the logarithmic equation is then as
follows:
d 3.
p = S m ln a
di
(2)
2 s0 1 s0
2
= Sm 1 + + ...
3 (d a s0 )
2
d a s0
The variables p, da, di and s0 are design pressure, outside
diameter, inside diameter and wall thickness, respectively.
The KTA formula is the antecedent of the series expansion
(KTA 3211.2, A 2.2-1):
da p
s0 = (3)
2S m + p
The discrepancy between the exact solution and the
approximation of KTA is less than 1% for ratios da/di < 1.4.
KTA allows for a discrepancy of 2% by restricting the
equation for ratios of da/di < 1.7. As in ASME, the stress
intensity Sm must be replaced by S in the equation for Class 2
and 3 components. The nominal wall thickness sn, which is
comparable to the required wall thickness tm of ASME, is
then calculated by adding c1 and c2 to the wall thickness s0:
sn = s0 + c1 + c2 (4)
c1 is the absolute value of the minus tolerance, which is
based on the fabrication tolerance and c2 is a value that
accounts for wall thickness reduction due to wear (details see
Section 6.5 of KTA 3211.2).
The calculated minimum wall thicknesses of both
equations are nearly identical. For a specific example
(Tdesign = 700 F, Pdesign = 2000 psig, D0 = 16 and
Sm = 15.1 kSi) the required wall thickness of ASME is 1 %
higher than for KTA. In this example, extremes of values for
Pdesign and Sm were chosen in order to highlight the
discrepancy between the equations. Despite this discrepancy
the values only differ by 1%. In most cases the results of both
equations are nearly identical, differing by less than 1%.
4 Copyright 2011 by ASME
4.2 Design by Analysis
Design rules for Design by Analysis are defined in
subsection NB-3200 for Class 1 components. Subsection
NC-3200 contains Alternative Design Rules for Vessels. The
rules were intended to be a duplicate of the former ASME
Section VIII, Division 2 rules for pressure vessels. There is
no subsection ND-3200. Therefore, a general analysis can
only be performed according to Section NB and NC.
The Design Basis of ASME is described in NCA-2140. It
addresses the operating plant design, service, and test
loadings that are required to be considered in design. Four
Service Limits are established and designated as Service
Limit, which are defined as follows: Level A, Level B, Level
C and Level D. These correspond, respectively, to plant and
system operating conditions commonly referred to as normal,
upset, emergency, and faulted. The integrity for Design,
Service and Test Loadings has to be proven. The stress
intensity factors Sm (Class 1) and S (Classes 2 and 3) have to
be used to calculate the Design, Service and Test Limits with
the analysis methods listed below:
1. elastic analysis
2. plastic analysis (e. g. limit analysis)
collapse load analysis
4. plastic instability analysis
5. interaction method
Not all of the given analysis methods are permitted for use
for all service levels. For Level D Service Limits, inelastic
analysis-methods are permitted in accordance with
Nonmandatory Appendix, Rules for Evaluation of Service
Loadings With Level D Service Limits, Appendix, F-1320.
Tresca theory (maximum shear stress theory) has to be
used to perform proof of structural integrity. If plastic
analyses are performed with FEM-software the computer
code automatically uses v. Mises theory (maximum distortion
strain energy theory) to calculate the plastic behavior, which
conflicts with the ASME Code. NB-3227.4 contains design
criteria to limit triaxial stress states for all Service Levels
except Level D:
4.3 Design by Rule
Design rules for component specific analysis of ASME are
defined in Subsections NB, NC and ND 3300-3600. The
exception is Subsection NC, in which ASME provides
alternative design rules for vessels in NC-3200 for Class 2
components in addition to those of NC-3300. Design criteria
for the following components are presented in both codes
(NX represents Subsections NB, NC and ND):
Vessels (ASME: NX-3300, KTA: Sec. 8.2)
Pumps (ASME: NX-3400, KTA: Sec. 8.3)
Valves (ASME: NX-3500, KTA: Sec. 8.4)
Piping (ASME: NX-3600, KTA: Sec. 8.5)
The component specific design criteria of KTA 3211.2 are
nearly identical to the methods of ASME. However, there are
some exceptions. In this paper, only the design rules for
piping are compared.
For Class 2 and 3 piping the limitation of the primary stress
intensity can be performed based on identical equations in margins for tensile strengths are at least 14% higher in KTA
KTA and ASME or an additional equation in KTA which whereas the safety margins for yield strengths are only
contains an i-value instead of B-index. An additional slightly higher (7%) than those of ASME. Therefore, KTA is
difference is that for KTA, B-indices can only be used for slightly conservative compared to ASME as a result of the
d/t 50 (d: outside diameter, t: wall thickness). The range of higher safety margins. For Class 1 components, the safety
resultant moments and amplitudes of longitudinal forces margins are comparable.
resulting from anchor motions due to reversing type dynamic
level D loadings are not limited in KTA. In NB-3656 (4) TABLE II. COMPARISON BETWEEN CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING
ALLOWABLE STRESS VALUES FOR CLASS 2 AND 3 DESIGN OF
ASME provides a limit of 6.0 Sm for the amplitude of ASME (SECTION II, TABLE 1-100) AND KTA 3211.2 (TABLE
reversing bending stresses and a limit of Sm for axial 6.6-1)
stresses caused by normal forces. In KTA 3211.2, dynamic
anchor motions have to be evaluated with equations (8.5-82) Criteria KTA 3211.2 Comparison
and (8.5-84) for the integrity proofs of service levels A and B. ASME
for S ferritic austenitic ASME/KTA

5. MATERIALS Tensile
ASME Section II provides all information for the design Strength ST/3.5 RmRT/4.0 RmRT/4.0 1.14
at RT
analysis regarding material properties. If a material is not Tensile
listed in Section II, it generally cannot be used. When Strength 1.1STRT/3.5 - - -
sufficient data is available for a non-listed material, an above RT
application for a code case can be submitted to ASME for Yield
Strength 2/3 SY Rp0.2RT/1.6 Rp0.2RT/1.6 1.07
approval. at RT
KTA does not have a general section dedicated to materials 2/3 SYRY Rp0.2T/1.1
comparable to ASME Section II. The regulations are Yield
non-uniform in the different KTA standards. For KTA 3211.2, Strength or Rp0.2T/1.6 or 1.07 (ferritic)
above RT
the materials which are permitted are listed in KTA 3211.1. 0.9 SYRY Rp0.2T/1.5
The stress intensities S and Sm are calculated with Table 6.6-1
of KTA 3211.2 based on the material properties, which are Favg SR avg
Stress
- - -
provided in Annex A of KTA 3211.1. The criteria to Rupture
0.8 SR min
calculate S and Sm correspond nearly with Tables 1-100 Creep
(criteria for establishing allowable stress values for tables 1A 1.0 Sc - - -
Rate
and 1B) and 2-100(a) (criteria for establishing allowable
stress values for tables 2A and 2B) of ASME Section II, Part TABLE III. COMPARISON BETWEEN CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING
ALLOWABLE STRESS VALUES FOR CLASS 1 DESIGN OF ASME
D, respectively (see Tables II and III of this paper). In case of
(SECTION II, TABLE 2-100(A)) AND KTA 3211.2 (TABLE 6.6-1)
the pressure design, KTA 3211.2 has additional requirements
for determining stress intensities, which are based on German KTA 3211.2
Criteria Comparison
design standards of non-nuclear plants. In the case of KTA, ASME
the allowable stresses are based on yield- and tensile strength for Sm ferritic austenitic ASME/KTA
of the material at room- and elevated temperature. The yield Tensile
strength (Rp0.2) is defined as the stress value that results in a Strength ST/3.0 RmRT/3.0 RmRT/3.0 1.00
plastic strain of 0.2 % after unloading. For some austenitic at RT
materials (criteria see KTA 3211.2, Table 6.6 1) Rp1.0 may be Tensile
Strength 1.1STRT/3.0 RmT/2.7 RmT/2.7 0.99
taken in lieu of Rp0.2. In this case, Rp1.0 is defined as the stress above RT
value that results in a plastic strain of 1.0 % after unloading. Yield
KTA limits the design temperature to 400 C whereas the Strength 2/3 SY - Rp0.2RT/1.5 1.00
at RT
temperature limit of ASME is provided by the temperature
range for which the allowable stresses and material properties 2/3 SYRY Rp0.2T/1.1
Yield
are listed in Section II. Typically this limit is around 400 C Strength or Rp0.2T/1.5 or 1.00 (ferritic)
but there are materials that are permitted to be used at higher above RT
0.9 SYRY Rp0.2T/1.5
temperatures. In case of ASME, stress rupture and creep rate
are taken into consideration at high temperatures to determine
the allowable stresses for Class 2 and 3 design. All criteria 6. SPECIAL FEATURES OF KTA 3201.2
for establishing the allowable stress values S and Sm are KTA 3201.2 is the German design and analysis standard for
provided in tables 1-100 and 2-100(a) of ASME Section II, components of the reactor coolant pressure boundary
Part D, respectively. There are no detailed explanations (primary circuit). The general structure is similar to KTA
presented in Section II, Appendices 1 and 2, regarding when 3211.2 except that it only contains design rules for Class 1
to use 2/3 or 0.9 times the yield strength above room components and piping. It provides additional analysis
temperature. The safety-factors of KTA and ASME are procedures for the general analysis of mechanical behavior.
different for Class 2 and 3. E. g. for S-values KTA divides the Similar to ASME, NB-3228.1, limit analysis is permitted
tensile strength by 4 and ASME by 3.5 (see Tables II and III and detailed in KTA 3201.2, Chapter 7.7.4. However, this
of this paper). For Class 2 and 3 components, the safety method is prohibited for use in KTA 3211.2. Borrowing from
5 Copyright 2011 by ASME
ASME, KTA 3201.2 contains Table 7.7-8 with factors for
limiting strains for non-linear elastic materials (Table Y-2 in
ASME 2007 Section II, Part D). The tables are nearly
identical except for two differences. In KTA 3201.2 a factor
of 1.0 is added for a permanent strain of 20%, and, as in
ASME, the table is not restricted to nickel, high nickel alloys
and high alloy steels.
A concept for the analysis of brittle fracture is incorporated
into KTA 3201.2 (Section 7.9). This section includes a NDT
temperature concept, fracture mechanics concept and rules
for in-service inspection. ASME covers fracture mechanics in
Section XI and does not provide any equations in Section III.
KTA has plans to publish an in-depth fracture mechanics
standard for pressure retaining components, which will be
KTA 3206 (Nachweise zum Bruchausschluss fr
druckfhrende Komponenten in Kernkraftwerken).
Design criteria for the avoidance of thermal stress
ratcheting are given in KTA 3201.2, Section 7.13 and ASME
NB-3222.5, but the concepts differ. In KTA 3201.2 four
methods are provided for proving that thermal stress
ratcheting remains within acceptable limits:
Evaluation by limitation of stress (7.13.2.2)
Evaluation by limitation of strain (7.13.2.3)
General evaluation by elastic-plastic analysis (7.13.3)
Specific evaluation by measurement (7.13.4)
The first method is based on the Bree-Diagram [5]. Elastic
shakedown occurs when the combination of primary and
secondary stresses are within the stress limits of the equations
(7.13-5) (7.13-7). For method 2, the plastic strain increment
of each thermal cycle is calculated. Then the sum of all
plastic strain increments is determined and the value must be
2%.
KTA provides strain limits in 7.13.3 (3) for method 3,
which is the general evaluation by elastic-plastic analysis.
These limits are 5% for base metal and 2.5% for welded
joints, respectively. However, ASME does not distinguish
between base metal and welded joints and provides a general
limit of 5.0% in NB-3228.4 for shakedown analyses. Within
the section, KTA explicitly notes that the material model
used in this analysis shall be suited to realistically the cyclic
strain (7.13.3 (1)). Therefore, one is not obligated to use the
Chaboche hardening rule; other hardening rules such as
Ohno-Wang, which provide a more realistic description of
the hardening behavior, may be utilized. As a fourth method,
KTA outlines that the avoidance of thermal stress ratcheting
can be proved by measurement (7.13.4). In this case the strain
limits are identical to method 3. ASME only offers methods 1
and 3 in NB-3222.5 and NB-3228.4(b), respectively.
7. CONCLUSION
The established ASME Section III and KTA codes and
standards provide comprehensive methods for the design and
analysis of nuclear components, which are broadly equivalent.
There are some detailed variations between the codes and
standards. For example, ASME is a fully integrated code with
a more general scope than KTA, which quotes other Industry
standards and regulatory guides and therefore is not
integrated. Within ASME, no additional codes or
6 Copyright 2011 by ASME
specifications are needed for the analysis and there are no
restrictions on reactor designs. KTA standards have a
temperature restriction of 400 C and are focused on the
design of light water reactors.
In the comparison of ASME and KTA consider these
major points:
The equations to determine stress intensities for Class
1 components are nearly identical in both codes and
standards, but KTA has higher requirements for the
stress intensities of Class 2 and 3 components.
Although the equations for pressure design for KTA
and ASME are based on different failure theories, the
resulting required wall thicknesses for straight pipes
are almost identical.
For Design by Analysis, KTA allows the use of v.
Mises theory in addition to Tresca while ASME is
restricted to Tresca but allows more analysis methods.
The equations for piping analysis in both codes are
almost identical but the stress intensification factors
differ.
REFERENCES
[1] 2007 ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, 2007
Edition. Juli 1, 2007
[2] Bieniussa K.W., 1987, German codes and standards
concerning metallic nuclear power plant components
Present state and trends expected. Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Volume 98, Issue 3, Pages 279-281.
[3] Braun, C F & CO, 1969, A Review of Piping and
Pressure Vessel. Code Design Criteria. San Francisco,
CA, Technical Report 217 prepared for US Atomic
Energy Commission.
[4] Buxton, W J Burrows, W R , 1951, Formula for pipe
thickness. Transactions of the ASME.
[5] Bree J., 1967, Elastic-plastic behaviour of thin tubes
subjected to internal pressure and intermittent high-heat
fluxes with application to fast-nuclear-reactor fuel
elements. Journal of strain analysis, vol. 2 no. 3.
[6] KTA 3201.2, Components of the Reactor Coolant
Pressure Boundary of Light Water Reactors; Part 2:
Design and Analysis. Safety Standards of the Nuclear
Safety Standards Commission (KTA), June 1996 (incl.
rectification from BAnz 129, 13.07.00).
[7] KTA 3211.2, Pressure and Activity Retaining
Components of Systems Outside the Primary Circuit;
Part 2: Design and Analysis. Safety Standards of the
Nuclear Safety Standards Commission (KTA), June
1992.
[8] KTA Standards, Der Kerntechnische Ausschuss (KTA).
http://www.kta-gs.de
[9] Maurer H. A. Deckers, J., 1983, Comparison of US and [10] Rao, K. R. 2002, Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler
European Codes and Regulations for the Construction and Pressure Vessel Code; Criteria and Commentary on
of LWR. Chicago, IL, presented at SMIRT 7. Select Aspects of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel
and Piping Codes. ASME Press.

7 Copyright 2011 by ASME

View publication stats