I

r,A/SRC-_S--91-075 DE92 009837

DESIGN-FOR-ANALYSIS OR THE UNINTENDED ROLE OF ANALYSIS IN THE DESIGN OF PIPING SYSTEMS (U)
/ by f
_t/_

-._

.
f

G.A. Antaki " ? Westinghouse Savannah River Company Savannah River Site Aiken, South Carolina 29808

_!9_ __ _ _ _._ = _-_ _ #. = _ ,, _ _, ,. _" _ ""

F .-. _'d'_ -.--_ _ =

_= _
'_ _ _

_ _..__. _ _''_
''" _oa

_,,_ OJ "_

A paper proposed for presentation and publication at the ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference "--oan "_-t>mgo, California ', June 23-27, 1991

_== ,_ _-_ -_ _'- -=-" ' -_ _ " _ _ =__"_ _= _ "__=_ _ _ _ .== _ _ _ ,.,. _ _, ii, c_ ._ ,,,,. ___ _, = _ _ ,, _= _-_.__-_o_- = "=_"" _ ="
_N.._ _. ta ,._ t,._ '_ e'_ m

,"

_,_, _

m '_, '__

This paper was prepared in connection with work done under Contract No. DE-AC09-89SR18035 with the U.S. Department of E_ergy. By acceptance of this paper, the publisher and/or recipient acknowledges the U.S. Government's right to retain a nonexclusive, royalty-free license in and to any copyright covering this paper, along with the right to reproduce and to authorize others to reproduce all or part of the copyrighted paper.

gtSTR{SUTION _.FTHISDOCUMENT UilILlr,/IITED IS

WSRC-MS-91-o75 DESIGN-FOR-ANALYSIS OR THE UNINTENDED ROLE OF ANALYSIS IN THE DESIGN OF PIPING SYSTEMS by G.A. Antaki Westinghouse Savannah River Company Savannah River Site Aiken, South Carolina 29808 ABSTRACT The paper discusses the evolution of piping design in the nuclear industry with its increasing reliance on dynamic analysis. While it is well recognized that the practice has evolved from "design-by-rule" to "design-by-arralysis", examples are provided of cases where the choice of analysis technique has determined the hardware configu17ttion, which could be called"design-for-analysis". The paper presents practical solutions to some of these cases and summarizes the important recent industry and regulatory developments which, if successful, will reverse the trend towards "design-for-analysis". INTRODUCTION Design-for-analysis can be defined as the selection of design features to facilitate stress analysis. Conversely, it is the avoidance of good design features when they do not lend themselves to simplified "production" analysis. The practice of "design-for-analysis" has been, at times, an unintended consequence of the evolution of the piping codes (ASME III or ANSI B31) throughout the 1970s and 1980s. It is well recognized that the practice in piping design has evolved. To the rules of good engineering practice based on experienced judgement (or "design-by-rule"), was added limited analysis, and finally systematic ("production") computerized analysis. More interestingly, and the focus of this paper, is to recognize that the process has recently relied on computerized analysis to such an extent, that it has at times led to selecting piping designs for simplicity of analysis, at the cost of simplicity in hardware. The evolution from "design-by-rule", then "design-by-analysis" and finally,in my opinion, towards "design-for-analysis" will be briefly discusaed and contrasted with more recent and more promising industry and regulatory initiatives which, if successful, will reverse the 1980s trend towards "design-for-analysis".

DESIGN-BY-RULE The original editions of the B31 standards, strongly relied on the use of "design-by-rule", which consisted of standard practices established and confm'ned through experience. The introduction of A.R.C. Markrs thermal stress equations into the 1955 B31.1 piping standard, had a limited intent [ 1, page 141]: "Formal analysis or model tests shall be required simultaneously satisfy the following conditions: Maximum normal operating metal temperature Nominal pipe diameter greater than 6 inches Rated service pressure greater than 15 psi" Further, he warned [1, page 148]" "... against too imp_cit a reliance on the rules to the exclusion of good judgment" An example of good judgment is provided in Markl's paper [1, page 141]" "The requirements for analysis shall be considered satisfied for duplicate units of successfully operating installations or for replacements of piping systems with a record of satisfactory service" To a certain extent, this reliance on performance record for design is maintained in the current B31.1 [2] Section 104.7.2 which allows pressure design to be established through "extensive, successful service experience under comparable conditions with similarly proportioned components of the same or like material". The reliance on experienced judgment has been recently recognized and formalized for mechanical and electrical equipment by the Seismic Qualification Utilities Group [3]. While experience was originally widely used in the field of piping design, today's practice is largely reliant on analysis, despite recent calls for: "... more independent reviews of piping designs by experienced engineers rather than by the current emphasis on design by stress analysis" [4]. This trend to quantify design-by-rule was recognized early on by the ASA B31.1 task force [1, page 148]: "We further agree that the vague guidance [rules] which the [B31.1 ] Task Force felt more or less compelled to retain is quite sufficient for a Standard of Good Practice. The salient point, however, is that the Piping code may be considered no Ionger such a standard since it is rapidly being adopted as a Safety Cgde, its rules becoming mandatory and enforceable by law". 2 for pipe lines which

greater than 800F

The B31 committee correspondence of the late 19,40s reflects the apparent difficulties of reconciling safety with simplicity, in design [5]: .... "The charge of the committee is not a simple one: always remember that this is a sat'ety code and not a design code". DE SIGN-B Y-ANAL YSIS Stress analysis of piping evolved from graphic methods for deadloads in the 1930s, to static quantitative thermal expansion in the 1950s, closed form dynamic solutions for simple piping configurations and static seismic (uniform building code approach) in the late 1950s, limited computerized static and dynamic stress analysis in the late 1960s and f'mally "production" computerized analysis in the 1970s and 1980s [6]. _ Five factors have contributed to the widespread conservative) analysis methods for piping systems: 1. use of simplified (and admittedly

Piping systems are composed of an assembly of standard components and fittings, with established flexibilities, stress intensification and allowables. The state of loading in piping follows a rather uniform pattern with predominant bending and torsional moments and usually negligible axial or shear forces. Piping systems encompass a large volume of the structural systems and mechanical components of a power or process plant. This volume calls for simplicity in analysis methods to reduce costs, schedules, and risks of error. Unlike vessels, piping systems considered individually do not constitute a large investment. The added costs of a detailed analysis of each system, however would contitute a significant investment compared to its material and fabrication costs. Nucleaa" piping systems are designed to postulated severe loading (earthquakes, pipe breaks) for which little experimental or experience data has been assembled prior te, the mid-1980s. Analytical predictions filled the void created by this lack of documented experience data.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Fueled by these factors, simplified "production" pipe stress analysis and pipe support design software flourished in the 1970s and 1980s, with their supporting cast of qualified "stress analysts"; to the point where in the late 1980s piping analysis and design constituted close to 2 million of the approximately 11 million man-hours of engineering design for a nuclear power plant [7].

DESIGN-FOR-AN

ALYSIS

Interestingly, while the engineering costs of "production" analysis are commonly recognized, another aspect of the emphasis on analysis has not been clearly recognized yet: the appearance of "design--for-analysis". "Design-for-analysis" can be defined as the selection of design features to facilitate stress analysis. Conversely, it is avoidance of good design features when they do not lend themselves to simplified "production" analysis. Following are a few practical examples of some designs introduced, and others avoided, in order to facilitate analysis. The Snubber - complex and of limited reliability (hence the periodic inspections and testing), the snubber has however been very often selected (upwards of 2000 in certain nuclear power plants) because it is seemingly easy to "analyze": inactive (zero stiffness) for thermal and deadweight mns and active (finite stiffness) for dynamic run. Solutions to the excessive use of snubbers have been sparked by the issue of new piping damping factors in the mid-1980s [9]. Several nuclear plants implemented successful snubber reduction programs, with snubber reduction rates upward of 50%. As we look back at the snubber reduction programs, we recognize that together with the increase in piping damping, the success of snubber reduction was also due to a careful, deliberate effort to avoid the use of snubbers as analytical expedients to resolve overstress. The Energy Absorbing Devices - unlike the snubber, promising design concepts (such as viscous dampers or energy absorbing springs) are avoided because their nonlinear behavior does not lend itself to simplified "production" analysis. The Rigid Piping System - pipe supports which are added to a system to simplify its analysis (using span, equivalent static or dynamic methods) increases its operational thermal stresses, as well as the potential seismic excitation transmitted from the building. In the same vein, lateral gaps between pipe and pipe support frames have been systematically shimmed to less than 1/16 inch. This was accomplished to bring the hardware in line with the linear analysis which does not account for gap effects. Interestingly, the tight shims have in tyurn led to a concern, mostly analytical, with the radial compressive contact stress created by the thermal radial expansion of the pipe. A better treatment of this question would Mlow, and indeed encourage in many cases, a radial gap betweens the pipe and a suppoi_, frame, A I/4 inch gap would allow for improved thermal performance, while remaining sufficiently small to avoid significant impact effects. This gap could be shimmed to zero only where necessary, such as at supports adjacent to pump nozzles.

The Rod Hanger - an efficient and simple support, proven in tests and earthquakes, the rod hanger provides pendulum restoring force and energy absorption by compressive buckling (f_gure 1). However rod hangers are ali too often avoided and at times replaced because they are difficult to analyze using linear methods.

'.."

"

FIGURE

1.

Example of seismic ruggedness of flexible (San Francisco Earthquake, 1971, courtesy

rod hung of EQE

piping. Engr.)

A more realistic treatment of rod hung piping would account for the lateral restoring force of the rod. This effect, introduced in several software codes for static loading, can also be approximated in linear response spectra analysis, as illustrated in figure 2.
.....

le Kv

-._

.......

Dr:t:Sv

FIGURE

2.

Equivalent

stiffness

for a rod hanger

For small lateral swing angles, it can be shown that +Sv (the seismic vertical load) and Th (the static horizontal load, due for example to normal operation thermal expansion) can be neglected. The equivalent horizontal stiffness provided by the rod hanger restoring capacity can then be approxinmted by KH= D,,/Ie. 5

As the lateral swing angle increases, the non-linear nature of Ka becomes more evident. For large displacements, a linear approximation KH(SH,le,Dv) must be calculated by an iterative process. However, it can be shown that the relationship KH= Dr/le remains a good approximation if the predicted rod lateral swing angle is less than approximately 30 , and provided the connections at A and B (figure 2) can accomodate the swing. Boundary Anchors - anchors (six-way restraints)are at times introduced to divide a piping system into smaller subsystems, easier to analyze (small computer models). This analytical expedient may adversely affect the system integrity by increasing thermal exp,'msion stresses and introducing welded attachments to the pipe, at the anchor point. The solution to this problem is two-fold: Where dynamic analysis is required, the model size (dynamic degrees of freedom) should be minimized. The emphasis should be on the dominant first modes of response. This can be accomplished by simplifying the model through the use of simple valve mass models, simplified representation of short protrusions such as vents or drains, etc.. The rules for dynamic overlap and decoupling should not be arbitrary (such as two supports irl each direction or 33 Hz overlap span requirements). Welding Research Council Bulletin 300 [9] provides effective guidance on this subject. Saddles or One-Way Supports - simple and commonly used in the non-nuclear field, one-way (resting) supports are avoided, or converted to two-way restraints, to eliminate the complexities of analyzing uplifting effects. Two methods have been used in the past to attempt to account for "downward-only" supports: I) the s;upport is assumed inactive if the resultant upward load exceeds the downward operating load; or 2) an average, reduced stiffness is assumed acting in both directions. A better approach would focus on the more practical effects of.one-way supports as they could affec _.the system's structural integrity. To this end, the following rules are proposed:

i
One-way support (or rod hangers) may be modeled and analyzed as two-way restraints provided the following four conditions are satisfied: 1. 2. 3. 4. Uplift, should it occur, would not result in the pipe falling off its supports. The pipe spans adjacent to the one-way support do not contain impact sensitive components, instruments, or fittings. The one-way support is not adjacent to equipment sensitive to nozzle loads. The one-way support structure will not eail under possible impact load resulting from uplift. The impactr load may be estimated to be equal to the normal operating load plus twice the dynamic load, based on a two-way acting restraint.

Large Support Members- Massive support frame sections are installed to react to postulated accident loads while maintaining elastic behavior. A better design would take advantage of inelastic design rules (such as Appendix F of the ASME B&PV Code) to allow, and indeed encourage, some plasticity under severe accident loading and hence more simple and streamlined support structures (figure 3).

FIGURE

3.

Example of ductile deformation of a pipe restraint subject to large seismic impact loads. No damage occurred to the pipe. (Loma Prietta Earthquake, 1989, courtesy of EQE Engr.)

Gap Supports - an ideal configuration of nuclear piping design would consist of simple configurations: deadweight supported, flexible piping with regularly spaced gap supports, lined with shock- absorbing material. The concept however introduces non-linear features (gg.pand clearances) difficult to analyze with simplified methods, and is currently avoided. _PROMISING DEVELOPMENTS

Several recent industry and regulatory initiatives are promising and may weil, if successful, reverse the trend towards "design-for-analysis": 1. An important development has occurred in the 1980s with the adoption of experience data in the evaluation of seismic adequacy of mechanical and electrical equipment [3]. The extension of this concept to piping systems should be pursued to permit greater emphasis on actual failure modes and the use of experience based rules [8].

w 0

2.

The Pressure Vessel Research Council has sponsored important studies to draw on the lessons learned in the past 15 years of nuclear industry practice [9, 10]. The Welding Research Council Bulletin 353 points out [10, page 4]. "... the on the overall infer a piping analyst/support designer should not put excessive emphasis analysis itself, but rather should focus on a good design of the piping system. A detailed or rigorous analysis does not necessarily good design"

3.

The Pressure Vessel Research Council has also sponsored research on seismic damping [9] which has resulted in the ASME Code Case N-411, increasing the damping values, up to 5% in the low frequency range. There remains some debate in the engineering community, on whether damping should be 3%, 4%, or 5%. The question pales however in comparison to the significant benefits of snubber removal programs completed in the commercial nuclear industry. Through a better understanding of "leak-before-break" and the elimination of "arbitrary intermediate breaks", the industry and regulatory focus has turned towards greater attention for operating loads (erosion and corrosion, thermal stratification, fatigue crack growth) with a more reasonable approach towards hypothetical non-mechanistic behavior (guillotine breaks, whip and jet loads, etc.). The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has sponsored significant research programs for the understanding of piping failure modes under extreme dynamic loads [11, 12]. The EPRI work greatly contributes to our knowledge of failure modes under severe, non-linear, dynamic loading, and helps explain and confirm the earthquake experience knowledge [13]. "HaeNuclear Construction Industry Group and EPRI have set the foundation for a return to design-by-rule, with the reintroduction of support spacing concepts and rules of good practice in a recent guide for the design of small bore piping [ 14]. CONCLUDING REMARKS

4.

5.

6.

In the field of nuclear piping design, there has been, in my opinion, a trend in the 1970s and 1980s towards "design-for-analysis", the selection of design features on the basis of simplicity of analysis. Snubbers and tight fitting supports are but some examples of "design-for, analysis". Conversely, and as significant, optimum hardware designs have been avoided at times, when too co.rr.plexto analyze in a "production" mode. The price paid in efficiency and operational penalties has prompted a serious rethinking of the piping design process. Promising industry and regulatory initiatives are underway which may reverse the trend and reintroduce a certain measure of "design-by-rule", based on proven and simple design features, as intended by the original piping codes.

This paper_:wa_ prepared in connection with work done under Contract No. DE-AC0989SR18035 with the U.S. Department of Energy. By acceptance of this paper, the publisher and/or recipient acknowledges the U.S. Government's right to retain a nonexclusive, lroyalty-free license in and to any copyright covering this paper, along with the right lo reproduce and to authorize others to reproduce ali or part of the copyrighted paper. REFERENCES [ 1] A,R.C. Markl, "Piping Flexibility Analysis" Transactions of the ASME, 77,1955 ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31.1-1_,o9 Edition. Seisrrtic Qualification Utilities Group, "Generic Implementation Procedure for S;eisrnic Verification of Nuclear Plant Equipment", EPRI, Septembex '.990. R.P. Kennedy, "Consulting Paper on Seismic Design of Piping", Mechanics Associates, SMA 12209.08, December 1983. Structural volume

[2] [3]

[4]

[5]

]Letter, F.S.G. Williams, ASA B31 committee chairman to committee members, October 1, 1949. ASME Archives, United Engineering Center, NY. G.C. Slagis, PVRC Project 89-6, "Basis of Current Dynamic Stress Criteria for Piping", October 1990. J.D. Stevenson, PVRC Subcommittee on General Topics Section III and XI. Position Paper GT-03, "Economic Impact", January 1990. G.A. Antaki, G. Hardy, and F. Rigamonti, "Screening Criteria for the Verification of Seismic Adequacy of Pipint Systems", Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference 1991. WRC Bulletin 300, "Technical Position on Damping and on Industry Practice", December 1984. WRC Bulletin 353, "Position Paper in Nuclear Plant Piping Supports", May 1990. D.J. Guzy, "Piping _ d Fitting Dynamic Reliability Program", Proceedings of the 14th Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting, Washington, D.C., December 1986. K.L. Merz and Y.K. Tank, "Dynamic Testing Components", ASME PVP Conference, 1990. of Eroded/Corroded Piping

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[ 10] [ 11]

[12]

.i,

[13]

P.J. Yanev, et al., "Piping Seismic Adequacy Criteria Recommendations Based on Performance During and After Earthquakes", EPR/Research Project RP-2635-1, 1987.
',_

[14]

J.D. Stevenson and Associates, EQE Engineering, "Procedure for Seismic Evaluation and Design of Small Bore Piping (NCIG-14)",EPRI NP-6628, Electric Power Research Institute, April 1990

10