0
Research Papers: Nuclear Power

The Impact of Probabilistic Modeling in Life-Cycle Management of Nuclear Piping Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
M. D. Pandey, D. Lu

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

D. Komljenovic

Nuclear Generating Station Gentilly-2, Hydro-Quebec 75, Boulevard Rene-Levesque, West Montreal, QC, H2Z 1A4, Canada

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 133(1), 012901 (Sep 24, 2010) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000897 History: Received August 10, 2009; Revised August 28, 2009; Published September 24, 2010; Online September 24, 2010

Flow accelerated corrosion (FAC) is a serious form of degradation in primary heat transport piping system (PHTS) of the nuclear reactor. Pipes transporting hot coolant from the reactor to steam generators are particularly vulnerable to FAC degradation, such as tight radius pipe bends with high flow velocity. FAC is a life limiting factor, as excessive degradation can result in the loss of structural integrity of the pipe. To prevent this, engineering codes and regulations have specified minimum wall thickness requirements to ensure fitness for service of the piping system. Nuclear utilities have implemented periodic wall thickness inspection programs and carried out replacement of pipes prior to reaching an unsafe state. To optimize the life-cycle management of PHTS, accurate prediction of time of replacement or “end of life” of pipe sections is important. Since FAC is a time-dependent process of uncertain nature, this paper presents two probabilistic models for predicting the end of life. This paper illustrates that the modeling assumptions have a significant impact on the predicted number of replacements and life-cycle management of the nuclear piping system. A practical case study is presented using wall thickness inspection data collected from Canadian nuclear plants.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Measured wall thickness of frequently inspected pipes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Distributions of wall thickness loss over an interval of 10 EFPY

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Remaining lifetime distribution for an inspected pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Comparison of lifetime distributions predicted by GP and RV models for uninspected pipes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

A histogram of measured wall thickness of 2 in. (50.8 mm) pipes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

A histogram of measured wall thickness of 2.5 in. (63.5 mm) pipes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Expected cumulative number of substandard 2 in. (50.8 mm) pipes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Expected cumulative number of substandard 2.5 in. (63.5 mm) pipes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Minimum required wall thickness of 2 in. (50.8 mm) pipes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Minimum required wall thickness of 2.5 in. (63.5 mm) pipes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Cumulative number of substandard pipes: RV model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Cumulative number of substandard pipes: GP model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of total number of substandard pipes predicted by the RV and GP models

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In