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 Plant Engineering Mechanics Westinghouse Electric Germany Mannheim, Germany Dr. Henry Schau Technical Service Corporation TV SD Energietechnik Mannheim, Germany
Phone: +49 (621) 395-465 henry.schau@tuev-sued.de

Phone: +49 511 439 3834 Ertugrul.Karabaki@eon-energie.com

Hseyin Ertugrul Karabaki Component Technology E.ON Kernkraft GmbH Hannover, Germany

Phone: +49 621 388 2190 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 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 is focused on a comparison of the equations for Design by 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 Copyright 2011 by ASME

analysis of German primary system components (KTA 3201.2) are outlined in Section 6. 2. NOMENCLATURE A c1 c2 da di D0 F p P RmRT RmT Rp0.2RT Rp0.2T SC Sm SRavg SRmin ST S TR T SY S YR Y s0 sn tm y additional thickness to account for material erosion and corrosion (ASME) absolute value of the minus tolerance of wall thickness (KTA) value accounting for wall thickness reduction due to chemical or mechanical wear (KTA) outside diameter of pipe (KTA) inside diameter of pipe (KTA) outside diameter of pipe (ASME) multiplier applied to average stress for rupture in 100 000 hr (ASME) internal design pressure (KTA) internal design pressure (ASME) specified minimum tensile strength at room temperature (KTA) specified minimum tensile strength above room temperature (KTA) specified minimum yield strength at room temperature (KTA) specified minimum yield strength above room temperature (KTA) average stress to produce creep rate of 0.01 % / 1000 hr (ASME) stress intensity (ASME and KTA) average stress to cause rupture at the end of 100 000 hr (ASME) minimum stress to cause rupture at the end of 100 000 hr (ASME) specified minimum tensile strength at room temperature (ASME) specified minimum tensile strength above room temperature (ASME) specified minimum yield strength at room temperature (ASME) specified minimum yield strength above room temperature (ASME) calculated wall thickness (KTA) nominal wall thickness (KTA) minimum required wall thickness (ASME) parameter to adjust the Boardman equation to the Lam equation (ASME)

rules. The basic ideas about design analysis have been kept, while adding some design rules from German industrial experience with pressure equipment. KTA design standards are generally compatible with the ASME Code but are restricted to specific systems of light water reactors. For example, KTA 3211.2 is restricted to design rules for pressure and activity retaining components and piping outside the primary loop for light water reactors. Here, activity retaining components are e. g. piping-systems or vessels, which contain radioactive fluids or steam. In contrast, the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code has a broader scope and is not restricted to specific systems or types of power plants. It can even be used for the design of advanced nuclear power plants such as high temperature reactors. KTA standards apply for specific systems of power plants and contain rules and regulations for specific subjects like materials or in-service inspection. A typical division of subjects is presented with the standards for Pressure and Activity Retaining Components of Systems Outside the Primary Circuit. Here, KTA 3211.1 details materials, KTA 3211.2 outlines design and analysis, KTA 3211.3 contains rules for manufacturing and KTA 3211.4 covers in-service inspection and operational monitoring. However, not all KTA standards are divided in this manner. There are 92 KTA standards in total and 15 are in development. These standards cover radiation protection, transportation of nuclear waste and all other aspects of the safe operation of nuclear power plants. One of these aspects is the mechanical design, which is described in the following 9 safety standards: 3101.3: Design of Reactor Cores of Pressurized Water and Boiling Water Reactors; Part 3: Mechanical and Thermal Design (under development) 3201.2: Components of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary of Light Water Reactors; Part 2: Design and Analysis 3211.2: Pressure and Activity Retaining Components of Systems Outside the Primary Circuit; Part 2: Design and Analysis 3204: Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals 3205.1: Component Support Structures with Non-integral Connections; Part 1: Component Support Structures with Non-integral Connections for Components of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary of Light Water Reactors 3205.2: Component Support Structures with Non-integral Connections; Part 2: Component Support Structures with Non-Integral Connections for Pressure and Activity-Retaining Components in Systems Outside the Primary Circuit 3401.2: Steel Containment Vessels; Part 2: Analysis and Design 3902: Design of Lifting Equipment in Nuclear Power Plants 3905: Load Attaching Points on Loads in Nuclear Power Plants The equivalent KTA design standards for ASME Section III Div. 1 Subsections are given in Table I of this paper. Each 2 Copyright 2011 by ASME

3. KTA-DESIGN STANDARDS In Germany, the Nuclear Safety Standards Commission (KTA) has the task to issue nuclear safety standards for topics in the area of nuclear technology. The KTA standards are issued where a consensus between experts of the manufacturers, the operators of nuclear power plants, authorized experts and state officials is apparent and supports their application. The KTA standards are published by the German authorities, are therefore required by federal regulation and thereby made into law. The standards are published online, too (www.kta-gs.de). Some standards are translated to English (e. g. KTA 3201.2 or KTA 3211.2). KTA design rules were originally derived from 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

4. COMPARISON OF DESIGN PRESSURE AND ACTIVITY COMPONENTS

RULES FOR RETAINING

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]:

tm =

PD0 +A 2(S m + Py )

(1)

ASME Section III, Div. 1 Subsection

NB (Class 1 Components) NC (Class 2 Components) ND (Class 3 Components) NE (Class MC Components)

corresponding KTA standard

KTA 3201.2 and KTA 3211.2 KTA 3211.2 KTA 3211.2 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 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

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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. in accordance with Annex A of KTA verification of primary stresses limit analysis shakedown analysis strain limiting load method proof of stability

NF (Supports)

NG (Core Support Structures)

KTA 3204

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 3 Copyright 2011 by ASME

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:

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. 2. 3. 4. 5. elastic analysis plastic analysis (e. g. limit analysis) collapse load analysis plastic instability analysis interaction method

da p = S m ln d i 2 s0 = Sm d a s0

2 1 s0 1 + 3 (d s )2 + ... 0 a

(2)

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:

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)

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

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 Copyright 2011 by ASME

intensity can be performed based on identical equations in KTA and ASME or an additional equation in KTA which contains an i-value instead of B-index. An additional difference is that for KTA, B-indices can only be used for d/t 50 (d: outside diameter, t: wall thickness). The range of resultant moments and amplitudes of longitudinal forces resulting from anchor motions due to reversing type dynamic level D loadings are not limited in KTA. In NB-3656 (4) ASME provides a limit of 6.0 Sm for the amplitude of reversing bending stresses and a limit of Sm for axial stresses caused by normal forces. In KTA 3211.2, dynamic anchor motions have to be evaluated with equations (8.5-82) and (8.5-84) for the integrity proofs of service levels A and B. 5. MATERIALS ASME Section II provides all information for the design analysis regarding material properties. If a material is not listed in Section II, it generally cannot be used. When sufficient data is available for a non-listed material, an application for a code case can be submitted to ASME for approval. KTA does not have a general section dedicated to materials comparable to ASME Section II. The regulations are non-uniform in the different KTA standards. For KTA 3211.2, the materials which are permitted are listed in KTA 3211.1. The stress intensities S and Sm are calculated with Table 6.6-1 of KTA 3211.2 based on the material properties, which are provided in Annex A of KTA 3211.1. The criteria to calculate S and Sm correspond nearly with Tables 1-100 (criteria for establishing allowable stress values for tables 1A and 1B) and 2-100(a) (criteria for establishing allowable stress values for tables 2A and 2B) of ASME Section II, Part D, respectively (see Tables II and III of this paper). In case of the pressure design, KTA 3211.2 has additional requirements for determining stress intensities, which are based on German design standards of non-nuclear plants. In the case of KTA, the allowable stresses are based on yield- and tensile strength of the material at room- and elevated temperature. The yield strength (Rp0.2) is defined as the stress value that results in a plastic strain of 0.2 % after unloading. For some austenitic materials (criteria see KTA 3211.2, Table 6.6 1) Rp1.0 may be taken in lieu of Rp0.2. In this case, Rp1.0 is defined as the stress value that results in a plastic strain of 1.0 % after unloading. KTA limits the design temperature to 400 C whereas the temperature limit of ASME is provided by the temperature range for which the allowable stresses and material properties are listed in Section II. Typically this limit is around 400 C but there are materials that are permitted to be used at higher 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 for establishing the allowable stress values S and Sm are provided in tables 1-100 and 2-100(a) of ASME Section II, Part D, respectively. There are no detailed explanations presented in Section II, Appendices 1 and 2, regarding when to use 2/3 or 0.9 times the yield strength above room temperature. The safety-factors of KTA and ASME are different for Class 2 and 3. E. g. for S-values KTA divides the tensile strength by 4 and ASME by 3.5 (see Tables II and III of this paper). For Class 2 and 3 components, the safety 5

margins for tensile strengths are at least 14% higher in KTA whereas the safety margins for yield strengths are only slightly higher (7%) than those of ASME. Therefore, KTA is slightly conservative compared to ASME as a result of the higher safety margins. For Class 1 components, the safety margins are comparable.
TABLE II. COMPARISON BETWEEN CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING ALLOWABLE STRESS VALUES FOR CLASS 2 AND 3 DESIGN OF ASME (SECTION II, TABLE 1-100) AND KTA 3211.2 (TABLE 6.6-1)

Criteria for S
Tensile Strength at RT Tensile Strength above RT Yield Strength at RT Yield Strength above RT Stress Rupture Creep Rate

ASME
ST/3.5 1.1STRT/3.5 2/3 SY 2/3 SYRY or 0.9 SYRY Favg SR avg 0.8 SR min 1.0 Sc

KTA 3211.2
ferritic
RmRT/4.0 Rp0.2RT/1.6

Comparison
ASME/KTA 1.14 1.07

austenitic
RmRT/4.0 -

Rp0.2RT/1.6 Rp0.2T/1.1

Rp0.2T/1.6

or

1.07 (ferritic)

Rp0.2T/1.5
-

TABLE III. COMPARISON BETWEEN CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING ALLOWABLE STRESS VALUES FOR CLASS 1 DESIGN OF ASME (SECTION II, TABLE 2-100(A)) AND KTA 3211.2 (TABLE 6.6-1)

Criteria for Sm
Tensile Strength at RT Tensile Strength above RT Yield Strength at RT Yield Strength above RT

ASME
ST/3.0 1.1STRT/3.0 2/3 SY 2/3 SYRY or 0.9 SYRY

KTA 3211.2
ferritic
RmRT/3.0 RmT/2.7 -

Comparison
ASME/KTA 1.00 0.99 1.00

austenitic
RmRT/3.0

RmT/2.7 Rp0.2RT/1.5 Rp0.2T/1.1

Rp0.2T/1.5

or

1.00 (ferritic)

Rp0.2T/1.5

6. SPECIAL FEATURES OF KTA 3201.2 KTA 3201.2 is the German design and analysis standard for components of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (primary circuit). The general structure is similar to KTA 3211.2 except that it only contains design rules for Class 1 components and piping. It provides additional analysis procedures for the general analysis of mechanical behavior. Similar to ASME, NB-3228.1, limit analysis is permitted and detailed in KTA 3201.2, Chapter 7.7.4. However, this method is prohibited for use in KTA 3211.2. Borrowing from 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)

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 6 Copyright 2011 by ASME

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

[9] Maurer H. A. Deckers, J., 1983, Comparison of US and European Codes and Regulations for the Construction of LWR. Chicago, IL, presented at SMIRT 7.

[10] Rao, K. R. 2002, Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code; Criteria and Commentary on Select Aspects of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes. ASME Press.

Copyright 2011 by ASME