20th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 20)

Espoo, Finland, August 9-14, 2009

SMiRT 20-Division VI, Paper (Abstract – ID 1587)

On the Design of Pipe Supports and Steelwork Regarding Revised

German Nuclear Safety Standards

Jens Milledera and Dr. Lutz Lindhorsta

a
TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH, Munich, Germany, e-mail: jens.milleder@tuev-sued.de

Keywords: structural steelwork, dimensioning,

1 ABSTRACT

The design review of pipe supports is discussed in this paper putting the main emphasis on the stress analysis
of weld seams. In the non-nuclear area, there has been made a change in the design concept for structural
steelwork of surface constructions in Germany and the deterministic design concept of German DIN 18800
(03/81) [1] has been replaced by the semi-probabilistic design concept of DIN 18800 (11/90) [2]. The design
concepts are compared which each other. Differences between the two standards [1] and [2] are investigated
using an example of a simple steel construction. Results for dimensioning according to DIN 18800 (03/81)
[1] are compared to those for dimensioning according to DIN 18800 (11/90) [2]. In former papers of the
authors the effects on the steel profiles and building structure interaction loads are investigated. In this paper
the authors are putting the main emphasis on stress analysis of weld seams.

2 INTRODUCTION

Steel constructions and pipe supports in nuclear facilities are needed for safe support of active and passive
components. They shall have adequate stiffness and mechanical strength. The structural analysis shall
provide that the structure, its components, connections and supports demonstrate load bearing capacity,
serviceability and static equilibrium. Typical examples of steel constructions are platforms, operating
platforms and support stays for pipes, valves or pumps. Besides the service loads resulting from the specified
normal operation, different load cases have to be considered in design of structural steelwork, like non-
specified operation (e.g. turbine trip out), thermal loads (e.g. loss-of-coolant accident), construction loads or
design basis accidents (e.g. earthquake, aircraft crash). For all service conditions, accidental situations and
extreme incidents, the steel construction has to ensure the safe support of the components and no-collapse
requirements have to be fulfilled by structural steelwork and pipe supports.
In the non-nuclear area, there has been made a change in the concept for dimensioning of structural
steelwork in Germany and the deterministic design concept of German DIN 18800 (03/81) [1] was replaced
by the semi-probabilistic concept of DIN 18800 (11/90) [2]. The different procedures for dimensioning of
structural steelwork are investigated in this paper. The deterministic concept of German DIN 18800 (03/81)
[1] is compared with the semi-probabilistic concept of DIN 18800 (11/90) [2]. In [4] the comparison was
made for the steel profiles and the building interaction loads. In this paper the authors are putting the main
emphasis on the stress analysis of weld seams.
Design codes in nuclear safety standards for steelwork in German nuclear facilities are also considered
in the paper. Recent revisions of German nuclear safety standards are discussed with respect to regulations
concerning design codes for steelwork.

3 DESIGN CONCEPTS

Table 1 shows a comparison between old design concept DIN 18800 (03/81) [1] and new concept DIN
18800 (11/90) [2]. DIN 18800 (03/81) [1] is based on a deterministic procedure. The actual stress and the
allowable stress are determined using elastic theory. A global safety coefficient is considered in the
calculation of the allowable stress. Actual load values are used to determine the actual stress. Design stress

1
intensity is considered in case of combined loading. This value is usually based on distortion-energy theory.
The design stress intensity σv shall not exceed the allowable stress σzul.

Table 1. Comparison of old and new design concept for structural steelwork (non-nuclear) according to [14]

old design concept new design concept

safety coefficient
γ (global safety factor, resistance)
γF (partial safety factor, actions)
σzul = βs / γ (γ ≈ γF · γM)
γM (partial safety factor, resistances)
βs = yield strength
determination of force and moment components
first order theory: actual values (γ = 1)
γF - or γF · γM – factorization
second order theory: γ - factorization
analytical model
first order theory second order theory with imperfections
special case: second order theory special case: first order theory
verification
σv ≤ σzul Sd / Rd ≤ 1
σv = stress intensity (equivalent stress) Sd = design stress
σzul = allowable stress Rd = design resistance

In the semi-probabilistic concept of DIN 18800 (11/90) [2] equations are implemented, which were
partly obtained in experiments. The analysis is based on design values. Design values are values which
action parameter and resistance parameter are assumed to have for the purpose of the analysis. They are
determined with respect to unfavorable effects of actions occur in structures having an unfavorable
combination of properties. More critical situations are unlikely to happen in practice. The partial safety
factors γF and γM take into account variations in actions (γF) and resistance parameters (γM). Furthermore, the
probabilities of variable actions occurring simultaneously are considered by a combination value ψ. The
design stress Sd is the parameter describing the state of a structure as a result of design actions Fd. The design
resistance Rd is describing the state of a structure associated with its limit states. It is calculated using the
design resistance parameter Md or determined empirically. The design stress Sd shall not exceed the design
resistance Rd in the calculation.
For the dimensioning of weld seams according to DIN 18800 (03/81) [1] the analysis has to be done as
described above. In DIN 18800 (11/90) [2] an additional weld seam parameter α has to be taken into
account.
A complete description of the different concepts cannot be given in this paper. Therefore, only the main
difference is described here. Further information can be found in standards [1-2] or in literature, e.g. in
[13-17].

4 NUCLEAR SAFETY STANDARDS

In Germany the design of steel construction, non-integral component supports and standard supports of
primary and secondary system components is ruled in the KTA nuclear safety standard 3205 part 1-3 [5-9].
The KTA standards refer to further national and international standards. Table 2 gives an overview about the
concepts.

2
Table 2. Nuclear safety standards KTA 3205, part 1-3 [5-9] for steel components and non-integral supports

KTA revisio steel construction for Subject refers to revision

n
3205.1 [5] 06/91 primary system non-integral supports DIN 18800 [1] 03/81
components
3205.1 [6] 06/02 primary system non-integral supports DIN 18800 [1] * 03/81 *
components DIN 18800 [2] ** 11/90 **
EC 3 [3] *** 04/93 ***
3205.2 [7] 06/90 secondary system non-integral supports DIN 18800 [1] 03/81
components
3205.3 [8] 06/89 primary and secondary standard supports DIN 18800 [1] 03/81
system components
3205.3 [9] 11/06 primary and secondary standard supports 3205.1 [6] 06/02
system components

*
DIN 18800 (03/81) [1] partly included in [5] as appendix “E”
**
dimensioning according to DIN 18800 (11/90) [2] only in isolated case and only with approval of the
authorized inspection agency
***
EC 3 [3] mentioned only informatively in [5] in appendix “G”

KTA 3205.1 (6/91) [5], KTA 3205.2 [7] and KTA 3205.3 [8] refer mainly to DIN 18800 (03/81) [1]
concerning the dimensioning of the steel parts and their connections. The revised KTA 3205.1 (6/01) [6]
refers additionally to DIN 18800 (11/90) [2] and also to EC 3 [3]. It should be mentioned here, that a recent
version [10] of EC 3 is available in the meantime. The KTA 3205.3 [9] refers to revised KTA 3205.1 (6/01)
[6]. The KTA 3205.2 is in revision process. Although the deterministic concept of DIN 18000 (03/81) [1] is
still up to date in mechanical engineering, DIN 18800 (11/90) [2] and partly EC 3 [3] and [10] are already
well established in civil engineering, e. g. for conventional power plants. But since now, they have not
usually been used in design analysis for structural steelwork of machinery equipment installed in German
nuclear facilities, except in special cases.
On the one hand the deterministic concept of DIN 18800 (03/81) [1] is still implemented in German
nuclear safety standard KTA 3205 part 1-3 [5-8] for supports in German nuclear power plants. Also this
concept is still up to date in mechanical engineering. On the other hand the deterministic design concept is
today not more allowed for new proof calculations concerning the power plant buildings and the anchorages
(civil engineering). This leads to recent discussions concerning the interface between machinery equipment
(mechanical engineering) and building (civil engineering).

5 EXAMPLE

5.1 Deterministic procedure

Table 3 gives an overview about the allowable stresses (referred to reference offset yield stress Rv0.2) for
welds at loading levels HS1 and HS2/HS3 for the steels St37, St52 and other steels (supplementary to Table
11 of DIN 18800 [1]).
In KTA 3205.2 [7] only the allowable stresses σzul for abnormal operation and incident load
combinations HS1 and HS2/HS3 are given. The allowable stresses σzul for service load combinations H and
HZ have to be taken from DIN 18800 (03.81) [1]. These allowable stresses are shown in Table 4.

3
Table 3. Allowable stresses according to KTA 3205.2 [7]

The actual stresses in the weld seam are calculated with the following formula according to DIN 18800
(03/81) [1].

σ = Μ / W ≤ σzul = S · Rv0,2 (1)

with S ≤ 1,0 (proportion factor) and Rv0,2 = fy,k.

This means for maximum moment Mdet

Mdet ≤ S · fy,k · W (2)

4
Table 4. Allowable stresses σzul according to DIN 18800 (03.81) [1]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
St 37 St 52

Type of weld Welding quality Loading case

(see table 6, Type of stress
column 4) H HZ H HZ
2 2 2
N/mm N/mm N/mm N/mm2
Butt weld Pressure and
1 Double-bevel butt All weld qualities bending zul σD
weld pressure

Stresses normal to weld direction

Single-bevel butt weld 160 180 240 270
Double-bevel butt
2) Weld quality
2 weld with broad root
face verified1)
Tension and
Single-bevel butt weld zul σZ
with broad root face 2) bending tension

Three component weld Weld quality not

3
verified

Pressure and
4 bending zul σD
Fillet welds pressure
Three component weld
 135 150 170 190
5
 Tension and zul σZ
bending tension
All weld qualities
Shear in weld
6 All welds zul τ
direction
Single-bevel butt weld
Comparative
7 with broad root face zul σV
value
Fillet welds
1) Free from cracks, fusion and root defects and inclusions except isolated and insignificant slag inclusions and
pores must be verified by radiographic examination or ultrasonic testing.

This analysis is regarded as acceptable when on subjecting not less than 10% of the welds to a radiographic examination (in
which the work of all participating welders is accepted as uniform), a fault-free assessment is made (i.e. at least "blue" weld
quality in accordance with IIW catalogue).

2) Because of the existing root gap, only the values in line 3 apply to tension and bending tension.

5.2 Semi-probabilistic procedure

The value of design resistance Rd of a weld seam is calculated using the yield stress of the material, the
partial safety factor γM and a specific weld-strength factor αw which depends also on the used material.
Rd = fy,k · αw / γM (3)
The value of design stress Sd of a weld seam is calculated by using the actions (in this example only the
moment M) and the partial safety factor γF.

Sd = Mk · γF / W (4)
Under consideration of Sd / Rd ≤ 1the maximum moment Mk is

Mk ≤ fy,k · αw · W / γF · γM (5)

5
5.3 Comparison of both procedures

An example of a cantilever made of steel is presented in order to compare results obtained with the two
different design concepts of DIN 18800 (03/81) [1] and DIN 18800 (11/90) [2]. The cantilever is welded to
the anchor plate by a circulated fillet weld and loaded by moment M. This cantilever could also be seen as a
part of a three-dimensional framework (connection to building / anchor plate).

Building structure

Anchor plate

Cantilever

Circulated fillet weld

Figure 1. Rendered view of static system

The comparison of the both design concepts is done by creating a factor η which is calculated as the
followed:

η = Msemi / Mdet = (fy,k · αw · W / γF · γM) / (S · fy,k · W) = αw / (S · γF · γM) (6)

If the result is η < 1 higher moments are allowed by using the concept according to DIN 18800 (03/81)
[1]. For η > 1 higher moments are allowed by using the concept according to DIN 18800 (11/90) [2].

In the following two cases the combined loadings H, HZ, HS1 and HS2/HS3 according to DIN 18800
(03/81) [1] respectively the corresponding load combinations according to DIN 18800 (11/90) [2] were
considered.

5.3.1 First case

In the first case the material of the cantilever is St 37 respectively S 235. The specific weld strength factor of
this material αw is 0.95. Table 5 shows the different parameters of equation (6) for each load combination
and the result η.

6
Table 5. Load combinations, parameters

Load Load
combinations acc. S combinations acc. γM γF η
DIN 18800 [1] DIN 18800 [2]

H 0.56 Permanent actions 1.1 1.35 1.14

Permanent and
HZ 0.63 1.1 1.5 0.91
variable actions

Special actions
(Component loads
HS1 0.70 1.1 1.15 1.07
C acc. KTA
3211.2 [11])

HS2/HS3 0.84 Accidental actions 1.1 1.0 1.03

For load combination HS1 there is no comparable partial safety factor γF in DIN 18800 (11.90). For this
comparison the partial safety factor γF is taken from the KS D-specification 4572/50 [12]. The nuclear safety
standards KTA are considered and specified in the KS D-specifications. Further information about the
KS D-specifications can be found in [12] or in literature e. q. [4].

5.3.2 Second case

In the second case the material of the cantilever is St 52 respectively S 355. The specific weld strength factor
αw of this material is 0.80. Table 6 shows the different parameters of equation (6) for each load combination
and the result η.

Table 6. Load combinations, parameters

Load Load
combinations acc. S combinations acc. γM γF η
DIN 18800 [1] DIN 18800 [2]

H 0.47 Permanent actions 1.1 1.35 1.15

Permanent and
HZ 0.53 1.1 1.5 0.91
variable actions

Special actions
(Component loads
HS1 0.60 1.1 1.15 1.05
C acc. KTA
3211.2 [11])

HS2/HS3 0.71 Accidental actions 1.1 1.0 1.02

7
5.4 Results

The factor η obtained by comparison of both design concepts is shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Factor η

HS2/
Case Material H HZ HS1
HS3

1 St 37 1.14 0.91 1.07 1.03

2 St 52 1.15 0.91 1.05 1.02

To reach the maximum usage factor of 100 % a higher moment M would be allowed especially for
permanent service loads (normal operation) by using the semi-probabilistic design concept. Except for non-
specified operation, this means load case HZ according to DIN 18800 (03.81) [1], a higher moment M is
possible.

6 CONCLUSION

The design review of a weld seam is discussed in this paper. Under consideration of the two different design
concepts of DIN 18800 (03/81) [1] and DIN 18800 (11/90) [2] an example of a circulated fillet weld is
presented.
The example presented shows that differences in the results (stress analysis of a weld seam) occur
between the calculations performed according to DIN 18800 (03/81) [1] and DIN 18800 (11/90) [2].
Especially for permanent service loads (normal operation) a higher moment M would be allowed by using
the semi-probabilistic design concept.
The change in the design concept for structural steelwork, where the deterministic procedure of DIN
18800 (03/81) [1] has been replaced by the semi-probabilistic procedure of DIN 18800 (11/90) [2] in the
non-nuclear field, will possibly be adapted in recent revisions of nuclear safety standards and specifications
for steelwork of components with importance to safety. The deterministic procedure is used in mechanical
engineering and the semi-probabilistic procedure in civil engineering. For the interface of both technical
fields, a solution has to be found that meets the requirements of the relevant technical standards.

Symbols

fy,k yield strength, characteristic value kN cm-2

γF partial safety coefficient, actions -
γM partial safety coefficient, resistances -
αw specific weld-strength factor -
Sd design stress kN cm-2
Rd design resistance kN cm-2
σzul allowable stress kN cm-2
σv stress intensity kN cm-2

8
REFERENCES

1. DIN 18800, Teil 1: „Stahlbauten, Bemessung und Konstruktion“, 03/81, Normenausschuss Bauwesen
(NABau) im DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.
2. DIN 18800, Teil 1: „Stahlbauten, Bemessung und Konstruktion“, 11/90, Normenausschuss Bauwesen
(NABau) im DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.
3. DIN V ENV 1993: „EUROCODE 3: Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahlbauten“, 04/93,
Normenausschuss Bauwesen (NABau) im DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.
4. Dr. Lindhorst, L., Milleder, J., Schaudinn, L. 2005. On the dimensioning of steel construction
considering revision of German standards. 18th International conference on Structural Mechanics in
Reactors Technology (SMiRT 18)
5. KTA 3205.1: „Komponentenstützkonstruktionen mit nichtintegralen Anschlüssen; Teil 1:
Komponentenstützkonstruktionen mit nichtintegralen Anschlüssen für Primärkreiskomponenten in
Leichtwasserreaktoren“, 06/91, Kerntechnischer Ausschuss (KTA).
6. KTA 3205.1: „Komponentenstützkonstruktionen mit nichtintegralen Anschlüssen; Teil 1:
Komponentenstützkonstruktionen mit nichtintegralen Anschlüssen für Primärkreiskomponenten in
Leichtwasserreaktoren“, 06/02, Kerntechnischer Ausschuss (KTA)
7. KTA 3205.2: „Komponentenstützkonstruktionen mit nichtintegralen Anschlüssen; Teil 2:
Komponentenstützkonstruktionen mit nichtintegralen Anschlüssen für druck- und aktivitätsführende
Komponenten in Systemen außerhalb des Primärkreises“, 06/90, Kerntechnischer Ausschuss (KTA)
8. KTA 3205.3: „Komponentenstützkonstruktionen mit nichtintegralen Anschlüssen; Teil 3: Serienmäßige
Standardhalterungen“, 06/89, Kerntechnischer Ausschuss (KTA)
9. KTA 3205.3: „Komponentenstützkonstruktionen mit nichtintegralen Anschlüssen; Teil 3: Serienmäßige
Standardhalterungen“, 11/06, Kerntechnischer Ausschuss (KTA)
10. DIN EN 1993: „EUROCODE 3: Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahlbauten“, 07/2005,
Normenausschuss Bauwesen (NABau) im DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.
11. KTA 3211.2: “Pressure and Activity Retaining Components of Systems outside the Reactor Coolant
Pressure Boundary; Part 2: Design and Analysis”, (RE 6/90), Kerntechnischer Ausschuss (KTA)
12. KS D 4572/50: „Stahlbauteile S2 sowie S3 mit EVA/EVI Anforderungen“, Rev. B, 07/04,
Framatome ANP GmbH
13. Petersen, Chr. 1993. Stahlbau - Grundlagen der Berechnung und baulichen Ausbildung von Stahlbauten.
3. Auflage. Vieweg-Verlag Braunschweig.
14. Thiele/Lohse: „Stahlbau; Teil 1“, 23. Auflage, Teubner-Verlag Stuttgart, 1997.
15. Thiele/Lohse: „Stahlbau; Teil 2“, 18. Auflage, Teubner-Verlag Stuttgart, 1997.
16. Lindner, J., Scheer, J., Schmidt, H. 1998. Beuth-Kommentare „Stahlbauten“, Erläuterungen zu DIN
18800 Teil 1 bis Teil 4
17. Deutscher Stahlbau-Verband. 1993. Stahlbauhandbuch Band 1 Teil A. 3. Auflage. Stahlbau-
Verlagsgesellschaft.