Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: f71d7329-8fbe-4d17-83ea-598ab7918250
Document Type: srp
Title: DETERMINATION OF RUPTURE LOCATIONS AND DYNAMIC EFFECTS
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0706/ML070660494.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 3
Section ID: 3.6.2
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
2 - March 2007 thickness, except where analytical or experimental, or both, data for the expected range of impact energies demonstrate the capability to withstand the impact without rupture. At the CP stage, the staff reviews the applicant’s criteria, methods, and procedures used or proposed for dynamic analyses by comparing them to the following criteria. At the OL stage, the analyses are reviewed in accordance with these criteria. A. Dynamic Analysis Criteria. An analysis of the dynamic response of the pipe run or branch should be performed for each longitudinal and circumferential postulated piping break. The loading condition of a pipe run or branch, prior to the postulated rupture, in terms of internal pressure, temperature, and inertial effects should be used in the evaluation for postulated breaks. For piping pressurized during operation at power, the initial condition should be the greater of the contained energy at hot standby or at 102% power. In case of a circumferential rupture, the need for a pipe-whip dynamic analysis may be governed by considerations of the available driving energy. Dynamic analysis methods used for calculating piping and restraint system responses to the jet thrust developed after the postulated rupture should adequately account for the following effects: (a) mass inertia and stiffness properties of the system, (b) impact and rebound, (c) elastic and inelastic deformation of piping and restraints, and (d) support boundary conditions. If a crushable material, such as honeycomb, is used, the allowable capacity of crushable material should be limited to 80% of its rated energy dissipating capacity as determined by dynamic testing, at loading rates within +50% of the specified design loading rate. The rated energy dissipating capacity should be taken as not greater than the area under the load-deflection curve as illustrated in Figure 3.6.2-1. The portion of the curve in which the value of load vs. deflection has departed from the