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:
hat evaluation is possible. Deviations from approved criteria and the justifications provided are reviewed to determine acceptability. B. At the OL stage, the following are reviewed to ensure that the pipe break criteria have been properly implemented: (i) Sketches showing the locations of the resulting postulated pipe ruptures, including identification of longitudinal and circumferential breaks; structural barriers, if any; restraint locations; and the constrained directions in each restraint. (ii) A summary of the data developed to select postulated break locations, including, for each point, the calculated stress intensity, the calculated cumulative usage factor, and the calculated primary plus secondary stress range as delineated in A. Giambusso letter of December 1972 and J.F. O’Leary letter of July 12, 1973 and BTP 3-4. 2. The staff reviews the analyses of pipe motion caused by the dynamic effects of postulated breaks. These analyses should show that pipe motions will not result in unacceptable impact upon, or overstress of, any SSCs important to safety to the extent that essential functions would be impaired or precluded. The analysis methods used should be adequate to determine the resulting loadings in terms of the kinetic energy or momentum induced by the impact of the whipping pipe, if unrestrained, upon a protective barrier or a component important to safety and to determine the dynamic response of the restraints induced by the impact and rebound, if any, of the ruptured pipe. An unrestrained whipping pipe should be considered capable of causing circumferential and longitudinal breaks, individually, in impacted pipes of smaller nominal pipe size, and of developing through-wall cracks in equal or larger nominal pipe sizes with thinner wall 3.6.2-6 Revision 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