Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: b6b57a00-5b85-4f0c-965c-ca89ef4265e7
Document Type: srp
Title: DETERMINATION OF RUPTURE LOCATIONS AND DYNAMIC EFFECTS
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1608/ML16088A041.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 3
Section ID: 3.6.2
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
namic 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 percent of its rated energy dissipating capacity as determined by dynamic testing, at loading rates within +50 percent 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. Pure tension members should be limited to an allowable strain of 50 percent of the ultimate uniform strain (Xm) (see Figure 3.6.2-2(a)). Alternatively, the allowable strain value may be determined as the value of strain associated with 50 percent of the ultimate uniform energy absorption capacity as determined by dynamic testing at loading rates within +50 percent of the specified design loading rate (see Figure 3.6.2-2(b)). The method of dynamic analysis used should be capable of determining the inelastic behavior of the piping and restraint system within these design limits. 3.6.2-8 Revision 3 – December 2016 Figure 3.6.2-1 Rated energy dissipating capacity Figure 3.6.2-2 Limitations on pure tension members A 10 percent increase of minimum specified design yield strength (Sy) may be used in the analysis to account for strain rate effects. Dynamic analysis methods and procedures presented should include: i. A representative mathematical model of the piping system or piping and restraint system. 3.6.2-9 Revision 3 – December 2016 ii. The dynamic analytical method selected. iii. Solutions for the most severe responses among the piping breaks analyzed. iv. Solutions with