Comparison of pts guides for reactor pressure vessel integrity assessment

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F26722445%3A_____%2F13%3A%230000807" target="_blank" >RIV/26722445:_____/13:#0000807 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/PVP2013-97342" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/PVP2013-97342</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/PVP2013-97342" target="_blank" >10.1115/PVP2013-97342</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of pts guides for reactor pressure vessel integrity assessment

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Integrity of reactor pressure vessels (RPV) are of the most importance for safety of the whole NPP. From all potential regimes, Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) regimes during emergency cooling conditions are the most severe and most important. Several nuclear codes are based in similar approaches but their procedures differ and are based on national knowledge and approach to fracture mechanics as well as non-destructive methods of reactor pressure vessel testing. The paper will compare requirements andprocedures for PTS evaluation in accordance with RCC-M code in France [2], KTA in Germany [3], Russian original code PNAEG from 1989 [5] and new procedure from 2004 for WWER vessels [4], as well as VERLIFE procedure and IAEA-NULIFE VERLIFE [6] procedurefor WWER RPVs and finally ASME Code requirements [1] including US NRC RG approach. Detailed comparison of individual parameters in calculations are compared - material properties, degradation of materials, calculated defects size and form

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of pts guides for reactor pressure vessel integrity assessment

Popis výsledku anglicky

Integrity of reactor pressure vessels (RPV) are of the most importance for safety of the whole NPP. From all potential regimes, Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) regimes during emergency cooling conditions are the most severe and most important. Several nuclear codes are based in similar approaches but their procedures differ and are based on national knowledge and approach to fracture mechanics as well as non-destructive methods of reactor pressure vessel testing. The paper will compare requirements andprocedures for PTS evaluation in accordance with RCC-M code in France [2], KTA in Germany [3], Russian original code PNAEG from 1989 [5] and new procedure from 2004 for WWER vessels [4], as well as VERLIFE procedure and IAEA-NULIFE VERLIFE [6] procedurefor WWER RPVs and finally ASME Code requirements [1] including US NRC RG approach. Detailed comparison of individual parameters in calculations are compared - material properties, degradation of materials, calculated defects size and form

Druh

D - Stať ve sborníku

CEP obor

JF - Jaderná energetika

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2013

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název statě ve sborníku

2013 21st International Conference on Nuclear Engineering Volume 3: Nuclear Safety and Security; Codes, Standards, Licensing and Regulatory Issues; Computational Fluid Dynamics and Coupled Codes Chengdu, China, July 29?August 2, 2013

ISBN

978-0-7918-5580-5

ISSN

—

e-ISSN

—

Počet stran výsledku

7

Strana od-do

—

Název nakladatele

ASME

Místo vydání

New York, USA

Místo konání akce

Chengdu, China

Datum konání akce

1. 1. 2013

Typ akce podle státní příslušnosti

WRD - Celosvětová akce

Kód UT WoS článku

—