Bulletin 79-07: Seismic Stress Analysis of Safety-Related Piping
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
April 14, 1979
IE Bulletin No. 79-07
SEISMIC STRESS ANALYSIS OF SAFETY-RELATED PIPING
Description of Circumstances:
In the course of evaluation of certain piping designs, significant
discrepancies, were observed between the original piping analysis computer
code used to analyze earthquake loads and a currently acceptable computer
code developed for this purpose. This problem resulted in the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission order to shutdown five power reactors whose design had
involved the use of the suspect computer codes (IE Information Notice No.
79-06). The difference in predicted piping stresses between the two computer
codes is attributable to the fact that the piping analysis code used for a
number of piping systems uses an algebraic summation of the loads predicted
separately by the computer code for both the horizontal, components and for
the vertical component of seismic events. This is an incorrect treatment of
such loads and was not recognized as such at the time the original analyses
were performed. Such codirectional loads should not be algebraically added
(with predicted loads in the negative direction offsetting predicted loads
in the positive direction) unless certain more complex time-history analyses
are performed. Rather, to properly account for the effects of earthquakes on
systems important to safety, as required by "Design Bases for Protection
Against Natural Phenomena, " General Design Criterion 2 of Appendix A to 10
CFR Part 50, such loads should be combined absolutely or, as is the case, in
the newer codes, using techniques such as the square root of the sum of the
squares. These combinations of loads conform to current industry practice.
The inappropriate analytical treatment of load combinations discussed above
becomes significant for piping runs in which the horizontal seismic
excitation can have both horizontal and vertical components of response on
piping systems, and the vertical seismic excitation also has both horizontal
and vertical components of response. It is in these runs that the predicted
earthquake loads may differ significantly.
.
IE Bulletin Nol. 79-07 April 14, 1979
Page 2 of 3
Although the greatest differences in predicted loads would tend to be
limited to localized stresses in pipe supports and restraints or in weld
attachments to pipes, there could be a substantial number of areas of high
stress in piping, as well as a number of areas in which there is potential
for damage to adjacent restraints or supports. Any of these situations could
have significant adverse effects on the ability of the piping system to
withstand seismic events.
The NRC staff has not yet determined that all of the piping systems
important to safety that were designed using a piping analysis computer code
which contains the algebraic summation error, have been identified. Certain
information is needed in order to make this determination.
Action To Be Taken By All Licensees and Permit Holders:
For all power reactor facilities with an operating license or a construction
permit:
(1) Identify which, if any, of the methods specified below were
employed or were used in computer codes for the seismic analysis
of safety related piping in your plant and provide a list of
safety systems (or portions thereof) affected:
Response Spectrum Model Analysis:
a. Algebraic (considering signs) summation of the codirectional
spatial components (i.e., algebraic summation of the maximum
values of the codirectional responses caused by each of the
components of earthquake motion at a particular point in the
mathematical model).
b. Algebraic (considering signs) summation of the codirectional
inter model responses (i.e., for the number of modes
considered, the maximum values of response for each mode
summed algebraically).
Time History Analysis:
a. Algebraic summation of the codirectional maximum responses or
the time dependent responses due to each of the components of
earthquake motion acting simultaneously when the earthquake
directional motions are not statistically independent.
.
IE Bulletin No. 79-07 April 14, 1979
Page 3 of 3
(2) Provide complete computer program listings for the dynamic
response analysis portions for the codes which employed the
techniques identified in Item 1, above.
(3) Verify that all piping computer programs were checked against
either piping benchmark problems or compared to other piping
computer programs. You are requested to identify the benchmark
problems and/or the computer programs that were used for such
verifications or describe in detail how it was determined that
these programs yielded appropriate results (i.e., gave results
which corresponded to the correct performance of their intended
methodology).
(4) If any of the methods listed in item 1 are identified, submit a
plan of action and an estimated schedule for the re-evaluation of
the safety related piping, supports, and equipment affected by
these analysis techniques. Also provide an estimate of the degree
to which the capability of the plant to safely withstand a seismic
event in the interim is impacted.
The responses for Items 1, 2 and 3 above, should include all subsequent
piping system additions and modifications. Any re-evaluation required, in
conformance with Item 4, should incorporate the "as built" conditions.
Licensees of all operating power reactor facilities should submit the
information identified in Items 1 through 4, above, within 10 days of the
date of this letter. Holders of construction permits for power reactor
facilities should submit this information within 45 days of the date of this
letter.
Reports should be submitted to the Director of the appropriate NRC Regional
Office and a copy should be forwarded to the NRC Office of Inspection and
Enforcement, Division of Reactor Operations Inspection, Washington, D.C.,
20555.
Approved by GAO, B180225 (R0072); clearance expires 7-31-80. Approval was
given under a blanket clearance specifically for identified generic
problems.
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021