Nuclear Engineering and Design 98 (1987) 265-277

North-Holland, Amsterdam

RCC-M

(RULES

FOR

DESIGN

AND

265

CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR COMPONENTS)

C. H E N G , J.M. G R A N D E M A N G E
Framatome, Tour Fiat, Cedex 16, 92084 - Paris-la-Defense, France

and
A. M O R E L
E D F / S e p t e n , 1 2 / 1 4 , Avenue Dutrievoz 69628 - Villeurbanne Cedex, France

Received April 1986

The paper deals with a presentation of the design rules included in the French RCC-M code applicable to mechanical
components of PWR nuclear islands and published by the French Society for Design and Construction rules for Nuclear
Island Components (AFCEN). Particular attention is paid to the major principles which constitute the background of the rules
of the code and to recent developments included in the code.
1. I n t r o d u c t i o n

This paper deals with a general presentation of the

scope and organization of the RCC-M, and particularly
with the design part of this code.
The RCC-M (Design and Construction Rules for
Mechanical Components of PWR Nuclear Islands) represents one division of the French RCC Codification
which also covers system design, electrical equipment,
civil works, fuel assemblies and fire protection. The
RCC-M Code deals with PWR mechanical components
and the RCC-MR with fast breeder components. RCCMR positions are presented in other specific papers.
French effort on Codification started in 1978. At
that date 30 PWR plants were in operation or under
construction and the French Practice was well established.
Rules corresponding to this practice have first been
established by EDF and Framatome with the participation of the various manufacturers concerned with the
code.
Since october 1980, the RCC-M is published and
maintained by AFCEN (French Society for Design and
Construction rules for Nuclear Island Components)
which also publishes the rules for design and construction of fast breeder reactor (RCC-MR), electrical
equipment (RCC-E) and fuel (RCC-C).
The French administration has been consulted for

advice on the compatibility of the code with regulation

requirements. The use of the rules thus established is
approved by the fundamental safety rule (RFS) V.2.c.
dated April 1981. In addition, the administration closely
follows the code evolution.
The first AFCEN Edition of the RCC-M has been
published in January 1981. Three addenda have been
issued in July 1981, January 1982 and December 1982.
The second RCC-M Edition was published in
January 1983. Four addenda to this edition have been
published in July 1983, January 1984, July 1984 and
January 1985.
The third 1985 Edition of the RCC-M is under
preparation. It will cover the 1983 Edition as modified
by its four addenda.
2. R C C - M

scope

The RCC-M code covers the following mechanical

components of PWR nuclear islands:
- pressure components (vessels, heat exchangers,
pumps, piping, valves): pressure boundary parts are
dealt with together with other specific parts referred
to explicitely in the code,
- storage and low-pressure tanks (volume J to be published),
- supports of pressure components and tanks,
- reactor internals.

0 0 2 9 - 5 4 9 3 / 8 7 / $ 0 3 . 5 0 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

( N o r t h - H o l l a n d Physics Publishing Division)

266

(7.

Heng, J.M, Grandemange, A. Morel / RCC-M

The other components, such as handling, ventilation

system components ... are not covered by the code.
The RCC-M covers the following matters:
- design." mechanical resistance of pressure boundary,
(functional requirements and performance tests for
pumps and valves for instance are out of RCC-M
scope);
materials: materials selection, procurement technical
requirements:
- m a n u f a c t u r i n g . process qualifications:
e x a m i n a t i o n : stage, method and extend, acceptance
criteria;

nents depends on their role with respect to plant safety

and to their operating conditions, according to table 2.
Safety classification is made according to the RCC-P
(design and construction rules for system design of
nuclear power plants).
In addition, it should be recalled that all equipment
forming the main primary system (as defined by the
French order of 26 February 1974 [2] is assigned a Class
1 classification.

Connections between sections and subsections are

given in table 3. All rules pertaining to design are given
in 3000 chapters of the various subsections of Section I,
or in the appendices of Subsection Z
Appendices of Subsection Z are applicable when
referred to in 3000 chapters.

hydrostatic tests f o r pressure c o m p o n e n t s a n d tanks.

In its present state, the RCC-M code does not cover

rules for in-service inspection.

3. General organization

3.2. Design

3.1. General

The RCC-M is applicable to safety related components and to components whose design pressure exceeds
20 bar or whose design temperature exceeds l l 0 C .
The other components are subjected to conventional
codes. The general organization of the RCC-M is given
in table 1. The code defines three classes for the pressure components and for each class, gives a complete set
of design and manufacturing rules. In addition class 2
and 3 small pressure components are covered by specific
provisions.
The assignment of these levels to different compo-

Table 2
Classification of mechanical components
IE),:

]
I

!
~il-

ii

'

r,

}__]
,ent :atols

/LASS

1
I

I :S!

-ll"

: / 7 S I {71 D 5

( I <'C4<

: STI i ! ' ? !

ii a.

<el ' 7 } ,

T ; I ~; :

3YAi
U,

1
(~(:'. 1(

27,

,; ~ ' ] o:;
:: B ; E ( ; 1 1 ~

'

<,

:I
!

L )AP',',(:g

>

G
t

3>:

1
!

SECTION

:)b~I, ,!,! ,, [

~C

i
Table 1
General organisation of the RCC-M code

i!

}'

",(', ~;,r

I I'1

sl B S E C 1 1 7 :

'
i

I : NUCLEAR ISLAND COMPONENTS

Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection

A
B
C
D
E
G
H
J

Subsection Z

general

requirements

I components
class 2 components
class 3 components
class

Noll n u c l c a r

ill T OF ~ ( ( - y

small components
reactor

S(;,q

pressure components

supports
low pressure and atmospheric storage tanks
(to be published)
technical appendices

internals

: SSL~Lt COMPONENIS :
Uessels
with an internal
v,lume of ioo iitrts
or ~ s
- Heat exchangers
for which the capaciQ,
<f c a ; } , ( f t h e
too !itres
or l e s s .
Pilmps w i t h a driving p o w e r o f 1 6 ) KW ~,t le~;s

cwc, > : C ,

instrumentation piping upstream t h e ~irst s~hutoir v,[,

Cool inR circuits of motor pump un{ts..,

SECTION 2 : MATERIALS
SECTION 3 : EXAMINATION METHODS
L
SECTION

SECTION

4
5

:
:

OTHER COMPONENTS

WELDING
FABRICATION

RIACFOR INIERNAL~
~ SECTION I , SLBSFCTION (
SCPPORTS OF COMPONENTS SUBJECT TO TFIE RCC M ~ S E C T I O N
l,
LOW PRESSURE AND ATMOSPHERIC STORAGE 'rANKS
i i SECTION I ,

SUBSEC21ON }
SHBSECT!ON

267

C. Heng, J.M. Grandemange, A. Morel / RCC-M

Table 3
Connections between sections and subsections
INTRODUCTION
DOCUMENTATION"
IDENTIFICATION

BIOO0

----- SUBSECTION A

B2OO0

MATERIALS

B3OOO

DESIGN

B4OOO

M A N U F A C T U R I N G AND EXAMINATION

B5OOO

HYDROSTATIC TEST

~-- SECTION 2.

SUBSECTION B

SUBSECTION C

SUBSECTION Z
SECTION 3 : EXAMINATION
.
SECTION 4 : WELDING
"'~6ECTION
5 : MANUFACTURING~

SAME ORGANIZATION

SUBSECTION D

SAME O R G A N I Z A T I O N

SUBSECTION G

SAME EXCEPT G5OOO

EXAMINATION

SUBSECTION H

SAME EXCEPT H50OO

H4OO0

A P P R O V A L OF STANDARD SUPPORTS
REFERENCE IS MADE TO APPENDIX HI FOR WELDING QUALIFICATIONS
AND ACCEPTANCE OF FILLER MATERIALS

I SUBSECTIO~-E-I E2OOO
E3OOO
E~OOO
E5OOO

(MATERIALS)
(DESIGN)

(SUPPLEMENT TO SECTION 3)

REFERS TO AFNOR STANDARDS

REFERS TO C33OO AND C36OO
REFERS TO APPENDIX HI OF SUBSECTION N IN TEE SAME WAY AS IN H4OOO.
Q U A L I F I C A T I O N OF PUMPS AND A C C E P T A N C E TEST
(CHAPTERS E2OOO TO E4OOO ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO PUMPS).

[ SUBSECTION J ] TO BE P U B L I S H E D

Table 4
Organization of design rules applicable to pressure components
........

: ALTERNATIVE RULES,
i

B3OOO [ : DESIGN RULES APPLICABLE TO CLASS

B31OO

I COMPONENTS

APPENDIX
,
ED AT1EOFGEOME
RICAL f I1

GENERAL DESIGN RULES

- - ICENERAL RULES FOR ANALY~ING COMPONENT BEHAVIOUR '

~ A P P E N D I X ZF :
~---~'~APPENDIX ZG
I ~ A P P E N D I X ZH :

~3200

B33OO

GENERAL VESSEL DESIGN

B3400

PUMP DESICN

~ A P P E N D I X ZA : R E I N F O R C E M E N T OF OPENINGS

~B35OO

GENERAL DESIGN OF VALVES

N
. . . . . w,-APPENDIX ZE : A L T E R N A T I V E CLASS
PIPING DESIC. - - ' ~ A P P E N D I X
ZF
LEVEL D CRITERIA

~36OO

[~OO]

DISCONTINUITIES
LEVEL D C R I T E R I A
FAST FRACTURE ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE FATIGUE RULES

I PIPING RULES

(LEVEL A CRITERIA)

: DES [GN RULES APPLICABLE TO CLASS 2 COMPONENTS

SAME ORGANIZATION, EXCEPT C32OO COVERING ALTERNATIVE RULES FOR VESSEL DESIGN (MANDATORY FOR
SIGNIFICANT CYCLIC LOADINGS ACCORDING TO A4OOO C L A S S I F I C A T I O N RULES) AND NO REFERENCES ARE MADE
TO N O N - M A N D A T O R Y APPENDICES

[ D3OOOI:

DESIGN RULES APPLICABLE TO CLASS 3 COMPONENTS

SAME ORGANIZATION AS FOR CLASS 2 COMPONENTS EXCEPT D32OO WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.

Table 5
Mandatory appendices
APPENDIX ZI

PROPERTIES OF .MATERIALS TO BE USED IN DESIGN

APPENDIX ZII

EXPERIMENTAL STRESS ANALYSIS

APPENDIX ZIII

DETERMINATION OF ALLOWABLE BASIC STRESS LIMITS

APPENDIX ZIV

DESIGN RL~ES FOR COMPONENTS SUBJECTED TO EXTERNAL

PRESSURE

APPENDIX ZV

DESIGN OF CIRCULAR BOLTED FLANGE CONNECTIONS

APPENDIX ZVI

DESIGN RL~ES FOR LINEAR TYPE SUPPORTS.

When specifically referred to, all appendices numbered with roman numerals are mandatory.
Application of appendices numbered with letters is
optional. Table 4 shows the general organization of
design rules for pressure components including references to non-mandatory appendices. It may be noted
that these non-mandatory appendices are only applicable for Class 1 components.
Arrows with dotted lines correspond to alternative

268

c. Heng, J.M. Grandemange, A. Morel / RCC-M

rules: Appendices referred to may be used in place of

the corresponding provisions of the applicable 3000
sub-chapter. In the other cases, appendices cover matters
not included in 3000 sub-chapter, but other provisions
may be used if sufficient justifications are given.
Mandatory appendices are listed in table 5.
Appendices ZI to ZV are referred to in design
chapters of subsections B to J. Appendix ZVI is referred
to in H 3000 of Subsection H covering supports.

4. RCC-M

design

rules

3 components and an effort is made to complete the

code provisions on this matter [3]. As a consequence~
analysis requirements are much less developed than for
Class 1 components.
For Class 1 components, sizing rules such as reinforcement of openings are generally not considered
sufficient in themselves to meet the regulatory requirements on pressure boundary integrity. It is therefore
mandatory' to perform a detailed analysis for each case,
Because of this, reinforcement rules for example arc not
mandatow for Class 1 vessels and pumps and they have
been included in Appendix ZA (see Table 4).

4.1. Scope

4.2. Class 1 components

Design rules included in the RCC-M are only related

to mechanical integrity (pressure boundary integrity for
pressure components).
They include:
1. Sizing provisions
- rules for determination of minimum thicknesses,
reinforcement of openings (for pressure components),
- design of welded joints complying with french regulations.
2. Rules for evaluating mechanical component behaviour
(stress analysis)
Sizing provisions are more developed for Class 2 and

4.2.1. General
Sizing rules for Class I components are given in B
3300 to B 3600, depending on the component type. For
analysis requirements, B 3300 and B 3400 refer to the B
3200 general provisions for analyzing component behaviour: as far as pressure integrity is concerned, pumps
are considered as vessels.
For valves and piping, simplified analysis rules are
given in B 3500 and B 3600 respectively. These simplified provisions cover the same requirements as the
general B 3200 provisions. If necessary, the detailed
analysis methods of B 3200 may be used (or the mixed

Table 6
Estimations required by the 26 Feb. 1974 order.

I t)ADIN(; CONDIT iONS

~AMAGE
First category
(Design condition)

RCC-M CRITERIA LEVEL

Second c a t e g o r y
(Normal and u p s e t
conditions)

LEVEl. A

LEVEL 0

Third category
I
Fourth category
(Emergency condit ions) ( F a u l t e d c o n d i t i o n s )

LEVEl, C

Excessive deformation

Plastic, elastlc and

elastic-plastic
instabilities
Progressive

deformation

LEVI-II~ D

Estimation
not required

2,5

or ratchetting

Fatigue

Fast fracture

I,I

required

estimation not
required

est~matlon not
required

estimation required

estimation not
required

estimation not
required

estimation

estimation

required

estimation

required

estimation

required

C Heng, J.M. Grandemange, A. Morel / RCC-M

method of Appendix ZE for piping allowing combination of results obtained by partial detailed analysis as
per B 3200 and results obtained as per the simplified
method in B 3600).

4.2.2. Background of B 3200

Rules applicable to Class 1 components conform to
the regulation of 26 Feb. 1974 order [2]. The order's
imperatives are expressed as margins pertaining to various types of damage under different loading conditions
(see table 6).
The code rules are set according to various levels of
criteria (0, A, C and D) intended for compliance with
those margins.
From the design point of view, the structure of the
code is similar to the A S M E Code Section III [4]. Rules
also refer to the same type of criteria and give on the
whole the same safety coefficients except for some
specific provisions (such as level C criteria) where the
R C C - M criteria may be more stringent than the A S M E
ones.

The requirements relating to mechanical integrity

can be verified using different means of analysis (elastic, elastic-plastic, experimental). Different methods may
be used for different components or different parts of
the same component.
Requirements relative to combining different methods are given at the beginning of subchapter B 3200.
Rules relative to elastic analyses constitute the major
part of this subchapter. For the purpose of the code,
elastic analysis is considered as being an analysis which
makes a comparison between a criterion and stress
combinations obtained by elasticity calculations even if
the given criterion corresponds to considerations concerning the elastic-plastic component behaviour.
Stress

classification

Elastic-plastic or experimental analyses allow a direct verification of the protection against each damage
covered in table 6. In the case of elastic analysis, there is
a difference between the assumed elastic behaviour and
the actual behaviour of the material. It is thus necessary:
(1) To take into account the stresses according to
their nature, in view of the type of damage covered:
- primary stresses for excessive deformation and instability,
primary plus secondary stress ranges for progressive
deformation,
total stresses or stress ranges for fatigue and fast
fracture.
(2) To limit the stresses or stress ranges so as to meet

269

the applicable requirements.

The former operation is called stress classification. It
is the manufacturer's responsability to make this stress
classification according to the different damage risks.
The use of tables containing examples of stress classification has not been yet retained for Class 1 components, but it is expected that subsequent versions will be
more explicit once more experience has been acquired
in this field.
Stress

criteria

(1) Protection against excessive deformation and instability Protection against excessive deformation is obtained by limiting the stresses so as to remain under the
limit load. Quantities P,,,, Pc and Pb are defined to get
the result that, each time these stresses are less than Sy
(yield stress) and 1.5 Sy, then, as a consequence, we are
sure to be under the limit load [5]. The prescribed safety
factor is then applied to Sy.
Limit stresses for combined tension and bending are
illustrated on fig. la [6]. It may be noted that the
prescribed safety factor is generally obtained by limiting
P m t o S m and Pm + P b to1.5 Sm.
These criteria also prevent, with the prescribed
margin against plastic instability.
Stress criteria are increased by 20% for emergency
conditions in order to meet the prescribed safety
margins. This is more stringent than the corresponding
A S M E code requirements (for example eq. (9) of B 3600
is limited to 1.9 S m instead of 2.25 S,1 for the A S M E
Code).
Level D criteria are very similar to those in the
A S M E Code. Prevention against elastic and elastic-plastic instability is covered by specific provisions:
for pressure components, in Appendix Z IV (see also
section 5.1),
- for supports in subsection H, chapter H 3000 and in
Appendix Z VI for linear supports.
(2) Protection against progressive deformation is obtained by meeting the following rules in zones outside
major geometrical or material discontinuities:
thermal ratchet rules limiting through thickness thermal stresses as a function of maximum primary membrane stress,
3 S m (_+ Sy) limitation on the range of primary plus
secondary stresses excluding thermal bending stresses.
(3) The governing parameter in fatigue analysis is
the elastic-plastic strain range A%p which shall be
limited as a function of the number of cycles. This
strain range is considered to be correctly approximated
by the elastic fictitious strain range A% given by a
purely elastic calculation, if the S n range of primary

270

C Heng, J.M. Grandemange, A. Morel /" R ( ' ( ' - M

(Pm + Pb).
S

(Pro + Pb )
Y
Y

I
I ,43("

1.5

4/!T

0,957

/
t

2/'~

2/~3

P
m
S
Y

(b) B3600

(a) B3200

Fig. 1. Limitation of the primary membrane plus bending stresses.

plus secondary stresses including thermal bending

stresses is less or equal to 3Sin.
If S, exceeds the 3Sm limit, a strain correction factor
K~ =~Ccp/A~ ~ shall be applied to the result of the
elastic calculation in order to take account of the lesser
degree of confinement of the plastic zones [5].
The K e factor is determined from the S, range and
is applied to the total stress range. K e values currently
included in the R C C - M are those of the A S M E Code
[4]. Studies are undertaken on K~ values particularly
for thermal effects [7,8,9].
As far as fatigue analyses are concerned, the following remarks should also be made:
There are no exemption from fatigue requirements in
the RCC-M: detailed analysis is always mandatory
for Class 1 components.
Specific rules have been included for combinations of
load sets associated with the various normal and
upset conditions. On account of the conventional
nature of these rules, several methods have been
included in the code and more specifically in Appendix ZH. These provisions cover the combination
-

of randomly generated loads such as earthquake with

other specified loads.
- Local areas having geometrical singularities analogous to crack-like discontinuities (partial penetration
welds or thermal sleeves) require a special approach
which establishes a relation between stress ranges in
the area of the discontinuity and the number of
cycles. This method is codified in Appendix ZD. Its
application requires the use of fatigue curves which
are specially adapted to this approach. The approach
itself is covered in ref. [10].
(4) Protection against fast fracture is required for all
loading conditions. Regulatory requirements cover
brittle fracture as well as ductile tearing. Under conditions for which compliance with level A and C
criteria is required (normal, upset and emergency
conditions), it must be proved that there is no risk of
component wall damage due to unstable crack propagation. Under conditions for which ompliance with
level D criteria is required (faulted conditions), it
must be proved that there is no risk of bursting or
perforation of component walls.

C. Heng, J.M. Grandemange, A. Morel / RCC-M

Acceptable methods of analysis are included in Appendix ZG. In its present state, the appendix covers
only rules applicable to ferritic steels. Rules applicable to austenitic steels are under preparation.
Two approaches can be used [11]:
the first considers the existence of a conventional
defect ( 1 / 4 of shell thickness) similar so that used in
Appendix G of the A S M E code;
- the second is more realistic and considers more realistic defects, fatigue crack propagation and criteria
intended to ensure that the safety coefficients given
in table 6 with regard to instability are also met with
regard to fast fracture risks.
The rules included in Appendix Z G are summerized in
table 7 and fig. 2. They may be assessed and modified
where necessary following the first applications.
42.3. Design of piping and valves."
For piping and valves analyses, simplified rules are
included in B 3600 and B3500 respectively. The organizations of analysis provisions in the two subchapters are
very similar Simplified analysis rules for valves use the
same approach as for piping, although this analysis is
made by taking into account envelope values for the
loads in the same way as in A S M E NB 3500.
The analysis requirements are applicable to all piping and valves covered by the "1974 Order", i.e. all
piping and valves with an internal diameter exceeding
25 mm.

271

All damages as discussed in b) above are covered.

The correspondence between B 3500 and B 3600 equations and damages is given in table 8.
A comparison between general rules of B 3200 and
simplified rules shows that there is a good consistency
between the two approaches:
The principle of piping analysis is to study the
mechanical behaviour of each component of the piping
system with regard to a straight reference portion of the
pipe subject to the same loading.
The behaviour of the straight pipe is then corrected
by flexibility factor for system analysis and stress indices for stress analysis
A comparison between B 3200 and B 3600 may be
made by applying the general concepts to a straight
portion of pipe.
For example, Appendix I includes a development
relative to a straight pipe subjected to internal pressure
and bending and torsional moments, which shows that
expressing the Tresca criterion for this loading leads to
three expressions:
- The second of these expressions is satisfied by meeting rules for pressure sizing of B 3640.
- The first and third expressions correspond to equation (9) of B 3600.
This development shows clearly that eq. (9) corresponds
to the expression of the stress intensity for the whole
loading (pressure+ moments) with M i being taken as
the SRSS of the bending and torsional moments.

Table 7
Rules for protection against fast fracture

1st method

REFERENCE DEFECT

FATIGUE ('.RACK
PROPAGATION

LEVEL A CRITERIA

Conventional
(I/4 thickness
for a she11)

NoE c o n s i d e r e d

2 Kfm + Klt j KIR

T - RTND T ! 50C

2nd method

Realistic
(! 15 mm for
example for a
she]l)

KI '
Taken

into account

0,4 KIc
0,7 Kia

LEVEL C CRITERIA

1,5 Kim + K i t E KIR

: T - RTNDT ! 50C
K1 !

0,5 Klc
0,85 Kla

T - RTNDT > 50C : T - RTND T > 50C

KI ! t 0 , 7 KI a
r 0,7 Kjc

LEVEl. D CRITERIt

0,85
K I ~ iO,85 KjcKIa

See table q

272

C Heng, J.M. Grandernange, A. Morel // R('C-M

CALCULATION DEFECT
Z G 3320

i
Sele~ )omt in time during
conditRon uncler consideration

-I
[

NOil

NO

Initiation of
J
unstabie propagation,
defect becomes infinite

No initiation, calculation
defect, unchanged

No initiation, calculation
defect unchanged

Defect configuration becomes

infinite with a depth equal to
arrest depth

Fracture

Later point in time

Absence of risk of fast fracture verified

Fig. 2. Level D criteria: Illustration of analysis procedure.

The safety margin which corresponds to the limitation of eq. (9) to 1.5 Sm may be determined by evaluating by limit analysis the limit moment the pipe may

undergo for different pressure values and by calculating

the fictive elastic stress corresponding to this limit moment.

273

C. Heng, J.M. Grandemange, A, Morel / RCC-M

Table 8
Correspondence between B 3500, B 3600 and B 3200 criteria

B32OO
CRITERIA

DA~[Af;E

B36OO
CRITERIA

Pm ! Sm

Equ.

(I)

Equ,

(9)

B35OO
CRITERIA

to

(t)

Equ.

(8)

Equ.

(9)

Excessive Deformation
Instability

Pm + Ph ! 1,5 S m

Thermal
Progressive

ratchet rnle

B.3653.7

Not applicable

Deformation
S

< 3 Sm

Equ.

(12)

Sal t = Ke.S p

Equ.

Ke = f ( S n)

Equ.

and

(13)

Equ,

(IO)

and

(IOa)

(11)

Equ.

(11)

and

(lla)

(IO)

Ke = f ( S

Fatigue

Fast fracture

B.3260

Refers to B3260 (rules

under preparation for
austenit[c materials)

The fictive elastic stress Ore~ is equal to:

4
fel

= Sy

"/7"

~roo

4Sy '

c o s -

where o0 is the circumferential stress due to pressure.

This leads to the following formal expression of the
criteria, illustrated on fig. lb.
Oc

S~

(Pro + Pb)
Sy

1 oo
2 Sy

4
+

--

~"

COS

~roo
4Sy"

It may be noted that for pressure stresses close to the

S m value of the material, the 1.5 safety margin of table
6 pertaining to excessive deformation damage is met
with an under conservatism of about 5%, compensated
by conservative assumptions made elsewhere, when eq.
(9) is limited to 1.5 Sm.
In addition, it shall be recalled that design pressure
is always introduced in eq. (9) even if maximum value
for M~ is not associated with this pressure value.
It may thus be concluded that the B 3600 approach
and safety margin are consistent with B 3200 with the
difference that primary stress intensities are determined
in the section for B 3600 and in the thickness for B 3200
approach.
For the 3S m criterion and fatigue analyses, the

max)

: B3553,4d

Not required

simplified approach consists in adding pressure induced

and thermal stress intensities instead of determining the
intensity of total stress. This approach gives a conservatism compared to the B 3200 approach but the
background of both provisions are the same.
For example, the difference between eqs. (13) and
(10) concerns the thermal bending stresses which are
not included in eq. (13). C~ indices used in eq. (13) are
thus obtained by excluding all thermal bending components from the expressions giving the C 3 indices used in
eq. (10).
Following this type of approach and using the great
number of available references, a global revision of the
B 3600 stress indices occured in the January 1985
addendum of the code.
They are very few discrepancies between the A S M E
and the R C C - M code on stress indices, both codes
using the same basic research results. As previously
mentioned, research is made on the K~ factor including
the question whether or not to include the AT 1 term in
the eq. (10) expression used for K e calculation. In its
present state, R C C - M maintains the ,~T~ term in eq.
(10) for piping analysis, until results are available to
improve the codified rule on Poissons ratio correction
and plasticity effects [7,8,9]. These studies also concern
valves which shall be analyzed using the same approach.

274

( . tteng, J.M. Grandemange, A. More/ / R('('-,~I

4. 3. Class 2 and 3 components

5. i. Rule.v ./or components suhlecg,d ~el vferna/ pre.vsur'

Rules applicable to class 2 and 3 Components cover

the same general provisions as the rules for Class 1
components, except there is no need to approach explicitly the problem in terms of damage. Due to this
fact, detailed behavior analysis is generally not employed as only simplified analysis is required.
As far as the choice of stress limits is concerned, a
single set of rules is applicable for each component
class, due to the fact that identical requirements for
manufacturing and testing apply to all components of
the same class.
For the design condition, general membrane stress
has been limited to:
one quarter of the tensile strength and two thirds of
the yield strength for class 2 components if the
detailed analysis method has not been used.
0.85 times these values for class 3 components
In the same way as in the A S M E code, for class 2
vessels, the R C C - M leaves a choice between:
the simplified approach using the safety coefficients
mentioned above,
- a more detailed analysis similar to that in use for
class one component, using the same safety coefficients.
These last rules for analysis include provisions allowing
exemptions from fatigue analysis. They also stipulate
that in some cases, the sizing and layout rules are
adequate to limit some types of stresses.
The rules for "design by analysis" are mandatory for
components exposed to significant cyclic loadings as
defined in section 3.1, table 2. Stress equations for
piping analysis are those of the 1980 edition of the
A S M E code.
The RCC-M code maintains these rules until the
studies undertaken produce results which can be integrated into the code. For the particular cas e of design
rules of valves and pumps, see section 5 hereafter.

Rules for components subjected to external pressure

are given in Appendix ZIV which has been modified in
July 1984 addendum. This appendix is applicable 1o
Class 1. 2 and 3 pressure components and inctudes
criteria for all loading conditions.
The rules are based on well-known procedures but
diagrams usually used are completed by analytical expressions in order to facilitate numerical applications.
Limits of validity are given for the use of these analytical expressions. For example, the allowable pressure for
cylindrical shells is obtained using A and B factors.
Appendix B shows that for I , , / D ratios greater than
0.1, which cover the majority of the practical cases, the
A factor may be expressed analytically. In the same
way, the B factor may generally be calculated from the
A factor and the Young modulus. For the particular
case of shell characterized by a D / t ratio less than t0,
the formula giving the allowable pressure is modified
and a second rule is applied in addition to limit the
value of the compressive stress to an allowable value
equal to the small of the following values
0.5 times the ultimate strength.
0.9 times the yield strength.
These allowable values have been retained for all component classes after verification and show that they
were consistent with previously values based on S or

5. R e c e n t d e v e l o p m e n t s

5.2. Rules j b r Class 2 and 3 ~ah~es:

Among other evolutions, recent developments in the

R C C - M shall be mentioned. These concern particularly:
rules for components subjected to external pressure,
rules for Class 2 and 3 valves
rules for pressure design of pump casings.
Rules for pressure design of pump casings are presented
in detail in another specific paper [3].

Rules for design of Class 2 and 3 valves have been

introduced in RCC-M subchapters C 3500 and D 3500,
by the July 1984 addendum. These rules include pressure ratings which are those of A N S I B 16.34 special
class for Class 2 valves and those of the standard class
of ANSI B.16.34 for Class 3 valves. This choice has
been made taking into account the RCC-M requirements on fabrication and examination. Rules for the
determination of minimum wall thickness are given.

S m

Appendix ZIV covers also conical and spherical shells

and elliptical and torispherical heads. Rules for conical
shells refer to rules for cylindrical shells. Rules for
spherical shells have been formally amended to be consistent with the provisions for cylindrical shells. Rules
for elliptical and torispherical heads refer to rules for
spherical shells by using an equivalent radius for elliptical heads and a radius of curvature of the head dome
for torispherical heads. Cylinders under axial compression are also covered and provisions relating to stiffening rings are included.

C. Heng, J.M. Grandemange, A. Morel / RCC-M

These subchapters also include simplified rules for
the analysis of valves under primary loads. Equations of
C 3500 are issued from the corresponding equations of
B 3500, with allowable stress S m being replaced by S.
Criteria are also given for upset, emergency and faulted
conditions.
No requirements are given for thermal effects, but
detailed analysis of B 3500 may be required by the
equipment specification.
Due to the fact that safety classified components are
generally seismic classified, specific provisions are included for the analysis of the following locations when
valves are fitted with an extended structure:
the extended structure-to-bonnet connection area,
- the bonnet-to-neck connection area,
the bonnet-to-body connection by bolted flange.

Shear stress:
r = Mr~2 Z,
where D, is the internal diameter of the pipe, t is the
thickness of the pipe, and Z is the section modules of
the pipe. Principal stresses are:

o2:[OO+OZ-~/(OO-OZ)2+4f2],
o3

- 0.5p.

Expressing the stress intensity (Tresca criterion) leads

to:

101-o21
o~=max

6. Conclusion

This paper has presented the design requirements of

the RCC-M code applying in the nuclear field.
For Class 1 components, French regulatory requirements have led the nuclear industry to an intensive
research effort in the field of mechanical pressure component behaviour. The codified rules are the result of
these studies. Work is still carried out to complete or
improve the code and is aiming to obtain rules as simple
and easy to apply as feasible.
For Class 2 and 3 components and for tanks and
supports, work is done in order to cover the need of the
users with simplified and economical rules, taking into
account the matters which shall be covered as a result of
the safety classification of these components.

275

V( oo- oz) 2+4"r2

11-31

01 + 0 . 5 p

Io2-o31

o2+0.5p

Io, o21:(I op +ot)2+4, 2

:

+(07+4:)+0f0

If we use: o~ +4"c 2 = ( M I+ M 2 ) / Z 2 = o i - = ( M i / Z ) - ,
this leads to:
(

In the same manner, we obtain:

I ol - 31 -< Op + 0.5p,
I o~ - o31 -< '_,% + o~ + 0.5p.

Note that
Appendix A: Stresses in straight pipe subjected to pressure and moments

Stresses in straight pipe subjected to internal pressure P and bending and torsional moments (Mr and
Mr) are as follows (simplifications are made in the
following developments): Circumferential stress:
oo = p D i / 2 t = %,

Op + 0.5p = p D i / 2 t + 0.5p = p D o / 2 t -

0.5p,

where D o is the outside diameter of the pipe. The stress

intensity may then be expressed conservatively as follows:
pDo/2t + M i / Z
c = m a x i P D o / 2 t
~p D o / 2 t + M i / Z

Longitudinal stress:
Oz= pDi/2t + M r / Z = op + of,
Radial stress (mean):
o r = - 0.5p,

Appendix B. Calculation of cylindrical shells subjected to

external pressure ( D / t >_ 10)

The critical pressure for a cylindrical shell of infinite

length is:

('. tleng, ,I.M. Grandenlange, A. More!

276
t 3

'

R('( '. ~I

and

(1 _ 2 )
where t is the m i n i m u m thickness required for the shell,
D is the shell diameter, E is the Y o u n g modulus, and ~,
is the Poisson coefficient.
F o r a Poisson coefficient value of 0.3:
P~-~iti~l = 2.2 E ( t / D )3.

(B-1)

Theoretical developments [12] to [17] show that for

finite length shells, the critical pressure takes the following value:

2.6E(t/D)

All charts being developed for a safety factor of 4 and

the R C C - M code requiring a safely factor of 3 in the
same way as in the A S M E code, lead to the following
codified formula:
D

~
~,,,,,,,~ibl~ -

........
3 ( D/t

) "

5/2

<r,.~., =

(for ~-- 0.3).

L/D-

we obtain:

(B-2)

C o m p a r i s o n of eqs. (7) a n d (4) leads to:

0.45( t / D )t/2
B =

'~a

E,

(B-S)

where L is the length of the shell. If we use:

O c r i t i c a l - 2 critical

'

(B-N)

it is possible to separate the geometrical characteristics

of the shell a n d the material properties:

where E is the Young modulus for the linear part of the

stress strain curve a n d the " t a n g e n t m o d u l u s " beyond
the linear part of the curve.
For the majority of the practical cases, which fall on
the linear part of the charts, the use of eq. (B-8) is
proposed by the appendix.

(1) The A factor represents the (critical) shell deformation:

(B-4)

A = Ocritical/E.

The formulas (B-2), (B-3) a n d (B-4) lead to the following expression for A:

A=

1.3(t/d)3J2
L/D-

0.45 ( t / D ) 1/2

(B-5)

The formulas (1), (3) and (4) lead to:

A = 1.1 ( t / D ) 3

for cylindrical shells of infinite length.

(B-6)

The codified A coefficient is the m a x i m u m value of eqs.

(B-5) and (B-6) with a corrective term 0.23 ( t / D ) 2
substracted from eq. (5) in order to take account of the
deviations from the true circular form.
The curves joining these two expressions in the charts
are not expressed analytically, but the use of these
expressions is conservative.
(2) The B factor corresponds to the allowable stress
a n d depends on the material properties. If we use:
Padmissible = Pcritical

= 2O~ritic,,(t/D ) - { o ~ m i ~ , ( t / D )

References
{1] Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of PWR Nuclear Islands (RCC-M) (January 1983
edition) AFCEN Paris (available in English).
[2] February 26, 1974 order relative to the application of
pressure vessel regulations to nuclear water boilers, Journal Officiel de la R6publique Franqaise.
[3] C. Aflalo, R. Barbarulo, Courcot, De Marolles, Douarin,
J.M. Grandemange and R. Martin Sizing rules for the
pressure design of pump casings, presented at the SMiRT
8 Seminar on Construction Codes and Engineering Mechanics, Paris 1985.
[4] ASME llI Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (1983 Edition).
[5] Y. D'Escatha, Prevention of plasticity related damages
and simplified methodology using only purely elastic
calculations, SMiRT-Post Conf. Seminar on Inelastic
Analysis and Life Prediction in High Temperature Environment.
[6] Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for
Design by Analysis in Sections lit and Vlll Division 2
(1969).
[7] J.P. Prost, F. Arnaudeau, Elastic-plastic strain correction
factor in stainless steel pipes and nozzles subjected to
thermal shocks, Paper C90/80, 4th Int. Conf. on Pressure
Vessel Technology, London 1980.
[8] P. Petrequin, R. Roche, J. Tortel, Life prediction in low
cycle fatigue using elastic analysis, in: Advances in Life
Prediction Methods (ASME 1983).

C. lteng, J.M. Grandemange, A. Morel / RCC-M

[9] D. Moulin, R.L. Roche, Correction of the Poisson effect
in the elastic analysis of low cycle fatigue, Int. J. Pres.
Vess. and Piping 19 (1985) 213 233.
[10] Y. D'Escatha, J.C. Devaux, J.L. Bernard, A. PellissierTanon, A criterion for analyzing fatigue crack initiation in
geometrical singularities, Paper 89, 4th Int. Conf. on
Pressure Vessel Technology, 19 23 May 1980, London.
[11] J.M. Grandemange, J. Vagner, A. Pellissier-Tanon, Codification des r~gles d'~valuation de la r6sistance h la rupture brutale des mat6riels sous pression des il6ts nucl6aires,
4~mes journ6es d'6tude sur les appareils a pression
AFLAP, Paris, Octobre 1983.
[12] L.E. Brownell and E.H. Young, Process Equipment Design. (Wiley, New York, 1959).

277

[13] S. Timoshenko, Theory of Elastic stability (Mc Graw Hill,

New York, 1936).
[14] H.E. Saunders, D.F. Windenburg, Strength of thin cylindrical shells under external pressure, in: ASME Transactions (1931).
[15] D.F. Winderburg, C. Trilling, Collapse by instability of
thin cylindrical shells under external pressure, ASME
Transactions (1934).
[16] D.F. Windenburg, Vessels under external pressure, Mechanical Engineering (1937).
[17] E.O. Bergman, The new-type code chart for the design of
vessels under external pressure, ASME Transactions
(1952).