ML19259A813
| ML19259A813 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1978 |
| From: | Karman M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Cole R, Jordan W, Lazo R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901110045 | |
| Download: ML19259A813 (11) | |
Text
i.j.*
c 4
UNITED STATES j
y M/:d[ 'tj,
WASHINGTON,0. C. 20555
,;> w NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'o hbZil'f' f 7?C p Grge nDfQ7p R t,;-;4j
~
December 21, 1978 ooy Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. 3. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 In the Matter of Northern States Power Company (Monticello Nuclear Generatino Plant, Unit 1)
Gentlemen:
This is to inform the Board of certain information provided in a pre-liminary fashion by one of the NRC Staff consultants relating to cri-teria in buckling of steel containment structures.
The report is attached along with a staff evaluation of this matter.
In this connection, the staff believes that the information dces not adversely affect the evaluation conducted by the staff in this case.
If you have any further information, please let us know.
Sincerely, b/
.m.-
,un i.,
My on Karman C unsel for NRC Staff 4'
y'
[//*Ip/*,I h/
Enclosure:
NRC Staff Evaluation of
+
Factors of Safety Against Buc(ling g
D cc w/ enclosure:
Monticello Service List THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 79011100[
00R W M gg,2f }
P
ENCLOSURE NRC STAFF EVALUATION OF FACTORS OF SAFETY AGAINST BUCKLING In a report entitled " Stability Criteria for Primary Metal Containment Vessel Under Static and Dynamic Loads" written for GE by R. L. Citterley of Anamet Laboratory, Inc., a factor of safety against buckling ranging from 2.0 to 2.75 is recommended. Also recently the 1977 summer addenda of ASME Code requires a factor of safety of between 2.0 and 3.0 against buckling depending upon the applicable service limits.
Due to the lack of experimental data and uncertainties in establishing the theoretical buckling load, we have an ongoing technical assistance program to study this issue. Any final design recommendations or guide-lines resulting from this program will be evaluated for possible use in our licensing work. We are not at this time in a position to make any changes to previously accepted criteria. As indicated above, through the help of our outside consultant, the Staff will develop our technical position further.
m
c 4
UNITED STATES
[ - {ff.
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{l Z:(
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 17~8 %
's
(
>f..... f JAN 3 01978 HEMORANDQ1 FOR:
D. B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors Division of Project Management THRU: Q J. P. Knight, Assistant Director for Engineering Division of Systems Safety FROM:
I. Sihveil, Chief Structural Engineering Branch Division of Systems Safety
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO ACRS AND LICENSING BOARDS (SEB: 001, 002)
We just received the attached progress report from our consultant that questions the current criteria for buckling of steel containment shells.
We believe that the appropriate licensing boards and the ACRS should be notified.
It should be realized that this report is preliminary in nature and has not been fully evaluated by our' branch. We believe it may have an impact on the design of steel containments such as those used for the BWR Mark III and PWR Ice-Condensers.
h4 C< WDL I. Sihweil, Chief Structural Engineering Branch Division of Systems Safety Attachments: As stated cc w/ enc 1:
R. Mattson K. Wichman D. Eisenhut SEB Members L. Shao
~.
W g
e
a' r1*,. a INTERNATIONAL.STHCCTURAL e
Excixnnir.s. Ixc.
\\'
s; P. O. BOX 0 5 0 5 4
GI.ENDAI.E. CA LIF.
0120t$ U.
A.
A Is-January 11, 1978 Dr. A. Hafiz Division of Systen Safety Office of !Mclear Reacter Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Ccr:Taissien Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Buckling Criteria and application of Criteria to design of steel centaiment shell. Nu:nber RS-77-8.
Dear Dr. Hafi :
Our first progress repcrt is enc 1csed in accordance with the requirenents of our ISC contract.
We have started preparing a buckling design criteria doc =ent
, covering the bucklirg design of steel contaiment shells. As parts cf this doc =ent are ccznpleted, they will be forwarded to you.
We are still evaluating the static.and dyna:nic loading ccnditicns which the steel centaiment shell is subjected. This study should be conpleted shortly.
Please contact us if you have any questiens related to the prcgress reports.
- Sincerly, Mk.C~('
>o.
A.F. Masri
January 3, 1973 Procress Recort for "suckline criteri-;.and Applicatien of Criteria to Steci Containment Shell" (JRS-77-8)
As stated in our proposal, af ter we received the go-ahead f ro NRC a detailed literature survey would be carried out to deter =ine the state of the art -a the use of buckling criteria en the design of metal contain=ent vessels under static and dyna =ic loads. The follewing work has been co=pleted on this phase of the contract:
l., Librarv search. We have conducted a detailed literature search
~
using information retrieval syste=s such as the Engineering Index, NASA Publications, U.S. Defnese Department Publications, and the Inter-national Engineering Index.
2.
Solicited Infor=ation. We have contacted the leading authorities in the buckling field requesting the= to send us any infor=stian that h
would help us to establish buckling criteria for steel contain=ent sessels.
Appendix A contains a sa=ple letter and a list of people contacted.
Individual =ectings were also held with:
Dr. P. Cou (General Electric)
Dr. R. Citerley (Ana=et Laboratories)
Dr. C. Sabcock (California Institute of Technology) to obtain their views on establishing buckling criteria, safety factor and ASME Code require =ents.
Subsequent to the =eeting with Dr. Gou we received a su==ary of the dyna =ic loads that General Electric uses in the design of their contain=ent structures.
Based on our investigations the following statements can be =ade about the state of the art to date:
1.
Most of the experimental results available in the literature.
for determining design criteria are based on model tests and the
.(O correspondence between model tests and full size structures still needs s.
to be assessed. Design criteria verified by experiment which considers effects of imperfections, dynamic loads, asymmetric loofings and non-linear effects is practically nonexistent. To ob tain .i n type of information will not be an easy or inexpensive task.
Ir appears that our best method of obtaining experimental data for establishing design criteria is through carrying out a large number of carefully planned codel tests.
2.
A large number of computer programs exist for determining buckling loads of shells of revolution and general shells.
Programs which seem to have gained the confidence of engineers developing design criteria are BOSOR 4, STAGS, NASTRAN and MARC. Even though many of these programs consider nonlincar effects, very little correlation has been obtained between the results of these computer programs to predict experimental buckling results even when the imperfections of the test models are well known beforehand.
For the actual design condition when imperfections and loadings are not well defined, computer programs can only be used as guidelines or as a first step before knockdown factors are imposed.
It also seems important that the limitations of these computer programs should be well documented and the codes should be easily available to those interested in the buckling characteristics of containment structures.
3.
The ASME Section III Buckling Criteria Regulation Cuide 1.57 NE-3224 which states that (A) One half the value of critical buckling stress determined by one of the methods given below
-+ee.
e e.
euk
- l. _ Rigorous analysis which considers gross and local buckling.
geometric imperfections, nonlinearitics, large deformaticas, and inertia forces (dynamic loads only).
2.
Classical (linear) analysis reduced by margins which reflect the difference between theoretical and actual load capacitics.
3.
Tests of physical codels under conditions of constraint which reflect the difference between theoretical and actual load
, capacities.
must be changed. The use of these criteria permits designers to select the method which yields a buckling stress which is least con-servative.
In fact, even with the use of the one half factor it is possible for a shell to buckle at a stress below that predicted by Method 3.
For exn=ple, it is well known that some axial compression
\\
cylinder codel tests yield results for carefully made specimens close to 90 percent of the classical buckling value and othet 2 with imper-fcctions yield results less than 20 percent of the classical value.
The use of Method 3 is valuable in astablishing guidelines for buckling criteria but could be dangerous and yield unconservative buckling stresses if the physical codels did not exactly approximate the loading and i= perfections of the full scale operating model.
Since it is i=possible to know the exact geo=etric imperfections and static and dynamic loadings of the full scale operating model, Method I which uses rigorous analysis has sone of the same problems of Method 3.
In cases where the:,c factors were known for test codels, rigorous analyses were not, in cost cases, abic to accurately predict the experimental buckling values. Most authorities in the field agree that Method 2 is the most reliable m.ethod and this should be reflected in the ASME Section III Regulatory Guide 1.57.
e e.
The other methods should be used in co'njunction with Method 2 and only in special cases, determined by NRC, used to establish design criteria.
4.
Until more test data is obtained to stsdy the effects of imper-.
fections, asymmetric loading, load interaction, dynamic and nonlinear effcces, a conservative factor of safety such as 3 should be used.
5.
A general procedure for determining the buckling stress of a metal containment structure bas been developed and is summarized below.
1.
The containment structure will be accurately modeled by using a general finite element program such as SAP 6 or NASTRAN.
2.
The dynamic and static load combinations of a) dead lo. ids b) construction loads c) accident design loads (LOCA) d) external pressure e) seismic loads f) penetration loads g) thermal loads H) symmetric and asyc=etric loads will be imposed on the finite clement model of the containment structure and a linear static and dynamic analysis using SAP 6 or NASTRAN programs will be performed f'or all critical laod combina-tions. Maximum stresses will be determined and tabulated.
3.
After determining a set of critical maximum stress combina-tions the maximum stress along any meridian will be assumed to bc axisy=ne tric. This has been shown in the past to be an accurate and conservative approximation. These crit-ical maximum stress combinations will then be input to the BOSOR 4 program and the
overall, buckling load vill be de:cr=ined. The 30SOR 4 progrs=
considers nonlinear prebuckling defor=ations and parfor s a bifurcation analysis to deter =ine the buckling lead.
Using this proposed procedure asy==ctric 1 cads, interaction effec:s, dynamic leadings, seis=ic effects and nenlinear prebuckling deferratica can be consideredd.
4.
Once the overall buckling stresses -are deter =ined, these buckling stresses vill be reduced by targins which will reflect the difference between theoretical and actual Icad capaci:ies.
The NASA design criteria lever bound curves based en experinental data vill be used :o deter =ine these reduced =argins of safety.-
5.
Af ter overall buckling is investigated, localiced buckling vill then be considered based en ene stresses ob::ined frc= the linear static and dynamic analysis. Any part of the strue:ure :ha:
does not satisfy both the 1ccal and overall buckling require =ents vill be redesigned until these criteria are satisfied.
At the present ti=e we are
- 1) evaluating the various containment vessel loading conditiens which =ust be censidered to determine the applied static and dyn2=ic stresses.
- 2) syr.thesicing the infer =acica that we have cbtained and evalua-ting and recasting this infer =ation in the for= of a buckling criteria design docu=ent.
t' S
gf]h UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIc f,
N,I'[h{
V' UNIVERSI'IT PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA A7 D-SCIIOOL OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING october 12, 1977
Dear Colleague:
The undersigned are involved in a project which requires the cc=pilation of infor:.ation on the buckling of shells, including shells of revolutien, under localiced and nonsy=otric loading.
We intend doing a thorcuch curvey of the cpen literature as well as relying on cuch cc:apendiums as the Colu=n Research Ccrnittee of Japan's IIandbook of Structural Stability and Applied. Mechanics Reviews.
We aro conecrned, however, that =uch useful information will be overlooked because of the relative obscurity of the journal in which it is published or its unavailability in journal form.
Thus, we would be grateful for any help which you might give us in this task by taking a few =ccents to scarch your =ecory and your files for titles and authors of papero and reports on the subject of buckling under nonsytsctric loading. Copies of hard-to-get ite=c would be appreciated. Your aid will.bc acknowledged in the final report on the sub]ect.
Sincerely,
/,
f
s, hEl A S.F. Masri P. SeicY V.I. keingarted Professor Professor Professor and Chairran Dept. Civil Engineering PS/lrm
B. Budiansky, Harvard University J.W. Hutchinson, Harvard University W.T. Koiter, Technological University of Delft, the Netherlands N.J. Hoff, Stanford University C.R. Steele, Stanford University W. Flugge, Stanford University J. Singer, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology W. Nachbar, University of California at La Jolla Dr. L.H. Donnell Dr. D. Bushnell, Lockheed-Palo Alto Research Laboratories Dr. B.O. Almroth, Lockheed-Palo Alto Research Laboratories D. Brush, University of California at Davis C.D. Babcock, California. Institute of Technology E.E. Sechler, California Institute of Technology M. Baruch, University of Wisconsin G.J. Simitses, Georgia Institute of Technology G. Wempner, Georgia Institute of Technology T.H.H. Pian, Massachusetts Institute of Technology W.A. Nash, University of Massachusetts, Atterst C.S. Hsu, University of California at Bet.. ley E.H. Dill, University of Washington J. Arbocz, California Institute of Technology Dr. J.H. Starnes, Jr., NASA-Langley Research Center E.F. Masur, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle Dr. V. Tvergaard, Danish Center for Applied Mather.atics and Mechanics Dr. F.I. Niordson, Danish Center for Applied Mathematics and Mechanics Dr. M. Esslinger, Institut fur Flugzerzban, Braunschweig, Germany A.C. Walker, University College, London J.M.T. Thompson, University College, London R.M. Evan-Iwanowski, Syracuse University D.C. Ashwell, University College, Cardiff, Wales Dr. E.I. Grigolyuk, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow Dr. W.F. Thielemann, DVL Inst. fur Feltigkeit, Mulheim-Ruhr, Germany W. Schell, Technological University, Darmstadt, Germany Dr. C.D. Miller, Chicago Bridge and Iron Company e
k
-*4.ee
.