ML19270F006
| ML19270F006 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Phipps Bend  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1978 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Buck J, Rosenthal A, Salzman R NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901110147 | |
| Download: ML19270F006 (10) | |
Text
.
[t " MGo,'g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR nEGULATORY CO*.*MisslON
,, g
$. f I'ff! 3 WAS'ilNG TON. D. C. X555 C PThic r),g,Illtg
/
December 20, 1978 p E003[
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Richard S..ialzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission U.S. fluclear Requlatory Cctmlission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission
-O;*
Washington, D.C.
20555 ff0"
/s k
4 4
In the Matter of
@h.M*$
+
Tennessee Valley Authority N
(Phipps Band fluclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)
P th'
//
Docket 'los. 50-553, 50-E54 Gentlemen:
'b s
This is to inform the Appeal Board of certain information provided in a preliminary fashion by one of the f1RC Staff consultants relating to criteria in buckling of steel containment structures.
The report is attached along with a Staff evaluation of this matter.
The Staff believes that the information does not adversely affect the evaluation conducted by the Staff in this case.
If you desire any further information, please let us know.
Sincerely, Uw s\\.uu a
Ste/en C. Goldberg Counsel for tiRC Staff
Enclosure:
fiRC Staff Evaluation of Factors of Safety Against Buckling cc w/ enclosure:
Phipps Bend Service List 7901110W7
i,.r.T. 2'/
ENui.ss:1::s. INc.
4
-- e ~
- i. o. nox e,n.,
ms-(
o ua n.ux. c.u. r.
o n:oo r. s..s.
R J anuary 11, 1978 Dr. A. llafiz Divisica of Systan Safety Office of :.'uclcar Reactor Regulaticn Nuclecr Regulatory Cconissicn Washirgten, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Buckling Criteria arel a; plicaticn of Criteria to design of steel contair.r.ent shell. :2.b2r FS-77-8.
Dear Dr. !!afiz:
Our first progress rcycrt is er.closcd in accordance with the rcgairetents cf car ::RC centrnct.
We have startcd prep 1 ring a buckling design criteria decrent covering the buckling design of steel contai=.cnt shells. As parts of this dcc=cnt are c=.plettd, they will be forwardcd to ycu.
. -,\\
We are still evaluating the static and dync. Tic leading conditions J
which the steel contairc.cnt shell is subjectcd. This study should be canpleted shortly.
Please contact us if you have any questiens related to the prcrrress r opcrts.
- Sincerly, i
-/ h...
-(. )*t.
A.F. Pasri e
t
Janugy 3, l')73 Pr oge:, Report f o r "buc k l ig Cr i t e r i.. and a:m l : <.i t i en of Cr_itetla t o ';t eel Cont.iinmnt Shell" (# U,-77-8)
As stated in our proposal, after we recci"ed the go-che.n! from URC a detailed literature survey would be carried out to determine the state of the art on the use of buckling criteria on the design er metal containment vessels under static and dynamic loads. The followler, work has been completed on this phase of the contract:
1.
Library search.
k'e have conducted a detailed literature search using information retrieval system:, such as the Enc,ineering, Index, NASA Publications, U.S. Defnese Department P ub l i ra t i c.n r., and the Inter-national Engineering Index.
2.
Solicited Information.
1.'c have contacted the leading authoritie:
in the buckling field requesting them to send us any informat;an that would help us to establish buckling criteria for steel containment wsse:-
Appendix A contains a sar.ple letter and a list of ;,cople contacted.
Individual meetings were also held with:
Dr. P. Gou (General Electric)
Dr. R. Citerley (Anamet Laboratories)
Dr. C. Babcoc'.c (California Institute of Technology) to obtain their views on establishing bucklin[; -riteria, safety factor and AS.'!E Code requirements.
Subsequent to the meeting with Dr. Gou we received a summary of the dynamic loads that Cencral Electric uscs in the design of their containment structurcs.
Based on our investigations the following statements can be made about the state of the art to date:
1.
!!ost of the experimental results available in the literature
for determining design criteria are baI;ed un model teut:. and the correspondence betueen model tect, and full sine structures ;till needr.
to be assessed.
Design criteria verified b/ experiment hach considers effects of imperfections, dynamic loads, asym.etric loadinr,s and non-linear effects is practically nonexistent. To obtain this type of information will not be an cany or inexpensive taur..
It appears that our best r.ethod of obtaining experimental data for establishing design criteria is through carrying out a large number of carefully planned model tests.
2.
A large number of computer prograns exist for determining buckling lead:; of shells of revolution and general chell:..
P r oc,ra m s which seem to have gained the confidence of enpineers developing de:;ign criteria are BCSOR 4, STAGS, NASTRAN and :'. ARC Even though many of these programs censider nonlinear effects, very little correlatica has been obtained between the results of these com; uter programs to ;> red ic t experimental buckling results even when the imperfectionn of the test models arc well known beforehand.
For the actual design condition when imperfections and loadings are not well defined, computer 3rograms 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 casily available to those interested in the buckling characteristics of containment structures.
3.
The ASME section Ill Buckling criteria Regulation Cuide 1.57 NE-3224 which states that (A) One half the value of critical buckling stress determined by a:*/
one of the methods given belcw
1.
Rigorous analysis which considern gross and local bucklin,,,
geome tric 1:..pe r f ec t ions, nonlinearitic:., large deformations, and inertia farecs (dynamic loads only).
2.
Clasnical (linear) analysis reduced by margins which reflect the difference between theoretical and actual load capacitics.
3.
Tests of physical models under conditions of constraint which reflect the difference betueen theoretical and actual lead capacities.
must be chant;ed. The use of these criteria permits designers to select the method which yielda a bucklinc, stress which is 1 cast 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 example, it is well known that some axial compressian
[
cylinder model tests yield results for carefully made specimens close to 90 percent of the classical buckling value and others with imper-fcctions yield results less than 20 percent of the classical value.
The use of Method 3 is valuable in establishing guidelines for buckling criteria but could be dangerous and yield unconsersattvc buckling stresse; if the physical codels did not exactly approximate the loading and imperfectione, of the full scale operating model.
Since it is impossible to know the exact geouctric ir. perfections and static and dynceic loadings of the full scale operating model, Method I which uses rigorous analysis has some of the same problems of Method 3.
In cases where these factors were known for test models, rigorous analyscs were not, in most cases.
able to accurately predict the experimental buckling values. Most authorities in the field agree that Method 2 is the cost reliable :.ethod 8
and this should be reflected in the ASME Section Ill Renulatory Guide 1.57
The other acthods should be used in coiijunction with Method 2 and only in special cases, determined by :mC, used to establish design criteria.
4.
Until more tcut data is obtained to study the effects of inper-fcctions, asymmetric loading, load interaction, dynamic and nonlinear effects, a conservative factor of safety such as 3 should be used.
5.
A general procedure for determining the buckling stress nf a metal containment structure has been developed and is summarized below.
1.
The containment structure will be accurately nodeled by using a general finite element pragram such as sap 6 or ::ASTRA?..
2.
The dynamic and static lead combinations of a) dead loads b) construction loads c) accident design loads (LOCA) d) external pressure c) scismic loads f) penetration loads g) thermal loads
- 11) symmetric and asymmetric loads will be imposed on the finite element model of the containment structure and a linear static and dynamic analysis using SAP 6 or NASTRAN programs will be, performed for all critical laod combina-tionc. 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 be
~
axisynme t r ic.
This has been shown in the past to be an accurate and cot.scrvative approximation. These critical maximum stress
--.w combinations will then he input to the BOSOR 4 program and the
. m
overall buckling load will Is deter.nined.
The DOSUR 4 program
\\
considers nonlinear prebuckling defor: nations and perf orra, a bifurcatJon analysis to determine the buckling load.
L~ sing this proposed procedure asy:rnetric loads, interaction ef f ects, dynamic loadings, selsmic ef f ects and nonlinear prebuckling def ormation can be consideredd.
4.
Once the overall buckling stresses are determined, these buckling stresses will be reduced by margins which will reflect the dif f erence betwcca theoretical and actual load capacities.
The NASA design criteria lower bound curves based on experimenta.1 data vill be used to determiae these reduced targins of safety.
5.
Af ter overall bucklin;; is investigated, localized buckl.n;;
will then be considered based on the stresses obtained from the 3
linear static and dynamic analysis.
Any part of the structure that does not satisfy both the local and overall buckling requirements will be redesigned until these criteria are satisfied.
At the present time we are
- 1) evaluating the various containr:ent vessel loading conditions which must be censidered to determino the anplied static and dynamic stresses.
- 2) synthesizing the information that we have obtained and evalua-ting and recasting this information in the form of a buckling criteria design document.
s
-n.n a; -
'g J.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ERN C A L1FOR N.
q. n ' tl-
'l gi-d i
UNIVI.itrrlY PARK
!.(is A NGE.I.I3. CA!_lFO::NIA.f.v/
+
Ql'..y:)
SCl!OOL OF 1:NGINEERING DEPART.\\!LNT Of CIVII. ENGl.NLl: RING October 12, 1977
Dear Colleague:
The underci.,ned aro involved in a project which requiren the compilation of i:
~
.u tion en the huchling of
- r. hells, inclu: nag cr shella of revolution, under localincC. ar.d nonny =ctrac loadi:q.
We intend doina a thorouch curvey of the cpen 1iterature ac v211 as relying en cuch c:r.pundiu. o ao the Colimm itesr 2rch Ccanittee o2 Japan 's !!andbecs 01. Structural Stability and Applied Mechanics Reviews.
Go aro cencerncd, however, that much useful info rntion c
will be overicded becacue of the relative obccurity of the journal in chich it is publiuhad or its unavailability in journal form.
_ ' '.}
Thus, we would be grat.cCul fer any help which you might give us in this tauk by taking a few ccoents to search your cenery and your files for titles and authors of paparc.md rer.ortc on the subject of buckling under nonsytr.ctric loading.
Cepics of ha:d-to-get itemr. would be appreciated.
Your cid will be acknowledged in the final report on the cubject.
Sincerely, L
Lf,
/
['.!dd d'x i
S.F. Macri P.
Sciue V.I. Ucingartect Profecsor Professor Professor and Chairman Dept. Civil Engineering PS/lrm p
B. liudiansky, !!arvard University J.W. llutchinson, !!arvard University W.T. Koiter, Technological University of Delft, the Netherlands N.J. Iloff, Stanford University C.R. Steele, Stanford University W.
Flugge, Stanford University J. Singer, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology W. Machbar, University of California at La Jolla Dr. L.ll. Donnell Dr. D. Bushnell, Lockheed-Palo Alto Research Laboratories Dr.
B.O. Altroth, Lockheed-Palo Alto Research Laboratories D. Brush, University of California at Davis C.D. Babcock, California institute of Technolor,y E.E. Sechler, Ca'ifornia Institute of Technology M. Baruch, University of Wiscc.nsin G.J. Sinitses, Georgia Institute of Technology C. Wempner, Geor.;ia Institute of Technology T.ll.l!. Plan, :tassachusetta Institute of Technology W.A. Nash, University of Massachusetts, Amhcrut C. S. lisu, University of Califernia at Berkcicy E.ll. Dill, Univetsity of Washington J. Arbocz, California Institute of Technology Dr. J.ll. S tarnes, Jr., NASA-Langley Research Center E.F. Masur, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle Dr. V. Tvergaard, Danish Center for Applied Mathe:.at ics and Mechanics Dr. F.I. Niordnon, Danish Center for Applied Mathematics and Mechanics Dr. M. Esslinger, Institut fur Flugzerzban, Braunschweig, Germany A.C. Valker, University College, London J.M.T. Thompson, Unive rs ity Co ller,e, London R.M. Evan-Iwancuski, Syracuse University D.C. Ashwell, University College, Cardiff, Wales Dr. C.I. Grigolyuk, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow Dr. W.F. Thielemann, DVL Inst. fur Feltigkeit, Mulheim-Ruhr, Germany W. Schell, Technologice.1 University, Darnstadt, Germany Dr. C.D. Miller, Chicago Bridge and Iron Company Gb
, N'.&+
n v
g g
~
EUCLOSURE NRC STAFF EVALUATICH OF FACTORS OF SAFETY AGAIMST CUCKLING In a report entitled " Stability Criteria for Primary fietal 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 recom. mended.
Also recently the 1977 summer addenda of the 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.
It is expacted that any final design recon-mendations or guidelines resulting from this program will be evaluated for possible use in our licensing revieu work. He are not at this time in a position to make any changes to previously accepted criteria.
However, we have urged applicants to study their buckling criteria further and form a strong technical basis for their approach.
As indicated above, through the help of our outside consultant, the Staff uill develop our technical position further.
g
_