ML19274D428
| ML19274D428 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yellow Creek  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1978 |
| From: | Ketchen E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Buck J, Rosenthal A, Salzman R NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901230339 | |
| Download: ML19274D428 (2) | |
Text
- .8
'r, UNITED STATES g '.,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON
, j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o
December 22, 1978 NRC PUIH IC DOCU:JEf LM Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Washington, D. C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
~
g Washington, D. C.
20555 In the Matter of k
Sd5 7
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 2
\\N3 rl' (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 F cGY Z
Docket No_s. 50-566 & 50-567 I
W g
9 Gentlemen:
g b
This is to inform the Board of certain information provided in o e c-liminary fashion by one of the NRC Staff consultants relating to criteria 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 does not adversely affect the evaluation conducted by the Staff in this case.
If you require any further information, please let us know.
Sincerely,
) :rl-dwarkN.'Ketce Counsel for NRC Staff Enclosure as Stated cc (w/ encl.):
Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Mr. Lester Kornblith Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Docketing and Service Section Ira L. Myers, M.D.
Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esq.
Honorable A. F. Summer Alton B. Cobb, M.D.
William B. Hubbard, Esq.
790123O$37
g.
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 reconnended. 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 expected that any final design recom-mendations or guidel.' es resulting from this program will be evaluated for possible use in our licensing review work. We 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 will develop our technical position further.
/5N 'f' /o t 7
unn to sT^rts 8'
f NUCLEAR REGULATOltY COMrAISSION rY,d.dji!O[sj'#f, th [ tj WASillNGTON, D. C. 20555
(
g-Q p J!W 3 01973 MEMORANDUM FOR:
D.
B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light L'ater Reac tors Division of Project Management Q ' [(
TilRU:
J. P. Knigh t, Assistant Director for Engineering Division of Systems Safety FROM:
I.
Sibweil, Chief Structural Engineering Branch Division of Systems Safety
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO ACRS AND LICENSING BOARDS (SEB: 001, 002) h'e just received the attached progress report from our consultant that questions the current criteria for buckling of steel containment shells.
h'c 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.
k'e 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.
/s4 f< ywe7L I. Sibweil, Chief Structural Engineering Branch Division of Systems Safety Attachments; As stated cc w/ encl:
R. Mattson K. Wichman p
b D. Ei nhut SEB Members I
A
$, t ll N-
g
\\
INTL;IIN ATlf DN A I..MTitCCTUltAI, eM,;$'
Exoisi:i:its. lxc.
.kf[
'7 l'. O. ILUX tt 'e ll 5 G l.F.N 1) A 1.E. C A 1.1 l'.
IlI* 00 C.S.A.
t J anuary ll,1978 Dr. A.11afiz Division of Systcm Safety Office of 1;uclear Reactor Regulation IJuclear Rcgulatory Cmaission Washington, D.C. 20555 Subjtu Buckling Criteria and application of Criteria to design of steel containment shell. I; umber RS-77-8.
Dear Dr. Ilafiz:
Oar first progress report is enclosed in accordance with the r equironcnts of our 1:RC contract.
We have started preparing a buckling design criteria document covering the buckling design of steel containr.ent shells. As parts of his dcctment are ccupletod, they will be forwarded to yo'1.
We are still evaluating the static and dyna:nic loading conditions s
/
s
\\
which the steel contamnent shell is subjectcd. This study should 1
carpleted shortly.
Picace contact us if you have any questions related to the progress r eports.
- Sincerly, f M $'
O D
D T
O ' J UY tTL
(
7-
A.F. Rasri
January 3 l973 Progress Report for "I5uckling Criteria and Aanlicatien u
of Criteria to Steel Containment Shell" (I!RS-77-8) s As stated in our proposal, af ter we received the no-ahe.id f ro:n NRC a detailed literature survey would be carried out to determine the state of the art on the use of buckling criteria on the design of inctal containment vessels under static and dynamic loads. The following work has been completed on this phase of the contract:
1.
Library search. We have conducted a detailed literature search using information retrieval systems such as the Et.cineering Index, 4
NASA Publications, U.S. Defnese Department Publications, and the Inter-h
) J national Engineering Index.
l 2.
Solicited Information. We have contacted the leading authorities in the buckling field requesting them to send us any informat;on that
,g
-)
would help us to establish buckling criteria for steel containment vessels.
Appendix A contains a sample letter and a list of people contacted.
Individual meetings were also held with:
Dr. P. Cou (General Electric)
Dr. R. Citerley (Anamet Laboratories)
Dr. C. Babcock (California Institute of Technology) to obtain their views on establishing buckling criteria, safety factor and ASME Code requirements.
Subsequent to the meeting with Dr. Gou we received a sinnmary of the dynamic loads that General Electric uses in the design of their containment structures.
Based on our investigations the following statements can be made about the state of the art to date:
1.
Most of the experimental results available in the literature TT3 h
D ge;D mAUAlam e
_i_
for determining design criteria are ba' sed en model tests and the
~
correspondence between model t ent s and f ul I..ize si ruc tures still needs to be as essed.
Design criteria verified by experiment which considers effects of 3.mperfections, dynamic loads, anyumetric loadings and non-linenr effects is practically nonexistent.
To obtain this type of information will not be an easy or inexpensive tase.
It appears that our best method 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 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 B050R 4, STAGS, NASTRAN and MARC.
Even though many of these programs consider nonlinear 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..s guidelines or as a first step before knockdown factors are imposed.
It also seems important that the limitations of these computer programs should he well documented and t;te codes should be easily available to those interested in the buckling characteristics of containment structures.
3.
The AS!!E Section III Buckling Criteria Regulation Guide 1.57 NE-3224 which states that (A)
One half the value of critical buckling stress deterrained by one of the methods given below D 9*D D,E.l.3 d,
.M a
eef e
1.
Rigorous analysis which considers gross and local buckling,,
geor..e t r ic i: ape r f ec t ions, nonlinearitics, large deforn.ations, and fuertia forces (dynamic loads only).
2.
Classical (linear) analysis reduced by margins which reflect the difference between theoretical and actual load capacities.
3.
Tests of physical models under conditions of constraint which reflect the difference between theoretical and actual load capacit i es.
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
?!ctbod 3.
For example, it is well known that some axial compression cylinder model tests yield results for carefully made specimens close d
to 90 percent of the classical buckling value ar.d others with imper-fections yield results less than 20 percent of the classical value.
The use of tiethod 3 is valuable in establishing guidelines for huckling criteria but could be dangerous and yield unconservat Eve bt.ckling stresses if the physical models did not exactly, approximate the loading and imperfections of the full scale operating uodel.
Since it is impossible to know the exact geometric imperfections and static and dynamic loadings of the full scale operating model, tiethod I which uses rigorous analysis has some of the same problems of }tethod 3.
In cases where these factors were known for test models, rigorous analyses were not, in most cases, abic to accurately predict the experimental buckling values.
Plost authorities in the field agree that !!ethod 2 is the most reliable method and this should be reflect y
AQp' " a c4t o IgIRegulatoryGuide1.57.
.ld u AXL
The other methods should be used in coIijunction with Method 2 and only in special canes, determined by !.nC, used to establish design criteria.
a 4.
Until more test data is obtained to study the effects of imper-fcctions, asymmetric loading, Joad interaction, dynamic and nonlinear effects, a conservative factor of safety such as 3 should be used.
5.
A general procedure f or determining the buckling stress of a metal containment structure has 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 con.binations of a) dead loads b) construction loads c) accident design loads (LOCA) d) external pressure c) seismic loads f) penetration loads g) thermal loads
- 11) syrmetric 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-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 be axisymmetric.
This has been shown in the past to be an accurate and conservative approximation. These critical maximum stress combinations will then be input to the BOSOR 4 program and the
.. s
- D'%~f D
D n 1
$)l n
overall buckling load will be det ermined. The EOSOR 4 program considers nonlinear prebucki ing def ormatior.s and perf orns a bifurcation analysis to determine the buckling load, t/ving, this proposed procedure asyn. metric loads, interaction effects, dynamic loadings, seismic effects and nonlinear prebuckling deierm.ation can be consideredd.
4.
Once the overall buckling stresses are deiermined, these buckling stresses will be reduced by nargins which will reflect the difference between theoretical and actual load capacities.
The NASA design criteria lower bound curves based on experimental data will be used to determine these reduced margins of safety.
5.
After overall buckling is investigated, localized buckling will then be considered based on the stresses obtained f rom the linear static and dynanic analysis. Any part of the structure that does not satisfy both the local and overalI buckling requirements will be redesigned until these criteria are satisfied.
At the present time we are
- 1) evaluating the various containment vessel loading conditions which must be considered to determine the applied static and dynamic stresses.
- 2) synthesizing the information that we have obtained and evalua-i ting and recasting this information in the form of a buckling criteria design document.
I
...,,,7n
,3 2 %
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CAL 1FORNI<
,' e
..kjs t '{ 'ti,. )'/
~
UNI \\'l'16 TIT pal!K 1.05 ANGLI.13, CA!.lFolml A y, v7 u ?. y:D.
SCIIOO!, ol' l.NGINEFIING
- )ryAKI Mt.N r or CIVII. I,NGINEEl'.!NG october 12, 1977
Dear Colleague:
The undersigned arc involved in a project which requireo the co:r. pila tio:t of inferr.ation on the buckling of nheils, including chells of revolution, uraiar localized and nonsyr.:netric loading.
Uc intend doing a thorouuh survey of the open literature as ucll as relying on cuch conpandiusa an the Colu;r.n Her;oarch Connittee of Japan's llandbook of Structnral Stability and Applied Mechanics Reviews.
We aro concerned, hov. :ver, that Ituch useful info:ctntion will be overlooked 1.ec.un.e of the relative obreurity of tha journal in which it in publiuhed or itt, unavailability in journal form.
Thus, we vrould be strateful fer any help Ubich you might give un in thin task by taking a few r.cr.ents to search your incuory and your filou for titles and authorn of paporo and reports on the cobject of buckling under nonsyrtmutric loading.
Copics of hard-to-get itemr, would be appreciated.
Your aid will be acknowledged in the final rcport on the subject.
Sincerely, f
)h kiL' h,,f.ft
5 l ()23% l S.P. Panri P. Seia6 V.I. Meingartet/
Professor Professor Professor and Chairnm Dept. Civil Engineering PS/lrm
.L grakb
B. Budiannky, ((arvard Univercity J.'.'. llu tch inson, !!a rvard Uni versi ty W.T. Koiter, Technological University of Delf t, the !!ctherlands
!..J.
Iloff, Stesnford 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. II. D.unel1 Dr.
D.
Bushnell, Lockheed-Palo Alto Rest.rch 1.aboratories Dr.
B.O. Alraroth, Lochheed-Palo Al to Resea rch Laboratories D. Brush, University of California at Davis C.D.
Babcock, California Institute of Technology E.E. Sechler, California Institute of Technolog'/
M.
Baruch, Universit y of 'disconsin G.J.
Simit.nes, Georgia Institute of Technology G.
Wempner, Georgia institute of Technology T. ll. ll. Pian. Massachusetts Institute of Technology W. A. Nash, Univers i t y of !!ansachuse t ts, Arberut C.S. licu, Universi ty of California at liet heley E. ll. Dill, l'n iversit y of Washing,Lon J. Arbocz, California Institute of Technology Cm h
Dr. J. ll. Starnes, Jr., NASA-l.angl ey Resea rch Center C.F. ?!asur, Universit y of Illinois at Chicago Circle Dr. V. Tvergaard, Danish Center f or Appli ed !!a the:.,t ies ansi Mechanics Dr.
F.I. 1iocdnon, Danish Center f or Appl ied ta thema tics and Mechanics Dr. M. Es u l_ i nger, Inntitut fu: Flugzerzban, Braunschweig, Germany A.C. Wal ke r, University College, l.ondon J.M.T. Thompson, University Coller,c, London R.M. Evan-lwanowski, Syracuse University D.C. Ashwell, University College, Cardiff, Wales Dr.
E.1. Grigolyuk, Acadeny of Sciences of the USSR, ?!oscow Dr. W.F. 'i h i c i e ma nn, DVI. Inst, fur Feltigkeit, Mulhe in-liuhr, Germany W Cchell, Technological University, Darnstadt, Germany Dr. C.D. Iti l l e r, Chicago Dridy.e and Iron Company
~
.3 o=0 Ito N
Y @
w trlAW