ML19289C788
| ML19289C788 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1978 |
| From: | Paton W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Mike Farrar, Johnson W, Salzman R NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901230336 | |
| Download: ML19289C788 (2) | |
Text
.
9" 4
UNITED STATES 1
NUCf. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[)ie(
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%C l
s r~.
5 p
yp,c
- ....g 7 -...., R. ROOM Michael C. Farrar, Esq., Chairman Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson
' V@lQy Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
,F-r Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'h '
f7 5'\\
T-Washington, D. C.
20555 3
f /,;l 3
'r In the Matter of l
~
/,,
g FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
't ' 7' (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2-)'.'
27
- Docket No. 50-389 x:D a
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 criteria in buckling of steel conta;nment 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 need any further 'nformation, please let us know.
Sincerely,
/
j William D. Paton Counsel for NRC Staff Enclosure as Stated cc (w/ encl.):
Edward Luton, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Michael Glaser, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Dr. David L. Hetrick Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Martin Harold Hodder, Esq.
Dr. Frank Hooper Dr. Marvin M. Mann Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Norman A. Coll, Esq.
Docketing and Service Eection 790123 0 3 3 %
ENCLOSURE ftRC STAFF EVALUATION OF FACTORS OF SAFETY AGAltiST BUCKLIt;G 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 recomr. ended.
Also recently the 1977 summer aodenda of the A$ tie 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 execrimental data and uncertainties in establishing the theoretical buckling load, we have an ngoing technical assistance program.o study this issue.
It is expected that any final design recom-mendations or guidelines 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.
/$IV (' /0 /
- f...
'4 j.
UraitoSTArES
,j 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMrAISSION y, (,,
j,
,- ) j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 rR%:)O)f
% 'E
(
g-JM 3 01973 MEMORANDUM FOR:
D.
B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Ligit k'ater Reac tors Division of Project Management Q 'Y\\
J. P. Knight, Assistant Director TURU:
for Engineering Division of Systems Safety FROM:
I.
Sibweil, Chief Structural Engincering 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 st:cl 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.
k'e believe it may have an impact on the design of steel containments such as those used for the BWR Mark III and P'.lR Ice-Condensers.
/s4 f< yunL I. Sihweil, Chief Structural Engineering Branch Division of Systems Safety Attachments: As stated cc w/cncl:
R. Mattson K. Wichman D. Eisenhut SEB Members L. Shao
_ %l, it Gh
y, (m'.d,.4
- 7-INTL
- 1:N AT!')N A1..M J ItUCTt'ItA1, D
ExulN1:1:lts. INc.
1/
s. o. iios o.w.,
+
oi ou r.s.A.
ci.m in f.e. c.u. r.
2
- R J anuary 11, 1978 Dr. A. Ilafiz Division of Systcm Safety Office of Ibclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Ccrinission Washi. von, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Buckling Criteria and application of Criteria to design of steel contaiment shell. Nu:nber RS-77-8.
Dear Dr. IN iz:
Our first progress report i' - _loscd in accordance with the requirencnts of cur I:RC centract.
We have started preparing a bu:kling design criteria docu:nent covering the huckling design of steel contaiment shells. Ju parts of m nis doct:r.ent are ccrapletcd, they will be forwardai to you.
~.
We are still evaluating the static and dync:nic loading conditions
\\
which the steel centz iirent shell is subjectcd. This study shculd b a canpleted shcrtly.
Please contact us if you have any questions relatcd to the progress r epcrts.
- Smcerly,
-!,,.y3 A.F. Pasri
January 3, 1973 Prgress Report for "isuck)ig Criteria and Aanlicatien of Criteria __to Steel Containment Shell" (#RS-77-8) s As stated in our proposal, af ter we recalved the r,o-:: head f rom NRC a detailed literature survey would be carried out to determine the state of the art on the ute of buckling criteria on the design of metal containment vessels under static and dynamic loads. The following work has been completed on this phase of the contract:
1.
Library scarch. We have conducted a detailed literature search using information retrieval systems such as the Engineering Index, NASA Publications, U.S. Defnese Department Publications, and the Inter-national Engineering Index.
2.
Solicited Information. We have contacted the leading authorities in the buckling field requesting them to send as any informatica that 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 w2re also held with:
Dr. P. Cou (General Electric)
Dr. R. Citerley (Anamet Laboratories)
Dr. C. Babcock (California lustitute 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 summary of the dynamic loads that General Eicctric 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 for determining design criteria are ba': sed en model tests and the correspondence between model te:.ts and ful1 1ze structures utill needs to be assessed. Design criteria verified by experiment which considers effects of imperfections, dynamic loads, anyi: metric loadings and non-linear ef fects is practically nonexistent.
To obtain this type of information will not be an easy or inexpensive task.
It appears that our best nethod 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 determinin;;
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 man / 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 t.s guidelines or as a first step before knockdown factors are imposed.
It also seems important that the limitaticus of these computer programe should be well documented and the codes should be casily available to thosc interested in the auckling characteristics of contain=ent structures.
3.
The ASME Section III Buckling Criteria Regulation Guide 1.57 NE-3224 which states that (A) One half the value of critical buckling stress determined by one of the methods given below
_3 1.
Rigorous analysis which considers gross and local buckling,,
geor.ietric i:aperfections, nonlinearitics, la ri;e de f o rn.a t ions,
and inertia forces (dynamic loads only).
2.
Classical (linear) analysis rec.uced by margins which reflect the dif ference between theoretical and actual load capacitics.
3.
Tests of physical models under conditions of constraint which reflect the dif f erence between theoretical and actual load ca pac it i cs.
must be changed.
The use of these criteria ptrmits designers to select the method which yicids a bucklin;; 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 exauple, it is well known that some axial compression
\\
cylinder model tests yield results for carefully made specimens close to 90 percent of the classical buckling value it.d others with imper-fections yield results less than 20 percent or the classical value.
The use of Method 3 is valuable in establishing guidelines for buckling criteria but could be dangerous and yield unconservative bt.ckling stresses if the physical models did not exactiv approximate the loading and imperfections of the full scale operating model.
Since it is impossible to know the exact geometric imperfections and static and dynamic loadings of the full scale operating model, Method I which uses rigorous analysis has some of the sane problems of Methed 3.
In cases where these factors were known for test nodels, rigorous analyscs were not, in cast cases, able to accurately predict the experimental buckling values.
Mor. t authorities in tle field agree that Method 2 is the most rel inble niethod and this should be reflected in the ASME Section III Regulatery Guide 1.57.
-a-e The other methods should be used in conjunction with Method 2 and only in special cases, determined by :mC, used to establish design criteria.
4.
Until more test data is obtained to study the ef f ects of imper-fections, 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 structare has been developed and is summarized belcw.
1.
The containment structure will be accurately modeled by using a general finite element program such as SAP 6 or UASTRAN.
2.
The dynamic cnd static load con.binations of a) dead loads b) construction loads c) accident design loads (LOCA) d) external pressure e) scismic 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-overall buckling load will be determined. The T.;0SOF, 4 program considers nonlinear prebuckling def erications :md perforns a bifurcation analysis to determine the buckling load.
Uv ; nt, thi s, proposed procedure asynactric loads, interaction effects, dynamle loadings, scismic ef f ects and nonlinear prebuckling def ormation can be consideredd.
4.
Once the overall buckling :. tresses are determined, these buckling stresses will be reduced by margins which will reflect the difference between theoretical and actual load capacities.
The NASA design criteria lower bound curves based on exoerimental 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 from the liuear 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 containment vessel loading conditions which must be considered to determine the applied static and dynamie stresses.
- 2) synthesizing the information that we have obtained and evalua-ting and recasting this information in the form of a bucklin);- criteria, design dccument.
t
... ian
- g..ye UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNI.
v
.?~
.)
f, j ~)p;l
- p. r,, t.
5 fD
\\')/,V *,Lt,';,J/
UNivi:torry PA:'K l.os Ascht.r.s, cauro;;;,ir,,,,,9
~ ?,.f.d scuoor. or rNGINEr.rar:o DEPARTMLNT ('! CIVII. 3;NGINEliP.ING October 12, 1977
Dear Colleague:
The undersigned arc ir.volved in a project which requireo the cor.pilation of informtien on the buckling of shells, including chc11s of revolutien, ur.dar localictd and nonsyrretric loading.
17e intend doing a thoro %h nurvey of the open literature as ucil as relying en cuch con.panditra an the Column Recearch Co:nittee of J apan's llendbook of Struct ural Stability and Applied !<echanics Reviews. We aro concerned, how:ver, that much useful informnion will be overlocked Lt:caur.c of the relativo obceurity of the journa) in which it ic published or its unavailability in journal form.
Thus, ue would b: (;rateful ier any hcip which you might give k
un in this task by taking a few metents to cearch you: memory and your files for titles and authora of paporo and rer.otta on the subject of buckling un&r nonsyr'.utric loading. Copicn of hard-to-get items would be appreciated. Your aid will be acknowledged in the final rcrort on the nubject.
Sincerely,
,f r
f,n JA
/
f r.n
/
e' h' d % & ^ g/
o hi' /'*
W
/ ls p m/ g.!...,
S.F. Masri P. Seid.
V.I. 'Weingartet/
Professor Professor Profesnor and Chair:un Dept. Civil Engineering PS/irm
b._
B. Budiannky, liarvard Univercity J.W. Ilutchinson, !!a rvar.1 University W.T. Koiter, Technolo;;ical University of Delf t, the Netherlands N.J. Ilo f f, S tanfo rd t'n iverr,i t y C.R. Steele, Stanford University W.
Flugr,c, Stanford University J. Sinr,er, Technion-Israel Insti tute of Technology W.
Nachbar, Univernity of California at 1.a Jolla Dr. L.ll. Donnel1 Dr. D. Bushnell, Lockheed-Palo Alto Research 1 7ratories Dr. B.O. Altroth, Lochbecd-Palo Alto Research Laboratories D. Brush, University of California at Davis C.D. Babcock, California Ins t itute of Technolo;;v E.E. Sechler, California Institute of Technology M.
Baruch, University of 'disconnin G.J. Simitnes, Georgia Institute of Technoloqy G.
'Jempner, Georgia Institute of Technology
't.ll.d. Plan, Massachuset ts Institute of Technology W.A. Nash, Univerrity of Massachunetts, Amherut C.S. Itsu, Universi ty of California at Ber keley E. II. Dill, University of Washington x
J. Arbocz, California Institute of Technology h
Dr. J.l!. Starnes, Jr., NASA-Lang1cy Research Center E.F. Masur, l'niversity of Illinois a* Chicago Circle Dr.
V. Tvergeard, Daninh Center ft.: Applied Mathematics and Mechanics Dr.
F. I. Niocdson, Danish Center for Applied Mathematics and Mechanics Dr. M. Esuling,er, Institut fur Flugzerzban, Braunschweig, Germany A.C. Walker, Univers i ty College, l.ondon J.M.T. Thompson, University Colle.,c, London R.M. Evan-lwanewski, Syracuse University D.C. Ashwell, Univeruit, College, Cardiff, Wales
.Dr.
E.I. Grigolyuk, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moncew Dr. W.F. Thielemann. DVL Inst. fur Feltigkeit, Mulhe in-liuhr, Germany W.
Schell, TechnoJerical University, Darmstadt, Germany Dr.
C.D. Miller, Chicago Bridr,e anil Iron Company
- -. _.