ML20072A451

Forwards Summary of 821209 Meeting on Structural Margin Beyond Design Base,Including Stanford Research Inst Tests & Viewgraphs

ML20072A451
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	12/14/1982
From:	Longenecker J ENERGY, DEPT. OF, CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT
To:	Check P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
HQ:S:82:146, NUDOCS 8301240027
Download: ML20072A451 (63)

Text

_

sh

~ DESIGNATED ~0KIGINAL f

Certifled By_

Department 'of Energy

/[Jd/rp Washington, D.C. 20545 Docket No. 50-537 HQ:S:82:146 DEC 14 &

Mr. Paul S. Check, Director CRBR Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

SUMMARY

OF STRUCTURAL MARGIN BEYOND THE DESIGN BASE (SMBDB) MEETING ON DECEMBER 9, 1982 On December 9,1982, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant project and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission met to discuss open items on the SMBDB structural accommodation. Enclosed is the project's sumary of that meeting, a list of attendees, a summary of Stanford Research Institute tests, and a copy of the other viewgraphs presented.

Sincerely, f

. Longeneck Acting Director, Office of Breeder Demonstration Projects Office of Nuclear Energy 7 Enclosures cc: Service List Standard Distribution Licensing Distribution f00l Of L jyd Dsse 1

I

$g QLank*rfL 8301240027 821214 PDR ADOCK 05000537 A

PDR

EJe-4 )

AGENDA FOR MEETING ON SMBDB STRUCTURAL ACCOMMODATION 12/9-10/82 O

TOPIC PRESENTER 1.

INTRODUCTION L, STRAWBRIDGE 2.

FAILURE CRITERIA V, SAZAWAL 3.

SM-7 AND SM-8 RESULTS AND A, FLORENCE IMPLICATIONS 4,

STATLS OF BENCHMARKING V, SAZAWAL ANALYSES 5.

RESOLUTION OF OTHER COMMENTS SHEAR PIN IN PIPING RESTRAINTS L

STRAWBRIDGE LONGER IERM SODIUM RCLEASES L, STRAWBRIDGE DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS V. SAZAWAL APPLICATION OF STRESS V, SAZAWAL CONCENTRATION FACTORS 6.

PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR L, STRAWBRIDGE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 9

6 c~ w 2 i

/ L-9-yz s/<

J -~l #c.c.-./ /.,

_i

& Affic-W.D. N, /v e46K fo WA &,

c. P.

7w m/

'~{M bs A/mos f A.

&Jle f

N$#0h la, AG R

$4 f0 i

V.

faw,do W-ARD h) Git (A) b W M l.7E /WLLdo f,L. Florexto Sll kiwabd i

NA Td t u s. 9 - 7 0 y

Qouc E/,gs CWBRP P'o L Cd S TA A d d.w G G WtwNSkour& - A AD

^

f@//l/ 6L'-l. C04A/6%2f/~ L kM<

S. L. hn u&

Wed l.au y

i 5

e 9

9 4

m

e a

tr ru w) %

z December 3, 1982 OUTLINE OF SRI PORTION OF PRESENTATION TO NRC CONCERNING CRBR HEAD by A. L. Florence, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA 94025 i

1 s

s 1

i Attention:

Dr. John Graham Westinghouse Advanced Reactor Division Waltz Mill, Box 158 Madison, PA 15663 6

SRI TESTS ON 1/20-SCALE CRBR HEAD Introduction Head designs in dynacic tests SM-4&5 too stiff.

Static test SM-1 was without shielding.

Static test SM-7 performed with overstiff SM-4 head.

Static test SM-8 performed with prototypic head (SM-5 with new shield plates; no bolt attachment).

SDOF analysis deflection estimates for SM-4 and SM-5; then prediction using SM-8 head.

Brief Description of Dynamic Tests (SM-4&5)

Main Results of Dynamic Tests (SM-465)

~

HCDA head loading obtained.

Head response entirely elastic.

Maricum deflection 0.062 in.

Brief Description of Static Tests (SM-768)

Main Results of Static Tests (SM-7&8)

Deformation modes.

Failure by geometrical disengagement (LRP & IRP).

Pressure-volume relationship.

Pressure-deflection relationship.

Disengagement initiation values SM-7 0.125 in.

2200 psi, SM-8 0.130 in.

1600 psi 1

SDOF Analysis Results P

Table of Maximum Deflections (ins)

Static Symm.

Asymm.

Asymm.

Asymm.

Asymm.

Test Ifead Head M distrib.

Bilin. k Trilin. k SMl+

0.129 SM7 0.082 0.091 0.089 0.089 0.179 SM8 0.109 0.111 0.109 0.110 0.202 Comments Differences between SM-5 deflection and SDOF predictions ar,e attributed to SDOF overpredicts by about 16%.

UIS exerts a restoring moment on the head.

0 9

2 O

v - ---

y

SRI TESTS ON 1/20-SCALE CRBR HEAD INTRODUCTION

• Head designs in dynamic tests SM-4&5 too stiff.

~

• Static test SM-1 was without shielding.

• Static test SM-7 performed with overstiff SM-4 head.

• Static test SM-8 performed with prototypic head (SM-5 with new shield plates; no bolt attachment).

• SDOF analysis deflection estimates for SM-4 and SM-5; then nrediction using SM-8 head.

1 e-,

- -., - _ - - - ~. -, - -. - - -

1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DYNE'JilC TESTS (SM-4&5) t e

o e

h

i Shielding Complex Head 9

a,

_g l

Support Stand

/

, u_A 4

e vg')f19gijgt):

• %%nN:Ovt

_y,_g_

r;,1 a g

N!

4

. y" W

r Thermal Liner Water j

/

Upper Internals Structure l !/

Vessel WallN, it Explosive m",

1 t1 Canister t-k f

Core Structure mummmmma m

b]':k Ef F

Bottom Head Core Support w v~

" M ~ " ~ ~ ~

Structure i

i

, 5 inches,

J A-4671-26 FIGURE 2 SCHEMATIC OF COMPLEX MODELS SM 4 AND SM S e

i t

1 i

i 4

.i i

MAIN RESULTS OF DYNAMIC TESTS (SM-4&5) e HCD head loading obtained.

e Head response entirely elastic.

• Maximum deflection 0.062 in.

I i

O f

r i

i J

'l 1

t w-,,-

9y -. -..--.--- ~ -

...y_,

__,___-c_--

5000 4000 l

l SM 4 P6 ""

-SM SP g3 i

3000 i

2000 t

c 1000 l,ljlfg 0

-l I

I i I i l

1 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

TIME - msec SLUG IMPACT LOAD 2000 i

4000

\\

1500 3000

'[

plMPULSE = 0.026 bar-sec g

l 1000 3

< 2000 E

5

\\

500 1000 t = 1.2 msec o

O

-1 0

1 2

3 0

T!ME - msee APPROXIMATION TO SLUG IMPACT LOAD MA-3929-386 FIGURE A.2 EQUIVALENT SLUG IMPACT LOAD 4

o 5,o k.

b

=-

E!E g.

v f-l I

w w

E _ C,-

2p g

,1 og k,,

x I'

w-Ng m --,#

o O

i I

l l

I O

N m

N 5

~

N b

8 g

9 9

o o

6 o.

d d

d o

o o

o W! - 30Nvista 5

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF STATIC TESTS (SM-7&S) 9 4

e 9

I I

~

Shield Bolts s

1

/

?s s

3 o

..i O*e r,

e s

,g i

k Q

• e @.

I

\\,

I C

6 O

~'

ii e

(

i O

0 x

\\

l

,e o

u i

M.

i i

Outer Support Large Interrnediate' Small Shear Ring Plug Plug Plug Rings 7i M

$'y!)f(4Qy,[iy,$ffjfl$f>j'jft{fffflQiff ShieId t d Rubber _ [t Interface I 8 Shield Bolts r, Q Fluid / Ji a Fluid Reservoir Input 7-Reservoir Plate 4 l Base Plate h N' J A-4671 27 FIGURE 3 SCHEMATIC OF TEST FIXTURE FOR SM 7 l 6

SM7 iT Tl [T ll $$$$Yb$Y/fl$5///!///$Wll!//$h$h 'i e p y, I l l If 1 /l li ' 'i )! E. - ca,st / i- -i l ~ l. J' 1 El _~ - - M- _.c / I l 1 3 ~ d d integral Bolts 0.050 in / Spacer Attachment Clea.rances Design Rings None 0.070 to 0.100 in fT Tl iT Tl N l f ~. %ltyl@{:tlNG)?hlphy@ ggt lfQ ..5 s s-u i,

, _

l.," I. si 1 E ' JL

• s

-o.- w w-O ii L >__ SMS JA 4671-1 FIGURE 4 DIFFERENCES IN SHIELD PLATE DESIGNS EETWEEN SM 7 AND SM S 7

l , %y _ _ _~. %_;E. ~'.-uf%%s:t. A .a. n44 M-e 7 w*y,r.d&~%s& q.WD *9.I. -g ,- ; j. \\ m.0 "'t e;' - if f g.. .. e '... i.. w 1, \\ o. i f,Q p- / .tf 1.' U t ' s.i ,, s. g i . y,.. s Spacers i e_ (a) Bottom layer of shield plates for SM 7 !.~ 7 .... CD ' Whq y.4D _,p.., ~ ~ e e-u.-- . go o Q.g... '41 .c .,o e o o O 'Y o 'p-C:ro.o'A,.y,.: ~ee ,o. i s . 2., " ~ ~~ ~}l .s % o O.* l

• C I6

~ - Qq. R)WA i J >.' _24' f m,g. - x Spacer Rings -~ ~ w.- I_M _ H D D ~t1 (b) Bottom layer of shield plates for SM 8 J A-4671-23 FIGURE 5 SHIELD PLATE DESIGNS FOR SM 7 AND SM 8 8

1 t ..-g p=- 2 /M. Instrument Tree ? ~ s: \\ JtVW-n 7 P'm .e. L y Reservoir Plate l ha*

k. ic" 3 m.a g-(

I.di ) Dressure Gage f w I-- 5"c?2 I, - it, +n ^' ~ g. %. J

x. -

4'.;* ,y n

s..

q w F 1! A=- -. x ? - ft.} ~ -h* EIiM '!4 dWjHydraulic Line $ s.% _-, Base Plate hwm y.m 1 l (a) Test Fixture with Instrumentation g-i--r qqq g-pz +w.=== 7 p. hh@G._, - LV DT's ' 7mn e #e .M L.. ! 1, m. _'7 y!g.J h.t :~5..- y y,- Ctamp Screws N -r., > "3. m_, 4.. m~. ,e etu n ,,L I. c.y su ;,n.* Q %.a.~ ) O _:l A f c l L ~ ---S s, L-Q' Contact Gage 5 .l]0[. -"?-Eg 1 M -jY1~ wN Wires = e l -h;;l'$ $ $ $ h ;' R Q A h' &-="- -\\../ 5.<

f.e-f

' 5ft ;+C j[.- - 1 pt , y "w._ 1 $$ M .. A, A,

• )

,'k ,, Sh r v ISpring-loaded 4 E ? $ Lk m. f I (b) Instrumentation Setup JP.4671 24 FIGURE 10 TEST FIXTURE AND INSTRUMENTATION 1 9

MAIN RESULTS OF STATIC TESTS (SM-7&8)

• Deformation modes.
• Failure by geometrical disengagement (LRP & IRP).

o Pressure-volume relationship. i

• Pressure-deflection. relationship.

e Disengagement initiation values SM-7 0.125 in. 2200 psi SM-8 0.130 in. 1600 psi l f 1 f l l 1 l

300 .L l -2587 psi. 250 ..-.a 200 2= .E 2500 mi ~ 2 -) 0 ~

- 150 g

2250 psi \\. w J u t w O 100 200o w .....x. s soo mt 50 N

• 1200 psi N

\\ ' \\ .6 I II II il i t! Il i O Gage No. 17 12 11 to 9 87 654321 ~ I 1

• • Distance from S.e m e.:Y'5G $ Center of He

= me 99 -9 EG a 8 wM =~~~wu w ww ~~ o I fr ll fr ll $h$f$kSAh$$W/$hh s t N t aP I I I EI i l' ~l ) i .=. lI [=.I. g ..a. i l {l J} il l) e JA.4671-21 FIGURE PROFILES OF HEAD AT SEVEN PRESSURES FOR SM-7 10

300 4 g g 250 - 2010 psi 200 = .5 z is00 psi o

- 150 o

E N \\ o 100 N N \\ 1200 psi \\ N' 50 W 300 psi l )k ) 600 psi s N 4 A 0 g, i, i n,, i 17 12 11 10 9 87 654321 Gage No.

• Distance from

= us SY'5CS B SG 00' ES =~~~m~ Center of Head o e. I fT Tl IT ll ~$5hlV/$$$W////////ll/N$?l!////hf/////l$b'. I ~ l i I i - I il x - [ w l I \\L JJ tL 11 e e J A-4671-22 FIGURE PROFILES OF HEAD AT SEVEN PRESSURES FOR SM-8 11 7-- - - - --

l Disengagement eM came

• y W.

g %j'! .= r wh T- 't .W'. w rW m -___ . 6 w;_ __ "_ -m ng,. n ' ' O, ( ,..;.~ _ -... - =* s5 _ %.--g_.. -; -. g, _ g.= g s VM... ;..;g: :. r "w - e;w. we- .g c.- -Q y n nMe-~_" 5 f5T--l._ &&Ws i si A Disengagement D' MI 5 4 2 &gh h ii

2M i

Q '%. , W & "5 S Y,A$ s [,b.%$j[$ .@[ bM N y- ~W" gg .g "., $ht .a mi Q+C.*w . ~. a v:-- +M _--_ w, . =. - - - JP #.671-30 FIGURE POSTTEST DAMAGE TO SM 7 12

3000 j j g g g j g g i ~ SM-7 2500 SM-8 2000 EC f 1500 LO cou c: c. 1000 500 t I O O 2 4 6 S 10 12 14

6 18 20 VOLUME CmANGE - cusc inches J A-4671-20 FIGURE PRESSURE-VOLUME CHANGE RELATIONS FOR SM-7 AND SM-B i

e 13 c-- n.-.

3ee 25e _._ DEFLECTION 9 SM-7 ) 2ee / M z 25. s g: S 4 199 ./ 58 300 25e __ DEFLECTION 9 SM-8 208 M I 150 L S j 100 50 j ." g 6 500 segg 1500 2000 2500 3000 PSI JA 4671 19 FIGURE MAXIMUM OEFLECTION VERSUS PRESSURE FOR SM-7 AND SM-8 14

25 20 15 M I L S 10 5 l 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 PSI (a) 25 20 15 M i L S 20 % L l a1., ,~ 5 ',u q M n f p x - ^ I p 0 1 1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 PSI (b) JA 4671-32 I

SDOF ANALYSIS RESULTS TABLE OF MAXIMUM DEFLECTIONS (ins) Static Symm. Asymm. Asymm. Asymm. Asymm. Test Hood Head M distrib.- Bilin. k Trilin. k SM 1+ 0.129 ,SM7 0.082 0.091 0.089 0.089 0.179 SM8 0.109 0.111 0.109 0.110 0.202 6,-6, 33% 22% 22% 24% 13% 0 7 e 4

COMMENTS Differences between SM-5 deflection (0.062 in.) and SDOF predictions are attributed to l

• SDOF overprediction of about 16%.
• UlS restoring moment on the head.

Most reasonable SDOF. comparison of SM7 and SM8 head predictions indicates that e SM8 head would deflect 24% more in SMS test. Similar UlS restoring moment indicates that the inersesed deflection would be less than 24%. 1 O N e

SilEAR PINS IN PHTS PIPING RESTRAINTS. NRC COMMEt1I SECTION 5,3,2,3,4 0F THE PSAR DESCRIBES A SHEAR PIN ASSEMBLY IN THE PIPING RESTRAINTS THAT IS DESIGNED TO FAIL AT LOADS BEYOND THE DESIGN BASIS TO AVOID EXCESSIVE LOADS ON THE PIPING, NEED TO DESCRIBE IT, GIVE CRITERIA AND EVALUATE IT IN THE SMBDB DOCUMENTATION. RE_S10LUIl0fl THESE SHEAR PIN ASSEMBLIES ARE NO LONGER PART OF THE DESIGN. Tile PSAR WILL BE MODIFIED BY AMENDMENT 74 TO REFLECT THIS. THE SMBDB DOCUMENTATION DOES NOT REQUIRE REVISION. 4 to e ~,

EEEECIS_0LLOMEILIERM S0DIUM RELEASES ON CONTAINMENI tlRC_CORMEtE CONSIDER THE LONGER TERM HEATING OF STRUCTURES AND PRESSURIZATION OF THE REACTOR. ANALYSIS SHOULD THEN BE MADE TO DETERMINE POINTS OF SODIUM VAPOR RELEASES AND THEIR EFFECT ON CONTAINMENT. RESOLUTI0f1 THIS HEATING OF STRUCTURES AND SODIUM VAPOR RELEASE THROUGH THE HEAD IS ALREADY CONSIDERED IN CRBRP-3, VOLUME 2. SEE APPENDIX F.6. THE TMBDB BASE CASE CONSIDERS ALL SODIUM VAPOR TO BE RELEASED THROUGH THE HEAD FROM 50 H0uRS ONWARD. THE EFFECTS OF THIS RELEASE ON CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. o 9

USE OF DYNAMIC MAGNIFICATION FACTOR w ~ tlRC_COMMFJ11 THE USE OF THE DYNAMIC MAGNIFICATION FACTOR (DMF) APPROACH FOR DETERMINING COMPONENT LOADS ON THE CORE SUPPORT STRUCTURE ( IS NOT CLEARLY PRESENTED IN CRBRP-3, VOLil. IT IS NOT CLEAR WilETilER THE DMF WAS USED TO ACCOUNT FOR INELASTIC PROPERTIES OR ONLY TO DEVELOP THE APPLIED LOADS. BESHLuT10fl Tile CURRENT CRBRP-3 ANALYSES DO NOT MAKE USE OF DYNAMIC MAGNI-CRBRP-3 FICATION FACTORS FOR ANALYSIS OF NON-LINEAR SYSTEMS, VOL.1 WILL BE AMENDED AS STATED IN LETTER H0:S:82:137 TO REF THIS FACT. e 0

USE_OF DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS 3 NRC COMMEtE THE APPROPRIATE DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR DEPENDS ON SEVERAL VARIABLES INCLUDING DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMPONENT (FREQUENCIES AND MODE SHAPES), FREQUEICY CONTENT OF THE LOADING FUNCTION, AND DAMPING OF THE COMPONENT. A VERY CONSERVATIVE FACTOR MAY BE FAIRLY EASY TO GENERATE, ll0NEVER, A MORE PRECISE FACTOR WOULD ENTAIL ENOUGH ANAL SIS TO PRECLUDE THE ADVANTAGES OF USING THE STATIC ANALYSES TECHNIQUE. WE SUGGEST THAT A GEN-ERAL DESCRIPTION OF HOW Tills FACTOR WILL BE DERIVED BE INCLUDED IN CRBRP-3, VOL.l. RESQLUTION THE APPLICANT AGREES WITH THE NRC REGARDING THE USE OF DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS. THE CURRENT CRBRP-3 ANALYSES DO NOT USE DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS FOR ANALYSIS OF NON-LINEAR SYSTEMS. l CRBRP-3, VOL.1 WILL BE AMENDED AS STATED IN LETTER 110:S:82:137 TO REFLFCT TitIS FACT.

APPLICATION OF STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTORS TO. FINITE ELEMENT MODELS NRC COMMENT REFERRING TO FIGURE 5-65 0F CRBRP-3, VOL.1, STRESS EVALUATION POINTS CHOSEN BY THE APPLICANTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY THi- ?OINTS OF MAXIMUM STRESS. IN THIS MODEL, AND ALL OTHERS USED FOR SMBDB EVALUATION, THE APPLICANTS NE D TO CHOOSE THE POINTS OF MAXIMUM STRESS FOR EVALUATION, AND, THEN, UNLESS THE MESH IS VERY FINE NEAR THESE POINTS, APPLY APPROPRIATE STRESS CONCENTR TION FAC-TORS TO THE STRESSES CALCULATED WITH FINITE ELEMENT MODELS. RESOLUTION THE APPLICANT AGREES WITH THE NRC REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTORS AND CURRENTLY FOLLOWS THE PRACTICE DESCRIBED. THE SPECIFIC FIGURE REFERENCED (FIGURE 5-65 0F CRBRP-3, VOL.1) IS RELATED TO AN ANALYSIS PERFORMED IN 1975 WHICH WAS EVALUATED TO THE CRITEhiA 0F SECTION III ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE, 1974 EDITION, APPENDIX F, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR PEAK STRESS OR STRAIN VALUES. SUESEQUENT TO 1975, THE.SMBDB CRITERIA MERE DEVELOPED AND ADDRESS PEAK S. TRESS AND STRAIN. CURRENT

• PLANS INCLUDE AN UPDATING OF THE SMBDB ANALYSES TO THE CURRENT CRITERIA STATED IN CRBRP-3, VOL.1, THEREFORE, ALL SMBDB ANALYSES WILL EVALUATE THE PEAK STRESS AND STRAIN DATA VIA MODEL REFINEMENT OR USE OF STRESS OR STRAIN CONCENTRATION FACTORS IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER REQUI.REMENTS OF CRBRP-3, VOL l.

F

E&e.6 s .hARD VALIDATION OF SMBDB 'MODELS AND METHODS ~ O PURPOSE e TO VALIDATE THE SMBDB STRUCTURAL MODELS AND ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR SMBDB ANALYSIS. 0 SCOPE e PERFORM BENCHMARK STUDIES AGAINST SM-1, SM-5, SM-7 AND SM-8 SCALE MODEL TESTS. e USE ANSYS F_INITE ELEMENT PROGRAM (SAME VERSION AS ORIGINALLY USED FOR SMBDB ANALYSIS) TO MODEL AND ANALYZE SM-1 (STATIC) AND SM-5 (DYNAMIC) TESTS. ~ 0 USE ABAQUS FINITE ELEMENT PROGRAM TO PERFORM DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SM-7 AND SM-8 TESTS AND TO VALIDATE THE ANSYS MODELS. ABAQUS CODE IS A STATE-OF-THE-ART CODE WITHNONLINEARLhkd$ STRAIN-LARGEDEFORMATION CAPABILITY, ~ USE VALIDATED MOD'ELS AND METHODS FOR PERFORMING 661 MJ e ANALYSIS. l 9

(5)ARD ANALYSIS OF SM-1 STATIC PRESSURE TEST ~ 0 VALIDATION OF BASIC MODELING OF THE CLO5URE HEAD SYSTEM. 0 ESTABLISH AN APPROPRIATE MODEL OF THE HEAD STRUCTURE (LRP, IRP AND SRP). 0 ESTABLISH AN APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATION OF THE MARGIN RING ASSEMBLIES BETWEEN PLUGS. O ANALYSIS PERFORMED WITH ANSYS (REVISION 2) 3-D AND' ABAQUS (VERSION 4) 3-D MODELS. THE STATIC ANALYSIS REQUIRED 7.5 CRU'S FOR ANSYS ANALYSIS AND 0.8 CRU'S FOR ABAQUS ANALYSIS. e e S e 4 y

hARD ANSYS HEAD MODEL Y e E t j )- OUTER RING i LRP / \\ [ IRP 1 SRP f I i El ements : o Plastic shells (STIF 28) e Sliding gaps (STIF52) e Rigid beams (STIF4) e Stabilizing spars (STIF 1) e 484 elements i f

ARD ABAQUS SM-1 MODEL i i\\P \\ ~ \\ : ~ m \\ /\\ tJode. l %de B bJ.J 161 SRP IRP LRP e Bilinear quadrilateral plate. (Type S4R) Elements : e Nonlinear spring. e s Reduced integration. e 208 elements. I

hARD ~ 3P' d ANSYS DEFORMED SHAPE ACROSS THE HEAD AT 600 PSI l N S:' MAXIMUM SM-5 DYNAMIC DISPLACEMENT c .06-E N/ SM-1 TEST v .05 \\

5. -

\\ ANSYS 5 4 .04 o<. N \\ m .03-- \\ 5 \\ N, d .02 v \\ ) &f f 5 .01 / / U " m as .y 0 37 m m as a 2s u rcm TRP LSE 8 5'P*T, s SRP m , C & TE R s r w emc, y,g g a s e s l --IQ LRP

7 ARD ANSYS DEFORMED SHAPE ACROSS THE HEAD AT 900' PSI w ,/\\ O.10.- ig-gg)- J\\ / l \\ 0 / / \\ \\ \\ / w / \\ s / \\ e \\..-~ m j

0.051-

/ I \\ S .I \\ r 5 I \\ j \\ [ \\ ) / s \\ / h s / / r '.'N % d M 13 %$ 'l 9 10 V is,t m m 'n > a

sn Tv ;*1 ks

'A, Q Z TR P LIZ P , o ur. n ourfR S R.P muc, " ugrus 'n ~TEV LRP \\ i e e 6

hARD ABAQUS DEFORMED SilAPE ACROSS Tile ilEAD AT 900 PSI VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT,._INCllES L ABAQUS -- ^- - SM-1 TEST O.4% i i M2 m~~~ L~~__~- A -m ~~.~~~,A 0 ot l / s O *Of / s' / 8 % i. mc. fr.. LRP Cedu -is. a a -T o - 6. o -so -+o -3 o 20 -10 00 10 2o 3o 4.o 5o bo ro S R.P IRP LRP =

4 hARD MAXIMUM VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (IRP, GAGE 9) 1200 ,~ 1000 / / 800 // / 600 m // n. 400 ./ / -*- ANSYS (Node 94) / / ABAQUS (Node 161) SM-1 Test (Point 9) .f / 200 / ./ / l 0 / 0 .04 .08 .12 .16 .20 .24 VERTICAL DEFLECTION-IN. s

(5)ARD-ANALYSIS OF SM1 STATIC PRESSURE TEST COMPARISON OF ANALYSIS WITH TEST DATA: a GOOD AGREEMENT BETWEEN ANALYSIS AND TEST DISPLACEMENTS UP TO 1000 PSI, e TEST HEAD " FAILURE" OCCURRED AT ABOUT 1100 PSI. 0 OVERALL CONCLUSION IS THAT FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS CAN MODEL CRBR HEAD BEHAVIOR UP TO THE ONSET OF PLUG DISENGAGEMENT. l l

ARD ANALYSIS OF SM1 STATIC PRESSURE TEST . CONCLUSIONS FROM MODELING STUDY: e SHELL REPRESENTATION OF THE HEAD STRUCTURE IS ADEQUATE (LRP, IRP AND SRP). e PROPER MODELING OF MARGIN RING BEHAVIOR IS CRUCIAL. TWO..SATI5EAdTORY APPROACHES ARE TO SPECIFY A DISTRIBUTION OF NONLINEAR SPRINGS TO INTERCONNECT THE PLUGS IN THE VERTICAL, DIRECTION, OR TO USE GAP FRICTION ELEMENTS WITH PROTOTYPIC INCLINED CONTACT SURFACES. l e APPLICABLE TO SUBSEQUENT ANALYTICAL WORK. O r l 5

@ARD ~ FOLLOW-UP ANALYSIS S STATIC ANALYSIS OF SM-7 PRESSURE TEST USING ABAQUS MODEL. O NONLINEAR TRANSIENT ANALYSES OF SM-5 DYNAMIC TEST, USING BOTH ABAQUS AND ANSYS MODELS. 0 STATIC ANALYSIS OF SM-8 PRESSURE TEST USING ABAQUS MODEL. 0 NONLINEAR TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF CRBRP CLOSURE HEAD UNDER SMBDB LOADS, USING DETAILED HEAD MODEL. i

Edwa t, 1. hARD SMBDB STRUCTURAL CRITERIA (CRBRP-3, VOLUME 1, SECTION 5.3 AND APPENDIX'B) DECEMBER 9, 1982 ~ V. K. SAZAWAL, MANAGER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ADVANCED REACTORS DIVISION WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION ~ l 9 ..n ,L

&ARD PRESENTATION OUTLINE O INTRODUCTION 8 REVIEW AND APPLICABILITY OF ASME CODE 9 CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT 0 STRESS LIMITS 0 STRAIN LIMITS 8 ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 4 SMBDB ANALYSIS RULES 9 STRUCTURAL EVALUATIO

N. PROCEDURE

8 RESOLUTION OF NRC CONCERNS 8 INTERACTION WITH CODES AND STANDARDS O CONCLUSIONS l

INTRODUCTION O PURPOSE e PROVIDE CONSISTENT SET OF RULES AND LIMITS TO ASSURE THAT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF CRBRP COMPONENTS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THEIR SERVICE REQUIREMENTS'UNDER ENERGETIC CORE DISRUPTION. 8 SCOPE 2 e APPLICABLE TO SOLID PORTIONS OF THE PRIMARY PRESSURE BOUNDARY AND CERTAIN INTERNAL COMPONENTS. 9 DEFINES STRESS AND STRAIN LIMITS TO PRECLUDE FAILURE MODES POSSIBLE UNDER POSTULATED LOADING. e PROVIDES GUIDANCE ON ADDITIONAL FAILURE MODES WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY THE EXPLICIT CRITERIA. e PROVIDES COMPREHENSIVE GUIDELINES TO AID THE ANALYST IN PERFORMING A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION UNDER ENERGETIC CORE DISASSEMBLY. e o e t -,,-,c,c

hARD REVIEW 0F ASME CODE FOR APPLICATION TO HCDA LOADINGS GENERAL ASME CODE (SECTION III) DOES NOT ADDRESS BEYOND DESIGN BASIS EVENTS. 8 RULES FOR EVALUATION OF SERVICE LOADINGS WITH LEVEL D (' FAULTED') SERVICE LIMITS ARE DEFINED IN APPENDIX F y OF THE ASME CODE. 4 LEVEL D SERVICE LIMITS PERMIT GROSS

• GENERAL DEFORMA.TIONS WITH SOME CONSEQUENT LOSS OF DIMENSIONAL STABILITY AND DAMAGE REQUIRING REPAIRS WHICH MAY REQUIRE REMOVAL OF THE COMPONENT FROM SERVICE (F-1120).

O APPENDIX F IS NON-MANDATORY. O e 8 e

(5ARD REVIEW 0F ASME CODE FOR APPLICATION TO HCDA LOADINGS APPENDIX F RULES 8 APPENDIX F RULES ARE APPLICABLE TO L'OAD CONTROLLED CONDITIONS. EVEN WHEN A LIMIT ON STRAIN IS INTRODUCED, IT IS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF THE " STRAIN LIMIT LOAD". 9 SECONDARY STRESSES (DEFORMATION CONTROLLED QUANTITIES) ARE NOT CONSIDERED. 8 THE RULES PROVIDE LIMITS ON PRIMARY LOAD OR STRESS FOR ELASTIC AND INELASTIC SYSTEM AND C0t1PONENT ANALYSES. 9 FOR THE INELASTIC SYSTEM ANALYSIS, SIX DIFFERENT COMPONENT r ANALYSIS METHODS ARE ALLOWED. NEGLECTING THE TWO APPROXIMATE AND CONSERVATIVE METHODS (COLLAPSE LOAD AUD STRESS RATIO), ALL OTHER METHODS REDUCE TO y+(S-S)/31f FOR LOADS: P 1 MAX 0.7 P, P IP =S y y y g g 1MAXf0.7S'IbY+(b-b}/3l} FOR STRESSES: S U u Y m AND S ARE INTENDED TO PROTECT AGAINST PLASTIC O THE LIMITS ON P y U TENSILE INSTABILITY. A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 0.7 IS USED. O THE LIMITS ON[ Sy + (S -S )/3) ARE ALSO INTENDED TO PROVIDE g y PROTECTION AGAINST PLASTIC INSTABILITY. IT IS DERIVED FROM l FLOW STRESS CONSIDERATIONS AND, ACCORDING TO DR. W. E. COOPER, " REPRESENTS A STRAIN LIMIT WHICH HAS THE OBJECTIVE OF AVOIDING PLASTIC'(LOAD) INSTABILITY". A FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 0.7 IS IMPLICIT IN THE LIMIT. 0 THE POTENTIAL FOR DUCTILE FAILURE IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE RULES l EECAUSE LOW VALUES OF STRAIN.ARE PERMITTED EY THE CRITERIA. l t

^ LOADCONTNOLLEDVERSUSENERGYLIMITEDCONDITIONS MOST LEVEL D (' FAULTED') SERVICE CONDITIONS PRESENTLY 0 IN LWRS ARE LOAD CONTROLLED, BEING RELATED TO SEISMIC AND PIPE-BREAK CONDITIONS. IN CONTRAST, THE HYPOTHETICAL CORE DISRUPTIVE ACCIDENT (HCDA O CONSIDERED IN LMFBRS IS ENERGY LIMITED (FINITE AND AND THE WORK ENERGY IS DETERMINED BY THE' AREA CURVE. IN LOAD CONTROLLED EVENT, THE MAJOR CONSIDERATION IN STRUCTURA O HENCE, FACTOR OF SAFETY IS IMPOSED ON DESIGN IN GROSS STRENGTH. STRESS (OR LOAD). IN ENERGY CONTROLLED EVENTS, THE MAJOR CONSIDERATION IS ENER 8 HENCE, STRENGTH AND D'JCTILITY KAY BS EQUAL'LY ABSORPTION. SINCE STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY ARE CONFLICTING R IMPORTANT. MENTS, THE STPUCTURAL DESIGN IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CON TIONS. IF REOPERABILITY AFTER THE EVENT IS REQUIRED, THE STRENGTH O CONSIDERATIONS ARE IMPORTANT IN ORDER TO PERMIT LI DEFORMATION, AND FACTOR OF SAFETY IS IMPOSED ON YIELD STRENG IF REOPERABILITY IS NOT REQUIRED, THEN DUCTILITY CONSIDERATIONS O ARE PREFERRED IN ORDER TO UTILIZE THE. ENERGY CAPABILITY,IN THE STRAIN HARDENING MATERIALS MORE EFFICIENT AND'A FACTOR OF SAFETY IS IMPOSED ON STRAIN. UTILIZATION OF ENERGY ABSORPTION CAPABILITY IMP O WHEN INELASTIC ANALYSIS IS USED, THE AN INEL4STIC ANALYSIS. APPENDIX F RULES REQUIRE THAT YIELD CRITERIA AN RULE BE EITHER THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAXIM IN ADDITION, TRUE STRESS-STRAIN THE DISTORTION ENERGY METHOD. CURVES ARE REQUIRED (F-1321.1). ASME SPECIAL WORKING GROUP (SWG) ON FAU 0 IS CURRENTLY (NOVEM3ER 1982)' REVIEWING THE 1 LIMITED CONDITIONS AND IS PLANNING TO IDENTIF FOR SUCH CONDITIONS IN APPENDIX F IN THE NEAR CHI E R 'y

~ D @= CRBRP STRUCTURAL CRITERI A FOR SMBDB LOADINGS O SMBDB STRUCTURAL CRITERIA SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE ENERGY LIMITED CONDITIONS RESULTING FROM THE POSTULATED HCDA EVENT. THE RULES AND LIMITS IMPOSED BY THE CRITERIA EVALUATE THE DESIGN FOR ENERGY ABSORPTION AND IMPLY INELASTIC ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES. O THE INTENT OF THE CRITERIA IS THE SAME AS THE dPPENDIX F RULES WHICH "ARE INTENDED TO ASSURE THAT VIOLATION OF THE PRESSURE RETAINING BOUNDARY WILL NOT OCCUR IN COMPONENTS OR SUPPORTS WHICH ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE PROCEDURES" (F-1220). 0 SMBDB STRUCTURAL CRITERIA ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF APPENDIX F BY PROVIDING LIMITS TO PROTECT AGAINST PLASTIC TEN'SILE (LOAD) INSTABILITY AND BY UTILIZI[G THE SAME MARGINS OF SAFETY AS IN APPENDIX F. O ADDITIONAL LIMITS ON DUCTILE FRACTURE ARE INCLUDED IN THE SMBDB STRUCTURAL CRITERIA SINCE ENERGY ABSORPTION ENTAILS RELATIVELY LARGE STRAINS IN THE STRUCTURE AND THEREFORE IT IS NECESSARY TO LIMIT PEAK STRAIN TO PREVENT DUCTII.E RUPTURE. O e 4 6 e 9 r,---- -- -- r_ _. _ _ -._..,. - - -.._ - -.. - _ _ -.. ~ ~

hARD STRUCTURAL CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT O SERVICE REQUIREMENTS e FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE DEFINED IN SECTION 5.2. e PRIMARY COOLANT BOUNDARY SHALL MAINTAIN STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. e FAILURE OF PRIMARY SOUNDARY COMPONENTS SHALL NOT PRODUCE MISSILES WHICH VIOLATE CONTAINMENT. e FAILURE OF IN-VESSEL COMPONENTS SHALL NOT PRODUCE MISSILES WHICH VIOLATE PRIMARY BOUNDARY. 9 FAILURE MODES e FAILURE MODES POSTULATED UNDER ENERGETIC CORE DISRUPTION ARE DUCTILE FAILURE MODES. i e TENSILE PLASTIC INSTABILITY (FAILURE QUE TO ONSET OF UNSTABLE PLASTIC STRAINING). e LOCAL DUCTILE RUPTURE (CRACK FORMATION DUE TO LOCALIZED ~ PLASTIC DEFORMATION) O PROTECTION LIMITS e MEMBRANE STRESS AND STRAIN LIMITS (PROTECTION AGAINST TENSILE INSTABILITY). e BENDING AND/OR LOCAL STRESS AND STRAIN LIMITS (PROTECTION AGAINS,T LOCAL RUPTURE). e

hf)ARD STRESS LIMITS ~ e STRESS LIMITS ARE USED WHEN DYNAMIC ELASTIC (OR EQUIVALENT STATIC) ANALYSIS IS PERFORMED. s STRESS LIMITS ARE IMPOSED ON ELASTICALLY CALCULATED MEMBRANE, BENDING AND LOCAL STRESSES, ~ e THERE ARE TWO STRESS LIMITS AND'BOTH THE LIMITS MUST BE SATISFIED TO ASSURE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. e STRESS LIMITS ARE TECHNICALLY DEVELOPED FROM STRAIN LIMITS. e MEMBRANE STRESS LIMIT: SImax I b + SF (S -S ) y u y - SI IS THE MAXIMUM ELASTICALLY CALCULATED MEMBRANE STRESS max INTENSITY AVERAGED THROUGH THE WALL. - SF : S THE SAFE FRACTION,. EQUAL TO 0.7 FOR UNIAXIAL STRESS STATE AND 0.35 FOR GENERAL STRESS STATE. O BENDING / LOCAL STRESS LIMIT: n 0.7 SINH [ @ 3 (1-n)] S*** < S SINH [2/i/3 (1-n)] ) -S IS THE MAXIMUM ELASTICALLY CALCULATED POSITIVE PRINCIPAL max STRESS AT THE SURFACE. -S IS THE TRUE FRACTURE STRESS. f IS THE STRAIN HARDENING EXPONENT (REPRESENTATIVE VALUES ARE -n GIVEN FOR DUCTILE MATERIALS IN ASME CODE SECTION III, NB-3228.3), e IF THE STRESS LIMITS ARE NOT SATISFIED, THEN THE DESIGN MUST DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE STRAIN LIMITS.

RD STRAIN LIMITS 0 STRAIN LIMITS ARE USED WHEN DYNAMIC INELASTIC ANALYSIS IS PERFORMED. 4 STRAIN LIMITS ARE INV0KED IF THE STRESS LIMITS ARE NOT SATISFIED. 8 STRAIN LIMITS ARE IMPOSED ON INELASTICALLY CALCULATED MEMBRANE, BENDING AND LOCAL STRAINS. 8 STRAIN LIMITS RESTRICT THE INELASTIC STRAINS IN THE STRUCTURE TO A CERTAIN FRACTION OF THE MATERIAL DUCTILITY. THESE LIMITS ARE AN EXPLICIT FUNCTION OF THE STRESS STATE SINCE PLASTIC FLOW IS INFLUENCED BY THE STRESS MULTI-AXIALITY. O STRAIN LIMITS ARE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE STRESS LIMITS BY PROVIDING EFFICIENT AND ECCNOMICAL UTILIZATION OF MATERIAL DUCTILITY AND TOUGHNESS THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH ENERGY BOUNDING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENERGETIC CORE DISRUPTICN. 4 STRAIN LIMITS ARE BASED ON A LROAD DATA BASE COVERING A WIDE VARIETY OF MATERIALS. - 0 MEMBRANE STPAIN LIMIT: y) c < 0.7 Z (c -C u IS THE MAXIMUM INELASTICALLY CALCULATED MEMBRANE EQUIVR ENT , c PLASTIC STRAIN AVERAGED THROUGH THE WALL. - Z IS THE MINIMUM CRITICAL SUBTANGENT FOR ALL INSTABILITY CONSTRAINTS AND HAS A VALUE OF 1.15 TO 0.5 DEPENDING UPON THE STRESS STATE. t BENDING / LOCAL STRAIN LIMIT: SINH /3 (1-n)] ,*P < 0.7 c , SINH [d/3(1-n)TF], IS THE MAXIMUM INELASTICALLY CALCULATED POSITIVE PRINCIPAL c STRAIN AT THE SURFACE. TF IS' THE TRIAXIALITY FACTOR (= 3 m/ ) and is > I.O. 4 IF EITHER STRAIN LIMITS IS NOT SATISFIED, THEN THE DESIGN HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED COM?LIANCE WITH THE SMBDB STRUCTURAL CRITERIA AND A REDESIGN AND/0R A REANALYSIS MUST BE INITIATED. 5

m b o f ) Z "- D f R A ( A T T h A N D ED L L L G N T E E E N U S 1 2 E E E A0 E T T L T T B T o o. S S E S B N N E S UR l L S N T S v S E T i E L L S E E E E L O S E 4 W I L E B L L T E E L M N E R G T A A O. W S T T E S N L 4 S S E U I S C IN S IA A C I l N A N T I T R N C 5 T I O C C S E M S 8 C A 5 S s P 3 R 3 T 0 B P R 3 3 9 U I 2 2 2 4 3 S 1 I L 0 5 B A M R O R O A0 9 D 0 i A 3 A A M A 3 T E C C 1 1 1 C. I T T OGOO 0OOO[ QQ$C ] A I D R oAA C SS 'V f T H I i! 3 T L L S I E S B ) N S A l K M V A T E E S E I i D IC E o X t S U I E R A I T O / P U O l' C S S D D 0 l S E E M E 0 i Z Z U U A Q gO ahy, $ l P R S t lH H 0 P I A ( 2 S S lf L L C L l' S S E E U A D n R O M F P P C S 0 N E OQDA O 0N G E L S I RA e PM Y O 1 O C Q G og Q[ 8 O 4 3 2 1 0 s,( Nr* >g @ y ,_U y 1

~ hARD litt31 SY (ksi) n SpeCl*en TYPE Test Data ~ ShHil (1-n) f(TF)= 2024-14 44 0.20 iside riate '" "*"d'"' 1.0-3; gig y (1-n) TF ~~ 15 0.15 Motthed Round { gryl k tar in Tension r l loin CR I f 2219-186 59 0.09 Stunt Notched g 7075.T6 73 0.061 sheet in E. \\ a k l 4340, 189_ U.054 Tensloh. 30455 34 0.494 Pressurised O 1 A-5338 74 0.141 Olse .(p E C'"I'# E f. k. l A85-C 39 0.242 5 A [ ] 0.5-- -- 8 i g u' o' ~ \\ n = 1- .N,%'wT A N.LS T I %Ts .is s ~ ~ ~ ~ - ' -- ~ ____ _ ) n=0 0.0-l.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.'O 6.0 7.0 Triaxiality Factor. TF TRIAXIALITY FUNCTIONS VS. EXPERIMENTAL LOCAL DUCTILE RUPTURE FAIL

l t hARD ADDITIONAL CRITERIA 8 SMBDB ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ALSO PROVIDE GUIDELINES FOR THE FOLLOWING POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES: e LEAKAGE AT MECHANICAL SEALS. e GROSS DISTORTION FROM PLASTIC HINGE COLLAPSE OR BUCKLING. i Two IMPORTANT IMPLICATIONS OF THESE GUIDELINES ARE:. DESIGNER SHALL SPECIFY AND SUBSTANTIATE ADDITIONAL: 8 i. STRUCTURAL CRITERIA WHICH MAY BE SYSTEM DEPENDENT. ~ t ADDITIONAL CRITERIA AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS MAY BE e NEEDED TO SATISFY ALL THE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A SPECIFIC COMPONENT OR SYSTEM. e a

hARD SMBDB ANALYSIS RULES 9 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS RULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSURE CONSISTENT AND UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE SMBDB STRUCTURAL CRITERIA. THESE GUIDELINES ALSO PROVIDE VALUABLE ASSISTANCE TO AN ANALYST IN PERFORMING DYNAMIC ANALY5ES REQUIRED -TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CRITERIA. O RULES ARE PROVIDED IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: ELASTIC AND INELASTIC METHODS. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING. SELECTION OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES. SELECTION OF DAMPING VALUES. ~ SELECTION OF LOADING HISTORIES. SELECTION OF INTEGRATION TIME STEP AND CONVERGENCE CRITERION. DOCUMENTATION (SMBDB ANALYSIS REPORT). O THESE RULES ARE DISCUSSED IN APPENDIX B 0F CRBRP-3, VOLUME 1. j l l s

hARD SMBOB EVALUATf0N PROCEDURE _ Select critical region (s) for analysis 4 Develop suitable structural model h Perfom dynamic elastic analysis 4 Evaluate results against functional and stress criterie If T'S / Are / the results acceptable? No Ferform dynamic ' inelastic analysis } Evaluate results agt. inst functional and strain criteria j ) I No_ Initiate redesign the re ults an# r reanalysis I acceptable? f Yes o Document analysis procedures f-and evaluation results in l SM5DB Analysis Report ( t l [

hARD. l NRC CONCERNS O COMMENT: DOES DATA BASE FOR PLASTIC INSTABILITY THEORY INCLUDE TESTS OTHER THAN HILLIER'S PRESSURIZED TUBE DATA? RESOLUTION: YES. DATA BASE FRESENTED AT THIS MEETING. 6 COMMENT: INCLUDE A HEAD FAILURE CRITERION TO PRECLUDE FAILURE BY EXCESSIVE DEFORMATICN. RESOLUTION: CURRENT ASSESSMENT' 0F SRI SCALE MODEL TESTS INDICATES THAT-DISENGAGEMENT WOULD NOT BE APPROACHED FOR SMBD3 LOADS. NO ADDITIONAL CRITERION CONSIDERED NECESSARY. O COMMENT: DEFINITION OF TRIAXIALITY FACTOR (TF) PRECLUDES THE USE OF THE PEAK STRAIN LIMIT.IN SHEAR' DOMINATED FIELD WHERE TF CAN BE EQUAL,TO ZERO. l RESOLUTION: THE CR TERION STATES THAT FOR ALL VALUES OF TF LESS THAN 1.0, i THE VALUE Of TF SHOULD BE TAKEN AS 1.0, FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICATION OF PEAK STRAIN LIMIT IN A SHEAR DOMINATED FIELD IS CONSERVATIVE. l l l 1

NRC' CONCERNS (CONTINUED) O COMMENT: SHOW EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PEAK STRAIN CRITERION IS CONSERVATIVE. RESOLUTION: THE DATA BASE HAS BEEN PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING AND DEMONSTRATES THE CONSERVATISM IN THE CRITERION, THE DISCREFANCY BETWEEN THE MCCLI.NTOCK THEORY AND TESTS (DUCTILITY VERSUS VOLUME FRACTION DATA) IS DUE TO POOR -COMPARISON BETWEEN FRACTURE STRAINS AS CALCULATED FROM THE* HOLE GROWTH MODEL AND STRAINS C3MPUTED FROM MEASURED VOID DENSITIES. THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE PROJECT IS T,0 USE FRACTURE STRAINS.AS DETERMINED FROM A TENSILE TEST AND, AS A RESULT, THE AGREEMENT IS BETTER. O CONCLUSION: THE SMBDB CRITERIA ARE ADEQUATE AND PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST STRUCTURAL FAILURES DUE TO SMBDB LOADINGS. ~ 9

hARD l INTERACTION WITH CODES AND STANDARDS SMBDB STRUCTURAL CRITERIA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY DR. W. E. e COOPER AND HE HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THESE CRITERIA BE IN-CLUDED IN THE ASME CODE CASE N-47 AND APPENDIX F AS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ENERGY CONTROLLED EVENTS. o ASME SPECIAL WORKING GROUP ON FAULTED CONDITIONS IS CONSIDERING TO IDENTIFY A SEPARATE SET OF RULES FOR ENERGY CONTROLLED EVENTS AND IS REVIEWING THE SP.BD3 STRUCTURAL CRITERIA FOR INCLUSICN IN APPENDIX F. ~ t o AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY (ANS) IS DEVELOP:NG RISK LIMIT GUIDELINES FOR LMFBR DESIGN, AND THE DRAFT ANS 54.11 STANDARD ON RISK LIMIT CRITERIA INCLUDES THE SMBDB STRUCTURAL CRITERIA. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY A PEER GROUP CONSISTING OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM ATOMICS INTERNATIONAL, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY, GENERAL ELECTRIC AND WESTINGHOUSE. O e a 4

c. CONCLUSIONS o 'SMBDB STRUCTURAL CRITERIA ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES RESULTING FROM ENERGETIC CORE DISASSEMBLY. e APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA WILL PROVIDE STRUCTURAL MARGINS TO MITIGATE THE CONSEQUENCES OF STRUCTURAL FAILURES DUE TO THE POSTULATED LOADING. THE STRESS AND STRAIN LIMITS ARE BASED ON A BROAD DATA BASE'C0VERING A WIDE VARIETY OF MATERIALS. e STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS RULES ARE PROVIDED TO ASSURE CONSISTENT AND UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE SM3DB STRUCTURAL CRITERIA. ~ e THE ASME CODE IS CONSIDERING A S'EFARATE SET OF RULES FOR ENERGY CONTROLLED EVENTS LIKE THE HCDA, AND THE SMBDB STRUCTURAL CRITERIA HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED BY DR. W. E. COOPER FOR INCLUSION IN APPENDIX F AND CODE CASE N-47. A SEPARATE PEER REVIEW BY THE ANS HAS ALSO JUDGED THE CRITERIA TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN ANS 54.11 STANDARD. O O e

Ek7 INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR SER ITEM DATE TESTING SRI PREVIOUS SCALE MODEL IESTS AT 661 MJ COMPLETE PRELIMINARY DATA FOR SUPPLEMENTAL IESTS COMPLETE SM-7 AND SM-8 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT OF SM-7 12/09/82 AND SM-8 ON PREVIOUS DYNAMIC IESTS FINAL REPORT ON SM-7 AND SM-8 1/1!4/83 ausi.nE5__gc DI SCUSSIONS DISCUSS COMP,ENTS ON FAILURE CRITERIA 12/09/82 12/31/82 WRITE-UP RESPONDING TO NRC COMMENTS ON SMBDB CRITERIA DISceSS BENCHMARKING AGAINST SM-1 12/09/82 WRITE-UP ON BENCHMARKING AGAINST SM-1 12/31/82 COMMITMENTS COMMITitENT TO COMPLETE BENCHMARKING AGAINST SM-7, SM-8 AND SM-5, COMMITMENT TO APPLY BENCHMARKED ANALYTIC MODEL TO CRBRP FOR 661 MJ LOADS AND TO DESIGN HEAD AND HEAD fl0UNTED COMPONENTS TO MEET THOSE LOADS, .}}