NUREG/CR-6517 

SAND96-2899 

Round Robin Pretest 

Analyses of a Steel 

Containment Vessel 

Model and Contact 

Structure Assembly 

Subject to Static Internal 

Pressurization 

Sandia National Laboratories 

U.S. Nudear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Nudear Power Engineering Corporation 

Tokyo, Japan
AVAILABILITY NOTICE 

Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regu

lations, and Tte 10, Energy, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, may be purchased from one of the fol

lowing sources: 

1. The Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

PO. Box 37082 

Washington, DC 20402-9328 

<http://www.access.gpo.gov/sutdocs> 

202-512-1800 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161-0002 

<http://www.ntis.gov> 

1-800-553-6847 or locally 703-605-6000 

The NUREG series comprises (1) brochures 

(NUREG/BR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of confer

ences (NUREG/CP-X)00Q, (3) reports resulting 

from international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), 

(4) technical and administrative reports and books 

[(NUREG-XXXX) or (NUREG/CR-)000g], and (5) 

compilations of legal decisions and orders of the 

Commission and Atomic and Safety Ucensing 

Boards and of Office Directors' decisions under 

Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations (NUREG

xxex). 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for com

ment is available free, to the extent of supply, upon 

written request as follows: 

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer 

Reproduction and Distribution 

Services Section 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: <DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov> 

Facsimile: 301-415-2289 

A portion of NRC regulatory and technical informa

tion is available at NRC's World Wide Web site:

<http:l/www.nrcrgov> 

After January 1,2000, the public may electronically 

access NUREG-series publications and other NRC 

records in NRC's Agencywide Document Access 

and Management System (ADAMS), through the 

Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR), link 

<http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html>. 

Publicly released documents include, to name a 

few, NUREG-series reports; Federal Register no

tices; applicant, licensee, and vendor documents 

and correspondence; NRC correspondence and 

internal memoranda; bulletins and Information no

tices; inspection and investigation reports; licens

ee event reports; and Commission papers and 

their attachments. 

Documents available from public and special tech

nical libraries include all open literature items, such 

as books, journal articles, and transactions, Feder

al Register notices, Federal and State legislation, 

and congressional reports. Such documents as 

theses, dissertations, foreign reports and transla

tions, and non-NRC conference proceedings may 

be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used In a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process 

are maintained at the NRC Ubrary, Two White Flint 

North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 

20852-2738. These standards are available in the 

library for reference use by the public. Codes and 

standards are usually copyrighted and may be 

purchased from the originating organization or, if 

they are American National Standards, from

American National Standards Institute 

11 West 42nd Street 

New York, NY 10038-8002 

<http:/Avww.ansl.org> 

212-642-4900

DISCLAIMER

This repot was prepared as n accourt of wck sponsored by 

an agency of the United States G-,overnneiL Neither the United 

States Govemerr nor any agecy Uhereo nor any of ther ern

poyees, makes a" warrar4 e.p:essed or rnped, or assmres

any legal liaity or respomsbity br any tMr patys use, or •te 

resUts of such use, of anyw Iomatio apparatus, pmduc or 

pmrces discosed In this repo, or represerls tho it use by suich thr party would not Inringe privatel owed righta

p
NUREG/CR-6517 

SAND96-2899

"Round Robin Pretest 

Analyses of a Steel 

Containment Vessel 

Model and Contact 

Structure Assembly 

Subject to Static Internal 

Pressurization

Mmiscrpt Completed: Nov bher 1996 

Date Published: August 1998 

Prepared by 

V.K Luk, E.W. Kiamers 

Sandia National Laboratories 

Albuquerque, NM 87185-0744

Prepared for

Systems Safety Department 

Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation 

Tokyo, Japan 

Under Funds-in-Agreement 

No. DE-FI04-91AL73734 

NUPEC Project Manager: M. Iriyama

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 USA 

Under Containment Integrity Under 

Extreme Loads NRC Job Code A1401 

NRC Project Manager: J.F. Costello
NUREGICR-6517 has been reproduced 

from the best available copy.

1 .
Abstract

The Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC)" of Japan and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC), Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, are co-sponsoring and jointly funding a Cooperative Containment 

Research Program at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). As a part of this program, a steel containment vessel 

(SCV) model and contact structure assembly will be tested to failure at SNL in December 1996. The SCV model is 

representative of a steel containment for an improved Japanese Mark-il Boiling Water Reactor Plant. The 

geometric scale is 1:10 and the thickness scale is 1:4. The contact structure, a thick, bell-shaped steel shell separated 

at a nominally uniform distance from the SCV model, provides a simplified representation of some features of a 

reactor concrete shield building in the actual plant. The objective of the internal pressurization test is to provide 

measurement data of the structural response of the composite structure up to its failure in order to validate analytical 

modeling, to find the pressure capacity of the model, and to observe the failure mechanisms. 

A pretest analysis of this structural assembly was conducted by the following organizations: 

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) [U.S.] 

Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell Ambienti (ANPA) [Italy] 

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) [India] 

General Dynamics Electric Boat Division (GD-EB) [U.S.] 

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) [Japan] 

Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC) [Japan] 

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) [U.S.] 

Staatliche Material prfifungsanstalt, Universitit Stuttgart (MPA Stuttgart) [Germany] 

Each organization was supplied with the same basic information to use in its analyses, including design drawings of 

the SCV model and contact structure, as-measured material properties, and certain as-built geometrical 

measurements. Each organization worked independently, using its own analytical methods. The Round Robin 

analysis exercise provides a forum for participants to discuss pretest predictions of the deformation behavior of the 

SCV model at the same locations as well as to compare pretest predictions with the test data. 

This report describes the analysis models and tabulates the pretest predictions submitted by each participant 

organization. The participants' analysis results at 43 specified locations on the SCV model were compiled to 

facilitate discussions at the SCV Round Robin pretest meeting on October 1-2, 1996, in Albuquerque. This report 

also includes a summary of participants' predictions of the failure pressure and mechanisms. AD pretest predictions 

will be compared to the test data after the test. 

a The work of the Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation is performed under the contract by the Ministry of International Trade 

and Industry, Japan.

iii NUREG/CR-6517
Contents 

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................. A....... 

Acknow ledgm ents ....................................................................................................................................................... Vii 

List of A cronym s .................................................................................................... :..................................................... ix 

Executive Sum m ary ................................................................................................................................................ E S-i 

1. INTRO DU CTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.2 Program Description ................................................................................................................................ 1 

1.3 Organization of Report ............................................................................................................................. 2 

2. DESIGN OF THE STEEL CONTAINMENT VESSEL MODEL ........................................................................ 3 

2.1 M odel D esign ........................................................................................................................................... 3 

2.2 M aterial Properties ................................................................................................................................... 3 

3. DESIGN OF THE CONTACT STRUCTURE .................................................................................................... 7 

3.1 Structure and Design ................................................................................................................................ 7 

3.2 G ap Dim ensions ....................................................................................................................................... 7 

4. IN STRUM ENTATION ........................................................................................................................................... 9 

4.1 M odel Instrum entation ............................................................................................................................. 9 

4.1.1 Strain M easurem ents ......................................................................................................... 9 

4.1.2 Displacem ent M easurements ............................................................................................ 9 

4.1.3 Pressure M easurem ents .................................................................................................... 10 

4.2 Standard Output Locations ............................................................................................................... 10 

5. INTERNAL PRESSURIZATION TEST ............................................. 19 

5.1 Pressure Supply ...................................................................................................................................... 19 

5.2 Pressurization Sequence ........................................................................................................................ 19 

5.2.1 First Stage (0 - 4.6 Pd ) ........................................................................................................ 19 

5.2.2 Second Stage (4.6 Pd) ........................................................................................................... 19 

5.2.3 Third Stage (4.6 Pd - model failure or 15.9 Pd) .............................................................. 19 

6. PRETEST AN ALY SIS ................... v ...................................................................................................................... 21 

6.1 Compilation of Analysis Results from Participants ........................................................................ 21 

6.2 Predictions of Failure Pressure and Mechanisms ............................................................................. 23 

7. CONCLUSIONS ......................................... 25 

v NUREG/CR-6517
2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3.1. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

4.6. 

5.1.

Appendix A. 

Appendix B. 

Appendix C. 

Appendix D. 

Appendix E.

SCV Model Design Drawings ..................................................................................................... A-1 

Contact Structure Design Drawings ............................................................................................ B-1 

Measured Material Properties for the SCV Model ...................................................................... C-1 

Compilation of Analysis Results from Participants ......................................................................... D-1 

Round Robin Participants' Analysis Reports and Results ........................................................... E-1 

E-1. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) [U.S.] ......................................................................... E-1 

E-2. Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell Ambienti (ANPA) [Italy] .................................. E-37 

E-3. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) [India] ............................................................... E-99 

E-4. General Dynamics Electric Boat Division (GD-EB) [U.S.] .............................................. E-259 

E-5. Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) [Japan] ................................................ E-309 

E-6. Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC) [Japan] ............................................. E-359 

E-7. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) [U.S.] ....................................................................... E-407 

E-8. Staatliche Material prtifungsanstalt, Universitdt Stuttgart (MPA Stuttgart) [Germany] .... E-465

NUREG/CR-6517

Figures 

Steel containment vessel (SCV) model ..................................................................................................... 4 

Overhead view of the SCV model .......................................................................................................... 5 

Comparison of actual containment to SCV model ..................................................................................... 6 

Contact structure (CS) and the SCV model ............................................................................................... 8 

Locations of standard outputs near equipment hatch ............................................................................... 13 

Locations of standard outputs on top head ............................................................................................... 14 

Locations of transition region standard outputs ....................................................................................... 15 

Locations of paired free-field standard outputs ........................................................................................ 16 

Locations of remaining free-field standard outputs ................................................................................ 17 

Locations of displacement standard outputs ............................................................................................ 18 

Pressurization sequence for the high-pressure test ................................................................................... 20 

Tables 

SCV standard output list ................................................................................................................................ 12 

List of participants and numerical codes ................................................................................................... 21 

Detailed description of analysis models ................................................................................................... 22 

Locations and pressures of first yield and first contact between the SCV model and the CS .................. 23 

Predicted failure pressure and mechanisms ............................................................................................... 24 

Appendices

4.1. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4.

vi
Acknowledgments

This report would not have been possible without the cooperation and support of many individuals and groups. The 

Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC) of Tokyo, Japan, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC), and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) are pleased to have had the participation of the following 

individuals and their organizations: 

Dr. Phillip Pfeiffer and Dr. Ronald Kulak: Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) [U.S.]; 

Mr. Giovanni Pino and Mr. Giuseppe Maresca: Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell Ambienti 

(ANPA) [Italy]; 

Dr. H.S. Kushwaha: Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) [India]; 

Mr. Kenneth Arpin and Ms. A. Beacham: General Dynamics Electric Boat Division (GD-EB) [U.S.]; 

Dr. Jun Sugimoto: Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) [Japan]; 

Dr.-Ing. Ludwig Stumpfrock: Staatliche Material prtifungsanstalt, Universitdt Stuttgart 

(MPA Stuttgart) [Germany]. 

These organizations received no financial support from NUPEC, NRC, or SNL, and their efforts are gratefully 

acknowledged. 

The authors also wish to acknowledge the guidance, support, and encouragement of Dr. Hideo Ogasawara, Director 

and General Manager, Systems Safety Department, and Mr. Tomoyuki Matsumoto, Manager, Structural Behavior 

Group, both of NUPEC, and Dr. James S. Costello, Structural and Geological Engineering Branch, Division of 

Engineering Technology, Office of Reactor Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

vii NUREG/CR-6517
ANL 

ANPA 

BARC 

BWR 

CS 

GD-EB 

JAERI 

LWR 

MPA Stuttgart 

NRC 

" NUPEC 

SCV 

SNL

List of Acronyms 

Argonne National Laboratory 

Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell Ambienti 

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre 

boiling water reactor 

contact structure 

General Dynamics Electric Boat Division 

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute 

light water reactor 

Staatliche Material prtifungsanstalt, Universitdt Stuttgart 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation 

steel containment vessel 

Sandia National Laboratories

ix NUREG/CR-6517
Executive Summary

For several years, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) 

has tested and analyzed numerous scale models of 

containment vessels that have been pressurized to 

failure as part of the Containment Integrity Programs 

sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC). The overall objective of the programs has 

been to develop test-validated analytical methods that 

can be used to predict the performance of light water 

reactor (LWR) containment vessels subject to loads 

beyond the design basis. Five scale steel containment 

models and a scale reinforced-concrete containment 

model have been tested. For the static internal 

pressurization test of the reinforced concrete 

containment model, a number of organizations in the 

United States and Europe performed pretest and 

posttest analyses of predicted response and failure. 

This activity, referred to as a Round Robin analysis, 

occurred in the mid- to late-1980s. 

SNL is now involved in a Cooperative Containment 

Research Program for LWR containments under the 

joint sponsorship of the Nuclear Power Engineering 

Corporation (NUPEC)b of Tokyo, Japan and the NRC. 

This report discusses pretest analyses of an internal 

pressurization test on a scale model of a steel 

containment vessel (SCV) that represents certain 

features of an improved boiling water reactor (BWR) 

Mark-II containment vessel in Japan. The SCV model 

uses a mixed-scale design: 1:10 for the geometry scale 

and 1:4 for the thickness scale. The objective of the 

test is to measure the failure pressure of the model, to 

observe the failure mode and mechanisms, and to 

provide data on the containment structural response up 

to failure to validate analytical models. The test 

assembly includes a bell-shaped steel contact structure 

(CS) at a nominally uniform distance from the SCV 

model. The uniform gap between these two structures 

permits the SCV model to undergo deformation well 

beyond the elastic range prior to its contact with the 

CS. The CS, a much simplified representation of a 

concrete shield building in a physical plant, allows an 

in-depth study of SCV model behavior after it makes 

contact with the CS. The SCV/CS structural assembly 

provides specific features of the interaction to be 

investigated, including closure of gap, progression of 

contact, and load sharing between the SCV and the CS. 

In separate efforts, NUPEC conducted a full-scale 

hatch test, a biaxial tensile test, and a scaled cylindrical 

vessel failure test. The purpose of these tests is to 

b The work of the Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation is 

performed under the contract by the Ministry of International 

Trade and Industry, Japan 

ES-I

provide additional information on containment vessel 

deformation behavior to supplement the SCV model 

pressure test. 

Eight organizations from the U.S., Europe, and Asia 

have participated in a Round Robin analysis activity to 

conduct pretest predictions of the response of the 

coupled SCV/CS assembly. Their efforts will help 

validate analytical methods used for predicting the 

structural behavior of actual containments under severe 

accident conditions. The participating organizations 

are: 

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) [U.S.] 

Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell Ambienti 

(ANPA) [Italy] 

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) [India] 

General Dynamics Electric Boat Division 

(GD-EB) [U.S.] 

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute 

(JAERI) [Japan] 

Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC) 

[Japan] 

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) [U.S.] 

Staatliche Material pruifungsanstalt, 

Universitlt Stuttgart (MPA Stuttgart) 

(Germany] 

NUPEC and the NRC jointly invited these international 

organizations to participate in the pretest analyses in 

the spring of 1995. The analyses began in the summer 

of 1995 and were completed by June 1996. The 

Round Robin analysis activity was coordinated by 

SNL, which provided participants with all details 

necessary to perform the pretest analyses, maintained 

close contact with participants, prepared the Round 

Robin pretest analysis report, and organized the pretest 

meeting held October 1-2, 1996, in Albuquerque, NM. 

Each organization was supplied with the same basic 

information, including design drawings of the SCV 

model and the CS, as-measured material properties, 

and certain as-built geometrical measurements. All 

participants were instructed to provide pretest 

predictions at 43 specified standard output locations on 

the SCV model to facilitate comparison and discussion 

of analysis results and to correlate with test data after 

the internal pressurization test, scheduled for 

December 1996. 

Several benefits have resulted from the Round Robin 

analysis exercise. First, it provides a forum for 

participants to discuss pretest predictions, based on 

different numerical codes and modeling approaches, of 

the deformation behavior of the SCV model at the

NUREG/CR-6517
same locations, as well as to compare pretest 

predictions to the test data. Second, when expert 

analysts use different finite-element codes such as 

ABAQUS, NEPTUNE, MARC, and TABS to solve 

the same problem, it is possible to advance the state-of

the-art of predictive techniques and to evaluate the 

suitability of these codes for the nonlinear analysis of 

steel structures (including contact phenomena). 

Finally, this exercise has led to greater recognition of 

the importance of containment performance and 

reliable prediction techniques and has facilitated the 

exchange of information on these and other related 

topics. 

This report describes the pretest analyses and compiles 

the analysis results of the participating organizations. 

The background information and the description of the 

containment integrity program are given in Section 1. 

The design and material properties of the SCV model, 

and the design and special features of the CS are 

discussed in Section 2 and 3, respectively. Section 4 

describes the instrumentation installed on the SCV 

model and the CS. The pressurization sequence of the 

SCV model test is summarized in Section 5. Section 6 

consists of participants' predictions of failure pressure 

and mechanisms. Section 7 contains the conclusions. 

NUREGICR-6517

Appendices A and B contain design drawings of the 

SCV and CS, respectively. Appendix C presents 

measured material properties of the SCV. Appendix D 

comprises the compilation of participants' analysis 

results. The analysis reports and results from the 

participants are included in Appendix E in their 

entirety. 

At this time, comments on the compilation of analysis 

results from participants are limited primarily to 

observations. Participants had to make strategic 

decisions about the features of the SCVICS structural 

assembly to be represented in their analytical models 

such as as-built versus as-designed configurations and 

other structural details. As shown in Section 6, the 

pretest failure predictions by participants are very 

much dependent on their modeling approach. A true 

evaluation of the accuracy of the pretest predictions 

can be made more appropriately in light of the test 

data. There is no specific plan for the posttest analysis 

effort. After the SCV pressurization test, the pretest 

predictions will be compared with the test data on 

failure pressure, location and mechanisms, and a 

decision will be made at that time whether there will be 

a formal Round Robin posttest analysis exercise. 

ES-2

Ii
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 

The Cooperative Containment Research Program is co

sponsored and jointly funded by the Nuclear Power 

Engineering Corporation (NUPEC)C of Japan and the 

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research. The purpose of the 

program is to investigate the response of representative 

scale models of nuclear containments to pressure

loading beyond the design basis accident and to 

compare analytical predictions to measured behavior. 

This is accomplished by conducting static, pneumatic 

overpressurization tests of scale models at ambient 

temperature. Prior to testing, a number of 

organizations are requested to conduct predictive 

modeling of the response of containment models to 

overpressurization. The containment models are being 

constructed by NUPEC, which is funding Sandia 

National Laboratories (SNL) for planning and site 

preparation, review of the model design and design 

support, instrumentation and data collection, and 

reporting. The NRC is funding SNL to perform 

analyses of the models and conduct the tests. Both 

sponsors are funding SNL to coordinate the Round 

Robin pretest analysis activities reported here. 

1.2 Program Description 

The first test in the Cooperative Containment Research 

Program consists of pressure testing a mixed-scale 

model of a steel containment vessel (SCV). The model 

is representative of a steel containment for a Japanese

improved Mark-H Boiling Water Reactor containment. 

The geometric scale is 1:10. However, because the 

same materials are being used for the model as for the 

actual plant, the scale on the wall thickness was set at 

1:4 for manufacturability and material availability. 

The model was fabricated at the Hitachi Works, Japan. 

The model arrived at SNL on March 8, 1995, and was 

installed in the fragment barrier on March 22, 1995. 

The fragment barrier houses the SCV model during 

instrumentation and pressure tests. It is designed, 

along with its earthen cover, to contain the fragments 

and safely vent the overpressure from a probable 

catastrophic failure of the model at a maximum 

pressure of 12.4 MPa (1800 psig). Instrumentation of 

C The work of the Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation is 

performed under the contract by the Ministry of International 

Trade and Industry. Japan.

the model consists of over 800 channels of data, 

including strain gages, displacement transducers, and 

temperature sensors, as well as visual monitoring. A 

steel contact structure (CS) is placed over the SCV 

model prior to testing to represent some features of the 

concrete reactor shield building in the actual plant. 

The model should come into contact with the CS, 

resulting in deformation and failure modes which 

include the effects of contact due to a combination of 

pressure and thermal growth. The pressure test of the 

SCV model is planned to occur during December 1996. 

The SCV model test is intended to accomplish the 

following specific objectives: 

1. To provide experimental data for validating the 

predictive capabilities of analytical methods 

representing certain aspects of the static internal 

pressure response of a steel containment, first 

beyond the elastic range without consideration 

of contact with a surrounding shield structure or 

thermal effects, then after contact with a 

surrounding shield structure. 

2. To provide experimental data for the evaluation 

of steel containments. 

Round Robin pretest analyses of this structural 

assembly were conducted by the following 

organizations: 

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) [U.S.] 

Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell Ambienti 

(ANPA) [Italy] 

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) [India] 

General Dynamics Electric Boat Division 

(GD-EB) [U.S.] 

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute 

(JAERI) [Japan] 

Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC) 

[Japan] 

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) [U.S.] 

Staatliche Material prilfungsanstalt, 

Universitit Stuttgart (MPA Stuttgart) 

[Germany] 

Each organization was supplied with the same basic 

information to use in its analyses, including design 

drawings of the SCV model and the CS, as-measured 

material properties, and certain as-built geometrical

I NUREG-CR-6517
measurements.d~f Each organization worked 

independently using its own analytical methods. 

1.3 Organization of Report 

This report presents the results of pretest predictive 

modeling of the effects of overpressurization on a scale 

SCV model at 43 selected locations. Section 2 

describes the design of the SCV model and the 

measured properties data on the steel materials used in 

its construction. The contact structure which encloses 

the SCV model is discussed in Section 3. In Section 4, 

the instrumentation on the SCV model is reported. 

Special attention is focused on the strain gages and

displacement transducers at the 43 specified locations 

where pretest predictions of strain and displacement 

were made. The procedure for pressurization of the 

SCV model is described in Section 5. In Section 6, the 

results of predictive modeling by all participants are 

reported. Section 7 presents the conclusions of the 

pretest analyses. References are given in Section 8. 

Appendices A and B contain design drawings of the 

SCV model and the CS, respectively. Appendix C 

presents data on measured material properties for the 

SCV model. A compilation of the analysis results from 

the participants is given in Appendix D, and the 

complete pretest analysis reports and results from each 

of the participants are found in Appendix E.

d Branstetter, I.,. Sandia lett=r to SCV Round Robin participants, 

July 10, 1995. 

Hessheinm. NLF., Sandia lIt= to SCV Round Robin 

participants, February 20, 1996. 

Luk. V.K., Sandia letter to SCV Round Robin participants, May 

9, 1996. 

NUREG/CR-6517 2

VI
2. DESIGN OF THE STEEL CONTAINMENT VESSEL MODEL

2.1 Model Design 

The steel containment vessel (SCV) model is scaled 

1:4 in shell thicknesses and 1:10 in overall geometry 

from a prototype Mark-II Boiling Water Reactor 

(BWR) containment structure. The model is 2.9 m in 

diameter and 5.9 m tall, with an enclosed volume of 

about 21 in3. The model weighs 15,800 kg. 

The design pressure of the prototype containment is 

0.31 MPa (45 psig). The design pressure for the model 

is calculated as: 

10 (geometric scale) x 0.31 MPa = 0.78 MPa (113 psig) 

4 (thickness scale) 

Containment details that are included in the SCV 

model are: the equipment hatch penetration and 

reinforcement plate (the hatch is not to scale, and the 

hatch cover is welded shut); the drywell head (also 

welded shut); and the SGV48O/SPV490 material 

transition location. All other hatches, airlocks, and 

penetrations were omitted from the SCV model. In 

addition, the lower wetwell and wall-basemat junction 

has been replaced by a thick bottom head which is 

designed to ensure that failure will not occur there 

during testing, and that deformations in this area will 

be minimal. All internal structures not integral to the 

vessel have been omitted from the model. All thickness 

variations in the model occur on its outer surface; the 

inner surface of the model is smooth. 

Figure 2.1, a diagram of the SCV model, illustrates 

sections and features such as a top flange, knuckle 

region, several stiffeners, equipment hatch with 

reinforcement plate, various welds, and an interface 

where two dissimilar steel materials come together at a 

butt weld. The design drawings of the SCV model are 

included in Appendix A. 

A standard "global" coordinate system is used, 

corresponding to the one originally employed by 

Hitachi Works in describing the model. The origin of 

the coordinate system is on the axis of the model, at the 

elevation of the top surface of the ring support girder 

(Figure 2.1). Positive elevations are upward on the 

model. The global coordinate system is a left-handed 

cylindrical (r, 0, Z) system (i.e., looking downward at 

the model, positive rotation is clockwise). The 

equipment hatch is at an angular orientation of 900.

Figure 2.2 shows angular orientations in the global 

system looking down at the model. 

Figure 2.3 compares a cutaway view of an actual 

containment and the SCV model. The diagram of the 

actual containment includes an exterior structure that is 

a concrete shield building. The upper portion of the 

SCV model (the portion above the ring support girder) 

approximates the major features of an actual 

containment. 

The outside surface of the SCV model has been 

covered by a layer of protective paint. The inside 

surface of the CS, however, is not painted. There are 

no plans to experimentally determine the coefficient of 

friction between the SCV model and the CS. The 

participants were asked to exercise their best modeling 

judgment in this regard. 

2.2 Material Properties 

The upper portion of the model consists of two 

materials: SGV480 steel and SPV490 steel. NUPEC 

has supplied standard properties for these materials. 

For any thickness of SGV480 steel, the standard 

properties are: 

minimum yield: 265 MPa; 

tensile strength: 480 to 590 MPa; and 

minimum elongation after fracture: 17%. 

In the NUPEC-supplied standard properties for 

SPV490 steel, the minimum elongation after fracture 

depends on thickness, but the minimum yield strength 

and the tensile strength do not. For SPV490 steel, the 

standard properties are given as: 

minimum yield strength: 490 MPa; 

tensile strength: 610 to 735 MPa; and 

minimum elongation after fracture: 

18% for 9 mm thickness 

25% for 17.5 mm thickness. 

NUPEC has also conducted tensile tests on samples of 

SGV480 steel and SPV490 steel. These samples were 

taken from the actual material lots used to construct the 

model. Tests were performed on material taken from 

12 locations on the SCV model. Four tests, two in the 

roll direction and two in the rectangular (i.e., vertical) 

direction, were performed at each location for a total of 

48 tests. The tests were taken to failure. The data on 

measured material properties are available in 

Appendix C.

3 NUREG-CR-6517
Access Hatch Cover 

All Elevations In Meters

TRI-403-001-

Figure 2.1. Steel containment vessel (SCV) model.

NUREGICR-6517 4

1!

I
100 

•'••••..,.•Equipr 

2700 

Hat . 

1800 

TR1,6403-02.. 

Figure 2.2. Overhead view of the SCV model.

5 NUREG-CR-6517
-i 

Figure 2.3. Comparison of actual containment to SCV model.

NUREG/CR-6517 6
3. DESIGN OF THE CONTACT STRUCTURE

3.1 Structure and Design 

The CS allows investigation of the response of the 

SCV model against an almost rigid surrounding shield 

structure during pressurization. It is not, however, 

intended to simulate the effects of the concrete shield 

building in physical plants. The CS is designed to 

remain essentially elastic until the SCV model reaches 

an internal pressure of approximately 10 Pd. 

The CS is a bell-shaped structure (Figure 3.1) 

constructed of SA-516-70 steel with a nominal 

thickness of 38 mm. This material has a nominal yield 

strength of 258 MPa and a nominal ultimate strength of 

476 MPa. The CS was welded to the top surface of the 

ring support girder after it was placed over the model. 

It does not touch the surface of the model at any point 

prior to the test. 

Seventy holes, 12.7 mm in diameter, were drilled in the 

CS, both to measure the gap between the CS and the 

SCV model to align the CS during its installation, and 

later to install contact detection devices to measure gap 

closure during the test. In addition, four 50.8-mm 

depressions were counterbored into the inside of the 

CS to allow for continuation of strain measurements of 

the SCV model after it has contacted the CS during 

testing. Appendix B contains the design drawings for 

the CS. 

3.2 Gap Dimensions 

The minimum gap between the prototype containment 

and its concrete shield building is 90 mm. For

geometric scaling, the gap between the SCV model and 

the CS should be 9 mm. However, two factors 

preclude using this gap. First, as noted previously, the 

inside of the SCV model is smooth, with material 

thickness differences occurring on the outside. 

Second, the SCV model is fabricated in sections, and 

during the fabrication process, the model can become 

out-of-round and out-of-plumb. However, the major 

portion of the CS, the conical section, is machined in 

one piece and is almost perfectly round and plumb. 

Therefore, to account for these possible irregularities, 

the scaled gap was increased by a factor of two to 18 

mm. 

To ensure that the internal geometry of the CS matched 

the external geometry of the SCV model as closely as 

possible, the SCV model was measured at 20 different 

elevations, with eight measurements (at 450 

increments) taken at each elevation, for a total of 160 

radial-geometry measurements. These measurements 

showed that the axis of the SCV model is close to 

vertical, and that the exterior radius of the SCV model 

at each location is within Hitachi fabrication tolerance 

(± 6 mm). 

After the CS was installed over the SCV model, the 

gap size between the CS and the SCV model was 

measured at each of the 70 hole locations. By design, 

the gap sizes at the lowest three rows of measurement 

holes are much larger than the design requirement of 

18 mm (see Appendix B). The majority of measured 

gap sizes everywhere else lie between 18 mm and 22 

mm. A minimum gap size of 13.4 mm was measured 

at a hole location below the equipment hatch.

NUREG-CR-6517

7
Contact Structure,

TRI-6304-004-0

Figure 3.1. Contact structure (CS) and the SCV model.

NUREGICR-6517 8

II

N

I I
4. INSTRUMENTATION

4.1 Model Instrumentation 

The complete suite of instruments that has been 

installed on the SCV model and the CS will: 

I. measure the strain distribution, both membrane 

and bending components, on the model 

surfaces; 

2. measure the displacements of the model, 

relative to the interior wall of the fragment 

barrier and to the rigid lower portion of the 

model; 

3. measure the size of the gap between the SCV 

model and the CS; 

4. provide information on the extent of contact 

between the SCV model and the CS; 

5. relate all data to the internal pressure loads on 

the model. 

The number and the locations of different types of 

instruments installed on the SCV model are described 

in detail in the SCV Instrumentation Plan'. The 

following sections describe only the strain, 

displacement, and pressure measurements that are 

related to pretest predictions. 

4.1.1 Strain Measurements 

The primary means of evaluating the structural 

behavior in this experiment is through the 

measurement of local strains over the surface of the 

SCV model. These measurements will be made using 

standard electrical-resistance strain gages installed in 

selected locations to evaluate the strain state of the 

model as a function of the internal pressure. Density, 

placement, and orientation of the gages are based on 

pretest analytical predictions of the model response by 

SNL. 

Strain gages are located to provide strain information 

in the hoop direction (circumferential) and the 

meridional direction (vertical or axial). Around the 

equipment hatch, gages are aligned in a radial manner 

with respect to the hatch geometry to provide data on 

the complex effects the hatch creates. In addition, 

gages have been placed on both the inner and outer 

surfaces of the model to allow the total strains to be 

Rightley, MJ. and Lambert, L.D., SCV Instnrmentation Plan," 

Project Report No. R-SN-S-001, Rev. B, Sandia National 

Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, September 1996.

differentiated into membrane and bending components 

during the portion of the test before contact is made 

with the CS. Onide Contact occurs, the signals from the 

exterior gages will be lost due to gage or lead wire 

failure, but since the pretest analyses indicate that 

bending moment strains should become negligible after 

contact, this loss is not considered detrimental to the 

experiment. However, continuous monitoring of 

exterior strain gages after contact will occur at the four 

counterbored indentations in the CS. 

Multi-element strip gages are installed in areas 

predicted to have relatively large strain gradients. 

These areas include the drywell head, in the vicinity of 

the knuckle, and around the equipment hatch. Bending 

moments will be obtained through the use of single

element gages mounted to the exterior surface adjacent 

to one of the strip elements. Thirty-nine strip gages 

have been installed on the SCV model. 

Single-element strain gages are used to determine point 

strains on both the inner and outer surfaces of the 

model in areas where the strain gradient is predicted to 

be small or, as stated previously, to provide 

complementary data for evaluation of bending 

moments adjacent to inner-surface strip gages. These 

gages are oriented to monitor strains in the hoop or 

circumferential direction. There are 153 single

element gages on the SCV model. 

Finally, in areas in which biaxial strain data are 

desired, three-element rosette strain gages are used. 

These gages provide membrane strain data for 

determination of the principal strains and location of 

the principal axes. They are installed in areas in which 

bending moments are considered very small 

throughout the entire test, such as the free fields 

midway between the stiffener rings. Some rosette 

gages are also included on the surface of the CS for 

membrane strain measurements after contact with the 

model. There are 85 rosette gages installed on the SCV 

model. 

4.1.2 Displacement Measurements 

Detailed measurements of local displacements of the 

SCV model and the CS are collected by displacement 

measuring devices. Variable resistance linear 

displacement transducers (also known as resistance 

potentiometers or rheostats) are installed to measure 

displacement over the expected ranges of the test.

9 NUREG-CR-6517
They operate through the use of spring-loaded wire 

cables mounted to known reference locations. 

All cable potentiometers installed inside the SCV 

model are mounted on the central support column that 

is rigidly attached to the ring support girder. The cable 

potentiometer measurements are taken either in the 

horizontal or vertical direction with respect to the 

central support column whose displacement is 

monitored by two inclinometers installed to measure its 

tilt along orthogonal axes. Displacement data values 

will be adjusted based on the output of the 

inclinometers. There are 60 interior and 6 exterior 

cable potentiometers installed on the SCV model. 

4.1.3 Pressure Measurements 

Two high-accuracy pressure transducers are installed in 

the SCV model. They will measure the internal gas 

pressure inside the model at all times during the test. 

4.2 Standard Output Locations 

The objective of the pretest analysis is to obtain 

predictions of the SCV model behavior to compare to 

data collected during the test. Forty-three locations for 

pretest analysesh referred to as standard outputs, have 

been specified for five categories: equipment hatch 

area strains; top head-area strains; transition region 

strains; free-field strains; and displacements. The 

standard outputs are listed in Table 4.1 and shown in 

Figures 4.1 through 4.5. Many of the standard outputs 

correspond to pairs of measuring instruments (one on 

the inside surface and one on the outside surface of the 

SCV model) to estimate local bending within the SCV 

model. 

Six standard outputs (1-6) were specified in the area of 

the equipment hatch at several angular orientations at a 

distance of 360 mm from the center of the hatch, 20 

nun beyond the reinforcement plate. A combination of 

single gages, rosettes, and strip gages will monitor 

these areas. The angular orientations of these outputs 

are shown in Figure 4.1. In addition, four standard 

outputs (40-43) were later specified corresponding to 

rosette gages installed on the interior of the SCV model 

in an area of thinned material near the equipment hatch 

b Branstetter, Li, Sandia letter to SCV Round Robin participants, 

July 10, 1995. 

Hessheimer, M.P., Sandia letter to SCV Round Robin 

participants, February 20,1996.

reinforcement plate) The locations of these outputs are 

shown in Figure 4.1. 

Four strains (7-10) in the top head area were specified. 

One prediction was requested at the apex of the top 

head, and the other three were requested at 2700, near 

the point of minimum radius of curvature of the top 

head surface. Rosette gages have been mounted on the 

model in each of these locations. A schematic diagram 

with the locations of these outputs is given as 

Figure 4.2. 

The transition regions are locations near geometric or 

material changes in the model for the prediction of 

meridional strain. The ten predictions (11-20) consist 

of five pairs of values - one on the inside surface of the 

model and one on the outside surface. A combination 

of single gages, rosettes, and strip gages has been 

mounted on the model at these locations, all 900 

counterclockwise of the equipment hatch (Figure 4.3). 

Fourteen free-field strains were specified at locations 

away from geometric or material changes in the model. 

Some free-field predictions are requested in pairs, one 

on the inside surface of the model and one on the 

outside surface of the model. Four such pairs (21-28), 

corresponding to eight standard outputs, are requested: 

two for meridional strain and two for hoop strain. 

These pairs all correspond to measurements taken 450 

counterclockwise of the equipment hatch in the global 

coordinate system (Figure 4A). The remaining six 

free-field standard output strains (29-34) were 

specified at locations where gages are to be located 

only on the inside surface of the model (Figure 4.5). A 

rosette at the midheight of the spherical shell will be 

used to measure both meridional and hoop strain 450 

counterclockwise of the equipment hatch (global 

coordinate system). Another rosette at the midheight 

of the upper conical section and directly opposite the 

equipment hatch (i.e., at global 2700) will measure 

both meridional and hoop strains at that position, and a 

final rosette will measure both of these quantities 

midway between the material change interface and the 

top of the lower stiffeners (also at global 2700). 

The locations of the displacement standard outputs 

(35-39) (Figure 4.6) should be self-explanatory. The 

displacements specified are absolute displacements in a 

fixed coordinate frame. Vertical displacements of the 

apex of the top head and just below the knuckle are 

J Luk, V.K., Sandia letter to SCV Round Robin participants. 

May 9, 1996.

NUREG/CR-6517 10
specified. Horizontal (radial) displacements are 

specified at three locations: just above the top flange, 

just below the knuckle, and at the center of the

equipment hatch cover. For these measurements, 

positive vertical displacements are upward, and 

positive horizontal displacements are outward.

I1I NUREG-CR-6517
Table 4.1. SCV standard output list 

Category Plot Instrument ID Inst. Model Coord. 9, X Output 

ID Type Surface System (degrees, m) Quantity 

Equipment 1 RSG-I-EQH-12 rosette inside Hatch 67.5,0.36! max. prin. strain 

Hatch 2 RSG-I-EQH-8 rosette inside Hatch 45.0.36' max. prin. strain 

Area 3 STG-O-EQH-4c strip outside Hatch 0, 0.36" ext. merid, strain 

(Strains) 4 STG-I-EQH-2c strip inside Hatch 0, 0.36 int. merid, strain 

5 SSGH-O-EQH-18 single outside Hatch 90,0.36! ext. hoop strain 

6 STG-I-EQH-16c strip inside Hatch 90,0.36' int. hoop strain 

Top Head 7 RSG-O-THD-1 rosette outside Top -, 0.O0• max. prin. strain 

Area 8 RSG-O-THD-9 rosette outside Top 270, 0.49b ext. hoop strain 

(Strains) 9 RSG-O-THD-9 rosette gutside Top 270, 0.48b ext. merid, strain 

10 RSG-I-THD-10 rosette inside Top 270, 0.48b int. merid. strain 

Transition 11 STG-O-UCYS-25c strip outside . Global 0, 3.47' ext. merid, strain 

Regions 12 SSGM-I-UCYS-27 single inside Global 0, 3.4r int. merid, strain 

(Strains) 13 STG-O-KNU-lc strip outside Global 0, 3.32! ext. merid, strain 

14 STG-1-KNU-9c strip inside Global 0, 3.32' int. merid, strain 

15 SSGM-O-MST-1 single outside Global 0. 2.10' ext. merid, strain 

16 SSGM-1-MST-7 single inside Global 0, 2.10. int. merid, strain 

17 SSGM-O-MCI-2 single outside Global 0, 1.60' ext. merid, strain 

18 RSG-I-MCI-la rosette inside Global 0, 1.60 int. merid. strain 

19 SSGM-O-LST-17 single outside Global 0,0.80- ext. merid, strain 

20 SSGM-I-LST-25 single inside Global 0, 0.80' int. mend. strain 

Free Field 21 RSG-O-UCS-17 rosette outside Global 45,2.49' ext. merid, strain 

(Strains) 22 RSG-I-UCS-18 rosette inside Global 45,2.49' int. merid. strain 

23 RSG-O-UCS-17 rosette outside Global 45, 2.49' ext. hoo strain 

24 RSG-I-UCS-18 rosette inside Global 45,2.49' int. hoop strain 25 RSG-O-LC-5 rosette, outside Global 45, 1.45' ext. mend, strain 

26 RSG-I-LCS-6 rosette inside Global 45, 1.45' int. merid, strain 

27 RSG-O-LCS-5 rosette outside Global 45, 1.45' ext. hoop strain 

28 RSG.I-LCS-6 rosette inside Global 45, 1.45' int. hoop strain 

29 RSG-I-SPH-2 rosette inside Global 45, 3.13' int. merid, strain 

30 RSG-I-SPH-2 rosette inside Global 45,3.13! int. hoop strain 

31 RSG-1-UCS-16 rosette inside Global 270,2.49' int. merid. strain 

32 RSG-1-UCS-16 rosette inside Global 270,2.49' int. hoop strain 

33 RSG-I-LCS-1 1 rosette inside Global 270, 1.25' int. menid, strain 

34 RSG-I-LCS-11 rosette inside Global 270, 1.25 int. hoop strain 

General 35 VCP-I-THD-11 rheostat inside Top -, 0.00& vertical disp. 

(Disp.) 36 HCP-O-UCYS-43 rheostat outside Global 45,3.57' horizontal disp. 

HCP-I-UCYS-39 rheostat inside Global 45, 3.57 horizontal disp. 

37 HCP-I-KNU-17 rheostat inside Global 0, 3.32' horizontal disp. 

38 VCP-I-KNU-18 rheostat inside Global 0, 3.32' vertical disp. 

39 HCP-1-MCI-16 rheostat inside Hatch OW 0.00' horizontal disp. 

Equipment 40 RSG-I-EQH-45 rosette inside Global 105.2, 1.569" int. merid, strain 

Hatch 41 RSG-I-EQH-45 rosette inside Global 105.2, 1.569' int. hoop strain 

Area 42 RSG-I-EQH-44 rosette inside Global 74.6,1.569 int. merid, strain 

(Strains) 43 RSG-I-EQH-44 rosette inside Global 74.6, 1.5695 int. hoop strain 

Note: a: .,, R. (H = Hatch) b: 9t, R. (T = Top Head) c: 0., Z, (G = Global)

NUREGICR-6517 12
'C

3,4 (0)

340 mm 

eatch plate) 2(450)

1 (67.5°) 

5,6(90")

Weld Une

I . -

1-343.5 mm- 1

- 338.5 mmJ 

I! I

- •10m 

42, 43 

(rosette, 

Inside surface)

(Exteror View)

TPh-64034O5-O

Figure 4.1. Locations of standard outputs near equipment hatch.

NUREG-CR-6517

40, 41 Z 

(rosette, 

Inside surface)

13
7

8,9,910

TRI-6403-00"-0

Figure 4.2. Locations of standard outputs on top head.

NUREG/CR-6517 14

11

I
11, 12 (just below top flange) 

13, 14 Gust below knuckle) 

15, 16 gust above middle stiffener) 

17,18 

Gust above material change Interface) 

I 19,20 Gust below lower stiffeners) 

S -I 

0TJ643• S€ " 

I-
I 

9 

LA 

1-4 

-J 

'F 

0 

'-4, 

0 'I 

(1 

C', 

0 

0 

0

TRI-6403,008-0

21, 22, 23, 24 (midheight of upper conical shell) 

) 

S25, 26, 27, 28 (0.126 m below material change interface)

I
31, 32 (mldheight of upper conical shell) 

33,34

(midway between the material change 

Interface and the top of the lower stiffeners).

29,30 

(midhelght of spherical shell) 

€ 3 TRt-6403-0090

LP 

0 

oq 

t0

N 

9 

-J

I
35 (top; vertical displacement).

,,I 37 

(spherical shell, inside surface; 

horizontal displacement) 

38 

(spherical shell, inside surface; 

vertical displacement)

TR-•4•0410-O

36 

(upper cylindrical shell, inside and out= 

surface; horizontal displacement) 

39 

(hatch, inside surface; 

horizontal displacement) -

00

P. 

0 

9% 

0.
5. INTERNAL PRESSURIZATION TEST

5.1 Pressure Supply 

For the internal pressurization test of the SCV model, 

the pressure source is liquid nitrogen that is gasified 

and regulated to a constant pressure and temperature. 

The pressure level and the flow rate of nitrogen gas 

into the SCV model is controlled by an elaborate 

pressurization system. The temperature of the nitrogen 

gas inside the SCV model is maintained to within 

:3.00*C of the ambient temperature (15.00°C). This 

relatively constant gas temperature is achieved by first 

setting the temperature at the pressure source location; 

additional heating, if needed, is supplied by heaters 

before the nitrogen gas enters the model. 

5.2 Pressurization Sequence 

The pressurization sequence of the SCV test follows a 

monotonic rise of the internal pressure inside the SCV 

model until the model fails or the pressure level 

reaches 12.4 MPa (1800 psi)k. The pressurization test 

will be terminated when the SCV model experiences a 

structural failure in terms of a catastrophic failure or a 

significantly large tear. If the SCV model leaks due to 

the occurrence of multiple small cracks, then the 

pressurization system may not be able to maintain a 

constant pressure inside the model. At this time, the 

SCV model will have functionally failed, and the test 

will be terminated. 

The internal pressurization test has three distinct stages 

in its test sequence: 

first stage (0 - 4.6 Pd) 

second stage (4.6 Pd) 

third stage (4.6 Pd - model failure or 15.9 Id)

where Pd is the scaled design pressure (0.78 MPa). The 

entire test sequence is shown in Figure 5.1. 

5.2.1 First Stage (0 - 4.6 Pd) 

According to Sandia National Laboratories' pretest 

analysis results', the conical section of the SCV model 

expands 9 mm at an internal pressure of 4.6 I', and the 

structure behaves essentially in the elastic domain 

throughout this stage. 

5.2.2 Second Stage (4.6 Pd) 

This pressure condition is held at a constant level for 

30 minutes. 

5.2.3 Third Stage (4.6 Pd - model failure 

or 15.9 Pd) 

The SCV model behaves in the plastic domain 

throughout this stage. The pressure rise time is kept at 

a minimum of 3 minutes for each pressure step. The 

maximum pressure increment is maintained at 0.1 Pd 

for each pressure step until pressure reaches 6.0 Pd at 

which time the maximum pressure increment is 

reduced to 0.05 Pd for each pressure step. 

The dwell time is expected to increase as pressure 

increases because the structure takes a longer time to 

achieve its equilibrium state in the plastic domain. The 

increase of strain and/or displacement as a function of 

pressure at certain critical locations on the model will 

be monitored at all times during the test to provide 

indications of an imminent model failure.

Luk, V.K., "Steel Containment Vessel Model Test Plan," Project 

Report No. R-SN-S-003, Rev. B, Sandia National Laboratories. 

Albuquerque. NM, December 1996.

Porter, V.L. Carter, P.A.. and Key. S.W. "Pretest Analyses of the 

Steel Containment Vessel Model." NUREGICR-6516, SAND96

2877. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque. NM, 

November 1996 (to be published).

NUREG-CR-65 17

k

19
High-Pressure Test

Time (min) 

High-Pres 

800 L..........

700 

600 

S00 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0

0

•sure Test

200 400 600 800 

Time (min)

TRI-6403-O11-0

Figure 5.1. Pressurization sequence for the high-pressure test.

20

II

1800 

1400

0) 0.= 

C. .I

SD 

a.

12.42 

9.66

1000 

600

200

6.90 

"CD 

4.14 

1.38

N%

IN

,D 

CL

5.52 

4.82 

4.14 

3.45 D 

2.76 "D 

2.07 -0 

1.38 

0.69

-, 0.0 1000

NUREG/CR-6517
6. PRETEST ANALYSIS

6.1 Compilation of Analysis Results 

from Participants 

Each organization participating in the Round Robin 

analysis of the SCV performed an independent 

analysis, using its own analytical methods. Participants 

were supplied with the same basic information to use 

in their analyses, including design drawings of SCV 

model and contact structure, as-measured material 

properties, and certain, as-built geometrical 

measurements. All participants and the numerical 

codes they used are shown in Table 6.1. A detailed 

summary of the modeling approaches used by each 

participant is given in Table 6.2. 

Two comparison indicators among the models that 

demonstrate the effects of the overall modeling 

approaches and inputs are the pressures and locations 

of the first yield of the SCV model and the first contact 

between the SCV model and the CS (Table 6.3). With 

the exception of low predicted pressures by GD-EB, 

the range for first yield falls between 1.78 MPa and 

3.0 MPa. Predictions of the location of first yield are 

mostly in the knuckle region or the area of the 

equipment hatch. Predicted pressures for first contact 

between the structures range between 3.2 MPa and 4.4 

MPa, with most participants predicting first contact 

occurring in the knuckle region or the upper and 

middle conical shells. 

After the analysis was performed, each participant was 

asked to provide plots of internal gage pressure versus 

strain or internal gage pressure versus displacement at 

the 43 standard output locations on the SCV model

(Table 4.1). Each of the participants submitted both 

hardcopy plots and electronic files of predicted results 

at these locations. SNL then combined these files and 

plotted them together in the same format 

(Appendix D). 

Participants were given the option to perform analyses 

using either zero friction between the SCV and the CS, 

or nonzero friction, or both. The coefficient of friction 

between the SCV model and the contact structure was 

not experimentally determined. Therefore, the 

participants were asked to exercise their best judgment 

if a nonzero friction was used. 

In Appendix D, two plots are given for each standard 

output location. The first shows all results for the 

participants who performed the analyses using zero 

friction. The second shows the results for participants 

using nonzero friction as well as the coefficient of 

friction chosen by each participant. Most of the 

participants chose to submit only one set of data using 

either zero friction or nonzero friction. However, two 

participants submitted plots for both zero friction and 

nonzero friction. 

Most of the participants submitted plots for all 43 

standard output locations. However, some of the 

participants performed only 2-D axisymmetric 

analysis, ignoring the equipment hatch, or they used a 

3-D model but did not model the equipment hatch. 

These participants did not submit results for locations 

1-6 and 39-43, which were measurements taken on or 

near the equipment hatch. The remaining- locations 

(7-38) include results from every participant.

Table 6.1: List of participants and numerical codes 

Participant [country] Numerical Code 

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) [U.S.] NEPTUNE 

Agenzia nationale per la Protezione dell Ambienti (ANPA) [Italy] MARC 

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) [India] ABAQUS and TABS/NISA 

Genera Dynamics Electric Boat Division (GD-EB) [U.S.] ABAQUS 

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) [Japan] ABAQUS 

Nuclear Power Engineerini Corporation (NUPEC) [Japan] ABAQUS 

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) [U.S.] ABAQUS 

Staatliche Material prtlfungsanstalt, Universitlt Stuttgart ABAQUS 

(MPA Stuttgart) [GermanyJ

21 NUREG-CR-6517
Table 6.2. Detailed description of analysis models

I 

Urn 

-a

Participant Type of Model Post-Yield SCV/CS Gap Representation Model Details Shell Local Eccentricity Due Type of 

Used Matlrial Model Dimension o CS Model at of Head Reglon Thickness od Thinning to Different Shell Contact 

KnukLe SCV Model Incorporated? Thicknesses of between SCV 

SCV Model? and CS 

ANL 3-D 364r shell hotropicibi-linear As-built As-designed; No Design No No Elasto-plastic 

least sauares fit shell elements 

ANPA 3-D 90( shell Mean properties; As-built at Per machining No tdlet; Nominal Yes No Rigid

high fidelity measu ementhole geomedt continuum deformable 

fitting total range #9 elastic-plastic 

surface 

BARC 2-D Axisymmetric Isotropic As-designed As-designed No As-built No No Hard contact 

ABAQUS solid piecewise Hna of with opening 

minimum and closing 

thickness 

soeamen_ 

BARC 2-D Axisymmetric hsoimpic As-built averaged As-built No As-built No No Hard contact 

TABS/NISA solid piecewie linear, over with opening 

mean values circumference -- _and closing 

EB Axisymmetuic shell isotropic Average as-built; As-built Fillet welds Average as- Yes Only at equipment Elastic-plastic 

free field; piecewise linear 21.0/25.7 mm at geomey simulated in built hatch minimum 

Axisymmelc solid equipment hatch axisymmilic properties 

knuckle; solid models 

3-D shell equipment 

hatch 

JAMRI 3-D 18(? shell Trl-linear fit Nominal; Design No Design No No Elastic 

hard contact " 

NUPEC 3-D global; Mean properties; Nominal 18mm; Design No (shell model) Nominal No Only at equipment Elasto-plastic 

3-D equipment high fidelity hard contact hatch insert plate (same as 

hatch submodel; fitting total range equipment hatch 

3-D top head material) 

_______subinodel ___________ ________________ 

SNL 3-D shell; Mean properties; Nominal 18mmi; As-bmit No filled; Nominal Yes Only at equipment Elastic-plastic 

Axisymmetdric high fidelity ABAQUS hard geometty continuum hatch insert plate nominal 

continuum top fitting total range contact properties 

head; 

3-D shell equipment 

_ hatch 

MPA 3-D 18W shell Isotropic Nominal 18mm Design No Nominal No No ABAQUS 

Stuttgart kinemetic surface 

hardening model interaction 

_ _i-
Table 6.3. Locations and pressures of first yield and first contact between the SCV model and the CS 

First Yield First Contact between SCV Model and CS 

Participant Pressure Location Pressure Location 

(Ma) (MPa) 

ANL 2.6 Bottom of equipment hatch and 4.4 Upper conical shell 

I _reinforcing plate 

ANPA 3.0 Upper portion of spherical shell 3.5 Not stated in analysis report 

BARC: ABAQUS 1.78 Below knuckle region 3.42 Knuckle region 

TABS/NISA 2.0 Top spherical shell 3.5 Between knuckle region and top 

spherical shell 

GD-EB 1.0 Knuckle region 3.2 Knuckle region 

1.1 Locally thin area around 

equipment hatch 

JAERI 2.8 Around knuckle region and 4.0 Upper and middle conical shells 

top head and around knuckle region 

NUPEC 2.1 Below knuckle region 3.5 Knuckle region 

SNL 2.0 Knuckle region 3.2 Knuckle region 

MPA 2.5 Near equipment hatch 3.5 Upper and middle conical shells

6.2 Predictions of Failure Pressure 

and Mechanisms 

Participants used various finite-element codes and 

adopted a hierarchy of modeling approaches to 

perform the SCV model analyses. The analyses reports 

of the participants (Appendix E) describe what

modeling strategies were chosen and how different 

assumptions were made in the analysis efforts. In 

addition to plotting the pretest analysis results on 

deformation history as a function of internal pressure at 

the 43 specified standard output locations, participants 

have also provided failure predictions of the SCV 

model as highlights of their analyses (Table 6.4).

23 NUREG-CR-6517
I 0% 

-J

NUREG-CR-6517

Table 6.4. Predicted failure pressure and mechanisms 

Name of Num.ercal Analytical Model Used In Failure Pressure Failure Location Failure MechanismlCriteria 

Partllipant Code Used Failure Prediction 

Organization _____ _________ 

ANL NEFTUNE Solid model of SCV model 5.5 MPa Just above the knuckle region Uniaxial ultimate strain (plastic 

and CS 4.9 MPa (high confidence [>98%] failure strain) of 9.9% 

that there is a low probability for 

failure) 

ANPA MARC 3-1) shell model of SCV model, No plastic instability at 10 MPa; Top head region Local buckling 

no CS and rigid surface for CS local buckling of torospherical 

head at 10.87 MPa 

BARC ABAQUS 3-D shell model with-SCV model 11.49 MPa Top head region Strain at top head regions 

and CS based on as-designed reaches ultimate strain 

configurations 

TABS/NISA 2-D axisymmetrical model with 11.5 - 12.0 MPa Top head region at elevation Imply possibility of in-plane 

SCV model and CS, based on 10 cm above the junction axisymmetrical buckling 

some as-built configurations such between the top head and the 

as average thickness and average top cylinder 

-ap 

GD-EB ABAQUS Shell submodel to address the 4.7 MPa Local thinned section around Minimum ultimate strain of 8% 

effect of local thinning equipment hatch (reduced by a series of 

reduction factors to account for 

the variation and unknowns in 

the as-built SCV model) 

JAERI ABAQUS Shell element model of SCV 10.81 MPs Top head region Numerical instability due to 

model and CS based on as- yielding in the top head region 

designed configuration 

NUPEC ABAQUS Two submodel analyses - 7.3 MPa Near equipment hatch, below Maximum surface strain value 

equipment hatch and knuckle 7.3 - 11.8 MPa knuckle joint, and below top 

region, using as-designed head flange joint. 

configuration Top head apex 

11.8 MPa 

SNL ABAQUS Equipment hatch submodel with 4.5 MPa Local thinned section next to Ductile rupture. SPV490 steel 

thinned section equipment hatch reinforcement material reaches a plastic strain 

plate that in the uniaxial-stress 

tensile test led to necking 

MPA ABAQUS 3-D shell for half of SCV and CS; N/A N/A N/A 

no failure analysis was performed I

24
7. CONCLUSIONS

The support and continuing effort of the Round Robin 

participants is greatly appreciated. This work was 

performed on a tight schedule that limited the scope of 

analysis efforts, and the results included in this report 

reflect what could be accomplished within the 

limitations imposed. An important benefit of the 

Round Robin activity was obvious at the pretest 

meeting, when experts from the participating 

organizations who used different codes to conduct 

independent analyses shared their results, conclusions, 

and knowledge. 

The pretest predictions of the behavior and failure of 

the SCV model are dependent on details of the features 

of the SCV model that were included in the analytical 

effort, such as the as-designed vs. the as-built 

configuration of the model. Results from the two 

organizations that incorporated the locally thinned 

sections around the equipment hatch into the numerical 

models indicate that those locally thinned areas are the 

most vulnerable sections for failure. Furthermore, their 

results indicate failure occurring at a lower pressure 

than shown by results based on the as-designed 

configuration of the SCV model. Generally, failures 

are predicted to take place in either the locally thinned 

areas around the equipment hatch, around the knuckle 

region, or at the top head apex.

The analysis results from the participants clearly 

indicate that there are differences among predictions of 

SCV model deformation behavior in terms of strain 

and displacement. However, there are striking 

similarities in the trends of their variation. The onset 

of contact between the SCV model and the CS plays a 

dominant role in affecting the deformation behavior of 

the model. Compiled analytical results indicate that the 

various values of friction coefficient at the interaction 

surface between the two structures do not affect 

analytical results to any great extent There are, 

however, differences in results between zero friction 

and nonzero friction cases. 

Most participants experienced numerical stability 

difficulties in simulating contact between the SCV 

model and the CS. Analysis results are sensitive to 

how the two structures interact at the contact interface. 

It will be crucial to have improved understanding and 

simulations on the part of numerical algorithms. 

All pretest predictions should be considered in light of 

the design details that were incorporated in the 

numerical models, and the accuracy of the predictions, 

when compared to test data, should be evaluated in that 

respect.

25 NUREG-CR-6517
Appendix A

SCV Model Design Drawings

A-1


I I 2 4I I I I Ai1RA M 

B3 1111) (2-21

WA -WA n;:)) 11-7)

WB-WD. WC. WD(NT.S (3-2.C-Z.c-3. D-21 WR 11: 1) (F-4)

SV48 

via3 102 sai

© 

V

0

lillII I H-H A£AtiStm -~ I-Fldt-t,*S.

miwu..... ea,,I.,qk.n.,,.it U t1 I I I I I I I. I

ý3 til 0 = S S- .3 uý ;

1 I r a 1 IIIA-U1J0

LA

y 4 . rm= A I Fyiý-w 

L

. s Tr-TfflM i I

6

I

N

Wr =WF (I.- I) (C-11
Appendix B

Contact Structure Design Drawings

B-i
K 

19

-'I

I 

-

1-

4.

It 

d -A I

I 

II 

0 3; 

g fl I V 

V 

" II EEl Ii 

I.-

B-3
Zin gr A
Appendix C

Measured Material Properties for the SCV Model

C-I
0 10 20 30 40 50

Strain W%) 

Figure C.I. Stress-strain curves for SGV480: thickness 6.0 mn plate, location I. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Strain [M3 

Figure C.2. Stress-strain curves for SGV48O: thickness 6.0 mm plate, location 2.

C-3

80 

70 

60 

150 

bo 

0 40 

30 

20 

10 

0

U 

-- S 

3-J 

U, 

0 1..

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 

Strain [%M 

Figure C.3. Stress-strain curves for SGV480: thickness 7.5 mm plate, location 3.

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Strain [%3

Figure C.4. Stress-strain curves for SGV480: thickness 8.0 mm plate, location 4. 

C-4

Ii

80 

70 

60 

" 50 

a 40 

Ca 

S30 

20 

10 

0

80 

70 

60 

- 5o 

40 

I-. 

S30 

20 

10 

0
80 

70 

60 

-50 

El 

-40 

Ca _,• 40 

'-30 

20 

10 

0

20 30 

Strain [M)

40 50

Figure C.5. Stress-strain curves for SGV480. thickness 8.5 mm plate, location 5. 

80 1

10 20 3 

Strain [M)

0 40 50

Figure C.6. Stress-strain curves for S0V480: thickness 9.5 mm plate, location 6.

C-5

0 10

_____________ _____________ _____________ 1* _____________ ______________

_______ A & S2RI 

Ti 

--..-- 711

70 

60 

-30 

20 

10 

0

0
80 

70 

60 

1950 

6 

b o 

,a 

'-'j 40 to 

30 

0 

10 

0 40

R13 

---- T13 -.. -... T14

50

Figure C.7. Stress-strain curves for SGV480: thickness 12.5 mm plate, location 7.

10 20 30 40 

Strain [M]

RI 5 

---- Ti15 T R 1... 6

50

Figure C.A. Stress-strain curves for SGV480: thickness 19.0 mm plate, location 8. 

C-6

30 

Strain W%)

0 10

Ii

20

80 

70 

60 

2 0 

Ca to 0 

20 

10 

0

0

I !
10 20 30 40 

Strain [W]

R17 

............................... RIB 

---- T17 ----- T18

50

Figure C.9. Stress-strain curves for SGV480: thickness 20.0 mm plate, location 9. 

0... R20 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Strain[] 

Figure CIO0. Stress-strain curves for SGV48O: thickness 28.0 mmn plate, location 10.

C-7

80

70 

60 

' 50 

'40 

;U, -.•30 

20 

10 

0

0

8( 

7 

6 

U-, 

C, 

5 

L-A bO 

2 

1
10 20 30 

Strain E%)

-R2 1 

....... R22 

----- T21

40

Figure CA1. Stress-strain curves for SPV490: thickness 9 mm plate, location 11.

10 20 

Strain [)

30 40

Figure C.12. Stress-strain curves for SPV490: thickness 17.5 mm plate, location 12. 

C-8

11

100

90 

80 

70 

60 

so 

~40 

30 

20 

10 

0

0

___ ___ ___ 1* 100 

90 

80 

70 

S60 

~50 

CO 

~40 CO 

30 

20 

10

0

-R23 

....... R24 

----. T23 

----- T24

0

I -I
Appendix D

Compilation of Analysis Results from Participants

D-I
This page intentionally 

left blank.

D-3
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 10 

8

6

a4

2

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-I. Standard Output Location #1 (zero friction case)

--*- JAERI (g=0.0) 

---- Electric Boat (!i-=0.0) 

-i- Argonne (ji=0.0) 

-o-- ANPA
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10

0 5 10 15

Multipfes of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-2. Standard Output Location #1 (nonzero friction case)

10

I

T- Electric Boat (li=.04) 

s Sandia (p=.02) 

A NUPEC (p=.02) 

---- MPA (i--0.3)

15

20
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

10 .. 

8

6

2

0 5 10 15 20 

Mutiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-3. Standard Output Location #2 (zero friction case)

-0- JAERI (I--O.0) 

IF Electric Boat (gt=0.0) 

- -- Argonne (i,=0.0) 

-cANPA
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 20

Mutfples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MP8)

Figure D-4. Standard Output Location #2 (nonzero friction case)

1

I 65

v Electric Boat (;L = 0.4) 

------ Sandia (IL = 0.2) 

- NUPEC (IL = 0.2) 

-- o-- MPA (pt = 0.3)
Intemal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

3.5 

1 

3

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 /" 

0.5 

0 

"0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-5. Standard Output Location #3 (zero friction case)

--- JAERI (li=0.0) 

-v Electric Boat (tt=0.0) 

-&-- Argonne (p=0.0) 

-- >-- ANPA
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 

5 1 . . . . . . . . . -

Figure D-6. Standard Output Location #3 (nonzero friction case)

10 15

--- v- Electric Boat (p-=0.4) 

s Sandia (p--0.2) 

-N NUPEC (p--0.2) 

-- MPA (p--0.3)

0 5 10 15 20 

Muffiples of Design Pressure (I Pd = 0.78 Ma)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 7 . . . . . . . . . I I I I I I I I I 

6 

5 

4 

o 03 

2 

p p I p p p I I p I I I p p p p 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-7. Standard Output Location #4 (zero friction case)

* JAERI (g=0.0) 

----- Electric Boat (g=0.0) 

-- Argonne (p=0.0) 

-,-- ANPA
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

5 

4 

3 

21 

, , If i p p i I p p p , I p , 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (I Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-8. Standard Output Location #4 (nonzero friction case)

---- Electric Boat (---0.4) 

------ Sandia (p---0.2) 

-a--NUPEC (I'--0.2) 

-0- MPA (tt=0.3)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 

14 

12 

10 

8 

4 

2

0 

0 5 10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-9. Standard Output Location #5 (zero friction case)

*--- JAERI (1p--0.0) 

-*--- Electric.Boat •-=0.0) 

-- A*--- Argonne (i-=O.0) 

---<'- ANPA

15

20
Internal Pressure (MPa)

10 0 5 1 1 1.. 10 15 . ,1 . 1 1 . . . . . i 

8 

6 

'4

2

* p . p l . p I . . p , p 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-10. Standard Output Location #5 (nonzero friction case)

v Electric Boat (t--0.4) 

-*-- Sandia (p--0.2) 

-A--NUPEC (p--0.2) 

-o-MPA (p--0.3)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

15 . . . . . . . .. . 

10 

5 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd =0.78 MPa)

Figure D1-I. Standard Output Location #6 (zero friction case)

---- JAERI "=0.0) 

------- Electric Boat (".-0.0) 

-- h Argonne (ji=O.O) 

-.--- ANPA
Intemal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 

12 ........ 

10 

8 

6 

LA 4 

2

"0 5 10 

Muttples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-12. Standard Output Location #6 (nonzero friction case)

15

v Electric Boat (g--0.4) 

--- Sandia •t=--0.2) 

-a--INUPEC (V--O.2) 

---- MPA (9--0.3)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

8 

"6 

4 

2

0 5 10 

Muliples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-13. Standard Output Location #7 (zero friction case)

*-e- JAERI (1,=0.0) 

v Electric Boat (p:=0.0) 

- Bhabha/Abaqus (g--O.O) 

-- o- Bhabhal'abs (p.=O.O) 

--, .. Argonne (g=-0.0) 

--- ANPA
Internal Pressure (MPa)

10" 

5 

0 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-14. Standard Output Location #7 (nonzero friction case)

v Electric Boat (tt--0.4) 

- Bhabha/Abaqus (=--0.75) 

- Sandia (i-=0.2) 

- NUPEC (g--0.2) ---- MPA (01--0.3)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 o 5 .o .... 

5 10 15 

S+JAERI (g.0.0) 

4 - Electric Boat (IL=0.O) 

--- Bhabha/Abaqus (p=0.0) 

----- Bhabha/rabs (p=0.0) 3 Argonne (g=0.0) 

. O.ANPA 

E2 

Top Head S1 Outside Surface 

Top (2700, 0.48 m) 

ext. hoop strain 

01; 6-r= 4 6 o r A' . • -••- ' 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-15. Standard Output Location #8 (zero friction case)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

Mult"p~es of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-16. Standard Output Location #8 (nonzero friction case)

ii '0

------ Electric Boat (VI=0.4) 

---- Bhabha/Abaqus (i--0.75) 

- Sandia (p-=0.2) 

- NUPEC (1--0.2) 

---- MPA i--0.3)
Intemal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 7 

---- JAERI (p-=O.O) 6---- Electric Boat (pi=0.0) 

-u- Bhabha/Abaqus (@=0.0) 

5. --- Bhabha/Tabs (g=0.0) 

-.-- Argonne (|t=O.O) 

-....... ANPA 

4

S~Location #9 

V Outside Surface 

Top (270 '. 0.48 m) 2 -ext. merid. strain 

"0 5 10 15 20 

MuipUes of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-17. Standard Output Location #9 (zero friction case)

A
Internal Pressure (MPa)

,0 5 10 15

20

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-18. Standard Output Location #9 (nonzero friction case)

I- I

--- Electric Boat (11--0.4) 

- Bhabha/Abaqus (=--0.75) 

- Sandia (p-=0.2) 

S-NUPEC (p--0.2) 

--o-- MPA (1--0.3)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 

10 . . . 

8 

6

L~ 4

UOs 

2

.2 

0 5 10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (I Pd =0.78 MPa)

15

15 20

Figure D-19. Standard Output Location #10 (zero friction case)

---- JAERI (1=0.0) 

-v- Electric Boat (p=0.O) 

n Bhabha/Abaqus (I1=0.0) 

----- BhabhafTabs (it=0.0) 

-*- Argonne (pi--0.0) 

---- ANPA
Intemal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

12. I I I . . . . . . I I .. I I 

-Y-Electric Boat (tt=O.4) 

10 '"n- Bhabha/Abaqus (t--0.75) 

*-- Sandia (ji=0.2) 

SNUPEC (p=0.2) 

----- MPA (p=0.3) 

Locetion #10 

S6 - "Top Head 

Inside Surface 

U Top (2700, 0.48 m) 

int. merd. strain 

4 

2 

0 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-20. Standard Output Location #10 (nonzero friction case)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

5 10 15

20

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-21. Standard Output Location #11 (zero friction case)

0

7

]5

- JAERI (=-0.0) 

* Electric Boat ("=0.0) 

m Bhabha/Abaqus (4L=0.0) 

-- 0- Bhabha/Tabs (I--.O) 

A Argonne (p=0.0) 

I.*. ... ANPA
Internal Pressure (MPa)

5 10 15

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-22. Standard Output Location #11 (nonzero friction case)

0

I

v Electric Boat (t--0.4) 

-Bhabha/Abaqus (@=0.75) 

-+- Sandia (I---0.2) 

- NUPEC (p--0.2) - -- M P A (l --0 .3 )
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 10 15 

6

5. 

4

2" 

0 5 10 15 

Multiple of Design Pressure (IPd= 0.78 MPa)

20

Figum D-23. Standard Output Location #12 (zero friction case)

--- JAERI 4t=O.0) 

-I--- Electric Boat (g=O.0) 

---- Bhabha/Abaqus (jI=0.O) 

-a---- Bhabha/labs (g-=0.0) 

A Argonne (jI=0.0) 

-*-- ANPA
Internal Design Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

"12 

10

8

2 -. 

0R 

0 5 10 15 20 

MultRies of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-24. Standard Output Location #12 (nonzero friction case)

-v- Electric Boat (tt--0.4) 

-U---Bhabha/Abaqus "=0.75) 

-- Sandia (Ii=--0.2) 

- NUPEC (tL=0.2) 

---- MPA (V=0.3)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

5 10 15

10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-25. Standard Output Location #13 (zero friction case)

0

(0 00

--e -JAERI (g---.0) 

--v--- Electric Boat (Ji=O.O) 

--- Bhabha/Abaqus (pI=O.O) 

----- Bhabha/Tabs (p,=0.0) 

-&- Argonne (gi=O.O) 

o-..- ANPA
Internal Pressure (MPa)

5 10 15

Mufftptes of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-26. Standard Output Location #13 (nonzero friction case)

0

0 

11

v Electric Boat (g--0.4) 

--U-- Bhabha/Abaqus (g--0.75) 

---- Sandia (9--0.2) 

S-NUPEC (9-=0.2) 

--o--- MPA (11=0.3)

Spherical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Global (00, 3.32 m) 

ext. merid. strain

I i !

4
Intemal Pressure (MPa)

0 

-1 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-27. Standard Output Location #14 (zero friction case)

---- JAERI (p,=0.0) 

* Electric Boat (pj=0.O) 

-i-Bhabha/Abaqus (UI=0.0) 

--o-- Bhabha/Tabs (4t=0.O) 

- Argonne (p--O.O) 

-o- ....ANPA

Locari,._4 

Spherical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (0°, 3.32 m) 

int. medd. strain 

/ ,,
Internal Pressure (MPa)

5. 10 15

Mu"tiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-28. Standard Output Location #14 (nonzero friction case)

0 

8r

w 

I-' I

-Y---- Electric Boat (p;=0.4) 

-i-- Bhabha/Abaqus "I--0.75) 

---- Sandia ()1=0.2) 

-a--NUPEC "--.2) 

-o- MPA (p--0.3)

-2.
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15

0 5 10 15 20

Mutptes of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-29. Standard Output Location #15 (zero friction case)

I

--*- JAERI (p--0.0) 

* Electric Boat (p=0.0) 

-*--- Bhabha/Abaqus (p--0 .O) 

-c--- Bhabha/labs (p-=0.0) 

-A&-- Argonne (I-=0.0) 

---- ANPA

Middle Conical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Global (00, 2.10 m) 

ext. merld, strain

4I

I
Intemal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-30. Standard Output Location #15 (nonzero friction case)

a

19

* Electric Boat (t--0.4) 

- Bhabha/Abaqus (---0.75) 

-- Sandia (I--=0.2) 

-&- NUPEC (pt--.2) 

-o- MPA (Ot=0.3)

Loaton #15 

Middle Conical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Global (0', 2.10 m) 

ext. mend. strain

20
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 1.5r

Figure D-31. Standard Output Location #16 (zero friction case)

5 10 15 

10 15 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

--- JAERI (g4=.0) 

----- Electric Boat (;u=0.0) 

----- Bhabha/Abaqus (p=o.o) 

--- BhabhalTabs (p=0.0) 

--- Argonne (p=0.0) 

-- o--- ANPA
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

1.5 

-1

0.5. 

0 

0 5 10 15 20 

MuftWes of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-32. Standard Output Location #16 (nonzero friction case)

v Electric Boat (t--0.4) 

-- w-- Bhabha/Abaqus (=--0.75) 

-- Sandia (p--0.2) 

NUPEC (g----0.2) ---- MPA (pi--0.3)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 is 

2.5 

"" 

0.5" 

-0.5 . . . . 

"0 5 10 15 20 

MuIUples of Design Pressure (1 Pd 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-33. Standard Output Location #17 (zero friction case)

*-. JAERI (tp•0.0) 

* Electric Boat (4L=0.0) 

--U-- Bhabha/Abaqus (O=0.0) 

--o-- Bhabha/Tabs (jt=0.0) 

-- *-- Argonne (p --0.0) 

->--- ANPA

Middle Conical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Global (00. 1.60 m) 

ext. mernd, strain

mmm
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15

20

Multoples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-34. Standard Output Location #17 (nonzero friction case)

I:

- IF Electric Boat (1---0.4) 

u Bhabha/Abaqus (L--0.75) 

-*--Sandia (p--0.2) 

- -NUPEC "-0.2) 

-0-- MPA (pt-0.3)

Location #17 

Middle Conical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Global (0°, 1.60 m) 

ext. mend. strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 1.2 

0.8. 

~0.6 

00 

0.4 

0.2- !/ 

-0.2 . . 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-35. Standard Output Location #18 (zero friction case)

--- JAERI (9-=0.0) 

v Electric Boat (1.=0.O) 

--- Bhabha/Abaqus (i=-0.0) 

--a-- Bhabha/Tabs (lt=0.0) 

- Argonne (p=0.0) 

-c--- ANPA

Location # 18 

Middle Conical Shell 

Inside Surfacb 

Global (0',1.60 m) 

int. merid, strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

5

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-36. Standard Output Location #18 (nonzero friction case)

0

I.

----- Electric Boat (1.--0.4) 

---- Bhabha/Abaqus (1-=0.75) 

-. *-- Sandia (1t=0.2) 

-- NUPEC (I1=0.2) 

----- MPA (p--0.3)

Location # 18 

Middle Conical Shell 

Inside Surfade 

Global (00.1.60 m) 

Int. mend. strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . 

0.2 

• -0.4 

-0.6 A 

-0.8 

0 5 10 15 

Muftiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-37. Standard Output Location #19 (zero friction case)

e JAERI (9=0.0) 

IV Electric Boat (li--0.0) 

- Bhabha/Abaqus (lt=0.0) 

-o--- Bhabha/Tabs ("=0.0) 

-- Argonne (li=0.0) 

. ANPA

Location # 19 

Lower Conical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Global (00, 0.80 m) 

ext. medd. strain

20
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0

Figure D-38. Standard Output Location #19 (nonzero friction case)

5 10 15 

10 15 20 

Multlples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

-1.50

SElectric Boat (tt=0.4) 

----- Bhabha/Abaqus (11=0.75) 

- -Sandia (4--0.2) 

-- NUPEC (t--0.2) --o-MPA (j---0.3)

Logoon#0 19 

Lower Conical Shell 

Outside SurfaCe 

Global (00, 0.80 m) 

ext. mend. strain

5
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0.5

-0.5 

"0 5 10 

Mutips of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-39. Standard Output Location #20 (zero friction case)

--- JAERI (1=0.0) 

-- v Electric Boat (j±=0.0) 

m Bhabha/Abaqus (,u=0.0) 

---o-- Bhabha/labs (p,=O.O) 

-&-- Argonne (11--0.0) 

--o-- ANPA

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (0°, 0.80 m) 

int. medd. strain

I

20

i
Internal Pressure (MPa)

2

' p p I I . .I p I i . p p I I p 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-40. Standard Output Location #20 (nonzero friction case)

* Electric Boat (p;=0.4) 

--- Bhabha/Abaqus "--0.75) 

- Sandia (t--0.2) 

SNUPEC (li=0.2) 

-o- MPA (L---0.3)

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (0', 0.80 m) 

Int. mend. strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

1.2 . . . . . . . . . 

0.8

0.6

~0.4

0.2 

-0.2

0 5 10 15 20 

Multples of Design Pressure (1 Pd =0.78 MPB)

Figure D-41. Standard Output Location #21 (zero friction case)

-0- JAERI (pz=O.O) 

v Electric Boat (jI=O.0) 

-a-- Bhabha/Abaqus (g-=0.0) 

-- 0- BhabhalTabs (p-=0.0) 

-- ,-- Argonne (p=O.O) 

. ANPA

Loctin#21 

Upper Conical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Global (45 0 2.49 m) 

ext. mend. strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

0.6 . . . . . .

0.5 

0.4 

S0.3 

0.2

0.1 

0 

p p I I I I I I I I p I p I p 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-42. Standard Output Location #21 (nonzero friction case)

------ Electric Boat (1g=0.4) 

-u--- Bhabha/Abaqus (1g--0.75) 

- Sandia (tt=0.2) 

a NUPEC (t--0.2) -- o-MPA (tt=0.3)

Locaton#21 

Upper Conical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Global (45 , 2.49 m) 

ext. mend. strain

I.
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 71 . ... 10

5 10 15 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-43. Standard Output Location #22 (zero friction case)

15

0%

I

-- JAERI (p=0.0) 

----- Electric Boat (P=0.O) 

----- Bhabha/Abaqus (pL=0.0) 

-- J-- Bhabha/Tabs (I±=0.0) 

-- Argonne (0--O.O) 

.. ANPA

Upper Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (45 0, 2.49 m) 

inL. mend. strain

-1

0 20

l ýA1 -- 71
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15

20

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-44. Standard Output Location #22 (nonzero friction case)

I:

- v Electric Boat (t--0.4) 

---- Bhabha/Abaqus (9--0.75) 

s Sandia (V=0.2) 

a NUPEC (i--0.2) 

-o-- MPA (----0.3)

Upper Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (450, 2.49 m) 

int. mend. strain

| III
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

4 . . , . .. .. . . .. . . . I I . . . .I . . .II 

'CI 

3 

2

0 5 10 15 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-45. Standard Output Location #23 (zero friction case)

- JAERI (u=0.0) 

-f--Electric Boat (A--0.0) 

-- ii Bhabha/Abaqus ("=0.0) 

--o-- Bhabha/Tabs (p=0.0) 

-w-- Argonne (1--0.0) 

... .ANPA
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 

2.5 . . ... . . . 

2

0.5

0 

. . . . I . a p i | a a a I 

0 5 10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-46. Standard Output Location #23 (nonzero friction case)

v Electric Boat (t---0.4) 

--- Bhabha/Abaqus (g--0.75) 

- Sandia (t--0.2) 

A NUPEC ("=-.2) 

-o-- MPA (i=0.3)

15

20

Location M 

Upper Conical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Global (450, 2.49 m) 

ext. hoop strain 

" 9• 
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-47. Standard Output Location #24 (zero friction case)

--.- JAERI (I=0.0) 

---- Electric Boat (p.=O.O) 

---- Bhabha/Abaqus 4@=O.O) 

---- Bhabha/Tabs (jL-0.0) 

-k-- Argonne (W-'O.O) 

. ........ ANPA
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-48. Standard Output Location #24 (nonzero friction case)

11

- Electric Boat (It--0.4) 

S-Bhabha/Abaqus (It--0.75) 

- -Sandia (p=0.2) 

- - NUPEC "=0.2) 

----- MPA (tt--0.3)

Upper Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (450, 2.49 m) 

int. hoop strain

I I I II
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 .5 10 Is 

0.1 

0 

-0.1 

-0.2-\o,• 

S-0.3

-0.4

-0.5 

-.66 

5 10 15 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-49. Standard Output Location #25 (zero friction case)

* JAERI (I-=0.0) 

-*--- Electric Boat ("--.0) 

- Bhabha/Abaqus (p-=0.0) 

---- Bhabha/Tabs (p-=0.0) 

-A-- Argonne (g--0.0) 

-o-- ANPA

Lower Conical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Global (450, 1.45 m) 

ext. merld. strain

20
Internal Pressure (MPa)

20

Figure D-50. Standard Output Location #25 (nonzero friction case)

IF Electric Boat (I--0.4) 

- -- Bhabha/Abaqus (O=0.75) 

-- Sandia (p--0.2) 

A NUPEC (Jt=0.2) 

-o-- MPA (It=0.3)

Lower Conical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Global (45, 1.45 m) 

ext. medd. strain

-0.05-1 

-0.1

"-0.15 . . , . . 

0 5 10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

0.2 

0.1 

• 0.1 

-0.2

-0.3 

"0 5 10 15 20 

Multpes o1 Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-51. Standard Output Location #26 (zero friction case)

*-. JAERI (p--0.0) 

-v- Electric Boat (j.=0.O) 

----- Bhabha/Abaqus (p-=0.0) 

-a-- BhabhalTabs (t--0.0) 

----- Argonne (p--0.0) 

"--- ANPA

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (450, 1.45 m) 

int. mend. strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

0.215 

0.15 

0.10 

-0.05 

-0.05 

-0.15 

-0.15 

-0.2 "0 5 10 15 20 

Multiles of Design Pressure (I Pd 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-52. Standard Output Location #26 (nonzero friction case)

- Electric Boat (t--0.4) 

-Bhabha/Abaqus (g1=0.75) 

-•-- Sandia el=0.2) 

- NUPEC (g-=0.2) 

-o-- MPA (p--0.3)

Location 

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (45 U 1.45 m) 

it. merld, straln
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

3 . .0-'0 .

2.5

2

1.5

1" 

-0.5" 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-53. Standard Output Location #27 (zero friction case)

---- JAERI (ji=0.0) 

-*--- Electric Boat (pr=0.0) 

-- m Bhabha/Abaqus (=-0.0) 

---0- BhabhalTabs (g1=0.0) 

-&-- Argonne(p=0.0) 

* .......... ANPA

Lower Conical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Gloabl (45 0.1.45 m) 

exL hoop strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0.5 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-54. Standard Output Location #27 (nonzero friction case)

- IF Electric Boat (1I--O.4) 

- -Bhabha/Abaqus (11--0.75) 

*--* Sandia (p---0.2) 

- NUPEC (l--0.2) -- o-- MPA (;.L--0.3)

Lower Conical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Gloabl (45 0 1.45 m) 

ext. hoop strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 3 1 . . . . . 10

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-55. Standard Output Location #28 (zero friction case)

15

jO

- JAERI (g=0.0) 

* Electric Boat (gt=0.0) 

----- Bhabha/Abaqus (t=-0.0) 

--o-- Bhabha/Tabs (p=0.0) 

-,- Argonne (V,=0.0) 

. ... ANPA

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (450 1.45 m) 

int. hoop strain

20
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0.5" 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-56. Standard Output Location #28 (nonzero friction case)

-v-- Electric Boat (t--0.4) 

-u-- Bhabha/Abaqus ("--0.75) 

- -Sandia (p--0.2) 

- NUPEC (p=0.2) 

-o-- MPA (i--0.3)

Location #28 

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (450, 1.45 m) 

int. hoop strain

a I 

C
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 

3........ ..... .. .. .. .. 

2.5. 

2

• 1.5 , 

0.5

0 5 10 

Multiples o1 Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

15

15 20

Figure D-57. Standard Output Location #29 (zero friction case)

-.- JAERI (j=0.0) 

v Electric Boat (p=0.0) 

- Bhabha/Abaqus (tt=0.0) 

- Bhabhafrabs (P--O.0) 

---- Argonne l--0.0) 

- ANPA
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

3 

2.5

2 

j?1. 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multfples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-58. Standard Output Location #29 (nonzero friction case)

-I--- Electric Boat (It=0.4) 

-u--m-Bhabha/Abaqus (p--0.75) 

- Sandia (tt=0.2) 

-h- NUPEC (i=0.2) 

-o-- MPA (1---0.3)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 5 . ..... . . .

4-~ 

3 

2

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-59. Standard Output Location #30 (zero friction case)

-- JAERI (p-0.o) 

- Electric Boat (p-=O.O) 

----- Bhabha/Abaqus (I=-0.0) 

----- BhabhalTabs (±=O.O) 

-A- Argonne (g=-0.0) 

--- ANPA

Spherical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (450, 3.13 m) 

inL hoop strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

2.5 . . . .

2 

1.5 

0.5 

0 

5 10 15 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

20

Figure D-60. Standard Output Location #30 (nonzero friction case)

* Electric Boat (It=0.4) 

--- BhabhalAbaqus (=--0.75) 

-.- Sandia i--0.2) 

-- NUPEC (g--0.2) 

----- MPA Ot=0.3)

Lotion #29 

Spherical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (45', 3.13 m) 

Int. hoop strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

* . . . . . . 

6 

5 

4 

3 .. 

2 

-1 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-61. Standard Output Location #31 (zero friction case)

*-- JAERI (p--0.0) 

-*- Electric Boat (I.--0.0) 

- Bhabha/Abaqus (4=0.0) 

--- BhabhalTabs (jI=0.0) 

-a-. Argonne (p--0.O) 

o ANPA

Upper Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (2700, 2.49 m) 

int. mend. strain

I j
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

2.5 1 1 1 1. . 1 . . . I . 

2 

1.5 

0%0 

0.5 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-62. Standard Output Location #31 (nonzero friction case)

* Electric Boat (xt-0.4) 

-*- BhabhalAbaqus (p=0.75) 

# Sandia (p--0.2) 

A NUPEC (t--0.2) 

-0- MPA (p--0.3)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

5 . . . . .. . .' . . . .. ' ' ' ' I 

4 

3 

-1 

0 5 10 15 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

20

Figure D-63. Standard Output Location #32 (zero friction case)

• e-JAERI (pt=0.0) 

-Y---- Electric Boat (p=-0.0) 

-u-Bhabha/Abaqus (1.=0.O) 

--0-- BhabhalTabs (g=0.0) 

- Argonne (p=0.0) 

.ANPA 

Upper Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (2700, 2.49 m) 

int. hoop strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

2.5 . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , 

2

1.5 

0.5 

-0.51 

0 5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 %d= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-64. Standard Output Location #32 (nonzero friction case)

- Electric Boat (I--0.4) 

--- Bhabha/Abaqus ("--0.75) 

4 Sandia (i--0.2) 

a NUPEC (g--0.2) -0o- MPA (g--0.3)

Upper Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (2700, 2.49 m) 

int. hoop strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 510 15 1.5. . .... . .,......... •.........i 

0.5 

-0.5 

I1 . I I I I I I I I I I p p I I 

5 10 15 20 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-65. Standard Output Location #33 (zero friction case)

---- JAERI (p=0.0) 

- Electric Boat (pI=O.0) 

--- ,-- BhabhalAbaqus (01=0.0) 

-- 0-- Bhabha/Tabs (pu=0.0) 

--- Argonne 4t=0.0) 

.- o> ...... ANPA

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (2700, 1.25 m) int. merid, strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

3" 

0 5 10 15 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-66. Standard Output Location #33 (nonzero friction case)

I

-v--- Electric Boat (t--0.4) 

--- BhabhalAbaqus (t---0.75) 

---- Sandia (tt=0.2) 

- NUPEC (tt=0.2) 

-o- MPA (i---0.3)

Locaton #33 

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (2700, 1.25 m) 

int. merid, strain
intemal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 

4 

3

2 

1 

0i 

"0 5 10 

Muhliples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-67. Standard Output Location #34 (zero friction case)

15

* JAERI (li=0.0) 

* Electric Boat ("i=0.0) 

-in-- Bhabha/Abaqus (g±=0.0) 

-o- Bhabha/Tabs (p=0.0) 

A. Argonne (p=0.0) 

<> ANPA

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (2700, 1.25 m) 

Int. hoop strain

L
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0., 

0 5 10 15 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa) 

6

Figure D-68. Standard Output Location #34 (nonzero friction case)

-v Electric Boat (t=-0.4) 

-3-Bhabha/Abaqus "--0.75) 

S-Sandia (V--0.2) 

-- NUPEC 01--0.2) 

- -- MPA (t--0.3)

Location #24 

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (2700, 1.25 m) 

int. hoop sMtrn

20
Inlemal Pressure (MPa)

E100 

A2 

50, 

0 5 10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-69. Standard Output Location #35 (zero friction case)

-0-- JAERI "L=0.0) 

---v- Electric Boat (p,=0.0) 

.--- Bhabha/Abaqus (g.=0.0) 

-- i-- Bhabha/'abs (j---O.0) 

-- d-- Argonne ---- O.O) 

.. ANPA

Top Head Region 

Inside Surface 

Top (0W, 0.00 m) 

vertical disp.
Internal Pressure (MPa)

100. 

50 

5 M 10 

Mu~pl~es of Design Pressure (I Pd-- 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-70. Standard Output Location #35 (nonzero friction case)

-- Electric Boat (g--0.4) 

- -BhabhalAbaqus (g--0.75) 

- -Sandia (g--0.2) 

-- NUPEC (p-=0.2) 

-0- MPA (tt--0.3)

Location #25 

Top Head Region Inside Surface 

Top (0", 0.00 m) 

vertical dlsp.
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 

70 

60 

50

?40

S/3 

a . 

30 

20. 

10

0 5 10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-71. Standard Output Location #36-outside (zero friction case)

15

-*-- JAERI (p=O.O) 

T Electric Boat (1-=0.0) 

_ Bhabha/Abaqus (p,=0.0) 

-o-- Bhabha/Tabs (g=0.0) 

-- ,--- Argonne (1--0.0) 

--- ANPA

Upper Cylindrical Shell 

Outside Surface 

Global (450, 357 m) 

horizontal dlsp.
Intemal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 

70 

60 

50 

E ,40 

~30

20 

101 

00 

0 5 10 

Multples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

15

15 20

Figure D-72. Standard Output Location #36-outside (nonzero friction case)

-F--- Electric Boat (t--0.4) 

- -- BhabhaAbaqus (1--0.75) 

- Sandia (tt=0.2) 

- NUPEC (t=0.2) 

--0-- MPA (p--0.3)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 

70 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 

60 

50 

E40 

CD 

E 

~30 

20

10 

0 5 10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-73. Standard Output Location #36-inside (zero friction case)

15

S JAERI (Qi=0.0) 

-Y--Electric Boat ("--0.0) 

-a- BhabhalAbaqus 4t=0.0) 

-- o-- Bhabha/labs (p--0.0) 

-A- Argonne Qu=0.0) 

---- ANPA

Upper Cylindrical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (45, 3.57 m) 

horizontal clisp.
Internal Pressure (MPa)

&40 

03 

20 

10 

i i. . i . p * i~c * * 

05 10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (I Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-74. Standard Output Location #36-inside (nonzero friction case)

v Electric Boat (t--0.4) 

--- Bhabha/Abaqus (p--0.75) 

- Sandia (p=0.2) 6 NUPEC (tt--0.2) 

-- o-- MPA (p=0.3)

Location #&M 

Upper Cylindrical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (451, 3.57 m) 

horizontal dIsp.
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

40. 

30 

1 

0 5. 10 15 20 

Multlipes of Design Pressure (1 Pd -0.78 MPa)

Figure D-75. Standard Output Location #37 (zero friction case)

* JAERI (@L0.0) 

v Electric Boat (.u=0.0) 

----- Bhahba/Abaqus (t---O.O) 

-o-- Bhabha/Tabs (IL--0.O) 

-- ,-- Argonne (p=0.0) 

. ........ ANPA

Spherical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (00, 3.32 m) 

horizontal disp.
Internal Pressure (MPa)

5 10 15

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-76. Standard Output Location #37 (nonzero friction case)

0

-J 

0

E 

a

- Electric Boat (t--0.4) 

--U-- Bhabha/Abaqus (pt=0.75) 

-- Sandia (pt=0,2) 

- NUPEC (p-=0.2) 

-o- MPA (p--0.3)

Spherical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (00, 3.32 m) 

horizontal dlsp.

I 1
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

40 

300 /> 

E 20 

10

po 

0. 5 10 15 

MulWples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

20

Figure D-77. Standard Output Location #38 (zero friction case)

--- JAERI (p=0.0) 

* Electric Boat (p=0.0) 

-w Bhabha/Abaqus (L--=0.0) 

-q-- BhabhafTabs (=0.0) 

A Argonne (i=0.0) 

.......... - ANPA

Spherical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (00,3.32 m) 

vertica l dsp.
Internal Pressure (MPa)

5 10 15

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-78. Standard Output Location #38 (nonzero friction case)

0

E E 

_20 

0. C)

------ Electric Boat (VL=0.4) 

-- m Bhabha/Abaqus (Vi=0.75) 

-.- Sandia (p--0.2) . A NUPEC (ti--0.2) 

-o- MPA (g--0.3)

LocaIon #38 

Spherical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (00,3.32 m) 

vertical disp.
Internal Pressure (MPa)

60 10 

50' 

40 

~30

020 

. 20 

10

"100 5 10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-79. Standard Output Location #39 (zero friction case)

--- JAERI (V-=0.0) 

--- Electric Boat (gi=0.0) 

---- Argonne (g=O.O) 

- --- ANPA

15

20
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

40 

30 

S20 

10 

0 

p I , , , I , , , , p 

0 5 10 15 20 

Mutfplles of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-80. Standard Output Location #39 (nonzero friction case)

- --- Electric Boat (1=--0.4) 

--.-- Sandia (9I=0.2) 

-MNUPEC 01--0.2) 

-o-- MPA (tt--0.3)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

1.2 

0.8" 

0.6

0.4

-0.2

"0 5 10 15 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-81. Standard Output Location #40 (zero friction case)

-*-- JAERI (IL=O.O) 

---v Electric Boat (p.=O.O) 

.A. Argonne (p=0.0) 

->- ANPA

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (750, 1.57 m) 

Int. medd. strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-82. Standard Output Location #40 (nonzero friction case)

1P

(0

S-Electric Boat (p--0.4) 

----- Sandia (p=0.2) 

- NUPEC (p--0.2) 

----- MPA (gp=0.3)

LOOMMAAi 

Lower Conical Shefl 

Inside Surface 

Global (750, 1.57 m) 

Int. medd. strain 

EE
Internal Pressure (MPa)

5 10 15

Muiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-83. Standard Output Location #41 (zero friction case)

0

30

oR

•e-- JAERI (p1=0.0) 

- Electric Boat (-=-0.0) 

-&- Argonne (gi=0.0) 

--- ANPA

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (750, 1.57 m) 

InL hoop strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 

25 

20" 

15 

10

5" 

0 5 10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd= 0.78 MPa)

15

15 20

Figure D-84. Standard Output Location #41 (nonzero friction case)

-v--- Electric Boat (It--0.4) 

- -Sandia (l-=0.2) 

- -NUPEC (11=0.2) 

-o-0- MPA (1---0.3)

Location 9 41 

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (750 01.57 m) 

int. hoop strain
Internal Pressure (MPa)

5 10 15

5 10 15 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

v Electric Boat (1t = 0.0) 

---- Argonne (It = 0.0) 

. .ANPAI

20

Figure D-85. Standard Output Location #42 (zero friction case)

0

I

0.8 

0.6

S0.4 

0.2 

0. 

-0.2

Lower Conical Sheil 

Inside Surface 

Global (1050, 1.57 m) 

inL. mend. strain 

F--,

-0.4' 0
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 

6

5 

4 

2 

-10 5 10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-86. Standard Output Location #42 (nonzero friction case)

15

--- v Electric Boat (I---0.4) 

-- Sandia (pg=0.2) 

A NUPEC (p--0.2) 

-0--- MPA (g=0.3)

Laoationl2 

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (1050, 1.57 m) 

int. medd. strain

A
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

30 

- -Electric Boat (I --0.0) 

-A-- Argonne t = 0.0) 

25 ---o ....... ANPA 

20 

Location # 43 

- 15- Lower Conical Shelf 

Inside Surface 

I Global (1050, 1.57 m) 

int. hoop strain

10 

Multiples of Design Pressure (1 Pd = 0.78 MPa)

aj

Figure D-87. Standard Output Location #43 (zero friction case)
Internal Pressure (MPa)

0 5 10 15 

25 . 

20

15: 

110

0 5 10 15 20 

Mu04tipes of Design Pressure (1 Pd 0.78 MPa)

Figure D-88. Standard Output Location #43 (nonzero friction case)

-- Electric Boat (t--0.4) 

"_-4- Sandia (p--0.2) 

S -a-NUPEC (t--0.2) 

-- o- MPA (p--0.3)

LQeaflnPA4 

Lower Conical Shell 

Inside Surface 

Global (1050, 1.57 m) 

Int. hoop strain
Round Robin Participants' Analysis Reports and Results

Appendix E-1 

Argonne National Laboratory 

U.S.

E-1
Argonne National Laboratory 

Round-Robin Pretest Analyses of a 1:10-Scale Steel Containment Vessel 

P. A. Pfeiffer, R. F. Kulak 

Reactor Engineering Division, Argonne National Laboratory 

F. I. Saral 

IAEA Fellow, Turkey 

and 

J. Bonnet 

INPG-INSTN Student, France 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

Pretest predictions were made by the Reactor Engineering Division of Argonne National 

Laboratory (ANL) for the response of the 1:10 scale Steel Containment Vessel (SCV) to 

be tested by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The SCV model is scaled 1:10 in overall 

geometry and a 1:4 scale is used for the thickness from a prototype BWR Mark-Il 

containment. The pretest predictions were made with a full three-dimensional model using 

the NEPTUNE finite element code. The NEPTUNE [4.1, 4.2 and 4.3] code was primarily 

intended for 3-D fluid structure interaction problems, however additions [4.4] to the code 

were made to incorporate simulation of pressurized vessel analyses. 

NEPTUNE is a three-dimensional finite element program that was developed to simulate 

the response of reactor components in 3-D space to design and beyond-design-basis loads. 

The code has evolved over the years to address safety issues. Since the code was 

developed to solve a variety of problems, the current version is a general purpose 3-D 

finite element code primarily suited for nonlinear problems. An important feature of 

NEPTUNE is its ability to handle nonlinear problems, which often occur during beyond

design basis loads. The element formulations can properly treat large deformations (i.e. 

geometric nonlinearities), and the rate-type material models can handle large material 

strains (i.e. material nonlinearities). A Von Mises elastic-plastic constitutive material law is 

utilized for yielding and post yielding of material. The failure model used is based on a 

Davis triaxial factor for nultiaxial state of stress in combination with Von Mises elastic

plastic constitutive law. Explicit solution algorithms are used to economically solve short 

duration transient problems, and a dynamic relaxation (DR) method is utilized to simulate 

quasi-static problems.

E-3
The explicit time integration scheme is used in the NEPTUNE code. The numerical 

algorithm for the explicit time integration is based on the solution of the following 

equation of motion 

mili, + fj" =fl', (no surn) (4.1) 

where m, is a diagonal mass matrix, uji is a nodal displacement, fjj,` and f"' are the 

internal and external nodal forces, respectively, of node I in the ith direction. Superscript 

dots are used to denote temporal derivatives. The equations of motion are solved using the 

central difference formulas. For static analysis the equilibrium equations are given by 

fi t (4.2) 

There are various methods available for obtaining static solutions, NEPTUNE uses the 

dynamic relaxation (DR) method. Details are provided in Ref. [4.4] on the numerical 

algorithm utilized for the DR method. The main problem associated with the DR 

algorithm, as well as other iterative techniques, is whether the current solution vector is 

close enough to the true solution so that the iteration process can be terminated. 

Premature termination will result in an incorrect solution, whereas excessive iterations will 

increase the time of the solution. An effective and efficient way to determine when the 

iteration process should cease is utilized in the code. The dual criteria used are 

f'•• A 12 <10 e58 (4.3) 

pir xl00 

(4 

where 1 12 indicates the Euclidean norm. Accurate results without excessive 

computations are usually obtained with ef = 1.0 and e, = 0.1 in Eqs. (4.3) and (4.4). Once 

these equations are satisfied, the iteration process is terminated, a load increment is 

applied, and the iteration process is restarted. The DR method does not change the basic 

architecture of the central difference scheme, but enhances it so that static problems can be 

solved. 

4.2 MODEL DESCRIPTION 

The finite element model is depicted in Figs. 4.1 and 4.2. Figure 4.1 is the SCV solid 

model and Fig. 4.2 is the Contact Structure (CS) solid model The overall model contains 

27538 nodes (3 degrees of freedom) and 18001 elements. The SCV consists of 9734 

quadrilateral plate elements for the steel shell and 400 bar elements for the 5 stiffeners (i.e. 

80 bar elements for each stiffener). The CS consists of 3888 quadrilateral plate elements 

E-4

11
for the steel shell and 3979 contact elements are located between the CS and the SCV. 

The model contains 9790 translational nodes and 9790 rotational nodes in the SCV and 

3979 translational nodes and 3979 rotational nodes in the CS. 

The model is subjected to a fixed boundary condition (no translation or rotation allowed) 

at the 0.000 m elevation for the SCV and CS, and at the -0.400 m elevation of the SCV. 

These are the upper and lower elevation of the ring support girder. It was assumed that 

the support girder was rigid, and thus, a fixed boundary condition was used. 

4.3 MATERIAL DATA 

The material test data that was provided by SNL was used to obtain material property 

values for input to the constitutive model for metals. The true stress - true strain data was 

analyzed by a best fit least square algorithm. The data was split into two portions, elastic 

and elastic-plastic, with each portion fit to a line equation. The bi-linear stress-strain data 

is used as input for the material law in NEPTUNE. The fits are shown in Figs. 4.3 through 

4.14. Figure 4.3 indicates a Young's modulus of 2.09x1011 Pa, yield stress of 416.8 MPa, 

plastic modulus of 1.4x10 9 Pa, ultimate stress of 694 MPa and an ultimate failure strain of 

20%. The coefficient of correlation, r, for the plastic region of the data fits varies from 

0.941 to 0.986 with most of data fits around r = 0.97, which indicates a very good fit of 

the all the test data provided. When no test data was available for a material with a certain 

thickness in the finite element model, the closest thickness for the material was used for 

material properties. Poisson's ratio was assumes to be 0.33 for all materials. The CS was 

assumed to have ASTM-A36 steel properties as given by SNL. 

4.4 FAILURE MODEL 

An elastic-plastic analysis was performed and failure is assumed to occur when the 

effective plastic strain reaches the ultimate strain. When an elastic-plastic analysis is 

utilized, the effect of multiaxial stress needs to be accounted for in the analysis. Manjoine 

[4.5] discusses the effect of multiaxial stress on the uniaxial stress-strain behavior. 

Reference [4.6] also discusses the effect of multiaxial stress on failure. Essentially, the 

ductility of a material can vary under a multiaxial state of stress, which in turn may reduce 

the plastic strain at which the material will fiLl. Manjoine proposed a formulation for the 

ductility ratio based on the Davis triaxial factor. The Davis triaxiality factor, TFD, is equal 

to the sum of the principal stresses divided by the octahedral shearing stress and 

normalized to unity for plane stress or uniaxial tension. Thus, 

TFC +2 +oF (4.5) 

where cyl, cr and c;3 are the principal stresses. The ductility ratio is defined as

E-5
effective von mises ¢-- strain (4.6) 

tensile elongation 

and the ductility ratio can be described by the triaxiality factor as 

c = 2 (-Tr*D),c., <: 2.0 (4.7) 

Therefore, under multiaxial stress states the equivalent uniaxial strain is 

c (4.8) 

where ef is the calculated effective Von Mies strain and e, is the strain to be compared 

with, Le. uniaxial or tensile elongation data. The value of TFD under uniaxial stress is 0 

and thus c = 1.0, and the value of TF1D under a biaxial state of stress (al = 2) is 2.0, and 

thus, c = 0.5. Therefore under a biaxial state of stress (a1 = ch), the strain to failure is 

reduced by 50%. This is important when the strain to failure is the dominating failure 

mode under multiaxial stresses. 

4.5 CONTACT ELEMENT 

The contact element utilized in this analysis was a line interface contact element that 

consists of two nodes connected by a spring type element. This element is based upon a 

penalty formulation that allows compression only, i.e. no tension. Thus, when contact is 

made a compressive force develops, and when the nodes separate a zero tension force 

develops, which allows the two nodes to act independently. Reference [4.7] provides the 

details for the contact element formulation used in NEPTUNE, Ref. [4.8) addresses the 

critical time step concerns with this type of element, and Ref. [ 4.4] provides an overview 

of the contact elements. 

The contact element requires the initial gap distance, between the two contact nodes, for 

input to determine when contact will occur. The actual measured gap distances were used 

in the model for the elevations and angles provided by SNL. A double interpolation was 

done with the gap data to provide an approximate gap distance for the contact element 

locations that were in-between the measured locations. 

4.6 VESSEL RESPONSE DUE TO PRESSURIZATION 

The load is a pressure inacmentally applied to the inside surface of the SCV. Initially the 

vessel model was run elasticity to determine when the yield stress will be reached under 

internal pressure. That value is approximately 2.6 MPa internal pressure with yielding near 

the bottom connection of the equipment hatch and the vessel. The vessel model was then 

analyzed for an elastic-plastic response. A pressure of 2.6 MPa is applied in the first load 

step, and 0.1 MPa increments are used thereafter for each load step. The model was 

E-6

1!
pressurized incrementally up to failure, which occurred at 5.5 MPa. At each load step, 

static equilibriurn was checked with Eqs. 4.3 and 4.4 using Ef = 1.5 and E, = 0.1 for the 

convergence check. Static equilibrium was obtained for load steps I through 29 (i.e. 

internal pressure = 5.4 MPa). 

Yielding of the vessel occurred first at the bottom of the equipment hatch sleeve and the 

vessel reinforcing plate (OH = 1800, RH = 200 nm in the hatch coordinate system) for a 

pressure of 2.6 MPa. At a pressure of 2.8 MPa yielding occurs all around ( 3600 ) the 

knuckle at the top ( elev. 3.431 m) and the bottom (elev. 3.354 m). Contact between the 

CS and SCV occurs at 4.4 MPa at an elevation of 2.402 m. The vessel model fails at a 

pressure of 5.5 MPa at the location just above the knuckle in the 6 mm thick upper 

cylindrical shell. The failure plastic strain is reduced to 9.9% strain because of the biaxial 

state of stress in the shell, the value of c in Eqs. 4.7 and 4.8 is approximately 0.5. 

Displacements and strains for the model are given in Figs. 4.15 through 4.34, the 

displacements are shown in Figs. 4.15 through 4.19 and the strains are depicted in Figs. 

4.20 through 4.34. The locations are the same as the standard PLOT ID requested by 

SNL, the PLOT ID numbers are given in the ordinate label of the figures. However, the 

displacement plots (Figs. 4.15 through 4.19) are for the nodes in the finite element model 

which are the centerline deflections of the plate elements, ie. approximately the average of 

the inside and outside deflections of the plate. Thus, for PLOT ID #36 in Fig. 4.16, the 

deflection shown is the average of the inside and outside deflection. In Figs. 4.15, 4.17, 

4.18 and 4.19 the centerline deflections are very close to the inside deflections requested, 

because of the deflection shape at these locations in the vessel. The figures indicate the 

elastic and elastic-plastic response of the SCV to internal pressure. 

4.7 BUCKLING EFFECTS IN TOP HEAD 

No buckling occurred during the internal pressurization of the SCV model. The DR 

method employed is capable of capturing buckling behavior, but none was observed. 

4.8 FRICTION EFFECTS BETWEEN SCV AND THE CS 

The contact element that was used in the analysis does not include friction effects, thus no 

transverse force develops when the CS and SCV contact. This preliminary analysis 

indicates that when two nodes contact, very little transverse motion occurs after contact. 

Thus, if friction were included it would be of a secondary effect and should not be a major 

concern by our estimation. 

4.9 INITIAL YIELD AND CONTACT 

Yielding of the vessel occurred at the bottom of the equipment hatch sleeve and the vessel 

reinforcing plate (OH = 1800, Ra = 200 num in the hatch coordinate system) at a pressure 

of 2.6 MPa. Initial contact between the CS and SCV occurred at 4.4 MPa at an elevation

E-7
of 2.402 m and locally at 0o = 00, 900, 1800 and 2700 as indicated in Fig. 4.35. The dark 

lines on the vessel surface indicate initial contact locations between the CS and SCV. 

4.10 CONTACT RESPONSE 

The contact response is depicted in Figs. 4.35 through 4.40 for increasing pressures. 

Contact initially occurs at 4.4 MPa and is maintained up until the failure pressure of 5.5 

MPa. Contact is indicated by the short black lines shown on the surface of the SCV. The 

figures indicate how the contact region grows as the pressure increases. Contact is 

predicted to be confined between elevations of 1.656 m to 2.548 m as shown in Fig. 4.40. 

4.11 FAILURE PRESSURE 

The vessel model fails at an internal pressure of 5.5 MPa at the location just above the 

knuckle in the 6 mm thick upper cylindrical shell. The uniaxial ultimate strain (plastic 

failure strain) is reduced to 9.9% strain because of the biaxial state of stress in the shell; 

the value of c in Eqs. 4.7 and 4.8 is approximately 0.5. Once the 6 mm shell fails, the 

failure could propagate around the circumference and the top head and upper cylindrical 

shell will exit (fly off) the SCV. 

4.12 SUMMARY 

The predicted failure of the steel containment vessel is at an internal pressure of 5.5 MPa. 

The location of the failure is just above the knuckle, and could occur at any point along 

the circumference in the upper cylindrical shell. Therefore, a maximum pressure of 5.4 

MPa is estimated before a failure will occur. The maximum pressure with high confidence 

(>95%) that there is a low probability of failure (<1%) of the model would be about 90 % 

of this value, i.e. maximum internal pressure of 4.9 MPa. The 90% factor is based on the 

uncertainties in modeling, code calculation, materi property response, and residual 

stresses due to welding and manufacturing. 

The vessel will remain elastic until an internal pressure of 2.6 MPa is reached. The vessel 

wall is predicted to impact the contact structure at an internal pressure of 4.4 MPa. 

4.13 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Technology Support Programs, under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38. 

B.8

11
6.0 REFERENCES

[4.1] R. F. Kulak, "A Finite Element Formulation for Fluid-Structure Interaction in Three

Dimensional Space", J. of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 103, No. 2, 1981, pp. 183

190. 

[4.2] R. F. Kulak, "A Finite element Quasi-Eulerian Method for Thre-Dimensional Fluid

Structure Interactions", Computers and Structures, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1984, pp. 319-332. 

[4.3] R. F. Kulak, 'Three-Dimensional Fluid-Structure Coupling in Transient Analysis", 

Computers and Structures, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1985, pp. 529-542. 

[4.4] R. F. Kulak and C. Fiala, "NEPTUNE: A System of Finite Element Programs for Three

Dimensional Nonlinear Analysis," Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 106, 1988, pp. 

47-68. 

[4.5] M. . Manjoine, "Creep-Rupture Behavior of Weldments:' Welding Journal, Pro ngs 

of Amnrican Welding Society, Vol. 49, 1982, pp. 505-575. 

[4.6] R. A. Dameron, R. S. Dunham, Y. K Rashid and H. T. Tang, "Conclusions of the EPRI 

Concrete Containment Research Program," Nuclear Engineering and Design, VoL 125, 

1991, pp. 41-55. 

[4.7] R. F. Kulak, "Adaptive Contact Elements for Thre-Dimensional Explicit Transient 

Analysis," Computer Methods in Appl. Mechanics and Eng,, VoL 72, 1989, pp. 121-151. 

[4.8] R. F. Kulak, "Critical Time Step Estimation for Thr-Dimensional Explicit Impact 

Analysis," Structures Under Shock and Impac¶ Proc of the 1st Int. Conf., Cambridge, 

MA, July 1989, pp. 156-163.

E-9
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 Solid Finite Element Model of SCV

Figure 4.2 

Figure 4.3 

Figure 4.4 

Figure 4.5 

Figure 4.6 

Figure 4.7 

Figure 4.8 

Figure 4.9 

Figure 4.10 

Figure 4.11 

Figure 4.12 

Figure 4.13 

Figure 4.14 

Figure 4.15 

Figure 4.16 

Figure 4.17 

Figure 4.18 

Figure 4.19 

Figure 4.20 

Figure 4.21

Solid Finite Element Model of CS 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 1 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 2 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 3 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 4 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 5 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 6 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 7 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 8 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 9 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 10 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 11 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 12 

Vertical Displacement at Apex of Top Head 

Horizontal Displacement at 0o = 450 and Zo 3.5 m 

Horizontal Displacement at BO = 00 and Zo = 3.32 m 

Vertical Displacement at 0o f= 00 and 7Z4 = 3.32 m 

Horizontal Displacement at Center of Equipment Hatch Cover 

Maximum Principal Strain at OH = 67.50 and RH = 0.36 m 

Maximum Principal Strain at OH = 450 and RH = 0.36 m

E-10

1Figure 4.22 

Figure 4.23 

Figure 4.24 

Figure 4.25 

Figure 4.26 

Figure 4.27 

Figure 4.28 

Figure 4.29 

Figure 4.30 

Figure 4.31 

Figure 4.32 

Figure 4.33 

Figure 4.34 

Figure 4.35 

Figure 4.36 

Figure 4.37 

Figure 4.38 

Figure 4.39 

Figure 4.40

Maximum Principal Strain at Apex of Top Head 

Exterior Hoop Strain at Or = 2700 and Rr = 0.48 m 

Exterior Meridional Strain at O% = 2700 and RT = 0.48 m 

Exterior Meridional Strain at 0O = 00 and Z7G = 3.47 m 

Exterior Meridional Strain at 0O = 0° and ZGf = 3.32 rn 

Exterior Meridional Strain at OG = 00 and Zo = 2.10 m 

Exterior Meridional Strain at 0o = 0° and Z7 = 1.60 m 

Exterior Hoop Strain at 0o = 450 and Zo = 2.49 m 

Interior Hoop Strain at 0O = 450 and Zo = 2.49 m 

Exterior Hoop Strain at 0O = 450 and Z7 = 1.45 mn 

Interior Hoop Strain at 0o = 450 and Zo = 1.45 m 

Interior Hoop Strain at 0O = 2700 and Za = 2.49 m 

Interior Hoop Strain at 0Or = 2700 and Zo = 1.25 m 

Contact Configuration at 4.4 MPa Internal Pressure 

Contact Configuration at 4.6 MPa Internal Pressure 

Contact Configuration at 4.8 MPa Internal Pressure 

Contact Configuration at 5.0 MPa Internal Pressure 

Contact Configuration at 5.2 MPa Internal Pressure 

Contact Configuration at 5.4 MPa Internal Pressure

E-11
Figure 4.1 Solid Finite Element Model of SCV 

E-12
Ct.1 -,

Figure 4.2 Solid Finite Element Model of CS

E-13
Location I - SVG 480 - 6 mm

5 10 15 20 25

True Strain - %

Matmial Property Fit at Test Location I

Location 2 - SGV 480 - 6 mm

10 15 20

True Strain - % 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 2

E-14

800

Ca 

-0 

CO 

CD

600 

400 

200

0

0

Figure 4.3

800

0 

a,.

CD

600 

400 

200

y = 4.5x' +421 max dev:33.9, r2 -0.955 

UItimaie Strain = 20.0 % 

Ultiamle Stress = 711.0 MPa 

Yield Stress = 425.7 MPa 

eqn: a=1 308__1'| y = R:62, max •ev:174 .________

0

0 5

Figure 4.4

25

1T
Location 3 - SGV 480 - 7.5 mm

10 15 20

800

True Strain - % 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 3 

Location 4 - SGV 480 - 8 mm

5 10 15 20 25

True Strain - % 

Matera Property Fit at Test Location 4

E-15

y = +4.04x +404, max dev:36.1, r

2-0.972 -1 ___1-I______0 

I I 

Ultimate Strain = 21.1% 

Ultimatje Stress = 69,.4 MPa 

Yield Stress= 406.7 MPa 

teqn: y Em, M.97, max1ev:1 9.7 _ 

=2074True Stai .-

0~ L. 

C, U, 

I.-

600 

400 

200

0

0 5

Figure 4.5

5

800

0~ 

U, 

CO a) 

2

600 

400 

200

0

0

Figure 4.6

Of
Location 5 - SGV 480 - 8.5 mm

5

Figure 4.7

10 15 20

True Strain - % 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 5

Location 6 - SGV 480 - 9.5 mm

800

5 10 15 20

True Strain - % 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 6

E-16

J!

800

al 

CL 

CO 

OD 

I--

600 

400 

200

y = -1 4.3xI +406 max dev:45.4, r2=0.953 

Ultimate Strain = 2,.5 % 

Ultiar te Stress = 699.2 MPa 

Yield Stress =409.8 MPa 

eqn: y = ax, R:49.5, max dev:115 1531 I 

0

0 25

cc 

CL 

Clo 

OD 

a, 

!--

600 

400 

200

0

0

Figure 4.8

25
Location 7 - SGV 480 - 12.5 mm

ato a. 

U, 

O9 

ol) 

O

I--

0 5 10 15 20

Figure 4.10

True Strain - % 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 8

E-17

800 . 

600 

y = +1 4.6x' ÷394, max dev:42.5, r4=0.953 

400 •"

Ultimate Strain = 20.6 % 

Ultimate Stress = 69,4.8 MPa 

200 1 -iled Sress 396.1 MPa 

eqn: y = ax, R:7.69, max dev:1 4.9 

0 a=2095 I ... 

0 5 10 15 20 2E 

True Strain - % 

Figure 4.9 Mateial Property Fit at Test Location 7 

Location 8 - SGV 480- 19 mm 

800 

600 

400 y +15.4x +88, max dev:44 0 r

2-0.934 

Ultimate Strain = 1,7.8 % 

Uttimate Stress = p62.1 MPa 

200 eld Stress = 391 5 MPa 

eqn: y ax, RA 6.3, max dev:40.5 

0a=1743 c

Cd 

a, 

CO 

OD 

I-p
Location 9 - SGV 480 - 20 mm

800

5 10 15 20

True Strain - % 

Figure 4.12 Material Property Fit at Test Location 10 

E-18

1-

0 

0

0D 

CD

600 

400 

200

y=+14.2x' +394, max dev:40.T, r

2--0.945 

Ultimate, Strain = 19. % M 

Yield Ultiamtq Stress Stress = 664.1 MPa --397.1 MPa 

eqn: y = ax, R:33.1, maxldev:70.3t Sa=l1839 . . . . / 

0 5 10 15 20 2f 

True Strain - % 

Figure 4.11 Material Property Fit at Test Location 9 

Location 10 - SGV 480 - 28 mm 

y__+1______ +384, max dev:1$1 '.5, r2=-O.934

0 

800

Ca 

CO 

0C 

I--

600 

400 

200

0

Jltimate Strain = 16.6 % 

Pltiamte Stress = 649.6 MPa 

Yleld Stress = 387.5 MPa 

eqn: y R:0.7, max dev:7 ,8 a=17.75I

0
Location 11 - SGV 490 - 9 mm

800

Figure 4.13

5 10

True Strain - % 

Mater Property Fit at Test Location 1I 

Location 12 - SGV 490 - 17.5 mm

0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 4.14

.True Strain - % 

Material Property Fit at Test Location 12

E-19

600 

400

03 Ca, 

CO) 

02 

I200 

0

0 15

800

Ca C' 

CO 

IC 

I.-

600 

400 

200

0
25.0 

20.0 

E 

E 

15.0

:• 10.0

LC) 

Cf) 

5.0

0.0

E E 

CL 

N 

IC 

0 

:C 

CO,

0.7 

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0

I................. .......... ................... L .. ......

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 

Pressure - MPa 

Figure 4.15 Vertical Displacement at Apex of Top Head

9

0.0

.. . ....... ...... ..... . . . . . . . . ........... 

. .. ........... .... ........... ...... 

. .... .............. ............... 

. ......................:

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 

Pressure - MPa 

Figure 4.16 Horizontal Displacement at 8c = 450 and Zo= 3.5 m 

F-20

1:

i.0 

.0 6

6
25.0

20.0 . 

E 

15.0 . .. ..................... ...........- ................. i.......... ..... "..... ......... ... i................. 0 15.0 . .. . . 

CO 

o 0.0 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 

Pressure - MPa 

FigRge 4.17 Horizontal Displacement at o =00 and 7_o = 3.32 m 

20.0 : : 

1E. 15.0. . .................. ........... . ................. . .......... ..... ........ 

E 

Co 10.0.................. ................. ............ .. ........... 

. . . Co) 

S5.0 ................ "i .............. 

0.0 .... 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 

Pressure - MPa 

Figure 4.18 Vertical Displacement at O0 =00 and Z0 = 3.32 m

E-21
I 1.0 I 2.0 i 3.0 4.0 5.0

Pressure - MPa 

Figure 4.19 Horizontal Displacement at Center of Equipment Hatch Cover

Pressure -

Pressure - MPa 

Figure 4.20 Maximum Principal Strain at OH = 67.50 and RH = 0.36 m 

E-22

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

25.0 

20.0-

E E 

N 

I= 

0) 

CO,

15.0

10.0-

5.0-

U.U -I.

0.0

0.05 

0.04 -

CO 

0-C 1.= 

0.03 

0.02-

6.0

6.0

0.01 

0.00

0.0

II

.. .... .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .1. - . . .. o.. . . . . . . 11 ..- 01

..................... .......... ...................... ................... 

.................... 

................................... ....... ................ .................. 

................. ................. .......... ......................... .................
0.04

I I I I 

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 

Pressure - MPa 

Fig=re 4.21 Maximum Principal Srain at OH = 450 and RH = 0.36 m

................. i................. .................. ................. i ............... .................

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 

Pressure - MPa 

Figure 4.22 Maximum Principal Stram at Apex of Top Head

E-23

0.03-

-F

CL 

x. 

0~j 

WA

0.02 

0.01 -

0.00 -b

0.0

IT 

C0

25.0

20.0 -

I

ft

15.0 

10.0-

5.0-

6.0

6.0

Li !

0.0

0.€T

...... I.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .

I
C) 

.co 

4-. 

Co 

0 0 

0 

w 

00 

U 

w

0.0 

-5.0 

-10.0

-15.0 

-20.0 

-25.0

-30.0

-35.0-

.. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .*I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

# I I I I 

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 

Pressure - MPa 

Figure 4.24 Exterior Meridional Swzain at OT = 2700 and RT = 0.48 m 

B-24

1.0 2.0 3.0 4 i.0 5.0 

Pressure - MPa 

Figure4.23 Exterior Hoop Stain atOr =27O00and RT=0.48 m

0.0

25.0 

20.0 

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0-

6.0

6.0

................. ............... . ................. ..................................... L ................. 

................................... . ............... ................. ................. . ................. 

...................................................... .. ............................... . ................. 

...................................................... ................. ................ . ................. 

.................................... ................. ................................. . ................. 

................................... . ................. ..................................... .... ............

g
1.0 

0.0

-1.0

-2.0

-3.0 -

-4.0-

0.0

I 1 .0 2 2.0 I 3.0 0 4.0, 0 5.0

Pressure - MPa 

Figure 4.25 Exterior Merdional Strain at 0G = 0° and Zo; = 3.47 m

[I-.

1.0-

-1.0-

-2.0 

-3.0 

-4.0

1.0

Figure 4.26

2.0 3.0 4.0

5 5.0

Pressure - MPa 

Exterior Meridional Strain at Oo = 00 and Z7, = 3.32 m

E-25

C? C0

c CO 

,

C=: 

w

i.... .. ......... ...... ......

............................................... I.....*% .............. 

.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

.. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . ... .J. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .

2.1

61 

6.0

C) 0 

CD 

CU 

x 

1It. 

cf)

T

0.0 6.0

I L I 

w

................. ................. .................. ........ ....... .................. ................. 

............... .................. ................. ................. ...... .......... : ................. 

................................... ................. ................................. .. ................. 

.................. .................. ................. ................. ... . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . ............... 

................. .................................... . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. .. .............. ............
U . : 

11 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . o......... ... .... ......... .. ............ ....

ci)

I I I I I 

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 

Pressure - MPa 

lgmr 4.27 Exterior Meidional Strain at Do = 0° and 7.,3 = 2.10 m

10.0

Ci) 5.0

w 

-5.0

-10.0

0.0

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 

.. . ... .. ... .. ... .... .. ... .. ... . .. .. ... . .. . .. ...... . . ... .. ..

I & I I I 

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 

Pressure - MPa 

Figure 4.28 Exterior Meridional Strain at OG = 00 and Z_< = 1.60 m 

E-26

1. 

n1

................................... . ................. ............. ..................... . ................. 

.........

.......

iiiii .....

iiiiiiiiiiii ....

......................... .......... .......... .......

-1.0

-2.0 -

0.0

"C) 0

15.41-.

6.0

q.

6.0

I!,

| I I ! I

A

A

V
0.025 

0.020 -

1.0 

Figure 4.29

I 

1.0 

Figu~re 4.30

I I 1 1 

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 

SPressure - MPa 

Exterior Hoop Strain at OG = 450 and Z: = 2.49 m

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 

Pressure - MPa 

Interior Hoop Stain at OG = 450 and Z7 = 2.49 m 

E-27

C 

I.. 

co 

CL 

0 0 

w 

Cf)

0.015

0.010 -

0.0

0.(

0.020 -

CL eNt 

0 

CJ

0.015

0.010 -

6.0

6.0

0.005 

0.000.

0.0

-..--.-...---.-...-................-................... ................. ................. ................. 

.... .... .... ..... .... .... . .. .... .... .... .... .... . .. .. . ............... ...............

................... a.......... ........ ........... ......... a ........ 

............................................... ............. a 

...................................................................

f••IN

u•

0.0051-
0.025 

0.020 -. † † † † 

C 

CO 0.015

0. 

0 

N 

0.005 

0.000 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 

Pressure - MPa 

Figu 4.31 Exterior Hoop Strain at 9o = 45 and Zo= 1.45 m 

0.025 

0.020

C 1._ 

)O 0.015 -............................. 

-r 0. 0 

C 0.010... ......................... ......... ..... ............... 

C~j 

0.005 ... ......................... ......... .... ......I. ....... 

0.000 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 

Pressure - MPa 

Figure 4.32 Interior Hoop Strain at 0o = 450 and Za = 1.45 m 

E-28

I !
W £StI = OZ PUB 0OLZ = 09 UM!S dOOH -ou~guI VC, SH 

BdY - aJnssOJd 

0-9 O"s 0"' 0"T 03 0"3 0"0

I

W6EZO = OZ Pug oOLZ = WuSdOOH 00 •m•9 -mo.mu SE'm t 2mnM 

edil - OJrlss9Jd

0,0

%vv v 

- 'd•00"0 

cJo 

o w 

0 0 

-o 

-9L00 Cl) 

oi

- 030"0

1

.......... ...... ........ ........... . ... ................. I. . ... . 

.. ..... ........ ..... ...... .... .. .... .. .... ...... .. . . .. . . . . 

.. . .. . ... .. .. . .. ... ... . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . ... .. . .. .

0"9 0"9 

I

0' &

I I a

0"p I

................. . ....................... ........... ................. . ................................... 

.................. ................. ................. . ....... 

................. . ............. ..................... ................. . ................................... 

................. . .......... ........................ ................. . ......................................

- 0000"0 

- 300"0 

CO 

9L00"0 0o 

"0 

0O 

- S'I.0"0
Figure 4.35 Contact Configuration at 4.4 MPa Internal Pressure

E-30

I
Figure 4.36 Contact Configuration at 4.6 MPa Internal Pressure

E-31
Figure 4.37 Contact Configuration at 4.8 MPa Intmnal Pressure 

E-32
Figure 4.38 Contact Configuration at 5.0 MPa Internal Pressure

E-33
Figure 4.39 Contact Configuration at 5.2 MPa Internal Pressure 

E-34
Figure 4.40 Contact Configuration at 5.4 MPa Internal Pressure

E-35
Appendix E-2

Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell Ambienti 

Italy

E-37
PRE-TEST VESSEL ANALYSIS 

(In absence of the Contact Structure) 

Giuseppe Maresca - Giovanni Pino 

ANPA 

Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell'Ambiente 

Via Brancati 48 - 00144 Rome - ITALY 

-July 96-

E-39
INTRODUCTION

Elastic-plastic computations have been performed on a 3-D shell model, representing a quarter of the 

vessel. To this purpose the MARC computer code has been used. This code allows for finite element 

modelling of shell structures. The element type 75 (thick shell) of the MARC library has been 

chosen. This is a four nodes element with a bilinear shape function formulation. Contact problems 

have been managed using the contact option of the MARC code. 

Prototypic structure is the BWR vessel. The design pressure is 0.31 Mpa. Thickness is reproduced 

according to a scale 1:4 while the scale 1:10 helds for the overall geometry. 

VESSEL GEOMETRY 

The geometry of the vessel under analysis is defined by the vessel outline provided in tab. 1. In the 

table the location of each relevant point on a meridian of the vessel inner surface is reported. 

Location on the outer surface are also determined taking into account the local thickness. Note that 

in the modelling only the inner surface has been considered to locate the shell elements, the outer 

surface being defined by the shell thickness. When available data were redundant to completely 

define the geometry only a selected set of independent data has been considered, being the other data 

obtained by geometric conditions. This is to assure congruence between data and geometric 

assumptions. By this reason small discrepancies whith the provided data can arise. 

Stiffeners data are reported in Tab.2. A negative value for the stiffener wideness means it is internal 

with respect to the vessel surface. 

All the shell elements of the model have been distributed in dierent sets which differ with regard to 

the shell thickness or to the material data. In Tab. 3 the extension of each set is reported together 

with the corresponding thickness and material identification number. 

Two views of the model are shown in Figs. I and 2. 

E-40

1;
TAB. I 

VESSEL OUTLINE 

(Reference: July 10, 95 -Fig- 1) _ _ _ _ __ 

Item Lacation X (mn) Ro Ri 

Origin A 0.000 1.4670 1.4290 

Bottom Head-Lower CYdrical Shcll Tmnson B 0.250 1.4590 1.4500 

lower Cylindrical -Awer Conical Shell Transition C 0.750 1.4590 1.4500 

First Lower Stiffener D1 0.816 1.4444 1.4352 

""Dm 0.822 1.4430 1.4338 

"" D2 0.823 1.4417 1.4325 

Secnd Lower Stiffener El 0.916 1.4219 1.4127 

" Em 0.921 1.4208 1.4116 

""E2 0.926 1.4197 1.4105 

Material Change Interface F 1.579 1.2731 1.2639 

Middle Stiffener G1 2.070 1.1623 1.1536 

""Gm 2.0795 1.602 1.1515 

"" (2 2.089 1.1580 1.1493 

Weld Line at 2.275 m H 2.275 1.1163 1.1076 

Weld Line at 2.694 m - Conical to Sherical Transition I 2.694 1.0212 1.0135 

Upper Stiffener J1 2.884 

"_Jm 2.8935 

"_J2 2.903 

Sherical Shell- Knuckle Transition K 3.359 0.5246 

Knuckle -Upper Cylindrical Shell Transition L 3.432 0.4885 0.4825 

Top Flange MI 3.512 0.4835 0.4825 

" Mm 3.522 0.4895 0.4825 

"" M2 3.532 0.4895 0.4825 

Upper Cy-indrical Shell - Top Head Transition N 3.746 0.4895 0.4825 

Cuvatu eChange 0 3.892 0.3963 

Top Head ApeI P 3.994 0.0

Spherical Shell Geometry

1. (sphere) 

XOI=2.461 

XEI=2.694 

XE2=3.359 

2. (knucke) 

X02=3.432 

XEI=3.359 

XE2= 3A32

YOI=0 ; R=1.040 

; YEI=1.0135 

YE2=0.5246 

Y02=0.567 ; R=0.0849 

YE1O0.5246 

YE2=0.4825

3. (torospherical head) 

X03-3.746 ;Y03=0.3158 ; R-0.1667 

XE1=3.746 ; YEI=0.4825 

XE23.892 ; YE2=0.3963 

X04-3.173 ; Y04= 0 ; R=0.8207 

XEI=3.892 ; YEI10.3963 

XE2=3.994 ; YE2=0

E-41
Equipment Hatch Sleeve Geometry

axis level=l.633 (corresponding inner radius=l.2517) 

inner radius=0. 180 ; outer radius 0.200 

plate radius- 0.332

TAB. 2 

Stiffeners data 

Stiffener Wideness Location Thickness Level 

(M) (M) (M) 

STIFFI -0.090 Dm 0.0125 0.822 

STIFF2 -0.020 Em 0.095 0.921 

STJFF3 -0.0613 Gm 0.019 2.0795 

STIFF4 -0.0562 Jm 0.019 2.8935 

STIFFSA +0.0175 Mm 0.020 3.522 

STIFF5B -0.0415 Mm 0.020 " 

TAB. 3 

Shell thickness and related material 

Zone From To Thickness Material 

1 A B 0.038 12 

2 B C 0.009 11 

3 C Dm 0.009 11 

4 Dm Em 0.009 11 

5 Em F 0.009 11 

6 F Gm 0.0085 5 

7 Gm H 0.0085 5 

a H I 0.0075 3 

9 I Jm 0.008 4 

10 Jm K 0.008 4 

11 K L 0.0165 10 

12 L Mm 0.006 1 

13 Mm N 0.006 1 

14 N 0 0.006 2 

15 O P 0.006 2 

Plate 0.0175 12 

Hatch 0.020 9 

Stiffi DM Dm 0.0125 7 

Stili Em .M 0.0095 6 

Stiff3 Gin Gm 0.019 8 

Stiff4 _ m Jm 0.019 S 

Stiff5 Mm Mm 0.020 9

E-42

1!
23 OTT '% 09:M2 WFA-DISPI-;r 05-5007204 PA4

a qAssumed Material Curve 

SA-S1IGrazde-70

- q - -

7II7IL-VY

MAP - -

0.00 0.2 0.40 03.60 0.8 

LoVa'irn* P~astc Strain

1.00 1.20 1.40

b Assumed Material Curve 

SA-537 Chass 2

Wocaitrlic Plpsý Stain

-Material da= assued in the analyss. The true stress versus the Iogafiftnmic plastic S~in is 

repored. Cuves beginatthe yield stress. z) SA-5 16 Grade 70 - b) SA-S37 Class2.

E-43

dfifI%

I

I-e
MATERIAL DATA

Material data as provided by SNL have been treated to obtain data suitable for MARC code 

application. 

Plastic analysis is performed by the code according to the Prandtl-Reuss model of incremental 

plasticity and a true stress-natural plastic strain curve is required to define the material behaviour in 

the plastic range. 

Test data have been provided by SNL for twelve different locations. For each location four tensile 

tests have been performed, two for the roll direction of the shell and two for the transverse direction. 

The steps of the data treatment are listed below. 

1. To each quadruple of data a yield stress has been associated as the average of the experimental 

(lower) yield stresses. 

2. From each single true stress-true (total)strain curve a true stress-true plastic strain curve has been 

obtained by subtracting the term *(c)/E from the total strain. 

3. By interpolation data on each single curve have been computed for a same set of strains 

4. For each location an average curve has been obtained by averaging the stress values related to the 

same natural plastic strain. 

The above steps provide suitable curves up to the ultimate stress. After this point necking occurs and 

strains are no more uniform in the specimen. Experimental strains provided by test reports are 

averaged on the initial gauge lenght of the specimen. Obviously a local stress-strain correlation needs 

to perform accurate plastic calculations in the post necking region. To obtain this it has been 

assumed, according to Mc Gregor and Davidenkov, that a linear relation exists between the average 

stress and the local natural strain in the after-necking region. Therefore, from the knowledge of the 

average stress at rupture local data can be computed inside the necked region. This can be made 

using the Bridgmann formula. However, to this purpose, a value of the curvature radius at the neck 

must be provided. This value should be obtained from the experimental tests. More precisely a 

complete characterization of the material behaviour in the after necking region would require an 

experimental diagram relating the curvature in the neck to the area reduction as it increases from the 

beginning of the instability to the rupture. In the absence of experimental data an hypothesis on the 

shape of the neck must be made. In the present analysis proportionality between the curvature radius 

at the neck and the local natural strain has been assumed. The curvature radius has been assumed to 

be zero at the beginning of the necking phase. At rupture a value of 0.75 for the ratio between the 

curvature radius and the reduced radius of the specimen because of neck has been assumed, on the 

basis of experimental data on carbon steel available at ANPA. 

In any case the postnecking region of the material behaviour cannot be reached in the present 

analysis because of the primary load nature of pressure. In fact plastic instability should occur under 

increasing pressure at a strain value lesser-than the maximum uniform strain. 

See page 5a for assumed material curves for SA-516 and SA-537. 

FAILURE 

Two modes of failure have been considered. The first one is plastic instability which can be reached 

locally as soon as an increase in pressure cannot be balanced any more increasing the strain. This 

condition appears in the computation as a numerical instability stopping the calculation. 

The second one is local ductility reduction because of triaxiality effects and it can be relevant in the 

neighborough of penetrations and stiffeners. This is considered computing the ductility reduction 

according to the formula: 

E-44
, 2 (I-7D) 

with 

ri.=equivalent strain 

e,•elongation at rupture by the uniaxial test 

and 

TFD= /i ( + 2 + C73 ) 

(CI a- 02) -I(C2 - 1)2 + (F3 ) 

The shell elements used in the model are based on a plane stress formulation and therefore they are 

not suitable to provide local triaxiality factors. However an approximate evaluation can be 

performed. If a triaxial condition exists deviatoric stresses and plastic strains are reduced. 

Supposing to have an imposed total strain in the direction normal to the shell surface and given 

stresses in the shell plane, the local out of plane strress can be determined according to the Prandtl

Reuss model. 

Finally it must be observed that buckling at the torospherical head is also possible. If buckling occurs 

local rupture by bending stress in the meridional direction can follow. To take into account this latest 

possibility the buckling load for the torospherical head has been computed according to the Galletly 

simplified formula: 

P. = 260pof c.( .(j 

The computation provides a buckling pressure of 10.87 MWa.

E-45
SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS 

Some evaluations have been performed by'simplified analysis to provide a first picture of the results 

to be expected. 

First of all the pressure corresponding to the contact between the vessel and the CS structure has 

been evaluated . A pressure equal to 3.5 MPa has been obtained. This pressure is below the limit 

values obtained from the analysis of the vessel in the absence of the CS structure. Therefore no 

rupture should occur before the contact. After the contact stress redistribution occurs. As a possible 

mode of failure local bending near changes in thickness has been considered. For example the 

reinforcement plate around the hatch has a thickness of 0.0175 m while the surrounding shell at the 

same level has a thickness of 0.008 m. As the plate touches the CS structure the surrounding shell 

remains at 0.0095 m from the CS. Increasing the pressure also the surrounding shell goes into 

contact but locally, near the thickness change a bending occurs. To evaluate this effect the following 

formulas have been used: 

12.P 

E, E,.i3 .h 

(4E- 2"E,""" + 

12.P.12 

12. P -, 

h°1+-E, 

h-=-• 

At a pressure of 4 Mpa, which is beyond the value related to the first contact with the CS the 

following data are obtained: 

1= 0.068m 

As* ffi118-10-4 

showing that the considered effect is negligible. 

E-46

1!
RESULTS 

Plastic deformations, total strains and displacements at the required locations are reported in figs. 3

23. 

Note that only plastic strains are reported. So they are zero in each location untill yielding occurs. 

Conventional time is reported on the abscissa. To get the corresponding pressure value in MPa the 

time value must be multiplied by 0.05. 

The output variables which are reported in the figures can be identified according to the list reported 

below.

plmaxh: 

phnax5: 

eplnhi: 

eplnl2: 

epln51: 

epin52 : 

displacement x: 

displacement y: 

displacement z:

maximum principal strain inside 

maximum principal strain outside 

meridional strain inside 

circumferential strain inside 

meridional srain outside 

circumferential strain outside 

horizzontal displacement (90P direction) (in) 

vertical displacement (in) 

horlizzontal displacement (180- direction) (in)

The correspondence between the nodes which are representative of the required locations and the 

plot identification numbers is reported in Tab. 4.

TAB. 4 

Correspondence betweeen gauge locations, 

reresentative nodes in the model and rres. 

Plot Id. Node Fie. Plot id. Node Fig. Plotdi. Node IFi 

12 1490 9 23 240 14 34 716 18 

13 1258 10 24 240 14 35 1846 19 

14 1258 10 25 128 15 36 1548 20 

15 157 11 26 128 15 37 1258 21 

.16 157 11 27 128 15 38 1258 21 

17 104 12 23 128 15 39 2154 22 

is 104 12 29 1314 16 40 931 23 

19 78 13 30 11314 16 41 831 23 

20 :781 13 31 220 17 42 931 23 

21 240 14 32 220 17 43 831 23 

22 240 14 r3 is1 1 - "

E-47

Fie. 

3 

4 

5 

5 

6 

6 

7 

8 

9

2 94 

3 195 

4 195 

5 942 

6 942 

7 1W4 

& 419 

9 419 

1-i 0 419 

I 141
Note 

When 

that in the absence of the CS the plastic instabity occurs at the pressure 0.05* 121 MPa. the CS is considered this value can be passed because of stress redistribution after contact Limit pressures in the absence of the CS are reported in Tab. 5. 

Tab. 5 

Lnit Pressure M[Pa Failure mode Without CS With CS Plastic instability 6.05 

Local ductility reduction I - Local buckling of the torosvherical head 10.87 10.87 Plastic instab..inthe uper linder' 2) > 6.98 6.98 -> Plastic instabilitn i the lower cylinder > 4.78 > 4.78 

pressure 

I. By dimplified methods a triasdality factor equal to 2.05 has been obtained near the penetration at a 

equal to 0.0023. 

of 3.5 Mpa, 

According 

just before the contact of the vessel with the CS. The local equivalent strain is to the above criterion no rupture because of local ductility should occur before the contact. 2. Plastic instability in these regions has been evaluated by the Cooper's formula for thin cylinders. Therefore the values for the limit pressure are underestimated because of differences between the cylindrical shape and the local deformed shape due to the effect of the stiffeners. 

CONCLUSIONS 

According to the performed analysis no rupture should occur before the contact of ti. the CS. After the contact the value of the limit pressure computed for different modes the absence of the CS could be passed and further analyses are required to evaluate the in this latest case. 

E-48

!t
Fig. I - Vessel Model - x view.

E-49
Fig. 2 - Vessel Model - z view.

E-50

11
I T

Y (X.I)

I.S 

@.S

GAS LSS 

time (xICO)

US

p1maxi , . eptnl2 4 , -1 Inii

E-51

Fi s!. 3 -Plot 1. 

OM1110undinvesse "eI86
c

In I 

IJ4 

S 

'4 

0 

'9 

.1 

-A-a

tr

I N

1. 

I 

I. 

0
Fig. 5 -Plots 3, 4. 

shenliG samdia vessel Node 125

y (71)

1.S 

oJ 

-uA iliii ~iL

OAS 

tiMe (3CICO)

emS

-. pinsi

E-53

1.05
Fig. 6 -Plots 5,6. 

shelfo sancia wsand Node W42

Y (-I)

1.5 

4.5

---- I.

/ _ __ 

- --- - - Y- -

Om5 

Ume(ZI00)

US0

-eplnl2

E-54

1'

1.05
Fig. 7 -Plot 7. 

(Zero plastic strain is obtained because the yielding point is never passed.) 

shaNlO sandia vessel Node 1848 

pknaxS (x.1)

1..5 

0. 

-.03

O.AS

_ iI I~ 

4- - 4--

Ume (jrtO)

E-55

1.05
y (X-I)

Ij

US US US 

timt (XIOG)

-epImI2 

-- epInSI

epIMI

E-56

8 - Plots 8, 9,10. 

shemsandlave" Nod*419
4 

I 

5. a 

S- -- 3 ------------------------- H: 

5 

----

-------- I. 

liii 111111

0 

0 

l.a 

l.a 

rn-i 

IJ

t1

-J e 

14 a

.A

bi
Fig. 10 -Plots 13, 14. 

shW~lD sandia vesse Nod* 12S8

Y (X-I)

0.5 

u.

US0 ASS 

Urn. (IOOC)

-epInSI

E-58

1.05
l L--t

eq

on 0

A V1 U

I.

II Ut 

9'
Fig. 12 - Plots 17, 18. 

sheMiO sadia vende Nod* 104

y C30)

I-S

Om0 0.55 

time (1100)

-epInlI

E-60

11

1.05
& 

be

.3

'UI

171 

L71

'if 

C 0

E

.4 '4 beF a

I4 

IA 

0 

-4 

hO 

1%) 0

C 

be

U I. 

U 

C 

U! 

I 

z U
Ii 

1 

I

t6 to

tp1 

z%

I 

a 

12 

I.

.1 8

0 

g.J 

a.
Fig. 15 -Plots 25, 26, 27, 28. 

&W"~fO mm"di vesaal Mode in8

Y(YLI)

0.AS

I- -7Z

am5 

UMtiae(10)

-epb51 .- _p~nS2

E-63

1.5 

0.5 

40.5

1.05
Fig. 16.- Plots 29, 30. 

shellS sandievessel Mod* 1314

Y (Li)

1.5

OAS em5 

tine CulOO)

-ephill I .-c"f11

E-64

1.05

fl;
Fig. 17 -Plots 31, 32.

sheMlO sandin vowsel Noade 220

Y(7-I)

1.5 

0.5 

.0.5

0.05 0.55 

time (zIGO)

-plnl2

E-65

1.05
Fig. 18- Plots 33, 34. 

shefflDsandi vessel Node718

Y OLV)

1A8

9 0.0 0.m 

time (1100)

-Wp1u12

E-66

1!

I I 

1.05
Fig. 19 -Plot 35.

sheflO sandis vaeese No&e is"

Displacements y 13r.0)

- -- - 

- - -I- - - -

- - - ---- 1-----

am6 

VaMS (RloO) 

E-67

am0 1.05

I
Fig. 20 - Plot 36. 

sIsMO sarmfia vessel Nocl. IS"

Y (x.01)

0.0 

- Displacements x

0.55 .0 

*ns (z100) 

4-. isplaceamefs a

E-68
Fig. 21 - Plots 37, 38. 

ShefIlO sandia vessel Node 12S8

Y (x..o)

-- If

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

//

0.05

-Displacemens y

U.S5 

lime (1000) 

-. isplacements z

105

Dispa---nts

E-69

2.5 

1.0

I I
0

N 

I 

VI 

0 

a 

.9

-C 

.4

j. 

qQ 

.4 

0 

I w 
Ii 

- I4 

5..1 13

& 

hi

c

r 3 

I 

I

.8 .4 hi?

fiq 

a 

Vt 

A 

C 

A 

-a 

A 

"a 

A La

171 

-J

U 

& 

S. 

I I
PRE-TEST VESSEL ANALYSIS 

(Contact Structure Included) 

Giuseppe Maresca - Giovanni Pino 

ANPA 

Agenzia Nazionale per [a Protezione delr'Ambiente 

Via Brancati 48 - 00144 Rome - ITALY 

-August 96

E-72

!i
INTRODUCTION

A 3-D analysis of the Vessel to be tested, but with no Contact Structure (CS) is reported in (1). In 

the present note the same model is considered but the CS is now represented. To this purpose the 

contact option of the MARC code has been used. The CS has been simulated by a set of rigid 

surfaces, limiting the displacements of the Vessel shell. In the model the CS structure is axisymmetric 

but the axis of simmetry has been displaced with respect to the Vessel axis in order to make the 

related gaps partially consistent with the measured data. A maximum pressure of 10 MPa has been 

reached in the calculation. 

VESSEL GEOMETRY AND MATERIAL DATA 

The geometry of the vessel under analysis is the same defined in (1). As far as it concerns material 

data they are also reported, for the vessel in (1). 

CONTACT SURFACE 

The CS structure has been introduced in the model as a rigid surface which limits the deformation of 

the vessel shell. A tronco-conic surface, defined by the data fisted below, has been considered. 

Level of the upper base: 2.6972 m 

Upper base radius: 1.0729 m 

Level of the lower base: 0.2245 m (0.7000 m in the model to limit the contact controls) 

Lower base radius: 1.6193 m (1.5142 m in the model to limit the contact controls) 

A spherical surface has also been added, in order to represent the upper region of the CS. Data 

defining this region are listed below. 

Level of the center of the sphere: 2.4601 m 

Level of the starting point on the surface: 2.6972 in 

Radius of the starting point on the surface: 1.0729 

Level of the ending point on the surface: 3.4260 in 

Radius of the ending point on the surafce: 0.5239 mi 

Finally the vertical axis of the CS has been displaced, towards the 1800 direction, by 0.02468 m with 

respect to the vertical axis of the vessel, to get a gap of 0.02939 m at the location 9 as measured. 

Contact controls have not been applied on the hatch nodes and on the vessel nodes located under the 

hatch. This to the purpose of simulating the opening in the CS. 

FAILURE CRITERI 

The same failure criteria as in (1) have been considered. Because of the Contact Structure the 

occurrence of the the plastic instability is displaced towards an higher pressure. Really the analysis 

has been performed up to a maximum pressure of 10 MNa with no appearance of plastic instability.

E-73
As far as it concerns local ductility reduction because of triaxiality effects only some rough 

extimation have been performed. They do not indicate any local rupture before 10 Mpa. However a 

more detailed analysis regarding this failure mode is now in progress. 

As reported in (1) buckling of the torospherical head is expected at 10.87 MPa. 

RESULTS 

Plastic deformations, total strains and displacements at the required locations are reported in figs. 3

23. 

Note that only plastic strains are reported. So they are zero in each location untill yielding occurs. 

Conventional time is reported on the abscissa. To get the corresponding pressure value in MPa the 

time value must be multiplied by 0.05. 

The output variables which are reported in the figures can be identified according to the list reported 

below.

plmaxl: 

plmax5: 

epln 11: 

eplnl2: 

epn51:• 

epln52: 

displacement x: 

displacement y: 

displacement z:

maximum principal strain inside 

maximum principal strain outside 

meridional strain inside 

circumferential strain inside 

meridional strain outside 

circumferential strain outside 

horizzontal displacement (90* direction) (M) 

vertical displacement (M) 

horizzontal displacement (1800 direction) (m)

The correspondence between the nodes which are representative of the required locations and the 

plot identification numbers is reported in Tab. 1. 

TAB. I 

Correspondence betweeen gauge locations, 

representative nodes in the model and fi 

PlotI Node R g lId. Node g Plot Id. Node Fi Plot Id. Nd I -F. 

1 186 3 12 1490 9 23 240 14 34 716 18 

2 948 4 13 1258 10 24 240 14 35 1846 19 

3 195 5 14 1258 10 25 128 15 36 1548 20 

4 195 5 15 157 11 26 128 15 37 1258 21 

5 942 6 16 157 11 27 128 15 38 1258 21 

6 942 6 17 104 12 28 128 15 39 2154 22 

7 1846 7 18 104 12 29 1314 16 40 831 23 

8 419 8 19 78 13 30 1314 16 41 831 23 

9 419 8 20 78 13 31 220 17 42 831 23 

10 419 8 21 240 14 32 220 17 43 831 23 

11 1490 9 22 240 14 33 716 18 - - -

E-74

1!
Note that in the absence of the CS the plastic instability occurs at the pressure 0.05* 121 MPa. 

When the CS is considered this value can be passed because of stress redistribution after contact. 

Limit pressures in the absence of the CS as well as in the case of CS included are reported in Tab. 2. 

Tab. 2 

Limit Pressure MPa 

Failure mode Without CS With CS 

Plastic instability 6.05 >10 

Local ductility reduction () 0) 

Local buckling of the torospherical head 10.87 10.87 

Plastic instability in the upper cylinder(2) > 6.98 > 6.98 

Plastic instability in the lower cylinder • > 4.78 > 4.78 

Notes: 

1. By simplified methods a triaxiality factor equal to 2.05 has been obtained near the penetration at a 

pressure of 3.5 Mpa, just before the contact of the vessel with the CS. The local equivalent strain is 

equal to 0.0023. According to the above criterion no rupture because of local ductility should occur 

before the contact. 

2. Plastic instability in these regions has been evaluated by the Cooper's formula for thin cylinders. 

Therefore the values for the limit pressure are underestimated because of differences between the 

cylindrical shape and the local deformed shape due to the effect of the stiffeners. 

3. Triaxiality effects are comparable with the CS missing case. 

CONCLUSIONS 

In the present analysis a maximum pressure of 10 MPa has been reached without any occurrence of 

plastic instability. This result should be compared with the plastic instability pressure of 6.05 MPa 

obtained in absence of the Contact Structure. Anyway, buckling of the torospherical head is expected 

at a pressure of 10.87 MPa. Triaxiality effects have also been considered in a simplified manner. No 

rupture according to this mode of failure has been found up to the maximum pressure of 10 MPa. 

However the performed anlysis is thought to be not sufficient to provide a reliable result with respect 

to this latest mode of failure. 

1. Giuseppe Maresca, Giovanni Pino "Pre-Test Vessel Analysis (In absence of the Contact 

Structure)" . ANPA document, July 96.

E-75
Fig. 1 - CS Model.

E-76

11
Fig. 2 - Vessel and CS together.

Itv?

E-77
Fig. 3-°Ploti1. 

I 

I I 

a 

I ' I 

=- I 

E-78

II
Fig. 4 - Plot2. 

I 

S1 

t 

, I

I .

!I

E-79
Fig. 5 - Plots 3, 4.

-

i - - -

---- --- ---- --- ---- --

I __ __ 

-- - -- - -- - _ _ 

i Ii I ;-

'a

E-80

a'a 

I 

S 

I 

I

;;

I 

i

Eq

d .J ; = 

0
zr_--, 

II 

181..'11,0 40 o 

I -4
Fig. 7 - Plot 7.

eq a

E-82

0 

3 

I 

I 

2 

4 I 

a I

'- U

I 

d

'a

1!7
Fig. 8 - Plots 8, 9,10. 

4C4 

1*1 

- -. - • 

- - - -~ - - - -

E-83
Fig. 9-Plots 11, 12.

-4-

; I 

I.__ 

---- 1 - - -- I 

---------

- ----------

9

&-84

a 

I 

I 

I 

I

i@ 1 N 

I

I 

4

.!. 'q

I!

2 ,
Fig. 10- Plots 13, 14. 

I\4 

I 

- -A 

| 1 

GI 

* IE-85
Fig. 11- Plots 15, 16.

I-

__. 

I! 

4 

I __ 

-f / - \I

N4

M 

I 

I 

g 

dl

Sn 

a

E-86

InI. 

I 

.3 I 

S I 

= *1

Ifl
Fig. 12 - Plots 17, 18.

/! 

I 

....................- * 

I 1 

---- 1--

- - I-i

E-87

C 

*1 

z 1 

6 

C 

I a

., C V. X I 

£ 

2 

I 

.4 



C £ 

a.
Fig. 13 -Plots 19, 20.

---- --- --- ---- --- ---- --

---- ---- --- ---- -- I -- -- - - - - ~ 1

qa

E-88

;i

II

q•

9
Fig. 14 - Plots 21, 22, 23, 24.

I!Ii 

* ! 

z - -

E-89
Fig. 15 - Plots 25, 26, 27, 28. 

E-90 

EI9i

1!

Fig. 17 - Plots 31, 32.

ii

1\ I. 

I riFl

-4 1- 1 I- . I-

-g, C - x 

I

1q a

E-92

I1

I 

I

I

I
Fig. 18 - Plots 33, 34.

E-93
Fig. 19- Plot 35. 

8 _ 

=- U 

\. I\ 

.1 \ \ 

aI' 

E-94-
Fig. 20 - Plot 36.

E-95
Fig. 21 Plots 37, 38.

------------------------------------------ I 

- - - - - - - - - -................ I 

- -- -- h "i -------------------- I--------------------------I 

I I 

- -- i-i -------------- I

U 8 

2 

I 

*1 j 

i 

a 

a

a

E-96

- -I

N 

I 

I 

a

N

'N 

I 

I 

I

a

I1)
Fig. 22 - Plot 39.

E-97

I
Fig. 23 - Plots 40, 41, 42, 43.

3

E-98
Appendix E-3.1

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre 

India

E-99
PRETEST ANALYSIS REPORT FOR STEEL CONTAINMENT.VESSEL 

ROUND ROBIN EXERCISE 

SURESH KRISHNAN, VIVEK BHASIN, H.S. KUSHWAHA 

REACTOR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT GROUP 

BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE 

TROMBAY, BOMBAY-400 085 

INDIA 

Introduction 

Analytical studies of Steel Containment Vessel (SCV) model, were done 

as a part of Round Robin Analysis Activity for the Cooperative .Containment 

Model Programme. This programme is being coordinated by Sandia National 

Laboratories (SNL), [1]. This cooperative programme involves analytical studies 

followed by experimental studies (to be done by SNL) on SCV model. This is a 

pretest analysis report. 

The SCV model is scaled from a prototype BWR Mark-Il containment, [1] & [2]. The SCV model is fabricated by welding rolled steel plates of different 

thickness. The model has equipment hatch opening with thickened 

reinforcement plate. The SCV model consists of different sections and has 

several stiffeners. In this report the different sections will be referred to as "spherical shell", "upper conical shell", "lower conical shell", "knuckle", 'top 

head", 'lop head knuckle" etc. The complete outline of the model along with the 

names of different sections and stiffeners is shown in Fig. 1. 

The SCV model is coaxially located within the Contact Structure (CS) 

fabricated out of 38 mm thick steel plate. The CS extends upto the knuckle 

region of SCV model. Except in the lower cylindrical shell region, the gap 

between the SCV and CS is almost constant 

The SCV model is made up of two materials. The upper portion is made 

up of SGV-480 (SA-516 Grade 70 steel) while the lower portion of SPV-490 

(SA-537 Class 2 steel). The CS is made up of SA516-70 steel, [1]. 

The SCV model was subjected to increasing internal pressure. The 

analysis was done using Finite Element Method (FEM). Two different models 

namely, 3-Dimensional (3D) Shell. Model and Axisymmetric Model were 

employed. The results, discussed in this report and submitted in the form of 

plots, pertain to axisymmetric model only. Finite element computer code 

"ABAQUS" Ver. 5.3, [3], was used for the analysis.

E-1I1
A1.0 Finite Element Model

degree) Initially it was planned to analyse a 3D half symmetric (180 finite element model of the SCV along with the CS. Some preliminary studies were done using this model.. The results showed that the deflection pattern, stress & strain distribution ji. axisymmetric about the vertical axis, except in the region around the equipment hatch opening. 

axisymmetric 

This 

model 

observation led to the conclusion that in a gross sense, an will correctly predict, the deformation of the SCV and its contact pattern, except in the region near hatch opening. 

Both 3D shell and axisymmetric models are described in the following sections. The models are as per the original dimensions given in SCV design package, [1]. The as measured dimensions given in reference [2], have not been used for the analysis. 

1.1 Axisymmetric Model 

SCV and CS were •rodelled using 8 noded axisymmetric solid elements with reduced integration option (uCAX8R" elements of ABAQUS, [3]). The 

monitoring 

gap between them was maintained as per the design drawings, [1]. The gap and post contact behaviour was modelled using 3-Noded axisymmetric interface contact elements ("ISL22A" of ABAQUS). 

All the sections of SCV and the corresponding thickness changes at interfaces, have been modelled. The model was fixed at the base. The base of the model is the top flange of the ring support girder. The model is subjected to internal pressure. 

noded 

The stiffeners and the top flange were also modelled using 8 axisymmetric solid elements with reduced integration optioth ("CAX8R"). The model uses 770 "CAX8R" elements in the containment vessel, 20 "CAX8R' elements in the contact structure and 236 "ISL22A" contact elements. The total number of nodes, in F.E. model, are 3159. 

The axisymmetric model is shown in Fig.2 through Fig.4.

E-102
1.2 Shell Model

The 3D half symmetric (180 degree) finite element nrodel of SCV 

is shown in Fig.5 through Fig.7. The model also includes contact structure and 

equipment hatch with its cover. 4 noded shell elements with reduced integration option (designated as "S4R5"), were used to discretize the structure. The gap monitoring and post contact behaviour was modelled using slideline interface 

contact elements (designated as "ISL31A") There are 3744 "S4R5" elements in 

the containment structure, 132 "S4R5" elements in the contact structure and 307 

"ISL31A" contact elements. There are 4007 nodes in F.E. model. 

2.0 Use of NUPEC Tensile Test Data 

The true stress - true strain curves were used in the analysis. One representative stress-strain curve is used in the analysis for each of the two 

materials. For the material SGV-480, the data for specimen RI, given in Table 6 of the design specification, [1], was used. The material stress-strain curve is 

also shown in Fig.8. The specimen. R1, is of thickness of 6 mm. The Top Head 

is not shielded by contact structure and is the least thickness region of SCV. Its 

thickness is 6 mm. This region is likely to fail under large internal pressure. Therefore, the stress-strain material data from this region of SCV, is used to 

represent the material SGV-480. 

For the material SPV 490, the data for specimen R21, given in 

Table 14 of the design specification, [1], was used. The material stress-strain 

curve is also shown in Fig.9. The specimen R21, is 9 mm thick. 

The value of modulus of elasticity (E) used in analysis, is for the roll direction, since the material stress-strain data used, corresponds to the roll 

direction. The E value considered for both the materials, is 216,700 MPa. The 

Poisson's ratio for both the materials is taken as 0.3. 

3.0 Analytical Models 

In this analysis both material and geometric nonlinearity have been 

considered. The von mises isotropic yield criteria is used. The analysis employs 

a large strain, large displacement, updated lagrangian formulation to account 

for the geometric nonlinearity. The applied load adapts itself to shape changes in the structure as the analysis progresses. Reduction in shell thickness, as a 

result of deformation, has been accounted for.

&-103
4.0 Steel Containment Vessel I Contact Structure Interaction

The magnitude of gap between SCV and CS, is taken, as given in the original design drawings, [1]. The interaction between SCV and CS was modelled 

monitored using 3-Noded axisymmetric contact elements. During analysis gap is all along the CS, at each integration point of contact element Some of the details of modelling of these contact elements are listed below. 

(a) When contact occurs, the SCV loads CS and CS intum exerts reaction unto SCV. After contact CS also shares the load. 

(b) The opening of contact is allowed. The contact opens if the reaction 

force on SCV becomes tensile or zero. 

(c) Sliding of SCV on CS is permitted. 

.(d) Coefficient of friction ( p ) is used to characterize the sliding friction effect. The value of p. used, corresponds to static & dry friction conditions. The standard design handbooks, [4] & [5], suggest that for clean steel plates, the value of ip lies between 0.7 and 0.8. Therefore, for this analysis, a mean value of 0.75 was used. 

(e) When any point on SCV comes into contact with CS, then its meridional movement is constrained until it overcomes the frictional resistance. In absence of friction, free sliding is permitted. 

5.0 Analysis Procedure and Results 

The analysis was done by increasing the load in steps with auto load stepping procedure. The maximum load step was 1.5 MPa and the minimum was 0.00015 MPa. The convergence in each load step was set in terms of ratio of the residual force to the average force (= 5.OE-3) and the ratio of displacement correction to the incremental displacement, of that load step (=1.OE-2). 

Two cases were studied. In one of the case, coefficient of friction (pi) was taken as 0.75 and in another case the friction effects were neglected (pt = 0.0). The results of both these cases are submitted. For both the cases the maximum pressure, upto which analysis could proceed was 11.49 MPa. At this pressure, the strain induced in "top head crown" approaches the true ultimate strain of SGV-480 material. 

&-104

I!
pressure 

The detailed results of deflection vis pressure and strain v/s are given in the form of plots, at different locations. These locations are* defined in the SCV design package, [1], in the form of Plot ID numbers. These plots are given in Appendix. Since, submitted results pertain to axisymmetric model only, hence, plots of strain vls load near equipment hatch opening are not included. These plots correspond to Plot ID 1-6 and Plot ID 39. The computer programme yields strain output in global coordinate system. These strains were transformed in local directions, in order to evaluate strain in meridional direction. 

given 

Some of the results are included in this report also. These are in the form of plots. The vertical deflection v/s load, at apex of "top head crown", is shown in Fig. 10, for the cases with and without friction effects. It is observed that the vertical deflection at apex Is not significantly affected by friction. The horizontal deflection v/s load, in the knuckle region of top head ("top head knuckle") is shown in Fig. I1 and Fig.12. These figures are for two different locations in "top head knuckle". The observations from Fig. 11 and Fig.12, are discussed in art.6.0. 

6.0 Potential of Buckling of SCV model In the Head Region. 

which Fig. 11 shows a plot of the horizontal displacement at node no 1646 lies in "top head knuckle". From this figure it is seen that at a pressure of 10.0 MPa reversal of direction of horizontal displacement takes place. Upto this pressure the horizontal displacement is negative (i.e. "top head knuckle" deform inwards). After about 10.0 MPa the deformation suddenly shoots up in positive direction (i.e. 'top head knuckle" starts deforming outwards). This is the clear 

stresses 

indication that the tendency towards buckling exists. Upto 10 MPa pressure the are compressive. However, with the increasing load these stresses becomes tensile. It Is observed, from the graph, that for the same value of horizontal displacement there are two different values of internal pressure. Similar behaviour is noticed in Fig.12, for node 1654. This node also lies in 'top head knuckle". 

7.0 Effect of Friction on the Interaction of SCV and CS 

The presence of friction forces (or surface tractions) along contact interface, affects the post contact interaction of SCV and CS. This effect was studied based on the results of analyses done for p = 0.75 and ;. = 0.0. The important observations at each Plot ID location are listed below. For reference, see plots of strain v/s pressure and deflection v/s pressure, at these locations.

E-lOS
For Plot ID 8,9,10 the strains for the two cases (with friction and without friction) match with each other. This is true for meridional and hoop strain. 

For Plot ID 11,12 the strains, with friction, are higher than the strains without friction. 

For Plot ID 13, the maximum positive strain, in the case of friction, Is about 5 times that without friction. Also, the negative strain with friction (at maximum load) is about 2 times that without friction. 

For Plot ID 14, the strain v/s pressure behaviour, with and without friction, is quite different 

For Plot ID 15,16,17,18 strains, with friction, are lower than the strains without friction case. 

For Plot ID 19,20, the strain v/s pressure behaviour, with and without friction, is quite different 

For Plot ID 21,22 meridional strains are considerably lower with friction than the meridional strains without friction. 

For Plot ID 23,24 hoop strains, with friction, are slightly lower than the hoop strains without friction. 

For Plot ID 25,26 meridional strains, with and without friction, match with each other upto a pressure of 5.0 MPa. At higher pressure the strains with friction are lower. 

For Plot ID 27,28 hoop strains, with friction, are slightly lower than the hoop strain without friction. 

For Plot I) 29,30 meridional strains, with friction, are slightly higher than the meridional strains without friction. 

For Plot ID 33 meridional strains, with friction, are higher than the meridional strains without friction. 

For Plot ID 34 hoop strains, with friction, are slightly lower than the hoop strain without friction. 

For Plot ID 36, the displacements with and without friction are almost matching. 

E-106

11
For Plot ID 37, horizontal displacements, with friction, are slightly lower. 

For Plot ID 38, after about a pressure of 6 MPa, the vertical displacements, with friction, are much higher. 

contact 

The 

structure 

presence of friction increases the constraint of the structure. The 

presence 

restricts the movement of SCV in normal direction. The of friction restricts the movement 

extent in meridional directiorn also, to the 

contact. 

that 

The 

meridional force is unable to overcome the frictional resistance of the increase in constraint, leads to lower strains in the free field regions. The free field regions are away from discontinuities. Whereas, increase in 

regions 

constraint 

near 

leads to higher strains in the region of discontinuities such as flanges, spherical to knuckle junction etc. Some of the free field regions 

due 

(like mid height of spherical shell) also experience slightly higher strains 

due 

to presence of friction. This could be due to its proximity to discontinuity or to secondary bending caused by localised shape changes after contact. 

crown), 

The 

are 

strains at locations, away from contact structures (like top head not affected significantly, by presence or absence of friction. The load and location, of first yield and first contact are not effected by the presence of 

presence 

friction. The magnitude of maximum pressure is, also, not effected by the of friction. 

8.0 Pressure and Location of FirM.tYield and First Contact 

the intersection 

The first yield 

with 

occurs at a pressure of 1.78 MPa just below the knuckle, at the spherical shell. The material at this location is SGV-480. The first contact occurs at a pressure of 3.42 MPa at the knuckle. 

9.0 Expected Pattern of Contact Propagation 

pressure, 

The expected pattern of contact propagation, with increase in internal 

4.605, 6.480, 

is discussed 

8.400 briefly In Table 1. At internal pressure values of and 11.490 MPa, the contact pattern is also shown in the form of deformed plots (see Fig.13 through Fig.24). Table I pertains to the analysis 

does not 

case in which coefficient of friction was taken as 0.75. Frictional effect cause a major change in the pattern of contact at any given pressure.

E-107
Table I : Expected Contact Propagation with increase in internal pressure 

Internal Pressure Expected Contact Location and propagation (in MPa) 

3.420 contact occurs at knuckle 

3.780 contact initiates in upper conical shell with 7.5 mm 

thickness (just above 2.275 m elevation weld line) 

3.780 to 3.945 the contact zone initiated at 3.78 MPa pressure (i.e. in 

upper conical shell), spreads in upwards direction 

3.990 contact initiates in middle conical shell with 8.5 mm 

thickness (between middle stiffener and material change 

interface) 

4.000 to 4.600 (a) contact zone initiated at 3.78 MPa (in upper conical 

shell), spreads further in upward direction • 

(b) contact zone initiated at 3.99 MPa (in middle conical 

shell), spreads in upwards and downwards direction 

4.605 the deformed plot of SCV and CS, depicting contact 

i pattern, Is shown In Fi•g.13 through Fig.16. 

4.605 to 4.75 contact zones spread further in a manner, as discussed 

for 4.0 to 4.6 MPa pressure 

4.750 to 5.049 (a) contact zone initiated at 3.78 MPa (in upper conical 

shell), spreads further upwards and also starts spreading 

in downwards direction 

(b) contact zone initiated at 3.99 MPa, spreads further in 

upper and lower direction 

5.050 (a) contact initiates in lower conical shell (just near the 

material interface) 

(b) contact zones initiated at 3.78 MPa and 3.99 MPa, 

spread further in upper and lower direction

E-lOS

1!
Table I (Continued): Expected Contact Propagation

5.055 to 6.000 contact zones initiated at 3.78 MPa, 3.99 MPa and 5.050 

MPa, spread further in upper and lower direction 6.105 (a) contact zone Initiates in spherical shell pdrtion (near 

mid-height of spherical portion) 

(b) contact zone initiated at 3.78 MPa, 3.99 MPa and 5.055 MPa, spread further in upper and lower direction 

6.110 to 6.470 (a) contact zone initiated at 6.105 MPa (at mid height of 

spherical shell), spreads in upward direction towards 

knuckle 

(b) contact zones initiated at 3.78 MPa, 3.99 MPa and 5.050 MPa, spread further in upper and lower direction 

6.480 the deformed plot of SCV & CS, depicting contact 

pattern, is shown in Fig.17 through Fig.18. 6.480 to 7.755 (a) contact zone initiated at 3.78 MPa (in upper conical 

shell), spreads further and approaches near upper stiffener and middle stiffener 

(b) contact zone initiated at 3.99 MPa (in middle conical 

shell), spreads further and approaches near middle 

stiffener and material change interface 

(c) contact zone initiated at 5.05 MPa (in lower conical 

shell), spreads further and approaches near lower 

stiffeners and material change interface 

(d) contact zone initiated at 6.105 MPa (at mid height of 

spherical shell), spreads further In upper and lower 

direction 

7.760 to 8.230 (a) the upper one, of the two lower stiffeners, comes into 

contact 

(b) contact zone spreads in between the two lower 

stiffeners 

(c) contact zone initiated at 6.105 MPa (at mid height of 

spherical shell), spreads further in upper and* lower 

I direction 

8.235 contact initiates in lower cylindrical shell Gust below the 

lower stiffeners)

E-109
Table I (continued) :Expected Contact Propagation

10.0 Concluding Remarks 

Finite element nonlinear analyses were done for SCV model subjected to 

internal pressure. The analyses were done for two cases viz. with friction and 

without friction. Based on these studies it was concluded that: 

(1) The top head region, of the SCV, is the critical region. At a pressure of 11.49 

MPa the strain value in crown approaches true ultimate strain. This leads to 

collapse of SCV. The magnitude of this pressure is independent of friction 

effects. 

(2) The region just below the knuckle yield first, at a pressure of 1.78 MPa. The 

first contact occurs at 3.42 MPa, at the knuckle. 

(3) At a pressure of about 10 MPa, there is a sudden change in the deflection 

pattern of "top head knuckle'. Below 10 MPa it deforms inwards, whereas above 

10 MPa it deforms outwards. 

(4) The presence of friction affects the post contact interaction between SCV 

and CS, due to increase in constraint However, the magnitude of maximum 

pressure is not affected.. 

B-110

8.235 to 8.390 (a) contact zone initiated at 6.105 MPa (at mid height of 

spherical shell), spreads further in upper and lower 

direction 

8.400 the deformed plot of SCV & CS, depicting contact 

pattern, Is shown In Fig. 19. 

8.400 to 11.480 (a) most of the portion of spherical shell comes into 

contact 

(b) contact zone initiated at 8.235 MPa (in lower 

cylindrical shell - just below the lower stiffeners), starts 

_spreading downwards 

11.490 (a) the deformed plot of SCV & CS, depicting contact 

pattern, is shown in FIg.20 to Fig.24. 

(b) this Is the maximum pressure achieved
(5) The presence of "equipment hatch opening" demands rigorous 3D analysis. Preliminary studies on 3D shell model indicate that the effect of opening is localised in nature. Therefore, axisymmetric model W11l yield realistic results, except around the equipment hatch. The possibility of failure netr equipment hatch opening is less since, it is reinforced by thick plate and is shielded by CS. The gap between SCV and CS, near the equipment hatch opening is lesser than the other regions. After contact it will experience a rigid support. 

11.0 References 

[1] Steel Containment Vessel Design Package (July 10, 1995) and Supplement No.1 of Steel Containment Design Package (September 21, 1995), Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 

[2] Letter No. SO-95-099 (dated December 1, 1995) "regarding as measured data of SCV and CS", Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 

[3] ABAQUS Ver.5.3-1, "Finite Element Computer Code", HKS Inc., Rhode 

Islands, USA. 

[4] Baumeister, T., Avallone, E.A., Baumeister IIl, T., "Marks's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers", 8th edition, McGraw Hill Book Company. 

[5] Green, R.E. (editor) et al, "Machinery's Handbook", 24th edition, Industrial 

Press Inc., New York, 1992.

E-Ill
Figure 1. 

Steel Containment Vessel 

(all elevations In meters)

batch sleeve

cover

I aeemb hatch cover

I 

Fig. i Outline of Steel Containment Vessel Test Model 

E-112

11
cn

w

FIg.2. Finite Element Mesh of Axisymmetric Model
I-. 

2

Flg.3 VMew of Axisymmetric F.E.Model near Lower SlIfners
Fig. I,. View of Axisymmetric F.E.Model In Top Head Region

L,
gd 

Fig..5 Half Symmetric (180 degree) Shell Model of SCV
Fig.(, Details of Shell Model near the Equipment Hatch

t1 

-4
Fig. ; Details of F.E. Mesh for the Contact Structure Only

EG 

I

CLR

tp4 

00
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel

700

600-

500

"400

c' 300

200-

100-

Il-I.III I I I I I I I Ill 

w, I l I I I I I I | I | I 0.000 0.050 

Fig.No.9 Plot of

0.100 0.150 

True Strain

I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 ! ] 

0.200 0.250

True Stress v/s. True Strain for ( As used in our Analysis)

tT, 

'.0

SGV 480
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

800

700 

-- 600 

S500 

co400 

300 

200_ 

100 . 

n nn . .. 20 0.040 0.060 0.080 0..100 0.120

True Strain 

Fig.No.9 Plot of True Stress v/s. True Strain for SPV 490 

( As used in our Analysis)
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12 

10 

8-8 

Friction Co

-- Friction Efft 

•-

.4 

2 

0 0 0 o~oo50.0000 '0 I I 0 I5 .i 0 0 i I I 10oo.0o00 I I I I 1 I 5f

eff. of 0.75 

sc ntot Considered

).0000

Vertical Displacement at ID No.35 

Fig.No.ia Plot of Load v/s. Displacement at ID No.35 

( Comparison of Displacements for the Two Cases)

200.1
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10. 

S- 8Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

S6. 

34 

2-

Fig.No.s. Plot of Load v/s. Displacement node 1646 ( TPKNU)

0 - - 1 1 I t oll ~ l l l l l I I I II I I I1 | f1111 I • 1 1 1 iI I I fII l l I l l I s I l I 1 lll 1 1 1 i I l l ll l l l 

-10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 -0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 

Horizontal Displacement in mm
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

8' Frcton Co-efficie' 

4.b

0

0 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00 -0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 

Horizontal Displacement in mm 

Fig.No.t• Plot of Load v/s. Displacement node 1654 ( TPKNU)

nt of 0.76
DISPLACENI14T NAGIIIPICATIONI FA"TMR a 1.00 

1 Fig.iS Deformed Plot of SCV with CS at Int. Pressure of 4.605 MPa showing Contact Pattern. 

STEP I IHIRENT 2Ss. 

Ti
DISUPACPEIMr HAMIIFICATIOI FA•ITR . 1.00 1 

FIg.'•.View of Deformed geometry and Contact Pattern at 4.605 MPa 

(Details of Spherical Shell & Conical Shell)

m

L I

;-,". *' ,,.. , ,,*,.-

ABA(Mus
DISPLACEME4NT FAWIIFICATION FACTOR x% Q 

t Fig.15 View of Deformed geometry and Contact Pattern at 4.605 MPa I( Detail near Middle Stiffner)

m,

U.

ABA(Mus
2 DISPL~MACM4M 14AUM•Ac•IfONFtrACIOR - 1.00 

1 Fig.g& View of Deformed geometry and Contact Pattern at 4.605 MPa 

(Detail near Lower Stiffners )

'ii 

N)
2 DISPLAC00tr M0GZ1IPCATl•O FAMIR 1.00 

1 Fig.o. Deformed Plot of SCV with CS at Int. Pressure of 6.480 MPa showing Contact Pattern.

t
DISPLACENEWI MAG"PIIFCATIOtN PAMR - 1.00 1 

.JL. Fig.is View of Deformed geometry and Contact Pattern at 6.480 MPR 

(Details near Spherical Shell)

t0

JrA\ rr n n (9

LIEýI 12)

DISPLECNEtrDN MAGNIFICATION FACTOR = 1.00 

1 Fig.2.oDeformed Plot of SCV with CS at Int. Pressure of 11.49 MPa showing Contact Pattern. 

SITEP Ih•IRE 100o 

w
D1SPLACENT Mh GFICATION PAMR 1 0 

L i FIo.z View of Deformed geometry and Contact Patem at 11.49 MPa 

(Detail of Spherical Shell & Conical Shell)

w
oI8PIsPIAcEw mAuntiCATiOu FArCR ;I-1. 

TIME COMPL•T• D IN THIS STP 0.7,6 ,AL,•CtUA,• TIME 0.766 

FIg.zz View of Deformed geometry and Conta ct Paitem at 11.49 MPa 

( Detail near Lower Stiffners )

171 

w w

2 1

ABAQUO
91spI8pvl" McG•"IPICATIONI FACOR .00 

* FIg.%VIew of Deformed geometry and Contact Pattern at 11.49 MPs 

(Details near Spherical Shell)

VI
2 DISPMDACEIW MAGNIFICATION FACR * 1.00 

L Fig.-zVlew of Deformed geometry and Contact Pattern at 11.49 MPa 

( Detalild near Knuckle & Spherical Shell )

I-. 

w
APPENDIX A

STRAIN VIS PRESSURE AND DEFLECTION VIS PRESSURE PLOTS IN THE 

FORM OF DIGITAL DATA 

The digital data of strain vis pressure and deflection vis pressure plots, is given in the floppy diskettes, enclosed along with the pretest report. 

The Diskette marked A, containing files plot7.dat to plot38.dat, is for the analysis, in which coefficient of friction =0.75. One additional file plot7e.dat contains the plot data for the minimum principal strain (but maximum in 

magnitude) at ID7. 

The Diskette marked B, containing files p7.dat to p38.dat, is for the analysis, in which coefficient of friction =0.0. One additional file p7e.dat contains the plot data for the minimum principal strain (but maximum in magnitude) at 1D7. 

Since the submitted results pertain to axisymmetric model, hence plot data corresponding to locations, near equipment hatch opening (plotl.dat to plot6.dat and plot39.dat), are not included. 

E-136

1!
APPENDIX B

STRAIN VIS PRESSURE AND DEFLECTION V/S PRESSURE PLOTS IN THE 

FORM OF HARDCOPIES 

The strain v/s pressure and deflection v/s pressure plots are enclosed. The plots at different locations can be identified by Plot ID number indicated on them. These Plot ID numbers are corresponding to those mentioned in SCV design package. Since the submitted results pertain to axisymmetric model, hence plots at locations near equipment hatch opening are not included. These 

correspond to Plot ID no. 1-6 and 39. 

Fig.25 to Fig.58, are plots of strain v/s pressure and deflection vls pressure, for the case in which coefficient of friction (gi) =0.75. 

Fig.59 to Fig.92, are plots of strain v/s pressure and deflection v/s pressure, for 

the case in which coefficient of friction (p.) --0.0

E-137
f 0.75

0.1200 0.1400

Fig.No.-z Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.7

12-

BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel

Go

0q

10

6

4

2

Friction Co-efficient q0

" IlllllI llil~l l11 1 llll lflll lll llll llfl 1lll'lll lljl 1 0.0000 0.0200 0.0400 0.0600 0.0800 0.1000 

Maximum Principal Strain
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

"t-8 

'06 

34 

FFriction Co-efficient of 0.75 

2 

-0.3500 -0.3000 -0.2500 -0.2000 -0.1500 -0.1000 -0.0500 0.0000 0.0500 

Minimum Principal Strain

Fig.No.M6Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.7
Internal Pressure (MPq) I 

! I I ' I p p p p I p p p I p i I I p i i I I i f 

00 

E . 

0 

to CbC 

CC 

0 0 

X 

CA
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10

56 

Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

4 

2. 

0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600 0.0700

Ext Meridional Strain 

Fig.No.atPlot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.9
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

0 f eIi i i i ~ l il il l ll ii i i ii ii ii I II 1ii 1 11l I I I I III II I I I "I I e i lI 

0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600 0.0700 

Int. Meridional Strain

Fig.No.14 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No. 10
BARG 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

1o 

S6" 

4-I 

2' Friction Co-eff oient of 0.75 

-0.0640 -0.0320 0.0000 0.0320 0.0640 0.0960 

Ext. Meridional Strain 

Fig.No.ZOPlot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No. I I
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10

6-N 4-8 

'- Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

2 

0 - I~rr lllllr l|s I ll I lI llI llll IIIIIIIII I s I III lllIII lllII l lIII lllIII llllIM |||II ll II I II l|| I II II I ll| 

-0.0320 -0.0160 0.0000 0.0160 0.0320 0.0480 0.0640 0.0800 

Int. Meridional Strain

Fig.No.31 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No. 12
BARC Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

LA 

54

2

Ext. Meridional Strain 

Fig.No.3zPlot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.13

Friction Co-efficient of 0.75
. BARC 

Steel Containment Veesel 

12 

10

'• 8 t~t$ 

2 Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

-0.0064 -0.0032 -0.0000 0.0032 0.0064 0.0096 0.0128 

Int. Meridional Strain 

Fig.No.s3Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No. 14
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

-10

0- Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

-O 

4

2]

Fig.No.14Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.15

0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030 0.0035 

Ext. Meridional Strain
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

Friton Co-efficient of 0.75 

8

2

0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030

Int. Meridional Strain. 

Fig.No.WPlot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.16
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12 

10 

SFriction Co-efficient of 0.75 

54 

2 

0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050 0.0060 0.00

Ext. MeridtionaL Strain

rFig.No.36GPlot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No. 17

)70
it 

Internal Pressure (MPa) -0 

o t 

0

0 

0 

p 

4. c 

Cb cc 

CAC
BARC 

SteeL Containment Vessel 

Friction Co-efficient of 0.75

Fig.No.3gPlot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No. 19

12

10-

i,,,,

ts 

I

.11

6

4-

0 llillllll1l1lllll ll ll llll1llllll1111llllll lll ll ll 11l 11ll llll 

0.0000 0.0020 0.0040 0.0060 0.0000 0.0100 0.0120 0.0140 

Ext. Meridionat Strain
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

Q4 

- Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

2

0 000 n nnnn 0.0020 0.0040 0.0060 0.0060 0.0100 0.01,20

Int. Meridional Strain 

Fig.No.3 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.20
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10O 

SFriction Co-efficient of 0.75 

" p0 

4-

2-

Fig.No. "oPlot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.21

0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030 0.0035 0.0040 

Ext. Meridional Strain
BARC • 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

4-

2

Fig.No4o Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.22

'I *.PS.U.IPI.S.I.PIuIIIUIuIuIEIIIIIuUUIIIIII6tIIuIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIUuIu5I 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030 0.0035 0.0040 

Int. Meridionat Straiin
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

t0 

Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

6

20 

0.0O 0.0050 00000100.0200 0.0250

Ext. Hoop Strain 

Fig.No.,zPlot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.23
.BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel

o2 

.1 

tv.

i0 

8 

6 

4,

2

0

Friction Co-efficient of 0.75

Int. Hoop Strain 

Fig.No45 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.24
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel

Friction Co-efficient of 0.75

-0.0012 -0.0000 -0.0004 0.0000 0.0004 

Ext. Meridional Strain

Fiy.No.4 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.25

12-

10

71

I

C 

-b

6

4-

2-

- I0I02 -0.0020 -0.0016
BARC. 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12 

S8

Friction 

6 

2

-0 . 0 0 20 I - 0.r0 I 0 1 5 - 0 . i 0011 i I I0i I i l l i l il I0 . 0 0 1 -. 0020 -0.0015 -0.0010 -0.0005 -0.0000 0.001

Int. Meridionat Strain 

Fig.Noij Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.26

Co-efficient of 0.75

05 0.0010 0.0015
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10

t1 •Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

6 

4.-

2

0

Ext. Hoop Strain 

Fig.No.46 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.27

0.
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12 

10 

Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

6

2

0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.02

Int. Hoop Strain

Fig.No4i* Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.28

•,00
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

'-0 

-4 

- Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

2

0.0000 0.0020 0.0040 0.0060 0.0080 0.0100 0.0120 0.0140 

Int. Meridional Strain

Fig.No04 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.29
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10

to 

Q4 

z 

Friction Co-efficient of 0.76 

2

0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150

Int. Hoop Strain 

Fig.No4l Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.30
BARC 

Steel Conta•mnent Vessel 

12

Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

I2

0 0 

000.00 .000 .~O001 .002 0.0025 0.!

Int. MeridionaL Strain 

Fig.No•D Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.31
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10' 

Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

4

2/

0

0 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 

Int. Hoop Strain 

Fig.No.F Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.32
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10

-S.

tTI 

4' 

2" Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

0

-0.0016 -0.0012 -0.0000 -0.0004 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0012

Int.Meridional Strain 

Fig.NoPA Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.33
BARC 

Steel Containment Ve88el

Friction Co-efficient of 0.75

0.1

Int. Hoop

0.0120 

Strain

Fig.No)3 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.34

12 

10 

8 

6

4

tp2

a., 

-J 

l.a

2

0.0000 0.0040 )0
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

riction Co-efficient of 0.75

Vertical Displacement at ID No.35 

FAg.No5.4 Plot of Load v/s. Displacement at ID No.35
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12 

1.0 

to of 

r~Fr~ictionn Co-efficient of 0.75 

4-.

0.0000 10.0'00 20.0M000 30.0000 40.0000 50.0000 60.0000 

Hori. Displacement at ID No.36 (Outside)

Fig.NoY Plot of Load v/s. Displacement at ID No.36
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

'-8 

s -Friction Co-efficient of 0.75 

.4

2 

0

D 10.0000 20.0000 30.0000 40.0000 50.0000 60.01 

HorL Displacement at ID No.36 (Inside) 

Fig.NoPb Plot of Load v/s. Displacement at ID No.36
BARC 

Steel Containmnent Vessel 

12

10 

'-8 

4-- Ftiction Co-efficient of 0.75 

2

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 

Horizontal Displacement in mm 

Fig.NoY:F Plot of Load v/s. Displacement at ID No.37
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

4

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40 

Vertical Displacement in mm 

Fig.NoYS Plot of Load v/s. Displacement at ID No.38
BARC Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10, 

6-8 

-3

Friction Effects not Considered 

2 

0 l I |1l lo 1 1l#ll 1 1 l l ill ~l I I I#ll | l ~ l l l I l Il l l l l l IIl 

0.0000 0.0200 0.0400 0.0600 0.0800 0.1000 0.1200 0.1400 

Maximum Principal Strain 

Fig.No.51 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.7
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12 

10 

-J

Friction Effects not Considered 

2" 

0 l l l l I I l I li I~ l l l l i l i l l l i l I~ l l l~ l l l l l l l l l~ l l l l l 1 1 1 11 1 g l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 

-0.3500 -0.3000 -0.2500 -0.2000 -0.1500 -0.1000 -0.0500 0.0000 0.0500 

Minimum Principal Strain

Fig.No.6o Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.7
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel

12-

10

8

6

2

0.0500

Fig.No.GI Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.8

Friction Effects not Considered

- I III lllI. ll. I I I I I ll I I l I I ll II l Il 11 1 l l 5li 1 1 Jll -0.0200 -0.0100 0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 

Ext. Hoop Strain
DARC 

Sleet Containment Vessel 

12 

10 

3

'4 

Friction Effects not Considered 

2 

0.0000 0.6100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600 0.0700 

Ext. Meridional Strain

Fig.No.6r Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.9
"BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10. 

0% 

Friction Effects not Considered 

2 

n . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fig.NoJ.. Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.10

0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600 0.0700 

Int. Meridional Strain
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10

Friction Effects not Considered 4

2

-0.0240 0 I -I0.i0120 -0.0120 0l'.0 0.0000 0.0120 0.0120 0.0240 0.0240 0.0 0.0360 0 0.0I 101111.1711111111111111 0.0480 0 0.0600 0 0.0720 1 2i 

Ext. Meridional Strain 

Fig.No. e.& Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No. f I
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

00 0 

- Friction Effects not Considered 

2-

Fig.No.A Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No. 12

-0.0240 -0.0120 0.0000 0.0120 0.0240 0.0360 0.0480 0.0600 0.0720 

Int. Meridional Strain
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10

Friction Effects not Co 

'4 "

0

D040 -0.0030 -0.0020 -0.0010 -0.0000 0 

Ext. Meridional Strain 

Fig.No.66 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.13

nsiderecd
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

I-S. 

'%-8 

Friction Effeiets not Considered

Int. Meridional Strain 

Fig.No.6 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at' ID No. 14
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

Friction Effects not Considered 

0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050 0.0060 0.0070 0.0080 

Ext. Meridionat Strain

Fig.No.6e Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No. 15
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12 

to

-6 

'4

Friction Effects not Considered

Int. Meridional Strain 

Fig.No.64 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.16

0.0060 0.0070
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel

Friction Effects not Considered

0.0040 

Ext. Meridional Strain

Fig.No.3 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.17

t1 

00 w

Oq 

S.. 

l.aU

8 

6

4

2

0
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10t 

44 

'4

SFriction Effects not Consi idred 

2, 

1111iI 1111I6I 1111111I1I 1 I I I I I '" I I I . I I 1 1. I li i'' I I I i IE I I ll 

0.0000 0.0020 0.00.40 0.0060 0.0080 0.O01O0

Int. Meridional Strain 

Fig.No.--H Plot of Load .v/s. Strain at ID No. 18
DARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12 

10

6

•, .. 

SFriction Effects not Considered 

4.

Ext. Meridional Strain 

Fig.No.-7. Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.19
* BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

Friction Effects not Considered

Fig.No.4-Y Plot of Load u/s. Strain at ID No.20

hi 

00 

0%

10

0.6

4

2-

-0.0030 -0.0024 -0.0018 -0.0012 -0.0006 0.0000 0.0006 0.0012 0.0018 

Int. Meridional Strain
DARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10

006 

4

Friction Effects not Consi 

2 

0 I I w 1 I I I 1 I 

0.0000 0.0020 0.0040 0.0060 0.1

Ext. Meridmonat Strain 

Fig.No.-+t Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.21

dered
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

00 

Friction Effects not Considered 

2

0 lr lllllrrr li it I it II II l II II l II I I it it I II itI I II IJ Ilil I I it I if i l i I I JiI ii I I I I I I I I I tI'II 

-0.0200-0.0100 0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600 0.0700 

Int. Meridional Strain 

Fig.No.*P Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.22
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

-N 

%0 

'4 

2 2• / Friction Effects not Considered 

0 I 1 I1v I1 1 a I Iv I I I I I Ii il I I I I~ IIg I I I I I I Il I I I I r---- l I i I-r 

0.0000. 000.0100 0.0150 0.0200 0.0250 0.0300 

Ext. Hoop Strain 

Fig.No.'*& Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.23
BARC 

Steel Containment Veoset 

12

10 

54

Int. Hoop Strain

Fig.No.`I Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.24
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel

Fric"tion Effects not Considered

-0.0016 -0.0012 -0.0008 -0.0004 0.0000 0.0004 

Ext. Meridional Strain

Fig.No.*e Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.25

12

10-

t¶I 

5-

6

4-

t1

2-

-0.0020

Im

v I V I
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10/ 

t.o 

S.. 

o13 

'4 

Friction Effects not Considered 

2-

Fig.No.tfq Plot of Load v/8. Strain at ID No.26

0 I ~ ~ l l | l 1II I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 | 1 I i l I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 4 11 1 1i t1 1 |J i l l1 1 g o I I I -0.0025 -0.0020 -0.0015 -0.0010 -0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 

Int. Meridional Strain
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12 

10 

f4

Friction Effects not Considered 

2

0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200 00n2

Ext. Hoop Strain

Fig.No.eo Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.27

Nn
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

.10 

o-

£LCI.ti, j Ju•CiS nor COTniderTedL

000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 

In. Hoop Strain 

Fig.No.•s PLot of Loud v/s. Strain at ID No.28

0.0200
DARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

to

6, 

4-B 

2

%00 

0.0000 0.0020 0.0040 0.0060 0.0000 0. 01 00

int. Merdional Strain 

Fig.No.12- Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.29
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12" 

S6' 

'

Friction Effects not Considered 

20 

0.0000 0.00506 0.0.;6100 0..0;'150 0.0200 0.0250 0.0300 0...;63 mIn. Hoop Strain

Fig.No.SS Plot of LeadcI v/s. Strain at ID No.30

150
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12 

4-S 

8/ 

- Friction Effects not Considered 

2

Fig.No.sh. Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.31

-0.0200-0.0100 0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600 0.0700 

Int. Meridional Strain
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

C4 

'6

00 

'4 

Friction Effects not Considered 

20 

0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200 0.0250 0.0300 

lnL Hoop Strain

Fig.No.95 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.32
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10 

to

Friction Effects not Considered 

2. 

-0.0020 -0.0016 -0.0012 -0.0006 -0.0004 0.0000

Int. MeridionaL Strain 

Fig.No.8e Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.33
BARC 

Steel Containment Vessel 

12

10

tp1 

14

Friction Effects not Considered 

2

0.0000 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200 0.0250

Int. Hoop Strain

Fig.No.w5 Plot of Load v/s. Strain at ID No.34