UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD

SCHOOL OF COMPUTING, SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICAL, MECHANICAL AND
MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING

Design & Finite Element Analysis of

Reactor (PWRs) Pressure Vessels
Using ASME Section III and BS 5500

Undergraduate Final Year Project

Name: Jawad Bari

Roll No: @00265031
Course Title: BEng Mechanical Engineering
Course Code: E/ME/F3
Supervisor: Dr P. Hampson
Jawad Bari

Page 1

Declaration
I, Jawad Bari, declare that the contents of this report have been studied, evaluated and
written by myself. Any section, part or phrasing of more than twenty consecutive words
that is copied from any other work or publication has been clearly referenced at the
point of use and also fully described in the reference section of this dissertation.

I have read, understood and agree to the University Policy on the Conduct of Assessed
Work (Academic Misconduct Procedure).

Signed

Dated

Jawad Bari

Page 2

Abstract
A reactor pressure vessel can be designed and tested using international design codes;
these design codes provide engineers with preventative measures, which can be used in
order to avoid any catastrophic accidents. In this project, these preventative measures
are investigated and effectiveness of the elastic-plastic limit based design
methodologies of the main International Design Codes (ASME and BS) using the
ANSYS finite element program is accessed. A typical RPV of a 300MW pressurized
water reactor (PWR) was selected for the analysis. A nuclear grade steel SA-508 Gr.3
Cl.1 was used as a material of the RPV for the comparison. It has been concluded that
the application of the design by analysis allows removing the unnecessary conservatism
caused by applying the design by rule approach described in BS-5500 section 3. This
study recommends that the maximum allowable pressure of the RPV may be increased
up to 26.37 % by using design by analysis approach as described in ASME code.

Jawad Bari

Page 3

Contents
Declaration .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8
1.1.

Overview of pressure vessels ........................................................................................ 8

1.2.

Pressure Vessel Codes and Standards......................................................................... 12

1.2.1.

Codes: .................................................................................................................. 12

1.2.2.

Standards ............................................................................................................ 12

1.2.3.

Development of pressure vessels design codes.................................................. 12

1.3.

Finite Element Analysis ............................................................................................... 13

1.4. Problem statement .......................................................................................................... 14

2.

Objective ............................................................................................................................. 15
2.1 Aims:.................................................................................................................................. 15

3.

Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 16

3.1.

Overview ..................................................................................................................... 16

3.1.1.
3.2.

Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) ...................................................................... 17

Design Basis: Codes and Regulations for Reactor Pressure Vessel ............................. 18

3.2.1.

Design Process..................................................................................................... 18

3.2.2.

ASME Design Codes............................................................................................. 21

3.2.3.

BSI design codes .................................................................................................. 22

3.3.

Materials ..................................................................................................................... 23

3.3.1.

Overview.............................................................................................................. 23

3.3.2.

Cladding material ................................................................................................ 25

3.3.3.

Properties of some noticeable reactor vessel materials..................................... 26

3.4.

Designing and Manufacturing Techniques.................................................................. 29

3.4.1.

CAD Packages ...................................................................................................... 29

3.4.2.

CATIA V5 .............................................................................................................. 30

3.4.3.

FEA Simulation Packages ..................................................................................... 30

3.4.4.

Fabrication .......................................................................................................... 32

3.5.

Inspections .................................................................................................................. 35

3.5.1.

Irradiation Embrittlement ................................................................................... 36

3.5.2.

Corrosion ............................................................................................................. 38

3.5.3.

Fracture toughness ............................................................................................. 38

3.5.4.

Crack .................................................................................................................... 39

3.5.5.

Creep/Stress Rupture .......................................................................................... 40

Jawad Bari

Page 4

4.

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 42
4.1.

4.1.1.

Semester 1 ........................................................................................................... 42

4.1.2.

Semester 2 ........................................................................................................... 43

4.2.

Reactor Pressure Vessel Design .................................................................................. 44

4.2.1.

RPV Design Concepts........................................................................................... 44

4.2.2.

Three dimensional modelling.............................................................................. 45

4.3.

Material ....................................................................................................................... 47

4.4.

Design Code Parameters ............................................................................................. 48

4.4.1.

ASME approach ................................................................................................... 48

4.4.2.

BS Approach ........................................................................................................ 50

4.5.

Finite Element Method ............................................................................................... 51

4.5.1.

Finite Element Modelling .................................................................................... 51

4.5.2.

ANSYS 14.5 Static Structural Workbench ............................................................ 52

4.6.
5.

Project Plan ................................................................................................................. 42

Results ......................................................................................................................... 54

Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 56
5.1.

Simulation Results ....................................................................................................... 56

5.2.

Design Code Comparison ............................................................................................ 58

6.

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 61

7.

Further Work ....................................................................................................................... 62

8.

References........................................................................................................................... 63

9.

Appendices: ......................................................................................................................... 67
9.1.

Appendix A - Introduction: .......................................................................................... 67

9.2.

Appendix B - Literature Review................................................................................... 69

9.3.

Appendix C Project plan ........................................................................................... 74

9.4.

Appendix D Design & Design codes.......................................................................... 76

9.5.

Appendix E Simulation ............................................................................................. 87

9.6.

Appendix F Results ................................................................................................... 90

Jawad Bari

Page 5

Table of Figures
Figure 1-1 Spherical Pressure Vessels ........................................................................................... 9
Figure 1-2: Pharmaceutical Pressure Vessels ............................................................................. 10
Figure 3-1: Irradiation Embrittlement ......................................................................................... 36
Figure 3-2: Fracture Failure ......................................................................................................... 40
Figure 9-1: Schematic diagram of primary circuit of typical PWR Nuclear Power Plant ............ 67
Figure 9-2 The PWR Nuclear Power Plants schematic diagram .................................................. 67
Figure9-3: Cutaway view of a Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)....................... 68
Figure 9-4: Typical structure of PVC committees........................................................................ 69
Figure 9-5: Fabrication configuration of PWR beltline shells...................................................... 72
Figure 9-6: Rolled and welded beltline shell .............................................................................. 72
Figure 9-7 : Schematic diagram of laser welding ........................................................................ 73
Figure 9-8: Gantt chart for Semester 1 ....................................................................................... 74
Figure 9-9: Gantt chart for Semester 2 ....................................................................................... 74
Figure 9-10: Brain Storming ........................................................................................................ 75
Figure 9-11: Westinghouse Two Loop Pressure Vessel .............................................................. 76
Figure 9-12: Design comparison of Westinghouse Reactor Pressure Vessels ............................ 77
Figure 9-13: Reactor Pressure Vessel Sketch .............................................................................. 78
Figure 9-14 : Outlet nozzle .......................................................................................................... 78
Figure 9-15: Inlet Nozzle ............................................................................................................. 79
Figure 9-16: CATIA V5 part retendering ...................................................................................... 79
Figure 9-17: Figure (a) and (b) showing the two halves of the RPV ............................................ 79
Figure 9-18: Two parts getting Aligned ....................................................................................... 80
Figure 9-19: RPV assembled ........................................................................................................ 80
Figure 9-20: Top view of the Pressure vessel.............................................................................. 81
Figure 9-21: Generating CATIA part from Assembly ................................................................... 81
Figure 9-22: 2D Detailed Drawing ............................................................................................... 82
Figure 9-23; Section A-A2, Pressure vessel 2D Drawing ............................................................. 83
Figure 9-24: Details of the part A and B, Inlet and outlet Nozzles .............................................. 84
Figure 9-25: Stress categories and limits form BS-5500 ............................................................. 85
Figure 9-26: geometries covered by the BS-5500 design by rule route ..................................... 86
Figure 9-27: Static Structure Workbench.................................................................................... 87
Figure 9-28: Engineering Data Dialogue box, Material Properties ............................................. 87
Figure 9-29: Geometry Module................................................................................................... 88
Figure 9-30: Model module......................................................................................................... 88
Figure 9-31: solid 186, 3D higher hexahedral brick meshing ...................................................... 89
Figure 9-32: Setup, Solution and Results dialogue box............................................................... 89
Figure 9-33: Total Deformation................................................................................................... 90
Figure 9-34: Maximum Principal Stress ...................................................................................... 90
Figure 9-35: Middle Principal Stress ........................................................................................... 91
Figure 9-36: Peak stresses in RPV ............................................................................................... 91
Figure 9-37: Von-Mises Stress ..................................................................................................... 92
Figure 9-38: Hoop Stress ............................................................................................................. 92
Jawad Bari

Page 6

Figure 9-39: Beltline Region of RPV Geometry, (b) Solid-189 3D Hexahedral Meshing ............. 93
Figure 9-40: (a) Hoop stress at 40Mpa (b) Analysis conducted on the beltline region .............. 93

List of Tables
Table 4.1: Chemical Composition of SA508 Steel ....................................................................... 47
Table 4.2: Thermal and Mechanical properties for the base material ....................................... 48
Table 9.1: Main Ferrous Materials for reactor components in Western Countries ................... 70
Table 9.2: Materials Specified For PWR Vessel Components ..................................................... 70
Table 9.3: Summary of design factors and the materials for UK codes ...................................... 71
Table 9.4: Providing the Hoop, Radial and Axial Stresses on the beltline region of RPV............ 94

List of Graphs
Graph 9-1: Design Pressure VS Radial Displacement Graph ...................................................... 95
Graph 9-2: Design Pressure VS Radial Displacement Graph the collapse limit line.................... 96

Jawad Bari

Page 7

1.
1.1.

Introduction
Overview of pressure vessels

By definition, any closed container that contains fluids or gasses at a different pressure
than ambient pressure classifies as a pressure vessel. The idea of pressure vessels
emerged in 1495 by Leonardo da Vinci in Codex Madrid I (Carter, 2001). Leonardo
wrote we shall describe how air can be forced under water to lift very heavy weights,
that is, how to fill skins with air once they are secured to weights at the bottom of the
water. And there will be descriptions of how to lift weights by tying them to submerged
ships full of sand and how to remove the sand from the ships. Leonards pressurized
bags of air led the first design of pressure vessels. This idea was instrumental in the 18th
and 19th centuries for designing steam engines and boilers. Boilers, tanks and the
pipelines that carry, store, or receive fluids are also categorised as pressure vessels.
The fluid inside the vessel may undergo a change in state as is the case of steam boilers
or may combine with other reagent as in the case of chemical reactor. Pressure vessels
often have a combination with other reagents as is the case with chemical reactor.
Pressure vessels often have combinations of high pressures coupled together with high
temperatures and in some cases flammable fluid or highly reactive material. Nuclear
reactor pressure vessels are the prime example of such type. Because of such hazards it
is necessary to design them to prevent leakages. In addition vessels have to be designed
in order to cope with high operating temperatures and pressures.
Theoretically, pressure vessels can be of any shapes and sizes. The size and the
geometric form of pressure vary greatly from the large cylindrical vessels used for high
pressure gas storage to the small sized vessels commonly found in hydraulic units for
aircrafts. Practically the pressure vessels are usually found to be either mostly spherical
Jawad Bari

Page 8

or cylindrical, with domed ends. The

cylindrical pressure vessels are generally
preferred

because

of

simpler

manufacturing fabricating and make

better use of the available space. Boiler
drums,

heat

exchanger,

reactors

and

nuclear

generally

cylindrical.

chemical

reactors

are

Although,

Figure 1-1 Spherical Pressure Vessels

http://www.3d-labs.com/Pressure%20vessel%20e-bookTypes.html

spherical vessels have the advantage of requiring the thinner walls for given pressure
and diameter that the equivalent cylinder but the manufacturing processes for spherical
vessels can be expensive in some cases (Chattopadhyay, 2005).
The vessel geometry can be broadly divided into plate and shell type configurations.
The plate-type construction used in flat covers e.g. closures for pressure vessels and the
heat exchangers resist pressure in bending, while the shell type operates in a fashion
analogous to what happens to a balloon under pressure. Generally the shell-type
construction is the preferred form because it requires less thickness, hence less material
is needed its manufacture.
Pressure vessels come in all shapes and sizes from diameters of a few centimetres (cm)
up to 50 meters (m) and in rare cases even more. The pressure may also have large
variations from 0.25 kilopascals (KPa) up to 2000 megapascals (MPa). Pressure vessels
are used in various sectors including:

Agriculture

Food and drink

Horticultural

Jawad Bari

Page 9

Food processing

Chemical
-

Pharmaceuticals

Petrochemicals

Construction

Defence

Energy

Figure 1-2: Pharmaceutical Pressure Vessels

In the energy sector, pressure vessels are usually used in nuclear power plant,
specifically in nuclear reactors to initiate and sustain the nuclear chain reaction and
more importantly to contain coolant for use in nuclear reactors. In most modern day
nuclear reactors pressure vessels hold the reactor core which endures the fuel cells of
the power plants, pressuriser and the steam generator are the integrated part of the
reactor. From the start of first designing of the Nuclear reactor there have been a
considerable reactors concepts proposed. A selected number of these have been built.
Today only three of these concepts are considered commercially viable. Two of these
concepts are based on the use of the uranium U-235 with light water employed for
cooling and neutron moderation. Of these two concepts, one is the pressurised water
reactor (PWR) developed by Westinghouse. The other is the boiling water reactor
(BWR) developed by the General Electric. The third concept is based on the use of
neutral uranium with heavy water for cooling and moderation, this plant is regulated by
the Atomic Energy of Canada (Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 1984).
The fundamental distinction between the PWR and the BWR is that in BWR the latter
the coolant moderator is allowed to boil the resulting steam passed directly to the
turbine-generating, whereas in the PWR the coolant moderator is maintained above
saturation pressure such that no significant boiling occurs in the reactor.
Jawad Bari

Page 10

PWRs nuclear reactors have their mechanisms divided into two main circuits primary
and secondary circuit. Primary circuit contains the main core (fuel cell assembly) and
the primary coolant of the primary system and perhaps, classifies as one of the most
important part of PWRs nuclear plants. In particular the primary circuit consists of
pressuriser, steam generator and the core reactor vessel. In most PWR designs the
primary circuit is placed inside the pre-stressed concrete containment. As shown in the
figure 9-1 in appendix A.
The secondary circuit of PWRs include main steam system and the condensate feed
water system, turbine and the engine. The fresh water is pumped in from the feed-water
system and the passes through the steam generator, heated and converts into steam. The
steam then passes through the main steam line to the turbines where it spins the
turbines. Steam from the turbines then pass through a condenser to a condensate pumps
through low-pressure feed water heaters, then to high pressure feed-water heaters and
finally goes back to steam generator. Secondary circuit is shown in figure 9-2 in
appendix A.
The primary circuit comes in direct contact with the main core of the nuclear plant, and
is subject to high coolant water pressure of 2250 Psi (approx. 155bars) and reaches the
temperature of 600oF (315.5oC). Water heats up and circulates through the heat
exchanger by the help of the pump. The main focus of this exercise is on the primary
circuit of the PWR reactor and particularly on the core reactor vessel. The figure 9-3,
appendix A, is showing the typical PWRs type reactor vessel of a nuclear power plant.
The pressure vessel design shown in figure 9-3 is based on the Westinghouse double
loop pressure vessel. The Westinghouse reactor vessel was designed with accordance to
ASME pressure vessel design codes and standards.

Jawad Bari

Page 11

1.2.

Pressure Vessel Codes and Standards

1.2.1. Codes:

The word code is defined as a group of administrative and technical rules and standards
covering any combination of materials, design, construction, installation and inspection
of equipment which is adopt into law of the legal jurisdiction. In other words, codes are
merely systematic statement of standards or regulations that are legally enforced.
1.2.2. Standards

Standards are technical specification introduced to public by the corporations or general

approval of all interested affected by it on the basis of science, technology and
experience for the promotion of optimum community benefits.

The standards are

usually recognised by the national and international institutes.

1.2.3. Development of pressure vessels design codes

The Boiler and Pressure vessel code establishes rules of safety design, fabrication and
inspection of boilers and pressure vessels. During 18th and 19th centuries, steam became
the chief source of locomotive energy, which flourished in the engineering industry. By
the early 20th, numerous accidents and explosion took place which led the development
of standard design codes for the pressure vessels (Carter, 2001). American society of
Mechanical Engineers was the first one to enact the first code for the construction of
steam boiler in 1907 (Hong, 2010). In 1924, ASME and American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) proposed the material specification for boiler and the pressure
vessels. In 1925, ASME published section VIII as a guidelines for unfired welded
pressure vessels in this publication the safety factor of 4 was proposed
(Chattopadhyay, 2005). Later in 1968, this section was divided into two divisions Div.
1 & 2. By the end of 1960s it was become necessary to issue a design code for the
nuclear pressure vessels due to the increase numbers of nuclear power plants; hence

Jawad Bari

Page 12

ASME produced the guidelines for commercial nuclear vessels under division 1 section
III. This was a design by analysis code with a theoretical safety factor of 3. It should be
noted that division 1 is specific to metallic components and division 2 provides the rules
for the construction concrete nuclear vessel (R.W.Nichols, 1987).
Similar to ASME, Great Britain has its own institute which acts as a regulatory
authority called British Standard Institute (BSI). It is the recognised body in the UK for
the preparation and issue of national standards in the fields of engineering. The main BS
code for the design of pressure vessel is BS 5500. The first edition of BS 5500 was
issued in 1976. In 1984, few distinctive features such as three categories of construction
were introduced. In 1994, BS 5500 attained the status of defacto international standards
(Morris, 2010) .
In May 2002, the first issue of European Standard EN 13445 unfired pressure vessels
was published. This standard was developed to facilitate pressure vessels subjected to
the European pressure equipment directive 97.23 commonly known as PED. Under
CEN BSI was obliged to with withdraw BS 5500 as it has the similar content, validity
and application. But later it was decided that British standard for pressure vessel should
continue to available and become a published document (PD) under the new reference
PD 5500, however in this report it is still referred as BS 5500.

1.3.

Finite Element Analysis

FEA is based on the discretization technique which engulfs the basic concept of
dividing the mathematical model into non-overlapping components of simple geometry
called finite elements. ANSYS uses a similar method. It uses a complex system to
create finite element by dividing the geometry into elements and nodes. This process is
called meshing. The mesh is programmed to takes in account the material and the

Jawad Bari

Page 13

structural properties of the model; this will determine the response of the structure to
certain loading conditions.
The rapid development in this technique has remarkably impacted the design of
pressure vessels. This technique has made the designing process extremely quick and
has led extremely difficult design getting assessed quicker and more accurate. There are
a number of FEA software packages available such as ADINA, ANSYS, SolidWorks
and PV Ellite (particular for Pressure vessel designs accordance with ASME codes). In
this project ANSYS is used for analysis of pressure vessels. The details of the software
are provided in literature and methodology sections.

1.4. Problem statement

In designing the reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) safety is the primary consideration due
to the potential effect of the radiation leakage from the core reactor. However safety
cannot be guaranteed for two reasons. Firstly, the actual form of loading during the
service can be different than what was previously anticipated during the design stages.
Secondly our knowledge is often adequate to provider answers to fracture of materials,
state of stress under certain conditions as the fundamental mechanism of failure is not
sufficiently understood (Chattopadhyay, 2005). There are number of governing bodies
around the globe such as ASME and BS, who have established preventative measures
based on semi-empirical methods. These preventative measures will be studied and
analysed in this project.

Jawad Bari

Page 14

2. Objective
The purpose of this project is to design a reactor pressure vessel RPV and perform
Finite Element Analysis in accordance to ASME and BSI standards respectively, thus
identifying the differences between ASME and BS design rules.

2.1 Aims:
The aims of this project are to:

Identify the right ASME and BS design codes for the reactor pressure vessel

Identify the materials for reactor pressure vessel (RPV)

Analyse the safety parameters for allowable working pressure using ANSYS
software package

Perform Finite Element Analysis to evaluate the differences between the ASME
and the BS codes

Study the corrosion and the radioactive embrittlement effect on the pressure
vessels

Jawad Bari

Page 15

3. Literature Review
3.1.

Overview

Nuclear power has emerged as a proven technology, since the demonstration of a

sustained reactor in 1942 and it has become the one of the fast growing method of
producing the electricity in the world. At present, there are over four hundred
operational nuclear power plants around the world, of which over 75 percent are of the
light water design with over 65 percent of the light water design furnished by
Westinghouse and its current or original licenses (Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
1984). Of the nuclear power plants in operation, the most common type is the
Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR) and the second most is the Boiling Water Reactor
(BWR). Both plant works almost on the same principle.
A Westinghouse designed RPV that is shown in figure 9.3 is fairly a typical vessel
designed used in all so called western designed RPVs. However, there are significant
differences in size, nozzle designs, penetration designs and other details among the
various suppliers. The first PWR in the WEST was the Yankee-Rowe plant in Rowe,
Massachusetts, USA. The first reactor pressure vessel, Yankee-Rowes vessel, weighed
210,000 kg and had inside diameter of 27.7 m. Depending on the design of the nuclear
steam supply system, two, three, four or six loops, the RPVs can weigh as much as
427,000 kg and have an inside diameter of 44 m.
According to (International Atomic Energy Agency , 1999) The PWR pressure vessel
is the most important pressure boundary component of the NPP because its function is
to contain the nuclear core under elevated pressures and temperature.

Jawad Bari

Page 16

(Sonaeda, 2015) emphasises on the importance of the pressure vessel stating that a
reactor vessel (RPV) is heart of the reactor core and it is also the major component that
may limit the useful life of the nuclear plant as in future due to any failure if the reactor
should replace extraordinary amount of time and money would be required. Virtually
every other component of the Nuclear power plant can be replaced cost-effectively
including steam generator except the reactor vessels.
RPV is a steel made container which comprehends nuclear fuels and bears the hightemperature/ pressure coolant water, so the safety of this component of the nuclear
power plant should be absolutely vital. The safety goal is to avoid the catastrophic
failure of the RPVs and any consequent release of the radioactive materials to the
environment. To achieve this goal, a structural integrity evaluation based on fracture
mechanics is performed to ensure sufficient margin against failure during transients. For
the safety of the reactor vessels, reactor vessels have to pass the quality check and
follow the guidance given by the countrys design code issue authority. Most of western
NPPs reactor vessels are designed, constructed and tested by using the guidance
provided either by ASME or BS design codes.
3.1.1. Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR)
The design of reactor pressure vessel of the PWR type nuclear plant is different than the
BWR type nuclear plants. It has some 200 tube assemblies containing ceramic pellets
consisting of either enriched uranium dioxide (UO2) or a mixture of both uranium and
plutonium oxides known as MOX (mixed oxide fuel). These are encased in Zircaloy 4
cladding. Either B4C-Al2O3 pellets or borosilicate glass rods are used as burnable
poisons. Water pumped through the core at a pressure sufficient to prevent boiling. This
acts as both a coolant and a moderator to slow down the high energy neutrons. The

Jawad Bari

Page 17

water at about 600 K passes to an intermediate heat exchanger. The power is controlled
by the insertion of control rods from the top of the core and by dissolving boric acid into
the reactor water. As the reactivity of the fuel decreases, the concentration of dissolved
boron ions is reduced by passing the water through an ion-exchanger. Control rods
made of boron carbide (B4C) or an Ag-In-Cd alloy are clad in Inconel 627 or stainless
steel (304) tubes (Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 1984).
The primary pressurized water loop of a PWR carries heat from the reactor core to a
steam generator. The loop is under a working pressure of about 15 MPa which is
sufficient to allow the water in it to be heated to near 600 K without boiling. The heat is
transferred to a secondary loop generating steam at 560 K and about 7 MPa, which
generates heat that drives the turbine.

3.2. Design Basis: Codes and Regulations for Reactor Pressure

Vessel
3.2.1. Design Process
According to (Kendall, 1969) the design process involves a variety of different tasks.
He emphasises on the importance of understanding the basics of the pressure vessel
design process so that the design philosophy may be maintained throughout the life of
the plant.
According to the technical report by Thomas E. Davidson and the David Kendall
published in 1961 outline the pressure vessel operating at very high pressures as a
complex problem. As it involve many considerations including definition of the
operating and permissible stress levels, criteria of failure and material behaviour at high
pressures. For the purpose of developing the design philosophy and the relative

Jawad Bari

Page 18

operational limitations of various approaches, the elastic strength or yielding pressure of

the vessel will be used as the criterion of failure. Further in the report it is noted that the
excess pressure cab be employed to predicted the yielding of one or more components
This information then can be utilised to design, construct and inspect the pressure
vessels, and also to chart its current and future conditions. Generally, the use of vessels
beyond the yielding pressure will depend upon the amount of plastic strain permissible
and the ductility of the materials involved.
(Sonaeda, 2015) stresses on the CAD tools being used by the reactor vessel designer.
He argues that it should be recognized that the designer used the best available tools at
that time to perform the necessary analyses and calculations according to the relevant
ASME Code requirements. The key responsibilities of the designer are to:
(i)

Specify an RPV material with initial properties known to have sufcient

reserve to accommodate

time dependent

degradation

such

as

embrittlement or fatigue
(ii)

Make a reliable determination of the material state and quality of the

nished component

(iii)

Determine the design loading conditions

(iv)

Estimate the amount of time dependent degradation that may be experienced

under service conditions for the license life of the RPV

(v)

Consider future surveillance of the RPV materials and aw state as well as

monitoring of service conditions during plant operation

(vi)

Assume worst case conditions with respect to loading, spectrum, and

material aw state.

A reactor pressure vessel (RPV) is designed, manufactured and operated in such a

manner that it should not fail in service. To resist failure, its steel structure must remain

Jawad Bari

Page 19

ductile and not become brittle. A sudden failure of an RPV could be catastrophic even
before considering the contents of the pressure vessel, because of the sudden release of
a large amount of depressurising energy. Fracture resistance or fracture toughness is the
relevant material property in structural integrity assessment of the RPV (Ballesteros,
2014). During service, the integrity of the RPV depends on multiple factors:

The initial quality of the vessel as fabricated (for example, having a low
incidence of flaws)

Any degradation of mechanical properties with life (such as irradiation

embrittlement, thermal embrittlement, temper embrittlement, strain ageing)

The RPV's operating history, including the frequency and magnitude of the
pressure/temperature transients and the associated heat transfer and stress
distribution to which it has been exposed

Knowledge of the appropriate fatigue crack growth laws as a function of the

environment and materials structure

The frequency and effectiveness of the in-service inspections

(Harvey, 1991) states the sudden failure of pressure vessel could occur at the stress
concentration points such as the openings of pressure vessels or any area that causes the
geometric discontinuities. He defines the stress concentration effects on pressure vessels
that are somewhat like those from pricking a balloon for instance as a sharp point can
immediately rupture it. So it is not practical to design a reactor vessel without stress
concentrations as reactor vessels must have opening especially for coolant circulations.
This gives the geometric discontinuities, hence abnormal local stresses.
Reactor pressure vessels are complex geometries and essentially have openings, nozzles
and other attachments which produce geometric discontinuities. The effect of
Jawad Bari

Page 20

concentration of stresses due to geometric discontinuities is one of the basic

considerations in the design of pressure vessels. The elementary stress equations no
longer prevail in the vicinity of the geometric discontinuities. It is due to the fact that
geometric discontinuities significantly alter the stress distribution in the area. The
geometric discontinuity are called stress raisers (Hyder, 2015)
3.2.2. ASME Design Codes
Since its first issuance in 1914, ASMEs Boiler and Pressure Vessel code have
pioneered modern standards development, maintaining a commitment to enhance public
safety and technological advancement to meet the needs of a changing world. This
International Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark now has been incorporated
into the laws of state and local jurisdictions of the United States and nine Canadian
provinces. ASME standards have been employed over 100 countries around the world,
with translations into a number of languages. The boiler and pressure vessel sections of
the BPVC have long been considered essential within such industries as electric power
generation, petrochemical, and transportation (ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
Section III, Division , 2010)
According to (International Atomic Energy Agency , 1999) ASME has played a vital
role in supporting the nuclear industry. Since the first development of the ASME
standards and conformity assessment programs which were originally developed for
fossil fuel fired plants were later applied to nuclear power plant construction. Its widelyadopted BPVC Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components,
celebrated 50 years in 2013.
The ASME Section VIII and Section III design practices are used to limit the stresses in
the reactor pressure vessels and other components to acceptable levels. In all cases the
RPVs are designed to withstand the maximum pressure and temperature during normal
Jawad Bari

Page 21

operation or during accident conditions. Techniques such as thermal hydraulic analysis,

heat transfer analysis and stress analysis should be used to determine the pressure and
temperature as a function of a time for possible and transient events. During the
designing process the safety margins should be maintained all the time (R.W.Nichols,
1987).
Reactor pressure designers using ASME Section III also considers the stress intensity
and strain distribution in the RPV and nozzles under the assumption of a large reference
aw (Miller, 1988). To better understand the background of RPV design, it is useful to
review the general design practices that were used by the major US vendors. For
example, a BWR designed by General Electric typically operates at 6.9 MPa and 272
C. Westinghouse, Babcock & Wilcox (B&W), and Combustion Engineering (C-E)
designed PWRs operate at a higher pressure, typically 15.5 MPa and temperatures
around

288 C.

Some

older

Westinghouse-design PWRs have operated at

temperatures about 10 C lower for some time, and the B&W design PWRs operate
at RPV temperatures slightly higher than the Westinghouse-design PWRs.
3.2.3. BSI design codes
The British Standard Institution is the recognised body in the UK for the preparation
and issue of the national standards in the fields of engineering. According to
(R.W.Nichols, 1987) BSIs main function is to draw up voluntary standards by
agreement among all concerned, and to promote their application. This is achieved by
the through the Technical Committees made up from the members of British Standard
Institution. Societies such as Institution of Mechanical Engineers (ImechE), Royal
Aeronautical Society (RAS) etc. make up the BSI and brings up the range of national
interest.

Jawad Bari

Page 22

BSIs involvement in pressure vessels and the boilers is through the pressure vessels
standard committee (PVE). There are six main functional committees and within these
six committees there are 14 technical committees, which may further divided into subcommittees. The typical structure of PVC committees is shown in figure 9-4 in
appendix B.
BS 5500 design was updated in 2012 under the name of PD 5500, as BS does not use
anymore and amendments were made to the specification to those published in
September 2011. It also includes details of enquiry cases and will be updated every
three years. Your BS 5500 subscription includes free updates on further amendments.
The start of the new three-year cycle will include updates and new enquiry cases. The
three-year subscription to BS 5500 includes free regular updates to manufacturers using
BSI design codes (BSIGroup, 2012).
In May 2002, BS 5500 was withdrawn from the list of British Standard because it was
not consistent with the European Pressure Equipment Directive (97/23/EC). The first
edition of EN 13445 is not as comprehensive as BS 5500, and due to demands from
industry it was decided that the British pressure vessel standard should continue to be
available and become a published document (PD) under the new reference PD 5500,
with equal content, validity and application to the previous BS 5500. Its principle
difference is that it does not have the status of a national standard (Nash, 2006).

3.3. Materials
3.3.1. Overview
The study of material behaviour under pressure is of interest to investigators in a wide
variety of disciplines. However, regardless of the specific area of interest, the first
Jawad Bari

Page 23

requirements of any investigator in this field are a suitable vessel to contain the required
pressure and the specific experiment, and a means of penetrating the pressure (Kendall,
1969).
The western PWR pressure vessels use different materials for the different components
(shells, nozzles, flanges, studs, etc.). Since the construction of the first nuclear plant, the
choices in the materials of construction has changed as the PWR components evolve.
The Westinghouse designers specified American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) SA302 Grade B for the shell plates of earlier vessels and ASTM SA533 Grade
B Class 1 for later vessels. Other material that are common in use include American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) SA508 Class 2 plate in the USA,
22NiMoCr37 and 20MnMoNi55 in Germany, and 16MnD5 in France (Annul book of
ASTM Standards , 1989)
According to (Tenckhoff, 1992) most of the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS)
vendors use forgings in the construction of the shell courses. The main ferrous materials
used for PWR vessels construction over the years and summarises their chemical
composition are listed in table 9-1, appendix B and the table 9-2 in appendix B is
showing the materials used for individual vessel components.
(Sindelar, 2000) has mentioned that mild carbon steel with specification American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A285 is a common material of construction
for vessels in the petroleum and nuclear industries. Typically this is either mild carbon
steel, various kinds of alloyed steel or pre-stressed concrete. Data providers should
choose the appropriate option from the following multiple-choice menu carbon steel,
alloyed steel, stainless steel, concrete. Extensive analyses and experimental

Jawad Bari

Page 24

investigations have demonstrated reactor vessel integrity in full consideration of

potential service induced degradation mechanisms, including stress corrosion cracking.
BSIs material properties section states that materials should be selected on the basis of
tensile properties suitable for strength, welding, corrosion, fabrication, etc. The basic
material properties utilised in the design codes are yield and the tensile strengths. When
a vessel or structure is subjected to a cyclic loading condition then material data that
will define the fatigue failure mechanism are required. For the vessels operating in the
creep range, the design strengths are based on the minimum stress to rupture in the
appropriate service life. The rupture stresses are those agreed by the International
Standards Organisation for particular steel. These properties are mentioned in BS 5500
and BS 1113 in BSI design codes (Houston, 1987). Some of these steel properties are
shown in table 9.3, appendix B.
3.3.2. Cladding material
Cladding is the outer layer of the fuel rods standing between the coolant and the nuclear
fuel as nuclear fuel cannot be allowed to make a direct contact with the coolant inside
the reactor vessel, due to the potential for radioactivity to be released into the
environment. It can also be used in the reactor pressure to prevent corrosion damage.
Cladding is made of a corrosion-resistant material with low absorption cross section for
thermal neutrons. Common Choices for cladding material are stainless steel in Fast
Neutron Reactors, zirconium alloy (zircoloy) in Pressurised Nuclear Reactors and
Magnox has been used in the past (University of Cambridge , 2010)
The interior surfaces of the steel vessel, closure head and flange area are typically clad
with stainless steel, usually Type 308 or 309. Cladding was used to prevent general
corrosion by borated coolant and to minimize the buildup of corrosion products in the

Jawad Bari

Page 25

reactor coolant system. The cladding was applied in one or two layers by multiple-wire,
single-wire, strip-cladding, or resistance welding processes. Some vessels have areas of
Alloy 82 or 182 weld cladding where Alloy 600 components were welded to the vessel
(International Atomic Energy Agency , 1999)
In Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster, hydrogen was built up in the reactor vessel
which caused the explosion in the nuclear as a result immense amount of the radiations
leaked. According to (John D. Stemien, 2013), hydrogen was produced as result of hot
steam coming into contact with zirconium alloy or zircoloy the material used as a fuel
rod cladding.
To prevent the disasters like Fukushima Daiichi in future new methods for fuel cladding
are being researched and develop at Massachusetts Institutes of technology. This new
method of covering active nuclear fuel pellets involves ceramic silicon carbide (SiC).
Silicon carbide as compared to zirconium alloy used in most water cooled plants,
produces up to thousand times less hydrogen when reacting with hot steam. (Chandler,
2013)

3.3.3. Properties of some noticeable reactor vessel materials

3.3.3.1.

Alloy 600

Alloy 600 (UNS designation N0660) is a nickel-chromium alloy designed for use in
applications from cryogenic to elevated temperatures in the range of 2 000 F (1 093
C). Alloy 600 is non-magnetic and readily weldable. The alloy is used in a variety of
corrosion resisting applications. The high nickel content of Alloy 600 provides a level
of resistance to reducing environments, while the chromium content of the material

Jawad Bari

Page 26

provides resistance to weaker oxidizing environments. The high nickel content of the
material provides exceptional resistance to chloride-ion stress-corrosion cracking
Alloy 600 is a nickel-based alloy which contains 72% Ni minimum, 14 - 17% Cr, and 6
-10% Fe with high general corrosion resistance that has been widely used in light water
reactor (LWR) power plants Such as PWs and BWRS. In PWR plants, alloy 600 has
been used for steam generator tubes, CRDM nozzles, pressurizer heater sleeves,
instrument nozzles and similar applications. The alloy was originally developed by the
International Nickel Corporation (INCO) and is also known as Inconel 600 which is a
trade mark now held by the Special Metals Corporation (White, 1959)
(Jeff Gorman, 2009) explains why alloy 600 was selected to use for LWRs in the 1950s
and 1960s by providing the following reasons:
a) It has good mechanical properties, similar to those of austenitic stainless steels.
b) It can be formed into tubes, pipes, bars, forgings and castings suitable for use in
power plant equipment.
c) It is weld-able to itself and can also be welded to carbon, low-alloy and austenitic
stainless steels.
d) It is a single phase alloy that does not require post weld heat treatment. Also, when
subjected to post weld heat treatments that are required for low-alloy steel parts to
which it is welded, the resulting sensitization (decreased chromium levels at grain
boundaries associated with deposition of chromium carbides at the boundaries) does
not result in the high susceptibility to chloride attack exhibited by austenitic
stainless steels that are exposed to such heat treatments.

Jawad Bari

Page 27

e) It has good general corrosion resistance in high temperature water environments,

resulting in low levels of corrosion products entering the coolant and resulting in
low rates of wall thinning.
f) It is highly resistant to chloride stress corrosion cracking (SCC), and has better
resistance to caustic SCC than austenitic stainless steels.
g) Its thermal expansion properties lie between those of carbon/low-alloy steels and
austenitic stainless steels, making it a good transition metal between these materials.
3.3.3.2.

SA-508

There are only a few steels that have been sufficiently tested for approved use in the
construction of nuclear pressure vessels, partly because the qualification of such
materials requires an enormous amount of time consuming work. The reactor pressure
vessels (RPV) in particular have demanding requirements for tensile strength, toughness
and resistance to irradiation embrittlement over the projected service life. One of the
most popular alloys is ASME SA508. It has been in use extensively in variety of reactor
facilities, such as pressure vessels, steam generator and the pressuriser (H.
Pous_romero, 2012)
(S. Lee, 2002) states that the SA508 steel is generally given multi heat treatments
involving austenitising followed by water quenching, and tempering at temperatures as
high as 650C. The tempering treatment produces a variety of sub situationally alloyed
carbides and can relieve stresses generated by fabrication operations.
There is ongoing debate on whether to change update the SA508 grade 2 to grade 3 on
ASME as within the broad specification of SA508, there is a particular variant, Grade 3,
which exhibits better mechanical properties than earlier versions and is the material of
choice for pressure vessels in Generation III plants. There have been many studies of

Jawad Bari

Page 28

the microstructure obtained after the series of heat treatments described above, with the
conclusion that the quenching produces bainite, whereas the tempering leads to the
formation of molybdenum rich M2C precipitates in addition to residual cementite. So
the material will not lose its ductility for longer period of time (Lucas, 1999).
(Pickering, 2014) supports the idea of using the SA508 grade 3 alloy in next generation
nuclear power plants commenting that any change in the chemical composition due to
the irradiation on the inner wall of the pressure vessel influence the thermodynamics
and kinetics of phase changes and hence will affect microstructural evolution, with
corresponding changes in mechanical properties. Toughness is of particular importance
in pressure-vessel applications and the nature of carbide precipitation appears to be the
key controlling microstructural feature in ferrous steels such as SA508 Grade 3.

3.4.

Designing and Manufacturing Techniques

3.4.1. CAD Packages

With the cad software the designing professionals are offered large number of tools that
help in carrying out thorough engineering analysis of the proposed design. The tools
also help designers to consider large number of investigations. Since the cad systems
offer greater accuracy, the errors are reduced drastically in the designed product leading
to better design. Eventually, better design helps carrying out manufacturing faster and
reducing the wastages that could have occurred because of the faulty design. (Khemani,
2008)
The first the CAD graphic was developed in mid-1960s under the registered name of the
Control Data Digigraphs system. But the demand of the programme was very low only
the few copies were sold. The need of the computer-based graphics slowly started to get
Jawad Bari

Page 29

recognised by the engineers to improve the productivity. Manufacturing companies

especially those in Automotive, Defence and Aerospace started taking interest in
drafting graphics. During early years the work fell into two categories. On one hand
companies such Renault and the Ford foFcused on the mathematical definition of
complex surfaces while other Companies such as the Lockheed martin focused to
drafting packages. Eventually Renault work evolved into Dassault Systems Catia.
(Booker, 1963).
3.4.2. CATIA V5
According to Dassault Systems CATIA delivers the unique ability not only to model
any product, but to do so in the context of its real-life behaviour and they claims that
the CAD package can be used to design or draft any kind of product. It has played
major role in NASAs design of the space shuttle programme and has significance in
designing the fighter jets and air craft carriers. Although initially CATIA v5 was
developed for aviation industry but I has extensively being used in other engineering
industries some of these industries include; appliances, architecture, automotive,
construction, consumer goods, electronics, medical, furniture, machinery, mold and Die,
and shipbuilding because it provides advanced technologies for mechanical surfacing
& BIW. It also provides tools to complete product definition, including functional
tolerances as well as kinematics definition. (Dassalt Systems, 2014)
3.4.3. FEA Simulation Packages

After Second World War when the pragmatic approach to the engineering problems
became possible to accessible by the aid of the computers, in mid 1950s, structural
engineers managed to fuse the well-established frame analysis and variational methods
into discretization method in which continuous model can be divided into elements with
Jawad Bari

Page 30

locally defined strain and stresses (Thomee, 1999). At early stages, the scope of the
technique was somewhat limited due to expensive main frame computers. By the 1970s
FEA widely used in the aerospace, automotive and defence industries however, in
recent years FEA has become commonplace for engineering industry. (FEA plate with
hole report, 2015).
Now it is considered to be normal practice to model the product, before manufacturing,
in relevant simulation package to predict the behaviour of the product under stress
conditions. Simulation is essentially a program that allows the user to model the product
in real phenomenon using a set of mathematical formulas. It let the user to observe an
operation through simulation without actually performing that operation.
It would be appropriate to quote (Pidd, 2006) on development of simulation packages
it is probably true, at least in part; that each generation assumes that the way it
operates is the only way to go about things. It is easy to forget that different approaches
were used in the past and hard to imagine what other approaches might be used in the
future The rapid development and advancement of computer technology especially the
processing speed and powerful languages such as C++, java and Fortran etc. have
augmented the development of FEA software packages such as, ADINA, ANSYS and
SolidWorks.

3.4.3.1.

ANSYS 14.5

According to the description given on the Ansys official website, Ansys provides
unparalleled and unequalled technical depth in any simulation domain, whether it is
structural analysis, fluids, thermal, electromagnetics, meshing, or process & data
management Ansys provides the appropriate functionality for the desired requirements.
Jawad Bari

Page 31

Through both significant R&D investment and key acquisitions, the richness of
technical offering has flourished throughout the years (Ansys, Inc, 2015)
There are many types engineering analysis that can be conducted on Ansys such as
structural analysis, vibrational analysis, fatigue analysis and heat transfer. In this report
the focus will be on structural analysis. Structural analysis is mainly consists of linear
and non-linear static stress analysis. Linear static stress analysis represents the most
basic type of analysis and assumes that the material remains within the elastic limit,
while the non-linear stress models consist of stressing the material past its elastic limit.
This report is only focused on linear static stress analysis.
Like many other FEA analysis software packages Ansys also provides pre-written
commercial codes. There is wide range of objective functions behind these prewritten
codes. These objective functions are usually to define; element types such as four-node
quadrilaterals and the eight-node quadrilaterals, material types such as isotropic,
orthotropic and general anisotropic, and variables within the system such as force,
displacement, pressure and heat flux.
3.4.4. Fabrication
The fabrication technics of reactor pressure vessels are constantly evolving since the
first creation of first nuclear plant. Now the new RPVs are getting fabricated by utilising
the knowledge gained from the surveillance programmes and more modern
methods such as the use of large forgings to reduce the number of welds in the
beltline (International Atomic Energy Agency , 1999)
(Ballesteros, 2014) states that before the RPV enters service it is the duty of the
manufacturer to ensure that the carefully-specified and tested, highest-quality materials
have been used and the tried-and-tested fabrication procedures have been employed. He
Jawad Bari

Page 32

also emphasises on a comprehensive quality assurance programme and extensive

ultrasonic inspection during fabrication. The importance of this last aspect is
highlighted by the economic impact and safety concerns of the hydrogen flakes
discovered in the RPVs of Doel 3 and Tihange 2.
Most of the companies such as Westinghouse, Paladin energy and NRG energy do not
construct/fabricated their own RPVs they get their RPVs fabricated from third party
manufacturers. For example in USA most RPVs in the USA were fabricated by either
combustion Engineering, Chicago Bridge and Iron, or Babcock and Wilcox. Some
vessels were fabricated in Europe by Rotterdam Dry-dock Company and by
Creusot-Loire. In some cases, vessels were constructed by more than one fabricator
because of scheduling problems in the shops.
Thick-walled cylindrical steel vessel enclosing the reactor core in a nuclear power plant
the vessel is made of special fine-grained low alloy ferritic steel, well suited for welding
and with a high toughness while showing low porosity under neutron irradiation. The
inside is lined with austenitic steel cladding to protect against corrosion. For a 1,300
MWe pressurized water reactor, the pressure vessel is usually about 12 m high, the
inner diameter is 5 m, and the wall of the cylindrical shell is about 250 mm thick. The
overall weight amounts to approx. 530 t without internals. The vessel is designed for a
pressure of 17.5 MPa (175 bar) and a temperature of 350 C
3.4.4.1.

Welds

Welds are considered to be very important processes in the fabrication of the RPVs.
Large vessels are fabricated by two methods. In the first method, rolled and welded
plates are used to form separate steel courses. Such a vessel has both longitudinal and
circumferential weld seams, shown in figure 9.6 in appendix B. According to

Jawad Bari

Page 33

(International Atomic Energy Agency , 1999) report in some older vessels before 1972,
the longitudinal welds are of particular concern with regard to vessel integrity because
they contain high levels of copper and phosphorous.
In the second method, large ring forgings are used as shown in figure 9.7. This method
improves component reliability because of the lack of longitudinal welds. Weld
seams are located to avoid intersection with nozzle penetration weldments. Weldments
within the beltline region were minimized once research showed that weld metal could
be more sensitive to neutron radiation than base material. In general, parts of the
longitudinal shell course welds are within the beltline region when the RPV is
fabricated using plate material. At least one circumferential weld is near or marginally
within the beltline region when the RPVs are fabricated from either plates or ring
forgings. Recently, NSSS vendors are designing the RPV such that the beltline region
does not contain any weldments. This is accomplished by utilizing very large ring
forgings to fabricate the shell course.
There is an extensive research on going for the new efficient and the most economical
ways of welding the plates or the rings of the RPV. SA508 steels are typically used in
civil nuclear reactors for critical components such as the reactor pressure vessel.
Nuclear components are commonly joined using arc welding processes, but with design
lives for prospective new build projects exceeding 60 years, new welding technologies
are being sought. One of these new technologies introduced and implanted by the
institute of china (Wei Guo, 2015) is Autogenous laser welding. the schematic of the
laser welding configuration is shown in figure 9.8 in appendix B.
3.4.4.2.

Jawad Bari

Surveillance programmes

Page 34

According to (Sonaeda, 2015) the reactor pressure vessels are fabricated in accordance
with strict quality assurance (QA) programmes. Information about how to produce a
RPV is well documented. All phases are covered, beginning with the technical
requirements and ending with the monitoring of all work performance activities. During
fabrication activities, the RPV undergoes non-destructive examinations (NDE) and
concludes fabrication with a shop hydrostatic test at some given value above operating
limits. Further, once a NPP is in operation, the RPV is subjected to comprehensive
periodic in service inspection, including material radiation damage assessment via the
surveillance programme.
(Ericksonkirk, 2007) states that there are number surveillance programme running for a
number of older water moderated, water cooled energy reactor (WWER) power plants
and some western pressurise water reactor which can be used in future in design stage
of reactor vessels. This information would also be helpful to predict the radiation
damage on the pressure vessel.

3.5. Inspections
The most important task of every utility operating a nuclear power plant is the
continuously keeping of the desired safety and reliability level. This is achieved by the
performance of numerous inspections of the components, equipment and system of the
nuclear power plant in operation and in particular during the scheduled maintenance
periods at re-fuelling time. Periodic non-destructive in-service inspections provide most
relevant criteria of the integrity of primary circuit pressure components. The task is to
reliably detect defects and realistically size and characterize them. One of most

Jawad Bari

Page 35

important and the most extensive examination is a reactor pressure vessel in-service
inspection (Picek, 2014).
Inspection demand high standards of technology and quality and continual innovation in
the field of non-destructive testing (NDT) advanced technology. The Inspection in
service nuclear reactors inspects and takes into account the following characteristics of
the nuclear plant.
3.5.1. Irradiation Embrittlement
Reactor pressure vessels which contain
the main core of the nuclear reactor are
made of thick steel plates that are welded
together. Neutrons from the fuel in the
reactor irradiate the vessel as the reactor is
operated. This can embrittle the steel,
make it less tough and less capable of
withstanding flaws which may be present.
Embrittlement usually occurs at a vessels Figure 3-1: Irradiation Embrittlement
beltline as this section is closest to the http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0107/
odette-0107.html

reactor fuel. Small fractures only nanometer in sizes produced due to the irradiation effect cause the hardening of the beltline
of the pressure vessels. The key embrittlement processes is illustrated on the figure 3-1.
On the figure 3-1; (a) shows the generation of lattice defects in displacement cascades
by high-energy recoil atoms from neutrons scattering which cause the primary radiation
damage. The primary defects are in the form of single and small clusters of vacancies
and self-interstitials: (b) the small cluster leads to enhanced solute diffusion and

Jawad Bari

Page 36

formation of nanoscale defect-solute cluster complexes (iron atoms not shown); (c)
these complexes of nanoscale cause the dislocation pinning and hardening of metal.
According to (Gunter, 1996) the reactor vessel is by far the single largest safety-related
component in the reactor. The pressure vessel is the principle boundary for the reactor
core cooling capability and radiation containment system. A NRC report emphasizes the
importance of this component stating integrity of the reactor pressure vessel is
essential in ensuring the reactor safety. He argues that if the reactor pressure vessel
fails there is no back up available to cool down the main reactor core, thus the effects of
the radiation embrittlement should be emphasized during the design process.
(G.E.Lucas, 2001) states that the neutron irradiation embrittlement could limit the
service life of some of the reactor-pressure vessels in existing commercial nuclear
power plants. Improved understanding of the underlying causes of embrittlement has
provided regulators and power plant operator better estimates of vessel-operating
margins. He further argues that emphasizes on the status of mechanistic understanding
of models, and their role in increasing the reliability of vessel-integrity assessments can
improves the life expectancy of reactor pressure vessels. Vessel assessment that
includes a new fracture toughness master curve method can improve the material
selection phase for the pressure vessels.
(Fahim Hashim, 2006) states that the degradation of reactor pressure vessel steels due to
neutron irradiation embrittlement is directly related to safety and life of the nuclear
power plant. In order to ensure structural integrity and safe operation of nuclear power
plants surveillance programs should be conducted more often to monitor and predict the
changes in reactor pressure vessel material.

Jawad Bari

Page 37

3.5.2. Corrosion
(Harvey, 1991) says that corrosion can reduce the fatigue life through the surface
damage effect of roughening and also by pitting which reduces the cross-sectional area,
thereby increasing the magnitude of the applied stress. He also argues that a more
serious type of damage can occurs if corrosion and radiation embrittlement act
simultaneously.
(R.W.Nichols, 1987) Describe the use of the ASME and British standard codes to
estimate the growth of cracks driven mainly by thermal shocks. Reapeated application
of the thermal shocks may lead to crack ignition and crack growth. The ability to use
current codes and standards to describe this type of crack is desirable. If the standards of
the design codes are fully applied during the designing processes thermal shock can be
avoided.
3.5.3. Fracture toughness

Fracture toughness is an indication of the amount of stress required to propagate a preexisting flaw. It is a very important material property since the occurrence of flaws is
not

completely avoidable in

the processing,

fabrication or service of a

material/component. Flaws may appear as cracks, voids, metallurgical inclusions, weld

defects, design discontinuities, or some combination thereof. Since engineers can never
be totally sure that a material is flaw free, it is common practice to assume that a flaw of
some chosen size will be present in some number of components and use the linear
elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) approach to design critical components. This
approach uses the flaw size and features, component geometry, loading conditions and
the material property called fracture toughness to evaluate the ability of a component
containing a flaw to resist fracture.
Jawad Bari

Page 38

The integrity of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) is essential for the continued
operation of a nuclear power plant (NPP). Most studies related to long term operation,
beyond typical design life, have identified the RPV as the most critical component of
the NPP. Essentially all commercial light water reactors use ferritic low alloy steels for
the construction of the RPV, so structural integrity relies upon accurate knowledge of
the change in fracture toughness of the RPV materials over the time of operation
(IAEA, 2009)
ASME has recommended the guide lines for the fracture toughness of the RPVs. The
new criteria are introduced in section III of nuclear codes. It states that the Nuclear
Power Plant Components, to provide assurance against brittle failure. The criteria
required the component materials to satisfy certain fracture toughness requirements
(NB-2330 of the Code). The criteria also introduced non-mandatory Appendix G,
"Protection against Non-Ductile Failure", into the ASME Code. Appendix G of Section
III presents a procedure for obtaining the allowable loading for ferrous pressureretaining materials in Class 1 components. The procedure is based on the principles
of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) (ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Section III, Division , 2010)
3.5.4. Crack
During the fabrication of some RPVs it was discovered that small cracks were present
in the base metal beneath the cladding of the steel. The first incident of underclad
cracking was discovered in the early 1970s in Europe and later in the USA. This
cracking was defined as "reheat cracking" because the cracks appeared after the final
stress relief heat treatment of the RPVs. Reheat cracking was limited to RPVs fabricated
from A508 Class 2 forging steel or the equivalent European grades. Reheat cracking
only occurred when the cladding was applied utilizing a high heat input welding
Jawad Bari

Page 39

procedure. During the cladding process, grain coarsing occurred due to the high heat
input of the welding procedure, thus weakening the underclad grain boundaries. Then
the subsequent post-weld stress relief heat treatment at elevated temperature
resulted in decohension of the grain boundaries, e.g., small cracking occurred.
Underclad reheat cracks are approximately 2 to 3 mm in depth and can be detected
during the preserve NDE by using straight beam transducers. However, it is virtually
impossible to size these cracks with NDT. Reheat cracking is, for the most part,
confined to the cylindrical portion of the RPV. The beltline region can contain many
millions micro cracks (International Atomic Energy Agency , 1999).
3.5.5. Creep/Stress Rupture
Virtually all PWRs are experiencing accelerating deterioration of steam generator tubes
because of the susceptibility of the metal used in this component and other safetyrelated parts. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) reports that cracking
of steam generator tubes is surging in US
reactors. Cracking has been identified by
Nuclear Reaction Commission (NRC) as
having

serious

safety

implications

Figure 3-2: Fracture Failure

because the thousands steam generator http://www.nationalboard.org/index.aspx?pageI

tubes constitute a major reactor coolant

D=164&ID=187

pressure boundary. A multiple tube rupture in this system could result in a rapid loss of
coolant accident in the reactor beyond the ability of the Emergency Core Cooling
System to control. This could result in a meltdown of the reactor core. Because the
steam generators are equipped with relief valves, a rupture of the primary coolant loop

Jawad Bari

Page 40

results in a radioactivity release that bypasses the containment structure with significant
risk of a catastrophic accident.
(David N, 1991) states that Indeed, the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code recognizes creep and creep deformation as high-temperature design limitations
and provides allowable stresses for all alloys used in the creep range. One of the criteria
used in the determination of these allowable stresses is 1% creep expansion, or
deformation, in 100,000 hours of service. Thus, the code recognizes that over the
operating life, some creep deformation is likely. And creep failures do display some
deformation or tube swelling in the immediate region of the rupture.
(R.W.Nichols, 1987) Describe the use of the ASME and British standard codes to
estimate the growth of cracks driven mainly by thermal shocks. Reapeated application
of the thermal shocks may lead to crack ignition and crack growth. The ability to use
current codes and standards to describe this type of crack is desirable. If the standards of
the design codes are fully applied during the designing processes thermal shock can be
avoided.

Jawad Bari

Page 41

4. Methodology
This section provides the details on how the project is conducted. Project plan of
semester one and two is provided. The engineering drawing of pressure vessels are
produced and the details are provided. Results from simulation packages are
graphically and numerically given. The comparison is made between ASME and
BSI codes. For the design codes only the relevant information is provided and
where it thought to be necessary the information is referred to relevant code
tables.

4.1.

Project Plan

The project is conduct on the basis of design by analysis rule and design by rule as per
design codes determined. These two rules are elaborated further in this section. Before
starting the project detailed project plan was made. The work load was divided between
two semesters. The details of these two semesters are provided below.
4.1.1.

Semester 1

The Gantt chart for semester one is provided in the appendix C, figure 9-9. In the first
semester most of the tasks that were conducted were research based. Research is
conducted on the history of the pressure vessels. Then on the types of pressure vessels,
reactor pressure vessel was selected after rigorous brain storming for the project see
appendix C. figure 9-10. All kind of pressure vessels are regulated by design codes and
standards. These codes were then researched in details. Some of the details of the design
code is presented in the literature review. After conducting the research on the design
codes the name of the project was planned. The most important task of semester one
was the literature review. Different methods of designing, materials, FEA packages,
manufacturing and inspecting the Reactor pressure vessels were researched, however
the literature review took longer than it was planned and then the researched was carried
on in the second semester. The parameter of the reactor pressure vessels were

Jawad Bari

Page 42

determined by the help of design codes. The software packages for the project were
decided.
4.1.2.

Semester 2

The Gantt chart for the semester 2 is presented in the appendix C, figure 9-8. In
semester two some of research in the literature was conducted again and the relevant
research was added in the report. The core of the report is based on the design of the
pressure vessel as this is what supposed to get tested in the simulation package for
Finite Element Analysis. The case study was done on the RPV designs and the design
was finalised. The 3D design was then modelled on the CAD software and the detailed
engineering drawing sets were prepared, the details are provided further in this section.
At this time some more relevant research material was added in the literature review.
The modelled was then tested in the simulation software and results were then
compared using different design codes. The discussion and reporting compiling was
finished within the three weeks.

Jawad Bari

Page 43

4.2.

Reactor Pressure Vessel Design

4.2.1. RPV Design Concepts

The Design of the RPV in this project is inspired by the two loop Westinghouses
reactor pressure vessel design shown in the appendix D, figure 9-11. The vessel
shown in the figure 9-11 is fairly typical of the reactor vessels used in almost all
western designed RPV with small number of modifications. However there are
significant differences in the size, nozzle designs and penetration designs among the
various RPV suppliers.
The Westinghouse pressure vessels were researched in detail and the various types of
Westinghouse RPVs then evaluated to deduce the right dimensions of the pressure
vessels. Westinghouse has produced various designs and models over the course of
several decades. Comparison between two models is shown in the figure 9-12, appendix
D. Based on these models the hand sketch was drawn to get the better picture of
reactor pressure vessel and some of dimensions were approximated. The hand sketch is
shown in appendix, figure 9-13. The nozzles are shown in the figures 9-14 and the 9-15.
Since there are no detailed dimensions available of reactor pressure vessels most of the
dimensions were derived using reverse engineering method.
Since the design is based on the Westinghouse RPV the same design parameter has
been chosen. The PWR pressure vessel design pressure is 17.24 MPa (2500 psi) and the
operating pressure is 15.51 MPa (2250 psi). The usual vessel pre-service hydrostatic
pressure is 21.55 MPa (1.25 x design pressure). The PWR pressure vessel design
temperature is 350C, while the operating temperature is typically 280 to 350C.

Jawad Bari

Page 44

4.2.2. Three dimensional modelling

To produce the detailed drawing of the reactor pressure vessel the model was 3D model
was prepared using the CAD software CATIA V5, the description of the software is
provided in the literature review. Although most the dimensions for RPV was estimated
during the literature review and sketching stages but still, some of the important inside
dimensions were missing. These dimensions were important for the stress analysis
determination as these could be the points of stress concentration and could be useful in
determining the principal stresses.
In order to work-out left dimensions reverse engineering method was used using
CATIAs infrastructure bench real time rendering, shown in appendix D, figure 916. As from the figure 9-12 the outer diameter and length of the RPV was known. The
figure 9-11 was stretched length and width in the rendering platform and the unknown
dimensions were estimated.
The 3D model of RPV is designed as a solid part in CATIAs Mechanical Design
bench sub bench part design. The shape of the reactor as it seems very meek model
but it is actually quite complicated when it comes to model small irregular geometries
inside the vessel. In the part design bench front plane was selected and shape profile of
the pressure vessel was sketched in order to revolve the profile. The sketch then will be
revolved 180o using a tool called shaft, as it was decided that two vessel would be
produced and eventually assembled.
In reality the nozzles are made separately and then welded on the pressure vessels,
however in this project as the model was planned to be get tested in the ANSYS,
assembling nozzles separately does not seem to be appropriate. This would have made

Jawad Bari

Page 45

the meshing and the load calculations very complicated. Hence, the nozzles are
designed as one solid body on the RPV.
The outlet and inlet Nozzles on the RPV are drawn 60o degrees to each other; this is
certainly noticeable with all Westinghouse RPV designs that the outlet nozzles are
usually 40o 60o to inlet nozzle. Once the one half of the pressure vessel was modelled
as a solid part the other half of the part was modelled using sketch and shaft of first
half. The parts are shown separately in the appendix D, figure 9-17 (a) and (b).
Once the parts were modelled they assembled together using CATIAs product bench,
Figure 9-18, in the appendix D is showing when the two parts were aligned on y-axis
to put coincidence constrains in order to join them up together, once aligned the
surfaces were combined together. Figure 9-19 showing the completed assembly of the
pressure vessel and the top view of the pressure vessel is shown in appendix D, figure
9-20. After the assembly the part was converted into a single part to make the model
simpler for further analysis, this was done using the command, generate CATIApart
from product, shown in figure 9-21.
The detailed 2-D Drawings were produced in CATIAS drafting bench in third angle
projection. The first drawing set figure 9-22 shows front and right hand side view of the
pressure vessel. The figures 9-23 and 9-24 show the cross-section of the pressure vessel
with detailed dimensions.

Jawad Bari

Page 46

4.3.

Material

In order to analyse the part in the ANSYS it was important to permit the material for the
reactor pressure vessel. Some of materials used in the reactor pressure vessels are
mentioned in the literature review. For this project the SA-508 grade 3, class 1 steel is
used. This is the second most used steel on the reactor pressure vessels after alloy 600
of 21st century.
The need for materials with higher strength, toughness and resistance to irradiation
embrittlement is rising due to increase in the power generation capacity and the design
life of nuclear power plants. The life span and safe operation of the reactor of the
reactor pressure vessel depends on the durability of pressure vessels materials in high
temperature, high pressure and radioactive environment. Hence, the SA-508 grade 3
steel is chosen for this project. Another reason for choosing this material is its low
carbon content CE 0.60. CE determines the hardenability of the steel. Below 1 CE
steel considers the low carbon steels. The chemical composition of the SA508 is shown
below in table 4.1:
Table 4.1: Chemical Composition of SA508 Steel

Si

Cr

Ni

Mo

Al

Fe

CE

0.18

0.17

0.005

0.003

0.14

0.79

0.51

0.02

Bal.

0.60

The stiffness (Youngs modulus) of the material changes with the change in the
temperature. SA508 has youngs modulus equal of 177 GPa, passion ratio of 0.3 and the
design stress intensity Sm of 184 MPa at the design temperature of 350oC (American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2010). Thermal and mechanical properties of SA508
are presented in the following table 4.2.

Jawad Bari

Page 47

Table 4.2: Thermal and Mechanical properties for the base material

Specific
Youngs
Heat
Modulus
3
(J/m C) (GPa)
106

Poissons Mean coefficient

ratio
of thermal
expansion (1/Co)
10--6

Temperature
(oC)

Conductivity
(W/m3.oC)

50

38.3

3.61

200

0.3

11.75

100
150
200
250
300
350

38.8
38.8
38.6
38.1
37.5
36.8

3.79
3.94
4.09
4.23
4.40
4.56

196
193
189
187
184
177

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3

12.07
1239
12.96
12.99
13.59
13.57

4.4.

Design Code Parameters

4.4.1. ASME approach

ASME has dedicated the whole one section for the construction of the nuclear power
plant components. As indicated in the literature review the section III division 1 covers
all the relevant information need to design pressure vessels. ASME encourages of using
design by analysis techniques.
Design by analysis philosophy was first incorporated into the ASME boiler and pressure
vessel code section III and section VIII in 1968 (Chattopadhyay, 2005). This design
approach rational safety margins (not unduly excessive) based on the actual stress
profile and optimizes design to conserve material, leading to consistent reliability and
safety. This philosophy also seems to be appropriate for the pressure vessels involving
cyclic operation and requiring superior reliability and safety.

Jawad Bari

Page 48

The design by analysis of nuclear facility class 1 components has been performed
following two application rules described in ASME Section III, division 1. In
application rule 1, the elastic-plastic analysis including strain hardening and large
deformation effects is needed to be performed for determining the plastic analysis
collapse load. In design by analysis the plastic analysis collapse load is taken as the load
producing gross plastic deformation (GPD) and used to specify the allowable load.
ASME III, division 1 article NB-3228 requires that the specified loading do not
exceed two-thirds of the plastic analysis collapse load. Thus the allowable load is:

. . ()

Where Pp is the plastic analysis collapse load and the plastic analysis collapse load can
be determined using the twice-elastic-slope (TES) criterion specified in ASME Section
III, division 1 mandatory appendix II-1430. The TES criterion is based on the loaddeformation response of the vessel as obtained by elastic-plastic analysis. The results
for this analysis with description are provided in the results section
In application rule 2, ASME III, division 1 article NB- 3228.5 requires that the range of
primary (PL), secondary membrane (Pb) and bending stress (Q) intensity should be
3Sm.
( + + ) . ()
This can be written as:
(| |) . . ()

Jawad Bari

Page 49

Where, Sm is the design stress intensity value tabulated in ASME II, part D, subpart 1,
Tables 2A (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2010). max and min are
the largest and smallest principal stresses, correspondingly. The left hand side of the Eq.
(3) is the value of the stress intensity according to Tresca yield criterion.
4.4.2. BS Approach

British standards boiler and pressure vessel code BS-5500 also proposes the same
approach used by ASME to estimate the plastic collapse load for design by analysis
route and like ASME section III BS-stress analysis technique is based on TRESCA

failure criteria. However BS 5500 encourages using 2/3 design stress intensity Sm - .
.

The details of the criteria are summarised in Figure 9-25 of appendix D. This makes the
TRESCA criterion to be less than 2Sm.
(| |) . . ()
BSI has based these stress limits on elastic analysis and for design temperature the
calculation of stress levels can be complex. For membrane regions, however, the stress
limit is set at: membrane stress 1/1.3 creep rupture stress in the service life. BS 5500
also incorporates design by rule route, which avoids extensive stress analysis. Section 3
of BS-5500 provides the design rule for specific well-knn and established geometries
under the design pressure and temperature loading only. Figure 9-26 in design appendix
lists some of the geometries covered by these rules. There are few limits imposed by
design by rule route which ensures:
-

That basic thickness are adequate to avoid gross plastic collapse

Avoidance of instability, i.e. buckling

Jawad Bari

Page 50

Compliance with the limits of the theory and/ or experimental basis behind the
rules.

In this project the comparison is also made between design by rule and design by
analysis. The max allowable pressure according to rules of DBR was calculated at the
cylindrical portion of the RPV is called the beltline region of the RPV. The formula for
cylindrical vessel is given in the equation below, the equation is based on the LAME
equation and it has also appeared in article NB- 3320 of ASME III, division 1.
=

4.5.

+.

. Eq(5)

Finite Element Method

To conduct the finite element analysis ANSYS simulation package was used. Two
Finite Element Analyses were conducted, one on the whole reactor pressure vessel and
the other just on the beltline region of the RPV as the results from the first test showed
the maximum deflection on the beltline region, hence only the beltline region was
selected for the second test.
4.5.1. Finite Element Modelling

A full hexahedral model of the RPV was developed using ANSYS workbench. Three
dimensional finite element model of the RPV was created in static structure bench of
ANSYS. The FE model contains a total of 89634 hexahedral elements. The type of the
element used is Solid-186. This is a 20 node, higher order 3-D brick element. Initially
the model was developed under the tri/quad elements but to obtain precise and accurate
results the high density hexahedral elements were created with element size of 50mm.
The fixed support was applied on the outer ring of the RPV as this is where it will get
fixed on the concrete structure. The model was then tested using the design pressure of
17 MPa and design temperature of 350oC.
Jawad Bari

Page 51

The procedure of finite element modelling in ANSYS 14.5 is outlined below:

4.5.2. ANSYS 14.5 Static Structural Workbench

ANSYS provides wide range of the analysis platform in it toolbox such as fluent flow,
linear buckling, static structures etc. For RPV analysis Static Structural workbench is
used. Figure 9-26 is showing typical format of ANSYS workbench.
4.5.2.1.

Engineering Data

Engineering data is the first step towards producing Finite Element model. It is used to
specify properties of the material used for a model. In this section a user can either
assigned the material properties from the library or it can be assigned manually.
Since the SA-508 is not common steel the properties were assigned manually into
engineering data dialogue box. It is shown in figure 9-28, appendix E.
4.5.2.2.

Geometry

After assigning the material properties it was required to bring the 3D model into
ANSYS. Geometry module of ANSYS provides the platform to either develop the 3D
model and assign the surfaces or import the external geometry. Since the 3D modelling
was done CATIA V5. In CATIA the model was converted into .STP format so it can be
imported into ANSYS geometry module. Once the geometry was imported into the
geometry module the operation tab was selected as Add Material. This is so ANSYS
takes in account the material properties.
4.5.2.3.

Model

Model is the next module in the project schematic of the ANSYS static structure bench.
After defining the geometry in the geometry module ANSYS imports the geometry into
the model module. Model module provides the capacity of meshing the model/
converting it into finite elements. Define the constraints, assigned supports and loads
acting on the model. Once the model was imported in the model module of the ANSYS
Jawad Bari

Page 52

it was meshed using the automated tool given in the ANSYS. ANSYS has capability of
auto-meshing is quick and easy to conduct however auto meshing does not provide the
precise results for complicated geometries as the meshing is same throughout and automeshing usually uses low size mesh with tri/quad meshing. Tri/quad meshing is
preferred when the estimation of the results are required not the accuracy. In this
project, however, accuracy has a key importance as the results will be then compared
with the design codes. To achieve the better mesh quality, the mesh was refined
manually. To refine the mesh Hex Dominant Method was used and under definition tab,
free face mesh type, ALL QUAD option was selected. This is to make sure no triangular
meshing is created. The sizing of the element was set to 50 mm. Then the model was
updated in order to create the meshing. The modal module is shown in the figure 9-30
and Figure 9-31 (a) and (b) are showing the meshed models of RPV.
After meshing the RPV two different support constraints were applied on the model.
First one called free support was applied on the edges of the model which were
supposed to be symmetrical and the other one called fixed support was applied on the
outer ring of the Reactor Pressure Vessel. The design pressure of 17 MPa was applied
on the entire inner wall of the pressure and the model was then solved.
4.5.2.4.

Setup, Solution, Results

In static structural analysis, Setup, Solution and Results workbenches are all emerged
together as after meshing user just have to assigned the loads and the supports on the
model, assigned the solutions that one is required to attain and solve the model in order
to generate the solution of required analysis. The solutions that were conducted are
presented in the results and Solution window is shown in figure 9-32, appendix E.

Jawad Bari

Page 53

After receiving the results of the RPV, only the beltline region of the model was
produced in the geometry shown in the figure 9-39 (a) of appendix F and the same
procedure was used to the mesh the model, figure 9-39 (b). But this time the frictionless
support was applied on the left, right and bottom surfaces of the model and the fixed
support was applied on the top surface. During this test the incremental iterative
approach was use. The internal pressure was increased in steps from design pressure of
1 MPa until the model deformed reaching to its plastic deformation. The displacement
of the RPV in the redial direction was noted for each incremental step and has been
presented in Appendix F, table 9-4.

4.6.

Results

The results from the FEA of the reactor pressure vessel are provided in the Appendix F.
The first set of results which were conducted on the RPV contains the following
analysis; these results are discussed in details in the discussion section:
-

Total Deformation

Maximum Principal Stress

Middle Principle Stress

Peak Stress

Equivalent Elastic Strain (Von Mises)

Hoop Stress

Second set of the FEA was conducted on the cylindrical part of the RPV which refered
as the beltline region of the RPV, shown in the figure 9-39 (a) and (b). To conduct that
test incremental iterative technique was used, the internal design pressure was increased
in steps from 1 MPa as mentioned in the finite element method section. The results are
Jawad Bari

Page 54

presented in table 9-4, appendix F. A structural response curve is plotted with Design
pressure vertical axis and deformation on the horizontal axis.
ASMEs twice elastic slope TES criterion mentioned section III, division 1 mandatory
appendix II-1430, was used to find the collapse load. The angle that the linear part of
the load-deflection curve makes with the vertical axis is called . A second straight
line called here in after the collapse limit line, is plotted through the origin so that it
makes an angle with the horizontal axis. This is shown in graph 9-2, appendix F. All the
calculations are presented on the graph. The maximum collapse load found to be 37.2
MPa.
According to the ASME rule mentioned in the design code parameters section
thatthe specified loading do not exceed two-thirds of the plastic analysis collapse
load. Hence using eq (1), the allowable maximum pressure using design by analysis
is 24.8 Mpa.
Maximum allowable pressure using design by rule eq (5), mentioned in section 3 of BS5500, is:
=

+ .

+ .

= .

Jawad Bari

Page 55

5. Discussion

The objective of this project was to design a pressure vessel and perform a Finite
Element Analysis to find the stress concentration on RPV and to evaluate which of the
two governing bodies ASME and BS provides the most effective way of assessing the
maximum allowable stresses on the pressure vessel. The design of Westinghouse house
double loop, 300MW PWR type RPV was designed and FEA was performed. Research
in the literature review showed that ASME and BS follow the same method of design by
analysis to determine the maximum allowable stress, however there is a slight
difference in using the design stress intensity of the material. Both codes seemed to
compare the results with TRESCA criterion. And to find the plastic collapse load of the
RPV can be determined by using the twice elastic slop method. BS-5500 also
incorporates design by rule method into its section three; this has also been looked into,
and compared with design by analysis method.

5.1.

Simulation Results

To fulfil application rule 1 of ASME and BS finite element method approach was taken
using ANSYS to find the maximum stress on the RPV. Results are present in the
appendix F. Referring to figure 9-33 in the appendix F, the total deformation is 1.5708
mm which is at the cylindrical part of the RPV also refers as the beltline region. It was
expected to have high deformation at the beltline region of the pressure vessel as it was
fixed just above the beltline region and concentration of the stress will be higher in this
region due to hoop stress.
Maximum principal stress is located at on the top edge of the pressure vessel, shown in
the figure 9-34 of appendix F, and it is found to be 258.28 MPa. Maximum principal

Jawad Bari

Page 56

stresses are caused by the imposed loading which according to (Chattopadhyay, 2005) is
necessary to satisfy equilibrium between external and internal loads. In our case, since
there is no external design pressure is applied the external force is generating from the
point of the fixed support. The concept of equilibrium is based on a monotonic load and
lower limit load. Principal stresses do not consider to be the self-limiting. This suggests
that if the limit load is exceeded, gross deformation takes place hence this is said to be
not self-limiting. Gross deformation is further discussed later in this section. Since these
stresses can cause ductile rapture or a complete loss of load capability maximum are
further divided into three categories, General Primary Membrane Stresses, Local
Primary Membrane Stress and Primary bending the stresses. The Maximum principal
stress value shown in the results is the primary value of these stresses. None of these
stresses include the stress generated due to discontinuities such as welds or irregular
geometries.
Figure 9-35 of appendix is showing the middle principle stresses or the secondary
stresses on the RPV. The maximum secondary stresses were to be at the edges and just
below the cylindrical part of the pressure vessel and found to be 123.02 Mpa. These
stresses are essentially originates through the self-constraint of a structure. It should be
reminded that during FEA modelling, frictionless support was applied at the edges of
RPV as it is symmetrical. Secondary stresses are self-limiting and the major
characteristic of the secondary stress is that it occurs at structural discontinuities and can
be caused by mechanical load. This tells why the maximum tress is seen on the edges of
the RPV.
Figure 9-36 is showing peak stresses acting on the reactor pressure vessel. It should be
noted that stress is highest 57.2 MPa near the inner ring of the top head of the RPV and
near the nozzles. Peak stresses are highest in a region produced by a concentration or
Jawad Bari

Page 57

discontinuity. These stresses affect the small volume of the material and do not have
significant effect on the overall stress and strain pattern. Thus the peak stresses came to
be fairly low than the other two stresses.
The Von Mises criterion for the RPV was also determined in FEA analysis shown in
figure 9-37 of appendix F. Von Mises is widely used by the engineers to determine
whether their design will withstand a given load condition. In other words, it determines
the whether an isotropic and the ductile metal will yield when subjected to complex
loading condition. For this reason, it is sometimes called the-plasticity or flow theory.
Von Mises for RPV was found to be 213.02 MPa at 17 MPa of design pressure. The
highest Von-Mises equivalent stress originated at just above the beltline region of the
RPV near the fixed support. Hoop Stress, which was anticipated to be high in RPV
around the beltline areas worked out to be 224.37 near the fixed support area and it is
shown in figure 9-38.

5.2.

Design Code Comparison

Two application rules for both ASME and BS were mentioned in the design code
parameter section. First one was to determine the plastic collapse load by using AMSE
and BSs design by analysis approach and the second one to satisfy the TRESCA
criterion. Referring to material properties, the design intensity of material was 184 MPa,
and according the application rule 2 for ASME the maximum stress intensity should be
less than 3Sm (3184 = 552 MPa) and for BS 2Sm (2184 = 368). The maximum stress
was found to be 258.28 MPa (fig 9-34). This is less than AMSE and BS recommended
for the maximum stress intensity, hence satisfy both design codes.
From the results it is observed that BS-5500 is more conserve. BS does not allow
utilising the full design stress intensity of the material but instead allows the 2/3 of the
Jawad Bari

Page 58

material intensity to be taken into account. This can actually increase the fabrication
cost of the RPV as more material will be used.
For the second application rule, the incremental iterative technique was used and results
are shown in the table 9-4. Table 9.4 includes the results for the FEA of the beltline
region of RPV which was then translated into graph form Graph 9-1. Graph 9-2 in the
appendix F shows all the working out for the twice-elastic-slope criterion. From TES
method collapse load for the cylindrical part of the RPV was worked out. The value
turned out to be 37.2 MPa, since the maximum allowable pressure determined by design
by analysis is 2/3 of plastic analysis collapse load, 37.2 MPa equated to be 24.8 MPa.
The maximum pressure by design by rule worked to be 18.26 MPa at the beltline
region. There is 26.37% of a difference between design by analysis and design by rule
values. This is perhaps the reason why the ASME encourages using the design by
analysis philosophy. 26.37% difference mean that RPV design on the basis of design by
rule philosophy would require much more material, compromise the ductility of RPV
and will not be cost effective.
It should be noted in graph 9-1 shows linearity till 30 MPa and then suddenly gets
slightly steep before RPV reaches its plastic limit. Human error may also need to be
factored in when measuring the deflection as 41 readings were taken. 30 Mpa and
onwards stages were repeated thrice to make sure if there is any changes arise in the
results but they stayed the same.
However another reason that can be suggested is that may be due to a lack of failure
criteria set on the FEA models engineering data some of the results altered. As mention
in the procedure section the engineering data was fed into ANSYS prior to FEA
analysis, some the required data was missing due to lack of information on the material

Jawad Bari

Page 59

properties as SA-508 steel is not readily available in commercial market and

specifically use in Nuclear reactors.
Another criteria that can alter some of the results is placing the support forces, placing
the fixed support other than top edge could give different results. Although throughout
the experiments every effort was made in order to reduce the amount of errors that may
occur, however during recording the readings it is easy to misread a results as the
simulation was run infinite amount of times.
During the analysis the effects of the irradiation embrittlement were not taken into
account. This is due to irradiation embrittlement requires the cycling load data which
can only be attain from the manufacturer and considering the time given it would not
have possible to request such information. Another reason for not including the
irradiation embrittlement into analysis is that the cladding was excluded from the
design. Because ASME III division 1 article NB-3122 suggests that no structural
strength shall be attributed to the cladding for the analysis of clad components.
However, the effects of embrittlement on RPV are detailed in the literature review
section.

Jawad Bari

Page 60

6. Conclusion
In this report Finite Element Analysis on the RPV was conducted and the maximum
stress was compared with Design by Analysis techniques provided by the ASME
Section III and BS-5500. The maximum allowable stress obtained from FEA seems to
satisfy the maximum allowable criteria of ASME section III and BS-5500; however BS
does not allow the full use of design stress intensity of a material but instead allows the
2/3 of it. This makes the BS design code to be more conserve than ASME design code.
Peak stresses are caused by the irregular/sharp geometries and can be dealt with
smoothing the areas. Two of the following points can be made on the comparison
between design by analysis and design by rule:

Design by analysis allows removing the unnecessary conservatism caused by

applying the DESIGN BY RULE approach.

An increase of 26.37 % in the maximum allowable pressure is recommended

when RPV is designed using the rules of design by rule instead of design by
analysis.

Jawad Bari

Page 61

7. Further Work

Further work would have to be conducted on fracture analysis of the RPV; fracture can
be occurred by the pressurised thermal shock (PTS). This can arise when the cold water
is pumped in through the inlet nozzle while the internal pressure may remain at a high
level. Analysis the fracture in the RPV requires a lot of surveying and cycling load data
which was not possible to obtain during the course of study. This data then can be used
in ANSYS to evaluate the pattern of stress and strain caused by the load applied. This
can be used to predicted the crack growth on the inside wall of the RPV. The results
then can be compared with different techniques which provide the method of analysing
the fracture.
Another thing that can be looked into in further work is the welding efficiency which
was completely ignored during the analysis period, as it was thought that making
welding joints on the RPV will make the model complicated in the ANSYS as it will
not get treated as one solid body, thus meshing would be extremely time consuming.

Jawad Bari

Page 62

8. References

American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (2010). ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Section II Part D - Material Properties. New York.
Annul book of ASTM Standards . (1989). Iron and Steel Products. In A. Standards,
Steel, Structural, Reinforcing, Pressure Vesel, railway (p. Section 1). New York.
Ansys, Inc. (2015). ANSYS, Inc. Retrieved FEB 26, 2015, from ANSYS:
http://www.ansys.com/About+ANSYS
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division . (2010). Rules for
construction of nuclear facility componenets. New York .
Ballesteros, A. (2014, Novemeber 28). Nuclear Engineering International. Retrieved
January 05, 2015, from Nuclear Engineering International Website:
http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurereactor-pressure-vesselsurveillance-4454785/
Booker, P. J. (1963). A history of engineering drawing . Chatto & Windus .
BSIGroup. (2012). Specification for unfired fusion welded pressure vessels. PVE/1.
London: Bristish Standard Institude .
Carter, B. E. (2001). CASTI Guidbook to ASME section VIII DIV. 1 Pressure Vessels
(3rd ed.). Canada: CASTI.
Chandler, D. (2013, July 25). New nuclear fuelrRod cladding could lead to safer power
plants . Retrieved March 14, 2015, from Science Daily :
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130725104900.htm
Chattopadhyay, S. (2005). Pressure Vessels; Design and Practice . USA: CRC Press.
David N, F. (1991). Creep and Creep Failures . Northborough: National Board .
Ericksonkirk, M. (2007). Technical Basis for Revison of the Pressurized Themal Shock.
Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Fahim Hashim, S. W. (2006). Experimental Simulation of Neutron Irradiation Damage
in Reactor Presuure Vessels Steels. china : University of Aeronuatics and
Astronautics .
G.E.Lucas, G. &. (2001). The Minerals, Metal & Materials Society . Retrieved January
02, 2015, from TMS: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0107/odette107.html

Jawad Bari

Page 63

Gunter, P. (1996, March ). Nuclear Information and Resource Service . Retrieved

January 02, 2015, from NIRS: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pwrfact.htm
H. Pous_romero, I. L. (2012). Austenite Grain Growth in a Nuclear Pressure Vessel
Steel. Cambridge : University of Cambridge .
Harvey, J. F. (1991). Theory and Design of Pressure Vessels (2nd ed.). Great Britain:
Chapman & Hall.
Hong, L. Y. (2010). The Birth of a Code: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
Retrieved 12 18, 2014, from http://www.psig.sg/:
http://www.psig.sg/Birth%20of%20a%20Code.html
Houston, R. (1987). British Standards Institution Boiler and Pressure VesselmDesign
Criteria. In R. W. Nichols, Pressure Vessel Codes and Standards (pp. 105 158). New York : ELSEVIER APPLIED SCIENCE PUBLISHERS LTD.
Hyder, U. T. (2015). Design by Analysis versus Design by Formula of a PWR Reactor
Pressure Vessel. International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer
Scientists . Hong Kong: IMECS.
IAEA. (2009). Master Curve Approach to Monitor Fracture Toughness of Reactor
Pressure Vessels in Nuclear Power Plants. Vienna : Nuclear Power Engineering
.
International Atomic Energy Agency . (1999). Assesment and management of ageing of
major nuclear power plant companents important to safety: Pressure Vessels.
Vienna, Austria : IAEA.
Jeff Gorman, S. H. (2009). PWR Reactor Vessel Alloy 600 issue. In K. Rao,
COMPANION GUILD TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE
(pp. 66-84). New York: ASME.
John D. Stemien, D. M. (2013). Characteristics of Composite Silicon Carbide Fuel
Cladding After Irradiation Under Simulated PWR Conditions. Nuclear
Technology , 13-29.
Kendall, T. E. (1969). THE DESIGN OF PRESSURE VESSELS FOR VERY HIGH
PRESSURE OPERATION. NewYork: Watervliet Arsenal.
Khemani, H. (2008, January 12). Benefits of using the CAD Software: Advantages of the
CAD Software. Retrieved Feb 17, 2015, from Bright Hub Engineering :
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/cad-autocad-reviews-tips/17593-benefitsof-using-the-cad-software/
Lucas, S. C. (1999). Differences in mechanical properties and microstructure of SA508
CL. 3 reactor pressure vessel steels manufactured by different steel refining

Jawad Bari

Page 64

process. Transactions of the 15th International Conference on Structural

Mechanics in Reactor Technology, (pp. 223-230).
Miller, A. G. (1988). review of limit loads of structures containing defects .
International Journal of Pressure vessels and Piping, 197-327.
Moaveni, S. (2003). FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS: Theory and Application with
ANSYS (2nd ed.). USA: Pearson Education.
Morris, M. (2010). Thermopedia. Retrieved 12 22, 2014, from Semantic Globe
Sciences: http://thermopedia.com/content/1058/
Nash, D. H. (2006). UK RULES FOR UNFIRED PRESSURE VESSELS. In D. H.
Nash, The Companion Guide toPressure Vessel (pp. 1-2). Glasgow: University
of Starthclyde.
Picek, E. (2014). Advanced Approach of Reactor Pressure Vessel In-service Inspection.
^th Internationakl Conference on Nuclear Option in Countries with Small and
Dubrovnik . Croatia: INETEC- Institute for Nuclear Technology.
Pickering, E. (2014). The Consequences of Macroscopic Segregation on the
Transformation Behaviour of a Pressure-Vessel Steel. Cambridge : University of
Cambridge .
Pidd, M. (2006). Simulation software: not the same yesterday,. Journal of Simulation,
1-14.
R.W.Nichols. (1987). Pressure Vessels Codes and Standards. Uk: Elsevier Applied
Science Publisjers LTD.
S. Lee, S. K. (2002). Effect of Carbide distribution on the fracture toughness in the
transtion temperature region of an SA508 steel. Acta Materialia .
Sindelar, R. L. (2000). Flaw in Mild Steel Tanks ion the Upper Shelf Ductile Range .
South Carolina : The American Society of Mechanical Engineers .
Sonaeda, N. (2015). Irradiation Embrittlement of Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPVs) in
Nuclear Power Plants . London : Woodhead Publishing .
Tenckhoff, E. &. (1992). Materials for Nuclear Power Plants in Western Countries.
Germany: Atw Atomwirtschaft, Atomtechnik.
Thomee, V. (1999). From finite differences to finite elements; A short history of
numerical analysis of partial differential equations. N.H Elsevier .
University of Cambridge . (2010, January 14). Materials for Nuclear Power Generation
. Retrieved 03 12, 2015, from University of Cambridge website :
http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/nuclear_materials/index.php

Jawad Bari

Page 65

Wei Guo, S. D. (2015). Microstructure and mechanical characteristics of a laser welded

joint in SA508 nuclear pressure vessel steel. Materials Science & Engineering,
65-85.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation. (1984). The Westinghouse Pressurized Water
Reactor. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania : Westinghouse Electric Corporation, water
reactor division.
White, D. (1959). Evaluation of Materials for Steam Generator Tubing. Bettis
Technical Review.

Jawad Bari

Page 66

9. Appendices:
9.1.

Appendix A - Introduction:

Figure 9-1: Schematic diagram of primary circuit of typical PWR Nuclear Power Plant
http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/pwr.htm

Figure 9-2 The PWR Nuclear Power Plants schematic diagram

containment structure, (B) control rods, (C) reactor core, (D) steam generator, (E) steam line, (F) steam turbine, (G) generator, (H)
electricity to consumers, (I) condenser, (J) spray, (K) water vapour, (L) cooling tower.

Jawad Bari

Page 67

Figure9-3: Cutaway view of a Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)

(Courtesy of Westinghouse Electric Company, Pittsburgh, USA)
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter6.html

Jawad Bari

Page 68

9.2.

Appendix B - Literature Review

Figure 9-4: Typical structure of PVC committees

Jawad Bari

Page 69

Table 9.1: Main Ferrous Materials for reactor components in Western Countries

Table 9.2: Materials Specified For PWR Vessel Components

Jawad Bari

Page 70

Table 9.3: Summary of design factors and the materials for UK codes

Jawad Bari

Page 71

Figure 9-6: Rolled and welded beltline shell

Figure 9-5: Fabrication configuration of PWR beltline shells

Jawad Bari

Page 72

Figure 9-7 : Schematic diagram of laser welding

Jawad Bari

Page 73

9.3.

Appendix C Project plan

Week Endings
05/10/2014 12/10/2014 19/10/2014 26/10/2014 02/11/2014 09/11/2014 16/11/2014 23/11/2014 30/11/2014 07/12/2014 14/12/2014 21/01/2014 04/01/2015 11/01/2015
Semister 1 Task
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Week 13
Week 14
History of pressure vessels
slection of Pressure vessels
Problem Statement
Aims and Objective
History of Design Codes
Vessel Codes and Standards
Software Packages selection
Interim report composing
Introduction
Literature Review
Project Plan
Methodology

Still in Progress =

14/01/2014
S
U
B
M
I
S
S
I
O
N

Work Done =

Figure 9-8: Gantt chart for Semester 1

Week Endings
01/02/2015 08/02/2015 15/02/2015 22/02/2015 01/03/2015 08/03/2015 15/03/2015 22/03/2015 29/03/2015 05/04/2015 12/04/2015 19/04/2015 26/04/2015 03/05/2015 10/05/2015 17/05/2015 24/05/2015
Semister 2 Task
Week 19
Week 20
Week 21
Week 22
Week 23
Week 24
Week 25
Week 26
Week 27
Week 28
Week 29
Week 30
Week 31
Week 32
Week 33
Week 34
Week 35
Review of Literature review
S
Analysis of different RPVs
U
Designing of RPVs
B
Drafting of RPVs Designs
M
Testing of model
I
Code comparison
S
Discussion
s
Report composing
I
Project Poster
O
Presentation
N

Still in Progress =

Work Done =

Figure 9-9: Gantt chart for Semester 2

Jawad Bari

Page 74

Figure 9-10: Brain Storming

Jawad Bari

Page 75

9.4.

Appendix D Design & Design codes

Figure 9-11: Westinghouse Two Loop Pressure Vessel

Jawad Bari

Page 76

Figure 9-12: Design comparison of Westinghouse Reactor Pressure Vessels

Jawad Bari

Page 77

Figure 9-13: Reactor Pressure Vessel Sketch

Figure 9-14 : Outlet nozzle

Jawad Bari

Page 78

Figure 9-15: Inlet Nozzle

Figure 9-16: CATIA V5 part retendering

(a)

(b)

Figure 9-17: Figure (a) and (b) showing the two halves of the RPV

Jawad Bari

Page 79

Figure 9-18: Two parts getting Aligned

Figure 9-19: RPV assembled

Jawad Bari

Page 80

Figure 9-20: Top view of the Pressure vessel

Figure 9-21: Generating CATIA part from Assembly

Jawad Bari

Page 81

Figure 9-22: 2D Detailed Drawing

Jawad Bari

Page 82

Figure 9-23; Section A-A2, Pressure vessel 2D Drawing

Jawad Bari

Page 83

Figure 9-24: Details of the part A and B, Inlet and outlet Nozzles

Jawad Bari

Page 84

Figure 9-25: Stress categories and limits form BS-5500

Jawad Bari

Page 85

Figure 9-26: geometries covered by the BS-5500 design by rule route

Jawad Bari

Page 86

9.5.

Appendix E Simulation

Figure 9-27: Static Structure Workbench

Figure 9-28: Engineering Data Dialogue box, Material Properties

Jawad Bari

Page 87

Figure 9-29: Geometry Module

Note the operations are selected as Add material

Figure 9-30: Model module

Jawad Bari

Page 88

(a)

(b)

Figure 9-31: solid 186, 3D higher hexahedral brick meshing

Figure 9-32: Setup, Solution and Results dialogue box

Jawad Bari

Page 89

9.6.

Appendix F Results

Figure 9-33: Total Deformation

Figure 9-34: Maximum Principal Stress

Jawad Bari

Page 90

Figure 9-35: Middle Principal Stress

Figure 9-36: Peak stresses in RPV

Jawad Bari

Page 91

Figure 9-37: Von-Mises Stress

Figure 9-38: Hoop Stress

Jawad Bari

Page 92

(a)

(b)

Figure 9-39: Beltline Region of RPV Geometry, (b) Solid-189 3D Hexahedral Meshing

(b)
(a)

Figure 9-40: (a) Hoop stress at 40Mpa (b) Analysis conducted on the beltline region

Jawad Bari

Page 93

Table 9.4: Providing the Hoop, Radial and Axial Stresses on the beltline region of RPV

Design pressure
(MPa)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

Jawad Bari

Hoop Stress
(MPa)
16.33
32.66
56.79
75.72
94.64
113.57
132.50
151.43
170.36
189.29
208.20
227.14
246.07
265.00
283.93
302.86
321.90
340.72
359.64
378.57
397.50
441.43
443.06
462.82
482.57
502.33
522.08
541.83
561.59
581.34
601.09
620.85
640.60
660.36
680.11
699.86
719.62
739.37
759.12
776.07
798.63

Radial Stress
(MPa)
10.35
20.76
31.06
41.41
51.76
62.11
72.47
82.82
81.65
103.52
113.88
124.23
134.58
144.93
155.29
165.65
175.99
186.34
196.70
207.05
217.40
227.75
238.11
248.46
258.81
269.16
279.52
289.87
300.22
310.57
320.93
331.28
341.63
351.98
362.34
372.69
383.04
393.39
403.74
414.10
424.45

Axial stress
(MPa)
8.17
16.33
28.40
37.86
47.32
56.79
66.25
75.72
85.18
94.65
104.10
113.57
123.04
132.50
141.97
151.43
160.95
170.36
179.82
189.29
198.75
220.72
221.53
231.41
241.29
251.16
261.04
270.92
280.79
290.67
300.55
310.42
320.30
330.18
340.05
349.93
359.81
369.69
379.56
388.04
399.32

Radial displacement
(mm)
0.095
0.15
0.29
0.38
0.47
0.57
0.67
0.76
0.86
0.95
1.05
1.14
1.24
1.33
1.43
1.50
1.61
1.71
1.80
1.90
1.99
2.09
2.19
2.29
2.38
2.48
2.58
2.68
2.77
2.87
2.98
3.30
3.64
3.98
4.40
4.84
5.75
12.34
28.85
50.03
78.29

Page 94

Pressure vs Radial Displacement

45

40

35

Pressure( MPa)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Radial Displacement (mm)

Graph 9-1: Design Pressure VS Radial Displacement Graph

Jawad Bari

Page 95

Graph 9-2: Design Pressure VS Radial Displacement Graph the collapse limit line

Jawad Bari

Page 96

Jawad Bari

Page 97