Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2653–2659

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

Shape optimization of a torus seal under multiple loading conditions based on

the stress categories in the ASME code section III
Woo-Seok Choi ∗ , Ki-Seog Seo
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, P.O.Box 105, Yuseong, Daejeon, 305-600, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The structural optimization technique is well known as one of the tools to make a better design. Recently,
Received 27 February 2009 it is applied to the design of nuclear components for the purpose of the design evolution and enhancement.
Received in revised form 3 April 2011 When it is applied to the nuclear components, there are a couple of points to be considered. The ASME
Accepted 27 April 2011
section III, design by analysis, provides stress criteria for nuclear components, which is quite different
from the general stress constraints for a typical optimization process. Based on the ASME section III,
stresses are categorized into three types with different stress limits. The stress limits change according
to corresponding service levels. Since the types of stresses and the service levels introduce different
stress, the multiple loading conditions should be utilized during an optimization. And the general stress
constraints during an optimization are the maximum nodal stresses applied to the concerned points
rather than the concerned section. On the contrary, the failure condition of the ASME section III can be
evaluated by comparing the stress intensity, which was created by the stress linearization procedure at
the concerned section, with the prescribed one. So, the linearized stresses such as stress intensities are
used as stress constraints during an optimization for nuclear components. To validate the ideas, the shape
of torus seal is optimized under the multiple loading conditions with the linearized stress constraints.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Since a structural optimization was introduced by Schmit
(Schmit, 1960) by using a finite element analysis, many researches
have been undertaken with the purpose of a design enhancement
by applying on optimization technique to large-scale structures
especially in the industries. Since the object for an optimization is
finite element model with many degrees of freedom, it is not easy to
find a mathematical optimum design. The objective of a structural
optimization is to generate a better design in an engineering sense.
According to the development of nuclear technology, new designs
for nuclear-related structures and components are necessary. The
optimization technique is considered as one of the tools to achieve
a new better design. In this research, several points to be consid-
ered when the optimization technique is applied to nuclear-related
structures are discussed. And ways to manipulate these problems
are proposed. There are two considerations in optimizing nuclear-
related structures. One is a manipulation of the multiple loads with
different stress limits. And the other is a peculiar procedure to cal-
culate the stresses used as constraints. Based on the ASME code,
stresses are categorized into three types with different stress limits
(ASME, 2007). The stress limits change for different service levels.
Since these stress limits change for the types of stresses and the ser-
vice levels, multiple loading conditions should be utilized during an
optimization. According to the ASME code, the failure condition can
be evaluated by comparing the stress intensity, which was obtained
from the stress linearization at the concerned section, with the
prescribed one. This prescription of the ASME code is somewhat
different from the general stress constraints during an optimiza-
tion. Stress constraints during an optimization are usually applied
to the points of interest rather than the concerned section. On the
contrary, section-wise stresses should be used in the ASME code.
So, linearized stresses are used as the stress constraints during an
optimization for nuclear-related structures. Choi et al. (2008) tried
to apply a linearized stress to a shape optimization procedure for
a perforated pressure vessel. But this optimization was conducted
under one simple loading condition, which means that only one
stress limit was applied. Thereafter, an optimization under sev-
eral loading conditions with different stress limits has been studied
(Choi and Seo, 2008).
2. Structural optimization to meet ASME code section III

ASME code section III prescribes the general rules of “design by

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 42 868 4980; fax: +82 42 861 1567. analysis” upon the design of a nuclear facility component (EPERC,
E-mail address: wschoi@kaeri.re.kr (W.-S. Choi). 1999; Hechmer and Hollinger, 1998). To meet the ASME code

0029-5493/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.04.046
2654 W.-S. Choi, K.-S. Seo / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2653–2659

Table 2
Nomenclature Stress limits for each service limit (other than bolts in transport system).

Stress category Normal Hypothetical

Pm General primary membrane stress operating accident condition
PL Local membrane stress condition
Pb Primary bending stress Primary Pm ≤ Sm Pm ≤ lesser of 2.4Sm
Pe Expansion stress membrane and 0.7Su
Q Secondary stress Primary bending PL + Pb ≤ 1.5Sm PL + Pb ≤ lesser of
F Peak stress 3.6Sm and 1.0Su

Sm Design stress intensity Secondary Pe ≤ 3Sm No limit

Sy Yield stress PL + Pb + Q ≤ 3Sm
Peak 1/2(PL + Pb + Q + F) ≤ Salt 1/2(Pm + Pb + Q + F) ≤ Salt
Salt Alternate stress
 n/N ≤ 1 @ 10 cycles
 the eigenvalue
I the identity matrix
V the eigenvector Table 3
Stress limits for each service limit (bolts in transport system).

Stress category Normal operating Hypothetical accident

section III rules when optimizing the design of a nuclear facility
component, the following points should be considered.
2.1. Stress criteria of the ASME code section III
Based on the ASME code, stresses are categorized into three
types with different stress limits. The stress limits change for dif-
ferent service levels. The three categories of stresses are primary,
secondary, and peak. Primary stresses are load controlled; sec-
ondary stresses are displacement controlled; and peak stresses are
local in nature. Primary and secondary stresses can be a membrane
or a bending.
2.1.1. For nuclear steam supply systems
For the design of nuclear steam supply systems prescribed in
Division 1, Stress limits are established for Design, Level A, Level
B, Level C, and Level D loadings. Design conditions (design pres-
sure, design temperature, and design mechanical loads) establish
the required wall thickness of a vessel. Level A conditions are those
originally referred to as normal conditions and Level B as upset
conditions. Level A and B loadings are expected to occur during
the operation of a component. Stress limits for Level A and B are
selected so that there is no damage to a component that requires
a repair process. Level C stress conditions are referred to as emer-
gency conditions and Level D as faulted conditions. Level C stress
limits permit large deformations in the areas of a structural dis-
continuity, which may necessitate the removal of a component or
support from service for an inspection or repair of any damage.
Level D stress limits permit gross general deformations with some
subsequent loss of a dimensional stability and damage requiring
a repair process, which may require a removal of a component or
support from service. Since the stress limit changes for the types of
stresses and the service levels, multiple loading conditions should
condition Condition
Average stress save ≤ 2.0Sm save ≤ lesser of 3.0Sm
or 0.7Su
Shear stress t ≤ 0.4Sy t ≤ smaller of 0.42Su
and 0.6Sy
Maximum stress smax ≤ 3.0Sm No limit
be utilized during an optimization. The allowable limits of stress
intensities from NB-3200 are shown in Table 1 (ASME, 2007; Slagis,
2006).
2.1.2. For transport systems
For the design of the containments for a transport prescribed
in Division 3, Stress limits are established for a normal operating
condition and a hypothetical accident condition. Normal operating
condition limits are those sets of limits that must be satisfied for
all normal operating conditions identified in the design specifica-
tion. Hypothetical accident condition limits are those sets of limits
that must be satisfied for all hypothetical accident conditions iden-
tified in the design specification. And these stress limits are mainly
divided into two groups such as bolts and non-bolts components.
These stress limits change for the types of stresses and the stress
categories. The allowable limits of these stress intensities are sum-
marized in Tables 2 and 3. Since bolts are small components, a stress
linearization for a cross section seems not to be a good approach
even though it is possible. So, the ASME code recommends the stress
limit value for an average, shear, and maximum stress in Table 3.
2.1.3. For storage systems
For the design of the containments for a storage prescribed in
Division 3, the design criteria for a spent fuel storage system had
been developed and included in a new subsection within Division
3 in 2004. Simplified criteria are included for determining whether

Table 1
Stress limits for each service limit.

Stress category Design Level A and Level B Level C Level D

Primary membrane Pm ≤ Sm Pm ≤ 110% Sm for Level B Pm ≤ greater of 1.2Sm and Sy Pm ≤ 2.4Sm and 0.7Su

Primary bending PL + Pb ≤ 1.5Sm PL + Pb ≤ 110% (1.5Sm ) for PL + Pb ≤ greater of 1.8Sm and Elastic system analysis
Level B 1.5Sy —–OR—– PL + Pb ≤ (1.5)2.4Sm and
(1.5)0.7Su
PL + Pb ≤ 0.8CL-limit —–OR—–
Load ≤ 0.9CL-limit * or
0.9CL-plastic or test
*
yld = lesser 2.3Sm &
0.7Sy

Secondary No limit Pe ≤ 3Sm PL + Pb + Q ≤ 3Sm No limit No limit

Peak No limit 1/2(PL + Pb + Q + F) ≤ Salt  No limit No limit
n/N ≤ 1
 W.-S. Choi, K.-S. Seo / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2653–2659 2655

Table 4
Stress limits for each service limit (storage system).

Stress category All service limits Hydrostatically tested Pneumatically tested containments
containments

Primary membrane Pm ≤ kSm , PL ≤ 1.5 kSm Pm ≤ 0.90Sy Pm ≤ 0.80Sy

Primary bending (Pm or PL ) + Pb ≤ 1.5kSm Pm + Pb ≤ 1.35Sy for Pm ≤ 0.67Sy Pm + Pb ≤ 1.35Sy for Pm ≤ 0.67Sy
Pm + Pb ≤ (2.15Sy − 1.2Pm ) Pm + Pb ≤ (2.15Sy − 1.2Pm )
for 0.67 Sy < Pm ≤ 0.90Sy for 0.67 Sy < Pm ≤ 0.80Sy

Secondary PL + Pb + Q ≤ 3Sm (Div. 1, App.XIII, No limit No limit

Only for Level A Service Limits)
Peak 1/2(PL + Pb + Q + F) ≤ Salt (Div. 1, No limits No limits
App.XIV)

Stress intensity factor k is 1.0 for the design and Level A. For Level C, k is 1.2. For Level D, the stress limits of ASME code section III, Division 1, Appendix F shall be applied.

the analysis for a cyclic operation is required. Stress analysis of σt σm

containment shall be performed using the most severe combination Total Stress Membrane Stress

of the loadings expected to occur simultaneously during the design

and operating conditions. Allowable stress intensities for a primary
stress, secondary stress, and peak stress should be satisfied for all
service limits and test conditions. These criteria are summarized in
Table 4.
σb σp
For an optimization of nuclear components, stress limits Bendi ng Str es s Peak Str es s
selected from Tables 1–4 or the other related condition per the
stress category and service limit that the ASME code prescribes
should be applied as stress constraints.

2.2. Multiple loading conditions based on stress categories in the

ASME code
Fig. 1. Stress linearization according to ASME Sec. III.

When the stress limits selected in Section 2.1 are applied as

stress constraints, the number of constraints needed to be consid- sensitivity analysis for the redundant constraints is not necessary.
ered in optimization becomes large. For solving this problem and It helps in a reduction of the calculation time and the optimization
treating all these constraints, multiple loading conditions should be efficiency.
utilized. And ways of solving under multiple loading conditions are
well developed. The formulation for an optimization under multi-
2.3. Linearized stress as a stress constraint
ple loading conditions is presented in Eq. (1). Where b is the design
variables, f is the cost function, NLC is the number of loading con-
The stress linearization of the ASME section III is a procedure
ditions, gju is the jth inequality constraint under the uth loading
to divide the total stress at a concerned section into three differ-
condition, m is the number of inequality constraints.
ent stress components as illustrated in Fig. 1: membrane stress,
Find b bending stress, and peak stress. Membrane stress has the mean-
to minimize ϕ(b) ing of a mean value, bending stress has a linear distribution of the
(1) stress, and peak stress has a nonlinear distribution of the stress.
subject to K(b)zu = fu , u = 1, . . . , NLC
gju (b, zu ) ≤ 0, j = 1, · · ·, m, u = 1, . . . , NLC The defined line on a concerned plane for the stress linearization
is called SCL (Stress Classification Line). The way to calculate the
In Eq. (1), the total number of constraints treated in the optimal membrane, bending, and peak stress from the stress components
structural design is NLC × m. So an effort should be made to logically along the concerned SCL is illustrated in Fig. 2. At an arbitrary nodal
delete constraints that will not be critical at the optimum. The idea point on the SCL, the stress components can be represented as a
of “worst violated constraint” can be used in order to eliminate
redundant constraints (Haug and Arora, 1979). In the case of stress
constraints the worst violation among the elements of a group, over
all the loading conditions, may be treated instead of enforcing a
constraint on each element under each loading condition. Thus the
ith stress constraints may be expressed as Eq. (2).
 
gi = max gju (b, zu ) ≤ 0, j = 1, . . . , NMi, u = 1, . . . , NLC (2)
j, u

where NMi is the number of elements in the ith group. Similarly,

a displacement constraint is imposed on the worst violation over
all the loading conditions as Eq. (3).
 
gi = max gju (b, zu ) ≤ 0, u = 1, . . . , NLC (3)
u

The stresses based on the ASME code are not point-wise stresses
but section-wise stresses. If the stress classification line is selected,
the location where the stress is evaluated is fixed. So, in this case, Eq.
(3) is used for the stress constraints. By this manipulation, the total
number of stress constraints treated in each iteration reduce and a Fig. 2. . The linearized stress component.
2656 W.-S. Choi, K.-S. Seo / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2653–2659

Table 6
Loading combination.

No. Loading combination Allowable stress

1 (1) 1.5Sm
2 (1) + (2) 1.5Sm
3 (1) + (2) + (3) 3.0Sm

adopt the stress linearization procedure to these constraints during

an optimization, an extra data manipulation such as calculating a
linearized stress and a derivative of the linearized stress needs to
be conducted. Choi et al. (2008) calculated the membrane, bending,
and peak stress using nodal stresses along the concerned stress clas-
sification line (SCL) and applied the calculated linearized stresses
as stress constraints.
 
x xy xz
␴= yx y yz (4)
zx zy z
 t/2
1
␴m = ␴ dx (5)
t −t/2
 t/2
6
(␴b )1,2 =∓ 2 ␴ · x dx (6)
t −t/2
 n−1
1 1  
n
␴m = · hi · i + hi−1 · i (7)
t 2
i=1 i=2
 n−1 
3 
t
 
n
t

(␴b )1,2 =∓ 2 hi · i · Ti − + hi−1 · i · Ti − (8)
t 2 2
i=1 i=2

(␴m − I)V = 0
(␴b − I)V = 0
(9)
[(␴m + b ) − I]V = 0
[(␴m − b ) − I]V = 0
Fig. 3. . The flowchart of the proposed optimization.

2.4. Structural optimization procedure

matrix form in Eq. (4). The membrane stress matrix and the bending
stress matrix can be formulated as Eq. (5) and Eq. (6), respectively.
In the discrete system, they can be represented in Eq. (7) and Eq.
(8), respectively, by using the nodal stress components. Subscripts
1 and 2 in Eqs. (6) and (8) mean the stress occurring locations such
as nodes 1 and 2 in Fig. 2.
The stress intensity is calculated from the combined stresses of
the membrane and bending stress matrices. The calculation proce-
dure is based on Tresca’s maximum shear stress theory and is to
elucidate the maximum difference between the principal stresses.
In order to calculate the stress intensity, the eigenvalue problem
in Eq. (9) is solved. The eigenvalues generated from solving Eq. (9)
are the principal stresses. The stress intensities are the maximum
difference between them.
According to the ASME section III NB 3210, the calculated stress
intensity should be smaller than the design stress intensity, which is
based on a material property. The calculated stress intensity is a lin-
earized stress. The linearized stresses are used as stress constraints
during an optimization for nuclear-related structures. In order to
Since the subject of a structural optimization is usually repre-
sented as a finite element model with many degrees of freedom,
its optimization process is conducted by means of commer-
cial software programs. These software programs mainly use a
parametric optimization. Parametric optimization needs a param-
eterized finite element model. Parameters are updated at each step
of an optimization. Optimization procedure is terminated when
the updated parameters cannot formulate an updated FE model.
Parameters should be defined so that the FE model does not collapse
during any step of an optimization. In general, the optimization
algorithm in commercial software is an approximation method.
Though the calculation of an optimum value is not guaranteed, we
can achieve a better design than the current design. An approxi-
mation method does not calculate a sensitivity of a design variable
directly. This method adds an analysis result to design points and
approximates a cost function and constraints. So, the upper and
lower bounds of the design variables improves the convergence
characteristics. Therefore, after one optimization procedure under

Table 5
Stress category classified by the loading and boundary conditions.

No. Phenomena Loading/Boundary condition Magnitude Stress category

(1) Internal pressure Pressure (L.C.) 17 MPa Primary stress

(2) Production & installation tolerance Displacement in vertical direction (B.C.) 1 mm Primary stress
(3) Thermal expansion Displacement in horizontal direction (B.C.) 0.5 mm Secondary stress
 W.-S. Choi, K.-S. Seo / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2653–2659 2657

Fig. 4. The shape of torus seal, loading/boundary condition, and design variables.

Table 7
Current design and the optimum design.

Parameters Current Optimum

Rad (mm) 20 80
T (mm) 5 17.4
H1 (mm) 30 34.1
H2 (mm) 18 19.4
Delta (mm) 0 69.7

is in an allowable error range. It is denoted in Eq. (10).

 
bi − bi−1 
εi =   ≤ ε0
Fig. 5. SCLs for the torus seal.
a certain range of design variables is performed, a sequential opti-
mization procedure under a different range of design variables is
iterated with the result of the previous optimization as a new start-
ing value. Several optimization procedures are necessary to find an
optimum design. A design is assumed to be an optimum design if
the difference between the current design and the previous design
Fig. 6. Stress result for the initial design and the optimal design.
bi 
(i = 1, 2, . . . , no. of optimization procedures) (10)
In the optimization by using the commercial software in which
an approximation method is utilized, it is assumed that the design
reaches to an optimum, when the final design of the current
optimization procedure equals to the final design of the previ-
ous optimization procedure. In other words, when we perform
optimization with the final design of the previous optimization pro-
2658 W.-S. Choi, K.-S. Seo / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2653–2659
250 700
600
200
500
150 400
100 300
200
50
100
0 0
Ss1 Ss2 Ss3 Ss4 Ss5 Ss6 Ss7 Ss1
Fig. 7. Stress intensities under load combination #1, #2, #3.
cedure as the initial design, there is no further design enhancement,
which means the value of ␧i equals to zero. The same convergence
criterion was applied to the example in chapter 3. The flowchart of
the proposed optimization can be summarized and schematized in
Fig. 3.
3. Example
A torus seal is selected as an example for an application of the
proposed optimization technique for a nuclear-related structure.
Torus seal is usually used in a nuclear-related structure to pre-
vent a leakage. The cross section of a torus seal is the shape of an
omega character. The shape of a torus seal selected as an example
is shown in Fig. 4. A torus seal was evaluated as one of designs to
maintain a seal function of a separated reactor cover. When there
is a structural discontinuity, a leakage between two different struc-
tures should be prevented by welding each part of a torus seal onto
different structures, respectively. In case those two parts should be
separated, the removal of a torus seal can make it. The main func-
tion of a torus seal is to maintain sealing. In addition, an internal
pressure, relative displacements, and thermal loadings could occur
at the inside of torus seal or the structural discontinuity region.
The design pressure is applied to the torus seal as an internal pres-
sure. So, a torus seal accommodates an internal pressure. A relative
displacement in the horizontal or the vertical direction happens
because of a tolerance from a production and installation of it. This
relative displacement can also happen because of a difference in the
thermal expansion magnitude between two different structures.
A torus seal has to maintain its function and structural integrity
under multiple loads such as an internal pressure, relative displace-
ments, and thermal loadings. For the design of a torus seal, several
parameters are defined to characterize its shape and a parametric
shape optimization is performed by means of commercial software
(ANSYS, 2005).
3.1. Problem definition
A finite element model for torus seal optimization and the design
variables are represented in Fig. 4. The radius and thickness of a
torus seal were selected as design variables. The various heights to
characterize the shape of torus seal were also selected as design
variables. The parameter of “delta” was selected to move the cen-
ter of torus seal to the left or the right side. This movement was
estimated to contribute absorbing the vertical relative displace-
ment due to installation tolerance. The five design variables are
selected for the parametric optimization. The cost function is the
outer radius of the torus seal. The radius is needed to be minimized
to prevent an interface with other components.
The characteristics of each loading, stress categories, and cor-
respondent stress limits are represented in Fig. 4 and Table 5.
The internal pressure acted on the inside of torus seal are applied
as a force condition during finite element analysis. The relative
displacement in vertical direction due to the installation and fab-
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Ss2 Ss3 Ss4 Ss5 Ss6 Ss7 Ss1 Ss2 Ss3 Ss4 Ss5 Ss6 Ss7
rication tolerance of a segment gate is applied as a displacement
boundary condition. The imposed magnitude of relative displace-
ment was determined by evaluating installation tolerance. Since
the materials of two connected structures are different to each
other, the gap between two structures could be increased due to
the different thermal coefficients. To simulate this gap, the relative
displacement in horizontal direction is imposed as a displacement
boundary condition. The magnitude of relative displacement was
determined by a heat transfer analysis. These individual loadings
are expressed as (1), (2), and (3).
The loading combinations are in Table 6 with the allowable
stress limits. The loading combinations consisting of more than one
loading are expressed as #1, #2, and #3. The loading combinations
are divided into three ones: the internal pressure only, the inter-
nal pressure and the displacement in vertical direction, and the
internal pressure and displacements in both of vertical and hori-
zontal directions. The allowable stress limit is based on the ASME
code regulation. Loading combination #3 has an allowable stress
limit of 3.0 Sm because a thermal loading is included. These loading
combinations are adopted as multiple loading conditions.
For the stress constraints for the parametric optimization of the
torus seal, linearized stresses based on ASME section III and dif-
ferent stress limits according to stress category are adopted. In
order to adopt a stress linearization procedure to constraints dur-
ing an optimization, an extra data manipulation such as calculating
a linearized stress and a derivative of the linearized stress needs
to be conducted. Stress classification lines are established where
the maximum stress gradient could occur and stress linearization
for these SCLs is conducted. The seven selected stress classification
lines (SCLs) are shown in Fig. 5.
3.2. Results
The initial design and the optimum design of a torus seal are
shown in Fig. 6 and Table 7. The scale of stress contour in Fig. 6
is matched for easy comparison. The initial size was chosen to be
excessively small to prevent a physical interface with other struc-
tural component. A preliminary analysis showed that the initial
design did not satisfy the given constraints. So, the initial design
point of this optimization example started at the infeasible region.
Consequently, the radius of the optimized design was bigger than
the initial design in order to maintain the structural integrity under
the given loading and boundary conditions. Generally, when an
internal pressure is applied to a cylinder structure, the magnitude
of a stress is proportional to the internal pressure and the radius of
the cylinder and inversely proportional to the thickness. In the case
of the torus seal, since the multiple loads and boundary conditions
are mixed, an increment of the thickness can reduce the flexibil-
ity. So, an optimization causes the radius and thickness to increase
simultaneously. The design variable “delta” increases to absorb the
displacement in the vertical direction coming from the installation
tolerance. The stress intensities and the allowable stress limit for
the initial design and the optimum design are shown in Fig. 7. In the
 W.-S. Choi, K.-S. Seo / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2653–2659
middle figure of Fig. 7, the stress intensities for the initial design
are in excess of the allowable stress limit, which means loading
combination #2 is the dominant case. The stress intensities for the
optimum design satisfy the allowable stress limit.
4. Conclusions
The items to be considered when we optimize a nuclear-related
structure, which is governed by the ASME code section III were
investigated. The optimization technique for the nuclear-related
structure should have two characteristics. First, different stress
limits for the stress categories are applied as multiple loading
conditions. Second, section-wise stress constraints are adopted
instead of point-wise stress constraints. The stress criteria of the
ASME code section III was summarized per each service limit.
And a way of an optimization based on the consideration of these
two items was proposed. The proposed method was applied to a
shape optimization of a torus seal. Five design variables and seven
stress classification lines were selected. The linearized stresses at
the selected stress classification lines were applied as stress con-
straints during an optimization. The optimum design satisfied all
2659
the constraints for each loading condition. The proposed method
was applied successfully to an optimization of NSSS components in
this study under multiple loading conditions and linearized stress
constraints.
References
ANSYS, 2005. Release 10.0 Documentation for ANSYS. SASIP, Inc.
ASME, 2007. ASME boiler and pressure vessel code section III, 2007. Rules for Con-
struction of Nuclear Facility Components.
Choi, W.-S., Kim, T.-W., Seo, K.-S., 2008. Shape optimization of a perforated pres-
sure vessel cover under linearized stress constraints. Nucl. Eng. Des. 238,
2468–2472.
Choi, W.-S., Seo, K.-S., 2008. Structural optimization under a multiple loading con-
dition based on the ASME code section III stress categories. In: ICONE 16 ,
Orlando.
EPERC(European Commission Joint Research Center), 1999. The Design by Analysis
Manual. EPERC.
Haug, E.J., Arora, J.S., 1979. Applied Optimal Design. John Wiley & Sons.
Hechmer, J.L., Hollinger, G.L., 1998. Three dimensional Stress criteria guidelines for
application. WRC Bulletin, 429.
Schmit, L.A., 1960. Structural design by systematic synthesis. In: Proceedings of the
Second Conference on Electric Computation , ASCE, New York.
Slagis, G.C., 2006. ASME section III design-by-analysis criteria concept and stress
limits. J Press. Vessel Technol. 128, 25–32.