APPENDIX M Development of Alternate Structural Acceptance Criteria Guidance In any design of packaging components (especially the containment system),

the failure modes must be considered. Normally, in packaging design, the failure modes due to material rupture, excessive deformation, and fatigue are prevented by application of stress limits. In the case of RG 7.6,[M-1] these stress limits are based on ASME BPVC acceptance criteria and design by analysis methods. The ASME BPVC acceptance criteria and design by analysis method are based on linear-elastic analysis using a variation of Tresca-Guest maximum shear stress theory of failure. As such, the acceptance criteria is based on a known theory of predicting failure of material yield. Consequently, in developing alternate structural acceptance criteria for the submittal of a package design for certification, it is suggested that the following be provided: 1. 2. 3. 4. The theory of failure upon which the alternate criteria is based. Experimental evidence to support the validity of the alternate criteria failure limit. An applied factor of safety on the failure limit. The rationale for determination of limits for NCT and HAC.

For example, two theories of failure for development of acceptance criteria that have been proposed based on strain instead of stress intensity are discussed in the triaxiality factor and strain energy density sections below. Unfortunately, neither has received much attention and have not been adopted by the ASME BPVC, although strain energy density failure theory is being considered for use in ASME BPVC, Section III, Division 3.[M-2] Triaxiality Factor One approach taken for developing the acceptance criteria was to find a method of predicting plastic strain failure. In this case, multi-axial loadings and associated deformations were considered in order to establish limits on the maximum principal strains from test data. This approach is based on: (1) the Davis and Connelly[M-3] observations of stress state and ductility termed the triaxiality factor, and (2) the M. J. Manjoine[M-4] observation that the tensile elongation measured in a tension test can be adjusted to predict multi-axial failure strains by the following relation: The triaxiality factor is defined by the principal stresses (1, 2, 3) as: M-1
SG-100/R2/Appendix M/09-30-05

TF =

2 (1 + 2 + 3 ) [(1 2 )2 + ( 2 + 3 )2 + ( 3 1 )2 ] and

= 21TF for TF 0, and = 2 for TF 0 et et

where:

is the

effective (von Mises) strain. et is the tensile elongation from tensile tests. TF is the triaxiality factor. As shown in Figure M-1, when plotted as a curve of ductility ratio versus triaxiality factor, the following conservative failure strains can be established for Type 304 stainless steel. For a triaxiality factor of 1.0 (uniaxial tension), the triaxial strain limit is 35%. For a triaxiality factor of 2.0 (maximum value for biaxial tension at the surface), the triaxial strain limit is 17.5%. For negative values of triaxiality factor (significant compressive stress), the triaxial strain limit is doubled to 70%. After determination of these failure strains, factors of safety can be applied and limits for NCT and HAC can be established.
Strain Energy Density

A second approach is to use a strain energy density theory of failure. This theory states that failure occurs when the total energy per unit volume reaches some predetemined limiting value. This approach was used by Sandia National Laboratories in development of the BUSS Cask SARP and a certificate was issued by DOE/EM (USA/9511/B(U)-85 (DOE)) based upon this SARP.[M-5]

M-2
SG-100/R2/Appendix M/09-30-05

2.5

Ductility (Ratio of Strains)

1.5

0.5

-1

Triaxiality Factor

Figure M-1. Ductility Ratio vs. Triaxiality Factor.

In this case strain energy density (v) from the loading on the cask is defined as: v = d where: is the von Mises stress. is the strain at the calculated stress level. The maximum strain energy density in the cask can be related to the strain energy density at failure of the material. The strain energy density at failure (Ut) is conservatively estimated from uniaxial tests of the cask material as follows:
Ut = y + u 2 et

where:

y is the yield strength uis the ultimate strength etis the elongation at failure M-3
SG-100/R2/Appendix M/09-30-05

Based on this failure limit on safety, a factor of 4 is applied and HAC acceptable performance criteria are specified as follows: In keeping with the intent of RG 7.6 to prevent large strain unconfined plasticity and system failure due to loss of dimensional stabilty, plastic zones must not exceed 25% of the wall thickness. To prevent ductile material failure, the maximum strain energy density of the cask material must be less than 1/4 the strain energy density to failure in a tensile test of the cask material.

However, under NCT the acceptable performance criteria provided in RG 7.6 are applied.
References

M-1

NRC, Design Criteria for the Structural Analysis of Shipping Cask Containment Vessels, Regulatory Guide 7.6, Rev. 1, Washington, D.C., 1978. ASME, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 3, New York, New York, 2001. E. A. Davis, and F. M. Connelly, Stress Distribution and Plastic Deformation in Rotating Cylinders of Strain-Hardening Material, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Applied Mechanics, pp. 25-30, March 1959. M. J. Manjoine, Damage and Failure at Elevated Temperature, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, pp. 58-62, February 1983. USA/9511/B(U)-85 (DOE), Certificate Number 9511, Beneficial Uses Shipping System (BUSS) Cask, Safety Analysis Report for Packaging, Volumes I and II, HNF-SD-TP-SARP-024, Rev. 0, 1994.

M-2

M-3

M-4

M-5

M-4
SG-100/R2/Appendix M/09-30-05