KEPIC WEEK 2017 - 방문을 환영합니다. • Requirements for protection against plastic...
Transcript of KEPIC WEEK 2017 - 방문을 환영합니다. • Requirements for protection against plastic...
KEPIC WEEK 2017
동적하중이 부가되는 구조에 대한 KEPIC 붕괴하중적용법에 대한 고찰
2017. 09. 07
유용균, 유제용
Contents
Motivation
Stress Limit for KEPIC Linear Analysis
KEPIC Plastic Analysis
Case Study
Alternative approaches
Our suggestion
Conclusions
Motivation
소성해석 방법론 (MNB3228)
• 극한해석 (MNN 3228.1) 및 소성해석 (MNB3228.3)
• 일반막응력강도(MNB 3221.1), 국부막응력강도(MNB 3221.2), 1
차 막응력+1차 굽힘응력강도(MNB 3221.3) 면제
• 셰이크다운 해석 (MNB 3228.4)
• MNB 3222.5 및 MNB 3227.3 면제
• MNB 3221.2, 3222.2, 3222.5, 3227.3 면제
• 일반적으로 선형해석방법에 비해 더 큰 설계마진을 가질 수 있음.
• MNB 3213.25(소성해석-붕괴하중), MNB 3213.28 (극한해석-붕괴하
중)방법은 동하중에 적용하기 애매함
• 동하중에 대해서 탄소성 해석방법을 적용할 수 있는가?
2017 KEPIC-Week
KEPIC MNB 3000
Design by Rule
Design by Analysis (MNB-3200)
• Linear Analysis
• Limit Analysis (MNB-3228.1)
• Experimental Analysis (MNB-3228.2)
• Plastic Analysis (MNB-3229.3)
2017 KEPIC-Week
Stress Limits for Linear Analysis (1)
Stress Limit
• Design
• Level A : normal condition
• Level B : upset condition
• No damage to the component that requires repair.
• Level C : emergency
• Permit large deformations in areas of structural discontinuity which may necessitate the removal of the component or support from service for inspection or repair of damage.
• Level D : faulted
• Permit gross general deformations with some subsequent loss of dimensional stability and damage requiring repair, which may require removal of the component or support from service.
2017 KEPIC-Week
Stress Limits for Linear Analysis (2)
2017 KEPIC-Week
Sm for Design Load= 2/3 Sy yield (excessive deformation)or 1/3 Su ultimate tensile strength (plastic instability or burst)
Sm for Level D= 2.4 Syor 0.7 Su ( factor of safety : 1.43)
[1]
Stress Limits for Linear Analysis (3)
2017 KEPIC-Week
Only for rectangular section![1]
Stress Limits for Linear Analysis (4)
2017 KEPIC-Week
Stress Limits for Linear Analysis (5)
2017 KEPIC-Week
Stress Limits for Linear Analysis (6)
Primary & Secondary Stress
• Primary stress
• Required for equilibrium with an applied “mechanical” load.
• Pressure -> hoop stress
• Self-weight -> primary bending stress
• Secondary stress
• Developed by the constraint of adjacent materials or by self-constraint of the structure
• Self-limiting
• Thermal expansion stress
• mechanical load (including gross structural discontinuity)
• Peak stress
• Increment of stress which is additive to the primary + secondary stresses by reason of local discontinuities or local thermal stress.
2017 KEPIC-Week
Secondary Stress Limit
Ratchet
Shakedown to Elastic Action
2017 KEPIC-Week
Is It Primary or Secondary stress?
• The fallback position seem to be to consider all stresses as
primary. -> unreasonable.
• The key is that primary stress is required for equilibrium with
an applied mechanical load.
• The shear and moment at the discontinuity are secondary in
nature
2017 KEPIC-Week
Disadvantage of Linear Analysis
• Primary? or Secondary?
• Stress is not real
• Require to construct stress classification lines(SCLs)
• Time-consuming
• Overly-conservative for some complex 3-D structure.
• Entire structure can not be assessed simultaneously
• Analyst select the most onerous locations for SCLs.
2017 KEPIC-Week
Plastic Analysis
• Elastic-plastic material model
(including strain hardening
effects)
• Geometric nonlinearity (large
displacement theory)
• 2/3 of collapse load
2017 KEPIC-Week
Limit load analysis
• Requirements for protection against plastic collapse
• Elastic-perfectly plastic model. (not elastic-plastic analysis)
• Small displacement theory
• nonlinear geometric effects are not considered!
• equilibrium is satisfied in the unreformed configuration.
• Pallowable = 2/3 maximum load
• Method
• Discontinuity layout optimization
• Maximum load achieved directly prior non-converge.
2017 KEPIC-Week
PVRC Bust Disk Test (1)
• PVRC Burst Disk Test with Comparison to the ASME Code [2]
• 304 SS Burst Disk – 46.9 MPa
• Failure at the center of the disk by ductile rupture
• ABS-C Burst Disk – 25.9 MPa
• Failure at the center of the disk by ductile rupture
• A-533-B Burst Disk – 36.5 MPa
• Failure at the built in edge of the plate by cracking
2017 KEPIC-Week
PVRC Bust Disk Test (2)
• PVRC Burst Disk Test with Comparison to the ASME Code [2]
2017 KEPIC-Week
SSSD – small strain small displacement (limit analysis)LSLD – large strain large displacement (elastic-plastic analysis)
PVRC Bust Disk Test (3)
• Increase in structural strength due to strain hardening
• Geometric strengthening as the plate deforms into a spherical
shape
• And more?
2017 KEPIC-Week
PVRC Bust Disk Test (4)
• Linear Analysis
• 0.5MPa * 2/3 = 0.33MPa
• Limit Analysis
• 1.2MPa * 2/3 = 0.8MPa
• Elastic-Plastic Analysis
• 1.1MPa x 0.5 x 2/3
= 0.73MPa
2017 KEPIC-Week
FEA and DBA stress criteria
• When DBA(Design by Analysis) was developed, shell analysis was the
standard method for determining stresses in a vessel. With shell
analysis, membrane stress and bending stress are a direct output of the
analysis
• Identification of primary stresses versus secondary stresses is
relatively straightforward but still requires judgement.
• Stress intensity do not represent single quantities, but set of six
quantities representing the six tress components
• Some people say that design-by-analysis stress criteria are not
applicable for FEA.
• Many papers about stress criteria and linearization method -> not clear.
2017 KEPIC-Week
Nozzle-to-shell junctions example
• A Comparison of design by analysis techniques for evaluating
nozzle-to-shell junctions per ASME section VIII division 2 [3]
2017 KEPIC-Week
Limit analysis vs. Linear analysis
2017 KEPIC-Week
• Axial load
• Limit load: 1600N
• Linear : 1440N
• Bending moment
• Limit load : 1576 N.mm
• Linear : 1595 N.mm
• Axial load + Bending moment
• Limit load = 0.8125(<1!!)
x Maximum load of linear analysis
Limit Load Analysis under Dynamic Load
• Requires the limit load be compared to the equivalent static load
• But, not explicit guidance on representing dynamic loads in static
equivalent.
• Limit load analysis to dynamic problem is not clear
2017 KEPIC-Week
Static load can NOT represent above 2nd mode response
Alternative approach
• M. R. Booth, Applying Finite Element Based Limit Load Analysis
methods to Structures under Dynamic Loads [4].
2017 KEPIC-Week
Our Suggestions (1)
• Load – Strain/Deformation curve
• Max. over time / Residual value
• No clear limit loads
• Material after yield can absorb the energy through permanent
deformation and does not show any collapse
2017 KEPIC-Week
1.0 x P(t)1.1 x P(t)1.2 x P(t).....2.0 x P(t)
Our Suggestions (2)
• For Level A or B load,
• No permanent deformation -> Limit analysis
(assume no strain hardening)
• For Level C or D load,
• Allow permanent deformation ->plastic analysis
(assume stain hardening)
2017 KEPIC-Week
Max. Strain or Deformation Based
Approach?
• NB-3213.25 Plastic Analysis – Collapse Load
The collapse load is the load at the intersection of the load–deflection or load–
strain curve and the collapse limit line. If this method is used, particular care
should be given to ensure that the strains or deflections that are used are
indicative of the load carrying capacity of the structure.
2017 KEPIC-Week
For strain based approaches,
At Collapse limit load, plastic strain = elastic strain
Load-deformation(stain) curve & Limit load
2017 KEPIC-Week
Deformation Based Approach?
2017 KEPIC-Week
What is maximum deformation for limit analysis?
1st mode
3rd mode
Load – Strain/Deflection/Compliance Curve
2017 KEPIC-Week
mmJ
Mesh Dependency of Strain
2017 KEPIC-Week
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Mesh Size - Maximum elastic - plastic strain
elastic plastic total
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Mesh Size-1 - Maximum elastic/ plastic strain
elastic plastic total
0.0005
0.005
0.01 0.1 1
Mesh Size - Maximum elastic - plastic strain
elastic plastic total
0.0005
0.005
1 10 100
Mesh Size-1 - Maximum elastic/ plastic strain
elastic plastic total
Mesh Dependency of Strain
2017 KEPIC-Week
0.0009
0.001
0.0011
0.0012
0.0013
0.0014
0.0015
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Mesh Size-1 – elastic strain
Mesh dependency of Strain Energy
2017 KEPIC-Week
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1/mesh size
Maximum Strain Energy
Residual Strain Energy Approach
2017 KEPIC-Week
Strain energy
Stress
Summary of Our Suggestion
2017 KEPIC-Week
1.0 x P(t)1.1 x P(t)1.2 x P(t).....2.0 x P(t)
For Design, Level A,BNo strain hardeningMeasure: Strain energy (or Strain)
1. Maximum over time2. Residual after loading
For Level A,B Secondary stress-> Shakedown analysis(plastic)
For Level C -> Limit load analysis
For Level D -> Plastic analysis
Conclusions
• KEPIC의 선형 해석 방법은 오랫동안 검증된 훌륭한 방법론임.
• 하지만, 복잡한 3차원 형상에 적용하는 경우 과도하게 보수적으로 설계될 수
있음.
• 탄소성 해석을 이용하면 선형해석 방법보다 합리적으로 설계가 가능하나 현재
KEPIC 규정상에서는 동하중을 적용하기가 모호함.
• 기존의 등가정적하중을 적용하는 방법은 시스템&하중의 고유진동수의 관계
에 따라 큰 오류를 가질 수 있음.
• 동적하중이 부가되는 경우에도 탄소성 과도해석을 수행하여 건전성 평가가 가
능함. 이때 Strain 뿐만 아니라 Strain energy를 기준으로 Limit Load를
계산하는 것이 가능함.
2017 KEPIC-Week
References
• [1] G. C. Slagis, ASME Section III Design-By-Analysis Criteria
Concepts and Stress Limits, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
2006
• [2] D. P. Jones 외, Elastic-Plastic Analysis of the PVRC Burst Disk
Tests with Comparison to the ASME Code Primary Stress Limits, Bettis
Atomic Power Laboratory, 1999
• [3] P. E. Prueter 외, A Comparison of Design by Analysis Techniques for
Evaluating Nozzle-To-Shell Junctions per ASME Section VIII Division 2
• [4] Martin R. Booth, Applying Finite Element Based Limit Load Analysis
Methods to Structures under Dynamic Loads, Proceedings of the ASME
2014 PVP Conference.
2017 KEPIC-Week