PSI - Issue 77

Enrique Gómez et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 77 (2026) 49–55 Enrique Gómez et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2026) 000–000

54 6

It can be observed that all the results shown in both Table 5 and Figure 3 provide safe conditions for both NOC and AC. NOC results provide safety factors well beyond the requirements shown in Table 4, with a minimum SF K of 10.01 and a minimum SF L of 9.61. Concerning AC, the requirements of Table 4 are still met, although the margin is much more limited (the minimum SFK is 1.56 and the minimum SFL is 1.21). This being said, future work envisages the fracture analysis of the cask using real mechanical properties (i.e., tensile and fracture properties specifically measured in laboratory), and fully based in ASME Code Section XI postulates (thus, being fully consistent with the previous use of ASME Code Sections II and III for the materials definition and the design/construction of the cask, respectively).

30

25

20

15

10

5 Stress (MPa)

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

distance along thickness (mm)

Stress (FE simulation)

Stress linearization

Figure 2. Example of stress field and stress linearization. Maximum circumferential stresses for NOC (load case: vertical drop lid).

Table 5. Kr-Lr values for different locations, defect types, stress orientations and load conditions. Location Defect type Stress orientation Load condition Kr Lr Base Surface Circumferential NOC 0.046 0.074 Base Surface Circumferential AC 0.642 0.761 Base Surface Axial NOC 0.087 0.104 Base Surface Axial AC 0.529 0.821 Base Embedded - NOC 0.017 0.036 Base Embedded - AC 0.154 0.331 Weld Surface Circumferential NOC 0.100 0.073 Weld Surface Circumferential AC 0.444 0.759 Weld Surface Axial NOC 0.097 0.104 Weld Surface Axial AC 0.333 0.818 Weld Embedded - NOC 0.082 0.036 Weld Embedded - AC 0.157 0.331