PSI - Issue 64

Federico Pinto et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 64 (2024) 766–773 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

773

8

Table 4. Comparison of calculated and measured displacements. Position

Displacements for maximum pressure

Residual displacements

Calculated [mm]

Measured [mm]

Difference [%]

Measured [mm] +2.744 (*)

Difference [%]

+35.6 (*)

MD01 (dome)

10.09 0.733 1.382 1.364 1.626 0.822 1.877 1.837 1.804 1.905 1.294 1.859 1.846 1.807 1.505 1.695 1.637 1.627 1.753

7.703 1.243 1.532 1.544 1.463 0.388 2.292 2.089 2.027 2.152 1.226 2.030 2.142 2.178 1.553 1.510 1.074 0.842 0.057

 23.7 +69.6 +10.9 +13.2  10.0  52.8 +22.1 +13.7 +12.4 +13.0

MD11 MD12 MD13 MD14 MD21 MD22 MD23 MD24 MD25 MD31 MD32 MD33 MD34 MD41 MD42 MD43 MD44 MD45

0.079 0.276 0.041

+6.4

+18.0

+2.6  7.8

 0.114  0.074 0.086 0.207 0.202 0.082 0.134 0.439 0.615 0.275 0.225 0.165 0.040  0.317  0.665

 19.0

+3.8 +9.9

+10.0

+3.8

 25.8

 5.2 +9.2

+6.6

+20.5 +28.2 +17.7 +14.9 +15.4

+16.0 +20.5

+3.2

 10.9  34.4  48.2  96.7

+4.8



(*) Instantaneous value obtained immediately after depressurization

Table 5. Comparison of calculated and measured strains. Position

Strains for maximum pressure

Residual strains

Calculated [  m/m]

Measured [  m/m]

Difference [%]

Measured [  m/m]

Difference [%]

SG22 SG23 SG42 SG43 SG01 SG02

51.7 72.8 58.9 70.8 90.7 82.8

39.9 65.7 29.2 24.8

 22.9

 8.0 19.7

 20.0 +30.0  34.5  43.3

 9.7

 50.4  64.9 +33.6

 10.1  10.8

121.1

 3.6

 3.0

82.1

 0.8

 13.4

 16.4

References

Abaqus Finite Element Software v6.10 (2010). Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USA. Ceballos, M.A., Estrada, C.F., Pinto, F., Pomerantz, M. and Prato, C.A., 2019. Structural evaluation of a reactor building during pressure testing for life extension assessment, 5th Intl. Conf. on Smart Monit., Assessment and Rehab. of Civil Structures (SMAR 2019), Potsdam, Germany. Ceballos, M.A., Pinto, F., Rocca, R.J. and Prato, C.A., 2007. Seismic Analysis of Embalse Nuclear Power Plant for Life Extension Assessment, 19º Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 19), Toronto, Canada, Paper # K16/3. Cheng, S., Kwon, O-S., Bentz, E. and Tcherner, J., 2022. Comparison of measured strain and thermal effects during reactor building leakage rate tests of a nuclear power plant, Engineering Structures, Vol. 271, 114898. Kim, H-C., Pak, S-K., Lee, J-S., Cho, S-W., 2018. Validation of the MELCOR input model for a CANDU PHWR containment analysis by benchmarking against integrated leakage rate tests, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 340, pp. 201–218. Pinto, F., Ceballos, M.A., Rocca, R.J. and Prato, C.A., 2007. Validation of Numerical Model of Embalse Nuclear Power Plant Based on Free Field and In-House Records of a Seismic Event, 19º Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 19), Toronto, Canada, Paper # K07/4. Wang, X., Huang, X., Kwon, O-S., Bentz, E., Tcherner, J., DeMerchant, M., Moland, M., 2019. Evaluation of the thermal strain of an NPP containment structure during leakage rate tests, Engineering Structures, Vol. 201, 109761.