1493372

3
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1
Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project - Increased Liquid Level Analysis for 241AP Tank Farms
Author: TC Mackey WRPS Richland, WA 99352 U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC27-08RV14800 EDT/ECN: Cost Center: B&R Code: ECN-725881 " R 0 UC: Charge Code: Total Pages:
521
Key Words: DST, Double-Shell Tanks, dynamic response, waste elastic properties, increased fluid level, sludge level, DST comments
Abstract: The essential difference between Revision 1 and the original issue of this report is in the analysis of the anchor bolts that tie the steel dome of the primary tank to the concrete tank dome. The reevaluation of the AP anchor bolts showed that (for a given temperature increase) the anchor shear load distribution did not change significantly from the initially higher stiffness to the new secant shear stiffness. Therefore, the forces and displacements of the other tank components such as the primary tanks stresses, secondary liner strains, and concrete tank forces and moments also did not change significantly. Consequently, the revised work in Revision 1 focused on the changes in the anchor bolt responses, and a full reevaluation of all tank components was judged to be unnecessary..
TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors.
DATE: STA:
J
Release Approval
UL Jate
AN 1 4 20(}5
Release Stamp
Approved For Public Release

A-6002-767 (REV 2)
Tank Farm Contractor (TFC)
(1) Document Number: RPP-RPT-32237 Page 1
RECORD OF REVISION
(2) Title: Increased L i q u i d Level Analysis for 241-AP Tank Farms
Change Control Record

(3) Revision 1 (4) Description of Change - Replace, Add, and Delete Pages Incorporate E C N 725881 Rev. 0 Authorized for Release (5) Resp. Engr. (print/sign/date) T.C. Mackey
y
(6) Resp. Mgr. (print/sign/date) D.J. Washenfelder

"N^
A /
RS
A-6003-835(REV1)
PNNL-16372 Limited Distribution
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy
Hanford Douole-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project Increased Liquid Level Analysis for 2 4 1 - A P Tank Farms
J. E. Deibler K. I. Johnson N. K. Karri K. L Stoops
M. W. Rinker S. P. Pilli F. G. Abatt
September 2008
Prepared for CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. in Support of the Double-Shell Tank Integrity Program
Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830
DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830
â<^9 This document was printed on recycled paper.
PNNL-16372 Limited Distribution
Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project - Increased Liquid Level Analysis for 241-AP Tank Farms
J. E. Deibler K. I. Johnson N. K. Karri K. L. Stoopsta)
M. W. Rinker S. P. Pilli F. G. Abatt(a)
January 2008
Prepared for CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. in Support of the Double-Shell Tank Integrity Program
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352
(a) M&D Professional Services, Richland, Washington.
Intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the results of the Double-Shell Tank Increased Liquid Level Analysis. This combined analysis provides a thorough, defensible, and documented analysis that will become part of the overall analysis of record for the proposed liquid level increase in the Hanford 241-AP Double-Shell Tank (DST) Farms. The bases of the analytical work presented herein are two ANSYS1 finite element models that were modified from the previous DST structural integrity analyses to represent the AP tank design. The current analysis conservatively assumes that the AP tanks are operating with 460 inches of liquid waste, at a temperature of 210F, and a specific gravity of 1.83. The Thermal and Operating Loads Analysis (TOLA) model includes the effects of temperature on material properties, creep, concrete cracking, and various waste and annulus pressure-loading conditions. The seismic model considers the interaction of the tanks with the surrounding soil including a range of soil properties, and the effects of the waste contents during a seismic event. The structural evaluations completed with the AP tank models do not reveal any structural deficiencies with the integrity of the DSTs under these increased waste level operating conditions. The analyses represent 60 years of waste storage in the AP tanks. Bounding material properties were selected to provide the most severe combinations. The reinforced concrete structure was evaluated according to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) code requirements for nuclear safety-related structures (ACI 1990). The demand was demonstrated to be lower than the capacity at all locations. The primary tank was evaluated using the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Service Level D capacities for combined seismic plus non-seismic loading as prescribed in Day et al. (1995) and Bandyopadhyay et al. (1995). It was demonstrated that the general primary membrane stress intensity in the primary tank remained well below the material yield stress for combined seismic and non-seismic loading. Similarly, the combined nonseismic and seismic demands for local membrane, plus bending as well as local membrane, plus bending, plus thermal loading, remained well below the capacities defined by the code. The primary tank is acceptable according to the established criteria. The concrete and steel structures are demonstrated to meet the requirements of the International Building Code 2003 (IBC 2003). While the IBC does not explicitly address underground tanks, provision is made within the code to satisfy its requirements by demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the ACI code for concrete structures. Similarly, the IBC references the ASCE code for steel structures, which in turn requires compliance with the ASME B&PV code. Consequently, by demonstrating compliance with the ACI and ASME codes, the DSTs are shown to satisfy the requirements of the IBC. The primary tank buckling evaluation demonstrated that the current limit on the maximum vacuum level of 12 inches water gauge is acceptable given the current lack of corrosion in the tanks and the expectation that the maximum waste temperature will not exceed 210F. For this analysis, the occurrence of the maximum tank vacuum was classified as a service level C, emergency load condition. This limit is ANSYS is a registered trademark of ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania
in
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 predicated on maintaining the minimum allowable waste level at 12 inches to preclude bottom uplift from occurring. The potential for stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of the primary tank, particularly in the lower knuckle, was assessed. Based on the recent analysis, current testing, and the historical operational records dating back to 1971, we conclude that SCC is unlikely if the present operating requirements are maintained. The concrete-backed steel liner was evaluated to ASME Section III, Division 2 requirements (ASME 1992b). The liner strain was determined to be less than the maximum allowable levels for all load cases. The essential difference between Revision 1 and the original issue of this report is in the analysis of the anchor bolts that tie the steel dome of the primary tank to the concrete tank dome. An independent review of Revision 0 of this report raised concerns about the anchor bolt capacity (see Appendix A.2). Further analysis resulted in changes to the anchor bolt modeling and the evaluation method. A detailed anchor bolt analysis of the AP welded stud and threaded stud configuration was conducted (Appendix A. 3) to establish allowable anchor shear loads and the secant shear stiffness for calculating the distribution of anchor bolt loads in the global tank model. An ultimate shear capacity of 14.3 kips and a secant shear stiffness of 65,000 lbf/inch were the result of this work. Reevaluation of the anchor bolt forces with the above secant stiffness showed adequate safety margin for a maximum bulk waste temperature of 135F with a concrete curing temperature of 80F (the stress-free baseline temperature). Note that to date, the average bulk waste temperatures in the AP tanks have not reached 135F, even during evaporator campaigns. An increased margin of safety is assured in that no evaporator discharges will be made to tanks certified to operate with waste at a level of 460 inches. The reevaluation of the AP anchors has been reviewed externally (Appendix A.4, A.5, A.8 and A.9). The reevaluation of the AP anchor bolts showed that (for a given temperature increase) the anchor shear load distribution did not change significantly from the initially higher stiffness to the new secant shear stiffness. Therefore, the forces and displacements of the other tank components such as the primary tanks stresses, secondary liner strains, and concrete tank forces and moments also did not change significantly. Consequently, the revised work in Revision 1 focused on the changes in the anchor bolt responses, and a full reevaluation of all tank components was judged to be unnecessary.
IV
Acronyms
ACI ASCE ASME ASTM AWS BEC BES B&PV COF CTE DOE DSA DST FCC FE IBC KIScc LBS MCE v NUREG PC PNNL PSHA PWHT SCC SpG SRS TOLA UBS USGS Wg WTP American Concrete Institute American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Mechanical Engineers American Society for Testing and Materials Standards American Welding Society Best-estimate concrete Best-estimate soil Boiler and Pressure Vessel Coefficient of friction Coefficient of thermal expansion Department of Energy Documented Safety Analysis Double-Shell Tank Fully cracked concrete Finite element International Building Code Threshold stress intensity factor Lower bound soil Maximum considered earthquake Poisson's ratio U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulation Performance Category Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Post weld heat treatment Stress corrosion cracking Specific gravity Savannah River Site Thermal and Operating Loads Analysis Upper bound soil U.S. Geological Survey Water gauge Waste Treatment Plant
VI
Units
degree Fahrenheit foot/feet gravitational acceleration inch 1000 pounds 1000 pounds per square foot 1000 pounds per square inch 1000 pounds per square inch square root inch pound 1/1000 inch pounds per square inch year
vn
vin
Contents
Executive Summary Acronyms Units 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the DST Increased Liquid Waste Level Analysis 1.2 Impact of Analysis 1.3 Analysis Methodology 1.4 Double-Shell Tank Design 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4 1.4.5 1.4.6 Thermal Characteristics Ventilation System Primary Tank Secondary Liner Concrete Shell Insulating Concrete iii v vii 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.8 2.10 2.11 2.13 2.13 2.14 2.14 2.17 2.18 Thermal Loads Mechanical Loads ACI Load Factors Load Step Procedure 2.18 2.32 2.33 2.34
1.5 Organization of the Increased Liquid Level Analysis Report 2.0 TOLA Model 2.1 Introduction 2.2 241-AY Finite Element Model 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.4 Loads 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 241-AY Tank Model Geometry 241-AP Tank Model Modifications ANSYS Model Construction Real Constants Structural Concrete Insulating Concrete Structural Steel Reinforcing Steel Soils Coefficients of Friction at Material Interfaces
2.3 Material Properties
IX
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 0 Seismic Model 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Finite Element Model 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.2.8 3.2.9 Model Description Concrete Model Primary Tank Insulating Concrete Anchor Bolts Secondary Liner Waste Primary Tank/Concrete Dome Interface Primary Tank/Insulating Concrete Interface 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.9 3.13 3.13 3.14 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.22 3.23 3.23 3.25 3.27 3.28 3.28 3.30 3.32 3.35 3.35 3.37 3.37 3.41 4.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.2
3.2.10 Insulating Concrete/Secondary Liner Interface 3.2.11 Soil/Concrete Tank Interface 3.2.12 Excavated/Native Soil Interface 3.2.13 Waste/Primary Tank Interface 3.2.14 Concrete Wall/Footing Interface 3.2.15 Surface Loads 3.3 Soil Model 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.4.1 3.4.2 Soil Properties Excavated Soil Native Soil Soil Boundary Conditions Tank Boundary Conditions
3.4 Boundary Conditions
3.5 Seismic Input 3.6 Load Cases 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 Acceptance Criteria for Response Spectra Modification to ANSYS Base Time Histories ANSYS Base Acceleration Time Histories
3.7 Model Excitation 0 Model Reconciliation 0 Structural Acceptance Criteria 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Design and Construction Specifications for 241-AP Tanks 5.3 Applicable Codes
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 Design Codes of Record for the DSTs Steel Design Codes of Record Concrete Design Codes of Record Contemporary Codes for Structural Evaluation of the DSTs 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.18 6.18 6.19 6.19 6.19 6.19 6.19 6.20 6.30 6.30 6.32 6.33 6.34 6.34 6.38 6.39 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.41 6.53 6.56 7.1 7.1 7.1
6.0 Analysis Results 6.1 ACI Structural Concrete Evaluation 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.1.4 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.2.6 6.2.7 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.5.1 6.5.2 6.5.3 6.5.4 Best-Estimate Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete Upper Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete Lower Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete Best-Estimate Soil, Fully Cracked Concrete Primary Tank Results Evaluation Criteria Discussion ANSYS Seismic Sloshing Concerns Best-Estimate Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete Upper Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete Lower Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete Best-Estimate Soil, Fully Cracked Concrete Analytical Evaluation DST Operating Experience Seismic Considerations Evaluation Method Evaluation Criteria Buckling Results Best-Estimate Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete Upper Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete Lower Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete Best-Estimate Soil, Fully Cracked Concrete
6.2 ASME Primary Tank Evaluation
6.3 Primary Tank Stress Corrosion Cracking Evaluation
6.4 Primary Tank Buckling Evaluation
6.5 ASME Concrete-Backed Steel Evaluation
6.6 Anchor Bolt Evaluation 6.7 The Effect of Waste Model Uncertainties on Anchor Bolt Evaluation 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 7.1 Reinforced Concrete 7.2 Primary Tank
XI
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 7.3 Stress Corrosion Cracking 7.4 Primary Tank Buckling 7.5 Concrete-Backed Liner 7.6 Anchor Bolts 8.0 References Appendix A - Reviewer Comments and Resolution Appendix B - Software Acceptance Appendix C - ANSYSModel Files 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.2 8.1 A.l D.l E.l
Figures
1-1 1-2 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 Cross Section of a Typical Double-Shell Tank Typical Double-Shell Tank Configuration Comparison of 241-AP and TOLA Models Finite Element Mesh of Full Model Close-Up Showing Finite Element Mesh of Tank Close-Up Showing Mesh of Haunch Close-Up Showing Mesh of Tank Base Concrete Elastic Modulus Concrete Strength Used for Finite Element Analysis Structural Steel Elastic Modulus Structural Steel Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 1.3 1.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.16 2.17 2.17 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28
2-10 Steel Reinforcing Bar Stress-Strain Curves: a) Grade 40 Rebar, b) Grade 60 Rebar 2-11 Soil Configuration Adjacent to DSTs 2-12 Distribution of Soil Properties in the DST Finite Element Model 2-13 Undisturbed Soil Elastic Modulus and Poisson's Ratio 2-14 Backfill Soil Elastic Modulus 2-15 Temperature Distribution at Step 2 in the Design Basis Transient 2-16 Temperature Distribution at Step 3 in the Design Basis Transient 2-17 Temperature Distribution at Step 4 in the Design Basis Transient 2-18 Temperature Distribution at Step 5 in the Design Basis Transient 2-19 Temperature Distribution at Step 6 in the Design Basis Transient 2-20 Steady-State Temperature Distribution at Steps 7 and 8 in the Design Basis Transient 2-21 Temperature Distribution at Step 9 in the Design Basis Transient 2-22 Temperature Distribution at Step 10 in the Design Basis Transient 2-23 Temperature Distribution at Step 11 in the Design Basis Transient
xii
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 2-24 Temperature Distribution at Step 12 in the Design Basis Transient 2-25 Temperature Distribution During Heat up in the Anchor Bolt Design Basis Transient 2-26 Temperature Distribution at Steady State in the Anchor Bolt Design Basis Transient 2-27 Temperature Distribution During Cool Down in the Anchor Bolt Design Basis Transient.... 2-28 Analysis Flow Plan 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 AY Primary Tank Dimensions Composite Tank Model Detail Concrete Tank Profile, Including Shell Thickness Concrete Tank Model Detail Primary/Concrete Tank Node Geometry Primary Tank Model Detail Primary Tank Model Detail -Knuckle Region Insulating Concrete Model Detail Anchor Bolt Model Detail 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.34 3.2 3.2 3.9 3.9 3.10 3.12 3.12 3.13 3.15 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.20 3.21 3.21 3.22 3.22 3.26 3.26 3.27 3.27 3.28 3.29 3.29 3.30 3.30 3.31
3-10 Spring Elements -Anchor Bolts to Primary Tank 3-11 Secondary Liner Model Detail 3-12 Waste Model Detail 3-13 Waste Model Detail, Interface with Tank Dome 3-14 Contact Elements -Primary Tank to Concrete Dome 3-15 Contact Elements-Insulating Concrete Top and Bottom 3-16 Contact Elements - Soil to Concrete Tank 3-17 Spring Elements - Concrete Footing to Soil 3-18 Contact Elements - Near Soil to Far Soil 3-19 Contact Elements - Waste to Primary Tank 3-20 Contact Elements - Concrete Wall to Footing 3-21 Mass Elements - Soil Surface 3-22 Excavated Soil Model Detail 3-23 Excavated Soil - Softened Soil Zones 3-24 Model Detail 3-25 Far-Field Soil Model Detail 3-26 Link Elements-Edges of Soil Model 3-27 Boundary Conditions - Soil Base 3-28 Boundary Conditions - Typical Soil Layer 3-29 Boundary Conditions - Slaved Boundary Conditions 3-30 Boundary Conditions - Symmetry Plane 3-31 Boundary Conditions - Concrete Tank
xin
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 3-32 Boundary Conditions - Primary Tank 3-33 Boundary Conditions - Secondary Liner 3-34 Comparison of Horizontal Surface Spectra at 5% Spectral Damping 3-35 Comparison of Vertical Surface Spectra at 5% Spectral Damping 3-36 Horizontal and Vertical Surface Acceleration Time History 3-37 Horizontal and Vertical Surface Displacement Time History 3-38 Ratio of the ANSYS Tank Foundation Level Spectra to the SHAKE Surface Spectrum for Horizontal Excitation 3-39 Envelope of the Ratio of the ANSYS Tank Foundation-Level Spectra to the SHAKE Surface Spectrum for Vertical Excitation 3-40 Ratio of the ANSYS Tank Foundation Level Spectra to the SHAKE Surface Spectrum for Modified Horizontal Excitation 3-41 Envelope of the Ratio of the Tank Foundation Level Spectra to the Surface Spectra for Modified Vertical Excitation 3-42 Horizontal and Vertical Base Acceleration Time History, -266 feet, Lower Bound Soil 3-43 Horizontal and Vertical Base Displacement Time History, -266 feet, Lower Bound Soil 3-44 Horizontal and Vertical Base Acceleration Time History, -266 feet, Best-Estimate Soil 3-45 Horizontal and Vertical Base Displacement Time History, -266 feet, Best-Estimate Soil 3-46 Horizontal and Vertical Base Acceleration Time History, -266 feet, Upper Bound Soil 3-47 Horizontal and Vertical Base Displacement Time History, -266 feet, Upper Bound Soil 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 Reinforced Concrete Sections - Dome and Haunch Area Reinforced Concrete Sections - Wall Reinforced Concrete Sections - Slab BES-BEC, Load Combination 1 BES-BEC, Load Combination 4, Meridional BES-BEC, Load Combination 4, Circumferential BES-BEC, Load Combination 4, Shear BES-BEC, Load Combination 4, In-Plane Shear BES-BEC, Load Combination 9, Meridional 3.41 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.9 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.33 3.34 3.34 3.36 3.36 3.37 3.38 3.38 3.39 3.39 3.40 3.40
6-10 BES-BEC, Load Combination 9, Circumferential 6-11 BES-BEC, Load Combination 9, Shear 6-12 UBS-BEC, Load Combination 1 6-13 UBS-BEC, Load Combination 4, Meridional
xiv
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 6-14 UBS-BEC, Load Combination 4, Circumferential 6-15 UBS-BEC, Load Combination 4, Shear 6-16 UBS-BEC, Load Combination 4, In-Plane Shear 6-17 UBS-BEC, Load Combination 9', Meridional 6-18 UBS-BEC, Load Combination 9', Circumferential 6-19 UBS-BEC, Load Combination 9', Shear 6-20 LBS-BEC, Load Combination 1 6-21 LBS-BEC, Load Combination 4, Meridional 6-22 LBS-BEC, Load Combination 4, Circumferential 6-23 LBS-BEC, Load Combination 4, Shear 6-24 LBS-BEC, Load Combination 4, In-Plane Shear 6-25 LBS-BEC, Load Combination 9', Meridional 6-26 LBS-BEC, Load Combination 9', Circumferential 6-27 LBS-BEC, Load Combination 9', Shear 6-28 BES-FCC, Load Combination 4, Meridional 6-29 BES-FCC, Load Combination 4, Circumferential 6-30 BES-FCC, Load Combination 4, Shear 6-31 LBS-FCC, Load Combination 4, In-Plane Shear 6-32 Relative Magnitude of TOLA and Seismic Primary Membrane Stress Intensity 6-33 BES-BEC Primary Membrane Stress Intensity 6-34 BES-BEC Primary Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity 6-35 BES-BEC Primary Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity 6-36 BES-BEC Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range 6-37 BES-BEC Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range 6-38 UBS-BEC Primary Membrane Stress Intensity 6-39 UBS-BEC Primary Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity 6-40 UBS-BEC Primary Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity 6-41 UBS-BEC Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range 6-42 UBS-BEC Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range 6-43 LBS-BEC Primary Membrane Stress Intensity 6-44 LBS-BEC Primary Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity 6-45 LBS-BEC Primary Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity 6-46 LBS-BEC Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range 6-47 LBS-BEC Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range 6-48 BES-FCC Primary Membrane Stress Intensity 6-49 BES-FCC Primary Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity 6.9 6.10 6.10 6.11 6.11 6.12 6.12 6.13 6.13 6.14 6.14 6.15 6.15 6.16 6.16 6.17 6.17 6.18 6.20 6.21 6.21 6.21 6.22 6.22 6.23 6.23 6.24 6.24 6.25 6.25 6.26 6.26 6.27 6.27 6.28 6.28
xv
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 6-50 BES-FCC Primary Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity 6-51 BES-FCC Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range 6-52 BES-FCC Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range 6-53 Comparison of TOLA and AN-107 Lower Knuckle Principal Stress 6-54 Effect of Applied Bending Stress on Calculated Stress Intensity Factor for the Lower Knuckle of Tank AN-107 6-55 Buckling Model 6-56 Buckling Model Loads 6-57 Buckling Load Deflection Curve 6-58 Model Displaced Shape at Vacuum Limit 6-59 BES-BEC, Principal Membrane Strain - Tension 6-60 BES-BEC, Principal Membrane Strain - Compression 6-61 BES-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Tension 6-62 BE S-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Compression 6-63 BE S-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Tension 6-64 BES-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Compression 6-65 UBS-BEC, Principal Membrane Strain - Tension 6-66 UBS-BEC, Principal Membrane Strain - Compression 6-67 UBS-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Tension 6-6 8 UB S-BEC, Principal Membrane + B ending Strain Outer Surface - Compression 6-69 UB S-BEC, Principal Membrane + B ending Strain Inner Surface - Tension 6-70 UB S-BEC, Principal Membrane + B ending Strain Inner Surface - Compression 6-71 LBS-BEC, Principal Membrane Strain - Tension 6-72 LBS-BEC, Principal Membrane Strain - Compression 6-73 LB S-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Tension 6-74 LB S-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Compression 6-7 5 LB S-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Tension 6-76 LB S-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Compression 6-77 BES-FCC, Principal Membrane Strain - Tension 6-78 BES-FCC, Principal Membrane Strain - Compression 6-79 BES-FCC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Tension 6-80 BE S-FCC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Compression 6-81 BE S-FCC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Tension 6-82 BE S-FCC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Compression 6-83 BES-BEC, Anchor Bolt Displacement Evaluation 6-84 UBS-BEC, Anchor Bolt Displacement Evaluation 6-85 LBS-BEC, Anchor Bolt Displacement Evaluation xvi 6.32 6.35 6.35 6.36 6.37 6.41 6.41 6.42 6.42 6.43 6.43 6.44 6.44 6.45 6.45 6.46 6.46 6.47 6.47 6.48 6.48 6.49 6.49 6.50 6.50 6.51 6.51 6.52 6.52 6.54 6.55 6.55 6.29 6.29 6.30 6.31
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 6-86 BES-FCC, Anchor Bolt Displacement Evaluation 6-87 Comparison of Maximum Waste from the ANSYS Primary Tank Sub-Model for Waste Elements at 0=0 Subjected to Horizontal Seismic Excitation Only to Maximum Waste Pressures for the 100% Impulsive Case 6.56
6.59
Tables
1-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 DST 241-AP Required Load Conditions for Analysis Double-Shell Tank 241-AY Design Drawings Foundation Concrete Rebar Volume Ratios Wall Concrete Rebar Volume Ratios Dome Concrete Rebar Volume Ratios Haunch Concrete Rebar Volume Ratios Coefficients for the ANSYS Creep Law Structural Properties for the Insulating Concrete Coefficients of Friction Temperature States that Define the Design Basis Annual Thermal Cycle for the ANSYS Structural Model 2-10 DST 241-AP Load Conditions for Analysis 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 ANSYS Model Input File Description Concrete Tank Centerline Coordinates Best-Estimate Concrete Properites, 250F Fully Cracked Concrete Properites Primary Tank Dome Coordination Calculation Anchor Bolt Area Calculation Best-Estimate Native Soil Iterated Soil Properties Best-Estimate Excavated Soil Iterated Soil Properties Upper Bound Native Soil Iterated Soil Properties 2.19 2.33 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.11 3.14 3.23 3.24 3.24 3.24 3.25 3.25 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4 5.3 1.2 2.1 2.9 2.9 2.10 2.10 2.12 2.13 2.18
3-10 Upper Bound Excavated Soil Iterated Soil Properties 3-11 Lower Bound Native Soil Iterated Soil Properties 3-12 Lower Bound Excavated Soil Iterated Soil Properties 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 5-1 Element Correlation for ACI Evaluation Element Correlation for Primary Tank Evaluation Element Correlation for Concrete-Backed Liner Evaluation Element Correlation for Anchor Bolt Evaluation Summary of the Sm Allowables that were Specified for Each of the DST Designs
xvu
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 5-2 5-3 5-4 6-1 6-2 6-3 Summary of Hanford Double-Shell Tank Structural Concrete Design B asis Summary of the Local and Global Significance of Failure of the Various DST Components Stress Intensity Classification Comparison of TOLA and AN-107 Analyses Primary Tank Buckling Evaluation Summary of Primary Tank Buckling Evaluation 5.7 5.7 6.31 6.39 6.40 5.4
XVlll
1.0
Introduction
As provided in the CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. (CH2MHILL) statement of work to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) entitled Double-Shell Tank (DST) Integrity Project-DST Thermal and Seismic Analyses, Revision 2, the overall scope of this project was to complete an analysis of record of the DST system at Hanford. The analysis was conducted to provide analytical documentation of the DST system's structural integrity and to support programmatic decisions toward the continued operations of these tanks during waste cleanup operations at the Hanford Site. This work establishes a defensible basis for operating specifications for continued use of the DSTs as well as providing an estimate of the remaining DST useful life. The overall scope of the project was defined by seven activities that were completed over a 4-year period. The primary activities were: Thermal and Operating Loads Analysis (TOLA) Evaluation of Alternative Liquid Waste Levels in the DSTs Seismic Analysis Minimum Allowable Wall Thickness Analysis Buckling Analysis
Reports have been published documenting the Thermal and Operating Loads (TOLA) Analysis (Rinker et al. 2004), the Seismic Analysis (Rinker et al. 2006c), the Buckling Analysis (Johnson et al. 2006), and the Combined TOLA + Seismic Analysis (Rinker et al. 2006d). This report documents the evaluation of the proposed increased liquid level in the 241-AP Tank Farms.
1.1
Purpose of the DST Increased Liquid Waste Level Analysis
Ensuring adequate waste storage volume is critical to the success of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) mission to retrieve, treat and dispose of the radioactive waste in the Hanford Tank Farms. Increasing the available waste storage volume in the existing DSTs is an attractive option compared to the construction of new tanks. The purpose of the DST Increased Liquid Level Analysis is to demonstrate the structural integrity of the DSTs under the loading imposed by an increase in the liquid waste level above the current design limits. Review of tank design and operating parameters limited the DSTs under consideration for an increase in waste level to the 241-AP tanks. The previous analyses (TOLA, Seismic, Buckling and Combined) developed and analyzed a tank model for a set of bounding thermal and operating load cases and bounding geometry of the 241-AY tank design. These nonlinear time-dependent analyses calculated the effects of heating the tank to the maximum operating temperature, long-term operation at elevated temperatures, and operating temperature cycles. These analyses also accounted for the degradation of modulus of elasticity, compressive strength, etc., in the concrete with extended exposure to elevated temperatures. The results predict time-dependent creep, cracking, stresses, strains, and deformations for the entire structure. The seismic analysis considers the interaction of the tank with the surrounding soil, and the effects of the primary tank contents. The DST and the surrounding soil are modeled as a system of finite elements. The depth and width of the soil incorporated into the analysis model are sufficient to obtain accurate
1.1
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 analytical results. The analysis includes the soil-structure interaction (SSI) model represented by several (nonlinear) contact surfaces in the tank structure. The contained waste was modeled explicitly in order to capture the fluid-structure interaction behavior between the waste and the primary tank. Detailed analyses of the increased interaction between the contained waste and the curved dome area of the primary tank resulting from the increased liquid waste level are described in the Increased Liquid Level Seismic report (Abatt and Rinker 2008). The previous analyses addressed bounding load cases and geometry and do not consider conditions that would apply to specific tanks. The objective of this work was to perform an analysis for the AP tanks that are the only tanks being considered for the increase waste level. The previously developed models were used with only minor modifications to represent the AP tanks. The load conditions for this analysis are summarized in Table 1-1. The work is documented (including analysis input files) in such a manner to expedite potential future sensitivity calculation and other tank-specific calculations as required by future needs. Table 1-1. DST 241-AP Required Load Conditions for Analysis Design Load Design life Maximum corrosion rate Soil cover Hydrostatic Pressure Pressure Live load Value >50 years 1 mil/yr 8.5 ft@ 125 lb/ft3 460 inches 1.83 SpG -12 in. w.g. (water gauge) -20 in. w.g. 40 lb/ft2 200,000 lb 210F Notes A 60-year design life is used A total corrosion allowance of 0.060 inch is applied to the specified nominal thicknesses Relative to dome apex Current tank contents are below 1.5 SpG Primary Tank Annulus Uniform Concentrated Maximum bulk temperature of waste for calculational purposes
1.2
Impact of Analysis
The primary impact of the Increased Liquid Level analysis is to allow for increased waste storage volume in the DSTs. Raising the level in 241-AP Tank Farm by approximately 40 inches will increase the storage volume in each of the eight tanks by roughly 100,000 gallons. The impacts of the additional storage volume on Hartford Site operations are the responsibility of DOE and the Contractor.
1.3 Analysis Methodology

The analysis was conducted with two separate and distinct ANSYS1 finite element models. The normal thermal and operating loads are considered in the TOLA model, which is described in detail by Rinker et al. (2004). The seismic loads are considered in the seismic model, which is described in detail by Rinker et al. (2006c). Results from the separate TOLA and seismic analyses are combined as necessary in various Excel spreadsheets for the appropriate code evaluation. The Combined Summary report
ANSYS is a registered trademark of ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 1.2
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 (Rinker et al. 2006d) outlines the method of combining results. Details for each model are given in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report. The combined results are presented in Chapter 6.
1.4
Double-Shell Tank Design
Figure 1-1 is a simplified diagram of a typical DST structure, showing an inner primary tank and an outer secondary tank covered by a reinforced-concrete shell. The primary and secondary tanks are made of carbon steel plate varying from 3/8 to 1 inch thick. The top of the concrete dome is 15 inches thick and it becomes thicker toward the wall. The walls are 18 inches thick. The entire tank structure is buried at a depth of 6 to 8 feet, measured from the top of the tank dome (Han 1996). Figure 1 -2 shows the configuration in 3-dimensional cross section. The 241-AP Tank Farm was constructed over a period of about 4 years (from 1983 to 1986), with a design life of 50 years. These tanks have been in service for approximately 21 years.
Surfaca * ** "
Overburden
Concrete Tank
47'-5 5/8"
r-X
z-o*
Figure 1-1. C ross Section of a Typical Double-Shell Tank

Surface Level Probe (FIC and Manual Tape) Solids Level Detector
Secondary
Figure 1-2. Typical Double-Shell Tank C onfiguration.
1.3
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 1.4.1 Thermal Characteristics
The bounding analyses reported in the Combined TOLA and Seismic Analysis (Rinker et al. 2006d) used the design thermal load from 422 inches of 350F waste. That report describes the historical review of actual operating temperatures for all the DSTs. While that review did not indicate any waste temperatures in the AP tanks approaching the design limit of 210F, a maximum waste temperature of 210F was assumed for each thermal cycle for the Increased Liquid Level analysis. The ANSYS thermal model described in the Buckling report (Johnson et al. 2006) was used to develop the thermal profiles for use in the thermal cycle. 1.4.2 Ventilation System
The annulus ventilation systems for the DSTs are designed to perform three functions: 1) provide primary tank leak detection through continuous radiation monitoring of the annulus exhaust air, 2) limit temperature build-up in the secondary tank concrete, and 3) remove heat and moisture from the annulus space. The primary tank ventilation systems perform similar functions: 1) limit flammable gas accumulation, 2) limit temperature build-up in the primary tank and secondary tank concrete, 3) maintain a vacuum on the primary tank, and 4) remove heat and moisture from the primary tank in order to minimize vapor space corrosion (Duncan 2003). 1.4.3 Primary Tank
The 75-foot-diameter primary steel tank provides containment for the stored waste. The primary tank varies in thickness from a minimum of 3/8 inch in the dome to a maximum of 1 inch at the bottom center of the tank. The primary tank is constructed from a series of formed segmented plates welded in a staggered arrangement. All butt welds on the primary tank received 100% radiographic examination during construction. The tanks were also post-weld heat treated to stress relieve the welds. The primary tank resists the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic waste loads and the internal pressure. 1.4.4 Secondary Liner
The secondary steel tank, or liner, lies beneath the insulating concrete and is built directly on top of the concrete foundation. The secondary tanks are about 5 feet larger in diameter than the primary tanks, resulting in a 2.5-foot-wide annular space between the primary and secondary tanks. The secondary liner is joined to the primary tank dome at the upper haunch area, and the two tanks are enclosed in a reinforced concrete shell. The secondary liner provides a second confinement barrier for potential primary tank leaks, thus preventing uncontrolled releases of waste to the environment. 1.4.5 Concrete Shell
On the outside of the secondary tank is a reinforced concrete shell. The exterior concrete shell comprises a foundation, walls, and a dome that completely enclose the secondary tank and primary tank dome. The structural concrete foundations are about 88 feet in diameter and are designed to distribute all weight loads to the ground below. The structural foundation contains drain lines and leak-detection wells to collect any leakage from the secondary liner. The top of the concrete foundation also contains slots to drain any liquid that might leak from the secondary tank.
1.4
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 The concrete shell wall is constructed of steel-reinforced concrete. The shells are about 83 feet in outside diameter and about 18 inches thick and rest on steel slide plates supported by the tank foundation. The concrete shells were poured directly against the secondary liner (i.e., the secondary liner was used as a casting form for the concrete shell). Construction form ties welded to the outside of the secondary tank attach the steel to the concrete walls. The dome is 15 inches thick and is constructed of steel-reinforced concrete. The primary tank is attached to the concrete dome by welded studs and threaded anchor bolts that are cast into the concrete dome. Steel riser pipes penetrate the concrete dome and the top of the primary and secondary tanks. The risers provide access to the primary tank and the annulus space for waste transfer operations, equipment installation, and monitoring. The risers are located in covered pits or are located at grade at specific locations above the pits. 1.4.6 Insulating Concrete
The primary tank rests on an 8-inch-thick insulating concrete support pad, located between the primary and secondary tank floors. The concrete pad includes air distribution and drain slots in a radial pattern, which are designed to maintain a uniform tank bottom temperature, to provide a means of heat removal and leak detection, and to help eliminate pockets of water condensation. To provide supplemental cooling, air can be routed through the drain slots via the annulus ventilation system. The drain slots allow any leakage from the primary tank to drain into the annular space, where leak-detection instrumentation is installed.
1.5
Organization of the Increased Liquid Level Analysis Report
The organization and content of this report are described briefly as follows: Chapter 1 - Introduction: Provides the background and overall purpose of the Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Analysis. The scope of the Increased Liquid Level analyses is described. Basic DST information is also included in this chapter. Chapter 2 - TOLA Model: Describes the ANSYS finite element model used for the thermal and operating loads analyses. Summarizes the material properties, loads and load case combinations. Chapter 3 - Seismic Model: Describes the ANSYS finite element model used for the seismic analyses. Summarizes the material properties, boundary conditions and acceleration time-histories. Chapter 4 - Model Reconciliation: Discusses the differences between the TOLA and seismic models and the methods for combining results. Chapter 5 - Structural Acceptance Criteria: Describes the code-based acceptance criteria used to evaluate the combined results. Chapter 6 - Analysis Results: Provides a summary of the increased liquid level results. The ACI concrete evaluation for each run is presented and followed by the ASME primary tank evaluation. The stress-corrosion cracking criteria for the primary tank are considered next, followed by buckling analyses of the primary tank. Finally, the evaluation of the anchor bolts and the secondary liner are assessed. Chapter 7 - Conclusions and Recommendations: Summarizes the increased liquid level analysis with conclusions regarding DST structural integrity based on the evaluations conducted.
1.5
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Chapter 8 - References: Lists the references used in the study. Appendix A - Reviewer Comments and Resolution: Independent reviewer comments on Rev. 0. Appendix B - Software Acceptance. Appendix C - ANSYS Model Files: Documents the TOLA model input and post-processing files.
1.6
2.0 TOLA Model

2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the ANSYS finite element (FE) model, material properties, and loads used for the double-shell tank (DST) Increased Liquid Level analysis. Complete documentation of the model is found in the TOLA report (Rinker et al. 2004). The current report contains summaries of the model, material properties, and loads. The TOLA report should be referenced for complete model description and background information. The TOLA analysis was conducted on a model of the 241-AY tank that was selected as the bounding DST geometry. However, only the 241-AP tanks are being considered for the increase in waste liquid level. It is recognized that significant differences (as summarized in Table 2.4 of the TOLA report) exist between the AP tanks and the TOLA model. These include higher strength structural steel, higher strength concrete, higher strength reinforcing steel, increased thickness foundation, and increased amounts of reinforcing steel. The only modifications to the TOLA model used for the increase liquid level analysis to accommodate the differences in the AP tank design were to the primary tank wall thickness. The use of the TOLA model with the lower strength and thinner materials ensures an additional conservatism to the analysis.
2.2 241-AY Finite Element Model

This section describes the geometry and construction of the ANSYS finite element model. A comprehensive description of the FE model is found in the TOLA report (Rinker et al. 2004). The TOLA report should be referenced for complete model description and background information. As noted above, these sections will describe the TOLA model of the 241-AY tank. 2.2.1 241-AY T a n k Model Geometry
The TOLA report provided the rationale for choosing the 241-AY tank as the basis for the bounding model for the DST analyses. The geometry for this tank was taken from the design drawings listed in Table 2-1. A limited number of construction drawings, relating primarily to the steel tank construction, also were referred to for confirmation of dimensions. It was helpful to review the other tank drawings, particularly 241-SY, because of its similarity to the 241-AY tank. In addition, the newer tank drawings, such as 241-AP, provided valuable insight to the reinforcing steel details. Table 2-1. Double-Shell Tank 241-AY Design Drawings Drawing # H-2-64306 H-2-64307 H-2-64310 H-2-64311 H-2-64449
Title
Tank foundation plan Structural insulating concrete plan and details Concrete tank section and details Concrete dome reinforcement plan and details Tank elevation and details
2.1
RPP-RPTJ2237, Rev. 1
2.2.2
241-AP Tank Model Modifications
As noted above, modifications to the TOLA model were limited to changes to the primary tank wall thickness. Figure 2-1 illustrates the differences in the wall thickness between the TOLA model and the AP modifications. The difference in waste depth is also depicted in this figure.
15/16" 241-AP Tank Design TOLA Tank Design Figure 2-1. Comparison of 241 -AP and TOLA Models 2.2.3 ANSYS Model Construction
ANSYS Version 7.0 was used for the TOLA analyses. The FE model was developed using ANSYS APDL macros that build the geometry in 2-D and sweep the cross section about the tank central axis. The macros are listed in Appendix C and also are available electronically. A 2.9-degree section of the tank was modeled with symmetry boundary conditions. This gives an element length of 24 inches in the circumferential direction at the concrete tank inside diameter, which is equal to the anchor bolt spacing. Figures 2-2 through 2-5 show various aspects of the model.
2.2
AIM
APR 10 2003 11:46:24
ELEMENTS TYPhi NUM
DST
---JIIIBliB
o-:.
PNNL -
mod 3
Figure 2-2. Finite Element Mesh of Full Model

, *v o>yoV- ---AW\\\\\\ _\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ N- v \ \ \ ' w . \ V \ V \ V \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
AIM ==:
11:46:54
^Sr :::3
Dome ^ P r i m a r v Tank
/':Srl
-jMMumn^jfj,^- i
v'
T -4-LL
' " ; "
- " / / / / / /
''& ////////////////// V//////////////////// >'>''((((((((((({{((((((Il\\\\
'
Figure 2-3. C lose-Up Showing Finite Element Mesh of Tank
2.3
Primary Tank
Secondary Liner
Figure 2-4. Close-Up Showing Mesh of Haunch Concrete

Wall i
ELt N'J
Secondary Liner
AN
APR 10 2003 11:49:29
-- ~H
::
;
Primary r"**Tank
/ V \ |
./ '
\S
Lower Knuckle
^^^^J
\ r
^ w i i n ;d
H H H H ^ IÎnsulating
Concrete
;.:><..
d 3
Figure 2-5. Close-Up Showing Mesh of Tank Base The model was constructed with a nominal soil overburden of 8.3 feet. The subgrade undisturbed soil depth extends to a depth of 168 feet below the foundation. The lateral soil dimension is 240 feet and includes a "stair step" boundary to distinguish between undisturbed soil and compacted backfill.
2.4
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 SOLID65 elements are used to represent the reinforced concrete regions. The tank liners, insulating concrete confinement ring, liner construction stiffeners, and the anchors use SHELL181 elements with full integration. The anchor bolts use COMBIN40 elements. Nonlinear contacts between various surfaces use the TARGET 170 and CONTACT 173 elements. SOLID45 elements are used to explicitly represent the soil. The reinforced concrete is divided into regions that have different steel reinforcement ratios, where it is assumed that the thickness of each rebar layer is 1 inch. The rebar capabilities of the SOLID65 concrete elements were used to represent the reinforcing steel. For regions with nonzero reinforcement ratios, the element attributes include an element coordinate system and two rotation angles that identify the rebar orientation. The element x-axis is parallel to the radial direction, the y-axis is parallel to the circumferential direction, and the z-axis is parallel to the vertical direction. The dome uses the z-axis for the vertical/radial direction. The haunch region uses a spherical coordinate system to define the local x-direction (radially outward from the global origin at the bottom/center of the primary tank) to represent the diagonal ties. Note that the directions used for the rebar's three volume ratios specified as real constants are not in the element coordinate system x-, y-, or z-directions (ESYS), but rather the element x-direction for x, rotation angle theta for y, and rotation angle phi for z. See the ANSYS Elements Manual and Theory Manual for SOLID65 for more detail. The ANSYS concrete material model has no provision for representing the post-cracking tension stiffening behavior of reinforced concrete. The stiffness of an element becomes zero immediately upon cracking. As a consequence, achieving convergence proved nearly impossible during the large-scale cracking that occurs in the model during a thermal cycle. Previous DST analytical reports describe similar difficulties and relate the use of "glue elements" to stabilize the solution. For this analysis, a set of SOLID45 elements was superimposed over the SOLID65 concrete elements to provide numerical stability to the model. These elements were assigned a low modulus (approximately 0.5% of the nominal concrete modulus). The use of these augmented stiffness elements greatly facilitated the model convergence and was demonstrated to have no significant impact on the resulting forces, moments, stress, or strain. The program flow for the model, including a brief description of each macro, is as follows: SET_SLICE.MAC PNNLA.MAC - basic tank parameters and 2-D geometry, no soil geometry. Geometry divided to accommodate rebar, anchor bolts, and construction stiffeners later. Many area components created. SET_PARMS - sets model parameters that may change (e.g., loads, material properties, overburden depth)
PNNLA2.MAC - element attribute (real, type, mat, esys) assignments (not values) to geometry (not soil) SET_RX.MAC - selects areas within a range of x SET_REAL.MAC - assigns real constant attribute to each area SET_RY.MAC - selects areas within a range of y SET_REAL.MAC - assigns real constant attribute to each area
2.5
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 SET_REAL.MAC - assigns real constant attribute to each area
PNNLA3.MAC - identify as components: anchor bolt lines (linebolt), stiffener lines (linestiff), anchor lines (lineanch in haunch), primary tank lines (line_prim), secondary liner lines (linesecon), bottom anchor lines (linebotanch) PNNLA4.MAC - 2-D soil geometry, 2-D mesh of soil and the other 2-D solids, rotate to create 3-D geometry/mesh for slice model (no 3-D shell elements), note that soil geometry/mesh is later redefined in setsoil.mac MESH_SIZE.MAC - sets default element size for rebar and soil elements, sets sweep angle, and sets number of divisions per quadrant
PNNLA5.MAC - merges nodes/keypoints at slab/rebar and tank/rebar; couples all soil nodes to corresponding structural nodes and top of slab to bottom of wall and top of slab to bottom of insulating concrete (note that all coupling is later deleted) PNNLA6.MAC - generates anchor bolts, studs, wall base plate, confining ring below secondary liner, confining ring for insulating concrete, wall, and dome stiffeners. PNNLA7.MAC - generate primary tank geometry and mesh, define values for all tank real constants, couple vertical displacements at liner bottom PNNLA8.MAC - generates secondary liner geometry and mesh, couples vertical displacements at liner bottom, couples shell horizontal displacements to sidewall, couples shell vertical displacements to dome, merges secondary liner nodes with slab top nodes PNNLA9.MAC - merges liner to anchor bolts/studs/anchor nodes, applies constraints SET_MATERIALS.MAC - sets all material properties SET_OPTIONS.MAC - includes/excludes certain nonlinear material models (e.g., nonlinear concrete, creep, nonlinear steel liner, nonlinear rebar, nonlinear soil) SET_SOIL.MAC - creates soil geometry and mesh; couples to concrete
Delete all coupled sets SET_AREAS_SLICE.MAC - defines area components for contact definition Add steel plate below wall (on slab) Add nonlinear contact with appropriate friction coefficients per Section 3.6.2 between soil/concrete, secondary liner/concrete wall, primary tank/dome, primary tank/insulating concrete, slab top/insulating concrete, and wall/slab Merge insulating concrete bottom/secondary liner nodes, liner/concrete nodes at centerline SET_ESYS_3D.MAC - define all rebar elements real, modify secondary liner elements above 357.5 inch to be 3/8 inch thick APPLY_LOADS_SLICE.MAC - reverse area normal of radiused section of secondary liner, apply parametric loads MESH_SIZE.MAC - sets default element size for rebar and soil elements, sets sweep angle, and sets number of divisions per quadrant
2.6
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Apply axisymmetric boundary conditions Copy anchor bolts, etc. for slice model; divide anchor bolt/bottom anchors by 2 for slice model Couple nodes at primary/secondary liner intersection Define soil layers including elevation and material properties SET_SLAYER.MAC - applies soil material properties to a layer
SET_BACKFILL.MAC - defines backfill region and sets linear and nonlinear material properties Define augmented stiffness elements Merge duplicate contact elements/nodes Apply gravity, waste depth, surface loads, annulus and primary tank pressures SET_SLICEB.INP runs the thermal cycling for years 1 through 5 Extended 13yr.INP runs the thermal cycling and creep for years 6 through 18 TwoYrCycle.INP runs the thermal cycling for years 19 and 20 TwoYrCycleWith460wh.INP increases the waste level to 460 inches and runs the thermal cycling for year 21 and 22 Extended36yr.INP runs the thermal cycling and creep for years 23 through 58 TwoYrCycTo60Yr.INP runs the thermal cycling for year 59 and 60 SET_SLICED6.INP runs ACI load combination 4 SET_SLICEH.INP runs the thermal cycle for load combination 9 The ANSYS concrete material model is used for the SOLID65 elements. This model allows for cracking and crushing, as well as variable shear transfer for open/closed cracks. In addition, the implicit creep material model for concrete was used. ANSYS allows for the concrete cracking/crushing material model and creep material model to be used simultaneously. The soil elements use the Drucker-Prager constitutive model, which has an internal friction angle, cohesion, and a dilatancy angle as material properties (see Section 2.3.5). A small positive value of cohesion is used to represent the Hanford cohesionless soils, and the dilatancy angle is assumed to be equal to the friction angle (this parameter induces volume changes as a function of element shear stress). The soil region surrounding the concrete tank and foundation is coupled to the concrete using nonlinear surface-to-surface contact elements, where the sliding friction coefficient is as specified in Section 2.3.6. The tank liners are coupled to the structural and nonstructural concrete in a similar manner, i.e., with nonlinear contact elements. A friction coefficient is used for these surfaces as well, as specified in Section 2.3.6. These include contact between the following surfaces: secondary liner and tank primary tank and dome bottom of primary tank and top of insulating concrete
2.7
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 top of slab and bottom of insulating concrete bottom of secondary liner and top of slab bottom of tank wall and top of slab. 2.2.4 Real Constants
ANSYS uses real constants to define element properties for certain element types, e.g., thickness for shell elements. The thicknesses of the different regions of the steel liners are defined in SET_PARMS.MAC and assigned in PNNLA7.MAC. The thickness of the primary tank that is in contact with the waste was given a 0.001 inch/year corrosion allowance for the desired 60-year design life for a total reduction of 0.060 inch at the beginning of the analysis. Real constants for the wall and dome stiffeners are defined in PNNLA6.MAC. 2.2.4.1 Reinforcing Steel
The concrete reinforcing steel is modeled by using the rebar capabilities of the ANSYS SOLID65 element. Elements of 1-inch thickness were defined in the appropriate locations in the dome, haunch, wall, and foundation. The real constants for the rebar elements include the following for each of three possible rebar directions: the rebar material ID steel volume ratio two angles used to orient the rebar directions relative to the element coordinate system. Tables 2-2 through 2-5 show the calculations for the steel volume ratios required for the concrete rebar elements. The geometry of the rebar, including the locations of transition between rebar volumes, is defined in PNNLA.MAC. Real constants are initially assigned by location in PNNLA2.MAC. The volume ratios and rebar orientation are defined in SET_ESYS_3D.MAC. 2.2.4.2 Anchor Bolts
The tank design drawings listed in Table 2-1 specify an anchor bolt spacing of 2 feet by 2 feet. The 3-D finite element model was constructed as a 2.9-degree wedge that gives the correct 24-inch spacing at the concrete wall (480 feet). The anchor bolts were modeled with two sets of springs: one normal to the primary tank surface to represent the axial stiffness of the anchor bolt, and one tangent to the surface to represent the shear stiffness. Rev. 0 of this report utilized beam elements for the anchor bolts. The independent reviewers raised concerns over the anchor bolt capacity used in the evaluation (Appendix A.2). They also suggested accounting for the nonlinear shear response of the anchor bolts that has been well documented in Ollgaard et al. (1971) and Lam and El-Lobody (2005). Detailed finite element models (described in Appendix A. 3) were developed and the nonlinear response of the AP anchor bolt design was determined. The appropriate secant modulus was identified and used in the DST model. The secant stiffness is a function of the radial location of the anchor bolt.
2.8
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 2-2. Foundation Concrete Rebar Volume Ratios

Description Elevation (in.) Slab Bottom Radius (in.) 75 115 202 NA 350 369 435 444 528 Description Elevation (in.) Slab Top Radius (in.) Bar Size Bar Size 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 Meridional Spacing 0 0 # Bars (a) Volume Ratio 12 NA 0 0256 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 48 95 189 240 240 240 512 0.0258 0.0316 0.0360 0.0326 0.0293 0.0267 0 1016 Bar Size 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 Hoop Real Spacing Volume Ratio Constant 12 0 0256 101 12 12 12 12 12 8 8 0.0256 0.0256 0.0256 0.0256 0.0256 0.0552 0 0552 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Bar Meridional Hoop Real Spacing # Bars Volume Ratio Size Spacing Volume Ratio Constant 12 NA 75 5 0 0256 5 12 0 0256 111 115 5 NA 45 0.0242 5 12 0.0256 112 202 5 NA 99 0.0330 5 12 0.0256 113 350 5 NA 198 0.0377 5 12 0.0256 114 NA 369 NA 5 198 0.0269 5 12 0.0256 115 NA 435 5 256 0.0313 5 12 0.0256 116 NA 444 5 256 0.0284 6 8 0.0552 117 528 5 NA 256 0.0259 6 8 0.0552 118 (a) The drawings used to obtain this information specify rebar by spacing or # bars; therefore, where a measurement for Meridional spacing is given, information for # bars is not recorded, and vice versa. NA = Not applicable.
Table 2-3. Wall Concrete Rebar Volume Ratios

Description Elevation (in.) Wall Real Constant 201/206 202/207 203/208 204/209 205/210 Bar Hoop Volume Radius B a r Meridional Size (in.) Spacing (a) # Bars ( a ) Volume Ratio Size Spacing Ratio 75 NA 8 8 0 0982 6 12 0 0368 1 47 9 NA 204 115 6 0.0491 8 8 0.0982 9 NA 303 202 6 0.0491 8 12 0.0654 NA 339.5 350 8 12 0.0654 8 12 0.0654 381.5 369 8 12 NA 0.0654 8 12 0.0654 (a) The drawings used to obtain this information specify rebar by spacing or # bars; therefore, where a measurement for Meridional spacing is given, information for # bars is not recorded, and vice versa. NA = Not applicable.
2.9
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 2-4. Dome Concrete Rebar Volume Ratios

Description Elevation (in.) Dome Radius (in.) Bar Meridional Bar Hoop Real Size Spacing ( a ) # Bars' 3 ' Volume Ratio Size Spacing Volume Ratio Constant 12 120 6 NA 51 0 0453 6 0 0368 301 NA 183 6 101 0.0490 6 12 0.0368 302 NA 270 6 202 0.0651 6 12 0.0368 303 6 NA 304.5 202 0.0496 8 6 0.1309 304 NA 314 8 NA 346 0.1399 8 6 0.1309 305 354 8 NA 346 0.1300 9 6 0.1657 306 9 368.9 8 NA 346 0.1197 4 0.2485 307 391 8 NA 346 0.1139 9 4 0.2485 308 (a) The drawings used to obtain this information specify rebar by spacing or # bars; therefore, where a measurement for Meridional spacing is given, information for # bars is not recorded, and vice versa. NA = Not applicable.
Table 2-5. Haunch Concrete Rebar Volume Ratios

Haunch External Radius (in.) 450 496 496 NA NA Internal Radius (in.) 480 NA Middle Radius (in.) 486 5 487 NA Ties
Elevation (in.) NA NA NA 408 452 Elevation (in.) NA 408 Elevation (in.) NA 435 451
Bar Size 8 8 8 6 8 Bar Size 8 8 Bar Size 6 6 4 Bar Size
Meridional Spacing' 3 ' # Bars' 3 ' 519 NA NA 519 4 NA NA 6 6 NA Meridional Spacing' 3 ' # Bars' 3 ' NA 519 6 NA Meridional Spacing' 3 ' # Bars' 3 ' NA NA 18 Meridional Spacing 163 163 NA Hoop Space
Volume Ratio 0 1534 0.1375 0.2700 0.1309 Volume Ratio 0 1489 0.1309 Volume Ratio 0 0261 0.0235 0 0109
Bar Size 9 9 8 9 Bar Size 9 8 Bar Size 9 9 9
Hoop Spacing 45 4.5 6 4 Hoop Spacing 45 6 Hoop Spacing 45 8 8
Volume Ratio 0 2209 0.2209 0.1309 0.2485 Volume Ratio 0 2209 0.1309 Volume Ratio 0 2209 0.1243 0.1243
Real Constant 401 402 404 403 Real Constant 406 405 Real Constant 50: 500 501
Volume Ratio 4 0.0007 NA 16 18 NA NA NA (a) The drawings used to obtain this information specify rebar by spacing or # bars; therefore, where a measurement for Meridional spacing is given, information for # bars is not recorded, and vice versa. NA = Not applicable.
NA
2.3 Material Properties

This section summarizes the material properties used in the TOLA finite element model. A comprehensive description of the structural and thermal properties is found in the TOLA report (Rinker et al. 2004). The TOLA report should be referenced for complete material property description and background information. The lower concrete and steel strengths of the TOLA analysis were maintained in the 2.10
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Increased Liquid Level finite element model. The higher strength of the A537 steel used in the AP tanks was used for the allowable stress evaluation of the primary steel tank. 2.3.1 Structural C oncrete
This section summarizes the structural properties of reinforced concrete that were used in the finite element analysis. The concrete properties listed here represent Hanford batch concrete with a 3-ksi specified minimum compressive strength, as specified for the 241-AY tank design. The properties are summarized in figures and tables in this section. The concrete elastic modulus was prescribed to be temperature-dependent, as shown in Figure 2-6. The concrete compressive and tensile strengths are shown in Figure 2-7. These are the mean strengths as described in the TOLA report (Rinker et al. 2004). These values are used in the ANSYS cracking algorithm employed with the SOLID65 concrete elements. The crushing capabilities of the SOLID65 elements were not used. The ACI code evaluation (see Section 6.1 of Chapter 6) used the lower bound compressive strengths of 4.5 ksi specified minimum strength concrete to determine the load and moment capacities of the reinforced concrete tank structure. Thus the analysis conservatively used the mean strength properties to determine the demand and the lower bound properties to establish the concrete section capacity. The TOLA report (Rinker et al. 2004) describes the basis for the concrete strength degradation as a function of temperature. The coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of concrete was taken to be 0.37 x 10'6 in./in./F. Poisson's ratio was specified to be 0.15.
Concrete modulus
6 T 1
-.4 -
w a
hD D O
2-
1 -
00
50
100
150
200
Temperature ( F)
250
300
350
400
Figure 2-6. C oncrete Elastic Modulus
2.11
Concrete Strength
150
200 Temperature (F)
250
Figure 2-7. Concrete Strength Used for Finite Element Analysis Previous DST analyses have identified concrete creep as being an important material parameter. The TOLA report (Rinker et al. 2004) describes the procedure and data used for defining the concrete creep material model. The time-hardening creep algorithm in ANSYS is defined as
/-i Cj.C-,
= LXG
t ze
-C4/T
(2.1)
The coefficients used for the ANSYS time-hardening implicit creep law are given in Table 2-6. The creep law parameters are provided to ANSYS via the TBDATA command found in SET_PARMS.MAC. Table 2-6. Coefficients for the ANSYS Creep Law
Coefficient CI C2 C3 C4 Value 0.2545 x 10 6 1 -0.838 320
2.3.1.1
Degraded Concrete Properties
It was necessary to develop a method to prevent the concrete modulus and strength from "recovering" during subsequent thermal cycles after the initial degradation due to elevated temperature. This was accomplished by redefimng the concrete material properties in their degraded condition at the end of the first year at 210F. Because the degradation is temperature dependent, this definition required segregating the concrete elements into groups of 10-degree increments based on their maximum
2.12
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 temperature (steady-state). A modified set of concrete properties in the degraded condition was defined. At the conclusion of the first year of creep, the properties of each 10-degree group of concrete elements were changed using the ANSYS mpch command to redefine these elements with the degraded properties. 2.3.2 Insulating Concrete
A linear elastic material model was prescribed for the insulating concrete. Table 2-7 lists the structural properties that were used. The compressive strength was not used in the finite element analysis, but was employed in the evaluation of the insulating concrete stress level. Table 2-7. Structural Properties for the Insulating Concrete
Material Property Compressive strength Elastic modulus Poisson's ratio Density Coefficient of thermal expansion Units psi psi lbf/ft3 in./in.-F Value-Tank AY 200 165,000 0.15 50 37
2.3.3
Structural Steel
The elastic modulus of the primary tank and the secondary liner structural steels was defined to be temperature-dependent, as shown in Figure 2-8. An elastoplastic material model was defined with a yield of 36,000 psi and a tangent modulus of 1% the nominal elastic modulus. The density of steel was taken as 490 lb/ft. Poisson's ratio was taken as 0.30. The steel CTE was defined to be temperature dependent as shown in Figure 2-9.
AN
EX 1*10**3) FOR MATERIAL 1
EX
28500'
28000"
100
200
300
400
TEMP (F)
DST structural s t e e l
Figure 2-8. Structural Steel Elastic Modulus
2.13
AN
ALPX
(xl0**-6)
FOR MATERIAL
6.75"
ALPX
6.5"
ALPX
6.25"
6"
5.75"
0 50
100 150
200 250
300 350
400
TEMP (F) DST s t r u c t u r a l steel
Figure 2-9. Structural Steel Coefficient of Thermal Expansion 2.3.4 Reinforcing Steel
Two grades of reinforcing steel were used in the construction of the 241-AY DST. Rebar with 40,000 psi yield strength was used in the slab, and steel with 60,000 psi yield strength was used in the wall and dome. The nonlinear stress-strain curves shown in Figure 2-10 for both grades of rebar were implemented in the ANSYS model. The density was specified to be 490 lb/ft3. Poisson's ratio was taken as 0.3 and the mean CTE was specified as 6 x 10'6 in./in.-F.
2.3.5
Soils
Distinction was made between the undisturbed soil and the compacted backfill, as shown Figure 2-11. The DST foundation is supported by the undisturbed native soil. The backfill applies radial pressure and axial frictional force to the tank walls and a dead load to the dome. The FE soil properties were distributed accordingly, as depicted in Figure 2-12. The soil dimensions are: Soil depth below foundation: Overburden depth: Radial extent (from center of tank): Excavation slope: 168 feet 8.3 feet 240 feet Stair-stepped approximation with 1.5:1 slope
2.14
Steel Reinforcing Bar - Grade 40
Engineering Strain
(a)
Steel Reinforcing Bar - Grade 60
Engineering Strain
(b)
Figure 2-10. Steel Reinforcing Bar Stress-Strain Curves: a) Grade 40 Rebar (slab), b) Grade 60 Rebar (wall and dome)
2.15
Surface ^WASfl W&$\ V ^ l 11 Overburden S15* Concrete Tank Compacted Backfill Soil Primary Steel Tank Secondary Steel Liner 47'-5 5/8"
Radius= 4 0 ' - 0 " Insulating Concrete Undisturbed Native Soil o ~_ o Z.
Figure 2-11. Soil Configuration Adjacent to DSTs
Figure 2-12. Distribution of Soil Properties in the DST Finite Element Model The soil constitutive model used for the DST analysis was the ANSYS Drucker-Prager elastoplastic model. The elastic response is determined by the elastic modulus (E) and the Poisson's ratio (o). The elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio must be assigned according to the soil depth because the Drucker-Prager model does not adjust the stiffness for confining pressure. The undisturbed soil elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio are shown in Figure 2-13. The compacted backfill soil modulus is shown in Figure 2-14. The backfill Poisson's ratio was constant at 0.27. The Drucker-Prager plasticity parameters were defined to be constant with soil depth and temperature. The values used are: cohesion =1.0 psi, friction angle = 35, and dilatancy angle = 8. The undisturbed soil density was 110 lb/ft3 and the compacted backfill density was 125 lb/ft3. A detailed discussion is presented in the TOLA report (Rinker et al. 2004).
2.16
Undisturbed Soil Properties
400
450
500
550 Elevation (ft)
600
650
700
Figure 2-13. Undisturbed Soil Elastic Modulus and Poisson's Ratio

Backfill Soil Elastic modulus
610
620
630
640 Elevation (ft)
650
660
670
Figure 2-14. Backfill Soil Elastic Modulus 2.3.6 Coefficients of Friction at Material Interfaces
The DST finite element model includes several contact interfaces where friction forces must be accounted for. Table 2-8 summarizes the coefficients of friction (COF) that are used in the DST model. The basis for these values is given in Rinker et al. (2004).
2.17
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 2-8. Coefficients of Friction Material Interface Description Soil-to-concrete: Dome Side walls Base mat Coefficient of Friction 0.3 0.05 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2
Concrete-to-steel (concrete cast against steel) Concrete-to-steel (insulating concrete-to-primary tank) Steel-to-stee 1 (graphite -lubr ic ated)
2.4
Loads
This section describes the loads used in the thermal and operating load analysis. A comprehensive description of the load and boundary conditions is found in the TOLA report (Rinker et al. 2004). The TOLA report should be referenced for complete load description and background information. The load parameters are defined in SET_PARMS.MAC and are applied in APPLY_LOADS_SLICE.MAC. The loading sequence is defined in SET_SLICE.MAC and subsequent input files. 2.4.1 Thermal Loads
The temperature distributions described in the TOLA report (Rinker et al. 2004) were applied as thermal loads. The temperature profiles represented a yearly thermal cycle that includes the design basis heat up transient, a steady-state dwell time at the maximum design waste temperature, followed by the design basis temperature cool down transient. Table 2-9 presents the time and waste temperatures that define the cycle. Multiple temperature distributions were solved during the waste heating and cooling segments of the transient to ensure that the maximum effect of the transient temperature gradients was captured in the structural evaluations of the concrete and steel sections. It was also conservatively assumed that the steady-state temperature distribution corresponding to a maximum waste temperature of 210F was achieved at the end of the high-temperature segment of the transient. This approach ensures that the maximum concrete temperatures and the maximum thermal degradation in the concrete strength and stiffness are considered. At the low waste temperature of 50F it was also assumed that the transient ended with the tank and surrounding soil returning to the uniform 50F initial temperature. The mechanical analyses assume 50F as the initial stress-free temperature for the soil, steel, and concrete. The DST model temperatures are used in the analysis for including the effects of concrete thermal degradation, temperature-dependent steel properties, and differential thermal expansion between the steel and the concrete. The different temperature fields corresponding to the mechanical solution (steps 2 through 12 in Table 2-9) are shown in Figures 2-15 through 2-24. (Note that solution steps 7 and 8 are the same temperature state and only plotted once.) Data files for the temperature distributions are prohibitively large for inclusion in this report as appendices but are available on the electronic media version of this report.
2.18
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 2-9.

Step No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Temperature States that Define the Design Basis Annual Thermal Cycle for the ANSYS Structural Model
Comment Initial temperature = 50F uniform Fast heat to 125F (@ 10F/hour) First step to 210F (@ 20F/day) Second step to 210F Intermediate step toward steady-state Steady-state @ 210F Hold - steady-state @ 210F Material property change First step to 125F cool down (@ 20F/day) Second step to 125F Fast cool down to 50F (@ 10F/day) Tank cool down transient to 50F Uniform 50F Days 0 0.3 2.4 4.6 23 38 350 351 353 355 355.6 356.6 365 Waste Temp., F 50 125 167.5 210 210 210 210 210 167.5 125 50 50 50 Plot Label hi h2 h3 h4 Ss
Hold
cl c2 c3 c4
The service life of the 241-AP Tank Farm is 50 years. For the purpose of this analysis, a life of 60 years was selected. This value was chosen based on the number of years already in service and the anticipated continuing waste storage. While the historical data suggest a three-year full-temperature cycle, an annual cycle was conservatively specified for the thermal loading. However, the completion of an analysis with 60 thermal cycles proved problematic with the model convergence issues. Review of the preliminary results demonstrated little change in the concrete cracking, concrete force and moments and tank stress beyond the first several cycles. In addition, the creep rate decreases over time (see the TOLA report Chapter 3). Accordingly, analyses consisted of one thermal cycle per year of 422 inches of waste for five years followed by 13 years of creep at elevated temperature followed by two annual thermal cycles. The waste level was then increased to 460 inches. Two annual thermal cycles were conducted at this waste level followed by 36 years of creep at elevated temperature, concluding with two final thermal cycles as described in Section 2.4.4. The concerns raised by the independent reviewers (Appendix A) regarding the capacity of the anchor bolts resulted in modifications to the anchor bolt modeling as described in Chapter 2.2.4.2 and Appendix A. 3. However, evaluation of the anchor bolts continued to be problematic at the higher waste temperatures. Accordingly, as described in Appendix A.3, a separate, distinct 60-year analysis was conducted at a reduced waste temperature of 135F. This temperature corresponded to the anchor bolt limit load, and it is still higher than the temperatures expected for future AP tank operations. The DST thermal cycle ranged from a uniform 80F to the steady state temperature distribution corresponding to the 135F waste temperature. Only one intermediate heat up and cool down load step was required. The temperature distribution for these load steps and the steady state waste condition are shown in Figures 2-25 through 2-27.
2.19
'
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 8 2006 10:37:57 NODAL SOLUTION STEP =127 SUB =3 TIME =21173 BFETEMP (AVG) TOP DMX =1.903 SMN =49.983 SMX =125 A =54.15 B =62.486 C =70.821 D =79.156 E =87.491 F =95.827 G =104.162 H =112.497 I =120.832
B
| .
^MN
Baseline, Upper Bound Soil
Figure 2-15. Temperature (F) Distribution at Step 2 (Table 2-9) in the Design Basis Transient (waste temperature = 125F)
2.20
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 8 2006 10:59:13 NODAL SOLUTION STEP =128 TIME =21174 BFETEMP (AVG) =1.804 =49.805 =167.5 =56.344 =69.421 =82.498 =95.575 =108.652 =121.73 =134.807 =147.884 =160.961
SUB =9
TOP DMX SMN SMX A B C D E F G H I
Figure 2-16. Temperature (F) Distribution at Step 3 (Table 2-9) in the Design Basis Transient (waste temperature = 167.5F)
2.21
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 8 2006 11:0 0:43 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=129 TIME =21178 BFETEMP (AVG) =1.706
SUB =9
A! :
=50
=210 =58.889 =76.667 =94.444 =112.222 =130 =147.778 =165.556 =183.333 =201.111
2.22
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 8 2006 11:0 6:11 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=130 SUB =16 TIME =21196 BFETEMP (AVG) TOP DMX =1.6 SMN =50 SMX =210 A =58.889 B =76.667 C =94.444 D =112.222 E =130 F =147.778 G =165.556 H =183.333 I =201.111
2.23
S~
S_ D
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 8 2006 11:0 9:00 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=131
SUB =34
TIME =21211 BFETEMP (AVG)
=1.601
=50
=210 =58.889 =76.667 =94.444 =112.222 =130 =147.778 =165.556 =183.333 =201.111
-H
=-
H H
2.24
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 8 2006 10:0 8:44 NODAL SOLUTION STEP =132 SUB =15 TIME =21524 BFETEMP (AVG) TOP DMX =1.599 SMN =50 SMX =210 A =58.889 B =76.667 C =94.444 D =112.222 E =130 F =147.778 G =165.556 =183.333 H I =201.111
-H H
=H
Figure 2-20. Steady-State Temperature (F) Distribution at Steps 7 and 8 (Table 2-9) in the Design Basis Transient (waste temperature = 210F)
2.25
A Sc
a & _ B c- .,D E E * ,-,r E
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 8 2006 11:15:19 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=133 SUB =8 TIME=21526 BFETEMP (AVG) TOP DMX =1.635 SMN =50 SMX =199.338 A =58.297 B =74.89 C =91.483 D =108.076 E =124.669 F =141.262 G =157.855 =174.449 H I =191.042
TtHlHPfHtflPfHlPfHHlPfHtflHHtflPfHlPgflttH-W
} s e l i n e \ Uppei?\3ound "Soil
..
Figure 2-21. Temperature (F) Distribution at Step 9 (Table 2-9) in the Design Basis Transient (waste temperature = 167.5F)
2.26
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 8 2006 11:16:38 NODAL SOLUTION STEP =134 SUB =8 TIME =21528 BFETEMP (AVG) TOP DMX =1.693 SMN =50 SMX =195.953 A =58.108 B =74.325 C =90.542 D =106.759 E =122.976 F =139.193 G =155.41 H =171.627 I =187.844
2.27
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 8 2006 11:17:44 NODAL SOLUTION STEP =135 SUB =6 TIME =21529 BFETEMP (AVG) TOP DMX =1.722 SMN =50 SMX =195.389 A =58.077 B =74.232 C =90.386 D =106.54 E =122.695 F =138.849 G =155.003 H =171.158 I =187.312
2.28
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 8 2006 11:19:08 NODAL SOLUTION STEP =136 TIME =21530 BFETEMP (AVG) =1.781
SUB =5
=50
=193.514 =57.973 =73.919 =89.865 =105.811 =121.757 =137.703 =153.649 =169.595 =185.541
2.29
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 18 2007 09:36:40 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=4 SUB =11 TIME=18 BFETEMP (AVG) TOP DMX =1.399 SMN =80 SMX =135 A =83.056 E =89.167 C =95.278 D =101.389 E =107.5 F =113.611 G =119.722 H =125.833 I =131.944
Figure 2-25. Temperature (F) Distribution During Heat up in the Anchor B olt Design Basis Transient (waste temperature = 135F)
2.30
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 18 2007 09:34:14 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=5 SUB =11 TIME=33 BFETEMP (AVG) TOP DMX =1.404 SMN =80 SMX =135 A =83.056 B =89.167 C =95.278 D =101.389 E =107.5 F =113.611 G =119.722 H =125.833 I =131.944
AP, secaftt modul
Figure 2-26. Temperature (F) Distribution at Steady State in the Anchor Bolt Design Basis Transient (waste temperature = 135F)
2.31
ANSYS 7.0SP11 DEC 18 2007 09:37:24 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=7 SUB =6 TIME=363 BFETEMP (AVG) TOP DMX =1.508 SMN =80 SMX =130.146 A =82.786 E =88.358 C =93.93 D =99.501 E =105.073 F =110.645 G =116.217 H =121.789 I =127.36
Figure 2-27. Temperature (F) Distribution During Cool Down in the Anchor Bolt Design Basis Transient (waste temperature = 80 F)
2.4.2
Mechanical Loads
Table 2-10 lists the non-seismic loading conditions that are specified in the statement of work for this project. The Hst contains both structural and thermal operating loads that are both static and transient in nature. The concentrated live load was increased at the end of the nominal 60-year analysis.
2.32
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 2-10. DST 241-AP Load Conditions for Analysis Design Load Design life Maximum corrosion rate Soil cover Hydrostatic Pressure Value > 50 years 1 mil/yr 8.3 ft @ 125 lb/ft3 460 inches 1.83 SpG -12 in. w.g. (water gauge) < Ppritnary < +60 in. w.g.
- 2 0 in. W.g. < Pannes < + 6 0 Ul. W.g. 1Z Ul. W . g . j ^ -tprimary " -"ânnulus
Notes A 60-year design life is used. A total corrosion allowance of 0.060 inch is applied to the specified nominal thicknesses. Relative to dome apex. Current tank contents are below 1.5 SpG Primary tank Annulus Differential Uniform Concentrated Maximum bulk temperature of waste Waste maximum heatup/cooldown rate Cyclic rate
Live load Thermal
40 lb/ft2 200,000 lb. nominal 210F 20F/day 1/yr ACI Load Factors
2.4.3
The load factors required by ACI 349-90 (ACI 1990) were achieved by directly applying them to the relevant load in a separate load step. The load factors to be applied in this analysis are a subset of the possible combinations specified in ACI 349, Section 9.2 (ACI 1990). The subset is defined by WHC-SD-WM-DGS-003 (Day et al. 1995). The normal operating and thermal loads specified for analysis are: U D L LI L2 F V H T Demand Load (comprised of combinations of the following): Dead Load (tank + overburden + concentrated dead load + piping and equipment) Live Loads uniform live load concentrated live load Hydrostatic waste pressure Vapor pressure loading (annulus and vapor space) Lateral soil pressure Thermal load (internal forces and moments caused by temperature distribution within the concrete). Normal (T0) and abnormal (Tabn0miai) cases are specified. As described in Chapter 4, the abnormal temperature cases are bounded by the design thermal transient that is applied in the thermal and operating loads analysis. R0 = Piping and equipment reactions1 = = = = = = = = =
The credible but improbable extreme environmental load is: Ess = Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) effects - Design Basis Earthquake effects WHC-SD-WM-DGS-003 does not distinguish LI from L2, or V from F. Those items are combined into L and F. We chose to maintain a distinction and combine them algebraically as a matter of form. R0 is not considered in this analysis.
2.33
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 The applicable ACI load combinations reduce to: Load Combination 1: U = 1.4(D + F + V) + 1.7(H + LI + L2) Load Combination 4: U = D + F + V + H + L 1 + L 2 + T + ESS Load Combination 9: U = 1.05D + 1.05(F + V) + 1.3(L1 + L2 + H) + 1.05To Load Combination 9 is, in terms of load factors, intermediate between Load Combination 1 and Load Combination 4. Instead of applying Load Combination 9, we conservatively applied Load Combination 1 then added the thermal loads with the temperatures increased by 5% as discrete load steps; that is, Load Combination 9': U = 1.4 (D+F+V) + 1.7 (H+L1+L2) + 1.05 T. 2.4.4 Load Step Procedure
Figure 2-28 shows the flow plan used to model the 61 years of thermal cycles. The analysis is divided into several distinct analyses to facilitate a restart in the event of convergence difficulties. The time spans from years 5 to 18 and from 22 to 58 are single thermal cycles held at the steady state temperature for nominally 13 and 53 years, respectively. These are followed by 2 thermal cycles to capture any effect the long term creep may have had on the cracking of the concrete and subsequent load distribution. The waste level was increased from 422 inches to 460 inches following year 20. The ASME and ACI load combinations 1 and 4 evaluations are carried out at the end of or during year 60. An additional thermal cycle (year 61) is completed with the temperatures increased by 5% to provide a conservative evaluation of ACI load combination 9.
422" 5 cycles 422" 1 cycle 422" 2 cycles 460" 2 cycles 460" 1 cycle 460" 460"
2 cycles -f 1 cycle ^ ASME ACI LC 9 ACI LC 1 & 4
Figure 2-28. Analysis Flow Plan
2.34
3.0 Seismic Model

3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the ANSYS finite element (FE) model, material properties, and loads used for the double-shell tank (DST) seismic analysis. Complete documentation of the seismic model supporting the proposed liquid level increase in the AP Tank Farms may be found in the Seismic Analysis report (Abatt and Rinker 2008). The current report contains summaries of the model, material properties and loads. The Seismic Analysis report should be referenced for complete model description and background information.
3.2
Finite Element Model
The model used for the evaluation of the AP tank configuration and increased liquid level is based on the model developed for the AY tank and a liquid level of 422 inches (Rinker et al. 2006c). Key differences in the increased liquid level and the AY model are as follows: AP tank geometry used (geometry and wall thicknesses) Waste level increased to 460 inches Waste specific gravity increased to 1.83 Number of contact areas used for waste/primary tank interface increased
For completeness, a detailed description of the model development is provided below. 3.2.1 Model Description
A model of a Hanford double-shell tank was created and analyzed using version 8.1 of the general purpose finite element program ANSYS. A half-symmetry model of the DST, including the concrete tank, primary tank, secondary liner, anchor bolts, waste, and surrounding soil was developed to evaluate the seismic loading on the DST. The tank model geometry was based on the AP tank configuration shown in Hanford Drawing H-2-90534. The primary tank has a 450-inch radius and the height of the vertical wall is 422.3 inches. The nominal dome apex is 561.5 inches above the bottom of the tank. The models were run using waste depths of 460 inches. An excerpt from Drawing H-2-90534 is shown as Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2 shows the complete model. Details for each part of the model are discussed in the following sections. The detailed ANSYS model was developed based on coordinates used in the TOLA model. A series of input files were used to break the model creation into manageable parts. The files used, and a short description is provided in Table 3-1. Files that are common to all load cases are provided in Appendix E of the Increased Liquid Level Seismic report (Abatt and Rinker 2008). Files that are unique to a specific load case are provided in the appendix of that report for each load case
3.1
..i'
&
Aff
*
^:
Figure 3-1. AY Primary Tank Dimensions AIM
M&D Professional Services, Inc Load Case: LBS-BEC, Full Non-linear, Final PT Mesh
Figure 3-2. Composite Tank Model Detail
3.2
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 3-1. ANSYS Model Input File Description Description Calls each input for development of model Defines key geometry and model parameters. Concrete geometry set to match PNNL section cut locations. Defines concrete material and real properties for model. Uses properties based on T ank-pr ops-###. txt best-estimate or fully cracked conditions. Each tank layer can be assigned unique properties Tank-meshl.txt Creates concrete tank mesh. Foundation and wall are separate entities Prim ary-props-AY. txt Defines primary tank material and real properties. Primary.txt Creates primary tank mesh. Primary tank is not connected to concrete tank. Insulate.txt Creates insulating concrete mesh. Uses existing geometry from concrete and primary tanks, but is not connected. Waste-solid-AY.txt Creates model of waste. Uses Solid 45 elements with low shear modulus. Uses primary tank geometry. Interfacel.txt Creates interface connections or contacts between pieces of model Interface-gap 1 .txt Creates interface connections or contacts between pieces of model Creates elements for anchor bolts and contact surface between the primary tank and Bolts-friction, txt concrete tank in the dome Liner.txt Creates elements for Secondary Liner Creates soil model for excavated region around tank. Merges coincident nodes with Near-soil-l.txt concrete tank. Defines all soil geometry and material properties. Excavated region and native soil S oil-props-###-geo. txt have different material properties. Unique files are used for each soil condition (UB, BE, LB). Creates far-field/native soil to a radius of 320 ft and depth of 266 ft. Merges Far-soil.txt coincident nodes with near soil and concrete tank. Places large mass at bottom of model for excitation force. Creates the contact interface between the excavated soil and native soil portions of Fix-soil.txt the model Slave.txt Creates slaved boundary conditions around exterior of model. Creates boundary conditions for symmetry. Does not set boundary conditions for Boundary.txt solution phase. Live load.txt Applies surface concentrated load over center of dome Outer-spar.txt Creates spar elements at edge of soil model to control shear behavior. (a) Unique files are used for each concrete and soil condition - best-estimate, lower bound, upper bound soils and fully cracked concrete. All components of the model are based on 9-degree slices over the half model, for a total of twenty slices. The model description will address the tank components first, then the surrounding soil. 3.2.2 Concrete Model File Name Run-tank, txt Tank-coordinates-AY.txt
The first component developed in the model is the concrete tank shell and footing. Thirty-three sections are used between the dome and center of thefloorfor each 9-degree slice. In the detailed TOLA slice model, seventy sections were identified and used for extracting forces and moments. Using the profile coordinates for these seventy sections, a subset of 33 sections was developed for the profile of the ANSYS seismic model (see Figure 3-3). Based on the need to allow for connecting other portions of the full model, some coordinates were adjusted relative to the TOLA slice model.
3.3
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 The geometry of the concrete tank is based on a combination of data from drawings and TOLA slice model. The basic geometry is based on drawings H-2-90439 and H-2-90442. Nodal locations were selected to correspond reasonably well to the TOLA model. This placement was done to simplify load combinations. Table 3-2 provides a listing comparison of nodal coordinates for the ANSYS seismic model and TOLA slice model. Input file "Tank-Coordinates-AY.txt" is used to read coordinate data for the concrete tank. Table 3-2. Concrete Tank Centerline Coordinates
Section Dome Dome Dome Dome Dome Dome Dome Dome Dome Dome Dome Dome Dome Dome Dome Dome Haunch Haunch Haunch Haunch Haunch Haunch Haunch Haunch Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 R (inch) 0 30.2 61 4 90.4 120.72 152.9 184.14 211.4 239.1 271.85 306.63 316.22 335.6 356 7 371.86 393.7 404.5 415.2 428.7 441.8 454.5 469 9 483.8 486.9 488.47 489 489 489 489 489 489 489 489 489 489 489 489 489 489 Coordinates H (inch) 568 6 568.6 567.5 565.8 563.21 559.7 555.34 550.7 545.2 537.45 527.68 524.68 518.2 510.37 504.24 494.5 489.3 483.7 476.2 468.2 459.5 447.4 423.18 407.1 393.5 382.1 360.8 345.6 335 321 306 300 281 260.5 236 210.5 201 186.8 171 T (inch) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 18.92 20.31 22.58 25.56 29.46 36 36 29.71 22.52 19.07 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 X 0 45 90.4 120.72 152.9 211.4 239.1 306.63 335.6 ANSYS Z 568 8 568 565.8 563.21 559.7 550.7 545.2 527.68 518.2 Set# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
393.7
494.5
10
428.7
476.2
11
469 9 486.9 489
447.4 407.1 382.1
12 13 14
489
335
15
489 489
281 236.5
16 17
489
186.8
18
3.4
Table 3-2. (contd)

Section 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 61 68 69 70 R (inch) 489 489 489 489 489 489 489 489 489 517 508.5 503 496.8 493 489 485.1 481 477 471 465 440 421.4 390 358 338 277.7 218.5 180 129.9 95.7 54 20 Coordinates H (inch) 150 5 145.5 120.5 100.5 80 60 39 9 21 -4.5 -18.4 -18.4 -18.4 -19.1 -19.1 -19.1 -19 1 -19.1 -19.1 -19.1 -19.1 -19.1 -17.9 -15.9 -13 9 -13.4 -13.4 -13 4 -13 4 -13.4 -13.4 -17.1 -20.1 T (inch) 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 22 22 22 22 22 22 19.38 17.05 13.12 9 13 8 8 8 8 8 8 15.43 21.5 0 Note: The concrete tank wall is 8 inches short due to modeling error. -4.0 34 X 489 ANSYS Z 145.5 Set# 19
Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab Slab
489 489 489 531
70 0 20 -4.0 -4.0
20 21 22 23
489
-4.0
24
438 410 358 277.7 218.5 180 129.9 95.7 36
-4.0 -4.0 -4.0 -4.0 -4 0 -4 0 -4.0 -4.0 -4.0
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Element stiffnesses are also based on the TOLA slice model for best-estimate concrete conditions for a maximum temperature of 250F. Common properties for all concrete sections are provided below. v = 0.18 Damping - 7% Input file "Tank-Props-BEC-250.txt" defines the concrete tank material properties and real constants (thickness) for the best-estimate concrete. Input file "Tank-Props-BEC-Crack.txt" defines the concrete tank material properties and real constants (thickness) for the fully cracked concrete. Table 3-3 provides a complete listing of section properties based on the TOLA model. Table 3-4 provides concrete section properties assuming all sections are cracked.
3.5
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 3-3. Best-Estimate Concrete Properites, 250F

Cracked Y/N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Eshl (psi) 4 502E+06 4.352E+06 4.306E+06 4.282E+06 4.262E+06 4.243E+06 4.315E+06 4.295E+06 4.216E+06 4.201 E+06 4 439E+06 4.425E+06 4.405E+06 4.392E+06 4.316E+06 4.406E+06 4 366E+06 4.323E+06 1.655E+06 1.345E+06 4.000E+06 3.960E+06 1264E+06 1.409E+06 1.120E+06 1.093E+06 1.076E+06 1.068E+06 1.068E+06 1.068E+06 9.490E+05 9.490E+05 9.490E+05 9.490E+05 9.490E+05 9.490E+05 9.490E+05 9.589E+05 3.467E+06 3.435E+06 8.568E+05 8.568E+05 8.655E+05 8.655E+05 8.568E+05 8.638E+05 8.871 E+05 3.810E+06 3.764E+06 1.038E+06 1.054E+06 1.075E+06 7.157E+05 Shell Thickness t-shl (ksf) (in.) 648,297 15.35 626,754 15.18 620,114 15.12 616,594 15.09 613,774 15.15 610,922 15.13 621,305 15.21 618,475 15.19 607,093 15.17 604,939 15.15 639,237 15.39 637,265 15.34 634,338 15.32 632,441 15.31 621,503 15.30 634,531 19.32 628,756 20.73 622,528 22.99 238,350 26.72 193,677 26.78 575,959 37.86 570,283 30.93 182,025 21 60 202,953 18.00 161,221 15 28 157,426 15.36 155,010 15.42 14 00 153,784 14 00 153,784 14 00 153,784 136,651 13.53 136,651 13.53 136,651 13.53 136,651 13.53 136,651 13.53 136,651 13.53 136,651 13.53 138,084 14 89 499,310 18.08 494,646 18 06 123,378 12 89 123,378 12 89 124,633 14.21 124,633 14.21 123,378 12 89 124,388 12 86 127,746 14.12 548,683 23 64 542,010 23.65 149,405 20.05 151,733 20.06 154,870 20.12 103,055 14.04 Shell Density, Rho-shl (lb/in3) (ft) 0.08484 1.28 1.26 0.08578 0 08609 1.26 1.26 0.08627 1.26 0.08595 1.26 0.08609 1.27 0.08559 1.27 0.08572 1.26 0.08583 1.26 0.08594 1.28 0.08463 1.28 0.08487 1.28 0.08497 1.28 0.08504 1.28 008510 1 61 0 08499 1.73 0.08505 1.92 0.08527 2.23 0.08302 2.23 0.09548 3.15 0.08337 2.58 008339 1 80 0 09052 1.50 0.09197 1.27 0.10227 1.28 0.10170 1.28 0.10133 1.17 0.11163 1.17 0 11163 1.17 0.11163 1.13 0.11552 1.13 0.11552 1.13 0.11552 1.13 0.11552 1.13 0.11552 1.13 0.11552 1 13 0.11552 1.24 0.10496 1.51 0.08644 1.50 0.08652 1.07 0.12123 1.07 0.12123 1 18 0.10997 0 10997 1 18 1.07 0.12123 1.07 0.12149 1.18 0.11067 1.97 0.09606 1.97 0.09604 1.67 0.10680 1.67 0.10674 1 68 0.10643 1.17 0.13627 M&D Section (lbf/ft3) No. 147 148 1 2 149 149 3 149 149 4 148 5 148 148 6 148 146 7 147 147 8 147 147 147 147 9 147 143 165 10 144 11 144 156 159 12 177 176 13 175 193 193 14 193 200 200 200 15 200 200 16 200 200 181 17 149 150 209 18 209 190 19 190 209 210 20 191 166 21 166 185 184 184 22 235 PNNL Section No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
3.6
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 3-3. (contd)

Cracked Y/N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Eshl (psi) 3 571E+06 3.570E+06 1.140E+06 3.632E+06 1.349E+06 1.387E+06 1.129E+06 1.393E+06 1.163E+06 8.719E+05 Shell Thickness t-shl (ksf) (in.) 514,287 514,043 164,113 522,946 194,254 199,783 162,553 200,531 167,538 125,560 1719 13.20 6 14 7.94 4 96 7.02 6.61 5.01 481 12.28 Shell Density, Rho-shl (lb/in 3 ) (ft) 1.43 1.10 0.51 0 66 0 41 0.58 0.55 0.42 0 40 1.02 0.09959 0.10383 0 16690 0.11656 0.18649 0.16289 0.17280 0.22800 0.23765 0.14557 M & D Section (lbf/ft3) No. 172 23 179 288 201 322 281 299 394 411 252 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PNNL Section No. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
Table 3-4. Fully Cracked Concrete Properites

I s Section Cracked? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Eshl (psi) 1.435E+06 1.084E+06 9.438E+05 8.552E+05 9.951E+05 9.318E+05 1.141E+06 1.089E+06 1.029E+06 9.768E+05 1.512E+06 1.482E+06 1.443E+06 1.417E+06 1.371E+06 1.544E+06 1.474E+06 1.394E+06 1.531E+06 1.240E+06 1.046E+06 1.270E+06 1.163E+06 1.302E+06 1.028E+06 1.004E+06 9.887E+05 9.808E+05 9.808E+05 9.808E+05 8.690E+05 8.690E+05 8 690E+05 (ksf) 206,708 156,131 135,907 123,148 143,289 134,181 164,239 156,781 148,115 140,657 217,769 213,340 207,751 204,062 197,485 222,339 212,206 200,772 220,469 178,532 150,644 182,924 167,483 187,438 147,988 144,559 142,377 141,234 141,234 141,234 125,131 125,131 125,131 Shell Thickness t-shl (in.) 14.64 13.21 12.40 11.78 12 81 12.41 13.58 13.32 13 08 12.53 14.64 14.39 14.28 14.20 14.12 18.42 19.67 21 66 21.13 27.37 34.88 32.31 22 03 18.31 15.59 15.67 15.72 14.29 14.29 14.29 13.83 13 83 13 83 (ft) 1.22 1.10 1.03 0 98 1 07 1 03 1.13 1.11 1 09 1 04 1.22 1.20 1.19 1.18 1.18 1.53 1.64 1 81 2.26 2.28 2.91 2.69 1 84 1.53 1.30 1.31 1.31 1.19 1 19 1.19 1.15 1.15 1 15 Shell Density, Rho-shl (lbf/ft3) (lb/in 3 ) 0.08893 0.09854 0.10504 0 11053 0.10168 0.10491 0.09590 0.09774 0.09951 0 10391 0.08897 0.09048 0.09119 0.09168 0.09219 0.08916 0.08962 0.09047 0.08177 0.09343 0.09050 0.07982 0.08873 0.09041 0.10025 0.09972 0.09937 0.10936 0.10936 0.10936 0.11297 0.11297 0.11297 154 170 182 191 176 181 166 169 172 180 154 156 158 158 159 154 155 156 141 161 156 138 153 156 173 172 172 189 189 189 195 195 195 15 14 13 12 10 11 9 8 6 7 4 5 1 2 3 M&D Section No. P N N L Section No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
3.7
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 3-4. (contd)

Is Section Cracked? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Eshl (psi) 8.690E+05 8.690E+05 8.690E+05 8.690E+05 8.782E+05 8.690E+05 7.828E+05 7.828E+05 7.828E+05 7.908E+05 7.908E+05 7.828E+05 7.891E+05 8.104E+05 9.322E+05 9.324E+05 9.504E+05 9.659E+05 9.861E+05 6.510E+05 7.229E+05 8.420E+05 1.048E+06 1.147E+06 1.246E+06 1.283E+06 1.038E+06 1.288E+06 1.070E+06 7.964E+05 (ksf) 125,131 125,131 125,131 125,131 126,463 125,131 112,717 112,717 112,717 113,881 113,881 112,717 113,629 116,693 134,235 134,263 136,857 139,096 141,998 93,743 104,097 121,245 150,866 165,097 179,441 184,804 149,438 185,420 154,101 114,687 Shell Thickness t-shl (in.) (ft) 13.83 1 15 13.83 1.15 13 83 1.15 13.83 1.15 15.21 1.27 13.83 1.15 13.20 1.10 13.20 1.10 13.20 1.10 14.54 1.21 14.54 1.21 13 20 1.10 1 10 13.17 14.45 1.20 21.54 1.79 1 80 21.66 20 46 1.71 20.46 1.71 20.52 1.71 14.43 1.20 14.13 1.18 11.21 0.93 6.25 0.52 4.93 0.41 5.05 0.42 7.11 0.59 6.73 0.56 5 09 0.42 4.90 0.41 1 05 12.57 Shell Density, Rho-shl (lb/in3) (lbf/ft3) 0.11297 0.11297 0.11297 0.11297 0.10273 0.11297 0.11839 0.11839 0.11839 0.10747 0.10747 0.11839 0.11864 0.10813 0.10546 0.10488 0.10463 0.10465 0.10436 0.13263 0.12109 0.12227 0.16372 0.18777 0.18346 0.16072 0.16977 0.22441 0.23326 0 14218 195 195 195 195 178 195 205 205 205 186 186 205 205 187 182 181 181 181 180 229 209 211 283 324 317 278 293 388 403 246 M&D Section No. 16 PNNL Section No. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
17
18 19
20 21
22 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Input file "Tank-Meshl.txt" develops the concrete tank model. Element type SHELL 143 is used for the concrete tank to be able to extract through-wall shear forces. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show the profile and full concrete tank model, respectively.
3.8
Figure 3-3. Concrete Tank Profile, Including Shell Thickness
AN
M & D Professional Services, Inc Load Case: LBS-BEC, F u l l N o n - l i n e a r ,
F i n a l PT Mesh
Figure 3-4. Concrete Tank Model Detail 3.2.3 Primary T a n k
The geometry of the primary tank is based on drawing H-2-90534. To ensure that the anchor bolt elements are perpendicular to the primary tank, the primary tank dome coordinates were calculated based on the location of the corresponding concrete tank coordinate, taking into account the concrete shell thickness, and normal to the primary tank (see Figure 3-5). The concrete shell thickness used is based on the nominal concrete thickness. 3.9
Normal to Primary Tank Surface
Concrete Coordinate
Concrete Shell Thickness

J-Bolt Element
Primary Tank
Coordinate
Figure 3-5. Primary/Concrete Tank Node Geometry The location of the primary tank nodes were iteratively determined a follows: Select a value for x (radial distance from center of the tank). Calculate the respective location for y' based on the defined shape of the primary tank. The primary tank is an ellipse with a major axis of 80 feet and minor axis of 30 feet. The equation for location of y' is as follows:
y = aJ 1
- a, where
(3.1)
a = Minor Radius = 180 in b = Major Radius = 480 in x = Test Location for x For x = 61.0398, yv'= 1 8 0 J 1 V
610398 2
480
1 8 0 =-1.46
(3.2)
The slope of the ellipse can be calculated by taking the derivative of the equation for y'. a x dx
W- x
(3.3)
For x = 61.0398, the slope of the ellipse is -0.048. The corresponding angle is the arctangent of the slope, or in this case, -0.048. The length of line connecting the centerline of the concrete to the primary tank is half the thickness of the tank at that point. Therefore, to check the accuracy of the assumed x location of the primary tank, back-calculate the location of the concrete coordinates. If the back-calculated concrete location is the same as the known location, the x location of the primary tank must be correct, otherwise, reselect x until it is correct. The primary tank dome coordinate calculations are summarized in Table 3-5.
3.10
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Following the example, for concrete location of (60.4), the x location of the primary tank is 61.0398. y' was determined to be -1.46. Adjusting this to value for the vertical location of the center of the ellipse, add 561.45 (elevation of the primary tank at the apex). For this case, y=559.99. The check is as follows: Xconc = X + sin(#)i where 6 is the angle of the slope from horizontal (3-4) (3-5) V-6*
Xconc =61.0398 +sin(0.048) = 61.39966 61.4 Yconc = Ypnnury + T C 0 S W = 559.99+ ^ c o s ( 0 . 0 4 8 ) = 567.48136 567.5 Table 3-5. Primary Tank Dome Coordination Calculation
Concrete X 0 30.2 45 61.4 120.72 152.9 211.4 239.1 306.63 335.6 393.7 428.7 y 568.95 568 6 568.2 567.5 563.21 559.7 550.7 545.2 527.68 518.2 494.5 476.2 T 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 22.58 Error 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Primary Tank X 0 30.0238 44.7369 61.0398 119.9972 151.9685 210.0535 237.5336 304.4248 333.0513 390.2214 422.2643 432 440 Angle (rad) 0.000 -0.023 -0.035 -0.048 -0.097 -0.125 -0 181 -0 210 -0 298 -0.347 -0.482 -0.607 -0.659 -0.710 Angle (Deg) 0.000 -1.346 -2.010 -2.753 -5.530 -7.134 -10.343 -12.055 -17.099 -19 866 -27.633 -34.752 -37.750 ^10.700 Y Offset 7.500 7 498 7.495 7.491 7.465 7.442 7.378 7.335 7.169 7 054 6.645 9.276 0.000 0.000
561.45 561.10 560.67 559 99 555.73 552.19 543.30 537 86 520.62 511.07 486.27 467.04 459 91 453.39
y' 0.00 -0.35 -0.78 -1.46 -5.72 -9.26 -18.15 -23.59 10.83 -50 38 -75.18 -94.41 -101.54 -108.06
Slope 0.000 -0.024 -0.035 -0.048 -0.097 -0.125 -0 183 -0 214 -0.308 -0 361 -0.524 -0.694 -0 774 -0 860
X Offset 0.000 -0.176 -0.263 -0 360 -0.723 -0.931 -1.347 -1 566 -2.205 -2.549 -3.479 -6 436 0.000 0.000
A B
180 480
Element thicknesses are based on the drawing H-2-90534 but reduced by 0.06 inches for the corrosion allowance (see Section 2.2.4). General steel properties are used and are as follows: Elastic Modulus (E) = 4,176,000 kip/ft2 Poisson's Ratio (v) = 0.30 Mass Density (p) = 0.001522 kip-sec2/ft4 = (0.490 kip/ft3)/(32.2 ft/sec2) Damping = 2% Tank coordinates are developed in the model from input file "Tank-Coordinates-AY.txt." Tank element properties are from input file "Primary-Props-AY." The tank mesh is generated using "Primary.txt" and uses SHELL143 elements. Figure 3-6 shows the full primary tank model and Figure 3-7 shows the detail in the knuckle region at the bottom of the tank.
3.11
AN
Figure 3-6. Primary Tank Model Detail
Figure 3-7. Primary Tank Model Detail Knuckle Region
3.12
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 3.2.4 Insulating Concrete
The insulating concrete uses the geometry defined for the concrete and primary tanks and fills in the open volume with solid element (SOLID45). Concrete properties are taken as follows Rinker et al. (2004). Elastic Modulus (E) = 23,760 kip/ft2 Poisson' s Ratio (v) =0.15 Mass Density (p) = 0.00155 kip-sec2/ft4 = (0.050 kip/ft3)/(32.2 ft/sec2) Damping = 7% Material properties for the insulating concrete are in the file "Tank-Props-BEC-250.txt." The element mesh is generated using "Insulate.txt." Figure 3-8 shows the insulating concrete elements.
Figure 3-8. Insulating Concrete Model Detail 3.2.5 Anchor Bolts
The anchor bolts connecting the primary tank to the concrete shell are modeled using beam elements (BEAM4) and spring elements (COMBIN14). Based on drawing H-2-64310 the anchor bolts are spaced on an average of 2 ft in each direction. Therefore, the contributing area of the bolts in the model is based on the number of 4 ft2 areas associated with the element. The required area is calculated based on the number of bolts to be represented and the thickness of the concrete at the bolt location.
3.13
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 3-6. Anchor Bolt Area Calculation

Ring No.
X
1 0 00 561.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.36 785.52 1.36
2 44.72 560.77 0 68 0.68 44.72 44.72 67.33 6335.32 11.00
3 89.87 558.37 3.08 2.40 89 92 89 93 105.05 10214.81 17.73
4 120 00 555.83 5 62 2.53 120.13 120.17 13626 11827.27 20.53
5 151 97 552.29 9 16 3.54 152.24 152.34 181.72 22708.34 39 42
6 210 05 543.40 18.05 8 89 210.83 211.10 225.11 27726.13 48.14
7 237.53 537.96 23.49 5.43 238 69 239.11 273.65 38033.10 66.03
8 304 42 520.72 40.73 17.25 307.14 308.19 323.28
9 333 05 511.17 50.28 9.55 336.83 338.37 369 53
10 39022 486.37 75.08 24.80 39738 400.69 419.37 61766 66 107.23
11 422 26 467.14 94.31 19.23 432.67 438.06 443 88 41420.22 71.91
y
Delta Y x' x" Horizontal midpoint Ring area Number of bolts in ring Bolts per element (20 sections)
46534.03 50329.54 80.79 87.38
1.36
0.55
0.89
1.03
1.97
2.41
3.30
4.04
4.37
5.36
3.60
The BEAM4 elements are modeled as essentially rigid, and are oriented normal to the tank dome. Attached to the base of each beam element are three orthogonal springes oriented in the directions of the global coordinate system. Because the beams are rigid, the springs define the response of the anchor bolts in the model. The stiffness of a single anchor bolt was set to 780 kip/ft (65,000 lbf/in.) in all three directions. This formulation will underestimate the axial stiffness of an anchor bolt and thus conservatively overestimate the total deformation of the bolt. Not only does this modeling assumption err on the conservative side, but the axial response of the anchor bolts in the seismic model is essentially inconsequential when combined with the results of the TOLA model. The anchor bolt model is developed using input file "Bolt-Friction.txt." See Figure 3-9 for the distribution of anchor bolts. Figure 3-10 shows the locations of spring elements connecting the end of each anchor bolt to the primary tank. 3.2.6 Secondary Liner
The secondary liner is modeled using SHELL 143 elements and its geometry is taken from H-2-90534. The steel thickness is 0.375 inch in the floor transitioning to 0.5625 inch in the knuckle and 0.5 inch in the lower wall. The model stops after the 1st full wall element coincident with the liner. The secondary liner is shown in Figure 3-11. Input file "Liner.txt" develops the model for the liner using the geometry defined for the concrete tank in "Tank-Coordinates.txt." The following material properties are used for the steel liner. Elastic Modulus (E) =4,176,000 kip/ft2 Poisson's Ratio (v) = 0.30 Mass Density (p) = 0.001522 kip-sec2/ft4 = (0.490 kip/fl3)/(32.2 ft/sec2) Damping = 2%
3.14
AIM
Figure 3-9. Anchor Bolt Model Detail AN
-4*4
j
-J
' ~i^ ~J
~4'-j
::i 3j 4 u a J u
-J ^ rJ
-4
-4-4 -I-I
-4 -J
4
4 - I -J
-a
~J -4
-^4
Load Case: LBS-BEC, Full Non-linear, Final PT Mesh
Figure 3-10. Spring Elements Anchor Bolts to Primary Tank
3.15
Figure 3-11. Secondary Liner Model Detail 3.2.7 Waste
The waste is modeled using solid elements (SOLID45) with material properties defined to emulate a liquid. The waste elements are meshed such that there are no common nodes with the primary tank; however, those on the exterior (at the primary tank) are coincident with the primary tank nodes. Contact elements are used for the interface between the waste and the primary tank. The material properties are as follows: Elastic Modulus (E) = 25.92 kip/ft2 Poisson's Ratio (v) = 0.4999 3 2 Mass Density (p) = 0.003294 kip-sec2/ft4 = (1.7*0.0624 kip/ft )/(32.2 ft/sec ) Damping = 0 Shear Modulus (G) = 0.216 kip/ft2 The elastic modulus, E was calculated based on the Bulk Modulus of water (300,000 psi). Using a value of v close to 0.5 (0.49999), the value of E can be calculated. B = E/[3(l-2v)]or E = B[3(l-2v)] = 300,000[3(l-2(0.49999))] = 181b/in =2.592kip/ft
2 2
(3.10)
(311)
The shear modulus, G can then be calculated based on E and v, G=E/[2(l+v)]. For the values shown above, this gives a value for G of 0.864 kip/ft . However, because a fluid cannot carry shear, a smaller value is used. The value was selected such that the solution remains mathematically stable. Figure 3-12 shows the waste elements.
3.16
Figure 3-12. Waste Model Detail Two benchmarking studies were performed to assess the fluid-structure interaction behavior of the primary tank and contained waste under seismic excitation. In the study documented in Rinker et al. (2006b), the fluid-structure interaction was simulated in ANSYS. In the studies documented in Rinker and Abatt (2006a, 2006b), the fluid-structure interaction was simulated using MSC.Dytran1 (Dytran). The studies showed that the modeling approach used in ANSYS adequately predicts the total hydrodynamic reaction force and pressure distribution both vertically and circumferentially, but that the model was deficient in predicting the convective response of the waste. The fundamental difference between the current increased liquid level analysis and the earlier analysis at the baseline liquid level of 422 inches (Rinker et al. 2006c) is increased interaction between the contained waste and the curved dome area of the primary tank (see Figure 3-13). Thus, the stresses induced by the interaction of the liquid and the dome are of particular concern. The results from the Dytran sub-model analysis are compared to the results of a similar ANSYS sub-model of a primary tank, as well as to the results from the global ANSYS models in the Increased Liquid Level Seismic report (Abatt and Rinker 2008). 3.2.8 Primary Tank/Concrete Dome Interface
A combination of TARGE 170 and CONTA173 elements are used to model the interface between the top of the primary tank and the inside face of the concrete dome. Key-Option controls are used to place the interface location at the inside face of the concrete (or bottom of the concrete shell element). A coefficient of friction of 0.01 was used for the contact surface. The low friction value results in the anchor bolts being the primary load path for shear between the primary tank and the dome. A small value is used instead of zero to improve model solution stability.
Dytran is a registered trademark of MSC Software Corporation, Santa Ana, California. 3.17
Figure 3-13. Waste Model Detail, Interface with Tank Dome The contact surface is developed using input file "bolt-friction.txt." Figure 3-14 shows the contact and target elements comprising the dome contact surface.
Figure 3-14. Contact Elements Primary Tank to Concrete Dome 3.2.9 Primary Tank/Insulating Concrete Interface
A combination of TARGE 170 and CONTA173 elements are used to model the interface between the bottom of the primary tank and the top of the insulating concrete. The contact and target surfaces are modeled as coincident (i.e., no offsets are included for shell thicknesses). A coefficient of friction of 0.4 was used for the contact surface. The contact surface is developed using input file "interfacel.tet." Figure 3-15 shows the contact elements (top layer of elements).
3.18
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 3.2.10 Insulating Concrete/Secondary Liner Interface
A combination of TARGE 170 and CONTA173 elements are used to model the interface between the bottom of the primary tank and the top of the insulating concrete. The contact and target surfaces are modeled as coincident (i.e., no offsets are included for shell thicknesses). A coefficient of friction of 0.4 was used for the contact surface. The contact surface is developed using input file "interfacel.txt." Figure 3-15 shows the contact elements (bottom layer of elements). 3.2.11 Soil/Concrete Tank Interface
A combination of TARGE 170 and CONTA173 elements are used to model the interface between the soil and the concrete tank, and for the interface plane between the native and excavated soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.2 was used for the contact surface between the soil and the concrete tank during the gravity loading solution phase (static case) to realistically simulate the distribution of geostatic loads. The friction coefficient was then increased to 0.6 for the transient portion of the solution to simulated the dynamic frictional response at this interface. Rinker et al. (2006c) describes the soil friction model in complete detail. See Figure 3-16 for the contact surface model. For the interface between the bottom of the footing and the native soil, COMBIN14 (spring) elements were used. Arbitrary high stiffness values were applied to these springs because the flexibility at the interface is already included in the material properties for the concrete and soil. See Figure 3-17 for the location of the interface springs.
Figure 3-15. Contact Elements -Insulating Concrete Top and Bottom
3.19
Figure 3-16. Contact Elements - Soil to Concrete Tank

AN
4 i
r>
-I
J -1
^ * " *3* -? J
J 4 J J ,
-* M44
C a s e : LBS-BEC, F u l l N o n - l i r . e a r ,
PT Mesh
Figure 3-17. Spring Elements - Concrete Footing to Soil 3.2.12 Excavated/Native Soil Interface
A combination of TARGE 170 and CONTA173 elements are used to model the interface between the native and excavated soils. An imtial coefficient of friction of 0.3 is used for the gravity (static) analysis. The coefficient of friction is changed to 0.7 for the transient analysis. This surface is included to improve the imtial conditions for the transient analysis by allowing an initial displacement between the native and excavated soil but located far enough away that is does not have a significant effect on the tank behavior. Figure 3-18 shows the contact elements constituting the soil interface.
3.20
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 This surface is developed using the input file "fix-soil.txt"
AN
MSD P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c Load C a s e : LBS-BEC, F u l l N o n - l i n e a r ,
F i n a l PT Mesh
Figure 3-18. Contact Elements - Near Soil to Far Soil 3.2.13 Waste/Primary Tank Interface
A combination of TARGE 170 and CONTA173 elements are used to model the interface between waste and primary tank. No friction is included for this surface. A high stiffness was defined for this contact to obtain the correct hydrostatic pressure on the tank. The high stiffness of the contact was needed because the waste model was very soft. Excessive displacements occur without modifying the contact stiffness. The contact surface is divided into multiple zones to enhance the performance of the contacts. This approach captures more realistic waste pressures in areas of higher curvature (dome and knuckle regions). The contact surface is developed using input file "Waste-Soild-AY.txt." The interface between the waste and primary tank is shown in Figure 3-19.
Figure 3-19. Contact Elements - Waste to Primary Tank 3.21
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 3.2.14 Concrete Wall/Footing Interface
The contact at the bottom of the wall was modeled using CONTA178 elements. A friction coefficient of 0.2 was used for this contact to reflect the steel on steel interface. Use of contact elements for this interface will be used to determine if displacement can occur during a seismic event. The contact elements allow only normal and shear forces (no moments) to be transferred to the footing. The contact between the bottom of the wall and the footing is shown in Figure 3-20.
AN
L L L L
L L U U
L L L
I s . J C M . : Z.IS-IIC. full Hon l i n t . i . r^nal PT H..h
Figure 3-20. Contact Elements - Concrete Wall to Footing
3.2.15
Surface Loads
MASS21 elements were added to the soil surface over the center of the dome to create a "live load" over the tank dome. The mass provides an equivalent weight of 200,000 lbf. Mass elements were used in lieu of forces to capture the dynamic participation of equipment that creates this load. Figure 3-21 illustrates the placement of the mass elements. AIM
M0 M0 M0 ,n M0 M0 M0 Mfl
M0
MU M M0 M0
M0 M0
M0
M0
MO * M0
M0
M0
M0
' M0 M0
M0
M0
M0
M0 M0
M0
HO
M0
M
M0
M0
M0 M0 "
M0 M0 M0 M0 -
M0 ' M0
n
M0
M0 M0
MC
M0
M0
M0
M^^ÔMOMbHo^
J&rjM. M 0 M 0 M 0 Ma
M0
M O
M0
M
MO M0
M0
M0
M0 M M 0
M0
Mo"
M0
MC
Load C a s e : LBS-BEC, F u l l N o n - l i n e a r ,
F i n a l PT Mesh
Figure 3-21. Mass Elements - Soil Surface

3.22
3.3
Soil Model
This section describes the geometry and construction of the ANSYS finite element model of the soil surrounding the DST. A comprehensive description of the FE model is found in the Seismic Analysis report (Rinker et al. 2006c). The Seismic Analysis report should be referenced for complete model description and background information. 3.3.1 Soil Properties
The soil surrounding the tank is modeled in two groups, the excavated soil, and the far-field soil. The excavated soil fills the volume outside the concrete tank and bounded by the slope matching the soil removed during construction. The far-field soil is comprised of all other soil out to a radius of 320 feet and a depth of 266 feet. Both regions are modeled using SOLID45 elements. Two SHAKE analyses were performed for each soil condition to obtain soil properties for the layering used in the model (Rinker et al. 2006a). One run used the native soil properties and is used for the farfield soil material properties. The second run used material properties associated with structural backfill and the results are used for the material properties in the excavated soil region. Soil properties used for the model are listed in Tables 3-7 through 3-12. Table 3-7. Best-Estimate Native Soil Iterated Soil Properties
Layer Depth 25 Damping 0 017 0.025 0.034 0.028 0.032 0.033 0.033 0.025 0.026 0.027 0.029 0.033 0.025 0.027 0.022 0.021 0.023 0.025 0.024
G
6622 3 6241.7 5839.1 5930.4 5724.9 6494.2 7366.4 8811.9 9851.5 9721.9 9560.1 9272.5 10,831.8 10,644 13,867.4 15,416 15,064.3 14,732.5 16,209.2
9 . 2
16.4 22.1
29
37.2 44.7 52.9 65.5
82
98.8 115.5
132
148.3 167.5 189.5 211.5 233.5 255.5
Poisson's Ratio 0 24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28
E
16,423 15,479 14,481 14,707 13,625 15,456 17,532 20,972 23,447 23,138 22,753 22,069 25,780 25,333 35,501 39,465 38,565 37,715 41,496
Density
Material Property No.
110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 120 120 120 120 120
901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919
3.23
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 3-8. Best-Estimate Excavated Soil Iterated Soil Properties Layer Depth 25 9.2 16.4 22.1 29 37.2 44 7 52.9 Damping 0 019 0.035 0.048 0.039 0.048 0.055 0.059 0.045 G 3920 4 3463.4 3088.5 3231.8 3005.6 2829.8 2729.6 3018.4 Poisson's Ratio 0 27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 E 9958 8797 7845 8209 7634 7188 6933 7667 Density 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 Material Property No. 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808
Table 3-9. Upper Bound Native Soil Iterated Soil Properties Layer Depth 25 9.2 16.4 22.1 29 37.2 44.7 52.9 65.5 82 98 8 115.5 132 148.3 167.5 189 5 211.5 233.5 255.5 Damping 0 016 0.022 0.027 0.022 0.026 0.027 0.028 0.022 0.022 0.024 0.025 0.026 0.02 0.021 0.019 0.019 0.02 0.02 0.019 G 10,004 3 9607.3 9268.4 9383.3 9068.8 10,289.2 11,649.1 13,709.7 15,284.2 15,035.4 14,863.1 14,746.3 16,982.4 16,838.8 21,821.5 23,910.6 23,673.5 23,525 25,917.8 Poisson's Ratio 0 24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 E 24,811 23,826 22,986 23,271 21,584 24,488 27,725 32,629 36,376 35,784 35,374 35,096 40,418 40,076 55,863 61,211 60,604 60,224 66,350 Density 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 120 120 120 120 120 Material Property No. 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919
Table 3-10. Upper Bound Excavated Soil Iterated Soil Properties Layer Depth 25 9.2 164 22.1 29 37.2 44.7 52.9 Damping 0 017 0.027 0.039 0.031 0.035 0.042 0.047 0.037 G 5956 9 5554.3 5041.9 5191.5 5005.7 4747.8 4551.9 4864.9 Poisson's Ratio 0 27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 E 15,131 14,108 12,806 13,186 12,714 12,059 11,562 12,357 Density 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 Material Property No. 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808
3.24
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 3-11. Lower Bound Native Soil Iterated Soil Properties
Layer Depth 25 9.2 16.4 22.1 29 37.2 44 7 52.9 65.5 82 98 8 115.5 132 148.3 167.5 189.5 211.5 233.5 255.5 279 304 329 354 Damping 0 018 0.03 0.043 0.034 0.04 0.042 0.042 0.03 0.03 0.035 0.039 0.043 0.032 0.032 0.028 0.028 0.029 0.029 0.026 0.014 0.014 0.015 0 015 G 4382 9 4004 3590.3 3739.6 3551.3 4004 4 4561.5 5629.7 6331 6066.4 5831.4 5633.7 6786.7 6763.3 8619.5 9445.3 9314.8 9320.7 10588.1 29929.7 29856.3 29714 3 29602 2 Poisson's Ratio 0 24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.3 0.3 0.3 03 E 10,870 9,930 8,904 9,274 8,452 9,530 10,856 13,399 15,068 14,438 13,879 13,408 16,152 16,097 22,066 24,180 23,846 23,861 27,106 77,817 77,626 77,257 76,966 Density 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 120 120 120 120 120 125 125 125 125 Material Property No. 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923
Table 3-12. Lower Bound Excavated Soil Iterated Soil Properties

Layer Depth 25 9.2 16.4 22.1 29 37.2 44.7 52 9 Damping 0 023 0.044 0.066 0.053 0.061 0.067 0.07 0 056 G 2547 2 2126.7 1782.2 1910.9 1777 1689.3 1628.4 1815 9 Poisson's Ratio 0 27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0 27 E 6,470 5,402 4,527 4,854 4,514 4,291 4,136 4,612 Density 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 Material Property No. 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808
3.3.2
Excavated Soil
The excavated soil portion of the soil is developed using the input file "Near-Soil-l.txt." Figures 3-22 through 3-24 show the detail of the excavated region of soil. Two zones in the soil above the dome are softened to break the potential arching that can occur in the soil model. This arching effect can occur because linear elastic properties are used for soil, which means that the soil as modeled can carry tension. The development of the softened regions of the soil over the tank dome is discussed in detail in the Seismic Analysis report (Rinker et al. 2006c).
3.25
Figure 3-22. Excavated Soil Model Detail
Services, Inc 3-BEC, Full Non-linear, Final PT Mesh
Figure 3-23. Excavated Soil - Softened Soil Zones
3.26
Figure 3-24. Model Detail 3.3.3 Native Soil
The native soil region of the model is developed using input file "Far-Soil.txt." SOLID45 elements are used and the material properties are discussed above. Figure 3-25 shows the native soil portion of the model. AN
MSD P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c Load Case: LBS-BEC, F u l l N o n - l i n e a r ,
F i n a l PT Mesh
Figure 3-25. Far-Field Soil Model Detail
3.27
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 LINK8 elements are used to connect the native soil slaved nodes on each layer to the symmetry plane. These are required because the slaved node of a couple cannot have a boundary condition applied to it. Therefore, to maintain the desired soil behavior, the link elements effectively complete the coupling of the outside soil node at each layer. Figure 3-26 shows the locations of the link elements. Input file "Outer-Spar.txt" develops these elements.
1
y^
AIM
sj_
S\
/ S* /
1 j
/ / /
s X
Load Case: LBS-BEC, F u l l H o n - l i n e a r , F i n a l PT Mesh
Figure 3-26. Link Elements Edges of Soil Model
3.4
Boundary Conditions
This section describes the boundary conditions applied to the ANSYS seismic finite element model. A comprehensive description of the FE model is found in the Seismic Analysis report (Rinker et al. 2006c). The Seismic Analysis report should be referenced for complete model description and background information. 3.4.1 Soil Boundary Conditions
All nodes on the outside edge (radius = 320 feet) have been "slaved" to a single node at each layer. Couples are used in each of the three translations to force the soil to behave essentially as a shear beam. This approach is used to create the appropriate conditions for vertical and horizontal waves to pass through the model (see Figures 3-28 and 3-29). The effectiveness of this approach is documented in Rinker et al. (2006a). All nodes on the bottom of the model (-266 ft) are coupled together to create a rigid foundation (see Figure 3-27). The symmetry plane for the soil has all nodes fixed for Y translation, see Figure 3-30.
3.28
Figure 3-27. Boundary Conditions Soil Base
Figure 3-28. Boundary Conditions - Typical Soil Layer
3.29
Figure 3-29. Boundary Conditions - Slaved Boundary C onditions
AN
JAN 1 1 2 0 0 6 09:41:03 ACEL
4 4 4 44 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 44 +
4 4 4 - 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4+
v///*j i
444+ -r 4 + 4- + + 4-4-4-+ 4-4-4 4-T 4 4 + 4 4
. + -,
4 +
4 4 4
f +
4 4
4 - 4 - 4 4 - 4 4 4- 4 4- +- 4 +- 4 4 * 4
4
4 4
4 +
44
4 *k
4 +
4 4
**
+ + + + + +++4 - 4 4 +-4
4444 4 - 4 4 - 4
4 4 - 4
4- 4- 4- 4MH + 4
% 1
1 t
"4- * * * * > M M f r * - ' * ' *
% E* ^
% i* ^
Load Case: BES-BEC, Full Non-linear, Final PT Mesh
Figure 3-30. Boundary Conditions - Symmetry Plane 3.4.2 Tank Boundary C onditions
The tank model has all nodes on the symmetry plane fixed to the Y translation, X rotation, and Z rotation (see Figures 3-31 and 3-32). C ouples have been used between some components to ensure compatible
3.30
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 displacements occur. Where no common nodes exist between the concrete tank and secondary liner, couples are used to control the deformation of the secondary liner where it is in contact with the concrete tank. This ensures that the secondary liner does not "pass through" the concrete on the footing and on the walls (see Figure 3-33).
Figure 3-32. Boundary Conditions - Primary Tank
3.31
Figure 3-33. Boundary Conditions - Secondary Liner
3.5 Seismic Input

The seismic analysis of the DSTs requires appropriate acceleration time-history records representing the required seismic excitation. Time history records must be available for both the horizontal and vertical directions. Typically, the required seismic input is specified in terms of design spectra. If time-histories are required, such time histories are often synthesized numerically subject to certain requirements related to the proper representation of the design spectra (ASCE 1998; NUREG-0800). The time-history records used in this analysis of the DSTs were existing time-histories that were used on the Hanford Waste Treatment Project (WTP). The justification for the use of existing time-histories is presented below. The Hanford Tank Farms Documented Safety Analysis or DS A (Tomaszewski 2004) designates the DSTs as Performance Category 2 (PC-2) structures. DOE-STD-1020-2002, Section 2, states that the ground motions for PC-2 shall be developed following IBC (2000), in which the surface response spectra are specified to be 2/3 of the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground motions. The MCE ground motions are defined as the ground motions with a mean annual frequency of exceedance of 4 x 10"4 (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years). The MCE motions may be defined based on either the USGS National Hazard Mapping results, adjusted for the appropriate site classification, or from a site-specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). If the MCE response spectrum is to be defined from a site-specific PSHA, it cannot be less that 80% of the spectrum defined from the USGS National Hazard Mapping results. The PC-2 ground motions used in the DST analysis are based on a site-specific PSHA. The detailed development of the PC-2 spectra for the DST Farms is documented in Rinker and Youngs (2006). Acceleration time-histories for two horizontal components and one vertical component of seismic motion were synthesized for the seismic design and evaluation of the Hanford Site WTP (BNFL 2000). The horizontal design spectrum for the WTP is anchored at 0.257g (peak ground acceleration (PGA), and the vertical design spectrum is anchored at 0.175g PGA. The time-histories generated to match the WTP design spectra were previously used by M&D in the preliminary soil-structure interaction analysis of the WTP high-level waste and pretreatment facilities, and were readily available (M&D 2001a; 2001b).
3.32
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 The Hanford Double-Shell Tank Farms horizontal design spectrum for 5% spectral damping is shown in Figure 3-34. Also shown in Figure 3-35 are the horizontal control motion spectra for the WTP project. All reference or control motions are defined at the soil surface. Similar plots for the vertical direction are shown in Figure 3-35. The relationships between the design spectra and the control motion response spectra show that it is acceptable to use the acceleration time-histories from the WTP for the analysis of the DSTs.
Horizontal Surface Response Spectrum Comparison at 5 % Spectral 0 70-i Damping
10
15 Frequency (Hz)
20
25
30
35
j ^ D S T Farms Design Spectnim ^ S H A K E Surface Spectrum ^ ^ W T P Longitudinal Control Motion w WTP Lateral Control Motion
Figure 3-34. Comparison of Horizontal Surface Spectra at 5% Spectral Damping
Figure 3-35. Comparison of Vertical Surface Spectra at 5% Spectral Damping

3.33
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Acceleration and displacement time histories for horizontal and vertical input are shown in Figures 3-36 and 3-37, respectively.
Figure 3-36. Horizontal and Vertical Surface Acceleration Time Ffistory
Time (sec) Horizontal Surface ^ Vertical Surface
Figure 3-37. Horizontal and Vertical Surface Displacement Time History
3.34
3.6

Load Cases
Lower Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete (LBS-BEC) Properties Best-Estimate Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete (BES-BEC) Properties Upper Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete (UBS-BEC) Properties Best-Estimate Soil, Fully Cracked Concrete (BES-FCC) Properties
Four separate load cases have been considered in this analysis. These cases are:
These four cases are intended to cover the most significant areas of uncertainty for response of the DSTs to seismic loading. The three variations in soil properties address the variability and uncertainty in soil properties. The fully cracked concrete case covers the additional uncertainty of expected concrete condition. Each load case consists of two analyses. First a gravity case is analyzed. Results from the gravity only case will be used to determine the seismic only results from the non-linear transient analysis. The second analysis for each case is a non-linear time history analysis. Two input motions (horizontal and vertical) have been defined as acceleration time histories consisting of 2048 time steps. Acceleration time histories were developed for each of the three soil conditions at the -266-foot level. 3.6.1 Acceptance Criteria for Response Spectra
The following acceptance or screening criteria were applied to the tank foundation-level response spectra generated by the ANSYS column model: 1. The envelope of the best-estimate, lower bound, and upper bound response spectra at the tank foundation level (-57.6 feet) should be at least 60% of the surface control motion. This criterion applies to both horizontal and vertical motion. 2. The envelope of the best-estimate, lower bound, and upper bound ANSYS and Dytran response spectra at the tank foundation level (-57.6 feet) should be at least 90% of the SHAKE response spectrum. 3. The envelope of the best-estimate, lower bound, and upper bound ANSYS and Dytran response spectra at the tank foundation level (-57 feet) should be greater than or equal to the SHAKE response spectrum over any +15% bandwidth. The above criteria should be met for both horizontal and vertical spectra. Additional criteria were evaluated for these input motions and response spectra. The additional criteria are discussed in Rinker et al. (2006a). The first condition is intended to minimize the dip that can occur in deconvolved response spectra at moderate depth at the frequency of the overlying soil column. Such a dip appears in the foundation level SHAKE spectrum shown in Figure 3-38 as well as in other plots. The tests of the first criterion are shown graphically for both horizontal and vertical input as shown in Figures 3-38 and 3-39, respectively. The results indicate that the first condition is not met at all frequencies. Modifications to ensure that the condition is met will be discussed in Section 3.6.2.
3.35
Ratio of ANSYS Horizontal Tank Foundation Level Spectra to SHAKE Horizontal Surface Spectrum
10 Frequency (Hz)
15
-57 6 ft/Surface Ratio (Mean) - * - - 5 7 6 ft/Surface Ratio (LB) -*57 6 ft/Surface Ratio (UB) ^Max Env
Figure 3-38. Ratio of the ANSYS Tank Foundation Level Spectra to the SHAKE Surface Spectrum for Horizontal Excitation
Ratio o f ANSYS Vertical Tank Foundation Level Spectra to SHAKE Vertical Surface Spectrum
10 Frequency (Hz)
15
-57 6 ft/Surface Ratio (Mean) - 57 6 ft/Surface Ratio (LB) -57 6 ft/Surface Ratio (UB) ^Max Env
Figure 3-39. Envelope of the Ratio of the ANSYS Tank Foundation-Level Spectra to the SHAKE Surface Spectrum for Vertical Excitation
3.36
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 3.6.2 Modification to ANSYS" Base Time Histories
Comparison of the ANSYS soil column spectra at the tank foundation level to the SHAKE surface spectra for horizontal and vertical excitation (Figures 3-39 and 3-40) showed that the tank foundation spectra do not meet the first criterion. The envelope of the best-estimate, lower bound, and upper bound response spectra at the tank foundation level (-57.6 feet) should be at least 60% of the surface control motion. This applies to both horizontal and vertical motion. To ensure that the envelope of the tank foundation level spectra is at least 60% of the SHAKE surface spectrum, the horizontal lower and upper bound base time histories used as input to the ANSYS soil column model were scaled up by factors of 1.175 and 1.12, respectively. The vertical lower and upper bound base time histories were scaled up by factors of 1.12 and 1.19, respectively. Comparisons of the tank foundation-level spectra to the SHAKE surface spectra for the modified base time histories are shown in Figures 3-40 and 3-41. Increasing the base time histories by the above factors results in the ratio of the tank foundation-level spectra to SHAKE surface spectra meeting the 60% criterion.
Figure 3-40. Ratio of the ANSYS Tank Foundation Level Spectra to the SHAKE Surface Spectrum for Modified Horizontal Excitation 3.6.3 ANSYS Base Acceleration Time Histories
Individual time histories are applied for each different soil condition. Lower Bound, Best-Estimate, and Upper Bound soil horizontal and vertical acceleration time histories are shown in Figures 3-42, 3-44, and 3-46, respectively. Lower Bound, Best-Estimate, and Upper Bound soil horizontal and vertical displacement time histories are shown in Figures 3-43, 3-45, and 3-47, respectively.
3.37
Ratio of the AN SYS Tank Foundation-Level Spectra to the SHAKE Surface Spectrum for Modified Vertical Input (LB*1.12, UB*1.19)
10
Frequency (Hz) -57 6 ANSYS/Surface SHAKE (Mean) -57 6 ANSYS/Surface SHAKE (UB)
15
20
--57 6 ANSYS/Surface SHAKE (LB) ENVELOPE -57 6 ff/Surface SHAKE
ure 3-41. Envelope of the Ratio of the Tank Foundation Level Spectra to the Surface Spectra for Modified Vertical Excitation
3.38
Displacement at Model Base (-266 ft) Lower Bound Soil
T i m e (sec)
-LBS Horizontal -266 ft
LBS Vertical -266 ft
Figure 3-43. Horizontal and Vertical Base Displacement Time History, -266 feet, Lower Bound Soil
Figure 3-44. Horizontal and Vertical Base Acceleration Time History, -266 feet, Best-Estimate Soil
3.39
Displacement at Model Base (-266 ft) Best Estimate Soil

6OO-1
8 0 0 - 1 T i m e (sec)
BES Horizontal -266 ft
BES Vertical -266 ft
Figure 3-45. H orizontal and Vertical Base Displacement Time History, -266 feet, Best-Estimate Soil
Figure 3-46. H orizontal and Vertical Base Acceleration Time History, -266 feet, Upper Bound Soil
3.40
Displacement at Model Base (-266 ft) Upper Bound Soil 8 00 -,
-8 00
-10 00
T i m e (sec)
UBS Horizontal -266
ft
UBS Vertical -266 ft |
Figure 3-47. Horizontal and Vertical Base Displacement Time History, -266 feet, Upper Bound Soil
3.7 Model Excitation

An acceleration time history extracted from SHAKE at the -266-foot level is used for the excitation of the full model. A very large mass element is located at the bottom of the soil model (-266 feet) and a force is applied to that node. The force is the product of the point mass and the acceleration for that time step of the time history. The point mass used is greater than 100 times the mass of the full model to faithfully simulate the seismic excitation.
3.41
3.42
4.0 Model Reconciliation

The finite element models used in the TOLA and seismic analyses are significantly different. Reviewing the figure and model description in Chapters 2 and 3 readily demonstrates the dissimilarities (e.g., the TOLA model represents a 2.9 section of the tank and the seismic model represents a 180 section of the tank). The non-axisymmetric nature of the earthquake load requires the seismic model to encompass at least 180. The acceleration time history used to represent the earthquake comprised 2048 load steps to achieve the 20.48 seconds of the transient analysis. Minimizing the model size was important in achieving a reasonable solution run time on the computer. Consequently, the element size is quite large in comparison to the TOLA model. In contrast, the TOLA analysis has no inherent non-axisymmetric features. The 3-D model was made necessary only by the desire to use SOLID65 concrete element in ANSYS. A refined mesh was implemented to obtain better resolution of stress throughout the model, particularly in the knuckle region. The disparity between models required a mapping procedure in order to combine the TOLA and seismic results. This section summarizes the mapping for the different evaluations. Table 4-1 shows the element correlation for the ACI evaluation. Table 4-2 shows the element correlation for the ASME primary tank evaluation Table 4-3 shows the element correlation for the ASME concrete-backed liner evaluation. As shown in Figure 3-12, the secondary liner in the seismic model extended only across the floor and up to the second element in the tank wall. Consequently, seismic strain in the wall and haunch was taken from the concrete shell elements representing the wall. Strain in the dome was taken from the steel liner. Table 4-4 shows the correlation for the anchor bolts.
4.1
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 4-1. Element Correlation for ACI Evaluation

Seismic Element #
7 22 5 57 67 6998 77 105 5598 97 136 812 117 182 154 137 225 252 157 272 862 177 321 114 197 364 65 217 411 198 237 449 298 257 478 398 277 487 95 297 489 317 489 337 489 357 489 377 489 397 489 417 489 437 489 457 510 463 5 477 497 424 002 517 384 537 317 85 557 248 1 577 199 248 597 154 95 617 1128 637 65 85
R (in.)
TOLA Z ( i n up) Section #
431 244 398 598 362 55
312
262 746 215 646 170 148 111 744 48 996
12
2 3 4 6 8 9 11 13 17 20 21 24 26 30 33 35 38 41 43 46 48 52 54 55 57 59 60 61 62 63
4.2
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 4-2. Element Correlation for Primary Tank Evaluation Seismic Element # R (in.) Z (in.) TOLA Element # 15276 15264 15303 15258 15247 15227 15211 15185 15197 15180 15176 15172 15168 15162 15156 15150 15144 15138 15132 15126 15120 15115 15109 15103 15097 15092 15086 15081 15076 15070 15064 15061 15056 15050 15037 15018 15000 14981 14962 14943 14927
762 782 802 822 842 862 882 902 922 942 962 982 1002 1022 1042 1062 1082 1102 1122 1142 1162 1182 1202 1222 1242 1262 1282 1302 1322 1342 1362 1382 1402 1422 1442 1462 1482 1502 1522 1542 1562
dome
dome haunch
haunch wall
wall knuckle knuckle floor
floor
44.74 89 87 120 00 151.97 210 05 237 53 304 42 333 05 390 22 422 26 432 00 444 36 448 66 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 450 00 446 49 438 00 423 00 400 00 340 00 280 00 220 00 160 00 100 00
560 50 558 32 555 74 552 26 543 32 537 87 520.51 511 15 487 86 466 92 460 00 448 70 437 40 426 13 402.13 378 13 354 13 329 88 306 78 283 68 260 58 237 38 214 28 191 18 168 08 144 88 123 28 101 68 80 08 58 48 37 00 12 00 3 51 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00
4.3
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 4-3. Element Correlation for Concrete-Backed Liner Evaluation
Seismic Element # 762 782 802 822 842 862 882 902 922 237 257 277 297 317 337 357 377 397 2062 2052 2042 2032 477 497 517 537 557 577 597 617 637 dome TOLA R(in) 68 02 105 91 136 01 180 6 224 26 272 27 318 015 362 525 405 475 448 92 471 63 479 165 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 478 99 472 555 448 5 416 665 378 355 311 305 244 255 196 36 151 66 110155 65 4535
Z (in. up)
Element #
15276 15264 15324 15303 15258 15247 15227 15211 15185 15804 15814 15798 15912 15897 15877 15866 15851 15837 15819 15953 15785 15788 15795 15654 15666 15687 15708 15723 15737 15750 15764
wall
wall knuckle knuckle floor
353 5 302 5 254 5 206 5 161 5 1075 41 5 8 4125 7.752 1 752 0
Table 4-4. Element Correlation for Anchor Bolt Evaluation

Seismic J-Bolt Radius 4 Radius 5 Radius 6 Radius 7 Radius 8 Radius 9 Radius 10 Radius 11
Seismic
Radius 120 0 152 0 210.1 237 5 304 4 333 1 390 2 422 3
TOLA TOLA Radius scale factor 107 5 4 465 167 6 2 864 208 5 2 302 243 3 1.973 300 5 1 597 325 2 1 476 391 7 1 225 413 4 1 161
5.0 Structural Acceptance Criteria

5.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the code-based acceptance criteria that are used to evaluate the AP tanks for the Increased Liquid Level Analysis. A complete description of the evaluation criteria is found in the Thermal and Operating Loads Analysis report (Rinker et al. 2004). Day et al. (1995) provides a definitive summary of code-based structural acceptance criteria that govern the current and future uses of the Hartford DSTs. The document covers the primary objectives of any reevaluation of the existing waste storage tanks for continued operation or remediation, namely: 1) to show that the tank structures remain within code-based limits for the original design-based loads, 2) to evaluate if the actual service conditions or changes in requirements will exceed the design conditions, or 3) to evaluate current operating loads and future remediation activity loads. The structural acceptance criteria document by Day et al. (1995) describes the tank designs, loads that must be sustained, potential failure modes, and the recommended approaches to protect against such failure. The application of code-based evaluation methods is discussed in detail. Alternate methods to the code-based approach are recommended to account for localized overstressing, load redistribution, and reduction in section capacities due to material degradation. Code reconciliation issues and material degradation under aging conditions also are addressed. The purpose of this chapter is to identify a) the design and construction standards that were used for the double-shell tank designs, b) the allowable stresses for the steels and the minimum specified strengths of the concrete that were specified in the design, and c) the analysis methods that will be used to evaluate the structural adequacy of the AP tank design. Because Day et al. (1995) specifically identifies the recommended code-based methods for tank evaluation, they are not reproduced in this document.
5.2 Design and Construction Specifications for 241-AP Tanks

The 241-AP Tank Farm was constructed as part of Project B-340, 241-AP Tank Farm Project. For that project, the design and construction specifications list the standards that were used in the design and construction of the 241-AP tank farm. Specifications that are pertinent to the steel and concrete structure include: B-340-C4, Primary and Secondary Steel Tanks B-340-C3, Tank Foundations B-340-C5, Side Walls and Dome. B-340-C4 documents that the 241-AP tanks were designed, fabricated, and inspected to the intent of the 1980 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2. (Note: Although the ASME code standards were followed, the tanks were not registered as ASME vessels due to the non-standard nature of their design, use, and contents.) The steel plate used to construct the primary and secondary liners is specified as ASTM A537 Class 1 (ASTM 1965). Abatt (1996) lists the ASME Sm allowables that were specified for the pressure vessel steels for each of the DST designs (see Table 5-1).
5.1
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 B-340-C3 and B-340-C5 document that the 241-AP tanks were constructed to the 1977 ACI 318 building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 1977). In addition, structural concrete for the foundation was required to have a minimum allowable compressive strength of 4500 psi at 28 days. The concrete in the walls and dome was specified at 5000 psi.
5.3 Applicable Codes

5.3.1 Design Codes of Record for the DSTs
Abatt (1996) identifies SDC 4.1, Standard Arch-Civil Design Criteria - Design Loads for Facilities, as the standard for the design of tanks at the Hanford Site. This standard has been in existence since the original document was published in April 1957, and it has been revised since then to comply with current DOE orders. More recently, SDC 4.1 was superseded by HNF-PRO-097, Engineering Design and Evaluation (Natural Phenomena Hazard) (HNF-PRO-097 2002). However, HNF-PRO-097 (2002) is a more general standard in use by the Project Hanford Management Contractor and a similar standard, TFC-ENG-STD-06, Design Loads for Tank Farm Facilities (Mackey 2004) is used by the Tank Farm Contractor. 5.3.2 Steel Design Codes of Record
Abatt (1996) summarized the codes of record that were used during the design of the various DST farms. The codes pertaining to the steel liner and tank components are listed in Table 5-1.
5.2
Table 5-1. Summary of the Sm Allowables that were Specified for Each of the DST Designs (Abatt 1996)
Tank Farm 241AY Construction Years 1968-1970 Max. Temp, F 350 Primary Tank Design Code ASME Section VIII, Div 2 (1965) ASME Section III, (1968) ASME Section III, Div 1 (1971 & 1973 addenda) ASME Section VIII, Div 2 (1974 & summer 1975 addenda) ASME Section VIII, Div 2 (1974 & 1976 addenda) ASME Section VIII, Div 2 (1980 & winter 1981 addenda) ASTM Plate Spec. A515 Gr 60 A515 Gr 60 A516 Gr 65 A537 Class 1 A537 Class 1 A537 Class 1 Temperature, F Minimum Specification S v (ksi) S^Cksi) S m (ksi) S v (ksi) S^Cksi) S m (ksi) S v (ksi) S^Cksi) S m (ksi) S v (ksi) S^Cksi) S m (ksi) S v (ksi) S^Cksi) S m (ksi) S v (ksi) S^Cksi) S m (ksi) =32 =60 =32 =60 =35 =65 =50 =70 =50 =70 =50 =70 100 32 60 20 32 60 20 35 65 21 50 70 23 50 70 23 50 70 23 200 29 2 60 195 29 2 60 195 31 9 65 21 3 44 1 70 23 3 44 1 70 23 3 44 1 70 23 3 250 28 8 60 192 28 8 60 192 31 5 65 21 0 42 3 70 23 1 42 3 70 23 1 42 3 70 23 1 300 28 3 60 189 28 3 60 189 31 0 65 20 7 40 5 70 22 9 40 5 70 22 9 40 5 70 22 9 350 27 9 60 186 27 9 60 186 30 5 65 20 3 39 0 70 22 9 39 0 70 22 9 39 0 70 22 9 400 27 4 60 183 27 4 60 183 30 0 65 20 0 37 5 70 22 9 37 5 70 22 9 37 5 70 22 9
AZ
1971 &1977
350
SY
1974-1976
250
AW
1978-1980
350
AN
1980-1981
350
AP
1983-1986
210
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 5.3.3 Concrete Design Codes of Record
Abatt (1996) also summarized the codes of record that pertain to the reinforced concrete structure of the tanks. These codes are listed in Table 5-2. Table 5-2 shows that the 241-AY tanks were designed to the standards of the 1963 revision of ACI 318 (ACI 1963). Table 5-2. Summary of Hanford Double-Shell Tank Structural Concrete Design Basis (Abatt 1996)
Design Code Specified 28-day Compressive Strength (Uflbf/in2) Dome & Basemat Insulation Wall Haunch Foundation Concrete 00 3 (Type III) ACI 318 (1963) 3 (Type II) 3 0.200
Tank Farm 241AY
Const. Years 1968-70
Reinforcing Steel Cross-Ties Rebar (ASTM) (ASTM) Al5-65 FDN Gr. 40 A432-66 Shell Gr.60 A615-68 Gr.60 A432-66 Gr.60
Welds NA
ACI 318 (1963) A615-72 NA Gr.60 3 0.200 (TypeV) ACI 318 (1971) A615-72 A615-72 AWS Dl2.1 Gr.60 Gr. 40 SY 1974-76 4.5 4.5 3(4.5) w 0.130 (Type III) (TypeV) (Type II) ACI 318 (1971) A615-76a A615-76a AWSD12.1 Gr.60 Gr. 40 HPS-220-W AW 1978-80 5 5 4.5 0.130 (Type III) (Type II) (Type II) ACI 318 (1971) A615-75 A615-75 AWS D12.1 Gr.60 Gr. 40 HPS-220-W AN 1980-81 5 (4.5) w 5 (4.5) w 4.5 0.130 (Type HI) (Type II) (Type II) ACI 349 (1976) A615-81a A615-81a AWS D 1.4 AP 1983-86 Gr.60 Gr.60 5 5 4.5 0.130 (Type II) (a) The insulating concrete material is a cast-in-place lightweight refractory concrete material. (b) From H-2-37704. (c) From H-2-71907. Type II = Low-alkali Portland cement - used where moderate exposure to sulfate attack is anticipated. Type II cement is in common use in western United States. Type II cement gains strength a little more slowly than general-purpose Type I cement but ultimately attains strength of Type I cement. Type III = High-early-strength cement - develops in 7 days the same strength that is achieved at 28 days for concrete made from Types I or II cement, but may not achieve the long-term strength of Types I or II. Type V = Sulfate-resisting cement - strength characteristics are equivalent to Type II. ACI = American Concrete Institute. ASTM = American Society of Testing and Materials. AWS = American Welding Society. FDN = Foundation (basemat). HPS = Hanford Plant Standard. NA = Not applicable. AZ 1971 & 77 3 3
5.4
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 5.3.4 Contemporary Codes for Structural Evaluation of the DSTs
Day et al. (1995) lists the following DOE orders as applicable to the analysis and structural qualification of the existing DSTs for continued operation: DOE Order 6430.1 A, General Design Criteria (DOE 1989) DOE Order 5480.28, Natural Phenomena Hazard Mitigation (DOE 1993) Note that DOE Order 420.1, Facility Safety, Section 4.4, Natural Phenomena Hazard Mitigation (DOE 2000), superseded DOE Order 5480.28. In addition, DOE Order 6430.1 A has been cancelled. Day et al. (1995) further states that the analysis and structural qualification of the existing DSTs for continued operation must be performed using the following codes and standards as guidance: BNL 52527, Guidelines for Development of Structural Integrity, Programs for DOE High-Level Waste Storage Tanks (Bandyopadhyay 1997) U.S. DOE Report UCRL 15910, Design and Evaluation Guidelines for Department of Energy Facilities Subjected to Natural Phenomena Hazards (UCRL 1990) (superseded by DOE-STD-1020-2002) ASCE Standard 4-86, Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary on Standardfor Se ism icA nalysis of Safety R elate d Nu clear Structures (ASCE 1986) Hanford Plant Standards, HPS-SDC-4.1, Rev. 12, Standard Arch-Civil Design Criteria, Design Loads for Facilities (SDC-4.1 1993) (superseded by TFC-ENG-STD-06) TFC-ENG-STD-06, Design Loads for Tank Farm Facilities, CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc. (Mackey 2004) BNL 52361, Seismic Design and Evaluation Guidelines for the Department of Energy High Level Waste Tanks and Appurtenances (Bandy opadhy ay et al. 1995) Specific guidance is given by Day et al. (1995) on the code analysis methods to be used in evaluating the major components of the tank, namely: Primary Tank: The primary tank shall be evaluated against the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NC, Article NC-3200 (ASME 1992a). (Note: The design by analysis methods of Section III, Article XIII-1000, "Design Based on Stress Analysis," are equivalent to the analysis requirements of Section VIII, Division 2 (ASME 1992d). The primary difference between Section III (nuclear vessels and piping) and Section VIII (non-nuclear vessels and piping) involves the increased level of material qualification and fabrication inspection required by Section III. Secondary Concrete Structure: The secondary concrete structure shall be evaluated against the requirements of ACI 349-90, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 1990). While the AY tanks were designed to ACI 318 (ACI 1963), ACI 349 provides essentially the same technical design provisions. Mackey (2004a) notes that using ACI 349 as the evaluation criteria would not change the calculation results.
5.5
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Secondary Tank Liner: The secondary tank liner shall be evaluated using the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC (ASME 1992c). Those portions of the liner that are not backed by concrete shall be evaluated to the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NC (ASME 1992a). (Note: The evaluation methods of Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC are recommended because the steel-lined, reinforced concrete tanks are similar in construction to concrete nuclear containment vessels, which Subsection CC covers. Section VIII does not provide specific guidance on the evaluation of steel liners backed by concrete. Therefore, the analysis methodology recommended in Section III will be adopted [as recommended by Day et al. (1995)], even though the tanks where not strictly designed, constructed, and inspected to Section III standards.) Insulating Concrete Pad: The insulating concrete pad shall be evaluated against the bearing stress requirements of ACI 349-90, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 1990). Primary Tank Dome and Secondary Liner Anchorage System: The anchorage systems for that portion of the tank steel which is backed by concrete shall meet the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC (ASME 1992c). Abatt (1996) presents a compilation of the ASME allowable stresses and the load factor combinations that were used in performing "design by analysis" evaluations of the DST primary tanks. Later sections of Day et al. (1995) give detailed guidance on how to apply these codes to analyze the tanks. Section 2 of Day et al. (1995) provides guidance on defining the tank loads (normal, abnormal, and extreme loads) for consideration in the analysis. Potential failure modes are identified and discussed in detail in Section 3 of Day et al. (1995) for specific tank components as summarized here in Table 5-3. Section 4 of Day et al. (1995) presents detailed discussion of the ASME code methods for evaluating the above failure modes in the primary tanks, secondary liner, and the anchor bolts. For anchor bolts, Section 4 gives specific guidance on the appropriate liner anchor allowables to use in the code evaluation (see Tables 4.1.4-1, 4.1.4-2, and 4.1.4-3 in Day et al. 1995). Section 4 also presents a similarly detailed discussion of the ACI code methods for evaluating the reinforced concrete tank walls and dome. This includes examples of the load combinations and load scaling factors required by the code. Section 5 of Day et al. (1995) gives guidance on what to consider in reconciling differences in the current versions of the ASME and ACI codes when reanalyzing the double-shell tanks. The "design by analysis" methods recommended by the ASME code have not changed in their application since the design of the 241-AY tanks. Therefore, the primary and secondary tank steels will be evaluated to the current methods using the Sm allowables and stress intensity classifications listed in Tables 5-1 and 5-4.
5.6
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 5-3. Summary Table of the Local and Global Significance of Failure of the Various DST Components (Day et al. 1995)
Failure Mode Buckling Collapse Fatigue Fracture Bond-slip Plastic failure Bearing failure L^L L^G G Local failure that could lead to leakage. Local failure that could lead to a global instability failure. Global instability failure. L->L L->L L->L L->G L->G L->G L->L L->L L->G Steel T a n k o r L i n e r L^L Steel Reinforcement Concrete G G L->G Soil
Table 5-4. Stress Intensity Classification (Abatt 1996)

Vessel Component Cylindrical or spherical shell Location Origin of Stress Type of Sn-ess Classification Pm Q Q Q
PL
General membrane gradient through plate thickness Membrane bending Junction with head or Internal pressure Membrane flange bending Any shell or head Any section across External load or moment, or General membrane averaged entire vessel internal pressure across full section External load or moment Bending across full section Near nozzle or other External load or moment, or Local membrane openings internal pressure bending Any location Temperature difference Membrane between shell and head bending Crown Dished head or Internal pressure Membrane conical head bending Knuckle or injection to Internal pressure Membrane shell bending P m = Primary membrane. P L = Local membrane. Q = Secondary. (a) Consideration shall also be given to the possibility of wrinkling and excessive deformation in vessels with large to-thickness ratio.
Shell plate remote from Internal pressure discontinuity Axial thermal gradient
0 Pm Pm
PL
Q Q Q Pm
PL
PLW
diameter-
5.7
5.8
6.0 Analysis Results

6.1 ACI Structural Concrete Evaluation
The Structural Acceptance Criteria document, WHC-SD-WM-DGS-003 (Day et al. 1995), specifies that the reinforced concrete structure of the tanks shall be evaluated to the standards of ACI 349-90, Section 9.2 (ACI 1990). The requirements of the IBC are satisfied by virtue of meeting the standards of ACI 349. Chapter 19 of the IBC states that structural concrete shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of ACI 318 (ACI 1977). The commentary on ACI 349 describes the additional conservatisms for nuclear structures that exceed those in ACI 318. Accordingly, a structure that is shown to conform to ACI 349 satisfies the IBC. The load factors to be applied in the DST analyses are a subset of the possible combinations specified in ACI 349, that subset being defined by and, further, reduced by the definition of the current work scope. Chapter 7 of the TOLA report (Rinker et al. 2004) indicates that load combinations 1, 4, and 9 are relevant for this study. The seismic loads are considered in load combination 4. As noted previously, the seismic model contains larger elements than the TOLA model. Accordingly, the ACI evaluation of combined TOLA + seismic loads was conducted at 30 locations in the secondary concrete tank rather than the 63 locations recorded in the TOLA report. Figures 6-1 through 6-3 show the locations of these 30 sections. The peak loads and moments from the seismic analysis were combined with the loads and moments from each load step of the thermal cycle in such a way as to maximize the demand/capacity ratio. In other words, the direction of the seismic loads and moments was ignored and the results were summed so as to give the worst possible combination of force and moments for that section. The peak seismic loads and moments were extracted from the seismic time history results without regard to location in the tank or time during the seismic event. This simplified the combination of seismic and TOLA demands while maintaining a conservative evaluation. The capacity of each section was determined according to the reinforcing steel and concrete geometry and properties specified on the 241-AP tank drawings. In other words, the section capacities were increased from the TOLA analysis (Rinker et al. 2004), which was based on the 241-AY Tank Farm design. The 241-AP tanks have more and larger rebar (in some locations), higher strength rebar (foundation), higher concrete nominal strength, and the lower operating temperatures also results in higher concrete strength. The 3-D seismic analysis generates non-axisymmetric response that requires evaluation of the in-plane shear forces in addition to the cross-section shear forces. The method of ACI 349, Section 11.10 was applied to the in-plane shear force (ACI 1990). The concrete in the TOLA analyses is allowed to crack; therefore there are no distinct Fully Cracked Concrete (FCC) TOLA results. Accordingly, results are presented for the three ACI load combinations for the Best-Estimate Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete (BES-BEC); Lower Bound Soil (LBS)-BEC; and Upper Bound Soil (UBS)-BEC soil - concrete cases. Only load combination 4 results are presented for the BES-FCC case.
6.1
Figure 6-1. Reinforced Concrete Sections Dome and Haunch Area 6.1.1 Best-Estimate Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete
Figure 6-4 shows the demand/capacity ratios for load combination 1 of the Best-Estimate Soil, BestEstimate Concrete (BES-BEC) material combination. Load combination 4 is shown in Figures 6-5-6-8. Load combination 9 is shown in Figures 6-9-6-11. The demand/capacity ratios are all less than 1.0 in the meridional, circumferential, and shear directions.
6.2
11
AN
CT12 CT13
CT14
CT15
CT16
CT17
rT1R CT19
-SECT28
jT^^^MifiCr 2 7
25
Concrete Sections
SECT20 "-1 T2 I _ /sECjSl
Figure 6-2. Reinforced Concrete Sections -Wall

TSP
AIM
Concrete Sections
Figure 6-3. Reinforced Concrete Sections - Slab
6.3
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 1, AP, 460", BES-BEC, TOLA 1.00 0.90

Dome Haunch Wall Slab
3. 0.80
= 0.70 0.60 o 0.50
D. C3
o TO
c TO0.40 E 0.30 a
CO
0.20 0.00
< 0.10
-^r^^r\
0 5 10 15 20 Meridional
" T
T****,#**==T-**T
,-
* + ^ - i
25
30
35 40
45
50
55 Shear
60 65
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 63 = Slab Center) Circumferential
Figure 6-4. BES-BEC, Load Combination 1 ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 BES-BEC, TOLA + Seismic, Meridional
10
15
20
25
30
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 30 = Slab Center) Figure 6-5. BES-BEC, Load Combination 4, Meridional
6.4
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 BES-BEC, TOLA +Seisimic, Circumferential

hi
h2 h3 h4
ss
hold
d
c2 c3 c4
10
15
20
25
30
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 30 = Slab Center) Figure 6-6. BE S-BE C, Load Combination 4, Circumferential ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 BES-BEC, TOLA + Seismic, Shear
1.00 0.90
Dome
Haunch
Wall
Slab
hi h2
re u re
Q.
0.80 h3 0.70 h4 0.60

ss
re re E
0.50 hold 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 d
<D Q
CO
c2 c3 c4
<
5 10 15 20 25 30 Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 30 = Slab Center) Figure 6-7. BE S-BE C, Load Combination 4, Shear
6.5
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 BES-BEC, TOLA + Seismic, In Plane Shear

1.00
o 0.90
C C 0.80
>s O
Dome
Haunchl
Wall
Slab
re
0.70 0.60 ()h()

Seismic
ro Q.
re ()
o
re F 0.40 a) Q
0) t CO
0 30
0.20 0.10 0.00

S^^>* T * X / \ j i ^
O <
5 10 15 20 25 Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 30 = Slab Center) Figure 6-8. BES-BEC , Load Combination 4, In-Plane Shear ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 9 BES-BEC, TOLA, Meridional
30
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 63 = Slab Center) Figure 6-9. BES-BEC , Load Combination 9, Meridional
6.6
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 9 BES-BEC, TOLA, Circumferential
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 63 = Slab Center)
Figure 6-10. BES-BEC, Load Combination 9, Circumferential

ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 9 BES-BEC, TOLA, Shear
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 63 = Slab Center) Figure 6-11. BES-BEC, Load Combination 9, Shear
6.7
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 6.1.2 Upper Bound Soil, Best-Estimate C oncrete
Figures 6-12 through 6-19 show the demand/capacity ratios for load combinations 1, 4, and 9 of the Upper Bound Soil, Best-Estimate C oncrete (UBS-BEC) material combination. The demand/capacity ratios are all less than 1.0 in all directions. 6.1.3 Lower Bound Soil, Best-Estimate C oncrete
Figures 6-20 through 6-27 show the demand/capacity ratios for load combinations 1, 4, and 9 of the Lower Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete (LBS-BEC) material combination. The demand/capacity ratios are all less than 1.0 in all directions. 6.1.4 Best-Estimate Soil, Fully C racked C oncrete
Figures 6-28 through 6-31 show the demand/capacity ratios for load combination 4 of the Best-Estimate Soil, Fully Cracked Concrete (BES-FCC) material combination. The demand/capacity ratios are all less than 1.0 in all directions.
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 1, AP, 460", UBS-BEC, TOLA
1.00 0.90
Dome Haunch
Wall
Slab
0.80
=g 0.70
TO Q. TO0.60 o
o
0.50
c TO0.40 E 0.30 o
CO
0.20 &***^***%*V*BIHH\U i\ 1 J hJ^ 0.00

0 5 10 15 20
< 0.10
i > * n } i M f * S * i TIil"*g7~,i_
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Shear 60 65 Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 63 = Slab Center) Meridional Circumferential
Figure 6-12. UBS-BEC , Load Combination 1
6.8
AC 1-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 UBS-BEC, TOLA + Seismic, Meridional
10
15
20
25
30
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 30 = Slab Center) Figure 6-13. UBS-BEC, Load Combination 4, Meridional
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 UBS-BEC, TOLA+Seisimic, Circumferential
10
15
20
25
30
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 30 = Slab Center) Figure 6-14. UBS-BEC, Load Combination 4, Circumferential
6.9
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 UBS-BEC, TOLA + Seismic, Shear
5 10 15 20 25 30 Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 30 = Slab Center) Figure 6-15. UBS-BEC , Load Combination 4, Shear ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 UBS-BEC, TOLA + Seismic, In Plane Shear
1.00
o 0.90
C3
Dome
| Haunch;
Wall
Slab
OH O.bO
>s O
0.70 0.60
OhO
Seismic
ro Q. ()
o
ro F 0.40 a)
0.20 0.10 0.00
0) t CO
0 30
*^SL
<
* 0
"" V !
T>^ * " * y ^
1
5 10 15 20 25 Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 30 = Slab Center) Figure 6-16. UBS-BEC , Load Combination 4, In-Plane Shear
30
6.10
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 9 UBS-BEC, TOLA, Meridional
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Figure 6-17. UBS-BEC, Load Combination 9', Meridional

ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 9 UBS-BEC, TOLA, Circumferential
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 63 = Slab Center) Figure 6-18. UBS-BEC, Load Combination 9', Circumferential
6.11
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 9 UBS-BEC, TOLA, Shear
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 63 = Slab Center) Figure 6-19. UBS-BEC , Load Combination 9', Shear ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 1, AP, 460", LBS-BEC, TOLA 1.00 0.90 Dome jHaunch
Wall
Slab
S
Q. C3
0.80
= 0.70
o TO
0.60
o 0.50
c TO0.40 E 0.30 o
**
0.20 O < 0.10 0.00

CO
******** > ^ K * * ^ ^ *
--" 1=**T= r" 1
I F C T ^ .-A****JT FT"1
| "-,-***-
*r| * * * * * ^
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55 Shear
60 65
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 63 = Slab Center) Meridional Circumferential
Figure 6-20. LBS-BEC , Load Combination 1
6.12
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 LBS-BEC, TOLA + Seismic, Meridional
10
15
20
25
30
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 30 = Slab Center) Figure 6-21. LBS-BEC, Load Combination 4, Meridional ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 LBS-BEC, TOLA+Seisimic, Circumferential
O 0-20 < 0.10 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 30 = Slab Center) Figure 6-22. LBS-BEC, Load Combination 4, Circumferential
6.13
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 LBS-BEC, TOLA + Seismic, Shear 1.00 0.90
C3
Dome
Haunch
Wall
Slab
hi
h2 0.80 h3 o
P3 Q. P3
0.70
h4
0.60 ss
hold d
0.50 c ro E 0.40 <u Q 0.30 o>

CO
O <
0.20 0.10 0.00
^vi
BAI
30
c2 c3 c4
5 10 15 20 25 Tank S e c t i o n N u m b e r (1 = D o m e Center -> 30 = Slab Center)
Figure 6-23. LBS-BEC , Load Combination 4, Shear

ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 LBS-BEC, TOLA + S e i s m i c , In Plane Shear 1.00 O 0.90
P3
Dome
Haunch
Wall
Slab
0.80
7\ o 0.70 ro o. 0.60 P3 O 0.50

c ro E 0.40 a) Q
Seismic
0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Tank Section Number (1 = D o m e Center -> 30 = Slab Center)
CD CO
o <
Figure 6-24. LBS-BEC , Load Combination 4, In-Plane Shear
6.14
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 9 LBS-BEC, TOLA, Meridional
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 63 = Slab Center) Figure 6-25. LBS-BEC, Load Combination 9', Meridional ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 9 LBS-BEC, TOLA, Circumferential
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 63 = Slab Center) Figure 6-26. LBS-BEC, Load Combination 9', Circumferential
6.15
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 9 LBS-BEC, TOLA, Shear
1.00
Dome 0.90
C3
Haunch
Wall
0.80 0.70 0.60
o O
P3 Q. CO
0.50 c
P3
E 0.40
<D
o o> 0.30
* *
--_
CO
O 0.20 <
0.10 0.00 5 10
J8L
I
1 ' -. *~ /*\M\, ill'1 ' i< X -7
\1 ^
15 20 25 30
r V
35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Figure 6-27. LBS-BE C, Load Combination 9', Shear

ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 BES-FCC, TOLA + Seismic, Meridional
10
15
20
25
30
Tank Section Number (1 = D o m e Center -> 30 = Slab Center)
Figure 6-28. BE S-FCC, Load Combination 4, Meridional
6.16
ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 BES-FCC, TOLA +Seisimic, Circumferential
1.00
Slab
Mv g^
5 10 15 20 25 ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 BES-FCC, TOLA + Seismic, Shear
1.00 0.90
P3
-x**w
30
Figure 6-29. BE S-FCC, Load Combination 4, Circumferential
Dome
Haunch
Wall
Slab
0.80 0.70 0.60
>.
O P3 Q. P3
0.50 c P3 E 0.40
Q 0.30 O)
CO
d)
O < 0.10
0.00
0.20
5 10 15 20 25 30 Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 30 = Slab Center)
Figure 6-30. BE S-FCC, Load Combination 4, Shear
6.17
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 ACI-349 Demand/Capacity Ratios - LC 4 BES-FCC, TOLA + Seismic, In Plane Shear 1.00 o 0.90
TO 0.80 a>:s 75 0.70 TO Q. TO 0.60 () D C O.bO
TO
Dome
Haunch
Wall
Slab
^Seismic
0.40 h < U
Q 0 30 u> <t
CO
0.20 0.10
0.00
<
^^^
+*
5 10 15 20 25 Tank Section Number (1 = Dome Center -> 30 = Slab Center) Figure 6-31. LBS-FC C , Load Combination 4, In-Plane Shear
30
6.2 ASME Primary Tank Evaluation

The primary tank was evaluated against the requirements of ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NC, Article NC-3200 (ASME 1992a). Section 1622 of the IBC mandates that nonbuilding structures comply with the requirements of Section 9.14 of ASCE 7. That document, in turn, references the ASME B&PV Code as the applicable standard. Therefore, while the DST primary tank structure is not specifically addressed in IBC, they can be shown to meet the requirements of IBC by demonstrating their compliance with the ASME code. The Evaluation Criteria document (Day et al. 1995) states that earthquake loads may be considered as Service Level D loading. The Seismic Design and Evaluation document (Bandyopadhyay et al. 1995) also states that load combinations including the design basis earthquake should use Service Level D capacities. 6.2.1 P r i m a r y T a n k Results
Appendix A. 7 of this report describes a study of the mesh refinement of the lower knuckle of the primary tank in the seismic FE model. That study concluded that the seismic stress intensities in the primary tank lower knuckle should be multiplied by a factor of at least 2.0 before being combined with the TOLA results. Given the uncertainties in the interpretation of the study results, a conservative factor of 3.0 was applied to the lower knuckle elements in the spreadsheets used to combine the primary tank stress intensities. The general primary membrane stress intensity, the general primary membrane plus bending stress intensity and the primary plus secondary stress intensity range are shown in Figures 6-33 through 652. The demands are well within the allowable capacity for each of the four material combinations. 6.18
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 6.2.2 Evaluation Criteria Discussion
The evaluation of the primary tank capacity was in accord with ASME Section III, Division 1, Service Level D as specified by the Structural Acceptance Criteria document (Day et al. 1995) and the guidance of the Seismic Evaluation document (Bandyopadhyay et al. 1995). The ASME code specifies the following load combinations and capacities for an elastic analysis: General primary membrane stress intensity Local primary membrane stress intensity Primary membrane + bending stress intensity Primary + secondary stress intensity Pm <kS m PL < 1.5kSm (Pm or PL) + Pb < 1.5kSm (Pm or PL) + Pb + Q < 3Sm (6.1) (6.2) (6.3) (6.4)
In these equations, Pm is the primary membrane stress, PL is the local primary stress, Pb is the primary bending stress, and Q is a secondary stress (thermal in the case of the DSTs). The factor k is equal to 2.0 for Service Level D capacities. The general primary membrane stress in the DST primary tank is dominated by hoop tension. Section 5.5 of the Seismic Evaluation document (Bandyopadhyay et al. 1995) imposes the additional condition that the hoop membrane stress capacity should be taken as the ASME Section III, Division 1, Service Level D limit of 2Sm, or the yield strength, whichever is less. The intent of the additional condition is that kSm should be limited to the yield strength if credit is taken for inelastic energy absorption in the computation of demands. Accordingly, the general primary membrane stress intensity criterion becomes: P m <min(kS m , Sy) (6.5)
While the factored inelastic demand was not used, the additional conservatism afforded by the yield strength was maintained for each of the DST evaluations as shown in Figures 6-24, 6-29, 6-34, and 6-39. The allowable stresses, Sm and Sy were conservatively taken at 250F for the A537 steel used in the AP tanks as 23.1 ksi and 42.3 ksi, respectively. 6.2.3 Best-Estimate Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete
Figures 6-33-6-37 show the demand/capacity ratios for the primary tank for the BES-BEC material combination. All demand/capacity ratios are all less than 1.0. 6.2.4 Upper Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete
Figures 6-38-6-42 show the demand/capacity ratios for the primary tank for the UBS-BEC material combination. All demand/capacity ratios are all less than 1.0. 6.2.5 Lower Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete
Figures 6-43-6-47 show the demand/capacity ratios for the primary tank for the LBS-BEC material combination. All demand/capacity ratios are all less than 1.0.
6.19
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 6.2.6 Best-Estimate Soil, Fully Cracked C oncrete
Figures 6-48-6-52 show the demand/capacity ratios for the primary tank for the BES-FCC material combination. All demand/capacity ratios are all less than 1.0.
P r i m a r y Tank M e m b r a n e S t r e s s I n t e n s i t y A P t a n k , 4 6 0 " w a s t e , 1.83 S p G , U B S , BE C
TOLA -TOLA+Seismic -Sy
150
200
250
300
350
Distance from Tangent Point (in.)
Figure 6-32. Relative Magnitude of TOLA and Seismic Primary Membrane Stress Intensity
Primary Tank Membrane Stress Intensity AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, BES, BEC
,,.
-TOLA+Seismic -Sy
150
200
250
300
350
450
500
6.20
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Figure 6-33. BES-BEC Primary Membrane Stress Intensity

Primary Tank Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Inside) AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, BES, BEC
9/16"
3/4"
1/2
- TOLA+Seismic ^ 3Sm
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Distance from Dome (in.)
Figure 6-34. BES-BEC Primary Membrane + Bending (inside) Stress Intensity

Primary Tank Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Outside) AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, BES, BEC
9/16"
3/4"
TOLA+Seismic 3Sm
V^
100 200
300 400 500 600 700 Distance from Dome (in)
Figure 6-35. BES-BEC Primary Membrane + Bending (outside) Stress Intensity
6.21
Primary Tank Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range (inside) AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, BES, BEC
h3
^hold c2 c3 c4
100
200
300
400
500
Figure 6-36. BES-BEC Primary + Secondary (inside) Stress Intensity Range

Primary Tank Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range (outside) AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, BES, BEC
M ii2 h3 M hold d c2 c3 c4 3Sm
300
400
500
Figure 6-37. BES-BEC Primary + Secondary (outside) Stress Intensity Range
6.22
P r i m a r y Tank M e m b r a n e S t r e s s I n t e n s i t y A P t a n k , 4 6 0 " w a s t e , 1.83 S p G , U B S , BE C
TOLA+Seismic Sy
150
200
250
300
350
450
500
Figure 6-38. UBS-BEC Primary Membrane Stress Intensity

Primary Tank Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Inside) AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, UBS, BEC
9/16"
3/4"
----
-TOLA+Seismic 3Sm
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Distance from Dome (in )
Figure 6-39. UBS-BEC Primary Membrane + Bending (inside) Stress Intensity
6.23
Primary Tank Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Outside) AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, UBS, BEC
9/16"
3/4"
-TOLA+Seismic 3Sm
300
400
500
(in)
600
700
D i s t a n c e f r o m Dome
Figure 6-40. UBS-BEC Primary Membrane + Bending (outside) Stress Intensity

Primary Tank Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range (inside) APtank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, UBS, BEC
M ii2 h3 h4 hold d c2 c3 c4 3Sm
7f-
-Y-
%/**>*500
300
400
Figure 6-41. UBS-BEC Primary + Secondary (inside) Stress Intensity Range
6.24
Primary Tank Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range (outside)

AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, UBS, BEC
9/16"
3/4"
h3
^hold c2 c3 c4
A
<
300 400 500
Figure 6-42. UBS-BEC Primary + Secondary (outside) Stress Intensity Range

Primary Tank Membrane Stress Intensity AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, LBS, BEC
-TOLA+Seismic Sy
150
200
250
300
350
450
500
Figure 6-43. LBS-BEC Primary Membrane Stress Intensity
6.25
Primary Tank Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Inside) AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, LBS, BEC
TOLA+Seismic 3Sm
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Figure 6-44. LBS-BEC Primary Membrane + Bending (inside) Stress Intensity

Primary Tank Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Outside) AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, LBS, BEC
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Distance from Dome (in)
Figure 6-45. LBS-BEC Primary Membrane + Bending (outside) Stress Intensity
6.26
Primary Tank Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range (inside) APtank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, LBS, B EC
h3
^hold c2 c3 c4
300
400
500
Figure 6-46. LBS-BEC Primary + Secondary (inside) Stress Intensity Range

Primary Tank Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range (outside) AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, LBS, BEC
80000 -I
1/2
9/16"
3/4
--
1/2
M ii2 h3 h4 hold d c2 c3 c4 3Sm
1 I
10000
i i
h
"
300 400
. /:
'^'^s.
4/
=$*-^r^-*-L-^ - - t
l
0 500 Distance from Dome (in.)
Figure 6-47. LBS-BEC Primary + Secondary (outside) Stress Intensity Range
6.27
Primary Tank Membrane Stress Intensity APtank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, BES, FCC
9/16"
3/4"
7/8 ^*-
TOLA+Seismic Sy
V
150 200 250 300 350 450 500 Distance from Tangent Point (in.)
Figure 6-48. BES-FC C Primary Membrane Stress Intensity

Primary Tank Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Inside) AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, BES, FCC
9/16"
3/4"
----
-TOLA+Seismic 3Sm
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Figure 6-49. BES-FC C Primary Membrane + Bending (inside) Stress Intensity
6.28
Primary Tank Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Outside) AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, BES, FCC
-TOLA+Seismic 3Sm
300
400
500
600
700
Distance from Dome (in)
Figure 6-50. BES-FC C Primary Membrane + Bending (outside) Stress Intensity

Primary Tank Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range (inside)
A P t a n k , 4 6 0 " w a s t e , 1.83 S p G , B ES, FCC
hi -h2 h3 h4 hold d c2 c3 c4 3Sm
300
400
500
Figure 6-51. BES-FC C Primary + Secondary (inside) Stress Intensity Range
6.29
Primary Tank Primary + Secondary Stress Intensity Range (outside) AP tank, 460" waste, 1.83 SpG, BES, FCC
80000 -I
1/2"
9/16"
3/4"
--
1/2"
70000
h3
!=?
^hold
a s -
c2 c3 c4
L 0J
~ .------
**
500
-"""'
300 400 Distance from Dome (in.)
-=CR^
'
Figure 6-52. BES-FC C Primary + Secondary (outside) Stress Intensity Range
6.3 Primary Tank Stress Corrosion Cracking Evaluation

The Structural Acceptance Criteria document (Day et al. 1995) raised the issue of primary tank fracture by stress corrosion cracking (SCC) as a potential failure mode. However, the report does not set forth a criterion by which to assess the limits on stress, temperature, or waste chemistry to preclude such failure. The TOLA report (Rinker et al. 2004) used the previously postulated limit on the primary tank principal stress on the inner surface to 90% of the yield strength of the tank steel. Perhaps the earliest appearance of this criterion is the AP Tank Farm Functional Design Criteria (Garfield and Guenther 1981). Other indications are that the criterion was "less than yield" prior to construction of the AZ farm, but was changed to "90% of yield" beginning with the AZ tanks. Intervening analyses, particularly the Expert Panel discussions regarding waste chemistry (Terry et al. 2004) raised concerns regarding the validity of this criterion. The subsequent evaluation of the stress criteria for stress corrosion cracking (Rinker et al. 2005) was unable to establish a technical basis for the 90% yield criterion. That report also observed that while other industries and other design codes are concerned about SCC, they do not address the issue solely on the basis of a stress limit. Other approaches to addressing SC C include reduction of tensile residual stress by post weld heat treatment (PWHT), control of environmental conditions (chemistry and temperature), in-service inspection to confirm the lack of stress corrosion cracks, and fracture mechanics calculations to assess the possibility of crack growth. 6.3.1 Analytical Evaluation
The SCC report (Rinker et al. 2005) developed a damage tolerance approach based on fracture mechanics methods as an alternative means of evaluation. That report focused specifically on Tank AN-107 because 6.30
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 of the historical difficulty of maintaining the desired pH levels in the waste. The fracture mechanics calculations referenced crack growth rate data being developed concurrently (Brongers et al. 2005). Earlier crack growth testing (Blackburn 1995a, 1995b) in highly aggressive solutions has demonstrated relatively high crack growth rates. It was recognized, however, that these test conditions were very conservative in comparison to the lower temperatures and less aggressive chemical conditions of past and current tank operations. This conservatism was confirmed by the recent test results (Brongers et al. 2005) which showed no propensity to crack at equilibrium corrosion potentials, and one to two orders of magnitude lower crack growth rates with an induced voltage to bring the system into the SCC sensitivity range. Only insignificant crack growth was predicted over the projected life of tank operations. Accordingly, conservative values of KISCC were assigned to facilitate the fracture mechanics calculations. Application of the fracture mechanics method to Tank AN-107 showed a very low potential for stress corrosion crack growth. There are, however, differences between the loads and tank geometry (wall thickness) of the AN-107 and bounding TOLA analysis described herein. The differences in load are summarized in Table 6-1. Table 6-1. Comparison of TOLA and AN-107 Analyses
Feature Soil overburden (ft) Overburden density (lb/ft3) Waste height (in.) Waste specific gravity Waste temperature (F) TOLA 83 125 422 1.70 350 AN-107 74 120 388 1.43 110
The effect of these differences on the lower knuckle inner surface principal stress is shown in Figure 6-53.
Primary Tank Principal Stress
7/8" 7/8" Knuckle 7/8" 1/2"
TOLA AN-107
"^--a.
-,
410 420
,V-S-B-H-B-S-&fl-R
430
Figure 6-53. Comparison of TOLA and AN-107 Lower Knuckle Principal Stress 6.31
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 A parametric study on the effect of the applied bending stress to the sensitivity to crack growth was conducted as part of the SCC study (Rinker et al. 2005). Figure 5-5 from that report is reproduced here as Figure 6-54. Interpolation of the results to the TOLA bending stress of 27 ksi suggest that crack growth is unlikely for an existing 0.10 inch crack unless KIScc is less than 21 ksi-in1/2. These results are predicated on the assumption of the lower knuckle steel temperature being more moderate (<150F) than was historically recorded in the AY/AZ tanks.
Wall Thickness = 0.875 inch Residual Stress = 7 ksi Flaw Length = 6 inch
DST SCC CRITERIA AN 107K S0LUTI0NS.AN 107 K SOLUTION KNUCKLE SENSITIVITY RESIDUAL STRESS.XLS
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Crack Depth, a/t
Figure 6-54. Effect of Applied Bending Stress on Calculated Stress Intensity Factor for the Lower Knuckle of Tank AN-107 6.3.2 DST Operating Experience
Appendix C of the SCC report (Rinker et al. 2005) summarized the operating experience with DSTs at both the Hanford Site and the Savannah River Site (SRS). Stress corrosion cracking occurred with some early waste tank designs, without PWHT, at Savannah River. These tanks were constructed of carbon steel but, unlike the Hanford DSTs, were not given post-weld heat treatments to reduce welding residual stresses. The SRS tanks with confirmed SCC were exposed to relatively high-temperature wastes with adverse waste chemistries that were outside the current limits imposed on both Savannah River and Hanford tanks. Other early Savannah River tanks (also of low carbon steels and without PWHT) were operated at less severe waste chemistries and temperatures without reported SCC. Savannah River initiated research programs in response to the early cracking incidents. Results of this research showed the benefits of PWHTs and improved specifications for waste chemistry. Implementation of these mitigative measures has evidently been effective because there has been no further SCC either in the older tanks (without PWHT) or in newer tanks that used PWHT.
6.32
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Hanford waste storage tanks have experienced leaks from the older single-shell tanks (no PWHT) but also achieved a record of no leakage from the newer DSTs with PWHT. It is not possible to examine failed liners of single-shell tanks which precludes the detailed analyses needed to determine whether the failures were caused by corrosion, wall thinning, pitting, or cracking. It is likely that SCC was a factor because none of the older tanks were given PWHT to reduce welding residual stresses. Furthermore, the past service conditions included storage of wastes at high temperatures with chemical compositions known to contribute to SCC. In contrast, no SCC has been observed in any of the 28 Hanford DSTs over periods of operation that date back to 1971. Detection methods include observation of leakage from through-wall cracks, visual inspections of the outer surface of the tanks, and monitoring for moisture and the increased radiation levels caused by leakage from the primary tank into the outer annulus. Ultrasonic (UT) examinations have been used to look for cracks with less than through-wall depths (present sensitivity can detect very small defects but can only dimension them to 0.050 inch depth), and none have been detected in the lower knuckle region. These crack inspections are done on a 30 inch wide top-to-bottom vertical pass (-40 feet), as well as a 20-foot long segment of the lower knuckle region. However, these UT examinations have covered only a fraction of the tank wall, and depend on the covered fractions being representative of entire tank conditions. Uncertainties aside, it can nevertheless be concluded that the Hanford DSTs appear to have experienced no significant SCC degradation. There has been no stress corrosion cracking observed in the Hanford DSTs under the present chemistry controls and operating parameters. Recent corrosion testing and analysis overseen by the Expert Panel (Terry et al. 2004), when coupled with the historical operational record dating back to 1971, shows that SCC is unlikely if the present operating requirements are maintained. Temperature limits are lower and waste chemistry is much less aggressive than those that have caused cracking incidents in laboratory experiments and SRS waste storage tanks. 6.3.3 Seismic Considerations
Implicit in the definition of stress corrosion cracking is the presence of a static tensile stress. A seismic event is by definition a transient event, lasting a much shorter duration than that required to produce SCC. However, it has been posited that seismically induced stresses, when added to the baseline stresses from the thermal and operating loads, may exceed the yield strength of the primary tank steel. Consequently, the stress state following the earthquake may be higher thus possibly promoting the development of SCC. A simplified stress analysis of the lower knuckle was conducted to evaluate this scenario. A model of the lower knuckle was loaded with a downward displacement of the wall sufficient to achieve an inside surface stress just below the yield strength (32 ksi) of the steel. This load condition was selected to conservatively represent the nominal operating loads. The displacement was then increased to give an additional 10 ksi compressive stress resulting in yielding of the knuckle such as might occur in an earthquake. The wall stress was then evaluated after returning the load to the nominal operating level. It was observed that the maximum inside surface stress was decreased by nearly 5 ksi following this overstress event.
6.33
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 This analysis demonstrates that yielding of the lower knuckle due to increased meridional compression such as might result from an earthquake does not increase the inside surface stress after the transient event has passed. The model predicts that such an overstress condition may actually decrease the subsequent surface stress due to the load reversal effect in going from the over stress state back to the normal operating condition.
6.4 Primary Tank Buckling Evaluation

Buckling of the primary tank was considered in Section 8.5 of the TOLA report (Rinker et al. 2004). The evaluation method was based on the method defined in Code Case N-284-1 of the ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Division 1 (ASME 1992a). The buckling evaluation for service Level D was conducted using seismic demands from the original design calculations (Blume and Associates 1974). A separate task of the DSTIntegrity Project was to conduct detailed buckling analyses, in part to "develop an approximate influence function to estimate the effect of changes between the finite element analysis parameters and the tank specific conditions." Accordingly, a new finite element model was developed, distinct from the TOLA model, and buckling evaluations were performed incorporating the results from the current seismic analysis. Complete documentation of the TOLA buckling evaluation is found in the Buckling Analysis report (Johnson et al. 2006). 6.4.1 Evaluation Method
Large displacement finite element analyses were used to predict the limiting vacuum load for the DST primary tanks under combined axial and vacuum loads. Figure 6-55 shows the model of the primary tank used in this analysis. A downward deflection was applied to the dome of the tank (the area in contact with the concrete tank structure) to simulate the displacement controlled axial compression of the tank wall that occurs due to concrete thermal degradation and creep, plus the confined thermal expansion of the steel tank inside the concrete shell. The model includes a geometric imperfection to initiate the buckling instability under the radially symmetric vacuum load. The imperfection was sized to the maximum out of roundness (1-inch deviation in a 7-foot arc length) allowed in the AY tank farm construction specifications (HWS-7789 Hanford Engineering Services 1968). Additional loads on the model include gravity and hydrostatic pressure of the waste at height, h, and specific gravity, SpG (see Figure 6-56). The onset of the buckling instability was predicted by applying an increasing vacuum load on the inside surface of the tank while monitoring the maximum radial displacement of the tank wall as a function of the increasing vacuum load. The onset of instability is signaled by an increasing rate of radial deflection for a constant increment in the applied vacuum load. Figure 6-57 shows an example load deflection curve from one of the cases that were analyzed. Because vacuum is a primary load, the stresses are not self limiting and the model eventually fails to converge (numerically) as the physical load carrying capacity of the tank is reached. However, using the final converged vacuum load as the buckling limit is not a reliable measure of the onset of instability because the final convergence is sensitive to non-physical factors including the load step size, the convergence tolerance, and the numerical precision of the computer. Therefore, the ASME code was reviewed to find an appropriate method for defining the limiting vacuum load.
6.34
Location of Geometric Imperfection
Figure 6-55. Buckling Model
Compressive Dome Displacement
AIM
m~n
Increasing Vacuum
Waste Height
250" waste, 1.70 SpG 0.3 Disp, No vac in Lsl,20SSinLS3
Figure 6-56. Buckling Model Loads
6.35
35 Load Deflection Curve for the Tank Vacuum Model, AY-tank, Corrosion = 0.060-inch, Waste Height=144-inch, Axial Stress=-876psi 30
25
20 \ 15 - - M a x Radial D e f l e c t i o n 10 AInitial S l o p e - - A S M E Reduced Slope 62% of Last Converged Vacuum Load ]J """j ASME Collapse Load = 18.55 inch w.g. |
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Radial Deflection, inches
Figure 6-57. Buckling Load Deflection C urve The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, NB-3213.25, provides guidance on establishing a reasonable collapse load for a structure undergoing controlled plastic deformation (ASME 1992a). Although an elastic buckling phenomenon is being evaluating (the buckling models predict that the tank membrane stresses are well below the elastic limit), the increasing rate of distortion in the tank wall (for a constant increasing vacuum load) represents a gradual decrease in structural stiffness that is similar to a structure undergoing progressive plastic deformation. In the former case, the stiffness reduction is due to the large deformations of the tank geometry that progressively decrease the load carrying capacity of the tank. In the latter case, it is due to plastic softening. The ASME code method establishes the collapse load by limiting the reduction in structural stiffness under increasing load. NB-3213.25 Plastic Analysis Collapse Load. A plastic analysis may be used to determine the collapse load for a given combination of loads on a given structure. The following c riterion for determination of the collapse load shall be used. A load-deflec tion or loadstrain curve is plotted with load as the ordinate and deflection or strain as the abscissa. The angle that the linear part of the load-deflection or load-strain c urve makes with the ordinate is called 6. A second straight line, hereafter called the collapse limit line, is drawn through the origin so that it makes an angle of tan (2 tan 6) with the ordinate. The collapse load is the load at the intersection of the load-deflection or load-strain c urve and the collapse limit line. If this method is used, particular c are should be given to ensure that the strains or deflections that are used are indicative of the load carrying capacity of the structure. Figure 6-57 graphically illustrates the ASME code method based on the factor of two stiffness reduction. The radial displacement is offset from zero (at zero vacuum) because the initial loads (axial compression, hydrostatic pressure, and gravity) cause an initial radial deflection in the tank wall. The initial load/ deflection slope was calculated and a second line was drawn at an angle with twice the tangent measured from the vertical axis. The vacuum limit was then calculated by interpolating to find the vacuum load
6.36
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 where the second line crossed the load/deflection curve (Figure 6-57). In this case, the ASME collapse load is about 62% of the last converged vacuum load. Figure 6-58 shows the displaced shape of the tank model at the ASME collapse load. The displacements are magnified by a factor of 50 for visual effect. For the tank geometry, the ASME method results in a minor amount of tank distortion. A matrix of tank models was run to develop equations for the tank vacuum limit as a function of waste height, specific gravity, wall thickness, and axial compressive load. Influence functions were developed to estimate the applied axial force in the primary tank wall that is required for evaluating buckling of the primary tank. The axial force contributions from the applied loads were evaluated, giving the total axial force as the sum of the following loads: Differential thermal expansion, Gravity, Surface loads, Concrete thermal degradation and creep, Seismic excitation, and the E ffect of hydrostatic waste pressure on the confined axial force.
Once the unfactored axial force and vacuum limits are calculated, then the safety factors for the ASME Section III service levels are applied to calculate the allowable tank vacuum limits.
AN SYS /.USPii DEC 22 2005 15:14 15 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=3 SUB =10 TIME=2.5 (AVG) UX RSYS=5 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVRES==Mat DMX = 300242 SMN = -.054682 SMX = 219548 -.054682 i -.024212 [ 006258 1 036728 j 067198 j 097668 1 1 128138 1 158608 189078 219548
250" waste, 1.70 SpG 0.3 Disp, No vac in Lsl,20SSinLS3
Figure 6-58. Model Displaced Shape at Vacuum Limit
6.37
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 6.4.2 Evaluation Criteria
The buckling calculations are conducted for the four different service levels defined in ASME Section III, each with required factors of safety for local and global buckling: Factors of Safety Local Buckling Global Buckling 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.4 1.67 2.0 1.34 1.61
Level A = Normal operating conditions Level B = Upset conditions Level C = Emergency conditions Level D = Faulted conditions
Attachment B of Julyk (2002) makes the argument that axial compression in the tank cylinder will be relieved by local bowing of the wall before the onset of general instability. This position is justified since the meridional (axial) compressive stresses are displacement controlled as a result of differential thermal expansion and concrete creep induced loads on the primary tank. The load deflection response of the large displacement finite element models using in the current buckling analysis confirm that the axial stress in the tank is self-limited by the deformation of the primary tank geometry. This rational leads to the following buckling criteria when combining the effects of axial and hoop loads on the allowable vacuum: The allowable vacuum (net negative pressure) in the double shell tanks is controlled by the minimum of two cases, A. Local Buckling (with local buckling safety factors imposed) evaluated considering the interaction of the net internal vacuum load (Ap) combined with the meridional compressive stress (OA). B. General Instability (with global buckling safety factors imposed) evaluated considering the net internal vacuum load (Ap) acting alone. No interaction with the meridional compressive stress shall be considered (a<4, = 0). These criteria were used by Julyk (2002) are they also used in the current buckling evaluation. Julyk (2002) states that activation of the tank relief valves at the limiting vacuum load should be classified as a Level C (emergency) load condition. This is justified because the normal vacuum imposed by the tank ventilation systems is about 3 inches w.g. compared to the vacuum limit of 6.6 inches w.g. for the AY, SY, AN, AW, and AZ tanks and 12 inches w.g. for the AP primary tank. The relief valves (set at the limit values) are not expected to activate over the operating life of the tanks and at worst this would occur no more than 25 times. Therefore, activation of the relief valves would be an off-normal occurrence, which is consistent with the ASME Service Load Classification for Level C events. It is assumed in this analysis that the design basis loads used in the thermal and operating loads analysis conservatively represent Service Levels A, B, and C. This is consistent with the loading conditions assumed by Julyk (2002). Service Level D, however, requires that the incremental seismic stresses be added to the design basis stresses for evaluating the faulted condition.
6.38
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 6.4.3 Buckling Results
An Excel spreadsheet was constructed using the relationships documented in detail in the Buckling report (Johnson et al. 2006) and it applies the Section III service level safety factors to calculate the vacuum allowable for the primary tanks. Table 6-2 shows a summary of the allowable vacuum calculations that are based on the current 210F operating limits for waste temperature, 460 inch waste height, and waste specific gravity of 1.83. A corrosion allowance of 0.060 inch was assumed in these calculations. Table 6-2 shows the specified vacuum limit of 12 inches w.g. is greater than the current vacuum allowable to prevent buckling of 10.46 inch w.g. Table 6-3 summarizes the additional analyses that showed that the allowable vacuum was above the 12-inch limit for corrosion allowances less than 0.025 inch. Little or no corrosion has been observed in the primary tanks (Jensen 2003, 2005) such that this wall thickness is appropriate for the buckling calculation. With this assumption, the AP tank passes the buckling criteria. Additional consideration may be given to the operational capabilities of the ventilation equipment. Table 6-2. Primary Tank Buckling Evaluation
AP Approx. Operating History Temp, F Hwaste, inch Operatinq Limits Temp, F Hwaste, inch SpG Corrosion Allowance, inch Yield at Temp, ksi Calculated Axial Forces Operating Axial Force, kip/inch Oper+Seismic Force, kip/inch Axial Force Limit, kip/inch 210 460 1 83 0 060 43 8 120 422
-0.355 -0.869 -2 842
Calculated AllowableVacuum Limits, inches w.q. Local Bucklinq Service Level A&B Service Level C Service Level D Global Bucklinq Service Level A&B Service Level C Governing Allowable Vacuum, inch w.g. Governing Allowable when vacuum = Level C load Current Vacuum Limit, inches w.g.
9 61 11 51 13 37 8 71 10 46
8 71
10 46 12
6.39
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 6-3. Summary of Primary Tank Buckling Evaluation

AP A p p r o x . Operatinq Historv Temp, F Hwaste, inch 120 422
Maximum Expected Future Operatina C o n d i t i o n s 210 Temp, F 460 Hwaste, inch 1 83 SpG Yield at Temp, ksi 43 80 Corrosion Allowance, inch Level C V a c u u m Limit, inch w . g . Corrosion Allowance, inch Level C V a c u u m Limit, inch w . g . Corrosion Allowance, inch Level C V a c u u m Limit, inch w . g . Corrosion Allowance, inch Level C V a c u u m Limit, inch w . g . 0 000 13 35 0 010 12 85 0 025 12.11 0 060 10 46
6.5 ASME Concrete-Backed Steel Evaluation

The evaluation criteria for the concrete-backed steel liner (both primary and secondary liner) are specified by Day et al. (1995) in WHC-SD-WM-DGS-003. These requirements were taken from the ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NC-3700 (ASME 1992a). The seismic load component is added to the factored load combination under the abnormal/extreme environmental category. 6.5.1 Best-Estimate Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete
Figures 6-59-6-64 show the demand/capacity ratios for the primary tank for the BES-BEC material combination. All demand/capacity ratios are less than 1.0. 6.5.2 Upper Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete
Figures 6-65-6-70 show the demand/capacity ratios for the primary tank for the UBS-BEC material combination. All demand/capacity ratios are less than 1.0. 6.5.3 Lower Bound Soil, Best-Estimate Concrete
Figures 6-71-6-76 show the demand/capacity ratios for the primary tank for the LBS-BEC material combination. All demand/capacity ratios are less than 1.0.
6.40
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 6.5.4 BestE stimate Soil, Fully Cracked Concrete
Figures 6-77-6-82 show the demand/capacity ratios for the primary tank for the LBS-FCC material combination. All demand/capacity ratios are less than 1.0.
Membrane Strain - Tensile
hi h2 h3 -h4
hold d c2 c3 c4 50F Allow
Distance from Crown (in.)
Figure 6-59. BE S-BE C, Principal Membrane Strain - Tension (si)

Membrane Strain - Compressive
Dome
3/8" |
1/4" Wall
Knuckle
Floor
-hi h2 h3 -h4
hold d c2 c3 c4 50F
iSS===_
LLg2=^^t
Allow
Figure 6-60. BE S-BE C, Principal Membrane Strain - Compression (s3) 6.41
Membrane + Bending (outside) Strain - Tensile
0 010
Dome
| 3/8"|
1/4" Wal
Kn ickle
Floor
0 008
hi h2 h3 -h4
c 0 006
-ss -hold d
0 004
c2 c3 c4
0 002
50F Allow
0 000 300 600 900 1200 1500 Distance from Crown (in.)
Figure 6-61. BES-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Tension (si)
Membrane + Bending (outside) Strain - Compressive
Dome
0 014
| 3/8" |
1/4" Wall
Knifkle
Floor
0 012
-hi h2
0 010
h3 h4
0 008 hold d 0 006 c2 c3 0 004 c4 50F 0 002 Allow
^ - ^ ^
1 | | B
---=^=g".k
0 000 300 600 900 1200 1500 Distance f r o m Crown (in.)
Figure 6-62. BES-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Compression (s3)
6.42
Membrane + Bending (inside) Strain - Tensile
0 010
Dome
[ 3/8" [
1/4" Wall
Kn ickle
Floor
0 008
hi h2 h3 -h4
c 0 006
-ss
-hold
d 0 004 c2 c3 c4 0 002
50F Allow
0 000 300 600 900 1200 1500 Distance from Crown (in.)
Figure 6-63. BES-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Tension (si)
Membrane + Bending (inside) Strain - Compressive
Dome
0 014
| 3/8"!
WWall
Knijckle
Floor
0 012
-hi h2
0 010
h3 h4
0 008
hold
0 006 d c2 c3 0 004 c4
50F
0 002
0 000 300
Li
600
k
900 1200 1500
Allow
Figure 6-64. BES-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Compression (s3)
6.43
Membrane Strain - Tensile UBS-BEC
0.0035 -,
Dome 3/8" 1/4" Wall Knuckle
Floor
0 0030 -hi 0 0025 h2 h3 -h4 c 0 0020

ss
hold a a 00015 d c2 c3 0 0010 c4 50F 0 0005 Allow
0 0000 600 900 1500 Distance from Crown (in.)
Figure 6-65. UBS-BE C, Principal Membrane Strain - Tension (si)

Membrane Strain - C o m p r e s s i v e UBS-BEC Dome 0 005 3/8" 1/4" Wall Kn ckle Floor
-hi 0 004 h2 h3 h4 ~ 0 003 ss hold -d 0 002 c2 c3 c4 0 001 50F Allow
0 000 600 900 1500 Distance f r o m Crown (in.)
Figure 6-66. UBS-BE C, Principal Membrane Strain - Compression (s3)
6.44
Membrane + Bending (outside) Strain - Tensile UBS-BEC Dome | 3/8"| 1/4" Wall Knijickle Floor
0 010
0 008
hi h2 h3 -h4
c 0 006
ss hold d
0 004
c2 c3 c4
0 002
50F Allow
0 000
M-IHx 300
'
' 600
900
V
1200 1500
Distance f r o m Crown (in.)
Figure 6-67. UBS-BE C, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Tension (S,)
Membrane + Bending (outside) Strain - Compressive UBS-BEC Dome
0 014
| 3/8" |
1/4" Wall
Knifkle
Floor
0 012
-hi h2
0 010
h3 -h4
0 008
-ss hold
1
0 006
d c2 c3
0 004
c4 50F
0 002
0 000
^
300
u
600 900 Distance f r o m Crown (in.)
l
1200 1500
Allow
ure 6-68. UBS-BE C, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Compression (s3)
6.45
Membrane + Bending (inside) Strain - Tensile UBS-BEC
Dome 3/8"
0 010
1/4" Wall
Knickle
Floor
0 008
hi h2 h3 -h4
c 0 006
-ss
-hold
d 0 004 c2 c3 c4 0 002
50F
0 000 300 600
A
900 1200 1500
Allow
Figure 6-69. UBS-BE C, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Tension (si)
Membrane + Bending (inside) Strain - Compressive UBS-BEC Dome
0 014
| 3/8"!
1/4" Wall
Knijckle
Floor
0 012
-hi h2
0 010
h3 h4
c 0 008
ss hold *d
0 006
c2 c3
0 004
c4 50F
0 002
0 000 300
Li
600
K
900 Distance from Crown (in.)
Allow
.
1200 1500
ure 6-70. UBS-BE C, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Compression (s3)
6.46
Membrane Strain - Tensile LBS-BEC 0.0035 -i Dome 3/8" 1/4" Wall Knuckle Floor
0.0030 -hi 0.0025 h2 h3 -h4 c 0.0020

ss
hold a a 0.0015 d c2 c3 0.0010 c4 50F 0.0005 Allow
0.0000 600 900 1500 Distance f r o m Crown (in.)
Figure 6-71. LBS-BE C, Principal Membrane Strain - Tension (si)

LBS-BEC
Dome 0.005 | 3/8"! 1/4" Wall Knjickle Floor
-hi 0.004 h2 h3 h4 ~ 0.003 ss hold -d 0.002 c2 c3 c4 0.001 50F
0.000
^^^L^^^L_____
. 1 1 . ,-^P^rr 1- 300 600 900 1200 Distance f r o m Crown (in.)
Allow
=_ 1500
Figure 6-72. LBS-BE C, Principal Membrane Strain - Compression (s3)
6.47
Membrane + Bending (outside) Strain - Tensile LBS-BEC Dome 3/8" 1/4" Wall Knickle Floor
0 010
0 008
hi h2 h3 -h4
c 0 006
-ss -hold d
0 004
c2 c3 c4
0 002
50F Allow
0 000 300 600 900 1200 1500 Distance f r o m Crown (in.)
Figure 6-73. LBS-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Tension (si)
Membrane + Bending (outside) Strain - Compressive LBS-BEC Dome 0 014 | 3/8" | 1/4"Wall Knifkle Floor
0 012
-hi h2
0 010
h3 h4
c 0 008
ss hold d
0 006
c2 c3
0 004
c4 50F
0 002
Allow
0 000 300
i i
600
J
900 1200 1500 Distance f r o m Crown (in.)
Figure 6-74. LBS-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Compression (s3)
6.48
Membrane + Bending (inside) Strain - Tensile LBS-BEC
0 010 Dome 3/8" 1/4" Wall Knickle Floor
0 008
hi h2 h3 -h4
c 0 006
-ss -hold d
0 004
c2 c3 c4
0 002
50F Allow
Figure 6-75. LBS-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Tension (si)
Membrane + Bending (inside) Strain - Compressive LBS-BEC Dome
0 014
| 3/8"!
1/4" Wall
Knijckle
Floor
0 012
-hi h2
0 010
h3 h4
c 0 008
ss hold d
0 006
c2 c3
0 004
c4 50F
0 002
Allow
0 000 300
i i
600 900 Distance f r o m Crown (in.)
k
1200 1500
Figure 6-76. LBS-BEC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Compression (s3)
6.49
Membrane Strain - Tensile
0.0035 -i Dome 3/8" 1/4" Wall Knuckle Floor
0.0030 -hi 0.0025 h2 h3 h4 c 0.0020 ss hold a a 0.0015 d c2 c3 0.0010 c4 50F 0.0005 Allow
0.0000 600 900 1500 Distance f r o m Crown (in.)
Figure 6-77. BE S-FCC, Principal Membrane Strain - Tension (si)

Dome
0.005
3/8"!
1/4" Wall
Knjickle
Floor
-hi 0.004 h2 h3 h4 ~ 0.003 ss hold -d 0.002 c2 c3 c4 0.001 50F
0.000
5^_ U^^^L___
. i i . .^^r*"= i
1200
Allow
300
600
900
1500
Distance f r o m Crown (in.)
Figure 6-78. BE S-FCC, Principal Membrane Strain - Compression (s3)
6.50
Membrane + Bending (outside) Strain - Tensile
0 010
Dome
3/8"
1/4" Wall
Knickle
Floor
0 008
hi h2 h3 -h4
c 0 006
-ss -hold d
0 004
c2 c3 c4
0 002
50F Allow
Figure 6-79. BES-FCC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Tension (si)
Membrane + Bending (outside) Strain - Compressive
Dome
0 014
! 3/8" [
1/4" Wall
Knifkle
Floor
0 012
-hi h2
0 010
h3 h4
c 0 008
ss hold d
0 006
c2 c3
0 004
c4 50F
0 002
0 000
U
300 600
A
900 1200 1500 Distance f r o m Crown (in.)
Allow
Figure 6-80. BES-FCC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Outer Surface - Compression (s3)
6.51
Membrane + Bending (inside) Strain - Tensile
0 010
Dome
3/8"
1/4" Wall
Knickle
Floor
0 008
hi h2 h3 -h4
c 0 006
-ss
-hold
d 0 004 c2 c3 c4 0 002
50F Allow
0 000
600 900 Distance from Crown (in.)
1500
Figure 6-81. BES-FCC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Tension (si)
Membrane + Bending (inside) Strain - Compressive
Dome 0 014
3/8"
1/4" Wall
Kn ckle
Floor
0 012
-hi h2
0 010
h3 h4
0 008
hold
0 006 d c2 c3 0 004 c4
50F
0 002
0 000 300 600 900
Allow
1200
1500
Figure 6-82. BES-FCC, Principal Membrane + Bending Strain Inner Surface - Compression (s3)
6.52
6.6
Anchor Bolt Evaluation
The initial evaluation of the primary tank dome anchor bolts documented in Rev. 0 of this report was conducted in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code per (Day et al 1995). In July 2007, independent reviewers raised concerns regarding the anchor bolt capacity used in that evaluation (Appendix A.2). In response to the reviewer comments, the anchor bolts were re-evaluated using an approach based on a combination of test data and analytical modeling. Because the DST configuration of an internally threaded weld stud with a threaded anchor bolt is not supported directly by test data, detailed finite element models were developed to establish an equivalent diameter for the shear response of the anchors. Once the equivalent diameter was established, test data were used to determine the ultimate shear deformation for the anchors. The models and incorporation of the test data are described in Appendix A.3. Test data on similar anchors show ductile responses represented by highly nonlinear load-deformation curves in both shear and tension. The known nonlinear response of the DST anchors was characterized by consistent linearizations of the shear and tensile load-deformation curves using a secant modulus approach as described in Chapter 2.2.4.2 and Appendix A.3. The reviewer comments on the anchor re-evaluation are provided in Appendixes A.4 and A. 5. The follow-up review documented in Appendix A. 5 questioned the use of a single shear stiffness for all the anchor bolts in the tank dome. Subsequent analyses described in Appendix A.6 demonstrated the validity of this approach. An additional review of the anchor bolt modeling and evaluation is documented in Appendix A.9. In addition to finding the anchor bolt modeling and evaluation methods used in the DST structural evaluation to be appropriate, an important development in this review was the procedure for combining thermal and non-thermal demands. Because the evaluation of the DST anchor bolts did not reduce the thermal demands on the anchor bolts in accordance with the given procedure, that aspect of the anchor bolt evaluation was considered by the reviewer to be very conservative. A conservatism identified during the July 2007 review was the use of the 0.5 strength reduction factor specified by the ASME code compared to the 0.75 factor specified by both the ACI (2001) and AISC (2005). The ASME B&PVC criteria are intended for the design of concrete containments in nuclear facilities. Since 1995, the DSTs have been downgraded from PC-3 to PC-2 structures, and the application of the concrete containment code to the anchor bolt evaluation is viewed as unnecessarily restrictive. Consequently, the current evaluation of the AP anchors follows the procedure given in ACI-349-01 (ACI 2001). The change of criteria from ASME to ACI 349-01 has the effect of increasing the capacity of the AP anchors by 50%. By comparing AP anchor bolt model results with the available test data on anchor ultimate shear forces and displacement, it was determined that an ultimate shear displacement 5UN = 0.22 inch is appropriate for the welded stud and threaded anchor configuration used in the AP tanks. The corresponding ultimate shear force is VUN = 14.34 kips. The secant shear modulus, ks, is calculated as:
k
V^J_A3AMpL= 6UN 0.22inch

6.53
.n
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 The value of 65,000 lbf/in. was selected for the TOLA and seismic models in both shear and tension. The demands from the combination of the 210F waste thermal load with the seismic loads exceed the anchor bolt capacity. A review of historical tank operation data indicated maximum dome temperatures of approximately 100F. Discussions with Tank Operations confirmed that a bulk waste temperature of 135T was sufficient to accommodate expected future operations. Additionally, the stress-free concrete curing temperature was identified as 80T rather than the previously assumed, more conservative 50F. Four (one for each soil - concrete combination) full 60-year analyses were conducted with the thermal cycle ranging from 80T to 135F. These analyses were used only for the evaluation of the anchor bolts. The anchor bolt demands from the thermal and operating loads were combined with the seismic demands. The anchor bolt evaluations are shown in Figures 6-83 through 6-86. The primary tank dome anchor bolt forces and displacements are within the allowable limit for all combinations of soil and concrete with a maximum waste temperature of 135F.
Anchor Bolt Displacement, BES-BEC Demand/Capacity Ratio
SS135F At 80F
150
200 250 300 Distance From Crown (in.)
Figure 6-83. BES - BEC, Anchor Bolt Displacement Evaluation
6.54
Anchor Bolt Displacement, UBS-BEC Demand/Capacity Ratio
SSat135F At 80F
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
450
500
Distance From Crown (in )
Figure 6-84. UBS - BEC, Anchor Bolt Displacement Evaluation
Anchor Bolt Displacement, LBS-BEC Demand/Capacity Ratio
SSat135F At 80F
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
450
500
Distance From Crown (in )
Figure 6-85. LBS - BEC, Anchor Bolt Displacement Evaluation
6.55
Anchor Bolt Displacement, BES-FCC Demand/Capacity Ratio 1 2i
SSat135F At 80F
200
250
300
Distance From Crown (in.)
Figure 6-86. BES - FCC, Anchor Bolt Displacement Evaluation
6.7 The Effect of Waste Model Uncertainties on Anchor Bolt Evaluation

In the Dytran analysis of the AP Tanks, the waste was modeled as a homogeneous, nearly incompressible, inviscid liquid with a bulk specific gravity of 1.83. In the ANSYS analysis, the waste is modeled as a homogeneous, nearly incompressible deformable solid with very low shear resistance, also with a bulk specific gravity of 1.83. During a project review meeting held in June 2007, one review comment stated that there are fundamental uncertainties in idealizing the tank waste as a homogeneous liquid (Appendix A). The technical issue of concern is that hydrodynamic effects for a tank storing a solid-like material may be larger than for a liquid-containing tank. The potential for an increased response from a tank containing a solid-like material relative to a tank containing a liquid arises from two mechanisms. First, the solid-like material will have reduced sloshing response relative to a liquid, so a higher portion of the mass responds impulsively, thereby increasing some response parameters. Second, depending on the excitation as well the structural characteristics and geometrical configuration of the tank and contained waste, it is possible for the response of the tank to amplify the response of the tank walls (Veletsos and Younan [1998]). The second phenomenon can occur when the natural frequencies of contained material are "in tune" with the natural frequencies of the tank. This also depends on the ratio of the waste height to the tank radius (slenderness ratio), and the characteristics of the forcing function. For this to occur, the contained material must be "solid" in the sense that it has structural frequencies and mode shapes independent of the tank itself. This characterization appears to be inconsistent with Hanford DST waste properties and will
6.56
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 not be discussed further. Depending on the DST waste composition, the first phenomenon may occur to some degree. Based on the current waste composition data for the AP tanks reported in the Tank Waste Information Network System (TWINS) database (TWINS 2008), the waste composition in the AP tanks includes a sludge-like material with depths less than the bottom one-third of the total waste height. The waste is similar in consistency to over-saturated soil with a low angle of repose and a specific gravity of 1.5 to 1.83. More than two-thirds of the waste is a liquid with a specific gravity of 1.3 to 1.5 that covers the sludge layer. Increasing the liquid level to 460 inches will not exceed the current assumption of 1/3 sludge and 2/3 liquid. When the waste is completely liquid, the mass of the waste in the DSTs that responds in the impulsive and convective modes is roughly the same, with somewhat greater than half the waste mass responding in the impulsive mode (BNL 1995). If it is assumed conservatively that the lower one-third of the waste is a sludge layer of specific gravity of 1.83 that responds 100% impulsively, and that the upper two-thirds of the waste is liquid with specific gravity of 1.83, which responds equally in the impulsive and convective modes, then two-thirds of the total waste mass responds impulsively. This gives an approximate increase of 1/6 (16.7%) in the portion of the waste responding impulsively. The increase in impulsive mass will affect both the demands on the anchor bolts, and the waste pressures in the primary tank. Some simple conservative estimates of the effects of a sludge layer at the bottom of the tank can be made based on the equations in Chapter 4 of BNL (1995) and Rinker and Abatt (2006a). As a first approximation, it is assumed that the increase in the maximum horizontal hydrodynamic reaction force is proportional to the increase in the impulsive mass of the waste. That is, the increase in the maximum horizontal reaction force is estimated to be 16.7%. The increased shear reaction is split between the bottom of the primary tank (contact interface with the insulating concrete) and the top of the primary tank (anchor bolts and normal and shear forces between steel and concrete dome). With several load paths available to accommodate the increased shear force, not all of the additional shear will be reacted by the anchor bolts. Moreover, a significant portion of the anchor bolt demand (roughly 1/3) is from thermal and operating loads, which are largely unaffected by the presence of a sludge layer. With the above considerations in mind, the increase in the anchor bolt demands from this conservative estimate appears to be less than 10%. This upper bound estimate of the increase in anchor bolt loads is exclusive of several other notable conservative factors in the analysis including the following: The most recent site response analyses performed at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) show that the currently published design spectra for the WTP Site are significantly lower than the interim spectra published in 2005 (Youngs 2007). This indicates that the governing spectra being used for the DST analysis are likely to be conservative. The TOLA and seismic demands reported for the AP tanks do not credit any friction between the concrete dome and the steel tank. Initial indications are that the benefit of friction may reduce the demands by approximately 5%.
6.57
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 So far, a simplified routine that smears spatial and temporal results has been used to calculate peak seismic demands. Use of a more refined methodology is estimated to reduce the seismic demand by approximately 5-10%. The assumption of a bulk modulus of 1.83 is conservative. In lieu of further more detailed analysis, it appears that for a sludge height not exceeding one-third of the primary tank height, the potential increase in anchor bolt loads due to increased impulsive response is offset by the increase in capacity associated with the conservatisms inherent to the analysis. Due to the margins available in the primary tank stresses that are shown in Section 6.2, an even more conservative argument suffices to show that the increased dynamic pressures in the primary tank are acceptable. For this estimate, assume that all of the tank waste responds impulsively. In this case, the peak hydrodynamic wall pressure is independent of the vertical position along the tank wall and is given by pwall(0) = pw-R-(SA)rcos(0).
The spectral acceleration for the impulsive mode of the primary tank and waste can be estimated from the impulsive mode frequency and in-structure response spectrum at the base of the primary tank. The ANSYS simulation for the increased liquid level shows an impulsive frequency of 5.78 Hz. The Dytran simulations show 5.7 and 5.88 Hz depending on whether the input is single- or two-component motion. The effective impulsive damping from either model is in the range of 4% of critical damping. Based on the horizontal response spectrum shown in Figure 3-21 of Abatt and Rinker (2008), an upper bound estimate of the spectral acceleration for the impulsive mode of the primary tank is 0.35g. The corresponding peak dynamic wall pressure along the plane of excitation (6=0) is 10.4 lbf/in2. Figure 6-87 below is a reproduction of Figure 6-6 in Abatt and Rinker (2008) that includes the predicted waste pressures for the 100% impulsive response. In the critical middle third of the primary tank, the increase in total gage pressure (stress producing pressure) is 10-15%. Although the percentage increase in the dynamic pressure is higher, the waste pressures are dominated by the gravity-induced hydrostatic pressure over the majority of the tank. The increase in dynamic pressures associated with the increase in the impulsive response is mitigated by the superimposed static pressure. Thus, even with highly conservative assumptions, increases in the AP tank waste pressures and tank stresses are easily accommodated with the present analysis.
6.58
Maximum and Minimum Total Waste Pressures vs. Normalized Height from Tank B ottom for Horizontal Excitation Only at theta=0 Degrees
04
-Max Pressure 0 Deg - - M i n Pressure 0 Deg
05
06
Hydrostatic Pressure -: 100% Impulsive Response |
Normalized Height from Tank B ottom
ure 6-87. C omparison of Maximum Waste from the ANSYS Primary Tank Sub-Model for Waste Elements at 0=0 Subjected to Horizontal Seismic Excitation Only to Maximum Waste Pressures for the 100% Impulsive Case
6.59
6.60
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

The code evaluations reported in Chapter 6 for the AP tank model with 460 inches of 1.83 SpG waste do not reveal any structural deficiencies with the integrity of the DST. The analyses represent 60 years of use, which corresponds to an additional 40 years of use beyond the current date. The loads imposed on the model for the finite element analyses are significantly more severe than any service to date or proposed for the future. The material properties were selected to be lower bound and in the most severe combinations.
7.1 Reinforced Concrete

The reinforced concrete structure was evaluated in the manner required by ACI 349 (ACI1990). Load combinations 1, 4 (which includes the seismic load), and 9 of the ACI code were evaluated for each combination of soil and concrete properties. The axial load and moment were evaluated on the loadmoment interaction diagram for each individual cross section. The demand was demonstrated to be lower than the capacity at all locations for all load combinations. The cross-section shear demand was less than the capacity for all sections. The in-plane shear demand/capacity ratios were evaluated for the seismic loads and showed low values.
7.2 Primary Tank

The primary tank is governed by ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Division 1 (ASME 1992a). The allowable stress value, Sm, is provided by the code at operating temperature, which is defined to be 210F for operating loads. This value at this temperature was used for all the stress intensity code checks regardless of temperature. All sections of the primary tank were checked to Service Level D requirements with k = 2.0. In all instances the factored inelastic general primary membrane stress intensity remained below the yield stress (which is lower than the allowable 2Sm). The primary local membrane plus bending stress intensity remained below the code allowable value of 1.5 kSm, and the primary + secondary (thermal) stress intensity range remained below the code allowable value of 3.0 Sm. Therefore, the primary tank is acceptable according to the established criteria.
7.3
Stress Corrosion Cracking
The use of the criterion limiting the primary tank principal stress on the inside surface to 90% of the yield strength of the steel to prevent stress corrosion cracking was discontinued with this analysis. The SCC report (Rinker et al. 2005) discouraged further use of this criterion, citing the lack of a technical basis. The fracture mechanics method developed in that report was extended to evaluate the bounding tank under the thermal and operating loads. The results when considered with the current crack growth rate testing show that SCC is unlikely if the present operating requirements are maintained. Analysis also showed that the propensity for SCC would not be increased after a seismic event.
7.4 Primary Tank Buckling

A large displacement finite element analysis method was developed to evaluate the potential for buckling of the primary tank. The method was shown to have good correlation with the ASME code case N-284 method. The primary tank buckling evaluation showed the current limit on demand of 12 inch w.g. 7.1
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 vacuum to exceed the ASME allowable of 10.4 inch. This determination was based on analysis at the full 60-year corrosion allowance on the tank wall of 0.060 inch. However, analysis at a corrosion allowance of 0.025 inch results in an acceptable demand/capacity ratio. Therefore, the current limit of 12 inches w.g. for the AP tanks is acceptable given the current lack of corrosion in the tanks. It should be noted that, as a result of the anchor bolt analysis, the maximum tank waste bulk temperature is reduced to 135F. Therefore, the buckling analysis is now more conservative, which would allow for a corrosion allowance higher than 0.025 inch.
7.5
Concrete-Backed Liner
The evaluation criteria for the secondary steel liner are strain-based and taken from the ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Division 2, Subsection NC (ASME 1992a) for normal service loads. The results in all cases demonstrate that the secondary liner strains are all well below the allowable strain levels. Therefore, the secondary liner is judged to be adequate.
7.6 Anchor Bolts

Evaluation of the anchor bolts in the dome was conducted with the ACI/AISC strength reduction factor of 0.75. The combination of thermal and seismic loads was evaluated using a displacement-based criterion. In all cases the anchor bolts were within the allowable range for an operating waste temperature range of 80F to 135F. Therefore, the dome anchor bolts are considered to be satisfactory.
7.2
8.0
References
Abatt FG. 1996. Double-Shell Tank Useful Life Analysis. WHC-SD-WM-ER-5 56, Revision 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. Abatt FG and MW Rinker. 2008. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project Seismic Analysis of Increased Liquid Level for 241-AP Tank Farms. RPP-RPT-32239, Rev. 1, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. ACI. 1977. American Concre te Insti tu te B uilding Code Requirements for Structural Con ere te. ACI 318-77, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan. ACI. 1990. American Concrete Institute Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures. ACI 349-90, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan. ACI. 2001. American Concrete Institute Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures. ACI 349-01, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan. AISC. 2005. Steel Construction Manual, American Institute of Steel Construction, New York, New York. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). 1995. Code Case N-284-1, 1995, Metal Containment Shell Buckling Design Method, Class MC, Section III, Division 1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). 1992a. Section III, Division 1, Subsection NC. "Class 2 Components." ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. ASME, New York. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). 1992b. Section III, Division 2, "Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components." ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. ASME, New York. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). 1992c. Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC. "Concrete Containment." ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. ASME, New York. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). 1992d. Section VIII, Division 2, "Pressure Vessels - Alternative Rules." ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. ASME, New York. A S CE. 1986. Seismic A nalysis ofSafety-R elated Nucle or Stru ctures an d Com m e ntary on Standard for Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures. ASCE Standard 4-86, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York. ASCE. 1998. Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary. ASCE 4-98, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. ASTM. 1965. American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Carbon Steel, for Intermediate- and Higher-Temperature Service. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 8.1
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Bandyopadhyay K, A Cornell, C Costantino, R Kennedy, C Miller, and A Veletsos. 1995. Seismic Design and Evaluation Guidelines for the Department of Energy High Level Waste Tanks and Appurtenances. BNL 52361, Brookhaven National Laboratory. Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, New York. B andy opadhy ay K. 1997. Guide lines for Developm ent ofStru ctural Integrity, Programs for DOE HighLevel Waste Storage Tanks. BNL 52527, Brookhaven National Laboratory. Associated Universities, Inc., Upton, New York. Blackburn LD. 1995a. Recommended Test Program to Determine Crack Growth Rate in Double-Shell Tank Materials. WHC-SD-WM-ETP-137 Rev. 0, prepared by ICF Kaiser Hanford Company for Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. Blackburn LD. 1995b. Nitrate Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Rate in Plain Carbon Steels. WHC-SD-WM-ES-349 Rev. 0, prepared by ICF Kaiser Hanford Company for Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. Blume and Associates. 1974. Analysis of Underground Waste Storage Tanks 241-SY at Hanford, Washington. ARH-R-172, URS/John A. Blume and Associates, Atlantic-Richfield Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. BNFL. 2000. Free-Field Analysis ofHLW Vitrification Building. CALC-W375HV-ST00004, Rev. 0, BNFL, Inc., Richland, Washington. Brongers MP, CS Brossia, and C Mendez. 2005. Investigation of Chemistry Factors Influencing Stress Corrosion Cracking Susceptibility of High-Level Waste in Double Shell Tank 241-AN-107. RPP-RPT-28063, Rev. 0, prepared by CC Technologies Laboratories, Dublin, Ohio for ARES Corporation, Richland, Washington. BNL. 1995. Seismic Design and Evaluation Guidelines for the Dep artm ent of En ergy High Level Waste Storage Tanks and Appurtenances. Report No. 52361, Engineering Research and Applications Division, Department of Advanced Technology, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc. Upton, New York. Day JP, AD Dyrness, LJ Julyk, CJ Moore, WS Peterson, MA Scott, HP Shrivastava, JS Shulman, and TN Watts. 1995. Stru ctural A ccep tan ce Criteria for the Evaluation of Existing Double -Sh ell Waste Storage Tanks Located at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington. WHC-SD-WM-DGS-003. Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. DOE. 1989. General Design Criteria. DOE Order 6430.1 A, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. DOE. 1993. Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation. DOE Order 5480.28, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. DOE. 2000. Facility Safety. DOE Order 420.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
8.2
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 DOE STD. 2002. Natural Phenomena Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria for Department of Energy Facilities. DOE-STD-1020-2002, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Duncan GP. 2003. Double-Shell Tank Integrity Program Plan, RPP-7574, Rev. 1A, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington. Garfield JS and RB Guenther. 1981. Functional Design Criteria 214-AP Tank Farm Project B-340 Line Item FY-1983. RHO-CK951-FDC-1, Rockwell Hanford Operations, Richland, Washington. Han FC. 1996. Structural Integrity and Potential Failure Modes of the Hanford High-Level Waste Tanks. WHC-SD-TWR-RPT-002, Revision 0A, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. Hanford Engineering Services. 1968. Specification for Primary and Secondary Steel Tanks. HWS-7789, Hanford Engineering Services, Richland, Washington. HNF-PRO-097. 2002. Engineering Design and Evaluation (Natural Phenomena Hazard). Project Hanford Management System, Fluor Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. IBC. 2000. International Building Code 2003. International Code Council, Inc. Jensen CE. 2003. Supplement 2 to Inspection Results for Double Shell Tank 241-AY-101 FY200 3. RPP-15763, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington. Jensen CE. 2005. Ultrasonic Inspection Results for DST 241-AP-l 06 FY2005. RPP-RPT-23205, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington. Johnson KI, SP Pilli, NK Karri, JE Deibler, and MW Rinker. 2006. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project Buckling Evaluation Methods and Results for the Primary Tanks. RPP-RPT-28967, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Julyk LJ. 2002. Assessment of Double-Shell Tank Internal Vacuum Specification Limits on Primary Tanks. HNF-1838 Rev. 0-A, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington. Lam D and E El-Lobody. 2005. "Behavior of Headed Stud Shear Connectors in Composite Beam." Journal of Structural Engineering 31:1. M&D. 2001a. SASSI Analysis-HLW Preliminary SSI Evaluation. Rev. 0, M&D Calculation No. 01-0010-HLW-2, M&D Professional Services, Richland, Washington. M&D. 2001b. SASSI Analysis-PT Preliminary SSI Evaluation. Rev. 0, M&D Calculation No. 01-0010-PT-2, M&D Professional Services, Richland, Washington. Mackey TC. 2004. Design Loads for Tank Farm Facilities. TFC-ENG-STD-06, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington. NUREG-0800. USNRC Standard Review Plan 3.7.1, Seismic Design Parameters, Revision 2, August 1989. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
8.3
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Ollgaard JG, RG Slutter, and JW Fisher. 1971. "Shear Strength of Stud Connectors in Lightweight and Normal-Weight Concrete." AISC Engineering Journal 8:2. Rinker MW and FG Abatt. 2006a. Hanford Double Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project - Dytran Benchmark Analysis of Seismically Induced Fluid-Structure Interaction in a Hanford Double Shell Primary Tank. RPP-RPT-28963, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Rinker MW and FG Abatt. 2006b. Hanford Double Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project - Dytran Benchmark Analysis of Seismically Induced Fluid-Structure Interaction Analysis in Flat-Top Tanks. RPP-RPT-30807, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Rinker MW, FG Abatt, BG Carpenter, and CA Hendrix. 2006a. Hanford Double Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project - Establishment of Methodology for Time Domain Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis of a Hanford Double Shell Tank. RPP-RPT-28964, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Rinker MW, BG Carpenter, and FG Abatt. 2006b. Hanford Double Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project - ANSYS Benchmark Analysis of Seismically Induced Fluid-Structure Interaction in a Hanford Double Shell Primary Tank. RPP-RPT-28965, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Rinker MW, BG Carpenter, C Hendrix, and FG Abatt. 2006c. Hanford Double Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project - ANSYS Seismic Analysis of Hanford Double Shell Primary Tank. RPP-RPT-28966, Rev. 0, M&D Professional Services, Richland, Washington. Rinker MW, JE Deibler, KI Johnson, NK Karri, SP Pilli, FG Abatt, BG Carpenter, and CA Hendrix. 2006d. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project Summary of Combined Thermal and Operating Loads with Seismic Analysis. RPP-RPT-28968, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Rinker MW, JE Deibler, KI Johnson, SP Pilli, CE Guzman-Leong, and OD Mullen. 2004. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project Thermal and Operating Load Analysis. RPP-RPT-23308, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Rinker MW, FA Simonen, JE Deibler, KI Johnson, SR Gosselin, SP Pilli, and AB Johnson. 2005. Evaluation and Recommendation of Stress Criteria for Stress Corrosion Cracking of Hanford DoubleShell Tanks. RPP-RPT-27574, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Rinker MW and RR Youngs. 2006. Development ofPC2 Surface Spectra for Double-Shell Tank Facilities, DOE Hanford Site in Washington State. RPP-RPT-27570, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. SDC-4.1. 1993. Standard A rch-Civil Design Criteria, Design Loads for Facilities. Hanford Plant Standards, HPS-SDC-4.1, Rev. 12, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. Terry M, J Beavers, C Czajkowski, G Frankel, B Gordon, T Jones, R Jones, L Stock, B Wiersma, and P Zapp. 2004. Expert Panel Workshop for Hanford Site Double-Shell Tank Waste Chemistry Optimization. RPP-RPT-22126 Rev. 0, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington. 8.4
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 TWINS. 2008. Tank Waste Information Network System (TWINS) database. Data Source Selection Forms, Best Basis Inventory, Tank Density and Percent Water sub-directory. http ://twins .pnl .gov/twins .htm. Tomaszewski TA. 2004. Tank Farms Documented Safety Analysis, Rev. 1. RPP-13033, Rev. 1, CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington. UCRL. 1990. Design and Evaluation Guidelines for Department of Energy Facilities Subjected to Natural Phenomena Hazards. U.S. DOE Report UCRL 15910, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California. Youngs RR. 2007. Updated Site Response Analyses for the Waste Treatment Plant, DOE Hanford Site, Washington. PNNL-16653, GMX-9995.002-001, prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Veletsos AS and AH Younan. 1998. Dynamics of Solid-Containing Tanks. II: Flexible Tanks. Journal of Structural Engineering.
8.5
8.6
Appendix A Reviewer Comments and Resolution
Appendix A
A.1 Introduction
A series of project technical reviews were conducted subsequent to the initial Rev. 0 release of this report. These reviews raised a number of issues, including the anchor bolt evaluation and the primary tank lower knuckle mesh resolution. This appendix provides a chronological account of the reviewer comments and analytical responses. At the June 2007 review meeting of the analyses on the Effect of Increased Liquid Level in 241-AP Tank Farms, the reviewers (RP Kennedy and AS Veletsos) raised concerns primarily with the anchor bolt evaluation. Changes to the anchor bolt modeling and evaluation were suggested and subsequently implemented. Further questions regarding the new anchor bolt modeling were raised at the March 2008 review. These comments were addressed and a further review was conducted by RE Klingner.
A.2 Reviewer Comments - Kennedy and Veletsos, July 2007
Comments Regarding Seismic Evaluation of Hanford Double-Shell Tanks and Effect of Increased Liquid Level in 241-AP Tank Farms by R. P. Kennedy and A. S. Veletsos July 2007
A. 2.1 Introduction
Based on our review of the seismic response analyses of the Hanford Double-Shell Tanks (DSTs) reported through February 2006, we provided in Ref. A.2.1 comments on the reported information and recommendations for requisite additional studies. In response to this input, previously reviewed reports (Refs. A.2.2, A.2.4, and A.2.5) have been modified and comprehensive Appendices have been added to them. In addition, a benchmark study (Ref. A.2.3) of seismically induced fluid-structure interaction in flat-top tanks has been performed using the DYTRAN computer program. Lastly, two reports (Refs. A. 2.6 and A. 2.7) evaluating the effects of increasing the waste in the 241-AP tanks to the 460-inch level have been prepared. Our present input refers to the additional studies conducted since then, and it is based on: Our review of Refs. A.2.2 through A.2.7; and
A.l
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 The presentations and ensuing discussions at the Review Meeting of June 7 and 8, 2007, in which we participated to provide an independent oversight and comment on the adequacy and completeness of the approach being used.
Our views and recommendations are presented under the following six topic headings.
A.2.2 Fluid-Structure Interaction Analyses of Primary Tanks

A.2.2.1 DYTRAN Analyses Refs. A.2.2 and A.2.3 present a series of fluid-structure interaction analyses performed using computer program DYTRAN. The problem with the DYTRAN solution identified in Section 3.3 of Ref. A.2.1 has been addressed by using a more refined mesh in the tank region for which the fluid comes in contact with the roof. We consider the DYTRAN fluid-structure interaction solutions obtained with the refined mesh to represent a good representation of the behavior of a homogeneous, incompressible, practically inviscid liquid in the tanks. A.2.2.2 ANSYS Analyses The ANSYS model continues to be used for the combined soil-structure-fluid interaction seismic evaluation of the tanks. As previously noted in Section 3.1 of Ref. A.2.1, this model conservatively overestimates the impulsive mode component of the hydrodynamic effects on the primary tank and underestimates the convective component of the effects. Because the impulsive mode of response dominates the fluid effects on the primary tank and because the ANSYS results are generally slightly higher than the DYTRAN results, we concur that the ANSYS model can continue to be used for the seismic evaluation of the soil-structure-fluid system. However, wherever critical, the convective and dome constrained fluid pressures near the surface of the liquid should be obtained from the DYTRAN solutions. A.2.2.3 Modeling of Waste In the seismic analyses of the Hanford DSTs conducted so far - as in all previous analyses of wastecontaining tanks that we are aware of- the waste was effectively modeled as a homogeneous, incompressible, practically inviscid liquid. There are fundamental uncertainties in this idealization, and it would be highly desirable to assess their effect on critical responses. We recommend that, as a minimum, a qualitative discussion be provided as to why it is considered acceptable to model the waste as a homogeneous liquid. From discussions on this issue during the June 7 and 8 meetings, we understand that the waste may appropriately be represented as: 1. Liquid with a specific gravity (SG) of 1.3 to 1.5 over at least the upper 2/3 of the waste height; and
A.2
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 2. Sludge with the consistency of over-saturated soil with a low angle of repose and a SG of 1.5 to 1.83 over the lower portion of the tank. Based on this description, we concur that it is probably reasonable, as a first approximation, to model the waste as an incompressible liquid with a SG of at least 1.7. However, this aspect of the system modeling is likely to continue being of concern to some, especially in light of the currently available computational capabilities. In defense of criticism that may legitimately be voiced on this issue, it is recommended that the critical responses of a simplified model of the tank-waste system (for example, one that does not provide for the effects of soil-structure interaction or the impact effects of the sloshing surface of the waste with the superimposed dome) be evaluated by representing the waste as a uniform, deformable solid with the properties of the lower portion of the waste. The computed responses must then be compared with those obtained for the liquid-like idealization of the waste. A more realistic modeling of the waste and of the tank itself would be warranted only if the differences in the critical responses computed for the liquid-like and proposed representations of the waste are shown to be of practical significance. A.2.2.4 Comparison of DYTRAN Results With Approximate Results Obtained Using Method of BNL Tank Report (Ref. A.2.8) For the condition under which the sloshing liquid impacts the tank roof, Refs. A.2.2 and A.2.3 compare the DYTRAN-computed pressures and reactions with those estimated by the approximate method presented in Appendix D of the BNL tank report (Ref. A.2.8). However, both in Refs. A.2.2 and A.2.3, this appendix, particularly in sections dealing with wall pressures, has been misinterpreted. Appendix D of Ref. A.2.8 provides the following equations for estimating the hydrodynamic pressures induced on the tank wall: Constrained impulsive pressure pjC, defined by Equation (D.5) Unconstrained impulsive pressure pjU, defined by Equation (D.6) Unconstrained convective pressure pcu, defined by Equation (D.7)
For liquid that is constrained by the roof within the angle |9|<90, Appendix D approximates the hydrodynamic wall pressure p by: for 191 <9n P = Pic for I9l>9n P,2u+Pc2u
0.5
(A.2.1)
(A.2.2)
Instead, Refs. A.2.2 and A.2.3 have incorrectly used the expression:
A.3
for|9|<9n P = Pk + Piu + Pcu
(A.2.3)
which leads to a substantial overestimation of the wall pressures. For example, for the 480-inch liquid level results shown in Figure 4-9 of Ref. A.2.3, the correct values of the maximum absolute pressures determined by the approach of Appendix D of Ref. A.2.8 vary from 54.3 psi at the bottom to 23.9 psi at the top of the waste height. Similarly, the maximum gage pressure on the wall determined by this approach is 39.6 psi, which is in close agreement with the DYTRAN result of 37.8 psi. These results are only slightly greater than the DYTRAN computed maximum pressures. Ref. A.2.3 also incorrectly computes the minimum pressures corresponding to 9 =180 by subtracting the incorrectly defined pressure p obtained by application of Equation (A.2.3) from the hydrostatic pressure. The correct hydrodynamic pressure that must be subtracted from the static pressure is given by Equation (A.2.2). The resulting minimum pressure determined by the approach of Appendix D of Ref. A.2.8 is identical to the open top minimum pressure. Again, there is close agreement between the results computed by DYTRAN and those obtained by the approach of Appendix D. A lesser problem exists with the peak horizontal reaction forces P reported in Refs. A.2.2 and A.2.3 based on the approach of Appendix D of Ref. A.2.8. The reaction forces, in the later approach should be determined from the expressions:
Pic=s
m ,(S A ) i
(A.2.4)
PIu=(l-s)Pi Pcu=(l-s)Pc
(A.2.5) (A.2.6)
i0.5
= [(
p. + p. )2 + p
(A.2.7)
where m^ is the total liquid mass, (SA)i is the spectral acceleration for the impulsive mode of response, Ht is the roof height, He is the liquid height, s is the fraction of the liquid that is constrained by the roof, and Pi and P c are respectively the impulsive and convective components of the reactions for an open top (unconstrained) liquid surface. For example, for the 480-inch liquid level, the peak horizontal reaction force P obtained by the approach of Appendix D should be 4.14 x 106 lbs as opposed to the 4.47 x 106 lbs reported in Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 of Ref. A.2.3. Furthermore, Appendix D of Ref. A.2.8 does not provide a method for estimating the peak value of the convective component of the reaction following the decay of the impulsive component. Neither Pcu (shown in Refs. A.2.2 and A.2.3) nor P c are intended to represent the peak horizontal convective reaction
A.4
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 force. It is therefore recommended that no results be reported in tables such as Table 4-1 and figures such as Figure 4-2 of Ref. A.2.3 for the peak value of the convective component of the horizontal force obtained by the approach of Appendix D. The maximum roof pressure of 16.2 psi gage reported in Table 4-1 of Ref. A.2.3 for the DYTRAN results is believed to be for the midheight of the top outermost fluid element closest to the wall-roof junction. However, in Figure 4-9 of Ref. A.2.3, the corresponding wall pressure for the same element is only about 26.7 psi absolute (corresponding to about 12.0 psi gage). Please explain why there is such a large difference between the roof pressure and wall pressure for this same fluid element. We recommend that the results obtained by the approach of Appendix D of Ref. A.2.8 shown in Sections 4 and 5 and Appendix B of Ref. A.2.3, and in Appendices C and D of Ref. A.2.2 be corrected so as not to lead others astray when using the approximate method. Correcting these results will also help to demonstrate the reasonableness of the DYTRAN results.
A.2.3 Anchorage of Primary Tank Steel Dome to Concrete Vault Dome

Shearing forces and tensile forces between the primary tank steel dome and the concrete vault dome are transferred by K-inch diameter anchors. These anchors consist of either 6-inch long headed anchor bolts or 6-inch long J-bolts with a 180 J-hook at their upper end. These anchor bolts are screwed into 3/4-inch diameter by 1.375-inch high Nelson tapped welding studs welded to the steel dome. The tensile loads on these anchors are small. However, the shear loads are significant. In Ref. A.2.1 we stated that: Neither of us is familiar with the basis of the acceptance criteria for the reported allowables. Furthermore, we do not have sufficient information regarding the Nelson Internally Threaded Studs used to attach the J-bolts to the steel tank so that we may assess the appropriateness of the indicated allowables. The basis for the tension and shear allowables for these anchors has now been provided in Section 6.1 of Ref. A.2.4 and Section E.3 of Ref. A.2.5. Based on our review of these sections, we have concerns about the allowable capacities assigned to the anchors. We also wish to comment on the demands computed for these anchors. A.2.3.1 Allowable Anchor Bolt Capacities From Table 6-3 of Ref. A.2.4, the allowable anchor tension Ta and shear Va are defined by the following expressions: For Normal (Operating) Loads Ta = 0.33T u Va = 0.33Vu A.5 (A.2.8a) (A.2.8b)
For Abnormal (Operating + Seismic) Loads Ta = 0.5T u Va = 0.5V u (A.2.9a) (A.2.9b)
where Tu and Vu represent the nominal ultimate tensile and shear capacities of the anchors, respectively. We understand that the tank criteria document specifies the use of these ASME code factors of 0.33 and 0.5. These factors are lower (more conservative) than the strength reduction factors (j) in both the AISC Code (Ref. A.2.9) for steel and the ACI Code (Ref. A.2.10) for concrete. A.2.3.1.1 Nominal Ultimate Tensile Strength for Headed Bolts Table 6-3 of Ref. A.2.4 bases the nominal ultimate tensile capacity of the anchors on: Tu = (2/3)Abfu (A.2.10)
where Ab = 0.1963 inch2 is the cross-sectional area of the bolt shank, and fu = 60 ksi is the ultimate strength of the bolt material. Thus: Tu = 7.85 kips (A.2.11)
which is slightly less (more conservative) than the nominal Tu computed in accordance with AISC (Ref. A.2.9) or ACI (Ref. A.2.10). However, Refs. A.2.4 and A.2.5 do not check the anchor tensile capacity as governed by the concrete breakout strength Tut>: Tub = 24(f(;)0-5h1-5 (A.2.12)
where f'c =4860psi is the concrete strength, and h=6 inches is the bolt length. Neither is the concrete pull out strength, Tup, defined by: T u p =8f ( :A b r g (A.2.13)
checked, where Abrg=0.2959 inch is the bearing area of the head on a 14 inch bolt. The values obtained from Equations (A.2.12) and (A.2.13) are: Tub = 24.6 kips Tup =11.5 kips (A.2.14) (A.2.15)
These concrete failure modes do not control the nominal ultimate tensile capacity Tu for the headed anchor bolts. Even so, these concrete failure mode tensile capacities should be computed.
A.6
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 In conclusion, the tensile capacity Tu=7.85 kips presented in Table 6-3 of Ref. A.2.4 is considered to be reasonable for the headed anchor bolts.
A.2.3.1.2 Nominal Ultimate Tensile Strength for J-Bolt Anchors J-Bolt anchors are not permitted by either AISC or ACI for positive tensile anchorage. See, for example, page 14-10 of Ref. A.2.9. Therefore, no approach is provided in either Ref. A.2.9 or A.2.10 for computing the ultimate tension capacity of J-Bolt anchors. A criterion for determining the nominal ultimate capacity of J-Bolt anchors is provided in older versions of the British Standard CP110 (Ref. A.2.11). Based on this Standard, the ultimate bond tensile capacity TUb for J-Bolt anchors is defined by: Tub=*dbfbsê (A.2.16)
where db is the bar diameter, fbS is the concrete bond strength for a smooth-bar, and e is the effective bar length given by: e=s+h 4<24db (A.2.17) (A.2.18)
where s is the straight bar length to the start of the hook, and 4 is the inside radius length of the hook plus any straight extension beyond the hook, provided 4 is limited to not more than 24 db. For concrete with f^ greater than 4600 psi, CP110 limits the smooth-bar bond-strength to: fbs = 275 psi (A.2.19)
We suggest that the bond-slip capacity of the J-Bolt anchors might control their ultimate tensile capacity Tu rather than the steel bolt shank capacity Tu=7.85 kips given by Equation (A.2.11). One possible approach for estimating the bond-slip capacity is to use Equations (A.2.16) through (A.2.19). A.2.3.1.3 Nominal Ultimate Shear Strength for Anchor Bolts In Table 6-3 of Ref. A.2.4, ultimate shear strength values Vu based both on a steel failure limit and on a concrete failure limit were computed using the following expressions: For Steel Failure Limit Vus = 0.9 Asfu For Concrete Failure Limit (A.2.20)
A.7
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 VUc = 5.66Asfc-3E^44 (A.2.21)
In Table 6-3 of Ref. 4 the full cross-sectional area As=0.442 in2 of the 3/4-inch diameter Nelson tapped welding stud was used in both Equations (A.20) and (A.21) to obtain: Vus = 23.86 kips Vuc = 23.42 kips (A.2.22) (A.2.23)
A.8
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 In our judgment, it is inappropriate to use As=0.442 in2 in Equation (A.2.21) for the concrete failure limit Vuc- This equation was based on extensive test data for headed studs with a length of at least four stud diameters and is unconservative for lesser bearing lengths. For a 3/4-inch diameter stud, the required length is 3.0 inches. However, the Nelson tapped welding stud is only 1.375 inch long. Over the remainder of the required 3.0 inch length, the concrete bears against a 14 inch bolt instead of a % inch stud. The required bearing area Abear to obtain the Vuc capacity is: Required
Abear = 4 ( % i n ) 2 = 2 . 2 5 i n 2 (A.2.24)
However, the available bearing area in the 3 inch length is only: Available Abear = 1.375in (3/4 in) + 1.625 in (1/2 in) = 1.844 in2 (A.2.25)
Conservatively assuming a uniform bearing pressure over the required 3 inch length, Vuc should be reduced to: Vuc = (1.844/2.25)(23.42) = 19.19 kips for an average bearing pressure on the concrete of: f = 19.19
^ ^
(A.2.26)
bear
= 10.4ksi
(A.2.27)
It is undoubtedly conservative to assume a uniform bearing pressure over the 3-inch length. In reality, bearing pressure will be concentrated closer to the base and this concentration will lead to in a higher Vuc than that given by Equation (A.2.26). However, for a 4.86 ksi concrete, it is not clear how much higher than 10.4 ksi the bearing pressure can become without crushing the concrete. It is also not appropriate to use the full As=0.442 in2 to determine the steel failure limit Vus. Immediately above the base, the cross-sectional area of the 3/4-inch Nelson tapped welding stud is reduced by the tapped threaded hole. Using the diameter midway between the minor and pitch diameter of the threaded hole, the reduction in cross-sectional area becomes 0.1416 inch. Thus, the effective shear area Ase of the welding stud is: Ase = 0.4418 - 0.1416 = 0.300 in2 and with fu=60 ksi, Equation (A.2.20) yields: Vus = 0.9(0.300)(60) = 16.2 kips (A.2.29) (A.2.28)
A.9
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Another location that might control the ultimate shear capacity of the anchorage is the 14 inch anchor bolt shaft at its junction with the Nelson tapped welding stud. Based on Equation (A.2.20), the shear capacity Vb for the bolt shank is: Vub = 0.9(0.1963 in2)(60 ksi) = 10.60 kips (A.2.30)
Conservatively assuming a uniform bearing pressure fbear =10.4 ksi and a bearing area Abear=1-375(3/4)=1.031 in2 for the welding stud, the corresponding ultimate shear capacity at the base of the welding stud is:
Vusb = V ub + fbear Abear = 21.3 kipS (A.2.31)
which is not the controlling capacity. The ultimate shear capacity, Vu, of the anchors seems to be controlled by the Vus value determined from Equation (A.2.20). Thus: V u = 16.2 kips which is only 69% of the value reported in Table 6-3 of Ref. 4 for these anchors. A.2.3.2 Recommendation for Finite Element Analysis of Anchor Bolts We recommend that a detailed nonlinear finite element model be developed for an anchor in the concrete dome so as to determine its load-deformation relationship in shear. The model must include: (1) a realistic stress-strain relationship for the Nelson welding stud and stud bolt, (2) realistic nonlinear constitutive properties for compression, shear, and tension in the concrete, (3) a bond shear limit between the anchor and concrete of no more than 250 psi, and (4) a coefficient of friction between the anchor and concrete of no more than 0.2, with friction induced stresses not being additive to the bond induced stresses since friction activates after the bond is broken. It is unlikely that this finite element analysis would justify the use of an ultimate shear strength higher than the 16.2 kips value, since the shear area is reduced by the tapped hole in the Nelson welding stud and the bolt does not extend to the bottom of this tapped hole. However, the analysis is likely to show significant shear distortions at an allowable shear load Va=0.5Vu=8.1 kips. The results of this analysis could be then used to determine if a lower shear stiffness than that currently considered for the anchors would be appropriate to use in the demand analyses. As shown in Figures 6-25 and 6-26 of Ref. 4, the reported demand analyses indicate the total shear between the primary tank steel dome and the concrete vault roof is heavily concentrated on the outermost anchor bolts. We expect that reducing the shear stiffness of the anchors below the level used in the demand evaluations presented so far will redistribute the shear to more anchors and will reduce the shear demands on the outermost anchors. (A.2.32)
A.10
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 A.2.3.3 Other Comments on Anchor Bolt Demand A.2.3.3.1 Anchor Bolt Demand for 422 Inch Waste Level In Ref. 12, the shear demand in the outermost anchor bolts for the combination of gravity and seismic loads was reported to be: Vbs = 5.4 kips/bolt (A.2.33)
for the 'Best Estimate Soil-Fully Cracked Concrete' (BES-FCC) Case. This value was obtained from an analysis in which the coefficient of friction, COF, between the steel and concrete was taken as 0.4. In Ref. 1 we commented that a COF value of 0.4 was too high to use once sliding was initiated and the anchor bolts begin to pick-up shear load. Therefore, the seismic analysis was rerun with COF=0 for 'Best-Estimate Soil-Best Estimate Concrete' (BES-BEC) Case which is not the critical BES-FCC Case that we had recommended to be considered. For the BES-BEC Case, the shear VbS increased from 4.052 kips for COF=0.4 to 4.591 kips for COF=0, or by a factor of 1.133. Applying the same amplification factor to the BES-FCC Case leads to: BES-FCC Case (COF=0) Vbs = 5.4(1.133) = 6.1 kips (A.2.34)
However, in Section 6.3 of Ref. 4 the seismically induced shear demand VbS=4.6 kips was used to evaluate the Demand to Capacity ratio (D/C) of the anchors. We believe that the appropriate seismic shear demand should have been Vbs=6.1 kips. The seismic shear demand Vbs=4.6 kips in Ref. 4 was then combined with the shear demand VbC on the outermost anchor induced by axial compression in the tank wall resulting from thermal expansion of the steel tank and axial shortening of the concrete vault due to concrete creep. The maximum permissible axial compressive force was then determined from the permissible VbC=Va-VbS=11.7 kips4.6 kips=7.1 kips. Increasing VbS from 4.6 kips to 6.1 kips and decreasing Va from 11.7 kips to 8.1 kips will substantially reduce the allowable axial compression in the tank wall due to temperature and creep effects since VbC is reduced to 8.1 kips-6.1 kips=2.0 kips. However, the temperature and creep induced axial compression in the tank wall occurs only when significant compressive normal forces exist between the primary tank dome and the concrete vault roof. Under these conditions, even a low COF value of 0.2, which we previously accepted in Ref. 1, is likely to reduce the VbC demand.
A.ll
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 In summary, we do not concur with the D/C evaluation of the J-Bolt anchors presented in Sections 6.1 through 6.3 of Ref. 4 and summarized in Section 6.6 of Ref. 5 because: 1. The reported ultimate shear capacity Vu of the anchors appears to be significantly unconservative; and 2. Both conservative and unconservative aspects appear to exist in the anchorage demand evaluations. A.2.3.3.2 Anchor Bolt Demand for 460 Inch Waste Level For the anchorage of the steel dome to the concrete roof and the combination of gravity and seismic loads, Ref. 6 reports a shear demand VbS in the outermost anchors of 9.0 kips. This VbS represents an approximate factor of 1.5 increase resulting from increasing the waste height from 422 inches to 460 inches and increasing the waste SG from 1.7 to 1.83. This increase seems reasonable, because with the increased waste level, a greater fraction of the total seismically induced horizontal reaction gets transferred to the concrete vault roof. For the waste level considered, it is not clear how the temperatures and creep induced shear, VbC5 is combined with VbS in Section 6.6 of Ref. 7. No explanation is provided on how the total shear demand Vb on the outermost anchor bolts was obtained. However, based on an allowable Va=11.7 kips, the maximum D/C ratio is shown in Figure 6-86 of Ref. 7 to be about 0.88, which would correspond to a combined total shear demand: Vb = 0.88(11.71 kips) = 10.3 kips (A.2.35)
This combined shear demand is only 1.3 kips higher than the value of VbS =9.0 kips obtained for gravity and seismic loads only. The small effect of the VbC in this case does not appear to be consistent with the result reported in Section 6.3 of Ref. 4 for the 422 inch waste level. A seismic shear demand of VbS=9.0 kips compounds the issues that arise if the ultimate shear capacity Vu is reduced to 16.2 kips and the allowable shear capacity Va is reduced to 8.1 kips. The computed seismic shear demand alone for the outermost anchor exceeds this allowable shear capacity. One should reconsider whether it is really necessary to define the allowable shear: Va = 0.5V u (A.2.36)
as is currently required by the project criteria for Abnormal (Operating + Seismic) Loads. Both AISC (Ref. 9) and ACI (Ref. 10) would permit the use of a strength reduction factor (f)=0.75, which would increase the allowable Va for a given Vu by a factor of 1.5.
A.12
A.2.4 Buckling Evaluations

We concur with the approach for the buckling evaluation of the tank wall presented in Ref. 4 and summarized in Section 6.4 of Ref. 5 for a generic tank. The same approach and results are summarized in Section 6.4 of Ref. 7 for the AP tanks with the increased waste height.
A.2.5 Seismic Induced Stressed in Lower Knuckle of Primary Tank

The lower knuckle of the primary tank is too crudely modeled in the global analysis of the soil-structurewaste system to accurately define the peak values of the stresses induced in it. To provide for this inadequacy, the maximum values of the stresses determined in the global analysis for this region were increased by a factor of 2.0. We understand that this factor was based on the increase in maximum stresses determined for a refined model of the knuckle considering the effects of the hydrostatic pressures only. While this amplification factor may indeed be adequate for the hydrostatic effects, we are concerned that it may not be adequate for the seismically induced effects. As the seismic loading, unlike the hydrostatic, induces a substantive axial force in the tank-wall, we expect the increase of the bending stresses in the knuckle to be larger for the seismic loading than for the hydrostatic. We recommend that the stresses in the refined local model of the lower knuckle be determined using the maximum values of the boundary forces and of the associated pressures computed in the seismic analysis of the global model. A comparison of the absolute maximum values of the resulting stresses with those obtained by the global model would then provide a more defensible estimate of the amplification factor that should be applied to the seismically induced effects determined with the global model. Alternatively - although this option is not as desirable - an approximate estimate of the requisite amplification factor may be determined by a static analysis similar to the one used, provided the vertical and circumferential distributions of the pressures considered are representative of those of the impulsive component of the seismically induced pressures. Considering that some of the reported analyses indicate the absolute maximum stresses to occur in the base plate, slightly beyond the lower end of the knuckle, it is important that the local model does include this region.
A.2.6 Comments in Inelastic Factor and Nonlinear Response

So long as these tanks are considered to be PC#2 structures, we concur with the use of a Response Modification Factor R=2.5 coupled with an Importance Factor 1=1.5 which results in an Inelastic Factor: F = 1.67 (A.2.37)
A.13
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 For ductile failure modes, the computed seismic demands can be reduced by F ^ l . 6 7 before being combined with non-seismic demands. For brittle failure modes such as J-bolt anchorage failure and buckling, no credit should be taken for the Inelastic Factor (i.e., Fj=1.0). In addition, wherever credit is taken for the Inelastic Factor F^=1.67, the ASME Code allowable stresses defined by Equations (A. 37) through (A. 40) of Ref. 5 should be limited to: kSm < Sy 1.5k Sm < 1.5 Sy 3Sm < 1.5 Sy (A.2.38) (A.2.39) (A.2.40)
where Sy is the yield stress. These limits should be applied to insure that the effect of inelastic behavior is not double-counted. However, we are concerned with the statements on Pages i, 6.16, and 7.1 that primary stresses remain below yield, and that gross plastic deformation does not occur. The use of F ^ 1.67 automatically implies that gross plastic deformation has occurred during the transient seismic response. In fact, in order to develop an F^ of 1.67, the gross deformation (elastic + plastic) during transient seismic response needs to be about 1.5 to 2.0 times the yield deformation of the structure (i.e., transient gross plastic deformations are about 0.5 to 1.0 times the yield deformation). At the end of the seismic event some residual stresses will remain in the yielding elements of the structure. However, it is not expected that the further operability or future seismic margin will appreciably be impaired by this level of inelastic response, although the potential for future stress-controlled cracking may increase. If it is necessary to prevent gross plastic deformation, a value of Fj=1.0 should be used. In this case, the limits imposed by Equations (A.2.38) through (A.2.40) would no longer be necessary. Lastly, we do not recommend the use of the R=3 factor discussed in the second paragraph on Page 6.17 of Ref. 5. We consider R=2.5 to be reasonable, but not conservative. We further believe that it would be difficult to defend the view that there is sufficient inelastic energy dissipation capability in these tanks so as to justify the use of R=3 (i.e., F^=2.0).
A.2.7 References
Kennedy RP and AS Veletsos. 2006. Additional Comments and Recommendations Concerning Seismic Evaluation of Hanford Double-Shell Tanks. Rinker MW and FG Abatt. 2006. Hanford Thermal and Seismic Project-DYTRANAnalysis of Seismically Induced Fluid-Structure Interaction on a Hanford Double-Shell Primary Tank. RPP-RPT28963, Rev. 0A, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Abatt FG and MW Rinker. 2007. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project-DYTRAN Benchmark Analysis of Seismically Induced Fluid-Structure Interaction in Flat-Top Tanks. RPP-RPT30807, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
A.14
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Johnson KI et al. 2007. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project-Buckling Evaluation Methods and Results for the Primary Tanks. RPP-RPT-28967, Rev. 1, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Deibler JE et al. 2007. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project-Summary of Combined Thermal and Operating Loads with Seismic Analysis. RPP-RPT-28968, Rev. 0-A, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Abatt FG, BG Carpenter, and MW Rinker. 2007. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic P roje ct-Se ism icA nalysis in Supp ort of In ere asedLiqu id Level in 241-AP Tank Farms. RPP-RPT- 32239, Rev.0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Deibler JE et al. 2007. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project-Increased Liquid Level Analysis for 241-AP Tank Farms. RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Bandyopadhyay K et al. 1995. Seismic Design and Evaluation Guidelines for the Department ofEnergy High-Level Waste Storage Tanks and Appurtenances. BNL 52361, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York. AISC, Steel Construction Manual, Thirteenth Edition, 2005. ACI 349-01, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Relayed Concrete Structures, 2001. British Standards Institution, The Structural Use of Concrete Part 1: Design, Materials, and Workmanship, London, CP110 Part 1, 1972, as amended in November 1980. Carpenter BG, C Hendrix, and GG Abatt. 2006. ANSYS Seismic Analysis of Hanford Double-Shell Primary Tank. M&D-2008-004-CALC-001, Rev. 0A, Draft, M&D Professional Services, Inc.
A.15
A.3 Anchor Bolt Modeling and Evaluation

Reevaluation of the DST Anchor Bolts for the Increased Waste Level in AP Tanks by M. W. Rinker, J. E. Deibler, K. I. Johnson, and F. G. Abatt PNNL and M&D December 17, 2007
A.3.1 Introduction
At the June 2007 review meeting of the PNNL analyses on the Effect of Increased Liquid Level in 241-AP Tank Farms, the reviewers raised concerns with the anchor bolt evaluation. In particular, "we do not concur with the D/C evaluation of the J-bolt anchors presented in Sections 6.1 through 6.3 of Ref. 4 and summarized in Section 6.6 of Ref. 5 because: 3. The reported ultimate shear capacity Vu of the anchors appears to be significantly unconservative; and 4. Both conservative and unconservative aspects appear to exist in the anchorage demand evaluations.'''' The reviewers' recommendation and arguments are as follows: " We recommend that a detailed nonlinear finite element model be developedfor an anchor in the concrete dome so as to determine its load-deformation relationship in shear. The model must include: (1) a realistic stress-strain relationship for the Nelson welding stud and stud bolt, (2) realistic nonlinear constitutive properties for compression, shear, and tension in the concrete, (3) a bond shear limit between the anchor and concrete of no more than 250 psi, and (4) a coefficient of friction between the anchor and concrete of no more than 0.2, with friction induced stresses not being additive to the bond induced stresses since friction activates after the bond is broken. It is unlikely that this finite element analysis wouldjustify the use of an ultimate shear strength higher than the 16.2 kips value, since the shear area is reduced by the tapped hole in the Nelson welding stud and the bolt does not extend to the bottom of this tapped hole. However, the analysis is likely to show significant shear distortions at an allowable shear load Va=0.5Vu=8.1 kips. The results of this analysis could be then used to determine if a lower shear stiffness than that currently consideredfor the anchors would be appropriate to use in the demand analyses.
A.16
As shown in Figs. 6-25 and 6-26 of Ref 4, the reported demand analyses indicate the total shear between the primary tank steel dome and the concrete vault roof is heavily concentrated on the outermost anchor bolts. We expect that reducing the shear stiffness of the anchors below the level used in the demand evaluations presented sofarwill redistribute the shear to more anchors and will reduce the shear demands on the outermost anchors." This document summarizes our responses to the reviewer's comments regarding the anchor integrity and describes the resolution to the issues raised. Briefly, we concur that the anchor shear capacity used in the previous analyses is unconservative. However, we will demonstrate that by 1) adopting the AC 1349 evaluati on criteria for the AP tanks 2) limiting the temperature range (AT) to 55F b ased on reduced tank temp erature ranges and an anchor bolt stress-free temperature of 80F 3) using an equivalent linear shear stiffness (secant modulus) to represent the shear response of the anchor bolts in thefiniteelement models to allow limited shear deformation, the anchor bolt capacity is greater than the demandforthe AP tanks at the 460 inch waste depth.
A.3.2 Background
The anchor bolts are used to attach the steel primary tank in the tank dome and the steel secondary liner in the wall to the secondary concrete tank. The anchor bolts take several different forms, depending on the tank family. The AY, AZ, and SY tanks use J-bolts (or hooked bolts with 180 degree bend to use the terminology of ACI-318). The AN and AW tanks use L-bolts (hooked bolts with 90 degree bend). The AP tanks use headed studs. The original thermal and operating loads analysis (TOLA) report (RPP-RPT23308) appropriately used the terminology "J-Bolts" as mat model was largely based on the AY tank. However, that nomenclature was inadvertently preserved in the 241-AP Increased Liquid Level reports. This will be corrected in the future revision to these reports. Common to all the tanks is the use of a 3/4 inch external diameter by 1 -3/8 inch long internally threaded weld stud (Nelson TBL shown in Figure A.3-1) that is welded onto the steel tank or liner. The 1/2 inch anchor bolt; whether J, L, or headed stud is then threaded into this stud. A cursory review of the stud geometry as shown in Figure A.3-1 suggests thatthere may be adequate material at the 3/4 inch diameter at the base of the stud to transfer the shear load.
Figure A.3-1. Nelson TBL Internally Threaded Stud
A17
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table A.3-la. Nelson TBL Weld Stud Dimensions

Stud Diameter 3/4 Maximum Tap Size C 5/8-11 Minimum Values D A L 0 750 0 937 0 406 Burn Off 0 187 Flash Clearance 1 125
S 0 250
E 1.062
F 0 250
Table A.3-lb. Nelson TBL Thread Dimensions

Length of Engagement for Full Strength 0 750 Imperfect Thread Depth 0 319
Thread Size 1/2- 13
Minimum OD 0 625
Solid Weld Base 0 218
The nominal 3/4 inch diameter stud dimensions listed in Table A.3-1 a were extracted from the Nelson Stud Welding (NSW) catalog. The additional thread dimensions listed in Table A.3-lb were obtained from NSW in response to questions arising from the initial uncertainty in the dimensions of the asinstalled stud. The 1-3/8 inch (1.375) length TBL stud with a 1/2-13 thread requires 0.75 inch thread length. The remaining 0.625 inch length also includes 0.319 inch imperfect thread length. The final 0.306 inch length of the solid weld base exceeds the NSW specified minimum of 0.218 inch. The welding process consumes 0.187 inch of the base leaving 0.119 inch solid material. These dimensions formed the basis of the finite element model described below. A.3.2.1 Correlation of Finite Element Models with Anchor Bolt Shear Tests A combined experimental and modeling study (Lam and El-Lobody 2005) by the University of Leeds provided a convenient benchmark for developing finite element models of anchor bolts loaded in shear. An ANSYS model of the Leeds anchor bolt test was constructed and compared with the experimental and ABAQUS results reported in the Leeds paper. This comparison validates the selection of element type, mesh resolution and material models. Once confidence in the method was obtained, a model of a standard 3/4 inch headed stud was constructed. This was followed by a model of the AP configuration anchor bolt with the internally threaded weld stud and headed anchor bolt. The shear strength predicted by the model was compared with the values recommended by the reviewers. The load-displacement response of the ANSYS model established the shear stiffness response of the anchor bolt. As suggested by the reviewers, this nonlinear stiffness can be used in the TOLA and seismic models to evaluate the potential redistribution of shear loads. The ABAQUS model from the Leeds paper is shown in Figure A.3-2. The corresponding ANSYS model is shown in Figure A.3-3. The shear connector (anchor) is 19 mm (3/4 inch) diameter and 100 mm (4 inch) length. The push-off test specimen is similar to the standard test established by the British Standards Institution.
A.18
Concrete slab
Load Steel beam
Headed shear stud Figure A.3-2. ABAQUS Model

JUL 20 2007 08:00:22 PLOT NO. 1
AN
TYPE NUM
SP1
Figure A.3-3. ANSYS Model A.19
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 A key feature of the ABAQUS analysis is the use of a simple elastic-plastic material model for the concrete. The yield strength was taken as the compressive strength of the concrete. The Leeds paper mentions 3 different concrete strengths: cube strength, compressive strength and cylinder compressive strength. The interplay between the different strengths was not precisely defined, but running the model with the various values helped narrow the definition. Four different concrete slab strengths were tested. Figure A.3-4 shows the load-displacement curve for the SP-3 concrete, which is closest in strength to the Hanford AP concrete (fc = 5 ksi). The plot includes curves for the experimental tests, the ABAQUS results and the ANSYS results. Note that quite good correlation is achieved between the experimental test, the ABAQUS results and the ANSYS results. Results from the other models with different concrete strengths showed similar good correlation.
s
o -I
Slip (mm)
Figure A.3-4. SP-3 Load-Displacement Results With satisfactory results from the comparison to the Leeds experimental and modeling results, the FE modeling progressed to a standard 3/4 inch Nelson headed stud for which published test data exists. A standard 3/4 inch headed anchor bolt model is shown in Figure A.3-5. The length was taken as the minimum required of 4 times the diameter, or 3 inches. Figure A.3-6 shows the comparison with the Ollgaard (1971) data.
A. 20
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 AN
EIFMFNTS HAT MUM
JUL 2b 2007 08:19:07 nor NO. I
J/4 Headed anchor-bolt
Figure A.3-5. 3/4 Inch Headed Stud Anchor Bolt Model

ANSYS Results
3/4 Headed Stud
2 rr, 3
Slip (in)
0.4
0?5
Figure A.3-6. 3/4 Inch Headed Stud Load-Displacement Results Figure A.3-7 shows the AP anchor bolt model. As described earlier, the solid region at the base of the stud is defined to be 0.119 inch high. The annular region is defined to be 0.406 inch high. The dimensions of the weld flash are taken from NSW specifications.
A.21
AP anchor-bolt with Weld Flash
Figure A.3-7. AP Anchor Bolt Model
A.22
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Figure A.3-8 shows the load-displacement response. The annular area of the TBL stud results in a lower strength than the full 3/4 inch stud. Figure A.3-9 shows the shear deformation that occurs in the TBL stud. Figure A.3-10 shows results from several additional analyses that were conducted to gain an understanding of the effect of the length of the solid section at the base of the weld stud. The AP 1" curve and AP 2" curve are models with the solid base height increased to 1 inch and 2 inches, respectively. The overall anchor bolt embedment was maintained at 6 inches. Note that the load carrying ability increases but remains below the standard 3/4 inch headed stud even with a 2 inch base. The conclusion from the finite element anchor bolt study is that an ultimate shear load, VUN = 14.3 kips, is appropriate for the welded/threaded anchor studs used in the AP tanks. This is compared to the 16.2 kip shear strength that was estimated by the reviewers. The more conservative 14.3 kip value is used later in this section to calculate the equivalent secant modulus for the equivalent linear modulus of the anchor studs.
ANSYS Results
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
Figure A.3-8. AP - 3/4 Inch Headed Stud Comparison
A.23
A I M
1
r v>
J5
ii
DEC 17 2007 12:15:15 PICT NO. 1 NCDAL SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =24 TIME=.441461 DX (AVG) RSYS=0 PowerGraphics EFACET=1 AVPES=Mat DMX =.220731 SMST =-.22073 SMX =.350E-03 ^ m -.22073 =A -.196166 -.171601 \=\ -.147037 NM -.122472 | -.097908 -.073343 -.048779 -.024214 .350E-03
AP anchor-bolt with Weld Flash
Figure A.3-9. Anchor Bolt Shear Deformation

ANSYS Results 25000 -,
20000
3/4 Headed Stud AP AP1" AP 2"
0.2 Slip (in)
0.3
Figure A.3-10. Load-Displacement Results
A. 24
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 A.3.2.2 AP Anchor Bolt Shear Displacement Allowable and Secant Modulus Stiffness In discussions held with the reviewers subsequent to the June review meeting, it was suggested that consideration be given to using an anchor bolt shear stiffness corresponding to a secant modulus that credits the finite shear deformation that occurs under higher load. The finite element anchor bolt modeling (Figures A.3-8 though A.3-10) and experimental data (Ollgaard et al. 1971; Lam and ElLobody 2005) clearly shows the expected nonlinear response with significant softening prior to reaching the ultimate load. The ASME evaluation makes a distinction between an anchor bolt force allowable and a displacement allowable based on the different response to force limited and displacement limited loading configurations. Use of the linear secant makes the anchor shear force and displacement allowables equivalent because the secant stiffness is defined as the ultimate anchor shear force divided by the corresponding anchor shear displacement. The secant stiffness also softens the initial portion of the load-deflection curve allowing some shear load redistribution between the anchors. The DST Evaluation Criteria document (Day et al. 1995) specifies Ultimate Displacements for Nelson Studs (Table 4.1.4-3). The recommended allowable shear displacements for 1/2 inch and 5/8 inch Headed-Threaded Studs are 0.167 inch and 0.22 inch, respectively. The footnote states that test data are not available for this configuration, and that the recommended values are conservative. Indeed, the local nonlinear anchor bolt model that was calibrated against test data shows that the effective diameter of the anchor bolt and welded stud combination is greater than the nominal 14 inch diameter of the headed studs, indicating an ultimate shear displacement greater than 0.167 inch. The ultimate shear displacement for the AP anchor bolts was established using the experimentally determined anchor bolt slip capacities reported by Oehlers and Sved (1995) and the experimentally determined load-slip relationship documented by Ollgaard et al. (1971). Oehlers reported good correlation with the following equation of slip capacity: S*/ds = 0.45 - 0.0021fc (A.3.1)
where Sf is the slip at fracture, ds is the anchor bolt shank diameter and fc is the concrete strength in N/mm2. This gives an allowable shear displacement of 0.285 inch for a 3/4 inch anchor bolt and 0.188 inch for a 1/2 inch anchor bolt. Ollgaard (1971) reported an empirical formula for shear load-slip response as: Q = Q u (l-e- 18A ) 04 (A.3.2)
The load-slip curves for 1/2 and 3/4 inch anchor bolts defined by this relationship are shown in Figure A.3-11. The displacement capacity of these size anchor bolts is also identified on the plot. The AP anchor bolt response as determined by the finite element model is also shown in this figure. The AP anchor bolt ultimate shear displacement is established as 0.22 inch, which is the intersection of the line joining the 1/2 and 3/4 inch capacities with the AP response. The corresponding ultimate shear force is VUN = 14.34 kips for the AP anchors.
A.25
A n c h o r Bolt Load - Slip
25000 -,
20000
15000
1/2" 3/4" AP Slip capacity " Secant modulus
10000
5000
Figure A.3-11. AP Anchor Bolt Secant Modulus and Allowable Displacement This point also defines the secant modulus for use in the TOLA and seismic finite element models. The secant shear modulus, ks, is calculated as:
K = 5,
Vr,
14.34fa/K 0.22inch
= 65,mibflin
(A.3.3)
The value of 65,000 lbf/in was selected for both the TOLA and seismic models. A.3.2.3 Establishing Rational Concrete Curing and Tank Operating Temperatures from the Available Tank Data Records The primary contributor to the anchor bolt demand from the thermal and operating loads analysis (Deibler et al. 2007) is the mismatch between thermal expansion coefficients of the concrete and steel liner in conjunction with the specified temperature range. The original analysis very conservatively defined the maximum waste temperature at the design limit of 210F even though the maximum waste temperatures had never come close to the design limit. In addition, the stress-free temperature for the differential thermal expansion stresses was taken as 50F, which is conservatively low considering the natural heat of hydration that occurs during concrete curing. Therefore, the available data records on concrete curing temperatures and the historical waste temperature in the AP tanks were reviewed to define more realistic values for the stress-free and maximum waste temperature limits.
A.26
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 A review of the construction records found only one example of curing temperatures. It was for tank 241-AP-104, which had temperature of 81F, 78F, and 64F for thermocouples embedded in the haunch during the pour. This pour coincided with coldest temperatures experienced in the 241-AP during construction. All three thermocouples showed a similar temperature rise during curing. Based on this information, the baseline (stress-free) temperature for the anchor bolts was selected as 80F A review of the operating temperatures back to completion of the 241-AP Tank Farm in 1986 showed that the tanks normally operated at 80F 10F. Two exceptions to this temperature range were 241-AP-104 and 241-AP-108 when the received waste from the 242-A Evaporator raised the temperature in the lower portions of the tank to between 120F and 130F and the dome temperature to approximately 100F. The heat from these transfers quickly dissipated from the tank with the temperatures returning to the previously stated range. From this review it was estimated that a maximum dome temperature of 110F conservatively bounds the operating history of all the AP tanks. Discussions were also held with tank farm operations staff to determine if the current operating temperature (210F) could be reduced without impacting the future waste retrieval and treatment operations. It was concluded that a maximum waste temperature limit of 135F is sufficiently high to not limit operations. A.3.2.4 Thermal and Operating Loads Analysis The primary contributor to the anchor bolt demand from the thermal and operating loads analysis (Deibler et al. 2007) is the mismatch between thermal expansion coefficients of the concrete and steel liner in conjunction with the specified temperature range AT = 160F = (210F - 50F). The review of construction records and operational data suggests a more historically realistic range to be AT = 30F (110F-80F). A 60-year analysis was conducted with this temperature range. The apparent margin for the anchor bolts with this temperature range suggested there is sufficient capacity to accommodate a wider temperature range. Another analysis, based on more realistic yet conservative tank bulk waste temperature of 135F yielding the following AT = 55F = (135F - 80F), was conducted. All the other model parameters - loads and material models (including concrete creep and cracking) are as documented in the Increased Liquid Level report (Deibler et al. 2007). The secant stiffness of 65,000 lbf/in was used for the spring elements that represent the anchor bolts in shear. A.3.2.5 Seismic Analysis The earlier reported anchor evaluation was based on a shear response that did not credit the finite shear deformation that is known to occur in such anchor bolts under higher loads. The current approach uses the secant modulus of 65,000 lbf/in in both the TOLA and seismic analyses.
A.27
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 The same combinations of soil properties and concrete properties used for the initial AP level rise and baseline analysis were used for the re-analysis of the anchor bolts. That is, the four combinations to be evaluated are BES-BEC, UBS-BEC, LBS-BES, and BES-FCC. A.3.2.6 Shift from ASME to ACI 349 Evaluation Criteria for the AP Tank Anchor Bolts The current evaluation of the AP anchor bolts follows the procedure given in ACI 349-01, which was the original concrete code of record for the AP tanks. The initial evaluation of the AP anchor bolts was performed using ASME B&PVC evaluation criteria as recommended in Day et al. (1995). The ASME B&PVC criteria are intended for the design of concrete containments in nuclear facilities. Since 1995, the DSTs have been downgraded from PC-3 to PC-2 structures, and the application of the concrete containment code to the anchor bolt evaluation is viewed as unnecessarily restrictive. The change of criteria from ASME (specifying a 0.50 load reduction factor on ultimate) to ACI 349-01 (0.75 load reduction factor) has the effect of increasing the capacity of the AP anchors by 50%. A.3.2.7 Combined TOLA and Seismic Results: The maximum anchor shear deflections in both the TOLA and seismic analyses occur at the outer-most row of anchors near the transition between the dome and the haunch regions of the tank. The anchor shear deflections from the TOLA and seismic analyses were added and compared against shear displacement allowables based on both the ASME and ACI evaluation criteria. The TOLA results (with 55F temperature range) were combined with full time history seismic results. Based on the ultimate shear deformation of 0.22 inch (Figure A.3-11), the allowable shear deformation per the ASME and ACI 349 criteria are (0.5)(0.22 inch) = 0.11 inch., and (0.75)(0.22 inch) = 0.165 inch, respectively. Table A.3-2 shows demand-to-capacity ratios using the ASME and ACI 349 criteria for the worst case Upper Bound Soil analysis. Using the ACI criteria, the demand-to-capacity ratios are below 1.0 for each of the 4 soil/concrete cases. Table A.3-2. The Combined TOLA and Seismic Anchor Shear Demands Compared to the ACI and ASME Displacement Allowables
Run TOLA - 55 F temp, range Seismic - full time history UBS/BEC Total Shear Deformation ACI 349 D/C Ratio ASME D/C Ratio Maximum Deflection (in) 0 068 0.096 0.164 0.99 1 49
A.3.2.8 Sources of Analytical Conservatism So far, a simplified routine that smears spatial and temporal results has been used to calculate peak seismic demands. Use of a more refined methodology is estimated to reduce the seismic demand by approximately 5-10%.
A.28
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 The TOLA and seismic demands reported for the AP tanks do not credit any friction between the concrete dome and the steel tank. Initial indications are that the benefit of friction may reduce the demands by approximately 5%. The use of the nonlinear load-displacement response of the anchor bolt as predicted by the ANSYS finite element model resulted in an allowable ultimate shear load of 14.5 kip. This is conservative in comparison to the 16.2 kip load based on the annular region of the anchor bolt as recommended by the reviewers. The most recent site response analyses performed at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) Site show that the currently published design spectra for the WTP Site are significantly lower than the interim spectra published in 2005 (PNNL 2007). This indicates that the governing spectra being used for the DST analysis are likely to be conservative.
A.3.2.9 Additional Considerations The project team has sought technical support from ACI 349 Code Committee member Richard E. Klingner. Professor Klingner is an expert in anchorage to concrete and will be contracted to assist in questions of ACI code interpretation and treatment of thermal demands on the anchor bolts. In the interim, the evaluation of the AP Tanks will proceed using conservative assumptions for the treatment of thermal demands on the anchor bolts. The focus so far has been on calculating the demand-to-capacity ratios for the anchor bolts. The larger question of the safety function that is performed by the anchor bolts and the degree of structural stability provided by the anchor bolts has not been addressed. If it can be shown that the system remains stable with some or all of the anchor bolts removed from the load path, this will add defense-in-depth to the arguments supporting the evaluation of the anchor bolts.
A.3.3 Conclusion
1. Due to the lower temperature ranges used to calculate the thermal demands and the switch to the ACI 349-01 code criteria the anchor bolts in the AP tank farm have adequate capacity at the 460 inch waste level.
A.3.4 References
Champney C. 1994. TBL Internally Threaded Stud Minimum Length Calculation, Bulletin 1994-2, Nelson Stud Welding. Day JP et al. 1995. Structural Acceptance Criteria for the Evaluation of Existing Double-Shell Waste Storage Tanks Located at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington. WHC-SD-WM-DGS-003, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. Deibler JE et al. 2007. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project-Increased Liquid Level Analysis for 241-AP Tank Farms. RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. A.29
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Kennedy RP and AS Veletsos. 2007. Comments Regarding Seismic Evaluation of Hanford Double-Shell Tanks and Effect of Increased Liquid Level in 241-AP Tank Farms. Lam D and E El-Lobody. 2005. "Behavior of Headed Stud Shear Connectors in Composite Beam." Journal of Structural Engineering 131:1. Oehlers DJ and G Sved. 1995. "Composite Beams with Limited-Slip-Capacity Shear Connectors." Journal of Structural Engineering 121:6. Ollgaard JG, RG Slutter, and JW Fisher. 1971. "Shear Strength of Stud Connectors in Lightweight and Normal-Weight Concrete." AISC Engineering Journal 8:2. PNNL. 2007. Updated Site Response Analysis for the Waste Treatment Plant, DOE Hanford Site, Washington. Prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Rinker MW et al. 2004. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project-Thermal and Operating Loads Analysis. RPP-RPT-23308, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
A.30
A.4 Reviewer Comments - Kennedy, December 2007

Comments Regarding Revised Anchor Bolt Evaluation for 241-AP Tanks with Increased Liquid Level by R. P. Kennedy December 2007
A. 4.1 Introduction
I have reviewed Sections 3 {SeismicModel) and 6 {Analysis Results), and Appendix B {Anchor Bolt Evaluation) of the revised Diebler, J.E., et al., Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic ProjectIncreased Level Analysis for 241-AP Tank Farms, RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, December 2007. The purpose of my review was to review the revised anchor bolt evaluation of the 241-AP tanks with increased liquid level.
A.4.2 Overall Comment

I concur with the revised anchor bolt evaluation. Therefore, I concur that the Demand/Capacity (D/C) ratio for the 241-AP tank anchor bolts does not exceed unity so long as: (1) Liquid level does not exceed 460 inches, (2) Thermal increase (AT) of primary tank in dome region does not exceed 55F, and (3) Seismic input does not exceed the level defined in Section 3.5 of the reviewed report A few specific comments follow.
A.4.3 Specific Comments

A.4.3.1 Comment on Section 3.2.5 of Reviewed Report No basis is presented on Page 3.14 for the use of an anchor bolt stiffness of 65.0 kips/inch in the seismic and thermal evaluations. This section should refer to Page B.ll of Appendix B where this shear stiffness is defined. I concur that the secant shear stiffness of 65.0 kips/inch defined on Page B.ll is reasonable. A.4.3.2 Comment on Section 6.6 of Reviewed Report Section 6.6 of the reviewed report does not define either the nominal ultimate shear capacities or the factored ultimate shear capacities used for the anchor bolt D/C ratios reported in this section. Based on
A.31
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 my understanding of Appendix B, I believe that the nominal ultimate shear displacement, 5UN, and the nominal ultimate shear capacity, VUN, used are: 8UN = 0.22 inch VUN = (65 kip/in)(0.22 inch) = 14.3 kips Thus, based on a strength reduction factor <j)=0.75, the factored 5uF and VUF are: 8UF = 0.165 inch VUF = 10.7 kips (A.4.3) (A.4.4) (A. 4.1) (A.4.2)
I consider these values of 5UN, VUN, 5UF, and VUF to be reasonable based upon the material presented in Appendix B. Section 6.6 should explicitly define the factored 8UF and VUF used in the anchor bolt D/C ratios presented in this sections. Furthermore, Section 6.6 should refer to the sections in Appendix B where the basis for SUN, V U N , 8 UF , and VUF are explicitly presented.
A.4.3 Comments on Appendix A.3

I concur with the anchor bolt model shown in Figure A.3-7 which was used in the finite element analysis to determine the nominal ultimate capacity of the AP anchor bolts. I concur that the nominal ultimate shear displacement, 8UN, of 0.22 inch reported on Page B.ll is reasonable. I concur that the use of the strength reduction factor <j)=0.75 discussed on Pages B.13 and B.14 is appropriate for defining the factored load capacity. However, I found the last paragraph on Page B.7 discussing the nominal ultimate shear capacity, VUN, and the last paragraph on Page B.ll defining the secant stiffness ks, to be confusing and mutually contradictory. Page B.7 reports a 14 kip "plateau" shear strength which is then increased by a factor of 1.17 to obtain a shear strength of 16.4 kips. The basis for the 1.17 increase factor is not convincingly discussed. I presume that this increase is to account for strain hardening effects. Lastly, what is the VUN being defined at the end of the last paragraph on Page B.7? The secant stiffness, ks, defined on Page B.ll should be based on: k = | ^ UN (A.4.5)
A.32
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 If VUN = 16.4 kips and SUN = 0.22 inch, then: 16.4kips A B .. ,. . = 74.5 kips /inch 0.22inch
ks =
(A.4.6)
which is larger than the ks reported on Page B.ll. If ks=65 kip/inch and 5UN = 0.22 inch, then: VUN = (65 kips/inch)(0.22 inch) = 14.3 kips (A.4.7)
The problem is that VUN, SUN, and k s need to be mutually consistent in accordance with Equation (C.5). Since ks=65 kips/inch was used in the Demand analyses, I recommend that VUN be taken as 14.3 kips in accordance with Equation (C.7). Otherwise, if VUN = 16.4 kips then ks=74.5 kips/inch in accordance with Equation (C.6) and the Demand analyses should be revised using this revised k s . Finally, a consistent set of VUN, SUN, and k s should be defined in Appendix B and repeated in Section 6.6.
A.33
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. I
A.5 Reviewer Comments - Veletsos, March 2008

Comments Regarding Revised Anchor Bolt Evaluation for 241-AP Tanks with Increased Liquid Level by A.S. Veletsos March 2008
A.5.1 Scope of Comments

The following comments relate mainly to Sections 2.2.4.2, 2.4.1, 3.2.5, 3.5, 6.6 and Appendices A.3 and A. 4 of the report by Deibler, J.E. et al, Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project, Increased Level Analysis for 241-AP Tank Farms, RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, January 2008. These are the sections that deal with the demand and capacity evaluation of the anchor bolts connecting the primary tank to the concrete dome. The remaining sections of the Report are identical to those of its initial version, Rev. 0, and, with one exception, are not commented on.
A.5.2 General Comments

As previously indicated, I cannot claim any in-depth expertise on the characteristics and behavior of the type of anchor bolts used in this project. The comments that follow represent simply my best effort and judgment on the issues involved. I concur with Dr. Kennedy's conclusion in Appendix A. 4 of the Report to the effect that the revised anchor bolt evaluation is acceptable subject to the conditions enumerated in Section A.4.2. I further concur with the view that the basis and values of the ultimate shear strength and displacement of the bolts, and of the associated stiffness used in the evaluation of their demand/capacity ratio should clearly be identified in Section 6.6 of the Report.
A.5.3 Additional Comments

A. 5.3.1. On the third paragraph of p. 6.54 of the Report, the strength reduction factor specified by ACI 349 is incorrectly listed as 0.50 rather than 0.75, the latter value being correctly reported on p. 13 of Appendix A.3. This typographical error should be corrected. A. 5.3.2. The nonlinear, hysteretic, nearly elastoplastic resistance-deformation diagram of the anchor bolts in the reported analyses was approximated by a linear relationship with a stiffness equal to the secant stiffness of the actual diagram corresponding to the maximum resisting force and permissible deformation. In the evaluation of the seismic effects, I would have definitely preferred the use of the actual, nonlinear relationship. I would also have liked to see the relevant resistance-deformation diagram presented for both increasing and decreasing cycles of loading. I do realize, of course, that the analysis of A.34
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 the nonlinear, hysteretic system would have been considerably more involved than of its linearized approximation. A.5.3.3. The information regarding the maximum force and deformation demands for the anchor bolts presented in the Report is not sufficiently detailed in my view. I strongly recommend that the relevant demands for both the seismic effect and the combination of the seismic and other effects be identified for at least the most highly deformed bolts at the bottom and next to the bottom rings of the dome. Additionally, to provide some insight into the sensitivity of these demands to the stiffness of the linearized version of the resistance-deformation relationship of the bolts, it is recommended that they are also evaluated and reported for a higher bolt stiffness, such as their low-amplitude, initial stiffness. A. 5.3.4. It is not clear if the value of approximately 65 kips/in for the stiffness of the linearized version of the resistance-deformation relationship of the anchor bolts was used for all bolts, or only for those on the bottom ring of the dome which will experience the largest deformations. This issue needs to be clarified. The use of the secant stiffness for all bolts has the undesirable effect of underestimating the force and deformation demands for the bolts at or near the bottom rings of the dome. A. 5.3.5. I am perplexed by the comments on pages A.4.2 and A.4.3 of Dr. Kennedy's review regarding the shear strength and secant stiffness values of the bolts used in the reported analyses. My own understanding is that the reported solutions are indeed for an ultimate shearing strength of 14.3 kips (as noted on page 10 of Appendix A.3) and for a secant stiffness of 780 kips/ft = 65 kips/in (as noted on pages 3.14 and A.3.11 of the Report). It appears that this information needs to be emphasized, preferably in the body of the Report. If, however, my interpretation is not correct, I would concur with Dr. Kennedy's recommendation. A. 5.3.6. On the issue of the uncertainties and potential conservatism involved in the reported analyses ( listed on pages 6.58 and A.3.14 of the Report), I wish to note that I fully agree that the design response spectra used in the study are likely to be conservative. As previously indicated, this is expected to be especially true of the spectrum for the vertical component of shaking, the peak segment of which is considered to be much broader than that for the horizontal component (see Figs. 3-34 and 3-35 of the Report).
A.5.4 Comment on Another Issue

In Section A. 5 of the Reviewer Comments presented in Appendix A of the Report, concern was expressed about the accuracy of the maximum seismic stresses reported previously for the lower knuckle of the primary tank, and some additional studies were recommended to clarify matters. Based on the information presented in Section 6.2.1 of the Report, however, this concern does not appear to have yet been addressed. If this is indeed true, it is strongly recommended that it be given the appropriate attention.
A.35
A.6 Anchor Bolt Modeling and Evaluation

DST Anchor Bolt Modeling and Evaluation July 14, 2008 PNNL and M&D MW Rinker, JE Deibler, KI Johnson and FG Abatt
A. 6.1 Introduction
At the June 2007 review of the DST analyses, the reviewers raised concerns with the anchor bolt evaluation. The ultimate shear capacity used in the original evaluation reported in Deibler et al. (2007) was judged to be unconservative. In response, the secant stiffness representation of the anchor bolts was developed and an evaluation method based on allowable shear displacements was identified. Complete details are given in Appendix A.3 of the Increased Liquid Level report, Rev. 1 (Deibler et al. 2008). Additional comments by the reviewers in March 2008 raised concerns over the use of a uniform anchor bolt shear stiffness over the entire radius of the dome. It was postulated that in some locations, credit was being taken for unrealized ductility. An iterative procedure that converges on matching the secant stiffness to the actual shear displacement was recommended. A representative analysis that demonstrates the use of location specific shear stiffness anchor bolts is described in this report.
A.6.2 Location Specific Anchor Bolt Stiffness

The 65 kip/in value of the secant shear stiffness of the AP anchor bolts reported in Rev. 1 of the Increased Liquid Level report (Deibler et al. 2008) was based on the estimated failure point on the shear loaddeformation diagram and is a lower bound for possible secant shear moduli. Generally, the shear demand on the DST anchor bolts in the dome increases as radial distance from the dome apex increases. The use of a uniform value of the secant shear modulus that is based on the failure point of the anchors means that all anchors are assigned a lower bound shear stiffness. The difference between the assigned value of 65 kip/in and the expected value based on realized shear deformations increases for anchors closer to the dome apex. During the March 2008 review a question was raised as to whether the above approach would provide conservative estimates of the anchor shear displacements. From a static point of view, lower shear stiffnesses will produce higher shear displacements that conservatively bound the actual displacements.. However, the concern raised during the review was if an increase in anchor bolt stiffness could cause a frequency shift in the system dynamic response that could amplify the anchor bolt response. To investigate this possibility, the reviewers recommended an iterative procedure to more accurately match the shear stiffness with the actual shear deformation in the anchor bolts on a row-by-row basis. One iteration towards the radial location specific anchor stiffness was conducted to evaluate the use of uniform stiffness anchor bolts. The combined TOLA + seismic shear displacements for each row of
A.36
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 anchor bolts from the uniform 65 kips/in stiffness analysis of the Upper-Bound Soil, Best Estimate Concrete were overlaid on the predicted shear load-displacement curve for the AP anchor bolts. The secant modulus for each point is then used as the shear stiffness at that location for the next iteration of the analysis. Figure A.6-1 illustrates the procedure graphically.
AP Anchor Shear Deformation
16000 -i
14000
12000
Headed 65K Inner row
10000
Row 2 Row 3 Row 4
8000
Row 5
6000
Row 6 Row 7 Row 8

Row 9 Outer row
4000
65 kips/in
2000
0.00
0 02
0 04
0 06
0 08
0.10
0.12
0 14
0 16
0 18
0 20
Shear displacement (in.)
Figure A.6-1. Location Specific Anchor Bolt Stiffness Determination The stiffness at each location is greater than the nominal 65 kips/in. As expected, the resulting combined shear displacements decrease. This procedure could be repeated until convergence of the anchor bolt stiffness is achieved at each specific location. However, a demand/capacity evaluation at the end of this first iteration demonstrates the conservative results given by the uniform 65 kips/in shear stiffness. Figure A.6-2 shows the demand/capacity evaluation for the nominal and first iteration shear stiffness. The anchor bolts pass the evaluation at the nominal 65 kips/in shear stiffness (D/C ratio equal to 0.99 at the outer-most anchor). The more refined analysis gives a maximum D/C ratio of 0.53. If a second iteration were analyzed this ratio would drop even further.
A.37
Anchor Bolt Demand/Capacity Ratio UBS-BEC
"65 kips/in -Iter 1
200
250
300
500
Figure A.6-2. Location Specific Anchor Bolt Demand/Capacity Evaluation
A.6.3 Conclusion
The secant modulus anchor bolt modeling is a viable method of accommodating the nonlinear loaddisplacement response. The assignment of a uniform lower bound secant shear modulus to all of the anchor bolts provided a very conservative estimate of the shear deformations relative to a more refined row-by-row assignment of shear stiffnesses based on actual deformations. The higher location specific shear stiffnesses resulted in a decrease in shear deformation under dynamic seismic loading.
A.6.4 References
Deibler JE, MW Rinker, KI Johnson, FG Abatt, SP Pilli, B J Carpenter, and NK Karri. 2007. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project - Increased Liquid Level Analysis for 241 -AP Tank Farms. RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
A.38
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Deibler JE, MW Rinker, KI Johnson, FG Abatt, SP Pilli, and NK Karri. 2008. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Therm al and Seismic Project - Increased Liquid Level A nalysis for 241 -AP Tank Farms. RPP-RPT32237, Rev. 1, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
A.39
A.7 Seismic Model Primary Tank Lower Knuckle Mesh Resolution
Seismic Model Primary Tank Knuckle Stress Evaluation May 15, 2008 M&D Professional Services, Inc KL Stoops, FG Abatt, M Meyer
A.7.1 Introduction and Purpose

The complexity of the global DST seismic model required that some mesh resolution be sacrificed in the lower knuckle region of the primary tank. The purpose of this appendix is to establish a factor that will be applied to the global seismic model lower knuckle stress components to account for loss of accuracy due to the limited mesh resolution (discretization error). This factor can be applied to the lower knuckle stress components from the global seismic model before combining the results with the TOLA model stresses and performing the primary tank ASME code evaluation. Although this Appendix focuses on the AY configuration, both AY and AP tank are addressed using a common methodology.
A.7.2 Background
A study of the effect of mesh resolution on the stresses in the lower knuckle of the primary tank in the seismic model was documented in Appendix A of Deibler et al. (2008). The important conclusions of that study were that increasing the mesh resolution in the lower knuckle from two elements to eight elements produced sufficiently accurate stresses, and that a single factor of 2.0 applied to the meridional and hoop stress components was more than enough to account for loss of mesh resolution in the global model. Further investigation was motivated by a comment from reviewers R.P. Kennedy and A.S. Veletsos during a July 2007 project review meeting. The text of the comment appears below in italics. The lower knuckle of the primary tank is too crudely modeled in the global analysis of the soil-structure-waste system to accurately define the peak values of the stresses induced in it. To provide for this inadequacy, the maximum values of the stresses determined in the global analysis for this region were increased by a factor of 2.0. We understand that this factor was based on the increase in maximum stresses determined for a refined model of the knuckle considering the effects of the hydrostatic pressures only. While this amplification factor may indeed be adequate for the hydrostatic effects, we are concerned that it may not be adequate for the seismically induced effects. As the seismic loading, unlike the hydrostatic, induces a substantive axial force in the
A.40
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 tank-wall, we expect the increase of the bending stresses in the knuckle to be larger for the seismic loading than for the hydrostatic. We recommend that the stresses in the refined local model of the lower knuckle be determined using the maximum values of the boundary forces and of the associated pressures computed in the seismic analysis of the global model. A comparison of the absolute maximum values of the resulting stresses with those obtained by the global model would then provide a more defensible estimate of the amplification factor that should be applied to the seismically induced effects determined with the global model. Alternatively although this option is not as desirable an approximate estimate of the requisite amplification factor maybe determined by a static analysis similar to the one used, provided the vertical and circumferential distributions of the pressures considered are representative of those of the impulsive component of the seismically induced pressures. Considering that some of the reported analyses indicate the absolute maximum stresses to occur in the base plate, slightly beyond the lower end of the knuckle, it is important that the local model does include this region. The approach to the evaluation differs from that reported in Revision 0 of this Appendix in the following important aspects: 1. The focus of the evaluation is the differences in results between the global seismic model (with two elements in the knuckle) and the results the global seismic model would have if a more accurate eight element mesh had been used in the knuckle. 2. The axisymmetric study model used in Revision 0 was abandoned in favor of a slice model so that the global model and study model used the same element types. The slice study model is based directly on the global seismic model. 3. The adjustment factor is based on the differences in results between the slice study model with two elements in the knuckle vs. with eight elements in the knuckle. The previous approach compared the results from two different models: the global seismic model, and the TOLA model. 4. Because the slice study model is based directly on the global seismic model and uses the same element types, it was judged to be unnecessary to "benchmark" the study model against the thermal and operating loads analysis (TOLA) model. Thus, the TOLA model is no longer referenced in this evaluation. 5. Based on the results from Revision 0 and the mesh refinement in the thermal and operating loads analysis (TOLA) model, it was determined that having eight elements in the knuckle provides sufficient mesh refinement. 6. The comparisons between the global seismic model and slice study model are performed using loads representative of seismic loads only in the absence of gravity, since these are the loads that will be combined with the TOLA results. 7. The effects of axial loads in the tank will be included in the evaluation. 8. The configuration of the AP tanks as well as the AY-based baseline model will be addressed in this evaluation.
A.41
A.7.3 References
Abatt, F.G., 2008, Establishment of Methodology for Time Domain Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis of a Hanford Double Shell Tank, M&D-2008-004-RPT-01, Rev. 1, prepared by M&D Professional Services, Inc. for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Deibler J.E. et al. 2007. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project-Increased Liquid Level Analysis for 241-AP Tank Farms. RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 0, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Deibler J.E. et al. 2008. Hanford Double-Shell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project-Summary of Combined Thermal and Operating Loads with Seismic Analysis. RPP-RPT-28968, Rev. 1, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
A.7.4 Methodology
A set of load cases will be indentified to satisfy the comments (above). The load cases will apply representative seismic axial force and waste pressure loads. To speed runtime and reduce postprocessing, the loads will be applied statically to a simplified model. The seismic only results will be obtained through the same procedure as for the global seismic model, which is to solve with combined gravity + seismic and then subtract the gravity portion (solved independently) via postprocessing. The differences in the results between the different mesh densities will be examined and an adjustment factor (ratio) will be determined. The method of combination of the global seismic model results to the TOLA model results will be prescribed, and a single bounding adjustment factor will be determined for use in the combination.
A.7.5 Model Descriptions

A.7.5.1 DST Primary T a n k Knuckle Geometry The DST primary tanks have a 12-inch radius knuckle region that joins the tank cylindrical sidewalls to the tank bottom plates. The bottom of the primary tank is supported below by insulating concrete. The insulating concrete extends past the bottom tangent of the knuckle, although the knuckle will not contact the insulating concrete outside of the tangent unless significant deflection occurs. Typical knuckle geometry is shown in Figure 0.7-3.
A.42
EL <e .</. ~,sa
A
( - o
a F
*}
cs=~^?
33'*'
4TLfZ
A; it - Oi
wet
/ // /<e Oi'vi
2^_Q-47
S
yr/.-'
''.AN
Figure 0.7-3. Knuckle Detail from Drawing AY H-2-64307. A.7.5.2 Global Seismic Model Description A complete description of the AY-based generic seismic model can be found in Section 3.0 of Abatt (2008). A view of the primary tank knuckle and insulating concrete from the global model is shown as Figure 0.7-4.
A.43
ELEMENTS REAL NUM
MAR_11_2 10:26:34
AN
Load Case: BES-BEC, Full Non-linear, Final PT Mesh
Figure 0.7-4. Primary Tank Knuckle and Insulating Concrete from Global Seismic Model. The property configuration used for this evaluation is AY tank Best Estimate Soil, Best Estimate Concrete, Lower Bound Anchor Bolt Secant Modulus (AY-BES-BEC-LBmod).
A.7.5.3 Slice Study Model

The slice model is based directly on the global seismic model, but with the following simplifications and modifications: To create the study model, the global seismic model is generated, and then a 1 element wide slice is selected for the solution. To improve element aspect ratios in the primary tank knuckle at higher mesh resolutions, the mesh is modified to provide an element width of 2 degrees, instead of 9 degrees. The free mesh in the center region of the model is also adjusted to accommodate the narrower slice. Other than the knuckle itself, this is the only mesh change. The waste is removed from the study model. Loads from the waste will be simulated as pressures on the inner surface of the primary tank. Symmetry boundary conditions are applied at the slice sides (circumferential) and at the center of the tank (radial). The soil boundary conditions are distributed among nodes that were previously coupled to a master node. The solution is performed statically. A.44
The purpose of this investigation is to address the local response of the knuckle, not global behavior of the tank. Although the slice model does not capture full three-dimensional effects, it is sufficient for studying the effects of mesh resolution in the lower knuckle. Figure 0.7-5 shows a full element plot of the study model, and Figure 0.7-6 shows a close-up view of the knuckle region of the study model.
ELEMENTS
Anchor bolts
FEB
AIM
4 200E 09:38:51
Primary tank
Concrete tank
Insulating concrete
Figure 0.7-5. Study Model Shown Without Soil Elements
A. 45
Figure 0.7-6. Primary Tank Knuckle Region of Study Model (8 element knuckle mesh).
A.7.6 Load Application and Load Case Definition

Per the comments made by Kennedy and Veletsos (see 0), seismically induced axial and waste pressure loads on the primary tank will be addressed. These loads will be addressed in the following load cases: 1) Seismic waste pressure on primary tank. Waste pressure is taken from the tables of theoretical waste pressure found in Section 8.2 of Abatt (2008). The theoretical values are used for simplicity (e.g. actual results are non-uniform and harder to apply). The theoretical values are compared to the global seismic model results in Abatt (2008), and are found to be similar to the global seismic model FEA results. 2) Axial loads in the primary tank wall. The axial load is applied to the model based on the meridional midplane stress values found in Deibler et al (2007). A vertical force will be applied at approximately half height on the primary tank wall such that the resulting stress in the primary tank wall is similar to the meridional midplane stress values found in Deibler et al (2007). The meridional stress is assumed to be completely caused by the seismic structural forces (e.g. overturning). The values reported in Deibler et al (2007) are absolute value; therefore the range of loads is potentially reversing. Two opposing axial load subcases will be considered: a. Axial up, based on positive maximum global seismic model stress results (Abatt 2008) from the primary tank wall. b. Axial down, based on negative maximum global seismic model stress results (Abatt 2008) from the primary tank wall. An additional gravity case considering dead weight with waste hydrostatic fluid effects due to gravity will be run as a non-seismic baseline. The load cases will be run with gravity effects (dead weight and waste
A. 46
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 hydrostatic fluid effects due to gravity) included, and the results of the gravity case will be subtracted from the seismic results. This methodology is the same approach used for producing the global seismic results. All loads will be applied statically as either a surface pressure or point forces resulting in membrane stress.
A.7.6.1 Limit of Knuckle Mesh Influence Results will be presented in the knuckle region and adjacent elements. The limits of influence from the knuckle mesh will be demonstrated by convergence in the results. Convergence is defined as when the relative difference is small, or the overall magnitude is small compared to the maximum values used for calculation of the factor. Beyond the zone of influence no adjustment factor is required.
A.7.6.2 Methodology Differences and Sensitivity to Applied Loading The global seismic model is evaluated with dynamic loading, and the study model is evaluated with statically applied loads. For a single load state (as defined by the load cases above), a set of static solutions provide sufficient data on the response of the model to determine the relative differences due to the knuckle mesh. The loads used in the study model are based on the results provided in Abatt (2008). Those results are maximum absolute values taken from the global seismic model time history analysis. Therefore, the following variations are inherent to this bounding value approach: The tank experiences a range of loads that are not reported in detail (absolute maximums only) Co-existence of multiple loads (e.g. waste pressure and axial loading) at any place or time cannot be determined without more extensive investigation and correlation The variations are addressed by determining the sensitivity of the model to the loading. The load will be varied to demonstrate the applicability of the adjustment factor over the expected range of magnitude for the given load type. If the response to the applied loads is nearly linear then the adjustment factor is largely independent of the applied load magnitude. The adjustment factor may then be applied to a range of loads, encompassing the variations.
A.7.7 Definition of Adjustment Factor

The global seismic model has inadequate mesh resolution in the primary tank knuckle. In order to make sure that conservative stresses are presented for the seismic analyses, a scaling factor needs to be determined to account for the lower mesh resolution in the global seismic model. In Deibler et al 2008, the seismic results from the 2 element global seismic model are combined with the results from the 8 element TOLA model to perform an ASME code evaluation of the primary tank. In this process, an adjustment factor must be applied to the global seismic model results to compensate for the lack of mesh resolution in the global seismic model.
A.47
A.7.7.1 Calculation of the adjustment factor The factor is based on the maximum of the absolute values of meridional and hoop stresses from the study model with 2 and 8 element meshes. The factor is determined by the following steps (performed in a spreadsheet): 1. List stress results by element 2. The knuckle zone of influence is determined by reviewing convergence of the different mesh results. 3. Only results within the zone of influence are applicable for factor use. However, to compare the full range of knuckle results, calculation of the factor must include an element at a common location on each end, regardless of the elements to which the factor is to be applied. See the example below for firther explanation. 4. Take the absolute value of the results. 5. Find the maximum of the absolute values for both 2 element and 8 element results (independent of location) 6. Divide the pair of results found above: 8 element divided by 2 element (independent of location) It is also recognized that other comparison algorithms could be used, but this recommendation uses the method described here. The calculation of the adjustment factors for each load case is summarized in a table following the graphical presentation of the results. The adjustment factor and the zone of influence will be determined for each load case. After that, a single bounding factor and zone of influence will be concluded. A.7.7.2 Example factor calculation using identical results: In this example, and in the actual results following, the results used are obtained from elements, and therefore located at the element centroid. The plots will show straight line interpolation between data points to aid comparison and reveal trends. The X-axis on all plots is an arbitrary sequence that indicates the progression of elements from the wall to the floor, where the knuckle extends from element 1 to 8. Additional data points on either side of the knuckle are included to show the limits of the knuckle mesh influence.
A.48
Examples howing identical results

Wall Knuckle FlOO
' ' . ^ ^ ^
S*
/
2ele I Sele
^
9 Knuckle elements (wall t o floor), and 1 adjacent elements at each end
Knuckle elements are highlighted. The 2 element mesh does not align with the 8 element mesh, therefore the location is noninteger. Elements 0 and 9 (and beyond) have the same location.
8 element element 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Max abs value Stress 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 00 <- max Factor Max abs value 9 00 1 00 2 element element 0 2 50 6 50 9 stress 0 25 65 9 <- max
The factor is 8e/2e = 9/9 = 1.0. Note that if the common element at each end is not included, the factor is 8/6.5 = 1.23, which is clearly incorrect, since the data trend is identical. The common element must be included to ensure that no difference in alignment of the element centroids inadvertently leads to a different range of data being considered (in this example 1 to 8 vs 2.5 to 6.5).
A.49
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 A.7.7.3 Application of the adjustment factor The method of combining the results must be consistent with the method of calculating the adjustment factor. The adjustment factor must be applied to the global seismic model results within the knuckle zone of influence. The single bounding factor and zone of influence must be used when the loading involves an indeterminate combination of the load types addressed in the load cases. The dead weight portion of the seismic load from the global seismic model is subtracted from the results before combination; therefore an adjustment factor is applied to seismic loads for a consistent approach. The recommended method for mapping the global seismic model results to the TOLA model is outlined below. This simplified, conservative method is consistent with the use of a single bounding factor. Follow the process for each stress component (hoop, meridional, top/bottom/membrane, etc.) 1. List the results for the global seismic model elements 2. Determine the maximum stress within the given zone of influence 3. Multiply the above maximum stress by the adjustment factor 4. Add the resulting single value to the TOLA model elements within a location range equal to the zone of influence.
A.7.8 Results
A.7.8.1 F o r m a t for presentation of results Results will be summarized and presented in plots showing primary tank meridional and hoop stresses in the knuckle region. Meridional and hoop stresses will be labeled SM and SH, respectively. The top, middle, and bottom shell surface from which the results are retrieved will be identified by _T, _M, and _B respectively. The stress label will be followed by an indicator of the number of elements (e.g. "2e") and a label for the load case. Finally, an additional number (if present) at the end indicates a multiplier on the nominal load. For example, the label " S M T 8e PseisAY 2" represents meridional stress at the top surface on a model with a 8 element mesh, under seismic waste pressure for the AY configuration, using twice the nominal load.
A.7.8.2 Load Case 1: Pressure Loading The study model was subjected to a pressure load to simulate the effect of the waste during a seismic event. The pressures are taken from the tables of theoretical waste pressure found in Section 8.2 of Abatt (2008). The pressures used the AY tank waste depth of 422 inches with a specific gravity of 1.7. The pressure is applied to the primary tank as a pressure gradient over the depth of the waste. To show the sensitivity of the model to the load, additional loads of one-half and double the nominal loading are applied to the study model. The load case also includes gravity effects (dead weight and waste hydrostatic fluid effects due to gravity), which will be subtracted in post processing.
A.50
Table A.7 -1. Theoretical Waste Pressures, BES-BEC(copied from Section 8.2 of Abatt (2008))
Waste Height Ratio 0 97 0 92 0 85 0 79 0 72 0 66 0 59 0 53 0 48 0 42 0.37 0 31 0 25 0 18 0 12 0 06 Hydro
Waste
Height 410 75 386 5
static
(psi) 0 69 2 18 3 84
Imp (psi) 1 08 2
Conv (psi) 1 38
Vert
(psi) 0 26 0 82
Dyn (psi) 2 01 3 18 4.51 5 78 6 93 7 99 8 93 9.73 1039 1097
Dyn (SRSS) (psi) 1 77 2 50 3 39
Theor Theor
Max
2 70 5.36 8.34 11.31 14.11 16 83 19.42 21 78 23 88 25 87 27.80 29 79 31 87 33 87 35.74 37 48
Theor Min -1 32 -1 00 -0 67 -0 26 0 25 0 85 1 57 2.33 3 10 3 93 4 82 5 88 7 11 8 43 9.87 11 32
Max (SRSS) 246 4 68 7.23 9 78 12 22 14 60 1690 1901 20 89 22 70 24 47 26 32 28 27 30 16 31.97
Theor Min
(SRSS)
-1 08 -0 32 0 45
359.5 332
305 278 251 225 65 202 3 179 3 156.35 131 45 104 5 77 5 50 5 24 5
5.53
7 18 8 84
2.86 3.59
42 4 73 5 17 5.53 5 81 6 05
1.25 1.13
1 02 0 93 0 85 0 77 0 72 0 67 0 63 06 0 56 0 54 0 52 05 0 49
1.43
2 05
4.26
5 04 5 76 6 40 6 95 7 40 7 80 8 16 8 48 8 78 9 01 9 16
10.50 12.05 1349

14 90
2.63 318 3.7

4 15 4 54 4 89 52 5 49 5 76 5.97 6.11 62
1.27 2 14
3 08 4 09 5 10 6 08 7 09 8.15 9 36 10 71
16.31 17.84
1949 21 15 22 81 24 40
6.26
6 44 66 6.73
11 49
11 95 1238 1272 12.94 13 08
6.81
6 86
9.26
33.66
12.14 13.64 15 14
ELEMENTS TYPE NUM PRESÔRM
APR 18 2008 13:18:58 PLOT NO. 1
AN
^S^^^Tter
-4.53 AY-460-BES-BEC knuckle study -3.461
-2.927 -2.392
-1.858 -1.324
-.789218 -.25488
Figure 0.7-5. Element Plot Showing Applied Loads
A 51
RPP-RPTJ2237, Rev. 1 A.7.8.3 Results The meridional and hoop stresses for the study model with several mesh refinements are presented in Figure 0.7-7 through Figure 0.7-12.
PseisM T
160014001-2001000
u-
^>t-
>S
^4\ \ \
-800 600
400 -200-
v
/
;7
j-
-T r
/ /
-5M_T2ePseis_AY
\i
\
-SM T8ePseis AY
1
>10
\ -2 -200
12
-400 Knuckle elements (wall to floor), and 3 adjacent elements at each end
Figure 0.7-7. Knuckle Meridional Stress - Outside Surface (Away from Waste)
A.52
PseisM M
Ô-
?e^^v
-10-
I-
\ \
V-J-SM_M2ePseis_AY
,-4
-2
8
-10-
V
\
10
12
-SM M8ePseis AY
-20-
-30Knuckle elements (wall to floor), and 3 adjacent elements at each end
Figure 0.7-8. Knuckle Meridional Stress -Mid-plane Surface
A.53
PseisM B
-400-
-4
J-2 ?00 -400 -600 -800
I
\ \
u.
in
X A
\ \
^ ^
-1000 -1200-1400-
V-
-HL I 7
f /J
10
12
SM B2ePseis_AY SM B8ePseis AY
Knuckle elements (wall to floor), and 3 adjacent elements at each end
-1600
Figure 0.7-9. Knuckle Meridional Stress - Inside Surface (Near Waste)
A.54
PseisH T
1600-1400
u.
in
'A ^ 1
200 -200-
SH_T2ePseis_AY SH T8ePseis AY
-4
WV
12
Figure 0.7-10. Knuckle Hoop Stress - Outside Surface (Away from Waste)
A.55
PseisH M
14001-2001000
It I \ I I I \ -I
in
6oV
-400
T7*
i;
; v
-SH_M2ePseis_AY -SH M8ePsels AY
^V
-200
V vv
* - ^ *
10
12
Figure 0.7-11. Knuckle Hoop Stress - Mid-plane Surface
A.56
PseisH B
-1-2001000 i v
~V
600
u.
in
4_
-400-200-
8
-4
H\
X
\ \
-2 0 200 -400-600
. \ \
I
^4-
SH_B2ePseis_AY
X
\ V 12
SH B8ePseis AY
10 11
Figure 0.7-12. Knuckle Hoop Stress Inside Surface (Near Waste)
A.7.8.4 Seismic Pressure Stress Factors As shown in Figure 0.7-7 through Figure 0.7-12, the results converge at the first element outside the knuckle. The zone of influence is thus limited to the knuckle itself. Table A.7 -2. List of results for 2x load with scale factor calculation
SM T 8e Pseis AY 2 8e Pseis AY 2X (scaled) Scale factor 2883 80 2883 60 1 00 SM M 43 96 43 99 1 00 SM B 2795.90 2795.80 1.00 SH T 2895 90 2895 20 1 00 SH M 2482 30 2481.40 1.00 SH B 2068 80 2067.60 1 00
Table A.7-3. List of results for 0.5x load with scale factor calculation
SM T 8e Pseis AY .5 8e Pseis AY .5X (scaled) Scale factor 720 90 720 90 1 00 SM M 10 98 11 00 1.00 SM B 699 00 698 95 1 00 SH T 724 20 723 80 1 00 SH M 620 80 620 35 1.00 SH B 51750 51690 1.00
A57
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 The stress scales linearly with the load. Thus, a single adjustment factor may be used, according to methodology described in 0. Table A.7-4. List of results with adjustment factor calculation
S t u d y 2e Pseis_AY Element 0 2 50 6 50 9 7827 7917 8007 8097 Max abs value Study 8e Pseis_AY Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7827 7917 7962 8007 8052 8277 8322 8367 8412 8637 Max abs value SM_T 69 022 687.9 939 1 11074 1220 4 1296 5 1351 5 1398 9 1441 8 181 81 SM_M 2.10E+01 19.58 21 304 21 603 21 463 21 321 21 298 21 542 21 995 -8 13 SM_B -26 928 -648 7 -896 5 -1064 2 -1177.6 -1253 9 -1308 9 -1355 8 -1397 9 -198 04 SH_T 382.7 1447 6 1206 4 978 6 783 6 633 529 6 470 5 447 9 651 9 SH_M 368 4 1240 7 9144 628 8 394 7 218 71 99 9 30 3 0 37 18 424 SH_B 354 1033 8 622 4 279 5 88 -195 53 -329 87 -410 -447 2 -615.1 SM_T 71 08 997 6 1395 3 186 58 SM_M 21 197 20 984 21 013 -7 58 SM_B -28 688 -955 6 -1353 3 -201.75 SH_T 378 6 1091.5 551 6 666 5 SH_M 363 8 778 4 110 34 18 877 SH_B 348 8 465 2 -330 95 -628 8
1395.30
21.20
1353.30
1091.50
778.40
628.80
1441.80 Pseis_AY factors (max) 1 03
1447.60 Pseis_AY factors (max) 1.33
1240.70 Pseis_AY factors (max) 1.59
1033 80 Pseis_AY factors (max) 1 64
For seismic meridional stresses in the knuckle, the ratio of the 8 element mesh to the 2 element mesh produces a correction factor of 1.04. For seismic hoop stresses in the knuckle, the ratio of 8 element mesh to the 2 element mesh produces a correction factor of 1.64. To ensure conservative analyses, the primary tank knuckle seismic meridional and hoop stresses should both receive a stress factor of at least 1.64.
A.7.8.5 Load Case 2: Upward Axial Force A positive vertical force will be applied at approximately midway up the primary tank wall such that the resulting stress in the primary tank wall is similar to the meridional midplane stress values found in
A.58
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Deibler et al 2008. To show the sensitivity of the model to the load, additional loads of one-half and double the nominal loading are applied to the study model. The load case also includes gravity effects (dead weight and waste hydrostatic fluid effects due to gravity), which will be subtracted in post processing. The wall extends from path location 508" to 851". At the nominal load magnitude, the meridional midplane stress in the five primary tank wall elements above the knuckle in the study model is 90 ksf, which is a reasonable match within the range of values shown in Table A. 7-5 for that location. Table A.7-5. Excerpt from Appendix F AY-2D-NL-BES-BEC Pri Tank Stress Seismic Only.xls
ANSYS MAXIMUMS BY PATH Shell Mid-Plane

M&D Starting Element No. 981 1001 1021 1041 1061 1081 1101 1121 1141 1161 1181 1201 1221 1241 1261 Path (in.) 503.51 527.76 554.76 582.26 609.26 636.26 663.26 688.61 711.96 734.96 757.91 782.81 809.76 836.76 863.76 PNNL-AY-2D-NLBES-BEC Meridional Stress (kip/ft A 2) Mid 137 84 151.25 122 92 131.39 140 18 144.67 146 55 144 30 139 56 132 39 125 60 73.49 65 13 56.71 47.75
A.59
Applied force
AY-460-BES-BEC knuckle study
Figure 0.7-13. Element Plot Showing Applied Loads A.7.8.6 Results The meridional and hoop stresses for the study model with several mesh refinements are presented in Figure 0.7-14 through Figure 0.7-19.
A.60
Forc+M T
1500 4999500 ^ -4
u.
r * "
-^* -
\
-2 -500-
\
\ \
\
V^Vr
6 8
/J
10
12
-SM_T2eForc+_AY SM T8eForc+ AY
-1000 -1500
-2000-2500 -3000
7T J/
\ \
V
-is-
l I l
A. 61
Forc+M M
-190'9( -80-70-60C D
-v^v
^r
A\
SM_M2eForc+_AY SM M8eForc+ AY
-40^0-20-
w
\
-10i i 0-
- 4 - 2
10
12
Figure 0.7-15. Knuckle Meridional Stress - Mid-plane Surface
A. 6 2
Forc+M B
3-5003000 2500 2000
l\
1500 1000
/
300-
A
-//
-f
-5M_B2eForc+_AY
-SM B8eForc+ AY
\' \
* \ -2
J00
<J /
*--.
^
10 12
-1000
A. 6 3
Forc+H T
1000
300-
I
ho \ 12
SH_T2eForc+_AY SH T8eForc+ AY
-2
1/1
500
IV
' \
/
>T7
W
\
-1000
-1500-
A. 64
Forc+H M
200-
-2
-200
K
\ !\
6/V:
^5^=
10 12
-400-600
u.
-V V
-800 -1000 -1200 -1400 -1600 -1800
4
\ \
,7
/ /
SH_M2eForc+_AY SH M8eForc+ AY
I / l / l i
It
A. 6 5
Forc+H B
2000
1500 1000 -500/

,-4
0J
A f\
UL
-2 500
-1000 -1500-2000
12
SH_B2eForc+_AY SH B8eForc + AY
Figure 0.7-19. Knuc kle Hoop Stress - Inside Surface (Near Waste)
A.7.8.7 Seismic Axial Force Stress Fac tors As shown in Figure 0.7-14 through Figure 0.7-19, the results converge at the first element outside the knuckle. The zone of influence is thus limited to the knuckle itself. Table A. 7-6. List of results for 2x load with scale factor c alc ulation
SM T 8e Forc + AY 2 8e Forc + AY 2X (sc aled) Scale fac tor 5855.41 6093.20 1.04 SM M 163.78 165.26 1.01 SM B 6045.88 6282.00 1.04 SH T 2944.50 2912.60 0.99 SH M 3411.31 3374.00 0.99 SH B 3878.14 3835.20 0.99
Table A.7-7. List of results for 0.5x load with scale factor c alc ulation
SM T 8e Forc + A Y .5 8e Forc + AY .5X (sc aled) Scale fac tor 1525.20 1523.30 1.00 SM M 41.32 41.32 1.00 SM B 1572.30 1570.50 1.00 SH T 727.50 728.15 1.00 SH M 842.80 843.50 1.00 SH B 958.00 958.80 1.00
A. 6 6
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 The stress scales approximately linearly with the load. Thus, a single adjustment factor may be used, according to methodology described in 0. Table A.7-8. List of results with adjustment factor calculation
S t u d y 2e Forc+_AY Element 0 2 50 6 50 9 7827 7917 8007 8097 Max abs value S t u d y 8e Forc+_AY Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7827 7917 7962 8007 8052 8277 8322 8367 8412 8637 Max abs value SM_T 292 632 868 5 914 2 811.9 520 9 -11.5 -800 8 -1820 8 -3046 6 -407 8 3046 60 Forc_AY factors (max) 1 91 SM_M 9 21E+01 79.112 81 269 82 631 81 928 77.608 70 353 60 475 47 224 20 54 92.11 Forc_AY factors (max) 1.00 SM_B -108 43 -710.3 -751 6 -646 6 -357.2 166.7 941 5 1941.7 3141 448 87 3141 00 Forc_AY factors (max) 1 82 SH_T -148 9 -1456 3 -11176 -822.4 -600 3 -490.3 -514 4 -675 -966 06 -1394 9 1456 30 Forc_AY factors (max) 1 06 SH_M -208 99 -1687 -1349 -1010 3 -688 59 -408 75 -192 38 -51 07 12 43 26 66 1687 00 Forc_AY factors (max) 1.44 SH_B -269 18 -1917.6 -1580 52 -1198 25 -776 81 -327 16 129 65 572 83 990 88 1448 2 1917 60 Forc_AY factors (max) 1.35 SM_T 311 44 521 8 -1591 4 -399 46 1591.40 SM_M 92 511 82 169 65 392 21 04 92.51 SM_B -126 418 -357 5 1722 2 441 56 1722.20 SH_T -153 84 -1064 7 -742 -1368 2 1368 20 SH_M -219 43 -1170 6 -191 74 27 208 1170 60 SH_B -285 13 -1276 63 358 48 1422.57 1422 57
A.7.8.8 Load Case 3 : Downward Axial Force The loading is the same as for upward axial force, except the sign of the vertical force is negative.
A.67
Applied force
AY-460-BES-BEC knuckle study
Figure 0.7-20. Element Plot Showing Applied Loads A.7.8.9 Results The meridional and hoop stresses for the study model with several mesh refinements are presented in Figure 0.7-14 through Figure 0.7-19.
A.68
Forc-M T
35993000 2500 2000 ;
u.
1500 1000
-500 SM_T2eForc-_AY
/ i
^ ^ T
-2
300-
/ v
* - " *
/j-
M
\ 19 12
'SM T8eForc- AY
-1000
-1-500-
A.69
Forc-M M
-2
-19-29-30-40in
10
12
8
-60-70-80-90
1QQ -199
//
J n
-SM_M2eForc-_AY -SM M8eForc- AY
sr?
y .'
yf
Figure 0.7-22. Knuckle Meridional Stress - Mid-plane Surface
A.70
Forc-M B
1000
j 00-
-4
T^
\ 2 \4
-500-
\
\
*, 6
7*Sr
V\ \ \
./> -
-1000-1500
-2000 -2500 -3000-
V*
J-
7f
-SM_B2eForc-_AY - S M BSeForc- AY
10
12
St
X
A.71
Forc-H T
2000
-1500l I
h
\
1000
in
/
500-
>*
A 7?
/
^ * -SH_T2eForc-_AY -SH T8eForc- AY
y
-2 -500-
; /
12
-1000-
A.72
Forc-H M
1800 1600 1400 1200
u.
in
I
I I -I
I
\ V
1000
/ /
W W
-SH_M2eForc-_AY SH M8eForc- AY
T 600J.7 -400 tj
800
200 i>
~-
-4 -2 (I
- -
19 -200Knuckle elements (wall to floor), and 3 adjacent elements at each end
12
A.73
Forc-H B
-2599-
2999 -15991999
in
/x
/
A\
\
-599
+ - ^
-4
Uy
v
LY 12
\
SH_B2eForc-_AY SH B8eForc- AY
-2 -599 -1999 -1599
V
SM B 6269.10 6290.80 1.00 SH T 2915.00 2908.80 1.00 SH M 3376.90 3369.60 1.00 SH B 3838.70 3830.40 1.00
Figure 0.7-26. Knuckle Hoop Stress - Inside Surface (Near Waste) A.7.8.10 Seismic Axial Force Stress Factors As shown in Figure 0.7-21 through Figure 0.7-26, the results converge at the first element outside the knuckle. The zone of influence is thus limited to the knuckle itself. Table A. 7-9. List of results for 2x load with scale factor calculation
SM T 8e Fore- AY 2 8e Fore- AY 2X (scaled) Scale factor 6079.50 6102.00 1.00 SM M 165.20 184.21 1.12
SM T 8e Fore- AY .5 8e Fore- AY .5X (scaled) Scale factor 1528.20 1525.50 1.00 SM M 41.31 46.05 1.11 SM B 1575.40 1572.70 1.00 SH T 726.60 727.20 1.00 SH M 841.60 842.40 1.00 SH B 956.60 957.60 1.00
A.74
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 The stress scales linearly with the load. Thus, a single adjustment factor may be used, according to methodology described in 0. Table A.7-11. List of results with adjustment factor calculation
S t u d y 2e Forc-_AY Element 0 2 50 6 50 9 7827 7917 8007 8097 Max abs value S t u d y 8e Forc-_AY Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7827 7917 7962 8007 8052 8277 8322 8367 8412 8637 Max abs value SM_T -292 508 -867 8 -913 -810 3 -518.7 145 804 5 1824 9 3051 40471 3051 00 Forc_AY factors (max) 1 92 SM_M -9.21 E+01 -79.114 -81 263 -82 617 -81 901 -77.566 -70 299 -60 41 -47 149 -21 75 92.11 Forc_AY factors (max) 1 00 SM_B 108 292 709 55 750 5 645 354 8 -169 6 -945 -19457 -3145 4 -448 19 3145 40 Forc_AY factors (max) 1 83 SH_T 148 6 1454 4 11159 820 9 599 4 489.7 514.1 674 9 966 2 1387.7 1454 40 Forc_AY factors (max) 1 07 SH_M 208 8 1684 8 1347 1008 4 686 9 407.21 191.1 49 95 -13 44 -27 261 1684 80 Forc_AY factors (max) 1 44 SH_B 268 9 1915.2 1578 1 1196 774 43 324 83 -131 94 -575 1 -993 1 -1442 2 1915 20 Forc_AY factors (max) 1 35 SM_T -311 44 -521 5 1592 2 397 58 1592 20 SM_M -92 505 -82 164 -65 36 -22 3 92.51 SM_B 126 432 357 2 -1723 -442 15 1723 00 SH_T 153 7 1063 9 741 1 1365 1 1365.10 SH_M 219 5 11698 190 7 -27 788 1169 80 SH_B 285 1 1275 6 -359.75 -1420 7 1420 70
A.7.9 AY vs. AP
The AP tank configuration is examined using the same methodology as AY tank. The applied loads are derived from AP tank waste properties (Abatt 2008) and AP tank global seismic model results (Abatt
A.75
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 2008). In the interest of brevity, only tabular results with adjustment factor calculation are presented for the AP tank configuration. A.7.9.1 Load Case 1: Pressure Loading Table A.7-12. List of results for 2x load with scale factor calculation
SM T 8e Pseis AP 2 671 90 691 50 1 03 8e Pseis AP 2X (scaled) Scale factor SM M 51 52 51 47 1 00 SM B 568 92 588 56 1 03 SH T 889 80 888 80 1 00 SH M 907 10 906 00 1 00 SH B 924 40 923 00 1 00
SM T 8e Pseis AP .5 8e Pseis A P .5X (scaled) Scale factor 182 84 172 88 0.95 SM M 12 88 12 87 1 00 SM B 157 08 147.14 0 94 SH T 221 50 222 20 1 00 SH M 225 80 226 50 1 00 SH B 230 00 230 75 1 00
Table A.7-14. List of results with adjustment factor calculation

S t u d y 2e Pseis_AP Element -1 0 2.50 6 50 9 10 7835 7925 8015 8105 8195 8285 Max abs value SM_T -148 08 -6 35 128.7 335 4 51.22 -18 8349 335 40 SM_M 26 6866 22 5931 23 0091 25 103 1358 12.77 26 69 SM_B 201 45 51.53 -82 7 -285 2 -24 05 44 38 285 20 SH_T 724 6 436 6 156 79 124 152.9 -79.76 724 60 SH_M 777.1 445.4 122 02 26 96 25 125 24.763 777.10 SH_B 829 6 454 87 2 -70.067 -102.7 129 28 829 60
A.76
S t u d y 8e Pseis _AP Element -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7835 7925 8015 8060 8105 8150 8375 8420 8465 8510 8735 8825 Max abs value SM_T -144 36 -6.2 -48 87.4 195 3 276 64 326 682 345 75 340 3 311 5 46 37 -17.5954 345 75 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 03 SM_M 26 444 22 3883 21.7304 23 2094 24 2348 25 0275 25 5591 25 735 25 67 25 345 12 83 1201 26 44 Forc_AP factors (max) 0 99 SM_B 197 24 50.97 91 4 -41 -146 8 -226 58 -275 561 -294 28 -289 -260 8 -20.71 41 61 294 28 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 03 SH_T 725 6 444.4 172 02 167.11 157 58 147.17 136 45 125 38 11434 101 4 138 9 -73 68 725 60 Forc_AP factors (max) 1.00 SH_M 776.7 453 192 145.2 102 33 66 99 41.29 25 18 16 85 13 79 24 585 24 208 776 70 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 00 SH_B 828 461 5 212 123 3 47 1 -132 -53 88 -75.019 -80 64 -73 82 -89 7 122 09 828 00 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 00
A.7.9.2 Load Case 2: Upward Axial Force Table A.7-15. List of results for 2x load with scale factor calculation
SM T 8e Forc+ AP 2 5260 20 5067 34 0 96 8e Forc+ AP 2X (scaled) Scale factor SM M 193 48 218 97 1.13 SM B 4873 20 4634 68 0 95 SH T 3016 70 2899.75 0 96 SH M 1611 36 1562 56 0 97 SH B 3208 70 3064 96 0 96
SM T 8e Forc+ 8e Forc+ AP .5 AP .5X (scaled) 1267 22 1266 84 1 00 SM M 56 44 54 74 097 SM B 1225 90 1158 67 0 95 SH T 721 36 724 94 1 00 SH M 387 75 390 64 1 01 SH B 761.15 766 24 1 01
Scale factor
A.77
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table A.7-17. List of results with adjustment factor calculation
Study 2e Forc+_AP Element -1 0 2.50 6 50 9 10 7835 7925 8015 8105 8195 8285 Max abs value Study 8e Forc+_AP Element -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7835 7925 8015 8060 8105 8150 8375 8420 8465 8510 8735 8825 Max abs value SM_T -243 94 478 65 2277 2533 67 2520 9 2220 92 1597.17 650 5 -577 33 -2051 47 -435 87 81 4976 2533 67 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 96 SM_M 128 497 108 7953 104 2084 108 1724 109 4848 107 5485 100 8981 90 721 77.531 60 219 29.05 24.95 128 50 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 63 SM_B 500 93 -261 064 -2068 61 -2317 34 -2301 97 -2005 86 -1395 37 -469 01 732 41 2171 9 493 99 -31.59 2317 34 Forc_AP factors (max) 2 00 SH_T -135.4 -537 -130 18 4 86 107 02 158 66 125 48 -17 28 -278 1 -659 54 -1449 873 211 14 1449 87 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 81 SH_M -23.7 -647 9 -781 28 -717.51 -602 71 -450 01 -285 07 -136 97 -29 49 21 93 41.28 29 039 781 28 Forc_AP factors (max) 1.97 SH_B 88 1 -758 9 -1432 37 -1439 88 -1312 456 -1058 68 -695 62 -256 651 219 127 703 399 1532 48 -153 07 1532 48 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 81 SM_T -153 95 342 582 1291 819 -194 53 -237 18 64 6951 1291 82 SM_M 78 9456 66 8371 66 8811 50 699 18 05 16.13 78 95 SM_B 311 84 -208 91 -1158 05 295 93 273 278 -32.43 1158 05 SH_T -91 -314 20 3 -164.27 -799 1 176 74 799 10 SH_M -21 1 -396 6 -341 52 -68 22 24 261 18 684 396 60 SH_B 48 8 -479 4 -703 36 27.847 847 62 -139 37 847 62
A.7.9.3 Load Case 3: Downward Axial Force Table A.7-18. List of results for 2x load with scale factor calculation
SM T 8e Fore- AP 2 8e Fore- AP 2X (scaled) Scale factor 5131.70 5133 00 1 00 SM M 223 82 223 85 1.00 SM B 4689 00 4690 20 1 00 SH T 2983 10 2992 40 1 00 SH M 1573.70 1574 80 1 00 SH B 3152 40 3161 40 1.00
A.78
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table A.7-19. List of results for 0.5x load with scale factor calculation
SM T 8e Fore- A P .5 8eForcAP .5X (scaled) Scale factor 1283 10 1283 25 1 00 SM M 55 97 55 96 1 00 SM B 1172 40 1172 55 1 00 SH T 748 10 748 10 1 00 SH M 393 90 393 70 1 00 SH B 790 00 790 35 1 00
Table A. 7-20. List of results with adjustment factor calculation

Study 2e Forc-_AP Element -1 0 2 50 6 50 9 10 7835 7925 8015 8105 8195 8285 Max abs value S t u d y 8e Forc-_AP Element -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7835 7925 8015 8060 8105 8150 8375 8420 8465 8510 8735 8825 Max abs value SM_T 245 621 -489 49 -2311 -2566 5 -2545 5 -2229 88 -1582 93 -606 166 656 9 2170 4 443.9 -102 4654 2566 50 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 94 SM_M -131 673 -111.4747 -106 7366 -110 6976 -111 9252 -109 8015 -102 8459 -92 305 -78 692 -60 896 -33 858 -32 56 131 67 Forc_AP factors (max) 1.69 SM_B -508 97 266 53 20975 2345 1 2321 6 2010 24 1377 23 421 555 -814 3 -2292 2 -511 62 37.34 2345 10 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 97 SH_T 137.6 542.3 126 83 -9 56 -111 44 -160 86 -122 97 27 14 297 6 690 35 1496 2 -262 04 1496 20 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 80 SH_M 24 4 655 8 787 4 721 8 604.67 449 47 282 25 132 66 24 62 -26.67 -42 245 -39 382 787 40 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 96 SH_B -88 7 769.1 1447 9 1453 1 1320 8 1059 69 687 52 238 189 -248 35 -743 69 -1580 7 183.27 1580 70 Forc_AP factors (max) 1 79 SM_T 157 65 -341 04 -1320 1159 246 28 -51 0679 1320 00 SM_M -77.9584 -66 0009 -66 2949 -50 866 -20 04 -18 8 77.96 SM_B -313 565 209 04 11874 -217.6 -286 36 13 48 1187.40 SH_T 91.4 319 5 -19 51 145 65 830.4 -123 87 830 40 SH_M 20 8 402 350 92 72.07 -25 588 -22 276 402 00 SH_B -49 8 484 5 721 3 -1.506 -881.6 79.31 881 60
A.79
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 A.7.9.4 Summary of AP t a n k configuration The general trend for AP tank results is similar to AY tank. The AP tank does not reach convergence of the 2 element and 8 element results until the second element outside of the knuckle. The stress scales approximately linearly with the load. Thus, a single adjustment factor may be used, according to methodology described in 0. For seismic meridional stresses in the knuckle, the ratio of the 8 element mesh to the 2 element mesh produces a correction factor of 2.0. For seismic hoop stresses in the knuckle, the ratio of 8 element mesh to the 2 element mesh produces a correction factor of 1.97. To ensure conservative analyses, the primary tank knuckle seismic meridional and hoop stresses should both receive a stress factor of at least 2.0.
A.7.10 Summary and Conclusion

This appendix establishes a factor that will be applied to the global seismic model lower knuckle stress components to account for loss of accuracy due to the limited two element mesh resolution. This factor will be applied to the lower knuckle stress components from the global seismic model before combining the results with the TOLA model stresses, which uses a more accurate eight element mesh resolution. In comments on the previous revision of this appendix, reviewers R.P. Kennedy and A.S. Veletsos recommended that the adjustment factor consider seismically-induced effects, specifically seismic waste pressure and axial loads in the primary tank wall. This revision is substantially rewritten based upon the comments. The effects of the knuckle mesh and seismic loading are evaluated using a simplified slice model based directly on the global seismic model. Two instances of the study model were used; a two element and an eight element knuckle mesh resolution. Three load cases were defined to evaluate the load conditions indicated in the above comments. The load cases are run with a range of load magnitudes found in the global seismic model. The results of the evaluation showed: The knuckle zone of influence is limited to the knuckle itself (AY) or within 1 element of the knuckle (AP). Thus, the effect of the knuckle mesh resolution (and the adjustment required) is localized. The stress scales approximately linearly with the load. Thus, a single adjustment factor may be used because the single factor is applicable over the entire range considered. The broad applicability of the factor covers uncertainties in the magnitude of the load. The adjustment factor is based on the maximum of the absolute values of meridional and hoop stresses from the study model with 2 and 8 element meshes. An adjustment factor of at least 2.0 is recommended to be applied to the meridional and hoop stresses for the primary tank lower knuckle of the global seismic model. The adjustment factor need only be applied
A.80
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 to the knuckle zone of influence elements, which is at most one element beyond the knuckle. The applicable elements are list below: Table 0.7-21. List of AY global seismic model elements requiring adjustment factor
1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341
Table 0.7-22. List of AP global seismic model elements requiring adjustment factor
1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441
A.7.11 Application to Increased Liquid Level Analysis for AP Tanks

There are differences in the interpretation of the results of the primary tank lower knuckle study. While the study concluded that "An adjustment factor of at least 2.0 is recommended to be applied" to the seismic results of the primary tank stress in the lower knuckle, a factor of 3.0 was used for combining with the TOLA results for the subsequent ASME evaluation.
A.81
A.8 Reviewer Comments - Veletsos, August 2008

Comments Regarding Revised Anchor Bolt Evaluation for 241-AP Tanks with Increased Liquid Level by A.S. Veletsos Via e-mail August 12 2008
Following, at long last, are my comments on the report on Anchor Bolts Modeling The issuance of this report in its present form would be totally acceptable to me I would, however, like to add the following remarks, and leave it up to you and your associates to decide if any adjustments would be desirable in response to them. There were two issues mentioned on this topic in our teleconference of March 25, 2008: First, that increasing the flexibility of the anchor bolts may decrease rather than increase their maximum dynamic deformations; and second, that considering the stiffness or flexibility of all bolts to be the same is likely to underestimate the maximum deformations of those in the lower rows compared to those in the upper rows. For reasons that I do not quite understand but I fully accept, the results of the more extensive study of anchor bolts had already demonstrated that, at least for the conditions relevant to the project, my view on the fist issue was not correct. On the other hand, the view on the second issue is demonstrated to have been right by the results of the present study. It is worth noting in this regard that, although of significantly lower values, the ordinates of the curve in Fig. 2 of the Report for bolts with the realistic, differing effective stiffness increase much more rapidly with increasing distance from the crown than do those of the curve for bolts of the same stiffness. Specifically, whereas the ratio of the ordinates of the curves for bolts of the same effective stiffness at distances of roughly 260 in. and 50 in. from the crown is approximately 0.38 / 0.12 = 3.2, for the bolts of variable stiffness, it is 0.1 / 0.02 = 5. More importantly, at the distances of about 440 in. and 50 in. from the crown, the corresponding ratios are approximately 1.0 / 0.12 = 8.3 and 0.52 / 0.02 = 26, respectively. I hope that these brief comments prove helpful.
A.82
A.9 Reviewer Comments - Klingner, September 2008

COMMENTS ON THE TREATMENT OF ANCHORS IN ANALYSES OF HANFORD DOUBLESHELL TANKS Richard E. Klingner, PE Austin, TX September 2008
A. 9.1 Introduction
Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL) and M&D Professional Services (M&D) are conducting analyses of the Hanford Site Double-Shell Tanks (DSTs) as part of the DST Integrity Project. The thermal and operating loads (TOLA) analysis is being performed by PNNL and the seismic analysis is being performed by M&D. The computer models used for the seismic analyses are distinct from the computer models used for the TOLA analyses, and results from the two models have been superposed. Among the critical components of the DST structure are the anchors that connect the steel dome of the primary tank to the concrete dome of the vault. For the analyses noted above, the nonlinear response of these embedded anchors has been simulated using an equivalent linear elastic modulus (secant modulus) that is based on the estimated maximum deformation capacity of the anchors. Of particular interest is the development of the equivalent linear elastic modulus representing the shear response of the anchors. The equivalent linear elastic moduli in shear and tension that were used in the evaluation of the DST anchor bolts were developed based on a combination of test results, extrapolations of test results, and analytical predictions. This paper has three purposes. The first is to review and assess the underlying technical justification for the combination of TOLA and seismic demands on the anchors when those anchors are simulated using an equivalent linear modulus in the separate models. The second is to assess the ultimate shearing deformation capacity used in the DST anchor evaluation. The third is to comment on the relationship between the approach used in the DST anchor evaluation and the current activity of ACI Committee 349 (Concrete Nuclear Structures).
A.9.2 Superposition of Seismic and TOLA Results

Because the goals and technical constraints of the seismic and TOLA models were significantly different, the two analyses have been conducted separately using distinct models and the results then combined. Such superposition is convenient because it reduces computational effort. It also eliminates the possibility of numerical instability associated with spurious coupling of seismic and TOLA solutions that might in fact be uncoupled. Such superposition is valid, provided that the following conditions are met:
A.83
1) The seismic and TOLA responses must each be essentially linear elastic; 2) The secant stiffnesses used for the anchor bolts in the seismic and TOLA analyses must be consistent with the range of deformations experienced by those anchor bolts in the seismic and the TOLA responses; and 3) The secant stiffnesses used for the anchors in the seismic and TOLA analyses must be consistent with the ranges of deformations experienced by those anchors in the superposed seismic and TOLA analyses. The above assertion is clearly valid if each anchor remains linear elastic throughout the seismic and TOLA responses, and also throughout the superposition of those responses. The assertion remains reasonable provided that each of the seismic and TOLA responses, as well as their superposition, is essentially represented by the equivalent linearization. This particular point is addressed below.
A.9.3 Technical Justification for Equivalent Linear Analyses

The biggest question regarding the use of equivalent linear models in the seismic and TOLA analyses for elements whose behavior is actually nonlinear is, "Is equivalent linearization safe?" This question becomes especially complex when the loading comes from restrained thermal deformations in addition to applied gravity loads or seismic inertial forces. A fundamental approach to this question is probably best. The solution to a structural analysis problem must satisfy equilibrium, constitutive relationships, and kinematics. The collapse load predicted by such a solution is in principle exact if the model is correct. According to the lower-bound theorem of structural mechanics (Hodge 1958, Neal 1963), a collapse load predicted using a solution that satisfies equilibrium and constitutive relationships, but not necessarily kinematics, is a lower bound to the true collapse load. Analytical solutions that satisfy the lower-bound theorem are therefore in principle safe for the design, because the true collapse load is always greater than or equal to that predicted. In structural design for applied loads, the lower-bound theorem is applied by selecting a force path from the point of load application to the foundation, and by providing along that force path sufficient strength to resist the resulting actions, under the deformations associated with those actions. The force path does not have to be that corresponding to elastic analysis. Examples of the lower-bound approach to structural design are the idealization of reinforced concrete slabs with plan dimensional ratios of 2:1 or greater as one-way slabs spanning in the shorter direction, and the idealization of complex reinforced concrete assemblages using strut-and-tie models. Lower-bound models satisfy equilibrium of applied forces and corresponding internal actions, and they satisfy constitutive relationships because yield is not exceeded along the designated load path. Under applied loads from gravity or ground shaking, an analytical approach that uses equivalent linearization with a secant modulus based on a deformation greater than or equal to the calculated deformation, is in principle consistent with the lower-bound theorem of structural mechanics, and is in principle therefore safe.
A.84
To see why this is so, consider the hypothetical structural system whose force-deformation behavior is shown in Figure 27. Units of load and displacement are arbitrary. For discussion purposes, the curve on the figure represents the system's true force-deformation behavior, while the upper and lower straight lines represent equivalent linearizations of that behavior using secant stiffnesses evaluated between zero and a deformation of 0.01, and between zero and a deformation of 0.02, respectively. 2 -i
1.5 < u 2
0.5
x
^ ()
0.005
0.01 Deformation
0.015
0.02
Figure 27 Hypothetical structural system Suppose that the system is analyzed using an equivalent linearization with the secant stiffness evaluated between zero and a deformation of 0.01. Provided that the deformation experienced by the system is less than or equal to 0.01, the results of the analysis will satisfy the lower-bound theorem: equilibrium is satisfied, and so are constitutive relationships, because the force consistent with the secant stiffness is always less than or equal to the true force. If the calculated deformation exceeds 0.01, then constitutive relationships are no longer necessarily satisfied, and the analysis should be repeated using a secant stiffness evaluated between zero and a greater deformation (for example, 0.02). This logic is valid provided that the system is a softening system, and provided that its behavior is ductile rather than brittle, so that there is no sudden release of energy at failure. It also applies to the seismic response, which is essentially elastic. The logic remains valid even when the load on the system comes from restrained internal deformations, because any such load case can be interpreted as the summation of two load cases: the first is the combination of thermal deformations plus the external loads (nodal loads) necessary to give zero nodal displacements; and the second is the opposite of those nodal loads. In addition, it is useful to remember that in principle, a ductile anchor embedded in concrete that is subjected to thermal deformations cannot
A.85
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 fail as a result of those deformations, because as the stiffness of the anchor approaches zero, so does the change in anchor force resultingfromthermal deformations of the concrete. This presumes, of course, that the deformation limit of the anchor is not exceeded. Finally, it is worthwhile to discuss briefly the probable effects of two other possible behaviors in the concrete surrounding the anchors: tensile cracking and creep (or relaxation). Both of these decrease the effective elastic modulus of the concrete, and therefore decrease the forces imposed on the anchors by restrained thermal deformations. Provided that cracking of the concrete does not degrade the performance of the tank in other ways, it does not affect the validity of the lower-bound approach presented above.
A.9.4 D e v e l o p m e n t of E q u i v a l e n t L i n e a r Elastic M o d e l s for A n c h o r s In terms of the above example, it is necessary to have a reliable force-deformation curve in order for the equivalent secant linearization to satisfy the lower-bound theorem. Such force-deformation curves can be obtained by test or by analysis. The process used to develop them in this case is reported in pp. 10-13 of Appendix B of Deibler (2008), and is corroborated by Figure 28 (Nelson 1961), which shows forcedeformation curves for plain headed bolts loaded in shear. Behavior is ductile, and the maximum deformations reported in Nelson (1961) for 1/2-, 5/8-, and 3/4-in. diameter studs are 0.167 in., 0.299 in., and 0.341 in., respectively. The reported deformations are for concrete compressive strengths between approximately 3,800 and 4,200 psi. The deformations at failure are consistent with those reported by Hungerford (2004) in tests of single welded studs embedded in concrete and loaded in shear. Hungerford reports deformations at failure of 0.6 in. for 3/4-in. welded studs.
0.05
OIO 0 15 0.20 SLIP OR DISPLACEMENT INCHES
0.25
030
FIG
13 L O A D SLIP vs L O A D D I S P L A C E M E N T C U R V E S FOR H E A D E D S T U D S
Figure 28 Force-deformation curves for headed bolts (Figure 13 of Nelson [1961])
A.86
Figure 29 and Figure 30, taken from Hungerford (2004), show a load-slip curve for a cast-in-place, 3/4-in. diameter welded stud, 5-in. long, loaded in shear. The concrete in that test series had a strength of 3,500 psi at time of test, and showed some hairline cracks.
"-"" "~*v
-~-'\\-'~~
,.''* ****
" " " " " > * .
Load (k
r~"'~
\, CIPST01
PIPQTD9
ft' o 5-
.-PipcjTrn Average
00
0.2
0.4 Slip (in)
0.6
0.8
Figure 29 Load-slip curve for 3/4- in., cast-in-place welded stud, 0 to 0.8 in. (Hungerford 2004) 25 i
20 ..' **^-p-***
15
ffs' 10 ft
CIPST01 CIPST02 (3IPST03 \ verage
0.05
0.1
0.15 Slip (in)
0.2
0.25
0.3
Figure 30 Load-slip curve for 3/4-in., cast-in-place welded stud, 0 to 0.3 in. (Hungerford 2004) Deformations at failure will be less for smaller studs, but are still expected to be considerably above 0.2 in. for studs with an effective diameter of at least 9/16 in., which was shown in Appendix B of Deibler et al. (2008) to be the effective diameter of the DST anchor bolts.
A.87
A.9.5 The Proposed Approach and ACI349 Loading Combinations

This paper is the work of an individual, and does not represent an official interpretation of any document authored by ACI Committee 349 (Concrete Nuclear Structures). Nevertheless, the approach discussed here (equivalent linearization, direct combination of thermal and seismic effects, and a check that the calculated anchor deformations do not exceed the limits of the experimental and analytical results used to establish the linearization) is consistent with the current work of ACI349. Also, the procedure used to combine non-thermal and thermal effects is consistent and conservative. In this section, each of these points is discussed further. As discussed in Deibler et al. (2008), the DST anchor bolts were evaluated according to ACI349-01 (ACI 2001). That standard treats combinations of thermal and seismic loads quite briefly. Of the eleven factored loading combinations given in Section 9.2.1 of that document, only two address combinations of thermal loads and design-basis earthquake; both combinations simply add their effects. This point is discussed further below. Further guidance is given in that Committee's Reinforced Concrete Design for Thermal Effects on Nuclear Power Plant Structures (ACI349.1R-07). As stated in Section 1.3 (General Guidelines) of that document, Stresses resulting from thermal effects are generally self-relieving, that is thermal forces and moments are greatly reduced or completely relieved once concrete cracks or reinforcement yields; as a result, thermal effects do not reduce the strength of a section for mechanical loads. Informal Committee discussions reflect agreement that thermal loads cannot produce failure of an element, provided that deformation limits are not exceeded. Given the limited guidance from ACI349 regarding appropriate combinations of thermal and earthquake effects, it is necessary to use professional judgment to establish appropriate combinations of thermal and seismic effects from consistent linearizations, and to establish appropriate ways of comparing those combinations against available capacities. Of the loading combinations given in Section 9.2.1 of ACI349-01, only one (Loading Combination 4) involves thermal effects plus design-basis earthquake. That combination is repeated below in Eq. (1), with the factored loading combination (U) on the right-hand side of the equation:
D + F + L + H+T
+ R+E,,
=U
Eq. (1)
Consider first a combination of load effects not involving thermal effects. The design criterion is given in Eq. (2): ^ }Non / . thermal Effect\ = U < <j> (nominal \ resistance)
E(
i- (2)
A.88
If consistent linearizations are used, so that deformations are proportional to actions, then for the case of shearing loads and deformations, this design criterion can be expressed directly in terms of deformations, as in Eq. (3):
N
\
non-thermal )i
Eq.(3)
/ i\
;=1
< V u ltimate )
where Anon-thermai Adtmate
= =
shearing deformations from non-thermal effects; and ultimate shearing deformation capacity
The ^-factor is intended to address the statistical dispersion of load effects, and possibly the statistical dispersion of ultimate shearing deformations. The ultimate shearing deformations used in the evaluation of the DST anchor bolts are based on the ultimate deformations reported in Oehlers and Sved (1995), which have a coefficient of variation of only 0.048. Thus, in the case of the DST anchor bolts, the primary purpose of the ^-factor is to address the statistical dispersion of load effects. According to Appendix B4.4 of ACI349-01, the ^-factor corresponding to failure of a ductile steel element is 0.75 in shear. Based on this evaluation, it would be justifiable to use a <j)-factor of 0.75 in Eq. (3), leading to Eq. (4): VV
2^\
\
)
%-(4)
non-thermal )i " ' 3 \/u itmate
Now consider combinations of loads involving thermal loads only. Because thermal loads cannot in principle produce failure provided that the ultimate shearing deformation is not exceeded, there is no need to use a ^-factor to account for the statistical dispersion of thermal effects. The appropriate loading combination is therefore as shown in Eq. (5): #V
2î\
Eq.(5)
thermal h 1 - ^ {û ltimate )
where Ahermai ûltimate
= =
shearing deformations from thermal effects; and ultimate shearing deformation capacity
Finally, consider combinations of non-thermal and thermal effects. To combine those appropriately, both sides of the above equation involving thermal effects only should be factored by 0.75. The equation
A.89
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 involving non-thermal effects only and the factored equation involving thermal effects only can then be combined as in Eq. (6). VV
2^X
\
y-ûUimate )
E(
i-(6)
non-thermal /"" ^ ' ' -> V^thermal )t "./J
If desired, Eq. (6) can be simplified (very conservatively) as Eq. (7): Eq. (7)
7 , V^-non-thermal /"" {.^thermal h U. / J y-ûitimate )
A.9.6 Concluding Remarks

These "Comments" have three purposes. The first is to review and assess the underlying technical justification for the combination of TOLA and seismic demands on the anchors when those anchors are simulated using an equivalent linear modulus in the separate models. The second is to assess the value of the ultimate shearing deformation used to evaluate the DST anchors. The third is to comment on the relationship between the approach used in the DST anchor evaluation and the current activity of ACI Committee 349 (Concrete Nuclear Structures), particularly with respect to loading combinations involving non-thermal plus thermal effects.
In the above sections, that underlying technical justification is assessed, and is judged valid, because the following conditions are met: 1) The seismic and TOLA responses are each essentially linear elastic; 2) The secant stiffnesses used for the anchor bolts in the seismic and TOLA analyses are consistent with the range of deformations experienced by those anchor bolts in the seismic and the TOLA responses; and 3) The secant stiffnesses used for the anchors in the seismic and TOLA analyses are consistent with the ranges of deformations experienced by those anchors in the superposed seismic and TOLA analyses.
In the above sections, the probable ultimate shear deformation capacity of the DST anchors is shown to considerably exceed the approximately 0.2 in. used in the DST evaluation. Although ACI Committee 349 (Concrete Nuclear Structures) gives little direct guidance on how to combine thermal effects with those from design-basis earthquakes, it does give general guidance on the interaction of thermal and seismic effects. That guidance is consistent with the general approach used here. Because thermal effects cannot in principle produce failure provided that the ultimate deformation
A.90
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 capacity is not exceeded, it is appropriate to compute the summation of shearing deformations from nonthermal effects, plus 0.75 times the shearing deformations from thermal effects, and to compare that summation with 0.75 times the ultimate deformation capacity. In this case, shearing deformations from non-thermal and thermal effects were summed directly, and were compared with 0.75 times the ultimate deformation capacity. This is very conservative. I therefore conclude that the methodology used to evaluate the DST anchor bolts is technically justified, safe, and consistent with the current activity of ACI Committee 349.
A. 9.7 References
ACI 2001, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-01) and Commentary (ACI 349R-01), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan. Deibler, J.E, K.I. Johnson, S.P. Pilli, M.W. Rinker, F.G. Abatt, and N.K. Karri, 2008, HanfordDoubleShell Tank Thermal and Seismic Project Increase Liquid Level Analysis for 241-AP Tank Farms, RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Hodge, P.H., 1959, Plastic Analysis of Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Hungerford, B., 2004, Methods to Develop Composite Action in Non-Composite Bridge Floor Systems: Part II, MS Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, May 2004. Neal, B.G., 1963, The Plastic Methods of Structural Analysis, Chapman and Hall, London. Nelson, 1961, Design Data: Nelson Concrete Anchor Studs for Securing Steel to Concrete, Design Manual #21, Nelson Stud Welding Co., Elyria, Ohio. Oehlers, Deric John, and George Sved, 1995, Composite Beams with Limited-Slip-Capacity Shear Connectors, Journal of Structural Engineering: 932-938.
A.91
Appendix B Software Acceptance
Appendix B Software Acceptance

1) Project Title and Number: 2) Software Name and Version: 3) Computer and Property Number: 4) Operating System: 5) Scope of Testing: 6) Tests: DST Thermal and Seismic Analyses ANSYS 7.0 (Rev. 11) Dell PWS 530 WD39892 48971
Windows XP Professional Version 2002 Service Pack 2 Software reinstallation (XP SP2)
Execute ANSYS Verification Testing Package
7) Discrepancies: a) c0231. These differences are acceptable per the ANSYS Verification Package User's Guide ANSYS Release 7.0 (AVPUG). b) vml84. These differences occur at the 5th significant figure. c) vml98. This difference is the reporting of the customer number for this installation. d) vmc8. These differences are acceptable as noted in the output because of the difference in number of iterations and accuracy. e) eye-177s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG). f) eye-178 s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG).
g) dds-13s. This test case requires the "Parallel Performance Module" which is not part of this software installation and is not required for the DST analyses. h) dds-17s. This test case requires the "Parallel Performance Module" which is not part of this software installation and is not required for the DST analyses. i) j) evl73-53s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG). evl75-20s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG).
k) evl75-21s. This test case requires the "Parallel Performance Module" which is not part of this software installation and is not required for the DST analyses.
B.l
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 1) inrt-16s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG). m) sxl20-ls. This test case requires the "Frequency Sweep Module" which is not part of this software installation and is not required for the DST analyses. 8) Finding: This installation of ANSYS is acceptable
Certified by: JE Deibler Ar^Cy Code Customan oO-c^-6^. X./2-4-/05-
Reviewed by: KI Johnson sU-f^-v Lead Engineer
B.2
12/1 0/2002 Page 1 of 1 Addendum to ANSYS Verification Testing Package User's Guide -ANSYS Release 7.0
Notes for test case c 0 2 3 1
Test case c0231 may show considerable differences for the Phase Angle value that is part of the Postl Nodal Degree of Freedom Listing (PRNS command) output. Any such differences do not indicate a problem with this test case's results and should be considered acceptable. The output items of significance for this test case are the UZ values in the Postl Nodal Degree of Freedom Listing. Machine precision differences in the form of small numerical differences that are trivial with respect to the test's output items of significance may also show for this test case in the compare output for this test. Please see Verifying ANSYS and Evaluating COMPARE Differences in Chapter 2 of the ANSYS Verification Testing Package User's Guide for more information on evaluating COMPARE differences. The following is an example of acceptable COMPARE differences for test case c0231:
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR T= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= VALUE -9.8117 -3.7700 22. T= VALUE -9.8119 -3.7693 22. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR T= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= VALUE -9.7579 -3.9649 22. T= VALUE -9.7581 -3.9643 22.
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR T= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUWAT c;;;i';; G= 8 0 . 5 3 2 91 0 . 3 9 4 2 5 i o T= 8 0 . 5 3 2 9 3 p.39419 10
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= 10 0 . 5 2 4 9 5 0 . 3 9 568 9 . T= 10 0 . 5 2 4 97 0 . 3 9562 9 . COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 259 NT= 259 G= 12 0 . 5 0 4 3 3 0 . 4 0 2 8 2 8 . 6 4 8 2 8 . 6 7 2 2 T= 12 0 . 5 0 4 3 5 0 . 4 0 2 7 6 8.6711 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 260 NT= 260 G= 14 0 . 4 8 1 8 6 0 . 4 1 2 0 1 7 . 8 7 1 0 7 . 8 9 6 5 T= 14 0 . 4 8 1 8 8 0 . 4 1 1 9 6 7.8955 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 261 NT= 261 G= 16 0 . 4 5 5 0 5 0 . 4 2 4 7 8 7 . 0 7 1 9 7 . 0 9 9 2 T= 16 0 . 4 5 5 0 7 0 . 4 2 4 7 3 7.0983 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 262 NT= 262 G= 18 0 . 4 2 3 3 9 0 . 4 4 0 9 2 6 . 2 4 2 4 6 . 2 7 2 3 T= 18 0 . 4 2 3 4 1 0 . 4 4 0 8 6 6.2715 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 263 NT= 263 G= 20 0 . 3 8 5 0 1 0 . 4 6 1 2 4 5 . 3 7 3 2 5 . 4 0 6 7 T= 20 0 . 3 8 5 0 2 0 . 4 6 1 1 8 5.4061 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 267 NT= 267 G= VALUE - 9 . 6 0 3 4 - 3 . 9 6 4 9 1 8 . 8 0 6 2 1 . 4 1 3 T= VALUE - 9 . 6 0 3 6 18.805 21.412 NG= 271 NT= 271 2 2 . 4 6 9 2 4 . 7 6 6 2 2 . 4 6 9
NG= 1 9 2 NT= 1 9 2 1 -PHASE AHGLE = 1 -
8.6471 7.8700 7.0710 6.2417 5.3726
-3.9643
24.766
PHASE ANGLE =
NG= 213 NT= 213 469 2 4 . 7 6 6 469 2 4 . 7 6 6

NG= 2 1 9 NT= 2 1 9 NG= 2 4 0 NT= 2 4 0 2440 PHASE AHGLE = 2 24.710 440 PHASE ANGLE =
24.710
NG= 2 4 6 NT= 2 4 6 3 -
PHASE ANGLE = 3 -PHASE ANGLE =
NG-= 257 m -257 NG= 4080 4068
.161
10.183
.160
10.181
258 NT= 258 9 . 4 3 0 9
9.4297
-3.9643
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= VALUE - 9 . 8 1 1 7 - 3 . 9 6 4 9 T= VALUE - 9 . 8 1 1 9
30.580 30.580 30.580
306.570 306.570 306.570
B.3
Notes for Test Case vrn212 Test case vm212 may produce an expected compare difference due to an inconsequential warning message that appears in the ANSYS, Inc. supplied output file that may not appear in the output file generated by your system for this test case. This compare difference should be considered acceptable. The following is an example of this compare difference. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 445 NT= 436 G= NUMBER OF WARNING MESSAGES ENCOUNTERED= 1 T= NUMBER OF WARNING MESSAGES ENCOUNTERED= 0 Notes for Test Cases cyc-177s, cyc-178s, ev-173-53s, ev-175-20s, inrt-16s, and inrt-9s Test cases eye-177s, eye-178s, ev-173-53s, ev-175-20s, inrt-16s, and inrt-9s may produce expected compare differences due to the use of a macro named qaend. The method that is used in the verification procudure (runqa) to handle this macro may cause one or more comparison differences. Any such compare differences are inconsequential and should be considered acceptable. The following is an example of such a compare difference. EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON TEST FILE NG= 1033 NT= 1030 T= USE COMMAND MACRO qaend T=ARGS=137 00 END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= 1033 NT= 1033 Notes for test Cases dds-13s, dds-17s, and ev175-21 s The test cases dds-13s, dds-17s, and ev175-21 s will run to completion only if the "Parallel Performance for ANSYS" product (DDS and AMG solvers) is included in your ANSYS installation.
3-6 ANSYS Verification Testing Package User's Guide . ANSYS Release 7.0. 001767 @ SAS If;'Inc.
B.4
t d
c0211r2 INTEL NT c0212 INTEL NT c0213 INTEL NT c0214 INTEL NT c0215 INTEL NT c0216 INTEL NT C0217 INTEL NT c0218 INTEL NT c0219 INTEL NT c0220 INTEL NT c0221 INTEL NT c0222 INTEL NT c0223 INTEL NT c0224 INTEL NT c0225 INTEL NT c0226 INTEL NT c0227 INTEL NT c0227a INTEL NT c0228 INTEL NT c0229 INTEL NT c0230 INTEL NT
7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1
70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE 70SP20030909 COMPARE
0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL 0 REL
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
605 605 81% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 223 223 45% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 197 197 41% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 409 409 67% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 648 648 81% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 510 510 74% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 332 332 66% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 1627 1627 93% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 2732 2732 95% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 494 494 76% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 1265 1265 90% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 1543 1543 92% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 362 362 66% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 307 307 59% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 420 420 70% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 521 521 74% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 380 380 65% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 380 380 65% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 236 236 50% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 715 715 81% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 2513 2513 94% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS
11:02 INTEL_NT 11:02 INTEL_NT 11:02 INTEL_NT 11:02 INTEL_NT 11:02 INTEL_NT 11:02 INTEL_NT 11:02 INTEL_NT 11:02 INTEL_NT 11:03 INTEL_NT 11:03 INTEL_NT 11:03 INTEL_NT 11:03 INTEL_NT 11:03 INTEL_NT 11:04 INTEL_NT 11:04 INTEL_NT 11:04 INTEL_NT 11:04 INTEL_NT 11:04 INTEL_NT 11:04 INTEL_NT 11:04 INTEL_NT 11:04 INTEL NT <
t d
c0231 INTEL NT c0232 INTEL NT c0233 INTEL NT c0234 INTEL NT vml INTEL NT vm2 INTEL NT vm3 INTEL NT vm4 INTEL NT vm5 INTEL NT vm6 INTEL NT vm7 INTEL NT vm8 INTEL NT vm9 INTEL NT vmlO INTEL NT vmll INTEL NT vml 2 INTEL NT vml 3 INTEL NT vml 4 INTEL NT vml 5 INTEL NT vml 6 INTEL NT vml 7 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
304 304 61% UP20020121 WINDOWS 517 517 79% UP20020121 WINDOWS 542 542 75% UP20020121 WINDOWS 420 420 68% UP20020121 WINDOWS 474 474 72% UP20020121 WINDOWS 667 667 81% UP20020121 WINDOWS 499 499 73% UP20020121 WINDOWS 434 434 69% UP20020121 WINDOWS 884 884 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 854 854 83% UP20020121 WINDOWS 2176 2176 93% UP20020121 WINDOWS 346 346 64% UP20020121 WINDOWS 851 851 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 437 437 69% UP20020121 WINDOWS 885 885 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 444 444 70% UP20020121 WINDOWS 464 464 71% UP20020121 WINDOWS 537 537 76% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1356 1356 91% UP20020121 WINDOWS 740 740 82% UP20020121 WINDOWS 546 546 76% UP20020121 WINDOWS
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
11: :05 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT 11: :06 INTEL NT :07 INTEL NT 11: :07 INTEL NT 11: :07 INTEL NT 11: <
t d
vml 8 INTEL vml 9 INTEL vm20 INTEL vm21 INTEL vm22 INTEL vm23 INTEL vm24 INTEL vm25 INTEL vm2 6 INTEL vm27 INTEL vm28 INTEL vm2 9 INTEL vm30 INTEL vm31 INTEL vm32 INTEL vm33 INTEL vm34 INTEL vm35 INTEL vm3 6 INTEL vm37 INTEL vm38 INTEL
NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
11: :07 INTEL NT :07 INTEL NT 11: :07 INTEL NT 11: :07 INTEL NT 11: :07 INTEL NT 11: :07 INTEL NT 11: :07 INTEL NT 11: :07 INTEL NT 11: 11: :08 INTEL NT 11: :08 INTEL NT 11: :08 INTEL NT 11: :08 INTEL NT 11: :08 INTEL NT 11: :08 INTEL NT 11: :08 INTEL NT 11: :08 INTEL NT 11: :08 INTEL NT 11: :08 INTEL NT 11: :08 INTEL NT 11: :08 INTEL NT 11: :08 INTEL NT <
t d
vm3 9 INTEL vm4 0 INTEL vm41 INTEL vm42 INTEL vm43 INTEL vm4 4 INTEL vm45 INTEL vm4 6 INTEL vm4 7 INTEL vm4 8 INTEL vm4 9 INTEL vm5 0 INTEL vm51 INTEL vm52 INTEL vm53 INTEL vm5 4 INTEL vm55 INTEL vm5 6 INTEL vm5 7 INTEL vm5 8 INTEL vm5 9 INTEL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
11: :09 INTEL NT 11: :09 INTEL NT 11: :09 INTEL NT 11: :09 INTEL NT 11: :09 INTEL NT 11: :09 INTEL NT 11: :09 INTEL NT 11: :09 INTEL NT 11: :09 INTEL NT 11: :09 INTEL NT 11: :09 INTEL NT 11: :09 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT <
t d
vm60 INTEL vm61 INTEL vm62 INTEL vm63 INTEL vm64 INTEL vm65 INTEL vm66 INTEL vm67 INTEL vm68 INTEL vm69 INTEL vm7 0 INTEL vm71 INTEL vm72 INTEL vm73 INTEL vm7 4 INTEL vm75 INTEL vm7 6 INTEL vm7 7 INTEL vm7 8 INTEL vm7 9 INTEL vm8 0 INTEL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
11: :10 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT 11: :10 INTEL NT 11: ill INTEL NT 11: :11 INTEL NT 11: ill INTEL NT 11: ill INTEL NT 11: ill INTEL NT 11: ill INTEL NT 11: ill INTEL NT 11: ill INTEL NT 11: : 12 INTEL NT 11: : 12 INTEL NT 11: : 12 INTEL NT 11: : 12 INTEL NT 11: : 12 INTEL NT 11: : 12 INTEL NT 11: : 12 INTEL NT 11: : 12 INTEL NT <
t d o
vm81 INTEL NT vm82 INTEL NT vm83 INTEL NT vm8 4 INTEL NT vm85 INTEL NT vm8 6 INTEL NT vm8 7 INTEL NT vm8 8 INTEL NT vm8 9 INTEL NT vm90 INTEL NT vm91 INTEL NT vm92 INTEL NT vm93 INTEL NT vm94 INTEL NT vm95 INTEL NT vm96 INTEL NT vm97 INTEL NT vm98 INTEL NT vm99 INTEL NT vml 00 INTEL NT vml 01 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
11: : 13 INTEL NT 11: : 13 INTEL NT 11: : 13 INTEL NT 11: : 13 INTEL NT 11: : 13 INTEL NT 11: : 13 INTEL NT 11: : 13 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT 11: : 14 INTEL NT <
vml 02 INTEL NT vml 03 INTEL NT vml 04 INTEL NT vml 05 INTEL NT vml 06 INTEL NT vml 07 INTEL NT vml 08 INTEL NT vml 09 INTEL NT vml 10 INTEL NT vml 11 INTEL NT vml 12 INTEL NT vml 13 INTEL NT vml 14 INTEL NT vml 15 INTEL NT vml 16 INTEL NT vml 17 INTEL NT vml 18 INTEL NT vml 19 INTEL NT vml 20 INTEL NT vml 21 INTEL NT vml 22 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
11: : 15 INTEL NT 11: : 15 INTEL NT 11: : 15 INTEL NT 11: : 15 INTEL NT 11: : 15 INTEL NT 11: : 15 INTEL NT 11: : 15 INTEL NT 11: : 15 INTEL NT 11: : 15 INTEL NT 11: :16 INTEL NT 11: :16 INTEL NT : 17 INTEL NT 11: : 17 INTEL NT 11: : 17 INTEL NT 11: : 17 INTEL NT 11: : 17 INTEL NT 11: : 17 INTEL NT 11: : 17 INTEL NT 11: : 17 INTEL NT 11: 11: : 18 INTEL NT 11: : 18 INTEL NT <
vml 23 INTEL NT vml 2 4 INTEL NT vml 25 INTEL NT vml 2 6 INTEL NT vml 2 7 INTEL NT vml 2 8 INTEL NT vml 2 9 INTEL NT vml 30 INTEL NT vml 31 INTEL NT vml 32 INTEL NT vml 33 INTEL NT vml 3 4 INTEL NT vml 35 INTEL NT vml 3 6 INTEL NT vml 3 7 INTEL NT vml 3 8 INTEL NT vml 3 9 INTEL NT vml 40 INTEL NT vml 41 INTEL NT vml 4 2 INTEL NT vml 4 3 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
467 467 71% UP20020121 WINDOWS 591 591 77% UP20020121 WINDOWS 762 762 82% UP20020121 WINDOWS 661 661 80% UP20020121 WINDOWS 625 625 7 9% UP20020121 WINDOWS 815 815 83% UP20020121 WINDOWS 373 373 66% UP20020121 WINDOWS 553 553 78% UP20020121 WINDOWS 448 448 70% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1827 1827 93% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1701 1701 92% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1808 1808 93% UP20020121 WINDOWS 561 561 77% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1909 1909 93% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1395 1395 91% UP20020121 WINDOWS 528 528 75% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1132 1132 88% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1184 1184 89% UP20020121 WINDOWS 2040 2040 93% UP20020121 WINDOWS 879 879 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1672 1672 91% UP20020121 WINDOWS
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
11: : 18 INTEL NT 11: : 18 INTEL NT 11: : 18 INTEL NT 11: : 18 INTEL NT 11: : 18 INTEL NT 11: : 18 INTEL NT 11: : 18 INTEL NT 11: : 18 INTEL NT 11: : 18 INTEL NT 11: : 18 INTEL NT 11: : 18 INTEL NT 11: :19 INTEL NT 11: :19 INTEL NT 11: :19 INTEL NT 11: :19 INTEL NT 11: :19 INTEL NT 11: :19 INTEL NT 11: :19 INTEL NT 11: :19 INTEL NT 11: :19 INTEL NT 11: :20 INTEL NT
<
vml 4 4 INTEL NT vml 4 5 INTEL NT vml 4 6 INTEL NT vml 4 7 INTEL NT vml 4 8 INTEL NT vml 4 9 INTEL NT vml 50 INTEL NT vml 51 INTEL NT vml 5 2 INTEL NT vml 5 3 INTEL NT vml 5 4 INTEL NT vml 5 5 INTEL NT vml 5 6 INTEL NT vml 5 7 INTEL NT vml 5 8 INTEL NT vml 5 9 INTEL NT vml 60 INTEL NT vml 61 INTEL NT vml 62 INTEL NT vml 63 INTEL NT vml 64 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
2164 2164 94% UP20020121 WINDOWS 532 532 75% UP20020121 WINDOWS 883 883 86% UP20020121 WINDOWS 588 588 77% UP20020121 WINDOWS 588 588 78% UP20020121 WINDOWS 520 520 74% UP20020121 WINDOWS 657 657 79% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1058 1058 87% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1211 1211 88% UP20020121 WINDOWS 507 507 74% UP20020121 WINDOWS 814 814 82% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1255 1255 89% UP20020121 WINDOWS 2047 2047 94% UP20020121 WINDOWS 952 952 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 955 955 87% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1524 1524 91% UP20020121 WINDOWS 600 600 78% UP20020121 WINDOWS 539 539 75% UP20020121 WINDOWS 548 548 76% UP20020121 WINDOWS 5 63 5 63 7 6% UP20020121 WINDOWS 556 556 76% UP20020121 WINDOWS
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
:20 INTEL NT 11: :20 INTEL NT 11: :20 INTEL NT 11: :20 INTEL NT 11: :20 INTEL NT 11: :20 INTEL NT 11: :20 INTEL NT 11: :20 INTEL NT 11: :20 INTEL NT 11: :20 INTEL NT 11: :20 INTEL NT 11: :24 INTEL NT 11: :24 INTEL NT 11: :24 INTEL NT 11: :25 INTEL NT 11: :25 INTEL NT 11: :25 INTEL NT 11: :25 INTEL NT 11: :25 INTEL NT 11: :25 INTEL NT 11: :25 INTEL NT 11:
<
vml 65 INTEL NT vml 66 INTEL NT vml 67 INTEL NT vml 68 INTEL NT vml 69 INTEL NT vml 70 INTEL NT vml 71 INTEL NT vml 7 2 INTEL NT vml 7 3 INTEL NT vml 7 4 INTEL NT vml 7 5 INTEL NT vml 7 6 INTEL NT vml 7 7 INTEL NT vml 7 8 INTEL NT vml 7 9 INTEL NT vml 80 INTEL NT vml 81 INTEL NT vml 8 2 INTEL NT vml 8 3 INTEL NT vml 8 4 INTEL NT vml 8 5 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 5 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
<
vml 8 6 INTEL NT vml 8 7 INTEL NT vml 8 8 INTEL NT vml 8 9 INTEL NT vml 90 INTEL NT vml 91 INTEL NT vml 92 INTEL NT vml 93 INTEL NT vml 94 INTEL NT vml 95 INTEL NT vml 96 INTEL NT vml 97 INTEL NT vml 98 INTEL NT vml 99 INTEL NT vm200 INTEL NT vm201 INTEL NT vm202 INTEL NT vm203 INTEL NT vm204 INTEL NT vm205 INTEL NT vm206 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
<
vm207 INTEL NT vm208 INTEL NT vm209 INTEL NT vm210 INTEL NT vm211 INTEL NT vm212 INTEL NT vm213 INTEL NT vm214 INTEL NT vm215 INTEL NT vm216 INTEL NT vm217 INTEL NT vm218 INTEL NT vm219 INTEL NT vm220 INTEL NT vm221 INTEL NT vm222 INTEL NT vm223 INTEL NT vm224 INTEL NT vm225 INTEL NT vm226 INTEL NT vm227 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
:33 INTEL NT 11: :33 INTEL NT 11: :34 INTEL NT 11: :35 INTEL NT 11: :36 INTEL NT 11: :36 INTEL NT 11: :36 INTEL NT 11: :36 INTEL NT 11: :36 INTEL NT 11: :37 INTEL NT 11: :37 INTEL NT 11: :37 INTEL NT 11: :38 INTEL NT 11: :38 INTEL NT 11: :39 INTEL NT 11: :39 INTEL NT 11: :39 INTEL NT 11: :39 INTEL NT 11: :39 INTEL NT 11: :42 INTEL NT 11: :42 INTEL NT 11: <
t d
î
vm228 INTEL NT vm229 INTEL NT vm230 INTEL NT vm231 INTEL NT vm232 INTEL NT vm233 INTEL NT vm234 INTEL NT vm235 INTEL NT vm236 INTEL NT vmcl INTEL NT vmc2 INTEL NT vmc3 INTEL NT vmc4 INTEL NT vmc5 INTEL NT vmc6 INTEL NT vmc7 INTEL NT vmc8 INTEL NT vmdl INTEL NT vmd2 INTEL NT vmd3 INTEL NT cyc-17 7s INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
11: : 42 INTEL NT 11: : 43 INTEL NT 12: : 03 INTEL NT 12: : 03 INTEL NT 12: : 10 INTEL NT 12: : 12 INTEL NT
: 17 INTEL NT 12: : 17 INTEL NT 12:
12: : 18 INTEL NT 12: :19 INTEL NT 12: :19 INTEL NT 12: :20 INTEL NT 12: :20 INTEL NT 12: I 2 1 INTEL NT 12: : 22 INTEL NT 12: : 22 INTEL NT 12: :56 INTEL NT :57 INTEL NT 12: :57 INTEL NT 12: 12: :59 INTEL NT 13: : 01 INTEL NT
<
cyc-17 8s INTEL NT dds-13s NOT AVAILABLE dds-17s NOT AVAILABLE esp-112s INTEL NT esp-124s INTEL NT esp-127s INTEL NT ess-26s INTEL NT ess-97s INTEL NT evll7-106s INTEL NT evll9-35s INTEL NT evl20-85s INTEL NT evl41-208s INTEL NT evl44-13s INTEL NT evl44-23s INTEL NT evl54-23s INTEL NT evl54-25s INTEL NT evl71-57s INTEL NT evl73-53s INTEL NT evl74-46s INTEL NT evl75-20s INTEL NT evl75-21s NOT AVAILABLE
70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL NO UPDATE -88 COMPARE REL NO UPDATE -88 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL NO UPDATE -88 COMPARE REL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 8 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
13:: 04 I N T E L NT 13:: 04 I N T E L NT 13:: 04 I N T E L NT 13:: 04 I N T E L NT 13:: 04 I N T E L NT 13:: 04 I N T E L NT 13:: 04 I N T E L NT 13:: 04 I N T E L NT 13:: 04 I N T E L NT 13:: 04 I N T E L NT 13:: 04 I N T E L NT 13:: 04 I N T E L NT 13:: 07 I N T E L NT 13:: 10 I N T E L NT 13:: 10 I N T E L NT 13:: 10 I N T E L NT 13:: 10 I N T E L NT 13:ill I N T E L NT 13:ill I N T E L NT 13:ill I N T E L NT 13:ill I N T E L NT <
evl75-38s INTEL NT evl82-zbdpglls INTEL NT evl83-zdpl20s INTEL NT evl84-02s INTEL NT evl84-07s INTEL NT ev35-23s INTEL NT ev95-45s INTEL NT ev97-73s INTEL NT flo-136s INTEL NT flo-138s INTEL NT inrt-16s INTEL NT inrt-9s INTEL NT mvhy-bk5 01 INTEL NT mvhy-gt202 INTEL NT mvve-cr003 INTEL NT mvve-cr8 04 INTEL NT se-ls INTEL NT se-20s INTEL NT sxl20-ls NOT AVAILABLE tbc-155s INTEL NT
7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1
70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL NO UPDATE -88 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8
808 808 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 660 660 83% UP20020121 WINDOWS 577 577 80% UP20020121 WINDOWS 267 267 56% UP20020121 WINDOWS 661 661 80% UP20020121 WINDOWS 293 293 61% UP20020121 WINDOWS 892 892 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 621 621 82% UP20020121 WINDOWS 419 419 73% UP20020121 WINDOWS 352 352 68% UP20020121 WINDOWS 484 486 77% UP20020121 WINDOWS 421 421 73% UP20020121 WINDOWS 536 536 78% UP20020121 WINDOWS 780 780 84% UP20020121 WINDOWS 328 328 65% UP20020121 WINDOWS 329 329 65% UP20020121 WINDOWS 400 400 72% UP20020121 WINDOWS 879 879 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 248 146 30% UP20020121 WINDOWS 351 351 64% UP20020121 WINDOWS
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
13: ill INTEL NT 13: ill INTEL NT 13: ill INTEL NT 13: : 12 INTEL NT 13: : 12 INTEL NT 13: : 12 INTEL NT 13: : 12 INTEL NT 13: : 12 INTEL NT 13: : 12 INTEL NT 13: : 13 INTEL NT 13: : 13 INTEL NT 13: : 13 INTEL NT 13: : 13 INTEL NT 13: : 14 INTEL NT 13: : 15 INTEL NT 13: :16 INTEL NT 13: :16 INTEL NT 13: :16 INTEL NT 13: :16 INTEL NT 13: :16 INTEL NT <
***************************************************************************** 00000000 VERSION=INTEL NT RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= G= 00000000 VERSION=INTEL NT T= 002 920 62 VERSION=INTEL NT
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP2003090 9 0.219 0.15 6
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=c0231 10:37:04 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=c0231 11:04:48 FEB 12, 2005 CP= 0 0 /verify,c0231
/title, c0231 (fsk) Unmatched nodes mapping 30.580 237.330 30.580 237.330 30.580 237.330
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 192 NT= 192 G= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR 1 - PHASE ANGLE = T= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR 1 - PHASE ANGLE = COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 219 NT= 219 G= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR 2 - PHASE ANGLE = T= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR 2 - PHASE ANGLE = COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 24 6 NT= 24 6 G= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR 3 - PHASE ANGLE = T= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR 3 - PHASE ANGLE = BOTTOM OF GOOD FILE REACHED AT LINE 28 9 G= I ANSYS RUN COMPLETED
NOTE- NONSTANDARD COMPARE - DIFOPT NAME QA70-1 HAS BEEN USED NUMBER OF LINES SKIPPED IN GOOD FILE(BLANK LINES EXCLUDED) NUMBER OF LINES SKIPPED IN TEST FILE(BLANK LINES EXCLUDED) NUMBER OF LINES ON GOOD FILE WITH STRINGS CONDENSED OUT NUMBER OF LINES ON TEST FILE WITH STRINGS CONDENSED OUT ************************************************ COMPARE ERRORS = 3 ************************************************
PROBLEM: c0231 ALMOST ZERO (GOOD) = ALMOST ZERO (TEST) = ABSOLUTE VALUE TOL = FRACTIONAL DIFFERENCE= ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE =
COMPARE OPTIONS 1.0000E-00 6 1.0000E-00 6 1.0000E-010 1.0000E-004 1.0000E-00 6
COMPARE_REL 3.8 UP20020121
WINDOWS
KROUND (DROP LAST DIGIT)= 1 KABSPR (0=SUMMARY 1=ALL)= 1 KSKIP(SKIP=ERR 0=Y, 1=N)= 0 MAXERR (STOP WHEN ERRS )= 100 MAXBUF (# LINES TO SCAN)= 6 KNOWN (# OF KNOWN ERRS)= 0
B.20
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 GREAD, TREAD = LINES ON GOOD FILE = 304 LINES ON TEST FILE = 304 ***************************************************** 1, 1
B.21
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP2003090 9 0.25 0 0.2 97
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml8 4 20:4 6:18 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml8 4 11:27:32 FEB 12, 2005 CP= 0 0 0 0 zero values 0 /TITLE, VM18 4, STRAIGHT CANTILEVER BEAM /VERIFY,VM184 /TITLE, VM18 4, STRAIGHT CANTILEVER BEAM
/stitle,1,Reason COMPARE differences are acceptable: /stitle,2, mesher accuracy - element number on warning; near-
NOW COMPARING LINES FROM NOW COMPARING LINES FROM *****
***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POST1)
ABSOLUTE VALUE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 926 NT= 926 G= VALUE -0.24849E-01 0.98917 -0.43496E-05 0.98948 T= VALUE -0.24849E-01 0.98917 0.43497E-05 0.98948 ABSOLUTE VALUE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= G= VALUE -0.53544E-02-0.26671E-05 0.42554 T= VALUE -0.53544E-02 0.26671E-05 0.42554 982 NT= 982 0.42557 0.42557
ABSOLUTE VALUE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 1011 NT= 1011 G= VALUE -0.12394E-01-0.61739E-05 0.98504 0.98511 T= VALUE -0.12394E-01 0.61739E-05 0.98504 0.98511 NOW COMPARING LINES FROM NOW COMPARING LINES FROM ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POST1)
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= VALUE 0.24811E-01 0.98813 T= VALUE 0.24811E-01 0.98813
NG= 15 80 NT= 158( -0.43696E-05 0.98844 0.43701E-05 0.98844
ABSOLUTE VALUE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 1639 NT= 163! G= VALUE -0.53533E-02-0.30755E-05 0.42553 0.42556
B.22
T= VALUE -0.53533E-02 0.30756E-05 0.42553 0.42556
ABSOLUTE VALUE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 1673 NT= 1673 G= VALUE -0.12392E-01-0.71193E-05 0.98502 0.98510 T= VALUE -0.12392E-01 0.71194E-05 0.98502 0.98510 NOW COMPARING LINES FROM NOW COMPARING LINES FROM ***** ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTi;
***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTI;
BOTTOM OF GOOD FILE REACHED AT LINE 314 7 G= I ANSYS RUN COMPLETED
NOTE- NONSTANDARD COMPARE - DIFOPT NAME QA70-1 HAS BEEN USED NUMBER OF LINES SKIPPED IN GOOD FILE(BLANK LINES EXCLUDED) NUMBER OF LINES SKIPPED IN TEST FILE(BLANK LINES EXCLUDED) NUMBER OF LINES ON GOOD FILE WITH STRINGS CONDENSED OUT NUMBER OF LINES ON TEST FILE WITH STRINGS CONDENSED OUT ************************************************
COMPARE ERRORS = 1 * ************************************************
***************************************************** 5 ABSOLUTE VALUE DIFFERENCE(S) FOUND. WARNING ***************************************************** ************************************************************ NOTE 1 summary line(s) contained absolute value differences. ************************************************************
PROBLEM: vml8 4 ALMOST ZERO (GOOD) = ALMOST ZERO (TEST) = ABSOLUTE VALUE TOL = FRACTIONAL DIFFERENCE= ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE =
COMPARE OPTIONS 1.0000E-006 1.0000E-006 1.0000E-010 1.0000E-004 1.0000E-00 6
COMPARE REL 3.8 UP20020121
WINDOWS
B.23
GREAD, TREAD = 1, 1
LINES ON GOOD FILE = 3162 LINES ON TEST FILE = 3162 *****************************************************************************
B.24
***************************************************************************** VERSI0N=INTEL NT EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= G= 00000000 VERSION=INTEL NT T= 002 920 62 VERSION=INTEL NT RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP2003090 9 0.2 66 0.172
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml98 20:50:49 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml98 11:29:13 FEB 12, 2005 CP= 0 0 /VERIFY,VM198
/TITLE, VM198, LARGE STRAIN IN-PLANE TORSION TEST (%EL%) ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTI
NOW COMPARING LINES FROM *****
TIME-HISTORY POSTPROCESSOR (POST2 6)
NOW COMPARING LINES FROM COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= RELEASE 0.0 UPDATE T= RELEASE 0.0 UPDATE NOW COMPARING LINES FROM *****
***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** NG= 618 NT= 618 CUSTOMER 00000000 CUSTOMER 00292062 ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTI)
0 0
***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** NG= 907 NT= 907 CUSTOMER 00000000 CUSTOMER 00292062 ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTI)
0 0
B.25
BOTTOM OF GOOD FILE REACHED AT LINE 1193 G= I ANSYS RUN COMPLETED
NOTE- NONSTANDARD COMPARE - DIFOPT NAME QA70-1 HAS BEEN USED NUMBER OF LINES SKIPPED IN GOOD FILE(BLANK LINES EXCLUDED) NUMBER OF LINES SKIPPED IN TEST FILE(BLANK LINES EXCLUDED) NUMBER OF LINES ON GOOD FILE WITH STRINGS CONDENSED OUT NUMBER OF LINES ON TEST FILE WITH STRINGS CONDENSED OUT ************************************************ COMPARE ERRORS = 2 * ************************************************
PROBLEM: vml98 ALMOST ZERO (GOOD) = ALMOST ZERO (TEST) = ABSOLUTE VALUE TOL = FRACTIONAL DIFFERENCE= ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE =
WINDOWS
KROUND (DROP LAST DIGIT)= KABSPR (0=SUMMARY 1=ALL)= KSKIP(SKIP=ERR 0=Y, 1=N)= MAXERR (STOP WHEN ERRS )= 1< MAXBUF (# LINES TO SCAN)= KNOWN (# OF KNOWN ERRS)= GREAD, TREAD = 1, 1
B.26
1 ***************************************************************************** 00000000 VERSION=INTEL NT RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP2003090 9 114 0.219 0.18 8
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= G= CURRENT JOBNAME=vmc8 21:52:06 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=vmc8 12:22:49 FEB 12, 2005 CP= 0 0 0 0 0 PLANE2 PLANE42 PLANE82 VISCO106 SOLID45 SOLID95 VISCO107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /VERIFY,VMC8
/TITLE, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /stitle,1,Reason COMPARE differences are acceptable: /stitle,2, number of iterations, accuracy
/title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /TITLE, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTI)
NOW COMPARING LINES FROM NOW COMPARING LINES FROM ***** COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= SET COMMAND GOT LOAD STEP= T= SET COMMAND GOT LOAD STEP=
2 2
NG= 8 80 NT= SUBSTEP= 320 SUBSTEP= 320
8 80 CUMULATIVE ITERATION= CUMULATIVE ITERATION=
3255 324 0
B.27
NOW COMPARING LINES FROM ***** TIME-HISTORY POSTPROCESSOR (POST2 6)
***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTI)
NOW COMPARING LINES FROM
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= 3 ESOL 1 EPPL EQV EPPLEQV T= 3 ESOL 1 EPPL EQV EPPLEQV NOW COMPARING LINES FROM NOW COMPARING LINES FROM *****
NG= 1227 NT= 1227 0.7401E-16 0.000 0.2694E-35 0.000
3.410 3.422
***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTI)
B.28
TIME-HISTORY POSTPROCESSOR (POST2>
PROBLEM: vmc8 ALMOST ZERO (GOOD) = ALMOST ZERO (TEST) = ABSOLUTE VALUE TOL = FRACTIONAL DIFFERENCE= ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE =
WINDOWS
KROUND (DROP LAST DIGIT)= KABSPR (0=SUMMARY 1=ALL)= KSKIP(SKIP=ERR 0=Y, 1=N)= MAXERR (STOP WHEN ERRS )= K MAXBUF (# LINES TO SCAN)= KNOWN (# OF KNOWN ERRS)= GREAD, TREAD = 1, 1
LINES ON GOOD FILE = 18 94 LINES ON TEST FILE = 18 94 *****************************************************************************
B.29
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= G= 00000000 VERSION=INTEL NT T= 002 920 62 VERSION=INTEL NT EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= CURRENT JOBNAME=cyc-177s 11:45:34 T= CURRENT JOBNAME=cyc-177s 12:5 9:19 0 0 0 0 /verify,cyc-177s
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP20030909 0.219 0.2 66
NG= 114 NT= 114 OCT 15, 2002 CP= FEB 12, 2005 CP=
/TITLE, ceb,cyc-177s, Test eye symm Buckling element 42 /title,1,Full Results to Sector Results! /stitle,Reason Compare differences are acceptable: NG= 1202 NT= 1194 NG= 1202 NT= 1199
EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON TEST FILE T= USE COMMAND MACRO QAEND T= ARGS= 28 9.00 END OF SKIPPED DATA
PROBLEM: cyc-177s
= ALMOST ZERO (GOOD) = ALMOST ZERO (TEST) = ABSOLUTE VALUE TOL FRACTIONAL DIFFERENCE= ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE =
COMPARE OPTIONS
1. )000E-006 1. )000E-006 1 . 1000E-010 1. 1 0 0 0 E - 0 0 4 1. 1 0 0 0 E - 0 0 6
WINDOWS
KROUND (DROP LAST D I G I T ) = KABSPR (0=SUMMARY 1=ALL)= KSKIP(SKIP=ERR 0=Y, 1 = N ) = MAXERR (STOP WHEN ERRS ) = l ! MAXBUF (# LINES TO SCAN)= KNOWN (# OF KNOWN ERRS)= GREAD, TREAD = 1, 1
B.30
B.31
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= G= 00000000 VERSION=INTEL NT T= 002 920 62 VERSION=INTEL NT EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= CURRENT JOBNAME=cyc-178s 11:48:41 T= CURRENT JOBNAME=cyc-178s 13:01:42 0 0 0 0 /verify,cyc-178s
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP2002K RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP20030! 0.25 0 0.234
NG= 114 NT= 114 OCT 15, 2002 CP= FEB 12, 2005 CP=
PROBLEM: cyc-178s
COMPARE OPTIONS
1. )000E-006 1. )000E-006 1 . 1000E-010 1. 1 0 0 0 E - 0 0 4 1. 1 0 0 0 E - 0 0 6
WINDOWS
B.32
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 LINES ON GOOD FILE = 1219 LINES ON TEST FILE = 1222 *****************************************************************************
B.33
***************************************************************************** *** ERROR (VERSION=) was not found anywhere in the "TEST" file. *** *** Comparison was supposed to start at this string, specified in CMPOPT. ***
NOTE- NONSTANDARD COMPARE - DIFOPT NAME QA70-1 HAS BEEN USED NUMBER OF LINES SKIPPED IN GOOD FILE(BLANK LINES EXCLUDED) NUMBER OF LINES SKIPPED IN TEST FILE(BLANK LINES EXCLUDED) NUMBER OF LINES ON GOOD FILE WITH STRINGS CONDENSED OUT NUMBER OF LINES ON TEST FILE WITH STRINGS CONDENSED OUT ************************************************ COMPARE ERRORS -8 8 * ************************************************
PROBLEM: dds-13s ALMOST ZERO (GOOD) = ALMOST ZERO (TEST) = ABSOLUTE VALUE TOL = FRACTIONAL DIFFERENCE= ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE =
COMPARE OPTIONS l.OOOOE-OOi l.OOOOE-OOi 1.0000E-0K 1.0000E-00* l.OOOOE-OOi
WINDOWS
B.34
WINDOWS
LINES ON GOOD FILE = 746 LINES ON TEST FILE = 14 6 *****************************************************************************
B.35
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP20030909 0.234 0.172
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=evl73-53s 14:02:31 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=evl73-53s 13:10:45 FEB 12, 2005 CP= 0 /verify,evl73-53s
0 /title,evl73-53s,mfquresh,Test to verify PSOVLE,ELFORM for 171175 (3D) with PENE EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON TEST FILE T= USE COMMAND MACRO QAEND T= ARGS= 20.000 END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= 14 09 NT= 14 01 NG= 1409 NT= 1406
PROBLEM: evl73-53s ALMOST ZERO (GOOD) = ALMOST ZERO (TEST) = ABSOLUTE VALUE TOL = FRACTIONAL DIFFERENCE= ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE =
WINDOWS
B.36
***************************************************************************** VERSI0N=INTEL NT EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= G= 00000000 VERSION=INTEL NT T= 002 920 62 VERSION=INTEL NT RELEASE= 7. UP20021010
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7 . 0SP11 UP2003090 9 0.250 0.156
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=evl75-20s 14:22:03 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=evl75-20s 13:11:18 FEB 12, 2005 CP= 0 0 KEYOPT(2)=0,1 NOW COMPARING LINES FROM EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON TEST FILE T= USE COMMAND MACRO QAEND T= ARGS= 3.0000 END OF SKIPPED DATA /verify,evl75-20s
/title,evl75-20s,mfq, Check real constant FKN and FTOLN and ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** NG= NG= 521 NT= 521 NT= 513 5 IS
2 2 0 0
WINDOWS
KROUND (DROP LAST DIGIT)= 1 KABSPR (0=SUMMARY 1=ALL)= 1 KSKIP(SKIP=ERR 0=Y, 1=N)= 0 MAXERR (STOP WHEN ERRS )= 100 MAXBUF (# LINES TO SCAN)= 6 KNOWN (# OF KNOWN ERRS)= 0 GREAD, TREAD = 1, 1
B.37
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 LINES ON GOOD FILE = 538 LINES ON TEST FILE = 5 41 *****************************************************************************
B.38
WINDOWS
B.39
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= G= 00000000 VERSION=INTEL NT T= 002 920 62 VERSION=INTEL NT EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= CURRENT JOBNAME=inrt-16s 16:14:59 T= CURRENT JOBNAME=inrt-16s 13:13:40 0 0 elements 0 /VERIFY,INRT-16S
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP20030909 .219 .188
NG= 114 NT= 11* OCT 15, 2002 CP= FEB 12, 2005 CP=
/TITLE, INRT-16S, ceb, component omega loading and layer /TITLE, INRT-16S, BENDING OF A COMPOSITE BEAM NG= NG= 4 62 NT= 4 62 NT= 45 9 4 63
EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON TEST FILE T= USE COMMAND MACRO QAEND END OF SKIPPED DATA
BOTTOM OF GOOD FILE REACHED AT LINE G= ANSYS RUN COMPLETED
1 1 0 0
PROBLEM: inrt-16s ALMOST ZERO (GOOD) = ALMOST ZERO (TEST) = ABSOLUTE VALUE TOL = FRACTIONAL DIFFERENCE= ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE =
WINDOWS
LINES ON GOOD FILE = LINES ON TEST FILE = *****************************************************************************
B.40
PROBLEM: sxl20-ls ALMOST ZERO (GOOD) = ALMOST ZERO (TEST) = ABSOLUTE VALUE TOL = FRACTIONAL DIFFERENCE= ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE =
WINDOWS
B.41
Software Acceptance
1) Project Title and Number: 2) Software Name and Version: 3) Computer and Property Number: 4) Operating System: 5) Scope of Testing: 6) Tests: DST Thermal and Seismic Analyses ANSYS 7.0 (Rev. 11) Dell DHM WD44879 48971
Windows XP Professional Version 2002 Service Pack 2 Software reinstallation (XP SP2)
7) Discrepancies: n) c0231. These differences are acceptable per the ANSYS Verification Package User's Guide ANSYS Release 7.0 (AVPUG). o) vml84. These differences occur at the 5th significant figure. p) vml98. This difference is the reporting of the customer number for this installation. q) vmc8. These differences are acceptable as noted in the output because of the difference in number of iterations and accuracy. r) eye-177s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG). s) eye-178 s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG). t) dds-13s. This test case requires the "Parallel Performance Module" which is not part of this software installation and is not required for the DST analyses.
u) dds-17s. This test case requires the "Parallel Performance Module" which is not part of this software installation and is not required for the DST analyses. v) evl73-53s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG). w) evl75-20s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG). x) evl75-21s. This test case requires the "Parallel Performance Module" which is not part of this software installation and is not required for the DST analyses. y) inrt-16s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG). z) sxl20-ls. This test case requires the "Frequency Sweep Module" which is not part of this software installation and is not required for the DST analyses. 8) Finding: This installation of ANSYS is acceptable
B.42
Certified by: JE Deibler Code Custodian Reviewed by: KIJohnson Lead Engineer
iQ-c^XÛ^. ^.JÂ-fos-
<fi/r^-^ ///<'A^S
B.43
Notes for test case c 0 2 3 1
Test case c0231 may show considerable differences for the Phase Angle value that is part of the Postl Nodal Degree of Freedom Listing (PRNS command) output. Any such differences do not indicate a problem with this test case's results and should be considered acceptable. The output items of significance for this test case are the UZ values in the Postl Nodal Degree of Freedom Listing. Machine precision differences in the form of small numerical differences that are trivial with respect to the test's output items of significance may also show for this test case in the compare output for this test. Please see Verifying ANSYS and Evaluating COMPARE Differences in Chapter 2 of the ANSYS Verification Testing Package User's Guide for more information on evaluating COMPARE differences. The following is an example of acceptable COMPARE differences for test case c0231:
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR T= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= VALUE -9.8117 -3.7700 22. T= VALUE -9.8119 -3.7693 22. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR T= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= VALUE -9.7579 -3.9649 22. T= VALUE -9.7581 -3.9643 22. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR T= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUWAT c;;;i';; G= 8 0 . 5 3 2 91 0 . 3 9 4 2 5 i o T= 8 0 . 5 3 2 9 3 p.39419 10
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= 10 0 . 5 2 4 9 5 0 . 3 9 568 9 . T= 10 0 . 5 2 4 97 0 . 3 9562 9 . COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 259 NT= 259 G= 12 0 . 5 0 4 3 3 0 . 4 0 2 8 2 8 . 6 4 8 2 8 . 6 7 2 2 T= 12 0 . 5 0 4 3 5 0 . 4 0 2 7 6 8.6711 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 260 NT= 260 G= 14 0 . 4 8 1 8 6 0 . 4 1 2 0 1 7 . 8 7 1 0 7 . 8 9 6 5 T= 14 0 . 4 8 1 8 8 0 . 4 1 1 9 6 7.8955 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 261 NT= 261 G= 16 0 . 4 5 5 0 5 0 . 4 2 4 7 8 7 . 0 7 1 9 7 . 0 9 9 2 T= 16 0 . 4 5 5 0 7 0 . 4 2 4 7 3 7.0983 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 262 NT= 262 G= 18 0 . 4 2 3 3 9 0 . 4 4 0 9 2 6 . 2 4 2 4 6 . 2 7 2 3 T= 18 0 . 4 2 3 4 1 0 . 4 4 0 8 6 6.2715 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 263 NT= 263 G= 20 0 . 3 8 5 0 1 0 . 4 6 1 2 4 5 . 3 7 3 2 5 . 4 0 6 7 T= 20 0 . 3 8 5 0 2 0 . 4 6 1 1 8 5.4061 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 267 NT= 267 G= VALUE - 9 . 6 0 3 4 - 3 . 9 6 4 9 1 8 . 8 0 6 2 1 . 4 1 3 T= VALUE - 9 . 6 0 3 6 18.805 21.412 NG= 271 NT= 271 2 2 . 4 6 9 2 4 . 7 6 6 2 2 . 4 6 9
NG= 1 9 2 NT= 1 9 2 1 -PHASE ANGLE = 1 -
8.6471 7.8700 7.0710 6.2417 5.3726
-3.9643
24.766
PHASE ANGLE =
NG= 213 NT= 213 469 2 4 . 7 6 6 469 2 4 . 7 6 6

NG= 2 1 9 NT= 2 1 9 NG= 2 4 0 NT= 2 4 0 2440 PHASE ANGLE = 2 24.710 440 PHASE ANGLE =
24.710
HG= 2 4 6 HT= 2 4 6 3 -
NG-= 257 m--257 .161

NG= 4 0 8 0 4068
10.183
.160
10.181
258 NT= 258 9 . 4 3 0 9
9.4297
-3.9643
30.580 30.580 30.580
306.570 306.570 306.570
B.44
Notes for Test Case vrn212 Test case vm212 may produce an expected compare difference due to an inconsequential warning message that appears in the ANSYS, Inc. supplied output file that may not appear in the output file generated by your system for this test case. This compare difference should beconsidered acceptable. The following is an example of this compare difference. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 445 NT= 436 G= NUMBER OF WARNING MESSAGES ENCOUNTERED= 1 T= NUMBER OF WARNING MESSAGES ENCOUNTERED= 0 Notes for Test Cases cyc-177s, cyc-178s, ev-173-53s, ev-175-20s, inrt-16s, and inrt-9s Test cases cyc-177s, cyc-178s, ev-173-53s, ev-175-20s, inrt-16s, and inrt-9s may produce expected compare differences due to the use of a macro named qaend. The method that is used in the verification procudure (runqa) to handle this macro may cause one or more comparison differences. Any such compare differences are inconsequential and should be considered acceptable. The following is an example of such a compare difference. EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON TEST FILE NG= 1033 NT= 1030 T= USE COMMAND MACRO qaend T=ARGS=137 00 END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= 1033 NT= 1033 Notes for test Cases dds-13s, dds-17s, and ev175-21 s The test cases dds-13s, dds-17s, and ev175-21 s will run to completion only if the "Parallel Performance for ANSYS" product (DDS and AMG solvers) is included in your ANSYS installation.
3-6 ANSYS Verification Testing Package User's Guide . ANSYS Release 7.0. 001767. @ SAS If;'Inc.
B.45
td
4Cs
c0211r2 INTEL NT c0212 INTEL NT c0213 INTEL NT c0214 INTEL NT c0215 INTEL NT c0216 INTEL NT C0217 INTEL NT c0218 INTEL NT c0219 INTEL NT c0220 INTEL NT c0221 INTEL NT c0222 INTEL NT c0223 INTEL NT c0224 INTEL NT c0225 INTEL NT c0226 INTEL NT c0227 INTEL NT c0227a INTEL NT c0228 INTEL NT c0229 INTEL NT c0230 INTEL NT
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
605 605 81% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 223 223 45% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 197 197 41% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 409 409 67% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 648 648 81% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 510 510 74% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 332 332 66% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 1627 1627 93% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 2732 2732 95% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 494 494 76% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 1265 1265 90% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 1543 1543 92% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 362 362 66% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 307 307 59% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 420 420 70% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 521 521 74% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 380 380 65% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 380 380 65% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 236 236 50% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 715 715 81% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS 2513 2513 94% 02/12/2005 UP20020121 WINDOWS
21:31 INTEL_NT 21:31 INTEL_NT 21:31 INTEL_NT 21:31 INTEL_NT 21:31 INTEL_NT 21:31 INTEL_NT 21:31 INTEL_NT 21:31 INTEL_NT 21:31 INTEL_NT 21:31 INTEL_NT 21:31 INTEL_NT 21:32 INTEL_NT 21:32 INTEL_NT 21:32 INTEL_NT 21:32 INTEL_NT 21:32 INTEL_NT 21:32 INTEL_NT 21:32 INTEL_NT 21:32 INTEL_NT 21:32 INTEL_NT 21:33 INTEL NT <
c0231 INTEL NT c0232 INTEL NT c0233 INTEL NT c0234 INTEL NT vml INTEL NT vm2 INTEL NT vm3 INTEL NT vm4 INTEL NT vm5 INTEL NT vm6 INTEL NT vm7 INTEL NT vm8 INTEL NT vm9 INTEL NT vmlO INTEL NT vmll INTEL NT vml 2 INTEL NT vml 3 INTEL NT vml 4 INTEL NT vml 5 INTEL NT vml 6 INTEL NT vml 7 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
:33 INTEL NT 21: :33 INTEL NT 21: 21: :33 INTEL NT :33 INTEL NT 21: :33 INTEL NT 21: :33 INTEL NT 21: :33 INTEL NT 21: :33 INTEL NT 21: :33 INTEL NT 21: 21: :34 INTEL NT :34 INTEL NT 21: :34 INTEL NT 21: :34 INTEL NT 21: :34 INTEL NT 21: :34 INTEL NT 21: :34 INTEL NT 21: :34 INTEL NT 21: 21: :34 INTEL NT :34 INTEL NT 21: :34 INTEL NT 21: :34 INTEL NT 21: <
vml 8 INTEL vml 9 INTEL vm20 INTEL vm21 INTEL vm22 INTEL vm23 INTEL vm24 INTEL vm25 INTEL vm2 6 INTEL vm27 INTEL vm28 INTEL vm2 9 INTEL vm30 INTEL vm31 INTEL vm32 INTEL vm33 INTEL vm34 INTEL vm35 INTEL vm3 6 INTEL vm37 INTEL vm38 INTEL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
vm3 9 INTEL vm4 0 INTEL vm41 INTEL vm42 INTEL vm43 INTEL vm4 4 INTEL vm45 INTEL vm4 6 INTEL vm4 7 INTEL vm4 8 INTEL vm4 9 INTEL vm5 0 INTEL vm51 INTEL vm52 INTEL vm53 INTEL vm5 4 INTEL vm55 INTEL vm5 6 INTEL vm5 7 INTEL vm5 8 INTEL vm5 9 INTEL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
vm60 INTEL vm61 INTEL vm62 INTEL vm63 INTEL vm64 INTEL vm65 INTEL vm66 INTEL vm67 INTEL vm68 INTEL vm69 INTEL vm7 0 INTEL vm71 INTEL vm72 INTEL vm73 INTEL vm7 4 INTEL vm75 INTEL vm7 6 INTEL vm7 7 INTEL vm7 8 INTEL vm7 9 INTEL vm8 0 INTEL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
:37 INTEL NT 21: :37 INTEL NT 21: :37 INTEL NT 21: :37 INTEL NT 21: :37 INTEL NT 21: :37 INTEL NT 21: :37 INTEL NT 21: :37 INTEL NT 21: :37 INTEL NT 21: :37 INTEL NT 21: :37 INTEL NT 21: :37 INTEL NT 21: :37 INTEL NT 21: :38 INTEL NT 21: :38 INTEL NT 21: :38 INTEL NT 21: :38 INTEL NT 21: 21: :38 INTEL NT :38 INTEL NT 21: :38 INTEL NT 21: :38 INTEL NT 21: <
t d
K-1
vm81 INTEL NT vm82 INTEL NT vm83 INTEL NT vm8 4 INTEL NT vm85 INTEL NT vm8 6 INTEL NT vm8 7 INTEL NT vm8 8 INTEL NT vm8 9 INTEL NT vm90 INTEL NT vm91 INTEL NT vm92 INTEL NT vm93 INTEL NT vm94 INTEL NT vm95 INTEL NT vm96 INTEL NT vm97 INTEL NT vm98 INTEL NT vm99 INTEL NT vml 00 INTEL NT vml 01 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
vml 02 INTEL NT vml 03 INTEL NT vml 04 INTEL NT vml 05 INTEL NT vml 06 INTEL NT vml 07 INTEL NT vml 08 INTEL NT vml 09 INTEL NT vml 10 INTEL NT vml 11 INTEL NT vml 12 INTEL NT vml 13 INTEL NT vml 14 INTEL NT vml 15 INTEL NT vml 16 INTEL NT vml 17 INTEL NT vml 18 INTEL NT vml 19 INTEL NT vml 20 INTEL NT vml 21 INTEL NT vml 22 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
21::39 INTEL NT 21::39 INTEL NT 2.1: :40 INTEL NT 21::40 INTEL NT 21::40 INTEL NT 21::40 INTEL NT 21::40 INTEL NT 21::40 INTEL NT 21::40 INTEL NT 21::41 INTEL NT 21::41 INTEL NT 21::41 INTEL NT 21::41 INTEL NT 21::41 INTEL NT 21::41 INTEL NT 21::41 INTEL NT 21::41 INTEL NT 21::41 INTEL NT 21::41 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT <
vml 23 INTEL NT vml 2 4 INTEL NT vml 25 INTEL NT vml 2 6 INTEL NT vml 2 7 INTEL NT vml 2 8 INTEL NT vml 2 9 INTEL NT vml 30 INTEL NT vml 31 INTEL NT vml 32 INTEL NT vml 33 INTEL NT vml 3 4 INTEL NT vml 35 INTEL NT vml 3 6 INTEL NT vml 3 7 INTEL NT vml 3 8 INTEL NT vml 3 9 INTEL NT vml 40 INTEL NT vml 41 INTEL NT vml 4 2 INTEL NT vml 4 3 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
467 467 71% UP20020121 WINDOWS 591 591 77% UP20020121 WINDOWS 762 762 82% UP20020121 WINDOWS 661 661 80% UP20020121 WINDOWS 625 625 7 9% UP20020121 WINDOWS 815 815 83% UP20020121 WINDOWS 373 373 66% UP20020121 WINDOWS 553 553 78% UP20020121 WINDOWS 448 448 70% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1827 1827 93% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1701 1701 92% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1808 1808 93% UP20020121 WINDOWS 561 561 77% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1909 1909 93% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1395 1395 91% UP20020121 WINDOWS 528 528 75% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1132 1132 88% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1184 1184 89% UP20020121 WINDOWS 2040 2040 93% UP20020121 WINDOWS 879 879 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1672 1672 91% UP20020121 WINDOWS
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::42 INTEL NT 21::43 INTEL NT 21::43 INTEL NT 21::43 INTEL NT 21::43 INTEL NT 21::43 INTEL NT 21::43 INTEL NT 21::43 INTEL NT 21::43 INTEL NT
<
vml 4 4 INTEL NT vml 4 5 INTEL NT vml 4 6 INTEL NT vml 4 7 INTEL NT vml 4 8 INTEL NT vml 4 9 INTEL NT vml 50 INTEL NT vml 51 INTEL NT vml 5 2 INTEL NT vml 5 3 INTEL NT vml 5 4 INTEL NT vml 5 5 INTEL NT vml 5 6 INTEL NT vml 5 7 INTEL NT vml 5 8 INTEL NT vml 5 9 INTEL NT vml 60 INTEL NT vml 61 INTEL NT vml 62 INTEL NT vml 63 INTEL NT vml 64 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
2164 2164 94% UP20020121 WINDOWS 532 532 75% UP20020121 WINDOWS 883 883 86% UP20020121 WINDOWS 588 588 77% UP20020121 WINDOWS 588 588 78% UP20020121 WINDOWS 520 520 74% UP20020121 WINDOWS 657 657 79% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1058 1058 87% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1211 1211 88% UP20020121 WINDOWS 507 507 74% UP20020121 WINDOWS 814 814 82% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1255 1255 89% UP20020121 WINDOWS 2047 2047 94% UP20020121 WINDOWS 952 952 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 955 955 87% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1524 1524 91% UP20020121 WINDOWS 600 600 78% UP20020121 WINDOWS 539 539 75% UP20020121 WINDOWS 548 548 76% UP20020121 WINDOWS 5 63 5 63 7 6% UP20020121 WINDOWS 556 556 76% UP20020121 WINDOWS
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
<
vml 65 INTEL NT vml 66 INTEL NT vml 67 INTEL NT vml 68 INTEL NT vml 69 INTEL NT vml 70 INTEL NT vml 71 INTEL NT vml 7 2 INTEL NT vml 7 3 INTEL NT vml 7 4 INTEL NT vml 7 5 INTEL NT vml 7 6 INTEL NT vml 7 7 INTEL NT vml 7 8 INTEL NT vml 7 9 INTEL NT vml 80 INTEL NT vml 81 INTEL NT vml 8 2 INTEL NT vml 8 3 INTEL NT vml 8 4 INTEL NT vml 8 5 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 5 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
<
vml 8 6 INTEL NT vml 8 7 INTEL NT vml 8 8 INTEL NT vml 8 9 INTEL NT vml 90 INTEL NT vml 91 INTEL NT vml 92 INTEL NT vml 93 INTEL NT vml 94 INTEL NT vml 95 INTEL NT vml 96 INTEL NT vml 97 INTEL NT vml 98 INTEL NT vml 99 INTEL NT vm200 INTEL NT vm201 INTEL NT vm202 INTEL NT vm203 INTEL NT vm204 INTEL NT vm205 INTEL NT vm206 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
<
vm207 INTEL NT vm208 INTEL NT vm209 INTEL NT vm210 INTEL NT vm211 INTEL NT vm212 INTEL NT vm213 INTEL NT vm214 INTEL NT vm215 INTEL NT vm216 INTEL NT vm217 INTEL NT vm218 INTEL NT vm219 INTEL NT vm220 INTEL NT vm221 INTEL NT vm222 INTEL NT vm223 INTEL NT vm224 INTEL NT vm225 INTEL NT vm226 INTEL NT vm227 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
:52 INTEL NT 21: :52 INTEL NT 21: 21: :53 INTEL NT :53 INTEL NT 21: :55 INTEL NT 21: :55 INTEL NT 21: :55 INTEL NT 21: :55 INTEL NT 21: :55 INTEL NT 21: 21: :55 INTEL NT :56 INTEL NT 21: :56 INTEL NT 21: :56 INTEL NT 21: :57 INTEL NT 21: :57 INTEL NT 21: :57 INTEL NT 21: :57 INTEL NT 21: :57 INTEL NT 21: :57 INTEL NT 21: :58 INTEL NT 21: :58 INTEL NT 21: <
t d
OO
vm228 INTEL NT vm229 INTEL NT vm230 INTEL NT vm231 INTEL NT vm232 INTEL NT vm233 INTEL NT vm234 INTEL NT vm235 INTEL NT vm236 INTEL NT vmcl INTEL NT vmc2 INTEL NT vmc3 INTEL NT vmc4 INTEL NT vmc5 INTEL NT vmc6 INTEL NT vmc7 INTEL NT vmc8 INTEL NT vmdl INTEL NT vmd2 INTEL NT vmd3 INTEL NT cyc-17 7s INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
21::58 INTEL NT 21::59 INTEL NT 22::37 INTEL NT 22::37 INTEL NT 22::43 INTEL NT 22::44 INTEL NT 22::47 INTEL NT 22::47 INTEL NT 22::47 INTEL NT 22::48 INTEL NT 22::49 INTEL NT 22::49 INTEL NT 22::49 INTEL NT 22::50 INTEL NT 22::51 INTEL NT 22::51 INTEL NT 23: :09 INTEL NT 23: :09 INTEL NT 23: :09 INTEL NT 23: ill INTEL NT 23: :13 INTEL NT <
cyc-17 8s INTEL NT dds-13s NOT AVAILABLE dds-17s NOT AVAILABLE esp-112s INTEL NT esp-124s INTEL NT esp-127s INTEL NT ess-26s INTEL NT ess-97s INTEL NT evll7-106s INTEL NT evll9-35s INTEL NT evl20-85s INTEL NT evl41-208s INTEL NT evl44-13s INTEL NT evl44-23s INTEL NT evl54-23s INTEL NT evl54-25s INTEL NT evl71-57s INTEL NT evl73-53s INTEL NT evl74-46s INTEL NT evl75-20s INTEL NT evl75-21s NOT AVAILABLE
70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL NO UPDATE -88 COMPARE REL NO UPDATE -88 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL NO UPDATE -88 COMPARE REL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 8 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
23: :14 INTEL NT 23: :14 INTEL NT 23: :14 INTEL NT 23: :15 INTEL NT 23: :15 INTEL NT 23: : 15 INTEL NT 23: :15 INTEL NT 23: :15 INTEL NT 23: : 15 INTEL NT 23: :15 INTEL NT 23: :15 INTEL NT 23: :15 INTEL NT 23: :17 INTEL NT 23: :20 INTEL NT 23: :20 INTEL NT 23: :20 INTEL NT 23: :20 INTEL NT 23: :20 INTEL NT 23: :20 INTEL NT 23: :20 INTEL NT 23: :20 INTEL NT <
evl75-38s INTEL NT evl82-zbdpglls INTEL NT evl83-zdpl20s INTEL NT evl84-02s INTEL NT evl84-07s INTEL NT ev35-23s INTEL NT ev95-45s INTEL NT ev97-73s INTEL NT flo-136s INTEL NT flo-138s INTEL NT inrt-16s INTEL NT inrt-9s INTEL NT mvhy-bk5 01 INTEL NT mvhy-gt202 INTEL NT mvve-cr003 INTEL NT mvve-cr8 04 INTEL NT se-ls INTEL NT se-20s INTEL NT sxl20-ls NOT AVAILABLE tbc-155s INTEL NT
7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1
70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL NO UPDATE -88 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8
808 808 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 660 660 83% UP20020121 WINDOWS 577 577 80% UP20020121 WINDOWS 267 267 56% UP20020121 WINDOWS 661 661 80% UP20020121 WINDOWS 293 293 61% UP20020121 WINDOWS 892 892 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 621 621 82% UP20020121 WINDOWS 419 419 73% UP20020121 WINDOWS 352 352 68% UP20020121 WINDOWS 484 486 77% UP20020121 WINDOWS 421 421 73% UP20020121 WINDOWS 536 536 78% UP20020121 WINDOWS 780 780 84% UP20020121 WINDOWS 328 328 65% UP20020121 WINDOWS 329 329 65% UP20020121 WINDOWS 400 400 72% UP20020121 WINDOWS 879 879 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 248 146 30% UP20020121 WINDOWS 351 351 64% UP20020121 WINDOWS
02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005 02/12/2005
23: :21 INTEL NT 23: :21 INTEL NT 23: :21 INTEL NT 23: :21 INTEL NT 23: 121 INTEL NT 23: :21 INTEL NT 23: :21 INTEL NT 23: :21 INTEL NT 23: :22 INTEL NT 23: :22 INTEL NT 23: :22 INTEL NT 23: :22 INTEL NT 23: :23 INTEL NT 23: :23 INTEL NT 23: :24 INTEL NT 23: :24 INTEL NT 23: :24 INTEL NT 23: :24 INTEL NT 23: :24 INTEL NT 23: :24 INTEL NT <
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=c0231 10:37:04 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=c0231 21:33:01 FEB 12, 2005 CP= 0 0 /verify,c0231
/title, c0231 (fsk) Unmatched nodes mapping 30.580 237.330 30.580 237.330 30.580 237.330
WINDOWS
B.61
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 GREAD, TREAD = LINES ON GOOD FILE = 304 LINES ON TEST FILE = 304 ***************************************************** 1, 1
B.62
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml8 4 20:4 6:18 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml8 4 21:48:44 FEB 12, 2005 CP= 0 0 0 0 zero values 0 /TITLE, VM18 4, STRAIGHT CANTILEVER BEAM /VERIFY,VM184 /TITLE, VM18 4, STRAIGHT CANTILEVER BEAM
***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POST1)
ABSOLUTE VALUE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 1011 NT= 1011 G= VALUE -0.12394E-01-0.61739E-05 0.98504 0.98511 T= VALUE -0.12394E-01 0.61739E-05 0.98504 0.98511 NOW COMPARING LINES FROM NOW COMPARING LINES FROM ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POST1)
NG= 15 80 NT= 158( -0.43696E-05 0.98844 0.43701E-05 0.98844
B.63
T= VALUE -0.53533E-02 0.30756E-05 0.42553 0.42556
ABSOLUTE VALUE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 1673 NT= 1673 G= VALUE -0.12392E-01-0.71193E-05 0.98502 0.98510 T= VALUE -0.12392E-01 0.71194E-05 0.98502 0.98510 NOW COMPARING LINES FROM NOW COMPARING LINES FROM ***** ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTi;
COMPARE ERRORS = 1 * ************************************************
WINDOWS
B.64
GREAD, TREAD = 1, 1
B.65
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml98 20:50:49 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml98 21:4 9:55 FEB 12, 2005 CP= 0 0 /VERIFY,VM198
/TITLE, VM198, LARGE STRAIN IN-PLANE TORSION TEST (%EL%) ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTl
***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** NG= 618 NT= 618 CUSTOMER 00000000 CUSTOMER 00292062 ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTl)
0 0
0 0
B.66
COMPARE ERRORS = 2 * ************************************************
WINDOWS
B.67
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP2003090 9 114 0.219 0.125
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= G= CURRENT JOBNAME=vmc8 21:52:06 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=vmc8 22:51:25 FEB 12, 2005 CP= 0 0 0 0 0 PLANE2 PLANE42 PLANE82 VISCO106 SOLID45 SOLID95 VISCO107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /VERIFY,VMC8
/title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /TITLE, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTl)
2 2
3255 324 0
B.68
NOW COMPARING LINES FROM ***** TIME-HISTORY POSTPROCESSOR (POST2 6)
***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTl)
NG= 1227 NT= 1227 0.7401E-16 0.000 0.2694E-35 0.000
3.410 3.422
***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTl;
***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTl)
B.69
WINDOWS
B.70
NG= 114 NT= 114 OCT 15, 2002 CP= FEB 12, 2005 CP=
PROBLEM: cyc-177s
COMPARE OPTIONS
1. )000E-006 1. )000E-006 1 . 1000E-010 1. 1 0 0 0 E - 0 0 4 1. 1 0 0 0 E - 0 0 6
WINDOWS
B.71
B.72
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP2002K RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP20030! 0.25 0 0.125
NG= 114 NT= 114 OCT 15, 2002 CP= FEB 12, 2005 CP=
PROBLEM: cyc-178s
COMPARE OPTIONS
1. )000E-006 1. )000E-006 1 . 1000E-010 1. 1 0 0 0 E - 0 0 4 1. 1 0 0 0 E - 0 0 6
WINDOWS
B.73
B.74
WINDOWS
B.75
WINDOWS
B.76
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP20030909 0.234
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=evl73-53s 14:02:31 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=evl73-53s 23:20:30 FEB 12, 2005 CP= /verify,evl73-53s
/title,evl73-53s,mfquresh,Test to verify PSOVLE,ELFORM for 171175 (3D) with PENE EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON TEST FILE T= USE COMMAND MACRO QAEND T= ARGS= 20.000 END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= 14 09 NT= 14 01 NG= 1409 NT= 1406
WINDOWS
B.77
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7 . 0SP11 UP2003090 9 0.250
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=evl75-20s 14:22:03 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=evl75-20s 23:20:55 FEB 12, 2005 CP= /verify,evl75-20s
/title,evl75-20s,mfq, Check real constant FKN and FTOLN and KEYOPT(2)=0,1 NOW COMPARING LINES FROM EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON TEST FILE T= USE COMMAND MACRO QAEND T= ARGS= 3.0000 END OF SKIPPED DATA ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** NG= NG= 521 NT= 521 NT= 513 5 IS
2 2 0 0
WINDOWS
B.78
B.79
WINDOWS
B.80
NG= 114 NT= 114 OCT 15, 2002 CP= FEB 12, 2005 CP=
1 1 0 0
B.81
PROBLEM: sxl20-ls ALMOST ZERO (GOOD) = ALMOST ZERO (TEST) = ABSOLUTE VALUE TOL = FRACTIONAL DIFFERENCE= ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE =
WINDOWS
B.82
Software Acceptance
1) Project Title and Number: 2) Software Name and Version: 3) Computer and Property Number: 4) Operating System: 5) Scope of Testing: 6) Tests: DST Thermal and Seismic Analyses ANSYS 7.0 (Rev. 11) Generic PC WD44903 48971
Windows XP Professional Version 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware replacement and Software reinstallation (XP SP2)
7) Discrepancies: aa) bb) cc) dd) ee) ff) gg) hh) ii) jj) kk) 11) mm) c0231. These differences are acceptable per the ANSYS Verification Package User's Guide - ANSYS Release 7.0 (AVPUG). vm33. These differences are acceptable due to the unused degree of freedom (see AVPUG). vml76. These differences are acceptable due to the unused degree of freedom (see AVPUG). vml84. These differences occur at the 5th significant figure. vml98. This difference is the reporting of the customer number for this installation. vmc8. These differences are acceptable as noted in the output because of the difference in number of iterations and accuracy. eye-177s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG). eye-178s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG). dds-13s. This test case requires the "Parallel Performance Module" which is not part of this software installation and is not required for the DST analyses. dds-17s. This test case requires the "Parallel Performance Module" which is not part of this software installation and is not required for the DST analyses. ev 173-53s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG). ev 175-20s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG). evl75-21s. This test case requires the "Parallel Performance Module" which is not part of this software installation and is not required for the DST analyses.
B.83
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 nn) inrt-16s. This difference is acceptable due to the handling of the QAEND macro (see AVPUG).
8) Finding: This installation of ANSYS is acceptable
Certified by: JE Deibler
Code Custodial
A^-v.
C D-^L-JL^
ll/ll/ob
Reviewed by: SP Pilli Staff Engineer
vA yfc^-f
01Jo*l06
B.84
Notes for test c a s e c 0 2 3 1
Test case c0231 may show considerable differences for the Phase Angle value that is part of the Postl Nodal Degree of Freedom Listing (PRNS command) output. Any such differences do not indicate a problem with this test case's results and should be considered acceptable. The output items of significance for this test case are the UZ values in the Postl Nodal Degree of Freedom Listing. Machine precision differences in the form of small numerical differences that are trivial with respect to the test's output items of significance may also show for this test case in the compare output for this test. Please see Verifying ANSYS and Evaluating COMPARE Differences in Chapter 2 of the ANSYS Verification Testing Package User's Guide for more information on evaluating COMPARE differences. The following is an example of acceptable COMPARE differences for test case c0231 :
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR T= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= VALUE -9.8117 -3.7700 22. T= VALUE -9.8119 -3.7693 22. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR T= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= VALUE -9.7579 -3.9649 22. T= VALUE -9.7581 -3.9643 22. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR T= NODAL RESULTS ARE FOR CYCLIC SECTOR COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUWAT c;;;i';; G= 8 0 . 5 3 2 91 0 . 3 9 4 2 5 i o T= 8 0 . 5 3 2 9 3 p.39419 10
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= 10 0 . 5 2 4 9 5 0 . 3 9 568 9 . T= 10 0 . 5 2 4 97 0 . 3 9562 9 . COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 259 NT= 259 G= 12 0 . 5 0 4 3 3 0 . 4 0 2 8 2 8 . 6 4 8 2 8 . 6 7 2 2 T= 12 0 . 5 0 4 3 5 0 . 4 0 2 7 6 8.6711 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 260 NT= 260 G= 14 0 . 4 8 1 8 6 0 . 4 1 2 0 1 7 . 8 7 1 0 7 . 8 9 6 5 T= 14 0 . 4 8 1 8 8 0 . 4 1 1 9 6 7.8955 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 261 NT= 261 G= 16 0 . 4 5 5 0 5 0 . 4 2 4 7 8 7 . 0 7 1 9 7 . 0 9 9 2 T= 16 0 . 4 5 5 0 7 0 . 4 2 4 7 3 7.0983 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 262 NT= 262 G= 18 0 . 4 2 3 3 9 0 . 4 4 0 9 2 6 . 2 4 2 4 6 . 2 7 2 3 T= 18 0 . 4 2 3 4 1 0 . 4 4 0 8 6 6.2715 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 263 NT= 263 G= 20 0 . 3 8 5 0 1 0 . 4 6 1 2 4 5 . 3 7 3 2 5 . 4 0 6 7 T= 20 0 . 3 8 5 0 2 0 . 4 6 1 1 8 5.4061 COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 267 NT= 267 G= VALUE - 9 . 6 0 3 4 - 3 . 9 6 4 9 1 8 . 8 0 6 2 1 . 4 1 3 T= VALUE - 9 . 6 0 3 6 18.805 21.412 NG= 271 NT= 271 2 2 . 4 6 9 2 4 . 7 6 6 2 2 . 4 6 9 24.766 8.6471 7.8700 7.0710 6.2417 5.3726
-3.9643
NG= 192 NT= 192 1 -PHASE ANGLE = 1 - PHASE ANGLE = NG= 213 NT= 213 469 2 4 . 7 6 6 469 2 4 . 7 6 6
NG= 2 1 9 NT= 2 1 9 NG= 2 4 0 NT= 2 4 0 2440 3PHASE ANGLE = 2 24.710 440 PHASE ANGLE =
24.710
NG= 2 4 6 NT= 2 4 6
NG-= 257 m-~ - 2 5 7 .161 NG= 4080 4068 258 NT= 258 9 . 4 3 0 9
10.183
.160
10.181
9.4297
-3.9643
30.580 30.580 30.580
306.570 306.570 306.570
B.85
Notes for Test Case vm33 and vm 176 Test case vm33 and vm176 will produce a number of expected compare differences due to product restrictions in the PLANE 13 element's functionality. The expected compare differences are the result of the MAG degree of freedom being absent in the test case's output when it is run with the ANSYS/ Mechanical product. Since the MAG degree of freedom is unused in these test cases, these compare differences should be considered acceptable. 3-1 ANSYS Verification Testing Package User's Guide . ANSYS Release 7.0. 001767. @ SAS If;'Inc. Notes for Test Case vrn212 Test case vm212 may produce an expected compare difference due to an inconsequential warning message that appears in the ANSYS, Inc. supplied output file that may not appear in the output file generated by your system for this test case. This compare difference should be considered acceptable. The following is an example of this compare difference. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 445 NT= 436 G= NUMBER OF WARNING MESSAGES ENCOUNTERED= 1 T= NUMBER OF WARNING MESSAGES ENCOUNTERED= 0 Notes for Test Cases cyc-177s, cyc-178s, ev-173-53s, ev-175-20s, inrt-16s, and inrt-9s Test cases cyc-177s, cyc-178s, ev-173-53s, ev-175-20s, inrt-16s, and inrt-9s may produce expected compare differences due to the use of a macro named qaend. The method that is used in the verification procudure (runqa) to handle this macro may cause one or more comparison differences. Any such compare differences are inconsequential andshould be considered acceptable. The following is an example of such a compare difference. EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON TEST FILE NG= 1033 NT= 1030 T= USE COMMAND MACRO qaend T=ARGS= 137.00 END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= 1033 NT= 1033 Notes for test Cases dds-13s, dds-17s, and ev175-21 s The test cases dds-13s, dds-17s, and ev175-21 s will run to completion only if the "Parallel Performance for ANSYS" product (DDS and AMG solvers) is included in your ANSYS installation.
3-6 ANSYS Verification Testing Package User's Guide . ANSYS Release 7.0. 001767. @ SAS if;'inc.
B.86
c0211r2 INTEL NT c0212 INTEL NT c0213 INTEL NT c0214 INTEL NT c0215 INTEL NT c0216 INTEL NT c0218 INTEL NT c0219 INTEL NT c0220 INTEL NT c0221 INTEL NT c0222 INTEL NT c0223 INTEL NT c0224 INTEL NT c0225 INTEL NT c0226 INTEL NT c0227 INTEL NT c0227a INTEL NT c0228 INTEL NT c0229 INTEL NT c0230 INTEL NT c0231 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
c0232 INTEL NT c0233 INTEL NT c0234 INTEL NT vml INTEL NT vm2 INTEL NT vm3 INTEL NT vm4 INTEL NT vm5 INTEL NT vm6 INTEL NT vm7 INTEL NT vm8 INTEL NT vm9 INTEL NT vmlO INTEL NT vmll INTEL NT vml 2 INTEL NT vml 3 INTEL NT vml 4 INTEL NT vml 5 INTEL NT vml 6 INTEL NT vml 7 INTEL NT vml 8 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
vml 9 INTEL vm20 INTEL vm21 INTEL vm22 INTEL vm23 INTEL vm24 INTEL vm25 INTEL vm2 6 INTEL vm27 INTEL vm28 INTEL vm2 9 INTEL vm30 INTEL vm31 INTEL vm32 INTEL vm33 INTEL vm34 INTEL vm35 INTEL vm3 6 INTEL vm37 INTEL vm38 INTEL vm3 9 INTEL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
17: :30 INTEL NT 17: :30 INTEL NT 17: :30 INTEL NT 17: :30 INTEL NT 17: :30 INTEL NT 17: :31 INTEL NT 17: ;31 INTEL NT 17: :31 INTEL NT 17: :31 INTEL NT 17: :31 INTEL NT 17: :31 INTEL NT 17: :31 INTEL NT 17: :31 INTEL NT 17: :31 INTEL NT 17: ;31 INTEL NT 17: :31 INTEL NT 17: :32 INTEL NT 17: :32 INTEL NT 17: :32 INTEL NT 17: :32 INTEL NT 17: :32 INTEL NT <
vm4 0 INTEL vm41 INTEL vm42 INTEL vm43 INTEL vm4 4 INTEL vm45 INTEL vm4 7 INTEL vm4 8 INTEL vm5 0 INTEL vm52 INTEL vm53 INTEL vm5 4 INTEL vm55 INTEL vm5 6 INTEL vm5 7 INTEL vm5 8 INTEL vm5 9 INTEL vm60 INTEL vm61 INTEL vm62 INTEL vm63 INTEL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
876 876 8 6% UP20020121 WINDOWS 829 829 83% UP20020121 WINDOWS 607 607 77% UP20020121 WINDOWS 860 860 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1198 1198 90% UP20020121 WINDOWS 416 416 67% UP20020121 WINDOWS 416 416 67% UP20020121 WINDOWS 421 421 68% UP20020121 WINDOWS 500 500 72% UP20020121 WINDOWS 520 520 74% UP20020121 WINDOWS 789 789 82% UP20020121 WINDOWS 564 564 75% UP20020121 WINDOWS 995 995 87% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1577 1577 91% UP20020121 WINDOWS 737 737 81% UP20020121 WINDOWS 580 580 76% UP20020121 WINDOWS 833 833 84% UP20020121 WINDOWS 537 537 72% UP20020121 WINDOWS 402 402 66% UP20020121 WINDOWS 755 755 82% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1280 1280 89% UP20020121 WINDOWS
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
vm64 INTEL vm65 INTEL vm66 INTEL vm67 INTEL vm68 INTEL vm69 INTEL vm7 0 INTEL vm71 INTEL vm72 INTEL vm73 INTEL vm7 4 INTEL vm75 INTEL vm7 6 INTEL vm7 7 INTEL vm7 8 INTEL vm7 9 INTEL vm8 0 INTEL vm81 INTEL vm82 INTEL vm83 INTEL vm8 4 INTEL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
vm85 INTEL NT vm8 6 INTEL NT vm8 7 INTEL NT vm8 8 INTEL NT vm8 9 INTEL NT vm90 INTEL NT vm91 INTEL NT vm92 INTEL NT vm93 INTEL NT vm94 INTEL NT vm95 INTEL NT vm96 INTEL NT vm97 INTEL NT vm98 INTEL NT vm99 INTEL NT vml 00 INTEL NT vml 01 INTEL NT vml 02 INTEL NT vml 03 INTEL NT vml 04 INTEL NT vml 05 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
vml 06 INTEL NT vml 07 INTEL NT vml 08 INTEL NT vml 09 INTEL NT vml 10 INTEL NT vml 11 INTEL NT vml 12 INTEL NT vml 13 INTEL NT vml 14 INTEL NT vml 15 INTEL NT vml 16 INTEL NT vml 18 INTEL NT vml 19 INTEL NT vml 22 INTEL NT vml 23 INTEL NT vml 2 4 INTEL NT vml 25 INTEL NT vml 2 6 INTEL NT vml 2 7 INTEL NT vml 2 8 INTEL NT vml 2 9 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
17: :37 INTEL NT 17: :37 INTEL NT 17: :37 INTEL NT 17: :37 INTEL NT 17: :38 INTEL NT 17: :38 INTEL NT 17: :38 INTEL NT 17: :38 INTEL NT 17: :38 INTEL NT 17: :38 INTEL NT 17: :38 INTEL NT 17: :38 INTEL NT 17: :38 INTEL NT 17: :38 INTEL NT 17: :38 INTEL NT 17: :39 INTEL NT 17: :39 INTEL NT 17: :39 INTEL NT 17: :39 INTEL NT 17: :39 INTEL NT 17: :39 INTEL NT
<
vml 30 INTEL NT vml 31 INTEL NT vml 32 INTEL NT vml 33 INTEL NT vml 3 4 INTEL NT vml 35 INTEL NT vml 3 6 INTEL NT vml 3 7 INTEL NT vml 3 8 INTEL NT vml 3 9 INTEL NT vml 40 INTEL NT vml 41 INTEL NT vml 4 2 INTEL NT vml 4 3 INTEL NT vml 4 4 INTEL NT vml 4 5 INTEL NT vml 4 6 INTEL NT vml 4 7 INTEL NT vml 4 8 INTEL NT vml 4 9 INTEL NT vml 50 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
17: :39 INTEL NT 17: :39 INTEL NT 17: :39 INTEL NT 17: :39 INTEL NT 17: :39 INTEL NT 17: :39 INTEL NT 17: :40 INTEL NT 17: :40 INTEL NT 17: :40 INTEL NT 17: :40 INTEL NT 17: :40 INTEL NT 17: :40 INTEL NT 17: :40 INTEL NT 17: :40 INTEL NT 17: :40 INTEL NT 17: :40 INTEL NT 17: :40 INTEL NT 17: :40 INTEL NT 17: :41 INTEL NT 17: :41 INTEL NT 17: :41 INTEL NT
<
vmlSl INTEL NT vml52 INTEL NT vml53 INTEL NT vml54 INTEL NT vml55 INTEL NT vml5 6 INTEL NT vml57 INTEL NT vml58 INTEL NT vml5 9 INTEL NT vml60 INTEL NT vml61 INTEL NT vml62 INTEL NT vml63 INTEL NT vml64 INTEL NT vml70 INTEL NT vml71 INTEL NT vml73 INTEL NT vml74 INTEL NT vml75 INTEL NT vml7 6 INTEL NT vml77 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
1058 1058 87% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1211 1211 88% UP20020121 WINDOWS 507 507 74% UP20020121 WINDOWS 814 814 82% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1255 1255 89% UP20020121 WINDOWS 2047 2047 94% UP20020121 WINDOWS 952 952 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 955 955 87% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1524 1524 91% UP20020121 WINDOWS 600 600 78% UP20020121 WINDOWS 539 539 75% UP20020121 WINDOWS 548 548 76% UP20020121 WINDOWS 5 63 5 63 7 6% UP20020121 WINDOWS 556 556 76% UP20020121 WINDOWS 436 436 69% UP20020121 WINDOWS 759 759 82% UP20020121 WINDOWS 545 545 75% UP20020121 WINDOWS 602 602 77% UP20020121 WINDOWS 855 855 84% UP20020121 WINDOWS 999 970 86% UP20020121 WINDOWS 1127 1127 87% UP20020121 WINDOWS
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
vml7 9 INTEL NT vml80 INTEL NT vml81 INTEL NT vml82 INTEL NT vml83 INTEL NT vml84 INTEL NT vml87 INTEL NT vml91 INTEL NT vml92 INTEL NT vml93 INTEL NT vml94 INTEL NT vml95 INTEL NT vml96 INTEL NT vml97 INTEL NT vml98 INTEL NT vml99 INTEL NT vm200 INTEL NT vm201 INTEL NT vm202 INTEL NT vm203 INTEL NT vm204 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 5 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
vm205 INTEL NT vm210 INTEL NT vm211 INTEL NT vm215 INTEL NT vm216 INTEL NT vm217 INTEL NT vm218 INTEL NT vm222 INTEL NT vm224 INTEL NT vm225 INTEL NT vm227 INTEL NT vm228 INTEL NT vm229 INTEL NT vm230 INTEL NT vm231 INTEL NT vm232 INTEL NT vm234 INTEL NT vmcl INTEL NT vmc2 INTEL NT vmc3 INTEL NT vmc4 INTEL NT
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
vmc5 INTEL NT vmc6 INTEL NT vmc7 INTEL NT vmc8 INTEL NT vmdl INTEL NT vmd2 INTEL NT vmd3 INTEL NT cyc-17 7s INTEL NT cyc-17 8s INTEL NT dds-13s NOT AVAILABLE dds-17s NOT AVAILABLE esp-112s INTEL NT esp-124s INTEL NT esp-127s INTEL NT ess-26s INTEL NT ess-97s INTEL NT evl54-23s INTEL NT evl54-25s INTEL NT evl71-57s INTEL NT evl73-53s INTEL NT evl75-20s INTEL NT
70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 2 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL NO UPDATE -88 COMPARE REL NO UPDATE -88 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
t d ^ o
evl75-21s NOT AVAILABLE evl75-38s INTEL NT evl82-zbdpglls INTEL NT evl83-zdpl20s INTEL NT evl84-02s INTEL NT evl84-07s INTEL NT ev35-23s INTEL NT ev95-45s INTEL NT inrt-16s INTEL NT inrt-9s INTEL NT mvhy-bk5 01 INTEL NT mvhy-gt202 INTEL NT mvve-cr003 INTEL NT mvve-cr8 04 INTEL NT se-ls INTEL NT se-20s INTEL NT
7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1 7020021010 QA70-1
NO UPDATE -88 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 1 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL 70SP20030909 0 COMPARE REL
0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8 0 3 .8 0 3 .8 0 3. .8 0 3. .8
566 146 64% UP20020121 WINDOWS 808 808 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 660 660 83% UP20020121 WINDOWS 577 577 80% UP20020121 WINDOWS 267 267 56% UP20020121 WINDOWS 661 661 80% UP20020121 WINDOWS 293 293 61% UP20020121 WINDOWS 892 892 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS 484 486 77% UP20020121 WINDOWS 421 421 73% UP20020121 WINDOWS 536 536 78% UP20020121 WINDOWS 780 780 84% UP20020121 WINDOWS 328 328 65% UP20020121 WINDOWS 329 329 65% UP20020121 WINDOWS 400 400 72% UP20020121 WINDOWS 879 879 85% UP20020121 WINDOWS
11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
18: :31 INTEL NT 18: :31 INTEL NT 18: :31 INTEL NT 18: :32 INTEL NT 18: :32 INTEL NT 18: :32 INTEL NT 18: :32 INTEL NT 18: :32 INTEL NT 18: :32 INTEL NT 18: :32 INTEL NT 18: :32 INTEL NT 18: :32 INTEL NT 18: :33 INTEL NT 18: :33 INTEL NT 18: :33 INTEL NT 18: :33 INTEL NT <
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP2003090 9
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=c0231 10:37:04 OCT 15, 2002 CP= 0.219 T= CURRENT JOBNAME=c0231 17:28:23 NOV 10, 2005 CP= 0.375 0 0 /verify,c0231 /title, c0231 (fsk) Unmatched nodes mapping 30.580 237.330 30.580 237.330 30.580 237.330
WINDOWS
B.100
GREAD, TREAD = LINES ON GOOD FILE = 304 LINES ON TEST FILE = 304 *****************************************************
1,
B.101
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7 . 0SP11 UP2003090 9 114 0.219 0.375
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= G= CURRENT JOBNAME=vm33 20:03:05 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=vm33 17:31:47 NOV 10, 2005 CP= 0 0 /VERIFY,VM33
/TITLE, VM33, TRANSIENT THERMAL STRESS IN A CYLINDER ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** NG= 236 NT= UZ TEMP UZ TEMP NG= UY UY NG= NG= 236 VOLT VOLT
NOW COMPARING LINES FROM COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= CURRENT NODAL DOF SET IS T= CURRENT NODAL DOF SET IS COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= DEGREES OF FREEDOM T= DEGREES OF FREEDOM EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON GOOD FILE G= ELECTRO-MAGNETIC UNITS G= MUZERO END OF SKIPPED DATA
UX UX
UY UY UX UX
MAG
419 NT= 419 UZ TEMP VOLT MAG UZ TEMP VOLT 422 NT= 425 MKS 0.12566E-05 424 NT= 425
EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON GOOD FILE NG= 427 NT= 428 G= Element 1 references undefined MURX or BH table for material 1. G= *** WARNING *** CP= 0.000 TIME= 00: END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= 430 NT= 428 EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON GOOD FILE G= MAGNETIC DOFS END OF SKIPPED DATA NOW COMPARING LINES FROM ***** NOW COMPARING LINES FROM NG= NG= 453 NT= 454 NT= 449 449 POSTl' ON
***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= G= NUMBER OF WARNING MESSAGES ENCOUNTERED= T= NUMBER OF WARNING MESSAGES ENCOUNTERED=
11 NT=
875
B.102
NOTE- NONSTANDARD COMPARE - DIFOPT NAME QA70-1 HAS BEEN USED NUMBER OF LINES SKIPPED IN GOOD FILE(BLANK LINES EXCLUDED) NUMBER OF LINES SKIPPED IN TEST FILE(BLANK LINES EXCLUDED) NUMBER OF LINES ON GOOD FILE WITH STRINGS CONDENSED OUT NUMBER OF LINES ON TEST FILE WITH STRINGS CONDENSED OUT ************************************************ ************************************************
COMPARE ERRORS =
PROBLEM: vm33 ALMOST ZERO (GOOD) = ALMOST ZERO (TEST) = ABSOLUTE VALUE TOL = FRACTIONAL DIFFERENCE= ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE =
WINDOWS
B.103
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP2003090 9 0.234 0.375
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml76 20:43:52 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml76 17:43:39 NOV 10, 2005 CP= 0 0 ADMITTANCE FOR A /VERIFY,VM176
/TITLE, VM17 6, FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF ELECTRICAL INPUT ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** NG= 27 6 NT= UZ TEMP UZ TEMP NG= UY UY NG= NG= 27 6 VOLT VOLT
NOW COMPARING LINES FROM COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= CURRENT NODAL DOF SET IS T= CURRENT NODAL DOF SET IS COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= DEGREES OF FREEDOM T= DEGREES OF FREEDOM EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON GOOD FILE G= ELECTRO-MAGNETIC UNITS G= MUZERO END OF SKIPPED DATA
UX UX
UY UY UX UX
MAG
617 NT= 617 UZ TEMP VOLT MAG UZ TEMP VOLT 623 NT= 627 MKS 0.12566E-05 626 NT= 627
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 627 NT= 625 G= Element 1 references undefined MURX or BH table for material 3 T= Element 1 references undefined KXX for material 3. EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON GOOD FILE NG= 630 NT= 630 G= Element 1 references undefined KXX for material 3. G= *** WARNING *** CP= 0.000 END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= 633 NT= 630
TIME=
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 638 NT= 633 G= Element 11 references undefined MURX or BH table for material T= Element 11 references undefined KXX for material 4. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 641 NT= 636 G= Element 11 references undefined KXX for material 4. T= Element 11 references undefined RSVX or PERX for material 4. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 644 NT= 639 G= Element 11 references undefined RSVX or PERX for material 4. T= Element 16 references undefined KXX for material 2. EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON GOOD FILE NG= 647 NT= 648
B.104
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 G= Element 16 references undefined MURX or G= *** WARNING *** G= Element 16 references undefined KXX for G= *** WARNING *** END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= BH table CP= material CP= 653 NT= for material 2 0.000 TIME= ( 2. 0.000 TIME= ( 648
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 731 NT= 720 G= Element 1 references undefined MURX or BH table for material 3. T= Element 1 references undefined KXX for material 3. EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON GOOD FILE NG= 734 NT= 725 G= Element 1 references undefined KXX for material 3. G= *** WARNING *** CP= 0.000 END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= 737 NT= 725
TIME= (
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 7 42 NT= 728 G= Element 11 references undefined MURX or BH table for material 4 T= Element 11 references undefined KXX for material 4. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 7 45 NT= 731 G= Element 11 references undefined KXX for material 4. T= Element 11 references undefined RSVX or PERX for material 4. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 7 48 NT= 734 G= Element 11 references undefined RSVX or PERX for material 4. T= Element 16 references undefined KXX for material 2. EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON GOOD FILE NG= 751 NT= G= Element 16 references undefined MURX or BH table G= *** WARNING *** CP= G= Element 16 references undefined KXX for material G= *** WARNING *** CP= END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= 757 NT= 7 42 for material 2 0.000 TIME= ( 2. 0.000 TIME= ( 7 42
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 7 84 NT= 7 64 G= Element 1 references undefined MURX or BH table for material 3. T= Element 1 references undefined KXX for material 3. EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON GOOD FILE NG= 7 87 NT= 7 69 G= Element 1 references undefined KXX for material 3. G= *** WARNING *** CP= 0.000 END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= 7 90 NT= 7 69
TIME= (
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 7 95 NT= 7 72 G= Element 11 references undefined MURX or BH table for material 4 T= Element 11 references undefined KXX for material 4. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 7 98 NT= 7 75 G= Element 11 references undefined KXX for material 4. T= Element 11 references undefined RSVX or PERX for material 4. COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 8 01 NT= 7 78 G= Element 11 references undefined RSVX or PERX for material 4. T= Element 16 references undefined KXX for material 2. EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON GOOD FILE NG= 8 04 NT= 786 G= Element 16 references undefined MURX or BH table for material 2
B.105
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 G= *** WARNING *** CP= G= Element 16 references undefined KXX for material G= *** WARNING *** CP= END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= 810 NT= NOW COMPARING LINES FROM ***** 0.' 2. O.i 7i TIME= TIME=
COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= G= NUMBER OF WARNING MESSAGES ENCOUNTERED= T= NUMBER OF WARNING MESSAGES ENCOUNTERED=
BOTTOM OF GOOD F I L E REACHED AT LINE
978 NT= 32 23
9'
G=
ANSYS RUN COMPLETED
NOTE- NONSTANDARD COMPARE - DIFOPT NAME QA70-1 HAS BEEN USED NUMBER OF LINES SKIPPED IN GOOD FILE(BLANK LINES EXCLUDED) NUMBER OF LINES SKIPPED IN TEST FILE(BLANK LINES EXCLUDED) NUMBER OF LINES ON GOOD FILE WITH STRINGS CONDENSED OUT NUMBER OF LINES ON TEST FILE WITH STRINGS CONDENSED OUT ************************************************ COMPARE ERRORS = 2 2 * ************************************************
WINDOWS
LINES ON GOOD FILE = 970 LINES ON TEST FILE = *****************************************************************************
B.106
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP2003090 9 0.25 0 0.375
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml8 4 20:4 6:18 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml8 4 17:44:26 NOV 10, 2005 CP= 0 0 0 0 zero values 0 /TITLE, VM18 4, STRAIGHT CANTILEVER BEAM /VERIFY,VM184 /TITLE, VM18 4, STRAIGHT CANTILEVER BEAM
ABSOLUTE VALUE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 1011 NT= 1011 G= VALUE -0.12394E-01-0.61739E-05 0.98504 0.98511 T= VALUE -0.12394E-01 0.61739E-05 0.98504 0.98511 NOW COMPARING LINES FROM NOW COMPARING LINES FROM ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTl)
NG= 15 80 NT= 158( -0.43696E-05 0.98844 0.43701E-05 0.98844
B.107
T= VALUE -0.53533E-02 0.30756E-05 0.42553 0.42556
ABSOLUTE VALUE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 1673 NT= 1673 G= VALUE -0.12392E-01-0.71193E-05 0.98502 0.98510 T= VALUE -0.12392E-01 0.71194E-05 0.98502 0.98510 NOW COMPARING LINES FROM NOW COMPARING LINES FROM ***** ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTl;
COMPARE ERRORS = 1 * ************************************************
WINDOWS
B.108
GREAD, TREAD = 1, 1
LINES ON GOOD F I L E = LINES ON TEST F I L E =
*****************************************************************************
3162 3162
B.109
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml98 20:50:49 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=vml98 17:45:25 NOV 10, 2005 CP= 0 0 /VERIFY,VM198
/TITLE, VM198, LARGE STRAIN IN-PLANE TORSION TEST (%EL%) ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTl
0 0
0 0
B.110
WINDOWS
B.lll
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP2003090 9 114 0.219 0.375
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= G= CURRENT JOBNAME=vmc8 21:52:06 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=vmc8 17:59:57 NOV 10, 2005 CP= 0 0 0 0 0 PLANE2 PLANE42 PLANE82 VISCO106 SOLID45 SOLID95 VISCO107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /VERIFY,VMC8
/title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /title, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY /TITLE, VMC8, ALUMINUM BAR IMPACTING A RIGID BOUNDARY ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** ***** ANSYS RESULTS INTERPRETATION (POSTl)
2 2
3255 324 0
B.112
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 NOW COMPARING LINES FROM ***** TIME-HISTORY POSTPROCESSOR (POST2 6)
NG= 1227 NT= 1227 0.7401E-16 0.000 0.2694E-35 0.000
3.410 3.422
B.113
WINDOWS
B.114
NG= 114 NT= 114 OCT 15, 2002 CP= NOV 10, 2005 CP=
PROBLEM: cyc-177s
COMPARE OPTIONS
1. )000E-006 1. )000E-006 1 . 1000E-010 1. 1 0 0 0 E - 0 0 4 1. 1 0 0 0 E - 0 0 6
WINDOWS
B.115
B.116
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP2002K RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP20030! 0.25 0 0.35 9
NG= 114 NT= 114 OCT 15, 2002 CP= NOV 10, 2005 CP=
PROBLEM: cyc-178s
COMPARE OPTIONS
1. )000E-006 1. )000E-006 1 . 1000E-010 1. 1 0 0 0 E - 0 0 4 1. 1 0 0 0 E - 0 0 6
WINDOWS
B.117
B.118
WINDOWS
B.119
******************************************************* *** ERROR (VERSION=) was not found anywhere in the "TEST" file. *** *** Comparison was supposed to start at this string, specified in CMPOPT. ***
WINDOWS
B.120
***************************************************************************** 00000000 VERSION=INTEL NT NG= RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT G= 00000000 VERSION=INTEL NT T= 002 920 62 VERSION=INTEL NT
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7.0SP11 UP20030909 0.234
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=evl73-53s 14:02:31 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=evl73-53s 18:31:16 NOV 10, 2005 CP= /verify,evl73-53s
/title,evl73-53s,mfquresh,Test to verify PSOVLE,ELFORM for 171175 (3D) with PENE EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON TEST FILE T= USE COMMAND MACRO QAEND T= ARGS= 20.000 END OF SKIPPED DATA NG= 14 09 NT= 14 01 NG= 1409 NT= 1406
WINDOWS
B.121
113 NT= 113 RELEASE= 7.0 UP20021010 RELEASE= 7 . 0SP11 UP2003090 9 0.250 0.328
EXPECTED COMPARE DIFFERENCE FOUND AT NG= 114 NT= 114 G= CURRENT JOBNAME=evl75-20s 14:22:03 OCT 15, 2002 CP= T= CURRENT JOBNAME=evl75-20s 18:31:34 NOV 10, 2005 CP= 0 0 KEYOPT(2)=0,1 NOW COMPARING LINES FROM EXTRA DATA SKIPPED ON TEST FILE T= USE COMMAND MACRO QAEND T= ARGS= 3.0000 END OF SKIPPED DATA /verify,evl75-20s
/title,evl75-20s,mfq, Check real constant FKN and FTOLN and ***** ANSYS ANALYSIS DEFINITION (PREP7) ***** NG= NG= 521 NT= 521 NT= 513 5 IS
2 2 0 0
WINDOWS
B.122
RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 LINES ON GOOD FILE = 538 LINES ON TEST FILE = 5 41 *****************************************************************************
B.123
WINDOWS
B.124
NG= 114 NT= 114 OCT 15, 2002 CP= NOV 10, 2005 CP=
BOTTOM OF GOOD FILE REACHED AT LINE G= ANSYS RUN COMPLETED
1 1 0 0
PROBLEM: inrt-16s ALMOST ZERO (GOOD) = ALMOST ZERO (TEST) = ABSOLUTE VALUE TOL = FRACTIONAL DIFFERENCE= ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE =
WINDOWS
LINES ON GOOD FILE = LINES ON TEST FILE = *****************************************************************************
B.125
B.126
Appendix C ANSYS Model Files
Appendix C ANSYS Model Files

C.l Introduction
This appendix contains the ANSYS model input files for the thermal and operating load analyses. The input files for the seismic analyses are available in the seismic report (Rinker et al. 2007) To conserve space and avoid duplication of the same data multiple times, some of the files listed will be used multiple times, but they are only included one time in this document. There are twenty-six files needed to actually build the model and run the initial mechanical loads. The key file for this phase of the analysis is the "setslicea.mac" macro file. The setslicea.mac file calls all of the other necessary files for the actual ANSYS run. At the end of this initial phase, the ANSYS database file is copied into a new subdirectory along with the eighteen temperature distribution macro files that apply the temperatures via body forces to each node point in the model and a short input macro file to re-start the ANSYS run. The actual nodal temperature values are not included in this appendix, as it would take over three thousand pages to do so. The actual nodal temperatures are included separately on electronic media. The ACI load factors are applied at the end of the 60 years of thermal cycling in a separate restart analysis. Section D.2 contains all the input files needed for the Best Estimate Soil - Best Estimate Concrete (BES-BEC) analysis. Sections D.3 and D.4 contain only the files that are different to run the Lower Bound Soil - Best Estimate Concrete and Upper Bound Soil - Best Estimate Concrete analyses. Section D.5 contains the input files for the BES-BEC analysis with the anchor bolts modeled as springs. In addition to the secant stiffness spring model described in "setslicea.mac", this analysis required fewer load steps for the thermal transient because of the lower (135F) steady state waste temperature. These input files are also listed in this section. The post-processing files required to extract the results from the TOLA model in preparation for combination with the seismic results are shown in Section D.6. The input file for the detailed AP anchor bolt study described in Appendix B is listed in Section D.7.
C.l
C.2 Best Estimate Soil Model Input Files

C.2.1 Model Files Input file: setslicea.mac !*** AP 210F, Waste Height=422 SpG =1.83 for 20years 10/11/2006 !*** AP 210F, Waste Height=460 SpG =1.83 for 40 years 10/11/2006 !***AP modifications 8/9/04 !***Liquid level 460", SpG 1.83 8/11/04 !***Liquid level 460", SpG 2.0 7/26/04 !***Liquid level 460", SpG 1.7 7/19/04 !***2nd liner extension 0.25 thick 7/21/04 !***2nd liner extension contact o concrete 7/21/04 !*** Augmented stiffness 5% Econc (350) 7/19/04 !***5%pivot, bcso,mmd 6/25/04 !***Usensub 6/24/04 !***cnvtol,f(m).005,0 6/16/04 !*** Augmented stiffness 2% Econc (350) 6/14/04 !*** Augmented stiffness 30000 6/11/04 1***6/10/04 changes !*** Do not merge insulating concrete <> 2nd liner @ OD of concrete !*** Add 1st radius element to contact of 1st liner o ins cone !*** Add contact 2nd liner o slab concrete !***Correct node select for type,61 real,70 6/9/04 !***Reorient Beaml88 on z=/= 0 face !***Fix Liner-Dome common nodes 5/6/04 !***Delete "j-bolts" in wall 5/6/04 !***Move j-bolt real definition to pnnla6.mac 3/30/04
to
*** Changed Liner Coupling per J. Deibler 3/29/04 !*** Augmented stiffness 15000 3/24/04 ***Default convergence criteria 3/22/04 ***Best estimate soil properties 3/19/04 *** Soil-Concrete - 5 regions 2/23/04 *** Correct Drucker-Prager - soil *** Correct mat, 1 temperature dependent modulus ***Replace shell64 with shelll81 ***Primary tank pressure -12" H20 (was -6) *** 125 pcf overburden, 110 pcf undisturbed soil *** 10/30/03 ***Define additional soils for load factor restart ***No cracking insulating concrete ***fix mpch (esel,r,mat,,2) *** 1 yr + 15 day creep 5/14/03 *** Load step 5 creep for 330 days ***New load step 6 => mpch +5 days *** "sets" degraded concrete properties *** *** Turn off concrete crushing 5/5/03 *** *** Run 2, Load Step 1, 2 & thermal *** (8.3' soil, 125 lb/ft3) *** (0.06" primary tank corrosion wall, floor) *** 4/16/03 ***
***
*** JED mods 3/29/03 *** i rebuild=l *if,i rebuild,eq, l,then pnnla
pnnla2 pnnla3 pnnla4 pnnla5 pnnla6 pnnla7 pnnla8 pnnla9 *else resume,pnnla9,db *endif /prep7 alls el cpdele,all,all !get misc area components for applying loads, etc. /input, setareasslice,mac !add steel plate below wall (on slab) r,45,l/4 csys,22 vsel,s,mat2 aslv asel,r,loc,z,-8.125 asel,r,loc,x,480,498 aart, 1,45,22 mat,l real, 4 5 amesh,all ! define contact elements (all have default friction of 0.3)
et,60,170 et,61,173 mp,mu,61,.3 ,mu,62,.4 ,mu,63,.4 ,mu,64,.4 ,mu,65,.3 ,mu,66,.2 ,mu,67,.05 ,mu,68,.3 ,mu,69,.05 ,mu,70,.6 ,mu,71,.4 6/10/04
! Soil-concrete dome
! soil-concrete wall ! soil-concrete footing/top ! soil-concrete footing/side ! soil-concrete foundation !2nd liner-insulating concrete
Isoilconcrete contact - dome r,61,l,.l real, 61 type, 61 mat, 61 cms el, s, aconcs oil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,452,600 esln esurf type, 60 cmsel,s,asoil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,452,600 esln esurf 'soil concrete contact - wall
r,67,l,.l real, 67 type, 61 mat, 67 cms el, s, aconcs oil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,-3,453 esln esurf type, 60 cmsel,s,asoil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,-3,453 esln esurf Isoilconcrete contact - Footing - top r,68,l,.l real,68 type, 61 mat, 6 8 cms el, s, aconcs oil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,-7,-6 esln esurf type, 60 cmsel,s,asoil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,-7,-6 ,r,loc,x,496,530 esln esurf
Isoilconcrete contact - Footing - side r,69,l,.l real, 69 type, 61 mat, 69 cms el, s, aconcs oil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,x,531 esln esurf type, 60 cmsel,s,asoil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,x,531 esln esurf ! soil concrete contact - Foundation r,70,l,.l real, 70 type, 61 mat, 70 cms el, s, aconcs oil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,-31,-30 ,r,loc,x, 440,531 cm,foundconc,node nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,x440 ,r,loc,z,-33,-8 !**was-32 6/9/04 cmse,a,foundconc esln
esurf type, 60 cmsel,s,asoil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,-31,-30 ,r,loc,x, 440,531 cm,founds oil, node nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,x440 ,r,loc,z,-33,-8 cmse,a,foundsoil esln esurf
esurf Iprimary liner contact with dome r,63,l,.l real, 63 type, 60 mat, 63 cmsel,s,aconc_shell asel,r,loc,y,459,99999 nsla,,l esln esel,r,mat,,2 esurf type, 61 cms el, s, area_prim asel,r,loc,y,459,99999 nsla,,l esln esurf Iprimary liner contact with insulating concrete r,64,l,.l real, 64 type, 60 mat, 64 cmsel,s,area_insul_top nsla,,l esln esel,r,mat,,4 esurf type, 61 cms el, s, area_prim csys,0
! secondary liner contact r,62,l,.l real, 62 type, 60 mat, 62 cmsel,s,aconc_shell csys,0 asel,u,loc,y,459,99999 nsla,,l esln esel,r,mat,,2 esurf type, 61 cms el, s, areas e con csys,0 asel,u,loc,y,-99999,3.87 nsla,,l esln
asel,r,loc,y,0 nsla,,l esln nsle 1*6/10/04 esurf Isecondary liner contact with foundation concrete 6/10/04 r,71,l,.l real, 71 type, 60 mat, 71 cmse,,slab_top asel,r,loc,x,-480,-440 nsla,,l esln esur type, 61 cmse,,area_secon asel,r,loc,x,-470,-440 ,r,loc,y,-9,-8 nsla,,l esln nsle esur Imerge insulating concrete bottom nodes and secondary liner nodes cmsel,s,area_insul_bot cmsel,a,area_secon csys,0 asel,u,loc,y,20,9999 nsla,,l cpintf,uz,.l
I slab top/insulating concrete r,65,l,.l real, 65 type, 60 mat, 6 5 cmsel,s,slab_top nsla,,l esln esurf type, 61 cmsel,s,area_insul_bot nsla,,l esln esurf I wall/slab contact r,66,l,.l real, 66 type, 60 mat, 66 asel986,992 cm,slab top wall,area nsla,,l esln esel,r,mat,,2 esurf type, 61 asel,,214 ,a,706 ,a,913,918,5 ,a,934 cm, w all bot, are a
nsla,,l esln esel,r,mat,,2 esurf alls el !esel,s,type,,60 I nsle !nummrg,node !nummrg,elem !esel,s,type,,61 I nsle !nummrg,elem max mat=100 max_real=1000 I define the local coordinate systems and rebar orientations /input,set_esys_3d,mac I apply loads /input,apply loads slice,mac alls el I apply axisymmetric boundary conditions csys,22 nsel,s,loc,y,180 nsel,a,loc,y,180+swp_th-.001,183 csys,0 nsel,a,loc,x,0 d,all,uy,0 d,all,rotx,0 d,all,rotz,0
alls el nsel,s,loc,x,0 d,all,roty,0 Imerge liner/concrete nodes at dome centerline ksel,s,,,2 ksel,a,329 nslk nummrg,node alls el I copy jbolts, etc for slice model csys,22 esel,s,type,,20,21 cm,e_boltO,elem egen,2,500000,all,0,0,0,0,0swp_th esel,s,mat,,l esel,u,real45 nsle nsel,u,22789,22790 !*** 5/6/04 ,u,20260,20261!*** 6/10/04 nummrg,node I divide jbolt/bottom anchors properties by 2 for slice model r,30,.19635/2,.3068e-2/2,.3068e-2/2,.5,.5 esel,s,type,,20,21 cmsel,u,e_bolt0 nsle nsel,r,500000,999999 cm,ntemp,node
w w
<i
to to
vsel,s,mat2 vs el, a, mat,, 6 csys,0 vsel,u,loc,y,-9999,-8.12 cm,vtemp,volu *get,nv,volu count *do,i,l,nv *get,iv,volu,,num,min eslv nsle cmsel,a,ntemp nummrg,node cm,ntemp,node cmsel,s,vtemp vsel,u,iv cm,vtemp,volu *enddo
I***
*do,i,l,16 set_slayer,soil_zO(i),soil_zl(i),soil_emod(i),soil_pr(i) *enddo max mat=100 !set backfill/overburden material *do,i,l,8 set_backfill,bf_zO(i),bf_zl(i),bf_emod(i),bf_pr *enddo IDon'tdothis!! 5/6/04 Imake sure anchors/jbolts/studs etc are merged with concrete lesel,,type,,12,13 !,a,type20,21 !,a,type24,25 Insle !nsel,u,22789,22790 !*** 3/26/04 !numm,node
w
<
!*** Delete primary-secondary tank coupling at tangent !*** JED 3/31/03 I*** r,41,3/16 thickness /prep7 esel,s,mat,,5 nsle,,l csys,0 *get,top elev,node,,mxloc,y cm,soil elem,elem linsulating concrete confining ring !*** Augmented Stiffness 2/27/04 I*** et,32,45 *get,ec350,ex,2,temp,350 mp,ex,12,ec350*0.05 17/19/04 ,prxy,12,.15 eseltype12,15 egen,2,0,all,10 eselmat12 emod,all,type,32
/fil,set_slice_0 save
I***
!***Redefinej-bolts 4/1/04 I*** alls csys nod0k=node(-550,575,0) nodlk=node(-550,575,27) et,30,188 !Newj-bolts type,30 mat,l real,20 seen, 2 sect,2,beam,csolid seed,.25/(2**.5), 1,1 !Use 1/2 area for symmetry eseltype20 nsle nsel,r,loc,z esln,,l *get,jbO,elem,,count *do,i,ljb0 *get,jbl,elem,,num,min *get,jnl,elem,jbl,node,l *get,jn2,elem,jbl,node,2 e,jnl,jn2,nod0k esel,u,jbl *enddo eseltype20 nsle
nsel,u,loc,z esln,,l *get,jb2,elem,,count *do,i,l jb2 *get,jb3,elem,,num,min *get,jn3,elem,jb3,node,l *get,jn4,elem,jb3,node,2 e,jn3,jn4,nodlk esel,u,jb3 *enddo alls el ! *** 2nd liner extension issues 7/21/04 asel928,l egen,2,100000,all,4,0,0,0 modm, no check alls emod,15784,-l,114183,104465 ,15955,-3,104465,114183 ,28878,-3,104465,114183 acle,928 real, 62 type, 60 mat, 62 asel928,l esln esel,r,type,,12 esurf type, 61 eseltype23 ,r,real45 nsle
esurf dsym,symm,y,5 alls !*** AP modifications 8/9/04 !*** Thickness from set_parms.mac !* r50=l-.06 Ishell thickness (in) (Rl of Figure 11 in RPP-13990) !* r51=3/8-.06 Ishell thickness (in) (R2,R6,R7,R9 of Figure 11 in RPP-13990) !* r52=7/8-.06 Ishell thickness (in) (R3 of Figure 11 in RPP-13990) !* r53=3/4-.06 Ishell thickness (in) (R4 of Figure 11 in RPP-13990) I* r54=l/2-.06 Ishell thickness (in) (R5,R8 of Figure 11 in RPP-13990) I* r55=l/4 Ishell thickness (in) (RIO of Figure 11 in RPP13990) I* r56=3/8 Ishell thickness (in) of secondary liner above 357.5 in I *** Additional liner thickness r,57,9/16-.06 ,58,15/16-.06 !*** Redefine secondary liner thickness r,55,3/8 ,56,1/2 ,59,9/16 !*** Primary liner csys esel,,real,,51 nsle
nsel,r,loc,y,380,468.5 esln,,l esel,r,real,,51 emod,all,real,54 esel,,real,,54 nsle nsel,r,loc,y, 142,238 esln,,l esel,r,real,,54 emod,all,real,57 esel,,real,,52 nsle nsel,r,loc,y12 ,r,loc,x,-450,-437 esln,,l esel,r,real,,52 emod,all,real,58 esel,,real,,51 nsle nsel,r,loc,y,-l,l esln,,l esel,r,real,,51 emod,all,real,54 !*** Secondary liner esel,,real,,55,56 nsle nsel,r,loc,y,24,460 esln,,l esel,r,real,,55,56 emod,all,real,55 esel,,real,,55 nsle nsel,r,loc,y,3.875,24
esln,,l esel,r,real,,55 emod,all,real,56 esel,,real,,55 nsle nsel,r,loc,y,-9,3.875 ,r,loc,x,-480,-467 esln,,l esel,r,real,,55 emod,all,real,59 esel,,real,,55 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,-468,-420 esln,,l esel,r,real,,55 emod,all,real,56
cnvt,f.005,0 ,m.005,0 crpl,.05 nsub,10,100,5 !delt,.l,.01,.2 !outres,all,all !nrre,on,250 eqsl,sparse,.05,-1 bcso,mmd alls el save solve
16/16/04 16/16/04
I***
!*** Temperatures !*** Uniform 50F (4/17/03) I*** tref,50 tunif,50 finish /filnam,set_slice_0 /sol !solcontrol,off neqit,50 time, 1 nlgeom,on nrop,unsym
time, 2 I*** ! *** Add waste and pressure loads I*** pres_surf=0 Iground surface uniform pressure psf point cent=0 Ipoint load at center lb pres annulus=-20 lannulus pressure inches h2o pres int=-12 lannulus internal pressure inches h2o hwaste=422 I total waste height heightwaste 1 =hwaste/3 I height of waste 1 inches Ispecific gravity of waste 1 gamma waste 1=1.83 height_waste2=hwaste/3 ! height of waste 2 inches ! specific gravity of waste 2 gamma_waste2=l. 83 height_waste3=hwaste/3 ! height of waste 3 inches ! specific gravity of waste 3 gamma_waste3=l. 83 /inp,apply loads slice,mac delt,.l,.01,.25
w w
<i
to to
solv time, 3 I*** !*** Add surface loads I*** pres_surf=40 uniform pressure psf point_cent=200000 lb pres_annulus=-20 inches h2o pres int=-12 pressure inches h2o hwaste=422 heightwaste 1 =hwaste/3 inches gamma waste 1=1.83 waste 1 height_waste2=hwaste/3 inches gamma_waste2=l. 83 waste 2 height_waste3=hwaste/3 inches gamma_waste3=l. 83 waste 3 /inp,apply loads slice,mac save solv
Input file: applyloadsslice.mac I*** !***Eliminate in-plane pressure 2nd liner !*** Add pressure 1st liner @ connection 1***12/4/03 I*** !ground surface Ipoint load at center lannulus pressure ! annulus internal ! total waste height ! height of waste 1 ! specific gravity of ! height of waste 2 ! specific gravity of ! height of waste 3 ! specific gravity of !200K point load at center I*** !*** No concentrated load - Phase II, Load Case S5 csys,22 nsel,r,loc,x,0,clr *get,nnode,nodecount f,all,fz,-point cent/nnode*swp th/360 alls el sfdele,all,all sfedele,all,all,all sfgrad,pres fdele,all,all esel,s,type,,59 edele,all !40 psf pressure on ground surface I*** !*** No pressure - Phase II, Load Case S5 csys,0 *get,ymx,kp,,mxloc,y asel,s,loc,y,ymx lsla nsla,,l esel,all sf,all,pres,pres surf/144
! liner pressure loads pannulus=presannulus/12*62.4/144 p internal=presint/12*62.4/144 ! waste depth and unit weight hw 1 =height waste 1 gammaw 1 =gamma waste 1 hw2=height_waste2 gammaw2=gamma_waste2 hw3=height_waste3 gammaw3=gamma_waste3 *if,abs(gammawl),lt,le-3,then gammawl=le-6 *else gammawl=gammawl*62.4/1728 *endif *if,abs(gammaw2),lt,le-3,then gammaw2=le-6 *else gammaw2=g ammaw2 * 62.4/1728 *endif *if,abs(gammaw3),lt,le-3,then gammaw3=le-6 *else gammaw3=g ammaw3 *62.4/1728 *endif zz4=0 zz3=hwl zz2=zz3+hw2 zzl=zz2+hw3
zz0=460 ppO=p internal ppl=p internal-pannulus pp2=pp 1+hw3 *gammaw3 pp3=pp2+hw2*gammaw2 pp4=pp3+hwl*gammawl alls el Iprimary liner esel,s,real 50,54 nsle cm,nliner,node !top reaches of dome alls el csys,0 cmsel,s,nliner nsel,r,loc,y,zz0-.03,9999 sfgrad,pres sf,all,pres,ppO ! space between top of fluid and prim/secon liner intersection cmsel,s,nliner nsel,r,loc,y ,zzl ,zz0 sf,all,pres,ppl Iwaste region 3 cmsel,s,nliner nsel,r,loc,y,zz2,zzl esln esel,r,typel nsle,,l
to to
sfgrad, pres,0,y,zzl,(ppl-pp2)/hw3 sf,all,pres,ppl Iwaste region 2 cmsel,s,nliner nsel,r,loc,y,zz3,zz2 esln esel,r,typel nsle,,l sfgrad, pre s, 0 ,y, zz2, (pp2-pp3 )/hw2 sf,all,pres,pp2 Iwaste region 1 cmsel,s,nliner nsel,r,loc,y,zz4,zz3 esln esel,r,typel nsle,,l sfgrad, pres,0,y,zz3,(pp3-pp4)/hwl sf,all,pres,pp3 ! annulus esel,s,typel nsle,,l cmsel,u,nliner nsel,u,loc,y,-9999,-8.124 esln esel,r,typel nsle,,l cm,nsecon,node esln esel,r,real,,55,56 sfgrad, pres
sf, all, pre s ,p annulus alls Input file: meshsize.mac eesize=3.2 rebar [in] soil size=14 elements [in] swp_th=24/(2*pi*480)*360 [deg] num div=6 quadrant Input file: PNNLA.mac set_parms /prep7 ! 3/28/03 ! DST - AY *afun,deg k,l,0,h6 k,2,0,h5 k,3,0,0 k,4,-ir2,0 k,5,ir2,h3+36+6+13/16 k,6,-rl*sin(thl),h6-rl+rl*cos(thl) Intersection of exterior dome radii larc,6,l,3,rl lExterior dome radius - center rectng,-ir2,0,h2,hl rectng,-or,-ir,h2,h3
! default element size for ! default element size for soil ! single element sweep angle Inumber of divisions per
w w
<i
to to
! Wall to tangent point
rectng, -or, -ir,h3,h4 larc,18,6,3,r2 local,ll,l,0,h3,03/8 1,13,2 csys,0 1,1,2 k,19,-ir2,0 k,20,-ir2,h4+5 1,19,20 lcsl,15,17 lfil,18,20,r3 dome csys, 11 1,21,22 nummrg,kp csys,0 lfil,20,4,12 floor 1,7,12 lfil,23,7,12 tank floor wpcs,-l wpro,,,-90 wpof,,,icr asbw, 1 I Corner radius primary tank lExterior dome radius - outer [Interior dome ellipse
adel,3,4 alls numc,all I Tank Foundation *get,ik,kpnum,max k,ik+l,0,h2-24 k,ik+2,-36,h2-24 k,ik+3,-76,h2-10.5 k,ik+4,-29*12-l,h2-10.5 k,ik+5,-36*12-9,ky(ik+4)-11.5 k,ik+6,-44*12-3,ky(ik+5) k,ik+7,kx(ik+6),ky(ik+6)+12+11.5 k,ik+8,-or-l,ky(ik+7) k,ik+9,kx(ik+8),ky(ik+8)-1.5 k,ik+10,-or,ky(ik+9) k,ik+ll,-ir,ky(ik+9) k,ik+12,-ir+l,ky(ik+9) a,ik+l,ik+2,ik+3,ik+4,ik+5,ik+6,ik+7,ik+8,ik+9,ik+10,ik+ll, ik+12,8 I Dome & wall rebar I Outer rebar k,37,kx(l l)+covext,ky(l 1) lOuter edge wall outer rebar - bottom k,38,kx(37)+l,ky(37) llnner edge wall outer rebar bottom k,39,kx(18)+covext,ky(18)-.707 lOuter edge wall outer rebar - top k,40,kx(39)+l,ky(39)-.707 llnner edge wall outer rebar - top k,41,kx(6),ky(6)-covext I Outer dome rebar radius intersection
I Radius primary tank to
k ^ 3f
I Corner radius secondary
llnsulating concrete
al,8,19,17,18,16,1,14,13 IHaunch & dome concrete
k,42,kx(41),ky(41)-l intersection k,43,kx(l),ky(l)-covext centerline outer k,44,kx(l),ky(43)-l inner larc,39,41,3,r2-covext outer radius larc,41,43,3,rl-covext center radius larc,40,42,3,r2-covext-l outer radius larc,42,44,3,rl-covext-l center radius a,37,38,40,42,44,43,41,39
I Outer dome rebar radius I Outer dome rebar lOuter dome rebar - centerline lOuter edge of outer rebar, lOuter edge of outer rebar, llnner edge of outer rebar, llnner edge of outer rebar, I Dome outer rebar
k,51,ir+5.2,154.8 !Want4 from tangent loca,15,lh3,(30*12+5.5)/(80*12+5.5) k,52,ir+6.4,154.65 csys,0 1,45,47 ,46,48 csys, 11 a,45,47,49,51,53,55,56,54,52,50,48,46 csys,0 [Foundation rebar covtop=3.5 covbot=3 ssli=(ky(27)-ky(26))/(kx(27)-kx(26)) sslo=(ky(28)-ky(29))/(kx(28)-kx(29)) k,60,kx(30)+3,ky(30)+covbot k,61,kx(60),ky(60)+l k,62,kx(31)+3,ky(8)-covtop k,63,kx(62),ky(62)-l k,64,0,ky(8)-covtop k,65,0,ky(64)-l k,74,0,ky(25)+covbot+l k,75,0,ky(25)+covbot k,66,kx(26)-ssli*covbot,ky(26)+covbot k,67,kx(66)-ssli,ky(66)+l k,68,kx(27)-ssli*covbot,ky(27)+covbot k,69,kx(68)-ssli,ky(68)+l k,70,kx(28)-sslo*covbot,ky(28)+covbot k,71,kx(70)-sslo,ky(70)+l k,72,kx(29)-sslo*covbot,ky(29)+covbot k,73,kx(72)-sslo,ky(72)+l a, 60,61,73,71,69,67,74,75,66,68,70,72
I Dome & wall rebar llnner rebar k,45,kx(12)-covintl,ky(12) ,46,kx(45)-l,ky(45) ,47,kx(13)-covintl,ky(13) ,48,kx(47)-l,ky(47) ,55,0,ky(2)+covint2 ,56,0,ky(55)+l loca,12,lh3,(30*12+1.5)/(80*12+l.5) k,49,ir+l.72,164 ,53,ir+2.21,144 1,53,55 loca,13,lh3,(30*12+2.5)/(80*12+2.5) k,50,ir+2.86,163.9 ,54,ir+3.68,143.85 1,54,56 loca,14,lh3,(30*12+4)/(80*12+4)
a,62,64,65,63 IHaunch mid section rebar k,80,kx(14)+ll+.5,ky(14)+36 k,81,kx(80),ky(40) k,82,kx(80),.5*(ky(80)+ky(81)) k,83,kx(14)+72,ky(14)+98 k,84,kx(14)+103,ky(14)+113 k,85,kx(84),ky(84)+l k,86,kx(83),ky(83)+l k,87,kx(82),ky(82)+l k,88,kx(81)-l,ky(81) k,89,kx(80)-l,ky(80) a,80,82,87,81,88,89 a,82,83,84,85,86,87 ldiv,13,.34 csys,0 wpcs,-l kwpa,57 wpro,,-90 wpro,,,60 asell asbw,all wpcs,-l kwpa,14 wpof12 wpro,,-90 asbw,all alls el aovlap,all
I divide bottom slab rebar at radial locations *dim,bsr,,4 dl5=27.4 bsr(l)=(7+7.5)/2*12+dl5,(14+15)/2*12+dl5,31*12+6-9,435 asel,s,7 csys,0 wpcs,-l wpro,,,-90 *do,i,l,4 wpoff,bsr(i) asbw,all wpoff,-bsr(i) *enddo wpcs,-l wpoff,kx(68),ky(68) wpro,-90 wpro,,atan(ssli) asbw,2 wpcs,-l wpoff,kx(70),ky(70) wpro,,,-90 wpro,,atan(sslo) asbw, 1 wpcs,-l wpoff,kx(72),ky(72) wpro,,,-90 wpro,,atan(sslo) asbw, 7 I divide top slab rebar at radial locations *dim,tsr7 tsr(l)=kx(69),kx(35),kx(98),kx(71),kx(100),kx(102),kx(73)
S ^ S
w ^
asel,s,8 csys,0 wpcsys,-l wprot,90 *do,i,l,7 wpoff,tsr(i) asbw,all wpoff,-tsr(i) *enddo ! divide wall rebar *dim,wr,,4 wr(l)=10*12+19+h2,17*12,23*12+19+h2,h3-42 asel,s,15,16 csys,0 wpcsys,-l wprot,,-90 kwpave,3 *do,i,l,4 wpoff,wr(i) asbw,all wpoff,-wr(i) *enddo ! divide dome rebar *dim,dr7 dl6=32.9 dr(l)=7*12+3+dl6,12*12+6+dl6,22*12+6,(24+26.75)/2*12,2 6*12+2,29*12+6,28*12+dl6, asel,s,18,28,10 csys,0 wpcs,-l wpro,,,-90
kwpa,3 jdcr=h6-3-95*12 *do,i,l,7 wpofjdcr+95*12*cos(asin(dr(i)/(95*12))),dr(i) wproasin(dr(i)/(95*12)) asbw,all wpro,,-asin(dr(i)/(95 * 12)) wpof-Gdcr+95*12*cos(asin(dr(i)/(95*12)))),-dr(i) *enddo ! divide bent bar, top of haunch wpcsys,-l kwpave,17 wpoff,48*cos(30) wprot,-90 asel,s,29 asbw,all alls el 1,40,39 asbl,28,127 alls el nummrg,all numcmp,all !J-bolts ! 32-35 are tank wall stiffeners *dim,jx35 *dim,jy35 *dim,jdeg35 jx(l)=479,479,479,479,479,479,479,479,479,479 jx(ll)=479,479,479,479,479,479,473,462,450,432 jx(21)=412,391,369,347,324,299,272,241,206,165
jx(31)=107,479,479,479,479 jy(l)=19,43,67,91,115,139,163,187,211,235 jy(ll)=259,283,307,331,355,379,402,424,442,460 jy(21)=474,486,496,504,511,515,518,522,525,527 jy(31)=529,89.5,89.5*2,89.5*3,89.5*4 jdeg(l)=90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90,90 jdeg(ll)=90,90,90,90,90,90,75,55,45,40 jdeg(21)=35,30,25,20,15,10,9,8,7,6,5 jdeg(31)=l,90,90,90,90 csys asel24,29,5 ,a,42,46,4 ,a,14,16,2 ,a,19,21,2 ,a,30,51,21 ,a,45,49,2 ,a,50,56,2 ,a,60,62,2 *do,i,l,35 wpcsys,-l wpave,-jx(i),jy(i) wprotjdeg(i) wprot,,,90 asbw,all *enddo ! bottom anchors lanch=5+3/16 ldiv,228,.14 kgen,2,38,,,0,lanch,0 a,12,268,269,38
alls el aovlap,all Iflange of wall stiffeners - 6" lsel 175,246,71 ,a,266,303,37 *do,i,32,35 wpcsys,-l wpave,-jx(i),jy(i) wprotjdeg(i) wprot,,,90 wpoff,-6 lsbw,all *enddo lsel,all ! dome stiffener (detail 9) lang,16,51,90,.8 lsel414 lsum lsel,all *get,stang,line,,ixv,x wpcs,-l kwpa, 51 wpro,,,-90 wpro,,acos(stang) wpof,6 lsbw,324 asbl,106,414 ! line for concentrated load wpcs,-l kwpa, 1
wpro,-90 wpof,clr lsbw,l ! Identify areas linside layer of rebar aselloc,x,-485,-484 ,u,33,34 ,a,21,91,70 ,a,30,100,70 ,a,104,105 ,a,102,110,8 ,a,107,lll,4 ,a,19,62,43 ,a,51,60,9 ,a,112,116,2 ,a,118,120,2 ,a,50,56,2 ,a,122,127,5 ,a,47 cm,asl,area loutside layer of rebar asel,,loc,x,-496,-495 ,a,18,64,46 ,a,57,59 ,a,61,63,2 ,a,53,55,2 ,a,28,43,15 cm,as2,area Ibottom layer of slab asel,,l,2
,a,4,6 ,a,l 1,13,2 ,a,33 cm, as 3, area !top layer of slab aselloc,y,-13,-ll cm,as4,area lhaunch asel,s,32 cm,haunch,area [concrete insulation asel,s,3 cm,cinsul,area Islab asel,s,31 cm,slab,area lhaunch vertical steel asel,s,9 cm,hvert,area lhaunch radial asel,s,10 cm,hrad,area [concrete alls el cmsel,u,hrad cmsel,u,hvert k ^ ^
cms el, u, slab cmsel,u,cinsul cms el, u, haunch cms el, u, as 4 cms el, u, as 3 cms el, u, as 2 cms el, u, as 1 cm, cone, area alls el save,pnnla,db Input file: PNNLA2.mac mat liner=l mat_conc=2 mat rebar=3 mat insul=4 mat soil=5 mat haunch=6 type liner=1 type tank=2 type haunch=3 type slab=4 type_rebar=5 type insul=6 type_soil=7 et,type et,type et,type et,type et,type liner,181 tank, 181 haunch, 181 slab,181 rebar, 181 lliner shells Itank concrete lhaunch concrete Islab concrete I rebar linsulating concrete I soil
et,type insul,181 et,type soil,181 et,type liner+10,65 et,type tank+10,65 et,type haunch+10,65 et,type_slab+10,65 et,type_rebar+10,65 et,type insul+10,65 et,type_soil+10,45 I define local element coordinate systems cmsel,s,asl cms el, a, as 2 cms el, a, as 3 cms el, a, as 4 cmsel,a,hrad cmsel,a,hvert *get,narea,areacount cm,atemp,area *afun,deg ics=100 *do,i,l,narea *get,ia,area,,num,min asel,s,ia lsla ksll csys,0 *get,minx,kp,,mnloc,x *get,maxx,kp,,mxloc,x *get,miny,kp,,mnloc,y *get,maxy,kp,,mxloc,y
theta=90 *if, minx, ne,maxx, then theta=atan((maxy-miny)/(maxx-minx)) *endif wpcsys,-l kwpave,all wprot,theta cswplan,ics,0 aatt,mat_rebar,,type_rebar,ics cmsel,s,atemp asel,u,,,ia cm,atemp,area ics=ics+l *enddo I define spherical coordinate system for haunch, with center at global origin csys,0 wpcsys,-l local,ics,2 asel,s,32 aatt,mat conc,604,type haunch,ics I set real constants for rebar csys,0 wpcsys,-l I wall external set_ry,-8,131,201,'as2' set_ry,131,204,202,'as2' set_ry,204,287,203,'as2' set_ry,287,339,204,'as2' set_ry,339,382,205,'as2'
I wall internal csys,0 wpcsys,-l set_ry,-8,131,206,'asl' set_ry,131,204,207,'asl' set_ry,204,287,208,'asl' set_ry,287,339,209,'asl' set_ry,339,382,210,'asl' I slab bottom csys,0 wpcsys,-l setrx,-75,0,101,'as3' set_rx,-115,-75,102,'as3' setrx,-202,-115,103,'as3' setrx,-350,-202,104,'as3' set_rx,-369,-350,105,'as3' setrx,-435,-369,106,'as3' set_rx,-442,-435,107,'as3' set_rx,-531,-442,108,'as3' I slab top csys,0 wpcsys,-l setrx,-75,0,111,'as4' set_rx,-115,-75,112,'as4' setrx,-202,-115,113,'as4' set_rx,-350,-202,114,'as4' set_rx,-369,-350,115,'as4' set_rx,-435,-369,116,'as4' set_rx,-442,-435,117,'as4' set_rx,-531,-442,118,'as4'
I dome external csys,0 wpcsys,-l set_rx,-120,0,301,'as2' set_rx,-l 83,-120,302,'as2' set_rx,-270,-183,303,'as2' setrx,-305,-270,304,'as2' set_rx,-314,-305,305,'as2' setrx,-354,-314,306,'as2' setrx,-369,-354,307,'as2' set_rx,-400,-369,308,'as2' I dome internal csys,0 wpcsys,-l set_rx,-120,0,301,'asl' set_rx,-183,-120,302,'asl' set_rx,-270,-183,303,'asl' setrx,-305,-270,304,'asl' set_rx,-314,-305,305,'asl' set_rx,-354,-314,306,'asl' setrx,-369,-354,307,'asl' set_rx,-400,-369,308,'asl' lhaunch external csys,5 wpcs,-l cmse,s,as2 asel,r,loc,x,396,450 set_real,401 cmse,s,as2 asel,r,loc,x,450,504 ,r,loc,z,381,999
set_real,402 cmse,s,as2 asel,r,loc,z, 408,450 set_real,403 cmse,s,as2 asel,r,loc,z,372,410 set_real,404 I haunch internal cms e,, asl set_ry,381,408,405,'asl' set_ry,408,488,406,'asl'
IProblem??
I Split haunch vertical at top of radial intersection lsel,all ksel,all asel,s,9 ldiv,82,.47 1,278,87 *get,ics,area,9,attr,esys asbl,9,418 cm,hvert,area aatt,mat_rebar,,type_rebar,ics lhaunch middle (vertical) asel,,67 set_real,500 ILower asel,,65 set_real,501 lUpper lhaunch middle (radial) asel,s,10 set_real,502
linsulating concrete asel,s,3 aatt,mat insul,600,type insul,0 lhaunch concrete asel,s,32 aatt,mat haunch, 503,type haunch,ics alls el as el, u, mat,, mat insul asel,u,mat,,mat rebar asel,u,mat,,mat haunch aatt,mat_conc,700,type_tank,0 cm,atemp,area asel,r,loc,y,-999,-8.125 aatt,mat_conc,700,type_slab,0 cmsel,s,atemp asel,u,type,,type_slab aatt,mat_conc,700,type_tank,0 asel,s,27 Outer cover haunch 1,39,18 asbl,27,419 aatt,mat_conc,700,type_tank,0 alls el save,pnnla2,db Input file: PNNLA3.mac lidentify jbolt lines !*** Remove jbolts from wall 5/6/04 lsel315,322,7 ,a,318,327,9
,a,92,332,240 ,a,326,337,ll ,a,335,342,7 ,a,209,349,140 ,a,345,375,5 ,a,354,379,5 ,a,382 cm,line bolt, line lsel229,389,160 ,a,310,394,84 ,a,399,407,8 ,a,287,288 ,a,413 cm,line wstiff,line lsel414,415 cm,linehs tiff, line lsel3,9,6 ,a,14,19,5 ,a,330 ,a,58,59 ,a,339,341,2 ,a,348,373,5 ,a,380,381 ,a,385 cm,line prim, line kselloc,x,-480 ,r,loc,y382 lslkl lsel,a,,,16,17
_ to
,a,21,22 ,a,25,27,2 ,a,314,323,9 ,a,96 ,a,291,303,12 cm,line sec on, line lsel,s,309 ,a,406 cm,line botanch,line alls el save,pnnla3,db
htop=12 radsoil=550 depths oil=60 csys,0 wpcsys,-l as el, none rectng,-radsoil,0,ymn-depthsoil,ymx+htop cm,asO,area alls el asba,asO,a_new asel,s,283 adele,all,,,l asel,s,282 cm, soil, are a aatt,mat soil, 1 ,type soil /input,mesh size,mac
I***
Input file: PNNLA4.mac I copy areas for overlapping with soil cm,a_orig,area agen,2,all cmsel,u,a_orig cm,a_new,area csys,0 ksel,s,loc,x,0 cm,ktemp,kp *get,ymx,kp,,mxloc,y *get,ymn,kp,,mnloc,y ksel,r,loc,y,ymx *get,iktop,kp,,num,min cmsel,s,ktemp ksel,r,loc,y,ymn *get,ikbot,kp,,num,min
!*** Clean up mesh 4/1/03 I*** lesi,385,20 ,380,14 ,89,76 ,339,4 ,246,,, 1 ,129,19 ,175,3 ,177,1 ,178,1 ,171,2
,172,2 asel,s,type,,type_rebar esize,eesize amesh,all acle,10 amap,10,82,84,85,87 as el, invert as el, u, type,, type soil esize,eesize amesh,all asel,s,type,,type_soil asel,a,matmat_conc lsla ksll nummrg,kp asel,s,mat,,mat_soil smrtsize,8 lsel,s,832 lesize,all,4 lsel,s,833 lesize,all,8 esize,soil_size 120 amesh,all
agen,2,all cm,aaa,area cmsel,s,atemp aclear,all adele,all,,,l alls el aslv,u *get,na,area,,count cm,atemp,area *do,i,l,na *get,ia,area,,num,min asel,s,ia *g et,imat, area,i a, attr, mat *get,ireal,area,ia,attr,real *get,itype,area,ia,attr,type *get,isys,area,ia,attr,esys mat,imat real,ireal type,itype+10 esys,isys ksel,all vrotat,ia,,ikbot,iktop,swp th, 1 cmsel,s,atemp asel,u,,,ia cm,atemp,area *enddo alls el aclear,all save,pnnla4,db Input file: PNNLA5.mac
Ivertical line above dome center Ivertical line below dome center
extopt,esize,l type, 17 vrotat,all,,,,ikbot,iktop,swp th, 1 asel,s,type,,type_slab asel,a,typetype insul cm,atemp,area
vsel,s,matl cm,vtemp,volu vgen,2,all cm,vw,volu cmsel,s,vtemp vclear,all vdele,all,l cmsel,s,vw eslv emodif,all,mat,mat soil Irotate all nodes to cylindrical coordinate system (22) csys,0 wpcsys,-l wprot,,-90 cswplan,22,l alls el nrotate,all csys,0 Imerge slab/rebar nodes/kps vsel,s,type,,type_rebar+10 vsel,r,loc,y,-999,-ll vsel,a,typetype_slab+10 vsel,u,mat,,l eslv nsle aslv lsla ksll nummrg,node nummrg,kp
Imerge tank/rebar nodes/kps vsel,s,type,,type_rebar+10 vsel,r,loc,y,-8,999 vsel,a,type,,type tank+10 vsel,a,typetype haunch+10 vsel,u,mat,,l aslv lsla ksll nsla,,l nummrg,node nummrg,kp I couple soil to concrete exterior esel,s,mat,,mat_soil nsle ksln lslkl asll,,l cm,asoil,area vsel,s,type,,type_tank+10 aslv asel,r,ext cm,atank,area vsel,s,typetype_slab+10 aslv asel,r,ext cm,aslab,area vs el, s, type,, type insul+10 aslv cm,ainsul,area I top of dome
csys,0 cmsel,s,atank cms el, a, as oil asel,r,loc,y,452,999 lsla nsla,,l cpintf,uz,.l I side of tank cmsel,s,atank cms el, a, as oil asel,r,loc,y,-8.125,452 lsla nsla,,l cpintf,ux,.l I top of slab cmsel,s,aslab cms el, a, as oil asel,r,loc,y,-6.7,-6.6 lsla nsla,,l cpintf,uz,.l I side of slab cmsel,s,aslab cms el, a, as oil asel,r,loc,y,-31,-6.7 asel,r,loc,x,-999,-529 lsla nsla,,l cpintf,ux,.l
I bottom of slab cmsel,s,aslab cms el, a, as oil asel,r,loc,x,-530,0 asel,r,loc,y,-999,-18.5 lsla nsla,,l cpintf,uz,.l I couple top of slab / bottom of wall cmsel,s,aslab cmsel,a,atank lsla nsla,,l cpintf,uz,.l I couple top of slab / bottom of insulating concrete vsel,s,matmat insul cm,vtemp,volu vgen,2,all cm,volu insul ,volu cmsel,s,vtemp vclear,all vdele,all,l cms el, s, volu insul aslv cm,ainsul,area cmsel,s,aslab cmsel,a,ainsul lsla nsla,,l cpintf,uz,.l
save,pnnla5,db Input file: PNNLA6.mac !*** mesh J-bolt @ liner w/separate node 5/6/04 !*** Use mesh200 for J-bolts 4/1/04 !*** redefine as beaml 88 in setslicea.mac resu,pnnla5,db Igenerate J-bolts type_bolt=20 et,type_bolt,200,2 mat, mat liner type,type bolt csys,0 cms el, s, line bolt csys, 11 lsel,r,loc,x,480,483 lgen,2,all3000 ksll ksel,r,loc,x,481,486 numm,kp cms e line bolt lsel,u,loc,x,480,483 ,a,423,435 lmesh,all csys Igenerate studs type stud=21 et,type stud, 4 area_stud=pi*. 5**2/4 iy=pi*.5**4/64 iz=iy
ty=5 tz=5
r,30,area_stud,iy,iz,ty,tz cms el, s, line botanch real, 30 mat, mat liner type,type stud lmesh,all Igenerate wall base plate asel,s,214 ,a,706 ,a,913,918,5 ,a,934 cm,baseplate,area type_baseplate=22 et,type_baseplate,63 r,40,.375 mat, mat liner type,type_baseplate real, 40 amesh,all Igenerate confining ring below 12 ksel,s,loc,x,-480-.01,-480+.01 ksel,r,loc,y,-8.2,6.9 lslkl asll asel,u,loc,z,0 cm, c onfinepl ate, are a type_confine=23 et,type c onfine, 63 r,41,3/16
to
type,type confine real, 41 mat, mat liner amesh,all Igenerate confining ring for insulating concrete csys,0 ksel,s,loc,x,-447 lslkl asll,,l cm,confinering,area type_confine=23 type,type confine real, 41 mat, mat liner amesh,all Igenerate construction stiffeners cmsel,s,line_wstiff asll asel,u,loc,z,0 cm,stiff_area,area type stiff=24 et,type_stiff,63 type,type stiff r,42,.5 real,42 mat, mat line amesh,all Igenerate detail #9 cmse,,line hstiff asll
asel,u,loc,z,0 cm,detail9,area type_anchor=25 et,typ e anchor, 63 typ e, type anchor r,43,. 375*1.1 real, 43 mat, mat liner amesh,all alls el save,pnnla6,db Input file: PNNLA7.mac I primary liner alls el aslv lsla cms el, s, line_prim lsel,a,,,34 cm,ltemp,line asll asel,u,loc,z,0 ksll nummrg,kp cm,line prim, line cm, are a prim, are a I Reverse normals - dome asel,r,loc,y,459,999 arev,all as el, none ksel,s,loc,x,0
ksel,r,loc,y,ymx *get,iktop,kp,,num,min ksel,s,loc,x,0 ksel,r,loc,y,ymn *get,ikbot,kp,,num,min ksel,all cmsel,s,ltemp cms el, s, area_prim lsla,u arotat,all,,,,ikbot,iktop,swp th, 1 lsla ksll nummrg,kp aatt,mat liner,,type liner esize,4 smrt,off lsel,s,9,436,427!radiused part of primary liner lesi,all,,,8l lsel,s,440,441 lesize,all,ll amesh,all cm,atemp,area agen,2,all cm, are a liner_prim, are a cmsel,s,atemp aclear,all vsel, all aslv,u adele,all,,,l r,50,r50 r,51,r51
r,52,r52 r,53,r53 r,54,r54 r,55,r55 II" lid at tank bottom cmsel,s,area liner prim esla cm,etemp,elem nsla,,l cm,ntemp,node nsel,r,loc,x,-24,0 nsel,r,loc,y,-999,10 esln cmsel,r,etemp emodif,all,real,50 13/8" bottom (on top of insul cmsel,s,ntemp nsel,r,loc,x,-450+48,-24 nsel,r,loc,y,-999,10 esln cmsel,r,etemp emodif,all,real,51 17/8" at fillet cmsel,s,ntemp nsel,r,loc,x,-450,-450+48 nsel,r,loc,y,-999,36.89 esln cmsel,r,etemp emodif,all,real,52
13/4" vertical run cmsel,s,ntemp nsel,r,loc,x,-450 nsel,r,loc,y,36.88,144.89 esln cmsel,r,etemp emodif,all,real,53 11/2" vertical run cmsel,s,ntemp nsel,r,loc,x,-450 nsel,r,loc,y,144.88,381.5 esln cmsel,r,etemp emodif,all,real,54 13/8" upper reaches of liner cmsel,s,ntemp nsel,r,loc,x,-450,-72.1 nsel,r,loc,y,381.6,999 esln cmsel,r,etemp emodif,all,real,51 11/2" at top/center cmsel,s,ntemp nsel,r,loc,x,-72,0 nsel,r,loc,y,381.6,999 esln cmsel,r,etemp emodif,all,real,54 I couple vertical displacements at liner bottom
I (first rotate the shell nodes) esel,s,type,,type_liner nsle csys, 22 nrotate,all csys,0 asel,s,loc,y,0 nsla,,l cpintf,uz,.l cm,liner insul c p z , node alls el save,pnnla7,db Input file: PNNLA8.mac I create shell elements for secondary liner cms el, s, lines e con asll asel,u,loc,z,0 cm,atemp,area I Reverse normals - upper section asel,r,loc,y,381,999 arev,all lsel21,22 ,a,25 arotat,all,,,,ikbot,iktop,swp th, 1 cmsel,a,atemp asel,a,,,27 cm,area_secon,area lsla ksll nummrg,kp
lesi,437,l ,438,1 ,9,6 ,22,6 aatt,matliner,55,type liner amesh,all cm,atemp,area agen,2,all cm,area_secon,area cmsel,s,atemp aclear,all aslv,u adele,all,,,l ksel,s,loc,x,0 ksel,r,loc,y,ymx *get,iktop,kp,,num,min ksel,s,loc,x,0 ksel,r,loc,y,ymn *get,ikbot,kp,,num,min ksel,all I couple vertical displacements at liner bottom I (first rotate the shell nodes) esel,s,type,,type_liner nsle csys, 22 nrotate,all csys,0 I couple shell horizontal displacements to sidewall
esel,s,type,,type_liner nsle cm,ntemp,node esel,s,mat,,mat_conc nsle cmsel,a,ntemp cm,ntemp,node nsel,r,loc,y,-2,460 cpintf,ux,.l cm,liner wall cpx,node I couple shell vertical displacement to dome cmsel,s,ntemp nsel,r,loc,y,460,999 cpintf,uz,.l cm,liner dome c p z , node Imerge secondary liner nodes with slab top nodes asel,,loc,y,-8.125 ,r,loc,x,-465,1 lsla nsll,, 1 cpdele,all,all cpintf,uz,.l alls el save,pnnla8,db Input file: PNNLA9.mac !*** Do not common node intersection of !*** primary & secondary liner JED 3/19/04
alls el mp dele, all, all tbdele,all,all setmaterials set options acel,0,l,0 alls el Imerge coincident nodes between liners and jbolts/studs/anchors esel,s,type,,type_bolt esel,a,typetype_stiff esel,a,typetype_anchor esel,a,typetype_stud esel,a,typetype liner nsle,,l nsel,u,22789,22790 !*** 3/19/04 nummrg,node setsoil alls el ddele,all,all Icontrain boundaries csys,0 nsel,s,loc,x,0 d,all,ux,0 d,all,uy,0 alls el
*get, xmn, no de,, mnloc, x *get,ymn,node,,mnloc,y *get,ymx,node,,mxloc,y nsel,s,loc,y,ymn d,all,ux,0,,uy,uz ksel,s,loc,x,xmn ksel,r,loc,z,0 lslkl asll asel,u,loc,z,0 nsla,,l d,all,ux,0 d,all,uy,0 asel,s,loc,y,ymn nsla,,l d,all,ux,0,,uy,uz csys, 22 nsel,s,loc,y,180-.01,180+.01 nsel,a,loc,y,180+swp_th-.01,180+swp_th+.01 d,all,uy,0 alls el save,pnnla9,db Input file: setareasslice.mac asel150,161 ,a,177,179,2 ,a,184,212,28 ,a,224,226,2 cm, are a prim, are a
vsel,,,, 1,199,, 1 asel,inve cmse,u,area_prim cm,area_secon,area cmsel,a,area_prim nsla,,l esln sfdele,all,all sfedele,all,all,all asel,s,239 nsla,,l esln arev,all cms e,, avert ,a,ahorz cm,asoil,area asel,,314,316 ,a,700 ,a,196 ,a,221,261,40 ,a,978,984 cm, ac o n e s oil, area asel,s,993,994 cm,slab_top,area asel929 ,a,552,563,ll
,a, ,870,876,6 ,a, ,583,593,10 ,a, ,605,625,20 ,a, ,881,887,6 ,a, ,636,646,10 ,a, ,892,898,6 ,a, ,671,677,6 ,a, ,651,693,42 ,a, ,641,656,15 ,a, ,231,238,7 ,a, ,710 ,a, ,333 ,a, ,243,244 ,a, ,190,191 ,a, ,723,733,10 ,a, ,756,762,6 ,a, ,784,796,12 ,a, ,806,818,12 ,a, ,828,839,11 ,a, ,853,864,11 ,a, ,844 cm ,aconc shell, are a asel106,143,37 cm,area insul top,area asel,s,27 cm,area_insul_bot,area Input file: setbackfill.mac I*** !***Dilation angle 8 6/4/04 I *** Add materials for load factor restart 8/2/03
!*** JED mod 4/1/03 I *** Define backfill/overburden I*** max mat=max mat+1 cmse,,soil_elem nsle hsub=top_elev-arg2-h2+24 rsub=-(68*12+hsub/1.5) nsel,r,loc,y,top_elev-argl,top_elev-arg2 ,r,loc,x,rsub,0 esln esel,r,mat,,max mat emod,all,mat,max mat+20 soil_ex=arg3 soil_prxy=arg4 soil alpx=0 coefficient [me/F] soil cohesion=l (assume small number) [psi] soil friction=35 soil dilat=8 soil alpx=soil alpx* 1 e-6 soil_dens=b_gam/1728 I elastic modulus [psi] IPoisson ratio Ithermal expansion Idrucker-prager constant linternal friction angle [deg] Idilatancy angle [deg] !in/in/F !lb/inA3
!*** materials max_mat+70 for load factor restart mp,ex,max_mat+70,soil_ex mp, dens,max_mat+70,soil_dens* 1.7/1.4 mp,prxy,max mat+70,soil_prxy mp,alpx,max mat+70,soil alpx tb,dp,max mat+70 tbdata,l,soilcohesion,soilfriction,soil dilat Input file: setcsys.mac *get,ia,areanum,min *get,iareal,area,ia,attr,real *get,iamat,area,ia,attr,mat *get,iatype,area,ia,attr,type aatt,iamat,iareal,iatype,argl Input file: setesys.mac I*** !*** Set wall & dome rebar to material 3 6/4/04 I*** /prep7 I define reinforced concrete real constants ICreate local coordinate systems for esys Ispherical 1 wpcsy s,-l ,0 I spherical kwpave,l wpoff-1260 cswpla,200,2 wpcsy s,-l ,0 kwpave,! I spherical
mp,ex,max mat+20,soil ex mp,dens,max mat+20,soil dens mp,prxy,max mat+20,soil prxy mp,alpx,max mat+20,soil alpx tb,dp,max mat+20 tbdata,l,soil cohesion,soil friction,soil dilat
wpoff-892 cswpla,201,2 csys,0 wpcsy s,-l rat=40/15 k, 10000,0,h3,0 kwpave, 10000 wprot,90 cswplan,202,2,rat,rat esel,s,real100,118 Islab esel,r,type,,15 emodif,all,esys,22 esel,s,real,,200,210 esel,r,type,,15 emodif,all,esys,22 esel,s,real,,300,308 esel,r,type,,15 nsle csys, 22 nsel,r,loc,x,0,170 esln esel,r,type,,15 emodif,all,esys,200 Ivertical wall lellipcal coordinate
esln esel,r,type,,15 emodif,all,esys,201 esel,s,real401,402 esel,r,type,,15 emodif,all,esys,201 esel,s,real403,404 esel,r,type,,15 emodif,all,esys,22 esel,s,real405,406 esel,r,type,,15 emodif,all,esys,202 esel,s,real500,501 esel,r,type,,15 emodif,all,esys,22 linner exterior dome esel,s,real,,502 Ispherical mid haunch esel,r,type,,15 emodif,all,esys,201 esel,s,real,,503 Itie bar haunch emodif,all,esys,ics I exterior haunch
Ivertical haunch
linterior haunch
Ivertical mid haunch
esel,s,real,,300,308 I outer exterior dome esel,r,type,,15 nsle csys, 22 nsel,r,loc,x, 170,9999
I Slab bottom r,101,6,.0256,6,.0256 rmor,9090,90 r,102,6,.0258,6,.0256 rmor,9090,90
I Center to 6'3" I 6'3" to 7'6"+ld
r,103,6,.0316,6,.0256 rmor,9090,90 r,104,6,.0360,6,.0256 rmor,9090,90 r,105,6,.0326,6,.0256 rmor,9090,90 r,106,6,.0293,6,.0256 rmor,9090,90 r,107,6,.0267,6,.0552 rmor,9090,90 r,108,6,.1016,6,.0552 rmor,9090,90 I Slab top r,lll,6,.0256,6,.0256 rmor,9090,90 r,112,6,.0242,6,.0256 rmor,9090,90 r,113,6,.0330,6,.0256 rmor,9090,90 r,114,6,.0377,6,.0256 rmor,9090,90 r,115,6,.0269,6,.0256 rmor,9090,90 r,116,6,.0313,6,.0256 rmor,9090,90 r,117,6,.0284,6,.0552 rmor,9090,90 r,118,6,.0259,6,.0552 rmor,9090,90 I Wall external r,201,3,.0982
I 7'6"+ldtol4'6"+ld I 14'6"+ldto29'2" I 29'2" to 30'9" I 30'9" to 36'3" I 36'3" to 37' I 37' to OD
rmor,903,.0368,90,90 r,202,3,.0982 rmor,903,.0491,90,90 r,203,3,.0655 rmor,903,.0491,90,90 r,204,3,.0655 rmor,903,.0655,90,90 r,205,3,.0655 rmor,903,.0655,90,90 I Wall internal r,206,3,.0982 rmor,903,.0368,90,90 r,207,3,.0982 rmor,903,.0491,90,90 r,208,3,.0655 rmor,903,.0491,90,90 r,209,3,.0655 rmor,903,.0655,90,90 r,210,3,.0655 rmor,903,.0655,90,90 I Dome top & bottom r,301,3,.0453 rmor,903,.0368,90,90 r,302,3,.0490 rmor,903,.0368,90,90 r,303,3,.0661 rmor,903,.0368,90,90 r,304,3,.0496 rmor,903,.1309,90,90 r,305,3,.1399 rmor,903,.1309,90,90
I 10'3" to 17' I 17' to 23'3" + 1/2 splice I 23'3" to 28'3-l/2" I 28'3-l/2" to tangent height
I Base to 10'3" + 1/2 splice I 10'3" to 17' I 17' to 23'3" + 1/2 splice I 23'3" to 28'3-l/2" I 28'3-l/2" to tangent height
I Center to 6'3" I 6'3" to 7'6"+ld I 7'6"+ldtol4'6"+ld I 14'6"+ldto29'2" I 29'2" to 30'9" I 30'9" to 36'3" I 36'3" to 37' I 37' to OD
I Center to 7'3" I 7'3"tol2'6" + I 12'6" to 22'9" I 22'9" to 25'4-l/2" I 25'4-l/2" to 26'2"
I Base to 10'3" + 1/2 splice
r,306,3,.1300 rmor,903,.1657,90,90 r,307,3,.1197 rmor,903,.2485,90,90 r,308,3,.1139 rmor,903,.2485,90,90 I Haunch external I Dome (csys,201) r,401,3,.2209 rmor,903,.1534,90,90 r,402,3,.2209 rmor,903,.1375,90,90 I Wall (csys,22) r,403,3,.2485 rmor,903,.2045,90,90 r,404,3,.1309 rmor,903,.2700,90,90 I Haunch internal I (csys,202) r,405,3,.1309 rmor,903,.1309,90,90 r,406,3,.2209 rmor,903,.1489,90,90 lhaunch middle I (csys,202) r,502,3,.0007,3,.0261 rmor,903,.2209,90,90 I (csys,22) r,500,3,.0007,3,.1243 rmor,903,.0236,90,90
I 26'2" to 29'9 I 28' to 29'6" I 29'6" to 32'6"
r,501,3,.0007,3,.1243 rmor,903,.0109,90,90 lhaunch ties r,503,3,.0006 rmore,9090,90 [secondary liner above 357.5" r,56,r56 esel,s,real,,55 nsle,,l csys,0 nsel,r,loc,y,357.5,99999 esln,,l esel,r,typel emodif,all,real,56 Input file: s e t m a t m a c *get,ia,areanum,min *get,iareal,area,ia,attr,real *get,iatype,area,ia,attr,type *get,iacsys,area,ia,attr,esys aatt,argl,iareal,iatype,iacsys
I upper vertical
I 33'3" to 37'6" I 37'6" to 41'4"
I Height: 34' to corner I Height: tangent to 34'
I Height: tangent to 34' I 33'3" radius to 34' height
I 33'3" to vertical
I lower vertical
Input file: setmaterials.mac I*** 1***6/7/04 Add 205F & 215F degraded concrete 1***6/4/04 MISO rebar (mats 3 & 6) !*** 10/9/03 Fill out temperature dependent steel modulus table 1***7/23/03 Elastic insulating concrete (no cracking) 1***6/17/03 Correct alpx,mat liner
!*** 5/14/03 !*** Add 6 concrete materials: mats 21 - 26 !*** Constant (degraded) properties @ 230,250,270,290,310,330 !*** to be used after t=3+15+330 days I*** !***Remove concrete crushing 5/5/03 I*** !*** Temperature dependent Materials !*** Best estimate = mean values !*** All steel elastic !*** Run 2 (nocreep) 4/16/03 I*** I specify all material properties /prep7 ![1] steel (for liner, jbolts, studs, anchors, bearing plates) steel alpx=steel alpx*le-6 !in/in/F steel_dens=steel_gamma/1728 !lb/inA3 mpte mpte,l,50,70,100,125,150,175 mpte,7,200,225,250,275,300,325 mpte,13,350 mpda,ex,mat_liner,l,29.5e6,29.5e6,29.34e6,29.20e6,29.07e6, 28.93e6 mpda,ex,mat liner,7,28.8e6,28.68e6,28.55e6,28.43e6,28.3e6, 28.15e6 mpda,ex,mat liner, 13,28.0e6 mp,dens,mat liner,steel dens mp,prxy,mat liner,steel_prxy
mpda,alpx,mat_liner,l,5.73e-6,5.73e-6,5.73e-6,5.82e6,5.91e-6,6.0e-6 mpda,alpx,mat_liner,7,6.09e-6,6.18e-6,6.27e-6,6.35e6,6.43e-6,6.51e-6 mpda,alpx,mat liner, 13,6.59e-6 tb,biso,mat liner tbdata,l,steel_yield,steel_tan*steel_ex I [2] structural concrete cone alpx=conc alpx* 1 e-6 conc_dens=conc_gamma/1728
!in/in/F !lb/inA3
mp,ex,mat_conc,7.434e6,-30.09e3,71.16,-.0709 mpda,ex,mat_conc,l,5.083e6,5.083e6,5.083e6 mp,dens,mat_conc,conc_dens mp, prxy, mat c one, c one prxy mp,alpx,mat conc,conc alpx tb,concr,mat_conc,5 tbte,50,l tbda,l,.l,.98,519,-1 tbte,200,2 tbda,l,.l,.98,519,-1 tbte,225,3 tbda,l,.1,.98,427,-1 tbte,250,4 tbda,l,.1,.98,335,-1 tbte,350,5 tbda,l,.1,.98,335,-1 tb,creep,mat_conc tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320,,! ![21] degraded structural concrete (205F)
mp,ex,21,3.652e6 ,dens,21,conc_dens ,prxy,21,conc_prxy ,alpx, 21, cone alpx tb,concr,21 tbda,l,.l,.98,501,-1 tb, creep, 21 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l I [22] degraded structural concrete (215F) mp,ex,22,3.557e6 ,dens,22,conc_dens ,prxy, 22, c onc_prxy ,alpx, 22, concalpx tb,concr,22 tbda,l,.1,.98,465,-1 tb, creep, 22 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l I [23] degraded structural concrete (225F) mp,ex,23,3.467e6 ,dens,23,conc_dens ,prxy,23,conc_prxy ,alpx,23,conc_alpx tb,concr,23 tbda,l,.1,.98,427,-1 tb, creep, 23 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l I [24] degraded structural concrete (23 5F) mp,ex,24,3.380e6 ,dens,24,conc_dens ,prxy, 24, c onc_prxy
,alpx, 24, cone alpx tb,concr,24 tbda,l,.1,.98,390,-1 tb, creep, 24 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l I [25] degraded structural concrete (245F) mp,ex,25,3.297e6 , dens, 2 5, c oncdens ,prxy,25,conc_prxy ,alpx,25,conc_alpx tb,concr,25 tbda,l,.1,.98,354,-1 tb,creep,25 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l I [26] degraded structural concrete (25 5F) mp,ex,26,3.217e6 , dens, 26, c oncdens ,prxy,26,conc_prxy ,alpx, 26, concalpx tb,concr,26 tbda,l,.1,.98,335,-1 tb, creep, 26 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l I [27] degraded structural concrete (265F) mp,ex,27,3.141e6 , dens, 27, c oncdens ,prxy,27,conc_prxy ,alpx, 27, concalpx tb,concr,27 tbda,l,.1,-98,335,-1
tb, creep, 27 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l I [28] degraded structural concrete (275F) mp,ex,28,3.067e6 , dens, 2 8, c oncdens ,prxy,28,conc_prxy ,alpx,28,conc_alpx tb,concr,28 tbda,l,.1,.98,335,-1 tb,creep,28 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l I [29] degraded structural concrete (28 5F) mp,ex,29,2.996e6 ,dens,29,conc_dens ,prxy, 29, c onc_prxy ,alpx, 29, concalpx tb,concr,29 tbda,l,.1,.98,335,-1 tb, creep, 29 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l I [30] degraded structural concrete (295F) mp,ex,30,2.927e6 , dens, 3 0, c oncdens ,prxy, 3 0, c onc_prxy ,alpx,30,conc_alpx tb,concr,30 tbda,l,.1,-98,335,-1 tb,creep,30 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320,,!
![31] degraded structural concrete (305F) mp,ex,31,2.860e6 ,dens,31 ,conc_dens ,prxy,31 ,conc_prxy ,alpx, 31, cone alpx tb,concr,31 tbda,l,.1,.98,335,-1 tb, creep, 31 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l I [32] degraded structural concrete (315F) mp,ex,32,2.796e6 , dens, 3 2, c oncdens ,prxy,32,conc_prxy ,alpx,32,conc_alpx tb,concr,32 tbda,l,.1,.98,335,-1 tb,creep,32 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l I [33] degraded structural concrete (325F) mp,ex,33,2.734e6 , dens, 3 3, c oncdens ,prxy,33,conc_prxy ,alpx,33,conc_alpx tb,concr,33 tbda,l,.1,.98,335,-1 tb,creep,33 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l I [34] degraded structural concrete (33 5F) mp,ex,34,2.673e6 , dens, 3 4, c oncdens
,prxy, 3 4, c onc_prxy ,alpx,34,cone alpx tb,concr,34 tbda,l,.1,.98,335,-1 tb,creep,34 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l ![35] degraded structural concrete (345F) mp,ex,35,2.615e6 , dens, 3 5, c oncdens ,prxy,35,conc_prxy ,alpx,35,conc_alpx tb,concr,35 tbda,l,.1,.98,335,-1 tb, creep, 3 5 tbda,l,.2545e-6,l,-.838,320l ! [3] rebar rebar alpx=rebar alpx* le-6 rebar_dens=rebar_gamma/1728 mp,ex,mat rebar,rebar ex mp,dens,mat rebar,rebar dens mp,prxy, mat rebar,reb ar prxy mp,alpx,mat rebar,rebar alpx tb,miso,mat rebar,4,4 tbte, 100,1 tbpt2069e-6,60000 3770e-6,67331 9555e-6,73035 20129e-6,76967 tbte,200,2 tbpt1896e-6,54978
3770e-6,61720 9555e-6,66882 20129e-6,70582 tbte,300,3 tbpt1896e-6,53304 3770e-6,59850 9555e-6,64831 20129e-6,68453 tbte,400,4 tbpt1780e-6,51630 3770e-6,57979 9555e-6,62780 20129e-6,66325 ![4] insulating concrete insul alpx=insul alpx * 1 e-6 insul dens=insul gamma/1728
! in/in/F !lb/inA3
!in/in/F !lb-secA2/inA4
mp,ex,mat insul,insul ex mp,dens,mat insul,insul dens mp,prxy,mat insul,insul_prxy mp,alpx,mat insul,insul alpx !tb,concr,mat insul !tbda, 1,insul open,insul closed,insulcrack,-l
![5] soil ! These soil properties for material 5 are overwritten later !soil_ex=575000 lelastic modulus [psi] !soil_prxy=0.1 IPoisson ratio !soil alpx=0 Ithermal expansion coefficient [me/F] !soil gamma=125 !unit weight [lbf/ftA3]
! soil_cohesion=0 small number) [psi] !soil friction=35.4 !soil dilat=35.4
! drucker-prager constant (assume linternal friction angle [deg] Idilatancy angle [deg] !in/in/F !lb2/inA3
srebar_dens=srebar_gamma/l 728 mp,ex,mat_srebar,srebar_ex mp,dens,mat_srebar,srebar_dens mp, prxy, mat srebar, srebar_prxy mp,alpx,mat srebar,srebar alpx tb,miso,mat srebar,4,4 tbte, 100,1 tbpt1379e-6,40000 2513e-6,44887 6370e-6,48690 13419e-6,51311 tbte,200,2 tbpt1264e-6,36652 2513e-6,41147 6370e-6,44588 13419e-6,47055 tbte,300,3 tbpt1225e-6,35536 2513e-6,39900 6370e-6,43221 13419e-6,45636 tbte,400,4 tbpt1187e-6,34420 2513e-6,38653 6370e-6,41853 13419e-6,44217
!soil alpx=soil alpx* le-6 !soil_dens=soil_gamma/1728
!mp,ex,mat soil,soil ex !mp,dens,mat soil,soil dens !mp,prxy,mat soil,soil_prxy ! mp, alpx, mat s oil, s oil alpx !tb,dp,mat soil !tbdata,l,soilcohesion,soilfriction,soil dilat !set mat haunch materials equal to mat cone material vsel,s,matmat haunch eslv emodif,all,mat,mat cone mpdele,all,mat haunch !set slab rebar material properties vsel,s,matmat_rebar eslv nsle nsel,r,loc,y,-999,-8.125 esln,,l esel,r,mat,,mat rebar mat_srebar=6 emodif,all,mat,mat srebar ! [6] slab rebar srebar alpx=srebar alpx*le-6
!in/in/F
alls el esel,s,mat,,3 esel,a,mat6 emodif,all,mat,2
alls el Input file: setoptions.mac !***Turn o n c r e e p 5 turn on steel plasticity 6/8/04 /prep7 Iremove structural concrete CONCR material model !tbdele,concr,mat_conc Iremove concrete CREEP material model !tbdele,creep,mat_conc Iremove insulating concrete CONCR material model !tbdele,concr,mat insul Iremove insulating concrete CREEP material model tbdele,creep,mat insul Iremove liner BISO material model !tbdele,BISO,mat finer Iremove rebar BISO material model !tbdele,BISO,mat rebar !tbde,biso,mat_srebar Iremove soil DP material model !tbdele,DP,mat soil Input file: setparms.mac I*** !*** Best estimate soil properties 3/19/04
!*** Run 2, Load Case 1 - 4 !*** (8.3'soil, 1251b/ft3) !*** (0.06" primary tank corrosion) 1***4/16/03 I***
I***
!*** !*** !*** !***
JED mods 3/20/03 add clr - concentrated load radius add backfill properties 3/24 backfill properties f(depth) 4/1
finish /clear /fil,pnnla /prep 7 /titLAP 422"(20yr)/460"(40yr), 210F, 1.83SpG, BES ! ! DST- AY pi=acos(-l) clr=10*12 or= 12*41.5 ir=12*40 ir2=12*37.5 icr=37*12+3 hl=0 h2=-8.125 h3=381.5 h4=h3+70.875 37'8-3/8") h5=h3+15*12 h6=h5+15 ! Concentrated load radius ! Outside radius concrete wall ! Inside radius concrete wall ! Radius primary tank ! Radius insulating concrete
!Height dome tangent (31'9-l/2") IHeight exterior corner (+ 510-7/8" = IHeight interior center dome IHeight exterior center dome
r55=l/4 covext=2 covintl=4 covint2=1.5 I Concrete cover - exterior dome I Concrete cover - wall IConcrete cover - interior dome
Ishell thickness (in) (R10 ofFigure 11 inRPP-13990)
I This was originally defined in set esys 3d.mac: r56=3/8 Ishell thickness (in) of secondary liner above 357.5 in
rl=105*12+.25 lExterior dome radius - center thl=7+(45+14/60)/60 lAngle at tangent of external radii r2=74*12+4 lExterior dome radius - outer r3=3*12+8.375 IRadius primary tank to dome
I These were originally defined in set materials.mac: ![1] steel (for liner,, jbolts, studs, anchors, bearing plates) steel_ex=27.7e6 I elastic modulus [psi] steel_prxy=0.3 IPoisson ratio steel_alpx=6.38 Ithermal expansion coefficient [microstrain/degree F] steel_gamma=490 lunit weight [lbf/ft A 3] steel_yield=36000 lyield strength [psi] Irebar tangent modulus [% of elastic steel_tan=0.01 modulus] I [2] structural concrete conc_ex=3.8e6 conc_prxy=0.15 conc_alpx=3.7 [microstrain/degree F] cone gamma=145 conc_open=0.1 crack conc_closed=0.98 crack conc_crush=3000 conc_crack=0.1*conc_crush
I This file sets the values of all parameters that may be changed I These were originally defined in define soil layers.mac: overburden=8.3*12 loverburden height above dome apex (ft) subdepth=168*12 Isubgrade soil depth (ft) totalwidth=240*12 Itotal soil width (radius) from tank centerline to edge (ft)
T5 w ^
o\
h
<
I These were originally defined in dstay7.mac: r50=l-.06 13990) r51=3/8-.06 RPP-13990) r52=7/8-.06 13990) r53=3/4-.06 13990) r54=l/2-.06 13990) Ishell thickness (in) (Rl ofFigure 11 in RPPIshell thickness (in) (R2,R6,R7,R9 ofFigure 11 in Ishell thickness (in) (R3 ofFigure 11 in RPPIshell thickness (in) (R4 ofFigure 11 in RPPIshell thickness (in) (R5,R8 ofFigure 11 in RPP-
I elastic modulus [psi] IPoisson ratio Ithermal expansion coefficient lunit weight [lbf/ftA3] I shear transfer coefficient for open I shear transfer coefficient for closed luniaxial crushing stress [psi] Itensile cracking stress [psi]
I [3] rebar rebar_ex=29.0e6 rebar_prxy=0.3 rebar alpx=6. [microstrain/degree F] rebar gamma=490 rebar_yield=71000 rebar tan=0
I elastic modulus [psi] IPoisson ratio Ithermal expansion coefficient lunit weight [lbf/ftA3] lyield strength [psi] Irebar tangent modulus [psi] psf
!*** Backfill I These were originally defined in define loads.mac: I [5] backfill soil backfill phi=34.5 I soil friction angle deg backfill dil=34.5 Ibackfill dilatancy angle deg backfill cte=0 Ithermal expansion coef me/f !*** No waste, pressures or ext. load pres_surf=0 Iground surface uniform pressure point cent=0 pres annulus=0 pres_int=0 h2o hwaste=35.17*12 heightwaste 1 =hwaste/3 gammawaste 1=0 height_waste2=hwaste/3 gamma_waste2=0 height_waste3=hwaste/3 gamma_waste3=0 Itotal waste height Iheight of waste 1 inches Ispecific gravity of waste 1 Iheight of waste 2 inches [specific gravity of waste 2 Iheight of waste 3 inches [specific gravity of waste 3 Ipoint load at center lb lannulus pressure inches h2o lannulus internal pressure inches
I [4] insulating concrete insul_ex=165e3 I elastic modulus [psi] insul prxy=0.15 IPoisson ratio insul alpx=3.7 Ithermal expansion coefficient [me/F] insul gamma=50 lunit weight [lbf/ftA3]
O
4^
insul open=0.1 crack insulcl os ed=0.98 crack insul_crush=200 insul crack=20 I [6] slab rebar srebar_ex=29.0e6 srebar_prxy=0.3 srebar alpx=6. [microstrain/degree F] srebar_gamma=490 sreb ar_yi el d=49 000 srebar tan=0
I shear transfer coefficient for open I shear transfer coefficient for closed luniaxial crushing stress [psi] Itensile cracking stress [psi]
I elastic modulus [psi] IPoisson ratio Ithermal expansion coefficient lunit weight [lbf/ftA3] lyield strength [psi] Irebar tangent modulus [psi]
Idefine soil layers *dim,soil emod16 *dim,soil pr,,16 *dim,soil z0,,16 *dim,soil zl,,16 *dim,bf emod,,8 !*dim,bf_pr8 *dim,bf z08 *dim,bf zl8
bfdinc=(h6+overburden+18.5)/8 sdinc=(subdepth+60)/8 *do,i,l,8 soil_zO(i)=i*bfdinc [vertical distance from surface soil_zl(i)=(i-l)*bfdinc soil_z0(i+8)=i*sdinc+bfdinc*8 soil_zl(i+8)=(i-l)*sdinc+bfdinc*8 bf_zO(i)=i*bfdinc bf_zl(i)=(i-l)*bfdinc *enddo [Elastic modulus soil_emod(l)=58000,62000,64618,67236,69563,72180,74798,77 125,82117,90000 soil_emod(ll)=109697,129650,151456,172835,191000,200000 bf_emod(l)=12000,15000,19500,24000,28000,32500,37000,400
O
4^
00
Input file: setreal.mac *get,ia,areanum,min *get,iamat,area,ia,attr,mat *get,iatype,area,ia,attr,type *get,iacsys,area,ia,attr,esys aatt,iamat,argl,iatype,iacsys Input file: setrx.mac cmsel,s,arg4 csys,0 asel,r,loc,x,argl,arg2 set_real,arg3 Input file: setry.mac cmsel,s,arg4 csys,0 asel,r,loc,y,argl,arg2 set_real,arg3 Input file: setslayer.mac I*** !***Dilation angle 8 6/4/04 I *** Add materials for load factor restart 8/2/03 !*** JED mod 3/24/03 !*** Define soil I *** (redefine backfill/overburden in set backfill) I*** max mat=max mat+1 /prep7 cmsel,s,soil_elem nsle
IPoisson's ratio soil_pr(l)=.24,.24,.24,.24,.19,.19,.19,.19,.19,.19 soil_pr(ll)=.19,.19,.28,.28,.28,.28 bf_pr=27 !*** Soil 110 pcf - undisturbed !*** Soil 125 pcf- backfill/overburden s gam=110 !lbf/ftA3 density of soil layers (excluding backfill) b gam=125 !lbf/ftA3 density of soil layers (excluding backfill) save
csys,0 hsub=top_elev-arg2-h2+24 nsel,r,loc,y,top_elev-argl,top_elev-arg2 esln, esel,r,mat,,5 emodif,all,mat,max mat emodif,all,real,7
mp,alpx,max mat+50,soil alpx tb,dp,max mat+50 tbdata,l,soilcohesion,soilfriction,soil dilat Input file: setsoil.mac I*** !*** JED mod 3/24/03 I *** define subdepth (depth of soil below foundation I*** /prep7 csys,0 vsel,s,matl aslv asel,u,loc,z,0 cm,aold,area aslv asel,r,loc,z,0 cm,anew,area eslv nsle cpdele,all,all vclear,all vdele,all cmsel,s,aold adele,all,,,l cmsel,s,anew lsla lesize,all,,,-ll esize,16 adrag,19861989 aovlap,all
soil_ex=arg3 soil_prxy=arg4 soil alpx=0 [me/F] soil cohesion=l soil friction=35 soil dilat=8
[elastic modulus [psi] IPoisson ratio [thermal expansion coefficient I drucker-prager constant [psi] [internal friction angle [deg] [dilatancy angle [deg] !in/in/F !lb/inA3
soil alpx=soil alpx* 1 e-6 soil_dens=s_gam/1728
mp,ex,max mat,soil ex mp,dens,max mat,soil dens mp,prxy,max mat,soil_prxy mp,alpx,max mat,soil alpx tb,dp,max mat tbdata,l,soilcohesion,soilfriction,soil dilat !*** materials max mat+50 for load factor restart mp,ex,max mat+50,soil ex mp,dens,max mat+50,soil dens* 1.7/1.4 mp,prxy,max mat+50,soil_prxy
cm,asoil,area asel,s,147 adele,all,,,l cmsel,s,asoil lcomb,14,1983 aatt, mat s oil type s oil amesh,all alls el *get,km,kp,,num,max dy=overburden-12 k,km+l,kx(1112)-dy,ky(1110)+dy k,km+2,kx(1075)-dy,ky(1075)-dy k,km+3,0,ky(km+2) k,km+4,kx(km+2),ky(1077)-subdepth k,km+5,0,ky(km+4) k,km+6,0,ky(km+l) k,km+7,-totalwidth,ky(km+l) k,km+8,kx(km+7),ky(km+2) k,km+9,kx(km+8),ky(km+4) k,km+10, -clr,ky (km+1) as el, none a,1112,1110,km+6,km+10,km+l a,km+l,km+2,1075,1112 a,km+2,km+3,1077,1075 a,km+2,km+4,km+5,km+3 a,km+l,km+7,km+8,km+2 a,km+2,km+8,km+9,km+4 lsla lsel,r,loc,x,kx(km+7)+l,kx(km+l)-l lesize,all,40,l/10 lsel,r,loc,y,ky(km+l)
lesize,all,40,10,l lsla lsel,r,loc,y,ky(km+9)+l,ky(km+8)-l lesize,all,40,10 lsel,r,loc,x,0 lesize,all,,,40,.l,l lsla aatt, mat s oil type s oil amap,147,ll 12,1110,3261,3256 asel,u,147 mshkey,l amesh,all asel,s,mat,,mat_soil type,type soil+10 mat,mat soil ksel,all vs el, none vrotat,all,,,,ikbot,iktop,swp th, 1 aclear,all csys,22 nrotate,all [couple to concrete DOFs asel462,466,4 ,a,473 ,a,469,471 ,a,482,483 ,a,488,491,3 cm, avert, are a asel472,481,9 ,a,478,479
cm,ahorz,area esel,s,mat,,2 nsle nsel,r,ext cm,nconc,node cmsel,s,avert nsla,,l cm,ns oil, node *get,nnode,nodecount *do,i,l,nnode *get,inode,node,,num,min cmsel,s,nconc incoup=node(nx(inode),ny(inode),nz(inode)) nsel,s,incoup nsel,a,inode cp,next,uz,all cmsel,s,nsoil nsel,u,inode cm,nsoil,node *enddo cmsel,s,ahorz nsla,,l cm,ns oil, node *get,nnode,nodecount *do,i,l,nnode *get,inode,node,,num,min cmsel,s,nconc incoup=node(nx(inode),ny(inode),nz(inode)) nsel,s,incoup nsel,a,inode
cp,next,ux,all cmsel,s,nsoil nsel,u,inode cm,nsoil,node *enddo /eof csys,22 nsel,s,loc,y,180-.01,180+.01 nsel,a,loc,y,180+swp_th-.01,180+swp_th+.01 nrotate,all d,all,uy,0 alls el Input file: settype.mac *get,ia,areanum,min *get,iareal,area,ia,attr,real *get,iamat,area,ia,attr,mat *get,iacsys,area,ia,attr,esys aatt,iamat,iareal,argl,iacsys
C.2.2
Thermal Cycling Files
There are six input files required to run the full 60 years of thermal cycling and creep. These are listed sequentially below. Input file: setsliceb.inp /fil,set_slice_0 resu /sol anty,,rest !*** Thermal load - Initial ramp
I***
fhrt=7.5/24 time,3+fhrt !LS 4 I*** !*** Fast heat to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frh,temp /inp,bkh,temp /gopr nsub,3,10,2 solv time,2.125+3+fhrt ILS 4 I*** !*** One of Two steps to 210F I***
0 /n
time,26 !*** 150F /nopr /inp,frss,temp /inp,bkss,temp /gopr nsub,150,1000,10 solv
!LS 9
P r
time,41 !LS 10 !*** Steady state @ 21 OF /nopr /inp,frssl,temp /inp,bkssl,temp /gopr nsub,150,1000,15 solv time,353 !LS 11 !*** Hold fori Year nsub,300,10000,10 save solv time,353+l !LS 12 !*** mpchg and 1.0 days *do,i,l,14 eseltype12,15 nsle nsel,r,bf,temp,190+i*10,200+i*10 esln esel,r,mat,,2
Ln
/inp,frhl,temp /inp,bkhl,temp /gopr nsub,3,10,2 solv time,4.25+3+fhrt !LS 4 I*** !*** Two of Two steps to 210F /nopr /inp,frh2,temp /inp,bkh2,temp /gopr nsub,3,10,2 solv
mpch,20+i,all *enddo eseltype12,15 nsle nsel,r,bf, temp,330,345 esln esel,r,mat,,2 mpch,35,all esel,all nsel,all nsub,10,100,2 solv time,354+2.125 ILS 13 !*** Cool to ambient I*** !*** First of Two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr nsub,15,200,5 solv time,354+4.25 ILS 14
nsub,15,200,5 solv time,354+4.25+fhrt I*** !*** Fast cool down to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc3,temp /inp,bkc3,temp /gopr nsub,7,100,3 solv ILS 17
time,354+4.25+fhrt+l ILS 18 I*** !*** Tank cool down transient to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc4,temp /inp,bkc4,temp /gopr nsub,5,100,2 solv time,368 ILS 19 I**** Uniform 50F nsub,47,150,20 bf,all,temp,50 solv !*** Cycle 4 More Years *do,i,l,4
!*** Second of two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frc2,temp /inp,bkc2,temp /gopr
time,3+fhrt+365*i ILS 20 I*** I *** Thermal load - Initial ramp I*** /nopr /inp,frh,temp /inp,bkh,temp /gopr nsub,3,10,2 solv time,3+2.125+fhrt*365*i ILS 21 I*** !*** First of two steps to 21 OF I*** /nopr /inp,frhl,temp /inp,bkhl,temp /gopr nsub,20,100,6 solv time,3+4.25+fhrt+365*i ILS 22 I*** !*** Secondof two steps to 210F I*** /nopr /inp,frh2,temp /inp,bkh2,temp /gopr nsub,20,100,6 solv
time,3+23+365*i I*** !*** 350F I*** /nopr /inp,frss,temp /inp,bkss,temp /gopr nsub,150,1000,10 solv
ILS 25
time,3+38+365*i I*** !*** Steady state @ 21 OF

i***
ILS 26
S
w w ^
/nopr /inp,frssl,temp /inp,bkssl,temp /gopr nsub,150,1000,30 solv time,3+351+365*i I*** !*** Creep for 1 Year I*** nsub,300,10000,6 solv !*** Cool to ambient time,3+351+2.125+365*i ILS 27
ILS 28
!*** First of two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr nsub,15,200,5 solv time,3+351+4.25+365*i ILS 29 I*** !*** Secondof two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frc2,temp /inp,bkc2,temp /gopr nsub,15,200,5 solv time,3+351+4.25+fhrt+365*i I*** !*** Fast cool down to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc3,temp /inp,bkc3,temp /gopr nsub,7,100,3 solv time,3+351+4.25+fhrt+l+365*i ILS 33 ILS 32
!*** Tank cool down transient to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc4,temp /inp,bkc4,temp /gopr nsub,5,100,2 solv time,3+365+365*i I*** I**** Uniform 50F I*** nsub,47,150,20 bf,all,temp,50 save solv *enddo I End of 5 Year Thermal Cycles Input file: Extendedl3yr.inp /fil,set_slice_0 resu /sol anty,,rest !*** Thermal load - Initial ramp I*** fhrt=7.5/24 time,3+fhrt+365*5 I*** !*** Fast heat to 125F ILS 34
Ln
/nopr /inp,frh,temp /inp,bkh,temp /gopr nsub,3,10,2 solv time,2.125+3+fhrt+365*5 I*** !*** One of Two steps to 210F I*** /nopr /inp,frhl,temp /inp,bkhl,temp /gopr nsub,3,10,2 solv time,4.25+3+fhrt+365*5 I*** !*** Two of Two steps to 210F /nopr /inp,frh2,temp /inp,bkh2,temp /gopr nsub,3,10,2 solv time,26+365*5 !*** Steady State @ 210 /nopr /inp,frss,temp /inp,bkss,temp
/gopr nsub,150,1000,10 solv time,41+365*5 !*** Steady state @ 21 OF /nopr /inp,frssl,temp /inp,bkssl,temp /gopr nsub,150,1000,15 solv time,354+365*17 !*** Hold for 13 Years nsub,300,10000,10 save solv time,354+2.125+365*17 !*** Cool to ambient I*** !*** First of Two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr nsub,15,200,5 solv time,354+4.25+365*17
!*** Secondof two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frc2,temp /inp,bkc2,temp /gopr nsub,15,200,5 solv time,354+4.25+fhrt+365*17 I*** !*** Fast cool down to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc3,temp /inp,bkc3,temp /gopr nsub,7,100,3 solv time,354+4.25+fhrt+l+365*17 I*** !*** Tank cool down transient to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc4,temp /inp,bkc4,temp /gopr nsub,5,100,2 solv time,368+365*17 I**** Uniform 5OF
nsub,47,150,20 bf,all,temp,50 solv Input file: TwoYrCycle.inp /fil,set_slice_0 resu /sol anty,,rest !*** Thermal load - Initial ramp I*** fhrt=7.5/24 !*** Cycle *do,i,18,19 time,3+fhrt+365*i I*** I *** Thermal load - Initial ramp I*** /nopr /inp,frh,temp /inp,bkh,temp /gopr nsub,3,10,2 solv time,3+2.125+fhrt*365*i I*** !*** First of two steps to 21 OF I*** /nopr /inp,frhl,temp
/inp,bkhl,temp /gopr nsub,20,100,6 solv time,3+4.25+fhrt+365*i I*** !*** Secondof two steps to 210F I*** /nopr /inp,frh2,temp /inp,bkh2,temp /gopr nsub,20,100,6 solv time,3+23+365*i I*** !*** 350F I*** /nopr /inp,frss,temp /inp,bkss,temp /gopr nsub,150,1000,10 solv time,3+38+365*i I*** !*** Steady state @ 21 OF I*** /nopr /inp,frssl,temp
/inp,bkssl,temp /gopr nsub,150,1000,30 solv time,3+351+365*i I*** !*** Creep for 1 Year I*** nsub,300,10000,6 solv !*** Cool to ambient time,3+351+2.125+365*i I*** !*** First of two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr nsub,15,200,5 solv time,3+351+4.25+365*i I*** !*** Secondof two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frc2,temp /inp,bkc2,temp /gopr nsub,15,200,5
solv time,3+351+4.25+fhrt+365*i I*** !*** Fast cool down to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc3,temp /inp,bkc3,temp /gopr nsub,7,100,3 solv time,3+351+4.25+fhrt+l+365*i I*** !*** Tank cool down transient to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc4,temp /inp,bkc4,temp /gopr nsub,5,100,2 solv time,3+365+365*i I*** I**** Uniform 5OF I*** nsub,47,150,20 bf,all,temp,50 save solv
*enddo I End of 20 Year Thermal Cycles Input file: TwoYrCycleWith460wh.inp /fil,set_slice_0 resu /sol anty,,rest time,365*20+3+l I*** !*** Add waste, pressure and surface loads pres_surf=40 psf point_cent=200000 pres_annulus=-20 pres int=-12 h2o hwaste=460 heightwaste 1 =hwaste/3 gamma waste 1=1.83 height_waste2=hwaste/3 gamma_waste2=l. 83 height_waste3=hwaste/3 gamma_waste3=1.83 I ground surface uniform pressure Ipoint load at center lb lannulus pressure inches h2o lannulus internal pressure inches I total waste height Iheight of waste 1 inches I specific gravity of waste 1 Iheight of waste 2 inches I specific gravity of waste 2 Iheight of waste 3 inches I specific gravity of waste 3
/inp,apply loads slice,mac solv !*** Thermal load - Initial ramp fhrt=7.5/24
!*** Cycle *do,i,20,21 time,3+l+fhrt+365*i I*** I *** Thermal load - Initial ramp I*** /nopr /inp,frh,temp /inp,bkh,temp /gopr nsub,3,10,2 solv time,3+l+2.125+fhrt*365*i I*** !*** First of two steps to 21 OF I*** /nopr /inp,frhl,temp /inp,bkhl,temp /gopr nsub,20,100,6 solv time,3+l+4.25+fhrt+365*i I*** !*** Secondof two steps to 210F I*** /nopr /inp,frh2,temp /inp,bkh2,temp
/gopr nsub,20,100,6 solv time,3+l+23+365*i I*** !*** 350F I*** /nopr /inp,frss,temp /inp,bkss,temp /gopr nsub,150,1000,10 solv time,3+l+38+365*i I*** !*** Steady state @ 21 OF I*** /nopr /inp,frssl,temp /inp,bkssl,temp /gopr nsub,150,1000,30 solv time,3+l+351+365*i I*** !*** Creep for 1 Year I*** nsub,300,10000,6 solv !*** Cool to ambient
time,3+l+351+2.125+365*i I*** !*** First of two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr nsub,15,200,5 solv time,3+l+351+4.25+365*i I*** !*** Secondof two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frc2,temp /inp,bkc2,temp /gopr nsub,15,200,5 solv time,3+l+351+4.25+fhrt+365*i I*** !*** Fast cool down to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc3,temp /inp,bkc3,temp /gopr nsub,7,100,3 solv
time,3+l+351+4.25+fhrt+l+365*i I*** !*** Tank cool down transient to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc4,temp /inp,bkc4,temp /gopr nsub,5,100,2 solv time,3+l+365+365*i I*** I**** Uniform 5OF I*** nsub,47,150,20 bf,all,temp,50 save solv *enddo I End of 22 Year Thermal Cycles with 460 from 20 years Input file: Extended38yr.inp /fil,set_slice_0 resu /sol anty,,rest !*** Thermal load - Initial ramp
fhrt=7.5/24 time,4+fhrt+365*20 I*** !*** Fast heat to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frh,temp /inp,bkh,temp /gopr nsub,3,10,2 solv time,2.125+4+fhrt+365*20 I*** !*** One of Two steps to 210F I*** /nopr /inp,frhl,temp /inp,bkhl,temp /gopr nsub,3,10,2 solv time,4.25+4+fhrt+365*20 I*** !*** Two of Two steps to 210F /nopr /inp,frh2,temp /inp,bkh2,temp /gopr nsub,3,10,2 solv time,26+l+365*20 !*** Steady State @ 210 /nopr /inp,frss,temp /inp,bkss,temp /gopr nsub,150,1000,10 solv time,41+l+365*20 !*** Steady state @ 21 OF /nopr /inp,frssl,temp /inp,bkssl,temp /gopr nsub,150,1000,15 solv time,354+365*57 !*** Hold for 38 Years nsub,300,10000,10 save solv time,354+2.125+365*57 !*** Cool to ambient I*** !*** First of Two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp
/gopr nsub,15,200,5 solv time,354+4.25+365*57 I*** !*** Secondof two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frc2,temp /inp,bkc2,temp /gopr nsub,15,200,5 solv time,354+4.25+fhrt+365*57 I*** !*** Fast cool down to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc3,temp /inp,bkc3,temp /gopr nsub,7,100,3 solv time,354+4.25+fhrt+l+365*57 I*** !*** Tank cool down transient to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc4,temp /inp,bkc4,temp
/gopr nsub,5,100,2 solv time,368+365*57 I**** Uniform 5OF nsub,47,150,20 bf,all,temp,50 solv I End of 5 8 year cycle Input file: TwoYrCycTo60Yr.inp /fil,set_slice_0 resu /sol anty,,rest !*** Thermal load - Initial ramp I*** fhrt=7.5/24 !*** Cycle *do,i,58,59 time,3+fhrt+365*i I*** I *** Thermal load - Initial ramp I*** /nopr /inp,frh,temp /inp,bkh,temp /gopr
nsub,3,10,2 solv time,3+2.125+fhrt*365*i I*** !*** First of two steps to 21 OF I*** /nopr /inp,frhl,temp /inp,bkhl,temp /gopr nsub,20,100,6 solv time,3+4.25+fhrt+365*i I*** !*** Secondof two steps to 210F I*** /nopr /inp,frh2,temp /inp,bkh2,temp /gopr nsub,20,100,6 solv time,3+23+365*i I*** !*** 210F I*** /nopr /inp,frss,temp /inp,bkss,temp /gopr
nsub,150,1000,10 solv time,3+38+365*i I*** !*** Steady state @ 21 OF I*** /nopr /inp,frssl,temp /inp,bkssl,temp /gopr nsub,150,1000,30 solv time,3+351+365*i I*** !*** Creep for 1 Year I*** nsub,300,10000,6 solv !*** Cool to ambient time,3+351+2.125+365*i I*** !*** First of two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr nsub,15,200,5 solv
time,3+351+4.25+365*i I*** !*** Secondof two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frc2,temp /inp,bkc2,temp /gopr nsub,15,200,5 solv time,3+351+4.25+fhrt+365*i I*** !*** Fast cool down to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc3,temp /inp,bkc3,temp /gopr nsub,7,100,3 solv time,3+351+4.25+fhrt+l+365*i I*** !*** Tank cool down transient to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc4,temp /inp,bkc4,temp /gopr nsub,5,100,2 solv
time,3+365+365*i I*** I**** Uniform 5OF I*** nsub,47,150,20 bf,all,temp,50 save solv *enddo I End of 60 Year Thermal Cycles with 460" waste height from 20 years C.2.3 ACI Load Factors w
Input file: set_sliced6a.inp

1*** 1*** 1*** 1*** 1*** 1*** 1***
Load factors 12/19/06 1.4 g 1.4 pressures 1.4 waste 1.83*1.4 soil density 1.7 distributed & concentrated load
/fil,set slice 0 resu /sol antyrest

I***
I***
esel,all save solv [ground surface uniform pressure [point load at center lb lannulus pressure inches h2o [annulus internal pressure inches Itotal waste height [height of waste 1 inches [specific gravity of waste 1 [height of waste 2 inches [specific gravity of waste 2 [height of waste 3 inches [specific gravity of waste 3 Input file: setsliceh.inp I*** !*** Year 60 10/19/06 1.4D+1.7L+1.05T !*** Adjust mpch (new SS temps) & Day 48 Steady State 6/8/04 !*** Adjust substeps 6/7/04 [*** 2 year thermal cycle ****inp modified****5/19/04 !*** multiple heating and cooling load steps I*** /fil,set_slice_0 resu /sol antyrest !*** Thermal load - Initial ramp I*** fhrt=7.5/24
time,365*61+4 nsub, 10,100,5 acel1.4 pres_surf=40 * 1.7 psf point_cent=200000*1.7 pres annulus=-20* 1.4 pres int=-12* 1.4 h2o hwaste=35.17*12 heightwaste 1 =hwaste/3 gamma waste 1=1.83*1.4 height_waste2=hwaste/3 gamma_waste2=1.83*1.4 height_waste3 =hwaste/3 gamma waste3=l.83* 1.4 /inp,apply loads slice,mac
I***
'o\ as
!*** mpchto change density of soils I*** *do,i,l,16 eselmat100+i mpch,150+i,all *enddo *do,i,l,8 eselmat120+i mpch,170+i,all *enddo
time,3+fhrt+365*60+l I*** !*** Fast heat to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frh, temp /inp,bkh, temp /gopr
bfsc,temp,1.05,50 nsub,3,10,2 solv
I***
time,3+2.125+fhrt*365*60+l I*** !*** First of two steps to 21 OF I*** /nopr /inp,frhl,temp /inp,bkhl,temp /gopr bfsc,temp,1.05,50 nsub,20,100,6 solv
/nopr /inp,frss,temp /inp,bkss,temp /gopr bfsc,temp,1.05,50 nsub,180,2000,40 solv time,3+38+365*60+l I*** !*** Steady state @ 210F I*** /nopr /inp,frssl,temp /inp,bkssl,temp /gopr bfsc,temp,1.05,50 nsub,150,1000,25 solv !*** HoldforlYear time,354+365*60+l nsub,300,10000,6 solv !*** Cool to ambient time,3+351+2.125+365*60+l I*** !*** First of two steps to 125F
o
'o\
time,3+4.25+fhrt+365*60+l I*** !*** Second of two steps to 210F I*** /nopr /inp,frh2, temp /inp,bkh2,temp /gopr bfsc,temp,1.05,50 nsub,20,100,6 solv
time,3+23+365*60+l I*** !*** 210F
/nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr bfsc,temp,1.05,50 nsub,15,200,5 solv time,3+351+4.25+365*60+l I*** !*** Second of two steps to 125F I*** /nopr /inp,frc2,temp /inp,bkc2,temp /gopr bfsc,temp,1.05,50 nsub,15,200,5 solv time,3+351+4.25+fhrt+365*60+l I*** !*** Fast cool down to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc3,temp /inp,bkc3,temp /gopr bfsc,temp,1.05,50 nsub,7,100,3 solv time,3+351+4.25+fhrt+l+365*60+l
I***
!*** Tank cool down transient to 50F I*** /nopr /inp,frc4,temp /inp,bkc4,temp /gopr bfsc,temp,1.05,50 nsub,5,100,2 solv time,3+365+365*60+l I*** !**** Uniform 5OF I*** nsub,47,150,20 bf,all,temp,50 save solv
'c\
0
C.3 Lower Bound Soil Model Input Files

There is only one input file that is unique to the Lower Bound Soil analysis. It is listed below. Input file: setparms.mac I*** !*** Low Bound soil properties 7/14/04 I*** !*** Run 2, Load Case 1 - 4 !*** (8.3'soil, 1251b/ft3) !*** (0.06" primary tank corrosion) 1***4/16/03
I*** I***
!*** !*** !*** !***
rl=105*12+.25 lExterior dome radius - center thl=7+(45+14/60)/60 lAngle at tangent of external radii r2=74*12+4 lExterior dome radius - outer r3=3*12+8.375 IRadius primary tank to dome
finish /clear /fil,pnnla /prep7 /till,5% K; low soil E, high concrete E with no Creep" ! ! D S T - AY pi=acos(-l) clr=10*12 or=12*41.5 ir= 12*40 ir2=12*37.5 icr=37*12+3 hl=0 h2=-8.125 h3=381.5 h4=h3+70.875 37'8-3/8") h5=h3+15*12 h6=h5+15 covext=2 covintl=4 covint2=1.5 ! Concentrated load radius ! Outside radius concrete wall llnside radius concrete wall ! Radius primary tank ! Radius insulating concrete
! This file sets the values of all parameters that may be changed ! These were originally defined in define soil layers.mac: overburden=8.3*12 I overburden height above dome apex (ft) subdepth=168*12 Isubgrade soil depth (ft) totalwidth=240* 12 Itotal soil width (radius) from tank centerline to edge (ft)
k H
> 3f
w
eg
! These were originally defined in dstay7.mac: r50=l-.06 Ishell thickness (in) ( R l of Figure 11 i n R P P 13990) r51=3/8-.06 Ishell thickness (in) (R2,R6,R7,R9 of Figure 11 in RPP-13 990) r52=7/8-.06 Ishell thickness (in) (R3 of Figure 11 in RPP13990) r53=3/4-.06 Ishell thickness (in) (R4 of Figure 11 in RPP13990) r54=l/2-.06 Ishell thickness (in) (R5,R8 of Figure 11 in RPP13990) r55=l/4 Ishell thickness (in) (R10 of Figure 11 in RPP13990)
!Height dome tangent (31'9-l/2") IHeight exterior corner (+5'10-7/8 IHeight interior center dome IHeight exterior center dome ! Concrete cover - exterior dome ! Concrete cover - wall 'Concrete cover - interior dome
I This was originally defined in set esys 3d.mac: r56=3/8 Ishell thickness (in) of secondary liner above 357.5 in
I These were originally defined in set materials.mac: steel (for liner, jbolts, studs, anchors, bearing plates) ![1] steel_ex=27.7e6 I elastic modulus [psi] steel_prxy=0.3 IPoisson ratio steel_alpx=6.38 Ithermal expansion coefficient [microstrain/degree F] steel_gamma=490 lunit weight [lbf/ftA3] lyield strength [psi] steel_yield=36000 Irebar tangent modulus [% steel_tan=0.01 of elastic modulus]
O o
rebar_prxy=0.3 IPoisson ratio rebar alpx=6. Ithermal expansion coefficient [microstrain/degree F] rebar gamma=490 lunit weight [lbf/ftA3] rebar_yield=71000 lyield strength [psi] rebar tan=0 Irebar tangent modulus [psi] I [4] insulating concrete insul_ex=165e3 insul_prxy=0.15 insul alpx=3.7 coefficient [me/F] insul gamma=50 insul open=0.1 for open crack insul_closed=0.9: crack insul_crush=200 [psi] insul crack=20
lelastic modulus [psi] IPoisson ratio Ithermal expansion lunit weight [lbf/ftA3] Ishear transfer coefficient
Ishear transfer coefficient for closed luniaxial crushing stress Itensile cracking stress [psi]
I [2] structural concrete cone ex=3.8e6 conc_prxy=0.15 cone alpx=3.7 coefficient [microstrain/degree F] cone gamma=145
lelastic modulus [psi] IPoisson ratio Ithermal expansion lunit weight [lbf/ftA3]
conc_open=0.1 I shear transfer coefficient for open crack cone closed=0.98 Ishear transfer coefficient for closed crack luniaxial crushing stress cone crush=3000 [psi] conc_crack=0.1*conc_crush Itensile cracking stress [psi] I [3] rebar rebar ex=29.0e6
I [6] slab rebar lelastic modulus [psi] srebar_ex=29.0e6 srebar_prxy=0.3 IPoisson ratio srebar alpx=6. Ithermal expansion coefficient [microstrain/degree F] srebar_gamma=490 lunit weight [lbf/ftA3] srebar_yield=49000 lyield strength [psi] srebar tan=0 Irebar tangent modulus [psi]
lelastic modulus [psi]
!*** Backfill
I These were originally defined in define loads.mac: I [5] backfill soil backfill_phi=34.5 Isoil friction angle deg backfill dil=34.5 Ibackfill dilatancy angle deg backfill cte=0 Ithermal expansion coef me/f !*** No waste, pressures or ext. load pres_surf=0 Iground surface uniform pressure psf point cent=0 pres annulus=0 pres_int=0 h2o hwaste=35.17*12 heightwaste 1 =hwaste/3 gammawaste 1=0 height_waste2=hwaste/3 gamma_waste2=0 height_waste3 =hwaste/3 gamma_waste3=0 I total waste height Iheight of waste 1 inches Ispecific gravity of waste 1 Iheight of waste 2 inches [specific gravity of waste 2 Iheight of waste 3 inches [specific gravity of waste 3 Ipoint load at center lb lannulus pressure inches h2o lannulus internal pressure inches
*do,i,l,8 soil_zO(i)=i*bfdinc [vertical distance from surface soil_zl(i)=(i-l)*bfdinc soil_z0(i+8)=i*sdinc+bfdinc*8 soil_zl(i+8)=(i-l)*sdinc+bfdinc*8 bf_zO(i)=i*bfdinc bf_zl(i)=(i-l)*bfdinc *enddo [Elastic modulus soil_emod(l)=44000,46000,48711,51423,53833,56544,59255,6 1665,66835,75000 soil_emod(ll)=78900,82851,87169,91403,95000,99000 bf_emod(l)=8000,10000,12864,15727,18273,21136,24000,260 00 IPoisson's ratio soil_pr(l)=.24,.24,.24,.24,.19,.19,.19,.19,.19,.19 soil_pr(ll)=.19,.19,.28,.28,.28,.28 bf_pr=.27 !*** Soil 110 pcf - undisturbed !*** Soil 125 pcf- backfill/overburden s gam=110 !lbf/ftA3 density of soil layers (excluding backfill) b gam=125 !lbf/ftA3 density of soil layers (excluding backfill) save w ^
î
Idefine soil layers *dim,soil emod,, 16 *dim,soil_pr16 *dim,soil z016 *dim,soil zl16 *dim,bf emod,,8 !*dim,bf pr,,8 *dim,bf z08 *dim,bf zl8 bfdinc=(h6+overburden+18.5)/8 sdinc=(subdepth+60)/8
C.4 Upper Bound Soil Model Input Files
There is only one input file that is unique to the Upper Bound Soil analysis. It is listed below. Input file: setparms.mac
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
O
Upper bound soil 11/21/05 Best estimate soil properties 3/19/04 Run 2, Load Case 1-4 (8.3' soil, 125 lb/ft3) (0.06" primary tank corrosion) 4/16/03
icr=37*12+3 hl=0 h2=-8.125 h3=381.5 h4=h3+70.875 37'8-3/8") h5=h3+15*12 h6=h5+15 covext=2 covintl=4 covint2=1.5
[Radius insulating concrete
IHeight dome tangent (31'9-l/2") [Height exterior corner (+ 510-7/8" IHeight interior center dome [Height exterior center dome [Concrete cover - exterior dome [Concrete cover - wall [Concrete cover - interior dome
rl=105*12+.25 [Exterior dome radius - center thl=7+(45+14/60)/60 lAngle at tangent of external radii r2=74*12+4 [Exterior dome radius - outer r3=3*12+8.375 [Radius primary tank to dome
finish /clear /fil,pnnla /prep 7 /titl,Baseline, Upper Bound Soil I DST - AY pi=acos(-l) clr=10*12 or=12*41.5 ir=12*40 ir2=12*37.5 [Concentrated load radius lOutside radius concrete wall [Inside radius concrete wall [Radius primary tank
! This file sets the values of all parameters that may be changed I These were originally defined in define soil layers.mac: overburden=8.3*12 [overburden height above dome apex (ft) subdepth=168*12 Isubgrade soil depth (ft) totalwidth=240*12 [total soil width (radius) from tank centerline to edge (ft)
! These were originally defined in dstay7.mac: r50=l-.06 13990) Ishell thickness (in) (Rl of Figure 11 in RPP-
r51=3/8-.06 Ishell thickness (in) (R2,R6,R7,R9 of Figure 11 in RPP-13990) r52=7/8-.06 [shell thickness (in) (R3 of Figure 11 in RPP13990) r53=3/4-.06 Ishell thickness (in) (R4 of Figure 11 in RPP13990) r54=l/2-.06 [shell thickness (in) (R5,R8 of Figure 11 in RPP13990) r55=l/4 Ishell thickness (in) (RIO of Figure 11 inRPP-13990) ! This was originally defined in set esys 3d.mac: r56=3/8 Ishell thickness (in) of secondary liner above 357.5 in
conc_open=0.1 Ishear transfer coefficient for open crack conc_closed=0.98 [shear transfer coefficient for closed crack conc_crush=3000 [uniaxial crushing stress [psi] conc_crack=0.1*conc_crush [tensile cracking stress [psi] I [3] rebar rebar_ex=29.0e6 rebar_prxy=0.3 rebar alpx=6. coefficient [microstrain/degree F] rebar gamma=490 rebar_yield=71000 rebar_tan=0
lelastic modulus [psi] [Poisson ratio Ithermal expansion [unit weight [lbf/ftA3] lyield strength [psi] [rebar tangent modulus [psi]
! These were originally defined in set materials.mac: ![1] steel (for liner, jbolts, studs, anchors, bearing plates) steel_ex=27.7e6 [elastic modulus [psi] steel_prxy=0.3 IPoisson ratio steel alpx=6.38 [thermal expansion coefficient [microstrain/degree F] steel gamma=490 lunit weight [lbf/ftA3] steel_yield=36000 [yield strength [psi] steel tan=0.01 Irebar tangent modulus [% of elastic modulus] ![2] structural concrete cone ex=3.8e6 conc_prxy=0.15 cone alpx=3.7 coefficient [microstrain/degree F] cone gamma=145
~~i
![4] insulating concrete insul_ex=165e3 lelastic modulus [psi] insul prxy=0.15 [Poisson ratio insul alpx=3.7 Ithermal expansion coefficient [me/F] insul gamma=50 [unit weight [lbf/ftA3] insul open=0.1 crack insulcl os ed=0.98 crack insul_crush=200 insul crack=20 ! [6] slab rebar srebar_ex=29.0e6 srebar_prxy=0.3 Ishear transfer coefficient for open [shear transfer coefficient for closed [uniaxial crushing stress [psi] [tensile cracking stress [psi]
lelastic modulus [psi] [Poisson ratio Ithermal expansion [unit weight [lbf/ftA3]
lelastic modulus [psi] [Poisson ratio
srebar alpx=6. [microstrain/degree F] srebar_gamma=490 sreb ar_yi el d=49 000 srebar tan=0
[thermal expansion coefficient lunit weight [lbf/ftA3] [yield strength [psi] Irebar tangent modulus [psi]
!*** Backfill ! These were originally defined in define loads.mac: I [5] backfill soil backfill phi=34.5 [soil friction angle deg backfill dil=34.5 Ibackfill dilatancy angle deg backfill cte=0 [thermal expansion coef me/f !*** No waste, pressures or ext. load pres_surf=0 [ground surface uniform pressure psf
O
*dim,soil z0,,16 *dim,soil zl,,16 *dim,bf emod,,8 !*dim,bf_pr8 *dim,bf z08 *dim,bf zl8 bfdinc=(h6+overburden+18.5)/8 sdinc=(subdepth+60)/8 *do,i,l,8 soil_zO(i)=i*bfdinc [vertical distance from surface soil_zl(i)=(i-l)*bfdinc soil_z0(i+8)=i*sdinc+bfdinc*8 soil_zl(i+8)=(i-l)*sdinc+bfdinc*8 bf_zO(i)=i*bfdinc bf_zl(i)=(i-l)*bfdinc *enddo [Elastic modulus soil_emod(l)=75000,78000,80524,83049,85292,87817,90341,92 585,97398,105000 soil_emod(ll)=140494,176448,215742,254268,287000,315000 bf_emod(l)=16000,20000,26136,32273,37727,43864,50000,540 00 IPoisson's ratio soil_pr(l)=.24,.24,.24,.24,.19,.19,.19,.19,.19,.19 soil_pr(ll)=.19,.19,.28,.28,.28,.28 bf_pr=27 !*** Soil 110 pcf- undisturbed !*** Soil 125 pcf- backfill/overburden
point cent=0 pres annulus=0 pres_int=0 h2o hwaste=35.17*12 heightwaste 1 =hwaste/3 gammawaste 1=0 height_waste2=hwaste/3 gamma_waste2=0 height_waste3=hwaste/3 gamma_waste3=0
[point load at center lb [annulus pressure inches h2o lannulus internal pressure inches [total waste height Iheight of waste 1 inches [specific gravity of waste 1 Iheight of waste 2 inches [specific gravity of waste 2 Iheight of waste 3 inches [specific gravity of waste 3
Idefine soil layers *dim,soil emod16 *dim,soil pr,,16
s_gam=110 (excluding backfill) b_gam=125 (excluding backfill) save
!lbf/ftA3 density of soil layers !lbf/ftA3 density of soil layers
C.5 Modified Anchor Bolt Files

Input file: setslicea.mac !*** Secant modulus anchor bolt springs 8/8/07 !*** Stiff anchor bolt springs 8/6/07 !*** AP 210F, Waste Height=422 SpG =1.83 for 20 years 10/11/2006 !*** AP 210F, Waste Height=460 SpG =1.83 for 40 years 10/11/2006 !*** AP modifications 8/9/04 !*** Liquid level 460", SpG 1.83 8/11/04 !*** Liquid level 460", SpG 2.0 7/26/04 !*** Liquid level 460", SpG 1.7 7/19/04 !*** 2nd liner extension 0.25 thick 7/21/04 !*** 2nd liner extension contact o concrete 7/21/04 !*** Augmented stiffness 5% Econc (350) 7/19/04 !*** 5% pivot, bcso,mmd 6/25/04 !*** Usensub 6/24/04 !*** cnvtol,f(m).005,0 6/16/04 !*** Augmented stiffness 2% Econc (350) 6/14/04 !*** Augmented stiffness 30000 6/11/04 !*** 6/10/04 changes !*** Do not merge insulating concrete <> 2nd liner @ OD of concrete !*** Add 1st radius element to contact of 1st liner o ins cone
*** Add contact 2nd liner o slab concrete *** Correct node select for type,61 real,70 6/9/04 *** Reorient Beaml88 on z=/= 0 face *** Fix Liner-Dome common nodes 5/6/04 *** Delete "j-bolts" in wall 5/6/04 *** Move j-bolt real definition to pnnla6.mac 3/30/04 *** Changed Liner Coupling per J. Deibler 3/29/04 !*** Augmented stiffness 15000 3/24/04 *** Default convergence criteria 3/22/04 *** Best estimate soil properties 3/19/04 *** Soil-Concrete - 5 regions 2/23/04 *** Correct Drucker-Prager - soil *** Correct mat,l temperature dependent modulus *** Replace shell64 with shelll81 *** Primary tank pressure -12" H20 (was -6) *** 125 pcf overburden, 110 pcf undisturbed soil *** 10/30/03 *** Define additional soils for load factor restart *** No cracking insulating concrete *** fix mpch (esel,r,mat,,2) *** 1 yr + 15 day creep 5/14/03 *** Load step 5 creep for 330 days *** New load step 6 => mpch +5 days *** "sets" degraded concrete properties *** *** Turn off concrete crushing 5/5/03 *** *** Run 2, Load Step 1, 2 & thermal *** (8.3'soil, 1251b/ft3) *** (0.06" primary tank corrosion wall, floor) *** 4/16/03 ***
***
!*** JED mods 3/29/03 I*** i rebuild= 1 *if,i rebuild,eq, l,then pnnla pnnla2 pnnla3 pnnla4 pnnla 5 pnnla6 pnnla7 pnnla 8 pnnla9 *else resume,pnnla9,db *endif O 5J /prep7 alls el cpdele,all,all Iget misc area components for applying loads, etc. /input,set_areas_slice,mac [add steel plate below wall (on slab) r,45,l/4 csys,22 vsel,s,mat,,2 aslv asel,r,loc,z,-8.125 asel,r,loc,x,480,498
aatt, 1,45,22 mat,l real,45 amesh,all Idefine contact et,60,170 et,61,173 mp,mu,61,.3 ,mu,62,.01 ,mu,63,.01 ,mu,64,.4 ,mu,65,.3 ,mu,66,.2 ,mu,67,.05 ,mu,68,.3 ,mu,69,.05 ,mu,70,.6 ,mu,71,.4 elements (all have default friction of 0.3)
[Soil-concrete dome
I soil-concrete wall [soil-concrete footing/top I soil-concrete footing/side [soil-concrete foundation !2nd liner-insulating concrete 6/10/04
Isoilconcrete contact - dome r,61,l,.l real,61 type,61 mat, 61 cmsel,s,aconc_soil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,452,600 esln esurf type,60 cmsel,s,asoil nsla,,l
nsel,r,loc,z,452,600 esln esurf Isoilconcrete contact - wall r,67,l,.l real,67 type,61 mat, 6 7 cmsel,s,aconc_soil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,-3,453 esln esurf type,60 cmsel,s,asoil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,-3,453 esln esurf Isoilconcrete contact - Footing - top r,68,l,.l real,68 type,61 mat, 6 8 cmsel,s,aconc_soil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,-7,-6 esln esurf type,60 cmsel,s,asoil
nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,-7,-6 ,r,loc,x,496,530 esln esurf Isoilconcrete contact - Footing - side r,69,l,.l real,69 type,61 mat,69 cmsel,s,aconc_soil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,x,531 esln esurf type,60 cmsel,s,asoil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,x,531 esln esurf [soil concrete contact - Foundation r,70,l,.l real,70 type,61 mat,70 cmsel,s,aconc_soil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,-31,-30 ,r,loc,x,440,531 cm, foundc one, node
_ ~~i
nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,x,,440 ,r,loc,z,-33,-8 cmse,a,foundconc esln esurf type,60 cmsel,s,asoil nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,z,-31,-30 ,r,loc,x,440,531 cm, founds oil,no de nsla,,l nsel,r,loc,x,,440 ,r,loc,z,-33,-8 cms e, a, founds oil esln esurf [secondary liner contact r,62,l,.l real,62 type,60 mat, 6 2 cmsel,s,aconc_shell csys,0 asel,u,loc,y,459,99999 nsla,,l esln esel,r,mat2 esurf type,61 cmsel,s,area_secon
!**was-32 6/9/04
csys,0 asel,u,loc,y,-99999,3.87 nsla,,l esln esurf [primary liner contact with dome r,63,l,.l real,63 type,60 mat, 6 3 cmsel,s,aconc_shell asel,r,loc,y,459,99999 nsla,,l esln esel,r,mat2 esurf type,61 cmsel,s,area_prim asel,r,loc,y,459,99999 nsla,,l esln esurf [primary liner contact with insulating concrete r,64,l,.l real,64 type,60 mat, 6 4 cmsel,s,area_insul_top nsla,,l esln esel,r,mat4
esurf type,61 cmsel,s,area_prim csys,0 asel,r,loc,y,0 nsla,,l esln nsle 1*6/10/04 esurf [secondary liner contact with foundation concrete 6/10/04 r,71,l,.l real,71 type,60 mat, 71 cmseslab_top asel,r,loc,x,-480,-440 nslal esln esur type,61 cmsearea_secon asel,r,loc,x,-470,-440 ,r,loc,y,-9,-8 nsla,,l esln nsle esur Imerge insulating concrete bottom nodes and secondary liner nodes cmsel,s,area_insul_bot cms el, a, areas e con csys,0
asel,u,loc,y,20,9999 nsla,,l cpintf,uz,.l [slab top/insulating concrete r,65,l,.l real,6 5 type,60 mat, 6 5 cmsel,s,slab_top nsla,,l esln esurf type,61 cmsel,s,area_insul_bot nsla,,l esln esurf Iwall/slab contact r,66,l,.l real,66 type,60 mat, 6 6 asel986,992 cm,slab top wall,area nsla,,l esln esel,r,mat2 esurf type,61 asel,,214 ,a,706
~~i
,a,913,918,5 ,a,934 cm,wall bot,area nsla,,l esln esel,r,mat2 esurf alls el !esel,s,type60 [nsle !nummrg,node !nummrg,elem !esel,s,type61 [nsle !nummrg,elem _ bo o max mat=100 max real=1000 [define the local coordinate systems and rebar orientations /input,set_esys_3d,mac I apply loads /input,apply loads slice,mac alls el ! apply axisymmetric boundary conditions csys,22 nsel,s,loc,y,180 nsel,a,loc,y,180+swp_th-.001,183 csys,0 nsel,a,loc,x,0
d,all,uy,0 d,all,rotx,0 d,all,rotz,0 alls el nsel,s,loc,x,0 d,all,roty,0 Imerge liner/concrete nodes at dome centerline ksel,s,2 ksel,a,,,329 nslk nummrg,node alls el [copy jbolts, etc for slice model csys,22 esel,s,type,,20,21 cm,e_boltO,elem egen,2,500000,all,0,0,0,0,0swp_th esel,s,mat,,l esel,u,real,,45 nsle nsel,u,22789,22790 !*** 5/6/04 ,u,20260,20261 !*** 6/10/04 nummrg,node [divide jbolt/bottom anchors properties by 2 for slice model r,30,.19635/2,.3068e-2/2,.3068e-2/2,.5,.5 esel,s,type,,20,21 cmsel,u,e_bolt0 nsle
nsel,r,500000,999999 cm,ntemp,node vsel,s,mat,,2 vsel,a,mat6 csys,0 vsel,u,loc,y,-9999,-8.12 cm,vtemp,volu *get,nv,volu,,count *do,i,l,nv *get,iv,volu,,num,min eslv nsle cmsel,a,ntemp nummrg,node cm,ntemp,node cmsel,s,vtemp vsel,u,iv cm,vtemp,volu *enddo
I***
*get,top elev,nodemxloc,y cm,soil elem,elem *do,i,l,16 set_slayer,soil_zO(i),soil_zl(i),soil_emod(i),soil_pr(i) *enddo max mat=100 [set backfill/overburden material *do,i,l,8 set_backfill,bf_zO(i),bf_zl(i),bf_emod(i),bf_pr *enddo IDon'tdothis!! 5/6/04 [make sure anchors/j bolts/studs etc are merged with concrete !eseltype12,13 !,a,type20,21 !,a,type24,25 [nsle !nsel,u,22789,22790 !*** 3/26/04 !numm,node
I***
!*** Delete primary-secondary tank coupling at tangent !*** JED 3/31/03 I*** r,41,3/16 /prep 7 esel,s,mat5 nsle,,l csys,0 [insulating concrete confining ring thickness
!*** Augmented Stiffness 2/27/04 I*** et,32,45 *get,ec350,ex,2,temp,350 mp,ex,12,ec350*0.05 17/19/04 ,prxy,12,.15 eseltype12,15 egen,2,0,all,10 esel,,mat12 emod,all,type,32
I***
!*** I***
Use springs for anchor bolts 8/9/07
alls csys et,35,40,2 [Anchor bolt axial ,36,40,,,1 [Anchor bolt shear r,21,29e6*(pi*.5**2/4)/6 [Axial stiffness *do,i,l,18 r,i,i*24*2*pi/24*swp_th/360*65000/2 *enddo csys, 11 nselloc,x,480-.5,480+.5 cm,ancb,node loca,99,,,swp th csys *do,i,l,15 cmseancb csys nsel,r,loc,z ,r,loc,x,-i*24-1.5,-i*24+1.5 type,35 real,21 drot=atan(-nx(ndnext(l))*180/480/(480**2-nx(ndnext(l))**2)**.5) loca,50+i,,nx(ndnext(l)),ny(ndnext(l)),,drot nrot,all e,ndnext(0),ndnext(ndnext(0)) type,36 real,i e,ndnext(0),ndnext(ndnext(0))
*enddo *do,i,16,18 cmseancb csys nsel,r,loc,z ,r,loc,x,-i*24-.5,-i*24+1.5 type,35 real,21 drot=atan(-nx(ndnext(l))*180/480/(480**2-nx(ndnext(l))**2)**.5) loca,50+i,,nx(ndnext(l)),ny(ndnext(l)),,drot nrot,all e,ndnext(0),ndnext(ndnext(0)) type,36 real,i e,ndnext(0),ndnext(ndnext(0)) *enddo
*do,i,l,15
cmseancb csys nsel,u,loc,z ,r,loc,x,-i*24-1.4,-i*24+1.5 type,35 real,21 drot=atan(-nx(ndnext(l))*180/480/(480**2-nx(ndnext(l))**2)**.5) csys,99 cloc,70+i,,nx(ndnext(l)),ny(ndnext(l)),,drot nrot,all e,ndnext(0),ndnext(ndnext(0)) type,36 real,i e,ndnext(0),ndnext(ndnext(0)) *enddo *do,i,16,18
Z
> U
cmseancb csys nsel,u,loc,z ,r,loc,x,-i*24,-i*24+2 type,35 real,21 drot=atan(-nx(ndnext(l))*180/480/(480**2-nx(ndnext(l))**2)**.5) csys,99 cloc, 70+i, ,nx(ndnext( 1 )),ny (ndnext( 1)), ,drot nrot,all e,ndnext(0),ndnext(ndnext(0)) type,36 real,i e,ndnext(0),ndnext(ndnext(0)) *enddo !***FixBC eseltype35 nsle ddel,all,all d,all,uz ,all,rotx ,all,roty alls el !*** 2nd liner extension issues 7/21/04 asel928,l egen,2,100000,all,4,0,0,0 modm,nocheck alls emod,15784,-l,114183,104465 ,15955,-3,104465,114183 ,28878,-3,104465,114183 acle,928
real,62 type,60 mat, 6 2 asel928,l esln esel,r,type12 esurf type,61 eseltype23 ,r,real45 nsle esurf dsym,symm,y,5
alls
!*** AP modifications 8/9/04 !*** Thickness from set_parms.mac I* r50=l-.06 [shell thickness (in) (Rl of Figure 11 in RPP13990) I* r51=3/8-.06 [shell thickness (in) (R2,R6,R7,R9 of Figure 11 in RPP-13990) I* r52=7/8-.06 [shell thickness (in) (R3 of Figure 11 in RPP13990) I* r53=3/4-.06 [shell thickness (in) (R4 of Figure 11 in RPP13990) I* r54=l/2-.06 [shell thickness (in) (R5,R8 of Figure 11 in RPP13990) I* r55=l/4 [shell thickness (in) (R10 of Figure 11 in RPP-13990) I* r56=3/8 [shell thickness (in) of secondary liner above 357.5 in !*** Additional liner thickness r,57,9/16-.06 ,58,15/16-.06
?
w ^ 3f
!*** Redefine secondary liner thickness r,55,3/8 ,56,1/2 ,59,9/16 !*** Primary liner csys eselreal51 nsle nsel,r,loc,y,380,468.5 esln,,l esel,r,real51 emod,all,real,54 eselreal54 nsle nsel,r,loc,y, 142,238 esln,,l esel,r,real54 emod,all,real, 57 eselreal52 nsle nsel,r,loc,y,,12 ,r,loc,x,-450,-437 esln,,l esel,r,real52 emod,all,real,58 eselreal51 nsle nsel,r,loc,y,-l,l esln,,l esel,r,real51 emod,all,real,54 !*** Secondary liner
_ bo
esel,,real55,56 nsle nsel,r,loc,y,24,460 esln,,l esel,r,real55,56 emod,all,real,55 esel,,real55 nsle nsel,r,loc,y,3.875,24 esln,,l esel,r,real55 emod,all,real,56 esel,,real55 nsle nsel,r,loc,y,-9,3.875 ,r,loc,x,-480,-467 esln,,l esel,r,real55 emod,all,real,59 esel,,real55 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,-468,-420 esln,,l esel,r,real55 emod,all,real,56
I***
!*** Temperatures !*** Uniform 80F (8/29/07) I*** tref,80 tunif,80
p
bo
finish /filnam,set_slice_0 /sol !solcontrol,off neqit,50 time, 1 nlgeom,on nrop,unsym cnvt,f.005,0 16/16/04 ,m.005,0 16/16/04 crpl,.05 nsub,10,100,5 !delt,.l,.01,.2 !outres,all,all !nrre,on,250 eqsl,sparse,.05,-1 bcso,mmd alls el save solve time, 2 I*** !*** Add waste and pressure loads pres_surf=0 psf point cent=0 pres_annulus=-20 h2o pres int=-12 inches h2o hwaste=422 [ground surface uniform pressure [point load at center lb lannulus pressure inches [annulus internal pressure I total waste height
heightwaste 1=hwaste/3 inches gamma waste 1=1.83 height_waste2=hwaste/3 inches gamma_waste2=1.83 height_waste3=hwaste/3 inches gamma_waste3=1.83 /inp, apply 1 oads slic e, mac delt,.l,.01,.25 solv time, 3 I*** !*** Add surface loads I*** pres_surf=40 pressure psf point_cent=200000 pres_annulus=-20 h2o pres int=-12 inches h2o hwaste=422 heightwaste 1=hwaste/3 inches gamma waste 1=1.83 height_waste2=hwaste/3 inches gamma_waste2=1.83
[height of waste 1 [specific gravity of waste 1 [height of waste 2 [specific gravity of waste 2 [height of waste 3 [specific gravity of waste 3
k H
i^
Ui
[ground surface uniform [point load at center lb lannulus pressure inches [annulus internal pressure Itotal iste height Iheight of waste 1 [specific gravity of waste 1 Iheight of waste 2 [specific gravity of waste 2
height_waste3=hwaste/3 inches gamma_waste3=1.83 /inp, apply 1 oads slic e, mac save solv
[height of waste 3 [specific gravity of waste 3
/inp,bkss,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv time,358 !LS 6 !*** Hold fori Year delt,.5,.01,150 solv time,363 !LS 7 !*** Intermediate cooling step /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv time,368 !LS 8 I**** Uniform 80F bf,all,temp,80 delt,.5,.01,2 solv !*** Cycle once time,383 ILS 9 !*** Intermediate heating step /nopr /inp,frhl,temp
Input file: set_sliceb7.mac [Removed temperature scaling NK 11/29/2007 /fil,set_slice_0 resu /titl,AP, secant modulus, 80-150F /sol antyrest time, 18 ILS 4 !*** Intermediate heating step /nopr /inp,frhl,temp /inp,bkhl,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv time,33 !LS 5 !*** Steady state @ 150F /nopr /inp,frss, temp
/inp,bkhl,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv time,3+30+365 !LS 10 I*** !*** Steady state @ 150F I*** /nopr /inp,frss, temp /inp,bkss,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv time,358+365 !LS 11 I*** !*** Creep for 1 Year I*** delt,.5,.01,150 solv time,363+365 !LS 12 !*** Intermediate cooling step /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2
solv !*** Cool to ambient time,3+365+365 I*** I**** Uniform 80F I*** bf,all,temp,80 delt,.5,.01,2 save solv time,383+365 !LS 14 !*** Intermediate heating step /nopr /inp,frhl,temp /inp,bkhl,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv time,3+30+730 !LS 15 I*** !*** Steady state @ 150F I*** /nopr /inp,frss, temp /inp,bkss,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2
solv time,358+19*365 I*** !*** Creep for 18 Years I*** delt,.5,.01,1000 solv ILS 16
/fil,set slice 0 resu /sol antyrest time,365*20+l

i***
!*** Add waste, pressure and surface loads time,363+19*365 ILS 17 !*** Intermediate cooling step /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2
i***
p
bo
oo
solv
!*** Cool to ambient time,3+20*365 I*** I**** Uniform 80F I*** bf,all,temp,80 delt,.5,.01,2 save solv Input file: set_sliceb8.mac ! Increase waste to 460" !LS 18
pres surf=40 pressure psf point cent=200000 pres annulus=-20 h2o pres int=-12 inches h2o hwaste=460 height waste l=hwaste/3 inches gamma wastel=1.83 height waste2=hwaste/3 inches gamma waste2=1.83 height waste3=hwaste/3 inches gamma waste3=1.83 /inp,apply loads slice,mac solv
[ground surface uniform [point load at center lb lannulus pressure inches [annulus internal pressure
Li
Itotal waste height [height of waste 1 [specific gravity of waste 1 [height of waste 2 [specific gravity of waste 2 [height of waste 3 [specific gravity of waste 3
<t
73
h-
time,365*20+15 !LS 19 !*** Intermediate heating step
/nopr /inp,frhl,temp /inp,bkhl,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv time,20*265+30 !*** Steady state @ 135F /nopr /inp,frss, temp /inp,bkss,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv time,20*365+355 !*** Hold fori Year delt,.5,.01,150 solv ILS 21 ILS 20
time,21*365 I**** Uniform 80F bf,all,temp,80 delt,.5,.01,2 solv !*** Cycle once
ILS 23
time,21*365+15 ILS 24 !*** Intermediate heating step /nopr /inp,frhl,temp /inp,bkhl,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv time,30+21*365 I*** !*** Steady state @ 135F I*** /nopr /inp,frss, temp /inp,bkss,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv time,355+21*365 I*** !*** Creep for 1 Year !LS 26 !LS 25
time,20*365+360 ILS 22 !*** Intermediate cooling step /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv
I***
delt,.5,.01,150 solv time,360+21*365 ILS 27 !*** Intermediate cooling step /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv !*** Cool to ambient time,22*365 O vo o !**** Uniform 8OF I*** bf,all,temp,80 delt,.5,.01,2 solv time,22*365+15 ILS 29 !*** Intermediate heating step /nopr /inp,frhl,temp /inp,bkhl,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv !LS 28
time,30+22*365 I*** !*** Steady state @ 135F I*** /nopr /inp,frss, temp /inp,bkss,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv time,355+59*365 I*** !*** Creep for 38 Year I*** delt,.5,.01,2000 solv
ILS 30
ILS 31
time,360+59*365 ILS 32 !*** Intermediate cooling step /nopr /inp,frcl,temp /inp,bkcl,temp /gopr delt,.5,.01,2 solv !*** Cool to ambient time,60*365 !LS 33
I***
I**** Uniform 80F I*** bf,all,temp,80 delt,.5,.01,2 save solv
C.6 Postprocessing Files

There are five postprocessing files associated with the ACI evaluation, the ASME evaluation of the primary and secondary liner, and the anchor bolts. They are listed below. Input file: pacill.inp I*** !*** ACI postprocessing !*** 9/2/04 Automate for year 61 !*** 8/3/04 Delete section 64 !*** 1/15/04 Revised !*** 9/8/03 Add 6 locations to foundation !*** 9/4/03 Use pcal,intg for hoop direction !*** !*** I*** 9/3/03 Add titles - change as necessary!! 8/23/03 (FSUM)
thx(l)=146.6,148.9,152.0,154.91,158.75,163.9,168.1,172.35,176 .177 *dim,wh,,23 wh(l)=382.1,361.5,346.1,335,321,306,300,281,260.5,236 wh(ll)=212.7,200,186.8,171,151.6,145.5,120.5,100.5,80,60 wh(21)=39.9,21,-4.5 *dim,dsx,,16 dsx(l)=514,503,489,477,461.5,440,421.4,390,358,338 dsx(ll)=277.7,218.5,180,129.9,95.7,54 *do,m,138,147 set,m *cfo,ls%m%,aci *afun,deg !*** Titles ttl='Baseline' tt2=Year61' tt3='ls%m%' tt4a='40 psf uniform,' tt4b='100 ton concentrated,' tt4c='-20 in. annulus,' tt4d='-6 in. vapor space' !tt4d='None' !tt5='1.4(D + F) + 1.7(L + H)' tt5='None' !*** Column headings ctl='Section' ct2=' shear' ct3='F-merid' ct4='M-merid ' ct5='F-hoop ' ct6='M-hoop '
w ^ 3 ^
*dim,dox,,15 dox(l)=30,61,90,120,152,183,210,237.5,270,304.5 dox(ll)=314,334,354,368.9,390.2 *dim,thx9
ct7='Tmin ' ct8='Tmax ' ct9='Tave ' ctlO='xbar ' ctll='ybar ' ctl2='sectthk' ttb=' ' *vwri,ttl %c *vwri,tt2 %c *vwri,tt3 %c *vwri,tt4a,tt4b,tt4c,tt4d %c %c %c %c *vwri,tt5 M3
to
csys eseltype12,15 nsle I * * * Find center of outer arc cdl=distkp(6,18) cda=asin(cdl/(2*r2)) cthet=atan((ky(6)-ky(18))/(kx(6)-kx(18))) cgam=90-cda-cthet cdelx=r2*cos(cgam) cdely=r2*sin(cgam) orcirx=kx( 18 )+cdelx orciry=ky (18 )-cdely *do,i,l,15 k=k+l eseltype12,15 nsle csys xl=dox(i) thedl=acos(xl/480) yl=h5-180+180*sin(thedl) *if,i,le,5,then thdl=asin(xl/(rl-15)) x2=rl*sin(thdl) y2=h6-rl+rl*cos(thdl) *else thdl=atan((yl-orciry)/(xl+orcirx)) x2=r2*cos(thdl)-orcirx y 2=r2* sin(thd 1 )+orciry thdl=90-thdl *endif
*vwri,ttb
'
(a8) *vwri,ttb (a8) *vwri,ttb (a8) *vwri,ctl,ct2,ct3,ct4,ct5,ct6,ct7,ct8,ct9,ctl0,ctll,ctl2 (12a8) *vwri,ttb (a8) I*** !*** Dome
k=0
path,sect %k%,2200 ppat,l-xl,yl ,2-x2,y2 nsel,r,loc,y,400,599 loca,45-xl,ylthdl-90 nsel,r,loc,y,-3,500 esln,,l esel,r,type,,12,15 *if,i,eq,8,then esel,a,8995 *elseif,i,eq,9,then esel,a,9181 *elseif,i,eq, 11,then esel,a,9200 *elseif,i,eq,12,then esel,a,8941 *elseif,i,eq,13,then esel,a,8825 *elseif,i,eq,14,then esel,a,8999 *endif cm, upper, el em pdef, temp, bfe, temp pcalc,intg,itemp,temp,s *get,delt,path,,last,s nsel,r,loc,y,-3,0 ,r,loc,z *if,i,eq,10,then nsel,u,2990 *endif
*get,ncount,nodecount cm,sectn,node slocxt=0 slocyt=0 secx=0 secy=0 csys rsys *do,j,l,ncount ncur=ndnext(j) slocxt=slocxt+nx(ncur)+ux(ncur) slocyt=slocyt+ny(ncur)+uy(ncur) secx=secx+nx(ncur) secy=secy+ny(ncur) nsel,u,,,ncur *enddo rsys, 45 slocx=slocxt/ncount slocy=slocyt/ncount xbar=-secx/ncount yb ar=s ecy/ncount secw=xbar*swp_th/2*pi/180 cmsesectn rsys, 45 spoi,,slocx,slocy fsum,rsys *get,smeru,fsumitem,fx *get,pmeru,fsum,,item,fy *get,mmeru,fsumitem,mz *g et, tmin, path,, min, temp *get,tmax,path,,max,temp *get,ttot,path,,last,itemp
eseltype12,15 cms e,u, upper fsum *get,smerl,fsum,,item,fx *get,pmerl,fsum,,item,fy *get,mmerl, fsum,, item, mz smer=(smeru-smerl)/2 pmer=(pmeru-pmerl)/2 mmer=(mmeru-mmerl)/2 !** Calculate hoop area esln esel,r,type,,12,15 *if,i,eq,8,then esel,u,8996 *elseif,i,eq,9,then esel,u,9182 *elseif,i,eq,10,then esel,u,9203 *elseif,i,eq, 11,then esel,u,9199 *elseif,i,eq,12,then esel,u,8942 *elseif,i,eq,13,then esel,u,8824 *elseif,i,eq,14,then esel,u,8998 *endif nsle nsel,r,loc,z *get,ecount,elemcount hparea=0 *do,j,l,ecount
ecur=elnext(j) hparea=hparea+arface(ecur) esel,u,ecur *enddo hp are a=hpare a/2 hpw=hp are a/delt eseltype12,15 cmsesectn fsum, rsys *get,php, fsum,, item, fz *get,mhp,fsum,,item,my tave=ttot/delt smer=smer/secw* 12/1000 pmer=pmer/secw* 12/1000 mmer=-mmer/secw/l 000 php=php/hpw* 12/1000 mhp=mhp/hpw/1000 *vwri,k,smer,pmer,mmer,php,mhp, (Ilf8.1,f8.2) *enddo !*** Haunch csys eseltype12,15 nsle ! * * * Find center of outer arc csys cdl=distkp(6,18)
cda=asin(cdl/(2*r2)) cthet=atan((ky(6)-ky(18))/(kx(6)-kx(18))) cgam=90-cda-cthet cdelx=r2*cos(cgam) cdely=r2*sin(cgam) orcirx=kx( 18 )+cdelx orciry=ky (18 )-cdely *do,i,l,9 k=k+l eseltype12,15 nsle csys xl=480*cos(thx(i)) yl=480*sin(thx(i))*.375+h3 *if,i,le,4,then thdl=atan((yl-orciry)/(xl-orcirx)) x2=orcirx-r2*cos(thdl) y2=orciry-r2*sin(thdl) *elseif,i,eq,5,then thdl=atan((yl-orciry)/(xl-orcirx))+5 x2=orcirx-r2*cos(thdl-4.85) y2=orciry-r2*sin(thdl-4.85) *elseif,i,eq,6,then thdl=atan((yl-orciry)/(xl-orcirx))+ll x2=orcirx-r2*cos(thdl-10.5) y2=orciry-r2*sin(thdl-10.5) *elseif,i,eq,7,then x2=-498 y2=427.6 thdl=atan((y2-yl)/(x2-xl)) *elseif,i,eq,8,then x2=-498
y2=408.8 thdl=atan((y2-yl)/(x2-xl)) *else x2=-498 y2=393.5 *endif path,sect %k%,2200 ppat,lxl,yl ,2x2,y2 nsel,r,loc,y,380,599 loca,45,,xl,yl,,thdl nsel,r,loc,y,-3,500 esln,,l esel,r,type,,12,15 *if,i,eq,4,then esel,u,8475 *elseif,i,eq,6,then esel,a,9403,9434,31 ,a,9480,9640,160 *elseif,i,eq,7,then esel,u,9455 *endif cm, upper, el em rsys, 45 pdef, temp, bfe, temp pcalc,intg,itemp,temp,s *get,delt,path,,last,s nsel,r,loc,y,-3,0 ,r,loc,z
_ M3
_ M3
*if,i,eq,4,then nsel,u,2692,2694,2 *elseif,i,eq,6,then nsel,a,3807,3820,13 *elseif,i,eq,7,then nsel,u,3822,3824,2 ,u,2707 *endif *get,ncount,nodecount cm,sectn,node slocxt=0 slocyt=0 secx=0 secy=0 csys rsys *do,j,l,ncount ncur=ndnext(j) slocxt=slocxt+nx(ncur)+ux(ncur) slocyt=slocyt+ny(ncur)+uy(ncur) secx=secx+nx(ncur) secy=secy+ny(ncur) nsel,u,,,ncur *enddo rsys, 45 slocx=slocxt/ncount slocy=slocyt/ncount xbar=-secx/ncount yb ar=s ecy/nc ount cmsesectn spoi,,slocx,slocy fsum, rsys
!*** Sum moments about neutral axis *if,k,gt,18,and,k,lt,23,then *get,mzn,fsum,,item,mz flag=l *if,mzn,gt,0,then flag=-l *endif *if,k,eq,19,then slocx=slocx+flag*.85*cos(thdl) slocy=slocy+flag*.85*sin(thdl) *elseif,k,eq,20 slocx=slocx+flag*.8*cos(thdl) slocy=slocy+flag*.8*sin(thdl) *elseif,k,eq,21 slocx=slocx+flag*.82*cos(thdl) slocy=slocy+flag*.82*sin(thdl) *else slocx=slocx+flag*.77*cos(thdl) slocy=slocy+flag*.77*sin(thdl) *endif *endif spoi,,slocx,slocy fsum, rsys *get,smeru, fsum,, item, fx *get,pmeru,fsum,,item,fy *get,mmeru, fsum,, item, mz *g et, tmin, path,, min, temp *get,tmax,path,,max,temp *get,ttot,path,,last,itemp eseltype12,15 cmse,u,upper fsum
*get,smerl,fsum,,item,fx *get,pmerl,fsum,,item,fy *get,mmerl, fsum,, item, mz smer=(smeru-smerl)/2 pmer=(pmeru-pmerl)/2 mmer=(mmeru-mmerl)/2 !** Calculate hoop area esln esel,r,type,,12,15 *if,i,eq,4,then esel,a,8478 *elseif,i,eq,6,then esel,u,9378,9479,101 *endif nsle nsel,r,loc,z *get,ecount,elemcount hparea=0 *do,j,l,ecount ecur=elnext(j) hparea=hparea+arface(ecur) esel,u,ecur *enddo hp are a=hpare a/2 hpw=hp are a/delt eseltype12,15 cmsesectn fsum, rsys *get,php, fsum,, item, fz *get,mhp,fsum,,item,my
secw=xbar*swp_th/2*pi/180 tave=ttot/delt smer=smer/secw* 12/1000 pmer=pmer/secw* 12/1000 mmer=-mmer/secw/l 000 php=php/hpw* 12/1000 mhp=mhp/hpw/1000 *vwri,k,smer,pmer,mmer,php, (Ilf8.1,f8.2) *enddo I*** !*** Wall csys eseltype12,15 nsle *do,i,l,23 k=k+l eseltype12,15 ,u, type,, 14 nsle csys xl=-480 yl=wh(i) x2=-498 y2=wh(i) path,sect %k%,2200 ppat,lxl,yl ,2x2,y2
_ M3
_ *>
OO
nsel,r,loc,y,h2,599 nsel,r,loc,y,wh(i)-3,599 esln,,l esel,r,type,,12,15 *if,i,eq,2,then esel,a,11133 *elseif,i,eq,3,then esel,a,8559,11138,2579 *elseif,i,eq,4,then esel,a, 10972 *elseif,i,eq,8,then esel,a,8590 *elseif,i,eq,9,then esel,a,11091,11257,166 *elseif,i,eq,10,then esel,a,8604,11098,2494 *elseif,i,eq, 11,then esel,a,11242
' '"
*elseif,i,eq,20,then esel,a,11194 *endif cm, upper, el em rsys pdef, temp, bfe, temp pcalc,intg,itemp,temp,s *get,delt,path,,last,s nsel,r,loc,y,wh(i)-3,wh(i) ,r,loc,z ,r,loc,x,-498,-480 *get,ncount,nodecount cm,sectn,node slocxt=0 slocyt=0 secx=0 secy=0 csys rsys *do,j,l,ncount ncur=ndnext(j) slocxt=slocxt+nx(ncur)+ux(ncur) slocyt=slocyt+ny(ncur)+uy(ncur) secx=secx+nx(ncur) secy=secy+ny(ncur) nsel,u,,,ncur *enddo slocx=slocxt/ncount slocy=slocyt/ncount xbar=-secx/ncount yb ar=s ecy/ncount
*elseif,i,eq,12,then esel,a,11238 *elseif,i,eq,14,then esel,a,11087,11229,142 *elseif,i,eq,15,then esel,a,11156,11223,67 *elseif,i,eq,16,then
esel,a,11158,11221,63 *elseif,i,eq,17,then esel,a,11213 *elseif,i,eq,18,then esel,a,11173 *elseif,i,eq,19,then esel,a,10931,11048,117
cmsesectn secw=xbar*swp_th/2*pi/180 spoi,,slocx,slocy fsum, rsys *get,smeru, fsum,, item, fx *get,pmeru,fsum,,item,fy *get,mmeru, fsum,, item, mz *g et, tmin, path,, min, temp *get,tmax,path,,max,temp *get,ttot,path,,last,itemp eseltype12,15 cms e,u, upper fsum *get,smerl,fsum,,item,fx *get,pmerl,fsum,,item,fy *get,mmerl, fsum,, item, mz smer=(smeru-smerl)/2 pmer=(pmeru-pmerl)/2 mmer=(mmeru-mmerl)/2 !** Calculate hoop area esln esel,r,type,,12,15 *if,i,eq,2,then esel,u,11134 *elseif,i,eq,3,then esel,u,8558,11139,2581 *elseif,i,eq,4,then esel,u,10973 *elseif,i,eq,8,then esel,u,8591 *elseif,i,eq,9,then
esel,u,l 1092,11256,164 *elseif,i,eq,10,then

esel,u,8605,11106,2501 *elseif,i,eq, 11,then esel,u,11241 *elseif,i,eq,12,then esel,u,11237 *elseif,i,eq,14,then esel,u,11086,11228,142 *elseif,i,eq,15,then
esel,u,11157,11222,65 *elseif,i,eq,16,then esel,u,11159,11220,61 *elseif,i,eq,17,then esel,u,11212 *elseif,i,eq,18,then esel,u,11174 *elseif,i,eq,19,then esel,u,10930,11049,119 *elseif,i,eq,20,then esel,u,11193 *endif nsle nsel,r,loc,z *get,ecount,elemcount hparea=0 *do,j,l,ecount ecur=elnext(j) hparea=hparea+arface(ecur) esel,u,ecur *enddo hp are a=hpare a/2 hpw=hp are a/delt
w w
<i
to to
eseltype12,15 cmsesectn fsum, rsys *get,php, fsum,, item, fz *get,mhp,fsum,,item,my secw=xbar*swp_th/2*pi/180 tave=ttot/delt smer=smer/secw* 12/1000 pmer=pmer/secw* 12/1000 mmer=-mmer/secw/l 000 php=php/hpw* 12/1000 mhp=mhp/hpw/1000 *vwri,k,smer,pmer,mmer,php,mhp,tmin,tmax,tave,xbar,ybar,delt (Ilf8.1,f8.2) *enddo
Q o
!*** Found csys eseltype12,15 nsle *do,i,l,16 k=k+l eseltype12,15 nsle csys xl=dsx(i) *if,i,le,5,then yl=-30.125
*elseif,i,le,9,then yl=(ky(305)-ky(304))/(kx(305)-kx(304))*(-dsx(i)kx(304))+ky(304) *elseif,i,le,15,then yl=-18.625 *elseif,i,eq,16,then yl=(ky(303)-ky(302))/(kx(303)-kx(302))*(-dsx(i)kx(302))+ky(302) *endif x2=dsx(i) y2=h2 *if,i,le,2,then y2=-6.625 *endif path,sect %k%,2200 ppat,l-xl,yl ,2-x2,y2 nsel,r,loc,y,-40,y2 nsel,r,loc,x,-dsx(i)-3,l esln,,l esel,r,type,,12,15 *if,i,eq,7,then esel,a, 12008 *elseif,i,eq,13,then esel,a,12088 *elseif,i,eq,16,then esel,a,11793,12283,490 *endif cm, lower, el em pdef, temp, bfe, temp pcalc,intg,itemp,temp,s *get,delt,path,,last,s
nsle nsel,r,loc,x,-dsx(i)-3,-dsx(i) ,r,loc,z *if,i,eq,6,then nsel,u,9483 *elseif,i,eq,7,then nsel,u,9344 *elseif,i,eq,16,then nsel,a,281 *endif *get,ncount,nodecount cm,sectn,node slocxt=0 slocyt=0 secx=0 secy=0 csys rsys *do,j,l,ncount ncur=ndnext(j -1) slocxt=slocxt+nx(ncur)+ux(ncur) slocyt=slocyt+ny(ncur)+uy(ncur) secx=secx+nx(ncur) secy=secy+ny(ncur) nsel,u,,,ncur *enddo slocx=slocxt/ncount slocy=slocyt/ncount xbar=-secx/ncount yb ar=s ecy/nc ount cmsesectn secw=xbar*swp_th/2*pi/180
spoi,,slocx,slocy fsum *get,smerl,fsum,,item,fy *get,pmerl,fsum,,item,fx *get,mmerl,fsumitem,mz *g et, tmin, path,, min, temp *get,tmax,path,,max,temp *get,ttot,path,,last,itemp eseltype12,15 cmse,u,lower fsum *get,smeru, fsum,, item, fy *get,pmeru,fsum,,item,fx *get,mmeru, fsum,, item, mz smer=(smerl-smeru)/2 pmer=(pmerl-pmeru)/2 mmer=(mmeru-mmerl)/2 !** Calculate hoop area esln esel,r,type,,12,15 *if,i,eq,6,then esel,u,12148 *elseif,i,eq,7,then esel,u,11797,12007,210 *elseif,i,eq,13,then esel,u,12101 *endif nsle nsel,r,loc,z *get,ecount,elemcount hparea=0
w w
to to
*do,j,l,ecount ecur=elnext(j) hparea=hparea+arface(ecur) esel,u,ecur *enddo hp are a=hpare a/2 hpw=hp are a/delt eseltype12,15 cmsesectn fsum, rsys *get,php, fsum,, item, fz *get,mhp,fsum,,item,mx tave=ttot/delt smer=smer/secw* 12/1000 pmer=pmer/secw* 12/1000 mmer=-mmer/secw/l 000 php=php/hpw* 12/1000 mhp=mhp/hpw/1000 *vwri,k,smer,pmer,mmer,php,mhp,tmin,tmax,tave,xbar,ybar,delt (Ilf8.1,f8.2) *enddo *cfc *enddo Input file: postprimcomb.inp /postl set, 148 lcwr, 1
p
o
to
loca,199,l280.7590 esel 14927,14943,16 ,a,14962,15000,19 A) 15018,15037,19 A) 15050,15056,6 A) 15061,15064,3 A) 15070,15076,6 A) 15081,15086,5 A) 15092,15097,5 A) 15103,15115,6 A) 15120,15168,6 A) 15172,15180,4 A) 15185,15197,12 A) 15211,15227,16 A) 15247,15258,11 A) 15264,15276,12 A) 15303,15324,21 rsys,solu *do,k,138,147 set,k lcop,sub,l shel,top ETAB,sintt,s,int ETAB,locy,cent,y shel,bot ETAB,sintb,s,int ETAB,locy,cent,y esor,etab,locy,l /out,primsec%k%,lis PRET,locy,sintt,sintb /out *enddo
Input file: postprimcombl.inp /postl set, 148 loca,199,l280.7590 esel14927,14943,16 ,a,14962,15000,19 ,a,15018,15037,19 ,a,15050,15056,6 ,a,15061,15064,3 ,a,15070,15076,6 ,a,15081,15086,5 ,a,15092,15097,5 ,a,15103,15115,6 ,a,15120,15168,6 ,a,15172,15180,4 ,a,15185,15197,12 ,a,15211,15227,16 ,a,15247,15258,11 ,a,15264,15276,12 ,a,15303,15324,21 rsys,solu shel,mid etab,sxm,s,x ETAB,sym,s,y ETAB,sxym,s,xy ETAB,sintm,s,int ETAB,locy,cent,y shel,top etab,sxt,s,x ETAB,syt,s,y ETAB,sxyt,s,xy
ETAB,sintt,s,int ETAB,locy,cent,y shel,bot etab,sxb,s,x ETAB,syb,s,y ETAB,sxyb,s,xy ETAB,sintb,s,int ETAB,locy,cent,y pret,locy,sxm,sym,sxym,sintm PRE T,l ocy, sxt, sy t, sxy t, sintt PRET,locy,sxb,syb,sxyb,sintb Input file: postseccomb.inp /postl csys
esel15185,15211,26 ,a,15227,15247,20 ,a,15258,15264,6 ,a,15276,15798,522 ,a,15303,15324,21 ,a,15804,15814,10 ,a,15654,15666,12 ,a,15687,15708,21 ,a,15723,15737,14 ,a,15750,15953,203 ,a,15785,15788,3 ,a,15819,15837,18 ,a,15851,15866,15 ,a,15877,15897,20 ,a,15795,15912,117 ,a,15764 w
to to
loca,199,l280.7590 *do,k,138,148 set,k etab,locy,cent,y shel,mid etab,epstm,epto,l ,epscm,epto,3 sadd,epscm,epscm,,-l shel,top etab,epstbt,epto,l ,epscbt,epto,3 sadd,epscbt,epscbt,,-l shel,bot etab,epstbb,epto,l ,epscbb,epto,3 sadd,epscbb,epscbb,,-l esor,etab,locy,l /out,combsl%k%,lis pret,locy,epstm,epscm,epstbt,epscbt,epstbb,epscbb /out *enddo Input file: jbolt2.inp !*** J-bolts 1***6/1/04 I*** !*** writes data for all laod steps in a single file! modified 09/02/04 - Siva! !*** NB!! 6/1/04 !*** This version uses (sfyi**2+sfzi**2)**l/2 !*** because beams on z <> 0 face are
!*** incorrectly oriented (should use nodlk in set slicea.mac) I*** /fil,set_slice_0 resu /postl *do,k,138,148 set,k *cfo,lsteps,asme,,append ttl='Load Step' *vwri,ttl %c *vwri,k (Ilf8.1,f8.1) ct='J-bolt pos' ctl='F-axial' ct2='F-shear' ct3='U-axial' ct4='U-shear' *vwri, ct, ct 1, ct2, ct3, ct4 (12al2) eselreal50,56 nsle esln esel,r,type,,30 nsle etab,fxi,smisc,l
w w
<i
to to
,sfyi,smisc,6 ,sfzi,smisc,5 ,exi,smisc,7 ,esyi,smis,12 ,eszi,smis,ll csys,l etab,jloc,cent,y esor,etabjloc,l *dim,faxial,,13 ,fshear13 ,uaxial,,13 ,ushear,,13 *do,i,l,13 *get,el,sort,,imin *get,fxl,elem,el,etab,fxi *get,fshearyl,elem,el,etab,sfyi *get,fshearzl,elem,el,etab,sfzi *get,exl,elem,el,etab,exi *get,eshearyl,elem,el,etab,esyi *get,eshearzl,elem,el,etab,eszi esel,u,el esor,etabjloc,l *get,e2,sort,,imin *get,fx2,elem,e2,etab,fxi *get,fsheary2,elem,e2,etab,sfyi *get,fshearz2,elem,e2,etab,sfzi *get,ex2,elem,e2,etab,exi *get,esheary2,elem,e2,etab,esyi *get,eshearz2,elem,e2,etab,eszi faxial(i)=fxl+fx2 fsheary=(fshearyl**2+fshearzl**2)**0.5 fshearz=(fsheary2**2+fshearz2**2)**0.5 fshe ar(i)=fshe ary+fshe arz
uaxial(i)=(exl*4+ex2*4)/2 !** 4" J-bolt length usheary=(esheary 1 **2+eshearzl * *2)* *0.5 ushearz=(esheary2**2+eshearz2**2)**0.5 ushear(i)=(usheary*4+ushearz*4)/2 esel,u,e2 esor,etabjloc,l fax=faxial(i) fsh=fshear(i) uax=uaxial(i) ush=ushear(i) *vwri,i,fax,fsh,uax,ush (12gl2.5,gl2.5) *enddo *cfc *enddo
7 Detailed Anchor Bolt Model File

! Same as C2 with more divisions for bolt circumference. ! Coarse Model ! Without using VSYMM for symmetry KNK 11/06/07 ! Quarter model with symmetry KNK 11/05/07 ! Bolt, Stud, Plate and Concrete dimensions from m7c.inp Weld flash dimensions from m2.inp ! Detailed anchor bolt model finish /clear
/fil,APanchorBoltC8 /tit,AP anchor-bolt with Weld Flash /prep7 !===========PARAMETERS============= ! Neslon3/4" Stud- D=3/4 S=0.119 1=0.406 Depth E=1.062 F=0.25 A=0.937 BurnOff=0.187 !Anchor Bolt Dl=0.5 !Other Constants pi=22.0/7.0 !==========ELEMENTTYPES============= et,l,45 !Stud(TBL) et,2,45 !Bolt et,3,45 JPlate et,4,45 [Concrete et,5,45 ! Weld Flash et, 7, TARGE 170 et,8,CONTA174 et,9,MESH200,6
! Stud Diameter ! Depth of Solid Weld Base ! The Imperfect Thread ! Weld Diameter ! Height of Weld Flash
!**TBL STUD and Weld Flash mp,ex,l,29.0e6 ,nuxy, 1,0.29 !,dens,l, 490/12**3 tb,bkin, 1 tbda68300 !**Bolt mp,ex,2,29.0e6 mp,nuxy,2,.29 !,dens,l, 490/12**3 tb,bkin,2 tbda68300 !**Plate mp,ex,3,29.0e6 ,nuxy,3,.29 !,dens,l, 490/12**3 tb,bkin,3 tbda68300 !**Concrete mp,ex,4,5.083e6 ,nuxy,4,.15 !,dens,l, 145/12**3 tb,bkin,4 tbda5000*5889/3000 !========== FE MODEL pcir,Dl/290
! Bolt Diameter
,D/2,E/290 A,l,7,6,2 adele,all blc4,0,0,8,8 asbl,l,all nummrg,KP numcmp,AREA type, 9 asell lsla lesize,all,8 amesh, 1 asel2 amap,2,6,2,l,7 type,l mat, 1 esiz3 asell,2 vext,all,S asel9 esiz3 vext,9,F-S ! Height of WeldFlash= 0.25 esiz5 vext,13,I asel5 agen,2,all,I+F-S0 asel,,18 type,l mat,l
esiz8 vext,18,1.094 asel,,23 type,9 amesh, all type,2 mat, 2 vext,23,1.094 asel29 type,2 esize,,20 vext,29,6-0.312-1.75 wpoffs,kz(35) pcir,Dl/2,D/2,90 ,D/2,D190 aselloc,z,kz(35) numm,kp type,9 esize amap,37,34,37,38,36 amap,38,37,41,42,38 aselloc,z,kz(35) type,2 esize,,2 vext,all,,,.312 wpstyl,defa wprotat,,-90 wpstyl0 larc,4,17,7,.3 lsel,all al,7,86,30,23
o ^
lesize,7,4 lesize,86,8 asel,,,,51 lsla type, 9 ames,51 type, 5 mat,l vdra,51,,6 nummrg,node aselloc,z,kz(40) agen,2,all ksel9,ll kgen,2,all,kz(40) ksel57,61 a,57,59,60,61,58 asel,,,,57,59 type,9 amesh,all lesize, 104,,, 16,6 lesize,107,,, 16,1/6 lsel105,106 lesize,all,12 asel,,,,60 lsla type,9 amesh, all
asel,,,,57,60 esize,,2 type,4 mat, 4 vext,all,,,l asel,,,,60 esize,,2 vext,all,,,-0.312 asel,,,,37,38 agen,2,all asel,,,,78 asel,a,84,85 esize20 vext,all,-l*(6-0.312-1.75) asel97 agen,2,all type,9 asel,,,, 101 amesh, all esize,,8 type,4 mat,4 asel86,101,101-86 vext,all,-1.094 esize,,5 asel102,108,6 vext,all,-l*I
S ^ S
k 3
asel55 agen,2,all wpstyl,defa kE/2+D/2-Dl/2 1,116,120 wprot,,90 larc,112,120,116,0.3 lsel215,216 adrag,all212 asel124,126 asel,a,119 lsla ksll nummrg,kp al,215,216,206,211 al,217,213,204,220 asel124,128 asel,a,119 va,125,126,119,124,127,128 vsweep,24,119,125 eseltype4 nsle ksln nummrg,node nummrg,kp ksel9,ll kg en, 2, all allsel
a,120,81,82,92,122 a,120,81,108,107 a,81,82,109,108 a,82,92,110,109 a,92,122,lll,110 allsel va,101,109,120,129,126,98,113 vsweep,25,113,98 asell,2 asel,a,52 asel,a,98 asel,a,125 agen,2,all asel130,134 lsla ksll nummrg,kp type,9 amesh,132,134,2 asel,,,,133 lsla lesize,222,,, 16,6 lesize,225,,,16,1/6 lsel223,224 lesize,all,,, 12 amesh, 133 asel130,134 esize,,2
w w
<i
to to
type, 3 mat, 3 vext,all,,, -0.375 allsel ! End of Quarter Model eseltypel,8 nsle nsym,X,100000,all esym100000,all *do,ElType,l,5 eseltypeElType nsle ksln nummrg,node nummrg,kp *enddo eseltypel,5 esel,u,type,,4 nsle ksln nummrg,node nummrg,kp ! allsel !numcmp,node !numcmp,kp !===========CONTACT DEFINITIONS !*** Plate o C oncrete
eseltype3 nsle csys,l nsel,r,loc,z ,r,loc,x,0.53,20 type,7 real, 10 esurf ! Plate eseltype4 nsle nsel,r,loc,z ,r,loc,x,0.53,20 type,8 esurf ! Concrete !*** TBL o C oncrete - radial eseltypel nsle csys,l nsel,r,loc,x,D/2 ,r,loc,z,F,1.75 type,7 ! Convex surface>C ontact real, 11 esurf !TBL eseltype4 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,D/2 ,r,loc,z,F,1.75 type,8 esurf ! Concrete !*** TBL o C oncrete - axial eseltypel
nsle nsel,r,loc,z,1.75 ,r,loc,x,0.25,0.375 type,7 ! Flat, Suffer real, 12 esurf !TBL eseltype4 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,0.25,0.375 ,r,loc,z,1.75 type,8 JConcrete esurf
>Target
type,7 ! Flat, Suffer real, 14 esurf IBoltHeadBot eseltype4 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,.25,0.5 ,r,loc,z,6.0-0.312 type,8 esurf ! Concrete
>Target
!*** Shank o Concrete eseltype2 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,0.25 ,r,loc,z,l.75,6-0.312 type,7 ! Convex surface>Contact real, 13 esur !Shank eseltype4 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,0.25 ,r,loc,z,l.75,6-0.312 type, 8 esurf ! Concrete !*** Bolt - under o Concrete eseltype2 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,.25,0.5 ,r,loc,z,6.0-0.312
!*** Bolt - radial o Concrete eseltype2 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,0.5 ,r,loc,z,6.0-0.312,6.0 type,7 ! Convex surface>Contact real, 15 esurf !Bolt Head Side eseltype4 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,.5 ,r,loc,z,6.0-0.312,6.0 type,8 esurf ! Concrete !*** Bolt - axial o Concrete eseltype2 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,0,0.5 nsel,r,loc,z,6.0 type,7 ! Flat, Suffer >Target real, 16 esurf !Bolt Head Top
eseltype4 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,0,0.5 ,r,loc,z,6.0 type, 8 esur ! Concrete !*** Weld Flash <> Concrete !Code for Selecting Nodes on the Surface of Weld Flash asel55,l cm, A 5 5No des, no de *get,NdCt,NODE,0, COUNT *dim,WFnodeslNdCt *dim,WFnodes2NdCt *do,indx,l,NdCt *get,NdNum,NODE,0,NUM,MIN WFnodesl(indx)=NdNum nsel,u,NdNum *enddo CSYS eseltype5 nsle *do,indx,l,NdCt WFnodes2(indx)=NODE(l*NX(WFnodesl(indx)),NY(WFnodesl(indx)),NZ(WFnodesl(i ndx))) *enddo ns el, none *do,indx,l,NdCt nsel,a,,,WFnodesl(indx) nsel,a,,,WFnodes2(indx) *enddo
type,7 ! Convex surface>Contact real, 17 esurf ! Weld Flash !Code for Selecting Nodes on Concrete Touching the Surface of Weld Flash asel124,l cm,A124Nodes,node *get,NdCt2,NODE,0, COUNT *dim, WFnodes lbNdCt2 *dim,WFnodes2bNdCt2 *do,indx,l,NdCt2 *get,NdNum,NODE,0,NUM,MIN WFnodes lb(indx)=NdNum nsel,u,NdNum *enddo CSYS eseltype4
nsle
*do,indx,l,NdCt2 WFnodes2b(indx)=NODE(1 *NX(WFnodes lb(indx)),NY( WFnodes lb(indx)),NZ( WFnodes lb(indx))) *enddo ns el, none *do,indx,l,NdCt2 nsel, a,,, WFnodes lb(indx) nsel,a,,,WFnodes2b(indx) *enddo type,8 esurf ! Concrete BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
^ 3f
CSYS !*** Symmetry BC nsel,,loc,y d,all,uy !*** UX eseltype4 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,8 d,all,ux I*** Tj2 nsel,,loc,z,-0.375 d,all,uz ! ============LOADS !*** Load eseltype3 nsle nsel,r,loc,x,-8 d,all,ux,-0.5 allsel eseltypel,8 nsle save ! ========SOLUTION= /sol auto, on delt,.01,.0001 outr,all,all solv

1493372

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1493372

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1493372

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3

Approved For Public Release

Tank Farm Contractor (TFC)

(1) Document Number: RPP-RPT-32237 Page 1

Change Control Record

(6) Resp. Mgr. (print/sign/date) D.J. Washenfelder

PNNL-16372 Limited Distribution

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

J. E. Deibler K. I. Johnson N. K. Karri K. L Stoops

M. W. Rinker S. P. Pilli F. G. Abatt

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

^a<^9 This document was printed on recycled paper.

PNNL-16372 Limited Distribution

J. E. Deibler K. I. Johnson N. K. Karri K. L. Stoopsta)

M. W. Rinker S. P. Pilli F. G. Abatt(a)

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352

(a) M&D Professional Services, Richland, Washington.

Intentionally left blank.

Intentionally left blank.

Intentionally left blank.

2.3 Material Properties

3.4 Boundary Conditions

6.2 ASME Primary Tank Evaluation

6.3 Primary Tank Stress Corrosion Cracking Evaluation

6.4 Primary Tank Buckling Evaluation

6.5 ASME Concrete-Backed Steel Evaluation

Purpose of the DST Increased Liquid Waste Level Analysis

1.3 Analysis Methodology

ANSYS is a registered trademark of ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 1.2

Double-Shell Tank Design

Figure 1-1. C ross Section of a Typical Double-Shell Tank

Figure 1-2. Typical Double-Shell Tank C onfiguration.

RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 1.4.1 Thermal Characteristics

Organization of the Increased Liquid Level Analysis Report

2.0 TOLA Model

2.2 241-AY Finite Element Model

241-AP Tank Model Modifications

ELEMENTS TYPhi NUM

Figure 2-2. Finite Element Mesh of Full Model

''& ////////////////// V//////////////////// >'>''((((((((((({{((((((Il\\\\

Figure 2-3. C lose-Up Showing Finite Element Mesh of Tank

Figure 2-4. Close-Up Showing Mesh of Haunch Concrete

RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 SET_REAL.MAC - assigns real constant attribute to each area

RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 2-2. Foundation Concrete Rebar Volume Ratios

Table 2-3. Wall Concrete Rebar Volume Ratios

RPP-RPT-32237, Rev. 1 Table 2-4. Dome Concrete Rebar Volume Ratios

Table 2-5. Haunch Concrete Rebar Volume Ratios

Bar Size 8 8 8 6 8 Bar Size 8 8 Bar Size 6 6 4 Bar Size

Bar Size 9 9 8 9 Bar Size 9 8 Bar Size 9 9 9

Hoop Spacing 45 4.5 6 4 Hoop Spacing 45 6 Hoop Spacing 45 8 8

2.3 Material Properties

Figure 2-6. C oncrete Elastic Modulus

200 Temperature (F)

Degraded Concrete Properties

Figure 2-8. Structural Steel Elastic Modulus

TEMP (F) DST s t r u c t u r a l steel

Steel Reinforcing Bar - Grade 40

Radius= 4 0 ' - 0 " Insulating Concrete Undisturbed Native Soil o ~_ o Z.

Figure 2-11. Soil Configuration Adjacent to DSTs

550 Elevation (ft)