Waleed Ishaque - M.

Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

METHODOLOGY FOR REVIEW BY PROF. SPELT

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0

PURPOSE ..................................................................................................... 4

2.0

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 5

2.1
2.2
2.3

Phase I (Validation)............................................................................................ 6
Phase II (Benchmark) ........................................................................................ 8
Phase III (Pressurize Water Reactor nozzle analysis) ............................................10

3.0

RESULTS ....................................................................................................12

4.0

REFERENCES .............................................................................................12

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Simplified Pressurized Water Reactor ..................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Phase I nozzle-junction model ............................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Phase I methodology............................................................................................ 7
Figure 4: Phase II nozzle-junction model.............................................................................. 8
Figure 5: Phase II methodology .......................................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Phase III nozzle-vessel junction model..................................................................10
Figure 7: Phase III methodology ........................................................................................11
Figure 8: Phase I ANSYS model for "Y" parameter evaluation for nozzle crack due to load Fy ...13
Figure 9: Phase I ANSYS model for "Y" parameter evaluation for nozzle crack due to load Fx ...14
Figure 10: Phase I ANSYS model for "Y" parameter evaluation for nozzle crack due to load Fz .15
Figure 11: Phase I ANSYS model for "Y" parameter evaluation for nozzle crack due to load Mx 16
Figure 12: Phase I ANSYS model for "Y" parameter evaluation for nozzle crack due to load My 17
Figure 13: Phase I ANSYS model for "Y" parameter evaluation for nozzle crack due to load Mz 18
Figure 14: Phase II ANSYS model for Mx loading ..................................................................19
Figure 15: Phase II ANSYS model for Fy loading...................................................................20
Figure 16: Phase II ANSYS model for Fz loading ...................................................................21
Figure 17: Phase III ANSYS model for the PWR head drop impact of 1E7 lbs applied as a
moment (1E7 x 22 in) .......................................................................................................22

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

1.0

PURPOSE
This document will serve as a part of the main body of the final project report. The
purpose of this document is to show the overall stress analysis methodology to validate,
benchmark and perform fracture analysis of a Pressurized Water Reactor nozzle-vessel
junction using ANSYS (academic) R14.5 workbench.

Figure 1: Simplified Pressurized Water Reactor

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

2.0

METHODOLOGY
K. Sedighiani et al. (2011) presented ABAQUS fracture mechanics mode I, II, and III
Y parameter results of several nozzle-vessel junction and crack geometry
combinations. The Y parameter is defined as follows:
=

( )

where the variables are: nominal stress = (2 2

nominal stress =

for shear and axial loads (),

for moments (), crack depth (), stress intensity factor ()

for mode , nozzle outer radius ( ), inner radius ( ) and mean radius ( ) are the inputs.
One of the nozzle-junction models by K. Sedighiani et al. (2011) closely represents that
of the Pressurized Water Reactor nozzle which is the component of interest in this
project. It was thus determined to use results from K. Sedighiani et al. (2011) as a data
source to compare Mode I stress intensity K results generated from this projects
ANSYS model. The methodology was broken down into three phases:
-

Phase I (Validation)

Phase II (Benchmark)

Phase III (Pressurize Water Reactor nozzle analysis)

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

2.1

Phase I (Validation)
The goal of phase I (summarized in Figure 2) is to establish confidence in the overall
ANSYS crack modelling and meshing technique. This will be achieved by comparing YI,
YII and YIII parameter results from figure 4 (see Appendix D) in the paper by K.
Sedighiani et al. (2011) with ANSYS model. The ANSYS model used in phase I has the
following geometric characteristics that are similar to the one used in Figure 4 (see
Appendix D) by K. Sedighiani et al. (2011):
-

Nozzle thickness (t) to nozzle mean radius (rm) ratio of 0.33

Nozzle mean radius (rm ) to vessel mean radius (Rm) ratio of 0.2

Nozzle thickness (t) to vessel thickness (Ts) ratio of 1

Figure 2: Phase I nozzle-junction model

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

Digitize data from Fig. 4 (K. Sedhigini et. al.) showing YI, YII, YIII
values for Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My and Mz loading conditions
Obtain data

Build geometry

Analysis

Construct nozzle-junction model in ANSYS that complies with

the ABAQUS model geometry which Fig. 4 (K. Sedhigini et. al.)
is based on i.e. t/rm=0.3, rm/Rm=0.2 and t/Ts=1

Use ANSYS semi-elliptical crack object that complies with

crack geometries which Fig. 4 (K. Sedhigini et. al.) is based on
i.e. a/c= 1/3 and a/t=0.2

Compare ANSYS results and data in Fig. 4 (K. Sedhigini et. al.)

Validation

Figure 3: Phase I methodology

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

2.2

Phase II (Benchmark)
The goal of phase II (summarized in Figure 5) is to perform benchmark analysis for the
Pressurized Water Reactor nozzle geometry. The benchmark geometry selected from
figure 5 (see Appendix D) by K. Sedighiani et al. (2011) has the following geometric
characteristics (which are similar to that of the actual Pressurized Water Reactor nozzlevessel junction):
-

Nozzle thickness (t) to nozzle mean radius (rm) ratio of 0.5

Nozzle mean radius (rm ) to vessel mean radius (Rm) ratio of 0.2

Nozzle thickness (t) to vessel thickness (Ts) ratio of 1

A representative Pressurized Water Reactor nozzle-vessel junction model was used in

phase II with the following geometric characteristics:
-

Nozzle thickness (t) to nozzle mean radius (rm) ratio of 0.44

Nozzle mean radius (rm ) to vessel mean radius (Rm) ratio of 0.205

Nozzle thickness (t) to vessel thickness (Ts) ratio of 0.77

Figure 4: Phase II nozzle-junction model

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

Scoping

Obtain data

Build geometry

Analysis

Determine geometry characteristics of Pressurized Water Reactor

nozzle parameters.
Pressurized Water Reactor nozzle parameters based on available
drawings are t/rm=0.44, rm/Rm=0.205 and t/Ts=0.77
Select dataset from Fig. 5 (K. Sedhigini et. al.) that closely
represents the Pressurized Water Reactor nozzle geometry.

Digitize data from Fig. 5 (K. Sedhigini et. al.) showing mode I crack
parameter YI values for nozzle geometry with t/rm= 0.5 and crack
geometry of a/c = 0.33 and 1.

ConstructANSYS nozzle-vessel junction model that complies with

the ABAQUS model geometry that Fig. 5 (K. Sedhigini et. al.) is
based on i.e. t/rm=0.5, rm/Rm=0.2 and t/Ts=1

Use ANSYS semi-elliptical crack object that complies with crack

geometries that Fig. 5 (K. Sedhigini et. al.) is based on i.e. a/c=
0.33 and a/t=0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8

Compare ANSYS results and mode I data in Fig. 5 (K. Sedhigini et.
al.)
Discussion

Figure 5: Phase II methodology

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

2.3

Phase III (Pressurize Water Reactor nozzle analysis)

The goal of phase III (summarized in Figure 7) is to perform analysis of a Pressurized
Water Reactor nozzle and determine the stress intensity values KI for mode I crack
under loading conditions of a speculated head drop event during reactor refuelling. An
impact load of 1E +7 lbs is used in the ANSYS model based on analysis by W.C. Castillo
et al. (2009). Mode I crack stress intensity values from the impact load are then
compared with fracture toughness values of an irradiated steel specimen.

Figure 6: Phase III nozzle-vessel junction model

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

Construct Pressurized Water reactor vessel and nozzle

model from the available drawings.
Build geometry

Use ANSYS semi-elliptical crack object to model various

crack geometries of in a Pressurized Water Reactor
nozzle-vessel junction.
Analysis

Compare the bounding stress intensity KI value with

the fracture toughness properties of an irradiated steel
specimen.
Results

Figure 7: Phase III methodology

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

3.0

RESULTS
The three phases of methodology were completed and the following conclusions are
made:
-

For mode I crack behaviour, ANSYS modelling generated results similar to ones
presented in Fracture Analysis of a Semi-elliptical Crack in a Nozzle-Vessel Junction
under External Loads by K. Sedighiani et al. (2011). However, for shear loads,
ANSYS under predicted the fracture parameter Y by about 25%. This could
attributed to difference in meshing technique and limited number of nodes in ANSYS.
Data from the three phases is presented in Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix
C.

Based on a simplified model of the Pressurized Water Reactor nozzle without welds
and assuming that the entire impact force is felt by the nozzle alone, the following
stress intensity values were obtained:
Crack depth to nozzle thickness ratio
Stress
intensity KI

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

110 MPa m

120 MPa m

130 MPa m

144 MPa m

For comparison purposes, the fracture toughness of an irradiated steel specimen

(depending on its age) has been predicted to be in between 80 and 150 MPa m.

4.0

REFERENCES
K. Sedighiani et al. (2011), Fracture Analysis of a Semi-elliptical Crack in a NozzleVessel Junction under External Loads, Proceeding of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 2012 226: 871

W.C.Castillo et al. (2009), Reactor Vessel Closure Head Drop Analysis Sensitivity
Study on the Effects of Representing Nonlinear Behaviour in the Closure Head
Assembly, ICONE17-75170

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

Appendix A: Phase I results

Y parameter along crack length for nozzle due to FY

YI ANSYS

YII ANSYS

YIII ANSYS

YI ABAQUS

YII ABAQUS

YIII ABAQUS

1.5

"Y" PARAMETER

0.5

-0.5

-1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

NORMALIZED DISTANCE ALONG CRACK LENGTH

Figure 8: Phase I ANSYS model for "Y" parameter evaluation for

nozzle crack due to load Fy

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

Y PARAMETER ALONG CRACK LENGTH FOR NOZZLE DUE TO

FX
YII ANSYS

YIII ANSYS

YI ANSYS

YI ABAQUS

YII ABAQUS

YIII ABAQUS

1.5
1

"Y" PARAMETER

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

NORMALIZED DISTANCE ALONG CRACK LENGTH

Figure 9: Phase I ANSYS model for "Y" parameter evaluation for

nozzle crack due to load Fx

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

"Y" parameter along crack length for nozzle due to FZ

YII ANSYS

YIII ANSYS

YI ANSYS

YI ABAQUS

YII ABAQUS

YIII ABAQUS

3.5
3

"Y" parameter

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Normalized distance along crack length

Figure 10: Phase I ANSYS model for "Y" parameter evaluation for nozzle crack due
to load Fz

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

"Y" parameter along crack length for nozzle due to MX

YII ANSYS

YIII ANSYS

YI ANSYS

YI ABAQUS

YII ABAQUS

YIII ABAQUS

3.5
3

"Y" parameter

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Normalized distance along crack length

Figure 11: Phase I ANSYS model for "Y" parameter evaluation

for nozzle crack due to load Mx

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

Y parameter along crack length for nozzle due to MY

YI ANSYS

YII ANSYS

YIII ANSYS

YI ABAQUS

YII ABAQUS

YIII ABAQUS

0.5
0.4
0.3

"Y" parameter

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Normailized distance along crack length

Figure 12: Phase I ANSYS model for "Y" parameter evaluation

for nozzle crack due to load My

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

Y parameter along crack length for nozzle due to MZ

YI ANSYS

YII ANSYS

YIII ANSYS

YI ABAQUS

YII ABAQUS

YIII ABAQUS

1.5

"Y" parameter

1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Normalized distance along crack length

Figure 13: Phase I ANSYS model for "Y" parameter evaluation for nozzle crack due
to load Mz

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

Appendix B: Phase II (Benchmark) results

YI PARAMETER ALONG CRACK LENGTH FOR NOZZLE DUE TO M X

YI ABAQUS (t/rm=0.5)

YI ANSYS (t/rm=0.44)

YI ANSYS (t/rm=0.5)

YI ANSYS (PWR)

2.5

"YI" PARAMETER

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

NORMALIZED DISTANCE ALONG CRACK LENGTH

Figure 14: Phase II ANSYS model for Mx loading

0.9

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

YI PARAMETER ALONG CRACK LENGTH FOR NOZZLE DUE TO F Y

YI ABAQUS (t/rm=0.5)

YI ANSYS(t/rm=0.44)

YI ANSYS (t/rm=0.5)

YI ANSYS (PWR)

1.4
1.2

"YI" PARAMETER

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

NORMALIZED DISTANCE ALONG CRACK LENGTH

Figure 15: Phase II ANSYS model for Fy loading

0.9

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

YI PARAMETER ALONG CRACK LENGTH FOR NOZZLE DUE TO F Z

YI ABAQUS (t/rm=0.5)

YI ANSYS (t/rm=0.44)

YI ANSYS (t/rm=0.5)

YI ANSYS (PWR)

2.5

"YI" PARAMETER

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

NORMALIZED DISTANCE ALONG CRACK LENGTH

Figure 16: Phase II ANSYS model for Fz loading

0.9

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

Appendix C: Phase III

MODE I CRACK STRESS INTENSITY ON A SINGLE

NOZZLE FOR A PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR HEAD
DROP IMPACT FORCE OF 1E7 LBS
150.00
145.00

STRESS INTENSITY KI

140.00
135.00
130.00
125.00
120.00
115.00
110.00
105.00
100.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

CRACK DEPTH TO NOZZLE THICKNESS (CONSTANT THICKNESS) RATIO

Figure 17: Phase III ANSYS model for the PWR head drop impact of 1E7 lbs applied
as a moment (1E7 x 22 in)

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology

Appendix D: Figure 4 and Figure 5 by K. Sedighiani et al. (2011)

Waleed Ishaque - M. Eng project FEA crack modelling methodology