0
Research Papers: Design and Analysis

Experimental Study on the Deformation and Failure of the Bellows Structure Beyond the Designed Internal Pressure

[+] Author and Article Information
Masanori Ando

Japan Atomic Energy Agency,
Shiraki 1,
Tsuruga 919-1279, Fukui, Japan
e-mail: ando.masanori@jaea.go.jp

Hiroki Yada

Japan Atomic Energy Agency,
Shiraki 1,
Tsuruga, 919-1279, Fukui, Japan
e-mail: yada.hiroki@jaea.go.jp

Kazuyuki Tsukimori

Japan Atomic Energy Agency,
Shiraki 1,
Tsuruga 919-1279, Fukui, Japan;
Visiting Professor
Research Institute of Nuclear Engineering,
University of Fukui,
Kanawa 1-2-4,
Tsuruga 914-0055, Fukui, Japan
e-mail: tsukimor@u-fukui.ac.jp

Masakazu Ichimiya

Visiting Professor
Research Institute of Nuclear Engineering,
University of Fukui,
Kanawa 1-2-4,
Tsuruga 914-0055, Fukui, Japan
e-mail: ichimiya@u-fukui.ac.jp

Yoshinari Anoda

Director
Research Institute of Nuclear Engineering,
University of Fukui,
Kanawa 1-2-4,
Tsuruga 914-0055, Fukui, Japan
e-mail: anoda@u-fukui.ac.jp

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 1, 2017; final manuscript received August 3, 2017; published online August 25, 2017. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(6), 061201 (Aug 25, 2017) (12 pages) Paper No: PVT-17-1100; doi: 10.1115/1.4037564 History: Received June 01, 2017; Revised August 03, 2017

Bellows structure is used to absorb the thermal expansion maintaining the boundary of the inside to outside, and it is applied to constitute the containment vessel (CV) boundary of the nuclear power plant. In this study, in order to develop the evaluation method of the ultimate strength of the bellows structure subject to internal pressure beyond the specified limit, the failure test and finite element analysis (FEA) of the bellows structure were performed. Several types of the bellows structure made of SUS304 were tested using pressurized water. The failure modes were demonstrated through the test of five and six specimens with six and five convolutions, respectively. Water leakage was caused by contact of the expanded convolution and the neighbor structure in the specimens with the shipping rod mounts. On the other hand, local failure as leakage in the deformation concentrated location and ductile failure as burst in the expanded convolution were observed in the specimen without shipping rod mounts. The maximum pressures in the test observed local and ductile failure were over ten times larger than the estimated values of the limited design pressure for in-plane instability by the EJMA standard. To simulate the buckling and deformation behavior during the test, the implicit and explicit FEA were performed. Because the inversion of the convolution accompanied by convolution contact observed in the test was too difficult a problem for implicit analysis, the maximum pressures in the step of solution converged were compared to the maximum pressures in the tests. On the other hand, explicit analysis enabled to simulate the complex deformation during the test, and the results were evaluated considering ductile failure to compare the test results.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Setting condition of CV4 with initial deformation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Overview of the specimen before and after the test (CV1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of the final shape after the tests in the CVPPB series

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of the final shape after the tests in the CGBB series

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Overview of the specimen after the test (CG4)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Measured and calculated expanded convolution in the specimen of CV3 (a) and CG6 (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Variation of the stress–strain curve for FEA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Implicit analysis model and boundary condition (CV1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of the deformation in the test with that by implicit analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The FEA models for explicit analysis: (a) CV3 and (b) CG6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

The deformation situation calculated by explicit analysis. (a) CV3: case 0.2s-0.2 and (b) CG6: case 0.1s.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The equivalent plastic strain contour. (a) CV3: case 0.2s-0.2 and (b) CG6: case 0.1 s calculated by explicit analysis.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of the calculated equivalent plastic strain with the limitation described in the ASME Sec. VIII, Div. 2: (a) CV3 and (b) CG6

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In