Scholarly article on topic 'Containment performance evaluation of prestressed concrete containment vessels with fiber reinforcement'

Containment performance evaluation of prestressed concrete containment vessels with fiber reinforcement Academic research paper on "Civil engineering"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Nuclear Engineering and Technology
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"Fiber-reinforced Concrete" / "Polyamide Fibers" / "Prestressed Concrete Containment Vessel" / "Steel Fibers" / "Tension Stiffening" / "Ultimate Pressure Capacity"}

Abstract of research paper on Civil engineering, author of scientific article — Young-Sun Choun, Hyung-Kui Park

Abstract Background Fibers in concrete resist the growth of cracks and enhance the postcracking behavior of structures. The addition of fibers into a conventional reinforced concrete can improve the structural and functional performance of safety-related concrete structures in nuclear power plants. Methods The influence of fibers on the ultimate internal pressure capacity of a prestressed concrete containment vessel (PCCV) was investigated through a comparison of the ultimate pressure capacities between conventional and fiber-reinforced PCCVs. Steel and polyamide fibers were used. The tension behaviors of conventional concrete and fiber-reinforced concrete specimens were investigated through uniaxial tension tests and their tension-stiffening models were obtained. Results For a PCCV reinforced with 1% volume hooked-end steel fiber, the ultimate pressure capacity increased by approximately 12% in comparison with that for a conventional PCCV. For a PCCV reinforced with 1.5% volume polyamide fiber, an increase of approximately 3% was estimated for the ultimate pressure capacity. Conclusion The ultimate pressure capacity can be greatly improved by introducing steel and polyamide fibers in a conventional reinforced concrete. Steel fibers are more effective at enhancing the containment performance of a PCCV than polyamide fibers. The fiber reinforcement was shown to be more effective at a high pressure loading and a low prestress level.

Academic research paper on topic "Containment performance evaluation of prestressed concrete containment vessels with fiber reinforcement"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/nuclear-engineering-and-technology/

Original Article

CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE CONTAINMENT VESSELS WITH FIBER REINFORCEMENT

YOUNG-SUN CHOUN* and HYUNG-KUI PARK

Integrated Safety Assessment Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 989-111 Daedeok-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34057, Republic of Korea

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Article history: Received 24 March 2015 Received in revised form 23 July 2015 Accepted 25 July 2015 Available online 22 October 2015

Keywords:

Fiber-reinforced Concrete Polyamide Fibers Prestressed Concrete

Containment Vessel Steel Fibers Tension Stiffening Ultimate Pressure Capacity

Background: Fibers in concrete resist the growth of cracks and enhance the postcracking behavior of structures. The addition of fibers into a conventional reinforced concrete can improve the structural and functional performance of safety-related concrete structures in nuclear power plants.

Methods: The influence of fibers on the ultimate internal pressure capacity of a prestressed concrete containment vessel (PCCV) was investigated through a comparison of the ultimate pressure capacities between conventional and fiber-reinforced PCCVs. Steel and polyamide fibers were used. The tension behaviors of conventional concrete and fiber-reinforced concrete specimens were investigated through uniaxial tension tests and their tension-stiffening models were obtained.

Results: For a PCCV reinforced with 1% volume hooked-end steel fiber, the ultimate pressure capacity increased by approximately 12% in comparison with that for a conventional PCCV. For a PCCV reinforced with 1.5% volume polyamide fiber, an increase of approximately 3% was estimated for the ultimate pressure capacity.

Conclusion: The ultimate pressure capacity can be greatly improved by introducing steel and polyamide fibers in a conventional reinforced concrete. Steel fibers are more effective at enhancing the containment performance of a PCCV than polyamide fibers. The fiber reinforcement was shown to be more effective at a high pressure loading and a low prestress level. Copyright © 2015, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC on behalf of Korean Nuclear Society.

1. Introduction

The defense-in-depth philosophy uses a series of safety barriers in the design of light-water reactors to prevent the release of radioactive materials from the reactor core into

the environment. The three main barriers are the zirconium fuel cladding containing fuel pellets, the steel reactor vessel, and the steel or concrete containment structure. The containment structure, which is the final physical barrier, must be leak proof to contain radioactive materials during a

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: sunchun@kaeri.re.kr (Y.-S. Choun).

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.07.003

1738-5733/Copyright © 2015, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC on behalf of Korean Nuclear Society.

severe accident. When subjected to severe accident conditions, the deterministic performance criteria for steel containments are stated in SECY-90-016 [1] as follows: "The containment should maintain its role as a reliable leak-tight barrier by ensuring that containment stresses do not exceed ASME Service Level C limits for a minimum period of 24 hours following the onset of core damage and that following this 24-hour period the containment should continue to provide a barrier against the uncontrolled release of fission products." This criterion is not applicable to concrete containments, but is useful to develop equivalent deterministic acceptance criteria for both reinforced and prestressed concrete containments.

Based on the containment depressurization times, the containment performance is characterized by three possible categories of failures: leak, rupture, and catastrophic rupture. The failure criteria are defined in NUREG-1150 [2]. A "leak" is defined as a containment breach that would arrest a gradual pressure buildup but would not result in containment depressurization in < 2 hours, whereas a "rupture" is defined as a containment breach that would depressurize the containment within 2 hours. A "catastrophic rupture" is defined as the loss of a substantial portion of the containment boundary. The leak size required to meet the leak criterion is estimated to be between 0.028 m2 and 0.046 m2, and the hole size needed to meet the rupture criterion is estimated to be approximately > 0.093 m2 [2-5]. When the total crack opening in the containment exceeds 0.028 m2, the radioactive materials inside the containment will be released into the environment. The leak rate is dependent on the number of cracks, the height and width of the cracks, and the active flow paths.

Cracking is unavoidable in concrete because of its inherently low tensile strength and low strain capacity at a fracture. To overcome these shortcomings in conventional reinforced concrete (RC), the concrete is reinforced by steel bars that can carry the tensile stress after cracking of the concrete. For the same purpose, in recent years, fibers have occasionally been added to provide tensile strength in a cement mixture and control the cracking. Fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) includes thousands of small fibers that are distributed randomly in the concrete. FRC fails in tension only when the fibers break or are pulled out of the cement matrix. Through the bridging action at the cracks, fibers resist the growth of cracks in concrete. As a result, fibers increase the tensile toughness of concrete and enhance the postcracking behavior of concrete structures. Two types of fibers are commonly available for concrete: steel and synthetic fibers. Steel fibers are mainly used in structural applications such as industrial pavements, precast structural elements, and tunnel linings. Synthetic fibers are used in industrial pavements to reduce the cracking induced by shrinkage [6].

A number of studies have been conducted on the tension and postcracking behaviors of FRC. Shah and Rangan [7] found that fibers considerably increase the resistance of concrete to crack propagation. They observed that the significant reinforcing effect of fibers is derived after the cracks are initiated in the matrix, and the postcracking resistance of fibers is considerably influenced by their aspect ratio (bond

strength), orientation with respect to the cracking direction, and their stress-strain relationship. Abrishami and Mitchell [8] observed that the normal and high-strength RC specimens suffered splitting cracks and lost a significant amount of tension stiffening after cracking as well as experiencing significant deformation, while the presence of steel fibers controlled the splitting cracks and led to significant increases in the tension stiffening of both RC specimens. Bischoff [9] found that tension stiffening in FRC is a combination of the behavior between the cracks and at the cracks, and adding steel fibers to the concrete improves the tension stiffening in RC because the FRC is able to carry tensile forces at the cracks. Deluce and Vecchio [10] also found that the cracking behavior of steel FRC (SFRC) specimens was significantly altered by the presence of a steel reinforcing bar, and that the crack spacing and crack width were influenced by the reinforcement ratio and bar diameter of the conventional reinforcing bar, as well as by the volume fraction and aspect ratio of the steel fiber.

The containment performance of a prestressed concrete containment vessel (PCCV) will be improved through a significant decrease of the crack open area and the prevention of through-wall cracks. Fibers can be successfully used for improving the containment performance of the PCCVs by reducing the cracks in the containment concrete. In this study, the effects of steel and polyamide fiber reinforcement on the ultimate pressure capacity of a PCCV are evaluated.

2. Cracking behavior in FRC

2.1. Cracking mechanism in FRC

The cracking process in FRC can be identified in four distinct zones, as shown in Fig. 1: (1) a zone of microcracking; (2) a zone of microcrack growth; (3) a bridging zone, where the stress is transferred by a fiber pullout and aggregate bridging; and (4) a traction-free zone, which occurs for relatively large crack openings [11]. The cracking behavior depends on the characteristics of the fibers, such as the fiber types, lengths, cross-sectional geometry, surface treatment, and volume fractions. For a strain-softening specimen, a localized single crack governs the postpeak behavior and once the matrix cracks the stress will start to decrease. For a pseudostrain-hardening specimen, called "high-performance FRC (HPFRC)," the postcracking strength is larger than the cracking strength, or elastic-plastic response. HPFRC, a cement composite comprising a cement-based matrix and short fibers, is highly ductile and thus exhibits dense and multiple fine cracks.

2.2. Cracking in FRC containing reinforcing bars

In an RC member, the concrete between adjacent cracks carries tensile stresses and thus provides additional stiffness under tension. This tension-stiffening effect is provided by the bond force transfer between reinforcing bars and the surrounding concrete. The addition of fibers into plain concrete enhances the bond performance and improves the tension

Fig. 1 - Cracking process of FRC in uniaxial tension. FRC, fiber-reinforced concrete; HPFRC, high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete.

stiffening in RC members. Fig. 2 shows the axial force distribution in conventional RC and reinforced FRC (R-FRC) members. In a conventional RC member, the concrete is unable to carry tension at the cracks, that is, ac = 0, however, in an R-FRC member, the concrete can carry tension at the cracks, that is, sc = sFiber, because fibers give a tensile resistance at a crack. This results in an increased tensile strength after cracking, and a reduced spacing and width of cracks in an R-FRC member.

Fig. 3 shows typical tensile responses of conventional RC and R-FRC members and the response of the reinforcing bar alone. As the tension increases beyond cracking, the effect of the fibers on the response of a concrete member clearly appears. The use of fibers increases the tensile capacity of a conventional RC member and can carry a tensile stress after the yielding of a reinforcing bar. A significant increase is provided in HPFRC.

3. Experimental program

Uniaxial tension tests were conducted to investigate the tensile behavior of FRC members with steel or polyamide fibers.

Steel fibers have been most widely used in FRC applications because steel is highly compatible with cement composites. Polyamide fibers, often called "nylon fibers," are known to have an excellent resistance to moisture, alkalis, and chemical environments.

3.1. Test specimens

In a PCCV subjected to internal overpressure, most cracks occurred in the middle section of the cylinder wall where the strains and displacements are the greatest [12]. This study conducted uniaxial tension tests for specimens representing the middle section of the cylinder wall of a PCCV. Fig. 4B shows the details of the hoop and vertical reinforcing bars in the middle section of the cylinder wall. The rebar is placed in one layer in each direction on each face. The inner and outer hoop rebars carry the hoop tension occurring in the cylinder wall by the internal pressure. The tension response of a hoop rebar in conventional RC and R-FRC members is investigated using tension specimens. All of the specimens had a cross section of 270 mm x 270 mm and a length of 3,000 mm, as shown in Fig. 4C. A single D41 steel bar was provided in each specimen. The bar size was selected to closely represent both

Fig. 2 - Axial force distribution for stabilized cracking in RC and R-FRC members. (A) Conventional RC member. (B) R-FRC member. RC, reinforced concrete; R-FRC, reinforced fiber-reinforced concrete.

Fig. 3 - Typical responses of RC and R-FRC members in tension. (A) Conventional RC member. (B) R-FRC member. HPFRC, high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete; RC, reinforced concrete; R-FRC, reinforced fiber-reinforced concrete.

D36 and D43, the inner and outer hoop rebars, respectively, within the limits of the standard bar sizes available. The rebar had a nominal yield strength of 400 MPa.

3.2. Concrete mix proportions

Concrete mixes with a compressive strength of 42 MPa are presented in Table 1 for plain concrete and FRC. To evaluate the effect of fibers on the tension response, equivalent mix proportions were used for plain concrete and SFRC except for the proportions of water-reducing agent and fibers. A 1.0% volume fraction of hooked-end steel fibers was added for SFRC, whereas a 1.5% volume fraction of straight polyamide fibers was used for polyamide FRC (PFRC). The steel and polyamide fibers used for FRC are shown in Fig. 5 and their properties are presented in Table 2.

3.3. Concrete properties

Fig. 6 shows compression and tension test results for plain concrete, SFRC, and PFRC specimens. As indicated, both steel and polyamide fibers provide significant improvements in the toughness of plain concrete. The peak stress appears at a large strain in PFRC because polyamide fibers allow a deformation at an early stage. The mechanical properties of the hardened concretes were obtained using molded cylinder specimens. Table 3 summarizes the compressive strength and elastic modulus for the three types of concrete at the time of testing. Comparing the properties with plain concrete specimens, the SFRC specimens had 11% and 10% higher values in compressive strength and elastic modulus, whereas the PFRC specimens had 11% and 4% lower values in compressive strength and elastic modulus, respectively.

Fig. 4 - Wall reinforcement of PCCV and test specimen. (A) PCCV. (B) Horizontal section in the middle of wall. (C) Test specimen. PCCV, prestressed concrete containment vessel.

Table 1 - Mix details of the concrete used in the specimens.

Mix proportions Plain Steel fiber- Polyamide fiber-

concrete reinforced reinforced

concrete concrete

Cement 325.50 325.50 376.00

(kgf/m3)

Water (kgf/m3) 162.75 162.75 188.00

Coarse aggregate 938.77 938.77 722.00

(kgf/m3)

Sand (kgf/m3) 748.89 748.89 883.00

Coarse aggregate 19 19 20

size (mm)

Fly ash (kgf/m3) 81.38 81.38 94.00

Water-reducing 2.60 3.66 -

agent (kgf/m3)

Air-entraining 0.15 0.15 0.2

agent (%)

Superplasticizer (%) - - 2.0

Viscosity - - 0.15

agent (%)

Water-to-cement 40 40 40

ratio (%)

Fibers (%) - 1.0 1.5

Table 2 - Fibers used in fiber-reinforced concrete specimens.

Type Length Diameter Aspect Tensile Shape

(mm) (mm) ratio strength

Steel 30 0.5 60 1,100 Hooked end

Polyamide 30.28 2.31 13 650 Straight

3.4. Set up for uniaxial tension test

Fig. 7 shows the set up for the uniaxial tension test. The load was applied to the steel reinforcing bar through a set of tension grips at the top and bottom, and therefore, the applied load transferred from the steel reinforcing bar to the concrete section. Two linear voltage differential transducers were placed between the steel plates at both ends of the concrete to measure the total elongation of the concrete specimen.

3.5. Tension responses

Fig. 8 shows the tension responses of the reinforced SFRC (R-SFRC), reinforced PFRC (R-PFRC), and RC specimens and a D41 bare bar. A slight increase in the initial stiffness and cracking load is observed in the R-SFRC specimen. After cracking, both the R-SFRC and R-PFRC specimens show more tension stiffening than the RC specimen because the reinforcing bar must carry all of the tension at the crack location in the RC

specimen, whereas the rebar and fibers share the tension in the R-SFRC and R-PFRC specimens. Significant postcracking behavior is observed in the R-SFRC specimen. It is also shown that the response of the RC specimen follows that of the bare bar after the yielding of the rebar, whereas the R-SFRC and R-PFRC specimens carry loads greater than the yield load of the bare bar. The tension response in the R-SFRC specimen is greater than that in the R-PFRC specimen.

Fig. 9 shows the crack patterns in the RC, R-SFRC, and R-PFRC specimens after a uniaxial tension test. Splitting cracks were observed in the RC specimen, whereas no splitting cracks and transverse cracks smaller and more closely spaced than in the RC specimens were observed in the R-SFRC and R-PFRC specimens. The crack widths and lengths in the R-SFRC specimen were much smaller than in the R-PFRC specimen because the bridging effect of steel fibers is significant.

3.6. Tension-stiffening model

Based on the uniaxial tension responses, tension-stiffening models for the three different types of concrete were derived, as shown in Fig. 10. After yielding of the reinforcing bar, tension stiffening in the RC members completely vanishes at a strain of 0.0037, but those in the R-SFRC and R-PFRC specimens exist because of the fiber bridging.

4. Ultimate pressure capacity

4.1. Modeling of PCCV

An analytical model of the PCCV was developed using the general-purpose finite-element analysis program ABAQUS

Fig. 5 - Steel and polyamide fibers used for fiber-reinforced concrete specimens. (A) Hooked-end steel fibers. (B) Polyamide fibers.

Fig. 6 - Compression and tension behaviors for plain concrete and FRC specimens. (A) Compression. (B) Tension. FRC, fiber-reinforced concrete; PFRC, polyamide fiber-reinforced concrete; SFRC, steel fiber-reinforced concrete.

Table 3 - Measured mechanical properties of the concrete used in the specimens.

Type Compressive strength (MPa) Elastic modulus (MPa)

Plain concrete 40.2 20,134

Steel fiber-reinforced 44.7 22,058

concrete

Polyamide 35.8 19,227

fiber-reinforced concrete

[13]. The PCCV was built using conventional RC, however, we assumed that it was constructed using R-SFRC or R-PFRC for comparison purposes only. For the modeling of the PCCV structure, the solid element, which is able to

describe embedded tendons discretely using truss elements, is used. The three-dimensional model of the PCCV includes large penetrations such as an equipment hatch and airlock.

The behavior of concrete after experiencing damage is modeled using the concrete damaged plasticity model in ABAQUS, which assumes two failure mechanisms: tensile cracking and compressive crushing of the concrete material. The reinforcing bars are modeled using the embedded surface elements considering the reinforcement ratio, and the tendons are modeled discretely using truss elements. To simplify the modeling and analysis procedure, the slippage of a tendon within the tendon sheath is neglected, and thus the bond effect between the concrete and tendon steel is not considered. The stress-strain behaviors of plain concrete and FRC in compression, given in Fig. 6A, are used for the compressive

Fig. 7 - Set up for uniaxial tension test. LVDT, linear voltage differential transducer.

Fig. 8 - Axial force versus displacement responses. RC, reinforced concrete; R-PFRC, reinforced polyamide fiber-reinforced concrete; R-SFRC, reinforced steel fiber-reinforced concrete.

Fig. 9 - Crack patterns in specimens after uniaxial tension tests. (A) Reinforced concrete. (B) Reinforced steel fiber-reinforced concrete. (C) Reinforced polyamide fiber-reinforced concrete.

response of concrete. To define the strain-softening behavior for cracked concrete and to consider the effects of the reinforcement interaction with concrete, the tension-stiffening models, given in Fig. 10, are used. The material properties for the rebar, tendons, and steel liner used in the analysis are shown in Table 4.

Strain (m/m)

Fig. 10 - Tension stiffening in different concretes. RC, reinforced concrete; R-PFRC, reinforced polyamide fiber-reinforced concrete; R-SFRC, reinforced steel fiber-reinforced concrete.

4.2. Behavior of PCCVs

The displacement response provides the overall behavior of PCCVs at various internal pressures. Deformed profiles of a conventional PCCV (RC-PCCV), a PCCV constructed with SFRC (R-SFRC-PCCV), and a PCCV constructed with PFRC (R-PFRC-PCCV) are shown in Figs. 11 and 12. The figures were constructed using the displacement response, which is exaggerated by a factor of 100, to the initial configuration of the containment. Fig. 11 shows the deformation of the PCCVs at an elevation of 20.2 m for the internal pressure at approximately 1.0Pd, 2.0Pd, 2.5Pd, 3.0Pd, and Pmax. The design pressure, Pd, is 0.4 MPa and the maximum pressures obtained from the analysis, Pmax, are 3.14Pd, 3.19Pd, and 3.10Pd for RC-PCCV, R-SFRC-PCCV, and R-PFRC-PCCV, respectively. Large deformations are observed in RC-PCCV and R-PFRC-PCCV, particularly between 2.5Pd and 3.0Pd, whereas a small and uniform deformation is observed in R-SFRC-PCCV. Under the maximum pressure, the average radial displacements in RC-PCCV and R-PFRC-PCCV are

Table 4 - Material properties used in the analysis.

Property Rebar Tendon Steel liner

Elastic modulus (MPa) 186,159 193,054 186,159

Elastic limit stress (MPa) 486.5 1,688 296.5

Yield stress (MPa) 486.5 1,792 296.5

Yield strain (m/m) 0.002613 0.008745 0.001593

Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) 677.9 1,850 434.4

Fig. 11 - Deformation at elevation 20.2 m x 100. (A) Cross section. (B) RC-PCCV. (C) R-SFRC-PCCV. (D) R-PFRC-PCCV. PCCV, prestressed concrete containment vessel; RC, reinforced concrete; R-PFRC, reinforced polyamide fiber-reinforced concrete; R-SFRC, reinforced steel fiber-reinforced concrete.

Fig. 12 - Deformation at Azimuth 197° x 100. (A) P = 2.0Pd. (B) P = 3.0Pd. (C) P = Pmax. RC, reinforced concrete; R-PFRC, reinforced polyamide fiber-reinforced concrete; R-SFRC, reinforced steel fiber-reinforced concrete.

79 mm and 68 mm, respectively, whereas it is 56 mm in R-SFRC-PCCV. The bridging effect of fibers restrains the growth of cracks in concrete and reduces the deformation of the PCCV. The smallest radial displacement and the largest maximum pressure are obtained in R-SFRC-PCCV. Fig. 12 shows the deformation at Azimuth 197° due to the internal pressure at approximately 2.0Pd, 3.0Pd, and Pmax. These figures dramatically illustrate the decrease in radial displacement for R-SFRC-PCCV. The effect of fibers is negligible at a pressure lower than 2.0Pd, but significant at high pressure. It is noted that fibers are most effective at the failure pressure. For the maximum pressure, the largest radial displacement reaches 115 mm in RC-PCCV and 102 mm in R-PFRC-PCCV, whereas it reaches 88 mm in R-SFRC-PCCV.

Figs. 13 and 14 show the strain responses in the structural elements with an increase in the internal pressure for different prestress levels of the tendons: 60% of the ultimate tensile strength, fp = 0.6fpu, and 70% of the ultimate tensile strength, fp = 0.7fpu. Based on the responses, the pressure levels corresponding to the event milestones at the mid-height of the wall cylinder of the PCCVs were derived, as shown in Table 5. The first concrete cracking occurs at a low pressure level. With an increase in the pressure loadings, the liners are yielded, followed by the hoop reinforcing bars. The hoop tendons are yielded at high pressures. The pressure loadings for each event milestone are large in fiber-reinforced PCCVs with a high prestressing force. The R-SFRC-PCCV has superior resistance to the R-PFRC-PCCV.

4.3. Failure criteria

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission suggested in Regulatory Guide 1.216 [14] simplified methods acceptable for predicting the internal pressure capacity for containment structures above the design-basis accident pressure. For cylindrical PCCVs, the internal pressure capacity can be estimated based on satisfying both of the strain-based failure limits: (1) a total average tensile strain in the hoop tendons away from discontinuities of 0.8%, which includes the strains in the tendons before pressurization, and the additional straining from pressurization; and (2) a global free-field strain for the liner and rebars contributing to resist the internal pressure of 0.4%. The strain limits for fiber-reinforced PCCVs were not given, however, the same failure criteria can be applied to determine the pressure capacity for R-SFRC-PCCV and R-PFRC—PCCV.

4.4. Ultimate pressure capacity

The strain-based failure criteria, described in the previous subsection, were used to evaluate the ultimate pressure capacity. Table 6 summarizes the internal pressures at the limit strains in the structural elements. In concrete containment structures with steel liners that have leak tightness, a leak will occur when the liners tear. Even if the strain in the hoop tendons reaches a limit strain of 0.8%, leakage will not occur if the strain in the liners is less than the strain limit of 0.4%. Therefore, the ultimate pressure capacity can be determined by the limit strain of the liners, as shown in Table 7. For

0.012 0.010 •p- 0.008 E, 0.006 ■| 0.004 0.002 0.000

-0.002

- RC--- R-SFRC R-PFRC

/1 Ê» /

0.6 0.9 Pressure (MPa)

0.012 0.010 ~ 0.008 1 0.006 0.004

w 0.002 0.000

-0.002

- RC —- R-SFRC R-PFRC

0.6 0.9 Pressure (MPa)

0.012 0.010 -g 0.008 1 0.006 ■§ 0.004 W 0.002 0.000

-0.002

-RC--- R-SFRC .... R-PFRC

0.6 0.9 1.2 Pressure (MPa)

E_ 0.008

c £ 0.006

55 0.004

-RC--- R-SFRC .... R-PFRC

0.6 0.9 Pressure (MPa)

Fig. 13 - Strain versus internal pressure for different prestressed concrete containment vessels, fp = 0.6fpu. (A) Inner rebar. (B) Outer rebar. (C) Liner. (D) Tendon. RC, reinforced concrete; R-PFRC, reinforced polyamide fiber-reinforced concrete; R-SFRC, reinforced steel fiber-reinforced concrete.

0.012 0.010 -g- 0.008 E. 0.006 § 0.004 W 0.002 0.000

-0.002

- RC--- R-SFRC .... R-PFRC

fi 1 i

f • // i

Pressure (MPa)

0.012 0.010 -p 0.008 E. 0.006 I 0.004 « 0.002 0.000

-0.002

-RC--- R-SFRC ----R-PFRC

14 i i

Pressure (MPa)

0.012 0.010 — 0.008 1 0.006 0.004 « 0.002 0.000

-0.002

- RC--- R-SFRC ---- R-PFRC

/ f 1 ; /

// J.- /

Pressure (MPa)

0.014 0.012 -g-0.010 E, 0.008 0.006 W 0.004 0.002 0.000

-RC--- R-SFRC .... R-PFRC

Pressure (MPa)

Fig. 14 - Strain versus internal pressure for different prestressed concrete containment vessels, fp = 0.7fpu. (A) Inner rebar. (B) Outer rebar. (C) Liner. (D) Tendon. RC, reinforced concrete; R-PFRC, reinforced polyamide fiber-reinforced concrete; R-SFRC, reinforced steel fiber-reinforced concrete.

fp = 0.6fpu, the ultimate pressure capacity for RC-PCCV was 2.61Pd, whereas those for R-PFRC—PCCV and R-SFRC-PCCV were 2.70Pd and 2.94Pd, respectively. The ultimate pressure capacities for R-PFRC—PCCV and R-SFRC—PCCV were approximately 4% and 13% higher than that for RC-PCCV, respectively. For fp = 0.7fpu, the ultimate pressure capacities for RC-PCCV, R-PFRC—PCCV, and R-SFRC—PCCV were 2.79Pd, 2.88Pd, and 3.11Pd, respectively. The ultimate pressure capacities for R-PFRC—PCCV and R-SFRC—PCCV were approximately 3% and

12% higher than that for RC-PCCV, respectively. The addition of fibers is more effective at a low prestress level.

Table 5 — Response at mid-height of the wall of the prestressed concrete containment vessels.

Event Internal pressure (MPa)

milestones Prestress, fp = 0.6fpu Prestress, fp : = 0.7fpu

RC R-SFRC R-PFRC RC R-SFRC R-PFRC

Concrete 0.651 0.700 0.645 0.720 0.772 0.717

cracking

Liner yield 0.963 1.067 0.996 1.044 1.147 1.076

Outer hoop 0.979 1.111 1.018 1.050 1.181 1.086

rebar yield

Inner hoop 1.017 1.168 1.063 1.084 1.232 1.128

rebar yield

Hoop tendon 1.107 1.136 1.122 1.207 1.262 1.216

RC, reinforced concrete; R-PFRC, reinforced polyamide fiber-reinforced concrete; R-SFRC, reinforced steel fiber-reinforced concrete.

Conclusions

The effects of steel and polyamide fibers on the ultimate pressure capacity of a PCCV were investigated using the tension responses for uniaxial test specimens. Tension stiffening in the FRC members exists because of fiber bridging at the cracks. The bridge action of the fibers enhances the postcracking behavior of concrete, and therefore, improves the containment performance of the PCCVs.

It was revealed that the ultimate pressure capacity can be greatly improved by introducing steel and polyamide fibers in conventional RC, and steel fibers are more effective in enhancing the containment performance of a PCCV than polyamide fibers. When R-SFRC contains hooked-end steel fibers in a volume fraction of 1.0%, the ultimate pressure capacity of a PCCV can be improved by 12%, in comparison with that of a conventional PCCV. When R-PFRC contains polyamide fibers in a volume fraction of 1.5%, the ultimate pressure capacity of a PCCV can be enhanced by 3%. The fiber reinforcement is more effective at a high pressure loading and a low prestress level. When the losses of prestressing force increase because of the time-dependent characteristics such as shrinkage and creep of the concrete, and relaxation of prestressing tendons, the fiber reinforcement will be

Table 6 - Internal pressures at the limit strains for prestressed concrete containment vessels.

Structural element Strain limit (%) Internal pressure (MPa)

Prestress, fp = 0.6fpu Prestress, fp = 0.7fpu

RC R-SFRC R-PFRC RC R-SFRC R-PFRC

Inner hoop rebar 0.4 1.054 1.210 1.102 1.122 1.276 1.169

Outer hoop rebar 0.4 1.015 1.146 1.051 1.086 1.214 1.119

Liner 0.4 1.042 1.174 1.081 1.116 1.245 1.153

Hoop tendon 0.8 0.960 1.029 0.985 1.039 1.137 1.083

RC, reinforced concrete; R-PFRC, reinforced polyamide fiber-reinforced concrete; R-SFRC, reinforced steel fiber-reinforced concrete.

Table 7 - Ultimate pressure capacities for prestressed concrete containment vessels.

Prestress, fp = 0.6f

Prestress, fp = 0.7f

RC R-SFRC R-PFRC RC R-SFRC R-PFRC

Ultimate 1.042 1.174 1.081 1.116 1.245 1.153

pressure (MPa) Ratio 1.00 1.13a 1.04a 1.00 1.12b 1.03b

RC, reinforced concrete; R-PFRC, reinforced polyamide fiber-reinforced concrete; R-SFRC, reinforced steel fiber-reinforced concrete.

Ratio to RC value for fp = 0.6fpu. b Ratio to RC value forfp = 0.7fpu.

efficient for maintaining the containment performance of PCCVs.

Further studies are needed to determine the strain limits acceptable for PCCVs reinforced with fibers. In addition, the corrosion behavior of steel fibers embedded in concrete and their effect on the long-term performance of containment structures should be investigated.

Conflicts of interest

All contributing authors declare no conflicts of interest. Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea Government (MSIP) (No. 2012M2A8A4025985).

REFERENCES

[1] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Evolutionary Light Water Reactor (LWR) Certification Issues and Their Relationship to Current Regulatory Requirements (Rep. No.

SECY-90-016), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 1990.

[2] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (Rep. No. NUREG-1150), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 1990.

[3] M.F. Hessheimer, R.A. Dameron, Containment Integrity Research at Sandia National Laboratories: An Overview (Rep. No. NUREG/CR-6906, SAND2006-2274P), Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 2006.

[4] B.W. Spencer, J.P. Petti, D.M. Kunsman, Risk-Informed Assessment of Degraded Containment Vessels (Rep. No. NUREG/CR-6920, SAND2006-3772P), Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 2006.

[5] J.P. Petti, D.A. Kalinich, J. Jun, K.C. Wagner, Effects of Degradation on the Severe Accident Consequences for a PWR Plant with a Reinforced Concrete Containment Vessel (Rep. No. NUREG/CR-7149, SAND2009-6323P), Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 2013.

[6] N. Buratti, C. Mazzotti, M. Savoia, Post-cracking behaviour of steel and macro-synthetic fibre-reinforced concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 2713-2722.

[7] S.P. Shah, B.V. Rangan, Fiber reinforced concrete properties, ACI J. 68 (1971) 126-135.

[8] H.H. Abrishami, D. Mitchell, Influence of steel fibers on tension stiffening, ACI Struct. J. 94 (1997) 769-775.

[9] P.H. Bischoff, Tension stiffening and cracking of steel fiber-reinforced concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 15 (2003) 174-182.

[10] J.R. Deluce, F.J. Vecchio, Cracking behavior of steel fiber-reinforced concrete members containing conventional reinforcement, ACI Struct. J. 110 (2013) 481-490.

[11] I. Lofgren, Fibre-Reinforced Concrete for Industrial Construction: A Fracture Mechanics Approach to Material Testing and Structural Analysis, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 2005.

[12] M.F. Hessheimer, E.W. Klamerus, L.D. Lambert, G.S. Rightley, R.A. Dameron, Overpressurization Test of a 1:4-Scale Prestressed Concrete Containment Vessel Model (Rep. No. NUREG/CR-6810, SAND2003-0840P), Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 2003.

[13] ABAQUS FEA, ABAQUS/Standard 6.8—User's Manual, Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., Providence, RI, 2008.

[14] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Containment Structural Integrity Evaluation for Internal Pressure Loadings above Design-Basis Pressure (Regulatory Guide 1.216), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 2010.