Abstract
The original IAEA TECDOC 717 prepared at the consensus Consultants Service Meetings contained specific guidance with respect to the application of linear-elastic fracture mechanics principles to the evaluation of potential non-ductile failure for radioactive material shipping package containment boundaries. No specific guidance was provided with respect to elastic-plastic fracture mechanics procedures, due to a lack of consensus. This paper proposes that the inclusion of three alternative elastic-plastic evaluation approaches may provide the basis for consensus guidance to be added to a revised TECDOC. These three alternatives have been incorporated into consensus ASME Code non-mandatory appendices, and are widely accepted in combination. One of the three alternatives, an applied J-integral/crack resistance curve approach, is examined in some detail. (author).
Nickell, R E;
[1]
Saegusa, T;
Ito, C;
[2]
Sorenson, K B
[3]
- Applied Science and Technology, Inc., Poway, CA (United States)
- Central Research Inst. of Electric Power Industry, Abiko, Chiba (Japan). Civil Engineering Lab.
- Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Citation Formats
Nickell, R E, Saegusa, T, Ito, C, and Sorenson, K B.
Comparison of IAEA TECDOC 717 technical basis with consensus codes and standards.
United Kingdom: N. p.,
1995.
Web.
Nickell, R E, Saegusa, T, Ito, C, & Sorenson, K B.
Comparison of IAEA TECDOC 717 technical basis with consensus codes and standards.
United Kingdom.
Nickell, R E, Saegusa, T, Ito, C, and Sorenson, K B.
1995.
"Comparison of IAEA TECDOC 717 technical basis with consensus codes and standards."
United Kingdom.
@misc{etde_100502,
title = {Comparison of IAEA TECDOC 717 technical basis with consensus codes and standards}
author = {Nickell, R E, Saegusa, T, Ito, C, and Sorenson, K B}
abstractNote = {The original IAEA TECDOC 717 prepared at the consensus Consultants Service Meetings contained specific guidance with respect to the application of linear-elastic fracture mechanics principles to the evaluation of potential non-ductile failure for radioactive material shipping package containment boundaries. No specific guidance was provided with respect to elastic-plastic fracture mechanics procedures, due to a lack of consensus. This paper proposes that the inclusion of three alternative elastic-plastic evaluation approaches may provide the basis for consensus guidance to be added to a revised TECDOC. These three alternatives have been incorporated into consensus ASME Code non-mandatory appendices, and are widely accepted in combination. One of the three alternatives, an applied J-integral/crack resistance curve approach, is examined in some detail. (author).}
journal = []
issue = {2-3}
volume = {6}
journal type = {AC}
place = {United Kingdom}
year = {1995}
month = {Sep}
}
title = {Comparison of IAEA TECDOC 717 technical basis with consensus codes and standards}
author = {Nickell, R E, Saegusa, T, Ito, C, and Sorenson, K B}
abstractNote = {The original IAEA TECDOC 717 prepared at the consensus Consultants Service Meetings contained specific guidance with respect to the application of linear-elastic fracture mechanics principles to the evaluation of potential non-ductile failure for radioactive material shipping package containment boundaries. No specific guidance was provided with respect to elastic-plastic fracture mechanics procedures, due to a lack of consensus. This paper proposes that the inclusion of three alternative elastic-plastic evaluation approaches may provide the basis for consensus guidance to be added to a revised TECDOC. These three alternatives have been incorporated into consensus ASME Code non-mandatory appendices, and are widely accepted in combination. One of the three alternatives, an applied J-integral/crack resistance curve approach, is examined in some detail. (author).}
journal = []
issue = {2-3}
volume = {6}
journal type = {AC}
place = {United Kingdom}
year = {1995}
month = {Sep}
}