HANFORD DST THERMAL & SEISMIC PROJECT ANSYS BENCHMARK ANALYSIS OF SEISMIC INDUCED FLUID STRUCTURE INTERACTION IN A HANFORD DOUBLE SHELL PRIMARY TANK

Abstract

M&D Professional Services, Inc. (M&D) is under subcontract to Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL) to perform seismic analysis of the Hanford Site Double-Shell Tanks (DSTs) in support of a project entitled ''Double-Shell Tank (DSV Integrity Project-DST Thermal and Seismic Analyses)''. The overall scope of the project is to complete an up-to-date comprehensive analysis of record of the DST System at Hanford in support of Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-48-14. The work described herein was performed in support of the seismic analysis of the DSTs. The thermal and operating loads analysis of the DSTs is documented in Rinker et al. (2004). The overall seismic analysis of the DSTs is being performed with the general-purpose finite element code ANSYS. The overall model used for the seismic analysis of the DSTs includes the DST structure, the contained waste, and the surrounding soil. The seismic analysis of the DSTs must address the fluid-structure interaction behavior and sloshing response of the primary tank and contained liquid. ANSYS has demonstrated capabilities for structural analysis, but the capabilities and limitations of ANSYS to perform fluid-structure interaction are less well understood. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the capabilities and investigate the limitations of ANSYS for performing a fluid-structure interaction analysis of the primary tank and contained waste. To this end, the ANSYS solutions are benchmarked against theoretical solutions appearing in BNL 1995, when such theoretical solutions exist. When theoretical solutions were not available, comparisons were made to theoretical solutions of similar problems and to the results from Dytran simulations. The capabilities and limitations of the finite element code Dytran for performing a fluid-structure interaction analysis of the primary tank and contained waste were explored in a parallel investigation (Abatt 2006). In conjunction with the results of the global ANSYS analysis reported in Carpenter et al. (2006), the results of the two investigations will be compared to help determine if a more refined sub-model of the primary tank is necessary to capture the important fluid-structure interaction effects in the tank and if so, how to best utilize a refined sub-model of the primary tank. Both rigid tank and flexible tank configurations were analyzed with ANSYS. The response parameters of interest are total hydrodynamic reaction forces, impulsive and convective mode frequencies, waste pressures, and slosh heights. To a limited extent: tank stresses are also reported. The results of this study demonstrate that the ANSYS model has the capability to adequately predict global responses such as frequencies and overall reaction forces. Thus, the model is suitable for predicting the global response of the tank and contained waste. On the other hand, while the ANSYS model is capable of adequately predicting waste pressures and primary tank stresses in a large portion of the waste tank, the model does not accurately capture the convective behavior of the waste near the free surface, nor did the model give accurate predictions of slosh heights. Based on the ability of the ANSYS benchmark model to accurately predict frequencies and global reaction forces and on the results presented in Abatt, et al. (2006), the global ANSYS model described in Carpenter et al. (2006) is sufficient for the seismic evaluation of all tank components except for local areas of the primary tank. Due to the limitations of the ANSYS model in predicting the convective response of the waste, the evaluation of primary tank stresses near the waste free surface should be supplemented by results from an ANSYS sub-model of the primary tank that incorporates pressures from theoretical solutions or from Dytran solutions. However, the primary tank is expected to have low demand to capacity ratios in the upper wall. Moreover, due to the less than desired mesh resolution in the primary tank knuckle of the global ANSYS model, the evaluation of the primary tank stresses in the lower knuckle should be supplemented by results from a more refined ANSYS sub-model of the primary tank that incorporates pressures from theoretical solutions or from Dytran solutions.