2009 International Nuclear Atlantic Conference INAC 2009 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, September 27 to October 2, 2009 ASSOCIAO

O BRASILEIRA DE ENERGIA NUCLEAR ABEN ISBN: 978-85-99141-03-8

BEAM-TO-BEAM JOINTS WITH BOLTED END-PLATE CONNECTIONS CONCERNING STEEL PLATFORMS ANGRA 2 NPP
Lucio Gonzalez de Lema
Eletrobrs Termonuclear S.A. - ELETRONUCLEAR Departamento GEC.T Rua da Candelria 65 5 andar 20091-906 Rio de Janeiro, RJ lucio@eletronuclear.gov.br

ABSTRACT
The paper presents adopted end-plates connections as structural solution for joints in steel platforms subjected to seismic loads as well as exceptional loads due to postulated piping ruptures. The beam-to-beam bolted end-plate connections designed for Angra 2 NPP were based in allowable stresses design. Also, usual assumptions and methods in the engineering practice, concerning steel platforms for german power plants in the 80s, were considered. The adopted method is compared with the proceedings according to Eurocode 3 Part 1-8 to verify safety margins between old and new concept. The target of this comparison is to be sure that the adopted design is enough conservative to be adopted for the next NPP Angra 3 (similar to Angra 2), whose construction will start in 2009.

1. INTRODUCTION

Nuclear Power Plant steel platforms are supposed to resist dynamic loads due to seismic conditions, as well as exceptional loads coming from postulated piping ruptures. As a consequence its beams and connections shall be designed to support and transmit forces/moments, simultaneously, in all directions. The structural concept adopted for Angra 2 Brazilian Nuclear Power Plant (A2 NPP) was bolted end plate connections with two bolts near the tensioned flange (one active bolt-row) designed in accordance with Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method (German practice adopted for Konvoi NPP). The aim of this paper is to compare bolted end-plate connection design according to the ASD method with Eurocode EC3 - Part 1.8 [1], which is based on Limit State Design (LSD) method, in order to establish safety margins between these two methods. The evaluation shall ensure that A2 NPP concept is conservative enough to be adopted for Angra 3 Brazilian NPP (A3 NPP), of which construction is supposed to start in the second semester of 2009.

2. BOLTED FLUSH END-PLATE CONNECTION TYPE

Once A2 NPP steel platforms usually support floor steel gratings, extended end-plate connections were not suitable and only flush end-plate connections were adopted. The evaluation, herein, shall concern beams of which longitudinal axes are in angle () between 00 and 600 (most usual cases) and by supposing that the supporting beam rotational capacity is not affected by any restriction effect.

Bolted end-plate connections bring many advantages as low cost, easy erection and no field welding works. The only disadvantage is that beams must be fabricated under tight limits to ensure a low level of assembly interferences. This problem can be minimized by adopting as built procedures prior the fabrication. This kind of procedure was adopted for A2 NPP, always with good results. Under the structural point of view, the main advantage of bolted end-plate connection type is the high capacity to transmit Fx forces and Mz moments (due to seismic loads) directly from the supported beam flanges to the supporting beam flanges without web influence. That has been the main reason to justify bolted end-plate connections in the German Konvoi as well as in the A2 NPPs. Fig. 1 shows regular bolted flush end-plate connection types as designed for A2 NPP.

Figure 1. Standard bolted flush end-plate connections

3. CONNECTION DESIGN ADOPTED FOR A2 NPP

A2 NPP bolted flush end-plate connections design procedures were developed by Eletronuclear (NPP owner) Structural Civil Engineering Staff. The method is described in the following items. 3.1. Force Distribution After determining the internal forces and moments through a linear elastic global analysis the connections were designed by distributing these internal efforts, taking into account: the equilibrium between internal forces and moments with the external efforts; an elastic distribution method to predict bolt forces (including prying effects) which considerer a simple, usual and acceptable load transfer assumption: Fx (shear force), N (normal/axial force), Mx , Mz (bending moments) plus T (torsional moment) transferred by the flanges and Fz (shear force) transferred by the web;
INAC 2009, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

the compatibility of the imposed deformations with fasteners, welds and other parts; the analysis of supported beam end-plate and the supporting beam lateral-plate is in accordance with two-way slab grid model - tables from [3]. That is the main difference between the yield-line theory method - Table 6.2 from EC-3-Part1.8 [1] and the ASD method herein presented; the capability of each connection part to resist the forces assumed in the analysis. This procedure is similar to EC3-Part1.8 [1] and includes the verification according to Fig.2. There are other connection parts, not presented in Fig.2 (usually not relevant), as for instance: supported beam flange in axial tension, supporting beam flange in transversal tension, weld between supporting beam stiffener and web, etc; the moment-rotation consideration. Although in A2 NPP there is no end-plate connection perfectly rigid, the standard connections can approach this ideal sufficiently close to neglect their flexibility in the analysis. In other words, the bending moment distribution over the whole platform remains acceptably close to the theoretical one coming from the elastic analysis.

Figure 2. Resisting connection parts

3.2. Assumptions and Calculation Procedure As mentioned in 2.1, there are many connection parts to be verified. However, herein, the target of the comparison will be bolts in tension, as well as connection plates - supported beam end-plate and supporting beam lateral-plate - in bending. These parts were, usually, the critical elements during the design. Assumptions: beams cross-sections are Class 1 (according to EC3-Part 1.1) H or I shapes. The upper faces of the top flanges have always the same level;

INAC 2009, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

regarding execution and durability, bolts (ISO 898-Class 8.8) are active pretensioned (preloaded) with 70% of the full pretension load with controlled tightening (A2 NPP seismic project design requirement). However, these connections are not designed as friction type but as bearing type connections; supporting beams are open sections and their rotational capacity (usually very low when compared with end-plate connections rotational capacity) is not affected by any restriction effect. It means that the joint rotational stiffness is not affected by the supporting beam; design forces and moments are obtained through a linear-elastic global analysis and all beams are designed, whenever possible, as simply supported; load transfer point is considered at supported and supporting beam longitudinal axes intersection (see Fig.1); welds are fillet type and its dimensions are adjusted according to the thickness of connection plates, flanges and webs; the four bolts are positioned symmetrically and as near as possible to beam flange. Minimum distances are controlled by the bolt diameter; connection plates (supporting beam lateral-plate and the supported beam end-plate) width, which effectively resist the applied beam moment, have equal thickness and not greater than the supported beam flange width, otherwise additional effects have to be considered.

Calculation Procedure [4]: Connection design forces and moments: Vz,Ed = Vz Vx,Ed = N . sin + Vx . cos NEd = N . cos + Vx . sin Mx,Ed = Vz,Ed . l . cos + T . sin Mz,Ed = Vx,Ed . l . cos TEd =T . cos + Vz,Ed . l . sin where: l = distance between load transfer and calculation point (Fig. 1) N = normal force Vx ,Vz = forces in x and z axes directions, respectively Mx , Mz = Moments around x and z axes, respectively T = torsional moment (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

It is also assumed that: - acting normal (N) and shear forces (Vx , Vz) are, equally, resisted by the four bolts; - threads are, always, excluded from shear planes; - only the two lower bolts are resisting the design bending moment Mx,Ed ; - design bending moment Mz,Ed is resisted by both bolts on one side of connection. The instantaneous rotation axis is taken as the vertical line connecting the other two bolts, according to Fig. 3. So, it comes: Fb, Ned = NEd / 4 (7)

INAC 2009, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

Fb, Mx,Ed = Mx,Ed / (2 . zeff) Fb, Mz,Ed = Mz,Ed / (2 . xeff)

(8) (9)

and so, the total force in the most tensioned bolt, with no prying action, is given by Eq. 10 Fb, Ed = NEd / 4 + Mx,Ed / (2 . zeff ) + Mz,Ed / (2 . xeff ) where: xeff = 2 . mx + tw,sd + 2 . 0,8 . ac . 2 0,5 (10) (11)

and for zeff , conservatively, the lower value between Eq. 12 and Eq.13 is adopted: zeff,sg = z [tf,sg / 2 + rsg + (esg rsg) / 2] or where: zeff,sd = z [tf,sd / 2 + rsd + (esd rsd) / 2] rsg = rsd = 20 mm (usual value) (12) (13)

Prying action effects are taken into account according to Eq. 14 from [2]: Ft,Ed = [0,5 leff . tep4/ (30 . e . m2 . As)] / [(e / m) . (e / (3 . m) + 1) + (leff . tep4 / (6 . e. m2 . As))] where: leff = p / 2 + m and: m = msg for supporting beam or msd for supported beam As = bolt tensile stress area Ft,Ed = bolt load increase factor due to prying action Prying action effects are calculated for supported beam end-plate and supporting beam lateralplate when the profile shapes, adopted for each beam, are not the same. So, the highest total tensile force acting on the bolts, increased by prying action, is given by Eq. 16, as it follows: Fb,Ed, pa = (1 + Ft,Ed) . [Ned / 4 + Mx,Ed / (2 . zeff) + Mz,Ed / (2 . xeff)] Shear loads are considered as resisted by all four bolts, as determined by the Eq. 17: Fv,Ed = {[(Vx,Ed) 2+(Vz,Ed) 2] 0,5 + TEd . r / r 2} / 4 where: r = [(mx + 0,8 . ac . 2 0,5 + tw,sd /2) 2 + (p/2) 2] 0,5 (17) (18) (16) (14) (15)

Through the interaction equation which combine shear and tension, which is not presented in this paper, bolt diameter can be obtained from the results of Eq. 16 and Eq.17.

INAC 2009, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

Figure 3. Bolts forces determination parameters

Connection plates (supported beam end-plate and supporting beam lateral-plate) bending analyses, are performed by considering each plate, separately, submitted to concentrated loads (bolt forces) using a two-way slab grid model. It is assumed these two plates have a free edge and are simply supported on the other three edges (Fig.4). As already mentioned in 2.1, that is the main difference between the yield-line theory method from EC-3-Part1.8 [1] and the ASD method herein presented. Based on to two-way slab grid model - tables from [3] are used to determine the maximum acting bending moments. Conservatively, three moments are enveloped: free edge center point bending moment and center point bending moments in both principal directions. Theoretically, the maximum bending moments act at load application points but, considering plate stress distribution, it is acceptable to envelope the values given in the tables from [3].

INAC 2009, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

Figure 4. End-plate and lateral-plate analysis models

Plates thickness are obtained by Eq. 19, as it follows: tep = (6 . Brck . Fb,Ed / N,Ed)0,5 where: and: N,Ed = fy,ed /M0 (19) (20)

N,Ed: allowable strength fy,ed: yield strength of the plates steel Brck: Bruckner Factor [3] that multiplied by the highest total tensile force acting on the bolt furnishes the bending moment most unfavorable for the plate. The worst Bruckner Factor, for each plate (Fig.4), shall be chosen considering the three possible moments (Mym, Mxm, Mxr) for the bending plate analysis. This factor is obtained considering the relations: x/lx, y/ly and lx/ly (see Fig.4). M0: safety factor considering the load case. According to A2 NPP specific design criteria: M0 = 1,50 Normal Operation Condition (NOC) of A2 NPP M0 = 1,20 Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) of A2 NPP M0 = 1,00 Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) or Accident Condition of A2 NPP Remark: A3NPP will be designed without consideration of Design Basis Earthquake DBE condition.

4. COMPARISON BETWEEN A2 METHOD AND EC3-PART 1.8

4.1. General Considerations EC3-Part 1.8 requires connection behavior to be compatible with the structure analysis assumptions as well as with LSD method. Still according to EC3- Part 1.8, connection

INAC 2009, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

behavior is described in terms of moment resistance, rotational stiffness and rotational capacity. For the linear-elastic global analysis adopted in A2, the joints are classified, according to their rotational stiffness, in three categories: nominally pinned, rigid and semi-rigid. Once, supporting beams have no rotational restriction as well as its I and H profile shapes have a very low rotational capacity, the end-plate connection works as a rigid one. Although the joints have sufficient strength capacity to transmit forces and moments, they work as partial strength connections because their capacity is less than the connected beams capacity. According to EC3-Part 1.8, joint mechanical model is based on component method which requires three basic steps: joint components identification (Fig.2), individual component force-deflection diagram evaluation and components assembly in order to obtain the expected joint behavior. So, fabrication details and assembly procedures shall carry out the design assumptions (stiffness, resistance and deformation capacity). As already mentioned herein, only the connection components, usually critical in A2 NPP (bolts in tension and connection plates - supported beam end-plate and supporting beam lateral-plate - in bending), are evaluated next. 4.2. Calculation Procedure Comparison between LSD method from EC-3-Part1.8 [1] and the ASD method adopted for A2 is not easy. It is necessary to make some considerations to achieve reliable results. Calculating design forces and moments in accordance with Eqs.1 to 6, it is possible to obtain Fb,NEd through Eq.7. However, in EC3-Part 1.8 method, it is not clear if Fb,Mx,Ed and Fb,Mz,Ed can be determined according to Eq.8 and Eq.9, since there is no information about how to determine xeff and zeff. So, herein this paper, Eq.8 and Eq.9 are considered as acceptable. Plates thickness, as a design resistance function and in terms of equivalent T-stub model, is the lower value among Eqs. 21, 22 and 23 (Mode 1, 2, 3 / Method 1 - Table 6.2 [1]), as it follows: Mode 1: Mode 2: tep,1 = [ FT,1,Rd . mx / ( leff,min . fy,ed / M0)] 0,5 tep,2 = {[ FT,2,Rd . (mx + e) e . Ft,Rd] / (0,5 . leff,min . fy,ed / M0)} 0,5 Fb,Ed > Ft,Rd (21) (22) (23)

Mode 3: Bolt Failure only if: where:

leff,min lower value between leff,cp and leff,nc given by leff,cp = 2 . . mx leff,nc = . mx (24) (25) (26)

and: where: and:

Ft,Rd = As . k2 . fub / M2 FT,1,Rd = FT,2,Rd = Fb,Ed (from Eq.10) [1] fub is bolts ultimate tensile strength should be obtained by Fig. 6.11

INAC 2009, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

k2 = 0,90 M0 = 1,10 M2 = 1,25

[1] [1] [1]

Remark: It is also necessary to be verified Shear Resistance per Shear Plane as well as Bearing Resistance according to Table 3.4 [1] using the result from Eq. 17

5. RESULTS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Ten bolted flush end-plate connections were herein analyzed by considering 10 CS series welded profiles with different heights. The CS series (similar to HE-B/I PB German series) composes the heaviest duty normalized Brazilian steel profiles and it was usually adopted for A2 NPP seismic buildings. The connections parts were evaluated through ASD method (computer program Flange P developed by Eletronuclear) and LSD method, by taking into account the Safe Shutdown Earthquake - SSE safety factors (usually, the most unfavorable condition). The comparison of the internal tension forces which caused the connection collapse (yielding of bolt in tension and/or plates in bending), determined by each method, led to the following results: The collapse internal tension force determined according to LSD method is, around, 50% greater than that obtained through ASD method. This is a good comparative result. 70% of the connections, evaluated through ASD method, have reached collapse due to yielding of bolts in tension and 30% due to yielding of connection plates in bending. 70% of the connections, evaluated trough LSD method, have reached collapse due to rupture of bolts in tension (Eq. 23 - Mode 3 - Table 6.2 [1]) and 30% due to rupture of bolts in tension simultaneously to yielding of connection plates in bending (Eq. 22 Mode 2 - Table 6.2 [1]). ASD method, as adopted for A2 NPP, is safe enough when compared to LSD method. Based on the above conclusions, it is recommended: the results can not be extended for other profiles series. Similar evaluations shall be performed for other profiles series (CVS and VS series). Flange P program shall be optimized in a way to obtain thinner connection plates. The target of such recommendation is to reduce bolt failure occurrence (Mode 3 failure [1]) A weakness path coming from connection plates failure (Mode 1 and/or 2 [1]), instead of bolt failure is a better connection design practice. That can be reached by adopting the connected plates thicknesses between 50% and 65% of bolt diameter.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution of the Structural Civil Engineering Staff whose work contributed to the development of this material. In particular the author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the engineers Hailton B. Olivieri, Claudio M. Rocha and Tarcisio F. Cardoso for their invaluable assistance.
INAC 2009, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

REFERENCES

1. 2. 3.

4.

European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures Part 1-8: Design of Joints, Brussels, Nederland (2005). W. McGuire, Steel Structures, Prentice-Hall, Inc./Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA (1968). H. Bruckner, Elastische Platten, Linienlasten, Einzellasten, Teilflchenlasten, Blocklasten, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Braunschweig, Germany (1977). Eletrobrs Termonuclear S.A. Eletronuclear, Semi-Rigid End Plate Connections, Technical Report BP//6660/910206, Angra 2 Nuclear Power Plant A2NPP, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (1991),

INAC 2009, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil