Nuclear Engineering and Design 350 (2019) 9–20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

Structural assessment of radiation damage in light water power reactor T

concrete biological shield walls
P.M. Brucka, T.C. Esselmana, , B.M. Elaidia, J.J. Wallb, E.L. Wongb
⁎

a
LPI, Inc., Amesbury, MA, United States
b
Electric Power Research Institute, Charlotte, NC, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: An important topic for long-term operation of nuclear plants is aging of plant concrete structures. The con-
Concrete tainment building, biological shielding, and support concrete are examples of concrete structures that are of
Long-term operation primary importance in the operation of a nuclear plant. These and other safety-related structures must be
Radiation damage capable of maintaining structural capability for the operating life of the plant. Demonstration of the satisfactory
Volumetric expansion
condition of the concrete structures is required for safe operation, particularly when plant operation beyond
Structural capability
60 years is considered.
The concrete biological shield (CBS) wall is particularly important because of its shielding and structural
functions and that it is irradiated due to its proximity to the reactor pressure vessel. Demonstrating that the
concrete remains structurally able to perform its intended function is vital in effective aging management.
Neutron irradiation above certain thresholds can cause loss of tensile and compressive strength of the con-
crete and volumetric expansion. If the irradiation level exceeds the threshold, both loss of strength and volu-
metric expansion should be evaluated. Methods to reliably evaluate the effects of the loss of strength and vo-
lumetric expansion are required.

1. Introduction and background
In a nuclear plant, the biological shielding and reactor support
concrete that is near the reactor vessel will be exposed to radiation
during normal operation of the plant. It is important that this concrete
is shown to be capable of maintaining structural capability for the op-
erating life of the plant under all normal operation and postulated ac-
cident scenarios. Demonstration of the satisfactory condition of the
concrete structures is a part of an effective Aging Management pro-
gram.
Significant progress has been made in understanding the effects of
radiation on concrete. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has
issued several reports since publishing its initial roadmap document in
2012 (EPRI, 2012, 2014, 2016a,b,c, 2018). Oak Ridge National La-
boratory (ORNL) has also made significant progress in understanding
the effects of radiation on concrete (Remec, 1999, 2013; Field et al.,
2015; Rosseel et al., 2016; Le Pape, 2015; Le Pape et al., 2016; Remec
et al., 2017). Other contributions have been made by international re-
search teams (Kontani et al., 2010, Maruyama et al., 2016, 2017). Be-
cause of the work that has been performed since 2012, a clear path for
evaluation of adequacy of concrete for operation to 80 years or beyond
can be provided to plant operators that desire to operate their plants for
such a time period.
This paper defines methods to determine the expected condition of
concrete for the purposes of developing an effective aging management
process.
Concrete structures of interest for most plants include the primary
containment building, the biological shield wall, and other concrete
inside the containment. Of the concrete structures, the biological shield
is the only concrete structure that is expected to experience radiation
levels that may cause degradation of the concrete. The biological shield
wall is designed to be close to the reactor vessel in order to absorb
radiation that is created in the fuel in the reactor vessel. Many plants
also use the biological shield wall to support the reactor vessel.
The detailed configuration of the CBS wall of an individual plant
will depend on plant design. PWR and BWR designs are different. For
PWRs, the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) support loads are commonly
transferred to the concrete of the CBS. The CBS structure will also be a
primary support to the concrete structures above it. A typical PWR
design is shown in Fig. 1.
For a typical BWR, the biological shield wall concrete structure
surrounds the nuclear reactor pressure vessel and provides essential

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tesselman@lpiny.com (T.C. Esselman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.04.027
Received 22 February 2019; Received in revised form 12 April 2019; Accepted 17 April 2019
Available online 11 May 2019
0029-5493/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
P.M. Bruck, et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 350 (2019) 9–20

radiation shielding to the surrounding environment. In many plant

designs, the biological shield wall is also a load-bearing structure that
supports the reactor pressure vessel and other concrete structures
above, such as the reactor cavity structure and operating floor. A typical
BWR design is shown in Fig. 2.
The evaluation required depends on the specific features of the
concrete design in each specific plant.

2. Expected neutron exposure

In order to evaluate the expected condition of the concrete at an

evaluated Effective Full Power Years (EFPY) of operation (for example,
72 EFPY which may represent 80 years of plant chronological age as-
suming, in this example, a capacity factor of 90%), the levels of ra-
diation that are expected at that age would be needed. Plant specific
calculations of the EFPY will be required for every plant. The approach
is intended to provide methods that allow a calculation of the expected
level of fluence at the CBS wall concrete given the fluence levels ex-
pected in the reactor vessel steel, as determined by plant specific re-
actor vessel surveillance programs.

2.1 Neutron fluence at CBS ID (E > 0.1 MeV)

A neutron fluence energy > 0.1 MeV is necessary for evaluation of

concrete as most point defects in the aggregates are generated by
neutrons with E > 0.1 MeV (Remec et al., 2017). The fluence in the
concrete can be calculated from the fluence in the reactor pressure
vessel (RPV) which is carefully calculated. The RPV fluence though, is
calculated at an energy level > 1.0 MeV. It is necessary to first de-
termine the expected fluence at the RPV inside diameter (ID) for
E > 1.0 MeV. This location is referred to as the “0T” location in this
paper. This calculation is fully plant specific and needs to be performed
Fig. 1. Typical Configuration of PWR RPV and Biological Shield Structure.
on a plant-by-plant basis.
The 0 T fluence, expressed in terms of neutrons per square cen-
timeter (n/cm2) will be attenuated from the ID wall to the vessel out-
side diameter (OD) wall. To derive the expected fluence at the RPV OD,
referred to as the “1T” location of the RPV, the attenuation equation in
US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.99 (US NRC, 1988) can be utilized.
Equation 3 of the Regulatory Guide is based on displacement per atom
(dpa) attenuation factors. As identified by Randall (Randall, 1986), the
early basis for attenuating fluence used a different form of the equation.
Where the exponent factor based on dpa attenuation was −0.24x, for
fluence attenuation, the exponent is −0.33x (x is the vessel thickness in
inches). Thus, an appropriate equation for determination of fluence
attenuation through the thickness of the RPV is:

(1)
= (e 0.33x )
1.0MeV surf

where: Φ1.0MeV = neutron fluence (n/cm2) at the outside surface (RPV

1 T) (E > 1.0 MeV), Φsurf = neutron fluence (n/cm2) at the inner
(wetted) surface (RPV 0 T) (E > 1.0 MeV), x = thickness of RPV (in
inches).
The RPV fluence is at an energy > 1.0 MeV. Analyses can be used to
define a ratio between the vessel OD fluence at E > 0.1 MeV and
E > 1.0 MeV. This ratio depends on the thickness of the vessel.
Available study data from prior assessments (Remec, 1999, 2013,
Randall, 1986) were reviewed to determine the relationship between
the neutron fluxes for the two energy levels. These were correlated to
the wall thickness of the evaluated RPV (EPRI, 2014). A curve fit of the
data showed that the relationship between fluence at an energy of
0.1 MeV and 1.0 MeV can be expressed by Eq. (2):

0.1MeV = 2.123 × e 0.191x × 1.0MeV (2)

Fig. 2. Typical Configuration of BWR RPV and Biological Shield Structure.

10
P.M. Bruck, et al.
where: Φ0.1MeV = neutron fluence (n/cm2) at the outside surface (RPV
1 T) (E > 0.1 MeV), x = thickness of RPV (in inches)
Data provided from PWRs and BWRs in the United States (EPRI,
2014) was extrapolated to the fluence at the RPV outer wall (1 T) lo-
cation expected for 80 years of reactor operation (with an assumed
EFPY of 73.6 years). These values were calculated to be:
• PWRs, < /=6.8 × 1019 n/cm2 (E > 0.1 MeV)
• BWRs, < /=1.0 × 1019 n/cm2 (E > 0.1 MeV)
Again, an individual plant evaluation would be necessary to provide
precise values for a specific plant application.
With the fluence at the OD of the vessel (RPV 1 T location), the
fluence at the concrete of the CBS wall ID can be calculated. The fluence
with E > 0.1 MeV at the ID of the concrete is lower than at the OD of
the RPV. This is primarily due to the gap that exists between the OD of
the vessel and the ID of the concrete. Analyses by ORNL (Remec, 2013)
and EPRI (EPRI, 2014) were used to compare the fluence values at the
vessel OD to the concrete at the CBS wall ID. Both locations were cal-
culated in each analysis for E > 0.1 MeV for a Westinghouse two loop
and a Westinghouse three loop PWR plant. Both used concrete density,
elemental composition, and water content from NUREG-6453 (Remec
and Kam, 1997). The results showed that the fluence at the CBS wall
were less than 0.9 times the fluence at the RPV OD. On that basis, it is
recommended that a conservative ratio of 0.9 will be used for this
evaluation.
Based on the evaluation of the fleet of US reactors, the bounding
values of fluence at the CBS ID location for 80 years of reactor operation
was determined to be on the order of 6.1 × 1019 n/cm2 (E > 0.1 MeV)
for 80 years of operation (EPRI, 2014). An individual plant evaluation
will be necessary to provide precise values for a specific plant appli-
cation. The specific plant evaluation should include fluence mitigation
features that may have been incorporated in the plant design. These can
include water-filled neutron shield tanks and other shielding “blanket”
methods.
2.2 Attenuation through concrete
The attenuation through the concrete is important for the evalua-
tion of the structural capacity of the biological shield wall. The at-
tenuation was calculated using neutron and gamma transport codes to
simulate particle interactions with the concrete material (EPRI, 2014,
Remec, 2013). This was performed for both concrete and for concrete
with embedded reinforcing steel.
The results of these calculations are shown in Fig. 3. These were
performed for a typical two-loop and three-loop plant. The two-loop
results were more conservative and thus are shown. The attenuation
Fig. 3. Flux attenuation in Portland cement concrete in first 5 in. of concrete
(E > 0.1 MeV).
11
Nuclear Engineering and Design 350 (2019) 9–20
ratio in this figure has been plotted on a linear scale so that the ratio can
be more easily discerned. Note that the flux is reduced by one order of
magnitude in 5 in. (12.7 cm). The attenuation ratio within this first 5 in.
(12.7 cm) of the concrete is significant. The neutron flux is reduced by
half in approximately the first 1½ inches (3.8 cm) of concrete.
The curve in Fig. 3 can be fit with a polynomial trend line for use in
calculations. The attenuation ratio is expressed in Eq. (3):
An = ( 9.5577 × 10 6) d5 + (4.8793 × 10 4) d4 (9.6891 × 10 3) d3
+ (9.4840 × 10 2) d 2 0.47235d + 1.0165 (3)
where: An = flux attenuation ratio in Portland cement concrete,
d = depth into the CBS wall from the ID surface, (in inches)
2.3. Gamma
Determination of gamma flux and resulting dose are available from
study evaluations by ORNL on 2-loop and 3-loop Westinghouse plants
(Remec, 1999) and by EPRI on a 3-loop Westinghouse plant (EPRI,
2014) through the thickness of the CBS wall. The maximum gamma
dose is beneath the surface of the biological shield wall due to gamma
production in the concrete by neutron capture. The data for the two
reference plants considered in the EPRI study (EPRI, 1976) showed that
the PWR gamma dose exceeds the BWR plant gamma dose.
From these studies, the maximum gamma dose in the concrete is
approximately 1.23 × 1010 Rad over an 80-year life. Individual plant
evaluation would be necessary to provide precise values for a specific
plant application.
3. Neutron fluence testing
For many years, the reference that has been used by many as the
threshold for exposure is a paper by Hilsdorf. In 1978, H. K. Hilsdorf
et al. (1978) published a paper on the effects of nuclear radiation on the
mechanical properties of concrete. The authors compiled and sum-
marized previously published experimental data on the effect of ra-
diation on the properties of concrete. The data used by Hilsdorf com-
bined tests with widely varying temperatures and energy levels. Based
on this data, Hilsdorf concluded that neutron radiation with a fluence
of > 1.0 × 1019 n/cm2 may result in a reduction effect on concrete
strength and modulus of elasticity (Hilsdorf et al., 1978).
Since 2014, significant work has been performed and published on
the effects of radiation in concrete (EPRI 2012, 2014, 2016a,b,c, 2018;
Remec, 1999, 2013; Field et al., 2015; Rosseel et al., 2016; Le Pape,
2015; Le Pape et al., 2016; Remec et al., 2017). A large database of
neutron-irradiated concrete physical property data was collected and
presented by Field et al. (2015). Fig. 4 is a plot of concrete strength
versus neutron fluence. This presentation of neutron fluence data in-
dicates that the compressive strength appears to begin to decrease at a
fluence of approximately 1 × 1019 n/cm2. In this plot, though, the
energy spectrum and specimen temperature vary between experiments.
Some data was for tests that were at higher temperatures and differing
energy levels than those of interest for application to nuclear power
plants.
Maruyama et al. (2017) presented consistent data with
E > 0.1 MeV and with test temperatures less than 212°F (100 °C) along
with new test results. The concrete for these tests was considered as
typical concrete that would be utilized for commercial nuclear reactor
operation. The data is summarized in Fig. 5. It shows that a strength
reduction begins at a neutron fluence of 1.0 × 1019 n/cm2. This finding
is consistent with the consensus of technical literature, which includes
the original recommendation of Hilsdorf with additional testing to
higher fluence levels and clarity in the test conditions. Based on this,
the threshold for neutron fluence effects on concrete is taken as
1.0 × 1019 n/cm2 (E > 0.1 MeV).
P.M. Bruck, et al.
Fig. 4. A plot of concrete compressive strength versus fluence (from Field et al., 2015).
4. Gamma testing
Hilsdorf et al. (1978) also presented the change in compressive
strength versus gamma dose for a limited amount of data. The mean
interpolated value of the trend of this data would indicate a decrease in
compressive strength for a dose between 2.0 × 1010 Rad to 3.0 × 1010
Rad. However, the data that was used to derive the plot is varied and
not considered as fully representative of commercial reactor conditions.
Maruyama et al. reviewed prior gamma testing data and noted that
specimen heating affected many prior test results (Maruyama et al.,
2017). Maruyama et al. designed gamma tests to limit heating, per-
formed these tests, and summarized their data (Maruyama et al., 2017).
Representative data for compressive strength and elastic modulus is
shown in Fig. 6. These figures are annotated with the gamma radiation
at different exposure rates. A tendency for the compressive strength of
the specimens to increase the longer that they were irradiated was
noted.
The Maruyama paper suggested that either the threshold reference
value for gamma exposure be raised to a high level or abandoned
Fig. 5. A plot of concrete compressive strength ratio (Fc/Fco) versus fast neutron fluence (E > 0.1 MeV) (from Maruyama et al., 2017). (Fc tested strength after
irradiation; Fco original strength before irradiation).
12
Nuclear Engineering and Design 350 (2019) 9–20
entirely. With consideration of the prior Hilsdorf data and the available
test data presented by Maruyama, a gamma irradiation up to a
threshold of 2.3 × 1010 Rad appears to have no detrimental effect on
material properties.
5. Structural loads
The concrete biological shield (CBS) structure is sized to provide
radiation shielding. In many PWR designs, it also provides support to
the reactor vessel. The requirements for supporting the reactor vessel
depend upon the specific design details of the plant. It can provide
lateral support and/or vertical support, and in some designs, support of
the reactor vessel is not provided by the CBS structure. The CBS in most
PWR designs must be capable of withstanding normal deadweight loads
during operation and refueling and also must be capable of with-
standing seismic and other design basis loads (NUREG, 1981, US NRC,
1978).
The reactor vessel support for BWRs is typically located at the base
of the reactor, away from the high fluence region. For many PWR
P.M. Bruck, et al.
Fig. 6. Change in Concrete Compressive Strength and Elastic Modulus versus Gamma Dose (from Maruyama et al., 2017).
designs, the reactor vessel support loads the concrete laterally and
vertically. These loads result for deadweight and off-normal events like
Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) (NUREG, 1981) and seismic loading.
In many cases, the loads resulting from LOCA have been reduced sig-
nificantly since the initial design of the plants by the elimination of
some pipe breaks, particularly the postulated pipe breaks at the reactor
vessel inlet and outlet nozzles. The postulated break locations have
changed due to implementation of leak-before-break (LBB) evaluations
(US NRC, 1987, 2007, NUREG, 2002).
6. Overall structural loads
Besides loads from the RPV supports, the concrete CBS structure will
also have to withstand overall deadweight loads, seismic loads, thermal
expansion, and loads resulting from postulated pipe breaks. The loads
will include loads from the structure above the CBS (see Fig. 1). The
structural margin that existed in the initial analyses or any reanalysis
should be determined. Given that the CBS is designed primarily for
radiation shielding, it is expected that the structural margins may be
significant.
Temperature loading consists of the operational design temperature
load augmented by the temperature rise due to radiation. The total
temperature profile in the CBS wall depends on the temperature in the
air gap between the RPV and CBS wall inside face and on the airflow in
the gap. The temperature profiles were calculated using a 2-D finite
element model with radiative heat transfer from the reactor vessel, a
gamma heat load, forced convection on the ID of the biological shield,
and natural convection on the OD. Details of the analysis are available
in an EPRI report (EPRI, 2016). Steel liners cause reduction in the
temperature profile however the overall impact is negligible. Typical
total temperature profiles including the effects of gamma radiation for
varying air gap temperatures and airflow are shown in Fig. 7 (EPRI,
2016).
6.1. Concrete property changes
The structural capacity of the CBS will be affected by the depth of
concrete where the neutron fluence exceeds the damage threshold of
1.0 × 1019 n/cm2 (E > 0.1 MeV) and/or the depth of the concrete
where the gamma dose exceeds the threshold of 2.3 × 1010 Rad. Where
the fluence exceeds 1.0 × 1019 n/cm2 (E > 0.1 MeV), there may be an
13
Nuclear Engineering and Design 350 (2019) 9–20
expansion of the concrete referred to as “radiation-induced volumetric
expansion” (RIVE) with a corresponding reduction in concrete proper-
ties. For concrete subjected to high values of gamma dose (above the
threshold value), there is also the potential for additional decrease in
compressive strength. It is expected that gamma values will be less than
the threshold based on radiation transport simulations. As such, the
following structural evaluations are based on neutron fluence levels
exceeding the threshold.
The extent of the changes in concrete properties will be limited to
the inner inches of the CBS – the precise extent will depend on the
fluence at the ID surface of the CBS. No changes are presumed when the
neutron fluence drops below the threshold. The occurrence of RIVE
swelling and changes in compressive strength, tensile strength, and
modulus have been fully described (Rosseel et al., 2016). The occur-
rence of RIVE is shown in Fig. 8. The reduction in compressive strength
with increasing neutron fluence was seen previously in Fig. 5.
There are also changes in tensile strength and elastic modulus re-
ported by Field et al. (2015).
These data plots have been converted into mathematical relation-
ships that relate the property to the neutron fluence (which is a function
of the depth into the concrete) (Le Pape, 2015). The relationship for
each important parameter is provided below. These will be used to
derive material properties and predict the degree of RIVE within the
concrete.
Swelling strain (as a result of RIVE) through thickness as a function
of the accumulated fluence was calculated by Le Pape (2015). The total
population of data was sorted and data that was to be included in the
model was identified. This data is considered representative of light
water reactor aggregate constituents. The relationship that was devel-
oped based on the data is:
e 1
sw ( )= max
max + e (4)
where: εsw(Φ) = swelling strain as a function of fluence,
Φ = fluence in n/cm2 (E > 0.1 MeV), κ = dimensionless parameter
homogenous to strain = 0.00968, εmax = maximum expansion, =
0.00936, δ = inverse of fluence, = 3.092 × 10-20 cm2/neutron
The relationship for compressive strength of concrete as a function
of fluence was also developed by Le Pape (2015). The relationship that
was developed based on the data is:
P.M. Bruck, et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 350 (2019) 9–20

Fig. 7. Temperature profile in the CBS for various inner gap air temperatures (left). Effect on temperature profile for various gap airflows (with gap air temperature
set at 150°F (65.5 °C)) (right).

( x7.253x10 21)1.582 ( x 4.073x10 22)0.4025

fc ( ) = f coe (5) E ( ) = Eo e (7)

where: fco = the 28-day design compressive strength of concrete (in
psi), Φ = fluence in n/cm2 with E > 0.1 MeV
Similar relationships were developed for tensile strength and elastic
modulus as a function of fluence was also developed by Le Pape (2015).
The relationship that was developed for tensile strength based on the
data is:
ft ( ) = ftoe ( x8.649x10 21)0.436
(6)
where: fto = the tensile strength of un-irradiated concrete calculated
in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) requirements
(ACI, 2014a,b) (in psi).
Φ = fluence in n/cm2 with E > 0.1 MeV.
The relationship for elastic modulus based on the data is:
where: Eo = the elastic modulus of un-irradiated concrete calcu-
lated in accordance with ACI requirements (ACI 2014a,b) (in psi).
Φ = fluence in n/cm2 with E > 0.1 MeV.
6.2 Effect of change in properties
Once the depth of concrete that will have neutron fluence that ex-
ceeds the threshold is defined, RIVE occurring in this region will create
compressive stresses. This depth is expected to be on the order of in-
ches. With the reduction in compressive strength that will accompany
the neutron fluence, the resulting compressive stress induced by RIVE
may exceed the reduced compressive strength of the concrete. The re-
gion of expansion will also cause compressive stresses past the region
where the fluence exceeds the neutron damage threshold. This means

Fig. 8. Volumetric Swelling versus Neutron Fluence. The neutron spectrum and temperature vary between experiments and are not all representative of Nuclear Plant
conditions (Field et al., 2015).

14
P.M. Bruck, et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 350 (2019) 9–20

that compressive stresses are induced in the concrete past the region of
RIVE.
An analysis of the effects of concrete irradiation must be capable to
determine:

• The compressive stresses induced by RIVE

• The region where the RIVE induced compressive stress exceeds the
concrete compressive strength
• Redistribution of stresses due to loss of concrete stiffness at the CBS
ID region

The concrete that is compromised will not be available to resist

applied loads. The potential that reinforcing steel is in a compromised
region may reduce the ability of the rebar to carry load.
The induced compressive stress is also reacted by tensile stress that
occurs across the width of the CBS wall beyond the RIVE zone. These
tensile stresses are relatively small but can exceed the tensile strength of
the concrete. This may cause cracking at the outside surface of the CBS
wall.
For plants where the CBS walls are subjected to fluence levels above
the threshold, it is necessary to evaluate the resulting impact on the
structural design margin. An approach has been developed to quanti-
tatively assess the ability of a radiation-degraded CBS wall to support
design basis loads. This “Integrated Approach” uses three distinct
models to provide a comprehensive evaluation. These are:

• Fluence Damage Model

• Global Model
• Local RPV Support Model
6.3. Fluence damage model

The Fluence Damage Model utilizes a finite element analysis (FEA)

model of a radial wedge section through the thickness of the CBS wall.
It considers concrete fluence degradation, RIVE swelling, thermal ex-
pansion effects, and changes in elastic modulus, compressive and ten-
sile strength. The concrete and the reinforcing bars (rebar) are included
in the model. A similar analysis was performed by Le Pape (2015), but
that model did not include the rebar.
The model can be constructed using commercially available FEA
software such as ANSYS (2019) or LS-DYNA (2019) with load-step
capability and the ability to swell concrete elements and reduce the
properties of concrete as they are subjected to incrementally applied
irradiation induced swelling and temperature. The key parameter in
this model is the extent of concrete with fluence that exceeds the
neutron damage threshold value of 1.0 × 1019 n/cm2 (E > 0.1 MeV).
The depth of concrete into the wall of the CBS that will experience
volumetric expansion due to RIVE and reduction of elastic modulus and
compressive strength is a function of the applied radiation over the
evaluated time period. The Fluence Damage Model will calculate the
extent of concrete compression damage that occurs at the inside surface
of the CBS and determines the resulting stress in the rebar as a result of
RIVE and temperature effects.
A simplified configuration of a typical CBS wall is shown in Fig. 9.
This FEA wedge model includes both concrete and rebar elements. The
mesh representing the concrete elements, especially in the region of
RIVE induced damage, and the adjacent region needs to be well refined
to accurately predict the distribution of fluence and concrete behavior
in the radial direction. Mesh size can be increased away from this re-
gion towards the OD of the biological shield. For this sample analysis,
rebar details are obtained from prototypical plant documents and are
modeled either with discrete reinforcement elements at their respective
location (as shown in Fig. 9) or smeared within concrete elements. The
concrete element mesh is designed to align with the location of the
rebar. Inclusion of steel liners requires verification of the liner ancho-
rage integrity based on depth of irradiation damage in the concrete. For
Fig. 9. Finite element wedge model through the thickness of CBS wall. Model
includes both concrete and rebar elements (lower model identifies example of
rebar in the wedge).
the example presented, the liner was excluded from the analysis. The
concrete material is modeled as linear elastic with failure limits in
tension, compression, and shear in the three orthogonal directions. A
typical value of 0.2 is used for the Poisson’s ratio. For specific plant
analyses, rebar details may be obtained from plant drawings. Rebar
locations and ratios will vary from plant to plant.
The boundary conditions for the wedge analysis include axi-sym-
metry on the radial edges and vertical restraints on the top and bottom
surfaces. The vertical restraints can either be total restraint or just
coupling of vertical displacements on the top surface. The analysis
should consider both cases to obtain bounding results. The wedge is free
to deform in the radial direction.
This analysis is performed incrementally. The increments represent
the passage of time as the fluence in the concrete increases over the
simulated life of the structure. When the inner volume of the CBS first
reaches a fluence of 1.0 × 1019 n/cm2 (E > 0.1 MeV), it will begin to
experience volumetric expansion. The volumetric expansion will induce
compressive stresses in this volume of concrete and adjacent volumes.
This compressive stress is compared to the reduced compressive
strength of the concrete. Initially, the analysis is performed with RIVE
volumetric expansion and temperature loads and with linear concrete
properties to determine the potential for exceeding the compression
crushing and tensile cracking limits of the concrete as shown in Fig. 10.
Based on the level of compression and tension stresses and the margin
in the design basis, the need for nonlinear RIVE analysis is evaluated.

15
P.M. Bruck, et al.
Fig. 10. Example of Linear Concrete Stress Profile from One Dimensional
Analysis of Fluence and Temperature (shown also are the concrete compression
and concrete tensile stress limits, fc and ft, respectively).
Nonlinear analysis uses the same wedge model considering concrete
crushing and tensile cracking. The fluence loading and corresponding
RIVE are applied incrementally to represent the aging of the concrete.
This evaluation process (in load-steps) will progress incrementally for
the period of time being evaluated (e.g., 80 years).
If the compressive stress from RIVE exceeds the strength in a given
volume for that load-step, that volume of concrete will fail in com-
pression, lose the stiffness to support loads and will not be able to carry
loads in the remainder of the analysis. At this point, the analysis be-
comes non-linear. The analysis is continued until the calculated max-
imum fluence at the CBS ID for the evaluation period has been applied
(as reflected by the amount of RIVE swelling applied). The final extent
of damage – namely the compressive stress in the elements exceeding
the concrete strength, and the resulting stress level in the CBS rebar at
the projected EFPY age is quantified. This information is then utilized to
characterize the amount of concrete that should not be credited in
subsequent evaluation models of the CBS wall capacity, if ID rebar
should not be credited, and to determine the percentage of tensile stress
in the OD rebar that has occurred to balance the RIVE-induced com-
pression.
The incremental loading process can be seen in Fig. 11. The radial
finite element model mesh is shown in the left of the figure. The in-
cremental loading steps (each line represents an element within the
“yellow” element group shown in the model) are shown in the right of
the figure. As an element exceeds its reduced or design concrete com-
pression capacity, it cannot carry load. The analysis proceeds until the
total RIVE and temperatures for the evaluation period are applied. The
depth of damage can be estimated at the point when the maximum
Fig. 11. Compression region of the inner volume of concrete.
16
Nuclear Engineering and Design 350 (2019) 9–20
fluence applied to the wall results in concrete compression at or below
the concrete capacity (the lower value of either reduced concrete ca-
pacity from irradiation damage or concrete design capacity).
The compressive stresses that are created at the inner region of
concrete will be reacted by tensile stresses at the outer region. The
tensile stresses are calculated for each increment of added fluence.
Since the tensile strength of concrete is very low, it is possible that the
calculated tensile stress will exceed the concrete tensile design strength.
If this occurs, it is possible that minor concrete cracking could occur at
the outside surface of the CBS concrete. Given the proximity of rebar
expected to be near the outer surface, cracking in the concrete will
cause loss of concrete stiffness and strength and transfer of the tension
load carrying capacity to the OD rebar. This needs to be considered in
the Global Model, where the overall strength of the CBS to carry the
design basis loads is assessed.
This incremental process on the outer CBS surfaces is shown in Fig. 12.
The Fluence Damage Model radial wedge mesh is shown in the left of the
figure. The region that has tensile stress exceeding the strength is shown in
“yellow”. The incremental steps relative to concrete tension cracking are
shown in the right hand side of the figure. Plotted results are similar to that
as described in the compression region of Fig. 11.
An example of the final stress state in the concrete is shown in
Fig. 13.
The ability to decouple the irradiation analysis from design basis
analysis should be justified. Decoupling is valid if the design basis stress
is less than or equal to 10% of the radiation-induced linear stress at the
ID (see Fig. 10). If the design basis stress is > 10% of the radiation-
induced stress, then decoupling of irradiation analysis in the following
steps may not be accurate and more detailed analyses may be required.
6.4. Global model
The Global Model can be developed using a closed form solution or
an FEA model (see Fig. 14) that has the capability to evaluate global
loads from the RPV support, together with loads from the overall
structure and any refueling cavity structure above the RPV support
region. The global loads will include loads from the RPV support (if
applicable), deadweight of the structure during normal operation and
refueling operations, and structure seismic loads. The model results in
Fig. 14, as an example, include the normal operating loads and loads
from seismic and LOCA. These analyses may be similar to analyses that
were performed on the CBS during the original plant design qualifica-
tion phase. However, the original calculation should be reviewed and
updated as needed with new information and also credited for reduced
LOCA loading as explained earlier.
The global design basis analysis will determine the maximum con-
crete stress at the CBS ID. This stress is compared against the linear
irradiation stress in Fig. 10 to justify decoupling of the irradiation
analysis.
P.M. Bruck, et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 350 (2019) 9–20

Fig. 12. Tensile region of the outer volume of concrete. The dark blue line in the right hand graph is at the CBS OD. This line marches inward as the fluence increases.

Fig. 13. Illustration of the Damage Zones on Schematic of Nonlinear Concrete Stress Profile.

In this example and in typical containment designs, the vertical
stresses resulting from the overturning moment are generally larger
than vertical stresses due to dead weight. This is expected to result in
net tensile stresses on the OD of the CBS. However, the numerical va-
lues in the example presented herein, the overturning moment is rela-
tively small so that vertical stresses remain in compression as shown in
Fig. 14.
6.5. Local RPV support model
The Local RPV Support Model can be developed either using a closed
form solution or by developing an FEA model that evaluates the cap-
ability of the concrete to transfer loads from the RPV supports into the
CBS wall (see Fig. 15). This will include concrete, anchorage for the
RPV supports, and rebar in the concrete. The exact configuration being
plant specific due to the large variation of design configuration. For this
evaluation, it may be possible to use the post-LBB loads (as discussed in
Section 4) to quantify reduction in current design loads to that of the
loads that were used in the original design evaluation. This load re-
duction can be compared to the reduction in strength of the RPV an-
chorage as a result of the radiation environment over the evaluated
period of time. The amount of degradation of the concrete and the ef-
fectiveness of the rebar or RPV support anchorage can be assessed based
on the results of the Fluence Damage Model.
Degraded strength of the RPV support anchorage can be evaluated
after the irradiation damage depth in the concrete ID is determined. The

17
P.M. Bruck, et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 350 (2019) 9–20

Fig. 14. Illustration of Stress Results for a Global Finite Element Model of the CBS Cylindrical Wall.

calculated irradiation damage depth is maximum at mid-height of the
fuel rods and decreases vertically upward and downward from that
point (EPRI, 2018). Using the attenuated damage depth at the elevation
of the anchorage (EPRI, 2018), the effective concrete area for the an-
chorage is reduced. The resulting reduction in anchorage capacity is
calculated using the reduced concrete anchorage area and applicable
concrete code. Depending on the depth of concrete damage, the most
inner anchor rods may be considered degraded and discounted from the
anchor evaluation. The RPV anchorage is typically analyzed as a group
action anchorage. Based on the schematic layout in Fig. 15, the re-
sulting reduction of the effective concrete area is generally small.
Additionally, for certain RPV support designs, see Section 2, the
RPV is not supported in a region where radiation will result in concrete
damage, and/or the amount of fluence at the RPV support is less than

Fig. 15. Illustration of Stress Results for a Local Finite Element Model of the RPV Support.

18
P.M. Bruck, et al.
the threshold values. In such a case the RPV support capacity will either
be minimally affected or not affected at all. In BWR plants, it is likely
that the radiation levels in the concrete will be below the threshold
levels and that detailed analysis will not be required.
If a detailed analysis is considered warranted, the concrete RIVE
degradation results from the Fluence Damage Model can be applied to
the RPV support region. The capacity to resist applied RPV support
loads with RIVE damage should be calculated, and the resulting design
margin quantified.
6.6. Multi-Step Integrated approach
In order to implement a structural capacity analysis using the
Integrated Approach, eight steps may be required. They are defined
below.
Step 1: Design Basis Loads
Determine the reactor vessel reactions at the RPV supports from the
plant design basis documents. The reactions include deadweight,
seismic, and LOCA loading. Determine any additional loads imparted to
the CBS wall from the internal structure components supported by the
CBS wall (i.e., such as the refuel cavity). Consider the increased dead-
weight during refueling operations.
Determine the design basis temperature profile across the CBS wall
thickness. A linear temperature profile is adequate for the analysis.
Step 2: CBS Wall Configuration and Load Path
Obtain the ID and OD of the CBS wall. Obtain the design value of
concrete compressive strength. Obtain reinforcement information of the
wall along the ID and OD. This should include hoop and vertical rebar
sizes, concrete cover, and spacing and minimum specified yield strength
of the rebar material. Define the load path from the reactor vessel
supports and from internal structures for vertical and lateral loads.
Step 3: Global Model Design Basis Stresses
Calculate the concrete stress profile using design basis loads and the
annulus cross section of the CBS wall. This was likely performed in the
original design basis calculations. The stress will be controlled by an
axial force (along the axis of the RPV) and an out-of-plane bending
moment on the annulus wall section calculated at the elevation of the
maximum fluence. Two load combinations should be considered using
maximum and minimum axial force values and corresponding bending
moments. If applicable, consider the RPV load reduction due to LBB
implementation.
Step 4: First Pass Fluence
Develop the fluence profile through the wall. Define swelling strain
through thickness as a function of the accumulated fluence (for example
for a period of 80-years).
As described earlier, develop a one-dimensional radial numerical
FEA model, i.e. the Fluence Damage Model, to calculate concrete stresses
due to fluence induced RIVE and temperature profile across the CBS
wall. The model should be capable of simulating concrete swelling,
thermal expansion, compression crushing, and tensile cracking. The
model should also incorporate the degraded irradiated concrete prop-
erties (concrete compression strength, concrete tensile strength, and
elastic modulus).
Initially, a linear analysis is performed. For the first pass the non-
linear function of the concrete element used in the FEA model when the
compressive or tensile stress exceeds the strength is not activated in the
software to obtain the linear compression at the CBS ID (IDw) due to
fluence and elevated temperature. If the design basis stress from Step 3
is less than or equal to 10% of the maximum compression due to RIVE,
the decoupling analysis of the irradiation in the following steps is jus-
tified. If the design basis stress exceeds 10% of the linearly calculated
RIVE stress, more detailed analysis as described in Step 8 maybe re-
quired.
Step 5: Second Pass Nonlinear Fluence
If the linear calculated concrete stresses from Step 4 exceed the
concrete stress limits for compression and tension, “fc” and “ft”,
19
Nuclear Engineering and Design 350 (2019) 9–20
respectively (Fig. 10), then the evaluation outlined in Step 4 needs to be
repeated, but with the concrete nonlinear element behavior in the FEA
model turned on. As such, concrete compression stresses exceeding the
compressive strength at the ID of the wall and concrete tension cracking
within the wall to the OD should be expected. The results of the non-
linear analysis will include tensile stress in the rebar, vertical concrete
stress profiles through the wall, and the depth of concrete where the
compressive strength is exceeded.
Step 6: Degraded Wall Section
The effective annulus concrete section of the CBS wall is modified to
account for RIVE damage determined in Step 5 above by excluding
concrete from the wall where the stress exceeded the strength and ad-
justing the vertical ID and OD rebar area based on the extent of concrete
where the stress exceeded the strength and the stress in the rebar. If the
region of concrete compressive stress exceeding the compressive
strength consumes the location of the rebar, the rebar strength should
be fully or partially discounted. Rebar strength reduction is simulated
by reduction in rebar area if the concrete cover is reduced below the
minimum required cover per the applicable concrete code. The reduced
area of the rebar closest to the ID is computed as follows:
Reduced rebar area (at ID) = design rebar area × (concrete cover –
damage depth)/minimum required cover = design rebar area if da-
mage depth ≤ concrete cover – minimum required cover = 0 if damage
depth ≥ concrete cover
Step 7: Evaluation of Degraded Wall Section
Using properties of the degraded concrete section described in Step
6 above, calculate the ultimate moment and ultimate axial tension ca-
pacities of the selected CBS wall cross section for the Global Model.
Determine acceptance of the degraded section for the resultant design
basis axial and moment loads determined in Steps 1 and 3. If the CBS
wall section is not acceptable, perform detailed evaluation as described
in Step 8. Otherwise, the analysis is complete.
For the Local RPV Support Model, use properties of the degraded
concrete section described in Step 6 to modify the concrete that will be
effective to resist RPV support loads. The load transfer at the RPV
support needs to be developed to ensure adequate capacity exists with
consideration of any concrete degradation as a result of RIVE and re-
duced concrete strength. Credit maybe taken for reduced LOCA loading
and for reduced radiation due to distance from maximum fluence ele-
vation.
Step 8: Detailed Evaluation
In case the acceptance criteria in Step 7 cannot be demonstrated or
the decoupling criterion in Step 4 is not met, a full CBS wall FEA model
can be developed. The degraded concrete properties calculated above in
Step 4 can be incorporated into the model. The design basis loads and
the fluence induced swelling can be applied to the model. A nonlinear
concrete material model that is capable of representing concrete com-
pression degradation and tensile cracking should be used. Care should
be exercised in modeling the transition to linear material above and
below the active fuel elevation to avoid unrealistic behavior. The re-
sulting degraded concrete section should be evaluated to ensure that
the section has adequate strength to resist design basis loads.
7. Conclusion
This paper compiled an extensive body of work performed over the
last several years. It established a technical basis for determining the
effects of operation at elevated temperatures, potential volumetric ex-
pansion, and reduction of strength on concrete due to irradiation. From
this basis, a methodology was developed to evaluate the CBS wall for
these effects. The elements of this screening/evaluation methodology
are:
• Screening: Neutron fluence (E > 0.1 MeV) and gamma dose at the
inside diameter of the CBS wall based on individual plant RPV data
for the projected life of the plant are developed. The values are
P.M. Bruck, et al.
compared with derived concrete damage threshold values. If the
threshold values are exceeded, the plant must be evaluated to de-
monstrate structural capability.
•
Structural Evaluation: Fluence Damage Model. This evaluates concrete
fluence attenuation, RIVE swelling, temperature effects, and re-
ductions in elastic modulus, compressive and tensile strength. It
determines the extent of concrete compression damage that occurs
at the inside surface of the CBS, tensile cracking towards the outside
surface and resulting stresses in the rebar as a result of RIVE and
temperature effects.
• Structural Evaluation: Global Model. This evaluates the overall
strength of the CBS to carry the design basis loads under degraded
conditions over the evaluated period of time.
• Structural Evaluation: Local RPV Support Model. This evaluates the
reduction in strength of the RPV anchorage as a result of the ra-
diation environment over the evaluated period of time.
Acknowledgments:
This work was supported by the Electric Power Research Institute.
Declarations of Interest:
None
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318, Building Code for Structural Concrete and
Commentary, 2014 (or as required by specific plant requirements).
American Concrete Institute (ACI) 349, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-related
Concrete Structures (ACI-349) and Commentary, 2014 (or as required by specific
plant requirements).
ANSYS Engineering Simulation & 3D Design Software, ANSYS, Inc., https://www.ansys.
com, (accessed 20 February 2019).
Electric Power Research Institute, Study of Radiation Damage to Structural Components
in Nuclear Reactors, EPRI Report NP-152, January 1976.
Electric Power Research Institute, Effects of Radiation on Concrete – a Literature Survey
and Path Forward, EPRI Report 1025584, 2012.
Electric Power Research Institute, Expected Condition of Reactor Cavity Concrete after 80
Years of Radiation Exposure, EPRI Report 3002002676, 2014.
Electric Power Research Institute, Long-Term Operations: Impact of Radiation Heating on
PWR Biological Shield Concrete, EPRI Report 3002008129, 2016a.
Electric Power Research Institute, Structural Model of PWR Concrete Reactor Pressure
Vessel Supports – Effects of Chronic Radiation Exposure on Margin, EPRI Report
3002007347, Rev. 1, 2016b.
20
Nuclear Engineering and Design 350 (2019) 9–20
Electric Power Research Institute, Structure Disposition of Neutron Radiation Exposure in
BWR Vessel Support Pedestals, EPRI Report 3002008128, 2016c.
Electric Power Research Institute, Irradiation Damage of the Concrete Biological Shield:
Basis for Evaluation of Concrete Biological Shield Wall for Aging Management, EPRI
Report 3002011710, Rev. 0, 2018.
Field, K.G., Le Pape, Y., Remec, I., February 2015. Perspective on Radiation Effects in
Concrete for Nuclear Power Plants – Part I: Qualification of Radiation Exposure and
Radiation Effects. Nucl. Eng. Des. 282, 126–143.
Hilsdorf, H.K., Kropp, J., Koch, H.J., 1978. The Effects of Nuclear Radiation on the
Mechanical Properties of Concrete. American Concrete Institute, Special Publications
SP 55–10, 223–254.
Kontani, O., Ichikawa, Y., Ishizawa, A., Takizawa, M., Sato, O., 2010. Irradiation Effects
on Concrete Structures. In: International Symposium on the Aging Management and
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, pp. 173-182.
Le Pape, Y., 2015. Structural Effects of Radiation-Induced Volumetric Expansion on
Unreinforced Concrete Biological Shields. Nucl. Eng. Des. 534–548.
Le Pape, Y., Giorla, A., Sanahuja, J., 2016. Combined Effects of Temperature and
Irradiation on Concrete Damage. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 14, 70–86.
LS-DYNA Software, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, www.lstc.com, (ac-
cessed 20 February 2019).
Maruyama, I., Haba, K., Sato, O., Ishikawa, S., Kontani, O., Takizawa, M., 2016. A
Numerical Model for Concrete Strength Change under Neutron and Gamma-Ray
Irradiation. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 14, 144–162.
Maruyama, I., Kontani, O., Takizawa, M., Sawada, S., Ishikawa, S., Yasukouchi, J., Sato,
O., Etoh, J., Igari, T., 2017. Development of Soundness Assessment Procedure for
Concrete Members affected by Neutron and Gamma-Ray Irradiation. J. Adv. Concr.
Technol. 15, 440–523.
NUREG/CR-0609, Asymmetric Blowdown Loads on PWR Primary Systems, January 1981.
NUREG/CR-6765, Development of Technical Basis for Leak-Before-Break Evaluation
Procedures, May, 2002.
Randall, P., 1986. Basis for Revision 2 of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s
Regulatory Guide 1.99. Radiation Embrittlement of Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessel
Steels An International Review (second Volume), ASTM, STP 909, 149–162.
Remec, I., Kam, F.B.K., H.B. Robinson-2 Pressure Vessel Benchmark, NUREG/CR-6453,
October, 1997.
Remec, I., Study of Neutron Flux and Dpa Attenuation in the Reactor Pressure Vessel
Wall, ORNL/NRC/LTR-99/5, June 1999.
Remec, I., 2013. Radiation Environment in Biological Shields of Nuclear Power Plants.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
Remec, I., Rosseel, T., Field, K., Le Pape, Y., 2017. Characterization of Radiation Fields for
Assessing Concrete Degradation in Biological Shields of NPPs. EPJ Web of
Conferences 153, 05009.
Rosseel, T., Maruyama, I., Le Pape, Y., Kontani, O., Giorla, A., Remec, I., 2016. Review of
the Current State of Knowledge on the Effects of Radiation on Concrete. J. Adv.
Concr. Technol. 14, 366–383.
US NRC, Design of the Reactor Pressure Vessel Support System, Generic Letter 78-02,
January 25, 1978.
US NRC, Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures, Standard Review Plan 3.6.3, March
1987.
US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.99, Rev. 2, Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel
Materials, May 1988.
US NRC, Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures, Standard Review Plan 3.6.3, Revision
1, March 2007.