ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Division Spotlight
Fuel Cycle & Waste Management
Devoted to all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle including waste management, worldwide. Division specific areas of interest and involvement include uranium conversion and enrichment; fuel fabrication, management (in-core and ex-core) and recycle; transportation; safeguards; high-level, low-level and mixed waste management and disposal; public policy and program management; decontamination and decommissioning environmental restoration; and excess weapons materials disposition.
Meeting Spotlight
2024 ANS Annual Conference
June 16–19, 2024
Las Vegas, NV|Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Mar 2024
Jan 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
April 2024
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
February 2024
Latest News
Remembering Joseph M. Hendrie
Joseph M. Hendrie
To those of us who knew Joe, even prior to his appointment as chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it is an understatement to say that he was a larger-than-life member of the nuclear science and technology enterprise. He was best known to the broader community for two major accomplishments: the design and construction of the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR) at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the creation of the standard review plan (SRP) for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
In addition to the products of these endeavors becoming major fundaments to their respective communities, they were uniquely Joe. The safety analysis report for the HFBR was written essentially single-handedly by him. This was true of the SRP as well, which became the key safety review document for the NRC as it performed safety reviews for the growing number of power reactor applications in the United States. His deep technical knowledge of nuclear engineering and his extraordinary management skills made this possible.
Panayiotis J. Karditsas
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 29 | Number 4 | July 1996 | Pages 615-626
Technical Paper | Experimental Device | doi.org/10.13182/FST96-A30702
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
A preferred route is suggested for implementing the design rules and requirements of the design codes for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), such as ASME and RCC-MR, and for preliminarily assessing which of the in-service loading conditions inflicts the greatest damage on the structure. The current ITER design schedule and possible construction time require in the short term either enhancing the existing design codes and procedures or developing new ones. The time involved in such processes is great and, when coupled with the introduction of new technology, requires adherence, as much as possible, to existing design codes; any necessary modifications to the existing framework must be minor. The rationale for using the rules for strain-deformation and fatigue limits in the design and the reasons why this method is thought to be the most appropriate for a device like ITER are presented and analyzed. Some of the relevant design code rules and constraints are presented, and lifetime and fatigue damage, with some data on fatigue life for Type 316 stainless steel, are predicted. A design curve for strain range versus the number of cycles to failure is presented, including the effect of neutron damage on the material. An example calculation is performed on a first-wall section, and preliminary estimation of the fatigue usage factor is presented. One must observe caution when assessing the results because of the assumptions made in performing the calculations. The results, however, indicate that parts of the component are in the low-cycle fatigue region of operation, which thus supports the use of strain-life methods. The load-controlled stress limit approach of the existing codes leads to difficulties with in-service loading and component categorization, whereas the strain-deformation limit approach may lead to difficulties in calculations. The conclusion is that the load-controlled approach shifts the emphasis to the regulator and the licensing body, whereas the strain-deformation approach shifts the emphasis to the designer and the structural analyst.