ML17311A994

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

NEI Slides for November 8, 2017, Teleconference Concerning Tornado Missile Risk Evaluator Pilot Submittals
ML17311A994
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle  
Issue date: 11/08/2017
From: Charkas H, Shanley L, Tegeler B, Vaughn S
Jensen Hughes, Nuclear Energy Institute
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Brown E DORL/LPL-LSPB 415-2315
References
EPID L-2017-LLA-0350
Download: ML17311A994 (31)
v • d • e


Text

TMREPublicMeeting SteveVaughn NEI HasanCharkas-EPRI BretTegeler-JENSENHUGHES LeoShanley-JENSENHUGHES November8th,2017* Teleconference 1

Agenda

  • OpeningRemarks
  • IndustryresponsestoasubsetofNRC technicalquestions(ML17235B148)regarding NEI1702,Revision0

- RobustTargets/Missiles

- TargetCharacteristics

- MissileInventory

  • Pathforward 2

AppendixCQuestions

  • ResponsestoQuestion11(athrui)except 11.h(spallingsecondaryeffect) 3

11.a

  • FigureC1andTableC1donotappearto concludethattheassumptionsarerepresentative ofplanttargets.Specifically,theassumptionfor exhaustsandstacksisdescribedashavingthe exhaust/stackbeingsupportedonbothends.

Generally,andspecifictotheexampleinFigureC 1,thesetargetsareunsupportedattheend.The guidanceshouldensurejustificationisprovided todemonstratetheappropriatenessofthis assumption.

4

Responseto11.a

  • AppendixChas beenrevisedto includetwocases:

Fluidfilledpipe casethatis supportedonboth endsofpipe Ventpipecase thatissupported byacantilevered support TableC6results reflectthesecases 5

11.b

  • InSectionC.3.1,itistheNRCstaffs understandingthatMshouldbethemassof themissile,vicetheweightprovidedinthe missiledescriptions(mass=weight/32.2).For noncylindricalmissiles,theguidanceshould ensurethattheequivalentdiameterusedis thediameterofacircleequaltothefrontal areaofthenoncylindricalmissile.

6

Responseto11.b Weareinagreement withthestaffs understanding.While missileweightis referencedinthe missiledescriptions, theappropriatevalue ofmassisusedwhen required,suchwhen theBRLequationfor steelisused:

7

11.c

  • Theassumptionthatonlysteelmissilesare capableofperforatingsteeltargets,shouldbe verifiedandajustificationprovided.Also,inthe associatedreferencedocumentthatdescribes theequationabove,itissaidthatthethicknessof thesteelbarrierrequiredtopreventperforation shouldexceedthethicknessforthresholdof perforationsby25percent.Itshouldbe consideredwhetherthisassumptionissignificant enoughtobeadded.

8

AppendixCapproach addressesbothlocaland globaleffectsonsteel targets Localeffectsrelateto penetrationand deformationfailures Penetrationfailure isassessedusing BRLequation (empirical)

Deformation failureisassessed usingamechanics basedapproach Globaleffectsare relatedtolarger deformations PenetrationFailure Modes(Local)

DeformationFailureMode(Local)

DeformationFailureMode(Global) 9

  • Penetrationintoasteelplate requiresthemissiletohavea higharealdensityandstrength toremainintact(e.g.,steel jacketedlead)
  • DOEStandard301496 recommendsonlyusingBRL equationforrigidmissiles
  • Thus,forassessingpenetration failure,onlysteelmissilesare considered
  • However,allmissilesare consideredcrediblefor deformationfailuremodes 10 Steelmissilesconsideredforpenetration Allmissiles considered for deformation

11.d

  • InSectionC.3.1,theguidanceshouldprovide atableofvaluesofperforationthicknessesfor thedifferenttargetsinquestion,oran exampleofthisequationusedtoevaluateone ofthetargets.

11

Responseto11.d 12 Thefollowingtablesummarizesthreeexamplecasesindicatingtheparametersused intheconcreteperforationusing theBRLequation:

Parameter Notes

  1. 8Rebar UtilityPole 4x12timber MissileWeight(lb)

RefReportTable52 8

1500 200 MissileImpactFaceDimensions RefReportTable52 1"dia 13.5"dia 4"x12" AssumedMissileProjectedArea(in2)

RefReportTable52 0.8 143.1 48.0 EquivalentDiameter,D(in)[BasedonProjectedMissile Area]

1.0 13.5 7.8 AssumedConcreteDesignStrength,f'c(psi)

Representative 3,500 3,500 3,500 MedianConcreteStrengthFactor,Fm NEI0713;Section2.3.1 1.15 1.15 1.15 ConcreteAgeFactor,Fage NEI0713;Section2.3.1 1.20 1.20 1.20 DynamciIncreaseFactor,DIF NEI0713;Section2.3.1 1.25 1.25 1.25 MedianConcreteStrengthFactor'c(psi) f'cxFmxFagexDIF 6,038 6,038 6,038 VerticalImpactVelocity;Vvert(fps)Vvert=(2/3Vhor)

RefReportFigureC3 225 179 219 LimitingPerforationThickness;T(in)

BRLEquation;Report SectionC3.1 6.1 7.7 3.6

13 SummaryTableC5 reflectingresultsfor eachmissileand targetcombination

11.e

  • OntheVariationofImpactVelocitywithMissile Weight(FigureC3)plotprovidedshowshow missilevelocityassumedinthisanalysisvaries withweight.Theequationofthelineprovided representsthebestfitlineforthedata(blue dottedline),butthemodelusesthegreenline, whichisconservativelyshifteduptoamaximum velocityof230mph.Theguidanceshouldinclude theequationofthelineforthegreenlineinorder tocalculateanymissilevelocitygivenmissile weightorviceversa.

14

Responseto11.e 15 Reportwillbe updatedtobetter describegreenline relationshipasused inthemodel:

Vi(W)=0.0317W+230.0

Where, Vi =Missileimpactvelocity(mph)

W=MissileWeight(lb)

11.f

  • InsectionC.3.1,theassumptionisthatonly likematerialscancauseperforation(steelto steel).Theguidanceshouldensurethata justificationisprovidedtosupportthis assumption.

Responseto11.f

  • RefertoResponseto11.c 16

11.g

  • FigureC14,shouldbereviewedtodetermine whetheritcanbeusedtoestimatetank rupture Responseto11.g
  • Thisisatypographicalerror.Figurenumber shouldreadFigureC13 17

11.i

  • ThedatainTableC5,specificallytheminimumperforation thicknessinthefirstcolumn,shouldbevalidatedandmore comprehensiveguidanceprovidedregardingtheuseofthe ConcretePerforationequation.Additionally,the evaluationsonthefailureoftheconcreteusingthose valuesshouldbeaddressedshouldthevalidation demonstratethatthevaluesshouldbechanged.Similar validationeffortsshouldbeperformedonvehicleimpact andthetreeimpactevaluation.

Responseto11.i

  • ThisissueissimilartothatraisedinQuestion11.d 18

ResponsestoAppendixBandRobust Missile&TargetQuestions 19

5.d.,10.c.,and10.d.

  • ThesecommentsrefertothedevelopmentofTablesB 14andB18

- TableB14:RobustTargetMissileMatrix

  • Matrixshowingwhichmissiletypescandamagewhichrobust targetcategory
  • 23missiletypes(1 23)vs.9targetcategories(A-I)

- TableB18:MissileDamageCapability

  • Providespercentageoftotalmissilesthatcandamageeachrobust category(A-I)
  • ResultsrepeatedinTable52
  • TablesB14,B18,andothersinAppendixB,were updatedinNEI1702,Rev.1
  • TableC.6(TargetDamageApproximations)hasbeen updatedbutwasnotreflectedinNEI1702,Rev.1.

20

TableC.6 21

TablesB14andB18 22

UseofTableC.6ResultstoCreateTableB14 TableB13:

RobustTarget Categoriesand Descriptions TableB12:

IndividualTarget Descriptionsand AssignedCategories TableC.6:

IndividualTarget Damage Approximations Table32:

MissileTypesand Descriptions TableB14:

RobustTargetMissile Matrix Tonextpage 23

UseofTableB14andB17toCreateTableB 18/Table52 Table32:

MissileTypes and Descriptions TableB15:

Unrestrained Missile Inventories TableB16:

Restrained Missile Inventories TableB17:

Average MissileType Inventory TableB14:

RobustTarget MissileMatrix (frompreviouspage)

TableB18:

MissileDamage Capability and Table52:

RobustMissile InventoriesforEEFP Calculations 24

Example

  • CategoryB:SteelPipe

- Atleast16diameterandthicknesslessthan3/8 butatleast0.125

- Crushing/Crimpingof>50%

  • TableC.6worstcaseresults-damagedbyall missilesexcept:1,11,13,15,20 R obustT a rg etC a teg ory TargetDescription R eba r G a sC ylinder Ta nk/D rum U tilityPole C a bleR eel 3"pipe 6"pipe 12"pipe Stora g eB in C oncretePa ver C oncreteB lock W oodB ea m W oodPla nk M eta lsiding Plyw oodSheet W ideFla ng e C ha nnelSection Sm a llequipm ent La rg eEquipm ent SteelFra m e/G ra ting La rg eSteelFra m e Vehicle Tree 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 B

DieselGeneratorAirintake(small)

B DieselGeneratorAirintake(large) 25

Example-CategoryB(cont.)

  • Damagedbyall missilesexcept:

1,11,13,15,20

  • Resultsshownin TableB14 26

Example-CategoryB(cont.)

FromTableB17,sumofmissile percentages(excluding1,11, 13,15,20)is53%

Majorityofmissilescontributingto totalare:3pipes,metalsiding, channelsectionsandtrees(42%)

Otherdamagingmissileshave relativelysmallinventoriesatsites TableB18forCategoryB:

- Calculatedpercentage=53%

- Finalpercentageroundedupto 55%

Table52forCategoryB:55%

Missile Type Percentage 1 Rebar 2 Gas Cylinder 0.5%

3 Drum, tank 0.2%

4 Utility Pole 0.1%

5 Cable Reel 0.4%

6 3 Pipe 11%

7 6 Pipe 0.6%

8 12 Pipe 0.1%

9 Storage bin 1.6%

10 Concrete Paver 2.7%

11 Concrete Block 12 Wood Beam 1.5%

13 Wood Plank 14 Metal Siding 17%

15 Plywood Sheet 16 Wide Flange 0.3%

17 Channel Section 7.2%

18 Small Equipment 1.0%

19 Large Equipment 0.5%

20 Frame/Grating 21 Large Steel Frame 0.5%

22 Vehicle 0.8%

23 Tree 6.8%

TOTAL 53%

27

TablesB18and52

  • Mostcategoriesgeta modestreductionin damagingmissiles (factorof2to3)

- B,C,D,E,F,G

  • Mostrobusttargetsare thicksteelpipes(for crimping/crushing)and concreteroofs 28

4.f.and5.g.

  • 4.f.- Numberanddescriptionofmissiletypesin Table32donotcorrespondwithmissile informationinothertables

- 23missilesusedinalltablesexceptTables33through 38

- Tables33through38aremissilescreatedfromthe deconstructionofbuildings

  • Onlythefirst22missilesarelisted,sincemissile#23isatree
  • 5.g.- ExampleEEFPcalculationsusingdifferent percentagesforrobustmissilesthanTable52

- Corrected 29

7.b

  • Section7.4discussesusingasmallerareaiftargetis partiallyshielded;theguidanceshouldaddress shieldingconsiderationsforareacalculations

- Section5.3.2discussesshieldingexamplesandhow shieldingwouldbeusedtochangetargetareas

  • TargetsmaybeadjacenttoClass1buildingsorother structuresthatwouldprecludemissileshittingtargetsfrom thosedirections

- Thebasisforhowshieldingiscreditedinreducing targetareasshouldbejustifiedanddocumented 30

Questions?

31

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17311A994&oldid=5079421"