ML19015A370

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Appendix 2.10.5 - Finite Element Analysis for Drop Test Position
ML19015A370
Person / Time
Site: 07109291
Issue date: 01/10/2019
From:
Orano USA, TN Americas LLC
To:
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Shared Package
ML19015A399 List:
References
E-52931, Rev. 1
Download: ML19015A370 (51)
v • d • e


Text

Appendix 2.10.5 Finite Element Analysis for Drop Test Position 2-23

Introduction to Appendix 2.10.5 In order to determine the most dmm1ging orientation(s) of the pack<lging with respect to the hypothetical accident conditions (HAC) required by IOCFR7 l, Eco-Pak Specialty Packaging contracted with LAW Engineering of Charlotte, North Carolina to provide finite element mrnlyses (FEA) simulating a 30-foot drop unto an unyielding surface for several different impact orientations. Two reports detailing the five orient<1tions yielding the highest stresses arc provided in this appendix.

Discussion Five orient<Jtions are ev<1luated in the attached reports:

1. A fl<lt bottom surface drop,
2. A flat top smface drop,
3. A center-of-gravity (cg) over top edge drop,
4. A cg over top corner drop, and
5. A flat side drop.

Illustrntions of these orientations me provided in Figures 2.10.5-1 through 2.10.5-5.

Preliminary drop testing provided damage information for various drop orient<Jtions for both the 30-foot and puncture drop. The results of the preliminary tests are provided in Appendix G of the first LAW PEA report.

IOCFR7 l requires that the HAC evaluntion be based on sequenti<1I applicntion of the tests specified to determine their cumulative effect on a package; thus, one must consider first a 30-foot drop m1d then a puncture drop in the orientation yielding the most damage to meet HAC requirements.

Thus, the accumulated damage due the regulatory sequence of events is the summation of the 30-foot drop damage mid the puncture drop damage in the same location. Using the FEA results and the puncture depths from the preliminary test series, the total deflection for the five orientations presented me:

Drop orientation 30-ft damage Puncture damage Total damage (FEA)

(preliminary tests)

(FEA +preliminary tests) inches inches inches Flat Bottom Drop 1.485 3.375 4.860 Flat Side Drop 0.426 4.250 4.676 Flat Top Drop 1.593 4.750 6.343 CG over Top Edge 2.191 Estimated <3.375" **

5.566 CG over Top Comer 11.22 Estimated <3.375" **

14.595

>$'5 These estinrntes are based on the fact that the thickness of foam encountered by the puncture pin for these orientations is signific<1ntly greater than that encountered for the Fl<lt Bottom Drop.

(

From this data, three combinations of drops were selected for consideration:

1. cg-over-top corner 30-foot drop and a top cover puncture
2. cg-over-top corner 30-foot drop and a side puncture
3. side drop and a side puncture.

While the Flat Top Drop received the most damage from the puncture test, the location of the damage (the top cover) is weJJ protected by polyurethane foam and the gap between the outer lid and the secondary lid. Thus, combination l was ruled out.

For the 30-foot drop condition, the cg over corner drop yields the highest deflection (11.22") nnd stresses (40 ksi). For the puncture drop, the side location has less protection against puncture (fibrous insulation only) and also has a thinner steel skin that either the top or bottom. However, the flat side drop orientation produces minimal deflection (less than W') for the 30-foot drop, and any tearing of the skin due to impact is expected to be minimnl and away from the cg elevation.

Previous tests have demonstrated that puncture damage is primarily dependant upon the skin of the package. A sufficiently thick and ductile sk:it1 tends to distribute the lond and stretch, absorbing the energy of impact. The preliminary test results demonstrate that the skin of the LR is thick rmd ductile enough to prevent penetration of the puncture pin. If the skin not torn at the puncture impact location prior to the test, the results for the 30-foot side drop followed by a side puncture are essentially the same results that would be obtained had the 30-foot drop been omitted, particularly since the response is not dependant on the presence of a structural insulation. Therefore, combination 3 was eliminated from consideration.

Thus, Combination 2 was selected for the final test series, since it provides the most damage for the 30-foot drop and the most damage for the puncture drop.

Conclusions Based on the preliminary drop test series and the FEA results, it is Eco-Pak' s opinion that the most damaging sequence of drops for the final test series is <l cg over top corner 30-foot drop followed by a side puncture drop (cg over puncture pin).

30' I

30' SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW I

I 90°

.b -

30' I

FLAT BOTTOM SURFACE DROP Figure 2.10.5-1 SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW 30' I

  • H L ----

____ J __

I - 900 l=:i _____

FLAT TOP SURF ACE DROP Figure 2.10.5-2

(

SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW I

30' 30' I

900 I

SIDE VIEW I

CENTER OF GRAVITY OVER TOP EDGE DROP Figure 2.10.5-3

-t)

FRONT VIEW I

30' 30' I

_____ J_

CENTER OF GRAVITY OVER TOP CORNER DROP Figure 2.10.5-4

SIDE VIEW 30' l

,90°

\\

FRONT VIEW

..,90

\\

30' l

FLAT SIDE SURFACE DROP Figure 2.10.5-5 0

LAWGIBB ~

~R..C>LJP~

June 15, 200 I Columbiana Boiler Company Division of CBC 200 West Railroad Street Colwnbiana, OH 44408 Attention: Ms. Jennifer Jones

Subject:

Report of Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-250 Container Side Drop Stress Analysis Law Engineering and Environmental Services (LAW) Project No. 30100-1-0512 (Reference to LAW report No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 12 dated November 12, 1999)

Dear Ms. Jones:

As authorized by signing our Proposal/Work Acceptance Sheet (Proposal No. 3199-0-0000-2071), Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (LAW) is pleased to present this report of Finite Element Analysis (FEA) results for the Liqui-Rad-250 container side drop test. The purpose of this analysis was to detennine by analytical means the approximate stresses and deflections that would result in the subject container when a 30-foot side drop test is perfonned, and then compare FEA results with the results of other 30-foot drop tests. This report provides our understanding of the background infonnation, services perfonned, and the results.

Background Information Cohunbiana Boiler Company received a communication from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on 5/15/01, in refurence to the 30-foot Liqui-Rad-250 container drop test. Please see tl1e copy of the NRC questions on the "structural evaluation" in Appendix "B". The Columbiana Boiler Company requested LAW to perfonn an analytical engineering analysis for the side drop test position, and to detennine the approximate stresses and deflections of the container from the FEA results, and then compare these results with the other previous drops test results. Please refurence our previous report dated November 12, 1999 for the previous drop LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.

2801 Yorkmont Road, Suilo 100

  • Charlotte, NC 28208 704-357-8600 *Fax: 704 -357-8638 Serving tile Charlolle area for over 50 years

Co/11mhia11a Boiler Compally LEES Project 30100-1-0512 June 15. 200/

Page2 results. Ms. Rose Montgomery of Montgomery Technical Services (MTS) supplied the sketch of the side drop package orientation to LAW, and the copy of the sketch is attached in Appendix "B".

Services Performed The subject container has various stmctural components such as angle frames, legs, outer and inner shells, top and bottom heads, and top and bottom plates. 111ese components are constructed from carbon steel and stainless steel materials. From the drawings, an FEA computer model was constrncted using plate elements. Please note that, in our computer model, we only included the structural components since they support the majority of the impact load during a 30-foot drop test. The following plate material properties were assumed in the FEA analysis:

Plate Material Carbon Steel Stainless Steel Plate Thickness Varies Varies E =Young's Modulus 30,000 ksi 28,300 ksi Poison's Ratio 0.29 0.25 Density 0.283 lbs/cu. inch 0.283 lbs/cu. inch G, Shear Modulus 11,630 ksi 11,320 ksi We calculated the impact load as a result of a 30-foot drop test. The following assumptions were made to calculate the impact load:

+ Container dropped on a rigid steel plate, no deflection or defonnation in the steel plate

+ Container weight = 2600 pounds

+ Load weight (salt water) =2504 pounds

+ Total weight of container (folly loaded) = 5104 pounds

+ Velocity of container at impact = 5 29 inch/sec.

The top and bottom angles are connected to the top and bottom plate (diaphragms) while the vertical angle legs are not connected to the container stmcture. As a result, the calculated impact load was applied on the top and bottom side angles considering the stiflhess of the structure. The impact load was distributed equally on the computer model nodes located on the top and bottom side angles that would come in contact with the rigid steel

Cof11111biana Boiler Company LEES Project 30100-/-0512 J1111e 15. 2001 Page]

diaphragm plates. We applied the appropriate constraints or bolllldary conditions on the computer model. From the results of the side drop test analysis, we compared the results with other drop tests, which were analyzed before and reported in our previous report.

From field data, approximate maximwn deflection in the container after impact test was measured as follows:

For flat bottom drop test = 1.25" For flat top drop test = 1bis test was not perfonned For edge drop test== >2" For top comer drop test= 12" For side drop test= 1bis test was not perfom1ed The above field data was collected from the drop tests perfunned on May 12, 1999 by l'vlr. Mike Arnold and Ms.

Heather Little.

Results Obtained The FEA analysis results show stress values linearly proportional to strain values. The difference between the actual stress and a pseudo stress value when the stress value is greater than the yield stress limit was explained in our previous report The strain corresponding to the pseudo stress was used to estimate actual stress values from a straight line approximation of the stress-strain curve between the yield strength and minimwn tensile strength of the material.

The following material properties were assmned for ASTM A-36 material:

Assumed Yield Strength ;:;; 36 ksi Yollllg's Modulus= 30,000 ksi Strain at Yield stress= 0.0012 in/in Calculations were performed for two extreme cases of Ultimate Tensile Strength of 58 and 80 ksi, representing the minimwn and maximwn values for A-36 steel.

Co/11111biana Boller Company LEES Project 30100-1-0512 Approximate stress from pseudo (computer model) stress (Assmning Ultimate Tensile Strength is 58 ksi)

Drop Position Maximum Calculated Extrapolated Pseudo Stress Strain from Stress from in ksi Pseudo Stress Stress-Strain in inch/inch Curve in ksi Bottom Drop 94 0.0031 36.21 Top Drop 187 0.0062 36.56 Edge Drop 451 0.0150 37.53 Corner Drop 586 0.0195 38.03 Side Drop 156 0.0052 36.45 Approximate stress from pseudo (computer model) stress (Assuming Ultimate Tensile Strength is 80 ksi)

Drop Position Maximum Calculated Extrapolated Pseudo Stress Strain from Stress from in ksi Pseudo Stress Stress-Strain in inch/inch Curve in ksi Bottom Drop 94 0.0031 36.43 Top Drop 187 0.0062 37.11 Edge Drop 451 0.0150 39.06 Corner Drop 586 0.0195 40.06 Side Drop 156 0.0052 36.89 Max.

Model Deflection ID Inches 1.485 1.593 2.191 11.22 0.426 Max.

Model Deflection in Inches 1.485 1.593 2.191 11.22 0,426 June 15. 2001 Page4 Field Measured Deflection in Inches 1.25 Not Tested

>2 12 Not Tested Field Measured Deflection m

Inches 1.25 Not Tested

>2 12 Not Tested

Co/11111bi11na Boiler Company LEES Project 30100-/-0512 J1111e 15. 2001 Page 5 Based on our FEA analysis results, it is our opinion that 30-foot drop on a top comer would be most damaging to the structure of the "ECO-PAK LIQUI-RAD-250" container considering five drop tests. The following table shows the results of our FEA analysis.

Drop Position Pseudo Stress Estimated Stress Remark In ksi In ksi, extrapolated (See note) from Stress-Strain Curve Drop on Bottom 94 36.21-3.6.43 5

(See previous report)

Drop on Side 156 36.45-36.89 4

(See Appendix A)

Drop on Top 187 36.56-37.11 3

(See previous report)

Drop on Top Edge 451 37.53-39.06 2

(See previous report)

Drop on Top Corner 586 38.03-40.06 1

(See previous report)

Note: Number 1, in remark colwnn, is the most damaging position and Number 5 is least damaging position considering the sh*ess level in the structure.

Qu aJifications This report summarizes our engineering evaluation of 30-foot drop test of the container. The results of our evaluation are based on the drawings, FEA analysis, and infonnation provided to us.

Any conditions discovered which deviate from the data contained in this report should be provided to us for our review.

Co/11111bia11a Boiler Company LEES Project 30/()(J./.Q512 Ju11e 15, 2001 Page6 Law Engineering and Environmental Services appreciates the opportunity to assist you with this project.

Please contact this office at 704-357-8600 if you have any questions.

Sincerely, LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

~ ~.!~\\4 James W Paf:::E.Py--

Senior Professional Corporate Consultant

Attachment:

Appendix A - 4 Figures of the container for the side drop.

Appendix B - Copy of the sketch for the side drop and the NRC questions on the "structural evaluation"

Appendix A Figure 1: Isometric view of the container the side drop.

Figure 2: Isometric view of the container defonned shape after the side drop.

Figure 3: Isometric view of the container stress color plot-defonned shape.

Figure 4: Isometric view of the container deflection color plot-defonned shape.

2 Ll Cl ISOMETRIC VIEW FOR 30-FOOT SIDE DEOP 13~-FOOT ~IDE DROP I UNDEFORMED SHAPE y

~

DIRECTION OF DROP

~"-x

~

LEES PROJECT NO. 30100-1-0512 OF DROP r IGURE:rn!J

3 Ll Cl

[ o~FORMED VIEW ]

y

~--~

Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 ISOMETRIC VIEW FOR 30-FOOT SIDE DEOP I FIGURE: ;-1 OF THE IMPACT FORCE ALONG THE SIDES Deformed(0.426): Total Translation LEES PROJECT NO. 30100-1-0512

~,,

4 Ll Cl DEFORMED VIEW SHOWING THE STRESSES y

/-

Out~-t s *ei: SAP4 Case 1 ISOMETRIC VIEW FOR 30-FOOT SI DE DEOP Deformed(0.426 ) : Total Translation Contour: Plate Top Major Stress LEES PROJECT NO. 30100 0512 155941.

142718.

129494.

116270.

103047.

89823.

76599.

63376.

50152.

36928.

23705.

10481.

-2742.

-15966.

-29190.

-42413.

-55637.

5 Ll Cl ISOMETRIC VIEW FOR 3 0-FOOT SIDE DEOP DEFORMED VIEW SHOWING THE DEFLECTIONS y

OUt:PlJ.K""-s-e.x: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed(0.426): Total Translation Contour: Total Translation LEES PROJECT NO. 30100-1-0512

[FIGURE: 4 1 0.426 0.399 0.372 0.346 0.319 0.293 0.266 0.239 0.213 0.186 0.16 0.133 0.106 0.0798 0.0532 0.0266 0.

Appendix B (Supporting docwnents)

Copy of the sketch for the side drop test, from Ms. Rose Montgomery and the NRC questions on the "structural evaluation"

I '

FROM : f'!Ot lTGOMER'r' TECH r.

i r,

I l

30 feet I i 1

'\\,

\\

drop test target 6~ dc_op

?o.._&..~ or~e~-t-iif\\

4\\~D J ~

un(~\\-e-

~~

'(y\\B(Yl \\oe rS 5n~uUo ~

pMc-t\\e\\/fe<pe*nd**eu-Q.cu W" 1-\\.--VJ

-.._\\, ~

-f& f 1e+ 3 ur-ful ~

~/--/;-:-Y:,~/,:::-:::/.~M

-t'lld vie-:V cf 5';(/fe ~~

~ * * * '

  • I I

FRCr-t r10t ITGOtlE.~ '.' TECH FP>< t 10.

423232678..l M-3. *~* 21 2001 11: -~]Frt P.~

2.0 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION 2.1 2.2 Show !ha~ the four lifting shackles will aithsr be rendered Inoperable for t:e-dcvm or viii! be desiglle<.l for lie-down loads.

1 O CFR 7T.45(b)(2) tequires tha! structural part of the package that could be used for tie-down must be capable of being rendeied inoperabre fer tie-dowr, during transport. or must be designed witn strength equivalent to !hat required for tie-down devices. Since the four shackies are welded to lhe angle frame which deemed to be a structural part of the package ~sge RAI 1.1 ), !he four shackles must meet this requirement.

Justify that ihe side drop orientation was not the o:ientation that woulc cauS maximum damage during the hypot'1eticat accident conditions 30-foot drop teSt.

The regulatory requi~ements of 10 CFR 71. 73 apply to RAJ 2.2 and 2.3.

1'J..

i

/

3.0 2.3 The SAR indicates that preliminary drop tes!ing and ana!yticaf data showed the.~. L-\\'V 1

side drcp was not as damaging as a comer or enc' drop. However, no Vv'-<'.

infonnation was provided to suppon this conclusion. Unlike tha and drop and v-0~..,_

comer drop tests, there is no fcam insulation :.o prctect the cor.tafnment vessel q. r.

during the side drop test. A 30-.foot side drcp lest followed by a side puncture

~C....,

~nto !.he containment vessel could potentially be the most damaging test sequence.

Clarify the following information provided in Appendix 2.10.5 entitled *Finite Element Analysis for Drop Test Position.*

2.3.1 Clarify that the dr()J) tests discussed in the appendix represent the center of gravity over the designated orientation.

2.3.2 The appendix lr.dicates thef four finite element analyses were ccr.d'.!cied

/

to determine the most damaging drcp orientation. However. Page 1 cn!y Identified three drcp oriantat:ons.

2.3.3 Provide a desgje!ign, including sketches, le show the orientations that were anafYzed.

2.3.4 The top edge drop (Ap~ndix 0), as identified in the table on Page 5, is

  • missing from the re;:::ort.

THERMAL EVALUATION 3.1 Revise the application to show that the fire test performed m9t the avaragG flame temperature requirements stated in 10 CFR 71.73(c){4).

The regulation 10 CFR 71.73°(c)(4) requires that the average flame temperature be 1475~F. The application reports the averagg flame temperature to be 1375.. F.

2

November 12, 1999 Eco-Pak Specialty Packaging Division of CBC 200 West Railroad Street Columbiana, OH 44408 Attention: Mr. Mike Arnold/Mr. Jerry Rase!

Subject:

Report of Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-250 Container Drop Test Law Engineering and Environmental Services Project 10810-9-7003, Phase 12

Dear Mr. Arnold:

As authorized by your purchase order number 6573 and by signing our annual Proposal Acceptance Sheet, Law Engineering and Environmental Services (LAW) is pleased to present this report of Finite Element Analysis (FEA) for the Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-250 container drop test. The purpose of this analysis was to detennine which 30-foot drop test, out of four tests, would cause the most damage to the container. Four drop test positions of the container are described below.

This repmt provides our understanding of the background information, a service petformed, and results.

Background Information Eco-Pak Specialty Packaging personnel had a meeting with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in reference to the 30-foot Liqui-Rad-250 container drop test. As a result of that meeting, Ms. Heather Little of Eco-Pak Specialty Packaging requested LAW to perform an engineering analysis for four drop test positions, and to determine from the FEA analysis results which drop test position would be the most damaging to the container. Eco-Pak Specialty Packaging provided information regarding four positions of the 30-foot drop test as follows:

+ Flat bottom sutface drop

+ Flat top surface drop

+ Center of gravity over top edge drop

+ Center of gravity over top comer drop LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.

2801 Yorkmont Road, Suite 100

  • Charlotte, NC 20200 704-357-8600 *Fax: 704-357-8638 Serving the Clmrlo/le area of over 50 years

I Eco.Pak Specially Pacliaging LEES Project 10810-9*7003. Phase 12 11112199 Page 2 Please note that prior to this analysis LAW had completed the center of gravity location evaluation for the subject container.

We were provided the following drawings:

+ Preliminary Design Arrangement for the Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-250, Drawing NO. 111898/250 Sheet I of2

+ Preliminary Design Arrangement for the Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-250, Drawing NO. 111898/250 Sheet 2of2 Services Performed The subject container has various structural components such as angle frames, legs, outer and inner shells, top and bottom heads, and top and bottom plates. These components are constructed from carbon steel and stainless steel materials. From the drawings, an FEA computer model was constructed using plate elements. Please note that, in our computer model, we included the structural components since they support the majority of the impact load during a 30-foot drop test. The following plate material properties were assumed in the FEA analysis:

Plate Material Carbon Steel Stainless Steel Plate Titickness Varies Varies E =Young's Modulus 30,000 ksi 28,300 ksi

µ =Poison's Ratio 0.29 0.25 Density 0.283 lbs/cu. inch 0.283 lbs/cu. inch G, Shear Modulus 11,630 ksi 11,320 ksi We calculated the impact load as a result of a 30-foot drop test. The following assumptions were made to calculate the impact load:

+ Container dropped on a rigid steel plate, no deflection or defonnation in the steel plate

+ Container weight "" 2600 pounds

+ Load weight (salt water) =2504 pounds

Eco-Pak Specialty Packaging LEES Project 10810-9-7003, Phase 12

+ Total weight of-container (fully loaded) = 5104 pounds

+ Velocity of container before impact= 529 inch/sec. 11112199 Page3 For the FEA stress analysis, the calculated impact load was distributed equally on the computer mcxlel ncxles that would come in contact with the steel plate. The impact load was applied on different ncxles depending on the drop test. We also applied the constraints or boundary conditions on the computer mcxlel by fixing the ncxles located furthest distance from the impact location. The fixing ncxles were different depending on the drop test. From the results of our analysis, the resultant calculated maximum deflection was compared to the field measured maximum deflection for each drop test.

From field data, approximate maximun1 deflection in the container after impact test was measured as follows:

For flat bottom drop test= 1.25" For flat top drop test = This test was not perfonned For edge drop test= >2" For top comer drop test = 12" The above field data was collected from the drop tests performed on May 12, 1999. Please refer to the memo from Ms. Heather Little and Mr. Mike Arnold, attached with this report in Appendix G.

Results Obtained That FEA analysis result shows stress values linearly proportional to strain values. As explained in Figure 1 of Appendix F, attached to this report, the stress higher than the yield stress does not represent the actual stress but a pseudo stress value. The strain corresponding to the pseudo stress was used to estimate actual stress values from a straight line approximation of the stress-strain curve.

The following material properties were assumed for ASTM A-36 material:

Assumed Yield Strength = 36 ksi Young's Modulus= 30,000 ksi Strain at Yield stress = 0.0012 in/in

Eco-Pok Specialty Packaging LEES Project 10810*9*7003, Phase 12 11112199 Page4 Calculations were perfonned for two extreme cases of Ultimate Tensile Strength of 58 and 80 ksi, representing the minimum and maximum values for AM36 steel.

Approximate stress from pseudo (computer model) stress (Assuming Ultimate Tensile Strength is 58 ksi at 0.200 in/in strain)

Drop Position Maximum Calculated Extrapolated Max.Model Field Pseudo Stress Strain from Stress from Deflection in Measured in ksi Pseudo Stress StressMStrain Inches Deflection in in inch/inch

  • curve in ksi Inches Bottom Drop 94 0.0031 36.21 1.485 1.25 Top Drop 187 0.0062 36.56 1.593 Not Tested Edge Drop 451 0.0150 37.53 2.191

>2 Corner Drop 586 0.0195 38.03 11.22 12 Approximate stress from pseudo (computer model) stress (Assuming Ultimate Tensile Strength is 80 ksi at 0.200 in/in strain)

Drop Position Maximum Calculated Extrapolated Max.Model Field Pseudo Stress Strain from Stress from Deflection in Measured in ksi Pseudo Stress StressMStrain Inches Deflection in in inch/inch Curve in ksi Inches Bottom Drop 94 0,0031 36.43 1.485 1.25 Top Drop 187 0.0062 37.11 1.593 Not Tested Edge Drop 451 0.0150 39.06 2.191

>2 Corner Drop 586 0.0195 40.06 11.22 12

Eco-Pok Specialty Packaging LEES Project 10810-9-700), Phase 12 J 1112199 Page 5 Based on our FEA analysis results, it is our opinion that 30-foot drop on a top comer would be most damaging to the structure of the "ECO-PAK LIQUI-RAD-250" container. The following table shows the results of our FEA analysis.

Drop Position Pseudo Stress Estimated Stress Remark In ksi In lciit extrapolated (See note) from Stress-Strain Curve Drop on Bottom 94 36 4

(See Appendix B)

Drop on Top 187 36.5-37.0 3

(See Appendix C)

Drop on Top Edge 451 37.5-39 2

(See Appendix D)

Drop on Top Corner 586 38-40 1

(See Appendix E)

Note: Number lt in remark columnt is most damaging position and Number 4 is least damaging

position, Qualifications This report summarizes our engineering evaluation of 30-foot drop test of the container. The results of our evaluation *are based on the drawings, FEA analysis, and information provided to us. Any conditions discovered which deviate from the data contained in this report should be provided to us for our review.

Eco*Pak Specialty Packaging LEES Project 10810-9-7003. Phaw 11 111/1199 Page 6 Law Engineering and Environmental Services appreciates the opportunity to assist you with this project. Please contact this office at 704-357-8600 if you have any questions.

Sincerely, LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

~\\. N, ~~\\c1.-

Mike N. Parikh, P.E.

Lakshman Santanam, P.E.

Technical Center Manager Senior Professional

Attachment:

Appendix A-4 Figures of the container.

Appendix B - 4 Figures of bottom surface drop test.

Appendix C-4 Figures of top surface drop test.

Appendix D-4 Figures of top edge drop test.

Appendix E-4 Figures of top comer drop test Appendix F -Stress-strain Curve Appendix G-Copy of Ms. Little Heather's memo dated May 13, 1999

Appendix A Figure I: Isometric view of the container with hidden lines.

Figure 2: Isometric view of the container without hidden lines, Figure 3: Isometric view of the container without outer shell.

Figure 4: Isometric view of the container without outer and inner shells.

1 I

Ll Cl G3 z

I I

r.

y x

  • ~.......

FIGURE 1, ISOMETRIC VIEW OF ECO-PAK-LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-9-3007, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPTOP5

1 I

Ll Cl

.G3 x

FIGURE 2, ISOMETRIC VIEW OF ECO-PAK-LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER y

LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-9-3007, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPTOP5

1 I

Ll Cl Gl FIGURE 3, ISOMETRIC VIEW WITHOUT OUTSIDE SHELL i

y I

x LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-9-3007, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPTOP5

FIGURE 4, ISOMETRIC VIEW WITHOUT OUTSIDE AND INSIDE SHELLS 1

I I

I

/

I I

/

I I

~

// /

/

\\

\\. '......,

~ ~

/

/ L/

I Ly I

I J

/

I I lliyTI I

/

t+/-+/-J

' ulDtmLJ til=

co LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-9-3007, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPTOPS

(

AppendixB (Bottom Surface Drop Test)

Figure 1: Isometric view of the container for bottom surface drop test.

Figure 2: Deformed shape of the container, after drop test.

Figure 3: Color stress plot for bottom surface drop test.

Figure 4: Deformed deflection color plot for bottom surface drop test.

1 I

Ll Cl z l x y Isometric view of the container for bottom surface drop test.

ECO-PAK-LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER Figure 1 LEES PROJECT NO. 10610-9-7003. PHASE 12, FILE: DROPBOT5

1 1

ICl Deformed shape of the container after drop test.

L

~

utput Set: SAP4 case 1 eformed(l.485): Total Translation ECO-PAK-LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER Figure 2 LEES PROJECT NO. 10810- 9-7003. PHASE 12, FILE: DROPBOT5

r

(

____ :~~]

l'l

,.1

0) t-ti)

(>')

0 (J)

....,)

  • ~ )I N

C)\\

r-tfl,_

0\\

('J "J'

r-0 l'l lt)

0)

-.;JI *-

0 c*l I.fl

0) rl
11) 0 c *I

,--t

,--1 N

<"l N

('J

(')

l'l f')

<.:}'

-.;)!

~1

  • U)

O.:JI 1))

N U) 0

<.:J*

(J)

('.J '"

0

'<JI

0)

('J

\\()

0

" jl rl

!))

l))

O) 1--

{'*

l t) ll) 1()

  • Jl

-<:)'

I' )

N N

,-1 I

<*)

11)

[-I QJ 0

H rQ g,

p, 0

  • rf JY.

f*l r::i rzl

  • -1 f)~

H

µ1 r..

z 1-1

(-):

N l"' f

[- 1 z CJ 1*1 u

VJ

()

<-~

ii tf) r N

i:J

(

l

~

(')

0 iY.

0 I

r-I

J

°'

CJI I

1-1 0

l"l rl I

Iii

()'.)

~

I.'

0.-*

p, I

0 0

u z

(t.l

[-*

u r.1,,

0 rT.

f.lt lfl f*.l

~:

U) f*l 0

U) 1-l

  • rl tlJ

~.

  • ~

t.J d

Vl

~:

Ol

  • il t])

J.l H "'

0)

[-*I *d 1H H p

  • *I

-1

<)

~.

Q> *tl 0

11.1 p, U)

I-' *-

0

' /

(~ 0 p

~l u H p,

() 'Cl 0

,.... 1

..: 11 H

I), *])

P1 u

tl) 1))

U)

<il

(.fl I/) oo p

U) 'H

" *1' 1!)

'~

l rl H

~

JJ r **I p,

p Ul IH

1 i ;>ff) 'd r:

C;-..J I

QJ H

1-1 0 J.) r-i :j 0

J.)

J

~ I 0

        • I 1.1 p, 0 1.1 0

0 jJ 'H r*

1**-I.-l,-1 u.n

J '"

0

.. ] u 0 n u

r*

'\\

l ll}

N

(*)

1~

<1'

.-1

(})

tfl f')

ti}

1- -

0) 0 \\

C) rl l'J

('!

'I) lf)

..:1*

I')

r** t N

.-1 0

()\\

Q) r*-

lJl 0

c*.. t

' t C.1

(')

('.)

C.'J IY.

f*l

  • ?t

~ -- 1 r.l~

(- t

~

0 u

( :)

ti) r r

I

()

l.

~

I

)-1

> a 1-1 1-l I

Yi r-*1 fl1 I

0 u

,,.1 p

0 p,

~**

0

, -J 0

(J r:

0

  • r*I IJ

()

IP rJ

'H tll

'd

  • c;

/~,,,.-

cu n

~.

0

'H

  • ll

...,,****I 1***t

()

~
:...*..I ::-~. u rl
0) lO 10 1~

1~

0)

<.;.JI P) "'

1*-t C)

('.")

Cl 0

\\ ;t

~-;

p Vl

'1)

.µ p,

0 H

'rJ tU IJ Ill

'H H

J Ul Ei 0

IJ,,

0

. n H

0

'H 0 )

0 (j'\\

0 c:.)

<.; JI

<V

~, 5,

  • r l r,.,

r:

0

  • rl p
  • \\l d

Ul r.:

n1 H

H r l,.,

<V ru

  • J) p rd 0

u E-t "I'

P t r:l: l/)

(/) Ol

<t'

~: ~~;

r**t

\\/u) 'ti QJ IJ Ei

J H p, 0 p 'H
.l OJ

... 0 (:)

r:

0.,.,

tU d

ti) f.!

<I)

H H

rd

µ 0

H H

J

()

1-l

.c::

0

.u ti)

E-t 0 lil Cit 0

rY.

()

f*l 1-l H

rr. ~

(')

0 0

r--

1

(}\\

I CJ *-*

O) 0

,-~i 0 z H u r*l *-,

0 rY.

p,

Appendix C (Top Surface Drop Test)

Figure l: Isometric view of the container for top surface drop test.

Figure 2: Defonned shape of the container, after drop test.

Figure 3: Color stress plot for top surface drop test.

Figure 4: Defonned deflection color plot for top surface drop test.

1

Ll lc1 G3 x

y I

~

FIGURE l, ISOMETRIC VIEW FOR TOP SURFACE DROP TEST LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-9-3007, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPTOPS

1 I

Ll Cl G3 x..

Y**** *1 i

~

FIGURE 2, DEFORMED SHAPE AFTER TOP SURFACE DROP TEST Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed{l.593): Total Translation LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-9-3007, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPTOPS

1 I

Ll Cl G3 X----

Outpu: 1 SAP4 Case 1 Deformed(l.593 ) : Total Translation

!Contour: Plate Top VonMises Stress FIGURE 3, STRESS PLOT FOR TOP SURFACE DROP TEST 11 t ll 111 LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-9-3007, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPTOP5 18 6955. l'l!lh

~~~~

175144. ritn-163332.

151521.

139710.

127898. r <.

116087.

104276.

92 4 64.

80653.

68842.

[:, ;,

57030.

45219.

33408.

21596.

9785.

-2026.

FIGURE 4, DEFORMED SHA.PE PLOT FOR TOP SURFACE DROP TEST 1

1 ICl G3 X-Ou tp u: seL SAP4 case 1 IDeformed{l.593): Total Translation Contour: Total Translation LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-9-3007, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPTOP5 1.593

1. 494
1. 394 1.294 1.195
1. 095 0.996 ~

,.** 6 :_:1

o. 797 * *-1 0.697 0.597 0.498 0.398 0.299 0.199 0.0996
0.

I AppendixD (Top Edge Drop Test)

Figure 1: Isometric view of the container for top edge drop test.

Figure 2: Defonned shape of the container, after drop test.

Figure 3: Color stress plot for top edge drop test.

Figure 4: Defonned deflection color plot for top edge drop test.

1 I

Ll Cl y

z FIGURE 1, ISOMETRIC VIEW FOR TOP EDGE DROP TEST x

LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-9-7003, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPEGE5

1 I

Ll Cl z

y,.~ **

J

... ',x

,Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 1Deformed(2.191): Total Translation FIGURE 2, DEFORMED SHAPE FOR TOP EDGE DROP TEST LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-9-7003, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPEGES

,-')

1 I

Ll Cl

~

10utpu~ Set: SAP4 Case 1

~eformed(2.191 )

Total Translation Contour: Plate Top VonMises Stress I)

FIGURE 3, STRESS PLOT FOR TOP EDGE DROP TEST LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-9-7003, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPEGE5

~

450617.

421981.

393345.

364709. I 336073. i 307437.

27 8801.

250165.

221530.

192894.

164258.

135622.

106986.

78350.

49714.

21078.

-7558.

1 ILl Cl

--)

~

I Outpu~ Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed(2.191): Total Translation Contour: Total Translation

}

FIGURE 4, DEFORMED SHAPE FOR TOP EDGE DROP TEST LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-9-7003, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPEGE5

)

2.191 2.054 1.917 1-78 1-644 i 1.507 1-37 1-233 1-096 0.959 0.822 0.685 0.548 0.411 0.274 0.137

0.

AppendixE (Top Comer Drop Test)

Figure 1: Isometric view of the container for top comer drop test.

Figure 2: Deformed shape of the container, after drop test.

Figure 3: Color stress plot for top comer drop test.

Figure 4: Deformed deflection color plot for top comer drop test.

1 1

ICl n'y FIGURE 1, ISOMETRIC VIEW FOR TOP CORNER DROP TEST LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-97003, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPCRNR

")

ib.tput Set: SAP4 Deformed (1 1. 22 )

Cl

~\\~

Case 1 Total Translation J

FIGURE 2, DEFORMED SHAPE FOR TOP CORNER DROP TEST

...r.?~ *

--~/'/'

,.../.Yy

//"... /'

_,../\\.,/"

_/;.,_,..-

-"/__,,-

/y LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-97003, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPCRNR

-~)

~

'futput Set: SAP4 Case 1

'Deformed (ll.22 ) : Total Translation icamtour: Plate Top VonMises Stress

/~

J FIGURE 3, STRESS PLOT FOR TOP CORNER DROP TEST

. ~ -

. /

'/'";_,/

,/\\/'

_,,,,.\\,/"'

........ ~.-;>**'/

,/\\//

,.-;f,;;,.->-/

LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-97003, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPCRNR 585803.

547545.

394511.

356253.

317995.

279736.

24 1478.

203219.

164961.

126703.

88444.

50186.

11927.

-26331.

-)

1 1

ICl

/1

~y utput Set?C SAP4 Case 1 Deformed(ll.22 ) : Total Translation Contour: Total Translation FIGURE 4, DEFORMED VIEW FOR TOP CORNER DROP TEST y--'/

///;..,,*"/

,/,./

/y

/'/

/./*

,...... ~.. /

...... ~~~\\ \\

/5._,./

"-~')( \\

,,(>/

\\.

/., /"

,,~~{})'

'~~..

LEES PROJECT NO. 10810-97003, PHASE 12, FILE: DROPCRNR 11.22 10.51 9.813 9.112 1

8. 411
7. 71 7.009 6.308
5. 608 4.907 4.206 3.505 2.804 2.103
1. 402 0.701
o.

/

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19015A370&oldid=4940709"