ML19015A372

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Appendix F - Stress-Strain Curve
ML19015A372
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: ML19015A372 (43)
v • d • e


Text

(

Appendix F Stress-Strain Curve

CBC MEMORANDUM Date: 02/02/00 To:

US NRC with respect to Liquid Uranyl Nitrate ("LR-250") SAR and attendant application Cc:

File From:Tom Dougherty, Chairman RE:

Explanatory Representation as to a submitted writing, which is annotated as Appendix G.

The following eight (8) pages are included in the LR-250 SAR application to more fully describe results of the Hypothetical Accident Conditions Testing. The summary memorandum and seven pages of notations, measures, and comments, as transcribed by Ms. Little, are submitted as incremental documentation as to the results of the Hypothetical Accident Testing.

The Law Engineering FEA report, dated November 12, 1999, also depicts the results of the Hypothetical Accident Testing.

~f\\I f-b~~

Thomas F. Dougherty TFD

(

MEMO To:

From:

Subject:

Date:

Trevor Rummel, CBC Ralph Fabrizio, CBC Tom Dougherty. CBC Jim Robert, TV A Pat Koppel, NFS Heather Little and Mike Arnold Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-250 (LR-250) Preliminary Drop Tests May 13, 1999 Enclosed are the test reports for each drop and an information sheet on the pHckages and drop series. Not included is a report on the inner lid, flanges and relief valves.* General Machine &

Tool cut out the outer lid this morning. We discovered that there was no impact or contact with anything on the inner lid, including the bolts, flanges and relief valves. There was a little buckling at the top of the inner well sides, which kept us from removing the outer lid after the drop series, but th<..Tc was no other noticeable damage.

We do have one more comment for future prototypes. All fixtures attached to packages for test purposes must have full penetration welds.

Tl II 1 f=. 'qq 1 \\: \\h

(

Date:

- Eco-Pak LR-250 Preliminary Drop Series S" /,-z_/q1 r

I Weather Conditions: P "- r i-\\) C

... l o 1.-1.d ~. """'J..~J-~.'-------

Package No. 1 Tare Weight:

. ~~J-bs_...., __

Total Weight:

'I, 7.'J J 1 bs_A----

Load \\Ve ight: ___.."""'?.,.....~-.-=-' ;J.=-......... 1 b..,_,,,s'-'-. __

I Overall Height: _____ _

Body Height:--------

Overall Width (bottom): __

Body Diameter (top): ____ _

Drop Comer Gap:

Drop Series Package No. 2 Tare \\Veight:

2 1 5.5 2 lbs.

Total Weight:

  • 4, 2 'Z <t Jbs---

Load Weight:

1..

~ ::2.J J L--,.

Overall Height: ~ ~Li 1/.. /

Body Height: _

~<j?"

Overall Width (bottom):~

Body Diameter (top):

45" 'ht 11 7Jl7 \\\\

Drop Comer Gap:

~?= ___ _

1.

9-Meter (30-Feet) Flat Bottom Free Drop 1-Meler (40-Inch) Flat Bottom Puncture

3.

9-Meter Top Comer Free Drop Over CG

4.

1-Meter Flat Top Puncture

5.

l-Meter Side Puncture

6.

't-Mt.tv-Tor t::J..~e. +"re..1t brof

7.
8.

Drop No. 1 - 9"Meter Flat Bottom F!!! Drop JOCFR7 l. 73(c)(l)

Package No.: :_.

Setup: (k; 1'$2 koo YR.~ -b ci p pr>s ; +/-<' S h0-.c k- \\ e.5 ~ i.:. p 1-{J

.~ i-fo..: ~b}

u.,. p 'bo ~..\\--

ovwA ~td. b*.,s ~ \\ ~k bob i2e.\\ Q.q_~ od:

'l- : t ~ Pfl/\\.... ___________________ _

Post Drop Measurements:

5 * ~.:l ii Overall Height: _. 9..

Body Height:

DJ >A.:1.."_.

Overall Ileight: ______ _

Body Height: ______ _

Overall Width (bottom): ___ _

Overall Width (bottom): ___ _

Body Diameter (top): ____ _

Body Diameter (top): ____ _

Drop Corner Gap:------

Drop Comer Gap:---- ---

Additional Measurements:.. f '/q

'$~I\\}'.:.;/\\ -k (> p \\ C\\k_,__ ____ _

Comments:---------

T f 11

  • r

I Drop No. 2 - r!\\'Ieter Flat Bottom Puncture JOCFR7J. 73{c)(~)

Package No.: ___,2=----

v.\\ \\eol C.:f~e.o1

,~¥-'-4~'-~~~.;i_~~fke.-~L~

Post Drop Measurements:

Overall Height:------

Body Height: ______ _

OveraJl Width (bottom): __

Body Diameter (top): ____ _

Drop Comer Gap: _____ _

Overall Height:-------

Body Height: ____ _

Overall Width (bottom):- ~.

Body Diameter (top):. -*-----

Drop Comer Gap:

3 3ln-1(

I

\\

l I Additional Measurernents:_--=~'6 a Mf 'fl 0~~ ; f\\ bo t~tv\\. {> a:tf,.

Drop No. 3 - 9""Meter Top Corner Free Drop Over CG 10CFR7 l. 73(c)(l)

Package No.:

Z.-

Setup: I-ho~ ~k

~Ll _:f.hr "rt t>,U, cJe.e.HoJ,,.9.>"I _?,e.~I: i* L.'/}-eol b d.g,,t-~~ P..(L~\\o o £=

C..1?1 3~

0 ~

'lfOJ h_s:._~=,.__._._

Post Drop Measurements:

Overall Height:

Overall Height:-------

Body Height:

Body Height: ______ _

Overall Width (bottom):_

Overall \\Vidth (bottom): ___ _

Body Diameter (top):

SS- tdama.~crll>.) Body Diameter (top): __

Drop Comer Gap:

)'~" do,...M~..Jop Drop Comer Gap:

Additional Measurements:

312 '.1 J; i>r--\\ ~\\.L~

+-- !AC ro~-

-"'"~~4~m~a~a-&=-4 -------~*J 6

Drop No. 4 - I-Meter Flat Top Puncture JOFR7 J. 73(c)(3)

Package No.: 2-Setup: ~~~;ns +/-1..mvPj- -h,,,, cr~_ke_+-J.a.bs,-

/_;f~J

-;;~~

1~~tf:J:fltd0...-R ~~c. 1.2o= :-\\, '1d. 1 pee~~ __

Post Drop Measurements; Overall Height:------

Overall Height: ___

Body Height: ______ _

Body Height: ___

OveraJl Width (bottom): ___

~

Overall Width (bottom):

Body Diameter (top): ___

Body Diameter (lop):_...

Drop Comer Gap: ____ _

Drop Corner Gap: __ _

L/ ~)lf,,

Additional Measurements: _

___,_____ p rA(\\C-llA-re i.i\\

pre_'),St\\.CQ 2JtA.v.ty--

Drop No. 5 -- I Meter Side Puncture JOCFR71. 73(c)(3)

~~~-

.. ---~-*---

Post Drop Measurements:

Overall Height:-------

Body Height:...

Overall Width (bottom): ___ _

Body Diameter (top): ____ _

Drop Comer Gap:--*----

Comments:

JUL 16 '99 13: 37 Overall Height:-------

Body Height:------

Overall Width (bottom): ___ _

Body Diameter (top): __ _

Drop Corner Gap:-----

ccr:c::..,,o

I Drop No. 6 -

JOCFR71.73 Package No.:...... ~-=--

Setup: 3ot+. clcof of\\ e.Jff-o ppvs~_{e__.l_~~~ c..tJ:JJ:V.-C.

~~Q__ *&c.lt-¥>01.U)

Post Drop Measurements:

Overall Height: ______ _

Body Height:-------

Overall Width (bottom): __,

Body Diameter (top): ____ _

Drop Corner Gap: _____ _

Overall Height:-------

Body Height: _______ _

Overall Width (bottom): ___ _

Body Diameter (lop):

Drop Comer Gap: ______ _

Additional Measurements: __

S-..~'-' _L~1A""'-'c""'-=tJ~-<2_o_QdAg. 9ro M -hop

~tuft.

-==-

0 Comments: __ ------------------

Appendix G Copy of Ms. Little Heather's Memo dated May 13, 1999

..._..,:,.,,.tu.;;tl' l(.*""'~~3'.J'"

...,..:."'Ao'\\.V~1t.lo\\l'.Nll.!...,..,.1 ~.~,,- w;,,,.,-~~t'lt.."""'-"*"**-- ~.. \\t..1o.._,;.,...-.. ~ -1

... 1.....,...._.~_

.......,.~... -~,-u.;..-~,.,,.,,'.:'.";*:"'...... -... -*-

~\\

1

~- -.,.,

FROM FEA ANALYSIS APPROXIMATE STRESS 586 KSI

'* 1 --

STRESS I

0 r--

I I

I r I

I I

I I

l I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

r-*

r-:-i EXTRAPOLATED STRAIN VALUE l

FROM PROPORTIONAL STRESS-STRAIN.

LINE I

    • ~ *

---*:i'..

. I I

I I

(CONTAINER DROP ON CORNER).

I I

I I

I I

I I

J ~!.

r.

I ET *-c L]l(JT I*

I

......w.L.L I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I i*

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I r I

~

.. **-*-.. ****-***- ********----*-***-*--"'1--*****---'---- -.-***---*---*** *******--- ***-*-****-*---******-***-. **-*-*--***- *---**-****-... ---***...... *-*- -* -****** ********-*-* *~ -**

1 BOCK. ST"'.r:tENGTH OF MATERIAL BY I I SINGER; 2ND EDITION

2. ASSUME A-36 MATERIAL I

I I

I I

I I r I

I I

I I

I I

I I

[

I

3. STRESS VALUES ARE APPROXIMATE.
4. ASSUME YOUNG'S MODULUS = 30,000 ICSI O AMBIENT TEMP.
5. ASSUME ULTIMATE STRENGTH = 80 KS!
6. ASSUME YIELD STRENGTH = 36 ICSI Ja.
  • LAW ENGINEERING INDUSTRIAL SERVICES CHARLOTTE, NORTH.CAROLINA 0.0012 0.0075 0.02

~

0.2~

STRAlN E-b

=-

L TYPICAL STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAM ECO-PAK,* UQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER EUZABETHTON,TN JOB#: 10810-9-7003 FIGURE: lE DRAWN BY: MNP SCALE: NTS APPR"D BY:

DATE: 7-15-99

Appendix 2.10.6 Evaluation of the Impacts on Package Performance Using the Latest Revision of the Foam Insulation Specification If II 2-24

(

Evaluation of the Impacts on Package Performance Using the Latest Revision of the Foam Insulation Specification 1

Scope In order to allow bulk production of the foam insulation specified for the original design of the Liqui-Rad, several changes in the specified material property requirements are necessary. Each change is evaluated to assure that the performance of the Liqui-Rad Transport (LR) Unit is not impacted. Additional changes have also been made in the Quality Assurance portion of the specification; however, these changes do not affect the performance of the packaging and are not specifically evaluated.

2 Evaluation The evaluation of the specification follows the general order of the specification itself. Each material property requirement is listed, the changes stated, and the impact of the change evaluated. Table 2.10.6-1 provides a summary of the changes evaluated, as well as the results of the evaluation.

2.1 Type The original specification required phenolic-based foam insulation. The latest revision includes the option to use polyurethane insulation. The substitution of the polyurethane-based foam does not impact the perfonnance of the packaging, because all of the performance characteristics of the foam remain the same. In fact, the use of polyurethane may be preferred, since the corrosion resistance of the packaging is enhanced.

2.2 Elemental Composition Elemental compositions for the original revisions and the latest revision are provided in Table 2.10.6-1. Specific elemental percentages have been removed from the specification, except for the chloride content.

With the exception of the chlorides, control of the specific elemental composition of the foam is not required. The presence of the various elements is assured during mixing and fabrication of the foam constituents, and by the qualification of the mixture ratios. Therefore, as long as the thermal and mechanical requirements of the specification are satisfied, the elemental composition need not be controlled.

Note that the hydrogen present in the foam was conservatively neglected in the criticality evaluation of the LR; thus, variations in the hydrogen content do not adversely impact the pe1formance of the packaging.

2.2. l Chloride Content For the phenolic foam option, the allowable total and leachable chloride content is unchanged.

For the polyurethane foam option, the leachable chloride allowable remains unchanged; however, the total chloride content allowable is increased to l 800ppm.

2.10.6-1 of 7

For polynrethane, an increase in the total chloride content is acceptable because the foam is a closed-cell type and the leachable chloride allowable has not changed. The closed-cell stmcture of the foam prevents the release of the total chloride content - only the leachable portion of the chloride content contributes significantly to corrosion.

Since the limit for the leachable chlorides has not changed, the performance of the packaging is not impacted by the allowed increase in the total chloride content.

Additionally, the containment vessel is stainless steel. Extensive indnstry experience with stainless steel jacketed polyurethane demonstrates that it pe1forms with little or no corrosion.

Several lisenced packagings have reported corrosion-free performance with stainless steel and polyurethane (having a total chloride content of < l 800ppm) over a period of 25 years or more.

Additionally, all surfaces in contact with the foam, including the stainless steel snrfaces, are coated with a primer to further preclude corrosion.

The design of the LR also limits the availability of water to the foam. The payload vessel is constrncted and tested as an ASME pressure vessel, and is leak tested using both water and air.

All exterior seams are seal welded. The visible smfaces of the LR are routinely inpected, both pre-shipment and on a yearly basis, for cracks, flaws, and corrosion. Therefore, any avenne for water or moist air ingress will be quickly identified. The absence of significant air space surrounding the foam minimizes the occurance of interior sweating or condensation that may occnr. Tims, the presence of water in the foam cavity is unlikely. Without the presence of water (or other fluid) in the foam cavity, the corrosion process cannot be sustained and corrosion from the inside-out is not possible.

Because the allowable chloride levels for the phenolic foam and the leachable chloride allowable for the polyurethane has not changed, and becanse the design and inspection requirements for the LR limit the availablity of moisture to facilitate corrosion, the perfonnance of the LR is not adversely impacted by the increased allowable for the total chloride content for polyurethane foam.

2.3 Density The verbiage used in the latest revision to the specification has changed; however, the intent of the section remains the same. The foam fabrication procedure has not changed and is consistent with that used for the original test packages. The density covered by the latest revision of the specification has not changed. Thus, there is no impact to the performance of the LR due to this latest revision.

2.4 Compressive Strength The information about prior test results has been removed and the table has been combined and revised to sentence format. The minimum compressive strength required was increased from the original specification to the current specification. The small increase to the minimum compressive strength requirement (from 80 to 84 psi) does not adversely impact the pe1fonnance of the packaging.

2.10.6-2 of 7

(

2.5 Thermal Conductivity The specification has been revised to allow a higher thermal conductivity (25% increase of the maximum).

For the normal condition, the maximum temperature of the LR contents was calculated by conservatively neglecting the insulative properties of the foam (see Section 3).

Thus, the resulting Normal Condition maximum content temperature remains conservative with the slight change in the foam's thermal conductivity. The temperature of the contents during hypothetical accident conditions is not significantly impacted by the increased thermal conductivity, since the transient condition is more dependent on the specific heat and overall heat input; therefore, the impact of an increased thermal conductivity during the accident condition is not evaluated. Therefore, a higher foam thermal conductivity does not adversely impact the performance of the LR packaging.

2.6 Flame Retardancy The specification has been revised to remove the references to previous test results. The time to self-extinguish has been modified from "inunediately" to 5 minutes. The char length has been modified from 0 char length to 6 inches of char length. These modifications are consistent with the ASTM test used and are provided to allow realistic tolerances for purposes of testing.

Additionally, the test frequency for flame retardancy has been revised to qualification only. The flame retardancy feature is a property inherent in the mixture, therefore it does not vaiy from batch to batch. There is no impact on the perfonnance of the package as a result of this modification.

2.7 Specific Heat The revised specification includes a decreased minimum specific heat (27% decrease of the minimum) and an increased maximum specific heat (80% increase of the maximum).

The original foam specification for ESP-PF-2 allowed a range of 0.282 to 0.294 BTU/lb-F for the specific heat.

This was based on the results of tests performed on two foam batches produced in March 1998. Unfortunately, the original specification did not allow for variations in the foam product due to ambient conditions during mixing. The particular foam used is susceptible to large variations in the specific heat due to moisture in the air. An additional foam sample (produced in May 2000) has a specific heat of 0.279 BTU/lb-F. The specific heat measurements available (current and previous) were made on foam produced during moderately humid times of the year (March, May) and it is possible that foam produced during the drier months will have a significantly lower specific heat. Therefore, the objective of this evaluation is to bound the range of possible values and demonstrate that the impact to the performance of the package is negligible.

In order to estimate the range of specific heat for year-round production of the foam, the test data available was extrapolated based on an assumed humidity of 60%. Assuming the 3 data points (0.282, 0.294 and 0.279) represent a representative population for 60% humidity, the average is 0.285, the range of the data is 0.015, the standard deviation is 0.008, and the 3 sigma (99% confidence level) range is 0.26 l - 0.309 BTU/lb-F. Therefore, to bound the March/May 2.10.6-3 of 7

humidity level the specific heat range should be 0.261 to 0.309 BTU/lb-F.

Assuming the vmiability of the foam's specific heat is closely associated with the ambient humidity and that the humidity range is 35 to 99% tlu*oughout the year, the estimate for the specific heat range is 0.261(1-(.60-.35)) to 0.309 (1+(.99 -.60)) = 0.200 to 0.360 BTU/lb-F. To bound the possible use of polyurethane foam in the future, the maximmn specific heat is specified at 0.535 BTU/lb-F.

lncreasiug the specific heat results in slower response of the package to ambient conditions, and keeps the package in a cooler state during the hypothetical accident fire condition. Therefore, the increased maximum specific heat does not adversely impact the pe1formance of the packaging and is not evaluated.

Decreasing the specific heat results in a quicker response to ambient conditions exterior to the packaging, and allows the package to reach a higher internal temperature during the hypothetical accident condition. Therefore the impact of the lower minimum specification for specific heat is further evaluated.

The thermal response of the loaded packaging can be evaluated based on the combined specific heat of the package. The combined specific heat is calculated based on the mass of each material present in the package:

where Cp, combined Cp, contents Cp, steel Cp, foam Mcontents lllstccl nlroam is the combined specific heat of the package is the specific heat of the contents is the specific heat of the steel of the packaging is the specific heat of the foam is the mass of the contents is the mass of the steel of the packaging is the mass of the foam.

Equation l In order to evaluate the worst-case temperature differential resulting from the lower specific heat specification, the mass of the steel and contents are minimized, while the mass of the foam is maximized.

The ceramic fiber board and blanket are assumed to be replaced as foam insulation for this evaluation. Thus, the mass of the foam, lllfoam. is the maximum mass of foam present plus 25%, plus the mass of the other insulation (396 lb). The mass of the steel, 11lsteei. is the minimum package mass specified in Section 1.2.1. l of the LR SAR minus the foam mass (2650 lb -

mroam = 2254 lb). The maximum mass of the contents is 3042 lb; however, for conservatism in this calculation, the package is assumed to be carrying half the maximum, 1521 lb.

From the LR SAR (Section 3.2), the specific heat of the contents, Cp,contents. is 0.999 2.10.6-4 of 7

BTU/lb-F and the average specific heat of the carbon and stainless steel, Cp,stcct. is 0.1095 BTU/Jb-F.

Using the minimum specific heat for the phenolic foam from the original rev1s10n of the specification (0.282 BTU/lb-F) and solving Equation 1, the initial combined specific heat is 0.450 BTU/lb-F. Using the reduced minimum specific heat from the latest revision of the specification and substituting the reduced term into Equation 1, the revised combined specific heat is 0.442 BTU/lb-F.

Thus, the reduced minimum foam specific heat results in a 2%

decrease in the combined specific heat of the packaging.

Assuming the heat input due to the hypothetical accident condition and the mass of the loaded packaging do not change, and using the relationship Q = m c,, 11T, the increase in differential temperature is 2%. Using this information and the temperatures reported for the fire test of the LR prototype [Section 3.5.6 of the SARP], the estimated final maximum temperature of the contents during hypothetical accident conditions is:

1.02 (l48°F) = 151°F.

Since this temperature is well below the maximum allowable temperature of 210°F for the packaging, the reduced specific heat of the foam does not adversely impact the performance of the packaging.

This evaluation can also be completed for the maximum weight of contents to be transported, rather than the half-full package evaluated previously. The maximum weight of UN that may be shipped in the LR is 3,042 lb. Using this weight and the methodology above, the resulting final temperature of the contents during the hypothetical accident fire is 149°F.

Therefore, although the lower specific heat poses a small difference in the thermal response of the packaging under the hypothetical accident fire, the overall result does not adversely impact the performance of the packaging.

Additionally, the lower specific heat reflects a lower moisture content. The lower moisture content in the foam is desirable, as it is beneficial to corrosion resistance of the steel.

2.8 Water Absorption The original revision of the ESP-PF-2 specification required water abs01vtion levels from l.19 to l.90% by volume. The latest revision has been revised to allow levels less than 1.9%. Since it is preferable to maintain low water absorption, this change has a positive affect on the performance of the packaging. Additionally, the test frequency for water absorption has been revised to qualification only. The low water absorption feature is a property inherent in the mixture, therefore it does not vary from batch to batch.

2.10.6-5 of 7

2.9 Chloride Content The total chloride content allowable for polyurethane foam has been increased; however, this section has been combined with the elemental composition section discussed previously.

3 Conclusion The changes to the material property requirements of the phenolic foam used for the LR and the allowed use of polyurethane foam do not adversely impact the performance of the LR packaging. Therefore, these changes me acceptable.

2.10.6-6 of 7

Table 2.10.6-1, Summary of Evaluation Elemental Composition, I 7% +/- 10%

I 5.0-10.0%

I Deleted I

None I

Yes H}'.dro~en Elemental Composition, I 58% +/- 10%

I 50-75%

I Deleted I

None I

Yes Carbon Elemental Composition, I 32% +/- 10%

I NIA I

Deleted I

None I

Yes OxJ::gen Elemental Composition. I 1% +/- 10%

I 0-12%

I Deleted I

None I

Yes Nitrogen Elemental Composition, 7.5% +/- 10%

0-7.5%

Deleted I

None I

Yes Aluminum

<1800 ppm total for Elemental Composition. I NIA I

<200 ppm total polyurethane, 200 ppm I

None I

Yes Chlorine

<45 ppm leachable total for phenolic,

<45 pm leachable Density 6-8 pcf 6-8 pcf 6-8pcf None Yes Compressive Strength 80- 300 psi 84-300 psi 84-300 psi Increased impact resistance Yes Thermal Conductivity 0.150- 0.299 0.155 - 0.380 0.155 - 0.380 I

None I

Yes BTU-in/hr-ft2-F BTU-inlhr-ft2-F BTU-inlhr-ft2-F 0.282 - 0.294 0.200 - 0.535 0.200 - 0.535 Increased payload Yes, temperature Specific Heat I

BTU/lb-F BTU/lb-F BTU/lb-F temperature from 148 to remains below 151°F (estimated).

design limit Immediately self-Self-extinguishing Self-extinguishing within 5 within 5 minutes of minutes of removal from Flame Retardancy I extinguishing with 0" removal from flame flame and < 6" char I

None I

Yes char and < 6" char test freqency modified Water Absorption I

1.19 - 1.90% by

< I.90% by volume

< 1.90% by volume Increased corrosion I

Yes volume test frequency modified resistance Chloride Content I

<200 ppm total See elemental See elemental composition See elemental composition I Yes

<45 ppm leachable comoosition section section section 2.10.6-7of7

Appendix 2.10. 7 Finite Element Analysis for 50 foot Immersion Test 2-25

LAW

.._ l. WG I Ei E...:,; rci u ;* f/ ;e n1 tJE-.
  • J...

January 19, 2000 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 Law Engineering and Environmental Services Project 10810-9-7003, Phase 16

Dear Mr. Arnold:

As authorized by your purchase order number 7323 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-Liqui-Rad-250 container. The purpose of this analysis was to detennine the affects of a SO-foot head of water on the subject container in accordance with the requirements of I 0 CFR (Code of Federal Regulation) 71. 73 (5). This report provides our understanding of the background infonnation: services perfonned, and results.

Background Information Mr. Mike Arnold of Eco-Pak Specialty Packaging requested LAW to perfonn an engineering analysis for the Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-250 container when it is subjected to an external pressure that wou Id be produced by a SO-foot water head (21. 7 psi) in accordance with the requirements of I 0 CFR

71. 73 (5). Eco-Pak Specialty Packaging provided the following drawings:

Preliminary Design Arrangement for the Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-250, Drawing No. 111898/250, Sheet l and 2, (Rev. No. 9) dated 6/11/99.

LAW Engineenng and Env1ronrnenta: Services. Inc 280 ' Yorkmont Road* Chariotte. NC 28208 704-35:--8600 *Fax 704-357-8638

Eco*l'ak Specialty Packaging l.l:t:S l'rojecl f()S/().'J. 7()03. Phase 16 Services Performed

(}f/:?0/{)I}

J>ag.. ~ 2 The subject container is 56 inches by 56 inches and 71.00 inches tall and has various structural components such as angle frames, legs, outside and inside shells, and top and bottom panels. The structural components are constructed from carbon steel materials. From the drawings, an FEA computer model was constructed using plate elements, see Figure I and 2 of Appendix A attached with this report. Please note that we included in our computer model the structural components since they support the majority of the external pressure load. In our analysis \\Ve increased the structural components thicknesses to simulate support materials such as plywood, duraboard and phenolic foam.

A vessel, constructed from stainless steel material, measured 46 inches in diameter and 45 inches tall and it is located inside the inner shell. The vessel has an American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) flanged and dished top and bottom heads constructed from stainless steel materials.

The following material properties were assumed for calculating the element resultant thickness:

Plate Material Carbon Steel Plywood Insulation (Dura board)

Plate Thickness Varies Varies Varies E =Young's Modulus 30,000 ksi 2,000 ksi 2,000 ksi We assumed the following properties for carbon steel material:

Plate Material Carbon Steel

'=Poison's Ratio 0.29 Density 0.283 lbs/cu. inch G, Shear Modulus 11,630 ksi The following assumptions were made to calculate the external pressure of 21.7 psi:

+ Water density 62.4 pounds per cubic foot

+ Water temperature 68° F Phenolic Foam Varies 1,000 ksi I

I

(

£cfl-l'ak Specialty Packagi11g lt:ES Project /08/0-9-7003, l'ltme (6 Water temperature 68° F 50-foot head of water 0/120100 Page 3 For the FEA stress analysis, the calculated external pressure load was applied equally on the computer model elements that would come in contact with the water. We also applied the constraints or boundary conditions on the computer model by constraining the container top corner nodes. From the results of our analysis, the maximum stress was compared to the yield limit of the material.

Results Obtained Figures 2 to 14 in Appendix A, attached with this report, show the stress and deflection contours in the container due to an external pressure of 21.7 psi. These FEA analysis result shows stress values are within the yield strength limit of 36-ksi tensile strength 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 Approxim::tte stress and deflection at bottom plate External Pressure Maximum Stress Yield Stress In Model, In ksi In ksi 21.7 psi 17.2 36 Approximate stress and deflection at top plate External Pressure Maximum Stress Yield Stress In Model, In ksi In ksi 21.7 psi 20.8 36 Maxim um Deflection In Model, in inches 0.278 inches Maximum Deflection In Model, in inches 0.122 inches

Eco-Pok Spei:ia(ly Pockoging LEES Projecl /()8/0-9-70()3, Plrosc 16 Approximate stress and deflection at outer shell External Pressure Maximum Stress In Model, In ksi 21.7 psi 1.18 Yield Stress In ksi 36

()/12()/()(/

Pagc4 Maximum Deflection In Model, in inches 0.017 inches Based on our FEA analysis results, the maximum stresses in the bottom and top surfaces, and outer shell of the container structure does not exceed the yield stress limit of 36 ksi when it is subjected to an external pressure of 21. 7.

Qualifications This report summarizes our engineering evaluation of the Eco-Pak Liqui-Rad-250 container when subjected to an external pressure of 21.7 psi. 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.

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

\\v\\.\\0. ~ 0'-:~*,\\_l, Mike N. Parikh, P.E.

Senior Professional Corporate Consultant

Attachment:

Appendix A-Figure I to 14.

(

Appendix A Figure 1: Isometric view of the container with hidden lines.

Figure 2: Isometric view of the container without hidden lines.

Figure 3: Bottom surface stress contour plot.

Figure 4: Bottom surfuce deflection contour plot.

Figure 5: Top surface stress contour plot.

Figure 6: Enlarged view of top surface stress contour plot.

Figure 7: Top surface stress contour plot Oooking from other side).

Figure 8: Top surface deflection contour plot.

Figure 9: Outer shell stress contour plot.

Figure 10: Outer shell deflection contour plot.

Figure 11: Container bottom view stress contour plot.

Figure 12: Container bottom view deflection contour plot.

Figure 13: Container top view stress contour plot.

Figure 14: Container top view deflection contour plot.

1 ILl Cl z

I y

x EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI

!FIGURE: 11 ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16

  • ....-/

1 ILl Cl z

I y

x EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI r ~u~~~ 2]

ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16

1 Ll Cl G4

  • J EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed(0.278 ): Total Translation Contour: Plate Bot Major Stress

¥ I fl,

'--~

[ FIGU~E: 31

__ )

ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16 16884.

14473.

12063.

9653.

7243.

4833.

2423.

13.14

-2397.

-4807.

-7217.

-9627.

-12037.

-14447.

-16857.

-19267.

-21677.

-~ '

1 ILl Cl G4 J

EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed(0.278 ) : Total Translation Contour: Total Translation z

L-------Y

"'x I

FIG~~~: -~-1

)

ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16 0.278 0.261 0.244 0.226 0.209 0.191 0.174 0.157 0.139 0.122 0.104 0.087 0.0696 0.0522 0.0348

0. Olo7 4
0.

~)

1 fLl Cl G2 J

EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed (0.278 ) : Total Translation Contour: Plate Top Major Stress y

Z"----:x r~~= 5 1

\\.)

ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16 20848.

18365.

15883.

13401.

10919.

8437.

5954.

3472.

990.

-1492.

-3974.

-6457.

-8939.

-11421.

-13903.

-16385.

-18868.

)

1 ILl Cl GS

~

EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 beformed(0.278): Total Translation Contour: Plate Top Major Stress y

[-;,IGURE: 61

~---x

~

ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16 20848.

18365.

15883.

13401.

10919.

8437.

5954.

3472.

990.

-1492.

-3974.

-6457.

-8 93 9.

-11421.

-13903.

-16385.

-18868.

'1

1 1Ll Cl G2 J

EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed(0.278): Total Translation Contour: Plate Top Major Stress z

I FIGUR~ :um7 I

\\,,_x *-Y

-~

ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16 20848.

18365.

15883.

13401.

10919.

8437.

5954.

3472.

990.

-1492.

-3974.

-6457.

-8939.

-11421.

-13903.

-16385.

-18868.

)

1 ILl Cl G2 J

EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed (0.278 ) : Total Translation Contour: Total Translation

~

\\,__x L_ ----Y J FIGURE: s J

)

ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16 0.278 0.261 0.244 0. 226 I

I 0.209 1

0.191 0.174 0.157 0.139 0.122 0.104 0.087 0.0696 0.0522 0.0348 0.0174

0.

)

1 ILl Cl G3

_.)

EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed(0.278 ) : Total Translation Contour: Plate Top Major Stress z

i I _,,.X v* '"" x

~IG~~~~H-9]

J ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16 1182.

1046.

910.9 775.5 640.2 504.8 369.5 234.l 98.77

-36.59

-171. 9

-307.3

-442.6

-578.

-713.3

-848.7

-984.1

)

1 I

ILl Cl G3

)

EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed(0.278): Total Translation Contour: Total Translation z

1---~

~

§;;-RE: l~l

)

ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 1 6

)

0.278 0.261 0.244,

1 0.226 ~I i

I'

0. 2 0 9 \\,,.,.,.)

0.191 0.174 0.157 0.139 0.122 0.104 0.087 0.0696 0.0522 0.0348 0.0174

0.

1 1Ll Cl

--)

EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed(0.278): Total Translation Contour: Plate Bot Major Stress J

ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER y

. \\ \\z I FI~~~~-: 11 j

~-_I/

LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16

  • -)

\\(

18488.

15977.

13467.

10957. '

844 6..

593 6.

3426.

915.5

-1595.

-4105.

-6615.

-912 6.

-11636.

-14146.

-16657.

-19167.

-21677.

1 Ll Cl

_)

EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed (0.278 ) : Total Translation Contour: Total Translation

)

ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER y

i l, z x---_v EGURE; ~2 1 LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16 0.278 0.261 0.244 0.226 0.209 0.191 0.174 0.157 0.139 0.122 0.104 0.087 0.0696 0.0522 0.0348 0.0174

0.

.1 ILl Cl

)

EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed(0.278): Total Translation Contour: Plate Top Major Stress

~)

ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER z

1 ~

"x l~~

131 LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16 20867.

18384.

15900.

13417.

-)*

i 10933. l 8450.

5967.

3483.

999.8

-1484.

-3967.

-6451.

-8934.

-11417.

-13901.

-16384.

-18868.

1 ILl Cl

,~)

EXTERNAL PRESSURE OF 21. 7 PSI Output Set: SAP4 Case 1 Deformed(0.278): Total Translation Contour: Total Translation j

ECO-PAK, LIQUI-RAD-250 CONTAINER z

! ~

t~:::*

[FIGURE: 1~

"x LEES Project No. 10810-9-7003, Phase 16 0.278 0.261 0.244

o. 226 )

0.209 1

0.191 0.174 0.157 0.139

0. 122 0.104 0.087 0.0696 0.0522 0.0348 0.0174
0.

.... )

(

Appendix 2.10.8 Alternative Secondary Lid Closure Equivalency 2-26

1.0 Introduction As an altenrntive to secure the Secondary Lid, a design option allows for threading of the secondary lid flange to replace the nuts used on the Secondary Lid closure. The design option is shown on drawing LR-SAR, Sheet 3. The design <1lternative <1llows the user to secure the Secondary Lid with much less difficulty, since the need for reaching below the secondary lid flange to hold the nut in place as the bolt is se<1ted has been eliminated.

2.0 Analysis To show that the alternative closure is equivalent to the bolt/nut closure tested, two requisites must be satisfied: the closure must provide a clamping force to the 0-ring senls that is gre<1ter than or equal to that of the design tested and the closure must provide a closure joint strength tlrnt is greater than or equal to that of the design tested.

The closure design that was tested for HAC used twelve 5/8" SA193 B8M bolts and nuts (note that the current drawings call for a higher grade, SA193 B8M Class 2). Each bolt/nut is required to be torqued to 75 +/- 10 ft-lb. The alternative design closure also requires that the bolt be torqued to 75 +/- 10 ft-lb. The bolt specification for the altern<1tive design is also SA 193 B8M, Class 2. The number of bolts, bolt pattern, bolt dimneter and thread pitch are the same for the alternative design <1s for the tested design. Oberg

[Reference l] states that the clamping force exerted by <1 bolt is primarily rel<1ted to the npplied torque, bolt diameter, thre<1d pitch, and coefficient of friction between the bearing surfaces. Since all of these vm"iables remain unchanged from the tested closure design to the <1ltenrntive closure design, the clamping force applied remains the same. Thus, the clamping force applied at the 0-ring seal for the alternative design is equivalent to the clamping force applied at the 0-ring seal for the tested design.

In order to evaluate the closure's joint strength, three critical stress areas must be considered: the shear area of the internal thread, tensile stress area of the external thre<1d, and the shear are<1 of the intern<1l thread. The minimum thickness of a 5/8" st<1ndard hex nut is 0.535" per Reference I nnd the thickness of the upper ffange of the prinrnry lid is W'; thus, the length of threading (the eng<1ged length) for the alternative design is longer than that of the engaged length for the tested design. Additional! y, the installed* thread dimensions for the thrend insert are essentially the smne as those for the nut used in the tested design [Reference 2] and, <1ccording to the threaded insert nrnnufacturer, the inserts provide <1 gre<1ter contact <1rea and better load distribution over the threads. The bolt's nominal dimneter nnd the internal and external thread pitch have not changed from the tested design to the alternative design. Also, the yield <1nd tensile stress for the fastening materials used for the tested and the alternative design are the same [Reference 3]. Thus, the altern<1ti ve design performance is equi vnlent to that of the tested design for HAC.

3.0 Conclusions The alternative closure design for the secondary lid is equivalent to the closure design tested for HAC, and is therefore acceptable for use with the LR.

Page 2.10.8-1 of2 1111

//

r 4.0 References

{1 J Oberg, Erick, et. al. 2sh Edition Machinery's Handbook, Industrial Press Inc., New York, 1996, pp1408-1411, 1415-1416, 1640.

[2]

Recoil Design Considerations and Recoil Insert Part Number Call-out And Dimensional Data) Fairchild Industrial, manufacturer-specific printed data and http://www.recoil.eom.au/Insert dimensional dataOl-01.asp.

[3]

ASTM Al93/A 193M-97a, Standard Specification for Alloy-Steel and Stainless Steel Bolting Materials for High Temperature Service.

Page 2.10.8-2 of 2 1111

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19015A372&oldid=4940708"