ML19262A494
| ML19262A494 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1969 |
| From: | Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | John Miller METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910300441 | |
| Download: ML19262A494 (2) | |
Text
Dis t ribit tion :
Decket File DR Raauin;;
DP.L Readina RPB-3 'leadina NOV ie E63 C. n. Beck L 6 M.
.'I. '4 ann P.
Merris F. Schro der R. S. Boyd S. Levine (14)
D. Skovholt
,:t;
,li1:-
- t..
R. C. DeYounc 0
PS Branch Chiefs f.
1' R0 Branch Chiefs
>a L. Kornblith, CO (3)
Au t
~
F. 'i. Karas (2)
.i.
~ ^
D. F. Ross (3)
C.
I.9
<";c i.t.tet t+i
.'<J
.1: - d gb ru;.'
l '!'
,. c t,.n97tc.d yre t1 1.
l' ^ C.'. \\ 'I I y cil I,;
i t i.~ ', V tb'
.,ip'
,, --},. i }- (! P r !
[lt'\\
t st:
>e.er L, c.. i c.
'?
3i,.
',. c 1.
..J re.im i;n.
i-vn. _. '
Ci 171 vt
< cc i:.<
,ot_
.a s 01 /, i,
it t
ir
- c*
tr feu dl.:d c'a '
.O, t
in re c'. c c
+
to c3 1,
uc t
..u n '
.s
, d :li t.
- 'u, m the c c u ).: son ru).
_ to n',.,
rnc
- ; cu ; t.
^
s d.i.~ :. Junt.o.
_e ; c i. !
1_
e :ce :,
co a ti. en _
..r, PI. oc ccat et i: s i; 'ou ocsire dis -u;s ion o r el e cif i ca ti, rf LF r."
- 309L, Since:_1..,
JI s'n'. 5
- 'e t c,
,etn.
.m_
Di c.
!.L-
.i t '
i En c 1 o.-;u r,
.:e <'. :s i ic'
'.d J i t l mal
! M 1 e 4':' ^*.'1 SEE AI FACI'ED E0? PRE'/IOUS CONCURi'ESCES DEL D
D
- D'
~
l mm
.0..,s-..
p g
- b6 6J
.L J
O 11/,
/09
/
1486.352 7910300%[
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON AIRCRAFT IMPACT DESIGN FOR THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR UNIT NO. 1 1.
The Dynamic Load Factor equations contained in Table II of Gilbert Asso-ciates Report "n.
1716 appear to be in error. We have reviewed an article in Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 8 (1968) pp 415-426 entitled On the Stress Analysis of Structures Subiected to Aircraf t Imoact Forces, by. Jorge D. Riera of Gilbert Associates. This article, although not one of your references, appears to have been done in connection with the Three Mile Island Unit No.1 design. The dynamic load factors (DLF) in that article (on page 420) appear to be correct and consistent with the book Introduction to Structural Dynamics by John Biggs. Please furnish the correct equations, and indicate the extent to which the referenced paper is applicable to your design.
2.
In the Gilbert Report No.1716, on Figure 1, there is a total reaction vs time curve.
In justification of that curve, provide the following:
a.
Provide a weight distribution chart for the Boeing 720 airplane, depicting lbs/f t as a function of distance from the nose of the airplane.
The information should be more detailed than that shown on Figure 4, Appendix C, of your PSAR Supplement No. 5.
Indicate the individual contributors to the total, such as wings, fuel, fuselage.
Indicate the source of information for this loading dis tribution.
b.
How was the fuselage buckling load determined, and what is the source of that information?
c.
What airplane components ate assumed to detach during impact, when does detachment occur, and what effect do detached components ulti-mately have on the structures?
d.
For the time period t2 to t4 on Figure 1 of Report 1716, provide a DLF sensitivity calculation for a nonsymmetrical reaction, wherein the time t3 (where reaction peaks) converges to t2 This loading, while preserving area under the curve, would give a faster rise time, and higher DLF values. Provide also your justification for using a symmetric curve between t2 and t4 3.
Our calculations show that there are several oscillations of DLF vs period in the 0.01-to 0.1-second range. Your Figure 2 (of Report 1716) shows a relatively smooth curve in that region. Provide the details of your calculations, including the f requency steps used in quantizing the problem.
4 We have compared Figure 7 of Riera's article to Figure 2 of Report 1716.
Both have DLF vs period for the 720 airplane, but the curves are dissimilar.
The values in the Riera article are somewhat lower. Please indicate the causes for such differences.
5.
To what extent wil! the airplane-hardening design techniques used for Unit No. 1 apply to Unit No. 2?
53