ML19320A501
| ML19320A501 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07109113 |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1980 |
| From: | Hansen L NUCLEAR PACKAGING, INC. |
| To: | Macdonald C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320A502 | List: |
| References | |
| 16370, NUDOCS 8006250315 | |
| Download: ML19320A501 (29) | |
Text
_
Q
~7/ ~ 'l //)
NUCLEAR
-(Nu h PACKAGING, INC.
A 815 SC. 28TH STREET
- TACOYA WASHINGTCN 33403 * (2061 572-7775
- 838 1243 May 9, 1980 Mr. Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
SUBJECT:
Certificate of Compliance No. 9113
Dear Mr. MacDonald :
Two Certificates of Compliance have been issued for the same package.
Their numbers are USA /9080/A and USA /9113/A.
From the drawings it can be seen that the packages are identical.
The Certificates of Compliance differ only in the authorized payload and total gros-weight.
Certificate of Compliance No.
9080 allows 13,000 lbs. payload vs. 7,000 lbs. for No. 9113.
Again, these are identical packages.
The purpose of the enclosed revision is to bring No. 9113 in line with No. 9080 and upgrade the material from A-36 to A-516, Grade 70.
The original configurations (9080 and 9113) were approved using A-36 carbon steel throughout.
Revision 2 proposes changing the A-36 to A-516 material.
This steel provides increased strength as well as a significant improvement in nil ductility and cold weather performance.
Because of its increased strength (i.e., 70,000 psi vs. 55,000 psi), the resultant package provides a slightly larger positive Margin of Safety than the one previously approved.
This represents the only safety related change and.the only change to the drawing.
Should you require additional information, please call.
Thank you again.
Sincerely yours, NUCLEAR A GING, INC.
- W rarry 3. Hansen THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
- JH/dmd Incl:s.:res
___v.0 8006250 3 1 5 1
Summary of the changes are as follows:
Page 0-3 Change payload weight end gross package weight from 7,000 lbs. to 13,000 lbs. and 42,000 lbs.
to 48,000 lbs, respectively.
Page 1-2 Changed package weight and material properties for A-516.
Page 1-3 Changed package weight.
Pages 1-4 thru Recalculated tiedown lug margin of safety based 1-9 on new higher material strength.
Margin of safety increased.
Page 1-11 Statement on advantages of material damage for cold weather capability.
Pages 1-12 Revised margin of safety for new material.
and 1-13 Page 1-15 Corrected typographical
- error.
Not safety related.
Pages 1-16 thru Revised drawing analysis for higher package weight 1-17b and corrected typographical error.
Small increase in positive margin of safety resulted.
Page 1-19 Revised lid loads due to increased payload weight.
M.S. = +.45.
Pages 1-22 and Revised lug capacity based on increase in 1-23 material properties.
M.S.
= +5.40.
Pages 1-24 thru Revised impact analysis for side drop to 1-28 account for material property and weight increase.
M.S. = +.84.
Drawing Revised weight and material callout.
Provided optional use of bolts or studs for secondary lid.
Provided optional use of 3 lugs on secondary lid.
i l
t I
' INSTRUCTIONS FOR INCORPORATI: G P2 VISION 2 N!E::D!C::TS Add nea pages i through lii Insert new page 0-3 Remove old page 0-3 Insert new pages 1-2 Remove old pages 1-2 through 1-5 through 1-5 Insert new pages 1-8 Remove old pages 1-8 and 1-9 and 1-9 Insert new pages 1-11 Remove old pages 1-11 through 1-13 through 1-13 Insert new pages 1-15 Remove old pages 1-15 through 1-17b through 1-17b Insert new page 1-19 Remove old page 1-19 Insert new pages 1-22 Remove old pages 1-22 through 1-28 through 1-28 Remove old pages 8-10 and 8-11 1
e O
9 e
s
-e Table of Contents Page O.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 0-1 0.1 Introduction 0-1 0.2 Package Description 0-2 0.2.1 Packaging 0-2 0.2.2 Operational Features 0-5 0.2.3 Contents of Packaging 0-5 1.0 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION 1-1 1.1 Structural Design 1-1 1.1.1 Discussion 1-1 1.1.2 Design Criteria 1-1 1.2 Weights & Center of Gravity 1-2 1.3 Mechanical Properties of Materials 1-2 1.4 General Standards for All Packages 1-3 1.4.1 Chemical and Galvanic Reactions 1-3 1.4.2 Positive Closure 1-3 1.4.3 Lifting Devices 1-3 1.4.4 Tiedowns 1-7 1.5 Not Applicable 1-10 1.6 Normal Conditions of Transport 1-10 1.6.1 Heat 1-10 1.6.2 Cold 1-10 1.6.3 Pressure 1-11 1.6.4 Vibration 1-13 1.6.5 Water Spray 1-13 1.6.6 Free Drop 1-14 1.6.7 Corner Drop 1-29 l.6.3 Penetration 1-29 1.7 Hypothetical Accident Conditions 1-29 1.9 Special Form 1-29 i
1.9 Fuel Rods 1-29 1.10 Appendix l-29 2.0 THERMAL EVALUATION 2-1 2.1 Discussion 2-1 2.2 Summary of Thermal Properties of Materials 2-2 2.3 Technical Specification of Components 2-2 2.4 Thermal Evaluation for Normal Conditions of Transport 2-2 2.4.1 Thermal Model 2-2 2.4.2 Maximum Temperatures 2-3 2.4.3 Minimum Temperatures 2-3 2.4.4 Maximum Internal Pressures 2-3 2.4.5 Maximum Thermal Stresses 2-4 2.4.6 Evaluation of Package Performance for Normal Conditions of Transport 2-4 2.5 Hypothetical Thermal Accident Evaluation 2-5 2.6 Appendix 2-5 3.0 CONTAINMENT 3-1 3.1 Containment Boundary 3-1 3.1.1 Containment Vessel 3-1 3.1.2 Containment Penetration 3-1 3.1.3 Seals and Welds 3-1 3.1.4 Closure 3-1 3.2 Requirements for Normal Conditions of Transport 3-1 l
3.2.1 Release of Radioactive Material 3-2 3.2.2 Pressurization of Containment Vessel 3-2 3.2.3 Coolant Contamination 3-2
~
3.2.4 Coolant Loss 3-2 3.3 Containment Requirements for the Hypothetical Accident Conditions 3-2 4.0 SHIELDING EVALUATION 4-1 4.1 Discussion and Results 4-1
5.0 CRITICALITY EVALUATION
5-1 6.0 OPERATING PROCEDURES 6-1 j
6.1 Procedures for Loading the Package 6-1 6.2 Procedures for Unloading the Package 6-2 ii s
e
7.0 ACCEPTANCE TESTS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 7-1 7.1 Acceptance Tests 7-1 7.2 Maintenance Program 7-1 8.0 -QUALITY ASSURANCE 8-1 8.1 Organization 8-1 8.2 Quality Assurance Program 8-2 8.3 Design Basis 8-3 8.4 Procurement Document Control 8-3 8.5 Inspections, Procedures & Drawings 8-4 8.6 Document Control 8-4 8.7 Control of Purchased Materials, Equipment and Services 8-5 8.8 Identification and Control of Materials, Parts and Components 8-5 R.9 Control of Special Processes 8-6 8-6 S.10 Inspection 8.11 Test Control 8-7 8.12 Control of Measuring and Test Equipment 8-7 8.13 Handling, Shipping and Storage 8-8 8.14 Inspection, Test and Operating Status 8-8 8.15 Non-conforming Materials, Parts and Components 8-8 e
0 iii
Ravicion 2 May 9, 1980 0. 2.1. 3 ~ Containment Vessel The 7-100 cask serves as the containment vessel and its mechanical configuration is described in the foregoing paragraph.
A neoprene gasket is employed in the primary and secondary lid interfaces.
Waste products will be contained in drums or disposable steel liners.
0.2.1.4 Neutron Absorbers There are no materials used as neutron absorbers or moderators in the Model 7-100 packaging.
0.2.1.5 Package Weight Gross weight for the package is approximately 48,000 lbs.
This 2
includes an estimated payload weight of 13,000 lbs.
O'.2.1.6
' Receptacles There are no internal or external structures supporting or protecting receptacles.
0-3 3 -
Ravicion 2 May 9, 1980 1.2 Weights and Center of Gravity The weight of the cask and liner (or payload) will not exceed 48,000 pounds.
The cask weight is approximately 35,000 pounds.
l2 The center of gravity for the assembled package is located at the approximate geometric center of gravity.
1.3 Mechanical Properties of Materials The Model 7-100 packaging uses an outer and inner shell fabricated of various thicknesses of low carbon hot rolled steel.' Material properties of the steel are as follows:
Per ASME for A-516 Grade 70
,000 psi 2
F
=
tu
,000 psi F
=
ty 35,000 psi P
=
su Fbrg =
90,000 psi Lead shielding will pe==ccc there prcperties referenced in 1
ORNL-NSIC-68, Table 2.6, page 84.
Lid studs are all of SAE Grade 5 quality possessing the following properties, per ASTM A325 and A449:
1" 3/4" Proof Load 78,000 psi 85,000 psi Tensile Strength: 115,000 psi 120,000 psi 1-2 y
R vision 2 May 9, 1980 1.4 General Standards for all Packages This section demonstrates that the general standards for all packages are met.
1.4.1 Chemical and Galvanic Reactions The materials from which the packaging is fabricated (steel and lead) along with the contents of the package (disposable steel containers) will not cause significant chemical, galvanic, or other reaction in air, nitrogen or water atmosphere.
1.4.2 Positive Closure The positive closure system has been previously described in Section 0.2.1.
In addition, each package will be sealed with an approved tamper indicating seal and suitable locks to prevent inadvertent and undetected opening.
1.4.3 Lifting Devices Four lifting lugs and four tiedown lugs are provided.
.l.4.3.1 Primary Lifting Lugs Assume that only two of the four lugs are used to lif t the package.
Therefore, the maximum load per lug will be:
(48,000 Lbs) (3g's)/2 lugs 2
P
=
72,000 lbs P
=
1-3
3 Rsvision 2 May 9, 1980 From the' drawing:
7 --.-- q o
/
s_s,-
/
\\ 2.50 DI A
/.///
\\e--(a ~
Using Reference No. 1 - Figure 4.4.1-3:
W/D
= 6/2.5 = 2.4 & R/D = 3.25/2.5 = 1.3 K
= 1.21 Ultimate lug capability is given by:
P Where:
ult Tu K = 1.21 D = 2.5 in.
t=
2.0 F
0,000 psi (A-516)
=
Tu (1. 21) (2. 5) (2. 0) ( 70,000) 2 P
=
lt 423,500 lbs (ultimate)
=
l From Reference No. 1 - Figure 4.4.1-2, the yield correction factor is given to by y = 1.1 or:
yld ultY ty/F P
=P Tu
=
(423,500)(1.1)(38,000)/(70.000) 2 252,890 lbs (yield)
=
Margin of Safety:
M.S.
=P
!~
yld r
252,890/72,000
=
2
= + 2. 51 1-4
R3 vision 2 May 9, 1980 The capacity of the lug-to-lid weld may be estimated as:
P
=P A
- A
= 1(tn' g
su w w
f2 1
2(6+1) = 14"
=
(1/2") 2 = 0.707
("v" weld) t
=
n (35,000)(14)(.707) = 346,430 lbs.
2 P
=
g The lug-to-lid weld margin of safety is:
M.S. = 346,430/72,000 -1 = + Large 2
Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the primary lifting lugs will not yield under a load equal to three times the weight of the package.
1.4.3.2 Primary Lid Lifting Lugs Lid Weight = 8600 lbs Using three lugs the load per lug is:
i (8600 lbs) (3 g's)/3 lugs P
=
P
= 8600 lbs/ lug i DlA l
_i 4 y
[
\\
+
3 j
2 4 i
f l
N.NNNNSNNNNNNN \\\\ N l
~
1-5
Revision 2 May 9, 1980 2:
1 O
The worst condition is that of the 10 g forward load:
(10) ( 480,000 lbs)
P
=
10 480,000 lbs.
=
The horizontal component for each lug is:
R
= 480,000 (22.75)/ (2) (39.5)
H 00 lbs.
2 R
=
H R = R /cos 3 0* = 1%, f>11 hs.
g RH
f g
39.5 cs t
R 22.75 1
A 1-9
l Revision 2 May 9, 1980
-)
The cross tie component will give:
f g c:
R b
C R=
R
= R/cos 30
= 184,309 lbs.
C 2
Therefore, each lug will experience a load of 184,309 lbs.
From Section 3.1.3.1, the yield strength of the lug was calculated to be:
yld = 252,890 lbs.
P 2
Margin of Safety:
252,840/184,309 -1 M.S.
=
= +. 37 Therefore, it can be concluded that the 10 g load will not produce stress in the lug greater than its allowable yield strength.
If the load were increased to approximately 19 g's, the lug _would fail at the hole.
This would not impair the cask's ability ~to meet the other requirements of Section 71.31.
Y h
1-9
Rsvision 2 May 9, 1980 2.
DOT 6272 Poly Panther 3.
DOT 6679 Half Super Tiger 4.
DOT 6553 Paducah Tiger 5.
DOT 6744 Poly Tiger 6.
NRC 9069 - Model MO-1 Overpack 7.
NRC 9073 - Model OH-142 Cask Therefore on the basis of years of actual operating experience it is safe to conclude that cold will not substantially reduce the effectiveness of the package.
In an effort to improve the cold weather capability, all packages manufactured after July 1, 1980
- )
1 will be manufactured from A-516, Grade 70 material.
1.6.3 Pressure A differential pressure of
.5 atmosphere will be reacted by the lid and its associated closures.
Loads on the lid attachments are calculated as:
2 1
Ap/N ; where A =
P
=
g P = 14.7/2 psi 5
N=8 For the secondary lid studs, the load is:
1 (29)2 14,7 P
= 607 lbs.
=
g The tensile strength of the 1-8UNE, Gr.5 studs is:
(120,000)(.351) = 42,120 lbs.
~P
=
A 1-11 s
Revision 2
.?ay 9, 1980 2
' Thus, the margin'of safety is:
M.S. = 42120/607-1 = +Large.
For the primary-lid attachments, the load is:
5)2 gy4,7II I = 4113 lbs/ binder.
P s
- The tensile strength of each binder is in excess of 85,000 lbs.
~
Thus the margin of safety is:
M.S. = 85000/4113-1 = +Large.
Stresses induced in the cylindrical portion of the cask are conservatively estimated by assuming the pressure differential is totally borne by the 3/8 inch thick inner shell.
The hoop and longitudinal stresses are:
f
= PR/t = (
}I 33) = 740 psi n
2 h
= PR/2t = (1
)(
j )( )
70; psi
=
y 2
Assuming these biaxial stresses are additive:
F
= 1100 psi.
max The margin of safety is:
M.S. = 38000/1100-1 = +Large.
l2 Pressure across the end is carried in plate bending by the 2" and 3-1/2" inch thick steel plates top and bottom.
Assuming a r
i l
l l-s 1-12 7
T
Rovision 2 May 9, 1980 circular piate only 2" -thick, uniformally loaded and with edges simply supported, the stress can be calculated as follcws:
2
-f
= 3W(3M+1)/8 Mt (per " Formulas for Stress and Strain" by Roark)
Where:
W= (7.35) ( ) (7 5. 5) 2/4 = 32906 lbs.
t=
2" M = 1/.33 = 3 f
(3)(32906)(10)/8 (3) (8)
=
r f
=_1636 psi r
Margin'of safety:
38,000/1636-1 =.+Large 2
M.S. =
It caz. therefore be concluded th'at the packaging can safely react an atmospheric pressure of.5 times standard atmospheric pressure.
1.6.4 Vibration Shock and vibration normally incident to transport are considered to_have negligible effects on the Model 7-100 packaging.
1.6.5 Water Spray i
-Since the package exterior is constructed of steel, this test is not required.
1 e r 4
l-13
R2 Vision 2 May 9, 1980 For the 7-100 shielded cask, the variables are:
H = 12. inch R= 41.125 inch r = 38.125 inch 1 = 44.857 inch p=.410 lbs/in W = n(R -r )pl = 13,654 lbs.
2 3/4 inch t
=
s O's = 45000 psi g'pb 5000 psi
=
The predicted lead settlement is thus:
H=
(41.125) (13654)
(12)
= 0.018 in 2
2 dr(41.125 -38.125 )[(3/4) (45000)+ (91.125 (5000)]
This modest settlement " void" in the lead shield cannot transmit radiation because of the stepped design of the package ends.
The 1
inner most 3 1/2 inch solid steel end plates completely back
-(shield) lead settlement regions at both ends of the package.
Thus, lead settlement due to flat end. drop does not compromise, nor alter, the integrity of radiation shielding in any fashion.
1.6.6.2 Corner Drop The' impact energy associated with a corner drop will be absorbed by-inelastic deformation of the steel corner.
Using the " dynamic flow pressure" concept, total deformation of the corner is esti-O l-15 s
~
- Rsvision 2 May 9, 1980 mated and'used'to compute package deceleration.
This deceleration is then-used to check-the integrity of the lid closure.
The volume of deformed steel is estimated by:
K.E. = WH K.E. = 9's s V
Thus:
= WH/9's Vs Where:
K.E. = Kinetic energy of drop (in-lb)
W = Package Gross Weight (lb)
H = Drop Height (in)
G'l = Flow strength of steel per Cask Designer's Guide 2
.s V, = Volume of deformed steel (in )
The volume of deformed steel is thus:
(48000)(12) 3
= 11.5 in y,
s 50000 2
Deformation associated with this volume can be estimated from the following geometric expression for a truncated cylinder:
V = 2tana
+r t rR
- sin-1(f 2
s (R -r )I!
t=
- r=
R-2 si a
Where:
d = impact deformation R = radius of package = 42" od= angle between package bottom and a horizontal plain = 43.5 1-16 s
.c.
c
Ravision 2' May 9, 198C For'al volumetric deformation of Vs = 11.5 in the corresponding 2
corner deformation is found to be:
S = 1.16 inches 2
Assuming an impact condition along the long edge of the hex-shaped lid'the displaced volume would be a triangular wedge.
Vol =(1/2)b h 1 l2-Where:
b = base
= 2.25 h h = deformation 1 = hex length = 35.36 in.
l2 OC= 31.38 V= 11.5 in l2 Solving for.h:
h =.54 in deformation l2 The corresponding deceleration for an impact force which increases with deformation may be computed as:
II A
= 2(H/S)
= 44.4 g's 2
=
9
.54 m
D 9
0 1-17
Revision 2 May 9, 1980 For the maximum acceleration case the impact load occurs along one side of the hex. shaped lid.
loads are distributed to the lid over the following length:
1 = 2(tan 22 1/2 ) (85.375)/2 = 35.36 in.
f2 W2h \\
I s
l
\\
l
=
- 2. -->
=
95.375 Impact loads for the cask body are reacted along the lip of the package.
This lip provides protection to seal and prevents it from being crushed on impact.
Stress in the lip can be calculated as follows:
/
/
$(-
/
\\
s Seal
~ N uu t mt< tu 1
t i
1-17a s
Rsvision 2 May 9, 1980 Load in lip is:
P=
(44.4 g's) (35000 lbs. - 7000 lbs. ) (sin 31. 38 )
i2 P = 647,350 lbs.
j Conservatively assume that load is only reacted along the loaded area "1".
f = 647,350 lbs./(35.36 in) (.75 in) 2 f = 24,409 psi Margin of Safety:
M.S.
= 38,000 psi /24,404 -l
~
2 M.S. = +.56 The protective lip of the cask body will not yield under impact and, therefore, assures that the seal is not damaged.
From the drawing it can bd seen that a 1/2 inch thick by 2 inch wide seal is compressed a full 1/8 of an inch.
This assures good sealing even if the package lid was to momentarily spring open.
It should be noted that the lid is manufactured from two solid steel plates totaling 5 1/2 inches thick.
Their strength and stiffness assures controlled positive sealing surfaces.
From Detail C of the reference drawing it can be seen that the secondary lid gasket is also protected from over compression by means-of steel spacer blocks.
These blocks assure a pre-determined 50% compression of the gaskets.
4 l
'l 1-17b
Revision 2 May 9, 1 80 Where:
sin F is i "g F
=W a cos g
g i=T total package
=C, cask side & bottom
=P
, payload
=L lid W
= W +W +W t
c p
1 R = Lid / cask Binder Forces This deceleration -imposes loads upon the primary lid closure
- bolts as illustrated in the following sketch.
The total primary lid closure load.may be estimated as:
R=F
-F
=F
+F c
c Pc (W +W ) a cos 58.2
=
3 p
(7000 + 13000) (444) cos 58.2
= 467,940 lbs.
2
=
Since there are eight primary lid closure binders, each binder load is 58,492 lbs.
2 Thus the margin of safety of the primary lid binders is:
~
M.S. = 85000/ 58492 -1 2
=+.45 i
9 l
l-19
- t. -
Revision 2 May 9, 1980 The lug capability in net area is:
P
=F A
Where:
F
= 70000 psi 2
tu A=
(3.75 - 1.625)(1.0)
= 2.13 (70300 psi) (2.13 in )
P
=
t P
= 149,100 lbs. (Net Area) 2 t
Lug to lid attachment:
en)mm))))
v 7
+
1 Weld Shearing:
P F A weld s
s Where:
F
= 35000 psi s
A=
(8 in) (sin 45 ) (1 in.)
= 5.66 in' o
1-22
F.evision 2 May 9, 1980 2
(35000 - psi) ; 5.66 in )
P
=
g P
= 198,000 lbs/ lug s
Binder. retaining pin or bolts are 1" GRADE 5 bolts (115,000 psi tensile)
(.6)(115,000)
F
=
s
69000 psi 2-A
.7854'in P = A Ps (2) 2
(.7854 in ) (69000 psi) (2)
=
= 108,385 lbs (Double-shear)
Therefore, it can be concluded that the binders and their attachments can safely react the unusual conditions of transport.
The secondary lid closure studs are examined in a comparable fashion.
Conservatively, the total payload mass of 13,000 lbs.
is assumed to be reacted by the secondary lid studs in propor-tion to its projected area.
Thus, the total secondary lid 2
stud load is estimated as:
o R=
(W +W ) a cosac (29h/75 ) ~
g p
(2000+13000) (44. 4 ) cos 58.2 (.15) = 52,642 lbs.
2
=
Since there are eight secondary lid studs (3/4-10UNC, SAE Gr. 5),
each stud load is 6,580 lbs.
The tensile strength of the stud is: %
P=7A= (120,000)(.351) = 42120 lbs.
Thus the margin of safety of the secondary lid studs is:
M.S. = 4 2120/5 580 -1 =
+5. 4 0 2
1-23
Revision 2 May 9, 1980 Therefore,.it can be safely concluded that the package can
-survive a normal corner drop.
1 1.6.6.3
~ Side Drop Assume the cask impacts on one corner of the octogenal lid and the opposite end.
J Using the same energy relationship:
Vol = WH/O' c
s 11.5 in 2
=
4 Since it is reacted at two locations the volume deformation T
- at the lid is:
5.75 in-2 V
=
L i
e O
l-24
Revision 2 e
May 9, 1980
- --X
=
g
?
N g
/
t
/
\\
L b
I h
\\
I e
Vol = (h+hx)t+3h Where:
t = 2 in tan 22 1/2
= h/x x = h/ tan 22 1/2
= 2.41 h 2
Vol = (h+2.41h )2+3h 2
4.82h +5h-5.75 = 0 h =-5 Y 25+(4) (4.82) (5.75)
(2) (4. 82) 2 h=.69 in x=
(2. 41) (. 69) = 1.66 in.
i A=
(2 ) (1. 6 6) (2 ) + (1) (2 ) + 3. 0 A= 11.66 in O
f 1-25
~
Parision 2
~
May.9, 1980 1
Impact' force is then F=UyA (50,000 psi)(11.66 in2)
(
=
l,~
= 583,000 lbs.
l This load is transferred through the lid directly to the opposite side of the' package and distributed across the pro-jected area.
i n_
Vuy,q
/
1
/
4 1i't
/
/
1
////
NNNNhN\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
N l
Unit loading on the cask body is given by:
I p = F/d
" 581,n00/75.5 2
= 7,721 lbs/in S
1-26
_7--.
Revision 2 May 9, 1980 Conservatively assume that this load is carried by beam bending of the external skin only.
~
gr.
/
lk N Y M. D X M X.N X.X.X.:-
h h
40 z
=
R R
1 y
f 1
i 1
i W
i k
I3
=
R = 7721 lbs.
R I
R = 7721 lbs 2
ii = (7721 lbs) (2)/40 W= 386 lbs/in limax "
I!
(386) (40)/R
=
2 1930 in-lbs
=
2
/= 6M/bt Where:
M = 1930 in-lbs 2
b = 1 inch (unit width) t=
.75 in i
I sl 1-27 s
s.
Revision 2 May 9, 1980 7 = (6) (1930)/.(1) (.75) 2 6' = 20 591 psi Margin of Safety M.S.
= _38000 psi /20591 psi -1 2
M.S.
= +.84 Therefore the cask body can react the side impact loads, transferred by way of the lid, without producing deformations detrimental to the sealing area.
From-the above it can be seen that the cask is able to safely react the normal condition of transport associated with the drop conditions.
e 8
9 1-2S
.,,,., _,,