ML20040F918

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Lwbr Seed SAR for Packaging, Revision 1
ML20040F918
Person / Time
Site: 07106003
Issue date: 11/30/1981
From:
ENERGY, DEPT. OF
To:
Shared Package
ML20040F910 List:
References
20121, WAPD-LP(CES)SE, WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170R1, NUDOCS 8202100466
Download: ML20040F918 (23)
v • d • e


Text

m

$.. ~ _

_.m s

4 r

LWBR SEED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FOR PACKAGING REVISION GUIDE SHEET Applicable to:

WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Title of Manual:

LWBR Seed Safety Analysis Report for Packaging Revision Number:

1 Date:

November 1981 Instructions for entering this revision:

1.

Insert new pages L0EP-i through L0EP-v preceding the FOREWORD.

2.

Remove pages 2-25/2-26 and insert new pages 2-25/2-26.

3.

Remove Appendix 2.10.2 pages 1/11 and 1 through 9 and insert new Appendix 2.10.2 pages 1/11 and 1 through 10.

1 4.

Remove Appendix 3.6.9 pages 1 through 4 and insert new Appendix 3.6.9 i

pages 1 through 4.

i O

t i

I i

l

!O t

8202100466 810911 PDR ADOCK 071*****

PDR l

C

WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981 LWBR SEED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FOR PACKAGING LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Numbers Revision in Effect Date L0EP-i through L0EP-v Revision 1 November 1981 Foreword Original July 1981 Contents / Authors Original July 1981 Chapter 1.0 1-1 and 1-11 Original July 1981 1-1 through 1-15 Original July 1981 Reference Drawings 2004D23 Revision C June 1979 2214C16 Revision C January 1980 2214C26 Revision A May 1979 2216C79 Original March 1979 2216C80 Revision B August 1979 1715F78 Revision B May 1981 1524E64 Revision D May 1981 1644F97 Revision B May 1981 2015D08 Original October 1979

(~

1715F98 Revision B May 1981 2218C67 Revision C May 1981 928E440 Revision E May 1981 1645F81 Revision A June 1979 1645F62 Revision D May 1981 i

928E466 Revision E May 1981 2011D07 Revision C May 1981 927J464 Revision 4 July 1975 928E469 Sheet 1 Revision H May 1981 Sheet 2 Revision E December 1979 Sheet 3 Revision F October 1980 1525E31 Revision B April 1981 s

l Chapter 2.0 2-1 through 2-iv Original July 1981 2-1 through 2-24 Original July 1981 2-25 and 2-26 Revision 1 November 1981 2-27 through 2-53 Original July 1981 Appendix 2.10.1 i and 11 Original July 1981 1 through 22 Original July 1981 Appendix 2.10.2 i and 11 Revision 1 November 1981 -

1 through 10 Revision 1 November 1981 t

L0EP-i

WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981 LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (Cont)

Page Numbers Revision in Effect Date Appendix 2.10.3 i

Original July 1981 1 through 9 Original July 1981 Appendix 2.10.4 i through v Original July 1981 1 through 86 Original July 1981 Appendix 2.10.5 i and 11 Original July 1981 1 thrcugh 10 Original July 1981 Appendix 2.10.6 i and 11 Original July 1981 1 through 19 Original July 1981 Appendix 2.10.7 i

Original July 1981 1 through 11 Original July 1981 Appendix 2.10.8 i through fii Original July 1981 1 through 34 Original July 1981 Appendix 2.10.9 i

Original July 1981 1 through 5 Original July 1981 Appendix 2.10.10 i and ii Original July 1981 1 through 21 Original July 1981 l

Appendix ?.10.11 i and 11 Original July 1981 1 through 29 Original July 1981 Appendix 2.10.12 i through 111 Original July 1981 1 through 19 Original July 1981 Appendix 2.10.13 i through iv Original July 1981 1 through 23 Original July 1981 Chapter 3.0 3-1 through 3-iv Original July 1981 3-1 through 3-25 Original July 1981 L0EP-ii

i WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981

/

LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (Cont)

Page Numbers Revision in Effect Date Appendix 3.6.1 i and 11 Originai July 1981 1 through 20 Original July 1981 Appendix 3.6.2 i

Original July 1981 1 through 6 Original July 1981 Appendix 3.6.3 i and 11 Original July 1981 1 through 9 Original July 1981 Appendix 3.6.4 July 1981 1

Original 1 through 8 Original July 1981 Appendix 3.6.E i

Original July 1981 1 through 6 Original July 1981 Appendix 3.6.6 i

Original July 1981 1 through 3 Original July 1981 Appendix 3.6.7 i

Original July 1981 1

Original July 1981 Appendix 3.6.8 i

Original July 1981 1 through 4 Original July 1981 Appendix 3.6.9 i

Ori9 nal July 1981 1

1 through 4 Revision 1 November 1981 1

Appendix 3.6.10 l_

i Original July 1981 j

1 through 7 Original July 1981 Chapter 4.0 4-1 and 4-11 Original July 1981 4-1 through 4-12 Original July 1981 Appendix 4.4.1 i

Original July 1981 1 and 2 Original July 1981 00 L0EP-iii

WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981 LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (Cont)

Page Numbers Revision in Effect Date Appendix 4.4.2 i

Original July 1981 1

Original July 1981 Appendix 4.4.3 i

Original July 1981 1 through 4 Original July 1981 Chapter 5 5-1 and 5-11 Original July 1981 5-1 through 5-13 Original July 1981 Appendix 5.5.1 i

Original July 1981 1 and 2 Original July 1981 Chapter 6.0 6-1 through 6-iv Original July 1981 6-1 through 6-37 Original July 1981 Appendix 6.6.1 i

Original July 1981 1 and 2 Original July 1981 Appendix 6.6.2 i

Original July 1981 1 and 2 Original July 1981 Appendix 6.6.3 i

Original July 1981 1 through 4 Original July 1981 Appendix 6.6.4 i

Original July 1981 1 and 2 Original July 1981 Chapter 7.0 7-i Original July 1981 7-1 through 7-6 Original July 1981 Chapter 8.0 8-i Original July 1981 8-1 through 8-3 Original July 1981 Chapter 9.0 9-i and 9-11 Original July 1981 9-1 through 9-46 Original July 1981 l

L0EP-iv

i l

WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 l.'

Revision 1 November 1981

!LO, LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (Cont) i j_

Page Numbers Revision in Effect Date-I Appendix 9.19.1 i

Original July 1981 4

1 through 4 Original July 1981 i

l Appendix 9.19.2 1-Ortginal July 1981 i

1 Original July 1981 -

Appendix 9.19.3 3

j 1-Ortginal-July 1981 1 through 3 Original July 1981 l

O i

i l

i l

l l

l i

l O

l LOEP-v I

i.

I

Chapter 2.0 to

/

WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 tO November 1981

(

/

2.6 (Cont) shown previously to be acceptable (Reference 2-1).

This conclusion is not changed for LWBR shipments, and the following paragraphs demonstrate that the modifications meet the standards specified in 10 CFR Section 71.35 when subjected to the nomal conditions of transport specified in 10 CFR Part 71, Appendix A.

2.6.1 Heat This section addresses the effects of temperature and temperature changes on the stress states of the M-130 container modified for the shipment of six LWBR seed modules.

2.6.1.1 Summary of Pressures and Temperatures The internal pressure for the nomal condition of transport analysis is based on the pressure change caused by the heatup of the gaseous coolant and th evaporation of water as a result of decay heating. Closure of the M-130 is assumed to occur at 70*F and atmospheric pressure. The decay heating results in a maximm internal pressure of 38.4 psia (Section 3.4.4) and the temperature distributions shown in Figures 3.4-3 and 3.4-4 of Chapter 3.0.

The con-p) ditions that produce these pressure and temperature distri-(#

butions are:

100*F ambient temperature, a maximtsn fuel module decay heat load of 4600 BTU /hr per module, solar load, and evaporation of residual water in the container.

2.6.1.2 Differential Thermal Expansion The module holder assembly in the M-130 container is sub-ject to extremes of temperature during normal transport.

Consequently, it is necessary to analyze the seed holder assembly for each extreme of temperature to ensure that material stress limits are not exceeded. Parts of the con-tainer and seed module holder assembly which are affected by temperature variations include the container inner wall, module holders, expandable wedge, wedge pad, wedge support, and wedge adjusting shaf t, and the internal aluminum fin assembly.

The module holder is loaded at a temperature of 70*F with thermal strains referenced to this temperature. The steady-state ambient temperature of the container and the module holder assembly parts is based on a container ambient temperature of 130*F.

Thermal analyses have been conducted to establish the tem-perature distribution instue the container shown by Fig-ure 3.4-3.

Based on this distribution, the maxima radial n%./

movement of the module holder relative to the container 2-25

Chapter 2.0 to WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981 2.6.1.2 (Cont) inner wall is predicted to be 0.0286 inch, which is taken up by the flexibility of the internal alumina fins and the disk springs on the wedges (see Appendix 2.10.1).

2.6.1. 3 Stress Calculations The analysis of the wedge / module holder system shows that for the temperature and pressure conditions which occur during normal conditions of transport, the stresses remain elastic ( Appendix 2.10.1). Therefore, repeated thennal loadings do not result in an accumulation of defonnation.

2.6.1.4 Comparison with Allowable Stress A comparison of the calculated module holder internal cool-ing fin displacement with the displacement which wi11 cause the fin to yield shows that the yield stress is not exceeded (Section 1.0 of Appendix 2.10.11).

2.6.2 Cold Compliance with the requirement to assess the package at -40*F (min-imm ambient temperature) is shown in the previous certification (Reference 2-1). Cooling of the module holders sufficient to cause loss of contact between the internal cooling fins and the container inner wall results in loss of heat transfer capability, heating of the module holders, expansion of the fins against the container inner wall, and reinstated cooling of the module holders. Since there are no liquids in the container (except for a potential small amount of residual water), the possibility of freezing is not a factor in the analysis.

2.6.3 Pressure Compliarce with the requirement to subject the package to an exter-nal pressure of 0.5 standard atmospheres is shown in the previous certification (Reference 2-1).

2.6.4 Vibration Appendix 2.10.2 demonstrates that during nonnal transport c neglig-ible usage factor is predicted. Therefore, rearrangement of the fuel due to nonnally-induced vibration is not expected.

No other component of the package is considered to be susceptible to vibration-induced fatigue.

O 2-26 l

Appendix 2.10.2 to WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170

~

Revision 1 4

O' November 1981 U

APPENDIX 2.10.2 SEED FUEL' ROD FATIGUE TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.

INTRODUCTION........................................................

1 2.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS..................................................

2 3.

ASSUMPTIONS..........................................................

6 4.

RESULTS.............................................................

-8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page 2.10.2-1 Rai lroad Car Input Response Spectra.........................

3 2.10.2-2 BESTRAN Program Seed n Te l, Ten Gods........................

5 2.10.2-3 Railroad Car Response Spectra Input Directions..............

7 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 2.10.2-1 Fati gue Ana ly si s Pa rameters.................................

9 LIST OF REFERENCES Reference Number Ti tle i

2.10.2-1

" Evaluation of Stability of the M-130 and DIG Container Cars,"

Robert W. Luebke (Research Services Planning Department, C and 0/8 and 0 Railroad Conpanies) M4y 1971 2.10.2-2

" Design Based in Fatigue Analysis," Article XIV-1000, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 3 Appendices,1980 2.10.2-3 "A Survey of Shock and Vibration Environments in the Four Major Modes of Transportation," R. W. Schock and W. E. Paulson, MRD Divi-l sion of General American Transportation Corporation under MSFC Contract NAS8-11451 i

t l

1 i

t I

r

Appendix 2.10.2 to WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981 LIST OF REFERENCES (Cont)

Reference Number Title 2.10.2-4

" Corrosion and Hydriding of LWBR Fuel Rod Cladding,"

WAPD-LP(FE)El-256 (Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania) August 1,1980 2.10.2-5

" Recommended Plan for Operation of LWBR Beyond

.,000 EFHi,"

WAPD-LP(FE)EP-287 (Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory), Attachment A, December 31, 1980 2.10.2-6

" Documentation of the BESTRAN Module PROB 30," WAPD-R(B)-3126, R. W. Schock and W. E. Paulson (Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory),

August 22, 1974 2.10.2-7 Design of Mechanical Elements, Joseph F. Shigley (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York) Third Edition, 1977, p. 595 2.10.2-8

" Fatigue Design Basis for Zircaloy Components," W. J. O'Donnell and B. F. Langer, Nuclear Science and Engineerlag, Vol. 20, April 1964, pp. 1-12 2.10.2-9 "High Cycle Fatigue Properties of Zircaioy-4 at 600*F,"

L. R. Kaisand and G. E. Class III (General Electric Materials and Processes Laboratory Report DF74SL208), March 18,1974 e

11

App:ndix 2.10.2 to WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981 APPENDIX 2.10.2 SEED FUEL R00 FATIGUE 1.

INTRODUCTION The LWdR seed fuel rods will be subjected to cyclic loading during transpor-tation by railrcad car from the Shippingport Atomic Power Station in Shippingport, Pennsylvania to the Expended Core Facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The fuel will be transported by means of an M-130 shipping container mounted by an A-frame on a ISO-ton, 21-foot, depressed-center flat railroad car.- The railroad car is modified to improve stability and reduce wheel lift by the installation of U-4 springs and Stucki HS-6 stabilizers. With these modifications the maximm roll angle is 2.4 degrees and wheel lift is reduced to zero (Reference 2.10.2-1). In addition, the railroad car has been tested to establish the critical speed. This is detennined to be 19 mph, corresponding to a test load of 217,000 pounds. Six seed modules are to be shipped in one container, as shown by Figure 1.2-3 of Chap-ter 1.0.

The container, support structure, and railroad car configuration is shown by Figure 1.2-1 of Chapter 1.0.

During fuel shipment, the railroad car is subjected to normal over-the-road running conditions (continuous vibrations), as well as high aqolitude, low Os frequency (transient) vibrations associated with starts, stops, slack run-outs, and run-ins. The shipping accelerations input to the railroad car are, to some degree, transmitted to the fuel rods. Thus, the effect of the cyclic stresses produced in the fuel rods during shipment is of interest in this analysis. This appendix evaluates fuel rod fatigue associated with normal continuous running conditions and low cycle transients by determining the usage factor.

As defined by Reference 2.10.2-2, a cumulative usage factor of one is per-

~

mitted; the cumulative usage is defined as the sum of the usage factors for each type of cycle, as given by:

U=U1+U2+Un and n

n " If where n = number of cycles at predicted alternating stress N = neber of cycles allowed by the fatigue design curve at the level of alternating stress predicted.

l 0 1

Appendix 2.10.2 to WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981 1.

(Cont)

For the low cycle transient usage factor (V ), the number of cycles pre-i dicted is based on test data obtained recently fran an M-130 shipment from the east coast to the Naval Reactors Facility site in Idaho. Data obtained froa two RM-3 Way Impact Registers attached to the railroad car bed and to a lower portion of the M-130 container was evaluated for the expected fre-gaency of impacts in excess of 1 G.

For the continuous cyclic vibration evaluation, data compiled from a series of tests was used.

l The envelope of accelerations used as a basis for the continuous vibration analysis, shown by Figure 2.10.2-1, is taken from Reference 2.10.2-3.

This figure is a directional conposite, representing various railroad tracks, rail conditions, directions, and speeds. The accelerations shown in Fig-ure 2.10.2-1 apply to the bed of the railroad car. This analysis assumes these input accelerations apply directly to the baseplates of the modules.

These vibrations are input to the dynamic analysis program as a response spectra.

l Use of the referenced railroad car response spectra as direct input to the dynamic analysis is considered conservative because:

1.

A special railroad car design is used for the LWBR shipnent. The sus-pension changes in the railroad car described above have improved its stability characteristics in conparison to the nonnal railroad cars used to generate the spectrum.

2.

The spectrum data encompasses operation over railbeds of a range of con-ditions and topography, while the LWBR M-130 shipnent will be over a largely western route.

3.

Fuel shipnents tested in 1964 and 1980 using an M-130 container with an accelerometer or impact meter positioned on the container indicate lower G loads than measured on the railroad car bed. The over-the-road, peak-to-peak G loadings in the 1964 data reached approximately 0.19 G with some maximum loadings reaching 0.31 G for bumpy, rough track with back-lash.

In the 1980 data, an attenuation factor of 2 to 3 in the trans-verse directions and 4 in the vertical direction is observed between the container and the railroad car. The response spectre used for the anal-ysis include more severe conditions.

2.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS The low cycle or transient impacts are evaluated as the first type of cycle for which a usage factor is detennined. The most frequent occurrence of impacts in excess of 1 G is in tt.2 longitudinal direction, in which there is a frequency of 8 occurrences in 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br />. Conservatively considering a 200-hour trip as the expected period of transport, 80 occurrences are pre-dicted. Both the lateral and vertical directions have frequencies of half or less this value, but are conservatively assumed to have the same fre-quency. Actually observed peak G values at the railroad car floor do not exceed 2.5 G's.

However, statistical treatment of the data indicates that i

2 l

l

10 j i

i i i iiiij i

i i i iiiij i

i i i iiii; i

i i i i iii; i

, i i i i,$

g u<

e i

i o

J a

x v v

.S.,.

k o

/

....- q :

s y

'.i a,

m ma w

o VERTICAL

~

.-- - - L ATE R AL

.......... FORE / A F T I

I I I i 11ll t

i I I 11111 1

i 1 i 1111l I

I I I t il!l t

i I I I 111

.ot

zmt, OJ l

to 100 1000 10Looo a;g FREQUENCY, CPS 3 7?E K&GS

,=gx G~GN

$ M E.

m "

Figure 2.10.2-1 Railroad Car Input Response Spectra EE

Appendix 2.10.2 to WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981 2.

(Cont) 3 G's in the vertical direction cnd 4.5 G's in the horizontal direction might occur with low probability. Suitable conservative stress values are obtained for use in the usage factor calculation by applying these factors to the individual directional stress intensities calculated for:the high frequency (approximately 1 G) loads of the following response spe_ctra analysis.

The second type of fuel shipment cyclic accelerations are analyzed using the l

response spectra method outlined in Section 1 of this appendix. Since each of the six seed modules is transported in a similar manner, the ar.alysis is limited to a single seed module. The module is represented by two base-plates, five top-mounted rods, five bottom-mounted rods, and two seed shell halves. Figure 2.10.2-2 shows this representation and the grid supports included in the model.

The seed shell is represented by Nodes 2 through 13 and 196 through 207.

The mass of the seed shell is lumped in Nodes 4, 8, 11, 198, 202, and 205.

One baseplate is represented by Nodes 1, 15, 51, 87, 123, 159, and 195; th'e other is represented by Nodes 14, 50, 86, 122, 158, 199, and.208.

The rod masses are lumped at Nodes 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 39, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 161, 163, 165, 167, 169, 171, 173, 175, 178, 180, 182,'184, 186, 188,190, and 192.

The remaining nodes represent massless points _ connecting the spring mass elements which make up the total model. Five rods are. connected to each baseplate, and are interconnected by grid springs. As' an example, one grid adjacent to a baseplate is represented by spring elements connecting' Nodes 16, 33, 52, 69, 88, IJ5,124,141,160, and 177.

The response spectru, shown by Figure 2.10.2-1 is taken from Refer-ence 2.10.2-3.

Accelerations from the railroad car response spectrum are input to the module baseplates without attenuation.

The rod sectional properties input to the PROB 3D program include geometries which account for hydrided rods and include the effect of corrosion. The hydriding effect is approximated by calculating the ratio of the asstried clad hydrogen concentration of 1500 ppm to the clad hydride concentration for a fully-hydrided rod. This ratio is then applied to the clad thickness to approximate the reduction in clad thickness from the hydriding effect.

The loss in clad thickness from corrosion is based on the assumed 1500 ppm hydride level. For purposes of this fatigue sti.dy, a maximun metal loss of 0.002 inch is used to account for both effects, resulting in a clad thick-ness of 0.0181 inch.

4

Appendix 2.10.2 to uAPO-LP(CES)SE-170

'on 1 e

(3' 1981 (v/

~

e u.

evn a a

}

=

E a

=d

$1

=I, h,

sI, v2,,.

al,,

L,,

5

=

e

=

=

=

=

0

- o o

o o

o o

o o

o

~

e

=

=

n

~-

(H:

o o

o c

-o

-:H>

r

=

E

=

=

o o

o o

o o

o o

o o oe m

V

,>a e

2

~,.

3,.

o

<H~,.

e

, o e*

=

2 e

=

=

=

=

o o

o o

o o

o o

o o

N, "a c

o

=

=

=

e e

  • ( H )

O O

O O

')

'H)

N o

a w-

~

=

=

=

=

=

2;

=

=

=

o o

o o

o o

o o

o og E

o o M oc

,s>

m g.

e O

2 O

(.,.

<p.

o.

g u

x

/

m u i

cm

=

e o

o o

o o

o o

o o

o e

e t

e

=

=

=

1 2,:

.( H c

c

H)

E e

2 e

a

'o o

o o

o o

o o

o o

s,.

=,.

~

  • p 2<,.

m,

,y-)

,x, o

-o

~

o a

o o

o o

o o

o o

o o

a,.

,

o m,,

m,,

l W

e

=

5e s

I o

o o e o o

o o

o o

o M.

l sA s.

m m

m

~

il o I_

=I BI_

= -

bah v>

i 5

l l

Appendix 2.10.2 to WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 Novenber 1981 2.

(Cont)

The dynamic, lumped-mass, linear elastic analysis uses the PROB 3D module of the BESTRAN program (Reference 2.10.2-6), to detennine the rod clad stress intensities for each of three directions of excitation, two lateral and one vertical. The stress intensities in each direction are summed by the fol-lowing expression:

a=n 1/2 2

2 S = IS I

  • E b

~b

q. 2,10.2-1) b a

b

_a=1 where n = number of modes Sa = stress in any mode a Sb = r.aximum value of stress for any single mode a.

The stress intensities fran the lateral and vertical directions are summed over all modes using Equation 2.10.2-1.

In turn, stress intensities from the vertical and lateral directions are combined by finding the square root of the stan of squares (SRSS), where S 2+S

+S Eq. 2.10.2-2)

S

=

SRSS 1

2 3

and Sg, S, and S3 are obtained from the stanmation indicated by Equation

.10.2-1 The resulting stress intensity represents the magnitude of the stress ch6nge fran zero stress to the maximtan. The completely reversed cycle of stress, then, is that consisting of S p33 in tension in the outer fibers of the clad 3

followed by a similar compressive stress as the direction of strain com-pletely reverses. The magr,itude of the peak stress (over one-half of a cycle) is then compared to one-nalf the allowable stress amplitude, or 6500 psi. It should be noted that the allowable stress amplitude is based on a safety factor of two on stress amplitude or a factor of 20 on cycles, whichever is more conservative. These factors are included to account for the effects of size, environnent, surface finish, and scatter of data (see Re ference 2.10.2-8 ).

3.

ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions are used in the fatigue analysis:

1.

The response spectra of Figure 2.10.2-1 are input to the baseplates in three directions, as indicated by Figure 2.10.2-3.

6

O O

O'~

b VERTICAL SPECTRUM

?z U

g lATER AL SPECTRUM

.=t

, fif /

LATERAL SPEC 1 RUM c}',

SUPPORT PIN l

ION ENERGY A950R BE R OVER y

pA FRAME vT

.V

+,

4 o

N

'f j.

I

, [\\

/

M-e30 CCNTAINER

} s!'

og jj

~

3

[,r BOTH LATERAL RESPONSE SPECTRA ARE IDENTICAL

(

3

/

W

~.

N-

= x =c 2-32%E 3??2

,Hi & G S agx 3"G~

?

G, 5 r.

A" Figure 2.10.2-3 Railroad Car Response Spectra Input Directions EE

Appendix 2.10.2 to WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981 3.

(Cont) 2.

The response spectra accelerations are applied directly to the seed module baseplates.

3.

The size of the model is limited by the capacity of the PROB 3D program to handle mass points. Thus, rod configurations are examined up to the maximun number of mass points permitted in PROB 3D. The sensitivity of the model to the number of rods is detennined by adding rods to the model array until further addition of rods does not result in a signifi-cant change in rod stress.

4.

The seed shell is modeled as a thin-walled cylinder having a moment of inertia equal to that for the hexagonal shape of the seed shell.

5.

The rods are modeled as thin-walled tubes with no strength contribution from the fuel.

6.

Tube pellet and clad mass are lunped between each of the grid supports, for a total of 70 masses. Each lumped mass is equal to one-half of the distributed mass, based on mass modeling recommendations from Refer-ence 2.10.2-7.

The seed shell mass is lunped in three masses.

7.

The temperature of the structure is taken as indicated in Table 2.10.2-1 based on the expected maximun module temperature.

8.

Seed grid stiffness is varied over the range from 1000 lb/in to 16,000 lb/in. This range spans values measured from tests. The 1000 lb/in value gives the most conservative results and is used for this evaluation.

9.

Hydriding of the rods is accounted for by conservatively assuming a 1500 ppn hydrogen concentration.

10. Loss of clad thickness by corrosion is considered with the hydriding effect.
11. Fatigue characteristics for Zircaloy include irradiation effects.

The parameters used in the fatigue analysis are shown in Table 2.10.2-1, 4.

RESULTS The ten-rod model shown by Figure 2.10.2-2 is subjected to the excitation of the response spectra of Figure 2.10.2-1 in two lateral and one vertical directions. Figure 2.10.2-3 shows the direction of the excitation that is applied to the model. The maximun stress intensity for each direction is calculated using the method of sunmation shown by Equations 2.10.2-1 and 2.10.2-2 to obtain the stress associated with each direction of the response spectra acceleration. For the low cycle transients, the stress intensities in the lateral and longitudinal directions are multiplied by a factor of 4.5, and in the vertical direction by a factor of 3.

The maximum stress 8

Appendix 2.10.2 to WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 s

Revision 1 November 1981 4.

(Cont)

Table 2.10.2-1 Fatigue Analysis Parameters Parameter Value Reference Clad 0.D.

0.306 in Appendix 2.10.13 Clad 1.0.

0.262 in Appendix 2.10.13 Clad Thickness 0.022 in Appendix 2.10.13 Clad 0.D. Considering 0.2982 in Reference 2.10.2-3 flydriding and Corrosion Effects Clad Thickness Considering 0.0181 in Reference 2.10.2-3 Hydriding and Corrosion Effects Clad Weight 0.0046 lb/in Appendix 2.10.13 Pellet Weight 0.0175 lb/in Appendix 2.10.13 Grid Stiffness, Minimum 1000 lb/in Based on test measurements Grid Stif fness, Maximum 16,000 lb/in 6

2 Fuel Rod Zircaloy Modulus 11.27 x 10 lb/in Appendix 2.10.13 of Elasticity in Tension 6

2 Seed Shell Zircaloy 13.39 x 10 lb/in Appendix 2.10.13 Modulus of Elasticity in Tension Module Rod Clad 703*F Chapter 3.0, Temperature Section 3.4.2 l

intensities for each direction are then combined using the square root of the se of the squares to obtain the maximum resultant stress intensity.

On the basis of this method of analysis, including the clad metal reduction from corrosion or hydriding, the maxima combined stress intensity is 14,116 psi for the transient cycles and 3137 psi for the continuous cycles in the element which connects Nodes 186 and 187. The hydriding and corro-sion effects are conservatively treated in the analysis, since an assumed i

1500 ppm hydride concentration is over twice that predicted for 30,000 EFPH of operation. The primary structural effect of corrosion, hydriding, or l

9

- ~. - -

e

Appendix 2.10.2 to WAPD-LP (CES )SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981 4.

(Cont) wear is to reduce the effective clad thickness, thus decreasing the bending stiffness and reducing the natural frequency of the fuel rods. To ensure that the interaction of these effects with the multiple frequency input spectrum does not result in significantly higher stresses at other elements or frequencies, a parametric study was run using the described technique.

The maxinu1 stress predicted for clad thickness reductions of up to 50 per-cent is 3536 psi. Thus, a conservatively stressed location in the fuel module is compared to the fatigue stress limit for irradiated Zircalcy.

A conservative estimate of the number of cycles to which the seed module is subjected during transport is made as follows:

If the trip from Ship-pingport to the Expended Core Facility requires 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> traveling time, and the seed is continuously excited at the highest resonant frequency examined in the analysis, then the module will experience approximately 5.0 x 108 cycles of stress reversal. Based on the test data, 80 transient cycles are expected.

The usage factors for the two types of cycles at 770*F are calculated based on the tabulated paramete, s below. Allowable stresses are obtained fran References 2.10.2-8 and 2.10.2-9.

Predicted Number Allowable Number of Cycles at of Cycles at Stress Maximua Conbined Stress Canbined Stress Cycle Combined Stress, psi Level Level Transient 14,116 80 15,000 8

Continuous 3137 5.0 x 10 The combined usage factor for the cyclic stresses is then:

0 80 0=

+ 5.0 x 10 l

= 0.005 Since a usage factor of 0.005 is negligible compared to a limit of 1. no l

adverse effects as the result of vibrations incidental to shipment are predicted.

O 10

Appendix 3.6.9 to WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 3-November 1981 y

APPENDIX 3.6.9 CONTAINER SURFACE EFFECTIVE EMISSIVITY 1.

DESCRIPTION OF METHOD The container surface effective enissivity, accounting for the existence of external cooling fins, is detennined using the guidelines of Refer-ence 3.6.9-1 as described below.

1.1 Calculating Finned Container Radiation Area The area for radiation for a finned container (A ) is the area of the f

container envelope, as detennined by:

f=n (D + 2 d) L (Eq. 3.6.9-1)

A o

f where D = diameter of the unfinned container = 79.625 in o

d = fin depth = 2 in Lf = fin length = 109.875 in.

Substituting into Equation 3.6.9-1 for A :

f Af=n (79.625 + 2 x 2)(109.875) 2

= 28,870 in 1.2 Calculating Effective Emissivity Associated with Ar Since the fins behave as cavity-type radiators, the enissivity associ-ated with the finned portion of the container (cf) is:

- -I 1+

-1 (Eq. 3.6.9-2) cf =

where 4

s = average face-to-face distance between fins

= 1.22 in I

S=

s + 2d = 5.22 in l.

cp = material surface emissivity l

= 0.85.

10 1

Appendix 3.6.9 to WAPD-LP( CES )SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981 1.2 (Cont)

Solving Equation 3.6.9-2:

1

\\ ' -I cf = 1 + g.22 / 1g -1)

= 0.960 1.3 Calculating Container Surface Effective Emissivity However,cg is applicable only over the finned length of the container.

The rcmalaing portion of the container is associated with the material surface enissivity (e p). Therefore, the container surface effective emissivity (co) may be estimated by area-weighting the ef fective fin and material surface onissivities as follows:

A A

'f f * 'r nf (Eq. 3.6.9-3) e * ~Ar + A..

c where O

l cf = 0.960 2

A7 = 28,870 in cp = 0.85; and Anf = non-finned container surface area l

=n D (L - L )

o f

where D = container diameter = 79.625 in o

L = container length = 157.25 in 1

tr = fin length = 109.875 in.

Substituting into the expression for Anf A

=, (79.625)(157.25 - 109.875) nf 2

= 11,850 in 2

~

Appendix 3.6.9 to WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 3,

Revision 1 November 1981 1.3 (Cont) and solving Equation 3.6.9-3:

, (0.%3)(28,870) + (0.85)(11,850) l C e 28,6/0 + 11,650

= 0.928 I

C.

CALCULATING THE MODEL CONTAINER SURFACE EFFECTIVE EMISSIVITY Since the calculational model does not explicitly represent the external cooling fins, a container surface effective emissivity for the model (cm) must be calculated in order to conserve the net radiative heat transfer.

The heat transfer due to radiation (Q) (Reference 3.6.9-2) may be expressed-as:

0*C A bs -T,4)

(Eq. 3.6.9-4 )

e c

where o = Stefan Boltzmann constant e = container surface effective emissivity = 0.928 l

c A = container radiating surface area = 40,720 in2 (Af+Anf) c Ts = temperature of the container surface (*R)

Ta = ambient temperature ('R).

Solving Equation 3.6.9-4:

Q = 4.50 x 10-7 (T 4 - T,4) 3 The net radiative heat transfer for the model is defined by:

0, = c, A, o ( T

-T 4)

(Eq. 3.6.9-5) s 3

where the calculational model container surface effective emissivity c =

m Am = the calculational model container surface area

= 2n (40-inch radius)(140-inch height) 2

= 35,190 in,

3 Nj, I

y

-4

Appendix 3.6.9 to WAPD-LP(CES)SE-170 Revision 1 November 1981 2.

(Cont)

Solving Equation 3.6.9-5 gives:

Q, = c x 35,190 (T

- T,4).

4 m

3 To conserve radiative heat transfer in the model, set the container radia-I tive heat transfer equal to the model radiative heat transfer (Q -> Om

  • Then:

- T,4)

- T,4 ) = c x 4.19 x 10-7 (T 4 l

4.50 x 10-7 (T 4 m

3 s

and solving for c m

l 4.50 x 10-7 4.19 x 10~7

= 1.07 This value of c is used to determine the average module holder temperature.

m t

O 4

L

l l

~

ll~ }803 December 29, 1981 g

Please destroy previous copy of G#7053 dated September 1, 1981 and replace with the attached copy G#7053 dated September 11, 1981.

Note:

See attached Revision Number (1) dated November 1981 W

D. cw d1C "

s

$ veavao,3 et ;':WI251982,

%,f %. %.

. m t ;0'

, m{ : ;ppr 1

~

.--_.m

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ - _ _. _ _. _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20040F918&oldid=4552893"