ML20059A024

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summarizes Info Re Consolidated Application for BU-7 Package,Including Engineering Design Verification Calculations That Verify Structural Adequacy of Internal 16-gallon Drum
ML20059A024
Person / Time
Site: 07109019
Issue date: 12/14/1993
From: Vaughan C
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To: Haughney C
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
NUDOCS 9312290167
Download: ML20059A024 (37)
v • d • e


Text

,

[Qj 7/

0 lO

, bly

~

GE llaclent Energy Decembe" 14,1993 Mr. Charles J. Haughney Transportation Certification Branch Division of Fuel Cycle & Material Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Haughney:

References:

(1)

Consolidated Application for BU-7 Package.

C.M. Vaughan to C.J. Haughney,12/3/93, Submitted on 12/10/93 (2)

Telephone Conversation of 12/9/93, C.M. Vaughan et al GE and C.J. Haughney et al US NRC On December 10,1993, we submitted to the NRC our consolidated application for the BU-7 package, dated December 3,1993. GE is firmly convinced that our consolidated application contains sufficient information to demonstrate that the BU-7 package is acceptable for shipment under the proposed conditions and limits in accordance with the regulatory requirements of 10CFR71. This is also consistent wiui the NRC position prior to our application of December 6.1991 that extended the enrichment range for the package to 5% U-235.

Although the consolidated application confonns to the NRC regulations, including providing the regulatory required infonnation and test data in accordance with the regulatory defined testing process, we understand from our conversation on December 9 that the NRC is currently concerned about the appropriateness of moderation exclusion fer die BU-7 package because of questions related to the robustness of its design.

4 As indicated in our transmittal letter dated December 3,1993, GE had completed a comprehensive internal review of the compliance and safety basis for the BU-7 package before submitting the newly consolidated 4

application to the NRC. This review generated an extensive volume of information that supports the safety of the container design and performance under testing. Since our telephone conference on December 9 indicated that this infonnation would assist the NRC in its review of the consolidated application, summaries of this information are being provided to the NRC as described below.

PDR ADOCK 07109019 dl 9312290167 931214 1

t C

PDR d

'\\,\\\\

s Mr. Charles J. Haughney December 14,1993 Page 2

?

Attachment A summarizes engineering design verification calculations (Buckling Analysis of Fuel Shipping Cannister. Dias to Baumgartner, j

December 3,1993) that verify the structural adequacy of the internal 16-gallon drum. The results of our simplified handbook approach are comparable to the NRC's treatment using ASME Tables. Of principle importance, however, a finite element buckling analysis demonstrated a minimum safety factor of 15%. These results are confirmatory of the design and clearly predicts the acceptable test results and performance that has been observed.

Attachment B (summary of calculations and test results, Kaul to Baumgartner, November 30,1993) provides a structural evaluation of the inner product pall used within the BU-7. GE*s consolidated application includes test data and photographs which demonstrate that the loaded pails passed the 10 meter accidental drop requirement. The calculations in this work demonstrate that passing the test is consistent with the strength of the pall. Therefore, assuming widespread distribution of powder outside the pall in an accident is not consistent with the strength margin and demonstrated performance of l

the pail.

Attachment C (BU-7 Hydro Test Data, Baumgartner to Vaughan, November l

29.1993) summarizes the BU-7 Hydro Test Data performed on 424 BU-7 containers in 1982/83 as a part of our effort to register the BU-7 package for use in Japan. This is a sizable test population that demonstrates that the container is robust enough to withstand hydrostatic pressures equivalent to 50 feet submersion. The test reports are available for inspection if necessary. Addluonally the 16-gallon drums were robust enough at this test pressure so that they were not buckled or otherwise deformed so as to impact their assembly into the specification container.

In addition, as mentioned in our telephone conversation, the BU-J l

container is nearly identical to the BU-7 and in fact uses a metric equivalent of the inner 16-gallon drum. In recently purchasing and leasing a group of 431 of these BU-J containers, we determined that they came from a parent population of 1,280 fabricated as a group.

Each of the 1,28016-gallon inner drums were double tested to the equivalent pressure of 50 feet (one test with internal pressure and one test with external pressure). To pass they all had to be leak tight.

The test records are voluminous and therefore not included in this transmittal but are available for inspecuon. This clearly underscores the leak tightness of the inner container. In addition the 16-gallon drums were robust enough to withstand the pressure tests and were not buckled or deformed so as to fall to meet the specifications for the container.

-i 1

r c

Mr. Charles J. Haughney December 14,1993 Page 3 There was also an indication during our December 9 teleconference that the interest in increased safety margin came from moving to enrichments in the 4-5% U-235 range. To the contrary, our criticality safety analysis indicates that for normal cases the Keff is fairly flat as a function of enrichment (2 safe batches / container) and that in the accident case reactivity is higher at lower enrichments primarily because the masses of powder are larger.

Again let me say that GE strongly believes that moderation exclusion is an appropriate assumption in demonstrating the safety of the BU-7 package in accordance with NRC regulatory requirements. This is clearly supported by design and test data. We are prepared to work with the NRC in promptly resoMng these matters, which are of vital importance to GE.

Sincerely, GE NUCLEAR ENERGY f //ff' '

/2fM C. M. Vaughan, anager Regulatory and EHS Attachments 1

/pl i

cc: CMV-93-123 4

Mr. Charles J. Haughney December 14,1993 ATTACHMENT A BUCKLING ANALYSIS

r e

December 3,1993 To:

J. Baumgartner cc:

S. Ranganath M.L. Herrera R. Strine D. Drendel T. Dunlap R.B. Elkins M. Kaul From: K.P. Dias /[. / -

'h/D

Subject:

Buckling Analysis of Fuel Shipping Cannister E

Scope and Back2round k

Buckling of a fuel shipping cannister under hydrostatic pressure was analyzed. Sketches of the cannister are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The cannister is sealed at the top and bottom essentially; a " thick" cover is bolted on the top and a thin walled bottom plate is attached at the bottom using a crimped joint. The specified material thickness is 0.0478 0.005 inch for the cylinder and the bottom. However, the cover is 3/16" or 0.1875" thick

- (approximately 4 times the thickness of the thin-walled cylinder). The cannister also has two circumferential ribs for structural reinforcement as shown in Figure 2.

The specified hydrostatic design pressure is 21.7 psi, which is equivalent to 50 feet of -

water. Therefore, the cylinder must remain leak tight and maintain structural integrity up to 21.7 psi hydrostatic.

Simplified Handbook Prediction A theoretical or handbook solution (Ref. Roark's Formuasfor Stress and Strain) was initially used to calculate a buckling pressure of approximately 20.2 psi for minimal material thickness conditions using the following formula:

P 0.92 E / [(t /r).(r/t)2.5) er

= 53,350 (t)2.3 wnere, E = elastic modulus = 29x106 psi r = cannister radius = 7" (approx.)

t = material thickness = 0.0428 ( min.)

! = cannister length = 27" (approx.)

r

.i This critical pressure is associated with a cylindrical be.:khag mode and assumes the ends are constrained to remain circular. This is a reasonable assumption since the ends are constrained by circular plates on both top and bottom. However, the handbook formulation does not account for the circumferential ribs, which can add substantial circumferential and axial stiffness to the cannister.

i Roark also adds that experimental critical pressures vary i 20% about handbook theo:etical values, indicating that eigenvalue predictions are adequate for estimating the actusJ buckling loads (imperfections and large deflection behavior inclusive).

ANSYS Finite Element Model GEM)

To account for the added stiffness of the ribs, a detailed finite element analysis (FEA) of the fuel shipping cannister was performed. The model is shown in Figures 3 and 4. This model includes the following details which were not accounted for in the handbook solution:

. Circumferential ribs (using as measured dimensions)

. Non-rigid end constraints at the top and bottom

. Simulation of crimping and overlap weld (top) using local element thickness increase (= 31, conservative)

A half-symmetry model was used (as shown) such that full mode shapes (wave modes) could be observed. Elastic quadrilateral shell elements (STIF63) with stress stiffening capability were used.

Figure 5 shows a cannister model without the rib features; all other geometry details are retained. Both models were analyzed; the latter was used to baseline the finite element model against the handbook formulation and provide a consistent basis for evaluating an increase in buckling load due to rib reinforcement.

Although a large deflection analysis is preferable, preliminary FEA using large deflection formulations yielded questionable results. Several problems with convergence were encountered. ANSYS convergence methods (Newton-Raphson techniques) can be problematic and do not always yield reliable solutions. Therefore, analyses (to date) have been restricted to linear eigenvalue buckling analyses.

Finite Element Bucklim Analysis Linear elastic eigenvalue buckling analysis is a " bifurcation" analysis and usually provides upper bounds ofbuckling loads or limit loads. The finite element eigenvalue formulation is consistent with " classical" buckling solution methods in that the results are dependent upon the original geometry and do not account for large pre-buckling deformations.

Therefore, it is important to note that both handbook calculations and the subsequent linear FEA buckling evaluation represent upper bounds on buckling loads. However, the i

i r

analytical results provided here, coupled with test data, should provide a sound basis for assessing the limit load capability of the fuel shipping cannisters.

i The first buckling mode associated with the collapse of the cylinder wall is shown in Figures 6 and 7. Note that the cylinder ends not only remain circular but are also closely approximate a constrained end condition - a condition implicit in the handbook formulation. The ribs take on an elliptical buckling shape charactedstic of rings under external pressure as would be expected.

t Finally, as a comparison, the first cylindrical buckling mode for the non-ribbed cannister is shown in Figure 8. Once again, the ends remain circular and approximate a constrained end condition.

~

[

All cases were run using the minimum thickness of 42.8 mil for the cylinder and a maximum thickness of 52.8 mil for the bottom base plate of the ' cylinder. Thickness variations in the base alone are not expected to have a significant impact on the buckling j

mode of the cylinder. No finite element cases were run for increased thicknesses of the _

cylinder. However, the analytical buckling forumula for a cylinder can be readily used to obtain a reasonable estimate of the effect of thickness on buckling load, since the effect of thickness on buckling loads should be approximately the same for both configurations (i.e.

with and without ribs).

l The following results were obtained:

f With Ribs Without Ribs

@ 42.8 mil: (min)

ANSYS 35.5 psi 23.0 psi Handbook n/a 20.2 psi -

@ 47.8 mil: (twm.)

ANSYS*

(46.9 psi)

(30.4 psi)

Handbook n/a 26.7 psi

@ 52.8 mil: (max)

ANSYS*

(59.9 psi)

(38.8 psi)

Handbook n/a 34.1 psi

  • Values obtained by scaling 35.5 psi, given theoretical relation ofPer
  • t 23 The minor discrepancy between the handbook value of 20.2 psi and the ANSYS value of 23.0 psi can be attributed to two things:

i

1. The element mesh size is not refined enough; larger mesh sizes generally overpredict critical buckling loads.
2. Thickness is increased (3t) locally over an 11/16" length at top and bottom, thus reducing the effective length (for FEM). A minor increase in the critical pressure can be expected.

i 1

4 e

Nonetheless, the degree of accuracy is sufficient to validate the use of this model for estimating eigenvalue buckling loads and evaluating the added effect of rib reinforcement.

l l

As such, using the ANSYS finite element results to account for the effect of rib reinforcement, the effective increase in buckling capability can be calculated as follows, 35.5 psi / 23 psi = 1.54 To ensure conservatism, this factor can be applied to the lower handbook value of 20.2 psi i

i to calculate an equivalent theoreticalload for a rib reinforced cannister, P = 1.54 x 20.2 psi = 31.1 psi er If one were to follow the recommendation of Roark, the 35.5 psi critical pressure could be j

further reduced by 20%,

P. lower bound = 0.8 x 31.1 psi = 24.9 osi cr Based upon the combination of test results and the above analytical predictions, it would seem that the lower bound critical pressure of 24.9 psiis reasonable. Test results showed i

t no permanent buckling deformation at 21.7 psi (50 feet ofwater); thus, it is expected that the limit load should be higher than 21.7 psi. The minimum factor of safety is then, F.O.S. = 24.9/21.7 = 1.15 Finally, it should be noted that several additional conservatisms are inherent in the above analysis. The fuel shipping cannister above has been analyzed as an empty and evacuated l

cylinder subjected to a direct external hydrostatic pressure. In actuality, the mner cannister or drum is:

- filled vith fuel powder

- suspended in a phenolic foam insulation which is formed j

in place between the outer drum and inner drum.

Both of these effects will substantially increase the rigidity and resistance todeformation of the inner cannister under what is tmly hydrostatic loading of the outer drum. The phenolic foam will provide added constraint and stmetural support such that large i

deflections should be significantly restricted in comparison to the model used in the analysis above. This will increase the load carrying capability and provide additional 1

safety margin.

i 1

i

~

t Ut NUCl03rEnergy Engineering Calculation s.s'e /~NG., b'A U hn4y Du j@

" it'v?,

l i

x se.J (o.ong't Me) l T>e: A 109 Gib ShJ p

a y

Ah 9,6 w J_

7%g. _

,/

?>

SN V

'f J

  • . lQc0' mtpo 27 P

gger taste ft $U

~ bWINN fg LIO g

\\

i F.av: M WomitRTl h

.m_.m t

t l

\\

.n.....

lh

\\

. v,.v,.

., : i,' ' '

,o

  • \\

(I 93:

,, J.\\

s

\\

a, y :,X. '

39..,..*

.);;b' : *

\\

p ;I

,$,*,'),1f'q ;

1

    • f...~[. '

)

\\

1-

\\

s

n. g *, Ef
  • i:r

\\W g,i,

/

?

\\

Y. *

. h*f:,.

A g-

~-

1 Y

y8 ;:

k i

~ g.

a.'

g,z:.. {. L-i

- ~

\\

\\

gartS^ g so

\\

ye.cAhw& enorat$"-

\\

9 \\.h W S O7 p'n,

\\

\\

Ta d-p

\\

-f.W n

\\

\\

?\\

\\g \\

l,

\\

~

T g;puse-;

\\

\\

\\

A#'0a W

\\

i Q psnStO N 9t*N

\\S o

t e-

\\

\\0 0 g As

/

go i

\\

g

'EA

=

k[

\\

SMG

~

r 1

1 2

ANSYS 4.4A1 2

y; NOV 30 1993-13:11:18 i

POST 1 ELEME1 TIS TYPE NUM Db i

%h XV

=1 3

t{h i

YV

=1 Z:

ZV

=-1

~~

-~l l-1'u l l 2

DIST 17.159 b

d f!. dg!!$$i-r--r-233$3f;5

== usumusumuse-

~

x e -

~=

YF

-13.521 ZF =3.677 0 O ;;;;+

R

~ :

PRECISE HIDDEN h,

' 3[5h!33

-5533!!!

p?:s t

s l didh-33 75EE3!!.

WDID= 2 XV

=1 v,

i- ~

q::

DIST=14.874 m

ims:1+

~

iMSj$:3$2- -3355333 YF

-13.521

!L sjd 3-r.01 5-jj22Q]

Zr =3.677 2

g

-s-

g p

s s

Edid

SggpBE s

5fM:sp!h; Mhg7:f3N h

$ 6

m,.

%:qsc.

?-

, ~--s:

--t 3,

~

o, b!$5f3 533f 3$i if@!sUAN$s5(;

q c.-

j

$*' y '

g N he n

Fuel Shippino Cannister Model - v/ Ribs Figure 3. ANSYS finite element model of fuel shipping cannister shown with ribs.

~

e

.}

l

~

I ANSYS 4.4A1 NOV 22 1993

-11:26:39 POST 1 ELDENTS TYPE NUM-

[!j j l 1 l

i l l l

; i l

l l

l l l li' gy 1

1 s

f"

'i DIST=4.044 Yr

--7.204 Zr =3.677 illi I i

l l l l l l l l l lll=

PRECISE HIDDEN s

1 WIND =2-XV

=1 YV

-1 ZV

-1 DIST=6.035 2

Yr

--7.204 Zr =3.677 1

y:

4'

-- g _

h c

m e

.. = _.

Fuel Shipping Cannister Model Figure 4. Detail of rib section of finite element model.

I 1

ANSYS 4.4h1 1

1 2

it

^-

Nov 29 1993 11:08:22 PPIP7 ELDENTS TYPE IMM

z..

.a a

5::

XV

  • 1 l

~:: 555$i.i,

=

~-%

YY

=1

Dk ti; 23.3%O s

--~c~

c:

Zv

--1 22 gj$EEEE ~s:

=s, l

--~5@$s5aj DIST-16.845 l

s a

=-ssS $Ei Yr

=-13 521

dus Es ms;gs=====-= =%u

~

Zr

-3 489 6

ssese-========2 gsgEsE2~::

s%u

?smssse=B :-

-555$3]sf PPICISE HIDDIN M !:maj a:y:s eg 2

c

-- ::ss J C$$

50gss = -l=~%d54G$$i c

3:mi VIND=2

{.:!gj egg =

-~:'55

===%

se-

~sse:

gEs==:

~m.:

ssi XV

-1

.S k.-j$5!$55525255..N::!:$

ss cz 1

jj DIST=14.874 a

t s

e::r:p.a Yr

--13 521

.-- -:zges======::

e.eggessa

-~c=

u i :-

sij$s2@j$5fE5555ss5?j Zr -3.489 L

OssjsgsG CEs5@SG ljk:.

taf$5c5EF=====556::41 1.

uh.

.:ssag:-c

= =.~m.:%.u

==

-qmqq c-: =====

a; as 4e-a::

-..n

=

% ~::q:

%$:R:::.

?:::5s s:::::

,i

. -.;sss;-=,=-=====-===,mu,,

se-

+- - -

a=-

m-qm m

8~

z

== - --

v

, $5=.$.,-2==%-,.=~:::su.

h.::s:

-.==~-

nRDmt1

ss

-==

q~

-t3.,

w 3s~5s== =

$t:g' p,

s

$7;:;

Cr s':

,.. d<<

.-r

-as==m==

d t w sse 2

Q~%.

[

5:

-%~

,_,g

,i s.

q
y

.~

-a G

l.

t-c w

@q Cannister Model. - No Ribs Figure 5. Finite element model of a simple cannister without rib reinforcement.

1 2

ANSYS ' 4.4Al NOV 30 1993 13:05:51-i POST 1 DISPL.

SEP=1 ITER =4 FACT-35.481 DME =0.074882 DSCA=26.709 XV

=1

)

YV

=1 ZY - --1

'l

  • DIST-20 Yr

--13.521' Zr

=3.677-PRECISE HIDDEN WIND =2 DSCA 26.709 ZY

-1

  • DIST 20

)

Yr =-13.521 Zr =3.677 i

Fuel Shipping Canist.cr Buckling Analysis (52.8 mil) v/ Ribs

.i Figure 6. First eigenvalue buckling mode for ribbed shipping cannister (FEA result).

+

i i

]

l 1

ANSYS 4.4A1

)

NOV 30 1993 13:00:32-POST 1 DISPL.

I S'lEP =1 ITER =4 FACT =35.481 s-sN DMX =0.062154

[

DSCA=9.71 XV

=1 YV

=1

~

ZV

--1 DIST=6.335 Yr

--7.204 7

Zr =3.677 PPICISE HIDDIN 2

WIND =2 DSCA-11.262 YV

=1

  • DIST=7

}

j Yr

=-7.204 2r =3.677

,/

j ruel Shippino Canister Bucklina Analysis (52.8 mil) w/ Ribs Figure 7. Detail of rib deformation (elliptical) for first buckling mode (FEA result).

i 1

2 3

ANSYS 4.4A1 NOV 29 1993 17:58:05 POST 1 DISPL.

S'II'P =1 I'lIR=3 FACT =23.005 D10t =0.045693 DSCA=53.191 XV

=1 YV

=1 27

--1 DIST=24,305 Yr --13.521 Zr =3.489

{

PPICISE HIDDEN WIND =2

.i DSCA=43.77 XV

=1

  • DIST=20 Yr

-13.521 ZP 3.489 WIND =3 DSCA=28.451 YV

-l

  • DIST=13 Yr =-13.521 Zr =3.489 4

shippino Cannister But klino Analysis (52. 8 m:1 bottcm) - No Ribe Figure S. First buckling mode of cylindrical cannister without rib reinforcement (FEA result).

l Mr. Charles J. Haughney December 14,1993 I

ATTACHMENT B f

STRUCTURAL EVAI,UATION OF PRODUCT PAILS l

l l

i 5

s i

i

r.

November 30,1993 -

i TOi John Baumganner M/C 309 X5821 FROM:

Maharaj Kaul M/C 747 X3221 l

Enclosed are:

l. Summary of calculations and results demonstrating BU-7 integrity under a-10.5m accidental drop (DOT requirement is only 9 m, but JNF has been using 10.5 m). This package was prepared for the August 16,-1993 meeting with NRC.
2. Sample calculation on the pail.
3. Buckling calculation for the Boral Liner.

Please let me know if there is anything else that is required.

f barW I

P P

N O

w-

1 7..

i I

i i

i BU-7 CONTAINER ANALYSIS -

UNDER A 10.5 METER HYPdTHETICAL DROP 4

i

-l 9

. l i

I 4

b

,i l

1 i

l i

CONTAINER DESCRIPTION GEOMETRY The BU-7 container is made of two drums - the 55-gallon outer drum and the 16 gallon inner drum. The outer drum conforms to the size specification of ANSIMH2.2 - 1979 Item Metal Guage Thickness (in.)

Outer Drum Body 18 0.0478 Outer Drum Lid 16 0.0598-Outer Drum Closure Ring 12 0.1046 Inner Drum 16 0.0598 MATERIAL PROPERTIES The material properties of the outer and the inner dmm are tabulated below.

i Mate-ial Propeny l

Outer Drum Inner Drum ASTM Steel Designation A569 l A570 Grade B.

Yield Stress 22.0 ksi Tensile Strength L

49.0 ksi Shear Strength 24.5 ksi The total weight of the container exclusive of the uranium fuel and the pails ranges between

~

q 150 lbs. and 165 lbs.The uranium fuel weighs 154 lbs. and the containing pails have a weight of 4

161bs.

i The inner dmm lid is held by 12 7 /16 in. diameter UNC bolts of SAE Grade I with 14 threads per inch. The tensile area of each bolt is 0.1063 sq. in. and the tensile strength of the bolts is 60 ksi.

i JL i

_ 22.5 i

a c

- 14.0 b

i t

a 34.0 27.25 c

ir C

l a

ir

- ir l

r i

. I Figure 3.1 Relative Position of Drums in the Container '

i 1

I 1

a = (34.00 - 27.25) / 2 = 3.375 in l

b = (22.50 - 14.00) / 2 = 4.250 in 0 = tan-'(22.5/34.0)

= 33.5 l

i

. I c = a. cos 0 + b. sin 0 = 5.160 in i

i a

.,n,.

w.e

-,.t r.

-n~

i i

LID l

BOTTOM i

j vu vu 1

BOTTOM GROUND LID LOWER VERTICAL UPPER VERTICAL-LID BOTTOM ~

2

.I vv vv BOTTOM ID t

33.5 GROUND l

LOWER VERTICAL UPPER VERTICAL 1

-l e

-l l

k vu GROUND i

HORIZONTAL t

CONFIGURATIONS ANALYZED h

ASSUMPTIONS

1. On impact, the kinetic energy of the container is completely absorbed by plastic deformation of the outer dmm. No credit is taken for energy loss due to other reasons, such as a) Ground Defonnation b) Ground Radiation damping c) Viscous Damping of the Container -
2. For Inner Drum, Boral Liner and Pail calculations, the cushioning effect of the packaging foam is completely ignored. This assumption is extremely conservative. Simplified calculations show that if the period of oscillation associated with the inner drum and the foam is as small as 10 times the time it takes the container material to absorb all its kinetic energy, the cushioning foam will attenuate the outer drum peak acceleration to 43 percent of its value.

9 i

I l

a W

Deformed Volume a.

v y Impact Velocity Depth of

= 565 in/sec Deformation w

^

^

Ground Impact Force DEFORMATION MODEL OUTER DRUM CALCULATIONS

~

GEOMETRY AT IMPACT AFTER 10.5 M. DROP Upper Lower Upper Lower Horizontal j

Vertical Vertical

' Corner Corner Computed Depth of Deformation 1.840 in 1.840 in 1.704 in 2.370 in 1.410 in Clearance Limited Deformation 3.375 in 3.375 in 5.160 in 5.160 in 4.250 in

Computed Maximum Acceleration 225 g 225 g 272 g 243 g 399 g

)

f t

POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES OF INNER DRUM, PAIL AND LINER

[

Force I

CONTENTS

. CONTAINER 1 f Force i

SHEARING FORCE ON CONTAINER LID i

-l "ttttt" BUCKLING FORCE ON LINER

3 9

LIMITS ON ACCELERATION l

l MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE ACCELERATION - l Upper Lower Upper Lower Horizontal Limiting Parameter Vertical Vertical Corner.

Corner Inner Drum Strength 450 g 384 g 540 g

_ 460 g -

966 g l

Pail Strength - 24 Gauge 268 g 268 g 321 g 321 g Pail Strength - 20 Gauge /16 Lid 671 g 403 g 805 g 483 g Liner Buckling Strength 484 g 484 g 580 g 580 g l Computed Maximum l 225 g l 225 g l 272 g l 243 g - l 399 g l

L URANIUM PAIL INTEGRITY Assume that the maximum acceleration a that the pails and the contents experience when the 55 gallon container comes to rest is same as that of the container. This is a very conservative assumption as it completely ignores the cushioning effect of foam between the outer and the inner drums. Depending on geometry of container on impact,' the force necessary to bring the pail-contents to rest will be applied on it through the pail lid or bottom. The same magnitude of-force will also act on the pail and tend to shear the lid (or the bottom) off the pail.

The force F required to shear off the bottom is F=

2 K Tb T 4

in which i

r-= radius of pail bottom

= 5.625" t = thicknese of pail bottom

= 0.0239" (24 gage)

T= shear stre igth of pail bottom = 24.5 ksi(A570 Steel)

Tra de:a F =20,695 lbs.

The maximum acceleration of the fuel that the pail can withstand is a = F/1V where IVis the weight of fuel inside the pail and is 77 lbs. Therefore a = 20695 / 77 = 268 g The maximum acceleration experienced by the container is 225 g.

The etTect of two pails -- one on top of another -- does not seem to create a worst failure mode in spite of the increased weights.

. )

i i

i

.e

For the following calculations, the outer drum maximum acceleration is assumed to be 225g which is computed by analyzing a 10.5 meter accidental drop of the container.

1 BUCKLING OF BORAL LINER Roark (Formulasfor Stress and Strain, 5th Edition,1975) has formulas for buckling stres_ses for different structural shapes in its section on Elastic Stability. On page 555, the formula for a thin-walled circular tube under longitudinal compression is given as follows:

/

E 4-T=

(1) 15 E~i2-A in which the meaning of various parameters and their values for 1100 aluminum are:

0':

Buckling Stress E=

Young's Modulus

= 9,800,000 psi Poisson's Ratio

= 0.33 y[

Cylinder Thickness g

pi Cylinder Radius Tests values are 40 to 60 percent of the above theoretical value. Assuming a 40 percent of the theoretical value for the buckling stress, therefore, b 2 4 x 10 k psi (2) r To calculate the maximum stress experienced by the aluminum sleeve inside the inner dmm, assume that the sleeve comes to rest (after the container impacts the ground) with the same maximum acceleration experienced by the outer drum. Let this acceleration be a (g's). In the j

present case a =225 g's. The weight W of the sleeve and any attachments to it that have to be

~

brought to rest is 28 lbs. The stress (F

caused by this force on the sleeve cross-section, which is an annulus of radius r and thickness t is given by 0': h &[(2K rd) : ICcS/h{)fsi (3) i For buckling not to occur, l

T,G (T '

implying thereby that I

E >- \\ i c c 5 /2 4 x 100 o o 2."

=

This analysis considers an extreme situation. The actual Boral liner is a composite section with innermost and outermost linings of steel of thickness 0.03" sandwiching two aluminum liners of I

0.01" and a 0.08" thick column of Boron. This section is much stronger than the one required to resist buckling from an acceleration of 225 g.

m.

URANIUM PAIL INTEGRITY Assume that the maximum acceleration a that the pails and the contents experience when the 55 gallon container comes to rest is same as that of the container. This is a very conservative assumption as it completely ignores the cushioning effect of foam between the outer and the inner drums. Depending on geometry of container on impact, the force necessary to bring the j

pail-contents to rest will be applied on it through the pail lid or bottom. The same magnitude of force will also act on the pail and tend to shear the lid (or the bottom) off the pail.

The force F required to shear off the bottom is 2 KTb T F=

in which r = radius of pail bottom

= 5.625" t = thickness of pail bottom

= 0.0239" (24 gage)

T= shear strength of pail bottom = 24.5 ksi (A570 Steel) i Therefore F =20,695 lbs.

The maximum acceleration of the fuel that the pail can withstand is a = F/ lY where IVis the weight of fuel inside the pail and is 77 lbs. Therefore a = 20695 / 77 = 268 g The maximum acceleration experienced by the container is 225 g.

The effect of two pails -- one on top of another -- does not seem to create a worst failure mode in

}

spite of the increased weights.

J A

n

)

l r

i

m

?.

k For the following calculations, the outer drum maximum acceleration is assumed to be 225g which is computed by analyzing a 10.5 meter accidental drop of the container.

BUCKLING OF BORAL LINER Roarh (Formulasfor Stress andStrain, 5th Edition,1975) has formulas for buckling stresses for different structural shapes in its section on Elastic Stability. On page 555, the formula for a -

thin-walled circular tube under longitudinal compression is given as follows:

3 T'

(1) i[3 s%2.

A in which the meaning ofvarious parameters and their values for 1100 aluminum are:

[':

Buckling Stress I

p _

Young's Modulus

= 9,800,000 psi h '_

Poisson's Ratio

= 0.33 Cylinder Thickness g _

CylinderRadius pi I

Tests values are 40 to 60 percent of the above theoretical value. Assuming a 40 percent of the theoretical value for the buckling stress, therefore, d 2 4 >c 100 k psi (2)

[

r To calculate the maximum stress experienced by the aluminum sleeve inside the inner drum, i

assume that the sleeve comes to rest (after the container impacts the ground) with the same maximum acceleration experienced by the outer dmm. Let this acceleration be a (g's). In the present case a =225 g's. The weight W of the sleeve and any attachments to it that have to be brought to rest is 28 lbs. The stress O caused by this force on the sleeve cross-section, which is an annuhts of radius r and thickness t is given by 7: h 2 K r t 'j _ l o c s /( g ) p.

(3)

For buckling not to occur, T& T' implying thereby that E >

icc5 /2 9 x t o G o 02[

1 This analysis considers an extreme situation. The actual Boral liner is a composite section with innermost and outermost linings of steel of thickness 0.03" sandwiching two aluminum liners of 0.01" and a 0.08" thick column of Boron. This section is much stronger than the one required to resist buckling from an acceleration of 225 g.

~

Mr. Charles J. Haughney December 14,1993 ATTACHMENT C BU-7 HYDRO TEST DATA t

GE NUCLEAR ENERGY Nuclear Fuel 8* 675-5821 M/C J09 i

November 29,1993 cc: RF Calcaterra RE Strine To:

CM Vaughan

Subject:

BU-7 Hydro Test Data During 1982 and 1983, GE took delivery of new BU-7 containers from Precision Metal Products, Inc. Our records show that 424 of these BU-7 containers have documentation showing that hydrostatic testing of the inner containers was performed at the equivalent of a 50 foot submersion in water for a period of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, with no water in-leakage.

The attached table summarizes the hydro tested BU-7 containers by serial number. The t

containers are grouped by one of two Cii Purchase Orders,334-G2864 or 334-AM286, and by the shipping order number from the vendor, Documentation consists of a Cenificate of Compliance for each of the shipping orders, stating that the integrity of the -

weld joints and gasket surfaces have been 100% tested pressure checked (to 21.4 psig minimum). In addition to the Certificates of Compliance, the majority of the containeu i

have individual GE receiving inspection Quality Control Inspection Instruction (QCII) sheets indicating that the hydro test of the inner container was performed. Copies of each of the Certificates of Compliance and QCII sheets are available if needed.

/ o m BaumgartqY Manager, Wilmington Engineering 1

l

11/29/93 BU-7 INNER CONTAINER HYDRO TESTS j

PONO.

334-G2864 334-G2864 334-G2864 334-G2864 334-G2864 SHIP ORDER NO.

27547 27551 27552 27592 27620 DATE SHIPPED 7/1/82 7/2/82 7/6/82 7/16/82 7/22/82 NO. TESTED 4

16 30 40 18 Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial No.

1 K-4194 K-4135 K-4134 K-4485 K-4585 2

4207 4238 4137 4490 4597 3

4199 4252 4166 4500 4654 4

4197 4259 4169 4504 4670 5

4276 4178 4508 4675 6

4314 4180 4512 4680 7

4320 4210 4515 4684 8

4325 4212 4518 4688 9

4326 4214 4520 4698 10 4332 4217 4526 4702 11 4362 4229 4532 4706 12 4382 4270 4536 4712 13 4390 4286 4540 4825 14 4394 4290 4546 4843 15 4397 4296 4551 4852 16 4405 4300 4556 4859

)

17 4306 4561 4867 18 4309 4567 4886 19 4339 4570 20 4345 4576 21 4351 4580 j

22 4355 4662 1

23' 4358 4666 24 4402 4718 25 4425 4724 26 4458 4726 i

27 4467 4730 28 4472 4736 29 4476 4741 30 4480 4752 31 4755 32 4772 33 4776

)

34 4779 35 4802 36 4806 37 4810 38 4816 39 4820 40 4496 1

Page 1

^*

11/29/93 l

334-G2864 334-G2864 334-G2864 334-G2864 334-G2864 334-G2864 27644 27676 27677 27690 27705 27753 7/23/82 7/28/82 7/29/82 8/4/82 8/6/82 8/13/82 20 8

3 8

16 3

Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial N~o.

Serial No.

{

K-4694 K-6110 K-6168 K-6194 K-6188 K-6294 4831 6117 6176 6199 6226 6302 4837-6125 6183 6202 6234 6526 4838 6126 6210 6242 4839 6134 6217 6317-4840 6142 6225 6325 l

4841 6150 6250 6326 4842 6160 6260 6334 6026 6342 6034 6350 6042 6360 6050 6368 i

6060 6376 6068 6383 6076 6388 6083 6394 6088 6094 i

6099 6102 l

i l

i L

i i

4 i

i l

l 1

i 1

Page 2 1

I c.

1 11/29/93 f

334-G2864 334-G2864 334-G2864 334-G2864 334-G2864 334-G2864 27761 27803 27842 27868 27902 28128 8/17/82 8/27/82 9/3/82 9/13/82 9/23/82 11/8/82 12 4

9 2

27 4

Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial No.

._K-6268 K-6476 K-6276 K-6450 K-6399 K-6676 6299 6542 6283 6458 6402 6694 6310 6550 6288 6410 6726 6483 6560 6460 6417 6742 6488 6568 I

6425 6494 6576 6426 6499 6583 6434 6502 6588 6442 6510 6594 6599

_l 6517 6602 6525 6610 l

6534 6617 6625

{

6626 6634 6642 6650 6660 6668 6683 6688

+

6699 6702 6710 6717 6725 6734 4

  • *
  • Separate Test Sheets are available i

f

(

Page 3

I*

11/29/93 P

l TOTAL 334-AM286 334-AM286 334-AM286 334-AM286 334-AM286

  1. OF BU7 28429 28415l 28497 28516 28542 HYDRO-2/15/83 2/16/83 3/11/83 3/18/83 3/28/83 TESTED 88 24 48 20 20 424 Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial No.

Serial No.

K-6986 K-7074 K-7098 K-7146 K-7166 to to to to to 7073 7097 7145 7165 7185 All containers purchased per PO # 334-AM286 were subsequently renumbered New Nos.

New Nos.

New Nos.

New Nos.

New Nos.

K-7428 K-7516 K-7540 K-7588 K-7608 to to to to to 7515 7539 7587 7607 7627

  • *
  • Separate Test Sheets are available I

l i

l t

I i

i t

l I

i Page 4

i i

e m

C2 <

I

,, y4

-___m

[ %

EE a:

q U

~ ~

add NOUUNUS30

\\

Ni A f5 "I

CD h ru

?

}ri n

w!

v2

.h w

3 1

3 f

k I 5 5 eJ,to

?

oc

,,2 e

+m o

8 gIy A

a i

~

j

,1

! s2 N

g g C3 dj fk l

s -.

i r

i o

m aN c

.im.

A d f

s c

i 1

. =

v)

=

81 &

,f g4 8

@e h}

.c y ',,

zlq(

ue t !

w

=

e st 7

a c

E b N5#

O' s

m'

_ l.,3

a i

i M O CO c

o N

3

,.a j

r i

f O6 re i

ipf']o.

~ hl r

a m a,

-=

m-o c m.

s r w#

r i

. h e r._

m a-r O')

C E

.i 4

s

,hph llg kEIh- - - -

5.,

J g,i g

o 3

b 7

e a 3

j.

s I-

$C 3 a %g)p 3w{.

{

l

-ae-m d

3 Inx un

$5 I

3

.i m

s Q

dE Ef t/) f: M l$

i

<j bb 2

L 5.S N k L

o.

?

ly 4

,., d(e ESg

'e a 4, 3

e n

r a

I x

z 3 n,4 e_

Iki f %$

I 4

g s.

IN

]

3' 5

y 22

-{ y fl! 6 *i C

'Y l l.-

8 -!

,I

. i. '.d.

'!O IY b'

[ ga" t

E{:a;r~

l

}-

e-1 d m

!, r)l, 9e 'E

,e 1

e l

23 :< 3 E

Ei e e

e 1i o

a o

-o o

s

! rz al O

3l 44: !65

i. W

!!!!>i u

~

hu s Id w11007 i

t ok ii 3

f. 2 i

7 Ib S s e a :;

!yN $ {e. b 's! h! 5 E I

I Ei N e mh.[-

$ uI$

i l )

L?

$y 4 Nl E

A l'

z:

o 2

ny s n n 1

5. $

n

=;

li lw[ ! ?

I U I

ig gi

':32 m

. :3 0 a.

v1

-e u

-> J z

( g :

g

_J

\\

Ee

+

yl y

2 cc C

L ;J (, L_ -.

E2, j

~u

.p m :. ;

A

__i h,

$ h lw.)3

. O

~u..

~a y.

5 2

o hefb : I b. %s_-g l

-j w

1 o

?!

e, m z z%

t n e,,

m -

-e q-uk

,. m '

g

?

l

$y gj a-;>

e

"., d.

m

. _ u. un... i -

.n I

f w =

o

-i vt t;:ll x i '? _i E * *

  • 2 0 >:

$ h.,

W1

=4:=hE"*?"

A Til o

I 5+ g-i s

't e ' i, e f m ic va 1

  • y 2

I f,.

w ;: m~>

ws-es e

4 2

e

~

.z e a : o j

?

k2a o*N. G.W e%

= a ee i "7;

y ',,_1,__.__,sa

+ '

.m m *o

'o!v r

t f

4 M

i=> p w

- ~

1 m

i t n ~.:

n;.

ps

=

mst

)

i y g ru e5 2

E t m i j L ji W "e $ i 7304866262 s

t

(

d

(

l l

l t

t

(

j o'

c A

aY

\\V.

-W

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20059A024&oldid=4467644"