ML20211C293
| ML20211C293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/14/1986 |
| From: | Roberts J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Rouse L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-44 NUDOCS 8610210316 | |
| Download: ML20211C293 (29) | |
Text
r DISTRIBUTION:
Pleasa raturn original.
concurrence to FBrown SS 396 Project.NoiM-44.
PDR M GBeveridge/SCornd NMSS r/f JCounts w/ encl.
FCAF r/f JSchneider EI4 E JRoberts w/ encl.
ATClark w/ encl.
JSpraul w/ encl.
JCostello Project No. M-44 MEMORANDUM FOR: Leland C. Rouse, Chief Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch FROM:
John P. Roberts Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH NUCLEAR PACKAGING, INC. (NUPAC)
Date and Time:
October 9, 1986; 9:00 a.m.
Location:
5th floor conference rocm, Willste Building, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Attendees:
See Enclosure 1.
Purpose:
To discuss NUPAC's submittal of a topical report for a dry.
concrete spent fuel storage cask design (see Enclosure 2, NUPAC Presentation).
Sumary:
NUPAC is preparing a drop testing program in concert with analysis to address safety review issues regarding dynamic impact effects on a concrete cask.
However, NUPAC seeks to perform such drop testing on scale models of its CP-9 cask design. Use of scaling, as NUPAC notes, introduces variables of its own. Further consideration is needed to adequately scope and plan a testing program.
As a result of this meeting, NUPAC will examine previous scale model drop testing efforts and analyses.
Another meeting will be held on December 3, 1986.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
8610210316 861014 PDR PROJ John P. Roberts M-44 PDR Advanced Fuel and Spent Fuel Licensing Branch Enciosures:
l 1.
Attendance List 2.
NUPAC Presentatien l
l OFC: FCA
- FCAF i:
I f
NAME:JR rts/jl:LCRous$ :
1 10/[N/b DATE:10//0/86 :
i!
~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l
.~ _
i-ATTENDEES John P. Roberts NRC/NMSS Jack Spraul NRC/IE/QAB 1
Jack D. Rollins NUPAC Richard T. Haelsig NUPAC Stephen Goetsch NUPAC Jim Schneider NRC/NMSS l
James F. Costello NRC/RES 4
Tom Clark NRC/NMSS Jerry Counts NRC/IE i
l i
J i
4 g-- - ---
kt i
l t
i i
j ACCIDENT EVENT:
l i
5' DROP DNTO CONCRETE SLAB IN ANY ORIENTATION i
j IMPACTING INITIALLY ~0N THE BOTTOM END 1
I t
i
't l
i e
t l
y 1
J p
i i
s t
1 a.
o t
i 4
1 0
I NUPAC SHEET l 4
1 4
~
~.
I t
DUE TO A
VOID OF GENERALLY ACCEPTED ANALYSIS METHODS, DROP TESTING MAY BE CALLED F OR.
t ANY TEST P R 0 'G R A M MUST BE SUPPORTED / DIRECTED BY SOME ANALYTIC-METHOD TO AVOID HAVING TO TEST-EVERY CONCEIVABLE SITUATION.
i l
1 I
t i
r t
NUPAC SHEET 2
i I
\\
i i
7 I
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY l
if.
NU 3AC' S CURRENT ANALYTIC. METHOD FOR CORNER IMPACTS 'I NV OL V ES TWO n
PHASES:
'i i
b 1.
LOADS ANALYSIS, USING ENERGY TO PULVERIZE TECHNIQUES.
THIS IS THEN INPUT INTO A KINEMATICS EQUATION SOLVER TO DETERMINE IMPACT RESPONSE.
+
I 2.
FAILURE PREDICTION' ANALYSIS, USING ACI SHEAR-FRICTION d.
ANALYSIS.
r i
k l.!
i l
\\
4 i
NUPAC SHEET 3 I
~
a ena e
l n
P a
l e
P ru r
l a
i e
a h
F S
c RY f
T E
M O
c E
R G
T b
C R
AP M
1I 1
s 2R y
.E 1N
/
s
.R
\\
c 0O S
1C
\\
\\ 7 EK N
RS b
/
+ 'v 8
6 b
GC I
/
f FE
\\
/
T
/
}
+
b ER
/
c C
c N
[
e OC gy
\\-
/
5 h
}
\\
/
7 0
C 1
7
\\
i
\\
1 y e
t L
i
(
t t
$O"
r 1
~
NUPAC HAS, AT ITS DISPOSAL, TWO IMPACT DATA PolNTS TO COMPARE WITH ITS LOADS ANALYSIS METHOD.
THESE DATA POINTS INDICATE d.
REASONABLE CORRELATION TO ANALYSIS, IF A DY N AM I C STRENGTH IN-j CREASE FACTOR OF l.3 iS
- USED, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY DATA IN l
P.
553.
4 I
t j
i 7
', i i
4 NUPAC SHEET 6 t
1
~
Influence of Rate of Application of Load on Strength 553 ~
psi /s 2
3 4
5
.6 7
8 01 1
10 30 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 c:
200 "cn O
.h ( 180 oA o n O,
~
" & o 16 0
/o 0
,hE l
14 0 i
8E
/+
$5
/
lt f
y
+
M
+
^'
5
~o 10 0 g
L Evans' E"
Resuits o
'8 80-M..
10
- 10
1 12 10 10' 10 10" 10' 10' 10" 2
4 7
~
Rote of Application of Stress (loa scale) -
MP a / min
I t
i CORREL ATI ON OF THE FAILURE ANALYSIS METHOD USING SHEAR FRICTION l
WAS NOT
- POSSIBLE, SINCE NO FAILURE OCCURRED.
FURTHER',
THE WORST-CASE IMPACT ORIENTATION FOR THIS EFFECT WAS NOT TESTED (NEAR VERTICAL IMPACTS).
i t
I I
.s:
s I
l l
l l,
i NUPAC SHEET 8
I 9
l l
t SIDE IMPACTS (WHICH ARE REALLY SLAPDOWN, IN OUR CASE) MAY BE ANALYZED USING PRINCIPLES SIMILAR TO THOSE USED ON CORNER IM-PACTS.
FOR F L AT. SIDE
- IMPACTS, A FORCE-DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP MAY BE DEVELOPED AND INTEGRATED TO DETERMINE THE DEFLECTION AND i.
l ACCELERATION OF THE IMPACT.
sf d,
t e s i
i i
NUPAC SHEET 9 1
h e
o M
b H
d
@ O ts
\\
w]
.- a x
o o CC o T
d A
.2 a
C$
0 C
l co S
4o ON
\\
o s
d d
dz
\\ sN
'NN x x e
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o V CQ CQ w o G CD b o o T CO CQ W
a w
,-e w w i4
,-e (spuesnoq1) q1 uari jo youI aad spunod 3
~
ea =
e
! !!,h l
e 7,
6 0
t l
cap mi
/
no t
I ce lf ee
)
dD 4
n 0
i i s
(
v S
n d
o e
i t
t 9a c
p e
l i
f s
e s
i D
PD Cy gre cn 2
aE 0
P u
N d
y e
g t
r a
e p
n i
E ssg la i
0 t 0
0 0
0 0
0y 6n 5
4 3
2 1
g e
r t
e o
n P
$ed!d$t.
E n s c.0 $ I e h O 6 x L*.AN i
l(
i
t l
7 6
0 t
c 7
ap m
/
n I
o itc ee
)
l df 4
n e
/
0 i
iD
(
S n
.s o
v
/
i t
n c
9o e
i l
t f
a e
/
r D
Pel Ce c 7
cA c
2 a
/
0 P
u
/,
N
/
'[
/ !
I, 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 9
- 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 t
k5SA t
t t
- I
,l
l END IMPACT ACCELERATIONS MAY BE CALCULATED USING COL UM N STRESS-
[.
STRAIN REL AT I ON SHI PS. D EV EL OPED BY BL UME, NEWMARK AND CORN 1NG, DESISH QE MULI1:SIDRI BE1HERECED f0HCREIE BUILQ1HSS EDR EARIB:
suaKE 80110H1.
4 e
9 4
1 i
i 4
i G
j i
l NUPAC SHEET 13 i
. 1 l
f' = 7000 psi 6
~~
102- (2.5 x 23 = 9 7" (Confined concrete dia)
=
f
= 60000 psi (rebar yield point) s
~
A" =.196 in
(#4 @4')
s a = 4 inch (spacing)
.85 f
+ 8.2A"f c,
cy 69'J0 Psi l
a6
.85 f
=
c l
l
= 6M psi l
l I
l l
l l
l STRESS l
(psi) l l
l l
l l
c'=
.22 f' + 400 psi l
=.002.
c i
max = Sc 6
sy l
10 psi f
l l
0' I
.0025
'.005
'.00id
.uA i
b p&
W k
~
l
1 THESE ANALYSIS METHODS YlELD CONSERVATIVE RESULTS, SINCE THE TARGET IS ASSUMED TO BE INFINITELY R I GI D.
- FURTHER, THEY ASSUME
{
A "S T I FF" F A I L UR E ME CH AN I SM.
THEY Y IEL D QUANTI F i ABL E LOADS ON l
INTERNAL STRUCTURES.
THESE LOADS MAY BE DESIGNED TO, RESULTING iN SAFE STRUCTURE.
(
j 1
t I
i i
w i
' (
=
NUPAC SHEET 15
CORNER IMPACTS PRODUCE LARGE DEFORMAT.10NS AND RELATIVELY LOW ACCELERATIONS.
THIS PRODUCES THE PARADOXICAL-SITUATION OF LOWER LOADS ON THE INTERNALS, BUT MORE DAMAGE T O' T H E S H I E L D..
- ALSO, THE ADDED HAZARD OF. SHEAR. MOVEMENT EXISTS.
i I
t l
NUPAC SHEET 16
'a.
j i
r i
4 j>
j FROM GEOMETRY (AND VER IF IED BY OUR ANALYSIS), ONE CAN SEE THAT l
SHEAR FORCES ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT IN COMPARISON WITH SHEAR FRIC-
, TION CAPACITY IN MOST CORNER IMPACT G E O M E T R'I E S.
- HOWEVER, IN THE NEAR VERTICAL AND NEAR HORIZONTAL ORIENTATIONS, SHEAR FORCES l
APPROACH AND MAY EXCEED THE PREDICTED SHEAR FRICTION CAPACITY OF i
THE CONCRETE.
i i
i l
i 1
' i r
}
i i
i
)
l NUPAC SHEET 17 1
i i
j.
4 1
i t
IN NEAR-HORIZONTAL ORIENTATIONS, SHEAR FRICTION EFFECTS ARE-
}
MITIGATED BY DYNAMICS.
HOWEVER, THOSE SAME DYNAMICS CREATE A SITUATION WHERE SLAPDOWN EFFECTS CAN BE SIGNIFICANT.
i i
}
i 1
i 1
i I
8 d.
i i
1 l
NUPAC SHEET 19 1
i l
I
TO VALIDATE PERFORMANCE OF THE DESIGN IN NEAR VERTICAL AND NEAR HORIZONTAL ORIENTATIONS, TESTING IS REQUIRED.
i.
PARTIAL SCALE TESTING IS PREFERRED TO FULL SCALE TESTING FOR ECONOMIC REASONS.
HOWEVER, SCALING INTRODUCES VARIABLES INTO THE TESTING WHICH MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR.
I i
' t II NUPAC SHEET 20 d.
i,E e
3/8 SCALE WAS SELECTED AS A GOOD CANDIDATE, SINCE REBAR IS AVAILABLE WHICH IS SIMILARLY STRONG COMPARED WITH THE FULL SCALE f
DESIGN, AND THE SCALE ERROR WHICH DOES EXIST WOULD GIVE CONSER-d, VATIVE PERFORMANCE.
3/8 IS SMALL ENOUGH TO BE HANDLED PRACTI-
f r
I i
i f
NUPAC SHEET 21
~
I T
SIMULITUDE RELATIONSHIPS REF.
W.G.
SOPER
" TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASME" i
MARCH 1961
~
ALSO JUNE 1962 AND OTHERS SOPER'S SIMULITUDE LAW ll - DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR STRAIN RATE EFFECTS F=
SCALE FACTOR LINEAR DIMENSION Lg= FLp
~
3 MASS MM= FM p
3 MOMENTUM M0 F M0 g=3 p
ENERGY Eg= F Ep VELOCITY Vg= Vp
' APPLIED ACCELERATION FROM IMPACT NG NG /F
=
g p
DURATION TM= FT p
DEFORMATION DM= FDp STRESS S
S
=
g p
NUPAC SHEET 22 i
=
F f
\\
J.
INITIAL IMPACTS AND PACKAGE PERFORMANCE SCALE NICELY, EXCEPT i
THAT GRAVITY, AND THEREFORE POTENTIAL ENERGY DO NOT SCALE.
THE l
DROP HEIGHT IS NOT MULTIPLIED BY THE SCAL E F ACTOR, INSURING THAT j
I M P A'C T VELOClTIES ARE EQUAL.
A SCALE TEST IN THE NEAR-VERT l CAL ORIENTATION SHOULD PROVIDE A
GOOD INDICATION OF FULL SCALE i
PERFORMANCE.
i 4
I i
)
\\
~
- i l
i i
I NUPAC SHEET 23
h g
g g
u g
a s
a-a ISM 5j
$Y UN E$3 E3 OE 4
E){
fj 6
9 h
t-W d$ (
d$
f 6 Uh &
e s 3% I 4
'E !, 8
$l H
L O
f 1
m do
.s o n
@E 0
3 i
i dS e-I -
L J.
o d
O$
ZN o
=
g N e*
N 1
p Mc
\\
v h3 O8 h
A<
W o
m t
a NN
\\
S A.
\\
6 o
oy e
\\
s l
\\
,3 AC C
-m om
~
~
O
\\
L
^
r y
g o
O O
o O
O O
O O
O O
O O
o O
O T.
9 9
9 C
C C
N C
9 T
9 9
1 0
e o
o o
o o
o o
o o
(suo! Inn)
(sonouI-punod) 43.roug
FOR THE NEAR HORIZONTAL CASE AND TO ENV EL OPE SL APDOWN EFFECTS, A t
i NEAR HORIZONTAL (5 DEGREES) DROP MAY BE PERFORMED FROM A HEIGHT i
SUCH THAT THE ACTUAL ENERGY AVAILABLE FOR THE SECONDARY IMPACT
~
{
IN THE SCALE MODEL IS EQUAL TO THE SCALEQ MAXIMUM ENERGY AYAILAHLE FOR A FULL SCALE DROP SECONDARY IMPACT.
THIS IS
{,
NECESSARY BECAUSE SECONDARY IMPACTS CANNOT SCALE DIRECTLY DUE TO THE DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIP OF THE C.G.
TO PRIMARY IMPACT POINT.
i
}
)l l
i i
SHEET 24 e
NuPac CP-9 Energy Relationships Energy Available for 1st & 2nd Impacts 1.00 L U UU y'
f EnCR&1 AVAIL 48Lv foR SNoab e
in ner,scnLC D FRom p ju,, $cgg,f E
t 0.80 m
w k
o
.c e
o
- c% 0.70 2-e wgw Fou + cat. r
.TY f
>2AVplLABL G' j
2CM a
a a
u a
= Q,%g yoa.1v ogo?
3;::
0.60 O~
45 a
)
l y
N 5
i C
c caop pmg7 M
0.40 t
,,a g y,,,ggg pg supeer, & Sekt r secono 0.30 A3 g
j 0.20 0
20 40 60 80 Initial Impact Angle wrt Horz. (Deg.)
f'
f i
i
.i,
L I
DEDE DBIENIAIIDBS ID IESI
.i i
{'
1.
A 50 FROM HORIZONTAL DROP OF A 3/8 MODEL WILL ENVELOPE BOTH l
j A SIDE IMPACT AND SECONDARY SLAPDOWN.
THE DROP HEIGHT FOR A'
3/8 MODEL SHOULD BE APPROX.
90 INCHES TO ASSURE THAT THE i
SLAPDOWN IS OF THE SAME ( S C AL ED) ENERGY AS WOUL D OCCUR IN j
3 l
THE FULL SCALE SITUATION.
i
{
6 2.
THE MINIMUM KINETIC ENERGY AV AI L ABL E FOR SECOND ARY IMPACT CASE.
THIS IMPACT (650-700 FROM HORIZONTAL) WILL DEMON-
]
STRATE THE MAXIMUM IMPACT DAMAGE EXPECTED TO THE SH I EL D FROM,
PULVERIZATION EFFECTS.
l' i
j 3.
A NE AR-V ERT l CAL CAS E TO DEMONSTR ATE TH AT E I THER THE ' SHEAR-I FRICT10N CAPACITY OF THE DESIGN IS ADEQUATE TO PREVENT ll
}'
SLIPPAGE ALONG ANY SHEAR FLANE THAT MAY FORM, OR THAT THE j
SLIPPAGE THAT DOES OCCUR IS TOLERABLE.
l
.1 I
i l
i I
i NUPAC SHEET 26 i
+
FROM THE F A I L URE PREDICTION ANALYSIS I N OUR CONCDP CODE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT SHEAR FRICTION MARGINS OF SAFETY (AS REPORTED FROM THE COMPUTER r n o g L_g E-cn u e e M A LL E R-MI D SMALL ER AS THE DROP ANGL E A P P R O A C H E Sf V k R T!! C A L I
GdOMfETRLts SIMILAR TO THE NUPAC CP-9,
~
THE MARGIN 5 CkN BE COME N GATI Vb UNL ESS AN UNREASONABLE AMOUNT OF REBAR IS I
C_0RPO ATE
[NTO THE DESIGN.
PACKAGE PERFORMANCE PASSES THROUGH A REGIME WHERE ~ SHEAR STRENGTH IS CRITICAL TO THE REGIME WHERE END IMPACT PERFORMANC CAN BE EXPECTED.
THE TRANSITION FROM ONE PERFORMANCE REGIME TO THE, OTHER IS NOT PRE CI S E.
IT.lSalM. PORT;A'NT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE END IMPACT PERFORdANCE RkdlNEhREdAT I V EL Y HARML ES S COMPRESSIVE F AI L URE M1 GHT BE EXPECTED, WHEREIN A REGION NEAR THE END OF THE CASK EXPERIENCES SOME CRUSHING.
THIS EXERTS A HYDROSTATIC FORCE ON THE HOOP REBAR, BUT DOES NOT REALLY CAUSE UNACCEPTABLE DAMAGE.
ON THE OTHER H AND, IN THE SHEAR CRITICAL REGIME, IT IS CONCEIV-ABLE THAT LARGE MASSES OF THE SHIELD COULD CRACK AWAY FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE CASK, CAUSING A MAJOR SHINE PATH TO DEVELOP.
THEREFORE, THE IMPACT ANGLE WHICH MAXIMlZES THE POSSIBILITY OF SHEAR FAILURE IS THE ONE WHICH SHOULD BE TESTED.
NUPAC SHEET 27
_