ML17311A994: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:TMREPublicMeetingSteveVaughn NEI HasanCharkas-EPRIBretTegeler-JENSENHUGHES LeoShanley-JENSENHUGHESNovember8 th ,2017*Teleconference 1 | ||
Agenda*OpeningRemarks*IndustryresponsestoasubsetofNRCtechnicalquestions(ML17235B148) | Agenda*OpeningRemarks*IndustryresponsestoasubsetofNRCtechnicalquestions(ML17235B148)regardingNEI17 02,Revision0-RobustTargets/Missiles | ||
-TargetCharacteristics | -TargetCharacteristics | ||
-MissileInventory | -MissileInventory*Pathforward 2 AppendixCQuestions*ResponsestoQuestion11(athrui)except11.h(spallingsecondaryeffect)3 11.a*FigureC 1andTableC 1donotappeartoconcludethattheassumptionsarerepresentativeofplanttargets.Specifically,theassumptionforexhaustsandstacksisdescribedashavingtheexhaust/stackbeingsupportedonbothends.Generally,andspecifictotheexampleinFigureC 1,thesetargetsareunsupportedattheend.Theguidanceshouldensurejustificationisprovidedtodemonstratetheappropriatenessofthisassumption. | ||
* | 4 Responseto11.a*AppendixChasbeenrevisedtoincludetwocases:FluidfilledpipecasethatissupportedonbothendsofpipeVentpipecasethatissupportedbyacantileveredsupportTableC 6resultsreflectthesecases 5 11.b*InSectionC.3.1,itistheNRCstaff'sunderstandingthatMshouldbethemassofthemissile,vicetheweightprovidedinthemissiledescriptions(mass=weight/32.2).Fornoncylindricalmissiles,theguidanceshouldensurethattheequivalentdiameterusedisthediameterofacircleequaltothefrontalareaofthenoncylindricalmissile.6 Responseto11.b*Weareinagreementwiththestaff'sunderstanding.Whilemissileweightisreferencedinthemissiledescriptions,theappropriatevalueofmassisusedwhenrequired,suchwhentheBRLequationforsteelisused: 7 11.c*Theassumptionthatonlysteelmissilesarecapableofperforatingsteeltargets,shouldbeverifiedandajustificationprovided.Also,intheassociatedreferencedocumentthatdescribestheequationabove,itissaidthatthethicknessofthesteelbarrierrequiredtopreventperforationshouldexceedthethicknessforthresholdofperforationsby25percent.Itshouldbeconsideredwhetherthisassumptionissignificantenoughtobeadded.8 | ||
*ResponsestoQuestion11(athrui)except11.h(spallingsecondaryeffect)3 11.a* | *AppendixCapproachaddressesbothlocalandglobaleffectsonsteeltargets*LocaleffectsrelatetopenetrationanddeformationfailuresPenetrationfailureisassessedusingBRLequation(empirical)Deformationfailureisassessedusingamechanics basedapproach*GlobaleffectsarerelatedtolargerdeformationsPenetrationFailureModes(Local)DeformationFailureMode(Local)DeformationFailureMode(Global)9 | ||
4 Responseto11.a*AppendixChasbeenrevisedtoincludetwocases: | *Penetrationintoasteelplaterequiresthemissiletohaveahigharealdensityandstrengthtoremainintact(e.g.,steeljacketedlead)*DOEStandard3014 96recommendsonlyusingBRLequationforrigidmissiles*Thus,forassessingpenetrationfailure,onlysteelmissilesareconsidered | ||
*AppendixCapproachaddressesbothlocalandglobaleffectsonsteeltargets*LocaleffectsrelatetopenetrationanddeformationfailuresPenetrationfailureisassessedusingBRLequation(empirical) | *However,allmissilesareconsideredcrediblefordeformationfailuremodes 10Steelmissilesconsideredforpenetration Allmissilesconsideredfordeformation 11.d*InSectionC.3.1,theguidanceshouldprovideatableofvaluesofperforationthicknessesforthedifferenttargetsinquestion,oranexampleofthisequationusedtoevaluateoneofthetargets.11 Responseto11.d 12*ThefollowingtablesummarizesthreeexamplecasesindicatingtheparametersusedintheconcreteperforationusingtheBRLequation:ParameterNotes | ||
*Penetrationintoasteelplaterequiresthemissiletohaveahigharealdensityandstrengthtoremainintact(e.g.,steeljacketedlead)* | #8RebarUtilityPole4x12timberMissileWeight(lb)RefReportTable5281500200MissileImpactFaceDimensionsRefReportTable5 2 1"dia13.5"dia4"x12"AssumedMissileProjectedArea(in 2)RefReportTable520.8143.148.0EquivalentDiameter,D(in)[BasedonProjectedMissileArea]1.013.57.8AssumedConcreteDesignStrength,f'c(psi)Representative3,5003,5003,500MedianConcreteStrengthFactor,F mNEI0713;Section2.3.11.151.151.15ConcreteAgeFactor,FageNEI0713;Section2.3.11.201.201.20DynamciIncreaseFactor,DIFNEI0713;Section2.3.11.251.251.25MedianConcreteStrengthFactor'c(psi)f'cxF mxFagexDIF6,0386,0386,038VerticalImpactVelocity;Vvert(fps)Vvert=(2/3V hor)RefReportFigureC 3225179219LimitingPerforationThickness;T(in)BRLEquation;ReportSectionC3.16.17.73.6 13*SummaryTableC 5reflectingresultsforeachmissileandtargetcombination 11.e*OntheVariationofImpactVelocitywithMissileWeight(FigureC 3)plotprovidedshowshowmissilevelocityassumedinthisanalysisvarieswithweight.Theequationofthelineprovidedrepresentsthebestfitlineforthedata(bluedottedline),butthemodelusesthegreenline,whichisconservativelyshifteduptoamaximumvelocityof230mph.Theguidanceshouldincludetheequationofthelineforthegreenlineinordertocalculateanymissilevelocitygivenmissileweightorviceversa.14 Responseto11.e 15Reportwillbeupdatedtobetterdescribegreenlinerelationshipasusedinthemodel: V i (W)= 0.0317W+230.0Where, V i=Missileimpactvelocity(mph)W=MissileWeight(lb) 11.f*InsectionC.3.1,theassumptionisthatonlylikematerialscancauseperforation(steeltosteel).Theguidanceshouldensurethatajustificationisprovidedtosupportthisassumption.Responseto11.f*RefertoResponseto11.c 16 11.g*FigureC 14,shouldbereviewedtodeterminewhetheritcanbeusedtoestimatetankruptureResponseto11.g*Thisisatypographicalerror.Figurenumbershouldread"FigureC 13"17 11.i*ThedatainTableC 5,specificallytheminimumperforationthicknessinthefirstcolumn,shouldbevalidatedandmorecomprehensiveguidanceprovidedregardingtheuseoftheConcretePerforationequation.Additionally,theevaluationsonthefailureoftheconcreteusingthosevaluesshouldbeaddressedshouldthevalidationdemonstratethatthevaluesshouldbechanged.Similarvalidationeffortsshouldbeperformedonvehicleimpactandthetreeimpactevaluation.Responseto11.i*ThisissueissimilartothatraisedinQuestion11.d18 ResponsestoAppendixBandRobustMissile&TargetQuestions 19 5.d.,10.c.,and10.d.*ThesecommentsrefertothedevelopmentofTablesB 14andB 18-TableB 14:RobustTargetMissileMatrix*Matrixshowingwhichmissiletypescandamagewhichrobusttargetcategory*23missiletypes(1 23)vs.9targetcategories(A-I)-TableB 18:MissileDamageCapability | ||
*However, | *Providespercentageoftotalmissilesthatcandamageeachrobustcategory(A-I)*ResultsrepeatedinTable5 2*TablesB 14,B 18,andothersinAppendixB,wereupdatedinNEI17 02,Rev.1*TableC.6(TargetDamageApproximations)hasbeenupdatedbutwasnotreflectedinNEI17 02,Rev.1.20 TableC.6 21 TablesB 14andB 18 22 UseofTableC.6ResultstoCreateTableB 14TableB 13:RobustTargetCategoriesandDescriptionsTableB 12: IndividualTargetDescriptionsandAssignedCategoriesTableC.6: IndividualTargetDamageApproximationsTable3 2: MissileTypesandDescriptionsTableB 14:RobustTargetMissileMatrix Tonextpage 23 UseofTableB 14andB 17toCreateTableB18/Table5 2Table3 2: MissileTypesandDescriptionsTableB 15:UnrestrainedMissileInventoriesTableB 16:RestrainedMissileInventoriesTableB 17:AverageMissileTypeInventoryTableB 14:RobustTargetMissileMatrix(frompreviouspage)TableB 18: MissileDamageCapability andTable5 2:RobustMissileInventoriesforEEFPCalculations 24 Example*CategoryB:SteelPipe-Atleast16"diameterandthicknesslessthan3/8"butatleast0.125"-Crushing/Crimpingof>50%*TableC.6worstcaseresults-damagedbyallmissilesexcept:1,11,13,15,20RobustTargetCategoryTargetDescriptionRebar GasCylinderTank/DrumUtilityPoleCableReel3"pipe6"pipe12"pipeStorageBinConcretePaverConcreteBlockWoodBeamWoodPlankMetalsidingPlywoodSheetWideFlangeChannelSectionSmallequipmentLargeEquipmentSteelFrame/GratingLargeSteelFrameVehicleTree1234567891011121314151617181920212223BDieselGeneratorAirintake(small)BDieselGeneratorAirintake(large)25 Example-CategoryB(cont.)*Damagedbyallmissilesexcept:1,11,13,15,20*ResultsshowninTableB 14 26 Example-CategoryB(cont.)*FromTableB 17,sumofmissilepercentages(excluding1,11,13,15,20)is53%-Majorityofmissilescontributingtototalare:3"pipes,metalsiding,channelsectionsandtrees(42%)-Otherdamagingmissileshaverelativelysmallinventoriesatsites*TableB 18forCategoryB:-Calculatedpercentage=53%-Finalpercentageroundedupto55%*Table5 2forCategoryB:55%MissileType Percentage 1 Rebar 2GasCylinder 0.5%3Drum,tank 0.2%4UtilityPole 0.1%5CableReel 0.4%63"Pipe 11%76"Pipe 0.6%812"Pipe 0.1%9Storagebin 1.6%10ConcretePaver 2.7%11ConcreteBlock 12WoodBeam 1.5%13WoodPlank 14MetalSiding 17%15PlywoodSheet 16WideFlange 0.3%17ChannelSection 7.2%18SmallEquipment 1.0%19LargeEquipment 0.5%20 Frame/Grating 21LargeSteelFrame 0.5%22 Vehicle 0.8%23 Tree 6.8%TOTAL 53%27 TablesB 18and5 2*Mostcategoriesgetamodestreductionindamagingmissiles(factorof2to3)-B,C,D,E,F,G*Mostrobusttargetsarethicksteelpipes(forcrimping/crushing)andconcreteroofs 28 4.f.and5.g.*4.f.-NumberanddescriptionofmissiletypesinTable3 2donotcorrespondwithmissileinformationinothertables-23missilesusedinalltablesexceptTables3 3through3 8-Tables3 3through3 8aremissilescreatedfromthedeconstructionofbuildings*Onlythefirst22missilesarelisted,sincemissile#23isatree*5.g.-ExampleEEFPcalculationsusingdifferentpercentagesforrobustmissilesthanTable5 2-Corrected 29 7.b*Section7.4discussesusingasmallerareaiftargetispartiallyshielded;theguidanceshouldaddressshieldingconsiderationsforareacalculations | ||
#8RebarUtilityPole4x12timberMissileWeight(lb) | |||
*Providespercentageoftotalmissilesthatcandamageeachrobustcategory(A-I)* | |||
*Onlythefirst22missilesarelisted,sincemissile#23isatree*5.g.- | |||
-Section5.3.2discussesshieldingexamplesandhowshieldingwouldbeusedtochangetargetareas*TargetsmaybeadjacenttoClass1buildingsorotherstructuresthatwouldprecludemissileshittingtargetsfromthosedirections | -Section5.3.2discussesshieldingexamplesandhowshieldingwouldbeusedtochangetargetareas*TargetsmaybeadjacenttoClass1buildingsorotherstructuresthatwouldprecludemissileshittingtargetsfromthosedirections | ||
*Penetrationsoropeningsmaybepartiallyblockedbypipingorsupports,reducingtheeffectiveopeningsize-Thebasisforhowshieldingiscreditedinreducingtargetareasshouldbejustifiedanddocumented 30 Questions? | *Penetrationsoropeningsmaybepartiallyblockedbypipingorsupports,reducingtheeffectiveopeningsize-Thebasisforhowshieldingiscreditedinreducingtargetareasshouldbejustifiedanddocumented 30 Questions? | ||
31}} | 31}} | ||
Revision as of 09:40, 6 July 2018
| ML17311A994 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/2017 |
| From: | Charkas H, Shanley L, Tegeler B, Vaughn S Jensen Hughes, Nuclear Energy Institute |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Brown E A DORL/LPL-LSPB 415-2315 | |
| References | |
| EPID L-2017-LLA-0350 | |
| Download: ML17311A994 (31) | |
Text
TMREPublicMeetingSteveVaughn NEI HasanCharkas-EPRIBretTegeler-JENSENHUGHES LeoShanley-JENSENHUGHESNovember8 th ,2017*Teleconference 1
Agenda*OpeningRemarks*IndustryresponsestoasubsetofNRCtechnicalquestions(ML17235B148)regardingNEI17 02,Revision0-RobustTargets/Missiles
-TargetCharacteristics
-MissileInventory*Pathforward 2 AppendixCQuestions*ResponsestoQuestion11(athrui)except11.h(spallingsecondaryeffect)3 11.a*FigureC 1andTableC 1donotappeartoconcludethattheassumptionsarerepresentativeofplanttargets.Specifically,theassumptionforexhaustsandstacksisdescribedashavingtheexhaust/stackbeingsupportedonbothends.Generally,andspecifictotheexampleinFigureC 1,thesetargetsareunsupportedattheend.Theguidanceshouldensurejustificationisprovidedtodemonstratetheappropriatenessofthisassumption.
4 Responseto11.a*AppendixChasbeenrevisedtoincludetwocases:FluidfilledpipecasethatissupportedonbothendsofpipeVentpipecasethatissupportedbyacantileveredsupportTableC 6resultsreflectthesecases 5 11.b*InSectionC.3.1,itistheNRCstaff'sunderstandingthatMshouldbethemassofthemissile,vicetheweightprovidedinthemissiledescriptions(mass=weight/32.2).Fornoncylindricalmissiles,theguidanceshouldensurethattheequivalentdiameterusedisthediameterofacircleequaltothefrontalareaofthenoncylindricalmissile.6 Responseto11.b*Weareinagreementwiththestaff'sunderstanding.Whilemissileweightisreferencedinthemissiledescriptions,theappropriatevalueofmassisusedwhenrequired,suchwhentheBRLequationforsteelisused: 7 11.c*Theassumptionthatonlysteelmissilesarecapableofperforatingsteeltargets,shouldbeverifiedandajustificationprovided.Also,intheassociatedreferencedocumentthatdescribestheequationabove,itissaidthatthethicknessofthesteelbarrierrequiredtopreventperforationshouldexceedthethicknessforthresholdofperforationsby25percent.Itshouldbeconsideredwhetherthisassumptionissignificantenoughtobeadded.8
- AppendixCapproachaddressesbothlocalandglobaleffectsonsteeltargets*LocaleffectsrelatetopenetrationanddeformationfailuresPenetrationfailureisassessedusingBRLequation(empirical)Deformationfailureisassessedusingamechanics basedapproach*GlobaleffectsarerelatedtolargerdeformationsPenetrationFailureModes(Local)DeformationFailureMode(Local)DeformationFailureMode(Global)9
- Penetrationintoasteelplaterequiresthemissiletohaveahigharealdensityandstrengthtoremainintact(e.g.,steeljacketedlead)*DOEStandard3014 96recommendsonlyusingBRLequationforrigidmissiles*Thus,forassessingpenetrationfailure,onlysteelmissilesareconsidered
- However,allmissilesareconsideredcrediblefordeformationfailuremodes 10Steelmissilesconsideredforpenetration Allmissilesconsideredfordeformation 11.d*InSectionC.3.1,theguidanceshouldprovideatableofvaluesofperforationthicknessesforthedifferenttargetsinquestion,oranexampleofthisequationusedtoevaluateoneofthetargets.11 Responseto11.d 12*ThefollowingtablesummarizesthreeexamplecasesindicatingtheparametersusedintheconcreteperforationusingtheBRLequation:ParameterNotes
- 8RebarUtilityPole4x12timberMissileWeight(lb)RefReportTable5281500200MissileImpactFaceDimensionsRefReportTable5 2 1"dia13.5"dia4"x12"AssumedMissileProjectedArea(in 2)RefReportTable520.8143.148.0EquivalentDiameter,D(in)[BasedonProjectedMissileArea]1.013.57.8AssumedConcreteDesignStrength,f'c(psi)Representative3,5003,5003,500MedianConcreteStrengthFactor,F mNEI0713;Section2.3.11.151.151.15ConcreteAgeFactor,FageNEI0713;Section2.3.11.201.201.20DynamciIncreaseFactor,DIFNEI0713;Section2.3.11.251.251.25MedianConcreteStrengthFactor'c(psi)f'cxF mxFagexDIF6,0386,0386,038VerticalImpactVelocity;Vvert(fps)Vvert=(2/3V hor)RefReportFigureC 3225179219LimitingPerforationThickness;T(in)BRLEquation;ReportSectionC3.16.17.73.6 13*SummaryTableC 5reflectingresultsforeachmissileandtargetcombination 11.e*OntheVariationofImpactVelocitywithMissileWeight(FigureC 3)plotprovidedshowshowmissilevelocityassumedinthisanalysisvarieswithweight.Theequationofthelineprovidedrepresentsthebestfitlineforthedata(bluedottedline),butthemodelusesthegreenline,whichisconservativelyshifteduptoamaximumvelocityof230mph.Theguidanceshouldincludetheequationofthelineforthegreenlineinordertocalculateanymissilevelocitygivenmissileweightorviceversa.14 Responseto11.e 15Reportwillbeupdatedtobetterdescribegreenlinerelationshipasusedinthemodel: V i (W)= 0.0317W+230.0Where, V i=Missileimpactvelocity(mph)W=MissileWeight(lb) 11.f*InsectionC.3.1,theassumptionisthatonlylikematerialscancauseperforation(steeltosteel).Theguidanceshouldensurethatajustificationisprovidedtosupportthisassumption.Responseto11.f*RefertoResponseto11.c 16 11.g*FigureC 14,shouldbereviewedtodeterminewhetheritcanbeusedtoestimatetankruptureResponseto11.g*Thisisatypographicalerror.Figurenumbershouldread"FigureC 13"17 11.i*ThedatainTableC 5,specificallytheminimumperforationthicknessinthefirstcolumn,shouldbevalidatedandmorecomprehensiveguidanceprovidedregardingtheuseoftheConcretePerforationequation.Additionally,theevaluationsonthefailureoftheconcreteusingthosevaluesshouldbeaddressedshouldthevalidationdemonstratethatthevaluesshouldbechanged.Similarvalidationeffortsshouldbeperformedonvehicleimpactandthetreeimpactevaluation.Responseto11.i*ThisissueissimilartothatraisedinQuestion11.d18 ResponsestoAppendixBandRobustMissile&TargetQuestions 19 5.d.,10.c.,and10.d.*ThesecommentsrefertothedevelopmentofTablesB 14andB 18-TableB 14:RobustTargetMissileMatrix*Matrixshowingwhichmissiletypescandamagewhichrobusttargetcategory*23missiletypes(1 23)vs.9targetcategories(A-I)-TableB 18:MissileDamageCapability
- Providespercentageoftotalmissilesthatcandamageeachrobustcategory(A-I)*ResultsrepeatedinTable5 2*TablesB 14,B 18,andothersinAppendixB,wereupdatedinNEI17 02,Rev.1*TableC.6(TargetDamageApproximations)hasbeenupdatedbutwasnotreflectedinNEI17 02,Rev.1.20 TableC.6 21 TablesB 14andB 18 22 UseofTableC.6ResultstoCreateTableB 14TableB 13:RobustTargetCategoriesandDescriptionsTableB 12: IndividualTargetDescriptionsandAssignedCategoriesTableC.6: IndividualTargetDamageApproximationsTable3 2: MissileTypesandDescriptionsTableB 14:RobustTargetMissileMatrix Tonextpage 23 UseofTableB 14andB 17toCreateTableB18/Table5 2Table3 2: MissileTypesandDescriptionsTableB 15:UnrestrainedMissileInventoriesTableB 16:RestrainedMissileInventoriesTableB 17:AverageMissileTypeInventoryTableB 14:RobustTargetMissileMatrix(frompreviouspage)TableB 18: MissileDamageCapability andTable5 2:RobustMissileInventoriesforEEFPCalculations 24 Example*CategoryB:SteelPipe-Atleast16"diameterandthicknesslessthan3/8"butatleast0.125"-Crushing/Crimpingof>50%*TableC.6worstcaseresults-damagedbyallmissilesexcept:1,11,13,15,20RobustTargetCategoryTargetDescriptionRebar GasCylinderTank/DrumUtilityPoleCableReel3"pipe6"pipe12"pipeStorageBinConcretePaverConcreteBlockWoodBeamWoodPlankMetalsidingPlywoodSheetWideFlangeChannelSectionSmallequipmentLargeEquipmentSteelFrame/GratingLargeSteelFrameVehicleTree1234567891011121314151617181920212223BDieselGeneratorAirintake(small)BDieselGeneratorAirintake(large)25 Example-CategoryB(cont.)*Damagedbyallmissilesexcept:1,11,13,15,20*ResultsshowninTableB 14 26 Example-CategoryB(cont.)*FromTableB 17,sumofmissilepercentages(excluding1,11,13,15,20)is53%-Majorityofmissilescontributingtototalare:3"pipes,metalsiding,channelsectionsandtrees(42%)-Otherdamagingmissileshaverelativelysmallinventoriesatsites*TableB 18forCategoryB:-Calculatedpercentage=53%-Finalpercentageroundedupto55%*Table5 2forCategoryB:55%MissileType Percentage 1 Rebar 2GasCylinder 0.5%3Drum,tank 0.2%4UtilityPole 0.1%5CableReel 0.4%63"Pipe 11%76"Pipe 0.6%812"Pipe 0.1%9Storagebin 1.6%10ConcretePaver 2.7%11ConcreteBlock 12WoodBeam 1.5%13WoodPlank 14MetalSiding 17%15PlywoodSheet 16WideFlange 0.3%17ChannelSection 7.2%18SmallEquipment 1.0%19LargeEquipment 0.5%20 Frame/Grating 21LargeSteelFrame 0.5%22 Vehicle 0.8%23 Tree 6.8%TOTAL 53%27 TablesB 18and5 2*Mostcategoriesgetamodestreductionindamagingmissiles(factorof2to3)-B,C,D,E,F,G*Mostrobusttargetsarethicksteelpipes(forcrimping/crushing)andconcreteroofs 28 4.f.and5.g.*4.f.-NumberanddescriptionofmissiletypesinTable3 2donotcorrespondwithmissileinformationinothertables-23missilesusedinalltablesexceptTables3 3through3 8-Tables3 3through3 8aremissilescreatedfromthedeconstructionofbuildings*Onlythefirst22missilesarelisted,sincemissile#23isatree*5.g.-ExampleEEFPcalculationsusingdifferentpercentagesforrobustmissilesthanTable5 2-Corrected 29 7.b*Section7.4discussesusingasmallerareaiftargetispartiallyshielded;theguidanceshouldaddressshieldingconsiderationsforareacalculations
-Section5.3.2discussesshieldingexamplesandhowshieldingwouldbeusedtochangetargetareas*TargetsmaybeadjacenttoClass1buildingsorotherstructuresthatwouldprecludemissileshittingtargetsfromthosedirections
- Penetrationsoropeningsmaybepartiallyblockedbypipingorsupports,reducingtheeffectiveopeningsize-Thebasisforhowshieldingiscreditedinreducingtargetareasshouldbejustifiedanddocumented 30 Questions?
31