Operations, Applications & Components

Package Impact Models as a Precursor to Cladding Analysis1

[+] Author and Article Information
Nicholas A. Klymyshyn

e-mail: Nicholas.Klymyshyn@pnnl.gov

Harold E. Adkins

e-mail: Harold.Adkins@pnnl.gov
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Richland, WA 99352

Christopher S. Bajwa

e-mail: Chris.Bajwa@nrc.gov

Jason M. Piotter

e-mail: Jason.Piotter@nrc.gov
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Rockville, MD 20852

1The United States Government retains, and by accepting the article for publication, the publisher acknowledges that the United States Government retains, a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received March 1, 2011; final manuscript received May 16, 2012; published online November 28, 2012. Assoc. Editor: Allen C. Smith.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 135(1), 011601 (Nov 28, 2012) (7 pages) Paper No: PVT-11-1071; doi: 10.1115/1.4007469 History: Received March 01, 2011; Revised May 16, 2012

The evaluation of spent nuclear fuel storage casks and transportation packages under impact loading is an important part of cask and package certification by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Finite element models are increasingly used for evaluating cask and package structural integrity during hypothetical drop accidents. Full cask and package model results are also used as the loading basis for single fuel pin impact models, which evaluate the response of fuel cladding under drop conditions. In this paper, a simplified package system is evaluated to illustrate the difference between local and bulk impact responses, the effect of simplified basket and fuel assembly representations, and the effect of gaps between components. This paper focuses on the package impact analysis and how loading conditions for a subsequent fuel assembly or fuel cladding analysis can be extracted. The results of this study suggest that detailed package system models are needed to determine cladding deceleration load histories.

© 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Package geometry (left) and mesh (right). Major components: (1) package body (shell and base plate), (2) neutron shield, (3) package wall subdivision (accelerometer location), (4) payload (disk geometry shown), (5) package lid (subdivided), (6) impact limiter, (7) rigid ground

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Alternate payload geometries: cylinder (left), fuel assembly blocks (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Billet model geometry (left) and mesh (right). Major components: (1) billet, (2) billet subdivision (accelerometer location), (3) impact limiter, (4) rigid ground.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Billet model acceleration results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Filtered accelerometer data comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Raw accelerometer data comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Baseline package model, shell wall, and lid acceleration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Local lid acceleration due to varied payload stiffness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Fuel assembly acceleration, varied stiffness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Fuel assembly response to gap




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In