Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) has completed a comparative evaluation of three design assessment approaches for a 2-liter (2L) capacity containment vessel (CV) of a novel plutonium air transport (PAT) package designed to survive the hypothetical accident condition (HAC) test sequence defined in Title 10 of the United States (US) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 71.74(a), which includes a 129 meter per second (m/s) impact of the package into an essentially unyielding target. CVs for hazardous materials transportation packages certified in the US are typically designed per the requirements defined in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (B&PVC) Section III Division 3 Subsection WB “Class TC Transportation Containments.” For accident conditions, the level D service limits and analysis approaches specified in paragraph WB-3224 are applicable. Data derived from finite element analyses of the 129 m/s impact of the 2L-PAT package were utilized to assess the adequacy of the CV design. Three different CV assessment approaches were investigated and compared, one based on stress intensity limits defined in subparagraph WB-3224.2 for plastic analyses (the stress-based approach), a second based on strain limits defined in subparagraph WB-3224.3, subarticle WB-3700, and Section III Nonmandatory Appendix FF for the alternate strain-based acceptance criteria approach (the strain-based approach), and a third based on failure strain limits derived from a ductile fracture model with dependencies on the stress and strain state of the material, and their histories (the Xue-Wierzbicki (X-W) failure-integral-based approach). This paper gives a brief overview of the 2L-PAT package design, describes the finite element model used to determine stresses and strains in the CV generated by the 129 m/s impact HAC, summarizes the three assessment approaches investigated, discusses the analyses that were performed and the results of those analyses, and provides a comparison between the outcomes of the three assessment approaches.
A series of extensively instrumented tests was performed on the Structural Evaluation Test Unit in the early 1990s. The purpose of these tests was to determine the response of a minimally designed cask to impacts that were more severe than the design basis impact. This test series provides an excellent opportunity for benchmarking explicit dynamic finite element analysis programs for behaviors that may be experienced by casks during regulatory and extra-regulatory impact events. This report provides the parameters of the test unit, the locations of instrumentation, the locations of inspection points, and the parameters of the four tests that were conducted. A companion report provides the results of the tests.
A series of extensively instrumented tests was performed on the Structural Evaluation Test Unit in the early 1990s. The purpose of these tests was to determine the response of a minimally designed cask to impacts that were more severe than the design basis impact. This test series provides an excellent opportunity for benchmarking explicit dynamic finite element analysis programs for behaviors that may be experienced by casks during regulatory and extra-regulatory impact events. This report provides the results of the four tests that were conducted. It is meant to go along with a companion report that defines the benchmark problem and gives the locations for the instrumentation and inspection points.
The Sibling Pin test campaign is a Department of Energy (DOE) research activity within the Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) program that is tasked with characterization of high burnup (HBU) fuel in support of the High Burnup Spent Fuel Data Project. Of the 25 fuel rods in the Sibling Pin inventory, approximately 9 rod lengths have been consumed during the first phase (Phase I) of the test campaign leaving approximately 16 rod lengths for the second phase (Phase II) of testing. This plan outlines the Phase II testing and the motivations for performing these tests. Priorities for Phase II testing are based on previously identified knowledge gaps, lessons-learned from Phase I work, the original objectives of the High Burnup Spent Fuel Data Project and the Sibling Pin test campaign, and input from external stakeholders. The priorities for Phase II testing are to obtain data to characterize the effects of annealing on cladding mechanical properties and fuel rod performance, to quantify the creep behavior of cladding materials and fuel rods and the effects of creep deformations on the performance of cladding and fuel rods, and to gather data to support the final closure of the hydride reorientation and radial hydride induced embrittlement gap for HBU fuel rods.
Criticality Control Overpack (CCO) containers are being considered for the disposal of defense-related nuclear waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). At WIPP, these containers would be placed in underground disposal rooms, which will naturally close and compact the containers closer to one another over several centuries. This report details simulations to predict the final container configuration as an input to nuclear criticality assessments. Each container was discretely modeled, including the plywood and stainless steel pipe inside the 55-gallon drum, in order to capture its complex mechanical behavior. Although these high-fidelity simulations were computationally intensive, several different material models were considered in an attempt to reasonably bound the horizontal and vertical compaction percentages. When exceptionally strong materials were used for the containers, the horizontal and vertical closure respectively stabilized at 43:9 % and 93:7 %. At the other extreme, when the containers completely degraded and the clay seams between the salt layers were glued, the horizontal and vertical closure reached respective final values of 48:6 % and 100 %.
Safety basis analysts throughout the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex rely heavily on the information provided in the DOE Handbook, DOE-HDBK-3010, Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities, to determine radionuclide source terms from postulated accident scenarios. In calculating source terms, analysts tend to use the DOE Handbook's bounding values on airborne release fractions (ARFs) and respirable fractions (RFs) for various categories of insults (representing potential accident release categories). This is typically due to both time constraints and the avoidance of regulatory critique. Unfortunately, these bounding ARFs/RFs represent extremely conservative values. Moreover, they were derived from very limited small-scale bench/laboratory experiments and/or from engineered judgment. Thus, the basis for the data may not be representative of the actual unique accident conditions and configurations being evaluated. The goal of this research is to develop a more accurate and defensible method to determine bounding values for the DOE Handbook using state-of-art multi-physics-based computer codes. This enables us to better understand the fundamental physics and phenomena associated with the types of accidents in the handbook. In this fourth year, we improved existing computational capabilities to better model fragmentation situations to capture small fragments during an impact accident. In addition, we have provided additional new information for various sections of Chapters 4 and 5 of the Handbook on free fall powders and impacts of solids, and have provided the damage ratio simulations for containers (7A drum and standard waste box) for various drops and impact scenarios. Thus, this work provides a low-cost method to establish physics-justified safety bounds by considering specific geometries and conditions that may not have been previously measured and/or are too costly to perform during an experiment.
To determine the in-plane crush properties of a perforated aluminum and Kevlar® layered composite, confined compression tests were performed. Cylindrical samples were used in the test. The samples were cut by waterjet from bulk material. The tests were conducted in the geomechanics laboratory at Sandia National Laboratories. Force and displacement data were recorded to determine the stress versus volumetric strain up to full compaction of the material. Full compaction was determined to be when the displacement was negligible or when the material had compacted about 63 percent in volume, which was the open volume percent of the aluminum layers in the uncompressed specimens. This testing is intended to capture data for use in the structural models used in support of the certification of the AWG-711 hazardous materials air transportation package.
Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) conducted in the summer of 2017 its third fracture challenge (i.e., the Third Sandia Fracture Challenge or SFC3). The challenge, which was open to the public, asked participants to predict, without foreknowledge of the outcome, the fracture response predictions of an additively manufactured tensile test coupon of moderate geometric complexity when loaded to failure. This paper outlines the approach taken by our team, one of the SNL teams that participated in the challenge, to make a prediction. To do so, we employed a traditional finite element approach coupled with a continuum damage mechanics constitutive model. Constitutive model parameters were determined through a calibration process of the model response with the provided longitudinal and transverse tensile test coupon data. Comparison of model predictions with the challenge coupon test results are presented and general observations gleaned from the exercise are provided.
Safety basis analysts throughout the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex rely heavily on the information provided in the DOE Handbook, DOE-HDBK-3010, Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities, to determine radionuclide source terms from postulated accident scenarios. In calculating source terms, analysts tend to use the DOE Handbook’s bounding values on airborne release fractions (ARFs) and respirable fractions (RFs) for various categories of insults (representing potential accident release categories). This is typically due to both time constraints and the avoidance of regulatory critique. Unfortunately, these bounding ARFs/RFs represent extremely conservative values. Moreover, they were derived from very limited small-scale bench/laboratory experiments and/or from engineered judgment. Thus, the basis for the data may not be representative of the actual unique accident conditions and configurations being evaluated. The goal of this research is to develop a more accurate and defensible method to determine bounding values for the DOE Handbook using state-of-art multi-physics-based computer codes.
Safety basis analysts throughout the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex rely heavily on the information provided in the DOE Handbook, DOE - HDBK - 3010, Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities, to determine radionuclide source terms. In calculating source terms, analysts tend to use the DOE Handbook's bounding values on airborne release fractions (ARFs) and respirable fractions (RFs) for various categories of insults (representing potential accident release categories). This is typically due to both time constraints and the avoidance of regulatory critique. Unfortunately, these bounding ARFs/RFs represent extremely conservative values. Moreover, they were derived from very limited small-scale bench/laboratory experiments and/or from engineered judgment. Thus, the basis for the data may not be representative of the actual unique accident conditions and configurations being evaluated. The goal of this research is to develop a more accurate and defensible method to determine bounding values for the DOE Handbook using state-of-art multi-physics-based computer codes. This enables us to better understand the fundamental physics and phenomena associated with the types of accidents in the handbook. In this year, this research included improvements of the high-fidelity codes to model particle resuspension and multi-component evaporation for fire scenarios. We also began to model ceramic fragmentation experiments, and to reanalyze the liquid fire and powder release experiments that were done last year. The results show that the added physics better describes the fragmentation phenomena. Thus, this work provides a low-cost method to establish physics-justified safety bounds by taking into account specific geometries and conditions that may not have been previously measured and/or are too costly to perform.
Ductile failure of structural metals is relevant to a wide range of engineering scenarios. Computational methods are employed to anticipate the critical conditions of failure, yet they sometimes provide inaccurate and misleading predictions. Challenge scenarios, such as the one presented in the current work, provide an opportunity to assess the blind, quantitative predictive ability of simulation methods against a previously unseen failure problem. Rather than evaluate the predictions of a single simulation approach, the Sandia Fracture Challenge relies on numerous volunteer teams with expertise in computational mechanics to apply a broad range of computational methods, numerical algorithms, and constitutive models to the challenge. This exercise is intended to evaluate the state of health of technologies available for failure prediction. In the first Sandia Fracture Challenge, a wide range of issues were raised in ductile failure modeling, including a lack of consistency in failure models, the importance of shear calibration data, and difficulties in quantifying the uncertainty of prediction [see Boyce et al. (Int J Fract 186:5–68, 2014) for details of these observations]. This second Sandia Fracture Challenge investigated the ductile rupture of a Ti–6Al–4V sheet under both quasi-static and modest-rate dynamic loading (failure in (Formula presented.) 0.1 s). Like the previous challenge, the sheet had an unusual arrangement of notches and holes that added geometric complexity and fostered a competition between tensile- and shear-dominated failure modes. The teams were asked to predict the fracture path and quantitative far-field failure metrics such as the peak force and displacement to cause crack initiation. Fourteen teams contributed blind predictions, and the experimental outcomes were quantified in three independent test labs. Additional shortcomings were revealed in this second challenge such as inconsistency in the application of appropriate boundary conditions, need for a thermomechanical treatment of the heat generation in the dynamic loading condition, and further difficulties in model calibration based on limited real-world engineering data. As with the prior challenge, this work not only documents the ‘state-of-the-art’ in computational failure prediction of ductile tearing scenarios, but also provides a detailed dataset for non-blind assessment of alternative methods.