Publications
Protecting against corner impacts: Sensitivities discovered during a rail cask impact limiter design
Type B packages for the transportation of radioactive materials must remain 'essentially leak tight' under severe regulatory accident conditions, defined in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 10 CFR 71·73 and the International Atomic Energy Agency's TS-R-1. The 9-m free drop test requirement onto an unyielding surface is performed in an orientation 'for which maximum damage is expected'. Analytical techniques are used to evaluate various possible impact orientations before testing, and historically these maximal damage orientations have been side, slap-down, end, and centre-ofgravity over corner. Other orientations are rarely considered. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) was asked by Equipos NuclearesSA (ENSA) todesign, analyse, and test animpact limiter system for a newly designed rail cask. During the conceptual design process, SNL performed due diligence and evaluated a wide spectrum of possible impact orientations, in order to assure that peak cask body acceleration design goals were not exceeded. However, design of the impact limiter, including not only crush strength of constituent materials (which can be orientation and temperature dependent), but also the shape of the impact limiter, greatly affects peak acceleration response during 9-m drops in various orientations. Although many impact limiter design shapes resemble truncated right circular cylinders attached to each end of the cask, some tend to round the outer corners or truncate those corners with conical sections. SNL's original conceptual design followed a similar theme, intending to use polyurethane foam or aluminium honeycomb within a bevelled corner shaped cylindrical shell. Detailed finite element analyses indicated excellent impact resistance at regulatory cold temperatures in the stereotypically tested side, slap-down, end, and CGOC impact orientations. Shortly before proceeding to engineering design, a rarely-considered impact orientation of 45° from horizontal indicated that cask body acceleration levels jumped unexpectedly, exceeding the design goal due to insufficient crushable material protecting the sharp corner of the cask. A complete re-design of the impact limiter was necessary, and the lessons learned from this experience could have implications for future impact limiter designs, and possibly existing designs that may not have considered this atypical impact orientation during the design process.