Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Spears, Robert E.

Publications and source records attributed to Spears, Robert E..

Method and apparatus for shape-based energy analysis of solids

A computer-readable medium stores instructions including storing a model of a physical structure and defining a mesh for the model. The mesh includes finite elements, each defined by a respective set of edges. The instructions include, for each finite element, identifying a governing differential equation and a set of complementary functions that exactly satisfy the governing differential equation. The instructions include determining an applied physical stimulus for the physical structure. The instructions include generating an energy optimization model that minimizes a difference between internal energy and external energy of the finite elements in response to the applied physical stimulus. The model includes a matrix of respective scalar multipliers for the complementary functions for each finite element. The instructions include transforming the matrix and calculating a physical parameter of interest. The instructions include, in response to the physical parameter not satisfying a design parameter, updating the model of the physical structure.

Spears, Robert E.↗

Seismic Performance of Deeply Embedded Conceptual Advanced Reactors: Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Soil-Structure Interaction Analyses

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s functional containment concept provides advanced nuclear power plant designers with more flexibility in terms of the civil/structural design if the appropriate set of barriers for prevention of radioactive material release exist. Some of the conceptual advanced reactor structures, without the traditional pressure boundaries of large containment structures, are proposed to be deeply embedded or buried into soil. This approach is expected to provide (1) lesser seismic demands on the structures and safety-critical structures, (2) eased regulatory efforts and overall design against other external hazards such as aircraft impact, and (3) overall cost savings. Further, one of the important aspects of assessing the technical and economic viability of deeply embedding advanced reactor buildings is to assess the seismic performance with the understanding of effects with material and geometric nonlinearities. This study investigates the seismic response of deeply embedded or buried advanced reactors by conducting three-dimensional nonlinear soil-structure interaction analyses. Although the results indicate that there is a general trend of decreased seismic response with increased embedment depths, the change in the dynamic environment with different embedment depths and the nonlinear environment under high-intensity seismic inputs may result in increased peak response at increased embedment depths.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Drop Analysis of the Advanced Test Reactor Fresh Fuel Shipping Container with Heavier Low-Enriched Uranium Fuel Contents

The Advanced Test Reactor Fresh Fuel Shipping Container (ATR FFSC) is a rectangular stainless steel container used for shipping radioactive material. The container is described in the ATR FFSC Safety Analysis Report (SAR). Per the ATR FFSC SAR, the ATR FFSC is designated a Type AF-96 packaging per the definition of 10 CFR §71.4, and was originally designed to transport high enriched uranium (HEU) reactor fuel elements for the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), the Advanced Test Reactor Critical (ATRC) facility, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Reactor (MITR), and the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR). The Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA), Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3) is working with the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to develop and qualify new low enriched uranium (LEU) fuels and technologies for use in the ATR, ATRC, MITR, and MURR reactors. The LEU fuel elements will weigh significantly more than the current HEU designs and, combined with their associated Fuel Handling Enclosures for packaging, some configurations will exceed the 50 lbf used in the ATR FFSC qualifying drop tests. There are LEU versions of MITR, MURR, and ATR fuel elements. However, for this evaluation, drop analysis of the ATR FFSC with only the heavier ATR Low Enrichment (LOWE) fuel element is considered in this evaluation because the LOWE fuel element is the heaviest of the considered LEU fuel elements. The ATR HEU fuel element and the ATR LOWE fuel element are identical in every design aspect except for the fuel meat inside the 19 fuel plates. The LEU fuel meats are made using a U-10Mo high-density foil rather than uranium dispersed in aluminum in the HEU fuel elements. The high density of the uranium in the LEU fuel meat increases the LOWE fuel element weight to just under 44 lbf (versus the 22.1 lbf weight of the tested ATR HEU fuel element). ATR fuel elements are placed in a thin-gauge aluminum weldment called a "Fuel Handling Enclosure" during packaging. The Fuel Handling Enclosure is used to cover and protect the element during loading and unloading operations. The ATR Fuel Handling Enclosure weighs about 15 lbf per the drawings in the ATR FFSC SAR and the weight is accounted for in this evaluation. Transporting the heavier LEU fuel elements require evaluation of two issues. The first is the effect of the increased mass of the LEU fuel elements on the survivability of the ATR FFSC package following the requisite drop qualifications. The second is the effect of the increased mass of the fuel plates on the fuel element during the same drops. The ATR FFSC containing an ATR HEU fuel element in an ATR Fuel Handling Enclosure was physically dropped multiple times to qualify the container as a Type AF-96 package. The ATR FFSC SAR describes the drop tests performed with an actual ATR HEU fuel element weighing 22.1 lbf contained in a 14.3 lbf Fuel Handling Enclosure for a total payload of 36.4 lbf. Those drop tests showed that the ATR FFSC maintained containment of the ATR HEU fuel element and the fuel element was not significantly damaged. (Containment herein is not defined as a leak tight but is retention of the radioactive contents.) The purpose of the evaluation is to analytically show that, for a similar set of tests, the ATR FFSC maintains containment of the heavier ATR LOWE fuel element and to assess the damage to the fuel element during the drops. The approach was to create finite element analysis (FEA) models that produce the same results as the physical drops. Those models were then used as the benchmarks for the follow-on analyses using the heavier contents. FEA models of the drops of ATR FFSC using up to a 115 lbf fuel element were run and evaluated. Likewise, drops of a LOWE fuel element weighing 44 lbf in the ATR FFSC were run and evaluated. It is important to note that this report was done at the quality level necessary to be included in a nuclear facility safety basis. However, it is not the intent of this report to conclude the suitability of the ATR FFSC for transporting the heavier payloads. This report only describes the results of the FEA as related to the required drop scenarios. Incorporation of the FEA into the safety basis will be evaluated by the ATR FFSC design authority. The physical drop tests of the HEU fuel element and FEA drop analysis for the LOWE fuel element showed noteworthy damage to the fuel plates. An aluminum protective block was conceived to mitigate the damage. The concept requires the blocks to be placed in the fuel element between the end boxes and fuel plates. Additional FEA drop analyses were performed using the protective block. The addition of the blocks is primarily intended to mitigate the damage to the LOWE fuel element fuel plates. However, FEA drop analyses of the ATR HEU fuel element with the blocks were also performed and included for information.

42 ENGINEERING↗