The document discusses modeling and analyzing test data from the ENSA/DOE test campaign to transport spent nuclear fuel. It will involve processing terabytes of continuously recorded acceleration, strain, and event data. Models will be used to determine if strain gauges captured peak strains, evaluate fatigue on individual fuel rods and assemblies, and relate test results to real spent fuel transportation. Accounting for factors like fuel rod stiffness, material properties, and transport conditions is needed to complete the story and ensure safety.

1. Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology
Modeling and Analysis of
ENSA/DOE Test Data
Nick Klymyshyn
PNNL
2017 SFWST Workshop, UNLV
May 24, 2017
PNNL-SA-126410

2. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 2
Introduction
 The ENSA/DOE test campaign will collect many terabytes of
data, including:
– Many weeks of continuously recorded data:
• Truck, Barge, Ocean, Railroad
– Specific handling events.
– Specific captive track events
 This presentation discusses what we need to do to process,
study, and evaluate the library of data to meet the goals of this
program.
– Support the headline, complete the story
– Perform fatigue evaluation
 Modeling Schedule Wish List
– Test data transfer

3. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Goal: Support the Headline
 Anticipated Headline:
“Over the entire test campaign, the maximum
recorded strain was less than 500 microstrain!”
 Questions from the Audience:
– Are the strain gages at the right locations on the rod?
– Are the strain gages on the right rod?
– Are the strain gages on the right fuel assembly in the basket?
– How does this test relate to real spent fuel?
– What about other fuel assembly designs?
– What about canistered fuel?
– What about the Atlas railcar?
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 3

4. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Are the strain gages at the right
locations on the rod?
 Frequency Dependent
– The location of highest strains on a fuel rod depends on the excitation frequency.
– Strain gage locations were selected based on natural frequencies of the cask/cradle system.
 Modeling and analysis of the collected data will tell us if the strain gages picked
up the most limiting strain.
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 4
Peak Strain Locations Relative to Grids, 56.4 Hz Forced Vertical Excitation

5. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Are the strain gages on the right rod?
 Strains can vary throughout the rods in the assembly.
– Models predict that the strains are similar throughout the assembly.
 Modeling and analysis of the collected data will tell us if any significant rod-
variation is expected.
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 5
42 45 67 59 50 41 56 50 59 47 55 47 49 51 62 59 49
59 48 72 49 54 52 68 57 52 67 50 55 52 49 53 50 42
46 72 52 74 53 #N/A 59 56 #N/A 55 50 #N/A 54 49 52 47 47
48 55 49 #N/A 57 47 48 61 56 50 48 48 47 #N/A 48 45 53
51 60 56 49 47 61 52 49 68 49 45 53 44 63 58 48 46
51 50 #N/A 55 50 #N/A 57 53 #N/A 49 50 #N/A 50 48 #N/A 48 50
55 54 61 38 54 49 55 54 46 44 44 47 47 48 48 57 53
54 60 59 54 45 55 56 47 52 52 51 51 48 46 72 56 43
52 51 #N/A 50 50 #N/A 51 49 #N/A 50 49 #N/A 50 48 #N/A 49 47
52 57 59 68 78 51 61 43 59 47 48 47 48 47 57 58 52
48 46 52 48 52 51 54 48 50 50 50 51 47 43 57 54 53
41 51 #N/A 51 51 #N/A 53 51 #N/A 52 50 #N/A 50 50 #N/A 50 46
44 55 58 51 47 49 52 61 57 49 56 46 44 52 56 55 47
41 40 51 #N/A 46 50 50 48 49 53 49 62 46 #N/A 50 60 51
51 43 41 45 51 #N/A 53 52 #N/A 52 52 #N/A 48 55 60 44 56
57 48 49 51 45 50 64 46 49 68 51 60 62 47 50 49 54
50 51 40 40 44 46 56 54 59 50 62 50 49 50 44 54 41
102 104 95 101 95 80 87 98 112 91 107 95 85 83 89 102 88
89 92 88 89 99 95 115 101 108 102 91 115 102 79 86 93 92
91 100 111 119 93 #N/A 116 92 #N/A 106 106 #N/A 97 102 106 85 92
98 85 83 #N/A 106 221 147 100 206 126 93 196 131 #N/A 99 83 87
89 92 86 106 113 99 79 83 112 102 91 118 119 115 89 102 86
90 90 #N/A 98 91 #N/A 83 87 #N/A 102 89 #N/A 109 88 #N/A 115 82
85 85 276 126 118 195 110 88 264 116 89 212 131 85 268 116 87
89 92 107 82 83 100 87 84 86 95 86 101 91 92 93 84 77
81 96 #N/A 98 85 #N/A 97 88 #N/A 109 86 #N/A 98 85 #N/A 93 88
85 90 336 156 88 238 124 101 193 130 92 238 131 99 225 122 95
93 95 99 129 87 102 86 93 103 86 91 125 86 88 104 100 89
89 96 #N/A 93 97 #N/A 113 84 #N/A 91 83 #N/A 99 102 #N/A 96 92
86 122 150 89 111 318 140 86 172 117 105 226 109 92 97 109 97
89 82 97 #N/A 89 107 98 91 112 94 94 109 108 #N/A 103 87 86
111 91 110 174 100 #N/A 95 108 #N/A 107 95 #N/A 104 208 111 93 131
89 116 71 113 109 179 123 104 194 112 119 214 132 89 88 92 112
113 96 102 114 83 80 113 100 94 99 96 83 85 98 87 89 89
Peak Rod Microstrains at T=1s (Gravity) Peak Rod Microstrains up to T=8.3s (P&B)
Avg = 52 us
Max = Avg +26 us
Min = Avg -14 us
Avg = 109 us
Max = Avg +227 us
Min = Avg -38 us

6. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Updated Fuel Assembly Model
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 6
Model Update: Each fuel rod is now a separate component to assist with postprocessing
large data sets to determine each individual fuel rod response to dynamic loading.

7. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Are the strain gages on the right fuel
assembly in the basket?
 Basket and surrogate assembly modeling led to recommended basket
locations.
– Vertical and lateral shock pulses are the basis.
 Modeling and analysis of the collected data will tell us if the fuel assemblies are
in the most limiting basket locations.
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 7
S
E
K

8. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
How does this relate to real spent fuel?
What about other fuel designs?
 Excitation Frequency and Fuel Rod Stiffness Dependency
– Response to dynamic loading is not uniform.
– Different fuel designs will be sensitive to different frequencies.
– Need to understand the loading environment to relate to other fuel.
 Modeling and analysis of the collected data will tell us how the recorded strain
on surrogate fuel rods relates to strain on real SNF rods.
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 8
Low Stiffness (as tested) Mid Stiffness (estimated real fuel)
High Stiffness (maximum bonded fuel)56.4 Hz
Excitation Frequency (Hz)
PeakStrain

9. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
What about canistered fuel?
 The ENUN 32P cask is a bare fuel cask, but its basket is similar to a canister
because it is not fixed within the cask.
– The basket structure is one unit (bolted together)
– The OD of the basket is slightly smaller than the ID of the cask
– The basket structure has freedom to rotate (roll) within the cask.
– Primary interest is whole fuel canisters, not damaged fuel canisters.
 Modeling and analysis of the test data will determine how well the as-tested
system behaves like a canister system.
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 9
Basket Unit
Basket in Cask
Cask and Cradle

10. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
What about the Atlas railcar?
 Atlas railcar is expected to provide a more gentle ride, but load transmissibility
and vibration frequency content could be different.
– NUCARS models of the ATLAS railcar have been developed
 Recommend performing comparative analysis.
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 10
Atlas Railcar Project Prototype
(curie.ornl.gov)
As Tested Configuration

11. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Goal: Complete the Story
 Test choices based on modeling need to be verified (or accounted for)
– Strain gage locations
– Basket locations
 Adjustments from as-tested to realistic SNF need to be made
– Strains
– Accelerations
– Loading conditions
 Projection of performance to other systems need to be made
– Canistered fuel
– Atlas railcar
 The story is about filling the stress profiles knowledge gap
– Confirm the as-tested strain data is a good estimate for real SNF
– Establish and document the SNF transportation loading environment
 Modeling completes the story
– Final modeling report in September 2018
– Journal articles on projecting test data to realistic fuel loading conditions
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 11

12. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Goal: Fatigue Evaluation
 Strain data will provide a basis for fatigue evaluation using the Rainflow
Counting method.
– Rainflow Counting algorithm is ASTM standard method for evaluating fatigue life for a non-
cyclical vibration.
• Perfect sinusoid does not need rainflow counting.
• Random vibration needs a method for determining damage fraction or usage factor from S-N curve data.
• Calculates a Damage Fraction
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 12
Simple Sine Curve Complex Curve

13. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Damage Fraction Example
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 13
ORNL/SPR-2015/313, Fig.28(c)
A B
Cycles
to
Failure
# of
Cycles
Damage
Fraction
A 1E6 1E5 0.10
B 1E7 5E5 0.05
Total - - 0.15
• Rainflow counting
determines how
many cycles occur
at each amplitude.
• Each cycle uses up
a certain amount of
fatigue life.
• Compare to S-N
curve.
• Damage fraction
1.0 is failure.
In this example, the damage
fraction is 0.15, which indicates
no failure.
500 us

14. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Rainflow Counting on As-Tested
Strain Data
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 14
Strain Gage Data Locations:
• SNL Assembly: 18
• ENRESA Assembly: 18
• Korean Assembly: 1
18
18
1
Total = 37 strain gages
• Each channel calculates a local cladding damage fraction
• Compare damage fraction at all locations: Are they all similar?
• Compare damage fraction for all transport modes:
• Rail, Truck, Barge, Ship
A
B
C
# of Strain Gage
Channels

15. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Example “As-Tested”
Fatigue Evaluation
Strain Gage
Identifier
Rail
(Damage
Fraction)
Truck
(Damage
Fraction)
Ocean
(Damage
Fraction)
Barge
(Damage
Fraction)
SNL1 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
SNL2 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
… … … … …
SNL18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
ENRESA 1 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
ENRESA 2 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
… … … … …
ENRESA 18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
Korean 1 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 15
This is based on as-recorded strain data. Damage fraction = 0.18 is based on rail
modeling estimate.

16. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Fatigue Evaluation on Real SNF
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 16
Damage
Fraction
(Rail)
Damage
Fraction
(Truck)
Damage
Fraction
(Ocean)
Damage
Fraction
(Barge)
Most
Limiting
? ? ? ?
95%
Confidence
? ? ? ?
Average ? ? ? ?
As-Tested Conditions Real SNF Conditions
Must Account For:
• Fuel Rod Stiffness
• Excitation Frequency Content
• Stress Concentrations (Between Pellets)
• Limiting Rod Location
• Limiting Rod in Assembly
• Limiting Fuel Assembly Basket Location
• Material Test Data (CIRFT, Sister Rods)
Modeling

17. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
TTCI Pitch and Bounce Test
Model Pretest Prediction
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 17
NUCARS ANSYS LS-DYNA
Rail Vehicle
Dynamics
Load
Transmissibility
Fuel Rods &
Assembly
Single Rod Model
Full Assembly Model
Cask & Cradle Model
50 mph

18. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Pitch and Bounce
Pretest Prediction Results
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 18
102 104 95 101 95 80 87 98 112 91 107 95 85 83 89 102 88
89 92 88 89 99 95 115 101 108 102 91 115 102 79 86 93 92
91 100 111 119 93 #N/A 116 92 #N/A 106 106 #N/A 97 102 106 85 92
98 85 83 #N/A 106 221 147 100 206 126 93 196 131 #N/A 99 83 87
89 92 86 106 113 99 79 83 112 102 91 118 119 115 89 102 86
90 90 #N/A 98 91 #N/A 83 87 #N/A 102 89 #N/A 109 88 #N/A 115 82
85 85 276 126 118 195 110 88 264 116 89 212 131 85 268 116 87
89 92 107 82 83 100 87 84 86 95 86 101 91 92 93 84 77
81 96 #N/A 98 85 #N/A 97 88 #N/A 109 86 #N/A 98 85 #N/A 93 88
85 90 336 156 88 238 124 101 193 130 92 238 131 99 225 122 95
93 95 99 129 87 102 86 93 103 86 91 125 86 88 104 100 89
89 96 #N/A 93 97 #N/A 113 84 #N/A 91 83 #N/A 99 102 #N/A 96 92
86 122 150 89 111 318 140 86 172 117 105 226 109 92 97 109 97
89 82 97 #N/A 89 107 98 91 112 94 94 109 108 #N/A 103 87 86
111 91 110 174 100 #N/A 95 108 #N/A 107 95 #N/A 104 208 111 93 131
89 116 71 113 109 179 123 104 194 112 119 214 132 89 88 92 112
113 96 102 114 83 80 113 100 94 99 96 83 85 98 87 89 89
Max = 336 us
Avg = 109 us
Full Assembly Model
(10 days for 10 s)
Single Rod Model Strain (us)
Cask
Accelerometer
Peak
Strain
Strain
S1
Strain
S2
A15Z 300 140 182
A16Z 290 114 174
Single Rod Model
(5 minutes for 10 s)
S1S2
Max = 300 us
Max Strain Gage = 182 us
Acceleration History, A(t)
Peak Microstrain Per Rod

19. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Single Rod Model
Fast Predictor of Cladding Strain
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 19
Sketch from SNL Test Procedure Document
Z
Single Rod Model Strain (us)
Cask
Accelerometer
Peak
Strain
Strain
S1
Strain
S2
A15Z 300 140 182
A16Z 290 114 174
Single Rod Model
(5 minutes for 10 s)
S2
Acceleration History, A(t)
S1
• Single rod model will be used when
data is received.
• Single rod model can quickly analyze
ASCII test data.
• Fast enough to run in the field during
TTCI testing.
Pretest prediction of 50 mph pitch and bounce test at TTCI.

20. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Data Format Conversion
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 20
TRD (Siemens) Binary
Data Files
Siemens Software LDSF Binary Files
SNL K2 Software
ASCII Files
Single Rod Model
Full Assembly Model
Cask & Cradle Model
• Estimated 200 hours to convert
all test data from TRD to ASCII.
• SNL to provide ASCII data on
4TB hard drives.
• Approximately 7TB total data,
(~60 days data).
Data Format Conversion
ANSYS & LS-DYNA Models

21. Spent Fuel and
Waste Science and
Technology
Modeling Schedule Wish List
 August 2017 – TTCI binary data
– PNNL gets copies of the TTCI data during the TTCI campaign
• LDSF binary data files
• PNNL copies data onto a separate hard drive at TTCI
– PNNL will use K2 software to generate preliminary ASCII data to start modeling work
• Preliminary data will be used to develop methods, procedures, and models
• Need gage factors and calibration data, which should be known at the time
 Late September/Early October 2017 – Limited ASCII data set
– SNL provides ASCII data of Handling tests and TTCI tests in an advance mailing
• Asking SNL to prioritize TTCI and handling data sets so it can be shared with PNNL modelers ASAP
 November 2017 – Full final ASCII data set
– Depending on automation in converting files, SNL data conversion and distribution could take
1-2 months
– If data conversion starts October 1st, PNNL could get the data for FY18 analyses at the end of
November 2017, which would cut down available modeling time
 September 2018
– PNNL completes final report on modeling and analysis
5/24/2017 2017 SFWST Workshop 21