Aging Area Aircraft Barrier Evaluation Rev 00A, ICN 00

170-SYC-HAP0-00100-000-00A

May 2005
 
1.0 Purpose and Scope 
This calculation documents the evaluation of potential schemes for the Aircraft Barrier for the 5000 
Metric Tons of Heavy Metal (MTHM) Aging Areas. The evaluation investigates the following two 
barrier schemes: 
a. A barrier made of light gauge metal or precast concrete confining panels and backfilled with soil or 
rock. 
b. Earthen berm. 
Preliminary calculations for each barrier type are developed in Section 7.0. 
2.0 Quality Assurance 
Table A-1 of the Q-List (BSC 2005a) identifies theAircraft Barrier as an Important-to-Safety (ITS) 
structure. Consequently, the provisions of the Quality Assurance Requirements and Description (QARD) 
document (DOE 2004) apply to this calculation. This calculation was developed in accordance with the 
requirements of procedure AP-3.12Q. 
3.0 
Assumptions 
3.1 
Bounding Assumptions 
3.1.1 It is assumed the barrier is 25'-0" high. 
Rationale: this is a reasonable assumption for a preliminary evaluation of the aircraft barrier. 
Table A-IJ in Appendix A of the Nuclear Safety Design Basis (BSC 2005b) identifies that the 
bamer should be as high as the Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) and High Level Waste (HLW) casks. 
These casks will be about 20 ft. high. A 25 ft. high barrier is selected as conservative and 
bounding to ensure the generated by it, does not skim over the top of 
the barrier and strike a cask. 
Where Used: Section 7.0 
3.1.2 It is assumed the strike normal to the barrier. 
Rationale: this is a reasonable, conservative assumption since this would result in all the impact 
energy acting in the horizontal, or weakest direction. 
Where Used: Section 7.0 
3.1.3 All impacts are assumed as 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. CALCULATION SHEET 
. . m. 
f JOB NO. I CALC. NO.. -"'"'---NO. OOA ( SHEETN-
24540 ( 170-SYC-HAPO-00100-000 1 ( 
TITLE
I Aging-Area Aircraft Barrier Evaluation 
-
Rationale: this is a reasonable assumption since the impacts are of extremely short duration, the 
corresponding spring force effect is small, and the will tend to stay in contact with the 
target during and after the impact. There will be no rebound. 
Where Used: Section 7.0 
3.2 Assumptions Requiring Verification 
3.2.1 Oneofthe: :o be considered for evaluation is assumed to be a from the 
'with an impact diameter of Diameter). and an impact velocity 
of ' -'1. (TBV-72
19 for velocity) 
~ationa1e:'this is a reasonable assumption given thesimihity with the data for the other : 
associated with the as provided in the Design Input section below; the engine weight and 
impact diameter are fiom Section 5.1.5, pg. 9, BSC (2001); the velocity has been communicated 
-
verbally and will be documented when the appropriate hazards analysis is completed. 
Where Used: Sections 4.0 and 7.0 
4.0 Design Input 
The following ,related to an impact by an will bound the potential rigid body penetrators 
from an impact of an 
a. 
with an diameter and a speed of 
b. 
with a diameter and a speed of 
c. 
with a diarnkter and a speed of 
d. 
itself with a impact diameter with the loading function shown on fig. 
A-5, pg. A-23 of C. W. Ma, et. al., (1990). 
The data for a, b and d are from C. W. Ma, et. al. (1'990); see Section A.6.1 for the weights and 
diameters of the and the ;see Figure A-3 for the weight of the see 
Section A.6.1 for the impact diameter for the .md see Section A.2.1 for the -velocity of 
these I; the data for "c" are from Assumptiom 3.2.1 above. 
5.0 Evaluation Methodology 
Table A-I1 of the Nuclear Safety Design Basis (BSC 2005b)~ also identifies the aircraft barrier must be 
designed to prevent breaching by an This also includes rigid body penetrators associated with the 
The two types of barriers are therefore evaluated using standard and special structural engineering 
hand techniques that are related to the design of structures far impact. Two types of failures are 
evaluated -a general faiiure where a section of the barrier is pushed out and coilapses, somewhat like a 
punching shear failure in a concrete slab, and a local perforagion of the barrier. These failures are 
illustrated on the next four figures: 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. CALCULATION SWEET 
-
JOB NO. CALC. NO. REV. NO. 00A SHEET NO.5 
170-SYC-HAPO-00100-000 
TITLE 
~ging
Area Aircraft Barrier Evaluation 
FIGURE 5.1 -IMPACT OF GENERAL FAILURE 
OF A SECTION OF THE BARRIER, ELEVATION VlEW 
KNOCKS OVT A PORTION OF THE 
-RAFT BARRIER 
DWGED SECTION OF AIRCRAFT 
BARRIER 
FIGURE 5.2 -IMPACT OF GENERAL FAILURE 
OF A SECTION OF THE AIRCRAFT BARRIER, 
PLAN VlEW 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. CALCULATION SHEEP 
.-
JOB NO. CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET NO. 6 
24540 170-SYC-HAPO-00 100-000 
TITLE
1 Aging Area Aircraft Barrier Evaluation 
FIGURE 5.3 -IMPACT OF I'ENETRATION AND 
PERFORATION 
IUGID PENETRATORISUEmD FROM THE /
AND COMPLETELY PERFORATES THE 
FIGURE 5.4 -IMPACT OF -PENETRATION OF 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. -
CALCULATION SHEET 
JOB NO. CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET NO.7 
24540 170-SYC-HAPO-00100-000 
TITLE 
I 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier Evaluation --
The general failure is evaluated by equating the kinetic energy of the impacting to the work 
required to move a section of the banier. This allows the computation of the distance a section of the 
barrier that might move under a impact. If this distance is significant, say about the width of the 
banier, then that is an indication that the banier would fail and allow either the jet itself or a major rigid 
penetrator generated by the aircraft impact to "blow through" the barrier and impact the SNF and HLW 
casks. A wider barrier would therefore be required. 
The local perforation failure (a completely passing through the barrier) is evaluated by using a soil 
penetration formula to compute the distance the would penetrate the soil mass represented by the 
aircraft barrier. If this distance is equal to or greater than the width of the barrier, then the barrier width 
would have to be increased to prevent perforation, otherwise the existing barrier width is acceptable. 
5.1 Loads. 
The only loads that will be considered in this calculation are impacts fiom the iisted above in 
Section 4.0, Design Input. Other loading conditions, i-e., dead, live, and those fkom natural phenomena 
(wind, seismic, precipitation), will be evaluated during detailed design. 
5.2 Material Properties 
The behavior of the barriers will be dominated by the properties of the soil used in construating them. The 
confining light gauge metal or precast concrete panels are very thin compared to the width of the bber. 
They will, therefore, make little contribution to the energy absorbing capabilities of the barrier and their 
presence will be ignored in this evaluation. Therefore, with respect to this evaluation, and the 
coefficient of fiction between the and the upon which the barrier is founded are the 
' 
critical properties. 
It is desired to use the material that is removed during tunnel boring operations (called "tunnel mu&") 
within the aircraft barrier structure. Table 10-3 of the Supplemental Soils Report (BSC 20Wb) lists the 
densities of various materials that could be encountered during the tunnel boring operations, The densities 
ranged from 98 to 145 pcf. Consequently, the barriers are evaluated for a high-density soil of 150pcf, a 
medium-density soil of 130 pcf, and a low-density soil of 100 pcf. 
Table 1i-2 of the Supplemental Soils Report (BSe 2004b) gives a coefficient of friction for alluvium as 
p = 0.8 1, but, because of the wide variation of soil and rock material that may be used, a vaRue of p = 0.6 
is used herein. Article 60.2 of K. Terzaghi, et. al. (1995) indicates that ths is a minimum value for 
concrete against sand. Since the backfill material will be compacted against the alluvium, or engineered 
fills, both of which are granular materials (see articles 10.1.1.1 and 10.1 2.1 of the Supplemental Soils 
Report (BSC 2004b)), it will behave much like concrete on sand. The low-end value of p given above is 
therefore appropriate for this evaluation. 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. CALCULATION SHEET 
v 
-
JOB NO. CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET NO.8 
170-SYC-HAPO-00 100-000 
TITLE 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier Evaluation 
-
-
6.0 Computer Software Documentation 
The originator used the following computer programs to prepare thls calculation; all the software used 
resides on a Personal Computer: 
Notes: 
1. Microsoft Word and Mathcad are exempted from the qualification and documentation requirements of 
LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Software Management. 
2. The software is operated on a PC system using the Windows 2000 operating system. 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. 'JOB24540 CALC.NO. REV. NO.OOA SHEET N0.9 
TITLE 170-SYC-HAPO-00100-000 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier 
17.0 Calculations 
Cvaluation of Potential Aircraft Barrier Types: 
?valuate barriers made of light-gauge metal or pre-cast concrete panels backfillled with soil, me1 
nuck, or other material by first investigating the potential for general structural failure. Treat the 
m.rrier as solid blocks that can slide. 
kxt, investigate perforation of the barriers by using a soil penetration formula to determine the 
Rinimurn barrier thicknesses required to prevent complete perforation of the barrier. This will 
.Is0 be used to determine the minimum thichess required for an aircraft banier constructed of a 
oil berm. 
is discussed in Section 4.2 above, three fill, or soil, weight densities -150 pcf, 130pcf, and 
00 pcf -are evaluated to ensure a range of possible densities are evaluated. 
'er assumption 3.1.1, the barriers will be 25 A. high; per assumption 3.1.2, the will strike 
~onnalto the face of the barriers; per assumption 3.1.3, the impacts will be analyzed as , 
Ier assumption 3.2.1, the . to be evaluated will include a with an impact 
liameter of and a impact speed of 
Set origin of matrices to 1,l instead of 0,O: 
ORIGIN := 1 
Define Units that are not standard in Mathcad: 
lbf
pcf := -tons := 2000.lbf knots := 
ft3 
Missile information -see Section 4.0 of this calleulation: 
/ 
Diameters of 
nph Vs = Velocities of 
\ 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. -
JOB 24540 CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET ~0.10-
TITLE 170-SYC-HAPO-08100-000 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier 
Masses of .. 
. .
i 
E :valuationof Potential Barriers: 
Ektimate required barrier width: 
Irwestigate the possible width of banier required by estimating the distance required to reduce the 
velocity to 
td := Time of impulse. About 0.07 sec for the F-16. See the impulse 
plot in Fig. 7.2 of this calculation. 
v 
X,, := td'-S4 Based on formula 6.52, pg. 347, ASCE 58 (ASCE 1980). 
9 
Xo = Use at least a 25 ft. barrier. 
Evaluate the Potential for General and Local Failures: 
See Figurep.1 below for the geometry of the aircrafh banrier. ,
7 
b := 25-fi Width of barrier. 
1 := 25-ft Height of barrier. 
FIGURE 7.1 AlRCRAfT BARRIER. ELEVATION 
I VIEW 
BACKFILL MATERIAL 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. -
JOB 24540 CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET NO.11 
TITLE 170-SYC-HAPO-00100-000 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier 
A := bq A = Cross-sectional area of the Banier. 
'1
h := -Height to center of gravity of barrier element. 
2 
Determine target masses and impact energies: 
Densities of barrier material. 
kget mass ( Me) based on equation 3-16 (volume of target that interacts with the 
times the weight density divided the acceleration due to gravity, g), Chapter 3, 
inderman, Rotz, and Yeh, 1974. Also see Fig 5.2 of this calculation. 
2 
sec
lbf. -
ft 
Impact energies (EE,) per equation 3-8, Section 3, Linderman, Rotz, and Yeh, 1974 
EE, = 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. -
JOB 24540 CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA 5 
TITLE 170-SYC-HAPO-00100-000 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier 
Figure 7.2 -F-16 Loading Function 
IMPACT LOADING FCWTION 
-Loading Function -
see Figme A-5 of C. W. 
Ma, et. ad., 1990. 
TIME (SEC) 
6 Force function (see plot above). 
:= 10-106-1bfF2 := 20.10 -1bf 
I := 0.5-Fl~(O.Ol~sec)
+ F1-(0.04 -O.Ol).sec ... Impulse due to the 
' 
+ 0.5(~2-F~)-(o.o~
-0.03)-sec+ F2.(0.052 -0.04)-sec ... Loading 
Function
+ 0.5+F2-(0.07-0.052)-sec 
impact energy per
[(~rn~+~e
.-4,l)-a3 EE = equation 3-14 (appropriate 
EE, .-, equation when forcing 
451 
ft-lbf function is known), Section 
3, Linderman, Rotz, and 
Yeh, 1974.
1 := 1 .. 3 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. JOB 24540 CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET NO.13 -
TITLE 170-SYC-HAPO-00100-000 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier 
2 
sec
Ibf.-
ft 
1Keights of barrier. 
Pb = 
Ibf 
tons 
Evaluate Potential Sliding: 
P := 0.6 See Section 5.2 of hs calculation. 
:= p
Pe 
1 :== l..4 1:= 1..3 
Displacement due to sliding based on energy formula for sliding. lnetic Energy due to missile impact = 
Work expended to move the Barrier a distance 66, i. e. EEs = (1/2)F66 = (1/2)peW66. 
,! 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. JOB 24540 CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET ~0.14 
TITLE 170-~~~-~~~0-00100-000 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier -rUll 
Soil Penetration: 
S1:= 1.O7 S for p = 150pcf. See Table 3, pg. 81 1, Young 
(1969), for rock material &om the Tonapah Test 
Range and the Nevada Test Site. 
S for p = : Weighted average 
value betweenrock and low density
S2 := 1.07 + soil material based onvalues in Table 
r::~ir:)-(~.~-1.07) S. = 3, pg. 81 1, Young (1969) 
S for p = 100 pcf. See Table 3, pg. 81 1, Young (1969), for Sand, silty, clayey, 
S3 := 4.4
I 
dense (desert alluvium) soil material fiom the Tonopah Test Range site. 
I := 1 .. 3 
i := l..4 
N := 
See Table 2, pg. 808, Young (1969), for 
various shapes of missiles 
Unitless vector of diameters for 
use in the penetration formula below.
I 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. -
JOB 24540 CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET N0.15 
TITLE 170-SYGHAPO-00100-000 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier 
Unitless vector of the weights for use 
in the penetration formula below. 
sec v.= Unitless vector of the velocities for use in 
v'ii := 'i '-R S1 the penetration formula below: 
Penetration, X, for velocities based on Formula 17, pg. 812, Young (1969). 
Xi,l := Penetration. 
B
NG for the 2000 Ib with the fill. Increase the barrier width to -for 
a barrier backfilled with material. 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. 40624540 CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET ~0.16 
TITLE 170-SYC-HAPO-00100-000 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier 
I I 
-
Check on Results: 
Utilize the method of section 6.4.2.1.1 of ASCE 58 (ASCE 1980) for the evaluation of overall effects of 
soft missile impact by: (1) determining pseudo impulse times based on the calculation of penetration 
depths calculated above; (2) determining average impulses based on the calculation of impact ener@es 
on sht. 1 1 above; (3) calculating the forces associated with these impulses based on a rectangular force -
time relationship; (4) using these forces, determine the penetration distance based on fontnula 6.50, pg. 
347, ASCE 58 (ASCE 1980); if these distances determined in step (4) are consistent with those 
determined on sht. 15, then the designed barrier widths will be acceptable. 
Calculate pseudo impulse times, impulse, and forces associated with the above displacements. 
1 := 1 ..3 
i :=-I ..4 
inpulse times: 
ttd. --.-(2'Xi'1) Impulse time; see formula 6.52, pg. 347, ASCE 58 (ASCE 1980).
T T 
191 
sec
I 
mpulses: 
Impulse; based on formula 3-8 of Linderman, Rotz, and 
Yeh (1974) for impact energy; terns transposed to 
calculate impulse. 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. JOB 24540 CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET ~0:17 
TITLE ' 170-SYGHAPO-00 100-000 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier 
lbf .set 
Pseudo forces based on a rectangular Impulse curve: 
Ii,l
F~J:= -Pseudo forces based on definition of Impulse = Force x time. 
ttd, , 
lbf 
7
I : 107 lo7 x 10 
Penetration distances: 
Penetration distance per formula 6.50 of ASCE 58 (ASCE 
A,, 1 := 1980) with Mass, M, replacing Wlg and terns transposed to 
V. 
Fi, 1 Icalculate X. 
OK since these distances are 
consistent with those calculated on 
.. the previous sheets. Use a 25 fi. 
wide banier for and a 30 
ft. wide barrier for 
material. 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. JOB 24540 CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET NO.18 
TITLE 170-SYC-HAPO-00100-000 
7 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier w 
I 
Determine the fiontal pressures associated with the above calculated forces and missile geometries: 
Cross-sectional areas based on missile impact diameters: 
Trontal pressures: 
Pb = 
lections A.6.1 and A.6.2 of Ma. et. al. (1 990),gives fi-ontalpressures of ' for the 
and for the Comparing these values to the very large magnitudes 
~ffiontal pressures calculated above indicates tha~ the and its associated will -
I 
when the aircraft impacts the barrier. The barrier widths determined in the preceding
1 calculations the casks in the aging areas fiom aircraft impacts. 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. I ''BECHTBL 
%SAIC~EGE 
JOB NO. 
24540 
I TITLE 
I
[ Aging Area Aircraft Barrier Evaluation 
CALCULATION SHEET 
CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET NO. 1 9 
170-SYC-HAPO-00100-000 
8.0 Conclusions & Recommendations 
The calculations in Section 6.0 indicate that the aircraft banier shouldbe at least 25 ft. wide if the medium 
1
) or high density fill material is used. If dense material, ;used, 
the banier should be 30 ft. wide. The two barrier configurations are shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2 below: 
FIGURE 8.1 -AIRCRAFT BARRlER -BACKFILLED 
BARRIER WI LIGHT GAUGE METAL OR PRECAST 
CONCRETE CONFINING PANELS OPTION. 
ELEVATION VIEW 
BACKFILL MATERIAL -
TUNNEL MUCK OR SOIL;p = 
I
C
25' -0"FOR 
30' -0"FOR 
FIGURE 8.2 -AIRCRAFT BARRIER -
BERM OPTION, ELEVATION VIEW 
BERM MATERIAL -TUNNEL
I MUCKORSOIL; p= 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. CAbCUkAfION SHEET 
P 
JOB NO. CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA 
170-SYC-HAPO-00100-000 
TITLE 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier Evaluation 
-
To keep construction costs and effort reasonable, it is recommended to utilize a 25 ft. high by 25 ft. wide 
barrier with light-gauge metal or precast concrete confining panels backfilled with a soil materia.] or tunnel 
muck having a density of at compaction. 
The design and analytical results are reasonable for -their intended use considering the complex and 
dynamic nature of the loading the aircraft barrier could be exposed to. They are suitable for their intended 
use, namely the preliminary evaluation of an aircraft barrier for the Aging Area. 
9.0 References 
1. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2005a Q-List. 000-30R-MGRO-00500-000-000-00 1. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.200502 17.00 10. DIRS: 17 1 190. 
2. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2005b. Nuclear Safe Design Bases for License Application. 000-
30R-MGRO-00400-000-001.Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
ENG.20050308.0004. DIRS: 171512. 
3. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2004. Quality Assurance Requirements and Description. 
DOEIRW-0333P, Rev. 16. Washington, D.C-: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC-2004W07.0002. DIRS: 171539 
4. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 200 1. Consequence of an Aircraft Cmsh into a Transportation 
Cask, Revision 2. *OFFICIAL USE ONLY*, Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
MOL.20020314.0036. DIRS: 1572 10 
5. Ma, C.W.; Zavoshy, S.J.; Jardine, L.J.; and Kiciman, O.K. 1990. An Analysis of S~enarios and 
Potential Radiological Consequences Associated with US.Military Aircrafi Crashes for the Yucca 
Mountain Repository. SSAND90-705 1. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia Nationd Laboratories. 
ACC: MOL.20010405.0046. DIRS: 162495 
6. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004a. Project Design Criteria Document. 000-3DR-MGRO-
00100-000-003. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20041124.0001. DRS: 
171599 
7. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004b. Supplemental Soils Report. 1 W-SOC-CYOO-00100-000-
OOA. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Co~qany. ACC: ENG.2004i 108.0006. DIRS: 166067 
8. Terzaglu, K.; Peck, R.B.; and Mesri, G. 1996.. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 3rd 
Edition. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 255 13 1. DWS: 165965. 
9. LP-SI.l 1Q-BSC, Rev. 0, ICN 1. Software Management. Washington ID. C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20041005~0008. 
10. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers)) 1980. '"Design Against Umpulse and hpact Loads." 
Chapter 6 of Structural Analysis and Design ofNuclear Plant Facilitfes. ASCE No, 58. Pages 309-
384. New York, New York: American Society,of Civil Engineers. TIC: 256635. DXRS: 149371 
11. Linderman, R.B.; Rotz, J.V.; and Yeh, G.C.K.. 1974. Design of Struc~n~res
for IlfissiJe Impuct, 
Topical Report. BC-TOP-9-A, Rev. 2. San Francisca, California: Bechtel Power. TIC: 253 115. 
DIRS: 159274. 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. of Civil Engineers. TIC:257027. DIRS: 173193. 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. CALCULATION SHEET 
0-
JOB NO. CALC. NO. REV. NO. OOA SHEET NO. AI 
24540 170-SYC-HAPO-00100-000 
1 TITLE 
Aging Area Aircraft Barrier Evaluation 
Attachment A -Computer Files 
Listed below and included in the attached CDs are the Word and Mathcad files that are pertinent to this 
calculation:. 
CALC Aircraft Barrier.doc 
aircraft barrier.mcd