Mechanical Assessment of the Waste Package Subject to Vibratory Motion Rev 00A, ICN 00

CAL-WIS-AC-000001

October 14, 2004

1. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this document is to provide an integrated overview of the calculation reports that 
define the response of the waste package and its internals to vibratory ground motion. The 
calculation reports for waste package response to vibratory ground motion are identified in 
Table 1-1. Three key calculation reports describe the potential for mechanical damage to the 
waste package, fuel assemblies, and cladding from a seismic event. Three supporting documents 
have also been published to investigate sensitivity of damage to various assumptions for the 
calculations. While these individual reports present information on a specific aspect of waste 
package and cladding response, they do not describe the interrelationship between the various 
calculations and the relationship of this information to the seismic scenario class for Total 
System Performance Assessment-License Application (TSPA-LA). This report is designed to 
fill this gap by providing an overview of the waste package structural response calculations. 
Table 1-1. Major References for Waste Package Damage Calculations 
Damage Process 
Calculation Report 
Key Report for Kinematics and Structural Response of Waste Package: 
Damage to the waste package from vibratory 
ground motion 
Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory 
Ground Motion, 000-00C-WIS0-01400-000-00A (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083]) 
Key Report for Damage Caused by Side and End Impacts: 
Calculation of damaged area caused by end-
to-end impacts of adjacent waste packages for 
a predefined set of impact velocities and 
impact angles 
21-PWR Waste Package Side and End Impacts, 
000-00C-DSU0-01000-000-00B (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293]) 
Key Report for G-Loads on Fuel Assemblies Caused by End Impacts: 
Acceleration of the fuel assemblies from end-
to-end waste package impacts 
Maximum Accelerations on the Fuel Assemblies of a 21-PWR 
Waste Package During End Impacts, 000-00C-DSU0-01100-
000-00A (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162602]) 
Supporting Documents to These Key Reports: 
Sensitivity of damaged area caused by end-to-
end impacts of adjacent waste packages to 
mesh refinement 
21-PWR Waste Package End Impacts  A Mesh Study, 
000-00C-WIS0-02100-000-00A (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844]) 
Sensitivity of damaged area to spectral 
matching and intercomponent variability of 
ground motion time histories for the 2.44 m/s 
PGV level 
Additional Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to 
Vibratory Ground Motion, 000-00C-WIS0-01700-000-00A (BSC 
2004 [DIRS 168385]) 
Sensitivity of damaged area to interpolation 
scheme for impact angles between 0-degree 
and 1-degree 
Alternative Damaged Area Evaluation for Waste Package 
Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion, 000-00C-WIS0-01900-000-
00A (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170843]) 
Other Reports Not Directly Relevant to the Seismic Abstractions: 
Sensitivity of damaged area to in-plane mesh 
refinement for waste package impact on the 
emplacement pallet 
Drop of Waste Package on Emplacement Pallet  A Mesh Study, 
000-00C-DSU0-002200-000-00A (BSC 2003 [DIRS 165497]) 
Analysis of spatial distribution of damaged 
area on the waste package for criticality 
analyses 
Spatial Distribution of Damage to Waste Package in Aftermath of 
Vibratory Ground Motion, 000-00C-WIS0-01100-000-00A 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 166247]) 
Define relative velocity time histories in the 
vertical direction between the waste package 
and emplacement pallet during vibratory 
ground motion 
Relative Vertical Velocity Between Waste Package and 
Emplacement Pallet During Vibratory Ground Motion, 000-00C-
WIS0-01800-000-00A (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170850]) 
21-PWR = 21-Pressurized Water Reactor spent nuclear fuel waste package; PGV = peak ground velocity 

Of the nine reports listed in Table 1-1, three are not relevant to abstractions for the seismic 
scenario class and are not discussed further in this document. The general purpose of the 
remaining 6 design calculations is to determine the response of the waste package and/or its 
internals to the vibratory ground motion hazard at the proposed geologic repository at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. More specifically, the output data from the structural response of the waste 
package and its internals are the basis for development of damage abstractions for the seismic 
scenario class for TSPA-LA, as described in the Seismic Consequence Abstraction model report 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183]). The results from the structural response calculations also address 
portions of integrated subissue Integrated Subissue for the Mechanical Disruption of Engineered 
Barriers, Mechanical Disruption of Engineered Barriers, including the acceptance criteria for this 
subissue defined in Section 2.2.1.3.2.3 of Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report 
(NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). 
The purpose of the first two key reports in Table 1-1 is to determine the damaged areas on the 
waste package from impacts between the waste package and emplacement pallet and from 
impacts between adjacent waste packages in response to vibratory ground motion. The purpose 
of the third key report in Table 1-1 is to determine the average and maximum g-loads on the fuel 
rod assemblies due to impacts between adjacent waste packages. These g-loads define the axial 
loads on fuel rod cladding, providing the basis for definition of cladding failure during 
end-to-end impacts of adjacent waste packages. 
The three supporting documents in Table 1-1 provide supplemental analyses supporting the 
results and conclusions in the three key reports. The rationale and results from the supplemental 
analyses are as follows: 
 It is always necessary to demonstrate that the results from a finite element (FE) analysis 
are insensitive to the level of mesh refinement. The first supporting document reports on 
a very detailed mesh refinement study for end-to-end impacts of adjacent waste 
packages, and demonstrates that the original damaged area calculations in 21-PWR 
Waste Package Side and End Impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293]) are almost always 
conservative. 
 Structural response calculations were based on the most current ground motions 
available at the time the analyses were performed. However, two aspects of the ground 
motions (intercomponent variability and spectral matching) have changed over time, as 
explained in Section 1.3.4. The second supporting document evaluates the effect of 
intercomponent variability and spectral matching for the ground motions at the 2.44 m/s 
peak ground velocity (PGV) level, and again demonstrates that the range of damaged 
area in the original calculations (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]) is conservative. 
 The damaged area calculations for end-to-end impacts incorporate a simple interpolation 
scheme on impact velocity and impact angle. Damage at an impact angle of 
zero degrees is substantially less than damage at an impact angle of 1 degree because the 
impact load is uniformly distributed around the circumference, rather than concentrated 
at a point. In practice, a zero degree impact is very unlikely because it requires perfect 
alignment of waste package centerlines. The third supporting document reanalyzes the 
damaged areas for end-to-end impacts with an alternate interpolation scheme. This 

alternate scheme holds damaged area constant at the 1-degree value for impact angles 
greater than zero degrees and less than 1 degree. This change in interpolation scheme 
produces only minor changes in total damaged area, in part because multiple impacts at 
angles greater than 1 degree tend to dominate the total damaged area. 
The information in the calculation reports in Table 1-1 is not being superseded by this report. 
Although selected material from the key reports and supporting documents is repeated in this 
calculation report, the reports listed in Table 1-1 remain the basic references that document the 
analyses of waste package response to vibratory ground motion. In particular, the attachments to 
the reports in Table 1-1 are incorporated by reference, and are not repeated in this report. 
This document is prepared in accordance with the applicable technical work plan: Technical 
Work Plan For: Regulatory Integration Modeling of Drift Degradation, Waste Package and 
Drip Shield Vibratory Motion and Seismic Consequences (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171520]), which 
directs the work identified in work package ARTM05. The technical work plan was prepared in 
accordance with AP-2.27Q, Planning for Science Activities. Although the underlying reports 
listed in Table 1-1 use qualified software to perform structural response calculations, no software 
of any kind has been used in the preparation of this report, so LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Software 
Management, is not applicable to this report. The 21-Pressurized Water Reactor spent nuclear 
fuel (SNF) waste package (21-PWR) is classified as a Safety Category item by the Q-List 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 168361], page A-4). Therefore, this calculation is subject to the requirements 
of Quality Assurance Requirements and Description (DOE 2004 [DIRS 171539]). This 
document is prepared in accordance with AP-3.12Q, Design Calculations and Analyses. 
1.1 SCOPE 
The scope of this report is limited to summarizing the mechanical response of the waste package 
and its internals to vibratory ground motion during the postclosure period. All results are 
evaluated for the outer, Alloy 22 shell of the waste package or for the fuel rod assemblies that are 
internal to the waste package. 
The damage abstractions for the waste package and cladding are not documented in this report; 
rather, the results from these design calculations provide the input data that the abstractions are 
based on. The damage abstractions for the seismic scenario class are developed and documented 
in the Seismic Consequence Abstraction model report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183]). 
This report does not address the performance of naval SNF during seismic events. The Naval 
Nuclear Propulsion Program Technical Support Document for the License Application will 
provide the seismic analysis for naval SNF. 

1.2 LIMITATIONS 
The major limitations of these design calculations are as follows: 
 The calculations include degradation of the waste package over a 20,000-year time 
frame, which includes the initial 10,000-year regulatory period (see Assumption 3.12). 
The 20,000-year duration for the seismic analyses is designed to demonstrate that 
repository performance remains robust well after the 10,000 year regulatory period has 
ended. Calculations of the seismic scenario class beyond 20,000 years will require new 
structural response calculations with additional levels of structural degradation. 
 Calculations are performed for the 21-Pressurized Water Reactor (21-PWR) waste 
package type. This type of waste package is the most common package type in the 
repository, constituting 38 percent of the anticipated inventory by package type 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169472], Table 11). 
 Structural response calculations for the waste package do not include any initial backfill 
around the drip shield at the time of the seismic event. This representation is consistent 
with the present design that does not include an engineered backfill, is consistent with 
the results from drift degradation analyses under nominal repository conditions, and is 
consistent with rockfall analyses that indicate complete drift collapse does not occur in 
the lithophysal zones until a peak ground velocity exceeds 2 m/s in most of the 
lithophysal zones of the repository (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Section 6.4). 
 The ground motion time histories1 for structural response calculations were created 
using different approaches for intercomponent variability and for spectral matching. 
The results from a limited sensitivity study (Section 5.3.7) indicate that the original 
damage calculations using ground motion time histories for the 2.44 m/s PGV level are 
conservative. Section 1.3.4 provides a discussion on the methodology for defining the 
suites of ground motions that are used in the structural response calculations. 
1.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SEISMIC SCENARIO CLASS 
This section summarizes information about the seismic scenario class that is relevant to the 
structural response of the waste package and cladding under vibratory ground motion. This 
information includes: 
 A description of the components of the engineered barrier system 
 The anticipated failure mechanisms for these components under seismically-induced 
loads 
 The residual stress damage threshold for failure of Alloy 22 from accelerated stress 
corrosion cracking 

 The Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis that provides a framework for definition of 
ground motions at Yucca Mountain 
 The procedure for developing site-specific ground motions 
 The hazard levels and terminology that are relevant to these calculations. 
The focus of this background discussion is on the response of the waste package and cladding to 
vibratory ground motion; the response of the drip shield to ground motion or to rockfall induced 
by ground motion and the response of engineered barrier system components to fault 
displacement is only mentioned in passing. A complete discussion of the technical basis for the 
seismic scenario class in TSPA-LA can be found in the Seismic Consequence Abstraction model 
report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183]). 
Figure 1-1 illustrates the major components of the engineered barrier system in a typical 
emplacement drift. The major engineered barrier system components are the waste package, the 
drip shield, and the fuel rod cladding (the cladding is not shown in Figure 1-1). These are 
important components because they provide barriers to the release of radionuclides from the fuel 
rods into the unsaturated zone. The effectiveness of these barriers is potentially compromised by 
the direct effects from an earthquake, which include vibratory ground motion, fault 
displacement, and rockfall induced by ground motion. The effectiveness of these barriers is also 
potentially compromised by indirect effects after an earthquake, including changes in seepage, 
temperature, and relative humidity if an emplacement drift collapses completely during a very 
low probability earthquake. 
The major engineered barrier system components are free standing structures. The drip shield 
and the emplacement pallet rest on top of the invert, while the waste package rests on top of the 
pallet. The invert consists of a framework of mild steel structural components that is filled with 
ballast from run-of-the-mine tunneling operations. Because the engineered barrier system 
components are unconstrained, impacts can occur between waste packages, drip shields, 
emplacement pallets, the invert, and the drift walls in response to significant ground motions. 
1.3.1 Failure Mechanisms Under Seismic Loads 
Mechanical processes that occur during a seismic event may compromise the functionality of the 
waste packages and drip shields as barriers to radionuclide release. These mechanical processes 
include impacts caused directly by vibratory ground motion during an earthquake, impacts 
caused by rock blocks and rockfall induced by vibratory ground motions, and mechanical 
loading from fault displacement. 
Under vibratory ground motions, impacts can occur between adjacent waste packages and 
between the waste package and its emplacement pallet, the surrounding drip shield, and the 
invert. Impacts can also occur between the drip shield and the emplacement pallet, the invert, and 
even the drift wall. Rockfall induced by vibratory ground motions can result in impacts on the 
drip shield in the postclosure period and impacts on the waste packages in the preclosure period, 
when drip shields are not yet in place. Rockfall induced by vibratory ground motion in the 
lithophysal zones may collapse the drifts, resulting in static loads from the mass of rubblized 

rock surrounding the drip shield. Finally, mechanical loads may be generated by fault 
displacement within the repository block. In this case, engineered barrier system components 
may become pinned if fault displacement is greater than the available clearances between 
components. 
rce BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183], Figure 6.1-1. 
RM=Continuous Recording Monitor; CAM=Continuous Air Monitor. 
-1. Schematic Diagram of the Engineered Barrier System Components in a Typical 
Emplacement Drift 
These mechanical processes are associated with a number of potential failure mechanisms for the 
waste package and cladding under vibratory ground motions: 
 Peak dynamic loads have the potential to result in immediate puncture or tearing of an 
engineered barrier system component if the failure criterion is met. A puncture provides 
a potential pathway for flow into and radionuclide transport out of an engineered barrier 
system component. 
 Impact-related dynamic loads may dent a component, resulting in permanent structural 
deformation with residual stress. High levels of residual tensile stress may lead to local 
degradation from accelerated corrosion processes. Areas that are breached from 
corrosion processes provide a potential pathway for flow into and radionuclide transport 

deformed fuel rods and perforated cladding. Failure of cladding provides a potential 
pathway for release of radionuclides from fuel rods. 
metal that requires very high dynamic loads to reach the tearing failure threshold. Additionally, 
the tearing failure of ductile material is, in general, accompanied by large distortion and 
significant expenditure of energy. Consequently, a small tear (through-wall macrocrack) is 
expected to be encompassed by a much larger highly-distorted region that is the preferable site 
for stress corrosion cracking. Therefore, a small tear is anticipated to be accounted for by the 
deformed area, which is defined and discussed in the following paragraph. The potential for 
immediate breach through tensile or shear failure is included in the nonlinear FE calculations 
supporting the seismic scenario class; however, the computational meshes are genera
package drops on the emplacement pallet indicate that the maximum stress intensity2 for the 
impact velocities observed in the vibratory ground motion calculations is significantly below the 
ultimate tensile strength (BSC 2003 [DIRS 165497]). In this situation, a localized puncture or 
tearing is very unlikely from impact processes caused by vibratory ground motions and is not 
included in the seismic scenario class. 
On the other hand, the presence of high residual tensile stress has the potential to result in 
accelerated stress corrosion cracking. This combined m
processes caused by vibratory ground motions. The areas that exceed the residual tensile stress 
threshold are referred to as the damaged area throughout this document. The effective area for 
flow and transport through the damaged areas will be substantially less than the damaged area 
because the cross-sectional area of the stress corrosion cracks is much less than the total surface 
area that exceeds the residual stress threshold (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183], Section 6.3.5). 
Application of a residual tensile stress threshold for seismic failures is nonmechanistic in the 
sense that detailed calculations with accelerated corrosion rates or crack propagation are not used 
to determine the actual failure time after a seismic event. Rath
in

initiate accelerated localized corrosion or
on of a once nucleated stress corrosion crack could be arrested by an encounter 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183], Figure 6.3-1. 
Figure 1-2. Permanent Deformation from Plastic Yielding Generates Residual Stress 
The dynamic loads on fuel rods from end-to-end impacts of adjacent waste packages and from 
impacts between waste package and pallet (and, to a smaller degree, the drip shield) have the 
potential to fail the cladding. In the former case, direction of the fuel rods loading is 
predominantly axial while in the latter is transversal. The primary cladding failure mechanism is 
perforation due to acceleration (g-loads) in the axial and transversal direction of
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183], Section 6.5.7). The primary deformation mode of axially loaded 
fuel rods (end-to-end impact of adjacent waste packages) is buckling and the resulting cladding 
failure mechanism is the only one considered in this study. The g-loads required to buckle fuel 
rods are estimated from a simple analytic model based on Euler buckling of a column 
(Chun et al. 1987 [DIRS 144357]). It is estimated that the cladding fails when the impact 
accelerations are in the range of 82 g to 252 g for axial impacts (a
impacts) (Chun et al. 1987 [DIRS 144357], Table 4). 
1.3.2 Residual Stress Damage Threshold for the Waste Package 
Accelerated stress corrosion cracking from high residual stress is expected to be the most likely 
cause of failure for the waste package from impact processes under vibratory ground motion. 
The residual stress thresholds for seismic response are similar to the criteria for initiation of 
stress corrosion cracking on smooth surfaces of Alloy 22 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169042], 
Section 6.2.1), with thresholds defined on page 22). The use of a stress corrosion cracking 
initiation criterion is appro
from mechanical damage exceeds the tensile failure criterion are expected to be severely 
cold-worked and, hence, potentially subject to enhanced stress corrosion cracking. 
A residual stress threshold is a conservative failure criterion because detailed corrosion models 
will have a delay time until failure. A conservative approach is appropriate because it is 

consistent with other tensile failure criteria (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169042], Section 6.2.1, second 
paragraph on page 22), because the residual stress failure criterion is transparent, and because it 
is easily applied to the output from structural response calculations. 
The residual stress threshold for failure of the waste package is represented by a uniform 
distribution with a lower bound of 80 percent of the yield strength of Alloy 22 and an upper 
bound of 90 percent of the yield strength of Alloy 22. The upper bound is based on experimental 
data and conservatively in
lower bound is introduced to evaluate the sensitiv
is also consistent with the failure criterion for initiation of stress corrosion cracking in other 
waste package analyses. 
In practice, the damage to the waste package has been evaluated at the extremes of the uniform 
distribution. The results from each structural response calculation are post-processed to 
determine the elements in the outer corrosion barrier (OCB) of the waste package whose residual 
stress exceeds 80 percent of the yield strength of Alloy 22 and to determine the elements in the 
OCB of the waste package whose residual stress exceeds 90 percent of the yield strength of 
Alloy 22. These elements are then converted into an area susceptible to accelerated stress 
corrosion cracking at the 80 and 90 percent criteria. The ap
The elements that exceed 90 percent of the yield strength are always a subset of the elements that 
exceed 80 percent of the yield strength. In other words, the damaged area for the 90 percent 
residual stress threshold is always less than or equal to the damaged area for the 80 percent 
residual stress threshold. 
1.3.3 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 
A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was performed to assess the seismic hazards of 
vibratory ground motions 
repositorys long-term performance and to form the basis for deve
) utilization of an extensive geologic and seismologic database developed over a 20 year 
the Yucca Mountain region; (2) explicit considerati 
alternative seismic-source, ground-motion, and fault-displacement 
ls; and (3) use of a formal, structured expert elicitation process to capture the informed 
communitys views of key inputs to the PS
SH methodology for vibratory ground motions has become standard practice for deriving 
ground motion hazards for design purposes. Less commonly, probabilistic fault 
ent analyses are conducted to provi
nt of differential ground displacement that might occur. Both analyses provide hazard 
s, which express the probability of exceeding various amounts of ground motion (or fault 
ent). The probability is usually expressed as a frequency of exceedance per year. The 
seismic hazard curves represent t

magnitudes of the probability of future earthquake occurrence and, given an occurrence, its 
effect at a site of interest. 
The basic elements of a PSHA for vibratory ground motions are: 
a) Identification of seismic sources that contribute to the vibratory ground motion hazard 
at Yucca Mountain and characterization of their geometry 
b) Characterization of seismic sources by the recurrence rate of earthquakes of
magnitudes and the maximum magnitude 
c) Attenuation relations that define a specified ground motion parameter (such as PGV) 
as a function of magnitude, source-to-site distance, local site conditions, and, in some 
cases, seismic source characteristics 
d) Integration of the seismic source characterization and ground motion attenuation 
evaluations, including associated uncertainties, into a seismic hazard curve and 
associated uncertainty distribution. 
The PSHA incorporates both variability and uncertainty. Variability, also termed randomness or 
aleatory variability, is the natural randomness in a process. For discrete variables, the 
randomness is parameterized by the probability of each possible value. For continuous variables, 
the randomness is parameterized by the probability density function. An example of variability 
is the amplitude of ground motion that would occur at a particular location from repeated 
earthquakes having exactly the same magnitude at exactly the same distance (magnitude 6 at 
25 km distance). Variations in ground motion amplitude are expected due to unknowable 
complexities in earthquake-to-earthquake source properties and in the propagation path. 
Uncertainty, also termed epistemic uncertainty, is the scientific uncertainty in the model of the 
process. It is due to limited data and knowledge. The uncertainty is characterized by alternative 
models. For discrete random variables, the epistemic uncertainty is modeled by alternative 
probability distributions. For continuous random variables, the uncertainty is modeled by 
alternative probability density functions. Examples of uncertainty are alternative ground motion 
attenuation relations that express the amplitude of ground motion at a particular site as a function 
of dist
reducible with additional knowledge and data. 
Given the input evaluations, the hazard calculation method integrates over all values of the 
variables and estimates the annual probability of exceedance of any ground-shaking amplitude at 
the site. The hazard curve quantifies the variability of the earthquake occurrence and 
ground-shaking attenuation. In addition to the variability of the seismic hazard, however, is 
uncertainty about the seismotectonic environment of a site. Significant advances in development 
of methodology to quantify uncertainty in seismic hazard have been made in the past 20 years 
(Budnitz et al. 1997 [DIRS 103635]). These advances involve the development of alternative 
interpretations of the seismotectonic environment of a site by multiple exp

interprtations are expressed by use o
seismic hazard curve is computed. The result of computing the hazard for all pathways is a 
distribution of hazard curves representing the full variability and uncertainty in the hazard at a 
site. 
The seismic scenario class for TSPA-LA uses the mean hazard curves for PGV and for fault 
displacement. Each mean hazard curve, which is defined as an average of the distribution of 
hazard curves referred to in the preceding paragraph, typically lies above the 80th percentile of 
the distrib
appropriate for calculations of the mean dose to the reasonably maximally exposed individual, as 
required to demonstrate acceptable repository performance over 10,000 years (10 CFR 63.303 
and 63.311 [DIRS 156605]). However, the use of the mean hazard curves does not propagate the 
epistemic uncertainty in the distributions of the hazard curves into TSPA. 
1.3.4 Site-Specific Ground Motions 
Site-specific ground 
hypothetical reference rock outcrop and do not reflect site-specific soil and rock properties at the 
locations for which the ground motions are needed (e.g., the horizon where the emplacement 
drifts are located). The PSHA was conducted in this fashion because the site-specific rock and 
soil properties were not characterized at the time of the PSHA. Thus, further analyses are carried 
out to modify the PSHA results to reflect the appropriate site-specific conditions for the site of 
interest. 
developed for the waste emplacement level. Selection of annual exceedance probabilities is 
motivated by the requirement to consider only events that have at least one chance in 10,000 of 
occurring over 10,000 years (10 CFR 63.114(d) [DIRS 156605]). To address this requirement, 
ground motions are developed for annual exceedance probabilities of 10-5, 10-6, and 10-7 per 
year. Analyses using the developed ground motions form the basis for evaluating repository 
performance for seismic events with annual exceedance probabilities from-4-8
A detailed site response model provides the basis for development of seismic time histories at the 
emplacement drifts. Different approaches are used for developing time histories depending on 
how they will be used (e.g., in design or in evaluating postclosure repository performance). For 
Yucca Mountain, three approaches have been used to develop time histories: spectral matching, 
scaling to PGV, and scaling to PGV preceded by spectral conditioning. The spectral-matching 
approach is used primarily to develop time histories that will be used in design analyses and is 
not discussed further here. 
analyses, such as the calculations documented in this report. In addition to determining the 
consequences of these low-probability ground motions, another goal is to evaluate the variability 

in the consequences. Because much of the variability in consequences will be driven by random 
variability in ground motion, the time histories for postclosure analyses are developed to capture 
and represent that random variability. 
PGV is selected as the scaling p
appropriate for structural damage caused by sliding or impact under earthquake loads (Newmark 
and Rosenblueth 1971 [DIRS 151246], Section 11.3.5 and Section 11.4). Finally, PGV is also 
appropriate for the response of a rock mass to dynamic loading because the change in stress 
across a weak compression wave is directly proportional to the particle velocity. The 
abstractions in this document therefore use the horizontal PGV as the measure of the amplitude 
of the ground motion. Alternate measures, such as peak ground acceleration or the spectral 
acceleration at a given frequency, are anticipated to give similar results. 
In the PGV-scaling approach, the earthquake recordings are scaled such that the PGV matches 
the PGV determined in the site-response analysis for a location of interest. The records may be 
scaled such that both horizontal components match the target horizontal PGV and the vertical 
component matches the targe
maintain the intercomponent variability of the original recordings. Both of these methods have 
been used at Yucca Mountain. 
For each annual exceedance probability of interest, 17 sets of time histories are developed. Each 
set of time histories consists of acceleration, velocity and displacement in each of two horizontal 
component directions and in the vertical component direction. The site-specific time histories 
are based on actual recordings of strong ground motion from earthquakes in the western United 
States and around the worl
probability of exceedance. In other words, the recordings used as a basis for the time histories 
are selected to have a range of magnitudes and distances that corresponds to the magnitudes and 
distances of earthquakes contributing to the seismic hazard at the given annual exceedance 
probability. By basing the time histories on actual earthquake recordings and choosing records 
consistent with the seismic hazard, the resulting time histories will exhibit realistic phase 
characteristics and durations. 
A variation of the PGV-scaling approach involves spectr
modifies the original strong motion records such that their response spectra reflect to a greater 
degree the site conditions at Yucca Mountain. Conditioning can be done with respect to the 
PSHA reference rock outcrop conditions or to the waste emplacement level conditions that 
reflect the site response. Conditioning can be thought of as a weak spectral match. A strong 
spectral match is not desired in this case because it would tend to reduce the random variability 
of the original recordings. 
For the annual exceedance probability of 10-6 per year, two suites of 17 sets of time histories 
each were developed. The 17 sets of recorded strong ground motion that form part of the basis 
for the time histories were selected to represent the range of magnitudes and distances consistent 

with the range indicated by the PSHA. The first suite consists of time histories for which both 
horizontal components were scaled to the site-specific horizontal 
variability is therefore not maintained for the first suite. Also, the records used to generate the 
time histories were not spectrally conditioned prior to scaling. 
A second suite of time histories for an annual probability of exceedance of 10-6 was developed 
by first spectrally conditioning the records to weakly match Yucca Mountain site conditions 
based on the response spectra for the PSHA reference rock outcrop. Specifically, t
for the PSHA reference rock outcrop at Yucca Mountain were determined. The western U.S. 
response spectra are considered typical of the strong motion records forming the basis for Yucca 
Mountain time histories. These ratios, or transfer functions, were then applied to the response 
spectrum for each of the strong ground motion records to be used in generating time histories. 
Finally, the modified response spectra formed targets for weak spectral matches of the original 
records. Following this conditioning, the records were scaled to the site-specific PGV. In this 
case, only one horizontal component was scaled to the PGV and the other components were 
scaled to preserve the intercomponent variability of the original rec
Two suites of 17 sets of time histories were also de
of 10. For both of these suites, the records forming the basis for the time histories were 
spectrally conditioned prior to scaling. In one case, they were spectrally conditioned to weakly 
match the response spectra for the PSHA reference rock outcrop, similar to the approach for the 
second suite of ground motions for 10-6 annual exceedance probability. In the second case, they 
were conditioned to the site-specific response spectra for the waste emplacement area. 
Analyses of waste package structural response used the most current suite of groun
were available when the calculations were performed. The waste package structural response 
calculations for the 10-6 per year ground motions were performed with the first suite of ground 
motions, wherein the time histories are scaled to the known values of PGV in the horizontal and 
vertical directions; intercomponent variability was not preserved. The waste package structural 
response calculations for the 10-7 per year ground motions were again performed with the first 
suite of ground motions that were spectrally conditioned to the reference rock outcrop and 
preserved the intercomponent variability of the original records. 
1.3.5 Terminology for Ground Motion Level 
The terminology for the ground motion hazard curves and for the suite of ground
hazard curve defines the relationship between the mean estimate of the mean annual frequency of 
exceedance and the amplitude of the vibratory ground motion, measured by PGV. The mean 
annual exceedance frequency represents the mean value of the frequency in any year with which 

one observation to the next. We use the mean of this random number as a measure of how likely 
an event is over any future year. When the mean annual exceedance frequency of interest is 
much less than 1, as it is here, the mean annual exceedance frequency and the annual exceedance 
probability are essentially equal3. This report uses the term exceedance frequency because it is 
more general, although the annual exceedance frequency and annual exceedance probability are 
interchangeable for the very infrequent seismic hazards considered in this study. The ground 
motion hazard curve for this report is based on the mean annual exceedance frequency. 
The effect of vibratory ground motion on the engineered barrier system components is assessed 
for a set of ground motions with a given value of the horizontal PGV.
of 5.35 m/s. These ground motion sets are often referred to as the 10-6 per year and the 10-7 per 
year ground motions (respectively) because PGV values of 2.44 m/s and 5.35 m/s correspond to 
these frequency values on the hazard curve at the emplacement drifts. Unfortunately, this 
convenient terminology is misleading because a seismic event with a PGV of 2.44 m/s will NOT 
occur with a frequency of 10-6 per year. The correspondence o-6
a mean annual frequency of 10-6 per year. In other words, the ensemble of sei
ns with PGV exceeding 2.44 m/s will occur with a mean frequency of 10-6 pe
, the probability of encountering an earthquake with a PGV of exactl
tesimally small, and will certainly not occur with a frequency of 10-6 per yea
e identified by the appropriate value of PGV because the value 

2. METHOD 
The waste package calculations presented in this overview document were conducted using 
commercial FE software. The FE method is a numerical technique in common use for analysis 
of engineering problems in structural dynamics. The method requires discretization of the 
structure as a number of elements that are interconnected by nodal points (the FE mesh). The 
governing equations of motion, subject to imposed boundary and initial conditions, are solved to 
provide the solution of the transient mechanical response of the structure. The boundary and 
initial conditions imposed on a waste package in this particular case are a result of the constraints 
supplied by the emplacement drift, adjacent waste packages, drip shield, and pallet; and from the 
applied dynamic loading conditions. The explicit FE method with the central difference method 
of time integration was employed in all calculations. Results are given in terms of the transient 
induced stresses, strains and displacements. Three-dimensional graphical representation of the 
motion of the waste package as well as the stress and strain states are used to aid in interpretation 
of the results. 
The design of the 21-PWR waste package is used for all calculations and is defined in Repository 
Design, Waste Package, Project 21-PWR Waste Package with Absorber Plates, Sheet 1 of 3, 
Sheet 2 of 3, and Sheet 3 of 3 (BSC 2001 [DIRS 157812]); exceptions are the gap between the 
inner vessel (IV) and the OCB, for which a value of 4 mm was used (Plinsky 2001 
[DIRS 156800], Section 8.1.8), and the OCB thickness, for which a value of 18 mm was 
assumed (Assumption 3.12). The sketch in (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Attachment I) provides 
additional information not included in Repository Design, Waste Package, Project 21-PWR 
Waste Package with Absorber Plates, Sheet 1 of 3, Sheet 2 of 3, and Sheet 3 of 3 (BSC 2001 
[DIRS 157812]). 
The methods for the calculations in the three key reports identified in Table 1-1 are as follows: 
 Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]) 
The structural response calculations were performed using off-the-shelf versions of 
commercially available FE programs. The FE mesh was created with the ANSYS V5.6.2 
FE code (Software Tracking Number [STN] 10364-5.6.2-01, BSC 2002 [DIRS 159357]). 
Calculations were then performed with the LS-DYNA V960.1106 
(STN 10300-960.1106-00, BSC 2002 ([DIRS 158898]) FE code or performed with the 
LS-DYNA V970.3858 (STN 10300-970.3858 D SMP-00, BSC 2003 [DIRS 166139]) 
FE code. All versions of LS-DYNA are simply referred to as LS-DYNA, unless it is 
necessary to distinguish features of different versions. 
These calculations also require design information for the emplacement pallet and drip 
shield. Design of the emplacement pallet (pallet, for brevity, throughout the document) is 
defined in Emplacement Pallet (BSC 2003 [DIRS 161520]); the sketch in Structural 
Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083], Attachment II) provides additional information not included in 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 161520]) (see also Assumption 3.8). Finally, design of the 

interlocking drip shield (DS) used in this calculation is provided in D&E / PA/C IED 
Interlocking Drip Shield and Emplacement Pallet (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220]). 
A set of 15 structural response calculations is performed at each of two different ground 
motion amplitudes: 2.44 m/s PGV and 5.35 m/s PGV level, corresponding to the 10-6 and 
the 10-7 annual exceedance frequencies, respectively. One calculation is also performed 
at each of 0.19 m/s and 0.384 m/s PGV levels, corresponding to the 510-4 and 110-4 
annual exceedance frequencies, respectively. Additionally, three simulations are 
performed using approximate time histories with a 0.992 m/s PGV level, corresponding 
to an annual exceedance frequency of 10-5 per year. These approximate time histories are 
created by scaling the three acceleration components for selected 2.44 m/s PGV level 
time histories, as explained in Section 1.3.5 and in Structural Calculations of Waste 
Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], 
Attachment XI). 
Fifteen ground motion time histories are required for the calculations at the 2.44 m/s and 
5.35 m/s PGV levels. The fifteen ground motions represent the uncertainty in the seismic 
sources and in seismic wave propagation through geologic media, as explained in 
Sections 1.3.3 and 1.3.4. The uncertainty in the ground motions is substantial. For 
example, at the 5.35 m/s PGV level, the first horizontal velocity component is scaled to 
always have a PGV of 5.35 m/s. However, the range in PGV values for the second 
horizontal velocity component is 1.72 m/s to 17.9 m/s, and the range in PGV values for 
the vertical velocity component is 2.27 m/s to 17.1 m/s (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], 
Appendix X). In fact, the uncertainty in the ground motions is the dominant uncertainty 
in the damaged areas from the structural response calculations, as shown by the results in 
Tables 5.3-22 and 5.3-55. 
 21-PWR Waste Package Side and End Impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293]) 
The structural response calculations were performed using off-the-shelf versions of 
commercially available FE programs. ANSYS V5.4 (CRWMS M&O 1998 
[DIRS 153710]) was used to generate the FE meshes. The calculations were then 
performed with the commercially available LS-DYNA V950 FE code (CRWMS M&O 
2000 [DIRS 149714]) or with the LS-DYNA V960.1106 FE code (BSC 2002 
[DIRS 158898]). 
Ground motion time histories are not required for these calculations. Rather, the range of 
impact velocities and impact angles observed in the calculations for Structural 
Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083]) provides the basis for developing a matrix of representative values of the 
impact velocity and impact angle. This matrix and the damaged areas associated with 
each representative impact provide a basis for determining damaged areas by 
interpolation for the multiple waste package-to-waste package impacts in each 
realization, as summarized in Sections 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, and 5.3.3 of this report. 

 Maximum Accelerations on the Fuel Assemblies of a 21-PWR Waste Package During 
End Impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162602]) 
The structural response calculations were performed using off-the-shelf versions of 
commercially available FE programs. ANSYS V5.4 (CRWMS M&O 1998 
[DIRS 153710]) was used to generate the FE meshes. The calculations were then 
performed with the commercially available LS-DYNA V950 FE code 
(CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 149714]) or with the LS-DYNA V960.1106 FE code 
(BSC 2002 [DIRS 158898]). 
Ground motion time histories are not required for these calculations. Rather, the range of 
impact velocities and impact angles observed in the calculations for Structural 
Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]) provides the basis for developing a matrix of representative 
values of the impact velocity and impact angle. This matrix and the g-loads on the fuel 
rod assemblies for each representative impact provide a basis for determining cladding 
failure under the multiple waste package-to-waste package impacts summarized in 
Sections 5.3.1, 5.3.2, and 5.3.3 of this report. 
The methods of the calculations in the supporting documentation for the seismic scenario are as 
follows: 
 21-PWR Waste Package End Impacts  A Mesh Study (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844]) 
This calculation is a supplemental study of mesh sensitivity for the damaged area from 
end impacts. This study is based on the general approach and results for end impact 
calculations documented in 21-PWR Waste Package Side and End Impacts 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293]), with appropriate changes to the FE mesh. The design of the 
21-PWR waste package is used for all calculations and is defined in Repository Design, 
Waste Package, Project 21-PWR Waste Package with Absorber Plates, Sheet 1 of 3, 
Sheet 2 of 3, and Sheet 3 of 3 (BSC 2001 [DIRS 157812]); exceptions are the gap 
between the IV and the OCB, for which a value of 4 mm is used 
(Plinsky 2001 [DIRS 156800], Section 8.1.8), and the OCB thickness, for which a value 
of 18 mm is assumed (Assumption 3.12). All material properties are evaluated at 150C, 
which is the base case for structural response in the seismic scenario. Finally, ground 
motion time histories are not required for these calculations. 
The structural response calculations were performed using off-the-shelf versions of 
commercially available FE programs LS-DYNA Version (V) 970.3858 D SMP-00 and 
LS-DYNA V970.3858 D MMP-00 (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166139] and BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166918]). 
 Additional Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground 
Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168385]) 
This calculation is a supplemental study of the sensitivity of damaged area to the 
conditioning of ground motion time histories. This study is based on the general 

approach and results documented in Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed 
to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]), with appropriate changes for 
the ground motions. 
Four additional calculations are performed with selected ground motions from the 
2.44 m/s PGV level. The original ground motions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]) did not 
preserve intercomponent variability in the original ground motion recordings and were 
not spectrally conditioned. The new ground motions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168385]) 
preserved intercomponent variability in the original ground motion recordings and were 
spectrally conditioned for ground motions typical of the western United States. The 
issues of spectral conditioning and intercomponent variability are discussed in more 
detail in Section 1.3.4. 
The structural response calculations were performed using an off-the-shelf version of 
commercially available FE program LS-DYNA Version (V) 970.3858 D SMP-00 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 166139]). 
 Alternative Damaged Area Evaluation for Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground 
Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170843]) 
This calculation is a supplemental study of the sensitivity of damaged area to the 
interpolation scheme for impact angles between zero degrees and one degree. The 
calculations documented in (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]) determine the timing, speed, and 
impact angle for multiple waste package-to-waste package impacts between adjacent 
waste packages exposed to ground motion time histories. The calculations documented 
in (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293]) define the damaged areas on the waste package that result 
from individual end impacts at specific values of the impact speed and impact angle. 
This matrix of values provides a basis for predicting end-to-end damage under the 
complex kinematics of multiple impacts. The methodology in (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083]) uses a linear interpolation on impact angle to estimate damaged area. 
However, ideal zero degree impacts are anticipated to be extremely unlikely because they 
require perfectly flat contact and because the centerlines of adjacent packages must be 
perfectly collinear. Since it will be very difficult to achieve the ideal zero degree impact, 
it may be more reasonable to estimate damage for low angle impacts (i.e., those below 
1 degree) with the damaged area for a one-degree impact. In other words, all impact 
angles greater than zero and less than one degree are assumed to be one degree for 
purposes of damage estimation. 
This supplemental study consists entirely of recalculating by hand the damaged areas in 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]). No new structural response calculations were performed for 
this study. It follows that ground motion time histories are not required for this study and 
no qualified software is required for this study. 
Damaged area is estimated from the residual stress distribution and a residual stress threshold for 
accelerated stress corrosion cracking of Alloy 22 in (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]) and 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293]). The residual stress threshold is defined as a fraction of the yield 
strength of the OCB material, Alloy 22 [SB-575 N06022], at given temperature. Lower and 

upper thresholds for Alloy 22 are based on 80 percent and 90 percent of the yield strength of 
Alloy 22 (see discussion in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2). The yield strength and other material 
properties are generally evaluated at a temperature of 150C. However, a few simulations use 
100C (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Tables 9 to 11) or 200C (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], 
Attachments V and VIII, and BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Tables 7 and 8) for sensitivity purposes. 
The residual stress distribution is evaluated from plots of the residual first principal stress in the 
OCB of the waste package. These plots are prepared by the postprocessing programs available 
with LS-DYNA. Analysis of the residual first principal stress in these plots identified those 
elements wherein the residual tensile stress exceeded the residual stress threshold for accelerated 
stress corrosion cracking. It is important to acknowledge that this failure criterion is applied in a 
very conservative manner. Namely if an element on either (inner or outer) surface of the OCB 
exceeds the residual stress threshold, then the area fails (i.e., it is considered damaged by 
accelerated stress corrosion cracking) regardless of the residual stress distribution across the 
thickness of the shell. If an element on the outer surface fails, then all elements beneath this 
element are assumed to fail, even though a compressive stress state may arrest crack propagation 
through the OCB. 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

3. ASSUMPTIONS 
The following assumptions are made regarding the FE representations in Structural Calculations 
of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]) and in 
Additional Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 168385]). Assumptions related to calculation of material properties at 100C, 
150C, and 200C are not listed here, but can be found in Section 3 of the referenced documents. 
3.1 The exact geometry of the waste package internals is simplified for this calculation. The 
waste package IV (including the IV lids) and its internals, including SNF, are represented 
by a thick-wall cylinder of 316 stainless steel (SS) with uniform thickness and circular 
cross section (see Section 5.2). The thickness of this cylinder is determined by the 
cumulative mass of these components. The rationale for this assumption is that the IV 
and the SNF affect the results of this calculation predominantly through their total mass 
and overall dimensions. This assumption is used in Section 5.2.1.2. 
3.2 The friction coefficients for metal-to-metal contact and metal-to-rock contact are 
considered random parameters in this calculation. The range of values for both of these 
friction coefficients is 0.2 to 0.8. The rationale for this assumption follows: 
Coefficients of static and sliding friction for various metals and other materials are 
provided in various handbooks (for example, Avallone and Baumeister 1987 
[DIRS 103508], Table 3.2.1, page 3-26). However, the coefficients of friction for the 
specific materials in this calculation are not defined in this handbook. In addition, the 
potential for long-term corrosion to modify the sliding friction must also be considered in 
defining the friction coefficient. In this situation, the appropriate coefficients of friction 
for the repository components have high uncertainty. It is thus appropriate to pick a 
distribution of values for the coefficients of friction that encompass a range of materials 
and a range of mechanical responses from little or no sliding between components to 
substantial sliding between components. 
A distribution of values for the friction coefficient between 0.2 and 0.8 will achieve these 
goals (DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004. [DIRS 161869], Table I-4). First, this distribution 
is broad enough to encompass typical values of the dry sliding friction coefficients for a 
wide variety of metals and other materials (Avallone and Baumeister 1987 
[DIRS 103508], Table 3.2.1, page 3-26). The appropriateness of this range is 
independently confirmed by seismic analyses for spent fuel storage racks 
(DiGrassi 1992 [DIRS 161539]). This distribution is also broad enough to represent a 
range of mechanical response for the waste package, pallet, and drip shield. A friction 
coefficient near 0.2 maximizes sliding of the waste package on the pallet, of the pallet on 
the invert, and of the drip shield on the invert. Similarly, a friction coefficient near 
0.8 minimizes sliding among the various components. This assumption is used in 
Sections 5.2.1.2, 5.2.2.2.1 and 5.2.3.2.1. 

3.3 The variation of functional friction coefficient between the static and dynamic values as a 
function of relative velocity of the contact surfaces is not available in the literature for the 
materials used in this calculation (see Section 5.2.1.2). The effect of relative velocity of 
the contact surfaces is neglected in these calculations by assuming that the functional 
friction coefficient and the static friction coefficient are both equal to the dynamic 
friction coefficient. The impact of this assumption on results presented in this document 
is anticipated to be negligible. The rationale for this conservative assumption is that it 
provides the bounding set of results by minimizing the friction coefficient within the 
given FE analysis framework. This assumption is used in Section 5.2.1.2 and 
corresponds to Mecham 2004 ([DIRS 170673], paragraph 5.2.14.2). 
3.4 The FE representation of the drip shield is simplified in this analysis (see Section 5.2 for 
details), and the density of Titanium Grade 7 (Ti-7) is modified to conserve mass in the 
simplified representation. The impact of this assumption on results presented in this 
document is anticipated to be negligible. The rationale for this assumption is that it 
captures the essential kinematics of freestanding components in the drift while reducing 
the computer execution time. This assumption is used in Section 5.2.1.2. 
3.5 Interactions with neighboring (adjacent) waste packages are represented by using a rigid 
longitudinal boundary that is attached to the invert. That is, for the purposes of 
calculating the damaged area on the waste package, the interaction between adjacent 
waste packages is assumed to be adequately described by a sequence of impacts of the 
waste package on a rigid wall (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293]). The rationale for this 
assumption is that the initial longitudinal distance between adjacent waste packages is 
only 0.1 m (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168489], Table 1). In the course of the strong vibratory 
ground motions considered in this study, it is conceivable but very unlikely that the 
motion of the waste package-pallet assemblies would result in the local pile-up of the 
assemblies along the drift. In this situation, the impact of the adjacent waste package is 
represented by an unyielding, reflective boundary that is fixed to the invert. This 
assumption is used in Section 5.2.1.2. 
This assumption provides a major simplification for the calculations, but is probably 
extremely conservative. Low frequency seismic waves have waste lengths that are much 
longer than the characteristic length scale of the waste package (about 5 meters). In this 
situation, adjacent waste packages are more likely to move in tandem. It follows that the 
damage from end-to-end impacts of adjacent waste packages is overestimated by the 
computational approach. 
3.6 The interaction between the waste package and drip shield through lateral or side impacts 
is not taken into account for the calculation of the total damaged area of the waste 
package. The impact of this assumption on results presented in this document is 
anticipated to be negligible. The rationale for this assumption is twofold. First, the 
waste package is heavier than the drip shield (DS) by a factor of 10 (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083], Attachments I and III); consequently, an impact between the waste 
package and drip shield results in the drip shield being pushed around by the waste 
package without significant deformation of the waste package OCB. Second, the 
interaction between waste package and drip shield takes place at the trunnion collar 

sleeves, which is similar to the interaction from end-to-end impacts. Since the end-to-end 
impacts are much more frequent, and since the waste package is a much stiffer target 
than the drip shield, it is not likely that the side impacts would damage an area that is not 
already damaged by the end impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Tables 4 through 8, for 
impact angles). This assumption is used in Sections 5.3.1.3 and 5.3.2.3. 
3.7 All interactions between the waste package and the longitudinal boundaries (representing 
the neighboring waste package) with impact velocity less than 1 m/s are not included in 
the calculation of damaged area. The impact of this assumption on results presented in 
this document is negligible. The rationale for this assumption is that the damaged area 
for an impact velocity of 1 m/s is either zero or negligible compared to higher impact 
velocities, as presented in Tables 5.3-56 through 5.3-64. This assumption is used in 
Section 5.3.1.2. 
3.8 The longitudinal tubes in the emplacement pallet (Tube 1 in Attachment II of BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083]) are, for the purpose of this calculation, assumed to be made of Alloy 22. 
This assumption has a significant impact on the calculation results. The rationale for this 
assumption is that it is impossible to take structural credit for these tubes as long as they 
are made of 316 SS because of long-term corrosion. Thus, unless this design change is 
made, the pallet is going to fail due to an unacceptable performance (i.e., it would fail to 
support the waste package as intended). This assumption is used in Sections 2, 5.1, and 
5.2. 
3.9 The waste package rests on two cradles formed by the opposite ends of the 
emplacement pallet, and either cradle may damage the OCB of the waste package if the 
vertical impact velocity is large enough. However, the damaged area of the OCB due to 
the waste package-pallet interaction is evaluated only on one side of the waste package, 
in a finely meshed OCB region (see Section 5.2.1.2 for details). The total damaged area 
due to the waste package-pallet interaction is calculated by assuming that the damaged 
areas on either end of the waste package are the same (i.e., by multiplying by two the 
damaged area evaluated on one side). The rationale for this assumption is that the 
number and intensity of impacts on the two ends should be statistically similar. The 
rationale for this approach is that the waste package is symmetric, there is no spatial 
variability of friction coefficients, and the ground motion is uniformly applied to the 
invert, consequently the number and intensity of impacts on two ends should be similar. 
Obviously, the damaged areas on the two ends may be somewhat different due to the 
random nature of the event, but, on average, there should be no reason for a bias or 
preference. This assumption is used in Section 5.3.1.1 and Section 5.3.2.1. 
3.10 The waste package is assumed to be symmetric about its mid-plane. Both waste package 
ends are represented based on the bottom-end configuration (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], 
Attachment I and BSC 2001 [DIRS 157812]). This simplification has no effect on the 
results, as obtained in this calculation. The rationale for this assumption is that it 
simplifies the FE representation, without affecting the calculation results. This 
assumption is used in Section 5.2.1.2. 

3.11 The temperature of the waste package is assumed to be 150C for temperature-dependent 
material properties. A temperature of 150C is appropriate and reasonable for evaluation 
of material properties at the time of the seismic event. This value (150C) is conservative 
for evaluation of material properties during 98.5 percent of the first 10,000 years after 
repository closure. This result is based on a thermal analysis for an open drift with three 
infiltration levels and five host-rock units (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169565], Figure 6.3-7 
through Figure 6.3-11). The peak waste package temperature ranges from 147.4C to 
177.8C (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169565], Table 6.3-8). The waste package temperature time 
histories demonstrate that temperature exceeds 150C for, at most, the first 150 years 
after ventilation ceases. In some cases, the temperature never exceeds 150C for certain 
infiltration levels and host rock units. Since the time period when temperature exceeds 
150C is never greater than 150 years, it follows that evaluating material properties such 
as the yield strength at 150C is conservative for at least 98.5 percent of the 10,000 year 
regulatory period or 99.25 percent of the first 20,000 years after repository closure. This 
assumption is used in Sections 5.1 and 5.2.2.1. 
3.12 The thickness of the waste package OCB is reduced by 2 mm to represent degradation of 
the package from general corrosion. The rationale for this assumption is that the 
thickness reduction of 2 mm over the period of 10,000 years to 20,000 years corresponds 
to very high rates of general corrosion. For example, the median general corrosion rate is 
51.8 nanometers per year at 150C (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169984], Section 8.1). This rate 
leads to a maximum thickness loss of 0.518 mm after 10,000 years or 1.036 mm after 
20,000 years. Similarly, the maximum rate of general corrosion is 256 nanometers per 
year, based on the 99.99th percentile corrosion rate at 150C (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169984], 
Section 8.1). This rate leads to a maximum thickness loss of 2.56 mm after 10,000 years 
or 5.12 mm after 20,000 years. Both rates have a very conservative bias because 
(1) waste package temperature is significantly less than 150C during 98.5 percent of the 
first 10,000 years after repository closure (see discussion for Assumption 3.11), and 
(2) the maximum corrosion rate is based on the 99.99th percentile. Given the 
conservative biases in these estimates, a thickness reduction of 2 mm is a reasonable 
representation of degradation of the waste package OCB during the 10,000 year 
regulatory period or during the first 20,000 years after repository closure. This 
assumption is used in Sections 5.2.1.2, 5.2.2.2.1, 5.2.3.2.1, 5.2.4.2 and 5.2.5.2. 
The calculations documented in 21-PWR Waste Package Side and End Impacts (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 162293]), in Maximum Accelerations on the Fuel Assemblies of a 21-PWR Waste 
Package During End Impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162602]), and in 21-PWR Waste Package End 
Impacts  A Mesh Study (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844]) use assumptions 3.3 and 3.12, plus the 
following additional assumptions: 
3.13 The exact geometry of the 21-PWR fuel assemblies is simplified for the purpose of this 
calculation in such a way that its total mass is assumed to be distributed within a bar of 
square cross section with uniform mass density. The rationale for this assumption is to 
simplify the FE representation while providing a set of bounding results. This 
assumption is used in Section 5.2.2.2.1, 5.2.3.2.1 and corresponds to Mecham 
(2004 [DIRS 170673], paragraph 5.2.9.1). 

3.14 The material used to represent the fuel assemblies is 304 SS. The rationale for this 
assumption is that the end fittings are made of 304 SS (Punatar 2001 [DIRS 155635], 
Section 2.1, page 2-4) and they are the parts that will come in contact with other 
components. This assumption is used in Sections 5.1, 5.2.2.2.1, 5.2.3.2.1 and 5.2.4.2 and 
corresponds to Mecham (2004 [DIRS 170673], paragraph 5.2.9.2). 
3.15 The following design parameters are assumed for the 21-PWR SNF assemblies to be 
loaded into a 21-PWR waste package: mass = 773.4 kg, width = 216.9 mm, and 
length = 4407 mm. The rationale for this assumption is that these parameters correspond 
to the B&W (Babcock & Wilcox) 15x15 fuel assembly, which is the heaviest 21-PWR 
fuel assembly available (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170803], Table 3-3). The mass of the B&W 
fuel assembly has been increased by 25 lbs (11.4 kg) to account for variations in fuel 
assembly mass. It should be noted that South Texas 21-PWR fuel assemblies will not be 
disposed in the 21-PWR waste package, and are therefore excluded from this 
assumption. This assumption is used in Section 5.2.2.2 and corresponds to 
Mecham (2004 [DIRS 170673], paragraph 5.2.9.5). 
3.16 The target surface is assumed to be unyielding (i.e. elastic), and A 36 carbon steel (CS) is 
used to represent it in the FE analysis. The rationale for this assumption was that this 
material has a high modulus of elasticity compared to concrete and it is known that the 
use of an unyielding surface with high modulus of elasticity would ensure conservative 
results in terms of residual stresses in the waste package. This assumption is used in 
Section 5.1, 5.2.1.2, 5.2.2.2.1, 5.2.3.2.1, and 5.2.4.1 and corresponds to Mecham 
(2004 [DIRS 170673], paragraph 5.2.8.1). 
3.17 It is assumed that the dynamic (sliding) friction coefficient is 0.5 for all contacts because 
the friction coefficients for the materials in this calculation are not available in the 
literature. The rationale for this assumption is that this friction coefficient represents a 
typical value for most metal-on-metal contacts (Avallone and Baumeister 1987 
[DIRS 103508], Table 3.2.1, pp. 3-26). This assumption is used in Section 5.2.2.2.1 and 
5.2.3.2.1. 
The hand calculations documented in Alternate Damaged Area Evaluation for Waste Package 
Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170843]) require one additional 
assumption: 
3.18 All impact angles between the waste package and the longitudinal boundary greater than 
zero and less than one degree are assumed to be one degree for the purpose of the 
damaged area calculation. The results from the single end impact calculations for the 
waste package (see Tables 5.3-56 and 5.3-57 in this report) demonstrate that the damaged 
area for a zero degree impact is substantially less than that for a one degree impact at the 
same impact speed. In this situation, a simple linear interpolation of damaged area values 
between zero and one degree may not be conservative. That is, the damaged area for a 
0.2 degree impact may be more similar to the damaged area for a one degree impact 
because the load is not spread perfectly uniformly on the trunnion collar sleeve, as occurs 
for a zero degree impact. 

Resetting impact angles that are greater than zero and less than one degree to one degree 
is conservative because damage is greater for the one-degree impact angle at a given 
impact velocity. The rationale for this approach is that it provides the bounding set of 
results. This assumption is used in Section 5.3.8.3. 

4. USE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE 
Although the underlying reports listed in Table 1-1 and summarized in Section 2 use qualified 
software, no software has been used in the preparation of this report. For the readers 
convenience, the software codes and versions used in the underlying reports are summarized in 
Table 4-1. The operating systems, CPU numbers, input files, and output files for all calculations 
are provided in the reports listed in Table 1-1, but are not repeated here. 
Table 4-1. Software for Structural Response Calculations 
Code Name 
Version 
Use 
Documentation 
ANSYS 
V5.6.2 
Mesh generation 
BSC 2002 [DIRS 159357] 
ANSYS 
V5.4 
Mesh generation 
CRWMS M&O 1998 
[DIRS 153710] 
TrueGrid 
V2.1.5 
Mesh generation 
N/A  Exempt Software 
LS-DYNA 
V950 
Structural response 
CRWMS M&O 2000 
[DIRS 149714] 
LS-DYNA 
V960.1106 
Structural response 
BSC 2002 [DIRS 158898] 
LS-DYNA 
V970.3858 D SMP-00 
Structural response 
BSC 2003 [DIRS 166139] 
LS-DYNA 
V970.3858 D MMP-00 
Structural response 
BSC 2003 [DIRS 166918] 
LSPOST 
V2.0 
Post-processing of computational 
results 
N/A  Exempt Software 
LS-PREPOST 
V1.0 
Post-processing of computational 
results 
N/A  Exempt Software 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

5. CALCULATION 
Throughout Section 5, ground motions are identified by the appropriate value of PGV because 
the value of PGV provides a unique and unambiguous identifier for each set of ground motions, 
even when multiple hazard curves have been developed for a site. Often, the original source 
information is given in annual exceedance frequency, which is then converted to PGV for use in 
this text. For the readers convenience, the following list repeats the correspondence identified 
in Section 1.3.5: 
 PGV of 0.19 m/s corresponds to the 5x10-4 per year exceedance frequency. 
 PGV of 0.384 m/s corresponds to the 10-4 per year exceedance frequency. 
 PGV of 1.05 m/s corresponds to the 10-5 per year exceedance frequency. 
 PGV of 2.44 m/s corresponds to the 10-6 per year exceedance frequency. 
 PGV of 5.35 m/s corresponds to the 10-7 per year exceedance frequency. 
5.1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES 
Material properties at room temperature and at elevated temperatures are defined in the 
individual design calculations listed in Table 1-1. Details of the assumptions for and the 
calculation of the material properties at 100C, 150C and 200C are provided in the individual 
design calculations, and will not be repeated here because no calculations are performed in this 
document. The following summary identifies the major materials for the waste package 
structural response calculations: 
 SB-575 N06022 (Alloy 22) (OCB of waste package, OCB lids, upper and lower trunnion 
collar sleeves, IV support ring, and pallet (see Assumption 3.8)) 
 SA-240 S31600 (316 SS) (IV, IV lids, shear ring, and shell interface ring) 
 SA-240 S30400 (304 SS) (21-PWR fuel assemblies, see Assumption 3.14) 
 SA-516 K02700 (A 516 Grade 70 Carbon Steel [CS]) (basket guides and stiffeners, fuel 
basket plates and tubes) 
 SA-36 K02600 (A 36 Carbon Steel) (unyielding surface for the side and end impact 
calculations; see Assumption 3.16) 
 SB-265 R52400 (Titanium Grade 7 [Ti-7]) (drip shield plates) 
 TSw2 Rock (the drift walls). 
Table 5.1-1 lists typical material properties of these materials at 150C. 

Table 5.1-1. Typical Material Properties at 150C 
Alloy 22a
316 SSa
304 SSb
516 CSb
A 36 CSb
Ti-7a
TSw2a
Density (kg/m3) 
8690 
7980 
N/A 
7850 
7860 
N/A 
2370 
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 
199 
186 
186 
195 
203 
101 
33.0 
Poissons ratio (-) 
0.278 
0.298 
0.29 
0.3 
0.3 
0.32 
0.21 
Yield strength (MPa) 
310 
161 
154 
232 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
Tangent modulus (GPa)c
1.77 
1.94 
1.69 
3.08 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
a BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Sections 5.1, 5.1.1, and 5.3. 
b BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844], Section 5.1.1 and Table 3 in Section 5.1.3. 
c Tangent (hardening) modulus defines the slope of the stress-strain curve in the hardening (plastic) region. 
TSw2 = Topopah Spring welded-lithophysal poor tuff 
5.2 FE REPRESENTATIONS 
5.2.1 FE Representation for Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to 
Vibratory Ground Motion 
5.2.1.1 Objective and Methodology 
The objective of this calculation is to determine the residual stress distribution in the OCB of a 
waste package under vibratory ground motion, and to estimate the area of the waste package 
OCB for which the residual first principal stress exceeds the residual stress threshold. This area 
is called the damaged area in this document. 
A set of 15 calculations for dynamic waste package structural response are performed for the 
suite of ground motions with a PGV of 2.44 m/s (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Section 6.1). A 
similar set of calculations is also performed for a PGV of 5.35 m/s (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], 
Section 6.2). These values for PGV correspond to the peak of the first horizontal velocity 
component, which is always in a horizontal plane and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction 
for the structural response calculations (the longitudinal direction runs along the centerline of the 
drift). The stochastic (uncertain) input parameters for the 15 simulations are 15 sets of 
three-component ground motion time histories, the metal-to-metal friction coefficient, and the 
metal-to-rock friction coefficient. A Monte Carlo sampling scheme defines the appropriate 
combinations of ground motion and friction coefficients (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169999], Section 6.4) 
for each PGV level. The sampled values of these stochastic parameters are listed in Table 5.2-1, 
with the friction coefficients rounded to two significant figures. 
Each FE simulation is performed in three steps. The first step calculates the transient vibratory 
motion and impacts. The goal of this step is to compute the deformation of the waste package 
during the dynamic impacts between package and emplacement pallet. During this 
computational phase the three components of ground-motion acceleration time history are 
simultaneously applied to all invert nodes. The stochastic (uncertain) input parameters for 
15 simulations corresponding to the 2.44 m/s PGV level and for 15 simulations corresponding to 
the 5.35 m/s PGV level are listed in Table 5.2-1 (DTN: MO0301SPASIP27.004 [DIRS 161869], 
Table I-4). No system damping or contact damping is applied during the transient vibratory 
simulations. This admittedly conservative approach is used in order to prevent unwanted 
influence of damping on the rigid-body motion of unanchored structures. 

Table 5.2-1. Values of Randomly Sampled Input Parameters for Each Realization 
Realization 
Number 
Ground 
Motion 
Number 
Friction Coefficient (-) 
Metal 
to metal 
Metal 
to rock 
1 
7 
0.80 
0.34 
2 
16 
0.33 
0.49 
3 
4 
0.50 
0.62 
4 
8 
0.60 
0.22 
5 
11 
0.20 
0.24 
6 
1 
0.27 
0.69 
7 
2 
0.71 
0.60 
8 
13 
0.56 
0.54 
9 
10 
0.55 
0.36 
10 
9 
0.36 
0.41 
11 
5 
0.42 
0.67 
12 
6 
0.65 
0.73 
13 
12 
0.75 
0.31 
14 
14 
0.29 
0.45 
15 
3 
0.46 
0.78 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.1-1. 
The second step of the simulation is the post-vibratory relaxation. The goal of this step is to 
obtain steady-state results (i.e., residual stresses) at the end of the ground motion. During this 
computational phase, the motion of the invert nodes is fixed in all three directions, and the only 
load applied to freestanding objects is the acceleration of gravity. In addition, system damping is 
applied globally (to all objects) to accelerate the convergence to steady-state results (see 
Section 5.2.1.4 for details). The specified duration of this post-vibratory relaxation part of 
simulation is such to allow for the steady-state stresses to establish; most of the time duration of 
0.5 s suffices. 
The third step of the analysis is comparison of the first principal residual stress with the residual 
stress threshold for accelerated corrosion cracking of Alloy 22. The goal of this step is to 
determine the damaged areas wherein the first principal stress exceeds the residual tensile 
stress threshold for Alloy 22. If an element on the surface of the waste package OCB exceeds 
this threshold, then its area is included in the total damaged area, independent of the stress state 
through the thickness of the waste package OCB. This is a conservative approach because it 
ignores the potential for a compressive stress profile through the thickness of the OCB to arrest 
crack propagation. 

5.2.1.2 FE Representation 
As seen in Figure 5.2-1, it represents the components of the three-dimensional FE representation 
for the vibratory ground-motion simulations. Figure 5.2-2 presents a cut-away view (portions of 
various parts are removed to offer a more revealing outlook) showing details of the waste 
package and emplacement pallet. As shown in these figures, the FE representation consists of 
the waste package mounted on its emplacement pallet, the surrounding drip shield, the invert 
surface, and the lateral and longitudinal boundaries. The longitudinal boundary represents the 
neighboring waste package/pallet assembly (Assumption 3.5), while the lateral boundary 
represents the drift walls. The FE representation is developed in ANSYS V5.6.2, based on the 
dimensions provided in the Emplacement Pallet report (BSC 2003 [DIRS 161520]), the 
Repository Design, Waste Package, Project 21-PWR Waste Package with Absorber Plates, Sheet 
1 of 3, Sheet 2 of 3, and Sheet 3 of 3 report (BSC 2001 [DIRS 157812]), and the Structural 
Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion report (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083], Attachments I, II, and III). The FE representations are then used in LS-DYNA 
V960.1106 and LS-DYNA V970.3858 to perform a transient analysis of the waste package 
exposed to vibratory ground motion. 
The average waste package skirt-to-skirt spacing is 0.1 meters in the high temperature operating 
mode (BSC [DIRS 168489], Table 1). Thus, the distance between the waste package 
(specifically, the trunnion collar sleeve [i.e., the skirt]) and the longitudinal boundary 
(representing the neighboring package and emplacement pallet) is 0.1 meters. 
Three components of the acceleration time history are simultaneously applied on the platform 
representing the top surface of the invert for each ground motion. The same acceleration time 
history is applied to all platform nodes simultaneously, resulting in zero deformation of the 
invert. The invert surface is represented in LS-DYNA as an elastic material. 
The externally applied momentum from the ground motion is transferred to all freestanding 
(unanchored) objects solely by friction and impact. The lateral and longitudinal boundaries 
move synchronously with the platform and are rigid. In effect, these boundaries act like rigid 
members that are fixed to the platform. 
Both ends of the waste package are represented as the bottom-end configuration 
(Assumption 3.10) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Attachment I and BSC 2001 [DIRS 157812]). 
The details of the waste package top end, such as the extended OCB lid and closure lid, are not 
explicitly represented and their mass is taken into account by increasing the thickness of the 
OCB lid. The thickness of the waste package OCB is reduced by 2 mm (from 20 mm to 18 mm; 
see Assumption 3.12) to represent degradation of the OCB over a 10,000 year to 20,000 year 
period. It needs to be emphasized that this is not a rigorous evaluation of shell thickness due to 
corrosion or potential corrosion-acceleration effects. Rather, a thickness reduction of 2 mm is a 
reasonable conservatism within the stated objective of this calculation. 
The waste package OCB, the trunnion collar sleeve, and the boundary walls are represented by 
8-node solid (brick) elements. The constant-stress 8-node solid element (Livermore Software 
Technology Corporation 2003 [DIRS 166841], p. 26.30) with one-point Gaussian quadrature 
(Hallquist 1998 [DIRS 155373], Section 3) is used for all vibratory ground motion calculations. 

The part of the OCB that can come in contact with the pallet (see Figures 5.2-3 and 5.2-7; also 
identified by regions F and C in Fig. 5.2-4) is the most important area for these calculations. The 
FE representation for this region of the OCB is finely meshed on one side of the waste package 
(region F in Figure 5.2-4), with four layers of brick elements across the OCB thickness and a 
relatively dense in-plane mesh. The corresponding OCB region on the other side (region C in 
Figure 5.2-4) is more coarsely meshed with only two layers of brick elements across the 
thickness (see Figures 5.2-3 and 5.2-4). These two parts of the waste package OCB are 
represented as elastoplastic, with linear kinematic hardening. 
Time = 0 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Figure 1. 
Figure 5.2-1. Initial Configuration for Waste Package Vibratory Simulations for Ground Motions at the 
2.44 m/s PGV Level 

Time = 0 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Figure 2. 
Figure 5.2-2. Cut-Away View of Initial Configuration for Waste Package Vibratory Simulations 

Time = 0 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Figure 3. 
Figure 5.2-3. The Emplacement Pallet and Two Regions on the Outer Surface of the Waste Package 
That Can Come in Contact with the Pallet 
All damage resulting from the waste package-pallet interaction during the vibratory ground 
motion reported in this document are based on the part of the OCB designated by region F in 
Figure 5.2-4. The part of the OCB designated by region C (Figure 5.2-4), although coarsely 
meshed compared to region F, is still relatively finely meshed compared to the remaining part of 
the OCB (regions P and R in Figure 5.2-4) in order to ensure proper waste package-pallet 
interaction and the resulting rigid-body motions. The main purpose of the coarsely zoned parts 
of the mesh, designed P and R in Figure 5.2-4, is to provide appropriate boundary conditions for 
the more finely zoned F and C parts of the mesh. The main difference between parts of the OCB 
designated as P and R is that P is represented as elastoplastic (linear kinematic hardening) while 
R is rigid. The waste package components (excluding IV and IV lids) represented as rigid bodies 
are presented in Figures 5.2-5 and 5.2-7b. 
Region F is especially important for the vibratory ground motion calculations because the stress 
state and damaged area are evaluated only for this region on the cylindrical surface of the waste 
package OCB. The two regions of the OCB that can contact the pallet, F and C, are connected to 
the remaining part of the OCB (P and R) by tied-interface contacts (Hallquist 1998 
[DIRS 155373], Section 23.9; and Livermore Software Technology Corporation 2001 
[DIRS 159166], page 6.29). 

Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Figure 4. 
Figure 5.2-4. Side View of OCB of Waste Package, Showing Variations in FE Grid 
The waste package IV and its lid, pallet, and drip shield are represented by shell elements. Shell 
elements provide an adequate representation of these components because their dominant mode 
of deformation is bending. Additionally, this analysis is focused on the waste package OCB, so 
the stress states in the IV, pallet, and drip shield are of secondary importance. The IV and IV 
lids, and drip shield are represented as rigid bodies (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Attachment VI) 
in order to reduce the computer execution time while preserving all the features relevant for the 
solution. The shell element used for representation of the pallet is fully-integrated 4-node shell 
element with Gauss integration and three integration points through the shell thickness 
(Livermore Software Technology Corporation 2003 [DIRS 166841], p. 26.22). 
The pallet is represented as elastoplastic but it is very coarsely meshed for the calculations at the 
2.44 m/s PGV level (see Fig. 5.2-6). The coarse mesh of the pallet, necessitated by 
computer-execution-time considerations, results in an artificial increase of the pallet stiffness. In 
other words, the pallet is not as flexible as in reality and some of the cushioning effect of the 
pallet on the waste package is lost. The ultimate consequences of the coarse pallet mesh are an 
increase in the relative motion between the waste package and pallet, and an increase in 
deformation and residual stress in the OCB. Both of these effects are conservative for this 
analysis. Nonetheless, the pallet mesh has been refined (see Fig. 5.2-6b) for the calculations for 
the 5.35 m/s PGV level to prevent excessive relative motion and ensure more realistic results. 
This change is motivated by the much higher intensity of the ground motion at the 5.35 m/s PGV 
level in comparison to the 2.44 m/s level. 

(b) 
NOTE: IV and IV lids excluded. 
Figure 5.2-5. Parts of the Waste Package Rep 
(a) 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Figure 6. 
NOTE: (a) 2.44 m/s PGV calculations, (b) 5.35 m/s PGV calculations. 
Figure 5.2-6. Front View of Pallet Mesh 

The internal structure of the 21-PWR waste package is simplified by representing the IV and all 
waste package internals, including the fuel assemblies, as a thick-wall cylinder of circular cross 
section and uniform density (Assumption 3.1). The outside diameter of the IV is kept 
unchanged. The thickness of the IV is determined by using the material properties (including 
density) of 316 SS, and matching the total mass of the IV and internals as presen
[DIRS 167083], Attachment I). The benefit of this approach is a reduction in the computer 
execution time while preserving all features of the problem relevant to the structural response. 
The FE representation of the 21-PWR waste package maximizes the loose-fit gap between the IV 
and OCB to 4 mm (Plinski 2001 [DIRS 156800], Section 8.1.8). Consequently, the IV is free to 
move within the OCB. This maximized gap provides a conservatively bounding set of results, as 
demonstrated in 21-PWR Waste Package Side and End Impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], 
Attachment II). 
The drip shield has a simplified FE representation (Assumption 3.4). The drip shield is 
represented as a rigid shell structure following the contour of the actual drip shield presented in 
Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083], Attachment III). All of the structural details of the drip shield are ignored. The 
drip shield is assumed to be made completely of Ti-7 and the density of Ti-7 is modified to 
match the total mass of the drip shield. These simplifications make it possible to capture the 
essential kinematics of freestanding components in the drift, while reducing the computer 
execution time. The impact of these simplifications in representation of the drip shield on the 
computational results presented in this document is anticipated to be negligible. 
T
and metal-to-rock contacts. In other words, the friction coefficients vary from r

(a) 
(b) 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Figure 7. 
NOTE: (a) Extended finely-meshed OCB region; (b) Rigid parts. 
Figure 5.2-7. Modifications in FE Represen
The functional friction coefficient used by LS-DYNA is defined in terms of static and dynamic 
friction coefficients, and relative velocity of the surfaces in contact (Livermore Software 
Technology Corporation. 2001 [DIRS 159166], page 6.9). The effect of relative velocity 
between contact surfaces is represented by a fitting parameter, called the exponential decay 
coefficient. However, this parameter cannot be defined for these calculations because the 
variation of static and dynamic friction coefficients are not available for Alloy 22 and Ti-7. In 
this situation, the effect 
dynamiciction coefficient. This approach maxim
framework (Assumption 3.3). The friction coefficient affects the onset of sliding and dissipation 
components as a function of the ground msity. However, the importance of friction is anticipated to dim
n level because the engineered barrier system components begin to slide almost 
diately for high-amplitude ground motions. 
esh of the FE representation was appropriately generated and refined in the contact regions 
ding to standard engineering practice. Thus, the accuracy and representativeness of the 
this calculation are deemed acceptable (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Attac
gh IX for discussion of results). The uncertainties are taken into account by random 
ling (from appropriate probability distributions) of the calculation inputs that are inherently 
ncertain) an
and friction coefficients). 

5.2.1.3 Ground-Motion Time History Cutoff 
The structural response calculations for the waste package are computationally intense because: 
(1) The FE representation is quite detailed (Section 5.2.1.2) 
(2) The calculations are highly nonlinear, with large deformation plasticity, friction, and 
impacts 
(3) The computational time step is quite small to ensure numerical stability of the 
conditionally-stable explicit FE method (typically one microsecond or less) 
(4) The ground motion duration is quite long, typically 30 to 40 seconds, relative to the 
time ste
Given these factors, it is attractive to reduce the duration of the calculations by considering only 
that portion of the ground-motion time history that causes changes in the damaged area. 
For the ground motions at the 2.44 m/s PGV level, the computational duration is usually 
restricted to the 5 percent to 95 percent levels of ground motion energy, where energy is based 
on all three components of the ground motion. Measured by Arias Intensity -
energy delivered to structures. For a definition, see Kremer (1996 [DIRS 103337], 
Section 3.3.4). For brevity, the minimum time corresponding to the 5 percent level of the ground 
motion energy is called the 5 %-time, and the maximum time corresponding to the 95 percent 
level of the ground motion energy is called the 95 % time. 
All simulations for ground motions at the 5.35 m/s PGV level are performed from the 
5 percent-time to the 90 percent level of the ground motion energy, referred to as the 
90 %-time. Thus, the starting times for the 2.44 m/s and 5.35 m/s PGV level coincide with the 
5 percent-time, while the ending time for the 5.35 m/s PGV level has been reduced to the 
90 percent-time. 
able 5.2-2 presents the characteristic times for the 2.44 m/s PGV level calculations (BSC 2004
e and end timulations
e f 
the
und t
ns (denotedhe FE 
as FE Starrt timehe 9
-time, 95 percent-timme and F
ime for mo
equal to t
5 perce
y sub
ng th
e r
ons, the starting tim
t-tim
omp 
per
on (
ble 5.
Simi
e FE
e ha
ied
5 
tim
few 
amin
nsit
dam
toff
ning
volu
f dam
ter 
1
, Att
nt V
n the
hand
tion
, an
ot 
Ex
bra
roun
tion (BS
2004
S 16
Tab
d ar
ome

hara
Simul
or 2.4
V Gr
Dura 
5%- 
ime 
Staime
95%- 
Time 
Time 
to 95
Motion 
Number 
T 
(s) 
T 
(s) (s) 
2 0.58 0.41 8.13 8.41 7.6 8.0 7 
3 1.7 1.5 5.04 5.00 3.4 3.5 15 
4 1.3 1.1 15.0 13.9 13.7 12.8 3 
5 2.0 2.0 10.3 10.3 8.3 8.3 11 
6 2.3 2.3 9.96 11.2 7.7 8.9 12 
7 4.0 4.0 11.6 12.9 7.6 8.9 1 
8 1.1 1.1 5.99 6.80 4.9 5.7 4 
9 0.79 
11 2.1 2.1 10.3 10.3 8.2 8.2 5 
1.4 1.4 13.6 12.9 
7.2 
3.8 
1.85 
7.2 
3.8 
21.5 
11.8 
15.4 15.1 
18.2 14.3 
10.9 
9.0 
04
7083
5.2.1.1
se
haracteristic tim
44 m
erce
el of 
in t
ulatio
0 per
nt V
le V
ine th
toff
time-historyu. 
Characteristic Times and Duration of Simulations for the 5 
GroundMotion 
E Star 
Time
n of Simula 
Time 
ealization
(s) 
(s) 
(s) 
1 
0.85 
5.21 
4.36 
6 
2 
0.41 
6.05 
5.47 
7 
3 
1.5 
3.64 
1.94 
15 
4 
1.1 
10.2 
8.90 
3 
5 2.0 7.46 
6 2.3 9.20 6.90 12 
7 4.0 11.1 7.10 1 
8 1.1 5.12 4.02 4 
9 0.6 6.98 6.19 10 
10 1.6 7.66 6.06 9 

Table 5.2-3. Characteristic Times and Duration of Simulations for the 5 Percent-90 Percent Energy 
Range at the 2.44 m/s PGV Ground Motion Level (Continued) 
GroundMotion 
Number 
FE Start 
Time 
(s) 
90% Time(s) 
Duration of Simulation to 
90% Time 
(s) 
Realization 
Number 
11 2.1 8.30 6.20 5 
12 1.4 12.2 10.8 13 
13 1.85 12.7 10.8 8 
14 7.2 19.8 12.6 14 
16 3.8 9.57 5.77 2 
ource: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 5.2.1.2. 
s the charac
2.1.2). Tons 
times 
e 5.2-4n t
r the 5.35 m/s PGV lerc 
90 percent4 presen
ts the 5 petimes. Fi
nt time, 
y, Tabl
on
arac
tim
tio
C 20
IRS
.1.2) 
case, as discussed 
e pre 
in t 
th
ig
digits. T
e mo
erence between 2.44 
ns 
he l 
run 
to 
]
S 1
, A
nt V
d it
riate
mulation
5.35 m/s PG
arac
90% 
ratio
latio
GroundTime 5% to 95%
Motion 
Number 
5%-Time 
(s) 
2 0.80 5.8 5.0 5.0 7 
3 1.75 3.45 1.7 1.7 15 
4 1.5 11.8 10.3 10.3 3 
5 1.7 9.3 7.6 7.6 11 
6 2.4 
8 1.2 5.1 3.9 3.9 4 
9 0.70 6.7 6.0 6.0 
15.2 13.3 13.3 8 
21.0 15.7 15.7 14 
16 3.4 9.0 5.6 5.6 2 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 5.2.1.3. 

5.2.1.4 System Damping 
In order to obtain steady-state results (i.e., residual stresses) in a reasonable time, it is necessary 
to apply damping during the second post-vibratory relaxation step of the computational process. 
The system damping is strictly a numerical technique for accelerating convergence to the 
steady-state stress state after the transient simulation is completed.
elements and nodes of the FE grid. 
As discussed in Hallquist (1998 [DIRS 1553
sradsradDC70035022min===., 
where srad350562min=p. is the minimum non-zero frequency of the waste package 
OCB (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Attachment X [Modal Analysis/wpp6Bmod.out, line #6517]). 
Since the engineered barrier system components are unanchored in these calculations, the 
damping constant is reduced to sradDC200= to avoid over-damping the system. 
Furthermore, the parametric study of various damping constants presented in 21-PWR Waste 
Package Side and End Impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 16
choice. The system is obviously not over-damped, and a steady state is reached in reasonable 
time (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Figure 4, page 21). 
5.2.2 FE Representation for 21-PWR Waste Package Side and End Impacts 
5.2.2.1 Objectives and Methodology 
The objective of these calculations is to determine the damage to a 21-PWR waste package from 
end-to-end impacts of adjacent waste packages and from side-on impacts of a waste package. 
These structural response calculations are based on a relatively detailed FE mesh to determine 
damaged areas more accurately than is possible in Structural Calculations of Waste Package 
Exposed to Vibratory Ground Moti
process because the long duration of ground motions and the complexity of the FE representation 
in Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083]) precludes such a detailed analysis. 
These calculations represent a parametric study of waste package impact as a function of 
six values of the impact velocity and up to four values of the impact angle (see Figures 5.2-8 and 
5.2-9 below). The end-to-end impact calculations are performed with vertical rigid walls at 
0.1 m spacing from the ends of the waste package. This b
as a FE structure. The use of a rigid, unyielding sur
reduces the computational mesh by a factor of two and also provides a conservative 
representation of the damaged area. The damaged area with an unyielding surface will generally 
damaged area with an adjacent waste package because the unyielding surface 
aximizing impact stresses and deformation of the waste pack

M
after reposd
re
fo
e
T
F 
Initial velocity 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Figure 2. 
Figure 5.2-8. Initial Position of the Waste Package for the End Impacts 
For side impacts: Initial velocity is 1 m/s, 2 m/s, 4 m/s, 6 m/s, 10 m/s, and 20 m/s; Initial angle 
between the axis of the waste package and the horizontal (a in Figure 5.2-9) is 
0 degrees, 1 degree, and 8 degrees. 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Figure 3. 
Figure 5.2-9. Initial Position of the Waste Package for the Side Impacts 
a 
a 
Initial velocity 

The selected impact velocity range from 1 m/s to 20 m/s and impact angle range from 0 to 
8 degrees were anticipated to be sufficiently wide to encompass all velocities and angles 
encountered during simulations of the vibratory ground motion. The appropriateness of this 
selection was confirmed by the results of the vibratory ground motion simulations (Tables 5.3-2 
through 5.3-15 and Tables 5.3-24 through 5.3-38). 
5.2.2.2.1 Description of FE Representation 
There are ten different variations of the FE mesh (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Table III-1 for a 
complete list) for an essentially same FE representation. The different meshes are used for the 
purpose of computational economy. Following a standard engineering practice, the mesh of the 
OCB is refined in the region where significant deformations and residual stresses are expected 
(i.e., region of interest). The remaining part of the mesh is coarser to reduce the simulation 
running time. The extent of the region of interest depends on the 
and angle of impact). For example, B and C (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], 
he reater damaged area extension due to the greater impact velocity. The initial 
tion for 5-degree end impact of the 21-PWR waste package is illustrated in
imensional FE representation of the waste package was developed in ANSYS V5.4 
dimensions provided in 21-PWR Waste Package Side and End Impacts (BSC 2003 
2293], Attachment I). The waste package O
nt Livermore Software Technology Corporation 2003 [DIRS 166841], p. 26.30) with 
Gaussian quadrature (Hallquist 1998 [DIRS 155373], Section 3) was used for all end 
impact calculations. As indicated by Figure 5.2-11
ckage was simplified in several ways: 
The 21-PWR fuel assemblies were reduced to bars of square cross section of uniform 
mass density, and assumed to be constructed of 304 SS (Assumptions 3.13 and 3.14). 
The geometric dimensions of the fuel assemblies were modified to keep the value of 
the gap between the fuel assemblies and the nearest element consistent with the gap 
defined using the elements found in 21-PWR Waste Package Side and End Impacts 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Attachment I). 
The mass density of the fuel assemblies was mo
acts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], 

4. The fuel basket tubes were not represented in the FE mesh for end impacts. 
5. The thickness of the OCB was reduced by 2 mm on its outer surface (see 
Assumption 3.12). The target surface was conservatively assumed to be unyielding 
(Assumption 3.16), and its density was rounded up to 8000 kg/m3. A static and 
dynamic friction coefficient of 0.5 was taken into account between all parts 
(Assumption 3.2 and Assumption 3.17). The value of 0.5 is an average value for the 
range of friction coefficient, 0.2 to 0.8, de
ctural response calculation
an unyielding surface, so frictional forces should have a very minor effect in 
determining damaged area on the waste package. 
5.2.2.2.2 Gap Between the IV and OCB 
As shown in Repository Design, Waste Package, Project 21-PWR Waste Package with Absorber 
Plates, Sheet 1 of 3, Sheet 2 of 3, and Sheet 3 of 3 (BSC 2001 [DIRS 157812], Section B-B), a 
tight fit between the IV and the OCB is indicated. However, Plinski (2001 [DIRS 156800], 
Section 8.1.8) describes the fit between the two shells as loose. In order to determine which 
v
between the IV and the OCB. 
5.2.2.2.3 esh Refinement Study 

Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844], Figure 1. 
5-

Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844], Figure 2. 
End Impact 
5.2.2.2.4 System Damping 

Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Figure 4. 
NOTE: Time in seconds. 
Figure 5.2-12. Variation of Maximum First Principal Stress with Time for Different Values of the Damping 
Coefficient 
5.2.2.2.5 Post-Processing 
An element where the residual first principal stress is above the residual stress threshold is called 
a damaged element. If an element has its first principa
to as an undamaged element. 
In order to determine the damage, the results obtained in the last time step of each simulation are 
post-processed with LS-POST V2 as follows: the undamaged elements of the OCB are blanked 
out (dark blue color in Figure 5.2-13). The damage on the OCB outer surface is estimated by 
calculating the area of each damaged elements face that coincides with the OCB 
Since the number of damaged elements can be very large, the area of neighboring elements is 
calculated as the area of a rectangle containing these elements. However, if the damaged 
elements do not form a perfect rectangle, outside elements can be accounted for as shown in 
Figure 5.2-13 (count these 2 elements/do not count these 2 elements). 

O
c 
the junction is taken into account. For examis
taken into account to avoi
T(
F

t 
10,000 years and 99.25 percent of th 
for impact velocities of 1 m/s and 4 m/s are also performed with material 
evaluate the sensitivity of fuel assembly accelerations at temperature. 

The initial conditions for the calculations are an initial velocity of 0.5 m/s, 1 
= 1 in Figure 5.2-15). Additional calculations at multiple impact angles were not 
because the g-loads from these initial analyses were generally sufficient to fail most if 
ore limited set of analyses provided sufficient data 
velping the damage abstraction for the fuel rod cladding. 
C 2003 [DIRS 162293], Figure 2. 
Figure 5.2-15. Initial Position of the Waste Package for the End Impacts 
FE Representation 
Description of FE Representation 
mmetry, three-dimensional FE representation of the waste package was developed in 
5.4 using the dimensions provided in Maximum Accelerations on the Fuel Assemblies 
WR Waste Package During End Impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162602], Attachment I). 
e package OCB and lids, IV and lids, trunnion sleeves, and fuel assemblies were 
d by solid (brick) elements. The constant-stress 8-node solid element 
e Software Technology Corporation 2003 [DIRS 166841], p. 26.30) w
The FE msh is illustrated in Figure 5.2-16. 
a

Figure 5.2-16. Standard Mesh for Determination of Fuel Assembly Accelerations 

The internal structure of the waste package was simplified in several ways: 
1. The 21-PWR fuel assemblies were reduced to bars of square cross section of uniform 
mass density, and assumed to be constructed o
e Package During End Impacts (BSC 
kg/m
of 0.5 was taken
dynamic friction coefficie(Assumption 3.2 and Assum
the average value of the distribution (0.2 to 0.8) used in Structural Calculations of

bottom lid of the IV) to verify that the results are not mesh sensitive. The variation in volume of 
a representative element and the variation in acceleration of the fuel assemblies are compared in 
Maximum Accelerations on the Fuel Assemblies of a 21-PWR Waste Package During End 
Impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162602], Attachment III), based on the method described in 
Mecham (2004 [DIRS 170673], Section 6.2.3). The accuracy and mesh representativeness are 
deemed acceptable for this calculation because the criterion in Mecham (2004 [DIRS 170673], 
Section 6.2.3) is met. 
5.2.3.2.4 Output Period 
Computational results are saved at a user-defined output period. This output period is small 
enough to accurately capture the maximum values of acceleration. An output period of 
one nanosecond ensures stable values for the maximum acceleration, as demonstrated in 
Maximum Accelerations on the Fuel Assemblies of a 21-PWR Waste Package During End 
Impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162602], Attachment IV). This output period is used for all results 
5.2.4.1 Methodology 
pact ca
calculations that were previously performed with a coarser mesh, as identified in Section 5.2.2.1 
for end impacts. Furthermore, the selected calculations are representative of the contribution to 
damaged area from various impact velocities encountered during the simulations for a waste 
package exposed to vibratory ground motion, identified in Tabl

mesh-refinement study in 21-PWR Waste Package Side and End Impacts (BSC
increased mesh density (see Fi 
(a) the base mesh (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293]) 
(b) the
ed mes
844], Figu

Ten FE meshes were used in the or
end-impacts rerun during this study, each FE mesh is refined by using the base mesh in 21-PWR 
Waste Package Side and End Impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293]) as a starting point. It would 
be tedious and unnecessary to discuss all details of mesh refinement for each case. Instead, the 
general approach to mesh-refinement is explained using the FE mesh for a 0 degree impact. 
Figure 5.2-17 shows a detail of the base and refined FE meshes. As indicated by Figure 5.2-17, 
the number of the solid element layers in key regions of the OCB and its bottom lid is increased 
from four to eight. Such a significant increase is necessary because the damaged area is entirely 
contained within the OCB-lid junction for this i
impacts with more extended damage area (as in BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844], Figure I-4). The 
mesh refinement of the OCB surface is schematically illustrated by Figure 5.2-18. The red 
polygons superimposed on the base mesh outline the element contours of the refined mesh at the 
OCB surface. 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844], Figure 3. 
Figure 5.2-18. Schematic Illustration of Mesh Refinement of OCB Surface for Ideal (0 degree) E
ts - A ME mesh 
Study (BS 
av 
2004 [DIR 
21
170844], Tables 2, 3, 
22
ot fil
ttachm

5.2.5 FE Representation for Additional Structural Calculations of Waste Package 
Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion 
PGV level. The original ground motions for the 2.44 m
The new ground motions for these calculations spectrally condition the ground motions for the 
western United States and preserve intercomponent variability in the ground motion recordings. 
The changes between the two ground motion sets for the longitudinal (along the tunnel, denoted 
as H2) and vertical (denoted as V) components of PGV are summarized in Table 5.2
motion time histories presented in Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to 
Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Section 5.2.1) and Additional Structural 
Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168385], Table 5.1), respectively. 
Four realizations were selected to maximize the potential damage and maximize the changes in 
the H2 or V components of PGV. Note that the H1 component of PGV does not change between 
the two sets of ground motions because it is always scaled t
e characterizd by the largest total damaged areas (in the descending order) at the 2.44 m
alization 6 
ents. Th 
the hig 
realizati
n the V comped area with significan 
capture the poten 
changes from the 
ea and large ch 
in individual co 
4
n 
characterized 
est da
th
d 
change b
on 1 (realizatio
repre
V in both th
itudinal and ve
00
16
Table 5-1). 
otion 
mo
V 
the 
d dec 
3 
tion 15) is char
y a d
Tab
Ch 
PGV Between Grou
n Set 
2) PGV 
Vertical (V) PGV 
Change 
Old Newm/s 2.97 m/
4 2.43 m/s 2.60 m/s +7% 
8 2.44 m/s 4.02 m/s +65% 

5.2.5.2 FE Representation 
The three-dimensional FE representation for these supplemental calculations is discussed in 
detail in Section 5.2.1.2. The only difference in the FE representation between these 
supplemental calculations and the representation in Section 5.2.1.2 is that the supplemental 
calculations are performed without any rigid elements in the waste package OCB. The potential 
effects of rigid elements in the FE representation of the OCB were analyzed in detail in 
Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083], Attachment VI), and it was demonstrated that this simplification had only a 
minor effect on the calculated damaged areas. 
A ground motion time history cutoff is applied to the supplemental calculations, similar to that 
for the original calculations (Section 5.2.1.3). The 2.44 m/s PGV level, the computational 
duration for the supplemental calculations is restricted to the 5 percent to 95 percent levels of 
ground motion energy, where energy is based on all three components of the ground motion. 
The times corresponding to the 5 percent and 95 percent energy levels are defined in Additional 
Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168385]) and summarized in Table 5.2-6. The effect of the time history cutoff on the 
results for the 2.44 m/s PGV level was demonstrated to be negligible in Structural Calculations 
of Waste
starting (5 percent) time from the ending (95 percent) time. 
5.3 RESULTS 
Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.3 present the results for damaged area on the waste package from 
vibratory ground motion, based on the calculations documented in Structural Calculations of 
Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083]). Section 
the calculations documented in 21-PWR Waste Package Side and End Impacts (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 162293]). Section 5.3.5 presents the results for maximum acceleration of fuel rod 
assemblies due to end impacts, based on the calculations documented in Maximum Accelerations 
on the Fuel Assemblies of a 21-PWR Waste Package During End Impacts (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 162602]). A series of additional studies aimed at examining sensitivity of damage 
estimates to mesh refinement, alternative ground motions representation and methodology for 
damage estimates of end impacts are given in Sections 5.3.6 to 5.3.8. The stress time histories, 
residual stress distribution plots, impact parameters, and damaged areas presented in this section 
have been obtain
Table 5.2-6. Duration and Characteristic Times Corresponding to 5 Percent - 95 Percent Energy Range 
Ground 
Motion 
5%- Time 
(s) 
95%- Time Duration of Simulation 

1 
2 
5 
Ground 
Realization 
Number 
Motion 
Number 80% Yield Strength 90% Yield Strength 
9
10 9 
12 6 0.0039; 0.014% 0; 0 
13 12 
14 14 0.010; 0.035% 0.0043; 0.015% 
15 3 0.0078; 0.028% 0.0015; 0.0053% 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.1.1-1. 

5.3.1.2 Interaction Between Waste Package and Longitudinal Boundary 
This section presents the damaged area of the waste package OCB resulting from waste 
package-waste package interaction due to end-to-end impacts in the longitudinal direction. The 
damage is
package simulations under vibratory ground motion. In other words, the current simulations 
define the kinematics of the impacts, while the damage from each impact is calculated using the 
impact 
it is o
ined deen 
ectly f 
longit 
the pinal bou
. 
tprocessorary (repr
The impa
trun
collar s
) node
time
pac
The impact
angle prese
age 
espect 
longit
ev
re on the trunnion collar 
rees corresponds to simultaneous contact 
age fromeometrica 
individual imargum
nts. I
two imp 
their lo
less ofts take pl
cation. The approach is 
e sufficie
ge 
ex
e a
ten
impa
peed a 
the 
ct a
e (see Tabl
s 5.3-56, 5
tion 
to ide
fy th
ons is i
ated in 
on is defined with 12 discrete values (i.e
uidistantly distributed in the clockwise direction (see the red numbers in Figure 5.3-1)
F and 
emphasiz
 sidehat 
only ss behi
wing th 
F3 in th
ly meshed (re
designator 
side vie 
closer to 
. Note th
entio
12 co
pon 
C12
corresp
s to C11
ing t
the im
f the
ste pac
ge O
the i
t locati
arked 
desi
ted as 
2. 
of 1
gments 
arb 
The
ropriateness
of this choice wa
more d
of imp
cations
hat need had arisen during post-processing, then it w

5.0 
167 
Figure 
lock C
vent
ed f
luation 
act Loc 
C 
F 
C6 

count as one-half of the corresponding value, since the damage caused by impact at locatio
en into acco
NC)
omp
ce it is c
letely overlapp
mete
d cor
ond
am
for both the lower and 
pact
ameter
d D
ed A
or Realizati 
1 at the 2.
Damag 
Area 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
80% YieldStrength 
F 8 6.025 1.3 1.0 0.0089 0.0046 
C 10 4.750 1.0 1.5 0.0031X0.5 0.0017X0.5 
Impact Par
4 [DIRS 16eter
708d Dam
Table 6.
ged Area 
2 0.006
r Realizat 
2 at the 2
Dama
Area 
(m
2) 
acttio
ime 
(s) 
eed/s) 
gleree
% Yieldtrength 
0% YieldStrength
anF 
0 
S0 
0 
8 
092X0.5
.0047X0. 
9 
0.0127 
0.0065 
otal 
.017 
0.0089
ource: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.1.2-2. 
Table 5.3-4. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 3 at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
Damaged Area 
(m2) 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 

Table 5.3-5. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 4 at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
ImpactLocation
Time(s)
Speed(m/s)
Angle(degree)
Damaged Area 
(m2) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
F 3
2.400
1.9
1.0
0.0202 
0.0103 
F 9
2.775
2.5
4.1
0.0307 
0.0162 
C 9
2.650
2.6
2.9
.0354 N
0166 NC
C 9
2.700
3.5
4.0
0.0650 
0.0343 
Tota
l 
0.12 
0.061 
ource
C 2004 [DIRS 16
], Tab
1.2-4. 
pact
ameter
d D
ed A
r Realization 5 at the 2.44 m/s PG
age
d 
Dam
Area 
Sp
% Yie
0% Yie
Location (s) (m/s) (degree) Strength 
F 2 0.425 1.6 1.2 0.0142 NC 0.0073 NC 
F 2 2.025 2.0 1.7 0.0201 NC 0.0102 NC 
F 3 
F 3 
3.0 
2.5 
6 NC 0.0275 NC 
8 NC 0.0036 NC 
0.0137 NC 
0.0947 
0.0070 NC0.0385 
3 
0089 NC
0.0046 N 
9 
0.0064 
0.0034 
9 
0022 NC
0.0013 N
.0014 
0.0007
C 3 0.800 1.2 1.7 0.0064X
C 4 
C 9 2.325 2.4 4.7 0.0262 0.0145 
urce: BS
2004 [D
S 1670
, Table 6
2 0.001
2-5. 

Table 5.3-7. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 6 at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
Damaged Area 
(m2) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
F 4 
1.950 
2.5 
1.4 
0.0344 
0.0140 
F 4 
2.600 
2.4 
0.5 
0186 NC
.0090 NC
F 8 
1.525 
1.9 
1.0 
0.0202X0.5 
0.0103X0.5 
F 9 
1.100 
2.4 
1.5 
0.0315 
0.0134 
F 9 
3.025 
1.9 
1.6 
0.0187 NC 
0.0095 NC 
C 9 
3.125 
4.0 
2.7 
0.0692 
0.0300 
C 9 
2.750 
2.9 
0.9 
0418 NC
.0152 NC
Total 
0.15 
0.063 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.1.2-6. 
Table 5.3-8. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 7 at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
Damaged Area 
(m2) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
F 2 
2.350 
1.4 
0.4 
0.0043 
0.0022 
F 9 
3.700 
2.7 
0.5 
0.0243 
0.0116 
F 10 
2.925 
2.1 
2.5 
0209 NC
.0103 NC
C 
3.150 
2.2 
0 
0.0024 
0.0024 
C 3 
4.150 
1.2 
0.8 
0056 NC
.0029 NC
0.0538 
0.0265 
C 8 2.775 2.4 3.0 0.029
Total 0.11 0.057 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.1.2-7. 
eginning
f the
ically,
ccelera
e ton time 
for realizationl veloc
e initiaistory. Consequently, the v
ity com
torie
e not 
spe
d, and t
esults f 
tab
umma
ng r 
(Ta
5.3-18, 
24, and

peedm/s) 
ngle 
degree) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
0.0059 
027 NC
.0016 N
C 8 1.375 1.4 2.6 0.0086 0.0045 
C 9 1.925 1.7 4.2 0.0098X0.5 0.0051X0.5 
2004 [DIR
0.12 
, Table 6.1.2-9. 
eae 
ers
amaged Area fo
maged Area 
(m2) 
pa
e 
dAngle 
ation 
) 
(degree) 
gth Strengt 
3
25 
2.7 
50 
0.3 
NC 0.0020 N
75 
3.8 
T
14 0.0071 
urce:
04 
67083], Table 6
act P
ers 
maged Area f
Impact Time SpeedAngle 80% Y
Table 5.3-9. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 9 at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
ime 
s) 
Damaged Area 
(m2) 
90% Yield 
Strength 
3 
0.0116 
F 5 2.625 1.7 2.7 0.0129 0.006
F 8 1.575 2.8 4.5 0.0408 0.0226 
F 9 2.250 1.6 5.0 0.0072 NC 0.0038 NC 
F 9 2.325 1.1 4.1 0.0021 NC 0.0013 NC 
F
Source: BSC
Dr 
ct 
lization 10 at th
ield 90% Yie
41 0.0022
4 0.0049 
lization 11 at th
amaged Area 
(m2) 

Table 5.3-12. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 12 at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
Damaged Area 
(m2) 
Impact Time SpeedAngle 80% Yield 90% Yield 
F 3 6.400 1.1 0.7 0.0036 0.0019 
F 8 5.950 3.0 0.4 0.0264 0.0138 
F 9 3.575 1.1 0.8 0.0041 NC 0.0022 NC 
C 3 1.025 2.2 0.5 0.0148 0.0073 
C 4 5.825 2.2 0.2 0.0074X0.5 0.0044X0.5 
C 4 6.175 1.0 1.7 0.0030 NC 0.0017 NC 
C 9 3.775 2.3 0.8 0.0246 0.0109 
Total 0.073 0.036 
5.3-13. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 13 at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
Damaged Area 
(m2) 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
F 4 2.300 1.9 0.6 0.0121 0.0062 
C 3 2.025 1.2 
2.450 2.0 
C 3 7.625 1.1 0.9 0.0047 NC 
Total 0.032 0.016 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.1.2-13. 
Table 5.3-14. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 14 at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
Damaged Area 
(m2) 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
F 2 2.775 1.4 0.2 0.0022 0.0011 
F 3 3.925 1.0 0.6 0.0020 0.0011 
C 10 4.450 1.2 0.2 0.0014 0.0007 
Total 0.0056 0.0029 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.1.2-14. 

-15. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 15 at the 2.44 m/s PG
amage(m2) 
Ti
peed
gle 
ield 
ation (s) (m/s) (degree) Strength 
Total 0.020 0.010 
aged
as for ea 
thro
3-15. 
izati
16. Damaged Area from End Impacts (Waste Package-Waste Package Interaction) at
Dam 
Area 
G
; % o
B a
M
80% Y
treng 
Yie
0.02
82%
0.012; 0.04
0.01
60%
.008
0.1
7% 
0.08
4 8 0.12; 0.43% 0.06
5 11 0.15; 0.53% 0.066; 0.23% 
6 1 0.15; 0.53% 0.063; 0.22% 
10
0.10.
.39% 
.43% 
0.0570.062; 
0.01
50%
1 5 0.074; 0.26% 0.03
14 14 0.0056; 0.020% 0.0029; 0.010% 
BSC 2004 
16708
able 6.1
. 

Although an attempt has been made to prevent excessive
technique described above, the results are still conservative. This conservatism is an 
unavoidable consequence of the FE representation. Two sources of conservatism need to be 
mentioned here: 
 The damaged area from the waste package impacting the longitudinal boundary 
(representing the neighboring waste package) is calculated based on the end impacts on 
the surface that is not only unyielding but also completely constrained (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 162
transferred into deformation energy is not only distributed between the two colliding 
waste packages but is also smaller than predicted because of elastic rebound during the 
impact. 
The damage accumulation technique is unable to represent relaxation of residua
belo
eg 
that thre
s, the damaged area is not a mubsequent impacts relieve the stres
t can decrease if s 
of the OCB that excee
ed the residual stress th
s from a previous 
shold at time t1 can be 
old follow
g a favor
le impact 
time t2 (w
re t2 > t1). 
oates of the dam
ognize 
these 
e area. 
cts of 
current
represe
n lead
ast 
and D
hield 
ee
nte
et
n the waste
aste pac 
packag
e., trunnion
collar sleeve
s) and the
drip shield 
ations 4age and t
, 1
rip
. In all ot
er realization
s there wa 
no impact 
events for 
round motio
ns at the 2.4 
m/s PGV 
anpact speeds in this range do not contribu
ract
zed by r
vely
impact speete significan
s, mostly betly to the to
tween 1 m/
tal damaged area even 
and 2 m/s. 
(BSC 2003 
pacts 
DIRS 1
3], Tabl
ge 
st
ckage, 
istent w
ssumption 3
.6. Moreov
er, the drip 
shield was 
pact energy was not, after th
e 
impact withed entirely into defor 
the waste p
ackage. Conmation energy but
sequently, 

Table 5.3-17. Lateral-Impact Parameters for Realization 4 at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
Speed Angle 
Location (s) 
F 3 2.700 
m/s) (degree) 
2.9 3.0 
urce: BSC 
04 [DIRS 16708
3], Table 6.1
-1. 
3-18
or Realization 
7 at the
m/s PGV Lev
el 
Impact 
Location 
Tim(s)
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
degree) 
C 3
2.800
1.2 
3.4 
083], Table 6.1.
t t
or Realization 9 a
m/s PGV
el 
Impact 
Location (s) (m/s) (degree) 
F 3 1.575 2.1 4.4 
F 3 2.225 2.0 4.8 
F 3 2.300 1.2 4.4 
F 9 2.600 4.1 0.2 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.1.3-3. 
Table 5.3-20. Lateral-Impact Parameters for Realization 11 at the 2.44 m/s P
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
C 9 2.500 1.8 4.8 
Table 5.3-21. Lateral-Impact Parameters for Realization 15 at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
F 3 1.125 1.2 1.0 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.1.3-5. 

.4 Summary of Results at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
ed in Taated by t
22. The results in Tab
tribution 
nd impact
e package-waste packag
e interaction. As a 
-waste pack
pacts, as discussed at the end 
le 
u
ctly in the 
elopment of 
ag
ent
mbly (BSC 200
[DIRS 169990
tory Ground Motio
e 2.44
maged Area on th
Waste Package
W 
Inte
WP to WP 
raction 
dCumulati
(m
) (m2; % of tot
rea) 
on 80% Yield 90% Yield 80% Yield 
Strength Strength Strength Stre0.0029; 
10% 
0.0014; 
0.0050% 
0.023; 
0.082% 
0.012; 
0.043% 
0.026; 
0.090; 0.017; 
0 0 0.060% 0.032% 0.060% 0.032% 
3 4 0.0050; 
0.018% 
0; 
0 0.19; 0.67% 0.083; 0.29% 0.20; 0.71% 0.083; 0.29% 
4 8 0.030; 0.11% 0.0064; 
0.023% 0.12; 0.43% 0.061; 0.22% 0.15; 0.53% 0.067; 0.24% 
5 11 0.0015; 
0.0053% 
0; 
0 0.15; 0.53% 0.066; 0.23% 0.15; 0.53% 0.066; 0.23% 
6 1 0.025; 
0.089% 
0.0028; 
0.0099% 0.15; 0.53% 0.063; 0.22% 0.18; 0.64% 0.066; 0.23% 
7 2 0.060% 0 0.11; 0.39% 0.057; 0.20% 0.13; 0.40.0035; 0; 
0.012% 0 
10 9 0; 
0 
0; 
0 
0.014; 
0.050% 
0.0071; 
0.025% 
0.014; 
0.050% 
0.0071; 
0.025% 
11 5 0.012; 
0.043% 
0.0037; 
0.013% 0.074; 0.26% 0.032; 0.11% 0.086; 0.30% 0.036; 0.13% 
12 6 0.0039; 
0.014% 
0; 
0 0.073; 0.26% 0.036; 0.13% 0.077; 0.27% 0.036; 0.13% 

Table 5.3-22. Damaged Area from Vibratory Ground Motion at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level (Continued) 
(m2; % of total OSd area) (m2; % of total OSd area) (m2; % of total OSd area) Ground 
0 
0.01
0 
.0043; 
0.032; 0.10.005
Strength 
6; 
1% 0.0570.002
0.032; 0.10.016
0.0350.007
% 
8; 
015% 
0015; 
0.00.0
0.010.01
0.050.02
0.028
% 
0053% 
0.0
0.03
0.09
Me
luec, e
0.310% 0.136
Sta 
Deviatio
0.23
Mi 
Valuecc
0.05
Ma 
Value
0.71
S 16e pre
], Table
le. R
tion 8 are no
resented bec
ation. 
rmed w
15 grou
otio
bere
3, , 14
. Seven
ere inlow
y develosubs 
from 
if an
h 15 sets 
re select 
t
ostclosu
titutionsponen
found 
proprian plotte
It exhibits anomalously low values at high frequencie
for all computational suites at 2.44 m/s PGV level and at 5.35 m/s PGV level because of its anomalous response 
spectrum. 
acent and 9 
total mean
d areercentula
yield stmean d
nd impacts is 0.27gth, respeage for the
lated in Appendixrcent and 0.
8 pevely. These 
o residual 
130 pues represens threshold
m G
nd M
ons 
e 5.3 
PGV L 
at t
.35 m 
more i 
than t 
(g 
81 m/
a
he a16
rati
gravity
ile the 
tely 
oxim
g at the 2.44 
aximum peak ground acceleration is appr167083]). As a consequence of the high-intensity

Table 5.3-23. Damaged Area from Waste Package-Pallet Interaction at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
RealizatNumbe 
M
tion 
ber 
80% 
Stren
ged Area 
ld 
90 
Yield 
ength 
1 
0.20
1% 0.
; 0.60% 
3 
0.096; 0.34
% 
0.29% 
4 
0.12 
0.34% 
5 
0.093
3% 0.0
1; 0.25% 
6 
0.046
6% 0.0
4; 0.085% 
7 
0.038; 0.13
% 0 
0.099% 
8 
0.095
4% 0.0
8; 0.24% 
9 
0052
18% 0.0
5; 0.012% 
1
0.16
7% 0.
4; 0.50% 
1
0016
057% 
0; 0 
1
0.062
2% 0.0
1; 0.15% 
13 
% 0 
0.064% 
14 
.020;
71% 0.0
; 0.057% 
1
0045
16% 
0; 0 
ource
C 2004 [DIRS 16
], Tab
1-1. 
OTE:
uracy o 
dam
area 
to the Waste
kage-p 
is do
l (see discus
on in BSC 
4 [DIRS
7083
ion 6
ilabl
r real
tion 
This
lization i
one of fo
rme
ith the 
rep
ntati
or the 2.4
m/s PGV 
d se
cuss
in Section
.2.1.2). U
eshe
gion 
ast
kag
CB for rea
ization 2 (
7083
igure 
II-2). The calcu
lated dam
ble 
racy a
the 
s are
t included 
Table 5.3-
ts th
amage
area
pacts in th 
longitudin
, 5.3
and
0), bas
n the s
ual en
o-end 
acts
ulate
y these wa
e package 
tion. 
other
rds,
curre
imulation
define the 
each 
ed us 
imp
tive angle as interpolating parameters in 
individual impacts in 
T

he end-impact parameters and corresponding damaged areas (calculated for both the lower and
Impact P
ameter
and Da
ged Are
or Realizati 
1 at the 5.
Dam
rea 
pact 
Time 
eed
gle 
80% Yield 
90% Yield 
ation
(s) 
/s) 
gree
Strength 
Strength 
3 
0.0176 
0.0090 
F 7 
0.0085 
0.0044 
8 
0013 NC
.0010 NC 
8 
0.0047 
0.0025 
9 
0.0021 
0.0013 
2 
0.1005 
0.0556 
3 
0183 NC
.0093 NC
.0158 
0.0080
C 10 4.525 1.2 6.6 0.00
Total 0.16 0.086 
Damage 
Area 
pact 
Time 
eed
gle 
% Yield
0% Yield
ation
(s) 
/s) 
gree
Strength 
Strength 
2 
040X0.5
.0022X0. 
3 
0.0202 
0.0103 
9 
0.0044 
0.0022 
12 
0.0052 
0.0027 
C 1 
0.0022 
0.0011 
C 3 
0.0054 
0.0028 
7 
0.0089 
0.0046 
To
0.048 
0.025 
rce: 
2004 [D 
167
able
2-2. 

Table 5.3-26. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 3 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level
Impact 
Locat
Tim(s
Speed(m/s)
Angle 
(degree) 
Damaged Area 
2
80% Yield 
Strength 
0% Yield 
trength 
1.22
1.3
1.7 
0.0082 NC 
.0042 NC 
2.65
2.4
1.4 
0.0317 
.0133 
5.60
3.4
1.3 
0.0584 
0.0196 
0.92
1.7
2.2 
0140 NC
071 NC 
2.90
3.7
2.5 
0.0688 NC 
.0288 NC 
3.10
4.0
3.6 
0.0809 
0.0404 
6.60
1.5
0.3 
0.0038 NC 
.0019 NC 
8.45
1.7
1.4 
0.0156 NC 
.0080 NC 
F 9
1.70
2.2
1.7 
0.0257X0.5 
.0118X0.5 
F 9
4.72
2.2
0.2 
0074 NC
044 NC 
9.00
1.1
5.0 
0.0026 NC 
.0016 NC 
F
3.97
2.3
3.2 
0.0255 
0.0125 
F
10.27
3.1 
0.0121 NC 
.0062 NC 
1.87
2.7
0.8 
0338 NC
135 NC 
0.37
2.5
2.8 
0.0325 
0.0151 
3.82
2.5
0.4 
0.0176 NC 
.0064 NC 
177 N
90 NC
C 4 6.750 1.7 5.2 
C 5 6.075 1.5 0.6 0.0076 NC 0.0039 NC 
C 6 6.950 1.3 1.9 0.0079 NC 0.0041 NC 
C 7 
C 8 
7.300 
1.525 1.0 
1.8 
4.8 
1.4 
NC 0.0025 NC
0095 NC 
031 NC 
049 NC 
017 NC 
C 8 
5.425 
.4 
C 
9.825 
.5 
0105 NC 
054 NC 
C 
4.125 
.4 
0299 NC 
137 NC 
C 1
2.150 
.3 
0079 NC 
0041 NC 
C 1
3.200 
.2 
0261 NC 
119 NC 
C 1
4.100 
.1 
06 NC 
98 NC 
C 1
2.225 
.2 
0060 NC 
031 NC 
C 1
3.000 
.8 
0715 
293 
C 1
5.900 
.2 
0038 NC 
021 NC 
C
6.150 
.8 
T
Sourc
C 2004 
167
able 
-3. 

Table 5.3-27.End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 4 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Location 
F 3 
(s) 
(m/s) 
gree) 
2.5 
(m2) 
90%
trength 
.0478 
rength 
.0207 
F 
2.875 
.5 
0105 
054 
F 6
2.925 
.6 
0109 NC 
056 NC 
F 7
3.000 
.4 
95 NC 
49 NC 
266 
20 
F 12 3.325 1.2 7.0 
C 2 1.250 1.2 0.4 0.0028 0.0015 
C 5 2.475 1.9 4.6 0.0110 0.0057 
C 
1.15
1.3 
al 
0.2 
2 NC 0.0045 N8X0.5 0.0026X
0.0018 
0.11 
0.0009 
0.050 
So
SC 200
Tab
arame
nd D
ed A
or Realizati 
5 at the 5.3
Dama
rea 
Im
Tim
Spee
ngle
(m80% Yield 
90% Yield 
Loc
(s)
(m/s
egre
Strength 
Strength 
3.67
1.8
0 
0 
0 
1.92
2.0
4.1 
0.0134 
0.0069 
4.85
1.4
1.6 
0100 NC
0052 NC
1.30
2.7
0.9 
0.0369 
0.0141 
2.700
1.8
1.7 
0.0167 NC 
.0085 NC 
F 6
5.00
1.2
0.4 
0.0028 NC 
.0015 NC 
F 7
3.42
1.4
2.6 
0.0086 
0.0045 
F
0.35
2.1
1.6 
0.0232 
0.0111 
F
5.90
1.3
3.0 
0067X0.5
035X0.5
C 2 
0.52
1.6
1.3 
0.0140 
0.0072 
5.37
1.7
0.1 
0.0016X0.5 
.0008X0.5 
0.82
1.2
0.7 
0.0049 NC 
.0026 NC 
3.95
1.2
1.0 
0.0071X0.5 
.0037X0.5 
3.00
1.9
2.4 
0.0166 
0.0085 
1.65
3.4
0.8 
0.0498 
0.0180 
2.30
1.5
1.3 
0.0122 NC 
.0063 NC 
C 11 
6.22
1.3
2.0 
0.0078 
0.0041 
C 12 
0.10
1.4
0.2 
0.0022 
0.0011 
C 12 
3.12
1.4
0.2 
0.0022 NC 
.0011 NC 
l 
0.18 
0.080 
Sou
SC 200
, Tabl
.2-5. 

Table 5.3-29. nd-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 6 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
ocation 
F 2 
(s) 
.950
(m/s) 
4.0 
degree)
1.7 
90% Yield
Strength 
0.0754 NC 
Strength 
0.0264 NC 
F 2 
2.325 
4.4 
1.7 
0.0933 
0.0328 
F 3 
3.225 
1.3 
0.1 
0.0009 NC 
0.0004 NC 
F 6 
3.075 
2.0 
2.0 
0.0193 
0.0098 
F 8 
1.775 
3.2 
2.9 
0541 NC
.0246 NC
863 N
455 N
F 9 1.425 1.4 3.3 
F 10 0.600 2.9 0.9 0.0418 NC 0.0152 NC 
C 1 
C 1 
2.650 
2.875 
4.6 
2.5 
1.9 
1.2 
29 NC 0.0176
0.1024 NC 
0.0347 NC 
0.0374 NC 
0.0139 NC 
C 3 
2.250 
6.4 
1.7 
0.1572 
0.0563 
C 6 
0.700 
3.7 
0.7 
0522X0.5
.0200X0.
C 7 
4.275 
1.3 
0.1 
0.0009 NC 
0.0004 NC 
To
0.42 
0.15 
rce: B
04 [DIR
7083], 
e 6.2
End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area f
Damaged Area 
(m2) 
F 
F 1 
0.3252.40
1.9 
6.0 
0 
8.4 
% Yield 
trength 
90%
Stre
0 
0.1019 N
0 
0.0466 N
F 1
4.150
1.8
0.7
0.0128 N
0.0065 
F 2
4.350
2.3
2.2
0.0275X0.
0.0126X0.
F 6
1.700
1.5
1.2
0.0124 N
0.0063 
F 7
4.075
3.4
1.3
0.0584 
0.0196 
F 9
3.250
3.8
3.7
0.0746 N
0.0378 
F 11
2.175
5.4
1.4
0.1382 
0.0472 
F 1
2.225
3.1
3.2
0.0511 N
0.0243 
C 
2.100
2.0
0
0 
0 
C 3
2.700
3.3
2.5
0.0568 
0.0242 
C 3
2.900
1.9
3.3
0.0143 N
0.0073 
C 4
2.000
4.0
0.5
0.0489 NC
0.0228 NC
C 4
3.675
1.6
0.3
0.0044 N
0.0022 

Table 5.3-30. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 7 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
(Continued) 
ImpacLocation
Time(s
Spee(m/s
Angle(degree
Damaged Area(m2
80% YieldStrength
90% YieldStrength
C 9
3.375
2.3
1.9
0.0280 
0.0126 
C 1
4.550
2.0
1.5
0.0207 N
0.0105 
C 11
0.900
1.7
1.3
0.0158 
0.0081 
Tota
0.32
0.1
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.2.2-7. 
Table 5.3-31. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 8 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
Damaged Area 
(m2) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
F 
12.075 
1.2 
0 
0 
0 
F 1 
2.925 
1.7 
6.2 
0.0082X0.5 
0.0045X0.5 
F 2 
1.100 
1.2 
1.9 
0.0063 NC 
0.0033X0.5 
F 3 
7.025 
1.9 
4.0 
0.0125 NC 
0.0064 NC 
F 3 
9.300 
2.0 
1.5 
0.0207 
0.0105 
F 4 
1.975 
1.7 
2.5 
0133 NC
.0068 NC
F 4 
1.550 
1.7 
1.6 
0.0152 NC 
0.0077 NC 
F 4 
5.375 
2.2 
6.2 
.0179 NC
0099X0.
F 6 
3.425 
2.6 
3.2 
0.0351 NC 
0.0169 NC 
F 7 
2.675 
3.5 
2.9 
0.0634 
0.0286 
F 8 
9.350 
2.1 
0.3 
0.0423 NC 
0.0254 NC 
F 9 
11.325 
1.0 
1.5 
0031 NC
.0017 NC
F 10 
6.475 
1.5 
0.6 
0.0076 NC 
0.0039 NC 
F 10 
6.775 
2.1 
1.7 
0.0229 
0.0110 
F 11 
4.325 
1.6 
0.8 
0.0117 NC 
0.0060 NC 
F 12 
3.825 
2.0 
3.2 
0.0159 
0.0081 
F 12 
9.900 
1.7 
0.2 
0.0033 NC 
0.0017 NC 
C 1 
2.375 
2.0 
1.3 
0213 NC
.0108 NC
C 2 
4.450 
1.7 
2.5 
0.0071 NC 
0.0038 NC 
C 2 
5.225 
1.2 
3.5 
0.0049 NC 
0.0026 NC 
C 2 
5.450 
1.2 
6.5 
0.0033 NC 
0.0020 NC 
C 2 
6.900 
2.3 
1.6 
0.0286 
0.0127 
028 N
015 N
C 4 2.825 2.2 4.9 0

Table 5.3-31. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 8 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Impact 
ime 
Speed
Angle 
aged A
(
80% Yield 
90% Yield 
ation 
(s) 
(m/s
eg
en
ng
C 9 
9.500 
1.6 
2.0
.0127 NC
.0065 NC 
10 
2.100 
2.2 
1.4
0.0263 NC 
0.0120 NC 
10 
11.725 
1.5 
1.6
0.0117 NC 
0.0060 NC 
12 
3.375 
2.3 
1.1
0.0296 
0.0127 
To
0.32 
0.14 
urce: B
004 [DI
6708
ramete
nd D
ed A
Realizat
t the 5.3
Dam
rea 
(
) 
pact
Time 
pee
Ang
80% Yield 
90% Yield 
cation 
(s) 
(m/s) 
degree) 
Strength
trength
0.0049
0.0025 
F 8 3.425 1.1 1.0 
C 4 1.475 1.2 0.1 0.0007 NC 0.0004 NC 
C 4 3.100 1.4 1.3 0.0104 0.0054 
ource: B
004 [DI
167083
ble 6.2.2
0132 0.00
ramete
d Da
d Ar
r Realizatio
0 at the 5.3
Dama 
Area 
(
) 
pac
Time 
peed
ngle
0% Yiel
0% Yield
cation 
(s) 
egre
Strength 
Strength 
F 2 
1.250 
6.5 
8.0 
0.1079 
0.0486 
F 4 
4.950 
2.1 
8.0 
.0143 NC
.0081 NC
F 5 
2.450 
2.4 
1.5 
0.0315 
0.0134 
F 6 
0.600 
2.5 
3.7 
.0312 NC
.0159 NC
F 12 
0.875 
3.6 
5.8 
0.0673 
0.0388 
F 12 
1.675 
2.7 
6.2 
0.0241 NC 
0.0132 NC 
C 1 
1.475 
3.8 
1.8 
0.0701 
0.0254 
C 1 
5.200 
3.7 
8.0 
0.0626 NC 
0.0322 NC 
C 4 
0.475 
1.3 
0.1 
0.0009 NC 
0.0005 NC 
C 4 
1.300 
1.3 
8.0 
0.0042 
0.0026 
C 5 
C 5 
0.825 
1.200 2.5 
1.8 
4.0 
7.1 
.0114 NC
.0057 NC
0.0273
0.0150 

1.7 
3.7 
.0056 NC
F 4 
3.325 
1.2 
0.8 
.0029 NC
F 4 
3.875 
1.5 
3.3 
0.0046 NC 
F 4 
5.800 
1.6 
0.9 
.0067 NC
2.7 
0.0075 
F 4 
2.950 
0108 NC
0056 NC
0.0090 NC 
.0131NC
2.375 
2.4 
0.0389 
0.0171 
F 8 
2.050 
1.4 
0.8 
3.1 
1.0 
0.0167 
F 9 
6.200 
2.0 
0.7 
.0078 NC
056 N
0.0087 NC 
0.0044 NC 
F 8 
4.350 
0.0503 
0155 NC
108 N
F 10 3.550 3.0 3.3 0.
C 1 3.050 1.9 3.7 0.0133 0.0068 
C 3 4.225 3.2 2.6 0.0539 
C 3 6.375 1.7 1.0 0.0165 NC 
C 4 1.850 2.5 0.2 0.0147 NC 0.0084 NC 
C 4 4.650 
5 3.3 0.
8 NC 0.0155 NC 
8 
1.7 
C 0.0118 N
, Table 6.2.2-1
C 8 
C 8 
450 
0.0215 NC 
10.0401 NC 0.0 
Tot
Table 5.3-33. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 10 at the 5.35 m/s PGV
Impact 
ime 
Speed
Angle 
aged A 
(
80% Yield
) 
90% Yield 
catio 
(s) 
egre
Strength
trength
0042 NC
.0023 NC
C 6 0.975 1.0 7.2 
Total 0.33 0.15 
Dama 
Area 
pact
Time 
peed
ngle
80% Yield 
90% Yield 
catio 
(s) 
egre
Strength
trength
F 2 
4.950 
1.7 
1.9 
0.0146 
Text Box: a

10 
5 
1.3 
0.0036 
12 
0 
0.6 0.01 
0.5 0.0067X0. 
3 
Damage
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
F 1 7.125 1.2 5.1 0.0035X0.5 0.0020X0.5 
F 3 1.075 1.5 0.5 0.0064 NC 0.0033 NC 
F 3 2.275 2.2 3.1 0.0225 NC 0.0111 NC 
F 3 4.950 1.1 2.8 0.0040 NC 0.0022 NC 
F 4 1.625 2.4 1.4 0.0317 0.0133 
F 11 6.350 1.2 0.8 0.0056X0.5 0.0029X0.5 
F 12 9.375 1.7 3.8 0.0106 0.0055 
9.175 1.8 
1.900 
2.475 2.2 
2 
9 
NC 
NC 
NC 
.325 
4 
9 
Total 0.12 
4 
Table 5.3-35. nd-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 12 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
(s) 
Sp 
(m/s) 
275 
(mngeg) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90%
St 
0 
0 
1 
4.8 
0.0081 
1 
5.9 
C 0.0035 NC 
2 
4.2 
0.0062 N 
2 
1.4 
0.0053 N 
2 
3.4 
Impact 
Location 
F 
5 
5 
.5 0.0065X0.5 
7.2 
0.0042 
C 5 5.600 1.3 5.4 0.
C 6 1.150 3.5 0.9 
C 6 3.650 2.2 1.5 0.0261 NC 0.0119 NC 
C 7 0.875 2.2 1.5 0.0261 NC 0.0119 NC 
C 10 5.125 1.1 2.3 0.0043 0.0024 
Total 0.10 0.044 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.2.2-12. 
Table 5.3-36. End-Impact Parameters and Damage
5 
37 
0081 
6 
NC 

(
37. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 14 at the 5.35 m/s PGV
amage 
(m2) 
me 
ed
e 
eld 
s) 
/s) (d
e) 
th 
7 
To
7 
4 [DIR
083], Table 6.
2.2-1
ete
Damaged 
rea f
atio
mage 
(m
ime 
ed
e 
eld 
(s) 
/s) (d
e) 
th 
1 
0.850 1.5 0.6 0.0076 NC 
F 7 1.225 1.1 10.0 0.0018 NC 0.0014 NC 
0.150 
0.500 2.2 
5 
4 
352 
3 NC 
5 
0.5 0.012
Tota
4 [DIRS 16 
collar sle
3], Te impac
2.2-15. 
inve
axial b
ary 
acts (W
el 
Da
rea 
2; %
Ground 
Motion 80% Yield Strength 90% Yiel

(2m
-39. Damaged Area from End Impacts (Waste Package-Waste Package Interactio
Dam
d Area 
; %
Motion 
80% Y
treng
0% Y
13 
0.3
3% 
0.1
10 
0.0
12%
0.01
9 
0.3
7% 
0.1
5 
0.3
6% 
0.1
6 0.10; 0.35% 0.044
13 12 0.12; 0.43% 0.053; 0.19% 
14 14 0.0077; 0.027% 0.0040; 0.014% 
3 
004 [DIRS 
0.283], T
.03% 
6.2.2-16
0.14
de by 
arin
nd-i
hroug
3-15) 
th
ts f
-38). First, the end impacts for the 5.35 m/ 
into account due to the damage overlap (as indicated by the designators x 
ween Wa
Pack
and D 
Shield 
en the waste package and the drip shield 
m/s PGV level, interaction between the waste package (i.e., trunnion collar 
and the drip shield occurs in all realizations. It is assumed in this calculation th
aste pack 
to the waste package (Assum 
and 
shield 
terms o
Time 
peed
ngle 
(s) 
egre
4.050 
3.3 
6.1 
F 9 
3.675 
3.6 
0.2 
F 9 
4.650 
10.0 
5.6 
C 3 
3.625 
4.6 
2.3 
C 4 
4.450 
2.1 
6.1 
C 9 
3.275 
1.6 
1.7 
C 11 
7.375 
1.9 
0.2 
C 12 
5.825 
1.8 
0.2 
rce: B
04 [DIR
083]
2.3-1

Table 5.3-41. Lateral-Impact Parameters for Realization 2 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
F 1 
4.700 
3.3 
0.1 
F 1 
6.3 
F 9 
3.800 
2.1 
0.1 
C 1 
3.675 
2.6 
1.3 
C 3 
4.075 
1.2 
0.3 
C 4 
2.900 
2.4 
1.7 
C 5 
5.225 
4.8 
2.5 
C 6 
5.500 
1.9 
6.3 
C 9 
2.150 
2.7 
0.3 
C 10 
4.725 
2.5 
0.6 
C 10 
4.775 
4.7 
0.2 
C 12 
3.550 
3.0 
1.1 
rce: 
04 [DIR
083]
2.3-2
pactcatio
Time 
(s) 
peed
ngleegre
F 2 
5.550 
3.9 
1.4 
F 2 
6.900 
8.1 
1.8 
F 3 
0.450 
3.4 
0.6 
F 4 2.125 2.6 0.8 
F 4 3.400 2.1 4.6 
F 9 2.875 2.5 0.1 
F 10 
C 1 
1.100 
.775 
2.3 
1.4 
0.1 
1.0 
C 2 
1.250 
1.7 
0.8 
C 2 
1.450 
2.4 
1.6 
C 3 
1.000 
3.9 
1.0 
C 3 
2.925 
3.5 
0.2 
C 3 
3.050 
2.4 
0.1 
C 3 
3.150 
2.9 
0.9 
C 9 5.625 1.6 0.2 
C 11 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.2.3-3. 

Table 5.3-43. Lateral-Impact Parameters for Realization 4 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
F 4 
2.500 
4.2 
0.8 
F 9 
2.875 
2.9 
0.6 
C 3 
2.275 
3.8 
2.7 
C 4 
2.925 
6.3 
0.2 
C 8 
2.500 
4.2 
1.5 
C 10 
3.225 
6.1 
4.6 
004 [DI
7083
.2.3-
ral-Impact Parameters for Realization 5 at the 5
Impact Time Speed Angle 
F 9 
C 3 
0.475 
.425 
1.0 
2.1 
0.2 
1.6 
C 10 
0.675 
1.0 
2.7 
rce: 
004 [DI
7083
.2.3-
Time 
paccatio
peed
ngleegre
C 2 
3.325 
1.2 
1.2 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.2.3-6. 
Table 5.3-46. Lateral-Impact Parameters for Realization 7 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
F 2 
2.800 
7.8 
F 3 
3.500 
5.2 
2.4 
F 4 
4.275 
8.0 
F 9 
2.550 
6.1 
0.1 
F 9 
4.025 
5.9 
0.8 
F 10 
4.95 
3.3 
0.6 
C 1 
2.325 
4.0 
9.2 
C 1 
2.475 
1.5 
10.2 
C 2 
4.550 
6.3 
4.9 
C 3 
1.450 
1.8 
1.5 
C 8 
C 8 
4.250 
4.300 
7.1 
1.7 
1.5 
0.6 

Table 5.3-47. Lateral-Impact Parameters for Realization 8 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
F 1 
4.700 
1.1 
0.4 
F 2 
3.575 
3.4 
0.4 
F 7 
5.100 
1.8 
2.8 
F 8 
4.075 
2.7 
0.3 
F 9 
9.575 
2.8 
0.1 
F 9 
9.675 
1.2 
0.3 
F 9 
10.050 
1.0 
0.3 
F 10 
2.000 
2.0 
2.2 
C 1 
2.075 
3.1 
0.4 
C 2 
0.925 
1.3 
0.1 
C 3 
9.550 
1.1 
C 4 3.950 2.9 2.0 
C 4 5.225 4.5 0.9 
C 8 
C 9 
1.450 1.2 
2.850 
1.8 
4.0 
4.1 
C 9 
3.075 
1.6 
10 
3.525 
4.8 
0.2 
11 
4.650 
2.2 
0.5 
11 
4.725 
4.1 
0.5 
rce: 
004 [DI
7083
.2.3-
Impact Time Speed Angle 
Location (s) (m/s) (degree) 
F 1 2.150 2.4 2.8 
F 2 
F 8 
1.550 4.0 
2.550 
3.9 
0.9 
0.3 
C 3 
1.125 
2.4 
1.8 
C 4 
2.475 
3.9 
1.3 
C 11 
2.225 
5.5 
1.0 
urce: B
004 [DI
7083]
.2.3-
al-Impact Parameters for Realization 10 at the 5
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
F 5 1.025 3.8 6.3 
F 9 3.425 3.3 3.4 
F 9 4.250 1.5 5.3 
F 9 4.875 9.0 2.4 
F 10 0.525 3.0 0.5 

Table 5.3-49. Lateral-Impact Parameters for Realization 10 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level (Continued) 
Location (s) (m/s) (dF 10 4.950 7.2 
F 11 3.550 5.7 6.1 
F 12 0.575 5.4 3.9 
C 9 3.725 1.5 4.9 
C 10 5.175 1.3 2.6 
C 10 5.575 2.9 3.7 
C 12 0.900 2.6 6.0 
C 12 1.200 4.9 7.3 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.2.3-10. 
Table 5.3-50. Lateral-Impact Parameters for Realization 11 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Impact Tim
Location (s) (m/s) (degree) 
F 2 3.075 1.8 0.2 
F 2 3.100 1.1 0.6 
F 9 3.825 4.5 2.0 
F 9 5.325 3.4 2.1 
F 9 5.400 1.8 3.3 
e 5.3-51
0 5.2 2.4 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIR
3], Table 6.2.3-11. 
Impact 
Time 
An
Locatio 
(s) 
(d
F 6 
6.175 
F 7 
5.350 
C 2 
0.875 
C 9 
0.475 
C 12 
C 12 
0.775 
1.750 
C 12 
Source: BSC 200
3.450 
4 [DIRS 16
], Table
. 

Table 5.3-52. Lateral-Impact Parameters for Realization 13 at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
e Speed Angle 
F 1 6.675 
F 2 9.150 
2.3 
4 0.6 
F 7 
F 8
8.775 
5.025 
F 9 
F 9 
1.475 2.3 
3.125 
C 10 
2.750 
C 10 
10.625 
C 11 
0.000 
7083], Table 6.2.3-13. 
ealization 14 at th
PGV Le
peed Ang
Location (s) (m/s) (degree) 
C 9 & F 3 6.150 5.9 0 
F 2 5.975 1.8 0.1 
F 2 6.425 1.5 0.5 
F 3 
C 3 7.425 1.2 0.5 
C 9 6.000 2.3 0.2 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
F 2 0.400 14.3 4.6 
F 2 0.650 4.5 3.0 
C 8 0.450 3.2 0.3 
C 10 0.800 11.4 2.3 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Table 6.2.3-15. 
While impacts between the waste package and drip shield are infrequent, low intensity events at 
the 2.44 m/s PGV level, these impacts are significantly more frequent and more in
5.35 m/sGV level. Not only is there no realizatpackage-DS interaction does not occur, but also 
Second, the waste package-DS interaction at the 2.44 m/s PGV level takes place exclusively 
between the trunnion collar sleeves and the side (vertical) plates of the drip shield. At the 
5.35 m/s PGV level, the waste package can impact any part of the drip shield. Note that an 

impact between the waste package and invert takes place only once  in realization 15 this waste 
package-invert impact is, for convenience, included among the end-impacts in Table 5.3-39. 
5.3.2.4 Summary of Results at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
5.35 m/s PGV level are summarized in Table 5.3-55. The results in Table 5.3-55 show that the 
cumulative damage area is dominated by the end-impact contribution. In most realizations the 
damaged area due to waste package-pallet interaction is much smaller than that due to waste 
package- waste package interaction. It should be kept in mind that the damaged areas due to 
waste package-waste package interactions are conservatively estimated (see discussion in 
Section 5.3.1.2). It is also noteworthy that the only two realizations conspicuous by the absence 
of the nonphysical damaged area at the boundary of the finely-meshed OCB region  realization 
11 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Figure IV-46) and realization 15 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], 
Figure IV-51) are characterized by an extremely small contribution from waste package to pallet 
impacts to the cumulative damaged area. 
damage abstraction for the seismic scenario class. These data are available through D&E / PA/C 
IED Typical Waste Package Components Assembly (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169990], Table 17). 
Table 5.3-55. Damaged Area from Vibratory Ground Motion at the 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
(m2; % of total O
Realization 
aGround 
Motion 
Number 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
80% Yield 90% Yield 
80% 
Yield 
90% 
Yield 

a Only 14 realizations are presented in this table. Results for realization 2 are not presented because the 
he waste package are such that the impacts bet
b Mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum damage calculated in Appendix B. 
c = outer surface of waste package. 
d The mean value of % damaged area for end-to-end impacts is 0.788 percent and 0.333 percent at stress 
thresholds of 80 percent and 90 percent of yield strength, respectively. These values represent 76.0 percent and 
63.5 percent, of the total mean cumulative mean damage for the two resid
5.3.3 Ground Motions at the 0.384 m/s PGV Level 
Two calculations have been performed to evaluate the damaged areas for single ground motions 
at the 0.19 m/s PGV level and at the 0.384 m/s PGV level. Both calculations demonstrate that 
there is no damage to the waste package from either waste package-pallet interactions or from 
waste package-to-waste package interactions. In fact, the static load from the weight on the 
waste package on the pallet generates the observed stresses in the waste package and pallet. 
Given this similarity, the results for the calculation at the 0.384 m/s PGV
ction
to the damage abstractions). The res
The single calculation with the 0.384 m/s PGV level ground motion is based on the FE 
representation previously used for most of the ground motions at the 2.44 m/s PGV level. The 
single simulation is performed with material properties based on a temperature of 150C. The 
simulation started at 9.7 s of the ground motion time history (corresponding to the 5 percent 

energy point of the ground motion), and the ending time was 34.9 s (corresponding to 65 percent 
of the energy of the ground motion) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Section 6.4). This duration 
covered the most intense period of this ground motion tim 
example, Figures 5.3-4 and 5.3-5). 
The ground motion for 0.384 m/s PGV level i
motion of the waste package with respect to the pallet in lon
direction is practically nonexistent. Figure 5.3-3 indicates that once the initial gap between 
waste package and pallet is closed (Section 5.3.3.2) the relative displacement of two typical 
waste package and pallet nodes (the locations of nodes number 20 and 18007 are depicted in 
Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to Vibratory Ground Motion (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167083], Figure 17) is less than 0.07 mm even for the unfiltered data. The filtered plot 
is more meaningful since the high-frequency noise - very pronounced due to the high-frequency 
excita
ngitudinal (Y) Displa
Figure 5.3-3. Relative Loto the Pa

SC 2004 
5.3-4. Relative Vertical (Z) Displacement (Raw and Filtered) of Waste Package with Respect to 
the Pallet for the 0.384 m/s PGV Level 
consequence of the limited rigid-body motion, there is no contact between the waste 
ge and the longitudinal boundary or between the waste package and the drip shield during 
lation for the 0.384 m/s PGV level. 
this analysis is that between the waste package and the pallet. 
The waste package-pallet interactions for this simulation are characterized by extremely small 
impact velocities due to the limited rigid-body motion in the vertical direction. As shown in 
Figure 5.3-5, the impact velocity between the waste package and the pallet rarely exceeds 
0.005 m/s (for the filtered data; see blue curve in Figure 5.3-5) and the m
for the filtered data is less than 0.006 m/s. It seems apart of the simulation is performed without system dam
(Section 5.2.1.4). The statement that the rigid-body motion is negligible for this simulation is 
well supported by the results presented in Figures 5.3-3 through 5.3-5. 

Figure 5.3-6 prese
Fig
) V
y (Raw 
Filtered 
Waste 
kage wi
espect 
th
idual
xi 
residu
first pr
ipal str 
(87 Mrgin
) is bete t 
the st 
str
s limit 
ls. 
e maxi
m resid 
stress 
aot caus
ohby the 
heeamic re
nse to 
formati
f the w
e package OCB is elastic durin. R
, this
ual s
resul 
th
static load of the waste package on the emplacement pal
the dynamic response to the 0.384 m/s PGV level ground motion; that is, the OCB area 
residual stress 
ackage on the Pallet 
spike in the waste
1 seconds of 
transieons
imulati
was se
al
trates that the behavi
s from this analysis 

It has been verified (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Section 6.3.1) that once the initial gap is closed 
package is se
(
3 
otion of waste package with respe5.3-4 in this report) 
o pallet becomes negligible 
veloci
become
xtreme
small (
ity
ffe
von 
) stre
SC 2
IR
83]
s 13 
ct
) are si
ficantly
low the
eld stre
h 
ation
ains constant (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Figure 19), 
astic. 
niti
E mes 
the w
lation is due a num
y 
rical effect caused by smt 
all 
that the results at the onset of this simulation (rrepresentative of the deformation from transient ground m
6er
lesi
3-56 through 5.3-60 list the damaged a 
side and end impacts at 1
d End Impacts (BSC 20030C for residual s
th
0
0
re 
2
cia
te
eg
s) at 150
0
d Imp
ngle b
en th
of the 
Side Impthe a
ts: Angle bhe W
tween 
the 
W0 
nd the V1 
cal (degre5 
8 
Ho0 
ntal (deg1 
) 
8 
1 
0 
0.0033 
17 
0.0017 
10 
0.0011 
8 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0.0221 
41 
0.0109 
25 
0.0113 
23 
0.0013 
5 
0.0020 
5 
0 
0.0244 0.0734 0.0850 

Table 5.3-57. Damaged Area (m2) and Associated Angle (degree) at 150C, Stress Limit = 90 Percent of 
Yield Strength 
End Impacts: Angle between the axis of the 
WP and the Vertical (degree) 
Side Impacts: Angle between 
the axis of the WP and the 
Horizontal (degree) 
0 1 5 8 0 1 8 
1 0 0.0018 
13 
0.0011 
8 
0.0009 
6 0 0 0 
2 0 0.0112 
39 
0.0056 
25 
0.0066 
23 
0.0004 
3 
0.0011 
5 0 
4 0.0244 
180 
0.0212 
75 
0.0508 
42 
0.0367 
37 
0.0046 
13 
0.0015 
11 
0.0006 
13 
Initial Velocit
180 103 53 44 20 17 21 
10 0.0254 
180 
0.0264 
164 
0.0610 
75 
0.0379 
61 
0.0257 
30 
0.0157 
22 
0.0160 
24 
20 0.0278 
180 
0.0403 
180 
0.1008 
64 
0.1279 
68 
0.3103 
64 
0.0404 
30 
0.1040 
67 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Table 5. WP = waste package 
Table 5.3-58. Damaged Area (m2) and Associated Angle (degree) at 150C, Stress Limit = 100 Percent 
of Yield Strength 
End Imp 
WP and the Vertical (degree) 
0 1 5 8 
0.0016 0.0009 0.0006 
2 0 0.0051 
37 
0.0037 
23 
0.0044 
21 
4 0 0.0103 
72 
0.0217 
39 
0.0143 
35 
6 0.0244 
180 
0.0185 
101 
0.0302 
51 
0.0273 
44 
Initial Velocity (m/s) 
10 180 149 73 59 
20 0 0.0120 
74 
0.0444 
55 
0.0734 
61 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Table 6. WP = waste package 

ngle (deg
Yield Strength 
0 1 5 8 
1 0 0.0021 0.0013 
0 0.0138 0.0064 0.0057 0.0004 
4 0.0244 0.0242 0.0571 0.0416 0.0051 0.0025 0.0006 
2 
6 
0.0815 
54 
0.0517 
46 
0.0205 
21 
0.012

0.0594 0.0518 0.0373 
0.053
7 0.
3 0.
3 0. 
WP 

The damaged area distribution on the OCB surface is illustrated in Figure 5.3-7(a) and 5.3-7(b), 
d impact calc
d
esents plots of the first princid to three and adjusted to emphasize th
g 
MPa are red. All
C.
ements with residual
her
ors, if 
sent, ou
e the w
te pack
ion colla
improv
e fr
d im 
damaged area is covered by the trunnion sleeve. In this s
tion over a much larger area than woulB are also presented in 21-
V
nd impacts at 100
l direction
, and p
for
ge 
0 per
of Y
ts for 100C and 200C indicate that, in general, an increa 
Its purpose is to illustrate the differeneasures, the first principal stress ve
r Table 5.3
ipal stress. 

(a) Residual First Principal Stress Plot (in Pa) for 1-degree 4-m/s End Impact 

Table 5.3-61. Damaged Area (m2) and Associated Angle (degree) at 100C, Stress Limit = 80 Percent of 
Yield Strength 
d Impacts: Angle betw 
1 
2 
15 
0.0203 
0.0113 0.0102 
Initial Velocity 
4 0./s) 
39 
00 0.0576 
0.0770 0.0676 
6 0.
66 
66 0.1466 
0.1474 0.1021 
180 99 
10 180 162 72 61 
Source: BSC 
Angle (degree) at 10
A 
1 
and t1 
0.0016 
gree)
5 8 
0009 0.00
2 
110.0071 
37 
.0069 
23 
0.006
21
Initial Velocity (m
4 140.024s) 
3 
0.01
72 
0.0566 
39 35 
0737 0.05
6 180 101 
10 180 158 72 59 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Table 10. WP = waste package 
Table 5.3-63. Damaged Area (m2) and Associated Angle (degree) at 100C, Stress Limit = 100 Percent 
of Yield Strength 
End Impacts: Angle between the axis of the 
WP and the Vertical (degree) 
0 1 5 8 
1 0 0.0011 
8 
0.0006 
5 
0.0004 
3 
69 39 35 
6 0.0244 
180 
0.0173 
99 
0.0346 
51 
0.0258 
44 
10 0.0251 
180 
0.0220 
151 
0.0183 
74 
0.0180 
59 

Table 5.3-64. Damaged Area (m2) and Associated Angle (degree) at 150C, Stress Limit = 80 Percent of 
Yield Strength, for Residual Stress Intensity 
WP and the Vertical (degree) 
0 1 5 8 
1 0 0.0044 
21 
0.0026 
13 
0.0022 
11 
2 0.0075 
180 
0.0240 
44 
0.0155 
26 
0.0160 
25 
4 0.0502 0.1238 
6 0.0445 
180 
0.2572 
112 
0.2763 
59 
0.2229 
48 
10 0.0926 
180 
0.1944 
180 
0.6018 
90 
0.6126 
72 
Initial Velocity (m/s) 
20 0.5711 
180 
0.8137 
180 
1.747 
90 
1.675 
106 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293], Table 12. WP = waste package 
NOTE: Damaged area based on the residual stress intensity, rather than 
residual stress. 
The information in these tables is not used directly in abstractions for the seismic scenario class. 
Rather, the information in Tables 5.3-56 and 5.3-57 is used to estimate the damaged areas from 
multiple waste package-to-waste package impacts. These damaged areas are then incorporated 
into Table 5.3-22 and Table 5.3-55 that become the direct input to the waste package damage 
abstractions for the seismic scenario. 
5.3.5 Maximum Accelerations of Fuel Rod Assemblies 
As seen in Table 5.3-65, it presents the maximum peak acceleration (in the axial direction of the 
fuel assemblies) experienced by any of the fuel assemblies for material properties evaluated at 
150C. Table 5.3-66 presents the average peak acceleration for each impact. The average peak 
acceleration
assemblies. Details of these calculations and supporting figures are provided in Maximum 
Accelerations on the Fuel Assemblies of a 21-PWR Waste Package During End Impacts 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 162602]), Attachment V). A low pass filter with three different cutoff 
frequencies has been

450 
(Se
(See Figure V-11) 
369(See Figur
47
506
(See Figure V
701
t V. 
(See Figure V
ak Acceleratio
Initial V
ies with Three
/s) 
s to (Cor
2 
1
o (Corre
4 
(Corres
- 1) Figu
ds to 
- 2) 
(CorreFig
s to (Co
Figure V
1
244 
(Corres
Figure V- 
219
(CorresponFigure V-
278 
- 3) Figu
003 [DIRS 162602], T
Figure V
t V. 
Figure V- 1 
scenario
Mesh Refinement Study for End Impacts 
reshold i.e., 80 percent of the yield strength = (0.8)(310 MPa) = 248 MPa for Alloy 
323 
) 
9 
(See Figure V-13) 
8rrp
e Fi
(S
r material
ection 6.5.7). 
able 5.3-65. Maximum Peak Acceleration (g) for the Fuel Assemblies with Three Different Cutoff

differences in the volume of a typical element (dV7) and the damaged area (dDA) are presented 
cts due 
. The s
nt
e 5.
ne end im
. 
for the 0 de
esh (BSC 20
n for hi
IRS 162293
eformation 
age in com
angle impa
aged area s
axial dire 
impacts is d 
correspond
ore elong
onsequen
read
te the damag
ively small a
ing within
ea for low-an
-boundary le
tively co 
atio of dama
stant-stre 
area for low-angle impacts than
er
s elem293]) is, co
numerica
ntly, more 
acts. It i
s 
in compa 
is smeared 
o
sent
sam
ormaai
rea, part
to 
onsequently, the ime coarse me
s
pact energy 
other word
s
eld strength = (0.9)(310 
for low-an 
to the moescnr
able 5.3-56. 
es
hat are gen
or high-a
se it rep 
one except
mpacts. 
pacts more
er a larger area 
of the (less

DA=0.0130 mdDA=+16% 
DA=0.0105 mdDA=-8% 
V=4.47e-7 m3(e# 15556) 
V=4.80e-8 m3(e# 270687) 
dV=-831% 
V=1.11e-6 m3(e# 22426) 
V=1.46e-7 m3(e# 214246) 
dV=-660% 
V=2.02e-6 m3(e# 23219) 
V=3.02e-7 m3(e# 18230) 
dV=-569% 
4 
DA=0.0244 m2DA=0.0122 m2dDA=-100% 
DA=0.0734 m2DA=0.0421 m2dDA=-74% 
DA=0.0850 m2DA=0.0651 m2dDA=-31% 
 
V=4.47e-7 m3(e# 15556) 
V=9.52e-7 m3(e# 22666) 
V=1.11e-6 m3Impact 
Velocity 
(m/s) 
2(e# 270687) 
d=-831% V(e# 9014) 
dV=-435% 
(e# 8774) 
d=-524% V6 
DA=0.0276 mDA=0.0264 m2d=-5% 
 
DA=0.1556 mDA2DA=0.1466 m2d=-6% 
DA=0.1082 mDA2DA=0.0967 m2d=-12% DAV=6.44e-7 m3(e# 17982) 
V=6.38e-8 m3(e# 212565) 
d=-909% V10  
DA=0.0834 m22  
dDA=-46% 
20     
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844], Table 2. 
NOTE 1: DA designates the damaged area and V designates the volume of a typical element (e#) of the 
waste package OCB. Subscript (0) refers to the base mesh. Subscript (1) refers to the refined 
yield. dDA and dV are changes in damaged area and volume respectively, for base case and mesh 
refinement study. 
NOTE 2: Blank fields correspond to cases from (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293]) that are not rerun in this study. 

V=
V=
Table 5.3-68. amaged Area for the Upper Residual Stress Threshold of 90 Percent of Yield Strength 
0 
 
3
 
8.9e-7 m
1.31e-7 m31
V
(e# 22
Ve#
2
=0.0056 m2
( 1165
V=-53
DA=0.006
dV=533% 
DA=-29% 
=00052 m
dDA=-8% 
2.02e-6 m3219) 
D0.005d
DA=0.0244 m2DA=0.0122 m2DA=0.0212 m2DA=0.0126 m2DA=0.0508 m2DA=0.0288 m2
(e# 15556) 
3
V=4.80e-8 m(e# 270687) 
V=1.46e-7 m(e# 214246) 
V=3.02e-7 m(e# 18230) 
4 
.52e-7 m32666) 
3
V=1.11e-6 m3(e# 22626) 
6 
(e# 270687) 
dV=-831% 
2
 
1.8e-7 m
dV=435% 
.2
V(e
# 877d
V=-524A=
DA=0.0244 m2
DA=0.0124 m
dDA=-97% 
3
=00655 m=
dDA-17% 
D0.050A=
D0.033d
DA=-50%
4e-7 m
17982) 
3
10  
VDA=0.0264 m2DA=0.0259 m2
dDA=-2% 
20     
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844], Table 3. 
NOTE 1: DA designates the damaged area. V designates the volume of a typical element (e#) of the waste 
package OCB. Subscript (0) refers to the base mesh. Subscript (1) refers to the refined yield. dDA 
and dV are changes in damaged area and volume respectively, for base case and mesh refinement 
study. 
NOTE 2: The blank table fields correspond to th
3
V=4.47e-7 m
3
V=
1 5 8 
 
e# 22386) 
 
 
# 16590)
1e-6 m426) 
V=4.47e-7 m(e# 15556) 
3
V=4.80e-8 m
(e# 9014) 
-
=00767 m.
8e-8 m2565) 

The results presented in Table 5.3-68 (with exception of 0 degree results that are discussed 
separately in Section 5.3.6.1) indicate that, on average, a mesh refinement of 595 percent results 
in a 36 percent decrease of the damaged area in comparison to the results in Table 5.3-57. The 
differences in the damaged areas are consistently on the conservative side in comparison to the 
results with a coarse mesh. An explanation for the somewhat more pronounced damaged area 
reduction for the upper damage threshold (Table 5.3-68) compared to those for the lower damage 
threshold (Table 5.3-67) is i
(see Tables 5.3-56 and 5.3-57). Consequently, the same absolute difference in damaged area 
would cause a relative difference that is twice as large. Stated differently, the damage area for 
the upper residual stress threshold is intrinsically more mesh sensitive. 
The damaged areas (especially those corresponding to the upper residual stress threshold) are of 
irregular, often elongated, shape (for example, BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844], Figure I-3 and 
Figure I-4 or Figure 5-37); the accuracy of the estimated damage area is inherently limited by the 
size of the affected elements for these types of shapes. Since the typical element minimum 
dimensions in this calculation are 2 mm to 3 mm, and since the affected region of the waste 
package OCB is almost three orders of magnitude larger, it is obvious that there is a resolution 
limit for a reasonable damaged area evaluation. This is acceptable since the use of larger 
elements in a coarser mesh results in a consistent overestimate of the damaged area. Thus, the 
tradeoff between accuracy of the FE mesh and computational tractability is inherently more 
pronounced for damaged area evaluation than for stress evaluation. However, it is important to 
recognize that the results with the coarser mesh are on the conservative side. 
calculations are performed by using LS-DYNA V970 D MPP-00 for massively parall
ing because of the large number of elements. As an illustration of the rapid increase of 
coputational load, the number of elements in the base FE representation used in 21-PWR 
Package Side and End Impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293]) for an end im
pact angle and initial velocity of 4 m/s was 50,726. The corresponding number of 
s n the first and second refined-mesh calculations is 335,102 (BSC 2004 
44], Attachment II, Mesh 1 (SMP) \ a1v4 \ d3hsp) and 1,198,942 (BSC 2004 
44], Attachment II, Mesh 2 (MPP) \ a1v4 \ d3hsp), respective
lue corresponding to the results obtained from the base calculation (BSC 2003 
93]) and from the first refined mesh are again presented as red and blue, 
. In addition, the values are designated by subscripts 0 and 1, respectively. The 
mple, dV12 refers to the change of the typical elem 
th first refined mesh (1) and the second refined mesh (2);dDA02 refers to
aged area value between the base mesh (0) and the second (2) refined mesh; and 
refined sh, which are presented in Tables 5.3-69 and 5.3-708. T

.3-69. Damaged Areas for the Lower Residual Stress Threshold of 80 Percent of Yield Strength 
for the Base Case, the R
V2=2.3710(e# 366764) DA2=0.0128 dV02=-3402 dDA02=+15 
Angle = 1 degree 
Velocity = 4 m/s 
V0=1.1110-6 (e# 22426) 
V1=1.3110-7 (e# 214006) 
V2=2.3610-8 (e# 658212) 
DA0=0.0734 
DA1=0.0421 
DA2=0.0406 
dV01=-747 
dV12=-455 
dV02=-4603 
dDA01=-74 
dDA12=-4 
dDA02=-81 
Angle = 5 degree 
Velocity = 4 m/s 
V0=2.0210-6 (e# 23219) 
V1=3.0210-7 (e# 18230) 
V2=8.4310-8 (e# 68834) 
DA0=0.0850 
DA1=0.0651 
DA2=0.0602 
dV01=-569 
dV12=-258 
dV02=-2296 
dDA01=-30 
dDA12=-8 
dDA02=-41 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844], Table 4. 
NOTE: 0 = base mesh; 1 = 1st refined mesh; 2 = 2nd refined mesh. V = volume of element (e#); 
DA = Damaged Area; dV or dDA = Changed in Volume or Damaged Area. 
Table 5.3-70. Damaged Areas for the Lower Residual Stress Threshold of 90 Percent of Yield Strength 
For the Base Case, the Refined Mesh, and the Very Refined Mesh 
Volume (m3) and Number Damaged AreaDifference in Difference in 
(e# 22426) 
V 
(e#) of Typical Element (m) (%) (%) 
Angle = 5 degree 
Velocity = 2 m/s 
V0=8.2910-7 (e# 22386) 
V1=1.3110-7 (e# 116590) 
V2=2.3710-8 (e# 366764) 
DA0=0.0056 
DA1=0.0052 
DA2=0.0066 
dV01=-533 
dV12=-453 
dV02=-3402 
dDA01=-8 
dDA12=+21 
dDA02=+15 
Angle = 1 degree 
Velocity = 4 m/s 
V0=1.1110-6 
1=1.3110-7 (e# 214006) 
DA0=0.0212 
DA1=0.0126 
dV01=-747 
dV12=-455 
dDA01=-68 
d
V2=2.3610(e# 6582Angle =egree 
V0=2.0210-6 (e# 23219) 
Velocity = 4 m/s 
V1=3.0210(e# 18230) 
V2=8.4310-8 (e# 68834) 
DA1=0.0288 
DA2=0.0244 
dV12=-258 
dV02=-2296 
dDA12=-18 
dDA02=-108 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170844], Table 5. 
NOTE: 0 = base mesh; 1 = 1st refined mesh; 2 = 2nd refined mesh. V = volume of element (e#); 
DA = Damaged Area; dV or dDA = Changed in Volume or Damaged Area. 
The results presented in Tables 5.3-69 and 5.3-70 indicated that the mesh refinement between the 
(first) refined mesh and the (second) very refined mesh results (average of dV12) in an average 
reduction of the typical-element volume by 389 percent. The corresponding average change of 
the damaged area va9
mesh-insensitive. Furthermore, it confirms that the results corresponding to the upper residual 
stress threshold are more mesh-sensitive. 
Volume (m3Number (e#) of 
Typical Element 
Damaged Area(m2) 
Difference in 
Volume 
(%) 
Difference in 
Damaged Area(%) 
Angle = 5 degree 
V0=8.2910-7 (e# 22386) 
V1=1.3110-7 
DA=0.0109 d=-533 d=+16 0V01DA01

The average mesh-density increase of 35 times between 
0.21 for the Poissons ratio of A 516 CS, instead of 0.3. This latter value is the accurate value 
that is also used in 21-PWR Waste Package Side and End Impacts (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162293]). 
A 516 CS is the material used for the basket guides and stiffeners and the fuel basket plates and 
tubes. These internal components are enclosed in the IV; consequently, their Poissons ratio has 
negligibl
confirmed by two calculations that are redone with the correct value of Poissons ratio for A 
516 CS. A 5 degree impact angle and 4 m/s impact velocity; the damaged areas are 0.0658 m2 
and 0.0288 m2 for the lower and upper residual stress thresholds, respectively. These values 
correspond to 1.1 percent and 0 percent difference from the corresponding values in 
Tables 5.3-67 and 5.3-68. Additionally, for an 8 degree impact angle and 6 m/s impact velocity, 
the damaged areas are 0.0957 m2 and 0.0333 m2 for the lower and upper residual stress 
thresholds, respectively. These values correspond to 1.0 percent and 0.6 percent difference 
percent or less, from the input error for A 516 CS Pois
.3.6.1 Discussion of Results fo
lculations with a refi
ero-D 
Impact
e
ng
ngle meri
ree impa
e follow 
achiev
an ideal
end im
ero-degre
r
- The ideal zero-degree end impact is a limiting case that is extremely unlikely to 
occur because of the irregularities of the invert surface and because of the 
complexity of the applied loads (i.e., the seismic excitation) 
- The ideal zero-degree end impact implies not only an absence of relative inclination 
between the two waste packages but also a perfect alignment of their centerlines at 
the time of collision. In other words, the waste pa
 The damaged area for ideal zero-degree impacts is contained within a very narrow axially 
symmetric ring, located at the end surface of the OCB, close to its outer edge (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170844], Figure I-2). Thus, it is overlapped by the lower trunnion sleeve weld, as 
factor of approximately two. It cannot be overemphasized that, based on the results presented in 
Tables 5.3-71 and 5.3-72, the factor of two is likely to be a bounding value. This statement is 
based on the following rationale: 1) two out of three of the cases with the very refined mesh are 
selected based on the largest damaged area difference, and 2) the first refined mesh results are 
practically mesh insensitive. 
mesh. 
le 
reason 
The level of approximation inhe

eeds the dam
age thresholds are located slightly 
(BS
04 [
170844
re I-1) a
illustrated in 21-PWR Waste Package End Impacts - A Mesh Study (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170844], Figure I-1). 
The ideal zero-degree end impact is not only an extremely unlikely event but its damaged area 
estimate is dominantly, if not exclusively, governed by the OCB discretization across the wall 
thickness. In other words, the across-wall-thickness element size is the resolution length for the 
calculation of the damaged area. 
r the 4 m/s end impact presented in Tables 5.3-67 and 5.3-68 indicate 
RS 170844
igure I-1) 
th
-percent 
aged area
belonging to layers 0 an
170844], Figures I-1 
of t
6 m/
al z
egree end
pact. Th
stress threshold, so the difference is only 
n energy is not sufficient to result in an increase in damaged area 
results 
.3-67 
hrough 
Text Box: a
sonable 
d mesh
r the 
the computational efficiency of the base 
mpacts - 
al first prin
Mesh 
udy (Bl stress exc
C 2004 
esults reveals 
cip10
)
passes the elem
maged area by a factor of two. 
abl
70, it i 
damag
area
achi 
abstra

ld 
ion 
/s 
0 m/
+7% 
2.28 m/
/s 
2 m/
2.30 m/
1.54 m/s 
5 m/
m/s 
2.30 m/ 
/s 
3 m/
+16
6.09 m/s 
e PGV decr 
in the v 
moderate PGV inclly, ground motion 3 (realization 15) 
cal direction. Finae in birectio
oth d
ag
ste Pa
ckage
ed
3, 6, and 4, in addition to being character
typical regarding the ground motion change between the two sets. Ground motion 4 
(realization 3) is representative of a small PGV increase in the longitudinal and a moderate 
es in the longitudinal (along the tunnel) 
compa
een the 
omen 
velo
iven groun
tion is lim 
scaled 
targ
lue, 
than m
tion, the ground m
otions records were 
stern United States. 
al c
tions at 
2.4
s PG
performed
bilit
do con 
in the 
nate Ground Motions at 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
ents ofva r
pon
vel have b
ent 
hose
tern
ed S 
d. These ti
istories we
ve 
se spec
mor
ical
nal ca
tions co
spon
ns 3, 4, 6, 
15. Real
documented in Table 5.3-22. The chang
Table
1. Ch
e of PG
betwee
o Ground M 
Sets 
und 
inal 
Yucca
in site
real
trated in Table 5.3-71 for the longitudinal (along the tunnel; H2) and 
e input data and results labeled hereinafter as Old and New refer to the original 
me histories, r
Lon
GV 
New
C
O
New 
m/s 
+65
/s 
2.28 m/
ase in the vertical direction. (Table 5.3-71). Ground motion 1 (realization 6sentative of a moderate decrease in the PGV in both the longitudinal and vertical directi
at
nts 
OCB

The kineatic parameters for end impacts with the four alternat
column is the time of impact. The impact speed (the third column) is the relative speed between 
the longitudinal boundary (representing the n
the impact region. The impact angle presented in the fourth 
inclination of the waste package with respect to the longitudina
ble 5.3-72. 
Impact 
meters and Damage
d Area 
2) 
act
gle 
90%
Imp 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed(m/s) 
An(degree) 
F 1 2.7250 2.4 0.3 0.0131 0.0074 
F 3 3.3000 1.4 1.6 0.0100 0.0052 
F 9 3.1250 2.7 1.1 0.0400 0.0149 
F 9 3.1625 1.1 1.2 0.0051 NC 0.0027 NC 
C 3 3.5250 1.2 2.1 0.0061 0.0032 
C 4 0.5375 1.5 1.2 0.0124 0.0063 
C 5 4.1125 1.2 0.2 0.0014 0.0007 
C 9 2.8625 3.6 0.3 0.0326 0.0194 
C 9 2.1625 1.7 0.4 0.0066 NC 0.0034 NC 
C 10 2.2250 2.3 0.2 
Table 5.3-73. End-Impact Par
Damaged Area 
(m2) 

F 9 0.100 1.1
C 3 
C 10 0.600 1.5 5.6 0.0063 0.0034 

The damaged area rground motion is presented in Table 5.3-77. 

sidual First Principa
Figure 5.3-8. Re

Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168385], Figure 6.2-2. 
NOTE: Units in Pascals. 
Figure 5.3-9. Residual First Principa

Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168385], Figure 6.2
Figure 5.3-10. Residual First Principal Stress Plot in OCB (Bottom View) for Realization 6 

Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 168385], Figure 6.2-4. 
NOTE: Units in Pascals. 
Figure 5.3-11. Residual First Principal Stress in OCB (Bottom View) for Realization 15 
5.3.7.3 Discussion and Summary 

0.2%
0.4%
lly i 
in Figure 5.3-12 to illu
0.8%
0.6%0.3%RN 3

en
The m
shar
proportionally large number of small-angl
all the igh-speed impacts (with one excep
reason for this is that in spite of the 30 percent PGV increase in the vertical direction, the ne 
moti

impact angles leads to a conservative approach in the impact-angle estimate to ensure a
ns that 
ects th
agnitu
between the longi
aged area
ge and tha 
of d
sma 
also led to
nvestigatio
ion (5.3
is alte
impacts. More specifically, if the impact 
n the damaged area is (conservatively) set equal to the damaged area for a 1-degree impacmaged areas for Realizations 3, 4, 6, and 15 have been reanalyzed with this new 
ation fo
aste P
ent II). A compar
age Exposs the asse
that the l 
mai
r b
ng 
PG
vel. 
pport the data in Tables 5.3-24 and 
ge damage abstraction in the seismic 
.8 Alternate Interpolation for Waste Package-to-Waste Package Damage 
presents
e dam
d area
n the O
resulting 
rection
amage
atic 
e th
ed, 
n and 
f end 
tion 
(2)
maged 
m indi
dama
are
for mu 
end 
eed 
third c
n) 
rela
speed betw
the longit
g was
aste 
(i.e., i
impact region. The impact angle presente
ption 

(a)
(b)
04 [D
68385]
me in s
s. 
Rea
For Tw
Sets 

ble 5.3-80. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 1 at the 2.44 m/s PGV Level
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
Damaged Area (m2) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
F 8 
6.025 
1.3 
1.0 
0.0089 
0.0046 
10 
4.750 
1.0 
1.5 
0031X0.
0017X0. 
11 
4.875 
1.5 
1.3 
0.0122 
0.0063 
Total 
0.023 
0.012 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170843], Table 6.1.2-1. 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
Damaged Area (m2) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
F 
0.750 
1.2 
0 
0 
0 
F 8 
3.150 
1.8 
0.5.1.0 
0.0183 
0.0093 
F 9 
5.000 
1.5 
1.0 
0127X0.5
0065X0.
T
0.025 
0.013 
rce: 
2004 [D
7084
le 6.1.2-2. 
rameters an 
for Re
F 6 
F 9 
675 
1.5 
3.4 
1.1 
0086 0.004
0.0771 
0.0125 
0.0374 
0.0064 
11 
3.100 
2.4 
0.9.1.0 
0.0324 
0.0132 
4 
0.975 
1.1 
1.6 
0.0048 
0.0026 
6 
2.625 
1.1 
1.6 
0.0048 NC 
0.0026 NC 
7 
3.225 
3.6 
0.9.1.0 
0.0631 
0.0192 
8 
4.575 
1.5 
1.6 
0.0117 NC 
0.0060 NC 
7.350 1.1 
1.1 
0.0051 NC 
0.0027 NC 
To
0.20 
0.083 

Table 5.3-83. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 4 at 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
pact 
ocation 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
Damaged Area (m2) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
1.9 
1.0 
0.0202 
0.0103 
9 
.775 
2.5 
4.1 
0.0307 
0.0162 
9 
2.9 
0354 NC
.0166 NC 
9 
.700 
3.5 
4.0 
0.0650 
0.0343 
To
0.12 
0.061 
2
cation 
F 2 
(s) 
25 
(m/s) 
1.6 
egree) 
1.2 
Yield 90% Yi
Strength 
.0142 NC 
Strength 
0.0073 NC 
2 
.025 
2.0 
1.7 
0201 NC
.0102 NC 
2 
.075 
4.2 
1.4 
0836 NC
.0275 NC 
3 
.425 
1.3 
2.9 
0068 NC
.0036 NC
137 NC
0070 N
F 3 5.075 4.4 2.5 0 
5.900 1.3 1.0 0.0089 NC 0.0046 NC 
F 9 1.325 1.2 1.7 0.0064 0.0034 
C 2 
C 3 
.800 
1.2 
.1.0 
1.7 
2 NC 0.00130071 0.003
0.
.0064X0.5 
7 
0.0034X0.5 
4 
2.9 
0.0125 
0.0064 
.0262 
0.0145 
C 11 0.200 1.4 0.2.1.0 0
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170843], Table 6.1.2-5. 
Table 5.3-85. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 6 at 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
ocation 
F 4 1 
Speed(m 
Angle 80% Yield 
eng90% Yield
(degree) Str0.034
th Strength 
0 
1.4 
0.5.1.0 0.
1.0 0.
0.0132 NC 
0.0103X0.5 
0.0134 
1.6 0.
0.0095 N
2.7 
0.0300 
0.9.1.0 0.045
0.0157 N
tal

Table 5.3-86. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 7 at 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
ocation 
Speed(m
Damaged Area (m) 
Angle 80% Yield 90% Yield
(degree) Str
th 
Strength 
0.4.1.0 
0.0056 
0.5.1.0 
0.0147 
0 
2.5 0.
0.0103 N
0 
0.0024 
0.8 0.
0.0029 N 
0.4 
0.0265 
3.0 
0.0139
Total 0.14 0.063 
ource: BC 2004 [DIRS 170843], Table 6.1.2-7. 
Section 5.3.2). Consequently, the results from this realization are no
5.3-22, 5.3-94, 5.3-95, and 5.3-96 that summarize the results at the 2.44 m/s PGV level. 
Table 5.3-87. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 9 at 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
Damaged Area
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
F 3 0.800 1.5 1.7 0.0116 0.0059 
F 3 7.075 1.0 2.4 0.0027 NC 0.0016 NC 
F 5 2.625 1.7 2.7 0.0129 0.0066 
F 8 1.575 2.8 4.5 0.0408 0.0226 
F 9 2.250 1.6 5.0 0.0072 NC 0.0038 NC 
F 9 2.325 1.1 4.1 0.0021 NC 0.0013 NC 
F 10 3.950 1.8 1.4 0.0174 0.0089 
C 8 1.375 1.4 2.6 0.0086 0.0045 
C 9 1.925 1.7 

Table 5.3-88. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 10 at 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
3 
3 
Angle 80% Yield 90% Yield 
) (m/s) (deg
Strength 
425 150 1
2.70.3.
0.00
00
22 
65 
Total 
0.0090.0
0.
C 
7 
, Ta
-10. 
rea for
zation 1
.44 m/ 
Level 
t 
e Sp 
Angeg
Da80%
ed Area (m9
ld 
) (m/s) 
0 
(d
Stre0.0
S
9 
5 
5 
0.3.
1.7
0.0120.0
0.
C 
8 
5 
0 
0.
0.012
0
NC 
0 
5 
0.0150.0
0
8 
Tota
, Table 6.
0.0-11. 
et
nd Dama
rea for 
zation 1
.44 m/s 
Level 
Da
ed Area (m 
tion
(d
0
90Stre
th 
8 
0 
75 
0.4.
0.8.
0.005 
0.
C 
25 
25 
0.5.
0.2.
0.012
0.5 
C 4 6.175 1.0 
C 9 3.775 2.3 0.8.1.0 0.0298 0.0127 

Table 5.3-91. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 13 at 2.44 m/s PGV Level 
ocation 
F 4 
peed Angle 80% Yield 90% Yield 
(m/s) (degree
Strength 
.6.1.0 
2 
0.0103
2.025 
2.450 
1.2 
2.0 
NC 
159 
.0037 N
0.0081 
9 
7.625 
9.875 
1.1 
1.1 
1.0 
2 NC 
052 
.0027 NC0.0027 
ce
T 
2004 [D 
170843], 
6.1.
ers and
ealizat
14 at 2.
GV
maged 
(m2) 
ation 
Time 
(s) 
2.775 
peed 
m/s) 
1.4 
.0 
ield 
gth 
08 
0% Yieltrength 
3
3.925 1.0 0.6
4.450 1.2 0.2
.0 
33 
0.0018 
0.0037 
To 
2004 [Dct Param
.1.2-14. 
Realizat
15 at 2.4
GV
maged 
(m2) 
paation 
Time 
(s) 
peed 
(m/s) 
ee) 
ield 
gth 
0% YieldStrength 
01 
20 
0.0102 
0.010 
rce: 
2004 [D 
170843], 
mmary of Tables 5.3-83 through 5.
te Package
3-94, e
-Waste Pa
pt for R
ge Interaction 
at
able 5.3-94. Damaged Area from End ImpacPGV Level 
Damaged Area (m; % of toRealization 
Ground 
Motion 80% Yield Strength 90% Y
1 7 0.023; 0.082% 0.012; 0.043% 
2 16 0.025; 0.089% 0.013; 0.046% 
3 4 0.20; 0.71% 0.083; 0.29% 
4 8 0.12; 0.43% 0.061; 0.22% 
5 11 0.16; 0.57% 0.074; 0.26% 
6 1 0.15; 0.53% 0.063; 0.22% 
7 2 0.14; 0.50% 0.063; 0.22% 

Table 5.3-94. Damaged Area from End Impacts (Waste Package-Waste Package Interaction
GroMo
Da 
80
aged Aield Stre
(m2; % of to90% Y
B area) 
trength 
9 
1
0.062; 0.2
2% 
9 
0.0
31% 
5 
0.0
.12% 
6 
0
8% 
1
0
4% 
1
0.
9% 
3 
0.01
035% 
2004 [
17084
ble 6
OTE: 
l OC 
28.2 m2
ulation 
ection 5
rt). 
umulative Damage with the Alternate In
e waste pacage-to-waste package, waste package-pallet, and cumulative damaged area 
damage
eas ar
entical with those in Table 5.3-96. 
aged
s pr
e 5.3
and 
.3-22 (
Old i
veals 
wh
the cha
in the
me l
amage
izati
ost
ly reali
2, 12, 1
ean
ged a
ue t
ssumptio
hresho
espe
ely. The
ximum
age
hold, 
ven
ncre
om 0.2
t to 0.2 
off to two significan
nclusion, the alternate interpolation techn
dam

WP-
t Interac
aged An WP-WP Interaction 
tal O 
(m; % of to
CB area) 
C
80% Y
90
8
eldth90% Yielde
80% Yieg
Stren
St
Stre 
Str
Stren
0.002
0
00.
0.02
0.010
0.
0.092%
0; 
; 
% 
0.00.04
0.025;
% 
0 
0.089
0.005
00.
; 
0.00.2
0.21; 
0.018
0.74% 
0.030; 
0.11
0.0060 
0.061; 
0.22
0.15; 
0.53%
0.001
0
; 0.0
0.005 
0.2
0.16; 
0.57%
0.02
0
0
0.18
1 
0.089
0. 
.00.2
;
0.64%
0.01
0
0
0.16; 
2
0.060 
0.2
0.57
0.003
0
; 0.0
10
0.012 
0.2
0.12; 
0.43%
0; 
; 0.00
9
0 
0.0
% 0.03
0.017;
0.060%
0.01
0
; 0.0
0.088;
5
0.043
0 
0.1
0.31%
0.003
0
0.12
6
0.014 
0.1
;
0.43%
; 0.0
0.041;
12
0 
0.07
0.15%
0.01
0
; 0.0
0.031;
14
0.035
0
% 0.03
0.11%
0.007
0
; 0.0
0.028;
3 
0.028
0.
% 0.03
0.099%
4 [DIR
843], T
.1.3- 
m2 (
n 5.3.1.1 of t
port). 
age 

, (2) the da
57, a 
altern
mall angle impacts (Assumption 3.18). 
ble 5.3-96. Comparison of Cumulative Damaged Areas for Two Interpolation Schemes at 2.44 m/s 
Ground 
Yield S
amagegth 
ea (m2; % o
l OCB area)
ield Stren
Old 
ew 
ease
Old 
ew 
.026; 
26; 
0.013;
013; 
7 
.092% 
92% 
0. 
0.046% 
.046% 
.017; 
0.0089; 
0.013; 
16 
.060% 
89% 
47. 
0.032%
46% 
0.20; 
21; 
0.083;
083; 
4 
.71% 
4% 
5. 
0.29%
8 
0.15; 
15; 
0.067;
067; 
.53% 
3% 
0. 
0.24% 
0.24% 
11 
0.15; 
16; 
0.066; 
0.074; 
.53% 
7% 
7. 
0.23%
26% 
0.18; 
0.066
66; 
0.64% 0.64% 0. 
7 2 
0.46% 0.57% 23. 0.20% 
0.063; 
0.22% 11. 
9 
.014; 
50%
0.017; 
060% 
21. 
0.22% 
0.062; 
0.22% 
0.0071; 
0.025%
.0087; 
.031% 
.30% 
31% 
2. 
0.036; 
0.13%
.077; 
.12; 
0.036; 
6 
.27% 
43% 
56. 
0.13%
050; 
18% 
.032; 
0.016; 
12 
.11% 
15% 
28. 
0.057% 
0.021; 
.074% 
.016; 
031; 
0.0072
015; 
14 
.057% 
11% 
94. 
0.026%
53% 
.028; 
028; 
0.012; 
0.012; 
3 
.099% 
99%
0. 
0.043% 
0.043% 
843], Table 6.
1.3-2
.2 m2 (Sec 
5.3.1.1 of th
port). 
Level 
sents
damag
rea 
OC
sulting from
mpacts be
ction. T
maged 
PG
vel that d
e the sp
cation 
simu
ns of 
tory
und moti

Text Box: a
ble 5.3-97. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 1 at 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Damaged Area (m2) 
90% Yield 
Strength 
F 3 
4.825 
2.0 
2.6 
0.0090 
2.725 
1.4 
2.7 
0.0044 
F 8 
4.025 
1.0 
7.2 
0.0010 NC 
F 8 
7.100 
1.2 
3.7 
0.0025 
F 9 
1.0 
Angle 
(degree) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
0.0176 
0.0085 
0.0013 NC 
0.0047 
2.350 
3.9 
0.0021 
0.0013 
C 2 
4.900 
4.5 
5.400 
1.8 
0.0183 NC 
0.0093 NC 
C 7 
2.100 
1.8 
0.0158 
0.0080 
10 
4.525 
1.2 
0.0033 
0.0020 
11 
6.900 
1.3 
0.0056 
0.0030 
To
0.16 
0.086 
ce: B
04 [DIR
0843
5.3 
0.1005 
0.0556 
C 3 
1.0 
2.1 
6.6 
4.0 
6.2.2
End
ct Para
2
act 
Time
eed
Damage80%d 
ea (m) 
90ld 
Sp 
Yielrength
% Yietrengt
F 2 3.500 1.1 2.8 
F 3 4.975 1.9 1.0 0.0202 0.0103 
0.500 1.6 0.3.1.0 0.0146 0.0074 
C 1 
C 3 
1.600 
4.675 
1.4 
1.3 
0052 0.002
0.0056 
0.0046 
7 
3.725 
1.3 
To
0.036 
ce: B
004 [DIR
0843
le 6.2.2-2.
aged
or Reali
Angle 
.2.1.0 
0.6.1.0 
0.0108 
0.0089 
089 0.004
0.071 

80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
1 
82 
1.3 
0.0584 
0.0196 
0.925 
2.2 
0.0140 NC 
1.7 
F 1 
2.650 
2.4 
1.4 
0.0133 
F 4 
5.600 
2.900 
2.5 
.0288 NC
F 7 
3.100 
4.0 
3.7 
.1.
0.0127 NC 
C 8 
1.525 
0.0809 
C 8 
5.425 
1.5 
C 8 
1.5 
2.4 
0.0054 NC 
C 9 
2.4 
2.5 
0299 NC
.0137 NC 
10 
2.150 
1.3 
1.9 
0.0079 NC 
.0119 NC
2.225 
2.2 
0.0031 NC 
1.2 
0.0293 
3.000 
3.8 
2.4 
0.0715 
.0021 NC
2.6 
0.0206 NC 
0.0098 NC 
5.900 
1.2 
4.7 
Total 
183 N
093 N
9.825 
4.125 
Table 5.3-99. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 3 at 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree) 
Damaged Area (m2) 
Impact 
Location 
1.225 
1.3 
0.0317 
3.4 
F 5 
0.0071 NC 
F 5 
0688 NC
3.6 
0.0404 
F 8 
6.600 
0.0065 NC 
F 8 
8.450 
1.7 
1.4 
0.0156 NC 
1.700 
2.2 
1.7 
F 9 
4.725 
2.2 
.1.
.0272 NC
.0122 NC
F 9 
9.000 
1.1 
5.0 
0.0026 NC 
0.0016 NC 
10 
2.3 
3.2 
0.0255 
0.0125 
F 10 
0.275 
1.7 
0.0121 NC 
0.0062 NC 
C 2 
1.875 
2.7 
.1.
0.0401 
C 3 
0.375 
2.5 
2.8 
0.0325 NC 
0.0151 
3.825 
2.5 
.1.
0.0080 NC 
F 9 
0.0257X0.5 
0.0118X0.5 
3.975 
3.1 
.0147 NC
C 3 
0.0349 NC 
.0137 NC
C 3 
8.650 
2.0 
C 4 
0.0081 NC 
0.0043 NC 
C 5 
1.5 
.1.
0.0127 NC 
0.0065 NC 
C 6 
1.3 
1.9 
0.0079 NC 
0.0041 NC 
C 7 
1.1 
1.8 
0.0047 NC 
0.0025 NC 
C 7 
4.7 
1.4 
0.1064 
0.0357 
C 7 
1.8 
4.8 
1.3 
0177 NC
0.0090 NC 
6.750 
1.7 
5.2 
6.075 
6.950 
1.350 
2.825 
7.300 
0.0095 NC 
0.0049 NC 
1.0 
1.4 
0.0031 NC 
0.0017 NC 
1.4 
1.0 
0108 NC
.0056 NC
0.0105 NC 
10 
3.200 
2.2 
0261 NC 
10 
C 11 
C 11 
C 11 
0038 NC

Angle 
(degree) 
Damaged Area (m2) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
3.0 
2.5 
F 3 
2.125 
0.0478 
0.0207 
F 6 
2.925 
1.6 
0.0109 NC 
F 5 
2.875 
1.5 
2.4 
0.0105 
0.0054 
F 7 
3.000 
1.4 
2.0 
0095 NC
0.0266 
0.0120 
C 2 1.250 1.2 0.4.1.0 
0.0033 
0.0020 
084
.0089 0.0046 
T
0.12 
0.055 
Damage
ea (m2) 
(s) 
egree
Strength 
Strength 
3.675 
1.8 
0 
0 
4 [DIRS 17
3], 
2.2-4. 
ct Para
aged 
for Realization 5 at 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Time 
peed
ngle
0% Yield
0% Yield
F 1 
5.900 
1.3 
3.0 
0.0067X0.5 
0.0035X0.5 
C 3 5.375 1.7 0.1.1.0 
Table 5.3-100. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 4 at 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
3.0 
0.0056 NC 
F 7 
3.725 
2.2 
1.3 
C 5 3.250 1.7 6.1 0.0082 NC 0.0045 NC 
End
mpact
cation
F 
0 
1.925 
2.0 
4.1 
0.0134 
0.0069 
0.0052 NC 
1.300 
2.7 
9.1.
0.0401 
0.0147 
2.700 
1.8 
1.7 
0.0167 NC 
0.0085 NC 
5.000 
1.2 
4.1.
.0071 NC
3.425 
1.4 
2.6 
0.0086 
0.0045 
0.350 
2.1 
1.6 
0.0111 
F 1 
4.850 
1.4 
1.6 
0.0100 NC 
F 5 
F 6 
F 6 
F 7 
F 10 
0.0232 
F 12 
140X0
072X0

Table 5.3-102. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 6 at 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(degree
Damage80% Yield 
Strength 
(m) 
90% Yield 
Strength 
2 
0.950 
4.0 
1.7
54 NC 
F 2 
2.325 
4.4 
1.7
0.070.0933 
0.0264 NC 
0.0328 
F 3 
3.225 
1.3 
.1.1.0 
0.0089 NC 
0.0046 NC 
F 6 
3.075 
2.0 
2.0
0.0193 
F 8 
1.775 
3.2 
2.9
0.0541 NC 
0.0246 NC 
F 9 
1.275 
4.4 
6.9
0.0863 NC 
0.0455 NC 
F 9 
1.425 
1.4 
3.3
.0077 NC
.0040 NC
F 9 
2.125 
1.6 
1.5 
.0137 NC
.0070 NC
F 10 
0.600 
2.9 
.9.1.0 
.0452 NC
F 10 
2.725 
5.0 
2.0
00.1200 
0.0157 NC 
0.0445 
C 1 
1.575 
3.2 
1.1 
.0529 NC
.0176 NC
C 1 
2.650 
4.6 
1.9
0.1024 NC 
0.0374 NC 
C 1 
2.875 
2.5 
1.2
0.0347 NC 
0.0139 NC 
C 3 
2.250 
6.4 
1.7
0.1572 
657X0.5 
.0563 
197X0
C 6 0.700 3.7 0.7.1.0 
C 7 4.275 1.3 0.1.1.0 0.008
Total 0.42 0.15 
End-Impa
ters an
ged A
r Realization 7 at 5.3 
fo
5 m
Damage
ea (m2) 
pac
Time 
pee
Angle 
(e
80% Yield 
90% Yield 
catioF 
(s) 
0.325 
(m/s1.9 
degre0 
Strength 
0 
Strength 
0 
F 1 
2.400 
6.0 
8.4
0.1019 NC 
0.0466 NC 
F 1 
4.150 
1.8 
.7.1.0 
.0183 NC
.0093 NC
F 2 
4.350 
2.3 
2.2 
0.0275X0.5 
0.0126X0.5 
F 6 
1.700 
1.5 
1.2
.0124 NC
.0063 NC
F 7 
4.075 
3.4 
1.3 
0.0584 
0.0196 
F 9 
F 11 
3.250 
2.175 
3.8 
5.4 
3.71.4
.0746 NC0.1382 
.0378 NC0.0472 
F 12 
2.225 
3.1 
3.2
.0511 NC
.0243 NC
C 
2.100 
2.0 
0 
0 
0 
C 3 
2.700 
3.3 
2.5
0.0568 NC 
0.0242 
C 3 
2.900 
1.9 
3.3
0.0143 NC 
0.0073 NC 
C 4 
2.000 
4.0 
0.5.1.0
0.0734 
0.0212 NC 
C 4 
C 6 
3.675 
2.325 
1.6 
1.5 
0.3.1.08.0 
0.0146 NC 
0.0062 
0.0074 NC 
0.0038 
C 9 
3.375 
2.3 
1.9 
0.0280 
0.0126 
C 10 
4.550 
2.0 
1.5 
.0207 NC
.0105 NC
C 11 
0.900 
1.7 
1.3 
0.0158 
0.0081 
Total 
0.33 
0.12 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170843], Table 6.2.2-7. 

Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Damaged Area (m2) 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
F 
12.075 
1.2 
0 
0 
0 
082X0.5
0045X0.5
F 2 1.100 1.2 1.9 0.006
F 3 7.025 1.9 4.0 0.0125 NC 0.0064 NC 
F 3 9.300 2.0 1.5 0.0207 0.0105 
F 4 
F 4 
1.550 
.375
1.7 
2.2 
1.6 
6.2 
33 NC 0.0068 N
0.0152 NC 
.0179 NC 
0.0077 NC 
.0099X0.5
F 6 
3.425 
2.6
3.2 
0351 NC
.0169 NC
F 7 
3.5
2.9 
0.0634 
0.0286 
F 8 
9.350 
2.1
3.1.0 
0247 NC
.0117 NC
F 9 
11.325 
1.0
1.5 
0.0031 NC 
0.0017 NC 
F 10 
6.475 
1.5
0.6.1.0 
0127 NC
.0065 NC
F 10 
6.775 
2.1
1.7 
0.0229 
0.0110 
F 11 
4.325 
1.6
0.8.1.0 
0.0146 NC 
0.0074 NC 
F 12 
3.825 
2.0
3.2 
0159 NC
0.0081 
F 12 
9.900 
1.7
2.1
0.0165 
.0084 NC
C 1 
2.375 
2.0
1.3 
0.0213 NC 
0.0108 NC 
C 2 
2.5 
0.0071 NC 
0.0038 NC 
C 2 
5.225 
1.2
3.5 
0049 NC
.0026 NC
033 N
020 N
C 2 6.900 2.3 1.6 0.028
C 3 2.275 1.2 0.4.1.0 0.0071 NC 0.0037
C 4 2.825 2.2 4.9 0.0185 NC 0.0102 NC 
C 4 3.050 3.0 3.2 0.0479 0.0228 
C 5 3.075 2.1 3.0 0.0196 NC 0.0098 NC 
C 6 4.625 1.2 1.3 0.0068 0.0036 
C 8 3.700 3.4 0.6.1.0 0.0580 NC 0.0182 NC 
C 9 9
00 
00 
2.0 0.0127 NC 0.0065 
1.4 0
63 NC 0.0120 NC 
1.6 
C 0.0060 NC 
1.1 
Table 6.2.2-8.

Table 5.3-105. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 9 at 5.35 m/s PGV L
cation 
e 
) 
Sp
Damaged Area (m 
Angle 80% Yield 90% Yi
) (degree) Stre
ngth 
elStrength 
0.3.1.0 
0.00 
1.0 
2 0.002
0.1.1.0 
C 0.003
C 4 3.100 1.4 1.3 0.0
C 11 1.900 1.8 3.2 0.0132 
Total 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170843], Table 6.2.2-9. 
Table 5.3-106. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 10 at 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Damaged Area (m2) 
Impact 
Location 
Time 
(s) 
Speed 
(m/s) 
Angle 
(d80% Yield 90% Yield 
F 4 4.950 2.1 8.0 0.0143 NC 0.0081 NC 
F 5 2.450 2.4 1.5 0.0315 0.0134 
F 6 0.600 2.5 3.7 0.0312 NC 0.0159 NC 
F 12 0.875 3.6 5.8 0.0673 0.0388 
F 12 1.675 2.7 6.2 0.0241 NC 0.0132 NC 
C 1 1.475 3.8 1.8 0.0701 0.0254 
C 1 5.200 3.7 8.0 0.0626 NC 0.0322 NC 
C 4 0.475 1.3 0.1.1.0 0.0089 NC 0.0046 NC 
C 4 1.300 
urce: BS
7.2 0.0013 0.0010 
1.8 0.0169X0
.775 2.8 
0.0422X0.5 
.3
5 
Total 
004 [DIRS
843], Table
0
2.2-10. 
3 
0.15 

Table 5.3-107. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 12 at 5.35 m/s PGV Level 
F 
F 1 
F 1 
Angle 
(degree) 
80% Yield 90% YieldStrength 
(s) (m/s) 
Strength 
0 
0.275 1.8 
5.775 
.
1 45
0.01
0.5 0C
0 
81X0.5 
5 
2 
225 
.750 
0.0060.012 
C 
NC 
2 NC 
2 
.350 
.750 
0.00.0
C 
0.5 0.006
3 NC 
5X0.5 
2 
425 
450 
0.
0.006 
36 
12 
5 
875 
600 
0.0070.004
C 
5 NC 
6 
150 
.650 
0.9 
C 
87 
9 NC 
10 
875 
.125 
0.020
C 0.011 
9 NC 
024 
e: 
Total004 [DIRS
], T
2-11. 
Damaged Area (m2) 
Impact Time Speed Angle 
Locat
F 3 2.275 2.2 3.1 0.0225 NC 0.0111 NC 
F 3 4.950 
F 12 
C 2 
1.2 0.8.1.0 0.0071X0.5 0.0037X0.5 
1.7 3.8
0.0055 
9.175
1.8 
0.2.1.0 
183 
0.00
C 6 
1.900 
2.475 
1.5 
2.2 
081 
0246 
0.00
0.011
C 6 
2.550 
3.950 
1.0 
2.0 
25 NC 
15 NC 
0.0015 NC 
0.0109
C 9 
3.900 
0.750 
1.6 
1.1 
1.0
40 NC 
52 NC 
0.0072 NC 
0.0027
C 9 
C 9 
1.300 
2.2 
1.
1.0
72 NC 
08 NC 
0.0012
0.0056
2.975 
10.325 
2.4 
1.4 
1.
01.0
324 
0108 
0.01
4 [DIRS 17
l 
084
2.2-12. 
0.005

Table 5.3-109. End-Impact Parameters and Damaged Area for Realization 14 at 5.35 m/s PGV
LocationF 1 
Speed Angle 80% Yield 90% Yield 
(m/s) (deg
Strength 
7.150
1.3 
2.1 
0077 
0.00
urce 
2004 [D
al 
S 17084 
6.2
.0077 
0.00
ct Para
ters and Dama
ged 
Realiza 
15 at 5.
PGV
pa
Time 
Speed
gle 
Damage
% Yield 
rea (m
90% Y
F 4
(s) 
1.075 
(m/s) 
ree) 
rength 
.0921 
Streng
0.042
F 7 
0.850 
0.750 
1.5 
1
127 NC
.0062 
0.0065
0.003
F 11
1.225 
0.025 
1.1 
1.0
018 NC
0.0426 
0.0014
0.015
C 4 
0.150 
0.500 
3.5 
2.2 
1
.1.0
.0606 
272 NC 
0.0180.0122
C 6* 1.400 8.6 
C 9 0.925 4.1 2.7 0.0825 
C 11 1.200 2.4 7.8 0.0235X0.5 
C 12 0.325 1.6 1.9 0.0129 0.0066 
Total 0.34 0.14 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170843], Table 6.2.2-14. 
* NOTE: Trunnion sleeve impacts the invert not the longitudinal boundary 
Table 5.3-111 presents a srealization 11 are not prese
Table 5.3-111. Damaged Area from End Impacts (Waste Package-Waste Package Interaction) at 
5.35 m/s PGV Level Based on Alternate Interpolation Scheme 
Damaged Area (m2; % of total OCB area) Realization Ground 
Motion 80% Yield Strength 90% Yield Strength 
1 7 0.16; 0.57% 0.086; 0.30% 
2 16 0.071; 0.25% 0.036; 0.13% 
3 4 0.43; 1.52% 0.17; 0.60% 
4 8 0.12; 0.43% 0.055; 0.20% 
5 11 0.21; 0.74% 0.089; 0.32% 
6 1 0.42; 1.49% 0.15; 0.53% 
7 2 0.33; 1.17% 0.12; 0.43% 
8 13 0.32; 1.13% 0.14; 0.50% 
9 10 0.045; 0.16% 0.023; 0.082% 
10 9 0.33; 1.17% 0.15; 0.53% 
12 6 0.11; 0.39% 0.047; 0.17% 

Table 5.3-111. Damaged Area from End Impacts (Waste Package-Waste Package Interaction) at 
5.35 m/s PGV Level Based on Alternate Interpolation Scheme (Continued) 
Damaged Area (m2; % of total OCB area) 
Realization 
GroundMotion 80% Yield Strength 90% Yield Strength 
13 12 0.14; 0.50% 0.066; 0.23% 
14 14 0.0077; 0.027% 0.0040; 0.014% 
15 3 0.34; 1.21% 0.14; 0.50% 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170843], Table 6.2.2-15. 
NOTE: OCB stands for the OCB; total O(Section 5.3.1.1 of this report). 
5.3.8.4 Cumulative Damage with the Alternate Interpolation 
The waste package-to-waste package, waste package-pallet, and cumulative damaged areas 
characterizing the 13 realizations for the 5.35 m/s PGV level ground motions are summarized in
Table 5.3-112, based on the alternate interpolation scheme. The waste package-pallet damaged 
areas are identical with those in Table 5.3-113. 
Shown in Table 5.3-113, it provides a summary of the cumulative damaged areas presented in 
Table 5.3-111 (labeled New in Table 5.3-113) and in Table 5.3-112 (labeled Old in 
Table 5.3-113). Comparing the results reveals that while the change in the cumulative damaged 
area is significant in some low-damage realizations (most notably realization 9), the increase of 
the mean damaged area due to Assumption 3.18 is 4 percent and 2 percent for the lower and 
upper damage threshold, respectively. The maximum damaged area is changed only for the 
lower damage threshold, from 1.84 percent to 1.88 percent of the total OCB surface area. In 
conclusion, the alternate interpolation technique has little impact on the cumulative damaged 
areas at the 5.35 m/s PGV level. 
Table 5.3-112. Damaged Area from Vibratory Ground Motion at 5.35 m/s PGV Level Based on Alternate 
Interpolation Scheme 
Damaged Area (m2; % of total OCB area) 
WP-Pallet Interaction WP-WP Interaction Cumulative 
zation 
Ground 
Motion 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
1 7 
0.20; 
0.71% 
0.17; 
0.60% 
0.16; 
0.50.086; 0.36; 0.26; 
3 4 0.34% 0.29% 1.52% 0.60% 1.88% 0.89% 
4 8 
0.12; 
0.43% 
0.096; 
0.34% 
0.12; 
0.43% 
0.055; 
0.20% 
0.24; 
0.85% 
0.15; 
0.53% 
5 11 
0.093; 
0.33% 
0.071; 
0.25% 
0.21; 
0.74% 
0.089; 
0.32% 
0.30; 
1.06% 
0.16; 
0.57% 
6 1 
0.046; 
0.16% 
0.024; 
0.085% 
0.42; 
1.49% 
0.15; 
0.53% 
0.47; 
1.67% 
0.17; 
0.60% 
7 2 
0.038; 
0.13% 
0.028; 
0.099% 
0.33; 
1.17% 
0.12; 
0.43% 
0.37; 
1.31% 
0.15; 
0.53% 

.3-112. Damaged Area from Vibratory Ground Motion at 5.35 m/s PGV Level Based on Alternate 
Interpolation Scheme (Continued) 
Damaged Area (m2; % of total OCB area) 
zation 
Ground 
Motion 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
80% Yield 
Strength 
90% Yield 
Strength 
8 13 
0.095; 
0.34% 
0.068; 
0.24% 
0.32; 
1.13% 
0.14; 
0.50% 
0.42; 
1.49% 
0.21; 
0.74% 
9 10 
0.0052; 
0.018% 
0.0035; 
0.012% 
0.045; 
0.16% 
0.023; 
0.082% 
0.050; 
0.18% 
0.027; 
0.096% 
0 9 
0.16; 
00.14; 0.33; 0.15; 0.49; 0.29; 
Accuracy of the results (damaged area) due to the waste package-pallet interaction is doubtful (see 
discussion in BSC 2004 [DIRS 167083], Section 6.5). 
aste package 
.3-113. Comparison of Cumulative Damaged Areas from Vibratory Ground Motion at the 
5.35 m/s PGV Level 
Cumulative Damaged Area (m2; % of total OCB area) 
80% Yield Strength 90% Yield Strength 
ization 
Ground 
Motion Old New Increase (%) Old New Increase (%) 
1 7 
0.36; 
1.280.36; 0.26; 0.26; 

for the 0.384 m/s PGV Level 

the waste package from i
Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.4 of t
damage to the waste package is 0.310 percent and 0.139 percent of the total surface area for the 
80 percent and 90 percent residual stress thresholds, respectively (see Table 5.3-22).
PGV level, the mean cumulative damage to the waste package is 1.01 perceof the total surf 
5.35 m/s
(see Table 5.3-55). The mean damaged area at the 80 percent residual stresapproximately twice that at the 90 percent residual stress threshold. All calcperformed with material properties based on 150C. 
On the other hand, there is an order of 
shold is
damaged areas for a given PGV level and residual stress threshold, as shown 
5.3-55. In this situation, the variation in ground motion time history and friction coefficients 
dominates the uncertainty in damaged area, rather than the variati
5.3-22 o
There is no damage to the waste package at the 0.384 m/s PGV level, asSection 5.3.3. 
The third key report in Table
ussed in
peak acceleration on the fuel rod assemblies in the axial direction due to imadjacent waste packages, as discussed in Section 5.3.5. The average peak 
obtained by averaging the peak values of acceleration time historiesmaximum peak acceleration varies between 75 gs an
ration is
acceleration varies between 35 gs to 278 gs (Table 5.3-66). These accelerationfor estimating buckling failure of the cladding due to end-to-end impacts of 
packages for the seismic scenario class. 
nt waste 
The three supplemental analyses in Table 1-1 support the results and conclusioreports. The rationale and results from the supplemental analyses are as follows: 
 It is always necessary to demonstrate that the res
three key
the level of mesh refinement. The mesh refinement study described in Sprovides a supporting document that reports on a detailed mesh refinement sto-end impacts of adjacent waste packages, and demonstrates that the original damarea calculations in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 are al
ion 5.3.6 
for end
refinement study is described in Section 5.3.6. 
The results presented in Table 5.3-68 (with exception of 0 degree results that are 
discussed separately in Section 5.3.1.1) indicate that, on aver
595 percent (in volume) results in a 36 percent decrease of the 
comparison to the results in Table 5.3-57. The differences in the damagconsistently on the conservativ

the damaged area value for the lower and upper damage thresholds of 
20 percent, respectively. This indicates that the results obtained for the 
mesh are reasonably mesh-insensitive, and that t
 Structural response calculations were based on the most current ground moat the time the analyse
explained in Section 1.3.4. Section 5.3.7 evaluates the effect ovariability and spectral conditioning for ground motions at the 2.44 m/s 
again demonstrates tha
mponen
5.3.1 is conservative. 
 The damaged area calculations for end-to-end impacts incorporate a simpscheme on impact velo
substantially less than damage at an impact angle of 1 degree because the imuniformly distributed around the circumference, rather than concentratedpractice, a 0 degree impact is very unlikely because it requires perfect aligpackage centerlines. S 
is 
with an alternate interpolation scheme. This alternate scheme holds dconstant at the 1-degree value for impact angles greater than 0 degrees a1 degree. 
ged arealess than
This change in interpolation scheme produces only minor changes iin part because multiple impacts at angles greater than 1 degree tend tdamaged area. For example, a comparison of the cumulative damage
ged area 
the tota
Table 5.3-96 reveals that while the change in the cumulative damaged ain some low-damage realizations (most notably realizations 2, 12, 13,
increase of the mean damaged area due to Assumption 3.18 is 10 percent and 7 
for the lower and upper dam
14), th
changed only for the lower damage threshold, and even that increase (from 0to 0.21 percent of the total OCB surface area) is somewhat exaggerated due to th
0 percen
has little impact on the cumulative damaged areas at the 2.44 m/s PGV lev5.35 m/s PGV level. 
or at the 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6. REFERENCES 
6.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
Avallone, E.A. and Baumeister, T., III, eds. 1987. Marks Standard Handbo
TIC: 206891. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Repository Design, Waste Package Pr21-PWR Waste Package with Absorber Plates, Sheet 1 of 3, Sheet 2 of 3, an3 of 3. DWG-UDC-ME-000001 REV A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SA
Company. ACC: MOL.20020102.0174. 
BSC 2003. 21-PWR Waste Package Side and End Impacts. 
01000-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel S
ACC: ENG.20030915.0001. 
BSC 2003. Emplacement Pallet. 000-MW0-TEP0-00101-000-00A, and -00102-
000-00A. 2 Sheets. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20030205.0007; ENG.20030205.0008. 
BSC 2003. Maximum AccelerPackage During End Impacts.
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20030327.0002. 
BSC 2003. Spatial Distribution of Damage to Waste Package in Aftermath ofVibratory Ground Motion. 000-00C-WIS0-01100-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20031113.0001. 
BSC 2004. 21-PWR Waste Package End Impacts - A Mesh Study. 000-00C-WIS0-
02100-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Compa
BSC 2004. Additional Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to 
Vibratory Ground Motion. 000-00C-WIS0-01700
BSC 2004. Additional Structural Calculations of Waste Package Exposed to 
Vibratory Ground Motion. 000-00C-WIS0-01700-000-00B. 
Bechtel SAIC Company. TBV

BSC 2004. Alternative Damaged Area Evaluation for Waste Package Exposed to 
Vibratory Ground Motion. 000-00C-WIS0-01900-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC
BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Emplacement Drift Configuration and Environment. 
800-IED-MGR0-00201-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040326.0001. 
BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Typic
800-IED-WIS0-00205-000-00D. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC CompanyACC: ENG.20040518.0001. 
BSC 2004. D&E/PA/C IED Typical Waste Package Components Assembly. 
169472
800-IED-WIS0-00202-000-00C. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040517.0008. 
170803
BSC 2004. Drift Degradation Analysis. ANL EBS-MD-000027 REV 03. 
166107
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040915.0010. 
BSC 2004. General Corrosion and Localized Corrosion of WP Outer Barrier. 
ANL-EBS-MD-000003, Rev. 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechte
169984
BSC 2004. Multiscale Thermohydrologic Model. ANL-EBS-MD-000049, Rev. 02. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Comp
BSC 2004. Q-List. 000-30R-MGR0-00500-000-000 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040721.0007. 
BSC 2004. Relative Vertical Velocity Betw
168361
P

B
artz, M. 1987. Dynamic Impact Effeore, California: Lawrence Livermore