[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-136517-105":59,"doc-detail-136517-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","the-9m-drop-test-onto-an-unyielding-target-versus-drops-from-greater-heights-onto-real-targets-mechanical-cask-stresses-analysis","THE 9m Drop Test Onto An Unyielding Target Versus Drops From Greater Heights Onto Real Targets - Mechanical Cask Stresses Analysis","","A mechanical impact assessment compares hypothetical drops of two fuel element transport casks onto an unyielding 27.2 m reinforced-concrete platform with results from a typical Type B test. The calculation uses an inelastic impact model to estimate energy dissipation and cask stresses, finding higher stresses than the Type B baseline. Because the 27.2 m case indicates increased demand, additional verification drop tests were conducted using an existing model cask and instrumented high-impact test data for the second cask, supported by geometric and material similarity and comparable sealing.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-9m-drop-test-onto-an-unyielding-target-versus-drops-from-greater-heights-onto-real-targets-mechanical-cask-stresses-analysis/136517/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-9m-drop-test-onto-an-unyielding-target-versus-drops-from-greater-heights-onto-real-targets-mechanical-cask-stresses-analysis/136517.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Terk","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-18","2026-08-22",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":81},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What issue does the study address regarding Type B shipping container tests?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It examines whether stresses produced by Type B test conditions remain comparable under more stringent scenarios, especially drops from heights greater than 9 m.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How are energy dissipation and impact behavior evaluated in the analysis?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The study uses a model of an inelastic impact, considering an effective plate mass for the impact area and splitting the response into short-duration plastic deformation and a longer-duration energy absorption phase.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why were additional drop tests performed for the 27.2 m case?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The computed stresses from hypothetical 27.2 m drops were greater than those from a typical Type B test, requiring further verification to confirm whether the casks still meet the stricter requirements.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},136517,1787388057,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":81,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":34,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":143},1099525198933,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","# THE9m DROP TEST ONTO AN UNYIELDING TARGETVERSUS DROPS FROM GREATER HEIGHTSONTO REAL TARGETS\n\nB.GÜNTHER  \nFederal Institute for Materials Testing,Berlin(West)  \n## Abstract\n\nTHE 9m DROP TEST ONTO AN UNYIELDING TARGET VERSUS DROPS FROM GREATERHEIGHTS ONTO REAL TARGETS.  \nIn order to calculate the mechanical cask stresses which occur in a real impact,a method of calcu-lation was used based on the model of an inelastic impact.It was found that the stresses resulting fromthe hypothetical drops of two different cask types from a height of 27.2m were greater than those result-ing from a typical Type B test.It is worth noting that the 27.2m drop was onto a 2m thick reinforcedconcrete platform.The greater stress which was discerned demanded additional verification.Thus,droptests were conducted using an existing model of one of the actual casks,corresponding to the calculatedresults.For the second cask,previously ascertained findings of instrumented high-impact drop tests,showing the degree of tolerable stresses,were used.These figures could be accepted for the cask tobe evaluated because of the geometrical similarity,as well as the similar material properties and com-parable sealing system.It was shown that both casks were able to withstand the more rigorousrequirements.  \n## 1.  INTRODUCTION\n\nIn the transport and handling of Type B shipping containers for radioactivematerials(RAM),it must always be taken into account that mechanical stressesgreater than those approved for Type B tests might be encountered.With ever-growing public concern about the actual safety of transporting RAM,the questionarises as to whether test conditions are comparable with the conditions likely to beencountered in a genuine accident.This concern affects not only the public,but alsothe responsible authorities whose job it is to license nuclear facilities.These authori-ties have to ascertain whether Type B test conditions still hold under more stringentconditions,i.e.in the cases of drops from heights greater than 9m.  \nGenerally accepted methods which allow a direct comparison of any realproblem with the well-known requirements contained in the IAEA Regulations do notexist.Such investigations in any case require a step-by-step solution as follows:  \n(1)Selection of a worst-case drop position that would cause the maximum possibleimpact load either for the cask or for the building structure.  \nGUNTHER  \nFIG.1.Handling area for transport casks at a nuclear power plant.  \n(2)Determination of energy dissipation,based on a suitable calculation model,inorder to compare the stresses that occur with those of Type B requirements.  \n(3)Additional verification tests to demonstrate compliance with the evaluatedrequirements,provided that the Type B requirements are exceeded.  \n## 2.  DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM\n\nIn this work,the hypothetical drops of two different fuel element transport casksare examined.The drops are assumed to take place in the lifting area in front of the  \n(a)  \n(b)  \nFIG.2.(a)80 t cask for transporting spent fuel elements.(b)6.6t cask for fresh fuel elements.  \ncontainment building of a nuclear power plant.The maximum lifting height is at the+17.2m level(Fig.1).The first part of the building structure to be impacted is aconcrete floor at a level of ±0.0 m,on which the cask is picked up from the transportvehicle.The vehicle is removed before the cask reaches the maximum lifting height,as a result of which the additional energy absorption by the vehicle cannot be takeninto account.Below the ±0.0m level,there is another concrete floor at a level of-10.0m,with a thickness of 2m (right-hand side)and 1m (left-hand side).  \nThe two casks to be examined have quite different designs with respect to theirgeometry,material properties and purpose.The cask shown in Fig.2(b)(in the fol-lowing Type 1 cask)is used for the transportation of unirradiated fuel elements.Thesecond one(Fig.2(a))(in the following Type 2)is used for the transport of spent fuelelements.The di","cbCair2Nt6HaegU5","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCair2Nt6HaegU5","pdf",1294589,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction\n## Motivation for comparing test and accident conditions\n# Description of the Problem\n## Two cask types and assumed drop scenario\n# Determination of Energy Dissipation Based on an Inelastic Impact Model","[{\"question\":\"What issue does the study address regarding Type B shipping container tests?\",\"answer\":\"It examines whether stresses produced by Type B test conditions remain comparable under more stringent scenarios, especially drops from heights greater than 9 m.\"},{\"question\":\"How are energy dissipation and impact behavior evaluated in the analysis?\",\"answer\":\"The study uses a model of an inelastic impact, considering an effective plate mass for the impact area and splitting the response into short-duration plastic deformation and a longer-duration energy absorption phase.\"},{\"question\":\"Why were additional drop tests performed for the 27.2 m case?\",\"answer\":\"The computed stresses from hypothetical 27.2 m drops were greater than those from a typical Type B test, requiring further verification to confirm whether the casks still meet the stricter requirements.\"}]","THE 9m Drop Test Onto An Unyielding Target Versus Drops From Greater Heights Onto Real Targets - Mechanical Cask Stresses Analysis | PDF",18]