Fortis_Design_Brief_Main_06_28_21.pdf

FORTIS 8-AXLE SNF RAILCAR

DESIGN DOCUMENTATION

June 2021

Page DOE 8-Axle SNF Car – Design Brief i

Table of Contents

List of Figures ................................................................................................... ii Abbreviations .................................................................................................. iii Executive Summary ......................................................................................... iv

1. Introduction

2. Railcar Description

3. Car Body Design and Structural Evaluations

4. Truck Design and Vehicle Dynamics

5. Brake System Design and Calculations

6. 8-Axle SNF Railcar Clearances

7. Non-Structural Analyses

8. Summary List of Appendices ii

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: 8-Axle SNF Car - Key Dimensions Figure 2-2: 8-Axle SNF Car – Isometric Exploded View Figure 2-3: 8-Axle SNF Car - Exploded View Figure 2-4: SNF Railcar Assembly Figure 2-5: Span Bolster on Trucks Figure 2-6: Coupler System attached on Span Bolster Structure Figure 2-7: Platform on Span bolster Figure 3-1: Carbody Structural Layout (Top View) Figure 3-2: Carbody Structural Layout (Bottom View) Figure 4-1: Swing Motion Truck (Exploded View, courtesy of Amsted Rail) Figure 5-1: Airbrake System Layout Figure 5-2: Ellcon-National Truck Mounted Brakes Figure 5-3: Ellcon National Truck Mounted Brakes on 125-ton Swing Motion Truck Figure 5-4: Handbrake Application Figure 5-5: Handbrake Layout Figure 5-6: End Platform Safety Equipment Figure 6-1: 8-Axle SNF Car - Plate E Clearance (All dimensions in inches) Figure 6-2: 8-Axle SNF Car - Plate E Clearance - Detail View iii

Abbreviations

AAR Association of American Railroads

AOA Angle of Attack

CCSB Constant Contact Side Bearing

CG Center of Gravity

CP Center Plate

DOE Department of Energy

DOF Degrees of Freedom

EEC Equipment Engineering Committee

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

HLRM High Level Radioactive Material

HLW High Level Radioactive Waste

L/V Ratio Ratio of Lateral Force to Vertical Force

MI Moment of Inertia

Max. Maximum

Min. Minimum mph Miles per Hour ms milli-second

MSRP Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices

RMS Root Mean Square

RTT Railroad Test Track

SA Sharma & Associates, Inc.

SNF Spent Nuclear Fuel

TTCI Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

iv

Executive Summary

This document is a design brief that describes the design, engineering, and analysis of an 8-axle, heavy duty, flat-car, intended for transporting Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) and High-Level radioactive Waste (HLW) casks, called ‘Fortis’. The Equipment Engineering Committee (EEC) of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) has approved the design to proceed to the prototype stage.

Following the design goals and requirements laid out by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Sharma & Associates, Inc. (SA) initially developed three concepts for an 8-axle railcar capable of transporting SNF and HLW casks, and recommended one for further development. The recommended concept uses a heavy duty, flat deck railcar, supported on two span bolsters, which are further supported on four (4) commercially available, freight trucks - Swing Motion® trucks from Amsted Rail.

Subsequently, SA advanced the railcar design from a conceptual design to a prototype design, through a refinement process, wherein modeling, analysis and optimization techniques were used to improve upon the conceptual design.

The prototype design resulting from this effort meets the DOE’s requirements for this development, including:

! A flat-deck railcar design capable of transporting any of the 17 casks identified by

DOE

! Adoption of the cradle system and mounting arrangements designed by the DOE’s current Atlas project to ensure design compatibility

! Ability to meet all performance requirements in the Association of American Railroads (AAR) standard, S-20431 for such cars, including:

o Clearances and dimensions, including Plate E and curve negotiation o Structural performance o Trackworthiness performance, and o Brake system performance

! Use of commercial-off-the-shelf parts and systems to the extent practical ! Compatibility with the buffer cars identified in the Atlas program ! Compatibility with the cask loading and unloading sequences identified in the Atlas program

1 AAR MSRP, Performance Specification for Trains Used to Carry High-Level Radioactive Material, Standard S- 2043 (Last revised 2017).

v

Analysis and optimization of the carbody design through finite element and fatigue analyses, and other evaluations has resulted in a design that meets all structural performance requirements for railcars transporting SNF/HLW lading.

Working with Amsted Rail, SA evaluated the dynamic performance of the railcar and truck combination under the full set of trackworthiness criteria in S-2043. The results of the dynamic simulations suggest that the design largely meets the dynamic performance requirements of S-2043, with a few minor exceptions. Further review shows that the performance, even for the conditions with minor exceptions, is largely in line with the performance expected for the 12-axle car design that the DOE is currently testing.

The main sections of this report describe:

! A description of the railcar ! The carbody design and related structural analysis ! The truck design and related vehicle dynamic analysis ! Brake system design and related calculations ! Railcar clearance diagrams ! Non-structural evaluations, such as curving calculations

In addition to demonstrating compliance with the requirements of S-2043, the documentation presented in these sections is aligned with the reporting requirements outlined in Section 4.7 of S-2043. Detailed data, including analysis reports are provided as appendices to the main sections.

Overall, the design team believes that the 8-Axle design offers a simple and effective design solution that meets the design goals, and offers a platform for further enhancements, if needed, based on the results of the prototype testing. Therefore, the DOE team requests EEC approval of the proposed prototype design, so that it may proceed further with prototype fabrication and testing.

1. Introduction This document describes the design, engineering, and analysis of an 8-axle, heavy duty, flat-car, intended for carrying Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) and High-Level radioactive Waste (HLW) casks. The design effort was conducted for the US Department of Energy (DOE) through a contract with Sharma & Associates, Inc. (SA) and is part of a larger DOE effort to prepare for implementing an integrated nuclear waste management disposition system, including preparing for future large-scale rail transport of SNF and HLW materials.

SNF and HLW will be shipped in transport casks certified in accordance with 10 CFR Part 71, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC has given a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) to transport cask designs supplied by various manufacturers. There are several models of these transportation casks that could be used to transport SNF and HLW, and these casks can weigh up to approximately 240 tons when loaded, including the shipping cask, cradle, impact limiters, and end stops. The DOE has developed a mounting system for accommodating 17 such cask designs (see Table 1), as part of a parallel design effort for a 12-axle railcar design, called Atlas2. The proposed design for this 8-axle SNF Railcar incorporates an identical mounting layout, intended to carry all 17 SNF casks.

The proposed design uses a heavy duty, flat deck railcar, supported on two span bolsters, which are further supported on four commercially available, freight trucks - Swing Motion® design from Amsted Rail, rated for an axle load of 78,750 lb. (125-ton trucks).

The current design meets DOE’s requirements for this development, including:

! A flat-deck railcar design capable of transporting any of the 17 casks identified ! Adoption of the cradle system and mounting arrangements designed by the current

Atlas project to ensure design compatibility ! Ability to meet all performance requirements outlined by the Association of American

Railroads (AAR) in S-2043 for such cars, including:

o Clearances and dimensions, including Plate E and curving o Structural performance o Trackworthiness performance, and o Brake system performance

! Use of commercial-off-the-shelf parts and systems to the extent practical ! Compatibility with the buffer cars identified in the Atlas program ! Compatibility with the cask loading and unloading sequences from the Atlas program

2 Reference: Report # DE-NE0008390, “Design & Prototype Fabrication of Railcars for Transport of HLRM,” AREVA Federal Services LLC, Mar. 6 2018.

Table 1: Key Parameters of SNF Casks

Manufacturer & Model

Length without Impact

Limiters (in.)

Length with Impact

Limiters (in.)

Diameter without Impact Limiters

(in.)

Diameter with Impact Limiters (in.)

Empty Weight with Impact Limiters (lb.)

Loaded Weight with

Impact Limiters (lb.)

NAC International

NAC-STC 193.0 273.7 99.0 128.0 188,767-

194,560 241,664- 254,589

NAC-UMS UTC 209.3 273.3 92.9 124.0 178,798 248,373-

255,022

MAGNATRAN 214.0 322.0 110.0 128.0 208,000 312,000

Holtec International

HI-STAR 100 203.25 307.5 96.0 128.0 179,710 272,622-

279,893 HI-STAR HB 128.0 230.8a 96.0 128.0 a b 187,200

HI-STAR 180 174.37 285.04 106.3 128.0 < 308,647 308,647

HI-STAR 60 158.94 274.37 75.75 128.0 a < 164,000 164,000 HI-STAR 190 SL 214.4688 339.5625 106.5 e 128 282,746 369,049-

382,746 f HI-STAR 190 XL 236.9688 362.0625 106.5 e 128 304,369 420,769 f AREVA Transnuclear

MP187 201.5 308.0 92.5 126.75 190,200 265,100-

271,300

MP197 208.0 281.25 91.5 122.0 176,710 265,100

MP197HB 210.25 271.25 97.75 126.0 179,000 303,600

TN-32Bc 184.0 261.0a 97.75 144.0 a d 263,000 a TN-40 183.75 261.0 99.52 144.0 d 271,500 TN-40HT 183.75 260.9 101.0 144.0 d 242,343

TN-68 197.25 271.0 98.0 144.0 < 272,000 272,000

Energy Solutions

TS125 210.4 342.4 94.2 143.5 196,118 285,000

a. Estimated

b. HI-STAR HB transportation casks are already loaded so they would not be shipped empty

c. This is the TN-32B that DOE plans to use in the High Burnup Dry Storage Cask Research and

Development Project, and ship from North Anna Nuclear Power Plant. The TN-32B does not currently have a transport certificate of compliance. The dimensions and weight with impact limiters for the TN- 32B are estimated.

d. TN-40 transportation casks are authorized for single use shipments and would not be shipped empty.

TN-32B and TN-40HT transportation casks would be authorized for single use shipments and would not be shipped empty on an S-2043 cask car

e. Diameter is of cask body and does not include trunnions

f. Weights do not include the weights of any MPC spacers that may be required

This design submittal has the following main sections:

Section 2 – A description of the railcar Section 3 – The carbody design and related structural analysis Section 4 – The truck design and related vehicle dynamic analysis Section 5 – Brake system design and related calculations Section 6 – Railcar clearance diagrams Section 7 – Non-structural evaluations, such as curving calculations Section 8 – Summary and recommendations

These sections are aligned with the reporting requirements outlined in Section 4.7 of S- 2043. Detailed data, including analysis reports are provided in the appendices.

2. Railcar Description The 8-Axle SNF Railcar design includes:

• A flat platform (underframe),

• Two span bolsters,

• Two end platforms, and

• Four 125-ton Amsted Swing Motion® trucks.

The total railcar design Gross Rail Load (based on 78,750 lb. /axle limit) is 630,000 lb. The total design weight of an empty car (estimate based on total weight of the platform, span bolster, secondary equipment and trucks) is 147,950. The target design weights for the various 8-Axle SNF car components are shown in the table below. The weight budget for the car body design is derived based on the axle load limit of 78,750 lb. for a 125-ton truck.

Table 2 provides an updated weight budget and weight status of the current design. The suggested lading weight is sufficient to carry the heaviest cask, the HI-STAR 190XL. Key dimensions are outlined in Figure 2-1 and Table 3.

Table 2: Weight Budget for Carbody Design Budget (lb.) Estimate (lb.)

Lading Weight 479,000 479,0003 4x 125 Ton Swing Motion Trucks 48,000 49,100 2x Span Bolsters 22,000 20,000 Car Platform Structure 74,000 73,100 Secondary Elements 5,000 4,000 Weld and Paint 2,000 1,750 Light Weight 151,000 147,950 Gross Rail Load 630,000 626,950 Axle Load 78,750 78,368

Table 3: 8-Axle SNF Car - Key Dimensions Coupled Length 62’-10½” Truck Center 35’-10” Platform Length 49’-10” Overall Width 10’-8” Deck Height (From TOR) 53” Number of Axles 8 Wheel Diameter 38”

3 Lading weight of 479,000 lb. consists of 435,000 lb. of cask, and two end stops each weighing 22,000 lb.

Figure 2-1: 8-Axle SNF Car - Key Dimensions

The distance between truck centers is 35’-10” and the overall length of the car is 60’-3”. The distance between pulling faces is 62’-10½” (compared to 78’-11/4” for the Atlas car).

The cradle system and mounting arrangements designed for the Atlas project, including all attachment points, have been incorporated into this design. While the mounting locations are identical, the central pin attachment blocks have been re-designed and are deeper, to allow being inset into the top plate and better connected to the brackets to better support the attachment loads. Outer pin attachment blocks have been designed with cutouts, to help meet the weight requirements. Refer to Figure 2-2 for an isometric exploded view and Figure 2-3 for a non-isometric exploded view of the SNF car.

Figure 2-2: 8-Axle SNF Car – Isometric Exploded View

Figure 2-3: 8-Axle SNF Car - Exploded View

The primary platform sits over two span bolsters, one on each end as shown in Figure 2-4.

Amsted Rail’s previously approved span bolster design (Drawing Reference: CZ14687, see Appendix A) has been used. The distance between the span bolster centers is 35’-10”. The car bolster has a center plate that mates with the center bowl of the span bolster. The center bowl diameter of the span bolster is 21½”. The radial clearance between the center bowl and the center plate of the car body is 1/16”. There are two standard side bearings on either side of the center bowl of the span bolster, with a 3/8” vertical clearance between the side bearing plates on the car body and span bolster. Figure 2-5 shows the span bolster sitting on two trucks.

Figure 2-4: SNF Railcar Assembly

Figure 2-5: Span Bolster on Trucks

The interfaces of the span bolster with the car body and the trucks are shown in Figure 2-6.

The span bolster has an estimated weight of 7,840 lb., and can accommodate the draft sill structure that carries the coupler and draft gear system. With a weight estimate of 2,160 lb.

for the coupler and draft system, the total estimated weight for each span bolster is 10,000

lb. In addition, a platform to carry safety equipment is attached to the span bolster as shown in Figure 2-7. The estimated weight of the platform with the safety equipment is 2,000 lb.

Figure 2-6: Coupler System attached on Span Bolster Structure

Figure 2-7: Platform on Span bolster

As noted prior, each span bolster is supported by two 125-ton Amsted Swing Motion® trucks. The trucks and their performance are further discussed in Section 4 and related appendices.

The truck structural components (bolsters, side frames, transoms, etc.) are considered commercial components with prior AAR approval, and thus structural performance of these truck components has not been explicitly reviewed here. The span bolster is also a commercially available component with prior AAR approval, and therefore, the structural performance of the span bolster has not been explicitly analyzed here.

3. Car Body Design and Structural Evaluations The carbody structure has been designed to carry the expected cask loads, as well as meet the structural requirements outlined in S-2043. It is comprised of a center sill (primary longitudinal box section), two side sills (longitudinal beams that run along the sides of the car), and several transverse members, including the carbody bolster, that provide transverse framing between the longitudinal beams. The transverse members are located longitudinally at the center and at other locations that line up with the mounting points to provide effective framing. The cradle and end stop mounting brackets are attached to the carbody platform structure. This system provides an effective structural concept for supporting the expected loads on the carbody. The end sills stiffen the end of the car, and the centerplate is the interface between the carbody and the span bolster.

Figure 3-1: Carbody Structural Layout (Top View)

Refer to Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 for the top and bottom views of the car body structure.

Specific details of the structural layout, including the dimensions of the key structural members, as well as, the overall cross-sections, are presented in Appendix A. The structure was evaluated under the standard load cases defined in S-2043, including static and fatigue load cases.

The structural analyses were performed using detailed Finite Element (FE) models and simulations. In general, the FE model was derived from the CAD model, by discretizing the design using HyperMesh, a widely used FE meshing software. The FE mesh thus created was analyzed using ANSYS for the required set of load cases.

The analysis matrix included the following loading conditions: End Compression, Combined Vertical and Lateral Loads in Draft or Buff conditions, Impact Load, Diagonal Jacking, Vertical, Lifting, Twist, and Attachment Loads.

In addition to the static analysis, fatigue analysis of key locations was performed following the guidelines and procedures laid out in AAR MSRP, Section C-II, Chapter 7.

Figure 3-2: Carbody Structural Layout (Bottom View)

Several iterations of FE analyses were performed to review the stress levels on the car structural model. Feedback from these FE analyses was used to revise car design details, as required. All critical locations of high stress were reviewed and addressed.

Overall, the current design meets the structural requirements that have been laid out in AAR Standard S-2043. In general, the design presented is reasonably conservative; observed high stresses are generally very local, and artifacts of the FE modeling approach.

The analysis process and results for both the static and the fatigue analyses are outlined in detail in Appendix B. Table 4 gives an overview of the analysis and results.

Table 4: Summary of Static FE Analysis and Results Load Cases

Force Application4 Allowable Stress Result LC # Descriptions S-2043

01 Vertical Load 4.1.5.2 1.8(DL+LL) Yield or 80% of ultimate Meets requirements

02 End Compression – Empty Car 4.1.5.7 1.0(DL Vert.) + 1,000,000 lb.

end compression

Yield or 80% of ultimate Meets requirements

End Compression – Loaded Car

4.1.5.7 1.0(DL+LL) + 1,000,000 lb.

end compression

Yield or 80% of ultimate Meets requirements

Combined Draft Load – Empty Car

4.1.5.6 1.8(DL) Vert+1.5(LAT) +1.8(350,000 lb.) Draft

Yield or 80% of ultimate Meets requirements

Combined Draft Load – Loaded Car

4.1.5.6 1.8(DL+LL) Vert+1.5(LAT) +1.8(350,000 lb.) Draft

Yield or 80% of ultimate Meets requirements

Combined Buff Load – Empty Car

4.1.5.6 1.8(DL) Vert+1.5(LAT) +1.8(350,000 lb.) Buff

Yield or 80% of ultimate Meets requirements

Combined Buff Load – Loaded Car

4.1.5.6 1.8(DL+LL) Vert+1.5(LAT) +1.8(350,000 lb.) Buff

Yield or 80% of ultimate Meets requirements

08 Impact Load – Loaded Car 4.1.5.8 1.0(DL+LL)Vert+1,250,000 lb. Ultimate Meets requirements

09 Jacking Load 4.1.5.4 1.0(DL+LL)+40%GRL on one jacking pad + 10%GRL on other pad

Yield or 80% of ultimate Meets requirements

10 Lifting Load S-234 Apply load to generate 40% of GRL on one of the lifting lugs

Yield at the connection zone

Meets requirements

Twist Load 4.1.5.5

3” of displacement on one side of one truck

56% of Yield Meets requirements

12 Attachment Loads

AAR

Rule 88 Longitudinal 7.5g, Lateral 2g and Vertical 2g

Ultimate Meets requirements

4 DL: Dead Load; LL: Live Load; LAT: Lateral Load; Vert.: Vertical Load; GRL: Gross Rail Load

4. Truck Design and Vehicle Dynamics The SwingMotion® truck is an Amsted Rail product that adds additional elements to a 3-piece truck (see exploded view, Figure 4-1) including a transom that connects the two side frames at the bottom (in addition to the bolster), and specifically designed adapter pads between the side frame and the bearing adapter that allow more controlled movement and rotation about multiple axes. The intent of all these changes is to allow improved steering in curves and load transfer between the truck components.

This truck design was originally developed for 70-ton service under a baggage car for Amtrak (premium service, compared to freight), and subsequently developed for other heavier axle loads. Autorack cars (freight cars that transport automobiles) generally require improved higher speed ride quality and tend to use these trucks extensively. A 100-ton version of the design is being used under the M-290 and Atlas car designs.

A 125-ton version of this truck is used in the 8-axle SNF Railcar (see drawing in Appendix A).

For the primary suspension, the truck uses a specially designed flexible pad between the bearing adapter and the side frame (primary suspension) to improve curving dynamic performance. The primary suspension pads on the bearing adaptors between the side frame and axles allow the wheelsets to steer through curves. The secondary suspension uses a standard spring group appropriate for 125-ton loading. As shown in Figure 4-1, the side frame rocker seat is bolted to the transom in order to increase the warp stiffness of the Swing Motion® truck and prevent high-speed truck hunting.

AAR S-2043 presents a more demanding set of dynamic performance requirements for cars carrying the SNF lading compared to that for interchange freight cars. The dynamic performance of the 8-axle SNF Railcar was evaluated with VAMPIRE®, which is widely known and used vehicle dynamics simulation software in the railroad industry. As required by the latest AAR Specification, 2A wheel profiles and AREMA 136 lb. rail profiles were used to model the wheel-rail contact geometry. The loaded car simulations were performed with the HI-Star 190XL, the heaviest cask with the highest center of gravity, as this loaded configuration had been determined to provide the most extreme dynamic performance by the Atlas project team.

Figure 4-1: Swing Motion Truck (Exploded View, courtesy of Amsted Rail)

Preliminary simulation runs of an empty car, with no ballast, predicted wheel L/V ratios higher than the S-2043 limit. Therefore, a configuration with the ballast load on the deck was modeled instead of an empty car. This approach was taken by the Atlas project also.

The simulations included the full spectrum of perturbed track simulations, in loaded and ballasted, as well as new and worn conditions. The simulations also included a set of runs on measured track geometry on track classes 2 through 6.

The results of the dynamic simulations suggest that the design largely meets the dynamic performance requirements of S-2043, with a few minor exceptions. On further review, it appears that the performance, even for the conditions with minor exceedances are largely in line with the performance expected for the 12-axle Atlas car.

Detailed descriptions of the dynamics model, the simulations, and the results are presented in Appendix C.

5. Brake System Design and Calculations SA designed a high-level brake system layout and sized the components to meet the braking ratios defined in S-2043. The SNF Railcar’s brake system meets AAR’s S-401 requirements and uses Wabtec’s ABDX control valve, reservoirs, and other secondary components from New York Air Brake (NYAB). The system layout is shown in Figure 5-1. The brake force diagrams, calculations, and completed AAR Form 600 (completed in accordance with AAR Standard S-473) are presented in Appendix D.

Figure 5-1: Airbrake System Layout

5.1 Truck Mounted Brakes

SA chose the Ellcon National’s Model 8500 truck mounted brake system (See Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3) for this cask railcar design to meet the required brake performance in AAR Standard S-401. The system consists of an air brake cylinder, two truck levers, an automatic double acting slack adjuster, mounting brackets, an actuator lever, and associated hardware.

A 10-inch diameter brake cylinder, suitable for application on 125-ton trucks, is used. The brake cylinders are attached to the truck bolsters and the brake beams are supported through guides on the side frames.

Figure 5-2: Ellcon-National Truck Mounted Brakes

Figure 5-3: Ellcon National Truck Mounted Brakes on 125-ton Swing Motion Truck

5.2 Hand Brakes

SA designed a handbrake system for the cask railcar, with Group ”O” hand brakes using a sheave wheel with chain connecting the third lever at the dead lever bracket on both trucks.

With this design (see Figure 5-4), one hand brake is sufficient to generate the required shoe force. Refer to Figure 5-5 for the layout of the hand brake. The handbrake force calculations to ensure that the chain forces and braking ratios are within prescribed AAR limits are presented in Appendix D. The arrangement also meets the requirements of AAR S-2044, as outlined in Appendix A.

Figure 5-4: Handbrake Application

Figure 5-5: Handbrake Layout

5.3 Safety Appliances

A separate platform has been designed on top of the span bolster to accommodate all the required safety equipment. The design layout of the safety appliances and walkways is shown in Figure 5-6.

The arrangement also meets the requirements of AAR S-2044. Additional detail is provided in Appendix A.

Figure 5-6: End Platform Safety Equipment

6. 8-Axle SNF Railcar Clearances The SNF railcar was designed to meet AAR Standard S-2056, Plate E Clearance. The corresponding clearance diagrams are presented in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2, which show the design meets the requirements.

In addition, all needed horizontal and vertical curve clearances under a variety of operating conditions were checked and verified to be compliant, as described in Chapter 7.

Figure 6-1: 8-Axle SNF Car - Plate E Clearance (All dimensions in inches)

Figure 6-2: 8-Axle SNF Car - Plate E Clearance - Detail View

7. Non-Structural Analyses SA designed the cask railcar to ensure that all the truck and car body clearances were met under curving conditions. As shown in Table 5, the SNF Railcar design meets all horizontal, vertical curving and No. 7 crossover requirements in AAR 2.1.4. All curving calculations were conducted using the formulae, methods, and allowances specified in the AAR standards, using spreadsheets. Details of the calculations are provided in Appendix E. In addition, clearances between multiple moving parts (carbody, span bolster, truck components), were verified consistently throughout the design process.

Table 5: Curve Negotiation

MSRP Section C Part II, Spec. M-1001

Meets Requirements

Horizontal Curve Uncoupled Car 150-ft Radius 2.1.4.2.2 Yes Coupled Car HLRM Car - HLRM

Car

2.1.4.2.1 Yes

HLRM Car - Base Car

2.1.4.2.1 Yes

HLRM Car - Buffer Car

2.1.4.2.1 Yes

Vertical Curve Uncoupled Car 500-ft Radius 2.1.4.3.2 Yes Coupled Car HLRM Car - HLRM

Car

2.1.4.3.1 Yes

HLRM Car - Base Car

2.1.4.3.1 Yes

HLRM Car - Buffer Car

2.1.4.3.1 Yes

No. 7 Crossover Coupled Car HLRM Car - HLRM

Car

2.1.4.2.2 Yes

HLRM Car - Base Car

2.1.4.2.2 Yes

HLRM Car - Buffer Car

2.1.4.2.2 Yes

Static Clearance Plate E S-2031 Yes

Cooper rating analysis was carried out the 8-axle SNF car and the 12-axle car, in the intended operating configuration. The 8-axle car configuration meets the expected E-80 limit. Additional explanation and details are included in Appendix F.

8. Summary This document presents a design for a prototype 8-axle railcar for transporting SNF and HLW lading. The presented design meets DOE’s requirements for this development, including:

! A flat-deck railcar design capable of transporting any of the 17 casks identified ! Adoption of the cradle system and mounting arrangements designed by the current

Atlas project to ensure design compatibility ! Ability to meet all performance requirements outlined in S-2043 for such cars, including:

o Clearances and dimensions, including Plate E and curving o Structural performance o Trackworthiness performance o Brake system performance

! Use of commercial-off-the-shelf parts and systems, to the extent practical ! Compatible with the buffer cars identified in the Atlas program

Analysis and optimization of the carbody design through finite element analysis, fatigue analysis, and other evaluations has resulted in a design that would meet all structural performance requirements for railcars transporting SNF and HLW lading.

Working with Amsted Rail, SA evaluated the dynamic performance of the railcar and truck combination, under the full set of trackworthiness criteria in S-2043. The results of the dynamic simulations suggest that the design largely meets the dynamic performance requirements of S-2043, with a few minor exceptions. Further review shows that the performance, even for the conditions with minor exceptions, is largely in line with the performance expected for the 12-axle car design that the DOE is currently testing.

The 8-Axle design is anticipated to offer several operational advantages to the DOE, compared to the 12-Axle design, including a lower weight, a shorter car, and a lower deck height (resulting in a lower loaded center of gravity), not to mention both lower initial and maintenance costs. The geometry of the car layout in terms of truck spacing, span bolster spacing, etc. should also offer other advantages including better curve negotiability and ability to handle tighter curves, as may be seen at industrial sites.

Elements of the design such as the lower deck height, lower sprung mass, and better curve negotiation, also offer some dynamic performance benefits, including higher stability and more controlled vertical load variations. The predicted performance of the system is presently based on reasoned assumptions about several parameters, including the stiffnesses, damping constants, and inertias of several elements and components. The actual values of these assumed parameters will be confirmed as the car goes through prototyping and testing.

At that point, the simplicity of the 8-Axle car’s layout will allow more opportunities for fine-tuning and enhancement of the final design.

Overall, the design team believes that the 8-Axle design offers a simple and effective design solution that meets the design goals, and offers a platform for further enhancements, if needed, based on the results of the prototype testing. The Equipment Engineering Committee (EEC) of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) has approved the design to proceed to the prototype stage.

List of Appendices

Appendix A Design Drawings and Details

Appendix B Finite Element Modeling and Results

Appendix C Vehicle Dynamic Analyses

Appendix D Brake System Calculations

Appendix E Curve Negotiation

Appendix F Cooper Rating Tables