Quantcast Structural Response Screening Guidelines

 

Click here to make tpub.com your Home Page

Page Title: Structural Response Screening Guidelines
Back | Up | Next

Click here for thousands of PDF manuals

Google


Web
www.tpub.com

Home

   
Information Categories
.... Administration
Advancement
Aerographer
Automotive
Aviation
Construction
Diving
Draftsman
Engineering
Electronics
Food and Cooking
Logistics
Math
Medical
Music
Nuclear Fundamentals
Photography
Religion
   
   

 

Share on Google+Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TwitterShare on DiggShare on Stumble Upon
Back
Frequency Screening Guidelines
Up
DOE Standard Accident Analysis For Aircraft Crash Into Hazardous Facilities
Next
References. - std30140109


DOE-STD-3014-96
APPENDIX A
analyzing the scenarios and implementing risk reduction recommendations. This by no
means implies that postulated accident scenarios that have frequencies less than 1E-6/y
are acceptable risks because they lie below the boundary between risk rejection and risk
acceptance. This standard uses the screening cutoff frequency in terms of the sum of
all aircraft crash impact frequencies, which are also the initiating event frequencies. All
individual aircraft type initiating event frequencies and subsequent accident sequences
will have frequencies less than the cutoff. This criterion applies to the frequency
screening, frequency evaluation, and damage assessment stages of the process. In all
three stages, the sum of the applicable initiating event frequencies is determined and the
same 1E-6/y screening value is applied.
Structural Response Screening Guidelines. The basis for the structural response
A.3
guidelines is predominantly the industry norms that are prescribed and uniformly
accepted by structural engineering professionals through the national and consensus
codes.
For local damage to reinforced concrete structures, it was felt that some degree of
conservatism would be achieved by increasing the penetration thickness by 10 and
20 percent for scabbing and perforation, respectively. The rationale behind this increase
is to account for any uncertainty; and because these are empirical formulas, in some
cases validated by test results, a nominal increase would ensure consistency and lend
some degree of assurance that failure would be prevented if these requirements were
met. Similarly, for steel targets, an increase of 25 percent over the penetration depth
was recommended to prevent any failure.
As for excessive structural deformation/collapse and the SSCs' functionality, the national
consensus codes were recommended to be consistent with the analysis/design
evaluation for structures subjected to any other such accidental or abnormal load.
References.
A.4
United States Department of Energy. Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy
1.
Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety Analysis Reports. DOE-STD-3009-94. July, 1994.
A-8


Privacy Statement - Press Release - Copyright Information. - Contact Us

Integrated Publishing, Inc. - A (SDVOSB) Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business