GO2-83-442, Forwards Final Response to IE Bulletin 79-02,Rev 2 Re Reliability of Pipe Support Base Plates Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts in Seismic Category I Piping Sys. Approx 10,000 Seismic Category I Supports Utilized

Forwards Final Response to IE Bulletin 79-02,Rev 2 Re Reliability of Pipe Support Base Plates Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts in Seismic Category I Piping Sys. Approx 10,000 Seismic Category I Supports Utilized

ML20076E972
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	05/19/1983
From:	Carlisle C WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
References
REF-SSINS-6820 G2-83-442, GO2-83-442, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8306010368
Download: ML20076E972 (51)

Text

, , - -

i 1-

u. . -

Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 3000 G eorge Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 (509)372-5000 Docket No. 50-397 May 19,1983 Responds to: N/A G02-83-442 Response required by: N/A Mr. John B. Martin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94560

Subject:

NUCLEAR PROJECT N0. 2 IE BULLETIN 79-02, REV. 2 Enclosed is the final response to the subject Bulletin. This response supersedes the previously submitted responses and addresses the Bulletin

" Action Items" as given in Revision 2 of tha 3ulletin.

Y Program Director, WNP-2 DT/jw Enclosure cc: Mr. W. S. Chin - BPA Mr. N. D. Lewis - EFSEC Mr. J. A. Forrest - B&R - R0 Mr. T. A. Mangelsdorf - BFC Mr. A. Schwencer - NRC Mr. R. E. Snaith - BR - R0 Mr. A. Toth - NRC Site Mr. J. J. Verderber - B&R - New York gghuGM 6\ II \U @

8306010368 830519 gf l PDR ADOCK 05000397 3 { k G PDR t 1 2 - Il

f 1

, INTERNAL DISTrtUTION THIS LETTER SATISFIES COMMITMENT NO.

(See attach:d list) mis LEmR (DOES) (DOES NOU ESTABLl3 A NEW COMMlWENT.

AIC/1b WPPSS CORRESPONDENCE NO. MM RTJ/lb CSC/lb/ file I

Docket No. 50-397 May 19, 1983 Responds to: N/A G02-83-442 Response required by: N/A Mr. John B. Martin /

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Region V u ee. d 56

Dear Mr. Martin:

I l

Subject:

NUCLEAR PROJECT N0. 2

-~

IE BULLETIN 79-02, REV.12 Enclosed is the final res nse to the subje Bulletin. This response supersedes the previoU Jbmitted responses and addresses the Bulletin

" Action Items" as gi n vision 2 of the Bulletin.

C. . a 1 le D e tor, NP-2 D j Encl ure l cc: Mr. W. S. Chin - BPA Mr. N. D. Lewis - EFSEC Mr. J. A. Forrest - B&R - R0 Mr. T. A. Mangelsdorf - BPC Mr. A. Schwencer - NRC Mr. R. E. Snaith - BR - R0 Mr. A. Toth - NRC Site Mr. J. J. Verderber - B&R - New York

~

AUTHOR: D. C. Timmins j

/2}(0xbh YT

/q FOR SIGNATJRC OF: C. S*. Carlisle SECTION FER APPROVAL OF A Cyaelman R.T. Johnson X TELLcF50M 6-O @D.'ould4 APPROVED [

$ [

M tlLikA b 0 ATE (Js/rdd3 WPJS7 '

03I \s;\g 3

'>hrI W '

e FINAL RESPONSE TO NRC IE BULLETIN 79-02, REV. 2 November 8, 1979 FOR WPPSS PROJECT N0. 2 (WNP-2)

May, 1983 i

a TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page Introduction 1 NRC ACTION ITEM N0. 1 2 1.0 _ Response to Action Item No. 1 2

1.1 INTRODUCTION

2 1.2 '0RIGINAL BASE PLATE DESIGN 3 1.2.1 WNP-2 Original Design Method 1.2.2 Increases in Stress Allowable 1.2.3 Preload of Bolts 1.3 FINAL BASE PLATE DESIGN AND QUALIFICATION 1.3.1 Flexible Base Plate Analysis 1.3.2 Description of Analytical Mode 1.3.3 Shear and Tension Interaction 1.3.4 Typical Base Plates 1.4 COMPARIS0N OF RIGID AND FLEXIBLE ANALYSIS 8 1.4.1 Conventional Rigid Plate Theory 1.4.2 Examples 1.4.3 Comparison 1.4.4 Summary 1.5 TESTING 11 1.5.1 Description i 1.5.2 Comparison of Test and Analytical Results 1.6 DISCUSSION OF CYCLIC LOADING 12 1.7 MAJOR CONSERVATISMS 12 l

1.7.1 Interaction of Shear and Tension 1.7.2 Seismic Load 1.7.3 Expansion Bolt Testing l.7.4 Anchor Bolt Stiffness

1.8 CONCLUSION

S 14 NRC ACTION ITEM NO. 2 15 i

l l

l

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTD.

Item Page 2.0 RESPONSE TO ACTION ITEM N0. 2 15

2.1 INTRODUCTION

15 2.2 TEST PROGRAM 16 2.3 TEST RESULTS 16 2.4 ALLOWABLE LOADS 17 2.4.1 WNP-2 Original Design Allowables Used By Contractors 2.4.2 Anchor Allowables Used for New Design and 7' Final Plate Qualification 2.5 REVIEW AND REFINED ANALYSES FOR SHELL TYPE ANCHOR 17 FACTOR OF SAFETY 2.6

SUMMARY

18 NRC ACTION ITEM N0. 3 19 NRC ACTION ITEM NO. 4 20 4.0 RESPONSE TO ACTION ITEM N0. 4 21 NRC ACTION ITEM NO. 5 22 NRC ACTION ITEM NO. 6 23 NRC ACTION ITEM NO. 7 AND NO. 8 Not applicable NRC ACTION ITEM N0. 9 24 REFERENCES 25 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.5 Bolt Load Comparison 26 Table I Allowable Expansion Anchor Loads Provided 27 to Contractor

! Table II Allowable E>.pansion Anchor Loads used for 29 New Design, Redesign and Final Base Plate

Qualification l Table III Expansion Anchor Installation 31 Torques and Preloads Table IV Factor of Safety-Large-Bore Supports 32 Table V Factor of Safety-Small-Bore Supports 33 ii l

e TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTD.

Item Page LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.4 Comparsion of Analytical Methods on 34 Eight Bolt Base Plate Figure 1.7 Comparison of Test Results to 35 Analytical Method Figure I Field Test 36 Figure II Bolt Load Comparison for Test 1 37 Figure III Bolt Load Comparison for Test 2 38 Figure IV Bolt Load Comparison for Test 3 39 Figure V Bolt Load Comparison for Test 4 40 Figure VI Shear-Tension Interaction Diagram 41 Figure VII Structural Responses 42 Figure VIII Structural Responses 43

. iii r

. - - - - , - . - _ _ - _ . _ _ , _ . . _ , - - . _ , ,-- -- ...-..,._m.. .-. ., -, __ _ - - . - . . _ _ _ . . . - _ , . _ _ _ , . - = _ _ . _

INTRODUCTION The Nuclear Regulatory Comission IE Bulletin No. 79-02, dated March 8,1979, directed holders of Nuclear Power Plant Construction permits to respond to the concerns of the NRC regarding the reliability of pipe support base plates that use concrete expansion anchor bolts in Seismic Category I Piping Systems as defined by Regulatory Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification", Revision 1, dated August 1973, or as defined in the applicable FSAR. Revision 1 of the Bulletin, providing clarifications, was issued June 21, 1979. Revision 2 of the Bulletin, providing additional clarification and new items of concern, was issued November 8, 1979. This final response supercedes the previously sub-mitted response and addresses the Bulletin " Action Items" as given in Revision 2 of the Bulletin. Action Item No. 7 is not applicable to WNP-2 and Action Item No. 8 does not require a response. In this reply, the NRC " Action Item" is first stated followed by the Washington Public Power Supply System response.

' ~* 'NRC ACTION ITEM NO. 1 Verify that pipe support base plate flexibility was accounted for in the calculation of- anchor bolt loads. In lieu of sup-porting analysis justifyinc the assumption of rigidity, the base plates should be considerec flexible if the unstiffened distance between the member welded to the plate and the edge of the base plate is greater than twice the thickness of the plate. It is recognized that this criterion is conservative. Less conserva-tive acceptance criterion must be justified and the justifica-tion submitted as part of the response to the Bulletin. If the base plate is determined to be flexible, then recalculate the bolt loads using an appropriate analysis. ff possible, this is to be done prior to testing of anchor bolts. These calculated

., bolt. loads are referred to hereafter as the bolt design loads.

l A description of the analytical model used to verify that pipe support base plate flexibility is accounted for in the calcula-tion of anchor bolt loads is to be submitted with your response to the Bulletin.

It has been noted that the schedule for analytical work on base plate flexibility for some facilities extends beyond the Bulle-tin reporting time frame of July 6,_1979. For those facilities for which an anchor bolt testing program is required (i.e., suf-fTCient QC documentation does not exist), the anchor bolt test-

~

ing program should not be delayed.

4

, 1.0 RESPONSE TO ACTION ITEM N0. 1

^

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The WNP-2 Contractors Containment (C213A), Mechanical affected by Equipment the Bulletin requirements Installation and Piping are Primary),.

(C215 Instrument Installation (C220), and Spray Pond Piping (C233).

Pipe Supports and their base plates have mainly been designed by these contractors and their subcontractors. The supports installed by C213A and C233 were designed by the Engineer.

l The total number of Seismic Category I supports for safety-related piping systems is approximately 10,000; one third support large diameter piping (above 2 inches) and the remainder support small diameter piping (2 inches and smaller).

These pipe supports are supported from structural steel, embedded plates, cast-in-place inserts or by expansion bolts. Only the expansion bolt installations are the subject of this response. Approximately 8,200 supports use expansion bolts of which nearly 5,100 were installed by Contract 215 and by C213A.

i o

-vr-- -, .- - y . - - . ~ . - - - , ~ - . - ~ ,m-.__-m,______-, - , - . = ,___,-,--m, ~ _ _ - . , - - - . , , - - _ . - . _ . _ -

1.2 ORIGINAL BASE PLATE DESIGN From an examination of the contractor's pipe support calculations, it is clear that they used a rigid plate design throughout. Preload was neg-lected in the design approach although the installation specifications required expansion bolts to be preloaded in excess of the bolt design load. Additionally, no concrete compression was assumed, and bending and torsion were resisted by the respective moments of inertia of the bolt group.

1.2.1 WNP-2 Original Design Method In the Original Design Method at WNP-2, the highest loaded (criti-cal) bolt is assumed to fail causing the remaining bolts to carry the loading.

First, the plate is analyzed as rigid and the loads are resisted by the moment of inertia of the bolt pattern. The bolts are assumed to carry all the shear, tension, and compression. No lcading occurs between the plate and the concrete.

Next, the critical bolt is removed from the bolt pattern and the new center of gravity (CG) of the bolt pattern is located. The applied loads are transferred from the attachment to the new CG.

Finally, the plate is analyzed with the critical bolt missing for the new configuration and the remaining bolts are checked for adequacy.

EXAMPLE:

FOUR BOLT PLATE (M x >My )

Y h

Critical BoltgMy n e g bails) d O*

.N C.G. P T X O O c di  ;

BOLT LOAD = SP + Mx + My i 12 d 2d 1

Shear is assumed to be distributed equally among the bolts. This assumption receives support in the discussion for. steel bolted con-nections of Reference 5. This text deals in its entirety with bolt-ed and riveted joints. For these steel bolted connections, shear is distributed relatively equally when the nianber of bolts on line is limited. For example, from Reference 5, consider four fasteners in line. The plate material is A36 and the fasteners are 7/8" A325 bolts. The shear stress is approximately '42 ksi for the two inside bolts and approximately 46 ksi for the two outside. The difference

, for four in line is-slight. We conclude that the difference for three or less fasteners on line will be negligible. Our most fre-quent case is to have.three or less on line.

The bolt loads (tension and shear) detennined from this method were then combined in a linear interaction formula to account for com-bined effects of shear and tension on the bolts. The interaction formula was formulated as follows:

I f '

t (actual tension) s (actual shear) (j)

F t (allowable tension) , F3 (allowable shear) 4 )

1.2.2 Increases in Stress Allowable The International Conference of Building Officials (ICB0) report (Reference 2) pennits anchor allowable loads to be increased one-third for short time loading such as wind or seismic forces. The Engineer and WNP-2 Contractors used the same design criterior..

• Additional justification for this action is provided by the ASME:

Code for Subsection NF components such as base plates. This Code allows an increase of nearly 100 percent-in the allowable loads for NF component under faulted (seismic) loading conditions.

1.2.3 Preload of Bolts The advantages of anchor bolt. preload were neglected for design pur-poses. However, they were preloaded during installation to over 100 percent of their allowable tension load.

l.3 FINAL BASE PLATE DESIGN AND QUALIFICATION

-In response to the Bulletin, all flexible Seismic Category I safety-related pipe support base plates are being qualified by flexible plate analysis. Factors of safety higher than those originally used are raw being utilized. For maximum support load (typically faulted condition) a 33 percent increase in allowable anchor load is no longer permitted. The following is a discussion.of .the current analytical method used for both

! . design and final qualification at WNP-2.

1.3.1 Flexible Base Plate Analysis Base plates are considered flexible when the unstiffened distances

~

between members welded to the plate and the edge of the base plate is greater than twice the thickness of the plate. Most base plates i without stiffeners are categorized as flexible. Analysis of flex-ible base plates is being performed with a finite element computer program, ANSYS (Reference 4) . If a computer evaluation is not per-formed, a comparison is made to a typical base plate with greater flexibility. Since these typical base plates were evaluated by

, ANSYS for flexibility, all subject base plates have flexibility in-cluded in the evaluation of anchor loading.

1.3.2 Description of Analytical Model In the manner of assessment presented in Reference 8, flexible base plates are evaluated with a finita element computer program, ANSYS 1 (Reference 4). ,

Consideration is given to plate and concrete stiffness, expansion bolt stiffness and proper dimensions of the attachment. - The unique computer program capabilities are'used to perform a static, elastic, non-linear finite element solution.- Additionally, a preprocessor program is used to simplify the-input.

The steel plate is represented by quadrilateral and/or triangular plate shell elements. This element, STIF 63, has six degrees of freedom at each node ~and' permits both bending and membrane loading.

Located below each plate node is an element which simulates the -

concrete.

The concrete is represented by a STIF 40 element type which has a j spring constant and a gap. A STIF 40 combination element is used to resist the compressive . forces in the vertical direction between the plate element and the concrete. Since this element has gap capabil-ity, only compressive forces will occur. A non-linear iterative solution is therefore required to assure a converged and accurate solution.

t

1

_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ ___ . ~ . . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ , _ . . . . _ , . .

.The concrete spring constants, K, are calculated using elastic half space theory as follows:

K = 4G Ro , 4d = 4506 A 1-v f(1-v)

Where:

G = the shear modulus of concrete ,

Ro = the effective radius of the concrete area in contact with the plate v = is the Poisson's Ratio of concrete A = is the effective contact area = Ro2 Attachments welded to the base plate transmit the pipe support load to the base plate. These attachments provide a stiffening effect (reduces out-of-plane bending) which is modeled as a rigid region on the common plate nodes. Since the applied loads occur at the at-tachment center of gravity, the plate model provides a collocated ,

node for applying loads.

The anchor bolt element is also simulated as a spring gap element, STIF 40. However, this element is modeled to support tension only.

As a two node element, one node is common to the plate mesh at bolt locations and the other node is fixed to ground.

The anchor bolt stiffness used is an important factor in determining the base plate load distribution and the final anchor bolt loading.

The primary factors which determine this anchor loading are the plate flexibility and anchor bolt stiffnesses. The anchor bolt stiffness is provided to the finite element computer program as a spring rate. Pull tests performed on Site were used to determine realistic spring rates. At Hanford WNP-2, the shell type anchors (HDI's) are the most common expansion anchor type. Since test re-sults show this anchor type normally exhibits a constant stiffness (elastic characteristic) to ultimate load capacity, a bilinear spring rate simulation is not required.

For Hilti Super Kwik (HSK) type anchors, a ductile behavior is ex-hibited and the bolt stiffness is conservatively taken as the ini-tial slope of the load deflection curves from Reference 3.

Table II provides the elastic spring rates conservatively used for each type of anchor.

1.3.3 Shear and Tension Interaction The basic tension interaction in conjunction with basic allowable shear interaction is combined with the following elliptical equation:

g4 /3 .7 4/3 3 7 4/3 g Total Tension Sh:ar Where:

I Total = Total interaction 61.0 Calculated tensile bolt load Or see section 7

Tension Allowable tension bolt load 1.3.4 for typical base plates y , Calculated shear bolt load Shear Allowable shear bolt load It is to be noted that in this interaction formula, the flexibility of the plate affects only the tension portion of the formula not the shear portion.'

l.3.4 Typical Base Plates Typical base plate configurations were analyzed on the finite ele-ment computer program. The maximum support loads were found by solving individual load cases on four, six, eight, and ten bolt base plates with and without stiffeners. The results were used to formulate an empirical equation to permit load combinations. An example of a four bolt base plate is shown below:

Pullout Mx + My I =

Allowable Pullout , Allowable Moment Tension Where:

I = Tension interaction Tension ,

Pullout = Applied tensile pullout Mx and My = Applied moments in the x and y directions Pullout Allowable = Allowable base plate pullout based on finite element evaluation Moment Allowable = Allowable base plate moment based on finite element evaluation i

For base plates with larger attachments or thicked plates, less plate flexibility will occur and the interaction equation can be conservatively utilized.

1.4 COMPARISON OF RIGID APO FLEXISLE ANALYSIS 1.4.1 Conventional Rigid Plate Theory The simplest method and perhaps the most common method for perform-ing base plate evaluations is to assume the plate rotates rigidly about one edge. Using all the bolts as active members, the maximum bolt load can be solved by static equilibrium. Although this method for perforfeing base plate evaluations was not used for design pur-poses on WNo-2, the method is used only for comparative purposes with the original design concept and the final qualification meth-od. This method is commonly used in industry.

1.4.2 Examples Flexible Plate Analysis  : Bulletin requirement (Cur-rent Evaluation)

WNP-2 Original Design Method  : One bolt redundant was ori-ginally used.

Conventional Rigid Plate Analysis  : Common design by industry before Bulletin 79-02 To provide a fair means of comparison of analytical methods in the following examples, the tension expansion anchor allowable is con-stant at 4.53 KIPS for 3/4" FOI and shear loading is neglected.

Typical Four Bolt Base plate Yt O O Dimensions: 12X12X3/4 X

Bolt Spacing: 9" center to center "+

Attachment:

TS 3X3 O O I Allowable l Allowable Type of Analysis l Plate Pullout (KIPS) Plate Moment (IN. KIPS) l Flexible Plate Analysis l 14.0 l 66.9 I I WNP-2 Original Design l l 10.5 l l l 40.8 l Method l l l 1 Conventional Rigid i 18.1 l 97.1 Plate Analysis l l l l Conclusion WNP-2 Original Design Method is conservative for this four bolt plate and most four bolt plates previously installed.

- , - - - . _ . - , . . - - - - - , , , . . -, y_.

yp O O Typical Six Bolt Base plate y 0 0 =>

Dimensions: 21X12X1 -

Bolt Spacing: 9" center to center

Attachment:

TS 5X5 O O l Allowable i Allowable Type of Analysi l Plate Pullout (KIPS) l Plate Moment-X (IN. KIPS) l l

. Flexible Plate Analysis l l 12.3 l l 133.

I I WNP-2 Original Design l 17.9 I I 95.1 l Method l l l l Conventional Rigid 1 27.2 l 299.

Plate Analysis l l l e' l Conclusion WNP-2 Original Design Method has mixed results.

Yt O O O Typical Eight Bolt Base plate -

X O O 4

==='

Dimensions: 21X21X1 '

Bolt Spacing: 9" center to center

Attachment:

TS 5X5 or W6X25 i l Allowable l Allowable i Type of Analysis l Plate Pullout (KIPS) l Plate Moment (IN. KIPS)

! I I j Flexible Plate Analysis i 20.1 l l l 112.6 l l

,. WNP-2 Original Design l 25.0 l 173.6 Method One Bolt l l Redundant l l l l l Conventional Rigid 1 36.2 l 318.

l Plate Analysis l l l l Conclusion l WNP-2 Original Design Method produced non-conservative loading capability l compared to flexible plate analysis.

l

_9.-

'1.4.3 Comparison 4

The purpose of this section is to show conclusively that the design criteria used during final qualification of WNP-2 base plates satis-4

'f.ies the bulletin's analytical concerns.

Figure 1.4 shows the bolt tensile load on a typical support with an eight bolt base plate. .These curves provide an overview'of analy-tical methods.

4

1) Curve A represents conventional rigid plate theory, which was

! the most common method used by others prior to issuance of the Bulletin.

2) Curve B represents the WNP-2 Original Design Method used.

3) Curve C represents flexible plate theory without preload.

i This curve is used to determine the allowable support load for

, a flexible plate since the only applied loading is pipe support loading.

l 4)' Curve D represents a preloaded anchor bolt with flexible plate theory. Verified by test results (Section 1.5), this curve simulates the actual bolt load.

5) Curve E represents the theoretical behavior of a preloaded rigid plate.

1.4.4 Summary i

The comparison study shows that for small plate up to 12X12, with four bolts and a minimum thickness of 3/4", the WNP-2 Original De-sign Method provided satisf actory results. However, as the plate gets larger and more bolts are included, the flexible plate ap-proach provides a more accurate method for determining bolt loads.

In addition,-as shown in Curve D, the actual bolt load increased L only 1.0 KIP over preload when the design support load is applied.

Thus, the cyclic stresses due to alternating support loading is i

minimized and the Bulletin concern for alternating stresses due to dynamic loading is satisfied, e

i l

l

- 10'-

1.5 TESTING 1.5.1 Description A series of tests have been performed at the WNP-2 Site under actual field conditions to verify the analytical results for six bolt and eight bolt patterns. A typical hanger (see Figure I) was loaded in a manner simulating actual field conditions. The hanger was instru-mented to measure strain and deflections. Load sensing bolts were used to measure strain in Bolts B1, B2, B3, and B4.

The 3/4 inch Dia Hilti Drop-In expansion bolts were torqued to pre-load of greater than the allowable design load. Then, tension load increments were applied by means of a hydraulic ram at a 36 inch eccentricit The applied loads were 1.33k,y from 4,ok, 2.67k, the centerline 5.33k, and of10.67 the plate.

k, 1.5.2 Comparison of Test and Analytical Results 2

A comparison of the results of the loads in the expansion bolts from the analysis and the test, for a load range below and above design load, is presented in Table 1.5.

l The analytical results typically agree with the test results to within 10% even when the applied support load is two times the support design load. A plot comparing the analytical results with the test results for this test and three hdditional tests is summarized below.

T Approximate Test No. Figure No. Maximum Loading Type of Plate 1 II 4x Design Eight Bolt 2 III 9x Design Eight Bolt i

3 IV 3x Design Eight Bolt i 4 V 2x Design Six Bolt During Test 2, the support load was increased to ultimate. The ultimate load was defined to be the point where the hanger would no longer resist <

the applied load due to excessive deflection in the support wide flanges. This ultimate load (26.0 KIPS) was approximately nine times the

design load established for-final qualification of WNP-2 base plates.

Since the critical anchor (Bolt No. 3) apparently initiated slip at a support load of 17.5 KIP, a load redistribution occurred and considerable difference between test and ANSYS predicted results occurred. (ANSYS predicted much higher loads.)

Test 3 and Test 4 results show similar correlation.

i l

i

• 1.6; DISCUSSION OF CYCLIC LOADING The main reason that WNP-2 expansion bolts-are preloaded to a value above

- the bolt allowable load is to reduce strecs revers'als -in the-bolts sub-I jected to cyclic loads. This preload procedure also ensures that each bolt is properly installed and achieves a minimum load carrying capacity equaling the'preload value. The preload is greater than the bolt allow-able load.

A similar approach is used in standard high strength steel bolted connec-tions. For high strength A325 and A490 bolts, (Reference 6), a preload to 70 percent of the ultimate tensile strength of the bolt is recommend-1 ed,' but the allowable load of the bolt is only 60 percent of the yield i

point. The resulting ratio between the preload and allowable load is approximately two.

{ Generally,.under applied design load the actual expansion bolt load be-

. comes sightly greater than preload. Since each expansion bolt is instal-led with a prescribed preload, it-is assured that it can carry this load after installation.

In the analysis of the typical eight bolt pattern, it was found that uti-lizing the flexible plate approach in the determination ofl bolt load,.the bolt load increased only one KIP over that obtained by (preloaded) rigid I plate analysis. However, this increase occurs on one bolt of the group only, while the stress in the remaining bolts equal or slightly exceed the preload stress. Thus, while it is apparent that this one bolt is subject to a stress increase when flexible plate approach is considered,

the remaining bolts in the bolt group are not.

i

{ Our results are similar to those presented in Reference 5 for tension T-connections. In the T type, the bolt load increase above the preload bolt force due to applied loads is kept small. Thus, our results confirm

results from standard steel practice.

1.7 MAJOR CONSERVATISMS i We have presented results thus f ar for the effect of flexibility upon

, bolt design and how the consideration of flexibility provides a more ac- '

l- curate means of bolt determination in-achieving a suitable factor of

! safety. However, there are additional major factors which contribute to l insuring safety. These include conservatisms-in accounting for shear and

( tension interaction, conservative seismic loads used in design, and high quality expansion bolt testing program. These conservatisms are discus -

sed in more detail in the following sections.

1 i

I 1

L,

1 l

1. 7.'1 Interaction of Shear:and Tension I The shear and tension interaction of an expansion bolt is conserva-

, tive in three respects. First, the interaction formula (Equation 1).

combines the effects of shear and tension conservatively. Figure VI. l compares Equation 2 with the actual -interaction (Reference 10) of  !

shear and tension. Second, shear is distributed equally to all l bolts whereas for a flexible plate, each of the tensio'n loads is not uniform. . And while the use of the interaction formula will produce a result for the bolt with the highest tensile strength it should be' l

] pointed out that the strength of a pipe support is dictated by the

capability of all of the bolts in the. support and over emphasis should not be placed on the capability'of ~one bolt where if any F overstress occurs, there will be a redistribution of load to the

remaining bolts which are not ~as highly stressed. Third, the clamp-ing caused by the preload gives frictional resistance which in-creases,the capacity of the plate to carry applied shear.

i 1.7.2 Seismic Load

The seismic loads used in the hanger design are based on the' follow-ing conservative seismic analysis of all Seismic Category I

! structures.

A lumped mass model representing a Seismic Category I building was

-used in computing the floor ~ response spectra. In this model, the 4

' soil-structure interaction effects were accounted for by lumped springs and lumped viscous dampers. The damping coefficients of 4 these dampers, conservatively calculated from the solution of a rig-id footing on an elastic half space, are given in the following table. Also shown in the table are the actual damping values used in the seismic analysis.

, .S0IL DAMPING RATIO I Elastic Half Space Actual Values Seismic Category I Theory Used in Analysis Building Horiz. Rocking Vert. -Horiz. Rocking Vert.

i

[ Reactor Building 32 8 66 -10 5 10

! Radwaste Building 39 65 98 10 5 10 Diesel Generator 38 22 63 10 5 10 Building

, The building responses from lumped mass modeling are very conserva-i tive because soil material and geometric dampings are purposely kept i low.

i i

N . - - - . - . . - . - - , - - _ - _ . . - . - - - - . , . - , - _ - , , ,

. A more realistic finite element modeling of the soil structural in-teraction effect has been subsequently used to recalculate the building responses of the Seismic Category I buildings. The compu-ter program, FLUSH, Reference 9, is used for this purpose. The geo-metric damping effect due to infinite boundaries and nonlinear soil properties for both shear moduli and material damping are properly accounted for in the analysis.

The structural responses from the finite element analysis are sub-stantially lower than those which have been used as input to the hanger design. Figures VII and VIII demonstrate the reductions in typical floor response spectra as discussed above.

Although this conservatism is applicable to the majority of the con-cerned pipe supports at the WNP-2 Project, there is one exception to this, namely the pipe supports in the wetwell. For these pipe sup-ports, this conservatism is not available.

1.7.3 Expansion Bolt Testing Field testing of expansion bolts has been conducted at WNP-2 over a period of two years to p'rovide a custom made criteria applicable to the actual project site. The testing program as discussed in our response to Action Item No. 2 has provided data as to capacities of the WNP-2 expansion bolts, and other characteristics, such as load deflection behavior and failure mechanisms.

1.7.4 Anchor Bolt Stiffness The essentially bilinear nature of the ductile behavior exhibited by the expansion anchor bolts used at WNP-2 has not been used in the analytical model of the flexible base plate. Typically, expansion anchor bolts exhibit some ability to slip but yet maintain their capability to carry load. This unique ability provides a load-limit feature for the critical anchor and permits a load redistribution for the base plate. Evidence of this redistribution was seen during the pipe support test performed on site (see Section 1.5). When the support load reached approximately six times design load, apparent anchor slippage occurred permitting the support to reach approxi-mately nine times design load without anchor f ailure. Figure 1.7 shows this comparison. Therefore, the factor of safety for a pipe support can more accurately be represented by the capacity of all the bolts rather than that one critical bolt. As a result, the flexible plate analysis performed at WNP-2 induces considerable conservatism relative to the Bulletin strength requirements.

1.8 CONCLUSION

S In response to the Bulletin's concerns, all flexible Seismic Category I safety-related pipe support base plates are being designed and qualified by flexible plate analysis. At WNP-2, the effects of flexibility on small (four bolt) plates is minimal compared to the Original Method of Analysis. Where it is found to be significant on larger plates with a greater number of bolts, additional stiffening of plates is being added to ensure that excessive bolt load does not occur.

NRC ACTION ITEM NO. 2 Verify that the concrete expansion anchor bolts have the following minimum factor of safety between the bolt design load _ and the bolt ultimate capacity determined from static load tests (e.g., anchor bolt manuf acturer's) which simulate the actual conditions of installation (i.e., type of concrete and its strength properties):

a. Four - For wedge and sleeve type anchor bolts,

b. Five - For shell type anchor bolts.

The bolt ultimate capacity should account for the effects of shear ten-sion interaction, minimum edge distance and proper bolt spacing.

If the minimum factor of safety of four for wedge type anchor bolts and five for shell type anchors cannot be shown then justification must be provided. The Bulletin factors of safety were intended for the maximum support load including the SSE. The NRC has not yet been provided ade-quate justification that lower f actors of safety are acceptable on a-long term basis. Lower f actors of safety are allowed on an interim basis by the provisions of Supplement No. I to IE Bulletin No. 79-02. The use of reduced f actors of safety in the f actored load approach of ACI 349-76 has not yet been accepted by the NRC.

2.0 RESPONSE TO ACTION ITEM NO. 2

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Initially, WNP-2 used a f actor of safety of four (4) for both wedge and shell type anchors. Since May 1981, a minimum factor of safety of five (5) has oeen used for shell type anchors for new design and redesign.

Justification for use of the earlier factor of safety of four (4) for shell type anchors includes:

o A comprehensive anchor installation evaluation (see response to NRC Action Item No. 4) which confirmed that concrete anchors at WNP-2 have been satisf actorily installed, thus minimizing installation uncertainties, o The extensive on-site load test program which established design allowables (see Section 2.2), thus minimizing anchor load carrying uncertainties, and o A review and refined analyses of a sample of supports and their anchors which demonstrated that shell type anchors have consistently been designed with a f actor of safety of approximately five (5) or greater rather than four (4) (see Section 2.5).

. T

, 2.2 TEST PROGRAM-The WNP-2 load test program was initiated to' establish realistic design -

tensile 'allowables to ensure a minimum factor of safety of.four in anchor installations existing at the time the Bulletin'was issued. All testing

< was performed by an independent. testing agency using WNP-2 standard

, production concrete (4000 psi mix design) as the test medium.

Testing was conducted to determine the effects of different embedments, epoxies or amounts of expansion on shell type anchors ar.d the effect of different enbedments on wedge type anchors. .This testing was required so that the anchor allowables could be adjusted for.these irregular condi-tions if found in installations existing prior to issuance of the Bulletin.

I- In addition, these anchors were installed in strict compliance with manu-facturer's recommendations using standard construction techniques and tested to establish design tensile allowables for all anchors. These allowables were used for design of anchorage systems after the issuance

, of the Bulletin.

Five anchors of each configuration (i.e., different embedment or differ-ent amount of expansion) were tested. Each anchor was loaded increment-ally until f ailure occurred. After eacn loading increment was added, the

. total slip with respect to the concrete for that load was recorded. The anchor was considered failed when one of the following occurred: 1) the concrete f ailed, 2) the anchor body f ailed, or 3) the anchor slipped 1/8" with respect to the concrete.

I The following is a listing of the different types of drilled-in concrete ar.chors tested:

Anchor No. Tested Phillips Red Head 290 Hilti Drop-In 170 Hilti. Kwik Bolt 60 i

Hilti Super-Kwik Bolt 10 t

Parabolt 30 t

2.3 TEST RESULTS The results of-the tests are documented in References 3, 13, and 15.

Typical f ailure modes were slip for Hilti Kwik Bolts, Hilti Super-Kwik l Bolts, and Parabolts, slip or anchor body f ailure for Phillips Red Heads and concrete f ailure for Hilti Drop-Ins. These test results confirm tha i

typical brittle failure for shell type anchors (Red Heads and Drop-Ins) and considerable slip typical of wedge type anchors (Kwik Bolts, Super Kwik Bolts, and Parabolts).

4 i

+m------- - - , , - - - -

...,.,-,_,.,.-,y-

,,w-- ...,,v., ,-. . . ,v,1. ..--,.,__.,m -.wm-,.-,._-. -.r<%- ~ __ -_. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

These test data ware used for establishing the ultimate and allowable' l tensile load values (Table II).

2.4 ALLOWABLE LOADS 2.4.1 'WNP-2 Original Design Allowables Used by Contractors The allowable design loads for expansion anchors used by contractors has ~ changed during the course of the job. Initially, the contrac-tors were directed to use a minimum factor of safety of four based on manuf acturer's ultimate strength, but, this was subsequently -

changed and they were directed to use International Conference of

. Building Officials (I.C.B.0.) values (References 1 and 2) early in

.the job before any major work was accomplished. Values for ultimate

, tensile loads for WNP-2 were developed through the extensive field testing program discussed in Section 2.2. A comparison of these ultimate values and the I.C.B.0. allowable values are shown in Table I. In general, the use of the I.C.B.0. values by the contractors was conservative.

2.4.2 . Anchor Allowables Used For New Design and Final Plate Qualification

, The allowable design loads used for expansion anchors since May 1981 for new design, redesign and final plate qualification are based on ,

the ultimate loads of the field testing program and a factor of '

safety of four or five, as appropriate, and are shown in Table II.

i 2.5 REVIEW AND REFINED ANALYSES FOR SHELL TYPE ANCHOR FACTOR OF-SAFETY j' As-noted in Section 2.1 a review and refined analyses were performed to t.

^

demonstrate that the factor of safety for shell type anchors designed before May 1981 was approximately five (5) or greater. The sample included fifty-eight (58) large-bore pipe supports and sixty (60) i small-bore pipe supports. The subject supports and related anchor factor of safety are provided in Tables IV and V. The two (2) supports with a factor of safety less than 4.5 in Table IV (CEP-15 and RHR-319) only have dead weight load or'are dominated by dead weight load, i.e., 76% of total load. One of the primary reasons for maintaining a high f actor of safety i is the potential for dynamic loading which is not a concern for these dead weight supports. The factor of safety less than five in Table V could be raised by performing refined analyses for that support. The l average factor of safety for maximum design loads, including f aulted and

! thermal loads, for Tables IV and V is 7.9 and 34.8 respectively. These L

results confirm that the shell type anchors have been installed in substantial compliance with the Bulletin.

i

} f

. ' 2.6

SUMMARY

One of the major reasons for choosing high factors of safety is the uncertain installation practices and incomplete documentation of many facilities. At WNP-2, there have been rigorously specified installation procedures and documentation that check the requirements necessary to achieve proper installation. Also, programs and evaluations were initi-ated to verify the adequacy of all existing expansion anchors (see response to NRC Action Item No. 4). Therefore, based on the extensive field testing of expansion anchors, the results of the comprehensive installation evaluation and sample analyses, substantial compliance to the Bulletin for the factors of safety has been confirmed.

I l

l

NRC ACTION ITEM N0. 3 Describe the design requirements if ap)licable for anchor bolts.to withstand

~

cyclic loads (e.g., seismic loads and ligh cycle operating loads.

3.0 RESPONSE T0 ACTION ITEM NO. 3 Preloading of bolts is required in tite installation procedures for the installation of expansion. bolts to assure that compression between the base plate and the concrete remains when subjected to cyclic loading, such as seismic loading and high cycle operating loading, so as to avoid

fatigue f ailures or loosening of the expansion bolt assembly due to cyc-

lic loading variations. All expansion bolts are required to be torqued so as to provide a preload greater than the allowable tensile load, or as noted in Table III. This preload requirement assures that the bolt will

- be subjected only to small stress differences due to changes in load.

In the presented example of Action Item No.1, for the eight bolt pat-tern, the maximum stress differences amount to only 6 percent of the ul-timate strength of the bolt. In the case of the four bolt patterns, the maximum stress differences amount to only 2 percent of the ultimate t

strength of the bolt.

In conclusion, the prescribed preload is the design requirement that al-lows the expansion bolt assemblies to carry cyclic loads, without fatigue f ai lure.

l l

I t ,

l l

1 F

I

NRC ACTION ITEM NO. 4

Verify from existing QC documentation that design requirements have been-met for each anchor bolt in the following areas

(a) Cyclic loads have been considered (e.g., anchor bolt preload is equal to or greater than bolt design load). In the case of the shell type, assure i that it is not in contact with the back of the support plate prior to preload testing.

(b) Specified design size and type is correctly installed (e.g., proper.

embedment depth).

If sufficient documentation does not exist, then initiate a testing pro-gram that will assure that minimum design requirements have been met with respect to subitems (a) and (b), above. A sampling technique is accept-able. One acceptable technique is to randomly select and test one-anchor bolt in each base plate (i.e., some supports may have more than one base plate). The test should provide verification of subitems (a)-and (D),

~

above. If the test fails, all other bolts, on that base plate should be similarly tested. In any event, the test program should assure that each Seismic Category I system will perform its intended function.

The preferred test method to demonstrate that bolt preload has been-ac-l complished is usino a direct pull (tensile test) equal to or greater than design load. Recognizing this method may be difficult due to accessibi-j lity in some areas an alternative test method such as torque testing may be used. If torque testing __is used, it must be shown and substantiated Etliat a correlation between t:irque and tension exists. If manufacturer's data for the specific bolt f. sed is not available, or is not used, then site specific data must be developed by qualification tests.

Bolt test values of one-fourth (wedge type) or one-fifth (shell type) of bolt ultimate capacity may be used in lieu of individually calculated bolt design loads where the test value can be shown to be conservative.

The purpose of Bulletin No. 79-02 and this-revision is to assure the operability of each Seismic Category I piping system. In all cases an evaluation to confirm system uperability must be performed. If a base plate or anchor bolt f ailure rate is identified at one unit of a multi-unit site which threatens operability of safety-related piping systems of that unit, continued operation of the remaining units at that site must De immediately evaluated and reported to the NRC. The evaluation must consider the generic applicability of the identified f ailures.

Appendix A describes two sampling methods for testing that can be used.

Other sampling methods may be used but must be justified. Those options e may be selected on a system by system basis.

Justification for omitting certain bolts from sample testing which are in high radiation areas during an outage must be based on other testing or analysis which substantiates operability of the affected system.

~

Bolts which are found during the testing program not to be preloaded to a load equal to or greater than bolt design load must be properly prel_oaded or it must be shown that the lack of preloading is not detrimental to cyclic loading capabili_ty. Those licensees that have not verified anchor bolt preload are not required to go back and establish preload.- However, additional information should be submitted which demonstrates-the effects

.of'preload on the anchor bolt ultimate capacity under dynamic-loading.

If it can be established that a tension load on any of the bolts does-not exist for.all loading cases then no preload or testing of the bolts is required.

If anchor bolt testing is done prior to completion of the analytical work on baseplate fle<ibility, the bolt testing must be performed to-at least the original calculated bolt load. For testing purposes, factors may be used to conservatively estimate the potential increase in the calculated bolt load due to baseplate flexibility. After completion of the analyti-cal work on the baseplates the conservatism of these factors must be verified.

For baseplate support _s_ using expansion anchors, but raised from the sup-porting surf ace with grout placed under the baseplate, for testing pur-poses it must be verified that leveling nuts were not used. If leveling

nuts were used, then they must-be backed off such that they are not in

! contact with the baseplate before applying tension or torque testing. ,

Bulletin No. 79-02-required verification by inspection that bolts are properly installed and are of the specified size and type. Parameters which should be included are embedment depth, thread engagement, plate bolt hole size, bolt spacing, edge distance to the side of a concrete member and full expansion of the shell for shell type anchor bolts.

3 If piping systems 21/2 inches in diameter or less were computer-analyzed then they must be treated the same as the larger piping. If a chart-an-alysis method was used and this method can be shown to be highly conser-vative, then the proper installation of the baseplate and anchor-bolts should be verified by a sam) ling inspe_ction. The parameters inspected should include those descri)ed in the preceding paragraph.- If small dia-meter piping i~s not inspected, then justification of system operability must be provided.

. 4.0 RESPONSE TO ACTION ITEM NO. 4 l

l In response to several 10CFR50.55(e) conditions on concrete expansion l

anchor bolts, the Project performed a comprehensive evaluation of anchor i bolt installation practices at WNP-2, including anchor bolt pull testing. The evaluation considered not only the Bulletin requirements, but evaluated other pertinent parameters associated with installation.

This evaluation concluded the installations to be satisfactory and in compliance with the related Bulletin requirements and was documented in the report entitled WNP-2 Drilled-In Concrete Anchor Evaluation 1983 l (Reference 16). This report was reviewed by NRC, Region V, at the WNP-2

! Site and is therefore not presented here.

NRC ACTION ITEM N0. 5 Determine the extent that expansion anchor bolts were used in concrete block (masonry) walls to attach piping supports in Seismic Category I systems (or safety related systems as defined by Revision 1 of IE Bufletin No. 79-02). If expansion anchor bolts were used in concreta block walls:

a. Provide a list of the systems involved, with the number of supports, type of anchor bolt, line size, and whether these supports are accessible dur-ing normal plant operation,

b. Describe in detail any design consideration used to account for this type of installation.

c. Provide a detailed evaluation of the capability of the supports, includ-ing the anchor bolts, and block wall to meet the design loads. The eval-uation must describe how the allowable loads on anchor bolts in concrete block walls were determined and also what analytical method was used to determine the integrity of the block walls under the imposed loads. Also describe the acceptance criteria, including the numerical values, used-to perform this evaluation. Review the deficiencies identified in-the In-formation Notice on the pipe supports and walls at Trojan to determine if a similar situation exists at your f acility with regard to supports using anchor bolts in concrete block walls. 1

d. Describe the results of testing of anchor bolts in concrete block walls and your plans and schedule for any further action.

5.0 RESPONSE TO ACTION ITEM NO. 5 By specification, no Seismic Category I piping support is to be attached to concrete block walls using expansion bolts. To provide further assurance that this specification requirement has been adhered to, all contractors installing piping were directed to review their installations and verify that expansion bolts have not been so used. This verification has been accomplished.

t~

. NRC ACTION ITEM NO. 6 Determine the extent that pipe supports with expansion anchor bolts used structural steel shapes instead of baseplates. The systems and lines reviewed must be consistent with the criteria of IE Bulletin No. 79-02; Revision-1. -If expansion anchor bolts were used as described above, verify-that the-anchor bolt and structural steel shapes in these supports were included in the ac-tions performed for the Bulletin. If these supports cannot be verified to ~

have been included in the Bulletin actions:

a. Provide a list of the systems' involved, with the numoer of supports, type of anchor bolt, line size, and whether the supports are accessible during normal plant operation.

b. Provide a detailed evaluation of the adequacy of the anchor bolt design and installation. The evaluation should address the assumed distribution 1 of loads on the anchor bolts. The evaluation can be based on the results of previous anchor bolt testing and/or analysis which substantiates oper-ability of the affected system.

c. Describe your plans and schedule for any further action necessary to as-

~

sure the affected systems meet Technical Specifications operability re-quirements in the event of an SSE. ._y 6.0 RESPONSE TO ACTION ITEM NO. 6 i Attachments of ~ structural steel shapes directl'y t concrete witheexpan-sion bolts is mainly confined.to supports for.ssmail" diameter piping.

Their use is very uncommon for large diameter piping'. However, wherever they are used, their effects are .being assessed in the same manner as all other flexible base plates (see Action. Item No.1).

i NOTE: NRC Action Item No. 7 is not applicable to WNP-2 and NRC Action Item No. 8 requires no response, s

-- h i

i *

' [_

I!h.g

• V S' ;s -

f

\

, - - , ~ , , , - . - , . , , - - , , . . - . - . . . - - . . - . . , - - - - . . . - . . . - - - . , - - . . , - . . , . . - - , , . . .. .. . . , - , , . - . . - - , , , , . . - . . . - - - . - , . -

I .

NRC ACTION ITEM N0. 9 f

All holders of construction permits for power reactor f acilities are requested '

to complete Items 5 and 6 for installed pipe supports within 60 days of date

, of issuance of Revision No. 2. For pipe supports which have not yet-been-in-

stalled, document your action to assure that Items 1 through 6 will be satis-fled. Maintain documentation of these actions on site available for NRC -in-spection. Report in writing within 60 days of date of issuance of Revision  !

Ko. 2, to the Director of the appropriate NRG Regional Office, completion of your review and describe any instances not previously__ reported, in whicn you did not meet the revised (R2) sections of Items 2 and 4 and, if necessary, i your plans and schedule for resolution. A copy of yGur report should be sent to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Inspection and Enforcement,-Division of Reactor-Construction Inspection. Washington DC- 20555.

9.0 RESPONSE TO ACTION ITEM N0. 9

, 9.1 Introduction The respanse to previous Action Items discussed in detail each affected contractors program for showing compliance with the Bulletin evaluation /

inspection requirements for installations made prior to its issuance.

Installations performed after its issuance are discussed here.

9.2 Base Plate Analysis All Seismic Category I large and small diameter safety-related pipe sup-port base plates, for all affected contractors, are being evaluated and qualified in accordance with the requirements of the Bulletin, by the Engineer. Our response to Action Item No.1 presents a detailed discus-sion of the analytical methodology being employed.

9.3 Generic Anchor Inspection Criteria Refer to response to Actica Item No. 4.

l

- , , . ._--__,m. m.-._v,..r-.

_.y-.,.___.w.,,__.,___..a,.9,r, , . , _ .,,,,,.y---,,w y,-.,

. References

1. International Conference of Building Officials (I.C.B.0.), Report No.

2895, November 1976.

2. International Conference of Building Officials (I.C.B.0.), Report No.

1372, March 1973.

3. Noble, L. D., and Mead, W. M., Drilled-In Concrete Anchor Tests Performed at the Washington Public Power Supply System, Nuclear Project 2 Site, March 1979.

4. ANSYS - Engineering Analysis System, UP190, Rev. 2, CYB 7600, by Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc., Elizabeth, PA.

5. Fisher, J. W., and Struik, J. H. A., Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted and Rivited Joints, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1974.

6. AISC, Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A-325 or A-490 Bolts, American Institute of Steel Construction, New York, NY, July 1976.

7. Hanks, Abbot A., " Combined Shear and Tension Testing - Kwik Bolt", Report No. 9059, April 15,1974.

8. DiLuna, L. J., and Flaherty, J. A., "An Assessment of the Effect of Plate Flexibility on the Design of Moment-Resistant Base Plates", ASME, August 1979.

9. Lysmer, et al., " FLUSH-A Computer Program for Approximate 3-D Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction Problems", Report No. EERC 75-30, November 1975.

10. R. D. Clatto and R. R. Boentgen, " Strength of Concrete Expansion Anchors for Pipe Supports, Teledyne Engineering Services.

11. Chenault, D. M., " Rigid Plate Test Data Transmittal Report", June 1979, In-House Burns and Roe Report.

12. Chenault, D. M., " Torque-Load Tests in Drilled-In Concrete Anchors", Aug-ust 1979, In-House Burns and Roc Report.

13. Hyde, L.L., Drilled-In Concrete Anchor Test Performed at the Washington Public Power 5upply System, Nuclear Project 2 Site, Supplemental Report No.1, August 1977,

14. Bechtel Power Corporation, Task Force Study and Recommendations: Hanger and Anchor Bolt Report, Letter BECMCL-82-0032, January 18, 1982.

15. Chenault, D.M., Drilled-In Concrete Anchor Tests Performed at the Washington Public Power Supply System, Nu_ clear Project 2 Site, Siipplemental Report No. 2, September 1979.

16. Timmins, D.C., and Hyde, L.L., WNP-2 Drilled-In Concrete Anchor Evaluation-1983.

- Table 1.5 Bolt Load Comparison Applied Load (KIPS) Bolt No.; Test Analytical  % Difference Preload Only B1 5.54 5.54* 0 82 5.04 5.04* O B3 5.55 5.55* 0 I

B4 6.29 6.29* 0 1.33 B1 5.54 5.59 1.0 B2 5.29 5.07 4.3 B3 6.34 5.75 10.3 B4 6.35 6.31 0.6 2.67 B1 5.60 5.72 2.1 B2 5.54 5.18 6.9 B3 7.01 6.61 6.0 B4 6.44 6.91 0.5 4.0 B1 5.66 5.94 4.9 B2 5.80 5.80 9.4 B3 7.76 7.71 0.6 l B4 6.49 6.52 0.5 5.33 B1 5.86 6.48 10.6 B2 6.21 5.78 8.4 B3 8.92 9.03 1.2 B4 6.60 6.81 3.2 i

j 10.67 B1 7.28 8.75 20.2 l

B2 8.08 7.71 4.8

! B3 14.98 16.25 8.5 B4 6.99 8.70 24.

• Analytical preloads were made equal to test preload values by using un-i equal preload displacements on the ground nodes. '

g- w. ,-.

TABLE I ALLOWABLE EXPANSION ANCHOR LOADS Provided to contractor i

I PHILLIPS RED HEAD SELF DRILLING - SHELL TYPE ANCHOR-1 I I I I I I

? WPPSS ' Allowed Factor l Manu. l Allowed l Factor l Size . Ult. Tension Tension , Safety l Ult. Shear l Shear l Safety l In. KIPS 1 KIPS l --- KIPS l KIPS l-----

l L ,

I . I 1/4 l 2.56 0.54 l 4.74 l 1.33 l 0.49 2.71

l 3/8 1 4.91 l- 1.14 l 4.31 1 3.37 1.10 3.06 1/2 8.0 l 1.72 1 4.65 l 6.72 .l.75 , 3.84-5/8 11.11 l 2.23 l 4.98 l 11.90 l 2.02 l 5.89 l 3/4 10.67 l 2.57 4.15 16.20 l 2.37 l 6.84 l 7/8 12.44 l 2.90 4.29 18.45 l 2.80 l 6.59 l 1 I <

l HILTI KWIK BOLT - WEDGE TYPE ANCHOR l I I I I - 1 I I I WPPSS l Allowed l Factor l Manu. l Allowed l Factor l Size Ult. Tension l Tension l Safety l Ult. Snear l Shear l Safety 1 In. KIPS KIPS l KIPS --- KIPS l l ----

-1 I i i

! 1/4X1-1/2 l 2.89 l 0.54 l 5.35 l' - 2.61 0.49 l 5:33 5.15 4.52 1 5.11 1.10 4.64 l 3/8X2 l l 1.14 l 1/2X2-1/2 1 7.30 l 1.72 l 4.24 l 8.32 .

1.75 4.75 5/8X3-1/2 l 9.53 l 2.23 l 4.27 l 11.56 l 2.02 l 5.72 l-3/4X4 l 15.10 l 2.57 l 5.88 l 17.13 l 2.37 l 7.22.

1 I HILTI DROP IN - SHELL TYPE ANCHOR i t~ l I I l l I 4

l l WPPSS l Allowed l Factor l Manu. l Allowed l Factor l Size Ult. Tension Tension Safety l Ult. Shear l Shear l Safety l In. KIPS KIPS ---

KIPS 'l KIPS ---

! l ,

I I I l 1/4 1 3.90 l 0.64 l 6.09 l 1.78 1 0.49 3.63 l 3/8 l 5.85 l 1.33 l 4.40 l 4.23 l 1.10 i 3.85

l 1/2 l 9.78 l 2.11 l 4.63 l 6.22 l 1.96 3.17 5/8 14.22 l 2.51 l 5.66 l 12.21 l 3.07 ,

3.98 3/4 20.44 l 4.06 l 5.03 l 17.61 1 4.42 l 3.98 l f

,. ,m-y-.- e, ~ -,e

I

\;

TABLE I (CONTD) l I HILTI SUPER KWIK BOLT - WEDGE TYPE ANCHOR I I I I I i 1 l Manu. l Allowed l Factor l Manu. Allowed l Factor Size Ult. Tension Tension l Safety l Ult. Shear ,

Shear l Safety In. KIPS I KIPS l ---

l KIPS l KIPS ---

l l l 1 I I I I l 1/2 X 3-1/4 l 9.99 l 2.50 l 4.00 11.44 2.86 4.0 l 1/2 X 4-1/4 l 14.78 l 3.70 l 4.00 11.44 2.86 4.0 l 1/2 X 5-1/4 l 14.57 l 3.64 l '4.00 , 11.44 2.86 4.0 l 1/2 X 6-1/4 15.15 l 3.79 , 4.00 i 11.44 2.86 4.0 l l I ll l , l 1 X 6-1/2 l 34.97 l 8.74 l 4.00 l 27.54 l 6.89 l 4.0 l 1 X 8-1/2 l 49.81 l 12.45 l 4.00 1 27.54 6.89 4.0 1 X 10-1/2 1 49.76 l 12.44 l 4.00 27.54 , 6.89 4.0 l l 1 l l 1 l l-1/4X8-1/8 42.70 10.67 l 4.00 l 41.48 l 10.37 l 4.0 l l-1/4X10-5/8 53.68 .

13.42 l 4.00 l 41.48 l 10.37 4.0 '

l I l l l _

l I

I l MOLLY PARAB0LT - WEDGE TYPE ANCHOR l l l l 1 I I 1 l l l Manu. l Allowed l Factor l Manu. l Allowed l Factor l Size l Ult. Tension l Tension l Safety l Ult. Shear l Shear l Safety i In. I KIPS KIPS --- KIPS KIPS .---

l l l l

1/2X2-1/4 l 4.61 l 1.15 1 4.0 l 7.35 l 1.15 l 6.4 5/8X2-3/4 l 7.76 1.94 l 4.0 l 13.50 l 1.49 l 9.1 2.10 10.4 3/4X3-1/4 l 12.90 3.23 l 4.0 l 21.75 18.75 l 4.50 l 4.0 l 30.00 2.75 10.9 l 7/8X4 l l1 X4-1/2 l 23.00 l 5.75 1 4.0 l 39.30 l 3.30 11.8 l 1-1/4X5-1/2 l 35.00 l 8.75 l 4.0 l 63.50 l 4.66 13.6

- TABLE II ALLOWABLE EXPANSION ANCHOR LOADS USED FOR NEW DESIGN, REDESIGN AND FINAL BASE , PLATE QUALIFICATION I I l PHILLIPS RED HEADS INSTALLED AFTER FEBRUARY 1978 l l l 1 I I Ultimate Allowable l Ultimate l Allowable l Tensile l Shear Size l Tension l Tension l Shear l Shear l Stiffness l Stiffness In. I KIPS l KIPS KIPS l KIPS k/in. k/in.

I I I I l l l 1/4 l 8.667 l 2.167 l 6.720 l 1.680 l 700 l 106 l 2.700 11.900 l 2.975 l 5/8 l 10.801 l l 695 l 250 l l 3/4 l 11.467 2.867 l 16.200 l 4.050 l 1460 302 l 7/8 l 14.134 1 3.533 l 18.450 1 4.612 l 1600 300 I I I PHILLIPS RED HEADS INSTALLED BEFORE FEBRUARY 1978 I I i l I I l Ultimate l Allowable l Ultimate l Allowable l Tensile l Shear Size Tension Tension l Shear Shear i Stiffness l Stiffness In. KIPS KIPS l KIPS KIPS l k/in. I k/in.

I I I I I I I l 1/2 l 4.267 l 1.067 l 6.720 l 1.680 l 700 106 5/8 7.970 l 1.992 l 11.900 l 2.975 l 695 250 3/4 6.534 l 1.633 l 16.200 l 4.050 l 1460 l 302 l l 7/8 l 11.601 1 2.900 l 18.450 l 4.612 l 1600 l 300 l l l HILTI DROP IN "

l l l l l -

1 I l l l Ultimate l Allowable l Ultimate l Allowable l Tensile l Shear Size Tension l Tension l Shear l Shear l Stiffness l Stiffness In. KIPS l KIPS i KIPS l KIPS k/in. I k/in. I l l I I I I l 3/8 I 5.633 l 1.408 l 4.225 l 1.056 l 410 205 l l 1/2 l 8.44 l 2.11 l 7.84 l 1.96 l 480 106 I I 5/8 l 10.333 l 2.583 l 12.205 1 3.051 l 840 1 250 l 3/4 l 18.133 l 4.533 l 17.609 l 4.402 I 980 1 302 l

l l I l HILTI DROP IN (Design After May 1981) l I I I I I I I I j i l Ultimate l Allowable l Ultimate l Allowable l Tensile l Shear l Size l Tension l Tension 1 Shear l Shear l Stiffness l Stiffness 1 In. I KIPS l KIPS KIPS KIPS k/in. I k/in. l l l l l l l l

l 3/8 l 5.633 l 1.056 l 4.225 1 0.792 1 410 1 205 l 1/2 8.44 l 1.583 l 7.84 l 1.470 l 480 l 106 l l 5/8 10.333 l 1.937 l 12.205 2.288 840 250 l,3/4 _l 18.133 l _

3.400 l_17.609 3.302 980 302 l

T TABLE II (CONTD)

I I HILTI KWIK BOLT l l l l l l l l l l Ultimate l Allowable l Ultimate l Allowable l Tensile l Shear Size

• Tension Tension l Shear l Shear l Stiffness l Stiffness In. KIPS KIPS l KIPS l KIPS l k/in. I k/in. l l 1 1 I I I I I l 1/2 X 2-1/2 l 5.52 l 1.38 l 8.32 l 2.08 220 l 106 l 1/2 X 4 l 9.10 l 2.27 l 8.32 l 2.08 412 l 106 l 5/8 X 3-1/2 l 9.08 l 2.2) l 11.56 l 2.89 l 900 l 250 l 3/4 X 4 l 10.12 l 2.53 l 17.08 l 4.27 l 900 250 I

HILTI SUPER KWIK l l l l l l l I I l l Ultimate l Allowable l Ultimate l Allowable l Tensile l Shear I Size

• l Tension l Tension l Shear l Shear l Stiffness l Stiffness l In. I KIPS l KIPS KIPS KIPS k/in. k/in.

I I I .

I 1/2 X 3-1/4 l 9.9 l 2.475 l 11.44 l 2.86 l 300 l 180 l 1/2 X 4-1/4 14.78 l 3.695 l 11.44 l 2.86 l 285 l 180 l 1/2 X 5-1/4 14.57 l 3.642 l 11.44 l 2.86 l 271 180 l 1/2 X 6-1/4 l 15.15 l 3.788 l 11.44 l 2.86 l 259 180 l 1 X 6-1/2 l 34.97 l 8.742 l 27.536 l 6.884 l 1165 500 1 X 8-1/2 l 49.81 l 12.452 l 27.536 l 6.884 l 1057 500 1 X10-1/2 1 49.758 l 12.439 l 27.536 l 6.884 l 967 l 500 l l l-1/4X8-1/L 42.7 l 10.675 l 41.479 l 10.370 l 2083 l 1000 l l l-1/4X10-5/8 53.68 l 13.42 l 41.479 l 10.370 l 1817 1000 l l-1/4X13-1/8l 64.992 l 16.23 l 41.479 l 10.370 l 1611 1000 l l M0LLY PARAB0LT l l l l l 1  ! f l Ultimate I Allowable l Ultimate l Allowable l Tensile l Shear l Size

• Tension Tension Shear L Shear l Stiffness l Stiffness l In. KIPS KIPS KIPS KIPS l k/in. -l k/in. 1 I I I I I I l 1/2 X 2-3/4 l 7.439 l 1.859 l 7.35 l 1.837 l 1040 106 l 3/4 X 3-1/4 l 12.90 l 3.225 l 21.75 l 5.437 l 1063 302 l 3/4 X 4-1/2 l 15.26 1 3.815 l 21.75 l 5.437 l 963 l 302 l l 7/8 X 4 l 18.75 1 4.687 l 30.0 l 7.5 l 2556 l 300 l l 7/8 X 4-7/8 l 21.667 I 5.417 l 30.0 1 7.5 l 1878 l 500 l 1 X 5-1/2 l 26.555 l 6.638 l 39.3 l 9.825 l 1766 l 500

• Size = Bolt Diameter X Embedment Depth.

TABLE III EXPANSION ANCHOR INSTALLATION TORQUES AND PRELOADS I I I I I I I l Anchor l Phillip Red Head l Hilti l l Hilti Super l Molly l Type '

Self Drilling 1 Kwik Bolt Hilti Drop In- Kwik Bolt l Parabolt-I I Torque Torque l Torque l Torque H Torque l l l l Size ft/lbs ft/lbs ft/lbs ft/lbs ^ft/lbs 1/4 4-6 l 4-6 4-6 L N/A N/A l 3/8 15 - 20 l 25 - 35 l 15 - 20 l N/A l N/A l 1/2 30 - 35 1 45 - 55 l 30 - 35 l 80 - 85 l 45 - 65 55 - 60 l 80 - 90 l 55 - 60 l N/A l 80 - 90 1 5/8 l 75 - 80 125 - 175 130 - 140 l .N/A l 125 - 175 l 3/4 l l l 165 - 210 95 - 100 1 N/A N/A l N/A l l 7/8 l 250 - 300 l1 l N/A , N/A l N/A I 345 - 380 l l N/A N/A l 720 - 790 l -400 - 500 l l 1 1/4 l N/A l l 1 I I l l l 1 '

Average Average l Average l Average l Average l l l Preload Preload Preload Preload l' Size l '

Preload l KIPS l

KIPS l

KIPS -l l

-KIPS l l KIPS l I I l l 1 0.63 1.23 l 0.63 l N/A l N/A l l 1/4 1 l 1.51 3.79 1.51 l N/A l N/A l 3/8 l l 2.45 2.77 1/2 2.25 l 2.80 l 2.4 l 1 l 3.2 4.45 l 3.24 l N/A l 4.66 1 l 5/8 l l 3.2 8.47 5.80 l N/A l 7.74 l- 3/4 l l 11.3 7/8 ) 4.8 l N/A l N/A l N/A l

) 13.8

,1 N/A l N/A l N/A l 15.3 l l N/A N/A l 20.8 l 21.0 -l l l-1/4 l N/A l _l l

l l

TABLE IV FACTOR OF SAFETY (FS)

LARG FBN f SUPPORTS Support FS Support FL Support FS CEP-15 4.0 RCC-420 5.3 RCIC-904N 5.2 MS-180 23.5 MS-292 5.7 RHR-306 19.5 RHR-485 6.2 MS-337 7.7 RHR-93 5.8 LPCS-3 5.0 RHR-306 5.1 RCC-237 6.1 RWCU-216 21.1 MS-167 4.5 RHR-276 5.7 RHR-940N 5.1 CAS-808 7.9 RFW-178 12.1 RCIC-23 5.6 RHR-358 5.6 RHR-184 6.5 CAS-510 8.9 CAC-40 5.9 RHR-358 5.9 RHR-177 8.9 SA-199 7.9 LPCS-3 5.7 i .

RHR-1004N 8.5 RHR-494 11.7 RHR-575 6.2 LPCS-900N 5.6 RHR-553 17.1 RHR-345 5.2 RCC-469 10.2 FPC-ll8 5.6 LPCS-28 5.4 RilR-66 6.7 RCC-411 6.7 SW-960N 5.4 RHR-937N 6.2 RHR-245 11.4 CAS-720 4.9 RHR-203 5.9 RHR-558 11.8 MS-242 11.0 RHR-319 4.3 RWCU-195 21.1 RHR-976N 6.6 RCIC-919N 6.8 RHR-953N 5.3 RHR-436 5.5 RHR-84 4.9 MS-103 8.5 CAS-819 8.2

RHR-451 8.3 HPCS-37 5.2 MS-28 7.5 HPCS-48 5.6 l

l

l TABLE V 4

FACTOR OF SAFETY (FS) ,

SMALL-BORE SUPPORTS Support FS Support FS Support FS RCIC-2560-151 66.7 RCIC-1485-14 4.76 RCIC-1486-21 11.1 00-2533-33 18.2 RCIC-2560-103 22.2 SW-4575-13 5.5 RHR-2289-14 16.0 SW-1539-23 12.0 SW-1036-13 8.9 -

CAC-4254-13 25.3 RHR-2104-12 34.5 MD-1364-12 6.6

. SW-1526-18 109.5 DCW-2513-ll 7.4 DCW-4623-13 20.2 i RCIC-1481-11 41.8 D0-1692-42 40.0 SW-4546-ll' 18.7 RCIC-2560-191 13.4 DCW-4580-15 11.4 RHR-1968-52N 5.1 DE-2838-18 21.0 DSA-2535-ll 5.3 RCIC-2560-113V 54.7 i SW-4441-15N 23.8 RCIC-2558-12 21.1- RCIC-1478-14V 66.7

RCIC-2560-66V 71.4 DCW-4581-13V 13.8- RCIC-2560-72N 20.0 RCIC-2560-101 211.0 CAC-2759-11 25.0 RCIC-2560-162 63.0 SW-1040-34 31.0 DSA-2537-43 182.0 LPCS-1404-11 -18.0 D0-2675-12 26.0 COND-4631-23 25.0 D0-2526-22 53.0 CAC-4251-12 133.0 SW-1032-37 18.6 MSLC-2824-12 30.7 SW-1529-26 22.9 MSLC-2824-74 36.0 RHR-4605-21 43.5 l RCIC-1573-22 72.7 SW-1032-ll 6.8 SW-1007-12 19.1 p 00-2526-23 8.0 SW-1041-11 14.8 RHR-1968-41 6.9 RRC-1550-32 83.0 HPCS-1459-12 9.8 DE-1738-13 26.7 i

! HPCS-2570-11 16.0 SW-2599-12 12.1 RCIC-1574-13 27.4 i RCIC-2560-102 57.1 SW-1536-16 5.9 DSA-2730-21 6.1 I

l l -- - -

4 14 - 0 (Typical Baseplate Installed with Eight 3/4 inch HDI Anchors and Subjected to Pull-out Loads and 12 - Moments Simultaneously) 10 -

8- +

s, / A

$ h g#s+*

9 8s+ I

/ .

E 6 I

E S . I ps b I Cod 8 F.S.=4.0 uJ d 4 l '

$ 1 W

E $1 "I

5 _

y 2 -

El El 1 -

1. I l 1 1 I l

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 APPLIED SUPPORT LOAD - KIPS FIGURE 1.4 COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL I'lETHODS ON EIGHT BOLT BASE PLATE

' 34 -

25 -

b i 1 20 --

I

• / l I 4/ I 8

s I # # 1 E 15 -

I 9@

1. I -

l r-

- j

$1 0[& -

El / '

51 / -

10 - ' I l / gt I 8 l El

! CNg'#3 '

5 - i y t;l

/

Wl E

I

/ /

$l

/k <l

4. - l '

i I l l l O 5 10 15 20 25 APPLIED SUPPORT LCAD - KIPS FIEllPE 1.7 C&P/RISON OF TEST PESULTS TO #MLYTICAL TETHOD

EIGllT BOLT TEST PLATE SIX BOLT TEST PLATE TEST L2,3 ' TEST 4

, -- s -t- -+- + B1 4- i e B1 4- -t- t

..- B4 B3 B2 IL 4- Y PLATE 1" x 32" x l'9" W 4 x B ATTACHMENT B4 B3 B2 PLATE 1" x 21" x l'9" W 6 x 25 ATTACFf4ENT 7

Ys s~

i s

s  %

's ~

i s ~

s

~_ ~

N, I a I a l

l l /

.- d

/ LOADAPPLICATION l

l l

+ 1 1 // // // // // /d // 1 B4 B3 B2 1

FIGUPE I FIElB TEST

. '.16 ' -

,/B3

/

/ B3

/

14 - /

/

/

12 - / ,

/

/

/

10 - -

/

p

/

8 - /

/

/l E2 /

-6 - '

7 -

/ TEST DATA

} MiSYS PESULT5 b EImr POLT PLATE c3 4 -

e S

2 - 5 -

E I I I I I I 0 2 4 6 8 10 E APPLIED SUPPORT LOAD - KIPS FIGURE ff - BOLT LDAD C& PARIS 0N FOR IEST 1

/

14 -

, i

/

/

/

.12

~

/

/

/

/

/ ,

/

10 -

/

%/*/

/

/ s S

8 - / /

/ /

,/

/

/ s' /

fc / B2 52 6 -

[_ _-T T./

Q 3 TEST DATA b

e4 -

- NSYS RESULTS a Elear POLT PLATE 8

l l z l 2 -

S Q

i I I I i l

0 2 4 6 8 E E AoFLit-D 91PPOP.T LOAD - KIPS

~~

FIGURE IV - BOLT LDAD COMPARISON FOR TEST 3 39-

/

/

%/

~

/

5- /

/

/

/

'~

f 30 - /

/

/

/

3-

/

/

/

/ 35 20 - /

/ -

/

/

?@

x E- /

@ /

a @ /

b 3 / -

TesTDATA 10 ~ g [ ANSYSRESULTS y Eicar BOLT Pure

,/

5 , d

/

I I l

5 10 3 g APPLIED SUPPORT b)AD - KIPS FIGUE III - PoLT LOAD rw MPARisoN FOR TEST 2

0 J4 -

j 12 -- /

/

/

/ B3

/

10 - /

/

/

/

/

8- / . ,,

/

/

W B2 52 6

/ -

B2 i

b a4 __

TEST lhTA a ANSYS RESULTS

$ SIxBOLTPLAre g

l 2 m A

I I I l j 0 1 2 3 4 5 SUPPORT LOAD - KIPS FIGUPE T kPLIgAD LT b4 PARIS 0N FOR TEsr tr

,M-

e 1.20 3 El

[I 1.00 D

\ o 474

%g N

/p 0.80 P

• o 9e ^ r, O

Q *+o E '# o,'4 0.60 - o N '%,  %

e o, .

• e ,4 0.40 -

O' 0.20 O T On O .O i

i i 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 O 0.20 V/VMAX FIGURE VI. SHEAR - TENSION . It.TEPACTI0tl DIAGPR1

- 41 _

, o 6~ ..

g o_

i a f

_ STRUCTURAL RESPONSE i o

~

FOR INPUT TO PIPE 8 HANGER DESIGN N

8 -

' 8 4 3

-  % e

\ P 5 i 6 5 <

~8 $ C L 8"_ '

e s" M b @h g ,

e' u v f h W 4- 1 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE N FOR FINITE ELE!1ENT ANALYSIS.

8 8

9 o-A

\

o 8

0.8200 o!400 o'.600 0.'800 1!a00 1.500 1.'400 1'.600 1'.800 2.'000 2.500 2.'400 ko. o'c o NATURAL PERIOD - SECONDS WPPSS HANFORD N0. 2 REACTOR BUILDING, MODEL N0. 2 REV. 1 SSE (DBE) FLOOR SPECTRUM - COMBINED VERTICAL MASS N0. 10, EL. 414' -3.0". DAf1 PING = 0.005

?

E -

v, _ m

@ t m

_ h STRUCTURAL RESPONSE FOR INPUT TO PIPE HANGER DESIGN m

. m o N

, 8_ Q d \ $

" h

u o m 8 4 5 eC 4~ w

. m ,

- m bo z E '

, S4-

,0$

!! 8

' O3

- STRUCTURAL RESPONSE FOR FINITE ELEMEllT i ANALYSIS.

! 8 l $.

)

r \ --

5 b

+. d- \ ^

, ~ -

8 0'.400 0.'600 0'.800 1.'000 1'.200 1.'400 1'.600 1.'800 2'.000 2.'200 2.'00 4

o 0.000 d.200 fiATURAL PERIGD-SECONDS WPPSS HANFORD N0. 2 REACTOR BUILDING, MODEL NO. 2 REV. 1 SSE (CBE) FLOOR SPECTRUM - HORIZONTAL MASS NO. 10, EL. 414'-3.0". DAl1 PING = 0.005 l

I