ML13330A619
| ML13330A619 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1986 |
| From: | Southern California Edison Co |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13324A849 | List: |
| References | |
| PROC-860331-01, NUDOCS 8605080270 | |
| Download: ML13330A619 (90) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 2 ELECTRICAL RACEWAY SUPPORTS SEISMIC REEVALUATION PROGRAM SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 March, 1986 PDR ADOCK 8d5o0206
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES.
LIST OF FIGURES 11
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-1 1.1 Purpose of Report.
1-1 1.2 Organization of Report 1-1 1.3 Scope of Program 1-1 2.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION..
2-1 2.1 General Description.
2-1 2.2 Raceway Support Classifications.
2-1 2.3 Raceway Tiedowns 2-2 3.0 REEVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Reevaluation Criteria 3-1 3.3 Reevaluation Methodology.
3-11 4.0
SUMMARY
OF REEVALUATION RESULTS 4-1
5.0 REFERENCES
5-1 APPENDICES Appendix A -
Sample Calculations A-1
LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 3.1 DAMPING VALUES FOR SEISMIC REEVALUATION......
3-2 Table 3.2 CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHOR ALLOWABLE LOADS.
3-5 Table 3.3 ALLOWABLE LOADS FOR MASONRY EXPANSION ANCHORS AND THROUGH BOLTS.
3-6 Table 3.4 ALLOWABLE DESIGN LOAD FOR CONDUIT CLAMPS.
3-7 Table 3.5 ALLOWABLE DESIGN LOADS FOR 2-BOLT CONDUIT STRAPS 3-8 Table 3.6 U-BOLT CONDUIT TIEDOWN ALLOWABLES...
3-9 Table 3.7 ALLOWABLE DESIGN LOADS FOR FINGER CLAMPS...
3-10
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 2.1 TYPICAL SURFACE MOUNTED SUPPORTS.
2-3 Figure 2.2 TYPICAL TRAPEZE TRAY SUPPORT.
2-4 Figure 2.3 TYPICAL BRACED CANTILEVER SUPPORTS.
2-5 Figure 2.4 TYPICAL TRAY TIE-DOWNS.
2-6 Figure 2.5 TYPICAL CANTILEVER SUPPORTS.........
2-7 Figure 3.1 SUPPORT EVALUATION
SUMMARY
FORM..........
3-12 Figure 3.2 TYPICAL MODIFICATION TO RESTRICT MASONRY WALL DEFLECTIONS..
3-17 Figure A.1 ISOMETRIC OF INDETERMINATE PLANE FRAME.
A-5 Figure A.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF INDETERMINATE PLANE FRAME A-6 Figure A.3 TRAPEZE TRAY SUPPORT.
A-7 Figure A.4 CANTILEVER CONDUIT SUPPORT.
A-8 Figure A.5 SURFACE MOUNTED CONDUIT SUPPORT A-9 0TT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Report The original design.of San Onofre Unit 1 was completed in.early 1965.
Structures and equipment originally designated as Seismic Category A were constructed to withstand a O.5g Housner Design Basis Earthquake (DBE).
The methods of analysis and the acceptance criteria were in accordance with accepted practice at that time. The technology of seismic analysis has advanced rapidly in the years since the original design of San Onofre Unit 1 was completed. During this same period, codes and regulatory practices pertaining to the design of nuclear power plants have also changed.
San Onofre Unit 1 was designed before the current technology and codes had fully evolved.
In order to obtain an updated understanding of the plant dynamic characteristics and to reflect an increase of the maximum ground acceleration from 0.5g to 0.67g, the Seismic Reevaluation Program (SRP) was initiated to evaluate safety related structures and equipment at San Onofre Unit 1. This program was based upon the use of current anaylsis methods and acceptance criteria.
This report addresses the seismic reevaluation program for the electrical raceway support systems at San Onofre Unit 1. The report provides a summary of the criteria and methodology used in the reevaluation of the raceway support systems at San Onofre Unit 1 and demonstrates that the raceway support systems, as modified, will perform adequately when subjected to the.67g earthquake.
1.2 Organization of Report This report contains five sections. The first section provides the purpose and scope of the raceway reevaluation program. The second section provides a detailed description of the raceway support systems as they will exist in the upgraded configuration. The third section presents the criteria and methodology used in the reevaluation. The fourth section provides the results of the reevaluation of the raceway support systems at San Onofre Unit 1. Finally, sample calculations are provided in the appendix.
1.3 Scope of Program The following paragraphs describe the work performed in this program.
1.3.1 Reevaluation of Raceway Support Systems Supports for safety related raceway were reevaluated to determine their structural capacity to withstand seismic loads (three component motion) in combination with dead loads. The structural components listed below were evaluated during the review process:
0
~1-1'
A. Raceway support members.
B. Member connections.
C. Conduit and cable tray connections (tie-downs) to the raceway supports.
D. Connections of supports to the plant structures (expansion anchors, through bolts and other forms of attachment).
E. Local effects (due to concentrated raceway loads) on structural components of the plant to which the raceway supports are attached. The overall effect of raceway loads on structural members was evaluated in the seismic reevaluation of the structures.
F. Conduit and cable tray support spacings.
1.3.2 Upgrade of Supports not Meeting the Reevaluation Criteria Those structural components exceeding the stress and/or deflection limits, as established by the reevaluation criteria (see Section 3),
will be upgraded in accordance with the design criteria for raceway modifications which is consistent with or more conservative than the criteria provided in Section 3 of this report.
The upgrading of raceway supports identified during the reevaluation process primarily consisted of:
A. The addition of longitudinal or transverse bracing for the raceways supports.
B. The replacement of concrete expansion anchors with 1/2 inch diameter through bolts in ungrouted cells of masonry walls.
C. The upgrading of cable tray tie-downs.
D. The replacement of "finger clamp" conduit supports for conduit greater than 1 inch in diameter or for conduit loads exceeding the finger clamp allowable limits.
E.
The modification or replacement of.supports whose member stresses exceeded the allowable limits established in the reevaluation criteria.
1.3.3 Upgrade of Structures to Reduce Seismic Induced Movements of Raceway Support Systems As part of the seismic upgrade of the structures, masonry wall deflections caused by a.67g seismic event were limited, where required, to ensure no adverse effects on the structural integrity of safety related electrical raceway systems.
1-2
2.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 2.1 General Description This section describes the various raceway support types that will exist at San Onofre Unit 1 upon completion of this reevaluation and upgrade program.
The electrical cable at San Onofre Unit 1 is routed throughout the plant within cable trays or conduit. The supports for these raceway systems are typically composed of prefabricated channel strut members such as the type manufactured by Unistrut. Some of the heavily loaded raceways (typically trays) are supported by structural steel.
Strut connections are normally bolted, although some welding is used. Typically, connections of raceway supports made directly to structural steel are welded.
Attachment of raceway supports to the plant structures is generally provided by one of the following methods:
A.
Welding to existing structural steel.
B.
Bolting to existing embedded channel strut.
C.
Anchoring to existing concrete or masonry with expansion anchors or through bolts.
2.2 Raceway Support Classifications The five basic types of electrical raceway supports used at San Onofre Unit 1 are surface mounted, trapeze, cantilever, braced cantilever, and indeterminate frames.
The following subsections describe each type.
2.2.1 Surface Mounted Supports Surface mounted supports typically consist of a length of strut attached to the surface of the supporting structure.
The raceway is attached to the strut. Approximately 45 percent of all rigid conduit supports are the surface mounted type. Only a few trays are surface mounted. Typical surface mounted raceway support configurations are shown in Figure 2.1.
2.2.2 Trapeze Supports Trapeze supports consist of a planar frame typically composed of double strut members which carry one or more cable trays, conduit or a combination thereof. Bracing is used to resist loads transverse and/or parallel to the raceway as required. Approximately 70 percent of all cable tray supports and 15 percent of the conduit supports are the trapeze type.
A typical trapeze raceway support is shown in Figure 2.2.
2-1
2.2.3 Cantilever Supports Cantilever supports consist of a horizontal or a vertical member which is attached to the plant structure. The trays and/or conduits are attached to the horizontal member. Less than 5 percent of all raceway supports are of the cantilever type. A typical cantilever raceway support is shown in Figure 2.5.
2.2.4 Braced Cantilever Supports Braced cantilever supports consist of a horizontal member which is attached to the plant structure and braced vertically and/or horizontally as required. Approximately 15 percent of all the cable tray supports and 40 percent of all conduit supports are the braced cantilever type. Typical braced cantilever supports are shown in Figure 2.3.
2.2.5 Indeterminate Frame Supports Within certain portions of the plant many raceway supports interconnect to form complex indeterminate structural frames.
These frame structures were typically reevaluated by computer analysis to accurately determine the member stresses. The majority of these indeterminate frame structures are located in the 4160 Volt Room and typically involve both conduit and tray raceway. Figure A.1 of Appendix A shows a raceway support arrangement depicting this type of structure.
2.3 Raceway Tie-Downs 2.3.1 Tray Tie-Downs Tray Tie-Downs are used to connect cable trays to their support structures. The two typical types of tray tie-downs used at SONGS 1 are shown in Figure 2.4. The two types differ with respect to their intended application. Supports which are designated as "Longitudinal Brace Points" are similar to Type II. Standard supports utilize the Type I tie down.
2.3.2 Conduit Tie-Downs Conduit tie-downs were of two basic types. The first type consists of a strap, pipe clamp, or U-bolt which attaches the conduit to the strut or supporting elemelt as shown in Figure 2.1.
The second type, also shown in Figure 2.1, is designated as a finger clamp.
2-2
L CLIPS TYP EXIST. BEAM TYPICAL TRAY SURFACE Mt"TED SUPPORT STANDARD PIPE STANDARD PPE STRAP CLAMP (TYP)
STRUT IEEXPANSiOCi ANCHOR BOLT TYP.
STANDARD PIPE STRAP RIGOD T
EXPANSION ANCHOR CONOUIT W/ FLAT WASHER 1"0 MAX.
CONDUIT kSHM PLATE HOLES 0 EXPANSION ANCHOR BOLT TYPICAL CONDUIT SURFACE MOUNTED SUPPORTS FIGURE 2.1 TYPICAL SURFACE MOUNTED SUPPORTS
tf'74 r
r08 r
P WELDOED SrR~ff COMMAE CTA2.
TO STRUCMP4 STEL (P) 2-4
2" CONDUIT W/ STD STRUT I2 EXPANSION PIPE CLAMP ANCHoR oT (TYP)
TYPICAL BRACED CANTILEVER
- CONo.T SUPPORT EXIST.
EMBEDDED 24 TRAY(TYP)
STRUT i
TYPICAL BRACED CANTILEVER TRAY SUPPORT FIGURE 2,3 TYPICAL BRACED CANTILEVER SUPPORTS
"fto PM 065 INerALL APPImEv lyf'eVV
"!s 2 -R064:
Prsu.
APnovwo eav6.
CAP (7YP &
TYPICAL TIE-DOWN INSTALLED IN TRAY BOTTOM g/2' 4 Mer e wre4Iou-d j A-o CA
- 4cce, ewn ow e-wgass wvwo>
Type I N -
9/ig'dHl'E/A4Y FOR Saxr w/5sT WAS//FR 452 PPJNG & #v L TYPICAL TIE-DOW INSTALLED ON TRAY SIDE RAIL q/4/24 k4t gJ TZA.W qt--
r-o o ern-Im tLPVc*j 4415r.-2 CAPV QGe I
w
-ra. w,,aw.
Type II Crf VQPw o Figure 2.4 TYPICAL TRAY TIE-DOWNS 2-6
00 FIGURE 2.5 TYPICAL CANTILEVER SUPPORTS 2-7
3.0 REEVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction The criteria and methodology employed for the reevaluation of the electrical raceway support systems at San Onofre Unit 1 are stated in this section. The criteria and methodology which were previously submitted to the NRC in the document entitled "Electrical Raceway Supports Seismic Reevaluation Criteria" (Reference 1) are updated by the provisions herein.
This document updates the criteria and methodology to include in detail the actual practices employed. The resulting provisions and their utilization are as conservative, if not more so, than that which was previously submitted to the NRC (Reference 1).
The revised criteria and methodology remain consistent with the provisions employed for the seismic reevaluation of the balance of plant structures (Reference 2).
3.2 Reevaluation Criteria The criteria used for reevaluation are presented in the following subsections.
3.2.1 Instructure Response Spectra The instructure response spectra used for the reevaluation of the raceway support systems at SONGS 1 were developed as part of the seismic reevaluation of structures or as part of the Long Term Service program (applies to Reactor and Turbine Buildings only).
3.2.2 Critical Damping Values The damping values used in the reevaluation of the various types of raceway support systems are given in Table 3.1.
These values were conservatively based upon the test results described in Reference 3, which indicates that damping in excess of 20% is actually attained during strong seismic shaking DBE level of excitation) for raceway systems representative of those at SONGS 1.
3.2.3 Loads and Load Combinations The raceway support systems were evaluated for seismic loads (three component motion) in combination with the dead loads. The load combination used for the evaluation of the raceway support systems is as follows:
D + El where:
0 = Dead load of cable, raceway, support and all permanent attachments E'= Seismic loads Live loads on electrical raceway support systems are negligible during normal plant operation and are therefore considered to be zero.
3-1
Table 3.1 DAMPING VALUES FOR SEISMIC REEVALUATION Damping Item (Percent of Critical)
Conduit Supports 7
Cable Tray Supports 15 Combined Conduit and Cable Tray Supports (same support) 15 3-2
3.2.4 Acceptance Criteria Current welding, fabrication, and construction techniques and the selection of design parameters, material properties and member sizes are essentially the same as those used during the original plant construction. For this reason, present day codes and allowables were selected as the guideline for the cable tray and conduit support acceptance criteria stated herein.
3.2.4.1 Codes and Standards The applicable codes and standards which the reevaluation allowables were based upon are listed below:
A.
A.I.S.C. Steel Construction Manual, 8th Edition, 1980.
B.
A.I.S.I. Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members, 1980.
C.
A.W.S. Structural Welding Code, D.1.1, 1980.
In addition to the codes and standards listed above, the "Cable Tray and Conduit Raceway Seismic Test Program" (Reference 3) was used as a basis for establishing criteria for the reevaluation.
3.2.4.2 Allowable Stresses For Raceway Support Components All raceway supports evaluated were fabricated exclusively with steel components.
The allowable stresses for the support system.components are as follows:
A.
Bending and Tension D + E' < 0.9 Fy where Fy = Minimum yield strength of material
= 33 ksi or 42 ksi, as appropriate for strut material
= 36 ksi for structural steel B.
Axial Compression, Local and Lateral Stability D + E'-< 1.5 Fs where Fs = allowable stress per the following specifications:
AISI for strut and welding of strut to strut or strut to steel.
AISC for structural steel and welding of structural steel.
3-3
3.2.4.3 Allowable Loads for Bolted Connections and Raceway lie-Downs A.
Concrete Expansion Anchors The allowable tension and shear loads for expansion anchors in concrete members are given in Table 3.2.
B.
Masonry Wall Expansion Anchors and Through Bolts The tension and shear allowables for expansion anchors in grouted masonry and for 1/2 inch diameter through bolts.(the only size used at Unit 1) are given in Table 3.3.
C.
Strut Connection Bolts The allowable loads for bolted strut connections is as follows:
Fst = 0.9 x 2F where:
Fst = Allowable load F
= Unistrut recommended bolt load per the 1980 Unistrut General Engineering Catalog No. 9, based on a factor of safety of 3 (i.e, FULT = 3F)
D.
Raceway Tie-Downs (1) Tray tie-downs: The allowable stresses for raceway tray tie-downs are the same as the allowable stresses for the raceway components as stated in Section 3.2.4.2.
(2) Pipe clamps for conduits: The allowable loads for pipe clamps used for the attachment of conduit raceway are given in Table 3.4.
(3) Conduit straps: The allowable loads for conduit straps are provided in Table 3.5.
(4) U-bblt tie downs for conduits: The allowable loads for U-bolt conduit tie downs is provided in Table 3.6.
(5) Conduit finger clamps: Conduit finger clamps are considered adequate for 1 inch diameter and smaller conduit or if conduit loads are less than or equal t.o the allowable loads (Table 3.7) that were established by static and dynamic testing (Reference 6).
3-4
TABLE 3.2 CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHOR ALLOWABLE LOADS Anchor Allowable Allowable Diameter Shear VA Tension TA (in)
(lbs.)
(lbs.)
1/4 533 365 3/8 1100 575 1/2 1970 1260 5/8 2840 1500 3/4 3790 2290 1
6750 3750 (1) The above values (allowable) are for wedge type expansion anchors installed in 3000 psi concrete.
(2) All allowable loads above are 1/4 of the manufacturer's recommended ultimate loads from Hilti.
(3) For the evaluation of simultaneous tension and shear loading on concrete expansion anchors, the loads are combined by the following interaction formula:
2 2
+
(.A 1.5 TA A
where t and v are the calculated tension and shear loads, repectively, and TA and VA are the allowable tension and shear loads, respectively.
(4) The interaction formula above is based upon tests performed by Abbot Hank, Inc., Testing Laboratories, Report No.
8783R, published in Hilti's Design Manual; Teledyne Engineering Services for Utility/TES Owners Group, Technical Report No.
3501-1, 1979; and the Fast Flux Testing Facility (FFTF)
Report Number BR-5853-C-4 Drilled in Expansion Bolts Under Static and Alternating Loads prepared by Bechtel Power Corporation for Hanford Engineering Development Laboratories, Richland, Washington, January 1975.
3-5
TABLE 3.3 (1), (2)
ALLOWABLE LOADS FOR EXPANSION ANCHORS IN GROUTED MASONRY AND THROUGH BOLTS EXPANSION ANCHORS (3)
THROUGH BOLTS ANCHOR ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE DIAMETER SHEAR VA TENSION TA SHEAR VA TENSION TA (in.)
(lbs.)
(lbs.)
(lbs.)
(lbs.)
1/4 133 274 3/8 275 431 1/2 493 945 800 600 5/8 710 1125 3/4 948 1718 1
1688 2812 (1) Masonry wall strength f'm = 2025 psi based on prism tests of SONGS 1 masonry walls.
(2) No interaction formula is required to be applied to these allowables.
(3) Maximum combined loads based on comparison with test values from the Bechtel Power Corporation report entitled "Report on the Testing of Concrete Expansion Anchors and Grouted Anchors Installed in Concrete Blockwalls, Midland Plant Units 1 and 2."
3-6
TABLE 3.4 ALLOWABLE DESIGN LOAD FOR CONDUIT CLAMPS A
B C
CONDITION A:
Pull-Out B: Slip Transverse C:
Slip Longitudinal Condition Conduit Size A (lbs)
B (lbs)
C (lbs) 3/4" d 1,170 170 180 1" d 1,310 310 300 2" d 1,890 400 400 3" d 1,920 480 450 4" d 2,700 870 770 5" d 2,200 420 310 NOTE: The values are for Unistrut Corp. conduit clamps or equal and are based upon test data from Unistrut Corp., except those values for 2" d. Values for 2" d are obtained from Anco testing program (Reference 3).
3-7
TABLE 3.5 ALLOWABLE DESIGN LOADS FOR 2-BOLT CONDUIT STRAPS+
UNKNURLED STRAPS Pullout Slip Along Slip Thru Conduit 0 Torque (A)*
(B)*
(C)*
Size Bolt 0 (Ft-Lb)
(Lb)
(Lb)
(Lb) 3/4" 1/4" 6
1340 568 337 1"
1/4" 6
1150 560 166 1-1/2" 1/4" 6
1280 495 315 2"
3/8" 19 2220 2440 462 3"
3/8" 19 3710 3150 1017 4"
3/8" 19 3710 3110 566 5"
3/8" 19 4200 2950 488 6"
3/8" 19 4200 3150 595 KNURLED STRAPS Pullout Slip Along Slip Thru Conduit 0 Torque (A)*
(B)*
(C)*
Size Bolt 0 (Ft-Lb)
(Lb)
(Lb)
(Lb) 3" 3/8" 30 3710 3150 1370 4"
3/8" 30 3710 3110 977
- See Table 3.4 for orientation of straps and load directions.
+ The allowable load.,
FST, for conduit straps is as follows:
FST =1.5 x F where F = Loads stated in the above table, based on a factor of safety of 2.25.
3-8
TABLE 3.6 U-BOLT CONDUIT TIEDOWN ALLOWABLES Condition U-Bolt Diameter PA (lbs)*
PB (lbs)*
PC (lbs)*
1/4" 929 232 232 3/8" 2298 574 574 The above values have a 2.25 factor of safety against ultimate, therefore, no interaction is necessary.
- See Table 3.4 for orientation of u-bolts and load directions.
3-9
TABLE 3.7 ALLOWABLE DESIGN LOADS FOR FINGER CLAMPS (A)
(C)
(B)
CLAMP'S CONDUIT 0 PULLOUT SLIP ALONG SLIP THRU MANUFACTURER SIZE (IN)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(LB)
(LB)
(LB)
Unistrut 3/8 162 145 25 Unistrut 1/2 143 100 12 APPLETON 3/4 80 90 35 APPLETON 1
80 110 45 APPLETON 1 1/2 150 180 63 Thomas and 1 1/2 175 200 65 Betts Thomas and 2
300 350 100 Rptt (1) The above allowables are based on a factor of safety of 2.0.
(2) The loads are combined by the following interaction formula:
22 Slip Thru 2+
Pullout
+
Slip Alon) 1.0 Slip ThruAllow.
PulloutAl1ow.Sl 3-10
3.3 Reevaluation Methodology This section describes the methods used in the reevaluation of the cable tray and conduit raceway support systems at SONGS 1. The acceptability of the raceway support systems was established by utilizing these methods and applying the criteria presented in Section 3.2.
3.3.1 Reevaluation Approach The raceway/support configuration and weight distribution were determined by performing field walkdowns and by reviewing existing electrical and structural drawings. Cable weight within the raceway was obtained from computer listings of the raceways. When exact cable weight data was not obtainable through the computer listings or by counting actual cable in a tray the cable weight for conduit raceway was assumed to be 100% full and for tray raceways, an estimate of 70% fill was used and verified as conservative by a visual inspection of the actual tray or 100% full was assumed. All information required to perform the evaluation was summarized within the calculations or on the Evaluation Summary Sheet (see Figure 3.1).
Component loads and stresses were calculated for the load combination given in Section 3.2.3 by using the appropriate -analysis method from Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3. The acceptability of each.
raceway support was established by applying the criteria in Section 3.2. All raceway support systems which did not meet the reevaluation criteria will be modified as discussed in Section 1.3.2.
3.3.2 Evaluation of Raceway Support Structural Integ rity Each electrical raceway support or support system was evaluated by using one of the basic methods described in the following subsections.
3.3.2.1 Method A For this method calculations were performed to determine the member stresses associated with the support for the reevaluation loading combination given in Section 3.2.3. The seismic loads from the three orthogonal directions were considered to occur simultaneously. The seismic loads were combined by the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares method or the component factor method. For the component factor method, 100% of the response load in the principal direction is combined absolutely with 40% of the response loads in the other two orthogonal directions. The calculated component loads, stresses and deflections were then compared to the allowables in Section 3.2 to determine the adequacy of the support.
For those supports without a longitudinal brace, the seismic force in the longitudinal direction was assumed to be resisted by the closest support with a brace in that direction.
3-11
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT I SAFETY RELATED ELECTRICAL RACEWAY SUPPORT EVALUATION
SUMMARY
JOB 14000 CALC. NO.
_IGNATUR FDATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT JOB NO.
SUBJECT SHEET OF SHEETS AREA NO.
SUPPORT TYPE:
SUPPORT NO.
SUPPORT SPACING NO. OF TRAYS BRACING:
NO. OF CONDUITS LATERAL:_
SIZE:
LONGITUDINAL:
ANCHORAGE:
_______________________________BOLTED:________________
TRAY OR CONDUIT REFERENCE NO.:
WELDED:_
ELEVATION:
BRACKET TYPE COMMENTS:
STIMATED WT./FT.
CONFIGURATION FIGURE 3.1 3-12
In this method, seismic forces applied to a particular support in a given direction were obtained by multiplying the tributary mass by, a seismic coefficient. Seismic coefficients were determined as follows:
- 1.
Suppofts in General In general, frequency calculations for the raceway systems were not performed and the following seismic coefficients were used in the evaluation.
- a.
The vertical seismic coefficient was taken as 1.0 times the applicable peak spectral acceleration for vertically oriented conduit with surface mounted supports..
- b.
The vertical seismic coefficient for all other conduit supports was taken as 1.5 times the applicable peak spectral acceleration.
- c.
The vertical seismic coefficient was taken as 1.5 times the applicable peak spectral acceleration for all.cable tray support systems.
- d.
The horizontal seismic coefficient for a braced direction of a conduit or tray support was taken as 1.0 times the applicable peak spectral acceleration.
- e.
The horizontal seismic coefficient for an unbraced direction of a conduit or tray support was taken as 1.5 times the applicable peak spectral acceleration.
- 2.
Single Degree of Freedom Systems Raceway support systems which could be adequately characterized as single degree of freedom systems and were not evaluated as discussed in Item 1 above, were evaluated as follows:
- a.
If the system frequencies were not calculated or were calculated to be less than the instructure response spectra resonance frequency, then the peak acceleration was used.
- b.
If the system frequencies were calculated to be greater than the instructure response spectra resonance frequency, then the seismic accelerations were obtained from the appropriate instructure response spectra at the support's computed frequency.
3-13
- 3.
Supports on Masonry Walls Support frequency determinations were not made for supports attached to masonry walls. For the cable tray supports, the hori-zontal and vertical seismic coefficients used were 1.5 times the peak spectral accelerations of the corresponding instructure response spectra of the wall above the support's location.
For the conduit supports, the horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients used were the peak spectral accelerations of the corres ponding instructure response spectra of the wall above the support's location.
This is conservative since the conduit frequencies are generally in the higher frequency portion of the instructure response spectra curves.
3.3.2.2 Method B This method was used for supports with configurations that compare favorably with previously tested supports (see Reference 3);
particularly conduit supports rigidly attached to the walls with a typical support spacing of 8' (see Figure 2.1).
For these cases the seismic acceleration levels were obtained from the appropriate instructure response spectra.
Those supports with acceleration levels equal to or less than 7.5g were considered to be adequate based on the results of the testing in Reference 3. Response accelerations greater than 7.5g were not encountered for these types of supports in this reevaluation.
3.3.2.3 Method C This method was used for supports which were essentially the same as other supports previously evaluated by methods A or B. It consisted of comparing the support with previously evaluated supports and based upon similarity, making a judgment as to the adequacy of the support.
In utilizing this method, each factor which contributes to the structural behavior of the support (e.g.,
loading, member size and configuration, connection details, etc.)
was compared with the previously evaluated support to ensure that a valid comparison existed.
3.3.2.4 Method D Method D was used for.supports which had been recently engineered and installed. This method consisted of reviewing the design calculations to ensure that all requirements of the seismic reevaluation criteria were met.
This included floor response spectra acceleration values, stress allowables, combined effects of three component seismic loading, and connection details.
3-14
3.3.2.5 Method E This method was primarily employed to evaluate the cable tray and conduit support systems in the 4160V Switchgear Room. The support systems in this area are different from the supports throughout the rest of the plant because of the extensive interconnection between supports and the mezzanine level structural steel framing. The connected supports react to seismic loads in a manner similar to space frames and, therefore, have a large amount of indeterminancy. Therefore, computer evaluations were made utilizing lumped mass finite element models of these supports.
These models were input into the Bechtel Structural Analysis Program (BSAP), SUPERPIPE or STRUDL computer codes which perform linear, elastic analysis of three-dimensional structural systems.
An initial analysis was performed using the equivalent static load method. If the resultant stresses from this analysis did not show the support system to be adequate per the criteria of Section 3.2, a dynamic analysis was performed. In the dynamic analysis method, modal extraction procedures and response spectra analysis were used to develop dynamic load vectors. A large number of modes were used to ensure that all significant dynamic loads were accounted for.
Seismic stresses were then combined with the dead load stresses and the net stesses were again compared with the allowable values of Section 3.2 to determine the adequacy of the support.
3.3.3 Evaluation of the Raceway Support System for Seismic Induced Movements The effects of differential displacements on the structural integrity of the raceway system can be divided into two categories:
displacements associated with masonry walls and displacements from all other types of structures.
The maximum displacement of a structure, other than masonry walls, is approximately 1-1/2 inches.
The resulting maximum differential displacement between any two structures would be about 2-1/4 inches (1-1/2" and 1-1/2" combined by the SRSS method).
The full scale dynamic testing of raceway support systems performed by ANCO Engineers, Incorporated (see Reference 3) demonstrated that both cable tray and conduit could experience differential displacements on the order of 3-4 inches and still maintain their structural integrity.
Therefore, differential displacements.associated with structures other than masonry walls will not *affect the structural integrity of the raceway system.
For raceway associated with masonry walls a field walkdown was performed to determine which raceway systems could be subjected to DBE generated differential displacements greater than 3-4 inches. The evaluation performed by Computech Engineering Services (Reference 4) was used as the basis for determining masonry wall deflections.
Consideration was given to the displaced shape of the wall; the amount of displacement along its profile; the location of any supported raceway; the path of the raceway along the wall; how and where the 3-15
raceway entered/exited the wall; and how and where the raceway was attached to an adjacent structure. If the raceway was found to be subjected to direct differential displacements greater than 3-4 inches the associated masonry wall was structurally modified with support beams to assure that the resulting differential displacements would be less than 3-4 inches. A typical modification which has been implemented to restrict the deflection of the masonry walls is shown in Figure 3.2.
For those cases where the raceway systems would be subjected to differential displacements that are less than 3-4 inches, it was concluded that differential displacements associated with the masonry walls will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the raceway systems.
3.3.4 Cable Tray and Conduit Support Spacing Guidelines The adequacy of existing cable tray and conduit raceway as a structural load path was based on data obtained from testing (Reference 3) which established the minimum support spacing guidelines. These general guidelines are listed below.
A. 8' -0" maximum span between cable tray supports and 10' -0" maximum span between conduit supports.
B. Transverse bracing at every turn or rise and at a maximum of 24' -0" on center on straight runs.
C. Longitudinal bracing provided as determined by.analysis.
Where these guidelines were exceeded, adequate system support was confirmed by analysis.
3-16
MA5M ALL NJENIALL SUPPOR BEAM THROUSN AoS01Ry WALL BOLT (TV)
BRACM6 (TYp)
RACM4S MARI#
PLATE (yp)
COVOUT AFSECT/
0 PL Al EFLECr/o;4 Figure 3.2 TYPICAL MODIFICATION TO RESTRICT MASONRY WALL DEFLECTIONS 3-17
4.0
SUMMARY
OF REEVALUATION RESULTS Approximately 7,300 conduit supports and 1,200 cable tray supports were evaluated in conjunction with the Electrical Raceway Support System Seismic Reevaluation. Calculations were performed as the basis for the structural evaluation of all the 8,500 raceway supports. Of the 7,300 conduit supports evaluated approximately 5,800 met the reevaluation criteria. Of the 1,200 cable tray supports evaluated, approximately 600 met the reevaluation criteria. Sample reevaluation calculations which were performed are provided in Appendix A. Most of the Supports which did not meet the reevaluation criteria have been upgraded in accordance with design criteria which is consistent with or more conservative than the reevaluation criteria. The general types of modifications identified are discussed in Section 1.3.2.
Seven bays of masonry walls (each about 20 feet long between columns) which enclose the turbine building have been modified by the addition of mid-span supports which reduce the seismic induced displacements of the walls. With the addition of these.mid-span supports the integrity of the safety related raceway systems attached to these walls will be maintained.
Upon completion of the required upgrade of all supports which did not meet the reevaluation criteria set forth in this report, the SONGS 1 raceway support systems will meet the seismic reevaluation criteria.
4-1
5.0 REFERENCES
- 1.
Electrical Raceway Supports Seismic Reevaluation Criteria, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station -
Unit 1, enclosure to letter from K. P. Baskin (.SCE) to D. M. Crutchfield (NRC), dated August 17, 1982.
- 2.
Balance of Plant Structures Seismic Reevaluation Criteria, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, enclosure to letter from K. P. Baskin (SCE) to D. M. Crutchfield (NRC), dated February 23, 1981.
- 3.
Cable Tray and Conduit Raceway Seismic Test Program - Release 4, by ANCO Engineers Inc. Report No. 1Ub3-21.1-4, Volumes I through IV, prepared for and in collaboration with Bechtel Power Corporation, Los Angeles Power Division, Norwalk, California, December 15, 1978.
- 4.
Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls, Volume 3,Masonry Wall Evaluation, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, Computech Engineering Services, Inc. forwarded by letter from K. P. Baskin to D. M. Crutchfield (NRC), dated January 11, 1983.
- 5.
Letter from Mr. M. U. Medford (SCE) to Mr. W. A. Paulson (NRC), dated October 2, 1984.
- 6.
Static and Dynamic Tests of One-bolt Conduit Clamps SONGS 1, Impell Report No. 01-0310-1469, Rev. 0, dated November, 198b.
6238A 5-1
APPENDIX A SAMPLE CALCULATIONS A-1
APPENDIX A SAMPLE CALCULATIONS A.1 Introduction This appendix provides sample calculations for typical raceway supports which were subjected to seismic reevaluation. The attached calculations address the following four types of supports:
A.
Indeterminate plane frame support (computer calculation).
B.
Trapeze cable tray support (hand calculation).
C.
Cantilever conduit support (hand calculation).
D.
Surface mounted conduit support (hand calculation).
An introductory discussion of the attached calculations for these supports is provided in the following sections.
A.2 Indeterminate Plane Frame Support Cable tray hanger support 10-4160-T-00010 (See Figure A.1) is an example of the analyses performed for indeterminate frames in the 4160V Switchgear Room. This support is located along the west 4160V Switchgear Room wall, between elevations 25 and 30 feet.
Support 10-4160-T-00010 carries five cable trays and eight conduits. Cable trays 60AA1 through 60AA5 are 24 inch wide horizontal trays which are oriented north-south. Three feet north the trays turn east.
The attached conduits are oriented in a similar manner.
The support configuration originally consisted of five P2546 and one P2543 unbraced cantilevers which were connected to a common embedded strut. The evaluation of this support identified that the member stress for the most critically loaded cantilever exceeded the evaluation allowable. The modification consists of connecting the free ends of two adjacent cantilevers, thus creating a plane frame to carry the vertical and transverse loads.
Longitudinal restraint is provided by adjacent supports.
The configuration was analyzed by a finite element analysis on BSAP CE800. The analysis models the structural members as beam elements and accounts for self-weight by using the member cross-sectional area and mass density to lump translational masses at the appropriate element nodes. Cable tray and conduit weights are lumped at the tray and conduit support points.
Their weights are hand calculated taking into account the tributary length of the conduit/tray and their associated cable.
The finite element model is shown in Figure A.2.
A-2
The vertical and transverse seismic coefficients utilized in the analysis were taken as 1.5 times the applicable peak accelerations at 15 percent DBE damping.
. The support frequency was not determined. The directional seismic responses corresponding to ground motion in the orthogonal directions were combined with the dead load response by the component factor method outlined in Section 3.3.2.1 of this report.
Four primary load cases (Load Numbers 1 through 4) are generated by the analysis.
The first primary load case defines the dead load, which always maintains a scale load factor of 1. The second, third and fourth primary load cases correspond respectively to seismic loading in the east-west, vertical, and north-south directions. The seismic load cases are scaled by a factor of either 1.0 or 0.4 as appropriate. The seismic loads are investigated for both positive and negative signs, thus all possible seismic component load factor permutations are reviewed.
Since north-south (longitudinal) restraint is carried by adjacent supports, this primary load case does not have to be considered, therefore, only eight of the twelve load combinations are relevant. The output of local forces and moments of the BSAP Run X2088 are shown for all load combinations. The beam and joint numbers are identified in Figure A.2.
Calculations for the modified configuration are addressed. Conservatively, the maximum forces and moments produced by the independent load combinations were applied simultaneously to members and connections to determine the resultant stresses.
A.3 Trapeze Cable Tray Support Cable Tray Support 06-0000-T-0020C, shown in Figure A.3, is located in the West Turbine Extension (Area 6) between Elevations 25'-2" and 34'-9 1/2". This Support carries four cable trays, two 3/4" conduits, and two 1-1/2" conduits and is braced in the transverse direction.
Longitudinal restraint is provided by adjacent supports.
The original configuration (unbraced drop cantilever) was evaluated and it was determined that the member stress and connection loads exceeded the allowables.
The reevaluation was performed by the equivalent static load method. It was conservatively assumed that the support was not rigid in the transverse direction.
The vertical and transverse seismic coefficients were taken as 1.5 times the peak acceleration of the west turbine extension at elevation 35'-6 and 15 percent DBE damping.
Frequencies were not determined.
Modifications consist of the addition of a vertical strut and a transverse brace, thus creating a braced trapeze.The calculations of the modified configuration show the comparison of member and connection stresses to their respective reevaluation criteria allowables. Approximately 40%o'f the modified tray supports consisted of this support type.
A-3
A.4 Cantilever Conduit Support Cantilever conduit support 03-0000-C-00024, shown in Figure A.4, is located on the north concrete wall of the 480 Volt Room (Area 3) at Elevation 23'-0". The support configuration originally consisted of an unbraced P2544 unistrut member anchored to the concrete wall with 3/8" 9 concrete expansion anchors. The two attached 3" 0 conduits run in the east-west direction along the north 480 Volt Room wall for 29'-0" and then turn south. The conduits are supported by four supports along their east-west run, none of which were longitudinally braced.
Reevaluation was performed by the equivalent static load method. The support/subsystem frequencies were not determined. The vertical and longitudinal seismic coefficients were conservatively taken as 1.5 times the peak acceleration of the fuel storage building (480V Room) floor instructure response spectra at Elevation 31'-0 and 7% DBE damping. The peak acceleration was used for the rigid transverse direction.
The evaluation of this system identified the need for longitudinal bracing of two of the four supports. Additionally reanchorage and vertical bracing of support 03-000-C-00024 was found necessary due to excessive connection and member stresses. Therefore, this support was also longitudinally braced. The modifications of Support 03-0000-C-00024 included strengthening the support anchorage, and the addition of bracing in the vertical and longitudinal directions. These modifications are typical of the modifications which were identified for unbraced cantilever supports (approximately 45% of the modified conduit supports). The calculations of the modified configuration show the comparison of member and connection stresses to their respective reevaluation criteria allowables.
A.5 Surface Mounted Conduit Support The surface mounted conduit support, shown in Figure A.5, is located in the Containment Building (Area 1) at the operating deck level.
This support carries two 2 inch diameter conduits whose longitudinal axes are oriented in the vertical direction.
Analysis was performed by the equivalent static load method.
The support/subsystem frequencies were determined. The support itself is essentially rigid (fundamental frequency greater than 33 cps) in all three directions, however, the frequency of the conduit in the transverse directions is considerably lower and therefore governs the horizontal responses.
To account for the flexibility of the conduit, the conduit frequency was computed and its corresponding instructure acceleration coefficient was determined.
The attached calculation provides the details of the evaluation. Surface mounted supports represent approximately 40 percent of the total number of modified conduit supports. A set of general calculations were prepared for surface mounted supports to provide a basis of comparison and facilitate the reevaluation of this support type.
6238A A-4
I IANGER NQ 10-4160-T-00010 EMBEDDED STRUT IT60AA524" T60AA4-24"
-60AA3-24
-T60AA2-24" 00*
3.34*
CONDUITS NOT
.2 SHOWN ON UNDER 7
15-3 P1000 SIDE OF SUPPORT F2-2" FOR CLARITY ISOMETRIC' OF INDETERMINATE PLANE FRAME
HANGER NQ IO-4160-T-00010 0"
'f" 32" NODE NUMBER 12 3
S P1000 y<
beam NUMBER y4 5
6 x
MASS APFLIED AT THIS NODE ALL STRUT P1001 U.N.O.
SUPPORT POINT Figure A.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL INDETERMINATE PLANE FRAME A-6
- A"- 0TF4/T PZ0o Fi gure A.3
- LiL.
TRAPEZE TRAY SUPPORT
.J IC LINL A-7
2 H/L T/ 6,LTS 2
P300 P/OO O HAASECR N2 03- 0000 000 04 P ?544 1
PL A/
2-a"# COQOu/T
/'
5 CLA P (YF) 3 SECT/ON Q COAINEC T/o REFEREA/CE NO SEE rABLE ry e*/o Figure A.4 CANTILEVER CONDUIT SUPPORT A-8
WAY II,1IT rp
- h.
CO-ouiT P/0O OR P00/
PLAL Figure A.5 SURFACE MOUNTED CONDUIT SUPPORT A-9
CALCULATION TITLE. SHEET POWER DIVISION PROJECT JOB NO.
DISCIPLINE SU BJECT
~
1 '
DII TIr__
SUBJECT-FILE NO.
L ACALC.
NO. 0
~o T.
LAr.c IL_,o SPIN'eR (f ;4_
ORIGINATOR SIG.
DATE PUALITY AS CHECKER SIG.
DATE NO. LAST PAGE P.E. STAMP IF REQ'D ORIGINAL ISSUE ACTION NAME' REQ'D DATE SIGNATURE GROUP LEADER
- Emor7e as
- 5.
AT M-K,
r SPECIALIST 4~fL.
//
4 CHIEF f?
/
OTHER RECORD OF REVISIONS NO.
REVISION DATE ENG.
CKR GL SPEC.
CHIEF A
pa A
CALCULATION SHEET Co 0VA CALC.NO. cI-COf SIGNATURE DATE I
4CHECKED DATE I...
PROJECT 40 I
JOB NO.
SUBJECT SHEET OF_
_ _ SHEETS 1
2 31 TABLE Of=
e.m0NT'eMTS 4
s A
6 Nroe-4eltmiNATE PLN
.AME C TAG
-.16 -"- co 13 14 Is 16 17 C
7
'L s-occ
-Wa-o 24 19 20 21 22 GEEAL-L-FAC-MoAuN-reD CoCUIT"---.42 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3D.
31 32 34 35 36
CALCULATION SHEET co=.- - cc CALC. NO.
o -O SIGNATURE L ASCg:4 DATE
________CHECKED DATE A
PROJECT JOB NO.
SUBJECT SHEET OF__
SHEETS to - 4o --
- 050n \\ c0 2
3 4
7P,
+**
trlzm*.**T
-f
.IA*
9I N(.
£t4.. 4 Jeq2.
10 12 I
-13
-s 014 5
( 6
&C~~O- %VT 9faC7) 17 19 27 w
20 I
21 I*,JOICs.
TPAIT
+4c 1e PacT
-2 i t t
4
- 9. q 30 35 31T6 k"(<
CALCULATIUN n
Ic. a CALCNO 0
SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE
- \\ A-oco -
OP ROJECT SO "
JOB NO.
SUBJECT SHEET OF SHEETS 1
~\\O-4460o
-ocolo
- 3.
4 "slime Trws t'.tIs C4= Acimrow-c r=~
CcuiTr & Tr.A~y L.DOMs A5T' C & OF TP 6
f s T TRtE \\VA-L.
7 8
9
.IV"AL..m-T eWNUIT Lo#AD AT.4 £ TP-A 10
.11 12 12
(.S4*A wlC "+*.-c 1+44-14.54-Vo.94-1.9 it.F-t V.84.64.4 (.*o+s4) 14
.o s
16 17 l2.N( LoAD = 4q.4t/
K51= 24r*
18 is'TOT At.. Czecy.T(2.AT -
LOAD = $* +
$*Y' 20 21 22 Lo\\Ve-e. Awtun.eVE42.
aM-a-NON61 1105M,.6 23 24 26 27 Olt 4T tAVL 29 NooAL.
AS S
30 31 4la_.._
95
%o/sas
.*2.1 34 35
CALCULATION SHEET NO.J.
CALC ND.
ai.
SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT JOS I JDNO.
suser
- DAyM SHEET OF
-ETS 3
8 9
to 1
13
@14
- 15 17 iS 1
2MD 23m 2'
z 31 a
33" 34D
.~,,
~
.d.A~t
~*
SI'p'j 6t14
£6 aDATAI6 aADD,D PS*CE.80.Als( ABLE
.tI ac 1 4 a ust 7
.4 s s/
PD.R SAP*SAPSTATUS.STATUSREPOR T aeQT PS*CEoo.CE800P lt.
3 ST-TIC
-1 4
1x Is.
P"91 317 r 6
m
- 20.
6 END CONTROLS Ir-
- 2.
12 1 1.00 00.00
.0000 7
1 1
d
- 29.
15 END MOUDARY CONDITIONS 3?.
4 U
010 415.
D111111
- 31.
E SM
- 36.
2 S
1
-1 31 19
- 54.
CUP tp 3590 PA (X I00 16A
.2
- 2
- 35.
21 B
A 48.85 00 36, 430
.2PLOT
.T6 1f.
41 GO NODE NUe ERS
- .10
.2 3 0
.0000 I
0 ***
- 38.
24 11 177 13
$0.
2?6 150 560 1
s 21l 4.0062 39 T
&&mSRCUR EOER Aic ISMTICVE 166.
321 SPA 1
1 0 0 2
4?.
63 PLOT0 1 2 000
- 58.
64 TITLE SRUCTUNE GEOMETRY WT OlMSR 515.~~
0tI1I&
't'ift lifMIRkf VIFM 2
DISPL.A'
-1
.-1 __
TITLt STRuCTURE
)oP4tov wim EIEmENE i
.IA 5v TITLE IOERIGCA VIEW (GOA LN
'A h
M1'.
0 0
VIEW DISPLAY
-1 PLOT 64 TITLI X-VIEw OF STRUCTURE
.5 TITLE; ORTHOGONAL VIEW
( Gi0Bi A
-Y P.AN
)
- 81.
67 DISPLAY
-1
- 87.
PLOT
- 93.
79 TILI
-VIEW OF STRUCTURE 60 TITLEZ OINTOGOAL VIEW 0 GLOAL
-1 PLANE cn 6.1 VIEW 0.0 1.0 0.0 1
77 63 PLO
- 98.
8 TITLE Z-IEW OF STRUCTURE
?2 A
TITLE2 ORTHOGONAIl VIEW GLOBAL X-Y PL$NF~
- 81.
6?
DISPLAY C
- 103, f9 1
90?1 0
40 440 194.
6U EUN llUN
/
- 10.
70 END MODEL I
O 106.
9Z 1OA 1 L0?
00 /100 4400
- 87.
73 MASSESMO.
is, 74 7 C0IAO 90:
76 LOAD CASE 1:0000 0
.0000 410 1U 1CUIMAT IN GL4SA
(
)Aw
- 11.
98 1
1000 2-1.00 3
.4000 4U.4000
- 93.
79 SEISMIC IN GLOBAL. X
( EAST )
95!5ISIIN UICEAL T
~
-02 00
- 96.
82 LOAD CASE 4.0000
.0000 990.1 91, 8
- le lc k p GLOSAL z ( SOUTH T
- 99.
85 END TRACTIONS
- 0.
O UMI TINATION 105.
1 FIST COMBINATION 10*
19 1 1.000 2-.4000 3 1.000 4.4000
- 1.
COMA n
ow 105.
94 SECON COMINATION 109.
95 1 Low0 2.4=0 3 LO00
'..00 111.
97 THIRTD COBINATION 112.
9I 1.0m0 2-.000 3.4000 41..000 114.
100 FIFTH COMBINATION 115.
101 1 1.000 2-.4000 3 1.000
'..4000 11A.
imo tf~tuavlf A
te't A'1 1 (AM4 PART 1
Ila.
104 1 1.000
- .61N.;
4, tih*I.
15 COMINATION 7
0.t-19)6 SEVENTN CONINATION 107 1 1.000 2 1.000 3.4.000 4.-.4i 123.
lH 9INATION 174.
110 1 1.000 2.4000 3 1.000 4-.4000 12?.
113 1 1.000 2.4 J) 3.4000 4-1.000
- lip, 11 COMINA ONJD 1?9.
118 ET OONT~
130.
116 1 1.000 21.000 3.4000 4-.4000
- 13. Ila LEVENH MeNAT 133.
119 1 1.000 2-.4000 3 1.000 4-.4000 35 Il WLVT COBNATO r
136.
122 1 1.000 2-.4000 3.4000 4-1.000 137 12
[m 13 14 EDESPONSE 139.
125 SELECTIVE OUTPUT 142.
2USEP 20 PLOTSFILES 1I8.
145.
axT PS*CE800.CE800 148.
PM ELOn
- 149, ir 161.
BR Lt 64 151.
aRKP 63 154*
aSSG,KI PLOT-JCL
- PS*CEBOD.SkfL/PLOT-JCL__
157.
3 POr 160*
FREE 20
.RELEASE SCRATCH PLOT FILE 141.
B2FF.D 63 tNO SSG.
ERRORS: 0/0/0 TIME: 8.131 STORAGE: 6336/1/11423/065677 LINES: 93/161
A4O tA..
I 1 --
it o1n C-G 885.900(
Of=0
.0000o K.
R rl HI
w tt S'.SIM6 1-10-4160-T00010 DOoA-CC-01-01.11 x2088 03/22185 PAnt 5
<tao*6-0 1 32 17 LNiwr. (omWINATION EMENI STREW5thnOR(t 6ROUP NER 1
eaN t o I i ut
... L 0 C L C.0.0..t..LL.N.A.1. 5 I..SL fL L UN11S. 0F AND F*L a
BIAN LOAD JOINT AXIAL LOCAL-V LOCAL-i AXIAL LOCAL-V.
LOCAL-1 NPsE im to "
fER FORC.
SHEAI
.SH TOR" "l
.l 1 1
-1147.52722 550.77949
-11.65772
-.11509 214.36425 6514.28973!
1-5 T. 3Y5 r.3y
- 1.5r
- . IIm 1.3Z 15.610 2
612.13374
-950.04218 6.04967
.11509
-53.19770 5832.34533 6.4d
-55*"
.IZ
.?a
- 13.991 3U.25 I
1 1
622.17335 548.96623
-11.85772
-. 11509 214.36425 655.20909 1 9 1
2U.1735 Y6.- 3
-1.5f a.15
-1.6Z 1
Wr6 2
M 4U?1
-%49.31687 6.0496?
.1 1509
-53.19770 5842.92216' 1
11
-1147.52?22 550.77949 11.85772
.11509
-214.36425 6514.28973:
2 812.13374 1
-6.04967
- .11509 53.19770 5832.34533 1
1.4
- 5.
- H4
.za 13.V9.
1 14 1
622.17335 548.96623 11.85
.11
- 214.36425 6455.
aa69314-H6z
-1195-2?
W-%
2 6
2
- 468.40454
-396.31782
-6.04967
- 11 53.19770
-5832.3453
.9.
3 263.640 2 3.47368
- 3.
4
.2877!
-. 30966 98.0156%
.43
.U
-. 129
.)
2 9
2 458.37632
-397.0431
- 6.*1 53.19770
-5842.92216 3
263."
233.47W
- 3.
4
.28773
-. 30966
- 9.
3 4ca if63 Z5 74 1
-1zv
- 5 2458.37632 397" 3
-6.
96?
110 53.197M0
-SW4.92216.
17!31
- 1 3
261:7 S
N A19 3.34
.283
.30M*
9**4=*
-_______2___222_
19 0
s
8545*
3.IG 1*10-4160*T-00010 08 A0 -40 G S00a-CC-01-01.11 x2088 03/2 /83 PAGE S6 LOADING COMINATION ELI SENT REl SESIuFORCEa s GROUP NMBER I
113.17 0EAM END F
c ES.
L OCAL C 0 0 4 PINAT E SyST M - -
(I UNITS OF F AND FI.i DEAN LOAD JOINT AXIAL LOCAL-V OA-XA OA-OA "UPORMSMER FORCE LOAL1AXALLCA-ALCA 3
5 62.71 9.70320 1.5
.00000
.16914 9?.00 3
11 3
352.76619 9.*1.5 3
14 3
350.4:1.
5.06691 1.53230 6-29.1
-6. 41
-1.5
.00000
.00000, 1-.
6
-4 4
4 6
4 361.99?
2
.2h a
.17911 15
- 29.45845
-1205.99889 I=
a
-15IA 4
9
.9 544*
5..1 1.W 1
S.
5
.31
- ~
294i*209.62540J 4
12
- 4 381.
7 S
5
.3
- -012111585.517 5
15S 7
4 185.*
7 29.45845
-1205.99 4
c 1
4
- 0150.6*.8 19ksas o0s0e.1M
-MJ.7F 6 A?9 3
.0 0 02
.45"45-1 0.
5 0
BSAP
- ING;H $1-10-4160-T-00010
'MoRPI-CC-01-01.11 12088 03/22/83 PAG*
CE600/E6-40 1.21 LOADING WUINATION ELEMENT 5TRE5E5/FORCE5 GROUP NUMER 1
SfAN N o F 0 RCES L QCAL C 0 0 RP INATE SY S TEM..
(
UNITS OF F AND F*L)
BEAM LOAD JOINT AXIAL LOCAL*Y LOCAL-i AXIAL LOCAL-Y LOCAL NkueM NUMER MpaER FORCE SHEAR SHEAR TOftQUE MOPENT MDMENT 5
5 254.60365 242.25840
-3.16335
.00 11.78338 1203.27901 6
- 4616046
- 42.S95 1.5500
.000
.0000.000 5
6 5
27.75011 44.016
- 3.1635
.0000 11.78338 1212.375428 6
-461.60467
-422.95236 1.5
.00000
.00000
.00000 14 5
270.75022
- 44.
7165 3.1
-11.78338 1212.34528
- 0000 591II
-am
_Q V
6
-465.17618
-423.67766 1.5
- 0or 6
.6.U910*ZV355 UU
.0000
.00uu 01 1
06
CALCULATION SHEET o
CALC. NO. -'Or
- SIGNATURE 7 URCOLA DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT Q
t JOB NO.
SUBJECT SHEET OF SHEETS 2
3
- ONV/An Viet.y 4 LOMEA MAM4 L-oAD PXococ~
s IND,6,EN LOAD COfO4cM-r'-
E*ML.
6 TA N ecos t..y 7
lis-M ToIau' na L. 0*
v t e.0 L*A-ed rw s *6. p SA~iA Q)
(Af~~j~-.
10
" i.L
-II47.5
- 2.
4109
'2 II4t I.
I 1 4.
- ip.o 2
1152,r 13 2
Q. -468.4 E6 -51.o S
-584-2-.9 42 4-64.4 S
4-1i.q 5
116. 6 155
- 2.
L 2
is 4 9 5o 1q.?
t 0.
1s 16fo
-C,2.Q 2
-2 17 4e
- 4.
5 1
4e 5
1 4 1.o 5
-1w.0 6
-s2I2.5 19 6 5
5 4foG.b 1 42q..3 6
2 1,
-45.2 5 -42.S.
6 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 29 30 33 34 35 36
CALCULATION SHEET DoedA CALC.NO.
Ql SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE 4
PROJECT JOB NO.
0 SUBJECT SHEET OF_ _
SHEETS 10 4*c -T-coo
(
2 4
5 7
41+5z ATOV.
11 L
13 22 4
26 27 4a Sub=-F5s.41G 23 29 fo*55.2 5 5
- 1. IS c*- Sy ls 1
feTQO 30 23 e;<2 t.s Acrmc Ar 33 34 35 30
LAO 011)0&7)
CALCULATION SHEET co0ze -a*
CALC. NO. 01-O(
SIGNATURE L U4$CQUA%
DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT I
JOB NO. 415)
C SUBJECT SHEET OF SHEETS
)- Coco TOn
- o0 2
Pul. No 2 (E-7 3
4 s
4 -
[,
C 2 -4 k1
. L..
6 S 474 12 Zo. 'S c.'2.z1/7
-)
0 to It.
o 4
4o vA 15 6
L. LS Aer-co ATE 17 is 0 -aTONs 18 21 GoLI PU.-A--
T 04-624A
.~j 22 22
+/-~ -- --
i
&1152/4.26=/24, 24
. I 4
/2 =
14 27-r 2 -r *-4 +.-7 4 Soo/
o 29 30 36
E 0
z IT m
Ir
'D 11~
04G a r
-U)
C-P 0
.- 00 2
r ca m
0 IM
£4
'Iz 0
-k 0
i" o
OO.
ELEVATION TA I TA TE DYDAI PLAN,:
SITE FI LE COP
-- -- -/o -- 72/...
RECEIVED AU G 2819 82 G~4A up~NO.
EDM-SITE
.O.
.- No.19 FoR LiocNe AND owNEAL a
a.Y *..
w oTrseE u
G owo. s-rse f
...O
?
Arr_
y at-and
~
Fa...
o..
AFET R
ATEDo O
t ete ds o
RMu e.-
- 4....CAi ssa me
- Owsr, U.r asmvessoe SArE Sn.
cues*
g ce P.S.
P.m.
eA.a.
(
- SECHTEL POWER CORPORATION SAN ONOFRE UNIT I GENERATING STATION ENGINEES & CONSTRUCTQRS F ILE
.LOS ANGELES. CALIF.
UPR W.OI88 0*3 S
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ses A//*_ls -
PRWOURNCY YeCLe PCa stcoe@1 gl*@IPLACRtNTf RESPORGE Los A"eks Diviatose A3*PeRcfeaO StICarvestwtctoenw o-i eaurs 1,O 7,
r 9s eaccekeNAt09*ees po"e* te-oI'l ep0FI s o PwasctGan GMCasTOneVAIo" oAMNGrn vacUrs eMSsen eASIS IAllwo"UnRI AS PERCENjT OF CRITICAL of "f
tOI3' 3v. tr ustAn ton I
r 0ES g
F C
J 40co UL I
APPLICABLIE AFEA 300 a-an ss CONTROL BUILDING 2o0n
-'2ND FLOOR AT ELEVATION 3d-%".
32-0" 5 MEZZANINE AT ELEVATION
()
35.0' ur ' AMING 0
It 00 Of
- 0) 03 D
04 Do 1
3 A 0
a 1
3 4
- 'e PERSOggsaccesse
- m PREOUtNCY (cycLs PR1s0cbomel too so Is to 5g a5.
toIWRCHTLPOWEaR CORPORATION 10*ODPLAC 4tMEN RESPONgg LOS A"tLES DW*SION T *Paon sac1 OUTHRWN COLIPURNIARDPMUN0COMPANT 9II* ACCtal1tsoN assrooel:t (a se
4f***
- eam e
7o A
0 00
- 4 0
0 I II I
M APPLICABLE ARE CONTROL BUILDING 2ND FLOOR AT ELEVATION 3O--
"32I O
IB MEZZANINE AT ELEVATION ()35.0 1.00 COTOIBIDN o
o0 04 Ob o
1 2
3 a
2 I PERIODOiscones)
LAo *ersg CALCULATION SHEET Dog" SIGNTURECAM.No.
01 SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE 7
o
-/
PROJECT JOB NO.
SUBJECT M
SHEET.
OF SHEETS 3
4 sAANCER 06-0cco-T-0o20c 7
smEic-
-T57 s
'AW*2'-
2 10 0
12 13 14 5
- ALL STAr
- Pact,
@~
UA/055 N 7EC is 17 19 to 4W167a.OKA.=
N1 49DC 11%. t10'- 1
- 2.
2o 33 33 as 35_
CALCULATION SHEET CALC.NO t
SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE I
PROJECT JOB NO.
SUBJECT SHEET OF SHEETS 2
TeG-<ses
-T-soT-e, 3
- 4.
?4o -.f/'--44-o
-p 4Sx4-.4 =4.-os */w ou 5
4x5p
.- oS oo - - *.'
/W4 WH 6
44'o4
.. - --o fP E
- II *-/
10 "I
-g C AL.-
dT VE 1
Q, W)
- * * *L/#2 =
12 T
A fTIZM T 6 t 20Vicr o g AoTN~ -r E-TS
~13
~&
sea.-
- 4.
4, L Is QPF**W Mg ( >, ~ aDSteCATsA -2.NL0 16 18 20
- 21.
23 24 D.L..
27 o4q 44p ou 4, m 41 2 (4
r 4q 44 t s y
91-5 t44 4
34 31 44 1 -o 2A 4
- 4.
33 36
LAO "13 W CALCULATION SHEET o-M. c.
CAC. NO. 0 1-0 SIGNATURE 3
UAC6UA DATE ______CHECKED DATE PROJECT JOB NO DATE SUBJECT SHEET OF-4..
SHEETS 4
6 q' cq 7
4 OCT tON oPZOPA to
'23$-F 15 18 19 5
Iot
- 0. 1201 12 is~
Ae Y.9,I 16 19 20 21 22 25 4-4-.5 29 302 31 2
33 34 35 36
CALCULATION SHEET
- C cALC. NO.
& (-0.1-SIGNATURE -
DATE CHECKED DATE/______
PROJECT CT_
JOB NO. ______________
SUBJECT SHEET OF SHEETS 442 i299 (soR4) 6
- (570.2)'
10 12 13 mot.-
- 2.
I*
S tZm' vt 14 15 16 17 toa---
18 19 20 z 3 P2l 4.,
< 5.S *= 1E6.9 1-sI 24 226 to's=
2..8z<-.
e 26 27 34 32*+
CALCULATION SHEET CALC. NO. Of-0 SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT JOBNO SUBJECT -
SHEET OF-SHEETS 3
6 7
10 12
- 14
-I 15 16 1
18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 33 34 35 36
CALCULATION SHEET."
CALC. NO.
-0(
SIGNATURE E
_DATE 15194 CHECKED T0-0 DATE PROJECT 912412 JOB NO.
SUBJECT SHEET OF.A SHEETS I
oo-cosw-tees 2
I 5 34_
6
- 2.
6 "2
it4 mA t
tw4 17 is I
0 18+
19 10
+~
2 o 14 C
7r3*4' 213 24 2s 4
+
0 26 2,
~ ~
~
~
v(G q 4,1 ossfo FPI P E..
29 3
25 a7 o
v s ns T69M~
.d-z
,-a
LAO 0613 6-7 CALCULATION SHEET L-C CALC.NO.
0(-0 1
SIGNATURE S S
DATE-CHECKED DATE PROJECT JOB NO.
SUBJECT SHEET OF SHEETS 1
o' -
o
-f-cb C
3 4
S klbo SS.6(v-e.4.'~-'?
10 11 13
, 4 p-a q
t4&
No M
p 14 15 1 4..,2.6 C 17 44 1 L A,
)
20 22
'FA L3)
- 4.
V 9I (.
23
.14 25 L
Z 26 t
27 28 29 31 32
=2 49 1tc*7.
V-c 34 35 36
CALCULATION SHEET aCALC.NO.
SIGNATURE L~aaCLA DATE k 15 CHECKED DATE / //
PROJECT JOB NO SUBJECT SHEET OF 4
SHEETS 2
Co Pt-.o 3
- M~vieftto G Lwa C4-vrncAt. TW.
AMeA&.
4 4 t-uAmr by AertanorO 6
6 Ve~A be..
ri Pros 9
10 122i T
13L 14
- 19 21 22 713 8er 4..,P (~
ce~&"s e-'G 4.4.t 24 I
2IsI 26 22 o
4 A
44--2 34 35 36 32Oot-sw1m meooL--l-06v v
L 013 6.71 CALCULATION SHEET co CALC. NO.
9I SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT ON sJOB NO.' 4 2
SUBJECT SHEET OF 4_1 SHEETS S
tNWE;TION T0 6-*.
2 4
5 6
e 'L-r is(,P 7
9 10 A
11 12 gz..75Vt G.515cu
-a V.
2, xo_.. &."E O
'3 15 16
- 12.
vr 4/cr)p,,4
- = O'60 Fx
( = = 3Com 20 21 L( (!AL,*j,fr) 4Ci
/)(F.
r (c 22 23 24 25O1 26 27 A-
,rCt 29
'I 2
- s 30 32
- fu
- .,our4.r' 34 as3
(.t.aot6.ta n
ero s
A 5
FC
- (nh
AG.ISTE E
- 1.
2 M-.
447::
- 6 TAGVHo.I ocATo EL VA T/oN7 OH PL At ODG (0
VW
'O'#
NO.~~~~-
(//A-(to4 g
AUG238 182
- 5. RCEr
) oSITE FCP r
LEoENo ANDoocNeRALs
- t.
SNotes seE Dwo. sanos0
- lO pA SAFETy RELATED TAG A
A CAC.
NO.
- O 14 C-lf IL
. / atc No./f oo -et-sr/c/~,
F
?i~ CA2§.if o
r n
uwai c.P. w.
o A..
OSNY ocos CoPO s
sAN ONoRE unIT aIe NAGsTATON LOS ANGELES. CALIP.~DGN.
J~/
O./47<}C; A
UAPPatewas 4000YS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY PF*B38 fs ag gfggO
- m se wa-m LOS ANorLES. CALWF.
f0e of is to 9
t 1
9 go.
- Penice, getc.)
otM "A
PP A941NC10P" gA*ACCALARATION RSAPONSEt10*91 )I DAMPINGP61 VALURS ASWWCOTEL PDW WW4AA OPORA LOSV A
RL A DIGSO UNTU D111111B101SSATHOUAE AS P
DECK AELCTO3K L Fz 303 I ~
P CA L 13:
u~~~f
.11 MIG
- /zlz z
10 0
A 74PP
.0 I
03 04-11I 2
3 4
4 8
- ES
- A*****
PLATFORlTURBIEBLDG
4*
FREQUENCY cyCLE PU SeCon) too so as to 29 ED A oTo6 attNTEL POWWR CORPORATION LOS ANGELS DIVISION IINC S ) B DAMPING VALUIESi__
on o
S t ESETRA AS 'aERCIENT or CRITICAL IBASTwarst OJAItCrTon At ILIEV.*36"4" AitEA 6 EtST "OATEN PLATFORM 4
N-AON t4e E
G J
14000m ggSat-tas C
4~
04 D.P*e ursummeLEGEND 0- so APPE11 0WEST HEATER PLATFORM, TURBINE BLDG.
30DECK AT ELEVATION 35-6A 0
.01~~~~~~~~I 02 03BLDGs5 2 3 2 3*../
CALCULATION SHEET cAC. NO. 0 % -0 SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT JOB NO.
SUBJECT t%)
SHEET OF ASHEETS 6
es-e-
so2 2
3 ONOu -T Wet&-iTS 4
5V()
- 9LO e&OWOUIT W147
-eVT s
(2) r 2
Gp I' I r 7
7
(~ UkrEMTF' O0 (sMT)
- --4.L.
- l &,-r = 5."
Lb/
oss 5 16I*{
LetT) SLTCT-4GAL ME TAt-L..t & 70P.C&
Ace.-ye
-N I0 133 AT4 4( oI T4M 0
~~o' g
16 PAxo 1V-T--7t-ew 17A r *i.-o" 4
1 19 19 Pel E/
w 9&
- P4f, 500 A V20-A -
eSy.Ce - 2.2-1 4ko.-
4 O gxe 23 24
- eMA, L-o ADo-TR is U TA IeS 26 Vrig-r W/s6 27 w
- 4.
2 2may 4o
.8
->=
fe.Uro 01 X 1o' -w Te
'42so 64i lot se 32 33
=
34
.=
I 4*
R4>61.
v i-76= sc.r
CALCULATION SHEET CALC. NO.
SIGNATURE L
DATE CHECKED DATE 4
PROJECT
-c'NGs I
JOB NO. 1 30 SUBJECT SHEET OF SHEETS 1
3 4
4 Ro-5.g x 44 c e SS x
sao
~2=.
'Ro'*
a~st
/ WT:
10 Pco=
6.#x/9 46Kw
=ae 4
17 4tt-9% a 82.
'2o =a+l toA 20 So P3/e A-.
21 u
t?4t x
q /- 4 4y,
-a liz
[4' 1I 121 13 x4v 1
24 25 18&-
top C M M t
=41) 20E*lt A"P a.0 72 2
2 P2osloew 167m s0Ar 32 94 WW..
OV fl-it 1.Llr)w Soo 22.s ro 11.1 31 325 4<&-f r-2-!
asd3 v
34I2 2=L h
2F IR'.
6.-~
.A
CALCULATION SHEET CALC.NO. 6I-0f SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT CB NO.
4-o.
.SUBJECT SHEET 2
OF SHEETS 2
e-
~
'2.44 1Lo1 M
4a.9'Z) 15 16 17 10 3Z Si TL C
4 4
)
24 2.8 319 20 33 34 25 36
CALCULATION SHEET CALC. NO. 01-01 SIGNATURE DATE t1I/Ie4 CHECKED WDATE PROJECT C_
JOB NO. 4 SUBJECT SHEET OF _____
SHEETS 2
cus 7=
/
TCAL
.- oACs 3
&a
,ts V, VT IS
.~0 LO (A 2Sr 5
i f 6
ar7 (2
(204) as~
OQ0 33 So) 13 C--(g.4 14 15 Is D
17 is 024o 20 21 22
-&Et 23 24 c
4 2F 1
s 2 4..?-)
25 26 44d 924I 2
- i 27 ON U
-I-LTuT T ALJe g
(2Z f'2.ei 4,o'..-Q
" so4 29 A~t 30 MM~~e st.tp
=(_12.
/To 33 Paa<uras tz-enA.
aAr,
34 35 36
it CALCULATION SHEET
-c CALC. NO.
Of -L (
SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT JOB NO.
SUBJECT SHEET OF 4q SHEETS f
6 -
9 e44 o
/A-wo P
3 4
6
- cIC~
~tTp A
7 o IJP 9
13 Tos=
Aid. /2 iacers= v462*/&=,L.
7sT ww
/ Reat. TS 95Z
/ea:otr 15 TS 4
f i
" T rG /2- &O-TS= 4-586 */act..
17 P-=
4-c '/i)JT 19 20 21 22 #
LVeoto1cAL Pze No e&LN.
iD eSt
' AotQ-i.
t, fW k 25 3
aA 34 31 36
CALCULATION SHEET po CALC. NO.-
2.1 --Q!
- SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT S%3&S JOB NO.
SUBJECT SHEET OFSHEETS 1C-0000-LOC0 2.4 2
nTT-o +
(2*
o
.'1/2 =o 7
9 11 VTLtr
('Zb-4i1) +
- fl ~
u 4
rp oit) 2~,2,*O 12
) 3 (u F t -X O W C JZrLM f-td
'T k nu s 4 -, )
.14 f
15 17 18 e~~e.4e coo 20 21 22 24 28 3o0
)31 33 34 35 316I
EX/ST. I P2544-3r? '
A 1374 4 2 8
-PLAN I
722066 722G5C P
f'g"Hi'LTn cT Ex/S r P2544
.- s A/OS. UNAVAIL 4 S
/M L
-//777 4/
+
~SF~r..-
A PO0IN 0 FAT LsN LOCATION. 480 V 00M, NOATH W4L
/0'4 WesT OF Co L/VE J1
- A ;
NOTE:
EL.23'-0 I.5 W4
,,cr MOR LEGEND AND GENERAL gr NOTESse onCD.
1S74-OO MA92cia SAFETY RELATED AUG 6
0982 ' C TaG N 5/*o3-cooo-C 00024 CDM CAL%
CIS CALC.
IO.
DORM-CC CDM SIT Cssu.o ORcorth.cRtON DATEC N
~
gCPC P.C.
0 -A.
oJ..
NO.
SAN ONOFRL UNIT 4 GENERATING STATION BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS FILE 4
4u/r LOS ANGELES. CALIF.
SUPPORT DWG. NO.
38 7.9 0
DATE ASOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 3
1 1
SCALENOMscar /VOv
44
£r PPO tIUITLtSP~lGe~~
to 0
ot L111111APPICBL AREAt"WfCLO sc A
25RGAM te oetf-l II 111 IA"OO" OLA 9M TP4*7Ar" FUEL STRG UDNG4O OM FLOORIli ATELVAIN 4)1 ASI.05 Og or 06 3
.4
.6, CRI ICA n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
ns SOWJ" L~
/97TA
FREQURNCY (cYCESPUsaSaco~et p.p
.00FC UE C FUEL21 STORAG BUI DIN (48 R OM tFLTOL POWAR CORPORATION(3 ga 012gPLAC908WNT1 REspDMSR LO os ueLRW DIvIsion
- .merfte snmancs.wewenseence.ae
_AC___
g_
ggSAN
_aN__NUICLEAReN_
_ATNe VT ATOM PDAMPING V AL U6S9t A080NAMI EARTHauant A
PERCjRNT O0 CITICAL DRItoNT At "ItSPONSE SPECTIRA
- g.
EAST wefst Delucte0
[ LEV 1*I 31,4r afi PUttSV0tol
@ uILDING (4&09 m RD)s Almewe ata llweet eovss A--
DAM31N 11
.A FLOOR ATAELEVATIONE(+)31 S02 03.04 06 QB0.1
.1
.3 4
4 a
I2 3
4
- ~~~~~~W
',?
- .I**erae*7..s.
U))
PlaouNCY IcycLee Pan eacome)
SaCMTWL POWRR CORPORATION OS
- 05 LACRMENT RemPlgg LO0S ANGELLes DWIesION INPCHGORS)i T
- P11111ce1 1eaC.)
$N
@A
- ACCELR*ATMN algwoeSt 10-g1 SANO~PWR 0 UCLIKAn *4pRATINa wrATa DAMPIN VALURS
.11ssam AsSE ARIHOUAKE AS MC OP' CRITICAL VE7RTCAL
RESPONSE
SPECTRA Pul STORAGE1 BUILDING0 ge*V ROrAel
- 1ii *h 4
To4mvno ik I~
NA.
7 OA.son sc-o LEGEND I..
AFAPPUCABLE AREA FUEL STORAGE BUILDING(480V ROOM)
FLOOR AT ELE\\AITION (+)3I' 0
1 1-Ell97 A***
I***
- eTne1ee
CALCULATION SHEET "I,
CALC NO.
o \\--t
- SGNATURE WL DATE iCHECKED D A T E PROJECT O
JOe NO.-
o so SUBJECT SHEET_
OF SHEETS 2
uAt 4
a bJourt 3
5 6
7 10 9.
LE111E 12toco~
d 'loT.Nout7" %Y~&HTS L toothk) 19 is t
aop 17 20 21 22
-Ty.A~A~O%
$2e enAL; e ssRo"se 23 24 25 26 CCN0 tT 4o' A-gik-- oiqwTioN Zc 27 syse fcupporr 29 20 32 34 35
CALCULATION SHEET CALC. NO. 0 1
IGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT JOBNO.
SUBJECT SHEET OF_
SHEETS 1
3 10 11 122
_2PL__3 4.c iL P
I J~~~I
=
1,
'I9I,'
15 16 t7. 04<x to 17 78 0
G, 4 2 P, 7
- 0. 14 -
4 a s 21 22 p/
eI oee-rmAL-f-rGFbm e RPtsm eic-Ap.T WVAL..
25 26 p
As G.os t~
2.g4.o10 i
28 T=rl.
L o
33 34 35 36
CALCULATION SHEET Cop-'A"c CALC NO. Of-0 1
SIGNATURE %
DATE CHECKED
____ DATE PROJECT G
JOB NO.
1 S NO SUBJECT SHEET OF SHEETS 1
C4OMOJ(T Pcrg2LOD L.ONDUiT P-OPle-TS ("2.)
0 so ~ ~~
0 5 O. Co/o 3
~~~
I~ J I 4e 4 1 1=1sio's 9
ito
.0
________.21_(_____2
=
@06 15 16 T16.?(
- _--___o_
86 17 T7~
18 19 t
20 21 22 0.f2see = 16.1 69a. > 15 tt 1.5 lNcf.SZ Cvri iom es r-mw, 4., t.I Lo 24 25isp: L4 1..e9-Acrow or -Co-St f or 012qV-c--14CS) 26 olo 9 4,2 19T 2
27 28 33 17 34 35 S 36
CALCULATION SHEET e
CALC. NO.
1 -O SIGNATURE DATE I
CHECKED DATE PROJECT a JOB Nf SUBJECT T_
SHEET
____ OF _
SHEETS 2
3 01 644 AM locpvs eNt4w
. Ro
&N4S, 5
6~.
u L
S 7
9, sos s
1o 4giT'io u
,2.
12
- 3.
p 45 16 17 Vsv a I 2
e.=
0 4E C t IO N 19 20 J4DoG 'rtages 21 22 24 26 29 29 b1 2.~~N Or.-= kt 1
o or 4.4s 1-.a
'1 c L w. o~ Acre a 36
CALCULATION SHEET 00 c-CALC. NO.
o-O IGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATE PROJECT JOB NO.
SUBJECT SHEET OF SHEETS 1
2 C
tDPO~LoNe (CkT) 3 4
TeN GON
- Assum&e \\rtwA~u <.0
.Juses~ ode or I w 6
7 olew% A425" 9
10 12
-2..18 2
6 e-is it rjI O
4,5e 16 17 IsI So..
'7 cso + C*'VN-Os5)+
wy]'
-a to4-4*/Mer 19 20 21 22
=
23 ro 5
.0 25 27 23 qASS R
- g.
1e4t oN
(>. iA,~
ccrea-s T1.&e 4.2 29 33 35 36
.FRc aU1g[C CYCLES PEX RCONDI
.4 /XT AI OA&
g00 so as go S
9 to 52 D
DA A BCHTEL POWER CORPORATION gD DIPLAEMNT asP-a LOS ANetLES DIVISION mICHE51 P1*PERIO0 sec.,
annWWHIIINCALframmVA 0DIWONCOheANY easeDPRNULRIA-oNEATSTATION S.
ACCELERIATION1 RESPONSE I'S UNIT I DAMPING VALUE$
DES11111 OASIS OARTHOUAAt HORIZONTAL AS PER CENT Or CRITICAL stasts sPrusta IN MORI" SOUTH 4
DIRECTION AT O A ATMA DACK
.L 1. 91 Of REACTON BUILDING
- 0-03 SK-C-711 a
60/
4.0 3.0 DAMPING *100 OPERATING DECK AT EL. 42'-O
- 2. PLAN VIEW 72 LEGEND APPLICABLE AREA O1 02 0 3 04 06b 08 1
2 3
A 6
a I
a a
PP-*** Io****eresPERIODIerconost
PItUENCY (CYCLES PUN LeCONDI AF
/M/ 2*A147/4,4.1 CA'/)
- oo so 2S to J!
1 LOS ANGELES DIVISION O DisPLACMNastT ESPONW a
111..,
v
- PERIODISEC)1 SDUFTHRWNCALWPCON IES90NCogPANYT SAN OND PR NCLEAM SENER~ATING STATION" SA a ACCELERATION RESPONSE 1681 UIT I
DAMPING VALUES ESONE siCAoINoEAST ntAL AS PERCENT OV CRITICAL e
s TA
'4K, as< ar Y 1 OFREACTO6BUADEA 000-03 SK-C-79 10:
- unupere,
-Al inoI OPERA ING ECK A EL 2-O 20
... so n
PLA VIE LEEN APPICBL By 1c
- eseeeJ 0
6 0
P~
o lao ol4 6
1
SDA RHSUENCY ICVCL)SPERSSCO~bl OAd r
Be* cct s t9 RWAPOitetore s
WECTEL POWERf CORPORATION 0IPLACIdt" BBSONSI 11, '111,A1,111-LOS ANGECLES D IVISION 0DTMR CALICtWWNI IDIIDNCOM.AN SAN OSDPC-NucLWA-ORNERATINs STATION UNIT I DAMPNG VLUCSDEStON BASIS IAMTHOUARS AS ERtft O CRTIALVERTICAL RESPONSESPCA AT OPPE AAINGDGciE 47A0T4 Op "EACloA BUILDING 0.0 DIAMPING 4 (pt LII 40 EH -:
4 1
1 LEGEND APPLICABLE
- -*** 03 D 0 De P11toffetco3os