ML20041F584
| ML20041F584 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1982 |
| From: | Dale L MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| AECM-82-80, NUDOCS 8203170189 | |
| Download: ML20041F584 (14) | |
Text
.
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Helping Build Mississippi P. O. B OX 1840, J AC K S O N, MIS SIS SIP PI 3 920 5 t-CD March 12, 1982 O
OJ NUCL E AR PfiOOL ICTION DEPARIME NT U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ggg@
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D. C.
20555 5
MAR 16 l902*
7 isnottsuim N J Attention:
Mr. Ilarold R. Denton, Director
- $cf
Dear Mr. Denton:
tb
SUBJECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-416 and 50-417 File: 0260/L-350.0/L-401.0 Correlation Study:
Cable Tray Design AECM-82/80 In response to a request by Mr. R. E. Lipinski (Structural Engineering Branch Reviewer) during a meeting held November 13, 1981 between members of our staff and the NRC, Mississippi Power and Light Company is submitting the attached report entitled " Dynamic Behavior of the Composite Raceway System; A Correlation Study Between Test and Analytical Results" for your information.
Since the Safety Evaluation Report open item 1.9(1) has been resolved as indicated in SER Supplement 1, this information will not be provided in the Grand Gulf Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact this office.
Yours
- uly, L. F. Dale j
Manager of Nucicar Services RFP/JCC/JDR:rg Attachment cc:
Mr. N. L. Stampley (w/o) l Mr. R. B. McGehee (w/o) 3 l
Mr. T. B. Conner (w/o) l Mr. G. B. Taylor (w/o)
Mr. Richard C. DeYoung, Director (w/o)
Office of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 8203170189 820312 PDR ADOCK 05000416 A
PDR Member Middle South Utilities System
Attachment to AECM-82/80 Page 1 Dynamic Behavior of the Composite Raceway System A Correlation Study Between Test and Analytical Results Introduction One objective of the cable tray test program is to validate the dynamic characteristics of an integrated system when simple systems are combined into a complicated configuration. However, due to the available volume permitted by the shake table it is not always pos'sible to test a very complicated syster. Additionally, testing of complicated configurations is expensive.
Therefore, a methodology is developed in this study in an attempt to predict the dynamic characteristics (frequencies and mode shapes) of a cable tray raceway system.
Testing Model Briefly, the system consists of two parallel raceways as shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 3.
The east side raceway consists of five tiers, the top four tiers being cable tray and the bottom conduits. The west side raceway has three tiers of tray. The cast and west raceways are connected from tier two on the east side to tier one on the west side by a tee section.
In the transverse direction, the east side is braced at both ends, and the west side is braced at the middle hanger.
In the longitudinal direction, the east side is braced at the south end and the west side is braced at the north end.
The total weight on the east side is about 11 Kips, while that on the west side is 1.7 Kips.
Fixed support (snapback) and moving support testing techniques were employed to determine the frequencies and responses of the system at selected locations, as shown in Fig. 4.
The comparison in thi study is based on the moving support testing data.
Attachment to AECM-82/80 Page 2 i
Mathematical Model i
I The system is represented by a three dimensional finite element model which consists of beam, truss and spring elements as shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
The properties of elements are obtained from the manufacturer's catalog. Special boundary elements and joint stiffnesses are incorporated as a result of test 7
j data.
System stiffness and mass matrices are assembled at the assigned 1
4 dynamic degrees of freedom.
By use of the finite element analysis program BSAP, the frequencies and mode shapes are then calculated.
e I
Comparison of Testing and Analytical Results Judging from the analytical results as shown in '_able 1, the system is essentially dominated by one mode in both transverse and longitudinal directions. Other higher modes are not dominant enough to make a meaningful comparison with test results. Consequently, only the fundamental modes will be studied in this report. The fundamental frequencies of the system are summarized as I'
DIRECTION MODAL MASS FREQUENCY (HZ)
I (Percent)
Analytical Test Transverse 51.6 2.92 2.84 - 3.50 Longitudinal 75.6 3.63 2.60 - 3.40 i
and their corresponding mode shapes are plotted in Figs. 7, 8 and 9.
From the test report, the frequencies measured in several test cases vary. The frequency variation is due to the nonlinear behavior of the system together I
with the degradation of the rigidity of connections after many cycles of
}
excitation. Nevertheless the frequencies are in good agreement between test 1
i and analytical results.
j
.i 1
,~..m
,m._
y
.,,,_.--__,,,m_,.-,,m
,,,.__.,_m._,.
m-
Attachment to AECM-82/80 Page 3 Based on the mass ratio (6.5:1) of the east to west raceway, the fundamental modes are therefore mainly responding in the east side while the west side is riding with it through the tee connection.
In the transverse direction it is observed that the mode shapes from test and analytical result are similar in the east side of the system.
In the west side, however, the raceway is twisted in the analytical results but is pushed to swaying in the test.
This discrepancy may be explained by the rather unusual location of the middle brace. A more stable location of bracing would have provided similar results as given for the east side.
Comparison of the mode shapes in the longitudinal direction cannot be made since no mode shape was recorded during testing.
Conclusion From the test and analysis results presented above, it is concluded that the mathematical models can be used to adequately predict the dynamic behavior of composite raceway systems.
R E
9-8o 70' 5
80'
.. 8. U..
00 O
5 7' ' J~'O
>I =
=
,x S
0p y @' '
s Q;
f 4
1,tri, i
. t- " = *"
9 is
['~(iINE EN3 l \\h lEAf4 M l,
{
pa L
}Q-O n )
( 'y g g f.w) 4 5
L2,G,,
A x
e q lu ]
o- - - -o
- ~ "-
- ss, Lr o gp~-
,,w.,
W -l
'+)
(
Z u -" d o
9 7
lWN/
lWNE WNS Lf 4 5+
a ZI L h5 P
^
e Location of transverse brace
+ Incation of longitudinal brace Figure 1 Composite Raceway System 9
4
~
Attachment to AECM-82/80 3 '-0 ".
a a
(TYP]l
% frYP UNO) et I
A m
casrnr '
s y y,
a M_
,5 b E
ex, J
%{D 50,i 3'4"
-Y
/T\\
N M M
'D
.v u
~
ro r -r 3
e ".'
mmaih,,
,.+,'c Lew n
-1 E
u
" ' ~ " "
^
x, -@
. 4
.\\
'l Q
\\(
22 20 24 2/
i-hk J,4 79
- i. u-ww MCTION /T\\
W SECTION /;ir\\
W a
avao cams INTRY s o stwr/
63 ny
\\ s g
/G r r v,'/
,?.
l 24" TMYY Y
D 4
' r s
,:. )
l
,s i
MCTION W.
W l
1 l
Figure 2 Section A. B, C of the System l
Attachment to AECM-82/80 4
~.
% I a anmer sa w FMlWtt2A@
v c
r,
,4,.,
@f~
$md i
i y,,
I q,g,-,
Q
= "' l' hs1
{y[M g'-
s r
i j}
g ] 4 k
4 1W
&(TYP) 7i Qi 4
^'"
1 b
(TYP)
J secrioNfb SECT!DNfB\\
y W
p4rommer a seco av savowcro nrsrs e
ato'
.g fig
- l
%V u
(
'N h
h I
N,_
w
-15 iig iy o
f' W)(TYP) s
@r55Tw y
n SECTION M SECT /0N/TN W
\\c:/
t Figure 3 Sections D. E. F c of the System
-~
.i 1
. Attachment to Agcy_gg,g0 g 5-(AQ g
pH.(A4)
J 7/
l gH3(A&
E!I h']
I 3 72 E *I (A 0 21 H
[I3 I
su
- s. -
g s p,
a.
a ~~
g L' ~~~~~us
\\
-p-g
!!- s '
7,9.,6,0 Od 6
au=-
c wassue y-
, g,,
-p-Wfl(AB) e-
,h TI
'egy
$ T2 f,,Q,,, =*** /
$3 j+
2 ll*
./
b se aU' n
~
x 1
Figure 4 Selected Locations Where Responses Were Recorded in Test Note: Hangers CoonectIDE East and West Sides Not Shown 1
l N
wr,
- _o
+-
o
NODE 5 REFEREMCEO:
46, 252,253, Z54,255,256 g
}
s a
t 2E HAuseg de i
N
/
is4 3
g Xt$
45*
R
$NGER WS 4
Y A
HAWGER S w
\\
=
4t
=
musatz w/
N%
-)
)
'q Nehl64K D r V
A
']
//4NGER dl
/
" }
[
5 Nord G
25]
y (9
neb ig a
7g
"" uau <?
/
/
h
~
[oN (Ab
%y
. seENOTE y
(2)
NL 1
/
e s
ottatu
^
$l 19 V
2so p
NNMN 9 NEA GL y
d NAMGER a
^
Y Figure 5 Mathematical Model Note:
1.
The connections are modelled with 2 rotational springs for x, y rotations.
2.
A spring (with a rotational spring constant practically equal to zero) is used for X rotation in the model.
V Attachnant to AECM-82/80 A t pl d h3 af3 ufy Ju At f
'?'
- Ilr
=
{
3l
}I tv I
rst Ivo riz 18 9 bo s'
D i
l R.
lF
}o sl
.'It 9r t.Il,
itz e ri til oso I9
)!
62 11 14,
- 4 st3 Ifs ria stl 7
l g.
2e Lt L3 G*
47
- 5 l34 or3 uts _rsi
~
~
I
Y l' l*
81 97 db aAs n Art e bio i
Connection y
e 1
1
\\
s l
I Y
2'PT 268 7r7 nt (2*6 is7
- nl sp
?st a?r6 see s.7 ses. 23i MI geb 2 01 10 a tl 11e ts}
Figure 6 Mass Points of Mathematical Model i
Note: Hangers connected east and west sides not shown.
. AQachment to AECH-82/gg 05 ft-g#f
.I g g3
~
g.5 3
- t
~
pI
!;~
XXQ./*
W l:
N
~~~~
ll LA) g,
l
/
L M,
Off gal
'I e s
l l:
.o s
- o. W 1
Figure 7 yundamental yng, ghape in Transverse Direction From %
Attachinent to AECM-82/80
$b fa4 (At g.n(ps) g.D (A
,, /
g, (M'D
/*
/
rT98
/
e Tl
/
-rz.
W
/
$0 v)f s
s, c 'f? E Y
AY" ei g
x
/
k fy hl W'
a.
Figure 8 Fundamental Mode Shape in the Transverse Direction From Analysis
Attachment to AECM-82/80
- .1
.* V3 a
EW4(M)
EH5 (AS)
EHr(And EH3(AS) a~
EMI %h 141 nts l4a o
o 1
"7) toS
- Afi 7a i%
14 3
,try I"3
'73
" 107 m sw ing 14 5 in 101
'N a7 A
I4N(
e ##
N 109 I17 e42 t--4
. 7 i
I t
af7 naaur FM I
I 3d6 A77*lI A
gqg
.778 449 447 Figure 9 Fundamental Mode Shapes in Longitudinal Direction From Analyses
f ESA? PMh51 Ell t.Fst.C.Sm. 0004L 414LTSIS ? Qts 369.a6al.cl CESFOtti-37 393g3 gg/gspaJ p ag,,
gg
~
12 43 56
.......... Suge42f FARLES ret test mellog Alc4G EACH Aalb 1 ACithw !%DePC%DLtf.79..........
-assyt entg4 r:3 g
gr et.
PaRf!CIPAf!De FACTORS C00AL CASSES GRAD /58 (CPil (SEC) N4SS E
T l
R T
2 m
T*
2 CLMou64flWC #4SSIPCSCC D I
13.34
- 5.95
.342h 1.10 4 106
.213
.119 16.857
.045
.000
$1 4
.1
.(
p nn 2
22.mC 3.61
.2F46 1.10
.4 FI
-4.150
.0%
.222 24.S05
.0de 57.4 7%4
.3, O.
3 23.68 3.FF
.2653 1 05
~
1 484 1 153
.003 2.202 1 334
.000 ~~S9 3 ~ f9.5
.e U
4 27.,2
- 4. 4.
.225 1...
.ri,
.64
.1
.6 6
. 4 2.
61 1
.. g 1.
5 33.9%
5.49
.3851 1 00
.945
.5F9
.933
.802
.33%
.881 41 1 31.s
.e n
d 6
34.s4
% 5%
.3803 1.03
.034
.582
.ac 3
.001
.33n.
.1 G s ~" 61 1 ~~e2.s
.e " n
~~
F 36.F1 4.84
.1711 1.0 J
.551
.ilt
.001
.303
.504
.030 62 0 e4.4
~
a 47.rm F. 65
.131%
1.00
.194
.065
.104
.038
.004
.ese 62 1 e4.4
.e
.e C
i--
9 - 4 3.3 4 ~~7. 73 ".1294~
1'.5 8
~1 437
~ ~.224~~
.836~
"3.866
~ ' '.0 52 -
.481
- 68. M 4.3
.P 1.
- s. 5,
.. 5
.1242 1...
...i
.2r>
. 32
.642
.. F F F. 4
.4..
9 11 54 13 8.61
.1161. 1.00 12 3%c4
- 4. 7F.
.1 1 4 2""T.'W s
.49F
.189
.440
.247
.812
.002 31 2 84.s
.e L
.0 14
.33A
.in2
.431
.001
.300 - ~'71 2 84.4
.6 ev is s.c4
-9.24
.ies2 1...
.ie5 a.64.
.043
. ail 2 69..
..e2 n.2 93 1 14 59.44
- 9. 46
.195F 1 00
.6 F6
.667
.121
.457
.44%
.015 72.=
94 4
.1 o
4
~15 65 30 --
9.61-
~.'154r 1.ww
.611 '
5.953 ---
.983
--. 373
~~.964
=
.45 F T3.8~~ ~T7.9
.a 16 60.4F 9.62
.3839 1 99
.9 99
.578
.806
.858
.334
.Ste 13 8 98.4
.1 i.
SURRATIONS 24.037 - ' 32.039 - ~ "~.522~
^
total ness 32.5F3 32 573 32 333 1,
61.it
- 1. 6.
. 9x
~
~ 3*%. X _
't 14 67.44 14.73
.9932
^ ^ %^ ' ' ~ ". e^
J' 19
'F1. 72
'11. 41 *****.0 4 76
~ '~ ' ' ' ' ~
~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
29 72.68 11.5f
.0464 21 73.76
- 11. F4
.0452 b
RT r% B 3 '" " * " 12.WT~~~~.W329
~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~
- ~ ~ - -
23 76.65 12.29 8429
.T. m
.n 24 7 F.15 12.28 8414 l.
25 - ~ 78. 4 6
- 12. 4 9 ' ""*.8 4 3 g-h 26 79.68 12.F1 of in F 2r RS.S5 13.62
.0734
=
y _ _
y g, gg- -....1 E 64-~~' '. 9 7 3 7
~~
- ~ ~
29 86.60 1 3.78
.9926
=
30 84.95 14 16
.9746 a
31 ~'
90.09 14.34
.0 69 F 32 98.82 14.45
.0 6'82 i-35 93 14.se
.e6FS Table 1.
System Frequencies From Analysis i,-.._. y _.._.,.c2
_g g,, _,,,,, _. _ _.. __ _
~.. _ _ _.
35 94.09 15 30
.4662
=
36 96.4e 1 % 35
.e651 37 96.94 3 % 43 .0648
=
i 3R 98.19 1 % 63
.5640
-.e.
39 99.51 1%R4
.8631
~'
XO ---
99.94 -~
1 %91-~T.8 4W -** - - ' -
l C1 99.95 15.91
.0429 i
y'*
C2 100.36 1 % 97
.0626 a
e c4 101.95 14.23'
.8616
~
l 43 Igl.S7 14 17
.e%19 N
P p.
l r1
._e iI l
. _..,