ML20053A504
| ML20053A504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1982 |
| From: | EQE, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053A496 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205260159 | |
| Download: ML20053A504 (50) | |
Text
---
I
'Q l
l I
i ihL I
g INCORPORATED I
AN EAT-QUA<E E\\G \\ EE7 NG COV 3A\\Y I
I On the Perfonnance of Large I
Gantry and Bridge Cranes in Past Earthquakes I
I May 7, 1982 I
I Prepared for:
Consumers Power Company 1945 W. Parnall Road I
Jackson, Michigan 49201 I
I EQE INCORPORATED,466 GREENWICH STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133 (415)981-8492 I
820526016Cl
k!I
- iI l
l f
On the Performance of Large Gantry and Bridge Cranes in l
Past Earthquakes l
i
- e i
May 7, 1982 i
!I Prepared for Consumers Power Company 1945 W. Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 Prepared by EQE Incorporated 466 Greenwich Street San Francisco, California 94133
- i
!l
!!l
=-
4'
I CONTENTS Page 1.
INTRODUCTION....................................................
1 2.
DESCRIPTION OF THE 75-TON BIG ROCK FOINT CONTAINMENT CRANE AND THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS CRITERIA...................................
2 3.
THE SAN FERNANDO, CALIFORNIA, EARTHQUAKE OF FEBRUARY 9,1971....
5 3.1 Va l l ey S team Pl a n t....................................
5 I
3.2 The Ci ty of Burbank Power Pl an t.......................
6 3.3 The Ci ty of Gl endal e Power Pl ant......................
6 3.4 The Ci ty of Pa sadena Powe r Pl an t......................
7 4.
THE MANAGUA, NICARAGUA, EARTHQUAKE OF DECEMBER 23, 1972.........
8 4.1 ENA LUF P owe r Pl a n t....................................
8 5.
THE POINT MUGU, 0XNARD, CALIFORNIA, EARTHQUAKE OF FEBRUARY 21, 1973............................................................
11 5.1 The Ormon d B ea ch Powe r Pl a n t..........................
11 6.
THE FERNDALE (EUREKA), CALIFORNIA, EARTHQUAKE OF JUNE 7,1975...
12 6.1 The Humbol dt Bay Powe r Pl ant..........................
12 7.
THE JAPAN EARTHQUAKE OF JUNE 12, 1978...........................
13 7.1 The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Complex.............
13 8.
THE IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE OF OCTOBER 15, 1975..............
15 8.1 The El Cen tro Power Pl an t.............................
15 9.
THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY EARTHQUAKE OF NOVEMBER 8, 1980..............
17 10.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS.........................................
18 11.
REFERENCES......................................................
22 I
FIGURES 1.
FRONT VIEW 0F VALLEY STEAM PLANT 180-TON GANTRY CRANE...........
24 2.
SIDE VIEW 0F VALLEY STEAM PLANT 180-TON GANTRY CRANE............
24 3.
GANTRY CRANE SUPPORT--VALLEY STEAM PLANT 180-TON GANTRY CRANE... 25
I CONTENTS (Continued)
FIGURES Page 4.
ONE UN IT OF THE BURBANK POWER PLANT AND GANTRY CRANE............ 26 5.
GL E N DA L E G AN TR Y C RAN E..........................................
27 6.
THE PASADENA POWER PLANT GANTRY CRANE...........................
28 7.
THE PASADENA POWER PLANT GANTRY CRANE...........................
28 8.
VIEW OF THE SEISMIC STOP -- THE PASADENA POWER PLANT GANTRY CRANE 29 9.
THE TURBINE BRIDGE CRANE, ENALUF POWER PLANT, MANAGUA, NICARAGUA 30 10.
THE COLLAPSED BRIDGE CRANE, DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING, ENALUF POWER PLANT, MANAGUA, NICARAGUA.................................
30 11.
THE ORMOND BEACH POWER PLANT GANTRY CRANE, 0XNARD, CALIFORNIA... 31 12.
THE HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT TURBINE SINGLE-LEG GANTRY CRANE, 8
E U R E KA, CA L I F O R N IA.............................................. 32 13.
THE HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT TURBINE SINGLE-LEG GANTRY CRANE, EU R E KA, CAL I F ORN IA.............................................. 32 14.
THE HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT TURBINE SINGLE-LEG GANTRY CRANt, EUREKA, CALIFORNIA.............................................. 33 15.
SCHEMATIC 0F THE HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT, UNIT 3, CONTAINMENT A N D B R I D G E C RA N E................................................ 34
- 16. A TYPICAL CONTAINMENT BRIDGE CRANE AT THE FUKUSHIMA POWER PLANT COMPLEX, JAPAN.................................................. 35 17.
THE EL CENTRO POWER PLANT TURBINE BRIDGE CRANE, CALIFORNIA...... 36 18.
SUMMARY
OF THE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (ZER0 PERIOD ACCELERATION)
I AND LIFT CAPACITY EXPERIENCED BY ALL CRANES.....................
37 TABLES 1.
LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, VALLEY STEAM PLANT... 38 2.
CITY OF BURBANK, OLIVE POWER PLANT..............................
39 3.
CITY OF GLENDALE, GLENDALE POWER PLANT 40
- 4. ' CITY OF PASADENA, PASADENA POWER PLANT 41 5.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, ORMOND BEACH POWER PLANT............ 42 I
=f=3 2
I
= > ll. 2
_t e m
ilI
!I CONTENTS (Continued)
TABLES l
I i
!~
Page 6.
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC, HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT................ 43 7.
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC, HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT................ 44 8.
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, EL CE!!TR0 POWER PLANT............. 45 I
le 9.
SUMfMRY -- EARTHQUAKE DATA & SALIENT CRANE CHARACTERISTICS...... 46 1g l
}
,I
,I 4
it i
s!I 4
l,I
!I 1
1
_=
h.. '
i
l 1
l 1.
INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the effects of several recent strong earthquakes on a variety of overhead bridge and gantry cranes.
The earthquakes vary in Richter magnitude from about 5.8 to 7.4.
They occurred between 1971 and i
1980. All of the cranes are located in power plants; seven of the power plants are nuclear, the remaining units are conventional, fossil fueled plants. All of the cranes were viewed by EQE personnel after the earthquakes.
The infonnation is presented in support of the seismic analysis that has been conducted for the 75-ton containment crane af tne Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, Charlevoix, Michigan.
The crane and the seismic analyses for it are described in Reference 1.
The crane is also briefly described in the following. The crane is similar to numerous cranes that have survived suc-I cessfully earthquakes that are much stronger than the earthquakes considered for the Big Rock Point site.
The seismic analysis, as described in Reference 1, also demonstrated that the crane structure is stable for these earthquake motions and that the crane members are stressed below allowable values.
The analytical results indicate that the crane rail may be overstressed and may require additional bracing.
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
2.
DESCRIPTION OF THE 75-TC. BIG ROCK POINT CONTAINMENT CRANE AND THE SCIS-MIC ANALYSIS CRITERIA I
The crane is located inside the reactor building.
It is a single-leg, modified gantry-type crane (with a single pair of legs) and is supported on rails at two different elevations within the reactor building on the contain-ment enclosure. The crane travels on rails running east-west along most of the width of the reactor building and containment shell.
The crane, designed for indoor use, is used for handling of the fuel transfer cask, fuel con-tainers, reactor vessel shield plug, reactor vessel head, and other equipment.
The reactor building is a critical safety-related structure which was re-I cently analyzed by D' Appolonia (References 2 and 3) and was determined to be capable of sustaining the seismic loads imposed by the SSE.
The 75-ton containment crane is a welded steel single-leg gantry crane with trolley. On the north side of the containment enclosure structure, the wheels are supported by the crane rail at elevation 632'-6", the spent fuel pool operating deck.
The full height of the crane legs on the north side is approximately 28 ft.
On the south side, the crane wheels are supported by the crane rail at elevation 660'-6", the emergency condenser deck. There are I
no legs at the south side.
The crane is 32'-6" tall (on the north side) and 28 ft. in overall length, spanning 36 ft. 4 in. between the rails running east-west.
The trolley is supported on two 51-in. deep steel plate box girders at 12-ft. centers.
Both the lower and upper trucks contain two wheels each.
One of the wheels on each level has brakes.
The crane has a 75-ton caoacity main hook.
The hoist mechanism includes a 12-parts tackle of 1 in. diameter improved plow steel wire ropes.
The crane rails are supported on the concrete decks at elevations 632'-6" and 660'-6" The west ends of the rails are supported by braced steel struc-tures at both elevations.
The east end of the crane rail at elevation 660'-6", above cortions of the spent fuel pool, is also supported by a steel framed structure which extends about 23' past the concrete spent fuel pool operating deck.
I m
Ei5
3 During refueling operations, the crane may be located anywhere between the centerline of the reactor vessel and the extreme east end of the rail sup-oorting structures over the spent fuel storage pool.
All possible locations were reviewed.
It was determined that two positions are most critical and envelope the range of seismic responses that control stresses within the components of the crane.
The two positions are:
e The crane is located in the extreme eastern position over the spent fuel pool.
In that case, the easternmost wheel of the upper truck of the crane is positioned on the braced steel structure supporting the crane rail. The other wheel is posi-tioned on the concrete emergency condenser deck.
The two I
wheels of the lower true.k are supported on the concrete spent fuel pool deck. This position induces the greatest amount of eccentricity between the center of gravity and the center of rigidity of the crane, producing twisting or torsional struc-tural response. This case represents the lower bound for structural frequencies of the crane structure in the vicinity of the spent fuel pool and produces the highest possible earth-quake-induced displacements (or movements).
I e The crane is centered over the reactor vessel or over the southwest corner of the spent fuel pool.
In both of these cases the upper and lower elevation crane wheels are fully supported by rails resting on concrete structures.
This position repre-sents the upper bound for structural frequencies of the crane structure.
In this case, the torsional response of the crane is minimized.
Two levels of earthquake motions were used in the analyses of the crane.
I For ease of reference, these carthquake motions will be referred to as the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE).
The two earthquakes were represented by response spectra as follows:
e The first series of analysis used floor response spectra derived by D' Appolonia from their analyses of the reactor building for an SSE having a zero perioc horizontal ground
'I n-
_'~
lI 4
acceleration (in both orthogonal directions) equal to 0.12g and confoming to the spectra shape requirements of USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 (References 2, 4 and 5).
e The second series of analyses used floor reponse spectra I
derived by D' Appolonia (Reference 3) from their analyses of the reactor building for Big Rock Point site specific response spectra, as defined by the USNRC in Reference 6, with a zero period horizontal ground acceleration of 0.119 (in both orthogonal directions).
The vertical seismic input was also vertical response spectra as defined by the D' Appolonia analyses. The spectra were consistent with the spectra for the horizontal direction in both of the above cases.
I I
8 I
I I
I I
I I
m S L4G
5 3.
THE SAtt FERNANDO, CALIFORNIA, EARTHQUAKE OF FEBRUARY 9, 1971 i
The San Fernando, California, earthquake occurred at 6:01 a.m., local time, on February 9,1971.
This magnitude 6.6 shock was not a great earth-quake, but it centered on the northern edgc of the Los Angeles metropolitan (g
'5 area, which has a population of more than 8 million people. Approximately 400,000 persons were subjected to very strong ground shaking (0.25g or greater) and approximately 2 million more to moderately strong shaking (0.15g to 0.259).
Most of the metropolitan area was not strongly affected by the earthquake, and its resources were available to assist in counteracting the damaging effects of the shock (Reference 7).
I The strong motion of the main shock lasted about 12 seconds. Because the earthquake' occurred near the center of the largest concentration of strong-motion recording instruments in the world, the 340 available instruments provided the largest number of strong-motion records ever recorded from any earthquake.
A total of 58 deaths and over 2500 hospital-treated injuries were recorded; 47 of the deaths were a result of the collapse of a single nonearthquake-resistive structure at a Veterans Hospital.
The early hour of the shock I
greatly diminished life losses and injuries.
Direct damage to buildings and other structures exceeded one-half billion dollars. This amount was divided about equally between private and public property. Most of the severe damage and the major building losses were along the southern foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and along the band of surface faulting that runs east-west on the San Fernando Valley floor.
Several power facilities were located in and near the San Fernando Valley.
I Because of the very limited damage to the numerous power plant units, little information was published after the earthquake.
Recent work by ECE Incorporated (EQE, nas uncovered much information cr the performance of these facilities and the cranes in them.
I 3.1 Valley Steam Plant The Valley Steam Plar.t is owned and operated by the Los Angeles Department
=
6 of Water and Power. The estimated peak ground acceleration at the plant is approximately 0.35 to 0.409 It is located about 3 to 4 miles from the fault that caused the earthquake.
The turbine operating deck traveling gantry crane is shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3.
The crane is a double-leg, electric, traveling, outdoor gantry crane with a 180-ton rated capacity main hoist and hook on a movable top riding trolley and with a 15-ton rated capacity auxiliary hoist and hoek on a movable trolley running on a separate outrigger trolley beam mounted on the idler girder side.
Table 1 lists the salient features of the crane and its support system.
At the time of the earthquake the crane was located on the steel support structure that extends past the turbine deck, exactly as shown in Figure 1.
The crane, or its supports and all associated equipment, was undamaged by the earthquake.
The crane represents a much more vulnerable structum than the Big Rock Point I
crane.
It also experienced significant torsion because, as shown in Figure 1, one set of wheels were parked near the stiffer concrete structure i
of the turbine deck (right side of photograph).
3.2 The City of Burbank Power Plants Several strong motion records yere recorded near the City of Burbank. The city owns and cperates several power plant units, all at one site. Several cranes at the site experienced a peak ground acceleration of about 0.359 I
The Burbank boiler structure and one crane are shown in Figure 4.
Table 2 lists the salient features of the crane and its support system.
3.3 The City of Glendale Power Plant Several strong motion records were recorded near and in the City of Glendale.
The city owns and operates seven power plant units on one site. Two of the I
units are jet-engine peakers; the other five are conventional oil / gas-fired units. The site experienced a peak ground acceleration of about 0.30.9 The following describes the turbine gantry crane.
At the time of the earth-quake the crane was positioned as shown in Figure 5.
I 7
.I The crane, its supports and all associated equipment were undamaged by the earthquake. Table 3 lists the salient features of the crane and its support llm system.
The crane experienced a stronger earthquake than the SSE for the Big Rock Point site.
I 3.4 The City of Pasadena Power Plant The City of Pasadena owns and operates four power plart units on one site near the center of the town.
Several strong motion records ware recorded around the power plant. The estimated peak ground acceleration at the piant is about 0.20g.
One single-leg (modified) gantry crane services at least three of the units.
The crane is very similar in its structural characteristics to the Big Rock Point crane.
It is supported cn a steel frame structure which is as high as the turbine deck, as illustrated in Figures 6 and 7.
The crane, as shown in Figure 8, has a seismic stop.
The stop is not known to have impacted the rail support system, indicating that the overturnin; forces did not exceed the resisting forces due to the weight of the crane.
The crane, its supports, and all associated equipment were undamaged.
The crane experienced a stronger earthquake than the Big Rock Point SSE.
The support structure and the crane itself are similar to those at the Big Rock Point Plant.
Table 4 lists the salient features of the crane and its support system.
I I
I I
I
- :=
8 4.
THE MANAGUA, NICARAGUA, EARTHQUAKE OF DECEMBER 23, 1972 Managua is the capital and largest city of Nicaragua, with a population of about 500,000. Managua was struck by a moderate-sized earthquake, with a magnitude of 6.2, in the early morning of December 23, 1972. The earthquake destroyed most of the central district of the city, severely damaged most buildings, interrupted essential services, and severely disrupted the entire I
economy of Nicaragua.
Many public.auildings, hospitals, schools, commercial buildings, and resi-dences collapsed or were seriously damaged.
Public utilities (including water, power, telephone, and sewer systems) did not function for various periods of time. The total property damage is estimated to exceed a billion
~
dollars (U.S. ).
Some 30% of the gross national product for that year was I
also lost.
The main shock and some strong af tershocks were recorded by a strong-motion accelerograph at the Esso refinery west of the city and away from the epicenter, which was located in the mair part of the city.
The maximum horizontal ground acceleration was 0.40. Numerous surface fault breaks 9
occurred throughout the city. A surface fault break about 6 km long, with left lateral displacement up to 30 cm, extended in a northeasterly direction through the central district.
I 4.1 ENALUF Power Plant The three-unit ENALUF oil-fired power plant is located aLout 65m from the trace of the orincipal fault trace, in an area of very heavy building I
damage and several building collapses (Reference 8).
Unit 3, the largest unit, has a rating of 40MW; the other two units are ISMW each.
The boilers, firing aisles, and air and flue-gas draf t systems are outdoors. The turbine-generator sets are inside a building with a structural-steel framing system.
The same building encloses the battery room, mator control centers, and other systems. The main switchgear is I
housed in a separate reinforced-concrete building.
I 4
-
? ::?
9 The three units suffered various degrees of damage.
However, in view of the proximity of the fault and the high ground acceleration, which may have exceeded 0.70g at this site, the plant sustained the shock very well.
All units were taken off-line by protective relaying because of circuit ground-ing.
Unit 3 also suffered damage to its heavy equipment, including the boiler and the turbine (References 8 and 9).
I The ENALUF power plant was one of the first major industrial facilities to be restored to partial operation. One of the units, which suffered bearing misalignment, was back in service in two weeks and the second in three weeks.
The third unit was not operative for several months because of greater boiler damage and misalignment of the turbine shaft.
It is reported that the facility was designed for lateral forces of 0.10.
Most of the equipment was anchored to the floor and experienced no damage.
The wor:t damage occurred to unanchored equipment, which was free to displace I
or fall.
Figure 9 shows the covered turbine bay 80-ton bridge crane that services the turbines.
The crane was constructed by Krupp of West Germany in 1957.
It is supported by a braced steel structure.
The crane and its supports were undamaged.
The only problem related to the overhead crane was that of a loss of power to the crane during the earthquake.
The power pickup on the I
overhead crane was broken at the point where the two differing sections of the main building (that section which housed the 40 megawatt unit and the I
section which housed both of the 15 megawatt units) is located. The two sections moved with respect to each other thereby stretching and breaking the copper conductor wire which ran along the length of the building which opened uo the power supply for the overhead crane. No other damage resulted to the crane or to any of its components and the overhead crane remained supported on its rail system (Reference 10).
The crane, undoubtedly, represents an extreme case in comparison with the crane at Big Rock.
The I
successful performance of the crane indicates the conservatisms that are inherent in a conventional dynamic seismic analysis, such as that sum-marized in Reference 1.
A similar seismic analysis for the ENALUF bridge crane will show that the crane is unstable and should have fallen from its suoports.
- _ ~ -. =.,
10 I
Immediately adjacent to the main generators building is a small, light, unbraced steel building housing six diesel generators.
One end of an over-head bridge crane located in the diesel engine generator building fell from i ts rail.
The end that fell from the rail landed on an electric switch board. This resulted in a broken drive shaft and drive gears in the crane.
The collapsed crane is shown in Figure 10. Note in the figure the lack of bracing in the building and in the crane support structure.
The crane probably fell due to excessive flexing and distortion of the building frame, 12ading to large relative displacements between the two parallel support I
rails.
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
.a._d
11 5.
THE P0 IT MUGU, OXilARD, CALIFORtlIA, EARTHQUAKE OF FEBRUARY 21, 1973 An earthquake of Richter magnitude of about 5.8 occurred a few miles east of Point tiugu in the vicinity of the City of Oxnard, Southern California on l
February 21, 1973.
The shock caused about $1 million damage to the towns of Oxnard, Ventura, and Camarillo. A peak acceleration of about 0.13g was racorded about eleven miles away from the epic, enter.
I 5.1 The Ormond Beach Power Plant The earthquake caused estimated acceleration of about 0.15 to 0.20g at the 0.nond Beach Power Plant which is owned and operated by the Soutnern California Edison Company.
The plant has two oil-fired 750 MW units.
It is located a few hundred feet from the shoreline and about two miles north of Point Mugu.
Of all earthquakes discussed in this report, the Point Mugu event is most similar to the SSE for the Big Rock Point site.
I Table 5 summarizes the primary characteristics of the 90-ton gantry crane that services the turbine operating floor. At the time of the earthquake the crane was positioned, as shown in Figure 11 on the steel framed extension that protrudes on each side of the reinforced concrete turbine deck support structure.
The steel frame, which is similar to that at Big Rock Doint is about 40 feet high.
The crane, its supports, and all associated ecuipment, were undamaged by the earthquake.
I I
I I
I
-=
2' 7
.3..
12 6.
THE FERNDALE (EUREKA), CALIFORNIA, EARTHQUAKE OF JUNE 7, 1975 A magnitude 5.5 earthquake occurred in the Eureka, Northern Ca:ifornia, area on June 7, 1975.
The event caused minor to moderate damage throughout the area. The epicenter was located about 15 miles south of Pacific Gas and Electric's three-unit Humboldt Bay Power Plant (Reference 11). Unit No.
3, which is nuclear, was shut down at. that time.
I 6.1 The Humboldt Bay Power Plant I
The nuclear unit was instrumented with strerg motion accelerometers, and several records were taken.
Extensive infomation on these records is available.
The peak ground acceleration at the plant site was 0.309 It was recorded in a small storage building (Reference 11).
Unit 3 is serviced by twc cranes -- a refueling building (containment) bridge crane and a turbine operating deck traveling modified single-leg gantry crane.
Neither crane, their supports, and associated equipment were damaged in the earthquake.
The data for the turbine deck 25-ton gantry crane is summarized in Table 6 and the crane is illustrated in Figures 12, 13, and 14.
The crane is very similar to the Big Rock Point 75-ton containment crane.
Its legs, however, are supported on a more flexible steel structure.
The eccentricities of the two cranes are similar. Thus, it is very likely that the Humboldt Bay Plant crane is very representative of the Big Rock Point crane under an earthqsake bigger than the SSE.
I The data for the containment bridge crane is summarized in Table 7 and the crane is illustrated in Figure 15.
I I
I
'O._
13 I
7.
THE JAPAN EARTHQUAKE OF JUNE 12, 1978 This major earthquake struck the northern section of the maia island of Japan on June 12, 1978. The shock caused considerable damage in Miyagi Prefecture and particularly in the principal city, Sendai, and its metropolitan area.
I The earthquake had a magnitude of 7.4 and a hypocentral depth of about 30 km.
The epicenter was about 100 km east of Sendai on the Pacific plate. More I
than 100 strong-motion records were obtained in and near the city of Sendai.
Peak ground accelerations were generally between 0.20g and 0.40g.
The duration of the strong motion was in excess of 30 seconds.
The preliminary total estimated direct building loss is more than $830 million in June 1978 U.S. dollars (Reference 12).
I 7.1 The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Comolex The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Complex (References 12 and 13) is owned and operated oy the Tokyo Electric Power Company.
It is located on the Pacific coast of Fukushima Prefecture.
The station is approximately I
4,700MW, and is the largest nuclear power complex in the world.
Units 1 through 5 have Mark 1 containment structures; Unit 6 has a Mark 2 containment.
I The plants are founded on a competent sof t mudstone formation with a thick-ness in excess of 300 m, and a shear wave velocity of about 600 m/sec.
Unit I was designed for an OBE with a peak ground acceleration of 0.18g and a response spectrum based on the Taft record from the Southern California I
(Kern County) earthquake of 1952.
At the time of the earthquake, Units 1, 2, 3 and 5 were operating; Unit 6 was stil' under construction, but was essentially completed.
Unit 4 was scheduled to go into commercial operation soon.
I Units 1 and 6 are instrumented with between 20 and 30 strong-motion accelerometers and much valuable information was obtained f rom the earthouake.
I
l u
14 The peak recorded ground acceleration is 0.125g (EW direction).
The cor-l responding accelerations in the NS direction and Up/Down directions are 0.'.00g and 0.050.
The strong motion exceeds 30 sec in duration.
The 9
reported maximum response acceleration in the buildings is reported to be about 0.5g.
Because most U.S. Nuclear power plants are designed to <.riteria that is I
similar to the seismic motion to which the Fukushima site was exposed, this earthauake represents a unique event. This is the first time that several modern nuclear power plants were exposed to strong ground motion with long duration.
In addition, the presence of six units at one site represer s a good statistical sample.
Each unit in the plant has a containment crane.
In addition, there are numerous other large cranes in the turbine buildings near the spent fuel pools, in the water intake houses, etc.
Figure 16 illustrates a typical I
?'5-ton turbine bridge crane. The photograph was taken a few days after tne earthquake.
None of the cranes, their supports and the associated equipment were damaged.
This site contains a large number of cranes that were subjected to an earth-quake with a peak ground acceleration that is similar to the SSE for Big Rock Point; however the duration of motion of Fukushima is larger due to the I
large magnit'.'de of the earthouake.
It is extremely encouraging that no damage occurred to well designed, safety related cranes.
I I
I I
I
=
' ^
- 8.
THE IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE OF OCTOBER 15, 1979 On October 15, 1979, a destructive earthquake shook the Imperial Valley of Cal i fornia.
The quake, which occurred at 4:16 p.m., had a magnitude of 6.6.
Its epicenter was on the Imperial fault 16 km east of Calexico.
There was I
no loss of life, but there was damage to the towns and surrounding areas of El Centro, Imperial, Brawley, and Calexico (Reference 14).
The affected area, which experienced a similar destructive earthquake ne.:rly 40 years earlier (May 18, 1940), was instrumented by a network of strong-motion accelerographs. About 50 records were made, at distances from 6 to 196 km from the epicenter.
One instrument, 1 km from the fault and 27 km from the epicenter, recorded a vertical acceleration of 1.74g.
In general, the earthquake did not cause extensive building damage.
The exception to the rule was the six-story Imperial County Services Suilding which was caverely damaged.
8.1 The El Centro Power Plant The El Centro Power Plant (References 14 and 15) is the principal electric power generating facility of the Imperial Irrigation District.
The plant is about 5 km from the causative fault and about 25 km from the epicenter.
I The plant has four oil or natural gas fired units.
Units 1, 2 and 3 were designed by Gibbs and Hill and were built in 1949, 1952 and 1957, respectively.
I Unit 4 was designed by Fluor and was built in 1968.
The turbine buildings, turbine pedestals and boiler structures are on reinforced concrete floating raf t foundations.
Each unit is structurally indeoendent.
The raft tounda-tion of Unit 4 is isolated from the foundation of the first three units.
The reinforced concrete turbine pedestals are isolated from the moment-resisting frame steel structure of the turbine buildings.
Each boiler I
structure is a structural steel-braced frame.
The boilers are suspended from the top of the frame.
Unit 4 was designed for a lateral static equivalent seismic force of 20: of the dead and I ve loads.
Seismic design criteria for Units 1, 2 and 3 nave not been located, but were probably similar to that of Unit 4
*n I
~:
' 2
16 The nearest strong-motion record was obtained from the same location where the 1940 El Centro rec;rd was made.
It is 6 km west of the fault trace, and is about 1 km from the power plant. The recorded Deak accelerations there were 0.51g NS, 0.379 EW and 0.93g vertical.
1 Table 8 lists the salient features of the crane and its support systems.
Figure 17 shows the crane.
The crane, its supports, and associated equioment were undamaged by an I
earthquake that is much stronger than the SSE for Big Rock Point.
Reference 15 presents analyses of the structure supporting the crane.
The computed accelerations at the crane rail typically exceed 1.0g in the horizontal di rec ti on.
The vertical accelerations are similar.
Despite these high accelerations and the lack of a sophisticated design for the crane and its I
anchorages, no damage occurred.
I I
I I
I I
I I
=
17 9.
THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY EARTHQUAKE OF NOVEMBER 8, 1980 The cranes at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant near Eureka, which is owned and operated by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, were subjected to a second recorded earthquake.
Chapter 5 describes the plant and tne cranes and their perfonnance during the Ferndale (Eureka) earthauake of June 7,1975.
On November 8,1980, an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 struck the coastal re-gion of Humboldt County in northern California.
The epicenter was approxi-mately 60 km northwest of Eureka, and about 50 km west of Patricks Point.
Felt aftershocks continued for two days.
Ground shaking was sufficiently intense in Eureka to awaken most people, knock small items from shelves and topple furniture.
Several first-hand reports indicate strong shaking lasted 15 to 30 seconds, a sufficiently long time for people to get out of bed and go out of doors. The main earthquake was felt f.om San Francisco, California, to Salem, Oregon.
Six people were injured and damage was minor, considering the magnitude of the earthquake (Reference -16).
Triaxial response spectrum recorder located on the ground floor of the Refueling Building of Unit 3, the nuclear unit indicated the #ollowing peak ground accelerations:
East-west - 0.279, North-south - 0.25g, Vertical -
0.099 The two m3jor cranes at the plant, the containment crane in Unit 3, and the turbine bay crane, which is very similar to that of Big Ro-k Point, were again undamaged by the event.
I E
I w
E 18 10.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS This report presents the results of an investigation on the effects of seven strong earthquakes on power plant cranes that are generally similcr to the 75-ton containment crane at the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant.
The surveyed earthquakes, in California, Nicaragua, and Japan, vary in Richter magnitudes from 5.5 to 7.4.
The range of pean ground accelera tions, outside the Japanese data, is between 0.15 and 0.709 Most of the data is
'g E
for peak ground acceleration in excess of 0.30g.
That compares with 0.129 for the Big Rock Point site.
Thus, most of the surveyed earthquakes had accalerations that are two to five times greater than the Big Rock Point SSE.
The Japanese data is from the six-unit Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Complex. Nu.nerous cranes there were subjected to a distant, long duration, 7.4 magnitude earthquake with a site peak ground acceleration of 0.125g.
E The data represents some of the best available data on cranes. Additional data exists and can be collected.
However, the additional data will not alter the conclusions of this study.
Table 9 summarizes the data reported in this study.
Of all the cranes that were addressed, only one was damaged by an earthquake.
The crane, located in a very flexible unbraced-steel building in Managua fell from its bridge rail s.
The peak ground acceleration at the site was about 0.70g which is several times greater than the Big Rock site SSE. An adjacent, large crane in a braced-steel Structure was undamaged.
In all other cases the cranes, their supports, the rails, the rail anchorages, and associated equipment I
were undamaged.
The reported data sample includes 12 cranes that were addressed in some detail and another 20 cranes that were observed but are not discussed further.
It is important to note that the authors of this report, all engineers with EQE Incorporated, personally viewed the discussed cranes on the day of the earthquake, a few days af ter the earthquake, and in some cases a few months or years af ter the event.
Plant err?loyees were interviewed and plant post-earthquake reports were reviewed in most cases.
I
19
- I The seismic analysis of the Big Rock 75-ton containment crane (Reference 1) indicates the apper rail anchorages (which are located on the emergency condenser deck) may be overstressed. All of the cranes discussed in this study were reviewed in order to determine how their rail anchorages and I
behavior during past earthquakes compare to the rail anchorages and to the expected behavior of the Big Rock 75-ton containment crane in an SSE.
The following observations were made:
1.
The cranes that were undamaged and evaluated vary in lift capacity from about 25 tons to more than 225 tens.
The Big Rock 75-ton containment crane falls in the middle of this range.
I 2.
The dimensions of the evaluated cranes include cranes that are both smaller, approximately equal to, and larger than the 75-ton contain.nent crane.
3.
The weights of the evaluated cranes are typically about equal to or greater than the weight of the 75-ton containment crane.
I 4.
The structural support conditions of the evaluated cranes range from stiffer, to similar, to more flexible conditions I
than those of the 75-ton containment crane.
5.
In summary, the data in items 1 througn 4 above, and the data that is summarized in Table 9, indicate that the reviewed cranes include all reasonable configuration variants of the 75-ton containment crane.
Thus, the data can be used to draw conclusions on the performance of the 75-ton containment crane in an earthquake.
I 6.
The torsion that causes high forces in the rail anchorages of the 75-ton containment crane (Reference 1) is also present in several of the reviewed c ~ ares (Valley Steam Plant, Pasadena Power Plant, Ormond Beach Power Plant, Humboldt Bay Power Pl a n t ).
Since the accelerations at ground level in all those
I plants were from about 1.5 to 3.3 times greater than the Big Rock SSE, the forces in the rail anchorages were probably i.
greater by an equal magnitude.
It is significant that the rail anchorages were not damaged in all cases. This implies that the analysis techniques used in Reference 1 are very con-servative and overestimate the real earthquake forces by a large factor.
7.
It may be possible that the amplifications of the ground motion for the 75-ton containment crane at its supports are greater than the amplifications fcr the reviewed cranes.
I However, the reviewed cranes have a wide variety of struc-tural support conditions.
Some of these conditions probably cause lesser amplifications, but undoubtedly some of the supports cause higher amplifications.
Given the higher ground motions of the reviewed cranes, it is most likely that all reviewed cranes (except those in Japan) experienced nigher accelerations than those computed for the Big Rock 75-ton containment crane.
t 8.
All of the reviewed cranes (except some of the Japanese cranes) and the Big Rock 75-ton containment crane and their rail anchorages were designed under similar criteria wnich do not include special criteria for seismic loads.
Yet, all these cranes and anchorages were not damaged.
The reason for this good performance is not a set of fortuitous circumstances.
The statistical sample is too large ter that.
Cranes and crane anchorages have been designed for many years and designs account for experience under a variety of operat-I ing and accident conditions. More specifically, rail anchorages are designed on the basis of experience with rail anchorages in the railroad industry.
Current anchorage require-ments account for experience with large inertial forces, such as those generated by moving trains, along curves.
The basic problem is that current analytical techniques are unable to represent reality, given the constraints imposed by the I
l 21 I
analysis criteria and assumptions made in typical seismic analyses of cranes. Very sophisticated, nonlinear analysis I
of the 75-ton containment crane may show that the anchorages are not overstressed.
The fact remains that experience consistantly shows that similar anchorages were not over-stressed or damaged.
E 9.
Finally, Figure 18 shows a comparison between the Big Rock 75-ton crane and all reviewed cranes.
Peak ground accelera-tion is plotted against crane lif t capacity.
The 75-ton containment crane is represented by the lowest entry in the I
figure. This entry is enveloped well by the properties and the experience of the reviewed cranes.
I The primary conclusion of this study is that craaes that are designed to criteria similar to that used for the Big Rock 75-ton containment crane are not damaged in earthquakes that are many times strenger in intensity than the intensity that would be generated at the Big Rock Point site by an SSE with a peak ground acceleration (zero period acceleration) of 0.129 There is no recorded case of damage to a similar crane in any earthquake with such I.
an intensity of ground motion.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the 75-ton containment crane is safe in the event of an SSE.
This observa-8 tion is based both on seismic dynamic analyses of the crane structure and numerous observations of similar cranes and their supoorts in past destruc-tive earthquakes.
I I
I I
I
=
I
_.n3 m..
REFERENCES 1.
EQE Incorporated, Seismic Analysis of the 75-ton Containment Crane, Big i
l Rock Point fluclear Power Plant, Charlevoix, Michigan, Report to Con-sumers Power Company, San Francisco, California, April 14, 1982.
8>
2.
D' Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., Report Volume II - Apoendix A, Seismic Safety Margin Evaluation, Reactor Building, Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 1981.
3.
D' Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., Derivation of Site Soecific Floor Response Spectra, Seismic Safety Margin Evaluation, Big Rock Point fluclear Power Plant, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (to be issued).
4.
D' Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., Derivation of Floor Resoonses, Reactor Building, Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 1981.
5.
D' Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., Report-Volume I, Seismic Safety Margin Evaluation, Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Flant, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 1981.
6.
Letter from D. M. Crutchfield (USNRC) to Consumers Power Company, Site I
Specific Ground Resoonse Soectra for SEP Plants Located in Eastern United States, Washington, D.C., June 17, 1981.
7.
Jennings, P. C., Engineering Features of the San Fernando Earthquake, February 9,1971, EERL 71-02, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, Cali fornia Insti tute of Technology, Pasadena, Cali fornia, June 1971.
8.
Marsh, R. O. and P.
I. Yanev, "Managua, Nicaragua, c.arthquake --
December 23, 1972," Summary Report, Bechtel Power Corporation (1973).
9.
Yanev, P. I. and R. O. Marsh, " Industrial and Power Plant Damage from the Managua, Nicaragua, Earthquake of December 23, 1972, Structural Design of Nuclear Power Plant Facilities, Vol. 1, American Society of Civil Engineers (1973).
=
I
23 REFERENCES (Continued) 10.
Klopfenstein, Arthur and 3. V. Palk, " Effects of the Managua Earthquake on the Electrical Power System in Managua, Nicaragua, Earthquake of lg December 23, 1972," Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Conference 5
Proceed'ngs, Volume II, San Francisco, California, 1973.
11.
" Soil-Structure Interaction Effects at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant in the Ferndale Eart%uake of June 7, 1975," by H. Bolton Seed, et. al.,
EERC Report No. UCB/EERC-77/02, January, 1977.
12.
Yanev, P.
I., Editor, "The Miyagi-Ken-oki, Japan, Earthquake, June 12, 1978:
Reconnaissance Report," Earthquake Engineering Research insti tute (December 1978).
I 13.
Yanev, P.
I.,
T. A. Moore, and J. A. Blume, "Fukushina iluclear Power Station - Effect and Implications of the June 12, 1978, Miyagi-Ken-ok1, Japan, Earthquake," URS/ John A. Blume Engineers (1979).
14.
Leeds, D. J., Editor, "Reconnalssance Report - Imperial County, I
California, Earthquake; October 15, 1979," Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (1980).
I s
15.
Nelson, T A. et. al., " Response of El Centro Steam Plant Equipment during the October 15, 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake," NUREG/CR-1655 UCRL-53005, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1980).
16.
- Lajoie, K., and D. Keefer, " Investigations of the 8 November 1980 Earthquake in Humboldt County, Califarnia," Open-File Report 81-397, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, 1981.
t 1
f I
I
=
<a-A-w---
m e
us a
w a
!I E-1
!l grouass
.g I
I I
I
\\
4 t
l8 4
8 l'
a
>I I
I
24 8
I 1
's o
A
~
~
- I A
.i
/
N[i i
)
I
~
~
i
.. 3 4
ic-j 1
E FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 Front View Side View i
- I E
'I l
15 l
l VALLEY STEAM PLAtlT 180-T0:1 GAtlTRY CRANE 57 ]
25 8
9 I
t I
M d;!)%kf
- nih!hhhh.
h g
j- -
~n4 y.
-a.
N-"
k f k g
,3 m;..
W N.
l l
i=
,./
..~
8 I
4 Fiaure 3 Gantry Crane Support E
I VALLEY STEAM PLANT 100-TON GANTRY CRANE r
=
- 8 ze
.E 8
l3 4
t I
.. E g
1
-JK t
I
!MB i
g Bilaij
~
I 8
I I
5 FIGURE 4 One Unit of the Burbank Power Plant and Gantry Crane
]' ~ ]
27
- I t,
i tI
\\
8 I
I 4
4,r-v;$
gy~
r 7
I
? $3tn a
=m
=-
a
'j-
- g
- e t
$kR$2N,ffbEky --
. 3;_,g a
.u ma.
w
- t--~~_.
?
^ "YA~"*
^
O th:
,? %;
}
~
8
- I I
I i8 FIGURE 5 Glendale Gantry Crane y
28 I
2 2
l 1
I m z.sa_n q v
m z.-
I
/
a l
id
?thh I
~
g j
'4 i
~
3 i
l 1
i l".177
/ I,.d e
\\'-
~~*
d b,'M
{
t s
@ h.1g "l$,c,.
1-
[(( 333)% E.M
': l g
FIGURE 7 THE PASACE!!A PCWER PLAtiT GM4TRY CRA?lE
-}- ]
l
29 I
I I
8 11 I
r wm f 4 \\{i I lE ]M L g \\ _ ^. I E a I I I I Figure 8 View of the Seismic Stop 3 me mS m acaa m,u a,m c2ams 3
30 sJgrams 'I f ,l T l i ^ YE. $In 99:,3 h l t 3 ]h-,_.g [^ .y t).L 5W fmbmvw-s.l' _ y y I rg'd /4 '(D NI# rih 9gWik.t;I- .. m _ ~~T ^ ' V~ ' 1,. I FIGURE 9 I The Turbine Bridge Crane, ENALUF Power Plant, Managua, Nicaragua I RBWWE:.d450)i F 5%< l I IW k'Y 0.: ~ ,a i ~ .t q Q 8 g h;@ ~ I
- wwq..
Q,Qg n k.. *MD$$$sd "9curg[k DYhf; 9%rM: fdlJ k i ]. f . "" " (f;d143 s$1 e. hh2ro-ba2 ' w, !, FIGURE 10 The Collapsed Bridge Crane, Diesel Generator Building I EMLUF Power Plant, Managua, Nicaragua }
31 I I I I i i I I g f TT ,3 U 3 e a m 4 ,.;a. - y
- z
~ l $bMLQ myhh [f& _ 1., ,w t 8 I I I FIGURE 11 The Ormond Beach Power Plant Gantry Crane, Oxnard, Calif ornia ]
32 h hh i l ' ' h'WhyWi A illJf q] i': :; l l pfplf.).lEE;dllll4l+fllfllllllll[ ? ~, 8 1 % 'x g, E sr 1N i,a . s
- r y n r % n. 7
- uG,x:mml5, E
....g w x..+. n, ^ s ' %,.;4
- $f
' g., 4%$ g ~ 4 r, ei;.
- r
- - as..
.s. ' f
- . q;, f _.,
, -f':'
- 2.. C.~,
E I.. $ <'. jd4 %.r p. ' 4%.,- 3 4. ' sp. 9 j, a ' g, , y. ::s he . g +q. y ;W yy V(
- 3. y*
.i y. y W a. y+ EfLQL L[J:n, y '. ?'. l,l,'-h M)Q fM.- .5- ../ 4 )lij.~ Y .; ~). Qd k w % x,.
- c %3
[ l FIGURE 12 I I E I hh,jgr.,E,-- ^ I MT siit t T." 4: s t ! M I Wj %D* Aw f:. O e% s /~ 4 .,.m,'_' c. = wt 6, ., ;i,, h.' ' _,, i' l' ~ ) -4 .J -j H .s c. -r; _ ', *. :.1 E .s 4 ) w.. r/.. FIGURE 13 I The Humboldt Bay Power Plant Turbine Single-Leg E Gantry Crane, Eureka, California Rf;I5 l 5
=
33 8 l I I I I I I I I As C ar, 4 w., x h,, I' t f.-- / A- , $$f-[4
- l r
1 Rwam - i l i {
- n
.p :" ^ t kd. f I 8 I I FIGURE 14 The Humboldt Bay Power Plant Turbine Single-Leg I Gantry Crane. Eureka, California ~~ E =
34 8 I e..s _< l f I l v <a f .r. -m. i J,(7 [j ~~9 c ~ . w,. m_= c [,_e_.. ;,, C ,3 % --, - 6 p - j g l c1
- Fm
- -r-1 l
I l q. -2 . 1 l-A ' W-$
- r
J.
- i
_.~i.% %. 'g J, .~ - ~n i3 Q ~ p.uun
- 'i% ).,,i! ;
I u*, m t.....r..- . L-e 24 4,- i
- .i y J.=%. r x
0 ~, ; =d '.,( f*M5gj *!?. o-.= = b ,q " N;. - -l - ' y ,pu ? I i ~~ s-P-I !r F # i I 'm.* * 'a M** '
- i,p a w Q:,,
i w - a,. i A T 4 8 .L:.h j 4 n. j -.a n-t' + 1 s 3-<j.- N.3 i i ~4.
- a. +.g w-s.l l l
,,-.l .{.i
- 1,.:.
l S s 't ,!Il t ) f bj 2! l l a R: S s.q - i l l I T.': had, i di {'i.---*j j ,t i J. m l lu I swy -l-nwe' 1 l:. d_ g j F' tl,, --r I. i ,,.. t. m 0 57. MO i ---t - y w g . u.. /., \\g b 8 '_55 m. t 6 9 I I FIGURE 15 I S;..?matic of the Humboldt Say Power Plant, Unit 3, Containment and Bridge Crane E= J ' 9 I .=-= u
--...m.. m 35 lI I l I I I I I m g 9 .f" 'I , ~ t fY% Y^ 4, ^ I \\ w . _D I I I I FIGURE 16 A Typical Turbine Brid e Crane at the f l Fukushima Power Plant omplex, Japan
36 I I I 8 I I
- y. C,,.spspyg egy E
~ .. kP., e, ~ ~,. ..~.. ~. ,g % e & ; m,$ E [jiY$l'j' '2.~ % ;l%gh l~C.i Q SA l 9..e f y / 9a 4w (k, 7..,J Tys e 7 ' $ ' ..e c I$. s.e e.. a o.. .t. i.9) - - ' ?. u. <.t4 . x a,<. g.. m.f. y< m e _,gg y, E , ;... u t ,. 4 Ig 4.- ~ $ ~;. > _.. q' i ~ !. s' '. g I I I I I FIGURE 17 I The El Centro Power Dlant Turbine Bridge Crane. California ]
37 8 I 8 FAILED 0.7 - O ENALUF, B
- ENALUF, B 1
g 0.6 h g 0.5 O ' p EL CENTRO, B 0.4 e VALLEY, G O e BURBANK, G <c I 0.3 e H. BAY, FG e H. BAY, B / GLENDALE, G c S G H. BAY, MG e H. BAY, B cr E 0.2 e PASADENA, MG 8
- ORMOND BEACH, G BIG ROCK POINT SSE W
FUKUSHIMA SEVERAL 4 BIG ROCK, MG 0 i i i i i e i i i i 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 LIFT CAPACITY - TONS I I LEGEND e Undamaged Cranes B Bridge Crane O Da.naged Cranes G Gantry Crane E Big Rock 75-Ton Containment Crane MG Single-Leg Modified Gantry Crane I FIGURE 18 I Summary of the Peak Ground Acceleration (Zero Period Acceleration) _ _,z-and Lif t Capacity Experienced by all Discussed Cranes 1 =
I !I I I mos 'g I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
38 I I 1. Utili ty and Plant: Los Angeles _ Deptm.of_ Water _and_ Power.. Valley Steam Plant 2. fiumber of Units and Power Output: 4-10D_Hdml00 ffL 156 W. 1% W l I 3. Crane Type: Gantry __ Year CuiIt: gggt_ 4. Crane Lcca tion: Turbine Deck and Ex_ ten _sion_s 5. Crane Geometry: a) Bridge girder span: 45+ ft. b) Height: approx. 50 #t. ] c) Width: 45+ ft, d) Welded Structure: Yes. _x_.. flo i 6. Lift Capacity: 180 tons 8 7. Crane Weight: 295,000 lbs.
- 3) Bridge Weight:
100,000+ lbs. I b) Trolley Weight: _..5 6,500_.l b.s.. 3. Rail Size: 175 lb. Carnegie-Illin.ois I 9. Rail Anthorage/ Clip Detail: l i __ 27 _in.__ Double / Single Flanged: 10. .sh eel Size: 'I I .I TABLE 1
39 I I 1. Utili ty and Plant: City of Burbank, Olive Power Plant I 2. ?! amber of Units and Power Output: 2 (44 MW-1959. 55 MW-1964) I j 3. Crane Type: Gantry Year Built: 1958 4. Crane Location: Turbine Bldg. I I S. Crane Geometry: a) Bridge girder span: 40 ft. b) Height: 34'-3" c) Width: 22' d) Welded Structure: Yes No 6. Lift Capacity: 40 Tons k 7. Crane Weight: ~138.0 a) Bridge Weight: b) Trolley Weight: I 8. Rail Size: 1004 8 9. Rail Anchorage / Clip Detail: Rail covered w/ concrete i
- 10. Wheel Size:
27" Double / Single Flanged: Other cranes? Gantry: Bridge: I TABLE 2 2 J ' 7: I Ens;
i 40 I I 1. Utility and Plant: City of Glendale. Glendale Power Plant 2. Number of Units and Power Output. 312 MW 3. Crane Type: Gantry Year Built. 1940 4. Crane Location: 5. Crane Geometry: a) Bridge girder span: b) Height: i j c) Width: I d) Weldei Structure: Yes No __ 6. Lift Capacity: 75 ton / 15 ton 7. Crane Weight: a) Bridge Weight: b) Trolley Weight: 8. Rail Size: I 0 Rail Anchorage / Clip Detail: 10. Wheel Size: Double / Single Flanged: 1I lI I TABLE 3
l8 41 l!I
- I l.
Utili ty and Plant: City of Pasadena, Pasadena Power Plant
- I i
2. Number of Units and Power Output: 3. Crane Type: Modified Gantry Year Built: 4. Crane Location: I 5. Crane Geometry: a) Bridge girder span: l b) Height: c) Width: e i d) Welded Structure: Yes x Na !l 6. Lif t Capacity: 50 Tons 7. Crane Weight: __ l a) Bridge Weight: b) Trolley Weight: 8. Rail Size: 9. Raii Anchorage / Clip Detail: I
- 10. Wheel Size:
Double / Single Flangec: I l i I TABLE 4 =f , = I
,
= ~M
I 42 ,I 1. Utility and Plant: So. Calif Edison. Ormond Beach Power Plant 2. Number of Units and Power Output: 2 (750 MW each) lI 3. Crane Type: Gantry Year Built: 1970 ,E 4. Crane Location: Turbine Deck: 40 ft. above around 5. Crane Geometry: a) Bridge girder span: 58 ft. approx. b) Height: 46 ft. c) Width: 43 ft. d) Welded Structure: Yes x No 6. Lift Capacity: 90 tons 7. Crane Weight: 291.300 lbs. a) Bridge Weight: 232.700 lbs. b) Trolley Weight: 43.600 lbs. 8. Rail Size: 135 lbs. 9. Rail Anchorage / Clip Detail: embedded in concrete I 10. Wheel Size: 24" Double / Single Flanged: I I I TAFLE 5 ~1. I
43 I
- I 1.
Utility and Plant: Pacific Gas & Electric, Humboldt Bay Power Plant 2. Number of Units and Power Output: 3 (53 MW. 54 MW. 65 MW-nuclear) I 3. Crane Type: Single-leq qantry Year Built: 1955 I 4. Crane Location: Over turbine deck 5. Crane Geometry: a) Bridge girder span: 70 ft.+ b) Height: 32 ft. c) Width: 20 ft. d) Weldeo Structure: Yes x No 6. Lift Capacity: 25 tons I 7. Crane Weight: 90,000 lbs. a) Bridge Weight: b) Trolley Weight: I 8. Rail Size: 80 lbs. 9. Rail Anchorage / Clip Detail: I 10. Wheel Size: 23 in. Double / Single Flanged: I I I TABLE 6 ~l ? =
=::
I 44 I 1. Utility and Plant: Pacific Gas & Electric. Humboldt_Jav Power Plant I 2. tiumber of Units and Power Output: 3 (53 f4W, 54 MW, 65 f{l-nuclear) I 3. Crane Type: Bridge Year Built: 1963 I 4. Crane Location: Refueling (Containment) Building I 5. Crane Geometry: a) Bridge girder span: 43 ft. b) Height: c) Wid th : 20 ft. d) Welded Structure: Yes x fio I 6. Lift Capacity: 75 tons 7. Crane Weight: 100,000 lbs. apprcx. ~ a) Bridge Weight: b) Trolley Weight: 8. Rail size: 100 lb. 9. Rail Anchorage / Clip Detail: >I a 10. Wheel Size: 24 in. Double / Single Flanged: !I lI (ABLE 7 =: -- r = >I 1 ~
I 45 I
- I 1.
Utility and Plant: Imperial Irrication District: El Centro Power Plant 2. Number of Units and Power Output: 4, , 80MW I 3. Crane Type: Bridge Year Built: 1 1 1 4. Crane Location: Turbine building I 5. Crane Geometry: 1 a) Bridge girder span: '55' l b) Height: c) Width 1 d) Welded Structure: Yes No
- I 6.
Lift Capacity: 7. Crane Weight: I a) Bridge Weight: b) Trolley Weight: I 8. Rail Size: 9. Rail Anchorage / Clip Deta ;l: 10. Wheel Size: Double / Single Flanged: I I I TABLE S
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e a 'l 1 TABLE 9 l l
SUMMARY
EARTHQUAVF. DATA f, SALIENT CRAflE CHARACTERISilCS 1 i 1 Zero Damage Period Lift Crane Bridge Yes Accel. Crane Year Cap. Weight Span Height or ) i PI_ ant Name & Lncation Earthquake g's Type Built Tons 1,000 lbs Ft. Ft. No l Valley Steam, Los Angeles, CA 2/1971 0.40 Gantry 1954 180 295 45 50 No j Olive, Burbank, CA 2/1971 0.35 Gantry 1958 40 138 40 34 rio ) Glendale, CA 2/1971 0.30 Gan try 75 No l Pasadena, CA 2/1971 0.20 Single-leg 50 No Gantry EllALUF, Managua, Nica ragua 12/1972 0.70 Bridge 1957 80 50-/0 No ENALUF, Managua, Nicaragua 12/1972 0.70 Bridge 1950s 10? 30-40 Yes Onnond Beach, Oxnard, CA 2/1973 0.15-0.20 Gantry 19/0 90 291 58 46 tio Humboldt Bay, CA 6/1975 0.30 Single-leg 19SS 25 90 70+ 32 fio Gantry Humboldt 2ay, CA 6/1975 0.30 Bridge 1963 75 100+ 43 No l l Fukusbiriio, Japan 6/1978 0.12 Several 1965-/8 225t Several Several Several No j Inc erial Irr. District 10/1979 0.51 Bridge 55 No [l Centro, CA f Ht..oboldt Bay, CA 11/1980 0.27 Single-leg 1955 25 90 70+ 32 No Gantry Humboldt Bay, CA 11/1980 0.27 Bridge 1963 75 100+ 43 No Big Rock Point, MI SSL U.12 Single-leg 1962 75 144 36 32 Gantry L}}