ML20081C373

Seismic Margin Review,Miscellaneous Subsystems & Components

ML20081C373
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	02/29/1984
From:	Narver R, Wesley D STRUCTURAL MECHANICS ASSOCIATES
To:
Shared Package
ML20081C363	List: ML20081C360 ML20081C373
References
SMA-13701.05R, SMA-13701.05R00, SMA-13701.05R003-V10, SMA-13701.05R3-V10, NUDOCS 8403140026
Download: ML20081C373 (200)

Text

_

SMA 13701.05R003 (VOLUME X) l l

SEISMIC MARGIN REVIEW MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER PROJECT VOLUME X MISCELLANEOUS SUBSYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS by R. D. Campbell D. A. Wesley P. E. Hansen I. Husain E. C. Schewe C. A. Wallace R. Peek Approved: / Approved: M, h, 7M D. A. Wesley / R. B. Narver Vice President Acting Manager Quality Assurance prepared for CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Jackson, Michigan February, 1984 g g STRUCTURRL mECHRnKS

- ASSOCIATES A C a lef Cote 5160 BVch Street, Newport Beach, Cahf. 92660 (714) 833 7552 8403140026 840301 PDR ADOCK 05000329 A PDR

REVISIONS Document Number SMA 13701.05R003 (V0LUME X)

Title SEISMIC MARGIN REVIEW MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER PROJECT VOLUME X, MISCELLANEOUS SUBSYSTEMS AND COMP 0NENTS R@v. Description QA Project Manager 10/ 983 Draft for Review i -

ro/iqr3 44 p-<r-r3 o 2,&76 f t. h 1/1984 2nd Draft .

R.k % W l 6f 2/1984 Initial Issue

[2L 2l'Ibl64 j

SEISMIC MARGIN REVIEW

, MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME NO. TITLE I METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA s II REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING III AUXILIARY BUILDING IV SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE V ,

DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING VI BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK VII ELECTRICAL, CONTROL, INSTRUMENTATION AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT VIII NSSS EQUIPMENT AND PIPING IX BALANCE-0F-PLANT CLASS 1, 2 AND 3 PIPING, PIPE SUPPORTS AND VALVES X MISCELLANE0US SUBSYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-1-1 2 SEISMIC MARGIN MF.THODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA . . X-2-1 3

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS ............... X-3-1 4 HVAC SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-4-1 4.1 HVAC Systems .................. X-4-1 4.2 Applicable Codes, Standards and Specifications . X-4-2 4.3 HVAC Ducting and Supports . . . . . . . . . . . . X-4-3 4.4 Acceptance Criteria for HVAC Ducts .... . X-4-5 4.5 Control Tower HVAC Ducting and Supports . . . . . X-4-8 4.5.1 Description ............... X-4-8 4.5.2 Ducting Model and Analysis Procedure . . . X-4-9 4.5.3 Load Conditions ............. X-4-10 4.5.4 Re3ults ................. X-4-11 4.6 Diesel Generator Building HVAC Ducting and Supports .................... X-4-11 4.6.1 Description ............... X-4-11 4.6.2 Ducting Model and Analysis Procedure . . . X-4-12 4.6.3 Load Conditions ............. X-4-13 4.6.4 Results ................. X-4-13 5 CABLE TRAY SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5-1 5.1 Cable Tray Codes and Standards ......... X-5-3 5.2 Analysis Metnods ................ X-5-4 5.3 Acceptance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5-6 5.4 Loads and Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . X-5-9 5.5 Evaluation of Cable Tray Torsional Constants .. X-5-10 5.6 Upper Cable Spreading Room ........... X-5-12 5.6.1 Description of Cable Trays . . . . . . . . X-5-12 5.6.2 Seismic Margin Earthquake Loading .... X-5-13 5.6.3 Mathematical Models ........... X-5-14 5.6.4 Results of Analysis ........... X-5-15 5.7 Auxiliary Building - East / West EPA ....... X-5-15 _,

5.7.1 Description of Cable Trays Selected for Evaluati on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5-16 i l

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section- ', Title M 5.7.2 Seismic Margin Earthquake Loading .... X-5-17 5.7.3 Mathematical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5-17 5.7.4 Results of Analysis ........... X-5-18 5.8 Reactor Building ................ X-5-18 5.8.? Description of Cable Trays . . . . . . . . X-5-18 5.8.2 Seismic Margin Ecrthquake Loading .... X-5-19 5.8.3 Mathematical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5-19 5.8.4 Results of the Analysis ......... X-5-20 5.9 Auxiliary Building ............... X-5-20 5.9.1 Description of the Cable Tray System . . . X-5-21 5.9.2 Mathematical flodel . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5-22 5.9.3 Results of the Analysis ......... X-5-22 5.10 Service Water Pump Structure .......... X-5-23 5.10.1 Description of the Cable Trays . . . . . . X-5-23 5.10.2 Seismic Margin Earthquake Loading .... X-5-24 5.10.3 Mathematical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . X-5-24 5.10.4 Results of the Analysis ......... X-5-25 6 ELECTRICAL CONDUIT SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-6-1 6.1 Selection of Conduit / Support Combinations for SME Evaluation ............... X-6-1 6.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-6-3 6.3 Acceptance Cri teria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-6-4 6.4 Mathematical Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-6-7 6.4.1 Reactor Building (RB) .......... X-6-7 6.4.2 Auxiliary Buildin - Electrical Penetration Area EPA) . . . . . . . . . . X-6-8 6.4.3 Service Water Pump Structure . . . . . . . X-6-8 6.4.4 Diesel Generator Building (DGB) ..... X-6-8 6.4.5 Computer Model Data ........... X-6-9 6.5 Resul ts of Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-6-9 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title rage 7 UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-7-1 7.1 Determination of Soil Strains . . . . . . . . . . X-7-2 7.2 Emergency Diesel Storage Tanks ......... X-7-5 7.3 Emergency Pond Discharge Lines ......... X-7-6 7.3.1 Axial and Bending Stresses . . . . . . . . X-7-8 7.3.2 Joint Closing or Pullout . . . . . . . . . X-7-10 7.3.3 Transverse Thrust and Bending in the Pipe Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-7-10 7.3.4 Seismic Motion of the Service Water Pump Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-7-12 7.4 Electrical Duct Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X-7-13 7.4.1 Acceptance Criteria ........... X-7-13

, 7.4.2 Analysis of a Long, Straing Duct Bank .. X-7-14 7.4.3 Analysis of a Typical Bend . . . . . . . . X-7-17 7.4.4 Stresses Due to Building Motion ..... X-7-20 4

iii

r

1. INTRODUCTION As part of the seismic margin earthquake (SME) study being conducted for the Midland Nuclear Power Plant, a variety of miscellaneous related structures and equipnent were evaluated to denonstrate that

. adequate margins exist during an SME to perform their intended function.

The emphasis of the SME evaluation is on the structures and equipment necessary for safe shutdown of the plant's reactors. This volume contains the evaluation conducted for miscellaneous subsystems and components that are not included in the previous nine volumes. Miscellaneous subsystems and components selected for evaluation under SME loading are thought to be a representative sample of the more highly loaded safety-related equipnent at the plant. The following subsystems and components were investigated to determine the safety margins for the SME:

1. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning >

' distribution systems (HVAC) and their supports

2. Electrical cable tray distribution systems and their supports

3. Electrical conduit distribution systems and their supports

4. Suried structures and subsystems

a. Diesel storage tanks and foundations

b. Emergency pond discharge system

c. Electrical duct bank distribution system The sampling is based upon criticality of function, potential vulnerability of equipment to seismic loading and system locations in the plant. Sample size varies. Some sample sizes are 100 percent as in the case of the buried diesel fuel storage tanks wherein, HVAC and cable tray systems sample size is relatively small and is concentrated in areas of X-1-1

high seismic input. Electrical conduits are analyzed on a generic basis, while the two buried storage tanks are analyzed specifically for as-built conditions. For the HVAC systems and cable tray systems, detailed analyses were conoucted for the selected samples. Systems were selected at locations where the SME spectra applicable to the selected system exceeded the FSAR spectra in at least one earthquake component direction in a discrete frequency range. The selections were more concentrated in areas where the SME spectra exceeded the FSAR spectra by the greatest amounts. Very large vertical amplification of floor spectra at the center of the floor slab at Elevation 685' in the auxiliary building control tower was predicted. For this reason, cable tray systems in the upper cable spreading room were included in the sample size.

This report is divided into seven chapters, each intended to sumarize the analytical studies of the subsystem or component. The reports concentrate on analysis and acceptance criteria methodology and results of the seismic margin study.

Chapter 2 defines the seismic methodology, acceptance criteria and defines the code margin, CM, and seismic margin f actor, F 3gg.

Chapter 3 presents a sumary of the analyses, the resulting seismic margins and conclusions.

Chapter 4 presents the analytical study of selected HVAC systems for SME loading.

Chapter 5 presents the study of selected safety-related electrical cable tray systems for SME loading.

Chapter 6 presents the evaluation of safety-related electrical conduit distribution systems for SME loading.

Chapter 7 presents the investigation of selected underground safety-related structures at the plant for SME loading. -

X-1-2 i

2. SEISMIC MARGIN METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The margin relative to code allowable, CM, is defined as the ratio of the allowable load or stress to the total combined load or stress resulting from normal operation plus the SME.

=

"A CM (2-1)

N + "SME In addition, a factor, FSME, relative to the seismic margin earth-quake, SME, is defined as the factor by which the SME would have to be increased to raise the combined normal plus seismic stress level to the allowable stress value. In general, the F SME is defined as:

A- N F

SME'

= (2-2)

SME In the above equations, A

= Allowable stress value C

N

= Stress due to normal operating loads "SME = Stress due to the SME For those cases, for which results of original design analysis was scaled and it was not feasible to separate out the stress contribution of normal operating loads from the total stress, the minimum code margin and seismic f actor have been conservatively calculated as:

A CM or F

• SME*(OSSE * #N; F (2-3)

X-2-1

where F is a scale f actor denoting the ratio of SME/SSE loading. The resulting margin is conservative since the normal load response is scaled upward along with the SME response.

Seismic margin methodology, allowable stress ( A) and appropriate load combinations are sunnarized in Volume I for reinforced concrete and steel structures, steel supports, and concrete anchors. Some additional specialized criteria were developed by Bechtel based on structural tests of cable trays, conduit attachments a>.d HVAC ducting.

In addition, criteria for specialized underground structures were adapted from existing codes and standards for purposes of the seismic margin study. Tables X-2-1 through X-2-8 sunnarize the applicable acceptance criteria for the subsystems and components ~ contained in this Volume.

Additional discussion on specialized acceptance criteria developed from test data or adapted from existing codes and standards is presented in the chapters where the criteria are applied.

X-2-2

Table X-2-1 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR HVAC, CABLE TRAY AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS Load Combination Allowable Stress

• D + L + SME 1.6 S or Y Where:

D = Dead Load L = Live Load SME = Loading from Seismic Margin Earthquake Effects and Differential Anchor Motion S = Working Stress Allowable from AISC Code, 8th Edition,1980 Y = Section Strength Required to Resist Design Loads and Based on Plastic Design Methods Described in Part 2 of the AISC Code

• Allowable stress based upon AISC Code, 8th Edition, Part 2, Plastic Design and NUREG-0800

~ .

X-2-3

Table X-2-2 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND SUPPORTS Attachment Mechanism Sup o t Load Conduit Combination Conduit Clamps Pipe Straps Allowable Allowable Stress Stress k

D+ L+SME Allowable Loads Allowable Loads 2.4S h

b

per Bechtel per Bechtel Table Test Program Test Program X-2-1 s

where:

D = Dead Load of Conduit L = Live Loads from Electrical Cables SME = Load Effects of Seismic Hargin Earthquake S

h

= Allowable Stress for ANSI B31.1 Piping X-2-4

Table X-2-3 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR DIESEL FUEL STORAGE TANKS Load Combination Allowable Pressure D+SME P Where:

D = External Pressure on Tank Due to Overburden SME = External Pressure on Tank Due to SME P = Allowable External Pressure on Tank from the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code X-2-5

Table X-2-4 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR EMERGENCY POND DISCHARGE PIPES Load Combination Allowable Stress D+L+SME+W In Concrete: F t

rF pt 0#

c In Cylinder Steel: S Wher_e:

F = 7.5 f'* = Allowable Tensile Stress in Concrete the Applied t

loadsEanbecarriedinthecrackedstatewitho. erstressing the steel F =4 f' = Allowable Principal Tension in Concrete Due , Shear pt Forc6s F

c

= 0.55 F'* = Allowable Compressive Strength in Concrete S = Allowable Working Stress from AISC Code, 8th Edition,1980 D, L, SME and W are the stresses, as determined by elastic theory due to dead load, live load, the SME, and water pressure or vacuum respectively 0 Criteria adopted from the American Water Works Association Code, AWWA C-301-72 e

X-2-6

Table X-2-5 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR DUCT BANKS Load Combination Member Capacity D+SME U s

Where:

D r= Dead Load SME = Member force due to the SME U = Member Capacity from the ACI Standard 318-77 s'

e X-2-7

TABLE X-2-6 LOADING COMBINATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS FOR COMPONENT SUPPORT ANCHORAGE l ,2 Loading Embedded Combination Anchors Grouted Anchors Expansion Anchors D+L+To+Ro+SME Lesser of Allowable loads per Allowable loads per U or 1.65 Bechtel Specifica- Bechtel Specification tion 7220-C-3060 7220-C-305Q where:

D = Dead loads from attached equipment or piping L = Live loads from attached equipment or piping To= Restraint of free end thermal displacement of attached equipment or piping Ro= Pipe and equipment reactions during normal operating ter shutdown conditions not already included in D+L+To (i.e., piping reactions on vessel which are transmitted to ressel anchors)

SME= Load effects of Seismic Margin Earthquake including effects of differential anchor movement.

U= Ultimate pullout strength per ACI 349-80, Appendix B S= Allowable working stress per AISC Code, 8th edition, 1920.

NOTES:

1. Load combinations are consistent with NUREG-0800 Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4; ACI 349-1980 Section 9.2, and Regulatory Guide 1.142.

2. Strength criteria are consistent with NUREG-0300, Standard Review: Plan, Section 3.E.4; ACI 349-1980, Appendix B and AISC Part 2, eighth edition, 198 .

X-2-8

TABLE X-2-7 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR ELECTRICAL CABLE TRAYS Load Combination Allowable Loading

• 2 b

D + SME D_ ,

[YV,\ 2. (E \ 2 L

]

Y y

( yj (YT/ . lh .

OR b

M (EL )2

- - + I "V\2 +

D I" "UV l

(

- l

" T)l2 +1 d)l

<1

_"UV) UT) ,

Where D = Dead load of cable tray plus contents SME = Load effects of seismic margin earthquake E

V,T,L

= Calculated seismic acceleration (g's)

Y = Allowable uniform load derived from static collapse tests V,T,L M = Bending moment due to dead weight of cable tray and contents D

M V,T

= Bending moment in cable tray due to seismic loading M

UV,UT

= Allowable bending moment derived from static load collapse tests V,T,L = Vertical, transverse and longitudinal directions

• See Chapter 5 for basis of allowable cable tray loading determined by testing X-2-9

---

__J

TABLE X-2-8 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR HVAC DUCTING Ducting Support Load Combination Allowable Loading Allowable Stress D + P + SME 0.5 cr See Table X-2-1 Where D = Deah weight of ducting and. insulation P = External pressure specified for design SME = Load effects of seismic margin earthquake "cr*= Calculated buckling stress for flat sheets in biaxial compression

• Calculated a conservative.cr'was Seedemonstrated Chapter 4 forby details external pressure of test resultsbuckling tests to be vs calculated cr*

X-2-10

l f-

3.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS All miscellaneous subsystems and components evaluated have been demonstrated to have code margins relative to the seismic margin earth-quake of greater than unity without modification of hardware. In most cases, the margins were quite large with only a few cases occurring where the margins were close to unity. An important differentiation is made between code margin, CM, and the seismic margin factor, FSME as defined by Equations 2-1 and 2-2. The seismic margin factor was defined as the

• factor by which the seismic rirgin earthquake would have to be raised for the combined normal operating plus seismic response to reach code allowable. This factor is always equal to or greater than the code margin and is a more meaningful measure of the seismic capacity beyond the SME than code margin. In most cases, the seismic margin factor is significantly greater than the code margin.

A summary of minimum code margins and seismic factors, FSME' for the HVAC systems analyzed are listed in Table X-3-1. A summary of minimum margins for the cable tray systems analyzed are presented in Table X-3-2. In both, the HVAC and cable tray systems, the seismic margins relative to code allowable or allowables derived by testing are greater than 1.0 and the systems are considered acceptable for the SME event. The minimum code margins for HVAC and Cable Tray Systems are 2.6 and 1.13, respectively. The corresponding seismic factors are 8.6 and 1.21, respectively.

Table X-3-3 presents minimum code margins and seismic factor for conduit and the conduit supporting elements. The limiting case was a 3-inch diameter conduit clamp in conjunction with support type 13. The code margin and seismic f actor for the limiting element are 1.10 and 1.13, respectively. -

X-3-1

The minimum seismic margin for the emergency diesel fuel oil storage tanks is presented in Table X-3-4. The minimum code margin is 1.5 relative to code allowable and the corresponding seismic factor is 2.3. Therefore, the tanks have more than ample margin for the SME.

Table X-3-5 presents the minimum seismic margins derived for the emergency pond discharge lines. The discharge pipes have a minimum code margin of 1.2 with a corresponding seismic factor of 12.0 and are acceptable for the SME event.

For the electrical duct banks, the minimum code margin is listed in Table X-3-6 to be 4.5. The seismic factor is also 4.5, therefore, typical duct banks are considered qualified for the SME.

X-3-2

l l

I l

l Table X-3-1

SUMMARY

OF SEISMIC MARGINS - HVAC SYSTEMS Maximum Minimum Minimum HVAC System System Element Stress

~'

Ratio Code Margin Seismic Factor CM F SME Aux. Building Duct 0.25 < 1.0 4.0 15.8 Support Angle 0.054 < 1.0 18.5 19.5 Diesel Gen. Bldg. Duct 0.28 < 1.0 3.6 17.2 Support Anchor 0.39 < 1.0 2.6 8.6 Bolts O

X-3-3

. --___ __ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ - _J

l l c .

i mE s M i S eF S , 4 1 4 4 3 6 2 0 9 8 2 r 1 2 3 1 7 6 6 5 2 6 4 m o . .

u t 2 1 5 0 1 9 2 3 2 2 1 i

m c 1 n a i

F M

d e

n io b i

- mt 8 4 8 S oa 3 9 1

3 6 1 7 6 3 9 9 1 Y

A CR 6 8 3 1 7 1 4 3 5 4 7 ms R .

0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 us E me ir L xt B aS A M C

S

, N I

G d

l n n R 4 e o n io a

A n 5, W i p s M o s i 0 3 t n S n C 8 st4 8 1 5 7 e6 at at I l 3 nl 6 9 2 # 2 l1 4 pl 6 m pl9 M a # ao# # # # l# # xo# u xo#

S ca pB s i EB mEB I ie t x t t t t t Ft t t i t E

S tr iA n Ern e oe n

e e n ne n e " e n n 4rn e oe x

a 4rnoe F C r m"h m e 4ce m mm e el le m6m e 1 e m "h m e 2ce M

"2 ce hm O l /nl l l /l l /nl

'8 /nl E 3AE E E E E 3E E 1AE 1AE Y

R A

M M

U  :

S t t e

s s r m e e u o W W t o - - c R t t u s s ) r g a a Q t y n E g E J S a i t t n  : t B t r p t

r rm d r g r i e r g 2 Te a o n o d r o n ( o p

m o p

t e p i p l u p i u es r y p d y y p i t y p d y p P y p l y p a u l a a u u c a u l a u a u bS S r S i r r S B u r S i r S r r S a T u T T r T u T y

e T y

C e y B y t t y B t l e a e el a n S e a e a a e a b l r y l r el l r y l r W l r a b T r b b T m b T r b T b T C a a a a n a a a a e a C e i C C e i n C e i C e c C e r l l  : l a r l l  :

g "

l i v

l e " b i g b t e " b i b b '.

p 6 a x n "4 "2 a nt 4 a x n 4 a r "8 a p 3 C u i 2 1 C o n 2 C u i 2 C e 1 C U A W C I AW S 7[ _

llI .l'l! ll !lliL l .l l

Table X-3-3

~

MINIMUM SEISMIC MARGIN FOR ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND SUPPORTS Code Margin Seismic Factor Element CM F SME t Conduit 2.78 3.32 Conduit Strap 1.32 1.57 Conduit Clamp 1.10 1.13 Conduit Support 1.36 1.56 t

f e

E 5

i i

k L

i. .

t i

X-3-5

, , , , -g - - -w+m.--- ,.,.,,,,,.,7... e-+c,,.--,,--e .- ,. , ,, ,~ , ,. .

l L

TABLE X-3-4

. SEISMIC MARGIN FOR

$MERGENCY DIESEL FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS Minimum Seismic

~

Effect Code Margin Factor , F SME.

External Pressure 1.5 2.3 X-3-6

TABLE X-3-5 I

SEISMIC MARGIN FOR EMERGENCY POND DISCHARGE LINES Minimum Seismic Effect Code Margin Factor, F SME Tension Stresses Due to Transverse Thrust and Bending Moments 1.2 12.0 Pullout or Closing at Gasketed Joints 10.0 10.0 Compressive Stresses Due to Transverse Thrust and Bending Moment 1.4 8.6 SWPS Displacement Relative to Clearance for Emergency Pond Discharge Line 9.6 9.6 X-3-7

i l

TABLE X-3-6 SEISMIC MARGIN FOR TYPICAL DUCT BANK Minimum Seismic Element Code Margin Factor,-F SME

~ Typical Bend- 4.5 4.5 i

X-3-8

l

4. HVAC SYSTEMS 4.1 HVAC SYSTEMS

< Two HVAC systems were selected for evaluation. They were the control room HVAC and the diesel generator HVAC. Both systems are in regions of high seismic response and are required for safe shutdown of the plant. A review of Bechtel drawings reveals that the control room ,

HVAC system is mounted at a high elevation in the control tower of the auxiliary building and is quite complex. The portion of the ducting selected extends from the control room air conditioning unit OVM-01A above Elevation 685'-0", down through the upper cable spreading room to the control room ceiling at approximately the 674 foot elevation. It makes several bends and, because of the elevation change, is subjected to a varying seismic excitation. A comparison of SME and FSAR spectra indicates' that, in the North-South direction the applicable SME spectrum exceeds the SSE spectrum in the rigid range. Ducting and supports were found to be essentialy rigid. Significant vertical floor amplification exists at Elevation 685' and the resulting vertical zero period acceler-ation (ZPA) is about twice that of the FSAR spectrum. This system meets all of the selection criteria for criticality of function, location in a high acceleration region of the structure and complexity and is considered to be an excellent representation of the more critical systems in the plant.

The second ducting system selected originates at one of the HVAC supply f ans located above Elevation 664'-0" in the diesel generator building and is routed downward into a header system at Elevation 661'-2". A canparison of SME to FSAR spectra shows that the SME spectra exceed the SSE spectra by as much as 50 percent in the rigid range in the two horizontal directions. This again is considered an excellent example, meeting all of the selection criteria.

e X-4-1

Samples were not selected from either the containment structure or the service water pump structure principally on the basis that the two ducting runs selected represent the most critical functions in the plant for safe shutdown. They are mounted in very high acceleration region of their respective structure, are complex, and in representative regions of response frequency ranges, the SME spectra exceed the SSE spectra by a substantial amount. Since ducting tends to be very rigid, the large exceedance of the SME over the FSAR SSE in the rigid range of the control tower and diesel generator building spectra represents a maximum exceedance in the most probable fundamental frequency range for HVAC ducti ng. Seismic margins computed for the ducting systems selected were very large and further samples are not considered necessary. This conclusion is reinforced by results of a test program, References 4, 5 and 6, wherein ducting was subjected to simulated seismic loading and external pressure loading. Conclusions from the test program were that dead load and seimic-induced stresses resulting from beam bending between supports were quite low and, in general, can be neglected as long as the span spacing is controlled to limits specified in Reference 1.

4.2 APPLICABLE CODES, STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS The installation of HVAC is governed by Reference 1, as well as industry codes and standards referenced in the specification. Specific industry codes and standards specified for the design and construction of HVAC ducting that are pertinent to structural strength or func; ion under seismic loading conditions are as follows:

, 1. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

[ Section IX, Welding and Brazing Qualifications.

l 2. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

l

3. American Welding Society, Structural Welding Code AWS Dl.1-7 Rev. 2, (1977) or AWS Dl.79; and Specification for Welding Sheet Steel in Structures, AWS D1.3-1978; Welding Procedure and Performance Qualification, AWS B3.0-1977, Table 2.1, Paragraph 2.1 (PlA materials) only; Specification for Welding of Sheet Metal, AWS -

D9.1-80 -

X-4-2

4. American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI):

Specification for Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members,1%8 and Supplementary l Information on the 1968 Edition of the  ;

Specification for the Design of Cold-fonned Steel l Structural Members (Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual-PartII)

5. Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association (SMACNA) Low Velocity Duct Construction Standards and High Velocity Duct Construction Standards

6. Local and/or Michigan Building Codes and Standards as applicable In addition to the standards and codes applicable to the ductwork itself, support design was based on the applicable sections of

" Specification for Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 7th Edition." American Institute of Steel Construction, 1970, Reference 3.

There are no regulatory guides directly applicable to HVAC seismic design. Load combinations that are applicable to structural supports are specified in NUREG-75/087, Standard Review Plan, currently revised and re-released as NUREG-800, Reference 2.

4.3 HVAC DUCTING AND SUPPORTS HVAC ducting support spacings for the Midland Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 are specified in Reference 1 so that the ducting is considered rigid (frequency greater than 33 Hz). In the seismic margin study, the HVAC ducting supports were also found to be rigid. Conse-quently, the SME evaluation of the ducting and their supports has been carried out by static analysis methods. Each of the supports have been represented by a finite element model to determine the deflections and internal load distributions resulting from Ig tributory weights of the ducting and the support structural members applied separately in the three principal directions (longitudinal, transverse and vertical). From the resulting deflections, the fundamental frequencies of the supports X-4-3

have been calculated and verified to be in or near the rigid range. The spectral acceleration values were then obtained from the applicable response spectra for 3 percent of critical damping values. Since the supports turned out to be essentially rigid, the appropriate spectral accelerations were the zero period accelerations (ZPAs). Seismic forces, moments, and stresses in the support members have been calculated by scaling the results of the lg tributory weight analysis to the appropriate spectral acceleration values.

HVAC ducting used at the Midland Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 are generally rectangular ducts. Rectangular ducting, because of the large flat sheet sections, is more buckling critical than stress critical and are more buckling sensitive than circular ducts. There is an absence of generally accepted structural design criteria for Category I HVAC ducts. The comonly used standard of " Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors Natic,.ial Association (SMACNA)" is based on performance only ,

and designs based on this standard do not necessarily satisfy the intended requirements for Seismic Category I structures and equipment.

Results from a test program previously conducted were used in support of the Midland HVAC design and results of that program were incorporated in the seismic margin review. The test results are sumarized in References 4, 5 and 6.

The test program results indicated that the ducting was signifi-cantly more sensitive to external pressure (vacutrn condition) than beam bending stresses introduced by seismic and weight loading. As a result i

of the test program, generic stiffener spacing, support spacing and sheet metal thicknesses were specified to f acilitate production design without

( detailed individual analysis for each duct run. In the seismic margin l

study, stress acceptance criteria were developed for ducting in order to l test the standard designs in areas where the seismic margin earthquake i spectra exceeded the FSAR SSE spectra by the greatest amount.

~

I X-4-4

HVAC ducting supports are fabricated from structural steel shapes, i.e., angles, channels and struct tral tubing. Stress analysis has been perfomed in accordance with American Institute of Steel Construction: " Manual of Steel Construction." Stress acceptance criteria applied in the seismic margin study for HVAC ducting supports are sumarized in Table X-2-1.

4.4 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR HVAC DUCTS Buckling stress acceptance criteria were developed for thin r':ctangular panels from Reference 8. Two cases arise for rectangular ducti ng. For a case of zero pressure, stress will only be introduced in the axial direction of the duct from dead weight and se smic loading.

The second case considers a vacuum condition occurring in which the effective external pressure imposes biaxial compression in the ducting and dead weight and seismic loading produce axial compression. Buckling stress acceptance criteria were derived for the two cases. One criterion is based upon a rectangular plate under equal uniform compression on two opposite edges, where all four edges are simply supported (Figure 4-1).

From Reference 8, buckling stress, c', equals:

2 c'=K E (4_i) 1-u, where:

K = Constant dependent upon a/b E = Modulus of elasticity v = Poisson's ratio t = Thickness of plate b = Plate width (Figure X-4-1)

X-4-5

e The second criterion is based upon a rectangular plate under uniform compression o on edges b and uniform compression oy on edges a, where all four edges are simply supported, (Figure X-4-2). Buckling stress, c' and o', becomes':

m 2

n 2 2 2 np 2

o'-y+o' y = 0.8231 (Et)lIm 2

-+-

2 l (4-2) a Yb (1-u /l(a bj where:

a and b are plate length and width (Figure X-4-2) and m and n are the number of half waves in the buckled plate in the x and y direction, respectively.

The solution to Equations 4-2 may require an iterative process.

i To find o' for a given c y, take m=1, n=1 if:

{ a"\

/

(4-3)

Cll-4 "/I<o*<C(5+2*2\

l I 2

l

( b \ bj where l

2 C = 0.823 Et (q_q) 2 (1-u),2 P

If o xis too large to satisfy this inequality, take n=1 and m to satisfy

( .

2 a

7. 2 a,.

C 2m -2m+1+2 _' < <C 2m + 2m+1+2 -- (4-5) x

. b. . b-O X-4-6 l

t-

l l

If o xis too small to satisfy the first inequality, take m=1 and n to satisfy 2 2 C 1-n (n-1)2 a-- < x<C 1-n (n+1)2 a - (4-6) b_ _ b_

The acceptance criteria for HVAC ducting is taken as one-half of the critical buckling stress calculated by the above equations.

Compressive stresses resulting from the external pressure, dead weight and SME seismic loads have been compared against the above acceptance criteria. The test data of References 4, 5 and 6 have been examined to verify that the stress acceptance criteria derived from theoretical elastic buckling equations is conservative. The tests conducted to failure were all external pressure tests without superimposed weight on seismic loading. Since the support spacing requirements of Reference 1 result in rigid sections of ducting, seismic loading is anticipated to produce much lower stresses in the ducting than the ,

critical stress resulting from external pressure.

The pressure tests to failure introduce biaxial compressive stresses in the sheet metal ducting. From the geometry of the test

ducting and the observed critical pressure, the biaxial stress field was calculated assuming that no lateral load was taken by the stiffners. The ratio of lateral to axial stress and the test ducting geometry were then used in Equation 4-2 to calculate the equivalent critical pressure that would produce buckling in a simply supported flat sheet (Figure X-4-2).

Table X-4-1 compares critical pressure determined by test to critical pressure calculated by Equation 4-2. It is observed that Equation 4-2 which was the basis for stress acceptance criteria for combined pressure, weight and seismic is always conservative. This results primarily from ignoring the load carrying contribution of the ,

X-4-7

I stiffeners in the lateral direction and from the assumption of simply ,

supported edges. The lower ratios between test and theory are for cases of large rectangular cross-section with thicker sheet thickness but without proportional increases in stiffener capacity. In these cases, l the stiffeners f ailed prior to sheet buckling. In applying the stress acceptance criteria based upon Equation 4-2, no credit was taken for reduction in stress in the lateral direction due to load carried by the stiff eners.

In conducting the analyses for pressure, weight and SME, checks were made using Equation 4-1 for the weight and SME case alone and using Equation 4-2 for external pressure (vacuum), weight and SME. In all cases, Equation 4-2 governed.

4.5 CONTROL TOWER HVAC DUCTING AND SUPPORTS 4.5.1 Description The control tower duct system that was analyzed is shown in Figure X-4-3. The relevant Bechtel drawings are:

i 7220-C-864(Q)Rev. 6 7220-C-894(Q)Rev. 12 7220-C-871(Q)Rev. 2 7220-C-907(Q)Rev. 6 7220-C-872(Q)Rev. 5 7220-C-949(Q)Rev. 5 7220-C-878(Q)Rev. 9 7220-C-971(Q)Rev. 3 7220-C-882(Q)Rev. 13 7220-M-525 SH1(Q)Rev. 12

[ 7220-C-884(Q)Rev. 15 7220-M-525 SH3(Q)Rev. 15 7220-C-886(Q)Rev. 7 7220-M-527 SH3(Q)Rev. 11 l

l X-4-8 L

The system ranges in elevation from 668'-6" to 695'-6" and includes four sizes of duct: 28x24, 26x78, 28x60 and 40x40 as well as the necessary reducer ducts. The 28x24 and the 28x60 ducts are made of 18 gage gal-vanized carbon ste'el. The 26x78 and the 40x40 ducts are made of 16 gage galvar.ized carbon steel. The duct material conforms to ASTM A526-71 or ASTM A527-71. A typical HVAC duct support consists of an A-frame f abricated from angles as shown in Figure X-4-4(a).

t 4.5.2 Ducting Model and Analysis Procedure Due to the high moment of inertia of the ducts and their low weight, the frequencies of the duct spans are very high (greater than

33Hz). Therefore, the ducts and their supports were evaluated as rigid beams on flexible supports.

Each of the supports was analyzed as a finite element model using the MODSAP canputer code. A typical model is shown in Figure X-4-4(b).

The tributory weights of the ducting stiffeners, insulation and the structural support weight were lumped at the nodal points. A static load of 1g was applied separately in the three principal axes (longitudinal, transverse, and vertical) to determine the deflection and internal member forces of supports. From the resulting deflections, the fundamental frequencies of the supports were calculated by using Rayleighs method:

f n

= 1 2n [G 6 where G is acceleration of gravity and 6 is the deflection under a lg load.

Spectral acceleration values were taken from the appropriate response spectra in Volume III of this report. In cases where a support lies between two elevations for which spectra were generated, the more severe spectra were used.

~.

f X-4-9

1 Forces and moments in the support members resulting from the lg static loads were scaled to their actual values at the appropriate accel-eration from the response spectra. Stresses in critical members were then calculated using standard methods of structural analysis. Stresses resulting from the accelerations applied in the three principal axes were combined by the SRSS method.

The HVAC ducting were evaluated with respect to buckling criteria as discussed in Section 4.4 4.5.3 Load Conditions Dead Weight of Ducting and Insulation (D&L) - Under normal operating conditions, the ducting and their support system are subjected to the dead weight loading of the duct stiffeners, support elements, miscellageous hardware and 1-1/2 inch thick insulation (3 lbs/ft3 ),

Pressure Load - The maximten design pressure data were taken from Bechtel Drawing C-845. The ducting were subjected to an external pressure equivalent to 4.0 inches of water (0.144 psi).

Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME}, - The HVAC ducting and their sup-port systen were subjected to the 3-dimensional loadings of the horizontal and vertical components of the Seismic Margins Earthquake (SME) in-struc-ture acceleration spectra. The applicable SME in-structure acceleration spectra from Volume III are shown in Figure X-4-5 through X-4-10 and include the vertical amplification resulting from floor flexibility at Elevation 685'-0". The enveloped 3 percent damping spectra for the control tower floon at Elevation 674'-6" and Elevation 685'-0" wert used for the seismic analysis.

X-4-10

4.5.4 Resul ts The frequences calculated for the supports are given in Table X-4-2. Since none of these frequencies fell in the amplified range of the appropriate response spectrum, the ducting and supports were evaluated by static analysis using the appropriate zero period acceleration.

The resulting stresses are very low. The highest SME induced stress in any support member is 1970 psi in detail #18 shown on Bechtel Drawing C-878. The resulting seismic f actor (FSME) is 19.5 and the code margin CM, is 18.5 relative to the AISC code allowable. The highest SME induced stress in any duct is 13.4 psi in a 6'-6" span of 28x24 duct. The nonnal loading stress from external pressure and dead weight is 46.3 psi. The resulting seismic f actor (FSME) is 15.8 and the code margin (CM) is 4.0 relative to the allowable buckling stress.

Table X-4-3 presents the governing seismic margins found in the control tower HVAC system.

4.6 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING HVAC DUCTING AND SUPPORTS l

! 4.6.1 Description The diesel generator building duct system that was analyzed is shown in Figure X-4-11. The relevant Bechtel drawings are:

7220-C-955(Q)Rev. 7 l 7220-C-956(Q)Rev. 5 7220-M-585(Q)Rev. 9 The system ranges in elevation from 643'-6" to 661'-2" and includes five sizes of duct: 30x36, 30x40, 54x54, 60x46 and 60x60 as well I

as the necessary reducer ducts. The 30x36 and the 30x40 ducts are made from 18 gage galvanized carbon steel. The 54x54, 60x46, and 60x60 ducts are made from 16 gage galvanized steel.

i --

I i

X-4-11

The ducts are stiffened by angles attached at four foot intervals. The dacts are supported by frames fabricated from various angles, channels and structural tubes. These are welded either to existing structural steel or to embednent plates within the concrete structure.

4.6.2 Ducting Model and Analysis Pre edure Due to the high moment of inertia of the ducts and their low weight, the frequencies of the duct spans are very high (greater than 33Hz). Therefore, the ducts and their support systems were evaluated as rigid beams on flexible supports.

Each of the supports was analyzed as a finite element model using the MODSAP computer code. Tributary weight of the ducting and the structural support weight were lumped at the nodal points. A static load of Ig was applied separately in the three principle axes (longitudinal, transverse, and vertical) to determine the deflection and internal member forces of supports. From the resulting deflections, the fundamental frequencies of the supports were calculated by using:

In" where G is the acceleration of gravity and 6 is the calculated deflection for a lg load.

Spectral acceleration values were taken from the appropriate response spectra in Volume V. In cases where a support lies between two elevations for which spectra are generated, the more severe spectra were used.

~

X-4-12 j

Forces and moments in the support members resulting from the lg static loads were scaled to their actual values at the appropriate l acceleration from the response spectra. Stresses in critical members were then calculated using standard methods of structural analysis.

! Stresses resulting from the accelerations applied in the three principle

! axes were combined by the SRSS method. l l

The HVAC ducting were evaluated with respect to stresses and i buckling criteria as discussed in Section 4.4 i

4.6.3 Load Conditions Dead Weight of Ducting and Insulation (D+L) - Under normal I operating conditions, the ducting and their support system are subjected to the dead weight loading of the duct, stiffeners, support elements, l miscellaneous hardware and 1-1/2 inch-thick insulation (3 lbs/ft3 ),  !

s I t

! Pressure Load - The maximum design pressure data were taken from l Bechtel Drawing C-845. The ducting are subjected to an external pressure )

equivalent to 4.0 inches of water (0.144 psi).

Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME) - The ducting and their support system were subjected to the 3-dimensional loading of the horizontal and vertical components of the Seismic Margins Earthquake (SME) in-structure acceleration spectra. The SME in-structure acceleration spectra from Volume V are shown in Figures X-4-12 through X-4-17. The enveloped 3 percent damping spectra for the diesel generator building floors at l

Elevation 647'-0" and Elevation 664'-0" were used for the seismic analysis, l

4.6.4 Results

The frequencies calculated for the supports are given in Table l X-4-4. Since none of the frequer.cies are below 33 Hz, the ducting and l supports were evaluated by static analysis using the appropriate zero -

period acceleration. -

X-4-13

The resulting stresses are very low. The highest seismic-induced stress ratio in any support element is 0.39 which occurs in the expansion anchor .balt connection in Detail 10, shown on Bechtel Drawing C-956. This reprssents a seismic factor (FSME) of 8.6 relative to the design allowable. The highest seismic-induced stress in any duct is 8.2 psi in a 6'-5" span of a 30x36 duct. The normal loading stress from external pressure and dead weight is 44 psi. The resulting seismic f actor, FSME, is 17.2 relative to the allowable buckling stress.

Table X-4-5 presents the code margins and seismic factors found in the diesel generator building HVAC system.

l X-4-14

~- _. . .

TABLE X-4-1 COMPARIS0N OF CRITICAL BUCKLING PRESSURE DETERMINED BY TEST TO CRITICAL BUCKLING PRESSURE DETERMINED BY ANALYSIS USING EQUATION 4-2 J

Eq. 4-2 PCR, Test PCR, Test PCR Test Group (pgy) (PSI) Eq. 4-2 P CR 1 1.11 3.77 3.40 1A .58 1.88 3.24 2 .45 1.93 4.29 2A .34 1.50 4.41 3 .30 .87 2.90 4 .30 1.12 3.70 5 .36 1.14 3.17 7 .13 .67 5.15 9 .48 .67 1.40 11 .15 .77 5.13 13 .82 .85 1.04 15 .77 2.35 3.05 16 .37 1.92 5.12 17 .44 1.99 4.52 L

e 5

X-4-15

Table X-4-2 CONTROL TOWER HVAC SUPPORT FREQUENCIES Drawing Support No.

Detail No. No. (Fia. X-4-3) f N-S f I E-W

_v 5 C-971 1 33 194 25 6 C-971 2 33 158 249 3 C-949 3 33 157 45 1,1 C-907 4 284 65 92 13 (1) C-864 5 264 65 45 13(2) C-872 6 409 65 134 14 C-872 7 84 65 182 18 C-878 8 51 370 54

, 7 C-886 9 51 60 419 13 (3) C-956 10 51 320 56 r

I 1

r e

l X-4-16 ,

n -

Table X-4-3 AUXILIARY BUILDING - HVAC DUCTING MINIMUM SEISMIC MARGINS Structural Element Element Support No. Maximum Minimum Minimum Description Number (Fig. X-4-3) Combined Stress Ratio Code Margin Seismic Factor CM F SME HVAC Puct 28"x24" NA NA 0.250 < 1.0 4.0 15.8 y 4"x4"x1/4" 5 3 0.028 < 1.0 35.7 39.7 7 Det. 3 C-949 3"x3"x1/4" 3 8 0.054 < 1.0 18.5 19.5 Cet. 18 C-878 4

' 2"x2"x1/4" 11 9 0.050 < 1.0 20.0 139.5 Det. 7 C-886 l Support Anchorage 15 2 0.140 < 1.0 7.1 29.0 5/8" 4 Expansion Anchor Bolt i Det. 6 C-971 1

4 i

h l

.a

Table X-4-4 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING HVAC SUPPORT FREQUENCIES Drawing Support No.

Detail No. No. (Fig. X a-11) f N-S h f E-W 1 (0.H.) C-956 1 88 165 534 2 (0.H.) C-956 2 88 111 420 3 C-956 3 88 117 297 4

4 (1) C-956 4 88 108 274 4 (2) C-956 5 88 101 259 4 (3) C-956 6 88 100 257 10 C-956 7 88 81 263 9 (1) C-956 8 332 183 115 8 C-956 9 346 187 39 9 (2) C-956 10 349 193 121 9 (3) C-956 11 308 171 108 7 C-956 12 51 216 313 5 (1) C-956 13 51 151 237 5 (2) C-956 14 51 124 243 6 C-956 15 51 61 238 l 2 C-956 16 51 50 254 1 C-956 17 51 69 319 r

i e

X-4-18

Table X-4-5 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING, 'HVAC DUCTING MINIMUM SEISMIC MARGINS Structural Element Element Support No. Maximum Minimum Minimum Description Number (Fig. X-4-11) Combined Stress Ratio Code Margin Seismic Margin CM F SME x

HVAC Duct 30"x36" NA NA 0.28 < 1.0 3.6 17.2 h Support Anchorage 13 7 0.39 < 1.0 2.6 8.6 G 1/2" 4 Expansion Anchor BoIt Detail 10, C-956 3'3" x 31 3 " x'4" Angle 13 7 0.17 < 1.0 5.9 21.7 Detail 10, C-956 Support Welding 13 7 0.18 < 1.0 5.6 24.2 3/16" Fillet Weld Detail 10, C-956 353 "x353 "x'.6" Angle 7 2 0.12 < 1.0 8.3 11.1 Detail 2, C-956

k y_m.J_A & a J ,A+ b aSM AEn--- a &M- 4-+' x-un ~-b~A a-4Ad - ---4-609 'Wb~4"

--

• A e >,"'4 &_h --h--m--~A--J.--a 1--

i f

I-k 4

h 3

O me---

3 h ex , ox b

-

q -

i 4 -

t a 4

f 4

P f

l' l

l r

FIGURE X-4-1 UNIAXIAL STRESS ON FLAT PANEL SIMPLY SUPPORTED ON ALL EDGES i

l l -

}- .

W c

j X-4-20 -

I

- .. -.,_ . _ , . ~ _, ._ -____ - _ , - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . .

Of 9 y if y y p p d

=  %

= .e- ---

ex ,  ; ox b

=- n

> 4----

1r h h a d 6 6 a of a

i l

P l

i FIGURE X-4-2 BIAXIAL STRESS ON FLAT PANEL SIMPLY SUPPORTED ON ALL EDGES l

i X-4-21

, .- .,_-,-,m. - - , ,-4 _ - - . . , , - , , . - , _ , , - . . . - - - _ , , , - - - - - - - - - - , ,

~

"A" .

2 3 Support - 1 N d ers 28 x 60 n

-. 40 x 40 4

~

5 -. 28 x 60 Duct Size 6 '

26 x 78 28 x 24 l l l l 10 9 8 "A" Section A-A Plan i

FIGURE X-4-3 CONTROL TOWER HVAC DUCTING X-4-22

. - , ,e - - - - - . , - . . , - . , , , , . , - . , _ . - - . . , . , , . , - - - . . ,

c. -,

, i /

t- , r " ""# *#' ~~~

. h "'M , '

t,,'t, . . . ,

c __ s z ,,

gr.w e '

/ '-

,.-..-...,a

u. h . _;_

b r -

j ff'Ifes h,_f .. ~

"p . . _ _ _

7 H

.. E J

~-

~~,

Y+

,b

.. 4

.ou

g. m.n v . ~ta .

N.>

8 eas w a n. ,

- \ . 1,

- , - . .u c  ; 9....

,. ~

/

lL ,

aswm 'e

%7m M MTAIL M ear w < sewe y y eoo.m FIGUREX-4-4(a) TYPICAL HVAC SUPPORT a au Nu b rs ua 7

. D g g_

,D l

@ 8

1. g .

O FIGURE X-4-4(b) TYPICAL HVAC SUPPORT FINITE ELEMENT MODEL X-4-23

._ _ _ . . . . . ~ . _ , - - . - . - _ - - . _ . . _ . . - __

l nu. ., n, .u.. s l 5 W W W y

• 4 e

g i 8

M

• N i

i - og 4D z

. 2

o. a.R b.Ro. E aooa y A C d

i -

g #f a

- e 1

8-

, b a

- If .

l8

- ,z --

/ o_

.wp N m

b b

- -e W E &

m E

- es - Wz l W. f

% , u m

" *2 E a

g z

1 W bg Ez

• #-A 88 i

mb Qu

- .e. m-O

• Oa l - "WD o$

l

- -e d~

>x zW

( W>

t$

i l

q

• E u

8 b c W 3 3 02'0 V U 02*l 00*I 09 0 09'O Oh*O 00 0 .

(9) NOI18W373338 31070S98 0003Sd -

1 X-4-24 l

r30to3tthe 'et 00'11 teist/te b-e s y 3 y ,

1

- .e-

- o =,

• ere _

=

lRgR -e 3

. e . =. m o

- oooo ,

• R ,,p

• d a

w 3 '

f b R

- m ,

' . g

- . g

- .c- g

. >N =

H

., e M w

a t

.z - m

>- o u &

- wz w w C 3

o u u -

be Eg

.- - u. g-

- . e

- o $!W

- .e. gg l - . e-wm

- -= 8y .

a .

-

• Wm z<

1 ww i

e.

n

- . 4 e

a a

b C

y 5 ' '

on o 00 0 E

oe o i

1 on a co a on 1 oa t I

(D) NOI1BW373338 31010S8B 0003Sd l

X-4-25 I

l I

. - v---- - ~_r ,,---.,,y-.---w. ,, , _ - . - - - - - - - - _ _ _ . . - , - - . - - - --- _ - _,---,------.c---._m._-

f 92-t-X l

- 1 1

i PSEUDO RBSOLUTE ACCELERATION (G) 0.00 0,.40 0,.80 1,.20 1,.60 2,.00 2 40 O,  !

2 l 8 I m" "

x

• i b

k -

1

. so-1 I

55# s. .

m" m -

x r-

• 0% e- -

- 1 8B + -

o$ .

ga m

• ss a

.D Q

m%

@g C m C (

O m

o lE % .

O C

• 8 5 nw "

m .3-m m

@ 3 *- /

n M .

D* .

.f .

O=

5 e- -

8 r-q l 2 t

9

\

• m l r-

< . 1 to- oooo

• o a, O m. o 88

• e p .

a, E*

• i

, +

e-p .

g I k 03/29'82 17.90.48. 3*m4EG40CJ i

rMe3dwM ts'oo st esist/te b I W W W W

- e

- . + ,

. e o

. e m m

- s s

• RR*

oo3

• e5

(

ddd 5 a<

s wv g m-Ed e EE h ae

- - 85

. e gm a e om

> @ o

._ yd va e >N -

W$

-, Wc ==

wm E ww

. e- g>

c. e s > $5 u" mQ

=

• 2 w

m3 wo i

3 55 O !i2

\ b S$ 85

- u- m t;

-  ! e Qu m

\\

' +

^5 Q

l WI i

5$

- e dc

>e

. m *f

• d i E

, e

• E m

5 w

7 l O l . . . . .

l Oh*2 00 2 09't 02*t 09'O 06 0 00'0 .

(9) NOI18W373330 31070588 0003Sd -

X-4-27

i E g , , ,

o DW = 0.020 M 1

• 3 0.030 -

5' j , 0.040 0.070

{E  ;

l G -

\

o e

~

?

o

{

• se G -

. C y

wE d e.

• 2 ,

1 . w- e C

? u g s

ro m u a a

g wg i i

Da J

{ o m ,

m aE l od- "

a D

w to .

'E _

5 10-' i i 4 44144iv i i 4 4 4 t 4 6 i o' i i 4 &&14611 FREQUENCY IHERTZ)

FIGURE X-4-9. ENVELOPED SRSS COMBINED RESPONSE SPECTRA, CONTROL TOWER, ELEVATION 685'-0",

EAST-WEST DIRECTION e

n ... a n, .u.. s

, s 8 ' '

~ =ct

\

~ 4

• 'f*

• l , ,

l -

• m l

~ ~*

8

! RR R z l

o. o. o. o. S

- oooo en s a

h W

E J l W l . - g - -

e l

d 2 i

W 8

h _,

L

m. . # g

• 9 -

" 6 h a

uf*

- g- # >

t

u'" a m

" *~ G a

>= 0:i u W

~ *2 E8 C

3 $$z 1

O g2 tu b (C b-U

.ar* u. "E

"88 $o

%1

- +

es

! =

W8 o9 a44 J=

i  :::= m

" -e zo Wz l

= 4 o E

T x

. m l D i LD Y LA.

o

-e Oh*2 00*2 09*t 02*t 00*O Oh*O 00*0 -

l (91 NOI1BW373338 31070S88 0003Sd l

%-4-29 4

I

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

Support Numbers t1 30 x 40 _

17 2

' b 30 x 36 4

16 i\ 3

/

4 60 x 46 15

\

- i 46 x 60 s 14 60 x 60 x 5 60 x 60 13

-6 12 "A" PLAN "A"

I 8 9 10

- 60 x 60 \ / 's s x  ;,

1 ELEVATION SECTION A-A FIGURE X-4-11. DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING HVAC DUCTING X-4-30

?

b ~

t -

-m

-e

~ E

-e 3 oooo . g

~ man oooo -* cz:

o oooo

-m M w

a-n 5 e

- r -N a O w 20 5

o

_ -- M

-m b

-e g

~ m

-. w p,

.m N oo r a. -

p ., m 10b

- w =w m-Z of wo N >- m 5@

u to

• z um L&J m:E D QC o me=

w be J.

-w g

-a, s c.

f

-. Ws

-n 55

-m _i z wo

-w o-

,. 9%

-' om

-m i".ci N

7 v 4 w

D S

o u.

00*E os a oo e os.t go.i og.g (9) NOI168313336310105860003S[,~ _

X-4-31

)

l Elastic beam elements were used in all models to represent the cable tray systet and the support elements. Appropriate boundary condi- l tions were provided at the end of each support member. Six-degrees-of-freedom (three translation and three rotations were permitted at each nodal point.

For the seismic analysis, the horizontal and vertical weights were lumped such that the resulting lumped-mass, multi-degree-of-freedom model best represents the dynamic characteristics of the cable trays and their support system. Stiffness characteristics of support elements were calculated from the geometric and material properties of the members.

Stiffness characteristics of cable trays were taken from the test results i given in Reference 2. Torsional stiffness characteristics of cable trays were not provided in Reference 2. For curved cable tray regions who's

~

seismic responses are sensitive to the torsional stiffness, flexibility analyses using detailed finite element models of the cable trays (with side channels and rung system) and that of an equivalent lumped beam model were performed to determine the equivalent torsional constants for

, the lumped beam models. Section 5.4 documents the studies conducted to determine appropriate torsional constants.

Seismic analyses have been performed using response spectrum modal superposition methods of dynamic analysis. The seismic responses f have been calculated using SME spectra for 4.0 percent of critical damping. The combination of modes and spatial earthquake components were based on NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92 (Reference 4).

For all dynamic response spectrum analyses a check was made of the product of the participation factors and eigenvectors to determine if greater than 90 percent of the modal mass participated in the computed response. If the criteria were not satisfied, a conservative approach was taken to incorporate the missing mass as a rigid body mode. Static load cases were conducted in each of the three principal directions using the zero period accelerations (ZPAs) as equivalent static loading and the t

X-5-5

results were added to the dynamic responses. This method is conservative since all the mass, not just the non-participating mass, is included as a rigid body mode. -

5.3 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Structural acceptance criteria used for design of cable trays were based on the test results from Reference 2. In this test program, eight-foot long simply supported spans were loaded independently in each of the three principal axes to ultimate failure. The allowable load for a maximum span length of eight feet was set as the lesser of two-thirds the ultimate collapse load or the load to cause one-half of the deflection at the ultimate collapse threshold. An interaction formula was derived for design use, Reference 3.

. _D_ .

,Yy h

(Y j y

Y [ ,

E

[(YL. 2<g (5-1)

(T L/ .

where D = Dead load of tray plus cable (1.0g)

EV ,T,L = Seismic acceleration (g's)

YV ,T,L = Allowable uniform acceleration (g's)

I V.T,L = Vertical, transverse and longitudinal directions.

In order to account for span lengths other than eight feet, behavior of curved tray sections, multi-span support conditions, and vari-ation of accelerations across the cable-tray lengths, the interaction formula was modified for use in the SME evaluation. In the modified acceptance criteria, the allowable uniform load capacity derived from the tests of eight-foot span simply supported beams has been converted to equivalent allowable maximum bending moments based on the moments achieved in the structural tests. The allowable maximum bending moments ,

X-5-6 i

of the cable trays have been compared to the maximum bending moments obtained from the seismic analysis of the complex cable tray models.

Therefore, the interaction formula (Equation 5-1) has been rewritten as:

"D # "V ,!NT ,h 2<3

~

(5-2)

"UV (MUV) (NUT) dL/ -

where MD

= maximum bending moment due to dead weight.

My or MT = maximum bending moments of cable tray systems from analysis (vertical or transverse).

Mgy or MUT = allowable maximtsn bending moments for the cable tray from static test (vertical or transverse direction).

The longitudinal allowable YLhas not been inodified and is compared to the longitudinal seismic acceleration, tE , in the interac-tion formula simply because the trays are rigid in the longitudinal direction and stress from longitudinal acceleration is relative uniform along any span.

The equivalent allowable maximum bending moment capacity calcu-lated from the test results of the 36", 24", 18", and 12" wide cable trays are summarized below:

Allowable Maximum Moment Allowable Longitudinal Width of Tray Capacity (lbs-ft) Acceleration (g)

MUV MUT YL 36" 3200 3728 36.75' 24" 2128 2928 39.89

(

l 18" 2200 2800 39.89 12" 1720 1695 39.89 l

[

X-5-7

I From Equation 5-2, the code margin is defined as:

1 M

D "V !N I L 2

+

\UV/ + \UT) ( "T + (YL/

l l l N (M UV The seismic factor, FSME, for the cable trays is defined as:

- "O "Uv F

SME =. . (5-4) 2

/Myh (MT T /EL \ /

2 l t +t l -

l M

\ UV) (NUT / + (YL/ _

Cable tray supports are fabricated from structural steel shapes, i.e., angles, channels and structural tubing. Stress analysis has been performed in accordance with American Institute of Steel Construction:

" Manual of Steel Construction." Generalized stress acceptance criteria for the cable tray supports are sumarized in Table X-2-1. Specific stress formula for supports are as follows:

From the internal forces at the ends of each structural member, stresses are calculated using the following equations:

f a

=F X1 /A f

bx2 * (MX2 /I 2) C2 f

bx 3 * (MX3/I 3) C 3 I

max "fa+fbx2 + fbx3 I

min "fa-Ibx2 - fbx3 X-5-8 1

b where fa = Axial stress f bx2 = Bending stress due to moment about member X2 axis fbx 3 = Bending stress due to moment about member X3 axis fmax = Ma:timum tensile stress due to axial load plus biaxial bending moments fmin = Maximum compression stress due to axial load plus biaxial bending moments FX1 = Member axial force in member XI direction MX1,MX2,MX3 = Moment about member X1, X2, X3 axes, respectively resulting from dead weight and seismic loading A = Member cross-sectional area 1'I3 2

= M ment of inertia about member X2 and X3 axes, respectively

^

C,C 9

" 3

= Edge distance of the structural section from neutral axes in X2 and X3 direction of member coordinate system 5.4 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS The following loads and load combinations have been considered for the seismic margin review evaluation of cable tray systems:

D + L + SME where 4

D is the dead weight of the cable trays, hardware and supports L is the weight of the cables SME is the seismic margin earthgaake loading applied at the ,

cable tray support / structure interface defined as -

response spectra in each of three principal directions X-5-9

i

, 5.5 EVALUATION OF CABLE TRAY TORSIONAL CONSTANTS Effective flexural stiffness properties (moments of inertia) used in the seismic analysis of cable trays were derived in Reference 2.

However, torsional stiffness characteristics (polar moment of. inertia) of the cable trays were not specifically addressed.

In order to determine realistic torsional constants of the cable trays, flexibility analyses using detailed finite element models of typical cable trays with side channels and rung systems were performed.

Equivalent curved beam models were then developed for use in lumped mass seismic models. Two cable tray regions that are sensitive to the torsional defonnations were selected. The first cable tray depicts a generic 900 bend and is representative of the cable trays in the upper cable spreading room of the auxiliary building control tower in the region of Column Line J arid 5.5 (Figure X-5-7). This cable tray region was considered sensitive since the tray frequency in the region of the bends was in the amplified spectral acceleration range. A second generic condition is represented by cable tray 2BJQ near support L (Figure X-5-40) in the east-west wings of the auxiliary building. The vertical displace-ment of an S shaped bend that is not continuous past the bend is sensitive to the effective torsional constant. For straight runs of cable tray, torsional stiffness was taken as the sum of the individual torsional stiffnesses of the two side channels assuming no warping restraint.

Response is not sensitive to this assumption since torsion is not transmitted in straight sections of tray, i.e., any torsion introduced in a curved section is taken out at the first support past the curved section and is not a mode of significant response.

The finite element models of the 900 bend cable tray are shown in Figure X-5-1 and X-5-2. As indicated in Figure X-5-1, the detail finite element model consist of the side channels and rung system. Figure X-5-2 shows the equivalent 900 bend cable tray beam model. For both of these models, the flexural stiffness characteristics are the same and are take'l from the Husky Products tests results. The torsional stiffness ,

X-5-10 i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ . - . . . . - - . - . . - )

characteristics of the detail finite element model consisted of the torsional properties of the individual side channels. For the equiva-lent beam model,' the torsional constant was varied until displacements matched those obtained from the detailed finite element model. These models were subjected to vertical static dead weight loading and the resulting deflections and rotations were determined using the MODSAP computer program (Reference 7). The results of the flexibility analysis are shown in Figure X-5-5. From Figure X-5-5, it can be seen that the equivalent torsional constant (J) to match the flexibility of the two models of the 900 bend is 0.0079 in4 . This torsional constant value was used in the final seismic analysis of cable trays 1BGB,1BFB,1BFA, IBFC and IBFH in the upper cable spreading room.

The finite element models of the 300 S-bend cable tray are shown in Figures X-5-3 and X-5-4. As indicated in Figure X-5-3, the detail finite element model consists of the side channels and rung system.

Figure X-5-4 shows the equivalent 30 0S-bend cable tray beam model.

For both of these models, the flexural stiffness ch6racteristics are the l'

same and are taken from the Husky Products test results. The torsional stiffness characteristics of the detail finite element model consisted of the torsional properties of the individual side channels. For the equivalent beam model, the torsional constant was again varied until displacements matched those of the detailed finite element model. These models were subjected to vertical static dead weight loading and the resulting deflections and rotations were determined using the M0DSAP computer program. The results of the flexibility analysis are shown in Figure X-5-6. From Figure X-5-6, it can be seen.that the equivalent torsional constant (J) to match the flexibility of the two models of the 300 bend is 0.125 in4 . This value was used in the final seismic analysis of systems with 300S-bends.

O X-5-11 i

I 3

5.6 Upper Cable Spreading Room Cable tray systems in the upper cable spreading room are typically arranged in multiple vertical layers and supported by ladder-type support structures that span from floor-to-ceiling. The floor and ceiling slabs in the upper cable spreading room are relatively large spans and their dynamic response is amplified significantly in the vertical direction. in Volume I, Appendix A, a study of this vertical amplification is documented. One of the case studies contained in Appendix A was of the floor slab that constitutes the ceiling of the cable spreading room. In that study, it was shown that the predicted SME vertical response spectrum at the center of the slab was significantly greater than the response spectrum used in the cable tray design.

Because of this significant difference, a tray system in the upper spreading room was selected for evaluation. The tray system selected spans from near one edge of the floor slab to near the center of the floor slab, is a Seismic Category I tray system, and is representative of other tray systems in the upper spreading room. A portion of the system consists of five trays at different elevations, changing to a four-tray configuration. The trays evaluated are identified as: 1BGB, IBFB, IBFA, IBFC and IBFH. Tray 1BFH terminates within the boundaries of the dynamic model.

5.6.1 Description of Cable Trays Cable trays IBGB, 1BFB, IBFA, IBFC, and 1BFH are located in the upper cable spreading room of the auxiliary building control tower. They are associated with Unit Number 1 of the Midland Nuclear Station. Figure X-5-7 shows the plan and dimensions of the cable trays and their support structure. Figure X-5-8 shows the elevations and details of the cable tray support system.

Each cable tray is 36 inches wide with 4-inch high side rails i having 1-3/4 inch flanges (Figures X-5-23). The cable tray side rails are fabricated from 14 gage ASTM A-570 Grade B steel.

X-5-12

Cable tray properties are as follows:

IH = 2.43 in4 Iy = 5.42 in4 .

A = 1.1024 in2 E = 29 (106) psi where Iy and IH are effective moments of inertia determined by static-deflection testing, Reference 2 and the subscripts V and H are the vertical and horizontal axes of the trays.

The cable trays are supported on Unistrut P1001 Beams welded to 6" x 6" x 0.25" tubular columns. The tubular columns are attached to the roof beams and floor. The floor connections are moment resistant while the roof connections are of a sliding pin design to accomodate differen-tial vertical motion between the roof and floor.

Bechtel reference drawings used in this analysis are:

7220-E-742 (Q) SHT 1, Rev. 11 7220-E-742 (Q) SHT 2, Rev. O I 7220-E-744 (Q) SHT 1. Rev. 9 7220-E-642 (Q) SHT 1, Rev. 15 7220-E-642 (Q) SHT 2, Rev. 14 7220-E-644 (Q) SHT 1, Rev. 10 7220-E-645 (Q) SHT 1, Rev. 4 1

5.6.2 Seismic Margin Earthquake Loading The cable trays, their contents and the cable tray support structure were subjected to the three-dimensional loadings of the horizontal and vertical components of the Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME) in-structure acceleration spectra. The SME in-structure acceleration O

X-5-13

}

spectra are reported in Volume III and are shown in Figures X-5-9 through X-5-14. The enveloped 4 percent damping spectra for floors at Elevation

~

674'-6" and 685'-0" of the control tower were used for the seismic analysis.

These in-structure spectra include vertical amplification of the floor slabs in the auxiliary building. Typically, lumped-mass models used in the seismic analysis of nuclear power plant structures are based on the overall mass and stiffness of the structure. These models do not include the local flexibility of individual elements, such as floor slabs, to which the cable trays are attached. The vertical seismic input to cable trays may exceed that which would otherwise be computed from an overall soil-structure interaction model which neglects the floor slab flexibility. As a part of the Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME) equip-ment evaluation, design response spectra were generated at design damping levels to account for the floor flexibility in the auxiliary building (Volume I, Appendix A). These amplified vertical response spectra were used in the analysis of the cable spreading room cable tray system.

Relative lateral displacements between the two floors to which the cable spreading room cable tray systems are connected is small and were ignored in the analysis.

5.6.3 Mathematical Models The three-dimensional finite element model of the cable trays and its support structure with node and element numbers is shown in Figures X-5-15 and X-5-16. As indicated in Figure X-5-15, cable trays IBGB and 1BFB are lumped together as are IBFA and IBFC and the equivalent tray model is located at their center of gravity. From Node Number 32 through 128 (lower level), cable tray 1BFH is also lumped along with cable tays 1BFA and 1BFC. The cable trays support beams (Unistrut P1001) are similarly lumped together and located at the upper and lower levels.

The STARDYNE computer code, Reference 8, was used for the static ,

and dynamic analyses. STARDYNE is a general purpose fin'ite element code for the solution of static and dynamic problems. SMA utilized the X-5-14

MRI/STARDYNE 3, Revision B version marketed through Control Data Corporation. STARDYNE results for similar type problems have been comp:; red to solutions by other computer codes to verify the applicability of STARDYNE to the class of problem solved.

5.6.4 Results of Analysis The first thirty-two natural frequencies of vibration of the cable trays and their support system along with their corresponding modal participation factors are given in Table X-5-1. The first mode frequency of 9.63 cycles per second represents the vertical deformation in a curved section of tray around Node 86.

Table X-5-2 presents the interaction factors, code margins and seismic margin f actors, FSME, for the most critical elements of the cable tray support system as well as the trays.

From these values, it can be seen that the cable tray and support system design is adequate to withstand the Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME) spectra. It has, therefore, been concluded that the cable trays and their support system in the control tower are adequate to withstand the SME seismic event on the basis of positive margins,being demonstrated for a worst case example problem.

The resulting minimum code margin is 1.13 and the minimum seismic f actor, FSME, is 1.21. They occur in an expansion anchor bolt in Support Number 64.

The resulting minimum code margin and seismic factor F SME f0F the cable trays are 1.59 and 2.14, respectively.

5.7 AUXILIARY BUILDING - EAST / WEST EPA The electrical penetration areas of the auxiliary building

, experience very high accelerations. A complex cable tray system was selected in this high acceleration region as representative of typical .

tray systems in the EPA.

X-5-15 i

5.7.1 Description of Cable Trays Selected for Evaluation Cable trays 2BTF, 2BJQ, 2NTV, and 2NYQ are located in the east /

west EPAs of the' auxiliary building. Figure X-5-18 shows the plan dimen-sion of the cable trays and their support structure. Figure )(-5-19 through X-5-22 show the elevations and details of the cable tray support system.

Cable tray system 2NYQ is a 24-inch wide tray. Cable tray system 2BJQ and 2BTF is a 24-inch wide tray for a portion of the run and a 12-inch wide tray for the remainder of the run, while cable tray system 2NTV is a 12-inch wide tray. The cable trays have the same 4-inch high rails with 1-inch flanges (Figure X-5-23), and are fabricated from 14 gage ASTM A-570 Grade B steel. Cable tray properties are as follows:

24" 12" Iy = 3.39 in 4 Iy = 2.20 in 4

4 4 Ig = 1.79 in Ig = 1.79 in A = 0.8776 in 2 A = 0.8776 in 2 E = 29 (106 ) psi E = 29 (106) p3j where I y and Ig are determined by static-deflection testing, Reference 2.

The cable trays are supported on comon supports consisting of multi-layer Unistrut P1001 beams welded to either 3" x 3" x 0.25" tubular columns or Unistrut P1001 columns hung from the floor framing above and braced against the concrete walls. "L-type" brackets fabricated from Unistrut P1001 beams and either 3" x 3" x 0.25" tubular columns or X-5-16 I

Unistrut P1001 columns are also used to support single trays or multi-layered trays. Beams are welded directly to insert channels in concrete walls, and colum'ns are welded to roof beams.

Bechtel reference drawings used in this analysis are:

7220-E-629(Q) SHT 2, Rev.16 7220-E-701(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 10 7220-E-702(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 11 7220-E-703(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 15 7220-E-729(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 3 7220-E-729(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 4 5.7.2 Seismic Margin Earthquake Loading The SME in-structure acceleration spectra are shown in Figures X-5-24 through X-5-29. The enveloped 4 percent danping spectra for floors at Elevation 659'-0" and 674'-6" of the auxiliary building were used for the seismic analysis. In this region, very high spectral accelerations exist in the north-south (N-S) directions making this system one of the most potentially critical for SME loading. Special consideration of vertical floor slab amplification was not necessary for this model for two reasons:

k

1. Cable tray runs are very near the auxiliary building wall.

2. Floor amplification in the electrical penetration areas is negligible due to the stiff short spans. (See Volume I, Appendix A for example of floor slab amplification in the electrical penetration areas.

l^

5.7.3 Mathenatical Model The coupled three-dimensional model of the cable trays and their support stuctures with node and element numbers is shown in Figures X-5-30 and X-5-31. The boundary conditions and lumped-mass locations for

~

the horizontal and vertical seismic analysis are shown in Figure X-5-32.

X-5-17

A v

.The structural analysis and stress analysis calculations were performed by "using the STARDYNE computer program (Reference 8).

5.7.4 Results of Analysis The first 32 natural frequencies of vibration of the cable trays and their support system along with their corresponding modal participa-tion factors are given in Table X-5-3. The first mode frequency of 8.2 cycles per second represents predominantly lateral deformation of the region _ around Node 15 (Fiaure X-5-30). .

i Table X-5-4 presents the maximum combined stress ratio, the minimum code margins and the minimum seismic factor, FSME, for the most critically loaded cable trays and their supports. From this table, it can be seen that the stresses and loads in various structural members are within the allowable limits. The resulting minimum margin code margin for.the. cable tray support is 1.40, and occurs in Unistrut P1001 beam in Support Number 53. The minimum seismic factor is 1.73.

The resulting minimum code margin for cable trays is 3.0? for a 24-inch wide tray. The minimum seismic factor is 5.34.

5.8 REACTOR BUILDING i A single long span' cable tray run was selected as representative i of cable tray systems in the reactor building. The run contains several bends and a significant elevation change.

5.8.1 Description of Cable Trays

(.

Cable tray system, IBLC, is located in the containment structure i of Unit 1. Figures X-5-33 through X-5-35 show the plan and dimensions of

{ the cable tray and its supporting structure.

r X-5-18

The cable tray is 24 inches wide with 4-inch side rails having 1-inch flanges (Figure X-5-23). The cable tray is fabricated from 14 gage ASTM A-570 Grade B steel. The cable tray properties are as follows:

Iy = 3.39 in4 IH = 1.79 in4 A = 0.8776 in2 E = 29 (106 ) psi where Iy and Ig are determined by static-deflection testing, Reference 2.

The cable tray is supported on Unistrut P1001 beams welded directly to insert plates on concrete walls or to trapeze hangers fabri-cated from 3" x 3" x 3/16" tubular columns attached to roof beams.

i Bechtel reference drawings used in this analysis are:

7220-E-701(Q) SHT 1, Rev.10 7220-E-702(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 15 7220-E-658(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 17 l

7220-E-753(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 7 7220-E-578(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 5 5.8.2 Seismic Margin Earthquake Loading The SME in-structure acceleration spectra for the reactor building are reported in Volume II. Those appropriate for the cable tray model evaluated are shown in Figures X-6-36 through X-6-38. The enveloped 4 percent damping spectra for floor at Elevation 685'-0" of the reactor building is used for the sehmic analysis.

5.8.3 Mathematical Model The cable tray and supporting structure is mathematically modeled as a finite element structure consisting of elastic beam elements .

interconnected at nodal points to model the cable tray (see Figure X-5-19

X-5-39). Spring boundary elements were used to model the support stiffnesses. The static and seismic analyses were performed using the ,

computer program M0DSAP. Spring stiffnesses were obtained by conducting I static unit load analyses using finite element beam models of each 1 support. The computed stiffnesses used as boundary conditions to the beam model representations of the cable tray are listed in Table X-5-5.

5.8.4 Results of the Analysis Table X-5-6 presents the calculated support reactions resulting from the combination of dead weight, dynamic response and non-partici-pating mass static seismic analyses. These values were used in the strass analyses of individual supports.

Table X-5-7 presents the stress ratios, code margins, CM, and seismic factors, FSME, for the governing elements of tne most critically stressed structural support. From the table, it can be seen that the stresses are nominal and within allowable limits. Also, shown in Table X-5-7 are results for the cable tray. The large margin demonstrated the cable tray to be well within acceptable limits as defined by Equation X-5-2.

The resulting minimum code margin for the cable tray supports is 2.17 and occurs in a weld joint in support number six. The resulting minimum code margin for the cable tray is 5.88 and the corresponding seismic factor is 9.66.

l 5.9 AUXILIARY BUILDING The cable tray system selected to represent the main auxiliary building is an extension of the tray system evaluated for the auxiliary building EPA. It is a single tray run that contains a curved offset -

combined with an overhung portion beyond the last support. This particular type of geometry was found to be sensitive to the torsional stiffness of the tray system and was considered to be a limiting case for the auxiliary building. .

i X-5-20

i l

c 5.9.1 Description of the Cable Tray System Cable tray system, 2BJQ, is located in the auxiliary building of Unit 2. Figures X-5-40 and X-5-41 show the plan and dimensions of the cable tray and its supporting structure.

The cable tray is 24 inches wide with 4-inch high side rails having 1-inch flanges'(Figure X-5-23). The cable tray is fabricated from 14 gage ASTM A-570 Grade B steel. The cable tray properties are as follows:

Iy = 3.39 in4 IH = 1.79 in4 A = 0.8776 in2 E = 29 (106) psi where Iyand I are H determined by static-deflection testing, Reference 2.

The cable tray supports are of two basic configurations. One is Unistrut P1001 beams welded to trapeze hangers fabricated from 3" x 3" x 0.25" tubular columns attached to roof beams, while the other is a "L-type" bracket, f abricated from Unistrut P1001 beams and 3" x 3" x 0.25" tubular columns where the beams are attached to concrete walls and the i columns are attached to roof beams. The method of attaching these brackets to the wa'l vary. Beams may be welded directly to insert channels in concrete walls or they may be wd ded to a base plate that is sec. ired to the wall by 4-1/2" diameter expansion anchors. The columns Jd welded to roof beams.

Bechtel reference drawings used in this analysis are:

7220-E-629(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 16 7220-E-729(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 3 X-5-21

The SME in-structure acceleration spectra appropriate for the selected model are reported in Volume III and are shown in Figures X-5-42 through X-5-44. The enveloped 4 percent damping spectra for the floor at Elevation 674"-6" of the auxiliary building east-west EPA were used for the seismic analysis. These spectra are more conservative than those for the main auxiliary building. However, since the selected tray system has portions in both' areas, the more conservative spectra were used.

5.9.2 Mathematical Model The cable tray and supporting structure is mathematically modeled as a finite element structure consisting of elastic beam elements inter-connected at nodal points, see Figure X-5-45.

Rotational stiffness of supoorts were neglected, except at one node. This node corresponds to the support located nearest the cantile-vered end of the cable tray (Node 36, Figure X-5-45). Spring stiffnesses were input fo" all six-degrees-of-freedom at this nodal point. Table X-5-11 presents the spring stiffnesses used in the program. Stiffnesses of boundary elements were derived by applying unit static loads to finite element beam models of the support structures.

The static and seismic analysis were performed using the M00 SAP computer code.

5.9.3 Results of the Analysis Table X-5-9 presents the support reactions computed for the load combination DL + LL + SME. Table X-5-10 presents the maximum combined stress ratios, minimum code margins and minimum seismic factors for the structural supports and the cable tray. From the table, it can be seen that support stresses are nominal and within allowable limits. Also, the result of the seismic qualification for the cable tray is well within acceptable limits as defined by Equation 5-2 From these calculations, it can be seen that the ceble tray system is adequate to withstand the Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME). ,

X-5-22

The resulting minimum code margin is in an expansion anchor and is 2.94. The corresponding seismic f actor is 9.7. The minimum seismic f actor is 3.50 and is for the cable tray. The corresponding code margin is 3.03.

5.10 SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE A single tray system located at a high elevation in the SWPS was selected for evaluation. The tray is located in an area of the highest acceleration for the SWPS.

5.10.1 Description of the Cable Trays The cable tray system, 2BSA, is located in the service water pump structure of Unit 2. Figures X-5-46 through X-5-48 show the plan and dimension of the cable tray and its supporting structure.

The cable tray is 18 inches wide with 4-inch side rails having 1-inch flanges, see Figure X-5-23. The cable tray is fabricated from 14 gage ASTM A-570 Grade B steel. The cable tray properties are as follows:

Iy = 2.84 in4 IH = 1.81 in4 A = 0.877 in2 E = 29 (106 ) psi where Iy and IH are determined by static-deflection testing, Reference 2.

The cable tray is supported on Unistrut P1001 beams welded directly to insert plates on concrete walls or to trapeze hangers fabri-ated from 4" x 4" x 0.25" tubular columns attached to roof beams.

X-5-23

Bechtel reference drawings used in this analysis are:

7220-E-559(Q) SHT 1A, Rev. 4 7220-E-559(Q) SHT 18 Rev. 3 7220-E-702(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 14 7220-E-799(Q) SHT 1, Rev. 5 5.10.2 Seismic Margin Earthquake Loading The SME in-structure acceleration spectra for the SWPS are contained in Volume IV. The applicable spectra for evaluation of the cable tray system selected are shown in Figures X-5-49'through X-5-51.

The enveloped 4 percent damping spectra for the floor at Elevation 656'-0" of the service water pump structure are used for an equivalent static analysis.

5.10.3 , Mathematical Model A pseudo static analysis of the cable tray system, 2BSA, in the service water structure was perfonned. Using tributary lengths of cable trays and contents, support reactions were found for a unit acceleration.

From the support configurations and their calculated deflections for a unit load, support stiffnesses and fundamental frequencies were derived where:

K = F/6 (5-4) l f=h (5-5)

Natural frequencies of the supports were determined to be 20 Hz and i

greater, thus do not appreciably affect the system fundamental frequency.

Consequently, the cable tray fundamental frequencies were used in ,

obtaining accelerations from the SME in-structure response spectra except X-5-24

l for the longitudinal direction in which case the support frequency was lower than the tray frequency and was substituted. From these accelera-tions, maximum support loadings were obtained. A detailed stress analysis was then conducted for the cable tray system from this data.

5.10.4 Results of the Analysis The pertinent fundamental frequencies of the supporting structure and the cable tray were found to be:

Supports F = 20 Hz minimum (all directions), see Table X-5-11.

Cable Tray (18" wide)

FT = 16.39 Hz Fy = 13.07 Hz FL = 50.0 Hz Table X-5-12 presents the support loadings. Equation 5-1 is the applicable acceptance criteria for cable tray systems evaluated by pseudo static methods.

Table X-5-13 presents the maximum combined stress ratios for the structural supports. From the table, it can be seen that the stress ratios are nominal and within allowable limits. Also, the result of the l seismic qualification for the cable tray is within acceptable limits as defined by Equation 5-1. From these calculations, it can be seen that the cable tray system is adequate to withstand the Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME).

l The resulting minimum code margin for the cable tray supports is 1.41 and occurs in an expansion anchor bolt connection in support number

9. The corresponding seismic factor is 1.42. The minimum code margin in the cable tray is 2.01 and the corresponding seismic f actor is 2.68.

X-5-25

Tab 1@ X-5-1 NATURAL FREQUENCIES OF VIBRATION AND MODAL PARTICIPATION FACTORS UPPER CABLE SPREADING ROOM, AUXILIARY BUILDING CONTROL TOWER, TRAYS 1BGB, IBFB, IBFA, IBFC, IBFH NODAL PARTICIPATION FACTOR FREQUENCY GENERALIZED X1 DIRECTION X2 DIRECTION 13 DIRECTION MODE (N-S) (VERTICAL)

NUMBER (CPS) _ WEIGHTS (ibs) (E-W )

1 .96214E*01 69122E+03 .28516E-02 .16815E-02 .75326E+00

_. 2 . ._ -Inni.7E_,n> 446933E+n1 _.93167E-03 . ' .35533E-03._ .

- 62625E+00. _

3 .10326E*02 .48727E+03 .+4026E-02 .28356E-02 .97145E+00 4 .10348E*02 .33924E*03 .19463E-03 .66982E-04 .12086E+01 l 5 -. ,171J0F+02 -?3?64E40? 2114 00 E -. 3 8 718E -0 3-- . . _.12061 E

• 0 0 __ _

6 .17302E+02 .71091E*03 .12365E-02 .25984E-01 .12742E+00 7 .1R961E+02 . 5115 0 E

• 0 4 ' - .49444E+00 .89747E+00 .38988E-02 8 - .-.19 9 30E + 02 - -. 7.14 68 EA0 3 :23A2SE-02 306A1E-05 11576E.+ 01 9 .19999E+02 .52600E+03 .3A727E-02 .12 406E-02 .143 79E + 01 10 .21070E+02 .97526E+03 .22120E-01 .17883E-01 .93251E-01 7 24 091 E 442---- .-.14 4 4 2 E +0' ,24883E=41  : 29063E=01  ; 94.960 E-01 --

y 11

.14090E*006 g 12 .22064E+02 .66482E+04 .23415E+00 .35144E-02 13 .23020E+02 .91930E+03 .24495E-02 .56821E-02. .11144E+01 14 . . . . . 2 3 73 4 E + 0 2 9 85.9.9E t0 3 -.._ .6 6284 E_--01 73462E-01 el>?%7Et01 __

l 15 .24756E+02 .50995E+04 .92807E+00 .10424E+01 .29021E-01 16 .27940E+02 .63166E+03 .17544E-01 .46546E-01 .43236E+00 17 . . 2 798 tie + 02 _ - - .42 07.3E *0 3  ; 125.77 E-01.-- .3 2 3 5 6E-01._. :12678E*01 -

.29384E+02 .78559E+03.. .59681E*00 .16781E+00 . 31602 E -03 18 19 .29841E+02 .95174E+03 .24942E*00 .11186E + 01.. .68864E+00 2 0 -- -- . .. 29 9 3 4E.+ 02 _.. . 4 8 2,7 7 E + 03 18.949E+00 12399E+01 e.10210E + 01-_. - .

21 .29984E+02 .11987E*04 .12557E+00 . 8 60 0 3E + 0 0.. .12620E+01 22 .30349E+02 .96160E+03 .

.22653E*01 .48534E+00 .93971E-01

.-- -.3 0967 E + 02 --- 12 88 7E +04. - .2.7 545E,01 .=. 2 5 7 7 4 E> + 0 0., 2 82172 E.=01 - ..- ..

23 24 .30977E+02 .81067E+03 .10397E+00 .17598E+00 46732E+00 25 .11036E+02 .51941E+03 .60815E-01 .71271E-01 .17306E+01

. 2 6 _.-- . -. _ - . 3 3 4 39E + 0 2 .. .15 9 0 9 E+n 1 ...-_ 14552E.-03 _._ .28099E-03 _.16550E+01 ....

27 .33498E+02 .30156E*04 . 2,4010E + 00 .40875E+0Q .53910E-02 28 .33642E +02 .15863E+03 .66236E-04 .45592E-04 .20772E+01 29 - . .. ._. . 3 4 213E

• 02._ . __ .1171 S E.eo' 64228E-01* -- 14300E-01 -_ 51765 E +00 . _

30 .34351E+02 .77973E*03 .33575E-01 .83160E-02 .13868E+01

'31 .35278E+02 .86524E+03 .15827E-01 .14382E+01 .13313E-01 32 ... 37_787E.+02. .26422E+n6 - Mt143 E.--01 .14841E+00. .. . 17833E-02_--__

Table X-5-2 MINIMUM SEISMIC MARGIN AUXILIARY BUILDING - UPPER CABLE SPREADING ROOM CABLE TRAYS 1BFB, 1BFB, 1BFA, 1BFC, 1BFH Structural Element Element Maximum Minimum Minimum Description Number Combined Stress Code Margin Seismic Factor Ratio CM F SME Cable Tray (36") 38 0.63 < 1.0 1.59 2.14 Unistrut Support 47 0.263 < 1.0 3.80 15.45 Beam, Fig. X-5-8, Type CS-1 Tubular Column 64 0.153 < 1.0 6.54 12.45 3"x3"x0.25, Fig.

X-5-8, Type CS-1 Support Anchorage 64 0.887 < 1.0 1.13 1.21 3/4" 4 Expansion Anchor Bolt, Fig.

X-5-8, Type CS-1 l

t X-5-27

I 1 I

i j l t '

' 3 l I i E f  ! . #

Om

.e,4 es o o o o -e o c e .e .4 0 0 c .4 o o o c d -d ee N o d e o 4 o i H e.4 NW no T+++++++++l c o cc o oo o o o l++++++ i ooo coo o oc ++ 0l+010iooo

• i o ++ooo i + o +

u ww ONpe w w ww w ww ww w www www w ww w w w www

.d e Nw e ww o e w e wm H

w m o in k e N o N o e c e N e d e e . .w e m arb iri N e N o 54 m e e e .e k e N e N ort N e N art e e m o o g m o its e e N e e c e o e -a d in e e N m N e e s e N. N m N N N e eD N N M

CC A e .4 N m e e

• o. f9 e e m e ss o, o e o N es e e. e .* ~ e e.arsM .e.se .a ee- ee 2 4i..4 1 ie. .e,, e . ...... ~ e ~ - .d .e ..e .... N N d.eo .. . . . . . . m. e . .

g n9 M g i i, .

i e i e8 i <

l A ,

i m - ,

i m o

.:, - . i . . J .J o e, o J e .e J N a . o c, o o J 4 .'.s .! . ci a .a so E E =

M O c*io o o++ii+++i c c o C o c c o o+ii c oic ic oi o. o+++++ o o ci+i o o i+++c o o c o o o.

g pg e M 4 & ww w w ww w ww w w w www w w w w NeveNmmeNMemm WW w ww wwd w ww w w b

• z z :M M emNemNmNeecoqNe.NmANe N e o e fw e.e N eNN&e m

.4 t's o Neri me e e o o o art art e e e o N U .4 5 e op we e erg a e e e e m

- 8 N e W .d e e e N W e N e e .d e N e .=4 m H

4 ,

y yE O m N e o p p e N e d e N N e m e N o e M N e R N N M .M4M.4Me N

.w ce me ers e e e .4 en N N e .e e e N N e N**8 N .4 N f$ @ .4 4+**" *

• e4 o M

f *

• f, i l '********'i

.a.* m N i l * " e' ' *I v N g g 8 4 6- .  ! I f

E La. >4 I ,

< H 4 . l s A e N ,e o c .d e N ei o o .e 4 N a o o -l 4 o s o ct 4 o m o c4

< M kggo C00000000 3 : 3++++

00000000000000000000000

++ i sie i l++ + i +++ +++i+++ i 9 >* w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w; w ul w w w w w u) NN* wwwww g

m E e .* N N 4Nmoe ein.4f N.) c. o -d e e o .d e deeom -oe -e e N1m N o.4

u. $ 4eN.4eeN e oe

1. - ee

• e@ N et m.N m M e a M e dec4.d eiN@t ae 3 e

m o T *e o us m m Ne fv so N eNN o.m eo N N A g wM g gw e

{-

i o .

g, z w

e. e. .4 4 w e. Nn .e. e. ee .m e. o.., e N .4l' N. e. i.e4. .4 esi Nfo .iN.

-l I e N. le. fr. N N e o t iI i 1 I Il '

i i

$ ~

$ M I l

~

! N u .

, m m es m m e m ~ ci n m m m m e, ~ m e m e ~ m ~

= p - ri m e, m e m e m e co

> m e

.O ++ o*++++ o cc o+oo+++++++++ o oo ooo ooo o+ oo + *no+ c+ o + + oco+ eto+ oo + o ++o

! $ W w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w d+ w w w w w d w w w w w d+ w w ,

eirs .e er e .4 eo m N N 4 > e N in e 8 e m N e e e o in c o e e o e e m M e a8 & N e o N N .4 .d e N ** N e e N in O e eNoeD o (9 e eeoNeNeetri ine eo oef% e oe ee W c Ed e m 4 e o et e 80 e m e m N 4eeNmN NNo@< N ** * = 4

- Z Z ed y O M e f( @ o @ N ed .d f%e N = ef m . e. e aoo m. o e4. e.4 N.

. os=8 78

. e.d 0of ed. e.

~g ..e r e. 4.o .4..o ed e N. e. m m _, gg e. N. .ar e N. .e e. N 8 *s Os u

Lt. >=

l N N N N N f% t N N m N N

_J k H .

.W N N l'J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N f%oo o o oo o oo o oo ooo

++ ++++++++++ +++++++ + + ' + + + , + + + + ooo + . +o + oc oc c oo N .J

" W W W W w d W W W W w W W w d W W d W W W W W W W W d+

4 m

< @ e em m eNcooce N > in e e .d e c e N N m o e o N e o r m e e c c e e m e N eeeeeeceNoeN e N e N W e ** e eD e e e .e z U eteobeemoo*NeweeceN ee4NeroNewe@N l

~ - N e N o e o m m m m es e e b e c e c o - - ~ ~ e .n e c e N @

j

- @ . e.s e

$ .d. e N. N. N. +N N. N. N, N. N. 9N N. N. N. N. m.< m em em o

. m. fo fa. foi m f* . l'.) f'.i m.

l . .

i A l M@

o i N m 4 c e N e e o .d N l

R5z -*NfleceN eto.aN meirieN.e.e o-. q- ~e sq ~e N q ~ N g N N cp.s n g l X-5-28

[

l Table X-5-4 MINIMUM SEISMIC MARGIN AUXILIARY BUILDING - EAST / WEST EPA CABLE TRAYS 2BTF. 2BJQ, 2NTV, 2NQY Maximum Minimum Minimum Structural Element Element Combined Stress Code Margin Seismic Factor Description Number Ratio CM F SME Cable Tray (24") 98 0.331 < 1.0 3.02 5.34 Cable Tray (12") 210 0.168 < 1.0 5.95 10.14 Unistrut Support 53,54 0.714 < 1.0 1.40 1.73 Beam, Fig. X-5-20 Section G&H X-5-29

I Table X-5-5 BOUNDARY ELEMENTS IBLC CABLE TRAY SUPPORT STIFFNESS, CONTAINMENT BLDG.

Support Spring Stiffness (Lbs/Ft)

Node Vertical Longitudinal Transverse i

2 9.55 x 105 4.79 x 105 8.48 x 106 4 9.55 x 105 1.19 x 104 -

6 9.55 x 10 5 1.19 x 104 '-

8 9.55 x 105 4.79 x 105 p 10 9.55 x 105 1.19 x 104 i-12 9.55 x 10 5 4.79 x 10 5 ,,

14 9.55 x 105 1.19 x 104

16 9.55 x 105 4.79 x 105 ,,

18 9.55 x 105 1.19 x 104 a 20 3.07 x 105 7.39 x 104 8' 22 1.21 x 105 6.23 x 104 si 24 1.21 x 105 1.19 x 104 a-27 1.21 x 105 1.19 x 104

29 8.43 x 106 8.48 x 106 8.48 x 106 9

X-5-30

Table X-5-6 SUPPORT LOADS, D+L+SME, IBLC, CONTAINMENT BUILDING M5tG4 LQA05 DE5tGII LO405 .

Sepport Dee4 Dynamic Sta tic. Sannetten Support Dee Dyneetc Static. Sweettee (

nweer Strettica kl 9ht Selsmic Selssic (ZPA) (its.) w Ofrectlen g.4 ght Setsetc 5etsste (IPA) (Ibs.) '

I V F3.67 8.2 8.1 90.0 8 V 331.4 15.4 36.5 383.3 L 0 108.1 143.3 251.4 L 2.2 223.7 234.2 464.7 7 0 14.4 17.3 38.5 T 0 36.9 101.3 138.2 2 V 234.0 16.4 25.7 276.1 9 V 337.3 29.3 41.5 448.1 l , L 0 2.8 3.F 6.5 L 0 6.8 6.5 13.4

! T 0 49.4 115.5 164.9 T 0 M5 111.2 147.7 l

3. V 276.4 17.9 30.4 324.7 10 V 244.3 30.4 M.9 301.6 L 0 3.9 5.0 8.9 L 1.0 67.7 64.1 129.8 T 0 30.3 98.6 128.9 i 4.7 209.7 122.5 336.9 x 4 V 245.4 18.5 27.0 290.9 11 9 344.3 111.9 37.9 494.1 8 L 1.4 160.3 203.4 365.1

~

L 0 59.8 52.7 182.5 139.3 f

w f 0 16.1 77.5 93.6 T 1.3 61.4 76.5

~ 5 V 411.5 24.0 45.3 480.8 12 V 247.5 54.4 27.2 329.1 L 0 4.4 5.4 9.8 L 0 11.8 10.2 22.0 T 0 23.6 122.9 146.5 T 12.9 MI .F 2M.6 509.2 6 V 371.0 20.8 40.8 432.6 13 V 2W.I 110.8 M.5 395.4 L 2.1 188.6 220.6 413.3 L 0 14.3 9.5 23.8 T 0 32.7 112.4 145.1 i F.6 150.0 211.0 M8.6 7 V 195.6 11.2 21.5 228.3 14 V 464.6 14.8 51.0 527.4 L 0 5.2 5.8 11.0 L 0 0 66.0 64.0

. T 0 21.9 M.9 78.8 7 12.3 F.0 66.8 86.1

Table X-5-7 MINIMUM SEISMIC MARGIN CONTAINMENT BUILDING, CABLE TRAY IBLC j

l I

" I " I "" ."I"I*""

Structural Element Element Support No.

Maximum Code Margin Seismic Factor Description Number Combined Stress Ratio CM F l

SME (

Cable Tray (24") 27 NA 0.17 < 1.0 5.88 9.66 Unistrut Support 16 6 0.32 < 1.0 3.13 3.95 7 Beam, Fig. X-5-35 V' Type 22 M 2.62 Support Welding 16 6 0.46 < 1.0 2.17 3/16" Fillet Fig. X-5-35 Type 22 4

Table X-5-8 BOUNDARY ELEMENT STIFFNESS I TRAY 2BJQ, AUXILIARY BLDG.

B0UNOAR Y ELEML N TS ELEMENT TYPE = 7 WMRR OrtIIMYETS =

21 ELEMENT LOAD CASE MULTIPLIERS .

CASE (A) CASE (B) CASE (C)

, 1.0000 1 0000 1.0000 ELEMENT NODE NODES DEFINING CONSTRAINT DIRECTION Sp_! LING

, NUMSER (N) (NI) (NJ) (NK) RATE i .

1 2 3 0 0 0 .4070E+05 f 2 2 4 0 0 0 .1790Efj5 3 2 5 0 0 0 .6040E+04 4 7 8 0 0 0 .4860E+05 5 7 9 0 0 0 .1580E+0S 6 7 10 0 0 0 .5460E+04

'. 7 12 13 0 0 0 .3360E+05 8 12 14 0 0 0 .1MEf.(t 5 9 12 15 C 0 0 .6170E+04 10 20 21 0 0 0 .9420E+04 11 20 22 0 0 0 .2490E.+_q_5 l 12 20 23 0 0 0 .5700E+06 13 25 26 0 0 0 .8600E+04 14 25 27 0 0 0 .239CE+05 15 25 28 0 0 0 .9670E+06 16 36 37 0 0 0 .1497E+05 17 36 37 0 0 0 .205QE+08 18 36 38 0 0 0 .3230E+05 19 36 38 0 0 0 .837CE+07 20 36 39 G 0 0 .15_5_4.E + 0 7 _

21 36 39 0 0 0 .677CE+04 O

i X-5-33 J

Table X-5-9 SUPPORT LOADS FOR 2BJQ, AUXILIARY BUILDING 1

DESIGN LOADS

.. Support Direction OL Dynamic Static Sumation Type Seismic Seismic D+L+SME Aj V 138.7 60.8 48.6 248 L -

72.3 89.7 162 T -

39.3 43.9 83 A

2 V 434.0 193.5 151.9 779 L -

65.3 80.8 146 T -

148.5 123.2 272 A V 330.1 158.8 115.5 604 sim L -

71.6 86.9 159 T -

213.4 218.4 432 B V 228.7 85.0 80.0 394 L -

86.5 73.8 160 T -

225.2 534.8 760 L V 355.5 74.4 124.4 554 L -

78.8 66.1 145 T - 73.9 134.4 208 L V 202.0 23.3 70.7 296

' 39* 112.7 L -

135.7 248 T -

31.6 172.7 204 I

e y-5-34

^ -

Table X-5-10 MINIMUM SEISMIC MARGINS AUXILIARY BUILDING, CABLE TRAY 2BJQ Support Minimum Minimum Structural Element Element Maximum Code Margin Seismic Factor Supp rt No. Combined Stress Ratio Description Number ,

CM F SME Cable Tray (24") NA 0.33 < l.0 3.03 3.50 Unistrut Support 4 A 0.32 < 1.0 3.13 4.45 7 Beam, Fig. X-5-41 V' Type A

$ 12.50 21.57 Tubular Column 5 B 0.08 < l.0 3"x3"x0.25, Fig.

X-5-41, Type B Support Welding 6 8 0.24 < 1.0 4.17 11.95 3/16" Fillet Fig.

X-5-41, Type B Support Anchorage 6 B 0.34 < l.0 2.94 9.70 1/2" 4 Expansion Anchor Bolt, Fig.

X-5-41, Type B O

I Table X-5-11 SUPPORT FREQUENCIES FOR TRAY 2BSA

~

SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE (Hz) FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES _

Support Longitudinal vertical Transverse

, 1 24 34 > 33 2 24 34 3 24 34 4 24 34 5 24 34 6 34 7 48 > 127 s

8 >127 127 > 33 47

• 22 9

l 10 > 44 44 > 33 11 20 29 i

12 20 29 l 12 20 29

• l

• Indicates No Restraint: No Fre?ancy l

i X-5-36 4

, , . -- ., ,,- , . , ~ - , _ . . . ,,,._,.-.,-.,..-,.,.-......-,.c. ,,--, -.

l Table X-5-12 SUPPORT DESIGN LOADS FOR TRAY 2BSA SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE DESIGN LOADS Support s.)

Number Vertical Longitudinal Transverse 1 280 77 120 2 447 124 193 3 447 124 193 4 447 124 193 5 335 124 144 6 228 0 98 7 159 40 68 8 325 51 53 9 0 60 721 10 270 41 54 11 315 95 79

' 12 362 108 90 13 258 77 64 9

X-5-37

Table X-5-13 MINIMUM SEISMIC MARGIN SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE, CABLE TRAY 2BSA Structural Element Support Maximum Minimum Minimum Description Number Combined Stress Code Margin Seismic Factor Ratio CM F SME Cable Tray (18") NA 0.498 < 1.0 2.01 2.68 Unistrut Support 2 0.21 < 1.0 4.76 10.88 Type 22A Tubular Column 9 0.15 < 1. 0 6.67 6.67 3"x3"x0.25 Detail 1 Support Welding 2 0.28 < 1.0 3.57 6.28 3/16" Fillet Type 22A Support Anchorage 9 0.71 < 1.0 1.41 1.42 1/2" 4 Expansion Anchor Bolt, Fig.

X-5-48,50, Detail 1 t

X-5-38

= 72"  : --12"-

Straight Beam 10 12 14 1.6 1.82) 22 24 Elements 24 6 & 252B10 323436 g

40

.p, 2 35 k.J P

. .9

,3

/I il i3 i5 l'7 19 21 23 25 21/L31 33 ~ 39 Vertical Supports (Typ.) h L

' 9 47 12" 49:  : A8 jk 51 {A50 2: :52 SL 14 Rungs (Typ.)

59 :  : 58 61: :  : A0 Side Channels (Typ.)

52 72" 65 :54 67; _

A6 69 :  ; 68 71  ; 70 73-  : 72 75 :  : :74 ,

$r S FIGURE X-5-1. GENERIC 90' BEND-CABLE TRAY DETAIL FINITE ELEMENT ,

MODEL -

X-5-39

l l

l 1

72" -

- 12'4 Straight Beam Elements 2 3 4 @ f I ai l_0 U 1213 1_41516 1213.19

,z --- - -

gg Vertical Supports (Typ.) '

22

< 23 G4 I '

,<25 12"

426 G7 o28 429 o30 o31

< 32

<33 72" i

' 0 34

< 35 o36

< 37 "38

< 39 l 4 40 Ar l

! FIGURE X-5-1. GENERIC 90* BEND-CABLE TRAY BEAM MODEL i

X-5-40 l

ll G

P "o

p3

/

% N e *9 e,

4

'o *d

+

'e

) .

_ 't ,,

p y '*

,, ?6 T

) (

p s  % L E

y g T n  % ,, D O

( u M t

s ,

_ s a T l 'e p N e u E n M n E a L h <, E C '

E

) e ,

- T p

. d i

% I y N S

T 4 n I F

(

s e, <> L I

t A r

o p

g re T E

p , D u '

• . Y S A l ,, R a  % -

T c se i E L

s t B r 5 A e 1r 9 C

- V 9 s D v N E

B A + 0 f 3 J

s

• < a 3 5

+ e, -

X E

N 2> R U

G

% 6 I F

'* e a, '

I

' 4, y s h

f i

'o < ,

k s 7fu#

, 4 J

ll 1ljl

.\, '

p

- s

• s 1

v b

) Y

, p g y v T

(

• /

s t

r 'o o

p P p 8 u

S ,,

l

• e 1 6

a c *r i

t r

V e N e

b a,

/

N o L B E D

O 4 M

" M

'e A E

B E> Y A

6 R

1. T E

& L B

s ,, A E 6 C 4

9 o -

1. D N

<< E B

4 0

3 a,

6

1. 4 5

'3' X s E R

U G

's I F

t

• S 3

9

>e .

~

s D S 9 y90

\\ , I l i 1 ,1 \ 1  : I

0.0125 -

0.01 .

$ Deflection Curve of the Beam Model y Equivalent J value 0.0075 -

E

.?

O 0.005 .

/ Deflection of the Cable Tray Detail Finite Element tiodel

-s

/ . . . . .

0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 Maximum Beam Deflection at Node 20 (in)

FIGURE X-5-5. FLEXIBILITY CURVES OF GENERIC 90 BEND CABLE TRAY MODEL X-5-43

i i

0.2 .

^

, Deficc0 ion Curve of the Beam Model

.5 O.15 5

3 Equivalent J Value 5

u

} 0.1 .

.S U

-0.05 - Deflection of the Cable Tray Detail Finite Element Model 0.045 0.b50 0.055 0.b60 0.065 Maximum Beam Deflection at Node 23 (in)

FIGURE X-5-6. FLEXIBILITY CURVES OF 30* BEND-CABLE TRAY MODEL X-5-44

54 3% _

+-

,e.e- G '% , s '- o " .,

l C 0--

Z Cable Trays (36" Wide Typ.) ,

r

. "4 l

q CableTraySupport3ea4 i (Unistrut P1001 Typ.) ,

, 4'- _p'f

. U 3- (

l ' *

. i i Cable Tray Stipport Column ' I 2 (TS- 6x6xo.25 TyP- ) ' e j

s 0 Cy r l .?, . _____

@1 , X2 J -

J'. 3'_se" I s' :5" i:5* ' , l' . .A --X1 -

C N,,- - ik j s

\ i

<r l

O- , , .,i -

-O

.= c' 3 9 -

PIRI FIGURE X-5-7. CABLE TRAYS 1BGB, IBFB,1BFA, AND 1BFH X-5-45

l

/

/

/ t 9- =tte. ... _.. - g~. .,

, , , a .,

1BGB EL. 679'-10" ~

)*# <?'1 1BFB EL. 678'-6" .. -

( ,,N 1BFA EL. 677'-2" , ,

1BFC EL. 675'-11" _ _ L ~,

l J . - ...- n -

.s

! l -

, co-36" WIDE CABLE TRAY SECTION l

~~~~~=-

-f";'f' bl% _ "

F - - -

l 2:r.r.

c'.r. _f"!":'9'"a--

a-

.m i3 .

.. m r w. -

M u% \%

\

l t__._,

= "%

%__--*~ ~

m* j i -

SEC.*,=dN

e. 4 g

me

[ Ied 7 . a..D

_ c=, .

] _',- ~'seen .s emen

.h a war rver.n.es.,

mn.ga% ., _ SU M n? 'ver es.e

%+1>% er,.n -

6 e

~

FIGURE X-5-8. CABLE TRAYS AND CABLE TRAY SUPPORT SYSTEf1 t

X-5-46

l

\

r3043Jtt29

• hS '00

• H 49/62/80 b==G 5 5 5 5 5

. . -e

. + .

=

. o. 9 o o. , g aoaa a E w w

g .

EtE d -N a!b

.-- I If

• Ge oa U,

! m 4J

>N

==

vc

• * ~

z e gg

&]\) .E =

I&$

hh mm c

" wo

3 O 51 bE

$5 og

==

w

+ mg

-e Sa me

• ] JN w-Z w>

. m .

T T

x 8

7 O

t 5 5 I 5 5 0Z'l 00 1 09 0 09'O .Oh*O DE*O 00'0 (D) NOI1BW37333W 31070S80 0003Sd X-5-47

l noonew.e en oo ti reisene b

, , , , I

' 1

. -e l

. =.

- . -. =

N h o z

c o o o.

e e m

. OOOO .pg H II hw

./ =

w 3

o H

J

- " e

- -=

-=

g ,

. 0  !

U

. af= ,

m h

. . NW j  ;

\

.. ., e a. ,

% M l Z w i .- -es * $

o 4

i 6

h u h w

. WZ kJ Q i

! ~3 z a -

uJ bc $5

- u. "b

==

Mu x-

. af'*

O F-w

.

• SY w l-

. "W Z ww

. af9

• O, e LO

.

• A w

M

"3 a

o u.

A

' ' 5 5 '

On E 00*E 09'l 02 1 09'O Oh*O 00'0 (9) NOI18W373338 31070S89 0003Sd .

X-5-48

JC04 GEM *g .st.00 71 28192/30 ,{C

--e l e n .

n a

) * #

- -e .

- - w $

88oo * @

oogo -

• PPPP * $

a m m m g * "

m E

H R P

- g

• O

- -a n

- m u g m

~

., m m m 5 a >- o M m n m

- wE o

! M C

-o I o $dn m

Q3 e

t nM em m-1 -

- + go t

- n ,g

- + 08

-. O& rz

- W mw mz

- -s 1 *

- w T

Y

= n m t "c O

n-C 04 2 00 2 06 1 02 1 08 0 04 0 00 0

)G( NOITRRELECCA ETULOSBR ODUESP X-S-t6

E g . . . . ...., . . . ....., . . . . . . . .

E Of4P = 0.020 V

2 3 0.030 . .

! 0.040 g g

3 ~

o z- g

.o, " g e 4 E

C o wm g: . g 7 u ( o tl' T G \ S E

WE 58 a

,' o i O

CD so

\

OE

• a

~3 w

m o

10 I 5 4 3 4 6 4 t46W i g

( { 4 IIII d

\

F EQUENCY (HERTI) l

FIGURE X-5-12. ENVELOPED SRSS CONINED RESPONSE SPECTRA CONTROL TOWER, ELEVATION 685'-0" l -

VERTICAL DIRECTION INCLUDING VERTICAL FLOOR SLAB AMPLIFICATION I

r30tt3tthe '94 00*&l 29s84/88 D-e 5 I E 3 U

. G

= . * .

-=

M "o.

. m o

. *W

• RRgR

0. U. 0, ,e9

=

aooo e

= 5

. g ' w d w

b

1. d sg

. e

. . + v

• a==

a 4 >N =

N v

-- -- g w Las m Z w

. es

• m

> o.

u tg

. *z a:

o

~'3 w s G 5 DC LaJ gz O S e La.

e vg

. mw e 4 me

. + mo

. = Pam

o. w

-

• ST

-, WM 55 s'=4

. w ix u

8

'o C 3 '

V W W 00*C OS*t 00 2 05 t 00 1 05 0 00'0 -

(0) NOI1HW313338 31070SGU 0003Sd X-5-51 ,

- i . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _._ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _

ll

_. s

_ u$yg g.O Ei= '0 1

y 5 a 5 ,

s 1 "

0 a E '

y I 5 8

6 0000 A N 2347 O 0000 I I T 0000 A V

= E L

P E i M ' .

E ,

D R

E W

O T

'O L O

g I R T

4 N

6 O C

y i ,

& A

) R T

a 4 ZT C E

\

\ P y 4 R S E E H

(

S s i N O

P Y S E

C R s AN D E E U NN IO Q EI ft RE PT OC CE l iF R g

SI s 4 SD R

a & SH l

a i D0

- E0 s & P5 O -

s 4 LH ET VR s 4 NO EN y 5 4 1

5 s A X E

R U

G

' I F

'0 1

m D9" ~ am* gO o Ed G zo FGCwd 8a wWDJon

( ca3wm"-

rr$

lli \l lt lll1 lllIll lll l,l 1 l

e l i l  : 1 i

_ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ._..-  : i  ; g . .

_ _ _ . . . _. _ _ _ . . , . . , _ , _ _ _ , _ , , y, l

~

l. y l 'l 2 ,

?

• l l 8 9g . ci .. 112 l 76  ! I ld 31

_ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . . .g .7 _ __ 7 2 - - ' -

- 10, - -

[ [2 t 7 71  ; ) 1 21 3 83; 60 0 7 7 ,

9M ,

k 5 '

6 13tn 77 3 7

- . _ . _ . .-6 -M _ _ __ r . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . .

5t[5N d2

?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

60

~~

88 7

1. / A -- C.ible Tr ays iBG B .1 BF B' i j

..f P

.--!, 6 3 l x

A-

, __g _ _j . . _ _.. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . _ _ . _ .

l. .

k 4[. f ,j.

,a 6 2 I

a . .

<e  : L ----

u j 5 - - -

-.a - - - . - - _

GableTfaysIBFA,iBFg '

20 . . i X3 6 2 i

, [

o 2 l a e I 2

17 8 ) Shpport' Beams 'Tyld

. X1) b -

f upportl Columr , 15 l

Fixed at Ends (Typ) , 1 6

I

, I i .

I I I I i l i l l l i

l FIGURE X-5-15. FINITE ELEMEliT MODEL - N0DE NUMBERS

1  !  ; 3 . .

. l l  !  :  ? I i

l l '

• l l .t

.j *

..)____... ....__y_.. ,

I . I i  ; '

1 I t '  ; '

- l

, l 11 126 gf j j  ! S1 1 1$ s

! l i 114

• 70 'a

• 1 105. '

_ __ _4 ,

jg ,2l .

I3 . os 12 115 l l*

I 117 2 6 ; 14 ' gg , g3,

- 9 ilo' l 11 4tr ,

a ton -

g tit I o7 l'

28 r3 [f g o 1 57 7 '

...

• 56 i 1$2

1. . . ._ . . . . . .>. .

.. UI

._. 13 e

. ..92. .. B7 g

' 06 12  ;

M8I i 68 8 BE  ;

3 l gg7 55 5g b /

ji3 i an I 6 86 l .

5 6 66 6' N 7.,_ 72

, . . . ,.. - . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . ]. ,

g g j7

• j 6' g 7 70 t 6 g

, l

- - _ - . . ~~-~

- _ . _ _. ._ . 2 ETEMENT NUMBER .

i

? " . ",

. f. rl>i '

l m 4 48 - 6

• i t ._ , . .

' 3  :

42 15 '

2 2  :

.3 l l 23 f

! 73 1 g )

db .. .2 go 15 ,l , .

gg ; .

l 4 '

i l g 24 1 i

g) 6 i 2 i l'

i

g ., .

l *

' 12 9 g X 2 -

i, j g -

i s ,

i i  ! I I  ! l I i l I

i e

FIGURE X-5-16. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL - ELEMENT NUMBERS

t.

8

l 1I '

l 1 .

l 9 33 l 3

l

. g _.. [ Ym I IL5 a12

.. g)

._l._._ . . . . .

l g 8d

• ,h -

r 4P inn io 11 ,

12 e 3 JF y i D -

. 8 29

' .76 7,7k.._.- ,/ - . . . _ ...._g . . .

.g/ P . . .

p M'

A 7 47 i

1

' i g , m i t JI_qq i)

N' E 77 1 2 IlN

• , ~t

. . . . - ...s .Ms .

- .. .. . ~ . _ _ . . -. _ .. . . . . . .

_ .. h

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '

, g

.. ..#.  % 6 y_

__ Dynamic Decr.e90 of.. Freedom,(Typ.) . .

'  ! l l / '.. N -

leg

~

l Y T

l b

u 2 t

l ag ._ . s. . e I

LU?EED MASSES (Typ. )

t l w .

.g .. ...,_.g, '

w '4 i i

" - m 2.  ; .

I 2 I aeh l 6 '

l X-)

u l

l}

1

g. ,

. q i2

,3 ,

2

- u {

a 5 l l

X2 X1 I i . l . I l I i i l .  !

l FIGURE X-5-17. LUMPED MASS MODEL FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS

h b b '

p 2 t h i rt

~

-z H10 2 + 2 HTvst'- ,

_ _ . N ,

l .. . .

,' E L . cGN'-Id' U:. ' 'M'- T ,, ~

&- . _ _ _ _ _ _ . hu.u - s t. 6

• s." g m._g.

e.t . GL,'.4_ mw ~

~

Et. 666~-T' g r__[

[_ H/[iEL68.C-5"

. -Z6TF 5 4 2pyy

~ 8

-2 HT v s2' ,

2BWD z sze is'

_ 4_ ELAVATION

-'#- 2 ssu n~_

Support Type Support Section m2NTV12" , 2BJQ12" 2NTV12" x

2NYQ24" 2EJQ12" h \ 2NYQ24-7'l!

' ~

$ 2BTP6" &

2BTQ18" Xf! "

(4- N y-I <-c

=

v.< g. ,,,,

T >

r

~

'i,/ T-

,.s

~~~

~~.-.

\ p.<~~s.-x ava -11 y -

~ -

g--

~

W ",, c p- .w 8 .. .

. s. 2 z

1 / l --

,- . .-- _-y--

zi

/ p, f _.

e- ,f j *-5 e

s ,---

. !- u p -

Sj ,, y , _

2 l

m. . 41

,,,f

@ 5/ f -

-I= hx.h., ;gj % '

2. R [ , , , , ,[ , ,

=,.

s 14 .- w w nf M / Lu  ; n 4 l

=

\I  ? G~l 1 0 G .

?' M L T '

o- :

p.%.9:c -

s!~12 -:oj 3

.. m. o z o - t," g g_ o.

• z g,'. o "

--we r  ; z Q Q PLAN Q

\ .

FIGURE X-5-18. CABLE TRAYS 2BTF, 2BJQ, 2NTV, AND 2NYQ

@ @li e

! i i p l .  ?  ? v d .

g I.

.,m .  ; ,,

qq. q r g

t

'6 l

i I,

,h

, \,

a Y

i ,

sl l

i e

Q- ,\ l \.:. n.~J o ,

s'

~

hw ls n

1".$

c k\g\

l

/1 ]- "f g

/ I:f.c w b@ Ly

, y 3 3' _

'g a

' I! ! 3 si s es '

s l \1 N..

Q \I \

I ZI$ /

O y 3 8

<h t J,

5 g

y j e

$g i,6,. -

j( 1 ^g S As% ses i . , g III _ .g.@ (

n g t

g -

'7 , t ,

, 3 Z*= .h, r

- bC yi' ,l $

.. au [s.xd$ Nyf i

~? #,N !.

3 a s

' 8 'gMv.q Q );; }j G , ,

.  ; 2 li'I hL 3 -

i

,I

< k g - - --

ij d '3 h

! -4i 7 4 --

k uj f  ; '

$Y_ 'ff

+- e m n Q

/D[ -

kk ,, ,

's f-[

r, i

l

.4 .'

l_ ;d ,'. 41' l.j '4

/

// I

_@i i

Ni ...

1

.3 a

4 I __ _ . __ _ _

_ , _. Ps .

_g r= -

=> y-8 l i m .",,$ .

n es re

[f f . s r4 , ." $" +=== .

i

~ .

w a,-s F - e E atee*  :

" M g. r 8

h,7,,. g. * **88 4( j# ***

L-- 1

4. % m .,.  ; ,

s/  %._ ,

g;;

{'n w> -

/

i

.arrg-  %, 1,

_ gh W '

. *** W

• • • ".J _ ' _ w memn.g mg

1. d4 ePfle*

.2- .c ==*

m_ ~ -

***< gg,,,, L, .~ Q c1s

ma "*

ca aww-i a f3

[ - \

F "'" * # I o! I au m arf M p

't c-- - u .= v Ci; F 'i .a w,fe / v e fIm .. _ _ _T ~% CA di l aer O s wrJr 4 W a*

.l - i j u =r aw n ,

[ i l I M a ..m.,,e/aW L gg4 I.,

I e em M ,,,,, g-- C ; ,. _, f mm e a ane w w

yGw=%qJ . ./c L\ ,,,

' u

!*1 o o c= sv -

g J ***' g Wg ~~

,;c >

<a4 e

. 7 % v 3,3.'

6 v -

t.w ois

->t .. g- 4<>

f--. - HF -

-p SECTCN _ N rt. w M#

1 1

&4as a* s a @* * - - - - ------

MY, .*

5 ..

=

r -t24 y _, e.

. ,5 pe l --

t

,.7e ~m mr . '

k ft

%V F-E d ~~

j e d d F"

, cl -

SECTCN /Si% FIGURE X-5-20. CABLE TRAYS SUPPORT SYSTEM

.W X-5-58

t sr= ,

D 'e' 4 amme ris' -

[

~ - . .- L.-. ~ ,! ]

- ..s ,,

.u

,,,e,

~~~~ s ~ s=

9,k , a -

9- 3

. L m.s y ., m w

i g _- '

g;n...- 4, ,,,,, c , , ,

- r- ,

=,* h 'd '

1

1. 8 'er I. / I' I i gassaseele' , , w  %,

t ,

wlH

. ~m ---__

m.,,, (,

4r.M T .

l

~~~

iii/**~

• Eg W, f Yli) 4

[a >N

1. -- - _ :m x--

,.)

aarta m 1

,)

'#F

&& u /%~~~}

SECTCN W SECTCN M w

s.w _a

• ~* ** = 1 _ ,.- au.

Ie>

[

) l '!

3CJ ! , i ,J4 *'** ** ag = Pl r I  % .... --<,rve Ig m nas.a=,y l

- e G ... .

""- p/ 5F p 4 '

!i* 8 '

E--.< rve w pg. 79 h, 7 & . ,

oKrQt '

.; _u m c.^ ,) WD Yl, -',D] w.

,ct 1"?.,_bh.f#.5"a l '(v

+1 .%

-, d p. . lll.L- ,,

lp,

[ , '$ ul W h$' -

W Av. cm4a =rs

. cW Pam gy SECTfCN M =~t'TcN &

w.a:eus6 i U ' 4so:

) & estaq',egr h-- " L3.s.ees . ,w l,.

b q

% A' D b w

wN rys FIGURE X-5-21. CABLE TRAYS SUPPORT SYSTEM f w X-5-59

t l

s e -,.

s_- m ,_

r i

w ome no

• W * ** "t A af .ab " Sftsb banasual so gg,se,,yeneng

\

-d

. ~

.;,,,,,, / /

I

% f f,r , ,

f 7 ===r

=

• A'***- ,1*

..a , g g,. . . ,,

W _ sees

1. 's.i.pm {

~

.p

. -s *Sa",I, .'M, o ff*e =u q '

r ( e , e ede

/ W F' fW C g= is..

> ,4 = * '

.~

' = %T is

'L**

a -

f s i, 8 p.

b..m "T -

\3 ,88 E-M. ifm .

8 q

5

, , _ , 8 e sem i-(, 9,g -

j #~  ! 4-) ll M el l'Ist ll D '*f(*

~'

f L

-?.$ 8 (

,-e .* + 4

\ :8%* M*. es D"% [ g~ ,' .

u (y

.6 .. l '

. .. 7. ,

i i g t maw

!- 21.1 'SAY haw g

v As arven.A.t .

ha a - .. .. , ,, i

. : ,:.c;-

' ( hWaa. 8*.e *= m anat.s a-Ls.sogy,.ang,.- gg, SUSDogt Tygg g gg7 g,g

• 3*'

. E.'3 7

• 4. I~ 4 Y I e >80RIZONfAI. TR AY) 1

_ : .z esmond.

1*WWE 8,& S&T 4

esose- tareu ,,i. mm

f. gg OW3 EE CBTam.&&A ostan, e

! 9 - . A / NA V-IO / m 4

,1( (uj UJ y< -

AP L1 Bur is rt (.dummun.

m amenes Ad6 amie

• E - . d 6 0 u m QEThe. ada

', 8h4 a. 843648 fvuesa.

l u ,

abasssua., e. - ***=-

osma. Esa t.se saa s ,

(N) supaar rype 2, sun car ryns n + n> ,

.s:w o . m - . , ,

&}- 8M L N, , hardfft N, v-c Ot

• • • M

\ g'r,h ====

sEcticN /Ts FIGURE X-5-22. CABLE TRAYS SUPPORT SYSTEM W

f X-5-60

NOTE:(kHOLES PER SIDE STRONLY

, l ,

14 G A.

3 o/

& , 16GA.

, , (

'l ,/

0 .N

~.

ec 'o

,, , ~

& p 's

) ,

y

%l&*.

. i' Tray Width,"W" Flange Width,"X" 12 1 18 1 24 1 36 1 3/4 FIGURE X-5-23. 12", 18", 24" and 36" WIDE CABLE TRAYS X-5-61

l 29-9-X PSEUDO RBSOLUTE ACCELERHTION (G) 0 00 07 40 0,.80 1,.20 1 60 2 00 2 40

+ e a O.-

n "o

C m

n -

T is- .

Ez * -

m<

$m*

zo +

cn m e- '

$5

-m

• \

v1 w

. @ m to O ME C mm m -

2* Zw nx n =

?U m M l SE

=m 2 48- -

@m m d$ 3 .- -

om H zn N*

g , . - -

+ ,

$ *

• s , -

x e- -

g W y -

2> S Q

co 5

• G -

E o E, 48" H -

m 5 PPPP cg

• S288 coco j

m -

• m- .

m 5 .-

- I e a . . .

S 03/29#82 17.00.48. M44EG40CJ I

'l .1 l 1l lll lll

,yggE i gog- .? a= '0 1

6

. 6

. 3 A

. P 4 E 4 T S

0000 E

. 2347 W 4 /

0000 T 0000 S 3 A

= E P

M G

. D N I

i D

L I

U B

Y

'0

'1 0

R A

I L

I

. X 6

U 1 A 1

1

) AN RO

$ Z TI T CT

. R EC A PE E SR H ED I

_ I( S NH

- Y OT PU C SO

. ES IN R -

H E DT U ER Q NO IN ft E B R M ,

O"

'l F C0 A S' A S9 R5

. I S6

& DN EO PI

$ OT LA EV 4 VE NL EE 5 .

5 2

5 E -

X E

R U

G I

0 F 1

E; 8g Eg  ? $" g-o 2 6' 8

_9 zO Gxw uua wnoao,uc5 wUi"-

7 T g; I l

99-9-X 4

PSEUDO RBSOLUTE RCCELE8ATION (G) 0.00 0,.40 0,.80 1,.20 1 60 2 00 2 40 3 o 8 a w

m x

c'n * "

i ro cn ss- -

mm I r2 Em D r-2Q om sn- -

zo m.

S$ * .

= ,

e-ri r- ~

~

C.

m-

"h 33 q m

3g O

-4 o C

$~w M mm 2> "

$$o U M

c:s z Em 0** ~

n" vi 2

-a o m -

,o M

f~

N*

A

> w

• m- ~

E +

x .- c, -

C *- .

> . s- -

E o_

c=

5 r-o E * ~

.o E,

1. I

.o .c c .o

(" e- 8282 m o o o c:> a m

-d W =

5, e- . .

• +

• e- ~

e- "

a i . . ,

03/29/82 17.00.48. gggetcq0CJ k

)

l r30tS3tthe 'St*00*&l 29/82/10 b I I I E g i 4 4

- .e.  ;

e b

~ *

- oooo

. k .,

q a Di L

g

• 5

=

- . g d

E b a

- - :5 e d x

- .e. R f -

~

,smaus

.N e

h yQ m-0 ., & D >==

> 2*

• z u Cd

=u U C U $

a .z >

W ga be $="

- a. u@

• 4 m-

"

• EN m .p. WW

• S8 m-m>

ZJ mm

~

~ * .

N1 t

u 8

'o t'

' I 5 5 I .

Ot*2 00*t 09 t 02 1 09'O Oh*O 00'0 (D) NOI1BW373338 31070S98 0003Sd l X-5-65

[

i r20DS3tthe 'St*00*LI EOsSE/80 b-

' e , ,

-e

-e ~

+ 4

• S

• tiw

- RR*R 8

• R i-oooo

=

. 3

- R *

=

5 d

a cc

' 1 b e

- 5

- e x m-

- <m

. *N W b Dt-

., ew gg m o:

E w8

• en ~ m I

> 8h

o. m y mo

=

2 Y 1 U 3

Ch w a:

s O 5@

dW g.- -

_ -m mm

. @ m .'

- m.

• 85

.

• 8C d&

- ~' E"i ww M

x

. 8

'o c 00 9 00'S 00'h 00 t 00 E 00 I 00'O -

(0) NOI189313338 31070S8tf 0~003Sd l

X-5-66

' = _ . . _ _ _ . _.

l l

r30DS3tthe 'St*00*&l NiSE/89 b-5 y 5 g 3

- - e. .

l

- 4 $

w I

NM

• oo8ok F--

m ddds *

• u

. W

- "WD

(

I

- a s

z f a l d E

b >-

_ - g

/  ; '

E

- .~ s

~g D5 w-u r m8

- -es - w a:

>=

zb o

u 8; t;;

- az wm W

3 C3 F-

.. O W

N&

-w be

_ -o $g.

- e m,

- + MG

- -* az

. =4ft -

SE W5

> Ed x

u 0

'o S u.

Oh*t 00*t 09't Ot*t 09'O Oh*O 00'0 -

(0) NOI1HW373338 31070SGU 0003Sd i

i X-5-67

Support Type (typ.)

NYQ24" 2BJQ12" ,

2 z.i 2

.g -, - ,,,

. . s, 1,. tz+ ,,, . s a

y ,

.~

+ u s ,,.

m f'\, ,,

+1. .~ _ i . - .

.n.

m m

.n ~

1,, ,,

l x2 " .

-.1 l

. ,, A.a. _ a p .

%* 5' m= .t g, a ina u. is  !

x,

'55 e

• I,, ,,, y J '9a/T T

\

(

1 ,, ,

(

'I.x) W,5 * ".N\\ dM('"'** T 2 R ,, / (

l

[ "'

1, . .s .i Mt ii. h. " .A n\'t, i. +.'1y;. f ,h, " ,, "*

, 8 y

XI G **"

E F 11 lf & p g U 2 2DJQ12" 2NTV12" 2NTV12" 2BTF6" & 2BJQ18" Support Section (typ.)

FIGURE X-5-30. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL - N0DE NUMBERS, AUXILIARY BLDG. EPA, TRAYS 2BTF, 2BJQ, 2NTV, 2NYQ

Support Type (typ.)

2NYQ24'A 2BJQ12" 2

2

' ; s

.,i."*,,, a u,,

," => -  % ,+ '

1. oa at

,, ((,, "'

a =E tif_"[4," ha ' " ,,,j* 1".,_'7. ,

• w ,, ,, ' ' '

Agi ,,, 1 I X2 . ..

6' , s.

m ".M% tn

~. '93.~

4

, , . M , , ...,

x ,

'" * ** * '" '" A*,, e

, 'b' 3 . " XN'6 ia I h ,M

' *i

. Am4 ..

• a' .i

<4'5 ,,,%

2

.. \ii. - z- 2,,

I cn c

=~h ,

m w R -

, , ,, ,a\m t

- -y A%v"u _kkd@LD'"'

iis "'~

• l , , .

'" T x1 c.5, i, .g'D*. .. Les l 3,pgg E F G H C 21 P M U 22 22 2BJQ12" 12" .

-2NTV12"

'2BTP6" & 2BJQ18" Support Section (typ.)

FIGURE X-5-31. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL - Elt. MENT NUMBERS, AUXILIARY BLDG. EPA, TRAYS 2BTF, 2BJQ, 2NTV, 2NYQ

l Dynamic Degrees of Freedom (typ.) Support Type (typ.)

2NYQ24" g 2 P G 11 D C

, \ s\s s \h &WL E gg , , , ,

s QVr\/

A a1. L & yn c w N t

~

E vcc ,, c y w 71 t

p 22 22

\

i BJQ12" NTV12" 2NTV12" Lumped Masses (typ.) A x 2BTF6" & 2BJQ18" Support Section (typ. )

M

$s

, FIGURE X-5-32. LUMPED MASS MODEL FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS, AUXILIARY BLDG. EPA,

• TRAYS 2BTF, 2BJQ, 2NTV, 2NYQ l

lll' e

p "

- y 0p T

'- o r 8D

,K " "

3 7 6 5 5' 5 X

' t E

B

/ F.

U

" T C

^ ,

" 3 U 2 - R

/ '

T 1 g 5 S 1 B n T

e p

y

/ _~ [lf m 0i

'4

- a Fr 0

R O

T C

8 -

A E

6 mr '

R 7

l o C Ef L

- t B

.l l 3a 0l 6' 1 TP -

\ 4' Y

A R

T

.l

'y " E a 6 L

- r -

B T A

'4 C l e 0"

._'] '1 -

A . b' .

2m a7 3 2i e S, '

N C7 6

0 3

5 pr 4l yo 2E '8 X T

_~

E

. _l' R U

l lk ac s \" 0 G

I F

Wi h '6 eT - _

t .

, l e" '

r0 6" c- -

C n

o '4 _' _

\ '4 N

_l'

[N'

\

6 0 6 O 3 4 TM l )llll l l l

NM

-rm M W

( f

~

g

. TSS SLW 9tfa#LM j * [. .

g g v x;- ?.8 E - . - ( . , .*

i u , ,

' tDR M fW

, I ll ~' # '

I JOi 1/

- i l i

il J/

l ;I .

a grerw.

\ l.+ .

Z:, /

l l, L,ma [} *.'.(..-

g-Z_T s  ;  : naLar4' ".

~ . - o-. -

- $'O" -

%"iM D M

.. y n

OkT 5 (CJnA.WW FOW 4ttT!44. W

(*TP t C49 tA pg(f aN w uns Tucmua6 amasa) wtweev s Cbt iA

/ -l/ // //////// //

\}-

%,/

. ,ca wov o.

l. ) {g A 6 f SZJC W

, I 96& TAT

. ', an.* Pet? 4 36MauATE*hcasht L4dAT W 34AC.a.C. hoc,ecu

wa4. ecunae, [ 964 TRAY turPen? ,jj L.oCATioma ows \W WN vM ~. Fans DEt totfrPt c3 un 1.e .. , erts

m i

' L-'1i.i @ .. _e+da r b.e'""_ 4,J  : tem ros c.aena h m (T' t l w=.9 69 saTwemF tasEEnem i .e e. 8

• • fh r 'Q wN g.

\. . 135 ( SECT 10se A-A SLA TEAY inJpfem'T _ DET. (.A rT9 \ .. mn - L4RVa. GRACE A O E E. S% SUFPORT TYPE 818A (HONZONTAL TRAY) 1RA8094ASA M 1NWE && Ga.Y Pt00t""" MTAa 111i DETAu. LLC ) (l*ff ) M CRTast.1&S cefas. nem 1 - ( V-L orm. e s y acan a ro emem. s 2- / E E iIn/'o*s E +AA v - a4smm m Y oer- = m a ",a ".J-tw aan) SUPPORT TYPES 22 4 22A .gr.w 6) 6amesmao=44L anw.na nansmo unsaae Snactes t>s a apfs6s'r pesq L) 904 & LAYEA$. Locaft Ldhaaffugadh SAACsWE AT CdmiuACTWha w1Tucut 11tAaJtwsASA . - w,= ., esA. cam.M.w, MTTES .

• M *=4

==w SECTION /K\ W . I FIGURE X-5-35. CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS X-5-73 1 L 9'JJbi9W3ra st t? 61 29/12/50 b I i # g g -m . -m w -~ $ s -o g a oooo -c s N m :T P= m oooo ocoo z -m w s it Z Q-r -N e o z s Q E E N) y -a m -e s ~ -c U ~ g -o . -m *5 @ ~ C Dz wo r w n. - l I "D ww -n - w z x. > 2* a ms -m z w< xw~ s/ W S$ 3 o zw y he wo -m m .' -m mm - um -m me ~ -o cz wo -r c. - os .s< ~ .r WD za wm i -n e m a ~ -m m x w a E o C 06'O St O OD*O Sb O OE*O S1*O 00*O (9) NOI1693'13336 31010598 0.003Sa - X-5-74 l 1 l I f 033W93 ISIS *15*91 91 29/12/50 D-r f - -Cn * - -co E = - -r~ - -c $ a -r & C000 m N m -T r~ "# ~ C000 .a:c . . . . z 0000 - -m y z W 41 G- . - E -N e O Z \ o b a CC = _ g O - g - -en y - -m .c - -r- $ o - - -m N z & uo - -y C w-ag d Wu -n y,_, EQ u mm -~ z w eW i "3 OH ZN - O -w g bC - - u- uo - -& m .' - -co m Ln cz co - -r~ mm - -o 08 -m 8 a .~x w> - -7 >w zu ww - -n m = - --~ x w cr D - to 'O [ i i i i . 09 1 OS*1 02 1 06*O 09 0 OE*O 00*O (0) N01169313336 31010586 0003Sd i X-5-75 l 93Jts93I918 *15'91'S1 29/12/50 D  % . -CD $ 2 . -N w v . -(D D M .sp w ~ OOOO

• N M ::r N -y -.J C000 <

g OOOO m -M w w i z ~ li (1. * . Z -N O g O - N O O J E 5 0 m O - 8 . -m t;

• -e <

w . -& 2 "U * - et z . -m N gS t-- aw -w W $w W m cr -- I ~ yg . - - -M m zz y Sb mo - -N Z $T W c5 ~3 we o Eg w m DE 5' _ -w ab . -e m- -= -n $8 me - e S m 5.-. . -m gg w> - -7 $W ww a . -M . m M . -~ h. w e D C 6 IZ i i i i a . 09 1 05 1 02 t 06 0 09*0 0F 0 00'O (0) N01109313))U 31010590 00n3Sd X-5-76 1' d e h c , . a go e t t A t 7 n 2 a =, e n L /' ioa s , n 2 2 oo G D L B R O

• T C

t~ d A E R e t E D 0 1 d f R P ~ E T U P 1 f Pd 0 C ~ C L B I Pd Y A R T E L B d A C P ~ 9 3 5 P6 X . E R ~ U G I R~d F AZ , d

e I \ lI1 11 1 ll

l [ a TOS EL 672'-6" 14 Floor Framing a r-4'-2" i r -A A 6 + 24" Cable Tray 2BJQ EL 669'-0" 8'-0" / '(( ( ' Concrete Wall \ 4'-0" Thick \ l 4 n"D ' 3'-7" t 4'-11" ?t * '[ j'. 0" FIGURE X-5-40. CABLE TRAY 2BJQ, AUXILIARY BUILDING X-5-78 br ir iin er I ~ GW S Te W 4 7s C es c.rs.e= - yy p t o..r. . . re ms.oto ertase A es9'<s' hrs whos. _m- oW L i i N-e teve) h ar amar a m - m e. -m _ _ _ , WW . h w a rs c - . re &s.. nw en.e* ~ .. a jr g wG h_. es d.h -v /ytt.fa*e* ~ ] )c,r. ....... t] ,. b h (see-o* i f Ts he.ese h * #

• d

.) (R88' , . frisee 9 l < f'T A - -L - - ,_,__ I _-J 4 W%=aW Y l ,p g,' . "

f. m, _.

-- vr ma a as C#cTtON @ 1* our I av mrser

• N .,/ w we as a G SECT 10N __ /Tb_ se, FIGURE X-5-41. CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS X-5-79

l t r30993tthe 'St*00*tt 29/82/t0 b-e 5 5 5 5 3

• =e

• -*- d

- -. S ~ * . oooo ., g " b; g * $ O lic

• W M d

w CO Q -- - - :5 e x

• =P* e:C f

a <C .- g h4  % - e d5 m-8 3 N MH

• M EE o.

u w -.J -

• z W5

$ S3 o w sw m . be - u. 5_- ve = a. m- . .c. me " 4 O .- . @g m> m @ W mm . =W5 , N v e "dif- ., x u - 8 'O [ m On't 00'E 09't 02'l 09'O Oh*O 00'0 ~ (D) N01189373330 31070S88 0003Sd l X-5-80 4 l rmemime se os ti re,sene b-E y 5 E E - e . + < . . < b

• M RRoo oo8o w dddd $

. g I - E . g 5 d E b a 1 - 1 . -= d . x .~>- - b5 ~ ~ wCtd EC mu mg . .r - gg > 2r u em . .. *z m :. , 5 a ed ,~, 55 %E -m @.- mm . -= m- .

• 9;t

. e. mw -

• S5

. . 8C d6 j Ed wm O,

• '?

x u

8 o C I ' '

s on a co a os i ca t oe o on o 00 0 - (D) NOI189313338 31070S88.00n3Sd X-5-81 i um i ii e }  % ,,,,os,is m sa/se  %==* , -

• n *

.m . atn.

• 9

.m e-m . 88oc

• 2

o. 2.*. 4 oo

= w 9 a

• E G

5 m 4 4 .. II- x c .e E= . a yw ~5 n-AA

• mma m= -

. m ;g a =m M 8<- wg se m2 A& m . - m ga ' c =o O qmm 5= ~ -m 9-n e, . m- - .o ma .

• 0!S GE

. m 8.22 r -

• AO 99

. n 3 A . g .,o. 3 oc.0 00 5 00rM 0 00 00 f 00 IG( X-9-82 * ~ Is zX / Y U s 90 Bend Nodal Points l ll l 9 Straight Beam Elements ( hgg sm e 21 e e@@e3 22 37 23 -g 3 FIGURE x-5-45. CABLE TRAY 2BJQ COMPUTER MODEL-AUXILIARY BLDG. X-5-83 l /TN S '- t a a 18" Cable Tray '4 ~p. "^ [3 EL 644'-8" , s . ,,

• 4

~ ta x g< i .Mf. fI le /. l / N  ! / / . 's  : .s ! .s l' \ s  !.__# ff i  !/ 's i # 's! 'sl 'sil v-o ' B gjj ~ , lj i v o --- ' y , -_e,_ - s -a . e-o s '- o - s *- * . . 7 _ _ '. , 4' *  ! l l p l___ 1.- A7, i FA l v W-to l g l . _ L __ . ,.' 9 8t 4to Q i s PLAN s t- S b,N'.T_L%. - _ _t itU l , NW7 - T g {b hw. I H fu./ ' u r- ;; r . -_ u kametrecm) -d I J;a [ E # Eu"manESn av- __,n {_s<"**** _7 => w? CETAll M MJd"'"* k r.w er h 65 , f5'rs'e O \, .) , 1 h % h"n'*% a A s Y W __

• Y strina M -

W - FIGURE X-5-46. CABLE TRAY 2BSA PLAN AND SUPPORT DETAIL, SWPS X-5-84 \ u se _ se_ --= 2 .no no t . *!,"Q'M'* ne 'N \  ? .k

a. ss; n1 ;

\ a a

• • U e > '

/ . . ~ , .e .g ' b nO%Ef-y  ?% ,. e n I MnW mens /h mW l .' ?IshW.T ab.M ~~2 . at TION AE\ W j , w A",.. $. h .1.  %. a~n' I M p f'#'L , t g_ J. r eL680 L'1 ' d il so- s CETAll M w FIGURE X-5-47. CABLE TRAY 2BSA SUPPORTS, Sk!PS X-5-05 <o ~ a ..e g ~ , L .n 2..., d, w . = .<. . . .. P% Ale M & & 1en . 70.2% k ' l l#M M * *" v. Lam 8tsrt s'-d m l SUPPORT TYPE IG W ec Y. g- .... _ om . ... m 'L -. I yZ  ; 9# '* C3er is F13 m IJ Ds $44 _yg ~ . = .u = usama) --~, m saa es SUPPORT TYPES _22 4 22A .u!1r si unwnomi. w % mese eneones me g,wegg ,wg &)804.N upreft umaarfumada. , anaca84 47 commenen wruaur NW SAACa44 USAdd #pr33

• M ISS ON MAntOtawine.

M <_.__, N . . . JECT!ON /RN W j FIGURE X 48. CABLE TRAY 2BSA SUPPORTS, SWPS X-5-86 l I rsemaasene es oo st asssa/so b, ~ .c. - ~

• J

• 5 e

b w ~ " ~ QRf.R aaaa e y

• E

• =

_ g . W 3 ' W

• d

~~ e 5 a e

• .. . d

= . .~.. bz

• U

., e ES "O " W $$ . i . . .r z-2 ' - y Od I m- u "M

• • Sm

! w zw . s -> I o E. w o= o t bc ! -% 5?e e ~ + S5 -e bc a<

• W5

. za 0 ., ww k -

~ e , '?

• m x

8 C W W Ops og O 04 *0 05 0 01 0 O I 'O 00 0 (D) NOI1BW373336 31070S89 0003Sd X-5-87 L 3v6.wot3v33 to 20 91 29,70/LO D y 5 3 ' - .g . -us .

• u coc3 e R U

NMTm asco e 5 j' ....  ; c o c c3 , -m c. i. E a- - ka -~ 6 3 l _ U - .- x ' -= d ' -r. & - eN

c. H i- mg

., cw wx EE z o . -n ~ 6;M - _ ww C.J xY o f- -N z WW w -w .3 E. on .O g vo be vi - a e,8 vo - -. oz - t2 or -

• ds j) . e E"!

ww . -m S. x . -~ W 8 ~. u t_, b on t os a co a os t on t os o ' 00 0 (')) NQl18W3'13))8 31070S88 0003Sd X-5-88 I L ( - i stuwwsswee *tt to st as/to/to b - I 5 5 5 5 2 - -e - -e. w occo S m m e r- -* m ocoo m e ocoo -e M cL. N N a- ' E g . . w g r 2 m o e - g - . @ w . e m " + dx "\ * - $p . .~* mm ' Sid -= x$ ms zx -es - og ma > $4x u = . . Wz Sg tu zo ~m .3 c3 g-dW - u-4 m-. - -m 058 = , -r~ 05 - -. 8p ac

• WO za

- . -, ww - -ci G A$ x - -m m e S . E 'o Oh*E 00'E 09't 02't 09'O O6'O - 00*0 (9) NQ[18W3733]U 31070S8B 0003Sd 4 X-5-89 . 1 I \ REFERENCES

1. " Specification for Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 7th Edition", American Institute of Steel Construction,1970.

f 2. Husky Products Report 7220-E55-15-4, " Cable Tray Qualification Data for the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2", Consumers Power Company, Midland, Michigan, Refision 1. April,1979.

3. NUREG 800, Standard Review Plan, U.S. Regulatory Commission, July, 1981.

f 4. USMIC Regulatory Guide 1.92, " Combination of Modes and Spatial l Components in Seismic Response Analysis", Revision 1, February, 1976.

5. Bechtel Specification 7220-E-55(Q), " Technical Specification for Cable Tray for Seismic Category I Structures for the Consumers Power Company, Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, Midland, Mie.higan, Revision 5, April, 1981.

6. Thompson, W. T., Mechanical Vibrations, Second Edition, pg.172, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1956.

7. Johnson, J. J., "M00 SAP - A Modified Version of the Structural Analysis Program SAP IV for the Static and Dynamic Response of Linear and Localized Nonlinear Structures", General Atomic Company, GAS-A14006, June, 1976, s

8. MRI/STARDYNE 3 - Static and Dynamic Structural Analysis System User's Information Manual, Control Data Corporation, Revision 8, April, 1978.

X-5-R-1 i l \

6. ELECTRICAL CONDUIT SYSTEMS Quality class el3ctrical conduit systems at the Midland Nuclear Power Plant consist of standard galvanized rigid-metal conduit supported on structural elements at specified intervals. The conduit may be either a singular piece or may be threaded and coupled together such that it is a continuous unit along its run.

Conduit supports are fabricated from a variety of structural steel shapes, i.e., anglos, channels, structural tubes, and unistruts or powerstruts. Bechtel has identified the allowable structural configura-tions, and has grouped them into types. There are 27 basic types of supports used throughout the plant. Conduits are fastened to their supports by one of two means, either by conduit clamps or by pipe straps manufactured by the Unistrut Corporation. Pipe straps are stronger than conduit clamps and are typically used for securing larger conduit at longer spans. There are no regulatory guides directly applicable to conduit seismic design. Load combinations that are applicable to structural supports are specified in NUREG-75/087, revised and reissued as NUREG-800, Referen::e 1. 6.1 SELECTION OF CONDUIT / SUPPORT COMBINATIONS FOR SME EVALUATION In the design process, conduit spans were analyzed as straight ) beams on elastic supports. Conduit frequencies were derived from beam theory assuming simply supported spans subjected to tributary weights of I conduit plus cables. Various combinations of span lengths and support types are used throughout the plant. Span lengths are equal to or less than the National Electrical Code (NEC) requirements for minimum support spacing and, in general, are controlled by the capacities of the conduit supports or the conduit fasteners. Allowable support spacings derived in + \ X-6-1 . _ _ - _ 1 h the design process for the reactor building, auxiliary building, service water pts structure and the diesel generator building are listed in I- Tables X-6-1 through X-6-7. Tables X-6-1 through X-6-4 list basic span lengths and support combinations for all diameters of conduit secured by clamps and straps. Tables X-6-5 through X-6-7 list exceptions to the basic span spacings for specific combinations of support type, fastener type and conduit diameter. These conduit span spacing tables utilized for design are reproduced from Reference 2. The conduit spans by themselves tend to have fundamental frequencies well above the peak of any of the applicable floor spectra. Most supports are relatively rigid such that the resulting system frequencies are well away from the highly amplified region of the applicable floor spectra. Consequently, only the simple, very flexible supports result in system frequencies corresponding with the highly amplified region of the floor spectra. These softer supports resulted in the exceptions listed in Tables X-6-5 through X-6-7 to the basic span lengths that are listed in Tables X-6-1 through X-6-4. The critical candidates for SME evaluation were then those combinations of span length and support spacing that resulted in highly amplified response. The stiffer support combinations were judged to be much less critical than the limiting cases selected. ) > For the SME evluation, four basic support types were chosen for investigation, they were the type 18, type 11, type 13 and type 15 supports with their corresponding conduit support span spacings. Not all l combinations of conduit diameter and support types 1B,11,13 or 15 were analyzed. A sample in each building was selected which is felt to be representative of the highest potential response of conduit to the SME event. I Both types 11 and 13 are simple cantilever beams, made from structural tubing. Types 18 and 15 are simply supported beams, con-structed of structural channel shape or constructed of'unistrut or I X-6-2 i powerstrut channel. The structural configurations, shapes and proper-ties of support type groups are presented in Bechtel drawing series 7220-E42B(Q) Reference 2. In the course of reviewing this document, it was felt that these four support types were the most flexible and were most likely to produce maximum dynamic response in supporting elements when subjected to the SME event. 6.2 METHODOLOGY Coupled dynamic models of selected conduit systems were developed for the generic evaluation of electrical conduit and their support systcms for the SME event. The conduit was represented by flexible beam (pipe) sections and the flexibilities of the supports were represented by springs attached at specified support locations in the multi-degree-of-freedom models. Seismic analyses were performed using response spectrum modal superposition methods of dynamic analysis. The spectra used to obtain response for the generic investigation of conduit installed in safety-related structures of the plant are the SME enveloped 4 percent damped in-structure acceleration response spectra. These spectra are contained in Volumes II through V for the reactor building, auxiliary builping, service water pump structure and diesel generator building. The com-bination of modes and spatial earthquake components were based on NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Reference 3. The NUPIPE computer program, Reference 4, was used for the analytical valuation. NUPIPE is a piping analysis program developed by Quadrex Corporation. SMA has compared l results of NtPIPE to results of other general purpose computer codes to verify the code for solving the class of problem being considered. Two basic types of models were used, a straight span model and a

900 curved beam model. The straight span model had four equal spans with five supports. Conduit was assumed to be oriented in both the horizontal and vertical d'-actions. The basic computer model is shown in Figure X-6-1. The curved beam model consisted of three. equal spans with t

X-6-3 I the 900 bend occurring in the middle span. Four supports were coupled ., with the curved span model. The curved beam model is shown in Figure X-6-2 and was oriented in the horizontal direction only. Variables in each model were conduit diameter, weight, span lengths and support spring stiffnesses. Only one conduit diameter, span length and support type were allowed in each computer model. 6.3 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria for electrical conduit systems were developed for the three major elqments comprising the system. They are the rigid-metal conduit, the structural supporting mechanism, and the conduit f asteners which connect the conduits to their supports. The conduit fasteners and supports were determined to be the governing elements. Rigid metal conduit used in Midland was conservatively assumed to be constructed of low strength low carbon steel with properties corresponding to those of ASTN A-155 steel. Geometric properties of conduit correspond to schedule 40 piping. Thus, stress prediction methods and stress accep-tance criteria for Class 3 nuclear power plant piping were applied to i confirm that supports and conduit fasteners are the governing structural element. Equation 9 of ND 3652 of the Code (Reference 5) for the faulted condition (Level D Service) for Class 3 piping is: 3 S OL " Z 2.4 S h n where Sot is the calculated stress for occasional loading Pmax is the maximum operating pressure (not applicable to conduit) Do is the outside diameter of the conduit tn is the nominal wall thickness of can'duit i is a stress intensification factor for threaded joints (i = 2.3) i X-6-4 I MA is the moment resulting from weight , Mg is the moment resulting from SME Sh is a material allowable stress (Sh = 11.2 ksi for ASTM A-155) In conducting the system analyses, the stresses from Equation 6-1 were computed without consideration of threaded joints. It was then assumed that a threaded joint occurred at the point of maximum stress. All stresses were found to be very low and the resulting code margins were very large. It was concluded that threaded conduit couplings were not the governing element in the conduit systems. The design of conduit supports was based upon applicable sections of Reference 6. The acceptance criteria presented in Volume I, Chapter 9 and reiterated in Chapter 2 of this volume for HVAC and cable tray supports were used. The acceptance criteria for conduit fasteners was based upon their capacity to withstand earthquake forces in the three principle load carrying directions of the fastener plus the dead load of conduit and cables acting in the vertical direction. Bechtel, in conjunction with I the Unistrut Corporation has conducted performance tests of conduit clamps and pipe straps to determine the fastener capacities in the three principle load-carrying directions. They are the pull load, "P", the slip load, "S", and the longitudinal load. "L", see Figure X-6-3. l Allowable loads for abnormal condition were set as the lesser of two-thirds the minimum ultimate test load or one-half the average ultimate test load in each of the three directions. Table X-6-8 presents the allowable value for various sized conduit used at Midland for the two fastener groups. These values were used for the SME analysis to determine acceptability. X-6-5 Clamp and strap forces resulting from the SME condition were evaluated by means of an interaction factor, pI , as follows: 0 O P , O S , 2 , 1 0PSTl , l0SSTl , 1 LSTl gF, (Pj (T/ (Lj P S L (6-2) Qp = Clamp or strap force in the pull direction due to earthquake in the vertical, East-West or North-South direction QS = Clamp or strap force in the slip direction , due to earthquake in the vertical, East-West or North-South direction ) QL

Clamp or strap force in the longitudinal direction due to earthquake in the vertical East-West or North-South direction QPST'OSST'OLST

Clamporktrapforceinthepull, slip,and longitudinal directions due to the weight of L the conduits and cables, i .e., lg P.S,L = Clamp or strap allowable loads in the pull, slip, and longitudinal directions, respectively The possible orientation of the fastener and loading and corresponding Ip is illustrated in Figure X-6-4. Fce the conduit span and support type combination to be within acceptaMe limits. the I p must be less than or equal to one, I p 5 1.0.

l The code margin is the inverse of the interaction factor.

I 1

(6-3)

= JF X-6-6 l

The seismic factor, FSME, is derived from:

g , l0PSTl 10SSTl_10LSTI P S L F (6-4) 5ME "

g 2 2 2'1 79 79 qT)

T

\; *T) q 6.4 MATHEMATICAL MODELS There were thirty-one mathematical models made for the SME review of electrical conduit. Twenty-one straight span models were made to simulate conditions found throughout the four major structures of the plant. The models were oriented both vertically and horizontally. The support span spacings were the maximum allowed from Tables X-6-1 through X-6-7 for the conduit diameters and support types investigated.

0 In addition, the.e were ten 90 bend models made to represent curved conduit lengths present in the plant. These models were horizontally oriented and they, too, represented the maximum allowable support span spacings for the conduit diameter and support types.

i 6.4.1 Reactor Building (RB)

Three straight span models of conduit runs were investigated.

Support type 11 and the span spacing requirements for 4" o conduit and support type 13 and the span spacing requirements for 3" o and 5" t conduits y M evaluated.

l Three curved beam models were also considered in the reactor building. They employed support type 11 with the span spacing require-ments for 4" e conduit and support type 13 with the span spacing require-ments for 2" $ conduit and 3" 4 conduit. All models were evaluated for the response spectra at Elevation 786'-0" of the reactor building. This is em uppemost elevation of the reactor building and conservatively bounds all loading cases. -

X-6-7

6.4.2 Auxiliary Building - Electric _al Penetration Area (EPA)

A total of nine straight span models were made and included four

~

support types. Support type 1B with the span spacing requirements for 2" 6, 3" o and 6"

• conduits, support type 11 with the span spacing requirements or 3" t and 4" : conduits, support type 13 with the span spacing requirements for 2" 4 and 6" $ conduits, and support type 15 with the span spacing requirements for 5" $ conduits were evaluated, Two curved beam models were considered. They were both support type 13 with the span spacing requirements for 2" o and 4" $ conduits. All models were evaluated for the response spectra at Elevation 674'-6" of the electrical penetration area. This is the highest elevation in the EPA

{

and the corresponding spectra bounds all load cases for the auxiliary building.

6.4.3 Service Water Pump Structure (SWPS)

Six straight span models were investigated for the Service Water Pump Structure. The models consisted of support type IB with the span spacing requirements for 2" e and 3" $ conduits, support type 11 with the span spacing requirement for 6" e conduit and support type 13 with the l

span spacing requirements for 2" t, 3" e and 6"

• conduits. Three curved beam models were considered. They consisted of support type 11 with the span spacing requirement for 3" 4 conduit, and support type 13 with the span spacing requirements for 2" e and 3"

• conduits. All models were evaluated for the response spectra at Elevation 656'-0" of the service water pump structure. This is the upper elevation of the structure and the associated spectra envelop all locations in the SWPS.

)

6.4.4 Diesel Generator Building (DGB)

There were three straight span models investigated for the DGB.

They consisted of support type 16 with the span spacing requirements for 3" $ conduits, and support type 13 with the span spacing requirements for 3" $ and 4" $ conduits. Two curved beam models were considered. They consisted of support types 11 and 13 with the span spacing requirements for 3" $ conduits. All models were evaluated for the response spectra at '

Elevation 680'-0" of the diesel generator building. This is the upper elevation of DGB and the corresponding spectra envelop all spectra in the building.

.__ ______ J ts.b a____________ _

6.4.5 Computer Model Data f

. Conduit weight used in the study was the weight of conduit and

~.

cables specified for Midland design.

Conduit Conduit Diameter Weight 3/4" 1.25 (lbs/ft length) 1" 2.21(lbs/ftlength) 1-1/2" 3.36 (lbs/ft length) 2" 5.74(lbs/ftlength) 3" 12.54 (lbs/ft length) 4" 17.02 (lbs/ft length) 5" 15.18(lbs/ftlength) 6" 30.48(1bs/ftlength)

Spring stiffnesses used for support types 18, 11, 13 and 15 are presented in Table X-6-9. They were derived by standard structural analysis methods and used to simulate the flexible supports in the models.

t 6.5 RESULTS OF ANALYSES A check of Equation 6-1 was made for maximum conduit stresses at all locations in the models. The computer code NUPIPE automatically computes the resulting stress per Equation 6-1. A stress intensification f actor,1, was not input in the computer models at specific locations since threaded couplings can occur at random anywhere in a span. The stress results from the models without stress intensification factors were then multiplied by the factor 0.751 where the stress intensification f actor,1, is 2.3 for threaded joints. This process assumes a threaded joint to always occur at the point of maximum bending stress. Note, that there is no pressure in the conduit and the pressure term in Equation 6-1 drops out. Only, bending from deadweight and seismic contribute to the conduit stress.

i X-6-9 l

I C0mputer models for conduit less than 2" diameter were not made.

(

l In order to bound the conduit stresses for 3/4" to 1-1/2" diameter conduit, simply supported spans of maximum permissible length per Table X-6-1 were assumed to be subjected to the peak spectral acceleration of the spectra for the highest elevation in the Auxiliary Building EPA.

This is a worst case location. The assumption of peak spectral acceleratin was shown to be conservative by comparing results : sing identical critera to the finite element beam model results for 2" and greater diameter conduit.

Resulting stresses and code margins are presented in Table X-6-10 and are well within acceptable limits for the SME loadings, The maximum calculated conduit stress is %66 psi for a 3/4" diameter conduit compared to allowable stress of 26,880 psi for conduit made of ASTM A-155 or equivalent material. The resulting code margin ard seismic factor are 2.78 and 3.32, respectively. Conduit was found not to be the governing element in electrical conduit systems and conduit to support attachments were determined to govern in the SME analysis. Consequently, seismic f actors were not computed for the remainder of the cases.

Table X-6-11 presents the interaction factor, I p, code margin, CM, and seismic factor, F3 g , for the fastener types evaluated in each of the four major structures.

Table X-6-12 presents the AISC stress ratios and code margins, CM, found for the support types evaluated. Seismic factors were not h calculated as support members were not the governing structural elements.

The minimta code margin found for the conduit to support attach-

. ment f asteners was 1.10. This occurred in the reactor building for a 3-inch conduit clamp in conjunction with support type 13. The minimum code margin for the support types evaluated was 1.36, which corresponds to a type 11 supporting a 6" conduit in the service water pump structure.

The seismic factor was found to be 1.56. -

X-6-10

I f

j Table X-6-1 i

ALLOWABLE CONDUIT SUPPORT SPACINGS SUPPORT TYPES: 1 ;1 A;1 B;1C;3 ;3 A;4 ;4A;4B;5A;5B ;5C;5D;8;8A;8B;10 ;10A;10B; 14;14A;15;16;17;18;20:21;23;24;24A;25;25A;25B;26;28;29;30; 30A;31;32;33;34;34A BUILDINGS: Auxiliary & Reactor i

Auxiliary Building Except Rigid Frame Area Reactor Conduit Diameter Clamps Straps Clamps Straps 3/4" 7' 7' 7' 7' 1" 7' 7' 7' 7' 1 1/2" 9' 9' 9' 9' 10' U.N.* 10' 10' 10' 2"

3" 8' U.N.* 12' 9' U.N.* 12' (

4" 10' U.N.* 10' 10' U.N.* 10' 5" N/A 12' U.N.* N/A 12' 6" N/A 10' U.N.* N/A 10'

• Except for support types listed s Table X-6-2 ALLOWABLE CONDUIT SUPPORT SPACINGS SUPPORT TYPES: 11;11 A;11B;11C;12;12A;12B;13 EUILDINGS: Auxiliary & Reactor

)

Types 11, 11A, 118, llc Types 12, 12A, 12B, 13 Conduit Diameter Clamps Straps Clamps Straps 3/4" 7' 7' 7' 7' 1" 7' 7' 7' 7' 1 1/2" 9' 9' 9' U.N.* 9' 2" 10' 10' 10' U.N.* 10' 3" 9' U.N.* 12' 9' O.N'.* 12' U.N.*

4" 10' U.N.* 10' 7' U.N,* 10' U.N.*

5" N/A 12' N/A 12' U.N.*

6" N/A 10' N/A 10' U.N.*

• Except for support types listed  ;

________________________n&n___ _ ___ )

Table X-6-3

[

L

. ALLOWABLE CONDUIT SUPPORT SPACINGS

~

l -

SUPPORT TYPES: 1;1A;1B;1C BUILDINGS: Diesel Generator & Service Water t

Support Spacing Conduit Anchor Bolt Size Diameter Clamps Straps For Supports 3/ 4" 7' 7' 3/5" or 1/2" 1" 7' 7' 3/8" or 1/2" l 1/2" 9' 9 3/8" or 1/2"

{ 2" 10' 10' 3/8" or 1/2" 3" 7' 7' 3/8" only 3" 9' 9' 1/2" only 4" 7' 7' 3/8" or 1/2" 5" N/A 7' 3/8" or 1/2" 6" N/A 6' 3/8" or 1/2" Table X-6-4 ALLOWABLE CONDUIT SUPPORT SPACINGS ,

SUPPORT TYPES: 3' 3A;4;4A;5A;5B;5C;50;8;8A;8B;10;10A;10B;11 ;11 A;11B ;11 C; 12 ;12A;12 B ;13 ;14 ;14 A;16 ;17 ;18 ;20 ;21 ; 23 ; 24 ;24 A ;25 ;257,; 25 B ; 26 ; 28 ; 29 ; 30 ; 30A ;

31;32;33;34;34A BUILDINGS: Diesel Generator; Service Water & Aux. Rigid Frame Area l

Service Water Diesel Generator Auxiliary Rigid Building Building Frame Area Conduit Diameter Clamps Straps Clamps Straps Clamps Straps 3/4" 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 1" 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 1 1/2" 9' 9' 9' 9' 9' 9' 2" 9' U.N.* 10' 9' U.N.* 10' 8' U.N.* 10' 3" 5' U.N.* 9' U.N.* 7'-6" U.N.* 9' 4' 9' 4" 3'-6" U.N.* 7' U.N.* 5'-6" U.N.* 7' ,

3' 7' 5" N/A 7' O.N.* N/A 11' N/A 6' 6" N/A 6' U.N.* N/A 10' U.N.* N/A 5' U.N.*

• Except for support types listed

___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X-6-12__ (

I L

Table X-6-5 EXCEPTIONS TO TABLE X-6-1 Support Types: 1, lA, 18, IC, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 4B, 5A, SB, SC, 50, 8, 8A, 8B, 10, l.

10A,14,15,16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 24A, 25, 25A, 25B, 26, 28, 29, 30, 30A, 31, 32, 33, 34, 34A Allowable Conduit Support Spacings, Conduit Secured by Clamps Conduit Aux Bldg Reactor Support Type Diameter (Except RF) & EPA Bldg As Noted 1 3" 10' Horz 12' Horz 8'-6" Vert 10' Vert IB 3" N/A Horz NC 8'-6" Vert 4" N/A Horz NC 7' Vert l A,1C 3" 9'-6" Harz 12' Harz 8' Vert 10' Vert 3 3" NC 11'-6" Horz 9' Vert 4" 8' Horz X-6-13

r i

Table X-6-5 (Continued) i Allowable Conduit Support Spacing, Conduit Secured by Clamps i

4 Conduit Aux Bldg Reactor Support Type Diameter (Except RF) & EPA Bldg As Noted 4, 4A 3" NC 11'-6" Horz 8' Vert 4" 8' Horz NC 8' Vert 48 2" 9' Horz NC 10' Vert 3" 6' Horz 11' Horz 7' Vert 9'-6" Vert 4" 6' Horz 10' Horz 8' Vert 9'-6" Vert SA, 58, SC, 3" NC 11'-6" Horz

& SD 4" 8' Horz NC 8' Vert 8, 8A, 88, 3" NC 12' Horz 10 & 10A 4" 9' Horz NC 8' Vert 14, 16, 26, 3" 9' Horz 12' Horz d, b, 4" l rz l 34, 34A 7' Vert X-6-14

Table X-6-5 (Continued)

I.

- Allowable Conduit Support Spacing, Conduit Secured by Clamps

[

Conduit Aux Bldg Reactor Support Type Diameter (Except RF) & EPA Bldg As Noted 15(Con't) 3" 9" Horz N/A 4" 7' norz N/A 6' Vert 21 3" 9' Horz 12' Horz 8' Vert 9' Vert 4" 10' Horz NC 7' Vert 23 3" 8' Horz 12' Horz 7'-6" Vert 9' Vert 4" 8' Horz N/A 3' Vert 24,24A 2" 7'-6" Horz N/A

. 8' Vert 3" 4'-6" Horz N/A 6' Vert 4" 4'-6" Horz 10' Horz 6'-6" Vert 9'-6" Vert

- - _ - - - - - __ l-@_d5 _____ _ _______ _____________________ __ _ __

( Table X-6-5 (Continued)

L Allowable Conduit Support Spacing, Conduit Secured by Clamps

(

'. ~

Conduit Aux Bldg Reactor Support Type Diameter (Except RF) & epa Bldg

{ As Noted 25 3" 9' Harz 12' Harz 8' Vert 9' Vert 10' Horz N/A 33 3" 9' Horz 12' Horz 8' Vert 9' Vert 4" 10' Harz N/A 7' Vert l

Allowable Conduit Support Spacing, Conduit Secured by Straps n.

48 6" 9'-6" Horz NC 10' Vert 15 6" 10' Horz NC 8'-6" Vert 24,24A 5" 11'-6" Horz NC 12' Vert 6" 7' Horz NC 8'-6" Vert X-6-16

_ _ __ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - ----_--_-_-----------___--___ _ --.-_-_ _ ----- J

I L Table X-6-6

/ EXCEPTIONS TO TABLE X-6-2 l

~

Support Types: 11, ll A, llB, llc,12GR 1 & 2,12GR 3,12GR 4,13GR 1 & 2, 13GR 3, 13 GR 4 Allowable Conduit Support Spacings, Conduit Secured by Clamos.

Conduit Aux Bld Reactor Support Type Diameter (ExceptRF)g & EPA Bldg As Noted ll,llA,11B,11C 3" 9' Horz NC 7' Vert 4" 10' Horz NC 7' Vert 12 & 13GR 1 & 2 2" 6' Horz NC 8'-6" Vert s

12 & 13GR 1 & 2 3" 3'-6" Horz 8' Horz 5'-6" Vert 8' Vert l

)

4,,

3'-6" Harz 7' Horz 6' Vert 7' Vert X-6-17

Table X-6-6 (Continued)

(

(

Allowe'ule Conduit Support Spacing, Conduit Secured by Clamps

(

. Conduit Aux Bldg Reactor Support Type Diameter (Except RF) & EPA Bldg As Noted 12 & 13 GR 3 2" 6' Horz NC 1

3" 3'-6" Horz NC 5'-6" Vert 4" 3'-6" Horz 7' Horz 6'-6" Vert 7' Vert s

12 & 13GR 4 2" 9' Horz NC 9'-6" Vert 3" 6' Horz NC 7' Vert 4" 6' Horz 7' Horz 7' Vert 7' Vert e

i X-6-18

l t

Table X-6-6 (Continued) i Support Types: 11, llA, 118, 11C, 12, 12A, 12B, 13 Allowable Conduit Support Spacings, Conduit Secured by Straps Conduit Aux Bld9 Reactor Support Type Diameter (Except RF) & EPA Sidg f As Noted 11,llA,llB, llc 5" NC NC 6" NC NC 12 & 13GR 1 & 2 4" 7' Harz NC 7' Vert 12 & 13GR 3 4" 7' Horz NC 7' Vert 12 & 13 GR 4 4" 7' Horz NC 7' Vert X-6-19 i

N _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(

l Table X-6-7 I

( EXCEPTIONS TO TABLE X-6-4 Support Types: 11, llA, llB, llc, 12, 13, 24, 24A & 31 Allowable Conduit Support Spacings, Conduit Secured by Clamos Conduit Diesel Gen Aux Bldg Support Type Diameter Service Water Bldg Bldg Rigid Frame ll,11A,llB, llc 2" 10' NC NC 3" 8' 9' NC 4" 7' 7' NC 12 & 13GR 1 & 2 2" 7' Horz NC N/A 9' Vert 3" 4'-6" Horz 5'-6" Horz N/A S' Vert 7' Vert 12 & 13GR 3 3" NC 6' Harz N/A 7'-6" Vert i

12 & 13GR 4 3" NC I 6' Horz N/A 7' Vert ;

i t

24 & 24A 3" NC 6'-6" Horz NC 7'-6" Vert S

X-6-20

( Table X-6-7 j (Continued)

I Support Types: 11, ll A,11B, llc,12,13, 24, 24A Allowable Conduit Support Spacings Conduit Secured by Straos Conduit Diesel Gen Aux Bldg Support Type Diameter Service Water Bldg Bldg Rigid Frame 11,11A,llB, llc 5" 14' NC NC 6" 12' NC NC 12 & 13GR 1 & 2 3" 12' NC NC 6" NC 8'-6" NC 12 & 13GR 3 6" NC 9'-6" Hor 2 NC 9' Vert 24 & 24A 6" NC NC 3'-6" Horz 5' Vert X-6-21

_ _ _ _ . a

Table X-6-8 ALLOWABLE LOADS FOR CONDUIT CL9tPS & STRAPS A. Allowable loads for nonnal conditions shall be the lesser of: 1/2 x minimum ultimate test load or 1/3 x average ultimate test load

8. Allowable loads for abnormal conditions shall be the lesser of: 2/3 x minimum ultinate test load or 1/2 x avera9e ultimate test load CLAMPS Pull Load, P Slip Load, S Longitudinal Load, L l Ultimate I Allowable Ul ti ma te l Al'Iowable Ultimate Allovable Conduit Diameter Min. Ave. Normal Abnonnal Min. Ave. Normal Abnonnal Min. Ave. Nonnal Abnormal (in) (Ib) (lb) (lb) (1b) (1b) (Ib) (1b) (1b) (Ib) (1b) (1b) (1b) 3/4 2,600 2,630 880 1,320 375 390 130 200 350 410 140 210 1 2,875 3,100 1,030 1,550 675 688 230 340 396 577 190 "260 1 1/2 3,500 3,540 1,180 1,770 425 440 150 220 300 380 130 190 2 4,200 4,250 1,420 2,130 525 580 190 290 300 367 120 180 2 2 2 3 3,100 4,211 1,400 2,070 830 1,029 340 520 298 776 150 200 2 2 4 5,950 6,060 2,020 3,030 1,850 1,940 650 j 970 393 1,158 200 200 p .r 9 . y g.; g .

p q p:.:q g g ?g:.y 7L p p q q .y e 7: g .g; 9 3 9 s q~j1Llw y m u.a.  :

4 3

• y.'

u. n n u 3. :.: .. s:.;~.:;; my; <., a .s ...>.:n

,  ; . + _;, ..* s n n : v

a. . .

'y, . * ; ; .

,.  :. .M .

p:va;.

.- 4: ;.y au  ; _ ;; ~

4.,:s;.y .

. m*

(.z 4 y;_.;.; ;.;f,. n , ma q. g9 8p;.,.

-:3 ;.. ;  :

. ; .h __

4.g; g. , -

_ . , y _

l Table X-6-8 (Continued)

STRAPS Pull Load, P Slip Load, S Longitiidinal Load, L l I Ultima te l

Allowable Ultimate Allowable Ultimate Allouable Condui t Ave. Normal Abnonnal Min. Ave. Normal Abnonnal Min. Ave. Normal Abnonnal Min.

Diameter (lb) (Ib)

(in) (lb) (lb) (lb) (It) (lb) (Ib) (lb) (lb) (Ib) (lb) 3,015 3,078 1,030 1,540 1,280 1,445 480 720 760 872 290 440 3/4 1,320 1,260 1,768 590 840 375 437 150 220 1 2.600 2,647 880 1,000 1,490 1,140 1,493 500 750 710 847 280 420 1 1/2 2,900 2.985 5,000 5,333 1,780 2,670 5,500 6,800 2,270 3,400 1,040 1,108 370 550 2

2 2,578 1,290 7,800 8,596 2,870 4.300 5,540 7,440 2,480 3,690 2,290 860 3

8,350 8,600 2,870 4,300 7,000 7,867 2,620 3,930 1,275 1,415 470 710 4

.. 5 8,000 9,125 3,040 4,560 4,930 6,342 2,110 3,170 1,100 1,173 390 590 6 8,000 8,975 2,990 4,490 5,940 6,704 2,240 3,350 1,340 1,467 490 730

- . . - - .- .. .-- I..

NOTES: 1. Allowable loads are rounded off to the nearest 10 number. .

2. Allowable load = 1/2 x minimum ultimate test load for nonnal conditions or 2/3 x minimum ultimate test load for abnormal conditions if marked thus (2).

i-l

~

Table X-6-9 SUPPORT STIFFNESS Spring Stiffness (lbs/in)

Type K X K X Y Z 1B 1,063,333 33,192 2,357 11 4,821 4,821 1,921,250 13 269 613,833 269 15 15,165 3,472 731,590

's X-6-23

[ 4 Table X-6-10 o, CONDUIT COUPLING CONNECTION - GOVERNING PIPE STRESS Conduit Support Building Pipe Allowaole Code Diameter Type Spectra Stress Pipe Stress Margin 3/4" All* Aux-EPA 9,666 26,880 2.78 1" All* Aux-EPA 9,073 26,880 2.96 1 1/2" All* Aux-EPA 9,283 26,880 2.90 2" 13 RB 3,096 26,880 8.68 3" 13 SWPS 2,215 26,880 12.14 4" 11 RB 1,513 26,880 17.77

,5" 13 RB 3,317 26,880 8.10 6" 13 Aux-EPA 1,'65 d 26,880 14.41

• Using Peak Spectral Accelerations for Aux-Bldg - Electrical Penetration Areas, including 1.0g due to gravity.

X-G-24 1

. _ _ - - _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - - \

! Table X-6-11 t

CONDUIT FASTENER MARGINS Reactor Building - Straight Models

i. Conduit Support Support Conduit Conduit IF CM p Size Spacing Type Orienta ti 3n Fastener 3" 8' 13 Horizontal Clamp 0.66 1.52 1.75 4" 10' 11 Vertical Clamp 0.68 1.47 3.lC 5" 12' 13 Horizontal Strap 0.39 2.56 2.88 Rractor Building-Curved Models 2" 10' 13 Horizontal Clamp 0.60 1.67 2.08 3" 8' 13 Horizontal Clamo 0.91 1.10 1.13 4" 10' 11 Horizontal Clamp 0.53 1.89 2.41 Auxilliary Building - EPA - Straight Models 2" 5'-6" 13 Horizontal Clamp 0.30 3.33 4.93 2" 10' IB Vertical Clamp 0.54 1.85 2.59 3" 8'-6" 1B Vertical Clamp 0.88 1.14 1.28 3" 9' 11 Vertical Clamp 0.69 1.45 2.31 4" 7' 11 Vertical Clamp 0.52 1.92 4.05 4" 10' 11 Horizontal Clamp 0.45 2.22 2.42 5" 12' 15 Vertical Strap 0.44 2.27 3.99 6" 6' 13 Vertical Strap 0.50 2.00 2.70 6" 10' 1B Vertical Strap 0.76 1.32 1.57 i

/ 7 Auxilliary Building - EPA - Curved Models 2" 5'-6" 13 Horizontal Clamp 0.34 2.94 4.06 4" 3'-6" 13 Horizontal C! amp 0.49 2.04 2.34 X-6-25

Table X-6-11 (Continued)

CONDUIT FASTENER MARGIN!

Service Water Pump Structure - Straight Models

• . Conduit Support Support Conduit Conduit I CM F

. Size Spacing Type Orientation Fastener F gg 2" 7' 13 Horizontal Clamp 0.51 1.96 2.38 2" 10' 1B Vertical Clamp 0.40 2.50 5.3^

3" 4'-6" 13 Horizontal Clamp 0.58 1.72 1.91 3" 9' 1B Vertical Clamp 0.67 1.49 2.51 6" 6' 13 Horizontal Strap 0.37 2.70 3.08 6" 12' 11 Vertical Strap 0.58 1.72 3.33 Service Water Pump Structure - Curved Models 2" 7' 13 Horizontal Cisnp 0.72 1.39 1.50 3" 4'-6" 13 Horizontal Clamp 0.80 1.25 1.29 3" 8' 11 Horizontal Clamp 0.42 2.38 3.85 Diesel Generator Building - Straight Models 3" 5'-6" 13 Horizontal Clamp 0.38 2.63 3.72 3" 9' 1B Vertical Clamp 0.64 1.56 2.99 4" 5'-6" 13 Horizontal Clamp 0.41 2.44 2.95 Diesel Generator Building - Curved Models 3" 5 ' - 6 13 Horizontal Clamp 0.47 2.13 2.63 3" 9' 11 Horizontal Clamp 0.46 2.17 3.53 X-6-26

l Table X-6-12 CONDUIT SUPPORT MARGINS Reactor Building - Straight Models

. Conduit Support Support Conduit Support Size Spacing Type Orientation Stress Ratio CM 3" 8' 13 Horizontal .40 2.50 4" 10' 11 Vertical .22 4.55 5" 12' 13 Horizontal .21 4.76 Reactor Building - Curved Models 2" 10' 13 Horizontal .24 4.17 3" 8' 13 Horizontal .47 2.13 4" 10' 11 Horizontal .10 10.0 Auxilliary Building - EPA - Str.ight Models 2" 5'-6" 13 Horizontal .09 11.10 2" 10' 1B Vertical .04 25.00 3" 8'-6" 1B Vertical .08 12.50 3" 9' 11 Vertical .13 7.69 4" 7' 11 Vertical .14 7.14 4" 10' 11 Horizontal .31 3.23 5" 12' 15 Vertical .13 7.69 6" 6' 13 Vertical .27 3.70 6" 10' 1B Vertical .21 4.76 Auxilliary Building - EPA - Curved Models 2" 5'-6" 13 Horizontal .13 7.69 4" 3'-6" 13 Horizontal .35 2.86 X-6-27

Table X-6-12 (Continued) f CONDUIT SUPPORT MARGINS Service Water Pump Structure - Straight Models

- Conduit Support Support Conduit Support Size Spacing Type Orientation Stress Ratio CM 2" 7' 13 Horizontal 0.31 3.23 2" 10' 1B Vertical 0.04 25.00 3" 4'-6" 13 Horizontal 0.36 2.78 3" 9' 1B Verticai 0.09 11.11 6" 6' 13 Horizontal 0.19 5.26 6" 12' 11 Vertical 0.74 1.36 Service Water Pump Structure - Curved Models 1

2" 7' 13 Horizontal 0.34 2.94 3" 4'-6" 13 Horizontal 0.46 2.17 3" 8' 11 Horizontal 0.06 16.67 Diesel Generator Building - Straight Models 3" 5'-6" 13 Horizontal 0.19' 5.26 3" 9' 1B Vertical 0.08 12.50 4" 5'-6" 13 Horizontal 0.32 3.13 Diesel Generator Building - Curved Models 3" 5'-6" 13 Horizontal 0.22 4.55 3" 9' 11 Horizontal 0.06 16.67 X-6-28

1 ill x

s

.~

@o t

r p

Pp y Y u )(

K I TS

" 4

.A

_ Z S

N U

K R T

I U

D N

O C

.A T H

G I

A R

T S

R O

F

) L n E o D i O

.A t a

v M

R '

e E l T E U

( P M

O C

n a

p .

S 1 t 6 r n -

A o p

p i

t o g n

X E

u a i R S c r U o p G e l S I l F l b t t a a r r S u w o o q o p p

p p

E l l u u A S S

=

.A S A i l 11l lll l l 7?3 ' 1

i-f L.

S -

Equa.1 A

J.

A]

=

g S = Allowable Support Span A = Support Location f=SupportSpring (Plan) g k $ 5% Z 15 g TYP @

Supports K

X FIGURE X-6-2. COMPUTER MODEL FOR 90' BEND CONDUIT RUNS X-6-30

3 f

l

-+._.

l

. I e

rg ,- 1 is IC S Y Ii =L IP I- .f FL PULL OUT TESTS 3LgP ALoess TESTS SLIP TMau 7ts?S Pull Load, P Slip Load, S Longitudinal L(,ad, L l

Test configurations for either conduct clamp or pipe strap testing.

t FIGURE X-6 3. TESTING CONFIGURATIONS X-6-31 l

r ____._.,

i j , , _j m _

9

( '

-)

, =S=X  ; S=Z

\./~.

\. .- .)

. . s .-

/

l

_p _

L=X J -

u p=y 1

P=Y Ip =

[( p-) +( ) +( )]+ p

\

l _

! L _

(

= P=X (1

. g _ P=Z

~

I f t=z m

u L=X

1. ,

S=Y O SST 1 =

[( ) +( )2 ( )23ak ,

7 5 u 4 xN --P=X x .O; =P=Z N

',y S=Z P g,y S=X O LST Ip =

[( )2 s

( )2 ,( )2) ,

(

X-6-32

________ _ _ _ __ ____J E GU R E X 4 . - LOAD OMSMTATIORS

'NCES r.

1. NUREG-800, Standard Review Plan, U.S. Regulatory Commission, July, 1981.

2. Bechtel Design Drawing Series, 7220-E42B(Q), " Conduit and Tray, Notes, Symbols and Details."

3. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis, Rev.1 February,1976.

4. NUPIPE II/TRHEAT - Piping Analysis Program, User Information Manual, .

Control Data Corporaticn, Revision K, May 25, 1983.

5. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Nuc' ear Power Plant Components,1974 with addenda through Winter 197f

6. Specification for Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 7th Edition, Anerican Institute of Steel Construction, 1970.

X-6-R-1

i

7. UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES 1

1 i As part of the seismic margin evaluation, the following under-ground structures were considered:

1. The Emergency Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks

2. The Emegency Pond Discharge Lines

3. The Electrical Duct Banks The items were selected as being those representative of buried tanks, buried pipelines, and buried electrical duct banks which could be relatively highly stressed in an earthquake. The seismic margins in the Category I soil structures such as the cooling pond slopes and dikes were not included in this evaluation. These structures were previously checked for a 0.19g peak ground acceleration (Reference 1). Since the V

~

Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME) has a peak ground surface acceleration of 0.13g, these structures need not be considered in the SMR. Settle-ment loads which could conceivably affect the buried structure'were eval-l uated during the design and were found to be insignificant (Reference 2), and therefore were not considered in the SMR. Thus, attention was focused on the effects of seismic elastic waves on the underground structures.

A very conservative approximation of the effective wave velocity was used. Since typical natural frequencies for buried structures are high compared to the dominant frequency of earthquake motion, dynamic effects are neglected. The stresses in structures were, therefore, determined by static analysis as required to determine the effect of soil defomations on the structures. It was furthermore assumed, unless otherwise noted, that the dimensions of the buried structures are small compared to the wave length of seismic waves. Thus, the forces induced in the buried structures may be determined completely from the strains in the soil.

X-7-1

i 7.1 DETERMINATION OF SOIL STRAINS f

Soil profiles used in the SMR for buried structures are shown in Figures X-7-1, and X-7-2 for the lower and upper bounds, respectively.

The shear moduli for the soil, G max and GSME, correspond to those

! given in Volume V. They represent effective values of the shear modulus at very low strains and SME conditions, respectively. Due to soil degradation caused by the earthquake, the shear modulus is lower for SME conditions. The shear wave velocity in each layer under SME conditions is given by:

f C (7~1)

SME = /32.2 G SME/WS in which CSME = Shear wave velocity (ft/s)

GSME = Degraded shear modulus of soil (psf)

I WS

= Unit weight of soil (pcf)

The shear wave velocities of each layer, CSME,aregivqin Figures X-7-1 and X-7-2 for the sof t and stiff soil profiles, respec-tively. In general, it is not potsible to determine the strains in the soil from a single record of ground motion. However, if assumptions are made about the nature of the wavefield (type of wave and angle of inci-dence), the soil strain may be determined as a function of the g,'ound I' velocity. For the purpose of making these assumptions, guidelines given in Reference 3 were used. In accordance with Reference 3, it was assumed that one-half the peak velocity is from the Rayleigh waves and one-half from shear waves with the Rayleigh wave speed corresponding to material approximately one-half a wavelength below the ground surf ace and the shear wave speed corresponding to deeper layers. This is considered to be a conservative approximation for the Midland site. The maximum horizontal tensile or compressive strain due to Rayleigh waves is X-7-2

L e

R

• YR/CR (7-2) and due to shear waves i

eg (7-3)

=V/(2CSH) 3 I

in which eg, es = Maximum horizontal tensile or compressive strain due to Rayleigh and shear waves, respectively.

V,VS R

= Peak ground velocity from Rayleigh and shear waves, respectively.

CR

= Rayleigh wave velocity CSH

= Apparent horizontal propagation velocity for shear waves Assuming that Rayleigh and shear waves are present at the same

. time, the total strain in the soil is e=e R+e3 (7-4)

From the assumption that half the ground velocity is from shear waves and half from Rayleigh waves, i

VR"YS = V/2 (7-5) in which V is the peak ground velocity due to both Rayleigh and shear waves. Combining Equations 7-2 to 7-5, the total strain in the soil is found to be e=V 2 1/CR+1/(2CSH (7-6)

It thus remains to determine the quantities V, Cg and C'H- 3 l

L X-7-3

Based on the ratio of ground velocity to peak ground accelera-tion for the 1940 El Centro Earthquake, a ground velocity of 5 in/s was obtained for the Midland Site. The ground motion at the Midland Site is expected to have relatively less low frequency content than the 1940 El Centro Earthquake. Hence, the ground velocity used is a conservative value. It is also in close agreement with the ground velocity to acceleration ratio recommended in Reference 7.

In determining the Rayleigh wave velocity, CR , the guidelines given in Reference 3 were followed and the Rayleigh wave velocity for a half-space with properties corresponding to soil properties one-half a wave length

• below the ground surf ace were used. This resulted in a Rayleigh wave velocity of Cg = 730 fps for the sof t soil profile, and CR = 4650 fp3 for the stiff soil profile.

Concerning the apparent horizontal propagation velocity for shear waves, CSH, it may be shown (Reference 4) that for a horizon-tally layered medium, C 3g is larger than the shear wave velocity in the bedrock. This occu.s because the wave is refracted upwards at layer boundaries, and at the surface the direction of propagation is close to vertical. However, due to horizontal variations in layer thickness and soil properties, some magnifications in soil strain are possible. It was therefore conservatively assumed that the shear waves travel horizon-tally in each ot' the layers with a propagation velocity equal to the shear wave velocity (CSME) for the layer. Thus, CSH = CSME The resulting soil strains in each layer, e, and the corresponding soil stresses **, S, are shown in Figures X-7-1 and X-7-2 for the sof t and stiff soil profiles, respectively.

O determination of a dominant wave length was based on a dominr t frequency of 2.6 Hz, which is the frequency at which .the spectral velocity as pictted in Figure I-2-2 is a maximum.

• • S = 2(1+v) GS g, where v = Poisson's ratio X-7-4

(

f 7.2 EMERGENCY DIESEi. STORAGE TANKS I

The emergency diesel storage tanks are cylindrical steel tanks 12 feet in diameter, and approximately 40 fee's long. The tank walls are 0.5 inches thick, and the center of the tank is about 12 feet below the j

ground surf ace. The tanks are supported by concrete foundations with t- ti edowns . Differential soil settlement has been determined to be of no c concern for the emergency diesel storage tanks (Reference 1). Steel access ways are provided on the top of each tank. No pipes enter the I

storage tanks horizontally under the ground. In absence of punching stresses due to such a horizontal pipe, f ailure can only occur due to collapse of the tank walls due to earthquake induced soil pressures.

For the analysis of the tank under external soil pressures, the

! following loading conditions were considered:

1. Overburden pressure

2. Seismically-induced stress.

As a result of soil-structure interaction, the tank is subjected to essentially a uniform net external pressure. Due to the flexibility of the tank wall in flexure, the result of soil-structure interaction is that the variations in net external pressure around the circumference of the tank are very small. A conserva:ive estimate of the net external pressure can be obtained as the overburden stress calculated at the centerline of the tank plus the horizontal seismic stress, S. The contributions to the net external pressure were found to be as follows:

1. Due to overburden 10 psi

2. Increase in overburden pressure due to 0.10g vertical acceleration 1.0 psi

3. Due to seismically-induced stress, S 4.1 psi Total external pressure 15.1 psi X-7-5 f

An external allowable pressure of 21.9 psi was calculated in

, accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Reference 8).

This results in a code margin of:

CM = 1.5 and a seismic aargin earthquake f actor of:

FSME = 2.3 These results are considered to be conservative because:

1. The effective wave propagation velocity at the site was very conservatively determined.

2. No allowance was made for soil-structure interaction by which part of the seismic forces could be carried in the soil.

3. The allowable external pressure as calculated by the ASME code is limited due to the possibility of buckling of the tank wall. However, the surrounding soll tends to restrain such buckling.

Furthermore, buckling is strain rather than load controlled and would not necessarily result in leakage even if buckling occurs.

Hence, collapse of the tank due to seismically-induced external soil pressure is not expected even in an earthquake much larger than the SME.

7.3 EMERGENCY POND DISCHARGE LINES The Emergency Pond Discharge lines discharge heated cooling water from the Service Water Pump Structure (SWPS) into the Emergency Cooling Water Reservoir at the point distant frce the SWPS. The pipe elevation varies between 588' and 598'. All of the pipe is located on the original ground. The lines consist of segments of prestressed concrete cylinder pipe of 30d internal diameter. Such~ pipe is fabricated X-7-6

h I

by casting concrete inside a steel cylinder, winding a spiral of pre-stressing wire around it at a specified tension, and coating the cylinder and tendon with an additional layer of concrete. The steel cylinder consists of 0.061-inch thick sheet metal conforming to ASTM A-570-72 Grade B, C, ' or D. Given this choice of possible grades, it was assumed that Grade S, the weakest, was used, for which the specified yield strength is 30 ksi, and the ultimate strength 49 ksi. The concrete inside the cylinder, also termed the concrete core, is 1.875 inch thick and has a ' design compressive strength of 6000 psi. The concrete core is prestressed to 1663 psi in the circumferential (hoop) direction. The concrete coating is 13/16-inch thick and experiences no prestress since it sets af ter the prestressing operation. Therefore, when an applied load induces tension in the coating, it is assumed to be cracked. The longitudinal steel in the pipe is limited to the steel cylinder. Thus, the longitudinal reinforcing ratio is found to be 2.3 percent of steel.

The average length for pipe segments is 16 feet, and segments are joined by gasketed joints which allow one inch relative motion of the pipe segments in the axial direction. As a result, the maximum axial force that can be generated in a pipe segnent is limited to the force that can be generated by friction at the interf ace between the pipe and the soil. At bends, thrust blocks are provided which withstand the out-of-line pressure forces generated. Gasketed joints are also

! provided where the pipe enters and leaves the thrust blocks.

The following f ailure modes for the Emergency Pond Discharge Lines were investigated for the SMR:

1. Axial and bending stresses generated in pipe segnents.

2. Pullout of the pipe at joints.

3. Transverse thrust and bending in the oipe walls due to transverse soil pressure outside the pipe and water pressure (or vacuum) inside the pipe.

4. Failure of the pipe where it enters the SNPS due to the seismic motion of the SWPS.

f X-7-7

t A sumary of the results for each of these f ailure modes is shown in Table X-7-1. Descriptions of the method of analysis and the

~-

acceptance criteria for each f ailure mode are given in the following subsections.

7.3.1 Axial and Bending Stres As long as the joints be. een pipe segments do not close, the axial forces and moments which can be transmitted across the gasketed icints are negligible. As a result, the axial force is limited to the friction force that can be generated between the pipe and the soil over half a segment length. To obtain an upper bound for this friction f force, it was assumed that the coefficient of friction between the pipe and the soil is 0.9 (from Reference 13) and the ove; all normal soil pressure around the pipe was taken to be the overburden stress due to 6 f feet of soil of 120 pcf unit weight. If the axial force due to friction e

thus generated is compressive, it induces a compressive stress of 155 psi in the concrete; if tensile, it is carried by a stress of 7.4 ksi in the cylinder steel. As long as the joints do not close, these stresses cannot be exceeded no matter how large the earthquake. The condition where the joints close is addressed in Subsection 7.3.2. Shear transfer between the concrete and steel is developed by the adhesion bet 49en the concrete and steel and the friction generated by the prestressing tendons compressing the concrete cylinder against the concrete core. If the steel cylinder were to carry all the load, the average shear stress between the concrete and steel is less than 5 psi.

l Bending of the pipe as required to accomodate the soil deforma-tions during the earthquake occurs partly by the pipe segments becoming curved, and partly by rotations at the gasketed joints. For the purpose of calculating bending stresses in the pipe segments, it is conserva-tively assumed that the soil defonnation is accomodated entirely by segments becoming curved. Strain compatability between the pipe and the soil is thus achieved. Under such ecnditions, the maximum bending stress in the pipe is Sb = Edc (7-7) f

t j in which

. Sb

= Bending stress.

E = Modulus of elasticity of material in wht 1 stress is being determined d = Distance from neutral axis to extreme tension or compression fiber.

<, the maximum curvature of an originally straight line in the soil in the presence of Rayleigh and shear waves, is given by:

< = AR/C R +A S /C*H S (7-8) in which Ag, A3 = Ground acceleration due to Rayleigh and shear waves, respectively.

C,Cg= R S Horizontal propagatie velocity for Rayleigh and Shear Waves, respectively, as defined in Subsection 7-1.

The peak ground acceleration for the SME is 0.139 at the original ground surface. Assuming that one-half the peak ground acceleration is from Rayleigh waves, and one-half from shear waves, and I

using the values of CR and C3 given in Subsection 8.1 for the upper portion of glacial till in the soft soil profile and a pipe elevation from 588' to 598', it was found that the curvature is 9.6x10-7 radi ans l per inch. For the uncracked pipe, the resulting bending stress in the concrete is found to be Sb = 75 psi, based on a value for the modulus of elasticity of concrete calculated using the ACI code (Reference 9).

Combining the bending and axial stresses, a total stress of 230 psi in compression or tension is obtained. This is less than the allowable compressive strength in concrete by a f actor of 13. For the case when the concrete is in tension, cracking is not expected. If the concrete is precracked, a similar calculation shows that the stress in the steel cylinder is 7.9 ksi, which, in turn, is less than the allowable stress by a factor of 2.5.

X-7-9 ,

7.3.2 Joint Closing or Pullout As mentioned earlier, soil deformations are accomodated partly

. at the gasketed joints and partly in defonnations of the pipe sepents.

For the purpose of obtaining an upper bound to the relative displacement at the joints, it was assumed that soil defontiations are accumulated entirely at the gasketed joints. Thus, the maximum axial displacement at a joint is found to be A = 0.10" l and the rotation is e = 0.00024 radi ans This rotation can result in an additional disp 1acement at the pipe periphery of 0.004". The joint detail is such that approximately a one-inch displacement is possible without leakage or segment against ,

sepent axial contact. Leakage cannot occur due to rotation provided the integrity of the pipes is maintained. Thus, the value of the Code Margin and the seismic f actor F 3g is found to be 10.0, indicating that the gasketed joints can easily accomodate the seismic motion.

7.3.3 Transverse Thrust and Bending in the Pipe Walls In evaluating the transverse thrust and bending stresses in the pipe, the stress coefficients from Reference 10 together with the following load conditions were considered:

1. Overburden pressure

2. Self weight of the pipe

3. Weight of water

4. Water ressure (150 psi working pressure; 10 psi vacuum

5. Live load .

6. Seismic load I

X-7-10

The moments and thrusts given in Reference 12 for the first five loading conditions were used in the analysis. For the SME seismic load, a soil-structure interaction analysis was carried out. The soil around the pipe was represented by WinkW springs, the radial stiffness of which was determind by matching the stiffness of the Winkler springs to that of an infinitely long circular cylinder in an elastic space subjected to a uniform radial expansion.

The load combinations considered were:

Case 1: Overburden + Pipe Self Weight + Water Weight

+ Water Pressure + Live Load

+ Seismic Load Case 2: Overburden + Pipe Self Weight

+ Maximum Vacuum Pressure +

Live Load + Seismic Load Case 1 results in the maximun tensile stresses and Case 2 in the maximum compressive stresses. The pipe is located in the upper porticn of the glacial till (Figures X-7-1 and X-7-3) for which the horizontal seismic stress is 11.7 psi for the soft site profile and 33 psi for the stiff soil profile. Since the stresses induced in the pipe depar.d not only on the horizontal seismic soil stress but also on the properties of the soil surrounding the pipe, the analysis was conducted for both the sof t and stiff soil profiles. It was found that due to soil-structure interaction, the seismically-induced thrusts, and especially the bending moments, are greatly reduced. For the case when the earthquake produces compression in the soil, it was found that the maximum stresses in the pipe are reduced in the presence of the SME.

This occurs because when the vertical overburden load is combined with horizontal compression due to the earthquake, a more uniform distri-bution of earth prassure around the pipe is obtained. As a result, the bending moments in the pipe wall are lower.

X-7-11

l For the case when the earthquake produces extension, a reduc-tion in lateral earth pressure may be expected but tension at the inter-f ace between the soil and the pipe cannot be generated. However, the

, increase of the vertical soil pressure due to the vertical earthquake acceleration together with the normal gravity stresses must be consid-ered. This was done by assuming the increase in overburden pressure j acts as a uniform vertical load on the pipe. Thus, the maximum tensile stress was found to be 81 percent of the allowable and the maximum compressive stress is 72 percent of the allowable. The corresponding code margins and F SME factors are shown in Tables X-7-2 and X-7-3, respectively.

7.3.4 _ Seismic Motion of the Service Water Pump Structure Within 40 feet of the Service Water Pump Structure (SWPS) the Emergency Pond Discharge lines consist of a 30-inch dianeter steel pipe of a wall thickness of 3/8 inch. This pipe enters the SWPS through a 36-inch pipe sleeve. The clearance between the pipe sleeve and the pipe is filled with shock-absorbing ethafoam. The clearance between the pipe and the sleeve is 2.6 inches, assuming the pipe is located in the center of the sleeve.

To calculate the displacements of the SWPS where the pipes enter the structure, the results of the soil-structure f nteraction analysis of the SWPS (Volume IV) were used. This analysis is based on a lumped mass model attached to soil springs at the center of rigidity of the founda-ti on. To calculate the displacements at the pipe entry points, a rigid link between the center of rigidity of the foundation and pipe entry point was assumed. This corresponds to the rigid foundation assumption made in the soil-structure interaction s.alysis. The resulting maximum values of the displacement components parallel and perpendicular to the pipeline are given in Table X-7-4 for each 0" the three soil cases that were considered in the seismic analysis of the SWPS. These displacements were developed at the location where the lines enter the structure.

X-7-12

They were calculated on a mode-by-mode basis from the displacements and j rocking and torsional rotations at the center of rigidity of the soil springs. Most of the displacement occurs in the low frequency modes of the structure.

As can be seen from Table X-7-4, the maximum displacement perpendicular to the pipeline (0.27 inch) is much smaller than the clearance of 2.6 inches. The 0.27 inch displacement can reao ly be accomodated by the ethafoam. The stresses in the steel pipe due to the force required to deform the ethafoam are considered negligible.

7.4 ELECTRICAL DUCT BANKS The duct banks consist of lightly reinforced concrete enclosing the electrical conduit. The duct banks are buried from 3 to 40 feet below grade. The main function of the concrete is to protect the electrical cables against accidental digging or other events which could lead to their unserviceability. The cables are capable of meeting their service requirements, in wet earth, even if the duct banks are not present. Typically, a clearance is provided where the duct banks enter buildings or manholes. Such clearances are filled with ethafoa;m, and permit relative seismic motion of the building without inducing stresses in the duct baaks.

7.4.1 Acceptance Criteria For the SMR, the seismically-induced forces in the duct banks due to soil deformations, as calculated by elastic theory, were required to be less than the member strength as defined in the ACI 318-77 Stan-dard (Reference 9). Such member strengths were obtained by f actoring the nominal strength by the appropriate capacity reduction factor defined in the ACI 318-77 Standard. Where compression f ailure was being con-sidered, the capacity reduction f actor for columns was used.

X-7-13

t l These acceptance criteria are considered conservative since the t

loading of the duct bank is defomation controlled. Under such loading,

~~

it is not necessary that the duct banks be able to withstand the seismic loads as calculated by elastic theory. It suffices if the d'uct banks can accommodate the required soil defomation without causing loss of serviceability of the electrical cables.

7.4.2 Analysis of a Long. Straight Duct Bank A straight section of duct bank was considered. It was assumed that it is long in the sense that the forces are unaffected by the end L conditions. This is conservative since release at the ends tend to reduce the axial forces in the duct bank.

Since all duct banks are similar in construction and steel content, a typical cross-section was considered to be representative for all duct banks. For this purpose, one of the duct banks entering the north wall of the Service Water Pump Structure (SWPS) was considered.

In particular, the one located f arthest east was chosen. This duct bank is 26.5 inches wide and 18 inches high. Three conduits are provided with diameters of approximately 6 inches. The reinforcing consists of 6 longitudinal #9 bars, and #4 stirrups every 12 inches. Thesteel reinforcing bars confonn to ASTM A615 Grade 60, and the specified compressive strength for concrete is 3000 psi.

The duct bank is at an elevation of 621 feet. At this elevation, the maximtsn seismically-induced strain is 0.65x10-3 for the soft soil profile (see Figure X-7-1). The stiff soil profile has lower strains and is therefore considered to be less critical. If the duct bank'is subjected to this strain in tension, the concrete is expected to crack. However, enough longitudinal steel is present to ensure good crack control. Thus, the cracks are expected to be regularly spaced and small . Even if there is no slack in the cables, they are expected to easily withstand the above quoted tensile strain, since the cables can withstand strains in the 0.1 to 0.3 range (Reference 1). The residual X-7-14

pulling strains in the cables are small compared to these strains and were neglected. For cases where slack exists in the cables, the stresses in the cables are expected to be negligible.

For the case when the soil strain along the axis of the duct bank is compressive, the upper bound for the axial stress in the duct bank is 2030 psi. This stress is determined assuming strain compata-bility between the concrete and the soil and a modulus of elasticity for the concrete of 3120 ksi, as calculated by the ACI 318-77 Standard (Reference 9). However, due to relative slip between the soil and the duct bank, the axial stress (from Reference 3) cannot exceed the value S given by:

S=h (7-10) in which S = stress (psi) f = maximum friction force per unit length (lb/in)

A = cross-sectional area 3

A = wavelength of seismic soil deforma:. ion The maximtsn axial force in the duct bank (SxA) is limited to the force that can be developed by friction over one quarter of a wavelength. A typical wavelength of A = 280 feet was estimated based on the Rayleigh wave velocity of 730 fps and the dominant frequency of motion of 2.6 Hz. This is more conservative than using the shear wave velocity, because the shear wave velocity in the soil layer at the elevation of the duct bank is smaller than the Rayleigh wave velocity. In order to determine the friction force, f, an upper bound for the coefficient of friction between the soil and the duct bank of 0.9 was obtained from Reference 13. The normal pressure of the soll on the duct bank was taken to be the overburden pressure due to 12 feet of a soil of a density of I

X-7-15

s> 47 kA ij IMAGE EVALUATION ///gIf 'I$(g,

[h4tg' k//77 f>/ TEST TARGET (MT-3)

/4 kk k{3 @

I.0 'd a n H E g @ Has u L" IM l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6

< 150mm >

4 6" >

• ?[>xxxI iv S

<~~. .-

4*4s$9

< 0 b

dh IMAGE EVALUATION

((/

g)%*+

f %k' 'AST TARGET (MT-3) 6 % g,

!.0 lt M M "ljHE

!l E m Ele t.:

1.25 _.4l_ l.6 4 150mm *

< 6" #

+$[%//7e/p*

~

tk+Aj)+[

// l k u

120 pcf. Thus, the limiting friction force was found to be f = 300 lb/in. The resulting concrete stress, as calculated from Equation 7-10,

~~~

is S = 1730 psi. This indicates that strain compatability between the soil and the duct banks is not achieved when the soil is in compression, t

The bending stress as calculated by Equation 7-7 using the value of < appropriate for the elevation of the duct bank was found to be 120 psi .

Conservatively assuming that the maximum axial force and the i

maximum moment occur at the same time, it was found that the Ccde Margin, (CM), has a value of 1.3. This Code Margin was defined as:

1 CM = Pu /P (7-11) in which P = axial force due to SME.

P u

= member strength for an axial force acting at an eccentricity, e, given by:

e = M/P in which M = maximum moment due to SME.

The seismic factor, FSME, cannot sensibly be defined since the maximum axial stress is an upper bound which depends on the wavelength of ground' deformation and coefficient of friction only.

~

[

Since the coefficient of friction limits the maximum force, higher intensity ground motions will not impose higher forces in the duct.

- i It must be emphasized that for reasons already mentioned, the Code Margin quoted is very conservative. Even if strain compatability between the soil and the duct bank is achieved, the maximtsn usable compressive strain in concrete defined in Section 10.2.3 of the ACI 318-77 Standard (Reference 9) exceeds the strain du'e to the SME by a factor of 4.6.

X-7-16

I 7.4.3 Analysis of A Typical Bend The largest bending moments and shear forces in the duct banks occur in the vicinity of bends. A typical bend in the same duct bank anclyzed in Section 7.4.2 was considered. This duct bank runs from the service water pump structure in a northward direction for about 53 feet, then undergoes a 45 0 bend, and joins other duct bank branches to form one large duct bank running straight for 258 feet to the turbine buil ding. Exact modeling of this duct bank configuration would require modeling all branches and considering their interaction through the soil. For the SMI, it was choser, to model only the duct bank of interest, assuming it continues with the same cross-section past the bend to the turbine building. It is expected that realistic member forces can be obtained from this model.

The mathematical model for the bend is shown in Figure X-7-3.

Transverse and longitudinal soil springs are attached to the nodes.

Bending moments and shear forces decay exponentially with the distance from the bend and become negligible at about 30 feet from the bend.

However, the effect of displacements of the bend on the axial forces is still appreciable at distances of more than 100 feet from the bend. To account for this, the solution for the axial forces in the duct bank at distances of more than 30 feet from the bend was obtained analytically, assuming no axial restraint where the duct banks enters the Turbine Building and the Service Water Pump Structure. From this analytical solution, the relationship between the axial force and the longitudinal displacanent at 30 feet from the bend was obtained. This condition was modeled by placing an equivalent spring and a nadal force at the end nodes of the mathematical model.

In order to determine the stiffnesses for the longitudinal and transverse soil springs, moduli of subgrade reaction are required. For transverse displacements, the following formula by Vessic (Reference 6) was used:

E3 B 4\l /n E

3 T = 0.65 2 (7-12)

( El)

E-7-17

in which KT= transverse soil spring stiffness per unit length of the duct bank kips /in/in.

ES= modulus of elasticity for the soil (ksi).

v = Poisson's ratio for the soil.

B = height of duct bank (18 inches).

E = modulus of elasticity for concrete (3120 ksi).

i I = moment of inertia for the duct bank.

Since cracking of the duct bank may be expected before f ailure, the moment of inertia, I, was calculated for a cracked cross-section.

The longitudinal spring rates were developed by Poulos and Davis (Reference 11) and give the force-displacement relation for incompres-sible piles embedded in an elastic half-space. The longitudinal soil spring stiffness per unit length is:

KL = (P-P B )/(la) (7-13) a = pile displacement.

l L = embedded length of pile.

P = load applied to the pile.

PB = pile load resisted by end bearing.

For large length +.o-diameter ratios, the end bearing force, PB '

becomes very small compared to the axial load, P. Thus, Equation 7-13 reduces to:

Kt = P/(La) (7-14)

X-7-18

i When the results from Reference 11 are substituted into Equation 7-14, it is found that the ratio K /EL depends on the embedded length-to-diameter ratio only. For a long pile, the presence of the ground surf ace is relatively unimportant. Therefore, Equation 7-14 may be used as an 9

approximation for the longitudinal soil spring stiffness. For the purpose of determining the length-to-diameter ratio, the distance from the bend to the SWPS was taken to be the length and an equivalent diameter was detennined such that the perimeter matches that of the duct hank. Thus, a length-to-diameter ratio of 22.5 was determined. The corresponding longitudinal soil spring stiffness, is given by:

K t = E3/1.8 (7-14)

In order to detennine the modulus of elasticity for the soil, ES , the effect of local soil degradaticn in the vicinity of the duct oanks was considered. For this purpose, the low strain shear modulus, Omax, was reduced by a degradation f actor (G/Gmax) given in Figure I-3-4 of Volume I of this report. Based on an estimated shear strain in the vicinity of the duct banks of 0.4%, degradation factors G/G SME ranging from 0.075 to 0.15 were obtained from the various curve,s shown in Figure I-3-4. It was chosen to use the value G/Gmax = 0.1 as a repre-sentative value since the results are not sensitive to this ratio. The resulting values of the soil spring stiffnesses are shown in Table X-7-5.

The earthquake was assumed to act in the longitudinal direction of the duct bank between the bend and the turbine building. Thus, the maximtsn soil strain (emax) also occurs in this portion of the duct bank. for the soft soil This maximum soil strain is bax = 0.65x10-3 profile which is the most critical. At an angle from the direction of maximtsn strain, the strain is given by:

s e=e max cos2e (7-16)

X-7-19

---

__.-----j

The soil strains may be tensile or compressive. For tensile

~

strains, cracking of the concrete occurs and the axial forces are small.

As a result, the stresses induced in bends are also small. Hence, attention was focused on the case in which the earthquake induces f compression. For this case, the axial rigidity was based on uncracked section properties.

The code margin determined in the analysis is 4.5, as determined by Equation 7-11 for a combination of axial load and bending moment. The seismic factor, FSME, is equal to the code margin in this case.

Stresses Due to Building Motion 7.4.4 As a typical example, the same duct bank analyzed in the previous subsections is considered as it enters the SWPS. The outside dimensions are 26.5 inches x 18 inc.hes for this duct bank compared with an opening of 30 inches x 24 inches in the SWPS wall. Assuming the duct bank is placed in the middle of the opening, this leaves clearances of 1-3/4 inches on each side of the duct bank and 3 inches at the top and bottom.

These clearances are much larger than typical displacements of the SWPS as shown in Table X-7-4 (0.27 inches maximtsn displacement). Even though the displacements where the duct bank enters the SWPS may be sli.jhtly different from those shown in Table X-7-4, they are still expected to be much smaller than the clearances. Hence, no stresses are induced by the seismic motion of the SWPS. Similar results are expected for other structures.

X-7-20

h

( Table X-7-1

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS FOR EMERGENCY POND DISCHARGE LINES Code Margin p Effect CM SME Axial forces and bending of a straight segment of pipe:

a. Compressive stress in concrete 14 42

b. Tensile stress in cylinder steel 2.5 26 Pullout or axial contact at joints 11 11 Transverse (hoop) thrust and bending 1.2 8.6 in the pipe walls Clearance to displacement ratio where 9.7 9.7 pipe enters SWPS X-7-21

Table X-7-2 CODE MARGINS

• FOR TENSILE STRESSES DUE TO TRANSVERSE THRUSTS AND BENDING MOMENTS IN THE PIPE WALLS OF THE EMERGENCY POND DISCHARGE LINES -l Location Code Margin F SME

. Crown (Top) 1.5 22

% Springline (Sides) 1.2 12 invert (Bottom) 1.4 17

• The Code Margin is defined as: CM = (f p3 + fat)/ft in which, f

ps

= compressive stress in concrete due to prestress (= 1663 psi) f

= allowable tensile stress in concrete as defined in Equation 8.9 (= 581 psi) f t

= tensile stress due to applied loads other than prestress L_

Table X-7-3 CODE MARGINS

• FOR COMPRESSIVE STRESSES DUE TO TRANSVERSE THRUSTS AND BENDING MOMENTS IN THE PIPE WALLS OF THE EMERCENCY POND DISCHARGE LINES Location Code Margin F SME x Crown (Top) 2.6 33 Springline (Sides) 1.4 8.6 Invert (Bottom) 2.3 29 l

• For the purpose of calculating the Code Margin, the allowable compressive strength in the concrete was taken to be 0.55 f' = 3300 psi, (Reference 12).

Table X-7-4 DISPLACEMENT OF THE SWPS AT THE EMERGENCY POND DISCHARGE LINE ENTRY POINTS Soil Case Soft Median Stiff Maximum Displacement normal to axis of Pipeline (in)

(1) for East Pipe 0.26 0.07 0.03 (2) for West Pipe 0.27 0.07 0.03 Component of Displacement in the direc-tion of the axis of the pipeline (1) for East Pipe 0.17 0.07 0.02 (2) for West Pipe 0.23 0.06 0.02 X-7-24

Table X-7-5 S0IL SPRING STIFFNESSES USED FOR THE ANALYSIS OF A TYPICAL BEND IN A DUCT BANK Transverse Stiffness *, KT (kips /in/in) 0.94 Longitudinal Stiffness *, KL (kips /in/in) 0.99

• Stiffnesses are the transverse or longitudinal force per unit deflection per unit length of duct bank s

=

X-7-25

Elevation 634 628 W = 120 pcf = 0.9 x 106 psf CSME = 280 fps Ffil 3 G

max u = 0.42 e = 0.65 x 10-3 6

C = 490 fps G = 0.30 x 10 psf S = 3.9 psi s SME 6

Fill W = 120 pcf G = 2.0 x 10 psf CSME = 430 fps s max u = 0.42 e = 0.53 x 10-3 6

C = 730 fps G = 0.70 x 10 psf S = 6.0 psi 3 SME 6

Fill W = 120 pcf G max

= 2.7 x 10 psf CSME = 480 fps 3

u = 0.42 e = 0.50 x 10'3 6

C = 850 fps G = 0.85 x 10 psf S = 8.4 psi s SME 6

Glacial Till Ws = 135 G max

= 7.0 x 10 psf CSME = 540 fps o = 0.47 e = 0.48 x i0-6 C = 1290 fps G = 1.2 x 10 psf S = 11.7 psi s SME 6

Glacial Till W = 135 pcf G max

= 12 x 10 psf CSME = 770 fps 3

o = 0.47 6

C = 1690 fps G = 2.5 x 10 p37 3 SME Dense Cohensionless Material W = 135 pcf C = 2540 fps G = 27 x d psf 1 I

3 s max 6

u = 0.34 G = 10.7 x 10 psf Ele on SME CSME = 1590 fps )

6 C = 2970 fps G max

= 37 x 10 psf b s

6 G = 15.1 x 10 psf Elevation SME 260 CSME = 1890 fps 260 Bedrock W = 150 pcf CSME = sC = 5000 fps s

u = 0.33 where C, = Shear wave velocity at Gmax C

SME

= Shear wave velocity at G SME e = Maximum horizontal strain S = Maximum horizontal soil stress FIGURE X-7-1. LOWER BOUND LAYERED S0IL PROFILE BASED ON SOFT SITE DATA X-7-26

I .

Elevation 634

~

628 6

Fill Ws = 120 pcf G max

= 1.2 x 10 psf CSME = 450 fps u = 0.42 e = 0.28 x 10 -3 6

C = 570 fps 3

G SME

= 0.75 x 10 psf S = 4.1 psi 6

• s = 120 pcf mu = 2.7 x 10 psf Fill G CSME = 680 fps u = 0.42 e = 0.20 x 10-3 6

C = 850 fps s

G SME

= 1.7 x 10 psf S = 6.7 psi 6

Glacial Till W = 135 pcf s G,,x = 22.2 x 10 psf CSME = 2030 fps u = 0.42 e = 0.10 x 10-3 6

Cs = 2300 fps GSME = 17.3 x 10 psf S = 33 psi 6

Glacial Till W = 135 pcf s

G max

= 37.8 x 10 psf CSME = 2780 fps o = 0.42 Cs = 3000 fps DinseCohensionless 6 Material W = 135 pcf G = 37.8 x 10 psf C = 3100 fps s max SME u = 0.34 Cs = 3000 fps B;drock Ws = 150 pcf C3 =CSME = 5000 fps wh;re Cs = Shear wave velocity at Gmax CSME = Shear wave velocity at GSME e = Maximum horizontal strain S = Maximum horizontal soil stress FIGURE X-7-2. UPPER BOUND LAYERED S0IL' PROFILE BASED ON STIFF SITE DATA'.

X-7-27

i NOTES: 1. Longitudinal and transverse soil sprinas are present on every node.

2. The continuation of the duct bank beyond each end node is modeled by an equivalent lonoitudinal spring and force.

,, 30'-0"_. _ .

= = -

: :  :  : = = =

/

l E Y ~

dos l [ O 'O,,

ca so N

V .

/

FIGURE X-7-3. PiATHEtiATICAL MODEL FOR A TYPICAL BEND IN A DUCT BANK 8

REFERENCES 1.

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2, Consumers Power Company, Section 2.5.6, Revision 44.

2.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Report, " Applicant's Proposed Findings Docket Nos.of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Remedial Soils Issues",

1983. 50-329-0M, 50-330-0M, 50-329-0L, and 50-330-OL, August 5, 3.

" Standard for the Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear May 19, 1983.American Society of Civil Engineers, Draf t issued Structures",

4. O'Rourke, M. J., Singh, S., and Pihul, R.,

" Seismic Behavior of Buried Pipelines", Lifeline Earthquake Engineering - Buried Pipelines, Seismic Risk, and Instrumentation, ASME,1979.

5.

by the Seismic Analysis Committee of the ASCE Nuclear Struc Materials Comittee, Third Draf t,1980.

6. Vesic, A. B.,

" Sending of Beams Resting on Isotropic Elastic Solid",

Journal pp. of Engineering 35-53, April,1961. Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. EM2-87,

7. Newmark, N. M.,

"A Study of Vertical and Horizontal Earthquake Services, prepared for USAEC, April,1973. Spectra", WASH 1255, Nat 8.

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section VIII - Division 1, 1980 Edition.

9.

ACI Standard 318-77, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete", American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan,1977.

10. H.,

News Record, Vol. 87,forp.Large

" Coefficients 768,1921.

HorizontalParis, Pipes",Y.

Engineering 11.

H.,

Mechanics", John Wiley "& Sons, Elastic Inc., for Solutions 1974Poulos.

Soil and Rock H. G. and Davis, E.

12.

Vendor Report 7220-C67-19-5, SMA Document No.

13701.05M351.

13. Iqbal, M. A., and Goodling, E. C.,

Jr., " Seismic Design of Buried Piping", 2nd ASCE Specialty Conference on Structural Design of Nuclear 1975. Plant Facilities at New Orleans, Louisiana, December 8-10, ,

X-7-R -1

__.w---""'-~ _ . _ _ _