ML20084P150

Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Geniune Issue Re Consideration of Friction Forces in Design of Pipe Supports W/Small Thermal Movements

ML20084P150
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	05/16/1984
From:	TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20084P084	List: ML20084P082 ML20084P090 ML20084P106 ML20084P114 ML20084P132 ML20084P141 ML20084P150 ML20084P160 ML20084P167 ML20084P177
References
OL, NUDOCS 8405170428
Download: ML20084P150 (3)

Text

..

r< n riay 16, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446 COMPANY, ET AL. )

) (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating Licenses)

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF FRICTION FORCES IN THE DESIGN OF PIPE SUPPORTS WITH SM ALL THERM AL MOVEMENTS

1. All pipe support design organizations for Comanche Peak consider friction forces in the design of pipe supports I

where piping thermal movements are greater than 1/16". Two of the pipe support design organizations (PSE and ITT-4 Grinnell) do not consider friction forces if the piping thermal movements is less than or equal to 1/16". (Finneran Af fidavit at 1-2.)

l 2. The true friction load for piping movements less than 1/16"

is the lesser of

1

1. The normal load on the support times the coefficient of friction, or l 8405170428 840516 PDR ADOCK 05000445 0 PM

-_l

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

y c 2- l

2. The amount of force needed to deflect the support 1

a distance equal to the thermal movement of the pipe.

1

(Finneran Af fidavit at 2-3. )

3. The support configuration which exhibits the most I

significant effect from friction forces is a relatively short, stiff tube steel =cantilver beam. (Finneran Affidavit l a t 2. )

[ 4. Application of the second procedure for consideration of i

friction loads in that support configuration produces unrealistic loads. (Finneran Affidavit at 3-4.)

i

) 5. Use of the first procedure for calculating friction loads indicates that the maximum friction force which could be transmitted into the beam in reality is much less than that calculated using the second method. (Finneran Affidavit at i

i t.4. )

i j 6. Mr. Doyle's recommended guideline for consideration of i friction forces (stress ratios greater than .900) is not l necessary because the forces from friction are small j

l contributions to total support loads and because the

! allowables Applicants use for support and Hilti anchor bolt i

design are much less than could be used if. friction forces were considered. (Finneran Affidavit at 4-5.)

I, 1

1 i

- , - - ,,,.-m, , -<v -- 4, - c - - . , . . . . ~ , - - -

-3

O( ,

7. Inclusion of friction forces in the design of the support referenced by Mr. Doyle results in maximum member stresses, weld stresses, plate stresses, and Hilti interactions that are all within the applicable allowables . (Finneran Af fidavit at 5-6.)

8. Five other supports of the kind considered to be most significantly effected by friction forces were selected at random by Applicants for ranalyses. All stresses were shown to be within the regular normal and upset allowables used by Applicants. (Finneran Af fidavit at 6. )

_--_ _