ML20097J403

Affidavit of Jc Finneran in Support of Applicant 840919 Reply to Case 840806 Answer to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition Re Consideration of Friction Forces.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20097J403
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/19/1984
From:	Finneran J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20097J401	List: ML20097J399 ML20097J403
References
OL, NUDOCS 8409210230
Download: ML20097J403 (17)

Text

4

/ .

.o.. - .' ,

g e w-n....

. ... , . . . . . .: . . a.: . .

.. ... . .. o:n. : s .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE.ATO'MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAlkD i.'

..,n

..;.. ::.?:..k p.~.x w. x; .

.- . . , v . ~. . - ~ t .

. 8 : .. . .-

. v. - - M 5'9 ^ :n. . + * .' V ~

. . . ,: ,o  ; ,:. . - .- . . .e

. . ~; .- .

In.the. Matter of. )

. .. 13. . . W-y , .. . c.p.. . m. . ! . 4: -- ' c .ci . . ' e.n i. g r 5)l . < Docket . Nos . " 50-445 nand" ^. ' w G :A TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446 COMPANY,,ET AL. ). . ..

') ' ( Appiication' for' '

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating Licenses)

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

. >. v:.Q. ;.f ; q) .e > .x.;' y4MR ~ .4:. . n.w 4 %@

• S.

. " + . . ' WM. V'D ;*.i' " I M i E'+51 AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN C. FINNERAN, JR. IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION REGARDING CONSIDERATION.OF. FRICTION FORCES -

. .. 2 ., --

. . . . .~ . . . .. ,

. . . . . . . . :r , . .- - ~ , * -

I,' John C. Finneran. , Jr., . being first duly swornhereby c

d.ep,ose c and.e.statep . -as. fo.llows .-:- I. .am. the'. Proj ect Pipe Suppor.t .

m m . . . . . m .;

Engineer for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. In this position I' oversee the design work'of all pipe support design organizations for Comanche Peak. A statement of my educational and. professional qualifications was received into evidence as Applicants' Exhibit 142B.

O. What is the purpose of this affidavit?

A. This affidavit provides.information in support of Applicants' Reply to CASE's Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Consideration of Friction Forces.

Q.- What is your reply to CASE's assertions with respect to Applicants' first statement of material facts?

B409210230 840919 PDR ADOCK 05000445 g PDR

y . r. . , , . . .

l

. s. .. . . ;- ,

.. r.  :~; ,".. .. L': .: n. .- i f - ~. '-

4~;. _

. ..' ... r; ' . ,

..,:.0.. . : .

. - . '. . ~ . . [<

.n:  :~L A.. CASE claims in its response to Applicants' first sta'tement ofImaterial' facts.that Gibbs & Hill designed the upper "

3.-g.. c:,,,..-: . lateral :r.e.straint..and,ethus , . have..designedc other ." supports"  %- in >v7

. . ...,. ... i. . - c. u

' , , .. . , .,th a n .,. .. ., ..the-

, . . . . moment

~ . . .. . : . , restraints,

.a .. . . . .

..>. . - . . n -. .. .

and tii'ati the STRUDL group "was

_. ;.., c , ...

. ., ,, .t.under; .Gibbs. ,&, Hill'.,s. . supervision , " . implying. .that the . . q ... , s ..m..n.

practice of that. group, viz., to include, friction effects only'when instructed, was somehow inconsistent with

..:.2en , :.9 c:+ c, .rk A pplicants ' po_s.i ki,on.,.in the,ir.; motioni .( Affidavit....at, 2.),.. uIrt, s..m-c..

. .. 3.q the first instance, the upper lateral restraint is not a pipe support, it is a restraint for movement of the steam

, generator. .Further, ,although the, STRUDL group was.u.nder.the. , ,,.

i ,. s. . .. ., supervision.of }aL Gibbs & . HilE. emplSyee,, itwas ;not' a Gilibs .&

.c.,

Hill organization. When the STRUDL group performed analyses

1. ~ ." ' ,

' ' ' . 'f'ordeacii 'p'ipsisupporNdeisi'giihorga'ni~zation, . frict'lo las - - '

included in those analyses consistent with each organiza-tions' instruction. As we noted in our motion (see my affidavit at-1-2), some design organizations did not consider friction for pipe movements less.than 1/16". Thus, the STRUDL group would not always be required to-include friction. This is fully consistent with Applicants' position throughout the proceeding.

~Q.

What is the next aspect of CASE J answer to which you wish to provide a reply?

A.' CASE does not specify any particular disagreement with p Applicants' second through fifth statements of material fact although claiming that it disagrees to a certain extent with

_ _ a. ~ _ , . '- _ . _ ._ 1 1 - ' . . - - d. ,

. . , ,e . ., .

. .r -

3-

.,e .r~ '

.. ., s ~ i. -

. w .-

.  : i '.. t . ..

a.

. . ~ .

. s .

• .. without specifying any particular tlie' fourth ' statement, '

point.with which it disagrees. Thus, the next aspect of

>o-*sc * * \; L .:r -*.*?. .' ^ ~~ *

. M . . .# r ' ~ ?" ; * ' .'- ' ' . ,. s s M

.e. ..s answer to Wh1EN'.t?^ ;'L> . :~ *r . AI wish to. reply concerns.their* : i." Y !A

-" ~ C A S E'j

.'.*4 J.?.*~ .

. . , , .c . ,

x.  ; .c . a . .. r. - .

.,. , . ~ > .- - . ., ,

comments regarding our sixth statement of material fact.

ewc4,g, cm.Wh'dt"is youP'r'dh17th" CASE'Is"ansNF't'o ' Abd$18a i.h ' EfxtN '

- statemant of,, mater.i.al.; fact? .,

^

A. CASE' presents several arguments regarding this statement of

- g,e . e <--. ; . v. >' fact'! nO'6Edf #wh'ich*Tik"pkoire's A'ppIicantis ' 9'Nsit! Eon'. '

"* NW '# ~

Specifically, CASE contends (Affidavit at 7), that Applicants have misconstrued Section NF-3231.1 of the ASME Code. CASE . directs 'its argument to 'the 'stiat'ement in my ' '

?.

' affidavit a'ccompanying Applicant's motilon' (Finneran

- " ~ . '

I

, , ., Af fidayit. .at . 4--5 ),. that if the effe. cts,.of fricti,on..are. '

.R -',- "',-:. ...; .t e'* . ' ' :.* ~~. " . 7. " ! T: 2 ' ' '

~

" .- ' 4. 7 'n '

included in the design of supports, the allowables applicable to such loading combinations could be increased pursuant to NF-3231.1. CASE incorrectly construes

~

Applicants' position to be that friction effects may be included in all analyses in order to obtain a general increase in allowables for all loading combinations. To the contrary, mechanical J oading combinations (not including friction) must satisfy applicable allowables without any increase. If friction effects are included, those loading combinations may utilize the increased allowable.1 CASE simply misinterpreted Section NF-3231.1.

1

.As.I previously noted, Applicants' standard practice is.not to take advantage of this increase in allowables, even when friction is included.

.,,,-e. -------w ,,n.,--w -,--,----..,nr - - -

, -r--- , e - e -r , ,, , , - - - - - - - + - ,.

, , .,; , ^p,'c

.. ,." .- ** s' -

q}-

_4_

s. . ..

ny'- . M : . . ., , '

. i. . K . * '/

• t '. , . *

,s .a .? '

s '

i*

, , , ;sz., s

. CASE.next assertsSthat.'when the effects-of friction. -

alone are c'onsid',ered, the stress ratios (load divided by

, q i..n y;:. ] allowable); are: of such magnitude?that.' inclusion. ofS.0

. ^- v- P.S

' . ^~ ,.

.. e . . , , n . . . . . . . . .% - ,. ~ w. c. , + . --

c ha "me. ni. Nal' ' loads woul'd create an overstressed con.dition'

. w.a: . e. . M KdAffi, day.it..At.;7) ... 9.ASE illustratessits. position .using..a -

. .. x . < . - .a

.u-calculation Applicants prepared,in response to an NRC Staff ,

question which sh' owed that when the effects of friction ev.m.:-e. .:refu; i. alone. are.,3,alcu)., c ate %.,for A., p3rtigular . asupport;. the. .sptreas.. em .c .. . . ;t.p g. y a ratio was determined to be .775. CASE contends that this leaves only .225 of the ratio for mechanical loads. CASE does not acknowledge, .however, that (as;I. indicated in.my.

w

~

s

.i.t.atem'enti. . .to'.B.

- > . r.; Fair ;r.efersaced by[ CASE)[ fr'iction forhes 'do. , ,, j ^

not act alone, -and: that when the normal load (which gives

. , i' . , . ; .

..l..... . ...

/. - 'ri'se to. thifi-iMlo...n7foirce) is- 'i'ncluded . : .

in the ' calculation,' ~

... /  ; ~>

it tends to offset the effe t of the friction force. In this instance, when~ friction and the normal load'are combined.the stress ratio actually drops from the .775 calculated for friction alone to .46. Specifically, as noted in Table 1 of my original affidavit, the loading.

combination of friction plus Level A loads for this support

'(SI-1-029-055-S32R) produces a .96 stress ratio (3042

' divided by 3181), using a conservative calculation technique (treating the compression force in the support member as a tension load on the weld (see p. 4 of 7, bottom of calculation)). To compa: e accurately the friction plus normal load combination with the friction load alone it is

.y .<...v  ; '

_,, y - ./ ' , p. .(, .- .

,... y. .V. yJ

. , ~  :, . , ,

s-I i

. ..: :,[ *:; * . . %, . . ~ e ..,~ '. , '; s .:.7 .'. '.s. . . . ., ,.;r '. 's-

'. j , n . ,, .* :

^

.y 's : .. -*

. z ,e e < . ; s ,; .

.,: . j. - t.- ..

'? - ,.= .- . '. . *

.._- . ,. u ,.  ;. ,- ..;r '

necessary to evaluate the-weld stresses'as they~actually

- ' o'dcur . 'Doing' thi's'!'or the level A'1'oads'plus friction load'

.e t ~

f l '

, 9 , .. -& : J ch< combination.2for.,themeld ;yi' elds s ,'.~u b: " $@. M N -#~  :- H M " * ^"' M n . .

.' .e w. . w vwv e'. k h .  : n '< .;n ~ . - - > % ' s. n a--+.m A**"4c

. . . .u: ,.af. ,:&( w. . .

t eld 1 tension stress)~= 4972 (15.5) - 16573 = 1439 lb/in

, 34.47 20.8

,e .: -e.\.g' va,*,:...ti k u.9 ';.i.m t .~ P..t: ;i-N.4 v % .' T 3-W.:. a.+ :G. .0 - ..'.

. '.:d*.

o W 4*Sde%

Then the resultant tension stress on the weld is: i

'. f g . =- - ( 14 3 92/( 2239 );1/2 ,.1459 llhin

~

The resulting stress ratio is then .46 (allowable stress =

O < ::.u p ;.CJ w.en ~s . c':y,' ISM:WW4 .v . -MWW+'O dW% +-:4 W .\' k: 2

• Y t:W@

318111b in). Performing a similar evaluation for Level B loads yields a stress ratio of .42. In sum, it is simply incorrect to assert, as CASE does, that the stress ratios

^ ' . . . .

calculated conside. ring!fric. tion alone are at all.indicati.ve

.. , .

;,.' .w * . .L ' , .: '

.'.' ' '";....s *' i  :

... .?.1 .

.y ..

u f::> ~ k * . ..

of'the stress' ratios for com..bined mechanical and friction

. . v: :1 ading 9_

a. g,_ .

. , . ;: . :q ' yq . , '

p ~<, , ' '. . , " n. ' '

. 4 .. .~j:,. WJ;.

CASE's next claim concerns Applicants' use of a 5:1 safety factor for Hilti bolts (Affidavit at 8). CASE notes that a list of Hilti allowables using a factor of safety of 4:1 is included in the PSE design manual. CASE fails to point out that the list CASE refers to is simply a letter from Hilti, Inc., furnished by NPSI, containing load

. , . , . ,; . ccapacity , data.. for,.usey.'by. organizations- which order- Hilti- F <-

bolts from NPSI, which Applicants do not.2 The sheet is included in Section XII of the manual with other load 2-Hilti, Inc. recommends a 4:1 safety factor for Hilti bolts.

Applicants have adopted, however, a 5:1 safety factor for Hiltis. This practice is documented in Applicants' design specifications. A copy of the page from these specifica-tions which calls for the use of the 5:1 safety factor was provided to CASE with Applicants' motion.

.- . . , ~ - -

,. s- .- .

6-

. ;, a r y. .n . ~. . s'.;

5.V.. e>. a ..

1

.*a ce Y.'v...:t- .  : .. - a.% . ~ 6 , :. '~' ...'

- - - .;v; ....-. . ,

. . , s.

~ '

~

capacity: data,'for general information. The' actual design

., . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .: - - : .. .v . . = . . ..

requir.ements*.for Hilti' bolts at Comanche Peak,~using a 5:1

-u. . . ' t c. W 2 2 . feafety' fact' or@'are'refl'ected in-Section'V' of

• the"'PSE' mariuilW' ' ***

.> . a.;

, . . . . .  %.,..- . .: s ... . ~ c . ;.- . z. . . ....:.< ..: .- -r .>- .. e~- . u .. - : ~ c-In fact,' CASE'used data'from Section V 'only two pages later

. 4. . ,. e.g.

.S.r*.v( Affidavita at/10)'ain?.its own.*illustrationtofothese- effectse "< -W' #

CASE's final, claim with respect. to this portion =.of- 3- , ,

Applicants' motion is-that failure to consider friction 4 c m ,,fi.u.',rw sieffocts'e cooldf resu.-it'< in> fail'uretof ':: anchor' bolts '< ( Affidavit .: @k WM N at 9-10). To.-illustrate its point, CASE uses a hypothetical loading condition which is premised on the same fundamental misconception.regarding friction loads.which I discussed

'above'..withi respect. to ' stress ratios. -CASE' appahently does

,~~ ' . ... .. ^ .

'not understand that a friction load does not act alone.

' ~

A

..  :. ' ' . ~ - .. .,,- .~ ;..; Y; . ; ;.'. 7.. . , , > c: J -

. . n' .. dV

_ ~

"fribtion load < mu'st'act' sitih ' the norrhal ' load fr'om which':it'

't results. In CASE's hypothetical the normal load has simply been neglected. Consideration of-the normal load for CASE's hypothetical shows that the bolt which CASE claims would

pull out cannot even be put in tension. Using CASE's assumed friction force (F f of 4900 lbs. ), the normal load (N) producing that friction load is easily calculated as

. ,; ,:;,  :. . .. : , ,.n .

e

. e r. m .- t i .- ' -: - '

. a. *:

'4900 lbs divided by an assumed coefficient of friction (.3),

which is 16,333 lbs. Simply summing all moments about

. .u. .. .

... < < a. _

,,'s. ,'.W * '

.  ;.~ . ..: . . ),

. . . ,. . .. . * . - ' - , -lv 7 . >  ;, .* .. ..~, =

• ,, ' i . .~ ' -

.s *- , . .s.

s. W .. . .

. 3. -

.>.- b ; . ;r . .v. *.:. . +-v.4

. . % f :.J y: k. ... : 2 ,.n .. . . ~ :  %. h k;.. - . :.r.k. ~ ."c.

. . + .-: m ny'y

_.- . . . .. f., ,,.#.,,... .r,3. . . . j w .. . .. .

. . ., n ..4...

9-c . . ) c.3' 3.g u . B ---* . - .

w- ' '

^hx' " 4* " "' di * ' ^' A ' * ' # "

A A L 6"- J

.c. .,. . ..

n r>;,& .. %:.y e.y bolt B,.demonstrat.e.s.,.that z , 3 bolt; A cannot. even. be ,put..irq,g,;,x..

., . :. r.jg.q.g tension, although CASE represented' that 7.here will be a 4900 lb. tension load on the bolt. CASE's assertion is, therefore, false.

~

, Q... ,What. -i'sc..your , respon,s.ejjo...C. ASE'.' s : arguinents regarding -  !. '.

, .. - ['

Applicants' seventh statement of material fact?

. . . . .. . . 1

.: y ." _.

.CASEcontends;'thatApplicants'empioNd'an'incorrectmoment 9'-

A. 5 arm in the evaluation of this support. CASE argues that use of the correct moment arm would result in "a 37% increase of all tabulated values." (Affidavit at 11.) CASE is correct in its calculation of the actual moment arm. However, CASE incorrectly asserts that the increase would be applied to "all" values.--That increase actually applies only to one moment term (My). Correctly including this revised moment arm in the calculation demonstrates that the stress remains below the applicable allowable.

I have recalculated the stresses in the weld, as follows. First applying the increased moment arm to the My term (multiplied by 1.37) yields

8-

. . . ,. . . . . . . . . - e p v .- .- .

~ - -

. - "- ~' . -

e .: . s. . , ,.,

4

• 13.835 x.'I.37'+-1.010 - 4.7683 = 3.3'485 ' kip's/iri ~

5.17 ., 16.88 .12; ..63. ,

The resultant force is then

's ~. s . .,

.o s.". '

'f;% 5 .*,,*:- * * . * *4.,' *

,. . t *~ 9 -

• - at = *.'. S- =* ****i'**'d 2

_ . F = [3.3485 2 + .062 ..+ .167 32 1/2 .=. 3'353

. kips /in. . -

This-remains below the 3.431 allowable used in the

.,.n . +::.. ~ q ..v.: / w.y., a .: .. a.. .

a .%.r. '.r. : . w.~:. .

. .s - ~.. 1. u % * . . = - 3. v. -~

• original ca'1culation. Thus, contrary to CASE's assertion,

~

~ '

theJstress ratio'for'the',wel'd' remains below 1. '

CASE also contends that the increased moment arm would

, . , , . .. g . : . p' :m z.. .;;-t . n e ..,> .. : a.:.* o:4.8 ; em.:, "e m. . ~s. 9 7 * :i. v.a :. + ::.!..ey . M.%.'M- ~

cause the stress ratio for the anchor bolts to exceed one (Affidavit at 11). However, as already noted, the increase in moment arm only affects the moment about one axis. Thus, the. stress. ratio for the anchor. bolts only changes from. 81 to.89[dontra$ytoCkSE'sclaim.

^ '

This anbeseenby

.y increasing the;Myimoment.in the. original.Hilti bolt.

. ', , et ,

calctilation ( Attachment A to my original affidavit, second

p. 3 of 6) from 15.438 in-kips to 21.150 in-kips. I have attached a new FUB II analysis printout reflecting this change in My (Attachment A). The Hilti interaction now becomes 3509 + 756 = .89 4688 53T5 CASE also questions other dimensions employed in Applicants' calculation (Affidavit at 11-12). The l'6" dimension questioned by CASE is from the center of the pipe to the centerline of the vertical struts and not to the tube 3

This load is evaluated here as a compression load (which it is) rather than the tensile load conservatively assumed in the original calculation.

L

, , q. ,.,-

+

_ .t- .< ,

1

+

_9_

.s.- - . . s... ,,

, & t i.. . . . . .

s- - - . ... ..

_ ..~

C- -

'Ir'

~?

stee'l as': CASE apparently' believes. The tube steel M ' -

~

'installed with a 1/16 clearance' as indicated' on 'the s t.. i- : ... : drawing. -

. W '

s.M n :M' ' .; . '

'f * ^ * * S*- "" ': - ~ C #'Y CASE ~ next contends 'that Applicants utilized an

, ,: .s ..3incorrect:, allowable > in . assessing.s the .' shear. yield 7 stress -+ .-,u b :a .

.(Affidavit at 12) CASE apparently does not understand the nature of the shear yield stress check employed in the

~; . . t , . . . . sqbfecty. calculations . ..That!. check:. utilized, a shear -yield- c >

is. . ea . :-<

stress value from the AISC Code.4 (See AISC Manual, 7th Edition, p. 5-123 (Attachment B)). This check was performed simply to; provide added assurance of the adequacy of.the weld. ,That.(AISC'formular.intfact, yields'an allowable- -

(Sy/ O =.577 Sy) which is equivalent to that which CASE

~

V.

.: :( .. ... ... .

< . . . . . .  ; .- ~ . . .

apparently argues should be..~..empl'oyed' (12 5 ' r 4

. Sy =' .6 Sy; see Affidavit at 12, 13). It shoulil be noted in any event that CASE's position is premised on Regulatory Guide 1.124, which applies to class 1 supports. The subject support is a class 3 support.

O. What is your response to CASE's arguments with respect to Applicants' eighth statement of material fact?

4 Contrary to CASE's claim (Affidavit at 13) Applicants are not " committed" to any edition of the AISC code for weld design. Applicants' requirements for weld design are set forth in subsection NF of ASME Code Section III. Applicants do not reference the AISC Manual for the purpose of establishing weld design criteria for ASME supports.

Tr

.y.

7 , . .

. p O-

.. - 10 -

,s., ...: . -

.. . . .. . : ......-  ;. \-  : ' '

'A . In challenging Applicants eighth statement of material '

r-facts, CASE 'first ' claims that it does not know "how random ...

r.v.m.. , . ., c . JApplicant's'~ sample was or*.the:criterialuseil for thsir ' '"#W c-s.'e'le'ct'i'on"~ ( Affidavit at 14) . As'I stated in my original e s.. Ow. n. affidavit +(at.e5 .6) ,'. Applicants '. sample of; supports. wa's - /'- W '/O wi' selected by applying two criteriar .(1) the support is.of ,

the type which (as both parties agree) would be most

. .,.,s . . m. significantly,affectedcby,inclusioncof friction-effectair  :< ., -9

• viz., short, stiff support members with relatively large pipes, and (2) the pipe thermal movement is less than 1/16" (so friction would likely have been neglected in the

. . original.[ des'igh) . ' To 'ideritlfy .supp'o'rts .which satis'fi'ed

. .- - I '

these criteria, I requested that my engineers review support '

i .- ..., .- .

' drawings - At random'to identify these supports. The

resulting supports were, therefore, randomly selected in accordance with the established selection criteria.

CASE next attempts to discredit Applicants' calculations regarding the sample supports by examining the calculations for one such support, contending that it "will illustrate the shortsightedness of neglecting assumed minor effects" (Affidavit at 14-15). In this regard CASE first asserts (Affidavit at 15, paragraph (2)) that the stress ratio calculated with the effects of friction included was "almost four times as high" as that without friction.

Applicants fail to see the significance of this argument.

In the first instance, the initial stress ratio was so low L_

% ..... w.. a.. ....-.~.....<.  :-.. .c: . .a

.t.-.. . . .

. ~ , .

~

11 -

a .

. .  :;. r. x .

': :. .. .y,. - -

....w. ... . . .

tha't even w'ith'the increase du'e to friction the stress' ratio remains well within that which is acceptable. In" addition,

.;, .. 3,v,.~.r... . . .y .n

. . :..m s , . . .. ., .. .

. .:: : Mi..Tm n. ....:.

.v. .~ h:,A.i

~ ;;..' .CASE . , w;...fails' . . to

. ~ ~point

. .a.'out that the u- ' ,s-.'-

allowable when -~ .~..>+

inc'luding

- . , .. . ~ a s-friction would be higher than the normal allowable and,

. . : '.a ,... y.c ~ n- .thus,'the x . . . . :1.

s ir,. ess  :: e::.rat'

. . n. .

..: ~ ~io . . .. ~would~be,'even.. , ~ m.,.. ...v c .nc :... .-s ,:v :-W: as.n lower. ~

. CASE-further'cl. aims (Affidavit'at 15, paragraph (3)). .

that inclusion of the effects of friction in that calcula-

4 . W.. ; . t ,,.f .

m 'tio'n*would'iindreaie':th'e' lesEl' N"s'E$ss 'rstid iii EhhkEl'd Y '"' "'""

from .25 to .96. CASE believes that this demonstrates the weld would not be able to take much increase in load before

.it would exceed allowable. (CASE asserts that such a load increase "coul" d be. caused'Ny seve.ial' e'ffects , but'does'not ' ~

quant.ify,,i.ts argument. ) . Contrary to. CASE's assertion, a s I.

~

~

, . ,?., ,_ -- .

previously demonstrated (see p,p. 4-5) the weld stress ratio is actually .46 when the effects of friction are realisti-cally calculated. Further, both the .96 and .46 stress ratios are based on the normal allowables and do not take advantage of the increase in allowable that would be permitted. Thus, ample margin to the allowable remains even

, when friction effects are included.

With respect to CASE's next two arguments (Affidavit at 16, paragraphs (4) and (5)) the following points should be noted. First, with respect to paragraph (4), there is a rigid support less than three feet from the subject support which prevents additional side load from being imparted.

Thus, CASE's concern regarding the potential effect of L

q _ ..  ;. ..- . . . - . . , ~ ,. e .-.. a u x. w-.  :. t .. . . . ~ - i s , ,4

,, ,- . + <

12 -

>>.. ,. .- < ' . - .. k . .' , *. . . : 9 ... : .

. . , . 's ;. . . ,. ~ . . . u ;c , . u. ,h. .. *.- .

.- - s :. > .

, . . . . . . > .. *. F, ..# . c ,: .

~~ .

'  : .- . :s

• additional side load is unfounded. Further, with respect to paragraph (5), the note to which CASE refers is only a rough r~,..,.w..... '

.. s &, ; ..a 5

, h a . n . 9 \ . '. .m. - '. . e% . s . . . .-. +'.-*:..~-

.. H n c: .. M a~~v.'% 4 v~PM *

.c . 1

. . , . 1,..,. .spproximati'on of - the friction

.. . . . ,o. , . .. .- . . load which ..would.be imparted.s.

..:. . c. . . . - .- . : -

• if the pipe were to move into the curvature of the U-bolt.

.....,.,w..;' .. . - .. . s. % 8 ' s. .,:.. . > ...c ..

. . .. . :s..;~n : .';-.. ;'y . -w

.This. .::. acalc u. l ati.on was peri'o. . ::. . s; +. . v :i. a s.srmed merely to m th.,at.the confir.

controlling ~. friction load 'occurir when the' pipe is against '

the backing plate. Further, it is not appropriate'to 4 :r w. .4,.,...gy,g,6t'sE'i'ss YN 'E6u@Ii"aj((b3ciidNt.'io'ri'aS "I'nfdiha' tin [ tiMit' "

stiffness. Applicants' have utilized actual test data for these values in our other motions for summary disposition.

Finally,.1 CASE disputes.a sta,tement made in the Cygna '- ~ ' '

,._ _ i - .

Phase' III' Report *,. attribof.ed' to- my ' original ' aff.idavit, ; *

, - regarding.the consideration ,- -

~

of, friction.in s. ..

the upset loading , ,

condition ~-(Affidavit at 16-17). The statement in the Cygna Report is not, however,-derived'from my affidavit. In fact, the statement does not relate at all to the issue of friction effects for small pipe movements. Thus, the point is not relevant to Applicants' motion.

-e .. '.. . i: .. . - .

.s d

13., ,

.<, . . .> . , . , . . . , . .. . 3 ......,.:.

. s

,. e s . ., , . . . . . .

3 Imen .os re ,a.s JohnC.Finneran,Jr./

. s:, s., :,y.44,.y .,p r.s.um'M >< : n : p:, n. ,. ;...*... ~ .

. c.., ; q i,y s;, . ..:l ,t.c: u.y .y . .

• -a... :.i.),

.'...n ,. u . . .: .

6 s .. . .

Subscribed and sworn to before me.. -this.. . .. . . .19 th , . day. .of S...

eptemb..

er ,.' 1984.. .

- s

. . -l'is if .. p, r.; .p . .r..f .,e .s.;..,y .cori..,. A :: ,i,%,. u;.,4 e '.~ t< .,s.'. y?s*... . J **. : . . .;;. .sf:c. revi 5.h ,ta.4 l.. 4,;.:';r,y /. 4.La g A '..;41:.e

• .7,,,

. .- 4:

n. .~

s. .  ; . . , . ., . ~.. .

b'e p Q - =d T"w

/ii;'i.;,pJ:p s '.G .5 % ..ft'-?..

, . . e. ice. * ./.* .4d7ti.;sMAhl,5) ;,te Notdry Publgt- r . ; x& , yo . .:.v.s;;' , s, ..:. ., .s...:.

.  ; .tc..ee,v

.' ruy cose e ssia J ExM e-r x+o" 28,. M t V . . .

<- .t. .#.. . ,

, . .g. .. .... .. .

." +J. . . .. . . .

s .. .. .. . ' , . . . .... *g,3- . .

3

.. .. .  : s;.

i

-s..>._

.* ...,..N

. .+

.g.'...# ** . *

.. ...e,. . , . . .

.,c . ,,., . ,.s j D

G

., " q,- - N ,

• - r

. 'f. . -E- -ATTACHMENT A. '.  ;

r o

y ... . % .. ; . .. w.

..- ., >,....,..,.a.

. y. . . , . , , ,,.... . , , . , y . 3. , , , ,

~

. . ~ . , . . ....

9. . ;, . .

.. .... . =.

... q . < n .

,. .'.tq. -

..  ?: .

y . ,

a 00

, m ..,r... . ...e wa;.;,....:.; y,y..;,; : 4.g ..y c..g. ;: y y g 7g . ;.. .;.e. . . _ .. . . . g q.; . .. , , , , . . . _,

. . . 4. ;,,;, 4 9.y e- q' _ ,

.. ..O.. . :. .;lO 2 . . .

. 0. 03 occ

.ry.v. c.,,. . : sJ.v.1.. vy . < - , ,,+,f.g::p..:w.g.0g, ..c.,s u. 0ggm, 4 m; , p. . . .,m. , y. , ~, .g g nyp _,;,

=s . .e s.s

.m .

1601.- Oc#

, .- . . . .a.... .. 1.,5 s: .

.Q r., . . . .. . .- . .

' O. 21150. 08 p ,- an -

6

.' g (.. -

bor e. .

09

. . .y. to e.w, pe,c..w s . . . :.. n ,5m..m.g y g4. 4,.r.;.n.' 7. ;;;._. .y:,,. p. .:, 9,, , ... _.p . g .g.g_. ;. ,,.g g .e.,.g.;, , ;

~. -

~

. V., '

6 . ~< , ' '

. '12

2 ". 6. 13 sM'-

6. ~ 14

.,2 6.

15

.... es s.

o. .

- l.o. .

2 . t ,. ., . ' . e.. . i r.. - - ~

. n.

.ap:. . - . . .~, .. .

. g. . .

1 g

.,, . ,. ,.c.,

n.r s...:y r.

2; : ., .O . .

1q.

O. .m0 c

91

. . M., 2.

1,.

{.,. . .

.. ..m.c.r. .

.4 .. ,.

.& a >q y.. .. .

. . .. . t. .

<- 4 w.= 6=

t.

9..

9aO O. o.A .

, 2F .

s. - . 1.-

9-

1. . ob G. - 27 i3 9ps

" o o, O. .

. 4-F. MAX g 3508.91 ,

m'a P STR .

- 17393.42 I

SHERR <

r s e. 5. ,c

- c. -

2 -9

==

iJ C" - O" a Jc s.-

< 5o.02 o

k 756.52 4 .

FUS H R3 s

=

. e . - - - - - . , . ., ,y.. , ,,

- o ATTACHMENT B n-

.A -

g. ,,,, ' <

c ,

, +%L g._l_ .

, _ _ _ .-5

, NAE'-

g

_ -__ _ , m .. ,

E f ._ _ _ m,n- .

.. . m,

$ 2*C b ,f.: '",

7 ,

Structural Steel for Buddings . 5. ' 123

• ~

e.

> c 1.5.1.2 Shear ,I 1

k While the shear yield stress of structural steel'has been variously esti- ['

mated as between.one-half and five-eighths of the tension and compression  ;

yield stress and is frequently taken as F,M3, it will be noted that the per- .n ,<

missible working value is given as tivo5t hirds the recommended basic allow. l f *

,' '*Qfhy Wo 'p[

able tensile stress, substantially as it has been since the irst edition of the i A. ,

AISC Specification, published in 1923. This apparent reduction in factor .

N '"i" of safetv is justified by the tninoVconsequences of shear yielding, as com- C 6 '

pared with those associated with tension and compredon yielding. and by , .. ; , ' +f* "S>y . , ,~ . 7 ' M g1 the effect of strain hardening. -

The webs of rolled shapes are all'of such thickness that shear is seldom.the i <

criterion for design. However, the web shear stresses are generally high within the boundaries of the rigid connection of two or more members whose *'

r webs lie in_a common. plane. . Such webs' shculd '" '

be_ reinforced when the web '

il I

thickness is less than ~

323f (

As,F, N where 3f is the algebraic sum of clockwise and counter-clockwise moments (in kip-feet) applied on opposite sides of the connection boundary and A,, is i 1 . A 5 the planar ares of the connection web. expressed in square inches. This expression is bas d upon the assumption that the moment 3I is resisted by a J

3' f

couple having an arm equal to 0.95d., where d. is the depth of the member q introducing the moment. Designating as d, the depth of the member entering ( '

the joint more or less at right angles to it, and noting that A., is approximately -[ '

equal to d, X d,, the minimum thickness of the web not requiring reinforce-  %

rnent can be computed from the equation . j , ,

12hf allowable shear stress = 0.40F" .5 h i 0.95A,,t .

i a 1.5.1.3 Compression @F 0

1.5.1.3.1 Formulas (1.5-1) and (1.5-2) are founded upon the basic .

column strength estimate suggested by the Column Research Council.

• i This cotimate assumes that the upper limit of elastic buckling failure is de- {

fined by an average column stress equal to one-half of yield stress. The j slenderness ratio C,, corresponding to this limit, can be expressed in terms of j i the yield stress of a given grade of structural steel as l '

h.

2 .

• " h[2 y, r E i *~,, &

A variable factor of safety has been applied to the column strength esti- jh mate to obtain allowable working stresses. For very short columns this fac- i i tor has been taken as equal to, or only slightly greater than, that required ' pl ior members axially loaded in tension, and can be justified by the insensi- '

J tivity of such members to accidental eccentricities. For longer columns, L approaching the Euler sienderness range, the factor is increased 15 per- I f cent, to approximately the value provided in the AISC Specification since ,h it was first oublished 46 years ago. M 'i '

i  ;

97 .

. g4 gQ;

• Column Research Council Guide to Design Cnteria for Metal Cornpres- j nion Members, Second Edition. Eqs. 2.1n a~d '2.1T j

.  ! , gy a N

_~ .-

l @$k?R ,

,-s,

'MN M ' TD-- - - - - -- ,M-*meigg=yingy-me g ee ,,

w. ans -

' s' . I'

• 4 .

3, , , y -y

• 7 >

m b

4:

y.. .

, w .. .

.v, ... .c .  :.; . - .

. . . ai.s., :, . . . . z- ..

z .. . .. . . j

-. UNITED STATES OF, AMERICA-

'84 SEP 20 A9:14 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOARD y.,

.; .. Ly .

..n.

- 5if U.?.vi ':< ' . 9 +-

, In. the. Matter,.of. ..;.,, , .)..e,; .- .e. , .

)

TEXAS. UTILITIES ELECTRIC. ) Docket Nos. 50-445 and ia .+;. w.- ; .. COMPANY.,rietJ:.al:. w a .:. . . -: j.:.r . : -( : ) z ,r .

. . . w

. . . + 50.-4 46 - ~ .6 ' - -< - -

' r.  : ~. -

)

(Comanche Peak. Steam Electric )

. (Application for

• 'Statioh,. Units ~1 and'2)~ ')- ' Operating Lice'nses) *

^

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.h , ,e..k. w w .e 'e n *.y p . .,:e: . y ,.-:. :: "q p.y..n;C- ~ .. ; ; . . . + - O : n .'y .. y -r. -

'n't. * < .W @

-I hereby certify that copi_es of the." Applicants' Reply to CASE's Answer to Applicants

• Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Consideration of_ Friction Forces,'" in the above-captioned matter was served upon the following persons by express delivery'(*), or deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 19th day of September, 1984, or by hand delivery (**);on..the 20th' day.of. September,.1984.

^

~ '

• • Peter B.~Bloch, Esq. .

Chairman, Atomic. Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety'and Licensisg Appeal Panel'

. ..J.icensing.. Board,,,,.,. .

. . ,U S. . Nuclear;; Regulatory; .

~ , ,.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~ ^ '

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. William L. Clements

• Dr. Walter H. Jordan Docketing & Service Branch 881 West Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Dean, Division of Engineering Architecture and Technology **Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

Oklahoma. State University Office of the Executive Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. John Collins Commission Regional Administrator, Washington, D.C. 20555

. Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Panel 611 Ryan Plaza Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 1000 Commission Arlington, Texas 76011 Washington, D.C. 20555

4 - , .

a

~

,  : t s.. ,_ n ', .

u a. n. ..',.?  :. .e ~-l2 ~......u . ~ ~ ' . . .-~. .....G*..' ' ' e

. y, - .

~

. s. . .

. t. . v.. *-

• Renea Hicks, Esq. .* Mrs'.'Juanita'Ellis'

~

Assistant. Attorney General President, CASE Environmental. Protection 1426 South Polk Street.

^

- - -cpiyi s ion ; ' ;' -* #' -

'"' " Dallas 7 Texas 75224' ' "i- '# #' -

-P.O.1. Box 12548J -

S. - r.* '

Capitol' Station -Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Austin, Texas- 78711' Atomic Safety'and Licensing

. .. . e . e.;. , . .& .v .. a,.c . .w,

~

w .., vi . .ne.m u. r AJ, .r. .'i< Board" Panel'

, . . ' - * "'" '"D" O ~ ' i' D' C '* '

Lanny A. Sinkin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 114{W.- 7th Street

.. . C o m m i. s s i o n.. .. .- , .

4-

~ Suit'e 220

~Wa'shing. ton, D.C.- 20555 Austin, Texas 78701

, . > a 9 9,, ., . . . ': y. w.. . ' : . .;;~? .r.? :, sMew:n ?s:

? . s,+ <

' < .- ~ c ;:. .% 1' % z :' . .

-% ' *>F M . '*- %.+

f 4

y. .- . . . . .c .

. .. 4 - .

. . r . - '.

. s. ,

William A. Horin .

. . . .o... ..

,.,. .+- .

, 1 cc: Homer C. Schmidt Robert Wooldridge, Esq.

I l

i I

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

- - - - - - - -