ML20100M465
| ML20100M465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1984 |
| From: | Oldag D CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| 84042.034, NUDOCS 8412120331 | |
| Download: ML20100M465 (44) | |
Text
.--_____
=-
serva Js 101 Cahf.rnia Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94111-5894 415 397 5600 November 28,-1984 84042.034 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224
Subject:
Communications Report Transmittal #15 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job. No. 84042
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
Enclosed please find comunications reports associated with the Phase 3 Independent Assessment Program.
If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
)
D. 01dag Administrative Assistant Attachments cc: Mr. D. Wade (TUGCO) w/ attachments l
Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments Ms. J. van Amerongen (TUGC0/EBASCO) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments (Mr. S. Burwell (USNRC) w/ attachments _ $
9,\\
f.
8412120331 841128 i Y PDR ADOCK 05000445 o+ pJ.4'd i
l A
PDR 0
W s.n.. _.
e...n c ~... e...
P i
rg Communications si n a Repod 111111llll11111111111111111111 exas Utilities g Telecon 0 Conference Report Company 84042' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 7/9/84 i
Time:
Subject 10:30 A.M.
Phase 3 Status Place:
Cygna-SFR0 of
Participants:
N. Williams Cygna Required Action By Comments item 1.
Valve Qualification for Valves with Snubbers Attached to the Activator -
Cygna has attempted, since March 12, to determine if the Main Steam Relief Valves can operate when subjected to the loads transferred to the snubbers from the latest as-built piping analysis (see telecon between H. Mentel and J. Minichiello, 3/12/84, item lb).
In addition, to determine if this could be a problem on other valves, Cygna reviewed all other valve specifi-cations and found that the only other Fisher valve specification which allows supports on the valve activator is MS-600 and it does require the vendor to qualify the valves for the piping l
loads.
In order to close this question on valve acceptability, Cygna needs confirmation from TUSI that the latest as-built loads will be sent to Fisher in order to qualify all Fisher valves with supported activators.
2.
Nozzle SIF's -
The ASME Code requires that a SIF be applied at all tapered transition points, which typically occur at valve ends, flange ends, and equipment nozzle weld preps. Unless one can show that l
the butt weld is outside the influence of the nozzle tapered joint, say by review of the vendor drawing, one must consider the appropriate SIF at this point. Gibbs & Hill admits, in their response to our question, that a TTJ SIF was not applied at all nozzles and that drawings were not always available. Given this response, Cygna cannot ensure that there is no design impact from using a SIF of 1.0 at nozzle TTJ's. To close this question would require a review of all nozzles at CPSES to detennine which did f}hj))))
/a)b
'1 2
N. ' Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, S. Treby, S. Burwell, J. Ellis, Project D'"b"
l
{t ie, d. m nicnie n t o, b. tu orkman. _
oso o,.
Communications i
AL Report t i 1111111111111111111111111lll11
- .N y Itern Comments not use a TTJ. One could then review the equipment specifications to determine if the allowable nozzle loads effectively limited the piping stresses.
3.
Mass Point Spacing -
Cygna originally (3/19/84) asked a question concerning mass point spacing for stress problem AB-1-61A.
In Gibbs & Hill's reply (4/25/84), they added two additional mass points, reran the analyses, and sumarized results at two supports. Cygna concurred that the increase was small.
In a second question on the effect of the added weight of insula-tion and fluid for valves and flanges, Gibbs & Hill reran AB-1-61A with the added mass and found increases of up to 45% in support loads. Surmising that this might be due to wide mass spacing, Gibbs & Hill reran AB-1-61A with additional mass points, both with and without fluid and insulation weight, and found that the increase in load between those two runs was minimal (7% max-imum). Two of the mass points were those requested by Cygna for the first question. What Gibbs & Hill failed to do was compare the results from the relumped mass with fluid and insulation to the original (i.e., QA record) run without fluid and insulation.
In the region which Cygna had originally questioned, the loads in the supports not summarized by Gibbs & Hill increased by as much as 400% (from 1,341 lbs. to 5,681 lbs.)
A.
Please provide the original rerun for the two added mass points so Cygna can verify that all support loads showed insignificant increases.
l l
B.
Please justify the load increases (on certain supports) for l
the "relumped" run. Does this affect support design?
4.
Cygna is reviewing D. Terao's (US NRC) concerns on the use of double trunnion axial restraint configurations.
i 5.
Cygna is trying to contact Bonney Forge for information regarding stress intensification factors for weld-o-lets.
i Page of I
~
Communications Repod 4L i i 111111111111111111111111111m 1
o T* con R conference neport Texas Utilities
. Project:
Job No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station l
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 9/6/84 Subject Time:
10:00 A.M.
Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Participation Gibbs & Hill /NYC of
Participants:
R. Ballard, H. Mentel Gibbs & Hill R: Mn W
N. Williams Cygna item Comments Ac r y H. Mentel described Gibbs & Hill's revised plan for evaluating the effects of " missing mass" on the piping analysis. Using data from the piping reanalysis performed to date, Gibbs & Hill was developing plots of percent mass participation and percent sup-port load increase. Dr. Iotti explained that the intent was to eventually demonstrate a trend in data from which an informed decision could be made regarding which piping analyses had to be rerun to ensure that additional modes do not contribute signifi-cantly to the pipe support loads.
These plots would be made i
available for Cygna review to determine if this was a viable l
criteria.
(
D. Wade expressed extreme concern about the fact that Cygna waited three weeks to respond to the Gibbs & Hill initial propo-sal of ensuring that the pipe supports saw at least the mass accelerated at the ZPA.
N. Williams replied that Cygna's coment on the plan at the time related only to the fact that it would not comply with TUGCO's FSAR connitments. The fact that Cygna even made a comment on FSAR compliance was to prevent rework later, if in fact, this aspect of the problem had not been con-sidered.
Based on previous correspondence, Cygna was waiting for a report on the preliminary study of five problems before for-mally comenting on the program. This report was never pub-lished.
/)& ffisk lajb '*** 1 1
~'""
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, D. Pigott, J. Minichiello, G. Bjorkman, Distnbuan:
L. weingar6, a. ourwesi, a.
ircuy, o. c.i ns, rroaect r i se
l Communications Report L4 L t i mananannu
- " "
- Texas Utilities
)p Teiecon a conference neport Job No.
Project 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*:
Irdependent Assessment Program - Phase 3 10/30/84 Time:
Subject 8:45 AM Fisher Valve Qualification Place:
TUGC0 John Burgess Jean Van Amerongen EBASCO L. J. Weingart CES Required Item Comments Action By In order to aid in closing the Phase 3 open issue regarding the qualification of the Fisher valves, TUGC0 will send Cygna a copy of the new test report.
l I
l l
i l
l Page of Signed N. Williams,'D. W' age, J. Van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J.
Distnbution:
- c. isis, a. ourwes#, rrcject tile
__ _ osc o,.
i
Communications t1 L ci Report lluilllilllililllilllilllilli company:
Texas Utilities 9
T econ a confuence nepon Proiect Job No.
84042 j
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U'
Independent Assessment Frogram - Phases 3 11/1/84
..c Subject Time:
7:15 a.m.
" Bumper" Restraint Open Item Place.
SF
Participants:
of J. Finneran TUGC0 J. Minichiello Cygna Requred item Comments Action By Cygna has reviewed the TUGC0 reanalysis of lines AB-1-238 and l
-230 with the " bumper" removed. The data received consists of the ADLPIPE analysis and the support load summaries. Mr.
Finneran stated that all supports on these lines were checked'for acceptability under these loads, as documented in a PSE calculation file.
r l
l l
l l
l
/ /I[Ayu
/dmm 1
1
~
oistnbution: N.' Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Ameronge's, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, 10:0 o1 J.
DUI WU I I, TFUJULL TI1B
Communications ts (.a Report i
111111111111111111111111111111 company:
Texas Utilities et Teiecon a conference Report Job No.
Project 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Date:
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 10/9/84 Time:
Subject 8:30 A.M.
Phase 3 Open Items - Mass Participation Cygna-SFR0
Participants:
D. W W TUGC0 N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By D. Wade stated that to date, 98 stress problems have been reana-lyzed using ADLPIPE version D.
After reviewing the supports as-sociated with these stress problems, only three supports were overstressed. However, these supports have water hammer loads and it appears there is som? conservatism associated with this loading. TUGC0 is checking this.
TUGC0 is estimating that a total of 147 stress problems will be eventually rerun. This will correspond to all problems with par-ticipation factors less than approximately 30%.
1 Page of
/aj b 3
1 signa
/
~
N. Williaiiis, D'. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, G. Bj orkman, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart,
~
Distnbution:
. 7. cu.7,
G..
- ,rvacu ~
v.
...c
Communications 4L Report i i 111111111111111111111111111111 company Texas Utilities of Telecon a conference Report Project:
so No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*:
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 7/31/84 Phase 3 Open iter;s - Mass participation CES-SFP.0 M. Vivarito, H. Mentel, S. Lim Gibbs & Hill N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By M. Vivarito called to briefly discuss the mass participation program prior to issuing a revised plan. The analysis performed to date (5 study problems) on the new version of ADLPIPE showed that there were load increases, although this did net necessarily translate into a problem with pipe support design adequacy.
M.
Vivarito had heard through discussions with TUGC0 personnel that perhaps Cygna agreed that the pipe supports must see at least the piping tributary mass accelerated at the ZPA. Further, M.
Vivarito stated that G8H had review procedures from TVA which employed this technique of ensuring that the pipe support loads were equal to or greater than the mass accelerated at the ZPA.
N. Williams responded by acknowledging that when Cygna is doing a review, a common way of checking the piping output for reason-ableness is to compare the support loads against the mass accel-erated at the ZPA. This is however a reasonableness check only.
N. Williams also noted that the TVA approach sounded similar to approaches used by other design organizations in the early to mid seventies.
In order to better understand the specifics of the approach, Cygna would like to review a copy of the TVA procedure. GaH was not sure if they could release the document but would check.
i
/
/ajb
1 1
signed N. ' Williams, D. Wade,'d. Minichiello, G. Bj orkman, L. Weingart, J. Van Amerongen,
~
Distnbution:
^;. 7, m,, ';. Go
- ., Fiv e Fiie v.
v..
_ __m. _ - -
COmmuniCQtionS 4L Repod t i nummenmem company:
Texas Utilities y Teiec n conference Repon Project:
Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 11/8/84 Subject Time.
9:00 0" Gap Box Frames Place:
SF of
Participants:
J. Finneran TUGC0 J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna wanted to confirm their understanding of the use of box frames with 0" gap.
It is Cygna's understanding that the use of these framos is effectively limited to systems with temperature below about 200* F, except for the isolated occurrence on the RHR/SI system in Phase 2.
Mr. Finneran confirmed this and further referenced Cygna to page 33 of the SIT report, which discusses this in more detail. TUGC0 has done calculations, similar to those Cygna has reviewed, for all 0" gap box frames.
TUGC0 found only one other instance of use above 200* F on a line where TMAX = 240' F.
TUGC0 has performed the appropriate calculations.
Segned V
1 //
Page of
[fj ],{jp gu
/dmm 1
1 N. Williams', D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis,
~
D'abuoa' tosooi.
- a. Duswuii, rruJ e6 L r i i e, u. DJ urnman
COmmunICOtIOnS Report AL i i umummmmmmm Texas utilities o
T*' econ a conterenc. R. port Project:
Job No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station U'
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 6/13/84
Subject:
Time-1:00 PM Tugco letter:
A. Vega to Nancy Williams, dated 6/12/84 g gg gmg mg
Participants:
of D. Wade, A. Vega. B. Scott. D. Hicks Tugco D. Smedley, N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By 1)
Meeting was held to discuss Tugco's letter to N. Williams dated 6/12/84.
2)
Discussions were centered on specific issues addressed in the letter.
D. Smedley requested that answers to the questions be somehow clarified and A. Vega stated that for responses #1 and #2 supplemental responses would be written.
3)
Item #1 discussion pertained to the issue of segregation. Cygna asked what measures were/are used to preclude inadvertent use of unsatisfactory items. Cygna stated that the response in the letter dealt with traceability, not with segragation.
A. Vega and B. Scott agreed to supplement the response to #1 by discussing a worst case basis, economic risk rather than quality and the fact that unsatisfactory IP's are contained in work packages until they are closed, thus adding restraint to work affecting deficient items identified on unsatisfactory IR's.
4)
Discussion on Item #2 dealt with documentation of corrective actions to correct deficiencies identified on unsatisfactory IR's. The basic question was "where is the paperwork that says what you did to correct unsatisfactory conditions identified on IR's?" Mr. Vega and Mr. Scott agreed that this too would be addressed in a supplemental response.
5)
The response to Item #3 was not addressed in this meeting.
f
/ch 1
1 N. ' Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, S. Bibo, D. Smedley, S. Treby, J. Ellis, Project D*'"but'oa:
n ie
Communicetions 4 (% i Report IlliimillilimilmilmW company; Texas Utilities o Telecon 9t conference Report Job No.
Project:
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Stattor D*te:
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 6/15/84 Time.
Subject 2:30 Pipe Support Responses - Richmond Inserts Place:
(5/24 Telecon, Item 20)
Participants:
G. Gm TUK J. Minichiello CYGNA Required item Comments Action By In response to Cygna's question to Ed Bezcor of Gibbs & Hill (6/12 telecon. Item 4), Mr. Grace presented the attached.
4
[
h/ffjdp
/ceh "1
1 8""
Distribution. N.' Niliiams, D. Wade, G. D ace, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, J. Ellis,
~
S. oui-cii, rivaeu rise
,e,,,,,
b!
g gecm Gb5'
. cw c,e u
("
FACTOR or SAFETY OF RICliMOND INSERT FOR CPSES BASED OW THE 1983 6 1994 FIELD TEST DATA'
Background
The maximum working allowables for the l'y and 1 1/2"5 Richmond inserts recommended by the Richmond Screw Insert Anchor Co.
in their Bulletin No. 6 are based on limited tension and shear tests conducted at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in 1957 and 1965.
These test inserts were embedded in concrete with a nominal ultimate compressive strength of 3000, psi with minimal reinforcement.
The inserts at CPSES arc embedded in concrete with a minimum ultimate compressive strength of 4000 psi (actual compressive ctrength is about 4500 psi) and more heavily reinforced.
For this reason, G&ll established the allowabic values as shown in Specification SS-30 Appendix 3 which are moderately higher than those recommended by the Richmond Screw Anchor Co. 'tonsequently the GER allowables result in a factor of safety of less than 3 when compared with the Richmond test loads.
The basis and tho methodology used in establishing the C6H allowables are explained in the response to ASLB quention Item 8(1).
FIELD TEST PROGRAM
'(
To put the factors of safety utilized for the Richmond anchors at C PS ES in prospective and to es tablinh the actual fact' ors of cotely, a series of controlled tents were performed utillz!ng the
.-,----.-------+,.----,.--,.,,,,..,,--m
-4
,-_,,-.,,4---,,_.,_..-,.--_-.._.-----*,mm
. o
(_.
same concrete mix and representative reinforcing steel as used for,the plant. construction.
The test was in accordance with ASTM E-488 " Standard Test Methods for Strength of Anchors in concrete and Masonry Elements.'
each on shear tension and combined shear and tension Five tests were performed in April 1984 on the 1"#
and 1
1/2*F inserts.
Also, nine 1 1/2*F inserts were tested in shear in March 1983.
FACTORS OF SAFETY OF INSERTS (a) Service Load Conditions (Wormal & Upset Conditions):
(.
Maximum allowable working loads specified in G6H specification SS-30 are used and compared with the test failure loads to establish the factors et safety.
These are the factors of safety against insert failures (failure of insert, insert shear cone or both).
The factors of safety of the anchor bolts used with the insert are not part of the the anchor bolt working alle,vables used in test progran as SS-30 are based on AISC specification allowable values.
i l
The factors of safety for the service load conditions are l
above 3 for tension shear and the cosbined tension and shear tent loads on the l'F and 1 1/2*# inserts.
table A lists the factors of safety for each group of inserts.
The factors of
(
safety for the combined loads are based on insert interaction l
l
C.
formula given in 55-30 Appendix 3, Page 2 of 10.
4/3 4/3 6
1
[T1
' [Ff S$
+
\\Y')
A Since the minimum factor of safety, in all cases, is above 3 which exceeds the Richmond's factor of safety recommendation of 3,
the working allowables in SS-30 for Richmond inserts are well justified and are conservative.
(b) Factored Load Conditions (Emergency and Faulted Conditions):
Allowable loads under factored load conditions are higher i
than those of the service load conditions.
Based on FSAR, for steel design, the f actored load allowables are equal to Ik 1.6 times the normal (service) allowable loads.
By applying the same ratio on the inserts, 3 1.6 tha minimum factor of safety is reduced to 1.87 for the factored load conditions.
l ACI-349
- Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures", Appendix B - Steel Embedments Section B.S.1 and 8.8.2 stated that ' Design allowable shall be based on actual test data of tests performed on inserts embedded in I
t concrete.....,
A F
factor of 0.5 shall be applied to the average test failure loads in determining strength requirements."
This isplied that a factor of safety of 2 for i
insert for factored loads.
Slallarly, ASME code allows increased allowable for the
{
i
--.----,-_..-,--.-,.,.._,,_n._,...,___n,
.,-,,,,,n__-,
sh
. {
factored loads.
However, no specific values are given for the inserts.
Based on the above understanding, the recommended factor of safety for Richmond inserts, under factored load conditions should be in the range of 1.8 to 2.0 and 1.8 as a minimum.
In
- 1992, GER issued allowable loads for the Emergency and Faulted conditions for the lO and 1 1/2"5 Richmond inserts.
These allowable loads are shown on DCA-15338.
The factors of safety for these allowables against the test failure loads l
range from a low of 1.4 to a high of 4.6 which meet or exceed k
the recommended minimum factor of safety requirement for inserts under factored loads.
Thus, the above ty;A factored load values are justified and are valid for use.
Table B
lists in detail the factors of safety results.
1 i
1 l
TABLE A F.S. OF R.I. UNDER SERVICE LOAD CONDITION _S Maximum allowable working loads specified in Specification SS-30 are used and compared with the test failure loads to establish the factors of safety.
GROUP A:
BASED ON THE 1984 TEST 85-30 Test
- Failure site Bolt Type read A11cwables Failura Ioad Mode F.S.
4307/A36 Tension 11.5 41.20*
CsI 3.6 shear 7.85*
40.28*
B,Isc 5.1
(
lap combined 11.5" s 7.85* 2n.36*
s 5.2 A325/A490 Tension 11.5 41.20*
C&I 3.6 shear 11.5*-
40.28*
a,Isc 3.5 Ceebined 11.5" a 11.[ 28.36*
B 4.2 A307/A36 Tension 28.11 101.36*
B,1&C 3.6 shear 17.67*
94.34 a
5.3 gg.,
63.47" Combined 28.1 s
B&I 5.0 17.
A325/A490 Tenson 31.
101.96" B,Isc 3.3 shear 26.51 94.34 a
3.6 Ctabined 31.3 s 63.47 a&I 3.7 g
26.51
(
t
t
(,,'
TABLE A.
o GROUP B:
BASED ON THE 1993 TEST 55-30 Test Failure Size Bolt Type Inad Allowables Failure _Imad Itode y
A307/A36 shear 17.6E 61.83*
3!
It'W A325/A490 shear 26.51 92.42 3.5
(
Failuro Mode:
B = Bolt; I = Inserts C = Concrete Conc Tests were halted before failure.
(
n o
E 1"gf RICHMOND INSERT -
TENSION-SHEAR INTERACTION CURVES A
- CURvt OF TEST RESULTS
/
j 40 r\\
CIAtVE Utlus ntSERT ftTERACTION POResuLA AM ITEST RESULTs
,\\
(ES..t)
\\
3O n FACTO 8tfD LOAD CuevES
\\
Cuswt unsus :T s? ntsults
'\\N A9fD F.S. el.a CURVE West teetERT SfftftACT10er
"(
FDRieULA6 AND OCA-15534 l FAULTED C04tYlost ALLOWIASLES.
ag-20 "
SERVICE LOAD CURVES
_TT x
s RESULT 3 AND E3. 3 g
6
\\
T
\\/
r a s'.otmen av c-- = \\
10 N'N, l
\\
I'cl*Ts"n$.""*"
1<,
x, g
1... =.
Y<
\\
o c
to no ao 40 eo MM (IOPS}
c.
.~
c 8
TABLE B F.S. OF R.I. UNDER EMERGENCY (E) s FAULTED (F) CONDITIONS o
Allowable loads as shown on DCA-15338 are used and cosepared with the test failure loads to establish the factors of safety.
1 GROUP A - BASED ON 115E 1984 TEST DCA
'M st
- Fuilure sh Bolt Type Load Condition A11ontables Fallure Imad Mode F_. S A307/A36 Tension EEP 19.4*
41.28 C&I 2.1 Shear E
8.78 40.28 B,36C 4.6
('
shear F
9.7 40.28 3,IaC 4.2 1"f 28.3 [
3 3.9 Canbineo F
19.
)
9.
A325/A490 Tension EAF 22 41.28*
C&I 1.9 Shear E
15.17 40.38 S.I&C 2.2 sheer F
18.85*
40.28" 3,Isc 2.1 f
Cce61ned F
22 &
28.36 5
2.4 K
18.85 A307/A36 hnsion E&F 45.12*
101.96 B,IEC 2.3 aboar 5
20.56*
94.34 4.6 K
Shaar F
22.56 94.34 3
4.2 gg.,
Cambined F
45.12" s 63.47" asI 3.6 22.5E l
A325/A490 hnsion R&F
$8 101.96 B,1&C 1.8
(
Ehear E
37.23 94.34 9
2.5 shear r
42.4*
94.34 N i:
2.2 i
cambined F
58" &
63.47*
D&2 2.2 42.4K
TABLE B -
o GROUP B - BASED ON THE 1983 TEST ncA renare Size Bolt Type Imad condition Allowables
' Test Mode stode Q
4 A307/A36 Shear E
20.56 61.83*
3.0 14*5 Shear F
22.56 61.83*
2.8 A325/A490 Shear R
37.23 92.42 2.5 shear F
42.4 92.42*
2.2
(
- Failure leode: B = Bolts I e Inserts C = Concrete Cone
- Testa were halted before failure.
']
(
I 1
312 e RICHMOND NSERT
'~
A TENSION-SHEAR INTERACTION CURVES I
I I
l l
g d==r.
y %{
Or u m
l x(
= =..' =.-
i r... i
.0
\\
I N
-o -c-o lx \\
[*tl",.""1."'I ""*7' }\\h, n"o t"#,'lL.u"o ".
T
\\
i a
3 e
coor.i
\\ i\\
a_
i
)
.h 1c. uLo e-o\\(\\
\\
- % '"I..
'N\\
N
'\\.t
( 4 )' E. mg \\
NXl (t)%.e i
\\
rx N
- 1...
, m - c.\\ \\
X.I X
\\
x.
/\\
\\r...U"."J. "^" \\'
1
.uo, 1 to sMEAn.
1
'(
t 0
10
=E 40 30 00 70 80
.0 10 0 if0 SNEAR (NPS) i i
p----
.. - ~ ~... _, -,. -.
~
1
! s i..?},
2 l
t MDCi98tt B I
t s
s.
TEST REPORT s
f SHEAR AND TENSION LOADING 0F t
RICHMONO INSERTS g
I 1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W
,i 1-INCH TYPE EC-2W 1
[
APRIL 19, 1984 I
f i
i 9
i Prepared by Approved by S
//
w
- 5. K McBee 7.M. M ssingerJ P.E.
Civil Engineer Project Civil Engineer e
a
-e_
a aa
+
i.
s
- O 1
,f l
TABLE OF COMTENTS
1.0 REFERENCES
2.0 GENERAL l
2.1 DEFINITIONS 2.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2.3 RESPONSIBILITY dl 2.4 TEST APPARATUS I
2.4.1 EMBEDMDTS
\\
2.4.2 SHEAR TEST APPARATUS 2.4.3 TENSION TEST APPARAft'S i
l 2.4.4 COM81NED SHEAR AND TENSION TEST APPARATUS 3.0 TEST PROCEDURE I
4.0 RESULTS j
4.1 1 1/2-INCH RICHMONO INSERTS
- I' 4.1.1 SHEAR TESTS 4.1.2 TENSION TESTS I
4.1.3 COM81NED SHEAR AND TENSION TESTS h
4.2 1-INCH RICHMONO INSERTS 4.2.1 SHEAR TESTS 4.2.2 TENSION TESTS 4.2.3 COMBINED SHEAR AND TENSION TESTS e
5.0 CONCLUSION
S t;(
i l
I.
I
T,. $.-
4 b
TA8LE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
7 I
~
6.0 APPEN0!CES j
APPENDIX 1 - ORAWING N0. FSC,00464 SHT, 1, 2 & 3 I
APPENDIX 2 - CONCRETE CDPRESSIVE TEST REPORT
.I' TEST DATA SHEETS i
APPENDIX 3 - LOAO-DEFLECTION CURVES APPEM0!X 4 - PICTURES OF ACTUAL TEST APPARATUS i
1 d
i I.
/
I t
t i
i
?
I i
~
T.
- a i
~
TEST REPORT SHEAR AND TENSION LOADING 0F l
RICHMONO INSERTS j
i 1 1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W An0 1-INCH TYPE EC-2W t
1.0 REFERENCES
j a
A CP-EP-13.0 Test Control I
B CP-EI-13.0-13 1 1/2" and 1" Richmond Insert Shear and Tension Tests 2.0 GENERAL i
2.1 DEFINITIONS l
Ulimate Load - The load applied to the specimen which caused a physical rupture of the specimen.
I
! 1 Failure Load - The load aoplied to the specimen beyond which',
'1 deflections increased considerably without 4
'l.
substantial increase in the applied load.
1 2.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE These tests were performed to detemine the characteristics j.
of 1 1/2-Inch Type EC-6W and 1-Inch Type EC-2W Richmond Inserts when installed in concrete representative of that used in the power block structures at CPSES. The test specimens were sub-jected to shear, tension, and combined shear and tension loadings.
The strength, deflections, and type of defomations produced by
+
I these loadings were the qualities to be detamined.
I s
f I.$
(i
t s
7. '.
1 8
e o 2.
2.3 RESPONSIBILITY f
The tests were performed under the direction of the CP Project
\\
Civil Engineer. Witnesses to the. tests'were: 'A TUGC0 site Quality Assurance representative and other site engineering personnel.
Ci 2.4 TEST APPARATUS i
I 2.4.1 CONCRETE SLA8 & EMBEDMENTS 4
s!
The arrangement and details of the test apparatus are sh.:wn
?
on Drawing No. FSC-00464, Sheet 1, 2 and 3, which are included 4
in Appendix 1 to this report. (Note that only MK C-14,C-15, C-16 and Assembly 'O' on Sheet I were used in this' test.)
The insert specimens tested were taken at random from the s Constructor's stock on site and therefore, were representative
,y j of those installed in the plant structures. They were placed in a concrete slab cast specifically for these tests and whfch
.1 j.
was composed of materials and reinforcement similar to those-I elements of the plant buildings. The concrete used was bas d on having a minimum design strength of 4000 pounds oer square inch at 28 days. The laboratory test report on the concrete of which this slab is composed is included here in Appendix W,a, pgry j
p I
I 2.4.2 SHEAR TEST APPARATUS
~
An apparatus for applying shear loads to the spectiners was L _,
~
l designed and built on site. This facility employed a 60-ton capacity, manually operated hydraulic ram whose thrust against i
{
a cross head was transmitted by tension rods to a 1 1/2-inch I
thick shear plate bolted to the insert specimen. The base i
t reaction of the jack was transmitted through a structural steel j
" bridge" to the outer face of the concrete test slab. This arrangement, as. shown in Appendix 1, provided a horizontal shear load on the vertically positioned insert without pro-ducing secondary or reactive concrete stresses in the vicinity 2
of the specimen. Ram thrust was detennined by multiplying the fluid pressure (PSI), as indicated by a calibrated gauge on the pump, by a number equal to the ram piston area in. square inches. Deflections were measured by a calibrated dial indi-cator mounted on a remotely anchored bracket and with its spring loaded probe in contact with a lug welded to the shear plate directly behind the bolt head or threaded rod.
e I
E i
l r
- =O***m-
-e e
we _
. e.e
.e e
y e em p.
egge,,
y w
..g
?
io
)
3.
- t 4
1 I
l-2.4.3 TENSION TEST APPARATUS A. apparatus for applying tension loads to the specimens was.also 9
designed and built on site. This facility employed a 60-ton capacity, manually operated hydraulic ram which serves as an end i
/l loading on a bailt-up steel beam. The other end of the beam was bearing against a well-supported round bar which served as a i
fulcrum and provided the other end reaction of the beam when
!j the jack was operated to load the specimen. A threaded rod l;
protruded through the beam at mid-span, through a nut and bearing plate on the beam with the opposite ano threaded into the Rich-i i I mond Insert. This arrangement caused the load on the rod to be
'd equal to twice the force applied to the jack. l.ocation of the base plates for the reactions of~ the. beam provided clearance from the insert of at least 4 times the overall insert height;
)
i 1.e., at least 391/2 inches for the 11/2 inch inserts and 23 j- -.l inches for the 1 inch inserts. Ram thrust was determined by
.l miltiplying the fluid pressure (PSI), as indicated by a calibrated
~.
gauge on the pump, by a. number equal to the ram piston area in
]
square inches. Deflections were measured by a calibrated dial indicator mounted on a iemotely anchored bracket and with its
.ti spring loaded probe in contact with a bracket which was securely clamped to the nut on the threaded rod as shown in the sketch below.
w 1
T n.se a R.o
-l 4
i 5a.u.i kn.
h eA<.wAT
/
r.
%r
- ccw, t~
=
- m i i, h.... l....;......,l i l
h w lucicAro
'1 xi c
M,(
1 1M
.a.LQ
- .$.)
l e
t I
l k
1
.i (.
1 i
4 4
~
~
O e..i.
4
. v.
l('
)
i 2.4.4 COM8INED SHEAR AND TENSION TEST
, s,
-The apparatus for the combined shear and tension test utilized
- t the same equipment as that used on the individual shear and tension tests. For the shear portion, the equipment was set i
up identically to the individual shear test. For the tension portion, the equipment was arranged in a slightly different fashion. The hydraulic ram was not placed under the end of the beam, but instead, on the center of the beam on top. The ran thrust was applied directly to the thriaded rod, which j
passed through the center of the ram, by means of a plate which was placed on top of the ram. The base reaction was b
resisted by the tension beam, loading which was supported by two wide flange stands at sufficient distance from the insert so as not to induce secondary or reactive concrete stresses in the vicinity of the specimen. This arrangement caused the l
load on the rod to be equal to the ram thrust. Both rams (one j
. l applying tension and one applying shear) were operated by a l
single hand pump with a calibrated pressure gauge. In this fashion, the shear and tension loads applied to the test specimen would be equal at all times.
l t
3.0 TEST PROCEDURE
(
In perfonnance of all of the tests, inserts were cleaned of i
)
concrete mortar and other trash that would affect bolt thread j
engagement. A new bolt (A-490) or threaded rod (SA-193 Grade...
Jl
- 87) was used for each insert. The fasteners were all tightened L i
" snug tight". The application of all loads was applied by the ran by operation of the manual hydraulic pump. As the load,
increased from zero (0), indications of fluid pressure (later converted to load) and simultaneous bolt head deflection were l-d read at regular intervals. These intervals were at 400 PSI on the pressure gauge, corresponding to 5300 pounds thrust with j
the exception of the direct tension f.ests. On the direct jl tension test, these intervals were at 200 PSI on the pressure i
gauge, which also corresponded to 5*40 pounds thrust on the specimen due to the configuration used. The load as indicated by these gauge pressures was maintained as constant as possible for a period of two (2) minutes. At the end of this time period, the deflection was again observed and noted, l.oad application on each specimen was carried out until ultimate failure of the specimen occured (except specimen no.1, which was tested in shear). At this point, observations were made of the condition of the specimens and the failure mode.
i
!(.
l I. -
w-n.,.---v.,,,..,. _, _ _ _ _.. _... _... _ _.... _.,wn.-,,,_--,,---,-_,--,-,,.n_,_,,n.,,_,,,,.,,
.,,m-,---.
v..-.,
n-,
6.
1v 4.1.2 TENSION TESTS c
The ultimate load applied to the tension test specimens ranged from 87,650 lbs. to 114,150 lbs.. The failure loads ranged from 87,650 lbs. to 108,850 lbs.. The failure mode for specimens 11
-i and 12 was by striping the threads between the threaded rod and i
the Richmond Insert. Specimen 13 failed in the Richmond Insert by a failure of the welds between the axial strut rods to the upper threaded coil. Specimens 14 and 15 failed by concrete shear cone failures. All specimens were utilizing SA-193 Grade 87 threaded material.
SPECIMEN NO.
ULTIMATE LOA 0 FAILURE LOAD 11 106,200 103,550
/1 12 114,150 108,850 i
13 114,150 108,850 3
14 87,650 87.650 l
15 100,900 100,900
{I Average 104,610 101,960 Allowable Tension = 31.3k Factor of Safety (F.S.) = Average Failure Ld.
i l
Design Allowable Ld.
SPECIMEN N0.'s AVERAGE FAILURE LOAD (k)
FACTOR OF SAFETY
',i 11 thru 15 101.96 101.96/31.3 = 3.26 s
o l
4.1.3 COMBINED SHEAR AND TENSION TESTS The shear and tension loads applied to the specimens under this loading condition are equal and the ultimate loads ranged from 60,950 lbs. to 68,900 lbs.. The failure load: ranged from 58,300 lbs. to 67,575 lbs.. Specimens 6 through 9 failed by an abrupt shearing of the threaded rod. There was some deformation of the 1
rod in bending at the shear zone (ranging for 20' to 45' bend).
Upper insert washer moved from 1/2 inch to 3/4 inch with some concrete spalling on the compression side of the insert. Spec-l imen 10 failed by striping the threads between the threaded rod and the insert. This failure lifted the upper insert washer frem l
l the struts, but the insert remained in place.
l e
e 1
i l
7
- =
==;=.
= - = = = =. = = = = = = = = =
'J.
.a.--
1
,, ~
, o 7.
e 7 u SPECIMEN NO.
ULTIMATE LOAD (1bs)
FAILURE LOAO (1bs)'
6 68,900 67,575
-g 7
67,575 67,575 8
60,950 58,300
}
9 61,613 61,613 64,925 62,275 10 Average 64,793 63,468 i
Allowable Tension = 31.3k i
d.
Allowable Shear = 27.0k
']
Factor of Safety (F.S.)
i
- j (Average Failure TensionDesign Allowable Tension x F.S.)4/3,(Av
]
j
SPECIMEN N0's.
AVERA I
E OA (k)
(31.3 x F.5.)4/3,(27.0 x F.5.)4/
63.47-63.47 6 thru 10 63.47
~
=1.0 I
F.S. = 3.68 4.2 1-INCH RICHMONO INSERTS 4.2.1 SHEAR TESTS From the test data sheets, the ultimate load applied to the specime'ns ranged from 39,750 lbs. to 50,350 lbs... The failure
,j.j loads ranged from 37,100 lbs. to 42,400 lbs..
Specimens 16 l
l thru 19 failed by shear failure of the A-490 bolt. The top portion of the inserts deflected from 1/8 inch to 7/8 inch with some spalling on the compression side of the insert. Specimen 16 showed some rotation of the top of the insert. Specimen 17 l
and 18 showed no apparent sign of rotation. Specimen 19 failed i
by breaking the weld between the upper coil and the struts. The i
bolt then failed in bending after rotating with the upper pordan I
of the coil. Specimen 20 failed by crushing the concrete on'the
.j compression side of the insert. The insert then rotated intact and the bolt ultimately failed in bending.
1 L
~
.__...m.
..m
1 g.
.,.. s
.i L SPECIMEN NO.
ULTIMATE LOAD (1bs)
FAILURE LOAD (1bs)
~
16 46,375 42,400 i
17 43,060 37,100 42,400 18 50,350 19 46,375 42,400
~
i 20 39,750 37,100
's Average 45,182 40,280
(
Allowable Shear = 11.5k Factor of Safety (F.S.) = Average Failure Ld.
Design Allowable Ld.
SPECIMEN N0's.
Average Failure load (k)
Factor of Safety 16 thru 20 40.28 40.28/11.5 = 3.50 6
l' 4.2.2 TENSION TESTS The ultimate load applied to tha. specimens ranged from 41,270-lbs.
to 43,920 lbs.. The failure foa'ds ranged from 39,950 lbs. to 43,920 lbs.. Specimens 26, 28 and 29 failed by concrete shear cone failure. Specimens 27 and 30 failed by Richmond Insert fail-ure. The inserts failed by a failure of the welds between the struts and the lower coil. There was some surface spalling.~ assoc-i, iated with these failures.
- I SPECIMEN NO.
ULTIMATE LOAD (1bs)
FAILURE LOA 0 (1bs) t 26 42,600 42,600 i
27 43,920 43,920 l
28 42,600 39,950 29 42,600 39,950 30 41,270 39,950 Average.
42,598 41,276 4
l
-.=
9.
Allowable Tension = 11.5k Factor of Safety (F.S.) =
- A
$ eld.
l-SPECIMEN N0's.
AVERAGE FAILURE LOAD (k)
FACTOR OF SAFETY
?
26 thru 30 41.276 41.276/11.5 = 3.59 I
4.2.3 COMBINED SHEAR AND TENSION TESTS
- I
.i The shear and tension loads applied to the specimens under this loading condition are equal and the ultimate loads ranged
.j from 27,825 lbs, to 30.475 lbs.. The failure loadsTanged from
.j 27,825 to 29,150 lbs.. Specimens 21 thru 25 failed abruptly.
due to shear failure of the threaded rod. All inserts remained I
intact with only surface spalling of the concrete.
SPECIMEN NO.
ULTIMATE LOAD (lbs)
FAILURE LOAD (lbs)
- 1 g
1 21 27,825 27,825
- i 22 29.150 29,150 1
23 30.475 29,150 24 29,150 27,825 25 28,487 27,825 l
Average 29,017 28,355 1
Allowable Tension = 11.5k u3
/
k Allowable Shear = 11.5 f_
1 Factor of Safety-(F.S.)
(Average Failure TensionDesign Allowable Tension x F.5.
,j 8
E O (k)
(11.s x r.5.)4/3, {11.5 x r.5.)4/3 28.3g 28.3g I
21 thru 25 28,355
=1.0 j
.i F.S. = 4.15 i(t 1
- ~ _ _
2.
_-g-
s 10.
s,
_ (.l.
O
5.0 CONCLUSION
S
\\
These test results show that the perfomance capabilittes of t
I.
the ! 1/2-inch type EC-6W and the 1-inch type EC-2W Richmond i_
Inserts in shear, tension and combined shear and tension exce'ed the design allowable by a estio of more than 3 to 1.
These 2) conclusions are valid for the design allowables shown in Spec-ification 2323-5S-30, based on a spacing of the Richmond Inserts such that a full shear cone can develop.
Based on this test, the design allowables for shear, tension i*
and combined shear and tension are acceptable for use without further investigation or additional calculations. Richmond's recomendation of a minimum safety factor of 3 has been complied with.
I
(*i 9
j
./
3 1
i
~
1 A
I 4
l i
I v,
-,,,w, r,,
w
,,--,,,m-,,
w wm,__,,w-,,w-w,,,,mome,.a w, _ew-v
A Communications t4 (d i i Repod 111111lllllllllllllll11lllllll g Conference Amn elec n Texas Utilities Job No.
Project 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station oste-'
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 2 April 1984 Time:
Subject 12:45 p.m.
Mechanical Re. view Document Request CPSES of
Participants:
B. Wood TUGC0 J. Russ Cyana Required Comments Action By item
Reference:
Conference Report dated 2 April 1984, " Mechanical Review Document Request," B. Wood and J. Russ participating.
Cygna received the following from Mr. Wood:
- 1. All documents requested in the referenced conference l
I report.
i
- 2. Calculation package CC-1-028-004-A33K.
l l
[
/,f/ M
/dmm 1
1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, J. Russ, D"b"" ":
I im oi.
Proj eci; r i s e
Communications Report oL t i 1111111lll11111111111111111lll Teiec n g Conference Repon Texas Utilities i
Job No.
Project:
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 4/2/84 f
Time:
J
Subject:
2:45 P.M.
Pipe Support Review Document Request MB h of i
Participants:
B. Wood-TUGC0 J. Russ Cygna Required Item Comments Action By Please provide the latest revision of the load summary sheet for CC-2-009-003-A33R and TF/RB 1384 for MS-1-004-009-C62K.
/,/
// M
/aj b i
1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, J. Russ, D"bution:
sano oi.
Project. tile
1 Communications ts ( n Report i
11111ll1111111111lllllll1lll11
- ""F Texas Utilities gl Telecon a conference Report Project Job No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*t':
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 7/2/84
Subject:
Time 9:00 A.M.
Design Control Review Place:
Proj ect Letter 84042.007
Participants:
of Borys Czarnogorski Gibbs & Hill Required item Comments Action By I received a call from Borys stating that he would be sending a response to a letter from Williams to Ballard (84042.007) dated 6/23/84. Borys stated that his cover letter was telecopied to Cygna San Francisco on Friday (6/29/84) but that there was an er ro r.
I advised him to supplement his original letter with the correct information and transmit it as soon as possible. Borys also stated that he would be on vacation until 7/20/84 and hoped Cygna could work around his schedule for Phase 4 at Gibbs & Hill in New York.
l l
l l'
l 1
l
[f j/(fdp
/aj b 1
1 ominbution:
N. Williams, D. Wade, G. Grace, D. Smedley, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, rivaeu riie
Communications Report AL ci 1811111111lll11lllllllllllllll Conference Regrt 9 Telec n Texas Utilities Job No.
Project:
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 8/28 - 8/29 8:00 AM -5:00 PM Gibbs and Hill Mass Participation Study Place:
)
Phase 3 Open Items Gibbs and Hill /NY l
of
Participants:
Gibbs and Hill Steve Lim Henry Mentel (8/29 only)
Gibbs and Hill J. Minichiello Cyana Required Comments Action By item 8/28 In order to determine Gibbs and Hill's progress to date, Cygna performed a review of the 5 sample problems run on the new version of ADLPIPE.
Cygna reviewed the preliminary results for the 5 problems:
1 - 64D 2 - 68X 1 - 92A 1 - 23A 1 - 15G Gibbs and Hill's sumary of the support loads are presented for the following cases:
1)
As-built total load without missing mass (unrefined spectra) 2)
As-built total load with missing mass (unrefined spectra) l 3)
As-built total load with missing mass (refined spectra) 4)
As-built total load with envelope of unrefined dynamic (w/o l
missing mass) and static "g" effect (refined spectra)
As-built total load with refined spectra run (with 3 cut-l 5) off frequency) l l
Yj)}ty
/dkc 1
3 N. Williams,'D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, D'stneution:
- 3. tsurwei i, rroa eu r i i e l
iom ai.
Communications pim i Report item Comments Ac o y The pipe stress results for 3 of the problems showed very iittle increase between the results with and without missing mass (less than 2% for SSE), as expected. The support results, however, showed substantial increases in inertia. loads. Therefore, rather than try to draw conclusions from this small sample, Gibbs and Hill decided to use a larger sample (30), as described in GTN-69316. Letter GTN-69339 presented the first sample of 15 problems and GTN-69368 the second sample of 15. All 30 problems had been done using the unrefined spectra, as had a majority of the as-built work. Gibbs and Hill estimated only 20 problems had been done "as-built" with the refined spectra. After finishing the analysis for the first 15 problems using the refined spectra ZPA, Gibbs and Hill sent the resulting support loads to TUGC0 for revi ew.
Cygna confirmed that no other refinement was used in sending the loads to TUGC0; that is, any load increase (not just above 10%)
was considered and SAM loads were not reduced. The loads given to TUGC0 do represent the envelope of the previous inertia load and that due to the refined ZPA.
8/29 In reviewing 1-23A on the previous day, Cygna noted that the ZPA results did not seem correct. After checking, Mr. Lim confirmed that an error existed in the ZPA analysis. As stated previously, those results were preliminary only and had not been checked.
Cygna then requested Gibbs and Hill provide a summary of the support loads for the 15 problems sent to TUGCO. Cygna will use the summaries to draw independent conclusions from the Gibbs and Hill data.
1 Page of 3
tozo ots
t Communications
~ '
AL ci Report 1111llll1llllll14lllll1lllll11 itere comments Ac y
ATTACHMENT 1 GIBBS AND HILL PLAN FOLLOWING TUGC0 EVALUATION OF SUPPORT LOAD INCREASES IN THE 30 PROBLEMS (USING UPERELLA METHOD) a)
If no supports require redesign - - Gibbs and Hill plans to write a report describing what had been done and correlat-ing the results to the mass fractions in the sample of 30, then make a decision concerning the applicability of the sample.
b)
If any supports require redesign - -
(1)
Gibbs and Hill will investigate each occurrence for uniqueness (i.e., near a valve station, low mass participation, size of pipe) or a trend (i.e.,
function of low mass fraction)
(ii) Gibbs and Hill will then expand the sample concentrating on problems exhibiting the characteristics found above (iii) Gibbs and Hill will report results from the expanded sample to TUGC0 for evaluation (iv) Gibbs and Hill will issue an interim report describing the sample of 30, the investigation of (b)(1), and their plan for increasing the sample.
Page of 1o20 o1n
. ~.. - _. _ _ _. _.. _,. _. _,. -.
Communications Report t1 (
t i l
1llll11lll11111111111llll11111 Texas Utilities g Tei con contuence Repoa 84042' Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 11/7/84
Subject:
Time:
12:30 p.m.
Engineering Review of Installation Procedure Place:
SFR0 J. Finneran TUGC0 J. Minichiello Cygna Requred item Comments Action By It is Cygna's understanding that CP-CPM 9.10 is the appropriate document to reference concerning when U-bolts are to be cinched. Also, CP-QAP-12.1 is the appropriate quality control document. Mr. Finneran confirmed these points, He stated that the cinching of U-bolts, when no gap is shown on the drawing, was i
standard procedure at CPSES. The words describing this were added to CP-CPM 9.10 at the suggestion of engineering. He also stated that engineering reviews construction procedures as they affect design. Any information not on a support drawing (for example, Hilti bolt torques) are placed in the installation procedure and reviewed by engineering.
i 4
i Page of Signed.
c Yl Lk 4
.A lNb I
I D'" b " ":
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. Van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S.
Burwell, Proj ect File imo oi.
Communications Report AL i a a
11111lllll111111llllll11111111 conference Rem g Teiec n Texas Utilities Job No.
Project:
83090 - 84042 i
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phases 2 and 3 9/21/84 Time:
Subject:
8:30 am Welded Attachments Place:
SFR0 i
of
Participants:
NRC (MEB)
D. Terao CES J. Minichiello Requred Action By Comments item I called Mr. Terao to determine the status of the NRC concerns on welded attachments.
I first noted that Cygna had discussed five items on welded attachments in the July 3 meeting. These were:
a) 20% increase in allowables b) use in breaks exclusion zones c) two directional supports (trunnions attached to trunnions)
[
d) spacing (circumferentially and axially) e) design of double trunions as axial and rotational i
rest rai nts.
I stated that Cygna had closed b, c, and d in the Phase 3
(
assessment, as explained on page 5-5 and Observation PI-00-02 of the Phase 3 Final Report, Rev. O.
Cygna is currently updating the Observation Record Review for Observation PI 02 of the Phase 2 report. This reflects our presentation in the July 3 meeting which addresses item a.
For item e, Cygna has found, in all cases but one (out of 12), that tne Gibbs and Hill analysts use 100% of the load on one trunnion in double trunnion arrangements. Thus, Cygna believes the G&H standard procedure is acceptable in evaluating double trunnions.
j In addition to the above, I noted that, for the Main Steam and Feedwater piping local attachments, NPSI and TUGC0 have performed additional finite element analyses. The purpose is to limit stresses in pads and trunnions to levels below
'8' signe
/rb 1
2 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. VanAmerongen, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, S. Burwell, Distnbutiott r ruJ ecc raac sozo oie
t Communications R3 port AL i i 181llll111111lll111lllllll1lll Ac$n Item Comments y
the limits derived from Appendix G of Section III of the Code. This is also explained in the Phase 3 report, Appendi:
J, note 2.
Dave felt that Cygna had expanded their review as requested. Dave will now review the references we noted above and determine if he has further questions.
l l
l l.
l l
Page of
/rb 2
2 1020 01b
p 5 - C-l'M N o["
INiililllNNINillNiilillli Texas Utilities
)P Teiecon a conference Report Job No.
Project 84042/84056 Comanche Peak Steam Election Station U*
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 8/24/84 Time:
Subject 11:30 Cleanliness / Fouling Factors for Place:
CCW Heat Exchangers John Irons Gibbs & Hill J. Foley Cygna Required item Comments Action By I told John that although we had researched " cleanliness" f actors, and thought we understood the relationship of cleanliness factors to fouling factors, we were still not able to make a definite correlation for the CPSES CCW Heat Exchanger because of some apparent discrepancies in the data sheets Gibbs & Hill had sent us.
He explained that the values given in the data sheets were not always easy to interpret because some were " design values" and other are " required values" for certain cases.
He agreed to send other sheets which would clarify which are
" design values". Using these numbers, we should be able to resolve this item (i.e., whether fouling factors specified by TEMA, or their equivalent, were used in the design of the CCW Heat Exchanger.
i ffl}p,*, /ceh '1 1 N. William's5'D. Wade,J.VanAmerongen,R.Hess,P.Rainey,T. Martin,S.Treby, D'$tnbution: I
- v. r.i iis, s. nurWel l, Proj ect H ie e
- -- -.}}