ML20138P062

Cable Tray Support Qualification Program, Final Rept

ML20138P062
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/31/1985
From:	PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
To:
Shared Package
ML20138P053	List: ML20138P050 ML20138P062
References
PROC-851231, NUDOCS 8512240270
Download: ML20138P062 (116)

Text

.. . . .- - .- _ _ _ - - - _ - .

Seabrook Station  !

New Hampshire Yankee i Cable Tray Support 1 Qualification Program  !

, l Final Report pec' ember,1985 p==a88assas;;jer l

.g -

g*

>o,

(*"

r. '

1

'l TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

.1.0 EX ECUTI VE S UMMAR Y . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

' 2. 0 - ' PROGRAM OBJECTIVES'AND SC0PE.....................................

' 2.1: . 0 bj e c t i v e . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.21 Scope......................................................

L 33.0: fQUALIFICATION PROGRAM............................................

a- 3 .1 ' LTesting....................................................

3.2 ' Analysis...................................................

~3.2.1 ' Bounding Analysis..................................

3.2.2 . Unique Support-Analysis............................

• JAcceptance 3.3

. 3.4 =0ther Criteria........................................

z m3.5 Issues...............................................

Past Performance of, Cable Trays in Seismic Events. . . . . . . . . .

4.0-c

= TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT AND'RESULTS................................

N 4.1=

. ' Technical Development......................................

H4.1.1 - Dynamic - Tes t Prog ram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14.1.2 Development:of the Dynamic Test Samples............

'4.1.3 ' Connection Tests...................................

4.1. 4 - . Coordination with Bechtel Raceway Support

' Test Program.......................................

Analytical. Applications 4.1.5 Program....................

.4 . 2 -

Results....................................................

.4.2.1 ' Dyn ami c Tes t ausu 1 t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

' 4 . 2.~ 2 ' Connection Test Results............................

a -

-- 4 . 2 . 3 Analytical Applications Program....................

4.2.3.1 Analysis of. Test Samples.................

4.2.3.2 Analysis of. Supports at the

Seabrook Station.........................

4.2.4 -Envelope Analytical Configurations.................

15.0 L ' CONCLUSIONS.................................. ...................

..6.0 1,

REFERENCES.......................................................

APPENDIK...............................................................

_ _ _ , . - _ - ^ ^

7 _

, ,4 -

g -

~

7,g'

'A s -

)#1 1;0jgIBCUTIVESUMtARY-Na p

, M_

. N ' ~

'Dynamin EesL programs 'of Leosparable ' Cable Tray Support Systems made

?. - -

t

throughouti hefindustry

, 1 have; demonstrated that Cable Tray. Support Systems-

. - . - . _ ~

/

exhibit a>significant: inherent' seismic' capacity. These-dynamic studies have i U

- . enabled' thel seabrook' Project' to pursue a more ' refined quelification program.'

' 2A refined: program which is~ based upon' plant-specific tests will .Justify the . ,

(seismic, qualification;of:theexistingSeabrooksupportconfigurations-intheir a - -

i present'stateiof completion. In the absencefof this refined qualification.-

Q , ,

^ fprogram,ls'subst'antial' amount of, seismic bracing, and hardware improvements-

?would be necessary to- complete the original: design concept.-

,c- -

M' .

,b '

Cable ~ tray support performance andLbehavior for. typical'Seabrook p1a k -s

.ystems?g. details ~and materials were evaluated.in the-laboratory during the-E _ _

i

' initial phas'e ofithis refinement program. This included full scale dynamic-

~

~

, ! testingion representative support .and tray configurations at high levels. of seismic \ input.[The'se~proofandfragility,testswerefundamental:to-the~ c

& ~ ~developmentiof: this'. refined analytical ~ approach for the Seabrook1 cable tray

-: support-qualification.

[ThetestingprogramdemonstratesthatthetypicalCableTraySystems 4

c . .- , . ..  : .

iexhibit-substantial: seismic capacity. 'The. testing results have shown:

41)' existing lconnectionsiexhibit substantial. additional-rotational resistance-i

?and d) the Cab'le Tray Systems' exhibit-highly damped' response. The test data

has'been used to; develop lan-analytical approach based upon actual and-

, .g . predictablejsystem-behavior.

iThe final phase of the program will couple this. technology with.the cSeabrook installation.by. performing an individual support seismic evaluation

'~

and componentninteraction review. This phase of the program will provide the s ifinal1 documentation for.the cable-tray support qualification. i 1

u'

[' ' It;can,(therefore,'be concluded that implementation of this program

~O -

(will fulfill project commitments for the qualification of the existing

~

V ;Seabrook. cable 1 tray support installation.

4 b

y ,

i'y -'

~,$ , -c- i- 4 / e-- 6 m ., w ,r, e-~~~+, = - +,-..-

1 r '

g;ch s-

, }I

o:

s

~

2.0 EPROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE-

'2.1 Background

' Seismic qualification of cable tray supports in certain Seismic

/ Category I buildings'is tofbe completed by utilizing dynamic testing and irproved analytical methods to refine th'e existing project analytical methods. 'The deciElon to redirect the Seabrook cable' tray-qualification was

-influenced by the-following factors:

Past' shake table testing of Cable Tray Support Systems have shown that cable, Tray Systems exhibit inherent seismic capacity with -

varying amounts _of seismic bracing'.

- . Existing project analysis modeling methods of Cable Tray Systems

.could be refined to be more reflective of actual system behavior

- ' _ Dynamic? testing:1.s an accepted seismic qualification method by the USNRC-Standard Review Plan (Section 3.10).

^ 2.2:: ~ 0b_iective The objective of the refined. qualification program is to produce and

' implement a methodology which will optimize the project's use of available resources while meeting appropriate acceptance criteria and margins.

!2.31 Scope Seismic qualification of cable tray supports by dynamic

~ : testing / analytical methods will pertain to supports located in seven of a totalJeleven Seismic Category I buildings which still require final' documentation of their qualification. In the remaining four Seismic Category I buildings, the design, installation and final documentation of cable tray.

"I - -

. supports'is complete. Figure.2.1 and the lists below identify the buildings

-with completed seismic qualification programs.

g- ,

)

6 i o . .

_ ' _% )

t Seismic oualification Building Status Buildings Utilizing Refined Program' Completed Buildings-LControl Building. Service Water Pumphouse

-Reactor Containment Building' Cooling Tower (Unit 1 Side).

Primary Auxiliary Building- Diesel Generator Building s ' Containment Enclosure Ventilation Area. Fuel Storage Building

. RHR Spray Equipment Vault Steam and Feedwater. Pipe Chase (East)-

~

' Electrical Tunnels Trains A and B .

s J-e Y

, , - . , ,- v ~ "'

f .s v::

0: *

sz .

v:

1. --Servi ce . Wa te r Pumphouse

-(completed)

Steam 6 Feedwater Ie+

Pipe Chase (East) (not--completed)

C3 Reactor Containment Building-

]W (not completed)

Turbine Fuel. Storage

p - Building '

Building (completed) .

~

u 7 = 1

'- Containment Enclosure Ventilation Area-4 j g

N

-(not completed)

-Primary Auxiliary Building '

.y -(not completed)

N Administration Building cy - 9 RilR Spray Equipment Vaul't (not completed) f L-Cont rol - Diesel Huilding Genera tor U II"E ""# ~

(not' completed) . BuiIding (Unit 1)

(completed) (completed)

STATUS OF CABLE TRAY SUPPORT QUALIFICATION FIGURE 2-1

p n, m _

4;3 '

. .m* - Sr t

ac s

/- On. W p__ n, V

p u s, ~

y  ;, ~

' ~

• y}4- . ~ 3.0JQUALIFICATION'PROGRAN' g

^

~'

[

1; _

'  ? Implementation;of:the qualification program will'be perforined on an-y

[indiNriduallsupporth basis. .'A; thorough review of_all supports ~is. planned g ; -

~ '<

w . f as-constructed;

~

.s drawings and walkdown'resul'ts. l Individual support-

qualification}will N accomplished byJinplementation'ofI one of the followingL ' .

ithree[(3') .. ; methods: - (aftesting,[(b)lenvelopeanalysisor(c)supportunique b Kanalysis'. . .

.. ~

>s

. ,. LSupport qualification by testing'will'be utilized when the support

l. geometry / hardware mass.

"' ;and.seismicienvironment, etc., are bounded.by a

.Y _pspecific~ test case.

)SupportsLnot quelified exclusively by testing will be-4 xqualified by. analysis.

=

. snvelopeianalysis will be used'as much as practical'in _

' order to optimize thel analytical program, _ and provide additional- margin. :When

~.an envelope approach,showever is notl appropriate, supports'will be analyzed

~

.onlanl individual basis.

t-

> ~

/The installa ti on' status of the existing configurations.in the'seven iSeismiciCategoryl1 buildings is'shown in Table 3-1. -Scismic bracing =is the z j Iitem requiring _'the'la'rgest remaining effort.

' Therefore,.both the testing'and-

' lana'lytical p'ortions of the qualification program.will- investigate various e

~

~

calternativeslof braced an~d'unbraced configurations. :This approach is i consistent with our objectiveSof[ refining our; existing ~ methodology in order to

@ Loptimize the>.remainin,g1 qualification effort.

+- ,

~

An.overallhescriptionofLthe'qualificationprogramispresented y

~'

lbelowl iDetailed de'scriptions"of the qu'alification methods are presented in JSection~ 4'.

L Table 3.2 sununarizes . the integration and relationships of the s

various; qualification' program ' activities.

3.1 .Testina program

% iThe qualification test: data base was developed by shak e table testing

. of, four, represe.ntative1. support configurations which are predominant. throughout U  :

c ~ the:seven <

. n Selimic Category 1: buildings. The system behavior of each of the l' -configurations'was'obtained by testing full scale systems. Figures 3-1 7

[through3-4:showst'andardconstructiondetailsofthesupportssimulatedby

, ithst 'lFi gures 3-5 through 3-12.show typical cable tray layouts which are

. . conservatively ,.

enveloped by the test configuration. i I

5

_4_

s I $

, ,- A .

- k y2 . - ,,.,,.-.wr . . , , , e,,...,## m, _,.,.-,...,,.,..,-,---,,..,..mmm.... .,...,-..ymyv~...y,. , .- , ,

g w- .

..k. ~-

r ~' -

o 3A percentage of the cable tray supports in the seven seismic Category l' buildings are_to be qualified by testing. 'For example.-it has been estimated othat~approximately one-half of the supports in the Reactor Containment:

- Building;will utilize'.theltest data as their primary basis of their qualifications. -.Th'eir qualification willibe individually documented.

Supplemental analytical evaluation can be used to illustrate the

' severity of;the test conditions s'nd their resulting broad applicability. This-is. because .-the -inputs margins included In the test programs resulted in -

b 7 ounding response data. In plant applications,Jthe connection moments and

' forces;/ member stresses,. connection rotations, etc., will be limited 7to values

' which are -less than those recorded during the tests. Therefore, although the test 7 samples do not geometrically envelope 100% of the plant, they were-

' subjected to responses -which, by the implementation of our qualification-icriteria, will envelope the' actual support system responses at Seabrook. -A thorough support-by-support review will verify that indeed the tested supports envelope the response condition's of the vast majority of the' existing support-installations. ' This confidence is due ' to our_ parametric surveys which have-

-yieldedtthe following' data:

. .o The Test 1 Response Spectra (TRS) exceeds the-horizontal'ARS of all elevations in the Control Building by a minimum of 60% at all frequencies above l'Hz.

o- Fifty percent (50%) of all trays in the Control Building are loaded

_ to.20% or less fill by area (note: 40% fill was used in the test

~

program).

'o- ' Seventy percent (70%) of all supports are spaced at intervals of 8 feet or less (note: 10 feet was used in the testing program).

'o' 95% supports have more bracing than the unbraced test configurations.

The test program data provides the necessary data to extract an junderstanding of system performance. The data is then used as an effective link to the! analytical applications program as follows:

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

-3 4 % ,

.  !. t - I e.

. "g, '

M s -

'1. I

' Connection' test' data (is used to: (a) establish appropriate spring

{ irates to be inserted'into support finite element models and'to'(b)-

establish' appropriate connection rotational-and stress. limits.

2.;4Einite' element'models of the test case samples derived.in Item 1

?are'then compared'to the1 system test' data. Correlation of these' analyses with' the test resultsiin terins .of -dynamic properties and

response levels serves to verify the modeling approach.

13 .' . The' connection' performance data developed in_ Item 1 is then

, reviewed versus the system data. Utilizing these' connection

performance data will.' result in' responses that'are limited to less s

Lthan those observed during system testing. This will' ensure that g ,

1supportsfgualified analytically.and in conformance with the acceptance criteria will be within the response levels generated L during system '. tests. Joint rotation, for example will always be

-limited to values significantly less than those observed during

' system testing'.

13.24' Analytical'Appiica'tions Program s

The qualli . cation-of ' support configurations which are not geometrically bounde'

~

~

d by.the~four tested. configurations will be supplemented.by analysis ~.

- The-analysis program:will' utilize the. applicable portions of the. existing project' analysis program. Analytical refinements, derived as a result ofthe Etest program, will be incorporated where possible, ' for example:

1. :

Selected. connection sprinsLeates will be incorporated analytical

into. finite element models.

• ' ~

' 12. <TheLanalytical' acceptance criteria will be expanded to incorporate

\

the connection rotational and stress limits provided by the testing program.

B 4 '-

1 i

i

_ r, - I p

I

~

3.- _

'Q.

']

-3.

-Damping. values up to a maximum of 20% will be utilized. (Note:

The justification to'use increased damping at'seabrook was 4

submitted to'the.NRC in May (Reference 1). The testing program serves to confirm the' applicability.of these damping values.

3.2.1.' Envelope Analysis

.--To facilitate the' implementation of the analysis program, an envelope analysis approach will be used. Supports will be grouped by configuration type.'

Representative envelope models are developed utilizing conservative values of the.following parameters, thereby facilitating their use to qualify multiple applications:

'o- ARSt(envelope-spectra).

o Chnfiguration height o- Number of tray tiers .

o. Hardware' type o- Cable loading (full loading will be considered)

If the site envelope approach is too conservative, whereby the

--applicability of the envelope.is too limited, one or several of the above (parameters may be lessened. However, the resultant envelope model will be

~

used to qualify-only plant conditions that fall within the bounds of a particular envelope.

23.2.2: Unique Support Evaluation Any support configuration that is not qualified by either testing or .

Lthe snalytical. envelope program will require a unique support evaluation.

This evaluation can range in scope from a complete individual support analysis

-(if the configuration; differs significantly from any previously qualified configuration) ..to an evalu tion which addresses any minor differences between Lthe support and a previously qualified configuration.

6

$7 -?

f- ,:

fy y

=.1 ,

,e e

~

13.'3 ff Acceptance Criteria f

, 1

~

p

)The-analytical. evaluation:ofcabletraysupport.configurationswillbe' evaluated against a deta' i led acceptance criteria. The acceptance criteria

+ -

consists of.the existing 1 criteria, enhanced _to. reflect findings from the

' recent~ tests. : For example, the; connection springs inserted to the structural s- o

-m'dels'(Section'3.2)' suggests'the addition of a criteria to address their 1

-perfoemancejlimits. .Similarly, criteria is developed to address the Ir.rger; system displacements observed during testing. The existing criteria (which

~

-has beenlre' viewed by the NRC) was used unless-the test program results dictated a necessary change. The acceptance criteria highlights are provided below:- .

Structural Criteria.

- Primary methers1(struts)' - Maintain present project criteria.

' Connections .LExisting criteria will be amended to include additional

' test-performance data, t . Trays and. Tray Hold Down Devices

' Unconditionally qualified by the test 1 program.

System Displacement Effects '

Cables - Integrity and functionality was. demonstrated by the test program, as well; as by past test program '(Reference 6).

~

Interaction with Attached or Nearby System Components - Displacements

. vill'be within acceptable' limits.

3.4' Other Issues Thefseismic qualification program will also address the following open SNRC issues:

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

e,

i. ;

s

-1. TlOCFR50.55(e)) Report Electrical Cable Tray. Support strut-nuts hardware.: The~ test configurations included bolting hardware which exhibit-slippage capacities less than' published allowed loads.

I2 ~ - Quality' control commitments to resolve an NRC construction .

, appraisal team violation.

3i5 : Past ' Performance of Cable Trays in Seismic Events -

zTo further; document the' inherent seismic capacity of cable tray supports,-Seabrook cable tray support details are compared to cable tray-supports.that have experienced strong motion earthquakes. This comparison is made by EQE 'Inc. , an engineering consulting finn that deals primarily with the historical performance of-various equipment that have survived past.

-earthquakes. EQE 'Inc...has accumulated an extensive data base that includes

. Cable' Tray Systems similar to seabrook including tray without axial bracing.

Historically. Cable Tray Systems have. performed very well during and after

- major earthquakes,: including ground motion in excess lof the Seabrook safe shutdown' earthquake. -This data supports the conclusions of the Seabrock

. dynamic test program and is provided in Appendix A for your review.

e

_g_

Q

~ '

7, 1=' <

, :v

' 6 '}

--i.

~

CABLE-TRAY SUPPORT INSTALLATION STATUS

^ '

'Thejinstallation status of'the existing support' configurations in the seven-

seismic Category,1 buildings which still require final documentation of their

~ seismic ^ qualification-is as follows:

1; :-Primaryf' Support Components (vertical' struts and horizontal rails) .

- 100% complete.

12. : Horizontal-Bracing:

~

-a. transverse direction .;90% complete.

Db.

axial direction - 5% -110% complete.

3. -: Cable Trays --100%' complete.

[4. : Cable'Inis'tallation .90% ~95% complete.

s L

i

. Table 3-1 s .

j <

i n. ,

S.,

t a.

% > . . - L a

=

• 9

- ?.. '-,

,%? '

h L

s3 +

ga#

z;';"" . ' r -.

s 3

' h.

a c p. r..

3pl.'. .

j c

o ,t.,%r' g[

s. r

s. .9w.

e N~

4'. 7 a

g y

N

,.'=..

a, s '

O S

l I

' T T A L L;U c.

• ESS 5

RIE

\

RSRS N OY- I O CLNS AWY I

T TNOL

< A SADA

- C E KN

, I TELA F PA I TOWE T CL U O EEMQ N RVOI

, INRN C DEFU

' R N . . .

,. A8 C

, ig

~

c:

n f

A 9 gy I SS R T

..M'- L I T. E N S S TA' S T E G A YU I

N S RR' OG I

LS I

R P M N O N N S G AE C O I I O O PO - A N W T n PRT R I NR A L A A T I I TN

- U P T E E R C A i3 S, P A R P S T C V D C AO NH A E

'NS N E I

L CI s

YOC T OE A D D .P I

F IT FA AI Y IT T E 2 T PISn I P I IT -

RTW T C AE T A T D LN 3 TAO I E C O 1

CL I

LT C S U AE E EIF L N EA C A R L N UM L I S RU A B A QU B LF B I RL T C T C A BI E S I R T AL I

S S OA H N N T O LO CA A CV S G O Y AD U E I I P N E T L S C L P I

% sQ F SO - A U F ET B E S N S A D A A T'- T S

E -

N

.O I

T C

A R

E

' T NW

.IE I

TV NE

. ,e ER

,)  ;

N O

P

. M O

C E - $ISe5 E;6:

n $8 . zP.4WE$=- w

' R4E s

" eQE e m

o

% m

s. -

.- i s.

'l -

]: -

E La

,e-W tr l'J N

EXISTING STEELt REF , g en en k

.Q

' *1r-D "' .

.L<- n .:. .

)h,. '.Fef,,; w*.c ,..> ,,,,3y,,,

/4 .

/

h{j (1bD LLV t ... v z y . s. .. s.

]k~ vin. REST RICTED ZONE ( 1 y'I> 3 l tTvp -

j

,(ly R 80TH .StDES)

(g TYP)' g g i

/

I THAY F A i M_ .* LOR TYPE!

E SEE 7 . .s

2 NOTE 3 & r.9 og SH.3C.

.e-.,

. .e ...

, 6\ e i , u.'ETC;.Q g .

V N r , O-]Il ' flCf'1$ p0' 1 2 SEE NOTE'3 & F 9 .

L \ NL M F M N h *,3C,# '_---,,,, c-

s. s -..m .' ' . .. . . [TYPI -

r. O O ;

l ,

l (TY Ps TRAY STATig.

'Y I

' -l .ux SOLID BTM. .

. . i to.a- ,J

TO BE USED AS 1 Q{..

. ' errr rrre)

• SEE NOTE 1 h SHIMS AS REQ'O L -

. W' g

%Y CABLE TRAY SUPPORT SUSPENDED FROM CEILING

, , HORIZONTAL BRACING ONLY

'; NOTES:

m c c -- y c - ,

$.L 3 3l ,T W *

1. NduSE7 db TRAYS hER 593 4R MAY h/ V. iWE $EISuld f uti

l. .tc

-(' . OUALI:ic ATIO4 F4C Tadic so:PJCT s$ DATED 04 MAXJuuu .

[g*e p***

, ej Lq, -O)

. - ~ . Nu.ves.7 Oc TRAY > Av.o oct&8J6

. AD tr*@WV

. - . . Otl, D8FAWINCo$.

- . . /

A.tm pf 4ys s>ETWEE4 VEUICAL 00000R7

,{ (h -

o f.'MEMDER6 a4Agnuou h 15 Mv7 70 I"X4EED $4*. Sc A=s n:_ OOK T

g 3 wD - u. Au

-,m e,,r. m - To<

..,,,,.- . . m. .. ~ 5 TAT 3CN

.: E * >E m *neJEETb TA7 SEf tES,1 ts7 2E21sg Ago7,g C42 ADouc eiLE j}  !,j" ,

- A1.TE8tAIATE A.TTACJiME4Ter. i f 5-ccc e4ActuG strouestEMEMT'r AuD rosEstAdCES,,atEFEC. TO ,) NUCLE AR SAFETY RELATED Cad!LNERAA. upTE A7 ,. ./

.n* -

1 ( (, ' *

• k CABLE TRAY SYSTENS

4. y.)

• E, NO FIGURE 3.]

.o o o m.~.:,.. - w m f #* ,,,,,TES AND TYPICAL DETAILS

c. . ,o., a.., ~ m o l ... ,y .

isip , ........ ~ .

lO 1 _48(2 2 atv s'Est Lt. otte6SSC 7 t 1.*t 3:tV. A5 tJ0TED t e. e 4 JIt u 401-(. i hMW

@'ie . . .. o . .. n. uu: , c. m g z. l %-' l %* 9763 M3OO229 SHEET T4 uu -.

4J d3 e-.

.- 6 as I t::'

-e i s .51 e'.C . 'O STEE.-: P - . m F

. ' ' ---- M

• A. N

) - ir-h'vyp ,

4 .. l

. , ' E M E Ve0 Th"b"uAw g* .ggp'. y l

l @ - ll j ,

• M, 6' t Y- G* w a w $c t swe rv + h N

SLIDING F1T . . iT YPt tFui,, nEsTnic1ED zo~E-i

-(170.t0TH SIC ES ) - , 1 i

i i l L-{*

g -

.1 YP) eTYpe-C@-

om s b ~

RECC;vCD y

g w v. c. . c, . . m T

,,T ,,

m.11., (gP) se^sso04 SEE '

"DN NOTEi t b A -

r - -

l ,y g so*. o. - h \

IU e..

pw,c.-8 E. g. " . . . s

.,g e <As prR) ' . ,

g I' ,

I. It bract 4C.15 LOC.ATED AT A PDi47 VMER*

NO TEA 46VEltSE soccoC MEu DERS - gnes / .

.f 'l 1]

Exist Twa certo uueT A=o A oTpEust J TO TdanJ$cER. HoltlE4NTA4. L.OAD*> .

Cres . j

, DETWEE*J VEICT14AL SODC'#ET MEMDE26. y, ,

i*g.:;,, ,2. $1uweEg sc rRAy3 prR scopoer v4v va W. fg g i-  ;

- -- l E 3ET

• e t I

.Tue jnopo erie,vec gy 3 p g osaur.cAiisu p pq g 4 geu y coz u Q.s -w's s e gg s e t ;*.,.gq/

,"p ) ' as Trave suo osma+ Ao e towaJ o*J cW5. : C ee,. ..n s

i. INS 'J. naa.r uou o,$TAuca epa.TE*J vEEmcAL P FI ALTc-Rhja f :- t

l n

t-

• eu*'veTueusses @ 'o* jot 1r aw.r.sso aci- p4 4' t

,w)v-e ----

!1

-n -

EMBED 0ED OR SURFACE. MOUNTED.

g'J. $f f !>iEETS 74750hG.TfC75tRiES d 7811 F4C-- cal BASE PLATE DR STRUCTURESTEEL l Appl 8CASLE StACE AMD ALTEeuATE * -

8 f

krracyMGHT.s SEE NOTE 3 i. *. m. -5EE SHEET K). . - = ~

; A roc ecc.e, sesoviceur.ars Aug Ta.EanJces,

- , . ,,,*"- r 8 . espec we.auscAt uots A7 , _ . _ . . - - - w l h)M: .s......-- - CABLE TRAY' SUPPORT FROM FLOOR TO CEILING j .-

HORI2ONTAL BRACING ONLY "wi,rctEAdTirtTY RELaTED

- an + .

m t.% g CABLE TRAY SYSTEMS-

.t;f . .

Las ljlf NOTES AND TYPICAL DETAILS

'#'s , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .

~ ~-

navaE sn "5lyl m a.

, c.e ->w 4. aorry __u ,n en- Gyused eroness._

-w n ..n i m as sw. w u iusw i

, 3. , ,,

e i m.c ..zce... ec. u,.n ,c.... e l717 9763-M3OO22o SHEET T5 L

+ . . . .,

' eene s.,s.o.e assess "I' '

a,g , p.

a

=~< c' ~' ~

-__ _ _ _ . . ~ Ep a.,.n...a. .

g T. . .

... s ,. E. -, z s

y.4

. l M; J.or weet - DNG LES ,cniz "' ,

Wt M ' ve st. - c ,, g ,,,g, y; ' ATTACHE * :21 '*.a::Es tmNI C f as g

"'eret e,og - ,,, , ,.%.,  ;

,, asse f I (,3,

,,,,,g_,,

(E.,$.*.v, Loess Lgt, essait * . wau.anace.ur mu z u .r. 8

n': 88La*' ., ss '

ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR GENERAL

,5 = =1'l passerer T'

n , esas LEs seest

'TY E 1

'T '"5EEIoNow y _ ,

2 w5fau.ATION APC *eUST M am oN a cast acan anses g .W W .. n lI

^

m

%,M, atra'ir'aca=ca'TM ~

• - -tasse LE6 wtmt.-

N/us, th' in* me D

-pe6VIW-(,"ta.L'gggsuggr,np -j- TYPE 7 }i 1

7i ;, W

-] [ T .g _fl _f1 \

.'O r t-%W!q'P*y oTp

• 141C CK,.! ALT, I V'

, uru,a. ,:.  ;

cer ) i, oa Ad374s(7tp

, '.l

{, .TV P. <  ; 7

_ m - - - -

f 28"aE (TrPJ l

se ic

• ~

rest Lapotst vaay I DI '

e,,eg

^ saf 747c tr,2

< - (7FPg4) f'"] h'e;l M K 198C me estme, Tel.O Y v, av jI l' 50 0

^

~

g

~ ~

e -h tour, ( $, " ' * ,

, ,, j l Ste . ,,4 EG

• l

/ l l

J -

/-

12' .

m p

Sn[

C= SECT.*A.C

, g g .

a

, 1

- . 3, i . Q gag i N

j" i . . . - D

& /, ~

gSE E ***TE %

_[ .pf' ,as

~

x v. ,, , ,

i M .A>  ! 6 I, , I

%Y

~

/{\yx [ GD 1, , I jy_ -M 1 L g g ,,, .

r w

• @)

v 4 m ..tr Ki "a os r. . S EC'fl0 CB B*

.> N07ES:

! u a@ . en w.= c surmsu mer a,sra,ue eisranes rar ,

aedigt er egerr* Fass AW(Jip 4. Far/s AdapprAsW4g 1 1; '

I E C E l y ggrc : annourascasetets!lat d

'l':lht ' g, s c, ' g m c *, - - 1. somitantat estasetts out toe Tsitic s

-'ha-.il

, g og:

smonuts Tenn ssst es tuotam

' To Till OPPollTE Slot of CtDis esesese

&,*, ru,,urrav.

v yg ,,g ,yg a g a ,,,s_

wise //4 dewa'OR r--

+

t

" C

. mas is avois unsurret.cuy"9 f.du serranc ears'==E re st **u'h*cd 8E l

"' ' ~

E;C1%c EM '

-- . v- -

/ g ,ms,< fro anwou aur= a,strare,maa  :

3

s. _ _ - ,_ r w.

]( },.,- ar.r - emasu.r eac/sente usuacter swe andt

• '-----%,,-./*  ;

E A ='. R O O Hl* 1 s ur sutrrs versewnts.'ernme*,7arsaem< swr i' ii -

1 ST T *

.! t utentat uns anne an.e fit mm mu tsa saaf et meestnerso mt

• N ?_*-M

}

p Vcn s. Cm.

g

.r l.o . . wN.,,,,,,YSUPPORT mee anover. Tw taan te er I 4,s,wr m. ,, ,srevr 4 s'enomairrtrat ernmennew

-( .:1.t. 'WITH 90e TURN (TYPE I1 c= ""v - .v

.<6 ' " "-<."..aus q,- w ~

.., V. .et.uc.s.

. ... . e. u.. e z.

see v =a. e r 1.x NUCL EAR SArETY RA ATED l - -- cp  :. .. l ,r> '

= 'w CASLE TilAY SYSTE.M5

,*..e'. ,

e gg NOTES AND TYPICdt. DETAILS O m Na ...v....me....,........ e . .,. m .

-! =>rn n!a. cs - .4m e. Le t,, FIGURE a-3

- m. d Y"W" -

N D i= ExC*.T.'*.*.'.7,*#,*,1* **'* * }=44. .g. l7l7 97r.3 aa.Soo229 564EET TS f I

_ .. _ ._ _ , m

/ _ .a w cn .n.._ *

-- g g

+ 85 CO'**E;TED !D r<>

I-

• _ M* war w EN Yeme _ f [

e

(.

4 ::> NE~tE: 7 T3&

f. *)

W m

/% raELD DRILL YoAY FLatdGES FOR

've"13 BOLT h

N

' TvP u 3C A 3AD OR i - ' h

' $..h.

2AC E

' 's -*w N TYP AT i_ IN5ERT'.

l F j

l Q

s

k. F 3 'j '

E 7

d.d/  :/ ,

_ /, - ...,  : ,

/ je k L[w V O; r r

. , A J.- ti. l % g \g a :o \ .

J -/

r

• *eI h g

ALTERNATE we if .A- i.

(TYPi (TYP)

W g I 'a' f i o o

.$-" b* e ,/ = w SECTION A-A - 1 ."

Sw

"; i i i i

g E $

{ y r 1

• O_ f E k I o + w {

I i  ? An ,. A l, I ,

i g a j}

1 !. h h

(-

y y G I

[S .

I l

i

'--a

'l 1 ALTERNATE HOLDDOWN METN00 ' ,

I. ONLY FOR SOLO BOTT ,f -

DR WHEN A RUNGLADOER 0,OM TRAY EMBEDDED I l l

.. TYPE TRAY t$ LDCATED AT A SUPPORT -

Smut l ], 3, CROSS MEMBER hM L P Q

,g

,a' Q'

=

.* C ,oR m%

TO RUNGS N - 1 m e h,.m FOR ATTACHMENT ( B t.__ i _.+ B

j. *

TO INSERT 1

. h D *^Ol3 W w] - -N -

=

g7gy

. aEx J

.I . .! SECTION B-B~

5 ALTERNATE ITR AY CONNE*TED DIRECTALY TD CON; RETE INSERT @l rI M:l!4 I MAXW4UM SPACING BETWEEN INSERT 51510*-0* WNEN USED. RECEIVED L ). E. & C. IN C.

VERTICAL TRAY SUPPORT _DETAll flEC l W3 S g Ac3 R O,0 K

'f g ,

STATION -

! p-i NUCLCAR SAFETY RELATED

. . , ,) CABLE TRAY SYSTENS

<* NOTES ANO TYPICAt. DETAlt.1 e ,

6. i # ****'***",'**,,*f,,*,',,",,*;"'"""'**

FIGURE 3-4 Lw,q pt pge p,_ _

S- org , a k,J 1717 9%3 M300229 SHEET T36

^

r- .. . .

3. ,

.9

~

- Control' Buildina - A Train Electrical Tunnel and Penetration Area. Elevation O'0" N

a l L u p @

rm Tor 3 -

ID M nmm .

J f*."WV** a , f V o ,

I ;Q

[

~

.. T

.E. . E _

^

/ , ,

CONTAINMENT s'

Figure- 3.7 Ine typical cable tray configuration in the tunnel area is floor-to-ceiling, with up to 10 tiers. One side of the tray is supported using a floor-to-ceiling column. The other side of the tray is braced with struts attached.to embedded steel channel in the concrete wall. . The trays are connected to the ceiling using the standard connection detail either bolted or welded to overhead structural steel

' wide-flange beams. The floor connection is made by welding to a base plate either embedded or bolted to the floor. Cable tray. loading in this area does not exceed 40 p1f. Seismic gaps are evident here. ,

The penetration area contains a high density of cable trays. Yhe ,

configurations of these trays are trapeze, floor-to-ceiling, and various combinations of trapeze and floor-to-ceiling supports. In addition to the cable trays, this area contains ducts, electrical cabinets and penetration assemblies.

l i

> z Control Buildina -- Cable Soreadino Room. Elevation' 50'0*

b .!I .h r

7, r, .

o .. ,, -

, 4 .=-

6.

-s

$ (~ Y = . . -$d

• ~ r -

// ,  ::'a

j. 3. * "

.  ! t

} \

.e . . . .. .

$St -,

i.m i i u

-.. D

~

w 4"

( i i i

. g .-

. l_ D D ld O g

y- -

.I

• y_ W n

t. ..

r .i g

=

.= _

v-e .3

.f

E (

3 '

0

• Z 4----

N

.0 ,13 o .22 .0 .22 _ . 0 ,L Z Figure 3.6. The typical configuration of cable trays in this area is floor-to-ceiling with up to 10 tiers. The trays are connected to the ,

ceiling asing the s'tandard connection "bo'ot" either bolted or welded to overhead structural steel wide-flange beams. The floor connection is made by welding to a base plate either embedded in or anchor-bolted to the floor. On multiple-tiered . trays, at least every fourth tier is

' braced in the transverse direction. In addition to the large amount of horizontal . trays,. there are several runs of vertical trays connecting the'switchgear area (elevation 21'6") with the control room (elevation 75'0").

4

-_..*w.... - - - . =+

Control Buildina - Switchaear Room. Elevation 21'6"

?/?

E -

4

= = r; - . .

= A= EB an:

= 7= Im _ g .,

t 1 *" * *"

' l 8 5  !!" E,*

.Q l 83Ni$v310MANO3 3 Alva 00u [1 :::. < i H1 2 <

I I f ~ *

'I sensus.>rium u n V-

~

i irz aan i Y r ..;,

__ )

~ _

.gg - - .

e i

; j - _ .._

_3 - .

_ . 1 .

. , \ _\ 2-

'g - .,, _ 'k (A ._ < k' +- kl 'k _

g' 5 . .,

u W -

[ g T

l  ;

g  ;. .

- @y_,  ;

=

a 9 -

- u -

g -

2 Il -

;  ; i -

E 5

j  :

y a

a 3

5

- a

-- .g- t i

@H -

,i .

_- DL -

L__j

. . g .

c[i-v i y T]j5

'o -

ii .

,;. (.% gwr-.b g

_ L U ._

S J _L Zh . 0.t J 0 .ZZ 0 .Z Z ,,0. t Z .

Figure 3.5 The typical configuration of cable trays in this area is a double trapeze with up to 8 tiers. The trapezes are connected to the ceiling using the' standard connection " boot" either bolted or welded to overhead structural steel wide-flange beams. On multiple-tiered trays, at.least every fourth tier is braced in the transverse direction.

Bracing details include triangular gussets at major connections and clip angles at other connections. The cable trays are connected to the trapeze supports with either internal clips or "Z"-clips. Cable is routed from"the tray into electrical busses through wireways and flexible conduit.

t -

n

y 7- ,

.~*b, Y w

Steam and Feedwater Pine Chase (East) - Elevations 2'0" and 12'0" N

a P

1 i

In _ ,

- r , ,

i, ,

~' '

F Or- , i st_ c.

N

' y,V

~

_ l M AIN -

STEAM

~

TUNNEL CONTAINMENT BLDG. ,

1 i

? _

I s M Figure 3-12 The typical cable tray configurations in this area are trapeze, cantilevered and pedestal supports. The cantilevered ca' ale trays are two tiered, with each tier braced to embedded steel channel in the concrete wall. The pedestal supports are also braced to the wall at each tier.

y

• i

- l Primary Auxiliary Buildino - Elevation 25'0" N 1 4

1_ .j .;

tj i

II 1 y e .,

N -

3

. l I

C 'N i j l J

-l . e-g

f. g .

e I

@ R i o

b.'.- U

( '

g __

VlM .

b i, m

~

_'f t

6 .]>

t .

b

$ \'

e

-.-, 3 b s g

i ' y,\ 1a C

6

• U '

. . . ))

, .u . , ,

? - o O

$g &9  :;;S

~

h '

s O

oo '

tog a y - -- -

o.3, - ;~ - - - ;,

w-- .

=

i- @ Ou @

Figure 3-11 The typical configurations of cable trays in this area are double trapeze and floor-to-ceiling with up to 4 tiers.

ji~ ys. .

p; ,

~

Primary Auxiliary Buildina ' Elevation 53'0" 8., - u.

r -

d v

o g., C '

-i

[

x "a

6

~

Q .

6  : a EE E a t l-

.; . . i-i 3-  ;

~

.3 U

.e::

+1

'1' o ,

.'~ 6

- g_;

i s u j.

o.

k .

gy s 3

-r l

=- --

I o., , , - ,;o.7, -

7 ,j 7,- - -

c e e e e Figure 3-10 In this area, cable trays are mounted r.round the perimeter of the building in a 3-tier trapeze configuration. Ti.e supports are welded -to the overhead structural steel wide-flange beams of the ceiling. In addition to the trapeze supports, some of the cable trayt are. supported on pedestals.

m

p_,

2

^9..

'e Reactor Containment Buildina - Elevatio'n 56'0" o.

.N--

0 0

\ pd L' ,: /

A's \ ~ ~

y

. a=.- e -

\ '

/

R ,

sY s

, n =

,,g.

/ . . . ,

-m s  ::::

_g

~s

(

foa x

M . Agalj=h

m. . l g- - -

4 .

g.

t

\ .-

\ '

[ \ .

/

$' zu 'b ) t -

~ Ro-

/  ::'". tift N

/ /

/

f/ I i.o-Figure 3.9 The typical cable tray configurations in this area are double trapeze and floor-to-ceiling supports. Most of the trapeze supports have 3 or 4 tiers. Cable tray loading in this area does not exceed 40 p1f. The cable trays and penetration assemblies found here a*e similar to those ,found at Elevation O'0".

L

Control Buildina - B Train Electrical Tunnel and Penetration Area. Elevation -20'0" m nT i j- _ i fr Y ,)

c U

~

g Or i

[

}  !

r

r. r 1,. .r 8 o

-. til t

.y. y M-3 \

\

h

=

=

.h - 3 I I I- _]

a k. '

<m

~ ,@ "

@ciJ j E386 OD

_ J '

O

- ~ '

i ~~ . ,

i ,_

;=: ::. -

W ze y Figure 3.8 The cable trays found here are similar to those found in the A Train' Electrical Tunnel and Penetration Area.

r .

.e-  : * ,, -

m= ~ f %%;b

5 - . ' , ' rM

, . ,ig ,

Yi , , .

n'4.0 TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESULTS

lps '7 e' \-.

~y-y. '

O. -

t '- 14.1='T_echnica1' Development 13

.s I

Tho. Cable Tray System qualification program includes the development of the items identified' in' Section 3; -_specifically, dynamic testine; of full scale system mode gonnectiontestsbhd'analyticalapplicationsprogram. In Laddition, the program data base was--enlarged by the' utilization of an existing

Bechtel Raceway Te

:t Program. The detailed development of these programs and

. . .. m .

a summary of ensuing results.is included in the following. sections.

sJi

-4.1.l'-Dynamic Test Program

-i g

+q .

g #

s '

s.

N". The' primary objaetive of the Seabrook specikic tests yas to study the M. N

' Lseismic' resistance and- response 'of , typical multi-tier cable Tray Systems, M g iconstructed'using representative site-specific construction details and

- hardware subjected to'various levels of postulated seismic' loadings.

Other ' objectives include the collection and analysis. of data to determine trends in resonant-frequencies,. damping ratios, response shapes and f.supportloads. This information is later coordinated with an analytical

'applic4tions program to qualify the support system as described in-U 'Sectioni4.2.3.

, o e

The test effkt. investigated the performance of the typical Cable Tray Systems using three'different load sequences and input levels. They are ideytified as follows:

+l t q ; 4

'k SSE~ Test i

( l' .

Each test .g configtfration A- was subjected to one .}tE Test Responso Spectra.

(TRS). Tf study system response, the test configuration was also subjected to fractional SSE events.

, ,. .g

'~

p .

E - :

? '

• Fatinue' Test' 14 s

Each test' configuration was subjected to five OBE TRS followed by one SSE TRS. -

u '

Fraallity Test Each test- configuration was subjected to incremental TRS, using the SSE .

TRS shape, until the table ' limit was reached, or until general structural' collapse is' observed.

Esch test sample was subjected to a specific sequence of test inputs to optimize: data'and performance evaluations. 'All'the test cases include low

-level random testing, fractional SSE testing, SSE testing, fatigue testing and bracing studies. . Details of the test sequence for each test. can be found in Tables-4.1 through 4.3' .

Test plans for each test are found in References 2 and 3.

4.1.2 ' Development of the Dynamic Test Configurations Ttieinitialphase'oftheSeabrookcabletraysupportperformance program conne%ced with a site walkdown during the week of July.14 1985. The purpose of th8.s limited plant-walkdown was to investigate miscellaneous details which might be sensitive to se hmic displacement of unbraced supports and therefore should be included in the tes6 program. Previous site

~walkdowns, performed to support the Bechtel damping study of the Seabrook cable tray. supports (Reference 5) were used as the basis for the propocal of the two test sample geometries (Case A and B). A description of these two cases are provided'in Figures 4-l'and 4-2. These two configurations were judged to be_the most representativo of site conditions. Two test cases were selected initially,~as it was' felt that additional test cases could be added as warranted.

l The main Seabrook typical supports are represented by the trapeze support T26 (representative of TA. T8, T26. T27 and T29) and by the typical

-support T5 (floor to ceiling support). A sketch of typical supports. T26 and

'T5 is provided in Figures 4-3 and 4-4 These two types were selected for y- ,

.s t

dimensional, quantity'and behavioral reasons. These initial configurations consisted of reduced transverse and no longitudinal bracing, which is consistent Eith the program objectives.

' Af ter the completion of Test Case A, it was decided to establish a third configuration. Test Case'C. This test case is illustrated in Figures 4-5 and 4-6, and incorporates.two major types of supports (change in direction supports, T9, T10) and supports for vertical tray, T38). The third case, by enlarging the ' data base, serves the joint purpose of illustrating the seismic resistance.of two different distinct types of support conditions, while y providing additional dat's to aid in the analytical applications studies. A sketch of typical support. T9, is provided in Figure 4-7.

• Testing was performed almost exclusively with site supplied hardware.

Due-to" shortages ~of-necessary details, locally supplied hardware was used, however, only site representative vendors were utilized. All the test samples incorporated various representative in situ details which were determined to be ~particularly sensitive to the increased motions 'of unbraced systems.

Table 4.4 provides a list of typical features simulated. Typical connections, anchors and tray fasteners tested are shown in Figures 4.8 a, b and c.

Further, in addition to these representative ~in situ simulations, several

items were maximized for. conservatism and margin. In addition to the reduced

bracing previously mentioned, the primary features were: 'a) the use of all trays at a forty percent fill (by area), and b) the use of a maximum cable tray support spacing (10 feet in lieu of typical 8 feet or less).

. All . testing was performed using an envelope spectra. Thus, the Test Response Spectra (TRS) generated to envelope the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and.the Safe Shutdown Earthquake.(SSE) envelope all applicable site conditions. This'is extremely conservative and it must be remembered that at

=certain elevations, locations and directions in the plant, the local Amplified Response Spectra.(ARS)'is' enveloped by a fraction of the plant envelope TRS.

"In some~ cases.-the TRS which represent only one-third to one-half of the

" Site-Envelope" ARS will..in fact, envelope the applicable design ARS.

1 Testing to the' full ARS, then, can provide significant margin.

4 s

,, 1 =

1 Tel

[E~ c i '. ;

+

N

'The use of envelope conditions-(inaximum. cable load, maximum support ~

spacing'and envelope spectra) were selected to give tho' testing program the

.most flexibliity and broadest applicability-possible.' The program ~ objective i 4

'is'to envelope.the_ behavior of as many supports as possible. .The comparison "of. typical conditions-(vs. envelope conditions) is identified in section 3.

4 1.3 ' Connection' Tests 3

Load deflection stiffness tests and cyclic fatigue connection tests of

'  ; key. representative connections have been performed as an' integral part of the cqualification program. The connection tests were developed to study the

' performance of Ltypical ' cable tray support connections and to provide data -to -

~

, refine'modeling techniques, and estchlish appropriate connection stress and

' rotation limits. Connection test plan is found in Reference 4 It was

' established in past Bechtel. Raceway Testing (Reference 6) that the behavior of the primary connections _ is a key parameter in determining the system behavior.

Lof Cable Tray Support Systems. As discussed earlier in Section 3,:the data

-collocted is!used as input to th'e cable. tray support analytical application

, models.

5pecifically, spelns rates are developed to model these connections in ivacious finiteielement models. _Three test types were performed

% t l- o

' Moment resistance as a. function of. angular rotation (M versus 0),

o Load resistance as a function of deflection (p versus ).

o

- . Cycles;to. failure at select'ed values of angular rotation (N

versus 0).

The connections-tested are shown in Figure 4-9. 'These connections are

{

' . representative of .the anchor connections found in the field and simulated'  !

durl'ng the shakeltable testing.

, The-test setup is shown in Figure 4-10. -

The connection test system I i

~

consists of f a' rigid vertical' surface to which sacrificial-plate and strut I

assentliec can-be attached horizontally (as shown) or vertically, permitting

+

-s_.

.3.

-4(

testing of each anchor detail its principal axes. The following equipment is requiredi o.

A double acting hydraulle cylinder (6.81 hydraulic gain coupled to 4 - ~

!a 1/2_ spa 800 psi hydraulic power supply to provide forcing in a horizontal. plane.

-o A stiff member (6 inch x 6 inch x 1/2 inch) to limit strut deflection.

o A' load cell to sense' load.

o.

A-linear potentiometer to sense deflection, on A mechanical' force gauge t sense applied axial load and a group of

' tension springs to apply that load.

4.1.'4-l Coordination With Bechtel Raceway Support Program New Hampshire Yankee is alsc a member of the Bechtel Joint Owner's Group and therefore the data from Raceway Support Program (Reference 6) is coordinated with the Seabrook testing. -Bechtel'(Reference 5) previously reviewed the proposed Seabrook design and evaluated the design for applicability of the_ test data. Because of the generic nature of the data, it-

. was determined that the Seabrook design was bounded,- and the data was applicable.- This data _has been presented to the NRC and their initial concurrence received in May 1985 (Reference 7).

The. design damping curve for-the Seabrook Project (Figure 4.11) was

. ' developed .from' the' results of the Bechtel sponsored, " Cable Tray and Conduit Raceway Test Program" performed by ANCO Engineers, 'Inc. To date, in excess of Ji' 2,00d' dynamic tests have been performed as parti of the Bechtel Cable Tray

Testing' Program. ' Numerous tray-support systems have been tested and the effects of a broad range of parameters have been investigated. Flexible as

.well as rigid' support' systems have been tested.

Results of these tests have demonstrated that'the Cable Tray Support System damping is greatly influenced

~by the amountLof motion of cables in the-trays .

During the Cable Tray Test  !

~ Program two distinct nonlinearities associated with tray system dynamics were

' observed. :These were:

(1) inelasticity of joints and (2) amplitude dependent fricticnal losses due to cable vibration. Despite these nonlinearities,

~

observed responses over a / wide range of amplitudes -indicated distinct

~

vibra'tional modes whose frequencies degraded only with substantial changes in amplitude and a~significant number of cycles of loading. Consequently, it was

. recommended to evaluate tray system responses with a linear finite element.

modell For, linear dynamic structural 1 analysis, the effects of the various mechanisms ^which' tend to dissipate the energy of a' system are typically lumped

.together in'a single' factor known as the effective viscous damping. This

• iL velocity _ dependent parameter is commonly quantified by means of dynamic testing, and can include the effects of many energy dissipating mechanism ,

~

such-as friction and slip in bolt'ed connections, hysteresis,' radiation of energy away from foundations, and others.

The predominant energy dissipating mechanism observed during the Cable

. Tray. Test Program ~was the vibration of the cables. A significant amount of energy was absorbed as a result'of friction between adjacent moving cables and between cables and trays. An equivalent viscous damping was calculated for

.each tested system,-based upon-the recorded dynamic input and response. A detailed discussion of the damping computations can be found in the test report (Reference 6).

~

The_ individual damping values clearly demonstrated that the tested cable tray supports comprise a dynamic system with high equivalent viscous

_ damping.

.Results from tests'of.many support types and configurations are Lincluded in the data, but in the l interest- of providing a generic design

~ damping curve, the' conservative bound of the accumulated test data, represented as. a bilinear curve, was utilized.

Variations in support rigidity did not significantly impact the system damping, that is,' damping data in excess of Figure 4-11 was still realized.

The effect of the cables on damping is heightened with increased input acceleration' levels; When cable trays are lightly loaded, or when the system

is subjected to low input acceleration levels, the measured damping approaches the values in 'NRC Regulatory Culde 1.61 for bolted structures.

t-The tested support systems were constructed using standard cold-formed struts and standard bolted fittings from a variety of manufacturers. Cable

, trays and fittings for the tests were provided by several manufacturers, including Metal products Corporation, which is the sole supplier of cable trays for.Seabrook.

Tests' included trapeze supports of varying height and with various' transverse and-longitudinal bracing configurations and rigid supports. Cable loading ranged from 0 to 50 pounds per foot.

The fundamental frequencies of the tested support configurations were

• found.to be in'two ranges: the more flexible. support systems had fundamental frequencies'of 2 to 6. cycles per second (CPS); the more rigid support systems had a range of 9 to 25 CPS.

The latter frequency range results primarily from tray variations, as the supports themselves were rigid.

The wide variety of the tray types and support configurations included sin the test program simulated actual field installed conditions. A large number of variables were investigated, including:

A Types and manufacturers of trays

. Type and size of_ tray supports Location of tray splices Number of tray. tlers o --

_ ' Configuration of support systems

- t

. Type and spacing of transverse and longitudinal bracing l l

Weight of cables

~

Cable ties t

y= .-~

r ,

y .- '

c,y ,

7

~

~

Extensive ^ dynamic' testing of"the effects of these and other variables has produced voluminous raw data, which has been sunsaarized-in the test report.

In view of the scope'of the test program, Lit has been concluded that the tests simbla'te. actual;fleid conditions,.and that'the results are

~

Lapplicab1e'to'the' design of comparable' tray support systems .

' The' testing program clearly demonstrated that'a significant portion of-the . support-system [ damping wa's a product of cable motion and the resulting

. friction'between cables and, between cables and trays. Therefore, in~ order to assess-the compatibility,of the Seabrook system and the tested system, the frequency and general characteristics of the Seabrook system have been studied '

to determine whether they fall'within the bounds of the. test program, thereby providing assurance that the cable motion necessary to. produce the predicted damping will occur.

~

As'a result.of the(Bechtel Application Study, the generic results of Raceway' Test program have been applied to-the Seabrook Station. - The more limportant conclusionslare tabulated below (Reference 6). _

a) Cable'TrayRacewaySystemshave. damping [thatrangesfrom15to50 percent for trays with cable loading from 20 to 50 #/ft. Below 20

1. /ft; a. reduction'in damping is observed. The. lowest damping was for unloaded trays .which have damping more~ closely approximately

,~ thei 7percent; pemitted for bolting steel ' structures by USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.61. . Input motions (both vertical and horizontal)~ excite cables within the loaded' trays and cause them to move relative to' the tray. This movement is either a bouncing or *

, ' sliding of the: cable,within.the tray. The motion'of the cables. ,

-appears to be one of,the~ energy absorbing mechanisms that

~

contributes significantly to'the high damping valves.

b)' -Damping tends:to-increase with increasing input.

At response '

Llevels anticipated during strong earthquakes (0.2g and greater

--SSE),l raceways are so highly damped that they respond to a broad band energy input rather than to a narrow frequency band energy-g

_charactaristic-of-a resonance condition. ~

r '

b e ,- + m - ry-, ,-y-e,. s,-w,-- ,v-,-g-, ,ev v n, ,,.-,v,,w-+ ,,w,.we- -- - , -,,e, - w- y r, e ------ -

q

.c)

Anchor point flexibility, as determined by the connection details, can be more important than 'the flexural stiffness of the struts in determining lateral frequency of systems. This indicates that the

' tested connection details result in'a partially-fixed condition at

'the anchorages. This partial. fixity at the anchorage and hanger

flexibility can cause a significant' contribution by pendulum f resto' ring' forces in very long rod hangers and, to a lesser extent, in long strut hangers.

d )' ~

Resonant frequencies were found to be dependent upon input level, the majo'rity.of the stiffness (and frequency) reduction occurs at input. levels less-than 0.5g.

e)

.. Typically, cables do not appear to influence overall system stiffness an'd consequently only the mass of the cables need-be considered in computing system dynamic responses.

The;recent shake table testing'of the Seabrook support systems

. reinforces the inclusion of the Seabrook system. Using site supplied hardware

' and simulated configurations, similar system conclusions and damping data (see

-Section 4.2) were obtained. Therefore, the entire Bechtel data base, in addition to the Seabrook test data can be applied to system evaluations at Seabrook.

The actual damping values to be used at Seabrook as presented to

, the NRC this past May (Figure 4-11) remains the same.

4 4.1.5 Analytical Applications program To evaluate support configurations that are larger or arranged

' differently, but behaviorly.similar to the. tested configurations, qualification analyses will be performed. These analyses will include parameters derived from test data review, as described in Section 4.2.3.

As

~ discussed in Section 3,~

envelope analyres will be used as much as possible, however, all! supports will be individually evaluated.

-Implementation of the-analytical applications program will be performed Jon-an individual support basis. Table 4.4-a summarizes the impicmentation phase-of the qualification program. f

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

,. x r've,

,,a sp As-constructed Ldetails of each support will be compared to the envelope e

z configurations to assure that the support's geometry and behavior is

adequately bounded by one of- the envelope configurations. . For any support >

that cannot-be bounded, specific support analysis-will be performed.

-'d.

h,

~ Displacement values obtained from the analysis will be reviewed against each support as-built.

Displacement effects such as cable termination will be

' evaluated' during plant walkdowns. If displacements are unacceptable, the reanalysisioflthe b'undingo configuration, based on reducing conservative parameters cmay be required. If the reanalysis does not reduce displacements-

.tol acceptable limits, modifications to the support may be required.

4.2; program Results 4.2.1? Dynamic' Test Results

~

The seismic. simulation tests (Cases A, B and C)-have been completed.

, Currently, the. test lab' vendor has not yet issued a test report and all the e

t'st data presented in this summary report are preliminary. One' item to note prior'to-any discussion.of the results is a. discussion of the Test Response

' Spectra-(TRS) land.it's relative magnitude in comparison to the Required

Response Spectra-(RRS).

TRS typically did not closely envelope the shape of

the RRS at all' frequencies. . Figure 4-12 represents a typical TRS 'versus RRS

comparison plot. 1Th'e TRS is

very. broad and contains greater energy than the t

.RRS. ];

.This,(ofecourse. is'very conservative, however. it must be remembered!

when one describe'sfa-TRS as equal.to_an SSE or an 1/2 SSE, this relates only to a peak' to peak comparison. In addition, although not a complete site envelope spectrag .the RRS can possess significant margin when compared to ,

specific; site locttions. For example, Figure 4-13 depicts a "70%" SSE TRS '

versus the control building ARS (E-W,' elevation 21*6".to 50'). The test 4

Lenveloping. is very conservative. The above building ARS may also be ]-

l'

. subdivided into area local ARS which further increases the conservatism of the

test envelope.

i i

. :The primary results of the seismic simulation tests is as follows:

e 0

-1

'l

L' . i i

l

'1.

-During the Cable Tray Test Program, two distinct nonlinearities associated with the tray. system dynamics were observed. These were:

a) joint ~ inelasticity, and b) amplitude dependent frictional

' losses to cable vibration, friction, etc. Despite these nonlinearities, observed responses over a wide range of amplitudes indicated distinct vibrational modes thereby allowing the use of linear-finite element models to evaluate tray system response.

2. With increasing levels of input, damage was observed. Table 4.5 illustrates _ representative damage as a function of percent SSE

-input'for.the "non fatigue" earthquake testing. Recall, however,

the conservativeness of the SSE envei_spe RRS and the TRS enveloping.

3.

All primary _ connections survived all testing, thus ensuring overall system integrity.

,4 The measured damping for all the earthquake testing was in excess of 20% critical. Tables 4.6 and 4.7 provide a summary of a portion

-of_the available data.

5.

The tested-cable did not exhibit any physical wear or damage. No loss of continuity was observed when monitored.

'6.

The'overall integrity was demonstrated for the three test samples in both braced and unbraced configurations.

7. ' Displacements in excess-of those predicted by analysis were

. recorded in the three test cases. Table 4.8 provides a summary of

. the- maximum support displacements (relative to the test table) due

-to."SSE" testing for Cases A and B. Case C, although not shown, was less-than Case A or B. For illustrative purposes, representative displacements are also provided for Case A. These are displacements due to the TRS input shown in Figure 4-13.

8. _ Horizontal brace loads were more effective in resisting seismic loads than the diagonal braces. Table 4.9 illustrates the degradation of the braces during fatigue testing. The degradation

~ .

2 <,D/[ , i.7 s 4.

w.

~

-stems primarily from the geometry of the connections for diagonal 1 braces and the fact they are'two-bolt clips It should be noted.

.however, that-(1) the diagonal-braces in Cases B and C (which were

.used with horizontal braces) proved to be more effective and-(2) the-TRS-conservatively enveloped the SSE envelope RRS.

4 9.

Fatigue' testing (at the envelope OBE)'did soften the system and effect load distribution. However, overall integrity was still maintained.

'Atithis point, preliminary' data would indicate that

' bolt loosening and brace behavior are the two primary items.

effected by fatigue testing. It should be noted, however, that interpolations to the effects of lower, location specific, OBE *

-tests have not been' performed.

4.'2.2 Connection Test Results' AsLintroduced in Section 4.1.3, representative connections were tested to obtain rotational and translational~ stiffness data, in addition to cyclic fatigue ~ data'.

.The data was required to a) assist in the development of finite

i. element models of the shake table test samples and th(

Seabrook installations andlto,b).to' establish performance requirements.

~

4 A sa ple moment-rotation ~ curve for the 4-bolt gusseted angles

-(Detall133DU, Figure 4-8a) is provided in Figure 4-14. This data is typical of the connection' tests'in that it demonstrates: (a) connection nonlinearity, (b)' ductile behavior and (c) a significant connection moment capacity These f/

.results are very similar to.the result's of various past connection tests performed by Bechtel-(Reference 6).

The fatigue-tests document the.large

. number.of cycles these connections can undergo. This, also, was demonstrated in' earlier'Bechtel' testing. 'The Seabrook data enlarges the data base and resultsLin conservatise. predictions of connection fatigue performance for

Seabrook..

The typical shape of a fatigue plot is shown in Figure 4-15. The number.of cycles to failure (N) is depicted as a function of a constantly

~~ applied rotation (:).

~

.. l

+.. l 4.2.3 Analytical Applications Program

'4.2.3.1 Analysis of-Test Samples The analytical modeling of the four test cases is an integral step in the qualification of the in situ cable tray supports at the Seabrook Station.

The' shake table test data will be combinod with the connection test data and

~

used to. demonstrate that'the refined analytical models will enable realistic system' evaluation.

~

As' discussed'in Section 4.2.1, the shake table test program

~

-demonstrated two distinct-features associated with the Cable Tray System

• dynamics which must be addressed:

joint flexibility and amplitude dependent frictional losses due.to cable vibration, etc. Analytically, the treatment of amplitude dependent frictional' losses will be approximated by the use of

' realistic ~ damping values. Joint flexibility is also be included in the analytical models to properly predict system behavior. Most important is the.

rotational flexibility of the primary overhead connections and at the internal connections-(at the junction of'the horizontal and vertical members). -Also, the axial ~stiffnesses of the brace connection hardware is necessary. The connection. test results will be the primary source of input in the

. determination of these. spring rates. A typical support model is shown in Figure 4-16.

This figure depicts one support, in general. three dimensional multi-support finite. element'models will be used.

Linear finite element models have been enveloped for test Cases A, B and;C.

1 Preliminary spring rates have been developed f or the connections and have been. inserted into the finit'e element models to simulate joint behavior.

-Tables 4.10-and 4.11 demonstrate the ability of the analytical models to closely. correlate with test results. All'the models represented in these two

< tables utilized fidentical spring rates, therefore demonstrating the

~

consistency of the. techniques involved.

Other than incorporating these Es. rings in the finite element models, the modeling techniques are unchanged with relation to existing project techniques. System damping, in addition to

. joint' behavior, will be incorporated in the modeling process to access these - l 8

system responses, preliminary analysis has demonstrated that the use of the l

.previously described springs r 'elt in a system which partially resists l

m =- - '

1 4 .g

_ g. .

-e.

lateral. loads by framing action and partially by the latera11 braces. Unbraced

-systems; resist-the' entire load by framing action.

The'correlatibiofthetestandanalysisillustratestheeffectiveness of the' refined modeling te'chniqueslto predict'theJdynamic properties of these representative ~models. The correlation of analysis and test results for the test'sampleLeffectively serves.as a program link which combines the connection tests and shake table tests. The correlation demonstrates the importance of

& . the connection behavior, validates the refined analysis modeling and provides s

the data' required to establish a connection performance criteria. The Levaluation:of the Seabrook supports requires the conservative establishment of a criteria-to assess the joint behavior which must-be added to the existing

. criteria.

4.2.3.21 Analysis of Supports' at Seabrook Station rL

• l' The.Seabrook dynamic tests.(Section 4.2.1) clearly demonstrated the inherent seismic capacity and energy absorption capabilities of the tested cCable Tray Support Systems. 'As stated ~ earlier, these three samples were

? selected for-dimensional, behavioral and quantity-reasons. -All the system

~

geometrie's that are installed in the plant..however, may not be bounded by the

three tested samples. This necessitates a, thorough analytical applications program,-'wherein'the support systems not already geometrically bounded can be evaluated.

.The shake. table tests presented a bounding condition within the limits of.the_ test facility. The tested geometries were subjected to seismic inputs in excess-of plant envelope conditions, braced and unbraced conditions, emaximum' cable ~ loadings, maximum support spans, maximum support widths, Jhardware variations .~etc. -These severe conditions and the ensuing performance

- are indicative of theLavailable margins exhibited by the test samples. It is felt'that'the: test samples were subjected to response levels (stresses, strains, replacements, etc.),;which will envelope the large majority of site conditions. Thus, the primary purpose of the analytical applications program

is to evaluate the plant conditions to assure that the acceptable response l

~ levels demonstrated will.not be exceeded. As discussed in Section 3, the l existing plant evaluation methodology must be slightly amended to accomplish c- - : .

. . . .--- . . _ - . .l-

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

% i

. - c.:

;;; , 1' N.y

j -

. r ,

,Lthic3m=H ThS details'of the amendments necessary to evaluate the-connections'is~ described in.the-following paragraphs.

- +

y ,

., 4 As the. existing project criteria'does nct ' address certain joint

~

flexibilities',1we areiproposing;to_ add a, criteria:to. document the inherent--

>flexibilityJof!somelof the key connections of the support ~ systems. The use of

' connectlon-springs in. raceway-modeling has been implemented previously by Je Bechtil;iniconjdnction with the Bechtel" Raceway Test program (Reference 6) and '

- ~ - .

has been reviewed'and accepted..by the NRC staff.

The NRCistaff has considered Bechtelusubmittals of design guides, sample calculations, sample computer'

• ~

models,f ete(,iin their.past reviews. ; References _8 and 9 document past-NRC-l progrannuaticalLacceptance in the form of plant' Safety Evaluation Reports.

~

^

<(SgR)) JBecause..the! connection springs represent a new feature in the_Seabrook

.s. .

/

7 analysis program, fan-acceptance criteria consistent with.the existing criteria is' requiredi iThe nature' of .the connection's behavior and cyclic . loading V { requires'an ~ evaluation of.not.only the allowable load and displacement, but-

}

falso an evaluation'of1the connections fatigue capabilities. - This-is, again,

(( -

lin',conformance with past methodologies' utilized by the Bechtel power s

g; 1 Corporation. ? Detailed ' methodologies have been submitted on several: cecasions;

,['

o

' );tand therefore ,f only a brief susunary is provided here.

e '

.A sampleThehavior of a typical cable tray support connection is

....: J - -

Jillu'strated in' Figure 4-14. 1As presented, there is typically very ductile '

?hehavior.and substantialireserve capacity. The criteria proposed for the

analyticaliapplications program would-conservatively neglect these ,

? attributes;~ Connection moments would be' limited to seventy percent-of the testimaximum and rotations would be limited to a value of (emax/2).The

. ~

l connection spring (stiffness,K , is"a'.~ conservative application,J ,

as it is 1 underestimates, ~ joint strain energy capacity. This is.because'as soon as the.  ;

{ moment" acceptance criteriaf(=70% N ) is~ exceeded, the response is

] , considered unacceptable.: .

, r

~

4

_ iIn; addition to the above stress and strain criteria a fatigue ,

1 acceptance criteria is. imposed. Since the Bechtel methodology has previously

)been reviewed in detail,'only's susunary is provided herein. Figure 4-15

lillustrated a? typical relationship for cyclic fatigue resistance of a typical. ~

t' a

5 i

x

- . ,+

9

._M d . _ . . - ',,b .-,,---ye ,,..hw _m....m.m

,.m., , , ,. , , , . , , . , d.m

.r . -

1

, *~

.- s

. connection.

Values of cycles ' to failure is plotted against rotation. These

. values'are derived from the connection cyclic tests previously described I (Section 4.1.3). The application of this evaluation criteria can be.best demonstrated by the use of an example. The values provided are illustrative and not based on actual calculations.

Example:

~

I o.

'A typical Cable Tray Support System is modeled and analyzed by the response spectrum technique. Key member stresses,.etc., are evaluated by exisiing project criteria. In addition, a typical anchor is evaluated as follows. The fundamental frequency in the direction of interest is 5 CPS. The earthquake is characterized by 15 see strong motion.

Anchor rotation,9 , from analysis,-= 0.01 rad. .(See Figure 4-17.)

Anchor moment -M, = 28

= LIT 9@

Check. rotation: 6) = .01 <1 OK 6)all' .015

-Check moment: M = 28 <1 OK.

e Mall' .42

'Ch'eck fatigue:

' 6),SSE = 0.01 ' rad + N **

OBE " "I

(),0BE, =' O.007 ' rad + N = 2000 cycles E

N  !

= 15 see x 5 cycles /sec = 75 cycles / earthquake -i

. ,i i

i OBE + SSE =

d#

N '5(75) + 1(75) = 0.25 + 0.075 = .238 .*. C)$

OBE SSE

m. +g..-

. p *

,p -- -'

v s <

k ,

s e '

u. , -

1

( $8 lAgain,1this' typical connection evaluation vould only be used,to.

' supplement' existing' criteria, as outlined in'Section 3.3.

14.2.4 : - Envelope Analytical Configurations -

+

nalytical'models developed tofevaluate the cable tray supports'at the

'Seabhook Stationlwill utilize' the criteria. identified in Sections 3 and E .2.3.2.S 4

Becausefof:the similarit'y refl$cted'in many of the z.upports,.

4envefEpe'models will be generated initially. As' discuss $d earlier,xthe

_ ' qualification program forfindividusi supports will initially entail a review, ~

using" test and envelope analysis're'ults. '

s Supports not_ qualified in this--

?

f

fashion 1will utilize individual evaluation. '

4 "The envelope analytical models discussed above have %een generated from Ithe-results'.of a. site.walkdown. This site walkdown was perre:rmed by a te.ni of

F rengineecs-fdom:YNSD, UE&C and Bechtel, who were. familiar with both the testing

~ .

. program and the 'Seabrook cable tray layout .

The purpose of the walkdown was

'to_ identify. bounding support configurations which were not geometrically; s

jen'velop'd e by the tested configurations, sThe.walkdown-was conducted throughout sevre kn ldings includin g the

Control Building, Containment; Structure,. Primary Auxiliary. Building,

Electrical Tundel'andsthe Main Steam' Pipe; Chase. ~ Table 4.12 identifies the-1 building, elevation and cable tray layout drawing-utilized in'the walkdown.

Ea'ch of.these drawings were subdivided in areas and Assigned numbers. A

[( :% >

walkdown data sheet, Figure 4.18 was used in each of. these . areas to record

.the following^ data:

~

Lo; :

- ^

~ Configuration-Description 1(as defined by the Cable Tray Notes and-gDetal'Is'DrawibgM300229).

o o;LNumberof[ typical' support' types.

\

C o_ " Number of tray tiers. l J

4 lo- . Estimated height of.the support.

is' A' s v

y

_y p +

~~'

y- ~ .

.g

o. -Estimate. width of.the support.

o. . Support spacing.-

o ' Estimated cable fill..

o; Type of. connection u' sed at the building attachment.

. o- ,0ther considerations '(custom: configuration, miscellaneous attachments and close proximity items). -

As'aLresult of the walkdowns, twelve bounding configurations were

~

identified for enveloping analysis. These- configurations are . representative of the support types,' size and loading in the buildings under consideration.

Each of.these configurations will be analyzed using data obtained from the.

~

test- to determine system response and load path distributions to primary support and bracing' members. Figure 4-19 depicts the configurations to be

-modeled 'for the initial phase of the analytical applications program (see

-- Section 4.2.3.2).

J b,

I I

i O

w , p,+aew-e N e='*9-'s- -7 wT+d-'--' -

• ev*' - s-- e -=+ w---+- - -- - - -- " " $'--

x_ -

V,_

x ..

s 5 '. 0 CONCLbSIONS

. Saismic qualification of cable tray supports .in seven seismic Category 1 buildings will'be completed'by refining the existing project ~ analytical methods. .These refinerents are:

' ~

'(1) A percentage of the supports will.be qualified by proof testing.

A ~

'(2) Actual connection properties determined by tests will be

' incorporated into the analytical models. The connections will not be treated as pins.but'instead will have rotational translational stiffness values. assigned to them.

(3) The existing acceptance criteria will be amended to include additional test performance data.

s

~

The testing program has demonstrated that- typical Seabrook-tray systems exh'ibit! substantial seismic capacity. The severity of the test conditions in tecas of substantialiseismic input ' levels, maximum tray-loading, maximum support spacing and light bracing. schemes, provides a high level of confidence 1that~the vast majority of the support installations will be seismically qualified in their existing state.

W

-- .-. =. .. .. -

40 g, -

fs

r'

.6.0 . REFERENCES' Z

~ 1. '. Letter from J. DeVincentis,(PSMH)'to C.'W. Knighton'(NRC), " Cable Raceway

, System Damping,". dated. June 3, 1985.

,2.-

" Test Plan -- Performance. Testing ;of a Typical Cable Tray Configuration:

JSeabrook Station --Test Cases A & B," ANCO Engineers -Inc... Document EA-000146 Prepared. for: Bachtel Power Corp. , August 1985, Revision 1.

, . -[ 3 . " Test Plan . Performance' Testing of a Typical Cable Tray Configuration, Seabrook Station - Test Case C," ANCO Engineers, Inc., Document A-000151,

' Prepared for Bechtel Power Corp., September 1985, Rev. O.

4." -'" Test Plan'- Perforinance. Testing of Typical Cable Tray Support

~

. Connections - Seabrook Station," ANCO Engineers, Inc. , Document A-000147, Prepared for Bechtel Power Corp., September 1985, Revision 'O.

'T

'5.- J" Summary; Report - Cable Tray. Support Damping at Seabrook Station,"

EBechtel Power Corp., June 1985.

16. " Cable' Tray.'and Conduit ~ Raceway Seismic. Test Program - Release 4

~

-(Final),"-Test Report #1053-21.1-4,JVolumes 1 and-2, December 15, 1978, Volume 3..May 1980, Volume di March 1981, ANCO Engineers,-Inc.

7. . ' Meeting Summary. Prepared by V.' Nerses,1USNRC,~ Applicant - PSNH,

' Facility -LSeabrook Station, Units l'and 2, dated June 25, 1985.

-8. -. Safety Evaluation-Report, NUREG-0881, Docket STN 50-482, USNRC, P. 3-11,

' dated December:1981.

'9. Safety Evaluation' Report, NUREG-0831, Supplement No.-1, Docket Nos.

.50-416 and 50.417, USNRC,.Section 3.7.3, December 1981.

I L

i L'

I i

~

1 l.

I i

I

[' ' .

. I f

[ -

e .

TABLE 4-1 RST SEouEwcE - CASE A o

Preliminary testing. Iow level random input to determine frequencies, mode shapes and damping ratios L o' Earthquake'. testing of. configuration A at (3) fractional SSE input levels and (1) full level SSE.

o-Fatigue testing of configuration A; five OBE level events followed'by a single SSE level event

[ o Remove all bracing from test configuration.

o l

Preliminary testing, low level randon l

input-to determine frequ'encies, mode l-

- shapes and damping ratios-l

'o Earthquake testing at SSE level and at levnis-exceeding SSE level.

)

h. I L

I l

l .

l l i l

{

- l

~

TABLE 4-2

-TEST SEOUENCE - CASE B o- Preliminary ~ testing, Iow level'randon input to determine frequencies -mode shapes and. damping ratios o Earthquake-testing of configuration B at

,(2)~ fractional SSE levels and (1) full level SSE..

O Fatigue' testing of conf'guration B; five OBE level events followed by a single SSE level event o Earthquake testing of configuration B at a level-exceeding the SSE level.

o. Remove all bracing from test configuration. Preliminary testing, low level randon input to determine frequencies, mode shapes and damping ratios. ,

o Earthquake testing of unbraced configuration at SSE level.

O Disconnect bottom connections at ' floor to floor'. supports. . Preliminary testing. Iow level random input to. determine frequencies, mode shapes, and damping

' ratios.

o Earthquake testing of unbraced

. configuration at.SSE level

. - .-. - . - . -._ .-__, .. .w-

~. ' . -

i TABLE 4-3

. TEST'SEOUENCE - CASE C o Preliminary testing. Iow: level randon

' input"to determine frequencies mode shapes and damping. ratios o

Earthquake. testing-of configuration C at

' (2) levelfractional SSE' &

SSE levels and (1) full 4

o Fatigue testing of configuration C; five OBE level events followed by a single SSE level event

o. Earthquake testing.of configuration C at a 4  %

level exceeding the SSE level os Remove all bracing with strut-connection hardware. Install longitudinal braces

. between'SSl& 54,lnstall transverse. brace at 53 with welded connections.

- Earthquaking testing at SSE level,

c. Remove.all bracing. Earthquake testing at' SSE level.

ap s-w.ww --w ww e .a. .w,:--w.s4,. s y-y-a-, e -~...,s. ne . _..4~ >m , , , - , - . , . ...,-g, ,,,- . . , . , . , , , . , , . . . .e,.. ,,.,,-.e,, . , ,,. - ,,, - . . , . - - - -

TABLE 4-4

' SIMULATION OF VARIOUS IN-SITU CONDITIONS i

. o _. Site supplie'd materials.~(strut, hardware, cable ties, etc.)

o  : Typical. wireway-attachments o, ,

Alternate tray hold down hardware o_ Mixing of tray hold down hardware o Eccentric connections.

.o Vendor variation of connection fittings o . Standard primary connections o Tray. type variation

'o Cable-ties .

o . Cable: tray voltage levels o Vendor variation of strut. nuts o Typical cable tray splice and cover details o Variation of horizontal brace connection details o cable _ tray elevation transitions o'  : Cable tray' direction tra.nsitions

. o Conduit to cable tray interface details o Forty percent cable tray fill (by area) o' Bolt torque values

~ ~

3, . ,

_ (

_ _-1 .-4.  : 'e ;.

' ~

-;3 ,.

i '

2

. CABLE ~ TRAY SUPPORT ,

.4

~ QUALIFICATION PROGRAN .

F IMPLEMENTATION : .

1-4 4

IDENTIFY EFECIFIC-INSTALLATION

) .' FRON AS-BUILT DRAWINGS-4 t

I ASSESSMENT OF SUPPORT

t. .

TO i

4 TRUCTURAL, ACCEPTANCE CRITERI 1

I I

=l I

TESTED CONFIGURATION

. ENVELOPE ANALYTICAL UNIQUE ANA1.YSIS CONFIGURATION 1

1 ASSESSMENT OF SYSTEN -

i COMPONENT-INTERACTION -(

-CRITERIA i l a

+

t 4

INPACT WITH

?

ADJACENT COMPONENT- INDUCED LOAD ON' i

COUPLED COMPONENT CABLE INTEGRITY 1

i E

1  ;

l 1r s

COMPLETE FINAL' b

> QUALIFICATION 1

l. DOCUMENTATION w

t v-TABLE 4-4a 9

t Mw-*

. u- -

v - -. . < ,

' TABLE.4-5 I

OBSERVED PERFORMANCE'(REPRESENTATIVE)  :

., o- .APProximately 40s SSE: Input Level .

o No visible deformation of connection-hardware o

-Isolated bolts I .,s's scue torque '

o- Appioximately 60 to 70s SSE input level o

No visible deformation of connection hardware- -

o A few bolts t o,se some torque 0

Isolated bolts (typically diagonal braces) become loose

~

L o Approximately 90% LSE input level o.< Isolate'd *Z-clip deformation o _5 lightly more bolt loosening than previous 4:

category (a few bolts become. loose) '

o Approximately SSE input' level .

o  : Cable tie ' breakage

o. Multiple 'Z-clips" deform o Acute brace clip angle deformation or fracture L of -1" g conduit: clamp movement o

Tray slippage (w/ mix of bent and'Z' clip usage) o Approximately 100% to 130% SSE input level o~ '.Many cable ties break 9 o . Overhead gusseted angle weld fracture '

. o Overhead P1000 deformation Vertical slippage of horizontal member-

~

o_

o o

Minor horizontal member rotation Isolated internal connection visibly '

deformed-0 -Diagonal brace and overhead connection

. bolts lose some torque

,x TABLE 4-6

' DAMPING - CASE A-T E S T.'

LONGITUDINAL TRANSVERSE

' 7.3.1.2.6 - PARTIAL'SSE 221, 361, W/ BRACING

~

. 7..~3 . 3 - OBE W/ BRACING

. 221 '251' 7 . 3 . 7 ' : -- - S SE AFTER (5) 231, 271-OBE W/ BRACING

!~ < --

E l.

I I

i- i

(.

w-

9

'.1 E-TABLE 4-7

. DAMPING - CASE B TEST LONGITUDINAL TRANSVERSE 7.6.0.l'- PARTIAL'SSE 301, 27 t, W/ BRACING 7.6'.2'- OBE W/ BRACING 321, 281,.

4

- 7.6.7 -.SSE AFTER~(5). 331, 321.

OBE W/ BRACING -

4 N.

, .?...,-._._,,-..,-..,___,_._ . . , . . , . . _ . . = . , ___.___________l--

1-w

. TABLE ~4-8 MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENTS BRACED BRACED UNBRACED (FATIGUE)

LONGITUDINAL 4.3"- 5.2" 4.6" CASE-A

' TRANSVERSE 2.G" 5.2" 3.8" LONGITUDINAL 1.6" 4.0" 2.0" CASE B TRANSVERSE '2.7" 4.6" 3.8" REPRESENTATIVE DTSPLACEMENTS CASE-A (BRACED)

TEST - 7.3.1.2.7 ( 70% SSE)

. LONGITUDINAL -TRANSVERSE 1.92" 0.96" t

__ _- -..;...u.__.__..,-__.-.-.._ . _ _ . . . _ _ - _ _ . - . . . . _ . - . - . - _ __. __ _

4 TABLE 4-9

' HORIZONTAL BRACE VS. DIAGONAL BRACES SUPPORT #1 CASE A - DIAGONAL ~ BRACE:

CASE B - HORIZONTAL BRACE

. TEST; CASE A CASE.;B.

'OBE'#1 . 3800H 4000H

^

' OBE- - M 2-  :-3OOOM 3300M

, - OBE M3~ 1000M 3000M OBE #4 500N 3000H 500N 3OOOM

- OBE:#5 SSE 750H 4500M i

a b

-i

.I

y 7).. ,

~ ~^

], .;g ,..

8 *: ,

a:

,- r l.*,

e-ITABLE.4-10 FUNDAMENTAL MODE' COMPARISONS (w/o Bracing)

LTEST' DIRECTION = FREQUENCY. <

ANALYSIS TEST..

" CASE ,A.. Longitudinal 12.0 1.8

,.. . Transverse ' , 2.5" .2.6 i.r CASE :-B- Longitudinal 3.4 , - 2.9

. Transverse 4.2 4.3 s' ,

. W .m TABLE 11 FUNDAMENTAL MODE COMPARISONS

}Y (w/ -Bracing) -

![(#l'50

~

TEST. DIRECTION FREQUENCY.

.n ANALYSIS TEST.

Q, ' CASE :A' Longitudinal 3.6 3.3 Transverse 5.4 '

5.7 i,

• m-

' CASE B  : Longitudinal 3.5 3.6 Transverse 5.2- 6.0 ,

P / CASE: C- . Longitudinal 5.1 5.8 V 1 Transverse 5.1 5.6 1 ,"r t

.. g t

I l

F r 5

+- ,

l .

~

.. TABLE 4-12

The following cable tray layout drawings.were used during the walkdown:

~

Control Building ~

i EL 75 DWG 310444 6 ,

l 'EL'50 DWG 310452 EL 21'-6, DWG 310451 Main Feean Cha'se

-EL 0'-0"' DWG 310685 Centainment Strueture;- . ,

s. . ,

EL (-) 26'-0 DWG 310607 DWG 310606 i-DWG 310608

-Electrical Tunnel "A" Train EL O'-0" DWG 310453 DWG J10466-

.-Electrical Tunnel "5" Train EL (-) 20'-0 DWG-310454 DWG 310469 Primary Auxiliary Building EL (-) 26 DWG 310781 EL (-) 8 DWG 310782 EL .7 DWG 310783 4

DWG 310784 EL 25- DWG 310785 EL 53 DWG 310787 DWG 310788 e

y ,

t l

.. -_ _ . ~. _ _ . . _ _ - -- - - . , _ . . _ . - - . . . . . - 1.

m.

4 ## Av ~

). __

JIP gh'w aminuw W '

L_ -.

W .. W , .

..___.r, 3MlWEMIIillminiMEMf IFU

. FIGURE 4-1 TEST CONFIGURATION (CASE A) e r

. - - - + .. -a -

g*

l e

k

. gn e ,

3

,t >a l l i 2

J _ l=2

- l' / -

,i O

_- , , ~.

& 4 -

.'y._

SEABROOK CABLF TRAYL SUPPORT TYPES: -

, CONC 'OR

-STEELn

/ / / / //b1/ / s '/ / // / / /

//// 's / // ~

/

./

CABLE- TRAY p'f

30' , ,

TRANSVERSE- -

(TYP) '

BRACE n i H

1

, m&aanda ,, ,, I .i i n Q H P1004 ' F.-CABLE TRAY a  ! "

( TY R)

", , \

(TYR ) -

I "

P1001- '_ W'

• L "L"  :

TRAY SUPPORT (typ)

(TYR ) , -

FRONT ELEV '

, SIDE- E LEV

}- , , -

~

'/ ,

- TRANSVERSE BRACE

/ -

/ .

a / ,

/ ~

i -

, NOTE: "L " VARIES FROM 5'-0~1 TO 10'0':

BRACE .. -

(TYP EVEff l

TRAY) FIGURE 4-3 I

. TYPICAL 1 TRAPEZE-TYPE TRAY SUPPORT TYPE' @

SEABR00K1 CABLE . TRAY SUPPORT . TYPES; ,

. sin. /// '

/// __

ini . .

- CONC .OR a

' STEEL TRANSVERSE CABLE

_j TRAY

/, -

f i:

,1-- 1 , W e i<

~

P1001 i i ', -

(TYR) /

C' '

t--

. - i. 1 1

! CA8LE , M P1004 4___._'~ u ,1 '

j TRAY , , . (TYR ) f ,

i ,

(TYR) -- --

/

@ i  ?

~~ ~~

7/; " ~~ 72 7~ ,, is ,e r .

r/ </

_ *W ~

_ _ 10'-0 " _-

l_

'~

"L"-

1

~ (MAX.) j .

FRONT ELEV .

1. SIDE ELEV

> /

>, /

/

TRANSVERSE

/

BRACE

-)

i .:. -

~

N y

- NOTE: "L

• YARIES EROM ;5'-0" TO 10*-0':

AXIAL

,/ /

BRACE d- * ** '

, (TYR .

RAY '>

-/.-

FIGURE 4-4 TYP.ICAL FLOOR TO CEILING TYPE TRAY ' SUPPORT TYPE @

.m u 4 =

e i

s. e

+

4 5

i 4

s, ,

ot A V. , .

i Av e .

t m N t

.!.11b

\

t t

,,. +A h

T f- - w: 7 I

FIGURE 4-5 TEST CONFIGURATION (CASE C) l ,

1 l

l 1

1

3, 4

.J i

. .e

=

~-

wn zhg

. f:

^:f:

r . - E

, as -

1 r

m _ -__ -

= a

• l l

e- s t

\

! u -

, m m i

r.

FIGURE 4-6 TEST CONFIGURATION (CASE C')

I

~

t i-l-

9 -

L

+ . . , . , - -- ,,--..-c. , . - - - , , . . m -- e,,w.,,- , --

~

~

lSEABROOK CABLE TRAY . SUPPORT TYPES I i

I W %*;,!. 0- C ;*..WJM

• - . +

__ l ,_ _

_, t__ ,

L =

T' .

...m_ - - = =

lh F' 9 d j NQ i

e .

f i . Y

, 9 F-5 fC4B(A TR4Y on ._

lk . .

\ '

(#)

Pf@f&p) 4 1 W ~

I Pim4 - =

y 5 (rYP)' I

=d

{ W v ,E I 8 'O' MAX . *I

S/OE ELEVA T10AJ

~

TYPICAL TRANSITIONAL TYPE TRAY SUPPOPT TYPE @

FIGURE '4-7

=h - 4we...

(

.8

_a L - _ __ _4_4.

p __ u -

) ' -

- ve, if s , ,-

~

~~

T l ' l "j" [ho Oh! ho . - Oh 3300,7YP 'i 1i % 33FO lt nl 33fo

':T\lg:~

l l .I il

~-

i 11i

~

I 81 IIIl l l1 1 I l l- I'l 11 j

1-1 l 1 *

. j l~ l i

_M. _bl M.

4 l

!j!I i

AA/CHORS i,

f 9

rTtr,-

iii; i i n- I l'

l ll t l ; ;;

8 Il 3

'I.I g lI (e l l'

jgl ll I [I ,

V 'tiii

, l1 l-i l i iiii

! _ -_ _. a _ u .  ; I

______m__i i ii i,-

H --

-' i .1 - I 33 o4 -

t

-1 i i i l1

.. .: i, ii ssoo M-irII ii 3500

. g i. I I

p

{ j.! I 4i .

_INTERMAL COMUEC770A/S TRAY SUPPORT CONNECTIONS b

f FIGUPI 4-8a i

+ -

.. s c..

.,3 i 9' 2 .

L l Irl I IINeY h . w - _ ._ _ _ _. .- -a .- .Y l-l 'I  :& 33tr,7yp- l- l'-l I4 I.. s l l- l _%-

r s\+

1

\\ l3Il m---- ,

\.\ 35EO- 1l lg

'-i- -

(

\\ \' . l l 33EA gs g\ j i. ,,

l- l __a.a. :_ _

l'l -u__,

l

\g\\

\

g ll I I l _L.: ~P l - .4 ..

.\ \.

\ s s\ ll- It - l . 1. .

\\

i l

i n ti i . :l. !s t -

-p r .

L -

i.

' BRACE COMMECTIONS i

i m

'l Irl I 33EJ, TYP l ifl l : r SSOF,TYP l

^

l ll4:

i llI l4 ly;' ' Ii11i1 +I2 J

IlI;  ;

l l 1.- i ,s .

Ii .II l' 'j _a _ __ __ _

i .i _ < _ ' _ _ _ _

II a_.

.1;:-

l- Il 4. .

l_ 4-- .

!1 9

i  !-

1 d.p_1:

BRACE CONNECTIONS-1 i  !

! TRAY. SUPPORT CONNECTIONS 4

FIGURE 4-8b i .

~

^; - - - -

g- ,,. ,

.g x

r '

I I I I ,

r C i

- N '~

33CLN/- 3306 928 92C

. . 33CM .

TRAY FASTENING HARDWARE FIGURE 4-8c

~

_g_

l 1 ~ 'l I il iI II II 33 M -

lI II Mvs. G; Pvs.E l

. _d_.iI_!!:h m _

__ __ _,. r _l

• ^

~ /// ///////////////// .

II I I

II ii Il iiii 33 FO Mys. G; ^/' M0 N'o P/A/S 40 0.1

///////////// ///////

.g -

ssm lll, :l l ' M vs. G

_ _ _ __r____

I ,

_i._ _l )_i

-+.,

////////////////////

I/^

/ // 33F.A*3360

/ /

/ // PVs, 6 *

/ f

, 'l/}

y O e f

// //////////////////.

CONNECTION TESTS -

FIGURE 4-9 L' .: .

N 1

l

( NEAR bM7eoMG75t .

• A O .

r-

• -.11111111111111y

- p.-m m . . . .- ,

~~~

E k_ _ _ ___, , _LI _ _ .$ s -

[' M -

. .I w

3.i

\ 3.

t' l f3 LlyDatAct tC cy(,t3b54.

6 f

l CON NECTION TEST SET- U.P '

Figure 4-10 hh

s 4l 1

4 1

., .l

.g .

.i.. l .

i 29 225 LBS/FT OF CABLE LOAD- .$

i 9 '

i A

M 19 )  :

P I

i - " :12 '

8 I

g .

i .

j 8 3 g_ ___. ._ _. .I_ NIL _OAD.fo.TR.

. A.Y.

L

• I i

g l

9

. 9 0.1 9.2 SJ. . 9.4 9.5 ' O.9 9.7 -SA. SJ 1A 1

l .

INPUT FL89R MCTRUMIPA tel l

l Figure 4.11 '

- DAMPfNG AS A FUNCTION OF INPUT ZPA (Lower Bound) .,

f i

• g 1

l l

• i i

t l

1 l

l4 . ,

l l

1 l

e b~

l9'

--3 ,

oc-

- ( V) 0

• Cf.

H 4

. .. v)

/ /

c

'g w

- Q.

O dm

>e .

.w wW I

bba.

1 3 ;a k- m en e N ms g Hw wZ

, m o >o

_j  %, 5N

^~ % N N

. ISE Z o.

Wg m

u ev

a. v,

%-- 2 wM

% K&

Y 5 m N

.o 7 r

. :w e w

\ \ n' x 1 \ 6 5

( l C

\  !

ya

\ 1 e

e

( g.3') uoIiva3133oY i f

l I . . mM

" - - _,--1[_,

g 4

FIGURE 4-13 -

TRS vs. RRS COMPARISON P 77-DAMPING TRS - TEST #7.3.1.2.7'- APPROX' 70% SSE . . 1-RRS-SEABROOKE-KSSECONTROL~ BLDG: ELEY 21'6"-50'0" o

4 i

i 0 .

\> t .,

o ,

~

l z o \

~ \C TRS s

< sn f-* (

l

, w j (.

? ' f Q_

" ( N-s U

I o P---*

./ RRS

/ Y (N

/ . s  ;

2 ir ..s;,i #

't:

'I'

..a ,, ,,

i '" "

F REOUENCY (CPS)

Ih'.

e_. .- .~ -... - ...a .: ..

i I

1

• m i

- I

' ce.

+-

in w

>=

• I - z C

e t--

.I am we

. ;) ,

e za zm r = on

• . vw

-- . - w 1e

> +-

<

• w t

.-. _.s o

ac o.

4 I t-

- z g wg m

o w .

m Me

• a>

.* w ME e

• 4 m

e 4

. w c:

a m 1 o 6 S. -

u.

4 N T

__e l

s' i

w h.-

.. -. e. e. . m. o. . e. -

• e. o e. e >

e a se =

.I m e n e

. (C01 E MI - 'T) SunesH

• I I

1 a

f - ,

?f

( .

k

• i i,;' . _ . _ . . . - . . - . , . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ , . . _ _ , . . . . . . . . . . . , . , _ . _ . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . _ _ . _ , . _ . . . , _ . _ . , - , , . . . . .

g.-- .._j ., _

c- , .

'w.

.41i .

[r ; e ,< ,, 7s .]

1. M 6f -lg .. , .y s .4

+ 4 , ..j o.% r; < > - ~ yn. . . Y ,< >- - .

t .e

. ' ^ ~ . , .T. * <- =,'.."i.+'

i 3 5z '. c

,4.:

. . , , :. . ' . 4

r. . ;?3 .I1..y(- ,g 4: , .. ,.n.,. i

'"4 f:, Y y i.;% 3 *i

~

.1

) %y I_- I p ' ( e.g W.

_A *1,._ p b -

,. - ,.7_: . e,3.p A[.$

2:_,--Mw'.-+s 7.g::. '.3'.  ;

r .L.,.a . x , ,  : -

2 w o y 4cqw

,- 8 ;v e - e .? w. , -; + ~ . i , .

,- + r s s. ~.,p_

...s

,e ..gt

.Y

,ll,.

h f, -..t +

x 1(.'q L' :r,,L "f

, L't_,'_U

.g _, .-5?

' - .-. -G 7

," - '9.-

di ;-%w D 1v -,j : 4 g.

. .d ' v .s f  ; <-;. e' -e,,*

s e y

, .Lg.; _4,, yy .f,.

y~~. s

' ll, Q f]W e 6

y  : 1 f+ ~

^^ ~-

~:k ,

-Q.

, . ~. , v,

,e p = # T' yd.  %'- .~ \

• - r y.

y,, k> e 2 t, .c,,-- s>

.g . l

.~C. *

..N nlI --:'%,," ' ,, x - _ ,

l

+

,[.,'

0y 5 _y V y A'

V

- W'T.-..;g! -, .p <,

--(

g.,

, s s

' 4. -l ' a

, r .. s I. g ,

n ,

yy--

4 , '.. ~~)*_ s y 1.,4 - ,

a 3

. !'e' . % Ih\ p n-', ~ f.; e

-y. . ,

[-'- .. # ~

~h:

.;9,,A.-+- .,.@.

.,.9

/

-..(.

5 p

s 'e.

? q.g*n . ~+  :.y <- e

%+

^4-.', , _ t t'%. c_ -

> t

< z

._ -K.; -. -

E- .J, 4 . . . 7'k, .u.-

t 'k

~

4- a' g. If , -

u -f.L i 3 ... _ ,

3'3

-t . .

^

'[l

~

d' _

$7&T)gM -[~

. -5. ' ~[ ,'_ -.4 ,

r 7 -g _ ,;g:

s , >

L -- - '. ,

m ,- -

'- g

. . . . ~ .

y. h

,' 4.--

'"e

• Q,

, . .l,s . :a,, ej->-_ - ~

4o' - - .. .t t j .-i + , )

~

-'19

,, 4.f '

J-4.- g.,.

s  ?,- # I '1 p

,<d -

3_

t .- a'I s ,

T g ,. .g 5 ' W n." s' -r-. - ,

I, 2 ',., n }'Of.' 4 I '

,_ \

m x V.  ?

J-z t

m,-o"r k '-'-

'}

. EL + .. - *> ,

~ +

- g_p .

m"'

.1 1.'.( i L > m p } _. g--

N

~_

J . t ,,

.'I' ,_'?

s j  %

• i p

?- e

'e'[? . A A

y , j l'. .';,

• d.

r , -

_ r

+s, Y

ee-

~

w

-t$,, q g m

D f'.,

,'\

, , . s.-> ,

-I j -' I g

m.' ,

. Cc w - w h w LE )

u

! , ..,i (:,

h

,y 1

f'

, P,y s m'v_ ~

3 s [.['

e, y ,

4 $ l~b 4 s.

. ~ .r .w 3 s o. - .....s

.-y .f  : pp r ,

l (l

~i "' " * '""

Q u. 4. i G T

, ;O.

( ',

• k

7fs,  ;

i I Tb .g 4

.h r t ,

s - k. }

s -

+

i' :

• y

, s

" .kN .

1

)

j 4 t _2,'ji y" ( h' a ai t i , 9 3 u 'i 5

• 2 .

[d+- . w' A'

f'd_ "

-' 45 4 j _- ,,A

1. r,; [i

,T 'n

..,1 .,

4 i -

y ;- .,

O

.a

• 4,

- , c

)

g.

O n

e' @

e .

C 0 C C e- 0

- Y 3, oLA_

3AY .

O FIGURE 4-16 i

• I t

a_

r'-

"s Lt: . . a -

+

b,! 7' --

u-Q: 4,,.,_y'_-  ;. _-* : c. . ;wi

. . -s : ,

c. 4 ,,<, .

-'s-' ,y

' j* . >

r.: 4;_. . ,

r . v. ,

L. I

..; t ;.. r ,',' ,

.e "

e j ,

t c

g. g. '

. hMN 7 8 d @. s)

,( i _.,i_..

u' ._;_ _-

- . y; y~ xa 3

-m m ;; N 3 .

f

s", '., n

-v.

-?e '

1 3

6 l, ,

i1 '

1 "I N

_ Mad'. O'$

i d

" . . '-l 4

y .

I J 4 p

, tSo0.

e' ,.;

.l <

i.

,y.

.: 1 1-nl- .

4 s

~

.o:y .or - =

s m .n e, -

kO **A TI M' h FA 1

emuum

' F.

.,Y_

p cac crim h%

y f y ' , Yl

}.

4 s

[. i f i, :f

" ' e

,  ;) ' f u

,, I h .) , ,

! s.

- .-=

l 4

'O.

a .

= f 'g t es - '

s .. gr

~~~

SUILDINC Electrical Tunnels . -

PREPARED BY: WB 10/24/85

. AREA' A-Train DWG. # 310453 CHECKED SY: ARD 10/24/85 CONFIGURATION- # OF SUPPORT CABLE SUILDINC DESCRIPTION QUANTITY TRAYS B EIGHT ' WIDTH SPACINC FILL I ATTACHMENT OTHER T7- 11- 23 ' 3Is ' 10 50 Boot

'r14 11 18 3' 9 50 Boot

! !TEMS M CONSIDER FURTHER (eg'. prosleity issues, custos supports)

I. 4" % XIS Conduit is supported by tray supports approximately 8" above the floor.

l TYPICAL VALKDOW DATA SHEET l TICURE 4-18 J.

i

- - .. . ._ ._. - . - _ _ .. - . _ . _ _ . . _ _ __ _ -_.2.- .

" .! . I.V

.m - FIGURE 4 --

WXmDING '

4-

-The following models will' initiate the program.

CO'NFIGURMEIONS

-All models will be included w/'and w/o bracing.

MODEL # CONFIGURATION KEY DIMENSTONS COMMENT i I.

J Model (726. T4)-

8 Tiers

_14'6" Height I.A Same Same Include Cascade Bracing

-1. B ' Same. Same~ Extend'to a 60' to 80' Length

• I.C -

Positive Brace

Study. Investigate Loads Distributed to the Vertical Post.

I.D -

Supplemental Steel Study II I Model (TS) 7 Tiers 4 Supports 23' Hght 10' Span III -1 Model (T7) 23' Hght 11 Tiers 10' Span IV 1 Model (T31) 3' Wide 4 Tiers <

(* Span 5' Depth '

i V I Model (T14) 4' Wide 12 Tiers 10' Span 23' Depth V.A (Use as-built provided by YAEC) Include T38 supports attached

~ to T14's in model V.

. VI ' T28 T29 w/T26 6' Wide 6 Tier (12 tray) 3 10' Span 7t[ - .- . . rt b 15' Depth

.__ _ _ _ . .Til

. rts q1%

e

.TZ6 *

. (b 4

.=

FIGURE 4-19 -(continuation)

VI.A '

. Double' TS -

On Hold VII -- -- -- --

As Built (YAEC)

~ s ~ ~.1 i sd surprfTS~~'

Euva rio4

VIII I model (T7/T9 5 Tiers 1-T14 on ea.

Combination) -8' Main Horiz. End in model dimension IX: Large T9.-T10 As Built (YAEC)

X . Representative As Built (YAEC)

T9,-T10 XI I Model (T38)'

• 5' 6" Wide Final Arrangement Double Tray (Particularly 10' Span Overall Length) 4 Supports To be Provided by YAEC XII As-built C20/ Tray As Built

'Model (YAEC)

I t

i i

y w; '

yy-3,o 4_ s ,:

APPENDIX A' s 4 s

_ f _,_ i ,-

?4.DiA; COMPARISON OF-CABLE. TRAYS AT THE SEABROOK NUCLEAR STATION WITH' L

.THElSEISMICEXPERIENCEDdTABASEr

+

s 3- '

e ' iThe seismic' capacity of? cable' tray:~ systems"at Seabrook Station is fassessed through a studi of comparable cable' tray systems that Lve experienced. strong motion' earthquakes. The excellent performance'of-cablettray systems;that have experienced seismic motion in ' excess of the Seab' rook [ design-basis' safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) provided-the basis ufor this' study.'

. s _ The experience.of cable tray- systems in past earthquakes is extracted

'from the: data base of earthquake effects to power and industrial facilitie' , scompiled by EQE Inc.,'under the sponsorship of the Seismic

QualificationiUtilities Group.(SQUG). This experience data base, encompassing approximately 20 facilities and a total of eight major

, earthquakes, includes a diversity of cable tray systems. The? total data I.

Tb aselinvent'ory^ includes on the order of 10 miles of cable trays which

- experienced-strong amotion earthquakes. This inventory of data base m

cable trays' covers a. wide range of structural types, support -

_ configurations, cable. tray system layout,. locations within buildings, and1 seismic' input loads. .'Mostzof _ the sites ' surveyed in compiling the data base experienced ground motion: comparable to or in ' excess of the

' Seabrook Sthtionisafe-shutdown earthquake. Within the experience data

~

-base;there-is only one; instance of seismic damage to a cable tray

structure. = This 'singl_e -instance _ of seismic damage was to an

' exceptionally weak,' atypical cable tray support structure subjected to

'high seismic load.

. Normal' industry practice in the construction of cable tray systems does not include a ' specific design for seismic loads. Cable tray support structures .(outside of.' nuclear plants) are normally designed to i

. accommodate gravity load only. In spite of this fact, the performance reccrd of cable trays in past earthquakes is excellent. Cable tray  ;

isystems display ~ a'large margin.for the absorption of seismic loads l

~without~ damage'. This inherent seismic margin in cable trays does not appear to be sensitive to variations in cable tray construction, layout, or seismic-_ input.

?' y b

p ~ n'm~

Qlm;;e;m We '

}

ss .x .'

gpr${i  : N' 3' _*

bi[ ( [3 . g

~

--A-,-, [y%

,~

~

. 2 x ~

JThe _ ;

purpose:of . . . .

this comp' a rison of cable tray systems in~Seabrnok Station c-withcabletraysLinthEseismicexperience-databaseis.toillustrate-thelfoll.owingpoints:.

'  :=;; The seismic experience data base includes all parameters Fassociated with the ability of cable trays to resist

~

Jseismic loads..

, 1

-e)The: parameters associated _withlthe seismic capacity of data s

lb'ase ~ cable trays 1 envelop the' parameters of Seabrook Station-scable _ trays,E i.e.. data _ base cable trays' range from similar

~

, to .we'aker when compared to Seabrook cable trays.

== In most cases dataLbase cable trays'have experienced

, i -

seismicIloads comparable to or in excess ~ of the design-basis seismic loads for Seabrook cable trays.

1 s

is. Cable tray.skstems constructed !according to normal -industry

?' 6 practice. .even _witteit specif k provision's for seismic w  : loads',;are. sufficient to' withstand earthqu:ikes in exces~s of

~

, 1the' seismic' design ba' sis for Seabrook Station.

' ~

e The diversity of. critical parameters encompassed by the y - _.

a \ cable  :.

tray' data'b'ase. demonstrates that the capacity to

~

~

- survive: earthquakes is.not sensitive to minor. variations in -

' the details of cable tray construction or layout. For this

- reason cable trays are generically adequate to sustain-x .

. moderate seismic loads (such as the design basis for Seabrook Station), as.long as their construction conforms

.M to o'r exceeds' normal industry practice, g_ ,

^ 4;0-l'4The= Seismic Exoerience Data Base i

Wg u'

Details of. the'performancie of power and . industrial facilities in past

-[ ;J 1.

cearthquakes have been compiled into a seismic experience data base by

' j, ,

M ~ '"

EQE.11The primary sponsor _ for the compilation of this data. base has been the' Seismic Qualification Utilities Group (SQUG). The SQUG was

- organized in-;1981 by a group of electric power utilities with operating .

nuclear plants. The primary purpose for the organization of the SQUG was to develop a program to address Unresolved Safety Issue A-46, the potential seismic hazard to critical equipment in operating nuclear plants.

The basis for the SQUG program was to determine the realistic seismic hazard to the equipment installations of nuclear power plants, based on the experience of facilities with comparable installations in past earthquakes. Very few components of critical nuclear plant systems are specific to nuclear facilities. Critical nuclear plant systems include electrical switchgear, control panels, motor-operated valves, pumps, piping, ducts, conduit, cable trays, etc., all common components of conventional power plants and large industrial facilities.

Strong motion earthquakes frequently occur in California and Latin American Countries, where power plants or industrial facilities are included in the affected areas. By studying the performance of these earthquake-affected (or data base) facilities, a large inventory of various types of equiprent can be compiled that have . experienced ,

substantial seismic motion. The ground acceleration experienced at most data base sites, measured by nearby ground motion records, is comparable to or in excess of the seismic design basis for most eastern United States nuclear plant sites.

The primary purposes of the seismic experience data base are summarized as follows:

i e P To determine the most common sources of seismic damage, or adverse effects, on facilities that contain installations representative of critical nuclear plant systems. '

To determine the thresholds of seismic motion corresponding to various types of seismic damage.

e To determine the types of installations that are normally undamaged by earthquakes, regardless of the levels of {

seismic motion.

-2i-Q})) ;

=

To determine minimum standards in equipment installations, based on past experience, to assure the ability to withstand anticipated seismic loads.

To summarize, the primary assumption is that the actual seismic hazard to nuclear power plant installations is best demonstrated by the performance of similar installations in past earthquakes.

4.D-2 Facilities Surveyed in Compilino the Data Base The seismic experience data base is founded on studies of over 60 facilities located in the strong motion areas of 10 earthquakes that -

have occurred in California and Latin American countries since 1971.

The data base was compiled through surveys of the following types of facilities:

e Fossil-fueled power plants e Hydroelectric power plants e

Electrical distribution substations e Oil prccessing and refining facilities a Water treatment and pumping stations a

Natural gas processing and pumping stations a Manufacturing facilities i

e  !

Large commercial facilities (focusing on their HVAC '

plants).

[

In general, data collection efforts focused on facilities located in the areas of strongest ground motion for each earthquake investigated.

,j Facilities were sought that contained substantial inventories of i mechanical, or electrical equipment, or control and instrumentation systems.

Because of the number of earthquake-affected areas and types of facilities investigated, there is a wide diversity in the types of

(

installations included in the data base. For the equipment 1

hh]  ;

=

installations of focus in the investigations, this means a wide diversity in age, size, configuration, application, operating conditions, manufacturer, type of building, location within b'uilding, local soil conditions, quality of maintanence, and quality of construction.

The data base includes a total of ten earthquakes, with several different sites investigated in each earthquake-affected area. The earthquakes investigated range in Richter magnitude from 5.7 to 8.1.

Measured or estimated ground accelerations for data base sites range from 0.15g to 0.709 . The duration of strong motion (on the order of 0.109 or greater) ranges from 5 seconds to over 40 seconds. Local soil conditions range from deep alluvium to rock. The buildings housing the equipment installations of interest have a wide range in size, and type of construction. As a result, the data base covers a wide diversity of seismic input to equipment installations, in terms of seismic motion amplitude, duration, and frequency content.

4.0-3 Tvoe of Data Collected Information on each data base facility, its performance during the

' earthquake, and any damage or adverse effects caused by the earthquake were collected through the following sources:

e Interviews with the facility management and operating personnel usually provide the most reliable and detailed information on the effects of the earthquake on each facility. At most facilities several individuals were 1

consulted to confirm or enhance details. In most cases interviews are recorded on audio tape.

The facility operating logs provide a written record of the conditions of the operating systems, before and after the earthquake. Operating logs list problems in system operation associated with the earthquake, and usually tabulate earthquake damage to the facility. Operating logs are useful in determining the amount of time the facility t

' *' m ' '

may have been out of operation following the earthquake, and any problems encountered in restarting the facility.

e The facility management often produces a report summarizing the effects of the earthquake following detailed inspections. These reports normally desribe causes of any system malfunctions or damage, and typically include any incipient or long term effects of the earthquake.

m If the facility can be surveyed immediately following the earthquake, as has been the case in four of the ten earthquakes included in the data base, earthquake damage '

can often be inspected prior to repairs.

Standard procedures used in surveying data base facilities focus on collecting all information on damage or adverse effects of any kind caused by the earthquake. For a large majority of the facilities surveyed in the data base, this is not a lengthy task. Except for sites that experienced very high seismic motion (in excess of 0.50 g peak ground acceleration), seismic damage to well-engineered facilities is normally limited to only a few items.

4.0-4 The Data Base for Cable Trays Within the experience data base, approximately 20 facilities, encompassing eight earthquakes, include good examples of cable tray systems.

Table 4.0-1 lists these facilities with a brief description of the type of cable trays found at each site. In general the data base offers a wide diversity of cable tray designs, configurations, locations within building structures and conditions of seismic loading.

Figures 4.D-1 through 4.0-3 include illustrations of the primary parameters that affect the seismic loads on cable trays for several data base sites. These figures include a olot of the response spectrum representing ground acceleration at the data base site. This response spectrum is based on the nearest or most applicable ground motion records for the site. The response spectrum shown is the average of the response spectra for the two horizontal components of motion measured at i

U k. W.]

24

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

the nearest record. This spectrum then does not represent the highest horizontal motion at the site, but rather the average horizontal motion.

For comparison, each plot also includes the horizontal ground motion spectrum from USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.60, normalized to a peak ground acceleration of 0.25 g, the design basis for the Seabrook Station. All response spectra correspond to 5% damping.

Each figure includes a schematic elevation view of the data base building structure, illustrating the height and construction of the building, and showing the primary locations of the cable trays with respect to grade elevation.

The figures also include sketches of the typical cable tray construction 1

at the site, including the typical number of tiers, support configuration, and attachment to walls, floor, or ceiling.

4.D-5 Cable Trav Parameters at Seabrook and in the Exoerience Data Base In order to verify the seismic adequacy of the Seabrook cable tray systems using experience from past earthquakes, relevant parameters must be chosen which make comparisons between cable trays in the data base and at Seabrook meaningful. Cable tray parameters were defined based on their effect on system mass, stiffness, strength, and response to seismic loading. The following critical parameters are the basis of the comparison of cable trays at Seabrook Station with those in the seismic experience data base:

a Cable tray dimension (width, depth) 4 e Cable tray loading e Number of tiers a

Cable tray type (ladder, trough, solid bottom) 4 m

Support construction (trapeze, cantilever bracket, rod, Unistrut)

, t e Cable tray span (length between supports)

[hfy

m Connection details (e.g., tray-to-support connection) a Additional cable tray support loading (conduit, piping) e Cable tray interfaces (with electrical cabinets, with conduit) e Cable tray layout a location of trays a Type of building e Seismic ground motion Each of the above cable tray parameters at Seabrook is compared to the seismic experience data base. Data for the parameter comparison were l

taken from the following sites, which provided the most cable tray

details:

a Sylmar Converter Station (PGA - 0.50g) e Valley Steam Plant (PGA - 0.30) e Humboldt Bay Power Plant (PGA - 0.259 , 0.30g)

=

El Centro Steam Plant (PGA - 0.429) e Drop IV Hydroelectric Plant (PGA - 0.40g).

m Las Ventanas Power Plant (PGA - 0.30g) e la Villita Hydroelectric Plant (PGA = 0.159) e El Infiernillo Hydroelectric Plant (PGA - 0.15g)

Each of the critical cable tray parameters listed above is addressed in the paragraphs that follow.

I Cable Tray Dimensions. Cable tray dimensions contribute to the system i

mass and stiffness which, in turn, partially determine the system l response to seismic loading. Cable tray dimensions refer to cable tray i

l

-26 ll $ dd.i

width and depth. The NEMA standard addressing cable tray systems gives standard cable tray widths of 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 inches. Cable trays in the data base range from 6 to 24 inches in width. Seabrook trays range from 12 to 24 inches in width.

The NEMA-specified inside depth of cable trays ranges from 3 to 6 inches. Cable trays in the experience data base range from 3 to 4 inches deep. Seabrook cable trays have an inside depth of 3-1/16 inches.

d Cable Trav toadina. Cable tray loading is the primary contributor to the mass of the system. Of secondary importance is the effect of cable loading on system damping. For a nominal 3 inch deep tray, there is roughly a direct correlation between percent fill and weight /ft (i.e.,

40% full is roughly 40 pounds per linear foot, plf). Examples of varying data base cable tray loading are shown in the photographs in Figure 4.0-4. Cable trays at Seabrook vary from 20% to 40% full; cable i

loading never exceeds 40 plf. The data base contains cable trays which are more heavily loaded than 40 plf, thereby enveloping Seabrook for gravity load.

In addition, the data base trays range from empty to over 100% full (i.e., from 0 to over 100 plf), thereby enveloping any system damping effects.

Number of Tiers. The number of tiers, specifically the number of tiers without transverse bracing, contributes to the overall mass and stiffness of a cable tray system. The number of tiers refers to the number of horizontal spans suspended from a vertical support. In addition to vertical supports, transverse supports are significant to  ;

system seismic response. Cable trays at Seabrook Station include transverse bracing at nearly every support. Data base trays rarely have L transverse supports. Although Seabrook tray systems include up to 12 l tiers, the number of tiers between transverse supports is typically far less than in the data base.

Cable Tray Tvoe. Cable tray type contributes to the stiffness of the '

system. There are three primary types of cable trays described in the NEMA standard on cable tray systems:

.n-Ug

a Ladder a Trough -

a Solid-bottom A ladder type tray consists of two longitudinal rails connected by individual transverse members (rungs). A trough type tray is a metal structure with a ventilated bottom contained within longitudinal side rails. A solid-bottom type tray consists of a continuous sheet with no openings, contained within longitudinal side rails. Table 4.0-1 lists the data base cable tray types by site. Seabrook cable trays are either ladder or solid bottom type.

l Sucoort Construction. Cable tray support construction contributes i

I significantly to the system's resistance to seismic loads. Support construction refers to the structure of cable tray supports and the members from which a support is made. The NEMA standard on cable tray systems defines three types of supports:

a Trapeze s Cantilever bracket e Individual rod suspension Cable trays supported by individual rod suspension are relatively uncommon, and are not representative of cable tray supports at Seabrook.

j Trapeze supports consist of two vertical members, typically bolted or welded to the ceiling, connected by a horizontal member, upon which the cable tray rests. The structural members of data base trapeze supports are constructed from rod, strut, or steel angles.

Cantilever bracket supports refer to a large variety of structures in

which the tray is cantilevered from a vertical member anchored to a i wall, a floor, or a ceiling. Data base cantilever brackets include "L"- I supports and "T"-supports (Figure 4.0-5). In addition, at some data base sites, cable trays are supported from cantilevers on floor-to- '

ceiling columns (Figure 4.D-5). Data base cantilever bracket supports are especially susceptible to seismic loads because of the dead load moment inherent in their asymmetric design.

Table 4.D-1 lists the data base support types by site. Most of the data base sites have trapeze supports or various forms of cantilever bracket supports. In general, cable tray supports in the data base do not consider seismic loads in their design. Seismic design is not required in the NEMA standard for cable tray construction.

Seabrook cable tray supports are of two basic types:

e Trapeze e Floor-to-ceiling box frame All Seabrook supports are made of cold-formed steel strut. Each Seabrook trapeze support is transversely braced, making it significantly sturdier than data base trapeze supports. In addition to trapeze supports, many Seabrook cable trays are supported on floor-to-ceiling box frames. These supports consist of two vertical members, supported i

at both the ceiling and floor, with cross members to which the cable trays are bolted. Seabrook floor-to-ceiling supports are symmetric, which mediates dead load moment.

Cable Tray Scan. Cable tray span is a significant contributor to the i

system stiffness. A span refers to the horizontal distance between l

vertical supports. Cable trays at Seabrook Station are supported vertically at least every ten feet.

In most cases and for most configurations, Seabrook trays are supported every five feet. The ,

spacing of vertical supports of data base trays range from four to ten  ;

feet.

Most Seabrook cable tray supports include transverse bracing. In many '

cases, data base trays have no transverse bracing; lateral support is I provided only by the geometry of the system (i.e., transverse support of i a cable tray run is provided by an intersecting branch run). At some data base sites, transverse bracing forms part of the vertical support.

. i 29- - a' .

Y Data base sites, normally have no specific provision for longitudinal bracing. Instead, longitudinal load resistance is provided by inherent features of the cable tray system, such as: '

s Geometry (e.g., cable tray intersections with branch runs) e Vertical supports e Interfaces with the building (e.g., walls) e Electrical cabinet connections Cable Tray /Suocort Connection Details. Cable tray and support connection details contribute significantly to the strength and stiffness of the system. The connection details considered here include:

a Tray-to-support connection a Tray-to-tray connection a

Anchor-point connection (e.g., wall, ceiling, or 1

floorconnections) e Cable-to-tray connection a

Support internal connections (e.g., connections between vertical and horizontal trapeze members) i A comparison of connection details between Seabrook and data base cable tray supports is shown in Figures 4.D-7 through 4.0-9.

i Tray-to-support connection refers to the method by which the cable tray t

is attached to its support. Data base cable trays are typically

(

{

attached to their supports either with two small screws (i.e., 1/8 inch) f or ustrig gravity alone (i.e., in some cases, there is no positive connection between tray and support). Cable trays at Seabrook Station are attached to supports using either internal clips or "Z" clips. '

f

, -30 R?g;:)  ! tr ,s .4 3, I

9 Tray-to-tray connection refers to the attachment between cable trays. At Seabrook Station, tray-to-tray connections are made with eight 3/8 inch bolts. Connection details between cable trays in the data base are typically made using a similar configuration to Seabrook, however data base tray connections have fewer bolts. Anchor-point connections refer to the connection details at the interface of cable tray supports with ceilings, floors, and walls. At Seabrook Station, a special " boot" connection detail has been designed to connect cable tray supports to anchor points. Seabrook cable tray supports are bolted into the boot, which is welded to a steel base plate. At other anchor points, Seabrook supports are welded or bolted i to embedded steel channels in the concrete wall. Data base trays have anchorage connection details which are not cnly weaker than Seabrook's, but which have fewer anchorages per length of tray. Data base cable tray supports are generally bolted to the ceiling with expansion anchors (i.e., 1/2 inch bolts). At two data base sites, ceiling anchorage consists of friction clips attaching the support to overhead wide flange beams. Figures 4.D-7 through 4.D 8 are photographic comparisons of anchor-point connection details at Seabrook and at sites in the experience data base. 1 Cable-to-tray connection refers to the attachment of cables to trays. Typically, cables are individually attached to trays using plastic ties. At Seabrook Station, cables are tied to ladder type trays at every tenth rung (maximum 90 inches) for horizontal trays, and at every fourth rung (maximum 36 inches) for vertical trays. Data base cable trays typically do not have ties for horizontal runs and have ties at every fourth cable tray rung on vertical runs. Support internal connections refer to the connection details within the cable tray support structure. Examples include the connection of the vertical and horizontal members of a trapeze, or the connection of

l diagonal bracing to a support. Cable tray supports at both Seabroon and i

at data base sites have standard connection details (as specified, for example, in a Unistrut catalog). In addition to standard connections, Seabrook cable t"ay supports are strengthened with clip angles and

                                              -31.                                   f/ld' e  w >

_ . . _ - _ _ _ - _ . ._- - _ - _ _ . _. .- ~ . - - I I I l 1

                                 ,                                                                                    triangular gussets at critical locations. Most data base cable tray supports have little or no additional reinforcement. Figure 4.0-9 shows support internal connection details at Seabrook and at a typical                       '

data base site. 4 Additional Cable Trav toadino. In addition to cable trays, conduit is sometimes mounted on cable tray supports. Additional cable tray loading can contribute significantly to the mass of the system. At Seabrook and at data base sites, conduit is occasionally mounted on or cantilevered j from cable tray supports. Cable Tray Interfaces. Cable tray interface refers to the means of ' j routing cable between cable trays and electrical cabinets. Cable tray interfaces affect the system seismic response by: t 4 e Providing a source of reaction to seismic loads e Providing a source of seismic interaction (impact) between l the cabinet and the cable tray At Seabrook Station cable is routed between cable trays and cabinets through conduit or wireways. The conduit / wireways are bolted to the tray, and connected to the cabinet through a flexible coupling designed i to accommodate minor differential displacements between tray and cabinet. This type of interface connection is intended to minimize any potential interaction hazards in the following ways: i

e The flexible connection allows relative displacements between the cable tray and the cabinet, without imposing significant seismic loads on either.

e t The continuous connection provided by the condult/ wireway that routes the cable from tray to cabinet prevents impact between the tray or the cabinet and the conduit / wireway. I t i By comparison, many data base cable trays interface with electrical i cabinets by routing a small section of tray directly into the cabinet. 5 l 1 This interfacing tray section is often bolted to both the cabinet and j f the main section of cable tray, imposing seismic reaction loads from the i F < t

                                                                                                                                                                      -s2-iW   !

cable tray system onto the cabinet. Alternately, some data base cable trays interface with cabinets by abutting the cabihet, or conduit attached to the cabinet, without positive connection. This creates the potential for pounding between the cable tray and cabinet structures. r Interaction between cable trays and electrical cabinets has never caused damage in past earthquakes, in spite of the general lack of design provisions to accommodate seismic interaction. Cable Tray Layout. The effect on seismic response of cable tray layout can be illustrated using experience data. Multi-directional cable tray systems are difficult to analyze accurately or to mount on a shake i table. Cable tray systems in the experience data base are comparable to Seabrook Station's cable tray system for cable tray layout. Cable tray 1 layout is a general parameter that includes the following components:

e The extent of cable trays within the building (i.e. the typical length and directions of cable tray runs) s The relative configuration of intersecting sections of the cable tray system The extent of cable tray runs affects the stiffness of the cable tray structural system, which in turn affects the response frequencies (within the range of seismic excitation), and the mode shapes of the tray system. A secondary effect of cable tray extent relates to the seismic input imparted to continuous cable runs by different sections of the building. Short runs of cable tray typically receive a uniform seismic input from local sections of the building. Extended runs of  !

cable trays receive seismic inputs that vary in amplitude and phase, according to the seismic response of different sections of the building. The relative configurations of intersecting sections of the cable tray system affect the stiffness of the cable tray system, and the seismic ' reaction loads imposed by one cable tray section on another. Cable tray configuration parameters include: ' s Spacing of intersections r i L

                                               *bbe                                                     ,

                . Angles of intersection e

Relative mass and stiffness of intersecting sections a Details of attachment at intersections This in turn affects the response frequencies and mode shapes of the tray system. The parametric components of cable tray extent and configuration might be generalized as the complexity of cable tray layout. The experience data base offers complexity in the layout of typical cable tray systems that is comparable to the complexity of layout at Seabrook Station. In other words, data base cable tray systems are typically of comparable (or greater) extent than the Seabrook systems. Data base cable trays include tray sections intersecting from a variety of directions and angles. Data base systems include atypical cable tray details such as offsets in cable tray run, which create potential weaknesses in longitudinal load resistance. Data base cable tray systems include a variety of interfaces with electrical cabinets, conduit systems, structural supports, building walls, and floors. The complexity of cable tray layout also includes the potential for interaction with adjacent fixtures. Data base cable tray systems are frequently routed in congested areas that include other fixtures such as piping, conduit, catwalks, or structural steel. Since the support of data base fixtures is flexible compared to typical nuclear plant installations, there exists the potential for substantial sway and seismic interaction between cable trays and adjacent fixtures, in spite of the high seismic interaction potential in data base facilities, there are no instances of interaction damage to cable trays in past earthquakes. ~* The various components included in cable tray layout, as well as typical examples of the complexity of data base cable tray systems, are illustrated in Figures 4.D 10 through 4.012. 34 - 4y gg

Cable Trav tocation. Cable tray location within a building structure affects that level of motion experienced by the system. Of particular interest is the elevation of the cable tray system above grade elevation. The amplification of seismic ground motion generally 1 increases within a building with height above grade. I The location of cable trays at the Seabrook Station ranges in elevation j from 47 feet below grade, to 60 feet above grade. The building l elevation of data base cable tray systems ranges from basement locations l to locations in steel boiler structures, over 100' feet above grade. l

i

_Tvoe of Buildino. The type of building affects the amplification and

                                                                 ,    filtering of seismic ground motion into the supports of a cable tray          i system. The parameter of building type also includes soll conditions at       !

the site (i.e., rock, deep alluvium, etc). The various types of 7 structures found at the power stations and industrial facilities  ! surveyed in compiling the experience data base offer a wide diversity of building size, and flexibility. This in tarn suggests a wide diversity i in the amplification, distortion, and filtration of the ground motion experienced at the various sites. j Data base buildings that house cable trays range from flexible structures to structures comparable in stiffness to the buildings at Seabrook Station. i One extreme is the tall, open steel-frame boiler support structures I typical of fossil power plants. Steel-frame boiler structures are typically five or more stories high, and contain the massive furnace-boiler system, usually supported as a pendulum from the top of the structure. The boiler system is usually free to swing within the steel- ' frame structure. As an example of the flexibility of boiler structures, a response motion record taken near the top of the 169 foot tall open steel-framed boiler structure of the Las Ventanas Power Plant recorded a primary response frequency of approximately I Hz during the March 1985 Chile earthquake. The record measured a peak acceleration of 0.809, with a duration of strong motion of about 60 seconds. The boiler t

                                                                                                        -35

! !f 4 ,

structure contains a system of cable trays which was undamaged in the earthquake. The bulk of the cable tray systems included in the data base are contained in two- to three-story steel frame or concrete shear wall buildings, such as the turbine buildings of power plants. This type of structure is generally stellar to the Seabrook Station structures (other than the reactor containment). Typical fundamental response frequencies l for this type of building range from I to 5 Hz, which corresponds to the i frequency range of maximum energy content for most earthquake ground motion. Table 4.D-2 summarizes the types of buildings and the site - soil conditions for various data base sites.

• The Seabrook Station building structures are somewhat stiffer in

{ comparison. Based on building response analyses, fundamental frequencies for the Control Building, Primary Auxiliary Building, and the Containment range from 5 to 10 Hz. This frequency range is slightly above the range of maximum energy content for typical seismic ground i motion. Seismic Ground Motion. The level of anticipated seismic ground motion ( forms the basis for the seismic design of cable trays. Seismic ground motion is defined in terms of three components: t 1 a Peak ground acceleration i l 3 m Duration of strong motion (typically defined as > 0.10g) e Frequency content of ground motion i  ! i These three components are characterized either directly or indirectly by a ground motion response spectrum. ( The basis for the seismic design I { of cable trays at Seabrook Station is represented by the ground motion { spectra of USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.60, normalized to a 0.25 g peak

;     ground acceleration.

This response spectrum is compared to a range of data base site response spectra from various earthquakes in  ! Figure 4.0-14 (plotted with 5% damping). As shown in the figure, most { j

                                             .,m .                                       lr l

l

I data base ground response spectra are either comparable to or in excess of the Seabrook design-basis spectrum. 4.0-6 Conclusions The comparison of cable tray systems at'Seabrook Station with cable trays in the seismic experience data base has demonstrated the following points: i ) s t All parameters associated with the seismic capacity of Seabrook cable trays are enveloped by data base cable trays, i.e., data base cable trays are similar or weaker in { all aspects related to seismic capacity, compared to  ! Seabrook cable trays. e Most data base cable tray systems have experienced seismic loads comparable to or greater than the seismic design-basis loads for Seabrook cable tray systems. f a Cable tray systems constructed according to normal industry practice have more than sufficient margin to absorb the { seismic loads anticipated from moderate earthquakes (such as the Seabrook seismic design basis), even without specific seismic design provisions.  ! e The capacity of cable trays to survive seismic loads is not sensitive to details of cable tray construction or layout. By a comparison with cable tray systems that have survived past strong motion earthquakes, it is apparent that the cable tray systems at j Seabrook Station have more than adequate capacity to survive their j design basis safe shutdown earthquake. 1 t l

• 37

                                                                                  @M l                                                                                       :

L  ;

Table 4.0-1 CABLE TRAYS IN THE SEISMIC EXPERIENCE DATA BASE PEAK GROUND

• CABLE TRAY SUPPORT EARTHOUAKE SITE ACCELERATION TYPE TYPE CONFIGURATION San Fernando Sylmar 0.50g Ladder Unistrut Earthquake Trapeze Converter & Trough 1971 Station Valley Steam 0.20g Trough Unistrut Trapeze &

Plant Cantilever Burbank 0.32g Trough Rod Trapeze Power Plant Glendale 0.27g Trough Rod Trapeze Power Plant Pasadena 0.18g Solid- Steel Power Plant Floor-to-Bottom Angle Celling Cantilever Saugus 0.35g Ladder Unistrut floor-to-Substation Ceiling Cantilever Point Mugu Ormond Beach 0.20g Earthquake Trough Unistrut Trapeze Power Plant 1973 Ferndale/ Humboldt 0.30g Trough Humboldt Bay Power Unistrut Trapeze 0.25g Earthquakes Plant 1975/1980 Imperial El Centro 0.42g

Valley Ladder Unistrut Trapeze Steam Plant & Trough Earthquake 1979 Drop IV 0.30g Solid. Steel Trapeze Hydro. Plant Bottcm Angle

! Coalinga Union Oil 0.60g Ladder Rod Trapeze . Earthquake Butane Plant 1983 i

• Average of Two Horizontal Components of Ground Motion 1  :

l r 3 )

Table 4.0-1 (continued) - PEAK GROUND

• CA8LE TRAY SUPPORT EARTHOUAKE SITE ACCELERATION TYPE TYPE CONFIGURATION Morgan Hill United Tech. 0.50g Ladder Unistrut Trapeze &

Earthquake Chem. Plant Floor-to-1984 Ceiling Cantilever i Santiago, Renca 0.35g Ladder Rod Trapeze i Chile Power Plant Earthquake 1985 Rapel 0.31g Ladder Steel Floor-to-

 ,                     Hydro. Plant                            Angle                Ceiling Cantilever Laguna Verde    0.30g        Ladder     Steel                Trapeze Power Plant                  & Trough Angle 4

Las Contes 0.25g Ladder Rod Trapeze i Hospital

~

Las Ventanas 0.30g Ladder Unistrut Trapeze &

• Copper Refine. Cantilever Las Ventanas 0.18g Ladder Unistrut Trapeze &

,                     Power Plant                              Rod                  Cantilever

/ l Mexico Infiernillo 0.15 0.20g Trough Unistrut Floor-to- [ Earthquake Dam 1985 Ceiling Cantilever i I La Villita 0.15g Ladder Unistrut Trapeze I Power Plant Cantilever i ! i l  ! SICARTSA 0.15g Ladder Steel Mounted on Steel Mill l Pedestals Pipe  ! Gallery i I  ; 4

• Average of Twc Horizontal Components of Ground Motion '

                                                                                                                     \

r WW t- e.u . e i

l l 1 Table 4.0-2 BUILDING / SOIL TYPES ESTIMATED 3 EARTHOUAKE SITE PGA** BUILDING TYPE S0ll TYPE Seabrook 0.25g* Reinforced concrete Rock. Station shear wall structures San Fernando Sylmar 0.50g 2-story steel Earthquake Sand, silt & Converter frame structures with clay. 1971 Station penthouses and 50 ft. to bedrock. reinforced concrete structure. . Valley Steam 0.30g 2- and 8- story braced Deep alluvium Plant frame structures;

;                                                                                                          to 500 ft.

first 2 stories with reinforced frame and shear walls. Burbank 0.329 Five-story braced Power Plant Brown, sandy loam steel frame structures; to 25 ft., dense first story with rein- sand below, forced concrete frame

     .                                                              and shear walls.

Glendale 0.279 4-story partially Power Plant intermediate braced steel frame alluvium. structures; with rein-forced concrete first floor and basement with 2 lower stories. Pasadena 0.189 4-story steel braced Power Plant Intermediate i frame structure with alluvium, concrete walls, i Saugus 0.359 l-story reinforced Substation Alluvium. concrete structure. Point Mugu Ormond Beach 0.20g Earthquake 2-story steel frame Alluvium. E Power Plant structure with rein-1973 forced concrete walls. , a

• Design Basis Earthquake l

         ** Average of Two Horizontal Components of Ground Motion                                                                !

i t i I E i

l Table 4.D-2 (continued) ESTIMATED EARTHOUAKE SITE PGA** BUILDING TYPE S0ll TYPE Ferndale/ Humboldt 0.30g 2- and 5- story steel Deep alluvium Humboldt Bay Power 0.25g frame structures and to 400 ft. Earthquakes Plant 2-story reinforced 1975/1980 concrete frame structures. Imperial El Centro 0.42g 2- to 6-story steel Deep alluvium. Valley Steam Plant frame high bay and Earthquake braced steel frame 1979 structures. Drop IV 0.30g High bay reinforced Rock. Hydro. Plant concrete shear wall structure with partial reinforced concrete , basement

 ;      Coalinga        Union Oil      0.60g          Cable trays are Earthquake                                                                 Shallow alluvium.

Butane Plant supported on steel 4 1933 racks running through the facility yard. Morgan Hill United Tech. 0.50g i Earthquake 1-story tilt-up Shallow alluvium, Chem. Plant concrete structure. 4 1934 Santiago, Renca 0.35g 3-story braced Chile Deep alluvium. ' Power Plant steel frame. Earthquake 1985 Rapel 0.31g High bay reinforced Hydro. Plant Marine sediments. , concrete structure ' with a 4-story rein-  ; i forced concrete frame mezzanine, adjacent to concrete dam wall.

,                     Laguna Verde     0.309        4 story high bay steel Rock.

i Power Plant frame structure, part- [ ially braced, with re- i inforced concrete shear l wall first story  ;

       ** Average of Two Horizontal Components of Ground Motion                                            !

5 4 ' Y L

i Table 4.0-2 (continued)

 ;                                                                                                                                      ESTIMATED EARTHOUAKE      SITE                  PGA**         Bull 0 LNG TYPE         S0ll TYPE Las Ventanas           0.309         High bay steel frame    Compact fluvial Copper Refine,                        structures with         sand to 165 ft.

bracing - Las Ventanas 0.309 5-story braced Compact fluvial Power Plant steel frame structure. sand to 165 ft. Boller structure is a 169 ft, steel frame. i

-l 4

Mexico Infiernillo 0.15-0.20g High bay reinforced Rock. Earthquake Dam concrete frame and shear wall structure, with 2-story steel frame mezzanine, com-J 1985 pletely underground. >

   )                                                                                                              La Villita             0.15g         High bay steel frame    Rock.

Power Plant structure with 5-story steel frame mezzanine. I

                                                                                                   ** Average of Two Horizontal Components of Ground Motion I

l f i l b ' 4 d i I' i h i-l l 3 i-l i 1 e

                                                                                                                                                                                            ,    j

t .o -

                                                                                                                                                                           ]_                                           .

es.. s,w c.aw , sism.a [ .L g l i 3 s ,. ...... usemee a.. o m '.. HVAC _ ,' ROOM N I C08tTROL

                                                                                                                                                                                            . ROOM t                                                                                                                                                                                                      3 5 . .. .                                                                                                                                                                                      \
                      ,I'.,,'"~.
     *                '                                                                                                                              $W11CHC[AR 900M ,
                                      .,,                                     ca... u.                                                                    f m =
                                                 . . . . . ,                                                                                     *B B MB                               b;
                                                                                                                                                                                            ' W gL
                                                                                                                                                                                                        '  '~
                                                                       . , , ,0. . . . se                                                        I    ~      ~
         ...                                                                          - . _ . . . . .                                                                          ConRID0e                      CABLE L                   -

t,'$ratADihG

         ..                                           -                                                                                                                                                 a   noom r .    .ac, twil
                                                                                                                 ;y.,,.*
                                                                                                                      ,; r.   - 3 . - % 6j  ..d. ;.' <

r , i ,imH@Fr@i' ed ..- ~ 7 , - . ,

                                                                                                                                 , , . y.                            1,s2..y 2-                                                                                                                                                                   _

2.. -

                                                                                                              '                t N4                                         '8
                        < IX7 IX a                                                                                                                                             '
                                                                    .f       a).-2.

sq M l N 52-T. r l F 7 c Mar w a p,, y T t am. (s 1 m m

                                                                                                                                           ~ '
                                                                                                                                                 \               I   E's 4:

N r , ge- :l " ="

                                                                                                                                                                         's                    a  c n
             ,.                                                       ,     am                                                                                       W
                            'Iva                                     2-4     . Pr@.                                                *2*N LNJ             Q Figure 4.D-1:

Earthquake. The Sylmar Converter Station, affected by the 1971 San Fernando l Average horizontal peak ground acceleration is estimated at 0.50 9 The response spectrum is represented by the nearest ground motion record taken at Pactoma Dam. The cable trays are located in the basement and suspended from the ceiling of the second floor of a 2-story steel frame building. Typical cable tray F(ffp> x- supports are Unistrut frames in trapeze configurations. Some supports are framed directly into adjacent concrete walls.

2 0. ,

                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~
                 ...                                                                                                                    n@st ' 11
                 ....                                                                                                                        s

, g - 3 . .. ..... _ we , s+.e= 'wa. N x 5 e .. . 5

           ~5 . .. .           .

7 rrrr:Yl e i

                                     .- . . .                                                                                                                                   'g ~~B
                                               ~. ,

ql,. .

                                                                                             ** - ' ' a                                                              co,,,,      ,

! tono. rte.. ** s .ua -

                                                                                                                                                                              ^    ~

{

                                                                                                                                                                                             ~
               ' " . ..           c.
                                                                                                                                  '.         /, '=>'.g;ggAwr                         1
                                                      '...n.

v

                                                                        ~

! n. >a . 23 . a* s , i x.u ,- - 3-

                                                             .~,imi                                                   ,,,

cogim,a \ sor . y sa s n 3 w ada 5

                                                                                                                                                  .iJ,L6
                                                                                                                                                                   .9                  8    '"
                                                                    '   l n    r 36" 5'

t a"Tra ys txi LX s g x / _4 12" um 1: w q p, ' . 1 l @% CEE N 12"

                                                  ,t        3       ,t sira Figure 4.0-2:

Earthquake. The Valley Steam Plant, affected by the 1971 San Fernando Average horizontal peak ground acceleration is estimated at 0.309 . The Orion 8224 response Blvd. spectrum is represented by the nearest ground motion record taken at s'F M S;f . second floors of an 8-story braced steel frame structure.The cable trays are suspended consist of light gauge steel members in framed and braced trapeze configurations.The cable tray s

                                                                                                                      . . . ~

v. --- -- , ,-

t oe . , e so e i so - e so. g ' to -

• to ceae.. see = ewas /

                                                                       --- -- uswec meo ovie, i so i o .o      .
                                ~                                                                                                   N/                   ---%

o so 4. ' y, =1g" ~ ..... % .

                                                                                                                                                                            ,.e,.,,,

set s

                                                  -                                                                 ~

coa.oeso o .o

                                                              --._                                                                                  mm
                                                                                                                                                         }(                 ey$'
      . so n                 -                  ,l.

10 * " * # '.' . . . e oo , os to io s is o ao s as o so o as o so o Feoowency (Hz)

                                    ,STEtt stau 4
               'F                                                                4                                                 ask r hm i x c5 ;

W g' r t,' r , , H ' r , 1 - i A A;

                                                                                ,e lt                           e        ,7                  '    '
  ,             < a x -a               i r-r x a M                                           .A                  R, 9*                                                                                       e                                                      <    ,               --

f m l awn I m' J )=%24 . H 12 d 'P e 000 UNs3TRUT Figure 4.0-3 Earthquake. The El Centro Steam Plant, affected by the 1979 Imperial Valley 0.429 . Average horizontal peak ground acceleration (measured at the site) is The cable trays are suspended from the ceilings of the first and second floors structure. boiler of 2-story steel frame buildings adjacent to the turbine building and j

  '{                                configurations.               The cable tray supports are Unistrut frame trapeze

i i r  : 4 - . , #.3. .

                                                                                                                                              .. ) hs                                         /e                 ,

! .  : 2. s  ; *V - '. '

                                                                                                                                                                                -f                 v
 !                                                   w-               p;               1 y           ~ ,.'
 \                                                    ~

h! . ( '. f f / l '_ V , . /.. l , b / , l / l 'jt .

                                                                                                                                                       ~                                  /
                                                                      .                                        .I                                    '
                                                                                                                                                       .                             /        '
                                                                                                                                                                                                 /

i

                                                                                                                 #                                                               /        /

o .. / , s

                                                                                                                                                                                      /

jj 1

                                                  . g! ;                                  t ,.                                                                           >

y.

                                                                     -                     s.         '.

l J_ . {. ' r_ , A'

                                                                                    ~

j i .

 'l I
                                                                                                                                                          /              .      1~
                                                                                                                                                                                       ^
                                                                                                                                                                                                   ,b          Yf'
 !                                                                                                            -N a
                                                                                                                                      ' gw +~~

l .s //. ,- l C .s . ,,. :

                                                                                                                               '                                                                                      ~

("Ch.i's l

                                                             . -m s . ~.

l S"Q. u - ' d(i l l

I s'-

l < :7 E?# I 1 i 1 i ! Figure 4.0-13: Data base cable tray configurations typically offer the i potential for seismic interaction (impact) with adjacent fixtures, such j as piping, at Las Ventanas Copper Refinery (upper photo), and conduit, ) at the Valley Steam Plant (lower photo). Seismic interaction has never ,' been a source of damage to cable trays in spite of dense configurations and flexible supports of piping, conduit, ducts, and cable trays in data j base facilities.

) j- ,if

                                                                                                                    . .                                 k
                                                               $:.?l:[? +yg ,. gz                             .
                                                                      ]g,                                '  ?%

T n T seJ V i l i - i I i 1 i 1 l b. i Figure 4.0-12: The complexity of typical data base catie tray configurations is illustrated at the El Centro Steam Plant (upper photo), and the Sylmar Converter Station (lower photo). i i l

i 1 l )

w. . .% W ( .

                                                                                                                                   ~

I >- ... i> l

                                                                                                        -                            ' ,          'y
                              .                                                                                                                 r Y ~C h ,. , -i,              . . . -

l t, . -N - g  ! (, ! 'l-

                        ~                            '

l . i <t

                                                   ~

1 1 l

                                                                               .-.........f                                 u u a aum_a

( - ,q E. \ [ j  ! 31 sii I mmm(

                                                                         ,%      I ::stJ        

i bJ_ J -- 3 : 66 1 l ll g..rp an Figure 4.0-11: The relative configuration of adjoining sections of cable trays affects the stiffness, and subsequently the response frequencies and mode shapes of the system. The angles of intersection of adjoining trays and the details of their connections affect the magnitude and direction of the loads imposed by one tray section on another. Examples of diversity in adjoining tray intersections are shown at Las Ventanas Copper Refinery (upper photo), and the El Centro Steam plant (lower photo). lkb t

1

                                                                                        'N?

[ , , ,-

• _ f. % ,

                                                         ', Q , f-
                                                         - 4/         / -
                                                 ~
                                 \                     -

_.M

                                               ~
                                            ~ . . - ..      s-
                                       ~~

l 3 d* i

                                .Q r_ '. . , Y

_ j.

                                                             'n ,

l i! 3, n

                                                                        . ~ s-
                                                                             'l? 4    ~
                                                                          '.                               ':)
                             *                                      'w'<                         r.

i

                                                                                           <~ -

y i

                                                                                                - ' ; .t_;     \
                     ,Ah f'
                           ; ,, : ; w . - --.
                                     .:h:?.-e'L" l

l

Figure 4.0-10

The extent of continuous runs of cable trays affects the stiffness of the system, and subsequently its response frequencies and mode shapes. Examples of extensive runs include the pole-mounted cable trays routed for over 300 feet through the power house access tunnel at i the Infiernillo Hydroelectric Plant, (upper photo). More extreme  !

examples are found at the neighboring SICARTSA Steel Mill (lower photo), ) where continuous runs of cable trays and piping, supported on racks extend up to a mile between different sections of the plant. l

y'.I, f t-f

          -.: fh,/ .
                                                .) ,sa.! .,7.,,' :4
                                                                                                                 < i g                                                 .. .y/1-p). :/_..'                                 ! . ,/
           .j l[i  _ ,f.',               .ftt
            . ..',n            /4
                                   .' a.   <
               '/                       s.

j -

                                                             .         t.                  )                                                                                                                                                      i
                                                  !                                          l-
                     %g                       . ..$4 /.,_                                    a 4                                                     . 1                       ,

i

                                                                           -Tw 3 q                    .
                                   ? ,.                                                             gW
                                                                                                                            'v.

n .: . i z . .. l Es

                                                                                            ' ' ~S

c. .

.::. a -

r.

                                                                                                                                                                                                            .)

f . ia:y;l;' f e:f 1 .

                                                                                                                                            \
                                                                                                                                                             . -; ~. . g,l .

1  ; s l

                                                   ~.
                                                   ,e                     .

j . l t .' .

                                                                                                     ; :. g
                                                                                                               ^
                                                                                                                                            - .r-

y. .. '. . .'+ pt;

                                                                                                                              .-~,                                                                                                                ,

f i'tT' :: 3':..  ;' / '

                                                                                                                                                                                       '                                 s        u.
     &                                                                                                                                              (-

Y'

.., ~ , ... . $ [.'!!lll,/. 'w' ' o l ' Ii 5.y.s.

                                                                                                                                            .~.
                                                       ~...                    .                                                            .
                                                                                                                                                   .,s                    -l               >                                               -

I7Z$ w o i. p.

s. '$a. .i . r, . _,

i - p j  :. - t , .;j .. .s.' :,. . .

• 3qyo:!

[ (r)M- P. ) (M s. m ' l

                                                                                                                            . D.;[x' y p'P.,-- m                        _
                                                                                                                                                                                             -N.           -. ' ,           ,

y' { . , -- h m . % %. :.

                                                                                                                                                                                                           . . . b .a l                                                                                                                                     7.            I       q,

('. Q, . 7.,

                                                                                                                                     ~

I

                                                                                                                                                                                               *\s i.' vn...-

l

                                                                                                                                                                                                          ,y l

l-h $~, F. a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ~h    >.
                                                                                                                                                                          . g , ft .                              -s l                                                                                                                                                 >

l ' ' s >1 -

                                                                                                                                                       ,._- -                                               ~ y 's                               I

\ t A

                                                                                                                                                >T ' >;q._.
                                                                                                                                                                          }f
                                                                                                                                                                                         ))= .'_'
                                                                                                                                                                                               ,         . s     ? .R                            ;

h $ \f. i figure 4.0-9: Typical support internal connections at the Sylmar Converter Station (upper photo) and at Seabrook Station (lower photo).

h. .l=.b .

I l l 5

                                                                                       }'
               **g.       (                                    _

1:' j. I g *: , j _i J-e .i

                                                                                          .       rt I
                       \ .\q '?-                                                  >
                ..~.      c:                       :1        -. _ _ .                        i
                                                                                                   .a
                             ,, \-
                                                        \         g            Q^'                $                       ['
                                     \'-                  ,       s-            g,                 ,
                                                                                                          .       .v Mb               W                 '
                                                                                            . r;.;)
                                                                                          ....>                        ;7~

(n

                                   ~

.; .hr ,.

s. .

fy (

               .Z' '                         .
                                                                                         ' /
                                        .?,

(* . - '.J- .

l,. '.

j -; y -.- (. , i

                    \
                                                        -iW
                                                                              . : if,\ i l.
                                                                                                             ,e
                                                                                               - f,                    ..-.

i Figure 4.0-8: At data base sites, such as El Centro Steam Plant (upper ', photo), cable tray supports are typically attached to overhead wide-flange beams using friction clips. At Seabrook Station, supports are ! typically anchored ',o overhead beams by welded connections or with a

      " boot" connection (lower photo).

9

l l l l

                                                                         . w                .,e           w e'{
                                                                                                                   -f. '

j

                                                            * ' '*,.sp                                        e
                                                                                                                             -Q.
                                                                                         .~.. r >l 9.l                     -

1,

                                                                                                                                                                  'g    ,,j

- l- 's. i-

                                                                             ; *- s c~): 7                                                                       r j; y, . . -)        .
                                                                                                                                                                ~/'                                               ,
                                                      .               ;r -..                   -f                                                    . .p -

ii

                                                    ', W 4                g
                                                                                                                                                           ,n W Nh..                                 <- $ -e c. 4 T S r...                   '
                                                   .'.4                v . /                                                                           -
                                                                                                                                 . -. .Q,.l g- Q_ _. .,

s .- l h' { >

                   ,s
                              ^

j yy, .m c,, q~

                                                   ,$,:.* . 3 ;                                       .

.( .

                                          ,M 3S QN

• k. l l && ,~ %. -

                                                                                               * ^^          '

4 '1 l

              ~.Q...~Q~;%>%       .

1 '

                                      **~. 4.a.s-v%
                                            . q;%                                                                   :
                                                                                                                   ..t)           ,s
               -l .__,.rp             y ~ *'".'[_.W :                                                   .           ' [

• I. 0 -

                   ,~-                g *, ' '.Pfi;jy s                                                         %)*            -
                                                                                                                       ,s                          ,
                                                                                 .~em                                  ,yh,/),                     {

e. ..

c.e , figure 4.D-7: At data base sites, such as the Drop IV Hydroelectric Plant (upper photo), cable tray supports are typically anchored to concrete ceilings using expansion anchors. At Seabrook Station, supports are typically anchored through a " boot" connection or bolted to embedded steel channel in the concrete ceiling (lower photo).

                                                                                                                                                                                               .. ., : y.u        ,

• I l i . . cm!I'3 a

i e

                                                                                                                                                                                                                \
                                                           ,E J , ~'r. ;*~.:' W @%u&,. ,,t t.g. s 1.

j .

                                                                                                                      . e t *T
                                                                                                          .f. .

i

                                                                                                                              . yn 5-[ _

D

                                                                                                                                                                                              ,                 i l

1 t - l l

                                                                                                                        .f***'".
                                                                         ?                                                                       - ' '

t 1

                                                                                                                                   ~/ -

f _ i .44 , l

                                                                                                      .~              7 A .4                        .

s/w -N 13;'

                                                                                           . pr'                               ,.

g ._ M'

                                                                                                                           .&                              1 - -
                                                                                                                                                                                    ^]

l

                                                                                                                                                            .-                 -u
                                                                                     .K 5 g
                                                                                 - a ~ ,:. >

j g> '

                                                                                                      ~
                                                                 .                  wl . . 4 '                 .

l,,.2 *. \. 7 ' i I ' i i /- i l

                                                                                                      .I p,                                             ,                     s
                                                                                                                                                                               ~

4 2 '

                                                                                                               ~
                                                                                                            ? h ,.                                             )y
                                                                                                                                                                .h

} i

                                                                                                            .;_3'<          .,
                                                                                                                                                               * *;t.f

! -...., ....s . i ,:'. Y,.+.O Y

                                                                                                      .c. n .p
                                                                                    -w.

E*ig, N - t Figure 4.D-6: Typical floor-to-ceiling, cantilevered cable tray supports at the Saugus Substation (upper photo) and El Infiernillo Dam (lower photo). l l l l l - -- g FFE M Es 1

                                                                                                            ~~~

f s

                                            ',,,,a-      sas' a-as.

b e-s

                                          .kb'           ,

f .- , w l Ei-

                                                                          ' ..."h-1 n
                                                         }y3.T l

l A 7t: 4- - 3 ' d' I i e1 I l l a 5 a

                                                                                                              .                 ?,.'                q j
                                                                        , J
                                                                                                         - 4 .f 4 33rr-awq
                                                                        . -};
               'I ~

Ik6W.%,y

                     .:     M-j                               ': .
                                                                                                            \ . , :k kh r
                                                            ,9;                                                       .;,_             y;g,;g
                                                                                                                                ~ . .rai av               n t             'g          t y Af f . .i                                  ;

i J.,

                     # .;  / :j             .-       :                                                             y,'k                _* g' 1b       i'-   g,' , :                        ;
                                                                                                                      'z
                      #    *.I,.s]7 5:e ,4                         -
                                                        . f                                                            ) >',g,1.
                                                                                                                       ..,s, ^
                                                                                                                                         !.d h : h ,h-[                                    l l                                                                    ~
                          . El ~ ~
                                    ' 4 d..: m
                                                                        ~                                       -

9 . S

                                                                                                                        ;j$5 $?!G6hpi-k                                          .j .;f.j

f"y'.

                                          ^
                            . , . .             ....8                     ..

i... ., 3 -. Figure 4.0-5: The experience data base contains examples of both T-configuration (Valley Steam Plant-upper photo) and L-configuration (Rapel Hydroelectric Plant-lower photo) cantilever bracket, cable tray supports.

                                                                                                                                                                             .   ^5'
                                                                                                                                                                    ,'   ,, d**

ii

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

                                                                                                                  ~
                                                       -                                                 .kl.kl     lllNNl
                                                             .s
                                                                                                                      .9          iW

l i l l,  ! 4 I!OK 1 l

                                     . . - _ _ - . . - ,, e r m                                                    i k$ff                                            -

l l l 92-;w., l .. , l l l l Figure 4.D-4: Data base cable trays range from almost empty to over 100% full, as shown by El Centro Stea- Plant (upper photo) and La Villita Hydroelectric Plant (lower ph{to).

                                                                                                                                                        . hkb.h

r 1 2.00 - ~ 1.8 0 -- 1.60 - ylmar Converter Station 1.4 0 - - I Centro Steam Plant abrook Station SSE Valley Steam Plant 1.20 - . urbank Power Plant g } Humboldt Bay Power Plant v La Villita Hydroelectric Plant

                 =

o 1.00 -- f 2 I

                 $ 0.80 -- \ Ij(

8 [4 y' ,,

                                 ,      i
                                                            ~

4 0.60 -- / 0.40 - 1

                                                                                'M' - ' - -   -
                                                                                                    =,.

0.2 0 -- j

                                 /                                    /                                              __-   ------__-.

l l 0.00  :  : l l  !  !  ; l 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 Frequency (Hz) Figure 4.0-14: Range of data base seismic ground motion response spectra

                                      '       superimposed upon the Seabrook Station SSE (USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 Spectrum with PGA 0.259).                                                   -
                                                                                                                       .}}