ML20202B159
| ML20202B159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1982 |
| From: | Patankar D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18052B537 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8607100221 | |
| Download: ML20202B159 (124) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:I w e ; v(~ 1 W ANCHE PEAK SEISMIC II.TERACTIOi CRITERIA REV,1 FREPAEATIOi COORDIIRTED BY:
\-
D C M 'M i AFFFCAD BY: 8607100221 860630 i
=
PDR FOIA GARDE 85-59 PDR cc-at,9
r- 3
- e CDWl;GE PEAK SEISMIC DTSRACTION CRITERIA 11/10/82 SECTIC:1
- 1. C'1%VtIC IMPACT DM9GE CRITERIA Source (Piping & Conduit) on Target (Safety Ielated Ccaponent/
Intervening Memoers)
- 2. PAI*.UPE MCOE AND exrru ANALYSIS (FMEA)
- 3. SOCFCE PIPI'33 STRESS ANALYSIS Hand Analysis I.
II. Cen:puter Analysis
- 4. SCGCE CCNCUIT STRESS ANALYSIS
- 5. SCGCE HANGER STFISS A'EYSIS
~
I. Piping II. Conduit
- 6. TI_32E'" FAC. STPSSS ANALYSIS I. Piping II. Conduit III. Cable Tray
- 7. SOUFCE EC"IPETr SUPPORT CPlTERLA
- 8. PEFERENCES
CD%NCHE PEAK SEISMIC IlmCTICN CRITERIA SECTION - 1 DYNAMIC IMPACT CAMAGE CRITERIA Based on Engineering Judgement applied on a mse by case basis the followire criteria delineates acceptable interactions. f
'1) Targets of equal or larger diameter and tnic' m In this regard, heat e::enangers are censidered .
recorded. large diameter heavy wall pices, HVAC ducts andpipes Sin wall electricall trays are considered to be thin wall pipes. l or their ecuivalents are censidered to be damaged. (2) Intervening u.npents such as structural nea:bers, supcortsu steel, and/or other adequately , ively shield the target frm the murce and would not permit contact. ( 3) The source can not free fall through a large enough distance to develcp sufficient marientun for damaging the target. (4) te source cannot impact the target witnout striking an intervening ccm;:enent first, and would have insufficient man-entum to damage the target. (5) We source cannot impact the target squarely and hence glances off causing no damage. (6) We source pipe / conduit is perpendicular to the target cable trxf and cannot come in direct contact with the cab the tray. (7) Se source impacts the cable tray sides tut will not affect the cables within the tray deleteriously. (8) ne target u.wsnt is sufficiently massive to resist damage frm the source. (9) Se impact, if any, is not considered to cause unacceptable damage because target is 6" or more above the source. I
SECTICti - 2 FAILURE bt'DE AMD EFFECT ANALYSIS (FMEA)
- 1. FMEA is performed bf mechanical, electrical, I&C and hvAC engineers, as required, with strong background on system and equipment function-al design and operating requirements.
- 2. We FNEA is based on requirements and comitments in system descriptions, component specification, plant tecv.ical specifica-ticas, FSAR, emergenc f operating procedures and calculaticns that acoly during and after the occurence of the SSL takinc into con-sideration the plant conditions postulated wnen the 555 cccurs:
a) 'Ibtal loss of outside power b) Ioss of function of all ron-seismic Systems c) Single active failure
- 3. We FMEA is applied to nuclear safety related syste-s and/or cmponents to show that their safety function is not required during, '.
or af ter, the seismic event or that the safety function is not ' reduced to an unacceptable level by the dynamic impact of a failed source.
- 4. Systems and cesepenents whose safety function is ret recuired during, or after the sei=ic event, or is not reduced to unacceptable levas, are eliminated as targets genetically or en a case bf case basic.
- 5. Some of the systems wnere the FMEA can be applied' generically are:
Waste disposal (Liquid and Solid), Baron recycle and Sampling systems. FMEA can ce applied on a case bf case basis to camponents such as valve coerators and associated control and power circuitry where the valve is locked closed, or open, during normal plant operation and is ret required to operate during, or following the seismic event. l l l l
O S-~"ICN - 3 SCURCE FIP2X3 STRESS ANALYSIS - PRD AND CM'UIER A hand analysis will ce performed in case of short pipe runs of simple configuration, while long pipe runs of ccznplex configuration will be analysed by computer. I. 19LND ANALYSIS
- 1. mieling - We source pipe will be nodeled to represent a tortion of p we in the vicinity of target to sucn an extent that dynamic effect of tne excluded section are negligible.
- 2. Analysis - De following analyses will be perfecned -
(a) weignt analysis. (b) Seismic analysis - This analysis will be performed in the following steps - (1) te fundamental frequencies of the pipe segments in the transverse and vertical directions will be calculared based en the existing support spacing. Se flexibility of existing supports will be included in calculating the natural frequencies. (ii) Frem the fundamental frequencies calculated in stepti) abce, SSE seismic respnse accelerations will be obtained, using a#riate floor response spectrum curves, considerinc participation of ' higher frequency nodes, if fundamental frequencies are below the resonance frequency of the floor. (iii)Se seismic accelerations will be applied statically on the pipe to calculate the pipe stresses and support loads. We maximum stress limit for the load combination of pressure, wight, and seismic loads shall be 2.4 sh where Sh is, basic material allowable stress at design temperature as per ANSI B31.1. II. COMPtJIER ANALYSIS
- 1. .wleling - h e source. pipe will be modeled to represent a portion of the line in the vicinity of the target to sudi an extent that the dynamic effects of excluded sections are negligible. mis may require, extending the model beyond compartment boundaries and even into the seismically supported zone.
SECCICN - 3 SCURCE PIFE STFISS MALYS!S - HMD ED M,7R (Continued)
- 2. Analysis - Following analyses will be performed -
(a) Weight & pressure analysis.
'Ite (b) Seismic analysis - Only SSE analysis will be perfomed.
- mximen stress imit f:r; loading combination of weight, pressure and seis.1: leads will ce 2.4 Sh wnere Sh is stress as described in " ".
u (c) Differential seismic displacements of two buildi.ms s. llstress M.axi::un be considered wnen pipe spans thru te buildings. limit will be 1.5 Sn (Sn = as described in "I"). r I I 4 9
t . 4 l SECTICH - 4 SCURCE C?tEIT eM NGMS*S harxi calculations Single configuration condait runs will be analysed bfStructural adegaacy of source for loading M ination of Deadicad + SSI. conduit will be verified and loads at existing non-seismic supports will be obtained. Allowable stresses in conduits will be as follows -
- 1. Allowable fle:: ural (Ft) r.d =ial tensile (Pt) stresses = Tb = Ft =
1.6 (0.6?,. P f 8
, --- e n - ,,-w
t SEC:'!CN - 5 SOURCE HANGER STRESS ANALYSIS I. PIPING: (a) Seismic Supports: Existing seis;nic supports will be evaluated urder tte conditions - (i) Pipe is assumed to have failed between two existing seismic supcorts rew% (Dead Ioad + S3E) at existing seismic supcort will be ctrnputed by considering broken pipe segment as a ccam cantileverim frm the seismic succort. Support will then ce ch?ched fcr ccmbination of new loads a r3 criginal emer7enef - Iavel desian loads, or if analysis of pipe run indicates tna , pipe failure will not occur, existing supports will be decked for newloads resulting frm the analysis using loading comoina-tion of Dead Load + SSE. (ii) If failure of the pipe is not acceptable and pipe is regaired to be supported to resolve interaction - pipe rm between two ,. seisuic supports will then be analyspf for loading ocunbinations of Dead Load + SSE + Pressure and Ioads @ Seismic Support wilL be cnec.ted for ccmbination of new loads and originsi energon:j level design loads. A new seismic support can ce added if regaired by the pipe stress analysis. (b) Deadweignt hangers: Existing deadweight hangers will be evaluatedi New teen pipe is regaired to be supported to resolve interact on. loads en these hangers will be obtained by analysis of pipe run between two existing seismic sucports for loading ccrnbination of Dead Load + Pressure + SSE. Allowable stresses for above supports in (a) & (b) will be as follows -
- 1. Allowable flexural (Eb) and axial (Ft) tensile stresses = Pb=Ft=
1.6 (0.6Pf)
- 2. Allowable shear (Fv) stress = Fv= 0.5 Fy), dere Fy = Yield Stress of material.
- 3. Allowable Compressive (Fa) stress - Fa= 1.3 x P'a dere F'a=
Allowable Compressiw stress as per AISC spec.
- 4. Allowable Welding Stress - Fw= 1.6xfw, dere fw= allowable welding stress as per AISC spec.
I ,,,
- 5. Allowable Stresses on bolP.d connections - (Structural Bolts) I :.
(1) Allowable tensile stress = 0.9Fy (ii) Allowable shear stress = 0.5Fy, where Fy = Yield Stress of bolt material. Tensile stress area of bolt will be used to determine allowable tension and shear loads on bolt. i l 1 l
# =
SECTICN - 5 5"UBCE HANGER STRESS ANALYSIS (Cbntinued) 0:mbined shear and tension relationship for bolts - z . .:
,Ta ,
va . b1, where T = Applied 'Iension on bolt. Ta = 7dlowable Tension on bolt. V = Applied shear en bolt. Va = idlowable shear on tolt.
- 6. Hilti Kwik bolts will be evaluated as per spec.SS-30, using a safetj factor of 4.
conduits will be evaluated Ccnduits: Non seismic sumus en sour for leading cc=bination of Dead Load + SSE. Idlowacle stresses for II. structural ocuponents of supports will be as described for sourca - _- pipe supports in (I) above. 4 I
O SECTION - 6 TARGE'r HANGER STRESS ANALYSIS PIPIIE: fM on existing target pipe hangers at emergency condition will be contined with impact loads due to source failure. Resultant I. stresses will then be checxed as per allowables for emergency condition stipulated by ASME % Section III Subsection NF and FSAR Section 3.9B.I.4. II. C21DUTIS: Inads cri existing target conduit supports at emergency condition will be czbined with impact loads due to source failure. Resul. ant stresses will then be checked as per allowable stresses for Etergency Loading Cmbination of Dead Load + SSE in FSAR Section 3.8.4.3. III. CABIE TRAYS: Target Cable tray support Loading Cmbination and Allowable Stress Criteria will be same as that for Target Conduit Support, describ-ed in II, above.
~
t 4 SECTION - 7 SOUICE EQUIPMENT SUFFORT CRITERIA Supports of all source equianent for wnich unacceptable interactions have bean identified wdl be analysed to ensure structural integrity during SSE, 9 so that the equipment as a whole remains in place. If the analysis fails to i~ demonstrate the stability and structural integrity of the source equipment I support in its installed condition, the minium necauary supports arxl I restraints will be designed as required. be following guidelines will be applied for the verification of the stability and structural integrity of source equipnent: A. Overturnim is not considered capaole of occurirs if the distance frcrn the case to the center of gravity is less than 1/2 the least base width, and the sm of the applicable horizontal and vertical "g" values is less than one. mis conservatively ignores the presence of rold-down bolts. B. If the criteria acove does not demonstrate stability against over+ ming, -' the field team can evaluate stability as follows: Considerirs the approximate weight of the equipnent, the location of the CG and 1.5 times the peak horizontal and vertical "g" values (from SSE 3 percent floor response spectra) a simple hand calculation can be rade to dett- nine adequacy of the hold cbwn bolts with an acceptance criteria of 70 percent of the bolt ultimate strength. Such a calculation can then be used as a basis of comparison with similar equipnent of cxparable parameters. Por suen similar cases, engineerirg judgement based on such a exparison can be used as a basis of acceptance. C. If neither "A" nor "B" above demonstrates stability, the following procedure shall be as follows:
- 1. Equipnent with simple conficurations can be o.nsidered as single-degree-of-freedczn systems for Miich the fundamental frequency will be calculated based on the total weight con-centrated at the center of gravity, and the stiffness of the supports and equipnent structure. Obtain spectral "g" values frczn tre applicable ficor response spectra corresponding to the calculated frequencies and increased by a factor of 1.5 to cover the multi-node participation effects.
- 2. We horizontal and vertical seismic loads calculated above will be cernbined with dead weight in the most critical way to calculated maximum overturning noments and pullout and shear forces at the foundation.
.* w
- s ,
6 SECTICN - 8 REFERDCES:
- 1. CPSES FS.E
- 2. G&H SPEC SS-3C
- 3. ;SME CDDE, 74 EDITICN
- 4. 143I B31.1
- 5. AISO QCE 71H EDITICN
~
,% f ,,
'3 hz/73
/
s Corner & Lada program for base plates. Mr. Yost's statement that the program assumes rotation about the center of attachment is correct, but it is also a ore m conservative method of analysis because it
-P represents a larger flexibility in the plate than actually exists. '
His implication that a higher rigidity exists is also correct, but if g [ analyzed as such, it w.,uld re< ult in less conservative results. This method of rigid analysis w uld represent the center-line moment as a a tension / compression couple which would reduce the plate prying action. This would, in turn, result in a smaller Mr. bolt pull-out load i and thus result in a less conservative analysis. Yost's concern is, therefore, considered without merit.
- d. ADLPIPE Conputer Program s-Mr. Yost raises a concern that, "The so-called rigorous pipe analysis is a theoretical computer program, which to my knowledge, has never been validated," (see hearing transcript at page 4853). During an inspection at the G&H !!ew York engineering office, the NRC inspector reviewed the documentation supporting the benchmark verification of the ADLPIPE computer code. The verification of the ccde was performed in acccrdance with GLH Engineering and Design Erocedure tio. EDP-10, Revision 2, " Control snd Development of Computer Programs."
During the inspection, the NRC inspector was shown a letter (
Reference:
E- chmark verification of the Piping Computer Code ADLPIPE-3C, dated b e 12, 1980) sent to Arthur D. Little i Inc. (developer of ADLPIPE) fr ;m the Division of Engineering of !aC s Office of Nuclear Reactor l
.) Reculation, wherein the !GC staf f f end acca tele 2:r' ! nent with the piping benchmark probit :s gec,crat3d to =suk 1:at t .s w putsr code t
i 4 c' will calculate displa ..:nt erd force respex es of piping n systems
. . i r.g the c .dal J "'- subjected to multi-dir- ti_nalr, seis.ic ucitat'
' ; _ h r ? ,+> 7-..i f 7 d in Rm;ui;tcry superpes' ion /resprsr , sct: .ts in r u:fe 1. W , "C,: Li. N N1 ' ,
-u: S :tial C n ,e by t',' GC c. J f ms of .c.e
~
f ai d e P g cm e ' .21, 's." This 1
.'.H ; v;cnse to IE 3eilet 'n ';o.19 -07, "f :is ;ic St. x s S alysis of l
Sufety-Related Fiping." As a resuit ;de of their % ction, Mr. Yest's for the eruic st::ss 'nalysis
. mccrn with the MLPIPE c; puter 1 ._f ,iping syst u s is unicurfed. ,
- d. Ee'saic Spectra Mr. Yest stated that the se'smic response spectra generated for the Ccn nche Peak plant was nonrepresentative and had poor agreement with the Uniform Euilding Ce/e. The sei aic analysis techat , es used by t
the licensee are pres 3nted in t:: $5fety Analysis hpart and were previcusly rsv' s d by the h?.C staff. During this ir gect.ico, the i i P !GC ins, ector r;vic.od the accelerstion v2.las ci.an..axies in thef G&H rom
,s
/ -
piping cesign s,a cification *!o. "S-200.
<tWd. ;ir . ing p: =ctice for.sSe ;.'.e e
';o disc et' n e.
c of saismic accelera- {'bd With r.,;eet tc
- - t aii - t A cra .,
't '. _
' ,i ' ; ,' 3 , 5 t. .: -
{ ' that, although not applicable to the design of nuclear plants, if
. compared to the design techniques utilized at Comanche Peak it is 4 much less conservative. Mr. Yost's concern is unfounded.
s
- e. Interface Between Class 3 and 5 Lines Mr. Yost expressed concern that supports for Cla'ss 5 lines adjacent to Class 3 lines could fail and cause a chain reaction resulting in
[' the failure of theesafety-related Class 3 lines. The Class 5 designa-A tion is used to identify those ,non-nuclear safety-related piping h lines which are located in seismic category I structures. During is 0 this inspection, it was verified that based on specific routing a G&H fg damage study has determined the impact of all Class 5 lines larger than 2 inches for their capability to reduce the functioning of seismic category I systems and components as required by Regulatory 3{ Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification." The design technioues_ e utilized for the design of supports at the interface between class 4 d ~ designations on the same line were also reviewed. Since there is an d unknown contribution from the Class 5 segment on the Class 3 supports,
' two supports in the Class 5 segment are included in the Class 3 02 design. In addition, the rest of the Class 5 line is represented by utilizing the maximum dead weight span recommended in the ASME Code along with the peak acceleration of the response spectra.
The resultant loads are then superimposed on the last supports. This analysis is performed for.each axis and was verified by the NRC inspector for analysis No. SI-1-RB-41 of the Safety Injection System and analysis No. WP-X-AB-084 of the Waste Processing System. The analysis techniques were found to be consistent with good engineering practice. Mr. Yost's concern is without merit.
- 3. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings ;
- a. The following unresolved and open items identified in Report 50-445/82-26; 50-446/82-14 were reviewed during this inspection:
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-445/8226-01; 50-446/8214-01): Bending l Stresses in Richmond Bolts - On March 22, 1983, the NRC inspectors j witnessed the licensee's testing of Richmond inserts to determine the 1 effect of a loading mechanism that models the actual configuration l used at Comanche Peak. The actual configuration incorporates a l 1-inch thick washer which was thought to introduce a bending moment in the bolt which might adversely influence the load displacement characteristics originally assumed. The result of the tests indicate that even at a load equivalent to a factor of safety of 3.3, suf-ficient ductility in the bolt does not lead to failure. The design factor of safety utilized for this analysis is based on the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Code allowable of 17.67 Kips in shear as opposed to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
l
!*w.
t I SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC ANALYSIS FOR SMALL BORE PIPING DESIGN AT CWANGE PEAK The nomographic method used in Simplified Seismic Analysis for Small Bore l Piping Design at Comanche Peak Plant is based on the Equivalent Static Load i Method (Reference 1).
'Ihe nomograph was developed based on the assumptions proposed by J. D.
Stevenson in Reference 2. The analyses are performed assuming maximum seismic stress anowable, Sh equal to 0.6 Sh which results from a 1.2 Sh allowable (Eq. 9 for Class 2 and 3, ASME Code) minus an allowable of 0.1 Sh for dead load and 0.5 Sh for pressure. l A multiplier usually is required to account for multidegree of freedom response of the system over the single degree of freeds system approach. - In an article (Reference 3) by J. D. Stevenson and W. S. LaPay, several -. typical pipe support configurations have been analyzed rigorously and then compared to simplified results where the peak of the floor response spectrum acceleration has been applied. It was concluded that:
" Alternatively, uniformly loaded multiple spans and single span fixed end beams can be represented as a single span simply supported beam to detennine the maximum bending moment at the cqnter of the span, and use a moment coefficient equal to 0.1 wl' to detennine maximum moments at the inter-mediate supports. In such representations, as is obvious from Table 4, a 1.0 multiplier could also be used with the unifonnly distributed static load assumption.
It should also be understood that the application of a constant response spectrum is an extremely conservative assumption, since for real design cases the frequency range of peak response is usually quite limited. Therefore, only a limited number of modes can be responding to peak accelera-tions. In addition, in many instances, the dominate modes of the piping system will fall outside the region of peak response. It is obvious from the results of comparisons on real piping systems, the shape of the response spectmm and, in particular, large regions of non resonance response can have a significant effect in reducing the resultant seismic stresses reported in this paper, hence act to lower the multiplier coefficients given in Table 4 even further." The mode of the continuous pipe span is excited so that inertia loads in l alternate spans have opposite sign. This moment can approach that of a , sunply supported beam. M = 0.125 W Gs l 1 F01A-85-59 dd- A7/
4 Page 2. M = maximum bending moment in pipe W = dead weight of the pipe (1bs/ft) 1 Gs = the effective seismic coefficient is taken equal to (Gx2 + Gy2 + gz2 ) /2 expressed in gravities. L = span length between supports (ft) allowable stress = 0.6 Sh. . sd Sh Z 1/2 (ft) P-12, Ref. 1 L = 2.19 ( 12 Gs W ) Sh = basic material allowable stress at temperature as defined by Code (psi). Z = elastic section modulus (in3) , It can be concluded that the nomographic simplified seismic analysis for Comanche Peak is adequately conservative. 4
References:
- 1. "A Simplified Method for Design and Analysis of Small Size Piping",
Rev. 5, Gibbs 6 Hill, Inc., 1982
- 2. Stevenson, J. D. , " Seismic Design of Small Diameter Pipe and Tubing For Nuclear Power Plants", Paper No. 314, Presented at 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, 1973
- 3. Stevenson, J. D. and LaPay, W. S., " Amplification Factors to be Used in Simplified Seismic Dynamic Analysis of Piping Systems",-Paper 74-NE-9, Presented at the Pressure' Vessel and Piping Conference, Miami Beach, June, 1974
- 4. Corban, C. I. and Veiss, C., " Nomograph for Simplified Seismic Analysis Based on Allowable Stress Limit", Paper No. K12/11, Presented at the 6th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor
- Technology, Paris, France, 1981 I
l
.y . 48G3 s
9 The hanger design criteria for nuclear power 1 plants has had little change over the past three years in terms of state of the art. Ilowe ve r , there have been many 3 design criteria changes at Comanche Peak due to changes in supervision (some new ones had little or no hanger 9 design experience) and effort to update current criteria. 3 6 e The loads for hanger design have come from { n 7 r y piping analysis which has had many changes at Comanche , 8 d Peak over'the last three years. The so-called rigorous - c 9 p pe ana ys s s a theoretical computer program, which to 10 3 $ d my knowledge, has never been validated. f E O- This rigorous or exact program is not exact jf g 12 I fn 13 and should have another title because there are errors in E 14 the results due to human input and accuracy of the pro-Y
! 15 9#^**
- 16 One input area for this program can result in-
,e
/
g 37 directly in bad designs for many hangers. I believe there 18 are input errors and bad results at Comanche Peak. Other E 19 piping analysis methods for hanger loads besides rigorous 1 20 analysis have been used at Comanche Peak, which are: 21 EDS Alternate Stress Analysis and Simplified Pipe 22 Analysis. 23 The Simplified Pipe Analysis also had its
! I 24 j changes or growing pains over the last three years. I h 25 l do not know of any piping analysis errors which will cause g
T r= - LDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. i .
v
- . l 48G.1 l
failures when the plant is started or at seismic con-10 1 ditions. I 2 The seismic spectra for Comanche Peak were 3 produced with computer analysis which included a theoreti-4 cal model of the plant structure. No one knows how well
; e 5
'; 6 these analyses represent the response of the structure, so s 6 h I compared some spectra peaks with the Uniform Building I 7 n
Code Methods and obtained very poor agreement, such as, 8 8 O a minimum of a factor of 4.5 difference for horizontal c 9 d conditions and a factor of over nine for vertical con-F E
= 10 a ,
3 ditions which represents the peak of the response s 1 5 11 Y < s l spectra.
= 12 x
5 Since these spectra are input into the piping j 13 analysis for pipe stress and hanger loads, their failure l
= 14 b to be accurate affects the quality of all rigorous E 15 a
- analyzed pipe and their hangers.
. 16 There are Class 5 lines adjacent to Q lines gl i
C b which have hanger designs which will in my judgment fail 18 Is under seismic conditions. Failure of the Class 5 line j9 X 20 hangers could cause a chain reaction resulting in failure 00 d However, when these adjacent 7; of the Q line hangers. l i lines are on the same hanger, they both have 0 hanger 22 g 23 designs. 24 The design criteria at Comanche Peak should not be always in the state of change, or how can quality 25 f i I 1 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
w I
. . 46G5 be controlled when the original desicn criteria are void -11 ; ,
a d deleted? 2 In many ases a design is marked revision 07 3 M. A I zero to do away with all records of earlier designs. 0; 4 4 saying at the plant is: "We don't have time to design e 5 5 right, but we have time to do it over." h e 6i r i f The primary reason I was laid off was that I 7 3 - was burnt out (meaning that I was too old) from the S 8, - y 9 supervision point of view. .
~i Your statement will JUDGE MILLER: Thank you.
h 10
~
z E also be made part of the record. z 11 d Is there anyone else who has requested -- and d 12 z 13 l! I see that it's about 8:30, which was the time that we I k
= \
$ 14 [ had allocated this morning.
T= ' l 15 ' I think there has been a request for possibly E 5 16 one limited appearance this afternoon. s v. H 17 MS. MINTON: Tomorrow afternoon. G h 18 JUDGE MILLER: Oh, is it tomorrow afternoon?
=
19 Was there more than one request? 1 l 20 MS. MINTON: No. 2I JUDGE MILLER: _All right. We have then pending I
' 22 one request for a limited appearance statement tomorrow 23 y a f ternoon , which we will attempt to work into our 6
1 24 l schedule . I 25 l This will conclude the appearances this morning 1 A L D E R.~' REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
*g%
lk 'l b $0. 2 _ i Ab-?b f.G/ //r./ 77/4" is/ & /fG /.' pts.xx
- - n - o - ~~ .
Wt/ h/6fff% /Wrd (< / A ' Ah!AAc,-o o~ A <a - /-. - ~ u-~,,,~ ?~, ,
~
f W M*fd Ce y/ s ry M & : AC, s t.
/ E~f//~ A S /$/fle- & f/f /=3,
/10 ?7 /% v/fu '
f'~/s/4.- PM 3.?A/ T3dd r c5 /S /=67A/7s s~.ps<<6 4
- 3. 2& S -> L 7/5-m 3 5 sg -z i
/ s. u -c72 5 '/'S -+'o ~j. 2/3 - 7& A 3 7s o -n J
N h, f fso Asv ff*6 6'/'AC Tl Z ), /. 6 l, .
/ (90 m,w.
na es - s. n n, r w e , w* F0lk-85-59 . coats t
. w ;
~
r r .g . I k i W E Y 'hZ/ '/) M'Y *V V/ tf(f V b / $ '
- s. n w s cgy, p 7 ai O w, '
n s.s <-> gm c-ao ;
& 2.,)+2 9 0 'rs.si>cdc45 A W#6 wog '
cvcxwy ;yt/ Sw< sA's Asw".3ir9/,/p ,
- =
l f lY $- a r. , rm sA's -2 ~ wsn v.si-~ ~) + wp5 J't
~
~
>o
/ Wy/.4 5 P / ? 4* 5ds' S M;47Af./y9
' ~
~ ~
" art /S
~SO Sw 3 sa dJ T Z d '1t w ss 2// o 2 $
3* n u M d/ y" ss> c c's <s#'> ;w/ 5 V %'S'y 9
/ Cc/_Sf ? =. SP/cs x V4 r?"M A9P N' Arp7 5 -
/ */ f */// CW9 ]7/}/> t (a/wt)Jc2d ',4 O c/') a29 J5^
^
_V7f.s ht/
"d <'V n e v o.'sst; *w&ktsyyy 1/.9ni ~
y sg, . ;
~
~54 / WT&c/ C/ rutj ~V J- f/ gf .?/si c/30/ 77 m/s 5Hil U.) , ~
n'w P z ss 7wss s0 r: C 'l2r> y m9/spp
/o
$ l$WW V / // / Yg;//dl/ $ f) /N / kf g- -
l l k i -
. w i
a g \
+
. e a
Psto#sArt cs m /s 7;*s y c1/m .-z y - Pt,P <" S/ g,S e Sc p~ s,,,ur,,s s / aw risu , . ~
. % nu <ye, ir M W cc o s y ns.c Fc.uc /A & c 6 5Mcrm fn 0445 /sL s dis,< situ 6 i.oc.s W &ssais, rww - .
77s & s. M A +c w ou,c cx /Vi /s to u - . 4 9 8 f,h #s) *
/s! OG Cow en ,,u psse 7,w , /14ams, ,
co u r w e,s / <c- ros s/n dv .<m _ _ _ _ .
.I o L = 1/Cb /Gs , Co = [C5 wm i X '= a s v& nsuy w& /m- nv- d/
// b/.:.J,/) cy&6ff Sem ( 3 4 r5 6 -> co#w ',
c es s-es ,w .o < wesc. oc = 0.75'N - l S)] ,,,1~ s1 i s ? n . , ,,, n ,- o - u , = 0. o z
? b. Sf ~~ OP~ r 6/M3 Afd CW Cuc,J.y @ 9 M
- I.E5' 42 Nh l- Oh, % M N7s en ose gV w l* 6v hv b ACL='t.-/9 6// retr 9~
f6,L g rym g,,y ,f,, ,,,3 _ [gg cg ,,,(p,,_,, 7x, - - W /) tt./Gr,+r e as ss 9 A+s k.)c, za
- S S $Ul.' Y O* SNC. H, t,/
l b W(W.- lW/fM/& /N $* lflb n,, a a,,, a ie - n us l a
h * [
- r- s 1
--w>ev % ~ w c typx v pp 'sy;u MA Q h &/f $$N YA f 0
Y hWhl 3 i kp C/ b//7/ P/47".7-/ "JW
} 5/
,=*-tos ,y .) / 'y n o Ost-*-2 /2 f&Wc/45 M'9)$ ' '
] Sy'/g ?ru CJ .Hjff p//g/ M c/ "' tly flj O h
'7 '
-23 9 9 ~ K7 da p
4 J 7 ; 22 r ~l
~5 >~ s '7/= 5 ,,
}
zgn - I I
-E'7cl = 8 J.
c g_,., I
.9 v d ,potu
- vsp ris w.) C/9 0M 9 pra $/ "Vc/.S w/M/
- s. :v nor
'ru M'ns/ps.y2 (y ' ys/ C'svg/ [5 / -
b'l z O-/}z /?
- 5 aq g gg - pS 2(1-#)2 O
~
---A n w e suj&a v - Eo g y ,y
/0] /,[f/ M/50 V34[W/J
-5y P./V CDstx25 c d ) k w d % tz' l3/ -
i l l l t - l l l
- M i .. e e
. t z[ %~ pon n n~ . < x, l'
_ _ . . Ar aar my w s -u-
/rl s ymu se ne w- .
bLP = 0 , of m ,, o, ,,~ n - - - . 2 2es " F,
~ ~
} 2 7s psi os
~
fin a 60 fH
!G) (xAS q,sieA: c /> Ass $ctn / < ,,. ,. na .
V P . -f~ ^ I AP -22 brwo LvfJr - Z)4,esM Trass,y E4w l S/O M4S /W e 4s C , 7d 7 8 / / / r y ss ,/) , l
$/V/fte///) 0 -f ' - tg g) -]&
C s f ff= t/ 2
/L/W23 ,
t) 5 % ,e os c E S vas mo s kes sw s ser Orb ru m C E 2( Cb M Pfsg S'F/3 w e /sw/ s c res y Ci ri <>,s bocun En r
.T[ sos,cim E p w <nty gvaamm sw s .
ef & ntn,0,me- w ., cwo,c.e <is .
., it yy ists9 83/ ' fs "
O A M % 4 5 12fej / & Ebf**) E2 (o (V) mices nu we,s . ywoes i n wm - rrom u,su o,s ssimo nm m ernespr7>es l 4
. . 'A ,
..s .
9
~~
e - . e I om
==
k m S f b
@/ n/& ' 9/ 4d'/E _
' u,/ n,/ v ' u p 7o h,a y w OV(/ O 2/7 QJ P/)/7W,/C/V w/r VM7 5 </. m y m j g a
( s!/ wad 5
*T n.mc5 33
,84 D1] GX/ 40/ CW'JJAf) l5
*P>?/ M S .34u 9/g ~
EsW' AS wea saper r^-Whosf go -) j$cy k// WW yssMpu m vsady Cm pt l l I t l k ! i - i l 1
e , i hq2 ~ APPENDIX A i 30 SEISMIC DESIGN OF SMALL DIAMETER PIPE AND TUBING
- q. FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
~. w by J. D. Stevenson s
SYN 0PST.S This paper presents a simplified seismic design method for small diameter piping systems where complete or rigorous dynamic analysis is not feasible. This procedure utilizes a coefficient to be applied to the peak of~the applicabic single degree of freedom floor or ground response a)e'Etrum in order to determine seismic design loads. The pro-cedure has been correlated with dynamic multidegree of freedom modal analysis results f rom a number of actual nuclear plant systems. Scismic
'16 ads determined by this procedure are quite conservative in the mean when compared with complete dynamic analysis.
INTRODUCTION Seismic design of building structures has been a standard require-ment in earthquake prone regions since the early 1920's. In general, j this design has been carried out using static methods of analysis as expressed by national buildiag codes (l). During the last 10 to 15 years for major structures uncre potential replacement costs or consequences of f ailure havn u. ~nr r-M . w,-o v 1. -" - ' ,e
' w ' w n y :-G ~'
v In such cases, seismic response spectra coupled with dynamic multidegree of freedom modal analysis have been used. Within the past 5 to 10 years the response spectra-modal dynamic I -
. analysis methods have been extended to design of safety related fluid and electrical systems associated with nuclear power plants. I At the present time the dynamic analysis of the major piping systems which circulate nuclear reac:or coolant fluid and provide steam to drive !
the genera.:or turbines has become quite routine. There are, however, still many tens of thousands of feet of conduits consisting of smaller diameter piping, tubinc.. electrical conduit raceways and ductwork which serve a safety function and cheretore require a determination of seismic design adequacy. The cost of analyzing fluid and cicctrical distribution system regardless of size using rigorous dynamic analysis methods is typically in excess of $10 per foot. Clearly such methods of analysis are not feasibic for the vast majority of syntems. This nnner is an aLLempc to develup simplitied methods of analysis which can be used on smaller piping, tubing, raceways, etc. , but which still can be shown to provide conservative seismic designs. I Consulting Engineer, Westir.*!.quee Nuclear Energy Systems, Pittsburgh, Pennt.ylv4.nia . FCIA-85-59
~
C&a74
r
- o. .
31 SEIS!!IC DESIGN COEFFICIENTS (- v Probably the simp 1 cst approach is to make all systems relatively rigid (i.e., fundamental frequencies typically above 33 tiz when using the Newmark response spectra for 2.0 percent damping (2)). If this were done, building or supporting structurce and therOf are the systems could be analyzed using the same seismic motions as the supporting structure. This motion would be known from the building or support structure seismic analysis. Ifnfortunately, the development of such high frequency response would typically require approximately a doubling of the number supports normally required. As an example, the dead weight hanger spacine. at. recammended by the ANSI B31.1 code (3) would result in fundamental fro-quencies as shown in Table 1 for standard weight pipe. An indication of the effect of span length on frequency is shown in Table 2(4). in addition, particularly in high temperature fluid systems the required closeness of supports would normally lead to higher thermal stresses thereby reducing the overall reliability of the system. This approach except in specific instances is not feasible from either a cost or an improved reliability standpoint. It has long been recognized that approximate seismic analyses could be performed as a function of the peak of the applicable floor response
~- ~
.'sp thus 'd'etermTnid, usually in the form of an accelera
_e c tiri.tm...- -Th~e NETue ~
-~ -
tion level _ coefficient,._kg is applied .to..the mass distribution of the_ sis ~ti6 ~to , develop _a. s tat.i c U rce oy thg. svstens__s_o _that.fieispli c s tresse g
'Ly}(e u e c e raa net. . iae conum ersy usuany aus acen raised concerning v 'wh a t is a conservative coefficient to use. Regulatory authorities have usually argued that since the floor response spectra is for a single.
degre_e of f reedom sys t_em, multidegree of_f.rnedo.L.rCSpSDg_of _the_,sys ter3 being considered could~ result in a response in excess quhat doterminesi iorfsKn'gle e j ln the U. S. ( )grei'o'f fre'eddiys5ml"The'value as a multiplier to be applied to the ofgs peak been of the app single ied
~
3 degree of f reedom floor response spectrum to account'f~o'r7h'i's~Tff'e^ct'. '
~
D'e'siiners ~6n'llie'~dther, handDrgue_ thatithe probab'ili~tf"6f 'a$y padi~cular , _systien being exactly, at_t,he resonant f requency or peak of ,the f lour re:;ponse spectrum and remaining at that~ frequency during a significant buildup of fnertia load response _Lis extremolv ree-~ for_the relativelvilow ilamned_' l systemy Delna cea.41dered. i: .,ddition, typ: cal nonlinearitics such as joint slippage, normal cracking of concrete supports, closing of gaps or changes in support configuration all tend ra detune the system and lessen amplified response to seismic loads in resonance regions. The seTsrirsiipV6ft d'esif,h"ot"severai pT{rin~g systFms wiiich$cre ' based on the
- ~
p'.."'.'. - -
. _ _. , , ..m.m. s 1,. . ; '. . . . L . .
compared with the results of dynamic analysis of the same lines as shown in Table 3. In ali cases evaluated, the percent critical damping was 0.5 percent and the total allwalle stress in the pipe including dead and pressure as well as seismic load effects was taken as 1.2S where S was defined as the allowable ctrer.s in tht. pfpe due to pre;mr. act iny alone. A star h.ti cal c . a ' w.t it.:i . L. i. t. n a . . . . ; w .: , perNrmed m sum , maximum seismic stress allowchie, G equal to 0.6S which results trom a
. . a N
32
- ( J maximum 1.2S allcwable minus an allowance of 0.lS for dead load and 0.5S for pressure. The average value of the peak seismic stress deter-mined in each line as a function of the maximum allowable seismic stress was 0.340S with a standard deviation equal to 0.292S . Assuming a normal distributi$n, this results in a probability of exceed 5ng the seismic limit of 0.6S is 0.012 and the total stress limit of 1.2S is 0.004. Actually, the distribution of probabilities is somewhat skew positive more characteristic of a log normal distribution so the probabilities indicated are only approximate.
SUGGESTED DESIGN PROCEDURES All conduit systems regardless of whether they are analyzed statically or dynamically must be laid out to include support locations so that they can be evaluated for all load conditions. Preferably, this is done following simple design rules which result in an adequate but _not overly consarvarive_dgsjgn. The procedure suggested in this paper ' was developed specifically for piping systems. However, it can be applied'to raceways and ductwork by defining applicable stress limits for these conduits. Piping which is typically continuous over several intermediate supports has resultant bending moments as follows: M = 0 . 1;;1' (1) w where: M = maximum bending moment in pipe (lbs/in) , W = effective load on the pipe (lbs/in) 1 = span length between supports (in) This moment of course can approach that of a simply supporte.' ' cam or 0.125W12 at the center of coatinuous span if the mode of th : continuous span is excited so that inertia loads in alternate spans have opposite sign. liowever, the probability of thin occurring is considered small enough to permit the use of equation 1 for design purposes. The maximum resultant stress in the pipe is determined S
=f , (2) where:
S = maximu bending stress in pipe at temperature (psi) h 3 Z= elastic section modulus of pipe (in )
- _ _ - . -n -
33 The current stress limit for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
- ( (Winter,1973 Addendum) ' ASME Section III-NC class 2 piping considering s- dead and seismic loads is expressed P max D s
4t
+ .751 ( M^ + 4) < 1.2S h
(3) n Z for primary' loads and PD (4) 4t n
+ .751 (MA/Z) + 1 (MC /Z) -< (Sh+S)
A for primary plus secondary stress where: , P = internal design pressure, psig Do = outside diameter of pipe, in. t = nominal walls thickness of component, in. Mg = resultant mooent loading on cross-section due to weight and other sustained loads, Ib/in. Z = elastic section modulus of pipe, in . Fuax = p eo.t prceaute, ps.g tesulting Jre. pressure transient except it can be considered equal to P unless the pressure. transient is considered concurrently with , carthquake.
-1 = stress intensification factor developed at points of discontinuity or bends. .
Mg = resultant moment loading on cross-section due to occasional loads such as thrusts from relief and safety valves; Joads from pressure and flow transients; and earthquake. M = rang f resultant moments due to thermal expansion. C Also includes moment effects of anchor displacements due to carthquake. S, = the allowabic stress range for expansion stresses as defined by code. S = basic material allowable stress at maximum heat tempera-h ture as defined by code. Assuming in the limit that 0.SS is reserved for pressure stress and 0.lS isreservedfordeadweinIlt stress, a resultant 0.6S, is availabic h to carry . set'~ic !cel. 'N'n : : tuc N" '
.W for the a Uovrak.e stress in Equations (1) and (2), ic :. pv..ttile to So've for the maximum span between supports not to exceed that stress
~
m 1 - 2.45 (S;>Z/\ sW)1/9 (5) m rr , c m- -sn wr- "-w'
r s . 34 where: (- k,= the effective seismic coefficient expressed in gravities W = weight distribution of the pipe (Ibs/in) 1 = span length between seismic supports (in)
.0f course, the routing of pipe is seldom on a continuous straight line basis so that design groups have developed design aids for use by their support layout designers which consider in graphic form a variety of typical bend configurations and spans between supports in terms of the span length developed in Equation (S) which assure the seismic stress limit are not exceeded. Concentrated loads such as valves in the piping system are represented as equivalent distributed mass. It remains only to define a value for the seismic coefficient k in Equation (5) which s
assures an adequate design. , CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Statistical evaluation of the comparison of dynamic verification of static analysis for cases given in Tabic 3 normalized to the current ASME Class 2 piping criteria would indicate a probability of exceeding seismic and total stress limits for a range of assumed k values taken as a coefficient times the peak of the floor response sp$ctra as shown in Table 4. It is recommended that a value of k equal to 0.85 times the peak
' 8 of the applicable floor response spectra be used with the design procedures outlined herein. It should be noted that the percent critical damping considered in this study was relatively low being approximately 0.5 per-cent. There is currently a trend to increase the damping assumed in thedesignofgynduitsystemsastheresultofcorrelationwithrecent test results.( Since broader response bands can be expected with the use of higher damping values, seismic coefficients for k, should be increased as a function of higher damping values. Lacking any definitive
, results, it is suggested a value of 1.0 times the peak be used for 2.0 percent and above damping. It should be understood that the conclusions reached herein are ba. sed un a somewhat l imi ted correlation with exist ing data. It is hoped as more design data becomes availabic, the recom-mendation made herein will be tested against this additional information.
REFERENCES (1) International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code, 6th Edition, l'370. (2) Newmark, N. M., " Earthquake Response of Reactor Structures", presented at the 1st Inrernational Confereice on Structural 11ecuanics in kvactor Yechuou,gy , m rl '.t., W. Germany, September 20-24, 1971. h
l
~
35
- k,, (3) ANSI B31.1.0-1967, " Power Piping", American National Standards Institute, New York.
(4) E. C. Rodabaugh and A. G. Pickett, " Survey Report on Structural Design of Piping Systems and Components", TID-25553, December 1970. (5) USAEC Docket 50-261-35, "H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2. Additional Information Concerning Seismic Analysis of Class 1 Piping and Equipment", June 1970. (6) A. Morrone, " Damping Values of Nuclear Power Plant Components", WCAP-7921, November 1972. (7) R. C. King, " Piping Handbook", 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967. . (8) R. J. Roark, " Formulas for Stress and Strain", 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965. . I A
. 36 TABLE 1 PIPING FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES AS A FUNCTION OF ANSI B 31.1 SUGGESTED DEAD WEIGilT SUPPORT SPACING 3 3 Pipe Weight-lbs. W 8 I Ww Ws fW fs s 6 Size Water / Steam / w xio6 x10 (Std) ft ft ft ft in. 3 in. 3 in 1bs 1bs 11 2 H z
1" 2.053 1.68 7 9 .593 1.26 .0874 15.10 14.05 16.70 11.85 2" 5.108 3.66 10 13 1.732 3.80 .666 51.08 47.60 14.85 10.25 3" 10.78 7.59 12 15 2.98 5.83 3.02 129.0 114.0 16.23 11.40 4" 16.30 10.8 14 17 4.74 8.49 7.23 228.0 183.7 13.80 11.56 6" 31.48 19.0 17 21 8.52 16.00 28.14 535.0 399.0 13.30 11.20 8" 50.24 28.6 19 24 11.84 23.89 72.5 955.0 686.0 13.50 11.20 1 12" 98.60 49.6 23 30 21.00 46.66 279.3 2270 1490 12.95 10.70 16" 141.68 62.6 27 35 34.05 74.09 562 3820 2195 11.13 9.95 20" 204.60 78.7 30 39 46.60 102.50 1114 6140 3070 10.70 10.15 24" 2'd.4o
/ v4.62 32 42 56.70(128.02 1943 8930 3980 10.40 10.40 NOTES: ,
- 1. Fundamental Pipe Properties from King (
- 2. Frequencies Determined = 3.55 (SW1 3 /384 EI) ! from Roark( }
- 3. E = 29 x 10 psi 9
J
%e e*
s :
. 37,
(,, TABLE 2 FREQUENCY AND LENGTH RELATIONSHIPS FOR PIPE SPANS L f n(4) Pe Ft. Empty Full fn = 35 cps Size Sch. (1) (2) (3) (5) 1 80 7 12.8 12.3 4.1 160 7 12.9 12.7 4.2 2 80 10 13.4 12.4 5.9 160 10 13.5 12.9 6.0 4 80 14 14.0 12.6 8.4 160 14 14.2 13.3 8.6 8 80 19 15.9 13.6 11.8 160 19 15.8 14.5 12,2 12 80 23 16.6 13.9 19.5 160 23 16.3 14.9 15.0 16 80 27 15.2 12.7 16.3 160 27 14.9 13.6 16.8 24 80 32 16.6 13.6 20.0 160 12 16.2 14.6 20.7 NOTES: (1) L is support spacing taken from the Piping Handbook, Reference 7,
- p. 5-4. This value of L is based on 1500 psi stress or 1/10" deflection, water-filled pipe.
(2) Empty includes vei,aht of pipe plus weight of insulation. Insulation assumed to weigh 16 lb/cu-ft., 2" thick for 1" and 2"; 2.5" thick for 4", 8", and 12" and 3" thick for 16" and 24" pipe. (3) Full includes weight of pipe, insulation and water. (4) f, = first mode frequency in cycles per second for span with simply supported ends.
/ . 'a
. . , 38 i
. TABLE 3
* . DftArete Antutt sm <t tiAf 4 V NM%( It $(.,
K41.5F1>MIC ALL.$C1 31C 4.AT10 MAX. total ALL.T0tAL RATIO , bTL.=M . SOLAMS y, ,, g LIEE Ll%E h0. 81;E GAL. blun$ bikLM (5,/0.D$) 4AL.11EL$$ htEHs S/1.25{gg,gg g gg ,g g3 gg og g gg t,qt 32i (0.65) 15,) 6.N ee e e a t 8, 13,306 14,700 .905 .597 .3n .550 .302 1 12" 6.887 7.350 9 37 9,319 In,000 .518 473 .224 .163 .027 2 IS" 7,313 9.000 813 18.000 .795 714 .510 440 .194 3 14* 9.490 9.000 1.054 14.307 0 0 493 7.993 22,5N .355 .153 .023 6 8* 5.550 11. 50 079 .006 .212 .045
.;61 9.922 17,S20 .567
$ 4" 2.782 8. Fe 0
.170 .181 .032 J85 .034 6 4* ?. 506 8.250 .159 2.406 16.5C0 14,4 N .555 415 .172 .200 .040 7 !!* 5,439 7.000 755 7.992 .057 7,000 .806 9.353 14.400 650 .See .3:0 .295
- 8 12* 5.805 .C65 .004 1,969 .219 5.211 18.0JO .290 .121 .015 9 16* 9.000 .302 010 .116 .014 10 6* 1,717 7,*00 .238 3.444 14.400 .239 14,700 .762 489 .249 .407 .166 11 4* 6,157 7.350 .838 11.200 .049 8,*03 14.250 .576 .130 .017 .221 12 4" 1,495 7.140 .210 .007 14.280 438 096 009 .083 13 3* 1,740 7.140 .244 6.252 400 .160 6,930 421 10.458 13.000 .755 .081 .007 14 14* 2.916 .215 048 13 3* 2.833 7.140 .397 8,133 14,250 .570 '.057 .003 14,250 .523 .004 ,000 .168 .028 16 1* 2.382 7.140 .334 7.466 .003 14.400 .29 8 '.023 .000 .057 17 10* 2,615 7.*00 .363 4.285 023
.255 14.400 .203 085 .007 .152 18 4* 1.838 7.200 2.919 .263 .069 263 .036 1.330 14.400 .092 .304 .093 19 3* 7.200
.040 .004 -
20 4* 3.872 7.200 .538 5.171 14.400 .359 198 18.000 .258 .163 .026 .097 .009 21 10* 1.595 9.000 .177 4.652 4,625 18.000 257 .076 .006 .098 .010 22 14* 2.379 9.000 .264 493 .068 2.379 14,400 .165 .272 .074 .18) .034 23 4* 7.700 .315 .099 10* 9,603 .820 12.865 19,200 .670 480 .230 _ 24 7.876 .298 089 6* 311 9.003 .035 1.0;; 18,000 .057 .305 .09 3 25 408 .167 24" 9.003 .990 13.739 18,000 .763 .650 423 26 8.930 .002 .004 - 20* 9,003 .29 8 6.459 18.000 .359 .042 27 2.682 .020 .093 .009 28 24" 4.316 9.000 450 8.070 18.000 44A .140
, 7,075 18,030 .Ya 3 .030 .031 438 .002 29 24" 3.333 9 .'d .370
.m .o. .. d .0., -
- o) 2r 4.wa i.. J ..os u , u. La,ww 420 7.429 18.000 413 .080 .006 058 .003 31 20* 3.778 9.003 18.000 .143 .131 .017 .212 .047 32 6* 1,876 9.003 .209 2.578
.093 18" 10.503 .645 13.8$7 21.000 .661 . 3". 3 .106 .306 33 6.983 .373 .139 34 IS* 7.897 10.500 .752 15.2st 21.000 .728 412 .170 438 11.814 21.000 .563 .098 .010 .308 .043 35 18* 4.600 10.500 -
18* - 5,800 .552 12.698 21.000 605 .212 .045 250 .063 36 10.500 ,071 9,000 .081 18,000 .089 .259 .067 266
. 37 10' 726 1.601
.054 38 12" 1.253 9,000 .139 2.218 18.000 .123 .201 .040 .232 8* 11,:16 .208 4.317 27.433 .19 2 .132 .017 .163 .027 31 2.336 .054 40 12* 2.747 11.216 .245 2,747 22.433 .122 .095 .009 .233 8* 2,180 11,216 .194 4.321 23,433 .192 .146 .021 .163 .027 41 42 8" 814 11.036 .074 2.367 22.433 .105 .246 .071 .250 .06) 6" 1.792 22.073 .081 .292 .0$$ .274 .075 43 336 11.1.e .0.4
.066
- 64 6* 647 11.146 .058 2.134 22.293 .098 .282 .080 .257
.045 2.171 22,293 .098 .295 .0e5 .257 .06e 45 8* 499 11.141 6* 11,141 .093 2.898 22.283 .130 .247 .041 .225 .051 46 1.031 .055
~
47 8" 60 2 11.14i 054 2,7-= 27.286 .121 .286 .082 .234
.038 1,9 11 22.083 .047 .302 .091 .26s .072
' 48 4* 431 11.23s
.074 2.3 14 '2.463 .104 .264 .071 .211 .062 e 49 8* 834 11.231
.063 2.208 22.463 .098 .277 .077 .257 .066 30 18* 70 8 11.231
- .085 .174 .030 31 14* 50 7 11.231 .045 4.055 22.463 .181 .295 340 .030 3.6se 22.46) .173 .310 .096 .182 .033 32 16" .
11.231 Ie = I*
- 11.696/52 = 0.340 a
- It = = 18.463/52 = 0.355 *
, e
=
2 - 2
,, . - '[;,, :. 2 = 4.3.uS1 . .0 5 . , - 0.292 .
g,=Ig 2 2 s. ., g=
- 2.930/51 = .058 y = 0.241 (g ,,,
O
e, . .
~
1
- 39 s '
**" TABLE 4 PROBADILITY OF EXCEEDING SEISMIC STRESS ALLOWABLE AS A FUNCTION OF SEISMIC LOAD COEFFICIENT K 3 K
s IIs S.D. f s 0.50 .680 1.10 0.14 l 0.67 .510 1.68 0.05 0.75}i..', .453 1.88 '0.03
.389 2.08 0.02 0.8751~'.3:.
e . .s 1.000 .340 2.26 0.012 1.30 .261 2.53 0.006 1.50 .227 2.65 0.004 1.75 .194 2.76 0.0029 2.00 .170 2.84 0.0073 v WHERE: 3Ia = Mean Seismic Stress as a Function of the Maximum Allowable Seismic Stress S,. S.D. = Number of Standard Deviation between Mean and Limiting Value. f, = Probability of Exceeding Allowable Seismic Stress Based on Normal Distribution. 1 o 4 l
%M
T. . 9.
- , s
, . _ w ~"
'^
' . ^
W .; K n-"=-~-----
~
. x..... .'i.. L -
e,
+~ -- - =gg 'M g ' n.NE.9;,
, .w:
}. :.f i_ ,
fj " ' -
. . . f. . u& lj; g g.4.. k ,
I - 4 e
.ITM 'l y A.y
- h a 1
44- p p-l I i w- p Hd Ei l, li The Society sholl not be responsible for statements or opia. ions j g , y> odvanced in papers or in discussion of eneetings of the 5nciety i '"- or of its Divisions or Sections, or printed in its publico: ions. Discussion is printed only if the paper is published in on ASME journol or Proceedings.
- Refeosed fo general publication upon presentation.
Full credit should be given to ASME. the Professional Division, cad the author Isl.
$3.00 PER COPY- -
1.00 TO ASME MEMBERS . g-. Amplification Factors to Be Used in
~ -
d Simplified Seismic pynamic Analysis of , i Piping Systems . i f 6 J. D. STEVENSON . W. S. LAPAY 'f 7 (formerly with Westinghouse) Principal Engineer, r
~c /o W. S. LaPay, Westinghouse Water Reactor Division, .[
Westinghouse Electric Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa. >!
- [
- Water Reactor Division.
' Pittsburgh, Pa. .
~}
~.
~
The rigorous dynamic seismic analysis of the major piping systems which circo. '. late nuclear reactor coolant fluid and steam to drive the generator turbines has 1
. become quite routine. This analysis usually includes datermination of the multi.. }
degree of freedom natural frequency and mode shape characteristics of the sys. [ tems being analyzed and their detailed response to input selsmic motion in the ; form of a response spectrum. There ire. however, my f tane nf thoneans et l feet of condniu -~"~ d -Har diameter nin'nt tubing, electrical conduit
~
l raceways and ductwork which serve a safety function and t.herefore require a determination of seismic design adequaev. Clearly such rigorous methods of analysis are not feasible for the vast majority of these secordary systems. For , such secondary systems, seismic design adequacy is typically determined by a simplified analysis which takes some multiple of the input response acceleration
. spectrum and applies it uniformly to the mass distribution of the system being analyzed, or lumps it at the center of gravity between spans to develop seismic forces to be used in evaluating the system. The multiples considered typically range between 0.67 to L5. This paper is an attempt to quantify the multiples which should be considered in design as a function of typical piping support configura.
tiors and boundary conditions and by comparison with rigorous dynamic results obtained with actual piping systems. Contributed by the Nuclear Engineering Divialon of the American Society of Mechanical 3
.. : ram n Engineers for presentation at the Pressure Vessels and l'iping Conference with Nuclear Engineering and Material. Divisions, Miami Beach, Florida, June 24-28,1974. Stanu-b script received at ASME Ilead<luarters April 15,1974.
J. . . Copice =111 be available until Marcis 1,1975.
+ .
- - - - - - - ~ - . ,
* : - . ~ . - ' ~ -
.~ . . d a !. .% . u . - . . -s. J . -
Amplification Fact 6rs to Be Used 'in !;
. t-h S implified Seismic Dynamic Analysis of r
Piping Systems . , W.S.LAPAY g. J. D. STEVENSON IhTRODUCTICN '
. . e Por such secondary systems, seissio design s The rigorous dynamic seismic analysis of {,
tha major piping systems which circulate nuclear adequacy is typically detemined by a simplified recctor coolant fluid and steam to drive the gen- analysis which takes como multiple of the input F response acceleration spectrum, and a'pplies it [ cr t:r turbines has become quite routine. Thit ! cr.alysis usually includes determination of the unifomly to the mass distribution of tho 'sys-
.h .
multi-degree of freedom, natural frequency and mode tem being analyzed, or lumps it at the center of gravity between spans to develop seismic l
. shape characteristics of the systems being '
-analyzed and their detailed response to input
, forces to be used in evaluating the system. {!
saismic motion in the fom of a response spectrum. The multiples-considered typically range between
- 0. h i 'i . This paper is an attempt to 3 Th:re are, however, many tens of thousands of. [,
feet of conduits consisting of smaller diameter quantify the .multiples which should be considered ' piping, tubing, electrical conduit raceways - in design as, a function of typical piping supe
- and ductwozic, which serve a safety function port configuration and boundary conditions, and ,
and, therefore, require a detemination of by comparison with rigorous dynamic analysis re- i soissio design adequacy. Clearly such rigorous sults obtained with actual piping systems. . r.oth:ds cf analysis are not feasible for the vast majority of these secondary s'yslems.' SIMPLIFIED PIPE GEOMETRY-. [
' ~~
To develop a ratiofial multiplier to be [ j , applied to the peak of a floor response spectrum, t l a number of typical pipe suppori; configurations [, s g c b "" h,a shown'in Pisi.1 have been analyzed rigorously il[I ' and then compared to simplified results where
/// o>si.,s n i c.; ,. .a (*" the peak of the floor response spectrum accel-
'****"'***" eration has been applied to. the mass of the !
section. The particular cases considered are ' (a) cantilever; .(b) simply supported beam; (c) a a a fixed end beam; (d) two-span simply supported beam; (e) four-span simply supported beam. j h """ M - "*"i In all five cases, five mass points between jl u) w.s m s.,sism.na s. . each set of supports wore considered in the ij rigorous dynamic analysis With oynamic char-acteristics of the five cases shown in Table 1. In order to develop a comparison between
" rigorous and simplified analysis, a number of
[ . 7 , f "~ "" locations as shown in Fig. 2 were selected for f "-F" . . comparison of shear or reaction and moment (.) , e s, si.ei, s.,,ses a. Yalues. , I s - a a in' ,.
- : . a.: i.* UyNAMIC ANALY3IS
/ "
. . aufi.
lTv - Fig. 1 Structural configuration analyzed The response spectrum acceleration input 8
a s:... .
- ur . _ . -- .- ---ha'-----""-"",*", ~ ~
. 5
, Table 1 Dynamic Characteristics *
, CASE FREQUENCY (NZ)/ PARTICIPATION FACIOR PEA N00E'
}s Most 1
Moot 2 Woot 3 M003 4 Moot M00E N00s M005 5 6 7 8 9 .
}
. 1 3.83 24.7 70.3 136.6 240 .
1.37 0.63 -0.4 ,-0.26 0.65 - 2 7.43 29.64 65.6 108 130 - 1.30 0.0 0.5 'O 0.2 - 3 16.8 46.3 89.9 162 171 -- 1.3 0 co.53 0.0 0.6 - s . L 4 11.6 37.5 77 121 167 1.26 0.1 0.47 0.08 0.67 5' 8.66 15.0 32.2, 69.3 85.2 170 0.64 1.53 -0.17 0.24 -0.59 0.75 -
. I t
Table 1 (continued)
- Case Mode Most SMAFE8 I Moot
- 1 ~1 2 , 3 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0
'. 3 2 1.95E-02 1.59E-01 1.338-01 7.53t-01
-3.038-01
-1.00t*00
-4.55t-01
-3.788-01 1.00t*00
-3.63t-01 4 3.95t-01 . .1.00t+00 7.33E-02 1.00t+00 1.811-01 I
. 5 6.86E-01 4.048-01 8.72t-01 -7.788-01 -7.46r.02
'6.
1.00t+00 -7.94E-01 -4.635-01 2.408-01
.- 1.698-02 Moot '
r 2 1 2 3 4 3 - 1 , 0 O O O O 2 3.098-01 6.18E-01 8.095-01 -1.00E+00 ' 1.00t+00 . 3 . 8.09t-01 1.00E+00 '3.09E-01 6.18t-01 -1.00E+00 4.. 1.00t+30 1.25E-08' -1.00t+00 -1.718-09 1.00E+00 i 3 8.09E-01 -1.00t+00 i* 3.09t-01 -6.185-01 -1.00E+00 . i 6 3.098-01 -4.18E-01 8.09t-01 ~ 1.0Ct+00 - 1.00t+00 f- 7 0 1 0 0 0 l Moot l l ' 3 1 2 3 4 3 l . I i 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.19t-G1 -2.912-01 -4.492-01 -1 00t+00 1.00t+00 ! s 3 6.908-01 -1.0C t40 -4.48t-01 2. 9'I t-01 -4.251-01 l
. 4 1.00t+00 3.358-09 1.00t+00 1.97E-11 3.498-01 5 6.90E-01 1.00t40 -6.48t-01 -2.91t-01 -4.252-01 *
.f 6 1.19E-01 2.9tt-01 -4.498-01 1.00E+00 1.00t+00 3 7 , 0 ; O O e 0
{ l 3
s ,
,f. *4..
,a-
- u d L;..::
. x. . .x.=.a..... .< . u. a .z .L M .u.:wl.. A. . :.~ a - - .
,t
- Table 1 (continued)
Case Mode MODE suArts 3 SIGNIFICANT MODES (PARTICIPATIONFACT0 tsp 0) h: m 2 -3 4 5 i
*5 s 4 1 i i
0 0. I 1 0 0 0 2 .3.86E-01 -6.15t-01 9.'2E-01 4 1.00E+00 7.51E-02
- 3 9.45E-01 -8.02E-01 6.79E-02 -8 43E-01 -1'.11E-01 }
4 1.00E+00 3.84t-01 -1.00E+00, 5.538-01 2.00E-01 i 9.01E-01 -3.69E-01' I 5 5.87E-01 1.00E 00 ,
.-1.87-01 ,*
-3.48-01 1.00E+00 f
-6 9.252-02 2.49E-01 4.693-01 i 0 1 0 0 g 7 0 4.69t-01 -3.488-01 1.00t+00 )
8 9.25t-02 2.498-01 5.87t-01 1.00t+00 9.018-01 -1.878-01 -3.698-01 f
. ,9 -
2.005-01
-1.000*00 5.$3 01 i
. s 10' 1.00E+00 3.845 01
- 4 9.458-01 -0.028-01* 4.79E-02 -8.43-01 _ ,,- 1,. l 13-01 .
11 3.465-01 -6.158-01
- 9 42E-01 1.00t+00 7.51t-02 12
'O O O O [
13 0
'I
{' Table l'(continued) I Mode l MODE SHAPts ; Case 3 SIGNITICANT HDDES .(PARTICIPATION FACTORS # 0)
. f 5- 1 2 3 4 .g
.0 !
D.4 1 0 0 0 j~ 2 3.22E-01 2.05E-01 5.92E-01 8.35E-01 3 8.415-01 4.70E-01 8.96t-01 2.312-01 i 4 1.00t+00 4.14E-01 -1.37E-01 -1. 00.E.+.00
. 5 7.55E-01 .
1.'25 E'-01 -1.00t+00 . 5.088-01 .
. 6_ 2.55E-01 , -4.89E-02 -5.02E-01 7.44E-01 7 0 0 . 0 0 t 8 -2.07E-01 2.21E-01 3.35E-01 -4.375-01 f 9 -4.34t-01 7.91E-01 2.678-01 1.81E-01 k 10 -4.145-01 1.008+40 -3.32-01 4.148-01 . i' t
',11 -2.28t-01 6.48t,-01 , -3.18E-01 -4.87E 01 j_
12 -3.44E-02 1.088-01 1.18t-01 -2.17E-01 f 13 0 ,0 0 0 j l 14 -3.442-02 1.08E-01 -1.18E-01 -2.17E-01 15 -2.28t-01 6.44E-01 -3.188-01 -4.47E-01 16 -4.14 E-01 1.00+00 -3.32E-01 4.145-01 .i
~
17 -4.34t-01 7.91t 01 2.67E-01 .l.elt-01 1 18 -2.c't-01 2.21t-01 3.35E-01 -4.375-01 19 0 0 0 0 20 2.55E-01
-4.895-02 -5.02t-01 7.44t-01 21 7.55E-01, 1.25E-01 -1.00t+00 5.08E-01 23 8.415-01 4.70E-01 8.96E-01 2.31E-01 ;
24 3.27E-01 2.05t-01 5.92E-01 8.35E-01 ] 25 0 0 0
. . l
~ .
p..( . I 4 . i
.. m.u. .u : -.i:-r. -&-~~~
- --- - - "" ' ' ~ * '* ' * " ' * * ' ' *
' ' ~ ' ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
' Table 2' Dynamic Results for Shear, Moment, Etc.
,, ,./ at Iccation Indicated in Fig. 2 f CASE t g toCATICII oF FORCE RESULTAlff8 MnNDIT SalEAR
? -i .
l g
's (in-ibe) (Ibs) . L 1 Lose el Cent 11ever ' Ngg 11.170 Rgge 329
~
. t I
2 Staply Supported Been !
, Lett End
- R21= 254 '
,uule M,,* 4. 8. ---
l 3 Fized Fad Seen . Lett End M3g= 2.644 R3ge 218
, 'tiddle - M3g= 1.009 -
4 he Spea simply Supported ' g Left End ,
~ Rgge 192 Middle Support M 4g= 4.065 Vg = 270, 270 ,
5 Four Spen simply Supported Been Left EM. , , R3g= 1M - 2nd Support M 51= 2.670 V3g= 183. 260 Center Jupport .M 52* 3'Tt8 J'53=. 42. 282 s, was assumed to be a constant 1.0g for all fro-quincies in order to eliminate any effect of M p 8 4. 4 e-8 frequency shift on the results. 'In the rigorous 8: _ w ai "i} q 3 y"s, a _ , i dynamic analysis, the maxim.u.m acceler.ation in * ,* j 7 isi i ('* moda n for mass point, 'r, (Urn), was determined p' ,' , a ,n '- _.
'is using modal analysis I
~', u s ,p "n 3m 3M Vn=I
= in an 31 il) .m
- max 8 4 *-
where: Ds= C _ ja a'
- r i i ie i F r n= .s Mr #a S. , J. ,
I "r frn (2) ,,,, and mii
, o ase n
!-- n is Tn = thghmodal participation factor in'the n mode
. i i . i R) ; i... R,,.i,i.i ,E ...i.;, 5 i r M= ltseped mass at point r' am n th rn = component of mode shape in moda
- for mass r Fig. 2 Reaction, shear and moment ccaponents pI detemined in the analysis rn = component of-prn in the direction of the earthqualce an = spectral acceleration at the nth mode ,
frequers/ (1.0 g for all frequencies).
- l
, Applying the maximum acceleration, rn d' l 6 *
. Biggs, J. in each mode to the lumped mass representation ;
M., Introduction to Structural '
-of the structural system, a resulting shear and tmanics, McGraw-Hill,19636' moment for each mode was detemined. Total shear I
l
. 1
. .~ - -_
w u
' ~ ~~ ' ~
.m.._ m - -
i
. =
. b y
Table 3 Static Results M LOCAff0W OF FORCE REShlTANTS _ MOMENT SNEAR
"~
1 Antilever Been
) ;* Concentrated teed - Jelat 4 -
l Reee Mgge 12.500 agg= 500
- Dietributed Mase asse
- M gg= 12.500 Rgg= SM
!.{
7 Simply Supported Bees Concentroted teed .7aint 4 i Left tad --- y 121= 300 [, <
' fiddle M g= p.
. 9.000 ---
[ Distributed Mase . Left End - 3 = 300 e h 21 Middle M gg= ' . , 4.500 --- . g 3 Fixed Fad teen Concentisted Lead - Jetat 4 i
. Left tad M 3g= 4.500 R3g= 301
*tiddle M y* 4.500 --- -
Dietributed Mese . Lef: tad M3g= 3,000 m3g= 300 Middle -M I'300 32
* ~
'i p
, - . (
t. f. 8 l Table 3 (conti,nued), g LOCATION OF FORCE RESULTANTS MCMENT " SNEAR * (in-the) (Ibe) . . , l t 4 The Spen Simp 1F Supperted teos I
.Concestrated Lead Jetate 4.10
.- Let t- Bad - - - h Rg= 107 (
t Middle' Support M = 6750 V a 412.5. 412.5 43 n { Distributed Mese f.'
+.r -
Left End , -- 24g= 225 ' Middle Support M g= 4500 vg= 375. 375 1 5 F'ur a Spen Simply Supported Scom . Cancentroted taed Jotate 4.10.16.22
- t I. eft tad -
83g= 204
,, 2nd Support M v = 394. 332
,,3g* 5790,52 C t.r ,-rt
,,= 3 5. ,,= 26. 2..
j' Distributed Mese ' 14ft End ' R$1= 234.4 l 2nd Support M3g= 3 50 v52= 365.6. 321.9 l ! Center Support M52= 2575 v53 = 218.3. 278.5 *
, 8 tnd aronents as shown in Table 2 were determined were considered, or until the total modal effe0-a by th3 square root sum of squares of the shears tive mass exceeded 90 percent of the total mass
,.11 Eoments in each mode. In the analysis, the of the structure. J_n-sil-eases, a single com-
- first cix modes in rark of increasing frequency q
ponent of earthquake perpendicular to the axis /- g , t
, - - - ,n.- . , , . .- , - - - , , -w. ---,, - - - - -
% , l p Yebla 4 comparison of Static cod Mnamic RIsults . i e (- L.OR Etetse j. 51I12 f %:stip S peentrat h h {f 3 ,gt ete M. sit /Cw:eptret.o klil sul
- bvQef,Mi(ot,*_
t R g M0 300 229 l 4% .H } n n.no I i
, u n.s00 n,un .o .n -
l 7 R . 3G3 'A 3 M0 254 .M 9 .65 g M i u 6 3 f.503 anos' .54 1.cl Ig
, 3 l ,t 3M t h . i30 tII '7l
*ti g re u t 503, n00 2H4 .50 P*
M 3g M Un M g .
.4 W$
4 kg :l 137 225 192 1.01 .f3 g
,.., i., m it. .d
.n "g- hg, ,
,0 37 4530 4th
.61 .91 ~
l 4' It - u ; $no 163 U2 .6'
@ .M Rg a33 603 '340 .93 ."O M 0 42 o .. } M g 90 %
4500 4065 .4 f: ,.
.91 .
y 5 sg 234 211
';. 150 .74 8 .%
1 9 718 487 443 .41 1g .61 515 $U 36% 1 05 1.02 { xg 390 tho, 2670 .O { - hp 3938
. 't0
% 1573 JUS .98 4 i
. . 1. 0 1
- shear and Murer 34eed ei tra As.usption et a fMngle 81*ple Span [Atiree I
s. n suppuu . i t
- t .
[of,Dg.nenbsr_ds.assstd,.
) A simplified anklysis to debemine aht.ar which would te' required to obtsin the same val-pnd moments was perremaa 'whore ttie' totsi itass Ves of haxtinua ene&P and cocont as detettuined pas essvred lumpec at the center of gravity of by rigorous dynastic unelysis: for the various (the span between supports with an assun.ed 1.0 g cases studiea. Aa can be seen by the results,
%:celeration ae. ting. A gooond sie.plified analysis in no caso Whero the sinplified analysis used yn perfomed which essaned the rass War. unifonIly a st:stic conecntrated lost equal to 1.C g times isstributed betveon supports, with a 1.0 r socel- tDe tsass of the bem applied at the center gratien act:ng unifomly on the distributed nass, point between supports, did the I:ultiplier ex ' tur.:rical results of these analyses era presented coed 1.03, and in otny two casos did the coet-Its *:'aile J. ticient excoed 1.0 It should also te riotod
} that in several instar,ces the Itanping of the (01: PARI:ioli 0F RESi/L'l'S 'cass fit the center of tysvity betveen supports E phoduced ahear and soment valtans More'th&h j In 'T&tle 4, are preser.ted the set
- of twice those f;und by dynar:10 annlysis. In Mt . pliers to be applied to the 1.0-g response those cases where t unifert.ly distributed Icas hstrumaccelerationinthecifr.plifiednr.elysis d
between supports v.as assused, cultipliors were
;:erert11y higher 65an in the concentrated losa s ? a
. y. .
ecao with the unemum multiplior datemined es . coefficient squ:1_.to 0.1 v1 2 to detsrmine. 1.47, .
.l maximum moments at the intemediate supports.
]
'A statistical evaluation 2 r.eal piping systems was recently made where for a number of In such representations, sas is obvious from .
. Table _4, a 1.0 multiplier .-- could also be used 3,_,,th3 piping systems were laid out with a support with the uniformly distributed static load *
( sysoing, based on a simplified unifom load assumption. ) analysis and a multiplier on the peak of the It'should also be, understood that the l rpplicable floor respons.e spectra of 1.'O. The application of a constant response,, spec,trum, average maximum seismic stress per line deter * ' ,, is an extremelrl.cosentAtty.a.assumptiop, minid by rigorous' dynamic analysis for the 52 since for real des _i,gn_ cases the,.frequencryange, lines studied was 38 percent of 'that 'detemined ~ ofga_k re,s,por.s,e
~
r jiysu.a'117.,q,u$te_11, mite 4. by simplified analysis.. l .
~Therefore, only a limit 351y.tpbg,r .qQpo_ des,,,c,ay,,,
s
~
CONCI,USION
- _ be responding to peek accelerations. In' addition, in many instances, the domina_tc _mojsos of_ tho As a result of,this study, it $s concluded *
. , pgns avsteQQ,(gy,,,o,u, {s,i,j,e lhe,,,,g,gio, y n,,,,0,f i
- l peak _responte, "It is obvious from the results *n h that a 1.0 multiplier may be used for simplified of comparisons on real piping systems, the shape analysis with,a, concentrated.. load for single of the response __ngs.c.tcut.An(, in particular.
cnd multiple spans and unifomly loaded simply laige~ regions.cf non t9.52ps,nc,g_,te3ponse _ can suppsrted single span. Unifomi,y,, loaded single nave a significant effen.t.in redu-Meysult-span fixed end beam and multiple spans require ant seismic stresses reported in _this_ paper. 1.2 and 15 factors, respectively, be used for -.nence act to lower the multiplier coefficients simplified analysis. *
, , given in Table 4; even*further.
Alternatively, uniformly loaded multiple - L ap*.ns and single span fixed end beams can be . . Stevenson, J. D. . ." Seismic Design of- -- { represented as a single span simply supported. Small Diameter Pipe and Tubing For Nuclear 1 beam to detemine the maximum befding moment Power Plants", Paper No. 314, Presented at 5th y t.t th3 center of the span, and use a moment . WorldConferenceonEarthquakeEngineering, Rome,3
.j 1
- i. _973. .. . ... -
-.~ d
. p.. g. . . ~ --- 0-~y = 9 - -
f, /.L <JX. <W s o i At _
.sp e 9 ., .
me s -
. . . . . _ . . . . 2.... _ '___...
-Em.
y . . - 8. l
-.._.w.m . .< e w"=') M-"rC *"* - * " " * * *T***" ? '
- J
i 7 . p . . ._... _ . . .- u. . .u. .2 . _ . . ... DCA 20.18'l i PAGE 2 of I6?
.l _
E a-* I. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GEH PROJECT No. 2323 e r j
"I A SIMPLIFIED METHOD l
FOR DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF , SMALL SIIE PIPING
-n (D,
- PROCEDURE AB-5
.8 REV. 0 - JAN. 1980 REV. 1 - DEC. 1980 REV. 2 - FEB. 1981 REV. 3 - JUNE 1981
' REV. 4 - DEC. 1981 REV. 5 - MAY 1982 l
i
~i ~
GI235 & HILL, INC. I i
~ ENGINEERS, DESIGNERS, CONSTRUCTORS
, NE*d YORK, NI*4 YORK - 1
- -~.
J
.. Yh
. , , , . . . . ... , . . , . . . ~ . . , . . . . , ...._,,3._.. ,,;;,
F0lA _
..,;,)
. . . . ..._.;...._ . c._ ; . _ .2. .
.q
_a _ . . .:_ . . .. . . . . _ . DC.A 20 187 g PAGE 3 op182. , I,
~,
<I i
'A SIMPLIFIES METHOD
' FOR DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF SMALL
[ . SIZE PIPING ! 1 i I 7 - I t FOR i 1
~
I
. :2 t
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION G & H PROJECT No.2323 l Rev.5-MAY,1982 1 O
.. t
.0 Prepared by G.VEISS /M.GROTTEL 3
Design Reviewed by b# H.MENTEL M i
- Approved by .
A.RUTKOWSKI 4 i l GIESS & HILL, INO. ENGINEERS, DESIGNERS, CONSTRUCTORS NEW YORK, NEW YORK a e gp . . , , , , , , , , , ,,
**. S9-+- *=m-. g ,
I
..e. ..l
'n . .
.:..._....- .. . m . .. .
DCA 20,187 a . _: . .. --. .. -. -.. ... . ppag_ 4 ce jgz , 3 3 L - O t. g
- 1 ,
i - i' . I - e- -
- Table cf co= tents .
L Int:oduction 1.
- 2. Scope .
- 3. Design criteria i 3.1 Plant c;arating conditions ~
3.2 Leading Conditions
- 2. 2.1 Presss=a l
3.L 2 Deadweight g-( 3.2.2.1 ss;;c t spacing i I- 3.2.2.2 Sa;;c t Loads 3.2.3 Seismic {-}
- 3.2.3.1 seismic 111cvable Stress 3.13.2 seismi= 3estraint spacing i
- 3. 2. 3. 3 Reduced Seismic Rest:sist spacing i
; . 3.2.3.4 East:aint Leads 3.2.3.5 Seismic 12chc= sovements
}.; } L
- 3. 2. 4 horsal Expansion and ancho sovements
[ 3.L4.1 Thermal ris;Iacements - t ir 3.L 4.2 the:aal 111cuable Stress , Ap;:orisate criteria of 71ezihi*1:2 3.2.4.3 I
- $ 3.2.4.4 Einissa Span seguired 1 { e g g,1 3.1 4.5 feadiew Leads
- 4. Design Guidelines I 4.1 Deadweight
. (
i
^
4.1.1 Support spacing r_ 3
- oi i-m ao e %.pq,,
e g.
+ .eee , me
~~ -- -
----.._._.4_ _ _ . _
-2 . - . . .
..s._......._...
DCA 20,16 7
+ - - . . pyg g gg -
p u ' O i t la g
\- : Suppe=t Loads 4.1. 2 ,%. L
}
o- . t
'4.1. 2.
Anchec c: equipasst acz=1as 4.2 seismic l-4.11 seismic :sst:sist spacing - 4.L 1.1 Elbows j 4.2.1.2 Tees .
', of a tee
( 71:st lateral suppert '
- 4. L 1.3 l' 4.2 1.4 Reduce:s Lateral suppe=t close to = educe:
, 4. L 1.5
- ("3 4. 2.1'. 6 concestrated usights othe: Pi pi=g componests wit.A S.I.F.
N , 4.2.1.7 4.2.1.6 Seissi= :sst: mints at, the valves
'i Talte with cpe:Eters 4.11. W
{. . 4.1 1.10 Bestraints ca the valve body
.. f 4.2.1.11 Directions ci seismic restraints
~
4.2.1.12 Azial restreia*.s .~
- 4. 2. 1 13 Length cf span is all three direc*. ions .
I 4.2 1.14 La:ge 23113s cs vature tu. g ( {' n a a se4 m,< suna us s a.J cau ca +, cuI
- a. 2. 2 Dea.dwes*p. 012L. Rev. I (g l Fcv LAvts%5. t Fa t= w dA s.
Ca dcw (a t ,*ou t 4.2.2.1 $ <v' 2 Ms.tAed A e <.1
- 4. 2. 2. 2 Nomagr4,ph g- I l or, egu, A ma kt MC12.
lAS {' N. 2. 2. 3 4 Thermal e ch d g.5 1xpansion and Ancho: nov eses .s
' 4.3 i '
I 4.L 1 The:nal expassic: loop en e 1
--m . . . . . . - , . , -
A = * . e- o. e % g y
**=m+
-- - --e - , , --- , - - , , . , - ,-...---r-- m , - g ,,,r --,, -
DCA 20,187
. . . . . . ... . - ~
PAGe. G v I B ,<-
- E . .
u . O- . t ' 1h b . I"* ? 4.3.2 Einians spaz ==gsired r i , , 4.3. 3 31gid =azt:sist los&s t a , *.,
- a. asis. ed load.s fc= two spa.=.s
' 4. 3. s .
7.s t.). 1
- 4. 3. 5 Sn.hstitute sashbors for rigid suppo:
', 4.s c=ita=ia fo: desig: welded lag attachment.s
- 4. s.1 St=sss evaluation fs: weld ing attachments K. Procadare is: a;?licaties
.. ,a.,1. ,=. u.,
. 7. 3sfarmacas
- 3. Appa:112 1
' APPa: dis 3 hs 9.
1C. Appendiz C - X
~ kI
- - l}, [p '
c2. . 1 xE- . e
\ j f
l 3 . . .
, (
f . g t k
- I 8
i - t. U . I M" ObE ' N"
# # M pp q e## M+6 p6
- MShu.G@@W4WN'r*
_ , _ _ - . _ . . . - . . , . . , . -,,_ ,. __,y _.
DCA 20.187
. - - F' AGE 7 cr/B?.
p . L O L -f
- 2
. ~
i
- 1. Intreevetion l i
, the piping systess for Cosanche Pesh Sten 21ectric Station (CP325) shall be designed -in ace = da ce and Presssee Tassel Code,
, (*
with *1312 Boile:
' section Z:: and PSAR=C2525.
Po . Class 2 and 3 , i systeza, with small diamete: and low ,
,j piping 3 "
a simplified Design y= essure and temperata:e,
~Rovere=, the simplitied
- Bethod will be used.
' vill Design nethod des ==ibed in this documentation I f ensure p: ope: support location ast date:misation cd no==les, load on supports, anchors and equipasst 1523 section III Code regul essats j l such that the 1 - no::le
{ fo: piping stresses and the equipment allevahis loads provided in the specificasions vill
; I.
~
' he set.
leading the si=plified Design method will conside i ;i of pressure, weight, earthquahe, thermal e=pansion { i t. and anche: novament.
' 2. .31211 The SiE;11fied Design Bethod applies to 151I Code .
Class 2 and 3 piping, with a me=1 sal diamete: (p Iq j g.
-/l
. i.
' h a in. which remains cold (less tha: 200 ?)
I
;
- m
- 1 i Gi .
t
?
. -3 . . .
* *\
w . i DCA 20,187
.- PAGs 8 ofi$2'
, ~, .
a O t. ( 3 l' . ds=ing all plant conditicas. It can be ased also
. r* 331.1, with for aca-sncles: piping goes=ned by 133:
l a o same e ,e o , ope =a ung - aiti - . f . w Practicany, there is ao 3:assa=e limitation fo: i. the scope cf this procedn=e. IAe p=sasazz will be limited by allowahle st:ssa. ,3amover, far non-high j
- f. -
275 psi, energy lines, the presan=a is limited to by definition. For high energy lines, with a e. I y=essc=e higher than 275 psi, see below. i.
, satorial, schedule and Category specif1=aticas of l a:s I piping covered by the sisp1idied Design Bethod i
Q. listed in Ithle No. 1.1, append 1Z 1. The sis;1111ed Design method presents a simplified i conse:vative stati= seissi= analysis to es* = hid = h and to span .betwee n seismic restrainta, l the
,. and ~
I determine seismic loads on restraints, anchors i.
, , ogsipaent noz=les.
1 aise provides spacing between d eadvaight It l j' > > ss;;c ts and the co::esponding loads. The sis;1111ed Design method presents also a method of evaluating the= sal flexibility of the. piping 1552 r systems and determination of thermal leads. g
. D . .
m g,
, 9- t e
*-e. _-
p e emab .e
.- m. gym e ,
. , , , em4
,. , - ------,,,w-- . ---* ---------,-,y- ,, -
_py- - - - , , ,-p,-,,,p.yr-,.,,-,,,,--.,,r----,,--,.w,.--.,---w-
<-~..:....._.
~ ,
i DCA 20,lEf 7 i ' s
. PAG'E 9 CP IS?-
1, . i < ( g (" - ! L by this Section I= Class 1 piping is act cove =ed r method. ' e. Eigh 2as=gy Fluid Pipiag Systes, as defined by Elc l A23C3 3-1 is a.dse act t
' Branch technical Position
' cove:ed by this nothod, salass treat locations are -
postnia'ted at every fitti=g and other welding -' t connecticas a: attachmenta. . bJi
.t C Piping systems that 1are subject to dynamic ,. k l l ether than sei'saic (i.e. , 8 basser, etc.)
are oscinded from the scope of wat a= AS
*"84 I
this method NWM. Mtahth. A 4tx h, M M u d {' ( f g. Desi I .F criteria
've ' ladt O b;31f. . l7*
,- 3.
I "' e sia;11fied* Design Bethod esas:1.ders all loadings deadweight, earthquale, resulting froa pressure, I thermal expansion and anchor sovement for all [t piping within the sco;e of this procedur e. Each leading er combination of loading is evaluated for the st:ssa : squire ments specified by the plant / I' ope ating conditions. l i Pla:t Cteratine Conditions 8 J.1
- a AsEE II: Class 2 The plant operating conditions is:
I
- catego:ized as Normal, asd 3 piping systess are l(
. .w l .
I t-
% e .
9 . y
,,pgs, m , 9
**= p e . v --Wa +
**M* P
, . _ - . _ . , _ . , , - , , _ . , _ _ , . . . . , . . . , _ _ , _ _ . . ,._.,,.,-...r._,,,_.n,..c. ,., _,,____m,. ,,.y.,
w ,
. _ i
. . . . I j
DC A. 2 Q, /B 7_ ; PAGG lc g- gf ,
. P .
i O. t
' 5 l
,a
- Aa i
1 1. Upset, sae:gency and Paulted conditions.
;I <-
associated 1 cad combinations andadallevalla are stresses I' - a:e specified in 1512 I=-3c-3652 h sussarised in the following parag=aP s. s t 3.1.1 torsal and U set eneratisc conditio:s a
'! t l During me mal and upses operating cesditions the falleving egnaticas must be satisfied. /
l
- E .
g-3 1.1.1 sustal=ed Iceds l
- f. '
, The effects 'of pressn=e, weight asd other scstained '
s- = se== ~=== ='
=> a ca 1~*= == -c i 4.
O* I- z g. 4s3 . 1.0 3 (8) 3 = 33,g + _ .7 5 in. $ 3 k SL sta i , i. y = isternal , design press::e, pai. ! - I Do = outside diaseter of pipe, is. [ tn = nominal vall thictness, 1s.
, s i and other
. 3A = resultant acaent das to weight
, l.
sustaised loads, in-lbs.
' i e ist: ass intensification factor (0.75121)
= sectica modules cf pipe, in.I satarial allowable st=ess at Design sh = basi I
- ss;e==ts e, psi l l
i i ! t ( - 1 o 1 -
. I G 8
.G 0 .
I i n.
-*-wo.m~~ ..
- , , . _ - _ . _ _ _ , ____,_._m-.____ -
- i :
- l -
. Dch 20,167 . . '
~ a . . OAGS II W 162
~
(.
. h, -
6 . 4 1 C .
~
L
,- 3.1.1.2 occasic:a1 f. cads 1
The effects of pressure, seight, othat sustained ,
<- es=thgnale, loads, and occasit. sal loais, including h
anst meet the zegsirements of Eg. (9) . 1 (9) 5 = P aar to + 0.75 i in a.3+ 1a1 ( 1.2 3 h ' t [ - CL esa ~
' 2erms same as in 3.1.1.1 azcept:
Psa: = leal p=esss=e, pai. T r a* 33
= Iesultant acaent das to occasicaal loads, such as thrusts f=os relief and safety valve I loads 1:ca y=essu=a s.nd flow traasiasts, and I
{.} es=thquake (only one-half range) . Effects of I
! . ancho displaceae=t due to earthgsake may be excluded f=on Eq.ation (9) if they are in-( cinded in 25 10.
l i (1.
- l I
1 l l t i b 9 ~ i l i ; . i 0 \. - l r -
.k
= 'w '**
. -. ,=,e.- #
g,,,,,,, .,,pe.
..,,,7,- , ,. ._-, .,,.. - - -----
, , - - - -, , _-w-.- , _ ___-y.r---,---.---...----.-.---..--,r-,.--.-.-..-%, -.,-~.--e- -,.-r-- w+--- - , -w- -i-- w+*------
w .. . . . . . . I
~
~~ ~
. . . . . - .~ : : . . -l . . .
~ .
DQK '2. O. : I.9. 7. . . . .* . - PAGE IC of IST. n s C- L. y . ~ 3.1.1.3 Thorsal trear.sion 1e.= ,,. (10) o= = (,1) .a w
,h. re,.1=es. .2 , i set.
j i seet its a) Ohe offact.s of the:aal arpassion'anst
=eguirements of 3g. 10. ,4 5 = g 5 51 (10) l ,
z 1
- I J
To:ss same as in zquation (8) azeept: , T . j I . i sc = 1ange of.resaltant some=*a due to s I thermal exp=' =4 a - also incande soment
, -. I t effects of ascho: displacessats due l
j to ea=thquaha if anchc= displaceasst eff ects were omitted from equation (9) . f 1. 3 = 111ovable st=ess :ssgo fs: expassics { 1 3 st esses = f(1.25 Sc + 0.25 sh) based on c!clic loadi; whe=e f - =edac. ion fac.m: i of "'jIessure, valght one: b) The effects f q I
- sustained loads and thazzal expaasion shall sees the =egui=esents of 31. (11)
}
i 53+3 (11)
! 3 = 3 + 0.75 1.GA). 3 + i 15! & I A l 21 ats i :
3 0: 1. g .. i 1 F
4 .
.2... .
*.-.-..,:.,a--...- .. ..
2.. 0.,.16.--7 . .
. .- - . .. . .. . .. . . .. D... C -- A a
a -
'~'.
p, g g ,3 g, ,g g_ j 1 e. i
! (, I.
r- ; l. F.aereene, overa+4e conditions
,. 3.1. 2 f.
ese:geacy condi ions, the sua . of the Duiag N . weight, stresses produced by internal pressure, other avstained loads and ocessimaa.1 Acads defined b in the desiga specification far emergency coadition
, ; of Eq. (9) with as anst meet the requ1=esents .
allowable of 1.8 Sh. . .. EA.4 h
!- (9) 3 = Psar Do + 0.75 i fEA+3Em.) f 1.8 Sh 0L aza 1 f - ~
I {
; i I 3.1.3 Fatited'Cteratine Conditions Ql Du=ing the faulted operating conditions the sua of
, its longitudinal suass produced by occasional loads defined in 'the design specificaticas as I
l' meet the requirements of i faulted condition aust
'.. .. ~ ; 2g. (9) with as allevable of 2.4 sh. i ,
t
= Paar to + 0.75 i (34 +a sM s 2.4 sh (9) ;b!\
6 S CLF ata
- t 3.2 toadi=e conditions i.
The evaluation for diff erent lomiing conditions is
/ } la 2
i presented la detail is the following Pa:agraphs to ss cf analytic'ai assumptions and method of analysis. , I ' I t. ! l l
* ~
.,..n
.-- ,,---------,----.-----,.-.--.%,--.y 4 +------ ,y, ,-w- - , , , ,, . ,,.7-y
, . , , . y w-e.- i--we -we-o+-.ww-s-+--Wv v * *
- 4 . .
^
Dc4 3mIR7. . .. PAGE H ce 18 j p , u . QC .
- 1
;s < . ,
.> 4 .
.3. 2.1 Pressure Longitudinal p:sssure stressas shall be calculated is acco:dasce with the equation:
; 3 M&. 3 1
y
= 73:2 Do, where .
4 -
.1 l -
[et eu Psa = sazissa design p ss.sare (psig) f Do
= outside dissets: of Pips (isc hes)
= sesisal vall +hdahass (isches) ta t Based cm the pipe sisians rail desigs, we can I .
assume a limit of SLP $ 0.5 sh. j Dendweiebt h 6. 3.2. 2 - prope:17 suppertad Pii P ng systes and S * * :s asst e a t t U t 0 2.J ' g 1 '
, . i .
sisizi=e the possibility of excesstv 6* l f deflection, the maxissa vertical anppc:t spacis; (. I shea: and was based on a sa isus coa 31 sed besding s
- 1
' st:ss:
- s a C.751 J,3 5 0.1 sh z C.75 i fI ,
E S s 0.1 inch. and a nazisus deadweight displacese t l l
- 3.2.2.1 Sustert Stacinc l .
l L i
- Table a gives recessanded samisus deadweight pipe t
su;;::t spas L (ft) fo: va:1cus pipe sizas and I 4
't i fluid ccatant.
g.t . l C);. i l-
L.J_- _
*) $6 DCA 20,187
- l A
a
* ~~-
ppgg j5 op jgf," ! s c.
/0 ; ;d 8Oi 1 r phi. A I
_.' q~ Roccame=ded N=w'- Deadweigt Span, ID, ft it . . J _h a--i Pipe size Wate: Se M ee Steam, Cas,_ Air c) j g . T=d se i
- 5 { ,gi 1/2 0
3/4 7 12 I
- 1
- g
- 4 .
1 1/2 10 13 ' 2 l' . 11 U ' 2-1/2 M 3 13 fa 3-1/2 14 *7 -
< 4 3.2.2.2 Su=ce-t Leads g-1 Deadvei gt sgport loads are cale-dated by the f allowi=e; fc=:sulas:
Red 3
< }' .
') =. 1.i . t., x L) ... . .. - - - . . .
I ':he increase of 10 percent is for ce=servatism. h concestrated weigtsat35d-spa =,w(D),the c reactics forces at the supports may be calculated ro; by: D5 r; = 1 1.T'W x L) + 1/2 w e
, g I where: 7 3 = daadwei gt suppers lead, Ds W = distributed voi ct, Ds/ft
.' j
*' L = spas between supports, ft W = ce=cestrated wei gt, Ds.
f-
' :1
.2:
'l f.
i . t
,c" f I
M ~ -
.-.l n
U t. . i 1
? e
= * -
'O 9=1"=+*@- -9 et ew.bHN 3
,. - -.--,..-,.-n.- , - , - - - - . - . - . , , . - , , , , . -
4
.. l
- ....w.. . . . .: : . . . .
l i
.s:.: . .Q..CA. . 2.D 3 .I S. .T....
PAGE )!., :P182 "1,
. \ .
=
' -f
} ,
h (*
, ( 11
^^
to calculate soment loads on anchc=s a equipsest 1 nozzles the following equaticss .say be ased: ' lk The acaent: 3 = 1/g 3:a , ! d The =sactica fe:ce: 2 = a} El j i
., I 3
4 Special situations a:e considered is section 4. i n' i 3.2.3 seissic i t simp' 4 *ted statis analysis method uses the j es*= ' I d =h causa=vatively the st: ass c=iteria, to the seissi= Restraint Spacing. t 8
, i f .:. ( '
L.- , seissic 111evable stress i L. 3.2.3.1 of parag 2ph 3.1.1.2, and the
' 7=os Ig. (9)
L I we assumptic s made in pa:agraphs 3.2.1 ami 3.2.2, l l can v=ite the seismic allovalle stress, for upset t conditica (CBZ) : i 3 = 1.2 sh - 0.5 sh
~
- 0. 75 a
- 0.75 i: 0.1 sh = 0.7 C. 7 sh
$ 1 - 0.1 Sh
{ 3
! Cace the st ess level =eguirement for upset eg. (9) for ese gency and conditics a:e ast, l 312ce t
fanised cc:ditica shall not he considered.
- t vill not I the the pressare and deadweight s:: esses -
7 } ( . bn,
~
I . . . . . [ l ___ __ - _ _-__I
o 5 . . .y
,..:...........v .- ...-......i-.... l l',
c
-- '.p
.C.W.
, g ,,.A.,,. gc. g, o I S7..., ,
I he l 12 . ,
. ( . .
- p. .
c3 3,e, she ine:e.m of -u stresas for ssz IS)
- ein gt,e a total st:ess sh1=h v111 satisfr es for both conditions, one.gency and fanited. - F .
3:acinq .
' 1 3,;.3.2 seiszie Bestraint straight rum, based ca the simply supported For a -
a boaz with one and fixed and one and . beas, c the nazians sp a h agth between sis;17 sa;;orted, restraints, , i I . c
- I = 2.19 (sh :/12 ss N) 1/2 .
' f
& t-
- whe:e 1
L = span length between seismi
.g - ' s' I
!" restraints (ft) ;
. y l,
'l L sh = basic satorial allevatie stress at
' I l 200 F (Psi) 3 k. 2
= elastic section zodnins of pipe (la8) i
; s
. (1h/f t) ;
t* g = veight dist:ibution of the pipe I 'I~ s: . l s m. the effective seismic coefficient
- s
.]. .
i l' er;;essed is ' gravities; j { f G, r L I g . . S
..-l
.. -.~ 2 _. u __ . u ._ . . .
DcA. L'O,I87
~ '
PAGG l6 y 18L'
~
-t
.. .t .
a t 13 bii L .
= 0.65h j
' ' This formula was de=ived on the basis of 5 a i Ths:sfo:e, by sais*= 4.iag the seissi: spas,tu.[s-
[ , i l2d ShtCS$ J l allevahle iL. be set. The equation can be v=itte:: !s l
; 'd> I i g ' .
;Q
'I &
es/ss.
' ; z. - ,
; be estah11shed through the spa:
j > [... ' The noaog:syh 2, , ca Fig. No. 1.1, Appe=di: A, whi:h t rey:ssents this equation, if we have the va. lues cs
,,$ j -
~'
a:d Gs. ha
- l [, Tabulatej values es 3.2.3.2.1
!- the size, schedule a:d
^ the valus es depe=ds on is I saterial of pipe. This i: formation is provided i I. Three
;Us: Piping specificatio 23 23- 15-433.
' y I were established for designatio:s (A, 3 and c)
. I r t' differe=t types cf saterials, with different values l
j,
- of Sh, in Table 1.1, App =9 E.
~
4 i . i s The p=c;erties of pipe sn:t as n=1t weigh- ofithe I
! F Ps, f
I i empt7 Pi pe, nnit weight of water inside the modalus, are give: 1
, i the elastic sectics I .
i Table 2.1, APP *EdiZ 1-
. i l 4 a
b~: , . . l
, c !
!/ ' {. . .
~ ,
.,w .
p
- e ee es%-.
*8'* * .=* pseme = =inge r pem ;*a * +- e
l
~. l
. DCA 20.16 7 _
s .
- . ~
PACsE 19 of (22. I'* I i i-Value Gs depends also en the weight of insulation. 6 i=sulation were considered. . Two types of '
- I:sula ion No. 1, calcium-silicata s=d i=sulation 1 i Se
. No. 2, staisless steel reflective 1:su 4t on.
ur.it weigh a of these two types of insulation, tampera .=e of 200 T, -l corresped'mg to a mari'm m d** A. ~ are given in Table 3.A, App
- e. Se tabula ad Cs values are give: in Table 4.A, Appendix A, for various pipe sizes.
(
.i
- 8 3.2.3.2.2 Seis=le coefficie.t Cs I
m
), ( This coefficient has the value :.
l G sy G 1.+ Gy 2 + Gz2 r s 2 L Se G-loads are the peak floo response spectra for l CBI, for differe=t buildi=gs at given elevations. , I ( S e Cs values are l A da=pi=g of 1% was considered. I J g I' listed i= Tables 5.A, Appe= dim A. j 1 I
! 5sz vill be used for emergency M*$l I Se G values for loads on the supports only.
i 3.2.3.3 Reduced Seismic Rest:si:.t 5sacircr ' ( t Se for=ula for the maximum spa: 1e:gth betwees g seis=ic restraints, developed is paragraph 3.2.3.2, 5 For act.:a1 vas established for a straight :.:=. M' % Sy.dtAM..%,m'A d d'"Qii A *
- b. : .'
{ (' dhs.d'icur Arosuhts,ecaddd WitLM (4,,,1 Ul . I* l 1
w . .
.._. . .. . ....2..~ .
.. QC A Q l 6~1. . . . .
l,.
.P K r E 2 0 c r IB fl.'
s i
,_ t .
e JOr'
~
g i 15 . L-b flanges, forged fittings, et=.), were the valass of i
' 3 0.75 i > 1, the saziana allowed spaa between f '
- i L. .
~
- sst:sists has to be reduced. .
1
. i The equation which gives the span becomes t
- [ L= C /G ib s where C = E.Cs .-
-' . - b
~
'I = sultiplier facto: $ 1.
~i
- the values of E, fc= varians piping components and .
l is a diff ars:t piping configurations a:s established 4 section'4.2. < ?* :
)
a 3.2.3.4 Best:sist Leeds loads, assnai=g a beam on
' seiszic restraint L
are calculated by the snitiple re,stralsts, I i' 1 f allowing ieranlas: i
- l. Bo:12=ntal Bestraist -
23 = 1,15 1.6h.1 RWO ( ' Ye tical Iestralst - It = 1,25 E.Gv.L
' where:
' .I ! t G = sazians acceleration is he:isontal I A dize= ting:
i: - G = sy, =x1=== acceleration is verti=al I
! I v g
di:ection;
- t 0
\ $
s
; O'i f .
'{-
I. . .
.,..;.,-..,..,., ,, ,. f
. .. 7, , , ,
i i . . - . l
. . . . . - . ~ . .
. . D..dA.. 2.. 0z_f.S 7. .
[, ..' . . PAGE 21 or let r . 6 . r-i
- h. .
( - 14 ; i
., ' f l '.
The250% isc=same is far ceaservatism. Loads with c'oncest:ste/. vaight cI , at a sia spas ' i
' f of two rest:aints '
= (tf.5 E + C.5 5 c) f,h scrizostal Restraist - 3 I
~
p-u Ye:tical 3est=sint - Ev= (1,25 n + 0.5 c)sv e i
+ . .= 'j -
sosent loeds on anchors or og.ipsaat i To calculate ac=21es the fonoving egnation may be used: t r. e L
. The assent:
f t 8 = 1/8 WLag E ,' The reactica fo ce: 3 = J/8 Ei,C ' {! { whe:e G - sa:isez acceleratica is asy'directica-g's. y Special situations a:e considered is section 4. L. T seisnie anche sevesents
- t. - 3. 2. 3. 5 seismic displacement of
.[
a: ; t the effects of relative a .
' anchers and restraints can be deteralsed through analysis. The displacement seccada:7 st: ass sos:
to act la the cos;caents shall be assased { The stress due to worst safavorahle comhisations. p 4 f
- case seismic displacanests shall be calculated as a static the: sal displacement case.and combined as
' I l' Seis=ic displacese: 18 shou: is the next Paragraph.
I(
^*
, - - ~ . . ~ . . .
. . . , . ~ _ - ,. , . . ,
- . _ . - . . _ - . _ . _ . - - - - . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ ---___.-_.-----..c- . _ , . , . . . . , _ .
DCA '20,19 7 l P * -
.[%CrE 22 of 182 t-L .
n t.- ( 17
- p. .
hen h fo: differest buildisgs ud elendons us g I' tahls 7.1, APysadiz 1. 5 h r Hovements ahe sal TrtatSion and lac e
- 3. 2. 4 asalysis a the:sai flezihility L
a To cosylate - cassed by the sazisas st.ess cos;azisca of the movements on the pipe and ancho the, a1 expansion st: ass range si, as allev able
! y is made with the She as t' step is to deteraise defined by the code.
rest =aints, egaipsest 6 acaents at s the ic=ces and I nozzles and anchers. g, _ (. The: sal diselacement ;*~ ( '. g. J. 2. 4.1 t that must be absc:Ded the: mal displacesant ro: The ho to a d o.= 1.. bz a ,tri g sp o .1 , bed by example, espansion of leg L3-2 aust be absc: I- ' . leg 12-3 .
; f k -
. e
--, ___J. ,
d i ... g _. 7 tg- --- t d p
, ! 5 - .
1 s l . t- l I
' s s
L lf ft " u '~1 . I f : I l nmr i . O., i i e 9 . .- . .
=es. e e. ee amp .
eh We N+<5(
4 - ._ . . . . -
'~'
oc^ 20e' L ' PA65 23 of IBC Where: 4. h=the:maldisplacement-inch i ' 6 d = linear coefficient of thermal expansion E-W 3 is goisg from 70 F to the designed highest temperature - inch /ft i
= length of expanding pipe - ft ,
[ , [1-2. -. L 3.2.4.2 Thermal allowable stress Sg i e When calculating this value the effect et worst f4-v ,1 f I e. the.-=al case and the'intensificatien facects must be cens.idered. ' (') l. . s = sa 3 i I I where S A = f (1.25 Sc + 0.25 Sh) e i Uhere f-reduction f acter based on cyclic leading. u f 3.2.4.3 Aeproximate criteria of flexibility . l I
~ '
A piping of unifc=m si=e which has no more than twc s I anchors and no intermediate restraints is censidered having an acceptable flexibility if it satisfied the
~
- f. formula p;cvided by Piping Code l '
t t'
- f. k l.O'i-I i . . -.
. . . +
. . . .. ...--..-.y.
_.-~_ _.
- l2CA 20,197 PAGE 24 ct"l8V' L -
O . ,. , - 3, . i (332 331.1) DT _ Da (3-1; a $ 0.03
, whe:e 3 = aczisal Pi Pe size, in.
y = :ssultaat of rest =aised thezzal
' expansion and not linear ta:minal .~
dis 91acessats, in. i 1 U = .ancho distance (length of st= sight l* *=e=4 a=1 or ancho 11ae joining r
! points), it .
8
,I, 3 = :stio of developed P1Pe length to ancho: distasca, dimensicaless.
M ~"117 12 Ch' S 1L 8 #f This, fc:sula is given g:aP I Appendiz 3.
- The abeve equation does not directly evaluate l
Rosever, the actual nazians st=ess range st esses. 32 contained in the egnatica can be found f:ca f . 3 = 33.3 DT 5g3 18 (3-1)a , f 2 It has te be sentioned that this formula represents i has limitations l i g no sore than a rule of tanab, and e in cases of unf avoratie configuratics.
) (~
Oit . L . l,
* *e 6 m , , , . , , ,v- -v -
m- --e - - , - - . - - - - - --e.-e----- - - - - -- ,,----,--n-.------..--m.- - - - - - - - - - - -- ,, - n- -m-- - - - , --,++--,,,-,--m--m ,g-w---
, 5 _ _ _ . .. . l l
.x.A 'Z0,19 7 ;
1 l go PAGG 25 cf 182 i l 3-
': L.
gg 1O { (
, MINIMCM SPAN RIOUIRID D e guided cantilever method is the basis for . the 3.2.4.4.
- calculation of the minimum span , [ m/n LP
,e 5" 1 _- bt _
L T S, I
.l
! N .
1 ll p 1
'f AnsAo: o- a sia l.
iwo 1a s: ss ,%t L It will l' The leg. ,, /. s is guided cantilever. g-
! absorb,by deflectien j the thermal expansion of the s.
r f leg [- 2 plus thermal and seismic - anchor move-f ' ment in the direction of ,, l. 2 - The deflection at point 2 j
= PLf nrr- (inch) )
The bending stress 5 = 15;g
, b .s Where p - the force due to deflection
! section modulus of the pipe 1 2 -
o i' The minimum length is l . fGSEz *
' /m<in.
T4
! (
Oii. f * *
- e .... .
*- m.
m-sww - ---- - - - - -% .,,,7- , , , , - - .-_-r- -- __--.-r _ - - - , _ - . - , >
_i .. _.:._......s.. . . _ . . . r . .J CCA 20,i: 7 PA05 es ;i~IBC
=l f~_
i I
. O {t Where [ sin. is the minimum isdistance to the first
' rigid support located on ,, [j ) inch.
E - Modulus of elasticity of the pipe, psi o i 7, - pipe radius, inch 5 Se 4 + [e - thermal expansion of the leg, /-2 .
.l.
thermal anchor movement (if any), inch o- .- inch k - seismic anchor displacement, '
- allowable thermal stress, psi ,
8 79 Otherwise, Lain flexibility is met.
- r. If L1 actual >f g,
rearrange support (3) location or type (for snubber) p For special appli-until the above condition is met. {** ' cations, details wil'1 be given in the next section. i k. I, I L. I f. f ( I l s
) , .
n (.. I . 6-i 8
. . . . . . _ , .~.
.W EQ1Ih7 ... . .
P A a e 2.7 d.- 1 8 2 . l'. ( b- . . t 22 2 . PC . *b2, / f,jf.) I ' t .. . . - , j R (ach* 8 M 10es3 .,
- 3.24.5 (t m>g 11 .. m nrdi - . . .
Ea/j loads,[Ese ts restraint on thermal the reaction m eezents, can be ancho; expansion and/or 1 [. calculate 4 as fallows: P y = 12rr d teaction to:ces: 3.2
~
,. . 3 = fag Reaction sensats: 2 L .
where ::
= nosent of inartia, ia*.
t' I, 4. Desic: Guidelines t I She fellowing guidelines have to be used in
; (. Design Czitaria, to accc: dance with the previons g/
and restraint deternize acceptahls support support and restrain spaciaga, to evaluate pipe : l f* loadings, and to provide pipe flexibility fo: I . ' the: sal expansion and ancho; movements. f '. Deadweicht t 4.1 4.1.1 sus:ert scacin e . I por deadweight load cases, if the results show that
.i 4 i g is
- i. ( . the required deadveight varti=al support spac n than the vertical rest:siat spacing fres 8
1, f greats: I, vartical supports will J f s the seistic analysis then I { f Oi (
. I .. ... ..
- l. ... . .
.e -
.%_-,-,m.,m. ~-.c,. - - - - , - -___,..,p.,, . . - , . , - - . . - - _ - - - , . _ , , - - . . - . - - ,--,-.,w.. ,..-,,,m-
, . . .. 4 QC.A CO I87 PA Q s 2F>ci IBC i ,
p, 1 1 O"j, t, 23 i b not to be required in addition to seismic rigid i I
', 6-restraints at the ree - anded maximum seismic '
spacings. , If the navimum lateral seisr.1= support spacing exceeds the allowable vertica"1 gravity spacing, "7 . locating guides at the allowable vertical gravity ' fs. spacing will satisfy both the seismic and gravity 9
' support requirements.
f. I Keductica factor K for the seismic span, can be j,* adweight span, directly for used to reduce the ) Web j' btN2. n t cencentrated weights e for othe:Twith the formula (D. a ' I.D red = (b) (6) where b deadweight span from Table A. ( l0)- 4.1.2 Suceert Leads p The deadweight leads at the supports will be treated ktV **
- at paragraph 4.2.2 together with the seismic loads.
1 {
^5A Cu1dhh. bk Inu. M Ctd$(khdd g
, (
2.2.2.1. m i m A-crud e.c is .pe
/ , 4 t Ikh.$*.
t e
1 .
t i ( , O, . l.. , I i.. p 4 e
--- - - - - - - -,,,m, s.-. _ _ - - , ,-._ - . . . . - . . - , _ . - - . , , _ _ . . _ _ . , _ y
. i . - . . .. I ;
~ _ ., _
t. [XA - 20, tS7
~-
PA&E 29 05/82 24-
]
6 / (an . 8574. A e { .(
, I i l
- 1 Cenennt-sted_veicht not at the mid scant i ,
._--.....u.. C p
a
. . ,c a r
., ah s VWc.
t
. ~
pO -
. 4 .
L
' . l- -
P -. . ._
....u-l 9
The reac.ics support is 7 F = 1.16'(W z T ) *Lh D - Ri sefs. - - . . 2 d@' G jwc
.D .
V. . ..v . . . . L s.o.w .be een4CckVd 0.s o. Lcd'.ownd i it; . p pcp.chh h'fm V1 O'-} WM. A. c.nuud U l
; sti.gM %. C W ,24-fit rCccA. is /wt4 so i
%%A.Q .
o e 3 2
' I:
0 . 6 - -. .
- ese __ 9
- eum. _ _
- 6. % _ h .o
.uuuum. *.O.
w-
- ~ ~ w w - .e n ~ <.
Ocp . go,19 7 .-
. ~ - - -
PAGE :Y)cfI2A.
. O" l< ,
-2r-
)
1- . 1, t l' . nez=les t inchors er eeniement 4.1. 2. ) ' j
~ In addition to the loads gives in 3.3.2.2 which are f for a g'uided cantilsva:
with a a=iform lead, we j. have to consider special sitaations. i
; f
( ; ,. I - a) i concentrated vaight is the fi=st spas. 8 n. r-c .s d
,Oi. '6w, es 6 .
L . k _ ( .. [e
~
5 i ? . the vaight is the sia span I - ne reaction force fo: is app =czisste -
. 3 = 047 Ig
}
{ i J, ne nazisus soment is 3 e -0.19248c1 i a nose reactions a:e is addition to the 5:1f8:: s k dist:itsted load reactions. . O,-
- i. .
4
. 5 - _m .._l .J DCA- CO,i 67 PA G 5,,$,,g ),M ...
d ,
. .: t~ "
@ b. -
N.
- 2c -i -
q
-; ,. b) Effect of a =isez.
L . c -
~~
4 , , r . ._ .s i - I
--q b
j ..
- s. -
. e. -
1
- l. .
3 a wish one end gized and one D I. sill censider as a and sis;17 supported .M 2
*O
- pNg.~4 * ' * "
- g'N N !
l , 1
-f x a, share 3 , the tasal weight
=
the sonest B c . c
'. l of the raiser.
f the reaction,is . i L
=, sa
' r .
e The somest 3 i '. . These are is add.ition to the reaction due to the
. L
.' a
; 41strib tea loads.
J i, b . I I. . i fQ. s. . . . O i I i
.b f -g o
y ---,r--, ,-, -,- c - ,. , - -- - - - - - ,-%m. , - - . - - - - , - - . - . - - - - , . - - - - - - - - - - -.--,--r
. 5 .. .
... . .... \
Q'A '.'O. I67 I cc 18 2.
' . .'A.G. v=.A ,
t 1 i . i ( ! 2,7 - ' 4.2 Seismic
. 4.2.1 seis=ie restrai=t sesei=e The basic spar.s provided is paragraph 3.2.3.2 must st= sight rur.s are
- l. be reducal when anything but i.e., elbows, teos, concent:sted weights,
~
, involved,
(
~
etc. 5 I To calculate the reduced seismic restraint spacing to be as in paragraph 3.2.3.3, value K has l' determined in all cases. (~ t Elbows 4.2.1.1
' for piping with a bend or an elbow the K value is The K value given in figure No. 2.A, Appendix A.
depends on the pipe size and schedule, the and the
> angle between the two legs connec.ed, 7 the two legs (Refersace 6). For ratio of
,. of K values is sockat-welded elbows, the read *-g '
{- done at the'51F = 0.75 1 = 0.75 x 2.1 = 1.573, for I. K values a:e give= in -g any pipe size or schedule. I' t, Table 8-A. 1 . f r ( I O- g s O e I e
.____-.~.,w _ .___ _ , _ . _ - - _ _ . - . _ _ . . - _ . _ ., , . - . . . _ , _ _ _ . _ _ -
- .- = _ .. . -. -_ . __
- '. . .i .. ..
__.-.-..u--.
' DCA - 20,18 7 . .. . .
i PAG 2 SS v124 j . r ( .
- , c . .
, r
<~ s.L t.2 1ss,E
, E value is fiven la fig. ;
For sun with toes the - For sosast velded tees, 6 Es. 3.1, APPea&iz 1. I s \ E= 1 - = 0. 625
.75 1
, ! for any size or schadale. ,
P
['
't suppers of a see has to be as close f 4.2.1.3 First lateral as posaikaa to the side of the tea.
!1 {,
L C, . .
s\e .
Y - n 6 g . reda:er, i
n
(
= = 0.667 4 K= -
" insert
[' In case of a socket welded reducer, c . K = C.635 . t , I ' 4.2.1.5 A lateral support has to be located as close as pipe size. possible to the rwheer, at the larger ne second su pert at the smaller size will have a f 1er Cs, the pipe Is-,'" span L deta=ised with Ch = Ecs. ( size and schedule corresponds to the smaller size. 4.2.1.6 Co.eent:sted weichta g valves, flanges, fittisgs For concentrated weights: f 2-A.
- the K facts is given in Char.s No. 1-A and Stress 1stensification Tactor is included where f needed.
l . will multiply direc.ly the length L De K values Se redaced established through the Homog aph. spas 1 for concentrated weights will bei i f d I la K* (ft) ( - O l' 4 . ._ I. l l
,,,l
^
c _. . .
....._2 +__.. . . . _
w --_ PAGG tof 167
/..
F O 3o I -
. l j
i will intersect Ifthehorizontallineforagivenj u.. the rpperbound of the chart qlP. a point.beyond the (* actual Eg, read the K value corresponding with the
/b J value.
intersection of upperbound and actual Kg If will intersect with the icwerbound at a point '
- f. before the actual K.g value, read the K value cor-g.
responding with the intersection of lowerbound and h } ~- s g' actual Ky. In any case if [1C a, put a restraint i= mediately after the can'contrated weight component (at the pipe,near the weld point of the valve, flange . i* etc.) l 4.2.1.7 other Pinine e- -cnenets with stress Intensification _ l L Facters (' - [ For welding connections on straight pipes, tapered transition, etc., K is given in Figure 4.A, Appendix A. i-l
. I,
! s 1-
. t.
t t
- O t a
i t l -
..m - - _.. .__
._p- . m -- w e ~
- n. .. .
n . - . . -
. .~
i
- tYA- 200 S 7 I TMGE &,cr 182.
f t f 1 Eu .( l0 1 i ( . l For any other S.I.F. which is not given here but is i i ( required by code, i K= 1 O.75 1 i ? To account for wall thickness violations, the follow- ) - ing procedure has to be applied. ,,
- 1. - By Ref.14, aKV f actor was established for minimum j wall thickness violation up to 0.02'in based on pipe '
p The KV values size and schedule, for Eg. 8, 9, 10. ji, p shall be treated as stress intensification factor. !' , For Deadweight and seismic they were already multi-f f. 1' @' u ( plied by 0.75. In the Nomograph method, the span ! reducing factor will be:
- q. .
i 1 !.g . K = "Tv" ~ . straight section connected by ' In casea of short two elkows, or an elbow and a concentrated weight, l etc., so that a section has more than one SIT whichever is higher has to be considered. 1 4.2.1.8 Seismic restraints have to be located as close as J i possible to the valves, flanges, and other types ! If two I of concentrated loads on the piping system. i' valWes are very close to each other, select the Judgement
- a. first restraint location between them.
l t ( . should be used, if additional location on either Q side of the valves is necessary. 1 i
. . - 7 ._ . , , ,. ,. ,.
l - , . . ... -
i
~ '
~'
~ ~
DdA ~ CDs187
~
FAdd..M.7 cr/S2 O- 4.2.1.8.1 Free Drain Line A. . f ,
- 1. Cantilriew Branch cennectien_
i
', r' t $v :s :
The total weight of the drain
~
gM q' .line ' s,[-=- - W=W P +WV
', h f
ng" Where: . e . t /.4
- weight of the straight
' v- n/y I W p
f - i pipe up to the VAL *lE + weight 8dsof fluid + veight o insulatioryW - weight of valve The dimentioE to the center of, gravity of the drain .- [ line W.
- 84 r + W, ' [v
- , i
~ ~'
g The calculated value of "L
- has to be checked by the following two criterial I
a) b t (ft) $ ( b) bt(ft) ti. Wf e' "
- c. ~ ,[, whichever is less Use value ,y og are valid if P .de 1000 psi For::ulas ,,a* and b" i
t 4 650 cts [sk 2.1; J, @ 15000 p.s.i'.
$ 2. Mement Branch Connection I 3 g I" -
- .yA- - --
a > [ ,- . . J.fz ;
~
54
>d -
" w, 4,*la s'yW
, ,. 3 i 4.Y 4 uw
.v y
. .ddL ,
vW ,Y ,
"% PI -
^
Yk ._ m
\ ')
l cc, 2 . O' cas /. 1 * - - - . . . -
I
- a. .% ..
c;.. . . . . _ Df.A,,-fgjl y]
, I
. . __ . . . . .. . . . . .... ... . . .,, ., , , ... ,,,, ,,,, ,, _,. , ,,. ,,, , N G E 98 CF I b,f
- 33-
== *=* 1 - is** r ** <= i= 21=-
O- v/- w,, % ( . The' dimension to the center of gravity j* , Q& +w%=&
,1., has to be checked by The cal =ulated value of
- the following formulas: C' #f R * ', d .
\VA;;u Yes: I c) [* (fil n Wei ;
f In t te Mt1*N(l3Nfd d) d.cg ilE C, 9 C2 A.- g Use value ,, Q LL 6ehichever is less C,h , 0, f( =_ . q . . l t
. . . .?
For the values Ci, C2 given in Table No.1, the total equiva en i static acceleration at the centerFor of gravity situations ofwhere the drain the l ne be was considered less or equal 6g. resultant accelerations pxceed done. Ik.1 d4iuAhx/4 cw 41, dat ht act,t.L-1,Al'N l
-d.J. c:u r.t,\4d,w,.
Meeting criterias "h" and "d" the resonant frequency of smaldiameter free-end primary frequency at the attachment. seismic analysis doesn't provide the location of the primary in cases where the primary frequency of the piping frequency, system higher than 1.2 the peak frequency of the corresponding is response h CBE floor spectra, the G values corresponding to t e piping primary frequency will be used for adjustment. h In cases where the piping primary frequency is less than ill 1.2 t e peak frequency of the response spectra, the peak G values w be used for adjustment. The formula for tdjustjent will be( h hvNd dM 'd df . 8 C,d4: C'x_ i X y , f l
w J y .
- ccK*coire7 FA63 W cFl82 1:
34
, . oibbs & Hill. Inc. '
# =
lO c== a =e s . p(4,4 Cate 7 /3.$/ Checker 4c.1)e I Cateto.1G.h of f g i bestor Sheet No.
! C3%%cn Nurnber -
e-
- l. s=' ,, ,' s .
I TAsg.cy,)
~-w' luo.eue a..e*
a n4 au 7 suciees s ;w,. .zin) v e hed kt . I . _ j- . , S&akh. C, s to o f * "I, s /[f(,7f ' i-Pt st. o +. , 7 . i .tz
- 2.02 io 4.74
' $g' ,, f. 3 ~1 2.02 -
h
/t C 2. f f Yo 7. # 4 2. 6 r .
e 3/y/ 4o A,r 1
?.N 14 o I 0. 0 V
- to 13.22 56
/ y, fo / t.o e 3..r .
' f
/9.o s 'L. 72 :
rio [ ~, va s 2.s J. c .r"
- f. Y f 2,
l] g g ld to 41.2 r o.a r.n ico 1.! !. O < _ g ' 10 $' C. / 7.1. /
- 4. 5~/
- 7. / /
c 2 to 7.43 i tio 97s
, + -
l J . f .> t# # C d. Y f 2, 1.2 7 21 4a o%s.) $4 .
/ta t t 5. 7 .
i, .-. l 7 2. Y !.0 77
.Y 0 l 1.7 /
I: 3 ,, io 223.6 /2. 7 / A'
" I6 o ?47.s I 2,6 l 1 2 % t. Y 40
/ 1.7 f
~
> on !
1
- 3 I Y, o 3J dc
/ Y. Y 40 1 J. / . o
/ 4*. 4 3 n to Y 7 7.o / (. 4 7
.f / J . 0 l l
i If /Ac / 7. 4 3 l '
'l ( o rf 0. 0 8
1 1 I,
- i. -
d
\
i l . 1 i 1 l I e . I .., ( i, 1 . . . . ... . . . . . . l
- l l .
-- ~
.. 5 ..
ECA ~ E'O,lS7
..RA & E 4 0 0le 2..
' - 3.{ .
3 i O
- i
. I !
t 3 i . 9
.s. .
.i.
. I I
t .~ s 4.2.1.9 yalves with Cserstort i an operator attached to a valve The edstence od t torsional aosents, creates additional bending and and therefore greater stresses in the pipe. For spacing, the total weight of both the valve
. be considered body and the operator has to find the K value, and the ?"' *"
w e wg + wop to span L.
^ l a
O e l I I.e-o.o-. e - e, .
..e... ...e.
. . . - . . . . - - . . . . . - -- I i
pcj;- CO,/87 F-
. --. P/d/5 Al CfISE i- .,
j ( , L .*
- l 3G-
- c. .
t.
<- . In addition to t.he st=ess valas is: a valve with
the total weight concent=ated in the center line of the pi;s, . which will be 3.s = 0. 6 Sh, we have to
, conside: the strasses dne to the ia-plane bending sonesta 1
'l I = h 2 ' Boy z G -
b .1
- o i
where h = distance f=os the casta: lime of pipe
' to the operator cente: of gravity; .
f G = accele=ation la g=avities, a.Long the {* 1 . axis of the pipe; I- and the cut-plaae torsional soseat: hf (
- 5 mm. b X Ecp 2 G4 6 t to
- where G, = acceleration, perpendicula:
the s.zis of the pipe. t the total additional stress, due to the operator, 1 , will be .
~ 1,
' 3 = 1 + 4ga * *
*P b
- ami if ve, add this to 3s, the c=1teria of seisaic a11cus51e st:eds established in 3.2.3.1
- y. shall be
) L. s set.
. t s t 8
4.2.1.10 Best:sists on the valve body any be requested by (. the vender if they can't sees the specificatica the seismic conditions
! I regni:ezents for
[ . Q ,. . l l.. - l - t ', ..-...........-. . . . .. . .. .m.. .
. - . , . . . . , - - . - , - . - - - - - - - . - . . . - . , - - . - - , . ~ - . . . _ - . , - . , --. - .-. . , - - - - - - .
s 1 . . ~. . - . . . -- - - . . * . . .
*i..~-- -
cf XA-CD;187
;j m
. . c.5 42.cr.. . 18C ..... .
le j G' . i [I . _37_ (accelerations, natural 1:eguencies). - f* . i ' Rest: mints en the va.17e body may be regui:st in In sose cases, to meet tha pipe' stress c=itaria. such cases, the vendo: has to approve the locatica m '=-= reaction forces "T ! of these restraints and the -'
, the vender, fo: !
have to be provided to k ' f L'
- conside:stisa. D e st:setaral ancho point for the .
i! L ope =ato: support shall be located nea: the I . ' r' st= ness:a1 point for the supports of the valve body. This will prevent relative actica of the i st:nctural ancho: points da=iag seismic events. b z ne valve body has to be scyported on each side, by tvo aat ally perpendienia: di:sctions, as close as
, e possible, and in addition, the pipe =us has to have as axial =estraint.
f
=d nts 4.2.1.11 Directiens of seistic rest
- f.
4 At sach locatica of a' seismic ==straint, provide { t. two antsally perpendi.ala: restraints, normal to - 3, . the 'pi;e. At the change of pipe direction, one of i i the rest:aints should be perpendicular to tie plane I which ccatains the elbow c: band. r (' l U '- t . [. - - I ,
- l
,1 ..
. ~ . . . . . . . . .
. 1 . . - .
DCA - 20, tB 7 j , PAGE 49 of I22
-n- ; Ol- (
n I Axial Restraints i.
- g. 3 4.2.1.12.
and
. ( For straight sections of pipe not anchored longer than two span L established from the nomograph or containing concentrated masses such as valves c.ed
' flanges, provide a restraint parallel to the axis of Pipe'. A lateral restraint in an adjacent run may act as an axial r'estraint for the adjoining run if .
q L it's located near welded point of an elbow or near the weld point of a tee. Do not put two axial re-s. l l straints at the same straight pipe run. r-3 ' If along the pipe run there is a concentrated mass, , ( axial restraint shall be used, with lug attachments, closed to this mass. If a pipe run perpendicular to two adjacent pipe runs, is shorter than two seismic
. r .
span, L, it can be censidered as a concentrated i weight. The K value for the reduced span is given in J { Chart No. 3-A. The K value will multiply directly l l
- the length L es,tablished through the nomograph, to
' find the reduced span 1.
l t I. For piping of 3, 3-1/2 and 4 inches Sched. 40, and
,; e .
forpipingof2inchesandWr31,1.,withsocketwelded I elbows, K will be reduced as follows: , (. N2 d
- h*I) N/ l
( D i is l l
"' ~ . _ , , . _ _
y
..4 .
DCA - 20,I 2:J PA GE. A + W lc.]
'l%
O; I. e* e. 1 will inter-If the horiscatal line for a given B
- I sect the upperAound of the chart at a point beyond i ith
~
the actual Kw, read the K value correspond ng w I I the intersection of upperbound and actual' Kw value.
' Ih will intersect with the lowerbound at a point before the actual Kw value, read the K value corre- . , o sponding with the intersection of lowerbound and 1
l' actual Kw. If 1 s a, put an axial restraint at the c.
. riser.
- f. Leneth of S=an in all Three Directions I, 4.2.1.13.
ily the [. .he span between restraints is not necessar {, total length of pipe between the:n. It is rather F, . e b c t~ l r I, i l.
~
I l' ( l
- 0 t b '
l t i ~ l .
- . . . . . ,.. . . , . ~ .
, . . 4 .:... .
I I pcA -cc,ie7 PA.GG f5,pF l$ y
~ .
O' l' -g the 3:njected length of pipe which provides ( flezihility la the direction of seismic action as ;
- p. shown is the fallowing example: . . _ .
G j ._/. .. - i h y " a f N 9 4 - {- x A v z (
.{
e % j' l n* x ? z seisnie ::irection (, A+C+D 3+C+Z A+a+D+2
~
I ( 2,esgh . c Spas Roeever, in I direction, the weifhts of 3 and 2 must be considered as concent=sted weights,, in y
! directics 1 and D, and in z direction C, and the L Assume that suppcrt spas reac=ed approp=iataly.
the total length 13 C 3 is 22 "he
. two restraints the piping I provided at mid-span of C any :ss.rais
.t l in z and y. But la z 41:sesion this piping is not I
restrained sufficiently. As additional : rest = tint { shesia he placed adjacast to the run C. 2 a l-.
^ _ _ . . .
- - 1 , . . . . . . .
....~....-......o...
.-..........v..--....-,.-..-.-... IXA - 2C,18'7 PAGE % c>p 182 C, ( P ' ,
( 4( I e}* I i w. c
. 4.2.1.14 taree radius curvature j Fo= a bend with a radins 2.igge: thas five times the l
L seminal size of the pipe, ase E = 1. In such a case it is recommesdad to locate a maisaic
=estraint in the middis of the bead, perpendienla:
I
, I.
8.
. to the plane of the band. .
- Fo= continuously ca:Ted segments of pipe with a large radius of curvata:s (e.g., piping which
[ L ve:2 I
' fo11sts the en:Tatare of the react.o: cent.ainment g
building) ase the spacing procedn=e for straight
' pipe. *A'
- l. , .
9 m r s4 l - I a r a i i I i r I-L r s.
\
- p-
.'l $. .
_g O-f .
) --. ,, .
+ , - - .
, : . : .: ..: .. I
.A 1
o-DCA-%/87. PAGE -17 cr 122. -
- .. 3
~42--
l 4 -
-t
( 4.2.2 Deadweight and Seismic support Lead Calculatien fot 'N casa. 4.2.2.1 Calculatien Fermulas Deadweight and seismic support leads are calculated for ( the four cases shown below: l Case 1
= 4+[g .
_M
= ,
N . S j Case 2 I . X - h 0; < ac % .
,L bP i g i
6 Case 3 V A _B - c _@ t __ p mm 4 * " " 4 a, ne l
.I
- I -
I' Ac _: /
-4 b
. l case 4 ls. W bb g _
_ N A _- >"
-. A .,.y'-
; l_ at j'% ' c, 0. s.
i p g
$6 .
-4 -
A2 Th A I i S
?
t 1 I u.. m--
- , , , _ . w-
... 4 .
. ~.
-.........-_..-..-.-..--.-----.c....... . . .
LY.A-20, I6*I pal 22 16CFibf. 2 (-) I (
.. j The following symbols are used in this paragraph:
d
'. h s
- deadweight support "3" lead, ILs T
BD L
- seismic support "B" load, 1bs
- T_
35 - L - deadweight support "S" load, when the pipe T dis ributed weight ih , B w = 1 ---- it 1
- the pipe support span between"B", *.vo it supports
! f (A & C) next to the support t
- 1
- the pipe support span from the left side
- L of the support "B", ft I
' 3' .
1 - the pipe support span from the right side
> (
R of .he support "B", f: W ,W - the concentrated weight from the left and "B", lbs CL CR right side of the support q- loads M aj be
' Deadweight and seismic support -
calculated by the following fo-=ulas: Case 1 -
- f,,=i.2.rw(4+hj=.sulw I
fa g, x I. 25~w v ?x=.62rhwxG, g . I
~
hy * * $2
- WR
,ffsy~l.2$~W ,
l. I : 5.:2=/.2.TW h + )S:=.62C$"W Cz l U' , l t- [ l
t
, . .w .. : . ..m. ' DCA-C0,t9 7
( - PA G44 cf182
'e
_.44_ i:. O-1 ' L< c.se 2 w z.s2ct.w+ Wec . szrt v- WacA lt A F.as a =(. sas-l<w + %.<fu) %
- Fas, =( s2cl-we Wee fL.) Gs FMz '('2'E""* $t*h) Gz
[ c.se s I Sn = .s2rt w + Wc". 6 '**). c2ct w, Via(i-pa) L 84 - l l, _ Fa s, =[62sd w + WaaQ-psfG< Fasy -[c2:Gw + Weafi-Jajc: l fuz =[ < 2rdw- Wub fs]C2 . I
, C*; Fa: = card w + Ws +Wer ft-fg) fas, f c2:!-w - L ft+Vkp-jafGx
. Fs ,-[ szr dew Q p; + N g (t-j g] Cy l _
Fax, =[c2:l~@p & H$G
~
p 5ppwtiC.HT 1.045 QTL 5kCRLetSCO CCHbCAVG.EIVllj i' 74c 5 we will accept for all 4 cases the general formulas: _ (*I
,k y = 0.625 leg x w w
= 0.625 leq x v X G (b) y 55 l
t I
- i (
,, j t .
- j. i l
l n - ,__ 9 -- .-- -
,, s s - . . . . - . . .
Mi
, .s
' DCA * '20:187 U,5
~'
PM2 '50 cf 121
~(.}.
~~ Y~ ' *i a
[( Where leq - the length of the straight equivalent pipe, with the distributed weight "w", which acts at the 4 >. support "3" with the same force as the real pipe L leq = 1
' For the Ca.se 1 ,
For the Case 2 leq = 1 + 1' W CL /L x6
>-
- where l' = -----------
_; ~ C.525 v For the Case 3 leq = 1 + 1" W ) i CR (1-pR where 1" = -------------
, O.625 w i[
[ _/
%. q ror the Case 4 leq = 1 + 1' + 1" For the pipe with elbows, branches, etc., the length has to be calculated as the zum of different parts.
Se length calculatien for several schemes are shown in i ,
- Tables No. 1, 2 , 3 .
The span in direction perpendicular to the support lead should be considered "O" if the pipe is supported in this direction.
- f. The sample problem support load calculation is given for f
l the 4 . Cases in Table No. 4.
- s. , .
g O' : t t
' i
- m. - - - u- ,- - -. , - w -.
y- .. ,
, /
. b h Draft 1 9/11/84 CPS SRT-1, SRT-2, SRT-3 SSER
- 1. Allegation Group: Mechanical / Piping Category #36 - Piping Analyses Problems found in Region II Report.
- 2. Allegation number: SRT-1, SRT-2, SRT-3 -
- 3. Characterization:
SRT-1 The Region II Special Review Team (SRT) found that a component , modification rd CMC was apparently not considered in the analysis. ! SRT-2 The SRT partially reviewed the piping system AF-1-SB-007 and j l discovered that one CMC was not properly addressed. l l SRT-3 The SRT raised concerns as to the design considerations that should be implemented when a Piping system goes from a safety related building to a non safety related building. E01A-85-59 dd.-J77 ,
^
l .
- 4. Assessment of safety significance:
SRT-1, SRT-2 The TRT discussed this concern with the SRT member who was responsible for this area of the SRTs report. His concern was that the use of engineering judgement may have been applied when a calculation was required. The SRT picked at random 50 systems that they instructed the Pipe Support Engineering (PSE), to review and report on the methods (i.e., Engineering Judgement, calculations, etc.) that were used to accept the CMC changes. The TRT reviewed the system that the SRT also reviewed. The TRT agrees with SRT assessment that for the system (AF-1-SB-006 with CMC No. 90567) on which PSE used engineering judgement that judgement was indeed conservative. This conservation was determined by hand calculation and rigerous computer analysis. The hand calculation results showed higher stress levels than the computer solution by a factor of 2. The TRT reviewed ten of the 50 systems in detail to deternine that the P OSE engineers were encorperating all open CMC into their analysis and wifM fn B verifying that they are not being to liberal wtTI eksu use of
" Engineering Judgement". The analysis packages that were reviewed were
-7 7
't
,2-complete and were easy to follow. For the ten systems reviewed, the TRT found that " Engineering Judgement" was only used then the changes were very minor and that simple hand calculations were used on the remainder. The calculations were reviewed by the TRT and were found to be accurate and conservative. All outstanding CMCs were incorporated.
It appears that the CMC that was not incorporated on piping system j w y rtt u p & C L Q C. M [. AD-1-SB-007 was an isolated case. ThisVproblem would have been picked up when the final review was performed on the "as-built" isometric of this system before turnover. SRT 3 The TRT called the New York office of Gibbs & Hill (G6H) to get a
~
; status report on their response to the k report oin'their~fesp[nie_to'
'ihE SRT concerns on this subject. It was determined that to date G6H has done nothing to answer the SRT concerns. G&H stated that if "all went well" the concern would be addressed by the end of September or the beginning of October.
The TRT agrees with the SRT that there is a concern that piping lines going from a seismic building to a nonseismic building could cause
-]
r r (1 damage to supports and the piping system on the seismic side. These effects must be considered unless an isolation anchor has been provided between the two buildings.
- 5. Conclusion and staff positions:
SRT-1, SRT-2 CHCs . The TRT af ter reviewing the TUGC0 treatment of SED for small knM.AftL piping isometrics concludes that TUGC0 performs its reviewing according to procedures using methods (' hat adwideTriis - that are widely used in pipe stress analysis the industry. Jiydd* The TRT concludes that the SRT concerns were addressed by TUGC0 and i.!'" ^ '- demonstrated that there is no safety significance nor generic implications, existed'. SRT-3 Since C&H has not addressed the original SRT concern to date the status of this item remains indetermined. The TRT concludes that there could be safety implications, however, they must wait for G&H to finish their review to make a final determination as to its implications on safety. a
/
- 6. Actions Required: SRT-1, SRT None
{ SRT G6H must provide justification for these concerns since there unkown effects can be significant' to safety.
- 8. Attachments: None 1
- 9. Reference documents:
- a. PS6 Piping Calculation Numbers
- 1. CC-1-EC-001
- 2. CC-1-FB-002 .
- 3. CC-1-SB-001
- 4. FW-1-RB-005A i l
- 5. FW-1-SB-018 1,
1
- 6. MS-1-SB-007
~
- 7. RC-1-RB-012
- 8. AF-1-SB-007
- 9. R H - l- S 8 'O M j,, S: R S -0 3 6
- b. C&H Procedure AB-5, Revision 5, "A Simplified Method for Design; and Analysis of Small Size Piping."
b i .
- 10. This statement prepared by:
Name Date Reviewed by: Group Leader Date Approved by: Project Director Date l j
.; . . a :_ ._ .: .:. .- : : :
-- - - - - - - - ~ - ~ ^ ' ~ ~ * '
E
- 6
. y 'h BRP MO.
METHOD OF QUALIFICATIONS RESOULTIONS & ANY REMARKS i- 1. CC-1-AB-002 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
, . .A. CC-1-AB-007 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING t *. CC-1-EC-001 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
- 4. CC-1-EC-002 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING N . CC-1-FB -002 SMALL BORE PIPING REMOVED AND PLUGGED.
NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING L.fr." CC-1-RB-002 c. M V/D QUALIFIED BY COMPUTER
@. CC-1-RB-003 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
~-
- l Y s - 8'. CC-1-SB-001 bf [V/D PIPING REVISED SOUND {p0 8 0E JUDGEMENT USED
- 4: ,/
~
v 9. CH-1-AB-021 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
- 10. CH-1-RB-000 50 CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
- 11. CS-1 -AB-001 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
- 12. CS-1-R3-024 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
- 13. CS-1-SB-011 NOV/D551THISISO. CMC IS FOR LARGE BORE PIPING.
J ,.* / # P
- 14. CS-1-S3-012B NO CHA.NGE IN V/D PIPING e
- 15. CT-1-RB-001 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING 6 'il/
l 47 0 l 16. CT-1-SB-004 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING - , ./.
* . y
. . 17. DD-1-AB-001 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
.! 18. DD-1-FB-001 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING .
- 19. D0-1-DG-035 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
- 20. D0-1-DG-036 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
- 21. W-1-RB-005 A p C.- QUALIFIED BY CALCULATIONS j 22. W-1-RB-006B NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING .
f . I 23. W-1-SB-017 & QUALIFIED BY CALCULATIGNS +l _ s 1 - 24. W-1-SB-018 uC., QUALIFIED BY CALCUALTIONS i 50 CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
- 25. MS-1-RB-003
\ NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
- 26. MS-1-RB-004
]
2 j I
- 27. MS-1-SB-002B NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
-h l F01A-85-59
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
. . . . . _ . . .:. s . . ~ .
$ ags 2 of 2 i , METHOD OF QUALIFICATION ,7 * *' BRP NO. RESOULTION & ANY RD! ARKS s' . NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING j,- 28. MS-1-SB-003 . 29. MS-1-SB-006 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
. 30. MS-1-SB-007 pL QUALIFIED BY CALCUALTIONS t
I 31. MS-1-SB-015 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
- 32. MS-1-SB-016 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING t
1 s 33. RC-1-RB-012 ( V/D' PIPING REVISED SOUND ENGINEERING ' JUDGEMENT USED. ! 34. RC-1-RB-038 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPUIG i / ' 35. RC-1-RB-042 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING ,I 36. RH-1-SB-003 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPUIG 5
% 37. RH-1-SB-006 V/D PIPING REVISED SOUND ENGINEERING
~
b<' JUDGEMENT USED
- 38. SI-1-SB-011 uL V/D QUALIFIED BY CALCULATIONS
- 39. SI-1-RB-031 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING 4 40. SI-1-RB-035 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING i
. 41. SI-1-RB-061 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
- 42. SI-1-RB-062 p. V/D QUALIFIED BY CALCULATIONS l
t 43. SI-1-RB-002 NO CHANGE 'IN V/D PIPING
- 44. SI-1-SB-003 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING l 45. SI-1-SB-007 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING f
I 46. SW-1-AB-001 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
- 47. SW-1-AB-002 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING i
- 48. SW-1 -DG-001 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING 1l 1
1 49. SW-1-DG-004 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING i 1 i 50. SV-g-SB-012 NO CHANGE IN V/D PIPING
~
i i J 4 4 i i__ _ . . . . -- - _ . . . _ . ..._- _. .._ __..~. .,_..- . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . 2
Allegation Summary
- 1. Category No. M/P-36 TRT Member: V. Ferrarini
- 2.
Subject:
Piping Analysis Problems Found in the Region II Report
- 3. Summary of Allegations:
SRT Component modification card (CMC) was apparently not considered in the analysis. SRT Reviewing piping system AF-1-SB-007, one CMC was not properly addressed. SRT The piping systems that go between safety related buildings and non-safety related buildings have no consideration given to the effect of seismic loadings transmitted to the safety related by the non-safety related building.
- 4. Region IV's
Conclusion:
1 There is no Region IV conclusion since these items were referred to the TRT for follow-up.
- 5. What TRT Had Done:
SRT-1, SRT The TRT discussed the findings with the SRT member who was responsible for them to make sure that his concerns were answered. The TRT then reviewed numerous systems to verify that Engineering Judgement was used only if the changes were slight and also ensure that all CMCs were considered in the analysis. The TRT reviewed the calculations that provided backup to the initial statement of Engineering Judgement.
- 6. TRT's
Conclusions:
(a) Not valid - (SRT-1, SRT-2) The reviewed documentation and calculations refuted the initial findings and the TRT is convinced that the CMC that was overlooked was an isolated case and would have been picked up on the final "as-built" review. (b) Valid (SRT-3) The TRT concludes that the FSAR was violated since the effects of all earthquake loadings upon safety
, related systems was not considered.
(c) Safety significance and generic implications - (SRT-1, SRT-2) No safety or generic problems. (SRT-3) Until the proper analysis / justification is performed the safety of these systems will be unknown. This finding has generic implications. 701A-85-59 cc- a 79
o CPSES/FSAD oc response is cbtained by adding the values of the responses resulting fron the absolute sum to the SRSS value of the rest of the modal responses. 3.7B.2.8 Interaction of Non-Category I Structures with Seismic Category I Structures A number of structures such as the Turbine Building, the Switchgear Buildings, the Circulating Water Intake and Discharge Structures, the Maintenance Building, and the Administration Building are designated as non-Category I. The only non-Category I structures which are adjacent to any seismic . Category I structure are the Turbine Building and the Switchgear Buildings. These structures do not share a common mat with the adjacent seismic Category I structure, and all structures are founded on fir: rock. Therefore, there is no possible interaction of non-Category I structures with seismic Category I structures resulting from seismic motion. Sufficient p ce is provided between the Turbine
~
and Switchgear Buildings and the adjacent seismic Category I structure
~
so as to prevent contact becau:se of defomations occurring in the. structures dur'ing a 5e'insic event. r-The possibility of structural failure during a seismic event is considered for the Turbine Building. Structural failure in the t { direction of the adjacent seismic Category I structure is prevented by anchoring the Turbine Building to the turbine generator pedestals. The Switchgear Buildings are design to withstand a seismic event equal to SSE. Non-Category I equipment and components located in seismic Category I ) buildings are investigated by analysis or testing, or both, to ensure f k that under the prescribed earthquake loading, structural integrity is l maintained, and to ensure that they do not adversely affect the G 3.78-47 l l F01A-85-59,e
. CV 5 W R 's integrity or operability, or both, of any designated seismic Category I structure, equipment, or component.
3.7B.2.9 Effects of Parameter Variations on Floor Response Spectra The instructure response spectra are developed using the time history of the instructure motion resulting from the ground motion time history. The instructure response is evaluated by perfonning time history modal analysis on a lumped-mass mathematical model which simulates the structure and foundation-structure interaction. Because . of the uncertainties associated with the energy dissipation, the variation in elastic properties of both structure and foundation, the - idealization of structure with lumped masses and elastic properties in discrete parts', and the frequency content and amplitude modulation of sinulated ground motion, the free vibration characteristics and the response of structures can only be approximately computed. Parametric studies and conservative assumptions are made to take into account these uncertainties in construction of instructure response spectra. The amplifications at resonance peaks of the instructure response spectra are generally not sensitive to frequency-shifting because the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the structure do not change appreciably with small to moderate changes of mass or flexibility and the amplification region of the free field is very wide at dominant structure modes. i Damping factors play an important role in detemining amplification of l the structure; the smaller the damping, the greater the amplification. Therefore, the damping values are determined conservatively as i discussed and presented in Subsections 3.78.1.3, 3.7B.2.4, and 3.78.2.15. The conservatism of the amplification is also reflected in the chosen artificial ground motion, which yields responses that never l fall below the target design ground response spectra. ( ' , 3.78-48
- :;.L .-
If the computed combined stresses, which include strets( resulting from earthquake, internal pressure, thermal expansion, and other ope, rating loads, exceed the allowable limits at the penetrations, one or rore of the following devices are used to relieve the stresses caused by the differential displacements:
- 1. The portions of the pipe at the entry points are protected from soil pressure by providing a concentric split sleeve.
- 2. The stresses resulting from differential displacements are reduced by replacing the compacted backfill soil or concrete fill around the pipe near the penetrations by another softer soil material.
3.78.3.13 Interaction of Other Piping with Seismic Category I Piping 20 3.78.3.13.1 Seismic Category 1 Piping with Connecting Non-Category I Piping Interaction of reismic Category I piping with non-Category I piping connected to it is cor.sidered in the following two respects:
- 1. The loads transmitted under seismic excitation between the two systems locally at the point of their connection
- 2. The effect of the non-Category I system on the dynamic characteristics and the seismic response of the seismic Category I system Consideration of both effects is achieved by incorporating into the analysis of the seismic Category I system a length of pipe that represents the actual dynamic behavior of the complete run of the non-Category I system. The length considered extends, but is not AMENDMENT 20 MAY 7, 1981 3.78-68
limited to, the first er:nor point : (, tr.e point of change from seismic Category I to non-Category I. venever possible, an anchor is located at the intersection of the seis-ic Category I piping with the non-Category I piping. In cases where location of the anchor or restraint is not possible at the category change, it is placed on the 2 non-Category pipe, and that portion of tre line up to the anchor or Q130.14 restraint is analyzed according te seis 'c Category I criteria. In either case, the non-Category I piprg 1s always isolated from the Category I piping by anchors or seis .i: restraints. 3 7B.3.13.2 Seismic Category I Pipin: with Adjacent Non-Category I Piping Non-Category I piping systems whose failure is not acceptable, adjacent to seismic Category I piping, are araly zed by the nomograph method or 44 other simplified structural integrity and prevent any unacceptable physical interaction with adjacent seismic Category I piping and components. The nomograph method provides seismic restraint spacing based on the natural frequency of the supported piping. This support spacing assures that the first natural frequency of the non-Category I piping is beyond that value which is twice the resonant 20 frequency.
- 3. 7 B . 3.14 Seismic Analyses for Reactor Internals Seismic analyses for the reactor internals are presented in Section 3.7N.
AMENDMENT 44 3.7B-69 OCTOBER 10, 1983
)
)
l Y T f j
-G:$:i-
.: =xs I=w3[ T 35
- .y"
. - w .=-5 l
*-~ .
(7) Review of Stress Analysis for Piping Systems
] ;,
Piping System s Calculation No.
~
AB-1-19A Safety Injection AB-1-30 Containment Spray AB-1-69 Residual Heat Removal and Safety injection AS-1-135E Auxiliary Steam and Main Steam AF-1-SB-006 Auxiliary Feedwater AF-1-SB-007 Auxiliary Feedwater The above piping stress analyses were partially reviewed for conformance to design specification, applicable code, NRC require-muts, and the licensee commitments. These analyses were also evaluated for thoroughness, clarity, consistency, and accuracy. The NRC reviewer examined portions of the seismic inputs to be used in the stress analysis. These seismic inputs in terms of pe-icds versus accelerations from the corresponding floor response spectra curves under OBE and SSE conditions were partially verified for accuracy. Furthermore, the reviewer held discussions with the responsible engineers to ensure that seismic anchor movement, nozzle thermal movement, and valve orientations were
, f properly considered in the stress analysis.
During the review the reviewer examined piping system AF-1-SB-006.
//d ,
This 3/4" diameter vent and drain pipe was analyzed for support g- - - tC requirements. Results from the analysis revealed that no pipe .
.i ! / supports were needed for the pipe. However, the reviewer noted
,f that a Component Modification Card LCMC-) No. -905fl. was issued to '
',il ~ , the pipe in that a piece of tee (pipe) was added to the vent and >
/
/,
f F drain system. detailed
' The pipe
( g ,! support group accepted this CMC withoutThe resp po' _ p erforming evaluation.
/ r' that this CMC was reviewed by a well qualified engineer. Based on his engineerino .iudcement, no detailed calculations were required.
f f' r!
, [-
The inspector indicated that a detailed evaluation for this CMC
,' was needed. In addition, a sampling program should be initiated I 1/ }/ to ensure that no other similar CMCs were accepted without
'u ,k performing detailed evaluation. The responsible licensee repre-sentative took immediate action to perform detailed calculations ll for the vent and drain piping system due to the addition of the Furthermore, a sampling program was immediately
'e ~ e
//gj d
CMC (No. %5671 initiated to review 50 other similar packages. This matter.will be identified to th6 Comanche Peak Project Director for followupw FC%-85-59 cc 4
s 36
, 1 J ,
Results from
*//* f, 7* 6 ,
the detailed calculations revealed that no pipe
'I : original evaluation indicated. supports were required for the vent and d Results from the sampling program f ll - ~
Ilshowedthat no discrepancies were identified for the 50 other , 7 jsimilar packages. t " , i . y jf< . '
. y Piping system AF-1-SB-007 was partially reviewed. It was noted I k' //[' / ., ",'
, with established proc 2dures.that portions ~or tne calculations were
/l . , /J j noted. Some minor mathematical errors were 4
! j . ,' One .2 4 was not addressed properly by the licensee k.-/-y%'f,'. s i, v
'/~.t 4
reviewer. system by The pipe support group reanalyzed this 3/4 inch piping b ~ hand calculations (alternate analysis) and al so by l f ' j(1- . O'f /j 9'h' g computer appl, cation (rigorous analysis). Results from the two j analyses were consistent and conservative. Four pipe supports y' / ',c //j 9 f'./ j . A were required b.i the analysis. Loads used for support design were W' , (/ f'g , - /[Al*,
'~
.v' 17 l verified and were found conservative. This matter will be ~
L J P - uforwarded to the Comanche Peak Project Director for followup.
. s t.-
[jp.g' (8) Field Inspection / Verification
/- f The NRC reviewer performed a field walkdown at the l' nit 1 containment building area and noted the following discrepancies:
Succort No. Status CC-1-218-012-C53K ' Snubber connection cotter keys missing CC-1-295-005-C53R Sway strut installed over 5 tolerance CT-1-038-436-C62K Snubber connection cotter keys missing; no washers in rear bracket CT-1-117-405-C62K Snubber connection cotter key missing CT-1-117-415-C62K Snubber safety wire broken CT-1-053-444-C62K The south snubber was installed improperly CD-1-046-020-C65R Snubber cetter keys missing FW-1-096-705-C62K Snubber safety wire broken FW-1-102-002-C62k Snubber cotter key missing; needs relative adjustment on snubber FW-1-102-003-C62K Snubber cotter keys not bent MS-1-151-025-C52K Snubber installed over 5 tolerance CC-1-RS-066-003-3 Snubber cold setting over the limit i l I II r I -
.4.
r
. 37
'P V CC-1-RB-066-007-3 Snubber cold setting over the limit
"; CC-1-RB-068-007-3 Spring hanger cold settin
( w e (15 lbs. versus 11 lbs.) g incorrect I y y The above pipe supports discrepancies .were verified with the licensee's QC inspector in accordance with detailed drawings. All the above pipe supports were vendor certified and were previously
- insoected by the licensee QC inspectors. The licensee representa-tives stated that a final walkdown inspection / verification for all pipe supports is to be implemented in accordance with procedure e
\
CP-QAP-12.1, Inspection Criteria and Documentation Requirements '9 Prior to Sy, tem N-5 Certification. (#
'/
'f O The majority of the discrepancies appeared to be minor problems
- i. '
' I; /J which could be to the system easily repaired pressure test. Two during the final inspection prior serious in that rework or reanalysis of the discrepancies were more
,!jf /.iy' required prior to acceptance.
of the support would be These supports are MS-1-151-025-C52K, Rev. 3 and CC-1-295-005-C53R, Rev 4, which b},' . - were not installed in accordance with the detailed drawings. The ( c
?
"/ fact tnat these two supports were inspected by QC is considered as t ,,/ a potential enforcement
(
' item.
, )
,y .g/.rA Design Consideration for Piping Systems Between Safety-Related and i Non Safety-Related Buildings '
jf e, u.
, The tivesNRC in reviewer held discussions with the licensee representa?
[ ,fd;- design. the area of piping stress analysis and pipe support [ f/ l v I
</j /t i U and respect Main Steam System was partially reviewed and p/
d safety-related buildings.to design considerations between safety-relate
-Y',,'/./;/ high energy line and safety-related.The piping system was classified as -
gt . The pipe run starts from the ' Turbine Building into the Electrical Control building.
, ' ,d*- _ v, ~,r
'~ seismic classifications for the two buildings _are_diHgrent, the Since,
., /
g 6 criteria difTerent. usi~d Tor the piping system analysis should also'br-( , , g "g 5. ' '^9// .
~
tee ~TiiT0re Ef ne ptpe in the%rbine-Building niay 7' ftf (14 ? g/" g , if the piping system was not properly analyzed and
/'? The
/yM, # t responsible licensee representatives
/ evaluation with regard to the above concerns. agreed to performed further p~j( )' ' fl This matter will be
, 0! identified to the Comanche Peak Project Director for resolution.
b ,d g il (10), Interpretation of Tolerance for Snubber Installation g~ {* * ,
,[ Iu During the field review, three reviewers interviewed the licensee's QC inspectors with respect to their interpretation of ji'Y l I ,))g' p five degrees installation. tolerance reautrements for strut and snubber
/ y- /
tFinterpretation of the tolerances on the detailed draw I i l L
1
)
\- ;
fM m , w ,..,
,f .
lv ,e. ;.. N. .. .h. My
'.(.' : -.
;i . .
y ',qj,,,3 g
- p. r-
;i ,
' S "f - i
_l_] .] l .1 ? *. 2.1 ' ..I 1.l. ._'. i .i.l. LLj .l.1 l..j _l S.: .l .pt' .. . . . . , ' ' ~ ~
@p_8.
- " !_4 s 5 t
_ - _l.4 COMPOMENT SUPPORT' IDtdTtt:lCN_,rit..o..M,_b "- _"_q . _i. p g g..y_3 g_ . ,.,. ,.y_g.i- g_,. 4-.i g _g_py uxacen ineur FICATioM .
,...q auit.nius cous' roa .
q.___ __ _ g) _ , C ,. l..... ,003 601.._p9; 2... _ . ' p j.j4. .._ , ._. .p;.;,.:
, , ,N,[ . . .ibbaMG Q
_. cobE
. _J,qL. ..
t. iq3 .._
.. !p. .g. 9_:..;_\__.. .. ._ . _ _ .. .. -i. . .v.:
.T. sysw 4 unir m , uw e
.i .
_, Assix,u
..aumc.___gvct/4e.A._pi.ryctm.- ,.,,. ;! _ ~
- r. .;.' A UK I L*?.m Y
.) I ; , i . , . . . .. . . . . . - . .*_. p j.. . r' _-,.i.,J'_- r
,_i., ..
Pips UNE s tk. DEticN Arso#4
........g
_1.. 14 _4 - lTr r i. . -
,, C (oMTAIMMEUT*
b conTgou azoc4
',]x. _:i....y..L I l .I 6'. C
- 3 .,_,-.l. r. LE ..l..J.Lr._r. . ;.E.-
i C . L . Oh.152: i - 5a ' i ' ..
.. . *..R:. .. : ;. .. . ;. ; m .
- . . a , a tacraicat.
.l_ ,..., . .. !p. .f, ..! a +;_! .4._.; q_.. r , FUEIM
._[ I.J... p.. .. l.; . 2.g . . ..\.. g.. ... .. . . . u .
G < AW N. ; st.pc, .
.,.._l.;,l.bre 'sweans usarra .. ,_, ( .' .,r. [,. 7 t.s.es ,. ..ris.s ,_ , .suairms6 swie.,rinu, . . .
- 1. H , MatuT ,18 t.bC, ,
.W.oacvy i _ ._4g .
'{, . , . .l . . 5'u : ..
; g . _ . ..
.?**1 .7..
j . ., .l . j . ' ' J .751MI Psn
.'-l..,] .l .g.q. ..l .j ..l l ..l l . Q. lj .- .r y. y
.T..p..
q . . .. _- .l . . l.l . -.. g Jyp __p _g .l_ p, .
... ,.. i. . _g_ _ u .
;CHLoniuxitoN(.ciut)
I' i i i i i e - i.+ +-H l . .4.., -I- . .. ,' r. - - g.l -
-l - - - -
i .. .
','. ;' i a.:.
41 i.: 9 ,. , 4 .Y + ,, - c3 igg
/M S 3SAFEGUARDL
,._.........l...._:r'.j,_4fa..;.- 9 .
a T j i i .i ' ..t. -, .3.' 'l . Lt.wi. code 5^I88-l,..l.-. . . . i . .; y
,1 i. l .r m
.h.0EtalNe
. i
. . . . .3 . . . . . 3 . ._; . . a. Ara b M
, ~~~ . eds. }
- y.,. ecce goo.ucs . . u.
- p. 1 wasud lo Aucuani 6ac 4 o.a.ut ruci i. . J
. . : . t 'W ; f, 3~8 t I.; . wreawtur.
e a A e.o a r. lroskge yY . . .1 ;,' w ,,g,y cc.g. ,,3 ,,,i. C q,g= g'. ,. I 1 7 .m A . ,) y ,_,
~g.
_o ._, cie.g. ia rea. ,sotaca. ym sysr*7s,o,ig=gg. ibENTiricAT1oq H ANGER?,js AksTy ctAss
.' r-{- -ii-i--i- ,, ,- ! -,-- --f- 4,-i- na f. i
~
f d.' } -l , k2 . it ... ; .. . . . _ - . . ... n o ;- ,- :--inz ,- -.T , i,, . .? .' i- % : ,
'.i ---b, ..
- 808 -- --
-' i .-
INU Ct. GAR ct.A% i 'l 3_ - : ,. ...._. .-- sio - - eio - ' ' Sor- 2.10 .- 't 1 N U C.t'sA R. class.1 e- ' [i4 UCt. EAR.- CLAs.t. S 3
.f .. . 4. p g. ;.. . an.- 9 33 4
. . am - .- - r- . 83o - t - aio - l- *858-
- N N ej.,
r6 ,,,
}['. . ..
s . i .. . . . . er.o - -i act - as - - -cu-- em i-a4 -- *
- . . 6 } M M si h CasMlc.
,.s * '
-u? 3 ..
.. g. ,. .: -- aus --- --, a 7 s . - -e,i3 -
ces- -- -
.. . g. .
.yog ... e,p ,j. u p . ;-. - , - - -. }{ANGCR ~ TYPE lbE NT's cicAT eon
- 7 . . . ' :. . gfy _. .
- . . ~ .
A i __
._p - .;,
swa . . re -- -;- : r--+ r ri- i:: ---
. 2 "cuoR-D ' . ^DE AD WT.
- 3. (,
g l..t-!.. r y,_,i_- -l-t-i- 'ii
'-r. _b -.-'- oG. ulb6 9.,... .... r ,_ .
. . iop .._ .m 7.T. __4- -
. . .._u .. ._
rwe
,.,.- K +SMusscR
,o..., ..1 4 - - R I
.I s s,.s,,, Ricitt> . ecsTRAiur l .:, ..iI. r l.. I ., g..i3.{ ,_l_. g...l...1 l_ r..; i _[-+ ['_~T. 3-.; g g r...- .. i .. .g .
3.i ; pe . . g ., , .
.., ~ l u w.t. nou a n Aes a rur up us coriou or xas recuas.
[7 . ; . .
.. . . v ,,s - . ;.:. -. . ' .
2 _
'.h;,v,al;r.-
, 6.-;, t.> ... .
.o g .s'..;n. .
- l. .
. y ; .ug. ,
'N '
5 / allegation AB-11 DCP2 Draft 7 - 1/30/85 SSER
- 1. Allegation Group: Mechanical and Piping Category No. 38 -
Installation of Improper Anchor Bolt Material I
- 2. Allegation Number: AB-11 l
- 3. Characterization: It is alleged by an unknown alleger that there was a mixup in bolts in the Unit 1 containment building and that 3000 anchor bolts, some furnished by " Boston Made" and others by " Southern Made," were interchanged.
- 4. Assessment of Safety Significance: The NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) reviewed Region IV reports, irs 79-25,26 and 77-09, and discussed this allegation with the Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) site QA/QC supervisor. The site QA supervisor referred the TRT l to nonconformance reports (NCRs) M704, dated July 25, 1977, M722 (Rev.
- 1) dated July 25, 1977, and C718, dated July 27, 1977. These NCRs described a mixup in a group of about 2000 bolts and nuts used for embedded equipment anchorages. These bolts were supplied by both Boston-Bergen Metal Products (" Boston Made") and Southern Bolt Co.
(" Southern Made"). s F01A-85-59 1. CL- M3
The TRT found that Boston-Bergan Metal Products used A-540 material for their anchor bolts and nuts and A-588 material for plates. Southern Bolt Company used A320 material for-anchor bolts, A-194 for nuts, and A588 for plates. The TRT learned that materials from the two manufacturers of anchor bolts were intermixed, and spot welding was performed on them although no welding procedure for intermixed materials existed. N '
?
wQ ,g,A W/ubh'd5 bk f this problem
~
, jThe TRT determined that to prevent a reoc renc )
WW/ Brown & Root (B&R) issued procedure CEI- kwhich put a color coding
/.
! A system into effect to prevent the intermixing of the different anchor
_ _ . . Wt bolt materials and parts. 7In addition, B&R reviewed the weld ~ Q, i e
.,{ ]
- 4. , v proce ure that was used to tack weld the nut to the bolt and the plate _g
? L
g o. ;
. w -l } - . to the nut and qualified it after the fact. B&R and TUEC personnel P'h , f k- H . . . .
h * " h . 'v - then performed a random examination of approximately 70 nut-to-bolt C..!$ 6-k!rU[ .' welds nd found now%!. evidence of crac
.g heTRTreviewedB&Rprocedu_re]
' CEI-15, which permitted a nonwelded method for securing both types of /
/
; [ anchor bolts, and found that the method was acceptable.
$v >c.n . c. l .
40[., The TRT learned that NCRs for the intermixed anchor bolts were written
./
in July of 1977. The allegation was reported ato the Region IV office in October 1979; therefore, the Quality Assurunce System for the m N Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station discoverettils nonconformance. s W-
%?m apA n yg? I J
, 7, e
- 5. Conclusion and Staff Positions: Based upon a review of NCRs and
~
applicable procedures, the TRT concludes that the actions by TUEC were technically sound and that appropriate procedures were plemented to prevent these occurrences in the future. The a r bolts that were l l mixed up and installed are considered accepta le since the weld procedure for connecting the nut to the' bolt was qual ie vt pw) J'p no I uu s.a c 4.,s - evidence of cracks was found Accordingly, this allegation has - neither. safety significance or generic implications. The TRT was unable to discuss this with the alleger who was not identified. - h)brI b c Q ]
- 6. Actions Required: None.
- 8. Attachments: None. .
- 9. Reference Documents:
. 1. Gibbs & Hill Drawing No. 2323-51-0566.
- 2. NCR C718, Rev 1, dated July 27, 1977.
- 3. NCR M704, dated July 25, 1977.
- 4. NCR M722, Rev 1, dated July 25, 1977.' ,
l S. Region IV reports 79-25, 26 and 77-09. ,
- 6. B&R procedure 35-1195-CEI-15. " Installation of Containment Anchor Bolts, Huts and Plates."
}
i
' rgs .
~
~~
~p BrownURoot.inc.
QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) CPS 1 STR-RB EMBSTL 2323-51 0566
,,, .,,,, ,,,,, , , , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2 , , , ,
PLANT SYSTEY COMPONENT TAG / SPIN /IDE NT NO l DR AW% LNG /SPE CIFIC ATION NO l SERI AL NO.
. CODE CODE CODE A l 8iCl DlEl F l G ; tunist l H; tunital ] J ; (Un.si l 14 5-10 11 1s 17 ss f.,,,,,,,,,,, 4,i PURCH ASE ORDER VEND NUMBER CODE 56-69 7473 X X
, , , X, I I , t I I i I I I I f 4 EA I I I I I q718 I I I I f , 1 1 0,7f177 I I I I , a , I 1 E i f f 1 MRR RIR V E N DO R'S COUNT l UNITS PU RCH'S RLS/ HOLD NO.lCODE INPUT NUMBER NUMBER HE AT/ LOT / BATCH NO, O U ANTIT Y OR NO. ST AT US DATE 74 79 00 85 86 96 96-106 106 111 112 121 122 127 121 NONC OM PO RistiM G CONDI TION:
According to the above Gibbs & Hill drawing, all anchor bolt assemblies are to have (1.) A heavy hex nut tack welded to the plate washer, (2) the plate washer jammed between two heavy hex nuts or (3) the plate washer jammed between two U-clamps and one heavy hex nut. m )L 7p*/rP The installation of four bolt assemblies in the west wall de not comply with any of the three mentioned installation methods. Three bolts were placed but the nut and plate washer were not tack welded or jammed and one bolt did not contain a plate washer or nut. (3) REPORTED ST: l ia) DATES l 3(6) DATE. Gary D. Parks S E W/ APPROV A L:
! 7-21-77 PREP A RE D gy: (7) E Gary D. Parks ! 7 21r77 Abr h bsso !ggl7/tti77 DATE:
- 19) OBSPOSITION ASSIGN ED TO: 19 01 DU E D AT E; 19 t lCOR RECTt V E AC TION R E QU EST: R CAR # (52) R oE E P,O, C ,ENCT.
TAgLE H.C. Dodd, Jr. 81 5! 77 Required @Not Required c3 Posse .uE UNO (13) DISPOSITION: REWORK RE P AIR USE AS 15 SCRAP
/ t f '
N ,
?00 IUf0RM. TON QLY J
(l e) CONSTR RE vie Wi APPROV A L: ;gg5) DATE: l l l (9 6)Q A REVIE W/ APPROV AL ll17) DATE: (le ) CLIE NT R E VIEW / APPR OV AL: 1(19) DATE4 I
# ' s e
M/A t / / (20lENG R E VI E W sh PP R OV AL (21) D ATE: (22) ANI REVIEW APPROV AL: '(23) DATE:
! N/A / /
a.) V E R. P.C A Ti O N '
""'"^"*'
Satisfxtory Unsatisfxtory Not Reg'd. QA RECORD I
* *s) o Al Qc E NG R is N SP, VE Rt PIC Aft QN: ( 2 61 D A T b F;; C f a.
(2 7l A NI V E RI FIC A TION . ,(28) DATE. ((, [ N/A _
/ i cuern.cro.
(29) Q A REv3 E W/C LOSU RE DATE C - 96 2 / VA-15. 1/3-0(4-1-77)
!(30) , ,
Cnla
- v *P Hh-59&AS'd
~- '-' '
s TUF-3323 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. [ M 0'7I OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM H. C. Dodd Glen Rose. Tem July 15, 1977 { To suNect COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1980-82 2300 MW INSTALLATION , ASTM AS40 6 A320 ANCHOR BOLTS REF. 1} GHF-1789 /
/ )
FILE 0521.7 p' f -
'? ,
P-Work may proceed as indicated by, attached GHF-1789 on the
- e anchor bolts. '
^- . -
j___ W.fe rr it t, J r . l Resident Manager JTM:te cc: H. C. Schmidt 3L, 3A R. E. Hersperger IL, 1A L. T. Van Amerongen 1L, lA ' '
.S P. L. Bussolini 1L, IA i R. G. Tolson IL, 1A J
' Approved: ,
ORf4AIIO!gg I TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor l l Date f)S/p f 4 4 (
l
*
- l MEMO j)Cf C.7 4 l GliF-1789 Gibba 8 Mill. inc. ,> g ( n' s
incmuas. ossicuaas. co.ssraucreas
-, mw you t l' re J. T. Merritt 02c. .Tiil y 15_ 1977 p - TUSI - Jobsite '
y, J. J. Moorhead N _ A. G6H - Jobsite $ COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION ' ~ ' 1980-82 2300 MW INSTALLATION SPECIFICATION 2323-SS-17 MISCELLANEOUS STEEL ANCHOR BOLT DETAILS REF. TUF-3286 FILE 05217 Regarding the referenced letter which i ' posed a hold on welding to anchor bolts, we are transmitting the attached sketch which shows an alternate mechanical connectloa.
-- This detail was reviewed by the Desis. agineer on Tuesday, July
@ 12, 1977. At that time, he confirmed nrt this configuration
.would satisfy the basic concern that the plate washer be held securely in place prior to and during concrete placement activi -
tics. Based on the Design Er:gineer's comments, this change will have no detrimental effect on plant safety. Therefore, in accordance with the G6H policy as of July 13, 1977, this change is autho-rized by the undersigned in advance of formal changes to the de-sign documents. Construction may proceed subj ect to your approval. EUR INf0RMATON DN.Y .2 W.-h_fT
' Y M 1oorhead Resident Engineer
~
.J' JJM:DAF:te cc: H. C. Schmidt 3L , 3A R. E. Hersperger IL , lA L. T. Van Amerongen 1L , 1A
( H. C. Dodd IL , lA P. L. Bussolini lL , 1A R. G. Tolson lL , 1A K. L. Scheppele IL, lA F-158 ,11+3
MEMO g (o_7/P
. Gibba 8 Hill. inc.
ENGINE E RS. DESIGN ER S. CO,%TRU CTO AS qgJ New Yoat
') o.,
7/15177
=-
1 ' ~ NUT 4 WASNER PER DRAW!NG REQU!REMENTS r=: I-I f TIT
~
Q - FACE OR TOP O F ~
/ STRUCT. CON C .
/
l l
@R DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS NOT SHOWN SEE DESIGN DRAWING 5 2 " U" BOLTS V1/ITH RT. ANGLE' CLAMPS JAMMED TIGHT "AQ AI NST E WASH ER l ussi
.(NOT QALVANIZED)
, ri.,.,
>$ 7 - )p 2 WASH ER d. N UT PERDRAW DR
.L M1J Nf0RAllADN DNQ .
- =Q SPO!L BOLT THREADS AFTER I E WASMER IS DAMMED TI@H.T. :-
1 NOTE: g THIS DETAIL TO BE USED WMERE TACK WELDING IS SHOWN FOR ANCHOR BOLTS FABRICATED FROM ASTM A540 OR A320. MATERIAL.
.TH E . ON LY ' ALTER N ATE ~ TO TH IS ARE J
cr T= ~~ L Brownf5 Root,Inc, W 7 2 QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) CPS 1 MECMTL MISSTL X i t i i t it 2323-SI-0566 iI I e i t i f 1 l i a t i 1 1 1 i A 1 i i t 1 a I E a i ! I e I t t t it i 1 g g a PLANT SYSTEM COMPONENT TAG / SPIN /IDENT NO l DR AWING / SPECIFIC ATION NO l SERI AL NO
. CODE CODE CODE A I8ICl0lE] F ] G ', tunnel l H (Uniti l E J' (Units t l : 4 5a0 it is 17 56 3511956812 X 1 a a iit E A a 1 1 I E I E I PURCH ASE ORDER VEND NUM8ER CODE 5649 7473 X X X X X M722 072577 e i I 1 a i I i 1 1 1 iI I a iI i l l I I f f I i k i iiif I f f I I I t I t t I i i f f MAR RIR V E N DO R'S COUNT l UNITS PU RCH'S R LS/ HOLD NO.lCODE INPUT NUMBER NUMBER HE ATiLOTIBATCH NO, Q U AN TIT Y OR NO. ST ATUS DATE 74 79 8085 56 95 96-105 106 111 112 121 122-127 (2l NONCON FORMIN G CONDt TION:
See attached sheets. {31 REPORTED BY: l(a) DATE: 1 J. Locklar - ! 7-25-77
)PREPAREOeV: '{ 6) DATE: 17l RE V6 E W/ APPROV A L: ' gp D ATE:
R. Michels 7'25/77 M I
' 7r24,77 (9l DISPO5a TION ASSIGN E D TO: It 0) DUE D ATE: (I t lCOR R E CTI V E AC TION RE QUEST r g (12 ) REPO R T AgLE DE FICI E NC Y :
H.C. Dodd, Jr. 8'8 '77 >QRequired Not Required in n,055, , t E cMo (3 3) DISPO5' TION : REWORM R EP AI R USE A5 IS SCRAP See attachment IDH N 0f# AT10N UN u FO!A-85-59 {t el CO STR REV1
, APPPOV A L:
ll19) DATE. i..) ,REVEW,A,P :, , ,, . A m . 7r. E
,,,, w E NT R mE ,
7 4,77
,,,,, ,A,E, V9 Pg"A L, WW$ E'tv e lC usso -
OVAL 8NJrl ~7 27 '77
'{28) DATE; [2 2 )
nia l 5(23) 1 DATE: i (20\E N . m ANI REVIEWf APfPV#fy . r8 t hh 1.Bi 5i / / N/A / i
%A u ( \
12 4) V E RI FIC A TION U Wsitisfactory D unsatisfactory 0 Not seq'd. NOA/G"QA RECORD l RTN. A R EVI /
S l Q A f s N SP. gR4 FIC ATg l6261DATI: _
f$ ( I{I f - (27) AMi V E'Rlr eC A T O 7[f//7 12sl D ATE. /[. /
- SUDFIL.E NO.
" ,(30) DATE u V M- 721 R /
(19) Q A R E VIE W/C LO5U RE Q (, f ,g ,*7f 36E M - 7u Rt F-M A 774wMM.S VA-15. 1/3-0(4-1-77) _
\
- Brownf5RooUnc, ARMS 9
; b- OU ALITY ASSUR ANCE DEPARTMENT ggg
}
NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) _
"' CPS 1 MECMTL MISSTL X 2323-51-0566
, . . . , . . . . .., , , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , Wl: , ,,,,,,,,,,J PLANT SYSTEM COMPONENT T A G ' SPI N 'I D E N T NO l OR%iNG*SPE CIF IC ATION NO ] SERI AL NO
, CODE CODE CODE A lBlCl0lE lF l G ; (Unitsi l H; qunist j J ; tunisi
[ 14 5 10 11-16 17 56 3511956812 X 1 ( a I a a ia a 1 , I a f I l PURCH ASE ORDE R %END NUMBER CODE 5&69 7t> 73 X X X, t X X I I I I M722R1 072577 s I t a a a a i 1 1 t I e 1 i f I f f f I f f I I f I l i f I I I I t t 1 i t i1 MAR RIR V E N DO R'S COUNT l UNITS PURCH*S RLS/ HOLD NO.lCODE INPUT NUMBE R NUMBER HE AT/ LOT / BATCH NO. QUANTITY O R N O. ST AT US DATE 74 79 80 t'5 M 95 96 105 106-111 112-121 122 127 (2l N ONC ON FO R8'eIN G CON DI TION: See attached sheets. Revised to attach latest Rev.(#1)of CEl-15. (3) REPORTEDBV: l le) DATE: J. Locklar ! 7-25-77 l PREPA RE D av : '( 6 ) DATE. (7) R E V4 E W/ A PPRO V A L: : R. Michels ! 7i 25 77 ,[ [7 v - _ _ - g {(s)DATE7,gg,77 (9) Ot $ POSITION ASSIGN E D TO (10) DU E D AT E. Il t lCORRE CTi V E AC TION R E QUEST t CAg# (82) REP,0 o C
^
H.C. Dodd, Jr. 8i26i77 )ORequired ONot Required W MPO..,,LE c,0 (13) D15PO5s TION : REWORK RE P AR R USE AS IS 3 CRAP See attachment. OR IliFOR!May og cqh.d A-85-59 lt e) CONS T R REV Ws A PPROV A L. '(19) DATE 19 6)Q A R E VIE WI PROV L ,
'll 7) D ATE:
e M 12 / { t s) WC E N T R E VIEW ' A PPR OV AL: l 74 77 ggl9) DATE SiV S l lDuSsa I'2'O l E EW ROVAL
'7 27'?7
'121) DATE-N/AbDent,,
122) A M S R E ivl E W ' A PPR O'V A L; l I i! gayg,
&- w- IS 'S T1 nM92wo% !gggg i i
, n .
(24) V I FI C A TION. { SI) R EM AR MS. Satisfactory Unsatisfactory 0 Not Req'd.
*ts 04-<nCENga SP V E Re rs AveON f g ( 2 51 DATL O ORD ROUTING g[/ '
N2 ) [i RTN c,;. R EVly.V ' l. 12 7 6 'A m f v t Ri r [C A Te O N : lt2a) DATE. L -
/ 2.
k M M 5f(/f,
! / / FILE NO 3-HC/2- 17 129) O A RrV E w/C LOs e 'tso) DATE SUSFILE NO. 4. A
, .g l / f: ft)' - ) } / /l l q VA-lb. 1/ 3-Oi 4 7 7 ) f L
r _y A 4/ ,1g jM - 7 A k b rj ATTACHPENT TO NCR =M-722 (2) Nonconforming Condition: [g 7-c r N Anchor bolt assemblies have been incorrectly installed in the east wall, elevation 812' to 824'4" in Containment 1. Correct installation should be as follows: Sketch "A" - A AS40 nut and a A588 plate tack welded to each other and to a A540 bolt. Sketch "B" - A A194 "Q" nut, a A588 plate, secured by being janined between the "Q" A194 nut and a "non-Q" A194 nut, and a A320 bolt on which the nuts and plate are secured. The Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S1-0566 has been violated in that the following anchor bolt assemblies have been installed in the field: Sketch "C" - A540 bolt, A588 plate, A194 nut. Plate and nut are tack welded to bolt. Weld procedure and nut are incorrect. Sketch "D" - A320 bolt, A588 plate, A194 nut. Plate and nut welded to bolt. Weld procedure is incorrect. Sketch "E" - A320 bolt, A588 plate, AS40 nut. Plate and nut are tack welded to bolt. Weld procedure is incorrect and nut is of wrong material. FOR INFORMATl0N ONLY I l l l
T 4 . .. . - .
/
kict M-1 33of??
~ ~ ~
__ _ O[Edc SS_ M S _ k lady 3
-It}>ltjul - - -
rjojojo} - - - - - - . . k_ W b0 f'
- empaa7
~
m "* T
.____. .._ _ 0k }}Q ~
-. SWak/r 8" - - - -
s p > ,/ n e a w e
- -II*hPH Igfg
~
. . - . T ,yj,j,j,g. ._ _ __
n g--
- - - % n--... .-..-M6at, Eq k $h ,N me Ef?.. _.. . . . .A 588 &
* ~ -W - .w. .e=+eme - e.
e M *- O.** wm> man
- hGup. 4,
'4 .4Wh6 6 -- e eD6 +e N4 .44uW W
,.O m>m *e
8 f[8 pg ot 4 t #V en eep . s ica k h t " . -.. _
._ . Vysk wau -
- g. 6 O" # " " * * * *- #*"
- 62. 8S3eeblLV..- ..? . . . . . - . . . . . . . - - . .
_ _ . T ....... _ . . .. . _ 0$$ bcN . . - . . - . - - 0lN dicin. K 6'9 8 2 . ..- . .._ .. ._ .
^ 5 kaM "D "
aast was
-F0t%)Altil0N'iyLyAct we/d a a s r a - n _ c. m .:
-{f
- ,,, m . . __ -.
... . . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ 2 __ _ _ _ . . . . . . ..
_ .._ / ? 3 2 0 A b ./9../fY- /VU f A A sel -- . . . . . 9 M b_"? _ _ - .._ . . . W riastIgw t#2W/ah a s --
-]M 5M. f acfc treM 6 ,,,.i.1., .
a.i,i.,,1
/?szo Mt ASYaAw&
l/7S21e f$
.w. .&. ...
vh.... .-9*.6 ,g . -
i
HCK m- 7?
ATTACIDiENT TO NCR ///-77 k d '
- 13) Disposition In order to correct the installation of A540 anchor bolt assemblies and A320 anchor bolt assemblies, the following measures were taken:
- 1) Reference BRF-6654: Stating proposed corrective measures.
- 2) Reference CEI-15: Written to insure proper installation of bolt using a color code method.
- 3) Reference DC/DDA-2: Authorizing color coding of bolt assemblies.
- 4) Reference DC/DDA-6: Authorizing cases of material interchanga-bility and methods securing assemblies without welding.
- 5) Reference WPS-10050 - Weld procedure covering welding of bolt assemblies. (See GHF-1806)
As a final disposition, the area of nonconformance is to be used as is with the following justifications:
- 1. WP3-10050 qualifying the welding of the 3 combinations of metals.
- 2. DC/DDA #6 authorizing the various combinations of anchor material using the jam nut and U-bolt method of securing anchoring ends of the assemblies.
The forms have been removed from the area in question and the mapping in reltrion to heat tra aability is complete by B&R QC. r eture installation will incorporate the measure stated in CEI-15 to assure a+ 3embly material correctness. DC/DDA #6 uill be employed negating the weinq on any A540 er A320 assemblies. FOR INFORMA00N ONI.Y
~ <a .. uv~ .
g, g g , 73(
. 35-1195 7/21/77 f (c c < Q&
BrownffRoot,Inc. Post ottice sox 1001, cien Rose, exas 7eo43 755 k K N & July 21, 1977 BRF-6654 Mr. J. T. Merritt Texas Utilities Services, Inc. P. O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Comanche Deak Steam Electric Station 1980-82 2300 MW Installation
Reference:
TUF-3345 Reactor Building Unit 1 Anchor Bolts
Dear Mr. Merritt:
In answer to your TUF-3345, we have found many errors in the in-stallation of the 2" anchor bolts required in the 812' to 828'4" elevation in Containment #1. We purchased anchor bolts, nuts and plates from Bostrom-Bergen Metal Products. The anchor bolts are 540, the nuts are 540, and the plates are 588. We also purchased anchor bolts, nuts and plates from Southern Bolt. The anchor bolts are 320, the nuts are 194, and the plates are 588. Intheprocessofinstallingthess j ap mentioned elevation, we have 194 nuts on 546 g hqgg f VAthsHb O jn 320 anchor bolts. Another big problem is that we have welded many o t1e 194 nuts to the 320 anchor bolts and the 194 nuts to the 540 anchor bolts without the proper procedure. It appears that we had a very definite communication failure on the part of construction; however, Brown & Root construction, with the help of Gibbs & Hill, QA, and TUSI made the installation very complicated for the Brown & Root supervisors to administer, due to the number of combinations that can be made between bolts and nuts. We, in construction, take the full blame for this very definite misarrangement of proper nuts to bolts. We can assure you, without any doubt, that all anchor bolts in the future will be installed correctly per the drawing and with cur supervisors and craftsmen noteworthy of the correct installation procedure.
>^ . . &dRoot.lm . 72,.752 BRF-6654 Page 2
[{I d We are, at this time, qualifying the procedure that will allow the welding of any arrangement of nuts, bolts, and plates that were used. This procedure will be qualified by Friday AM. We will do a ccmplete visual in-spection of all anchor bolts in the affected area and can guarantee, upon the setting of the forms, the bolts and nuts as being correct. We must continue to do everything in our power to meet the schedule and observe costs as a very important item. Our plans are to correct this matter as soon as possible and continue to accomplish our schedule for this elevation in Containment #1. Very truly yours, BROWN & R0 T, INC., M)')] H. C. Dodd, Jr. Project Manager HCD/sdc L. A. Ashley (IL) J. T. Merritt (0) FOR NFORMEl0N ONLY _}}