ML20207E639

Rev 0 to, Small Bore Piping & Pipe Supports Generic Issues Rept

ML20207E639
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/05/1986
From:	Dunlop P, Feldman S, Wrucke R STONE & WEBSTER, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20207E616	List: ML20207E639 TXX-6159, Forwards S&W Small Bore Piping & Pipe Supports Generic Issues Rept. Rept Part of Comanche Peak Response Team Piping & Pipe Supports Requalification Effort
References
15454.05, 15454.05-R, 15454.05-R00, NUDOCS 8701020237
Download: ML20207E639 (38)

Text

l TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.

l COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l

I pe urg, I

o l

k

g

% co it

\\E l

SMALL BORE PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS ll GENERIC ISSUES REPORT I

I

I 1

I tg STONE & WEBSTER g

imS888: mygg

J.O.No. 15454.05 Revision 0 Date: December 5,1986 15454-N(C)-009 Job Book R4.8 I

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY (TUGCO)

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 SMALL BORE PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORT GENERIC ISSUES REPORT I

A fila sn5idn P/ Dunl'op S. M. Feldman Engineering Manager Project Engineer - Site R. R. Wrucke Project Engineer - Unit 1 A

C. A. Fonseca Assistant Project Manager -

Production M

A. W. Chan Assistant Project Manager -

l Technical 9-l R.' P. Klause Project Manager i

I lI I

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 SMALL BORE PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORT GENERIC ISSUES REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section

' Title Pg

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 W

2.0 BACKGROUND

1 3.0 SCOPE 1

4.0 ISSUE RESOLUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES 2

5.0 P.hFERENCES 2

TABLE 3-1 LIST OF SMALL BORE PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORT GENERIC ISSUES APPENDIX I SMALL BORE PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS INPUT APPENDIX II SMALL BORE PIPE SUPPORT ANALYSIS INPUT AND ALLOWABLES I

ATTACHMENT A SWEC REPORT, RESULTS OF CPSES UNIT 1 SMALL BORE PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORT SAMPLING EVALUATION I

I I

i 8

I lI

'E 0045-1545405-HC4 i

4 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 lur SMALL BORE PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORT GENERIC ISSUES REPORT I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Generic Issues Report for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Unit 1 Small Bore Piping and Pipe Supports describes the method, scope, and responsibilities for resolving the CPRT design adequacy issues I

for small bore piping and supports.

The objective is to demonstrate a licensable design in accordance with the CPSES FSAR and other licensing criteria.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) has been retained by Texa.s 5'

Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) to requalify all the ASME Class 2 and 3 piping and ASME Class 1, 2, and 3 pipe supports for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Units 1 and 2.

The requalification pro-I cess for Unit I small bore piping (2 in. nominal pipe size and smaller) within this ~ program was originally specified in the SWEC Project Proce-dure CPPP-15, Revision 0 (Reference 5.1).

All the small bore piping and supports that are included in the Class 1,

2, and 3 large bore stress problem boundaries are requalified by complete reanalysis.

High-energy piping requiring pipe break postulation and the piping subjected to sig-nificant fluid transients are requalified by complete reanalysis, while a

all the other small bore piping and supports.were to be requalified on a sampling basis.

I A sample of small bore pipe stress problems of Unit I was selected. This sample encompassed the applicable attributes in CPPP-15 and resulted in sample size of 122 piping isometrics (grouped into 50 stress problems) a from a total population of 732 isometrics (16 percent).

Scope, method, I

results, conclusions, and recommendations of the pipe stress and support reanalysis of this sample are presented in Attachment A.

I This sample was reanalyzed to meet the requirements in SWEC Project Procedure CPPP-7 (Design Criteria, Reference 5.2) and CPPP-6 (Unit 1 Requalification Procedure, Reference 5.3).

The results of SWEC evalua-l tion of the Unit I sample have also identified some generic issues that affected the stress levels and loads on the small bore piping and sup-ports.

As a result of the sampling evaluation, it was recommended to TUGC0 that all Unit I small bore piping and pipe supports be reanalyzed and requalified.

This report and its appendixes summarize SWEC's resolution of each issue l'

and identify specific sections of the pertinent project procedures that incorporate the resolutions.

l 3.0 SCOPE The corrective action to be implemented consists of the small bore piping and pipe support generic issues as well as generic issues for large bore 0045-1545405-HC4 1

l

I.

piping and supports that are applicable to small bore piping. Table 3-1 listed the specific issues found from the sampling analysis results in Attachment A, and categorized these issues in Appendixes I and II.

The I

scope of the corrective action plan for these issues addresses all Class 2 and 3 small bore piping (2-in. nominal pipe size and smaller) and all Class 1, 2, and 3 small bore pipe supports.

4.0 ISSUE RESOLUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES

. j For each issue that affects the SWEC requalification effort identified by SWEC in the small bore piping and pipe support sampling evaluation, SWEC summarized its understanding of these identified issues. The resolutions are then developed and implemented in appropriate SWEC project procedures

- 4 I

for.the CPSES requalification

program, which are summarized in Appendixes I and II.

Compliance to these procedures is assured by the SWEC implementation of

\\

8-the Project Quality Assurance program.

Adequate implementation of pro-1 ject procedures addressing the resolutions for the generic technical is-l sues is a subtask within SWEC's management plan fcr project quality in j

CPPP-1 (Reference 5.5).

5.0 REFERENCES

5.1 SWEC Project Procedure CPPP-15, Small Bore Stress / Support Requali-fication, Unit 1, Revision 0, July 2, 1986 8

5.2 SWEC Project Procedure CPPP-7, Design Criteria for Pipe Stress and Pipe Supports, Revision 2, April 25, 1986 3

5.3 SWEC Project Procedure CPPP-6, Pipe Stress / Support Requalification Procedure, Unit 1, Revision 2, April 18, 1986 5.4 Report on SWEC's Evaluation and Resolution of Generic Technical Is-

~

sues, Revision 0, June 27, 1986 5.5 SWEC Project Procedure CPPP-1, Management Plan for Project Quality I

(Piping System Qualification /Requalification),

Revision 5, September 9, 1986 I

I I

~

I 0045-1545405-HC4 2

-)

I TABLE 3-1

'I;v!

LIST OF SMALL BORE PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORT GENERIC ISSUES Small Bore Piping and Pipe Supports-Appendix Title Generic Issues I

Small Bore Pipe Stress Input 1.1 Modified rigid (M-Rigid) support function in the piping model I,

1.2 Class 5 piping and vendor piping continuation in piping model 1.3 Differential building displacements 1.4 Large bore source pipe movements I1 1.5 Modes of operation

• 1.6.1 Class 5 piping continuation and seismic isolation

+

I

• 1.6.2 Piping containing low support stiffness input

• 1.6.3 Support mass input

'II Small Bore Pipe Support 1.1.1 Two-sided weld length

.g Analysis Input and Allowables 1.1.2 Support member length g

1.1.3 Anchor bolt 1.2 Component capacity 1.3 Movement in unrestrained direction 8

• 1.4.1 Anchor bolt embedment length

• 1.4.2 Swing angle limit I

I*T*=seisseswerea1readvaddressedandrese1vedimiPPendixes t. O. 8B. CC.

" cad FF of the GTIR (Reference 5.4).

l I

I lI 0045-1545405-HC4

i E

sai a

=

APPENDIX I SMALL BORE PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS INPUT N

I E

a' 1.

Issues Identified in the SWEC Sampling Evaluation SWEC identified the following issues related to the original small bore 5

pipe stress acalysis input that are not in compliance with the SWEC Requalification Procedure and Design Criteria in CPPP-6 and CPPP-7.

g

_3 1.1 Modified Rigid Supports (M-Rigid Supports) yl B-The structural frame type supports for all ASME Code Class 2 and 3 pip-E ing sizes 4 in, and under, designated as M-rigid supports, were modeled q

as non-active restraints for thermal analysis in the original pipe 4

stress model when the calculated thermal displacement was less than

{

1/16 in.

Higher stresses will result from the inclusion of thermal expansion restraint function of M-rigid supports.

Nine of 22 stress ij I

problems that contain M-rigid supports in the SWEC sampling evaluation j j 8

produced equipment nozzle loads higher than the allowables in the orig-y inal analysis.

d g

1.2 Class 5 and Vendor Piping Continuation g

gy 5

Effects of the. Class 5 piping and the equipment vender supplied piping that are continuations of the Class 2 and 3 piping were not conserva-

}

I tively addressed in the original pipe stress analysis.

These effects 2

are twofold.

The first part is the isolation of seismic response of f

Class 5 piping from the safety-related piping, which was addressed al-E 8

ready by Appendix FF of the GTIR (Reference 5.4).

The second part is the inclusion of these continuations within the Class 2 and 3 piping stress problem boundary.

One stress problem was overstressed in the d

SWEC sampling evaluation due to the thermal displacement of the equip-

]

I ment and associated vendor piping.

r h

y 1.3 Differential Building Displacements i

N Effect of differential building displacements on piping that is routed g

through and supported at different buildings will result in higher pip-

.g ing and/or support stress.

Three of 11 pipe stress problems in the y

SWEC sampling evaluation that are supported at different buildings were

=

overstressed when the differential building displacements were included 5

in the pipe stress input.

~l 8

-4 1.4 Large Bore Source Pipe Movements 1

j Due to SWEC large bore piping requalification program, the movements of 5

EF large bore piping are generally larger than those in the previous anal-

}

ysis, which can. cause an overstress condition in small bore branch f

I piping.

Six of the 22 small bore stress problems that involve branch 3

piping to the large bcre piping were overstressed, when the large bore

{

source pipe movements were included in the pipe stress input.

i%

8 n

-dS 0045-1545405-HC4 1

i 4

I 1.5 Modes of Operation The modes of operation, including the operating temperature and pres-I sure range used for small bore piping analysis, should be appropriately identified.

One small bore branch piping stress problem in the SWEC sampling evaluation that used the documented thermal mode sketch for g

the associated large bore stress problem showed higher movements in the y

elastomer seal thaa the allowables.

1.6 Generic Issues Already Resolved by GTIR I

1.6.1 Class 5 piping continuation and seismic isolation - Seven of 21 stress problems in the SWEC sampling evaluation were overstressed because of the conservative application of this attribute.

1.6.2 Support mass in piping analysis - Three of 31 stress problems in SWEC sampling evaluation were overstressed because of this attribute.

1.6.3 Piping containing supports with low stiffness - Four of 50 stress problems in SWEC sampling evaluations were overstressed because of 8

this attribute.

2.0 SWEC Resolution of Issues and Implementation Process y

2.1 Modified Rigid Supports i

The modified rigid supports for the small bore piping will be modeled as rigid supports, in accordance with Section 3.10.8.1 of CPPP-7, which is also included in the Unit 1 Pipe Stress Analysis Checklist in -9 of CPPP-6.

5 2.2 Class 5 and Vendor Piping Continuation I

The Class 5 and Vendor piping continuation of the ASME Code Class 2 and 3 piping will be included in the pipe stress input model, as speci-fied in Sections 3.7 and 3.10.5.1 of CPPP-7, and Attachment 9-9 of CPPP-6.

2.3 Differential Building Displacements E

Input of differential building displacements for piping passing through W

buildings or equipment mounted on individual structures are specified in Section 3.4.5.4.2 of CPPP-7.

2.4 Large Bore Source Pipe Movement The large bore source pipe movements will be included in its small bore branching piping, as specified in Section 3.1.1 of CPPP-7.

2.5 Modes of Operation Operating system modes for the small bore piping will be reviewed and documented in accordance with CPPP-10 and verified to be available in 8

the checklist of Attachment 9-9 of CPPP-6.

I I

2.6 Generic Issues Already Resolved by GTIR 2.6.1 Class 5 Piping Continuation and Seismic Isolation This issue was addressed in Sections 3.3 and 5.3 of Appendix FF-SSER-10 Review, Reference 5.4.

The design procedure for interface anchor is contained in Attachment 4-10 of CPPP-7.

2.6.2 Low Support Stiffness Input

-This issue was addressed in Appendix E, Pipe Support Generic Stiff-ness, of Reference 5.4.

The generic stiffness values and acceptable minimum values are specified in Section 3.10.8 of CPPP-7.

2.6.3 Support Mass Input This issue was addressed in Appendix 0, Support Mass, of Refer-i ence 5.4.

The support mass will be accounted for in accordance with Section 3.10.4 of CPPP-7, and the pipe stress analysis checklist of CPPP-6.

t I

I I

8 8

8 5

8 I

l m,-1 m e,- c4 3

I APPENDIX II SMALL BORE PIPE SUPPORT ANALYSIS INPUT AND ALLOWABLES 1.

Issues Identified in the SWEC Sampling Evaluation SWEC identified the following issues related to the original small bore pipe support analysis input that are not in compliance with the SWEC l

Requalification Procedure and Design Criteria in CPPP-6 and CPPP-7.

Support _ loadings used in this evaluation were generated from the sample I

stress analyses, which incorporated all issues described in Appendix I (M-rigids,. Class 5 extension, etc), and the SWEC design criteria (ge-neric stiffness, support mass contribution, etc). These support load-

)

ings are therefore different from those in the original analyses.

1.1 Pipe Support Drawing Tolerances L

Dimensional tolerances are specified in the currently issued pipe sup-port drawings. Overstressed conditions developed when the conservative worst-case dimensions from the pipe support drawings were used in the I

SWEC sampling evaluation.

It is to be noted that all of these supports were acceptable when actual as-built dimensions were used.

1 1.1.1 Two-Sided Weld Length - Fifteen of 76 pipe supports that contain mem-bers welded on two sides only, exceeded the weld stress allowables.

i 1.1.2 Support Member Length - Five of 92 pipe supports exceeded the stress allowables, when the niaximum dimension of the member length specified in the drawing was used in the reanalysis.

I 1.1.3 Anchor Bolt Location - Ten of 74 pipe supports anchor bolts exceeded the allowables, when the worst combination of anchor bolt location dimensions was used in the reanalysis.

1.2 Component Capacity SWEC sampling evaluation identified one snubber exceeded the standard i

component rated load.

Physical modification is required to requalify this support.

I' 1.3 Pipe Movement in Unrestrained Direction SWEC sampling evaluation identified one pipe support where the pipe movement in the unrestrained direction of the support exceeded the I

space provided by the support member.

Physical modification is re-quired to requalify this support.

1.4 Generic Issues Already Resolved by the GTIR 1.4.1 Anchor Bolt Embedment Length - SWEC sampling evaluation identified 11 I

of 74 supports where anchor bolt loads exceeded the allowables. Ten of these supports were acceptable when the actual as-built embedment lengths were used.

i 0045-1545405-HC4 1

1 8

I 1.4.2 Swing Angle Limit - SWEC sampling evaluation identified the movement of 7 of 35 standard component supports (struts, snubbers) exceeded the 5-degree allowable. Three of these supports were acceptable when the actual installed angle of the supports was used.

2.0 SWEC Resolution of Issues and Implementation Process 2.1 Pipe *>upport Drawing Tolerances Conservative worst-case dimensions from the pipe support drawings will continue to be used for the small bore requalification effort. Howev-er, when an overstress cc.ndition is encountered, the field measured dimensions of weld length, member length, and anchor bolt locations I

will be used for the requalification, as specified in detailed pipe support analysis checklist in Attachment 9-10 of CPPP-6.

2.2 Component Capacity The capacity of standard component type supports will be requalified by the rated load supplied by Vendor, as specified in the checklist of CPPP-6.

2.3 Pipe Movement in Unrestrained Direction The pipe movement in unrestrained direction will be evaluated for the frame clearance in the requalification, -as specified in checklist of CPPP-6.

2.4 Generic Issues Already Resolved by GTIR 2.4.1 Anchor Bolt Embedment Length This issue was addressed in Sections 3.2.2 and 5.1 of Appendix BB, Anchor Bolts /Embedment Plates of Reference 5.4.

The design procedure I

for anchor bolts is provided in Attachment 4-4 of CPPP-7.

2.4.2 Swing Angle Limit I

This issue was addressed in Sections 3.1 and 5.0 of Appendix CC Strut / Snubber Angularity of Reference 5.4.

Section 4.2.6 of CPPP-7

, g and checklist of CPPP-6 both specified the requalification l

3 requirements.

I 5

I i

0045-1545405-HC4 2

lW 1

s t

-J.0. No. 15454.25 ATTACHENT A I

I RESULT OF CPSES UNIT 1 SMALL BORE PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORT SAWLING EVALUATION i

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CONPANY (TUGCO)

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 1 8

.B 5

5 I

g 5

8 5

I

.g 8

m

=

.=

3 e

i TABLE OF CONTENTS l

Section Description Py

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 y

2.0 SCOPE 1

?

2.1 PIPE STRESS 1

34 2.2 PIPE SUPPORTS 1

Y

- 3.0 ETHOD 1

B 4.0 SUDOMRY OF RESULTS 1

- 4.1 PIPE STRESS RESULTS 1

4.1.1 M-RIGID 1

5-4.1.2 CLASS 5 CONTINUATION 2

4.1.3 VENDOR PIPING 2

4.1.4.

BUILDING DISPLACEENTS 2

8 4.1.5 STIFFNESS 2

4.1.6 PIPE SUPPORT MASS 2

4.1.7 MISCELUUIEOUS CONCERNS 2

4.1.7.1 CONCENTRATED WEIGHT 2

5 4.1.7. 2 MODES OF OPERATION 3

4.1.7.3 SOURCE PIPE MOVEENTS 3

4.2 PIPE SUPPORT RESULTS 3

4.2.1 WELD LENGTH 3

8 4.2.2 ANCHOR BOLT EMBEDMENT 3

4.2.3 EDEER LENGTH 4

4.2.4 ANCHOR BCLT LOCATION 4

4.2.5 ORIENTATION 4

8 4.2.6 PIPE MOVENENT 4.2.7 CODFONENT CAPACITY

5.0 CONCLUSION

4 6.0 RECONENDATIONS 4

7.0 REQUALIFICATION PLAN 5

7.1 GENERAL APPROACH l

7.2 STRESS PROBLENS CONTAINING M-RIGID

%- c TYPE SUPPORTS 5

.t 7.3 STRESS PROBLEMS CONTAINING CLASS 5 C.

I CONTINUATION 5

Y(.

7.4 EQUIPENT N0ZZLE ALLOWABLES 5

g*J 7.5 TYPICAL SUPPORTS 5

7.6 OTHER SUPPORTS 5

B-7.7 ORIENTATION 6

pf v.g

I l

I Section Description

.No. Pages Pipe Stress Attributes 1

Pipe Support Attributes 1

.' Attachment 3 Scope 1

Pipe Stress Results 3

' Attachment 5 Pipo Stress Results 1

M-Rigid Example 1

Class 5 Example 1-Building Displacement Example 1

Stiffness Example 1 0 Support Mass Example 1

' 1 Pipe' Support Results 3 2 M-Rigid Requalification Plan 1 3 Class 5 Continuation Requalification Plan 1 4 Pipe Support Requalification Plan 1

I I

E I

I I

Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Unit I small bore class 2 and 3 piping and pipe supports not subjected to complete reanalysis were intended to be requalified on a sampling basis as indi-7 cated in paragraph 2.7 of Project Procedure CPPP-15. The purpose of this report is to summerize the sampling evaluation results and to propose reconsnendations

~

for the reaualification of the small bore piping and pipe supports.

2.0 SCOPE 2.1 PIPE STRESS A sample of 50 stress problems was selected on an engineering basis such that the stress problems encompassed the attributes listed in Attachment 1.

This selection resulted in a sample size of 122 isometrics from a total population of 732 isometrics (16%). See Attachment 3.

2.2 PIPE SUPPORTS A minimum of four pipe supports, or 10% of the number of supports, whichever was greater, from each stress problem selected above, were selected for evaluation.

I The pipe supports that appeared to be the most highly stressed, and those that encompass the attributes listed in Attachment 2, were selected. This selection resulted in a sample size of 270 supports from a population of 6428 supports (4%). See Attachment 3.

3.0 METHOD I

The pipe stress and pipe support requalification effort was performed in accordance with the technical requirements contained in Project Procedure CPPP-7, including snubber optimization.

4.0

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS 4.1 PIPE STRESS RESULTS Twenty nine of the 50 selected stress problems experienced some fone of overstres-sed condition. The stress problems that exceeded allowable stresses can be cate-l I

gorized as follows: (1) piping containing M-Rigid type supports, (2) piping con-taining Class 5 continuation piping, (3) piping where support mass contribution l

1s a factor, (4) piping connected to vendor piping, (5) piping that is subjected j

to differential building displacements, and (6) piping containing supports with 3

stiffness values less than the generic values specified in Project Procedure CPPP-7 (See Attachment 4 and 5).

Generally, the overstressed conditions can be attributed to differences in methodology between the design criteria used I

by the previous design group and the design criteria as specified in Project Procedure CPPP-7. The details of each of the above categories are described in the following sections.

4.1.1 PIPING WHICH CONTAINS M-RIGID TYPE SUPPORTS g

The stress problems containing M-Rigid type supports generally failed due to g

equipment nozzle overload. Nine of 22 stress problems failed due to this attri-bute.

In the previous analysis, M-Rigid type supports were modeled as non-active restraints for themal analysis.

However, when these supports are modeled as rigid restraints per CPPP-7, the I

e

(

5 Page 2 piping is restrained resulting in an increase of the loa'ds on the adjacent equip-ment nozzles due to equipment displacements and thermal expansion of the piping, e

See Attachment 6.

B 4.1.2 PIPING THAT CONTAINS CLASS 5 CONTINUATION PIPING 3

Seven of 21 stress problems containing Class 5 continuation piping were overstres-

~

sed due to the effects of the Class 5 piping on the ASME portion of the stress is-problem.

In the previous design, there are generally only two seismically designed l

supports in each direction on the Class 5 piping beyond the ASE class break.

3 This supporting configuration is usually not consistent with SWEC procedures for isolating the ASME piping from the effects of a postulated failure of the Class 5 piping. See Attachment 7.

4.1.3 PIPING CONNECTED TO VENDOR PIPING 8

Similar to the condition described above, when vendor piping that extends beyond the pipe stress problem boundary is considered in the analysis for its effect on the ASE piping within the problem boundary, the ASME piping becomes overstres-sed due to the thermal displacement of the equipment and associated vendor piping.

8 One stress problem was evaluated for this attribute.

4.1.4 BUILDING DISPLACEENTS Three of 11 stress problems were overstressed due to the effects of differential building displacements. Wher, the OBEA values are combined per CPPP-7 and included B

into the stress analysis, overstressed conditions occur N situations where the piping is supported from structure in different buildings..

See Attachment 8.

3 4.1.5 PIPING CONTAINING SUPPORTS WITH LOW STIFFNESS The stiffness values for some pipe supports were determined to be lower than the generic values. When the piping associated with these supports was reanalyzed I

using the criteria in CPPP-7, the piping was overstressed, generally in the vicin-ity of concentrated masses. Four of 50 stress problems were overstressed due to this attribute. See Attachment 9 for example.

4.1.6 PIPE SUPPORT MASS CONTRIBUTION When the pipe support mass contribution was considered in the stress analysis I

in accordance with CPPP-7, the additional weight caused the piping to be over-stressed and to exceed nozzle allowables. Three of 31 stress problems failed due to this attribute. See Attachment 10 for example.

4.1.7 NISCELLANEOUS CONCERNS In addition to the items discussed above there are other miscellaneous areas B

of concern. These items are described below.

4.1.7.1 CONCENTRATED WEIGHT I

One case was identified where the piping was overstressed due to a concentrated

'p weight on 3/8" tubing. This situation appedrs to be isolated.

f;

?

g

P ge 3 4.1.7.2 MODES OF OPERATION Tha modes of operation have not been developed for the isometrics within the sampling effort.

In the absence of this infonnation SWEC used either the TUGC0 I

line designation list or used the values provided for the corresponding Unit 2 line.

In one situation the temperature used in the analysis caused the movements to exceed the allowable movements for the elastomer seal. The modes of operation used in the analysis were as specified in the thermal mode sketch for the associ-ated large bore stress problem.

4.1.7. 3 SOURCE PIPE MOVEENTS i

Another attribute that resulted in overstressed conditions is the effect of the large bore source pipe movements.

In some cases the small bore piping is rigidly I

supported relatively close to the connection to the large bore line. Consequently, when the large bore movements are considered in the stress analysis the small bore line becomes overstressed due to the lack of flexibility of the small bore piping configuration.

4.2 PIPE SUPPORTS RESULTS There are 270 pipe supports within the scope of the sampling effort. T:,o* 3re 128 supports that are associated with the stress problems that were overstressed.

Since these stress problems were overstressed, the pipe support loads derived from these analyses were not considered appropriate. Thus, the pipe supports associated with these stress problems were excluded from the sampling effort.

Consequently,142 supports were evaluated. Thirty five of the 142 pipe supports I.

did not meet the acceptance criteria based on the specified geometry depicted on the support drawings. However, 28 of these 35 supports were qualified based upon field verification of the installed conditions. The other seven supports require physical modification (See Attachment 11). The attributes associated I

with the 35 pipe supports requiring physical modification or field verification of the installed condition can be categorized as follows:

(1) weld length of 2-sided welds, (2) embedment length of anchor bolts, (3) member lengths, (4)

I snubber and strut orientation, (5) anchor bolt location on base plates, (6) pipe movement in the unrestrained direction, and (7) component capacity.

4.2.1 WELD LENGTH OF 2 SIDED WELDS Fifteen of 76 pipe supports, containing members welded on 2-sides only excecded the allowable stresses for the weld specified on the support drawing when ur.J1yzed I

in accordance with Project Procedure CPPP-7. All fifteen cases were inspected by pipe support engineers and were found to contain sufficient weld length to qualify tha supports.

4.2.2 ANCHOR BOLT EMBEDMENT LENGTH Eleven cases were identified where anchor bolt loads exceeded allowables per I

the CPPP-7 design criteria. Ten of these supports were qualified based upon field inspection of the actual embedment length by the support engineer. One support requires physical modification.

I I

I

8 Page 4 4.2.3 MEMBERi.ENGTH Nany of the currently issued pipe support drawings specify a maximum dimension I

instead of an actual dimension for pipe support member length.

In five cases the pipe supports exceeded allowable stress when using the maximum dimension specified on the support drawing. However, all five of these supports were quali-fied based upon field inspection by the engineer.

4.2.4 ANCHOR BOLT LOCATION Anchor bolts on the support drawings are located with minimum and maximum dimension with respect to the base plate.

In ten cases the anchor bolts exceeded allowables when the worst combination of anchor bolt location dimension were used when qualifying I

the support. All 10 of these supports were qualified based upon field inspection by the engineer.

4.2.5 ORIENTATION The orientation of struts and snubbers are currently assumed to be within 2 degrees of the angle specified in the pipe support drawing.

In seven cases the pipe I

movement from the cold to hot position would cause the snubber paddle end to

. bind in the rear bracket, (exceed the 5 degree allowable), unless the support is installed to accommodate this movement.

Field verification of the actual 8

installed angle of the support was used to qualify these pipe supports. Four supports however, require adjustment.

4.2.6 PIPE MOVEMENT IN THE UNRESTRAINED DIRECTION In one case, the pipe movement in the unrestrained direction of the support exce-eded the space provided by the support member. Physical modification is required E

to qualify this support.

4.2.7 COMPONENT CAPACITY Using the loads derived from the SWEC analysis, the load on one snubber exceeded the rated load supplied by the vendor. A physical modification is required to qualify this support.

5.0 CONCLUSION

The results of the sampling effort for the requalification of the Unit 1 small bore Class 2 and 3 piping and supports indicate that additional stress analysis and pipe support requalification is required.

6.0 REC 0fetENDATIONS The Unit 1 small bore piping and pipe supports can be requalified by evaluating B

and reanalyzing, as required, only those isometrics and supports which contain attributes that caused overstressed conditions.

However, this approach would require reanalysis for approximately 500 of the 600 remaining isometrics (See I ). Further evaluation and justification would have to be provided

~

for the remaining 100 isometrics not reanalyzed.

SWEC believes that it may not be cost effective nor timely to pursue further evaluation and justification for I

f

E-i Page 5 I

these 100 remaining isometrics and therefore recommends that all of the Unit I small bore Class 2 and 3 piping be reanalyzed and requalified. The requalifi-cation effort described above includes the piping not currently subjected to I

100% reanalysis. Consequently, the sampling effort and the evaluation of the decoupled piping and the piping affected by the addition of clamp anchors shall be discontinued as currently described in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 of CPPP-15 and be requalified on a 100% basis.

7.0 REQUALIFICATION PLAN 7.1 GENERAL APPROACH The isometrics shall be reviewed to define proper stress problem boundaries.

Once stress problem boundaries are defined, the piping shall be qualified in I

accordance with the technical requirements described in Project Procedure CPPP-7.

7.2 STRESS PROBLEMS CONTAINING M-RIGID TYPE SUPPORTS (Attachment 12)

M-Rigid type supports will be modeled as rigid supports in accordance with CPPP-7 and qualified using the simplified rethod described in PN-56 where practical, I

or by computer analysis. The nozzle loads resulting from this analysis will be compared to the existing vendor nozzle allowables.

If the allowable nozzle load is exceeded, new nozzle allowables can be obtained.

7.3 STRESS PROBLEMS CONTAINING CLASS 5 CONTINUATION (Attachment 13)

Stress problems containing Class 5 Continuation piping will be reviewed to deter-I mine if the. stress problem houndary can be extended to nearby equipment or large bore piping.

If this is feasible, the pipe supports within the new problem bound-ary will be seismically qualified.

If this option is not feasible, the stress I

problem will be reviewed to determine if the pipe supports beycnd the existing problem boundary can be qualified seismically to develop an equivalent anchor.

If these' approaches do not work, a clamp anchor shall be added to the piping to terminate the stress problem.

7.4 EQUIPENT N0ZZLE ALLOWABLES I

As stated in paragraph 5.1.1 the stress problems associated with M-Rigid type supports generally failed due to equipment nozzle overload..Since nozzle allow-ables can generally be increased, it is necessary to develop a program to calculate I

nozzle allowables currently provided by the vendor. This would permit SWEC to qualify some stress problems without requiring costly construction modifications and permit the requalification effort to proceed in a timely manner since vendor concurrence for nozzle loads would not be necessary.

7.5 TYPICAL SUPPORTS I

Typical pipe supports shall be qualified on a generic basis where feasible.

These supports can be qualified on a " Load comparison" basis by comparing the loads derived from the SWEC analysis to the capacity of the typical support as defined in the SWEC generic calculations. There are approximately 1000 typical

• I supports that can be qualified in this manner. See Attachment 14.

7.6 OTHER SUPPORTS

,f

s m

i Page 6 Pipe supports that can not be qualified as described above shall be grouped and qualified by comparison to a similar support to the fullest extent possible.

See Attachment 14.

N 7.7 ORIENTATION The Unit 1 Class 2 and 3 pipe supports that are not within the as-built program 2

have been verified to be installed within 5 degrees of the orientation specified

=

on the pipe support drawing. This tolerance of 5 degrees is sufficient for pipe stress analysis but not fer the qualification of strut and snubbers.

Since struts and snubbers may bind up in the clamp or rear bracket when they travel plus or

=

minus 5 degrees, it is currently difficult to verify that binding does not occur unless the orientation of these supports is "As-Built" to the current tolerances specified in the as-built procedure TNE-DC-24-1.

Consequently, SWEC recommends that the orientation of all struts and snubbers within the small bore Unit 1 stress problem boundaries be measured to a 12 degree tolerance.

It is SWEC's understanding that this effort is to be included in the Hardware Verification i

M Program (HYP).

.5 m

-.h.s i.

w. a.

'{,[p

=

y f, '

l-f A

-a

%s

• k -

5,1 g,'.' "'.4

[ f

..<. w N., 9, [

UYh a

==

N i

I I

i I

Page 1 of 1 l

PIPE STRESS ATTRIBUTES 1.

Nominal pipe diameter (1" - 2")

I 1

2.

Stress problems containing class 5 continuation piping 3..

Piping subjected to jet impingement loads Vi 4.

Piping connected to equipment (nozzles) which includes 5

adjacent rigid supports 5.

Piping passing through penetration sleeves

. 1 6.

Stress preblems containing M-rigid type supports 7.

Piping containing valves with extended operatcrs 8.

Highly stressed lines as indicated by the original analysis

{

9.

Piping subjected to differential building displacements NOTE: 1.

All small bore ASME III code class 2 and 3 piping connecting to flex hose has been included in the large bcre anlaysis.

2.

All Small bore ASME III code class 2 and 3 piping containing l

moment restraint type supports are included in the high energy scope.

8 B

B lB Ei

'l i

8 a

1 Attrchasnt 2 Page 1 of 1 PIPE SUPPORT ATTRIBUTES

?.. 1.i-f 8

g.;__:.

. e..c..

%..e p

'./.~[f.$

1.

Box frames

.: e. -

u

.e.

2.

Snu%ers

..er-f ars,- : 8 n

3.

Springs

'4 R.y kg..',3 4.

Struts W

=

5.

Tie back supports

41. h. :

! i 6.

Box frames fabricated from plate material pg.Q 7.

Prequalified typical supports 7.i.i -

+

...,1 t.[. ~

8.

Integral welded attachments

'._.g 9.

Highly stressed supports (welds, anchor bolts, etc.) as indicated n,

. v in the origional analysis.

i, 7;'Jf g

h, 0.;

d4.

d 4

, ' 'e c

I' J3-a '.

3 Yi[ 4..:

3..

.. ' e '..,

7 x

.v. *i t ?'.' '.i '

-==mm c - -

'l

. %e g

f 4 ? " '.;,

e

.,..; ' ;. 6

~

-g'

'.T,'

+.

.*gn.

,.4 -t.s'

,s[ :.,'

s*

,. +3.f

~ '._ f -a..

.g

.,g.,e.'k, + m

} Q..

I.

na c...,

p), ey' j.

t j 'i,.g

-. ^e

...{; ww; e

.. _.'.. e

• +

?\\d.?

.An

'!?(;%

. >,q..

S

.5

~

(.

b.'l

,.4 a

Attcchment 3 W

Pcg2 1 of I l

SUMMARY

OF SMALL BORE IS0 METRICS AND PIPE SUPPORTS (PREPARED FROM REPORT #SBH-IP-SPCL. RPT, DATED MARCH 28, 1986)

0. OF ISOS*

(

StJPPORTS 1.

TOTAL NUMBER OF IS0 METRICS HAVING SMALL BORE PIPING ---- 1256 8474

• 2.

NO. OF SMALL BORE ISOS. INCLUDED IN WESTINGHOUSE STRES S PROBLEMS -----------------------------------

51 462

• 3.

NO. OF IS01ETRICS FOR VENT & DRAIN QUALIFICATION ONLY (312 - V/D L/B, 27 - V/D ON S/B PIPE IN L/B STRES S PROB., 6 - V/D ON W PROB. ) ------------------ 345 71 8

• 4.

NO. OF ISOMETRICS INCLUDED IN SMALL BORE HIGH ENERGY PROBLEMS --

24 140

• S.

NO. OF IS0 METRICS INCLUDED IN SMALL BORE FLUID 14 170 TRANSIENT PROBLEMS ---

i t

• 6.

NO. OF SMALL BORE IS0 METRICS INCLUDED IN LARGE 71 1097 BORE STRESS PROSLEMS ---

15 106 l

7.

SMALL BORE IS0 METRICS WITH ALL CLASS 5 PIPING -

4 0

8.

SMALL BORE IS0 METRICS WITH ALL VENDOR PIPING ----

9.

TOTAL OF ITEM'S # 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 --------- 524 2046

10. TOTAL IS0 METRICS IN SMALL BORE SAMPLING PROGRAM 732 6428 (POPULATION) -----

11.

NO. OF IS0 METRICS IN SAMPLE (50 STRESS PROBLEMS) ------- 122 12.

BALANCE OF IS0 METRICS ------------------------- 610

• IS0 METRICS SUBJECTED TO COMPLETE REANANLYSIS.

I I

I I

n

]

Attechmint 4 Page 1 of 3

. ([ j 2

4 ;; A

.A,);;

(j.:'-

=

CPSES - UNIT 1 SMALL BORE CLASS 2 AND 3 1

REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM - SAMPLING EFFORT

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS 1.

SUMMARY

BY ATTRIBUTE t

29 0F 50 STRESS PROBLEMS EXCEED ALLOWABLES 9 0F 22 DUE TO STRESS PROBLEMS CONTAINING M-RIGID TYPE SUPPORTS j

J 7 0F 21 DUE TO STRESS PROBLEMS CONTAINING CLASS 5 CONTINUATION PIPING 3

6 0F 22 DUE TO LARGE BORE SOURCE PIPE MOVEMENTS 3 0F 31 DUE TO PIPE SUPPORT MASS CONTRIBUTION 3 0F 11 DUE TO DIFFERENTIAL BUILDING DISPLACEMENTS 1 0F 1 DUE TO PIPING CONNECTED TO VENDOR PIPING 4 0F 50 DUE TO LOW SUPPORT STIFFNESS g

1 0F 22 DUE TO CONCENTRATED WEIGHT 1 0F 50 DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN MODES OF OPERATION NOTE: SOME STRESS PROBLEMS FAILED DUE TO MORE TEAN ONE ATTRIBUTE REFER TO ATTACHMENT 3 2.

SUMMARY

BY ISOMETRIC TOTAL NUMBER OF ISCMETRICS IN POPULATION................. 732

}

NUMBER OF IS0 METRICS IN SAMPLE............................ 122 NUMBER OF IS0 METRICS REMAINING........................... 610

=.4 NUMBER OF ISO'S CONTAINING CLASS 5 CONTINUATION PIPING....

235 NUMBER OF ISO'S WITH M-RIGID SUPPORTS NOT INCLUDED IN ABOVE 71 d

NUMBER OF ISO'S WITH SUPPORT MASS NOT INCLUDED IN ABOVE...

138 NUMBER OF ISO'S ATTACHED TO VENDOR PIPING NOT INCLUDED ABOVE 10 NUMBER OF ISO'S WITH DIFF. BLDG. DSPL. NOT INCLUDED ABOVE.

24 MINIMUM NUMBER OF IS0 METRICS REQUIRING REANALYSIS.........

478

=_

q f

RIE er fi:

. a.u

..{Y_b

, ysj

.M g

0;;t 01I2

n 3

ATTACHMENT 4 PAGE 2 0F 3

SUMMARY

OF OVERSTRESSED CONDITIONS BY ATTRiEUTE j

f,f,h M-RIGID

'j e054 - Nozzle overload

[I

.?.1 S060 - Nozzle overload

.,j

• S062 - Nozzle overload - also fails due to support stiffness 8.' T !

=

S065 - Nozzle overload i f -7 s..

. a;If.' [.

S080 - Nozzle overload T.g,. fd j

• S081 - Nozzle overload - failure also due to class 5 cont.

S086 - Nozzle overload

\\.a,g,.

]

S093 - EQ. 10&ll overstressed - Large Bore Movements

,-f. ;: :

SO98 - Nozzle overload

M y y.#t,(j_

3,7.

CLASS 5 CONTINUATIONS S053 - Valve acceleration due to applied plastic moment

}

S068 - EQ. 9 overstress, plastic moment applied

• S089 - EQ. 9 overstress, plastic moment applied; failure also due to improper spring size near concentrated wt.

3

• S081 - EQ. 9 overstress, plastic moment applied; failure also due to M-Rigid S085 - EQ. 9 overstress, plastic moment applied u

S100 - EQ. 9 overstress, plastic moment applied S102 - EQ. 9 overstress, plastic moment applied r

LARGE BORE MOVEMENTS h rl[

1

.. : y '.

5

• S051 - EQ. 10&ll overstress; failure also due to support mass N *:

and support orientation @ conc. weight causing EQ. 9 J.i-yg failure We

. 4.7. s - 3 T

S063 - EQ. 10&l1 overstress jf 7 ?.:-y

,1' S071 - EQ. 10&11 overstress h

S075 - EQ. 10&11 overstress bb..

Jkt S087 - EQ. 10&11 overstress y

• SO93 - EQ. 10&ll overstress (M-Rigid support near decoupled conn.)

fjd%s d

-- d muuan 2

l ATTACHMENT 4 m

PAGE 3 0F 3 SUPPORT MASS CONTRIBUTION

• 191 - EQ. 8&9 overstress S069 - Nozzle overload

• S051 - EQ. 9 overstress; failure also due to support orientation

@ conc. Wt. & EQ. 10&ll overstresa due to Large Bore I

movements SUPPORT STIFFNESS SO95 - EQ. 9 overstress - soft supports in vicinity of concertrated weight I

• S062

'Tozzle overload - sof t supports in vitinity causing nozzle overload from concentrated weight; (M-Rigid)

I

• 191 - EQ. 8&9_overstress - improper spring size from support mass not previously considered

• S089 - EQ, 8&9 overstress - improper spring size from I

concentrated weight not previously considered; failure also due to class 5 continus:1on I

CONCENTRATED WEIGHT S057 - EQ. 9 overstress - concentrated weight at 3/8" Class 3 tubing B

DIFFERENTIAL BUILDING MOVEMENTS S079 - EQ. 10&ll overstress - OBEA mvmta. between containment and safeguards SO99 - EQ. 10&11 overstress - OBEA mvmes. betwaen containment and safeguards S070 - EQ.10&l1 overstrese - OPEA umts. between int. and I

ext. containment I

THERMAL MODES

\\+s, S082 - Seal (w/o bondbreaker) allow. mvmt. exceeded due to jf, },

thermal modes not considered by previous analysis My. <

I

. :.y h.?Aj E

.h. h, VENDOR PIPING CONTINUATION S084 - EQ. 10&11 overstrese, nozzle overload - vendor

'tr[.

continuation oiping not previously considered

>]

I

'. ;h 4 45 %

• = STRESS PROBLEMS OVERSTRESSE.D DUE TO MORE THM ONE ATTRIBUTE

.,g[!i 2

I Page 1 of 1 PIPE STRESS RESULTS PIPING AFFECTED BY GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES 4 0F 50 DUE TO LOW SUPPORT STIFFNESS 3 of 31 DUE TO SUPPORT MASS CONTRIBUTION ADDITIONAL CONCERNS l

7 0F 21 DUE TO CLASS 5 CONTINUATION PIPING 9 0F 22 DUE TO N-RIGID TYPE SUPPORTS 3 0F 11 DUE TO DIFFERENTIAL BUILDING DISPLACEMENTS I-I I

I I

I I

I I

I

'I I

[M ' '

Attechm:nt 6 Pcg2 1 of 1 u.

y M '

(ig

-q'lj

.[y).

.V' s

a M - RIGID SUPPORTS S065 - N0ZZLE OVERLOAD

,s hj"(,

Ax, Ny,%

55lll N

l'

%N

/

3'$$

X z

rlI,

.I '

y

,,. \\

G~

y M-HMME*/ 7 p fy Y

fts 4

l Dc.

O g

N.'

g E

g.

E, -y

.a I

N s+

Ig h

$\\'

l lI '

(.

THE SUPPORTS AT NODE POINTS 270, 280, AND 305 WERE PREVIOUSLY 3

MODELED AS M-RIGID (ACTIVE DYNAMIC RESTRAINT BUTINACTIVE THERMAL RESTRAINT) TYPE SUPPORTS', WHICH ALLOWED FOR THERMAL PIPE GROWTH AND EQUIPMENT MOVEMENTS. WHEN THESE SUPPORTS ARE MODELED AS ACTIVE DYNAMIC AND THERMAL RESTRAINTS, TIIE RESULTING LOADS ON Tile EQUIPMENT N0ZZLE AT NODE POINT 400 EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE AS FOLLOWS:

(NORMAL & UPSET)

Fx = 27 LBS.

Mx = 10 FT. - LBS.

Fy = 27 LBS.

M 168 FT. - LBS.

y = 28 FT. - LBS.

s Fz = 153 LBS.

M

=

z COMPARING TO ALLOWABLE INTERACTION EQUATION SUPPLIED BY VENDOR:

i 27 27 153 10 168 28

. 12.56 > 1.0 4

, 90 100 26 36.7 28.3 200

'S g

(REF

SPEC MS-81)

I

~ - - - - -

g.

Q-Attcchment 7 Peg 2 1 0F 1

(

V IL g-CLASS 5 CONTINUATION S068'- EQ. 9 OVERSTRESS (I

y,

~##

- 5 #

/

EQ. 9 OVERSTRESS @ N.P. 115 DUE TO A5r INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF SEISMICALLY

['

~

g" DESIGNED SUPPORTS ON CLASS 5 PIPING.

gn PLASTIC MOMENT WAS APPLIED @ NODE POINT t

s, s, 190-

% (s-EQ. 9 STRESS = 30835 PSI ALLOW. = 18000 PSI g

[

[

v.

[L S089 - EO. 9 OVERSTRESS A x, Rg AD M o*~ cur:G tM E)

N%

PtiST1C MOMENT iPPt1Eo iT NODE PT. 110.

t~-

's EQ. 9 OVERSTRESS @ DECOUPLED CONNECTION

.9

/- M 7 Y

\\

/ POINT @ NODE PT. 5 DUE TO INSUFFICIENT fd NUMBER OF SEISMICALLY DESIGNED SUPPORTS ON CLASS S PIPE.

g.

E. rare

/8 Y EQ. 9 STRESS > 50000 PSI

(-

i (xt 2)

ALLOW. = 20210 PSI

{.

Er s

5.

g R i, r

Q.

2 Y

Y.e.r _

f

$/ B.)

as

Attachm2nt 8 Pags 1 of 1

lt2; 1.;e.

ikk.?

.j-[

,ee-l.;.':'..!

DIFFERENTIAL BLDG. MOVEMENTS iM:)

y..:.-

^y

c. fi. g.v=

S079 - EQ. 10 & 11 OVERSTRESS f ;l ;

h.f Ax (* M *'h h

g AY

~

y w

w 4

s9. g 3,,

7,,

4

[K.. -

ss 8

b EQ. 10 & 11 OVERSTRESS DUE TO N"x d##-

INSUFFICIENT FLEXIBILITY BETWEEN

$.. 3 J

D' SUPPORTS ATTACHED TO TWO DIFFERENT

/j.]

" STRUCTURES.

i.i. : 1 f

4 f'J EQ. 10 = 58717 PSI gy ALLOW. = 27475 PSI O*

fy( m m w n)

EQ. 11 = 61368 PSI Ex gy ALLOW. = 43375 PSI

&o,sMwoo A M.)

OVERSTRESS IS DUE TO THERMAL DISPLACEMENT OF THE CONTAINMENT & DIFFERENTIAL OBEA DISPLACEMENT.

SO99-EQ. 10 & 11 OVERSTRESS I

G

/'

~

EQ. 10 & 11 OVERSTRESS DUE TO INSUFFICIENT FLEXIBILITY BETWEEN 4 #~O # #

SUPPORTS, WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO

/g[

"h'f THE SAFEGUARDS AREA, & THE VALVE j

ISOLATION TANK WHICH IS ATTACHED i

TO THE CONTAINMENT WALL. OVERSTRESS Il IS DUE MAINLY TO DIFFERENTIAL OBEA g

B Q

DISPL.

EQ. 10 = 45558 PSI ALLOW. = 27821 PSI EQ. 11 = 65280 PSI ALLOW. = 45105 PSI s

~3'0"

', st i

g

Attcchment 9 Pcga lof1 g

SUPPORT STIFFNESS S095 - EQ. 9 OVERSTRESS' 1

NODE POINT DIRECTION KACT.

KMIN 775 RSKEW 9.6x102 8x10 I

3 750 RY 4.1x103 8x10 3

480 RSKEW 1.2x103 8x10 450 RY 4.3x103 8x10 3

700 RSKEW 2.3x103 8x10 700 RSKEW 6.7x103 8x10 3

240 RSKEW 1.2x103 8x10 3

240 RSKEW 1.6x103 8x10 3

215 RSKEW 7.4x10 8x10 3

560 RX 1.2x10 8x10 I

3 3

560 RY 1.4x10 8x10 3

655 RX 1.8x10 8x10 3

55 RX 1x10 8x10 2

3 55 RZ 4.5x10 8x10 3

3 100 RSKEW 2.1x10 8x10 3

100.

RSKEW 6.2x10 8x10 3

3 175 RSKEW 3.1x10 8x10 TOTAL NUMBER OF SUPPORTS WITH LESS THAN MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE STIFFNESS = 1_2,2 EQ. 9 STRESS = 34548 PSI. ALLOW. = 18000 PSI I

I I

I

. C Page 1 of,1 SUPPORT MASS 1-191 - EQ. 9 OVERSTRESS NODE PT.'

SUPPORT MASS MASS (LBS)

% WEIGHT

• 105 SNUBBER 17 28 140 SPRING 4

10 40 SNUBBER 10 28 155 SNUBBER 8

24 ga 210 STRUT 5

6 230 SNUBBER 6

17 510 SPRING 4

5 DEP 500 SNUBBER 17 20 gr 485 SNUBBER 17 100 480 SPRING 9

13 450 SNUBBER 8

12 455 SNUBEER 18 28 430 SPRING 4

6

.i

• % WEIGHT OF CORRESPONDING SPAN LENGTH

.l TOTAL NUMBER OF SUPPORTS ON PROBLEM = 33, i

TOTAL NUMBER OF SUPPORTS WHERE SUPPORT MASS WAS NOT CONSIDERED = 13 l

EQ. 9 STRESS = 28396 PSI, ALLOW. = 19080 PSI 3/4" PIPE WEIGHT /FT. = 2.104 1" PIPE WEIGHT /FT. = 3.127 4-

. L i

1 MM--

M

g 1 Page 1 of 3 PIPE SUPPORTS RESULTS I'

PHYSICAL MODIFICATION. REQUIRED (7 SUPPORTS)

I 4 0F 33 DUE TO SWING ANGLE (> 5*)

10F 74 DUE TO ANCHOR BOLT CAPACITY 1 EXCEEDS CAPACITY OF SNUBBER 1 LATERAL MDVEMENT EXCEEDS GAP PROVIDED FIELD VERIFICATION REQUIRED (28 SUPPORTS) 15 0F 76 DUE TO 2 SIDED WELD I

10 0F 74 DUE TO ANCHOR BOLT EMBD. LENGTH 6 0F 35 DUE TO SWING ANGLE I

5 0F 92 DUE TO EMBER LENGTHS 10 0F 74 DUE TO BASE PLATE DINENSIONS I

I I

I I

i l

I I

I

.I Att:chment 11 Prg3 2 of 3 PIPE SUPPORT

SUMMARY

STRESS ACCEPT ACCEPTED BY PROB.

AS IS FIELD INFO.

S-52 0

5 0

S-54 0

4 0

S-58 0

5 2

1. 1(2.) & #4(1) l S-59 2

2 0

• 1. 4(2)

S-61 0

1 0

S-66 0

2.

1

1. 2(1)

S-67 0

0 2

1. 1(1) & #2(2)

S-73 1

2 2

1. 1(1),*#2(1), #5(1), #6(1)

S-76 0

2 1

1. 3(1) & #4(1)

S-78 4

0 0

• f4(2),*#7(1) & *#8(1)

S-82 0

2 2

1. 1(1), #2(1) & #6(1)

S-88 0

2 0

S-91 0

2 2

1. 1(1) & #6(1)

S-92 0

1 3

1. 1(2) & #6(2) 1-34C 0

32 8

1. 1(7), #4(4), #5(4), #6(5) 1-35E O

5 0

1-35F 0

6 0

1-74 0

17 5

1. 2(5) & #5(1)

TOTAL 7

107 28

1) WELD LENGTH (15)

6) BASE IL DIMENSION (10)

2) HILTI BOLT EMBEDMENT (10)

7) EXCESSIVE MOVDENT IN S

DIREm0N (1)

3) MEMBER EDGE DISTANCE (1)

}

^

(

4)

SWING ANGLE (6)

5) MEMBER LENGTH (6)

NOTE:

• INDICATES PHYSICAL MODIFICATION

Attcchment II

~

P ga 3 of 3 PIPE SUPPORT RESULTS I

1.

SWING ANGLE SUPPORT NO: CC-1-RB-016-001 PER SWEC ANALYSIS, 1-S059,4 = 9.4*

5' ALLOWABLE PREVIOUS SUPPORT DESIGN 4 = 3.13' SUPPORT NO: CC-1-RB-016-002 PER SWEC ANALYSIS, 1-S059, 4 = 12.5*

5* ALLOWABLE PREVIOUS SUPPORT DESIGN 4 = 5.69*

f 2.

HILTI BOLT EMBEDMENT SUPPORT NO: CC-1-AB-076-005 ACTUAL EMBEDMENT FOR " 9 AMCHOR BOLT = 15/16" < 2k" MIN USING ALLOWABLES FOR 3/8" 9 BOLT AND EMBEDMENT LENGTH OF c

1 5/8", BOLT STRESSES ARE 63% OVER ALLOWABLE.

3.

SNUBBER

• SUPPORT NO: FSI-1-2108-01-03-1Q2-002

{

PER SWEC ANALYSIS, 1-S078, LOAD ON SNUBBER = 580#> 5128 (SNUBBER CAPACITY)

\\

ACTUAL STROKE = 4.5" > 3.75" ALLOWABLE.

4.

EXCESS PIPE HOVEMENT

• SUPPORT NO: FSI-1-2108-01-03-1Q2-003 PER SWEC ANALYSIS, 1-S078. LATERAL PIPE MOVEMENT IN THE UNRESTRAINED DIRECTIO" 0F A ONE-WAY SUPPORT = 3.48" > 3" PROVIDED BY SUPPORT MEMBER 4

W I

I

REPLACE

^C =2nt12 M. R12iD W17H Riate SUPPORT l' age. of1 i

CUAW ACCE: TABLE usis MAND CALC.

PM456 UNACC!i: TABLE I

FERFCRM 40HPUTER ANAL.Y4ti USIN6 ACTU AL GuPPORT 4 N0ZILE STIFFME65 I.

UE TAEW

.6 SS S FOR J

' AC4EPTAP.lLITT -

M D03DMPUTER.

ACCEP"TAELE ANAL.YGli FOR NE!A STIFFNESG Vir HE4545ARY1

+

6UEmMIT TO GUPPORT do P Aceg;:TA15LE.

GROUP FOR SUPPcET s

TO VEWoot CUALIF.14ATl0N ALLOW.

UNACCer i ABLE DrTAlu NEW

~~

ALLOW AEiLES 4 I'

47tFFutS5 FROM

$W E4 HOIILE PRO G R AM

_40MPAtt..'

ACCE1:T*

NOIILE LOADS I

TO NEW M.LOWAELES U NACC.EFrt-AMLC MODIFid A71 OM r

I E

Aamovs on.

l 5 Ramurr Soppact 4HAN6E.1XISTiuG.

.6UPPORT To.5PRiuG l

_ OR GNUBBER l

I MODIFY OTHER 5UPPORTS WHERE I

NECEMARY

- M. Rl6tD _ SUPPORT.'

l r

^ll 3

Act1ctrunt 13

~

Page 1 of 1 g

. CLASS 5 CONTINUATION PIPING

'I REVIEW ISOMETRICS I-CONTAINING CLASS S 1

CONTINU ATION PIPING I

DOES CLASS 5 PIPING I

T E R M INATE AT EQUIP.

YES EXTEND STRESS PROBLEM TO OR L.B. PIPE NEAR EXIST.

TERMINATION POINT PROBLEM BOUNDARY ?

1r I

~ QUALIFY PIPING NO AND SUPPORTS WITHIN NEW PROBLEM SOUNDARY CAN I

EXIST CLASS S SUPPORTS BE SEISMICALLY YES QUALIFIED TO DEVELOP L

QUALIFY PIPING EQUIVA LENT ANCHOR p AND SUPPORTS WITHIN NEW. PROBLEM BOUNDARY NO.

il TERMINATE STRESS PROBLEM BY ADDING l3 m

ANCHOR l

~1 I QUALIFY PIPl.NG I

AND SUPPORTS WITHIN NEW PROBLEM BOUNDARY I

a

NlIfoIt II PIPE SUPPORT QUALIFICATION EFFORT I

REVIEW SUFFCRTS CN ISOMETRICS l

TO EE ANALYZED BY SWEC l.

I

• TYPICAL" YES F

I SUPP. ORT LOAD COMPARISON gIC ALC BY I

m u

/

I

/ GROUP W/

- YES QUALl'FY BY SIMILAR z

COM PARISON TO SUPPORTS SIMILAR SUPPORTS I

"o I

u QUACIFY

. I.

ON INDIVIDUAL BASIS I

I I

I I