ML20210C729
| ML20210C729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1987 |
| From: | ABB IMPELL CORP. (FORMERLY IMPELL CORP.), EBASCO SERVICES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210C645 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8705060290 | |
| Download: ML20210C729 (197) | |
Text
..
TU~-ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECIRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS PREPARED BY:
TU ELECTRIC GLEN ROSE, TEXAS-t EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED NEW YORK, NEW YORK -
IMPELL CORPORATION BANNOCKBURN, ILLINOIS
[
REVISION 2 l
IR2
(
MARCH 13, 1987 l
(
1403m 8705060290 870413 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A-PDR s
l
.TU ELECTRIC COMPANY
[
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I
GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECIDiICAL ISSUES ~
'~
FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS i
REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET This report was prepared by both impell Corporation and Ebasco Services
, Incorporated. The signatures below verify the accuracy of the sections of this report prepared by each organization.
I I
I i
1 i
I l Revision l
Impell l Approval l Ebasco l Approval l Pages l Number l Signatures Date Sinnatures l Date l
Affected I
i l
i I
1-By lG Ashley l8/13/86 lF Hettinger l8/14/86 l
l1-l 0
Chk lB Ramsey-l lR Alexandru l I
l Arp' lK Warapius I
i R C Iotti l
l l
l JCover Sheet, i thru l l
l l
A1.2 l g]1thru15,gf4,AN8 l
By kF l
l M
1 1
chk i1/21/87 lK i1/21/87 3
i l
lA3.10 ~ thru A3.13, l
App l f,74,67- l I
I I
I I
-A4.1, A4.3 thru A4.7, I
I I
I I
l l
l l
l A6.3, A7.1, A7.3, l.
l l
l l
l lA7.4, A8.1 thru A8.3l, j
l l
l l
9.1 thru A9.3,A10.lj, 0.4, A10.5, All.1,l l
l l
l
[
2.1, A12.2, A12.8 l
l l
g g
hru A12.10, A13.1,gg g
g g
g g
4..L A14.3 A14.5 I
1 I
I i
1 hru A14.7, A15.1, l
I I
i l
5.3, A16.1 thru l
l l
l l
lA16.4, A17.1, A17.2,!
l l
l l
l kl7.4 thru A17.6, l
l l
l l
K18.1, A18.3 thru l
l l
l l
l 518.5, A19.1 thru l
l j
l l
l 519.3, A20.1, A20.10l l
l l
l l
phru A20.12, A21.1 l l
l l
l l
phru A21.3, A21.10 l
[
l l
l l
phru A21.15, A22.1 l l
l l
l l
phru A22.3, A23.1 l
l l
l l
l 523.3,A24.1,A24.5,l l
l l
l l
524.7,A24.8,A25.1,l l
l l
l l
K25.3 thru A25.6, l
l l
l l
l 526.1,A26.3,A27.1,l l
l l
l l
K27.3,A28.1,A28.3,l l
l l
l l
529.1, A30.1, A31.1,l l
l l
l l
531.2 l
1 I
I l-l l
1 l
l 1
I l
1 1
I I
l-1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
(
l TU ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION i
GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET 1his report was prepared by both Impell Corporation and Ebasco Services Incorporated. The signatures below verify the accuracy of the sections of this report prepared by each organization.
I I
I I
I I
I l Revision i
Impell l Approval l Ebasco I Approval i Pages l
l Number l Signatures l Date l Signatures l
-Date l Affected I
I i
gi 1
I Cover Sheet, iii I
By I
h *8 l r
I I
V, vi, vii, 3 thru 13, I
! 7%[
(/
I 2
Chk E
l l
l 15, 16, A8.2, A8.3, l
3/13/87 l E.4/rr# l 3/13/87 A9.3, A14.6, A14.7, App l
Q ll v
l YD A16.4, A18.4, A19.2,-
l I
I l
l l
A19.3, A22.3, A24.7, I
I l
l l A25.5, A25.6, A30.2, I
l l
l l
l
' A31.2 l
l l
l l
l l
l I
I I
I l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
'l I
I I
I I
I I
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I l
l l
l l
l 1
I I
I I
I i
l I
I I
l l
l 1
1 I
I I
I l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
1 I
l l
l 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I' I
I l
1 I
I I
I l
l l
l 1
I i
11 f
1403m
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECIRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC. TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS REPORT REVISION
SUMMARY
SHEET Rev.
l
SUMMARY
OF REVISION Number l Section l
SUMMARY
I i
1 l General l
I I
l l.
Action Plan and Implementation sections have been I
revised where necessary to provide more concise i
discussion of the issue resolution and to reflect l
l current implementation status.
I I
l l.
Discussion of the Design Verification of l
l Inaccessible Attributes has been deleted from this l
l report. Detailed discussion will be provided in the "TU Electric, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1&2, and common Cable Tray Hanger Design
{
l l
Verification Program - Final Project Report".
I 1
l l.
Texas Utilities Generating Company and TUGC0 has been I
changed to TU Electric throughout this report i
including verbatim sections 1.0 and 4.0 of the l
i Appendices.
I I
l l.
All revisions have been noted by "R1" in the page l
l margin. All revised pages are listed on page i.
l l
l V
l The latest revision of references has been noted and l
documents no longer referenced in this report have l
I been deleted. Texas Utilities Generating Company and TUGC0 has been changed to TU Electric on all references.
l l
l VI l
Section VI " Summary Matrix" has been added.
I I
l Appendix 17 l Detailed discussion of embedded plate design l Sections 3.0, verification has been deleted pending a project 5.1, 5.2 decision regarding a consistent interdiscipline l
l approach.
l l
l IAppendix 21 l Discussion of SDAR 86-52 (Shim Plates Under Section 2.0 l C-Clamps) has been removed. More detailed discussion l
of this internal source issue will be provided in l
l the "TU Electric, Comanche Peak Steam Electric l
l Station Units 1 and 2 Cable Tray Hanger Design Reverification Program - Final Analysis Report".
iii IR2 1403m
~.
. -. _... ~.
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECIRIC STATION i
GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS REPORT REVISION
SUMMARY
SHEET
. R ev.
I
SUMMARY
OF REVISION Number i Section l
SUMMARY
I I
2 l General l
I I
l l.
Action Plan and Implementation sections have been revised where necessary to provide more concise discussion of the issue resolution and to reflect I
I current implementation status.
I I
l l.
All revisions have been'noted by "R2" in the page l
I margin. All revised pages are listed on.page 11.
I l
l V
I The latest revision of references has been noted and
'l I
new documents referenced in this report have been l
l added.
VI Section VI " Summary Matrix" has been updated to l
l reflect added references.
I l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
1 I
I I
I I
I I
i 1
l 1
1 l
l 1
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
iv 1403s
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TITLE PAGE' REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET i
REPORT REVISION
SUMMARY
SHEET iii lR2 TABLE OF CONTENTS y
lR2 LIST OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES
'vi lR2 I
INTRODUCTION 1
II ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS 1
III REPORT ORGANIZATION AND RESOLUTION PROCESS 2
IV ABBREVIATIONS 2
V REFERENCES 3
VI
SUMMARY
MATRIX 8
lR2 APPENDICES A1.1 - A31.1 y
lR2-1403m
i l:
.TU ELECTRIC
~
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
]
GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR) l EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES
(.
FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS LIST OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES APPENDIX ISSUE TITLE 1
Controlling Load' Case for Design 2:
Seismic Response Combination Method 3
Anchor Bolt Design 4
Design of Compression Members 5
Vertical and Transverse Loading.on Longitudinal Type Supports 6
Support Frame Dead and Inertial Loads 7
Design of Angle Braces Neglecting Loading Eccentricity
~
8 Dynamic Amplification Factors (DAF) and Ratios Between Continuous Tray Support Reactions and Tributary Tray Support Reactions 9
2 eduction in Channel Section Properties Due to Claap Bolt Holes 10 System concept 11 Validity of NASTRAN Models 12 Working Point Deviation Study 13 Reduced Spectral Accelerations 14 Non-Conformance with AISC Specifications 15 Member Substitution 16 Weld Design and Specifications 17 Embedded Plate Design 18 Tray Clamps 19 FSAR Load Combinations d
i vi ~
lR2 h
1403m
- \\
TU ELECTRICL COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I
GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION' 0F. GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES
~FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS LIST OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES (Cont'd)
APPENDIX ISSUE TITLE 1
20 Differences Between Installation and Design / Construction Drawings without Appropriate Documentation 21
. Design Control 22 Design of Support No. 3136, Detail "5", Drawing 2323-S-0905
~
23 Loading in STRESS Models 24 Design of Flexural Members 25 Cable Tray Qualification i
26 Base Angle Design 27 Support Qualification by Similarity 28 Critical Support Configurations and Loadings 29 Cumulative Effect of Review Issues 30 Cable Tray System Damping Values 31 Modeling of Boundary conditions Note: Appendices 1 to 29 address CYGNA Issues presented in CYGNA's " Cable Tray Supports Review Issues List", Revision 12 dated November 20, 1985 transmitted to TU Electric by CYGNA letter No. 84056.095 dated November 26, 1985.
Appendices 30 and 31 are generic technical issues raised by CASE /NRC
)
during the course of testimony related to various disciplines of CPSES design.
vii lR2 1403m 2
.J
l TU ELECTRIC
~
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)-
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES l
FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS i
p I.
INTRODUCTION TU Electric has undertaken an extensive prograd to verify the design
. adequacy of 100 percent of the Seismic Category I electrical cable trays (raceways) and their supports (hangers) at the Comanche! Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2.
TU Electric has retained Impell Corporation and Ebasco Services' Incorporated to perform this design i-verification program.
The roles of Ebasco and Impell are described in detail in References 22 through 25..
j.
Project criteria and procedures, in conformance with the CPSES FSAR, have been developed for design verification by both Impell'and Ebasco.
These documents, along with various special studies and testing program results, provide the technical basis for the effort. The criteria and procedures not only reflect good engineering practice but have also been developed to specifically address generic technical cable tray design j-adequacy issues raised by. external organizations.
The majority of the generic technical issues were raised in an Independent Assessment Program (IAP) conducted.by CYGNA.
These issues.
~
were primarily focused on deviations between the "as-designed" and l
"as-built" raceway systems, control of design documents, analysis l
assumptions and methods, and design assumptions and methods. In addition, TU Electric undertook a thorough review of all~ hearing j
transcripts from 1982 to date, minutes of meetings between the NRC, CYGNA, the Intervenor, and the Third Party, documents generated by.the -
NRC, Third Party, and CASE, NCRs, and potentially reportable 10CFR50.55e findings to determine if generic technical issues other than the CYGNA issues exist for the cable tray systems. TU Electric initiated-the Cable Tray and Conduit Support Program (CTCS)'to systematically identify i-and resolve these issues. Impell and Ebasco a're responsible for-implementation of the CTCS program, including "as-designed" and ~
"as-built" data collection, analysis, and design verification. The CTCS program activities are being reviewed by the CPRT Third Party wtt was retained by TU Electric to ensure that all issues have been clearly identified and-resolved.
This report contains a comprehensive summary of the Impell and Ebasco evaluation and resolution of all identified cable tray system generic technical issues. Specific reference to the appropriate section of criteria,- procedures, special studies, or test performance
]
specifications and results are provided for each generic technical l
j-issue and are summarized in Section VI," Summary Matrix", of.this j
report.-
i 4
II.
ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS l
The following steps were taken to evaluate and resolve each of the generic technical issues:
1 e-1403m
,.n....wm.
,s
-e
.__n
V TU-ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC' STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR) b EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS-1 l
1.. Impell and Ebasco reviewed documentation as required to fully-understand the issue. Review of the IAP summary report issued by
- ~.
CYGNA was sufficient to accomplish this for most issues. More~
detailed reviews of source documentation were required. to fully understand other issues..Impell and Ebasco then summarized their i
understanding of the issue.
2.
Impell and Ebasco have developed an action, plan to resolve each issue. The action plan consists of various combinations of "as-designed" and "as-built" data collection, procedures development, special study definition and' implementation, and test
. program implementation.
3.
The action plan has been implemented to complete issue resolution by preparing design criteria and procedural documents which address all of the identified generic technical issues. The criteria and procedural documents are then used to complete design verification 4 -
for the cable tray systems.
5 III. REPORT ORGANIZATION AND RESOLUTION PROCESS The body of this report describes the background and approach to evaluate and resolve each of the identified generic technical issues for design verification of cable tray systems by Ebasco and Impell. An individual Appendix has been developed for each' generic technical issue. Each Appendix includes a summary of the issue background (for j
issues 1 through 29, the background is'taken verbatin from the CYGNA Review Issues List (Reference 31); references noted in the background i
are always the references listed in'Section 4.0 of each appropriate-l Appendix), the Impell and Ebasco understanding of the issue, the Impell j
and Ebasco common action plan to resolve the issue, a complete list of relevant documents reviewed by Cygna or other reviewers,.and the Impell i
l and Ebasco implementation of the resolution.
The implementation section
)
{
contains detailed references to appropriate sections and revisions of
)
criteria, procedures, special studies, or test program documentation
]
which resolve the generic technical issue. References noted in the implementation section are always the references in Section.V of this report.
This report has been prepared, reviewed, and approved jointly by Impell i
and Ebasco. This report will be revised on a periodic basis as needed.
l Each revision will identify affected sections and will be reviewed and approved by both Impell and Ebasco.
IV.
ABBREVIATIONS u
l The following abbreviations have been used in this report:
ACI: American Concrete Institute AISC: American Institute of Steel Construction ASLB: Atomic Safety Licensing Board 2
1403m-
'TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR) t I
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS CASE:
Citizens Association for Sound Energy 3-
. CMC:
Component Modification Card l
CPRT:
Comanche Peak Response Team CPSES:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station CTCS:
Cable Tray and Conduit Support Program CYGNA:
CYGNA Energy Services 4
DAF:
Dynamic Amplification Factor
-DCA:
Design Change Authorization 4
-DV:
Design Verification ESM:
Equivalent Static Method j
FSAR:
Final Safety Analysis Report IAP:
Independent Assessment Program JBA:
Consulting firm responsible for third party review LOCA:
Loss of Coolant Accident MRM:
Multimode Response Multiplier NRC:-
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission OBE:
Operating Basis Earthquake QC:
Quality Control RSM:
Response Spectrum Method
?
SSE:
Safe Shutdown Earthquake SRSS:
Square Root Sum of the Squares SWEC:
Stone & Webster Engineering Company TERA:
Consulting firm responsible for third. party review VWAC:
Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria l
V.
REFERENCES 1.
Impe11 Calculation M-25, " Prying Action Factors for Two Bolt Base Plate", Rev. 3.
4 2.
Impe11 Instruction PI-02, " Dynamic Analysis of Cable Tray Systems",
lR2 Rev. 5, 10/10/86, with Addendum dated 01/28/87.
I 3.
Impell-Instruction PI-03, " Qualification of Cable Tray Supports",
R2 i
Rev. 4, 10/10/86, with addenda dated 1/19/87 and 01/30/87.
4.
Impell Instruction PI-06, " Tray and Clip Qualification", Rev. O, lR2' 10/15/86, with addenda dated.12/5/86, 01/09/87 and 02/02/87.
5.
Impe11 Instruction PI-07, " Design Verification of Base Plates,' Base Angles, and Embedment Plates", Rev. 3, 9/16/86,' with addenda dated lR2 01/07/87 and 1/19/87.
I i
1 3
1403m
~.
~
4 TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS 6.
TU Electric Field Verification Procedures l
l TNE-FVM-CS-001
" Field Verification Method Unit 1 Cable Tray Hangers l
As-Builting and Design Adequacy Verification l
Program," Rev. 6, December 1,1986.
l I
7 TNE-FVM-CS-003
" Field Verification Method Unit 2 Cable Tray Hanger l-As-Builting and Design Adequacy Verification l
Prograa," Rev. 2, November 21, 1986.
l l
l TNE-FVM-CS-019
" Supplemental Procedure for Unit 2 Walkdown -
Selected Cable Tray Attributes _ Data Collection Unit 2," Rev. 1, September 3, 1986.
lR2 1
TNE-FVM-CS-036- " Field Verification Method As-Built Verification to l
the Main Structural Framework in the Cable Spread I
. Room Supporting Unit 1 Designated Cable Trays and l
s Selected Attributes of Unit 1 Cable Trays," Rev. O, I
February 2, 1986.
l I
INE-FVM-CS-048
" Field Verification Method Unit 1 Cable Tray Selected Attributes As-Built Prograa," Rev. O, i
December 31, 1986.
l I
TNE-FVM-CS-050
" Field Verification Method T J Cope Flat Ladder l
T Fittings Selected Attributes Data Collection,"
l Rev. O, January 5, 1987.
l I
7.
Impe11 Calcolation M-03, " Cable Tray. Properties", Rev.' 4, with Attachments 1 and 2.
8.
Impe11 Calculation M-04, " Base Angle Stiffness", Rev. 1.
7 9.
Impe11 Calculation M-10, " Clip Angle Stiffness", Rev. 2.
l 10.
Impe11 Calculation M-12, " Qualification Procedure for Cable Tray Support-Evaluations", Rev. 2.
11.
Impe11 Calculation M-19, " Clip Stiffness Production Values", Rev. 2.
12.
Impe11 Calculation M-27, " Thermal Load Evaluation",.Rev.1.
lR2 13.
Impe11 Calculation M-28, " Tray Clamp Behavior", Rev. 0.
14.
Impell Report 01-0210-1470, " Effective-Length Factors for Buckling of Cable Tray Supports", Rev.1, May 1986.
4 i-t 1403m
TU ELECTRIC r-COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECIRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS 15.
Impell Report 09-0210-0018, " Slenderness Ratio Limits for CPSES Ca ble Tray Supports", Rev. O.
16.
Impe11 Report, 09-0210-0017, CPSES Cable Tray System Analysis / Test Correlation", Rev. O.
lR2 17.
ANCO, " Final Summary Report - Comanche Peak Cable Tray Tests,"
Rev. O, January 1987.
18.
Deleted 19.
Impe11 Calculation M-39, " Side Rail Extensions Study," Rev. O.
20.
Impell Special Study No. 5.9 " Oversize Bolt Holes", Preliminary Issue.
21.
Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan and Issue Specific Action Plan, Rev. 4.
i 22.
TU Electric CPSES Impe11 Interface Control Instructions, Rev. 4.
23.
Ebasco Procedure PJ-2-CP " Project Communication", dated October 10, 1986.
24.
ECE-AD-4, Rev. 13.
lR2 25.
ECE-1. 01, Rev. O.
lR2 26.
Impe11 Calculation M-68, " Evaluation of Diamond Cored Bolt Holes,"
Rev. O.
lR2 27.
AISC, " Manual of Steel Construction", 7th Edition including Supplements No.1, 2, and 3.
28.
Impell Quality Assurance Procedures, Rev. 17.
29.
" Test Plan - Dynamic Testing of Typical Cable Tray Support Configurations", Document No. A-000150 Rev.1, Dec.1985 by ANCO Testing Laboratory.
30.
CCL Test Plans: Monotonic and Cyclic Tests of Cable Tray Clamps, procedure No. 1903.22-1 Revision 1 dated May 21, 1986 and Static Tests of Cable Trays and Fittings, procedure No. 1903.20-1 Revision 1 dated May 21, 1986.
5 1403m
TU ELECTRIC C0HANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS 31.
CYGNA Cable Tray Supports Review Issues List, Revision 12,' 11/20/85 transmitted to TU Electric by CYGNA letter No. 84056.095 dated 11/26/85.
32.
TU Electric Letter TSG-19043 dated July 2,1986.
i NCIG-01, " Visual Weld Acceptance Criteris", Rev. 2, May 1985.
i 33.
r 34.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-SS-30, " Structural Embedsent", Rev. 2.
35.
Ebasco Procedure SAG.CP4 " Seismic Design Criteria for Cable Tray l
Hangers for Comanche Peak SES Unit 1", Rev. 4 dated March 13, 1987 l
and Ebasco Procedure SAG.CP3 " Seismic Design Criteria for Cable Tray IR2 Hangers for Comanche Peak SES Unit 2", Rev. 7 dated March 13, 1987.
l 36.
Ebasco " General Instructions for Cable Tray Hanger Analysis for l
Comanche Peak SES No.1 and 2", Rev. 5 dated March 13, 1987.
lR2 1
37.
Ebasco Comanche Peak SES Cable Tray Hanger Volume I (Selected portions noted below). The books included in Volume I contain documents consisting of project design criteria, general instructions, procedures, design aids, studies, and computer data and usage information.
Ihe following books are referenced:
Book 1, Part 1 General Input Data Rev 3 t
Part 2 General Input Data Rev 0 i
Part 3 General Input Data Rev 0 Part 4 General Input Data Rev 0 Book 2 Computer Related information Rev3 Book 3 Prying Action Factors & Formulas for Evaluating Anchor Bolts Rev 1 Book 6 Buckling Study Rev 1 Book 7 Cable Tray Hanger Load Application Location Studies Rev 1 Book 8 Cable Tray Hanger Geometry Grouping Rev 1 i
Section I,II Book 9 Multimode Response Multiplier-Summary Report Rev 0 Book 9, Part 1 Multimode Response Multiplier - Studies Rev 1 Part 2 Multimode Response Multiplier - Studies Rev.1 Part 3 Multimode Response Multiplier - Studies Rev 1 Part 4 Multimode Response Multiplier - Studies Rev 1 Part 5 Multimode Response Multiplier - Studies Rev 0 Part 6 Multimode Response Multiplier - Studies Rev 0 Part 7 Multimode Response Multiplier for Cable' Tray Clamps Rev 0 i
Book 10 Multimode Response Multiplier - Studies Rev 1 j
1403m
, _ _ _., ~ _
- ~.
~..
TU RLECTRIC.
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS 37.
Ebasco Comanche Peak SES Cable Tray Hanger Volume I (Cont'd)
Book 11 Concrete Compressive Stresses Under CTH An'chorage Shias and Base Plates Rev 0 Book 12 CTH Anchorage' Base Plate Flexibility Study Rev 0 i
Book 15 Cable Tray Dynamic Load Redistribution Effects Rev 1
'l
'(
Book 16 CTH Dimensional Tolerances Rev 1 Book 24 CTH Post-Test Analysis Correlation Rev'O lR2 j.
Book 25 Reduced Section Properties for Channels Rev 0 lR2 I
i i
38.
Ebasco Manual of Procedures, Comanche Peak SES.
}
39.
Ebasco Procedure SAG.CP.09 " Instruction for Re-Evaluation of Cable Tray Hangers Affected by the Longitudinal Tie of Transverse Hangers i
j to the Tray" Revision 0, dated March 17, 1986.
40.
t 4
i 41.
Ebasco Procedure SAG.CP.05 " Dynamic Cable Tray System Test Specification", Rev 3 dated April 21, 1986.
I 42.
QI-QP 11.10-9 R7 (Unit 1).
lR2
?
43.
QI-QP 11.10-2A R10 (Unit 2).
t 44.
Ebasco Procedure SAG.CPil " System Analysis for Cable Tray and i
i Hanger Assembly for Comanche Peak SES Units 162," Rev 2 dated January 15, 1987.
45.
Impell Instruction PI-11. " Cable Tray System Analysis and Qualifi-i cation Closeout" Rev. 2, 02/09/87.
lR2 I
4 i
i li i
I i
7 1403m i
4 l
8' TU ELECTRIC COMANOIE FEAK STEAM ELEC1 TIC STATION CENERIC ISSUES REPORT (CIR)
ESASCO/INPEli EVALDATION AND RESOIRTION OF CEIIRIC TECISIICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAT NANGERS SECTION TI - SUNNART NATRIK CENERAL ISSUE RESOLUTION AFFFJIDIE SUB-ISSUE ISSUE ESAS(D IMPFLL NUNam CENW IC TECEEICAL ISSUE TITLE DESICNATI(Bf CATECORT R EFER ENCE SECTION REFEREIICE SECTIOII 01 Controlling Imed Case for Bestga DC, AN4 35 III.4, IV 2
3.3.5, 3.3.6 36 Att F 3
4.1.1 5
A.1.3.' 5.1 l
02 Setante Response Combinetten IIethod A
3.3.5 B
AMA 36 Att F 2
3.3.2, 3.3.5, 3.3.6 03 Anchor Bolt Deetse A
AMA 35 IV.1.s 3
Act A, F 36 Att C1-C6 37 Books 3,11 5
DC AMA 35 IV.1.f.it 2
3.3.6 5
4.1.3, 5.1 0)
C DC 35 IV.1.f.11 5
3.1, 3.2 App 2 36 Att Cl-C6 D
DC. AMA 35 IY.1.f.11 2
3.3.6 5
4.1.3,'5.1 45 E
Asth 35 III.2. App. 2 5
4.3.2 Att B.
36 IV.1.f.11 6
37 Att C1-C6 Booit 3 F
AS 35 111.2 5-4.0 l
6 C
AMA 36 Att C1-C4 5
Att I 37 Book 3 1
37 Book 3 4
M AB-35 III.2 3
4.0 6
e ISSUE CATEGEY IJCEND Alth = AnalFsts Itethode & Assumptions
- Reference neder development DC
- Destpa Criteria SOCC
- Desten Document Control AB = As-Bellt vs. As-Destaned 0622s AI N
i i
m l
i I
TU EISCTRIC COMANCNE FEAE STEAM ELECTRIC STATION i
l CENERIC ISSUES REPORT (CIR)
ERASCO/INPELL EVAIDATION AND RESOLUTION OF CENERIC TEC191ICAL ISSUES FOR CASIE 1 RAY NANCERS SECTION T1 - SINEMARY MATRIX -
GENM AL Id5Ur. RE50LUI zusu APPENDII SUS-ISSUE ISSUE emAsco inPEIJ.
Ntpoem CENRIC TEClas! CAL ISSUE TITLE DESICNATION CATEGORY R EFER ENCE SECTION R EFER ENCE SECTION 03 Anchor Bolt Destge (Cast'd) 1 AMA 36 III 2
3.2.5 Att C9 8
37 sooks 3, 12 J
AB 34 34 26 26 K
DC 35 App 2 3
Att 3 04 Destge of Compression Members A
AMA 36 Att E 3
4.1.3 -
37 Book 6 14 39 3.5 15 I4 15 5
AMA 36 Att E 3
4.1.3 37 Book 6 14 39 3.5 15 14 15 t
C AMA 36 Att E 3
d.1.3 D
AMA 33 42 33 43 -
42 E
AMA 37 Book 16 2
3.2.1 16 I
F AMA 36 Att E.
2 3.2 14 3
4.0
..?
G AMA 35 III.2 2-3.2
{
6 05 Vertical and Treesverse Imedtag on AMA 36 Att 32 Y, 2 2
3.3.5 Imesitedteal Type Sepperte 44 I
L ISSUE CATSCORY LBCEND l
AMA = Analysis Methods & Assemptione '
- Reference under develoyeest BC = Design Critetta DOCC = Design Decament Control AB = As-Bellt vs. As-Destgeed 30 OA22e i
M w
TO ELECTRIC CDMANCHE FEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
ESASCD/IMPELL EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF CENERIC TEcleIICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE IRAT HANGERS SECTION VI - SUMMART MATRIX GENERAL ISSUE RESOLUTION APPENDII SUB-ISSUE ISSUE ESASCO IMPELL NUMBER GENERIC TECIGIICAL ISSUE TITLE DESIGNATION CATECORT R EFER ENCE SECTION R EFER ENCE SECTION 06 Support Frame Dead and Inertial Insde A
AMA 36 Att B1. Y, Z 2
3.3.5 B
AMA 36 Att 31, 32 Y,'Z 2
3.3.2 44 07 Destga of Angle Braces Neglectins A
AMA 36 1.c. I.d. I.e, IV 10 2.3, 5.0.
Imading Eccentricity Att E. R, I, J App B 3
4.0 2
3.2.3 B
AMA 36 I.c. I.d. I.e IV 10 App F.
Att E. H I, J 3
Att 5 C
AMA 36 V
10 -
3.4 3
4.1.3 9
O 08 Dynaste Amplification Factors (DAF)
AMA 35 IV.1.c IV.2.c 2
3.0 and Rattos Between Contimeous Trey 36 Att Y Support Reactions and Tributary Trey 37 Books 9, 10, 15 Support Reactions 37 Book 23 112 09 Redaction la Diammet Section DC 36 Att E 2
3.2.1 Properties due to Clamp Bolt Roles 37 Book 25 45 2.3.2.
lR2 27 '
1.10.1 10 System Concept A
AMA 36 Att 31, B2, Y, Z 10 -
'2.1, 2.2 37 Book 2, 7 2
3.2.4 44.
B AMA 37 Book 6 14 39 3.5 36 Att E 14
'C AMA' 36 Att B2.T,Z 2
. 3.3.5 44.
D AMA
'36 Att Cl-C6.
5 Att F ISSOE CATBCORT T.BCEND AMA
- Analysis Nethods & Assumptions
- Reference under develoyeest.'
- Design Criteria DOCC = Destga Document Control W
AB = As-Bellt vs. As-Designed N
0622s
.. ~..
~
11-TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CENERIC ISSUES REPORT (CIR)
ERASCO/IMPEll EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF CENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANCERS.'
SECTION VI -
SUMMARY
MATRIX CEN RAL ISSUE RE5OLUTION APPENDIX SUS-ISSUE ISSUE ERASCO IMPELL NUM9m CENERIC TECISIICAL ISSUE TITLE DES!CNATION CATECORT
' REFER ENCE SECTION REFERFJICE SECTION 10 Systas Concept (Cont'd) 37 Book 3 E
AMA 36 Att 2 2
3.3.5 F
AMA 35 IV. I.a -
10 36 Att E
-2 3.2.3 37 Book 2 11 Validity of NASTRAN Models AMA 35 III.2 2
3.2.1 12 Working Point Deviation Study A
AB, AMA 35 111.2._
2 3.2.1 6
B AMA 36 Att 32. T, Z 2
3.2, 3.3 44 3
Att 4, 5 h
C AMA 35 III.2 3
4.1, 4.3,-
4.4 5
4.0, 5.0 D
AMA 35 IV.1. s 2
3.2 ~
g 36 I.d, I.e. III, IV 10 _
2.5.
i Att 31, 32. E, 9-L-
Cl-C6, C9, -
11 8, I, J. T, E 8:
44
.E AMA 35 III.2 -
3 4.1, 4.3, 4.4 5
4.0, 5.0 i
F AB, AMA 35 IV.I.a 2
3.2.1, 3.2.3 36 Att E '
3 4.0 6
C DOCC
. 35 IV.1.a 2-3.2.1, 3.2.3
)
36 :
Att E 3
4.0
?
s e
ISSUE CATBCotY LECElm AMA.* Analysis Methods & Assumptions
- Reference under development, DC -
- Design Criteria l
DOCC = Design Document Control
' lK8 -
- As-Built vs. As-Designed ~
N 0622s
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE FEAR STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (CIR)
EBASCO/IMPEIJ. ETAIRATION AND RESOINTION OF CENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FCR CABLE TRAT HANCERS SECTION TI - StMUTT MATRIE CENIRAL ISSUE RESOUJTION AFFENDIE SUS-ISSUE ISSUE EBASCO IMPELL NUMBIR CENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUE TIT 12 DESICNATION CATECORT R EFERENCE SECTION REFERENCE SECTION 12 Working Point Deviation Study (Cont'd)
H AMA 37 Book 4, 8 (Sections I, II) 3 I
AMA 37 Book 4, 8 (Sectione I, II) 3 J
AMA 36 Att E 3
4.1.3 37 Book 6 14 39 3.5 14 13 Reduced Spectral Accelerations A
AMA 35 III.1, III.2 2
3.2.1 IV.2.c 6
3 AMA 35 IV.2.c 2
3.2.1, 3.2.4 3d Att 82 3.3.5 J7 Books 2, 7 6
C AMA 36 Att C9 2
3.2 5 37 Book 12 8
14 Non-Confornsoce with AISC Spectfteetions A
DC. AMA 36 Att E 3
4.1.3 37 Book 6 14 39 3.5 15 3
DC. AMA 35 II.1 3
4.1.3 C
DC AMA 36 Att E 2
3.2.1 37 Book 25 45 2.3.2 lR2 27 1.10.1 l
l D
DC. AMA 35 11.1 2
3.2.3d 1
36 Att E 3
4.1 E
DC, AMA 35 IV.1.s 2
3.2.3 36 I.e I.d. I.e. IV 3
Att E. H I and J F
DC, AMA 16 16 17 17 lR2 20 20 29 29 C
DC. AMA 35 11.1 3
4.1.3, 36 Att E Att 4, 5 ISSUE CATECORT LEGEND AMA = Analysis Methode & Assumptions
- Reference under development DC = Design Criterte DOCC = Destan Document. Control.
TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELEC11t!C STATION CENERIC ISSUES REPORT (CIR)
ESASCO/IMPELL EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF CENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS SFETION VI -
SUMMARY
MATRIX GENERAL ISSUE RESOLUTION APPENDIK SUB-ISSUE ISSUE EsASCO IMPELL NUMB Ft CENFJt!C TECHNICAL ISSUE TITIE DESICNATION CATECORY R F FER ENCE SEC*10N R EFER ENCE SECTION 15 Member Substitution DOCC, AB 35 III.2 6
2 3.2 16 Weld Design and Specifications A
AB 35 III.2 3
3.0, 4.3 6
B A8 35 III.2 3
3.0, 4.3 6
C AMA 35 IV.1.a 10 App 8 36 I.d 2
3.2.3a 3
4.0 D
DC 36 II 3
4.3 H
E AMA 35 III.2 3
3.0, 4.3 W
6 17 Babedded Plates Design A
AMA 8
AMA C
DC D
AB s
E AB 35 III.1 2
3.2 36 II i*
F DC ISSUE CATECORY LFCEND AMA = Analysts Methods & Assumptions
- Reference under development DC
- Design Criteria DOCC = Destga Document Control W
AB = As-Butit vs. As-Designed N
0622s
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHQ PEAK ST2AM ELEC11IC STATION CENERIC ISSUES REPORT (CIR)
ERASCO/IMPELL EVAIEATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TEAT HANGERS l
I SECTION VI -
SUMMARY
MATRIE l
GENERAL ISSUE RESOIETION APPENDIE SUS-ISSUE ISSUE EBASCO IMPELL NIMBER CENERIC TECISIICAL ISSUE TITLE DESIGNATION CATECORT REFERENCE SECTION REFERENCE SECTION 18 Tray C1ampo AMA 36 Att E 2
3.2.4 9
9 4A 11 3.0 11 3.0 13 13 16 16 17 f
37 Book 24 lR2 17 l
19 FSAR Imed Combiastions DC 32 12 12 32 20 Differences Between Installation AS 35 111.2 6
and Design / Construct 1oe Drawings 2
3.2.1 Without Appropriate Documentation 21 Design control A
DOCC, AB 35 III.2 6
5 3
DOCC, As 35 III.2 6
C AB, DOCC 35 III.2 6
D AMA, DOCC 35 III 2
3.2.2 36 Att A1, A2, 19 C1, C3, D, C' E
As 35 App 4 4
6 F
DOCC 38 App K 28 QP-3.5 C
DOCC 38 App K 28 QP-3.5 R
E M
~
35 40 I
AB, DOCC 35 III.2 6
ISSUE CATECORY LICEND AMA
- Analysta Methode & Assumptions
- Reference under development DC = Design Criteria DOCC = Destga Document Control AB = As-Buttt vs. As-Designed
TU ELECTRIC CDMANCHF PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GEN SIC ISSUES EEPORT (CIR)
EBASCO/IMPELL EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF CENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAT HANCERS SECTION VI - SUMMART MATRIX CFNERAL ISSUE RESOLUTION APPENDIE SUB-ISSUE ISSUE EBASCO IMPELL NLHBPR CENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUE TITIE DESICNATION CATECORT R EFEJt ENCE SECTION R E FER ENCE SECTION 22 Design of Support No. 3136. Detall AMA. DC "5". Drawing 2323-5-0905.
I 23 Imading in STRESS Models A
AMA 36 Att 31. 82 2
3.2 37 Book 7 I
B AMA 35 111.1 2
3.2 36 II 6
C AMA 37 Book 2 2
3.2.3 6
24 Destga of Flexural Members A
AMA 36 Att 31. B2 2
3.2.4 37 Book 2 B
AMA 36 Att Bl. B2 10 g
Ln 37 Book 2 C
AMA 36 Att 81. 82 2
3.2.4 37 Books 2. 7 D
AMA 36 Att 52 2
3.2.4 37 Books 2. 7 10 E
AMA, DC 36 Att E (Iten 11) 45 2.3. 2 33 2
3.2.1 42 27 1.10.1 43 33 42 F
AMA 36 VI 3
Att 4. 5 Att M C
AMA 35 11.1 3
4.1.1, 4.1.4 27 i
ISSUE CATFr. ORT 1ECEND AMA = Analysis Methods & Assumptions
- Reference under development DC = Destga Criteris l
DOCC = Design Document Control AB = As-Butit vs. As-Designed PJ
I TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE FQQK STEAM ELECTt!C STQTION CENERIC ISSUES CEPORT (Cit)
ERASCD/IMPE11 EVAIDATION AND RES0!# TION OF CENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAT RANGERS SECTION VI -
SUMMARY
MATRIE bz.RzmAL 153 U F. KE50LBTAUR APP DDIX SUB-ISSUE ISSUE EBA5CO IMPE11 NINEER CENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUE TITLE DESIGNATION CATECORY REFERENCE SECTION REFERENCE SECTION 25 Cable Trey Qualificattaa A
AMA 37 Book 1. Parts 1, 2. 3 & 4 4
5 AMA 37 Book 1. Parts 1 & 2, 4
30 C
DOCC. AB 36 Att C1. C' 4
6 19 30 D
AMA 37 Book 1. Parts 16 3 7
Att 1. 3 30 26 Base Angle Destga A
AMA 5
Att F 8
AMA 36 Att E 5
Att F C
AMA 35 111.2 5
4.3 Att a. F D
AMA 35 III.2 5
27 Support Qualification by Sta11arity AMA 37 Sook 4, 8 (Sections I. II) 3 AMA 37 Book 4, 8 (Sections I. II) 28 Critical Support Cosfigurations and AMA 35 III.2 Imadings 37 Book 8 (Sections I. II)
B AMA 35 111.2 6
29 Cumulative Effect of Review Isones AMA. DC, DOCC. AS 30 Cable Trey Sreten Deeptag Values AMA 35 IV.1.c 29 29 16 41 31 Modeltas of Soundary Conditions AMA 16 16 17 17 IE2 20 20 29 29 ISSUE CATECORT 1.BCEND AMA
- Analysis Methods & Amoumptions
- Reference under development DC
- Destga Criteria DOCC
- Destga Document Control AB = As-Bellt vs. As-Designed 0622a i
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 1 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 1: CONTROLLING LOAD CASE FOR DESIGN c
Al.1 1403m
APPENDIX l'
. CYGNA ISSUE NO. It' CONTROLLING LOAD CASE FOR DESIGN
1.0 BACKGROUND
Gibbs & Hill used the equivalent static method to design the cable tray supports. In all load cases, the equivalent static accelerations used in designing-the supports for SSE events are less than 160% of the -
corresponding accelerations for 1/2 SSE (OBE) events. Based on this
~
i finding and citing Section 3.8.4 of the CPSES FSAR which al10ws a 60%
increase in allowables for structural steel between OBE and SSE ' events,
'Gibbs & Hi11' determined that the design was governed by 'the OBE event (Reference 3)..
To validate this conclusion, the 60% increase in allowables must be liberally interpreted to be applicable to all support components rather than applicable only to structural steel as specified in the CPSES FSAR. Catalog items such as Richmond Inserts and Hilti Brik-bolts do-not have increased allowables for SSE events.
By designing these catalog components to the OBE event,'the manufacturer's design factor of safety is not maintained for the SSE event.
Furthermore, for the design of structural steel, the 60% increase in allowables is acceptable for axial and strong-axis bending stresses in structural-members.
The 60% increase cannot be applied to certain other allowable stresses. For example, the maximum increase in base plate stresses may only be 33%, at which point the material yield is reached.
A limit on maximum allowable stress is not provided in the FSAR.
These limitations were not considered in the selection of the governing seismic load case.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE OBE (1/2 SSE) was used as governing load for all supports, based on the ratio of corresponding SSE to OBE accelerations and Section 3.8.4 of the CPSES FSAR which allows a 60 percent increase in allowables for structural steel between the OBE and SSE events.
To validate this conclusion, the 60 percent increase in allowables must be interpreted to be applicable to all support components rather than only to structural steel. However, this increase is not applicable to some components, anchor bolts for example, and even to some structural steel stresses, baseplate stresses for example.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE Cable tray hangers and their components have been evaluated for the effects of OBE and SSE loads separately, using appropriate OBE and SSE allowables for all cable tray system components ' including ' structural steel, welds, anchorages and. catalog items such as Richmond Inserts and Hilti Kwik-bolts.
A1.2 1403m
APPENDIX 1 CYGNA ISSUE NO.1: CONTROLLING LOAD CASE FOR DESIGN (Cont'd) 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5, Sheets 16-20, Revision 5.
2.
Communications Report between P. Huang, S. Chang (Gibbs & Hill) and-J. Russ and W. Horstaan (Cygna) dated November 13,1984.
3.
Gibbs & Hill-Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5, Sheets 1-7, Revision ~1.
.4.
CPSES FSAR, Sections 3.8.3 and 3.8.4.
5.0 I)fLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION All hangers and their components are evaluated for the effects of OBE and SSE loads separately.
This evaluation is performed in accordance with the loads, safety factors and acceptance criteria described in Sections III.4 and IV of Reference 35. Attachment F of. Reference 36 specifies the load combinations used.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION Both OBE and SSE loads are evaluated separately in each step of the design verification process. Sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 of Reference 2 specify -
dampings, load cases, and load case combinations used in system analyses. Section 4.1.1 of Reference 3 and Sections 4.1.3 and 5.1 of Reference 5 specify equations used to qualify support members and anchorages.
A1.3 1403a
l l
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 2 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 2: SEISMIC RESPONSE COMBINATION METHOD A2.1 1403m
.. ~ _.
APPENDIX 2 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 2:' SEISMIC RESPONSE COMBINATION METHOD
1.0 BACKGROUND
l A.
Closely Spaced Modes (10% Modal Combination) in Spectral Analysis In the response spectra analyses performed for the Working-Point '
Deviation Study (Reference.2), Cygna noted that modal responses were i-not combined considering closely spaced modes as required.by -
References 1 and 3.
B.
Inclusion of Dead Load in SRSS. Combination In all Gibbs & Hill design calculations, the acceleration due to deadweight is combined with the seismic accelerations using the SRSS method. A 1.0 g deadweight acceleration is.first added to the l
vertical seismic acceleration.
The sua is then combined with the two horizontal seismic components using the SRSS method.
'2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE
~
A.
Response spectra analyses for the working point deviation study did not combine responses considering closely spaced modes as required by the CPSES FSAR (Reference 40) and NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92.
l B.
In all Gibbs & Hill design calculations, the acceleration due to deadweight is combined with the seismic accelerations using the SRSS method. A 1.0g deadweight acceleration is first added to the vertical seismic acceleration. The sua is then combined with the two horizontal seismic components using the SRSS method.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE I
A.
For all response spectra analyses, the response combination method recommended by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92 for closely spaced modes has been used.
B.
Dead weight has not been included within any SRSS sua but has been added separately to the SRSS'd seismic stress due to the three orthogonal seismic components.
I A2.2 1403m
. _.., _... _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -.. ~ -.... _., _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _. _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _
f APPENDIX 2
+
CYGNA ISSUE No. 2: SEISMIC RESPONSE COMBINATION METHOD (Cont'd) 4.0 ' LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA
.1. ' CPSES FSAR Section 3.7B.2.7.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C,' Sets 2-6. -
3.
USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1.
- 4. - N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TU Electric), " Cable Tray Support Design Review Questions," 84056.031, dated August 31, 1984.
5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation in response to IAP Phase 2 questions, Cygna Technical File 83090.11.2.1.50.
I 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
Section IV.3.c of Reference 35 specifies that NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92 is to be used for combining modal responses.
B.
Attachment F of Reference 36 specifies the load combinations used in design verification. Dead load is not included within the seismic SRSS but added separately in these combinations.
t' 5.2 IMPELL IWLEMENTATION A.
Section 3.3.5 of Reference 2 specifies that modal responses be combined per NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92.
B.
Sections 3.3.2, 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 of Reference 2 specify procedures for properly evaluating and combining seismic and dead loads.
l A2.3 1403e
7 t
TU ELECTRIC.
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 3 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 3: ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN A3.1 1403m
-- =.
.I I
' APPENDIX 3 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 3: ANCHOR BOLT. DESIGN l-
1.0 BACKGROUND
4 j
A.
Frame Connection. Point and Anchor Bolt Pattern Centroid Eccentricity
'In the design for the anchor bolts, Gibbs & Hill did not properly 1
account for the eccentricity between the: frame connection point to
~
4 the base angle and the anchor bolt pattern centroid.
The moment due to the eccentricity may cause the base angle to rotate about its longitudinal axis, resulting ins' (1) a compressive force along the
. toe.of the angle section and (2) additional tension in the anchor a
j bolt (s).
i j
B.
Safety Factor on Hilti Espansion Anchors at SSE Levels t
Gibbs & Hill's cable tray support designs. employed a safety factor of 4.0 for Hilti expansion anchors for.the 1/2 SSE load level. As discussed in Issue 1, the 1/2 SSE' event was assumed to govern the support designs, without consideration of the reduced factor.of
).
safety on Hilti expansion anchors for the SSE event.. The safety j
factor for the SSE event will range from 2.5 to 3.0, depending on the installed location in the plant.
j i
C.
Inconsistent Application of ACI 349-76, Appendix B i
Gibbs & Hill has used the provisions of Reference 12 to qualify several designs. Examples include the qualification of anchorages for Det' ail "11" (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0905, Reference 2) and the use of code provisions as justification for the factors ofL i
safety used for Richmond Inserts.
However, the designs do not i
comply with other sections of ACI 349-76, Appendix B.
For example, j
Section B.7.3 states i
l 5
A single espansion anchor used to anchor an attachment shall be designed for one-half of the design' strength '
j.
defined herein.
For any of the cable tray support designs employing a single
[
expansion anchor connection, this code provision would require a j
major reduction in the expansion anchor capacity.
l Cygna believes that the philosophy of the entire code appendix should be considered, rather than employing selected portions of the.
i code.
t D.
Factor of Safety on Richmond Inserts j
l Gibbs & Hill's cable tray support designs employed a safety factor of 3.0 for Richmond Inserts for the 1/2'SSE load level. As i
discussed in Issue 1, the 1/2 SSE event was assumed to govern-the j
support designs, without consideration of the reduced factor of 1
i l
A3.2 l
1
~
1403s l
I
..___.__..,...,_..___.__.__..__.__~._._.1.
a-.
APPgNDIX 3 j
CYGNA ISSUs NO. 3: ANCHOR BOLT DgSIGN (Cont'd)
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) safety on Richmond Inserts for' the SSE event. The safety factor for i
the SSE event will range from 1.8 to 2.0, depending on the installed location in the plant. See Ites C, above, for a discussion of ACI 349-76 as it has been applied to Richmond Inserts.
E.
Richmond Insert Design 1.
Prying action was not considered in the original design of l
Richmond Insert connections for cable tray supports. To qualify those connections which use Richmond ' Inserts,.Gibbs & Hill
~
performed calculations which reference the results of the Richmond Insert testing program performed at the CPSgS Site 5
i (Reference 3).
These calculations showed. that 1" diameter l'
Richmond Inserts, originally designed with Ta '= 10.1 kips and 4
Va = 9.5 kips, were not the controlling anchorage type, but rather that the Hilti expansion anchors were the limiting case.
p Cygna has the following comments regarding these calculations i
)
The calculations do not account for the. instances where the
{
allowable values for 1" diameter Richmond Inserts taken from j
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-SS-30 (Ta = Va = 11.5 kips) may have been used without the prying factor. This j
situation could occur whenever a new design was performed j
af ter the issue of this specification or a CMC /DCA allowed a i
change which affected the Richmond Inserts used in a support i
installation. Although Gibbs & Hill has stated that their engineers were instructed to include the prying factor, Cygna could not locate any supporting documentation.,
Cygna has concerns on the use of the site testing of j
Richmond Inserts to justify higher allowable loads than considered in the original design. See Pipe Support Review i
Issues List, Item 3, for additional detail.
2.
The original design calculations for concrete connections using 4-Richmond Inserts employed allowable values of tension (Ta =
{
10.1 k) and shear (Va = 9.5 kips). With the issuance of Gibbs &
i Hill Specification 2323-SS-30, restrictions were placed on l
certain Richmond Insert allowables. Decreases in allowable i
tensions and shears were provided for Richmond Inserts in l
cluster arrangements, Richmond Inserts embedded in ~ the sides of j
concrete beams, and Richmond Inserts used in spacings less than j
those originally considered in Gibbs & Hill designs. Since j
these restrictions were imposed af ter the original design of the Richmond Insert connections was completed, Cygna is concerned j
that cable tray supports installed using Richmond Insert j
Clusters or Richmond Inserts in the sides of concrete besas may j
not have been evaluated for the required reduction in allowables.
t A3.3 l
1403m t
l'
~
M t
APPENDIX 3-I CYGNA ' ISSUE NO. 31 ANCHOR BOLT DgSIGN (Cont'd) b
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) '
In discussions with TU Electric, Cygna was' told that the Richmond Inserts in clusters were reserved for pipe whip restraints.
Authorization to attach to these clusters should have been obtained fron' the responsible TU Electric group, and a corresponding evaluation'of the installation should have been l.
performed.
However, Cygna could not locate any TU Electric Quality Control instructions or procedures regarding the use of 1
these Richmond Insert clusters (Reference 10).
)
F.
Connection Designs
<1.
The cable tray support designs use angles or plates at base connections. The design drawings and associated design change documents (i.e., CMC /DCAs) specify anchor bolt spacing and i
member placement tolerances. - However, these tolerances may be l
outside the original design limits. Gibbs & Hill has not fully I
evaluated the effects of all possible installation tolerances on j
the base seaber stresses or the anchorages.-
Cygna's Phase 2 Observations CTS-00-05 and CTS-00-07 respectively addressed the design of base connections for Detail i
"E" supports with three-directional loadings and Details "A-D" base plate designs (drawing number 2323-El-0601-01-S). These 8
support connection designs must also be reviewed to assure that the above concerns are addressed. For several additional support types considered in Cygna's Phase 4 review, the installation tolerances allowed by the design drawings were not l
considered in the design calculations.
i l
2.
For most support types, the design drawings allow the use of I
either Hilti expansion anchors or Richmond Inserts for their anchorage to the concrete. For support types, A, A2, A4, 1
D, D, Detail "A" (Drawing 2323-El-0700-01-S) and Detail 11 1
2 j
(Drawing 2323-S-0905), the design calculations evaluate the-i attachments for Hilti expansion anchors, but not for Richmond
}
Inserts.
G.
Justification of Prying Factor In response to Reference 11, Gibbs & Hill support designers used a i
factor of 1.5 to account for the effects of base angle / plate flexibility on anchor bolt tensile loads.. The value of this factor i
is dependent on the applied load, bolt pattern geometry, and angle thickness.
Justification for the use of this factor has not been provided.
1 l-l l
A3.4 j
1403m
-.. - - -,..,. ~.. - -. _,., -.,, -. _ _. _ _...., - _.. - _ _.
~-
1
~
APPENDIX 3 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 3: ' ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN (Cont'd)
.l
1.0 BACKGROUND
- (Cont'd)
J H.
Anchor Bolt Substitutions for Detail 1/1H and Details -B, C and D i
For Detail 1H (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0909), " Hanger Connection Using Hilti Bolts for Regular Cable Tray Supports," a substitution I
of Richmond Inserts for Hilti expansion anchors is allowed by Note l
14d (Gibbs & Hill. Drawing 2323-S-0901):
Detail 1H (Drawing 2323-S-0909) Any Hilti bolt may be substituted with existing 1" diameter or 1-1/2" Richmond 0
Insert except for the 1-1/4" x 13-1/8" Super Kwik-bolt which may be substituted only with 1-1/2" dia. Richmond Inse rt.
Additional information on the allowable bolt substitutions are j
provided in DCA 2103, Revision 0:
s
]
Question: When only one Richmond Insert is available i
for a twHolt hanger connection, may a combination of one Richmond Insert and one Hilti bolt be used?.If so, what is the minimum and anximum distance between
{
the bolts, and what is the allowable tolerance?
1 Answer: Yes, combinations of Richmond Inserts and Hilti Super Kwik-bolts may be used. Minimum and j
maximum spacing between bolts shall be the same as i
used for the "a" dimension shown in " Detail 1H, Two Bolt Hanger Connection," and the "a" and "b" dimensions shown in "ho Bolt Bena Connection."
l Tolerances shall be as shown in " Detail 1H," and in
]
"Two Bolt Beam Connection."
i The DCA expands the scope of the substitution to 'inclur?e the "ho Bolt Besa Connection" (Details B, C and D on Gibbs & Hill Drawing i
2323-S-0903), and does not include the restriction on the use of a
}
1-1/2" diameter Richmond Insert as a substitute for the 1-1/4" x l
13-1/8" Hilti Super Kwik-bolts.
These substitutions are inconsistent with several aspects of the cable tray support design calculations.
The minimum bolt spacings i
are 12",15" and 16" for 1" diameter Hilti Kwik-bolts,1-1/4" i
diameter Hilti Super Kwik-bolts, and 1" diameter Richmond Inserts, respectively. The tolerances specified for the connections employing only Hilti expansion anchors are different from the l
tolerances for the equivalent connection detail employing only
]
Richmond Inserts.
For acaent loads on the base connections, the tensile load in each anchor is calculated by dividing the applied i
moment by the minimum bolt spacing. The tensile load distribution.
l due to direct pullout is calculated based on the allowed connection j
eccentricity. By substituting a Richmond Insert for a Hilti A3.5 i
1403a i
4 e..
_,.~.,..g,-._,m m.-
m.,g
,,,,.,--,w.,.,,..,~,,..-_%,..-~,,_.,..,.,,,,,_,....-..,,___,_,-m,-
, ~, _.,,,,,
y ~~
- -. _.... ~. _. -.
S APPENDIX 3-CYGNA ISSUE NO. 3: - ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN (Cont'd)
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) i I
. expansion anchor at the Hilti spacing and eccentricity, the tensile load in the Richmond Insert may be greater than the previously calculated load. The effect of this substitution on Richmond Insert tensile loads has not been considered'in the cable tray support-
. designs. In addition, since DCA 2103 does not limit the size of. the Richmond Insert to be substituted for a 1-1/4" x 13-1/8" Hilti Super Kwik-bolt in the base connection, a 1" Richmond Insert, which has a l'
lower capacity than the indicated Mwik-bolt, could be used as a -
substitute.
i Gibbs & Hill /TOGC0 was not able to_ provide the design verification documentation for DCA 2103 (Reference 13).
I.
Base Angle Boundary Condition Assumptions For trapeze type supports, Gibbs & Hill has assumed that the hanger j
connections employing two-bolt base angles are free' to rotate about I
the strong axis of the hanger. Since both the welds between the-
~
j hanger and its base angle and the base angle itself have significant j
flexural stiffness, this assumption requires that the connection allow the calculated rotation without base connection failure.-
Gibbs & Hill has not justified such connection behavior.
(See Review Issue 26).
4 J.
Installation of Expansion Anchors in Diamond Cored Holes i
l Section 3.1.4.2.3 of Reference 4 discusses the reinstallation of an j
expansion bolt in an empty but " pre-used" hole. Paragraph (a) of that section states:
2 The bolt being replaced has been removed from the i
concrete using a Diamond core bit of the same nominal outside diameter as the replacement ' expansion bolt.
The replacement bolt shall be one diameter size larger than the bolt being removed.
I The Hilti " Architects and Engineers Design Manual" (Reference 5) i addresses the bit type used in drilling holes for Hilti Kwik and j.
Super Kwik-bolts.
On page C-4, Note 6a states:
i l
All of the technical information pertaining to-
}
melk-Bolts herein (e.g., pullout and shear data) was accomplished using HILTI assonry carbide bits. Before i
f installing the Kwik-Bolt using another means of i
drilling (e.g., Diamond Core), contact your local HILTI Field Engineer for advice and proper procedures.
i i
On page C-1 (Reference 5) a footnote to the installation process description states:
i 1
A3.6
)
1403m i
= _ - -
i APPENDIX 3 CYGNA' ISSUE NO. 3: ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN (Cont'd) 1
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) a To obtain maximum published holding values, use only HILTI carbide bits.
In discussions with Hilti, Inc., Cygna learned that Hilti expansion anchors installed in core-bored holes will' provide ultimate-strengths that are less than those published in'the Hilti Design Manual. Primarily, the strength. reduction is due to the diameter of the core bore bit itself. It has been Hilti's experience that core 4
i bore bits' are intentionally supplied at a larger diameter than.the nominal size to account for the progressive reduction in bit
~ diameter over its life.
Thus, at the initial bit usage, the bit diameter will be larger than that required for the bolt hole. It is.
this hole oversize which causes the reduction in expansion anchor capacity.
f In order to avoid any such strength reductions,' careful' control on the bolt hole diameter must be established.
Control may be established by measuring the core bit diameter or the hole diamete r.
Cygna has not observed any QC procedures which impose such control. Additionally, Cygna did not observe any procedures which require craf t or QC to document which expansion bolts were installed in diamond cored holes.
(
)
K.
Reduced Allowable loads for 1" Diameter Hilti Kwik-bolts Based on expansion anchor capacity tests performed by Hilti Inc. in 1980, Hilti Inc. issued a letter giving reduced ultimate capacities for 1" diameter Kwik-bolts.
In response to this letter, TU Electric issued a Significant Deficiency Analysis Report (SDAR) (Reference 6) to evaluate the effect of the reduced anchor bolt capacities for i
support installations at CPSES..The resolution of this SDAR was to accept all existing designs employing "1" diameter Kwik-bolts by allowing a reduced safety factor of 3.41, and require that all future design efforts use the reduced capacity. 13te USNRC accepted this resolution (Reference 8).
}
For the review of cable tray supports where the cable tray load with
}
Thermo-Lag exceeds the design load Reference 7, section 3.2.2.1, paragraph (b) states:
All hangers shall then be evaluated for actual loads.
During this evaluation, all pertinent design changes shall be taken into account. Consideration shall be given to use of actual tolerances, weld
,j-undercut-undersize,1" diameter Hilti Kwik-bolt revised criteria and actual field "as-built" l
configuration A3.7 1403m
APPENDIX 3 CYGNA 1SSUE NO. 3: ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN (Cont'd) t
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd)
I l_
However, Cygna's review of the subject Gibbs & Hill calculations and a discussion with TU Electric /Gibbs & Hill (Reference.9), verified that the original (unrevised) Hilti Kwik-bolt' allowables had been used. TU Electric /Gibbs & Hill felt that the use of the original allowables was warranted, since the calculations reviewed an existing design.
This is not consistent with the requirements of Reference 7.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE
{
A.
Design calculations for anchor bolts did not address eccentricity '
between frame connection point and anchor bolt pattern centroid, which may lead to compressive force along toe of angle section and 2
additional anchor bolt tension.
B.
Design safety factor for Hilti expansion anchors may be violated at.
specific locations, considering the governing load case (OBE vs.
SSE).
C.
Criteria from ACI 349-76 Appendix B were used for design of some anchorages (anchorage for Detail 11, Richmond Insert safety factor) but were violated in other designs, for example, anchorages with single expansion anchors.
i D.
Design safety factor for Richmond Inserts may be violated at i
specific locations, considering the governing load case (OBE vs.
SSE).
E.
Prying action was not considered in original design of Richmond Inse rt s.
Subsequently, affected anchorages were qualified by calculations based on test data, which showed Hilti anchors were the controlling case rather than Richmond Inserts.
Calculations did not consider that Richmond allowables may have been used without prying factor af ter issue of Spec. 2323-SS-30.
Cygna has concerns on the use of site testing of Richmond Inserts to justify higher allowables.
Spec. 2323-SS-30 place restrictions on Richmond allowables for certain insts11ations; original designs for these installations may not have been reevaluated, for example, supports attached to Richmond Insert clusters without TU Electric authorisation.
I L
i I
A3.8 1403m 1
g y
y
,-+,-,,--e y-+,e--,,-
e v
- - +,-
e+,-.--,.w-,
,,w--...,.--3-,-
,c,--,
-,, -. -, - - - *vey---,-
,,----,y-----w----,,
-APPENDIX 3-I CYGNA ISSUE NO. 3: ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN (Cont'd) 2.0-UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE (Cont'd)
F.
Support design options (base angles vs. plates, Hilti anchors vs.
Richmond Inserts), and tolerances on anchor bolt spacing and member placement, were not addressed in evaluation of member stresses and anchor loads.
i G. E Prying factor, used for effect of base angle flexibility on anchorage tensile loads, was used without technical justification.
Factor depends on applied load, bolt pattern geometry, and angle thickness.
i H.
For certain details on design drawings, drawing notes 'and design changes allow substitution of Richmond Inserts and Hilti expansion anchors, and mixtures of the two; may be inconsistent with design calculations due to different minimum spacings, different tolerances and,- different embedment lengths for each type. As a result, i
allowable tensile loads in Inserts and Hilti bolts may be ove restimated.
3 I.
For trapeze type supports with two-bolt base angles, design calculations assumed free rotation of base angles about strong axis of hanger,-ignoring stiffness of welds and base angle.
J.
Construction procedure allowed installation of Hilti expansion bolts l
in pre-used holes. Anchor strength may be decreased due to oversize.
i core bore bit used to remove previous bolt. Bit diameter not controlled during installation. No record of which bolts were -
installed in core-bored holes.
i i
K.
Revised (reduced) allowables on Hilti bolts were not considered in re-evaluation of existing supports for addition of Thermolag i
insulation. Designs performed since revision should address reduced allowables.
4 3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE A.
Off sets and eccentricities due to the assemblage of various types of i
structural members and transmission of loads have been considered in design verification. The eccentricity between the frame connection point to the base angle and the anchor bolt pattern centroid has been included in design verification.
B.
Both OBE and SSE load combinations are design verified considering the appropriate anchorage factors of safety.
1 i
I A3.9 3
1403m
,v-
-,,.,-e,-.
,--,,..,,-,,,,,,-,nv
-,,-,,--,e,
---,-,,,-,-n
,.r...
n-
t-LAPPENDIX 3 i
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 3: ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN (Cont'd) 3.0 ~ ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE (Cont'd) n C; ACI 349-76 'has not been used in design verification.
I:
i
'D.
Richmond Inserts have been checked'for both OBE and SSE load combinations using an insert factor of safety of 3.0 as' described in
. Reference 34.
E.- Prying action and bolt' spacing effects have been considered in the design verification of Richmond inserts and Hilti bolts. Anchor bolt qualification has been performed in accordance-with Gibbs &
i Hill Specification 2323-SS-30.
"As-built" conditions are design verified.
4 F.
CMCs and DCAs have been incorporated into "as-designed"-drawings used for the walkdown program to acquire "as-built" information.
Design verification of hangers and their anchorages are based on "as-built" information.
_G.
Prying action factors have been established by performing extensive
~
}
. finite element analysis studies of various sizes of base angles-and baseplates. The interaction between flexibility of base angle ~(or j
baseplate), anchor bolt stiffness.and concrete stiffness was conside red. When the configurations analyzed in the prying action i
study are not applicable, a conservative or individual anchorage i
finite element analysis is performed in design verification.
l J..
H.
Seismic design evaluation of anchorages has been based on j
information shown on "as-built" hanger drawings. Thus, any anchor i
substitutions and spacing violations are taken into account in design verification.
I.
Baseplate / base angle anchorage flexibilities, including two-bolt base angle configurations, have been ' considered in design verification through the appropriate selection of boundary conditions.
j J.
Since expansion anchors have satisfied the torque requirements of i-the installation criteria, bolt capacities will' not be affected by j
installation in pre-used holes.
i K.
Design verification has been performed using an anchor bolt design criteria which incorporates the reduced Hilti bolt allowables.
I i
i' A3.10 j
1403m 4
4
, -,.,.,, - -, -, - -,,.., - - -, -. - -. _ -.,, -.. _,,. -.,. ~.
i APPENDIX 3 "CYGNA ISSUE No. 3: ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN (Cont'd)
\\~
l 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS' REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculations, " Evaluation of Detail 1, Single-Bolt Connection," Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.259.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-212C, Set 7, Sheet.4-11, Revision 0.
i 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculations, " Justification of the Adequacy of 1" i
. Richmond Inserts for the Rffects of Prying Action," Cygna Technical.
File 84056.11.1.219.
4.
Brown & Root Procedure CEI-20, " Installation of Hilti Drilled-In
. Bolts," Revision 9.
i
- 5..Hilti, Inc., " Architects & Engineers Anchor and Fastener Design
{
Manual".
i 6.
TU Electric SDAR CP-80-12, " Reduced Allowable Loads for Hilti j
Kwik-bolt s".
7.
TU Electric Instructions CP-EI-4.0-49, " Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Material on Class 1E Electrical Raceways," Revision 1.
]
8.
US NRC Inspection Reports 50-445/81-14; 50-446/81-14, dated 10/27/81.
i j
9.
Consunication Report between R.M. Kissinger (TU Riectric), B.K.
Bhujang et al. (Gibbs & Hill) and W.R. Horstaan, et al (Cygna) dated 4
i 10/10/84.
i
{
- 10. N.H. Williams (Cygna) to W.G. Counsil (TU Electric), " Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions," 84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
1
- 11. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Information Notice 79-02.
i
- 12. American Concrete Institute, " Code Requirements for Nuclear j
Safety-Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-76)."
i
?
- 13. Gibbs & Hill Interoffice Meno, T.D. Hawkins to M. Strange, dated 7/25/84.
1 4
l A3.11 1403m e
APPENDIX 3 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 3 ANCHOR BOLT DgSIGN (Cont'd) 5.0 I R LEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 ERASCO IMPLEMENTATION 1
A.
Section IV.1.a of Reference 35 specifies that offsets and eccentricities shall be considered in the preparation of computer models. In addition, the results of Ebasco Study No.1 for prying action (Reference 37, Book 3) as summarised in Attachments G1 to G6 3
of Reference 36, and Ebasco Study No.13b for concrete compressive stress under anchorages (Raference 37, Book 11) are incorporated L
into hanger design verification.-
(
r B.
Section IV.1.f.ii of Reference 35 specifies the safety factors for 4
}
Hilti expansion anchors. Both OBE and SSE conditions are design ve rified.
l C.
References 35 and 36 do not make reference to ACI 349-76. All I
necessary information for the design verification of anchor bolts is l
provided in Section IV.1.f.ii and Appendix 2 of Reference 35 and Attachments G1 to G6 of Reference 36.
l D.
Section IV.1.f.ii of Reference 35 specifies a safety factor of 3.0 i
j for Richmond Inserts for both OBE and SSE conditions.
i
}
1 E.
Appendix 2 of Reference 35 contains Gibbs & Hill Specification j
2323-SS-30 (Reference 34). "As-built" configurations, as specified in Section III.2 of Reference 35, are design verified.
i Section IV.1.f.ii of Reference 35 specifies that prying action on f
l anchor bolts shall be included in the design verification. Ebasco's l
Study No.1 (Reference 37, Book 3) developed prying action factors 4
l that are included in Reference 36 Attachments G1 through G6.
F.
"As-built" information as specified in Section III.2 of Reference 35 j
is used to design verify hangers and their anchorages.
J G.
Ebasco Study No.1 (Reference 37, Book 3) established prying action i
factors for various sizes of base angles and baseplates. The i
results of this study are included in Attachments G1 thru G4 of i
j Reference 36.
If the configurations of Attachments G1 thru G4 are not applicable, individual anchorage analysis is performed.
f H.
See Ites F above.
};.
l-i A3.12 1403m i
F APPENDIX 3 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 3: ANCHOR BOLT DESIGN,(Cont'd) b 5.0 IWLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.1 ERASCO IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd) j i
.I.
Section III of Reference 36 specifies the appropriate selection of boundary conditions for design verification. Anchorage stiffness values for various anchorage configurations have been used in design verification as described in Attachment G9 of Reference 36. Prying action effects for these configurations are based on Ebasco's Study.
No.1 (Reference 37, Book 3). Baseplate and base angle anchorage 1
flexibilities are based on Ebasco Study No. 13e (Reference 37, Book 12).
I' J.
See Section 5.2J below.
t l
K.
Appendix 2 of Reference 35 incorporates the reduced Hilti allowables.
i 5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION 1
A.
Attachments A and F of Reference 5 specify procedures for qualifying j.
bolts / inserts and base plates / base angles which directly consider the eccentricity in question.
1 i
B.
Section 3.3.6 of Reference 2 and Section 4.1.3 and 5.1 of Reference
]-
5 specify that both OBE and SSE load cases be evaluated for Hilti i
espansion anchors.
C.
Sections 3.1.and 3.2 of Reference 5 show that ACI 349-76 has not-been referenced for the design verification of base plates, base 2
angles and embedsent plates.
D.
Section 3.3.6 of Reference 2 and section 4.1.3 at.1 5.1 of Reference-5 specify that both OBE and SSE load cases be evaluated for Richmond j
inserts using a factor of safety of 3.0 as given in Reference 45.
2 E.
Section 4.3.2 and Attachment 3 of Reference 5 properly include j
prying action factors in the qualification of Richmond inserts.
1 "As-built" information obtained per Reference 6 is used to reduce i
bolt allowables for design spacing / clearance violations.
1 j
F.
Reference 5 Section 4.0 specifies that "as-built" geometry is to be used in the design verification of hanger members, base plates, base l
angles, and embedsent plates. "As-built" inforestion is obtained
{
per Reference 6.
l G.
Attachment I of Reference 5 specifies prying action factors to be i
used in the design verification process.
These factors are based on finite' element analyses documented in Reference 1 and Reference 37 i
Book 3.
For anchorages not covered by generic prying action
]
factors, individual detailed analyses shall be used.
j A 3.13 i
l 1403m 1
E_._____._.____.____._._,.___
,j
APPENDIX 3 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 31 ANCHOR SOLT DESIGN (Cont'd) i 5.0 IMPLDENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd) 1 H.
See Iten F soove.
I.
Section 3.2.5 of Reference 2 specifies appropriate stiffnesses to be 4
used in the modelling of hanger anchorages. These values are based
~
on the results of finite element analyses documented in Reference 3.
J.
Reference 26 has determined and Reference 34 ensures that there is no reduction in anchor strength due to the installation of Hilti expansion bolts in diamond cored (pre-used) holes.
l K.
Attachment B of Reference 5 specifies the use of an appropriate reduced allowable for 1" Hilti Kwik-bolts.
i t
1 3
4 4
)
1 i
r i
u i
i 1
4 i
t 4
i j.
A3.14 4
1403m f
. ~_,,.
y
,,me.
..-,.e.
,,,._,m....v r-.
m.
- -- ~
.l.-
1 TU ELECTRIC CONANCHE PEAK STEAN ELECTRIC STATION GENEEIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TEAY HANGERS APPENDIX 4 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 4: DESIGN OF COMPRESSION NENBERS l
J
}
l I
i I
i a
2 l
i t
1 A4.1 4
1403m
~_
APPENDIX'4
)
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 4: DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS
1.0 BACKGROUND
i A.
In the design of compression members for trapese type support
~
'l frames, Gibbs & Hill did not consider the entire unsupported length 1
of the channels to calculate the slenderness ratios (Reference 1, 4
Sheets 11-and 18 for support types A4 and B, respectively). If
~
4 the correct unsupported lengths and pinned and conditions are assumed, the slenderness ratio of these seabers for bending about their weak axis will exceed 200. AISC Specification Section 1.8.4 i
j limits the slenderness ratio for compression seabers to 200.
B.
In calculating the slenderness ratio of the compression members for trapeze-type supports, Gibbs & Hill did not check the' effectiveness of the in-plane sidesway restraint for the various support designs.
l C.
In the design of the compression seaber for cantilever type supports -
(e.g., SP-7, Details E, F, G, and H on Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S,.
i etc.) Gibbs & Hill used the distauce from the face of the concrete to the centerline of the cable tray as the cantilever-length. The l
correct length should be from the concrete face to the clamp in the j
far side of the tray.
A value of K = 1.0 was used to calculate the minor axis slenderness.
)
ratio, rather than the value of K = 2.0 for cantilevers. A value of K = 1.0 is based on the assumption that the tray will provide.
lateral bracing at the clamp location.
The validity of this assumption is pending on the resolution of Review Issue 18.
D.
For the trapeze type supports, Gibbs & Hill has not considered the effect of weld undercut on the section properties of compression members at the point where inplane braces are attached to the i
channel web. As shown in the Working Point Deviation Study i
(Reference 2), high stresses exist in the region of the brace j
attachment and may increase if the reduced section properties are i
considered.
1 E.
The design of compression members assumed that the applied axial j
load was parallel to the seaber axis. Gibbs & Hill Installation Specification 2323-SS-16b allows an installation tolerance of 2 degrees from plumb for vertical members.
Cygna was unable to 1 caste calculations considering the effect of this tolerance. See l
Reference 5 'for a discussion of this issue..
1 F.
For trapeze type supports in the Working Point Deviation Study j
(Reference 2), Gibbs & Hill reduced the unsupported length of the l
hange rs by 5". This appears to be due to an assumption that the j
outstanding leg of the L5x5x3/4 base angle is rigid ~with respect to the C6x8.2 hanger. However, the minor axis soment of inertia for l
j A4.2 I
i 1403n
' APPENDIX 4
.CYGNA ISSUE NO. 4: DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS (Cont'd)
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) the C6x8.2 is greater than the corresponding moment of inertia for the L5x5x3/4; therefore, the buckling hinge would occur within the base angle rather than at a point in the hanger below the base angle, and the reduction in unsupported length is unwarranted.
G.
For the design of braces in compression, the axial force.is a function of the brace slope. Gibbs & Hill designs provide a range of allowable brace slopes. In some cases, Gibbs & Hill calculations check the brace for the slope which results in the largest axial 4
load without considering other cases which have lower loads, but j
also have reduced capacity due to a longer member length..
i
[
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE A.
Design calculations for slenderness ' ratio of channel section compression seabers in trapeze type supports used unrealistic 3
L.
lengths and end conditions.
B.
Calculations for slenderness ratio of compression aesbers in trapeze supports did not verify the effectiveness of in-plane sidesway restraint for various designs.
s C.
Design calculations for cantilever supports used a distance from concrete face to tray centerline for cantilever length, instead of the distance to the outside clamp.
Calculations for slenderness ratio of members in cantilever supports assumed the tray provides lateral bracing at clamp location; needs j
justification. This assumption requires justification if used.
D.
For trapeze supports, calculations did not consider reduction of i
section properties 9t in plane brace attachment points for weld unde rcut.
E.
Installation specifications allow tolerance on pluabness of vertical i
seabers. Effect on axial load on compression members was not considered.
l F.
In the working point deviation study, a reduced unsupported length for trapeze supports was used based on invalid assumption of rigidity of leg or base angle relative to hanger.
3
.G.
Calculations for braces in compression find the highest load as a function of brace slope, and check for this ' slope without considering cases with lower loads where capacity is reduced due to l
longer member length.
J I
i 1
A4.3 l
1403m i
i i
-n~,.-,,.,--~r
-...--.,--,,-...-,..-.a.
.-,,,,.,.n-n- -, -, - - - -. -
,--,r-
-.e
.n.n,,,
r.,
-~n,-,--,m-,,-e.--..
APPENDIX.4 CYGNA ISSUE NO.' 4 DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS (Cont'd) 3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE A. -Design procedures have been established which specify the appropriate unsupported lengths of hanger members to be used to calculate compression member slenderness ratios (KL/R). In addition, studies have been performed to establish realistic effective length "K" values _ for a variety of hanger configurations.
These "K" values and appropriate unsupported lengths have been used to calculate the slenderness ratios of the subject members.
i Slenderness ratios (KL/R) for compression members have been limited t
to 200 in accordance with AISC Specification Section 1.8,4.
I For the purpose of Section 1.8.4 of the AISC Specification, classification of a vertical post member as a compression or tension l
member is based upon the axial load component.
In particular, if there is any static compressive force, or if the combined static >
I plus dynamic load exceeds 50% of the design compressive ' strength, i
the member is classified as a compression seaber. A maximum slenderness ratio (KL/R) limit of 200 is applied to these members.
4 If a vertical post member is subject to static tension, and if the combined static plus dynamic load does not lead to a compressive force greater than 50% of the design compressive strength, the
't 1
member is classified as a tension member. A maximum slenderness-ratio (L/R) limit of 300 is applied to these members. For both tension and compression members, "L" is determined from a special engineering evaluation, as each case may dictate.
Regardless of the member classification, a full compressive stress check is performed in accordance with the AISC Specification'for any member subject to a compressive load regardless of the amplitude of the load and regardless of whether it is a static or dynamic load.
B.
Studies have been performed to establish realistic effective length "K" values for a variety of configurations. These studies include i
consideration of in-plane sidesway restraint of the hangers.
C.
Design procedures have been established which specify that the appropriate unsupported length of hanger members is to be used to-calculate compression seaber slenderness ratios. In addition, studies have been performed to establish realistic effective length "K" values for a variety of hanger configurations.
l L
L-I' i
l A4.4 i
l 1403m l
l l
l m.
APPENDIX 4-CYGNA ISSUE NO. 4:- DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS (Cont'd) i D.
Reference 33, the Nuclear Construction Issues Group " Visual Weld l
Acceptance Criteria" (VWAC), has been incorporated into the CPSES l
Cable Tray Hanger Design Verification Program by TU Electric. Welds'
~
not meeting the VWAC undercut requirement do not need to be considered-in the cable tray hanger design verification process since these welds are identified in accordance with References 42 and 43, and 1
i subsequently dispositioned.
E.
The 2 degrees out-of plumbness tolerance of cable tray hangers has negligible impact on loads in the cable tray systems and need not be included in design verification. Out-of plumbness greater than j
2 degrees is noted on the "as-built " hanger drawing and considered in design verification.
In hanger ' esign verification, the appropriate length of all types F.
d of members are used.
G.
The design adequacy of bracing members has been evaluated using "as-built" information.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-1010, Set 1.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2-6.~
3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George. (TU Electric),. " Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.022, dated August 17, 1984, question 4.
e 4.
Timoshenko and Gere, "Iheory of Elastic Stability," 2nd Edition, pages 99 and 100.
i-5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric), " Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.041, dated February 12,.1985.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
Design verification of hanger members has been performed in accordance with AISC Specification Section 1.8.4.
Hanger member lengths, effective "K" values and KL/R limits used to calculate slenderness ratios for hanger members are specified in Attachment E of Reference 36. Reference 37 Book 6, Reference 14 and Reference 15 justify the effective "K" values and slenderness ratio limits specified. Axial' load distribution and in plane and out-of plane restraint have' been considered.
"K" values.for transverse trapeze hangers with cable trays tied directly to hanger tiers in the tray axial direction were established in Study No. 4b documented in Reference 37, Book 6.
These values are specifi,ed in Section 3.5 of Reference 39.
2
-A4.5 1403m-
APPENDIX 4 1
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 4: DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd) 4 B. - See Item A above.
C.
Attachment E of Reference 36 specifies the cantilever length and "K" value to be used for cantilever type-supports.
J D. - Reference 33 specifies a visual criteria for acceptable weld undercut. depth -(base metal defect). Welds not meeting the undercut requirement are identified per References 42 and 43 and subsequently 4
dispositioned.
E.
The 2 degrees out-of-pluabness installation tolersace is not considered in hanger design verification since it has negligible -
1 impact on loads in cable. tray systems. Justification is provided in
. Reference 37, Book 16.
Out-of-pluabness greater than -2 degrees is noted on "as-built" hanger drawings per Reference 6 and considered in design verification as specified in Attachment E of Reference 36.
F.
As specified in Attachment E of Reference 36, member lengths to the j
face of concrete are used in hanger design verification.
G.
"As-built" bracing configurations are considered as specified in Section III.2 of Reference 35.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
Section 4.1.3 of Reference 3 specifies effective length factors and slenderness ratio limits to be used in the design verification of cable tray hangers. Reference 14 justifies the effective length factors by' considering axial load distribution and in-plane and j
out-of plane restraint. Reference ~15 justifies the slenderness 1
ratio limits specified.
B.
See Item A above.
C.
Reference 3 Section 4.1.3 specifies that the slenderness' ratio for cantilevers is to be calculated using the length from the concrete face to the outside clamp. The effectiveness of lateral bracing by the tray is discussed in Item A above.
l l
A4.6 1403m
APPENDIX 4 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 4: DESIGN OF COMPRESSION MEMBERS (Cont'd) l 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.2-IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd)
D.
Reference 33 specifies a visual criteria for acceptable weld undercut depth (base metal defect). Welds not meeting the undercut i
requirement are identified per Reference 42 and subsequently dispositioned.
E.
The 2 ' degrees out-of plumbness of cable tray hangers has negligible I
impact on loads in the cable tray systems.
This is demonstrated in Reference 16 and supporting calculations noted therein.
02t-of pluabness greater than 2 degrees is noted on "as-built" hanger drawings per Reference 6 and considered in design verification as specified in Reference 2, Section 3.2.1.
F.
Section 3.2 of Reference 2, Section 4.0 of Reference 3 and Reference 14 specify that the full length of all types of members are used in design verification.
4 G.
Reference 2 specifies that each support be modeled in detail and evaluated individually.
"As-built" information is obtained per 4
Reference 6.
l i
4 A4.7 1403m
'I i
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES-FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 5 i
CYGNA ISSUE NO.-5:
VERTICAL AND TRANSVERSE d'
LOADING ON LONGITUDINAL TYPE SUPPORTS I
i l
4 4
l A5.1 1403m
i APPENDIX ~5
)
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 5: VERTICAL AND TRANSVERSE j
-LOADING ON LONGITUDINAL TYPE SUPPORTS
1.0 BACKGROUND
Longitudinal trapeze type supports (e.g., L-A, L-A, L-C, etc.)
1 4
4 were assumed to act independently of the transverse supports (see Reference 4). Calculations for these longitudinal supports (Reference
- 1) consider only longitudinal loads in the design of frame members and anchor bolts. Since these supports 'are rigidly connected to the cable trays with " heavy duty clamps," a tributary tray mass will be associated with these supports.. It is Cygna's belief that these supports must be designed for vertical and possibly transverse seismic loads similar to the transverse supports (References 2 and 3).
]
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE Longitudinal trapeze supports were assumed to act independently of the transverse supports. Calculations for these supports considered only longitudinal loads in the design of frame members and anchor bolts.
j Trays are rigidly connected to these supports with " heavy duty" three directional clamps. As a result these supports should be designed for vertical and transverse seismic tray loads as well as longitudinal tray load.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE 1
Longitudinal trapeze hangers have been design verified for the simultaneous application of three (3) orthogonal direction seismic induced loads.
]
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 2.
i 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric), " Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.025, dated August 21, 1984, questions 3 and 4.
3.
R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
GTN-69437, dated September 10, 1984, with attached calculations.
1 4.
Gibbs & Hill Calwlation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF TH1', RESOLUTION t
5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION Attachments B2, Y and Z of Reference 36 and Reference 44 specify the loads to be considered on longitudinal supports in ESM and RSM analyses respectively. Vertical and transverse loads, as well as longitudinal loads are specified.
A5.2 1403s i
l 1.
1 APPENDIX 5 j
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 5: - VERTICAL AND TRANSVERSE LOADING ON LONGITUDINAL TYPE SUPPORTS 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION' Section 3.3.5 of Reference 2 specifies that loads induced by.the simultaneous application of three (3) orthogonal directions of earthquake must be evaluated for each support through a detailed system model.
l s
A5.3 1403m
i l
i i
I a
l.
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC' STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)-
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 6 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 6: SUPPORT FRAME DEAD AND INERTIAL LOADS 4
)
i A6.1 1403m
APPENDIX 6 CYGNA ISSUE NO.-6:
SUPPORT FRAME DEAD AND INERTIAL LOADS' i
1.0_
BACKGROUND i
A.
Out-of plane inertial loads (i.e. loads in the direction parallel _ to.
'l the cable tray) were not considered in the design of two-way cable tray supports.; Such loads should, as a minimum, be considered in~
l 4
the design of base connections and anchorages. Assuming that tray clamps are able to transmit the loads from the two-way supports' to
.J the cable trays, out-of-plane inertial loads from the.two-way supports must also be considered in the seaber _and anchorage design of longitudinal supports (also'see Review Issue 18).-
y I
B.. Gibbs & Hill did not consistently consider support dead loads. 'The l
support design calculations considered support weight in one of the following ways:
(a). Support weight was not considered.
(b) Support weight was considered as a surcharge on the tray, in addition to the tray and cable weight (usually, this value was.
given as 5 psf).
(c) The support weight was calculated by considering the actual weight of each of the support's frame members.
{
(d) A dead load equal to one half the support weight was used as
]
required by Reference 1, Sheet 3.
4 j
Method (b) also led to other problems in the support design..
Initially, j
the tray unit weight was considered as 35 psf.
. hen the " effective" W
support weight of 5 psf was added to the cable tray unit weight the i
result was a total assumed tray design load of 40 psf. 'At a later point.
in time, when design changes were issued against the supports or a i
revised analysis was required, the designer reduced the design weight i
from 40 psf to 37.5 psf, or even 35 paf, to remove some " conservatism 4
from the design loads in order to qualify the support.- - By doing so, the designer removed a portion of the support weight.
2.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE j
i A.
Out-of plane inertial loads (parallel to tray) were not considered j
in design of two-way supports, e.g. in base connection and anchorage-design. Out-of plane loads transmitted from two-way supports
)
0 through trays were not considered in seaber and anchorage design for-longitudinal supports.
4 A6.2 l
1403m I
~ - -...
4 APPENDIX 6.
i CYGNA ISSUE NO. 6: SUPPORT FRAME DEAD AND INERTIAL LOADS (Cont'd) 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE (Cont'd)
B.
Support loads due to support dead weight were not calculated consistently; eg. support weight was ignored, treated as additional L
load in tray, calculated based on actual member weights, applied as dead load equal to one-half of weight. When design changes occurred, designers arbitrarily reduced the weight used in analyses.
i 3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE i
A.
Out-of plane inertial loads due to hanger self weight have been considered in two-way support design. See Section 3.0 of Issue 18 for further discussion of the distribution of load between
-transverse and longitudinal hangers.
B.
Hanger dead weight has consistently and appropriately been considered in all hanger design verification.
I 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5, " Cable Tray
]
Supports (Design Criteria and Reference)."
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
Attachments B1,-Y and Z of Reference 36 specify the loads to be considered on transverse supports. See Section 5.1 of Issue 18 for further discussion of the distribution of load between transverse and longitudinal supports.
B.
Attachments B1, B2, Y and Z of Reference 36 and Reference 44 specify the loads to be considered on transverse and longitudinal supports.
Support dead weight is specified in these attachments.
i 5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION l
A.
Section 3.3.5 of Reference 2 specifies that loads induced by the simultaneous application of three (3) orthogonal directions of l-earthquake must be evaluated for each support through a detailed system model.
B.
Section 3.3.2 of Reference 2 specifies that support dead weight be included in the detailed system model.
Supports are subsequently qualified for 100 percent of the system dead load (tray, cover, cable, support, and thermolag dead weight).
A6.3 1403m:
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 7-CYGNA ISSUE NO. 7:- DESIGN OF ANGLE BRACES NEGLECTING LOADING ECCENTRICITY i
l i
1 6
4 4
A J
A7.1 1403m
t l.
APPENDIX 7-CYGNA ISSUE NO. 7: DESIGN OF ANGLE BRACES NEGLECTING LOADING ECCENTRICITY
1.0 BACKGROUND
A.. Longitudinal' cable tray supports typically use. angle sections as.
bracing to resist the longitudinal loads (e.g., SP-7 with brace, L-A, L-A, etc). For the member design, loads were assumed to 1
4 l
produce only axial stresses. The induced bending stresses due to l
the eccentric end connections were not considered. Neglecting'these i
flexural stresses can result in members which are under-designed.
For certain longitudinal supports, double angles are required. The l
design assumes _ that the angles behave as a composite member.
However, no intermittent filler plates. are provided as required by AISC Specification Section 1.18.2.4.
Thus, the double angles must be considered to act independently.
B.
Transverse and longitudinal cable tray supports typically use angle sections as in-plane braces to resist transverse. loads and provide t
bracing points on the vertical members (e.g., A, A, B,'B 3
4 3
4 L-A, etc).
For the member design, loads were assumed to produce 4
only axial stresses. The induced bending stress due to eccentric end conditions were not considered.
1 hough it is not explicity 9tated in the AISC Specifications, it is standard. practice i,
(Reference 3, Sheet 3-59) to consider the bending stresses due to-end connection eccentricity and check the interaction ratio i
ccasidering the principal axes section moduli.
j C.
Single longitudinal braces are typically connected to the frame by welding along the legs of the angle. Some brace designs provide 4
welding on only one angle leg at one end of the brace; while, at the other end of the brace, welding is provided on the opposite angle I
leg. Such end conditions may lead to failure by twist buckling at load levels below the critical value for Euler buckling.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE i
l A.
Induced bending stresses in longitudinal angle braces due to j
eccentric end connections were not considered. Double angles without filler plates were improperly considered as a composite 1
i membe r.
l
~
B.
Induced bending stresses in in plane angle braces due to eccentric and connections were not considered. Design calculations did not follow standard practice of checking interaction ratio considering L
principal axes section moduli.
l l
C.
Some designs for single longitudinal angle braces provide welding I
only on one leg of section, at opposite ends of brace, potentially l-resulting in failure due to twist buckling.
A7.2 1403m u
~
i APPENDIX 7-CYGNA ISSUE NO. 7: DESIGN OF ANGLE BRACES
- NEGLECTING LOADING ECCENTRICITY (Cont'd) 3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE A.
The effects of eccentric end connections for all angle braces have been considered in hanger design verification.
Double angle braces are analyzed as composite members only if the requirements of AISC Specification Section 1.18.2.4 regarding intermittent filler plates are satisfied. Otherwise, the angles are considered as individual members. As-built procedures determine when filler plates are present.
B.
See Item A above. In addition, the difference between principal axes section moduli and geometric axes section moduli have been considered in checking bracing member stress interaction ratios.
(
C.
Except for large angle sections with short lene, tbs, flexural buckling of angle sections will be more critical than torsional buckling. A procedure has been developed to address torsional' buckling in design verification.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric), " Cable -
Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.02 5,= dated August 21, 1984, questions 3 and 4.
(
-2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric), " Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.027, dated August 27, 1984, question 2.
3.
AISC Specification, 7th Edition, Sections 1.15.2 and 1.18.2.4.
4.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation " Cable Tray Support Type SP-7 With Brace.
Brace Eccentricity Calculations." Cygna Technical File 84056.11-1.228.
5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation " Verify the Adequacy of Brace L3x3x3/8 of the Governing Support Case C." Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 3
2323-SCS-101C, Set 1, Revision 1, dated 11/16/84.
6.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation " Justify the Use of Two L3-1/2x3-1/2x3/8 Angles to Take the Appropriate Ioad and Moment Individually in the Longitudinal Tray. Supports at the Lower Brace." Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 2, Revision 6, dated 9/15/84.
A7.3 1403m
m. n..
.n.
., c.
.. ~.
......~ ~.. m w r.. ~ n....~,., v.~
c l
I APPENDIX 7 1
~
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 7: ' DESIGN'0F ANGLE BRACES l
NEGLECTING LOADING ECCENTRICITY (Cont'd) 5.0 - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 :EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
Sections I.c, I.d, I.e, IV and Attachments E,;H, I and J of -
Reference 36 provide direction regarding the consideration of eccentricities on all hanger members including bracing. As specified in Attachment E of Reference 36, AISC_ specification requirements are followed in design verification of double angle braces.
B.
See Ites. A above. Also, the use of principal axes section moduli to.
check bracing member stress interaction ratios is, as Cygna states, standard practice and is noted in Attachment E of Reference 36.
C.
Instructions on how to address torsional buckling of brace angles is presented in Attachment V of Reference 36.
- 5.2 IWELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
The effects of eccentric and connections for all angle braces have been addressed in Reference 10 Section 5.0.
Appendix B of Reference 10 has determined that the effects of eccentric and conditions for in plane angle braces are insignificant for standard supports.
2
- Since the degrees of eccentricity are similar for in-plane and longitudinal braces, the same conclusion is considered applicable for the longitudinal braces.-
Section 4.0 of Reference 3 specifies that angle braces be qualified for both axial and bending stresses.
Section 3.2.3 of Reference 2 specifies that composite 'section properties be used for double angles only if intermittent filler plates are provided as required by AISC Section l.18.2.4.
Otherwise, independent section properties are used.
)
B.
For effects of eccentric end connections and bending stresses on :
{
in plane braces, see Item A above.
Design calculations for angle sections are performed using.section properties based on geometric axes rather than principal axes.
Appendix F of Reference 10 defines a factor to account for stress i
taken about the principal axes. This factor is incorporated in of Reference 3.
C.
Reference 10 Section 5.4 has demonstrated that. twist. buckling will only control for large angle sections with short lengths. Section j
4.1.3 of Reference 3 specifies that the potential for twist buckling be examined in design verification of these configurations.
A7.4 4
1403m i
~. -
1 4
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)-
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 8 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 8: DYNAMIC AWLIFICATION FACTORS (DAP)
AND RATIOS BETWEEN CONTINUOUS TRAY SUPPORT REACTIONS AND TRIBUTARY TRAY SUPPORT REACTIONS A8.1 1403m 1
.l
.n
- - -. -..~
. _.-.. ---~~ m..nmn -ms.o..n c:vmr:rx. t -
)
APPENDIX 8 i
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 8: - DYNAMIC A)fLIFICATION FACTORS -(DAF) l AND RATIOS bETWEEN CONTINUOUS TRAY SUPPORT REACTIONS AND TRIBUTARY 7: RAY SUPPORT REACTIONS (Cont'd)
1.0 BACKGROUND
Gibbs & Hill performed cr.ble tray support designs using an " equivalent static analysis" to account for seismic loads.
The tray dead load on a support was calculated by the tributary span method. The tray seismic j
. load was the product of tray dead load and the peak spectral i
~ acceleration for the given buildings elevation. A dynamic amplification I
factor (DAF) was not included as required by Reference 7 (see also Issue 2 5.A).
4 An additional factor to be considered is the ratio of the static j
reaction for a continuous beam to the reaction calculated by the tributary ' span method. This ratio depends on the relative stiffness between the trays and supports, the relative stiffness between different support. types and the number of continuous spans..
a 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE i
Supports designed by the equivalent static method for seismic loads were not reevaluated for an increased dynamic amplification factor (DAF) and
{.
for the effect of the ratio of continuous tray reactions to tributary tray reactions.
j DAF was not determined or justified for supports used with nonuniformly j
supported spans.
3.0 ACIION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE Studies have been performed to establish the validity of a Multiple Mode 1
i Response Multiplier (MRM) of 1.25 used in hanger " equivalent static analysis" to account for the dynamic nature of seismic loads. The.
i magnitude of this MRM was established by comparing responses from three j
dimensional dynamic response spectrum analyses and time history analysis of cable tray hanger systems with responses from equivalent static configurations.
Procedures have been developed specifying how the MRM-I is used in conjunction with spectral accelerations, tributary span tray j
dead weight and hanger dead weight.
A separate study has been performed to investigate the applicability of the 1.25 MRM value-to account for variations in trar-to-support stiffness, support-to-support stiffness, and number of continuous spans. Except for a narrow range of system configurations, the MRM of 1.25 is sufficient not only to account for dynamic multiple mode effects but also for system type load distribution and frequency effects.
Procedures have been developed to account for such system type load distribution effects. Additional studies and procedure development are R2 l
in progress to further support the 1.25 MRM value.
l A8.2 1403m 8
.y--,
.c.-.w.4..-_-.-,-n
,wr-,
m-----_
tr-,--
,-,,,-.n
w ~ n_ n -. _
,-..,_..no
~. _ _ _,
I
' APPENDIX 8 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 8: DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (DAF)
AND RATIOS BETWEEN CONTINUOUS TRAY SUPPORT REACTIONS AND TRIBUTARY TRAY SUPPORT REACTIONS (Cont'd) 4.0. LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs &' Hill Report, " Justification of the Equivalent Stetic Load Method Using a Factor of 1.0 Times Peak Spectrum Acceleration for the Design of Cable Tray Supports; Comanche Peak Units 1,and 2."
i 2.
Communications Report between J. Jan (Gibbs & Hill), G Bjorkman-(Cygna) dated October 4,1984, 4:00 p.m.
4
- 3. - Communications Report between J. Jan, P. Ikaang, J. Pier (Gibbs &
Hill), N. Williams, G. Bjorkman (Cygna) dated September 13,~ 1984, 3:30 p.m.
4.
Communications Report between J. Jan, J. Pier (Gibbs & Hill), G.
Bjorkaan (Cygna) d'ated October 12,1984,10 :00 a.m.
5.
Communications Report between J. Jan (Gibbs & Hill), G Bjorkman (Cygna) dated October 18, 1984.
l 6.
Communications Report between J. Jan, et al.. (Gibbs & Hill),
H. Levin (TERA), R. Kissinger, et al. (TU Electric), N. Williams, et al. (Cygna) dated October 31, 1984.
7 1
l 7.
CPSES, FSAR, Section 3. 78.3.5
- 5. 0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION I
5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION Procedures are specified in Sections IV.1.c and IV.2.c of Reference 35 l
and Attachment Y of Reference 36 regarding use of the 1.25 MRM in equivalent static analysis.
Study Nos. 3,16 and 20 address justification.
and range of applicability of the MRM value. Study No. 3 is documented R2 in Reference 37, Books 9 and 10.
Study No.16 is documented in Reference l-l 37 Book 15.
l Additional studies to further support the 1.25 MRM for highly irregular tray systems (Study No. 20) and tray clamps (addition to Study No. 3) l will be documented in Reference 37, Books 23 and 9 respectively.
In l
I addition, Study No.16 is being expanded to further support the 1.25 MRM l value. This expanded study will be documented in Reference 37 Book 15.
R2 In conjunction with this study, a screening procedure will be developed and implemented to confirm the applicability of 1.25 MRM for all actual cable tray systems for which equivalent static analysis is used.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION Section 3.0 of Reference 2 specifies that design verification be performed using full system modeling and response spectra methods and thus is not dependent on the use of a DAF.
i A8.3
'1403a
.._...____;,,l
l i
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l
GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 9 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 9: REDUCTION IN CHANNEL' SECTION PROPERTIES DUE TO CLAMP BOLT HOLES t
9
+
l i
4 A9.1 1403m
APPENDIX 9 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 9:: REDUCTION IN CHANNEL SECTION PROPERTIES DUE TO CLAMP BOLT HOLES
1.0 BACKGROUND
The AISC Specification (Reference 3), Section 1.10.1 states:
Riveted and welded plate girders, cover-plated beams and rolled or welded beams shall in general be proportioned by the acaent of inertia of the gross section..No deduction shall be made for shop or field rivet or bolt holes in either flange,~ except that in cases where the reduction of the area of either flange by. such holes, calculated in accordance with the provisions 'of Section '1.14.3, i
exceeds 15 percent of the gross flange area, the excess shall be i
deducted.
Cygna found instances where the area of bolt holes, used for the tray clamp bolts, exceeded 15 percent'of the gross flange area, and the required reduction in moment of inertia had not been considered in the design calculations.
1 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE i
l Design calculations for channels did' not properly consider reduction in moment of inertia due to bolt holes, per AISC.
1 3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE. ISSUE The reduction in beam section properties due to bolt holes has been considered in design verification.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric), " Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review Questions," 84056.015, dated August 6, 1984, Attachment B, question 2.
2.
Gibbs & Hill letter GTN-69371, dated 8/23/84, calculation SCS-111C, Set 8, Sheets 34-39.
l 3.
AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 7th Edidion.
l a
i 1
A9.2 1403m
l l
APPENDIX ~9 CYGNA ISSUE No. 9: REDUCTION IN CHANNEL SECTION PROPERTIES DUE TO CLAMP BOLT HOLES (Cont'd) 1 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF'THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION Attachment E item 11 of Reference 36 specifies requirements regarding the IR2 reduction in hanger member section properties due to the presence of
-used as well as unused and unidentified bolt holes. Used bolt holes are identified on the "as-built" drawings.- Reference 37, Book 25 justifies the lR2 requirements specified in Attachment E item 11 of Reference 36.
l 5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION Section 2.3.2 of Reference 45 requires that the reduction'in section properties be considered for used and unused bolt holes in support members. A 3/4 inch bolt hole is conservatively assumed at the tip of the flange (maximum stress location) or the actual location of used and-unused bolt holes are identified with as-built data per Section 3.2.1 of Reference 2.
-The effect of these holes is considered using AISC r
Specification, Reference 27, Section 1.10.1.
f l
i 1
1 i
A9.3 1403m
w n <.
-c..
..~
.a......u.
...a.
,,.. m.s.r.:. w : v a. m,.u. ;..a.w i..-;.--.v 1---
i TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 10 CYGNA ISSUE NO.10: SYSTEM CONCEPT i
4 J
A10.1 1404m
~ APPENDIX 10 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 10:- SYSTEM CONCEPT 1.0
~ BACKGROUND
- In order to justify certain design assumptions. questioned by Cygna
'(Reference 1),' documentation was provid,ed indicating that Gibbs & Hill had assumed that the cable tray and supports act as a system (Reference -
2).
As part of this " systems" approach, the following behavior was-assumed:
A.
The moments introduced by the eccentricities between the load application points (i.e., tray centroid) and the member resistant centroid were balanced by the load couples between adjacent.
' supports. More specifically, for longitudinal supports (e.g., SP-7 with brace, Detail 8, drawing 2323-S-0903, etc.), the development of torsion in the beam due to longitudinal loading eccentricity is prevented due to-the development of flexure in the cable tray. This tray moment is subsequently balanced by a vertical load coupled between adjacent supports.
Similarly, the torsion in the beam and the weak axis bending in the hanger due to the vertical load placement eccentricities as well as the bending soment in the beam due to the transverse load placement eccentricities are all balanced by either-vertical or transverse load couples between adjacent supports.
Such moment transfers as described above are only possible if full rotational and translational compatibility exists between the cable l
tray and support beam. The relative stiffness between the trays and j
their supports can also effect the percentage of the moment to be j
balanced by the load couples between supports. Gibbs & Hill assumes that the compatibility is provided by the heavy duty and friction types of tray clamps.- See Review Issue 18 for a discussion of Cygna's concerns regarding the clamp behavior.
B.
In the design of trapeze support hanger members for compression loads, the trays provide lateral bracing at points along the length of 'the hanger. Similarly, for cantilever type supports, the tray -
provides lateral bracing to the beam (See Review Issue 4).
C.
For trapeze type supports, the longitudinal and transverse support systems act independently. Therefore, the longitudinal supports are designed for longitudinal loads only, i.e., no transverse or
]
vertical load contribution is considered (also see Review Issue 5).
D.
Additional tensile forces introduced by rotation of the base angles about the bolt pattern axis is minimized by the hanger attachment to j-the tray (also see Review Issue 3).
4 i
A10.2 4
1404m l
,.,. _. _.. _ _ _. _. _ _ _.__ _.._ _ ~ _.. _.. _ _ _ _ _,.
APPENDIX 10-I
.'CYGNA ISSUE No.10: SYSTEM CONCEPT (Cont'd) 1.0
. BACKGROUND (Cont'd) i E.
For trapeze type supports, out-of plane seismic. inertia 11oads from
~ two-way support frames (self-weight excitation) are resisted by the d'
longitudinal supports. However, as discussed in Review Issue 6, these inertial loads have not been considered in Gibbs & Hill's design of longitudinal supports.
j.
F.
The cable tray supports use channel sections for the beam and hanger j
members. The typical connection between the besa and hanger is a lap joint, with the channels attached back-to-back. This type of connection will introduce bending moments and torsion in the members i
due to the eccentricity between the section neutral axes (Reference 1, Question 2.2).
Gibbs & Hill addressed this issue in Reference 2, indicating that a j
portion of the effect is resisted as additional loads in the cable tray, and the net effect on the stress level in the support is less.
than a three percent increase.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE i
1 A.
The " system concept", used to justify support design, assumed the i
noments and torsion in tray and hanger, due to tray load placement
]
eccentricities, are balanced by load couples between adjacent l
supports.
Bis is dependent on tray clamp behavior among other j
factors.
B.
In the " system concept", to justify design of trapeze support members and cantilever support members for compression loads, trays were assumed to provide lateral bracing. This assumption requires j-justification.
(
C.
For the design of longitudinal trapeze supports, transverse and i
vertical loads were not considered. Only longitudinal loads were considered.
.l D.
In support design it was assumed that tray attachment minimizes 4
additional tensile forces in anchor bolts due to rotation of base
}
angles about bolt pattern axis.
i j
E.
Longitudinal support design did not consider out-of plane seismic inertial loads transmitted from self-weight excitation of two-way
?
trapeze support frames.
F.
The support design did not adequately address bending and torsion i
due to eccentricity between section neutral axes in lap joint j
connections between beam and hanger members. The tray was assumed to resist a portion of additional loads caused by the eccentricity.
l A10.3 1404m i
e
-APPENDIK 10 CYGNA ISSUE NO.10: SYSTEM CONCEPT (Cont'd) 3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE A.
Design verification procedures have.been developed _ to consider local compatibility and global distribution of load throughout cable tray systems.
B. -Studies have been performed to establish realistic effective length "K" values for.a variety of configurations.- See Issue 18, Section -
3.0 for discussion of appropriate-restraint provided by the cable trays.
C.
Transverse and vertical loads as well as longitudinal loads have been considered in design verification for longitudinal type hangers.
D.
See Ites A above.
E.
See Item A above.
F.
The effect of eccentricities at lap joints have been considered in hanger design verification. See also Ites A above.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric), " Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.031 dated August 31, 1984, i
Attachment A, question 2.
2.
L.M. Popplewell (TU Electric) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna), dated -
September 28, 1984 with attached calculations.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION i
5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
Design verification of cable tray hangers has been performed using Attachments B1, B2, Y and Z of Reference 36 and Reference 44 which ~
present procedures for load distribution and application to hanger members.
The vertical and longitudinal load application methods presented are based on Study No. 5, documented in Reference 37, Book 7.
In addition, Study No. 7b documented in Reference 37 Book 2 presents a description of the basis of STRUDL modeling and load application procedures used in the equivalent static analysis method.
l B.
Reference 37 Book 6 and Reference 14 justify the "K" values specified in Attachment E of Reference 36 and Section 3.5 of Reference 39.
Reference'14 documents the effectiveness of cable tray providing bracing to the support members.
A10.4
. 1404a
=
^
3
APPENDIX 10 CYGNA ISSUE NO.'10: SYSTEM CONCEPT (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.1.
EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd)
C.
Design verification of longitudinal type hangers has been performed for loads induced by the simultaneous application of three (3) orthogonal directions of earthquake as described in Attachments B2, Y and Z of Reference 36 and Reference 44 for ESM and RSM analysis respectively.
D.1 Cable tray hanger anchorages have been verified based on prying action factors presented in Attachments G1 to G6 of Reference 36.
The basis of these factors is Study No.1 documented in Reference 37, Book 3.
E.
Out-of plane seismic inertial loads from two-way supports are considered in longitudinal support design verification as specified in. Attachment Z of Reference 36.
F.
Cable tray hanger design verification has been performed based on procedures specified in Section IV.1.a of Reference 35, and Attachment E of Reference 36, in which hanger joint eccentricities are specifically accounted for.
Ebasco Study No. 7b, documented in Reference 37, Book 2, describes the rationale of the specified procedures.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
Reference 10 Sections 2.1, 2.2 and Section 3.2.4 of Reference 2 specify that modeling must include tray load placement eccentricities. The behavior of tray clamps is discussed in the Impell implementation of CYGNA Issue 18.
B.
Reference 14 documents the effectiveness of cable trays providing bracing to the support members.
C.
Section 3.3.5 of Reference 2 specifies that loads induced by the simultaneous application of three (3) orthogonal directions of earthquake must be evaluated for each support through a detailed systen model.
A10.5 1404a A
.- - ~...- -.----..... -.... - -.
APPENDIX 10 CYGNA ISSUE NO.10: SYSTEM CONCEPT (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Coat'd)
D.-
Attachment F of Reference 5 specifies that additional tensile forces introduced by base angle rotation about the bolt pattern axis will be explicitly considered.
E.- See Ites C above.
F.
Reference 10 and Section 3.2.3 of Reference 2 specify that the effects of eccentricities at lap joints between hanger post and tier members be modeled.
A10.6 1404a
L I-TU ELECTRIC.
I COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 11 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 11: VALIDITY OF NASTRAN MODELS 1
i 1
1 r
i i
i 1
i All.1 1404a
l APPENDIX 11 i
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 11: VALIDITY OF NASTRAN MODELS
1.0 BACKGROUND
Cygna has questioned the validity of the NASTRAN.models used in the
' Gibbs & Hill generic studies, such as the Working Point Deviation Study (Reference 1), the qualification of Detail D '(References 2 and 3) and i
the Dynamic Amplification Factor Study (Reference 4).
The analysis models consist of identical supports, separated by equal spans. This modeling will. influence the system frequencies and seismic response and may not be representative of an actual installation, where a mixture of support types, non-uniform spans and tees or elbows in the tray are used.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE NASTRAN models used in generic studies (working point deviation study,.
qualification of Detail D1, dynamic amplification factor study) assume a -
row of identical. supports, not representative of actual mixed supports and spans. System frequencies and seismic response may be incorrect.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE This issue is specific to the generic studies performed by Gibbs & Hill and is not relevant to the present cable tray support requalification effort. "As-built" support configurations and span lengths are used for i
the design verification. Appropriate configurations representing actual plant conditions are used for generic studies.
t 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA i
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2-6.
~
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 3, Sheets 234-243, Revision 9.
3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder DMI-13C, Set 1.
l 4.
Gibbs & Hill Report, " Justification of the Equivalent Static Load Method U' ing a Factor of 1.0 Times Peak Spectrum Acceleration for s
the Design of Cable Tray Supports; Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2."
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION f
5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION As specified in Section III.2 of Reference 35, "as-built" support configurations and span lengths are used for design verification.
Appropriate configurations representing actual plant conditions are documented in specific special studies.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION Section 3.2.1 of Reference 2 lista the "as-built" support and span length drawings to be used for generic studies and the design verifica-tion of CPSES cable tray systems.
A11.2 1404a
_ = _ _.
.m 1
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR' CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 12 CYGNA ISSUE NO.12: WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY A12.1 1404m',
s
'l f,
APPENDIX 12 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 12: WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY 1.0-
' BACKGROUND
-Cable tray. supports employ angle sections as braces in the following configurations: in-plane for trapeze type supports, out-of-plane for longitudinal trapeze supports, and in various other orientations for other support types.
The original designs-for supports assumed that neutral axes of all members at a connection intersected at a common point,.thus no connection eccentricities were considered.
The connection details shown on the design drawings (e.g., Details 4 and 5 on Reference 6) provided a brace working point location which was not consistent with the design assumptions.
Bezed on the discussion with TU Electric personnel (Reference 5), Cygna
-learned that the QC inspectors had difficulty io (etermining the_ design requirements for the working point locations, nd Gibbs &' Hill had been requested to provide clarification on the requi evints and an allowable tolerance on the working point locations. DCA ba78 and DCA 20418 were issued in response, and the Working Point Deviation Study (References 1 and 2) was performed to consider the fact that the member neutral axes did not intersect at a common point and to provide the requested tolerances. The following are comments on the analyses performed as part of this study.
A.
Gibbs & Hill study (References 1 and 2) does not fully consider the
~
effects of previously approved design change documentation.
The analyses of the generic support types did not consider the effects of all generic design change documents which allow deviations from the original support designs.
(. Also see Review Issue 21.A.)
Due to the overstress of certain components of several support types, a limiting spectral acceleration was calculated, and cut-off elevations were established using the individual floor response spectra.
Frames below the cut-off elevations were not checked for compliance with the study parameters. Frames above the cut-off elevation were analyzed on a case-by-case basis, but the analyses did not consider the effects of design change documents associated with the individual support.
B.
The effects of vertical and transverse loads on longitudinal support frames were not considered in the Working Point Deviation Study (also see Review Issues 5 and 10).
C.
The portion of the study that evaluated longitudinal trapeze supports only checked member stress interaction as specified in Section 1.6.1 of Reference 3.
No evaluation was made to ensure that the connections, base angles and anchor bolts are also adequate.
A12.2 1404m
e --
... ~
APPENDIX 12 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 12: WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY (Cont'd) i i
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) 1 D.
Modeling Assumptions 1.
Instead of modeling a longitudinal support in the tray run, one end of the tray was assumed to be fixed. The effect of this tray boundary condition on the system response was not justified. Based upon the review of the NASTRAN models used in j
the Dynamic Analysis Program (Reference 4), Cygna learned that Gibbs & Hill's modeling of these fixed ends did not account for -
the response spectrum input at those points, but instead fixed them to an absolute rigid ground.
If the same modeling d
technique was' applied in the Working Point Deviation Study, the results of those response spectrum analyses may be incorrect.
2.
The analysis assumed a single 24-inch tray per support level and did not assess the impact of more. realistic multiple tray loadings or other tray widths.
3.
Eccentricities were not properly modeled (also see Review Issue 10).
4.
The cable trays were modeled as translationally and rotationally 1
fixed to the support beams.
h is assumption of tray attachment fixity was not justified-(also see Review Issue 18).
5.
n e run configurations selected may not be representative of actual installations. Parameters include systems of identical supports, uniform 8'-6" support spacing, and the assumed worst case frame dimensions (also see Review Issues 11 and 28).
6.
The base angle modeling assumed a simply supported beam for two bolt base connections. In reality, the concrete reactions (prying actions) provide flexural restraint to the base angle (See also Issue 26).
4 7.
Excitation in the longitudinal tray direction was not considered.
8.
The out-of plane translational degrees of freedom were restrained on trapeze type supports, resulting in an unrealistically restrained system.
E.
Gibbs & Hill did not check all support components when determining the controlling support element. For example, support type E4 was assumed to be limited by the load capacity of the Hilti expansion anchors. Cygna's review indicated that the actual governing l
component was the Richmond Inserts which were not checked by Gibbs &
Hill.
F.
Working Point Location for Two-Bolt Brace Connections on longitudinal Supports.
A12.3 1404m i
_, _. _ _. _ _, ~, _.
,_,_l..
,m
i
. ' APPENDIX' 12 CYGNA ISSUE NO.' 12: WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY (Cont'd) ~
l
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd)
J l
l The working point location shown on' the design drawing does not coincide with the actual line of action of the brace load for two-bolt brace connections, e.g., Details. "F" and "G" ~on Gibbs &
i Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903, and the brace concrete attachments for through L-A, L-B, L-B, L-B4, L-C1s support types L-Al 4
1 2
L-C2 and L-C4 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-s-0902. These
. offsets may induce larger tensile loads'in the anchorages than l
originally considered in the designs. These connections were not evaluated as part of the Working Point Deviation Study.
G.
Arbitrary Allowed Working Point Deviations Several support types within Cygna's review scope have specified allowable working point deviations without any supporting calculations.
- 1. -Detail N (Gibbs & Hill. Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-216C, Set 3, Sheet 5 indicates an-allowable deviation of 9" + 3" for brace connection to beam.
)
Calculations are not incluTed.
j 2.
Detail V (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) Gibbs & Hill j
Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-216C, Set 3, Sheet 5 states " Low
~
Stress, Brace Working ~ Point Deviation of 6" is acceptable."
Calculations to support this statement are not included.
H.
Working Point Deviations by Similarity Several support types within Cygna's review scope have specified allowable working point deviations based on similarity.to standard l
support types.
1 1.
Detail J (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-3) is qualified j
by similarity to case B.
3 2.
Detail 11 (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0905) is qualified by similarity to Detail 8 (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903).
The calculations for case B3 and Detail 8 (Gibbs & Hill-Calculation Binders 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2 and 4) indicate that these -
support types will be overstressed for the allowed working point deviation. Case-by-case evaluations of Case B3 and Detail 8 supports were performed to determine if all "as-designed" supports were acceptable. The support types which had been qualified by similarity were not included in these case-by-case reviews; hence, j
there is no assurance that they are not overstressed also, a
A12.4 1404m
- 1 i-i
-APPENDIX 12 1
1 CYGNA-ISSUE NO. 12: WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY '(Cont;'d)
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd)
I.- Use of Enveloping Cases l-The Working Point Deviation Study evaluates.several support types by 1
. grouping.them with an enveloping support of similar configuration.
Reference 1, Set 2 evaluates two groups. Group 1 includes Cases A, B, and C, considering Case C3 to envelope the other 3
3 3
Group 2 includes Case A, B, and C, considering case two.-
4 4
4 C4 to envelope the others.
For each analysis, the enveloping case is found to be overstressed, and a case-by-case "as-designed" review of supports of that type is conducted.
The. enveloped cases are not.
all included in the case-by-case reviews,. and a separate. evaluation is not performed to show design adequacy of.the other support types on a generic basis.
4 J.
Compressive Ioad Capacity of Members As discussed in the status for Review Issue 4.A, Gibbs & Hill considered the effect of multiple, discrete axial loads on.the 3
buckling capacity of the hangers in response.to Cygna's concerns.
The same effect was considered in the member evaluations for this study. Gibbs & Hill did not property apply the effect, since the factor is a function of the applied loading, and Gibbs & Hill did not calculate it for each load case (Reference 7).
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE A.
" Working Point Deviation Study" for brace connection eccentricities
-developed allowable working point deviations for generic acceptance -
I of installed supports.
The study did not incorporate effects of all design change notices i
2 for individual supports.
Also, cut-off elevations' were established based on controlling.
4 i
spectral accelerations, and frames below cut-off elevations were not checked for effects of design changes.
1 j.
B.
" Working Point Deviation Study" for brace connection eccentricities did not consider the effects of vertical and. transverse loads on longitudinal support frames.
C.
" Working Point Deviation Study" for brace connection eccentricities in longitudinal supports only checked member stress interaction; adequacy of connections, base angles, and anchor bolts was not evaluated.
}
4 A12.5 1404m
-2
e--e-c-=,-se
-,--+r,-----s m-
m+r-w-ewr----
e
:=w-w----me
.-w a
-+w--va.
- +---
---m--e--
---wemn w e-,. w y
- - - - - +y e---
APPENDIX'12' CYGNA ISSUE NO. 12: WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY (Cont'd) l 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE (Cont'd).
D.- " Working Point Deviation Study" for brace connection eccentricities incorporated the following questionable modeling assumptions:
- 1.
Modeling tray ends as' fixed instead of modeling longitudinal supports,
2.
Multiple tray ends loadings ignored 4
3.
Eccentricities improperly modeled 4.
Tray modeled~ as fixed to support by tray attachment 5.
Run configuration '(systems of identical supports, uniform support spacing, worst case frame dimensions) not based'on i
actual installations 6.
Base' angle for two bolt connection modeled as simply supported beam
- 7. ' Excitation in longitudinal tray direction ignored
_8.
On trapeze supports, out-of-plane translational degrees of f reedom were improperly restrained.
E.
In " Working Point Deviation Study" for brace connection eccentricities, all support components _were not checked to determine i
the governing component.
F.
" Working Point Deviation Study" for brace connection eccentricities, did not evaluate two-bolt brace connections on longitudinal supports, for which the working point location shown on design drawing does not coincide with line of action of brace load.
j G.
As a result of " Working Point Deviation Study" for brace connection eccentricities, allowable deviations were specified for some support types without supporting cales.
H.
In " Working Point Deviation Study" for brace connection eccentricities, some supports were qualified by similarity to supports which were later found overstressed.
Overstressed supports were included in case-by-case review, supports qualified by similarity were not.
I.
In " Working Point Deviation Study" for brace connection eccentricities, enveloping support types were found overstressed and were evaluated case-by-case; other support types were not subsequently qualified.
J.
In " Working Point Deviation Study" for brace connection i
eccentricities, the effect of multiple, discrete axial loads on buckling capacity of hangers was not properly considered ~as a function of applied loading and load case.
A12.6 1404a
l APPENDIX 12 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 12: WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY (Cont'd)
I~
~ 3. 0' ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE A.
This issue is not applicable. The details described are specific to the generic studies performed by Gibbs & Hill and not relevant to
- the present cable. tray support requalification effort. - All DCAs and.
CMCs are incorporated on "as-designed" drawings.
"As-built" support configurations and span lengths are used for the present effort.
B.
Longitudinal trapeze supports have been design verified for the application of longitudinal, transverse and vertical loads.
I
.C.
This issue is not applicable. This particular problem only existed in the " Working Point Deviation Study" and is not relevant to the present requalification effort. All members, connections, base angles, and anchor bolts have been design verified for adequacy.
D.
This issue is not applicable.
All of the _ stated modeling assumptions are only specific to the " Working Point Deviation Study" and are not relevant to the present requalification effort.
Modeling assumptions listed as 1 through 8 have been specifically addressed as part of the resolution of other Cygna issues.
1 E.
All support components have been individually evaluated for their adequacy.
F.
"As-built" support configurations and end connection details have been used for support requalification. Offsets and eccentricities are appropriata1y considered.
G.
See Item F above.
H.
This issue is not applicable. This particular problem only existed 4
in the " Working Point Deviation Study". Where appropriate, hangers are grouped based on similar geometry and loading. Where details of the grouped hangers differ from the representative hanger analyzed, separate design verification is performed for these details (eg.
welds and anchorages).
I.
See Item H above.
J.
The effects of multiple, discrete axial loads on the buckling capacity of various hanger configurations have been evaluated in determining the effective length' factors to be used for support qualification.
A12.7 1404m
)
-- _...,~,-._.._. _,. _ -_ __--
4 3,
APPENDIX 12 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 123- ' WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY'(Cont'd)'
i 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs ~& Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2-6.-
i.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-216C, Sets 1-5.
- 3. ' AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 7th edition.
4 l'
- 4. - " Cable Tray Raceway System Dynamic Analysis Program," Gibbs & Hill, March 19,1985.
i.
5.
Communications Report between M. Warner (B&R/TU Electric QC) and W. ~ Horstaan, J. Russ (Cygna) dated -November 16, 1985.-
j 6.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing'2323-S-0903.
i 7.
Communications Report between B.K. Bhujang et al.
(Gibbs & Hill),
R.M. Kissinger (TU Electric) and W. Horstaan et al. (Cygna) dated September 14, 1984.
T 1
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION i
5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION 1
A.
This issue is not. applicable.
"As-built" configurations are used, as specified in Section III.2 of Reference 35.
4-B.
Attachments B2, Y and Z of Reference 36 and Reference 44 specify.
loads to be considered on longitudinal supports. Vertical and transverse, as well as longitudinal loads are included.
t l
C.
This issue is not applicable. As stated in Section III.2 of i
Reference 35, all support components (members, connections, base angles /baseplates and anchor bolts) are design verified..
D.
This issue is not applicable. Resolutions for Cygna' issues 3, 7, 10, 11,18 and 28 address the subject modeling assumptions in Section IV.1.a of Reference 35, and Reference 36 (Sections I.d,- I.e, III, IV i
and Attachments B1, B2, E, G1-G6, G9, H, I, J, Y and Z) and Reference 44.
4 E.
See Itea C above.
F.
Section IV.1.a of Reference 35 and Attachment E of Reference 36 2
i require that offsets and eccentricities be modeled and taken-into L
account in the design verification.
G.
See Iten F above.
H.
A grouping procedure is specified in Reference 37, Books 4 and 8 (Sections I and II)'for Units 2 and 1 respectively.
The procedure is identical for.both units.
)
A12.8 J
1404a f
~.
. ~. -,..
APPENDIX 12 CYGNA ISSUE NO.12: WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.1 ERASCO IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd)
I.
See Iten H above.
.J.
Reference 37 Book 6 and' Reference 14 justify the "K" values specified in Attachment E of Reference 36 and Section 3.5 of Refe rence '39.
5.2.
IWELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
"As-built" support configurations and span length drawings are used per Reference 6 and Reference 2, Section 3.2.1.
B.
All support members are explicitly included in the analysis model as defined in Sections 3.2 and 3.2.3 of Reference 2.
Supports are analyzed for three directional loadings per Section 3.3 of Reference 4
2.
Cosponent forces and moments obtained from the analysis will be -
used to qualify each support component as defined in Reference 3, Attachments 4'and 5.
j C.
Reference 3 Sections 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4 provide instruction for member stress, weld, and bolted connection evaluation. Reference 5 i
addresses the evaluation of base angles, base plates, and anchor bol ts.
D.
Tray and hanger modeling procedures are described in Reference 2, Section 3.2.
Support connection eccentricities are included in the model as described in Section 3.2.3 of Reference 2.
Reference 10 Section 2.0 developed the procedure for modeling all connections.
Section 3.2.4 of Reference 2 and References 9 and 11' address the modeling of clip members which connect cable trays to'aupport 4
members.
Section 3.2.5 of Reference 2 and Reference 8 describe the base angle modeling procedure.
I
)
E.
See Item C above.
]
F.
Reference 2, Section 3.2.3 requires the modeling of support eccen-t ricities. Reference 3, Section 4.0 provides the procedure for mesber qualification. Reference 6 and Reference 2, Section 3.2.1 provide documentation of "as-built" support configurations and end connection details used for design verification.
t G.
See Item F above.
4 1
4 1
i k
I A12.9 1404m
APPENDIX 12 CYGNA ISSUE NO.12: WORKING POINT DEVIATION STUDY (Cont'd) 5.0' IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd)
{
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd)
H.
All supports will be design verified per Reference 3.
]
I.
See Iten H above.
t J.
Reference 14 and Section 4.1.3 of Reference 3 address the effective length factors to be used for support qualification.
j i
t A12.10 1404m
,sa r._
r,... u.. a... cu r_,,....m, -.,, -.
.)
Wmwe rc TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION '
GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 13 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 13: REDUCED SPECTRAL ACCELRRATIONS I
i i
1 i
6
)
(
l A13.1 1404a
I APPENDIX 13 CYGNA ISSUE NO.13: REDUCED - SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS l
' BACKGROUND 1.0
{
- For-the qualification of the supports discussed below, Gibbs & Hill used j
reduced spectral accelerations based on a calculated support-tray system frequency. These analyses assumed that all supports on a tray run are of the same. type and have equal spacings (also see Review Issue 11)..
These studies are not representative of the cable tray installations at CPSES.
1 i~
A.
A reduced acceleration was used for the analysis of transverse supports, such as type A, which was used in analysis of Alternate 4
Detail 1 (Reference 1).
This acceleration corresponds to a j
calculated frequency which is higher than that corresponding to the spectral peak. This frequency was calculated using a system model
{
of identical supports equally _ spaced at-8'-6" and a tray weight of-i 35 psf. The results of this study may not be valid for all
{
installations as discussed in Review Issue 11.
k B.
For longitudinal supports (e.g., type SP-7 with' brace (Reference 3),
i L-Al (Reference 2, etc.), the frequency calculations did not j
include the effect of the axial. frequency of the tray and the i
eccentricities between the tray and support. -
i C.
The flexural stiffness of the base angle supporting the brace of the longitudinal supports was not considered in frequency calculation (References 3, 4). Flexural deformation of the base angle can result in significant reduction in support frequency.
l 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE i
4 A.
In calculation of reduced spectral accelerations'for qualification of transverse supports, tray weight and tray span used did not represent, or envelope, all support installations.
j B.
In calculation of reduced spectral accelerations for qualification of longitudinal supports, frequency calculations did not include effects of axial frequency of tray and eccentricities between tray j
and support.
C.
In calculation of reduced spectral accelerations for qualification of longitudinal supports, flexural stiffness of base angle supporting the brace of the support was not considered in frequency calculations.
I 1
2 A13.2 l
1404m i
i y
-we-vw,---.,r w+,---ee-r-,-+--ew-www-,
- ae v-=ew
-wp*- e ewwe---,,~- w-,-w
-y',-v,-we-ewy, e v e
,,,ew-w, rw,g rw e e - - -
r=~---,%,
eew-,.me---*+-+-y----ee-e.-,
+-9----$
w--%-
APPENDIX 13 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 13: REDUCED SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS (Cont'd) 3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE
-A.
In design verification, hanger frequencies and the corresponding system frequencies are based on "as-built" conditions.
B.
In each of three directions, the frequencies of each longitudinal support and associated tray span are based on "as-built" conditions to establish the spectral accelerations for design verification.
Load eccentricities are appropriately considered in frequency calculations.
C.
Flexural stiffness of longitudinal hanger base angles has been considered in design verification.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculations, " Analysis of Alternate Detail 1".
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-101C, Set 3, Sheet 247, Revision 9.
3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-215C, Set 4.
4.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-1010, Set 2, Sheets 131 & 132, Revision 5.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
Sections III.1, III.2 and IV.2.c of Reference 35 specify the span length, cable tray loading and method for determining seismic input "g" values.
i B.
Section IV.2.c of Reference 35 specifies the method used to determine seismic input "g" values which considers tray frequency in the axial direction. Attachment B2 of Reference 36 addresses loading eccentricities between the tray and support.
Location of tray loads are addressed in Study Nos. 5 and 7b documented in Reference 37, Books 2 and 7.
C.
Typical anchorage stiffness values used in design verification are presented in Attachment G9 of Reference 36. Study No. 13a documented in Reference 37, Book 12 contains the methodology used to develop anchorage stiffnesses as well as stiffness values for typical anchorage configurations. For configurations not included, stiffnesses are developed on a case-by-case basis.
A13.3 1404e
- . : a = u. :.,s m.. as ae w.in..s.w ; =.m: -
n..... - -,. -
APPENDIX 13 CYGNA ISSUE No.13: REDUCED SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS (Cont'd) 5.0 I WLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
Reference _6 addresses the procedure used to obtain "as-built" infor-a nation. Reference 2, Section 3.2.1 lists the "as-built" support and span documents used for design verification.
B.
See Iten A above. Reference 2 provides instruction for modeling of cable tray systems including tray stiffness properties. Section 3.2.4 defines the eccentricities to be modeled between the tray and support. Section 3.3.5 addresses the response spectrum dynamic analysis approach which considers the three directions of earthquake loading.
C.
The flexural stiffness of base angles is modeled to simulate realistic boundary conditions at base angles.
This procedure is i
j defined in Reference 2, Section 3.2.5 and Reference 8.
I f
2
)
i i
I I
i 1
A13.4 1404m
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)'
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CAELE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 14 CYGNA ISSUE NO.14: 'NON-CONFORMANCE WIIH AISC SPECIFICATONS i
l l
I t
L I
A14.1 1404a
m,, ~ n. s.
.. w a :
.n u n....x. n.u e..a c u z w i n sk a.niG T s w u; w -
v.
APPENDIX 14 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 14: NON-CONFORMANCE WITH AISC SPECIFICATONS~
1.0 BACKGROUND
Reference 2 commits to' designing the cable tray supports in accordance with Reference 1.
Gibbs & Hill has not properly considered the requirements of Reference 1, as discussed below.
A.
Unbraced Length for Axial Buckling Section 1.8.4 (Reference 1) requires that KL/R be less than 200 for compression members.. Depending on the approach selected for the resolution of Review Issue 4, this requirement _may be not met. For-example, if the friction type clamp cannot provide adequate restraint in the longitudinal direction, the K value'should be taken-as 2.0 for trapeze type and cantilever type supports.
Consequently, KL/R = 257 for a 5'-9" C6x8.2 hanger or beam.
B.
Unbraced Length for lateral Torsional Buckling f
Section 1.5.1.4.6a (Reference 1) requires that Equation 1.5-7 be used to calculate the allowable bending stress for channels. In the
}
denominator, "L" is the unbraced length of the compression flange..
Cygna found the following instances where the AISC Specifications were not considered or were improperly applied:
)
1.
Gibbs & Hill's Working Point Deviation Study (see Review Issue i
- 12) uses 22 kai for the allowable flexural stress without checking Equation 1.5-7.
Since the frame heights are on the order of 144", an allowable flexural stress of 15 kai is i
calculated by Equation 1.5.7.
i j
2.
Detail SP-7 and similar supports consider "L" to be the distance from the base attachment to the tray centerline and not to the outside tray rail where the load is applied. Use of~the. larger distance will result in lower allowable bending stresses.
l
]
C.
Bolt Holes in Member Flanges I
l Reductions in the section properties of beams due. to bolt holes in their flanges per Section 1.10.1 (Reference 1), were not considered l
(see Review Issue 9).
I D.
Lacing of Double Angles
]
j Double angle braces are designed as composite members, without i
providing lacing per Section 1.18.2.4 (Reference 1), (also see Review Issue 7).
I
[
4 i
A14.2 i
1404m l
- - - - - l
APPENDIX 14-CYGNA ISSUE NO.14: NON-CONFORMANCE WITH AISC SPECIFICATONS (Cont'd) f
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd)
E. - Eccentric Connections i
Section 1.15.2 (Reference 1) discusses eccentric connections. This i
section requires that shy axial members _ not meeting at a single working point be designed for the eccentricities. For example, this P
.section of the specification applies to supports with single ar.gle l-braces' (SP-7 with brace, L-A, etc). The gusset plates connected 1
to these braces must also be designed for the eccentricities.
I F.
Oversize Bolt Holes Section 1.23.4 (Reference 1) specifies bolt holes to be 1/16" largerf s
than the nominal bolt diameter.
The bolt holes for anchor bolts in base plates / angles (per Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903) and for-tray clamps (per DCA 17838, Revision 8) are specified as 1/8" larger 4
than the nominal bolt diameter. Therefore, the bolt holes in Gibbs i
& Hill's designs should be considered oversized and should be treated as such in bearing connection calculations.
I' G.
Use of the Allowable Compressive Stress for Secondary Members I
For the design of the longitudinal brace for support type SP-7 with j
brace, the-brace was assumed to be a secondary member, and ' allowable compressive stresses were calculated per Section 1.5.1.3.3 (Reference 1).
Since this is the sole member which provides longitudinal load carrying capability, it should be considered ~a primary member, and Sections 1.5.1.3.1 and 1.5.1.3.2 are applicable.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE A.
AISC requirement on alenderness ratio for axial buckling (KL/R less than or equal to 200) may be violated for support compression members, due to inadequate restraint by tray clamps.
]
B.
AISC equation 1.5-7 for bending stress in channels was improperly j
used or not considered. Incorrect unbraced lengths resulted in
[
overestimated allowables.
. i C.
Reductions in section properties of beams due to bolt' holes in flanges were not considered as required by AISC.
i D.
Double angle braces were designed as composite members, but no lacing was provided as required by AISC.
E.
Design of supports using single angle braces did not consider eccentric connections as required by AISC (impacts axial members, gusset plates).
4 A14.3 1404a i
-,---,r-e-.--,-n-
.-..,,n-
,,e
--,n---
~,
w----
-,r
, - ~ - -~~
' APPENDIX 14 I
CYGNA ISSUE NO. '14: NON-CONFORMANCE WITH AISC SPECIFICATONS (Cont'd) 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE (Cont'd)
F.
Bolt holes for anchor bolts and ' tray clamps were specified oversize with respect to AISC.
Calculations did not consider oversize holes.
G.
AISC specification of allowable compressive stress for secondary members was improperly applied to the design of a longitudinal brace which is 's primary member.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE -
A.
Design procedures have been established which specify the appropriate unsupported lengths of hanger members to 'be used to
' calculate compression member slenderness ratios (KL/R). -In i
addition, studies have been performed to establish realistic effective length "K" values for a variety of hanger configurations.
l These "K" values and appropriate unsupported lengths have been used l.
to calculate the slenderness ratios of the subject members.
Slenderness ratios (KL/R) for compression members have been limited to 200 in accordance with AISC Specification Section 1.8.4.
For the purpose of Section 1.8.4 of the AISC Specification, classification of a vertical post member as a compression or tension member is based upon the axial load component.- In particular, if there is any static compressive force, or if the combined static I
plus dynamic load exceeds 50% of the design compressive strength, j
the member is classified as a compression member. A maximus J
slenderness ratio (KL/k) limit of 200 is applied to these members.
If a vertical post member is subject to static tension, and if the i
combined static plus dynamic load does not lead to a compressive
{
force greater than 50% of the design compressive strength, the member is classified as a tension member. A maximum slenderness ratio (L/R) limit of 300 is applied to these members. For both l
tension and compression members, "L" is determined from a special engineering evaluation, as each case may dictate.
Regardless of the member classification, a full compressive stress check is performed in accordance with the AISC Specification for any member subject to a compressive load regardless of the amplitude of l
the load and regardless of whether it is a static or dynamic load.
j B.
Equation 1.5-7 of the AISC Specification Seventh Edition specification has been used to determine allowable bending stress for the compression flange of channel sections.
4 C.
Reductions in besa section properties due to bolt holes have been considered in design verification.
l i
4
}
A14.4 l
1404a i
1
+
..s
,,c..n. m.
i I
' APPENDIX 14 I
i-
-CYGNA ISSUE NO. 14: NON-CONFORMANCE WITH AISC SPECIFICATONS (Cont'd) 1 3.0. ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE (Cont'd)
D.
In hanger design verification, requirements of the AISC Specification regarding intermittent filler plates for double angle 2
' braces have been adhered to.
Double angle braces are analyzed as composite members only if the requirements of Section 1.18.2.4 of the AISC. Specification are satisfied.
t considered as individual members.
. Otherwise, the angles are e
E.
All significant eccentricities have been considered in the design verification of hanger members including braces and associated gusset plates.
F.
1he effects of oversize bolt holes are not explicitly considered in i
design verification and are being generically studied through analytical work and interpretation of available test data.
G.
All bracing members have been design verified using AISC Specification primary member stress allowables..
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA i
{
1.
AISC Specifications for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of 1
Structural Steel for Buildings, 7th Edition.
2.
CPSES, FSAR, Sections 3.8.3.2 and 3.8.4.2.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION I
5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
Design verification of hanger members has been performed in accordance with AISC Specification Section 1.8.4.
Trapeze hanger.
member lengths, effective "K" values and KL/R limits used to j
calculate slenderness ratios for hanger members are specified in i
Attachment E of Reference 36.
Study No. 4a which establishes
}
realistic "K" values for specific transverse trapeze hanger j
configurations is documented in Reference 37, Book 6.
"K" values for transverse trapeze hangers with cable ' trays tied directly to hanger tiers in the tray axial direction were established in Study No. 4b documented in Reference 37, Book 6.
These values are specified in Section 3.5 of Reference 39.
s 1
A14.5 1404m
_ _ _ _ _... _ _ _ _ _._.,.._ _. _..,.~.
- APPENDIX 14 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 14: NON-CONFORMANCE WITH AISC SPECIFICATONS (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd)
B.
Ebasco has referenced the AISC Specification in Section II.1 of Reference 35, and has used the AISC Specification sections related to this issue in hanger design verification.
C.
Attachment E item 11 of Reference 36 specifies requirements regarding reduction in hanger member section properties due to the presence of known as well as unidentified bolt holes. Reference 37, l
Book 25 justifies the requirement in Attachment E item 11 of R2 Reference 36.
D.
Ebasco has referenced the AISC Specification in Section II.1 of Reference 35, and has used the AISC Specification sections related to this issue in hanger design verification, as specified in Attachment E of Reference 36.
E.
Section IV.1.a of Reference 35 specifies that eccentricities shall be considered in hanger design verification. Sections I.c, I.d, I.e, IV and Attachments E, H, I and J of Reference 36 provide
~
instructions for incorporating eccentricities for hanger members including bracing and gusset plates.
F.
See Section 5.2 Item F below.
G.
As specified in Attachment E of Reference 36 bracing members such as those used in the cable tray hangers are primary members, and are analyzed as such in accordance with the AISC Specification j
referenced in Section II.1 of Reference 35.
a
- 5. 2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
Section 4.1.3 of Reference 3 specifies effective length factors and slenderness ratio limits to be used in the design verification of cable tray hangers.
Reference 14 justifies the effective length l
factors by considering axial load distribution and in plane and out-of plane restraint. Reference 15 justifies the slenderness ratio limits specified.
B.
Reference 3, Section 4.1.3 addresses the member stress evaluation including the checking of AISC Section 1. 5.1.4.6a equations for channel bending stress.
C.
Section 2.3.2 of Reference 45 requires that a reduction in section properties be considered for used and unused bolt holes in support members. A 3/4 inch bolt hole is conservatively assumed at the tip of the flange (maximum stress location) or the actual location of used and unused bolt holes are identified with as-built data per Section 3.2.1 of Reference 2.
The effect of these holes is considered using AISC Specification, Reference 27, Section 1.10.1.
A14.6 1404m
. _., _. ~ _ _ __
APPENDIX 14 CYCNA ISSUE NO. 14: NON-CONFORMANCE WITH AISC SPECIFICATONS (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd)
D.
Section 3.2.3d of Reference 2 and Section 4.1 of Reference 3 provide guidelines for the modeling and qualification of double angle sections.
Composite section properties are only used if intermittent filler plates are provided as required by AISC Section 1.18.2.4.
E.
Reference 2 Section 3.2.3 addresses the modeling of support member i
eccentricities. Reference 3 provides a procedure for the qualification of gusset plates.
F.
Reference 16 and 17 have shown that oversize bolt holes had insignificant effect on cable tray system dynamic characteristics and seismic response. It was demonstrated that the same modeling lR2 procedure was appropriate whether or not oversize bolt holes were present. Reference 20 is investigating load distribution in connections having oversize holes.
G.
Reference 3, Section 4.1.3 and Attachments 4 and 5 address member stress evaluations including the design of brace members as primary l
members. Allowable compressive stresses are calculated per AISC.
Sections 1. 5.1.3.1 and 1. 5.1.3.2.
I i
1
)
i i
i i
i A14.7 1404a
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 15 CYGNA ISSUE NO.15: MEMBER SUBSTITUTION n
A15.1 1406m
APPENDIX 15 f
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 15: MEMBER SUBSTITUTION i
1.0 BACRGROUND i
Note 9 on Gibbs & Hi11' Drawing 2332-S-0901, Revision _4, states:
' Structural members shown on drawing numbers 2323-S-900 series any be i
substituted by one step heavier shape of the same else.
i I
This note allows craf t to substitute a member from one series with a member from another series, e.g., an American Standard Channel (C) for a
{
Miscellaneous Giannel (IC) or vice versa, as long as the substituted i.
shape is heavier than, but of the same depth as the original member.
I Cygna is concerned that this note allows the use of substitute sections which are heavier, but have lower section moduli.
z.
At a later date, Reference 2 was issued, providing the following
{
1arifications i
i Structural members shown on drawing numbers 2323-S-900 series may be j
substituted by a member of the same size and next heavier shape j
determined by the asterial on site. The next step heavier shape l
will be governed by sections as shown in AISC Manual of Steel Construction. Examples are shown on sheet 2 of 2.
j t
The examples shown on sheet 2 of Reference 2 include the substitution of i
a C4x7.25 for a C4:5.4, a C6x10.5 for a C6 8.2, etc. This clearly indicates that the substitution should be of the same series as the specified member.
{
l Cygna's concern is what types of substitutions were performed by the craf t and accepted by the QC inspectors during the time between the issuance of Reference 3 and Reference 2.
Cygna was unable to locate any j
requirements for documenting member substitutions.
i Within Cygna's walkdown scope, such a substitution was identified for support number 6654 (see Review Issue 20). The design required an I
MC6:12, and the installed negber was a C6x13, which has a smalley i
j section modulus (S = 5.80 in for a C6:3 compared to S = 6.24 in i
for an MC6:12).
For the other supports listed in Review Issue 20, the t
j required MC6:12's were substituted with C6:8.2's, a substitution not permitted by Reference 2.
i j
i i
I i
i 1
1 i
I i
I I
i j
A15.2 j
1406a 1
.. _ _ _ _,a
~
l APPENDIX 15 CYGNA ISSUF NO.15: MEMBER SUBSTITUTION (Cont'd) 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE Design specification allowed substitution of structural members with members having potentially lower section moduli.
Documentation of substitutions was inadequate.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE This issue is not applicable to the present hanger design verification effort since hangers are design verified based on "as-built" member configurations.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Communications Reports between R.M. Kissinger (TU Electric) and J. Russ (Cygna), dated January 17,1985, 8:15 a.m. and 3:45 p.m.
2.
CMC 69335, Revision 1, dated 9/21/82.
3.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0901, Revision 4.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 ERASCO IMPLEMJ.NTATION Design verification is based on "as-built" member configurations as specified in Section III.2 of Reference 35.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION "As-built" data obtained per Reference 6 has been used in design verification process. Ihis data has been incorporated according to Reference 2, Section 3.2.
(
l l
A15.3 1406e l
l
..w.v4+,.y-,,,,,
vr-ew--=-
v--+--
yr
--r,-
~ = -g-i.n
,-y~-m,,rv---
v.*~--
v.,e.-w---yv~-w-
,,..r y,
y.,
w----*
y-v
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY NANGERS APPENDIX 16 CYGNA ISSUE NO.16: WELD DESIGN AND WECIFICATIONS 4
l l
l i
i i
J t
4 e
A16.1 1406a 1
J APPENDIX 16 h
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 16 WELD DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS
1.0 BACKGROUND
l l
j Cygna has noted the following discrepancies in the weld designs for cable tray supports.
A.
The design drawings are missing the weld details for several support types as described in Reference 1, Attachment C.
I B..
Per discussions with Gibbs & Hill /TU Electric (References 2, 3, 4 and 5), Cygna has noted that the weld sises shown on the assembly I
drawings differ from those shown on the design drawings and those that were assumed in Gibbs & Hill calculations.
l C.
Eccentricities were not considered in weld connections.
i 1.
Detail SP-7 with brace and similar connections requires a q
l partial penetration groove weld at the ausset plate /beas connection. The design calculations did not consider the i
eccentric load transfer from the brace member. The eccentricity of the brace loads results in a weld stress in excess of the i
allowable.
)
2.
Wald designs for the lap joints between channels and between the base angle and attached channel did not consider the j
eccentricity between the applied loads from the connecting i
members and the plane of the weld.
D.
The weld designs did not consider the thickness of the connected j
parts. This issue was identified by DCA 2365, Revision 2, but was i
never considered in the design calculations. Gibbs & Hill's weld l
designs assumed that the full weld throat would be developed without r
considering the thickness of the connected member. For example, the i
weld size for support designs employing C6x8.2 channels with a fillet weld crossing the web of the channel is limited to the 0.2 l
l inch web thickness. Gibbs & Hill designs specified a 5/16" ~ fillet l
l weld size and did not reduce.the throat to account for the minimus 1
material thickness. Cases where this may be a problem includet
}
Details E, F, G, H, J and K on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-SI SP-7 using an L6 4x3/4 base angleg and the Detail 2/2A on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0903 as modified per CMC 58338.
l i
)
E.
Gibbs & Hill assumed an incorrect minimum weld length for the beam / hanger base angle connection. Gibbs & Hill assumed a weld j
length of 1-k, where 1 = angle leg width and k = distance from back i
of angle les to end of fillet. However, because of the existence of
}
the curve with radius, r (approximately equal to one-half the les i
thickness), at the angle toe, the actual weld length is 1-k-r.
1 i
I l
l 1
A16.2 1
{
1406a i
_ _ _. _ _. _ _... _ _, _., _.., _, _ _ _ _ _., _ _ _,. ~, _. ~ -,. _... _.,.. _...., _ _. _
- ~. - - - -... -.~ -
t APPENDIX 16 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 16: WELD DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS (Cont?d)'-
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF.THE ISSUE A.
Weld details were not provided on design drawings for several supports.
j B.
Different weld sizes were shown on assembly drawings,' design i
drawings, and in calculations.
i C.
Eccentric loads were not considered in design of welds for j-brace /susset plate / base connections, lap joint connections between channels, base angle connections.
D.
Thicknesses of connected members were not considered in weld i
' designs. Specific designs may have excessive weld throat.
E.
Design calculations assumed an incorrect minimum length'for-beam / hanger base angle connection, due to radius on angle leg.
j i
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE-1 l
A.
This issue is not applicable. Design verification has been based on 1
weld details from "as-built" hanger drawings.
l B.
Same as Iten A above.
1 j
C.
Eccentric loads have been considered in th's design of welds for i
brace /gueset plate /beas connections, lap joint connections between channels and base angle connections.
l D.
Design verification has been based on weld details from "as-built" j
hanger drawings. Weld design verification appropriately considers j
thicknesses of connected members.
E.
Same as Item A above.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1
)
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC) " Response to NRC l
Questions," 83090.023, dated Harch 8,1985 t
j 2.
Coesunications Report between Chang and Huang (Gibbs & Hill) and Horstaan, 1
Russ and Williams (Cygna) dated October 27, 1984 1
3.
Communications Report between Chang and Huang (Gibbs & Hill) and Horstaan, Russ and Williams (Cygna) dated November 13, 1984~
f l
4.
Communications Report between Chang and Huans'(Gibbs & Hill) and Russ j
(Cygna), dated November 17, 1984 l
i k
1 4
l i
A16.3
)
i 1406a
Y
'r' i
APPENDIX 16 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 16: WELD DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS (Cont'd) l 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA (Cont'd) 5.
Communications Report between R. M. Kissinger (TU Electric) and J. Russ (Cygna), dated. November 30,.1984
' 6.
N. N. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George-(TU Electric), " Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.041, dated February 12, 1985.
F 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 4.
5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION-i A. JThis issue is not applicable. Design verification is based on "as-built" information as specified in Section III.2 of Reference 35.
B.
See Ites A above.
C.
Section I.d of Reference 36 and Section IV.1.a of Reference 35 specify that all eccentric loads' are to be considered in design l
verification.
i D.
Design verification is based on "as-built" information. Reference 36 Section IX states that both weld and base metal thickness must be appropriately considered in weld qualification.
E.
See Item A above.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
"As-built" data for weld details is provided in accordance with Reference 6.
Reference 3, Section 3.0 addresses the use of "as-built" data for weld details and Section 4.3 provides the procedure for weld qualification.
f B.
See Item A above.
C.
The effect of support seaber eccentricities has been evaluated in Reference 10, Appendix B.
Procedures to model eccentricities are provided in Reference 2, Section 3.2.3a.
Loads obtained from these l
modeling procedures are then considered in the design of welds for lR2 j.
member connections per Reference 3 Section 4.0.
I D.
Reference 3 Section 4.3 indicates that the thickness of the connected members shall be checked.
4 i
E.
See Ites A above.
I' i
l A16.4 1406a s
_. _. -..., _ ~...,.... _,..
om, _,,.
-,,-...m,
-..mm. --
....., ~, - - - _ _ _...,... _ - ~,,
m m-x--
e n-,-
~, ---.._
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAN ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 17 CYGNA ISSUE No.17: EMBEDDED PLATES DESIGN 9
A17.1=
1406m
f I
APPENDIX 17 CYGNA ISSUE NO.17: EMBEDDED PLATES DESIGN
1.0 BACKGROUND
i A.
Gibbs & Hill performed capacity calculations for cable tray suppcrt attachments to embedded strip plates.
Cygna's review of these calculations indicates that the calculated capacities may not have considered the effect of prying action on the tension in the-Nelson l
Stude.
B.
Questions 'fron.Cygna's pipe support reviewers and cable tray reviewers on the stiffening requirements for embedded plate moment connections elicited conflicting
- responses from TU Electric personnel.
The pipe support. response indicated that attachments to embedded plates act as stiffeaers for moment connections (Reference I
- 2)', while the cable _ tray support response indicated that any moment attachment must be stiffened or sufficiently analyzed (Reference 3).
I C.
Cygna has noted that calculations for cable tray supports attached to embedded plates did not consider the capacity reductions for attachment locations given in Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-SS-30,
" Structural Embedments" (Reference 1).
Cygna has requested any documents which address the corrective action associated with the issuance of Specification 2323-SS-30 (Reference 9).
D.
A review of Brown & Root Procedure CCP-45 (Reference 7) indicates that any two adjacent attachments to an embedded strip plate must be separated by a minimum of 12".
Based on a discussion between Cygna i
and Tusco (Reference 4), it was determined that even though the installation procedure requires this separation, the inspection procedures for cable tray supports do not require an inspection of this attribute.
Cygna walkdowns noted several instances where the separation between attachments to embedded plates were less than 12".
( Also see Pipe Support Review Issue 9).
Cygna is concerned that the lack of control of attachment spacing may have an impact on the' design i
adequacy of the attachments.
1 E.
Installation of Details E, F, G, and H on Babedded Plates Reference 5 is the design calculation for the installation of Support Details E, F, G, and H (Gibbs & Hill Drawing j
2323-El-0601-01-S) on embedded strip plates. A maximum tributary i
tray span of 7'-6" is used in these calculations.
Note 9 on Reference 6 states:
The supports will have a location tolerance of + 12" in the direction parallel to the tray and + 2" perpendicular to the.
tray. However, spacing between any two adjacent supports shall' j
not exceed 9'-0" for Unit 1 and Common Areas...unless otherwise noted on the drawing.
A17.2 3
1406m i
p m,, m n v. - _ ~. - -... _. - - -
6
_ APPENDIX 17 CYGNA ISSUE NO.17: EMBEDDED PLATES DESIGN (Cont'd)
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd)
Supports installed in accordance with this drawing note may have to resist loads due to a 9'-0" tributary span, l'-6" greater. than the.
design tributary span.
F.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-SS-30 (Reference 8) provides spacing requirements between embedded plates and Hilti expansion anchors.
During Cygna's cable tray support.walkdowns, an instance was noted where an embedded plate was located near an opening in a concrete wall. Several Hilti expansion anchors were installed within the opening, on the concrete surface perpendicular to the surface with the embedded plate,- potentially violating the requirements of 2323-SS-30. Cygna was unable to determine how the minimum spacing requirements would be applied to situations where the expansion anchor is installed in a surface perpendicular to the embedded plate.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE I
A.
. Previous design calculations for capacity of support attachments to embedded strip plates may have ignored effect of prying action on tension in Nelson studs.
B.
Pipe support designers and cable tray support designers.used inconsistent design practice on stiffening of moment attachments to l
embedded plates. Pipe support design assumed attachments act as stiffeners; cable tray support design indicated moment attachments must be stiffened or analyzed.
C.
Design calculations for supports attached to embedded plates did not consider capacity reductions given in design specifications for specific locations.
D.
Installation procedures specified minimum separation for attachments to embedded plates; inspection procedures for supports did not require a check of attachment separation.
.i Walkdowns found supports attached in violation of specification.
E.
Due to design specifications on some support details for embedded plate attachments, some supports may resist loads floa. larger -
i i
tributary tray spans than were assumed in design calculations.
F.
A case was found where Hilti expansion anchors were installed on concrete surface perpendicular to embedded plate; specifications on minimum spacing do not specifically address this case.
i A17.3 1406m
APPENDIX 17 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 17: EMBEDDED PLATES DESIGN (Cont'd) 3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE A.
The embedded plate design verification approach is included in the SWEC Civil Structural Corrective Action Program.
B.
See Item A Above.
C.
See Item A Above.
D.
See Item A Above.
E.
As-built tray spans are used for hanger design verification and determination of embedded plate loads.
F.
See Item A Above.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 4
1.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TU Electric), " Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.041, dated February 12, 1985, Attachment A, question 1.
2.
L. M. Popplewell (TU Electric) letter to N. H. Williams (Cygna) dated April 19,1984, page 11.
3.
Communications Report between Williams, Russ and Horstaan (Cygna),
Kissinger and Keias (TU Electric) and Bhujang, Huang and Qiang (Gibbs
& Hill) dated Sept. ember 15, 1984.
4.
Communications Report between M. Warner (TU Electric) and N Williams, J., Minichiello and J. Russ (Cygna) dated February 27,-1985.
t A17.4 1406m
n l
APPENDIX 17 i
CYGNA ISSUE NO.17: EMBEDDED PLATES DESIGN (Cont'd) 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA (Cont'd) i 5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-146C, Set 4, Sheet 3-9, 21.
6.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0919,f Revision 3.
7.
Brown & Root Installation Procedure CCP-45, " Permanent and Temporary Attachments to Weld Plates," Revision ~1, 8/18/80.
8.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-SS-30, Appendix 4, " Design Criteria For Embedded Plate Strips," Revision 1.
9.
N. H Williams (Cygna) letter to W. G. Counsil (TU Electric), " Cable Tra / Conduit Support Review Questions," 84056.089, dated October 21, 198 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1' ERASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
The embedded plate design verification approach is included in.the SWEC Civil Structural Corrective Action Program.
B.
See Itea A above.
C.
See Itea A above.
D.
See Itea A above.
E.
Procedures to determine tray span lengths used in design.
verification are specified in Section III.1 of Reference 35:and Section II of Reference 36.
F.
See Item A above.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
The embedded plate design verification approach is included in the SWEC Civil Structural Corrective Action Program.
B.
See Item A above.
-l A17.5 1406a
~
APPENDIX 17 CYGNA ISSUE NO.17: EMBEDDED PLATES DESIGN (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) i 5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd).
C.
Same as Item A above.
D.
Same as Item A above.
I E.
Reference 2, Section 3.2 addresses the modeling of cable tray systems. This system model approach provides appropriate tray mass distribution.
F.
Same as Item A above.
L l
A17.6-1406m 4
.,,mm-w-
n ma-n
,-,wr.
e-r-,
n-
~ - - -
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 18 CYGNA ISSUE NO.18: TRAY CLAMPS l
1 I
l l
l l
A18.1 1406a
.. - - - ~.
APPENDIX 18 CYGNA ISSUE NO.18: TRAY CLAMPS
1.0 BACKGROUND
i Two general categories of cable tray clamps are used at CPSES.
" Friction" type clamps are installed on transverse type supports (e.g.,
A, B, SP-7, etc.).
These clamps are assumed to provide vertical 1
1 and horizontal transverse load transfer.
" Heavy duty" cleaps are installed on longitudinal trapeze supports (e.g., L-A,: L-B,
1 1
etc.), three-way supports (e.g., SP-7 with brace, Detail 8 on drawing 2323-S-0903, etc.), and transverse supports,- where interferences (e.g.,
tray splice plates, fittings, etc.) prevent the installation.of friction type clamps. Heavy duty clamps are designed to transfer vertical, horizontal transverse, and longitudinal tray loads to the cable tray support beaa. References -1 and 2; DCA 3464, Revision 23; DCA 6299, Revision 7; and DCA 20331, Revision 0 provide clamp configuration details.
In addition' to the indicated load transfers between trays and supports, Gibbs & Hill has assumed other load transfer mechanisms in order to justify behavioral assumptions made in the support designs. For
" friction" type clamps, the following assumptions have been made in order to justify the system concept (also see Review Issue 10).
i The trays will provide out-of-plane bracing to trapeze supports to reduce the buckling length of the vertical hanger members (also.see Review Issue 4).
The trays will provide lateral bracing to the compression flanges of the horizontal beams (also see Review Issue 24).
i The trays will provide out-of-plane bracing to supports to prevent frame translation which would result in increased anchor bolt I
tensile loads (also see Review Issue 3).
The cable trays will transfer out-of-plane inertial loads from transverse supports to longitudinal supports on the same tray run (also see Review Issue 6).
The development of minor axis bending moment in the beams due to the l
horizontal eccentricity between the beam neutral axis and the clamp i
bolt is minimized by a bending moment in the cable tray (also see Review Issue 24).
For vertical loading, the development of torsion in the beam due to the eccentricity between the claap location and the beam shear center is prevented by flerure of the cable tray. This assumes a full moment fixity between the tray and the support beam (also see 3
Review Issue 24).
For heavy duty clamps, all of the above assumptions are also applicable, and an additional assumption is made by Gibbs & Hill.
A18.2 i
1406a i
i
, _. - - - _ ~,
-~
APPENDIX 18 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 18: TRAY CLAMPS (Cont'd)
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd)
The development of torsion due to longitudinal loads on three-way supports using composite beam sections :(e.g., SP-7 with brace Detail-8 on Drawing 2323-S-0903, etc.) is prevented by flexure of the cable tray. This assumes a full moment fixity between tray and support beam (Review Issue 24).
The assumptions described above are valid only.if the clamps can provide j
suitable displacement and rotation compatibility between the tray and i
support beam. Based on a discussion with TU Electric (Reference 3),
Cygna determined that installation tolerances (Reference 2; DCA 6299, Revision 7; DCA 20331, Revision 0; and CMC 93450, Revision 4) have been 4
adopted which allow gaps between the tray side rails, the support beam, and the tray clamps. In order to provide the assumed compatibility...
"f riction" type clamps must be cinched sufficiently to develop friction between the tray / beam and tray / clamp. interfaces. The existence of gaps will preclude the development of the normal contact force required for '
frictional resistance.
z 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE Assumptions made on the load transfer from cable trays to hangers may be invalid due to existence of installation gaps and inadequate rotational and displacement compatibility of both " friction" and " heavy duty" clamps. These assumptions are:
Cable trays provide the out-of plane bracing which can reduce buckling length on posts, reduce longitudinal hanger displacement and provide transfer of hanger's out-of plane inertial load (self weight excitation) to longitudinal hangers.
Cable trays provide lateral bracing for the compression flange of the horizontal tiers (beams).
Cable trays provide moment resistance capability between trays and horizontal tiers.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE Design verification procedures have been developed to consider local compatibility and global distribution of load throughout cable tray systems.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0902, Revision 5.
I 2.
TU Electric Drawing TNE-S1-0902-02, Revision CP-2.
l l
)
1 A18.3 j
l 1406a I
APPENDIX 18 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 18: TRAY CLAMPS (Cont'd) 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA (Cont'd) 3.
Communication Report between T. Keiss (TU Electric) and W. Horstaan (Cygna) dated November 15, 1984.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION The effects of connectivity between trays and transverse hangers, provided by friction type clamps, are considered in design verification as follows. For ESM analysis, loads induced by longitudinal seismic excitation of transverse hanger mass, which are transmitted through the tray system to longitudinal and/or transverse hangers depending on the system configuration, are considered in design verification as specified in Attachment Z of Reference 36.
Design verification of transverse hangers for longitudinal load effects conservatively considers no connectivity in the longitudinal direction, and connectivity displace-ments are compared to the "no connectivity" displacements.
For RSM analyses, design verification is in general, performed without consideration of connectivity between tray and transverse hangers as specified in Reference 44. However, sufficient RSM analyses, as specified in Attachment Z of Reference 36 and Reference 44, are performed with connectivity to demonstrate the acceptability of RSM results without connectivity.
Tray cisap modeling has been based on both analytical studies and. test data. Tray clamps are appropriately modeled as linear elastic three dimensional beam elements as specified in Reference 44.
Clamp stiffnesses are documented in Reference 9 and' Reference 11 Section 3.0.
References 16, 17 and 37 (Book 24) validate the linear elastic modeling IR2 techniques. Reference 13 demonstrates the appropriateness of longitudinal frictional force in transverse type hangers, regardless of lR2 installed gaps.
A18.4 1406m
b APPENDIX 18 4
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 18: TRAY CLAMPS (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd)
.i. 2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION Tray clamp modeling has'been based on both analytical studies and test data. Tray clamps are appropriately modeled as linear elastic three dimensional beam elements. Reference 2, Section 3.2.4 provides modeling guidelines for transverse and longitudinal clamps using stiffnesses as developed in Reference 9 and Reference 11, Section 3.0.
References 16 lR2 and 17 validate the linear elastic modeling techniques. Reference 13 l
demonstrates the appropriateness of longitudinal frictional force in transverse type hangers, regardless of installed gaps.
lR2 1
l 1
i A18.5 1406a
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 19 CYGNA ISSUE NO.19: FSAR LOAD COMBINATIONS-A19.1 1406m 1
1 l-i l
aLPPEND1X 19 i
CYGNA ISSUE No. 19: FSAR LOAD COMBINAIIONS
1.0 BACKGROUND
Reference 1 defines.the loads and-load combinations applicable to the design of cable tray supports.
Cygna's review of the cable tray support designs indicates that only dead weight and seismic inertial loads are considered.
i For supports installed in the Reactor Buildings, the' loads associated with a LOCA may be applicable, including pipe whip, jet impingement, and thermal loads. Two support types within Cygna's review were designed for installation in the Reactor' Building, Detail A (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0500-04-S) and Detail C (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0500-01-S).. The design calculations.for these supports,.
References 2 and 3, respectively, did not consider these additional loads.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE CYGNA interprets the load combinations of Section 3.8.4.3 of -PSAR.as being applicable to cable trays in Reactor Building.
Thus, LOCA associated loads, such as pipe whip, jet impingement and thermal loads may have to be used for the design verification of cable trays.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE i
LOCA pipe whip-and jet impingement loads are addressed by the CPSES.
f System Interaction Program.' The program has demonstrated that safety related cable trays are. shielded from or.not in the path of pipe whip and jet impingement loads postulated for CPSES LOCA.
1
]
Thermal accident temperatures are not explicitly considered in; design verification.
The LOCA loads are listed under the Section'" Load Combinations for Factored Load Condition"- of Section 3.8.4.3.3 of FSAR..
Furthermore the FSAR specifies that thermal loads may be neglected when.
they are secondary and self-limiting in nature and the material.is j-ductile.
This is the case for the CPSES cable tray system and Reference 12 has been prepared to further emphasize compliance with.
I FSAR.
This reference includes the effects of accident temperature on
- R2 anchorages.
l 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-103C, Set 1, Sheets 14-19.
3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-103C, Set 2, Sheet 32.
4 f
l l
A19.2-1406m
APPENDIX 19 CYGNA ISSUE NO.19: FSAR LOAD COMBINATIONS (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION See Section 5.2 below.
5.2 I) FELL IMPLEMENTATION Information from Reference 32 indicates that safe shutdown cable trays identified as pipe whip or jet impingement targets have either been relocated or shielded from the potential load. Reference 12 has determined that the evaluation of thermal 1cada is not required. This l
reference includes the effects of accident temperature on anchorages.
IR2-I
)
l l
A19.3 I
1406m
'\\
i i
l TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 20 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 20: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTALLATION AND DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION Y
e A20.1 1406m
APPENDIX 20 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 20:' DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTALLATION AND DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION ~~
i l
1.0 RACKGROUND j
Cygna performed walkdown inspections on 49 of 'the 92 supports 'within the j
review scope.' Certain discrepancies between the "as-built" support configurations and the design requirements were as noted below.
A.
Support No. 481, Longitudinal Type A -4
[
- 1.
Single angles were installed as braces in the longitudinal i
direction. A pair of angles is required by the design drawing.
2.
The slopes of the upper longitudinal braces axceed.the design limits.
3.
The working point locations for: the _ lower longitudinal braces -
with respect to the beam elevation at the attachment to the
~
hanger exceed the design limit. -
~
4.
The working points for all longitudinal braces, with respect to the anchor bolts, exceed the design limits.
5.
The angle sections used for the longitudinal braces are inverted.
6.
The length of several of the Hilti Super Kwik-bolts is -
insufficient to achieve the required embedment.
l B.
Support No. 408, Typc B4 1.
The lower corner of the frase is modified by-CMC 9916, Revision 1, to cvoid interference with the CCW heat exchanger.
This change document shows that 4" channel sections are to be used for the prescribed modification. A 6" channel section is actually installed. The configuration of the notch, the weld pattern attaching the added members, the elevation' of the top i
beam, and the Richmond Insert locations do not match the requirements of CMC 9916.
i 2.
The bottom beam is a C4x5.4. A C4x7.25 is required.
I C.
Support No. 649, Type A1
[
This installation uses concrete anchorage " Alternate Detail 1" l
(Gibbs & Hill design Drawing 2323-S-0903), which requires the use of an L6x6x3/4. An L5x5x3/4 was installed.
l A20.2 1406m
..-_ ~-
APPENDIX 20
. CYGNA -ISSUE NO. 20: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTALIATION AND DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION -(Cont'd)
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd)
~D. _ Support Nos. 722 and 2606, Detail "N", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S 1.
The working point for the brace, with respect to the anchor bolts, exceeds the design limit.
2.
For Support No.' 2606, the length of the C6x8.2 beam is less than required.
3.
For Support No. 2606, the base angle is an L6x6x3/4, whereas the design requires an L5x5x3/4.
E.
Support No. 2992, 2994, 3005, 3017, 3021, 6654, Type A2 i
Reference 1 identified the above six supports as follows: "A2 (except all. members shall be MC6s12), "where L = 8'-3" (frame width), h' = 4'-2" (frame height).
1.
The 'Cygna walkdown documented the installed hanger member sizes, as listed below in Table 1.
Due to the presence of Thermo-Lag coating, which covers the entire bottom beam member and part of hanger members, Cygna was unable to determine the installed beam member size.
TABLE 1 Cable Tray Support Hanger Member Sizes Dimensions
- Member Size Flange Support Depth Width No..
(In.)
(In.)
Existing
- 2992 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 2994 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 3005 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 3017 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 3021 6
1-7/ 8 C6 x 8.2 6654 6
2-1/ 8 C6 x - 13 Dimensions of the vertical channels (hangers) are based on measurements by Cygna. Member sizes are detecnined. by selecting the channel type from Reference 3 which most closely matches the measured depth and flange width..
2.
The beam for Support No. 2992 was accessible and was found to be a C4x7.25 instead of the required MC6x12.
[
A20.3 1406m 1
4 e
sr
-~m
. ~, _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _
t APPENDIX 20 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 20: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTALLATION AND DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION (Con
- 1.0 ~ BACKGROUND (Coat'd) i 3.
For the Detail l' hanger connections, for Support No. 2992, the distance from the anchor bolt to the end of the base angle exceeded the design limit, and the gauge dimension was less than required.
4.
For Support No. 2992, a separation violation.was noted between a Richmond Insert on the east hanger and a Hilti' Kwik-bolt on an adjacent pipe support.
F.
Support No. 45, Type SP-8 1.
The brace connected to the wall on one side of the support is located outside of the bolt pattern on the base angle. The Detail "B" (2323-S-0903) type connection requires the brace to be located between the two bolts.
2.
The distance from the face of the concrete wall to the support 4
is less than that required on the design drawing.
3.
Gaps of up to 1/4" between the base angles and the concrete, i
without grout or shias, were noted.
4.
The distance between the top 1-1/4" Hilti Super Kwik-bolt on the north brace attachment and a 1/4" Hilti Kwik-bolt attaching the Thermo 1.ag to the wall is less than required.
G.
Support Nos. 2998 and 13080,' Special Type Supports These supports were installed on floor slabs with 2" topping. The I
topping depth vac not considered in selecting the length of the anchor bolts, and the required embedment length was not achieved.
H.
Hilti Super-Kwik Bolts Without Stars Section 3.1.3.1 or Brown & Root Procedure CEI-20 (Reference 11) l requires:
Hilti Super Kwik-bolts shall be additionally marked with a
" star" on the end which will remain exposed upon installation.
i Twenty-eight-of the cable tray supports inspected by Cygna required the installation of Hilti Super Kwik-bolts. Of these, only two supports had stars stamped on the bolts. The bolts on the remaining supports were not stamped.
i r
i A20.4 1406m
\\
-e
l L
l:
APPENDIX 20
~
CYGNA ISSUE N0. 20: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTALLATION AND-DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION (Cont'd) 1.0 BACKGEOUND (Cont'd)
I.
Contact Between the Component Cooling Water (CCW) Heat Exchanger ^and Cable Tray Support Nos. 332 and 408 Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-100 requires a clear distance of six inches between cable tray supports and Class 1 piping,' including insulation, unless otherwise allowed by the Owner. Cable tray Support Numbers 332 and 408 were in contact with the CCW heat exchanger (Reference 13).
Support N. 2953, Detail "E" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S)
J.
o f
This support is attached near the end of an embedded strip plate.
The distance from the end of the embedded plate to a penetration through the concrete was less than the minimum distance required for the embedded Nelson studs.
K.
Proximity Violations Between Cable Tray Supports and Other Components As a criteria for clearance between cable tray supports and. other non-attached components, Cygna used a minimum of 1-inch separation.~.
This was based on the inspection criteria for pipe supports (Reference 15), since no separation criteria was specified in the cable tray installation inspection instruction.- The separation violations found are the following:
Support No.
Violation Description 202 1/2" clearance between beam and
)
insulation on pipe passing through-3 support 299 Brace' and hanger near top of support in contact with Thermo-Lag on conduits 408 1/2" clearance between hanger and Pi 8 Passing through' support P
605 1/8" clearance between end of beam,
and an HVAC duct-i r
758 1/8" clearance between brace and Pi e running parallel to support-P frame 765,766,767 1" clearance between braces and pipe passing through support A20.5 1406m
APPENDIX 20 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 20: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTALLATION AND DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION (Cont'd) 1.0
' BACKGROUND (Cont'd)
~
Support No.
Violation Description-2986 Hangers are in contact with Thermo-Lag on an adjacent cable tray 3026 Thermo-Iag on support beam is in contact with a pipe 6654 West end.of-bottom beam is in contact with a pipe.
L.
Support No. 758, Detail "V" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S) 1.
The north base angle for this support is shared with Support No. 759.
This attachment was not documented on the CMC affecting Support No. 758.
i-2.
An anchor bolt spacing violation existed between one Hilti Super Kwik-bolt on the south hanger and a rod hanger from a fire sprinkler line.
M.
Support No. 124, Type D2 1.
The channel sections installed were C6x10.5 and C4x5.4 for the bottom and top beams, respectively.
The design requires C4x7.25 sections.
2.
The Richmond Insert pattern for the beam anchorage does not-match that shown on CMC 1078, Revision 0.
N.
Support No. 202, Type A4 j
1.
The channel sections installed were C4x5.4 for the beams. The design requires use of C4x7.25 sections.
I 2.
The anchor bolt length for south hanger attachment is insufficient to achieve required embedment.
O.
Support No. 479, Detail "C", Drawing 2323-El-0500-01-S The length of the overlap between ~the hanger and the base angle is.
i less than required by design.
P.
Support No. 589, Type A1 4
1.
This support has an angle section added as a stiffener to the east C6x8.2 hanger, per CMC 2646, Revision 5. - The installed it weld pattern attaching the angle does not match that shown on the CMC.
A20.6 1
1406m l
-. ~..
~
?
~
tAPPENDIX 20 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 20: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTALLATION AND~
l' DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT-APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION (Cont'd)'~
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) i 2.
Each hanger is attached to the concrete using a single Hilti.
Super Kwik-bolt; however, the. anchor bolts are not ' centered on the hanger as required by the design.
Q.
Support No. 590, Type A1 1.
This support has an angle section added as a stiffener to -the east C6x8.2 hanger, per CMC 2646, Revision 5.
The' installed weld pattern attaching the angle does not match that shown on the CMC.
2.
The depth of the notch provided to clear the tray rail exceeds the 3/4 inch limit given on CMC 2646.
j R.
Support No. 605, Detail "A", Drawing 2323-El-0500-04-S The cable tray is attached to this support using type II friction clamps. The gage distances for the bolts attaching the clamps to the support beam are not within the design limit.
S.
Support No. 638, Type' SP-4 1.
The slope of the brace member exceeds the design limit of 1.5:1.
2.
The brace is attached to the frame using a gusset plate, which is not allowed by the design.
3.
The working point of the brace with respect to the base angle is
~
not within the design tolerance.
T.
Support No. 724, Detail "N", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S -
1.
The length of the C6x8.2 beam was less than the required 6'-9" length.
2.
The L3x3x3/8 brace was attached to the incorrect side of the --
i-gusset plate on the beam.
i j
3.
An L6x6x3/4 was used instead of the required L5x5x3/4 for-the t
beam base angle.
1 4.
The anchor bolt types and locations do not agree with the j
requirements of CMC 155, Revision 0.
U.
Support No. 763, Detail "K", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S L
{
The installed base plates are 1-1/4" thick.
The design requires the use of 3/4" plates.
.a A20.7 1
~'
1406e i
4 APPENDIX 20 f
'CYGNA ISSUE N0. 20: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTALLATION AND
~
DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION -(Cont'd) i
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) i
'~
-V.
Support No. 764, Detail "K", Drawing -2323-El-0601-01-S 1.
The installed base plates are 1-1/4" thick.
The-design requires the use of 3/4" plates.
12.
The tray attachment uses heavy-duty clamps with'1/2". A307 bolts attaching the clamp to the tray.
The distance from-the end of the clamp to the bolt on one clamp is less than required by tta design.
-3.
The channel used as a spacer between one tray and.the support beam is. not the required MC3x9. shape.
t W.
Support Nos. 765,' 766,1767, Detail "J", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S 1.
The in plane braces for these supports are ' attached directly to j
the supports' south: base angles.
The design requires that the brace be attached to the hanger member, below the base: angle.
j 2.
For Support No. 766, there is a spacing violation-between one of '
3 the Richmond Inserts on the south hanger attachment and an.
j adjacent Hilti Kwik-bolt.
i
(
3.
For Support No. 767, there is a spacing violation between one of) i the Richmond Inserts on the south hanger attach'aent and a rod hange r.
i X.
Support No. 2602, Detail
W", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S i
Two non-seismic conduit supports were attached to this support:
1 at the east end of the W8x31 beam. The attachment of these i
conduits was not shown on applicable CMCs affecting'this support.'
Y.
Support 2986, Type A4 This support installation has' one Hilti Super Kwik-bolt for each hanger anchorage.
The design drawing (2323-S-0909) requires that the bolt centerlines be coincident with the hanger centerlines, however the bolts are up to 1/4 inch off center..
!I' Z.
Support No. 3026, Type SP-4 2
The north beam was a C4x5.4 section. The design. requires the use of i
a C4x7.25 section. Since the other _ members were covered with Thermo-Lag, their sizes could not be determined.
1 e
4 A20.8 1406a i
e
~ _..,
.a
-. ~
4
. APPENDIX 20 CYGNA ISSUE NO.' 20:' DIFFERENCES BETWEEN-INSTALLATION AND
[
' DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION (Cont'd) l.0' BACKGROUND (Cont'd)
I AA.
Support No. 3028, Type D1 1.
The east hanger is composed of two separate pieces of channel, a Cx6.8.2 and a C6x10.5, butt-welded together approximately.11 inches above the cable trays.
l 2.
The hanger attachment to the concrete slab uses one Richmond Insert and one Hilti Kwik-bolt. The. location of. hanger with respect to the bolts does not meet the design requirements.
BB.
Support No. 3134, Detail "11", Drawing' 2323-S-0905 1.
1he beam length is 6 inches greater than that shown on CMC 8585,.
1 l
Revision 3.
j 2.
The longitudinal braces were L3x3x3/8 sections. ; The design
}
requires the use of L3-1/ 2x3-1/ 2x3/8 sections.
j-3.
Two conduits were supported by rod hangers attached to the base l-angle for the east hanger, these conduits were not shown on any applicable change documents.
j C C.
Support No. 5807, Type Longitudinal A1 1
4 1.
The slope of the longitudinal braces are not. with design tole rance.
1 2.
The L3x3x3/8 sections for the braces are inverted.
3.
The weld between the west brace and the hanger does not' provide j
the required minimum weld length.
4.
The welds between the gusset plates and the base angles are not per design requirements.
5.
The working points of the longitudinal braces with respect to -
the anchor bolts are not within the design tolerance.
6.
The. location of the TS6x6 from the attached pipe. support does -
)
not correspond with the location shown on CMC 80294, Revision O.
i 7.
Based on the indicated bolt length and the measured bolt projections, several of the Hilti Super Kwik-bolts do not -
provide sufficient embedment.
+
4 A20.9
.)
1406a
I l'
' APPENDIX 20 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 20: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTALLATION AND DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION (Cont'd) 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE i
CYGNA's walkdowns revealed numerous discrepancies between installations and designs without documentation.
Clearance requirements between cable tray supports and other components were violated.
f 3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE All concerns in this issue, except those concerns noted below, are addressed by the fact that "as-built" configurations are used in hanger i
j-design verification.
1 I.
A Project position will be developed.to' address clearance.
i
}
requirements between cable tray hangers and other components.
K.
Same as ites I above.
q.
}
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 2
1.
Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Support Layout Drawing 2323-El-0713-01S.
2.
Brown & Root, Inc., Fabrication Drawing FSE-00159.
I 3.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc... Manual of Steel.
l-Construction, 7th Edition.
e l
4.
Gibbs & Hill Support Layout Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S.
i 5.
Gibbs & Hill Support Iayout Drawing 2323-El-0700-01-S.
6.
Gibbs & Hill Cable Tray Support Design Drawings _2323-s-0900 series.
7.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter. to J. B. George (TU Electric), " Cable
[
Tray Support Walkdown Questions," 84056.026, dated August 23, 1984.
j 8.
Consunication Report between M. Warner, J. van Amerongen i
}
(TU Electric) and W. Horstaan (Cygna) dated October 25, 1984.
l 9.
Communication Report between T. Webb, M. Hamburg (TU Electric) and i
W. Horstaan (Cygna) dated October 18, 1984.
1 j
i 10.
Consunication Report between M. Warner, C. Biggs (TU Electric) and W. Horstaan (Cygna) dated October 10, 1984.
i 11.
Brown & Root Procedure No. CEI-20, Revision 9,_ " Installation of i
Hilti Drilled-In Bolts".
i 12.
L.M. Popplewell (TU Electric) letter to N.'H. Williams (Cygna),
" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Cygna Review Questions," dated i
l September 6, 1984.
A20.10 j
1406a
_ _ ~ -.. _ _ _ _.. _. _ _ -, _.. _ _. _ _, _ _. _.
APPENDIX 20 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 20: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSTALLATION AND DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION (Cont'd) 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA (Cont'd) 13.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J. B. George (TU Electric), " Cable l.
Tray Support Walkdown Questions," 84056.021, dated August 16, 1984.
14.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W. G. Counsil (TU Electric), " Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions," 84056.089,- dated October 21, 1985.-
15.
Brown & Root Instruction QI-QAP-11.2-28, " Fabrication, ' Installation Inspections of ASME Component Supports, Classes 1, 2 and 3,"
j Revision 29.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION l
All concerns in this issue, except those concerns noted below, are
~
addressed by the fact that "as-built" configurations determined by Reference 6 are used in hanger design verification, as specified in Section III.2 of Reference 35.
J I.
Requirements specified in the Project position on spacing, i
when finalized, will be followed in hanger design-l verification.
a K.
Same as iten I above.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION All concerns in this issue have been addressed by the fact that "as-built" configurations obtained in accordance with Procedure
}
TNE-FVM-CS-001 (Reference 6) were used per Reference 2, Section 3.2.1 when analyzing and qualifying supports. See Section 5.1 above with 1
regard to items I and K.
i t'
i A20.11
)
i 1406a
+
i.
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUAIION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 21 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 21: DESIGN CONTROL 1
i k
i 3
1 1
1 i
i
+
2
\\
4 4
t i
f A21.1 1406m
1 l
APPENDIX 21 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 21: DESIGN CONTROIl
1.0 BACKGROUND
[
A.
During the course of_the design and construction of: cable tray supports, a large number.of design change documents (DCAs and CMCs) have been issued that affect the support designs._ These design-changes can be grouped into two categories. Generic' design changes
~
are issued against a Gibbs & Hill support design drawing (e.g.,-
2323-S-0901) and may affect all installations.of one or more generic support designs.
Individual design changes are issued against'.a support layout pla'n (e.g., 2323-El-0601-01-S) and affect one or more r individual support installations.
/
t l
Cygna's review has identified several-areas where oversights or S
errors may occur in the handling of these design' changes. These may-i be due in part to the large numbers of design changes which have not-l been incorporated in the design drawings.
i 1.
In the process of performing generic evaluations of support
~
j design adequacy (e.g., the inclusion of base plate flexibility in response to IE Bulletin 79-02, the Working Point Deviation '
4 Study, the evaluation of the effects of weld undercut / underrun, etc.), Gibbs & Hill based their calculations on the original l
support designs without considering the effects of all
}
applicable generic design changes (Reference 27).
2.
In some cases, as a result of the generic studies discussed.
above, the design limits for a support type were made more 1
j restrictive than those of the original design. In order to qualify existing supports which had been specified based.on the i
original design limits, a case-by-case design adequacy review was performed for all individual supports which exceeded the revised design limits. These reviews were based on the i
"as-designed" configurations for the individual supports, and did not include the effects of applicable individual-design s'
changes (Reference 27).
9l 3.
The design changes for individual supports are. tracked by the cable tray support plan drawing number rather than by the j
support number.
In order to locate all design changes affecting
.l a given support, one must manually search through_all design-1 changes affecting all supports on the applicable' support plan.
j Cygna has observed that some support plans have over 200 design changes outstanding. In order to expedite this effort, the-j TU Electric Field Structural Engineering Group (FSEG); maintains l
a list of design changes sorted by individual support number..
This list is not a controlled document, and Cygna's review noted several discrepancies between the design changes listed for.. _
l individual supports and those located by Cygna through a search of design change accuments at the Document Control Center. It
)
is Cygna's understanding, however, that this informal log is
-)
l H
)
A21.2 l
i j
1406m
.I
l l-(-
APPENDIX 21 i
l 1
CYGNA ISSUE NO.' 21i-DESIGN CONTROL (Cont'd) -
l 1.0
' BACKGROUND (Cont'd) relied upon by the field engineer to determine which design j
changes -should be considered in their evaluations.
4.
A discussion.with TU Electric cable. tray support installation Q.C..-personnel l(Reference 23). indicated _that the method of locating design changes for' support inspection purposes was very cumbersone and'placed'an undue burden on the inspectors in assembling inspection packages. TU Electric.Q.C. indicated that the inspectors typically relied on the list of design changes included,in the Brown & Root construction package as a basis for inspection without independently. verifying the completeness of '
the package.
4 5.
Cygna has noted instances where the design review'for the
. verification of design changes may have been inadequate. De design changes allowed deviations from the original design that invalidated certain assumptions on which the original. design was' based. However, the design review did not. note-this and did not~
assess the impact of the change on the design basis. In other casesi the design review did-not assess the impact of the change on all components of.a support that would.be affected. Examples of this include:
i Base angles are designed assuming a minimum distance of 3"
.from the bolt hole to the end of the angle.. This' distance is used in the calculation of the resisting moment arm when i
a bending soment is applied to the base angle. -CMC 1970 reduced this distance to a-ainimum of 1-1/4".
The design.
review for this CMC did not consider the impact of this reduction on the anchor bolt-designs.
-)
Cable tray supports are designed for a frame. width based 'on a minimum distance of 3" from the outside tray rail to the inside of the' flange of the hanger (see Review IssueL 28.A).
CMC 2646 allows the hanger to be notched so that the tray:
1 rail actually overlaps the inside flange of the hanger.
4 This can result in cable tray supports which do not meet the minimum width required by the design.
The design review for this CMC only addressed the reduced section properties at the notch without considering the effect on the support width.
j i
Cable tray supports are designed to'act as a system, with the cable tray acting as a -link between supports (see Review Issue 10). CMC 93450 allows gaps between the cable trays and the clamps attaching them to the supports.
The frictional force between the clamps and the trays, which is required to prevent relative axial displacement -between the 1-j.
A21.3 i
j-1406a-
=
.a.
a L
h A
^
APPENDIX 21 CYGNA ISSUE NO.11: ' DESIGN CONTROL (Cont'd) ~
L 1.0 ' RACKGROUND (Cont'd) trays and the supports, is eliminated by.the gap.- The design review for this CMC does not address the effect on the-' system behavior of the cable trays (see Review Issue 18).
Cable trays are qualified for an -8'-0" maximum span (see Review Issue 25.B).
DCA 1594 provides an installation location tolerance for the supports, resulting in a-maximum-spacing of 9'-0" between supports. The design review-for this CMC does not consider the effect of the increased _ span on the cable tray qualification.-
~
B.
Criteria Violations in Individual Support Specifications on Support Plans In the generic design of cable tray supports, support dimension and loading limitations are determined for each support type. These limitations are typically stated in=the design calculations, but are not shown on the generic support design drawings (Reference 4).
The dimensions for each support are specified in a. descriptive block on-the support plans (Reference 1), and the loading is indicated by the supported tray width shown.
The tray supports listed below were identified as having loadings,or support geometries which exceeded the design limitations. Prior to the Cygna review, justifying documentation did not exist for the following individual support designs.
1.
Support Nos. 3025, 3028, 2861, Type D.
1 Drawing 2323-El-0713-01-S specifies these supports as Type D1 j-(except beam to be MC6 x 16.3), L = 11'-9", h =
4'-2", and shows a tray width of 78".
The design calculations for Type D1 supports limit L to less than or equal to 8'-0" and tray width to 4 8".
l 2.
Support No. 2607, Type A.
1 Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S specifies dimensions' of L = 2'-9" and h = 4'-6" for this support. The design calculation'for this support type limits h to less than or equal to 2'-4".
3.
Support No. 657, Type A.
1 Drawing 2323-El-0601-01 specifies this support as Type A1, L =
7 '- 0", - h = 2 '-0".
The design calculation for this support type limits L to less than or equal 6'-0".
1 A21.4 1406m I
' APPENDIX 21 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 21: DESIGN CONTROL'(Cont'dj
^
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) 4.
' Support No. 734, Deail "H", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S.
This drawing specifies that one beam-is to.be an E6x15.1,.
rotated 900 from its normal. orientation. The_ support design 4
requires the.use of C6x8.2 beam sectionsb The section modulus of E6s15.1 about its weak axis,1.75 in, is smaner dan 3
that of C6x8.2 about.its strong axis, 4.38 in.- Therefore,
this support should be reevaluated for vertical loads.-
' Rotating the E6x15.1' 90 from its normal orientation
'significantly increases the longitudinal stiffness of the support. This rotation,,together with CMC 00164, which requires the.use of a " heavy duty clamp," can introduce significant longitudinal loads to the support.
The support design requires the addition of a longitudinal brace if longitudinal loads are to be resisted.
}
-5.
-Support No. 3011, Type SP-6.
{
Drawing 2323-El-0713-01-9 specifies dimensions of L = 8'-9" and h = 4'-6".
The design cab ulation for this support' type' limits j
L to less than or equal 6'-0".
6.
Support Nos. 2992, 2994, 3005, 3017, 3021, 3111, 6654, Type A -
2 Drawing 2323-El-0713-01-S specifies dimensions of L = 8'-3" and h = 4'-2", and shows.a tray width of 78".
The design calculation for this support type limits L to less than or equal' 6'-0" and the tray width to 48".
7.
Support Nos. 95 and 112, Type SP-7.
Drawing 2323-El-0700-01-S specifies these supports.as Type SP-7, L =
5'-1", and shows a tray width of 48".
The design-calculations for Type SP-7 limits 'he tray width to 30".
t
- 8. - Support - No. 758, Detail "V", Drawing 2323-El-0601-S.
f Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S specifies thisl support as Detail "V",
h1 = 8 '-4", h2 = 7 '-3", h3 = 4 '-0", 11 = 5'-9", 12 = 2'-3"..
a =
2'-6", and shows a tray width of 66".
The. design for the support detail limits the tray width to 60".
9.
Support No. 765 and 767, Detail "J", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S.
Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S specifies these supports as Detail J", L = 8'-6", h1 = 10'-10", h2 = 9'-6" and h3 = 3 '-6",.
and shows a tray width of 66".
The design for the support detail limits the tray width to 48".
A21.5 1406a 4
APPENDIX 21 CYGNA ISSUE NO. ~ 21: ~ DESIGN CONTROL (Cont'd)
J
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Coat'd) 1 Additionally, Gibbs & Hill was not consistent in establishing controlling criteria (i.e., support dimensions, tray width, etc.)'in support designs. As an example, in several support designs, the.
support frame was designed for a particular height and width while the anchorages.were designed using reactions from a frame with a different height and width.'
The lack of a single limiting configuration may affect the support dimensions as shown on the-cable tray support plans. Within Cygna's scope, support types E,-
C.
-Consideration of As-Built Support Conditions in Generic Reviews '
Which Require a Case-By-Case Review i
1.
The SP-7 weld underrun analysis considered 5/16" fillet welds which are specified on the design drawings.
However, the FSE-00159 fabrication drawings specify smaller weld sizes. In addition, the underrun analysis did not consider the effects of any design changes to the supports which were reported in CMCs i
and DCAs (see Review Issue 21.A).
2.
The Working Point Deviation Study did not. include the effects of all applicable design changes. (See Review Issue 12). -
D.
Inconsistencies in the Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports For Thermo-Lag Application 1.
Tray cover weights were not included in the development of the allowable span length tables (References 19 and 20) for fire protected cable trays.
2.
Cygna believes that longitudinal supports are not evaluated for the added weight of fire protection. Cygna noted evidence of the above in the fire protection reviews for cable tray segment T120SBD07. A longitudinal support'(type L-A1) was assumed to provide transverse. restraint in the fire protection calculation. The calculated transverse load was compared to an assumed design capacity, but no longitudinal load was j
calculated. The original design-for this support type assumes that only longitudinal restraint is provided.. Note that the calculations:(Reference 21) reviewed by Cygna had not been design-reviewed at the time they were received from TU Electric.
3.
Gibbs & Hill performed calculations to determine the design capacity for supports to use as a comparison to the tray loads including fire protection (Reference 21). A tributary span of 9'-0" was assumed.
The actual design span was 8'-6"; therefore, the Reference 21 calculations overestimated the support design capacity.
j A21.6 1406m
L I
APPENDIX 21-CYGNA ~ ISSUE NO. 21: DESIGN CONTROL (Cont'd) b
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) 4.
For several tray segments within Cygna's review scope, the' tray '
weight, including fire protection, exceeded the design limit.of 35 psf by up to six percent, but engineering evaluations were not performed as required byl Reference 20. See Reference 27, question 3, for a listing of the affected tray segments.
5.
For tray segment No. T130SCA46, side rail extensions were installed, but a special evaluation was not provided as required by Reference 20 (see Review Issue 25.C.1).
i Cygna has requested additional information on the fire protection evaluation process in Reference 27.
E.
Tray Spans Between Supports Used In the Original Support. Layout 1.
Reference 13 indicates that cable trays are to.be designed and qualified for 8'-0" transverse and vertical spans. Reference 10, Note 13, allows a location tolerance for ' supports of +1/2 of the Richmond Insert spacing parallel to the tray,' and limits the '
l maximum spacing between supports to 9'-0."
Gibbs & Hill cable-tray support design calculations assume a maximum tributary span of 8'-6," to account for a support spacing of 8'-0" on center and an erection tolerance.of _+6".
Cygna reviewed the tray support plans for segments within the -
review scope (Reference 12) and noted 15 locations where 'the "as-designed" tray spans exceeded 8'-0".
Cygna's walkdown of these tray segments identified 5 locations where the."as-built" tray spans exceeded 9'-0" (see Reference 11). This indicates a
that the design and installation limitations for support a
spacings may not have been complied with in the preparation of r
support layout drawings and in the field.
to be designed and 2.
Reference 13 indicates that cable trays art j-qualified for 40'-0" longitudinal spans. Longitadinal' support design calculations assume a maximum longitudint1 tributary span of 40'-0". For several supports within Cygna's review, the support plan drawings (Reference 12) showed these supports to have tributary spans greater than 40'-0" (see Reference 11). In addition, several horizontal tray segments were not provided with any longitudinal. supports (see Reference 11). This i
indicates that the design limitations for the location of longitudinal supports may not have been complied with in -the preparation of support layout drawings.
l l
F.
Lack of Calculations for Change Notices Cygna has noted several design reviews of change notices where the CVC was marked to indicate that new or revised calculations were not required. Cygna conciders some of the design changes to be A21.7 l
1406m T
--mi-,...,-...-..-
,u..._,
.,..4
l
-APPENDIX 21 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 21: DESIGN CONTROL:(Cont'd) 1.0-BACKGROUND (Cont'd) significant, such that calculations should have been provided to.
justify their acceptability.
In some cases, calculations marked "for reference only" are attached to the CMC which the reviewer had accepted without new or revised calculations.
G.
Design Calculation Retrievability and Completeness During the course of the Phase 2 and 4 reviews, Cygna experienced difficulty in assembling complete support design calculation sets.
Cygna noted that Gibbs & Hill has similar difficulty.
The following examples illustrate Cygna's concerns.
1.
In Phase 2 of Cygna's IAP, Cygna requested an evaluation of the effect of torsion in the C4x7.25 beams on the support design -
adequacy.
Gibbs &. Hill provided calculations (Reference 14, 4
]
Sheets 28-33) which evaluate torsion in the beams. These calclations were performed in 1982, but were not included in the indicated calculation binder (the cover sheet for Reference 14 indicated that the total number of sheets was 6).
Subsequent to-Cygna's review of these calculations, they were added to fora Revision 1 of Reference 14.
2.
Cygna requested a list of:all calculations relevant to several generic support designs (Reference 15).
Gibbs & Hill provided a list of calculation binder and sheet numbers for each support type.
The review of these calculations by Cygna indicated that 4
there were additional calculations relevant to the support designs which had not been included on the list.
For example, the Working Point Deviation Study involved several supports listed in Reference 15, but was not referenced in Gibbs & Hill's response..
Tne difficulties in identifying and locating all calculations pertinent to a support design may be in part attributable to Gibbs &
Hill's methods of controlling structural design calculations. Cygna observed that, as a general rule, Gibbs & Hill did not revise'or L
supersede older calculations. In performing generic' studies (e.'g.,
Working Point Deviation Study, weld undersize / undercut, evaluation 1 of torsional stresses in members, etc.) or performing design reviews for generic design changes, the new calculations evaluate only the '
effects of the changes. These new calculations may reference the -
previous calculations as a source of data, but the previous calculations are not superseded by the new calculations, nor are'.
they revised to reflect the results of the design change or generic
'l study. Hence, it is extremely difficult,' from reviewing an original design calculation, to determine if it is still applicable to the 4
support design. It is also difficult to identify-and' locate generic-study or design change review calculations that~are applicable'to I
the support design.
.l A 21.8 1406a
APPENDIX 21 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 21: DESIGN CONTROL (Cont'd).
- 1.0 - BACKGROUND (Coat'd)
H.
Lack of Controlled Design Criteria At the initiation of this review, the cable tray support design
'. criteria used by Gibbs & Hill consisted of a calculation set in a structural calculation binder (Reference 9).
Cygna's review of this document indicated that insufficient detail was given to ausure that cable tray support. designs were performed in a consistent asnner and that the designs satisfied the requirements of the CPSES FSAR.
Examples of the impact of an incomplete design criteria include:-
1.
Cygna has noted instances where the field design review group did not utilize the proper criteria to evaluate support-adequacy. The evaluations for fire protection compared the "as-built" support load to a design load consisting'of the j
- allowable distributed load over a 9'-0" tributary tray span.
Since the maximum tributary spa : assumed in the current design calculation is 8'-6", the use of a 9'-0" span overestimates the allowable load.
2.
Cygna has asked what supplements to the 7th Edition of AISC 3
Specifications were committed to in the' FSAR. No evidence was found to indicate that proper direction was given to design engineers to utilize the requirements of any supplements to which CPSES was committed.
I.
Differences Between Design Drawings and Assembly Drawings Cygna performed a review of the cable tray support assembly drawings (Reference 25), which are used for construction purposes, and evaluated the accuracy of these drawings via a comparison with the applicable design drawings (References 1 and 4).
Numerous drawing discrepancies were noted, these included:
Incorrect weld sizes specified for fillet welds (also see Review Issue 16. A)
Incorrect weld patterns Incorrect member sizes specified in the " Bill of Material" Incorrect anchor bolt connection details Incorrect support dimensions Members that are not required by the design For a detailed listing of the individual discrepancies, see
{
Reference 24.
1 A21.9 1406m
l' APPENDIX 21 c
. CYGNA ISSUE NO. 21: DESIGN CONTROL (Cont'd)
- 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE A.
This issue raises the following concerns related to proper.
implementation of design change documents:
3 1
Both generic and ' individual design changes may be overlooked in previous calculations, inspections, and reviews.
i Generic design adequacy evaluations and case-by-case reviews failed to address all' changes.
Design change log not a controlled document.
i' Changes difficult to track for inspection ~ purposes.
Design _ changes invalidated some assumptions and were not checked in' design review process.
~
B.
For some supports, limits on support dimensions and loadings as determined from generic supports were exceeded without providing -
appropriate documentation.
I C.
As-built conditions were not considered in generic design reviews l
which led to case-by-case reviews, e.g. SP-7 weld underrun analysis j
and working point deviation study.
i j
D.
In the evaluation of supports with D2ermolag fire protection:
Tray cover weights were not addressed in determining span allowables Longitudinal supports were not evaluated for fire protection weight.
Incorrect tray span was used in comparison for support capacity.
Tray spans with excessive tray weight were not evaluated as.
required.
Special evaluation for side rail extensions was not performed.
E.
Design and installation limits on tray spans may have been exceeded l
in drawings and in the field for support spacing in general and longitudinal support spacings in particular.
F.
Calculations for some significant design change notices were lacking or uncontrolled.
4 G.
Cygna review encountered miscellaneous problems in assembling complete support design calculation sets.
Old calculations were not revised or superseded when new studies were performed, resulting in
}
confusion over governing documents.
A21.10 t
1406m
~
.. ~.,
APPENDIX 21 CYGNA' ISSUE NO. ' 21: DESIGN CONTROL (Cont'd) i 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE (Cont'd) 1.
lH. Support design criteria used by designers were insufficient to ensure consistency and compliance with FSAR.
Improper tributary.
. span criteria were used for field design review. There was no control.on use of AISC supplements by designers.
i.
I.
Numerous discrepancies were found between support design and assembly drawings used in construction such as incorrect weld sizes, l
- weld patterns, member sizes, anchor bolt connection details, and support dimensions. In addition, members were shown which were not -
~.
required by design.
p
.3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE
-- A. Hangers are design verified based on "as-built" conditions.
a.
B.
See Item A above.
1 i
C.
See Item' A above.
D.
Cable tray dead weight (including covers and side rail extensions),
cable weight and fire protection weight has been considered in~.
hanger design verification. Side rail extensions are conservatively
}
assumed to provide no additional strength.
J E.
As-built tray and hanger information has been used in the design verification of cable tray hangers.
Violations of tray span length; and layout criteria are identified for tray evaluation..
F.
Cable tray hanger design verification calculation packages.are controlled by the use of appropriate quality assurance procedures.
o G.
See Item F above.
H.
Hanger design verification has been performed in compliance withTthe CPSES FSAR (Reference 40) and the AISC Specification 7th Edition (Reference 27) including Supplements 1, 2 and 3.. Applicable codes and standards are specified in project procedures.
'l I.
See Item A above.
l A21.11 1
1406m l
..=.-
a
4 APPENDIX 21 1
j CYGNA ISSUE NO. 21: DESIGN CONTROL (Cont'd)
'J 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Drawings 2323-El-0601-01-S, 2323-El-0700-01-S, 2323-El-0713-01-S.
2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric), " Cable Tray Support Design Review Questions," 84056.022, dated August 17, 1984, questions 1, 2, and 6.
3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric), " Cable Tray Support Design Review Questions," 84056.025, dated August 21, 1984, question 1.
4.
Gibbs & Hill Cable Tray Support Design Drawings 2323-S-0900 Series.
5.
Gibbs &' Hill Calculations for Support Numbers 3025, 3028, 2861, Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.225.
6.
L.M. Popplewell (IU Electric) letter to.N.H. Williams (Cygna),
" Responses to Cygna Review Questions," dated September 4,'1984, with attached calculations.
7.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 3, Sheets 206, Revision 6.
8.
L.M. Popplewell (TU Electric) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
" Response to Cygna Design Review Questions," dated September 11, 1984, with attached calculations.
9.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5.
- 10. Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0901, Revision 4.
1.
- 11. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TU Eletric),'" Cable Tray Support and Electrical Review Questions," 84056.019, dated August 10, 1984, questions 2.1 and 2.2.
I
- 12. Gibbs & Hill Drawings 2323-El-0601-01-S, 2323-El-0700-01-S, and 2323-El-0713-01-S.
- 13. Gibbs & Hill Specifications 2323-ES-19, Revision 1 " Cable Tray Specification".
- 14. Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-111C, Set 8.
- 15. Communications Report between P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Russ -
(Cygna) dated June 13, 1984.
- 16. L.M. Popplewell (TU Electric) letter to N. Williams (Cygna),
" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Cygna Review Questions,"
dated August 27, 1984 with attachments.
A21.12 1406m l
APPENDIX 21
~
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 21: DESIGN CONTROL (Cont'd) 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA'(Cont'd) 17.'R.E. Ballard-(Gibbs & Hill) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric),
" Cable Tray Supports Cygna Phase 4 Audit Activities," GTN-69377, dated August 24, 1984, with attachments.
- 18. L.M. Popplewell (TU Electric) letter to N. Williams (Cygna),
" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Cygna Review Questions," dated September 11, 1984, with attachments.
- 19. Gibbs & Hill Calculations Binder 2323-SCS-111C, Set 7.
- 20. TU Electric Instruction CP-EI-4.0-49, Revision 1.
- 21. Cable Tray Thermo-Lag Evaluation, Safeguards Building, Elevation 79 0 '- 6. " Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.1.315.-
- 22. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric), " Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.041, dated February 12, 1985.
- 23. Communications Report between M. Warner (TU Electric) and N. Williams et al. (Cygna), dated February 27, 1985.
- 24. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan -(USNRC), " Response to NRC-Ques tion s," 83090.023, dated March 8,1985.
- 25. Brown & Root Cable Tray Hanger Assembly Drawing FSE-00159.
- 26. Gibbs & Hill Design Procedure DP-1, " Seismic Category I Electrical Cable Tray Supports," Revision 0, dated 6/11/84.
- 27. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TU Electric), " Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions," 84056.089, dated October 4
21, 1985.
4
- 28. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric), '" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.027, dated August 27, 1984.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION l
5.1 E_PASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
Design verification of hangers is performed using "as-built" configurations, as specified in Section III.2 of Reference 35.
A21.13 1406m
d s
1 APPENDIX 21
'l CYGNA ISSUE NO. 21: - DESIGN CONTROL' (Cont'd):
I 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) f 5.'1 ERASCO-IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd)
B.
See Item A above.
1 C.
See Item A above.
\\
]
D.
'Section 'Ill hof Reference 35 and Attachments. A1, A2, C1, C3, D and C' i-of Reference 36 provide procedures for incorporating tray and fira protection weights in hanger design verification.
E.
Appendix 4 of Reference 35 is used to identify violations of longitudinal tray span criteria. These violations are noted during hanger design verification for subsequent tray evaluation. -
l l
F.
Requirements of Appendix K of Reference 38'have been followed for.
j -
the preparation and control of calculation documentation.
i j
G.
See Item F above.
i H.
Design Criteria (Reference 35) and Project Instructions (Reference
- 36) are developed to insure consistency and to comply with CPSES FSAR (Reference '40), applicable codes' and other standards.
I.
See Item A above.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION
't A.
Cable tray hangers have been design verified using "as-built" information obtained per Reference 6.
B.
See Item A above.
C.
See Item A above.
D.
Cable tray cover weights and fire protection weights have been included per Reference 2, Section 3.2.2 in hanger design verification. Side rail extensions have been neglected since they have no impact on cable tray system response (Reference 19).
4 i-A21.14 1406m
APPENDIX 21 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 21: DESIGN CONTROL (Cont'd)
.5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.2 D(PELL LMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd)
E.
As-built tray and hanger information has been used for design '
verification as obtained per Reference 6.
Tray spans are qualified l
per Reference 4.
F.
Cable tray support verification calculations will be controlled per standard Impell Quality Assurance Pre Ldure (Reference 28, QP-3.5).
G.
See Item F above.
H.-
Impe11 Design Criteria and Project Instructions are developed to insure consistency and to comply with CPSES FSAR (Reference 40).-
Applicable codes and other standard references are given_ in the Project Instructions.
I.
See Item A above.
i J
t A21.15 1406m
~.
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL' ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 22 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 22: DESIGN OF SUPPORT No. 3136, DETAIL "$", DRAWING 2323-S-0905 4
1 i
1 4
4 l
2
.l A22.1 1406m
APPENDIX 22 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 22: DESIGN OF SUPPORT NO. 3136, DETAIL "5",
DRAWING 2323-S-0905
1.0 BACKGROUND
Support No. 3136, located at elevation 790'-6" at the Auxiliary Building / Safeguards Building boundary, is embedded in a fire wall.
In reviewing the design calculations for this support (Reference 1), Cygna noted several concerns. A list of Cygna's questions was provided (Reference 2, Attachment A) to Gibbs & Hill for their review. These concerns included:
Justification for not considering tornado depressurization loads was not provided.
The original cable tray support is Seismic Category I, while the fire wall is Seismic Category II.
Justification for this conflict j
in design classification was not provided.
Several errors were found in the finite element model and in the calculations.
2.0 UNDERSIANDING OF THE ISSUE 4
The following discrepancies were found:
Tornado depressurization loads were not considered.
Support is Seismic Category I while fire wall is Seismic Category II.
Errors were found in finite element model and calculations.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE Isolated cases of cable tray hangers supported from Category II structures are identified and evaluated on a case-by-case ' basis.
]
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SAB-1341, Set 3, Revision 0.
2.
Communication Report between B. K. Bhujang (Gibbs & Hill) and i
N. Williams, et al. (Cygna) dated October 20, 1984.
3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SAB-1341, Set 3, Revision 1.
4 4.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W. G. Counsil (TU Electric),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions", 84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
i A22.2
' 140 6m
. ~.. - -
APPENDIX 22 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 22: ' DESIGN OF SUPPORT No. 3136, DETAIL "5",
DRAWING 2323-S-0905 (Cont'd)
-5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION l
5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION i
Isolated cases of cable tray hangers supported from Category II structure are identified and evaluated-on a case-by-case basis. Seismic Category.II walls will be qualified by the SWEC Civil Structural Corrective Action Program.
Support No. 3136 is in Ebasco's scope of work. For design verification-of this support, the Seismic Category II wall is not assumed to provide j
support for the cable tray system, however, the inertial effect of the Category II wall is considered in a new finite element model.
Tornado j
depressurization load effects from the Category II wall will be addressed by SWEC in the Civil Structural Corrective Action Program.
- IR2 I
i 5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION Isolated cases of cable tray hangers supported from Category II structures are identified and evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Seismic Category II walls will be qualified by the SWEC Civil l
Structural Corrective Action Program.
4 4
l 1
i c
I f
A22.3 l
1406a j
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION -
GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 23 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 23: LOADING IN~ STRESS MODELS l
A23.1 1406m y,
-wa
~,r
-w.
,e.-
--,s
--ws
m _..- -._.
m..
t
+
APPENDIX 23E i
CYGNA-ISSUE NO. 23: LOADING!IN' STRESS MODELS 1
- 1.0-BACKGROUND j
For the design of standard support Cases A, B ' ' Ci and'D,.
i i,
i 1
i where i = 1' to 4, finite element analyses were performed- (Reference 1)'
using the program STRESS. Single beam elements were used to'model the horizontal members (beams). - The analytical results may be inaccurate
~
3 due to the following concerns:-
i 1
A.
Tray loads were applied at the beam / hanger intersection, rather 'than
' within the span of the beam where the tray is physically located. -
Modeling.the load placements in this fashion ' eliminates the effects
. of bending and torsion due to vertical loads'on the beans,.and for Cases D, will totally remove the load applied-at the wall i
. connection from the support. (See Cygna's Phase 2 observation CT-00-03 in Reference 4).
i B.
The applied loads are calculated based on an 8'-0" tr1butary tray-span.
The actual design span is 8'-6". if installation tolera'nces are considered.
4 i
C.
The support design drawings (Reference 3) specify. the support frame j
heights as the distance from the bottom of the concrete.to the top.
j of the C4x7.25 beam. The models considered this. distance 'to be from i
. the concrete to the centerline of the-beam, thus underestimating the; support height by two inches. This error is also found in the'
~
related design calculations for the trapeze supports.
2.0 UNDERSIANDING OF THE ISSUE i
j A.
Finite element analyses of standard (generic) supports, performed using STRESS program, applied tray loads 'at beam / hanger inter-i sections rather than within beam span where tray is actually j
located, eliminating certain loading effects.
This situation was j
corrected for braced f rames, but has not been addressed for unbraced.
j frames.
4
}
B.
Finite element analyses of standard (generic) supports, performed j
using STRESS program, calculated applied loads based on a tributary tray span which did not consider installation tolerances.
allowed by design drawings.
This situation was corrected for braced.
J but not for unbraced f rames.
C.
Frame heights input to the analysis models did not account for 4
dimensions to centerline of tiers, resulting in' analysis of f rames l
shorter than actual lengths.
1 j
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE
{
A. - Hanger design verification has been performed using "as-built" data
}
and procedures which apply tray loads onto hanger members at appro-priate locations.
1 A23.2 l
l.
1406a
e- -p y v t-N, e-e e t w + p e. e 9,-p,pw+-----w-w-*-er:=-w----eens+r iyw***
m--
-ne- - - - *me v -~g,,
--inw-i,*e,ver+--ygwrrw+w g
-va-r e -> e> w e twe tea *--=tsm-r--wweei-w-g+=~g*s-paw r-euw -=g g-v-v
--e o s - 4*
ga---->
w.
I
' APPENDIX 23 CYGNA ISSUE No. 23: LOADING'IN STRESS MODELS (Cont'd) 3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ' ISSUE (Cont'd) -
B.
"As-built" tray spans have been used in design verification.
i.
C.
Hangers have' been design verified using analysis models in which' centroidal axes have been considered per _ standard engineering 1
, practice to define the spatial relationship between. hanger members.
i.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA -
- 1.. Gibbs & Hill Computer Output Binder 2323-DNI-5P.
- 2. - lGibbs & Hill-Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-2150, Set 2.
~
- 3. ' Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0901, Revision 4.
i-
)
4.
Cygna Energy Services, " Independent Assessment Program' Final Report -
1 Volume 1, for Texas-Utilities Services Inc., Comanche Peak Steam
~
Electric Station," Report No. TR-83090, Revision 0.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION j
5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION
{
A.
Attachments B1 and B2 of Reference 36 specify how tray loads are j'
applied to hanger members. Study Nos. Sa and Sb, documented in Reference 37 Book 7, are the basis for the vertical and longitudinal tray load application aethodology specified.
~
B.
" As-B uilt" tray span lengths used in design verification are specified in Section III.1 of Reference 35 and Section II of Reference 36.
C.
Study No. 7b, documented in Refe rence 37. Book 2, presents a detailed.
description of the finite element modeling techniques used in hanger -
design verification.
5.2 IlfELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
Design. verification has been performed using analytical models which
~
j properly represent the spatial relationship of the trays to the '
]
supports. The modeling details are provided in Reference 2, Section 3.2 e
B.
"As-built" data obtained per Reference 6 has been used in the design verification process.
This data has been incorporated according to
_4 Reference 2, Section 3.2.
C.
The support dimensions used in the cable tray system models are taken from "as-built" data per Reference 6.
This data has been i
incorporated according to Reference 2, Section 3.2.3.
t A23.3 1
1 1406m 4
..m.
1 TU-ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION -
GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPFNDIX 24 a-CYGNA ISSUE NO. 24: DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS I
f 4 -
I i
A24.1 4
. 1423a a,.-
,,-.~.<m
..,w-
_,.7,
' APPENDIX 24
- CYGNA ISSUE NO.' 24: DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS.
1.0 BACKGROUND
-In1 the design of cable tray support flexural members (i.e., beams and '
. hangers), Gibbs & Hill did not consider several important items as j
discussed below.
A.
Additional major axis bending stresses due to transverse loads are 3
. introduced by the vertical eccentricity between -the cable tray centerlines and the-beam neutral axis (Reference 1). Gibbs & Hill i'
provided calculations (Reference 2) indicating that the increase in bending stress did not exceed _2.5% of f the allowable stress level.
3 1
However, the ' analysis-incorrectly assumed that the beam was a fixed-fixed acaber,. effectively isolating it from the remainder of-1 the support structure.
In addition...the load transfer mechanism.
that was assumed to be provided by the tray clamps may not be j
applicable to all clamp configurations (also see Review Issue 18).
B.
Minor axis bending of the-beams due to transverse loading is -
~
j introduced by the horizontal eccentricity between the beas neutral-axis and the location of the tray clamp bolt holes in the beam's top.
i flange (Reference 1).
Gibbs & Hill's response (Reference 2) did not '
j consider the allowed tolerance in bolt hole gage per DCA 17838, Revision 8.
A load transfer mechanism was assumed to be provided by j
the clamp, allowing the trays and supports to act as a system. This i
assumption results in increased transverse loads on adjacent
+
supports and no minor axis flexure in the beams. The validity of this assumption depends on the resolution of Review Issues 10 and 18.
4 4
C.
Vertical loading introduces torsion into the beams due to the horizontal offset between the tray clamp location and the shear center of the beam. In Gibbs & Hill's response (Reference 2), the torsional moment was completely eliminated, based on'an assumed noment resistance provided by the tray clamps and the, tray / support system concept (also see Review Issue 10 for the acceptability of l
this concept).
1 D.
Torsion is introduced into the beam by longitudinal loading due to:
l 1.
The vertical offset between the tray centerline and the bean shear center (for longitudinal trapeze type supports, e.g'.,
L-A, L-B )
1 1
,j.
1 2.
The vertical off set between the tray centerline and the shear j
eenter of the composite beam (for longitudinal supports'similar j
to SP-7 with brace, Detail 8, drawing 2323-S-0903, etc.)
Gibbs & Hill's evaluation of the torsional effects are' included in I
Reference 2.
The evaluation of torsion due to loading type 1 only considers the eccentricity between the shear center and the top of
}
the tray rungs for ladder type trays or the tray bottom for trough A24.2 1423a
_~
m TAPPENDIX 24 4
..CYGNA ISSUE NO. 24: DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS- (Cont'd) 11.0
. BACKGROUND (Cont'd)
- type trays. ' The centroid of the tray fil1 ~is a more appropriate.
location from which to calculate the eccentricity. For loading type 2, the longitudinal load is applied at the. bottom of the tray side '
rails, rather than the centroid of the tray fill. The tray clamps-are assumed.to provide rotational'restre. int to the top flange of the:
1 -
composite beam, and all torsional moments are assumed to be resisted
~
by a couple formed between adjacent vertical supports through flexure of:the cable' tray.
All these assumptions must be justified per Review Issues 10 and 18.
3
_E.
Gibbs & Hill has not consistently considered the reduction in the beam section properties due to bolt holes through the flanges- (also 4-
-see Review Issue 9) and weld undercut effects.- Based on CMC.58338, Revision 0, the welded connection between the beam and hanger can include vertical fillet welds crossing the web of the beam, thus i _
weld undercut would affect the beam capacity at this critical location. Weld undercut could also affect the beam capacity at bean-to-base angle / plate connection for the cantilever type _of supports.
+
j In addition, based on the tray installation tolerances provided in i
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-100, Section 2.28, and the effect
}
of CMC 2646, Revision 5, the tray clamp can be located such that the bolt hole is in the same cross-sectional plane as the effect of weld 1
undercut. Thus, it is possible that both reductions may occur simultaneously.
F.
Gibbs & Hill has not evaluated the effects of shear stresses on beam-acceptability.
Shear stresses will be introduced by two loadings:
1.
Direct shear stresses due to the applied forces 2.
St. Venant shear stresses associated with torsional-loads '(see j
Items C and D above).
I j
Cygna's review indicates that direct shear stresses are minor and i
generally do not govern the design of flexural members. When these stresses are considered in combination with the potentially large St. Venant shear stresses, the effect can be a significant factor in the member design-(Reference 3).
G.
Gibbs & Hill generally assumes an allowable major axis bending stress of 22 kai for member designs. The capacity reduction based on the unsupported length 'of the beam's compression flange (AISC -
Equation 1.5-7) is either not considered at all or not properly considered (also see Review Issue 14).
Justification is provided, l
based on the assumption that the tray and tray cleap will provide
. l j
lateral bracing to the beam's compression flange. This assumption i
A24.3 1
1423m 4
I
~..,.. ~,.. -
m.-
J.-....,,,,
.m..,.,-,
,.~, 4.~.
.-, ~. - -
-.m,._,.
L--.,
-.m.-,,,-
' APPENDIX 24 CYGNA ISSUE No. 24: DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS (Cont'd)
1.0 BACKGROUND
'(Cont'd) is dependent on the tray clamp's ability to provide bracing (also see Review Issue 18) and neglects compression of the bottom flange
'due to support frame sidesway and seismic. uplif t.
For the cantilever type of supports, the '"1" value in Equation 1.5-7 is improperly selected as discussed in Review Issue 14.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE A.. 'In design of flexural members under transverse loading, additional major axis bending stresses result from vertical eccentricity
~between cable tray centerlines and.beaa neutral axis. Analyses incorrectly modeled the beam as a fixed-fixed member and may have-
}
assumed unrealistic tray clamp behavior.
B.
In the design of flexural members under transverse loadings, sinor 4
axis bending may be induced by the horizontal eccentricity between the beam neutral axis and the location of tray clamp bolt holes in the beam top flange. Csiculations did not consider hole sage tolerance, and any have assumed unrealistic behavior for the tray clamps.
I l
C.
In flexural members, vertical loads induce torsion due to the horizontal offset between tray clamp location and supporting beaa shear center. This torsional moment should be approximately-j considered.
D.
The methods and assumptions used to account for the effects of l
torsion induced in hanger beam members by longitudinal tray load vertical eccentricities contain assumptions which require justification.
?
l E.
Design calculations for flexural members inconsistently considered
{
reduction in section properties due to flange bolt holes and weld
~
unde rcut. Specifically, weld undercut at vertical fillet welds across web, and at bean-to-base angle / plate welds for cantilevers was not addressed. Also bolt holes coplanar with weld undercut was not considered.
F.
Design calculations for hanger flexural members did not include j
shear stress effects due to direct shear, St. Venant' shear from torsional loads, and the combination of the two.
i i
r I
A24.4 1423a
-.-..-..--.-.------.-_.-,.------.---J
APPENDIX 24 CYGNA ISSUE NO.~ 24: DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS (Cont'd).
'j i
2.0 UNDERSTANDING'0F THE ISSUE (Cont'd)
G.. In design of ficzural members, capacity reduction due to the unsupported length of the compression flange, per AISC Equation -
t 1.5-7, was 'not properly considered. Calculations used unrealistic tray clamp behavior. assumptions to justify the above.
Compression l
of bottom flange, due to frame sidesway and seismic uplift, was not considered.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE i
A.
In hanger design verification, hanger member major axis. bending due to vertical eccentricity effects of transverse tray loads has been considered.
B.
In hanger design verification, hanger member minor axis bending due i
to horizontal eccentricity effects of ~ transverse tray loads has been j
considered. The effect of bolt hole gage tolerance is insignificant.
J C.
In hanger design verification, the torsion induced onto hanger j
sembers from horizontally offset tray loads has been considered.
)
D.
In hanger design verification, the torsion induced onto hanger members f rom the vertical off set of longitudinal tray loads has ' been considered.
i E.
The reduction in beam section properties due to bolt' holes and weld j
undercuts has been considered in design verification.
1 j
F.
Shear stresses due to direct shear, St. Venant torsional shear, and the combination of the two have been included in hanger design verifica tion.
I j
G.
Equation 1.5-7 of the Seventh Edition of the AISC specification has been used to determine allowable bending stress for the compression j
flange of the channel sections.
t 1
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric), " Cable Tray Support Review (Nestions," 84056.031, dated August 31, 1984.
j 2.
L.M. Popplewell (TU Electric) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna)
" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Cygna Review Questions," dated September 28, 1984.
l i
A24.5 1423a 3
!..~.--,,-
APPENDIX 24 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 24: DgSIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS (Cont'd) 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA (Cont'd) 3.
Communication Report between E. Beskor et al. (Gibbs & Hill) and M.
~
Englesan et al. (Cygna) dated April.11, '1985.
4.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903.
5.0 IWLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 4
5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION l
A.
The effects of transverse tray load eccentricities have been i
considered in hanger design verification as specified in Attachment B1 and B2 of Reference 36.
Study No. 7b, documented in Reference 37 Book 2, presents a detailed description of modeling techniques and 4
load application procedures used in hanger design verification.
5.
The effects of transverse tray load eccentricities have been j
considered in hanger design verification as specified in Attachment B1 and B2 of Reference 36. Study No. 7b, documented in Reference 37 Book 2, presents a detailed description of modeling techniques and load application procedures used in hanger design verification.
j C.
Tne effects of vertical tray load eccentricities have been considered in hanger design verification as specified in Attachments B1 and B2 of Reference 36.
Study No 5a, documented in Reference 37 Book 7, is the basis for the vertical load application location j
shown in these attachments. Study No. 7b, documented in Reference 37 Book 2, presents a detailed description of modeling techniques and load application procedures used in hanger design verification.
t D.
Torsion due to vertical offset of longitudinal loads has been l
considered in hanger design verification as specified in Attachment B2 of Reference 36. Study No. Sb, documented-in Reference 37 Book 7, is the basis for the longitudinal load application locations d
shown in this attachment. Study No. 7b, documented in Reference 37 Book 2, presents a detailed description of modeling techniques and j
load application procedures used in hanger design verification.
4 l
i i
t i
i l
I A24.6
}
1423m
}
0 i.-
APPENDIX 24:
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 24: DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS.(Cont'd)
[5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RES0IIITION (Cont'd) l 5.1 ERASCO IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd)
E.
Ebasco has considered in design verification the subject issues related to bolt hole and weld undercut effects as follows:
Attachment E Ites 11 of Reference 36 specifies requirements
. regarding reduction in hanger member section properties due to the presence of used as well as unused and unidentified bolt holes.
lR2' Reference' 37 Book 25 justifies the requirements specified in I
i Attachment E item 11 of Reference 36.
Welds not meeting the I
i requirements of Reference 33 (VWAC) on weld undercut are. identified j
per References 42 and 43'and subsequently dispositioned.
i F.. Shear stresses have been considered in hanger design verification as specified in Section VI and Attachment M of Reference 36. -
j G.- Ebasco has referenced the A1SC Specification in Section II.1 of Reference 35 and has used Equation 1.5-7 in hanger design j
verification.
i j
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION j
A.
The major axis bending in beams resulting from the vertical accen-j tricity between the cable tray centerlines and bean neutral axis has been explicitly considered per Reference 2, Section 3.2.4.
B.
The horizontal eccentricity between the tier neutral axis and the j
location of the tray clamp bolts has been determined to be insignificant (Reference 10) and is not explicitly considered.
4 C.
The eccentricity between the tray clamp location and the.besa shear center is explicitly modeled as per Reference 2, Section 3.2.4.
D.
The procedure for considering the eccentricities between tray
~
and longitudinal hanger tier centerlines has been developed in Reference 10.
The implementation of the procedure is discussed in j
Reference 2, Section 3.2.4.
i
]
E.
The effect of bolt holes on beam section properties has been i
considered as follows:
i 1.
Bolt Holes l
Section 2.3.2 of Reference 45 requires that the reduction in j
section properties be considered for used and unused bolt holes
]
in support members. A 3/4 inch bolt hole is conservatively assumed at the tip of the flange (maximum stress location) or the actual location of used and unused bolt holes are iden-i tified with as-built data per Section 3.2.1 of Reference 2.
3he j
effect of these holes is considered using AISC Specifica-tion, j
Reference 27, Section 1.10.1.
}
A24.7 l
1
.1423m I _ _. _ _ _. _. _ _,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _. _ _ _. - _. -.. _ _ '
APPENDIX 24-CYGNA ISSUE NO. 24: DESIGN OF FLEXURAL MEMBERS (Cont'd) 5.0 I W LEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd) 2.
Welds not meeting the undercut requiremerits of Reference 33 (VWAC) will be identified per Reference 42 and subsequently dispositioned.
F.
Shear stresses due' to direct shear, St. Venant shear, and warping i
shear are considered as described in Reference 3, Attachments 4 and 5.
l G.
In the design of flexural members, capacity reduction based on the unsupported length of the compression flange has been considered per the AISC SpecHication (Reference 27) Equation 1.5-7 as specified in Reference 3, Section 4.1.1. and Section 4.1.4.
J I
t l
l l
J i
i 1
A24.8 1423e
-r
..,,e
i TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION' GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 25 CYGNA ISSUE No. 25: CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION 4
i i
1' 4
.I 4
I 1
i I
1
.i A25.1 I
1423m
--,y-m m -,,,-w.m-,
me,p.,
,--7
~.
y
-v-
APPENDIX 25 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 25: CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION 1.0
'BACRGROUND' The qualification requirements for cable trays are outlined in -
References 1 and 4.
In reviewing related-specifications, calculations, and installations of cable trays, Cygna has noted several areas of concern.
A.
Qualification of cable trays, is performed through static load testing and calculation of loading interactions for dead load plus three components of seismic load (Reference 1, Section 3.9 and Reference 3).
Seismic loada 'are calculated by the equivalent static load method, using total tray dead weight times the peak spectral acceleration. No apparent dynamic amplification factor (DAF) is used. Reference 6, Section 5.3, and Reference 7, recommend the use of a DAF = 1.5 unless justification is provided.
(See also Issue 8).
t B.
The interaction equation specified for checking cable tray capacity (Reference 1, Section 3.9.4) is limited in its application and may have been used incorrectly.
i q
The testing and qualification of cable trays is based on an 8'-0" simply supported tray span (References 1 and 3); yet, Reference 8, Note 13, allows a support installation tolerance resulting in a maximum tray span of 9'-0" for Unit 1.
l The capacity values derived in the tray testing are total loads (in 1bs) uniformly distributed over an 8'-0" section of cable tray (Reference 3).
These values, Fn, F, and F, as used with the t
1 interaction equation, are only applicable to tray sections with l
8'-0" spans. However, for the fire protection evaluation calculations (Reference 2) and tray span violation calculations i
(Reference 9), total loads for various tray spans were calculated as f'n = w
- L, where w is the tray unit weight and 'L is the tray span. This load was compared with the rated tray capacity using the 1
interaction equation.
For evaluation of trays with spans other than 8'-0",
a capacity i
comparison must be madg)in terms of tray bending moment which is i
proportional to (w
- L, rather than the total load on the tray i
section.
For example, if an 8'-0" tray span wi11' support a total distributed load of 1600 lbs (200 lb/ft), by increasing the span to 10'-0", a uniform load of 128 lb/f t (1280 lbs) would result in the same bending moment at aid span.
Therefore, the capacity for the 10'-0". span would be 1280 lbs and not the 1600 lbs assumed.
C.
Cygna has noted several instances of modifications to cable tray hardware without adequate justification or documentation.
a i
i, A25.2 1423m
APPENDIX 25 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 25: CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION (Cont'd)
1.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) 1.
Tray Segment No. T130SCA46 is assumed to be a 23"x6" ladder-type tray in the fire protection evaluation calculations for Safeguards Building Elevation 790'-6" (Reference 10). Cygna's walkdown indicates that this tray is actually a 24"x4" ladder-type tray with 6" side rail extensions added to increase the tray depth.
The tray qualification test report (Reference
- 3) does not provide qualification for trays using side rail extensions.
The procedure governing fire protection evaluation (Rrference 11), Section 3.2.2.2 states:
Evaluation process described in 3.2.2 is not applicable to the cable trays (and their support s).
For such cases, actual as-built configuration of the tray system with actual cable weight shall be taken into account and proper engineering evaluation performed. No standard methodology is recommended, but shall be based on acceptable engineering practice.
The referenced calculations do not perform an evaluation of this tray segment. These calculations (Reference 10) were obtained from IU Electric prior to their desigt sreview; therefore, this possible omission may be corrected through the design review process.
2.
Tray Segment T120SBC35 is joined to a tray reducer with side rail splice connector plates.
These plates have been modified by removing portiona of their bottom flanges such that only the web area remains.
This connector will not satisfy the requirements of Reference 1, Section 3.7, Paragraph f, which states that connectors "shall have moment and shear strengths at least equal to those of the continuous uncut side rail." Cygna was unable to locate documentation justifying this modification of vendor-supplied hardware.
D.
Cable tray section properties are calculated using the static test results (Reference 3). The moment of inertia is calculated based on the flexural displacement formula for a simply supported beam.
For horizontal transverse loading (i.e., in the plane of the rungs) ladder-type cable trays show a truss-like behavior, and the deflection will be due to both flerure and shear deformations.
This will affect the calculated moment of inertia as used in any Gibbs & Hill analyaes which consider the tray properties for frequency or displacement calculations.
A25.3 1423m
APPENDIX 25 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 25: CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION (Cont'd) 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE A.
No dynamic amplification factor (DAF) was used in qualification of cable trays, as recommended in FSAR and IEEE standard.
B.
The interaction equation was improperly used for spans greater than 8 feet.
C.
Several instances were found of modifications to vendor supplied hardware for cable trays, without adequate justification or documentation. This particularly involves side rail extensions to trays and tray splice connector plate modifications.
Splices / connections used for given tray types do not always conform to the acceptable splice patterns defined by the cable tray j
manufacturer or by approved field design change aathorizations.
Cygna had identified at least one instance in which tray splices different than approved by the manufacturer or justified by other design documents have been used. During the "as-built" program implementation. TU Electric has noted that this is not an isolated occurrence, but is reasonably frequent.
The ability of predicting tray performance is predicated on knowing that tray splices behave L
as intended by the manufacturer.
Inadequate justification exists for many of the modifications of the splices encountered in the field.
Lacking the knowledge on the behavior of the modified splices prevents confirmation of adequate behavior of the tray. A reportable deficiency report has been issued.
D.
Cable tray moment of inertia calculations do not consider shear deformations under horizontal transverse loading of ladder-type t rays. This affects tray properties used in support frequency or displacement calculations.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE A.
When design verification is performed using ESM, an amplification factor (called MRM) of 1.25 has been used to account for multiple mode effects.
B.
Tray qualification is performed for all spans by appropriately considering ultimate moment capabilities.
C.
Cable tray design verification is based on "as-built" data. Tray side rail extensions are for convenience in cable pulling only. No structural credit is taken for these extensions.
Walkdown of the trays are in progress. These identify the type of splice modifications which have been installed without design document approval.
The behavior of these splicer is addressed by analysis and testing.
A25.4 1423m
APPENDIX 25 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 25: CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION (Cont'd) 3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE (Cont'd)
D.
In the moment of inertia computations, the measured test deformation, which includes both shear and flexural deformation, is equated to a flexural formula for a simply supported beam. In the design verification procedure, trays are considered as flexural members using these properties. The appropriateness of this assumption is confirmed with the results of recent tray tests.
lR2 r
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-19, Revision 1.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Structural Calculation 2323-SCS-111C, Set 7, Revision 1.
3.
T.J. Cope, Test Report and Calculations for the Qualification of Cable Trays.
4.
CPSES FSAR, Section 3.10B.3, Amendment 44.
5.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-100, Revision 2.
6.
IEEE " Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class lE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations," STD 344-1975.
7.
8.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0901, Revision 4.
9.
L.M. Popplewell (TU Electric) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
" Response to Cygna Review Question 2.1 of Letter 84056.019," dated August 27, 1984 with attached calculations.
- 10. Cable Tray ThermarIag Evaluation Safeguards Building, Elevation 790'-6," Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.1.315.
- 11. TU Electric Instruction CP-EI-4.0-49, Revision 1.
- 12. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TU Electric), " Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions," 84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
Tray qualification is performed per Reference 37, Book 1, Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4.
B.
Allowable tray span lengths are developed for a maximum tray length o f 8 '-0.
Tables of allowable tray span lengths are filed in Reference 37, Book 1 Part 1.
These tables are based on methodology and calculations presented in Reference 37, Book 1, Part 2.
In design A25.5 1423s
APPENDIX 25 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 25: CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION (Cont'd) 5.0 3MPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION (Cont'd) 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION (Cont'd) verification, if the tray's span length exceeds the allowable tray span length, it is identified as an overspan.
Then the overspans are qualified by maintaining the same ultimate moment capacity, calculated from test data results, for different tray span lengths, by considering the actual cable tray fill for Unit 1 as documented in Reference 37, Book 1, Part 1 & 2.
For Unit 2, a similar overspan qualification approach has been developed and is documented in Reference 37, Book 1, Partc 1 & 2.
C.
Attachments C1 and C' of Reference 36 specify tray weights, including side rail extensions, to be used in design verification.
Modified splices will be confirmed by analysis or test to have no effect on the allowable tray capacities. Modified splices which have an adverse effect will be replaced.
D.
Cable tray property calculations are documented in Reference 37, Book 1 Parts 1 & 3.
See also Section 5.2D below.
lR2 5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
Impell does not intend to use the ESM for the design verification of cable trays.
The qualification of trays is performed per Reference 4 using the loads from the dynamic system analyses.
B.
Tray qualification criteria is based on the "as-built" span lengths using the ultimate moment capacities obtained from the tray tests (References 4 and 30).
C.
Cable tray system design verification is based on "as-built" data obtained per Reference 6.
The tray allowables are based on test data (References 4 and 30). Tray side rail extensions have been neglected, both in terms of added mass and added stiffness (Reference 19).
Modified splices will be confirmed by analysis or test to have no effect on the allowable tray capacities. Modified splices which have an adverse effect will be replaced.
D.
The tray section properties have been calculated from test data (Reference 7 Attachments 1, 3) assuming load-displacement behavior predominated by flexure.
The results of the recent tray tests (Reference 30) and analytical studies were used to confirm that lR2 this assumption is appropriate for the T. J. Cope trays.
A25.6 1423m
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 26 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 26: BASE ANGLE DESIGN A2 6.1 1423m
APPENDIX 26 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 26: BASE ANGLE DESIGN
1.0 BACKGROUND
d A.
In References 1 and 2, the base angles were modeled as simply supported beams.
This modeling technique does not include the stiffening effects of concrete bearing at the angle ends.
B.
The principal axes were not considered in the analyses of the base angles subjected to the various loadings.
C.
The base angle lengths due to the maximum spacing of the Richmond Inserts were not considered in the working point analyses.
D.
For support types D, D, L-A, L-A, SP-4, SP-6, SP-8, and 1
2 1
4 Detail 11 (Drawing 2323-S-0905) the design calculations do not include an evaluation of the base angles.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE A.
In base angle design, angles are modeled as simply supported beams, ignoring stiffening effects of concrete bearing at angle ends.
B.
In design of base angles for various loadings, the principal axes were not considered.
C.
The " Working Point Deviation Study" for brace connection eccentricities did not address the most critical spacing of Richmond Inserts in determining base angle lengths.
D.
For some support types, design calculations did not include an evaluation of base angles.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE A.
For stress check in angle / plate, the stiffening effects of concrete bearing at the angle / plate ends tend to reduce the moments / stress at the key section of interest, i.e., midway between bolts. Therefore, assuming a simply supported beam is conservative.
B.
Principal axes are considered in the design verification of base angles.
C.
Design verification of base angles is based upon "as-built" information.
D.
All base angles of the cable tray hangers are design verified.
A26.2 1423m
APPENDIX 26 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 26: BASE ANGLE DESIGN (Cont'd) 4.0 LIST OF RSLEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2 through 6.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 1.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 FBASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
No action required. Ignoring stiffening effects of concrete bearing at angle ends leads to a conservative design approach in base angle design verification.
B.
Per standard engineering practice, principal axes are considered in the design of base angles as noted in Attachment E of Reference 36.
C.
"As-built" configurations of base angles as specified in Section III.2 of Reference 35 are analyzed.
D.
Not applicable. As stated in Section III.2 of Reference 35, all base angles are evaluated.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
Ignoring stiffening effects of concrete bearing at angle ends provides a conservative method for verifying base angle designs.
The method for evaluation is provided in Attachment F of Reference 5.
B.
The principal axes properties of angle sections in the qualification of base angles have been considered, as stated in Attachment F of Reference 5.
C.
The "as-built" walkdown program identifies the base angle geometry including member lengths and actual spacing of Richmond Inserts.
The information is used as input for design verification of base angles per Section 4.3 and Attachments A and F of Reference 5.
D.
All base angles are design verified per Reference 5.
A26.3 1423m
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 27 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 27: SUPPORT QUALIFICATION BY SIMILARITY 1
A2 7.1 1423m
APPENDIX 27 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 27: SUPPORT QUALIFICATION BY SIMILARITY
1.0 BACKGROUND
A.
In Gibbs & Hill design calculations, several support types were qualified by similarity to another support type without showing similarity. Cygna's review of the geometry, loading, connection details, etc. indicated that the designs were not obviously similar, and that calculations should have been provided. Supports in this category are:
1.
Detail A, 2323-El-0700-01-S.
Reference 2 states that Detail A is similar to Case SP-7.
Cygna noted that the cantilever length for Detail A is greater than for SP-7 and that the anchor bolt attachment is unlike the attachment for SP-7.
1 2.
Detail N, Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S.
Reference 1 states that Detail N is similar to Details V and R on the same drawing.
Cygna noted that the frame geometry and tray locations for Detail N was unlike either of the cited details.
3.
Detail J, Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S.
Reference 1 states that Detail J is similar to case B.
Cygna 3
noted that the member sizes used are different than those for Case B, and the f rame dimensions exceed the design limits for 3
Case B.
3 4.
Detail V, Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S.
Reference 1 states that Detail V is similar to Detail B, drawing 2323-El-0713-01-S.
Cygna noted that Detail B is a three bay frame with braces in all bays and was designed as a pinned t rus s.
Detail V does not have braces in all bays, and if the same design technique is applied, the frame would be statically unstable.
B.
Allowed working point deviations for individually designed supports were established based on similarity to standard support types without justification.
See Review Issue 12.H for a discussion of this topic.
A27.2 1623m
APPENDIX 27-
'CYGNA ISSUE NO. 27: SUPPORT QUALIFICATION BY SIMILARITY (Cont'd) 2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE A.
In design calculations, some supports were qualified by similarity to supports not obviously similar, and no justification was provided.
B.
In the " Working Point Deviation Study" for brace connection eccentricities, allowable working point deviations were established for some supports based on similarity without justification.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE A.
A grouping procedure has been developed and used to facilitate design verification of similar hangers.
This procedure' considers geometry, loading, connection details and other relevant attributes.
B.
See Item A above.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculations Binder 2323-SCS-104C, Set 1.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-104C, Set 5.
3.
R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric),
GTN-69361, dated August 21, 1984, with attachments.
4.
R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to J.B. George (TU Electric),
GTN-69377, dated August 29, 1964, with attachments.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
A grouping procedure is specified in Reference' 37, Books 4 and 8 (Sections I and II) for Units 2 and 1 respectively. The procedure is identical for both units.
B.
See Item A above.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
Similarity has not been used. Each support has been qualified for the loads resulting from the appropriate system analysis.
These analyses contain detailed hanger models based on "as-built" data. A unique qualification package has been generated for each support.-
)
B.
See Item A above.
A2 7.3 1423m c.
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 28 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 28: CRITICAL SUPPORT CONFIGURATIONS AND LOADINGS 1
a A2 8.1 1423m
APPENDIX 28 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 28: CRITICAL SUPPORT CONFIGURATIONS AND LOADINGS
1.0 BACKGROUND
A.
Gibbs & Hill design calculations (References 1, 2 and 3) for trepeze type supports considered only a limited number of support aspect ratios. Justification was not provided to show that the chosen aspect ratios would provide the critical configuration to evaluate all components of the support design. The determination of aspect ratios was based on an assumed frame width based on supported tray width and the maximum frame height. The frame width determination assumed that:
(a) trays were installed with a minimum 6" horizontal spacing, (b) the distance between the side rail of a tray and the vertical hanger flange was a minimum of 3", and (c) all trays on a support were 30" or less in width.
Cygna's support walkdown noted that trays were installed with spacings as small as 1" between adjacent trays, and 0" between tray siderails and the hanger flange. Reference 4 indicates that cable tray installations at CPSES allow a maximum tray width of 36".
B.
In the design of the frame members for trapeze supports, Gibbs &
Hill typically applied the loadings to the frame in a symmetric pa ttern. In reviewing the support layout plans, Cygna has noted that the cable trays are of ten located in an asymmetric fashion on the supports.
This could result in higher stresses in the support members and higher loads on the anchorages than considered in the design.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE A.
Aspect ratios used in calculations for trapeze supports may not represent critical configurations adequately to evaluate all support components. Frame width assumptions were unrealistic.
B.
Design calculations for frame members in trapeze supports applied loads symmetrically; actual tray loads are often asymmetric.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE A.
Aspect ratios have not been used to verify components of the support design.
"As-built" support configurations have been used for design verifica tion. In addition, a grouping procedure has been developed and used to facilitate design verification of similar hangers.
B.
"As-built" configurations are used in design verification. Actual tray locations are considered.
A28.2 1423m
APPENDIX 28 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 28: CRITICAL SUPPORT CONFIGURATIONS AND LOADINGS (Cont'd) 4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA 1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-1010, Set 1 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-DMI-SP 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2-5 4.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-19, " Cable Trays," Revision 1 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TU Electric) " Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions," 84056.089, Dated October 28, 1985.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION A.
"As-built" hanger configurations are used in design verification, as specified in Section III.2 of Reference 35.
A grouping procedure is specified in Reference 37, Books 4 and 8 (Sections I and II) for Units 2 and 1 respectively. The procedure is identical for both units.
B.
Section III.2 of Reference 35 specifies that "as-built" tray locations are used in design verification.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION A.
Similarity and grouping of hangers has not been used in design verification.
Each support has been qualified for the loads resulting from the appropriate system analysis. These analyses contain detailed hanger models based on "as-built" data.
B.
Design verification has been performed using "as-built" information which locates the trays on the supports (Reference 6).
A26.3 1423m
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 29 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 29: CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF REVIEW ISSUES A2 9.1 1423m
APPENDIX 29 CYGNA ISSUE NO. 29: CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF REVIEW ISSUES
1.0 BACKGROUND
In this Review Issues List, a number of the cited issues may lead to small unconservatisms when occurring singly in a support design. Such unconservatisms may usually be neglected. However, since several of these issues pertain to all cable tray support designs on a generic basis, their effect can be cumulative, such that many small unconservatisms may be significant.
Therefore, any reevaluation of support designs should consider the cumulative effect of all pertinent Review Issues.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE Small unconservatisms resulting from separate issues may have significant cumulative effect for supports impacted by more than one issue.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE This issue is inherently addressed by the comprehensive engineering approach to the design verification of the Electrical Cable Tray Raceways and by the implementation of extensive "as-built" analysis, qualification, and test activities.
As discussed in the introduction, all the generic technical cable tray issues fall into four categories: deviations between the "as-designed" and "as-built" raceway systems, control of design documents, analysis assumptions and methods, and design assumptions and methods.
The "as-built" vs "as-designed" issues are addressed cumulatively via the comprehensive "as-built" program. 100 percent of all accessible cable tray system components have been "as-built".
Inaccessible components critical to the design verification effort have or will be rendered accessible or have been classified as " hidden attributes".
Hidden attributes he.ve been conservatively qualified via statistical studies and evaluated for worst effect in design verification.
In addition, this program has resolved instances of improper installation and poor construction quality.
The issues related to control of design documents have been cumulatively addressed by virtue of the design verification program which will generate "as-built" design documentation, support drawings, and qualification calculations on 100 percent of the cable tray supports.
All analytical issues (analysis assumptions and methods) and design issues (design criteria and assumptions) have been simultaneously addressed by the development of procedures and instructions, supported by studies, which have systematically considered each issue. By virtue of the overall approach which has been implemented, the cumulative effect of these issues have been addressed directly.
A29.2 1423m
APPENDIX 29 CYGNA ISSUE No. 29: CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF REVIEW ISSUES (Cont'd) 3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE (Cont'd)
Additionally, an extensive test program which has included component tests and full scale system dynamic tests has provided additional data to validate the overall design verification approach as well as demonstrate the substantial conservatism in the methods.
Thus the actual margins of safety of the cable tray systems have been demonstrated to be much larger than the margins calculated in design verifica tion.
In summary, the overall design verification approach has fully addressed and resolved each of the generic technical issues both individually and collectively, provided 100% "as-built" documentation of the cable tray system designs including resolution of improper installation or construction, and confirmed the conservatism of the approach through extensive testing.
This ensures that the margin of safety in the cable tray systems is acceptable.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED BY CYGNA None 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION No further action required.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION No further action required.
A2 9.3 1423m
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 30 EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE NO. 30: CABLE TRAY SYSTEM DAMPING VALUES A30.1 1423m
APPENDIX 30 EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE NO. 30: CABLE TRAY SYSTEM DAMPING VALUES
1.0 BACKGROUND
Damping values of 4% and 7% have been used for the evaluation OBE ana SSE seismic inertial loads respeccively in the design verification of CPSES cable tray systems.
The validity of these values has been quastioned by CASE.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE See Section 1.0 above.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE Cable tray system dynamic tests have been performed. The preliminary results of these tests have demonstrated the validity of the 4% and 7%
structural damping values being used for evaluation of the OBE and SSE seismic inertia loads respectively.
Preparation of final test reports and engineering evaluations is in progress.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS Case /NRC Hearing Transcript 13196, 13303-13307, 13318, 13321, 13454-13461.
5.0 IMPLEMENIATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION Damping values of 4 percent and 7 percent have been used in design verification, as specified in Section IV.l.c of Reference 35.
The l R2 results of cable tray system dynamic tests (Reference 17), performed in l
accordance with References 29 and 41, and Reference 16 validates the l
ose of 4 percent and 7 percent structural damping values for evaluation i
of the OBE and SSE seismic inertia loads respectively.
l 5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION Cable tray system dynamic tests, Reference 29, have been performed. The results of these tests (Reference 17) and the conclusions of Reference 16 lR2 validate the U-? of 4 percent and 7 percent structural damping values for l evaluation of. e OBE and SSE seismic inertia loads, respectively.
l l
s A30.2 1423m
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)
EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION OF GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR CABLE TRAY HANGERS APPENDIX 31 EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE NC. 31: MODELING OF BOUNDARY CONDITIONS A31.1 1423m
APPENDIX 31 EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUE NO. 31: MODELING OF BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
1.0 BACKGROUND
CASE has questioned in testimony the behavior of bolted hanger anchorages and the modeling technique used to represent their boundary conditions.
2.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE See Section 1.0 above.
3.0 ACTION PLAN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE The effects of oversized bolt holes are not explicitly considered in hanger design verification and are being studied through analytical work and interpretations of available test data.
4.0 LIST OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS 1.
Case /NRC Hearing Transcript 13707 and 13776.
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION 5.1 EBASCO IMPLEMENTATION See Section 5.2 below.
5.2 IMPELL IMPLEMENTATION Reference 16 and 17 have shown that oversize bolt holes had insignifcant l
effect on cable tray system dynamic characteristics and seismic response.
l It was demonstrated that the same modeling procedure was appropriate lR2 whether or not oversize bolt holes were present.
l A31.2 1423m
Addendum to PI-02, dated 01/28/87 (Attach to Reference 2, 1 page)
O At]
IMP _EQ@
Memorandum File n?tn_ nan.a Copy: KCW To-ALL TUGC0 Cable Tray P.I. Holders (WCO)
HTY (WCO)
/
GM From:
Linda Barrett/ Brian Ramsey' JAY (WCO)
LJB Date-January 28, 1987
Subject:
Addendum No. 20, PI-02 Rev.5 "SUPERPIPE Version 21A" The Cyber SUPERPIPE Version 21A is to be used as of 12/01/86.
The VAX SUPERPIPE Version remains as 19.4.
If directional weights are used to simulate an omitted tray using SUPERPIPE Version 21A, point forces are not required in the gravity load case to provide proper weight distribution.
O
Addendum to PI-03, dated 01/30/87 (Attach to Reference 3, 5 pages) 1 O
O l
i
6
-i-
),.IWELL 00MORATION Files nM o.-040 Copy:
4 To:
All TUGC0 Cable Tray PI Holders
.- D%
From:
Rob Ph11 brick / Joe Young Date:
January 30, 1987 4
Subj ect:
Addendum No. 22 to PI-03, Revision 4 Stress Limits, Bolt Holes, Fillet Wolds and K Factor Limitations Attached are revised copies of pages 6, 7,11 and Attachment 3 of PI-03, Revision 4.
These pages incorporate the changes made by Addendum #17 (stress limitations and potential bolt holes), clarify the wording relative to fillet veld base metal shear stresses and identify limitations on use of K factors from Attachment 3.
t O
l l
I j
JAY /HTY/tkh i O
1
(~
0 IMigu@
9 TITLE: DESIGN VERIFICATION OF CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Y.
r.. ---.
.w
-,__n w -
~
. =
NUMBER: 0210-040 FEVSION:
4 FAGE 6 OF 14 4.0 S1 MESS ALIlEPTAN CRITERIA The allowable stresses for verification of the supports are based on Impell's (PSES 1 cable tray and support design critoria (Reference 1).
A summary of the design criteria is' described below.
The design verification of support members and welds may be done using hand calculations in accordance with the following criteria. The sample calculation forms and work shoots attached to this instruction may be used as outlined in Section 6.0.
Members and welds may also be verified using the automated SURRPIPE post procisssor "SUPERPOST." For instruction on the use of SJERPOST refer to the SUPERPOST Manual, Reference 11.
4.1' Member Strams Evaluation Member stress evaluation shall be based on the AISC-Code, Seventh Edttton i
(Reference 10) except as modtfled below.
l 4.1.1 The AISC allowable stresses (excluding the 1/3 seismic increase) may be increased by the load factors identif ted below. The AISC l
seisetc stress allowable increase shall not be used 1n determining l
the allowable stresses to be factored.
1nad Factor (LF)
Land Cambination 1.0 D+L+F 1.5 D + L + T, + Fq,
~
1.6 D + L + T, + F However the factored allowable stresses shall be further limited as defined below.
F i
.9F b
y F 1
.50F y
y The folloiring are examples of the application of load factors to the AISC stress allowables.
3 O
b = 12 x 10 b (LF) i.9F (Reference 10. Eq.1.5-7) x F
y 1d/Af
\\
o
.z a
a.
.6
- =
^
i m (ESIGN VERIFICATION OF CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS
.n--..
.--=
NUMBER: 0210-040 m.
4 FRGE7 OF 14 4.1.1 (continued)
Fb = 0.60Fy (LF) 1 9F (Reference 10, Section 1.5.1.4.5) y (Referena 10, Section 1.5.1.2)
F = 0.40Fy (LF) 10.50Fy y
Where:
F = Allowable Bending Stress b
F = Allowable Shear Stress y
F = Yield Stress
.y C = Bending Coefficient as defined in AISC, Reference 10 b
LF = Load Factors defined above D = Dead Load L = Live Load T, = Thomal Load F,q, = Loads fra Operating Basis Earthquake (CBE)
F, = Loads fran Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) 4.1.2 Warping stresses may be detemined using the procedure described in Section VI of Reference 3.
For trapeze supports the referenced procedure may, he applied as described below.
For tier type channel members with unrestrained flanges, a conservative method of evaluating warping stresses is to:
- 1) Calculate warping stresses at the ends of the tier member in i
the web assuming that warping is fully restrained. These stresses can be obtained using Reference 3, Attachment M, Case 6 or Reference 9.
Stresses in the flange can be neglected at this location.
- 2) Calculate warping stressas at the load point assming the ends are free to warp using Reference 3, Attachment M, Case 3 or Reference 9.
Stresses in the web and in the flange must be considered.
O I
l I
\\
l
Y 7 _ _
s -.:- p.
.H CESIGN VERIFICATION OF CABLE 1 RAY SUPPORTS
(;
k _, _TLg:
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ =_
,,n_
NUMBER:02104do fEVISION:
4 FNBEll 0F 14 For evaluation of flemural stress in trapeze post members,'1 may.
be conservatively taken as the full post length.
4.2 Anchar Evaluattan Evaluation of base plates, beso angles, abeenent plates and the associated anchor bolts or screw anchors shall be done in accordance with Impe11 Predect Instruction PI-07 (Reference 8).
4J Me1 d Eval uation A11cuable veld stresses shall be in accordance with Af S D1.1-75,
' Structural Welding Code" and the deste requirements in the 1969 AISC Code. Welding electrode conforms to AS1M 253 Class E-70KX. Allevable
, veld stesses for-the different loading combinations, which will be campared to the actual weld desip stresses, are as fo11ers:
Lead Onnhination A11erable Stress 4
D+L+F 21 hi D+L+
F
- 31.5 kai
,+ F"q,,
9 33.6 kai D+L+
For fillet welds the allowable shear stress on the base metal must not be exceeded. This may require a reduction in the effective throat
/\\;
depending on the thickness of the base metal (See Section 1.5.3 of Ref.10). f<
The base metal shear stress allowable is limited to.4Fy for OBE and.5Fy for SSE.
For full penetration welds, the allowable stresses shall be those l
for the base metal.
1 Weld properties for typical member connection patterns are provided in and verified in Reference 7.
Allowable shear forces for typical composit T-Channel Stitch Welds are given in Attachment 8.
These allowables are based on the capacity necessary to resist slip or movement between the two channel sections.
4.4 Bolted Connections Bolted connections shall be verified with the AISC Manual of Steel Construction, Seventh Edition. The effect of bolt holes on flanges of tier members shall be evaluated in accordance with Section 1.10.1 of lf the AISC Code and Section 2.3.2 of PI-11 (Reference 11).
C O
'O 1
K k
w s'
ATTAOfENT 3 Table 1.3 EFFECTIVE-LENGTH FACTORS (K) FOR (ESIGN O (PINNE0 AND FIED ANOf0 RANGES)
(DSRAED AND BRAED TRAPEZE POSTS NO. OF LOADED TIERS EFFECTIVE-LENG1H FACTOR 1
2 1.21 3
0.99 4 or more 0.73 0.57 L-SIAPE SUPPORT FOSTS NO. OF LOADED TIERS EFFECTIVE-LENGTH FACTOR 1
2 1.21 3
1.06 4 or more 1.00 0.91 CANTILEVER SUPPORT TIERS
~i. OF TRAYS N(
PER TTER EFFETIVE-LENGTH FACTOR 1
j 2
0.99 l
0.73 I
I NOTE:
(1)
For cant 11evel supports with multiple trays of width less tha O
inches, use k = 0.99.
n 12 (2)
See Refarence 4 of PI-03 for derivation of this data values are available if needed to qualify fixsd at.corage supports
\\
More refined (3) The tabulated values are for loaded tiers 16" or more apert ve ti posts 18 feet or less in length and tray systems with longitudinal r cally, restraint.
Consult a Lead Engineer for supports not meetinfLthe2G---
,1
s I
t'
..'j_ j.
Y -
f7 Addendum to PI-06, dated 01/09/87 s
E [(
(Attach to Reference 4, 2 pages) j 4
.s t
+
t t -
kf
, r i.
(
(
f
.l O
t
?
'l t
t i
.s
(r\\ [ A
/ C. k
(
IFELL CORPORATION eM0RANDUM Files copy: KC Warapius RA Philbrick BL Ramsey To:
Al1 lVGCX) Cab 1e Tray PI Holders G. Ashley h
From:
Hat-Tung Ying/Dao Le
.L Date:
01/09/87
Subject:
Addendun #19 to PI-06, Revision 0 The " Allowable Forces and Moments for Reducers", Table 2.4 of PI-06 has been revised to reflect current allowable moment My.
The revised Table 2.4 is attached herewith.
HTY/DL/ite O
O
i TABLE 2.4 Allowable Forces and Moments for ReducersIII
'(
[
I I
(Z) l l
l Allowables l
l' l
l I
l l
l Moments (Kip-In) i I
I I
I I
l Axial l
M 1 ray l Force l
l TrayLengthEetweenSupports(feet) l Section (kips)
M Mz l
4 y
I l
4 5
6 7
8 9-10 l
GG-06SL 13 25 25 3.2 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 l'
GG.12SL 13 33 25 6.4 5.1 4.2 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.5
[
GG-185L 21 55 54 20.3 16.2 13.5 11.6 10.1 9.0 8.1 GG-24SL 21 50 65 32.4
'25.9 21.6 18.5 16.2 14.4 13.0
!l GG-30SL 42 86 95 59.4 47.5 39.6 33.9 29.7 26.4 23.8 l,l GG-3EL 42 84 95 71.3 57.0 47.5 40.7 35.6 31.7 28.5 1
GF.06SL 13 19
' 18 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 l
GF-12SL 24 44 59 14.7 11.7 9.8 8.4 7.3 6.5 5.9 GF-185L 24 43 59 22.0 17.6 14.7 12.6 11.0 9.8 8.8 GF-24SL 46 85 89 44.4 35.5 29.6 25.4 22.2 19.7 17.8' l
GF.3C5L 46 80 89 55.5 44.4 37.0 31.7 27.8 24.7 22.2 GF-36SL 46 79 89 66.6 53.3 44.4 38.1 33.3 29.6 26.6 h
GI-12SL 75 80 110 27.6 22.1 18.4 15.8 13.8 12.3 11.0 l
GI-185L 75 79 110 41.4 33.1 27.6 23.7 20.7 18.4 16.6 GI-24SL 75 80 110 55.2 44.2 36.8 31.5 27.6 24.5 22.1 GI-35L 76 110 126 78.8 63.0 52.5 45.0 39.3 35.0 31.5 GI-36SL 75 80 126 94.5 75.6 63.0 54.0 47.3 42.0 37.8 m-06SL 46 40 74 9.3 7.4 6.2 5.3 4.6 4.1 3.7 JM-185L 42 65 74 27.8 22.2 18.5 15.9 13.9 12.4 11.1 t
3-24SL 73 114 123 61. 7 49.4 41. 1 35.3 30.9 27.4 24.7'
' JM-3EL 73 108 123 77.1 61.7 51.4 44.1 38.6 34.3 30.9 m-36SL 73 105 123 92.6 74.0 61.7 52.9 46.3 41.1
~37.0 NOTES:
l (1)
. Th_e smaller capac.it.y o.f the attached tra.y sect. ion shall be used.
,o
Addendum to PI-06, dated 02/02/87 (Attach to Reference 4, 1 pages)
O O
dh IM PELL r LJ Q Memorandum Fde 0210-040-4 Copy: KCWarapius All TUGC0 Cable Tray P.I. Holders
$ fick To-HTYing 8&
6 0 roe GRAshley From:
Rich Kaczkowski/ Brian Ramsey JAYoung LJBarrett Date:
February 2, 1987
Subject:
Addendum No. 23, PI - 06 Rev. O Revision to Table 3.1 of PI-06, Rev. O The allowable load for a pair of "C" type clamps in the Fx direction is to be increased from 410 lbs. to 800 lbs.. Note that this remains the lower bound allowable for transverse type clamps in the Fx direction.
O O
l I
Addendum to PI-07, dated 01/7/87 (Attach to Reference 5, 4 pages)
O O
i l
1 j
p.
4 INELL File: 0210-040 0
CORPORATION bec: KCW.
rap BLR GRA HTY LJB JAY l
Memoranden i
l To:
All TUGCo Cable Tray Hanger P.I. Holders From:
Brian Ramsey/Johh Ramuta Date:
January 7,1987
Subject:
Addenden No.14 for PI-07 Revision 3
" Allowable Stress Criteria for Stresses Calculated by BASEPLATE II for Anchorages".
The following criteria may be conservatively used for the qualification of O
anchorage plate stresses computed by BASEPLATE II.
G + OBE I
T max & 0.4 F1 i
6 max /2 1 0.4 Fy l
G + SSE
? max i 0.5 Fy danx/2 1 0.5 Fy Where j
? max = The maximum shear stress for all plate elements.
6 max /2 = half of the maximum principal stress for all plate elements.
Fy = yield stress (36 ksi)
O
. ~..
4 IM' ELL CORPORATION -
-.7
]EMORANDUM File:
copy:
.To:
TUGCo Distributton From:
Linda Coonradt
'Date:
01/14/87 Subj ect: Addendum No.14, PI-07, REY. 3 There is a new Addendum to PI-07 REV. 3 out now.
Addendum No. 14.
" Allowable Stress Criteria for Stresses Calculated by BASEPLATE II for Anchorages".
Please sign the acknowledgnent receipt and return to Linda Coonradt in the Walnut Creek office by January 24, 1987.
Also, there will be a new Table of Contents.
Please add this one to your notebook and take your old one out. Thanks!
O l
O
r s
-(O In addition, the equations in Attachment F, of PI-07 are still valid with the
)
calculated bolt loads from BASEPLATE II. The true eccentricities may be considered, to achieve a more exact solution when calculating stresses. For example, the Mz moment for calculating stresses in this example, may be calculated as follows.
ta w,
Te too \\%
$ *\\O %
I I
> ")r.
h n
,m m
m 1
t Mz = max (2 x 100 lb. or 9 x 10 lb.)
1 2
This reduces the conservatism of using maximum bolt loads, with the maximum eccentricities.
O i
O
l
%7 Project Instruction for COMANOiE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 1 PROJ ECT TUGC0 Table of Contents PI Dynamic Analysis of Cable Tray Systems Rev. 5 PI Design Verification of Cable Tray Supports Rev. 4 PZ Procedure for Obtaining Site Information Rev. 2 PI Design Verification of Cable Trays and Rev. O Cable Tray Clamps PI Design Verification of Base Plates, Base Angle and Embednent Plate Rev. 3 PI Cable Tray Fill Loads Rev. O PI Cable Tray System Analysis &
Qualification Closecut Rev. 1 PI Control of Design Change to Cable Tray Hangers Rev. O SUPERPOST User's Manual Rev. 2 Superpost qualification of Tubes, Wide Flanges and Double Angles 06/27/86 Superpost Errors 06/27/86 Addendum Memorandums:
Addendum No.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 SUPERSEDED Addendum No. 9 VOIDED Gusset Plate Allowables, Dated 7/28/86 Addendum No.13, PI-06, REY. O Addendum No.14, PI-07, REV. 3 Addendum No.15, PI-11, REV.1 w