ML20210C803
| ML20210C803 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1987 |
| From: | ABB IMPELL CORP. (FORMERLY IMPELL CORP.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210C645 | List:
|
| References | |
| 09-0210-0017, 09-0210-0017-R00, 9-210-17, 9-210-17-R, NUDOCS 8705060313 | |
| Download: ML20210C803 (100) | |
Text
, . __-_ __ _______ __ _ ----_--
)
O )
i CPSES CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS / TEST CORRELATION u
Prepared for:
TV Electric P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Prepared by:
Impe11 Corporation 2345 Waukegan Road-Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 February, 1987 Report No. 09-0210-0017
- Revision 0 l
' B705060313 870413 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PDR
dk
- n. IMPELL concRanoN U
REPORT APPROVAL COVER SHEET Client: TU Electric Project: CPSES Cable Tray Design Verification Job Number: 0210-041-1455 Report
Title:
CPSES Cable Tray System Analysis / Test Correlation Report Number: 09-0210-0017 Rev. O The work described in this Report was performed in accordance with the Impell Quality Assurance Program.
The signatures below verify the accuracy of this Report and its compliance with applicable quality assurance requirements, Prepared By: kb -
Date: ZN/87 f R.T. Kac2KuwsA1 Reviewed By:aKQ % w W bz <$ $ lN /k 6
' Date: 2/9/87 R. As'hle 3
Approved By: hMM g /
v Date: 2/9/8,7 B. L.'Ramfe'y '#
REVISION RECORD Rev.
Approval No. Precared Reviewed Approved Date Revision 1
O I
i IABLE OF CONTENTS-O PAGE
-TABLE OF CONTENTS. i LIST OF TABLES 11 LIST OF FIGURES 111
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-1 2.0 TEST PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 2-1 3.0 TESTING RESULTS AND SYSTEM BEHAVIOR 3-1 4.0 ANALYTICAL MODELLING 4-1 S.0 CORRELATION 5-1
- 6.0 ANALYTICAL REFINEMENTS 6-1
7.0 CONCLUSION
S ~7-1
8.0 REFERENCES
8-1 TABLES.
FIGURES APPENDIX i
l t
d
- O 4
4 i
' LIST OF TABLES' 2.1 Summary of Cable Tray System Dynamic Tests 2.2 Instrumentation Summary 3.1 Dominant Measured Modes 3.2 TC6 Estimated Post Axial Loads vs. Calculated Buckling Loads 4.1 TC7 Test Frame Stiffnesses at Post Anchorage i
Points 5.1 Correlation of Dominant Measured vs. 'redictad Modes 5.2 Overprediction Ratios for TC7 with and without Deliberately Installed Clamp Gaps O 6.1 Analytical Parameter Studies for TC7 Response Correlation 6.2 Comparison of Modal Correlation using
" Production" and " Refined" Modelling Techniques 6.3 Comparison of Response Correlation using l
" Production" and " Refined" Modelling Techniques.
a i
O 11
_ - - ~ _ _ - _ - _ - _
-+ .
LIST OF FIGURES-3.1 Modal Response Frequency Extracted from Plot of time History Response Recoro l
3.2 Modal Response Frequency Extracted from FFT of..
! Response Record i
3.3 Predicted Modal Shape for TC6 4
3.4 Averaged Transfer Function Plots 3.5 Predicted Modal Shape for TC7 16 TC6 Distribution of Maximum Transient Compressive Load Along Post 3.7 Representative Plots of Relative Longitudinal Movements (Slip) between Tray and Support (TC6) 3.8 Representative Plots of Relative Longitudinal Movements.(Slip) between Tray and Support (TC7) 4.1-Typical Averaged Response Spectrum 4.2 Averaged Spectrum Regenerated at Higher Assumed Damping Values
, 6.1-6.2 " Production" and " Refined" Methods used for Clamp Modelling
)
t 1
1 O
4 111
. t
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Impell Corporation is performing a. comprehensive program of-analysis and design re-verification of Unit I cable tray raceway systems at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES). A procedure was developed using- three-dimensional ~ finite element system models. designed _to predict system response to design loads using. linear elastic methods. To.
simplify and standardize system analyses, significant enveloping conservatisms have been incorporated in the analytical models.
To augment the analysis program, full scale systems i
representative of actual Unit 1 configurations were ,
dynamically tested. The comprehensive test program (1,2] was undertaken by ANCO Engineers, Inc., using their shaking frame test facility to provide.the j excitation.
The results of the test program were used to confirm O that Impell's linear elastic modelling techniques can be conservatively used to predict system response.
Additionally, test' correlations were used to identify ,
excessive simplifying conservatisms in the original modelling procedures. Modelling refinements were then developed to reanalyze systems which could not j be qualified in the initial analyses.
This report summarizes the dynamic tests and the
- i. corresponding analytical response calculations that were performed, and discusses correlation of the measured and predicted responses. System performance and behavior under seismic excitation at various i
intensities are also addressed.
i lO ;
i 9
.- - , - , - - - - - - - -w-- * , - - - * -- '--- - -'-+- - - - * * * ~ ' ' - * - * " ' ' ' " ' ~
1 l
2.0 TEST PROGRAM D$SCRIPTION O ,
l l
2.1 Obiectives The general objectives'of the. test program were:
- (1) To determine representative modal damping.
values for each system as a function of the cable fill and excitation level. _ The tests were to provide ~ verification that the 4% and
. 7% viscous damping values assumed for the OBE and SSE design ~ events respectively are appropriate, or conservative, for the design verification of.__the welded and bolted steel cable tray-hanger systems installed at CPSES.
(ii) To provide measurement data to be used for-correlation with calculated system responses, i and thus substantiate the analytical modelling 1
and seismic response prediction techniques
- which are being applied in the production design verification at CPSES.
(iii) To provide information on the performance of
-the different components in each system, and.
their interaction under the effects of dynamic loading, both at design ievels and at
" fragility" levels of excitation.
In addition to the general objectives, other specific' objectives incorporated into the test program were:
(1) To investigate the effect of various construction deviations in the tray systems--such as gaps between the tray and i clamps, oversized bolt holes, undercut welds, reduced edge distances, and support member.
. misalignments. ,
i (ii) To investigate seismic effects on tray hangers having slender post members. In particular, I the aim was to provide evidence that the AISC l limit on slenderness ratios for compression l
members is overly restrictive for CPSES cable <
tray hanger posts by demonstrating that these members maintain structural stability when subjected to seismic-induced transient-compressive ~ loads.
i O
- 2-1
t
'2.0. TEST PROGRAM DESCRIPTION I O 1 1
. . l l
Such members are normally in.a state of tension-due to gravity loads. The required investigation of- '
their susceptibility to dynamic instability was
~
. satisfied with tests on one of the configurations.
- 2.2 Descriotion of Test The six Test Configurations, herein referred to as
-Confiaurations TC1, TC2, TC3,.TC4, TC6, and'TC7, were cable tray systems each consisting of fivel supports (except TC6, which had three) spaced at approximately 9 ft.
Figures illustrating each system configuration are included in the Appendix of this report. 'The.
supports for TC1 and TC6.were_ trapeze hangers with~
in-plane bracing and respective lengths of .
4 approximately'8 ft and 13 ft. The long post. members.
of TC6 had slenderness ratios (1/r) of 350, well in excess of the AISC limit. Six foot long trapeze;.
hangers without in-plane bracing were used for TC2 and TC7. The supports for TC3 and TC4 were straight
- and L-shaped members,-respectively, cantilevered from the wall and roof of the shaking frame. One of the end supports for each system was a longitudinal support, which was braced so as.to be significantly stiffer than the others in the longitudinal-direction of the. tray. The tray cantilevered over both end supports by approximately 2 ft, except for-TC4 where-the tray run ended with a vertical riser supported by a braced trapeze support. .Thus, the tray runs were.
approximately 40 ft long for TC1, TC2,-TC3, TC4 and !
TC7. The tray run for TC6 was approximately 22 ft j .long.
, All trays were either 12 in. or 24 in.' wide by 4 in.
high ladder-type tray manufactured oy T. J. Cope (Cyprus,-Specification GG12SL12 and GG24SL12)- [5].
The trays were joined with standard wrap-around (channel) bolted splices and were secured.to the supports with a selection of standard tray clamps i
[5]. Side rail extensions, 6 in. high, were bolted to the side rails to accommodate the 100% cable fill load case.-
TC1, TC2 and TC7 were two-tier systems with 12 in.
tray on the upper tier and 24 in. tray on the lower
, tier. The other configurations were single-tier
- O
! 2-2
2.0 TEST PROGRAM DESCRIPTION O
systems of 24 in. tray. A 90-degree vertical tray; bend was included in TC4, and a 90-degree horizontal
. tray bend in TC7.
The configurations of all the test cases are described in detail in the Test Specification [23, the ANCO Summary Report [17], and Impe11 calculations
[18-23]. ,
The systems were tested with.several cable fill loadings, as shown in Table 2.1. The fill-value is a t percentage of the maximum specified cable loading of 35 lbs/sq ft, in addition to the tray weight of 4.26 and 7.92 lb/ft for the 12 and 24 in.-tray respectively [6]. ,
Two different assembly conditions of TC3 and TC7 were tested. The first condition was a system in which all tray clamps were installed per specifications without any significant gap. between tray clamp and j O tray. The second condition was the same. basic system but was constructed with gaps'between the trays and.
tray clamps. Gap sizes and their distribution are described in the ANCO Summary Report-[17].
i Briefly, for TC7 the Type A and G clamps were .l i positioned so as to provide nominal 3/8 in. gaps '
vertically and laterally;at several~ supports. The i j Type A clamps were inclined so that the effective gap !
was less than the nominal, particularly at the-top. 1 Both assembly conditions for TC3 and TC7 also I contained deliberate construction deviations. For TC7, the welds on the Type.G clamps at Support 3 (12 in, tray).were deliberately undersized to simulate a
- weakened condition. Edge distance for clamp bolt
!. holes on Support-2 were reduced to approximately 1/16 in. Ir. addition, the bolt holes (5/8 in, dia.)
for clag s were oversized by an' extra.1/16 in. to.
give a total oversize of 1/8 in. Similar construction deviations were used in TC3. I The objective of TC6 was' to provide evidence that the AISC . limit on slenderness ratios- for compression ;
membert, is overly restrictive for CPSES cable tray !
hanger posts. This was done by demonstrating that ;
O . members exceeding these limits maintain structural l
!~
2 i
_ _ . . . -3 _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ ._ . I
2.0 TEST PROGRAM DESCRIPTION-1.
O stability when subjected to seismic-induced transient-compressive loads. Such members are normally in a i state of tension due~to gravity loads. Their i susceptibility to dynamic instability was l investigated with tests on TC6. The effects of '
member misalignments were also investigated. The second and third supports on this configuration were intentionally constructed 2* out-of-straight and 2* j out-of-plumb, respectively. In both cases, the. '
misalignment was in the plane of.the longitudinal-tray direction. The TC6 posts were chosen for !
misalignment because the support posts on this model had the greatest slenderness ratios of all the ter,t j d
. configurations thereby exaggerating the effects of ,
i the construction misalignment.. Sketches of the '
misaligned supports are included in the Appendix.
All testing was performed using the ANCO R-4 planar
triaxial shake table. This facility is described'in l Ref. [1].
2.3 Instrumentation and The instrumentation'for each configuration is Data Acauisition described in Refs. [11-16].. Table 2.2. summarizes the. .l instrumentation for all of the test cases. I Transducer location drawings are also included in the {
Appendix. The transducers are' described in Ref. [1]. l i .
l The triaxial. input motion was measured by accelerometers mounted on the shaking frame. adjacent 1 to one of the. base plates of the supports. The transverse component of input acceleration was measured at all supports for.TC) and TC2, and the longitudinal and vertical input accelerations were measured only at the center support, S3. The three
- input acceleration components were only measured at i
supports S1, S3, and S5 for TC3. All three input acceleration components were measured at each support for TC4, TC6 and TC7, with the lone exception of the
- 55 longitudinal input acceleration for TC4. The
- cable tray-hanger system acceleration response was-
, measured with accelerometers aligned along.one of.the global axes and positioned on the tray side rails or j
l on the support members. j lO l
1 1
2-4 1
~ . . -. . . - . .- . . - . . - -_ . -
t
- 1 2.0 TEST PROGP.AM DESCRIPTION O
~
The dis' placement response of the system relative to-
- the shaking frame was measured with Celesco .
displacement transducers at a number of locations and in any of the three global directions. Several j longitudinal-tray ~ motions relative to.the support ,
tiers were measured using LVDTs. Displacement
- instrumentation.for TC3, TC6 and TC7 was more widespread than for the other systems, allowing more detailed correlations between test and analysis results to be undertaken. For TC6, a number of the
, displacements were measured relative to ground, with the-table displacement also measured relative to ground at several positions, to allow estimation of i
system response relative to the table by'differencing appropriate channels.
i The Celesco transducers were mounted directly to the shaking frame and connected to the test specimen with extension wires. During dynamic testing, the vibrating wire may cause extraneous noise signals, 4
O resulting in an apparent additional displacement and thus over-estimating the measurements of the true relative motions. Such displacement measurements were therefore not considered reliable under 0.05 in.
! All data was acqu', red and recorded as described in ;
- the Test Plan [1]. Anti-aliasing filters.with corner frequencies of 35 Hz were installed on all channels.
All measurement signals for the seismic tests were digitized at 100 samples per second for a duration of
- approximately 40 seconds. For TC3, with intentionally installed gaps, the sampling rate was 4
changed to 125 samples per second. All channels of digital data for selected tests were t.opied to i magnetic tape and transmitted to Impell by ANCO i
[27-32).
2.4 Seismic Excitation The basic input seismic motions consisted of acceleration records 40 seconds in duration, made up of three separate seismic records each approximately 10 seconds long, and derived from structural models i with three different soil conditions. The test i
excitation was consequently a sequence of three -
- O 2-5
-v,- , ,- _ . - - - , - - - , - - . _ - - . , , . .- ..._r~,., .-y_ , - - ~, _ , - . . _.,,,-..y , , , , _ , , . _ - , . , ,
l 2.0 TEST PROGRAM DESCRIPTION O
~
10-second seismic events of differing frequency distribution, rather than a single longer excitation corresponding to a large magnitude seismic event.
1 The response spectra for each of the.three 10-second segments of the excitation were enveloped to generate
, the ' design' required response spectra (RRS) with' damping of 4% and 7% for the postulated OBE and SSE-
, events. . The response spectra for each segment were envelopes of floor response spectra (FRS) generated
. at a nureber of locations in several buildings from the OBE and SSE design _ earthquake. The peak ground accelerations for the postulated OBE and SSE event were 0.06g and 0.12g horizontally, and 0.04g and 0.08g vertically. The corresponding zero-period accelerations in the enveloped FRS were 0.6g and 0.75g in the horizontal direction and 0.5g and 0.8g-vertically. Peak spectral accelerations for the 4%
- . damped OBE and the 7%-damped-SSE event were 1.65g and i 2.3g, respectively, in the vertical direction and-3.0g for both OBE and SSE horizontally. These inputs O correspond to severe seismic. excitation. .The test response spectra (TRS) were presented and compared to ,
the RRS in ANCO data packages-[11-16].
2.5 Test Seauence The test sequence for each configuration consisted of random-dwell and sine-dwell tests of varying .,
excitation intensity, followed by a sequence of seismic tests at nominal " design levels" of input for 2
each of the indicated cable loadings. " System
, behavior" (seismic qualification) tests (a series of 5 OBEs and 1 SSE, enveloping the relevant design spectra) were also performed for each system (except TC6) with 100% cable loading. Finally, for all configurations except-TC6, " fragility" tests consisting of amplified SSE notions were performed.
The test sequences are summarized in Table 2.1-and j
- explained in greater detail in Ref..[1] and the ANCO- a data packages [11-16). '
u i
i O
l 4
i 2-6 l
2.0 TEST PROGRAM' DESCRIPTION ~
O Following the system behavior tests-for TC3 and TC7, the maximum deviations (clamp gaps) were installed on the same basic configuration with 100% cable fill.
The complete sequence of tests (i.e. random, t sine-dwell, seismic and system behavior) was repeated for these conditions. The fragility-level tests were then conducted on the " gapped" system.
i For TC3,.TC4, TC6 and TC7, low-amplitude modal
~ testing was also undertaken using an instrumented hammer to provide impacts. After removal of the cable and tray runs for TC7, further impulse tests' were-undertaken to determine the significant natural frequencies (and associated mode shapes) of the five hangers alone, with the boundary condition that existed while anchored to the shaking frame.
The procedures for the frequency search (random and sine-dwell) and seismic tests are outlined in greater detail in Refs. [1,17].
O i
I O l 2-7 l l l
-. =- . ---- - - . . . .- - - ._ .- - -- - _
i 3.0 TESTING RESULTS AND SYSTEM BEHAVIOR
(
i l
i l
The_ dynamic system testing was used for both numerical correlation studies as well as observation of system behavior and component performance. The test results were transmitted in ANCO data. packages
[11-16] as well as magnetic' tape records [27-32] and summarized in the ANCO Summary Report [17]. Dynamic '
analyses and correlation studies were performed for the design levels (nominal 08E and SSE) of input motion. These included correlation of characteristic.
system frequencies and mode shapes,- as well as a numerical comparison of measured displacements and accelerations to predicted values. System behavior and component performance under more highly amplified
" fragility" levels of motion are also discussed, as it-demonstrates the considerable safety margin available before the cable tray systems are no longer
, functional.
It was reported in the ANCO Summary Report (17]'that-modal damping ratios increased with input amplitude.
- Damping ratios also increased up to approximately the' 50% fill level then decreased slightly.' Modal 1
damping values for the vast majority of lower modes exceeded the 4% and 7% used for design verification; these lower modes are expected to dominate the
. seismic response of most cable tray systems. No estimate of system damping was made by ANCO.
Effective system damping will tre discussed.in Section 5.2.
3.1 Extraction of Resoonse The results in ANCO data packages [11-16] and the i Freauencies and Shapes ANCO Summary Report [17] include resonant from Test Data frequency determinations based on random input, sine .
dwell and hammer tests. In many of the sine dwell
- tests, the'same response shape occurs over a range of-4 frequencies, indicating that the test configuration '
is not truly excited by a single continuous sinusold. Consequently, it was difficult to extract response frequencies and shapes based solely on the data packages. In order to more consistently O
f
. 3-1
l I
! 3.0 TESTING RESULTS AND SYSTEM BEHAVIOR ~
O i e g
't' i.
Er l q identify system modal characteristics, frequency 1 domain analyses were performed on a' number of the-
! time-history response records for TC3, TC4,sTC6, and t
TC7. s L For cases where the channel response'was clearly dominated by a single frequency, the frequency was directlyestimatedfromaplotofthechanne(time history response record. This technique is illustrated in Figure 3-1, where a modal frequency.,is -
found at approximately 4 Hz. c ForcaseswherethechannelNesponserechins'more-complex, a fast fourier transformation (FFT) was l performed to more precisely determine the frequency content of the response. This method was used to extract response frequencies and shapes from the l recorded data of TC3, TC4 and TC6.L QFigure. 3.2' illustrates the FFT plots from two adjacent channels on TC6, generated from recorded response. Also shown, in Figure 3.3, is an analytkally predicted mode discussed later in this report, which is- shown -
to match the extracted response mode both for i
frequency and shape. The response shape has been-inferred by relative amplitudes of-the FFT plot peaks at the same frequency and at different locations.
The method used for extraction of response shapes for TC7 was very similar to that used for TC4 and TC6.
{ However, to correct for numerical singularities, c
transfer functions were generated by taking the ratio I
, of the response channel FFT to the input channel- l FFT. For cases where the response channel was on a l
! support, the input channel was merely the measurement- l i
taken at the support post!testiframe anchorage for :
4 the same direction of motion. If the response l channel was'at tray midspan, the? input channel was chosen by selecting the more dominant input from-adjacent supports. . Transfer functions were averaged '
from four separate load cases (0.50 OBE, 1.00 OBE, 1.50 OBE, 1.00 SSE) at 1001 cable fill levels to-create a " composite" transfer function. This'was done to prevent singularities from any single load case from unduly influe'ncing system response characteristics. y s, e i
4 3-2
4 a a.: 1 - , a. p e -.e u 8 /
3.0 TESTING RESULTS AND SYSTEM BEHAVIOR f, ,
(
l
}
<Q '
3 1 ,.
i i ,.
- /
Figure 3.4 illustrates traasverse trknsfer functions;4 r y from three adjacent channels on TC7. Figure 3.5 1 t'
. shows the analytically predicted mode which matchesF the frequency and general shape. The transfer- 4 function plots in Figure 3.4:show a large peak at altproximately 6 Hz, both at support I and at the
< first midspan. nThere is no significant peak at 6 Hz at the second: support.~ - This matches the modal q response shape.shown in Figure 3.5.
v i. >. . .
Table 3.1 lists dominant measured medes which were:
used for correlation with analytical .results. The
+
irethod used to identify the mode (transmitted in ANCO data package or extracted from response time history:.
record) is also given.'4 A discussion of the corrrelation between, measured and predicted' modes is given in Section 5.1'.1
~
3.2 Maximum Measured Maximum recorded' displacements and accelerations were.
Test Resoonses derived from ANCO recordings [27-32). _ It has been - .
noted that TC4, TC6, and TC7 had much more extensive O J 1 '
instrumentation for displacement measurements, whereas TC1=and TC2' relied almost exclusively on the '
measurement of accelerations'.
s s' .
The displacement measurements' were considered to.be more applicable for analytical correlation.f Displacements are directly related to system strains (and therefore stresses), which are the quantities oft primary interest. Furthermore, the_ displacement transducers provide a more reliable ~means'of i calibration and reference than. accelerometers, whose readings.may be influenced by acceleration components l
/ from orthogonal directions during system deformation.
, l Accordingly, a more intense degree of correlation was
~l done for TC4, TC6 and TC7 than for TC) and TC2. TC3--
was tested with a large number of displacement.-
transducers, but the level of excitation produced
! response below the accuracy of the displacement transducers. Therefore very limited co.rrelation was
- made using only acceleration data.
- i. i,
- O , i
~
! 3-3 ,
c
- - --,---,-.., -, ,s- ,- .- ,- ---n .- -..n. --l- c-. .,- im v. , - . . , . - - , , . . -,r,--, , - - - . - , , . . . - -
I 3.0 TESTING RESULTS AND SYSTEM BEHAVIOR O
i The correlation studies performed with the maximum measured response data for each of the test configurations are discussed in Section 5.2.
3.3 Tested Behavior of The hanger supports for TC6 were designed to have Slender Suncorts slenderness ratios exceeding AISC limits.
Furthermore, the second and third hangers of TC6 were intentionally constructed to be 2* out-of-straight and 2* out-of-plumb, respectively. The configuration was then tested for " design level" loads'(input nominally approximating OBE and SSE motion). System response at " design level" loads was used for correlation to analytical results as discussed in Section 4.2.
l TC6 was tested for 0.75 SSE motion (approximating an OBE event) and 1.0 and 1.1 SSE (approximating an SSE event). For all input motions, the supports showed no signs of instability or degradation. Results and observations indicate that system response was I' elastic throughout the tests. It was clear that the structural integrity of the supports was maintained O both during and after the seismic motion was applied to the system.
The maximum displacements for the misaligned supports occurred during. testing at-1.1 SSE input. Since the measured strain data for TC6 did not allow direct derivation of axial strains for the posts, the measured displacement was used to estimate the maximum post compressive loads experienced during the tests. The compressive axial loads in these long slender supports were primarily due to vertical and transverse (in-plane frame behavior) displacements.
Using the Impell computer program IMSNAP [33], the approximate compressive axial loads were derived from maximum measured displacements in a static,
(
non-linear analysis. The non-linear solution of the model corrected for large displacements and rotations. The resulting distribution of axial compressive load along the support posts is illustrated in Figure 3.6. A detailed description of the IMSNAP analysis is contained.in Ref [22]. Table 3.2 compares the estimated maximum compressive load O
3-4 l
1
3.0 TESTING RESULTS AND SYSTEM BEHAVIOR experienced during testing to theoretical buckling loads derived from the classical Euler buckling formula. Buckling loads are calculated using three values for the effective length factor 'K': ,
K - 2.0 The theoretical value for a fixed-free beam. This would be an approximation of the actual K value if the cable tray were assumed to provide no out-of-plane restraint to the support.
K - 1.2 The Impell recommended design value, based on assuming out-of-plane restraint provided by the cable tray, with pinned anchorage.
K - 0.85 The Impell recommended design value, based on assuming out-of-plane restraint provided by the cable tray, with fixed anchorage.
The comparison in Table 3.2 shows that the estimated compressive loads for Support 3 are well above the theoretical buckling values, even assuming the lower
'K' value without applying a factor of safety. In addition, both supports exceed the AISC allowables by a large margin without showing any signs of 1 instability.
From this comparison, it is concluded that stress allowables based on classical Euler. buckling may not I be directly applicable to hanger type supports subjected to short duration (i.e., seismically l induced) compressive load. The transient nature of the load, combined with the beneficial effects'of load distribution along the post members, prohibits buckling.
3.4 Tested Behavior The configuration for TC3 and TC7 was tested with and of Clamos without gaps-installed at the tray clamps. Other construction imperfections (such as undercut welds, oversized bolt holes and reduced edge distance), as described in section 2.0, were also included in TC3 and TC7. The configuration was then tested for
" design level" loads and " fragility level" loads.
Os .
System response at " design level" loads was used for correlation to analytical models as discussed in Section 4.0.
3-5
5 l
l 3.0 TESTING RESULTS AND SYSTEM BEHAVIOR b
O f
The test results of TC3 and TC7, as well as the other test cases,. supported the theory that longitudinal
- restraini is provided by all types of tray clamps.
Under " design level" motions for TC7, the peak oscillatory slip response was 0.04 inches, even when 4
gaps were deliberately installed in tray clamps. The maximum residual slip was less than 0.004 inches.
Both values are insignificant. For TC6 the maximum measured slippage was 0.07 in. .For all other test.
configurations, (TC1, TC2, TC3, and TC4). the maximum measured slippage at " design level" motions was 0.04 in. Representative plots of relative movements between trays and supports.are shown in Figures 3.7 .
and 3.8. '
The results of " fragility level" motions on TC7 gave an indication of the available seismic margin in the clamp design, as well as an' indication of expected clamp behavior at input levels significantly above the SSE.
[}
3 The " fragility level" tests were the final sequence
! of tests conducted on TC7, for the system with 100%
cable fill and deliberately installed gaps. These tests consisted of four consecutive levels of progressively more intense excitation, which enveloped the 7%-damped design SSE by factors of nominally 1.2, 1.5, 1.7 and 1.9. Because the. input
- ~
spectra were required to envelope the design spectra, the actual peak accelerations and overall severity of the fragility tests were typically twice the nominal -
values.
4
- No modifications were made to the test specimen during this progression of fragility tests. The system response at each test level therefore -
represented that for a system with the corresponding initial deformations (increased gaps, for example).
Thus, true margins may be much greater.
The " fragility level" tests were preceded by '
, extensive dynamic tests of the test specimen, including random-dwell, sine-dwell, " design level" t earthquake, and seismic system behavior (quasi-qualification) testing. These tests were of O
1 3 -6
l
-1 I
3.0 TESTING RESULTS AND SYSTEM BEHAVIOR- l D l i
varying intensity and included the 10%, 50% and 100%
cable-fill loadings. The cumulative duration of significant excitation prior to " fragility level"
, testing-was approximately I hour with an estimated usage equivalence of the order of 100 design-level OBE's (30:sec events).
r The Type C and weakened (i.e., with intentional weld undercuts) Type G clamps experienced their first permanent deformation in the 1.2 SSE " fragility.- '
level" test. -Even at 1.7 SSE (approximately three times the " design level" peak accelerations) and with cumulative initial. deformations, all clamps were effective in terms of attaching the trays to the hangers and restricting relative motion.
Only at 1.9 SSE (almost four times the design-level peak accelerations) did the Type C clamps in the-12 ,
in. tray run lose their attachment function in the
, vertical direction (and this did not jeopardize the system tray response). Even at this intensity of excitation the Type C clamps on the 24 in. tray were effective in securing the tray to the hingers' and limited longitudinal relative motion to less than 0.15 in, between the tray and hangers. Except for 1 the deformation of the intentionally weakened Type G clamps, all other clamps maintained their strue.tural integrity.
l Thus, based on the' system dynamic tests of TC7, it is apparent that large margins of safety exist in the
, strength and motionresisting capability of the tray -
clamps incorporated in this specimen. " Fragility
, level" tests performed on other configurations (TC1,
- TC2, TC3, TC4), demonstrated even greater clamp
- capacity. Only in TC1.was additional clamp damage noted, and this occurred at 1.8 SSE input. Clamp damage observations are noted in the ANCO Summary Report (17]. l l
O 37:
i 3.0 TESTING RESULTS AND SYSTEM BEHAVIOR a
O I
3.5 Tested Behavior There was no significant damage to the trays during i of Travs any of the tests. Slight " settlement", accompanied by twisting, occurred juring " system behavior" and
. " fragility-level" testing of TC7'when clamp saps were intentionally installed. The probable cause of this deformation was due to the progressive opening of gaps at adjacent tray connections. Similar tray settlements occurred for the higher level of input of
" fragility" tests of TC) and TC4. No such behavior
- occurred during any of the " design level" tests.
O l
O 3-8
, , n r -- - , ,- ...--- -n
l 4.0~ ANALYTICAL N00ELLING 4
4.1 Model Develooment A three-dimensional finite' element model of each test specimen was developed. The analytical models
(" production" models) were developed consistent with the analysis assumptions and methods detailed in the Impell . Project Instructions PI-02 and PI-GS01 [5,7] q
, used for design verification. General beam elements '
were used to model the cable tray runs, the tray .i clamps, and the structural members comprising the 'l cable' tray-supports. Since the cross sectional centroids and shear centers for typical: cable tray support members (e.g. channels) are not coincident, appropriate eccentricities were modelled to account !
for torsional effects. Rotational stiffnesses for '
base angle and baseplate connections were also l modelled. Models were developed for 501'and/or 100%
cable fill as defined in Section 2.1. All tray. !
l clamps, including types A, C, and G, were assumed to- t' provide some positive longitudinal connection between O the trays and the supports [5]. Locations of the-specific clamp types are indicated in the Appendix.
As previously discussed in Section 2.2, TC3 and TC7 I were tested with and without deliberately installed !
clamp gaps. TC6 was tested with support members I deliberately misaligned. Consistent with Impell l Project Instruction PI-02 [5] .
these deviations and
, misalignments are not incorporated into the
- analytical models.
In recognition of the flexibility in the testing frame at the location of the hanger. anchorages, dynamic characteristics of the individual hangers'for i TC7 were measured to provide realistic boundary-conditions for incorporation into the system model.
These modifications at the anchorage included the addition of vertical. translational springs.at all- the i
transverse supports and increased flexibility in the rotational springs at Support l'and Support 4. The appropriate stiffnesses' for these modified boundary conditions were determined so that the individual hanger dynamic characteristics. matched the
. corresponding measured dynonic characteristics, as shown in Table 4.1. Because of similar mounting )
O L.... U
4.0- ANALYTICAL MODELLING-eO r
conditions, corresponding boundary conditions were
- ~
incorporated into the analytical model for TC6, although direct measurements were not made for this Case..
The transducers used to~ measure response on the tray bend of TC7 were located three inches outside of the tray rail.- As the analytical model'uses center-line dimensions, rigid members were used to connect the-tray bends to-the transducer locations. This provides a better approximation to response at the transducer locations.
l 4.2 Dynamic Characteristics The second phase of the analysis-was the (Eiaensolutions) determination of'the dynamic. characteristics of the-selected cable tray-hanger system by solution of the
. analytical formulation for the mass and stiffness
- models. System eigensolutions were generated for-selected fill levels and input motions using the Impe11 program SUPERPIPE [8]. From these solutions, modal frequencies, normalized mode shapes and mass '
participation factors were obtained.
4.3 Resoonse Snectrum The third phase _of the post-test analyses was-
! Analyses response spectrum analyses for the same models. The
'3 analyses were consistent with the current methods used for design verification of CPSES cable tray
- systems [5] with exceptions as noted below. For each !
4 case, spectral analyses were performed for correlation with several seismic tests of differing i'
levels of excitations and cable fill. TC3 and TC7 were analyze! using spectral input for configurations with and without tray clamp gaps.
The input spectra were generated by pracessing the
, input acceleration time histories.for each of the-tests with the Impe11-computer program RESPEC [9].
Since there was often a distinct variation of '
spectral accelerations at several frequencies between the supports, a~ combination method was required.to generate a common spectra loading at all supports for
. SUPERPIPE [8] input.
4-2 i
~ - -- . . - - - . - ., . - . - . , , - , _ - - - . - . - - . - . - , .
4.0 ANALYTICAL MODELLING.
4 Initially, an envelope of all of the support spectra
, was used. This is the approach used for. support i
design verification per Ref. [5]. However, this method over-predicted the system response by a large
-margin and was considered inappropriate for i correlation with test results. Consequently, an
- average of all the support spectra was used. This was done by first generating response spectra using i the recorded time history input at each support point. The spectral ordinates were then
. arithmetically averaged to define a common response spectra loading for each support in each direction of excitation. Note that unlike design spectra, no peak broadenin2 was used in generating the analyti. cal loading spectra from the input time histories. :This procedure is illustrated in Figure 4.1. The OBE and SSE spectra were generated using 4% and 7% damping, 4
respectively. Spectra at higher damping values (101.,
15%, 201, etc.) were also generated to allow additional correlation studies. Representative plots O, ,
of higher damping spectra'are included in Figure 4.2.
Modal combination was performed using SRSS with NRC Reg. Guide 1.92 grouping of closely spaced modes
, (within 10% of each other). To ensure that analysis conservatisms were not overly biased,-PVRC Spectral j Peak Shifting used in Ref. [5] was not implemented in i the test correlation analyses.
l t
t 4-3
1 I
5.0 CORRELATION l I
Lo 5.1 Correlation of System The measured dominant system frequencies are compared Dynamic Characteristics -to~ analytically predicted frequencies in Table 5.1.
l; -
The measured frequencies were previously presented in
'Section 3.1. The predicted frequencies are obtained.
i from SUPERPIPE [8] analyses of full system models,_as discussed in Section 4.2.
Correlation was performed by checking'both the modal frequency and the normalized response characteristic shape. For modes reported in the ANCO data packages
[11-16], the plots of the measured mode shapes were-correlated to the modal amplitudes at mass points in-the system eigensolution. For measured modes derived-from time-history response data (either by visual measurement of response time-history plots,-fourier transformations of response data, or transfer functions), the frequency content of response.at
- various points was calculated to'obtain_the " shape"
] of the response mode.
To limit the number of analyses, correlation studies i were limited to a single fill level-'for each test configuration.
~
i Analytical correlation was hindered by a lack of data regarding test frame stiffnesses for TC1, TC2, TC3 and TC4. For TC7, hammer impulse tests were
- performed to' determine the natural frequencies of the l
, bare supports.when mounted on the test frame. !
Analytical derivations, as discussed previously in Section 4.1, allowed the true. rotational and :
I translational stiffnesses to be modelled at the point .I where the support posts were anchored to the test l frame in TC7. Due to the similarity in frame attachment locations between TC7 and TC6, these same
' stiffnesses were also included in the TC6 model.
These stiffness values were shown [22] to 4 significantly affect system response. Since no bare j support frequency data was available for the other i test cases, no additional flexibility was modelled to i account for the test frar e.
i f
t 5-1 -l l
i 5.0' CORRELATION i-
) Due to a relatively small amount of instrumentation data and lack-of knowledge regarding boundary conditions at the test frame anchorace,-modal correlation for TC) and TC2 was limited to modes presented in the ANCO data packages [11,12] for 50%
, fill-levels. These clearly show transverse modes
! dcminated by in-plane motion at the longitudinal ,
support. The. excitation of-these modes was " smeared"
!- over a range of, frequencies in the sine dwell tests.
These modes were accurately predicted by the
- analytical models.
TC3 was the most rigid of'the configurations tested.
i System modes identified during testing were higher
- frequency modes, whose shapes were difficult to
- identify. Furthermore, for relatively rigid systems the effect of shake table flexibility becomes more i
influential. Consequently, modal correlation was not j performed for TC3.
Correlation for TC4, TC6 and TC7 was performed using 1001 fill levels.
Measured modes for TC4 were derived from sine dwell ,
tests and response shapes reported'in the ANCO data ;
package [14] and FFT plots derived from measurement
- channels. Three of the four reported modes (two transverse, one vertical) were accurately ~ correlated .
to the analytical solution. No significant longitudinal modes were found due to a lack of ,
longitudinal' transducers.
Greater availability of measurement data for TC6 and TC7 allowed more extensive correlation to be 1
- performed. Hammer tests were performed for TC7 l supports mounted on the test frame. Support modal data from these tests allowed calculations.to be made l
to determine test frame stiffnesses.
l Measured modes for TC6 were again derived from both sine dwell tests and response shapes reported in the ANCO data package [15] and FFT plots derived from.
measurement channels. Four modes (one longitudinal, i
two transverse, and one vertical) were accurately correlated to those predicted by the analytical model. Two additional measured modes could not be correlated. TC6, unlike the other configurations, was a smaller model with only three supports.
l 5-2
..__ ._ . _ _ _ _ __. _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . ~ . . _ . , . . _
5.0 CORRELATION Measured modes for TC7 were reported in the ANCO data package [16] and identified from composite transfer functions derived from measurement data. Five modes (one longitudinal, four transverse) were correlated !
, to analytical predictions. A sixth measured mode
! could not be correlated.
4 In summary, the great majority of measured modes were analytically predicted. Measured modes which were not correlated were typically higher frequency modes. For these modes greater error can be expected
, in the measurement of frequency and shape.
Furthermore, modal correlation was supplemented by correlation of seismic responses. ' The conservative-
, prediction of response accelerations and i displacements gives greater confidence that the 4
dominant system modes were adequately represented by the analytical models.
. 5.2 Correlation of Seismic Maximum measured response accelerations and
, Resoonses displacements were compared to those analytically predicted by SUPERPIPE response spectra analysis.
Comparisons were done for various levels of seismic input for each test configuration. Comparisons were limited to the " design" levels of input, and ~were not
- performed for the amplified " fragility" levels 'of input motion.
! For TC1, a comparison was made of 0.5 OBE input at 501 fill level. Of the 24 maximum accelerations recorded on TC1, 22 were overpredicted by the analytical model. The level of conservatism was particularly large for vertical accelerations ,
- (typically overpredicted by more than a factor of 2.0). Only two displacements, both tray transverse, i were measured on TC) and both were overprdicted by l the analytical model. Four strain gages were used on TC1, and again each was overpredicted by the e analytical model.
For TC2, similar comparisons were made'using 1.0 OBE j and 1.0 SSE inputs at 501 fill levels. For OBE j input, 29 of 31 measured accelerations were i
overpredicted by the analytical model.. For SSE i input, 28 of 31 were overpredicted. Again, vertical l accelerations showed the greatest degree of a
l l 5-3
5.0 CORRELATION o
j l d
l I:
I overprediction. Of the two displacements measured, l I- one was overpredicted for each input level. The '
displacement which was underpredicted was of very i
small magnitude (0.08 inches), which is significantly:
l affected by' transducer resolution.
For TC) and TC2, nearly all (over 901) of measured acclerations were analytically overpredicted. This is a reasonabic confidence level since correlation was influenced by various factors - e.g., precision in accelermeter calibration, difficulty in maintaining a constant accelerometer reference axis 4
during test'ng, use of " averaged" rather than
" enveloped" analytical. input spectra,.etc.
For TC3, comparisons of 100% fill predicted vs..
measured response were performed for 1.0 OBE with and i without deliberately installed clamp gaps and 1.0 SSE I without deliberately installed clamp gaps. In all of -
.! the load cases only four displacement measurements j were larger than the transducer resolution and none
- of the measurements were larger than 150% of transducer resolution. Therefore only acceleration
~
i data was used for correlation. Of the 12 response i accelerometers used only one acceleration was ,
i underpredicted. This occurred in the 1.0 08E with
} gaps load case. The greatest overpredictions were for vertical tray motion,.whereas the lowest level of I
overprediction was for longitudinal support motion.
3 An additional study was also-.done to evaluate
, effective system damping. For seismic response l correlation 4 and 7 percent damping were used for the t OBE and SSE spectra, respectively.. Increasing i damping levels to 15% for OBE and SSE without deliberately installed clamp gaps produced only one additional ~ acceleration underprediction.
For TC4, a comparison was made of 1.0 SSE input at 100% fill level. Of the 21 maximum accelerations l recorded on TC4, 16 were overpredicted by the ,
E analytical model. Of'the five underpredicted -
accelerations, three were underpredicted by less than 101. Cnly three displacement transducers were mounted on TC4, and each was overpredicted. The two transverse displacements were overpredicted by approximately.601. The single vertical displacement i O was overpredicted by 2001.
i 5-4
. - _ ~ . . . . =. .- . .-
1 5.0 CORRELATION O
i TC6 and TC7 were much more extensively instrumented' with displacement transducers.
l~
For TC6, compari' sons were done for 0.75 SSE and 1.1 SSE input motions at 100% fill levels. A total of 12 i maximum displacements were recorded. Each of these displacements were analytically overpredicted for
- both levels of input. The predicted displacements were typically 200-3001 of the measured values..
Vertical tray displacements, however, were grossly overpredicted by as much as 9001 of the measured value.
The test data included measurements taken at the
- . second support (deliberately constructed out-of-straight) and the third .upport (deliberately constructed out-of-plumb). In each case,
, misalignment was oriented along the tray longitudinal axis. The measured longitudinal displacements of l each of these supports were relatively i O large--approximately 1.0 in~. for the .75 SSE case and 1.5 inches for the 1.1 SSE case. .These measurements were overpredicted by 10-401, the smallest level of
- overprediction. The margin of conservatism was reduced by the misalignment of the supports. Even i though the imperfections were not explicitly included l in the analytical model, the analysis methodology was
- shown to be sufficiently conservative to overpredict j displacements at these supports.
1 An additional study was done for TC6 by reanalyzing '
the system with averaged spectra regenerated to
! reflect higher assumed damping values. The method used to regenerate the spectra has been discussed in Section 4.3. The 0.75 SSE input motion was assumed to correspond to 4% damping, since the' spectra energy i is comparable to an 08E event. The spectra was- l regenerated assuming 71 damping and the model was i re-analyzed. Although the predicted longitudinal
, displacements at the midheight of the misaligned supports fell slightly below measured values, all I
- other displacements were again overpredicted. The
- same was true for the 1.1 SSE load case at assumed t
damping values of 201. These results indicated that except for grossly misaligned supports, conservative
- response spectra analyses may be performed with i damping levels significantly higher'than these allowed by the CPSES FSAR [26] (41 OBE, 71 SSE).
l 5-5 b._.____ . . . _ _ _ _ , - __u _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ __
--. .. - -. - =- - -. .- --
h 5.0 CORRELATION O
i For TC7, comparisons of predicted vs. measured ,
accelerations and displacements were performed for both 1.0 OBE and 1.0 SSE input motions at 100% fill.
Comparisons were done for the system with and without-
- deliberately installed clamp gaps. For both the 1.0 OBE and 1.0 SSE input levels,18 of 20 measured accelerations were overpredicted by the analytical models. The greatest level of overprediction.was noted for vertical tray accelerations, particularly l near the bend region. The two underpredicted i accelerations were located at channels with
- relatively large orthogonal acceleration components,
, which may have influenced acceleration measurements-
- during system deformation. For TC7, thirteen maximum displacements were recorded. For each of the models i
(with and without gaps) 12 of the 13 displacements
' were overpredicted for both the 1.0 OBE and 1.0 SSE load cases. It should be noted that the exact same
, modelling techniques were used for both cases, and no '
i attempt was made to incorporate the effects of clamp 1
gaps in the modelling procedure. The measured i displacement for the single underpredicted location l was of such small magnitude (approximately 0.05 inches) that the measurement tolerance of the
] transducer equals the reading.
i Table 5.2 presents average overprediction ratios for l l 1.0 SSE input at 71 damping for TC7 tested with and
- without clamp gaps. The overprediction ratios may be taken as a measure of the conservatism with which the analytical model overpredicts the actual measured j i displacement. Table 5.2 shows that the ;
4 overprediction ratios for tray displacements are i
- higher for the configuration without clamp gaps than for the deliberately loosened model. This is expected since the tray displacement in the loosened system consists of a rigid body motion closing the j gap followed by elastic deformation. The linear i elastic analytical model predicts displacements based j only on elastic deformation, and fails to capture the
- " rattle" of the loosened system. Nevertheless, tray
- displacements were conservatively overpredicted even j when clamps were deliberately loosened by gaps.
i lO r
l 5-6
, 5.0 CORRELATION O
However, support displacements show relatively equal overprediction ratios for both configurations, with the deliberately loosened system slightly higher.
This indicates that the presence of these gaps does not significantly affect the degree of seismic load transmitted to the supports. The additional conservatism in the loosened system may be due to energy dissipation caused by the " sliding" of the trays.
Table 5.2 indicates that tray vertical displacements were grossly overpredicted for TC7. This is consistent with correlation results for TC4 and TC6.
Similar to TC6, an " effective" damping study was performed for TC7. Only the twelve measurements overpredicted at design level damping were considered, the single measurement at very small magnitude was neglected. Damping levels were increased from 4% to 71 for OBE and from 71 to 10%
for SSE without underpredicting any of the twelve displacement measurements.
L l
O 5-7
'6.0 ANALYTICAL REFINEMENTS i
!O "
6.1 Overview Correlations of measured vs. predicted response modes and response measurements were presented in the
' previous section. All predicted data was from analytical models created using the dynamic analysis procedure detailed in Impell Project Instruction j PI-02 [53. The correlations confirmed that this i modelling procedure was conservative in predicting i response - regardless of various clamp gaps,-
construction deviations in bolting and welding, and j member misalignments.
1 The test measurement data was also used as the basis for analytical parameter studies to establish a more
- refir.ed modelling technique. The aim of this
- " refined" model was to provide a more consistent l 1evel of agreement with measured data. This was j accomplished by removing various simplifying
- assumptions used in the original, or " production", ,
! modelling technique and altering the method by which i certain components were modelled. The " refined" i model resulted in improved modal correlation and the i removal of excessive conservatism from the response spectra analyses.results. It is important to note, i b wever, that essentially all measured support and tray displacements were still overpredicted by the j " refined" modelling procedure.
J
! As discussed in Section 4.1, the test data for TC7 had included the fundamental frequencies of bare '
supports mounted on the test frame. From this data, i the flexibility of the support post to test frame l anchorage was derived. These same stiffne:;s values ,
i were extrapolated for use on TC6 due to the proximity
- of the support mounting locations. TC6 and TC7 were i chosen as the most appropriate models for analytical l
refinement studies due to more complete information
} on the test frame boundary conditions, as well as the
- extensive displacement measurements taken.
\
6.2 Analvtical Parameter A series of different models were analyzed by making i Studies on TC7 minor parametric variations to the " production" model
- of TC7. These models included the following
1 8
i O
4 h'
6-1 l
- i
..-__---...-.-.-.,.-..-,a. . . , _ . - . - - - - . _ , - .
6.0 ANALYTICAL REFINEMENTS l
l Model 1: The original TC7 " production" model.
Model 2: In this model the tray width was included
, in the modelling of the clamp assembly. .
All translational stiffnesses were assumed i rigid. Rotational restraint about the tray vertical and longitudinal axes is generated by force couples between the clamps, while the original PI-02[5] " production" stiffness was kept for the transverse axis. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 illustrate the clamp modelling procedure used for Models 1 and 2, respectively. In all other respects i
this model was identical.to Model 1.
4 Model 3: In this model the clamp elements were modelled according to the original
" production" model, Model 1. All translational stiffndsses were assumed rigid. Clamp rotational stiffnesses about the longitudinal and vertical tray axes were also assumed rigid, while the rotational stiffness about the transverse axis remained at the original PI-02[5]
- " production" value. In all other respects this model was identical to Model 1.
, Model 4: In this model the tray strong axis moment j of inertia was reduced by one-half. This reflects the most current tray property information gathered from supplemental
- testing (34]. These properties have ,
recently been incorporated in the Impell
~
l
, PI-02 mode 111ng procedure [5]. .In all i j other respects this model was identical to :
i Model 3.
4 Displacement responses for each of the analytical parameter studies are compared to measured values in Table 6.1. The measurement displacements shown are for the TC7 configuration without deliberately installed clamp gaps and other deviations. Channel numbers can be located on the' transducer location drawing shown in the Appendix.
6-2
, 6.0 ~ ANALYTICAL REFINEMENTS O
l Comparisons of Model 1 results against the other models shows the effect of including tray width and ,
rigid stiffnesses in the clamp assembly modelling.
' The most dramatic'effect was in the prediction of vertical tray displacements along the straight tray segment (Channels 47 and 49). Displacements at these ,
I channels for TC7 were grossly overpredicted by the
" production" model. This was also shown to be true
- ~ for TCl, TC2,'TC4, and TC6, as discussed previously
- in Section 5.2. By refining the clamp assembly i modelling and stiffnesses, the level of overprediction for these channels became much more consistent with the other measurement channels. This
- indicated that the original clamp modelling procedure, along with the vertical clamp stiffness value of 5.4 kip /in for trays 4" high, was overly conservative in simulating veritical response. ;
In comparing the sensitivity of response prediction among Models 2 through 4, attention was focused on Channels 43 44, and 50. These were channels located
! near the elbow which showed the lowest overprediction
- ratios for the " production" model when compared to measured displacements. It was therefore a concern that the " refined" modelling procedure provide an i overprediction margin at these critical channels, and i
that the margin be more consistent with other channel ,
directions and locations, l A comparison of Model 2 results against Model 3 shows only a slight improvement in the correlation with the {
measured data. This indicates that the improvement j in correlation from Model I was due more to the i change in clamp stiffnesses than'to the separating the clamps by the tray width.
A comparison of Model 3 results against Model 4 illustrates the effect of incorporating new tray property data for strong axis bending stiffness. The critical channels near the elbow beco m slightly i underpredicted at two of the channels (43 and 50) where displacements are significantly affected by 4
k O -
i 6 . . _ _ . . .-.- .- -. ... -._--. - . _ - . . - .......-.--.a-.-. a.-.
i 6.0 ANALYTICAL REFINEMENTS i
O l-a single mode which drops in frequency from 4.7 to ,
3.9 Hz. The spectral acceleration at 3.9 Hz for the
, support adjacent to these channels is significantly
, reduced by the process of spectral " averaging", as ,
described in the-test calculation [23). By including the true test spectrum for.this support corrected
- displacements for Channels 43 and 50 were determined L
' to be 0.23 and 1.09 inches, respectively. This results.in a predicted displacement for Channel 50 above the measured value and a displacement underpredicted by 0.03 inches for Channel 43, which is within the measurement tolerance (0.05 inches) of-
- the transducer. The measured displacement at Channel l
44 remains underpredicted by 0.06 inches, which exceeds the measurement tolerance by 0.01 inches.
, The modelling assumptions used in Model 4 were selected as the basis of the " refined" modelling procedure. Model 3 showed that the additional t modelling complexity involved in separating the tray 1
clamps by the width of the tray does not result in i
significantly better correlation. Model 4 used the ,
new tray properties from supplemental testing, which '
introduced slight underpredicticns at three measurement locations. The major cause of
- underprediction for two of the three measurements was
- identified as a low frequency mode shift exaggerated-
- by " averaged" response spectrum. Since the Impe11 j verification method (PI-02,[5]) requires that the design response spectra for all supports in the system be enveloped, the underpredictions due to 4 " averaging" spectra will be eliminated.
In summary, the refined modelling changes were: i
- l
! (1) The modelling of the clamps as rigid five-way l l restraints. Correlation with vertical i displacement data indicates that the vertical
- clamp stiffness used in the original models grossly overpredicts vertical tray movements, i The clamp stiffnesses for the other two i translational directions and the vertical and longitudinal rotational directions were also made rigid while still retaining an overall
- margin of overprediction.
!O 1
l 3
6-4 I i l I
d 6.0 ~ ANALYTICAL REFINEMENTS iO (ii) The use of strong axis. tray moment of inertia properties derived from more recent test data.
- This modelling method was designated as.the " refined"
- modelling procedure. The TC6 " refined" model
- explicitly included the support post misalignment, in addition to the'" refined" modeling procedure explained above.
6.3 Correlation of System -Table 5.1, as previously presented, compares the
- Dynamic Characteristics sensured dominant system frequencies with analytical i for Both " Production" predictions from " production" models. In Table 6.2,
'and " Refined" Models the same comparison is shown but analytical predictions from " refined" models are also included
' to illustrate the effects of changing the modelling procedure. Correlation is presented for both test
- configurations (TC6 and TC7) where the refined
- modelling technique was used. For both-j configurations, the correlation is performed for 100%
i fill levels. _ For TC7, the configuration compared was j without installed clamp gaps.-
Table 6,2 shows that the " refined" model gives
~
improved modal correlation for both TC6 and TC7. For-4 TC6, all seven measured modes are correlated using I
the " refined" model, whereas the " production" model analytically predicts.only five of the seven modes, j' For TC7, both models analytically predict four of the j five measured modes. HowcVer, the overall frequency agreement is slightly improved by " refined" i
i modelling.. The single mode not correlated by either model (f 3.2 Hz) was derived from manipulation of 1 time history response records but was not reported in ;
j the TC7 ANCO data package'[323.
6.4 Correlation of Disolace- Using both the " production" and " refined" models,
- ment Resoonses For Both predicted displacements are correlated to measured l 1
" Production" and values in Table 6.3 for TC6 and TC7. For each '
Refined" Models channel, an overprediction ratio is defined to quantify the margin of conservatism in the analytical 1
- prediction, i
h j
- O
! 6-5
d 6.0 ANALYTICAL REFINEMENTS 1 ,
r O 9
, The location of channels on the assembly can be 4
' determined from the test configuration drawings shown !
in the Appendix.
The modelling refinements for TC6 in Table 6.3
- demonstrate significantly improved vertical displacement correlation.for the single channel measured (Channel 03). Although another channel (Channel D7) slightly underpredicts displacement in the refined model, the underprediction is limited to 4 approximately the same magnitude as the transducer 1 i
resolution. l 1
f The effect of modelling refinements on TC7
! displacements have.been previously discussed in '
Section 6.2. Excessive overpredictions of vertical 4
displacements are. reduced by the modelling
! refinements. - Any ur.derpredictions caused by these refinements have been identified as mainly due to spectral " averaging". The TC7 results shown in Table 6.3 have been corrected for " averaging" effects by' l
the method described in Section 6.2 and show that i only two channels remain underpredicted. Again, the.
r.agnitude of underprediction is limited to !
i approximately the same magnitude as the transducer
- resolut19n.
(
l
- 6-6 '
i
_ _ . - _ . _ . . _ . - , . . . . _ _ . _ . _ . , , _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ , _ _ . - . . . _ . . , . - _ _ _ . ~ . _ . _
- - - .- - . ~ . .- . . ... .
4
7.0 CONCLUSION
S O
i
. The full' scale cable tray tests performed by ANCO !
Engineers. Inc. have provided meaningful. data for-3 investigation into the seismic behavior of cable tray systems at CPSES. Each of the configurations was-i- subjected to an array of input motion sufficient to measure its dynamic response characteristics and to 3 quantitatively establish the general seismic reserve i in the designs.
~ '
i 1
l From the results of the program several general
- conclusions can'be drawn with regard to the design of i the cable tray systems at CPSES. First, the system behavior under strong earthquake motion is predictable. The supports ~ remained stable and resisted large deformations despite many cycles (in 3 some cases over an hour) of earthquake motion. This
! measured response was conservatively predicted by the i linear elastic analys.is_ methods currently used for ,
i the design verification of the cable tray systems at CPSES. In particular: l i Comparisons of predicted to measured system
- characteristics show reasonable correlation.
- Nearly all predominant modes for each test configuration were correlated. Modal correlation for TC6 and TC7 was improved by determining shake l table flexibility through testing.
The correlation between the measured and j calculated acceleration and displacement i responses indicates that the analytical
- procedures per Impe11 Project Instruction PI-02 I [5] substantially overestimate response'when 4%
! and 7% damping are used for 08E.and SSE input, respectively. Assuming higher damping values (7-151 for 08E and 10-201 for SSE) reduces the
- margin of conservatism while still overpredicting
, displacement responses. This was shown to'be j true even though analysis loading spectra i generated from input time histories was not peak i broadened and that a common " averaged" spectra i was used for all supports. Use of broadened'and i enveloped spectra, as specified by Impe11 Project
- Instruction PI-02 [5], would further increase overprediction.
I
_ _a.. ~.k_..-.-_-.__.._.__.. . , _ . _ ~ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ , , _ _ - _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ . -
a
7.0 CONCLUSION
S 1 -
! i 4
!. Additionally, the construction and installation discrepancies which would be expected in these types of steel structures do not impair their performance or the ability of the. current analytical methods to predict system response to the design basis
! earthquake. In particular, construction
- ~ discrepancies incorporated into TC3 and TC7 and deliberate member misalignments incorporated in TC6
- had insignificant effect on. system dynamic characteristic's and seismic response.
- Thus it is appropriate to use the same analytical sodelling and a response prediction procedures for the different conditions.
Finally, the cable tray systems at CPSES are clearly
- strong, ductile structural systems which would be capable of withstanding, without loss of function, seismic motion greatly in excess of.CPSES design bases.- This was demonstrated in the " fragility level" tests.
In particular:
Observation and analysis of the test results for >
the seismic tests shed light on the favorable
- . seismic performance characteristics of the l various components in each configuration. The
, tray clamps, although the anticipated weakest ,
link, behaved very satisfactorily. It was j- further demonstrated that longitudinal slippage i of the tray at.the hangers was insignificant.
- The " fragility level" tests demonstrated the
! substantial margins in these behavioral
- conclusions.
The long slender members of the CPSES hangers do rot appear susceptible to instability under- ,
i seismic compressive loads. This is primarily due to the transient nature of the loads and to the ,
l dictribution of the load along the post members. l j In TC6, despite exceeding AISC allowables by a '
2 large margin, no degradation or instability was observed or measured.
!o 7-2
r l
7.0 CONCLUSION
S The results of the test p.egram have provided an !
added level of confidence in P . analytical l
- approaches used for design vert-ication of the cable )
tray systems at CPSES. In fact, the testing studies. i have allowed the refinement of analytical- methods such as more realistically modelling clamp stiffnesses and removing peak shifting of already i broadened spectra requirements from design verification. This resulted in generally improved modal and vertical displacement correlation with i
fewer potential modifications.
4 In short, the test program has'provided data to j determine that current. design verification methods
- can be used to provide reasonable assurance that the j cable tray systems meet the CPSES design requirements.
i
- O ~
}
2 I
t 6
lO
- 7-3
8.0 REFERENCES
O
- 1) " Test Plan, Dynamic Testing of Typical Cable Tray Support Configurations, Comanche Peak' Steam Electric Station. Test Cases I through 5", (and Attachments) ANCO Engineers, Inc., Rev. 1,
. December, 1985.
- 2) " Specification for Dynamic Test of Cable Tray Hanger System for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station", Ebasco Services Inc., Rev. 3, April,
, 1986.
, 3) Not used.
- 4) " Preliminary Modal Property Estimates for Case 4 and Case 7," Letter of Transmittal, G. E.
Howard, ANCO to J. Padalino, Ebasco, 6 June 1986 i
- 5) Impe11 Project Instruction PI-02, Rev. 5,
" Dynamic Analysis of Cable Tray Systems",
- October 1986
- 6) Impell Calculation No. 0210-040-M18, Rev. 2, May i 1986
- 7) Impe11 Project Instruction PI-GS01, Rev. 1 l "CPSES Cable Tray System Test and Analysis i
Correlation", May 1986
- 8) SUPERPIPE, V. 19A, 7/31/85, Impell Corporation j Standard Program, b 9) RESPEC, V. 10.6.75, Impell Corporation Standard
[ Program.
- 10) SPECT1 A, V.1/20/78, Impell Corporation Standard Program i
II) ANCO Final Data Package for Case 1; Comanche Peak Cable Tray Tests, Rev. 3, September 1986.
- 12) ANCO Final Data Package for Case 2; Comanche
- Peak Cable Tray Tests Rev. 3 September 1986.
O i
8-1
8.0 REFERENCES
O l
- 13) ANCO Final Data Package for Case 3; Comanche ;
Peak Cable Tray Tests, Rev. 1, October-1986. l
- 14) .ANCO Final Data Package for. Case 4; Comanche !
Peak Cable Tray Tests, Rev. O, February-1987.
- 15) 'ANCO Final Data Package for Case 6; Comanche Peak. Cable Tray Tests, Rev. O, February 1987.
- 16) ANCO Final Data Package for Case 7; Comanche Peak Cable Tray Tests, Rev.1, October 1986.
- 17) Final Summary Report of Dynamic Tests for Cable Tray Hanger Systems, CPSES; ANCO Engineers, Inc., Rev. O, January 1987.
- 18) Impell Corporation TCl-PTl; Post Test Analysis Test Configuration 1, Rev.1, January 1987.
O 19) Impell Corporation, TC2-PTl; Post Test Analysis Test Configuration 2, Rev.1, January 1987.
- 20) Impell Corporation, TC3-PT1; Post Test Analysis .
Test Configuration 3, Rev.1, February 1987.
- 21) Impell Corporation, TC4-PT1; Post Test Analysis Test Configuration 4. Rev. O, October 1986.
- 22) Impell Corporation TC6-PT1; Post Test Analysis '
Test Configuration 6, . Rev.1, February' 1987.
23)- Impell Corporation, TC7-PTl; Post Test Analysis Test Configuration 7. Rev.1. December 1986. -
- 24) SUPERPIPE, Impell Project Specific Program TUGCo Version 17A, September 1985.
N. Aslan, H.G. Gooden D.T. Sialise. " Sliding
~
25)
Response of Rigid Bodies to Earthquake-
., Motions". L. Berkeley Lab Report, University.of
- California, September.1975; Report # LBL-3868.
- 26) CPSES Final Safety Analysis Report (Amendment ;
55, July'1985). 1 O
E
- .... 8 - - . . . - . .
. . - . - - . _ . . - - - . - . - ~ - . - - = - - . .
. l
)
1
8.0 REFERENCES
O
- 27) Data Tape from ANCO Engineers, Inc.; Test Case 1, 50% Cable Fill, January 1986.
, 28) Data Tape from ANCO Engineers, Inc.; Test Case j 2, 50% Cable Fill, Februrary, 1986. -
- 29) Data Tape from ANCO Engineers, Inc.; Test Case ;
3, 100% Cable Fill, August, 1986. l 1
- 30) Data Tape from ANCO Engineers, Inc.; Test Case 4, 100% Cable Fill, May, 1986.
- 31) Data Tape from ANCO Engineers, Inc.; Test Case 1 6, 100% Cable Fill, August 1986. j
- 32) Data Tape from ANCO Engineers, Inc.; Test ~ Case l 7, 3 Tapes, 50% & 100% Cable Fill, May 1986.
- 33) IMSNAP V. 1/1/84, Impell Corporation Standard Program.
- 34) CCL Test Report No. A-719-86, Appendix D1:
Static Test of Cable Trays and Fittings.
1 1
I I
l l
l l
l O
~
l l
8-3 .
.ma p _ _ e. ._ . _.. - . . - - . . - a_,-. - . . . - , . ... -- ,_
4 d
l f
d TABLES 1
i I
i
)
ia i
h o
i
.t I b
i I
f 4
i l@
1.
I o
i i
. . . - - - . -- ._ . ..- . - . . .- - . . - - . - ,, ...--- - .- - -.~, _ - - - . . . . - . .-.- ....-. - - --'
TABLE 2.' _1_
SUMMARY
OF CABLE TRAY SYSTEM OYNAMIC TESTS Test Cable Tvna of Ovnamic Test Config- Fill Resonant Seismic System uration Fragility (1)* Search Test Behavior Tatt 1 10 ' X X 30 X X 50 X .
X 75 X X 100 X X X X 2 0 X- X 30 X X 50 X X 100 X X 1001 X X X -X 3 10 X X 50 X X 100 X X X 1002 X X X X 4 0 X X 100 X X X X 6 100 X X 7 10 X
' X 50 X X 100 X X X 1002 X X X X 4
4 f *I Percent of maximum specified cable loading of 35 lbs./sq. ft.
Hangers pinned at support .
) 2 System incorporating intentionally installed gaps at tray clamps 1
i O
t
- - - - - .--,,---,..--.-,,-------n,---,,.-.n .a ,..,,n,,,w-..~., ,-, .,-,-,,,__--,--_.,,,._.,-.c-- . . . , _ . - - - - - , . , - - - - . . , - - , ,
TABLE 2.2 l
INSTRUMENTATION
SUMMARY
C i-l i
Acceleramatars Disniacament Transducers Straln/ Angle /
Confleuration Innut Rennanna Rennonse Slin Hard Calls 4
TC) 7 24 2 3 4 TC2 7 31 2 3 10 TC3 9 12 16 2 1 l TC4 14 21 3 2 10 i
TC6 9 6 18 2 8 1
TC7 15 20 13 3 0 4
l 1 4 1
)
4 i
i i
)
4 4
i 1
i 4
f I
i 1
l
1 6
TABLE 3.1 DOMINANT MEASURED MODES
- O Method of Direction Frecuency Descrintion Identification IC1 Transverse: 7.2 Hz Transverse tray motion ANC0 Data Package
- 8.8 Hz at longitudinal (first) ANCO Data Package <
support.
ICZ 1
- Transverse
- 6.8 Hz. Transverse tray motion ANCO Data Package I 9.6 Hz. at longitudinal (first) ANCO Data Package 10.8 Hz. support. ANCO Data Package ICA Transverse: 5.6 Hz. Transverse mode with ANCO Data Package significant motion at
{
second and third tray spans.
7.2 Hz. Symmetric transverse ANCO Data Package tray mode with maximum
! amplitude at the second support and at the third tray span.
L Vertical: 6.4 Hz. Vertical mode with Response Time j significant motion at History Analysis j unsupported tier ends i of third and fourth supports and at first tray span.
i 10.8 Hz. Vertical mode with ANCO Data Package motion at the first~
and second tray spans.
~
i k
O
~
i 4
1
l TABLE 3.1 (Cont'd)
Method of CI
- Direction Freauency Descrintion Identification ICI -
l .
Transverse: 3.8 Hz. Transverse tray motion ANCO Data Package at longitudinal (first)
- support.
i 5.0 Hz. Transverse tray motion ANCO Data Package t
with second and third & Response Time supports moving in phase. History Analysis 9.6 Hz. Transverse tray motion ANCO Data Package with posts of second and
- third supports moving out of phase longitudinally.
j Vertical: 6.5-7.0 Hz. Asymmetric vertical tray Response Time I mode. History Analysis j 9.5-10.5 Hz. Symmetric vertical tray Response Time
- mode. History Analysis Longitudinal
- 4.0 Hz. Longitudinal tray mode.. Response Time i History Analysis 4
6.5-7.0 Hz. Longitudinal motion of Response Time second support posts History Analysis moving in phase. ;
i lO e
..~ __ _ .- . - - ._._ _ ._ _._._ __ .._ . ,,____ __. _ -. _-- _. _. _ _.. _-_.-. _ ._-, _ ---_.._.___ _ _ _ _
TABLE 3.1 (Cont'd)
Method of Direction Freauency Descrintion Identification ICZ (without gaps)
Transverse: 6.0-6.8 Hz. Transverse tray motion Response Time at longitudinal (first) History Analysis support. & ANCO Data Package i
8.5 Hz. Transverse tray motion Response Time at third support. History Analysis j 12.0 Hz. Transverse mode with peak ANCO Data Package
, amplitude at lower tray
{ second span.
i O Longitudinal: 3.2 Hz. Longitudinal tray motion Response Time at end of tray past bend. History Analysis 4.4 Hz. Longitudinal tray motion Response Time l with peak amplitude at History Analysis lower tray segment past & ANCO Data Package bend. I l
l l
, 14.0 Hz. A transverse mode with Response Time significant amplitude History Analysis t
near the fifth support.
O
, _ . .....--.___.,,,_...-.,.,...-,,.,..,__,.___,,__,,._,.._,-.,_.-_._,.._,,,.-_.__,-_,__....,_.,,--.,n., . , , __
O
~
i I
i
) IAS{LL2 ESilMATED POST AXIAL LOADS VS l
CALCULATED 8UCKLIIeG LOADSI
. ESTIMATED TilEO. BUCKLIIIG AISC AXIAL COMPRESSIVE LOAD ALL00448tES t ACTUAL LOAD LOAD (KIPS) F.S. - 1.92 (KIPS) 3 52 53 K - 2.0 K .70 K - 2.1 K - 1.2 K .85
~
4.4 12.6 1.26 10.3 .59 1.82 3.63 I
- 1) Theoretical Sucitling Load P = g EA 2 E - Young's Modulus - 29.5 x 106 psg A - Cross-Sectional Area - 2.13 in2 for C4s7.25 r - Radius of Gyration .450 in 1
] K - Effective Length factor 1
1 F.S. - Factor of Safety
TABLE 4.1 TC7 TEST FRAME STIFFNESSES AT SUPPORT ANCHORAGES (DERIVED FROM HAMMER IMPULSE TESTING OF 8ARE SUPPORTS)
Predicted Measured Support Support
- Fraauenev Fraauanev Sttffnett (H2) (HI)
, Support 1 1. 10.38 10.4 Knx = 2200 K-in/ rad
- 2. 86.24 73.
Support 2 1. 5.94 5.8 Ky - 30 Klin
- 2. 38.64 34.4 Support 3 1. 5.94 5.8 Ky - 30 K/in
- 2. 38.64 30.4 i
Support 4 1. 5.28 5.2 K = 18 K/in
- 2. 35.33 35.2 xx = 1600 K-in/ rad i.
j Support 5 1. 5.94 6.00 Ky = 12 K/in
, 2. 32.81 32.4 l
!O i
l I
i i
j t
l t
1 lO t
i-
.-,._...,___,.__._,.._,.,--.,-..,.,__._--_y -
. . _ . _ , , _ . . _ _ . . - . . - _ . . . . _ . - _ _ _ . . . _ . - - . _ . . _ . . _ , . ,- . _ _ _ - - - _ _ , , _ . . . , , , - . _ . . _ , . ~ ,
TABLE 5.1 CORRELATION OF DOMINANT MEASURED VERSUS PREDICTED MODES i
Measured Predicted Frequency Frequency
- System (H2) (H2) Deterintion of Mode i ,
l TC) 7.2 8.3 A transverse mode wtth peak 8.8 amplitude at the first (a longttudtnal-type) support '
l TC2 6.8 8.1 A transverse mode wtth peak 9.6 amplitude at the first (a j 10.8 longttudtnal-type) support j TC4 5.6 5.8 A transverse mode with peak j amp 11tude at the ftfth (a i longttudtnal-type) suppe.rt i TC4 7.2 6.3 An asymmetric tra sverso I
- tray mode wtth peak.
I '
amp 11tudes at the second and j third spans.
i I
i 4
'i
)
1
)
i
TAatt 5.1 (Cont'd)
CORRELATION OF DOMINANT MEASURED VERSUS PREDICTED MODES Measured Predicted Frequency Frequency System Q2) (H2) Deterintion of Mode l
TC4 6.4 6.3 A vertical support mode with
, peak amplitudes at the unsupported tier ends at the third and fourth supports.
TC4 10.8 None A vertical mode wtth motion at the first and second tray spans.
TC6 4.0 3.8 A longitudinal mode of the entire tray and support system
[ TC6 3.8 3.9 A transverse mode wtth peak
- amplitude at the first (a Iongttudtnal-type) support TC6 5.0 4.4 A transverse tray mode wtth peak amp 11tude at the second span (between the second and j third supports) '
l
.I
. . _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ ~ _ _ -- - _. _.
s :
l l
TAstr 5.1 (Cont'd)
CORRELATION OF DOMINANT MEASURED VERSUS PREDICTED MODES Neasured Predicted '
Frequency Frequency System (Hz) (H2) Dancrintion of Made i
TC6 6.5-7.0 6.4 An asymmetric vertical tray mode, with the posts of the second and third (both transverse-type) supports t excited longitudinally '
l TC6 9.6 None A transverse tray mode with 4
1 the posts of the second and >
third supports moving out of ,
j phase longitudtnally, i
- TC6 9.5-10.5 None A symmetric vertical tray ,
t r mode.
1
) TC7 6.0-6.8 6.0 A transverse mode with peak I amplitude at the first (4 i
longitudinal-type) support I
TC7 8.5 10.7 A transverse mode with peak ,
amplitude at the third (a j transverse-type) support i i j TC7 12.0 11.1 A transverse mode with peak ampittude at the lower tray second span. '
i iO i
TAntt 5 1 (Cont'd)
CORRELATION OF DOMINANT MEASURED VERSUS PREDICTED MODES i
1
. Measured Predicted Frequency Frequency Syltam (H2) (H2) Deterintion of Mode i
TC7 4.4-4.5 4.7 A longitudinal tray mode l with peak amplitude at the
{ lower tray segment past the
] bend.
{ TC7 3.2 None A longitudinal mode with i significant amplitude at the j ond of tray past bond.
i i
TC7 14.0 13.8 A transverse mode with '
j significant ampiltude near i
the fifth support.
i i
i J
l 4
1 I
r 1 l 4 i r
! I
{
l i
.c i
i
TAatr 5.2 l
l f !
i i
l OVERPREDICTION RATIOS FOR TC7 i
l; WITH AND WITHOUT DELitERATELY INSTALLED CLAMP GAPS 1
i i For 1.0 $$E input at 7% damping :
100% cable fill ! '
4 1 .
k
{ Configuration Configuration j l Measurement Location With caan Without Gans ;
1 i
i Support Transverse 2.13 1.85 !
1 i Tray Transverse 1.85 2.34 e
j Tray Vertical 5.43 7.42 ;
i I
s 1
i i 1
t
.i l
l .
i I f
i i ,
i l
1 ,
I I
l 1 \
I I t
l
,1 i
1 1 I
! l
}
1 i___._... - _ , , . . . - - , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . - _ _ .._ _ _ _..__.__.~.
l O O O l
IA8tE 6.1 i
l ANALYTICAL PARAMETER STUDIES FOR TC7 RESPONSE CORRELATION l
l 1.0 SSE LOADING 100t.CAtLE FILL
[ MEAS 42ED PREDICTED DISPLACEMENT l LOCATICE ruaamrt DIRECTION DISPLACEMENT (INO6ES)
(leOIES) 1 2 3 4 Support Transverse Support 1 40 Z 0.31 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.77 Sepport 2 41 Z 0.11 0.20 0.17 0.21 0.19 ;
Sappert 3 42 Z 0.10 0.26 0.33 0.36 0.31 Segport 4 43 Z 0.26 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.21 Support 5 44 X 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.11 Support Longitudimal i Support 5 45 Z 0.79 1.34 1.34 1.31 0.86 i
Tray Transverse 2nd Span 46 Z 0.14 0.37 0.34 0.41 0.57 3rd Span 48 Z 0.15 0.45 0.52 0.62 0.49 Elkom 50 Z 0.99 1.38 1.36 1.37 0.96 l
Tray Vertical ,
2nd Spaa 47 Y 0.06 0.94 0.34 0.30 0.37 3rd Span 49 Y 0.13 0.69 0.27 0.24 0.29 Elbom 51 Y 1.18 1.52 1.43 1.45 1.50 4
. - - - - ,,-n ~ -- - , , , ,n--
O O O TAE E 6.2 C0frARISON OF N004L rnaart aTIou USING "PR00WCTim" Am "PEFluED" MINIELLING TECmIQES 1005 CA E E FILL
" PRODUCTION" *REFIIED" NIDEL MOREL watnerD PREDICTED PREDICTED SYSTEM FREQtEEY FREQENCY FREQlEEY DESCRIPTION OF MODE (Nz) (Hz) (Nz)
TC6 4.0 3.8 3.8 A longitudinal mode of the entire tray and support system.
l TC6 3.8 3.9 3.9 A transwerse mode with peak amplitude at the first (a longitudinal-type) support.
l l TC6 5. 0 4.4 4.4 A transwerse tray mode with peak amplitude at the second span (between the second and third sepports).
l TC6 6.5-7.0 6.8 6. 8 An asymmetric vertical tray mode, with the l
posts of the second and third (both l transverse-type) supports excited l longitudinally.
I TC6 9. 6 mone 9. 7 A transverse tray mode with the posts of second and third supports moving out of phase longitudinally.
TC6 9.5-10.5 Mone 9. 5 A synnetric vertical tray mode.
l _ _ - _ - _
l -
l TAEE 6.2 (Cont'd)
- PRODUCTIOm* *KFIED*
seDEL M00EL i EASuaED PEDICTED PREDICTED SYSTEM FREMEY FRE M MCY FKQEEY DESCRIPTItal 0F MODE (Mz) (Nz) (Nz)
TC7 6.0-6.8 6.0 5.7 A transverse mode with ped asylitude at the first (a leagitudinal-type) support.
l TC7 8.5 10.7 9.1 A transwerse mode with ped amplitude at I
the third (a transverse-type) support.
f TC7 12.0 11.1 10.0 A transwerse mode with ped ampif t:& at the lauer tray second span.
TC7 3.2 None Mene A leagitudinal made with significant amplitude in longitudinal tray direction at fifth support.
TC7 4.4 4.7 3.9 A longitudinal tray mode with ped amplitude at the lauer tray segment past the head,
l~ O O O i
TAALE 6.3 UNFARISOE OF KSPONSE COARELATION U$1mG "Pe000CTIOu* AND *KFIED* M0ELLING TECHul0MES TC6 1.1 55E LOA 0 lug 100E CAALE FILL
- P900NCTION*
- KFINED*
EASURED lEBEL SEBEL LOCATIou CMesEL DIRECTION DISPLACEE NT PAEDICTED OVERPREDICTION PREDICTED OVERPKDICTION I (LUCES) DISPLACDEuT RATIO DISPL4CE E NT RATIO (IuCES) (IuCES) 1 Seppert Transwerse Support 1 D1 Transverse 0.65 1.52 2.34 2.23 3.43 Support 1 - 32 Longitudinal 0.68 2.04 3.00 2.14 3.15 Support 2 88 Transverse 0.34 1.01 2.97 1.31 3.85 Support 2 36 Transverse 0.18 0.38 2.11 0.43 2.39 Support 2 05 Longitudinal 1.41 1.52 1.08 1.53 1.09 Support 2 87 Longitudinal 1.57 1.57 1.00 1.50 0.96 Support 3 514 Transwerse 0.42 1.39 3.31 0.86 2.05 Sapport 3 512 Transverse 0.31 0.59 1.90 0.36 1.16 Support 3 Bil Leagitudinal 1.28 1.84 1.44 1.47 1.15 Troy M1 M Transverse 0.58 1.02 1.76 1.34 2.31 Tray al 93 Vertical 0.13 1.06 8.15 0.38 2.92 Tray H2 DIO Transwerse 0.49 1.51 3.08 1.40 2.96 l
l
~ % - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - w-- ,m-m - - ~ - - - - , - - - ~ - - - - w = - v - -
-v
O O O
~
TAKE 6.3 (Cent'd)
TC7 1.0 SSE LOA 0 lug 100E CAKE FILL "PattuCTIm* "KFIED*
wamern meEL nooEL LEATIM CM SIECTim DISPLACEKMT PE DICTED GNEF E DICTIM PE DICTED WEWKDICTim (IuCES) DISPLAEENT MTIO DISPLAE E NT RATIO (LUCES) (iuCNES)
Sapport Transwerse
~
Seppert 1 40 2 0.31 0.74 2.4 0.77 2.5 Sapport 2 41 2 0.11 0.20 1.8 0.19 1.7 Sagpert 3 42 Z 0.10 0.26 2.6 0.31 3.1 Sapport 4 43 2 0.26 0.34 1.3 0.23 0.9 Support 5 44 1 0.17 0.20 1.2 0.11 C.6 Support Longitediaal Sapport 5 45 Z 0.49 1.34 1.7 0.86 1.1 Tray Transwerse 2nd Span 46 Z 0.14 0.37 2.6 0.57 4.1 l 3rd Span 48 Z 0.15 0.45 3.0 0.49 3.3 Oton 58 Z 0.99 1.38 1.4 1.09 1.1 Tray Wertical 2nd Spaa 47 Y 0.05 0.94 15.7 0.37 6.2 3rd Span 49 Y 0.13 0.69 5.3 0.29 2.2 Elbow $1 Y 1.18 1.52 1.3 1.50 1.3 L __ ___ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
l i
I I
i e
i 1 I i !
I FIGURES f i
i O :
I i
l, i
1 j i O ,
l
\
h 1
I l
lnv SYSTEM LONGITUDINAL RESPONSE S1 DISPLACEMENT TIME HISTURY
, j 25.0 - 29.0 SECONDS
. r I
) ~
l::.ku(N' ti g\
1 u
\j
\
,, u v
, d,~
usw er ,
82# ,
,,, g jg ;g ses i w rim iseconos -
l
.... SYSTEM LONGITUDINAL RESPONSE l S1 DISPLACEMENT TIME HISTORY
,,, [,f 30.0 - 34.0 SECONDS l
l
$. f
/ j n f
a I-- i l b
,'t j .. _
h A Ha l
jg gg ses inw tem isece=ess Figure 3.1 Modal Response Frequency Extracted from Plot of Time History Response Record I
e
FREQUENCY 00riAlii RESPONSE
- ~~ GENERATED FROM S2 RECORDED DISPLACEHENTS I
g .. ,
j
=... ;
l ..
a4 h, d kg
, ' '- - - . . ." ;' T ;
Faf04thCT IN28
!$ jll0 ses twwt O
FREQUENCY DOMAIN RESPONSE GENERATED FRON S3 RECORDED DISPLACEMENTS
.. , I g .. ,
=...
f.. .
Ib
. - - , , , ;=;- .7;, _
=
racGuener ing l3 j;!! me sww
. l O Figure 3.2 Modal Response Frequency Extracted from FFT of Response Record
k e
_m
, t-l 8 ijt.
, ,e i 1
- j is I i l
l'llIl liI .Iii) :;
s i N N i !
1 I l . s.
1, t
I i - _ _._
--,-- g, ,As l 1
l f _- - . -n-i i
i / /
t i'
/ M
\ u i A I
O
.h 1 / g
,m g/? s D4 M
I g i ; - -
.--...wg/ m n M
)
i I \. i
'; . s
.fiw 71, ? &
- - __1_
ic t l
4 i 1
't i ?,
, f a.
! i I
4
)
'e l j I I I h
a e l
ll I
i i
I O
--,re-.,w-----, .-m- , - - - - .
w-,,., e-, --,- .. - . - . . -,--...-,----.-,-,,,..r-,,. , . - - - . , .-----,n .e,.
- - Y! TEN $srpoor i Totu cw295 ~-
Le m s TKbY f em. ,
9 j w
- h I
. p S. ,
? C esavency fes n %
- P gYk i S$kk $ Pre i1L T N WEcss Le w s. TcAY
- h 4
o
- h M
w O $
- h
- i. .,
S.
d dd Treassacy t'Hs)
- - $! TENY k .. ,,o . 1 i TE Aa4 ev a r s er.
o.mn. Tw y I m .
G M
! 6*
w
!* h a
I ,
9 .. .
S.
Figure 3.4 Averaged Transfer Function Plots t m
)
i b ,I '
I l
Y =
l l
Q I
- O I m 5= ;
A -c
= 4j 5
e S)
?v t
O C t
5 I $
_l 1 i n )
Y [
~ ,, .
J l
O
~
i i
O O f
l i
j FIXED 12.I ANCHORAGE - __
KIPS i'
C4 x 7.25 x 13.87
- FT. LONS (TYP 2 PLCS) i POST LOAD DISTRI8AITI(BI Nr D g,7
< MIPS i
i
.2 12.6 MIPS 1
MIPS
. .$ g$
M5 O g$
I
\ s. EIPS 08 d PS
/g s
- 7 l
i i
.I SledLLATION OF TRAY j MIPS I LGBSITtBINAL fESTRAINT t
i Figure 3.6 i
. TC6 Distribution of 34aximum Transient Compressive i
Load Along Post
! o . o o l
e q
i I
i CPSES CABLE IRAY IESilNL i
IEST CRSE 6 RESPONSE 1iNE HISIDR1 LVDI SLIP SUPPORI 2 l
, .~ -
i i
i l A-1 E
- y.- -
.i u i 5 i 8
. . ~
j 1
i i
l , ,5
.---- ,9 - .-.,,s,......_m_- ,t,-
- . ,s, - ...-+ + -. ,s, iROM l.lO*SSE IBMt ISELONOSI ,
1 0 0 % f 1 1 1.
I 1
_ _ . _ _ _ _ . - . _ . _ - - . . -- -- - -. . . . - - - . . ---- - - - . - - - - - - ----------1 FIGURE 3.7 Representative Plots of Relative Longitudinal
]i lloves.ients (Slip) between Tray and Support (TC6) i
, & I j I_
- e
= .
m_
m,
- s
)
- l7 aC
= nT i(
- d ut t r io gp np
, ou 4, LS ed i
s vn i a
_ o t n ay o .
. 8 l a c .
. 3 er E . RT
.__ i s .
. E f n
. R U oee E .G sw n _
I tt
._ i _ F oe l
lb
., P
)
i, ep vi
_ il tS
. _ a(
. _ t ns et
. sn
_ ee rm pe C _
N 2 ev V Ho 1 l -.
i; i
RY =
S GH _
- E IR .
I SI I i
S _
Y7H3 i ,, 'f R P REES H
. ISN C Al =.
ECi L P EG OTEI HSSL CENS -
-- SI SN _
IO + _
S PI .
E SD S
P EV 0L ._
0L HL - .I C l I
M%
~
. =
,O0
, F1 R0 _ _
- . = .
a zc ez ta ! ,_6E c
' s*a .
, ,i
O O O
~
t i
i TEST CASE 7 BASE TRANSWERSE 7 c/o DAMPED 0 -
AVERAGE RESPONSE SPECTR A (oOs t
h 4.0 - g i e' il n
E h 4
52 ' AVERAGE RESPONSE SPECTRUM lfl , L[1 3.0 -
f
%uY\
-5 t ,o n sk
,E "
o p*g, U{QN 2.0 -
v l Q. cy m t i
o - t
'Nycy' %
i 1.0 - /
/
.i a 1 a a a a a a a a a a i OD 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.10. 20. 30. 40. 50.
1.
FROM i.00 SSE INPUT FREQUENCY (HZ)
NO CLIP GAPS
~l l'igure 4.1 l t
' ' Typical Averaged Response Spectrum i
O O O
~
TEST CASE 7
- BASE VERTICAL SPECTRA 5.0 -
4.0 -
n O
.: Z
_O 3.o -
H 7a/o DAMPED
. I.nj ', 10 *h DAMPED 15 % DAMPED
_.J 2.0 - s
,('- s -
f'N'N ,-
t A -
j
+
Q o
/
irN_'s-v'<~~s ,/ ,__,% --
't t.0 -
//
/
/ -
i '
i i l i a i a a a it a i a 3 3 l 1. 2. - 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.10. 20. 30. 40. 50.
i FREQUENCY (HZ) i
- figure 4.2 i
j Averaged Spectruu f(egenerated at liigher Assumed i
Damping Values -
X i
b" e
"a" e
=Z SLPPORT TIQ
- 55
- 55 TWO CLIP ELEENTS ARE MODELLED -
. ELEMEMT " a " TRANSWITS FY, FZ. MXX, MYY, AND MZZ WITH ST!FFNESSES AS SPECIFIED IN PI-02 (5).
O
NOTE THAT THIS LOAD IS TRANSMITTED ECCENTRIC TO TE TIER TO SIMULATE TE EITECTS OF SEAR CENTER ECCENTRICITY.
i l
l i
i I
Figure 6.1
" Production" and " Refined" Methods used for Clamp Modelling
~
O
'"^'
O X h
i
.h-.
"a"
. =mmmmm-- - . h. l "b"
SUPPORT TIER =g A
FIVE CLIP ELEMENTS WERE WOCELLED -
. asMaurs e a TRA>8MIT FY WITH PIGID STIFFNESS; Mzz WITH ORIGINAL P T - 02 [5] STIFFNESS EsMaNr5 c. d TRANSWIT FX #!TH RIGIO STIFFNESS
. nasant e TRANSMITS FZ WITH RIGIO STIFFNESS SINCE T4 TRAY TR FORCE IS TRANSWITTED SY A NORMAL "P'MIM" *_ _ MAIMT THE SIDES OF THE FRICTION . THE POINT OF APPLICATION WI OSCI TE SE CLIPS e ANO h. h4 ATION IS QM. IOEALIZED AT THE TI .
Figure 6.2
" Production" and " Refined" Methods used for Clamp Modelling O ;
-n& sam .A-~+s A +_ - , au- +-.--r s .a_. _. _. -w - --- ,.--- - -- -
4 I
h t
i e
d 4
I i
APPENDIX I
a
)
4 I
b 4
a 4
1
'l
, .,- ...,,, - - - , - .-,. .w, -- -
I i
O
/
5 /
\
j i E ,
, \-). ,\. .k_ l k# ,=, g g e // L !
// /
, \ M \' M M
~
&" 5.. M \ \*
1
.T
/
Ml', \\y 4
O s
/ e' l J
o
'g
, N, \
^
i.\
M wh -
/
L I o l
/ 4 CC
- \ x x x xx f ,s ] 6- ;
. r
- [* c Ni vi / @
_s , 1J !
O -
,t 1
TEST CONFIGURATION -I SUPPORT 2,3,4 t5 n _ 2'- 4" _
4GxGxV4 :
b ' (TYP) ~ I
/4 \ /
( TYP') -f C '/4 / YYb s - - =._ - - - ,
=.p
. m ga fl ,
l N $ 4 Q ysd
- le I/4 \ /
a d _ _ _ _O_ _c 4 x.7.2K_ _TYP) a_ ____ ___,,
'/4 I, __ _______________ _w,
'/4 -\ /
s74 / NYR N
N G ,- TRAY CLAMP U 7 DETAIL (TYP )
(TPAY I e a Type
- .: _ _______________ i' a r SUPFT TOP BOT
,.,._, ~~------------- - ' 2 A C
^ 3 C A a.
v y j 4 A C s 5 C A N
-i y e w
o i
e ,
U I o
- , = ______________-
LLWl_l C ,. m i
,i.; _ _______________ . y i==
s 2 r
4'- o "
=
-k
_t _
i i 3
rl3 -
, ,s/td 4 9:ne roe. I'//p Botyr l
.e-r---+-
. + mn 4
_o _
l' 2 " _. _
SECTION l1
\
l l
i
-. .- . - . . , - . .. - ~ ,. --. .-.. .--- . - - - - . . . . - - . . - --- .
lll
,' tt 3
l _ " x /'/ B-3
- B ,_a. B
,, ~ L
" N y s
\
O ;
oi x gv, i g%\
2 gii-7as l 1 I '
7 _NC L lfI
' A QI_
O I
T sx \ E
] = "a y z/K 3 3
4 S _
/
", i, p~ - t
- s NM L
4
%o 'f-
=
/
t e
4
'/ /'4 s
I i
?
?-
s )9 x/ g NV -
'2 F' -
- +3
+ ,^
6 P (O n 4
t/
N O
A I I
.7
- b[> (\
L A- 'A-A 'A
\/ T A T R
R oi
- - U O
- N N G P P r'
- 0
'e - ~
O O I F P y> ~ I I N U
- c" "B
, T T eG C C O S o,fT - I
\ - E E S S C S
Y' [/
T v
V S
, kV '4 /
4 E
< 4
'! /'
i T
x'g N/
'T
^
O
+^ d
_qC" n_ t_ _
3" , DCb 9njg PP M O N i
MY rl il iI i I I l iI i : : AT T TU D q- T -
(
)
P x= _
" W E
L Cl l E
P O
B R
YA Y h
Y .~ _
I ru ,- T '
V AT T PN o , ( = _ RE OU e) 6 _ _
"o- TD TR J il _
V
'4 E M'(T # -,
x
_ - _ L B f8 [
E
, C e __
F P C 5 "
, l1 l i l 3 I I l i l .l ii; -
8 r >t U ;o, o
e
%- %.q ~
.' ? u
- ,A rl
[A l
O llll
o ,N N .j l rvX s
/ h -
\
.e .
.i
./
/ 8
/ g r
3 a -
. x i o 'i '
f<s y ", ' j 5
a 2-c ~
E l g s i \
5 r .
1
- 1 l f a a Q
A 8
3 O ' s' i i
+ * .
4.g s,
\
_ . \
s - \ @
. . m ;
' R 9 ~
%?
%,b h
-6 *,
x G5 to M' k d
e tg O O h
3 @ o' .
c
$ 3
/
N \.
- 0
.(
v' s g '
a.
6 x ,
f i
i
i l
.r 2'- 4"
)
2'- 4C- _
l l -z<> - r. 2~ -
%3.,q
' ' ; I h 4- %'- l'A' DIA Socr j I j' ~
,(TYR) -
_LJ
_4' LG' x G sydCTYP)I
, a p h 1- i !
d 4
/cc, e.z. .; Y co a.z.
i e -
I w , l.
' ; l l
I I l
I - 9es l
%\
v !
[_9er_ik _ _ _ _
I
,f y,
/ (m J by ._____________
c4 = 7.2.5 N
_![
i 9 N e _
i'- o.. us I
! \
u -
l
[ Mv3h _: -
_ _ _ _!q _j[=___
- .__u ________ c4 7.2s v N
,,_ g _ _ \ TP.AY CLAMP CTrAIL suggr typc reeg 2 X o 3 6 A 4 C G 5 G c TEST CONFIGURATION -2 SUPPORT 2,3,4 6 5 e
, ---, ,, ,.-- c. , .-- --
O x-
\_1 TI _
_ I., ] \ .. . .. /
7 r ,g q g
fcc"'53t_l .
p [f"')
g= l-9" =
l f I
o ; , ; ,
l b o 78Al O i
i s
[cahr%L n.s g k Syt c.s. PLATC
~
1 _
& s.o-I ELEVATION VIEW 2'-'/* 6dA1) 2'-v"(max) 3": i
,AG=G ,
' e T2AY CLAMP 7 +I g-c- - ,
' DETAIL P,*C,s ME " -
%N l
\%s, suen 2fL l
g %/ h/ i a
- q. D ya v kYR e %, *, A i ,
l W c.s.
4 Q am ;
! 7==C l l
I SECTION A-A SECTION 8 B (OPP HAND)
. TEST COWIGURATION - 2 SUPPORT I 4
- O
--..,,--...,--..,,.n
,,,___,,,..,,,,_...n-,
-G -
4:
, \ \
o .i
- r. 8
- N
- i - - \
.e e
.ia
. /
[ g c
J 8
/ J 0 c u n u :
2 o N 3 5. a l
a% -
E!
hl 5 n
0 -
! j O ^
ne ae r E
a 8 s s
"_" 8 ~
3
< .I
,r ,
J 3
/ (
e a e
5\ l e
= ,
i . l eO/)/
o Q ^.0
+ .
/* */
j\ /\ \
/
/
/
/
s,0 /* /
1k A \ / 6
,,0
'V
. / ,
..o /. ,
m
\ / 1
- /
. / -e z lO \8 h
<a
+
o M
s e s 8 5*
%* s w
i.u N4*
O O O IfdL CONFIGUR ATION _.3 SUPPQRT l
---* m-L 6 M b A 3/, Jt 3 *-O' L4
'y FWP TYP f) L,"
\
s e sxs a ,a. a v, ca. -
=
W < _ e 3 x 3 , ,,, y
-1
)L / '4 j_. /yp g n.g - 't,-'g 4 y s
, v+
3/a'x +'x 5' o n
'e . . _ _____
cren_ / s=^a,ci-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ i 1m s
p -
F If k. . .. _ m _ _ s._[ b 4 _
s+
I c o s.z
,g,g f =
m g +_ I - ->
(Ty e S acs) A A ._ g,
.. a in -_
= -
PLAN SECT. A- A
l 1
TEST CONFlGURATlON 3 l SUPPORTS 2,3,4, E 5 I l/4." O SOLT (Typ)
L 6x 6 x 3/4 TRAY CLAMP DETAIL
$ @ SUPFT TYPE
'/4 s 2 A g
b ll+
/ 3 G n
I c
2 #
s [- TRAYl
- - - - _ ._ a A
J' , ,
2, d 7 l
U f ce x s.2 go j
- = , ,, =
9 3 '- 6
m =
l l
O l
L '
--- - - ~
!~ O O o i
8 C23 I
Cat l i y
Ces Ca I C C60 l .
6i Cl2 C32(R) X !
a C30(R i i M M MIME m Cl4 C31(R) f SFFUti 2 l i I3 I m Cl7 I I m
(
l Cuan g cas C4 l <
d.C,, N l CR4 1
EPPWIT 3 '
l C'8 C3 san
- a t a r
J l i Cao cuin) ,
N4 I l Cie C27 1
l Cza m
/
C37(R C7 i i
"8 TEST CASE NO. 3 "8NT8 i
TRANSDUCER LOCATIONS
,_,__f. _ , . . i.pe , -_-.L_
m.am -- --:e.AJ - - -"oa h-- 6 d d
/_ i lIo02 1 1 s 1
^ s, H<
n H g j
' \ /,8
[ \ \,, h i . / \s_
s i
'A no >
- 6
\ /
< s O
,, n
'd } ,
\\
w 4 % (
tx
- ! Q
\ / '
i e'
- O
\
. _ _ . _- -_ . . _ _ . _ _ , . . - _ . . = . _ . . . , , , , _ -
~
O O O lW & van T T "
"(TyiD gg L O 1
,, =
s'-iow" 5/% _ -*-
_ g_
q _. (To 21 y ,
orn j e<u,v c yas t- m .1=-
u r
mc
' ^ "
, .i
,/
r A.
4 ' ' '
f
- l -3 ic a.,W l 1. G n cak -
i e
s l,_' _l -A. i
\ w~
i a i =, _ ,
SY p
- 4 3Ab g i Sll 5
- i i -w, --
o g
e v4 x -
r L 3' p a. pz s ii , ,,
o i
i I
i ce srs v4
___________q_,
/N n ie
-- _M -
i y
(
sf,3 x3 l y, s g \l g i i 6/6/3
-1 i +./ i
\ l l 8 I
\ u i I Yt at,,9 4 1 -___[ TRAY I h m
m ca ii.3 m W4 u, A J_ ' y4 v x'
= t ' 4..
2 # 4'- o" BI IA SECTION A-A
+ + "Jerh*" SECTION B-B(OPP./SIMilAR)
E LEVATION suppoar Tvec I D I" ._ '.
yg'4 Z Co x Ge 74
< 4/[(;f"% SUPPOPT No. I
_s , TEST CONFIGURATION 4 SECTION C-C
4-O 2'4' 1 I/4@
I "
BOLT (rp) =, ,
3'/g'4Ak6 =
I,
=
-s----__---- a j
~
/=bA6A /4 _v e>-
H O
, m .i 1/4 % e 8/4 / j TRAY CL AMP Q
< DETAILS SlJP P' T TYPE -
l 2 A i._3._(Id- h 3 e _____- _=. _n 4 G h
- ~ ~; "
~
!, O = =
i j 'h
. = =
4 SUPPORTS 2,3, & 4 TEST CONFIGURATION - 4 t
i
- O l
1 l
I i
. , - . . , , . - - , - - . , , , , , - - , -- . . . - - - r--c - - - .. . - - - , , - - - . - , - , - - - - - - - - - - , , , - . - - . , - , . . - - , , , , . --
- _. _a J _ma a .- . - - - , , _ _ - - -m.
_ - _ _ - . a -- ----w - - - - - - - - - - -
g .
% J l a 'g j so c t- -
y a O &e v
._L
$,1
/
'o 5 n _;
u O, O O
s e aa w - -
a pg - g m
- l-trN C '
8 m
'l 8
=
,, o , = . A<
h6 & 4$
<m
'o b N 2 2 E
o p_._
i.
i
_____________w.' .
Aw
_, r - o e
8 i w O 99 e
O r
w
.\
s g_ ____________/__'__k___ I m g) g o N 2s'93 N
o y
v- /
y+:: i a o e s
9d O 2 4 z O WP D
O r
. I- E EC- C D 80 oQ
- y c. u.
i o. 2 l 1 D O 1 ( i i _____________..i M O 97 n D k ,! b 1 W
d 4 4. As s 7 ' I i <h l s
n i
i 1
I l s i 11 !!
( b" i l
I II lil I h 4
( ll il ll i, li I
< t l
'I (m e (s"c ri ,
I i Si 1
DIE s ,_
______s t. J !l o f
_ dLL) (gy; V ~,, = p, 1
' =
~
,, 0 ,2 i
13 4 5 44 3 _
C T _
CC R
> O P
O d
P U 2 _
S 3 _
3 C _
2 l 4 C _
C i 4
l C;
i l5 t 3 C
3 M 3 E C T
S Y
, X S E l T i 0
A C 1 N 0 I 3 z "
O F
O O
2 C
l i
Cft C
O C
N A 4 8 T 6 2 1
3 R 4 C C O C P P
9 U
/ 2 C
S S N
4 2 O 90 4I T
3 ,
34 CC p C[ .A oC O
)
C , a 5
2 (
R NO C 0 L 7 5 E g/ 2 i C j C
3 T
6 t TE 2 5 C O P
SR 0 3 P EU_
4 2 U TS C C S A F
7 M C 1 g 2
9 C
C[ 6 1 q 2
O T I R C O P
9 P _
U 1
S C
S I
)
C R _
g (
9
%g 4 _
, l C _
C 4 _
, C I
c O e c
S T
R O
P
\ I C
P L
S
D N'l J E
O, f/ k / \\,\.
u u
.i /
xy 3
C/
K t x.
1YI\.: O o -ww_
k --
x aw
,81'8 7 Z
,l - ,7 h @s m e 5 -
- 7# 0 0
\
,P
- p. 5 w
h 4
6
O O O
~
TEST CONFIGURATION 6 SUPPORT I
'I I 2 3 n/2" TyP p --> 4
& 2 *. 4" R A
+
-II W r/
- - H '/ H v n
" 3r_ g*
7 '
a h I ,
~-
I l '- 2 "
- % e 9#
l 3"TyP 2" l
y > -> -
+
S/ide A ,
V l l T %)r // 7 // -
// 7 3 l l g tr=*] :.]
w -t - -
p.
. l l c -
5 t+1+ h J l
- s 5 g* *
'4 j'
l l 9 UP) 5/lb N y 5 h
J l l U I
c4 7.25 avr), \
o ,h I - -- --
- - - I N V4 x he i N 7 'q l l I/4 / 1
'a h l l 'E y c ,
,7 I I
, , y V U U a u T ,,
b 4 -> " I R AY C L AMP A DLTAll
+'- 0,<
SUPFT TYPE i
2 A ELEVA TION SECTION A-A 3 e
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m
i l
TEST CONFIGURATION 6 q , SUPPORTS 2&3 l t
i 15/lb DIA, BOLT HOLES, (TYP)
_ 2'-T' _ __
'~
l '- 2CTY P)
' (TyP) ~
~
t .
H H i .T ri [ i q- n i n ,;
i r ryp/\ I/+ Vp i i I
l I
\\ I/4 /4 t/2. N
/wP l
l i 4,3'vg l l
$ lg l I l h I >
l I I I du o k U l l 3 A li il li I! n
~~
I I I l >
z l l l l y
~~
i i cm.w , tar) , ,
h 'l i l'i r i il lu i
t '
i 'y -
't i
1 I
I I l \v4xr xD g v + c- , l l v4 s i-i I m __ a ! i
- t u ,l ll i; il u u u u u u 4'- o" TRAY CLAMP DETAll SUPPT TYPE I I ELEVATION 2 '
A 3 t Jt_.
, >c
\
\
' \
i 1 g 6 \
- 8
=:
\
e i _
6 g , _N./c e ka =c af
- _q 5 O t,
\,
! 5 .I 5 2 a\
s a i
- 0 { ( ~
i\/s=
3-
\
- E Ng
- i e - g 5
- a sf -1 3 .
1 \
Q tm a
a\ '
m -C s i-W =\ / {-
_s/* /
e
- eW
/
- . 4
\ i i i O -
5 Y 5 em 11 es ,,J p G
,.n , , . - , . . . , - . - - - . _ _ , , , - - - - . , . - - , . - . , - - - . - , - . - . , . . , . , , , . . . , , , - . , , , , . _ , , . , _ . , _ , , , - . _ _ .
9
(-)
, gs s, 7[ 4/ +
~ #'
't e !
/ /
\ *
- t 9 x x \ ,,0
[s/l \.
4s. l .
%, Bn LL.
O N,/'\":..g s
%) g
.' + o, '
@ ~
- g \
1
'u r
^
%@
- N e
a
, s .
ux,, im ;%
g,< 88 n
/
. \
. 1
\
" O, *
'6 '% \ -
O i i
l l
O h n
\m ~@ '
~
n;
~i ~
t
/ \ * ~/
'c.s.
Art u i*
ao e is.3 l .f.k b. s
?* !
l 5/i/
i-9" =
= l
, l {
0 '
i
'l u i ._ _Lh7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _0_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l s = o.s ].li_
1-TC.S.FL.AT6
.. : L f x. . . . 7EAG h ..... .____
d e-o- @
ELEVATION VIEW
_ z' u'(MAxl 2 ' u'(max)_-
O re 1
/L G u (,
- xn r--, -
- reAv cvw h"c.s. j - ' - 1 c4fA'-
PLATC D ,
5/, g \b\ g;py [V#f y s/iw / "4" / i a a
> ,* , 's Pya V N h- F I
C. h" c.5.
. R ATE.
. F9 i l
SECTION A-A SECTION B-B (OPP HAND)
T_E.ST CONrlGURATION -7 SUPPORT I O -
B
, _ _ . , . , - ,---_-.-..,,--,.,3 -,,y.- ,1.-,-c- .w.v.v-
i l
l U = z'- a" = _
z' c' -
, , 2 F-z" M..
g _ ;_ _ _ _ _ __ _
- _______.___(_ iyt c u a ct;r i
_4 (fYR) _L_
ccia G X(ryP)J cc, e.2.
z c v s.z.
- /
e e
i i s m ar e _
i'- 9" '~
SLIPFClitT Z,h5 l'- O i f
{TEAY I-- A _ __ _
e o I
t, i a ,
i - o., N s
N U
-.= . ___ .
_ _ _ _ _ _t.__ _' a,. f_Ee_ r
__ ____. -_- =:-
.3_ . _____________ _ _i_ _ _
c4 7.25 v X-'
c'- o \ renc w WA.t Scoor ryas
'catwf
- 2. C C 3 6 A A A 6
. 5 6 A TEST CONFIGURATION 7 SUPPORT _213,4 6 5 n
m - - -
e ,-- .- - - --
A 1
3 8 5 f a f a s7 8
3 i
3 e
2 <Y a
' is, il
,s "e i li aY h O f. a g
g f5 55 i
, e I
. e{t S .
a 3 b 8 i
"v i g
. o -
(pi i
,,..,--,-..r - , . - ...,,-,-.n . ,. - . . . , , , _ _ , . , , - . . . . - ,,
I Impell Calculation M-68, " Evaluation of Diamond Cored Bolt Holes" Rev. 0 (Replace Ref. 26 Complete calculation) )
O i
l l
l 1
i l
l l
l i
t l
!