ML20210C936
| ML20210C936 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1987 |
| From: | Barrett L ABB IMPELL CORP. (FORMERLY IMPELL CORP.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210C645 | List:
|
| References | |
| 0210-040, 210-40, PI-11, NUDOCS 8705060369 | |
| Download: ML20210C936 (60) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2/10/87 Project Instruction 7- ~
for Q)MANQiE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 1 PROIECT TUGC0 Tabl e of Contents PI Dynamic Analysis of Cable Tray Systems Rev. 5 PI Design Vertf tcation of Cable Tray Supports Rev. 4 PI Procedure for Obtaining Site Infonsation Rev. 2 PI Design Vertf tcation of Cable Trays and Rev. O Cable Tray Clamps PI Design Verification of Base Plates, Base Angle and Embedmont Plate Rev. 3 PI Cable Tray Fill Loads Rev. O PI Cable Tray System Analysts &
Qualification Closecut Rev. 2 PI Control of Destgn Change to Cable Tray Nangers Rev. O SUPERPOST User's Manual Rev. 2 Superpost qualification of Tubes, Wide Flanges and Double Angles 06/27/86 Superpost Errors 06/27/86 Addendum Memorandums:
Addendum No.l.2.3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 SUPERSEDED
~
Addendum No. 9 VOIDED Gusset Plate Allowables, Dated' 7/28/86,
- Addendum No.13, PI-06, REY. O Addendum No.14, PI-07, REY. 3 Addendum No.15, PI-11 REY.1 VOIDED Addendum No. i6, PI-11, REY.1 Addendum No.17, PI-03, REY. 4 Addendum No.18, PI-07 REY. 3 Addendum No.19, PI-06, REY. O Addendum No. 20, PI-02, REY. 5 Addendum No. 22, PI-03, REY. 4 Addendum No. 23, PI-06, REY. 0 '
7 8705060369 870413 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PDR T
IMiEO o PROJECT INSTRUCTION ~
TITLE:
.= ..
.w.CABLE TRAY
-.s SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION. CLOSEOUT a, a . : . .: ;_.,
r
- p. .
INSTRUCTION NUMBER: pI.11 PAGE 1 OF 4 l
CUENT: TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ,
P W EO T: COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 1 0210-040 JOB NUMBER (S):
olVISION(S) ENGINEERING DIVISION
"'v-O '*iVE o aa'a^a'o ^aaaoveo o 10noi88 4s j. 64 & age?4 -
1 12/23/86 M 2 2/9/87 C_,
gM g41*4 k --
f 1 O l
C AW 3,94 itiet I
i 4
. _ - _ - _ - _ l
Mb i.
TITLE:
h CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT y 0 NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 2 OF 56 l
l l
Descriotion of Revision i !
Revision 1 This revision incorporates the following:
PI Addendum No. ,11, dated 10/24/86 which provided additional modification reduction techniques and a revised report of load sheet.
PI Addendum No. 12 dated 11/25/86 which clarified the clip stiffness values to be used when employing the modification reduction techniques of Section 3.3.
PI-10 was voided. The steps required to reconcile models
- to as-built conditions was added to Section 2.1.
Qualification procedures for member substitutions which are covered by thermolag or thermoblanket.
The technique for reducing out of plane bending moments of O loaded tiers by accounting for the tray load being transmitted by two clips is summarized in Section 3.2.1g.
The steps to issue a modification (Section 3.4.3) were revised to be consistent with Reference 14.
Attachments 1 and 3 were deleted Editorial comments.
/
Revision 2 This revision incorporates the following: US i
PI Addenda Nos. 16, 17, and 18. dated 1/19/87 which incorporated hidden attribute criteria, revised stress ,
limits and factors of safety for Richmond Inserts. In addition, it provided a new embedded plate report of loacs form.
Responded to Design Review Comments, dated 1/19/87 added a
, description of drawing codes, provided the correct i
reference for minimum weld size requirement, and editor 11
- changes. In addition, PI Addendum No. 20 was issued to describe proper modelling of directional weights. l l
kb TITLE:
g
' CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND 00ALIFICATION CLOSEOUT 4 M M' NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 3 OF 56 Section 2.2.5 for PI-06 Criteria reconcilation was added. 2.\
PI Addenda Nos. 13 and 19 which revised Type C clamp "d" dimensions defaults, and increased reducer My allowables. ,
l PI Addendum No. 22 which clarified the effective length i
factor limitations.
l l 1 i l
1 I
4 e
O 9
i .
kb h
TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND ALIFICATION CLOSEOUT 7 N
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 4 OF 56 TABLE OF CONTENTS i
g -
1.0 INTRODUCTION
7 1
2.0 HODEL RECONCILIATION 11 2.1 Reconciliation of Drawing Changes 11 2.2 Criteria Reconciliation 12 2.2.1 PI-02 13 l 2.2.2 SUPERPOST 18 2.2.3 PI-03 19 2.2.4 PI-07 23 ,.
2.2.5 PI-06 27
/.
2.3 Hidden Attributes 27 2.3.1 Hidden Helds 28 i 2.3.2 Bolt Holes in Flar.ges 30 '
1 2.3.3 Member Substitution: 33 2.3.4 Hidden Base Plates and Base Angles 34 2.3.5 Other Hidden Attributes 34 1 3.0 RESOLUTION OF FAILURES 36 3.1 General Overview 36 3.2 Modification Reduction Using 37 Refined Qualification Techniques 3.2.1 Member Overstress 37 3.2.2 Held Overstress 41 3.2.3 Anchor Bolt Overload 41 3.2.4 Base Plate / Base Angle Overstress 42 3.3 Hodification Reduction Using 42 Refined Reanalysis Techniques 3.4 Failures Requiring Hardware Modification 44 3.4.1 Types of Failures I 44 1
! 3.4.2 Confirmatory Analysis for Modification 44 i
3.4.3 Issue of Modifications 45 O
i
,--,-..,.-----,-,~---,---,-,,------r-+..,-..,-------,ee.- , , - ..- - - - ,-,mm.,~----e,..---, a. -, - . , - - - - - - - , . - - - , - , e- , - - - - - - , -
kb TITLE: !
CA8LE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T
- il O NUMBER: PI-il REVISION: 2 PAGE 5 OF 56 j TABLE OF CONTENTS EAGE 4.0 CALCULATION FILE CLOSE0VT 48 /
b 4.1 Open Item Resolution 48 1 4.2 Report of Loads 50 l 4.2.1 Loads from Impell to Others 50 i 4.2.2 Loads from Others to Impell 51 1
4.3 Calculation Format Review 51 l 4.4 Finalize Qualification 53 4
4.5 Calculation File Closecut 55 4.5.1 Record Center / Site 55 l
5.0 REFERENCES
56 O ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Sample Request / Transmittal of Overlap / Gang Support i Information Attachment 2 - Sample Report of Loads Transmittal Package l
1
!O 4
v, ---_,-,,..ne- --w -g-,-----------,----.-,,m,.,- , , , - , , _ --v---,- , ,-s--.. ----m _ n -,--n--n------+-.--w-
kbkh TITLE: '
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT fy NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 6 OF 56 LIST OF FIGURES l FIGURE DESCRIPTION E 1.1 Project Clo'secut Work Flow 8 2.1 PI-02 Checklist 14 2.2 PI-03 Checklist 21 2.3 PI-07 Checklist 24 l 3.1 Modification Issue Flowchart 47 g
i 4.1 Project Closecut Checklist 54 i
O 1
LIST OF TABLES l TABLE DESCRIPTION M -
2.1 Bending Stress Incre'ase 32 Factors for Bolt Holes 4
l O
--..----,.,.-._,..-,.--.~n-n--.--,.- ---,..,.---.-~-..-.--..-.---_..---------.,,----.-.~.---..,..--,--,---.--.-n- .
kb TITLE: CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT !
{
O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 7 OF 56 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Project Instruction is to provide guidelints for the closecut of cable tray system design verifications. This consists of the reconciliation of system analyses, resolutions of failures, and calculation file closecut.
A project closecut work flow dhagram is presented in Figure 1.1. A description of the work flow activities is given on page 9. The sections in PI-11 are to be followed in order and according to the work flow diagram to ensure that a cable tray system analysis is closed out completely and efficiently. It is assumed in this work flow diagram that SUPERPIPE and SUPERPOST have been executed using either preliminary or final support drawings. .
i The first item in the work flow diagram is model reconciliation which consists of upgrading models to represent as-built conditions, addressing project instruction changes, qualifying supports with hidden attributes, <
and assessing the addition or removal of thermolag from a system. l Criteria for performing this upgrade are provided in Section 2.0. If the current model has used unacceptable criteria or modelling differences, O reanalysis may be required. Otherwise, existing ana' tes are an acceptable basis for performing evaluations.
An assessment of failures will be performed as described in Section 3.0
- to determine if a more refined analysis can eliminate failures by reducing conservatism. Resolution of failures will be performed using i refined qualification techniques (Section 3.2) or refined reanalysis techniques (Section 3.3). Some failures cannot be eliminated by refined analysis. These failures will be identified for modification.
Support modifications will be issued as described in Section 3.4. The conceptual modifications will be reviewed for construction problems. The impact of the modification on the system analysis will be addressed.
Calculation file closeout will be performed as described in Section 4.0.
In many cases, qualification of trays, tray clamps, and gusset plates will not have been completed yet. Therefore, the first task of file closecut will be the evaluation of these items, Any failures of these '
ttems will be identified for modification reduction to reduce d' conservatism. Other remaining open items and reporting of loads are addressed at this stage. Finally, a review of calculation file documentation will be performed to ensure that the files satisfy current standards. Once the calculations have been completed, closed out, and approved, calculations will be transmitted to the records center for microftiming.
- . _ , ..y. _ . , _ - , ~ - , . - , ,,.__-.-_.___._y, - - . ~ .
, _ , . . . _ . , - - - . , , . , . _ _ ~ _ _ . . , - - - - - , _ . - -. - _ -
kb _
TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 8 OF 56 PROJECT CLOSE-OUT WORK FLOW h
less.sm eMCtLIAfttpe .
-onnete OtomeE5
-M40 (WmuCTICpt
.h MVIS!Cpt
-M!tIWe Affstightfg5 NO P4fuJES l PAfuJES
=
F \
U INEIM DauJAf!CDs N tas Falust
- fMAfttLIPS 4 i
.am mt PLATES 5
-AMMBIS **
j M
@ N i PAtuJW JE : M I4 I450LAlfl0N 2 PAlu/
' N ir g O - *-- e _ ,_
iP C Au1A.AfIm g anni,yggg ape OES!(De VERtPICATION p
84DIfd A#C APP'40V A4. l l
=
4 n = O n e.o.
- PA1L&JE CmcErTuA ISE K 4COtPICAfl0N PCR Cop 4TituCTitpe 11
([F PEdutMO) VES if h
U"M l
! g ,_' l , , , ,
PtNALI.M,o.v
.mA ausert atA m
- t. i EuAttore Accurr
, a>===t= f u rv
! ,0 .
Cswisvssts **"'*""'
l MAS.E it l
- 0 i VTS AACO! TION og 4 pgggggyggg ygg y --
O FIGU9E I.I
. l
. , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . _ _ _ _ - ~ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . - , - , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ . _ .
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT I O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 9 OF 56 Activities for Proiect Closecut Work Flow (Flaure 1.1)
- 1. Reconcile drawing changes and as-built versus modelled dimensions <
, (Section 2.1) and Project Instruction changes (Section 2.2). Evaluate hidden attributes in accordance with Section 2.3. Review system for possible addition of thermolag as identified by site engineering. For thermolag addition, system reanalysis may be required. (Section 3.3)
- 2. Assess failure conditions to determine the best course of action:
Modification reduction analysis to reduce conservatism (Section 3.2, 3.3), go to 4.
,[i For hidden attribute failures, go to 3.
Hardware modification (Section 3.4), go to 10. -
d
- 3. For hidden attribute failures, reduce conservatisms (Section 3.2, 3.3) I to resolve failures before removing thermolag (Section 2.3).
O 4. Determine which modification reduction method is to be used; refined qualification techniques (go to 6) or refined reanalysis techniques (go to 5). ((p'
- 5. For modification reduction using refined system reanalysis, refer to Section 3.3. Hidden attributes will be requalified upon system reanalysis. S
' If a hardware modification is required which will affect the system response and load distribution, system reanalysis may be performed (Section 3.4.2).
- 6. For modification reduction using refined qualification techniques, refer to Section 3.2. Hidden attributes failures will be reassessed at this point.
- 7. If failures still exist after system reanalysis or refined qualifications have been performed, a support modification will be issued. First, qualification of remaining components (trays, clips, gusset plates...) will be completed (go to 8b.).
8a,b. Qualify the remaining components (trays, clips, gusset plates, anchorages).
O
l TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND 00ALIFICATION CLOSEOUT 4[
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 10 OF 56 9a,b. If tray, clip, gusset plate, or anchorage failures occur, failure ,
assessment will be performed to reduce potential modifications (go to '
2).
If all remaining components qualify, but support m6difications are required, a conceptual modification is to be developed (go to 10).
If all components and all supports qualify, the calculations are to be reviewed for completeness (go to 13).
- 10. For required support modifications, a conceptual modification design will be developed. Impe11 site engineering will review the conceptual.
- 11. Impell site engineering will evaluate the constructability of the conceptual modification. Site Engineers may either accept the
- conceptual design or recomend an alternative design which should meet the intent of the original modification. Activities 10 and 11 will be repeated untti an acceptable modification is developed.
- 12. Upon acceptance of the conceptual modification, the system analysis and support qualifications will be assessed to determine if system reanalysis is required. System reanalysis will be performed if the l
O system response and load distribution is affected by the hardware modification (go to 5). If system reanalysis is not required, go to 8a.
- 13. Upon completion of a.1.1 qualification tasks, the documentation of the calculation package shall be reviewed for compliance of OA and project requirements, completeness and traceability. A Project Engineer or 5 Lead Engineer will then approve the calculation package. !
4
- 14. If any modifications are to be issued, final drawings will be marked up and transmitted to site CAD drafting. Section 3.4.3 and the flowchart in Figure 3.1 will be followed for hardware modifications.
The approved calculation will be on-site with the marked up drawings for reference or revision if field change requests are issued.
i 15. Impell will sign and transmit the final Q/C verified As-Built drawing indicating final design verification approval. Calculations and other project records are sent to record center for microfilming.
l O
b TITLE:
d .
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT N 6
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 11 OF 56 2.0 HODEL RECONCILIATION This section discusses the criteria for model reconciliation which includes upgrading existing system models for drawing changes, project instruction changes, and the incorporation of the hidden attribute criteria for systems which have thermolag.
2.1 Reconciliation of Drawing Changes Cable tray system models may have been constructed using several revisions of support drawings (as-designed drawings, preliminary redlines, final redlines, Q/C mark-ups of CAD'ed redlines, and final Q/C drawings). Preliminary drawings used in the analysis may have some differences from final redlines or Q/C drawings. In addition, drawing changes may result from modifications to resolve support failures or from removal of thermolag to inspect hidden attributes.
The cable tray system model must be reconciled to the latest CTH drawings to ensure that the model is an accurate representation of the as-built condition.
The latest drawings are to be used for model reconciliation; final ,
as-built (Code 10) Q/C mark up (Code 9), preliminary as-built (Code 8), and final redline (Code 6) are acceptable for Revision 0 calculations. However, a final reconciliation will be required when l Code 10 drawings become available.
The method to identify the status of a drawing is a follows:
Code 10 - CAD draf ted, "As-Built Design Verification By Impell" is
}
in the revision block.
Code 9 - CAD drafted, "Ebasco PAB" is in the revision block. QC mark-ups and signature are present signifying QC approval.
Code 8 - CAD drafted, "Ebasco PAB" is in the revision block. QC signature not present.
Code 6 - CAD drafted with red mark-ups on the original drawing dated after 3/20/86.
i CTH attributes which could affect the cable tray system response or
- support qualification are to be checked. The folicwing list provides a guideline for the critical dimensions and attributes which may affect system response.
general configuration O
-..,,,___----_,...---.------------------,,-..,.-..,.,.,,,,,n,-. . _ _ _ . , - - - - - - . , . - , . . . . . , . n..,.-g,n. < - -
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 12 OF 56 overall member length (post, tier, brace) location of tray along tier member member types, sizes, and orientation clip types and sizes .
anchorage type, size, and member attachment location thermolag/thermoblanket toverage eccentricities locations of conduits, other concentrated weights Other attributes and dimensions will affect the support qualification only and should be corisidered before qualifying a support or rerunning SUPERPOST. These attributes include:
weld patterns, size, and length anchorage details including:
O edge distances: member, bolt, concrete corners gage distan'ces bolt spacing interaction with other bolts The model reconciliation to as-built conditions shall be used to determine if a system reanalysis or support requalification is required. The completion of this reconciliation is identified on the Project Close Out Checklist (Figure 4.1).
2.2 Criteria Reconciliation The cable tray analysis and qualification project instructions were
- developed to provide consistent and conservative modelling and i qualification techniques. The project instructions have been revised during the course of the cable tray system modelling, analysis, and qualification. The revised procedures that may impact the modelling and qualification of the cable tray systems have been i
kb l
TITLE: b CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT $
O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 13 OF 56 listed in checklist form. These checklists are to be reviewed to determine the acceptability of the cable tray models and the
, qualification methods used. Procedures to resolve impacted systems are given. ;
2.2.1 PI-02 Impell Project Instruction PI-02 has been revised five times. The original issue date and revision dates are listed below:
Revision DAlt 0 11/13/85 1 01/14/86 2 03/21/86 3 '05/21/86 4 06/17/86 5 10/10/86 All systems are modelled to at least Revision 1 since its O release date is concurrent with the beginning of the modelling effort for the Safeguards Building systems.
Therefore, significant changes and required actions associated with Revisions 2, 3, 4, and 5 are listed in checklist format.
The checklist is organized as follows. The item is listed t
' with the revision it first appeared, the page number it appears in Revision 5, and an impact code. Each checklist item must be reviewed. If the method used is not consistent with the checklist method, the impact must be reviewed and addressed. The impact codes are defined as follows:
- 1. Assess differences, document in the calculation that existing methods are conservative
- 2. Reanalyze
- 3. Methodology is conservative, modification reduction techniques may be used to eliminate failures The PI-02 checklist is shown in Figure 2.1.
O
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 14 OF 56 Original Rev. 5 Impact PI-02 Checklist Rev. Pace No. Code Modellina
- 1. Tray section properties have been revised. 2,4,5 39 1,3 Revision 2 and 4 propertler may be used provided peak shifting is used. If Revision 5 properties were used, modification reduction techniques may be applied if all the criteria of Section 3.3 are met.
- 2. Tray section properties for GI-24SL-12, 5 39 1 24 x 6 1/4" ladder tray have been revised, t
Tray section properties have been added for GI-36SL-12 GI-185L-12 GI-12SL-12, and JH-06SL-12 trays.
1
- 3. Tray shear areas were revised from equgl 2 40 1 i to the cross-sectional area to 1000 ind. t
- 4. Horizontal bends must be oriented by 2 64 2 correctly specifying Iyy, Izz, not by using K nodes.
- 5. If the tray to tray clip connection is 5 56 1 offset from the tier flange this additional eccentricity should be considered when modelling the tray to support vertical load eccentricity.
- 6. If SUPERPIPE versions other than 21A 2,5 25 1 /
(dated 12/1/86) are used, directional Addendum /2 l weights are properly modelled by including No. 20 i
point forces in the gravity load case as described in Revision 2. If version 21A is used, do not include point l forces in the gravity load case.
Revision 5 provides the directional weight modelling technique if trays are not globally oriented.
FIGURE 2.1 O
.----~-....-_.----,,.,,-,,.--_,-...-..-,_..---,..c..c. , - - - - . . - _, . , - , . , _ . - - _ , . - , _ , --.
l kb ,
E' TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION:
2 PAGE 15 OF 56 !
l l
Original Rev. 5 Impact
, PI-02 Check 11st Rev. Pace No. Code
- 7. Revision 5 added actual thermoblanket weights. 5' 41 3 i Previously, heavier weights of thermolag were to be used for thermoblanket.
- 8. 6" high tray thermolag weights were added. 2 41 1 Previously, 4" high tray thermolag weights were used for both 4" and 6" trays. l
- 9. Revision 3 had the incorrect thermolag 2,4 App. C 1 l weight for a 30 x 6 tray. Revision 2 I and 4 specified the correct weight.
- 10. AISC 1.18.2.4 criteria is to be used for 3 54 1 modelling double angles, as composite or independent angle sections.
II. The composite i section local coordinate 3 63 1 l system must be specified consistently with SUPERPOST. If not, loads must be manually input to SUPERPOST.
l 12. The eccentricity of the bracing angle 3 53 1 l
centroidal axis to.the intersection of the {
i post and tier centroidal axes should be considered for the conditions stated in
- Revision 3.
- 13. The base angle stiffnesses were revised. 2 61 1
- 14. The base angle local coordinate system 2 63 1 j should be consistently defined.
l 1
4
] FIGURE 2.1 l
h
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T ,,
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 16 OF 56 Original Rev. 5 Impac <
PI-02 Check 11st Rev. Pace No. . Code _
- 15. The Safeguards Building Elevation 896.S' OBE 5 70 -
1 and SSE spectra does not envelop Elevation .
873.5 spectra. The use of this spectra may be unconservative if a system spans several elevations.
Overlan
- 1. The overlap modelling procedure for system 3 8 1 breaks at a horizontal band was defined in Revision 3.
- 2. Revision 3 had an incorrect vertical 2,4 App. A 1 i stiffness for an "L" support. Revision 2 l and 4 are correct.
{ 3. When calculating longitudinal lumped weight, 3 22 3 the first transverse support past the elbow should be considered to provide O io# sit #ai" i '#aaort- ir ar
- r trie t rv length was considered, the analysis results may be overly conservative.
- 4. For a partial tray"modelled in the overlap 3 10 3
. region, the longitudinal tray stiffness ;
j may be included for the omitted tray.
Omissions of this stiffness could provide j overly conservative results. l i
i I
FIGURE 2.1 O
i i
IMEO l TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 17 OF 56
! Original Rev. 5 Impact PI-02 Checklist Rev. Pace No. . Code l
S. For systems separated at ganged supports, 3 20 2 each system must be longitudinally supported.
- If not, this is an improper break.
i 6. For decoupling of hangers,'both OBE and SSE 3 31 2 must be considered, as indicated in Revision 3.
- 7. For decoupling of hangers, a 1.5 MMF must be 3 31 2 included. Revision 2 had specified a 1.25 MMF.
i I
O l
i
! FIGURE 2.1
!O 4
..-n---- .
. ,, ,,- ,. .- - - - - - - - - - , - . - - . . . - - , ~ - .-
kb TITLE:
C i
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND OUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT le $i NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 18 OF 56 2.2.2 SUPERPOST l Several versions of SUPERPOST have been used in design
- verifications. The following is a summary of required actions to upgrade SUPERPOST evaluations for project )
closeout. Resoluti,on of these items must be included in the i support qualification calculations, i Affected Versions
- 1. Support loads in the overlap region Prior to 38 l must be scaled by 1.1. This can be performed by scaling calculated !
j interaction ratios by 1.1. :
1
- 2. Helds need to be evaluated using Prior to 3C l individual weld tables for each j load case. The weld stress summary table was not introduced until 1
Version 3B, however, it had an error (Error notice 38-001). The error was corrected in Vers, ton 3C.
- 3. The shear interaction ratio should Prior to 38 be increased by a factor of 1.5 for all members. If this results in an overstress situation, increase only i
the direct shear stresses (i.e.
exclude the shear stresses due to warpir.g and pure torsion from the
- increase).
j 4) K1/r and 1/r ratios need to be Prior to 3B
- computed by hand.
- 5) The allowable stress increase factor All for bending and warping normal stresses in T-channels is not applied by SUPERPOST. Therefore, SSE evaluations
- of T-channels is overly-conservative.
i If a T-channel failure occurs, the 1.6 allowable stress increase factor can be applied to these stress components by hand.
O l
. . - - . ~ , - - . _ - - - - - - - - , . - - - _ _ - - _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - , _ - . , . _ _ . _ _ . . - , , , _ , _ _ . - _ . . . . . - - _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ , - - . - . - _ - -
i kb p
TITLE:
O CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT --- ?
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 19 OF 56
.I 1
i
- 6) The use of non-unique member names will All result in erroneous results if two or more members with the same name meet at a comon node having identical I or J member end designations. In such cases the evaluation of all but the first member will be'in error. The support should be reevaluated using unique member names, i 7) For equal leg angle / connection welds are All SUPERPOST and SUPERPIPE coordinate systems consistent?
- 8) Have member forces from all members All attached by a common weld been considered in the weld evaluation?
2.2.3 PI-03 Impell Project Instruction PI-03 has been revised four O times.
below:
The original issue date and revision dates are listed Revision DAtt 0 11/13/85 1 3/07/86 2 5/20/86 3 9/05/86 4 10/10/86 The following is a summary of significant changes and required actions associated with each version of PI-03 in checklist format.
When appropriate. PI-03 changes were incorporated in SUPERPOST. If SUPERPOST was used to evaluate the support, no action is required to upgrade the cable tray system to current PI-03 criteria.
The revision an item first appeared, the page number it appears in Revision 4, and an impact code are provided for each item on the checklist. The impact of each checklist item must be addressed. The impact codes are defined as follows:
, - - , , v,-- - - - - - , . .~-..,,...-,.w. _ - ~ - - , - . , , , , - - , - - , _ , - . , , - . , - . - . . - - - - , , . . , , . - . - . , , -
,.--a--n- .-,- .,. -,
- r. - - ,
il MS .
a RAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT y, NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 20 OF 56 I
- 1. Assess differences, document that existing evaluations
.are conservative with respect to new criteria. '
l 2. Incorporate new criteria in evaluations. ,
l
- 3. Methodology is conservative, modification reduction '
techniques may be used to eliminate Failures.
The PI-03 checklist is shown in Figure 2.2. -
l l
l l
O l I
i l
O
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT NUMBER: PI-ll REVISION: 2 PAGE 21 OF 56 Original Rev. 4 Impact PI-03 Checklist Rev. Pace No. Code
- 1. K values for buckling were refined 1 9 1,3 based on support configuration ;
and number of loaded tiers.
- 2. The criteria for calculating warping 1 8 3 stresses was refined to determine stresses in flanges and webs independently, based on end restraints.
The criteria differs for post and tier members.
- 3. Twist buckling criteria for angles was added in Revision 2. (Reference 17) This 3 10 2
[
criteria was further revised in Revision 3.
Therefore twist buckling of angles should be evaluated in accordance with Rev. 3 criteria.
- 4. The length (L) used in calculating O axial allowable stress was defined as follows:
For tier members, L may be taken as 2 9 3 the clear span or as the work point span of the tier from post to post center 11nes.
For cantilever, braced cantilever, 2 9 1 and cantilever tier members, L shall be taken as the length from the post or the attachment to the outside clip.
- 5. Kl/r limits were introduced. Slenderness 2 9 2 Ratio Horksheets were_added to the support calculations.
l l
l FIGURE 2.2 l
]
?
,r ~ , , -
-c -
4 kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT $~
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 22 OF 56 Original Rev. 4 Impact PI-03 Checklist . Rev. Pace No. Code
- 6. For the evaluation of flexural stresses, 2 10 1 the unbraced length of tier shall be '
taken as the full tier length. The tray should not be assumed to brace the compression flange.
- 7. Gusset plate allowables were included. 3 11 2 All gusset plate evaluations should be performed to this criteria.
- 8. When qualifying equal leg angle welds, 4 2s 1 the local forces to be applied to the l weld must be consistent with the l SUPERPIPE local coordinate system for l the angle. l
- 9. Composite T channel stitch weld must be 4 11 2 1 verified. !
O 10. Bolt holes in tier members must be considered (See Section 2.3.2 Addendum No. 16 I
cf this document).
- 11. The maximum normal stress shall be Addendum -
1 limited to 0. M vy and the maximum No. 17 shear stress shali be limited to 0.50 Fy for all structural steel. These stress checks are required if the maximum interaction ratio exceeds 0.90. The effect of potential bolt holes (Section 2.3.2) must be included when checking these limits. This impacts SSE loadings only. g
- 12. The effective length factors in Addendum - 1 Attachment 3 of PI-03 are applicable No. 22 for loaded tiers which are vertically apart by 16" or more, posts which are 18 feet or less in length, and for tray systems with longitudinal restraint.
FIGURE 2.2
kb TITLE:
o NUMBER:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 23 OF 56 2.2.4 PI-07 Impell Project Instruction PI-07 has been revised three times. The original issue date and revision dates are listed below: '
Revision '
QAig 0 4/21/86 1 5/16/86 2 6/02/86 3 9/16/86 Anchorage qualifications were not performed until after the release of Revision 1. Therefore, the impact of Revision 2 and 3 will be addressed.
~
The revision the item first appeared, the page number it appears in Revision 3, and an impact code are provided for each item in the checklist. The impact of each checklist item must be addressed.The impact codes are defined as follows:
- 1. Assess differences, document that existing evaluations are conservative.
- 2. Requalify.
- 3. Methodology is conservative, modification reduction techniques may be used to eliminate failures.
The PI-07 checklist is shown in Figure 2.3.
i =
lO
m 1
kb w
TITLE:
NUMBER: PI-11 M Mh CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT REVISION: 2 PAGE 24 OF I
\
56 {
Original Rev. 3 Impact PI-07 Checklist Rev. Pace No. Code One Bolt Base Anale .
- 1. The moment arm (H) must be the minimum of 2 11 1 C-G or G for determining barit tension
- 2. M'z must be used instead of Mz for deter- 2 11 1 mining bolt tension
- 3. The local stress assessment must be based 2 F-3 1 on Mx - T x G' not 2/3 T x G' Two Bolt Base Anale
- 1. Same as 1. above 2 10 1 1
- 2. Same as 3. above 2 F-5 1 1
- 3. For local stress assessment the section 2 F-5 1 modulus (Zy) must be the minimum of O C2 t/6 or LZt/12
- 4. The maximum eccentricity (Ex) on the 3 A-8 3 interaction diagrams may be exceeded (up to 8 in. max.) provided that loads are increased by a factor (EF)
Base Anales With More Than Two Bolts
- 1. For local stress assessment, "B" must 2 F-2 3 be the minimum of dx1/2 or 8 in., not dxt/2-Ext
- 2. Bolt tension may now be calculated with 3 12,13 3 M M Tmz - a2 x E Mzi/ Z dx1 1-1 1-1 M
where E dx1 is limited to 72 in.
1-1
- 3. For base angles with outside anchor 3 T.lb 2 bolt distance over 28" (Less than 6'),
use prying action factors in Table T.lb.
FIGLIRE 2.3
kb TITLE:
O CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT B NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 25 OF 56 Original Rev. 3 Impact PI-07 Checklist Rev. Paae No. Code Two Bolt Base Plates
- 1. The global stress allowable for Fbz 2 F-10 3 has been increased to the minimum of 0.75 Fyd x LF and 1.0 Fyd
- 2. The local stress check stction mo y 2 F-11 1 mustbetheminimumofC4t/6orLgulus(Z) t/12 Four Bolt Base Plates
- 1. For global stress assessment 2 F-12 2 dmin - Dx/2 - Ex and Dmax - Dz/2 + Ez
- 2. Bolt shear should be calculated using the 3 14 2 following 2' N
' Fx My x dz '2 3 , .
_Eg_ My x dx 2
4 2(dx + Dz2 ) 4 2 2 2(dx + dz ). _
Anchor Bolt A110wables
- 1. Bolt length minimum embedments may 3 A-8 3 be exceeded on interaction diagrams i provided that loads are increased by the appropriate ratios ,
l i
- 2. Allowables must be reduced for shorter 3 E-1 2 bolt embedments due to concrete topping
- 3. Richmond Inserts shall be qualified 'Jsing Addendum -
2 ' /\
OBE allowables for both OBE and SSE No. 18 '-2 loadings. This corresponds to a factor of safety of 3.0 for both OBE and SSE loadings Embedment Plates
- 1. A procedure for embedded plate qualification 3 D-1 thru 2 has been added D-10 FIGURE 2.3
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O NUMBER: PI-ll
~
REVISION: 2 PAGE 26 OF 56 Original Rev. 3 Impact PI-07 Checklist Rev. Pace No. Code /'
General 4
- 1. The maximum normal stress shall be limited Addendum 2 1 to 0.90 Fy and the maximum . shear stress No. 17 shall be limited to 0.50 Fy for all base plates and base angles. These stress checks are required if the maximum inter-action ratio exceeds 0.90. This impacts SSE loadings only.
'O l
l O
l FIGURE 2.3
- - . . , - - . , , - - - . - . , - - - - - - - - - - . , , , _ , . - . , - . . - _ , , , , , - ~ , . , , , -
kb Y
TITLE: CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT m.
O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 27 OF 56 2.2.5 PI-06 Impe11 Project Instruction PI-06 has two Addenda, No. 13 dated 12/5/86 and No. 19 dated 1/9/87. The significant changes and the corresponding impact codes are listed in checklist form in Figure 2.4. The impact codes are defined I as follows: -
l
- 1. Assess differences, document in the calculation that l existing methods are conservative 1
- 2. Incorporate the new criteria in evaluations )
- 3. Methodology is conservative, incorporating the new criteria may result in modification reduction.
Addendum Impact PI-06 Checklist No. Code
- 1. The allowable moment 19 3 My was revised for reducers
- 2. The Type C clamp default "d" O dimensions for transverse clamps was revised 13 2 2.3 Hidden Attributes..
This section contains qualification procedures for support attributes which are hidden by thermolag or thermoblanket. The hidden attributes include welds, bolt holes in tier members, base plates, and member substitutions. Supports with hidden attributes should be qualified with the procedures given below. If failures occur when hidden attributes are qualified, the resolution of failures (Section 3.0) should be completed before thermolag removal is requested.
Once failure resolution takes place, hidden attribute failures are reassessed. If a failure due to the hidden attributes criteria still exists, a Request For Information (RFI) shall be sent to the site for thermolag removal and identification of actual attributes.
Requalification using the actual attributes will be performed before any modification is issued. If the failing hanger is an overlap hanger, a copy of the RFI response will be sent to the affected analysis group using a transmi.ttal form as shown in Attachment 1.
O s
. .r _
IMPfdA8 TITLE: I CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND OVALIFICATION CLOSE00T l
N NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 28 OF 56 2.3.1 Hidden Helds Helds hidden by thermolag are to be qualified using the l dimensions shown on as-designed drawings and limiting the interaction ratio (Reference 3). The step by step approach i is given below.
- 1. Obtain as-desig'n weld dimensions from the following sources (shown in order of preference): l i
- a. Final as-built drawing 1
- b. Gibbs and Hill as-designed drawing. Rev. 00
- c. Brown and Root FSE-00159 drawing (Request this drawing from site. Note that an FSE-00159 drawing is available for each support.)
- d. Gibbs and Hill 2323-S-0900 series of drawings
- e. Brown and Root FSE-00179 series of drawings A 1/8" fillet weld is to be assumed if the weld type and size cannot be determined. If the weld length can not be determined, the length is assumed as the minimum length of the parts joined.
This procedure applies to T-channel welds also. However. l '
if the as-designed stitch weld size and length can not be r determined. The PI-03 minimum T-channel stitch weld ,
size of 1/8" with a weld length of 1-1/2" and spacing of l 6" is to be assumed.
This procedure applies to gusset plates fillet welds also. A hidden partial penetration weld is to be assumed inactive. Thermolag should be removed if the partial penetration weld is required for the gusset plate qualification.
- 2. Evaluate the weld using SUPERPOST or hand calculations for the as-designed dimensions. Methods shall be consistent with Reference 10.
- 3. Review the weld interaction ratio. Apply the following weld interaction ratio limitations to determine acceptability: -
O l i
l l
l kb TITLE: 3 CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QVALIFICATION k CLOSE0VT 9.
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE29 OF 56 Wald Size Allowable Interaction Ratio 1/8" .50 3/16" -
.61 1/4" .59 5/16" and greater .49
- 4. If the criteria in Item 3 of paragraph 2.3.1. is too conservative, a more refined weld check can be performed by checking the criteria in Subsections a. and b. and taking the worst case. The criteria in a. is based on i l
the possibility of undersized welds. The criteria in b. !
is based on the possibility of underlengthed welds. '
- a. Check the calculated weld stress ratio against the following allowable interaction ratios based on weld size:' - !
l Weld Size Allowable Interaction Ratio O 1/8" 3/16" 1/4" 0.50 0.66 0.75 I 5/16" 0.60 <
3/8" 0.66 7/16" 0.71 '
1/2" or larger 0.75 *
- b. Perform the following weld check (in accordance with PI-03, Section 4.3) based on the possibility of i t
underlengthed welds:
~
Mz C -2 p, 2
- . _EJL. + +
g, c r" ,ajLw .aj Lv +
m2Jw m2"- 0 2
1/2 Mr My
+ _Ez_ + +
_a j Lw a3Swx a3$wy ,
Where the weld stress ratio is:
f'#
p, $ 1.0 0
kb K.
TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T $:
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 30 OF 56 at , a2. "3 are defined as: M Wald Size at, a2 83 1/8" - 3/16" .85,'.61, .72 1/4" .84, .59. 71 5/16" and greater .79, .49, .62 The more conservative result of a) or b) controls.
- 5. For those hidden welds which are not acceptable by the criteria given above, investigate applying failure reduction techniques given in Section 3.0. If failures due to hidden attributes still occur, remove thermolag and inspect the weld to determine the actual weld 1 attributes. Requalify the weld using the inspected l attributes. '
2.3.2 Bolt Holes In Flanges :
I O The evaluation of potential bolt holes in tier flange members (accessible and inaccessible) is required (Reference 15).
The following approach has several steps. First, a 3/4 inch bolt hole is conservatively assumed at the tip of the flange (at the maximum stress location). If this approach is too conservative, an RFI should be sent to determine the j existance and location of any bolt holes (Note, bolt holes 3/4 in. or less, are not shown on the support drawings). A member is qualified if any of the following steps is met.
Oualification Annroach
- a. The calculated axial and bending interaction ratio is less than .74.
- b. A new axial and bending interaction ratio is conservatively calculated by increasing the y and z bending stresses by the following:
O l
kb TITLE:
O CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T i3
~
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 31 OF 56 I'by " h "y
I'bz " h .
"z Nhere: my and hz are given in Table 2.1.
Similarly for T-channel members, the y and z bending stresses are increased by the following:
, I'by " b a
z l
f'bz " h "z
Where: az is taken for the appropriate T-channel component as given in Table 2.1.
O ifthene intrctionrtioisi is qualified.
thnio.th her
- c. For those hidden tier members which do not qualify by the above criteria, investigate applying failure reduction criteria given in Section 3.0. If failure due to unknown bolt holes still occurs, send an RFI to remove thermolag (if necessary) to determine the exact bolt hole locations and sizes. The exact member stresses are calculated within the provisions of Section 1.10.1 of Reference 4.
For members which are qualified using the provisions of Section 1.10.1 of Reference 4, the following items shall be considered.
If the bolt hole reduces the flange area by an amount less than 15%, no decrease in section modulus is required. ,
Only the bolt hole area exceeding 15% shall be deducted from the flange area when computing new section properties.
The exact hole locations shall be used in determining the new section properties and applied moments.
O
! T, l TITLE: c CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT l
NUMBER: PI-il REVISION: 2 PAGE 32 OF 56 BENDING STRESS INCREASE FACTORS FOR BOLT HOLES
[$
i SECTION ay a2 T
C3 X 6 .78 .80 l
MC3 X 7.1 .74 .82 HC3 X 9 .77 .86 i l
C4 X 5.4 .81 .77 C4 X 7.25 .83 .82 C5 X 6.7 .86 .80 t
C5 X 9 .87 .85 C6 X 8.2 .90 .83 C6 X 10.5 .91 .87 HC6 X 12 .88 .90
- C6 X 13 .92 .89 TABLE 2.1 I
i O
1
kb l
j TITLE:
CABLE TkAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T }
NUMBER: PI-ll REVISION: 2 PAGE 33 OF 56 2.3.3 Member Substitutions This section is to be reviewed only if an MC6X12 or MC3X9 member is specified on a CTH drawing and is marked IA (inaccessible). ; ,
i Member substitutions are allowed by Gibbs and Hill Drawing 2323-S-0901 (Reference 5) which states that one step heavier shape of the same size may be substituted for the specified ;
member. After 9/21/82 the member substitution was also i restricted to the same member series as defined by the AISC manual. Prior to 9/21/82, substitution of channels for i
miscellaneous channels was allowed. Typically, this results '
in a member with a greater capacity, however if a C6X13 was substituted for an MC6X12, the capacity was actually lowered. In addition, Reference 5 allows substitution of MC3X7.1 for MC3X9 members. Qualification methods for inaccessible members which may have had these substitutions is described below. l Oualification Anoroach a) For all inaccessible MC6X12 and MC3X9 members, a conservative check is first performed. Compare the member axial and bending stress interaction ratio and the shear stress interaction ratio to the following limits.
(Reference 3).
Member Size Allowable Interaction Ratio Arial and Bendina Shear MC6X12 .62 .79 MC3X9 .61 .63 If these limits are not exceeded, the inaccessible MC6X12 and MC3X9 members quglify.
b) If the member exceeds the limits in a), a more detailed check is performed. Qualify the member for both MC6X12 and C6X13 section properties or both MC3X9 and MC3X7.1 and compare to allowable interaction ratios given in Reference 10.
c) For MC6X12 members which fail due to the criteria in b),
determine if the support installation date was before 9/21/82. Send a Request for Information (RFI) to review the traveler package which identifies the date of the support installation. If the installation date is after O
l M
l l TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT p O
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 34 OF 56 9/21/82, the MC6X12 properties may be used without the risk of using unconservative section properties. The results of a) and b) can be disregarded for these members. For those supports with an installation date before 9/21/82, the.results of a).and b) are valid since the possibility exists that a C6X13 was substituted.
d) For those hidden MC6X12 and MC3X9 members which fail by the above criteria, the failure resolution techniques of Section 3.0 are to be applied. If failures still occur, remove the thermolag and inspect the actual member attributes. Requalify the member using the actual attributes.
f 2.3.4 Hidden Base Plates and Base Angles l/2.
Inaccessible base plates and base angles may be qualified, without removing thermolag provided conservative considerations are presented. The following techniques may be conservatively used.
O
- If the bolt type and size is unknown, conservatively assume 1" HILTI's with an embedmont of 41/2 inches.
If base angle plate attachment location is unknown, consider maximum eccentricities within the thermolagged area to conservatively qualify the anchorage.
If the anchorage can not be qualified by using conservative attributes, the thermolag shall be removed to determine as-built dimensions and attributes.
2.3.5 Other Hidden Attributes Other cable tray system attributes may be hidden by thermolag. These items have alieady been discussed in other instructions, require removal of thermolag, or require no action. The attributes and governing criteria are listed below:
Hidden Attributes Method Clamp Types and PI-02, Appendix C and Connection Details PI-06 O
l kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT (.
NUMBER: PI-il REVISION: 2 PAGE 35 OF 56 Hidden Attributes Method
.- Cable tray type, size, etc. Piece mark drawings Cable tray fill loads CTFL drawings or maximum fill. PI-02,
. Section 3.3.2 provides guidelines for determining conservative fill loads.
Tray location on support Approximate location of tray under thermolag using preliminary as-built drawings, or approximate measurements with thermolag in place. 4
/4 I
O i l
I l
1 i
O
MS TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT I NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 36 OF 56 3.0 RESOLUTION OF FAILURES
~3.1 General Overview j
To simplify and standardize cable tray system ahalyses and support qualifications, significant conservatisms have been incorporated in the design verification procedures. Supports and components which fail using these original procedures may be qualified using more 1 refined techniques which would remove simplifying conservatisms.
This section provides guidelines for qualification and reanalysis techniques which may be used to alleviate specific types of failures. These techniques are grouped into two distinct types:
those which may be applied in the qualification process (Section 3.2) and those requiring a reanalysis of the entire system model
, (Section 3.3). Supports which require hardware modifications are addressed in Section 3.4. i In general, individual support failures will preferably be addressed using refined hand calculations in the qualification procedure.
O Computer techniques (i.e. finite element analysis of baseplates or to determine K values) may also be used when standard hand calculations are too conservative.
If additional refinement is necessary, system reanalysis will be considered. This.may require many manhours and additional computer cost. The analyst must balance the cost and effort of reanalysis with the cost of implementing possible modifications. Factors to be
~ considered in assessing the cost / benefit of reanalysis include system size, potential number of failure reductions and number of
{
qualified supports which could be affected. If a support hardware ;
modification is considered, the cost / benefit factors involved i include support accessibility, thermolag removal, welding, anchor l bolt drilling, and potential field change requests. Support I modifications may also affect the system response, therefore hand calculations or reanalysis may be required to assess the effect of the modification.
When.the cost of engineering analysis to reduce conservatism approaches the cost of the modification, the latter would be an acceptable alternative.
1 O
l
~
l
l
)
i TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT ,
I l NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 37 OF 56 3.2 Modification Reduction Using Refined Qualification Techniques Simplifying conservatisms may be removed from the member or component qualification process to reduce the required number of modifications. These techniques will be most effective where the overstress is relatively low, and for systems with relatively few isolated overstresses. For systems with more severe or broadly occurring overstresses, reanalysis techniques requiring a full system reanalysis, as described in Section 3.3, may be necessary.
The techniques described below may be used to alleviate the following types of potential overstress:
3.2.1 Member Overstress a) For post members with high K1/r values (used in AISC Eq.
1.5-1 or 1.5-2), a reduced effective length parameter
'Ka' can be determined by linear interpolation as follows: j Kg = Kp - F (Kp - Kr)
Where O - Kp is 'K' for a pinned anchorage configuration l
(from PI-03)
-KF is 'K' for a fixed anchorage (Reference 7)
- F is the relative fixity of.the configuration, given by:
Ke I F=K O1 + 3EI
-KO (Kip-in/ rad.) is the anchorage rotational stiffness, I the length of the post, and I the post's moment of inertia for the direction in question.
This procedure is applicable for post lengths greater than 4.0 ft. for sections C6X8.2 or smaller. For sections greater than C6X8.2, the progedure is applicable for post lengths greater than 69 (in-3)* I (in4).
(Reference 11).
I O
i
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT I i O suussa: ex-ii aevision: 2 e^os 3B os 5e In typical configurations this results in a reduction of
.approximately 1.33 in the value of K. If further reduction is required a finite element buckling analysis using IMSNAP may be run for the suppprt to determine the actual 'K' value. Reference 11 provides guidelines for this procedure.
b) The length 'l' for use in AISC EQ.1.5.7 (which determines the strong axis banding allowable) may be calculated assuming bracing for the post members is provided by tier members. An illustration for the case of trapeze post members is shown below, au au l N 2, I Jz 1'
s
. . b 1 In typical situations this res ts in increasing the strong axis bending allowable Fb to approximately 0.6 Fy. -
c) Weakdx'isBendingAllowableStressesmaybetakent'o equal:
Fby = 0.75 Fy ..... for G 2 OB Load Cases Fby = 0.90 Fy ..... for G z SS Load Cases 'd provided the requirements of AISC 1.5.1.4.1, subparagraphs a) and b) are met, (Reference 4). This procedure is not applicable to T-Channel sections.
d) Harping torsional stresses can be reduced for the l following typical configurations by using Reference 8 l procedures. This is also defined in Reference 10 Section 4.1.2.
l
- 1) Tiers with flanges restrained, use Case 6
)
O
kb TITLE:
g NUMBER:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND .QUA .L PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 39 OF 56
- 2) Tiers with flanges not restrained, use Case 3 l
'3) Cantilevers or posts that have flanges restrained at the anchorage, use Case 9
- 4) Cantilevers with a single tray and with flanges free to warp at both ends, warping stresses do not [
need to be evaluated. This also applies to an L-shape support post member which has only one tier.
The post flanges must be free to warp at both ends.
A reduction factor of 1.2 can result for normal warping stresses of typical configurations by this procedure.
Normal warping allowables may equal the allowables of
, weak axis bending.
Harping normal stresses may then be combined with axial compression and bending stresses in the following equations, replacing the interaction formulae 1.6.la and 1.6.1b currently used in SUPERPOST.
O "*0*I"3 b + C,, fby C,, f
+ hr + 'gg s 1.0 r f i F" a - f* i F by bY li( F',y xLF)lF F',,x LFjlFbZ
[1.6.1b] f, fby+'n h
- + 5 1.0 0.6 Fy x LF F by F bz Formula 1.6.2 as given below may be used in lieu of 1.6.la and 1.6.Ib if fa/Fa 50.15.
I
[1.6.2] Ihz + fby + own + fA $1.0 Fbz Fby Fa Note that the computation of F
) by and Fbzmust F
incorporate the load factors (
LF - 1.0 .... for G i OB Load Casas LF = 1.6 .... for G i SS Load Cases O ,
6 l
l
l NSh TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT i
NUMBER: PI-Il REVISION: 2 PAGE 40 OF 56 e) Composite section properties can be used to reduce bending overstresses of members that were qualified using individual action (SUPERPOST procedure for T channels) f) For posts where the ratio 1/r exceeds the AISC allowable limit of 300 for tension members, the length I for post members may be refined using the following procedure.
For transverse supports, 1 may be redefined to equal the larger of:
- 1) the distance between loaded tiers
- 2) the distance from the uppermost loaded tier to the post anchorage For longitudinal supports, 1 may be refined to equal the largest distance between consecutive tier or brace members connected to the post.
O The value of r to be used in both cases is taken with respect to the weak axis. The value of I used is to be documented in Attachment E of the support calculation. Note that this procedure does not apply i to K1 calculations. ;
- r. '
For angle members, the geometric axis can be used !
instead of the principal axis for determining r.
g) Out of plane bending moments of loaded tiers (see Figure on following page) may be reduced by accounting for tray loads being transmitted by clips which are physically separated by the width of the tray. (Reference 13) This 2 reduction can be obtained by multiplying the larger moment at the tray centerline (from the single clip model) by a reduction factor given by the following expression:
L - X - W/2 l L-X Nhere:
l
- L is the distance between the posts' centerline.
- X is the distance from the tray centerline to the nearest post centerline.
s W it the traw wirMh
kb l TITLE: t CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T -
- j O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 41 OF 56 This is applicable for tiers with one tray and lumped weights which do not exceed the weight of the tier.
A similar approach may be applicable for tiers loaded by two trays. The lead engineer shall be consulted for this reduction technique. For typical configurations, the resulting reduction may not be significant.
"" ,- 9 v'-, ,
I I
7 I
i l l
\ \ I l 1 $ g, -~ n # '
,,,- , 3.,'
O :
1 I
i i
3.2.2 Held Overstress ;
Actual weld patterns, including thickness and dimension variations, can be used in weld qualification.
3.2.3 Anchor Bolt Overload a) More accurate bolt loads may be predicted by using prying
' action factors from finite element models which more closely simulate the actual in-situ configuration. This reduces the conservatisms of the enveloping criteria developed in Reference 6. A series of finite element base plate models, as well as guidelines for deriving prying action factors, is included in Reference 12.
O
bb TITLE: ~
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0UT NUMBER: PI-ll REVISION: 2 PAGE 42 OF 56 b) Less conservative bolt allowables may be obtained by interpolation of capacity (Table 8.1 or B.2 Reference 6) based on actual embedment lengths. ;
3.2.4 Baseplate / Base Angle Overstress l Global stresses in baseplates and base angles may also be reduced by using refined base plate finite element analyses l which more closely simulate the actual configuration. A !
series of base plate analyses are available in Reference 12.
Guidelines for this procedure is also provided in Reference 12.
Plate stresses may be further reduced by using individual bolt loads, with the appropriate eccentricities to the attachment. Guidelines for this procedure is also provided in Reference 12.
If further reduction is needed for either anchor bolt loads or baseplate / base angle stresses, an individual BASEPLATE II analysis may be performed using the exact in-situ geometry.
This will generate the most accurate bolt loads and plate stresses and remove the need for any type of enveloping conservatism.
, 3.3 Modification Reduction Using Refined Reanalysis Techniques For systems with more severe overstresses, a full system reanalysis may be required to effectively reduce potential modifications. This would involve reanalysis of both the SUPERPIPE and SUPERPOST programs. Several modelling conservatisms can be removed in the reanalysis orovided as-built information and the most current criteria is incorporated in the model. The conservatisms which may l be removed and the corresponding criteria which must be incorporated -
is described below.
i a) Conservatisms to be removed Peak Shifting may be removed from the response spectra i
loading definition.
I O
kb TITLE: a ,
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT f NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 43 OF 56 All clip stiffnesses may be made rigid (i.e. translational
, stiffnesses are set to 10000. kip /in and rotational stiffnesses are set to 10000. kip-in/ rad) except for the clip rotational stiffness Kzz, which should r,emain at the original i value per PI-02.
All PI-02 checklist items with impact code 3 may be incorporated.
b) Criteria to be added All as-built information must be incorporated prior to reanalysis.
, All PI-02 checklist items with impact Code 1 must be
- incorporated.
Reanalysis also may be of substantial ben 3 fit if a subsystem divided with an overlap region omits significant longitudinal stiffness present in the full system configuration. In this case the system may be reanalyzed with a redefined overlap region which includes !
longitudinal restraint and reduces the longitudinal load transmitted to the partial system model.
Reanalysis may also be performed to combine two systems previously divided by an overlap region. This would eliminate the need for a 1.10 factor to be applied to that region.
If a system was not originally constructed with sufficient longitudinal support, excessive failures may result. For this case, a single hardware modification may provide the additional stiffness needed to eliminate a series of potential modifications. A system reanalysis may be required on systems with support modifications to confirm their adequacy.
Several systems in the Safeguards and Reactor Building are l designated for thermolag addition. The thermolag status of a system l can be requested from site engineering. If a system has been '
designated for thermolag addition, reanalysis may be required to t
assess the impact of the weight addition on the system response.
O
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T O
s
~
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 44 OF 56 3.4 Failures Requiring Hardware Modifications Failures which can not be resolved by Sections 3.2 or 3.3 may require hardware modification. This section de, scribes typical support failure types, required system reanalysis for modified supports, and procedures to issue modifications.
3.4.1 Types of Failures l
Support failures which may require hardware modification
- include the following, a) K1/r failures of members in static compression after the refined K, I, and r parameters have been used, b) Extremely high falling interaction ratios. A check shall be performed to verify that all assumptions have been resolved, that system longitudinal support has not been omitted, and that drawing and procedural changes wlII not alleviate the overstressed conditions before the decision for modification is made.
c) Components fail after refined system analysis (Section 3.3) and refined qualification methods (Section 3.2) have been used.
d) Inacces'sible components fait even though the actual configurations which are identified by removal of thermolag are used in qualification.
3.4.2 Confirmatory Analysis For Modification
! A system reanalysis with the modified hangers may be necessary when the load re-distribution and system response )
i cannot be determined by hand calculation. Once the modification constructability is confirmed, sections of PI-11 must be reviewed again as indicated in Figure 1.1. When a system is reanalyzed, a review of the load changes shall be performed to determine which hangers will require design re-verification by SUPERPOST or by hand calculation.
.O
._.._._.-,.__-____-_----_______,_._---_-----.----~,-...-.------___,m .
~_ _ . _ _ . - - _ _ _ __ __ _ _ . _ ___
i b
TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 45 OF 56 3.4.3 Issue of Modifications Impe11 Project Instruction PI-12 (Reference 14) cutlines the steps necessary to generate field design changes to mcdtfy a support. The step which must be accomplished by the Design i Verification Group is to generate the modification !
conceptual. This process is described below.
J If a modification is required, the Lead Engineer shall be I i
consulted for the optimal modification which will have thri least impact on the analysis and construction effort. For !
example, if several hangers fail due to lack of restraint in the longitudinal direction, modifying one transverse hanger to a longitudinal hanger may be sufficient to resolve the i overstress conditions.
To issue and document a modification, the following steps i shall be taken.
(a) Impell's Design Verift.:ation Group shall issue an RFI to Impe11 Site Engineering for review of the modification ,
O constructability. The RFI shall contain a recoerended conceptual design and an approval signature by a Lead 1
i l
Engineer.
(b) The Impell Lead Site Engineer may respond to th9 RFI by either accepting the conceptual design or by making a recommendation which will meet the intent of the original j design change.
j (c) Upon concurrence of the modification conceptual, Impe11 Design Verification Group shall incorporate the modification into the calculation package. A Request for Change (RFC) is then generated which shall include a /
mark-up of the Code 10 (Final As-Built) drawing, if /_2 available or, if not available the Code 8 (Preliminary
{ As-Built) drawing showing the change. The RFC and the approved support calculation shall be sent to the Site, who will issue a Design Change Authorizat',on (DCA). The construction, inspection, and drawing revision' associated with the modified support is discussed in detail in Reference 14.
O
?
l .
kb ,,
TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT 3.
O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 46 OF 56 i If the modified support is an overlap or gang support, a l
' copy of the marked up drawing modification will be sent /g'
'to the affected analysis group. Attachment I shall be used for this transmittal.
/2!
(d) Upon receipt of the satisfactory inspection report from QC on the modif.ied support, Impell Site Engineering will transmit the required information to Ebasco CAD for drawing revision.
(e) Ebasco CAD will revise the existing drawing to incorporate the DCA and transmit a new as-built drawing to Impell Site engineering for design verification.
(f) The design verification calculation will be revised to l incorporate the final as-built condition and transmitted to TUGCo records control DCC. The final as-built drawing is signed as design verified and transmitted to the Ebasco CTH program manager.
The modification issue flowchart is shown in Figure 3.1. !
O l i
I f
i
- , , - . - . - - _ - - - - - - -,-.n- - - - . - - ---.----,.n,--..---.-..-,..--.--.--,,,.------..,-,-...--,.---n--.,--w -
1 I
IMM@
TITLE: D~
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT l NUMBER: PI-ll REVISION: 2 PAGE 47 OF 56 MODIFICATION ISSUE FLOWCHART
'"JJiG" ,
6 O I r.w.
14?tSt.J l=v mi.{
= ,
I
.g,=M*
ms -
i l =
4 1 1 - =l 1
i
~
M',*
l l .M.L i I
.#4rP A.22. .
s awm. -
'"" DA"JRtf*'
I i44%5ne FIQJRE 3.1 O
Nbkb TITLE: CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT i
PI-11 2 O NUMBER: REVISION: PAGE 48 OF 56 4.0 CALCULATION FILE CLOSE00T This section includes those items necessary to finalize the cable tray system analysis and support calculation files. These tasks include finalizing remaining qualifications, resolving any open items, reporting loads for supports which interface with other structures, completing calculation documentation and f.ormat review, and record center interface.
4.1 Open Item Resolution Several generic open items currently exist. The main sources for these open items are as follows:
no formal position or criteria has been established for a particular issue use of preliminary information in design verifications loads from an interfacing structure have not been received This section defines acceptable positions to closecut these open items so that Revision 0 of the design verification calculations can be issued. If the resolutions shown below are incorporated for the O open items, documentation of the item is no longer required on the calculation open item sheet. Note that the latest drawing revision (span length, CTFL) is always acceptable for Revision 0 evaluations.
The following is a suast.ary of generic open items and methods of resolution.
Onen Item Resolution Qualification of welds which Use the actual weld size to do not meet minimum size qualify the weld. A minimum requirements as given in weld size of 1/8" is required.
AISC Table 1.17.5 (Reference 2)
Support drawings are Revision 0 evaluations may be preliminary based on the final red line drawings (Code 6 or above).
Models based on earlier drawings must be reconciled to these Revision 0 acceptable drawings. A final reconciliation to Code 10 drawings will be required for all calculations.
O
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT -
l 0 NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 49 OF 56 l Onen Item Resolution Span length drawings have Revision 0 evaluations dated not been as-built verified before 10/10/86 may be based on Revision 0 or Revision 1 of span
. length drawings. After 10/10/86 the most current available span !
drawing is to be used.
- Tray types are based on Use of Gibbs and Hill structural !
Gibbs and Hill structural plan drawings which determine 1 plan drawings. the tray types are acceptable for Revision 0 analysis.
Loads from attached structures Send an RFI to request required such as pipe supports and interfacing loads as discussed conduit supports have not in Section 4.2.2. Reassess system been established analysis and support qualification based on loads received. l 0 - c>bi riii a t is a d o#
Revision 1 of CTFL drawings.
u or a visio# i c ei is acceptal)le. The addition riii eet- !
l of 3 lb/ftZ accounts for I future cable addition as i
. discussed in PI-02. I Tray supports may be attached These supports should be to Category 2 structures qualified. The loads at the anchor are to be transmitted to SHEC for anchorage qualification.
Trays may pass through wall No action is currently or floor penetrations required for Revision 0 evaluations.
- As-built drawing of modified Revision 0 closeout can be 1 supports may not be available performed after final con- '
struction modification drawing is issued.
- Supports may be attached SAMS are to be considered for to secondary walls supports attached to secondary walls.
O
kb TITLE:
O CABLE TRAY .,fSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT I NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 50 OF 56 4.2 Report of Loads Interdisciplinary interface may be required when a CTH within Impell's work scope is attached to structures design verified by other consultant firms. In such cases, CTH loads may need to be transmitted by Impell to other consultant firms for the review of adequacy of their structures (e.g. an Impell. CTH being supported off a rigid frame).
Conversely, Impe11 may require resultant loads from structures which are not within Impe11's work scope but are supported off an Impell CTH (e.g. a pipe support, member attached to an Impell CTH base angle).
4.2.1 Loads From Impell To Others Impell will transmit loads to other firms for the following reasons:
(a) To report CTH loads for CTH's attached to other steel structures (b) To report " footprint" loads on all Impe11 CTH embedded plates (c) To respond to an RFI generated by other consultant firms requesting CTH loads An Impe11 " Transmittal Record" (Attachment 2a) will be used as the cover sheet of the transmittal package leaving "To:"
and " Attn" boxes blank if the responsible consultant firm is unknown.
The transmittal of load summaries shall include the following:
revision status, e.g. preliminary, final as-built drawing and RFI references Iocation of the reporting loads definition of coordinate systems and load directions definition of load cases (gravity, OBE, SSE) loads and their units O
l .
IM!TsI A@
~s l TITLE: I CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 50 OF 56 4.2 Report of Loads l
Interdisciplinary interface may be required when a CTH within Impell's ;
work scope is attached to structures design verified by other l consultant firms. In such cases, CTH loads may need to be transmitted I by Impell to other consultant firms for the review of adequacy of their I structures (e.g. an Impell CTH being supported off a rigid frame). !
Conversely, Impell may require resultant loads from structures which are not within Impell's work scope but are supported off an Impell CTH (e.g. a pipe support, member attached to an Impell CTH base angle).
4.2.1 Loads From Impell To Others Impell will transmit loads to other firms for the following reasons:
(a) To report CTH loads for CTH's attached to other steel structures (b) To report " footprint" loads on all Impell CTH embedded plates (c) To respond to an RFI generated by other consultant firms requesting CTH loads An Impell " Transmittal Record" (Attachment 2a) will be used as the cover sheet of the transmittal, package leaving "To:"
and " Attn" boxes blank if the responsible consultant firm is unknown.
The transmittal of load summaries shall include the following:
revision status, e.g. preliminary, final as-built drawing and RFI references location of the reporting loads i 1
definition of coordinate systems and load directions definition of load cases (gravity, OBE, SSE) loads and their units O
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT O PI-11 NUMBER: REVISION: 2 PAGE 51 OF 56 Attachment 2b is to be used for reporting loads for structural members or anchorages. Attachment 2c is to be ,
used for the transmittal of embedded plate attachment loads.
l 1
The transmittal package shall be sent to'the Impell Site l Project Engineer who will transmit the package to the i responsible engineering firm. Site Engineering will report !
the embedded plate attachment loads in accordance with j TNE-DC-22 (Reference 16) to the responsible engineering firm. 1 4.2.2 Loads From Others To Impell l
The Impell Design Verification Group shall send an RFI to the l Impe11 Site Project Engineer requesting required out of scope loads. Location of attachments shall be identified as thoroughly as possible on the RFI so that the responsible engineering firms and their affected calculations can be effectively located. All pertinent drawings shall be l
referenced on the RFI. Copies of these drawings shall be '
attached to the RFI, if required.
O ^ samaie of reaertino format simiiar to attachment 2 s8eii also be attached to the RFI to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the requested loads.
4.3 Calculation Format Review The analysis and support calculation forms have been modified t
several times. All calculations must be reviewed to check for changes which may impact the calculation.
In addition, the closeout review will require several new sections to be added to the analysis and support calculations.
Analysis Calculation .
The analysis calculation forms are controlled by PI-02. Those items which have changed and must be reviewed in all analysis calculations are listed below. The affected section of the analysis calculation is noted.
O l
- 1
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT -
O --
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION:
~^
2 PAGE 52 OF 56 Section Him 1.1 Note 3 which requires a *C to indicate a common baseplate must be added as shown in PI-02, Revision 3. The *C must be incorporated as required.
1.2 The last paragfaph which discusses base angle and baseplate modelling must be consistent with PI-02, Revision 3 or later.
1.3 The last paragraph which discusses thermal expansion must be consistent with PI-02, Revision 3 or later.
1.3 If peak broadening is used instead of peak shifting, this must be reflected in Section 1.3.
To incorporate these changes, the page may be replaced or the current page may be modified. The analysis calculation will also incorporate several new sections and checklists as part of the PI-11 closecut review. The following sections will us added to the table of contents and calculation body of the analysis calculation:
Section 9.0 Tray and Clip Qualification Section 10.0 Closecut Review Section 9.0 will include standard tray and clip qualification forms from PI-06. Section 10.0 may include the standard forms generated in PI-11. This includes the PI-02 checklist from Section 2.2.1 and the project closecut checklist from Section 4.4. In addition, modification reduction techniques must be documented in the calculation file. PI-02, Revision 5 Appendix E provides a complete analysis calculation including the above additions.
Succort Oualification Calculation The support qualification calculation forms are controlled by PI-03. Calculation forms must not be used from PI-03, Revision 1.
Forms from PI-03, Revision 2 are to be used. Subsequent changes in Addendum 6, dated 6/9/86 can be implemented at the discretion of the project leads.
The support qualification calculation will also incorporate several new sections and may include checklists as part of the PI-11 closecut review. The following sections will be added to the table of contents and calculation body of the support calculations:
O
,..r.,- ..--,,-,w,,- , - , , -- -- - - - - . .- - - - - - - . - - - , - , - . - - , . - - , . . - - - , - . , , - . - - - - , - - - - , , - , . , , - - - - - - -
kb l
TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 53 OF 56 Section 11.0 Gusset Plate Qualification Section 12.0 Closecut Review Section 11.0 will include standard gusset plate. qualification forms from PI-03. Section 12.0 may include forms generated in PI-11.
This includes the SUPERPOST, PI-03, and PI-07 checklists from Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4. In addition, modification reduction techniques, hidden attributes calculations, and incorporation of interfacing loads from ROL's must be included in the calculation file.
PI-03, Revision 4 Attachment 2 provides a complete support qualification calculation including the above additions.
4.4 Finalize Qualification b This section provides a checklist of items presented in PI-11 that l
i need to be completed before the design verification files can be i closed out. Completion of this checklist will ensure that a cable !
tray system analysis has been reviewed anct the necessary items have I been addressed to finalize the qualifications. A checklist item for l each PI-11 section is included. In addition, evaluations of items O such as trays, clips, gusset plates, and anchorages are listed in the checklist. The appropriate references and PI-11 Sections which J
j govern the completion of these checklist items are noted. The checklist is shown in Figure 4.1.~ It will be included in the cable tray system analysis calculation.
1 l
l l
l
kb '
TITLE: t CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT h O NUMBER: PI-ll REVISION: 2 PAGE 54 OF 56 Proinct Close Out Checklist Y N 8].h
- 1) Model Reconciliation (Section 2.0) '
a) Model reconciled to latest -
drawings (Code 10).
(Section 2.1) b) Criteria Reconciliation (Section 2.2)
- PI-02
- SUPERPOST
- PI-03 PI-07
- PI-06 d.:
c) Hidden attribute criteria incorporated (Section 2.3)
- 2) Support Evaluation (PI-03, SUPERPOST) a) Non standard welds evaluated b) Hembers not evaluated by SUPERPOST considered .
c) Gusset plates evaluated (PI-03) d) Anchors evaluated (PI-07)
- 3) Tray and clip evaluations performed (PI-06)
- 4) Resolution of Failures (Section 3.0) a) Refined qualification techniques performed (Section 3.2) b) Refined analysis performed (Section 3.3) ;
c) All failures resolved :
d) Final modifications issued for construction (Section 3.4) i
- 5) Open Items Resolved (Section 4.1) I
- 6) All interface loads reported or j received (Section 4.2)
- 7) Document Review Completed (Section 4.3) l FIGURE 4.1
, , _ . _._,,,-..--.___-.._._.,-_,_-....____._.,___...,r. __.,_,..-.-_._,x_-_---._,-.-..---.--------.,.-.-_--_..-,_y_ , . . _ - . -
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T w NUMBER: PI-ll REVISION: 2 PAGE 55 OF 56 4.5 Calculation File Closecut This Section describes the required transmittals to Records Center )
and site.
4.5.1 Record Center / Site Upon approval of a ' calculation package, the calculation shall be logged in the " Calculation / Problem Log". The calculation package which includes problem flie(s), computer output, and referenced drawings shall be sent to the Record Center for microftiming.
After the microfilming, the calculation package original will be returned to the Project Clerk and shall be maintained in the Project Document Area.
Approved calculations will be available on site for all supports which have modifications issued. These calculations may be revised on site if field change requests are issued.
O e
l l
l J
O -
i
kb
~!
TITLE:
O CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT M M .I NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 2 PAGE 56 OF 56
5.0 REFERENCES
i) (Voided)
- 2) Ebasco "CTH Weld Related Studies". Volume 1 - Book 20 Rev. O.
k
- 3) Impe11 Calculation W 58, " Hidden Attributes Qualification Procedures", Rev. O.
- 4) AISC Nanual of Steel Construction, 7th Edition.
- 5) Gibbs & Hill Drawing No. 2323-S-0901, Revision 4, dated April 20, 1981.
- 6) Impe11 Project Instruction PI-07, " Design Verification of Base 3 Plates Base Angle and Embedmont Plate", Revision 3, dated 9/16/86.
- 7) Impell Report No. 01-0210-1470, Revision I, " Effective-Length Factors for Buckling of CableTray Supports".
- 8) " Torsional Analysis of Steel Members", AISC, 1983.
, 9) Impe11 Calculation 4 25, " Prying Action for 2 Bolt Base Plates",
Rev. 3.
- 10) Impe11 Project Ins.truction PI-03, " Design Verification of Cable Tray
, Supports", Revision 4. October 10, 1986.
- 11) Impe11 Calculation M-56, " Procedure for Refined Effective Length Factor" Rev. 0.
i
- 12) Impe11 Calculation M-55, " BASEPLATE II Analysis Documentation".
- 13) Impe11 Calculation M-57, " Refined out of Plane Bending of Loaded /
't Tiers", Rev. O.
- 14) Impe11 Project Instruction PI-12. " Control of Design Change to Cable Tray Hangers", Revision 0, dated 11/7/86.
.\
- 15) Impe11 Calculation M-65, " Evaluation of Potential Bolt Holes", .l_
Revision O.
- 16) TNE-DC-22 " Reporting Attachment Loads and Locations to the TNE Civil /HEB", Rev. 2, October 1986.
- 17) Impe11 Calculation M-12. " Qualification Procedures for Cable Tray O s#aaort ev>'# *'o" a 2-
. . _ , . . , - . , - - , . _ . - - - , .,,-r--, ..,-..--- -- . - --.- - _.-. -- - .
_.,,a.- - - - - , , , - . , - , - - . , , - _ . , ,. , ---,.-,,-,--_.--,.,--,-,n., - , - , - - - , . , - -, . - .-
kb TITLE: CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT l l
MM-NUMBER: PI-ll REVISION: 2 PAGE1 OF 2 ATTACHMENT 1 i
Sample Request / Transmittal of Overlap / Gang Support Information
! Note: A log is to be maintained by the Project Clerk to control these requests / transmittals of support information. A memo number will be assigned to each memo before it is sent.
i 1
- o 1
l l
i 1
1 O
1
~
-r.--.----e.---~ ~ - - - - , , ~ - - - - . . - - - - - . - - . . - -
k TITLE: CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT l O NUMBER: PI-ll REVISION: 2 PAGE2 OF 2 Request / Transmittal Memo No. l Overlap / Gang Cable Tray Hanger Request /Transm'ittal Memo !
l Hanger No. CTH I i
Information Recuest [ ], Information Transmittal ( ) (Check One)
Memo to: Group No. I Assigned System No. Overlap Analysis System No.
In order to complete the qualification calculation package, we are (requesting / transmitting) the following information pertinent to Hanger No. '
CTH-l_ .
i
! (1) ( ) A copy of SUPERPOST output (by & checked) l (2) ( ) Hanger Analysis Model j (3) [ ] Anchor Qualification Calculations 4
~
O (4) [ ] Attachment E: Support Data Summary (5) ( ) An RFI response (6) [ ] Updated / Modified Support Drawing l (7) ( ) Other j L
l Requested by: Group No. Date !
I
! i Resoonse (Fill out and send with transmittal of requested information)
To: Group l
[ ] Attached is the requested information (except for item no. ).
[ ] Status of this load information can be considered as .
(Rev. A or Rev. 0)
[ ] Requested information is not complete, target transmittal date is for Rev. .
J Comments:
i 1
)
l Sent by: Group No. Date 1
l NM5E TITLE: ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT y e
O suusen: PI-ii sevision: 2 excer or s
/
. 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Sample Report of Loads Transmittal Package Attachment 2a: Transmittal Record 2b: Report of Loads Form for Structural Members or Anchorages 2c: Footprint Load Transmittal for Embedded Plates 2d: Embedded Plate Report of Load Worksheet Note: The embedded plate report of loads form is to be filled out by the Design Verification group as follows:
- a. Lines 1 through 5 are to be left blank to be filled out by the Impell Site Group.
- b. Forces and moments are to be transformed to the local coordinate system shown on Attachment 2c.
- c. Moments are to be given in foot-KIPS (SUPERPIPE output is in inch-KIPS).
- d. If there are several attachments to an embedded plate, the attachment location must be described (ex. the North post of CTH-1-XXXX). The DCP (SUPERPIPE node) must be given,
- e. Loads must be given at the centroid of the attachment (of the weld group). The worksheet in Attachment 2d may be used for a load transformation to the attachment centroid. l
- f. A copy of the Report of Loads form is to be included in !
Attachment C of the support calculation.
- g. Impell Site is responsible for notifying the Design Verification Group of the acceptance / rejection of loads.
O l
l
.. - . .o
, TRANSMITTAL RECORD Attachment 2a
- p. 2 of 5 TO: DATE:
mm -
ATTN: LETTER NO: __,
The following doCufRent(8) are transmitted by tuses for the purposof t) designated in the use Code. When re.
quered. please acknowledge recol01 Dy signing below and returning a copy of this cover 040s to the mason 40-cross indicated. /
USE CODE' 1. For Approval 4. For Construction 7. For Use
- 2. ReviewtComment 5. For med 4.Other
- 3. Preliminerytinformation Only 4. Records Turnover
.; oTv. Ym.s on ossemipfioN i
Nuessen ! new. l c@a i
i I
i 1
O i
t RECEIPTACKNOWLEDOMENT: REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED W by: PLEASE RETURN TO:
Romeftis:
- ImpeN Corneration ATTN:
Page 1 of
Attachment 2b p 3 of 5 TUSCO CPSES ROL e
%1 4
i Q IMPELL CTM BESIGN UERIFICIITION UNIT I SFS 9 RCS hi, U, * '"' T -
REPORI.0F LOAD i FIELO USE ONLV Impell Support No. CTH Region ,_,
laterfacing Impell System No. Rev Ceaselton' impell Data Control Pol'nt i
RFI No- ,
Interfacing Structure ID j Reference No- Drawing reference i gate Recoleed t , CTH 1-Camrdlanta Sgataan - .
, y6 zo
. um -
Z 3 G G ,
i
.l x x t O structural membere O Ansherages O Other (eheesh) s d t Nsenneb Oseum Omen (show N. em O sasi o wee Leewnec uPa cean Force (idps) Moment (kip 4t$
- Load Case X Y Z XX W ZZ Gravity j CIE i
i, SSE l Computer reference
! Notes: 1. Loads are maximum absolute value unlesis otherwise noted.
- 2. Support drawing is attached.
- Comment
[ .
! A TuGC0 V CPSES uMIT 1 mens 0210-040 l
- ]
i
sv === .ma. ==
ATTACHNENT 2c Pg 4 of 5 R0L #
FOOTPRINT LOAD TRANSMITTAL Revision
~~
ge o r_
Support No. CTH X '
T0: TNE EA LOCAL C00RDINATE SYSTEM The following infonnation on size, location, and footpri.nt loads is transmitted for processing in accordance with TNE-AD-4:
l1.
CPSL Sketch # /CP- Embed f- Room # I
! 2. Attachment size: X= in.; Z= in. I I 3. I Of stance from left or bottom end to center of attachment a ft.
1 4 Offset from Z - centerline of embed to Center of attachment (up or left I l = + ; down or right = -) = ft.
l l 5. Size a location prepared by Checked by Date l
- 6. Analysis f Rev. N00E(DCP)
- 7. Footprint Loads at C.G. of attachment weld and in plate local coordinates. -
Force = (KIPS) Moments = (FOOT-KIPS)
FX FY FZ W MY MZ Design G+/-08 d Faulted' G+/-SS .. 8 8 Loads are Conservative or refined Preliminary or final
- 9. Loads prepared by Checked by Date
- 10. Special Instructions: Distribute copy to Civil /SEG.
- 11. Please acknowledge receipt of the original of this transmittal by signing, dating and returning a copy to the discipline , representative.
Transmitted by: Impe11 Discipline C/S XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Received and reviewed for procedural compliance: Date:
HIL EA Q- Received by:
Date TNE Engineering Support Civil /SEG Approval -
Date:
Engineer
kb TITLE:
66 2 5 5 NUMBER: REVISION: PAGE OF l
1 ATTACHMENT 2d IP Embedded Plate Report of Load Worksheet
^^ f* , Support: CTH Analysis:
I-f( ,. DCP: ;
, , fp ,ZA l
% i fp -m
/ ,
.- M SUPERPIPE LOAD CASE EMBEDDEC ANCHOR G+0B G-0B G+SS G-SS PLATE AXES AXES O Fra Fyg Fra Fro Fyo l
Fxo Mxa ___ MZD I Mav Mvo lMZa Mxp T
Transformation Formulas: M xa = Mxa + Fya (Ex)
T H ya " Mya + Fra (Ex)
Enveloped and Transformed Loads:
4 G+/-0B G+/-SS Fxp = Kips Kips F yp = Kips Kips Fxp = Kips Kips Mxp - Ft Kips Ft Kips l
,yp H = Ft Kips Ft Kips Mzp - Ft Kips Ft Kips O
v-TNE-FVM-CS-001-Rev. 6 (Replace Complete Document in Reference 6, 123 pages) i J
3 A
____m.-_.__------- --