ML20210E765
Text
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[
m 11/20/85 l
i Revision 12-O Page 1 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List i
~
1.
Controlling Load Case for Design
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5, Sheets 16-20, Revision 5
, 2.
Comunications Report between P. Huang, S. Chang (Gibbs
& Hill) and J. Russ and W. Horstman (Cygna) dated November 13, 1984
~ 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5, Sheets 1-7, Revision 1 4
CPSES FSAR, Sections 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 Samunary:
Gibbs & Hill used the equivalent static method to design the cable tray, supports.
In all load cases, the equivalent O- (
static accelerations used in designing the supports for SSE events are less than 160% of the corresponding accelerations for 1/2 SSE (OBE) events. Based on this finding and citing Section 3.8.4 of the CPSES FSAR which allows a 60% increase in allowables for structural steel between OBE and SSE events, Gibbs & Hill determined that the design was governed by the OBE event (Reference 3).
.To validate this conclusion, the 60% increase in allowables must be liberally interpreted to be applicable to all sup-port ccmponents rather than applicable only to structural steel as specified in the CPSES FSAR. Catalog items such as Richmond Inserts and Hilti Kwik-bolts do not have increased allowables for SSE events. By designing these catalog components to the OBE event, the manufacturer's design factor of safety is not maintained for the SSE ever.:.
Furthermore, for the design of structural steel, the 60%
increase in allowables is acceptable for axial and strong-axis bending stresses in structural members. The 60%
increase cannot be applied to certain other allowable stres-ses. For example, the maximum increase in base plate stres-ses may only be 33%, at which point the material yield is Texas Utilities Generating Company v
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station N kp.6 a
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111llIIIll111111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU B702100362 870127 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A
(P[M __ ____ __ _
1 11/20/85 9
Revision 12 (d ('
Page 2 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List reached. A limit on maximum allowable stress is not pro-
, vided in the FSAR.
These limitations were not considered in the selection of the governing seismic load case.
Status:
In order to reduce the loads for SSE, Gibbs & Hill elected to use 7% damping for the cable trays at SSE, as allowed by the FSAR for bolted structures.
Gibbs & Hill provided tables of peak spectral accelerations for OBE at 4% damping and SSE at 7% damping (Reference 1).
These tables show that for the enveloping acceleration levels, the ratio of SSE to 08E does not exceed 1.33.
The reduced SSE accelerations appear to demonstrate that OBE governs for the structural steel used in support designs on a generic basis. However, for supports designed using accel-Og(
erations for a specific building elevation (e.g., elevations 773', 785' and 790' in the Safeguards Building), the ratio of SSE to OBE may exceed 1.33.
Therefore, SSE can poten-tially govern the design of the structural steel for these supports. The supports at the three elevations indicated above require additional review.
Determination of the governing load case for catalog com-ponents depends on the determination of an acceptable safety factor for those items at the SSE load level. See Issues 3.B and 3.E for a discussion of safety factors.
2.
Seismic Resoonse Combination Method g
References:
1.
CPSES FSAR Section 3.78.2.7 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2-6 3.
USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1 Texas utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.N LU 6 A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases iiiiiiiiiiiiiiimuuttiilill Job No. 84056 4
PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 (7
Revision 12
(
/
Page 3 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 4.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George'(TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Design Review Questions," 84056.031, dated August 31, 1984 5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation in response to IAP Phase 2 questions, Cygna Technical File 83090.11.2.1.50 Susunary:
A.
Closely Spaced Modes (10% Modal Combination) in Spectral Analysis In the response spectra analyses performed for the Working Point Deviation Study (Reference 2), Cygna noted that modal responses were not combined considering closely spaced modes as required by References 1 and 3.
B.
Inclusion of Dead Load in SRSS Combination O
In all Gibbs & Hill design calculations, the V
acceleration due to deadweight is combined with the seismic accelerations using the SRSS method. A 1.0 g deadweight acceleration is first added to the vertical seismic acceleration. The sum is then combined with the,
two horizontal seismic components using the SRSS metnod.
Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill has revis'ed the working point analyses to account for closely spaced modes in accordance with Reference 3.
For a discussion of other discrepancies in the Working Point Deviation Study, see Review Issue 12.
B.
This issue was discovered in Phase 2 of this review. At that time, Gibbs & Hill performed a study to quantify the impact of this finding (Reference 5). Gibbs & Hill's study compares the acceleration vector magnitudes cal-culated with the standard combination metnod and witn
~
the SRSS method. For most buildings and elevations, the magnitude of the' resultant acceleration using the SRSS method does not differ significantly from the resultant using the standard combination method. However, the difference in vector direction was not considered and is i
' Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station N LC U A Independent Assessment Program. All Phases '
1111111111111111111111!!!1111! Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 j'~')/
Revision 12.
(
Page 4
(
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List of greater importance, since each load direction con-tributes to different components of response in the cable tray supports. To properly assess the impact of this combination method, the critical response should be evaluated instead of the magnitude of the acceleration applied to the support.
Reference 4 discusses a Cygna study on the effects of aspect ratios for frame types within the review scope.
The study results indicated the increases in resultant loads by combining the dead load with the seismic SRSS may be larger than those predicted by Gibbs & Hill.
TUGCO/Gibbs & Hill should consider the effects of the frame geometry, loading, and ratio of horizontal to 25 vertical seismic accelerations on the results of the SRSS study.
3.
Anchor Bolt Desien
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculations, " Evaluation of Detail 1, Single-Bolt Connection," Cygna. Tecnnical File 84056.11.1.259 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-212C, Set 7, Sheet
~
4-11, Revision 0 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculations, " Justification of the Adequacy of 1" Richmond Inserts For the Effects of Prying Action," Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.219 4
Brown & Root Procedure CEl-20, " Installation of Hilti Drilled-in Bolts," Revision 9.
5.
Hilti, Inc., " Architects & Engineers Anchor and Fastener Design Manual"
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
- IL*j, Independent Assessment Program - All Phases g
1111111lll11ll11111111111111lI Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
-(
Page 5 y
CJBLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 6.
TUGC0 SDAR CP-80-12. " Reduced Allowable Loads for Hilti Kwik-bolts" 7.
TUGC0 Instructions CP-EI-4.0-49,." Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Material on Class 1E Elec-trical Raceways," Revision 1.
8.
US NRC Inspection Reports 50-445/81-14; 50-446/81-14, dated 10/27/81.
9.
Communication Report between R.M. Kissinger (TUGCO),
B.K. Bhujang et al. (Gibbs & Hill) and W.R.
Horstman, et al (Cygna) dated 10/10/84 10.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
[,
84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
OC
- 11. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission office of Inspection and Enforcement, Information Notice 79-02.
- 12. American Concrete Institute, " Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures ( ACI 349-76)."
- 13. Gibbs & Hill Interoffice Memo, T.D. Hawkins to M.
Stran,e, dated 7/25/84
~
Sussnary:
A.
Frame Connection Point and Anchor Bolt Pattern Cen-troid Eccentricity In the design for the anchor bolts, Gibbs & Hill did not properly account for the eccentricity between the frame connggtion point to the base angle and the anchor bolt pattern centroid. The moment due to the eccentricity may cause the base angle to rotate about its longitudinal axis, resulting in: (1) a i
O l]
Texas Lt.ilities Generating Comoany Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d L$ 6 Independent Assess';1ent Program - All Phases a
111111111t 11!I11111111111ll11 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
, 11/20/85 Revision 12 O)
Page 6
'I e
q
(
CABLE 1 RAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List i
cogressive force along the toe of the angle section and (2) additional tension in the anchor bolt (s).
B.
Safety Factor on Hilti Expansion Anchors at SSE Levels Gibbs & H1II's cable tray support designs employed a safety f actor of 4.0 for Hilti expansion anchors for the 1/2 SSE load level. As discussed in Issue 1, the 1/2 SSE event was assumed to govern the support designs, without consideration of the reduced factor of safety on Hilti expansion anchors for the SSE event. The safety factor for the SSE event will range from 2.5 to 3.0, depending on the installed location in the plant.
C.
Inconsistent Application of ACI 349-76, Appendix B
~
f j
(
Gibbs & Hill has used the provisions of Reference 12 to qualify several designs. Examoles include the qualification of anchorages for Detail "11" (Gibbs &
Hill Drawing 2323-5-0905, Reference 2) and the use of code provisions as justification for the f actors of safety used for Richmond Inserts. However, the designs do not comply with other sections of ACI 349-76, Appendix 8.
For example, Section B.7.3 g
states:
A single expansion anchor used to anchor an attachment shall be designed for one-half of the design strength defined herein.
For any of the cable tray support designs employing a
- r. ingle expansion anchor connection, this code provision vould require a major reduction in the expansion anchor capacity.
l
~
Texas Utilities Generating Company i
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station N 5.5 s A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilllillliliittilllllillllllli Joo No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU
-,, + - - - -. - - -. -,
11/20/85' Revision.12 ri Page 7, CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Cygna believes that the philosophy of the entire code appendix should be considered, rather than employing selected portions of the code.
D.
Factor of Safety on Richmond Inserts Gibbs & Hill's cable tray support designs employed a safety factor of 3.0 for Richmond Inserts for the 1/2 SSE load level. As' discussed in Issue 1, the 1/2 SSE event was assumed to govern the support designs, without consideration of the reduced factor of safety on Richmond Inserts for the SSE event.
The safety factor for the SSE event will range from 1.8 to 2.0, depending d
on the installed location in the plant. See Item C, above, for a discussion of ACI 349-76 as _it has been applied to Richmond Inserts.
e
~
E.
Richmond Insert Design 1.
Prying action was not considered in the original design of Richmond Insert connections for cable tray supports. To qualify those connections which use Richmond Inserts, Gibbs & Hill performed calcu-lations which reference the results of the Richmond Insert testing. program performed at the CPSES Site (Reference 3). These calculations showed that 1" diameter Richmond Inserts, originally designed witn Ta = 10.1 kips and Va = 9.5 kips, were not the controlling anchorage type, but ratner that the l
Hilti expansion anchors were the limiting case.
Cygna has the following comments regarcing enese calculations:
o The calculations do not account for the instances where the allowable values for 1" diameter Richmond Inserts taken from Giubs &
Hill Specification 2323-55-30 (Ta = Va = 11.5 kips) may have been used without the prying ld factor. This situation could occur wnenever a o-l Q Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station A LN 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
liittlittlitillilillfillillill Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU l
. -. ~ _ -
_-_.r,
11/20/85 Revision 12 l
Q(~N.
Page 8
\\
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List new design was performed after the issue of g
this specification or a CMC /DCA allowed a
~
change which affected the Richmond Inserts used in a support installation. Althougn Gibbs
& Hill has stated that their engineers were instructed to include the prying factor, Cygna could not locate any supporting documentation.
o Cygna has' concerns on the use of the site testing of Richmond Inserts to justify higher allowable loads than considered in the original design. See Pipe Support Review Issues List, Item 3, for additional detail.
2.
The original design calculations for concrete connections using Richmond Inserts employed allowable values of tension (Ta = 10.1 k) and shear g
(
(Va = 9.5 kips). With the issuance of Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-55-30, restrictions were placed on certain Richmond Insert allowables. Decreases in allowable tensions and shears were provided for Richmond Inserts in cluster arrangements, Richmond Inserts embedded in the sides of concrete beams, and Richmond inserts used in spacings less than those originally considered in Gibbs & Hill designs.
Since these restrictions were imposed after tne original design of the Ricnmond Insert connections was completed, Cygna is concerned that cable tray supports installed using Richmond Insert clusters or l
Richmond Inserts in the sides of concrete beams may i
not have been evaluated for the required reductton I
in allowables.
In discussions with TUGCO, Cygna was told that tne Richmond Inserts in clusters were reserved for pipe g
whip restraints. Authorization to attach to these clusters should have been cotained from the respon-sible TUGC0 group, and a corresponding evaluation of the installation should have been performed.
How-l l
O
~
j (j Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station A LU. a Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1ll111111111lll1111111111llIll Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU l
11/20/85 Os Revision 12
/-
Page 9
\\.
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List ever, Cygna could not locate any TUGC0 Quality Control instructions or procedures regarding the use g
of these Richmond Insert clusters (Reference 10).
L'.L F.
Connection Designs 1.
The cable tray support designs use angles or plates at base connections. The design drawings and asso-d ciated design change documents (i.e., CMC /DCAs) specify anchor bolt spacing and member placement tolerances. However, these tolerances may be out-side the original design limits. Gibbs & Hill.has not fully evaluated the effects of all possible installation tolerances on the base member stresses or the anchorages.
Cygna's Phase 2 Observations CTS-00-05 and CTS-00-07 respectively addressed the design of base k
A connections for Detail "E"
supports with three-directional loadings and Details "A-0" base plate designs (drawing number 2323-El-0601-01-5). These support connection designs must also be reviewed to assure that the above concerns are addressed. For several additional support types considered in Cygna's Phase 4 review, the installation tolerances g
allowed by the design drawings were not considered in the design calculations.
2.
For most support types, the design drawings allow the use of either Hilti expansion anchors or Richmond Inserts for their anchorage to the con-crete. For support types A, A ' A, 0, 0 '
y 2
4 1
2 Oetail "A" (Drawing 2323-El-0700-01-5) and Detail 11 (Drawing 2323-5-0905), the design calculations evaluate the attachments for Hilti expansion anchors, but not for Richmond Insects.
l O.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.N L U s Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
lll11111111lll111111111ll11111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 v
Page 10
(
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List G.
Justification of Prying Factor In response to Reference 11. Gibbs.& H1'llsupport lb desigrers used a factor of 1.5 to account for the effects of base angle / plate flexibility on anchor bolt tensile loads. The value of this factor is dependent on the applied load, bolt pattern geometry, and angle thickness. Justification for the use of this factor has not been provided.
H.
Anchor Bolt Substitutions for Detail 1/1H and Details B, C and 0 For Detail 1H (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0909),
" Hanger Connection Using Hilti Bolts for Regular Cable Tray Supports," a substitution of Richmond I.nserts for n.
hilti expansion anchors is allowed by Note 14d (Gibbs &
C-I Hill Drawing 2323-5-0901):
C
\\
Detail 1H (Orawing 2323-5-0909) Any Hilti bolt may be substituted with existing 1" diameter or 1-1/2" Richmond Insert except for the 1-1/4" x 13-1/8" Super Kwik-bolt which may oe substituted only with 1-1/2" dia. Richmond Insert.
Additional information on the allowable bolt substitu-tions are provided in OCA 2103, Revision 0:
Question: When only one Richmond Insert is available for a two-bolt hanger connection, may a combination hf one Ricnmond Insert and one Hilti bolt be used? If so, what is the minimum and maximum distance between tne boi:s, and what is the allowable tolerance?
Answer:
Yes, combinations of Richmond Inserts and Hilti Super Kwik-bolts may be used.
Minimum and maximum spacing between bolts Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d L "- 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111111!!!!!!!!111!!111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU
]
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 11
(
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List I
shall be the same as used for the "a" dimension shown in " Detail 1H, Two Bolt Hanger Connection," and the "a" and "b" dimensions shown in "Two Bolt Beam Connection."
g Tolerances shall be as shown in " Detail 1H,"
and in '"Two Bolt Beam Connection."
The DCA expands the scope of the substitution to include the "Two Bolt Beam Connection" (Details B, C and 0 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0903), and does not include the restriction on the use of a 1-1/2" diameter Richmond Insert as a substitute for the 1-1/4" x 13-1/8" Hilti Super Kwik-bolts.
These substitutions are inconsistent with several aspects of the cable tray support design calculations.
The minimum bolt spacings are 12",15" and 16" for 1" diameter Hilti Kwik-bolts,1-1/4" diameter Hilti Super v
(
Kwik-bolts, and 1" diameter Ricnmond Inserts, respec-tively. The tolerances specified for the connections employing only Hilti expansion anchors are different from the tolerances for the equivalent connection detail employing only Richmond Inserts.
For moment loads on the base connections, the tensile load in each anchor is calculated by dividing the applied moment by the minimum bolt spacing. The tensile load distribution due to direct pullout is calculated based on the allowed con-nection eccentricity. By substituting a Richmond Insert for a Hilti expansion anchor at the Hilti spacing and eccentricity, the tensile load in the Richmond Insert may be greater than tne previously calculated load. The effect of this substitution on Richmond Insert tensile loads has not been considered in the cable tray support designs. In addition, since OCA 2103 does not limit the size of the Richmond insert to be substituted for a 1-1/4" x 13-1/8" Hilti Super Kwik-bolt in the beam connection, a 1" Richmond Insert, which has a lower capacity than the indicated Kwik-bolt, could be used as a substitute.
/
O1 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station N LU 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
111111ll111ll111llllll1111ll1 Job No. 84056-PRJ: 23 CTS-! SSU i
11/20/85 fsT Revision 12 Page 12 V
-(
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 was not able to provide the, design g
verification documentation for DCA 2103 (Reference 13).
I.
Base Angle Boundary Condition Assumptions For trapeze type supports, Gibbs & Hill has assumed that the hanger connections employing two-bolt base angles are free to rotate about the strong axis of the hanger. Since both the welds between the hanger and its base angle and the base angle itself have significant flexural stiffness, this assumption requires that the connection allow the calculated rotation without base connection failure. Gibbs & Hill has not justified such s
connection behavior.
(See Review issue 26)
J.
Installation of Expansion Anchors in Diamond Cored Holes
(
'Section 3.1.4.2.3 of Reference 4 discusses the reinstal-s lation of an expansion bolt in an empty but " pre-used" hole. Paragrapn (a) of that section states:
The bolt being replaced has been removed from the concrete using a Diamond core bit of the same nominal outside diameter as the replace-ment expansion bolt. The replacement bolt shall be one diameter size larger than the bolt being removed.
The Hilti " Architects and Engineers Design Manual" (Reference 5) addresses the bit type used in drilling holes for Hilti Kwik and Super Kwik-bolts. On page C-4, Note 6a states:
All of the technical information pertaining to Kwik-Bolts herein (e.g., pullout and shear data) was accomplished using HILTI masonry carbide bits. Before installing the Kwik-Bolt using another means of drilling (e.g., Diamond i
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station d I. $ = a Independent' Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU i
i 11/20/85 O
Revision 12 V
Page 13
(
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Core), contact your local HILTI Field Engineer for advice and proper procedures.
On page C-1 (Reference 5) a footnote to the installation process description states:
To obtain maximum published holding values, use only HILTI carbide bits.
In discussions with Hilti, Inc., Cygna learned that Hilti expansion anchors installed in core-bored holes will provide ultimate strengths that are less than those published in the Hilti Design Manual.
Primarily, the strength reduction is due to the diameter of the core bore bit itself.
It has been Hilti's experience that core bore bits are intentionally supplied at a larger diameter than the nominal size to account for the progressive reduction in bit diameter over its life.
t Thus, at the initial bit usage, the bit diameter will be larger than that required for the bolt hole.
It is tnis hole oversize whien causes the reduction in expansion anchor capacity.
In order to avoid any such strength reductions, careful control on the bolt hole diameter must be established.
Control may be established by measuring the core bit 9,~
diameter or the hole diameter. Cygna has not observed any QC procedures whien impose such control. Addi-tionally, Cygna did not observe any procedures which require craft or QC to document which expansion bolts were installed in diamond cored holes.
I K.
Reduced Allowable loads for 1" Tiameter Hilti Kwik-bolts
~
Based on expansion anchor capacity tests performed by Hilti inc. in 1980, Hilti inc. issued a letter giving reduced ultimate capacities for 1" diameter Kwik-bolts.
In response to this letter, TUGC0 issued a Significant Deficiency Analysis Repor't (SDAR) (Reference f
p)
\\,
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station s l (*16 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 4
1111111111ll11111111ll11111111Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
\\
11/20/85
/O Revision 12 b'
Page 14
\\
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3
i
- 6) to evaluate the effect of the reduced anchor bolt capacities for support installations at CPSES. The resolution of this SDAR was to accept all existing des'igns employing 1" diameter Kwik-bolts by allowing a reduced safety factor of 3.41, and require that all future design efforts use the reduced capacity. The USNRC accepted this res'olution (Reference 8).
For the review of cable tray supports where the cable tray load with Thermo-Lag exceeds the design load, Reference 7, section 3.2.2.1, paragraph (b) states:
All hangers shall then be evaluated for actual loads. During this evaluation, all pertinent design changes shall be taken into account.
Consideration shall be given to use of actual tolerances, weld undercut-undersize,1" diameter Hilti Kwik-bolt revised criteria and actual field 'as-built' configuration However, Cygna's review of the subject Gibbs & Hill calculations and a discussion with TUGCO/Gibbs & Hill (Reference 9), verified that the original (unrevised)
Hilti Kwik-bolt allowables had b'een used.
TUGCO/Gibbs &
Hill felt that the use of the original allowables was warranted, since the calculations reviewed an existing design. This is not :onsistent witn the requirements of Reference 7.
Status:
A.
In response to Cygna's request for an evaluation of tre additional bolt tension loads, Gibbs & Hill provided calculations (Reference 1) to justify disregarding the effect of this eccentricity. These calculations con-sider two specific connection details snown on Gibbs &
Hill Drawing 2323-5-0903: " Detail 1" using one Hilti Super Kwik-bolt and " Detail 1-Alternate" using two Hilti Super Kwik-bolts.
l Texas Utilities Generating Company j
Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station A d,.,
independent Assessment Program - All Phases litimillmilimimmilli Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU
c.
11/20/85 Revision 12 f3 Page 15 k
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List The reactions from support frame types 82 and A4 were selected as the basis. for the " Detail 1" and " Detail 1-Alternat'e" m rst case applied loading, respectively.
Gibbs & Hill has not provided any justification for assuming that the B2 and A4 designs represent the worst case loading or frame geometry.
In the analysis, Gibbs & Hill assumed that the moment introduced by the eccentricity between the vertical load application and the centroid of the bolt pattern can be reduced by a horizontal force couple consisting of anchor bolt shear force and tray longitudinal (axial) force. The validity of this assumption depends on the capacity of the tray attachment clamps to transfer longitudinal forces, as discussed in Review issue 18.
Furthermore, the mathematical model used in the Reference 1 analysis assumes that the Icwer end of the
(
hanger is restrained from translation in the tray longi-(
(
tudinal direction. The tray is not attached to the end of the hanger for trapeze type supports. Rather, it is attached to a beam spanning the two hanger members.
Out-of-plaiie translation of the bottom end of the hanger is possible, due to the flexibility of the beam.
The resolution of this issue requires an evaluation of I
the worst case load and geometry for all applicable supports. The geometries considered should include the effects of any generic change documents such as tnose for the base angle anchor bolt edge distance (CMC 1970) and the use of shims under base plates (CMC 1969).
Gibbs & Hill should revise the mathematical model to include the beam flexural stiffness in the anchor bolt forces study and should also provide justification for the selection of loadings used for base angle and anchor bolt analyses. Consideration of Review issue 19 in ene g
resolution of this item is also required.
(
(O Texas Utilities Generating Comoany
/
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d LM,,
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases tillillittillitiliittittttiill JoD No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-!SSU
- - ~.
n.
n---
,n-.
,,n.,
.--_..-,n.
,--,-c--.,.--.-.-.,.--,,.----,,--..-.n-
11/20/85 Revision 12 l-~T Page 16 V
(
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List S.
Cygna has collected data on the issue of the Hilti expansion anchor factor of safety and is evaluating it internally. Gibbs S Hill, however, should provide a supporting evaluation.
C.
TUGCO/Gibbs & Hill should provide justification for the use of the selected Appendix B sections of ACI 349-76.
D.
Cygna has not found -sufficient justifica' tion for the safety factor of 1.8 for Richmond Inserts under emer-gency/ faulted (SSE) conditions.
E.
Cygna requires verification that controls on the use of Richmond Insert allowaoles and tne inclusion of a prying f actor were in place and enforced by all responsible groups (see Reference 10).
In addition, Cygna's con-cerns on the validity of the Ricnmond Insert Test h
/G Program should be addressed.
~
s F.
Gibbs & Hill should provide assurance that the installa-tion tolerances are properly accounted for in the base connection designs.
G.
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for the global usage of a prying factor of 1.5 for. base angles / plates.
H.
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for the allowed bolt substitution.
1.
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for the assumption of a pinned connection for two-bolt and three-bolt base connections.
J.
TUGC0 should provide technical justification for the adequacy of expansion anchors installed in core bored holes.
/
O Texas Utilities Generating Company b'
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station j W
,.3 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111111111I!i11111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 V
Page 17
\\
CASLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List K.
TUGCO/Gibbs & Hill should provide documentation indicating that all designs performed af ter the issuance of Reference 6 consider the reduced capacities for the anchor bolts as applicable.
4 Design of Comoression Members
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 1 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2-6 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Ouestions," 84055.022, dated August 17, 1984, question 4 4
Timoshenko and Gere, " Theory of Elastic Stability," 2nd Edition, pages 99 and 100 O,
5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.041, dated b
February 12, 1985.
Summary:
A.
In the design of compression members for trapeze type i
support frames, Gibbs & Hill did not consider tne entire unsupported length,of the channels to calculate the slenderness ratios (Reference 1 Sheets 11 and 18 for 4 and B, respectively).
If the correct support types A 4
unsupported lengths and pinned end conditions are assumed, the slenderness ratio of these members for bending about their weak axis will exceed 200. AISC Specification Section 1.8.4 limits the slenderness ratio for compression members to 200.
B.
In calculating the slenderness ratio of the compression members for trapeze-type supports, Gibbs & Hill did not check the effectiveness of the in-plane sidesway restraint for the various support designs.
I
~
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station A Ly, 3 Independent Assessment Program - All phases lilllilllll!Illillllililllilli Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23Cf S-1SSU
s 11/20/85 O~
Revision 12 Page 18
\\
caste uAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List C.
In the design of the compression member for cantilever type supports (e.g., SP-7, Details E, F, G, and H on Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5, etc.) Gibbs & Hill used the distance from the face of the concrete to the centerline of the cable tray as the cantilever length. The correct length should be from the concrete face to the clair, in the far side of the tray.
A value of k = 1.0 was used to calculate the minor axis slenderness ratio, rather than the value of k = 2.0 for cantilevers. A value of k = 1.0 is based on the assump-tion that the tray will provide lateral bracing at the clamp location. The validity of this assumption is pending on the resolution of Review issue 18.
D.
For the trapeze type supports, Gibbs & Hill has not considered the effect of weld u.idercut on the section 9
properties of compression memeers at the point wnere in-plane braces are attached to tne channel web. As shown in the Morking Point Deviation Study (Reference 2), hign stresses exist in the region of the brace attachment and,
4 may increase if the reduced section properties are considered.
E.
The design of compression members assumed that the applied axial load was parallel to the member axis.
Gibbs & Hill Installation Specifications 2323-SS-16b allows an installation tolerance of 2 degrees from plume for vertical members. Cygna was unable to locate calcu-lations considering the effect of this tolerance.
See Reference 5 for a discussion of thi. jssue.
F.
For trapeze type supports in the Working Point Deviation Study (Reference 2), Gibbs & Hill reduced the unsup-h ported length of the hangers by 5".
This appears to be due to an assumption that the outstanding leg of the l
L5x5x3/4 base ~ angle is rigid witn respect to the C6x8.2 hanger. However, the minor axis moment of, inertia for the C6x8.2 is greater than the corresponding moment of l
l Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station AL;6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
111111111lll1ll11111111111ll11 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-!SSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 (3)
V' Page 19 CA8LE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List inertia for the L5x5x3/4;.therefore, the butkling hinge would occur within the base angle rather than at a point in the hanger below the base angle, and the reduction in unsupported length is unwarranted..
G.
For the design of braces in compression, the axial force is a function of the brace slope. Gibbs & Hill designs provide a range of allowable brace slopes.
In some cases Gibbs & Hill calculations check the brace for the slope which results in the largest axial load without s
considering other cases which have lower loads, but also have reduced capacity due to a longer member length.
Status:
A.
In order to reduce the slenderness ratios below 200, Gibbs & Hill performed calculations to show that k = 0.8 (Reference 1, Sheets 128-146, Revision 3, and
/*
f Reference 2). These calculations assumed that rota-l k
tional restraint is provided by the clip angle used to attach the hanger to the bottom of the slab. Addition-ally, since the compressive load is applied at several points over the length of the member, the allowable axial stress was increased based on the buckling analysis of columns with multiple, discrete axial loads (Reference 4).
Cygna has analyzed one-and two-bolt clip angles under compressive loading and determined that it is reasonable to assume partial rotational fixity for weak axis bend-ing of the attached hanger. However, the assumption that the tray provides lateral bracing to the frame nas not been validated (see Review Issue 18 for a discussion of tray clamps). Cygna telieves tnat it is acceptacle to consider the effective increase in allowable axial loads based upon a multiple point load application.
However, the increase is a function of the applied loads and geometry, and must be calculated individually for each support configuration and load case.
(
b Texas Utilities Generating Company i
N Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
$L.6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
111111111ll111111111111111lll1 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85
s Revision 12 (Q
Page 20 r
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Validation of the assumed bracing provided 'by the cable tray is open pending resolution of Review issue 18.
B.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should consider in-plane sideway in calculating the allowable compressive stresses for cable tray support members.
d C.
Open pending resolution of Review Issue 18.
D.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide justification for excluding the effect of weld undercut on the section properties used in the Working Point Deviation Study.
E.
Open pending a response from Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 to Reference 5.
F.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide justification for the f.
assumption that the base angle is a rigid region with respect to the hangers.
G.
Gibbs & Hill should provide justification that the brace designs considered the critical combination of brace loadings and brace lengtns.
5.
Vertical and Transverse Loading on Longitudinal Tvoe Suocorts
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 2 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.025, dated August 21, 1984, questions 3 and 4 3.
R.E. Ballard (Gibbs A Hill) letter to f{.H. Williams (Cygna), GTN-69437, dated September 10, 1984, wi tn attached calculations 4
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5 I
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station d LU 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
11111111!!!!!!!!l111!!!!!!!!!! Job No. 34056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 O-Page 21 V
y CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Summary:
Longitudinal trapeze type supports (e.g., L-A, L-A, L-C,
i 4
4 etc.) were assumed to act independently of the transverse supports (see Reference 4). Calculations for these longi-tudinal supports (Reference 1) consider only longitudinal loads in the design of frame members and anchor bolts.
Since these supports are rigidly connected to the cable trays with " heavy duty clamps," a tributary tray mass will be associated with these supports.
It is Cygna's belief that these supports must be designed for vertical and pos-sibly transverse seismic loads similar to the transverse supports (References 2 and 3).
Status:
Gibbs & Hill should consider these effects and insure ac-ceptability of this assumption on a generic basis.
6.
Suoport Frame Dead and Inertial Loads b(
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5,
" Cable Tray Supports (Design Criteria and Reference)."
b Summary:
A.
Out-of-plane inertial loads (i.e. loads in the direction parallel to the cable tray) were not considered in the design of two-way cable tray supports. Such loads should, as a minimum, be considered in the design of base connections and anchorages. Assuming that tray l
clamps are able to transmit the loads from the two-way supports to the cable trays, out-of-plane inertial loads from the two-way supports must also be considered in the member and anchorage design of longitudinal supports b
(also see Review Issue 18).
l B.
Gibbs & Hill did not consistently consider support dead i
loads. The support design calculations considered support weight in one of the following ways:
(a) Support weight was not considered.
(
O-Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station NL.6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases H
a ll11111ll111111111111111ll1lll Joe No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU l
11/20/85 Revision 12 g
Page 22
']
\\
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List (b) Support weight was considered as a surcharge on the
tray, in addition to the tray and cable weight (usually, this value was given as 5 psf).
(c) The support weight was calcuiated by considering the actual weight of each of the support's frame members.
(d) A dead load equal to one half the support weight was d
used as required by Reference 1, Sheet 3.
Method (b) also led to other problems in the support design. Initially, the tray unit weight was considered as 35 psf. When the " effective" support weignt of 5 psf was added to the cable tray unit weight the result was a total assumed tray design load of 40 psf. At a later point in time, when design changes were issued against k
O the supports or a revised analysis was required, the designer reduced the design weight from 40 psf to 37.5 psf, or even 35 psf, to remove some " conservatism" from the design loads in order to qualify the support. By doing so, the designer removed a portion of the support weight.
Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for not considering out-of-plane inertial support loads.
B.
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for not including support dead loads or not considering 100".
of the support dead loads and the related seismic g
inertial loads.
7.
Design of Angle Braces Neglecting Leading Eccentricity
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.025, dated August 21, 1984, questions 3 and 4
(
O-Texas Utilities Generating Company Co.nancne Peak Steam Electric Station f
MN,,
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111111111llI!I111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 fm t
)
Revision 12 V'
Page 23 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.027, dated August 27, 1984, question 2 3.
AISC Specification, 7th Edition, Sections 1.15.2 and 1.18.2.4 4
Gibbs & Hill Calculation " Cable Tray Support Type SP-7 With Brace. Brace Eccentricity Calculations." Cygna Technical File 84056.11-1.228 5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation " Verify the Adequacy of Brace L3x3x3/8 of the Governing Support Case C." Gibbs &
3 Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 1, Revision 1 dated 11/16/84 O
6.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation " Justify the Use of Two L3-V 1/2x3-1/2x3/8 Angles to Take the Appropriate Load and Moment Individually in the Longitudinal Tray Supports at the Lower Brace." Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 2, Revision 6, dated 9/15/84 Sunnary:
A.
Longitudinal cable tray supports typically use angle sections as bracing to resist the longitudinal loads (e.g., SP-7 with brace, L-A, L-A, etc). For the 1
4 member design, loads were assumed to produce only axial stresses. The induced bending stresses due to tne eccentric ena connections were not considered.
Neglecting these flexural stresses can result in members which are under-designed. For certain longitudinal supports, double angles are required. The design assumes that the angles behave as a composite memoer.
However, no intermittent filler plates are provided as required by AISC Specification Section 1.18.2.4
- Thus, the double angles must be considered to act indepen-dently.
B.
Transverse and longitudinal cable tray supports typi-cally use angle sections as in-plane braces to resist
((
k Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station N LU 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
I!!!!1111111111111t!!!I111111l Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU l
\\
11/20/85 p
Revision 12 g
Page 24 s..
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List transverse loads and provide bracing points on the vertical members (e.g., A ' A ' B ' 0 ' l-4, etc). For 3
4 3
4 4
the member design, loads were assumed to produce only axial stresses. ~ The induced bending stresses due to eccentric end conditions were not considered. Though it is not explicitly stated in the AISC Specifications, it is standard practice (Reference 3, Sheet 3-59) to con-sider the bending stresses due to end connection eccen-tricity and check the interaction ratio considering the principal axes section moduli.
C.
Single longitudinal braces are typically connected to the frame by welding along the legs of the angle. Some brace designs provide welding on only one angle leg at one end of the brace; while, at the other end of the brace, welding is provided on the opposite angle leg.
O '-
Such end conditions may lead to failure by twist buckling at load levels below the critical value for Euler buckling.
Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill provided calculations wnich considered end eccentricities as well as independent action for each angle in double-angle brace designs (Reference 6).
Case L-84 was assumed to provide enveloping brace loads; however, this calculation did not consider the effect of the allowed range of brace slopes on the member slen-derness ratio.
(Also see Review Issue 4.G.)
Calcula-d tions (Reference 4) were also provided for support type SP-7 with brace, which has a single angle brace. Cygna believes that the approach is acceptable; however, Gibos
& Hill should provide justification for the enveloping cases used.
B.
Gibbs & Hill provided a calculation (Reference 5) whicn considered eccentric load application for in-plane braces. By reviewing the results of the Working Point Deviation Study, Gibbs & Hill found that Case C3 had the highest brace loads.
See Review Issue 12 for a discus-sion of the Working Point Deviation Study.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d LN 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
littittilillinismitilillut Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU
11/20/85 t
Revision 12 Page 25 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List C.
Cygna has evaluated the possibility of twist-buckling on single-angle braces and determined that it can result in a significant reduction in member capacity. Gibbs &
Hill /TUGC0 should consider the effects of twist-buckling in their cable tray support designs.
8.
Dynamic Amolification Factors (OAF) and Ratios between Continuous Tray Support Reactions and Tributary Tray Sucoort Reactions
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Report, " Justification of the Equivalent Static Load Method Using a Factor of 1.0 Times Peak Spectrum Acceleration for the Design of Cable Tray Supports; Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2."
2.
Comunications Report between J. Jan (Gibbs & Hill), G.
a p/
s Bjorkman (Cygna) dated October 4,1984, 4:00 p.m.
L 3.
Comunications Report between J. Jan, P. Huang, J. Pier (Gibbs & Hill), N. Williams, G. Bjorkman (Cygna) dated September 13, 1984, 3:00 p.m.
4 Comunications. Report between J. Jan, J. Pier (Gibbs &
Hill), G. Bjorkman (Cygna) dated October 12, 1984, 10:00 a.m.
5.
Comunications Report between J. Jan (Gibbs & Hill), G.
Bjorkman (Cygna) dated Octooer 18, 1984 6.
Comunications Report between J. Jan, et al. (Gibbs &
Hill), H. Levin (TERA), R. Kissinger, et al. (TUGCO), N.
Williams, et al. (Cygna) dated October 31, 1984 7.
CPSES, FSAR, Section 3.78.3.5.
Sumary:
Gibbs & Hill performed cable tray support designs using an
" equivalent static analysis" to account for seismic loads.
The tray dead load on a support was calculated by the trib-O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.8 L.5 6 4
Independent Assessment Program All Phases 111111tl1ll111ll11111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 O
Revision 12 V
Page 26
\\
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List utary span method. The tray seismic load was the product of the tray dead load and the peak spectral acceleration for the given buildings elevation. A dynamic amplification factor (DAF) was not included as required by Reference 7 (see also Issue 25.A).
An additional factor to be considered is the ratio of the static reaction for a continuous beam to the reaction cal-culated by the tributary span method. This ratio depends on the relative stiffness between the trays and supports, the relative stiffness between different support types and the number of continuous spans.
Status:
In response to Cygna's request for an evaluation of the required DAF, Gibbs & Hill performed a study (Reference 1) to justify a OAF =1.0.
Based upon discussions between Cygna and Gibbs & Hill (References 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6),1.14 was f
O' established as an appropriate OAF. Several limitations apply to the use of this factor, based upon these assumptions, such as:
o Equal support spacing of 8'-6" was assumed on the given tray run.
o The OAF calculated is the ratio of the dynamic support reaction to the equivalent static reaction obtained by applying the peak spectral acceleration to a continuous d
beam.
I Since Cygna's walkdown documented the use of non-uniform spans, Gibbs & Hill must justify using DAF=1.14 for designing the supports of cable trays with non-uniform span lengths. All supports originally designed for 0AF=1.0 should be reevaluated for a factor ecual to the multiplica-tion of the newly established DAF (1.14 minimum) and tne t
i ratio between the continuous tray support reaction and tributary tray support reaction.
1
(
O-Texas utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d LU 6 i
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111lll111111111111!!!I111!Il Job No. 84056 PRJ:2XTS-1SSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 g,
Page 27 t
j v
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 9.
Reduction in Channel Section Properties Due to Clamp Bolt Holes
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. Geor'ge (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.015, dated August 6,1984, Attachment 8, question 2
2.
Gibbs & Hill letter GTM-69371, dated 8/23/84, Calculation SCS-111C, Set 8, Sheets 34-39 3.
AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 7th Edition.
Sumnary:
The AISC Specification (Reference 3), Section 1.10.1 states:
Riveted and welded plate girders, cover-plated b] g beams and rolled or welded beams shall in general a
be proportioned by the moment of inertia of the gross section. No deduction shall be made for shop or field rivet or bolt holes in either flange, except that in cases where the reduction of the area of either flange by such holes, calcu-lated in accordance with the provisions of Sect.
1.14.3, exceeds 15 percent of the gross flange area, the excess shall be deducted.
Cygna found instances wnere the areas of bolt holes, used for the tray clamp. bolts, exceeded 15 percent of the gross flange area, and the required reduction in moment of inertia had not been considered in the design calculations.
Status:
Cygna requested an evaluation of the effect of tne reduction in channel section properties due to clamp bolt holes in Reference 1.
Gibbs & Hill provided a response in Reference 2.
l l
The response did not consider the following items:
l
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company
\\
Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station i.i L U $
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
llIll111111111111!!111!1111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU
11/20/85
/,__T Revision 12 V
Page 28
~
s CASLE TRAY SUPPORT 5 Review Issues List o
Cable trays may be placed anywhere in the beam span (for example, see CMC 2646).
o The case for cantilevered supports where one tray is close to the wall and other trays are located further out from the wall.
o The effect of DCA 17838, which provides bolt hole gage tolerances, and allows the use of 3/4" diameter holes for 5/8" diameter bolts.
o All unused flange holes are not required to be plug-welded and may be present in high moment regions.
(See Note 15 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0901, Revision 4.)
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for their response.
- 10. System Conceot
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Ouestions," 84056.031, dated August 31, 1984, Attachment A, question 2 2.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
dated September 28, 1984 with attached calculations Sunenary:
In order to justify certain design assumptions questioned by Cygna (Reference 1), documentation was provided indicating that Gibbs & Hill had assumed that the caele tray and sup-i ports act as a system (Reference 2). As part of tnis
" systems" approacn, the following behavior was assumed:
A.
The moments introduced by the eccentricities between the load application points (i.e., tray centroid) and tne (n (
)
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station dL.6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
Illlllllilllllllllllllllllliti Job No. 84056 pRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU
.. _ _ _. ~ _ - - _. - _ _. - -. _
11/20/85
()
Revision 12 V
Page 29 A
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Iteview Issues List member resistant centroid were balanced by load couples between adjacent supports. More specifically, for longitudinal supports (e.g., SP-7 with brace, Detail 8, drawing 2323-5-0903, etc.), the development of torsion in the beam due to longitudinal loading eccentricity is prevented due to the development of flexure in the cable tray. This tray moment is subsequently balanced by a vertical load coupled between adjacent supports.
Similarly, the torsion in the beam and the weak axis bending in the hanger due to the vertical load placement eccentricities as well as the bending moment in the beam due to the transverse load placement eccentricities are all balanced by either vertical or transverse load couples between adjacent supports.
Such moment transfers as described above are only pas.-
sible if full rotational and translational compatibility I
O{
exists between the cable tray and support beam. The
,)
relative stiffness between the trays and their supports can also affect the percentage of the moment to be balanced by the load couples between supports. Gibbs &
Hill assumes that the compatibility is provided by the heavy duty and friction types of tray clamps.
See Review Issue 18 for a discussion of Cygna's concerns regarding the clamp behavior.
8.
In the design of trapeze support nanger memoers for com-pression loads, the trays provide lateral bracing at points along the length of the hanger. Similarly, for b
Cantilever type. supports, the tray provides lateral bracing to the beam (See Review Issue 4).
I C.
For trapeze type supports, the longitudinal and trans-verse support systems act independently. Therefore, tne longitudinal supports are designed for longitudinal loads only, i.e., r.o transverse or vertical load con-tribution is considered (also see Review Issue 5).
Texas Utilities Generating Company l
Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All phases L*h 111lI11111111111111111:ll11111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU L
11/20/85 Revision 12 o
Page 30
{}
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List D.
Additional tensile forces introduced by rotation of the base angles about the bolt pattern axis is minimized by the hanger attachment to the tray (also see Review Issue 3).
E.
For trapeze type supports, out-of-plane seismic inertial loads from two-way support frames (self-weight excitation) are resisted by the longitudinal supports.
However, as discussed in Review Issue 6, these inertial loads have not been considered in Gibbs & Hill's design of longitudinal supports.
F.
The cable tray supports use channel sections for the beam and hanger members. The typical connection between the beam and hanger is a lap joint, with the channels attached back-to-back. This type of connection will g
introduce bending moments and tersion in the members due g
O to the eccentricity between the section neutral axes V
(Reference l', Question 2.2).
Gibbs & Hill addressed this issue in Reference 2, indicating *that a portion of the offect is resisted as additional loads in the cable tray, and the net effect on the stress level in the support is less than a three percent increase.
Status:
Items A through F have not been fully justified considering the hardware and relative stiffness between trays and tneir supports. Cygna is concerned that Gibbs & Hill's use of a
" systems" concept may not be consistent with the actual behavior of the clamps used in the field.
- 11. Validity of NASTRAN Models
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2-6 2.
Gibbs' & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 3, Sheets 234 243, Revision 9
(
Texas Utilities Generating Comoany Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station dL.6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
111ll111111111111ll11111111111Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23C TS-1 SSU
11/20/85
-s \\
c Revision 12 (V
Page 31 CASLE TILAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder DM!-13C, Set 1 4.
G1bbs & Hill Report, "Justif1 cation of the Equivalent d
Static Load Method Using a Factor of 1.0 Times Peak Spectrum Acceleration for the Design of Cable Tray Supports; Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2."
Summary:
Cygna has questioned the validity of the NASTRAN models used in the Gibbs & Hill generic studies, such as the Working Point Deviation Study (Reference 1), the qualificatica of Oetail 01 (References 2 and 3) and the Dynamic knplification Factor Study (Reference 4). The analysis models consist of identical supports, separated by equal spans. This modelling will influence the system frequencies and seismic response and may not be representative of an actual instal-
/
1ation, where a mixture of support types, non-uniform spans
'O s
and tees or elbows in the tray are used.
Status:
Further justification is required prior to applying tne results of these studies througnout the plant.
- 12. Working Point Deviation Study
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2-6 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-216C, Sets 1-5 3.
AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication and erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 7tn edition, 4
" Cable Tray Raceway System Dynamic Analysis Program,"
G1Dbs & Hill, Maren 19, 1985.
d 5.
Comunications Report between M. Warner (B&R/TUGC0 OC) and W. Horstman, J. Russ (Cygna) dated November 16.
1985.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station A LU 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
lillillilliillillillilitililli Joe No. 84056 PRJ: 23C TS-I SSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
(
V Page 32 g
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 6.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0903.
7.
Communications Report between B.K. Bhujang et al. (Gibbs
& Hill), R.M. Kissinger (TUGCO) and W. Horstman et al.
(Cygna) dated September 14, 1984 Summary:
Cable tray supports employ angle sections as braces in the d
follcwing configurations:
in-plane for trapeze type sup-ports, out-of-plane for longitudinal trapeze supports, and in various other orientations for other support types.
The original designs for supports assumed that neutral axes of all members at a connection intersected at a common point, thus no connection eccentricities were considered. The connection details shown on the design drawings (e.g.,
Details 4 and 5 on Reference 6) provided a brace working point location which was not consistent with the design
/
assumptions.
d Based on a discussion with TUGC0 personnel (Reference 5),
Cygna learned that tne QC inspectors had dif ficulty in determining the design requirements for the working point locations, and Gibbs & Hill had been requested to provide clarification on the requirements and an allowable tolerance on the working point locations. OCA 20278 and OCA 20418 were issued in response, and the Working Point Deviation Study (References 1 and 2) was performed to consider tne fact that the member neutral axes did not intersect at a common point and to provide the requested tolerances. The following are coments on the analyses performed as a part of this study.
A.
Gibbs & Hill's study (References 1 and 2) does not fully consider the effects of previously approved design I
change documentation.
f l
The analyses of the generic support types did not con-sider the of f acts of all generic design change documents which allow deviations from the original support designs.
(Also see Review Issue 21.A.)
(
(
Texas utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station A LU 6 Independent Assessment Program All Phases a
ililllillillililillilllilitill Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-155U i
11/20/85 CN Revision 12
'd Page 33 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Due to the overstress of certain components of several support types, a limiting spectral acceleration was calculated, and cut-off elevations were established using the individual floor response spectra. Frames below the cut-off elevations were not checked for compliance with the study parameters. Frames above the cut-off elevation were analyzed on a case-by-case basis, but the analyses did not consider the effects of design change documents associated with the individual support.
B.
The effects of vertical and transverse loads on longi-tudinal support frames were not considered in the Wort-ing Point Deviation Study (also see Review Issues 5 and 10).
r C.
The portion of the study that evaluated longitudinal trapeze supports only checked memoer stress interaction t
V as specified in Section 1.6.1 of Reference 3.
No eval-uation was made to ensure that the connections, base angles and anchor bolts are also adequate.
D.
Modelling Assumptions 1.
Instead of modeling a longitudinal support in the tray run, one end of the tray was assumed to be fi xed. The effect of this tray boundary condition on the system response was not justified. Based upon the review of the NASTRAN models used in the Dynamic Analysis Program (Reference 4), Cygna h
learned that Gibbs & Hill's modelling of these fixed ends did not account for tne response spectrum input at those points, but instead fixed tnem to an abso-lute rigid ground.
If tne sane modelling technique was applied in the Working Point Deviation Study, the results of those response spectrum analyses may be incorrect.
(..
Texas Utilities Generating Comoany v
Comanene Peat Steam Electric Station d LU 6 Independent Assessment Program All Phases 4
111111111111111111111111lll111 Joe No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 9
Revision 12
[V e
Page 34 CASLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
The analysis assumed a single 24-inch tray per support level and did not assess the impact of more realistic multiple tray loadings or other tray widths.
3.
Eccentricities were not properly modelled (also see Review Issue 10).
4 The cable trays were modelled as translationally and rotationally fixed to the support beams. This h.
assumption of tray attachment fixity was not justi-fied (Also see Review issue 18).
I 5.
The run configurations selected may not be represen-tative of actual installations.
Parameters include systems of identical supports, uniform 8'-6" support d,
(
spacing, and the assumed worst case frame dimensions
(
(also see Review Issues 11 and 28).
6.
The base angle modelling assumed a simply supported beam for two bolt base connections.
In reality, tne concrete reactions (prying actions) provide flexural restraint to the base angle.
(See also Issue 26) 7.
Excitation in tne longitudinal tray direction was not considered.
8.
The out-of-plane translational degrees of freedom were restrained on trapeze type suoDorts, resulting g;
in an unrealistically restrained system.
E.
Gibbs & Hill did not check all support components wnen determining the controlling support element. For exam-pie, support type E4 was assumed to be limited by tne load capacity of the Hilti expansion ancnors. Cygna's review indicated that the actual governing component was the Richmond Inserts wnten were not checked by Glees &
Hill.
(
Os Texas Ott11 ties Generating Comoany Comanene Peat Steam Electric Station nil.6 Independent Assessment Program All Phases a
lilllllillillitillisilllililli Joe No. 8a056 PRJ:23 CTS 155U
--c-,
-,, - - -, - - - - - -,.. - - - - - - - - -,.., ~., - -, -,,,
--,n.
r 6
O 11/20/85
(*)
Revision 12 Page 35 g
CASLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List F.
Working Point Location for Two4olt Brace Connections on Longitudinal Supports.
The working point location shown 'on the design drawing does not coincide with the actual line of action of the brace load for two-bolt brace connections, e.g., Details "F" and "G" on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0903, and the brace concrete attachments for support types L-Ag through L-A, L4, L4 ' L4, L-C' L-C2 and L-C4 on 4
1 2
4 Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0902.
"hese offsets may induce larger tensile loads in the anchorages than originally considered in the designs. These connections were not evaluated as cart of the Working Point Deviation Study.
G.
Arbitrary Allowed Working Point Deviations Several support types within Cygna's review scope have v
specified allowable working point deviations without any supporting calculations.
1.
Detail N (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0601-015)
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Birtder 2323-5C5-216C, Set 3, Sheet 5 indicates an allowable deviation of 9" t 3" for brace connection to beam. Calculations are not included.
2.
Cetail V (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323 El-0601-015)
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SC5-216C, Set 3, Sheet 5 states " Low Stress, Brace Working Point Deviation of 6" is acceptaole." Calculations to support this statement are not included.
H.
Working Point Deviations by similarity Several support types within Cygna's review scoce nave specified allowable working point deviations eased on similarity to standard support types.
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peat 5 team Electric Station A LU,
a-Independent Assessment Program All Phases I!ll1111111111111111111111111 Job No. 64066 PRJ: 23Cf 5 155U
11/20/85 Revision 12
('
Page 36
\\
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List i
1.
Detail J (Gibbs a Hill Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-3) is qualified by similarity to Casa P.
3 2.
Detail 11 (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0905) is qualified by similarity to Detail 8 (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0903).
The calculations for case 83 and Detail 8 (Gibbs & Hill Calculation 81nders 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2 and 4) indi-cate that these support types will be overstressed for the allowed working point deviation. Case-by-case evaluations of Case 83 and Detail 8 supports were per-i formed to determine if all as-designed supports were acceptable. The support types which had been qualified by similarity were not included in these case-by case reviews; hence, there is no assurance that they are not i
overstressed also.
Use of Enveloping Cases The Working Point Deviation Study evaluates several support types by grouping them with an enveloping suo-port of similar configuration. Reference 1, Set 2 evaluates two groups. Group 1 includes Cases A, 8,
3 3
and C, considering Case C3 to envelope tne other two.
3 Group 2 includes Cases A, 8, and C, considering case 4
4 4
C4 to envelope tne otners. For eacn analysis, the enveloping case is found to be overstressed, and a case-by-case as designed review of supports of tnat type is conducted.
The enveloped cases are not all included in the case-by case reviews, and a separate evaluation is not performed to show design adequacy of the other 1
support types on a generic basis.
i J.
Compressive Lead Capacity of Members kl As discussed in the status for Review Issue 4.A. Gibbs 4 i
Hill considered the effect of multiple, discrete asial loads on the Duckling capacity of the mangers in 4
i Texas utilities Generating Company Comanene Peat Steam Electric Station O LU i i Independent assessment Program All Phases j
Ili11llll1ll1111111111111lll11 Joo No. 84056 PRJi 23C T5 155U
11/20/85
,o Revision 12 i
i V
Page 37 g
CASLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review issues List response to Cygna's concerns. The same effect was considered in the member evaluations for this study.
g Gibbs & Hill did not property apply the effect, since the factor is a function of the applied loading, and Gibbs & Hill did not calcul' ate it for each load case (Reference 7).
Status:
To assure support acceptability, TUGC0/Gibbs & H111 should justify the modeling assumptions, the applica-bility of the analysis results for global support quali-fication, and the use of working point deviations by OC.
- 13. Reduced Spectral Accelerations
References:
1.
Gibbs & H111 Calculations, " Analysis of Alternate Detail 1"
A i
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Sinder SC5-101C, Set 3, Sneet 247, Revision 9 t
3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SC5-215C, Set 4 4
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 5C5-101C, Set 2, Sheets 131 4 132, Revision 5.
Swenary:
For the qualification of the supports discussed below, Gibbs
& Hill used reduced spectral accelerations based on a calcu-I lated support-tray system frequency. These analyses assumed
{*
that all supports on a tray run are of the same type and have equal spacings (also see Review !ssue 11).
These studies are not representative of the cable tray installa-tions at CPSES.
A.
A reduced acceleration was used for the analysis of transverse supports, such as type A, wnicn wel used in 4
analysis of Alternate Detail 1 (Reference 1).
in t s acceleration corresponds to a calculated frequency anien is higner than that corresponding to tne spectral
' Os Texas utilities Generating Company Cmaneno Peat Steam Electric Station d LUi e Independent assessment Program All Phases filillillilillililllllllllilli Job No. 84056 PRJr 23CT5 l55U
11/20/85 Revision 12
/~'N Page 38 b,
CASLE TRAY SUPPORT 3 Review Issues List peak. This frequency was calculated using a system model of identical supports equally spaced at 8'-4" and d
a tray weight of 35 psf. The results of this study may not be valid for all installations as discussed in Review Issue 11.
8.
For longitudinal supports (e.g., type SP-7 with brace b
(Reference 3), L-Ag (Reference 2), etc.), the frequency calculations did not include the effect of the axial frequency of the tray and the eccentricities between the tray and support.
C.
The flexural stiffness of the base angle supporting tne brace of the longitudinal supports was not considered in frequency calculation (References 3,4).
Flexural defor-mation of the base a'ngle can result in significant l
reduction in support frequency.
f
[V Status:
Additional discussion between Cygna and Gibbs & Hill is requ1eed.
t 14 Non-Conformance with A15C Specifications
References:
1.
AISC Soecifications for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, 7tn Edition l
2.
CPSES, FSAR, Sections 3.8.3.2 and 3.8.4.2 Sumary:
Reference 2 commits to designing tne caele tray supports in accordince with Reference 1.
Gibbs & Hill has not properly l
l considered the requirements of Reference 1, as discussed below.
A.
Unbraced Length for Antal Buckling Section 1.8.4 (Reference 1) requires that k1/r ce less than 200 for compression memeers. Geoending on tne approach Selected for the resolution of Review Issue 4
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company -
)
Comanene Peat Steam Electric Station A L "..
Independent Assessment Program. All Anases 4
l 111111111111111111111!!!!!1111 Job No. 84056 l
PRJ: 23CT5 1 $$U l
L
11/20/85 O
Revision 12 Q)
Page 39 s
CASLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review issues List this requirement may not be met. For example, if the friction type clag cannot provide adequate restraint in the longitudinal direction, the k value should be taken as 2.0 for trapeze type and cantilever type supports.
Consequently, k1/r=257 for a 5'-9" C6 8.2 hanger or beam.
8.
Unbraced Length for Lateral Torsional Buckling Section 1.5.1.4.64 (Reference 1) requires that Equation 1.5-7 be used to calculate the allowable bending stress for channels.
In the denominator, "1" is the unbraced length of the compression flange. Cygna found the
'ollowing instances where the A!SC Specifications were not considered or were improperly appIted:
O 1.
Gibbs & Hill's Working Point Deviation Study (see V
Review Issue 12) uses 22 ksi for the allowable flexural stress witnout checking Equation 1.5-1.
Since the frame neignts are on the order of 144", an allowable flexural stress of 15 ksi is calculated by Equation 1. 5. 7.
2.
Detail SP-7 and similar supports consider "1" to be the distance from the base attachment to tne tray centerline and not to the outside tray rail wnere the load is applied. Use of the larger distance will result in lower allowable bending stresses.
C.
Bolt Holes in Member Flanges Reductions in the section pecoerties of beams due to bolt noles in their flanges per Section 1.10.1 (Reference 1), were not considered (see Review !ssue 9).
\\
(
p]
Texas Utilities Generating Company
\\
Comanene Peat Steam Electric Station i
i8 LU i 6 Independent Assessment Program. All phases litillllilllilllllllifiltlilli Joo No. 84056 PRJ: 23C f 5 155U
11/20/85 73 Revision 12 (V
Page 40 g
CM LE TRAY SUPPORT 5 Review Issues List D.
Lacing of Double Angles Double angle braces are designed as composite members, without providing lacing per Section 1.18.2.4 (Reference 1).
(Also see Review !ssue 7.)
E.
Eccentric Connections Section 1.15.2 (Reference 1) discusses eccentric con-nections. This section requires that any axial memoers not meeting at a single working point be designed for the eccentricities. For example, this section of the specification applies to supports with single angle braces (SP-7 with brace L A1, etc). The gusset plates connected to these braces nust also be designed for the eccentricities.
F.
Oversire Bolt Holes J
Section 1.23.4 (Reference 1) specifies bolt notes to be 1/16" targer than the nominal bolt diameter.
The bolt holes for anchor bolts in base plates / angles (per Gibbs
& Hill Drawing 2323-5-0903) and for tray clamos (per OCA 17838 Revision 8) are specified as 1/8" larger tnan tne nominal bolt diameter. Therefore, the bolt holes in Gibbs & Hill's designs should be considered oversized and should be treated as such in bearing connection calculations.
G.
Use of the Allowable Comoressive Stress For Seconoary Members For the design of the longitudinal brace for support type $P 7 witn brace, the brace was assumed to be a secondary member, and allowable compressive stresses were calculated per Section 1.5.1.3.3 (Reference 1).
Since tnis is the sole member wnich provides longi-tudinal load carrying capability, it should be con.
sidered a primary member, and Sections 1.5.1.3.1 and 1.5.1.3.2 are applicaele.
(
Texas Utilities Generating Comoany Comanene Peat 5 team Electric Station iN
.t 4
Independent Assessment Program All phases lillllllillllllllllllllllllill Job No. 84056 PRJ 23Cf5 15','l
\\
/N 11/20/85 (j
Revision 12 Page 41
(
CABLE TRAY SUPMRTS Review Issues List Status:
Technical justification for noncompliance with the AISC Specifications should be provided by TUGCO/Gibbs & Hill.
- 15. Membec Substitution
References:
1.
Comunications Reports between R.M. Kissinger (TUGCO) and J. Russ (Cygna), dated January 17, 1985, 8:15 a.m.
and 3:45 p.m.
2.
CMC 69335. Revision 1, dated. 9/21/82.
3.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323 5-0901, Revision 4 Susunry:
Note 9 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0901, Revision 4 states:
(
$tructural members snown on drawing numoers 2323-5-900 series may be substituteo by one step heavier shape of the same size.
This note allows craft to substitute a memoer from one series with a member from another series, e.g., an American Standard Channel (C) for a Miscellaneous Channel (MC) or vice versa, as long as the substituted snace is neavier than, but of the same depth as the original memoer. Cygna is concerned tnat this note allows the use of substitute sections wnich are neavier, but have lower section modult.
At a later date Reference 2 was issued providing tne following clarification:
$tructural members shown on drawing numeers 2323-5-900 series may be suestituted t,y a member of tne same size and nest heavier shape determined by the material on site.
The nest step heavier snace will be governed by sections as shown in Al$C
/
n-1 V
fenas utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric $tation dL.6 6 Independent Assessment Program All Pnases 111111111111111111111111111111 Joe No. 84056 PRJi23Cf$ l$50 l
11/20/85 Revision 12 Q<m Page 42 CASLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Manual of Steel Construction. Examples are shown on sheet 2 of 2.
The examples shown on sheet 2 of Reference 2 include the substitution of a C4x7.25 for a C4:5.4, a C6x10.5 for a C6x8.2, etc. This clearly indicates that the substitution should be of the same series as the specified member.
Cygna's concern is wnat types of substitutions were per-formed by the craft and accepted by the QC inspectors during the time between the issuance of Reference 3 and Reference 2.
Cygna was unable to locate any requirements for docu-menting member substitutions.
Within Cygna's walkdown scoce, such a substitution was identified for support numoer 6654 (see Review issue 20).
The design required an MC6:12, and the installed memoer was a C6:13, which has a smaller section relus (5 = 5.80 in3 a
for a C613 comcared to 5 = 6.24 in3 for an MC6x12). For the other supports 11'sted in Review issue 20, tne required MC6:12's were substituted with C6 8.2's, a substitution not permitted by Reference 2.
Status:
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill should provide justification of such substitutions and the requirements for documentation of the substitutions.
- 16. Weld Design and Soecificationi.
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (V5MC),
' Response to NRC Questions," 83090.023, dated Maren 8, 1985 2.
Corinunications Report between Chang and Huang (Gibbs &
Hill) and Horstman, Russ and Williams (Cygna) dated October 27, 1984
(
~
h Texas Utilities Generating Company V
Comanene Peat Steam Electric Station A L "..
Independent Assessment Program All Phases 6
111111111111111111lll111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJi 23C75 1550
11/20/85 Revision 12 C'
Q)
Page 43 g
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Cossuunications Report between Chang and 1%ang (Gibbs 4 Hill) and Horstman, Russ and Williams (Cygna) dated November 13, 1984 4
Coasnunications Report between Chang and Huang (Gibbs &
Hill) and Russ (Cygna) dated November 17, 1984 5.
Communications Report between R. M. Kissinger (TUGCO) and J. Russ (Cygna), dated November 30, 1984 6.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.S. George (TUGCO),
" Cable fray Support Review Questions," 84056.041, dated February 12, 1985 Summary:
Cygna has noted the following discrepancies in the weld designs for cable tray supports.
~
A.
The design drawings are missing the weld details for several support types as desceteed in Reference 1 Attachment C.
B.
Per discussions with Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 (References 2, 3, 4 and 5), Cygna has noted snat the weld sizes snown on the assemely drawings dif fer from those snown on the design drawings and those tnat were assumed in Gib0s 4 Hill calculations.
C.
(ccentricities were not considered in weld connections.
1.
Detail SP 7 with brace and similar connections require a partial penetration groove weld at the gusset plate / beam connection. Tne design calcu-14tions did not consider tne eccentric load transfer from the brace member.
The eccentricity of the brace loads results in a weld stress in escess of the allowable.
2.
Weld designs for tne lap joints eetween enannels and f
between the base angle and attacned enannel did not 6,
f fesas Vtilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric 5tation d LU i 6 Independent ansessment 8cogram All Pnales lilimismmtistiimlillli Joe No. 84056 PRJ 23Cf5 155U
\\
11/20/85 a
Revision 12 Q
Page 44 CASLE TRAY SUPPORTS l
Review Issues List consider the eccentricity between the applied loads d,
from the connecting members and the plane of the weld.
D.
The weld designs did not consider the thickness of the connected parts. This issue was identified by DCA 2365, g
Revision 2, but was never considered in the design C.E calculations. Gibbs & Hill's weld designs assumed tnat the full weld throat would be developed without considering the thickness of the connected member. For example, the weld siae for support designs employing C6 8.2 channels witn a fillet weld crossing tne wee of the channel is limited to the 0.2 inch web tnicaness.
Gibbs & Hill designs specified a 5/16" fillet weld size and did not reduce the throat to account for the minimum material thickness. Cases where this may be a proolem r
include Details E. F, G, H. J and ( cn Gibbs & Hill
+
Orawing 2323-(1-0601 01-5 SP 7 using an L6 4n3/4 base d
angles and tne Detail 2/2A on Gibes & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0903 as modt fled per CMC $8338.
E.
Gibbs & Hill assumed an incorrect minimum 41d length for the beam / hanger base angle connection. Gibes & Hill assumed a weld length of I-k wnere I e angle leg widtn and k a distance from back of angle leg to end of fillet. However, because of the entstance of the curve with radius, r (accrontmately equal to one half tne leg thickness), at the angle toe, the actual weld length is 1 k c.
Statust Items A through 0 are open pending response to Reference 6.
Item E may require furtner discussion witn TUGCO.
- 17. Emnedded Plates Oeston
References:
1.
N.H. W1111ams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
i
" Cable fray Suocort Review Ouestions " 84056.041, dated February 12.1g85. Attacnment A, question 1
/
b fesas Utilities Generating Company b
Comanene Pest Steam Electric Station
.ML..
Independent Assessment Program All Phases a
immlitilimilisilllllllli Joe No. 64056 PRJ123C fl.1550 l
11/20/85 Revision 12
^
) (
Page 45 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List l
2.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. W1.111ams (Cygna) dated April 19,1984, page 11 3.
Comunications Report between Williams, Russ and Horstman (Cygna), Kissinger and Keiss (TUGCO) and Shujang, Huang and Chang (Gibbs a Hill) dated September l
15, 1984 4
Comunications Report between M. Warner (TUGC0) and N.
Williams, J. Minichiello and J. Russ (Cygna) dated February 27, 1985 5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Sinder 2323-SC5-146C, Set 4, Sheet 3 9, 21 6.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323 5-0919, Revision 3 hC V
7.
Brown & Root Installation Procedure CCP 45, " Permanent and Temporary Attachments to Weld Plates," Revision 1,
/
8/18/80 d
i 8.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 232,1 55-30, Appendia 4, i
" Design Criteria For Emoedded Plate Strips," Revision 1 9.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counst) (TUGCO),
"Caole fray /Conouit Support Review Questions,"
84056.089, dated October 21, 1985 Summary:
A.
Gibbs & Hill performed capacity calculations for caele tray support attachments to embedded strip plates.
Cygna's review of these calculations indicates that the calculated capacities may not have considered the offect of prying action on the tension in tne Nelson Studs.
9.
Questions from Cygna's pipe suoport reviewers and cable tray reviewers on the stiffening requirements for l
l embedded plate moment connections elicited confitcting responses from TUCC0 personnel.
The pipe support i%
A)
Tenas utt11 ties Generating Comoany
('
Comanene Pean Steam Electric Station dL.6 liideoendent Assessment Program All Phases a
164666611161161611166i166#1111 Job No. 84056 PRJi23".T5 155U
1 f
11/20/85 o
I
}
Revision 12
(
Page 46
\\d CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List response indicated that attachments to embedded plates act as stiffeners for moment connections (Reference 2)..
while the cable tray support response indicated that any moment attachment must be stiffened or sufficiently analyzed (Reference 3).
C.
Cygna has noted that calculations for cable tray sup-ports attached to embedded plates did not consider the capacity reductions for attachment locations given in Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-55-30. " Structural tabedmonts" (Reference 1). Cygna has requested any documents wnich address the corrective action associated I
with the issuance of Specification 2323 55 30 (Reference 9).
p 0.
A review of Brown & Root Procedure CCP 45 (Reference 7) indicates that any two adjacent attacnments to an v)
(
embedded strip plate must be separated by a minimum of 12".
Based on a discussion between Cygna and TUGC0 (Reference 4), it was determined tnat even thougn the installation procedure requires this separation, the inspection procedures for cable tray supports do not require an inspection of this attribute.
l l
Cygna walkdowns noted several instances wnere the sep-aration between attachments to embedded plates were less than 12".
(Also see Pipe Support Review !ssue 9).
Cygna is concerned that the lack of control of attach-r ment spacing may nave an impact on the design adequacy l
of the attachments.
t t.
Installation of Details I, F, 0, and H on Embedded Plates Reference 5 is the design calculation for the instal-lation of Support Details E.F.G. and H (Gibbs & Hill i
Orawing 2323-(1 0601 01 5) on emoedded strip plates. A manimum tributary tray span of 7' 6" is used in tnese calculations, Note 9 on Reference 6 states l
O V
fe.a utiittisi Generating Company Comanene Peam 5 team (1ectric Station ML.i 6 Independent Assessment Program All Phases putHuallillininil Job No. 64056 eRJ 23Cf5 155U l
.A 11/20/85
)
Revision 12 s'
p,9, 47 CM LE TRAY SUPPORT 5 Reviou Issues List The supports will have a location tolerance of t 12* in the direction parallel to the tray and 2 2* perpendicular to tho' tray. However, spacing between any two adjacent supports shall not exceed 9'-0" for Unit 1 and Comon Areas...unless otherwise noted on the drawing.
i Supports installed in accordance with this drawing note may have to resist loads due to a 9'-0" tributary span, l' 6" greater than the design tributary span.
1 F.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323 55-30 (Reference 8) provides spacing requirements between emoedded plates and Hilti expansion anchors. During Cygna's cable tray support walkdowns, an instance was noted where an Q
(
emeedded plate was located near an opening in a concrete
[i l V A
wall. Several Hilti expansion anchors were installed within the opening, on the concrete surface perpen-dicular to the surface with the embedded plate, poten-l tially violating the requirements of 2323 55-30. Cygna I
was unable to determine how the minimum spacing require-ments would be applied to situations enere the expansion anchor is installed in a surface perpendicular to the embedded plate.
l 5tatus:
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill should provide justification for !tems A through E.
TUGC0/Gibos & Hill should provide tne applicaele procedure relating to item F.
- 18. IrsyC1amos
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Orawing 2323 5 0902, Revision 5 2.
TUG;0 Orawing TNC 51 0902 02, Revision CP 2 l
(
n U
renas uttittiti cener iing Comoany
,agL td, Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station Indeoendent Assessment Program All Phases 191441661111111111111111111111 Joe No. 84056 PRJi 23C75 155U l
O 11/20/85 C)
Revision 12 Page 48 CASLE TRAY SUPPORT 5 Review !ssues List 3.
Comunication Report between T. Keiss (TUGCO) and W.
Horstaan (Cygna) dated November 15, 1984 Summary:
Two general categories of cable tray clamps are used at CPSES. " Friction" type clamps are installed on transverse type supports (e.g., A, B g, SP-7 etc.). These clamps are g
assumed to provide vertical and horizontal transverse load transfer. " Heavy duty" clamps are installed on longitudinal trapeze supports (e.g., L-A, L 4, etc.), three-way sup-g g
ports (e.g., SP-7 with brace, Detail 8 on drawing 2323 0903, etc.), and transverse supports, where interferences l
(e.g., tray splice plates, fittings, etc.) prevent the installation of friction type clamps. Heavy duty clamps are designed to transfer vertical, horizontal transverse, and longitudinal tray loads to the cable tray support beam.
References 1 and 2; DCA 3464, Revision 23; DCA 6299, Revi-(V) (
sion 7; and OCA 20331 Revision 0 provide clamp configura-tion details.
I in addition to the indicated lead transfers between trays and supports, Gibbs & H111 has assumed other load transfer mechanisms in order to justify behavioral assumptions made I
in the support designs. For " friction" type clamps, the following assumptions have been made in order to justify the system concept (also see Review !ssue 10).
o the trays will provide out of plane bracing to trapeze supports to reduce the buckling length of the vertical hanger memoers (also see Review Issue 4).
l l
o The trays will provide lateral bracing to the comores-tion flanges of the morizontal beams (also see Review issue 24).
o The trays will provide out of plane bracing to supports to prevent frame translation wnten would result in I
increased anchor bolt tensile loads (also see Review issue 3).
/
Tesas Utilities Generating Coecany l
Comanene 8ean Steam Electric Station q Le -
EmimmilmilImm!ill Independent Assessment Program. All Phases l
Joe No. 84056 PRJt!3Cf5 155U
(m 11/20/85
)
Revision 12 t
Page 49 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List o
The cable trays will transfer out-of-plane inertial loads from transverse supports to longitudinal supports on the same tray run (also see Review Issue 6).
o The development of minor axis bending moment in the beams due to the horizontal eccentricity between the beam neutral axis and the clamp bolt is minimized by a binding moment in the cable tray (also see Review Issue 24).
o For vertical loading, the development of torsion in the beam due to the eccentricity between the clamp location and the beam shear center is prevented by flexure of the cable tray. This assumes a full moment fixity between the tre:y and the support beam (also see Review Issue 24).
(
(
)
V For heavy duty clamps, all of the above assumptions are also applicable, and an additional assumption is made by Gibbs &
Hill.
o The development of torsion due to longitudinal loads on three-way supports using composite beam sections (e.g.,
SP-7 with brace Detail 8 on Drawing 2323-5-0903, etc. )
is prevented by flexure of the cable tray. This assumes a full moment fixity between tray and support beam (Review Issue 24).
The assumptions described above are valid only if the clamps l
can provide suitable displacement and rotation compatibility l
between the tray and support beam. Based on a discussion with TUGC0 (Reference 3), Cygna determined that installation tolerances (Reference 2; DCA 6299, Revision 7; DCA 20331, Revision 0; and CMC 93450, Revision 4) have been adopted which allow gaps between the tray side rails, the support beam, and the tray clamps.
In order to provide the assumed
(
compatibility, " friction" type clamps must be cinched suf fi-l ciently to develop friction between the tray / beam and tray /
clamp interfaces. The existence of gaps will preclude the l
Texas Utilities Generating Company A ( t=j l f j Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11111111111111111!!!11111I1111Job No. 84056 l
PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
")
Page 50
(
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List development of the normal contact force require for fric-tional resistance.
Status:
'Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should evaluate the various clamp designs to establish their capability to provide the assumed load transfer.
- 19. FSAR Load Combinations
References:
1.
CPSES FSAR, Section 3.8.4.3 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-103C, Set 1 Sheets 14-19 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SCS-103C, Set 2, Sheet Sunmary:
Reference 1 defines the loads and load combinations applic-able to the design of cable tray supports. Cygna's review of the cable tray support designs indicates that only dead weight and seismic inertial loads are considered.
For supports installed in the Reactor Buildings, the loads associated with a LOCA may be applicable, including pipe whip, jet impingement, and thermal loads. Two support types I
within Cygna's review were designed for installation in the Reactor Building, Detail A (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0500-04-5) and Detail C (Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-El-0500-j 01-S). The design calculations for these supports, References 2 and 3, respectively, did not consider these additional loads.
Status:
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide the criteria for excluding other possible support loadings.
O
(-
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station gg' IIlllitillllll!!Yll!!!!!Il lil Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
/
(
Page 51 q
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List
- 20. Differences Between the Installation and the Design / Construction Drawings without Appropr1 ate Documentation
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Support Layou't Drawing 2323-El-0713-01-5 2.
Brown & Root, Inc., Fabrication Drawing FSE-00159 3.
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Manual of Steel Construction, 7th Edition 4
Gibbs & Hill Support Layout Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 5.
Gibbs & Hill Support Layout Orawing 2323-El-0700-01-S 6.
Gibbs & Hill Cable Tray Support Design Drawings 2323 (
0900 series 7.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Walkdown Questions," 84056.026, dated August 23, 1984 8.
Comunication Report between M. Warner, J. van Amerongen (TUGCO) and W. Horstman (Cygna) dated October 25, 1984 9.
Comunication Report between T. Webb, M. Hamburg (TUGCO) and W. Horstman (Cygna) dated October 18, 1984
- 10. Comunication Report between M. Warner, C. Biggs (TUGCO) and W. Horstman (Cygna) dated October 10, 1984
- 11. Brown & Root Procedure No. CEl-20, Revision 9 " Instal-lation of Hilti Drilled-In Bolts" 12.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Cygna Review Questions," dated September 6,1984 l
l
[s d
~
Texas Utilities Generating Company p
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station k'b Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11llll111111111111111111111111Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85
/
)
Revision 12
(/
r Page 52
(
CABLE TRAY SUPMRTS Review Issues List 13.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Walkdown Questions," 84056.021, dated August 16, 1984
- 14. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
'15. Brown & Root Instruction QI-QAP-11.2-28, " Fabrication, Installation Inspections of ASME Component Supports, Classes 1, 2 and 3," Revision 29.
Sunmary:
Cygna performed walkdown inspections on 49 of the 92 sup-ports within the review scope. Certain discrepancies be-tween the as-built support configurations and the design requirements were as noted below.
A.
Support No. 481, Longitudinal Type A4 1.
Single angles were installed as braces in the longitudinal direction. A pair of angles is required by the design drawing.
2.
The slopes of the upper longitudinal braces exceed the design limits.
[
3.
The working point locations for the lower longi-tudinal braces with respect to the beam elevation at the attachment to the hanger exceed the design limit.
4 The working points for all longitudinal braces, with respect to the anchor bolts, exceed the design limits.
5.
The angle sections used for the longitudinal braces are inverted.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station hN N a e'
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases l
11111111lIIIl11111111111111lll Job No. 84056 l
PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU j
r i
11/20/85 Revision 12 Y
Page 53 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List i
6.
The length of several of the Hilti Super Kwik-bolts
{*
is insufficient to achieve the required embedment.
B.
Support No.'408, Type B4 1.
The lower corner of the frame is modified by CMC l
9916, Revision 1, to avoid interference with the CCW l
heat exchanger. This change document shows that 4" channel sections are to be used for the prescribed modification. A 6" channel section is actually l
installed. The configuration of the notch, the weld pattern attaching the added members, the elevation
[
l of the top beam, and the Richmond Insert locations do not match the requirements of CMC 9916.
j 2.
The bottom beam is a C4x5.4 A C4x7.25 is required.
n C.
Support No. 649, Type Ag This installation uses concrete anchorage " Alternate Detail 1" (Gibbs & Hill design Drawing 2323-S-0903),
which requires the use of an L6x6x3/4. An L5x5x3/4 was installed.
D.
Support Nos. 722 and 2606, Detail "N", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 1.
The working point for the brace, with respect to the anchor bolts, exceeds the design limit.
1 l
2.
For Support No. 2606, the length of the C6x8.2 beam is less than required.
[
3.
For Support No. 2606, the base angle is an L6x6x3/4, whereas the design requires an L5x5x3/4 l
[
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station N LU k - =
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill!!!!!!!!!!! Job No. 84055 i
l PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
()N (
Page 54 s,
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List E.
Support Nos. 2992, 2994, 3005, 3017, 3021, 6654, Type A2 Reference 1 identified the above six supports as follows:
"A ll members shall be MC6x12),"
where L = 8'2 (except a-3" (frame width), h = 4'-2" (frame height).
1.
The Cygna walkdown documented the installed hanger member sizes, as listed below in Table 1.
Due to the presence of Thermo-Lag coating, which covers the
(
entire bottom beam member and part of hanger j
members, Cygna was unable to determine the installed beam member size.
TABLE 1 Cable Tray Succort Hanaer Member Sizes Dimensions
- Member Size g
(
d Support Depth Width No.
(In)
(In)
Existinc*
2992 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 2994 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 3005 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 3017 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 3021 6
1-7/8 C6 x 8.2 6654 6
2-1/8 C6 x 13 Dimensions of the vertical channels (hangers) are based on measurements by Cygna. Member sizes are determined by selecting the channel type from Reference 3 which most closely
- matches the measured depth and flange width.
2.
The beam for Support No. 2992 was accessible and was 7
found to be a C4x7.25 instead of the rNuired MC6x12.
i Texas ' Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station M LU 6 h Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111111ll111111111ll1111111111 Job No. 84056 PR J: 23 CTS-ISSU
,-y,
-, ~ - -, -,,, - - - -. - - - - - - -
11/20/85 Revision 12
('i Page 55 V
-(
CABLE 1 RAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List I
3.
For the Detail I hanger connections,.for Support
[
No. 2992, the distance from the anchor bolt to the l
end of the base angle exceeded the design limit, and the gauge dimension was less than required.
4.
For Support No. 2992, a separation violation was noted between a Richmond Insert on the east hanger and a Hilti Kwik-bolt on an adjacent pipe support.
I f.
Support No. 455, Type SP-8 f
1.
The brace connected to the wall on one side of the support is located outside of the bolt pattern on the base angle. The Detail "B" (2323-5-0903) type l
connection requires the brace to be located between the two bolts.
d 2.
The distance from the face of the concrete wall to the support is less than that required on the design drawing.
3.
Gaps of up to 1/4" between the base angles and tne concrete, without grout or shims, were noted.
a 4
The distance between the top 1-1/4" Hilti Super Kwik-bolt on the north brace attachment and a 1/4" Hilti Kwik-bolt attaching the Thermo-Lag to the wall is less than required.
G.
Support Nos. 2998 and 13080, Special Type Supports These supports were installed on floor slabs with 2" topping. The topping depth was not considered in selecting the length of the anchor bolts, and the j
required embedment length was not achieved.
1 i
I O-Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i.$ L U a a
tillilillililillilitiltillilli Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU c-
+
-s
--,4-m.
.g,,w-p.v._--.w,.---,._-,.g.-_m..--
g.-
w-%g,.
--ww
11/20/85 In)
Page 56 Revision 12 V
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List H.
Hilti, Super-Kwik Bolts Without Stars Section 3.1.3.1 of Brown & Root Procedure CEI-20 (Ref-erence 11) requires:
Hilti Super Kwik-bolts shall be additionally marked with a " star" on the end which will remain exposed upon installation.
Twenty-eight of the cable tray supports inspected by Cygna required the installation of Hilti Super Kwik-bolts. Of these, only two supports had stars stamped on the bolts. The bolts on the remaining supports were not stamped.
I.
. Contact Between the Component Cooling Water (CCW) Heat Exchanger and Cable Tray Support Nos. 332 and 408 Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-100 requires a clear distance of six inches between cable tray supports and
. Class.1' piping, including insulation, unless otherwise allowed by the Owner." Cable tray support numbers 332 and 408 were in contact with the CCW heat exchanger (Reference 13).
J.
Support No. 2953, Detail "E" (Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S)
This support is attached near the end of an embedded strip plate. The distance from the end of the emoedded plate to a penetration through the concrete was less than the minimum distance required for the embedded Nelson studs.
K.
Proximity Violations Between Cable Tray Supports and Other Components As a criteria for clearance between cable tray supports and other non-attached components, Cygna used a mimimum l
of 1-inch separation. This was based on the inspection t
l f
d Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i
6N N 6 A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases l
lllltlll1111111111ll111ll11111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 O
Page 57 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List criteria for pipe supports (Reference 15), since no separation criteria was specified in the cable tray installation inspection instruction. The separation violations found are the following:
I Support No.
Violation Description L
202 1/2" clearance between beam and insulation on pipe passing through support I
299 Brace and hanger near top of '
support in contact with Thermo-Lag on conduits 408 1/2" clearance between hanger and pipe passing through support OC 605 1/8" clearance between end of beam and an HVAC duct 758 1/8" clearance between brace and l
pipe running parallel to support frame 765,766,767 1" clearance between braces and pipe passing through support 2986 Hangers are in contact with Thermo-Lag on an adjacent cable tray 3026 Thermo-Lag on support beam is in contact with a pipe 6654 West end of bottom beam is in contact with a pipe Support No. 758, Detail "V" (Orawing 2323-El-0601-01-5)
L.
Texas Utilities Generating Company f
Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 6.N LU k A
liliitittilittiilliittiillitti Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU l~- - -.
11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 58 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 1.
The north base angle for this support is shared with
~
support no. 759. This attachment was not documented on the CMC affecting support no. 758.
2.
An anchor bolt spacing violation existed between one
[
Hilti Super Kwik-bolt on the south hanger and a rod hanger from a fire sprinkler line.
M.
Support No.124 Type D2 1.
The channel sections installed were C6x10.5 and C4x5.4 for the bottom and top beams, respectively.
The design requires C4x7.25 sections.
2.
The Richmond Insert pattern for the beam anchorage l
does not match that shown on CMC 1078, Revision 0.
I
(
N.
Support No. 202, Type A4 1.
The channel sections installed were C4x5.4 for the beams. The design requires use of C4x7.25 sections.
2.
The anchor bolt length for south hanger attachment is insufficient to achieve required embedment.
O.
Support No. 479, Detail "C", Drawing 2323-El-0500-01-5 The length of the overlap between the hanger and the base angle is less than required by design.
P.
Support No. 589, Type A1 1.
This support has an angle section added as a stiff-ener to the east C6x8.2 hanger, per CMC 2646, Revision 5.
The installed weld pattern attaching the angle does not match that shown on tne CMC.
O(
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases d LU 6 A
i lililitilittlitilitittiillilli Job No. 84056 l
PRJ:23CIS-ISSU l
11/20/85 Revision 12 A
Page 59 Q
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
Each hanger is attacned to the concrete using a single Hilti Super Kwik-bolt; however, the anchor bolts are not centered on the hanger as required by the design..
[
Q.
Support No. 590, Type A1 1.
This support has an angle section added as a stiff-ener to the east C6x8.2 hanger, per CMC 2646, Revision 5.
The installed weld pattern attaching the angle does not match that shown on the CMC.
2.
The depth of the r.atch provided to clear the tray rail exceeds the 3/4 inch limit given on CMC 2646.
R.
Support No. 605, Detail "A", Orawing 2323-El-0500-04-5 I
(
The cable tray is attached to the this support using Type 11 friction clampr. The gage distances for the bolts attaching the clamps to the support beam are not within the design limit.
S.
Support No. 638, Type SP-4 1.
The slope of the brace member exceeds the design limit of 1.5:1.
2.
The brace is attached to the frame using a gusset plate, which is not allowed by the design.
3.
The working point of the brace witn respect to the base angle is not within the design tolerance.
l T.
Support No. 724, Detail "N", Orawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 1.
The length of the C6x8.2 beam was less than the required 6'-9" length.
I
(
O%
Texas utilities Generating Company l
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases NL 6 '
11ll11111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU l
11/20/85 Revision 12 r3 Page 60 Ig (
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
The L3x3x3/8 brace was attached to the incorrect side of the gusset plate on the beam.
3.
An L6x6x3/4 was used instead. of the required L5x5x3/4 for the beam base angle.
4 The anchor bolt types and locations do not agree j
C:
with the requirements of CMC 155, Revision O..
Support No. 763, Detail "K", 0 awing 2323-El-0601-01-S U.
The installed base plates are 1-1/4" thick. The design requires the use of 3/4" plates.
i Support No. 764, Detail "K", Orawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 i
V.
1.
The installed base plates are 1-1/4" thick. The
(
design requires the use of 3/4" plates.
2.
The tray attachment uses heavy-duty clamps with 1/2" The A307 bolts attaching the clamp to the tray.
distance from the end of the clamp to the bolt on one clamp is less than eqquired by the design.
3.
The channel used as a spacer between one tray and the support beam is not the required MC3x9 shape.
W.
Support Nos. 765, 766, 767, Detail "J", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 1.
The in-plane braces for these supports are attached The directly to the supports' south base angles.
design requires that the brace be attached to the hanger member, below the base angle.
For Support No. 766, there is a spacing violation 2.
between one of the Richmond Inserts on the soutn Kwi k -bo l t.
hanger attachment and an adjacent Hilti
(
p Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6N L Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 6
filiti!!!1tillitlillililiittil Job No. 8a056 PRJ:23 CTS-!SSU y
-.mw--- - - - - --
e s-
.w
.--.y-y
- - - - - -. - - - - - - -- - - --- -- ------ -. - -m-
-a------
e%,
m y--,-m---
--e--v
11/20/85 Revision 12
[h' Page 61
~
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
For Support No. 767, there is a spacing violation between one of the Richmond Inserts on the south hanger attachment and a rod hanger.
Support No. 2602, Detail "W", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 X.
Two non-seismic conduit supports were attached to this The attach-
/
support at the east end of the W8x31 beam.
ment of these conduits was not shown on applicable CMCs affecting this support.
Y.
Support No. 2986, Type A4 This support installation has one Hilti Super Kwik-bolt for each hanger anchorage. The design drawing (2323.l 0909) requires that the bolt centerlines be coincident l
with the hanger centerlines, however the bolts are up to
~~
I
(\\
f 1/4 inch off center.
(
Z.
Support No. 3026, Type SP 4 The north beam was a C4x5.4 section. The design Since the other requires the use of a C4x7.25 section.
members were covered witn Thermo-Lag, tneir sizes could not be determined.
AA.
Support No. 3028, Type 01 1.
The east hanger is composed of two separate pieces of channel, a C6x8.2 and a C6x10.5, butt-welded together approximately 11 inches aoove the cable trays.
2.
The hanger attachment to the concrete slab uses one Richmond insert and one Hilti Kwik-bolt. The loca-tion of hanger with respect to the bolts does not meet the design requirements.
2323-5-0905
- 88. Support No. 3134, Oetail "11", Orawing i
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 6NL.6 4
11llllIllll11111111111lll11111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
-...,--,,,m
...-,--,,-,--<--,--------w
.,,c.-
...y-..-----------.m--,-,,e-v-y
. ~ -.
1 11/20/85 Revision 12
^
P Page 62
(
CJSLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 1.
The beam length is 6 inches greater than that shown on CMC 8585, Revision 3.
~
2.
The longitudinal braces were L3x3x3/8 sections. The design requires the use of L3-1/2x3-1/2x3/8 d_
sections.
3.
Two conduits were supported by rod hangers attached 1
to the base angle for the east hanger, these con-duits were not shown on any applicable change cocu-ments.
CC. Support No. 5807 Type Longitudinal At 1.
The slope of the longitudinal braces are not with design tolerance.
2.
The L3x3x3/8 sections for the braces are inverted.
3.
The weld between the west brace and the hanger does l
not provide the required minimum weld length.
1 4
The welds between the gusset plates and the base
' angles are not per design requirements.
S.
The working points of the longitudinal braces with l
respect to the anchor bolts are not within the design tolerance.
6.
The location of the TS6x6 from the attached pipe support does not correspond with the location shown on CMC 80294, Revision 0.
7.
8ased on the indicated bolt length and the measured bolt projections, several of the Hilti Super Kwik-l bolts do not provide sufficient emeedment.
l
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station dN6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
18411111111111lllll11ll11ll11Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU
~..---,--,-,-.a_,
.---n
_____,,,,,__.-n,,,,___--_..._a_,_ _, - - - -
c-,
na.____,_,.
,-a,-,__
11/20/85 f-~s Revision 12
(\\~}
Page 63
~
g CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Status:
A.
TUGC0 issued CMC 2635. Revision 1, to document the lower brace substitution for Support No. 481. There has been no resolution for the other installation discrepancies.
B.
TUGC0 issued CMC 9916, Revision 2, to document the substitution of a C6 for a C4 at the notch for Support No. '408.
There has been no resolution for the other
[
installation discrepancies.
C.
TUGC0 issued CMC 99308, Revision 0, to document the installation of the incorrect size base angle for Sup-port No. 649.
D.
TUGC0 issued CMC 99309, Revision 0, to document the anchor bolt installation discrepancy for Support Nos. 722 and 2606. For Support No. 2606, the reduced j-L'.
beam length will have no impact on the support adequacy,
(N
(
and the use of a larger section than required for the 4
\\s,)
\\
base angle is a conservative substitution.
E.
TUGC0 issued the CMC's listed below to document the installation of the incorrect hanger memeer sizes.
Support Number CMC No.
Revision 2992 44519 9
2994 99326 0
3005 96079 1
3017 99327 0
3021 30452 2
6654 90714 6
I There has been no resolution for the additional discrep-ancies noted for Support No. 2992.
O
[%
l Texas ut111 ties Generating Company i
Comancne Peak Steam Electric Station
' $ L 'I 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
ll1111t!!111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 4
PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU
+ - - -
y--
,,--7
-,,,,--,,,,--,,,-n-
,-n
--w--
w
11/20/85 q
Page 64 Revision 12
(
4 CM LE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List F.
TUGC0 issued CMC 99307, Revision 0, to document the g:
brace location tolerance violation for Support No. 455. There has been no resolution for the other installation discrepancies.
G.
TUGC0 is to evaluate the effect of reduced embedment length for Support Nos. 2998 and 13080. Cygna is eval-i uating the corrective action required by SDAR 80-05 "Use of Architectural Concrete in Floor Slabs" for supports installed after its issuance.
H.
Cygna has discussed the absence of stars on Hilti Super Kwik-bolts (References 10 and 12) with TUGCO. The lack of stars is attributable to the fact that procedures in place at the time of support installation did not contain this requirement (Reference 12). To verify that l
Hilti Super Kwik-bolts were installed per the design f
drawings,'Cygna witnessed the ultrasonic testing (UT) of
(
the anchor bolts for several supports (Reference 9). A total of twenty-one supports were tested. All expansion anchor bolts were verified to be Hilti Super Kwik-bolts as required. Therefore, this review issue is considered closed.
I.
TUGC0 issued CMC 1887, Revision 1 and CMC 9916, Revision 4 fer Support Nos. 332 and 408, respectively.
These CMCs specified support modifications to assure j
that a minimum clearance of 1" was provided between the CCW heat exchanger and the cable tray supports. TUGC0 t
should provide documentation verifying that 1"
/
separation is adequate.
J.
TUGC0 issued CMC 12105, Revision 1 to document the Nelson Stud edge distance violation for Support No. 2953.
K.
Cygna has requested clarification on the separation g
l requirements between cable tray supports and other components (Reference 14).
i
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station Od6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 4
l I11111111llll116111111111111 Joo No. 84056 l
PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
7 11/20/85 -
(~]
Revision 12 Q
Page 65 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List L.
TUGC0 issued calculations evaluating the adequacy of the shared anchorage, considering the loads from both cable tray Support Nos. 758 and 759. 'Cygna located CMC 6186, I
Revision 0, which documents the attachment of both supports to a comon base angle (this was issued against Support No. 759 only). There has been no resolution for the separation violation between the Hilti Super Kwik-bolt and the rod hanger.
There has been no resolution for the installation discrep-ancies noted in Items M through CC.
- 21. Design Control
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Drawings' 2323-El-0601-01-S, 2323-El-0700-(
i 01-S, 2323-El-0713-01-5 r
4 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Design Review Questions," 84056.022, t
dated August 17, 1984, questions 1, 2, and 6 3.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Design Review Questions," 84056.025, j
dated August 21, 1984, question 1 4
Gibbs & Hill Cable Tray Support Design Drawings 2323 0900 Series S.
Gibbs & Hill Calculations for Support Numbers 3025, i
3028, 2861, Cygna Tecnnical File 84056.11.1.225 6.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
" Responses to Cygna Review Questions," dated September 4,1984, with attacned calculations 7
Gibbs & Hill Ca'culation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 3, Sheets 206, Revision 6 f
s l
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Stean Electric Station i
N Lp Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
. k 6 lillitistillilliuuulililiti Job No. 84056 i
PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
,,----~------a-----%
w,,e-w e. gmw-.2-----
mywyy- - -. - -,, - - -
,e w--m.+-ew--e-m--
--r---w---e--
,e--..c--
--r-
-w
11/20/85 3
Revision 12 (g
Page 66 CASLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 8.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
" Response to Cygna Design Review Questions," dated September 11, 1984, with attached calculations 9.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 5
- 10. Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0901, Revision 4 11.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support and Electrical Review Ouestions,"
84056.019, dated August 10, 1984, questions 2.1 and 2.2
- 12. Gibbs & Hill Drawings 2323-El-0601-01-S, 2323-El-0700-01-5, and 2323-El-0713-01-5 O
- 13. Gibbs & Hill Specifications 2323-ES-19, Revision i V
" Cable Tray Specification"
- 14. Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-111C, Set 8.
- 15. Communications Repcrt between P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Russ (Cygna) dated June 13, 1984
- 16. L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N. Williams (Cygna),
"Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station Cygna Review Ouestions," dated August 27, 1984 with attachments.
- 17. R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), " Cable Tray Supports Cygna Phase 4 Audit Activities," GTN-69377, dated August 24, 1984, with attachments.
- 18. L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.' Williams (Cygna),
" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Cygna Review Questions," dated September 11, 1984, with attachments.
- 19. Gibbs & Hill Calculations Binder 2323-SCS-111C, Set 7 I
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station 6.8 LU 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
filliittililiti!!Illillifillil Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU l
l 11/20/85
/^T Revision 12
'V' Page 67
(
CMLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List
- 20. TUGC0 Instruction CP-EI-4.0-49, Revision 1.
21.' Cable Tray Thermo-Lag Evaluation, Safeguards Building, Elevation 790'-6."
Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.1.315.
- 22. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.S. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.041, dated g
February 12, 1985.
- 23. Comunications Report between M. Warner (TUGCO) and N.
Williams et al. (Cygna), dated February 27, 1985.
- 24. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Response to NRC Questions," 83090.023, dated March 8, 1985.
O
- 25. Brown & Root Cable Tray Hanger Assembly Orawing FSE-00159.
- 21. Gibbs & Hill Design Procedure OP-1, " Seismic Category 1 Electrical Cable Tray Supports," Revision 0, dated 6/11/84
- 27. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
- 28. N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.8. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84053.027, dated August 27, 1984 During the course of the design and construction of Summary:
A.
cable tray supports, a large number of design change documents (OCAs and CMCs) have been issued that affect the support designs. These design changes can be grouped into two categories. Generic design changes are issued against a Gibbs & Hill support design drawing Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases OL' lilitillillililliitittlltilitt Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 I
Revision 12 Page 68
(
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List (e.g., 2323-5-0901) and may affect all installations of' one or more generic support designs. Individual design changes are issued against a support layout plan (e.g.,
2323-El-0601-01-5) and affect one or more individual support installations.
Cygna's review has identified several areas where over-
/.
sights or errors may occur in the handling of these design changes. These may be due in part to the large numbers of design changes which have not been incorp-orated in the design drawings.
1.
In the process of performing generic evaluations of support design adequacy (e.g., the inclusion of base plate flexibility in response to IE Bulletin 79-02, the Working Point Deviation Study, the evaluation of the effects of weld undercut / underrun, etc.), Gibbs
(
& Hill based their calculations on the original t
support designs without considering the effects of all applicable generic design changes (Reference 27).
2.
In some cases, as a result of 'tne generic studies discussed above, the design limits for a support type were made more restrictive than those of tne original design. In order to qualify existing supports which had been specified based on the original design limits, a case-by-case design ade-quacy review was performed for all individual sup-ports which exceeded the revised design limits.
1 These reviews were based on the as-designed config-urations for the individual supports, and did not include the effects of applicable individual design changes (Reference 27).
3.
The design enanges for individual supports are tracked by the cable tray support plan drawing number rather than by the support number. In orcer to locate all design changes affecting a given
(
l O\\
s Tex'as Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station p
,$ L. 6 A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 6
lililliliittiillilillillimil Joo No. 84056 PRJ:22 CTS-!SSU
11/20/85 O(
Revision 12 Page 69 CJSLE 1 HAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List I
support, one inst manually search through all design changes affecting all supports on the applicable 4
support plan.- Cygna has observed that some support plans have over 200 design changes outstanding.
In j
order to expedite this effort, the TUGC0 Field Structural Engineer f ng Group (FSEG) maintains a list
[:
of design changes sorted by individual support number. This list is not a controlled document, and Cygna's review noted several discrepancies between the design changes listed for individual supports and those located by Cygna through a search of design change documents at the Document Control Center. It is Cygna's understanding, however, that this informal log is relied upon by the field engi-neer to determine which design changes should be considered in their evaluations.
4 A discussion with TUGC0 cable tray support installa-tion Q.C. personnel (Reference 23) indicated that the method of locating design changes for support inspection purposes was very cumbersome and placed an undue burden on the inspectors in assembling inspection packages. TUGC0 0.C. indicated that the inspectors typically relied on the list of design changes included in the Brown & Root construction package as a basis for inspection without indepen-dently verifying the completeness of the package.
5.
Cygna has noted instances where the design review for the verification of design changes may have been inadequate. The design changes allowed deviations from the original design that invalidated certain i
assumptions on which the original design was f
based. However, the design review did not note tnis l
and did not assess the impact of the change on tne design basis.
In other cases, the design review dio not assess the impact of the change on all compo-l nents of a support that would be affected. Examples I
of this include:
O
(.
Texas utilities Generating Company i
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
[
dd6 luuninununnusuinit Job No. 8a056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12
[m!
Page 70
(
U CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Base angles are designed assuming a minimum o
distance of 3" from the bolt hole to the end of the angle. This distance is used in the calculation of the resisting moment arm when a bending moment is applied to the base angle.
CMC 1970 reduced this distance to a minimum of 1-1/4".
The design review for this CMC did not consider the impact of this reduction on
/.
tne anchor bolt designs.
Cable tray supports are designed for a frame o
width based on a minimum distance of 3" from the outside tray rail to the inside of the flange of the hanger (see Review Issue 28.A). CMC 2646 allows the hanger to be notched so that the tray rail actually over-O(
this laps the inside flange of the hanger, can result in cable tray supports which do not meet the minimum width required by the design. The design review for this CMC only addressed the reduced section properties at the notch without considering the effect on the support width.'
Cable tray supports are designed to act as a o
system, with the cable tray acting as a link between supports (see Review Issue 10). CMC 93450 allows gaps between the cable trays and the clamps attaching them to the supports.
The frictional force between the clamps and the trays, which is required to prevent rel-ative axial displacement between tne trays and
.l the supports, is eliminated by the gap.
The design review for this CMC does not address the effect on the system behavior of the cable trays (see Review issue 18).
i O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Statton A LM,.
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 111111111lll11111ll1111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 s
[V (
T Page 71 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Cable trays are qualified for an 8'-0" maximum o
span (see Review Issue 25.8). OCA 1594 pro-vides an installation location tolerance for the supports, resulting in a maximum spacing of 9'-0" between supports. The design review for this CMC does not consider the effect of the increased span on the cable tray qualifi-cation.
B.
Criteria Violations in Individual Support Specifications on Support Plans In the generic design of cable tray supports, support dimension and loading limitations are determined for each support type. These limitations are typically stated in the design calculations, but are not shown on The the generic support design drawings (Reference 4).
(
dimensions for each support are specified in a descrip-A tive block on the support plans (Reference 1), and tne s
loading is indicated by the supported tray wicth shown.
The tray supports listed below were identified as having loadings or support geometries which exceeded the design limitations. Prior to the Cygna review, justifying documentation did not exist for the following individual support designs.
1.
Support Nos. 3025, 3028, 2861, Type 0.
1 Drawing 2323-El-0713-01-5 specifies these supports (axcept beam to be MC6 x 16.3), L = 11'-
as Type 0;-2", and shows a tray width of 78".The 9", b = 4 design calculations fo'r Type 01 supports limit L <
8'-0" and tray width to 48".
2.
Support No. 2607. Type Ag.
Drawing 2323-E10601-01-5 specifies dimensions of L
= 2'-9" and n = 4' 6" for tnis support. The design calculation for tnis support type limits n < 2' 4".
(
O' Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station O lpJh 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lilla"""""!!!!!!1tilllll Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 N(h Page 72 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Support No. 657 Type A.
g Drawing 2323-El-0601-01 specifies this support as Type A, L = 7 ' -0", h = 2 ' -0". The design calcu-g lation for this support type limits L <
6'-0".
4 Support No. 734, Detail "H", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5.
This drawing specifies that one beam is to be an MC6x15.1, rotated 90* from its normal orientation.
The support design requires the use of C6x8.2 beam The secgion modulus of MC6x15.1 about its sections.
weak axis,1.75 in, is smaller than that of C6x8.2 3
about its strong axis, 4.38 in. Therefore, this support should be reevaluated for vertical loads.
Rotating the MC6x15.190* from its normal orien-tation significantly increases the longitudinal stiffness of the support. This rotation, together with CMC 00164, wnich requires the use of a " heavy duty clamp," can introduce significant longitudinal loads to the support. The support design requires the addition of a longitudinal brace if longitudinal loads are to be resisted.
5.
Support No. 3011 Type SP-6.
Drawing 2323-El-0713-01-5 specifies dimensions of L
= 8'-9" and h = 4'-6".
The design calculation for this support type limits L < 6'-0".
6.
Support Nos. 2992, 2994, 3005, 3017, 3021, 3111, 6654 Type A '
2 Orawing 2323-El-0713-015 specifies dimensions of L
8'.3" and h
4'-2", and shows a tray widtn of 78".
The design calculation for this support type limits L < 6'-0" and the tray width to 48".
/
i Texas utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam (lectric Station A LU = 6 Indecendent Assessment Program - All Phases nmm..**"!!alllilllll Joe No. 84056 pRJ: 23 CTS-155U l
I
11/20/85 d(N Revision 12 Page 73 CASLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 7.
Support Nos. 95 and 112, Type SP-7..
Drawing 2323-El-0700-01-5 specifies these supports as Type SP-7, L=5'-1", and shows a tray width of 48".
The design calculations for Type SP-7 limits the tray width to 30".
8.
Support No. 758, Detail "V", Orawing 2323-El-0601-S.
Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 specifies this support as Detail "V", h ; =8' -4", h "7 ' ~3" ' h =4 ' -0", I =5 ' -9",
2 3
g 1
=2'-3", a=2 6", and snows a tray width of 66".
2The design for the support detail limits the tray width to 60".
9.
Support No. 765, 766 and 767, Detail "J", Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5.
Drawing 2323-El-060101-5 specifies these supports as Detail "J", L=8'-6", h =10'-10", h =9'-6" and 3
2 h =3'-6", and shows a tray width of 66".
The design 3for the support detail limits the tray width to 48".
Additionally, Gibbs & Hill was not consistent in estab-lishing controlling criteria (i.e., support dimensions, tray width, etc.) in support designs. As an example, in several support designs, the support frame was designed for a particular height and width while the anchorages were designed using reactions from a frame with a dif-ferent height and widtn. The lack of a single limiting configuration may affect the support dimensions as shown on the cable tray support plans. Within Cygna's scope, support types E, SP-6 and SP-8 are affected.
4 C.
Consideration of As-Built Support Conditions in Generic Reviews Which Require a Case-By-Casa Review A
Texas utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Indepenoent Assessment Program All Phases O Ly 6 &
tillitilitititillilittlittlill Joe No. 84056 PRJ: 23C75-1SSU
11/20/85
(' '
Revision 12
(
Page 74 CASLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 1.
The SP-7 weld underrun analysis considered 5/16" fillet welds which are specified on the design draw-ings. However, the FSE-00159 fabrication drawings specify smaller weld sizes. 'In addition, the under-run analysis'did not consider the effects of any design changes to the supports which were reported in DiCs and DCAs (see Review Issue 21.A).
2.
The Working Point Deviation Study did not include f
the effects of all applicable design changes.
(see Review issue 12).
D.
Inconsistencies in the Evaluation of Cable Tray Supports For Thermo-Lag Application 1.
Tray cover weights were not included in the develop-ment of the allowable span length tables p (
(References 19 and 20) for fire-protected cable N
trays.
2.
Cygna believes that longitudinal supports are not evaluated for the added weight of fire protection.
Cygna noted evidence of the above in the fire pro-taction reviews for cable tray segment T12058007 A
longitudinal support (type L-Ag) was assumed to provide transverse restraint in the fire protection calculation. The calculated transverse load was f
compared to an assumed design capacity, but no longitudinal load was calculated. The original design for this support type assumes that only longitudinal restraint is provided. Note that the calculations (Reference 21) reviewed by Cygna had not been design reviewed at the time they were received from TUGCO.
3.
Gibbs & Hill performed calculations to determine the design capacity for supports to use as a comparison to the tray loads including fire protection (Reference 21). A tributary span of 9'-0" was q
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station A LM, 4 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases nemml!!'""""!!!!!!!
Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85
-S Revision 12 (V
Page 75 i
CABLE TRAY SUPPORT 5 Review Issues List assumed. The actual design span was 8'-6"; there '
fore, the Reference 21 calculations overestimated the support design capacity.
4 For several cable tray segments within Cygna's review scope, the tray weight, including fire pro-taction, exceeded the design limit of 35 psf by up to six percent, but engineering evaluations were not performed as required by Reference 20. See Reference 27, question 3, for a listing of the affected tray segments.
5.
For tray segment no. T1305CA46, side rail extensions were installed, but a special evaluation was not provided as required by Reference 20 (see Review Issue 25.C.1.).
O r
V
(
Cygna has requested additional information on tne fire protection evaluation process in Reference 27.
E.
Tray Spans Between Supports Usec In the Original Support Layout 1.
Reference 13 injicates tn'at cable trays are to be designed and qualified for 8'-0" transverse and vertical spans. Reference 10, Note 13, allows a location tolerance for supports of : 1/2 of the,
Richmond Insert spacing parallel to the tray, and limits the maximum spacing between supports to 9'-0."
Gibbs & Hill cable tray support design calculations assume a maximum tributary Span of 8'-
6," to account for a support spacing of 8'-0" on center and an erection tolerance of- ! 6."
Cygna reviewed tne tray support plans for segments witnin the review scope (Reference 12) and noted 15 locations wnere the as-designed tray spans exceeoed 8 ' -0". Cygna's walkdown of tnese tray segments identified 5 locations wnere the as tuilt tray spans
(
O, Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
,, g ( **,
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases e
3 Job No. 84056 ll111111111lll1:1111lllll11111PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 Revision 12 o
Page 76
(
CASLE TRAY SUPPORTS Aeview !ssues List exceeded 9'-0" (see Reference 11). This indicates '
that the design and installation limitations for support spacings may not have been complied with in the preparation of support layout drawings and in the field.
2.
Reference 13 indicates that cable trays are to be p
designed and qualified for 40'-0" longitudinal spans. Longitudinal support design calculations assume a maximum longitudinal tributory span of 40'-
0".
For several supports within Cygna's review, the support plan drawings (Reference 12) showed these supports to have tributary spans greater than 40'-0" (see Reference 11). In addition, several horizontal tray segments were not provided with any lon-gitudinal supports (see Reference 11). This indi-cates that the design limitations for the location
(
of longitudinal supports may not have been complied n
with in the preparation of support layout drawings.
F.
Lack of Calculations For Change Notices Cygna has noted several design reviews of change notices where the CVC was marked to indicate that new or revised calculations were not required. Cygna considers some of the design changes to be significant, such enat calcu-lations should have been provided to justify their acceptability.
In some cases, calculations marked "for reference only" are attached to the CMC wnicn the reviewer had accepted without new or revised calcu-lations.
G.
Design Calculation Retrievability and Completeness During the course of the Phase 2 and.4 reviews, Cygna experienced difficulty in assemoling complete support design calculation sets. Cygna noted that Gibbs & Nfl1 has similar difficulty. The following examples illus-trate Cygna's concerns.
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases og (ed IIllisillilililliliIlllillIlitJob No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-155U
. - i.
c 11/20/85 Revision 12
/
Page 77
\\
^
(
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 1.
In Phase 2 of Cygna's IAP, Cygna requested an eval-uation of the effect of torsion in the C4x7.25 beams on the support design adequacy. Gibbs & Hill pro-i vided calculations (Reference 14, Sheets 28-33) which evaluate torsion in the beams. These calcu-lations were performed in 1982, but were not included in the indicated calculation binder (the caver sheet for Reference 14 indicated that the total number of sheets was 6). Subsequent to Cygna's review of these calculations, they were added to form Revision 1 of Reference 14 2.
Cygna requested a list of all calculations relevant to several generic support designs (Reference 15).
Gibbs & Hill provided a list of calculation binder f
and sheet numbers for each support type. The review Q
(
of these calculations by Cygna indicated that there lV
(
were additional calculations relevant to the support cesigns which had not been included on the list.
For example, the Working Point Oeviation Study involved several supports listed in Reference 15, but was not referenced in Gibbs & Hill's response.
The difficulties in identifying and locating all calcu-lations pertinent to a support design may be in part
/_
attributable to Gibbs & Hill's methods of controlling structural design calculations. Cygna observed that, as a general rule, Gibbs & Hill did not revise or supersede older calculations. In performing generic studies (e.g., Working Point Deviation Study, weld undersize / undercut, evaluation of torsional stresses in members, etc.) or performing design reviews for generic design changes, the new calculations evaluate only the effects of the changes. These new calculations may reference the previous calculations as a source of data, but the previous calculations are not supersedec by the new calculations, nor are they revised to reflect the results of the design change or generic study. Hence,
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station y g,. p independent Assessit.ent Program - All Phases Illililllilittl51lillittlIlli Job No. 84056 I
PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU s
i r
.h, y
~ _ --
11/20/85 Revision 12
[V Page 78 CA81.E TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List it is extremely difficult, from reviewing an original design calculation, to determine if it is still applic-able to the support design. It is also difficult to identify and locate generic study or design change review calculations that are applicable to the support design.
H.
Lack of Controlled Design Criteria At the init',ation of this review, the cable tray support design criteria used by Gibbs & Hill consisted of a calculation set in a structural calculation binder (Reference 9). Cygna's review of this document indi-cated that insufficient detail was given to assure that cable tray support designs were performed in a consis-tent manner and that the designs satisfied the require-O (
ments of the CPSES FSAR. Examples of the impact of an incomplete design criteria include:
V 1.
Cygna has noted instances where the field design review group did not utilize the proper criteria to evaluate support adequacy. The evaluations for fire protection compared the as-built support load to a design load consisting of the allowable distributed Since the load over a.9'-0" tributary tray span.
maximum tributary span assumed in the current design calculation is 8'-6", the use of a 9'-0" span over-estimates the allowable load.
l 2.
Cygna has asked what supplements to the 7th Edition of AISC Specifications were committed to in the FSAR. No evidence was found to indicate that proper direction was given to design engineers to utilize the requirements of any supplements to whicn CPSES was comitted.
I.
Differences Between Design Drawings and Assemoly Drawings (s
O Texas Utilities Generating Company
,eg d,,
Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 1111:1111111111111181111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU
11/20/85 d
Revision 12 C
Page 79 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Cygna performed a review of the cable tray support d
assembly drawings (Reference 25), which are used for construction purposes, and evaluated the accuracy of these drawings via a comparison with the applicable design drawings (References 1 and 4). Numerous drawing discrepancies were noted, these included:
Incorrect weld sizes specified for fillet welds o
(also see Review Issue 16.A) o Incorrect weld patterns Incorrect member sizes specified in the " Bill of o
Material" Incorrect anchor bolt connection details o
(
(v o
Incorrect support dimensions Members that are not required by the design o
For a detailed listing of the individual discrepancies, see Reference 24 Status:
A.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide assurance that all design changes were adequately evaluated and considered in design calculations and inspections.
B.
Gibbs & Hill has stated that the engineer preparing a support layout drawing would be familiar with the design limitations. Gibbs & Hill also stated that several uncontrolled drawings (nos. 2323-5-0901-01 and 2323 /l 00903-01) were prepared, specifying the design limits for the generic support configurations. These drawings were used for reference purposes only. Based upon engineering judgement, the design limitations could be exceeded without preparing supporting calculations, since the support layout drawings would be subject to
/
O Texas Utilities Generating Company gg Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station IIlitillfillllilillIllilllill Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 i
d Revision 12 Page 80 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List design review. Gibbs & Hill should assure.that the critical frame limitations have not been exceeded with-out proper technical justification.
For the individual supports referenced above:
1.
Gibbs & Hill provided calculations (Reference 5) evaluating these supports. Support Nos. 3025 and 3028 were found acceptable Support No. 2861 shows 30% overload of anchor bolts.
2.
TUGC0 provided calculations (Reference 6) demon-strating the acceptability of Support No. 2607.
3.
TUGC0 provided calculations (Reference 6) demon-strating the acceptability of Support No. 657 l
4 Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 have not provided a response.
5.
Gibbs & Hill provided calculations (Reference 7) demonstrating the acceptability of Support No.
3011.
I 6.
TUGC0 provided calculations (Reference 8) demon-strating the acceptability of these supports.
7.
Justification has not been provided for the over-loading of these supports.
l 8.
TUGC0 provided calculations demonstrating the acceptability of this support.
9.
Justification has not been provided for the over-loading of this support.
g C.
See status for Issue 21.A and Issue 12.
D.
TUGC0 should provide justification for excluding the weight of the tray covers and provide documentation 7
l Texas utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station I
gg IIllittilllilillillIlliitIItt!. Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 i
PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
A 11/20/85 C
(r Revision 12 Page 81 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Feview Issues List assuring that the evaluation of longitudinal supports is included in the fire protection evaluation.
E.
Gibbs & Hill has stated that the engineer preparing a support layout drawing would be familiar with the span limitations for transverse and longitudinal supports.
Based upon engineering judgement, these limitations could be exceeded without preparing surcurting calcula-tions, since the support layout drawir ;s would be sub-ject to design review.
For the individual span violations noted above, Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 provided calculations (Reference 1.
- 16) qualifying trays and supports for the trans-verse span violations, C
o 2.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 provided calculations (References 17 and 18) qualifying trays and suo-ports for the indicated longitudinal span viola-tions. For tray segments lacking longitudinal sup-ports, the load was applied as additional trans-verse loads on transverse type supports located around a 90' bend from the unsupported tray seg-For one tray run witnout any existing mecna-ment.
l nism to resist longitudinal loads, segments T1205BC25 and T130SCA45, the addition of a new longitudinal support was required.
Cygna is continuing internal evaluation.
F.
Cygna is continuing internal evaluation.
G.
Cygna is continuing internal evaluation.
H.
TUCG0/ Brown & Root should provide assurance that support 1.
installations satisfy the requirements of the design drawings.
(
0 1
Texas Utilities Generating Comoany Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station N bp ' 4 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 DD.la Mr7t i 991)
11/20/85
/
s
-()
Revision 12 Page 82 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review issues List Design of Support No. 3136, Detail "5", Orawing 2323-S-0905 22.
Reference:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SAB-1341, Set 3, Revision 0.
Comunication Report between B.K. Bhujang (Gibbs & Hill) 2.
and N. Williams, et al. (Cygna) dated October 20, 1984 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder SAB-1341, Set 3, Revision 1.
[
4 N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions",
84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
j
(
Support No. 3136, located at elevation 790'-6" at the Auxil-Summary:
iary Building / Safeguards Building boundary, is emcedded in a fire wall. In reviewing the dusign calculations for this A list support (Reference 1), Cygna noted several concerns.
of Cygna's questions was provided (Reference 2, Attachment A) to Gibbs & Hill for their review. These concerns included:
4 Justification for not considering tornado depressuri-o 2ation loads was not provided.
The original cable tray support is Seismic Category I, o
Justi fica-while the fire wall is Seismic Category II.
tion for this conflict in design classification was not
- provided, Several errors were found in the finite element model o
and in the calculations.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 has provided revised calculations in Status:
response to Cygna's concerns (Reference 3). Cygna is cur-Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station a.i L U 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
1111111111111111111111!!ll1111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU
b i
11/20/85 Revision 12
(
Page 83 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List rently evaluating the acceptability of the response. The concern regarding the seismic category conflict has not been resolved. The response also raised additional questions on the tornado loads (Reference 4).
- 23. Loading In STRES5 Models
Reference:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Computer Output Binder 2323-0MI-5P 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Set 2.
3.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0901, Revision 4 b
4 Cygna Energy Services, " Independent Assessment Program Final Report - Volume 1, for Texas Utilities Services
(
Inc., Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station," Report No.
TR-83090, Revision O.
4 Susanary:
For the design of standard support Cases A, B, C3 and O,
g g
g where 1 = 1 to 4. finite element analyses were performed (Reference 1) using the program STRESS. Single beam elements were used to model the horizontal members (beams). The analytical results may be inaccurate due to the following concerns:
A.
Tray loads were applied at the beam / hanger intersection, l
rather than within the span of the beam where the tray is physically located. Modelling the load placements in this fashion eliminates the effects of bending and torsion due to vertical loads on the beams, and for Cases 0, will totally remove the load applied at the
(
9 wall connection from the support. (See Cygna's Phase 2 I
observation CT-00-03 in Reference 4).
B.
The applied loads are calculated based on an 8'-0" The actual design span is 8'-6" (#
tributary tray span.
installation tolerances are considered.
/
O' Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases d LU 6 e
11llll11111111111111111111111!
Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU
+-
--e.-
,,_-,,-.-,..,,_,,_,,,,,_,,_m_www.,
-,,y
.,__.,,y.
,_,y,,
y,,_
yr,_,_-
A 11/20/85 i
(d Revision 12 Page 84 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List C.
The support design drawings (Reference 3) specify the support frame heights as the distance from the bottom of the concrete to the top of the C4x7.25 beam. The models d.
considered this distance to be from the concrete to the centerline of the beam, thus underestimating the support height by two inches. This error is also found in the related design calculations for the trapeze supports.
3 and C, all braced frames, Support Cases A, A, 8, 8, C 4
Status:
3 4
3 4
have been reevaluated in Gibbs & Hill's Working Point Devi-ation Study (Reference 2).
In this study, the load was app-lied at the tray centerline, and 8'-6" tray spans were used. Therefore, this issue is not a concern for these support types.
Since support cases A, 8 ' O ' 0, C, C ' 0, 0, 03 and g
2 l
2 1
2 1
2 4 are unbraced frames, they have not been reevaluated by 0
[
Gibbs & Hill in the Working Point Deviation Study or sim-A ilar, more refined analyses.
Gibbs & Hill should provide justification for the adequacy of the finite element analyses of support cases A, A ' O '
g 2
l g througn 0, and other supports wnicn also B,C,C,O 4
2 1
2 contain the error indicated in item C.
24 Design of Flexural Members
Reference:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray Support Review Questions," 84056.031. cated August 31, 1984 2.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna)
" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Cygna Review Ouestions," dated September 28, 1984 3.
Comunication Report between E. Bezkor et al. (Gibbs 5 Hill) and M. Engleman et al. (Cygna) dated April 11, 1985 Texas utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station d LU 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
1tlllll11111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-I SSU
l 11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 85 CJSLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 1
4 Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0903.
I r
In the design of cable tray support flexural members (i.e.,
s Susunary:
beams and hangers), Gibbs & Hill did not consider several kportant items as discussed below.
Additional major axis bending stresses due to transverse A.
loads are introduced by the vertical eccentricity be-tween the cable tray centerlines and the beam neutral axis (Reference 1). Gibbs & Hill provided calculations (Reference 2) indicating that the increase in bending stress did not exceed 2.5% of the allowable stress level. However, the analysis incorrectly assumed that the beam was a fixed-fixed member, effectively isolating In i
it from the remainder of the support structure.
(
addition, the load transfer mechanism that was assumed to be provided by the tray clamps may not be applicable 1
l to all clamp configurations (also see Review !ssue 18).
]'
Minor axis bending of the beams due to transverse load-B.
ing is introduced by the horizontal eccentricity between the beam neutral axis and the location of the tray clamp bolt holes in the beam's top flange (Reference 1).
i Gibbs & Hill's response (Reference 2) did not consider the allowed tolerance in bolt hole gage per DCA 17838, l
Revision 8.
A load transfer mechanism was assumed to be provided by the clamp, allowing the trays and supports This assumption results in to act as a system.
increased transverse loads on adjacent supports and no 4
The validity of tnis j
minor axis flexure in the beams.
assumption depends on the resolution of Review !ssues 10 and 18.
be ims due Vertical loading introduces torsion into t*t C.
to the horizontal offset between the tray clamp location In Gibbs a hill's l
and tne shear center of the beam.
response (Reference 2), the torsional aoment was conpl-Texas Utilities Generating Company I
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases dd6 A
i 111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 1
PRJ: 23 CTS-ISSU 1
- - -.-.=.-.--
11/20/85 (v)
Revision 12 Page 86
(
CA8LE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List etely eliminated, based on an assumed moment resistance provided by the tray clamps and the tray / support system, concept (also see Review Issue 10 for the acceptability of this concept).
D.
Torsion is introduced into the beam by longitudinal loading due to:
1.
The vertical offset between the tray centerline and the beam shear center (for longitudinal trapeze type supports, e.g., L-A, L-8 )
1 1
2.
The vertical offset between the tray centerline and the shear center of the composite beam (for longi-tudinal supports similar to SP-7 with brace, Detail 8, drawing 2323-5-0903,etc.)
f Gibbs & Hill's evaluation of the torsional effects are
(
included in Reference 2.
The evaluation of torsion due to loading type 1 only considers the eccentricity be-1 tween the shear center and the top of the tray rungs for ladder type trays or the tray bottom for trough type trays. The centroid of the tray fill is a mere appro-priata location from which to calculate the eccentri-city. For loading type 2, the longitudinal load is applied at the bottom of the tray side rails, rather than the centroid of the tray fill. The tray clamps are I
assumed to provide rotational restraint to the top flange of the composite beam, and all torsional moments are assumed to be resisted by a couple formed between adjacent vertical supports through flexure of the cable All these assumptions must be justified per tray.
Review Issues 10 and 18.
E.
Gibbs A Hill has not consistently considered the reduc-tion in the beam section properties due to bolt holes through the flanges (also see Review issue 9) and weld undercut effects. Based on CMC 58338, Revision 0, the welded connection between the beam and hanger can in-Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station AL.6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases P
a 11i111111111111111111111ll1111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85
('~N Revision 12 x,)
Page 87
{
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List clude vertical fillet welds crossing the web of the beam, thus weld undercut would affect the beam capacity at this critical location. Weld undercut could also affect the beam capacity at beam-to-base angl<3/ plate connection for the cantilever type of supports.
In addition, based on the tray installation tolerances provided in Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-100, Section 2.28, and the effect of CMC 2646, Revision 5, the tray clamp can be located such that the bolt hole is in the same cross-sectional plane as the effect of weld undercut. Thus, it is possible that both reductions may occur simultaneously.
F.
Gibbs & Hill has not evaluated the effects of shear stresses on beam acceptability. Shear stresses will be introduced by two loadings:
(
1.
Direct shear stresses due to the applied forces 2.
St. Venant shear stresses associated with torsional loads (see items C and 0 above).
Cygna's review indicates that direct shear stresses are minor and generally do not govern the design of flexural members. When these stresses are considered in combination with the potentially large St. Venant shear stresses, the effect can be a significant factor in the member design (Reference 3).
G.
Gibbs & Hill generally assumes an allowable major axis bending stress of 22 ksi for member designs. The capac-ity reduction based on the unsupported length of the beam's compression flange (A!SC Equation 1.5-7) is either not considered at all or not properly considerea (also see Review Issue 14). Justification is provided, based on the assumption tnat the tray and tray clamp will provide lateral bracing to the beam's compression flenge. This assumption is dependent on the tray
(
Q' Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
- h L 'I. a Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 6
tillifillifililllilillllilllli Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23C TS-ISSU
11/20/85 O)
Revision 12 V
Page 88 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List clamp's ability to provide bracing (also see Review Issue 18) and neglects compression of the bottom flange For due to support frame sidesway and seismic upitft.
the cantilever type of supports, the "1" value in Equation 1.5-7 is improperly selected as discussed in Review Issue 14 Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for Status:
A.
the assumed load transfer mechanism provided by the tray clamps and the fixed end conditions used in the evalua-tion of the increased major axis bending.
B.
For status, see Review !ssue 10.
C.
For status, see Review Issue 10.
Gibbs & Hill should provide justification for the as.
D.
(
sumed location of the applied longitudinal load, the assumed behavior of the tray clamos, and the system (Also see the status for Review Issues 10 and concept.
18.)
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification of E.
the beam adequacy considering weld undercut and bolt hole section reductions occurring at the same location.
(See also Review issue 9.)
Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification tnat F.
the combined direct and St. Venant shear stresses are at an acceptable level.
The outcome of this issue is dependent on resolution of G.
Review issues 14 and 18.
- 25. Cable Trav Oua11fication Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-19 Revision 1
References:
1.
/
- O' Texas Utilities Generating Comoany
(
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d L "..
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
3 ll1111lll1ll111111111ll111111 Job No. 84056 PR J: 23CT5-1550
11/20/85 (V)
Revisior.12 Page 89 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List 2.
Gibbs & Hill Structural Calculation 2323-SCS-111C, Set
- 7. Revision 1 3.
T.J. Cope, Test Report and Calculations for the 4alifi-cation of Cable Trays 4.
CPSES FSAR, Section 3.108.3, Amendment 44 5.
Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-100, Revision 2 6.
IEEE "Reconmended Practices for Seismic Walification of Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations," STD 344-1975 7.
CPSES FSAR Section 3.78.3.5 8.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0901, Revision 4
(
9.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N.H. Williams (Cygna),
" Response to Cygna Review Ouestion 2.1 of Letter 84056.019," dated August 27, 1984 with attached calcu-lations
- 10. Cable Tray Thermo-Lag Evaluation Safeguards Building, Elevation 790'-6," Cygna Technical File 84056.11.1.1.315 11.
TUGC0 Instruction CP-El-4.0 49, Revision 1 12.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Westions,"
84056.089, dated October 21, 1985.
Sunmary:
The qualification requirements for cable trays are outlined in References 1 and 4 In reviewing related specifications, calculations, and installations of cable trays, Cygna has noted several areas of concern.
Texas utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station
- 6. % L U 6 a
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 8
littliitiilillililitiltiltilli Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-ISSU
11/20/85 O
Revision 12 C'
Page 90 CASLE TRAY SUPPORT 5 Review Issues List A.
Qualification of cable trays is performed through static load testing and calculation of loading interactions for dead load plus three components of seismic load (Reference 1. Section 3.9 and Reference 3). Seismic loads are calculated by the equivalent static load method, using total tray dead weight times the peak spectral acceleration. No apparent dynamic amplification f actor (DAF) is used. Reference 6 Section 5.3, and Reference 7. recomend the use of a DAF = 1.5 unless justification is provided. (See also Issue 8).
B.
The interaction equation specified for checking cable tray capacity (Reference 1. Section 3.9.4) is limited in its application and may have been used incorrectly.
The testing and qualification of cable trays is based on h
(A an 8'-0" simply supported tray span (References 1 and V-3); yet, Reference 8, Note 13, allows a support instal-lation tolerance resulting in a maximum tray span of 9'-
0" for Unit 1.
The capacity values derived in the tray testing are total loads (in Ibs) uniformly distributed over an 8'-0" section of cable tray (Reference 3). These values, F '
n F, and F<, as used with the interaction equation, are e
only app 1' cable to tray sections with 8' 0" spans.
However, for the fire protection evaluation calculations (Reference 2) and tray span violation calculations i
(Reference 9), total loads for various tray spans were calculated as ff = w
- 1, where w is the tray unit This load was compareo weight and 1 is the tray span.
with the rated tray capacity using the interaction equation.
For evaluation of trays with spans other than 8'-0",
a capacity comparison must be made in terms of tray 2
bending moment which is proportional to (w
- 1 ), rather than the total load on the tray section. For enamole, f
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program All Phases M LU 6 4
litilliitittlintilittlililiti Job No. 84056 PR J: 23 CTS-I SSU
(D 11/20/85 y/
Revision 12 Page 91
(
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List If an 8'-0" tray span will support a total distributed load of 1600 lbs (200 lb/ft), by increasing the span to 10'-0", a uniform load of 128 lb/ft (1280 lbs) would result in the same bending moment at mid span. There-fore, the capacity for the 10'-0" span would be 1280 lbs and not the 1600 lbs assumed.
C.
Cygna has noted several instances of modifications to cable tray hardware without adequate justification or documentation.
1.
Tray Segment ho. T1305CA46 is assumed to be a 24"x6" ladder-type tray in the fire protection evaluation calculations for Safeguards Building Elevation 790'-6" (Reference 10). Cygna's walk-down indicates that this tray is actually a 24"x4" O(
ladder-type tray with 6" side rail extensions added to increase the tray depth. The tray qualification -
test report (Reference 3) does not provide qualifi-cation for trays using side rail extensions. The procedure governing fire protection evaluation (Reference 11), Section 3.2.2.2 states:
Evaluation process described in 3.2.2 is not applicable to the g;
cable trays (and their supports). For such cases, actual as-built configuration of the tray system with actual cable weight shall be taken into account and proper engineering evaluation performed. No standard methodo-logy is recomended, but shall be based on acceptable engineering practice.
The referenced calculations do *ot perform an evaluation of tnis tray segment, inese calcula-tions (Reference 10) were obtained from TUGC0 prior O
I.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station A LM a
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 191111tll111ll111l181111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS-lSSU
n 11/20/85 Revision 12 Page 92
(
CJeLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List to their design review; therefore, this possible f
omission may be corree W through the design review l
process.
2.
Tray Segment T120SBC35 is joined to a tray reducer with side rail splice connector plates. These plates have been modified by removing portions of their bottom flanges such that only the web area remains. This connector will not satisfy the requirements of Reference 1. Section 3.7, Paragraph f, which states that connectors "shall have moment and shear strengths at least equal to those of the continuous uncut side rail." Cygna was unable to locate documentation justifying this modification of vendor-supplied hardware.
0.
Cable tray section properties are calculated using the
(
static test results,(Reference 3). The moment of A
inertia is calculated based on the flexural displacement formula for a simply supported beam. For horizontal transverse loading (i.e., in the plane of the rungs) ladder-type cable trays show a truss-like benavior, and the deflection will be due to both flexure and shear deformations.
This will affect the calculated moment of inertia as used in any Gibbs & Hill analyses which consider the tray properties for frequency or displacement calcu-lations.
Gibbs & Hill should provide justification for the DAF Status:
A.
used for cable tray evaluation.
Gibbs & Hill should provide justification for the use of B.
the tray capacity interaction equation.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide documentation illus-C.
trating the acceptability of the use of tray side rait extensions and modifications to tray connector plates.
Ot Texas Utilities Generating Comoany Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station
- h L M 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
6.
tillitilliteltilllllitilillill Job No. 84056 PRJ: 23 CTS-155U
11/20/85
(N Revision 12 U
Page 93 C
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List Cygna has requested additional information on side rail extensions in Reference 12.
D.
Gibbs & Hill should provide justification for the use of the flexural deflection formula for the calculation of the cable tray moments of inertia.
- 26. Base Anale Design
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-215C, Sets 2 through 6.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SCS-101C, Set 1.
Sunnary:
A.
In References 1 and 2, the base angles were modelled as O1 simply supported beams. This modelling technique does f
not include the stiffening effects of concrete bearing
(
at the angle ends.
B.
The principal axes were not considered in the analyses of the base angles subjected to the various loadings.
I C.
The base angle lengths due to the maximum spacing of tne Richmond Inserts'were not considered in the working point analyses.
For support types 0, 0. L'A, L A, SP-4, SP-6, SP-8, 1
2 1
4 D.
and Detail 11 (Orawing 2323 5-0905) the design calcula-tions do not include an evaluation of the base angles.
Status:
A.
Gibbs A Hill should provide technical justification for modelling the base angles as simply supported beams.
B.
Gibbs 4 Hill should consider the principal axis pro-perties of angle sections in tne base angle analyses.
C.
Gibbs & Hill should consider the most critical spacing of the Richmond Inserts in the workirg point analyses.
0
(
V s
Texas utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program All Phases A LM 6 4
MHWililllllillllllllimi Joe No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS ISSU
O 11/20/85 V
Revision 12 Page 94 C
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Review Issues List D.
Gibbs & Hill should provide assurance that the base g;
angles for all support types are adequately designed.
- 27. Support Oualification by Similarity
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Sihder 2323-SCS-104C, Set 1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Sinder 2323-SCS-104C, Set 5.
2.
3.
R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to J.S. George (TUGCO), GTN-69361, dated August 21, 1984, with attacn-ments.
4 R.E. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO), GTN-69377, dated August 29, 1984, with attach-ments.
(
Summary:
A.
In Gibbs f, Hill design calculations, several support types were qualified by similarity to.anotner support type without showing similarity. Cygna's review of the geometry, loading, connection details, etc. indicated that the designs were not obviously similar, and that calculations should have been provided. Supports in this category are:
1.
Detail A, Orawing 2323-El-0700-01-5.
Reference 2 states that Detail A is similar to Case
$P-7. Cygna noted that the cantilever lengen for Detail A is greater than for $P-7 and snat the anchor bolt attacnment is unlike the attacnment for SP-7.
2.
Detail N, Orawing 2323-El-0601-015.
I G
~
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Pnases ML.6 4
mittilitteitittittiillitill Job No. 84056 PRJ 23Cf 5-1550
/
11/20/85 (j
Revision 12 Page 95
(
CM LE TRAY SUPPORT 5 Review Issues List Reference 1 states that Detail N is similar to Details V and R on the same drawing. Cygna noted that the frame geometry and tray locations for Detail N was unlike either of the cited details.
3.
Detail J, Drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5.
Reference 1 states that Detail J is similar to case 8. ' Cygna noted that the member sizes used are 3
different than those for Case 8, and the frame 3
dimensions exceed the design limits for Case 8.
3 4
Detat) V. Drawing 2323-E10601-01-5.
Reference 1 states that Detail V is similar to Detail 8, drawing 2323-E10713-015. Cygna noted that Detail B is a three bay frame with braces in
/ (
all bays and was designed as a pinned truss.
Detail V does not have braces in all bays, and if the same design technique is applied, the frame would be statically unstable.
I I
8.
Allowed working point deviations for individually designed supports were established based on similarity to standard support types without justification. See j
Review Issue 12.H for a discussion of this topic.
f Status:
A.
Gibbs & H111/TUGC0 provided calculations to justify the assumed design similarity (References 3 and 4).
B.
See. Review issue 12.H for status.
- 28. Critical Sueoort Configurations and loadings
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SC5-101C, Set 1.
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323 0MI-5P Texas utilities Generating Company Comanche Peat Steam Electric Station 8
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
- i. % L,.
4 lit""""":!!illlilllilli Job No. 84056 PRJt23Cf5 1550 l
11/20/85
()
Revision 12 Page 96 CASLE TRAY SUP90ltT5 Review Issues List 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binder 2323-SC5-215C, Sets 2-5.
4 Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-ES-19 " Cable Trays,"
Revision 1.
5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO) g
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.089, dated October 28, 1985.
Lemmary:
A.
Gibbs & Hill design calculations (References 1, 2 and 3) for trapeze type supports considered only a limited number of support aspect ratios. Justification was not provided to show that the chosen aspect ratios woulo provide the critical configuration to evaluate all components of the support design. The determination of G
aspect ratios was based on an assumed frame width based on supported tray width and the maximum frame height.
V(
The frame width determination assumed that: (a) trays were installed with a minimum 6" horizontal spacing, (b) the distance between the side rail of a tray and the vertical hanger flange was a minimum of 3", and (c) all f
trays on a support were 30" or less in width.
Cygna's support walkdown noted that trays were installed with spacings as small as 1" between adjacent trays, and 0" between tray siderails and the hanger flange.
Reference 4 indicates that cable tray installations at CPSES allow a maximum tray width of 36".
B.
In the design of the frame members for trapeze supports, Gibbs & Hill typically applied the loadings to the frame d.
in a symetric pattern.
In reviewing the support layout t
plans, Cygna has noted that the esble trays are often located in &n asymmetric fashion on the supports. Inis could result in higher stresses in the support memoers and higner loads on the anchorages than considered in the design.
k
. Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases d L
,6 a
illeillittellilettletillettill Job No. 84056 PRJ:23 CTS 155U
11/20/85 N
Revision 12 Page 97 s
rJISLI TRAY SUPPORTS haview Issues List Status:,
A.
Gibbs & M111/TUGC0 should provide justification for the -
aspect ratios used for support designs. Cygna has requested related documentation in Reference 5.
g 8.
Gibbs & Hill /TUGC0 should provide assurance that the critical load applications were considered in support designs.
- 29. Cumulative Effect of Review issues
References:
None Summary:
In this Review !ssues List, a number of the cited issues may lead to small unconservatisms when occurring singly in a support design. Such unconservatisms may usually be neglected. However, since several of these issues pertain to all cable tray support designs on a generic basis, tneir n
(
effect can be cumulative, such that many small unconser-C vatisms may be significant. Therefore, any reevaluation of support designs should consider the cumulative effect of all pertinent Review issues.
The additive effects of the findings described in the Review Status:
!ssues List must be addressed as part of sne CPRT Plan.
O<
V w
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program. All Phases MLs a mitillilitillilitilittillitt Job No. 84056 PRJ 23 CTS 155U
V(3 11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 1 CONOutT SUPPORT 5 Review Issues List 1.
Governine load Case for Desian
References:
1.
Communications Report between R. Kissinger (TUGCO), 8.
Shujang (Gibbs a Hill), and J. Ituss and N. Williams (Cygna) dated 10/1/84 2.
CP5ES FSAR, Sections 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 i
Summary:
Gibbs A Hill used the equivalent static metnod to design the conduit supports. In all load cases, the equivalent static accelerations used in designing the supports for SSE events are less than 160% of the corresponding accelerations for 1/2 SSE (08E) events. Based on this finding and citing Section 3.8.4 of the CPSES FSAR wnich allows a 60% increase in allowables for structural steel between OBE and $$E events, Gibbs & Hill determined that the design was governed by the 08E event.
To validate this conclusion, the 60% increase in allowables
(
must be liberally interpreted to be applicable to all support cog onents rather tnan applicaole only to structural steel as specified in the CPSES F5AR. Catalog items sucn as 1
Unistrut components and Hilti expansion anchors do not nave increased allowables for SSE events. By designing these l
catalog components to the 08E event, the manuf acturer's design factor of safety is not maintained for the SSE event.
Furthermore, for the design of structural steel, tne 60%
~
increase in allowables is acceptable for axial and strong-axis bending stresses in structural members. The 60%
increase cannot be applied to certain otner allowable stresses. For example, the maximum increase in baseolate stresses may only be 33%, at which point the material yield is reached. A limit on maximum allowable stress is not provided in tne FSAR.
These limitations were not considered in the selection of the governing seismic load case.
f Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required. Also see Cabla Tray Review issue 1.
l Texas Utilities Generating Company A g ed Comanene Pest Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program All Phases IN64fffilifflilliffillfilll!
Job No. 84056 23CS-1550E
i
)
(V 11/20/85 Revision 3 C
Page 2 C015UIT StPPORT5 Re tiew issues List 2.
Dynamic Amplification Factors
References:
1.
Consunications Report between P. Huang (Gibbs & Mtil) and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 2/5/85 2.
Cosuunications Report between P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 2/6/85 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-5C5-100C, Set 4, Sheets 1-11 4
CPS!$. F5AR, Section 3.75.3.5.
Summary:
Reference 4 specifies that a dynamic amplification factor (OAF) of 1.5 be used unless otnerwise justified. Gibbs &
Hill submitted a calculation demonstrating a DAF of 1.0 for both cable tray and conduit runs. That calculation was
)
based on a Class 5 piping damage study.
A reanalysis was performed for cable tray runs (see Cable Tray Review !ssue 8), which established 1.14 as an acceptable DAF for the design of supports (with certain restrictions). Cable fray Review !ssue 25 identifies the need to perform a reenalysis to address the DAF for tray stress as well.
Status:
Similar reanalyses for the Dynamic Amplification Factors are necessary for conduit and supports.
3.
Combination of Deaoweight and Seismic Responset
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323 SCS 109C. Set 1, Sneets 154 163 Summary:
In all Gibbs & Hill design calculations, the acceleration due to deadweight is comoined with tne seismic accelerations using the SR55 method. A 1.0 g deadweignt acceleration is first added to the vertical seismic acceleration. The sum is then comoined with the two horizontal seismic components using the SRSS notnnd.
s-(
Texas Utilities Generating Comoany g(
Comanene Peat Steam (1ectric Station lelitt#######tettititillilIlli Independent Assessment Program All Phases Joe No. 84056 23CS 155UE
g 11/20/85 Revision 3 C
Page 3 ComutT SUPPORT 5 Review Issues List Gibbs A Mill has submitted calculations which cospare the acceleration vector magnitudes calculated with the standard combination method and with the 5R$5 method. For most buildings and elevations, the magnitude of the resultant acceleration using the SRSS method does not differ significantly from the resultant using the standard combination method. However, the difference in vector direction was not considered and is of greater importance, since each load direction contributes to different components of response in the conduit supports. To properly assess the impact of this combination method, the critical response should be evaluated instead of the magnitude of the acceleration applied to the support.
Status:
Discussion with TUGC0/Glbbs A Hill is required.
4 Measurement of Emee+'wnt from Top of Topping
References:
1.
50AR CP-80 05, "Use of Arenitectural Concrete in Floor Slabs," dated August 8,1980 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil jfUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions, 84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 Susunary:
Note la on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323 5 0910, Sheet G 4a allows reduced encansion anchor emoedmont for certain supports at lower building elevations. 50AR CP 80 05 states that the integrit of the architectural topping cannot be assured, thus eva uation of all affected designs must be d
made to satisfy the corrective action requirements of the 50AR. Cygna has not reviewed any design calculations resolving the abovementioned note with the implications of the 50AR. The generic design calculations do not address the note.
Such a reduction in anchor emoedment is not acceptaole for 1/4" and 3/8" Hitti Kwit colts with 2" emoedmont requirement, since these bolts are emoedded in topping only. Additionally, Hilti does not manufacture a 1/4" Kwit-bolt of sufficient length to accoevodate the 2" topping and the 2" minimum embedment in structural concrete.
O~
(
s Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peat Steam (tectric Station q(
Ind'0'"d "t All'Sl**nt Pf89P85
- All Ph8888 heittimiiiiIslimiill Joe No. '8a05623C5 155Ut
~
(~'N 11/20/85
)
i'd Revision 3
(
Page 4 CONDUIT SUPPOR75 Reviou Issues List The anchor embedmont reduction eay not be acceptable for other sites of Hilti Kwik bolts, depending on the actual accelerations appitcable to the floor mounted supports versus the design accelerations. The affected support types within Cygna's scope are the CSM-18 series and CST-17.
Status:
Technical justification is required for instances allowed by the note. Calculations in support of the subject reduced d,
embedmont in architectural concrete were requested in Reference 2.
5.
Soit Hole Tolerance and Edge Distance Violation
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910, Sheet G-lb, Note 15 p
2.
AISC Specifications, 7th Edition, Section 1.16.5, V
Minimum Edge Distance 3.
A!$C Soecifications, 7tn Edition, Section 1.23.4, Riveted and Bolted Construction - Holes Swanary:
A.
Reference 1 allows bolt hole tolerances which vary with tne bolt size, whereas the A!5C 5pecifications provide zero bolt hole tolerances. Therefore, the bolt notes in Gibbs & Hill designs should be considered oversized and should be treated as such in bearing connection calculations.
i 8.
Reference 2 requires that a minimum clear distance be maintained for oversize holes. Some Gibbs & Hill designs do not provide the minimum edge distances required in the AISC 5pecifications. For enamole, support types CA 54 and C5M 42 provide edge distances of 3/4*.
Per Reference 2, 25/32' is requirec.
Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required.
l l
I
(
, u Tenas utilities Generating Coreany Comanche Peak Steam [tectric Station q g ea.
blifflNiffill filililli Indeoendent Assessment Program All Phases i
1 Job No. 84056 23C5 1550t
/d 11/20/85 Revision 3
(
Page 5 Co mutt SUPPORT 5 Revieu Issues List 6.
F5AR Load Combinations Referenc's:
1.
CPSES F5AR, Section 3.8.4.3.3 e
Sisumery:
Cygna is concerned that a11 applicable loads. as defined in Reference 1, were not explicitly considered the conduit support designs.
These concerns include loads due to pipe whip and jet impingement as well as the use of design accelerations which do not envelop Containment Su11 ding and Internal Structure spectra.
Status:
Discussion with Globs & Hill is required to determine if any justification exists. Also see Cable fray Review !ssue 19.
7 Support Self Weicht O'
(
References:
1.
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists (not yet
\\
issued)
Sumnery:
Cygna's review has noted that support self weights were not uniformly considered in the various designs. For est CA-type supports. the support weight is negligible and was not included in the calculation of support loads. For tne C5M.
and CST-type supports in the review scope, part or all of the self weight was neglected in the designs. The omitted self weight may be an insignificant portion of the total load on tne support; however, for most designs, the anchor bolts are designed to an interaction ratio of 1.0.
Any additional load will produce unacceptable interaction ratios over 1.0.
In the design of the C5M-6b, C5M 18 series, and CSM 42 supports, only a portion of the support weight was considered. The C5M 6b support is a braced cantilever configuration composed of Unistrut memeers. The weignt of the cantilever member was included in the load calculation, but the weight of the brace member was neglected. For most of the supports composed of structural tubes (CSM 18 series and CSM 42), the member length considered in the calculation of self weignt was taken as tne lengen from the baseplate to Tesas Utilities Generating Company l
eg g ed Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station I
Nelliedellicitte ill Independent Assessment Program All Phases Job No. 84056 23C5 155UE
I D
11/20/85 i
'V Revision 3 Page 6 i
(
I CONOU1T S H ORTS t
Review Issues List I
the conduit centerline. The additional length from the conduit centerline to the free end of the cantilever was neglected.
For the CST-3 and CST-17 Unistrut support designs, the total l
support self weight was neglected. For larger support frames, the tributary conduit weight capacity is quite small, and the self weight can be a large portion of the total load on the support.
I Status Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required.
l 8.
Torsion of Unistrut W eers
References:
1.
N.H. Williams Cygna) letter to J.B. George jTuGCO),
f "Cygna Study o Unistrut Torsional Capacity, 84056.040, l
dated January 18, 1985 N.H. Williams (Cyfnel letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
dl 2.
(
" Cable Tray /Condu t Support Review Questions,"
84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 3.
Comunications Report between R. Kissinger (TUGCO) and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 1/8/85 4.
Comunications Report between 5. McBee (TUGCO) and J.
Russ (Cygna) dated 2/21/85 I
5.
Comunications Report between R. Miller (CCL), R.
Kissinger and 5. McBee (TUGCO), and J. Russ and N.
Williams (Cygna) dated 2/25/85 6.
Comunications Report between R. Kissinger and 5. McBee (TUGCO), R. Miller (CCL), and D. Leong, J. Russ, and N.
Williams (Cygna) Dated 4/9/85.
7.
Comunications Report between R. Kissinger and 5. McBee (TUGCO), P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill), R. Miller and R. Yow (CCL), and D. Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 4/10/85.
Texas Utilities Generating Comcany c
g e-Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station 6 (,, M,,M Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23C5.!$50C 6
11/20/85 D
Revision 3
(
Page 7 COIIOUIT SUPPORT 5 Review Issues List Susumery:
Torsional loading of Unistrut members is not considered in the support designs. Unistrut does not support the use of members for torsional loading. Since analysis of asymetric sections is difficult, testing of the members was proposed.
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill are evaluating the effects of torsion in Unistrut components by a support qualification test program (References 6 and 7). Cygna personnel visited the CCL test labs (Reference 5, 6 and 7) and provided the following coments on the test scope and procedures:
1.
Enveloping of Conduit Supports:
o TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill assume that the group of tested conduit supports adequately envelops all generic type supports at CPSES. Detailed documentation is required to assure the validity of this assumption. The documentation should address the
!O)
[
weak link of each enveloping support and how the V
\\,
tests correlate with the perceived weak link of each support qualified by comparison.
o The conduit support test scope does not address concerns from the Review issues List. When screening each support to determine the enveloping group to be used in the test scope, all applicable concerns from the Review Issues List should be included in the comparison of design and configurational requirements.
o The effect of applicable generic and support-specific design changes should be addressed in the qualification test program.
2.
Worst case support configuration and loading for tne tested support:
o The chosen member lengths and load magnitudes and directions may not be the critical case. Cygna noted that the selected configurations may not adequately address torsional behavior of the generic support design.
O t..
Texas utilities Generating Company
'g g *
- Comanene peat Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 18111181llll11461ll19111111111 Job No. 84056 23C5-I$5UE
s
[
't
(-
4 11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 8 CONDUITSUPPORTS Review Issues' List i
=
o The choice of larger diameter conduits in the testing of some supports resulted in the testing of C708-S clamps. P2558 clamps were not tested in the majority of the support configurations.
o Clamp loadings should induce tensile forces in the clamp bolts. Many tests load the members in bearing 7
instead of maximizing clang load.
o For composite Unistrut sections, the loading direction should be selected to provide tensile loads on spot welds to test the integrity of the composite section.
3.
Test Procedures:
o In the visit documented in Reference 5, Cygna noted
[
that a yoke plate had impinged upon an outrigger, t
\\
which imparted additional, unintended forces into the support. The effect of this additional load must be considered when reducing the test data.
O in the visit to the test lab documented in Reference 6, Cygna noted two discrepancies in the test set-
~ up.
The hydraulic ram which applied the transverse and vertical load was attached in a manner such that longitudinal conduit displacement rotated the ram from the perpendicular. Duc to this rotation, a force in the longitudinal conduit direction was imparted in a direction opposite to the load applied by the longitudinal ram. The impact of the 3
effective reductions in the longitudinal and 3
transverse forces should be addressed in the data f
reduction.
I Cygna noted that in a test of a conduit support using detail CSD-la (Reference 6), the supporting i
t.r wide flange beam to which the detail was attachec M
via a strainsert bolt was not sufficiently stiffened to prevent a deflection in the flange due to a rotation in the connection detail. Tecnnical 4 y j
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station II;y g,ililll!!!Il Independent Assessment Program - All Phases iii;;iiiiiiii ii l
Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE p.
r
11/20/85 Revision 3
(
Page 9' CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List justification should be given for the ability of the support member flanges to resist bending due to imparted connection moments without significant deflection. Otherwise, the'effect of flange deflections must be considered in the data reduction.
o Strainsert bolts were used to anchor the specimens to the test fixture. These bolts were preloaded to 3200 lbs. for all test cases.. Cygna is concerned that the preload used may not be applicable for all test cases. The supports employ expansion anchors of various diameters and embedments, which implies a range of allowable bolt tensions. Additionally, use of a preload will affect the support stiffness and hence any deflections measured in the test.
In addition to the testing scope, Gibbs & Hill is also
(
reanalyzing supports which are not subjected to torsional loads using AISI code provisions. Gibbs & Hill intends to address the adequacy of the majority of conduit support designs utilizing Unistrut members by either testing or analysis.
Status:
After discussions with Cygna (References 6 and 7),
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill agreed to provide documentation supporting the selection of the test scope. The documentation has not been received to date. The Gibbs &
Hill analyses using AISI methods have not been completed.
In Reference 2, Cygna. requested the documentation of the screening process and the final test report, if the results
[;
of the progrem are to be used for the qualification of supports.
9.
Imorecer Use of Cataloo Comconents
References:
1.
Connunications Report between P. Patel, et al. (Gibbs &
Hill) and J. Russ, et al. (Cygna) dated 9/20/84 2.
Consnunications Report between D. Kissinger (TUGCO) and N. Williams (Cygna) dated 10/11/84 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station gg h!!!mmimi7minumt!
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUt
N 11/20/85 4
Revision 3 Page 10 C0lWUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Comunications Report between E. Irish (Unistrut) and D.
I.eong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 1/21/85 4
Communications Report between E. Irish (Unistrut) and D.
Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated-2/4/85 5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-153C, Sheet 1/37 6.
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists (not yet issued)
Susunary:
A.
In addition to Cygna's comments on the implicit increase in allowables for SSE loads (see Review Issue 1), Cygna has other concerns regarding the support designs using catalog components.
t l
AISC-derived allowables are used in the design process. These values are generally conservative for
,]
C bending, but are generally unconservative for axial allowables, as catalog allowables are cased on the AISI Code which considers buckling of thin, open sections.
Examples of Cygna's concern are discussed below:
o CSM-6b:
20 ksi was used for Fa the axial allowable. This value is equal to.6 Fy, where Fy = 33 ksi and was used for any member length without considering slenderness effects. Catalog values range from S.77 ksi for a brace lengtn of 60" to 13.9 ksi for a 24" brace.
I o
CST-3:
The design employed the AISC table of axial stress allowables for 36 ksi steel, o
CST-17:
The design employed the AISC tables of axial stress allowables for 36 ksi steel. The table value was then reduced by a ratio of 33/36.
l
~
l Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Eg g ' '
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases mimmmmullilllilllli Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 3
(
Page 11 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 8.
Components were used in ways not intended by the vendors.
Cygna concerns in this area are as follows:
o Allowables are not listed for P1001C3 sections in the Unistrut catalog. Member properties are given for the X-Y axes instead of the principal axes.
Discussions with Unistrut indicate that the uses of P1001C3 are unique with respect to load application and member restraint. Thus, no generic allowables can be provided. Unistrut places the burden on the designer to properly consider the capacity of the section for its intended use. Gibbs & Hill has not provided adequate evaluation of these members.
o The Unistrut catalog indicates that the intended use of P1325, P1331, P1332 brackets is for single t
(
members in a pinned connection. Gibbs & Hill uses l
(
two brackets on double members, which Cygna believes to be a moment resisting connection. Gibbs & Hill considers these connections pinned for some brackets in CSM-6b, CST-3, and CST-17 supports. Unistrut does not provide allowables for this bracket configuration.
o Gibbs & Hill references Unistrut Test C-49 to obtain allowables for the double bracket connection in CST-3. The designed connection is subject to tensile and shear loads. The test provided data for loading the bracket in tension only. Gibbs & Hill compared the calculated tensile load to the I
allowable, ignoring the calculated shear.
o P1941 plate connectors are used to connect headers to outriggers in CA-la and CA-2a supports. Gibbs &
Hill calculations indicate that tightening the Unistrut bolts to the specified torque overstresses the plate and causes excessive bowing of the c
plate. Discussion with Unistrut indicates tnat these connectors are to be used to construct frames where the connected members are restrained at botn
\\ O '-
l Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
(
gg i
IIlittlifilfliffillitillililli Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
s 11/20/85 Revision 3
(
Page 12 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List ends. Clarification of this concern is required for CA-la and CA-2a supports, since the member end restraint required by Unistrut has not been provided. Evaluation of the connection to transfer f,
the required load was not performed.
In Revision 1 of Gibbs & Kill Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheet CA-la, Note 7 was added to provide P106a plates if bending of the P1941 plates occurs. In Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-153C, Sheet 1/37, a discussion of field installation practice documents that the P1064 plates do not reduce the bowing of the outriggers. Unistrut tests showed no bowing of the outriggers when the P1064 plates were used. Verification of the bolt torques used in the test set-up is required.
s o
Four types of Superstrut clamps are specified for use on conduit supports: C708, C708-U, C708-5, and
(
modified C708-S (see Review Issue 18). These clamps are not designed for three-directional loading but are used in that capacity. Allowables for tensile loading only are given in the Superstrut Catalog.
Status:
TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for the above issues.
- 10. Anchor Bolts
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.015, dated August 6,1984 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygnit) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
b 84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-153C, Set 1, Sheets 32-44 l-l I
v Texas Utilities Generating Company yg Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station imilitilliliititlItitillIlli Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE l
i 11/20/85 Revision 3 C
Page 13 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 4
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-153C,~ Set 1, Sheets 146-152.
Susamary:
Cygna has the following concerns regarding anchor bolt designs:
A.
For the conduit support designs reviewed, Gibbs & Hill was inconsistent in the treatment of prying of concrete attachments on anchor bolt tension. The increase in anchor bolt tension was handled in one of three ways:
o In some support designs, prying was neglected.
o For most supports with baseplates, a prying factor of 1.5 was used. For this case and the one above, justification for the assumed prying f actor or the lack thereof was not provided by Gibbs & Hill.
~
o In a few other support designs, the method on pages 4-89 to 4-90 of the 8th Edition AISC Manual of Steel Construction was used to justify the use of a prying factor of 1.0.
For this case, justification of the applicability of the method is required, since the concrete attachments in the conduit support designs differ from the steel-to-steel connections addressed in the 8th Edition Method.
B.
The concrete connections for conduit support CST-17, Type 17 consist of box brackets around the P5000 header members, through which the Hilti Kwik-bolts pass. The header is 3.25 inches deep, and the anchor bolt is loaded at a considerable distance above the concrete surface. The Gibbs & Hill design does not consider j
moments induced in the anchor bolt due to shears applied above the concrete surface.
j C.
In the design of CA-2a supports, Gibbs & Hill assumed that longitudinal forces on the conduits are resisted only by the outriggers bearing on the concrete d
surface. Because of this assumption, the Hilti Kwi k -
bolts in the outriggers do not carry any load; however, the anchors may carry some load due to the concuit loads hI Q
~
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g g/ (i.
Ama Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85
' O Revision 3 Page 14 COMUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List and also due to prestressing of the support by the cinching of the bolts in the P1941 and P1064 plates connecting the header and outrigger. Additionally, the current revision of the CA-2a design drawing waives proximity violations between the Hilti bolts in the outriggers and any other anchor bolts. If these bolts
]
are evaluated for loads. large capacity reductions will be required for the spacing provisions in the design.
D.
Note 3 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910, Sheet G-4a allows substitution of 1" diameter Richmond Inserts for 1" diameter and smaller Hilti Kwik-and Super Kwik-bolts. In general, singly-installed Richmond Inserts have a higher capacity than Hilti Kwik-and Super Kwik-bolts; however, Richmond Inserts in cluster arrangements may have lower capacities. The Gibbs & Hill designs do not consider or evaluate Richmond Inserts, fi f
Status:
In Reference 2, Cygna requested the documentation regarding
(
attachment of raceway supports to Richmond Insert s/
clusters. TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill should provide technical justification for all the above issues.
i
- 11. Lonoitudinal loads on Transverse Sucoorts
References:
1.
Communications Report between E. Irish (Unistrut) and J.
~
Russ (Cygna) dated 7/25/84 j
2.
Communications Report between R. Kissinger and S. McBee (TUGCO), R. Miller (CCL), and D. Leong, J. Russ and N.
Williams (Cygna) dated 4/9/85.
3.
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists (to be issued)
Sunnary:
Some transverse supports have the same order of longitudinal l
stiffness as long cantilever multi-directional supports.
Since conduit clamps provide restraint in three-directions, longitudinal loads, which were not considered in the design, may be imparted to the supports.
O
(~ -.
Texas Utilities Generating Company l
eg ei Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station hym-(andmimpI!n Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
1 O(
11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 15 f
COMUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List Additionally, the displacements due to torsion of longitudinal support beam members may induce some longitudinal loads into transverse supports.
Status:
Technical justification of the above issues by Gibbs & Hill is required.
- 12. Hilti Kwik-Bolt Substitutions
References:
None Summary:
Note 4 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910 Sheet G-4a, allows the substitution of all Hiiti Kwik-and Super Kwik '
bolts with those of a larger size. A reduction in the allowables for the larger bolts may be necessary since the actual spacing may be smaller than that required. Thus, a situation may occur wnere the replacement bolts have a lower 1
Q]
capacity than the bolts in the original design.
Examples of Cygna's concern are described below:
o CSM-18c:
1/2" Hilti Kwik-bolts at 5" spacing were used in the original design. If all 1/2" bolts are substituted with 3/4" or 1" bolts, the tensile allowable for the replacement bolts will be less than the design tensile allowable of 3012 lbs. (2750 lbs for 3/4" bolts and 2930 lbs. for 1" bolts).
o CSM-42 Type III:
1" Hilti Super Kwik-bolts at 7.5" spacing were used in the original design (allowable tension = 12452 lbs, allowable shear = 6884 lbs). If all 1" bolts are replaced by 1-1/4" bolts of equal embedment, the bolt capacity is significantly reduced (allowable tension =
6405 lbs, allowable snear = 6221 lbs).
Status:
Technical justification by Gibbs & Hill is required for supports af fected by this note.
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g g' ' 12 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
h) 11/20/85 Revision 3 V
I Page 16 C0ftDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List i
- 13. Substitution of Smalleb Conduits on CA-Type Supports Referenc's:
1.
Comunications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and J.
e Russ (Cygna) dated 3/7/85 Susanary:
CA-type supports are designed using ZPA for large (> 2")
diameter conduits while peak accelerations are used for small diameter conduits (<2").
For CA-type supports where capacities are tabulated on the drawings, small diameter conduits may be installed unless specifically prohibited on the drawings. Although the deadweight load of the small diameter conduits must be less than the capacity, the seismic load of the small diameter conduits may exceed the equivalent seismic load of the large diameter conduits considered in the original design.
As an example, support type CA-15 was designed for two 3" conduits with a deadweight capacity of 156 lbs. However, five 1-1/2" conduits can be installed on a CA-15 support, C
giving higher seismic loads than designed for. The rigid span loads for two 3" conduits are 343 lbs. and 109 lbs, for the vertical and horizontal directions respectively. The flexible span loads for five 1-1/2" conduits are 504 lbs.
and 450 lbs. for the vertical and horizontal directions respectively.
This item possibly af fects support types CA-6, CA-7, CA-12, CA-14 Series, and CA-16a.
Status:
Discussion with TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill is required. TUGC0 is investigating this item witn respect to fire protected supports.
14 Use of CA-Tyoe Succorts in LS Scans
References:
1.
Communications Report between M. Warner, et al. (TUGCO) and W. Horstman, et al. (Cygna) dated 2/20/85 2.
Communications Report between M. Warner (TUGCO) and N.
Williams, et al. (Cygna) dated 2/27/85.
Texas Utilities Generating Company l
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g ge IIlllfillllilillitilllllilIll! Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
b 11/20/85 Revision 3
(
Page 17 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 3.
Communications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and J.
Russ (Cygna) dated 3/7/85 Summary:
CA-type supports are used to support LA spans, which are limited to a 6' length. CST-type and CSM-type supports are used to support LS spans, which can be up to 12' for trans-verse spans and 24' for longitudinal spans. In field in-stallations, when conduits run from walls to equipment in the middle of a room, a transition is made between LA spans and LS spans. The concerns are discussed below.
For CA-type supports, ZPA was used to determine the design load for large diameter conduits (> 2" diameter.) Since the conduits are field-run, CA-type supports may be installed adjacent to multi-directional supports. The span between the two supports is considered to be an LA-span, since the span length must not exceed that specified by the design of l
the CA-type support. The rigidity of the span can no longer
(
(
be assumed, due to the flexibility of the multi-directional I
(
support and the effect of the flexible spans past the multi-directional support.
Peak acceleration should then be used to determine the design load for that span.
There is evidence that decreased support capacity is considered for the fire protected supports (see TUGC0 Instruction CP-EI-4.0-49), since support capac.ities are given for both LA spans and LS spans. For unprotected lines, there is no indication that this was considered.
Status:
TUGC0 is investigating the practice for fire protected supports. Additional discussion is required for unprotected supports.
- 15. Stresses in Cable Trays Due to Attached Conduit Suocorts
References:
1.
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists (to be issued) 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-156C, Set 1, Sheets 101-104
[
I.
Texas Utilities Generating Company gg Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station b.mo...P -- illt Independent Assessment Program - All Phases mm mmmmu Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE-I
11/20/85 Revision 3
(
Page 18 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List Summary:
This item applies to CSD-16 in the Cygna review scope and to any similar. details. Cable tray spans are ostensibly designed to the capacity of the tray. The addition of CSD-16 to the tray rails adds loads above the capacity of the cable tray. Therefore, a generic stress check for the trays is not possible, and all tray spans with these conduit supports should be individually checked.
Additionally, in the design of the CSD-16 support, peak acceleration was used to determine loads due to the flexible g;
conduit section, and zero period acceleration (IPA) was used to determine loads due to the rigid conduit attached to the cable tray. Since the support is attached to the flexible tray span, there will be additional amplification of input acceleration on the CSD-16 support. As a minimum, peak acceleration should be used for all conduit segments. An additional dynamic amplication factor (DAF) may be required.
Status:
Cygna's comments require discussion with Gibbs' & Hill.
- 16. Increases in Allowable Soan lengths
References:
1.
Communications Report between P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill) and D. Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 12/27/84 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-189C, Set 1, Sheets 15-24 3.
Communications Report between R. Kissinger and S. McBee (TUGCO), P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill), R. Miller and R. Yow (CCL), and D. Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 4/10/85.
Sunnary:
In the revised Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910 package LA span lengths were increased by a ratio of the refined to the unrefined spectra. Gibbs & Hill provided a calculation to show that the above changes are correct with respect to the spectral ratios and that rigid spans remain rigid (diameters
> 2").
This is adequate for support designs, since support loads are proportional to span lengths. However, an evaluation of the conduit stress is required, since conduit bending stress is proportional to the square of the span length.
O(
l Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station higw~eg g' N n,HH IndeDendent Assessment Program - All Phases
'~i Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE 4
---,---.-,-----.n-,_
.--,.-----.,,.n-,n-.,.,,-
n,n,.... _
,,,m
.~ _
11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 19 s/
q s
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List Status:
In Reference 3, Gibbs & Hill stated that the conduit spans discussed in this review issue are shorter than the spans discussed in Review Issue 22. TUGC0 is providing additional information to address Review Issue 22.
If Review Issue 22 is resolved, Review Issue 16 is resolved by comparison.
If Review Issue 22 is not resolved, technical justification for Review Issue 16 is required.
- 17. Substitution of Next Heavier Structural Member
References:
None Summary:
This item refers to Note 5 on Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910, Sheet G-la.
Most supports are designed to the allowable load limits for the Hilti Kwik-bolts. Since support self weight has not been properly considered in some designs (see Review Issue 7), Hilti Kwik-bolts may be g ~g overstressed in generic designs using structural steel.
V Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required.
- 18. Clamo Usage
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review Ouestions" l
84056.015, dated August 6,1984, question A4 i
2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.8. George (TUGCO),
" Conduit Support Walkdown Questions," 84056.020, dated August 13, 1984, question 3 3.
N.H. Willians (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 4
Communications Report between E. Irisn (Unistrut) and J.
l Russ (Cygna) dated 7/25/84 l
l l
f Os Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
- IL'I$
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
g mH!nmm!!!!!!!!t!!i!n!
Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 O-Revision 3 Page 20 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review !ssues List 5.
Connunications Report between T. Kaiss, et al. (TUGC0)."
- 8. Shujang, et al. (Gibbs & Hill) and W. Horstman, et al. (Cygna) date 10/9/84 6.
Consnunications Report between R.' Miller and R. Yow (CC1.)
E. Bezkor and P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill), C. Mortgat (TERA), R. Kissinger and S. McBee (TUGCO), and N.
Williams and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 3/29/85.
7.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-1005, Set 1. Sheets 9-13, regarding clamp reaming 8.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-1005, Set 1, Sheets 7-8, regarding clamp distortion 9.
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists (to be issued)
- 10. Cygna Conduit Support Walkdown Checklists (to be issued)
Susanary:
A.
In the following two Gibbs & Hill designs in Cygna's review scope, P2558 clamps may be reamed to accommodate larger bolts. As a result, the minimum edge distance requirements are vi01ated.
For CA-5a supports, clamps for small diameter conduits
(<2") must be reamed to acconinodate 3/8" Hilti Kwi k -
bolts. The washers for 3/8" Hilti Kwik-bolts will not fit properly on the clamps. The washer is an integral part of the bolt, and justification for its omission, alteration, or distortion during installation is required.
For the IN-CSM-15a support, clamps for the 5-inch diameter flexible conduit are reamed to accommodate 1/2" Nelson studs.
In resoonse to Reference 1, TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill provided Reference 6 to justify reaming of clamps for conduits
[.
larger than 2" in diameter. This calculation addresses the clamps for the IN-CSM-15a support, but does not address the clamps for the small diameter conduits for the CA-Sa supports.
Texas Utilities Generating Company l
Cemanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
- h W s 4 6
mitmimmmmittmtil Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
l 11/20/85 Revision 3 C
Page 21 COIM IT SUPPORTS Review Issues List B.
C708-S clamps for conduits can be modified by cutting off the end portion of the clamp ears. This modification removes two of the four bolt holes from the clamp. Justification for this modification is h
k required. Also see Review Issue 9 for discussion of clamp allowables.
C.
In the Cygna walkdown, clamp distortion was noted for the following supports:
Support 10 Suocort Tyoe
[
C12G03528-8 CSM-18f C12002935 4 CA-Sa C12G03126-18 CSM-42 C12G02851-6 CA-Sa O(
In response to Reference 1, TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill provided Reference 8 to justify clamp distortion.
Status:
Further discussion with TUGCO, Gibbs & Hill is required for all the above issues. In Reference 3, Cygna requested the
[~
reaming procedures for P2558 clamps for CA-Sa supports with conduits less than 2" in diameter, to insure that fit-up problems do not occur. Cygna also requested information and calculations for the modification of C-7085 clamps.
- 19. Documentation Deviations 8etween Insoection Reoorts, CMC's and In-Fe urawinns
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
/.
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 2.
Communications Report between P. Patel (TUGCO) and D.
Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 2/18/85 3.
Cygna Individual Conduit Review Checklists (to be
/
issued)
'OL Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station M [C 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 4
imH-
- tilill Joo No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE l
11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 22 i
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List d
4 Cygna Conduit Walkdown Checklists (to be issued)
Sun"ary:,
A.
For each conduit line, an inspection is performed and documented on an inspection report (IR). All CMCs and applicable IN-FP drawings should be reflected on the IR. Examples of Cygna's concerns are discussed below:
1.
Line C11003395, IRME-18120F, Support -1: On the IR, the support is listed as CSM-18f, Revision 4.
On CMC 62903, the support is listed as CSM-18b, Revision 14 Based on the CMC information, the IR is in error.
2.
Line C12G05087, IRME-16817F, Support -4:
On the IR, the support is listed as CSM-18c, Revision i
- 13. On CMC 62905, Revision 0, the support is listed as Revision 9.
On CMC 62905, Revision 1, the support is listed as Revision 12. Five such p
discrepancies occur for supports in Cygna's review scope.
3.
Line C12004695, IRME-16089F, IN-FP-216 and IN-FP-226: There are discrepancies between the IR and both IN-FP drawings for support types CA-la and CA-2a. There is no structural difference in the supports, but a documentation inconsistency exists. Nine such discrepancies occur for supports in Cygna's review scope.
4 All applicable CMCs and their revision numbers should be listed on the inspection reports.
In f
Cygna's review scope, three CMCs were not listed on il the appropriate IR. CMCs 59701, 69387, and 68272 should be listed on IRME-20073F. Revision numbers were not provided for the following five CMCs: On IRME-18120F, CMCs 67042 and 62903; on IRME-20143F, CMCs 68276 and 75090; and on IRME-17398F, CMC 68438.
l B.
Additionally, the Cygna walkdown identified deviations between the final inspection reports and installed configurations for two conduit lines.
- t Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station AM6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
mmmmmmnuunnu Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85
,s Revision 3
(
)
\\~ /
Page 23 CONOUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 1.
Conduit line C12002935 appears to have been rerouted. The final inspection report IRME-16236F lists four supports on the line. There are three g-
~
supports on the line in the field.
Support C12002935-3 has been removed, and support C12002935-2 has been re-marked C12002935-5.
An updated IR was not found.
2.
Support IN-CSM-15b is not listed on the inspection report IRME-14684F. It is present in the field.
Status:
Discussion with TUGC0 is required. In Reference 1, Cygna requested information on the evolution of the CA-la/CA-2a support designs. This information will be pertinent to Item A.3 above.
i
- 20. Nelson Studs
(
References:
1.
Communications Report between P. Huang and R. Sanders (Gibbs & Hill) and J. Russ (Cygna) dated August 7, 1984 2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-156C, Set 1, Sheets 131-160 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-109C, Set 1, Sheets 164-184 Summary:
In the original conduit support design calculations, Gibbs &
Hill did not check Nelson studs for conformance with vendor specifications and allowables. Subsequently, Gibbs & Hill supplied Cygna with Nelson stud qualification calculations to determine the adequacy of the installed stud configurations. Cygna has the following comments on the calculations provided:
o Reference 3 provides evaluation of the stud stresses.
A pretensioning force was assumed to relieve applied loads to the studs. The calculation did not account for the flexibility of the clamp and shim plate or relaxation of the preload.
-s Texas Utilities Generating Company s
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station t
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases es L j,
3 g
nmmmm'mminissiill Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
s 11/20/85 O(
Revision 3 Page 24 Co mU!T SUPPORTS Review Issues List o
The allowable Nelson stud forces reported by TRW/ Nelson are based on shear applied at the weld location. In the conduit support designs, the studs are loaded at the clamp, which produces a moment in the stud. This additional moment was not considered in the Reference 3 calculation.
o Reference 2 (Sheets 151 through 160) provides evaluation of the shim plate attaching the Nelson studs to the structural member. The stress distribution assumed for the weld connecting the shim plate to the memeer is not realistic, as it introduces an infinite stress at the bottom of the plate. The assumption affects the results of the yield line analysis performed to check the adequacy of the shim plate.
o-Weld underrun was not considered. in the Reference 2 calculation.
Susuary:
Further discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required for the resolution of the above concerns.
i
- 21. Conduit Fire Protection Calculations
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
z i
84056.094, dated October 30, 1985
/.i 2.
Communications Report between T. Keiss (TUGCO) and W.
i Horstman, et al. (Cygna) dated 10/16/84 3.
Communications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and D.
Leong (Cygna) dated 4/18/85 4
TUGC0 instruction CP-EI-4.0-49 5.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-1017, Set 2 Sheets 8-11.
6.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-152C, Set 1, Sheet 39 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station l
A (9,.
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases lillimilillit!!'n'ani!!!!
Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 3
Revision 3
^
Page 25 ColeUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 7.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation for Drawing 2323-S-0910, Sheet IN-FP-213a 8.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation for Drawing 2323-5-0910, Sheet IN-FP-212 9.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation for Drawing. 2323-5-0910, Sheet IN-FP-214
- 10. Gibbs 4 Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-233C, Set 1 Sheets 62-67 for Drawing 2323-5-0910, Sheet IN-FP-226 d
Susanary:
All calculations providing evaluation of fire-protected conduits and conduit supports were obtained from Gibbs 4 Hill paior to the completion of the design review for those calculations. The coments made in this review issue may have been resolved due to design review efforts.
A.
All of the Gibbs & Hill fire protection calculations k'
consider a round configuration of Thermo-Lag material around conduits. The Thermo-Lag weight on the spans was calculated based on this configuration. The Cygna walkdown and discussions with TUGC0 indicate that a square configuration was also used in the field installations. Documentation of the specific configura-tion installed was not maintained.
B.
Reference 5 calculates the capacities of CA-la supports for various plant elevations using both LA-and LS-spans. The analysis model used in the calculation supported one conduit and had two sets of outriggers.
Reference 4 provides tables of the capacities for use in determining the adequacy of CA-la supports with fire protection; however, the tables do not specify that the capacities given are limited to the support configuration used in the analyses.
C.
Capacities for CA-2a suoports are given in Table 24 of Reference 4 Reference 6 contains calculations which determine support capacities for CA-la and CA-2a supports with mitiple conduit installations. Reference
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station M [9, i Independent Assessment Program - All Phases ll"""""mnulittllittil Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
O 11/20/85 d
Revision 3 Page 26 I
C0llDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 6 states that CA-la capacities should be used for CA-2a supports, since CA-2a supports are "similar to and stronger" than CA-la supports. The allowable capacity for LA-spans calculated in the referenced calculation is 185 lbs. Table 24 of Reference 4 gives the allowable as 385 lbs. The tabulated capacities for CA-2a appear to be in error, when compared with the CA-la capacities in Tables 25 and 26 of the same reference.
D.
In the review of IN-FP calculations, Cygna has three d
concerns regarding detailed calculations used to demonstrate support adequacy.
1.
The IN-FP drawings generally contain information on span length, support location on the conduit run, and type of support (such as Type 17d or 17e for a CSM-18c support).
In some cases, the mounting surface will be indicated (such as ceiling-mounted O
C support (such as cantilever length). Cygna nas or wall-mounted), as well as key dimensions for a noted that orientation of the support on the mounting surf ace is almost never given, yet the IN-FP calculations assume a configuration for the detailed analysis. Two supports in Cygna's review scope which are qualified based on such assumed configurations are C12G03126-1 and C12G03126-11.
2.
Cygna has noted that some detailed calculations do not include the effects of CMCs when analyzing the j
supports for the effects of fire protection.
Three supports in Cygna's review scope which neglect CMCs are C12G05087-4, C12G03126-2, and C11003395-2.
3.
Cygna has noted that the support capacities used l
for the qualification of fire protected supports l
were taken from the drawing revisions wnich were current when the IN-FP calculations were performec, although the supports were originally installed and i
inspected to earlier revisions. ' Justification for using these capacities was not provided. Four i
supports in Cygna's review scope wnich are qualified to later drawing revsisions are O'
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
$ i.M 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
litetailistilillillillitilitti Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 pi Revision 3 g
Page 27 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Istues List C12004695-5, C12G05087-4, C12G03126-2, and C11003395-2.
Status:
A.
Evaluation by Gibbs & Hill of the as-built configuration g
with respect to the design configuration is required to insure that the design adequately envelops the field condition. Preliminary evaluation by Cygna indicates that small unconservatisms exist ' for some cases.
Cygna has requested the documentation authorizing the change in fire protection configuration from round to square. The request was made to TUGC0 in References 1 and 3.
B.
Discussion with TUGCO/Gibbs & Hill is required.
C.
Discussion with TUGCO/Gibbs & Hil.1 is required.
D.
Discussion with TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill is required.
- 22. Soan Increase for Fire Protected Scans
References:
1.
Comunications Report between T. Keiss (TUGCO) and W.
Horstman, et al. (Cygna) dated 10/16/84 2.
Comunications Report between T. Keiss (TUGCO) and J.
Russ and N. Williams (Cygna) dated 10/27/84 3.
Comunications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and D.
Leong (Cygna) dated 4/16/85 4
Comunications Report between W. Zehe (Triangle PWC) and D. Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 4/17/85 5.
Comunications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and D.
Leong (Cygna) dated 4/18/85 6.
Communications Report between S. McBee (TUGCO) and J.
Russ (Cygna) dated 5/7/85 7.
TUGC0 Instruction CP-E!-4.0-49
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station A LM, a Independent Assessment Program - All Phases M!!!!!!""""!!!!!!!!n!!
Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85 O
Revision 3 Page 28 rmeUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List 8.
Gibbs a Hill Drawing 2323-S-0910, LA Series 9.
Gibbs a Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910, LS Series
- 10. Gibbs a Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-1017, Set 1 Summary:
TUGC0 Instruction CP-EI-4.0-49 (Reference 7) gives allowable conduit spans for fire-protected runs. Cygna noted that, in most cases, the fire-protected spans exceed the allowable spans for unprotected conduit spans documented in the 2323-S-0910 drawing package (References 8 and 9).
Cygna reviewed the design calculations for the l
fire-protected spans (Reference 10) and concluded that the increase in length for the fire-protected spans could be attributed to the removal of conservatissa from the analysis, such as using the refined rather than the O(
unrefined spectra. In general, Cygna agrees with the 4
(
analysis method used in the span design; however, Cygna does not agree with the conduit stress allowables used in the analysis.
To obtain allowable stress values for the conduits, Gibbs &
+
Hill used test data supplied by the vendor to obtain yield stress values. Cygna has two major comments on the derivation of the allowables:
l o
The allowable stress values vary with conduit nominal size. The vendor test data consists of three to four tests for specimens of e&ch conduit size. Gibbs & Hill used the lowest tested yield stress for each conduit size or an imposed minimum yield stress value of 33 ksi to obtain allowables for that particular conduit size.
Justification for the imposed minimum yield stress value was not provided. Cygna feels that it is not appropriate to specify different allowable stresses for each conduit size.
i l
l Texas Utilities Generating Company
~ '
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station w'I L'$ 6 A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases unkm......ummiiii Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
G 11/20/85
/ )
Revision 3 Page 29 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review !ssues List o
Gibbs & Hill did not provide documentation to justify l
the applicability of the vendor test data to the conduits installed at CPSES. Cygna understands that electrical conduit is fabricated in accordance with ANS!
C80.1, which does not contain requirements for material conformance.
Cygna spoke to Triangle PWC, the conduit supplier for CPSES, regarding the test data provided to Gibbs & Hill (Reference 4). Triangle PWC informed Cygna that as a rule, no certification test reports are provided with the product and that any test data in the public domain represented a general sample of conduit they have produced. They also stated that Triangle PWC is a processor and does not manufacture the steel used for the conduits. There are no ASTM standards applicable to conduits.
The items discussed above concernin the conduit allowable e(
stress apply to all conduit span ca culations performed by Gibbs & Hill.
l Cygna has one coninent on the method used for the calculation of conduit stress. A dynamic amplification factor (DAF) of
[>
1.0 was used in the conduit stress evaluation without justification. Review Issue 2 discusses the reanalysis efforts by Gibbs & Hill to address this concern. Results of those reanalyses should be applied to the conduit stress analyses described here.
i Status:
Cygna has discussed the conduit allowable stress issue with TUGC0 (References 3,4, and 5). TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill are investigating the derivation of the allowable stresses used in the design.
- 23. Grouted Penetrations
References:
1.
Communications Report between R. Kissinger and S. McBee (TUGCO), P. Huang (Gibbs & Hill), R. Miller and R. Yow (CCL) and D. Leong and J. Russ (Cygna) dated 4/10/85.
Texas Utilities Generating Company i
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
- h L ;, 4 g
Im:;
iii Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
O 11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 30 C
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List Summary:
For conduit runs embedded in walls and floors, longitudinal' conduit supports are not required if there are no bends in the run. The grouted penetrations are assumed to carry the entire longitudinal load for such a conduit run.
Additionally, all grouted penetrations are assumed to be multi-directional supports, sharing conduit load with the supports closest to the penetration. Calculations were not performed to assure the capaoility of the penetration to carry the required loads. Other supports on the conduit run may also be affected depending on run configuration and relative stiffness of the supports.
Status:
In Reference 1. Gibbs & Hill agreed to provide technical justification for the capability of the grooted penetrations to resist the required loads. As a minimum, the following two items should be provided:
o Design calculations demonstrating the load capacity of the grouted penetrations.
o OC documentation of the placement of the embedded conduits to validate the assumptions of the above-mentioned design calculations.
24 Rigidity of CA-Tyoe Suocorts
References:
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Checklists (not yet issued)
Sunenary:
In the design of CA-type supports, the rigidity of the conduit spans was checked to justify the use of ZPA in calculating the design loads for the supports.
In determining the rigidity of the conduit spans, Gibbs & Hill assumed that the CA-type supports were rigid. The frequencies of the conduit systems were due to the span flexure between rigid supports only. The design calculations for the CA-type supports did not include stiffness evaluations to validate the assumptions.
Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required.
' p V
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company l
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station A Ld 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
ll1111111t!!Il1111111111111111 Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
- -. - -,y,
,m-
11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 31 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues. List 1
- 25. Enveloping Configurations for Design
References:
1.
Cygna Generic Conduit Support Review Checklists (to be issued) b 2.
Cygna Individual Conduit Support Review Checklists (to l
be issued)
Summisry:
Since the Gibbs & Hill generic supports have numerous design parameters and tolerances for installation, the design must i
be evaluated for the worst case configuration allowed by the drawing. Cygna has noted several cases where the model used in the design evaluation did not reflect the most critical i
support configuration. Additionally, the models used to check the perceived critical component were used to check other components whose forces were not maximized in the design model. The following supports are affected.
O- (
o CA-la o
CA-2a o
CA-Sa o
CSM-18f i
o CSM-42 o
CST-3 l
o CST-17 o
IN-CSM-15a The maximum load eccentricities and installation tolerances are also not considered in the Gibbs A Hill designs.
The following generic supports are affected:
i o
CA-la o
CA-2a o
CA-Sa o
CSM-6b o
CSM-18b i-o CSM-18e i
o CSM-18d i
o CSM-18f o
CSM-42 o
CST-3 o
CST-17 o
JA-1 I*
Texas Utilities Generating Company i
A LU 6 A
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station j
imimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
Joe No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
- = _=
11/20/85 O
Revision 3 d
Page 32 COMUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List The following individual supports are affected:
o IN-CSM-15a o
C12G03126-1 o
C12G03126-11 Component substitutions and any related tolerances should
/'
also be considered. See Review !ssues 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18 for substitutions and tolerances allowed generically. This review issue is similar to concerns regarding enveloping configurations for the Unistrut testing scope discussed in Review Issue 9.
Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required.
- 26. Design Drawing Discrepancies
(
References:
1.
Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-5-0910 Sheets and Revisions noted below.
o CS0-2, Revision 1 o CSM-6b, Revision 3 o CSM-18b, Revision 16 o CSM-18c, Revisions 12, 13, 14 o CSM-18d, Revision 9 o CSM-18f, Revisions 3, 4, 5 o IN-CSM-15a, Revision 6 i
Summary:
In the review of generic conduit support designs, Cygna has compared the design drawings with the assumptions and models used in the support evaluations. The following discrepancies or inconsistencies were noted in the design
- drawings, i
o The baseplate size on detail drawing C50-2, Revision 1 was not given.
o For CSM-6b, Revision 3, the capacity table restricts the conduit size to 1" diameter or less. The drawing has a note specifying that C-708-5 clamps must be used for i
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.$ L D. 4 Independent Assessment Program All Phases lillfilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilli Job No. 84056 23CS-!5 SUE
O 11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 33 C
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List conduits greater than or equal to 2" in diameter. This
)
note is superfluous, considering the size limitation on the capacity table.
o The clamp type was not noted on the support drawings for CSM-18b, CSM-18c, CSM-18d, and CSM-18f.
f' o
No edge distance for the clamp bolts is provided for the angle bracket in IN-CSM-15a.
]
o The design drawing for CSM-18c has no conduit size tables, but there is a superfluous note on the drawing regarding the nonexistent table.
Status:
Discussion with Gibbs & Hill is required.
- 27. Walkdown Discrecancies 1
(-
References:
1.
Cygna Conduit Walkdown Checklists (to be issued) d 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Conduit Support Walkdown Questions," 84056.020, dated August 13, 1984 3.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N. Williams (Cygna),
transmitting calculations in response to Cygna questions, dated August 31, 1984 l
4 L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N. Williams (Cygna),
transmitting calculations in response to Cygna questions, dated September 11, 1984 5.
L.M. Popplewell (TUGCO) letter to N. Williams (Cygna),
transmitting calculations in response to Cygna questions, dated September 18, 1984 N.'. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
6.
H
" Cable Tray / Conduit Support Review Questions,"
84056.094, dated October 30, 1985 k,
l Texas Utilities Generating Company l
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station M LM 2 4 independent Assessment Program - All Phases 184!""!!!!!!!!!!!!!I11111111 Job No. 84056 23CS-!SSUE
11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 34 CONOUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues-List Sussmary:
The Cygna walkdown noted a number of conduit support discrepancies discussed below.
A.
Clamp Installation 1.
Clamp distortion was noted in four supports. This is discussed in Review Issue 18.,
2.
Gaps Between Clamps and Shims The maximum gap allowed between the ears of a P2558 clamp and the shim plate is 1/8". Cygna noted two supports with gaps in excess of the 1/8".
These supports are:
s o C13G02851-1 o C12002935-1 B.
Anchor Bolt Installation 1.
Hilti Expansion Anchor Proximity Violation There are five occurrences of Hilti proximity violations where the spacing in the field between the support and Hilti expansion anchors in adjacent supports is less than the minimum distance used in the design. The affected supports are:
o C13G03528-1 o C12G03126-21 (two occurrences) o C12G05087-1 o C12605087-2 2.
Hilti Expansion Anchor Placement Violation Cygna has noted three supports with field installations of Hilti bolts which differ from the installations in the design drawings and/or CMCs.
The affected supports are:
o IN-CSM-15a o C12G05254-1 o C12G03126-16 Texas Utilities Generating Company
- l L d 6 I1 Comanche Peak' Steam Electric Station 4
6 lilllittlimi!!!!!!'!!'!!!!!!
Independent Assessment Program All Phases Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
~( 'j' Revision 3 Page 35 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List The placement violation for one Hilti Kwik-bolt on support IN-CSM-154 results in a concrete edge distance violation.
3.
Richmond Insert Installation b
Cygna noted that both Richmond Inserts on support C12G03126-12 were not properly seated, such that they were not bearing flat against the base angles.
4.
The base angles for IN-CSM-15a were installed such that the angle legs do not bear flat against the concrete. There is a gap of 1/4" between the angle and the concrete near the tube, which decreases to zero at the toe of the angles.
C.
Installation of Structural Steel 1.
Installation Tolerance Cygna noted two supports with installation tolerances in excess of those provided on the design drawing:
a.
For support C13G03528-3, the tolerance for attaching the tube steel to the base plate was exceeded.
b.
For IN-CSM-15b, the brace memoer work points are not coincident with the tube steel workpoints as shown on the design drawing.
2.
Member Size For IN-CSM-15b, the baseplate for the horizontal brace is 19-3/4" long. The maximum size allowed on the design drawing is 18".
[
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station A LC 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
1111lll11111ll1111111111111111Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
. -,.. - +,. -
_-_-_7-
- g s
f) ' CT-l d
11/20/85 Revision 3 C/,/
Page 36
(
.m,
- p. g 5
i CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List s
D.
Installation of Unistrut 1.
Seating of Unistrut Nuts One nut in C12G03126-13 and four nuts in C12G03126-1 12 were not properly seated in the Unistrut'
/
channels.
l
/.1 2.
Member Substitution 7
P5000 members were used as header members in s
I C12002935 instead of P1001 members, as specified in the design drawing.
3.
Member Rotation s
The brace member in C12G03126-14 was rotated 180*
about its own axis from the orientation shewn on the design drawing.
4 CSD-1 Connection Installation Cygna noted installation discrepancies for the CSD-l 1 connections in supports C12G03126-12 and C12G03126-13.
I a.
Five connections were skewed, such that the header and base angle were not square relative to one another.
b.
Four connections had gaps between the header and base angle in excess of the 1/4" allowed by the design drawing.
5.
The outriggers in C13G02851-4 are skewed with resoect to the header. The outriggers should be perpendicular to the header.
E.
Conduit / Pipe Interferences Five pipes or conduits not supported by the support in questicn are in contact with tne'following conduit supports:
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.8 L " 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
111111111111lll1111111lll!!!!1 Job No. 84056 23CS-1SSUE l
l l- -
l
! O 11/20/85
'N Revision 3 Page 37 CO MUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List l
o C12G03126-21 o C12G03126-18 (3 occurrences) o C12G03126-19 F.
Conduit Placement g
1.
Spacing Violation The minimum distance between the' flexible conduits is given as 10-1/2" on the design drawing. The conduits on one tube are 10" away from the conduits on the other tube.
2.
Rotation of Conduit Attachments l
The three conduits attached to the TS6x3 member on IN-CSM-15b are shown to be perpendicular to the tube steel on the design drawing. The conduits are
(
skewed with respect to the tube steel in the field installation.
Status:
A few of the walkdown discrepancies discussed in this review issue have been previously identified by Cygna in Reference 2.
Those items are discussed below:
Item A.2 - Gaos Between Clamos and Shims Response calculations were performed and transmitted to Cygna in Reference 2.
Cygna has also contacted Unistrut i
regarding these gaps and does not consider theim to be a design deficiency.
Item B.4 - IN-CSM-15a Response calculations were performed and transmitted to Cygna in Reference 3.
In those calculations, TUGC0 agreed to add bevelled washers ard grout to mitigate the loads in the anchor bolts due to the installation. Cygna's i
reinspection of this support during the subsequent walkcown l
noted that the bevelled washers had been added, but the grout had not been placed behind the support.
In Ot Texas lftilities Generating Company i
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station N LD 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 4
iiiii....imi;iiililllilillli Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE t
O 11/20/85 Revision 3 Page 38 C
CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List Reference 6, Cygna requested the revised design drawing and' documentation regarding the installation and inspection of the identified corrective action items.
l Item 0.2 - Member Substitution Response calculations were performed and transmitted to
~
Cygna in Reference 2.
Cygna accepts the substitution on a technical basis; however, a CMC should document the change.
Cygna also requested some documents in Reference 6 for three other items:
Item B.3 - Richmond Insert Installation i
Cygna requested the installation procedures and instructions l
for Richmond Inserts in regard to the tolerance in installation angle.-
(
Item C.1.b - Installation Tolerance (Working Point)
Cygna requested information regarding the inspection and corrective action implemented for working point deviations i
for conduit supports.
Item E - Conduit /Pioe Interferences Cygna requested the separation criteria for electrical raceways and their supports.
Cygna requires discussion with TUGC0 regarding all the walkdown discrepancies noted in this review issue.
- 28. Systems Conceot
References:
1.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to J.B. George (TUGCO),
" Cable Tray and Conduit Support Review Questions" 84056.015, dated August 6, 1984 l
2.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 23?3-SCS-153C, Set 1, Sheets l
153-160 Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station d LU 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 4
milliililliiiiiiiimmiiii Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE L
O 11/20/85
-s l
(O Revision 3 Page 39 ColeUIT SUPp0RTS Review Issues List 3.
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-152C, Set 1, Sheet 38 4
Gibbs & Hill Calculation 2323-SCS-102C, Set 2, Sheets 255-258 (Revision 2)
Summary For the majority of supports in the 2323-5-0910 package, the design evaluations are performed for individual supports f
with applied point loads representing the conduit. Loads L3 from all restrained directions and tributary spans are applied to the support model. However, for the design evaluation of CA-Sa supports and the CSD-la detail (Z-clip),
the interaction between supports on a conduit run or between the support and the conduit is used to validate use of reduced loads on the support or connection.
In References 2 and 3, Gibbs & Hill uses a load couple between adjacent CA-Sa supports to resist longitudinal loads. The rigidity of the conduit to provide transfer of j'~'s longitudinal load to tensile load on the adjacent clamps was (j
not shown. The use this ' configuration requires specific' field installation of supports (CA-Sa supports in series on a straight run). Its generic application in conjunction with other support types and in conduit runs with bends and offsets was not considered.
In Reference 1. Cygna asked Gibbs & Hill to consider the impact of the eccentricities for the design of CSD-la details'. TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill submitted Reference 4 in response to Reference 1.
In the response calculations, Gibbs & Hill assumed that the conduit attached to the support provided bracing for the support in the longitudinal direction, preventing rotation of the support and CSD-la detail.
The calculation in Reference 4 makes generalized configura-tional and load assumptions for both the support and conduit system. The applicability of the calculation to all supports using this detail, for both multi-directional and transverse supports should be demonstrated. This affects supports CSM-6b, CST-3, and CST-17 in Cygna's review scope.
Status:
Discussion with TUGC0/Gibbs & Hill is required.
O
('
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche peak Steam Electric Station r*I L'I 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases t
i 111m!!i1llll1111111111111111 Job No. 84056
-23CS-ISSUE
11/20/85
/ ')N Revision 3 Page 40 CONDUIT SUPPORTS Review Issues List
- 29. Cumulative Effect of Review Issues
~
References:
None Summary:
In this Review Issues List, a number of the issues cited rey lead to small unconservatisus when occurring singly in a support design and can usually be neglected. However, since several of these issues pertain to all conduit support designs on a generic basis, their effect can be cumulative, such that many small unconservatisms may be significant.
Therefore, any reevaluation of support designs should consider the cumulative effect of all pertinent Review Issues.
Status:
The additive effects of the findings described in the Review Issues List must be addressed as part of the CPRT Plan.
O(
l
{
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases u h ( *$ 6 A m!!'"""!nmimit!9!I!
Job No. 84056 23CS-ISSUE
k.
tO '
11/20/85 Revision 2
(_ )
Page 1 DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List 1.
Review and Analysis of Cumulative Effects
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, all Sections 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, all Sections 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
"Open items Associated with Walsh/Doyle Allegations,"
84042.022, dated January 18, 1985 4
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 5.
All Coruunications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program Sumary:
Utilizing the data available from all four phases of the Cygna technical and design control reviews, an evaluation of all discrepancies, observations, and potential finding I
reports is being performed. This review is also focusing on the cumulative effects of individually insignificant discre-pancies. The purpose of this review is to assess the potential root causes of all technical review findings, so
[
that any adverse trends can be identified. Any trends identified which indicate weaknesses in the CPSES design / design control program are being carefully evaluated.
Status:
Cygna has extracted and classified the data from all phases of the IAP performed to date. This data has been included f
in the IAP Review /Results Data Base, from which sorts will
(
be made in order to better assess trends and cumulative effects. Results will be included in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
n N
U Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station O L5 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 4
'11111lll111111!!!111111!!! Job No. 84056 PRJ:23DC-ISSUE
11/20/85
[,)
Revision 2 V
Page 2 DESIGt CONTROL Review Issues List 2.
Design Verification *
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-083090-01, Revision 0, all Sections 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR84042-01, Revision 1, All Sections 3.
M.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4
All Comunications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan," 84056.085, dated October 6, 1985.
O)
Sumary:
Cygna has performed a preliminary evaluation of the
["
I l
technical review findings to assess the effectiveness of the V
TUGCO/Gibbs & Hill design verification program. This effort identified a significant number of discrepancies which may be an indication of the program effectiveness.
Status:
Results of Cygna's evaluation will be included in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
In Reference 5, Cygna provided questions and comments regarding the design verification procedures to be implemented for the CPRT l
Plan. The CPRT Plan must assure that any discrepancies identified in Cygna's trending evaluation be corrected, and that future work be accomplished using acceptable procedures.
Formerly " Adequacy of the Design Process used on CPSES", divided into " Design Verification" and " Design inputs" (Review issue 17, page 10).
l l
3.
Desien Methods
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, all Sections
(
Os Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 6.N L U 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
lililll!!!lllllllllllilllll!!! Job No. 84056 PRJ: 230C-ISSUE
11/20/85 A
Revision 2 V
Page 3 DESIGt CONTROL Review Issues List 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, all Sections 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4
All Consnunications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program Susunary:
The potential root cause of all discrepancies and observations is being assessed to determine whether or not a trend exists which indicates any weakness in the design methods used by the design engineers.
Status:
The results of this review will be provided in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
(
4 Control of Design Interfaces
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, all Sections 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, all Sections 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4.
All Consnunications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
4 "Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT PLAN." 84056.085, L_-
i dated October 6,1985 f
(
O Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanene Peak Steam Electric Station A LU 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
!ipt!!i!!!!!!!!!i!!nlullitt Job No. 84056 PRJ: 230C-ISSUE
~
11/20/85 Revision 2
(]
Page 4 y
DESIGN CONTROL.
Review Issues List Susumery:
Cygna's cable tray support and piping reviews have indicated-d; that some of the design problems may have been caused by l
site /home office interfaces. The adequacy of these and other interfaces will be assessed as a result of trending which is being performed on Phase 1 through 4 observations.
l Status:
The results of this review will be provided in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
In Reference 5, Cygna 'noted that the CPRT Plan does not appear to address the adequacy p,.
l of design interfaces. In light of Cygna's identified u
concerns in the cable tray support and piping areas, the CPRT Plan should assess the adequacy of the design information which is shared between design groups / organization.
5.
Adequacy of Procedures
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision
(
0, all Sections 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, all Sections 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4
All Communications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program Susunary:
The adequacy of and each organizations' compliance with the requisite CPSES project design related procedures is being reviewed as a result of the initial trending of observations in Phases 1 through 4 Status:
The results of this review will be provided in the LAP Integrated Report (all phases).
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station d LU 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases a
111111111111111111111111111111 Job No. 84056 PRJ: 230C-!5 SUE l
/O 11/20/85 V
Revision 2 Page 5 DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List 6.
Adequacy of Desian Documentation
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report TR-83090-01, Revision 0, all Sections 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, all Sections 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4
All Consnunications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan," 84056.085, dated October 6, 1985 Susamary:
The adequacy of design documentation is being evaluated as a result of undocumented assumptions and inadequate references which were identified during the IAP technical reviews.
Status:
The results of this review will be provided in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
In Reference 5, Cygna noted that the CPRT Plan does not address the adequacy of the design documentation aspect of the design process.
In light
[
of Cygna's identified concerns, the CPRT Plan should assess the documentation procedures and requirements currently in place to determloe the adequacy of these for future work.
7.
Corrective Action as it Pertains to Desion Related Issues identified to Date Refertnce:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, all Sections 2.
.Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-04042-01, Revision 1, all i
Sections 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January i
25, 1985 O
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station NL Independent Assessment Program - All Phases k '
lilllilillilitilmillitillill Job No. 84056 l
PRJ:230C !SSUE i
11/20/85
(-]
Revision 2
(
y Page 6 V
DESIGl CollTROL Review Issues List 4.
All Communications Reports and correspondence written on all Phases of the Independent Assessment Program 5.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
"Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan," 84056.085, dated October 6,1985.
Summary:
An assessment is being performed to determine whether or not the technical findings identified by Cygna on all phases of the IAP should have been detected by TUGC0 through the
//
corrective action system.
t/
Status:
The results of this review will be provided in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
In Reference 5 Cygna noted that the CPRT Plan will develop "reportability checklists" g:
to assess the acceptability of design documents against the 4.:
SAR and other performance criteria; however, the criteria
(
for the determination of acceptability were not provided.
Cygna requested additional discussion and description of the
'd criteria.
8.
Document Control
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observations DC-01-01, DC-01-02 and DC-01-03 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to S. Burwell (USNRC) "0CC Satellite Review Results," 83090.013, dated June 30, 1984 3.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 4
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to W.G. Counsil (TUGCO),
f
" Additional Cygna Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan,"
C 84056.091, dated October 21, 1985.
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Le h
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases litillilitill!!!!!!!1lIllittil Job No. 84056 PRJ:230C-ISSUE
O 11/20/85 i
V
(
Revision 2 Page 7 DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List Summary:
Observations concerning the Document control Center (DCC) and control of design documents were written in Phases 1 and 2.
Reference 2 was issued to document the adequacy of current DCC practices. An assessment is still required to evaluate the effects of technical and design control deficiencies which could be attributed to inadequate controls in the DCC.
Status:
The results of this review will be provided in the IAP Integrated Report (all phases).
In Reference 4, Cygna noted that the CPRT Plan does not address the impact of document control problems on the hardware installation. The CPRT Plan should consider not only the existence and correction j
of design control errors, but should also consider the impact of those errors on the existing installations.
9.
Design Change Tracking Group
(
A
'C
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observation DC-01-04 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to S. Burwell (USNRC) "DCTG
.i Data Base Review Results," 83090.017, dated November 6, 1984 Susanary:
The Field Design Change and Review Status Log was reviewed, and Observation DC-01-04 was initiated during Phases 1 and 2.
The effects of inadequate controls on design changes are being reevaluated to determine whether or not there was any possible impact on the adequacy of the design.
Status:
This issue is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review,
- 10. Gibbs & Hill Design input References
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report TR-83090-01, Revision 0, Observations DC-02-02 AND OC-02-03.
2.
N. H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January
(
25, 1985 O'
Texas Utilities Generating Company l
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station dd6 A
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases i
!!!!!""""$m!!mitilli Job No. 84056 ooi.ssne miie
11/20/85 Revision 2 4
Page 8 DESIGN CONTROL Review Issues List Summary:
For pipe stress problems AB-1-69 and A8-1-70, the computer code, ADLPIPE Version 2c was used for pipe stress calculations. This version incorporated requirements of an edition of ASME Section III other than the edition specified as a design basis in Design Specification 2323-MS-200. The ADLPIPE Version dated 9/72 was specified for usage by FSAR Table 3.788 (A)-1.
Status:
This observation is considered closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
11.
Inspection Reports
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observation DC-01-01 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
- (
C
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 Summary:
Three inspection reports had been filed in the permanent plant records vault prior to closure.
Status:
This observation is closed except~for input to the cumulative effects review.
- 12. TUGC0 Audits
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, Observations DC-01-02 and DC-01-03 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station LeJk '
Independent Assessment Program - All Phases litillllillillittlltilllililli Job No. 84056 PRJ:230C-ISSUE
11/20/85 Revision 2 f-(
Page 9 DESIGil CONTROL Review Issues List Summary:
TUGC0 Audit files did not contain corrective action responses for selected audit findings.
Status:
These observations are closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
- 13. Gibbs & Hill Internal Surveillances
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01 Revision 1, Observation DC-02-01 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 Summary:
Documentation which verified that surveillance activities had been performed for 1973 through 1977 was not immediately obtained.
Status:
This observation is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
14 Gibbs & Hill Management Reviews
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1, observation DC-02-02 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 Susuary:
Gibbs & Hill Management Review Evaluation Reports were not available for 1974 through 1976.
Status:
This observation is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
(
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station SS b 6 A Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 11llltlllll1llllill1ll!!lllI11 Job No. 84056 PRJ:230C-ISSUE
11/20/85 i
Revision 2 O
Page 10 2
DESIGN CONTROL haview Issues List 5.
Gibbs & Hill Audit Corrective Actions
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report. TR-84042-01 Revision 1 Observation DC-02-03 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC)*
n
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 Summary:
Gibbs & Hill had renumbered an audit finding and had not closed the original finding.
Status:
This observation is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
.6 Evaluation of Gibbs & Hill Design Reviewers
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR-84042-01, Revision 1 O
Observation DC-02-04 2.
N.H. Williams (Cygna) letter to V. Noonan (USNRC),
" Status of IAP Conclusions," 84056.050, dated January 25, 1985 l
Summary:
Gibbs & Hill design reviewers were not evaluated on an annual basis as required.
Status:
This observation is closed except for input to the cumulative effects review.
4 17 Design inputs *
References:
1.
Cygna Phase 1 and 2 Final Report, TR-083090-01, 2
Revision 0, all Sections 2.
Cygna Phase 3 Final Report, TR84042-01, Revision 1, all Sections f~'b
( _)
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
- I L - 6 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases 4
111ll!!!111ll1111111111llll Job No. 84056 PRJ:230C-ISSUE l
g i
i 101 Cahtornia Street. Suite 1000. San Francisco CA 941115894 415/397 5600 December 6,198S 84056.097 Mr. W.G. Counsil M
Executive Vice President Texas Utilities Generating Company DEC *r 1955 Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dolics, Texas 75201 gg g, M
Subject:
Review Issues List (RIL)
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peck Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
References:
1.
N.H.
Williams (Cygno) letter to W.G.
Counsil (TUCCO), "Cygno Questions / Comments on the CPRT Plan," 84056.085, October 6,1985.
f('
2.
N.H. Williams (Cygno) letter to W.C. Counsil (TUCCO), "Information Requests - Pipe Stress Analyses," 84056.086, October 9,1985.
3.
N.H. Williams (Cygno) letter to W.C. Counsil (TUCCO), " Pipe Stress Review Ouestions," 84056.093, dated October 28,1985 4.
N.H. Williams (Cygno) letter to W.C. Counsil (TUCCO)," Review issues List (RIL)," 84056.095, dated November 26,1985
Dear Mr. Counsil:
Enclosed is the current revision to the Pipe Stress Review issues List (RIL). All significant changes are noted by a revision bor in the right margin. Most of the revisions were made to provide changes in accordonce with the Cygno questions and comments on the CPRT Plan (Reference 1) and information requests made in the open items letters (References 2 and 3). The current revisions to all other discipline RiLs were submitted in Reference 4. The current revision numbers and letter references are os follows:
San Francisco Boston San oiego CNeago Acniano
/
i es V
Mr. W.G. Counsil i
December 7,198S Page 2 Discipline Revisions Cygna letter reference Pipe Stress 2
84056.097 Pipe Supports 2
M056.095 Mechanical Systems 3
M056.095 Electrical /l&C 3
M056.095 Cable Troy Supports 12
% 056.095 Conduit Supports 3
M056.095 Design Control 2
M056.095 If there are any questions, please call at your convenience.
Very truly yours, d).
t a
N.H. Williams
.O Project Manager v
Attachment cc: Mr. V. Noonan (USNRC) w/ attachments Ms. A. Vietti-Cook (USNRC) w/ottachments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments Mr. W. Horin (Bishop, Liberman, et al.) w/ attachments Mr. J. Redding (TUCCO) w/ attachments Mr. J. Finneran (TUCCO) w/ attachments Mrs. J. Ellis (CASE) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/ attachments Mr. F. Dougherty (TENERA) w/ottachments Mr. R. Ballard (Gibbs & Hill) w/ attachments Mr. R. Kissinger (TUGCO) w/ attachments Mr. J. Beck (TUGCO) w/ottachments l
f 1
l OO 1
..