ML20210E784
Text
wn#
O .
PROJECT INSTRUCTION I
..h j m
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T 5'
.2 .
. w- a .. r .s.
. _ . . myg.
- INSTRUCTION NUMBER: pr.11 PAGE i OF 54
! CUENT: TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY -
PROJECT. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT 1 0210 6 h JOB NUMBER (S):
g ygg;o g ) ENGINEERING DIVISION O aEv.
'=
o *aEaxaEo .
4,,novEo 0 10/10/86 .
1 ww.,
4f64 #~ -
4 menup
\
O .
A PDR
kb l 1
TITLE: !
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O m = 1 NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE '2 OF 54 Descriotion of Revision Revision 1 This revision incorporates the following:
PI Addendua No. 11, dated 10/24/86 which provided additional modification reduction techniques and'a revised report of load sheet.
PI Addendum No. 12, dated 11/25/86 which clarified the clip stiffness values to be used when employing the modification reduction techniques of Section 3.3.
PI-10 was voided. The steps required to reconcile models to as-built conditions was added to Section 2.1.
Qualification procedures for member substitutions which are covered by thermolag or thernoblanket.
The technique for reducing out of plane bending moments of O i d d *' r => cce##ti ' < r *" *r > ia d 6 i '
transmitted by two clips is summarized in Section 3.2.19 The steps to issue a modification (Section 3.4.3) were revised to be consistent with Reference 14.
Attachments 1 and 3 were deleted Editorial comments. ,
O
kb
. TITLE:
0WmMCMT
' O - NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 3 OF 54 TABLE OF CONTENTS P.AE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
7 2.0 MODEL RECONCILIATION 11 2.1 Reconciliation of Drawing Changes 11 l s 2.2 Criteria Reconciliation 12 2.2.1 PI-02 13 2.2.2 SUPERPOST 18 2.2.3 PI-03 19 2.2.4 PI-07 23 2.3 Hidden Attributes 26 2.3.1 Hidden Helds 26 2.3.2 Bolt Holes in Flanges 28 2.3.3 Member Substitutions 31 0 2.3.4 Hidden Base Plates 2.3.5 Other Hidden Attributes 32 32 3.0 RESOLUTION OF FAILURES 34 3.1 General Overview 34 3.2 Modification Reduction Using 35 Refined Qualification Techniques 3.2.1 Member Overstress 35 3.2.2 Weld Overstress 39 3.2.3 Anchor Bolt Overload 39 l 3.2.4 Base Plate / Base Angle Overstress 40 3.3 Modification Reduction Using 40 Refined Reanalysis Techniques 3.4 Failures Requiring Hardware Modification 42 3.4.1 Types of Failures 42 3.4.2 Confirmatory Analysis for Modification 42 3.4.3 Issue of Modifications 43 O
kb LAldLli 7 RAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O PI-11
=======m--
NUMBER: REVISION: 1 PAGE 4 OF 54 TABLE OF CONTENTS Eb2 4.0 CALCULATION FILE CLOSEOUT 46 b
4.1 Open It s Resolution 46 4.2 Report of Loads 48 4.2.1 Loads from Impe11 to Others 48 4.2.2 Loads from Others to Impell 49 4.3 Calculation Format Review 49 4.4 Finalize Qualification 51 4.5 Calculation File Closeout 53 4.5.1 Record Center / Site 53
5.0 REFERENCES
54 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Sample Request / Transmittal of Overlap / Gang Support Information Attachment 2 - Samp1,e Report of Loads Transmittal Package 1
L muse l
0
Nb CABLE TRAY SYSTD4 ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT TITLE:
O ===============
PI-11 NUMBER: REVISION: 1 PAGE 5 OF 54 LIST OF FIQJRES FIQJRE DESCRIPTION PEE A
[]Cr 1.1 Project Closeout Work Flow 8 2.1 PI-02 Checklist 14
- , 2.2 PI-03 Checklist 21 1
2.3 PI-07 Checklist 24 3.1 Modification Issue Flowchart 45 4.1 ProjectCloseoutChecklist 52 O
m O
r -y., w- - m-,m w~-e~~
l $s CABLE TRAY $YSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT
!O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 6 OF 54 1
i ,
l LIST OF TABLES TABLE DESCRIPTION g j 3.1 Bending Stress Increase 30
- Factors for Bolt Holes l
[
l j O I
l O
kb CABLE TRAY SYSl[M ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT TITLE.
O PI-11 NUMBER: REVISION: 1 PAGE 7 OF 54 '
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Project Instruction is to provide guidelines for the closeout of cable tray system design verifications. This consists of the reconciliation of system analyses, resolutions of failures, and calculation file closeout.
A project closeout work flow diagram is presented in Figure 1.1. A description of the work flow activities is given on page 9. The sections in PI-11 are to be followed in order and according to the work flow diagram to ensure that a cable tray system analysis is closed out l completely and efficiently. It is assumed in this work flow diagram that SUPERPIPE and SUPERPOST have been executed using either preliminary or final support drawings.
The first item in the work flow diagram is model reconciliation which consists of upgrading models to represent as-built conditions, addressing project instruction changes, qualifying supports with hidden attributes, and assessing the addition or removal of thermolag from a system.
. /\
Criteria for performing this upgrade are provided in Section 2.0. If the /I' current model has used unacceptable criteria or modelling differences, O reanalysis may be required. Otherwise, existing analyses are an acceptable basis for performing evaluations.
An assessment of failures will be performed as described in Section 3.0 to determine if a more refined analysis can eliminate failures by reducing conservatism. Resolution of failures will be performed using refined qualification techniques (Section 3.2) or refined reanalysis techniques (Section 3.3). Some failures cannot be eliminated by refined analysis. These failures will be identified for modification.
Support modifications will be issued as described in Section 3.4. The conceptual modifications will be reviewed for construction problems. The impact of the modification on the system analysis will be addressed.
Calculation file closecut will be performed as described in Section 4.0.
In many cases, qualification of trays, tray clamps, and gusset plates will not have been completed yet. Therefore, the first task of file closeout will be the evaluation of these items. Any failures of these items w111 be identified for modification reduction. Other remaining open items and reporting of loads are addressed at this stage. Finally, a review of calculation file documentation will be performed to ensure that the files satisfy current standards. Once the calculations have been completed, closed out, and approved, calculations w111 be -
transmitted to the records center for microfilming.
O
Nb CABLE TRAY 5YSTEN ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T TITLE:
M NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 8 OF 54 PROJECT CLOSE-OUT WORK FLOW l
tsDIE.fEIOMCILIATI@0
-04 WING G44845 88 !WTTEJCTIW8 affe tsDLA4 85VIS!We
-Nl(EWG ATTUllS/f.
le RAlusWS l FAtuAWS
- ry o
! IMtLIM D &uAf!SE N 198 FAtumE
.79t ,>
A.f /t,lL ~ IPS,.
i g
-~ 6 N N n
PAtust eN - ~
fEREL&fflSe
,A,_/ It
- P._ _.
~~m e _ ,,, _
o ..A,. :
88 MSISM MIFICA11@e p
844IN Af. APP 4Dv A4. l l
=
II if o
A,usE pal
O_v
CEBOWPTU48.
+
lee 5 teDIFICAftme I Ptp CDeTmuc,tpe if (LP FWOut W I M
\>
6 ,i . D oA,, =Au==
==irv g _ , ,,, . . . ip. ,
i enmmm ,.e == =
, A - ,A A
l i p
IP 0
- Amirim . m ,,,, .
FAluJWB ggg O FIGu W l.1
b LMLk WAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 9 OF 54 Activities for Proinct Closecut Nork Flow (Fiaura 1.1)
- 1. Reconctie drawing changes and as-built versus modelled dimensions ,
(Section 2.1) and Project Instruction changes (Section 2.2). Evaluate 1
hidden attributes in accordance with Section 2.3. Review system for possible addition of thermolag as identified by site engineering. For 3 thermolag addition, system reanalysis may be required. (Section 3.3)
- 2. Assess failure conditions to determine the best course of action:
I Modification reduction analysis to reduce conservatism (Section 3.2, 3.3).
For hidden attribute failures, go to 3.
i ,
Hardware modification (Section 3.4).
- 3. For hidden attribute failures, reduce conservatises (Section 3.2, 3.3) to resolve failures before removing thermolag (Section 2.3).
, 4. Determine which modification reduction method is to be used; refined qualification techniques (go to 8) or refined reanalysis techniques (go to 5).
- 5. For modification reduction using refined system reanalysis, refer to Section 3.3. Hidden attributes will be requalified upon system reanalysis.
If a hardware modification is required which w111 affect the system response and load distribution, system reanalysis may be performed
. (Section 3.4.2).
- 6. For modification reduction using refined qualification techniques, refer to Section 3.2. Hidden attributes failures will be reassessed at this point.
- 7. If failures still exist after system reanalysis or refined qualifications have been performed, a support modification will be issued. First, qualification of remaining components (trays, clips, gusset plates...) w111 be completed (go to 8b.).
8a,b. Qualify the remaining components (trays, clips, gusset plates, anchorages).
/[Y O
Nb A In OSE M TITLE:
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 10 OF 54 9a,b. If tray, clip, gusset plate, or anchorage failures occur, failure assessment will be performed to reduce potential modifications (go to 2).
If all remaining components qualify, but support modifications are required, a conceptual modification is to be developed (go to 10).
If all components and all supports qualify, the calculations are to be reviewed for completeness (go to 13).
- 10. For required support modifications, a conceptual modification design will be developed. Impell site engineering will review the conceptual.
- 11. Impe11 site engineering will evaluate the constructability of the conceptual modification. Site Engineers may either accept the
- conceptual design or recommend an alternative design which should meet the intent of the original modification. Activities 10 and 11 will be repeated until an acceptable modification is developed.
- 12. Upon acceptance of the conceptual modification, the system analysis and support qualifications will be assessed to determine if system O reanalysis is required. System reanalysis will be performed if the system response and load distribution is affected by the hardware modification (go to 5). If system reanalysis is not required, go to 8a.
- 13. Upon completion of al.1 qualification tasks, the documentation of the calculation package shall be reviewed for compItance of QA and project requirements, completeness and traceability. A Project Engineer or Lead Engineer will then approve the calculation package.
- 14. If any modifications are to be issued, final drawings will be marked up and transmitted to site CAD drafting. Section 3.4.3 and the flowchart in Figure 3.1 will be followed for hardware modifications.
The approved calculation will be on-site with the marked up drawings for reference or revision if field change requests are issued.
- 15. Impe11 will sign and transmit the final Q/C verified As-Built drawing indicating final design verification approval. Calculations and other project records are sent to record center for microfilming.
O
1 kb \
l CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT t TITLE:
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 11 OF 54 2.0 MODEL RECONCILIATION This section discusses the criteria for model reconciliation which includes upgrading existing system models for drawing changes, project A instruction changes, and the incorporation of the hidden attribute ZI_\
criteria for systems which have thermolag.
2.1 Reconciliation of Drawing Changes i Cable tray systes models may have been constructed using several
! revisions of support drawings (as-designed drawings, preliminary
- redlines, final redlines, Q/C mark-ups of CAD'ed redlines, and final Q/C drawings). Preliminary drawings used in the analysis may have some differences free final redlines or Q/C drawings. In addition, drawing changes may result from modifications to resolve support failures or from removal of thermolag to inspect hidden attributes.
The cable tray system model must be reconciled to the latest CTH ' A drawings to ensure that the model is an accurate representation of the as-built condition.
The latest drawings are to be used for model reconciliation; final O -6#" t < cad io) o'c 8), and final redline (Code 6) are acceptable for Revision 0 r' #a < cad >> ar " '# rr -a#iit (cod-calculations. However, a final reconciliation will be required when Code 10 drawings become available.
CTH attributes which could affect the cable tray system response or support qualification are to be checked. The following list i provides a guideline for the critical dimensions and attributes which may affect system response.
l
- general configuration i
overall member length (post, tier, brace) i location of tray along tier member l
i member types, sizes, and orientation I
i
LAWLid iRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT
! TITLE:
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 12 OF 54 clip types and sizes anchorage type, size, and member attachment location thermolag/thernoblanket coverage eccentricities locations of conduits, other concentrated weights Other attributes and dimensions will affect the support qualification only and should be considered before qualifying a support or terunning SUPERPOST. These attributes include:
weld patterns, size, and length anchorage details including:
edge distances: member, bolt, concrete corners gage distances bolt spacing j interaction with other bolts ThemodelreconciYiationtoas-builtconditionsshallbeusedto
! determine if a systes reanalysis or support requalification is
! required. The completion of this reconciliation is identified on the Project Close Out Checklist (Figure 4.1).
2.2 Criteria Reconciliation The cable tray analysis and qualification project instructions were developed to provide consistent and conservative modelling and qualification techniques. The project instructions have been revised during the course of the cable tray system modelling, analysis, and qualification. The revised procedures that may impact the modelling and qualification of the cable tray systems have been listed in checklist form. These checklists are to be reviewed to determine the acceptability of the cable tray models and the A:
qualification methods used. Precedures to resolve impacted systems /'T are given.
O
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O - NUMBER:' PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 13 OF 54 2.2.1 PI-02 Impe11 Project Instruction PI-02 has been revised five times. The original issue date and revision dates are listed below:
Revision Qgig 0 11/13/85 1 01/14/86 2 03/21/86 3 05/21/86 4 06/17/86 5 10/10/86 All systems are modelled to at least Revision I since its release date is concurrent with the beginning of the
. modelling effort for the Safeguards Building systems.
Therefore, significant changes and required actions associated with Revisions 2, 3, 4, and 5 are listed in checklist format.
The checklist is organized as follows. The item is listed with the revision it first appeared, the page number it appears in Revision 5, and an impact code. Each checklist item must be reviewed. If the method used is not consistent with the checklist method, the impact must be reviewed and addressed. The impact codes are defined as follows:
- 1. Assess differences, document in the calculation that existing methods are conservative
- 2. Reanalyze
- 3. Methodology is conservative, modification reduction techniques may be used to eliminate failures The- PI-02 checdist is shown in Figure 2.1. h O
kb j CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT o NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 14 OF 54 ,
Original Rev. 5 Impact PI-02 Checklist Rev. Paae No. Code Modellina
- 1. Tray section properties have been revised. 2,4,5 39 1,3 Revision 2 and 4 properties may be used provided peak shifting is used. If Revision A ,
5 properties were used, modification reduction '[L\
techniques may be applied if all the criteria of Section 3.3 are met.
- 2. Tray section properties for GI-24SL-12, 5 39 1 24 x 6 1/4" ladder tray have been revised.
Tray section properties have been added for GI-36SL-12, GI-185L-12 GI-12SL-12, and JM-06SL-12 trays.
- 3. Tray shear areas were revised from equgl 2 40 1 to the cross-sectional area to 1000 in'.
- 4. Horizontal bends must be oriented by O correctly specifying Iyy, Izz, not by using K nodes.
2 64 2
- 5. If the tray to tray. clip connection is 5 56 1 offset from the tier flange this additional eccentricity should be considered when modelling the tray to support vertical load eccentricity.
- 6. If SUPERPIPE versions other than 21A (dated 12/1/86) are used, directional 2,5 25 1 h
weights are properly modelled by including point forces in the gravity load case as described in Revision 2. If version 21A is used, do not include point forces in the gravity load case.
Revision 5 provides the directional weight modelling technique if trays are not globally oriented.
FIGURE 2.1 O
kb TITLE:
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT i NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 15 OF 54 Original Rev. 5 Impact PI-02 Checklist Rev. Paae No. Code
- 7. Revision 5 added actual thernoblanket weights. 5 41 3 Previously, heavier weights of thermolag were to be used for thernoblanket.
- 8. 6" high tray thermolag weights were added. 2 41 1 Previously, 4" high tray thermolag weights were used for both 4" and 6" trays.
- 9. Revision 3 had the incorrect thermolag 2,4 App. C 1 weight for a 30 x 6 tray. Revision 2 and 4 specified the correct weight.
- 10. AISC 1.18.2.4 criteria is to be used for 3 54 1 modelling double angles, as composite or independent angle sections.
- 11. The composite T section local coordinate 3 63 1 system must be specified consistently with SUPERPOST. If not, loads must be manually O input to SUPERPOST.
- 12. The eccentricity of the bracing angle 3 53 1 centroidal axis to.the intersection of the pest and tier centroidal axes should be considered for the conditions stated in Revision 3.
- 13. The base angle stiffnesses were revised. 2 61 1
- 14. The base angle local coordinate system 2 63 1 should be consistently defined.
t O FIGURE 2.1
kb TITLE: CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 16 OF 54 Original Rev. 5 Impact PI-02 Checklist Rev. Paas No. Code
- 15. The Safeguards Building Elevation 896.5' OBE 5 70 1 and SSE spectra does not envelop Elevation 873.5 spectra. The use of this spectra may be unconservative if a systes spans several elevations.
Overlan
- 1. The overlap modelling procedure for system 3 8 1 breaks at a horizontal bend was defined in Revision 3.
- 2. Revision 3 had an incorrect vertical 2,4 App. A 1 stiffness for an "L" support. Revision 2
- and 4 are correct.
- 3. When calculating longitudinal lumped weight, 3 22 3 the fir:t transverse support past the O elbow should be considered to provide longitudinal support. If greater tributary length was considered, the analysis results may be overly conservative.
- 4. For a partial tray modelled in the overlap 3 10 3 region, the longitudinal tray stiffness may be included for the omitted tray.
l Omissions of this stiffness could provide overly conservative results.
l FIGURE 2.1 O
1
kb CABLE TRAY $Y$ TEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0UT TITLE:
O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 17 OF 54 Original Rev. 5 Impact PI-02 Checklist Rev. Pace No. Code
- 5. For systems separated at ganged supports, 3 20 2 each system must be longitudinally supported.
If not, this is an improper break.
- 6. For decoupling of hangers, both OBE and SSE 3 31 2 must be considered, as indicated in Revision 3.
- 7. For decoupling of hangers, a 1.5 WF must be 3 31 2 included. Revision 2 had specified a 1.25 M F.
O FIGURE 2.1 O
l 1
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT l
~
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 18 OF 54 2.2.2 SUPERPOST Several versions of SUPERPOST have been used in design verifications. The following is a summary of required actions to upgrade SUPERPOST evaluations for project closeout. Resolution of these items must be included in the support qualification calculations.
Affected Versions
- 1. Support loads in the overlap region Prior to 3B must be scaled by 1.1. This can be performed by scaling calculated interaction ratios by 1.1.
- 2. Helds need to be evaluated using Prior to 3C individual weld tables for each load case. The weld stress summary table was not introduced until Version 38, however, it had an error (Error notice 35-001). The error was corrected in Version 3C.
- 3. The shear interaction ratio should Prior to 3B be increased by a factor of 1.5 for all members. If this results in an l overstress situation, increase only the direct shear stresses (i.e.
exclude the shear stresses due to warping and pure torsion from the increase).
- 4) K1/r and 1/r ratios need to be Prior to 3B computed by hand.
- 5) The allowable stress increase factor All for bending and warping normal stresses in T-channels is not applied by SUPERPOST. Therefore, SSE evaluations of T-channels is overly-conservative.
If a T-channel failure occurs, the 1.6 allowable stress increase factor can be applied to these stress components by hand.
O
kb I CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 19 OF 54
- 6) The use of non-unique member names will All result in erroneous results if two or more members with the same name meet at a common node having identical I or J member end designations. In such cases the evaluation of all but the first member will be in error. The support should be reevaluated using unique member names.
- 7) For equal log angle / connection welds are SUPERPOST and SUPERPIPE coordinate systems All k consistent?
- 8) Have member forces from all members All l attached by a common weld been considered in the weld evaluation? '
2.2.3 PI-03 Impe11 Project Instruction PI-03 has been revised four O times. The original issue date and revision dates are listed below:
Revision Daig 0 11/13/85 1 3/07/86 2 5/20/86 3 9/05/86 4 10/10/86 l
The following is a summary of significant changes and required actions associated with each version of PI-03 in checklist format.
When appropriate. PI-03 changes were incorporated in SUPERPOST. If SUPERPOST was used to evaluate the support, no action is. required to upgrade the cable tray system to current PI-03 criteria.
The revision an item first appeared, the page number it appears in Revision 4, and an impact code are provided for each item on the checklist. The impact of each checklist item must be addressed. The impact codes are defined as follows:
l e p mw-- - - - - - - - -~ ~ ,.,mm. e ,,,.,.w,e w--- ----m n-- ,- -
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 20 OF 54
- 1. Assess differences, document that existing evaluations are conservative with respect to new criteria.
- 2. Incorporate new criteria in evaluations.
- 3. Methodology is conservative, modification reduction techniques may be used to eliminate failures.
l The PI-03 checklist is shown in Figure 2.2.
1 1
O a4 l
l O
kb TITLE:
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 21 OF 54 Original Rev. 4 Impact l PI-03 Checklist Rev. Paae No. Code
- 1. K values for buckling were refined 1 9 1,3 l
l based on support configuration and number of loaded tiers.
- 2. The criteria for calculating warping 1 8 3 l
stresses was refined to determine i stresses in flanges and webs l independently, based on end restraints.
The criteria differs for post and tier members.
- 3. Twist buckling criteria for angles was 3 10 2 added in Revision 2. This criteria was further revised in Revision 3. Inerefore twist buckling of angles should be evaluated in accordance with Rev. 3 criteria.
- 4. The length (L) used in calculating axial allowable stress was defined as follows:
- For tier members, L may be taken as 2 9 3 I the clear span or as the work point span of the tier from post to post center 11nes.
- For cantilever, braced cantilever, 2 9 1 and cantilever tier members, L shall be taken as the length from the post or the attachment to the outside clip.
- 5. K1/r limits were introduced. Slenderness 2 9 2 Ratio Horksheets were added to the support calculations.
FIGURE 2.2
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 22 OF 54 Original Rev. 4 Impact PI-03 Checklist Rev. Pace No. Code
- 6. For the evaluation of flexural stresses, 2 10 1 the unbraced length of tier shall be taken as the full tier length. The tray should not be assumed to brace the compression flange.
- 7. Gusset plate allowables were included. 3 11 2 All gusset plate evaluations should be performed to this criteria.
- 8. When qualifying equal leg angle welds, 4 2s 1 the local forces to be applied to the weld must be consistent with the SUPERPIPE local coordinate system for the angle.
- 9. Composite T channel stitch weld must be 4 11 2 verified.
O FIGURE 2.2 O
l l
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT TITLE:
O NUMBER:- PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 23 OF 54 2.2.4 PI-07 Impe11 Project Instruction PI-1)7 has been revised three times. The original issue date and revision dates are listed below:
Revision Daig 0 4/21/86 1 5/16/86 2 6/02/86 3 9/16/86 Anchorage qualifications were not performed until after the release of Revision 1. Therefore, the impact of Revision 2 and 3 will be addressed.
The revision the item first appeared, the page number it appears in Revision 3, and an impact code are prov1Jed for each item in the checklist. The impact of each checklist item must be addressed.The impact codes are defined as follows:
- 1. Assess differences, document that existing evaluations are conservative.
- 2. Requalify.
- 3. Methodology is conservative, modification reduction l
techniques may be used to eliminate failures.
I l The PI-07 checklist is shown in Figure 2.3.
l 0
t MS CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0UT TITLE:
O PI-11 NUMBER: REVISION: 1 PAGE 24 OF 54 Original Rev. 3 Impact PI-07 Checklist Rev. Paae No. Code One Bolt Base Anale
- 1. The moment arm (H) must be the minimum of 2 11 1 C-G or G for determining bolt tension
- 2. M'z must be used instead of Mz for deter- 2 11 1 mining bolt tension
- 3. The local stress assessment must be based 2 F-3 1 on Mx - T x G' not 2/3 T x G' Two Bolt Base Angle j
. 1. Same as 1. above 2 10 1
- 2. Same as 3. above 2 F-5 1
- 3. For local stress assessment the section 2 F-5 1 O tC ei t/6 or cz1)/12 L t ust be the minimum of
- 4. The maximum eccentricity (Ex) on the 3 A-8 3 interaction diagrams may be exceeded (up to 8 in. max.) provided that loads are increased by a factor (EF)
Base Anales Mith More Than Two Bolts
- 1. For local stress assessment, "B" must 2 F-8 3 be the minimum of dxi/2 or 8 in., not dxi/2-Ext
- 2. Bolt tension may now be calculated with 3 12,13 3 M M Tag - a2 x E Mzj/ T._ dx1 1-1 1-1 M
where T dx1 is limited to 72 in.
1-1
- 3. For base angles with outside anchor 3 T.Ib 2 A
bolt distance over 28" (Less than 6'),
use prying action factors in Table T.lb.
O FIWRE 2.3
kb W: 1- -
s' r '
<S AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT TITLE:
O =================
PI-11 mammmmmme NUMBER: REVISION: 1 PAGE 25 OF 54 Original Rev. 3 Impact PI-07 Checklist Rev. Pace No. Code Two Bolt Base Plates
- 1. The global stress allowable for Fbz 2 F-10 3 has been increased to the minimum of 0.75 Fyd x LF and 1.0 Fyd
- 2. The local stress check stction uius (Zy) 2 F-11 1 mustbetheminimumofC4t/6orqLt/12 Four Bolt Base Plates
- 1. For global stress assessment 2 F-12 2 dein - Dx/2 - Ex and Daax - Dz/2 + Ez
~
- 2. Bolt shear should be calculated using the 3 14 2 following l
1/2
-2 - -
2" 3 ,' Fx ,
My x dz
_Eg_ ,
My x dx 2 2
.., 4 2(dx + Dz ). 4 2(dx2+ dz2), _
Anchor Bolt Allowables
- 1. Bolt length minimum embedments may 3 A-8 3 be exceeded on interaction diagrams provided that loads are increased by the appropriate ratios 1
~
- 2. Allowables must be reduced for shorter 3 E-1 2 bolt embedmonts due to concrete topping Embedmont Plates
- 1. A procedure for embedded plate qualification 3 0-1 thru 2 has been added D-10 l
l FIGURE 2.3 l
l l
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT TITLE:
O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 26 OF 54 2.3 Hidden Attributes This section contains qualification procedures for support j attributes which are hidden by thermolag or thernoblanket. The hidden attributes include welds, bolt holes in tier members, base plates, and member substitutions. Supports with hidden attributes A should be qualified with the procedures given below. If failures ,/l \
occur when hidden attributes are qualified, the resolution of !
failures (Section 3.0) should be completed before thermolag removal i is requested. l Once failure resolution takes place, hidden attribute failures are l
. reassessed. If a failure due to the hidden attributes criteria still exists, a Request For Information (RFI) shall be sent to the A site for thermolag removal and identification of actual attributes. /l\
Requalification using the actual attributes will be performed before any modification is issued. If the failing hanger is an overlap hanger, a copy of the RFI response will be sent to the affected ,
analysis group using a transmittal form as shown in Attachment 1.
2.3.1 Hidden Melds (later) l l
O
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTD4 ANALY$1S AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT 1
l O NUMBER: PI-11 ,
REVISION: 1 PAGE 27 OF 54 s
l (later)
O .
~
O
kb !
CABLE TM Y SY$ TEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT TITLE: l NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE'28 OF 54 1
(later) 2.3.2 Bolt Holes In Flanges O
(later) i l
l O
l
UbjLE iRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 29 OF 54 (later)
O O
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 30 OF 54 BENDING STRESS INCREASE FACTORS FOR BOLT HOLES (later)
O 1
l l
l l TABLE 3.1 l
l O .
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 31 OF 54 2.3.3 Member Substitutions This section is to be reviewed only if an MC6X12 or MC3X9 member is specified on a CTH drawing and is marked IA (inaccessible).
Member substitutions are allowed by Gibbs and Hill Drawing 2323-S-0901 (Reference 5) which states that one step heavier shape of the same size may be substituted for the specified member. After 9/21/82 the member substitution was also restricted to the same member series as defined by the AISC manual. Prior to 9/21/82, substitution of channels for miscellaneous channels was allowed. Typically, this results in a member with a greater capacity, however if a C6X13 was substituted for an MC6X12, the capacity was actually lowered. In addition, Reference 5 allows substitution of MC3X7.1 for MC3X9 members. Qualification methods for inaccessible members which may have had these substitutions is described below.
t Oualification Anoroach a) For all inaccessible MC6X12 and MC3X9 members, a
' conservative check is first performed. Compare the member axial and bending stress interaction ratio and the shear stress interaction ratio to the following limits.
l (Reference 3).
l Member Size Allowable Interaction Ratio Arial and Bendina Shear MC6X12 .62 .79 MC3X9 .61 .63 If these limits are not exceeded, the inaccessible MC6X12 and MC3X9 members qualify.
b) If the member exceeds the limits in a), a more detailed check is performed. Qualify the member for both MC6X12 and C6X13 section properties or both MC3X9 and MC3X7.1 and compare to allowable interaction ratios given in Reference 10.
c) For MC6X12 members which fail due to the criteria in b),
determine if the support installation date was before 9/21/82. Send a Request for Information (RFI) to review the traveler package which identifies the date of the support installation. If the installation date is after l
l IMPf4k@ l CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O NUMBER: PI-ll REVISION: 1 PAGE' 32 OF 54 9/21/82, the MC6X12 properties may be used without the risk of using unconservative section properties. The results of a) and b) can be disregarded for these members. For those supports with an installation date before 9/21/82, the results of a) and b) are valid since the possibility exists that a C6X13 was substituted.
d) For those hidden MC6X12 and MC3X9 members which fail by the above criteria, the failure resolution techniques of Section 3.0 are to be applied. If failures still occur, remove the thermolag and inspect the actual member attributes. Requalify the member using the actual attributes.
2.3.4 Hidden Base Plates O (later) 2.3.5 Other Hidden Attributes Other cable tray system attributes may be hidden by thereolag. These items have already been discussed in other instructions, require removal of thermolag, or require no action. The attributes and governing criteria are listed below:
Hidden Attributes Method Clamp Types and PI-02, Appendix C and Connection Details PI-06 O
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 33 OF 54 Hidden Attributes Method Cable tray type, size, etc. Piece mark drawings Cable tray fill loads CTFL drawings or /N maximum fill. PI-02, Q Section 3.3.2 provides guidelines for determining conservative fill loads.
Tray location on support Approximate location of tray under thermolag ,
using preliminary as-built '
drawings, or approximate measurements with thermolag in place.
Base Angles Remove thermolag to determine as-built configuration and anchor O **ri=#* -
O l
l -
IN\PfbQQ CABLE TRAY SYSTD4 ANALY$1$ AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0UT TITLE:
O PI-11 NUMBER: REVISION: 1 PAGE 34 OF 54 3.0 RESOLUTION OF FAILURES 3.1 General Overview To simplify and standardize cable tray system analyses and support qualifications, significant conservatises have been incorporated in the design verification procedures. Supports and components which fail using these original procedures may be qualified using more refined techniques which would remove simplifying conservatisms.
This section provides guidelines for qualification and reanalysis techniques which may be used to alleviate specific types of failures. These techniques are grouped into two distinct types:
those which may be applied in the qualification process (Section 3.2) and those requiring a reanalysis of the entire system model (Section 3.3). Supports which require hardware modifications are addressed in Section 3.4.
In general, individual support failures will preferably be addressed using refined hand calculations in the qualification procedure.
Computer techniques (i.e. finite element analysis of baseplates or O to determine K values) may also be used when standard hand calculations are too conservative.
If additional refinement is necessary, system reanalysis will be considered. This.jaay require many manhours and additional computer cost. The analyst must balance the cost and effort of reanalysis with the cost of implementing possible modifications. Factors to be considered in assessing the cost / benefit of reanalysis include system size, potential number of failure reductions and number of qualified supports which could be affected. If a support hardware modification is considered, the cost / benefit factors involved include support accessibility, thermolag removal, welding, anchor bolt drilling, and potential field change requests. Support modifications may also affect the system response, therefore hand calculations or reanalysis may be required to assess the effect of the modification.
When the cost of engineering analysis to reduce conservatism approaches the cost of the modification, the latter would be an acceptable alternative.
O .
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT TITLE:
O PI-11 NUMBER: REVISION: 1 PAGE 35 OF 54 3.2 Modification Reduction Using Refined Qualification Techniques Simplifying conservatisms may be removed from the member or component qualification process to reduce the required number of modifications. These techniques will be most effective where the overstress is relatively low, and for systems with relatively few isolated overstresses. For systems with more severe or broadly
! occurring overstresses, reanalysis techniques requiring a full l system reanalysis, as described in Section 3.3, may be necessary.
i
- The techniques described below may be used to alleviate the l following types of potential overstress:
(
l 3.2.1 Member Overstress a) For post members with high K1/r values (used in AISC Eq.
1.5-1 or 1.5-2), a reduced effective length parameter
'Kg' can be determined by linear interpolation as follows:
KR=KP - F (Kp - KF)
- Kp is 'K' for a pinned anchorage configuration (from PI-03)
KF is 'K' for a fixed anchorage (Reference 7)
- F is the relative fixity of the configuration, given by:
F=K g 1 + 3EI
- Ke (Kip-in/ rad.) is the anchorage rotational stiffness, I the length of the post, and I the post's moment of inertia for the direction in question.
This procedure is applicable for post lengths greater than 4.0 ft. for sections C6X8.2 or smaller. For sections greater than C6X8.2, the progedure is applicable for post lengths greater than 69 (in-J)* I (in4).
(Reference 11).
1 O
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 36 OF 54 In typical configurations this results in a reduction of approximately 1.33 in the value of K. If further reduction is required a finite element buckling analysis using IMSNAP may be run for the support to determine the actual 'K' value. Reference 11 provides guidelines for this procedure.
b) The length '1' for use in AISC EQ. 1.5.7 (which determines the strong axis bending a110wable) may be calculated assuming bracing for the post members is provided by tier members. An illustration for the case of trapeze post members is shown below.
46 0 kW lo 12 2
_. . .s In typical situations this results in increasing the l
strong axis bending allowable Fb to approximately 0.6 Fy.
c) Heak A'x'is Bending Allowable Stresses may be taken to equal:
k Fby = 0.75 Fy ..... for G 2 08 Load Cases Fby - Fy .......... for G i SS Load Cases provided the requirements of AISC 1.5.1.4.1, subparagraphs a) and b) are met, (Reference 4). This procedure is not applicable to T-Channel sections.
d) Marping torsional stresses can be reduced for the following typical configurations by using Reference 8 procedures. This is also defined in Reference 10 Section 4.1.2.
- 1) Tiers with flanges restrained, use Case 6 1
O
I i i
Nb l CABLE TRAY SYSTDI ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0VT TITLE: I O :
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 37 OF 54 l l
l
- 2) Tiers with flanges not restrained, use Case 3
- 3) Cant 11evers or posts that have flanges restrained at the anchorage, use Case 9
- 4) Cantilevers with a single tier and with flanges free to warp at both ends, warping stresses do not h
need to be evaluated.
A reduction factor of 1.2 can result for normal warping stresses of typical configurations by this procedure.
Normal warping allowables may equal the allowables of h weak axis bending.
Harping normal stresses may then be combined with axial compression and bending stresses in the following equations, replacing the interaction formulae 1.6.la and 1.6.lb currently used in SUPERPOST.
4% 4%
b O " 5 ' '.
F a
' f a I
+
I n I
+s sio F
by fF',y xLFfby F
{p. bz ez xLF[F (1.6.1b3 f, fby + 'wn I
.hz 0.6 Fy x LF +
F by , *F bz $1 Formula 1.6.2 as given below may be used in lieu of 1.6.la and 1.6.lb if fa/Fa _4.15.
[1.6.2] fhz + fby + own + fa 51.0 Fbz Fby Fa Note that thethe computation F b must incorporate load factorsof( F ) by and F z LF = 1.0 .... for G i 08 Load Cases LF = 1.6 .... for G t SS Load Cases e) Composite section properties can be used to reduce bending overstresses of members that were qualified using individual action (SUPERPOST procedure for T channels)
kb TITLE: CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT
~ M NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 38 OF 54 f) For posts where the ratio 1/r exceeds the AISC allowable limit of 300 for tension members, the length I for post members may be refined using the following procedure.
For transverse supports, 1 may be redefined to equal the larger of:
- 1) the distance between loaded tiers
- 2) the distance from the uppermost loaded tier to the post anchorage
- For longitudinal supports, I may be refined to equal the largest distance between consecutive tier or brace l members connected to the post.
The value of r to be used in both cases is taken with i respect to the weak axis. The value of I used is to be documented in Attachment E of the support calculation. Note that this procedure does not apply to K1 calculations.
O '
For angle members, the geometric axis can be used instead of the principal axis for determining r.
g) Out of" plane bending moments of loaded tiers (see Figure on following page) may be reduced by accounting for tray loads being transmitted by clips which are physically separated by the width of the tray. This reduction can be obtained by multiplying the larger moment at the tray centerline (from the single clip model) by a reduction factor given by the following expression:
L - X - N/2 L-X 1
Nhere:
- L is the distance between the posts' centerline.
- X is the distance from the tray centerline to the nearest post centerline.
- M is the tray width.
O
l i
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT !
l TITLE:
O PI-11 NUMBER: REVISION: 1 PAGE 39 OF 54 This is applicable for tiers with one tray and lumped weights which do not exceed the weight of the tier.
A similar approach may be applicable for tiers loaded by two trays. The lead engineer shall be consulted for this reduction technique. For typical configurations, the resulting reduction may not be significant.
"" a- y
,, ,, v "
t t ,! s
}
y i
I l s /
\ \ ! l
) Yd, ~'~ L 4
~ ~.3 O
3.2.2 Held Overstress Actual weld patterns, including thickness and dimension variations, can be used in weld qualification.
3.2.3 Anchor Bolt Overload a) More accurate bolt loads may be predicted by using prying action factors from finite element model; which more closely simulate the actual in-situ configuration. This reduces the conservatises of the enveloping criteria developed in Reference 6. A series of finite element base plate models, as well as guidelines for deriving prying action factors, is included in Reference 12.
O
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 40 OF 54 b) Less conservative bolt allowables may be obtained by interpolation of capacity (Table B.1 or 8.2 Reference 6) based on actual embedment lengths.
3.2.4 Baseplate /8ase Angle Overstress Global stresses in baseplates and base angles may also be reduced by using refined base plate finite element analyses which more closely simulate the actual configuration. A i series of base plate analyses are available in Reference 12.
l Guidelines for this procedure is also provided in Reference 12.
Plate stresses may be further reduced by using individual l
bolt loads, with the appropriate eccentricities to the attachment. Guidelines for this procedure is also provided in Reference 12.
If further reduction is needed for either anchor bolt loads or baseplate / base angle stresses, an individba! BASEPLATE II analysis may be performed using the exact in-situ geometry.
O This will generate the most accurate bolt loads and plate stresses and remove the need for any type of enveloping conservatism.
3.3 Modification Redu.ction Using Refined Reanalysis Techniques For systems with more severe overstresses, a full system reanalysis l may be required to effectively reduce potential modifications. This l would involve reanalysis of both the SUPERPIPE and SUPERPOST l programs. Several modelling conservatisas can be removed in the reanalysis nrovided as-built information and the most currant criteria is incorporated in the model. The conservatisas which may be removed and the corresponding criteria W ich must be incorporated is described below.
a) Conservatisms to be removed Peak Shifting may be removed from the response spectra loading definition.
O
kbs:
~~
CABLE TRAY SV5TDi XiiXLYSIS AN0' QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT TITLE:
O NUMBER: PI-ll REVISION: 1 PAGE 41 OF 54 All clip stiffnesses may be made rigid (i.e. translational stiffnesses are set to 10000. kip /in and rotational stiffnesses are set to 10000. kip-in/ rad) except for the clip rotational stiffness Kzz, which should remain at the original value per PI-02. b All PI-02 checklist items with impact code 3 may be incorporated.
b) Criteria to be added All as-built information must be incorporated prior to reanalysis.
All PI-02 checklist items with impact Code 1 must be incorporated.
~
Reanalysis also say be of substantial benefit if a subsystes divided with an overlap region osits significant longitudinal stiffness present in the full system configuration. In this case the system may be reanalyzed with a redefined overlap region which includes O 'o#a'*#d'# ' < *r '#* "' r d#c 'a"*#d'" ' ' ' *r
- a '** d to the partial system model.
Reanalysis may also be performed to combine two systems previously divided by an overlap region. This would eliminate the need for a 1.10 factor to be applied to that region.
If a systee was not originally constructed with sufficient longitudinal support, excessive failures may result. For this case, a single hardware modification may provide the additional stiffness needed to eliminate a series of potential modifications. A system reanalysis may be required on systems with support modifications to confirm their adequacy.
- Several systems in the Safeguards and Reactor Building are designated for thermolag addition. The thermolag status of a system can .be requested from site engineering. If a system has been A
designated for thermolag addition, reanalysis may be required to assess the impact of the weight addition on the systes response.
O
kb I
CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATICN CLOSEOUT O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 42 OF 54 3.4 Failures Requiring Hardware Modifications Failures which can not be resolved by Sections 3.2 or 3.3 may require hardware modification. This section describes typical support failure types, required system reanalysis for modified supports, and procedures to issue modifications.
3.4.1 Types of Failures Support failures which may require hardware modification include the following.
~
a) K1/r failures of members in static compression after the refined K 1, and r parameters have been used.
b) Extremely high failing interaction ratios. A check shall be performed to vertfy that all assumptions have been resolved, that system longitudinal support has not been omitted, and that drawing and procedural changes will not alleviate the overstressed conditions before the decision for modification is made.
O c) Components fall after refined system analysis (Section 3.3) and refined qualification methods (Section 3.2) have been used.
d) Inacces'sible components fail even though the actual configurations which are identified by removal of thermolag are used in qualification.
3.4.2 Confirmatory Analysis For Modification A systes reanalysis with the modified hangers may be necessary when the load re-distribution and system response I
cannot be determined by har.d calculation. Once the modification constructability is confirmed, sections of PI-11 A must be reviewed again as indicated in Figure 1.1. When a / lT system is reanalyzed, a review of the load changes shall be performed to determine which hangers will require design l
re-verification by SUPERPOST or by hand calculation.
l O
kb l CA8LE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: PAGE 43 OF 1 54 3.4.3 Issue of Modifications Impe11 Project Instruction PI-12 (Reference 14) outlines the steps necessary to generate field design changes to modify a k
support. The step which must be accomplished by the Design Verification Group is to generate the modification conceptual. This process is described below.
If a modification is required, the Lead Engineer shall be consulted for the optimal modification which will have the least impact on the analysis and construction effort. For example, if several hangers fail due to lack of restraint in the longitudinal direction, modifying one transverse hanger to a longitudinal hanger may be sufficient to resolve the overstress conditions.
To issue and document a modification, the following steps shall be taken.
(a) Impell's Design Verification Group shall issue an RFI to Impe11 Site Engineering for review of the modification O constructability. The RFI shall contain a recommended conceptual design and an approval signature by a Lead Engineer.
(b) The Impe11 Lead Site Engineer may respond to the RFI by b either accepting the conceptual design or by making a recommendation which will meet the intent of the original design change.
(c) Upon concurrence of the modification conceptual, Impe11 Design Verification Group shall incorporate the g
modification into the calculation package. A Request for Change (RFC) is then generated which shall include a mark-up of the Code 8 (Preliminary As-Built) drawing showing the change. The RFC and the approved original support calculation shall be sent to the Site, who will issue a Design Change Authorization (DCA). The construction, inspection, and drawing revision associated with the modified support is discussed in detail in Reference 14.
l l
l O
J
IMP 5kkh
,,x,; CMM MY SYSM ANYSIS MD QUAUFICMM CLEM ;
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 44 OF 54 If the modified support is an overlap or gang support, a
, copy of the marked up drawing modification will be sent to the affected analysis group. Attachment 2 shall be used for this transmittal.
- (d) Upon receipt of the satisfactory inspection report fros l QC on the modified support. Impe11 Site Engineering will l transmit the required information to Ebasco CAD for drawing revision.
(e) Ebasco CAD will revise the existing drawing to incorporate the DCA and transmit a new as-built drawing to Impe11 Site engineering for design verification.
(f) The design verification calculation will be revised to incorporate the final as-built condition and transmitted to TUGCo records control DCC. The final as-built drawing is signed as design verified and transmitted to the Ebasco CTH program manager.
The modification issue flowchart is shown in Figure 3.1.
O l
O .
O
,-,--_m-_ -__ _ .- -.__.. r, _.-._-,._.-.---,_--,,__,,.,,,,.--_m-__,,-_-.,__ _ . - _ . . _ - _ _ . . _ - ,._-,,-----m-
M:lLh DAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT TITLE:
O M NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 45 OF 54 MODIFICATION ISSUE FLOWCHAPT
~.wa~
6 coc.mm.
i 4"L'."4RL la.ma Iwim,y M 8FC G f0 St I
I I O -
/is I c===uma l M',"
N E
l .%%
i
%'%'T J 2:=."
I Cabe&Affm
"""EEA W '.*s**'
I u.J'F M %.
FIGURE 3.1 0
k TITLE: CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE00T NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 46 OF 54 4.0 CALCULATION FILE CLOSEOUT This section includes those items necessary to finalize the cable tray system analysis and support calculation files. These tasks include finalizing remaining qualifications, resolving any open items, reporting loads for supports which interface with other structures, completing calculation documentation and format review, and record center interface.
4.1 Open Ites Resolution Several generic open items currently exist. The main sources for these open items are as follows:
no formal position or criteria has been established for a particular issue ,
- use of preliminary information in design verifications l
- loads from an interfacing structure have not been received This section defines acceptable positions to closecut these open O it *"*avisio"oorta d
be issued. If the resolutions shown below are incorporated for the ririctio ciciti c-
, open items, documentation of the item is no longer required on the calculation open item sheet. Note that the latest drawing revision (span length, CTFL) is always acceptable for Revision 0 evaluations.
The following is a summary of generic open items and methods of resolution.
Open Item Resolution Qualification of welds which Use the actual weld size to do not meet minimum size qualify the weld. A minimum requirements as given in weld size of 1/8" is required.
AISC Tabla 1.17.5 (Reference 2)
- Support drawings are Revision 0 evaluations may be preliminary based on the final red line drawings (Code 6 or above).
Models based on earlier drawings must be reconciled to these Revision 0 acceptable drawings. A final reconciliation to Code 10 drawings will be required for O all calculations.
kb TITLE: CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 47 OF 54 Onen Item Resolution Span length drawings have Revision 0 evaluations may be not been as-built verified based on Revision 0 or Revision 1 of span length drawings, dated before 10/10/86.
- Tray types are based on Use of Gibbs and Hill structural Gibbs and Hill structural plan drawings which determine plan drawings, the tray types are acceptable for Revision 0 analysis.
Loads from attached structures Send an RFI to request required such as pipe supports and interfacing loads as discussed conduit supports have not in Section 4.2.2. Reassess system been established analysis and support qualification based on loads received.
Cable fill data is based on Revision 1 of CTFL drawings.
Use of Revision 1 cable fill data is accepta The addition k
of3lb/ftgle.
O accounts for future cable addition as l
discussed in PI-02.
- Tray supports may be attached These supports should be A to Category 2 structures qualified. The loads at the anchor are to be transmitted to SHEC for anchorage qualification.
- Trays may pass through wall No action is currently or floor penetrations required for Revision 0 evaluations.
- As-built drawing of modified Revision 0 closeout can be supports may not be available performed after final con-struction modification drawing is issued.
- Supports may be attached SAMS are to be considered for k
to secondary walls supports attached to secondary walls.
O
\
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 48 OF 54 4.2 Report of Loads Interdisciplinary interface may be required when a CTH within Impe11's work scope is attached to structures design verified by other consultant firms. In such cases, CTH loads may need to be transmitted by Impe11 to other consultant firms for the review of adequacy of their structures (e.g. an Impe11 CTH being supported off a rigid frame).
Conversely, Impe11 may require resultant loads from structures which are not within Impe11's work scope but are supported off an Impe11 CTH (e.g. a pipe support member attached to an Impe11 CTH base angle).
4.2.1 Loads From Impell To Others Impell will transmit loads to other firms for the following reasons:
(a) To report CTH loads for CTH's attached to other steel structures (b) To report " footprint" loads on all Impe11 CTH embedded
, plates (c) To respond to an RFI generated by other consultant firms requesting CTH loads An Impe11 ". Transmittal Record" (Attachment 2a) will be used as the cover sheet of the transmittal package leaving "To:"
and " Attn" boxes blank if the responsible consultant firm is unknown.
The transmittal of load summaries shall include the following:
revision status, e.g. preliminary, final as-built drawing and RFI references Tocation of the reporting loads definition of coordinate systees and load directions definition of load cases (gravity, OBE, SSE) l
- loads and their units O
kb TITLE:
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 49 OF 54 Attachment 2b is to be used for reporting loads for structural members or anchorages. Transmittal of embedded plate attachment loads is to be performed in accordance with TNE-DC-22 (Reference 14). The embedded plate load transmittal form from Reference 14 is shown in Attachment 2c. h The transmittal package shall be sent to the Impe11 Site Project Engineer who will transmit the package to the responsible engineering firm.
4.2.2 Loads From Others To Impell The Impe11 Design Verification Group shall send an RFI to the Impe11 Site Project Engineer requesting required out of scope loads. Location of attachments shall be identified as thoroughly as possible on the RFI so that the responsible i engineering firms and their affected calculations can be effectively located. All pertinent drawings shall be referenced on the RFI. Cople., of these drawings shall be attached to the RFI, if required.
A sample of reporting format similar to Attachment 2 shall b also be attached to the RFI to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the requested loads.
4.3 Calculation Format Review The analysis and support calculation forms have been modified several times. All calculations must be reviewed to check for changes which may impact the calculation. In addition, the closecut review will require several new sections to be added to the analysis and support calculations.
Analysis Calculation l The analysis calculation forms are controlled by PI-02. Those items which have changed and must be reviewed in all analysis calculations mr11sted below. The affected section of the analysis calculation is noted.
O l
l ._- . _ _ - _ _ ._ _ - _ . . _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -__ __.
kb TITLE:
O CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT M
NUMBERi PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 50 OF 54 Section nas 1.1 Note 3 which requires a *C to indicate a common baseplate must be added as shown in PI-02, Revision 3. The *C must be incorporated as required.
1.2 The last paragraph which discusses base angle and baseplate modelling must be consistent with PI-02, Revision 3 or later.
1.3 The last paragraph which discusses thermal expansion must be consistent with PI-02, Revision 3 or later.
1.3 If peak broadening is used instead of peak shifting, this must be reflected in Section 1.3.
To incorporate these changes, the page may be replaced or the current page may be modified. The analysis calculation will also incorporate several new sections and checklists as part of the PI-11 closecut review. The following sections.will be added to the table of contents and calculation body of the analysis calculation:
Section 9.0 Tray and Clip Qualification
, Section 10.0 Closeout Review Section 9.0 will include standard tray and clip qualification forms
, from PI-06. Section 10.0 may include the standard forms generated in PI-11. This includes the PI-02 checklist from Section 2.2.1 and the project closeout checklist from Section 4.4. In addition, modification reduction techniques must be documented in the calculation file. PI-02, Revision 5, Appendix E provides a complete analysis calculation including the above additions.
Sunoort Oualification Calculation The support qualification calculation forms are controlled by PI-03. Calculation forms must not be used from PI-03, Revision 1.
Forms from PI-03, Revision 2 are to be used. Subsequent changes in Addendum 6, dated 6/9/86 can be implemented at the discretion of the projectleads.
The support qualification calculation will also incorporate several new sections and may include checklists as part of the PI-11 closecut review. The following sections will be added to the table of contents and calculation body of the support calculations:
O l
kb TITLE:
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 51 OF 54 Section 11.0 Gusset Plate Qualification Section 12.0 Closeout Review Section 11.0 will include standard gusset plate qualification forms from PI-03. Section 12.0 may include forms generated in PI-11.
This includes the SUPERPOST, PI-03, and PI-07 checklists from k Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 2.2.4. In addition, modification reduction techniques, hidden attributes calculations, and incorporation of interfacing loads from ROL's must be included in the calculation file.
. PI-03, Revision 4 Attachment 2 provides a complete support qualification calculation including the above additions.
4.4 Finalize Qualification This section provides a checklist of items presented in PI-11 that need to be completed before the design verification flies can be closed out. Completion of this checklist will ensure that a cable tray system analysis has been reviewed and the necessary items have been addressed to finalize the qualifications. A checklist item for O each PI-11 section is included. In addition, evaluations of items such as trays, clips, gusset plates, and anchorages are listed in the checklist. The appropriate references and PI-11 Sections which govern the completion of these checklist items are noted. The checklist is shown in Figure 4.1. It will be included in the cable i tray system analysis calculation.
l l
O
kb U WL1 uMY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSE0UT O - -
NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 52 OF 54 Proinct Close Out Checklist Y _1_ g/A
- 1) Model Reconciliation (Section 2.0) a) Model reconciled to latest A\
drawings (Code 10).
(Section 2.1) b) Criteria Reconciliation (Section 2.2)
- PI-02
- SUPERPOST PI-03 PI-07 c) Hidden attribute criteria incorporated (Section 2.3)
- 2) Support Evaluation (PI-03, SUPERPOST) a) Non standard welds evaluated b) Members not evaluated by SUPERPOST considered c) Gusset plates evaluated (PI-03) d) Anchors evaluated (PI-07)
- 3) Tray and clip evaluations performed (PI-06)
- 4) Resolution of Failures (Section 3.0) a) Refined qualification techniques performed (Section 3.2) b) Refined analysis performed (Section 3.3) c) All failures resolved d) Final modifications issued for construction (Section 3.4)
- 5) Open Items Resolved (Section 4.1)
- 6) All interface loads reported or received (Section 4.2)
- 7) Document Review Completed (Section 4.3)
FIGURE 4.1
kb l CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 53 OF 54 4.5 Calculation File Closeout This Section describes the required transmittals to Records Center and site.
4.5.1 Record Center / Site Upon approval of a calculation package, the calculation shall be logged in the " Calculation / Problem Log". The calculation b
package which includes problem file (s), computer output, and referenced drawings shall be sent to the Record Center for microfilming.
After the microfilming, the calculation package original will be returned to the Project Clerk and shall be maintained in I the Project Document Area.
Approved calculations will be available on site for all supports which have modifications issued. These calculations may be revised on site if field change requests are issued.
O l
l O ..
, . - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - , - - - , . ,., ,- r-r- , _ _ - - - - - -
kb CABLE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE 54 OF 54
5.0 REFERENCES
- 1) (Volded) !
- 2) " Acceptability of Observed Undersize F111st Nelds and Inaccessible Helds" Ebasco Services Inc., April 21, 1986.
- 3) Impe11 Calculation 458, " Hidden Attributes Qualification A Procedures". I
- 4) AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 7th Edition.
- 5) Gibbs & Hill Drawing No. 2323-S-0901, Revision 4, dated April 20, 1981. ,
- 6) Impe11 Project Instruction PI-07, " Design Verification of Base 1 Plates, Base Angle and Embedmont Plate", Revision 3, dated 9/16/86.
- 7) Impell Report No. 01-0210-1470, Revision 1 " Effective-Length Factors for Buckling of CableTray Supports".
- 8) " Torsional Analysis of Steel Members". AISC, 1983.
- 9) Impe11 Calculation 425. " Prying Action for 2 Bolt Base Plates",
, Rev. 2.
- 10) Impe11 Project Ins"truction PI-03, " Design Verification of Cable Tray l Supports", Revision 4, October 10, 1986.
- 11) Impe11 Calculation N-56, " Procedure for Refined Effective Length Factor".
- 12) Impell Calculation 4 55, " BASEPLATE II Analysis Documentation".
- 13) Impe11 Calculation 4 57, " Refined out of Plane Bending of Loaded Tiers".
- 14) lepe11 Project Instruction PI-12. " Control of Design Change to Cable Tray Hangers". Revision 0, dated 11/7/86.
O
Nb TITLE: AND W IFI N ION CLOSEW T O NUMBERi PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE1 OF 2 ATTACHNENT 1 b Sample Request / Transmittal of Overlap / Gang Support Information Note: A log is to be maintained by the Project Clerk to control
, these requests / transmittals of support information. A meno number will be assigned to each meno before it is sent.
j
.I O
O '
kb TITLE:
O NUMBER: PI-11 REVISION: 1 PAGE2 OF 2 Request / Transmittal Memo No.
Overlap / Gang Cable Tray Hanger Request / Transmittal Memo Hanger No. CTH Information Recuest [ ], Information Transmittal [ ] (Check One) b Memo to: Group No.
( Assigned System No. Overlap Analysis System No.
In order to complete the qualification calculation package, we are (requesting / transmitting) the following information pertinent to Hanger No.
CTH .
(1) [ ] A copy of SUPERPOST output (by & checked)
(2) [ ] Hanger Analysis Model (3) [ ] Anchor Qualification Calculations (4) [ ] Attachment E: Support Data Susanary (5) [ ] An RFI response (6) [ ] Updated / Modified Support Drawing (7) [ ] Other Requested by: Group No. Date
_________________._________ A Resnonse (Fill out and send with transmittal of requested information)
To: Group
[ ] Attached is the requested information (except for itse no. ).
[ ] Status-d this load information can be considered as .
(Rev. A or Rev. 0)
[ ] Requested information is not complete, target transmittal date is for Rev. .
Comments: ,
Sent by: Group No. Date d D
- - ~ - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - - . _ , - - - - - - , , _ww. , , - - - - w-m, s w,v, , - - - , <---,--,e---,c--
kb cal 8LE TRAY SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION CLOSEOUT O - NUMBER: PI-ll REVISION: 1 PAGE'l OF 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Sample Report of Loads Transmittal Package l
I O
O
-'t--+--9Ny-Wwi r@W-- W"--' - - - -
,_ o ,
TRANSMITTAL RECORD itta a nt 2.
- p. 2 of 4 g
TO: DATE:-
ATTN: LETTER NO:
The following documenya) are transmatted by ameos for the purpose (s) desegneted in the use Code. When re.
Quated, please acknowledge receipt by s.gning below and returning a copy of this Cover page to the mueou ad-Grete sedicated.
UsECODE' 1. For Approvei 4. For Construction 7. For Use
- 2. Revie.iComment s. Fore.d s.other
- 3. PreliminaryIgnformation Onh e. Records Turnover otv. Titts on osscamN usa N WSER AW. CODE I
i .
O i
I P
RECEIPTACKNoWLEDGMENT: REQUIRED 0 worREouinED w g, Pt. EASE RETURN TO:
sw em imood Corporehen Resnartis:
ATTN:
Page 1 of
l l Attachment 2b p 3 of 4 l
%1 '
gl IMPELL CTM SESIGN DERIFICAfl0N UNIT I SFS & RCS f,','[, '87-REPORT OF LOAD 4
FI R B USE S M impell Support No. CTH - Region __
- laterfeelag impell System No. Rev Censultan' Impell Data Control Point j RFI No- ,
Interfacing Structure ID Reference No- Drawing reference
- Bete Receleed CTH 1-i l Camrulinata Sgatam .
ya ao
. Is summmme i 2
! O e x
- O U sinsseural messors O Ansherages U other (shoesh) sievYMbOseum Orion tehow N. ensug O sam c wes LeskineDupODown Force (idps) Moment (idp4rl W Case X Y Z XX W ZZ Gravity _
M SSE Computef reference Notes: 1. Loads are maximum absolute value unlesis otherwise noted.
- 2. Support drawing is ellached.
Comment:
1 ,
TUGC0 O ca=== u it i meme 0210-040 ""'
eessus ,1 ase er
ATTACHMENT 2c pg 4 of 4 ROL #
0" of
- O FOOTPRINT 1AAD TRANSNITTAL Fage -
IN Support No. g TO: TNE EA LOCAL COORDTMATE SYSTEN The fellowing information en size, leastion, and so ist leads is transmitted fer y ocessing is asserdance with . 4: _ _ .
/Cp- Babede E. Rees e l1.CFSLSketche l.
- 2. Attachment size: 1= is.; 1= la.
- 3. Distance fres lef t er bettee end to seater of attachment - ft.
attachment size = ft. .
- 4. Offset frea 2 centerline of embed to center of attachment (up er left = *: down er right - -) = ft.
l{ Size 6locationpreparedby Ghecked by Date l
- 6. ANALYSIS .qgF Rev. <
- 7. Feetprint Leads at C.G. of attachment veld and in plate local esordinates:
O .
F = (K! psi M = (FOOT. KIPS)
TX P.* FZ MK NY NZ Design i !
Taulted i l -
4 leads are Conservative er refined
(( Freliminary .or final
- 9. Leada prepared by Checked by Data i 10. Special instructions: Distribute sesy to Civil /SEC
- 11. Please acknowledae receipt of the erisias:, of this transmittal by signing.
dating and returfling a sepy to the 415cipl,ine representative.
l Transmitted by: Diesiplies:
l
- l R:ceived and reviewed for procesaral sesy11anse: Date:
ma sa R:ceived by: Date:
. ma,anganserang aupperr, civil / Sac Approval Det*:
i, l
l 1
i _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_.____.___.____...____.-_y i
O uomorandum Fi e _, ,0210-040 l .______
Copy: KCW To.. BLR ALL TUGC0 CABLE TRAY P.I. HOLDERS RAP HTY From:
Lin f t/ Brian Ramsey Date:
January 19, 1987
Subject:
Addendum No. 16, PI-11 Rev. 1 This addendum expands the hidden attribute criteria of Section i 2.3, and incorporates more stringent stress limits and factors of safety on Richmond Inserts. In addition, it also provides a new embedded plate report of loads form.
The contents of this addendum needs to be incorporated into all calculations prior to calculation closeout. However, Rev. O calculations may be issued, provided that a statement is put in the open item section stating that Addendum No. 16 has not been incorporated.
These additions will be incorporated into Rev. 2 of PI-11 when issued.
4
l i
Addendum No. 16 Page 2 of 9 !
I g HIDDEN ATTRIBUTES b 2.3.1 Hidden Helds 1 l
Helds hidden by thermolag are to be qualified using the 1 dimensions shown on as-designed drawings and limiting the interaction ratio (Reference 1). The step by step approach is given below.
I
- 1. Obtain as-design weld dimensions from the following sources (shown in order of preference):
. a. Final as-built drawing
- b. Gibbs and Hill as-designed drawing, Rev. 00
- c. Brown and Root FSE-00159 drawing (Request this '
drawing from site. Note that an FSE-00159 drawing is available for each support.)
i d. Gibbs and Hill 2323-S-0900 series of drawings
- e. Brown and Root FSE-00179 series of drawings A 1/8" fillet weld is to be conservatively assumed if the ,
weld type and size cannot be determined. If the weld '
- length can not be determined, the length is assumed as l the minimum length of the parts joined.
i
, 2. Evaluate the weld using SUPERPOST or hand calculations for the as-designed dimensions. Methods shall be ,
consistent with Reference 2.
- 3. Review the weld interaction ratio. Apply the following weld interaction ratio limitations to determine acceptability:
Wald Size Allowable Interaction Ratio i
1/8" .50 3/16" .61 1/4" .59 5/16" and greater .49 I
I i
f lO
Addendua No. 16 Page 3 of 9 i
e 4. If the criteria in item 3. of paragraph 2.3.1 is too Q, conservative, a more refined weld check can be performed by checking the criteria in subsections a. and b. and taking the worst case. The criteria in a. is based on the possibility of undersized welds. The criteria in b is based on the possibility of underlengthed welds,
- a. Check the calculated weld stress ratio against the following allowable interaction ratios based on weld size:
Held Size Allowable Interaction Ratio 1/8" 0.50 3/16" 0.66 1/4" 0.75 5/16" 0.60 3/8" 0.66 7/16" 0.71 1/2" or larger 0.75
- b. Perform the following weld check based on the possibility of underlengthed welds:
, " Fx Mz(b/2) -2 - Fv Mz(a/2) -2 r" _aj_ Lw
+
m2 Jw .
_aj Lw
+
a20 " -
~
._Ez_. Mx Mv
- 2 1/2
+ + +
. aj Lw m Swx S 3 m3 "Y- .
Where the weld stress ratio is:
f'#
p, $ 1.0 I
al, a2, a3 are defined as:
Held Size at a2 a3 1/8" - 3/16" .85, .61, .72 1/4" .84, .59. 71 5/16" and greater .79, .49, .62 The more conservative result of a) or b) controls.
l 5. For those hidden welds which are not acceptable by the criteria given above, investigate applying failure l a reduction techniques given in Section 3.0. If failures l due to hidden attributes still occur, remove thermolag and inspect the weld to determine the actual weld i attributes. Requalify the weld using tiie inspected I attributes.
{
Addendum No. 16 Page 4 of 9 J
2.3.2 Bolt Holes In Flanges
'O The evaluation of potential bolt holes in tier flange members (accessible and inaccessible) is required (Reference 4). The following approach has several steps. First, a 3/4 inch bolt hole is conservatively assumed at the tip of the flange (at the maximum stress location). If this approach is too conservative, an RFI should be sent to determine the existance and location of any bolt holes (Note, bolt holes 3/4 in. or.less, are not shown on the support drawings). A
,l member is qualified if any of the following steps is met.
Qualification Anoroach
- a. The calculated axial and bending interaction ratio is 1ess than 0.74.
- b. A new axial and bending interaction ratio is ,
conservatively calculated by increasing the y and z
, bending stresses by the following:
I'by " I.hy
[ "y f'bz " I.hz O -
Where: ay and a z are given in Table 2.1.
If the new interaction ratio is less than 1.0, the member i is qualified.
! c. For those tier members which do not qualify by the above criteria, investigate applying failure reduction criteria i
given in Section 3.0. If failure due to unknown bolt holes still occurs, send an RFI (remove thermolag if i' nescessary) to determine the exact bolt hole locations and sizes. The exact member stresses are calculated within the provisions of Section 1.10.1 of Reference 3.
For members which are qualified using the provisions of Section 1.10.1 of Reference 3, the following items shall be
! considered.
l If the bolt hole reduces the flange area by an amount i less than 151, no decrease in section modulus is required.
Only the bolt hole area exceeding 151 shall be deducted j from the flange area when computing new section i properties.
The exact hole locations shall be used in determining the
! new section properties and applied moments. ;
! i 4
1 4
Addendum No. 16 Page 5 of 9 BENDING STRESS INCREASE FACTORS O roa ao ao'es SECTION ay az i
C3 X 6 .78 . 80 i
MC3 X 7.1 .74 . 82 MC3 X 9 .77 . 86
- C4 X 5.4 .81 . 77 C4 X 7.25 .83 . 82 C5 X 6.7 .86 . 80 C5 X 9 .87 . 85 C6 X 8.2 .90 . 83 C6 X 10.5 .91 . 87 O ace x 12 .88 . 90 C6 X 13 .92 . 89 l
r l
i TABLE 2.1 i
1 O
l
_ - - - - . - _ _ - - - - - . , , - _ , , - , , , - - , - ww-~~w,v. - . ~ ~ ~ = - = - - -
1 Addendum No. 16 Page 6 of 9 i
l- 2.3.4 Hidden Base Plates and Base Angles
~
Inaccessible base plates and base angles may be qua11fied, without removing thermolag provided conservative considerations are presented. The following techniques may be conservatively used.
If the bolt type and size is unknown, conservatively assume l" HILTI's with an'embedmont of 4 1/2 inches.
I
- If base angle plate attachment location is unknown,
- consider maximum eccentricities to conservatively qualify the anchorage.
4 If the anchorage can not be qualified by using conservative l attributes, the thermolag shall be removed to determine
! as-built dimensions and attributes.
STRESS LIMITS Addition to PI-03 and PI-07 checklists (Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4).
j The maximum normal stress shall be limited to 0.90 Fy, and the maximum shear stress shall be limited to 0.5 Fy for all structural
. steel (i.e. rolled members, baseplates, base angles, and gusset i plates). If the maximum interaction ratio exceeds .90, a stress l
5 check must be incorporated in the support calculation to ensure that i the maximum normal stress does not exceed .90 Fy, nor the maximum i shear stress exceed .50 Fy. The effect of potential bolt holes j (Section 2.3.2) must be included when checkling these limits.
ALLOHABLE FACTOR OF SAFETY ON RICHMOND INSERTS Addition to PI-07 checklist (Section 2.2.4).
i l Richmond Inserts shall be qualified using a factor of safety of 3.0 i for both OBE and SSE loadings. If a Richmond Insert has been I
qualified by using a I.6 increase factor for the SSE loadcase, the interaction ratio may be conservatively multiplied by 2.20 to maintain a factor of safety of 3.0. ,
EMBEDDED PLATE REPORT OF LOADS
]
! Embedded plate report of loads should be transmitted to the site on t l the attached form (which is an enhanced version of the one from l PI-11, form TNE-DC-22.1). Lines 1 thru 5 should not be filled out j by offices. Some things to be noted when filling out these sheets l are:
i l
- 1. Axes must be transformed to those shown (i.e., Z along the embedded Plate). ;
J
-gg-~gr--p->mv. . m-mn, new -m m ,m e m.-
Addendua No. 16 Page 7 of 9
- 2. Moments are to be expressed in Foot-KIPS (whereas superpipe O output is in inch-KIPS).
- 3. If numerous support attachments occur the location (i.e. which post) must be stated or described. DCP (code) should also be given.
- 4. Loads must be given at the centroid of the (weld) attachment.
This usually means further transformations of the loads may be necessary. The attached worksheet may be helpful. Since ROL's are to be by and checked, if the worksheet is used it should become part of ROL.
- 5. ROL's should consist of:
By/ checked form TNE-DC-22.1, (Enhanced Version).
CTH Drawing (marked up if necessary to indicate intended location).
Attached worksheet (if necessary).
- 6. Paper Routing:
One copy transmitted to site (J. Park).
O -
One copy to ROL ios.
One copy into support calc. Attachment "C".
- 7. Impell Site (J. Park) is responsible for the following:
Tracking ROL's.
Transmittals of footprint loads (FPL) to TUGCo Engineering Assurance (EA) or other AE's as appropriate.
Notifying respective offices of acceptance / rejection of loads, i REFERENCES i
- 1. Impell Calculation M-58, " Hidden Attribute Qualification Procedures" Rev. O.
- 2. Impell Project Instruction PI-03, " Design Verification of Cable Tray Supports", Revision 4, October 10, 1986.
- 3. AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 7th Edition.
lO 4. ImpeII Calculation M-65, " Evaluation of Potential Bolt Holes",
Rev. O.
1 5. TNE-DC-22 " Reporting Attachment Loads and Locations to the THE
- Civil /HEB", Rev. 2, October 1986.
Addendua No. 16 E. Medii OMEtJT cPscs Oestr f
% G O L. Page 8 of 9 soPFbET : cm - t -
IgI 4t4 4 L.Y$\ S *. t U AOCeo& 9C,F :
1 .I n -
- y caMO y r- W
.a. g y A N ( R 0 ft,
,[
g ECGEsJTQ.1 CITY (k WHtc4 WLLL VA4.Y TA ggy QEEPEEt40iNGn c4 Fo %T- MO NC.39R MEMOiir:s2S cm*JT4o@ OF eNSE, Lao 90 ST" MEmSe-Q t c c A m c.a m e a r (w d )
w"*e- L.o AO c Asi EM Armor. PLATE.
AsEs &OO b-00 b b~ AW. 5 hs F+9 A f ha he h %9 M'fa M Ye A YP r
TWMSFocM ATiooJ FORM 0bA 5 r.- @ y4 5 k ,+ @
M*y3 fag 464(Ed I auct oeep Mp reme- eme.o o (.cAo o :
43 +-/-- o B G +-/- SS b y
- MAPS <d%
F-y 2 KtPS gir$
hg
- MF1 Kt9%
Mg = n . wies pr. wie s my- er x ,es er. c es
$3.= Fr st95 pr.x WS
( ~P O ro <.,co c.pse_s omrr 1
PA4E JOS NO O 2.1 0 - 0 4 Q dk CALC NO MV BY DATE CHECKED DATE ~ ~ =>- RO L --
l .- -. ..
Addendus No. 16 t Page 9 of 9 l ROL #
w FOOTPRINT LOAD TRANSMITTAL Revision Page of l Support No. CTH X LY TO: TNE EA -
LOCAL COORDINATE SYSTEM The following information on size, location, and foot;;rint loads is transmitted for processing in accordance with TNE-AD-4:
l1. CPSL Sketch i /CP- Embed #- Room f I i2 Attachment size: X= in.; Z= in.
l3 Distance from left or bottom end to center of attachment = ft.
I. 4 Offsei from Z - centerifne of embed to Center of attachment (up or left I l = + ; down or right = -) = ft. l l S. Size a location prepared by Checked by- Date l
- 6. Analysis # Rev. NODE (DCP)
- 7. Footprint Loads at C.G. of attachment weld and in plate local
] coordinates. -
Force = (KIPS) Moments = (FOOT-KIPS)
FX FY FZ MX MY MZ Design G+/-0B Faulted' G+/-SS .a
- 8. Loads are Conservative or refined Preliminary or final
- 9. Loads prepared by Checked by Date 10 Special Instructions: Distribute copy to Civil /SEG.
- 11. Please acknowledge receipt of the original of this transmittal by signing, dating and returning a copy to the discipline representative.
Transmitted by: Impe11 Discipline C/S XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Received and reviewed for procedural compliance: Date:
TNE EA Received by: Date TNE Engineering Support Civil /SEG Approval Date:
Engineer
____ - . _ _ . . - , - . - _ -