ML20235R057
| ML20235R057 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1987 |
| From: | Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| 84056.121, NUDOCS 8710070779 | |
| Download: ML20235R057 (61) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:l AgGQ ) E!M3 wn ; 7bb 2121 N California Blvd , Suite 390 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 415/934 5733 I l September 18, 1987 j 84056.121 i Mrs. Juanita Ellis i President, CASE l 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224
Subject:
Communications Report Transmittal No. 30 Independent Assessment Prog, ram - Phase 4 < Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Station TU Electric Job No. 84056 Dear Mrs. Ellis-Enclosed please find communications reports associated with the cable tray audits. A list of the enclosed communications reports appears in Attachment L If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call. Very trul yours, S t__ A. m
/N. H. Wilfiams Project Manager NHW/jlw Attachments cc- Mr. J. Redding (TU Electric)
Mr. L Nace (TU Electric) - Mr. J. Muffett (TU Electric) Mr. W. Counsil (TU Electric) Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)
~ Ms. 'Ar Vietti-Cook '(USNRC) s Mr. C. Grimes (USNRC)
Mr. E. Siskin (SWEC) Mr. G. Ashley (Impell) Mr. R. Alexandru (Ebasco) 8710070779 B70918 PDR ADOCK0500g5
^
San Francisco Boston Chicago Parsippany doA _, I t
I' ATTACHMENT 1 List of' Enclosed Communications Reports Date Time 2/10/87 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. 3/6/87 .' 3:30 p.m. (Revision 1) s 4/21/87 11:00 a.m. i 4/27/87 8:30 a.m. l 4/27/87 4:45 p.m. 4/28/87 3:10 p.m. 5/11/8 7 - 1045 a.m. l 5/11/8 7 1100 a.m. 5/11/8 7 1:40 p.m. 5/13/87 3:30 p.m.
- 6/23/87 9
- 00 a.m.
l 6/23/87 6:00 p.m. 6/24/87 9.00 a.m. 6/24/87 3:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. 6/28/87 5:50 p.m. 6/29/87 9.15 a.m. 7/13/87 7:00 a.m. l
, l Communications i ANi Report l1llllllllllllllllllll11llll11 Company; Telecon X Conference Report g
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oste. 2/10/87 Subject. Time-Cable Tray Support Design Review 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. l Place: Impell/Ebasco Audit CPSES Site
Participants:
of W. Horstman, (P.T.) D. Leong (P.T.) J. Russ, . l S. Tumminelli Cygna i R. Alexandru (P.T.), S.J. Chen, F. Hettinger, l J. Swanson J. Christoudias (P.T.), 'D. Fong (P.T.), Required Hem P. Harrison comments Ebasco Action By J. Park (P.T.) Impell B. Lashkari JBA
- 1. Cable Tray Support Grouping Cygna initiated a discussion with Ebasco regarding the methodology used in the grouping of cable tray supports. Cygna stated that it was their understanding that the purpose of the grouping was to qualify support members by selecting or constructing a " mother support" from those supports contained in a particular group of similar supports. Additionally.. member connections and anchorages for all supports within the group were individually qualified. Ebasco concurred with Cygna's statements.
When questioned on the number of supports that were grouped, Ebasco replied that out of 2309 cable tray supports within their Unit 1 scope, 84 groups were formed from 396 supports. signed LUril D JU . 1 Page U of Roo LttachmM nictributinn Rhost oistributioQ
' Communications
*hL i i Report 1llll1111lll111111ll1111111111 nem comments - Oc7oNy 1
At Cygna's request Ebasco described the considerations for including supports within the groups. Initially, Ebasco would determine which supports were likely to be included as part of RSM analyses. This was done by a review of the cable tray span drawings. These supports would not be considered for grouping. Additionally, the following support- l types would not be considered for grouping: longitudinal supports special configurations supports with attached conduits Additionally, Ebasco noted that a majority of the supports included in groups were cantilevers. After reviewing a list of the groups. Cygna noted two groups with the support type designation "TRIA". Such supports include supports that were identified by the Gibbs & Hill designations "SP-7 with Brace" and
" Details E, F, G, and H with Brace". These supports ;
were all designed to support longitudinal loads.
< At this point, Ebasco clarified their terminology regarding " transverse," " longitudinal," and " multi-directional" supports. Transverse supports are defined as resisting vertical and horizontal transverse tray loads. Longitudinal supports are those supports which resist vertical and horizontal transverse tray loads as well as longitudinal tray loads. These supports are located on horizontal tray runs. Multi-directional supports resist-the same loads as longitudinal supports but are located on tray risers.
After checking the grouping data Ebasco reported that the two groups of type "TRIA" were numbered 311 and 312. The supports in ' group No. 312 were longitudinal supports. When the supports identified as candidates for grouping, they are classified according to type. The type and other data are included in the database. COM1530 2Page 10 ' so,ooio see attacnea vistrioution sneet
Communications t ( 6 o Report 1811llllllllll1111111lllllllli Item comments [c7oNy Tributary tray load data was taken from available span i d rawings. The input data to this database was checked. The first sort of the supports was made on support type. Within those individual support type groups, ; sub-groups of supports within certain height and width ranges were formed. Within the individual height-width sub-groups, the support drawings were reviewed - to divide the supports into groups with similar anchorage configurations. Bolt types within the base plate were not ' considered. Cygna noted a concern regarding the lack of consideration of the bolt type, since Ebasco's criteria showed marked differences for base angles with different bolt types. Cygna felt that, by not ; considering the stiffness differences, the evaluation j of the individual anchorages using the loads from the j
" mother support" analysis would not be correct. 1 After the supports were divided into configurations with similar anchorages, the evaluation for the selection of the " mother support" was performed. The initial pass for this selection was based on the loads j i applied to the supports. Where applicable, (i.e., if i the supports were at different elevations), I accelerated tray weights were compared. The largest load would be selected. If a support had a j significantly higher load than the others in the ;
i group, it could be removed at this point and analyzed I individually. Variations in the load location on the support which may affect the controlling support component (frame member or anchorage) were not generally reviewed. This was' based on the judgement that, since the support dimensional parameters were so close, this would not affect which component , controll ed. Additionally, all anchorages were to be evaluated individually using the loads from the
" mother support".
When the " mother support" was selected, the grouping package was transmitted to the design verification l 3 Page ' COM1530 10 l em dee attacnea utstriou uon sneet
mmunications L e 1111111llll18111144111111lll11 Regured item Comments Action By j
~i group. If the " mother support" did.not pass, it was
]
removed from the group and analyzed individually. . The - j grouping team was notified and_ another " mother support" was selected from the remaining supports'in ! the group. If the " mother support" passed but-an j individual support's welds or anchorages failed, that l support could be removed from the group, the failing component could be analyzed for its actual loads, or the support could be modified. 1 Cygna asked how hidden attributes were considered by . the grouping team. - If the attribute was unimrc rtant I with respect to its affect on the grouping, the support would still be grouped. If'a support was partially inaccessible, it would be grouped, but a note would be added to the grouping calculations. i New supports were added to the aroup only if they were ! enveloped by the " mother support," If a.new support j was not enveloped by the mother support, the new support would be analyzed individually. Cygna asked how the effects of any loads induced by the longitudinal connectivity presently being assumed were considered in the grouping. Ebasco replied that the analysis for the' loads friduced by connectivity was an additional analysis and was presently being a performed individually for all supports whether or not the support was a group member. Ebasco utilized eight engineers in the grouping for Unit 1 and eleven on Unit 2.
- 2. Increased Allowable Stresses for the Factored Load
, Condition Cygna then inquired about the increase 'in allowable stresses for the factored load conditions. Ebasco stated that the allowable stresses from the AISC Specifications are multiplied by. the allowable stress factor (ASF) in the STRUDL code check. An upper bound i limit for each allowable stress is specified. The ASF is always 1.6 per the requirements of the CPSES COM1530 4 Page 10 ' ,,,,,, are nuacneu u mr iuu u un ance6
l Communications t ( ci Report i 1111mlllll111111111llll11lll stem comments OcENy l i FSAR. Prior to the latest revision of the design criteria, all allowable stresses were limited to , yicid. Both the ASF and the upper level limits were l placed in the STRUDL analysis template. The upper bound limit was recently revised to 0.9Fy for all i l allowable stress values and was placed in the l template. Cygna requested a copy of the template l which reflects this revised criteria. l
- 3. Missing Mass Considerations Regarding missing mass, Ebasco stated that the missing ;
mass option available in p-Delta STRUDL was used in l all relevant evaluations. I l
- 4. Version Control for STRUDL Cygna noted concerns regarding the control of the STRUDL program. Two versions of the program are listed in Attachment Y of the Ebasco General Instructions. The versions require different types of input to accomplish the same analysis. Ebasco replied ,
that only one version of STRUDL was available for use l at any one time. A list of revisions to the program was provided for Cygna's review. The different versions were noted in Attachment Y, because the latter version was to De installed on the Ebasco 1 system Tater.
- 5. Support Modelling with STRUDL Ebasco then described the process by which the support analysis was performed using STRUDL. The analyst would
! develop the model geometry and loadings and give them I to an operator who would construct the input file using a PC-based model builder. The analysis input skeleton was programmed into the model builder. After input, the analyst would check the input file for correctness. The file was uploaded to a main-frame computer which contained the STRUDL program and~ the analysis was performed. The output from the analysis l 1 l COM1530 5 P'9' 10 '
, . , , see n uouneu v i m iun iva ance 6
Communications , M6 i Report 11lll1111111111111111lll111111 ftem Comments Ac y would be reviewed by the originator and checked and approved per the applicable quality assurance requirements.
- 6. Analysis Methods Cygna inquired about the equivalent static method ;
(ESM), the equivalent static method longitudinal (ESML), and the response spectrum method (RSM) procedures being employed by Ebasco in the evaluation of the cable trays and their supports. Ebasco presented an explanation of the history of these procedures so that Cygna might better understand the process. Ebasco stated that the ESM and ESML procedures contained in Attachment Y to Ebasco's General Instructions were closely tied to the analysis I associated with the development of the multi-mode 1 response multiplier (MRM). Ebasco had realized that ; the two corrections were required when using the' l ESM. These corrections were for: 1) for-the systems i behavior of the supports and trays including the ! difference in support spacings; and, 2)-the response of the system at higher frequencies, as reflected in the MRM. As the acceptability of the MRM value of 1.25 was being verified, the MRM analysis effort showed that 1.25 would only provide the corrections for the two concerns if the requirements of Appendix 4 to the ' design criteria were met. If the Appendix 4 requirements were not met, a correction for the systems aspect would be necessary. The multimode , factor of 1.25 would still be applicable. The Unit I support span drawings were reviewed, and any deviations from the Appendix 4 span criteria were noted. These deviations were categorized as' " major" or " minor". Minor deviations were those that, when considered through the use of ESML, would have load ' redistributions which would not affect the conclusion l of the ESM analysis. Major violations are those cases 6 Page ' COM1530 10
. ML A 111lllll11lll181ll11llllllll11 Communications Report Item comments [cEYy where redistribution would cause a change in conclusion. All major deviations were analyzed using RSM.
Further work on the justification of the MRM factor of 1.25 showed that this value would not cover some span configurations with changes in tray directions, i.e., L-shaped bends, T-shaped bends, and Z-shaped bends. To accomodate these non-standard minor deviations, a i second method was developed. These two methods are found in Parts I and II of Attachment Y. The analyses in support of the Attachment Y methods are found in i Ebasco Calculation Volume I, Book 15. Cygna will review this reference in more detail during a future audit. Ebasco will execute the analyses for Attachments Y and Z of the General Instructions for all cable tray systems . l l
- 7. Cable Tray Support No. 3136 -{
After Cygna's review of Ebasco's preliminary analysis of cable tray Support No. 3136, which is attached to a Category II fire wall, the following two items for Ebasco verification were noted. l Cygna's interpretation of existing data indicated that there were more than the three (3) trays Ebasco's j analysis considered. ! Cygna noted that all welds were shown as accessible, whereas the members of the support were marked ts ; inaccessible. .l I Ebasco statt.d that a field check would be performed on l these items. In order to examine the support boundary conditions, Cygna requested a copy of.the system model for which Support No. 3136 was a part. Ebasco replied that the analysis was quite voluminous and suggested auditing it in New York. Cygna agreed with this. Ebasco 1 COM1530 7 "* 10 ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )
i Communications ( Report
- i. u 1 184lllll1111llll111111ll1llll1 comments
[cEnYy item suggested that the boundary conditions might be available from reviewing the forces input into the base plate analyses. Cygna stated that they would review them for this possibility. Cygna's review noted a discrepancy in the analysis. l Ebasco's calculations indicated the failure of one support member. Cygna's review showed that the - failing member jointly supported the attached tray with an adjacent member. Ebasco's modelling procedure - was to idealize the cable tray as a line element along the centerline of the tray. In this instance, by considering the geometry of the tray run with the modelling of the tray along its centerline, the analyst attached the tray to the failing member, but' ' i not to the other member to which it was also a ttached. Ebasco noted Cygna's concern and stated that they would review the modelling. Cygna noted that Ebasco decoupled the Category I steel from the Category II Steel. Cygna asked how Stone & l Webster would accomplish this in their evaluation of the Category II steel. Ebasco stated that they did
. . not know. Ebasco added that the tornado loads evaluation was also on hold pending Stone & Webster action.
- 8. Sample Support Calculations Cygna reviewed the Ebasco calculations for Support Nos.102,121, and 125. Cygna was particularly
' interested in weld eccentricities and base plate analyses. Cygna's review noted that the calculations were from an RSM analysis.
The : calculations were for two frame type supports and one cantilever support. For each type, the tier and cantilever member properties were modelled at the shear center, while' the post member properties were - modelled at the center-of-gravity. In response to Cygna's question, Ebasco stated that the member stiffness matrices fnr the tier and cantilever member properties were not modified to account for locating 1 ff*8' 10 ' ,
@0M1530
Communications 4L ci Report .- lilllllilllllilillllillllllill item comments [eUNy the member properties' at the ' shear center. . Cygna noted that they were concerned that the axial stiffnesses were greatly reduced by modelling the cantilever member at the shear center. Thus, the cantilever's axial stiffness was not correctly accounted for in the model, and the response of the system was incorrectly calculated. Ebasco replied that this type of modelling would occur only when using RSM. For the modelling techniques to be employed for ESM anlyses Ebasco pointed to a Attachments B1 and B2 of the General Instructions. l The practice of modelling the cantilever member properties at the shear center also affected the base plate analysis for the particular support under review. The analyst applied the member end forces j from the cantilever to the base plate at the point l where the beam shear center intersected the plate. This point of load application is closer to the bolt centerline than the actual point of attachment and results in significantly reduced bolt loads' from the axial component of force. Cygna also noted that' the member end forces were applied at the actual point of attachment for the base plates of post members. - This is consistent with the modelling of post member properties at the post center-of-gravity. Ebasco noted Cygna's concerns and stated that they would review the cited calculations. Cygna noted that Ebasco considered the offsets between the weld axes and the member axes. Additional moments due to the offsets were summed absolutely with the existing member end forces. Cygna commented that this practice was conservative for the connections under consideration, given the methods used to model the members.
- 9. Base Plate Analyses with STRUDL Cygna asked whether the STRUDL base plate analysis was a special analysis. Ebasco replied that it was.
Ebasco added that the program modelled the concrete as. a set of compression-only springs and tnat there were COM1530 9 Page 10 '
, , , , oce n uouneu viurivu6ivn anec6 -
Communications 4( t i Report . , 19111111111lll111llllllllllll1 . 1 Item Comments Ac n y no limits to the number of attachments that may be i considered by the program, j l
- 10. Effective Length Factors for Buckling {
l Cygna asked the following questions regarding the calculations (contained in Ebasco Volume 1. Book 6) for effective length factors (k-factors) used in determining the unbraced length for. buckling:
- 1) Are all models planar? If not, what out-of-plane eccentricities were considered?
- 2) Why are some of the second eigenvalues negative (see page 26 of Book 6)? !
- 3) What extraction technique was used in the NASTRAN analysis? If the inverse power technique was employed, what was the seed?
- 4) Are the boundary conditions fixed? If so, why?
l
- 5) Referring to page 10 of Book 6, what elements ;
were used such that the member failed in axial ! buckling rather than lateral torsional buckling? ' l l Ebasco stated that they would respond to Cygna's l questions, but wanted to point out that Impe11's values for the k-factors, which were smaller, could now be employed since Ebasco currently assumes longitudinal connectivity. COM1530 1&*9' 10 '
.m aee nuacneu vistrioucion aneet ,
z, y d DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott Ms."A. WettiCook e Mr. C Grimes Mr. E. Siskin Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File l
I Communications . L4 ( ci Repod 8 litilllilllilllilllittlillllli Revision 1 Company: Telecon X Conference Report Project' Job No. l TV Electric 84056 l D*: CPSES IAP Phase 4 3/6/87 l subject. Impell Audit Time: 3:30 p.m. Cable Tray Support Reviews Piace: Bannockburn, IL
Participants:
DF1OH MmW of h Ncii John Russ Cygna Required l Item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following special studies from Impell : Calculation No. Title M-13 Verification of Overlap Procedu res d
. M-15 Base Plate and Base Angle Interaction Diagram Generation M-22 SUPERPOST Verification M-38 Compression Duration for Cable Tray Hangers M-42 Stress Check for SUPERPOST Tee lb Channel M-44 Tier to Post Weld Study Supplemental Overlap M-45 Veri fication %
M-46 Tee Channel Warping Behavior l M-49 Seismic Load Combination Study h signed. Page y o' 2
~
Distnbution See Attached Distribution Sheet.
~
im o,.
Communications t i lilllilllHililllllillllllllli Report ReMm 1 ftem Comments Ac n y M-50 As-built Reconciliation Tolerance h } M-52 Cable Tray Torsional Moment A110wables b M-55 Baseplate II Analysis Documentation M-56 Refinement Techniques for Effective Length Factors d \ M-57 Refined Out-of-Plane Bending for Loaded Tiers Impell stated that they would provide Cygna with the above docuements. See Attached Distribution Sheet. Page 2 of 2 1020 01D
v
.i l
DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil i Mr. D. Pigott Msc A Vietti4ook - Mr. C Grimes Mr. E Siskin . Mr. R. Alexandru l Mr. J. Muffett 1 Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ .i , Mr. W. Horstman 1 l Mr. K. Parikh l Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File l i l l l t l w_-_-_________________-______ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - .
_ Communications ammmmmme k & k%N I conesay a consecones nepovi KTesseen TU Electric pre,est aen ne. 84056 CPSES IAP Dese: 4/21/87 sue,est Cable Tray Support Design thus: 11:00 a.m Hilti Kwik Bolts piens: Walnut creek, u verseeans Charlie Wu , TV Electric W. Horstman , Cygna en hem conwnenes mee's action ey l Mr. Wu called to ask for more information on Cygna's l concerns in RIL Issue No. 3.J (The effect of diamond cored holes on the capacity of Hilti Kwik-bolts). He was at Impell's Walnut Creek Office to review Impell l Calc. M-68, " Evaluation of Diamond Cored Bolt Holes." l He asked what was the basis for Cygna's issue. I Cygna indicated that this was based on a note in the Hilti Engineer's & Architects Catalog which requires the use of carbide drill bits for installing the Kwik-bolts i as a stbsequent discussion with the local Hilti Inc. l
. representanti ve. Cygna learned that the Kwik-bolts tend to exhibit greater variability in ultimate tensile capacity and a lower capacity if the diamond bit is new. This is due to the wear characteristics of the diamond bits which initally are manufactured to be considerably oversized to allow for the rapid wearing.
Hence, the holes drilled with a new bit are larger than specified in the Hilti Catalog giving lower bolt capacity. Mr. Wu asked if Cygna had any numerical data to support this concern. Cygna indicated that we had obtained test data from Hilti, Inc. showing a comparison of the ultimate tensile capacities for Kwik bolts in both cartide drilled and diamond cored holes. A copy of this data was given to Impell personnel during Cygna's audit at the CPSES site in Feruary 1987. Mr. Wu should contact Brian Ramsey at Impell, Chicago to obtain a copy of this data. O
- A f YYl blllIAAh ** ,
L ~. . ~. . . . .
~ ..... ... .
N
~
.- . rv e
i 1, :s
'O DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding ,
Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pig,ott MiMVsettiM, . ., E.
' Mr."C.' Grimes '
1 Mr. E. Siskin , Mr. R. Alexandru ., Mr. J. Muffett l Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman e Mr. K. Parikh <- Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File 9 If t . y' a ( u__._____ ._m__.___.-___._____.
.A 1 3
1 Communications I y ,s .
' Report {
Guilllifillillilllillllill # 1 y Company: Teleceri X Conference Report ]
.- 1 Project.
Job No. l 1U Electric . 84056 ] CPSES IAP Pha$,a 4 oste- 4/27/37 j i subject CableTraySuphbrtDesignErview Tim' 8:30 a.m. I Statistical Analysis of Bolt Holes / Edge DistancesPlace. Ebasco W
,/ rerticipants: P Harrison' ,
' Ebasco
[~D.Leeng,J.755 Cygna )1
??
l i Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received Ebasco Calculation Voltrne 1,. Book 22, " Statistical Analysis of Bolt Holes / Edge , t Distances in Cable Tray Hangers" for review at Ebasco's , b office.
/
O i 5 3 L
.(
I ~ Distnbution'. .g , O f _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _
. e.7- - - ., - ,,
I'
.i ;
j
- s ,
, .j i s 1 1-J '
1 1
~l, ' ?, -
.y. t-I* -
DISTRIBUTION LIST, . o, t 4 i Mr. J. Redding ' " "l I Mr. L. Nace . . > .
~ Mr. W. Counsil . ,
0 -
'1:...Mr.
,%.. D. Pigottl'XNetfi-CASO P I ,,
C." Grimes " ' ' " r Mr. E Siskin- ! Mr. R; Alexandru I Mr. J. Muffett . < \ Ms. N. Williams , Mr. J. Russ !
- l. Mr. W. Horstman ',
Mr. K. Parikh ,1 Ms. D. Leong j Mr. G. Ashley 1 l Project File l l
M i I Communications 4L n i Report littlittii...... '::111
@ conference nepon Telecon company: CES Job N Project 84056 j TO Electrical CPSES IAP oste: 4/27/87 i
"" Cable Tray Support Design Review 4:45 p.m.
Ebasco (NY) Audit of Ebasco
"' ' " ' " ' ' Ebasco ,
P Harrison- ) Cygna l K. Parikh, W. Ho.rstman Required Action By Comments item l C ygna indicated that their copy of Ebasco's General Instruction i or Cable Tray Hanger Analysis, Revision 4 was missing Sheet 36. E basco said that this may be due to two pages sticking together i n the photocopier and provided a copy of the missing page. l l 4 Page of Signed I Distribution See Attached Distribution Sheet. som os. - - - . - - - - _ - _ _ - - .__
p l 4 DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott Ms. A Vsetti-Cook
.Mr. C Grimes Mr. E Siskin -
Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams l Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Ieong Mr. G. Ashley Project File l l l l l l
Communications A( i i Report i infilHillilunillHilHilll Comp *nY Teiecon @ conference Report CES
"' ' TV Electric 84056 CP5ES IAP Phase 4 oste:
4/28/87 Subject Time. Cable Tray Audit Support Design Review 3:10 p.m. Ebasco Audit-0versize Bolt Hole Study Ebasco (NY) P Harrison Ebasco D. Leong, J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Ebasco provided the position paper " Effects of Bolt Hole Oversize in CTH System Adequacy" for Cygna's review at Ebasco's office. This document will be submitted to TV Electric next week for distribution. Ebasco stated that the position paper was written in lieu of generating Calculation Book 26, which they originally had stated would be used to justify their position on oversized bolt holes. Cygna asked Ebasco what the difference was between a position paper and a Calculation Book. Ebasco stated that the position paper was a sunrnary of previous work performed in calculations, but that new calculations would not be performed. signed V f)j Page of Distnbution See Attached Distribution Sheet. mo oi.
i l i DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace , Mr. W. Counsil i Mr. D. Pigott Ms.vA. ViettiCook Mr. C. Grimes Mr. E. Siskin Mr. R. Alexandru , Mr. J. Muffett i Ms. N. Williams i Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File l l l i I l l l I:
Communications .f . Report 5' 4L n i ,
- mummmmmmm t oi. con @ Conference Report Company:
ES Job No. Protect 84056 TU Electric Date:- CPSES IAP Phase 4
'5/11/87 Time:
Sub}ect. 1n.a a -- Cable Tray Support Design Review Place: Lincolnshire. IL Impe11 Audit of 4 Ferticipants: . Tmnall l-. Barrett Cvona W. Horstman ) Requi ! Actior Comments Item l l Cygna requested and received a copy of Impell's _
" Calculation Problem Log" which lists all special studies ,
performed for the CPSES design verification of cable tray hangers. Page of Signed l' Distribution-com A66.,k J nd,6 dk.64a. ek. e
,[ c , . . a u F
M E T A O 5 Q* o h o u T 0 E 1 2 W E 0 E H o T S e A G U D T T N E I NE' B m O E J W E T A D
~
E' m ^ G w / / O E 7 7 7 7 L T A Md # [8 l
/8 S
M D N fI O o o O n O0 o o E' O O O K' n s s s M t n e b r e l b e_ i n f- *;c. T m & P i s a hr O I e c M e an M w l e . a s m A h a b T A l p i r e s e eA c n h S l C e w o L U 3 D i s T n l H o al r e n 4 x d n NuA l l C 8 D i ' t l d w s 1 L l s l o N e 6 s A C N O l W a l H e o s y T a r B o T de e t n/ m A mr a 5 nse J( R I E y tl e r o m e M Rm dh s nos u n. U teh r o< 4 f T L r C r a Bo b l t C E T u s n S I T d n l C a d n a 3 o A r m
,s n u beM o nI'oo o ia f o e r c t mM e l l i o a s r wA r
e n i t - g S e t r o D li u t ea l t 8 O h hA & Lo-&;r d Lm o i f A n f P v o B- e u o a o f h n s n Y n o Be e o i o A t y o c e r 7 ~ n o s r e o. o i no e d imlPre. a a - J t i s c r m n a t r e i T r n e mk b. c ta rs u a f L n l u v i m u < R a la n l , u O (c rie m E E vv E E a r Q a u cG T r Ls N
- T '
- I G
N E N R . O E z 3 V f 7 T C I B o,- 1 7 r E S M 4 6 5 6 7 8 6 6 6 9
- 7 7
' S, 7' 7-J I V
U N - 46 - - - - m m O R I M g M M M M m M 1/ M M n i. P D lllIl Illl I IllII i f l l
' _ -_ ' 7 -
,' e P lc_
6 I#l t
//
c I d r M M ' N w a Y f
- - r; 3 3 3
__ 0 3 w7 s.y 4 0 i g 5 I I s - 0 4 V 3 t 1 2 0 e C+ s c % ,% o c % l h' s iu m c t Vf d' c R ca N #'G k 1 3 7 Y'# YJ T E 1 15 E 1 - t 1 P r; E d 2_ 2 - y J 3 h35 i R D g \
! # # ' /
t g B a O J
/ L l 4
G 6 E M l n I# 6 M d' @
/'/ N I' 9 o 7' E r; _
/ I / / / s i / /
g <
, l
# v / _
G e ,l [/ O r f y N
/ //r a L n /c 1 o # /'}&
/r N
M W
"( N'4 I Mf
"/ I T
N
#' 'l p
r; O 4 fi O o O O # j
; a '
Y O_ ,. N _
\
r C . I _ T _- A L _ U S C D S 4 L A C ^ N e O s a I T s. B C E n a S u t D a s e s e s e s a a e s s b b s n e i e s a a a g t i e t t b o n i r t n a a i u t e r f D a t r p e f D t a o e o p a c Y p r i t a D o P o t r r i f e r r S o t d o P p i J P d e p c a r - l y l u e p o e t n e a g S S L V W r n e T A 0 0 0 n t 0 1 1 R o p e e e 1 g 1 g g g l s n n E D m l l b a n a n a a o a a H H E i E C F B H H A C j I
~
E " D m A" R T C i s nEBM 0- 1 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 K t y UM M M M X M
- - M O M n'%"N y
R '. P c ; l g' l' j (
7
,I
/
- ,' = I n -
w o
- -: - 3
_ 0 4 g- ~ r 0 0 1
- ~ ' _
I I l#f 2 t 0 e o I4 s c N Y r: u m. ~ g g-T 2-y g
~ Z t g '
\
g g ~ # # a s 4 A l t, n dl I N m
~
Y M k' N /'d '
/
/ /
g- ~ / /
/
O ~ l # # ' # G O k O
/ I
, f
/
l / c I# t M A L n ' S \ /" 4 k 8 o N E # O O 8 O O 6 g- ~ O N I a v E e l
- t b r a o C C p n S m
a I E r u T S S a A y P C i a a D A S D T r l a n O D S l 0 y e c o L V d l e i p i t n A u b r u y c a o C s s t S
'a C d T
r i t y g f e n i c r o e c o f r o t e n i a c f r r f g u f I i t P n i t e s o e r n S e m a r e r u l p a i t a l g n V e D l a d r m A y I g P e e i y g O n c v x e I n V A m o O o s s e r r a u p t P f p B e o i s d p i Y l y n A & t C S o n r e . i o so e e o y y t i sn t p J a a a t en a o D r r c a na l r I T T i c iH P P O f i t-y V e e i f t v e l l l i i a s a b b a r t r a r g .D E C a C a Q u V e NT L B l l T
' A I
g : d g a i o y Mu I R - E n B u ( V 9 0 0 1 l l 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 b l M - - - - - - - - g S I V I D"c
=m U m z N
MM M M M M M M
l
' n #
,' M e E
T d F D A N
- 0
- _ - *. 3-0 O 4 H i
0 _ 0 1 u 7 / T E 2 0 W g f c n E _ E /9 f c. r T S A u T r D 9'fe o 2 s /_ , g E'O
\ _
N _ m
\
s #/ / _ g w #
/ - _
m E /c f / p g Y k I 4
/'4 T 4 Y V: 3 Y$
A f #'f T / D #4 #
. / / $ /
/ /
E'DN / ~ y
~
G u
# / / / / / /'
W L g O E p g, [g /
/
/
J g bh j 4 L T A D N
/r j N .
/'
# /[" % W N '/
s C O Y O O n O o C 8
*W
,i m
N . i t s e i t i n o a c C r f I e i T p c . o e A P r S D t A S n o m s o p nr D S s i t a r g r e c o p A e r u C . S e u P S
& n r m
i E l l V a n i o f o _ T L a o t C T e i n i a e E I ~c r o t u s S T n e i a l a a t t c a b t a c i v a s M u f E t i d i a g s g o r t D n e n r e r u R i P V e o t o c s p r Y l a s m a p e p a p s a b u e n S e r a S o o o n g t r J i t f o a d P _ s n f r D e p r i i P t n o o t e a o o T P S e u 4 m i r g l o t p R y s p n a t c t a s i a V u e e E D r a l h - A S G _ T M C C K E I E A T M N O E T N C IMR TE E 2 3 4 2 . 8 0 C ISn5M ALB 7 1 1 9 1 2 1 2 2 2 M E - - - - - - - - RNU M I t M M M M M M O Ve P I ' R D p~ l' P C
ef, D _ V W a E N _ T 5 A Z _ F D Y _ 0 _ s
~
0 E' 4 '.O _ 0 l _ 0 n 1 T 2 E E 0 _ n E p _ E S e _ T f m n sM% t q q p 2-y ap E' 1 _ g / _ g 3 *" d 7 - g, e _ M
'/y h
k - m l _ l
=
E'
/ .
= # V -
G O
* /
Y
/
t, 6 d i J 3 r, L u j' / # m1 } j# /# h !
? /*/
0 O O E' O )( O O O m M i s % C s 5 I e n 1 T f l . A f a i n . s t o A S e t s S i t F M D S l a n o i p i d L - P i l d D M e t o C A c n C s M 'de & i t i s i o . a a s t - W B r o s a a r t y a c I T C E S ut r T l B s o h A c n d L s a o l R e e S t c e p S t n e l A a n i f i r c n l m e -
+ i o o n a e V 2 m m N g v t s r i i s y
g r i e r s u A. n o e h o e q S u f S T f D E Q o n Y n f f n f f o e p o o o o o o i t i e i i g n a p t n n t u r J c o o a n o e A i i c i i t l a p t t i n a v u g a a f e . u E S n u u i d i l l t a l a F X R y a a v s u o r v L A E D P r E v E B E 0 V E . E J 1
' N A '
' H M
E g a p R 0 1 2 T 0 E 5 6 7 8 9 3 C I r B 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 S m- - xo van I I t M - UM M M M M M M M n B p Da c t
. a _
,' w I
. n F
0 m 0 4 0 0 Q 1 T E 2 0 w q l. E M S m n . a u - T 1 L mQ N 1 _ E n - I u m / _ L r # _ C w 7 5 E _ n /SM
!"I
[4 II a Y g / / l e # v # # _ G w # / , O _ L n d# /e/ f
/v, % 8 /4, N
m I/ Y'e I
#f N Y' ._
C O d O QO d O O
~
M l' t s op i s n c t c e r S O' ep s s r _ I u s e _ T S o a A r C r n a o H A f s u y O L b r e ^ - o e n T a r _ A m a . _ C e - l e l M l l u P e b m
' d c a y r e s C o h' y l l i d F M r u i s o t y JS B f
l b e s f o f n S s l e r o a e s o n e w l e i o k _ s o b i t i n e l a t a s O i l s w r r n t A e o e u e f r l l p D t o I-e y b l o x 8 p a a A r n E n o r w P o o 0 r T o s i l i J s t s i t P, t l l o s s a a
" h A r o e R c g C p r p
i A i w r e l
} a o s e m d p R r b e p o i p E
E - E D A D t S l E T e S u C S A
, I E
D E " N k R T O E 3 4 5 6 / 8 9 0 I C S 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 M - - - - - - - - K I V U M M M M M M M M O R P I D M*B N f1
f f l ' c
~
T E . T _ A _ $ . D Q* . u T W v E _ E E H S T A d5 _ R 7/ E D S A T N E I N E' Z- Y _ I B u ~ _ L C O J W / / ^ - E 6 g V _ T f A f
/p O D N 2 _
d~9 E' / / ' G n
/ / [ / f / /
O E 7 f 4 f
/
E t g c 6 _ L T A D 7 4 4 M gf // I
/"
f/
/
f p y W V
'f/
[7 , M . E 8 g )( O p O O d . E' _. R
/.
4
, ' - y a
r T
- f N e o e O H l
b I r a . T e c . A n n f _ r o P . t M l e n n v a s e r T R n a i o r o T c C h C t a i " i N - c v Y t a O T s i a Y t I E e f h I
" s T L t i t
i e C s r E T I s o p r e y e R t o r o .- S T e r p d v. f l o u p g s b e p r t n n s a P S a o i w u l i s . o S n d r n i t y . l o e r c l - l r l o v a a A o F i t W o W i d n c e A e k e t l a l r t c S s P g a e o t n e n l h s P e n f i . P u n o t C B o m a s s t T e y e r e s l h T eg s s e r p C d u - R s e l e p
- e n u r b u T t
r a E a i S S
' E N
. G S
t C T P H I _ G N 8 E N 4 5 6 7 4 2 3 4 4 4 T O 4 1 4 4 4 - - - - I - M M M M C S - - M M E I M M J O V
- R I)
E
' E T _
A -
, D l Y. O o EN R
4 o u _ W 0 1 o c 2 E
? T R A T" E D W
p T U
** O N N N _
E _ I u _ E mW b / E k g T [t A I D h _
*. [ /
k "O N _ G m
/ "v / 7 / M /
O E C, g [g c [g E f, [" j k L f M [4 [p e _ T A Y fj q M D p
*. O 0 h O O [ o q
*ON N
5 , s e s w e n r e t o -e t s O c a e I n F T v A ) h t O L l s g n e
=
n I
#( l e n o
L =
=
i e v M e c b a t v C n a w n a i t w N y a t o o t n c d r a l r i e O u e D l e t e m I E t l A c a m u f f T L S o t u u q c E e C T T s t d E I n e n e E o r S o n T e R - D - T i o m - n o
- o s o s f
- t i m a t o M e i i s s -
n a r l t g - i i f l b c y b l a a a l a i n 9 m i s n w r o c e e o e n h C n l s l t A c .
" n e Y d a
o c e b a w r t o l a I Ie T v. o R o y y t -
- 1 y a a t n L 1 a r r a e a 3 t m c l A r T T l P e e i i t -
u p e e e n - m l e i - R s B m l l s f E i - a b b b a e e s l a a a R E S A C C C C B s s N e
' I G
l N N E O T N IMR O TEE 4 9 0 1 2 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 C I S ALB LBM - 5 M M M E M M M M J I UOU V CR N M_ O I LP 9 R DAC P . D (l ,l{
l' _
. ,- =
. c r
,m a
W: -
-t l
r _ e ms
- r .
m T N E N g; 8 E I. t 0 3 C c E r a g- .
/.
G O
,. # [- /
1 [6/ c
/, _
E 4 7 L r o Y # %, R E M 0 OT N_ E O O O L B 0 gO E C D t R 4 O C d ] E F e - r e B R O d - n M O n o-I a @ i o T o 6 l C T 4 n L i A l
+ n [ t a
L r p i m a c n y U o n m c r r i n r-P f S g f i c t g - b o i 4
- e. .
A b r r = n P e e s. C i d'e e V m W N O e, N d w n v . O n n a A e e & I . I r C E S ub i r e n e h p a d l s l r t o Q t e i n n t T A C I a n- e F e c F h n - w I l p e h f s r R - d c o d o E f
- t a t V _
o 6 i n e n o T A ._ b t r . i p Q .. t i S t S e . u r a o o E l E . A e c - n S - _ d - s n i f 7 n A e . n t n i 0 B n s e l a r - b i O i r d u h a F R f e d s e I S E ei i e Ic
! V P c _
E R t HR T N .
' I G "
N o 2 3 E N 7 8 9 0 1 6 6 6 5 5 6 T C O sREM 5M I - - - M M M M M E J S a,BU I M O R P V I D yN j c (ll fl
e DISTRIBUTION LIST - Mr. J. Redding l Mr. L Nace 4 Mr. W. Counsil l Mr. D.. Pigott i Ms.' A/Vsettidk ; Mr. C. Grinies"" ! Mr. E. Siskin l Mr. R. Alexandru ' Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley ; Project File ' i l l l I j
.)
T Communications Report 1 ALni N11168l1111111111111111lll11 x conference Report comany; CES O mec n Project
' 84056 TV Electric Dat* 5/11/87 CPSES IAP Time: ;
Subject 11:00 a.m. Cable Tray Support Design Review Lincolnshire IL Impe11 Audit ' Impell
"*"' '"" R. Kacz kows ki Cygna W. Horstman l
Required Action By Comments item Impe11 provided copies of the Cygna Communication Reports with their comments (as indicated on May 11, 1987 at l 9:00). The following communication reports are affected: Time Date 1:30 3/4/87 3:30 3/5/87 2:00 3/6/87 11:00 2/20/87 1:00 3/5/87 1:00 3/3/87 l 8:45 2/11/87 Page of Signed Q (
~
' A Distribution:
can Attached niete4 hut 4nn Chest tosc ois
g l
'I
\
DISTRIBUTION LIST l l Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil : Mr. D. Pigott Ms. ArVietti-Cook Mr. C. Grimes , Mr. E Siskin Mr. R. Alexandru i Mr. J. Muf0rit l Ms. N. Wilhams ! Mr. J. Russ l Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley l Project File i I I 1 e i 1
Communications l t L t i Report ! ImlinillinilllNWilillil I Company. Teiecon x conference Report CES TV Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Date: 5/11/87 Subsect Time: Cable Tray Support Design Review 1:40 p.m. Impe11 Audit Lincolnshire, IL B. Ramsey Impe11 W. Horstman Cygna l Required - Item Comments Action By Cygna requested the following calculations for review purposes: l No. Title M- 38 Compression Duration for CTH M-42 Stress Check for Superpost Tee-Channels l M-44 Tier to Post Weld Study M-45 Supplemental Overlap Verification i M-46 Tee-Channel Warping Behavior M-50 As-built Reconciliation Tolerance l M-55 Baseplate II Analysis Documentation M-57 Refined Out-of-plane Bending for Loaded Tiers (These calculations were previously requested on March 6, l 1987, but not reviewed at that time.) l
$#gned i Page of
' ~" # #
Distnbution-See Attached Distribution Rhapt. 1030 01a
,1 l
-i
.. i s
I I DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil 1 Mr. D. Pi Ms."A. %gott cttiCook - > Mr. C Grimes i Mr. E Siskin Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File ; \ l l l l l l l 1.
Communications
, c4 L i i Repod llllllll1111lllllll11ll1111111 Company: CES Telecon X Conference Report "'~ d*"
TV Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 catr 5/13/87 suweet- ** Cable Tray Support Design Review 3:30 p.m. Impell Audit Lincolnshire, IL Participants of g) S. Harrison TU Electric l l P. Harrison Ebasco. I W. Horstman, S. Tumminelli, N. Williams Cygna l Required , item Comments Action By l l l A discussion of the following topics was held:
- 1. Intermittent Fillet Welds 1
Cygna had noted differences in the methods used by each consultant in the evaluation of intermittent fillet welds used to join composite channels. The primary concern is that Impell does not include stresses associated with torsion and warping while Ebasco does. Impell indicated that they have prepared a white paper to discuss this issue. Their conclusion is that the stresses due to torsion and warping are not significant since: o The rotational connectivity between the tier and tray assumed by Impell in the system models
- minimizes the torsion in the present in the l composite tiers;
' 4" l 1 lY/ h i r
" ~ ~
Distribution See Attached Distribution Sheet.
,e m ,.
.. Communications T Uni Report llll11111111111111111111111111
[eYoTYy . Item comments o Due to the end conditions typically. found on composite tiers, warping is not significant and St. Venant dominates the torsional effects.
- 2. Boundary Conditions for Composite Tee-Channels Cygna had previously raised concerns of the assumption of full fixity of composite tee-channels, attached to base angles. Since only one channel'is physically anchored, the full section of the composite member may L not be effective. The following. effects will be noted:
o The member torsional. stiffness will be. reduced; o Distortion of the cross section at the anchorage may affect the stress distribution; and o The reaction of the portion of load resisted by the horizontal channel must pass through' the web of the member attached to the base angle. Ebasco indicated that they had prepared a response to l Cygna's concerns which will be available for review soon. The response addresses: i o Effects on load distribution in the finite element'- l models of the supports; and o Effects on the internal distribution of stresses in the composite section.
- 3. Evaluation of Single Angles Cygna discussed the evaluation of size 6 angles on May 12, 1987, at.3:00. Cygna wanted to point out that the Ebasco's approach is not consistent with-Impell's and that similar comments would apply to Ebasco's work.
Impe11 indicated that the white paper being prepared will address both consultants' approaches. ] Page 2 '4 5@e Attached Distribution Sheet.
i
)
Communications t AL c,i Report . IllilllilHilllllitillllllllll ) ltem Comments Ac o y j f
- 4. White Papers Provided by Ebasco i
Ebasco provided the following comments on the white I papers provided on May 13,1987, at 12:15. k o Frequt:ncy at a Point (kinematic condensation) l Ebasco provided the method used to derive the mass ! participation of each mode at one nodal point. j This is based on NUREG-1161. ! l o Mass Points on Braces and Unloaded Tiers Ebasco has reviewed the braces on 190 supports for l this effect. They included the bending moments due to self-weight inertial loads, used the same : allowable bending stresses as used by Impell. l Ebasco's conclusion is that the effect is not signi ficant. For unloaded tiers, Ebasco believes that evaluation is not necessary because each ; unloaded tier in a support is typically the same ! cross-section as the loaded tier. If the loaded j tiers are acceptable, the unloaded tiers will be .l acceptable by comparison since there will be no ! load from a cable tray. I
- 5. Ebasco's Support Identification Database The database printout that Cygna was given in New York 4 to select supports for review is used only for j tracking purposes. It is not used for support j grouping or other purposes requiring quality assurance !
support grouping development based on a review of the actual as-built drawings. j The review of base anchorage details for RSM models j was based on a search through the applicable as-built j drawings. The database was not used.
- 6. Multi-mode Response Multiplier The new study is complete and will be available for ;
I review at Ebasco's New York offices. See Attached Distribution Sheet. Page 3 '4
)
10200tb _
Communications a 4L 6 i Report 11lll11ll1llll1ll11lllfl1lllll Item Comments Ac o y
- 7. Other Responses The remaining responses owed by Ebasco will be-available next week. Ebasco feels that a group discussion would be the best forum to cover these responses, since the written responses are lengthy.
1 1 l See Attached Distribution Sheet. Page 4 of 4
~ " " " "
iomoi. - j
l 1 l l l' DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding
'Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott Ms.:: A;Vietti Cook" Mr. C Grimes Mr. E Siskin Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ
.Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D.Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File
I Communications s, .c L ,i, Report - I W11111m11m111111111111 company: CES Tewcon @ conference Report Project TV Electric Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 g,,, of23fe; subiect' ""* Cable Tray Support Design Review 9:00 a.m. Ebasco Audit Place: New York. NY. f Ebasco Participants. P. Harrison W. Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By
- 1. Discut sion Schedule '
Ebasco indicated that two engineers from their Lyndhust office will be in New York this morning to discuss several of the topics mentioned on June 22, 1987 at 9:00.
- 2. Single Angle Design Cygna requested and received a copy of the LaSalle docket correspondence regarding single angle design for use during the audit.
. . N signed V/ , Page of Distnbution' See Atta'ched Distribution Sheet, me oi.
z.
-s
, . /Q.
(- ' {
, ,1 I -
i DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding ) Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott Ms. A. Vetti<ook Mr. C Grimes Mr. E Siskin l Mr. R. Alexandru I Mr. J. Muffett i Ms. N. Wilhams . Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D.leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File l O 1 i i J
--.---.....r- -
- j, , 4 v _,'
.I
^
s. Communications
- Report i e ni 111111111111111111111111111111
)
@ Conference Report En$ CES C Teiecon Job No. 84056 3 Project TU Electric !
CPSES IAP Phase 4 oste: 6/23/87 ; T""* 6:00 p.m. subject Cable Tray Support Design Review A*ce: New York, NY Ebasco Audit of Ebasco
Participants:
P. Harrison 11 Cygna W. Horstman l Required Action By Comments item
Subject:
Ebasco response to Cygna's questions on support calculations for CTH-1-155. Cygna noted that this response referenced span length drawing CTH-1-SL-6123. Revision 1, which shows four longitudinal supports on the. tray run. It is possible that Cygns based their question on Revision 0 of this drawing which showed only three longitudinal supports. Ebasco responded that the set of span length drawings provided to Cygna during their last audit was uncontrolled and may not have contained the current revisions of all drawings. Cygna. asked if the modelling of composite tee-channels was based on the geometric or principal axes. Attachment 0 of the General Instructions indicates that these two pairs of axes are not coincident. Ebasco will check to see which axes are included in the l models.
-m Page of a
Signed' .hf l Distnbution: See Attached Distribution Sheet. isso oi.
\
i i DISTRIBUTION LIST l 1 Mr. J. Redding l Mr. L Nace ! Mr. W. Counsil ! Mr. D. Pipott { Ms.cA. Vietti. Cook i Mr. C Grimes 1 Mr. E Siskin Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. V.' Horstman Mr. k. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File
s Communications-AL t i Report , 11111111111111111118N11111111 l company. CES Teiecon x conference Report Project TV Electric Job No 84066 CPSES IAP Phase 4 osie. 6/24/87 , subject. T' *' 9:00 a.m. Cable Tray Support Design Review Ebasco Audit Place: New York, NY Participants P. Harrison i Ebasco W. Horstman Cygna I l l 1 l Required l Item Comments Action By Clamp Qualif1 cations Cygna requested and received the following documents i related to the qualification of cable tray clamps for use ' i during the audit: Vol. I, Book 21 - Clamp Qualification Methodology CCL Test Report on Clamp Capacity Testing, dated June 27, 1986 CCL Test Report on Additional Clamp Capacity Testing, dated July 13, 1986. T ' signea Page of See Attached Distribution Sheet. me o,.
._____________.__h
DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace - Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pipott. ... Ms. A; ViettiCook ~ i Mr. C Grimes i Mr. E. Siskin l Mr. R. Alexandru l Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File 1 l l l i i l E_-______-._________--_---_---_-
i Communications i 4L t i Report EllllilllllEllEllllll Company. CES Teiecon x conference Report , J@ No. 84056 Protect TU Electric CPSES IAP Phase 4 o.t. 6/24/87 , 1 Time: Subsect. 3:30. 5:00 p.m. Cable Tray Support Design Review P'*** New York, NY Ebasco Audit Participants.
*' Ebasco P. Harrison I Cygna W. Horstman
[eEo"Ny item comments Cable Tray Clamp Qualification Cygna noted that the cable tray clamp testing program included the testing of several clamp attributes which I were not included in the clamp design verification procedure (SAG.CP19). The following summary tables are , l included in CCL Test Report A-717-86. Table 3.3 Clamp Friction Test Results Table 3.4 Bolt Hole Edge Distance Violation Test l Results Table 3.5 Oversized Bolt Hole Test Results Cygna asked how the results of these three tests were used by Ebasco in their casign verification effort. Ebasco responded that the results of these tests were not used. They were originally included in the test program to address the applicable issues, but after the system dynamic tests had ben conducted, which included an evaluation of these attributes, these individual tests were no larger applicable.
. 7 JY1A D , o Distribution' See Attached Distribution Sheet.
im o,.
1 i
)
i DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Reddmg Mr. L Nace : ) Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pipott .. Ms.: A. VettiCook Mr. C Grimes ' Mr. E. Siskin i Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams ; Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File ( l l l _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ . ______________a
F Communications a 8()L A Report li 111111111111111111111111111lll company. CES Telecon X Conference Report Project TV Electric Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 ,,,. efgefe, l subject Cable Tray Support Design Review Time: 5:50 p.m. Ebasco Audit Place: New York, NY- l
Participants:
P. Harrison of Ebasco W. Horstman Cygna l l Required item Comments Action By Ebasco provided copies of the current revisions to Attachments Y and Z of the General Instructions. These include the changes discussed on June 22,1987 at 9:00 l h.m. Cygna noted that two pages_ are missing from the documents provided with revision 2 of the GIR. These are: l
, o General Instructions Sheet 175, o Vol I, Book 24, Sheet C-10.
Ebasco will provide copies of these pages. l l l l m - Signed Qf Page of See Attached Distribution Sheet. im ei.
. i I
DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott Ms. A. ViettiCook , Mt. C Grimes i Mr. E. Siskin ! Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Willisms Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh l Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley , Proixt File l l l l 1
', Communications ., A (. n i Report 'y 191lll1llllllllllll1llll111111 company: CES @ Teiecon conference Report Project. JbN TV Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 . Date: 6/29/87 i
subject' "** Cable Tray Support Design Review 9:15 a.m. Ebasco Audit P** Walnut Creek, CA Participants. of P. Harrison (212) 839-4759 Ebasco Required item comments Action By Ebasco called to ask if Cygna had accidentally picked up the CCL Clamp Testing Report which Cygna was reviewing at I their offices on June 26, 1987. Cygna will check the documents brought back to Walnut Creek to determine if this report is among them. l l l l l Signed. ChJg/ N l
// Page } of 1 l l. Eh iE ilAAI '
L W oisinoution-. I See Att5ched Distribution Sheet. 1020 0 ta
l T b l l l DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding a Mr. L Nace j Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott Ms. A. Vietti Cook - Mr. C Grimes 1 Mr. E Siskin Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett i Ms. N. Williams -{ Mr. J. Russ i Mr. W. Horstman l Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File 1 , l l 1 1 1 l l i i l l t' P
- Communications E
AL 2a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiililllllllllill! Report Company: Telecon Conference Report g Project. Job No. TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 Date: 7/13/87 Subject. Time: Status of Cable Tray Issues 7:00 a.m. Place: Cygna, WC
Participants:
cf J. Russ. N. Williams Cyana . 1 1 S. Harrison,. J. Nandi TV Electric S. J. Chen. P. Harrison. F. Hettincer Eba sco l Required item Comments Action By The purpose of Cygna's conference call with TU Electric j and Ebasco was to status the cable tray support review issues that affect Ebasco.- Cygna noted that the list was l by no means complete and that other issues could be added. 1 RIL 1 Controlling Load Case for Design l l Cygna is presently reviewing Impell Report IM-P-004. RIL 2 Seismic Response Combination Method Ebasco is to provide a response addressing this issue. RIL 3 Anchor Bolt Design i Cygna is presently reviewing the issue on gaps under base plates, i l i 1 e l l 1N1 A % Signed: U[. / N Page y of 4 See Attached Distribution ShMt. 1020 01a
i Communications ( t i Report _, 11111111111ll116lll16111111111 ltem Comments Ac y Cygna is considering the differences in the boundary stiffnesses as part of the cumulative effects review. j RIL 4 Design of Compression Members Ebasco must provide Cygna with an evaluation of the k-factors for supports with rotated posts. j RIL 6 Support Frame Dead and Inertial Loads l Cygna must initially discuss the response provided by Ebasco. l RIL 7 Design of Angle Braces Neglecting Loading Eccentricity Ebasco must provide a response on allowables and interaction of angle twist-buckling. RIL 8 Dynamic Amplification Factors (DAF). Tributary Tray Support Reactions and Missing Mass Effects Ebasco is to respond to Cygna's concerns on the MRM study. RIL 9 Reduction in Channel Section Properties Due to Clamp Bolt Holes Cygna noted that there are differences in the section properties reported by Ebesco and Impe11 for channels with bolt holes in them. Cygna has reviewed the Ebasco work and noted ths methodology and mut,t recompare it with Impell's in order to understand the difference. Prior to any request for documents Cygna may telephone Impe11 for discussion.
.Page 2 of 4 l See Attached Distribution Sheet.
l maom
Communications 4 f. 6 i Report
< 11111111lll1166111lll111111111 item comments [e%$
l RIL 10 Systems Concept Ebasco must provide a response on the extent of the conclusions reached in the study on the vertical. eccentricity used in applying the transverse tray load to the cable tray support. RIL 14.B The Value of "1" in AISC Equation 1.5-7 Ebasco will provide a response on this issue. RIL 16.D Eccentric application of Loads in Welded Connections l Ebasco will provide a response on this issue. ! l RIL 18 Cable Tray Clamps { l Ebasco must provide responses en the use of ASME -l equations for the qualification of cable tray ! clamps and on the issue of the behavior of one-l and two-bolt clamps. These issues might be addressed during a conference' call. RIL 24.F End Conditions for Composite Tee-Channels l l Ebasco is to provide an evaluation of the connection. RIL 25 Cable Tray Qualification Cygna is presently reviewing the cable tray qualification and will arrange a conference call with Ebasco. RIL 31 Modelling of Boundary Conditions Ebasco must provide the responses to Cygna's concerns on bolt holes in cable tray supports. Page 3 of 4
.See Attached Distribution Sheet. ;
1020.01b .
'l
1 i mmunications
- , 18111lllllllll11111111111lllll Item Comments 'A n y i
RIL 32 Conduits Attached to Cable Trays or Supports l i Ebasco must address Cygna's concerns on the j kinematic condensation process. Cygna noted ; that this process will only be used in Unit 2. One other comitment was noted by Ebasco. ! Ebasco stated that they are committed to i providing a response on the member length used ; in AISC equation 1.6-la. ! I i D 4 F See Attached Distribution Sheet. 1020.01 t>
e -- 3 a G DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pipott
- s. Msl1;Vmtti-Cook."
'Mr. C. Grimes .;
Mr. E Siskin Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams 1 Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File 4 e i % - J}}