ML20235V469
| ML20235V469 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1987 |
| From: | Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710150174 | |
| Download: ML20235V469 (29) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
f;
- ile Dk 4 Y
~,*
t musubmuuss' L s s iolG/t;] Sq _(yft 0
Fyop ___.
2121 N. Cahfornia Blvd., Suite 390. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 415/934-5733 October 10, 1987 84056.122 ,
M$s. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224
Subject:
. Communications Report Transmittal No. 31 Independent Assessment Program - Phase 4 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station TU Electric Job No. 84056 Dear Mrs. Ellis- l Enclosed please find communications reports associated with the cable tray audits. A list of the enclosed communications seports appears in Attachment 1.
If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call.
Ve ys yours,
_e -
N. it. Williams Project Manager NIiW/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.' A. Vietti Cook (USNRC) !
Mr. C. Grimes (USNRC)
Mr. G. Ashley (Impell)
Mr. R. Alexandru (Ebasco) 8710150174 871010 kDR ADOCK 05000445 1
PDR l
San Francisco Boston Chicafjo Parsppany Ll1
.,y
, e,m,,,nc y, , - -
A'ITACHMENT 1 List of Enclosed Communications Reports Date Time 3/6/87 11:30 a.m.
4/28/87 8:30 a.m.
4/30/87 9.15 a.m.
5/11/8 7 9.00 a.m.
6/23/87 4:00 p.m.
7/14/87 1030 a.m.
8/6/87 1145 a.m.
l l.
l l
l4
.4
(, Communications T A Illlllllililllllllllllilllllli Report l
Company: Telecon X conference Report Project. Job No.
Comanche Peak Station Electric Station 84056 D8te:
Independent Assessment Program 3/6/87 Cable Tray Support Design Review 11:30 a.m.
Place: Bannockburn, IL
Participants:
R. Wheaton, 8. Ramsey ' Irupell P. Harrison Ebasco S. Harrison, J. Muffett TV Electric N. Williams, S.Tumminelli, D.Leong, J.Russ, R ed item W.Horstman comments of Cygna By Cygna providad the following sumary of the concerns identified during the audit:
- 1. SUPERPIPE Error (SP-004) with Gravity Loading on Lumped Masses.
The error report indicates that the problem affects the program versions preceding 21A. The method to avoid the error is described in Project Instruction PI-02. Per this instruction, an upward load is applied at the location of the lumped mass to remove the incorrect dead weight effect and a downward load is input to give the correct dead weight.
The following chronology is associated with this error:
9/15/86 Error Report Issued 10/10/86 Instruction PI-02 revised to incorpor .te correction for impact of error
(
_ S 1 11 S'9"'" [ j _
i8 -e""~' -
p,,,,,3 9,, on See Attached Distribution Sheet )
l l' Communications l 4 f. ci Report llllll111111llllll1lllllll1111 nem comments Ic$oNy 10/16/86 SUPERPIPE Version 21A released (Error corrected in this version) 12/23/86 PI-11 checklist for PI-02 revised to incorporate a note stating that the error does not affect version 21A and correction should not be applied.
During Cygna's review of analysis 176-063-02 it was noted that the correction for this error was incorrectly applied. The downwards lot.ds had been added but the upwards loads were not. In addition, since this analysis used version 21A, the correction for the error should not have been included at all.
The overall affect of this mistake is to overestimate the dead loads on the system. This will be conservative for the analysis if deadweight plus downloads seismic governs, but unconservative if upwards seismic governs. Impell indicated that due to the date of the analysis for system 176-063-02 is mid-December, this error occured during the transition to version 21A and before the instructions in PI-11 had been changed. Therefore, the engineer may not have been informed about the correction of the error in SUPERPIPE.
o Impell will investigate the impact of this error on analysis 176-063-02.
- 2. Member Design
- a. Allowable Stress Increase Factor for Compression o Impell will provide calculation M-22 (SUPERPOST Theoretical Specification) which provides details on implementation of allowable stress factors,
- b. Effective length factors for compression members The development of the effective length factors j was based on out-of-plane buckling of trapeze '
type frames. Factors for in-plane side sway were not considered. ,
I Impell indicated that fnr the trapeze supports, !
the allowable compressive stress is governed by !
the out-of-plane buckling so sidesway is not a l concern. Cygna asked how the effective length l
Page of 2 11 j
.m
)
- - Communications
[.4 O t' M Report lillllllllllllllllilllllililli stem comments Ac o y was considered for longitudinal-trapeze type supports where, due to the orientation of the posts, minor axis buckling of the members is associated with the in-plane sidesway direction.
o Impell will review this issue and provide a response.
- c. Allowable Bending Stresses for Angic Sections l Impell is currently using the AISC allowable stress based on bracing of the compression flange. A draft write up supporting this postion is currently available from Impell for internal review only. A formal calculation will be prepared if TV Electric believes this is necessary.
o Cygna to review draf t position write-up during the afternoon and provide comments to Impell.
- d. Twist Buckling of Angle Sections The Impell criteria addresses twist buckling of angle sections attached on the same leg at each end, but does not consider members attached by opposite legs.
Cygna also noted that in the evaluation to determine when twist buckling governed over Euler buckling the twist buckling allowable stress was compared with 95%
of the Euler buckling allowable stress.
o Impell will provide an evaluation of the impact of attachments on opposite legs on twist buckl i ng.
o Impell will provide justification for using a cut-off of 95% of the Euler buckling allowable.
- c. Principal vs. Geometric Axis for Angle Sections Impell has prepared a summary of documents to support the use of geometric axes for the evaluation of angle sections. This includes documents relating to NRC Staff positions taken on other dockets. The summary is currently for internal review only since it has not been approved.
Page of 3 11 1020 01 b
Communications 4L Report i i 11111lllllll1111111111lll1llll l
Item Comments Ac o y o Cygna will review Impell's positon summary this afternoon.
- f. Reduction in Effective Length Factors )
l Impell Instruction pl-11, Section 3.2.1 provides a i method for the reduction of the effective length of I compression members. Justification for this method is 1 not provided. Impell indicated that the method was developed in Calculation M-56.
o Impell will provide a copy of calculation M-56.
- 3. Load Case Combinations Impell performs analyses for the dead load and seismic load cases. The force and stress quantities for the dead load case are signed while those for the seismic load cases are unsigned (all output quantities are posi ti ve) . Two load combinations are performed for each seismic event:
1 (dead load) + (seismic)
(dead load) - (seismic)
This method assumes a specific phasing between the various components of seismic forces and moments (e.g., all positive seismic loads will occur simultaneously) and does not account for the possibility of out-of-phase loading which may be critical for certain components of the support if the loading or geometry of the support is not symmetric.
Impell indicated that they had previously recognized this concern and may have some documentation which will address this, o Impell will provide any available documentation.
- 4. Modelling of Supports For gang supports in system models, the trays not included in the system analysis are modelled by including a lumped mass on the support corresponding to the tributary mass of the cable tray. By treating the tray as a lumped mass, the dynamic behavior of the cable tray is not considered. This can lead to an underestimation of the loads on the cable tray Page of to20ctn
l I Communications l l.*
4L t i Report q
111llllll111111111lltl111ll1ll l
_pm comments Ac o y support. Since a gang support is included in two or more system models (the trays which are lumped masses ,
in one system model will be included as tray members t
'in the system model which specifically_ includes those trays), the support qualification is performed several times. However, none of the analyses will include all .
1 of the trays or the entire dynamic loads from all of the trays. Cygna believes that the best approach to
~
this concern is to envelop the support loads from all analysis which include the gang support and evaluate it only once, using these loads.
As an example, Cygna indicated that a review of gang support CTH-1-3301, shared by systems 176-063-02 and 176-063-01, showed that the load from the tray installed as a lumped mass in one model was approximately one half of the load predicted for the same tray in the other model. A similar effect may be found for other trays and thus a stress check performed separately using the results of each system analysis would not necessarily capture the critical loading for the support.
Impell indicated that they had already considered this issue. The results of their review are included in the overlap criteria development, Calculation M-13.
o Impell will provide a copy of Calculation M-13 to Cygna for review.
- 5. Composite Section Behavior (Tee-channels)
- a. Stitch Welds Cygna noted that the evaluation of the stitch welds used to connect two channels to fonn a composite member did not include the shear stresses due to torsion in the member.
Impe11 indicated that Calculations M-49 and M-52 4 address the stitch weld design.
o Cygna will review Calculations M-49 and M-52.
- b. Torsional Warping Stresses Several equations were used in Calculation M-22 Page 5 11
l Communications L. 4L t i Report lllllll11llllllllllllllllll111 I
item comments [foTN to calculate the warping normal and warping shear stresses in the composite tee-channels. A reference for these equations was not provided.
Impell. indicated that the equations are based on the recommendations of the AISC. ;
o Impell will provide the applicable references.
- c. Composite Action at Anchorages The typical anchorage detail for the tee-channels consists of welding one of the channels to the outstanding leg of the base ancle. This condition would result in only one of the . channels resisting all of the torsional load since the second channel is actually free to rotate at the anchorage. The support models consider the composite section to be torsionally fixed. This may result in an underestimation of the torsional stiffness of the member and an overestimation of the stresses in the single channel which is attached to the base angle.
Impell responded that their modelling method included typical simplifying assumptions. They believe that the assumptions do not have an impact on the results of the analyses. This boundary condition may be evaluated in calculation M-49.
o Cygna will review Calculation M-49. Additional audits may be required.
- 6. Base Angles Welded to Embedded Plates l Cygna found several supports in the calculations audited were attached to embedded strip plates. Cygna was concerned over the method used to calculate the stresses in the intermittent fillet welds used to attach the support's base angles to the embedded pl at e. The weld geometry is:
Page g of g}
l
Communications 4L ;t i Repod 111ll11111ll1111111111ll11ll11 nem commena [cYoTYy l ,
1 -i .-
g-
~* E4e&1 f corn.
[\ q j h Gw krh P
g -z - -, ;.., -g
- 2 1
N
! ?
p O Loading from the support is applied to point "A". In the etaluation, the applied forces and moments are transferred to the weld centroid (point "B") and the weld is evaluated assuming that the base angle is ri gi d. The assumption will result in equal distribution of the loads to the welds without accounting for the actual location of the load application point and the non-uniform stiffness of the base angle due to the presence of the outstanding leg. For the application of an x-direction moment, a rigid plate assumption would distribute the tensile loading equally between the two upper welds, however, since the moment is applied on the right hand edge of the base angle and due to the stiffering effect of the outstanding leg, the majority of the load will be resisted by the upper weld on the right hand side.
Impell indicated that the evalution of this weld ,
configuration is a special case and falls outside of the standard details addressed in their design procedures.
The analysis method used is based on the judgement of the engineer, however, he may have received direction from the support group leader. Impell believes that j the method used is in accordance with standard design i l
l I
Page 7 of to20 0 t e
Communications a 4L t i Report 2 { ll11111lllllllll111111ll1111ll {
'l Hem comments Ac?o7 y 1
practice and should not be considered incorrect. 1 o Impell will review this issue internally and provide a response.
- 7. Rod-hung Conduits In the review of system analyses 192-154-01 Cygna noted several instances where rod-hung conduits were supported by one or more cable tray hangers. It is Cygna's understanding that the rod-hung conduits are non-safety related and will be removed from the cable tray hangers and supported elsewhere. The evaluation of rod-hung conduits are not addressed in the project procedures.
Impell indicated that these conduits would either be removed or the rod hangers replaced with rigid attach-ments. The methods used in the calculation will be I conservative if the conduits are removed, and if rigid supports are added the cable tray hanger evaluation will be modified to account for the changes, o No additional action required.
- 8. Issues on Individual Supports
- a. Support No. CHT The analysis of the support was done prior to the release of revision 1 of PI-11, yet the modelling l used the increased stiffness values for the tray clips which were specified in revision 1. How did the engineer obtain the revised stiffness values?
Impell indicated that an addendum to PI-11, Revision 0 was issued prior to the date of the reference support analyses. This addendum permitted the use of the increased stiffness val ues, i o No additional action required.
- b. Support No. CHT-1-13197 The tier member for this support was marked as inaccessible on the support drawing. The Page of g yl 1020 01 D
~
= Communications b
4 f. t J Report l1111llllll11111111lll111lllll Item Comments Ac o y analysis was based on the as-design member size of an MC6X12. Per PI-11, the substitution of a C6X13 must be considered in the support eval uation. This was not done in the cal cul ation. 1 Impell indicated that this may be an isolated error and would like to review the calculation set, o Impell will provide a response after reviewing the calculation.
- c. Support No. CTH-1-1127 In the AISC stress check for this support, the tray was assumed to provide lateral bracing to the tier member for the calculation of the allowable bending stress using equation 1.5-7. Impell procedure PI-03 requires that the full tier length be used, without assuming bracing from the cable tray. If the full member length is used, the member will be over-stressed.
I Impell indicated that the assumption of bracing from I the tray may have been intentional since they believe j that the tray will provide bracing to the tier. o Impell will review this calculation and provide a response,
- d. Support No. CHT-1-2005 The calculation indicated that there was an open item associated with the qualification. An error had been made in the specifications for end releases on one of the members and the impact of this error had not been resolved. Cygna observed that the calculation set was signed as approved, but the open item was not noted as a condition of approval.
O Impell wi'l review the calculation set,
- e. Suppert No. CTH-1-2006 Cygna noted that the date printed on one of the computer outputs for this calculation set is later than the signature date of the checker for the output.
Page of I g y 102001b j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - a
Communications el i i Repod .' 11lll111lllll11111ll1111111lll Item comments [e7o$$ o Impell will review the calculation set.
- f. Support No. CTH-2005 The as-built drawing of tM s support indicated that there were no bolts or weld., connecting the tray to the tray clamps (the clamps were sections of steel angle bolted to the cable tray support which were butted against either side of the tray). In the absence of bolts or welds, the tray is free to lift off of the support and is not restrained for upwards vertical seismic loading. The modelling of the support assumed that the support would sustain upward loading. This assumption was not reconciled with the as-built configuration and modification to the support was not requested.
Impell indicated that the assumed load transfer is consistent with their analysis procedures. Thi s configuration is equivalent to a friction type clamp with gaps between the tray and the clamp. Even though there is no physical connection to transmit the load, connectivity is assumed without requiring a support modi fication. o Impell will review the support calculation set.
- 9. Support Nos. CTH-1-2000 and CTH-1-13197 These two supports share a common base angle. The as-built drawing for CTH-1-2000 shows the location of several embedded conduits which will result in a spacing violation with one of the anchor bolts on the base angle. These conduits are not shown on the drawing for CTH-1-13197. The evaluation of the anchor bolts and base angle stresses used the loads from both supports and was included in the calculation package for CTH-1-13197. Since the drawing for CHT-1-13197 does not show the embedded conduits, the effect of the separation violation was not considered. This will impact the qualification of the anchorage. Impell asked if the base angle was shown in dotted lines on one of the support drawings. Cygna indicated that both drawings showed the base angles in solid lines.
'ihis may be a drawing error, since the drawing procedures require that a shared anchorage be shown in l dotted lines on all support drawings except the one l Page 10 '
11 1020 01t:
Communications t 4L in Report J 11llllll1111lll111lllllllllll1 l Item Comments Ac o y I which " owns" the anchorage. This base angle should only be analyzed in the calculation package for the
" owner" support. The owner drawing should show all specific details (e.g., separation violations, etc.)
for the anchorage. ; o Impell will review the drawings and calculations sets for these supports to evaluate the impact of the error.
- h. Support No. CHT-1-2005 The as-built drawing did not show the length of the lap between the angle brace and the gusset plate.
Impell indicated that this may be a drawing omission, but it would not have a significant impact on the analyses of the support, o Impell will review the support drawing.
- j. Support No. CTH-1-779 The calculation for the support indicated that an error had been made in the modelling of this support. One of the members was incorrectly oriented with respect to the direction of major axis bending.
The calculation developed a correction factor to be applied to the member stress to compensate for the error. It appears that this factor was not applied to the member stresses and that if it was, the member would be overstressed. The calculation did not present a clear conclusion regarding the impact of the error, o Impell will review the calculation set for the impact of the error. In summary, Cygna stated that this concludes the list of issues that we have found during the audit as of this date though additional concerns may arise as the review of the calculations provided by Impell for review outside of their of fice progresses. Page of 1020 01D
'W f
L r- ! DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace - Mr. W. Counsil
; Mr. D. Pigott Ms."A7 ViettiCook <.
Mr. C Grimes l Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong l Mr. G. Ashley Project File i l I
---___________--_______________a
Communications 4L t 4 . R3 pod l18111ll11111111ll$1111llll1 Company: Telecon Conference Report CFS Project: Job No.. TV Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 ca!* 04/28/87 Subject Cable Tray Audit Support Design Review Time 8:30 a.m. Sample Population for Bolt Hole Study p,,c, Oexe (NY) Participants- V. Harrison g, L ud nu (nij V. Patei (pnone) Eoasco 0.yneur a) U. Leong i,ygna item Comments _. Ac o By Lygna wanceo ou u oriiy cue neps casen vy uuonv sv choose the sample populations for the bolt hole / edge distance study. Mr. Patel was involved in the work anc confirmed that Cygna's understanding of the process is correct. The process is described below: i
- 1. A random sample algorithm was developed to select j cable tray hangers from a list of 2000 supports. !
l l
- 2. 290 random numbers were generated and yielded 93 1- hangers for the sample. The other 197 were discarded because of all-welded construction, unavailability / inaccessibility, or duplication of hangers in the 93 selected.
l 3. Since 230 supports were needed for the total samplo , an additional 115 were selected (not randomly) fron l the Safeguards Building population, and 22 were i randomly selected from the Reactor Building ! population only. Thus,137 items in the sample were j hand-picked supports. l 4. Later, some concern was raised regarding the acceptability of the non-random sample, and a study l
- was made of the 137 non-random hangers. Another 1: 7 I hangers were chosen randomly using the same i algorithm that has been used for the original 93, I
picking up at random digit 291, where the original l work left off. Of the additional 137 random l 1 1 l % f h.)~~ } f4 y oistributiod I 'I"" ~~'~N 1 c. See Attached Distribution Sheet. m oi. i l
Communications 4L 6 a Report 1111lll1111111111111111lll1111 I l item Comments Ac on y i supports, a comparison was made with the 137 hand-picked supports to see what the overlap was. Of the 137 handpicked supports, only 15 were also chosen by the random method.
- 5. To determine the confidence levels / probabilities of exceedance for the bolt hole study, three sample populations were used:
o 93 original "true random" supports; o 93 original "true random" supports plus 15
" additional random" supports overlapping between the 137 " additional random" and 137 handpicked supports; and o 230 total supports, consisting of 93 original "true random" supports and 137 handpicked supports.
Page of tom ot h
? l 1 Y \.' l DISTRIBUTION LIST l l Mr. J. Redding l Mr. L Nace i 1 Mr. W. Counsil t Mr. D. Pigott l Ms. A. ViettiCook, j l Mr. C. Grimes J Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett I Ms. N. Williams l Mr. J. Russ { l' Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh i Ms. D.Leong Mr. G. Ashley ; Project File I
. ___-__ ___- _ _ _ a
gie* Communications [41W M Report lilililllllllitill!1111lIlllli l I Company: Telecon Conference Report Project Job No. TU Electric 84056 D8f': CPSES IAP Phase 4 4/30/87 l suoiect Cable Tray Support Design Review Time: 9:15 a.m. Ebasco Audit pi.ce: Eoasco (hij
Participants:
P. Harrison Ebasco W. Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna asked for the proper reference location for the limitations on horizontal and vertical tray offsets to be used in the distribution of longitudinal loads. Ebasco indicated that these limits are: i vertical offset 5: 2 ' -0 " horizontal offset 6. S'-0" This is from sheet 7 of the General Instructions for cable tray hangers. l signed p1 Page of Distnbution
~
i I I enn a++2rknA nie*,ihn+4nn Rhont ton o r s
1 l DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace . Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott Ms. A.- ViettiCook.: Mr. C Grimes ! Mr. R. Alexandru l Mr. J. Muffett i Ms. N. Wilhams i Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman I Mr. K. Parikh I Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File : 1 i i l l l l l I
Communications 4L t i R3 port 11111111llll1ll11111111111ll11
- P'" T Telecon Conference Report l g l
Project; Job No. l TV Electric 84056 Date: CPSES IAP 5/11/87
Subject:
Time: Cable Tray Support Design Review 9 00 a.m. Place: Imoell Audit Lincol nshire, IL Participants ~ of B. Ramsey. I Rarrett Imoell
- u. Unrs tman Cyana item Comments Ac o By
- 1. Cygna requested and received copies of the following calculations for review:
M-15 Base angle / base plate interaction diagram development M-59 Tee-channel stitch weld
- 2. Impell indicated that they had comments or corrections to several of the communication reports provided by Cygna for previous meetings. Impell will provide copies of these to Cygna and discuss the comments if necessary.
- 3. Impell has prepared written responses to the questions raised by Cygna at the March 6, 1987 meeting. T he responses are in the fonn of a " White Paper". Impell will provide Cygna a copy of the white paper for review. M r.
Ashley will be available to discuss the responses with Mr. Tumminelli on Tueday, May 12, 1987.
'8 ""
]/[ '9' 1 1 D'Stribution See Attached Distribution Sheet.
1070 01s
) DISTRIBUTION LIST } Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace - Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott Ms.<A. VettiCookc, Mr. C Grimes } 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 ' Communications . 4L 6i Report
, Illililllillllllililllilllilll Cornpaar CES Telecon X Conference Report Project TV Electric Job No. 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate 6/23/6/
suw ct Cable Tray Support Review T'** 4:00 p.m. Ebasco Audit - Tray and Fitting Tests Place: Nitw York, NY of Participants' B. W m E Hymn Qu F. Hettinger, P. Harrison Ebasco item Comments Ac o By
- 1. Cable Tray Qualification l Ebasco has completed their cable tray qualification procedure. The procedure is outlined in SAG.CP18 and will be transmitted to Cygna. The procedure is based on "Ebasco CPSES Cable Tray Hanger Volume 1". The procedure makes use of calculated capacities for straight tray spans, and test-determined failure capacities for various other fittings and components.
Tray qualification using ESM employs the original Gibbs and Hill interaction equations. Tests of 10 ft. long tray spans yielded tray capacities similar to or conservative to the capacities measured in the original tests of 8 f t. long spans. For tray lengths of 8 and 10 f t. , M exure dominates the behavior and span tables are used for tray qual i fica ti ons . For trays shorter than 8 f t. , shear behavior affects capacity in the horizontal direction, and a correction factor was developed for this case in "Ebasco CPSES Cable Tray Hanger. Volume 1" using Vierendeel truss equations. l signeo pa' g i I . l A? m p ,, 1 2 Distnbution
'AV""'
iom oi.
s Communications
,' 41 6 i Report llllll111lllllllllll11111lll11 nem comments [c7oTYy l
I i Tray axial capacities are checked using AISI equations. ! If RSM is used for analysis, tray interaction is- checked using the same equations as Impell. Tees and crosses repaired to meet minimum weld I requirements were tested and qualified. SAG.CPIB, Revision 0 was issued on June 16,1987, and i s ; currently undergoing third party review. The procedure has not been used yet, but its use will start soon.
- 2. Tray Clamp Testing l
A tray clamp testing program was undertaken to determine , capacities and develop a design verification procedure. l The procedure developed is SAG.CP19. The procedure will be transmitted to Cygna. Clamps were grouped into similar types, and the weakest in i each group was tested to failure. Interaction equations based on tests are prcposed with the safety factors, as proposed in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Interaction equations account for simultaneous application of mul ti-direction loads. ; Clamp qualification effort his not begun yet, but will be performed in parallel with tray qualification. I
~ !
l o Page I im m
L l
.I
\
l l 1 l DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace ! Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott f Ms.> A. Vietti&ka Mr. C Grimes Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett j Ms. N. Williams / Mr. J. Russ l Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D.Leong l i Mr. G. Ashley Project File k l l l l )
int =w; Communications 5 MM Td Ifillllllllllllllllll!!!!Illli Report Company: Telee n conference neport ES Protect Job No TV Electric 84056 Dat'e: CPSES IAP Phase 4 7/14/87 Subject Time: Cable Tray Support Design Review 10:10 a.m. Place: Ebasco Audit Walnut Creek Participams of F. Hettincer. P. Harrison. L. Gorozdi C. Zee J. Vei kos Ebasco S. Harrison TV Electric D. Leono. B. Atalay. B. Shakibnia Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cable Tray Clamp Qualification Vol .1, Book 21 i s the back-up cal cul ation for SAG. CP-19 Rev. 3. Cygna requested clarification on the load rating procedure (per ASME code) used to calculate safety factors against test load for OBE and SSE allowables, load rating = TLu x f x S/Su x 0.5 Where: f = 1.0 for OBE f = 1.5 for SSE Cygna's questions were:
- 1. "Su" in ASME code is minimum tensile strength and not the yield strength as used by Ebasco. Please clarify its usage.
- 2. Ebasco uses shear allowables for value of "S". Why wasn't the bending allowable used also?
signeo U page of
' "" ~ * '
Distribution S r$ P At t a r hori Di st ri bution S heet. 1020 0's
Communications 4 L n.i Report lilllllllilllllllllillllllllit j ltem Comments Ac o y Ebasco's responses were: For the majority of the 1 longitudinal ciamps, bolt shear failure is the failure mode. Therefore, the shear yield strength is used in place of Su in the ASME equation. For those clamps with flexural failure modes (transverse clamps), the bending allowable was used for the "S" term, and the yield strength Sy was used for the "Su" term. The reason Sy was used is that af ter the clamp deforms, or reaches yield, it disengages from the tray. Ebasco also stated that in Revision 3 of SAG.CP-19, the safety factor is calculated for SSE allowables only. For the load rating procedure, Ebasco referred to ASME, Section III NF 3332.4. Cygna will investigate this subject further. Document Request Cygna requested the following documents: SAG.CP-18 SAG.CP-19 Vol. I, book 20 "CTH Weld Related Studies", Sections II through IV. " Position Paper on Base Metal Defects in Thermologged Cable Tray Hangers. Major Axis Bending due to Transverse Loading There was some confusion as to whether Ebasco needs to provide a response to Cygna's concern over the universality of the samples provided in calculation 3306.514, Dept. No. 558. Cygna confirmed that Ebasco does need to provide assurance that the samples were representative of the total population and of those with high tier interaction ratios. MRM A telecon was scheduled for Thursday, July 16 at 12:30 p.m. , Texas time, to discuss cable tray support MRM. Page of _ _ _ ________ " '* See Attached Distribution Sheet.
l DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding l Mr. L Nace j l Mr. W. Counsil q l. Mr. D. Pigott ' Ms. A. ViettiCook. l Mr. C. Grimes Mr. R. Alexandru l l Mr. J. Muffett ~ l Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ , Mr. W. Horstman 1 Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley Project File 1 1 y I i i I i i 1 I l J l l
Communications I> ( t i Report ,, L181!I1111111111116llllll 1 U*P8"I 'CES Teleen Cefmnce Repon I" "~ TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oete: 8/6/87 hubject. Time: Cable Tray Support Design Review 11:45 a.m. Impell Audit Walnut Creek, CA
"' R. Kaczkowksi Impell B. Shakibnia, B. Atalay Cygna Required item _ _ _ _ _
Comments Action By Clamp Sti ffnesses and Tests j Cygna asked if there were any back-up calculations to
, justi'y the changes in clamp stiffnesses.
Impell responded that other than the Summary Reports for the test cases, and Calculation M-28, there were no other , back-up documents. I Cygna requested that Impell provide a comprehensive calculation package that would provide technical justification for the change in stiffness values. Thi s calculation should include numerical comparisons (i.e. clamp stiffness vs. support stiffness), and be referred to in PI-11. Impell agreed to provide such a calculation package. l l l 1 1 signea See Attache,d Distribution Sheet, page et
. s .__
Distnbution [ ?
' ' ~
1070Dia
4 DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace - Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pipott -
< Ms. A. Vetti. Cook.
Mr. C. Grimes 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
-- --}}