ML20236D195
| ML20236D195 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1988 |
| From: | Chen C, Meek W, Rieck P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236D170 | List: |
| References | |
| 2783, NUDOCS 8903220506 | |
| Download: ML20236D195 (32) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:g: q ~ i- ; '(l' s_a_'l ' M ;, __ ' ' ' ".: pMyg ; , , ., 5 j g,[ > L'mm'h y.. m j
- c. .
Lg; x; 3 gw *x. ,s ,
.gf, g' b , t [i t ,
7;r " " p % - ,
.) a . . . . i
_m, , , , , rg
- 4' ; 5
& Lp v ^ r wp;J
s
'+ , * * >
,.'E
..,,v.
3 #
..I' unb i i s '
7
":m Q'~ >' ! %,
- l' ~;f'f,d;p' v. . ..
Jg
. ,L
[} .; .}._.., j, ,, i:; ;' t
'y
.n
, 'g['5^* .. ,
I
, , FI' ;, g f
I } Lf'. l'"
' ; [I ,.,i, . {- '
1
- f {'i i (s. i
?
t
, ( r'i
'3 h'.1-n w
1
,- g Il
- y. ,. , A I . -' i 4 ,[ I 7 . i i < < .3 3;yyy s ,
; ; x
. t n,
og 3 g- . ,
, ~. . . ,, .
l+;
, , , , y; Mt. l f. I" ~ j. 'd. r ' t t x
- st s : \- g
, *L . J1 ) L . <..
1 g , JtG'l 'a. i ,. 5 O r? 4 L i LSEQQOV,nH;NOCLEAR PLANTF f;$.? m %.i ' **#, 1'2. : .i
~ _ .4.;.
y 3 g t,.J'.
.3.-; fi.l d- F ;,
9;,'
-3
. 4 :+ LUNITSL1ANDL2% ,Rs '
3 j e, -
' ey .
m .C ' , a,4 s,. g L
, ,S ,p7 : ,,
'y' . 1
' , ,~, w> m s, r. . m+
~
,, g ( , . . g$ v ' Q l' ,
- ';f , ! :. 9 ;,4 g,
$[ .
tu. , .j. ~ f A ' .. .-., v r, q
,' ) '
I
+, h t 1 9
l_ ,.n'
' - ' ',j <'f 7
n- .y: , f% ' 'j , "., } j k .. p?j.. ,
s ,
,., i
, . ;,, ' b _5.,',
- s b
- ' .r
; p- }m~k }
. ,' ;f , % ! p, ..a>
n :. , , ' " ' v.h . , s .. p '
; ,.W: 4 ,- nj * %, i r s.
f , e . * ,
, ( '
? p 7.,
wl; ;, , 4
\
m,
>> _z J L
' '?
, ,i 4 d' . g.. , , . - ,[ ((y, - .E 4 q- g r
y hfj; 'l; f hh . j h[ ' , ,
', 4
/
E
- f. ,
' W s
3 M .. , e t/M ^ *- ' M' ' " ' p ;
;HVAC. DAM,RINGNA. . . , -
t a,m L NdLUESb
)
l:N? ' by' i
#9, S' gg , ag , 2 9 l 1?.
l t
, _ *.. r
- C. .: .
q ' 4
+ n(* i ,g; ':L3 . '. .-
;U h J l
t 1 3 % ~.
, 5 N, ,,
(C, ' f e E , ( q
'\. , . . .
.i s
s on .
>'3, _
r
-} ;,- .;; 5
' I d
a \ \
'l-g 4
f f <
~
p a b
. A,
. _I?:5 ,
a
! 4 ~~
\ -
e .7 , . - . a )
.J s ,: <s, 4 >
,t .
" q. -
y< ,
,__I-
, f '
r_ y 1 , 7 s_.l
.. s , i l
'l i s
\
Prepa'rsdfor,s > s m p9 - .
, , t g-
,.} .
--tc. ,.
f Su-
-,I-TENN05SEEVAJiEWAUTHORITW i
O
.'Nf
#p "
i)m V
+ >
,(
, ,y y ,
97
,, .[f r ; Q :. ;
.."1 s - - , << 4 g"3
- ~q , . i w, ,
z
, by s.
s m , g I -h - ! , ' ,
, ., , ,=;g , ,
[. ' - i.l, g Gilbeit/Commonwealthkinct , g't' gp h <B' Y .nyn..rs arp conssitints'. Reading, Pennsylvania?% ~ cm 9, h
, , w.
9
, , s ;, , ,,a .
{ ' G/C Report 2783 . November 18{1988[; w Y yMi
,: .g pQ3220506890315
~
i ' N ADOCn 050003g, q> m n.- .: PNu 4 ' 1 O . v w. .u _ x _:_ 2
..'. . % a. ns--~ ,.
g G/C Report 2783 i SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANTS UNITS 1 AND 2 B25 '89 0303 00 3 HVAC DAMPING VALUES I i ) i
~
?
2 Originator: C. Chen, P.E. Chief Civil / r ural Engineer 1 Verifier:
~0-P. J.RiecMrP.E.
I&L-- Supervisorin Structural Dynamics h l Approval:" W. E. Meek, P.E. s Y Vice President & Manager of Engineering / l' Prepared for l ! Tennessee Valley Authority by f Gilbert / Commonwealth,Inc. , November,1988 RIMS, SL 26 C-K - w/allochment
) HVAC DAMPING VALUES TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae Table of Contents i List of Tables ii i List of Iigures lii EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
iv i
- l. Introduction 1
- 11. Test Program 1
- 1. Test Specimens 2
]
- 2. Test Fixture 2
- 3. Variable Support 2 !
- 4. Test Machine 3
- 5. Instrumentation 3
- 6. Test Waveforms 3 j 6.1 Sine Sweep Tests 3 6.2 Sine Decay Tests 4 6.3 Random Multi-Frequency Tests 4 Ill. Discussion of Test Results on Damping 5 ;
i IV. Test Results and Recommendations 8-k V. References 10 ) i t ,
LIST OF TABLES i Table Pace
- 1. Types of Construction and Duct Sizes Tested jj
- 2. Companion Angles 12
- 3. Pocket Locks 13
) t l l [ L i ii }
UST OF FIGURES Fiqures Pace
- 1. Test Fixture and Test Specimen 14
- 2. Flow Diagram for DuctTesting 15
- 3. Test Fixture and Variable Support for Seismic Qualification of HVAC Ducts 16
- 4. Dynamic Calibration of Variaole Support 17
- 5. Calibration Curves for Variable Supports 18
- 6. Test Machine Capabilities 19
- 7. Typical AccelerometerInstallation 20
- 8. Typical LVDT Installation 21
- 9. Companion Angles 22
- 10. Pocket Locks 23 l 11.
12. Acceleration-Frequency Response Plot Acceleration-Frequency Response Plot 24 25
- 13. Comparison of Response Spectra for SSE,5% Damping 26 I
I I I I I
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Damping is an energy dissipation mechanism which occurs in every kind of moving structure and equipment. The current USNRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.61 defines damping values of certain types of structures and equipment of nuclear power plant facilities. Since RG 1.61 does not address HVAC ductwork, dynamic testing data sre studied to recommend conservative (mean value minus one standard deviation) damping values of 6% (SSE) and 5% (OBE) for companion angle construction and 9% (SSE and OBE) for pocket lock construction. The above recommended values are for plants designed to Housner (mean value) spectra. For plants designed to RG 1.60 (mean value plus one standard deviation) spectra, the mean values of damping value should be used for design. They are 7% (SSE) and 6% (OBE) for companion angle construction and 10% for pocket lock construction. I I iv
k 1 5
- l. Introduction p
Damping is an energy dissipation mechanism which occurs in every kind of . moving structure and equipment. It is a parameter required in the dynamic analysis to predict realistic responses. USNRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.61 has been used by the nuclear industry for selecting damping values. However, the dynamic behavior of HVAC ductwork constructed in accordance with the Sheet g Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association Standards ) (SMACNA)is quite different from structures and piping listed in RG 1.61. Thus, ( dynamic testing of HVAC ductwork is warranted to achieve realistic and yet ! conservative damping values. In restart reviews for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, the NRC questioned TVA's use of 7% damping for some duct system designs. This damping was based on , dynamic testing performed for TVA on representative SM ACNA type ducts. However, the basis for concluding that the test data supported 7% damping was not thoroughly documented. Therefore, this same data has been re-evaluated as documented by this report. Based on this re-evaluation, some slight variations from 7% damping are recommended dependent on the type of licensing basis design spectra (i.e., Housner or RG 1.60) and the type of duct construction (i.e., companion angle or pocket lock). Final recommendations are presented in Section IV. II. Test Proaram The tests were performed by Wyle Laboratories under a program designed by TVA (References 1 and 2). The intent of the program was to seismically qualify ductwork and obtain data for damping determinations. References 1 and 2 provide a detailed description of the test specimens, test requirements and other relevant information. Figure 1 shows one test ; specimen mounted in the universal test fixture and other relevant information. Other specimens were mounted in a similar manner. Figure 2 is a flow diagram which shows the planned sequence of testing. There were some minor variations from the planned sequence due to decisions which had to be made during the course of the testing. 1 ()
ll.1 Test Specimens Table I shows the dimensions and span lengths of the specimens tested. As shown, full-size rectangular HVAC ducts of three different sizes (both pocket lock and companion angle construction) were tested in each axis. Since the span length is unique to the axis tested, this scheme provided 7 i data for the equivalent of six duct sizes for each type of construction : tested. 'l 11.2 Test Fixture I in actual use, duct systems can be supported in an almost unlimited number of ways. It was therefore not possible to design a test fixture to exactly simulate the support method. Hereinafter, " support" shall imply
" seismic restraint" unless specifically stated otherwise.
The as-designed test fixture, Figure 3, was universal in that it accommodated all specimens tested, in each axis, and for both types of construction. The fixture was relatively lightweight and designed to minimize its effect upon specimen response while, at the same time, being generally representative of as-built support masses and support designs. II.3 Variable Support Since one goal in this program was to remove all constraints on support system flexibility, the natural frequency of the duct / support system was made to match the dominant frequency range of the seismic response spectra. - Variable stiffness supports were designed to alter the structural response of the duct / support system. The variable supports (Figure 3) were achieved with leaf springs made of alloy steel and hardened to a minimum yield strength of 130 KSI. They were designed to sustain the maximum dynamic load from the heaviest duct at resonance without overstress of the spring. By altering the mounting position on the spring, both the heaviest and the lightest weight ducts were tuned to a first mode 2-
resonance of 8 to 11 Hertz, the dominant frequency range of the seismic response spectra. The variable supports were calibrated both statically and dynamically for each mounting position on the flat spring (see Figure 4). The calibration data was plotted as force versus displacement for each position. Since spring displacement was recorded continuously during all dynamic tests, the force calibration data allowed a method of determining reaction forces. The spring calibration curves are shown in Figure 5. II.4 Test Machine \ The machine which was used for this testing was a servo-hydraulic high force simulator with 160,000 force pound capability and up to 500 Hertz maximum frequency responte. The mounting surface was flat in the horizontal plane and measured approximately 17' x 11'. The plot in Figure 6 shows the capabilities of the machine. 11.5 Instrumentation in addition to the machine mounted control instrumentation, strain gages and accelerometers were mounted on the duct specimens. Figure 1 shows the typicallocation of the accelerometers, the generallocation of the strain gages, and the location of displacement transducers (LVDT's). The exact location of the strain gages were sometimes varied, depending upon the specimen and the information desired. Figures 7 and 8 show typical accelerometer and LVDT installations, respectively, ll.6 Test Waveforms ll.6.1 Sine Sweep Tests Specimens 1 and 2 were subjected to five (5) sine sweeps in the strong axis attitude at acceleration levels of approximately .05g,
.10g, .15g, .20g and .25g from 1 Hz to 40 Hz. Specimens 3 through 6 were subjected to sine sweep at 0.1g acceleration in either the strong or weak axis. Specimens 7 through 12 were subjected to sine sweep tests at 0.05g acceleration in either the strong o'r weak axis.
1 The sweep rate was one octave per minute. These sine sweeps were performed with the specimen mounted in its rigid position The results of these tests were used to determine specimen resonances. Damping values were also obtained by the half power band width ) method. Additionally, with the supports repositioned, a sine sweep was performed at an acceleration level of .05g or .10g from from 1 Hz to . i 40 Hz to verify that the support had been tuned to give a combined specimen / support system resonance from 8 Hz to 11 Hz for the qualification tests. However, tests in this position were not used for damping calculations. 11.6.2 Sine Decay Tests , Specimens 1 and 2 were subjected to five (5) sine decay tests in the strong axis attitude at acceleration levels of approximately .05g,
.10g, .15g, .20g, and .25g at the resonances determined from the sine sweep tests. Specimens 3 through 6 were subjected to sine decay tests at 0.1g acceleration in either strong or weak axis.
Specimens 7 through 12 were subjected to sine decay tests at 0.05g acceleration in either the strong or weak axis. These sine decay tests were performed with the specimen mounted in its rigid position. The sine decay tests were performed by peaking at the resonances and quickly turning off the test machine and recording the decay on an oscillograph and FM tape. The results from these tests were used to determine damping of the specimens using the logarithmic decrement method. 11.6.3 Random Multi frequencyTests At the completion of the sine sweep and sine decay tests, as described in Paragraphs ll.6.1 and ll.6.2, the specimens were subjected to a 30-second duration vertical input random waveform motion consisting of frequency bandwidths spaced one-third octave apart over the range of 1 Hz to 40 Hz to envelop the required response spectra. The amplitude of each one third octave
i frequency was independently adjusted for each specimen axis until the test response spectra enveloped the required response spectra within the limitations of the test machine. Approximately three (3) successively higher iterations were used to reach full-level, h Each specimen was tested to the upper bound curve for the first test f attitude (major axis). For the second test attitude (minor axis), each specimen was tested first to the upper bound curve and then, if i failure had not occurred, the specimens were tested to failure or to test machine limitations. ! 111. Discussion of Test Results on Dampino As noted above in Sections ll.5.1 and l1.6.2, sine sweep tests and sine decay I tests were used to obtain damping by the half power bandwidth method and the log decrement method, respectively. Both the log decrement and the bandwidth methods are commonly accepted methods of damping evaluation that are described in many structural dynamics textbooks (e.g., see Refer-ence 3, pp 69-73 or Reference 4, pp 2-5 through 2-15). These methods and possible sources of inaccuracy in their application are discussed below. Loa Decrement Method As noted in Reference 3, the log decrement method is probably the sirnplest and most frequently used experimental method. With this method, a system is initially excited then allowed to vibrate freely. The rate of decay of the free vibration sinusoidal response amplitude provides a direct measure of the system energy dissipation (or damping) from one cycle to the next. Tables 2 and 3 of this report have taken the log decrement damping results and separately tabulated these results for the companion angle and pocket lock specimens, respectively. The mean and standard deviation of the damping results are also shown. Since a variety of input amplitudes (i.e.,0.05, 0.10,0.15,0.20, and 0.25 g's) were applied for some of the companion angle specimens, it is possible to construct a linear regression curve fit for damping versus input excitation. This was done as shown by Figure 9. From this figure, it is evident that significant damping was present even at low amplitudes of input excitation and there is only a slight increase in the damping at higher
1 I inputs. This indicates that the chief energy dissipation mechanism was mobilized at the lowest input value of 0.05g. This mechanism is postulated to be largely from " working" of the companion angle joints. This postulation is supported by the fact that pocket lock ducts, which differ in construction from the companion angle ducts only by the transverse joints between segments, exhibited significantly higher damping. Varying input amplitudes were not f applied in the pocket lock specimen tests, therefore, a linear regression curve cannot be shown for these ducts. However, the mean damping value obtained for these specimens is graphically depicted by Figure 10. Half-Power Bandwidth Method l The half-power bandwidth method is intended for application to a single-degree of-freedom (SDOF) system or a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) i system with frequencies well separated so that each mode may be regarded as having an SDOF type response. This method requires plotting the amplitude of the steady-state response to a constant amplitude harmonicinput at varying frequencies both below and above the natural frequency of the SDOF type system response. This is most accurately accomplished with a series of sine dwell tests but may be reasonably accomplished with a sine sweep test if the sweep rate is slow enough relative to the system natural frequency to allow full resonance to develop. The resulting frequency response plot is then used to determine the frequency bandwidth, ap, at the half-power points. By definition, these points are at frequencies fi and f2 where a line at the peak / J 2 response amplitude intersects the plot. Damping is then computed by the following equation: Damping = ap/2 = (f2-f1 )/(f2 + ft ) (1) As noted in Reference 3, this method requires that the response curve be plotted accurately in the half-power range and at resonance. in reviewing the frequency acceleration response plots obtained by the testing, it is evident that most results have significant interferences around the peak of the fundamental beam mode. This interference is seen as secondary spikes either before or after the peak of the fundamental beam mode it can be the result of local resonances at the accelerometer attachment to the
1 f specimen or the " Jump phenomenon" of a non linear system (see Reference 7, pp.180-185). These secondary spikes cause the indicated beam mode response to be suppressed at the off-resonant frequencies of the beam mode .resulting in a narrowed bandwidth. This results in a bandwidth calculation of damping L that is unrealistically low for the gross beam motion response of the ductwork. Further evidence of this is provided by the fact that the damping based on the f resonant amplificat. ion response is significantly higher. In theory, for a clean SDOF type frequency response plot, the damping based on resonant amplification should be identical to that calculated by the bandwidth method. Resonant amplification based damping is calculated by the following equation (Reference 3): Damping = (1/2)X(Input Amplitude / Peak Response Amplitude) (2) ) Since this calculation relies only on the ratio of the input to peak response amplitudes, it is not sensitive to the interferences around the peak. To evaluate the relative sensitivity of the bandwidth damping to interferences around the peak it is instructive to look at Figures 11 and 12 which are two response plots obtained from the testing. Both plots are from the "3V" instrumentlocation which was at midspan of the spscimens. As seen for Figure 11, this response plot is relatively clean around the peak. Frequencies 1f and f2 are approximately 14.7 Hz and 17.2 Hz, respectively, resulting in a bandwidth calculation of damping from Figure 11 as follows (Equation 1): Damping = (17.2 - 14.7)/(17.2 + 14.7) = 7.8% Alternatively, by the resonant amplification method, the resonant amplification damping from Figure 11 is as follows (Equation 2): Damping = (1/2)(0.08/0.36) = 11.1% in Figure 12, a significant secondary spike is seen to interfere with the peak thereby narrowing the apparent bandwidth with resulting frequencies ft and f 2of 19.4 Hz and 21.8 Hz, respectively. The resulting bandwidth damping from Figure 12 is (Equation 1): Damping = (21.8 - 19.4)/(21.8 + 19.4) = 5.8%
Alternatively, the resonant amplification damping from Figure 12 is (Equation 2): s Damping = (1/2)(0.11/0.52) = 10.6% i By way of comparison,it is seen for Figure 11 that this relatively clean frequency-response pot results in damping by the half-power bandwidth { method that is 70% of that obtained by the resonant amplification method. Comparing the methods for Figure 12 where significant off-peak interferences are present, the half-power bandwidth method predicts only 55% as much damping as obtained by the resonant amplification method. t Based on the above discussion, the half-power bandwidth results are not as reliable as log decrement results. The same conclusion was also reached in l Reference 5. IV. Test Results and Recommendations The results of damping values (Volume ll of Reference 2) are as shown in Figures 9 and 10 and Tables 2 and 3. Figure 9 shows that the damping values - of companion angle ducts by linear regression curve fitting (Ref. 6) are almost independent of input acceleration values. The reason is that the energy dissipation mechanism which occured at the joints of companion angles was created by slippage and was mobilized at the lowest input value of 0.05g. As the input acceleration increases, the damping values change only slightly. It is a general NRC practice to specify different damping values corresponding to different types of ground response spectra input (e.g. Housner spectra or RG 1.60 spectra). Also,it is a general NRC practice to specify higher damping values for the SSE than for the OBE because of the higher stress levels associated with the SSE. Because of the relatively low mean acceleration amplitudes at which damping tests were performed, it is conservative to consider the computed mean of the test data to be representative of OBE damping. Since the SSE has been defined as twice the OBE, the SSE damping should be taken at twice the acceleration at which the OBE mean damping occurs. This can be used to recommend an SSE damping value for companion angle ducts by using the linear regression curve of Figure 9. However, this is
h not possible for pocket lock ducts since there was insufficient data to construct a linear regression curve for these ducts. f As shown in Table 2 and Figure 9 for companion angle ducts, the mean values l of damping are 6.5% and 6.9% (OBE and SSE) and the mean values minus one standard deviation are 5.4% and 6.0% (OBE and SSE). It is recommended that ( the mean value of damping be used in conjunction with RG 1.60 type (mean plus one ste jard deviation) spectra and the mean value minus one standard deviation of damping be used in conjunction with Housner type (mean value) spectra. The Sequoyah Nuclear Plant design basis is Housner type spectra. However, the actual design is based on artificial time histories with r corresponding spectra far exceeding Housner spectra in the important frequency region as shown in Figure 13. Thus,it is conservative to use the
- mean value minus one standard deviation of damping value for both OBE and SSE in conjunction with the input of response spectra generated from artificial time histories.
The results of pocket lock duct tests are as shown in Figure 10 and Table 3. The only input acceleration value used was 0.05g. Since the mean value minus one ' standard deviation is 8.8% at 0.05g,it is reasonable to use 9.0% for both OBE and SSE with Housner type spectra input. Since mean value is 9.7% at 0.05g, it is reasonable to use 10% for both OBE and SSE with RG 1.60 type spectra input. In conclusion, the recommended damping values are 5% (OBE) and 6% (SSE) for companion angles and 9% (OBE and SSE) for pocket lock fabrications with Housner type spectra input. For RG 1.60 type spectra input, the recommended damping values are 6% (OBE) and 7% (SSE) for companion angles and 10% (OBE and SSE) for pocket lock fabrications. These values are conservative for the following reasons:
- 1. The actual design spectra are much stronger than the Housner spectra as shown in Figure 13,
- 2. As described in paragraph II.6.2, the sine decay tests were performed at the rigid support position. Since system damping is the accumulated energy dissipation of supports and ductwork, using only the energy dissipation of the ductwork under-estimates system damping.
. .g.
) I IV. References
- 1. TVA Report No. MA2-79-1, " Summary Report for HVAC Ducts Seismic
- Qualification and Verification / Improvement Program", TVA Division of I
Engineering Design, Civil Engineering Branch, June 16,1979.
- 2. TVA Report No. CEB-79-7, " Test Report on Seismic f
QualificationNerificationon HVAC Ducts", Volumes I,11, and Ill, prepared by Wyle Laboratories,1979.
- 3. R. W. Clough and J. Penzien, Dynamics of Structures, McGraw-Hill Book l Company,1975.
- 4. C. M. Harris and C. E. Crede, Shock and Vibration Handbook,2nd Edition, 1
McGraw-Hill Book Company,1976.
- 5. D. E. Chitty, G. E. Howard, W. B. Walton, " Damping in Non-Linear Piping Systems",1982 ASME Winter Meeting Phoenix, Arizona. '
- 6. Grapher, Golden Software, Inc.,1986.
- 7. S. Timoshenko, D. H. Young, and W. Weaver, Jr., Vibration Problems in Enaineerina,4th Edition, John Wiley and Sons,1974.
c
B B TABLE I TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION AND DUCT SIZES TESTED Type Duct Span specimen Construction Duct Size Skin Thickness Length Length No. Companion Angle 60" x 24" 20 ga. (0.0359") 31.3' 28' 2 24" x 60" 20 ga. (0.0359") 23.5' 16' 1 4 48" x 18" 22 ga. (0.0299") 27.5' 26' 1 18" x 48" 22 ga. (0.0299") 19.5' 14' 5 36" x 24" 22 ga. (0.0299") 23.5' 22' 3 24" x 36" 22 ga. (0.0299") 23.5' 16' 6 Pocket Lock 60" x 24" 20 ga. (0.0359") 31.3' 28' 9 24" x 60" 20 ga. (0.0359") 23.5' 16' 12 4d" x 18" 22 ga, (0.0299") 27.5' 26' 8 18" x 48" 22 ga. (0.0299") 19.5' 14' 11 36" x 24" 22 ga. (0.0299") 23.5' 22' 7 24" x 5" 22 ga. (0.0299") 19.5 16' 10 I I 5 3 8 . 1
-Il-
\ s
~ #
TABLE 2 , COMPANION ANGLES Test input g Log Decrement Run Value Dampina (%} I' 4 0.05 6.4 5 0.10 6.4 8 0.15 6.6 - - 9 0.20 5.8 10 0.25 7.1 22 0.05 6.8 23 0.10 7.1 ,. 24 0.15 7.2 25 0.20 7.2 26 0.25 7.1
~
37 0.10 4.3 46 0.10 7.9 58 0.10 5.4 ,, 59 0.10 5.5 . 4 66 0.10 7.2 n = 15 x = 6.5 on-1 = 0.9 where X = Ex/n on-1 =J(n x2. n x2)/(n-1) 7
+
{ i e I TABLE 3 - f I*i POCKET LOCKS . Test input g Log Decrement Run Value Dampina (%) 73 0.05 8.2 97 0.05 10.8 1 107 0.05 9.7 ) 115 0.05 9.7 123 0.05 9.9 I n=5 l 7 = 9.7 ' ! on-1 = 0.9 .. x - on -1 = 8.8 wherei = Ex/n on-1 =)(E x2 - n 72)/(n-1)
N li \ l i l r l l . .ii T (l y J
~.m vi tl d' ID 3 a r-i[ i
.l ! .!I. ! t,
-] .. 'j i
i: !I P ---.T 1: *
] *
} .~,
{ h 'j S.f4 c'S I M.,AN ! sp i . _u. i w u_ _ y r_n -
. fll f
'; :t, .
l l t 7 I
. f -l Im
9 I
, T_.__ -:
l l j i
? ' '; j !
. i . i
' ' v i l t .
( .: l 1 $ -
, a +
l
. .i t ..___.,
.l .
l
, l l
. ' 1 l
i
,t ..
i t i '
.j s z
[ i
^
j W
'... ' i
= u_ 2 i - !
r - ; ::s
! .i h, !*'l l 8, y
( .. s lI . e g
.i 1 .! ;
m 1( i i i ___ g 's F
'I !
j ; Q p -# i I
. l l > CO I.
3{ ~- y- 3 , g ag,- 64-1 f j $_. 7 F Z
, f." ,
., $ ++- '
i, W
! e
! l l !
I 3 l
, ! +l -- -
-m _
,_._ c j F
!g , i X
. I ;
i I g , Lt .
' i t
'. .l I H n.
J L I
) U
# w r- -- m '
I o F 4 dn f l i S i 0,! ,'
) W e
- d. , i
, ' ;I. m
, s, i e
s , ! .; _ 5 ; ;, L ,[ i ,_ _q 'f g g w 3
-l l3 9 r g! '
gl- : -
=
. l 1
. .i' ,
I i ! l 5 ) .i {i. _4 3 . g , .: , 4.. 2 L 4 l ' e M a;. I' '! [. I 1
- ] 'l
= a ..l .
j _1 4 y u .~. a' . y , e i I t ,t j
*'i ,
p' ., f {
*: -l , \ *J---
g G- 0 't 17 ^l F" 5 l l ' l'! a t-- g; L_ L._ 7 l s m.j i c,id-.. y;
.. p!
. -{,.
gn I:g;! ~ 4
. . . , h1 i
- m. ~..,
)
3 1 i i
ETHA y- ~ OM P P D l l T E E D E u S L O C G I C 'E E L NFA Ju C N o - S o C Y u
=
o a E
" P N)**
T F E I T IL l 4 S C A D 3 R F - l l
- T
= T A
, 2 3 y E . ,,j.u, ,
M
=
1 p a
- .E E S
,x if u L I T t t
G g n F W S E F .u 'C. sw 3 C T T
- 0. , . n. T f
D g r S T F O E.?.. T A F I
%' A =o. n
, o a
A . so t D , DM E D = ua , 4' s u LL y wC E.L.
=s I P N f
A F E E
- j. 0o. y . Ea E s 1
o D T W l g, j C _ s D a s U e 0 e l 9 D V T O I T C", E Ws s l ts s t E"8 t G cu '5
, DO ET I
a c a u C E", f LA M T A LT E = r AM . i s A T" _ J t ef a a h N O tu l A t s a V J S A B A M' I N M'"fO WC R 5T F H
- l
_ pFe [In f . 1 = l . '8 g ,1.,! :5 O F B
=
NS U - s ' D O P i ON ' E El TI
$ E T u ,
A T S E Mn f H EE aN TF CO s 3 E" C C"E, ou GIO 7, t T E T E I s u G E T 3C ' G,t u"o, s U E T a0 T iA T KI O T C C s e MNE e e tTE sI I D L U E 1
.Lu N
C # IO f E M0 EB l e EJ f L T# tER C E' i ' M S ss A I eo '
' IR FI t a
fu a .A I n s m ' T. E APP F . G A i" n T J S DN p c* y0 g1 N' aAtJ 0 R F a' S E - AP T V as r E 9 W S 3 ES eC n R N E esE s A N e e L E hE E z ut e I C O T nA OE t D NT P EEM s PU EQ tE uR u ts S g L f 3 3 t c 5lk_,o 7T u I oE SF t E M i v 0 1 M A ; u, , DI L G T T I fL aEA i Ns T sy Wg L a A F g~C .A N A St
)
D L g e . I T R S B - E t E T eD "u. I O C mES V a RJC sT e T 3uO T SE T L D s s A e v se Y L T s r. i u! RA E TR n Sa s tm* L s i 0AT f A O 'S o r fenu C nA= mfT tF u " r U e$ s g w-E 3 sSE a nE A t 5 L T sS' a " SM' D s u 0D 1 p fe Arfe H
- m. D BE A Ks IAB' E '* N put e 4
T gy - e T A D 2 R I c O E F n A 0 840 M* R UM Poe8 EE e s Ys a's 438
- am 3 0
F" 5 l e g S T R s ora s G A T apa es 8 44 322 L G g L( A f" C a E" p 1 ee W1 3 Ss rJ m P E t sa ni E d e i s 3 I F R Nn TAe se m W G8' sft e [ d !n m m E L 4 G OE sR A g 1 a3 a t t t b a g Tu V EP P E A L E TS I I T E I T E F m t Cu J S E" E Y e E. C u D W 5 ou A i 2 TI DW F E Uc
- D. F.L. w LS 8(
Ro t T eMO 8 6O AF ) - s W S T 4 e43G - O N a's *ss - - L Oo 8 44 F Coe F s '22 t l nJT s Y w T E D[ su T O s L C L sai T A E S t r a WF U A CA eD m s Ee s e T u : D dm.yw P t P s E E e G S t MS T 1 5 Te s U I E T S MD C C E pt ss W L A T E o u O . e Ec Tt r s PM M OO Cs t i t S t E e E T MS LfET 5 s gcees D IwUl t
> L. .
l
< lIl ,
N E I M ,
~
C E E L P B A - S T S _
~
T T E _ S T E T T C U - _ D - _ _ I j [ l 1 l' i i
~
S t T _~ f C 8 U - 2 D E R C DFOVA E LT M BR G A N N H R AO I P IM T ATF 3 EORO F RP NA ' ' AU UE D ' , N VS OB RPN E UPO E M _ _ _ R TUI U XS T 7 G F E A I A - l_ I F C I _ t_ = LF t - _ TBI L SA EI A n TR U AQ a V C
- I M
t - S I
, " r_ , , -
- E n S
. , \' .
t f 7 a - e ' . e -
- ?
a - a t
?-
J - ~
- h -
~
~
~
g o-H, ' ,
'T .
ll .ll
* /4.- s .- 5d o . v.
~.w Q{:
br s . t j
,1 y ,,
l e f f[e[5
/
-' / .
]* .
'.-~
.j .
g
.. : . ,4
;.. a -
. c a.s _
g-irj .'. .
. +4
.y.
1
- " '"} 5 <
, g ..
_1 t. . y
..t
.- ., .t
'y; ('
'ytk. S - W f1
,4 g. .'_ .
,.4
.t .
o.s, - 3 f:
. . r,. . .: . ... ;. g., .
- r. . . ~ .
.. ,. .- 4.
.N ;^'
- _ . "-l~* 'u.' u _ f. '
_,. ' k. .
,g.
' . . %'s .
^
9 '~ e - _e Y ' DYNAMIC CALU! RATION T VARIABLE SUPPCRT FIGURE 4 9
.J e
w . - _ _ _ _ _ ____- LOAD POSITIONS I 1098765432I u u yu v v v v v v t. )
/ / / /////
SPRING SUPPORT i I CALIBRATION CURVES FOR VARIABLE SUPPORTS 1 1 FW 10 9 ,,, , , , i . .; , .8 - , - 5000 l i !.F
/ ,7 . i F_ E * '
I, , i .s r 1. , si 6 r!. . 1 i I E
, ,N' 51 1 ,
il i e j F* r ! F: F i Ei E. i i - r - 1 . la e U! i i I EI 1A i. E ' # I 3 E E' 2. !J f_ 1~ ' A ' I I E N; 'N .F _ 3. 5 1 1 1E ' ' 4000i I
- E.
E N! W
> V r 'F-E A J I 3
- E f'
m . , s! , is1 11 ,s
- Ei .I . - 1- 1 . :s .I .
f O i 1 's i . c i .r Z 3 r r! r! r di g ! f 'F' r
's i - !
1 .r i _ i iFr, i 1: r- . .r- i I ' I r
'E' E Ig i ' ) ! . #. '
E 1 E J I 1 . 1 ' I E E I. E I! I i
.Ii '# ! ' ' = 3 I I N1 FI i - 7 E e #' i i d' I g
7ppy E E El ! i Ii l' 1 1 .A '
'F' \
wVVw I II Nij O I If f II 1 !J t
. ! F' . E iE
!j' I #
# +
I #' 2 --- et( l !E N J iE f # # #f. o a '.. ' , ' 12 u'
/,'
E i Ill E F 4 iI_ #
- 1. ,
e'! i i e i -_-
# # UF I l l 191 E I N 'A f f. F 'f '
Q Ii EII I A'! iJ F! Ei .I . # '
'# I# '
IIE!I. f I # g 2000 i
,g 1 ,I T1 E ,A R J r r I .#
.dF
# 4
, J 1 ,! ;#
i
# 1 ,
IIIE I f F .# 'I-Z' IIEF E. J I- . I # ur' uni I y E IE E, R ! .V EQ I F # # i c m is sa I II[ER J' ru. Fi ;E r i - r e # # , i
* \
t
- I~. # # # I i1 i l IE LER R 2if ~f f f '
~ \ \ \ !
EWHf F- # I: P # . i I ' ! I'I M 2r J E: I. . # # # I t ' i V J' F # l000 n EEM EnrA F J' F t # .I # f ~ #
#. 1 I 1.
\
I IIN; F J' #1 #'# # ' i I MA 1J #1 M'## i i IM r sF. F#,F# t ! l !5 5
. i i IWJ ,'E #### 1. 1 l- r#_#1 4 , ,
<. i .
i i ! L I i ! I s- # r { I ! # i 6 ' O.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 DISPLACEMENT (INCHES) SINGLE AMPLITUDE - 10 HE FIGURE 5
vux n n > s em v vvx n n >< s /mvv m n I
@,'% o v^sIA^v' v ' ^
v nZG M'A ^v' v ' ^ v %2GG v
^
v'CII
/,
}'- ANNKN YV\ /eGN /lNNKN YV\ /?(N /'KNK\ Y\ g
/ EWsX MSZ(A/ XWsX MQZ(#/ XW s
$"Z 'WWE '
>ZK X.MWW<>/X X * '
g
)GK/YMM@XX/\XMM@)<X/\M @ $$52s5MM8ddx$N$$@M8d$2bM@M g ;ssscam?sossssx\amasossssxsamzso
! 940$$@2$)Dd$d8@6)Cd008@6)6
' * ^ ,
a 3 veu AXN.K v 2$QXK'X'v^/\/R$ZX'/\r^/ w v v VMrmuw v v vru v $$N wux^ 7sK'f v v ^i
, v. -
8 Go(,o(/ WNXN YVN /?(r<' /%NNKN YV N #(N / WN '
>Z(^/ MW<X NEZ(A7 e LWJMSZ(A/ Xs j '
x/X X .WWW<K/X X M\NWMK/X X M 9X : . . l 2%/NFOM&Xf/\fRM&Mb/V8h$s@ ' 5 i i skb2$d2$@@s$$2$f>M@M8562$M@M
;sssxxamaso;sssxswa nsss sx masan 1 5
jd$$8@kN)Dd$$# YMM'@xa6)D>!)! @ l vru 9um v5SNEN'X'v^^ ' v fSbZ k Z
^ ^ *
$<{ .,^v^f j
/?(N/WNKN Y VN ./gN,d VV wu < /*o7-% tv v? ,( g 0: o 'N ffgg. ; ,, fyx.
/ZCA/ MW<X NEZ(A, @
{ p 3&Z(A , xX V - *s , <x/X X .WWW<>'/X ; MK/X X ' FxN)f6t ' o! J> _ e^g E ~ ~;x R$<XX/\ 295/VMM@XQ
$d[2$f2$@@Cdxk hM$$$2$ f>hf)Msd }
sssxxamasossssman asossssxx masm
$s5 $$E6'>OxCD$@@6 )Gd$Eh@6)'} >;;
wezxr wu ,wu vx v v xw=yu , m v um/wozuxx'n vv v,y . uum v v.,, d66O( / WN&\ YV\ M(N / WNK\ Y\& ff,(N /WNJKN VX/\ ,
>Z(^/ M \' 5 X 4MZKA/ XWX '\,8GZ(A/ MWy M * <x/X X 'p*X%X8</x/X X .MWW/N/'X '
Rs>(69 h YhhhYN/ bbMhh$b/ \f X g'f . Q > N X N / /h g'sm7sossssxxampsossssm)(ezso H{ W$@b)Dd$$8@E$)Dd U [ ll H U U u v o o
$$h6)G>!
- w -
sesf ul AjoojeA
l - \ l
.b o- y = M b a
-7 J .
.^* .
- . 1 3 ' }' _
% e :
7
- E
.; 7 /$,. I,.Tjq;(D-_
-rY * ('j '
,.. . . m .<. = :.
*E ,
*y
~
4; y . y.r 1 , ; i3
- g. ,'
I ,, m (, c L.'u%. )d*y gp* CW,h i!g {,,,?Hu,T*
..-hstg.e... :u ..
.- , ' '/.4 y -
j
. -:,, g # ys g J *f... ,,s' .' , , ,
- u. , I ".'., '.i t,; .
; -, gf: 2, 3 ,:. . . .*
- . [e.,
- ni; ' .
p gc:s.4 . s d?-I? 7:j~'y. ..
$'*?) .
i.c /- .:$$QNE ' ~l', e GMiG.hd2 - ji .. .
.: iWNdh5!d TYPICAL ACCELERCHETER INSTALLATION FIGURE 7
[- t .'N
*[s,g,~s,a a '4, f 9- s
. v. s. . . ,
% l'. [*.c6' , e' .s 4 s
't .. kQ y * , s .
o
}
' .. *.A y )
~
~
.>.. .h [ ,-
.:i, ~. ,
.k'
; ,,,-:t.j.... .
7
= . .
' v ,.. ,,.
+- . .j ?.. / -
i, . f.-
~
m; - - , 4-r.$
.- : .f
- 4. % g o.. ; ./ *4.3
#f .sy y . ,
'* g N '-
~ . .h ..
~. .. . .
. +p _ ,,.
Na I . . __-j g,i ,"
., ?' -
..:i' s..
, '#j
..c
- 8
) +4, N 2,f.. 4 p ., *.
f n
. : *):' . :V* f.,
&, 94; qQ -
TYPICAL LVDT INSTALLATION FIGURE 8
)
O
-n i<
I& ! e :6 1 o - 1 Y l
'D -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _s . x7_.___ cass)o e - 6 0 - 6 9 1-=3 - x :a i : 4 i l \ -O i l x x -N l : w w !' D J j l _ a o _ z I
- j l -D x i _, m z l O p.- o a
i
- D Z i e <
- o. l, z 2 (ago)v s = 6 0 - s 9 - '
l I-} - x - O
- O O ;
i x xx I l i xx x _, ,
. . 1
) O ) l . m I . D o l* 79 E _O
- l l _
l : I I } -
-O l l iiiiiii1iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiiiiii - O, O. O.
O. O. O (.l.N3083d) DNidWYG l
- E U L - A 0 V i 1 N . . A 0 - E M . - 8 i0 0 _ 6 E i0 .U 0L A V K C
= , r x . g O
. L
. T U 1 P t 4N K i 0. I C
O 0 P
- o 2 i
-i0 G 0 I F
0 _ - - ~ _ - - _ _ __ _ _______ 0 0 0 0. 0 0 8 6 1 s mEWoxwo.*rEa_2<o
$i
-Iv-5/::
T' SCALE LEVEL ACCELERATION ( g peck) J/N 4 6 * '35-$ 7 Page C * '" ) 1.0 0 10 S 100 1000 to, . n. a 7 l , l i, , ; f 4 1 , , , , l m 2 o + v
% I g f
I e - w . . i i i i a ' i . . ,, s 8 , , 1 a [8 ff AK 8 0 3bj _ -- w IE I y g g f6Ak. /E. O O.15] o. E' e ' 1
.U ' i i i i i , r
. a .
a
- + (W l as I
, ,i -s
' I 1 n, I d c
j k i _w . - t i i , l , '
-y w!
=,
;. =
i __s - ! i i .- , . i i r
-~
, - , .2 "
*a y, , . , , - .
m ', ,, , , ,,,,,,,, g1
- 1 i i
- * ' i i
,i- 1 , , ;
- a 1 . _ _ _-
y 1; - _
!i 4 - --
J- --._.. .-- w ;- '
>> , _.-.e w a.
r ,
=__ .,._. ,- - - =,
t _
- 1 1 , , , ,
l ,
-r-a --
3 3 t iil i j ===d q li, '
. l
' i
; l l
*'u g g:
- 3 2 4 5
- i . 7 . . .
. . 4 , .,,n F ecaency (Hz)
FIGURE 11 CUSICMER I" AXIS A've # SPECIMEN A LOCATICN NC. Yv S/N TEST RUN NC. Af
VI-5/II. i FULL SCALE LEVEL ACCELERAilON ( g peck) J/N **822-a! Page D "'" ) 1.0 10 00 100 0 1000 0 9 7 i , , ; , i
, ;_ i s ,
4
.n j 1 1 t
3 _1
~
2 m c, i i 1 , , i N ' . i
' i e ; , .,
v . l I i i 8 l 1 , l I I i *
- a I I l 10 h-9 i
9 1 J '7 0AK:062,$ l ' ' Pa Q. 3 __ 7&#+ p = o.s g
) _
5 _ U . 1 . , , , , , , ,
.: U
/ 1 j
^
ll
~ "
l L' , ; ( i j ,i v : ____ '_M i i i -. , t ;l
=$
as 8 1 , . r ,1 i
'd { 7' ,
I. , ; '; ' l i , ,
-.
- m
> > . i ,,
- 2. g lI
.i e _
9>
, 1 3
1 1 , , I l l i ;;
; i i '
' ' ', l' t l i , .
i 4 i . >..'n p g i ' . . . , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , 4 Frequenby (Hz) CUSTC MES, N4 AXIS # Wa# g g SPECIMEN / LOCATION NO. Sv i 5/N - TEST RUN NO. 6J' i i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . _ 1
'.h, I ,' '
0 . I h+ .
.$ ~ ;
70, $ L .*' 'KL Ex.L. s r/'A.:. ' ' so / ' k - ' -
' '4^ ' , ' ' so' '
a
. '.-(@ w \44 QQfh , .. / '
Ii' ' d' M' '..J_ .
.'v
'V' s -*'
.l x f/N/
N. / \/\ ' '
? .' .G -
- t. : <'. < s - t
, . 4, l
?.'. l. . (X :'#!Zd;<$$3& 'XD<[ ')#' .~rM'4'l ^{ >', j'MNk l 5
- g. k $k s
./ , 4 s s .' -
'( }
2o . .. 3, s . , # - 4. c,
, ,,49 7-- =
20 -
' N (( b b \ I,*
*i ',[' / y'N k,NN'<.$ s v ACT UAL DESIGN. e s ' -
.. x l g'h, . gy - )..
'O i ,, .
.N,,
(' %, MSPECTRA , ' ' , mn / /v K - x
<g j
. - & % .-l .,s. ..
)
^0 r y r . A a n c.; * , ~nf el _u. .. a a'3xe x ' - <
X /\ N ' i_ 'g N A MNM f h . 3 i
' t X. %
0 I*C ".~. [/ / s f N ,"i _ xi^/V MWNN yh ,.. 't,y j Wa ..' y, W p\,-
. .;gM s a s w,, . . , , ,
.\
w . ~ v-- -
\\ MI s
.h, ; M /\ ,NIMUM DESIGN j.
i l N, ' N'
. N '4 ^v h, s,34 /
I / 4
- . 4 y g,7 x , ,S,,P.,E,,C, ,T,,R.A ,e : s Z . 'y.r y #i L..g C.S Y(
- 5) " ?*Nj/ '
.L s'L' '
(M d _.k / /NU x s' !,J W w xs m w M.3r'xA X x ./', 2,/ x y , l IX,MQ%
"-k r* %. s ,x s m s r e. v Vx,/x/x^Axxy OX Y n Ae A ^
,. '<<'N) x ex e a f
a . ' V ,'x X^^NV'
, x K x vi AN N V vev"I x A x _x Y^^ Y ^"Y ^^Y
< / v / x ^ x x' Y x x x ' 's i
1
'M -
A / \ 'Ni'/\WM////V /N /\ \ /\Yo[' o, M _ N M '\ W U
- i
%{'N 'A AN N\ XN'99(//Y M AN :.X: t , #xX /\ X 'XN . I kSN!4 9Iv'N y 'g w xYMS$$>f/h/N N%
i
,4 m.
4 cc[ gy/'v^s'A295 '>f,2< X ; s-g.
#o ,y .
/ !\D j
w o os _ A l E . W' / / ' / 1 &.,
/ ' ^2.
n?$h\&&?'Q
. 'h/_. N .'@Q(..,.'.X N /\ . A.
'.,</.. \ \/, / :,\. ,(\ A. '< , /\ * '
~ * " T ~. 'TA_y
- . N7' hi - r*AAi N .\~ , x .N / , < ~X' 7/ , ,
~
^^'''''''''''"'.4 0 04 01 .02 .04 .06 ' .08 ' .I .2 4 '.8 1 2 4 4 4 4 i PERIOD (SECS)
'~
SEQUOVAH NUCLEAR PLANT } FINAL SAFETY ~ ) ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 13 COMPARIS0N OF RESPONSE l SPECTRA FOR SAFE SHUTD0'.iN I EARTHQL'AKE, 5.% DAMPING I }}