ML20236F303
| ML20236F303 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1987 |
| From: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | Charemagne Grimes NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236F123 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8711020087 | |
| Download: ML20236F303 (58) | |
Text
~
' # **L j.
MMISSION w s no ou e
4, Oocket hos.: 50 445/446 Christopher I. Grimes, Ofrector
-MEMORANDUM FOR:
Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects I
Hans E. Schierling, Assistant Director THRU:
for Projects k
Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects annette Vietti-Cook, Project Manager FRON:
Comanche Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH TU ELECTRIC AND EBASC 14.1987 (Cebi+ SWb
SUBJECT:
Monday, September i
Date & Time:
Tuesday, September 15,1987 L t+V Ac)
Beginning each day at 9:00 a.m.
i EBASCO offices Location:
2 World Trade Center l
New York, New Ycrk 10001 1
To discuss generic technical issues in the area 4 of heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC)
C.> 2_."
Purpose:
Ad-C e&#~M 5yp:>rt 4CT~nt65A J/ %
Applicant NRC D. Woodlan, et al.
Participants:
D~~Terao Consultant (Teledyne)
, A - CM 1 Q,m l
nnette Vietti-Cook, Project Manager l
Comanche Peak Project Division l
Office of Special Projects
)
Members of the public planning to attend should contact:
l M. Malloy or A. Vietti-Cook (301) 492-7624 (301) 492-4555 cc:
See next page 8711020087 871020 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A
fy 'i@.'
- Sehtenber.14,'1987 o
COMANGE PEAK SES UNITS #1 & #2 NIC CCNDUIT GENERIC TEQiNICAL ISSUES MEETING PIACE!: EBASCO OFTICE ' - 87th FIDOR-
'2 WDRLD TRADE' CENTER NEW YORK, N.Y.
i NAME
~ AFFILIATION
)
1 f.O.$9,2arsoJ 7 v a s c.r e r c
, y. % t.4) dAlwnu-T d ri w c r.gic 1
p J oS Et11 (BRA W R u p NRc/pNL.
Gid /is s : D e G e a.s >,
- O R c /g g;j,
}/.{ s,
)%
&&A'.sco
}
"O y
C Hlo u.
EBAsco 16cok&V 8EAM 6B A 5 C6 AdVE)il
. Q Dave 5254rco LT)Ar1/ t p TEER&o
/t/R c.
?
frna Ji&,u,+ a jnssco
.b' LM A v 5'{Q k s c,
R AL9)cAWh2U 9 3 M c.e -
i
- k. Y a,
msco
-i j
W.D. Cwm NWC l
f Tc,gty g
/nr~etrW 6W64f Pat- /)c ~ e c,o s
/ hse c. w's 1
_u
t
.g.
t,c )..
- l' ENCLOSURE ~2 I
y y.
9, TV-ELECTRIC o
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION.
~
CONDulT SUPPORTS TRAIN <A, B AND C > 2" 0
.F s
l
.s NRC/EBASCO MEETING I
+
j SEPTEMBER 14 = 16, 1987 I
l 1
u 1
\\
e
___-____________-__-__-_a
.g;.n.
+
J:, ' " '.
.n i x's.
SEPTEMBER 10 l1987:
TV'ELECTRI'C
+
LCOMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
-l r.
CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS'Al B AND C-> 2" 0
-/
t
.A G E N'D'A i
,f e
INTRODUCTION
. l'(\\
^
~~
SUMMARY
OF ' CONDUIT: SUPPORT. DESIGN VALIDATION PROGRAM 2'
STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
- 3 u
i
. ~,
l q
J l
_ ___ -__ _ _ _ _ _ a
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987.
+
i w..
TU ELECTRIC
-COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRICLSTATION i
CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B-AND C > 2" 0
SUMMARY
'0F CONDUIT SUPPORTS DESIGN VALIDATION PROGRAM o
ILU T L 1 N E j
+
f o-
SUMMARY
OF EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES a
TV ELECTRIC CORRECTIVE ACTION HISTORY j
i o-PROGRAM FEATURES l
1 o
WALKDOWN AND AS-BUILT DRAWING DEVELOPMENT i
o DESIGN VALIDATION APPROACH DEVELOPMENT y
o DESIGN VALIDATION PROCESS l
o REWORK AND DESIGN MODIFICATIONS o
LOCATION OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES l
2
. +
,;.v SEPTEMBER.14,.19871 TV.~ ELECTRIC-COMANCHE: PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A,-B AND C.>l2" 0
SUMMARY
OF CONDUIT' SUPPORTS DESIGN.VALIDAT10N PROGRAM 1
.o
SUMMARY
OF EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES
~
INTERVENOR RAISED SEVERAL BROAD ISSUES' PRE 1984
.i!+
.CYGNA IAP RAISED SEVERAL GENERIC-TECHNICAL ISSUES j
NRC-TRT REVIEW RAISED QUESTIONS ON QC ADEQUACY.(1984).
j THIRD PARTY AND-CPRT REVIEWS NRC NOTICES OF VIOLATION (1985)
{
-~
0.
ALL EXTERNAL. SOURCE ISSUES ARE RESOLVED BY THE CONDUIT CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM.
i i
i W
l i
1 3
l.
I
j;c n
o
.g c
1 SEP,TEMBER 14, 1987
-l i
lTVELECTRIC-o-
l COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUITSUPPORTSTRAINSA,BANDC>),2"0-m a
L
SUMMARY
OF-CONDUlT SUPPORTS DESIGN VAldDATIONPROGRAMF l
}'
l 3-0 TV ELECTRIC CORRECTIVE ACTION HISTORY ~
s.
CONDUIT CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM BEGAN FOR.BOTH UNITS' FALL OF 84.
[
CONDUIT PROGRAM WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF'THE DAP-
~
UNDER CPRT PROGRAM IN EARLY 85.
1
.. t I
s f
l i-v n
s I
}'
I i
i s
4 a
q w
~
'a y
f
. SEPTEMBER'lfb.1987, q
1 TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE 1 PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION j
CONDUITSUPPORTSJRAINSLA,B1ANDC>2"0 f
SUMMARY
OFLCONDUIT SUPPORTS DESIGN VALIDATION PROGRAM j
(
]
o1 o
UNIT 1 AS-BUILT VALIDATION PROGRAM OVERVIEW j
o SCOPE -<6662 IS0'S ESTIMATED N0. OF SUPPORT 30,000 j
o' GOVE.RNING DOCUMENT FOR. INSTALLATION (2323-S-0910 PACKAGE):
7 o
COMPLETE WALKDOWN-(CPE-FVM-CS-033)
ISO.-
REDLINES'0F SUPPORTS o, DESIGN VALIDATION EFFORT
/'
SAG.CP10
.c-SAG.CP17
.e
SAG.CP29 o
- 1SO CALCULATION PACKAGES
'S-0910 UPDATE
' DESIGN VALIDATED ISO
,e o
MODIFICATION EFFORT DCA o
QC REINSPECTION OF MODIFICATIONS O
5
v, _
nw
.p y
.s
,r ' h,'
(
l SEPTEMBER 14
-1987 Qx m'
t a
-TU ELECTRIC:
~COMANCIIEPEAKSTEAMELECTRICSTATION.
T CONDulT.SURPORTS.TRAINSA,.BANDLC.>2"03
SUMMARY
OPCONDUli SUPPORTS DESIGN VAllDATION PROGPR1 1
s
- i, o
2XCONDUlTSAS-BulblJALIDATIONPROGRAMOVERVIEW t "? '
o.
SCOPE - 1562 ISO.'S ESTIMATED NO. 0F. SUPPORT 6,500-o GOVERNINGIdCUMENTFOR-INSTALLATION-(2323-S-0910 PACKAGE)
N.
2 o
COMPLETE WALKDOWN-(CPE-FVM-CS 014F j
c ISO 1
N.-
REDLINES OF SUPPORTS o
. DESIGN VALIDATION EFFORT SAG.CP10 SAG.CP17 SAG;CP21
)1 I
o ISO CALCULATION PACKAGES'
-S-0910 UPDATE. '
DESIGNVAQDAND! ISO i
's a
f f
j o
MODIFICATION EFFORT l
t DCA s
II I.<
QC REINSPECTION OF MODV,,ICATIONS d
l o
{
I r
i' s
?
&4
,s s
(
L-
._s
- a
~
qW' g -
1
- p g.4 ;..
SEPTEMBER'14, 1987 TV ELECTRIC' L
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUIT. SUPPORTS. TRAINS L B AND C > 2" 0 l-
SUMMARY
0F CONDUIT' SUPPORTS DESIGN VALIDATION PROGRAM o'
UNIT 2 ENGINEERED PROGRAM OVERVIEW SCOPE--288h'IS0'SESTIMATEDNO.OFSUPPORTS-12,000 o
GOVERNINGDOCUMENTFORINSTALLATION(2323-S2-0910 o
c o
COMPLETE-WALKDOWN (CPE-FVM-CS-002)
ISO N
o-DESIGN VALIDATION EFFORT SAG.CP02-SAG.CP12-SAG.CP22 CP-SG-02 q
CP-SG-03 o
ISO CALCULATION PACKAGES S2-0910 UPDATE DESIGN VALIDATED ISO 1
o MODIFICATION EFFORT DCA o
DC INSPECTION d'
i1 >
lt.
7
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987L TU' ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDulT-SUPPORTS TRAIN A, B AND C > 2" 0
SUMMARY
OF: CONDUIT SUP. PORTS DESIGN' VALIDATION PROGRAM i
0 WALKDOWN AND AS-BUILTING
}
l ENGINEERING WALKS DOWN EACH CONDUIT RUN AND AS-BUILTS EACH ATTRIBUTE REQUIRED FOR DESIGN VALIDATION.
l WALKDOWN BY TEAMS OF TWO PEOPLE
'i MEASURES TO ENSURE ACCURACY 0F WALKDOWN PRODUCT (SPOT SELF-CHECKING AND SURVEILLANCE BY INDEPENDENT-ENGINEERING TEAMS) j WALKDOWN PROCEDURES:
CPE-FVM-CS-033 (UNIT 1)
CPE-FVM-CS-014 (2X CONDUITS)
CPE-FVM-CS-002 (UNIT 2)
O CAD DRAWING PREPARATION FOR MODIFIED AND "IN" SUPPORTS I
0 QC INSPECTION OF MODIFICATIONS ON ISO I
QC PROCEDURE: 01-QP-11.10-1 (UNIT 1 AND COMMON) l Ql-0P-11.10-1A (UNIT 2) 8
=- =-_=__- _--
n una :e x
-SEPTEMBER.14,L1987
-TV ELECTRIC
-COMANCHE PEAK STEAM: ELECTRIC-STATION CONDulT. SUPPORTS TRAINS?A,. B AND CL>'2" 0
SUMMARY
OF CONDulT SUPPORTS DESIGN VALIDATION PROGRAM:
0-DESIGN' VALIDATION APPROACH DEVELOPMENT r
~ DESIGN CRITERIA ~AND DETAILED PROJECT INSTRUCTIONS'WERE
' DEVELOPED TO COMPLY WITH CPSES FSAR, APPLICABLE ' CODES,-
j STANDARDS AND REFERENCES l
CRITERIA / INSTRUCTIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY NUMEROUS TECHNI-CAL. STUDIES AND TESTS. PERFORMED SPECIFICALLY FOR CPSES l
CONDUIT SYSTEMS AND THEIR COMPONENTS CRITERIA /INSTRUCTIONSLSPECIFICALLY ADDRESS CONCERNS-0F
)
ALL EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SOURCES:
1 i
l 1
1 9
m j
. SEPTEMBER'14, 1987:
+
TU. ELECTRIC-
. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B ANDLC >12" 0 l
SUMMARY
OF CONDUIT SUPPORTS DESIGN VALIDATION PROGRAML 4
0 1FSIGN: VALIDATION OF GOVERNING DESIGN DOCUMENTS'
.3 DESIGN VALID"ATION GENERIC, MODIFIED AND "IN'f' SUPPORTS S-0910 PACKAGE (UNIT _1 AND' COMMON);
S2-0910' PACKAGE-(UNIT 2)-
.0 REPLACEMENT OF UNISTRUT AND TRANSVERSE' SUPPORTS
' REPLACED OR ELIMINATED A TOTAL'0F 920 UNISTRUT
('U^llT l/ 2.[
SUPPORTS h
QC REINSPECTION OF NEWLY INSTALLED SUPPORTS 0
TEST PROGRAMS STATIC AND CYCLIC CLAMP CAPACITIES TEST BY CCL CLAMP DYNAMIC TESTiBY ANCO UNISTRUT SUPPORTS TEST PROGRAM BY CCL TORSIONAL CAPACITIES OF THREADED COUPLING TEST BY CCL m
.[j g '
i iQ w[;'
]
d L
oSEPTEMBER IfL 1987' N
m s
TV ELECTRIC F
COMANCHE PEAK: STEAM. ELECTRIC STATION:
s
. CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS Af B AND C >'2":0
SUMMARY
-'0F CONDUIT SUPPORTS DESIGN'VALIDAT10N PROGRAM d
0 REWORK'AND DESIGN. MODIFICATIONS REWORK-REWORK ASSOClATED WITH SPECIFIC HARDWARE-IDENTIFIED?
UNSATISFACTORY-IN CPRT. PROGRAM.
FOR' EXAMPLE:
i GROUTING'0F GAPS UNDER' BASE ANGLES AND; PLATES TIGHTENING LOOSE UNIONS.
DESIGN. MODIFICATIONS
{
RESULT FROM CONDUIT-DESIGN VALIDATION AGAINST CRITERIA / GOVERNING DESIGN'D0CUMENTS AND ARE
.DUE.TO:
MEMBER:0VERSTRESS' WELD OVERSTRESS CONDUlT OVERSTRESS EXCESSIVE CONDUIT SPAN i
- l i
i 11
.c
,q:
- SEPTEMBER 14, 19871
-TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM: ELECTRIC STATION CONDUlT SUPPORTS TRAINS A; B AND~C >L2" O
SUMMARY
OF. CONDUIT SUPPORTS-DESIGN VAllDATION PROGRAM-0 LOCATION 0F PROGRAM ACTIVITIES b
WALKDOWN'(UNITS 1 AND 2) SITE
]
l AS-BUILT DRAWINGS (CAD) (UNITS 1 & 2) SITE
.i DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR BOTH UNITS SITE AND NEW YORK DESIGN VALIDATION OF S-0910 AND S2-0910 PACKAGES NEW YORK ISO VALIDATION SITE AND NEW YORK STUDIES NEW YORK TESTING SITE AND NEW YORK
)
i I2
-SEPTEMBER 14,:1987 TV ELECTRIC l
.. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1
- CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS'A,-B.AND C > 2" 0 r'
STRUCTURAL' DESIGN' VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
i i
OUTLINE
'O GENERICTECUNICAL-ISSUERESOLUTIONPROCESS i
O
SUMMARY
OF INDIVIDUAL ISSUES AND THEIR RESOLUTION.
EXTERNAL ISSUES - 29 ISSUES INTERNAL ISSUES 6 ISSUES l
l Ib l
J
- 4,' :j e - 1:.
. SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 j'
TU. ELECTRIC
' COMANCHE PEAK-STEAM ELECTRIC STATION n
CONDUlTLSUPPORTS TRAINSLA,LB AND~C > 2"'O STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
0 GENERIC TECHNICAL ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS:
]l ALL PERTINENT [DOCUMENTATIONLWAS' REVIEWED.TO FULLY.'
UNDERSTAND THE11SSUE i
v
.l
. ACTION PLAN.WAS1 DEVELOPED-T0 RESOLVE EACH ISSUE u
.THROUGH AS-DESIGNEDLAND'AS-BUILT DATA COLLECTION,.
CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL d
H STUDIES,7 TEST PROGRAMS AND DESIGN VALIDATION..
~ GENERIC ISSUES REPORT (GIR)?WAS DEVELOPEDLAND TRANSMITTED TO CYGNA h
SUMMARY
MATRIX 0F PROCEDURES AND REFERENCES WHICH RESOLVE EACH ISSUE IS INCLUDED IN GIR ACTION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION IS REVIEWED'BY CPRT.AS AN 0NGOING PROCESS 4
ACTION PLAN IS IMPLEMENTED IN DESIGN VALIDATION 1
14
e 1; c.;
"{
iSEPTEMBERi 14, 19871 l
.TV ELECTRICL I
E COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRICLSTATION l
CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, BLAND'C >'~2"'O
]
STRUCTURAL DESIGN VAllDATION' GENERIC ISSUES'
SUMMARY
l 4
1 CYGNA' ISSUE'NO. 1:
GOVERNING LOAD CASE:FOR DESIGN a
0 ' ISSUE' ORIGINAL GIBBS & HILL'(G8H). DESIGN MAY NOT HAVE PROPERLY-
~
~
CONSIDERED BOTH OBE.AND.SSE LOAD: COMBINATIONS.
,i 1
0 RESdLUTION
' CONDUITS,. CONDUIT SUPPORTS,. JUNCTION BOXES,' JUNCTION'BOXI
-SUPPORTS AND THEIR COMPONENTS ARE EVALUATED'FOR THE OBE
'AND SSE!: LOAD-COMBINATIONS. SEPARATELY.
CRITERIA USED IS
. DESCRIBED IN' SECTIONS 4.0 AND'6.0 0F SAG.'CP 2.(UNIT 2)
ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE-CRITERIA FOR JUNCTION BOXES IS ALSO PROVIDED IN= SECTIONS 7.0 AND 8.0-OF SAG.CP 12 (UNIT 2) AND SAG.CP 17- (UNIT 1).
15 I
i
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 1
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION i
CONDUlT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 2:
DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTORS (DAF) 0.
ISSUE i
ORIGINAL G8H DESIGN USED A DYNAMIC LOAD FACTOR OF 1.0 0
RESOLUTION i
DESIGN VALIDATION PROCEDURES SPECIFY.THE FOLLOWING THREE' METHODS TO ACCOUNT FOR DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR IN CONDUIT SYSTEM:
(I) 1.5 TIMES RESPONSE SPECTRA PEAK ACCELERATIONS IN ALL THREE. DIRECTIONS.
(II)
A SET OF DESIGN "G S" WHICH HAVE AN AMPLIFICATION FACTOR OF 1.25 AS A MINIMUM AND ARE DERIVED FROM THE ENVELOPED RESULTS OF GENERIC CONDUIT SYSTEM j
(LS. SERIES) RESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSES.
IN THIS l
METHOD OF ANALYSIS, CONDUIT SUPPORT MINIMUM FREQUENCY IS DETERMINED AND USED TO OBTAIN DESIGN "G'S".
i
(!!!)
RESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS OF CONDUIT SYSTEM.
i i
i lb) l
y
., a
+
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987:
TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK? STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUlT SUPPORTS TRAINS.A, B AND C.> 2" O p
STRUCTURAL DESIGN' VALIDATION GENERIC lSSUES
SUMMARY
-CYGNA-ISSUE NO. 3: -COMBINATION OF DEADWEIGHT AND SEISMIC RESPONSES.
q
~
.0 ISSUE THE ACCELERATION DUE TO DEADWEIGHT IS COMBINED WITH THE SEISMIC. ACCELERATIONS USING THE' SRSS: METHOD.
O RESOLUTION DEAD LOAD IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE SRSS OF SEISMIC LOADS' BUT ADDED SEPARATELY IN THE LOAD COMBINATIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 4.0 0F SAG.CP 2 (UNIT 2) AND SAG.CP 10 (UNIT 1),
f
.AND SECTION 7.0 0F SAG.CP.12-(UNIT 2) AND SAG.CP 17 (UNIT 1)..
l i
1 I
l I
I7
1 1:,7 N
SEPTEMBERL14, 1987 TV ELECTRIC-COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION i
CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0-i STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
i CYGNA lSSUE NO. 4:
MEASUREMENT OF EMBEDMENT FROM TOP 0F
)
' CONCRETE FLOOR TOPPING l
j o
ISSUE l
~
J NOTE 5A ON' UNIT 1-G8H DRAWING 2323-S-0910, SH G-4A.' ALLOWS
-l THE 2 INCH THICK CONCRETE FLOOR TOPPING TO BE CONSIDERED I
IN DETERMINING EMBEDMENT LENGTH OF ANCHORS AT BUILDING.
ELEVATIONS 832'-6 AND BELOW.
THIS ISSUE DOES NOT APPLY TO UNIT 2.
O RESOLUTION i
SUPPORTS WITH HILTI KWIK BOLTS MOUNTED ON FLOORS WITH 2 INCH THICK CONCRETE FLOOR TOPPING ARE SO IDENTIFIED ON CONDUIT ISO AND THE DESIGN VALIDATION FOR THOSE SUPPORTS CONSIDERS A 2 INCH REDUCTION OF BOLT EMBEDMENT LENGTH.
SUPPORTS WITH 1/4 INCH AND 3/8 INCH HILTI KWIK l
BOLTS ON FLOORS WITH 2 INCH CONCRETE TOPPING, IF ANY, WILL BE REPLACED.
THE NOTE ON SH G-4A IS REVISED ACCORDINGLY.
f>
p
~
l lb
[
'[
SEPTEMBER 14,.1987 y
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDulT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B'AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 5:
BOLT H0LE TOLERANCE AND EDGE DISTANCE' 1
VIOLATION 0
lSSUE A.'G8H DWG-2323-S-0910 SH.-G-1B, NOTE 15 ALLOWS BOLT HOLE TOLERANCES WHICH VARY WITH THE BOLT SIZE AND
]
WHICH ARE LARGER THAN AISC TOLERANCES RESULTING IN OVERSIZED BOLT HOLES.
I 0
RESOLUTION O
CONNECTIONS WITH HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS (A325,.AND UNISTRUT BOLTS) ARE FRICTION TYPE CONNECTIONS AND THE BOLT H0LE TOLERANCES ARE CONSISTENT WITH TABLE 7 IN SPECIFICATION FOR STRUCTURAL JOINTS USING ASTM A325 l
OR A490 BOLTS, APRIL 1978.
j O
ANALYSES WERE PERFORMED FOR CONDUIT SUPPORTS UTIL'121NG TWO BOLT HILTI ARRANGEMENTS.
THE RESULTS OF THESE i
CONSERVATIVE ANALYSES INDICATED THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN OVERALL FACTOR OF SAFETY DUE TO OVERSIZED BOLT HOLES FOR HKB ANCHORS.
0 OVERSIZED BOLT HOLE EFFECT FOR CONDUIT SUPPORTS UTILIZING RICHMOND INSERTS IS ASSESSED INDIVIDUALLY j
FOR CASES WHERE THE BOLT SHEAR I.R.
IS LARGER THAN 0.25.
)
i 19
'~
Y SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
~
CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 5:
BOLT HOLE TOLERANCE AND EDGE DISTANCE
)
VIOLATION (CONT.)
l 1
0 ISSUE B. SOME G8H DESIGNS DO NOT PROVIDE THE MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE REQUIRED BY AISC.
O RESOLUTION r
0 FOR STEEL TO STEEL CONNECTIONS, A GENERIC STUDY WAS PERFORMED AND THE RESULTS INDICATED THAT ALL SUPPORTS ARE SATISFACTORY AND SUPPORT CAPACITIES ARE NOT LOWERED.
CAPACITIES OF G8H SUPPORTS CA-3A, CA-16A AND CA-16B THAT CONSIST OF A C4X7,5 WHERE JOLTS WERE SUBSTITUTED FOR NELSON STUDS, HOWEVER, WERE CONSIDERABLY AFFECTED AND THESE GENERIC TYPES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE REVISED S-0910 DWGS.
AS-BUILT CASES WITH THIS SUBSTITUTION WILL BE IDENTIFIED BY WALKDOWN AND VALIDATED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
1 0
FOR CONDUIT CLAMPS, TESTS PERFORMED INDICATED THAT THERE IS NO EFFECT ON CLAMP CAPACITIES.
O FOR BASE PLATE CONNECTIONS, CABLE TRAY HANGER STUDY HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT EDGE DISTANCES WHICH ARE LESS THAN AISC BY LARGER DEVIATION ARE JUSTIFIABLE.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF BASE PLATE EDGE DISTANCES BETWEEN CONDUlT SUPPORTS AND CABLE TRAY HANGERS ARE SIMILAR.
20
' * ? "l ~ * )
,y 4
s
' SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 l
l TU ELECTRIC
' COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION o
' CONDUIT-SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 4
o STRUCTURAL DESIGN. VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
i CYGN'A ISSUE NO. 7:
SUPPORT SELF WEIGHT j
~
I 1
-ISSUE-
)
t' 0
i I
~
.)-
1 THE SUPPORT SELF WEIGHTS WERE'NOT UNIFORMLY CONSIDERED IN THE VARIOUS DESIGNS BY G8H.
,);
- 0 RESOLUTION 1
SECTION 4.0.0F.. SAG.CP 2 (UNIT 2) AND' SAG.CP 10 (UNIT 1)
SPECIFIES THAT THE' DEAD WEIGHT BE INCLUDED IN DESIGN VALIDATION.
-a dk.4
[
q l,
i 4
22 L
7"
],'"'
SEPTEMBER ~'".'1987 TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION-CONDulT SUPPORTS.TRAINSLA, B AND C.> 2" 0-STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
CYGNA ISSUE =NO. 6:
FSAR LOAD COMBINATIONS'
+
0.
ISSUE l
ALL APPLICABLE LQADS AS DEFINED IN CPSES FSAR SECTION 3.8.4.3.3 MAY NOT HAVE"BEEN EXPLICITLY CONSIDERED IN i
t THE DESIGN BY G8H'.
O RESOLUTION SECTIONS 4.0 AND 7.0 0F SAG.CP 2 (UNIT 2) AND SAG.CP 10 I
~
(UNIT 1) AND-SECTION 7.0 0F SAG.CP 12 (UNIT 2:) AND-SAG.CP 17 (UNIT 1) SPECIFY ALL APPLICABLE LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED.
SECTION 4.0 IS BASED ON FSAR-SECTION: 3.8.4.3.3.
l THERMAL LOADS, T, AND T, ARE CONSIDERED ON A GENERIC BASIS' O
A 4
AS DESCRIBED IN SAG.CP 21 (UNIT 1) AND SAG.CP 22 (UNIT 2).
3 THE RESULTS.0F GENERIC STUDY OF THERMAL LOADS ARE SUMMARIZED l
IN THE APPENDIX 10 TO SAG.CP 2 AND SAG.CP 10.
{
WILL INCORPORATE THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN APPENDIX 10 1
IN ISO VALIDATION.
IN ADDITION AS PART OF SYSTEMS INTERACTION PROGRAM EFFORT, THOSE CONDUITS / BOXES REQUIRED FOR SAFE SHUTDOWN ARE IDENTIFIED AND APPLICABLE LOADINGS DEFINED.
FOR THOSE CASES THE FOLLOWING IS CONSIDERED:
I SECTION 7.0 0F SAG CP 2 (UNIT 2) AND SAG CP 10 (UNIT 1)
REQUIRES THE CONDUIT SYSTEM TO BE DESIGNED FOR LOCA, PIPE WHIP AND JET IMPINGEMENT LOADS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
l CONDUIT SYSTEMS LOCATED OUTDOORS AND SUBJECTED TO TORNADO RELATED LOADS WILL BE EITHER RELOCATED OR PROTECTED BY A BARRIER DESIGNED TO RESIST THE TORNADO RELATED LOADS.
21 o
SEPTEMBER Ifi,-1987 TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 8:
TORSION OF UNISTRUT MEMBER
{
0 ISSUE I
A.
ORIGINAL DESIGN OF UNISTRUT MEMBER SUPPORTS DID NOT i
j CONSIDER TORSIONAL LOADING (UNIT #1 ONLY).
B.
G8H UNISTRUT SUPPORT QUALIFICATION TEST PROGRAM DID NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING:(UNIT 1 ONLY) l 0
ENVELOPING OF C0t[DU:T SUPPORTS IN TEST O
WORST CASE SUPPORT CONFIGURATION AND LOADING FOR THE TESTED SUPPORT j
0 TEST PROCEDURES O
RESOLUTION-A 8 B 0
TEST PROGRAM WAS CONDUCTED (CCL REPORT NO. A-678-85, DATED 10/9/85) AND SUPPORT CAPACITIES DETERMINED.
)
0 ALL SUPPORTS TESTED WITH SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN CAPACITY SUCH AS CSM-TYPE HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING REPLACED.
DOCUMENTATION ON GROUPING OF THESE SUPPORTS QUALIFICATION IS NOT REQUIRED.
0 ONLY THOSE SUPPORTS WITH SATISFACTORY CAPACITIES AS OBTAINED BY TESTS OR BY ANALYSES USING AISI ARE RETAINED.
SUPPORTS TYPES CA-1. CA-2, JA-1 AND JA-2 ARE QUALIFIED BY TEST. CA-8 AND JA-3 ARE QUALIFIED BY COMPARISON WITH CA-1 AND JA-2 RESPECTIVELY.
CA-2B IS QUALIFIED BY ANALYSES.
O CA TYPE SUPPORTS WERE TESTED WITH MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS l
BETWEEN HILTI's.
JA TYPE SUPPORTS WERE TESTED WITH WORST l
POSSIBLE OFFSET ON HILTIS.
O CA-2B TYPE SUPPORTS EMPLOY NO COMPOSITE SECTIONS.
WORST l
CONFIGURATIONS WERE EVALUATED'IN ANALYSES BY PLACING A CONDUIT DIRECTLY ON A HILTI.
O RETAINED SUPPORTS WERE TESTED AT THE SITE AND MOUNTED ON l
CONCRETE.
CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH TEST PROCEDURES IN THE l
LAB ARE NOT APPLICABLE.
1 23
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDulT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 j
STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
i l
I CYGNA ISSUE NO. 9:
IMPROPER USE OF CATALOG COMPONENTS i
O ISSUE A.
ORIGINAL G8H DESIGN BASED ON AISC APPLICATION TO CATA-LOG COMPONENTS MAY NOT BE CONSERVATIVE.
AISI SHOULD BE USED.
B.
COMPONENTS WERE USED IN WAYS NOT INTENDED BY THE VENDOR.
'I t
O RESOLUTION - A & B 0
FOUR TYPES OF CATALOG COMPONENTS:
UNISTRUT COMPONENTS, CLAMPS (UNISTRUT AND SUPERSTRUT), ANCHORAGE (HILTI'S l
AND RICHMOND INSERTS) AND NELSON STUDS WERE USED.
O SUPPORTS WITH UNISTRUT MEMBERS WERE TESTED.
(SEE ISSUE NO. 8).
(
0 UNISTRUT WASHERS AND BOLTS WERE USED ON CONNECTION DETAILS.
THEY ARE USED PROPERLY.
O CLAMPS AND NELSON STUDS USED ON CLAMPS ARE QUALIFIED BY TEST.
O NELSON STUDS FOR OTHER CONNECTIONS BASED ON AISC ALLOW-ABLE STRESS ARE CONFIRMED BY VENDOR.
O ANCHORAGE CAPACITIES HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY TEST DATA.
l l
24 t-
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDulT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 10:
ANCHOR' BOLTS p
0 ISSUE A.
PRYING ACTION EFFECTS ON ANCHOR BOLT TENSION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN UNIFORMLY CONSIDERED BY G8H.
l B.
FOR CONDUIT SUPPORT CSI-17, TYPE 17, THE G&H DESIGN l
DOES NOT CONSIDER MOMENTS INDUCED IN THE ANCHOR BOLT DUE TO SHEARS APPLIED AB0VE THE CONCRETE SURFACE.
THIS IS NOT A UNIT 2 ISSUE.
C.
OUTRIGGER HILTI KWIK BOLTS NR CA-2A SUPPORTS WERE ASSUMED BY G8H NOT TO TAKE ANY LOAD.
HOWEVER SOME LOAD MAY BE IMPOSED DUE TO CONDUIT LOADS AND ALSO PRESTRESSING OF THE SUPPORT.
THE HILTI KWIK BOLTS i
MAY NOT BE ADEQUr.TE IN RESISTING THESE LOADS SINCE THE DESIGN DRAWING WAIVES SEPARATION VIOLATIONS BETWEEN HILTI KWIK BOLTS IN THE OUTRIGGERS AND ANY OTHER BOLTS.
THIS IS NOT A UNIT 2 ISSUE.
D.
G8H DRAWING 2323-S-0910 SH G-4A AND 2323-S2-0910 SH G-3B ALLOW Sl'3STITUTION OF RICHMOND INSERTS FOR HILTI BOLTS.
THIS SUBSTITUTION MAY RESULT IN LOWER BOLT / INSERT CAPACITIES THAN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.
25
e l'-
SEPTEMBER 14,11987 Y
TU ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUlT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B-AND C > 2" 0 1
STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
i
_CYGNA ISSUE NO.-10:
ANCHOR BOLTS (CONT'D) a
~
O RESOLUTION A.
FOR UNIT 1, PRYING ACTION FACTORS WERE ESTABLISHED IN EBASCO CPSES CABLE TRAY-HANGER VOLUME I AND INCLUDED IN SAG.CP29 UNIT 1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND BOX SUPPORTS.
FOR UNIT 2, PRYING. ACTION FACTORS WERE ESTABLISHED IN EBASCO CPSES UNIT 2 CONDUIT CALCULATION BOOK NO. 60 AND SECTION 5.0 0F CP-SG-03 DESCRIBES PROCEDURES TO APPLY THE PRYING' ACTION FACTOR.
IN ADDITION,.SECTION 7.0 0F SAG.CP2 (UNIT 2) AND SAG.CPIO (UNIT 1) SPECIFY COMPUTER PRO-GRAMS TO BE USED FOR CONSIDERING THE PRYING ACTION EFFECT ON SUPPORT ANCHORAGES.
B.
ALL TYPE CST-17 SUPPORTS ARE'EITHER BEING REPLACED OR THEY ARE DEMONSTRATED AS BEING NOT REQUIRED.
j C.
CALCULATIONS PERFORMED ASSUMING THE CLOSEST PROXIMITY BETWEEN BOLTS, SHOW THAT EVEN WHEN THE OUTRIGGER HKBS ARE LOADED TO THEIR MAXIMUM CAPACITY, THE DECREASE IN l
CAPACITY FOR THE CLOSEST HKB IS AT MOST 4 PERCENT.
D.
DRAWINGS 2323-S-0910 SH G-4A AND 2323-S2-0910 SH G-3B NO LONGER PERMIT SUBSTITUTION OF RICHMOND INSERTS FOR HILTI BOLTS.
FOR SUPPORTS WHERE RICHMOND INSERTS WERE USED THEY ARE TREATED AS MODIFIED OR IN SUPPORTS AND WILL BE EVALUATED IN THEIR AS-BUILT CONDITIONS.
26
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _.
u :)
i; [%.
s L
k ;1 SEPTEMBER lli,1987-
-TV ELECTRIC j
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION' j
r
.CONDUlT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 i
STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES ~
SUMMARY
l l
E
. CYGNA lSSUE NO.-11:
LONGITUDINAL LOADS ON TRANSVERSE SUPPORTS ~
j l
l
. 0 ISSUE i
y LONGITUDINAL LOADS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY G8H IN THE DESIGN OF SOME TRANSVERSE SUPPORTS.
THIS IS NOT A UNIT 2 ISSUE.
O RESOLUTION l
-DURING THE UNISTRUT/ TRANSVERSE SUPPORT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM l
ANY. TRANSVERSE SUPPORTS IN-UNIT 1 WERE EITHER CONVERTED TO ~
-I MULTI-DIRECTION SUPPORTS, OR DEMONSTRATED AS NOT BEING REQUIRED AND THUS EFFECTIVELY REMOVED.
l f
I i
1
- _ _ = _ - _ _ __
pe
$^p.'
- SEPTEMBER 1Nbl987; 4
TV ELECTRIC l
[
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION,
' CONDUIT: SUPPORTS TRAINS ~A, B AND C > 2" 0 L
STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION-GENERIC ISSUES =
SUMMARY
CYGNA lSSUE NO. '12r HILTI ' KWIK-D0il SUBSTITUTIONS-
.0
- ISSUEL g
NOTEkON.SH.'G-4A0F2323-S-0910AND' NOTE 2ONSH.G-3A 0F:2323-S2-0910 ALLOWS SUBSTITUTION OF.HILTI BOLTS WITH LARGER SIZES.- A SITUATION'MAY OCCUR WHERE THE SUBSTITUTED' BOLTS HAVE!A LOWER CAPACITY THAN BOLTS IN'THE ORIGINAL'
-DESIGN.
R.
0 -R6SOLUT10N-
'DiAWING 2323-S-0910 SH G-4A WAS REVISED TO DELETE NOTE 4.
D/ AWING 2323-S2-0910 SH G-3A WAS REVISED-T0 RESTRICT THE S ZES'0F HILTI BOLTS THAT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED.
FOR-3/8 1 CHLAND 1 INCH DIAMETER' BOLTS, SUBSTITUTIONS ARE ALLOWED Of GENERIC-. SUPPORT DRAWINGS :0NLY.
WALKDOWNS ARE PERFORMED TO DETERMINE CONDUIT SUPPORTS WHERE BOLTS WERE SUBSTITUTED.
THE EFFECTS OF BOLT SUBSTITUTION INCLUDING MORE STRINGENT SPACING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE EVALUATED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
4 1
j 28
1 SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 i
TU ELECTRIC i
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION i
CONDUlT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
i CYGNA ISSUE NO. 13:
SUBSTITUTION 0F SMALLER CONDUITS ON CA i
i
" TYPE SUPPORTS 1
f o
ISSUE
)
CA' TYPE SUPPORTS WERE DESIGNED FOR ZPA VALUES FOR LARGE CONDUIT SIZES.
FOR SMALLER CONDUIT SIZES SUPPORTS WERE DESIGNED FOR PEAK ACCELERATIONS.
DIFFERENCES OF SEISMIC j
LOADS WERE NOT REFLECTED IN G8H CALCULATIONS.
THIS ISSUE IS APPLICABLE TO UNIT NO. 1 ONLY.
O RESOLUTION SAG.CP10,v eSPECIFfsts THAT CA TYPE SUPPORTS SHALL BE I
VALIDATED BASED ON DESIGN "G" VALUES REGARDLESS OF CONDUIT SIZES.
UNISTRUT CA TYPE SUPPORTS WERE QUALIFIED BY TEST OR f
ANALYSIS (SEE ISSUE #8).
SUPPORT SEISMIC LOADS PLUS DEAD LOADS ARE CHECKED AGAINST ALLOWABLE SUPPORT l
CAPACITY DETERMINED FROM TEST.
l l
l l
l t
13
- y. ng
~
T t
f SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 1
q TU ELECTRIC.
J COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC.STATI'N j
O
'CONDUlT SUPPORTS TRAINS.A, B AND C >.2" 0.
- 4 1
j~
1 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
j
]
i 1
USE 0F:CA TYPE SUPPORTS:IN LS-SPANS' j
- 4. CYGNA 1SSUE NO. 14i a
, - L
'f 1
+
0.
ISSUE 1
CA. TYPE SUPPORTS MAY BE INSTALLED' ADJACENT T0 CSM-TYPE'
~
~
. SUPPORTS.'
G8H CALCULATIONS DID'NOT CONSIDER-THEtFACT THAT THE SEISMIC' ACCELERATIONS OF CA: SUPPORT MAY BE-AFFECTED BY FLEXIBILITY OF LS SPANS.
j l
RESOLLTION a
-SAG.CPIO SPECIFIES THAT ALL CA TYPE SUPPORTS ARE DESIGN j
VALIDATED BASED ON DESIGN "G"S INSTEAD OF ZPA.
.THUS, THIS 13 SUE IS NO LONGER. VALID.
j l
1 a
i j
I l
.q L
L b1_ul
_? ^
% ie
.+
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 w,
TU ELECTRIC
' COMANCHE PEAK STEAMLELECTRIC. STATION l
CONDulT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B-AND C > 2" 01 SIRUCTURAL DESIGNLVALIDATION-GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 15:
STRESSES-IN CABLE TRAYS'DUE TO TTACHED.
CONDUlT SUPPORTS 1
a
~
i 0
ISSUE-SH. CSD-16 0FLS-0910 ALLOWS CONDUlT T0 BE' ATTACHED TO ~
CABLE TRAY.
CABLE TRAY MAY BE DESIGNED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CONDUIT LOAD.
IN ADDITION, ZPA SHOULDENOT BE USED TO-a
. COMPUTE CONDUIT LOAD SINCE CABLE TRAY MAY BE FLEXIBLE.
O RESOLUTION q
SAG CP'10 SPECIFIES'THAT CONDUIT LOADS BE COMPUTED BASED ON'l.5 TIMES PEAK ACCELERATIONS.
CONDUIT LOADS ARE INCLUDED IN CABLE TRAY QUALIFICATION BY CTH PROGRAM.
CONDUIT LENGTHS ARE DOCUMENTED BY WALKDOWN PROGR,AM.
1
-lj l
1 l
t
-i 31
{
- 4 e
a.,
SEPTEMBER 14 1987 r
TU. ELECTRIC t-s COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDulT SUPPORTS TRAINS A,.B AND CD> 2" 0 i
STRUCTURAL-DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
j CYGNA ISSUE NO. 16:
INCREASES IN ALLOWABLE SPAN LENGTHS u
i 0
ISSUE v
i-LA SPAN LENGTHS WERE INCREASED IN G8H CALCULATIONS BY A RATIO.CF THE REFINED SPECTRA TO THE UNREFINED SPECTRA.
THE CONDUIT STRESSES WERE NOT' EVALUATED.
THIS ISSUE 4
IS APPLICABLE-TO UNIT NO. 1 ONLY.
l i
i-0 RESOLUTION LA SPANS HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM REVISED S-0910 PACKAGE.
g LS SPANS ARE USED IN ISO VALIDATION EFFORT.
1 l
i i
s 32
a a
a y
' l j:b j$
~
g). \\ly, *y,
i 4 ""
' SEPTEMBER?l4>1987/,
.2
}
fq.
.c
.+
(
,l
'y j?.'j TV ELECTRICi
'{F j
.COMANCHEPEAKiSTEAMELECTRICSTATION.
]
3 A
> <CONDUITTSUPPORIS TRAINS A, B AND C->'2"'.0 STRUCYUNALDESIGNihllDATIONGENERIC-ISSUES
SUMMARY
y a
V CYGNAilSSUE N0,117:
SUBSIITUTIONOFNEXTHEAVIERSTRUCTURAL o
- 1
+
MEMBER 7
s
'g R
0 JSSUE NOTE.5 ON SH G-1A'.0F S-0910. ALLOWS THE SUBSTITUTION:0F i
'NEXT1 HEAVIER STRUCTURAL MEMBER.
DOCUMENTATION OF G8H-DESIGN'WASINADEQUAT[AND'SELFWEIGHT.OFSUPPORTWAS-L k
lNOT'. PROP 5RLYjCONSIDERED.
THIS ISSUE IS APPLICABLE T0.
[g.13 UNIT NO. Y ONLY..
j
- ra (l'
a Y i
-0" RESOLUTION-V MEMBER SIZES ARE IDENTIFIED DURING WALKDOWN.
FOR OPEN
@ j-
- SECTION MEMBERS'THE ACTUAL.SECTION THICKNESS IS h gp f
/.
RECORDED-.FORDESIGNVALIDATION.[
FOR TUBULAR MEMBERS THE THICKNESS IS NOT RECORDED, THEREFORE,
' EVALUATION OF SUBSTITUTION OF.NEXT HEAVIER STRUCTURAL TUBE ON ALL GENERIC SUPPORTS HAS BEEN' PERFORMED.
ALL CANTILEVER hQ TYPE SUPPORTS ARE ADEQUATE AND' SUPPORT CAPACITIES NEED NOT BE LOWERED.
ALL L SHAPE TYPE SUPPORTS EXCEPT ONE j
(SUPPORT TYPE CSM-18F, TYPE D) ARE ADEQUATE AND SUPPORT l
CAPACITIES NEED NOT BE LOWERED.
FOR' SUPPORT CSM-18F,
]
k TYPE D, THE SUPPORT CAPACITIES WERE LOWERED BY 40 PER-0
.l N:+
3 CEhT OF THC" INCREASED STRUCTURAL MEMBER WEIGHT.
FOR EVALUATION OF MODIFIED'AND "IN" (INDIVIDUALLY ENGI-C NEERED) SUPPORTS UTILIZING TUBULAR MEMBERS, THE WEIGHT l
0FTHENEXTHEAVIERSTRUbTURALTUBEAREUSED.
THE j
ABOVE ISl COVERED IN SAG.CP 25.
1 i
e2%
vw
,5 j,
i rt
- l t
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987
]
3 l-1 4
_g 4TUELE;$TRIC hf f.
',r 3
C COMANCHE PEAK STEAM E4ECTRIC STAT 100 L j
1 COND61T< SUPPORTS TRAllis A, B AND C > 2" C:
i STRUCTURALDESIGN_VALIDAT10'AENERICISSUES
SUMMARY
N j
i w
J
(
H y
g v
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 38:
CLAMP USAGE i s
l l
l t,
i
\\
l 4
n lw ' W /
0 ISSUE t
8 7
ur l
THE ALTERATION OF THE COMPONENTS- @i THE CLAMP ASSEMBLY 4
^
MAY CREATE A MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE N OLATION AND DIS-
\\' -i
,j TORTION DURING INS,rALLAT,10N.
JUSTIFIt'A' TION IS REQUIRED l
l' FOR OMISSION, ALTERAEION OR DISTORTION OF WASHERS, 3
REAMING OF CLAMP HOLES.4ND CUTTING OFF A PORTION 0(NTHE 3
CLAMP EARS.
t, s-t O
R!iOLUTION s
TF CLAMP TEST PROGRAM PERFORMED BY CCL (REPORT NO./
s A-39-85 DATED 12/17/85 AND REPORT NO. A-702-86 DATED i
4/;'86) CO:dtDERED OVERSIZE H0LESA EDGE' DISTANCE, BCLT i
TYP ANd b lE, WASHER OMISS10N AND DISTORT 10N, DISYORTION l
OF LAMP 3, ANI.' MODIFICATION BY CuiliNG OFF A PORTION OF k
THE :LAMD EARS'[.
TfiE CLAMP ALLOWABLES BASED ON THE
'kb ABOVE TESTS AKE SPECIFIED IN TNBLESil.1 TO 1.9 0F SAG.CP10 (UNIT 1) AND TABLES 1.1 TO 1.6 0F SA3.CP2 (UNIT IN ADDITION TO THE,. ABOVE CCL TTSTS'., THE CLAMPS HA*E; B!SN FURTHER QUALIFIED'BY THE DYNAMlb TEST APPROACH WHE U,1N THE TEST CONDUlf SPECIMENS WERE SUBJEjTED TO THE VIBRATORY MOTION WHICH CLOSE!.Y SIMULATES THE EARTHQUAKE ENVIRONMENT POSTULATED FOR THE SITE.
l t
t
\\
l l
1 l
?
t
n' SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 3$
TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 19:
DOCUMENTATION DEVIATIONS BETWEEN INSPECTION REPORTS, CMC'S AND IN-FP DRAWINGS 1
i 0
_lSSUE THE DATA CONTAINED IN SOME OF THE FINAL CONDUIT LINE IN- '
l SPECTION REPORTS MAY NOT BE IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS T0 i
4 THE DATA IN THE APPLICABLE CMC'S AND SOME DISCREPANCIES MAY ALSO EXIST WITH IN-FP DATA.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE MAY y
BE CASES WHERE DATA CONTAINED IN'THE FINAL CONDUlT LINE INSPECTION REPORTS MAY NOT BE IDENTICAL TO THE INSTALLED CONFIGURATIONS.
THIS IS APPLICABLE TO UNIT NO. 1 ONLY.
FOR UNIT NO. 2, ALL CONDUIT LINES ARE INSPECTED PROM AN "AS-BUILT" ISO AND IDENTIFIED DEVIATIONS ARE EITHER COR-j RECTED IN THE FIELD OR ACCEPTED BY ENGINEERING DURING ISO VERIFICATION PROGRAM.
1 0
RESOLUTION 1
A COMPLETE WALKDOWN OF UNIT NO. 1 CONDUIT SYSTEMS AND ISO EVALUATION PROGRAM IS IN PROGRESS.
THE RESULTING IS0 METRICS HAVE THE AS-BUILT SUPPORT NUMBERS RECONCILED WITH THE IRS.
SUPPORT TYPES ARE ESTABLISHED BY l
r COMPARING AS-BUILTS WITH GENERICS SHOWN IN S-0910.
AS ISOS ARE VALIDATED BASED ON AS-BUILT CONDITIONS THIS ISSUE IS NO LONGER OF A CONCERN.
t A
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDulT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN-VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
{
[
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 20:
NELSON STUDS 0
ISSUE ORIGINAL G8H CALCULATIONS TO QUALIFY NELSON STUDS USED IN CONDUIT CONNECTION DETAILS MAY NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE FLEXI-BILITY OF CLAMP AND SHIM PLATE, RELAXATION OF PRELOAD AND ADr>ITIONAL MOMENT ON THE STUD.
ALSO ANALYSIS OF THE SHIM PLLTE ATTACHING THE NELSON STUDS TO THE STRUCTURAL MEM-BE' MAY NOT BE ADEQUATE.
O Rf OLUTION AL OWABLE CAPACITIES FOR CLAMPS USING NELSON STUDS HAVE BE N ESTABLISHED BASED ON CCL TESTS (REPORT NO, A-699-85 DA ED 12/17/85 AND REPORT NO. A-702-86 DATED 4/7/86).
tea TS TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE CLAMP AND SHIM PLATE OR RELAXATION OF THE PRELOAD.
(SEE ISSUE 18)
SECTION 7.0 0F SAG.CP2 (UNIT 2) AND SAG.CP10 (UNIT 1)
SPECIFIES STUD PRETENSION FORCE AND DUCTILITY RATIO TO BE USED IN THE DESIGN VALIDATION EFFORT.
,t
.______-_____-.-_--_--_-_____w
I SEPTEMBER. 14, 1987 l
TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l
CONDUlT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
I i
CYGNA ISSUE NO. 21:
CONDUIT FIRE PROTECTION CALCULATIONS l
4
~
0 ISSUE A.
ORIGINAL DESIGN CONSIDERED A ROUND CONFIGURATION OF THERM 0 LAG MATERIAL AROUND CONDUITS.
SQUARE j
CONFIGURATION OF THERMULAG MATERIAL IS ALSO USED l
IN THE FIELD.
DOCUMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC CONFIGURATION INSTALLED WAS NOT MAINTAINED.
B.,C.,D.
ORIGINAL CALCULATIONS USED SUPPORT CAPACITIES j
WHICH MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE SPECIFIC CONFIGURATIONS.
)
RESOLLTION l
THIS I3 SUE IS NO LONGER VALID SINCE THE THERM 0 LAGGED CONDUIT SYSTEMS ARE AS-BUILT, PER CPE-FVM-CS-033 AND ARE DESIGN VALIDATED UTILIZING THE PROCEDURES IN SAG.CP 25.
j 1
i k
m m
0 SEPTEMBER 14,'1987-TU ELECTRIC-COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUIT SUPPORTS TRAINS A, B AND C >12" 0:
STRUCTURAL DESIGN VAllDATION' GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
e
.CYGNA ISSUE NO. 22:
SPAN INCREASE FOR FIRE PROTECTED SPANS i
0 ISSUE u
ORIGINAL G8H DESIGN USED THE CONDUIT YIELD STRESS. DATA FROM VENDOR'S TEST.
THE ALLOWABLE STRESS 'VALUE VARIES WITH' CONDUIT NOMINAL SIZE AND IS-NOT CONSIDERED.TO BE AP-PROPRIATE.
ORIGINAL. DESIGN ALSO USED A DAF-(DYNAMIC LOAD
-FACTOR) 0FLl'0.IN THE CALCULATION.
o.-
0
-RESOLUTION SAG.CP 2 (UNIT 2) AND SAG.CP 10.(UNIT 1).SPECIFY'THAT THE.
CONDUIT YIELD STRESS SHALL1BE 25 KSI FOR ALL CONDUlT SIZES.
'ALL FIRE PROTECTED CONDUIT SYSTEMb ARE ANALYZED USING THE RESPONSE. SPECTRA METHOD.
R 1
I 3&
p 1 ;,.,
L-SEPTEMBER 14,L1987 u
LTUELECTRIC
' COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION; CONDUlT SUPPORTS. TRAINS A,:B AND C > 2" 9.
i o
-STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES ~
SUMMARY
1 CYGNA ISSUE N0. 23:
GROUTED PENETRATIONS
,j
'0 ISSUE-1 ALL GROUTED PENETRATIONS ARE CONSIDERED T0 BE MULTI-j DIRECTIONAL SUPPORTS.- THE LONGITUDINAL LOAD CAPACITY-(PARALLEL T0' CONDUIT) FOR GROUTED PENETRATIONS MAY NOT-HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY ADDRESSED IN THE DESIGN CALCULATIONS.
O RESOLUTION j
SECTION 6.0 AND' APPENDIX ll 0F SAG.CP2 (UNIT 2) AND
'l SAG'.CP10 (UNIT 1) PROVIDE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ALLOWABLE BOND. STRENGTH BETWEEN THE CONDUIT AND CONCRETE WALLS OR SLABS FOR CONDUIT PENETRATIONS.
THE CRITERIA ALSO j
CONSIPERS THE CONDITIONS OF THE CONDUIT CAST !NTO A CONCRETE. WALL OR SLAB WITH AND WITHOUT COUPLINGS ON EACH END OF THE EMBEDMENT.
i I
1 S9
]
- ^
5 sep7egaga 14,.1987' L
l TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE. PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUIT SUPPORT TRAINS /L'B AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES-
SUMMARY
CYGNA ISSUE NO.-24:
RIGIDITY'0F CA-TYPE SUPPORTS:
4
~
O ISSUE IN. ORIGINAL G8H DESIGN, CA TYPE SUPPORTS.ARE ASSUMED TO BE RIGID-(HAVING SUPPORT FREQUENCY. GREATER THAN 33.0-HZ).
THIS. ASSUMPTION WAS NOT VALIDATED IN DESIGN-CALCULATIONS.
APPLICABLE TO UNIT NO. 1 ONLY.
J 0-RES0:UTION
]
CAPAClTY OF.UNISTRUT CA SUPPORTS ARE DETERMINED BY TEST.
CAPAC TIES OF-0THER.CA TYPE SUPPORTS ARE ESTABLISHED BASED.
ON SE SMIC. LOADS-UTILIZING DESIGN 'G' VALUES'AND DEAD-LOAD.
RIGID.TY CONSIDERATION ARE LIMITED TO THE MINIMUM SUPPORT.
FREQULNCY REQUIREMENTS TO. ALLOW THE USE OF DESIGN.'G' VALUES.-
'I I
i i
1 I
_\\
I i
i 1
l 40
' SEPTEMBER 14,1987 p
TU ELECTRIC l
P
-COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION ~
l
' CONDUIT SUPPORT' TRAINS A, B AND:C_> 2" 0' STRUCTURAL DESIGN' VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
CYGNA lSSUE NO. 25:
ENVELOPING CONFIGURATIONS FOR DESIGN
]
i 1
0 ISSUE l
~
G8H. GENERIC SUPPORT DESIGN DID NOT CONSIDER THE MOST
-l CRITICAL. SUPPORT CONFIGURATIONS, I.E. MAXIMUM LOAD.
ECCENTRICITIES,. INSTALLATION TOLERANCES, MEMBER SUB-STITUTIONS, WEIGHT OF MEMBER COMPONENTS AND OVERHANG i
PORTION OF SUPPORT MEMBER.
O RESOLUTION i
GENERIC--SUPPORTS FOR BOTH UNITS HAVE BEEN DESIGN VERIFIED j
FOR THE WORST CONFIGURATIONS AS FOLLOWS:
MAXIMUM LOAD ECCENTRICITIES WERE DETERMINED BASED ON MAXIMUM CONDUIT SIZES AND THE MAXIMUM' COMBINED THICKNESS OF SHIM AND FILLER PLATES.
l MINIMUM BOLT DISTANCES WERE USED TO ACCOUNT FOR j
MAXIMUM PRYING ACTION ON BOLT.
1 COVER PLATE WEIGHT WAS PROVIDED AT THE TIP OF STRUCTURAL TUBE STEEL.
OVERHANG LENGTH WAS DETERMINED BASED ON MAXIMUM SUPPORT DIMENSIONS.
Al
J~.'
m
+
a
- 64 n.;
l 1
l SEPTEMBER "1111,1987; r
1.~
s lTU' ELECTRIC'
?N COMANCHE PEAK'. STEAM ELECTRIC STATION LCONDulTiSUPPORT TRAINS'AL B AND:0 > 2" 0 o
~ STRUCTURAL < DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC' ISSUES 4
SUMMARY
4 CYGNA ~ ISSUE N0. 25r ENVELOPING CONFIGURATIONS FOR' DESIGN
- (CONT'9)!
,}-'I
. SUBSTITUTION:0F' LARGER BOLT WAS CONSIDERED (SEE.' ISSUE
- 12)..
p SUBSTITUTION OF'NEXT[ HEAVIER STRUCTURAL MEMBER WAS!
o 14 CONSIDERED (SEE ISSUE ~#17).-
'+
' INSTALLATION. TOLERANCES FOR LOCATION AN'D 0RIENTATION-
.E"..-
0FiTUBE STEEL'ON THE BASE PLATE WAS CONSIDERED.
INSTALLATION' TOLERANCE 0F BOLT MINIMUM' EDGE DISTANCES
~ AND OVERSIZED' BOLT HOLE WERE CONSIDERED'-(SEE ISSUE: #5),
i;, ~
q l
u c
h at
- u.:
m K
C
' ;
- j ;,
L
' SEPTEMBER.114, l1987 s-3 TU ELECTRIC COMANCHEPEAKSTEAMELECTRICSTATION:
' CONDUIT SUPPORT TRAINS A, B AND:CE> 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
o q
CYGNA ISSUE NO.126:= DESIGN DRAWING DISCREPANCIES l'
J r
I, 4
a f 01 ISSUE 1
g CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES AND INCONSISTENCIES MAY EXIST
- j IN THE'G8H DESIGN DRAWINGS. INCLUDING MISSING INFORMATION
-SUCH AS BASE' PLATE' SIZE, CLAMP TYPE AND EDGE 1 DISTANCE.
- j a
0-RESOLUTION-DESIGN VALIDATION OF.THE S-0910 AND S2-0910LPACKAGES
.q i
IS COMPLETE AND ALL GENERIC DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN REISSUED.;
'THE. MAJORITY.0F THE MODIFIED'AND.IN SUPPORTS FOR UNIT-
'I
'2'ht.VE BEEN ISSUED.
THE VALIDATION OF UNIT 1. MODIFIED-AND IN-SUPPORTS 11S IN PROGRESS.
l 4
4 4
I I
va 2: o, V fo[
.'W
- -d i
om
- s.
SEPTEMBERil4,c1987j+
< r-
>t k
'TU ELECTRIC:
> COMANCHE! PEAK 1 STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUIT SUPPORT TRAINS AicBfAND.C > 2"i0:
STRUCTURAL DESIGN VAllDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
s0 CYGNAslSSUE NO. 27:
WALKDOWN' DISCREPANCIES
(.
~
o;
-ISSUE A,~B, C, D,.E'AND F -
1 CONDUIT SUPPORT DISCREPANCIES' EXISTED IN THE' INSTALLATION OF CLAMPS,. ANCHOR BOLTS, STRUCTURAL STEEL MEMBERS AND UNISTR'UT COMPONENTS.
CONDUIT / PIPE' INTERFERENCES AND' CONDUIT PLACEMENT. DISCREPANCIES ALSOLOCCUREDLINyTHE FIELD.
]
0
. RESOLUTION yt
- A, B, C, D, E AND F.
y
- l
.THE ISSUE 11S APPLICABLE TO UNIT NO. 1 ONLY.
FOR UNIT NO. 2, ALL CONDUITS ARE INSPECTED FROM AN "AS-BUILT"
]
ISO, AND IDENTIFIED DEVIATIONS ARE.EITHER CORRECTED j
i IN THE' FIELD OR ACCEPTED BY ENGINEERING DURING THE ISO VALIDATION PROGRAM.
FOR UNIT 1 EACH CONDUIT RUN IS WALKED DOWN TO OBTAIN AS-BUILT INFORMATION AND IS0 METRICS ARE PREPARED.
'i INCLUDED WITH THE ISO DRAWING ARE THE DETAILS OF EACH SUPPORT IN THE CONDUIT RUN.
THESE IS0 METRICS ARE INDIVIDUALLY DESIGN VALIDATED UTILIZING AS-BUILT DATA, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION DEVIATIONS.
INTERDISCIPLINARY CLEARANCE REVIEW IS PART OF ANOTHER PROGRAM AND IS IN PROGRESS.
-.---_._-----___a__.-_._._--_--_.---.D
I
,,3
,[
n.v 33 a-TU' ELECTRIC
. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUIT SUPP0RT TRAINS?A; B AND C-'>J2" 0-STRUCTURAL DESIGN-VAllDATION GENERIC 11SSUES
SUMMARY
3
-CYGNA ISSUE lN'0 '28:
SYSTEMS CONCEPT s
s
'o
_ISSUEL-
- FOR LONGITUDINAL LOAD TRANSFER OF CONCRETE SURFACE-
-MOUNTED SUPPORTS A' SYSTEM CONCEPT WAS USED;BY G&H TO 4
JUSTIFY THE INTERACTION-AND LOAD. TRANSFERS BETWEEN THE.
SUPPORT AND THE-' CONDUIT USING'CERTAIN' GENERIC-SUPPORT.
- {
DETAILS.
- APPLICABILITY. OF.THESE CALCULATIONS TO OTHER Ej SUPPORTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED.
o 0'
- RESOLUTION d
u l
THIS.!SSUE-IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE SINCE CONCRETE-1 SURFACE' MOUNTED-SUPPORTS HAVE BEEN DESIGN VALIDATED BY CONSIDERING-THAT THE MOMENTS ~ INDUCED BY' LONGITUDINAL l
. LOADS:ARE SHARED BETWEEN THE SUPPORT AND'THE CONDUIT'IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STIFFNESS OF THE SYSTEM COMPONENTS..
'i 1
)
1 I
___._.__._._______.__.__u._u__[___.______..__.___
SEPTEMBER ' lib 1987 i
TV ELECTRIC i
l COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUIT SUPPORT TRAINS A, 8 AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL-DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
u CYGNA ISSUE NO 29:
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF REVIEW ISSUES i
O ISSUE SMALL UNCONSERVATISMS RESULTING FROM SEPARATE ISSUES MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECT FOR SUPPORTS IMPACTED'BY MORE THAN ONE ISSUE.
O RESOLUTION THERE'IS NO SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ISSUES BECAUSE:
OVERALL-DESIGN VALIDATION APPROACH HAS ADDRESSED.
EACH ISSUE BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND' COLLECTIVELY.
[
DESIGN VALIDATION IS BASED ON AS-BUILT DATA.
L CONSERVATISM OF APPROACH IS CONFIRMED BY EXTENSIVE TESTING.
j l
)
dr
y-7-
SEPTEMBER 1 0 19871 TV. ELECTRIC-COMANCHE: PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDulT SUPPORT TRAIN Af B:AND C >.2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION-GENERIC-ISSUES
SUMMARY
QUALITY 0F' CONSTRUCTION (ERC) ISSUE NO 1:
LOOSE CONDUlT UNIONS f
O ISSUE
~
. LOOSE UNIONS IN CONDUITS COULD: RESULT: IN THE: TWO ENDS-f*
OF THE CONDUIT HELD TOGETHER BY THE. UNION TO BECOME FREE-
-UNDER VIBRATION.
THE STRUCTURAL' CONTINUITY 0F THE--
CONDUIT COULD THEN BE AFFECTED AND THE CABLE HOUSED.
l THEREIN-MAY BE SUBJECT TO' LOADS NOT-CONSIDERED IN ANY ANALYSIS.
1 j
0-RESOLUTION j
j!
THIS. ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED BY A COMPLETE WALKDOWN OF:THE-UNIT <1 Am 2 CONDUITS.
ANY> LOOSE CONDUIT UNION.
HAS BEEN OR WILL BE REPORTED AND' WRENCH TIGHTENED.
[
CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION PROCEDURES 35-1195-ECP-19 AND 35-1195-ECP-19A.AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES 01-0P-11.10-1 AND 01-0P-11.10-1A HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE TIGHTENING OF UNIONS.
s i
m
pqy 3
33 g.
g SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 s._
TU ELECTRIC:
E
-COMANCHELPEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUITTSUPPORT TRAINS A, B'AND.C > 2" 0' l
STRUCTURAL' DESIGN VAllDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
1 THIRD PARTY (TERA) ISSUE NO 1:
VIOLATION OF-MINIMUM AISC
-i WELD SIZE 1
'j i
0; ISSUE l
i AISC/AWS SPECIFY MINIMUM WELD SIZES AS A' FUNCTION OF j
THE THICKNESS OF THE' MATERIAL BEING' JOINED.
ENGINEERING PERMITS THESE MINIMUM WELD SIZES TO BE VIOLATED.
j 0-RESOLUTION.
EBASCO HAS PERFORMED PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION TESTING l
'TO: DEMONSTRATE 1THE ACCEPTABILITY.OF FILLET WELDS WHICH ARE NOT-IN CONFORMANCE WITH AISC/AWS RECOMMENDATIONS.
EBASCO HAS' CONDUCTED ~AN EXTENSIVE PENETRANT EVALUATION.
OF ARC STRIKE REGIONS IN. STEEL PRODUCED TO A SPECIFIED.
j TENSILE ~ STRENGTH OF 60,000' PSI.
THE RESULTS-0F THIS INVESTIGATION WERE THAT.NO CRACKS WERE FOUNDj INDICATING THAT SUCH MATERIALS HAVE MODERATE HARDENABILITY AND SUFFICIENT TOUGHNESS WHEN SUBJECTED TO HIGH COOLING RATES OF AN ARC STRIKE HEAT AFFECTED ZONE.
THE EXTRAPOLATION OF THESE RESULTS TO THE AISC/AWS FILLET f
WELD CRITERIA, IN WHICH COOLING RATES ARE FAR LESS SEVERE, PERMITS ACCEPTANCE _OF SIZES LESS THAN RECOMMENDED I
BY AISC/AWS IN STEELS PROCURED TO A SPECIFIED ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH-0F 60,000 PSI OR LESS.
(THESE ARE THE STEELS USED AT CPSES).
i de
~
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CONDUlT SUPPORT TRAINS Au B AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
JNTERNALLY GENERATED ISSUE NO.1:
TORSIONAL CAPACITY OF 1
THREADED COUPLINGS 0
-ISSUE 4
A NUMBER OF FREE ENDED CONDUIT ELBOWS ARE CONNECTED TO THE REMAINDER OF THE CONDUIT VIA A COUPLING, WITH NO SUPPPORTS BETWEEN THE COUPLING AND THE FREE END.
THE COUPLING DOES NOT PROVIDE TORSIONAL RESISTANCE TO MOTIONS INDUCED BY SEISMIC EVENTS.
O RESOLUTION
%LL CONDUITS WHICH HAVE FREE ENDS PRECEDED BY A COUPLER AND UNSUPPORTED FROM THE COUPLER THROUGH A CHANGE IN JIRECTION TO THE FREE END HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.
THE
- EST PROGRAM CONDUCTED AT CCL IDENTIFIED THE APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION WHICH WILL PROVIDE THE REQUIRED TORSIONAL RESISTANCE.
ALL SUCH INSTANCES WILL BE CORRECTED, AND l
IF NECESSARY SUPPORTS WILL BE ADDED.
I THE INSTALLATION AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO PREVENT RECURRENCE IN FUTURE INSTALLATIONS.
N
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 l
TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC-STATION CONDUIT SUPPORT TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 i
STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
l INTERNALLY GENERATED ISSUE NO. 2:
SKEWED FILLET WELDS 1
~
i 0
ISSUE 1
STRUCTURAL MEMBER JOINTS ARE ON OCCASION AT OTHER THAN 90*.
THE EFFECTIVE THROAT OF FILLET WELDS WHICH ARE SKEWED, IE.
OTHER THAN 90* IS A PARAMETER USED BY ENGINEERING IN VERIFICATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF EXISTING CONDUIT SUPPORTS OR IN THE DESIGN OF NEW CONDUIT SUPPORTS.
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ASSUMPTION MADE BY ENGINEERING j
IN REGARD TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE SKEWED FILLED WELD HAS BEEN QUESTIONED.
0
. RESOLUTION ENGINEERING HAS CONSIDERED THE EFFECTIVE THROAT OF SKEWED FILLET WELDS DURING THE VALIDATION OF THE S-0910 AND S2-0910 PACKAGES.
FURTHER IT HAS CONSIDERED THE SKEWED FILLET WELDS IN THE DESIGN VALIDATION OF MODIFIED AND IN SUPPORT AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS THE VALIDATION PROGRESSES FOR UNIT 1 AND 2X CONDUIT SUPPORTS, AND NEW DESIGNS OCCURRING FOR UNIT 2.
THE DESIGN CRITERIA AND INSTRUCTIONS CONTAIN THE GUIDELINES FOR HOW ENGINEERING MUST CONSIDER SKEWED FILLET WELDS.
So
n N NJ t
L., ;
1,
- p a
- i J"1 SEPTEMBER 14,fl987
- TU ELECTRIC
-COMANCHE l PEAK? STEAM ELECTRIC STATION.-
CONDUIT SUPPORT!TRAINSLA,..B ANDLCi>.2" 0
]'
' STRUCTURAL DESIGNLVALIDATION'GENERICiISSUES
SUMMARY
c 1
INTERNALLY GENERATED ISSUE NO. 3:
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS FOR o
CONTINUQUS WELD LENGTHS.
d
.r s,.
-[.o ISSUE,
'SEVERAL WEL'DED JOINTS EXHIBIT CONTINUOUS WELDING.
FOR INSTANCE THE-WELDING.OF A TUBE STEEL ON END-TO. A PLATE CAN BE: VI A AN ALL AROUND FILLET WELD OR-AN ALL AROUND-COMBINATION FILLET WELDS:TRANSITIONING j
.TO FLARE. BEVEL: WELDS,. DEPENDING ON THE SIZE'0F THE TUBE STEEL AND THE PLATE.
THE ACTUAL WELD ~ THROAT THICKNESS IN REGIONSuBETWEEN THE STRAIGHT PORTIONS OF THE WELD IS-'NOT ACCURATELY.
KNOWN.-
HENCE THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY ENGINEERING
- j
.IN DESIGN'AND DESIGN. VALIDATION OF SUCH WELDED l
. JOINTS HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED-'AND A CORRECTIVE
-ACTION' REQUEST (CAR-78)'HAS BEEN ISSUED.
1 O
RESOLUTION-4 THIS ISSUE IS RESOLVED BY THE BELOW DESCRIBED WORK THAT l
HAS BEEN PERFORMED.
ENGINEERING HAS REVIEWED THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE WITH REGARD j
TO-THE EFFECTIVE THROAT AND LENGTH OF THESE CONTINUOUS WELDS FOR ALL OF THE' CONFIGURATIONS IN WHICH THEY EXIST.
THE CONFIGURATIONS ~ FALL IN TO TWO CATEGORIES:
(I) ALL AROUND FILLET WELDS ON THE OUTSIDE OF TU3E STEEL MEMBERS AND (II)
ALL AROUND WELDS CONSISTING OF TWO FILLETS ON OPPOSITE J
SIDES OF THE TUBE STEEL AND TWO FLARE BEVEL WELDS ON THE OTHER TWO OPPOSITE SIDES.
j 5I 1
1
w 3
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1
CONDulT SUPPORT TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
INTERNALLY GENERATED ISSUE NO. 3:
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS FOR CONTINUOUS WELD LENGTHS I
(CONT'D)
FOR THE FORMER, ENGINEERING TAKES CREDIT FOR A WELD LENGTH EQUAL TO THE FULL PERIMETER OF THE TUBE STEEL WITH A THROAT THICKNESS EQUAL TO THAT OF THE STRAIGHT J
PORTION OF THE WELD.
THIS IS APPROPRIATE SINCE THE CURVED PORTION OF THE TUBE STEEL DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ABILITY OF PLACING A FULL SIZE FILLET WELD EVEN WITH THE CURVED PORTION OF THE WELD.
FOR THE LATTER, ENGINEERING TAKES CREDIT FOR A FILLET WELD j
LENGTH EQUAL TO THE LENGTH OF THE TUBE STEEL SIDE l
WHICH HAS THE FILLET WELDS, BUT ONLY CONSIDERS THAT THE STRAIGHT PORTION OF THE FLARE BEVEL WELDS WOULD PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CAPACITY.
THIS IS ALSO APPROPRIATE SINCE THE TOTAL NEGLECT OF THE CURVED PORTIONS OF THE FLARE BEVEL WELD MORE THAN COMPENSATES FOR WHATEVER EXTRA CREDIT MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY CONSIDERING THAT THE CURVED PORTIONS OF THE FILLET HAVE A THROAT THICKNESS EQUAL TO THE STRAIGHT PORTION.
5 ~L
)
o 4
SEPTEMBER 14, 1987-TV ELECTRIC COMANCHE PEAK STEAM E'LECTRIC STATION CONDulT SUPPORT TRAINS A, B AND C > 2" 0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN VALIDATION GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
q INTERNALLY GENERATED ISSUE NO.-4:
EFFECTIVE THROAT OF FLARE l
i BEVEL WELD t
~
0 ISSUE s
}
THIS ISSUE DEALS WITH THE ENGINEERING'S ASSUMPTION OF 5/16 R AS THE. DIMENSION OF THE THROAT THICKNESS j
OF FLARE BEVEL WELDS MADE IN JOINING TUBE STEELS l
TO OTHER TUBE STEELS OR PLATES, WHERE R = 2T AND T IS THE WALL THICKNESS OF THE TUBE STEEL.
f 0
RESOLUTION j
j THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THIS ISSUE ON THE PROJECT IS
{
LIMITED TO FLARE BEVEL WELDS JOINING 2 X 2 X 1/4 TUBE STEELS TO PLATES OR OTHER TUBE STEELS.
FOR THESE JOINTS THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE THROAT THICKNESS EQUAL 5/32 INCH HAS NOT BEEN BORNE OUT BY TESTS.
IN EACH SUCH INSTANCE ENGINEERING HAS REVIEWED WHAT EFFECT THE 1
ASSUMPTION OF A THICKNESS OF 1/8 INCH WOULD HAVE AND HAS FOUND IT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE GENERIC SUPPORTS.
HOWEVER, REVIEW 0F THE MODIFIED AND IN SUPPORTS HAS NOT 1
YET BEEN COMPLETED.
THIS REVIEW IS BEING PERFORMED j
AS PART OF THE ONGOING WORK FOR UNIT 1, UNIT 2 AND l
UNIT 2X CONDUlTS.
DURING SUCH REVIEW, ENGINEERING
]
ASSUMES THAT THE EFFECTIVE THROAT OF FLARE BEVEL WELDS IN 2 X 2 X 1/4 TUBE STEEL IS 1/8 INCH OR ESTABLISHES VIA WALKDOWN AND AS-BUILTING OF THE WELD,
(
g6 Je
?
1 f$#p,0 :,'
,R ;
e m a n.,,
n SEPTEMBER 114;fl987:t a
TULELECTRIC L
s iC0MANCHE PEAKLSTEAM ELECTRICrSTATION:
- CONDUITLSUPPORTsTRAINSTA/B*ANDiC>270,
^
-STRUCTURAL DESIGNLVALIDATION-GENERIC ISSUES
SUMMARY
INTERNALLY?GENERATEDilSSUE NO. 4:
EFFECTIVE THROAT 0F FLARE, s
BEVEL WELD-w-
- 1
, k; e
p
+
.(CONT D) r, LC 1
.E..
gh
- -\\ :
3 THAT ADDITIONAL' WELD METAL EXISTS.-THAN--:CAN: PROVIDE MORE'
-EFFECTIVE THROAT. THICKNESS.-
LANY SUPPORTS FOUND:T0 BE-UNACCEPTABLE'WILL*BE MODIFIED.-
.THE DESIGN-CRITERIA AND-j
-INSTRUCTIONS HAVE.BEEN REVISED TO ACCOUNT,FOR THE LESSER'
. THROAT THICKNESS-IN FLARE BEVEL' WELDS OF'2 X 2 Xl1/4-
- TUBE' STEELS.
1
-k r
q
~
q l
H i
l l
3 I-54
W
(
2 ENCLOSURE 3 W
~
9/16/87 5 e &,,.
'IU ELECTRIC SH. 1 OF 2 C04ANCHE PEAK STEAM ELEURIC STATION CCNDUIT SYSTEM DOCUMENTS.PPOVIDED j
i
'IO NBC FOR REVIEW 1.
Drawing No. 2323-S-0910 Package, f
2.
Drawing No. 2323-S2-0910 Package.
3.
Ebasco Specification No. SAG CP10, Unit 1 Design Criteria for Seismic
.t Category I Electrical Conduit System, Revision 4, dated 6/26/87.
4.
Ebasco Specification No. SAG CP2, Unit 2 Design Criteria for Seismic Category I Electrical Conduit System, Fevision 8, dated 6/26/87.
5.
Ebasco Specification No. SAG cpl 7, Unit 1 Design Criteria for Junction Boxes for Seismic Catefory I Electrical Conduit Systems, Revision 6, dated 6/26/87.
6.
Ebasco Specification No. SAG CP12, Unit 2 Design Criteria for Junction
. Boxes ft Seismic Category I Electrical Conduit Systens, Revision 3, f i/87.
dated 6 7.
Ebasco S pacification No. SAG CP20, Unit 1 Technical Guidelines for l
System A 11ysis of Conduit Span Configurations, Revision 3, dated.
6/26/87.
- 8. -Ebasco S..cification No. SAG CP21, Unit 1, Technical Guidelines for Thermal alysis of Seismic Category I Electrical Conduit System i
Bevision
!, dated 6/26/87.
9.
Fh"Co Si icification No. SAG CP29, Unit 1, General Instructions for Design V rification of Electrical Conduit and Box Supports, Favision 3, dated 8/ /87.
- 10. Ebasco C. JES Unit 1, Conduit Calculation Book No,' Supt-0246, Support Verification for CYGNA Issue No. 5, Bolt Hole Tolerance and Edge Distance Violation.
i
- 11. CPE-EB-FVM-CS-033, Design Control of Electrical Conduit Raceways for Unit 1 Installation in Unit 1 and Comnon Areas, Revision 2, dated 6/19/87.
- 12. CPE-EB-FVM-CS-014 - Design Control of Electrical Conduit Raceways for Unit 2 Installation in Unit 1 and Cormon Areas, Favision 5, dated 7/31/87.
13.
TNE-CS-CA-CA-la, Design Capacity of Conduit Supports Revision 1, dated 3/25/87.
- 14. Ebasco Specification No. SAG CP22, Unit 2, Technical Guidelines for Thernal Analysis of Seismic Category I Electrical Conduit Systems, Fevision 1, dated 6/26/87.
l
_,7-
\\
- h ?
in
.9,&gy_
l
,[Mi i.:
s..-
4%j;c
!SH.L2 OFs2
%.7-
'IO NBC IOR' REVIEW
/15. Ebasco. Specification SAG CP25, Unit 1 Technical Guidelines for' Seismic
- Category I Electrical Conduit Isometric Evaluation, Pavision 0,- dated j
~
1 3/31/87.:
..y
$6. CPE-EB-IW-CS-002.- Field Verification Method - Design Control'of Electrical i
Conduit Paceways for Unit 2, Revision 4,1 dated 7/6/87.
~
- 17. -Calculation Book No. Supt-0247
~ Substitution of;Next Heavier Structural a
a Member for Unit #1,. Revision 0,-dated 7/16/87.
- 18. Calculation Book No.. Supt-0253' Effects of. Bolt Hole oversize for Unit' #1','.-
~
" Revision _0, dated 17/29/87.
(Checked)-
e J19.: Calculation. Book No.' Span-ll89 CYGNA Issue #17, Substitution of Next A
. Heavier Structural Tube Member Size for Unit #1, Bevision 1, dated 7/28/87..
-20. -Calculation Book No. 151'.
. Conduit Concrete Dtbedment Requirement At-Penetration for Units #1'& #2,~ Revision 1,- dated 5/15/87. (Checked)'
-4
+
i
- Calculation Books ~ for' Temperature Studies are listed in Appendix 10 i
of Ebasco Specification No. SAG CP10.
- i
'I i
M
()
'[
l l
1 1
q
)
1 l
1 i
_ __ __