ML20236R953
| ML20236R953 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1987 |
| From: | Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| 84056.128, NUDOCS 8711240133 | |
| Download: ML20236R953 (100) | |
Text
-
L' >
'bwo #M O~cQ-f 6 y .f- =,
%3/m
/2121 N Cahfornia Biva, Suite 390 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 415'934-5733 November 13, 1987..
84056.128 4
Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE
-1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX' 75224
Subject:
Communications Report Transmittal No.'35 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases
+ Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Station TU Electric Job No. 84056 Dear Mrs. Ellis-u Enclosed please find communications reports associated with the cable tray audits. A list'of the enclosed communications seposts appears in A++-hm nt 1.
. If you have any questions or desire to. discuss any .of these documents, please do not hesitate to call. '
s Very . truly. yours,
[ -
. N. H. Williams
. Project Manager !
NHW/amh Attachments ;
a cc: ' Mr. J. Redding (TU Electric)
Mr. W. Counsil (TU Electric)
Mr. J. Muffett (TU Electric) l Mr. L. Nace (TU Electric) l Mr. G. Ashley (Impell) j Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)
' Mr. C. Grimes (USNRC)
Ms.+ A'.'Vietti-Cook'(USNRC)
Mr. R. Alexandru (Ebasco) 8711240133 871113I PDR ADOCK 05000445 l A PDR
[' ,
f l0 I San Francisco Boston Chicago Parsippany '0
\TUE\84056\LTR.128 C_ . _ _ -
ym,;{;w
+ ,} w y. ,
, i'}i ,. 4 (d
' }
.7 >. y , i 4
f 1 x w y"' .
ATTACHMENT 1 n
K' LList of Enclosed Communications Reports u; .
DATE
~
,, TIME L
. 03/16/87 L 1030 a.m.
C +
04/27/87 330 p.m.
04/28/87' '
9:50 a.m. j 2:45 p.m.
3.; ?04/28/87-04/30/87_- 4 00 p.m.
'05/01/87., 10:00 a.m.
' 05/01/87 2 30 p.m.
05/11/87.. 10:45 a.m.
- 05/11/87-. 1:40. p.m.
t 05/13/87-'_ 2 31 p.m.
05/14/87- 2:30 p.m.
h' 05/15/87; 06/22/87 1230 p.m.
300 p.m. i
- '06/25/87 300 p.m.
- ^-
. ./. ,
< 06/26/87L 7:30 a.m.
~ 07/31/87 7:30 a.m.
09/08/87 ' 11:30 a.m. [
~ 09/22/87. 10:00 a.m. :l o
' '09/23/87: 11:50 a.m. !
> v '09/23/87 3:00 p.m.
C '09/23/87 5:45 p.m.
%.. 109/24/87.. 11:30 a.m. >
p6' 09/24/87 200 p.m. ]
1200 p.m.
09/25/87:
- 09/25/87E 200 p.m.
J.ta.. 109/30/87 1100 a.m. ,
s t l
l
, h. :
1 a-p ;
I a.
\TUE\84056\LTR.128 k- .
< o.
} ... . . .
a 7
g A f.% M Communications Report '
j : lillililllllilillllllililllll!
E8"Y Telee n conference Report CES Project: Job No
'TU Electric 84056 Date.
Subject:
Time:
10S0 a.m.
l Ebasco Cable Tray Audit - Evaluation of Place:
Vertical Eccentricity of Transverse Loads Ebasco (NY)
Participants:
of P. Harrison Ebasco J. Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By Ebasco provided the following calculations for the evaluation of the use of one-half the tier depth for moments due to applied transverse loads for Cygna's use during the audit:
- 1. Calculation dated 10 March 1987 by J. Yang.
- 2. Design verification calculation and output for CTH 2-429.
- 3. Design verification calculation and output for CTH-2-8461.
TUE\031687-A. CON signeo- Page o, l
Disuibution; SEE'dfrACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
iom oi.
. w.S i:}. g Y
4-; /.
4." ..
DISTRIBUTION LIST -
~
, Mr. J.' Redding .
s Mr. L. Nace
Mr. W. Counsil '
m Mr. D. Pipott - ,
3.
-t .. Mr A. Vietti-Cook -
- Mr. C Grimes-
. Mr. R. Alexandru -
. Mr.' J.' Muffett :
f Ms. N. Williams ~ i Mr.:J. Russ - ;
,Mr. W. Horstman
~ Mr. K; Parikh -
Ms. D. Leong.
.Mri G.' .'Ashley Project File h
s F ':'
(
j'_
'i i
t .,
j j
i i
i i
I. '
I l
! .v l
)
J.
g -
4" Communications t A Leh a Report M ' lililllilllllllllilllillillll! :
? ..
c Company: -
Telecon X Conference Report gg Project; . .
Job No. i TU Electric 84056 !
CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate: I 04/27/87
Subject:
Time:
Ebasco Cable Trcy Audits 3 30 p.m. !
Place: I Ebasco. NY Participants' .
of P. Harrison Ebasco W. Horstman, Ji Russ Cygna
,. l j
Required J item - Comments Action By l
Cygna. asked if all' brace members were modelled as truss elements.
Ebasco stated that.they were and pointed to page 2 of the General k Instructions. A ' statement on this page references Attachments H, I,
. and. J. . In these attachments, braces are required to be modelled as
" pin-ended members". Ebasco stated that this would require them to
. be modelled in STRUDL as truss elements. ]
.c c
i i
l l
TUE\042787-C. CON
- Y ff),hjf ,
1 1 Distnbution:
SES AIfACHED DISTRIB'OITON SHEET.
mo o,. i
- g. ..
p.
3 ;,'i :
, [; .' ' , .' .;
g '
f,i:l!jp 4:y; ts.
Jj l.:-f:i, r
'l@]}Qi m~ i
- 11 - DISTRIBUTION LIST J s
Mr. J. Redding
Mr. L. Nace i i Mr.' W. Counsil
~ Mr. D. Pigott
- Ms. A. Vietti-Cook.
~ Mr? C. Grimes .
' Mr. Ri Alexandru
' Mr. J. Muffetti Ms. N.- Williams 1 Mr. J. Russ
' Mr. W. Horstman
' Mr. K.~ Parikh-
' Ms. D. Leong ,
Mr. G.' Ashley .
- (Project File
. 'g .
I:
g Communications
.g L 1 i Report-lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllI l..
' Compa,ny: Teiec n Conference Report
.CES.
. Project; Job No.
TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate: .
04/28/87
]
Subject:
Time- l Ebasco Cable Tray Audit 9 50 a.m.
j Place: 1 Ebasco. NY j
Participants:
' of J. Christordias, P. Harrison, Y. Latifaoglu Ebasco 1
.1 J. - Russ Cygna Required item . Comments Action By Cygna asked what flexual allowable was used for angle members.
E- Ebasco ' stated that ' an allowable of 0.6 Fy was used. They recognized that this. allowable was higher than those predicted by the Australian code requirements, and in the 3rd edition of " Basic
. Steel Design" by B.G. Johnston, FJ. Lin and T.V. Galambos.
t However, Ebasco noted that the angle braces responded mainly as ,
compressive members so that changing the flexual allowables would ;
. not affect the member interaction. Ebasco provided Cygna with the above-referenced text for review. ;
L Ebasco models their angle brace members as pin-ended truss elements. Impell's study 'on the consideration of connection
. eccentricities concluded ~ that boundary conditions at the member
.end played ; a' significant . role 'on the behavior of the angle.
Specifically, Impell concludes that fixing the angle rotations will provide the more conservative approach. Cygna asked Ebasco to comment on Impell's study. Ebasco replied that since the angles behave mostly as axial members, a pin-ended condition would be conservative. This conservatism results from the softening of the
, structure which would result in higher loads. Cygna asked if a L
I study was performed to examine the change in response. Ebasco
- rephed that there was not.
Distnbution: -- SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
' 1020 01s u____._ _ . _ _ . _
j Communications '
I,,
. ml::
L. t i..
.:illl:
Rep' ort q Required
- item . Comments Action By
_4<
. Cygna . asked ho.w ' Ebasco handled the analysis of. the welds k
- connecting a base angle to 'an embedded plate. Ebasco stated that 1 such .: a configuration would - be considered a ' special case and analyzed usirig FEM techniques.
..Cygna asked what action was being taken with regard to support 3136 ' which was mounted. within a fire wall. Ebasco stated that
. they are following the new procedures listed in the public meeting of 21 April 1987. Ebasco's work is presently in progress. They will report the attachment loads to SWEC per procedure.
. . Ebasco provided Cygna with a list of longitudinal trapeze supports T.. for ' which the : calculations were complete. It was ' noted that supports 5 and 6 were incorrectly labeled as longitudinal and are.
'in reality transverse supports. In order to select the supports for review, Cygna asked Ebasco for 'the number of levels with trays on U2, U3, and U4 supports.
i i r
.7 . g-
, ..I .
n TUE\042887-A. CON -
SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET Page 2 2
. 1020 018
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . ~ . .
--j;;
i
- j. :
DISTRIBUTION LIST
- Mr. J. Redding-Mr. L Nace Mr. W.' Counsil Mr.' D. Pigott -
Ms. A. ViettiCook '
Mr. C Grimes -
- Mr. R. Alexandru '
i - Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams L,- Mr. J.- Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr.' K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong . .
- Mr. G. Ashley -
Project File ft
__.m-_-_________ __.m___ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___
-g__,_ ._ _
4 Communications 1 .
At ci ,
. R9 port l;}y l lllllllllllllllE '
s
- 1. Company; . Telecon Conference Report Project: .
Job No.
. TU Electric-84056
04/28/87
- Subject' . ' Time:.
<^ , Cable Tray Support Design Review 2:45 n.m.
Audit of Ebasco Place:
[, Fhnwo NY Participants - of
. P. Harrison Ebasco
- W. Horstman Cygna I
I -;< )
Required j' . Item Comments Action By Cygna requested and received the attached copy of cable tray support drawing CTH 2 9898.
,- This support was' used as the test case for the verification of Ebasco computer program " COMBS."
I' e
(,'
1
. TUE\042887 D. CON D '
!l S$'"b" ""
Y h )$j)jjE , 1 1 SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
. mo o,,
+ s p esi. -
;,7u svi.
' p r 4 [ lT of *. U I vU
- e. : fr n h 1 18sHO o -
4. IM i h,; .,$ $1pVV 204 m 1 z910.l a e,,, 4, r l.- m.. so r a 3
,,,.p
.W'h" yfi EN. .
$ MO % E T
l' *. ,'. #' ~~b / - *af
~
' =k f:YY)"3 a 8z
. Ya -
/' :
n'=:: 3 H *- e in 3 a 7 r**- - S /' .,,
~"""""
Q{ & H y -f fO 1.,.
.. g g,* -5 a D4 ,rg o 51 e' f
.18i y: ,,' p) l(\ r i
f t. .
- cr #
- )
6,,;. E:,, . ,,, ,, Ut - u. ( ):, i dN %n ww ln ta $ \
. ",5 :
15-y 0
,.{
.u, m y
s di.. v 3
<t z
>< w a
to s if C Mw 'y .,. i,, , , I y.' l 45 [ J O h ,yI g3, $-
.n-,.-.< , 1 3 a.
3 g 8, p i,:,
, . 1'#, 1 g, .*'N d s a e a d_ ,
- p. ~
2*b~ ;:;
- 7:
t$.[ 3 - 0,W;'s ^ k es' ion on s u$ %"
^
cutt-a S a Z
~g si
,s{2 4c y "
h - ^'8' ,
*l. /$'uQ 9 A e t 3 > '
5
'. .. r- -
'a [7 8
.45. *1 *- a m-l*'Wd o' m,
[ y[ .$ &* $1 ~
- G S .~ -
. tl klw m~fP.
~y ~'
e,.;- %gy~&.M # fn m . . ., e ds 6acac
'g ;; 0);
t- - T op . s, q/ : 7 e--4o g q.,= Ng&; e::: w : >. . .
-3L o
a ,o :.I m sol r . . - a u a
, ,t,i g - - , T I i
- 1 ,,
=
e' n ::'?-,
= ! -
f . .
-o
=
j__t. . .
- f,, gz
- a m t,.y u .7 l 7
N 4-
~
= In 45 Y' -
H L,, .- 4.:::J._1 m' I.{ 1H
-u
/.4
- Tf.@
w r ! u I u
" U d
- k. w < y .
# ' YM i "
.A x afv0 III 'I an*
,.Ag 'h * =* g f
a m
~v y
L *:-
- a ) "
ii-- g # r, q l U. S
\\ $ /
IE, Ed il ! 3 sw. .( .. . g i w
- .rJ . ha "
e,,, u i m-) 4J, , ,. lu-jEr P)"p se @ P4\
; paf ~,
i r j, i %e'r* s$ ,t; w L
;,- ;-l e-w een.es W *sy
- 2 4.g - ,
i/I [q. N @ ! ! Un 0 Ow't U d #' -- 8 f '" L 0_ . s v
.e
g ca. n M g
.-W6.h.N; e.
- f. Is .i - .
9, a. =p ~~~ [t,'sy
$' b E s- g-.* e_
l k l,i,i. y y v ,
~
l
- T s y J - .
" g
; (E et [t}' .
A 10-
, a n
\
iA u I a ..qh**,s$ Y _ b
.1 I
y 8 e s s'.e + t le 96810/64pth f f th/6e s.'.6t ?t0'64s r.* 49456eL81&n#688 8' li s0/ fl 0% I48 G$
.r 1: i Al ;
ea . -
?. .*.
j
gr
. : i;
' DISTRIBUTION LIST i
Mr. 'J.' Redding
.Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil:
' Mr. D. Pipott Ms.. A.L%etti Cook
'.Mr. C Grimes o Mr. R. Alexandru
- Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams' g., : Mr. J. Russ t- Mr..W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh ~
' Ms. D.' Leong
>". :Mr. G.- Ashley Project File
; e
(. . I t (l' 2 k .- n lt I V i L. ? 4 l
-._-___.__--__-_--.---_Q
k 7, Communications
*h F _i i i Report
?@? < m;;;;;;;;;;;;:;mlilimil s Company T' " conference Report ES - Project:~ Job No, TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oate: 04/30/87 Subject; . Time: Ebasco Cable Tray Audit 400 p.m. Place: Ebasco, NY
Participants:
of 1 SJ. Chen,1 Christoudias, P. Harrison Ebasco J. Swanson Ebasco 1 W. Horstman, J. Russ Cygna ' Required item comments Acton By i In regard to Cygna's concons on the use of COMBS program for support posts that are composite channels, and spacer channels on top of tier members, Ebasco provided Cygna with the calculations for supports CTH-1-4371 (composite posts) and CTH 1245 (spacer channels). Cygna will review these calculations. Ebasco and Cygna discussed Cygna's concerns on the eccentricity assumption for longitudinal clamps with two bolts. Ebasco stated that they had examined the connection previously and decided that the eccentricity was appropriate. They stated that if a pinned connection was assumed at the clamp / tier interface, which Ebasco . asserted was conservative, the moment transfer through ,
' the clamp / tray bolts would occur. Additionally, Ebasco stated i that the RSM analyses had shown that the torsional moment due 8 to longitudinal loads in the tier were smaller than those predicted by the ESM assumptions. Cygna stated that they would 1 review Ebasco's response.
Cygna asked about the connection between the tier and the tray )
^ in RSM analyses. Ebasco stated that they used a rigid link from the tier centroid to the tray centroid with a spring at the connection. Impell stiffness values were used for the spring. 4 Ebasco stated that they did not differentiate between one and two bolt clamps. Ebasco provided a calculation on the node requirements . for loaded tiers and brace members for Cygna's review during the audit.
TUE\043087-B. CON l
. 1 Page of S_ignedsQ D'stnbution-S5E AII' ACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
1020 01a
e: , . .,,
. p
- .t " ' '-
;t'
}:: y j,
- a. q.
t
.,g 4
re . DISTRIBUTION LIST acy , c Mr. J. Redding -- Mr. L. Nace : Mr. W. Counsil
- Mr. D. Pigott-
. Ms. A. ViettiCook-
. Mr. C. Grimes .. .
-. Mr. R.1Alexandru >
1 i Mr. J. Muffett -
- Ms.' N., Williams -
Mr. J. Russ~::
. Mr. W. Horstman -
i Mr. K. Parikh : 4 m Ms. D. Leong-Mr. G.~ Ashley .-
>. Project File-i
;. 4
(*,1 j l l7
.\'~'
(
)
b lY I 6
@ J
- -4 l,.. -
; .. s
4 Communications Jp A M'i . Report
. ;:llllll:::::::ll1111111111111
' ' ' ' Company:- conference Report CES. O Teiecon I* *"'
~ TU Electric . 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4-- o,,e s
05/01/87
. sumeetu "*
Ebasco Cabie Tray Audit 1000 a.m. Place: New York
'""*'**"'" John Christudias Ebasco
[ Pat Harrison - Ebasco L : John Russ Cygna Required item Comments Action By j Cygna asked how changes to the STRUDL skeletons, which are . used b.y . the analyst m setting up support calculations, were controlled. Ebasco stated that whenever the skeleton was revised due to changes 'in the program version or criteria requirements, the affected personnel were trained as required by the Ebasco QA program. " Cosmetic" changes, i.e., those that would affect the form of the skeleton and not the content, were not affected by , this training .. requirement. The production engineers were instructed not to keep a supply of skeletons in their desk drawers so that they.would always use the most current skeleton. Group
. leaders were notified of changes to the skeleton via memorandum.
L Cygna noted that the WARPCC program calls the COMBS program. ; Therefore, the verification of WARPCC must include all options 1 used by COMBS. Ebasco stated that field personnel used standard 6" rules, 25' steel tapes and calibrated vernier calipers when measuring bolt holes. TUE/050187-A. CON 4 signea. G
~
g Page I of 1 oisinoution: ' SEE %TTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 1020 01a
n -_ . _ - _ _ _ . .
;;; , y:
l r a ,
- 1. ;
.m .,-
DISTRIBUTION LIST- 1
-c .
(
> .r- Mr. J.' Redding.-- -1
- Mr. L Nace - '
L.
. Mr. W. Counsil
- Mr. D. Pigott . l 1
W ': Ms. A. ViettiCook
- Mr. C Grimes iMr. R. Alexandru Mr.1 Muffett Ms. N. Williams R , Mr.1 Russ
, Mr. W. Horstman u
Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong -
.n Mr. G. Ashley L Project File.-
g', [. i n h I m
/
0 1 i E .' 1 L
r~ ' 4 . y, Communications p3 oa Report g ,m............::ggg
' ^ . company: Teie n x conference neport CES I
L Project: Job No. !5 . CPSES IAP Phase 4 o ,te:
. subject: "
Exit Meeting . Ebasco Cable Tray Audits 2:30 p.m. Place-l
. S. Harrison (phone) . TU Electric !
SJ. Chen (PT), P. Harrison, F. Hettinger Ebasco W.-Horstman, D. Leong, K. Parikh, J. Russ Cygna S. Tumminelli (phone), N. Williams (phone) Cygna Required item Cornments Action By This communications report documents the exit meeting for the Ebasco cable tray . audits. The status of all audit findings to date were presented. Base Plate Modeling Error During a previous audit, Cygna noted modeling errors for the baseplates of cantilevered supports, where the forces and moments
.were calculated at the member shear center rather than at the
. member centroid. . This results in an unconservative set of moments, as the baseplate eccentricity is reduced by applying the forces at the shear center.
In the subsequent response, Ebasco stated that all the errors had occurred in RSM analyses (there are no errors of this kind in the
~ ESM analyses) and that all instances had been identified and would be corrected. Ebasco had also retrained their RSM analysts to eliminate the problem.- Upon further review, Cygna noted that several support _ types which may be affected by the error were not checked by the Ebasco review, Cygna had notified Ebasco of these additional support types and they stated they would correct any affected analyses.
Page of signed: Q[ l$ oistnoution: SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBtTflON SHEET. 1020 01a
i.
& Communications
," AL ci 11lll111llll"""""""l!!!
R:; port pg > Required nem comments Action By L- STRUDL Skeleton V , . Cygna reviewed the new STRUDL skeleton and confirmed that all stresses.were limited' to the 0.9Fy allowable specified in Revision 1 N of the GIR. Buckline Study F. Ebasco has presented responses to 5 Cygna questions. Cygna is c ' reviewing the responses. Twist-Buckline of Annies Cygna is reviewing Ebasco's evaluation of twist-buckling. Supoort Grounine- - 1L
.Cygna noted two instances of improper support grouping:
CTH-1-1888 is categorized as an "L" . type support. It is actually an "LW" type support. Cygna was given a list of longitudinal support types to choose candidates for audit. Two of the supports on the list
.were transverse supports.
' At - this point, Cygna noted that Ebasco seemed to be somewhat e careless in . the support grouping and the baseplate error backfit review. Ebasco asked if Cygna was concerned about the lack of detail in the support database. Cygna did not think that that was u an . issue, . but asked whether the database had been checked.
. Ebasco . replied that it had; however, the check had not been documented : in a calculation. Ebasco will verify the checking procedure used.
- Attachment Z Loads Cygna had asked Ebasco how Attachment Z loads are implemented with respect to grouped supports. Ebasco has not completed the Attachment Z procedure.
I Weld Preheat ,' ,- Ebasco showed that low hydrogen electrodes, which require a preheat of only 50 degrees F, were used at CPSES. Cygna has no j other questions on this subject. l l l l , Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 2 15 1020 01b l
fj
- q. <
C Communications 4L Repod t i c.: manc:- m p Reguved .' Item < Comments Action By LCygna is reviewing Ebasco's position on the qualification of partial penetration groove welds. Tier Member Bendine Due' To Vertical Eccentricity of Transverse Loads Cygna reviewed two sample analyses performed to address the impact of applying transverse loads at the top of a tier member
- rather than .at the centroid of the cable tray. In both cases, the Ltier members were rotated such that the web of the channel was horizontal,'with the opening pointing downward. There were two comments on the analyses.
In one analysis, the sign of the applied moment should have been reversed when the load was moved from the top of the tier to the centroid of the' tray, since the load was moving to the other side of the shear center. In the other analysis, the bending stress due to all loads was found
- to increase .only 3%, which is deemed insignificant. If the bending stress due to. transverse load only is considered, the increase is 66%.
Although that contribution is small, the increase on total bending h stress is dependent on the relative magnitudes of the transverse and vertical loads. Kinematic Condensation Cygna asked Ebasco to explain the kinematic condensation study. Ebasco stated .that the study compares the frequency of three
): supports- without kinematic condensation to the reduced frequency at the' conduit attachment location using kinematic condensation.
In two' of the three models, the frequency with kinematic condensation closely matched the first mode frequency without
' kinematic condensation. In the third inodel, the frequency with i kinematic condensation was between the first and second mode F frequencies without kinematic condensation. Ebasco explained that the first mode had little mass participation;- therefore, the conduit .
attachment point responds at a higher frequency with kinematic l condensation. I Cygna asked Ebasco how they knew that the kinematic condensation was proper. Ebasco stated that their experience tells them that the method is acceptable. Cygna asked Ebasco how they determine i which modes are more significant than others. Ebasco explained that they calculated the relative response of a mode by multiplying the mass participation factor by the magnitude of the eigenvector at j the point of attachment. The summation of the relative response j i l l Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 3 15 yeac m . ;
-_---_--_o
7 , , , i..
~
Communications a J L t i Report 1111111111111111111ll11lll1111 n4 ' w
^ nem' commems [e7oUy i
' ratios over all modes should equal 1.0. Cygna asked if Ebasco could ,
provide a ' write-up of the formulation of the relative. response.
*. Ebasco agreed to provide the formulation aloog with. the two-page ,
description of the results of the. kinematic condensation study with three models. i Multimode' Resoonse Multiolier Cygna has reviewed the multimode response multiplier (MRM) (= ' development calculations .in Books 9,10, (the original MRM study) and .15 (ESM/ESML Attachment Y derivation) and has had several comments on whether the. analysis models used ere representative of all Jsystems at CPSES.. Cygna provided Ebasco with a list of L their comments and concerns regarding the work reviewed to date. This list is provided'in Attachments A and B.
- Ebasco agreed ' with Cygna that the calculations in Book 15 were not specifically performed to address'the MRM issue. Book 15 was generated to develop the Attachment Y corrections for longitudinal loads. . Ebasco stated' that they had performed further analyses
.which extend the parametric studies presented in Book 15, such that they .would ' address Cygna's concerns - regarding the representative r nature of the models. In the new study, additional variations in support stiffness and spans are investigated. Criteria are developed to provide screening of.- the cable tray systems and to provide corrections to the loads when necessary (SAG-CP-28).
In addition to the expanded Book 15 study, Ebasco is also updating Books ,9 and 10. MRMs for an actual system are 'being generated in Book ' 23. Ebasco stated that, in general, the components of the MRM. argument are being revised such that they may be presented in . a cohesive manner. The final' product will be available for Cygna's review at a later date. l
< Attachment Z Attachment; Z is applied to correct for the system connectivity between the cable tray supports and the tray. For ESM analyses, the " connected" and " unconnected" displacements will' be compared and corrections' made where necessary. For RSM analyses, a ;
sufficient number of highly stressed systems will be reanalyzed to determine ' the effects of the connectivity. Any out-of-plane support loads will also be considered in the tray quahfication (SAG-r CP-18). Ebasco stated that the revised Attachment Z would be issued in the next week. l l f Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 4 15 { u - _
- n
'T Communications i < , s. < i Report Sa L 1111111llll11llllll11lll111111( j
~ ~
( hem' commena [Eo% J ' Attachment T '
- Cygna has reviewed the analysis and understands the procedural i applications of Ethis attachment. Cygna' has no questions at this time. . .f 30% Increase in 'Waroing Normal Stress Ebasco uses a : 30% factor ' to increase STRUDL-calculated stresses.
o A " study .was performed to show the applicability of this factor. ! ' .o . Cygna has reviewed the study and will discuss the matter internally. - 1, Bending 'Allowables For Angles m " Ebasco ' uses 0.6Fy 1 for the bending allowable for angles. . This . 1 allowable is greater than' those specified in the Australian Code or those suggested by. Johnston, Lin, and Galambos. Ebasco has stated
.that,- in : general, flexure does not control angle design; axial loads I do. Therefore, there is no change in the final stress interactions '
for' the angle members. Cygna stated that they would review and ' discuss Ebasco's position on angle bending allowables. End Condition For Braces
- Ebasco uses' pinned: end conditions for brace members, since this I assumption leads' to a softer system and higher response. They have not determined the effects of fixed end conditions. Cygna stated that they would internally discuss Ebasco's position.
Base Aneles On Embedded Plates
~
l
- Cygna stated that Ebasco considers base angles on embedded plates
, to be a special case. Cygna assumes that finite element methods are
- used to evaluate these cases and has no questions at this time.
Suonort 3136 Cygna stated that Ebasco is currently working on the evaluation of
' cable tray support 3136 and will transmit loads to SWEC according L to SWEC procedures. Therefore, Cygna has no further questions at this time.'
L-4
- Load Combination Method Cygna stated that they require internal discussion of load combination methods used by Ebasco.
i L ! 1 Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 5 15 1 1020 0tb L - - - -_ _ - . .
. Communications 1 ( io Report 1 (11111ll11lll1111lllllllllll111 ;i; item ' Comments Ac o By Butt Weld Solices in Tier Members
- Cygna noted that-butt weld splices in tier members are covered by the SDAR on post member splices. Cygna considers the procedures to be acceptable and has no questions at this time.
Acclications of Tihnsverse Loads At Post Members
~
.Cygna stated ;that Ebasco had provided .them with a study using NASTRAN - analyses to compare with the STRUDL analyses and methods used on ; the project. Cygna had some difficulty in reviewing the study, and discovered that a reference was missing in L the copy .they received. Ebasco provided the reference, and Cygna will review the study in their offices.
Bolt Hole Effects ; Cygna noted that Attachment T is to be used for tier and post
. member evaluations only. Clamps are not covered in the attachment. Cygna has no questions at this time.
Spacer Channels On Tier Members Ebasco provided- analyses on this item on the previous day. Cygna review is required. K-Factors For Compressive- Allowables Ebasco presented a study for a transverse support. For this particular support, the out-of-plane direction controls the
. compressive allowables for the post members; however, the in.
. plane- direction controls the bending allowable per AISC Equation 1.6-la. ' Therefore, the use of a higher k factor for the in-plane
_ direction resulted in a negligible increase in stress interactions for this particular case. Cygna's review. had noted that Ebasco uses a k-factor of 1.0 for longitudinal ' trapeze frames. - These frames have post members rotated 900 such that the weak axis direction is affected by l - sidesway. Ebasco had- provided Cygna with an additional ten calculations on? the previous day, but Cygna was able to review ; only four of the ten calculations. Cygna will evaluate the results ) of the Ebasco study and will consider the results of the audit. ] l' Ebasco clarified their position regarding calculation of the slenderness ratio kl/r, to determine which members meet the
]
I Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 6 15 l' 1020.01b 1.
;9 4 c
Communications
/
h 9 (. i i Report a;, lilililllllllllilllllllilll!!!
..M ,
F i
- f. .
d
.nem commenis [cYoT*ey relaxed requirements for tension members. In these Requirements, members may exceed a kl/r value of 200 (not to exceed 300) if the
_f . axial stress 1s .50- or less of the axial allowable, Fa. In all cases, L . the k-factor, ratio. ki/r, and allowable Fa are determined for the
- s member, assuming-'it is a compression member. Cygna agreed that this is the correct approach and has no further questions.
, Gang Sucoort Procedures Cygna noted- that Ebasco. uses the same procedures as Impell and has no questions at this time.
Comoosite Channels e Cygna '. noted -. that Ebasco will provide a response regarding the
-effect of end conditions on calculation of section properties for composite channel members. Other composite members are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
' COMBS Program-Cygna reviewed the documentation for. the COMBS program and i noted that'only one verification problem had been analyzed. Cygna '
stated that it was necessary for Ebasco to verify all aspects of the program that are used on the project. Ebasco stated that they felt that ~ their ' present verification is adequate; however, they will perform ~ additional verification analyses. - Cygna stated that they needed to complete their review of the formulation for composite ! L posts provided by Ebasco on the previous day.
. Base Metal Check For Weld Size i-Cygna understand Ebasco's weld evaluation approach. Ebasco will respond to Cygna's concerns regarding decreased effective weld size due to base metal thickness.
Bolt Hole Oversize Cygna has reviewed the statistical study contained in Book 22, the position paper " Effects of Bolt Hole Oversize on CTH Adequacy", and the study on tolerances in Book 16. Cygna stated that Ebasco would provide clarification on ~ Item D of Section 5.2 of the position paper cited above.
. Cygna stated that the sample population of 230 hangers used in the :
statistical study was not random, and therefore, may affect the l results . of the study. Cygna considers that only the original 93 Page of SEE" ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 7 15 1020 01b
o
-:. t . , s
. , 77
+ a Communications 4L i t Report 1111111111111111111lll11111lll :
Requwed s item Comments Action By
, supports are . random. . Although an additional 15 supports were
!added, which fell in both a random pick and a hand pick, these 15 .
'were not = random, as they were essentially selected from ' the l random population. Additionally, Cygna noted that longitudinal l supports constituted the majority of hangers in the total sample.
Therefore, the Ebasco sample does not appear to be representative w .'of the actual CPSES population, as Cygna believes that the majority of supports are transverse supports.
. , , ' Uygna also noted that the statistical population was changed from .
p lthe hanger sample size to the number of holes on those hangers. - For each. attribute ' studied, the population would be different. This E also may detract from the randomness of the samples. Cygna asked Ebasco to address this aspect of the study. l i Despite.- Cygna's concerns regarding the sample' population, the methods appeared to be acceptable. Regarding the applicability of e the' cable tray study' to the' conduit scope, Cygna asked Ebasco to provide . additional justification that the different craft groups, ; operating under different installation tolerances, would perform , installations of similar ' bolt hole oversize. Additionally, conduit supports use base plates and cable tray supports use base angles. With regard to the general measurement tolerances, Impell and Ebasco will be submitting a joint position statement on how tolerances are to be considered. Cygna has concerns regarding the i evaluation of tolerances provided in Book 16: the cases considered seem to be arbitrarily chosen and do not envelop all configurations C , at the plant. Justification for the use' of . these cases was not provided. Ebasco had' requested that Cygna provide - them with a list. of tolerances which were of concern. Cygna reviewed the measurement tolerances and provided Ebasco with a list of critical tolerances. The list is provided as Attachment C. i Node Soacing Ebasco will. respond to Cygna's concern regarding the lack of intermediate nodes in braces and unloaded tier members. Without intermediate nodes, bending stresses due to self weight and inertia are not calculated. Longitudinal Clamo Eccentricity
'Cygna has no questions on this subject.
Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 8 15 1020 01b m____.
. . , I >- . c.; w . .
- : Communications w P i
L 1111lll1tlll1ll11111111lllllll - Report i
& 2-
.nem; <
. comments [eYoT$
Control of the STRUDL Program m , , t >
"Cygna Understands' that only one version of .STRUDL is available ifor project iuse :at- any .one time, and all input is formatted using
' jp ,' <
- templates.l Cygna has no further questions on the use of STRUDL.
The precedingLdiscussions' were related to generic concerns. Cygna ithen reviewed the ~ findings from their audits of . individual systems
~and f support, analyses. The. comments are summarized in the 4 following section.-
RSM-1-AUX-25 Several supports have rotated.. tier members modeled at the shear l center, with la rigid link from the Lshear- center to the tray center-c.g.)."
- ;.of-gravityf(bending mmor axis of.the tier due to transverse loading.This modeling method 4
], For L-shaped support CTH-1-6097, the equation
!C - ky = kz' = 2.1 is 'used for .the . tier member, and the equation-
'ky = kz = 1.0 4
gp .
- is used.for the post member.' Cygna did not feel that k = 1.0 was 7 correct for the ' post member.
For J support CTH 1@98, Cygna questioned : the use of effective l length factors of k 1.0 and kz = 1.85. These were used for the i cantilevered : beams.y ' = The eccentricity for the brace-to-composite beamiconnection is taken as the distance from the shear center of the . beam to the c.g. of the angle. Cygna questioned whether the distance should be between the c.g. of the two members. t
> For; support CTH-16089, the base angle is attached to an embedded
- plate at one end. In the STRUDL model, the shear is shared by both the weld and the Hilti Kwik-Bolt, but the entire shear should
.be . taken by the weld. Additionally, the load application to the l
, baseplate model does not use the critical combination of signs.
+- For support CTH-1-6091, the load application to the base angle is
. not critical for the anchor bolts.
l l-l l Page of N- SEE- A'ITACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 9 15 , 1 T 1020 016 '.
1 J .L
, ( l
[ Communications AL i 4 .,
, Report i 1- f l1111111llllll111ll11111lll111 i l
item Comments Act?o y RSM-1-AUX i
)
.' The calculation :for ~ this system states that longitudinal ties are W . required on CTH-1-5070, CTH-1-5077, and- CTH-1-2981. Why are
'these ties required, and.how will they be added to the system?
For.. support CTH-12980, the horizontal channel member framing Linto_ the base angle. was modeled at its shear center. The resulting loads were applied to the' base' angle at the channel' shear center
; instead ' of .at the channel - c.g. Was _ this picked up in the Ebasco review.of this type of error? A note on sheet 10 of the calculation
!", indicates that this error has minor impact.
Individual Suonorts For support CTH-1-155,L composite channel section properties were input based : on. principal axes; ~ however, a beta angle was not
- specified for member orientation. The composite channel is also only partially attached to the base angle, but full fixity is assumed for flexure and torsion. On sheet 9, the total longitudinal load for
'the tray run (CTH-1-SL-6123) is divided by 4;' however, there appear . to be only' 3 supports on the run.
For support CTH 1-481, the unbraced lengths' and k-factors used in 4
. the calculation are . correct with respect to bracing points. 'Cygna noted - that the in-plane k-factors were set to 1.0, even though the in-plane direction is associated with the minor axis of the posts.
' For support CTH-1-1126, the horizontal beam is assumed to be fixed at the . end , connected to the W8x24. Since there are no i
- details of _ the length or anchorage of ' the W8x24, how are the boundary conditions juttified? How are the loads on the W8x24 evaluated?. Are they transmitted to SWEC7' Supports CTH-1-7061 and CTH 1-7062 are analyzed using a model I which. is a - composite of the two supports. The analysis package
_ i does not document the development _of the model. Support CTH 1-1888 is called an "L3" support. It is actually an
, "L3W" support.
Support CTH-1-417 is the mother support for group CANT-344 of L mixed ESM and ESML supports. The maximum load in that group is ; 584 pounds, but 1000 . pounds is used in the evaluation. The calculation does not provide an explanation why 1000 pounds was used. - > L i i g L } ': Page of l
. SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 10 15 i 4
se2o oso , j
Communications 4L n i Report C 161111111111111ll1ll1111111111 p d item comments [c*tfo$*ey Support CTH-113202 is the second support around the bend from a run without longitudinal supports; however, there is no ESML load on the support. There is also an example of a 5/16" weld on.the web of the C6x8.2 (base metal thickness concerr), although a 3/16" weld was' used in the weld ' calculation because part of the weld was inaccessible. The use of k = 1.0 may not be adequate for the in-plane sidesway L of supports with posts rotated such that the weak axis bending is l~ induced by sidesway. Are the buckling study results appropriate for out-of-plane loading when supports are oriented in this manner? In the evaluation of support CTH-1-481, end eccentricities are not considered. . Only axial loading is checked. The base angle l evaluation does not maximize anchor bolt loads. L Support CTH-1-5234 is a multi-tiered trapeze support approximately - 10'-9" tall, with heavy duty clamps and posts rotated such that strong axis bending is induced by out-of-plane loads. The code check for the post members uses effective lengths Lv = 129" (weak axis) and Lz = default to member length (strong axis). These values appear to be reversed from actual values needed. For the determination of whether the posts are " tension members" (Fa < 0.5Fa), the slenderness ratios kx = ky = 1.0 were used. Cygna stated that the k factors should be changed to match the current criteria. l L SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 11 15 1020 0 t b
4 j C Communications 4L t.i . Report 4' : 11111111ll4lll1lll11111I11lll1 - Required item Comment,, Action By ATTACHMENT A MRM Studies
'I. Books 9 and 10 A. ' Analysis Models n; 1. = Number of models is too small to cover range of p configurations at CPSES h
- a. ' Equal spans used - variation in spans required
?
- b. Equal support types used - variation in support stiffness required
- c. One tray weight used 1
- d. Lumped ' weights at boundary supports not
' realistic to model continuation of tray
- e. Only addresses transverse tray directions (no longitudinal consideration)
L ' B. Response Quantities
- 1. - Accelerations
- a. Use of average system acceleration vs. design acceleration overpredicts and underpredicts 9' specific support DAFs u
- b. Support . accelerations are low- because of configuration and are not indicative of support l response (reactions) )
l
- 2. Member Forces
- a. Some -forces were 10 times higher by response spectrum / time history analysis than by static analysis due to different configurations of static and dynamic models, i I
l l I i Page of i SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 12 15 i 1020 01t>
.J
'x' f Communications 4L . Report i i s,,- 111116111111llll11llllll11ll11 - Reqwred ;
- ttem Comments ' Action By
- 3. . Member Stress Interaction -
- a. Not' valid comparison quantity - see above for member forces
- b. Statistical studies not valid, since 2z0 values' are not independent II. Book 15 4 ' A. - Analysis Models
- 1. One ' case ' to' demonstrate response of unequal spans l is not sufficient to cover all installations
. 2. . Variation of support stiffness
- a. Equal stiffnesses in all directions are not
, . ;, ; realistic
- b. ~ Variation . of adjacent support stiffnesses is not
- complete to cover all installations 3.- - One tray size used - may affect validity of support stiffnesses specified in limiting cases i
l.
. g Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 13 15 ; se m .
e
- j; :, n
% Communications Report
, A,.1...u .... i.
............g Required
' item Comments Action By A*ITACHMENT B ESM/ESML
- I. Book 15 '
- 1. ' Analysis' Models I
- a. - 'Models . still' too general to cover range of configurations in plant. Most are equal spans with
. most. supports . of identical stiffness. Includes !
straight lines, elbows, tees.
- b. Support stiffnesses are chosen by frequency, which is
. somewhat dependent on tray properties. Only one S, .- ,
tray ' size and weight is used. Affects cut off stiffness selection. c.- It is obvious that- the high longitudinal DLF is due to mass distribution effects due to relative support stiffness. Ebasco assumes that the excessive DLFs in the. transverse / vertical directions are due to equal / unequal span effects, but since only one
" unequal" span model was used, this assumption could not be verified. The high DAFs in the transverse / vertical directions are also probably due to relative support stiffness and span supports.
- 2. ESML Distribution
- a. Approach looks OK, reasonable. Need more models to test it on, however.
- b. Discussion of combination of 3-D effects is not meaningful, since each direction produces different responses and must remain separate from the other two.
- c. Discussion of margins in stresses / loads with respect to exceeding the 1.25 MRM is not valid, as the determination of an MRM should be independent of response magnitude.
L l i 6 Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 14 15 1020 01b inz__ _ _ ____ _
,1. ;
F Communications E ' Mni Report i 11111lllllll11166llllll111illl - ! t: 8 d '
- stem , comments [eYoT*ey A*ITACHMENT C
' TOLER ANCES i i
I. Anchor Bolts i A. Spacing / separation (+/- 1") .
- 1. Between bolts on same support
- 2. To other bolts in proximity of support I
B. Projection (+/- 3/8") l
- 1. To determine'embedment
- C. End distance-of base angles (+/- 1/2")
'1. For prying / load distribution D. Concrete edge distance (+/- 1/2")
- 1. For bolt capacity E. Angular measurements (+/- 50) l II. Weld Length (varies)
III. Working Point (+/- 1") -
\TUE\050187-B. CON l
l I Page of
.SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 15 15 1020 01D
- r. - _
b, >
' i
.~ :1 .
- p .
c Rf4 , /> ;
...s.
; DISTRIBUTION LIST F ..
' Mr. J.~ Redding -
Mr. L Nace . Mr. W. Counsil
; Mr. D. Pigott -
Ms. A. Vietti-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- ~
t Project File.
\
I l lf I. t-
;: t , _.y i
' up 3.l Communications i 4 (% i Report If(t '
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
'. Company 3 .
Telecon X Conference Report Project: Job No.
- TU Electric . 84056
; CPSES 1AP Phase 4 oete:
05/11/87
Subject:
Time: Cable Tray Support Design Review 10:45 a.m. Impell Audit piece: Lincolnshire, IL
Participants:
of
' L. Barrett Impell W. Horstman Cygna
~
Required item Comments Action By Cygna requested end recieved a copy of Impell's " Calculation
- Problem Log," for use during the audit which lists all special studies performed for the CPSES design verification of cable tray hangers.
l l l TUE\051187-C. CON Signed: V .
. Page of distribution: SEs A6ACN5D DISiRIBttflON SHEET.
1020 01a
.r si 1 .. cy. <
- 1, 7 DISTRIBUTION LIST
$ Mr. J. Redding : '
= Mr. L Nace
.Mr. W. Counsil 1
- Mr.'D. Pipott -
L Ms. A. Vwtti. Cook !
. ' Mr. C Grimes 4
Mr. R. Alexandru
- Mr. J.Muffett Ms. N. Williams iMr. J. Russ -
Mr. W. Horstman
' Mr. K. Parikh -
Ms. D. Leong 'I
- Mr. G. Ashley Project File ;
t
~
I i i l'/
$,. Communications
% % 4L t
.f .,
i llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Report J
.. Company: Teiec n . x Conference Report ES C' . Project: Job No.
TU Electric- 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 ' cate: 05/11/87 =
Subject:
Time: Cable Tray Support Design Review 1:40 p.m. Place: b Impell Audit ' Lincolnshire, IL
Participants:
of B. Ramsey Impell l W. Horstman - Cygna i Regwred item ' Comments Action By a l Cygna requested the following calculations for review purposes: Title No. M-38 Compression Duration for CTH f M-42 Stress Check for Superpost Tee-Channels M Tier to Post Weld Study
- M-45 Supplemental Overlap Verification M-46 Tee-Channel Warping Behavior M-50 As-built Reconciliation Tolerance M 55' Baseplate II Analysis Documentation M-57 Refined Out-of-plane Bending for Loaded Tiers I
(These calculations were previously' requested on March 6,1987, but not reviewed at that time.) p ! I TUE\051187-A. CON ! signed: Q - Page of distribution: SEE NTTAC ED DI'STRIBEITION SHEET. j 1020 01a . ___u.~. _ _ _ . J
w.. 1 [;. il
. fg rg;
lTj. 9 I DISTRIBUTION LIST iMr. J. Redding
. Mr.' L Nace .
' Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pipott
' Ms. A. Vmtti-Cook J Mr. C Grimes
;-Mr. R.' Alexandru :
Mr. J. Muffett w Ms. N. Williams' '
- Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman
~ Mr. K. Parikh
, , Ms. D. I.mng .
, Mr. G.' Ashley , Project File { va I k t_ \ t ~a p i I' I l 1
)
E N W ' Communications ! w > A f. t i Report y% 111llllllll11111lll11lllllllll J'
/l~: ( Company: Teiec n x conference Report
- ES Project: Job No; CPSES IAP Phase 4 oete:
05/13/87 7 subject:. T'** s
, hpd Mp Ma Ep j Impell Audit; piece: .
Lincolnshire, IL ! O Participants of " 'G. Ashley Impell W. Horstman Cygna a cc' < Required item Comments Action By o With'regards to the Impell calculations requested ca May 11, 1987 at 1:40 : o Calculation M-45 was voided. The supplemental evaluations (' of overlap are now located in Impell Calculations M-13 and M-14. .-Impell will provide copies of these calculations for Cygna's review. o . Calculation M-50 was voided. This' calculation dealt with the use of Code 6 . vs. Code 10 as-built drawing reconciliation. The - results of this calculation were never used. .Cygna should review Impell Calculation M49 for information on the as-built measurement tolerances. Impell will provide a copy of Calculation M-69 for Cygna review. o Calculation: M-38 (Compression Duration for Cable Tray Hangers) was voided. This is now addressed as part of the results of the system test / analysis correlation study. o M-44 (Tier to Post Weld Study) was voided. I 1 TUE\051387CCON
]
Distribution: VfQf ~
}},}
S38 ATATHED DISTRIBlfff0N SHEET. 1 1
' 1030.01e ..
r. J c
) .
1 6 t ) 1 G u: DISTRIBUTION LIST 4 t
- V , ,
- Mr. J. Redding
- Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil
. 1; 4 Mr. D. Pipott Ms. A. VzttiCook.
- t-
, Mr. C Grimes Mr. R. Alexandru
= Mr. J. Muffett-Ms. N. Williams
- Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman .
Mr. K. Parikh
.- Ms. D. Ieong -
Mr. G. Ashley e Project File f i 3 4, ' i L1_ n
l @ Communications 6 . 4( t i Report i . 1111111111111111111ll111lll111 Company:- Teiec n conference Report LCES j
. Project: Job No. -
g l
. CPSES IAP Phase 4 o te: ,
05/14/87 } subject: '** Cable Tray Support Design Review 2:30 p.m. Impell Audit- Pi.ce: Lincolnshire, IL .
Participants:
. G. As!M,y ,
Impell
' S. Hanison TU Electric D. Leong, B. Shakibnia, N. Williams Cygna
)
S. Tumminelli, W. Horstman Cygna Required item Comments Action By i
' This is a continuation of the May 14, 1987, 10:45 a.m. discussion. # , The conclusions from the morning meeting are summarized first.
A. Base Angles. o Cygna.. will perform an . additional review of Impell Project Instruction PI-07 :and Calculation M-15 for consistency. o Impell's assumptions on local vs. global' behavior: Impell neglects eccentricities since they will have a minor affect on the global system response. o' Cygna noted . that in the January 26, 1987 meeting transcripts Impell stated that they used principal axes for base angles, but Calculation M.15 shows that they use geometric axes. Impell responded that the transcripts should have indicated that they used principal axes for BASEPLATE U analyses, and - geometric axes for hand calculations. , They will also investigate the concern with the SRSS ' combination stresses. o Cygna will review Impell Calculation M-25 with regard to base angles with multiple attachments. I Signed: . Page of
. oistrioution: SEE AWACHED DISTRWON SHEET. ,
l
,o,w. 1
< J
_-), - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4
-.t- 1 1
[:E , r 11111111111111111111111lll1111 '
~
kop*J"/"I"""* i Q W-- Required 3 . , ,. .
.. Item l >
Comments Action By
-B.' , i Overlan Procedu'res 1
s * "s
- Cygna is concerned more with procedural aspects than with l implementation of the procedures. Cygna noted the
~, ' l following - ,
^
- o' The overlap factor of U0 is not mentioned in Impell Calculation M13.
, 4" ,1 lo- Deviations between full. and partial models occurring outside ' of the overlap region will not be covered by
.- the U0 factor but are not addressed.
o: Limitations were - noted to the overlap procedure development -(e.g., . single . ganged support, forty foot longitudinal spans, etc.), but- are not documented in fX h
; Project Instruction PI02.
o, 'Impell compared _ individual load ~ components to total
- @ , support-loads and used the results for common supports separately. from' each partial model without enveloping the results.
y e o impell used the COC method which is not approved by the FSAR. . Cygna _ understands that the study using the u;' CQC method was used to show the acceptabihty of using
- o. , partial system models with overlapping. However, by ,
comparin g the partial models using R.G.1.92 and ' the ! full mocels usmg CQC, two parameters have been j changed, which make it impossible to determine the effect of the partial models. By performing this H' ' , , - comparison Impell - is implicitly including the COC
. method in their production work.
L o If : Factor = Results (COC) = 1.10 for study
,. Results (1.92) and Results (1.92) x 1.10 are used in production, the
, H"' production analysis effectively uses the COC method. Impell will review this concern and respond later. x , 4 1 1
- stt Ai1 ACHED DI:siKIBUTION SHEET Page 2 of 8
t > Q,: Communications (; ' M i i , . 3m111111111111111111111111 Report Requred-ltem - Comments Action By C. Imoell White Paner Single Anale Criteria L 1. Cygna asked if the ' compactness criteria stated in the white paper will be included in Project Instruction PI-03. Impell responded that' the next revision of PI03 will include the compactness criteria. m
- 2. Specific directions are not given for the selection of Cm for the member SUPERPOST interaction or in hand e calculations.quation for use in Thus, members are not scanned for maximum moments.
Impell will provide guidance on this in a revision to PI 03,
- 3. Use of geometric radius of gyration is allowed by PI-11 to reduce support modifications dictated solely by slenderness ratio limits. Impell will remove this from l-PI11.
4.' Sample member interaction rates are provided in the white paper. Impell indicated that the member forces used in this o sample are the SSE load case but the OBE (unfactored) allowable compressive stress is used to show that sufficient margin account buckling exists. This is i-illustrated on a plot included in the white paper. D. Imoell White Paoer on Base Angles Welded to Embedded Plates Impell will provide Cygna with the back-up calculations associated with this white paper. Cygna beHeves that they had located a base angle configuration with multiple support attachments where the total of the reactions was apphed to the entire length of the weld pattern without considering the flexibility of the long base angle in distributing the loading. Y Impell indicated that they were not familiar with such a configuration, but if Cygna would provide the support 1 number, they would investigate. 5Eb Ai1 ACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET Page 3 o' 8 to20.01b
'[ -l i I , Communications
+ '
4L t i. Report O lili:: "*!!!!!!Illlllit I f I nem comments [NoT*ey 1 E. . Refined Effective Length Factors (Imoell Calculation M-561 f i Cygna has not completed its review of the study, but
^
believes that the methods used may not be correct. Cygna will provide detailed comments later. F. Unsuooorted I2nnth for Lateral-Torsional-Buckline in Posts L Impell Project Instruction PI-11 allows a reduction in the unsupported lengths for posts in order to reduce the volume , of overstressed posts. It is assumed that the tiers will provide bracing to inhibit lateral-torsional buckling. Cygna L was unable to locate any documentation supporting this. The tiers may not be capable of providing compression flange bracing, specifically on tall, narrow trapeze supports. Cygna will provide more detailed comments later, when its review is completed. G. Twist-byckling of Single Angl_eji Impell has performed a literature search, and even checked with Professor Galambos, and has been unable to locate any evaluations which address twist buckling of single angles. The closest study they have located is in Timoshenko's
" Theory of Elastic Stability," which contains an evaluation of the torsional buckling of a cruciform section loaded uniformly at each end. Nothing addresses angles loaded through the opposite legs at either end. Impell believes that this phenomenon is more closely related to a column with eccentrically applied loads than twist buckling.
Impell will attempt to answer this concern through a sample illustrating the very low stress levels present in the single angles. This will demonstrate a sufficiently high safety margin so that twist buckling will not need to be included explicitly. H. Seismic Load Combination Study (Imoell Calculation M-49)
- L Time History vs. Response Spectral Analyses Impell Calculation M-49 compares the results of a time history analysis added algebraically with the dead load to the results of a response spectrum analysis combined with the dead load by the method specified for production work.
1 Oct Al l.%nti) 1>131K115U 11UN bHtbl page 4 of b 1070 of b
yQ ]
*7 '
Communications 1 ( t i ._ Report w . m ya . . Requred
~ ltem . Comments Action By o Cygnal asked if the target response spectrum or the .
actual response - spectrum, associated with - the F L synthetic time history, was used as input for the p', study.
)
' Impell will confirm which spectrum was used.
o Cygna noted that an envelope of results for the load combinations would ' produce. a conservative stress evaluation (iz, envelope Gravity + Seismic and Gravity - Seismic) l l
- 2. Sample of Cygna's Concern !
In ' , general, the results ot. an analysis should be ,
- independent of the. choice of the global coordinate !
system. However, the load combination method will give l
'4 different - results depending on the' coordinate axis l
' orientation.- Cygna provided a sample considering a
; - ' simple cantilever _ support. The stress interaction ratio will be different if the po. itive s global x-axis points to the left or the right.
Impell felt that this was a special case, and would not l cause'any problem, since it is dependent on the relative magnitude of the dead load with respect to the seismic load and generally the dead load contribution is very small. The time history analysis' also capture the 1 _ phasing between the three directions of load application l while noting that the - SRSS spatial combination used with the response spectra is very conservative.
- 3. Loads on Base Angles Cygna asked if the loads for the anchorage evaluations were taken directly from the SUPERPIPE analyses, or if they enveloped from the load combinations. Impell will investigate which load is chosen and respond later.
I. Tee. channel Stitch Welds and Web Criooling Cygna has reviewed Impell Calculation M-59 and noted the
.fol;owing concerns:
5hb AITACHED DI51RIBUTION SHEET Page 5 of 8 1030 01b
c, Communications 1is Report
. Inimilimimmlilllilli .-
~ $'
Requred nom . commena . Action ey o For the web crippling evaluation, the applied load is assumed to be distributed over a distance equal to the width of the tray siderail flange which is very thin. Cygna stated that it would be more reasonable to consider the loading only over the thickness of the siderail ' web. Impell agreed that this was correct, but pointed out that since this study applies to longitudinal supports, the vertical load is actually applied through the bolted or welded heavy duty clamp and not the siderail, so the load could be distributed over the thickness of the tray clamp. In addition, the calculation uses the full capacity of a clamp as the applied load, while clamp 3 loads are typically much less. ' 0 Cygna also noted that since the tray siderail is much , thinner then the web of the tier, web crippling of the ' siderail would govern this evaluation.
. Impell -indicated that they are not evaluating local effects in the cable trays. Tray qualification is based on ultimate design, therefore, web crippling in the tray siderail - would not adversely affect the tray functionality.
.Impell' will review = the web crippiing calculations and I provide clarification to respond to Cygna's concerns.
Cygna can review the tray qualification test report at f! Impell's office to resolve concerns on tray behavior at ultimate loading. J. Refined Out-of-olane Bending of Tiers (Imoell Calculation M-57) This calculation supports a procedure in Impell Project Instruction PI-11. which allows a reduction in the out-of-plane bending moment in loaded tiers. This is based on the , consideration that the tray will actually apply loads to the l tier at the two points corresponding to the clamp locations l rather than at the tray ' centerline, as assumed in the SUPERPIPE models. Impell Calculation M-57 considered load applications to a beam with two possible boundary conditions- (a) simply supported and (b) fixed ended. For case (a), a closed form l l l L SEE Ai1 ACHED DISIKIBUTION SHEET Page 6 of 8 102001b L_i____m___o __ __ z._
7 9* Communications n ( t i Report MJ r
- 5111W1111111111lll18111111 -
+
,, Requwod
' Item - . Comments Acten By
~ solution . was developed for ' separating the load into two loads. For case -(b), a. simple closed form solution was not
' feasible, so seven cases were. checked, considering various combinations of. tray width, tier length and tray location.
By performing a more systematic study, Cyina determined . that the .seven cases checked by Impell dx not represent the wont case. If the tray is located very near one end 'of the tier, the midspan moment actually increases if the load { p is split between two points. Also, the end moments on the ! L tier exhibit a different trend from the mid-span moment. , i Cygna asked if a study had been performed to determine if i the appropriate end conditions for the tier (i.e., is case (a) j or 48"(b) andmore representative?) 60" tier Jengths were c hosen.Cygna also asked .why only J l Impell indicated that they would check with the originator i of the L calculations to see what 'the basis is for the j parameters chosen. This procedure is only used to reduce i L bending stresses. in tiers which have failed in the analyses. ] Most failing tiers have lengths greater than 5 feet. J
'Cygna suggested that Impell should include limitations in PI-11 which. reflect the . range of applicability of this
. procedure.
K.L ' SUPERPIPE Error SP-004 I t Cygna has reviewed the white paper provided by Impell on ! this topic' and asked if the error was isolated to the ! analysis reviewed.- Additionally, Cygna noted that even i though the extra dead load included may be conservative r- when combined with downwards seismic loads, it is t unconservative for upwards seismic loads where it would l serve to reduce the compression in the support posts. l Impell will review the analyses in light of these questions. 1 Cygna suggested that Project Instruction PI02 should be J revised to indicate that the correction for SP-004 should .1 not be applied to analyses using SUPERPIPE versions after [ 21A. L 5bb Ai1 ACHED DIsiKIBUTION SHEET Page 7 of 8
- ioao ein
- = . , . 1 } Communications
, . t a Report
- mamammum Required
- hem. Comments Action By
. u, If L. Member Eccentricities in Weld Evaluations (RIL 16.C)
. Impell does not- consider the' eccentricity between the !
connected members in the evaluation of welds.- Their position is that the eccentricities are small and need not be
. considered:in standard engineering practice. Generally, the weld stresses are low and are not a critical element m the support qualifications..
Impell will provide a white paper to state their position. M. Base Metal Thickness (RIL 16.D)
. Impell asked why this issue was statused as open in the RIL, Rev.13. Cygna indicated that Rev.13 was developed before GIR,'Rev. 2 was reviewed. This issue can be closed for Impell based on the revision to PI-03, provided that the status in the RIL, Rev.14 will reflect this.
1 (; TUE\051487-A. CON l [' sth Al1 ACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET Page 8 of 8 1h
- g. Lei f .e 9
M! DISTRIBUTION LIST
' Mr. J. Redding '.
Mr. L. Nace ' Mr. W. Counsil. i Mr. D. Pigott . Ms. A. ViettiCook Mr. C Grimes-
.Mr. R. Alexandru
' '. Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams l Mr. J. Russ
- Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms.; D. Leong Mr.~ G.' Ashley Project File i
f i
)
p F , i- ) J l 1: \ i i
.l
)
$L Communications $~ M 1 i Rsport l
. ( ;: llllllilllllilllllllllllllllll )
Company Telee n X conference neport CES
- Project: Job No. .
' CPSES IAP Phase 4 o ,te: )
05/15/87 !
""*I'* "'*
12:30 p.m.
, . . Cable Tray Support Design Review -
;Impell Audit
~
pi,c : . i Lincolnshire, IL
Participants:
of j G. Ashley Impell j i' B. Shakibnia, W. Horstman, D. Leong Cygna
'l Required Action By
)
Item , Comments q Impell and Cygna discussed the following topics:
- 1. ' K-factor for Inolane Sidesway Impell will provide a white paper on this topic.
o
- 2. 2 Out-of-Plumbness Tolerance Since Cygna has accepted the Ebasco position (Cable Tray Support Review Issues list, Rev.13), Impell will not provide ,
any additional justification.- The Ebasco position . will be taken as common to both consultants. ,< Impell indicated that the plumbness was nct checked as part of the as-built walkdown program. Previous to the performance of the in.fividual support walkdowns, Brown &
- Root, Inc. performed a survey of the cable tray systems using - surveying instruments (e.g., dumpy levels, transits, steel tapes, etc.). Attributes m, cluding support locations with respect to the building column lines, tray and support elevations, levelness and plumbness were checked by this program within closer tolerances than used for the as-built walkdowns. .
i. o L L
- d. Page of 1
. Distribution: SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
- io2c ois l
{.
Communications Mni Report
- 111ll1lllll111All11111lll1111 L
ReQured nem. comments Action ey
- 3. Bolt Holes in Channel Flannes (Imoell Calculation M-65)
Impell assumes that an unused 3/4 inch diameter hole can occur at any location on the tier. Bolt holes are not considered for posts.
- 4. K-factor for Tension Members Impell uses the same values for the k-factor for tension ,
members as for compression members. i
- 5. Cable Trav Siderail Extensions Impell's position is' that the L added weight of the siderail extension. is insignificant with respect to the total tray weight and does not need to be considered. Neglecting the l stiffness contribution of the siderail extensions will I compensate for their weight in the stress evaluation for the l cable trays.
Cygna noted that Impell Calculation M-39 indicates that the , 3 psf allowance for the future cable routing was used to i offset the added weight of the siderail extensions. I Justification is not provided for this approach. If siderail j
-extensions are present, the full allowance is not available for future cable additions. -
a i Impell indicated that they are currently using Report No. 30 q from Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-E11700 (the cable and 1 raceway schedule) to obtain the cable fill weights. I However, TU Electric is in the process of developing a new ! cable tracking system. When this system is completed, it l will be . used to verify the weights used in the system analyses and to track the addition of new cables.
- 6. Minor Axis Bendinn of Tiers Due to Transverse Loads 1
Cygna requested justification from Impell for not considering l the eccentricity between the centerline of the tray clamp bolt and the center of gravity of the tier. This eccentricity 1
- l l
l l' l l l. l'g dub A i 1 ALHtU U151K1UU 11UN 5Hbbi. Page 2- of 3
- __ _ . -_J.
) % ~* ,
@ $ Communications j Report AL6 i ) e]c }l & M11111111lll16!111111111111111 l X; ' v .y ~ -
'Requved Action By ttom ' Comments willL result - in minor ~ axis . bending of - the tiers. under
[' ' transverse loading from the cable trays. .
'ImpellJindicated that. they considered this bending moment to> be insignificant and could be neglected. .Impell Calcula-N, ,
tion M-12 provides' an evalnation of this. In Calculation M- ]
. ng
.12, the. moment is shown-to be resisted: by the cable tray )
y . and distributed between adjacent supports. <w .
'Cygna noted that in order 'for the load distribution assumed
%"' in Calculation - M-12 to occur, the cable tray clamp bolt must be. capable of transmitting a torsional load about' the
- bolt longitudinal' axis. Cygna believes that'this assumption a Lis not . justified for - the A-307 . used in the - ' clamp
' installations.;
As an example of the magnitude of this effect, Cygna : m provided the following calculation on the chalkboard: j For a C4'x^ 7.25 tier: 3, ~ M= L7 in ;
-X 0.459 in i P ~
= ' 1.0 kip
, o g = -l in Sy = ' 0343 in3 M = P (g- X) = 1/3 (1.0 - 0.459) = 0.54 in kip ;
l fb'= M/S = 0.54/0343 = 1.6 ksi JImpell indicated thatL 1.6 ksi was. a very small stress and , 7 was within the . accuracy of the analyses being performed. They do not feel that- it is necessary to include this in the evaluation. Cygna' responded that 1.6 ksi could be significant if the tier I is already highly stressed due to other loadings. This is the ]
; . type : of concern that must be included in the cumulative !
effects- evaluation if it is not considered explicitly in the support . analyses. Impell indicated that a response in the i form of a white paper may be appropriate for this concern.
- g 4
TUE\051587-B. CON I I OCC Ai 1%HtU U131KIDU ilVIN SHtt1. Page d of 3 toro.otn .
- ______ _____-__ _ _ _ - _ _ _ D
yg x- -
, -p;, ...i 1 . .'gh5
- w -
., y .
,=
3,
=
1 DISTRIBUTION. LIST { q Mr. J. Redding '
.Mr. L Nace ..
.Mr. W. Counsii ,
?; 'Mr. D. Pipott Ms. A. Vetti-Cook-
- Mr. C Gris.s
~ 's$ Mr. R.' Alexandru 4 ': Mr.' J. Muffett
- Ms.' N. Williams
' Mr. J. Russ . i 1 Mr. W. Hontman /
Mr. K. Parikh - ' l
,' ", : Ms. D. Imng -
'Mr. G. Ashley i
- Project File i
. W Y
l 1
+
- i.t3 , 1 l
1 - l l l I l h': . 3 p 1 l I$ r h' _. _ . . _ _ . _ _ . __
g _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ . _______ - _ _ mmunications
;; - 1111llll11lllll11111111llllll1
;l i
Company: CES Telecon X conference Report i 1
. Project:' Job No. .
l CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,,, 06/22/87 subject: "** Cable Tray Support Design Review 3:00 p.m. Ebasco Audit p,,,, . New York, NY
Participants:
of p
. W. Horstman . Cygna Required j ttem Comments Action By '
. Ebasco provided a copy of the calculations associated with the white paper addressing the additional major axis bending in tiers
. due to transverse tray loadings. These calculations are for use during the audit.
l TUE\062287-A. CON i
- l. , \
, /
l SiDned; b (N/'g\ gp , Page of
. R tl 11 L 1R A A A Distribution: 5EE'ATTAI'H3D DISTKrffUTION SHEET.
$ m oi. !
e
;v
., ,,; p :-
. -j
.p ( ., >n c
.q;j ' o l DISTRIBUTION LIST -
- ' Mr. J. Redding '
.. ~ Mr. L Nace
.. Mr. W. Counsil
- Mr. D. Pipott : .
Ms. A. Wetti Cook Mr. C Grimes
. -; - ; Mr. R. Alexandru Mr.' J. Muffett .
% N. Williams 1 a . .! Ji : Mr. J. Russ - ;
.t.., , . Mr. W. Horstman !
~ " -
Mr. K. Parikh
- Ms. D. Leong Mr. G.' Ashley -
- Project File '
l m, ,1- ,
.. f
[. s i 1 + i a l i. i$ i
y , lh . ' W,
~
Communications hk M ii Report
.y , ill18111111111lll111111lll11111 Q;[:.?f.,.
c c
' - Company; Teiec n X Conference Report j CES-
- Project: Job No.
TU Electric - 84056 1
' CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate:
06/25/87 i
Subject:
Time: ) Cable Tray Support Review 03:00 p.m. 1
. Ebasco ' Audit - Oversize Bolt Holes Piace:
New York, NY
Participants:
of
' P. Harrison Ebasco B. Atalay, W. Horstman : Cygna i s
l Required item Comments Action By j l i
. R'eferences: )1 (1)' ' Letter from J. P. Padalino, Ebasco, to L Nace, TU Electric; Attachment 7, May 15,1987.
(2) TU Electric CPSES Units 1.and .2, Effects of Bolt Hole Oversize in CTH System ' Adequacy", Ebasco Position Paper, Rev. 2,- June 19,1987. (3) Ebasco CPSES Cable Tray Hanger Vol. I, Book 22. Discussions L Cygna's concerns ~ arising from the review of the above three i references were discussed. The first document discussed was Reference 1. 1.1. Cygna reiterated Question 1 as stated in Reference 1; specifically, Cygna feels that only the 93 original randomly
. selected supports comprise a proper sample. In its response in Reference 1, Ebasco states its basic concurrence with the -j Cygna position. Ebasco stated that their report (apparently
. Reference 2), presents and compares results based on "truly random" and "(truly random + remainder) = all samples".
f Signed; Q Page of
~
- oistnbution: ' SEh AtfACHED DISTRMUTION SHEET.
.aon o,. .
y Communications 4L t i Report
- y. 11llllllllll11111111!!ll111111 Requred item Comments Action By Cygna's review of Reference 2, however, does not substantiate this. Reference 2 .makes no mention of the sample size on which its results are based nor does it contain comparisons on the basis of sample size.
l Furthermore, Cygna asked what the basis was for the I,
" arbitrary" selection of the " remainder", i.e., 227-93, supports. (See page 2 of Reference 3.)
1.2 Cygna accepts the Ebasco response No. 2 in Reference 1. 1.3 Cygna noted that the calculations, i.e., Reference 3, now appropriately report the results in terms of the numbers of 1 hangers. However, the following two clarifications are l I needed: l o On page 23 of' Reference 3, is C = 3 the number of hangers or holes exceeding the criteria? - o Where does C = 3 on page 23 of Reference 3 come from? 1.4 With reference to the applicability of cable tray support results to conduit oversize bolts, Cygna stated that there was insufficient evidence to accept the Ebasco response, and proposed to defer the resolution of this issue to a future conduit audit. ' The second document discussed was Reference 2. Cygna's questions and comments on Reference 2 are as follows: 2.1 How does Table 1 of Reference 2 allow the conclusion on page 3 of Reference 2: 'Thus, the probability of two bolts having the maximum oversize " 7 Cygna was concerned that the quoted statement, as it is, could be used to justify any bolt hole oversize. 22 With reference to Table 1 of Reference 2, the " oversize" for 1",1 1/4", and 1 1/2" diameter holes are all based on a single calculation on page 23 and the table on page 13 of Reference 3. The statistical evaluations should have treated each bolt size separately. Far more violations were found for 1" diameter bolts than the other two. 23 The calculations supporting the effect of bolt hole oversize (Section 5.0 and beyond of Reference 2) were not available for review. The ANSYS non-linear time history analysis and Unit 1 Hilti bolts inventory study, for example, could not be audited. Page of SEE A'ITACHED DISTRIBUTION SHFFT ' 4 1020.01b
1 Communications ( 6 i Report [ ~ 1111llll1461111111111111llllll ) Requred hem Comments Action By 1 [ . 2.4 How are Tables 3, 4, and 5 of Reference 2 tied to the results of the statistical study of bolt oversize, i.e., - Reference 17 Quantity e, the bolt oversize as defined on page 6 of Reference 2, does not appear to be considered in - , 4
'the development of Tables 3,4, and 5. {
1 2.5 ' Please. state how the " worst shear safety factor" of 3.18 was obtained (see page 10 of Reference 2). 2.6 When oversized bolt holes are considered, the safety factors for Hiltis and Richmond Inserts are reduced such that they no longer satisfy the Design Verification (DV) commitments. This is justified citing conservatism inherent in the DV effort, e.g., generally low interaction ratios, conservative 1 analysis methods (response spectrum method), etc. Have
, these conservatism or margms been used up elsewhere? {
)
Additionally, please substantiate the low interaction values. q l 2.7 With reference to Paragraph (e) on page 18 of Reference 2, I does the reduced safety factor calculation consider the total ) oversize or (oversize - 1/16 in.), take credit for the AISC l allowable? 2.8 -.Re.ferences 2 and .3 are not included as references in the TU l Electric CPSES Generic Issues Report (GIR), Revision 2. 1
'Instead GIR, Revision 2 references the Impell studies and ANCO system test reports for use in bolt hole oversize issue resolution. Will references for resolution remain this way, l or will references 2 and 3 be referred to in future revisions i of the GIR?
In response, Ebasco stated that Impell and Ebasco will work together to incorporate Ebasco's work into the future revisions of the GIR. 29 The last sentence of Section 53 on page 20 of Reference 2 states that ratio of the " gapped"-to."ungapped" response measured during the ANCO system tests varies between 0.5 and 1.5 with an average of 033. This is not consistent with the conclusion that the " gapped" response will be lower than the "ungapped" response. Furthermore, ANCO's test a report . does not explicitly contain the " capped"-to- !
- "ungapped" ratio. How are ratios reported in Reference 2 l L. obtamed? Also, the ANCO test report does not include bolt forces. Are the ratios reported in Reference 2 ratios of bolt forces or system ~ displacements?
I I , Page of SEE ATTACHFD DISTRmITTTON RHFFT i d p mo m t- - _ _ _ _ _-
[.~ i j 1 1 Communications t i Report unununnininniinini $.s.:l f ' Requwed
' item Comments Action By ~
L. 2.10 With' reference to Attachment 7.1 of Reference 2, the shear L. force-displacement plots for Hilti bolts exhibit no trend. l The conclusions are ' based on 1 in. diameter Hilti Super-I kwik bolts. . Will other diameter bolts give similar results, 14., reduced safety factors? The following' two Cygna Questions Resulted from the Audit of Reference 3:
' 3.1 :Why was the basis population limited to 2000 hangers (see :
Appendix A of Reference 3)? There are many more cable f tray supports at CPSES. ' i 3.2 The information contained on pages 87 and 88 of Reference J 3 contradicts Ebasco Response No.1 of Reference 1, namely i that the behavior exhibited by the three sample sizes, i.e., j 93,107 and the total, are similar. Please reconcile the l differences. j 1 l k o TUE\062587.C. CON i Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRTRUTION SHFFT 4 4 1020.01D .
( 1 llN:
' DISTRIBUTION LIST i
.. . i
- v Mr. J. Redding1
. Mr. L Nace .
Mr. W. Counsil i l Mr. D. Pipott - .
- Ms. A. VattiCook -
Mr. C Grimes Mr. R. Alexandru
- Mr. J. Muffett-Ms. N. Williams .
- Mr. J. Russ
- Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh
. Ms. D.14ong '
Mr. G. Ashley ~
. Project File 4
l
)
l l l-l }, 1
T Communications ;
-a; M ci Report
% 1911111lllllll11lll1llllll1111
- Company ES X T*'ec a O coa <e, ce a.aori L
Project: Job No.
~ CPSES IAP. Phase 4 o,te:
06/26/87
Subject:
. Time:
g g Ebasco' Audit - Schedule l CES/WC
Participants:
S. Harrison TU Electric
- j. N.' Williams, J. Russ Cygna i
i i 4 Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to TU Electric regarding the follwing topics-r
- 1. ' The schedule for systems audit of design basis documents will
'he July 15-17 in the SWEC Boston offices.
- 2. Cable Travs - Ebasco MRM Study Cygna requested that the third party review documentation be I made available.
- 3. Cable Travs - Ennineerinn Evaluation of Refined Effective Lennth Factors Cygna requested the third party documentation on Impell's
. refined effective length factor procedures found in Impell
- i. Calculation M-56.-
i h. TUE/062687-A.TEL L Signed: Page of
. ,,b .,, o SEE mxCuEo 01SrR1wer10x SuEEr.
!. 100001a
DISTRIBUTION LIST
- Mr. J. Redding -
Mr. L Nace
. Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott
' Ms. A. ViettiCook '
-Mr. C Grimes Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett l Ms. N. Williams l' Mr. J. Russ i Mr. W. Horstman L ~ Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. I.mong
- Mr. G. Ashley f - Project File
&- Communications L, U t i
, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Rsport Company: Telecon X Conference Report Project .- Job No.
TU Electric ~ 84056 l CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate: 7/31/87
Subject:
Time: Audit Status 7:30 a.m. Place: Walnut Creek
Participants:
of p S. Harrison TU Electric e J. Russ Cvena Required item Comments Action By Cygna spoke to TU Electric to set a tentative schedule for future auc.its and meetings on cable tray, conduit and civil / structural issues. The following schedule was proposed-
- 1. - . ANCO cable tray test audit - August 4,1987.
- 2. Conduit design verification at Ebasco, New York - week 1
~o f August 10, 1987. TU Electric stated that the additional work by Ebasco on the cable tray MRM should be done near the end of that week.
- 3. Civil / structural audit at Stone & Webster, Boston - week of August 24, 1987. TU Electric stated that they would like to schedule a meeting in Boston for that week to discuss cable tray issues.
- 4. Cygna stated that the cable tray Review Issues List is scheduled to be issued the week of August 3,1987.
TUE/073187-B. CON
, signed; Page of q[
distribution: SEE' A*1fACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 1020 0ts
- m, .
.lf:
J Q
?
f ..; , ; _ ' A
- .Q. ..
i:I DISTRIBUTION LIST v_- .
- Mr. J. Redding .
Mr. L. Nace . ~ ,
- c. : Mr. W. Counsil
.o Mr. D. Pipott;-
p EXVettiCook Mr. C Grimes
. Mr. R. Alexandru '
s
' Mr. J. Muffett -
h N. Williams
' Mr.' J. Russ :
Mr. W. Horstman ( Mr. K. Parikh g 4
, ' Ms. D. Laong ;
k Mr. G. Ashley L Project File-( ,, 4
'- rj t:, -
f 1 s
,. j g
['
,1 (l
t. l..
-l
L M Communications ,c L4 L t i Report 4 us:: ..;;m L
. Company:. .
Teie n conference neport ES
. Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056
. + CPSES IAP Phase 4 o ie:
09/08/87 Cable Tray Support Design Review 11:30 a.m. Ebasco Audit pi ce: Walnut Creek, CA
Participants:
. of P. Harrison, R.A. Keilbach Ebasco B. Shakibnia, J. Russ Cygna Required j ttem Comments Action By 4 Partial Penetration Groove Weld Qualification Cygna stated that they have two concerns dealing with the partial penetration groove welds on skewed hints. The first concern is on the effective throat thickness anc the second concern is on weld qualification. With regards to the first concern, Cygna stated that the effective
- throat thickness used in design is 0.5t of the bevelled member.
Cygna has reviewed the justification for this assumption (Ebasco Interoffice Correspondence, 3/4/87), and agrees with it. Additionally, due to recent inspections, Ebasco has reduced the j effective throat thickness used in design from 0.5t to 0.4t of the bevelled members which is still acceptable to Cygna. J l
'On the, weld qualification, Cygna asked whether it is adequate to i represent the skewed joints (with unbevelled members) by T-joints (with bevelled members), in order to show their prequalification. !
Also based on the CMC's reviewed by Cypa, the longitudinal l braces have angles ranging from 300 to 60 . The qualification ' testing conducted by Brown & Root only addresses the 300 and 450 angles. Has the 600 been addressed? signed; Page of distribution: SE8' ATTACHED DISTMBUTION SHEET. 1020.0t a
It' 1 Communications 4 3, 5 1
.pr
( ( i Report
- Item Comments Ac o y Ebasco stated that the Brown & Root qualification testing does -
cover the.-300 and 450 groove angles for T-joints, and the 600 is already covered.by AWS pregualified welded joints. Ebasco also stated that the representation of the skewed ~ joints with ! unbevelled members . by ' 900 T-Joints with bevelled members is
. justified,' since - the weldability or the degree of difficulty of
~
welding for both is the same, and the groove angle for T-Joint is analogous to brace angle from the perpendicular. Therefore, skewed .. joints L with partial penetration groove welds are considered to be prequalified. Also note that the Brown & Root testing included tensile tests. Cygna stated that is would discuss the issue internally and would respond appropriately. l l l i 1 l l TUE\090887-A.TEL SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET Page 2 of 2 1020.01b ._..........._....__....m-. . _ . . . . _ - . _ . . . _ _ . . . . _
r:. T'pE , hg l! p < r , p DISTRIBUTION LIST
-'Mr..J Redding L Mr. L. Nace Mr. W. Counsil'
- Mr. D.' Pipott
. Ms. A. VattiCook Mr. C Grimes Mr. R. Alexandru
. Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams -
r
- Mr. J. Russ
. Mr. W. Horstman -
.: = Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D.' Leong
. Mr. G. -' Ashley .
Project File u
?
+.
I f l.. 1 ,
)
L 1 i JL___ _ __ .h
N Communications 1.o c,g Report d,i 1111111tilllillPlilllilllllll i .h Company:
- ES Teiec n x conferene. Report Project: Job No.
4 TU Electric Comanche Peak SES 84056 Independent Design Review o.te: i 09/22/87 m ' Cable Tray Supports (Ebasco Audit) 1000 a.m. Document Requests pi.e : Ebasco, NY
Participants:
of ! H. Schoppmann Ehasco c.
~W. Horstman Cygna D
g Required
. Item Comments Action By i:
A. Transverse Load Application Point Ebasco provided a copy of a preliminary calculation addressing Cygna's concerns on the underestimation of the axial stress in the tiers due to the transverse load application point used in the ESM cable tray support models. Cygna will review this document while at Ebasco's office. B. Topics to be Covered During Audit Cygna provided a list of the topics to be discussed during this week's audit. Cygna requested that Ebasco provide copies of any related calculations for Cygna to review before any discussions are held.
- 1. - Twist Buckling of Angles
- 2. Criteria for Considering Brace Working Point Eccentricity at Tier to Post Panel Zone
- 3. Evaluation Method for Gusset Plates
- 4. Justification for Ebasco's Choice of Unsupported Length for Use in AISC Equation 1.5-7
- 5. Evaluation of Base Metal Thickness for Welds
. Signed: (,/ P808 Of Distributim: ~ $EE AITACNED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
. ma o,.
___.__________._______.__b
- c.
&. Communications 1 '
eft i R3 port ! f9 f Nillllillitilllllilililllllll'- F-Requred item Comments Action By -
. 6. Application Point for Transverne loads
- 7. Application Point for Vertical Loads
- 8. Base Angle Boundary Conditionsfw Composite Tiers
- 9. Revised Procedure for Kinematic Condensation l
?> D I l l l l l l
.. I l
l l l l l TUE\092287-B. CON l l
"*S' '
SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 2 1020.01b
f[.m.: ' gb i j i i hni:A
] '
f.!- g ' , . E .' . 'j z'
$. l
,. DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J.Redding 4 ~
' Mr. L Nace .
Mr.i W. Conamil I
. Mr, D. Pipott J . ..
i Ms. A. WettiCook !
'~
.c Mr.' C/ Grimes' . i LMr. R. Alexandru R< . Mr.LJ. Muffett .
W Ms. N. Williams-c Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman
, Mr. K. Parikh .
Ms. D. Leong .
= Mr. G.= Ashley.
. Project File s
J
~
. (.
2t ., I r ..: i 9
t I: M<L Communications w 4 n i R3 port i h: :N111111lll111111111111111llll y Company:- Telecon Conference Report l Project: Job No. CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,i : 09/23/87-sweet: "'"' Cable Tray Support Design Review 11:50 a.m. Ebasco Audit pi,c,; Ebasco (N.Y.) SJ. Chen, H. Schoppmann Ebasco W. Horstman - Cygna 4 Requred j ltem Comments Action By A. Aeolication Point for Transverse Loads Cygna- and Ebasco discussed the . prelminary calculations j provided by Ebasco on September 22, 1987. Ebasco indicated i that these calculations were prepared specifically for Cygna and will not become . a part of the project. backup calculations (Volume I calculations). These calculations address Cygna's concern through two evaluations. I
- 1. - Generic Evaluations )
i The cable tray support modelling technique was initially evaluated by comparing the results of detailed NASTRAN models with those for the simpler STRUDL models used in production. The results of these comparisons are documented in-Volume I, Book 2, Subject 10. , l Using the data from this source, Ebasco prepared the response by comparing the axial stress in the tier reported in the NASTRAN results with those from STRUDL Since the application point for transverse loads only affects the axial load in the tier, this comparison can be used to quantify the impact of the i modelling technique used. l i signed:. U( Page of 4 o..tributionc SEE' ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 1
.1030 01a iL_A._-- _2__----_-- _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ _ l
r P: ', ' Communications 6 o Report ;
,ji tulililillllllilliluitillill-6 4 n.m comm na [c7eTYy e
Fore the representative trapeze type hanger chosen, the axial stress in the. tier contributes less than 5% . to the total member stress interaction ratio. Since the axial stress generally does not govern the design of the tiers
,(flexural stress is more significant), Ebasco considers the-effect of the axial stress to be insignificant.
p ', t Cygna. agreed, but noted that' the 5% increase in stress
' interaction . . ratio . may need to be considered in the cumulative effects evaluation.
g
- 2. ~ Individual Support Evaluations L
To == the~ significance of the axial' load in the tier on actual . supports, a' comparison was performed for a , number of support analyses. '. Since the modelling i technique used in RSM models correctly predicts the tier axial stress,' supports from the. RSM models were chosen. Eight out of forty-three-RSM models were selected, giving a total of' 95 hangers for review. These ' included transverse, longitudinal and multidirection supports. The sample ' selection was based on engineering judgement i rather than random sampling. p For these 95 supports, the axial stress interaction ratio: 1 Fa o was tabulated. The maximum interaction value found was 0.043. This agrees with the value of 5% found in the E generic evaluation. Based on the review, Ebasco concluded that magnitude of the axial stresses in tiers is insignificant with respect to the total stress interaction ratio, and need not be considered. Ebasco indicated . that, during the early stages of the cable tray hanger design review, the axial stresses were hand calculated for the tiers and added to the results of the STRUDL ' analyses for ESM. This approach was abandonded, since the magnitude of the stress was very small,' and this reduced the amount of hand calculations necessary for each support. t i l l l Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 4 1020.016 LL_a.--_____-____
h1 n p y P'o ' Communications 1, 1i Report
- g. M, ,m.e i v , 3lll w y Requwod hh O ' Hem Comments Action By
' B. , Effective I2nnth Factors for Longitudinal Suonorts (Cygna . had.. several' questions on the calculations and revised 1 procedures provided with Ebasco Letter EB-T-3426. !
J 1. . For longitudinal trapeze suppports with in-plane bracing, SAG.CP34, Attachment E, Revision 11 requires the use of
-thel total post . length and k=LO for calculating ' the slenderness . ratio. - For example:~ support type U B11 has
' one braced and one unbraced bay. (See Figure L). Cygna in '
assed if. it wasn't more appropriate to use 11 with k=1.0 ? , and 12 with k>1.0 rather than I with k=1.0? - i Y
~
I
^
Ebasco indicated that.Cygna.was correct; however, using 1 with k=10 is! very : conservative for ' this configuration. H For this ' support type,11 >l2 and the slenderness ratio calculated by their method.will be greater than if 12 was . used with k>1.0. 4
- 2. -Cygna noted' that the orientation of the posts is shown incorrectly. on sheet 3 of the calculations. The post shouki: have their flanges facing outwards, not inwards.
f -(See Figure 2.)- L . Ebasco indicated that Cygna was correct. However, the orientation of the flanges will not affect the calculations, since the' finite element model is independent of orientation. - H >
~3. Does Ebasco use 'the nomographs provided in the AISC n Manual for Steel Construction for determining the
, slenderness ratio for frames with sidesway uninhibited?
Ebasco engineers are instructed to only use the <
. slenderness ratios given in- SAG.CP34. The nomographs are not used.
0 %. On ' sheet '34.5 of Attachment E of SAG.CP34, k=2.1 is shown for use on the lower bay of a longitudinal trapeze support. Is this k value applicable to both in-plane and - f out-of-plane buckling? 1 No. The k value applies only to out-of-plane buckling. The values 'given on the following sheets of the General ; Instructions are for in-plane buckling. This figure may be c confusing since it was originally included in an earlier L revision of SAG.CP34, before in-plane sidesway was
~
specifically addressed. Page of j
^. SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 3 4 1
~ ,
em
- a. -
mmunications Y g. ..M11011111101lll11111llllll' 1
' Item ' Comments - AcEnYy 5.- . Will both Ebasco and Impell use the results of Ebasco's calculations?'
No. Impell has performed their ' own calculations to I determine the effective length . factors. - However, the final values used by both consultants are identical.
. l
- 6. : The calculations mdicated the " tray . stiffness" is used. to j provide some transverse retraint to the support buckling q models. . How is this justified? 1
- l T, - Since longitudinal trapeze supports ' are located between i i two. transverse : type supports, or ' at. least have such a j support .on one side, the transverse support will provide - 1 some ; - resistance to ' this -
in-plane - buckling of the
. longitudinal support's posts.- This is based on the
. assumption that transverse supports are much stiffer and stronger in the transverse direction than -longitudinal I supports, and. this will.not buckle at the same loading as the longitudinal supports. _ Ebasco's. study showed that this
.added . stiffness did not have a. large effect on the effective : length _ factor calculations, and .to be
; u" conservative, the values included in SAG.CP34 are based ;
on the analyses without lateral tray stiffness. -l, ( L , j i L TUE/092387-C. CON 1 L Page of RFF ATTACHRD DISTRTRUTION SHFFT a a i L ' wao on .
L ,' .
-b.- .
DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Reddir.g Mr. L Nace : Mr. W. Counsil - Mr. D. Pipott
. Ms. A. Vietti-Cook Mr. C Grimes Mr. R.' Alexandru l
Mr. J. Muffett
.Ms. N. Williams
. Mr. J. Russ i Mr. W. Horstman
': Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D.Leong
~ Mr. G. Ashley Project File
7 Communications i b JL t i llll9llllllll1lllllNi8llllll . Report
'" "* " # Telecon X Conference Report i 'CES I:
., i. Project:
l ~-2 Job No. lz' CPSES IAP Phase 4 o,,, j E - 09/23/87 i i
Subject:
Time'- i
. Cable Tray Support Design Review 3:00 pm l I
~ Ebasco Audit p,,c,;
Ebasco (N.Y.)
Participants:
. of i H. Schoppmann Ebasco j W. Horstman Cygna l 1 Required item - Comrrents Action By i l y Ebasco indicated that . two of their engineers (J. Swanson and j J. Christoudius) will be available in New York tomorrow to discuss - several of the cable tray support issues. e 1 i
\
l l 1 q I I I i TUE/092387-B. CON signed: L Page of Distribution: SEE ATTACHED DISTRTEUTION SHEET. l
. m o,.
l
m ,.. - - ---
..N 'c %., .,,
.t',
sI
,' )
' t
' "4 f. ,
DISTRIBUTION LIST b' . Mr. J.' Redding .;
.: .. 'Mr L Nace Mr. W.' Counsil i J w,, :-
Mr. D. Pipott ~ i u Ms. AVmtti&k Mr; C Grimes
'- Mr. R.' Alexandru .
Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams s- .,.-
' Mrc J. Russ
!! Mr. W. Horstman
- Mr. K. . Parikh -
Ms D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley.
~
Project File;. ; :
-i l
3>f - f: N $ s I~ s i l;
)
1 l I 1 l 1 l 1 l c l
l 8e Communications
%, ^
M ei Report i-, (g - - IlNillllllllllllllillllllllll . i
. Comnany:
;g h Telecon h Conference Report
' Project. ' Job No.
m , iTU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oste: . . 09/23/87
' Subject' Time:
# ' Cable Tray Support Design Review 5:45 p.m.
, Ebasco Audit - e.ce:
Ebasco (N.Y.)
Participants:
- . Of H. Schoppmann ' Ebasco
. W. Horstman : Cygna 1
i: 4 Reqcired j item - Comments Action By ' Ebasco provided' copies of several documents pertaining to the topics
-listed on September 22,1987 for use during the' audit.
A.' Attachment l' to Ebasco Letter EB-T,3395, J. Padalino (Ebasco)
. to . O. Lowe (TU, Electric), dated August 20,1987, "Ebasco's
. Response. to .Cygna's Generic Owinn Conceming Composite Channels Attached to Base Angles."
- RO l Attachment'2 to Ebasco I.etter EB.T-3256, J. Padalino (Ebasco)
~ to O. I. owe ' (TU Fiwric), dated July 1, 1987, "Ebasco's Response to Cygna's Generic Questions an Weld Base Mef.al Overstress" i
J l I 1 l
. l TUEJOR2387-A. CON 1
Page of I Q[ggj \]gf f
- - Sioned:
' Distribution: SEE A*1T' ACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
(L ,
. mo oi. _ l i
.L ,
.v.
* \
h, ' V: m DISTRIBUTION LIST JMr. J. Redding
-- Mr. L Nace -
- Mr. W. Counsil -
' Mr. D. Pigott :
.o Ms. A. Vietti-Cook Mr.- C Grimes.
Mr. R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett [ Ms. N. Williams - l l: Mr. ~ J. Russ b -
.. Mr. W. Horstman i Mr. K. Parikh
- Ms. D. Ieong' i l
..Mr. G.' Ashley '
. Project File - l 0,
b I '$ 3,
>1 ,
c
. i 6
')
h-t I 3 I
)
t
dj' Communications 41 1 i. Raport g nemamammm. l Company: Tete n conference Report CES
Project: Job No.
.TU Electric 84056 1 CPSES IAP Phase 4 o.te: l 9/24/87
. Subject; .
Time:
)l
. Cable Tray. Support Design Review 11:30 a.m. 'l X Ebasco Audit- pi.ce: l New York, N.Y. !
)
+
Participants:
of H. Schoppman Ebasco . p, W. Horstman Cygna '; f .
,< , . Required ltem Comments Action By i
Ebasco provided a copy of the following for use during the audit: oL . Ebasco letter EB-T-3422, J. Padalino (Ebasco) to O. Lowe I (TU Electric) dated August 26,1987, "Ebasco's Responses to
'Cygna's Questions on Calculation, Volume I, Book 22 and the 7, . Oversized Bolt Hole Position Paper'
\%
l l TUE/092487 G. CON 1 Signed: Page of D#stribution' SEE ATfACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. 1020 014 _________.___________.___________________.__o
> s
' I v f
- f. 1 t
'j '; I A !it .
98 .: e.t ,,-
.'Ir, _{,
, DISTRIBUTION LIST :
i
. . . i Mr. J. Reddmg l 1Mr. L Nace .
- . -. Mr. W. Connail .
t 2' < Mr. D. Pipott ra Ms. A. VzttiCook s, L Mr. C Grimes c 'Mr. R. Alexandru
'N , Mr. J. Muffett ,
,' Ms. N. Williams' j f> Mr. J. Russ iMr. W. Horstman
' Mrs K. Parikh-
. Ms. D. Leong E Mr. G.'Ashley -
n, , Prok. File l+ , f - r ..
;' n ,
k '. m .. - pg., s s
$ 1l- ,
'l e
1 i j
,e 1 i
i r { L-
\l:_
0; k' l-l: . I: l.l
1 3? Communications % . L( .i Report i M llHlHlHlHilHilHHilllll! - ) q{* i
.i
- Company: Teie n X conference neport l ES Project: Job No.
TU Electric 84056 l Date:
)
._CPSES IAP Phase 4 ' 9/24/87 1
-c
Subject:
Time: Cable Tray Support Design Review 2:00 p.m. )' Place:
^-
~ Ebasco ' Audit Ebasco (N.Y.)
Participants:
of
' H. Schoppmann, SJ. Chen Ebasco
^
J. Swanson,'J. Christoudous, J. Viekos, B. Cheng Ebasco l W. Horstman, J. Russ Cygna Required (" ltem Comments Action By 1.L Evaluation Method for Gusset Plates ) Cygna' asked Ebasco to describe the method used for the evaluation
'of the gusset plates used to attach both . in-plane and out-of-plane braces for cable tray supports. , ' Gusset.- plates :are evaluated for the combined effects of axial load and bending. Since all angle brace members are modelled as truss elements, only axial load is provided in the STRUDL output. The bending moment is calculated based on. the eccentricity between the gusset plate centerline and the center of one leg of the brace (see sheet 2 of SAG.CP 34).
The gusset plate is analyzed as a beam, with the cross-sectional i area: and section modulus calculated based on the full width of the plate. For braces which are skewed relative to the plate, the applied loads are transformed into the geometric axes of the gusset plate. 1 The weld between the gusset plate and the support member is evaluated using the axial load and calculated bending moment. ! Distribution:
'l" SEE A'ITACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET L - "ow ei.
o N _ _ _ . _ .
p my yf 4 Communications IN
'? '
A L i i_ Report 1111111118111lll1lllll111111ll - IE . Requwed s
.. Item - Comments Action By
~
s . 2. 2 Unsuonorted I2neth' for Lateral-Torsional Buckline (' Ebasco believes that only a very small stiffness value is necessary to prevent ' lateral-torsional buckling of the compression flange of. the U. ; post members. The tier members, which are attached to both posts, should provide sufficient stiffness. 1 Cygna will investigate this position and respond to Ebasco at a later date.- g
'3. . Base Metal Thickness for Welds .
y o
. (This : discussion is based on the calculations attached to Ebasco Letter EB-T-3256.)
[
- 4 Ebasco abandoned the use of the beam on clastic foundation analogy ,
(
- whi ch was used .in the: original response to this issue. The current response. is based on hand calculations to address the direct pullout on the weld and'a finite element model for shear loading.
7 , h
- a. The evaluation for direct pullout on the weld was performed 1
. assuming the failure mode was similar to that occurring in )
concrete for punching shear. (Figure 1(a)). -I _ Cygna ! does not agree - with . this approach. A failure mode , similar to the " cone" failure exhibited by concrete anchors is i expected, Figure-1(b). Such behavior would result in a lower capacity.
.Cygna and Ebasco will review the behavior failure mode. j i
. . b.' The evaluation for shear loading on welds was performed using a finite element model created with the STRUDL baseplate analysis module. . Ebasco indicated that since the applied loadmg was' in the plane of the channel web (baseplate in w,< , , ,
.model), the concrete substrate generated by STRUDL would have no effect on the analysis.
Support points were provided along the edge of the web. This represented load transfer into the flanges of the channel (See Figure 2.) -It is assumed that axial load in the channel is not
, transfered through the web. Ebasco indicated that this 1 assumption is conservative. J l
- c. L The applied loads in pullout and shear are based on the l capacity of the weld at the normal allowable stresses. i Interaction between pullout and shear are not considered.
1 1 i sth A11 ACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET Page 2 of 6 l b- -. 8020 01D . L'
, +
. l. .{ 73
\
kN f ' Communications. s; s Lii. Report 7 g'.c
, NNillilillH11tillNHilllli .
!. ,.e t Requwed i
- Item - Comments . Action By ___ .
1 Ldirection separately, interaction does not need to be considered - j in the study. l
.Cygna noted that the study' did'not consider the factored load
; condition. . The increased allowable stress for shear and torsion in the base metal are not linearly' proportional, once tension is L limited to 0.9 FY while shear is hmited of 0.5 FY.
~
Ebasco will . revise the ' calculations to consider the fact'ored load condition.
% J4. Aeolication of Vertical Load on Tiers F
L'
;Ebasco showed;Cygna a copy of an evaluation of the effect of the
. load application point on . the . torsion in . a cable . tray support tier.
This response - was'. prepared on- 3/10/87, but : apparently was . never submitted'to Cygna.- g , Ebasco Lwill provide Cygna with a copy of these calculations for ! review and discussion later this week.
- Ebasco indicated that they had also papred-other calcuh,tions on this topic in i response to a . questions raised by the : third party reviewers. ' This concern was over the effect of the AISC allowed
? mill e tolerance on the slope of the tier - channel's flanges. If the
' flange' sloped such that contact with the tray occurred at the flange tip, the applied torsion would be greater- than considered by Ebasco.
. ( See Figure 3.)
Since'~ thm calculations do not address Cygna's. concern, it is not necessary for Cygna to review them. 5.- ' Base Angle Boundary Conditions for Comoosite Tiers This discussion is based on Attachment 1 to Ebasco letter EB-T-3395.
-These calculations develop the stress distribution in a composite tier at the attachment to a base angle, using a STRUDL finite element model The maximum shear stress from the model is compared with the shear stress calculated by:
?: a ' T=MxC-J This comparison shows that the hand calculated value is very conservative (approximately twice that of the finite element model). SEE ' ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 3 6 g_ 1920.01b '
o
@ 9 i,, Communications -
, i Report V : maammmm-i;.. Requwed
' Item ' ' Comments Action By Ebasco concludes that it is acceptable to assume that both channels !
in the composite tier participate in resisting the applied torsion. ; L Cygna asked .why Ebasco's computer. program COMBS was not used for this comparison.
- Ebasco indicated' that COMBS was not used in order to avoid the need for ~ another computer run. The formula used by COMBS to calculate torsion shear is the same as the given above.
- ,' - Cygna has no further questions at this time.
l 6. -: :In-clane Sidesway of Transverse Traoeze Suooorts During the June 1987 audit,-Cygna reviewed a response prepared by 4 ? Ebasco addressing the impact of in-plane sidesway on the slenderness
' ratio calculations for transverse trapeze supports. Cygna did not receive a copy of this document for their files.-
o Ebasco~ will: check 'to determine if a copy of this document can be s trananitted to Cygna.
' .7.; Self-Weinht Inertia) Effects on Braces g Ebasco provided a response on this issue dated May 15,1987. This response included an evaluation of the increased stress levels in angle braces for ~190 cable tray supports when subjected to self-weight inertial loads. ' j
;Cygna: asked what ..the basis was . for . the selection of these 190 supports.
J Ebasco indicated that the selection. was based on judgment rather ]
, than being a random statistical sample. The sample was intended to
.be representative of the scope of supports. Selection attributes l included: ,
Both in-plane and out of-plane braces were selected. l Braces in trapeze and triangular type supports were selected. j Braces covering the range of lengths found at CPSES (18" to )j 200") were selected. Braces with high slenderness ratios (up to 200) were selected. The conclusion drawn in these calculations is that the effect of member self weight inertial loads for braces is not significant. SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 4 6 1020 01D u _______._u__ . _ _ _ _ __ __
b _i't
$A Communications .
u : Lu .gg a Report y , b Floquired !j " item : Comments Action By y-n c ,
' 8. . Twist-Buckline of Anote Sections Ebasco's General Instructions (SAB.CP 34) provide criteria for reduced -
axial stress allowables due to'the twist-buckling phenomenon. This is found in' Attachment V. It is based on equations provided by Gaylord and Gaylord's structural analysis book.- N- _Cygna ; provided a brief introduction to the ~ twist ' buckling study
. performed in their Boston office. This study addressed three loading conditions for the angle section:
1 1.' . I. cad applied through center of gravity of the one leg. Loading i on.same leg at each end. -
. 2. - Load applied through center of gravity of one leg. Loading on -
opposite leg at each end.-
- 3. Load applied through center of gravity of total section.
Cygna found that the results for' cases 1 and 3 show good agreement with, the theoretical developments provided in engineering textbooks. However, Cygna -'was unable to ' locate any theoretical treatment of Case 2. Case 2 showed a significantly reduced buckling load due_ to the combined 'effect of the axial load and the twisting introdumd through the loading applications points.
- Cygna believes that Case 2 results in an interaction ok axial load and
_ bending that may not . be ' adequately addressed through the use of
. AISC equation 141a :If the twist buckling failure load is used to i calculate an equivalent radius of gyration, re , this value may have to
' be used to calculate bgth the allowable axial stress, Fa' and the Euler buckling stress, Fe Ebasco indicated that Attachment V includes a consideration of case 2 loading. If possible, a copy of the calculations used in the development of Attachment V will be made available to Cygna for auditing.
Cygna 'will continue a comparison of the results of their study with V" the method used by Ebasco in Attachment V.
- 9. Une of COMBS for Comoosite Tiers with Multiole Support Points Ebasco indicated that the calculations for all supports of this type I are located at the CPSES site due to the need for support 1
modifications. Copies of these calculations will be made available hkr. SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 5 6
- 1980.01t> .
- n. _ _ _ _ . - - - . .. _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.y c
c, CO m m unicatlOnS ( t i Report
$ W1611mll11111111466614l111 l
Required nem c comments Action By b, ? .. 2 10. Loneit= hat inad Distribution Cygna asked if there had been.any significant changes to the criteria relating to longitudinal load distribution found in Attachments Y and Z of SAG.CP 34.' Ebasco indicated'that several criteria changes were made as a result of the-third party's review of Attachments Y and Z. There were no changes' to the. general approach used, but certain numerical values i used for stiffness comparison and load distribution had been revised. Ebasco .will ' provide copies of the current revisions of these l
. documents..
- 11. . Inclusion of Waroine Normal Stresses in RSM Analysis '
During: Cygna's audit in June '1987, Ebasco had indicated that the ,
. STRUDL stress check used ' for RSM analysis did not include the ,
warping uormal stresses. . To account for these' structures, Ebasco limited the normal stress interaction ratio to 0.70. Calculations were provided.to' justify this method. However, this limiting value.was not
- included in the' applicable design criteria or procedures. Cygna asked Lif this approach was now included in the procedures.
- Ebasco indicated 'that- they now use a more refined approach. The
- s. interaction ratio limit of 0.70 is now used as the cutoff for a detailed stress evaluation summary for STRUDL After the STRUDL stress check is completed, each member subject to torsion is individually checked by ' hand for the effect of the warping normal stresses.
Since. , all . RSM analyses are being rerun m accordance with 6 Attachment Z of SAG.CP 34, the warping normal stress evaluation )
. will included in all RSM analyses.
The instructions given to project personnel on this topic are included in a " Work Plan" memorandum from R. Cheng to Project, dated September 16, 1987. This memorandum will be included in the next revision of Attachment K of the ' CPSES project " Manual of Procedures". This ddocument provides guidelines and standard forms
. for the preparation of calculations.
1 l 1
\TUE\092487-D. CON Page of )
SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 6 6 j nam - l
Ca ulation e . ( , , ($241%'+ ) 2 50f'0
- Sheet !
.N11111111111111111111111ll111
.. s .
Project ..{g Prepared By Date _ g , Subject - Checud By Date System Joe No Fde No. An.iv.,. uo . _
- n. . so. g sn.ei ne gg aP aP .
L, .
/ WELD '
, /
/ '
/ '
\
e ! Mcmc q f 7 /f
' \
B%c 9 e i b
- A/ '
FA Lu ft E FA ttur.C suurut '* W l (=3 btai% Gam" [b) "cosE. FAitwts (E6Atv$) (cM (.M) , Fi6unt i. - 37t%E. MrcTAL T~/ULwtC MODE.5 fon. Pullout
~r--- 6 s. cr . Aws.h CW,4 L Bowlax3
%,m s f> ,
C ! I D- ,.,.,,,,,,
! O 1 L.O AD IN4
.V t f
l9 v i F isurtt. E - How4 rm de_ 6*c i a C3 ! t _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e [4D3?T3 sneet Cl1lll1ll11111111lllllll1ll Project
- Prepared By j ,
Date ,g, subject gg enecueo ey - Date system
" File No Job No g
. .,ym uo _
ne ~ . o
. smeei~ . 7,p t 1
l t Cet6LE. wY . 8 i i Goa* Tact bqT% _q Mitt Toleranc.c l 4 0- Tiso- 7 ,, Ecwn 3 - E h t oj M ili T ol< r. n u os V edu.) Low l l l lO
- 8.
I' DISTRIBUTION LIST 1Mr.1 Redding - Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pipott Ms. A. %etti Cook -
~ Mr. C' Grimes LMr. 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. 4; j .' i a-I L,- 4 f >l 4 4
N:l ,
- v:
communications
~
L ;6 i Report IL ' lllllltll11llllll1111111111111 M J Companyi i CES wec n . conference Report Project; - Job No.
. CPSES IAP Phase 4. o ,t.:
09/25/87
"" I* **
Cable Tray Support Design Review 12:00 noon Ebasco Audit. pi,c,: New York, NY
Participants:
of W. Horstman Cygna Required item ' Comments Action By
' Anolication Point for Vertical Load on Tiers
Reference:
" Justification for Applying Vertical Load at Centerline of Channel Web Rather than at Bolt Location," dated 3/10/87.
Cygna and Ehasco discussed the referenced calculations. This calculation evaluates the load application point of the vertical cable- tray load as a function of the direction of the vertical load. (See Figure 3.) The torsional moment, Mx, in the tier is calculated for each direction of loading, considering enveloping vertical acceleration, a multimodal response multiplier (MRM) of 1.25 and the directional aspect
- of gravity loading.
i J The evaluation indicated the value of Mx due to downwards loading governed for OBE loads. However, for SSE loads, i the upward load may govern at certain building elevations. For the SSE load, shear stresses were calculated in an
- attempt to show that, even though upwards loading governed (which is not considered in the design verification of individual supports), the tier would not be overstressed.
1 Cygna asked several questions on these calculations-
- 1. Gage Distance J p The eccentricity used to calculate the torsional l l
moment, Mx, for upwards seismic loads includes the > standard gage distance, g, for the section being
. Signed: Page of l,
Distnbution: SEE ' ATTACHED DIST'YIBUTION SHEET. I\ 1oso ota -.
0N O ;n , Communications [. , 4L sae c i
==tm-Report
> > Requwed
(; ' Item : Comments Action By ! I considered.. This may not be conservative for all- cable l
, tray. supports. Note that Attachment T. of SAG.CP34
? indicates that clamp bolt holes may exist at gage-E distances greater than the. standard gage. .How are non-standard gages considered in this evaluation? !
g Ebasco indicated _ that even- though their evaluation j i; does not envelop - the maximum page distance, other ! L , factors in -the study include sufficient conservatism to account for this. The study uses the envelope of the ' seismic accelerations ' for all building and elevations, . which is much greater .than the accelerations i experienced ' by the majority of the supports. In
. addition, the' design . of the support members is !
h ~ generally governed by flexure rather than torsional i shear, so 'an increase in the torsion would not impact member qualification. l
.2.L - Cutoff Elevation for OBE Loadmg i On Sheet 3 of the evaluation for OBE loading, it is c
. indicated that downwards _ loading' governs for accelerations less than 1.71 g. This acceleration ;
envelops all building elevations except the containment ! structure at elevations above 950' - 7". ' What is done for cable trays above that elevation? Ebasco indicated that there are no cable trays located at or - above elevation 950' - 7" in the containment structure.
' 3. Stress Evaluation for SSE Loading Sheet 4 indicates that upwards seismic load governs for the SSE condition. An evaluation is performed to determine the member shear stresses due to upwards loading. These shear stresses are compared with 11e allowable . stresses ' to generically show that the
. increased torsion will not overstress the member. This
. evaluation is performed for two member sizes. The calculation for a C4 x 7.25 includes the combined effect of torsional shear and direct shear. However, only torsional shear is considered for a C6 x 8.2. Why is the direct shear neglected?
Ebasco indicated that this was in error an the calculations and will correct this.
'SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 5
-ih2hD1D
m u - , r*; i tim l P b,' M ts Report I
- 1111lllllllll11ll11lll11111111 B ,
L i f' It'em Comments Requred
. Action By l
- This evaluation also considers. the increased warping l normal stress. . The warping normal' stress allowable
- (the same as bending allowable) is. increased by 1.6 for 0 the SSE load case. This does not adhere to the limit of 0.9 Fy for the SSE load case.
Ebasco indicated that these calculations may have been done before the limit of 0.9 Fy was introduced for the i project. - ; This evaluation considers _ .the worst case loading to be i n '
. due to the loading from one 36 inch tray on the tier.
Though this is - the maximum tray width for an 1 ind_ividual tray, a greater load would be introduced on a . support with multiple trays (e.g., . two - 24 inch Ltrays). How is this considered? 4 Ebasco indicated that they had not considered this condition.
'4. Selection of Member Sizes i+ -This: study considers only two tier sizes, C4 x 7.25 and.
C6 x 8.2. Cygna realizes that these are the most
. common' sizes used and are acceptable for the' study as it pertains to tiers composed of a sin g , Certain support types use composite tiers,gle constructedchannel.
of two channels -in .a tee configuration. For these
. sections, . the ; : eccentricities . may be significantly different than for single channels. Has Ebasco considered such sections?
Ebasco has not. They will review the impact.of these
- sections on their evaluation.
- 5. Governine Components This study . addresses the impact of the increased torsional moment on the stress level in the tier.
However, this torsion will also affect other
. components, ' including the stresses in the welds attaching the tier to a post or base angle, the anchor bolts ' attaching the support to a wall and the minor axis bending moment applied to the posts. Has this been considered?
Ebasco believes the impact of the increased torsion will not be significant on these other components. SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
** 3 5
1 1020.01D '
m, q P- Communications L ML i i Report jf <
. 1111::""":::""'"lllll!ll L.
n I' Requwed
- # ~ ttom : Comments Action By j Multi-modal Resoonse Multiplier (MRM)
[' 6. The seismic loadings considered in this study are based on MRM.= 1.25. Cygna understands that the current
'MRM validation effort has shown that larger values are
; possible, (SAG.CP.23). How is this treated in the study?
Ebasco indicated that since . this study 'was ' performed prior to the development of SAG.CP28, an MRM = 1.25 was acceptable at that time.
- 7. Effect of' Longitudinal Connectivity
. In light of the development of Attachment Z to SAG.CP34 (consideration _of longitudinal connectivity on transverse supports), ;the tiers of transverse cable tray supports will be subjected to torsional moments from longitudinal loading in addition to the moment from
> vertical loading considered in this- study. Will this
- loading have an impact > on the conclusions ' of this mA study? -
Ebasco has not assessed this but - believes that the
- impact would not be significant. Since the
- longitudinal load induced torsion would be the same for both upwards and downward loading, it should reduce the ratio 'of the total torsion for the two loading directions.
- 8. Resolution of Concerns -
7 ' Ebasco noted that the. combined impact of all the Cygna's concerns on the results of this study may make it impossible' to show acceptability on a generic
. basis if all are incorporated in the study. If this is ;
the' case, would Cygna accept an evaluation of the ; torsion in. tiers on a sampling basis, using the results
< for selected actual supports, to show that the sue of downward load only is adequate.
Cygna has no objection to this if the sampling is done I correctly. Cygna will discuss this and provide Ebasco with a response later. ; j
- 9. Consideration of Criteria Changes in Special Studies :
l 4 1 SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET " 4 5 moow
~,
x;
~,- . Communications -
h[ j ,l^
- 41 ,a"""!!Ii -'
! llllllC Report
- Required item' Comments Action By In .the above discussion, and in other instances, Cygna has noted that the special studies performed by Ebasco are not' consistent with the current design criteria.
~
Cygna realizes that. this is due to the time at which a particular study was performed and the changing nature
; of the design criteria as- the design verification effort evolves. Once the design criteria has been finalized, will special. studies and other supporting documentation be i reviewed 6 to assure consistency with all design .
requirements? Ebasco indicated that they. have not yet formulated a plan -to address this concern. Cygna's question will be considered and a response will be provided later.
- TUE/092587-A. CON
-SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 5 5 1020 Dib .
s
.j.
.(
- DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace
. Mr. W. Counsil' Mr. D. Pigott Ms. A. WettiCook.
Mr. C. Grimes Mr.' R. Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett l- - Ms. N. Williams L Mr. J. Russ L - Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh - Ms. D. Leong Mr. G. Ashley
. Project File l
I ' . . . . .
3 M, v Communications M'" '3 " t Lni l1111llllllll11lllllllllllllll = Report l1'
- Compang Teiec n .
- ES< :
Q ' Conference Report !' Prtect; .
.. . Job No.
H ,
~
. TU Electric: 84056 i CPSES IAP Phase'4 cate:
09/25/87 _ E
Subject:
Time:
. Cable Tray Support Design Review 200 p.m.
' Ebasco Audit-Exit Meeting Pi.ce:
Ebasco (N.Y.) t
Participants:
n of H.' Schoppmann Ebasco ! W. Horstman - Cygna
'D Required Item Comments Action By
. .i' A' discussion was held to' summarize the audit activities for the .
l week and provide a status of open items. A~. Audit Topics
. 1. Twist-buckling of angles attached by opposite legs. .
1
- o Cygna will review the procedures in SAG. CP34.
o Ebasco will place the calculations used in developing- I )* the twist-buckling procedures in the reading room at Impell's Walnut Creek offices.
]
2.' Brace working point eccentricity (Attachment I of SAG.CP34). o Ebasco will place the calculations associated with the working point in the reading room at Impell's Walnut . Creek offices. I 1 1 Evaluation method for gusset plates. 3. o 'No additional discussion is necessary at this time. signec Page of
~
- D'stnbution: SEE A'T^CHED T DISTRIBUTION SHEET.
if' Communications e i 4L t i Report 4.0 - 1lll1111111111lll111111lllllll Reowed stem : Comments Action By
- 4. Unbraced length for!!ateral-torsional buckling of posts.
o Cygna will review Ebasco's response when provided
, by TU Electric.
- 5. ' Weld base metal thickness evaluation. j o- ' Ebasco will provide responses to Cygna's questions
.on their position paper.
1 ' 6.- Transverse' load application point on tier. o . No additional discussion is necessary at this time, o Ebasco will transmit - a copy 'of their response to Cygna.-
.7. Vertical load application point on tier, o . Ebasco will provide a response to Cygna's concerns.
.. i
- 8. Boundary conditions for tee-channels attached to base angles.
o Cygna will review Ebasco's response when provided by TU Electric.
- 9. Revised procedure for kinematic condensation.
o No additional' discussion is necessary at this time.
- 10. In-plane effective length factor for longitudinal supports.
- o. Cygna will review Ebasco's response when provided by TU Electric.
10.1 In-plane effective length factor for transverse , supports. i ,- o Ebasco will provide a copy of the evaluation l N discussed during the May 29,1987 audit, if available.
, 11. Base metal defects in thermolagged supports.
.t o Cygna will review Ebasco's position paper when f provided by TU Electric. {
- 12. Self-weight and inertial loads on braces.
1
, Page of SEE ATTACHFD DISTRTRIrrION WFFT 2
' I, meou l L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~g. . ,
Communications j 4L g i Report ) W lililllilllillllilllilillilill . j
..~ {
, Required j
.,ltem Comments . Action By i
o No additional discussion is necessary at this time.
- 13. Inclusion of warping normal stresses in RSM analyses.
o No additional discussion is necessary at this time.
- 14. Sample of use of COMBS for composite tiers with multiple support points.
i o Ebasco will locate a sample support of this type and place it in the reading room at Impell's Walnut Creek offices for Cygna's review.
- 15. - Statistical evaluation of oversized bolt holes.
o Cygna will review Ebasco's response when provided by. TU Electric. B. Cvena reauested the documents listed below
- 1. Current revisions of the following conduit procedures:
. SAG.CP10 SAG.CP2 ~
SAC.CP21 SAG.CP17 SAG.CP25
- 2. Current revisions of the following cable tray procedures:
SAG.CP11 SAG.CP34 -
- 3. A list of all Ebasco letters transmitting documents to Cygna via TU Electric. This will allow Cygna to confirm that all transmitted documents have been received.
- 4. Responses to open items from this week's discussions
_(see Section A, above). These responses can either be transmitted to Cygna or made available for Cygna's review at Impell's Walnut Creek offices. l' [ i i l' TUE\092587-C. CON Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHFFT 1 1 1020 Dib L______--.___
.~
s-i ; w ' 2
}
I,$ : <s , I ,. DISTRIBUTION LIST 'l r- ~~ L Mr. Ji Redding : Mr. L Nace i < Mr. W. Counsil : O Mr.' D. Pipott . Ms. A. Wetti<ook 3-; , ,
~
- Mr. C. Grimes .
'Mr. R.' Alexandru Mr. J. Muffett.. <
- Ms. N. Williams J Mr. J. Russ-
' Mr. W. Horstman i
. Mr. K. Parikh .
; . Ms. D.1.mong i
' Mr. G. Ashley -
K .
.c : Project File-i-
l:; i:, 4 i I.
.:y.
L. .
.4 i
.g <
n t, - , Il l 4
..>, ,s. . , .. . . . . .
,4 Communications M Ib 4L i i til!!"""n!!!!!!!!!Ilitill!' Report b ? Company:. X I' "
~ ES- O com'eremce aeno<i Project : Job No.
- TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 oai :
9/30/87
Subject:
Time:
. Cable Tray Support Design Review 1100 am Ebasco Audit piece.
Walnut Creek, CA .;
Participants:
of H. Schoppmann, P. Harrison Ebasco W. Horstman Cygna Required
' Item . Comments Action By Cygna-' called Ebacco to get clarification on the attachments to letter EB-T-3420.~ The copy received by Cygna appeared to be out of order. Ebasco indicated that the two attachments to the letter also hnd several attachments. - Ebasco provided the following c description of the attachments:
Attachment A i Ebasco's Response to Cygna's Questions on Ebasco's Volume 1, Book 22 and Bolt Hole Oversize Position Paper" has the following sub attachments .1, 2A,~ 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. In addition, Attachment 2B has the following sub-sub-attachments: A,B,C,D, E, F, G, H, and I. Attachment B "Effect of Bolt Hole Oversize in CTH System Adequacy" has no , attachments. TUE/093087-A.TEL hk] fi ji A
; oistrieution: ' SE'E A"TTAC 56'DISTRMUTION SHEET.
1 1 I 1020 0ta
]
1 + g.- ', [ f'. i t.. s F ' .- DISTRIBUTION LIST ~ a
? Mr. J. Redding - r
- Mr. L Nace m <
Mr. W. Counsil '
, 3 Mr. D. Pigott ~
Ms. A. Vietti-Cook 4 - Mr. C Grimes
. ., e T ' Mr.' R.' Alexandru ,
Mr. J. Muffett-
.Ms. N. Williams-Mr. J. Russ'
, Mr. W. Horstman -
- Mr. K. Parikh 7'. ' Ms. D. Leong 1
- Mr. G. Ashley -
Project File'. F
}.
,\
l 1 b t.
*; , y
- i. t:
-- ( .
s' p l..'. . 3}}