ML20155J807

Final Summary Rept Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Technical Rept

ML20155J807
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/31/1988
From:	Howard G, Walton W ANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20155J803	List: ML20155J801 ML20155J807
References
A-000197, A-000197-V01-R02, A-197, A-197-V1-R2, NUDOCS 8806210043
Download: ML20155J807 (66)

Text

r -

)

1806.01I FINAL

SUMMARY

REPORT COMANCHE PEAK CONDUIT TESTS Volume I - (TECHNICAL REPORT)

Document No. A-000197 Prepared for TU ELECTRIC Glen Rose, Texas Approval Signatures

~ Y Wfff6A Project Mgr./Date Cog, Prin./Date(

I M/klV 9lI/8? / Dr4L ib./b Nk7 pc)r6ical QA/Date Editorial QA/Da e

_. I4hWR TNn Chi'ef Engineer /Da'te l

Prepared by The Technical Staff ANCO ENGINEERS, INC.

9937 Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, California 90232-3591 (213) 204-5050 Rev. 2, March 1988 Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page i of iii 8806210043 880617 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A DCD

o REVISION RECORD PAGE 1806.01I FINAL

SUMMARY

REPORT COMANCHE PEAK CONDUIT TESTS VOLUME I - (TECHNICAL REPORT)

Document No. A-000197 Rev. Date Comments pproved 0 8/87 Original Issue '

p 1 10/87 Page iii, updated pagination for appendices. /fffp Page 46, added text to end of first paragraph of 'e/F/67 Section 5.3.

Pages 48 and 49, replaced Paragraphs 3 throuah 5 fo[([f7 of Section 5.3.3 with modified paragraph.

Page 52, added Fcotnote 1.

Paaes 53 through 56, corrected test numbers, QT values, an'd added Footnote 6. 1"I / I Pages 57 and 58, corrected values, deleted Foot- [jk. /c/7/C note 3, and changed Footnote 2. g Pages 59 and 60, corrected values, deleted Foot-note 1, and renumbered Footnote 2 to Footnote 1, ' 'T//D 2 3/88 Page 57, corrected Bolt Type for Specimen 8, d D/

changed "1/4" to "5/8". 4///$sb d b/p, 93l3il96

,%, a 4. g-i Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 11 of 111

{

l

t TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace Volume I 1.0

SUMMARY

.......................................................... 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

..................................................... 2 3.0 TEST SPECIMENS AND TESTS PERFORMED............................... 4 3.1 Test Specimens.............................................. 4 3.2 Tests Performed............................................. 5 4.0 TEST METHODS, INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS.................. 20 4.1 Test Methods................................................ 20 4.2 Instrumentation and Data Acquisition........................ 23 5.0 TEST RESULTS..................................................... 45 5.1 Random Owell Test Results................................... 45 5.2 Modal Test Results.......................................... 45 5.3 Earthquake and Fragility Level Test Results................. 46

6.0 REFERENCES

....................................................... 63 Volume II APPENDIX A: QllALITY ASSURANCE REP 0RTS................................ A A-454 Volume III APPENDIX B: EBASCO SPECIFICATIONS AND MEMORANDUMS.................... B B-78 Volume IV APPENDIX C: TEST PROCEDURE........................................... C C-200 Volume V.1 - V.3 APPENDIX 0: TEST 0ATA................................................ 0 0-1,896 l Volume VI APPENDIX E: LOAD MEASUREMENT METHODS AND

SUMMARY

OF LOADS............ E E-176 Volume VII APPENDIX F: ADDITIONAL RESULTANT LOAD CALCULATIONS................... F F-114 l

l Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Oocument No. A-000197, Page 111 of iii

1.0

SUMMARY

The experimental effort discussed herein was performed to: 1) demon-strate the adequacy of a wide range of conduit clamp sizes (and their attachment hardware) during postulated seismic events at the Comanche Peak site, and 2) to determine the ultimate capacities of the clamps and their related hardware in terms of ultimate load components at the attachment locations so that design margins could be established. Other objectives were to determine test specimen (conduit) resonant frequencies, damping ratios and response shapes and to determine the axial and rotational slip resistance of the conduit within its clamps.

In order to meet test objectives, a total of 18 conduit raceways were constructed on a large shake table (using site-specific materials, construc-tion details and procedures). These raceways were subjected to: modal test-ing to identify resonant frequencies and rasponse shapes; random dwell moving support testing to identify resonant f requencies and modal damping ratios; and earthqt'ake testing at Safe Shutdown Earthquake amplitudes and higher input levels to demonstrate design adequacy and to determine ultimate loads.

A comparison of achieved peak loads with design values is beyond the scope of this report. However, it was determined that none of the clamps or their attachment hardware suffered loss of load capacity when subjected to site enveloping Safe Shutdown Earthquakes (SSE), based on comparison of test response spectra with the SSE respon<;e spectra. Clamp / attachment hardware failures began to occur when shake taole input amplitudes were scaled upwards to minimum value. corresponding to 2.3 - 4.6 times site enveloping SSE response spectra.

Tensile and/or shear failure of the clamp attachment studs or bolts established the ultimate capacities of supports in all cases where failure occurred. Testing was performed to the limits of the shake table's capacity.

I l

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document o. A-000197, Page 1 of 63

, . . _ _ _ _ _ , - - - - , , ~ - . - -- .-

4 i

2.0 INTRODUCTION

Conduit clamps, which re used to secure electrical conduits to supports, at the gomanche Peak Site, in many cases are classified as seismic category one structures. A thorough understanding of the clamps' behavior during postulated seismic events was sought, hence the experimental effort discussed herein was performed.

This test effort had two principal objectives: 1) to demonstrate the adequacy of a wide range of conduit clamp sizes (including attachment hardware) during postulated seismic events at the site; and 2) to determine the ultimate load capacities of the conduit clamps (including attachment hardware) in terms of ultimate load components at the attachment locations, so that design margins could be established.

Other objectives included:

determination of conduit resonant frequencies, damping ratios and in some cases mode shapes, and determination of the axial and rotational slip resistance of the conduit within the clamps during dynamic loading.

All test results are summarized in Section 5.0. No comparison with design values are made.

To achieve those goals, a total of 18 conduit runs were installed on ANCO's R-4 Shake Table and subjected to (in some cases) modal testing to identify resonant f requencies and mode shapes for the lowest few modes of vibration, random dwell testing (in some cases) to identify resonant -

frequencies and modal dampings of the lowest few modes of vibration at meaningful levels of support point input motion amplitude, earthquake testing at safe shutdown levels to demonstrate design adequacy, and fragility level testing to acquire data to meet the remaining objectives.

The 18 test specimens ws,2 assembled and installed on the shake table and tested three at a time, hence a total of six test setups were made. The test specimens are discussed in Section 3.0. All test specimen components were forwarded from the Comanche Peak Site. Installation was governed by ANCO material control and site installation procedures to insure that t5e test specimens were representative of site conditions.

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 2 of 63

~ ~

1 A total of 64 transducsrs consisting of tccalsromit rs, displEcsLGnt transducers and strain gauges were used to sense support point input and I conduit response parameters. ANCO's Computerized Vibration Testing and Analysis System -{ CVTAS ) was used to ~ acquire and store the test data.

Subsequent data analysis presented the data in meaningful formats of t rens fer- function moduli, summaries of peak measured variables, test response spectra, and time histories of the measured viriables.

Subsequent sections of this report discuss the test specimens (Section 3.0), the test methods and tests performed (Section 4.0), the test results in summary form (Section 5.0), and the references (Section 6.0). Unattached appendices include Quality Assurance records (Volume II, Appendix A),

pertinent project documents and memoranda (Volume III, Appendix B), the test procedure (Volume IV, Appendix C), the test data (Volume V, Appendix D), and a detailed discussion of the load measurement method used (Volume VI, Appendix E).

All work discussed herein was performed in compliance with the test procedure contained in Volume IV, Appendix C, and under control of ANCO's Quality Assurance Program which has been designed to meet the requirements t of 10CFR50, Appendix 8.

l l

l l

l Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-OL Page 3 of 63 l __

3.0 TEST SPECIMENS AND TESTS PERFORMED This section is intended to provide the raader with an overview of the test specimens and the tests performed. Additional details on the test specimens and construction details are containeci in Volume II, Appendix A and Volume IV, Appendix C. Additional details on the tests performed are contained in Volume IV, Appendix C.

3.1 Test Specimens Table 3.1 summarizes the key features of the test specimens. Test Specimens 1 through 17 (Test Specimens 14 and 15 were deleted) consisted of 3-support, 2-span straight runs of conduit with a 90' cantilevered bend at one end. Attachment of the clamps to a horizontal steel surface was provided above the conduits. Conduits of two-inch diameter and less were tested with 10-ft, 0-in, nominal support spacing. Conduits of three-inch and greater diameter were tested with 14-ft, 0-in nominal support spacing.

The clamps at each of the three supports on a given test specimen were the same, i.e., either all No. P2558 or all No. C708S, as specified in the table. Figures 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 illustrate typical specimens with 10-ft and 14-ft support spacings and a typical conduit clamp assembly.

Figure 3.4 is typical of Test Specimens 18, 19 and 20. These specimens consisted of 3-support, 2-span straight run sections with 14-ft, 0-in, nominal support spacing. Guides were installed in lieu of clamps at the end supports (Supports 1 and 3), so that higher axial shears would result at the clamp assembly located at the center support (Support 2). The cantileveret elbows used previously were not installed.

Table 3.2 summarizes the approximate weight of each test system. Emp;y rigid steel (RS) conduit was filled with cable (from ANCO stock) to ',he maximum extent possible, resulting in the total test specimen weights shown in the column headed by Footnote 3. Specimen weights remained as in that column during all modal, random, SSE and fragility level testing. Next, weight was added to the test specimens in the forms of wrapped chain (Specimens 1 through 13, 16 and 17) and welded steel plate (Specimens 18 through 20) to increase the inertial 1 rads input to the specimens' clamps during a subsequent series of SSE and fragility level events. The added weight was evenly distributed between supports and resulted in total speci-men weights as shown in the column of Table 3.2 headed by Footnote 5.

I Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 4 of 63

Tablo 3.3 ssrves to docurent the cabling used as fill in each of the l 1

test specimens. This cabling was from ANCO's stock initially supplied by  !

Public Service of New Hampshire from their Seabrook site. The code number stamped on each cable permitted easy identification of the cable's weight and other properties through ANCO Report A-000161. The total fill weights given in the table are in excess of minimum values specified for the project (see Table 3.3, Footnote 1).

Specimen assembly and installation was governed by pertinent sections of the test procedure (Volume IV, Appendix C), and appropriate sections of the test specification and memoranda (Volume III, Appendix B). All materials, less cabling, were received from the Comanche Peak Site (CPSES).

Installation was reviewed as part of ANCO's Quality Assurance Program. As-built documentation for each of the test specimens is provided in Volume II, Appendix A.

3.2 Tests Performed Table 3.4 summarizes the tests performed. Conduit specimens were assembled, installed on the R-4 Shake Table and tested three at a time.

Review of the second column of the table indicates that Setup 1 included Test Specimens 1, 2 and 9, Setup 2 included Test Specimens 3, 10 and 17, etc. Specimens were tested in order of priority (established in the test specification) and in that order to minimize setup time.

Each setup was subjected to the following test sequence which is detailed in the test procedure contained in Volume IV, Appendix C after verification that the test specimens complied with appropriate construction details.

• Random dwell testing was performed (selected specimens). Random dwell testing consisted of random transverse and vertical support point input motion at an amplitude corresponding to SSE levels.

Selected channels of data were recorded on FM tape for later analysis so that he lowest few modes of vibration could be identified. Input acceleration data were acquired using the CVTAS system and Test Response Spectra (TRS) computed to assure that test amplitudes appro1ched SSE requirements.

• Modal testin, ,,as performed (selected specimens).

i Modal testing consisted of multiple light impacts from a calibrated force measuring hammer while transfer functions were recorded at many locations on the specimen. Subsequent data analysis yielded Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 5 of 63

detailed inforzation on ths resonant fraquinciss of th3 lowest few modes of vibration of the test specimen and their corresponding mode shapes.

. Seismic testing was performed - (all test specimens). SSE level earthquake-like support point input motion was input to the tests specimens to determine specimen response, loads at the center support (clamp at Support 2) and rotational loads at the clamp nearest the elbow (clamp at Support 1).

• Fragility testing was performed (all test specimens). Shake table gains were adjusted to approximately one-half table capacity and earthquake-like support point input motion input as in the seismic test. Fragility testing was performed with the shake table input gains set to yield the highest attainable input values.

Finally, weight was added to the test specimens as discussed in Section 3.1, and the one seismic test and two fragility level tests discussed above repeated.

Test specimens were inspected between each test and post-test condi-tions of the clamps / clamp hardware, nut torques, etc., recorded. Nuts were retorqued to specified values and hardware replaced as required. Inspection data are included in Volume V, Appendix 0.

l l

t l

l t

l l

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 6 of 63 )

l i

TABLE 3.1:

SUMMARY

OF TEST SPECIMENS (1) (2) (3) (4) Bolt Bolt Nut Span Specimen Setup / Conduit Anchor Clamp Diameter Spacing Torque Length Elbow No. Conduit No. Size (in.) Type P/N (in.) (in.) (ft-lb) (ft) (?)

S g 1 1/C1 5 NS P2558 3/8 7-7/32 19 14 Yes S-m 2 1/C3 4 NS P2558 3/8 6-5/32 19 14 Yes A

$ 3 2/C1 3 NS P2558 3/8 5-5/32 19 14 Yes k 4 3/C3 2 NS P2558 3/8 4-1/32 19 10 Yes E

y 5 4/C1 1-1/2 NS P2558 1/4 3-1/32 6 10 Yes 6 5/Cl 1 NS P2558 1/4 2-15/16 6 10 Yes 7 5/C2 3/4 P2558 NS 1/4 2-3/16 6 10 Yes 8

g 8 4/C2 2 NS P2558 5/8* 4-1/32 70 10 Yes i

fn

)

9 1/C2 5 N3 C708S 3/8

, 8-1/8 19 14 Yes f 10 2/C3 4 NS C708S 3/8 7 19 14 Yes 11 3/C1 3 NS C708S 3/8 5-7/8 19 14 Yes 8

g 12 3/C2 2 NS C708S 3/8 4-3/4 19 10 Yes 13 4/C3 2 NS C708S 5/8*

y 4-3/4 70 10 Yes 8m 14 deleted w

o 15 deleted O 16 5/C3 3/4 A307 P2558 1/4 2-3/16 6 10 _Yes 17 2/C2 4 A307 C708S 3/8 7 19 14 Yes

TABLE 3.1 (concluded) c,

}3 Specimen (1)

Setup /

(2)

Conduit (3)

Anchor (4)

Clamp Bolt Diameter Bolt Spacing Nut Span Torque Length Elbow No. Conduit No. Size (in.) Type P/N (in.) (in.) (ft-lb) (ft) (?)

2? 18** 6/C1 3 P2558 NS 3/8 5-5/32 19 14 No, 7e r3 19** 6/C2 4 NS P2558 3/8 6-5/32 19 14 No O

Ef 20** 6/C3 5 P2558 NS 3/8 7-7/32 19 14 No 3

-4

$ (1) Conduits setup and tested three at a time, designated C1, C2 and C3 per location on shake table.

O (2) Nominal pipe size.

?

@ (3) NS designates Nelson Studs, A307 designates A307 Bolts with appropriate nuts used through d-illed hole.

S 5 (4) All 2-hole conduit straps with appropriate 1/4-in, spacer plates between conduit / clamp and support.

• Oversized bolt, clamp drilled to bolt size + 1/16 in.

On j3 **

Additional tests to increase axial shears at Support 2, reference GEH meno of 29 June 1987. See Test j$ Procedure (Volume IV, Appendix C).

8 Op 2

0

TABLE 3.2:

SUMMARY

OF APPROXIMATE TEST SPECIMEN WEIGHTS (4)

(1) (2) (3) Total (5) 9 Test Setup / Conduit Total Conduit Cable Conduit + Specimen Added Specimen 2, Specimen Conduit Diameter Length Weight Wa ght Cable Weight Weight Weight Weight M No. No. (in.) (ft) (lb/ft) (lb/+t) (ib/ft) (lb) (lb) (lb) o 2 1 1/C1 5 37.08 14.81 8.04 22.85 847.27 720 1,567 9 2 1/C3 4 35.75 10.89 7.26 18.15 648.86 540 1,189 R

3 2/C1 3 36.33 7.62 5.25 12.87 360 467.57 828 7

4 3/C3 2 28.28 3.68 1.21 4.89 138.29 180 318

." 5 4/C1 1-1/2 24.79 2.73 1.06 3.79 93.96 90 184 6 5/C1 1 25.25 1.68 0.42 2.10 53.03 45 98' s

@ 7 5/C2 3/4 25.38 1.13 0.21 1.34 34.01 45 79 5 8 4/C2 2 28.28 3.68 1.21 4.89 138.29 180 318 Y 9 1/C2 5 37.08 14.81 8.03 22.84 846.98 720 1,567 8

3 10 2/C3 4 35.75 10.89 7.27 18.16 649.22 540 1,189 0

11 3/C1 3 36.33 7.62 4.93 12.55 459.00 360 819 2'

S 12 3/C2 2 28.28 3.68 1.23 4.91 138.85 180 319 13 4/C3 2 28.28 3.68 1.23 4.91 138.85 180 319  :

$ 16 5/C3 3/4 25.38 1.13 0.21 1.34 34.01 45 79 17 2/C2 4 35.75 10.89 7.26 18.15 648.86 540 1,189

)

TABLE 3.2 (concluded)

(4)

(1) (2) (3) Total (5) ff Test Setup / Conduit Total Conduit Cable Conduit + Specimen Added Specimen g Specimen Conduit Diameter Length Weight Weight Cable Weight Weight Weight n No. No. Weight y (in.) (ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (lb/ft) o (lb) (lb) (lb) m 18 6/C1 3 30.00 7.62 4.49 12.11 363.30 390

$ 753 19 6/C2 4 30.00 10.89 7.26 18.15 544.50 525 1,070 S 20 6/C3 5 30.00 14.81 8.04 22.85 682.50 0 633 I

o jf (1) Reference Unistrut General Catalog No. 9, page 122, Rigid Steel (RS) Conduit.

8-(2) Reference Table 3.3.

8 g (3) SSE and Fragility Level Tests.

l 2 5

g (4) Wrapped chain for Specimens 1 through 17, steel plates for Specimens 18 through 20. Added between supports only.

o

, (5) Special Tests (ST_.__), refer to Section 4.0 a

8 3

Op h ,

9g JP

TABLE 3.3:

SUMMARY

OF CABLE FILLS Cables Used (1)

Test Setup / Unit Specimen Conduit Weight Weight No. No. Quantity Code (Ib/ft) (lb/ft) 1 1/C1 1 BB1H 0.'76 0.76 2 BCIL 0.57 1.14 2 BC6F 2.41 4.82 1 BC6H 1.32 1.32 Total: 6 8.04 2 1/C3 1 BB1H 0.76 0.76 2 BC1L 0.57 1.14 2 BC6G 2.02 4.04 1 BC6H 1.32 1.32 Total: 6 7.26 3 2/C1 2 BB1H 0.76 1.52 1 BC6F 2.41 2.41 1 BC6H 1.32 1,32 Total: 4 5.25 4 3/C3 1 AG6P 0.20 0.20 1 BB1H 0.76 0.76 1 BC6N 0.25 0.25 Total: 3 1.21 5 4/C1 2 AD6M 0.28 0.56 2 BC6H 0.25 0.50 Total: 4 1.06 6 5/C1 1 AB6M 0.15 0.15 1 AB6P 0.07 0.07 1 AG6P 0.20 0.20 Total: 3 0.42 7 5/C2 1 AB1P 0.07 0.07 1 AB6P 0.07 0.07 1 AB7P 0.07 0.07 Total: 3 0.21 8 4/C2 1 AG6P 0.20 0.20 1 BB1H 0.76 0.76 1 BC6N 0.25 0.25 Total: 3 1.21 Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A_000197, Page 11 of 63

TABLE'3.3 (continuOd)

Cables Used (1)

Test Setup /- Unit Specimen Conduit Weight Weight No. No. Quantity Code (1b/ft) (Ib/ft) 9 1/C2 3 881H 0.76 2.28 1 BC2H 1.32 1.32 1 BC6F 2.41 2.41 1 BC6G 2.02 2.02 Total: 6 8.03 10 2/C3 2 BB1H 0.76 1.52 1 BC2H 1.32 1.32 1 BC6F 2.41 2.41 1 BC6G 2.02 2.02 Total: 5 7.27 11 3/C1 4 BB1H 0.76 3.04 1 BB1L 0.57 0.57 1 BC2H 1.32 1.32 Total: 6 4.93 12 3/C2 1 AB6D 0.07 0.07 1 AB6M 0.15 0.15 1 BB1H 0.76 0.76 1 BC6N 0.25 0.25 Total: 4 1.23 13 4/C3 1 AB60 0.07 0.07 1 AB6M 0.15 0.15 1 881H 0.76 0.76 1 BC6N 0.25 0.25 Total: 4 1.23 16 5/C3 1 AB1P 0.07 0.07 2 A86P 0.07 0.14 Total: 3 0.21 17 2/C2 1 BB1H 0.76 0.76 2 BC1L 0.57 1.14 '

2 BC6G 2.02 4.04

, 1 BC6H 1.32 1.32 l

Total: 6 7.26 I

l Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document NO. A-O')0197, Pace 12 Of 63

TABLE 3.3 (concludCd)

Cables Used (1)

Test Setup / Unit Specimen Conduit Weight Weight No. No. Quantity Code (lb/ft) (lb/ft) 18 6/C1 1 BB1H 0.76 0.76 1 BC6F 2.41 2.41 1 BC6H 1.32 1.32 Total: 3 4.49 19 6/C2 1 BB1H 0.76 0.76 2 BC1L 0.57 1.14 2 BC60 2.02 4.04 1 BC6H 1.32 1.32 Total: 6 7.26 20 6/C3 1 BB1H 0.76 0.76 2 BCIL 0.57 1.14 2 BC6F 2.41 4.82 1 BC6H 1.32 1.32 Total: 6 8.04 (1) Reference Memo from GEH to RSK, et al., dated 30 April 1987.

l I

l i

l

Conanthe Peak Conduit Tests, Docunent No. A-000197, Page 13 of 63 l

l

l TABLE 3.4:

SUMMARY

OF TESTS PERFORMED 9

Type of Test Performed o

3 Conduit (1) Bolt S Seismic and Specimen Setup / Diameter Anchor Clamp Diameter Random Model E Seismic and Fragility With

_ No. Conduit No. (in.) Type P/N (in.) Dwell Survey Fragility Added WeiQht m

E 1/C1 5 P2558 1 NS 3/8 / /

2 1/C3 4

{

a NS P2558 3/8 / /

3 2/C1 3 NS P2558 3/8 / / / /

Y 4 3/C3 2 NS P2558 3/8 / / /

5 4/C1 1-1/2 NS P2558 1/4 / / /

O O 6 5/C1 1 NS P2558 1/4 / / / /

3

{ 7 5/C2 3/4 NS 02558 1/4 / / /

o 8 4/C2 2 P2558 NS 5/8 / / /

9 1/C2 5 NS C708S 3/8 / /

o 3 10 2/C3 4 NS C707S 3/8 / /

3 /

~

11 3/C1 3 NS C708S 3/8 / /  !

2

$ 12 3/C2 2 NS C?OBS 3/8 / / /

13 4/C3 2 NS C~iO8S 5/8 / / /

E m 16 5/C3 3/4 A307 F2553 1/4 / / /

17 2/C2 4 A307 C706S 3/8 / / /

TABLE 3.4 (concludM) w

(( Type of Tett Performed '

S Conduit (1) Bolt EI Specimen Setup / Seismic and Diameter Anchor Clamp Diameter Random Model Seismic and Fragility With

,3 No. Conduit No. (in.) Type P/N (in.) Dwell Survey Fragility Added Weicht

• ~ .

18 6/C1 3 NS P2558 3/8 9 / /

El 19 6/C2 4 NS P2559 38 S. / /

20 6/C3 5 NS P2558 3/8 Y / / (2)

(1) NS denotes Nelson Stud, A307 denotes A307 bolt and appropriate nut and washer.

S g (2) Performed without added mass.

5 a

E 8

e 2

3 0

k

9 2

'", '/ " = 2 I" 4

72 10'- o ' io'O g -

o MpulT 87'2/ l'd *

.c f- t_cotif%It4G my,3

- -- - =s, ,

/~3 ,,

o ._..._.i_y

, y-1 a Ch&G - < s 3 CLAMPR L CAGG. M6B ._ ,-

g isCLAMPP CLAMP # q \

S.ps t lo '-o -

9-osi i i

[

, 2o'-d' R =' 6V/

l,

/

l'-l'2 r

8 = .--

n -

.E

> nm m

. I -< m _ TEST CONFIGURATION

$ o >

e m*

'n a v> a CONDUlT SIZE d 2"#

-< n -

g g O 9 N c rl G G

• sh m _. m m 1.

e en r- ALL DIMENGIONs Was (tS").

8 A m 2.

o E o^ n$O IN91*^L t- Cott'%nt4G PGs CPSGS a%&TRUCTION P80CEDUF-E', ffCP-89 4 64'F-19A. AL,60 666 f gg mm og g y C n pas bluMasse 2-sca -El-1701. ~ -

S 1 -1 2 ,

\. n Figure 3.1: Typical Test Specimen (10-ft 0-in. nominal support spacing)

n 3

8 9-yz 1

% (8 i go" =

3

~2o3' .* .

g ' , 4 :_ o"  !

= _I _

o r Coul' Lit 4G . I cONotaT iS6 l'-8

\ ' (TW,)

-) \ 2?g ,,

{

C t. A M e w .

-LD - -

Ch66

_i-]- -

Ch65

.m 4'

~ _,- ,

F IO O lo'- O

~

+

lo '.o "

~

g - - - -

, =

<, j. .__; L

$ R = 1 9

l'-3 E

a r P

8 mm m o I < m _ TEST CONFI GURATION x- 3 g 3 ,

-< g a w CONDUlT SIZE

• 3 $(

e o ~

-< n

$- o c a

L 9. W.;6; g

4 H 3;- m --

V m- m g ^A mn ym t' 1.

Al,L DIMENGilpras Was (1o.).

n(, H m n 5:- O f.

IN9 TALL- 4#LIFLihlG PEFit Cf%65 40NGT806Tiot4 yQ ZO 5 cn O2 m WCCEDufas ,15cp- 9 g, gCP-19A. AL60 66E

~ ~

mm o m _

p@, Njppgiit 2323 -El-170l .

C

- - n

. l '- M 2 i

I

O ,

n e

\ '-

l l

Figure 3.2: Typical Test Specimen (14-ft, 0-in. nominal support sp*.cing) l

OBSERVED CONTACT CONDITIO!! -

g A

-CHECK FOR CONTACT l

l 2( \ l LAMP FILLER A

~

e Q H%j. ( . .. 1 4-T-o , i - - n c. no: i m 9/

JI # # # # ft .

CAP LENGTH = -

7 A k PLATE-

-GAP SECTlON LENGTH =

I OBSERVED CONTACT l

l , I CONDITION I

/A I-!i 3 -

I X i \\ l 4# # #4 CHECK FOR

=i -

TEXAS UTluTIES CONTAC T SECTION "A-A" -

l taasco suw1 cts mits y -) 4g DYNAMIC CONDUIT l C A V TESTING CAS~ * " * "d*"

}

on w 8N see WS~ f 7 u

Figure 3.3: Typical Conduit Clamp Assembly Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document flo. A-000197, Pane 18 of 63

9 2

R K

? SYSTEM +6 CONFIGUR ATION .

9

% S3 _ S2 S1

--. E .'

~ D 19 * - S3

+ 18(Case 1) _l- 1

. = ,r S2 S1 0 , ,

g 8 I + 19(Case 2)

~

1 ~

1 E,,19S3 - S2 - S1 2 U1 A +20(Case 3) li

~

1 II

~

1] l

.E P

S I Sp ecir..en+ l Conduit Conduit Length Conduit Span Dia m e t e r (Coupling to (Support to

[ C o u plin g) Support)

G

., +18 3 10' 14' .

" l

+19 4 10' 14'

+20 5 10' 14' Figure 3.4: Typical Test Specimen (Test Specimens 18,19 and 20)

4.0 TEST METH00S, INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS

{

\

This section reviews the methods used to test the test specimens, the l instrumentation used to sense input and response parameters and the data analysis methods used to convert the sensed input and response parameters to more usable formats.

4.1 Test Methods Test methods included modal testing to identify the lowest few modes of vibration and their corresponding mode shapes (selected test specimens),

random dwell support point input motion (selected specimens) to identify the lowest few modes of vibration and to estimate their damping ratios and earthquake testing to demonstrate clamp design adequacy and establish clamp ultimate loads.

4.1.1 Modal Testina Modal testing was performed by attaching a uniaxial reference accelerometer to a selected point on the test conduit. A rubber hammer containing a calibrated force transducer was used to strike the test ccnduit at a large number of points / directions. For each new reference accelerometer location, the test conduit was repeatedly struck by the hammer. Subsequent data analysis developed the mode shapes associated with identified resonant frequencies. A curve fitting was used to develop the mode shapes of interest.

The curve fitting (parameter estimatien) n.ethod of hammer testing, to determine structural podes, consists basically of the following:

determine elements of transfer function matrix, for multi-degree-of-freedom (M00F) system, by performing hammer testing; and establish an analytical MOOF linear modal model and perform curve fitting and sorting to obtain the structural modes.

There are numerous other steps required to produce and display the final modes in global coordinates (see Table 4.1).

l The transfer function matrix is defined by the following equation:

I Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 20 of 63

{X(w)l=(H(w)){F(u)} (4-1) where{X(w)}=thevectorofsystemresponses(outputs),

Fourier transform of; (H(w)) = transfer function matrix; and

{F(w)}-thevectorofsystemappliedforces(inputs),

Fourier transform of.

A particular element of the transfer function matrix, say H ij, was found by applying only force Fj and measuring Xi . This is seen from the following:

n X

[Hik 4 = k=1 k * "il 1 * ** * "ij j * '* * "in n = H..F 1j j H g(W) a X4 (w)/F (w)

The basic procedure used was to select an accelerometer as a fixed (fixed location) reference and move the force location and direction. Some-times the reference accelerometer was moved. By using a fixed reference and moving the force, the element for a single row of the transfer function matrix was developed. Once the needed parts of the transfer function had been developed, curve fitting was performed. After the curve fitting had been completed, the orthogonal mojes were "backed-out" using a sorting method.

4.1.2 Random Dwell Testina Random dwell testing was performed by driving (moving) the shake table in the coupled transverse and vertical (T/V) direc*.iuns with band-limited randon (white) noise. Drive signal gains were adjusted so that TRS computed from sensed input motions would closely match SSE required response spectra. Selected transducers (accelerometers and load cell) signals were recorded on FM tape during the two-minute event. Subsequent playback of recorded input and response acceleration signals (two at a time) into a Hewlett-Packard dual-channel aal-time analyzer (set to compute the transfer f unction between input and response signals) permitted identific3 tion of test specimen resonant frequencies by peaks noted in the transfer function moduli. Damping was estimated by the half-power bandwidth method.

i Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 21 of 63 J

The formula used to estimate damping was hf.

04=f, i -

where Afi is the bandwidth of ig the resonant peak (peak of the transfer function modulus curve) at 0.707 of the maximum peak height and fi is the i ig test specimen resonant frequency. Examples of this calculation are contained in the data of Volume V, Appendix 0. In some cases, the presence of closely spaced modes of vibration prevented the estimation of modal damping.

4.1.3 Earthquake and Fragility Testino Earthquake and fragility level earthquake testing was performed by driving the shake table in the coupled transverse and vertical plus independent longitudinal directions (T/V + L) with statistically independent signals. These drive signals, illustrated in Figure 4.1, are the displace-ment time histories whose resulting acceleration input motions when converted to test response spectra (TRS) were expected to conservatively match the shape of site enveloping required response spectra (RRS) cver the frequency range of interest, 5 Hz and greater. Drive signal gains were t adjusted to meet amplitude requirements. The 30-second plus event was a '

collection of three 10-second time histories representing a range of soil conditions at the site.

Figure 4.2 illustrates the resulting shake table input motion (measured at the test specimen attachment elevation) acceleration tioe histories for the longitudinal (x-direction), transverse (y-direction) and vertical (z-direction), respectively.

Figures 4.3 through 4.5 illustrate comparisons of typical SSE test TRS and RRS for the longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions, s' respectively. During this test (and all earthquake tests), it was desired to have as close a match between TRS and RRS as practical over the frequency range of 5 tr 26 Hl. It should be noted that the lowest specimen frequency was about 10 h.. , .ence the range of at least one-half the lowest specimen frequency and above was considered in assigning a test amplitude.

i Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 22 of 63 1

k Fragility level testing M s perfermed using the same input motion t

? - it time histories with input gains t.caled u,, ward to achieve approximately one- ,

( ( '

half shake table maximum amplitudes ,(based on zero perir.a accelera tion i g

values) then scaled to achieve shake table maximum amplitudes. yix4mples of

\

TRS for one of the high-level fragility level tests are compared with RRS in Figures 4.6 through 4.8. '

I s ,

4.2 Instrumentation and Data Acquisition / ,

f /

r '> ,

Three dif ferent types of transducers sere used to sense shake table input and test system response parameters. A total of 64 transducers were comprised of accelerometers, displacement tremtducers and load cells comprised of strain gauged elements. Data were acquired and stc.ed in 7.nalog form (random cnd modal testing) and in digital foge (earthquxe and t fragility testing) with some overlap of the th forms between test types, 1

l- ,

l4.2.1 Transducers i  ;

Figures J.9 and 4.10 illustrate typical instrumentation layouts used '

during testing of Specimens 1 through 13, 16 and ??,, and used during testing, of Specimens 18 through 20, respectively. Tables.4.2 and 4.3 summarize t'.e t /

measurement locations, type of transducers, their Nrientation, and their data channel numbers during testing of Specimens 1 through 13, 15 and 17, and during testing of Specimen't) 18 ttmugh 20, respectively. The location identifiers shown in the tames correspond to measurement locations /

directions ar.d trar.sducer type, in general, by the following:

f .

A y' r/s fS 0-i t't i Location Identifier = Ci )or{>4F .X( ,

,, Mi or or

, s s s s s s where: Ci = Conduit Nos. 1, 2 or 3 (see Figures 4.9 and 4.10),

Si and Mi = Support or mid-span locations, A = accelerometer,

/0 =. displacement transducer,

l

/ F = strain gauges configur?d to sense load, ,

\

l ,

\

j Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page E3 of 63

, __7 , ,

s ) '

',I

/

3 ,

\

M = strain gauges configured to sense moment, and .-

X,Y,Z = the sensed direction or principal axis about ,

which a moment was sensed, k '

j (

4.2.1.1 Accelerometers

's )

I Dytran Model 3100 piezo-electric accelerce(ter.] were used to sense ,

both shake table (support point)' input and conduit' response uc:olerations, f These are rugged, reliable accelerometers with essent411v flat frequenc ,

N >i s response (volts per g) over the frequency range of 1l to, 5,000 Hz. v'y Additional details on these eccelerometers are contained in Whw JV, I t

'/ / f Appendix C. ,

( j

/

• 1 i('

4.2.1.2 Disp 1 ement Transducers {

Two types of displacement transducu y ,were used. Whers? displace-ments were expected to be large (> 1 in.), Celesco Model PT-101 linear potentiomsters were used. These transducers formed one leg of a Wheatstone Bridge. A change in resistance across tt e bridge was' convert't! to a voltage -;

proportional to a positive or negativt displaces:nt thr w/gh a signal y, i Amplifier gains we e ) set 'o yield' conditioner / amplifier. highest ', ,

possible resolution given the anticipatrd dr U.'tual displaceserf resulting , ,/

from testing.

,i The second type, used where displacements were expected to be small, was Shevitz Model HC0 Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs). Tiie LVDTs were supplied with a DC voltage from a signal conditioner and responded with a DC voltage'in proportion to displacement.

4.2.1.3 Strain Gauces Strain gauges were used to sense load or roment propnrtional caterial strains. Bondable strain gauges were placed symmetrically about neutral axes of specially constructed load cells (see Figure 4.11) and wired so that strains due to bending snd ' axial forces would either add (mcev t measurement) or cancel (load measurement). For each measured moment or force, the appropriate gasges formed one leg of a Wheatstone Bridge, as with the displacement transducers; however, a change in resistance across the bridge (proportional to a c ha nge. in .1ength) was converted to a voltage proportional to a moment or load as app.op11 ate.

)

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 24 of 63 ,

, r' . ,

w - - - -

r 33 ,

<e i '/(' 4  ; 1 i <

)

Strqin gauggs were alst used to determine the moments at the clamps near Support O due to the eccentric cantilevers of the 90' bends. Gauges mounted on eithcr side of the clamp .were orierted to sense tangential

~

h strains in tte conduit itself. The difference in sensed tangential strains was converteo' to a moment. Volume VI, Appendix E contains an indepth discussion of the load cells and :noment sensing gauges used.

4.2.2 Data Acquisition and Analysis r

i I

Oata acquisition and analysis during modal testing was accomplished by v41ng a Hewlett'Packard Model 3E82A Real-Time Analyzer (RTA) and special purpose computer. See Section 4.1.1 for the data analysis methods used.

/

Aqalog data resulting from rendom dwell testing were acquired and stored on'FM tope. See Section 4.1.2 for the data analysis methods used.

1 4.4CO's CVTAS was used to acquire, store and convert all data fresulting from seismic and fragility testing to usable formats. The CVTAS hystry is represented symbol 4 ally in Figure 4.12. The acquisition /

, analysis ' procesv started Mth the measuring of responses by transducers.

] The analog signMs uere then filtered (to prevent aliasing of the data) and amplified (to achieve better resolution). Finally, they were digitized and then stored as computer files on hard disk (with tape backup) for subsequent

, ,analy[is. The basic features of the CVTAS system are given in Table 4.4.

/

1. The data contained'in Volume V,

,' Appendix 0 of this report represent I the data acquired during performance of all testing. The seismic and fragility test data are organized by test number as specified in the test 1

,j procedure contained in Volur e IV, Appendix C. Each seismic or fragility

,, test data set consists of the following:

• a test setup sheet indicating pertinent information about the perfors.ance of the test (date, time, purpose, test specimen (s),

etc.),

) e a post-tesq inspection sheet indicating what test specimen /

instrumentation / test specimen support damage (if any) occurred as a

>y$ f 1 result of the test,

, 1 4' =a print out of the current transducer calibration file. The

'i y .

calibration file lists transducer serial numbers, their location

? / ,

identif hrt, their calibration factors (g per volt, etc.) and

[ -

additional data relative to the transducers, p$

o Cc.:an$ e Pr. .nduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 25 of 63 1

f

• a print out indicating the status (operability) of the transducers,

• a summary of the peak positive and peak negative value of the measured input or response parameter in engineering units and the times that the peak values were sensed within the data set by data channel number. During some of the test, erroneous values are reported in this data set, due to transducer failure / malfunction.

A review of the time traces was of ten necessary to determine peak value validity, e plots of the calculated TRS at 7% damping for the control accelerometers (Accelerometers 1, 2 and 3 sensed shake table input accelerations in the longitudinal (x), trcnsverse (y), and vertical (z) directions, respectively, near the C2S2 location), and

• plotted time histories of the measured input or response parameter in engineering units by data channel number.

Post-test analyses of su .in time history data, as discussed in Volume VI, Appendix E, was performed to determine the ultimate capacity of the conduit clamps and/or their related hardware.

l

)

l l

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 26 of 63

TABLE 4.1: M00AL HAMMER TESTING USING CURVE FITTING (M00AL TEST - START TO FINISH)

~

)

1. SETUP THE TEST Layout test points on the structure.

Mount the structure as required.

l' Attach transducer (s).

Setup analyzer; make trial measurements.

2. CHARACTERIZE THE STRUCTURE Define components, enter coordinates.

Define constraint equations.

Define display sequence.

3. K.KE MEASUREMENTS Make measurements, transfer them to Modal 3.0.

Save measurements on disc.

4. ESTIMATE MODAL PARAMETERS Identify resonance peaks.

Curve fit a measurement with S00F or M00F methods.*

Autofit remaining measurements.

5. SORT THE M00AL DATA Sort residues, generate mode shapes.

Transform mode shapes to global coordinates.

G. DISPLAY MODE SHAPES

Display undeformed/ deformed structure.

Display mode shapes in animation.

7. PRINT AND PLOT RESULTS Print modal data and associated data tables.

Plot measurements and mode shapes.

(

S00F and M00F refer to single-degree-of-freedom and multi-degree-of-freedom, respectively.

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 27 of 63 l

i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _J

TASLE 4.2: INSTRUMENTATION FOR SYSTEMS 1 THROUGH 13, 16 AND 17 Data (2)

Channel (1) Measured (3)

No. Location Variable Direction 1 C2S2 A X 2 C2S2 A Y 3 C2S2 A Z 4 C2S1 A X 5 C2S1 A Y 6 C2S1 A Z 7 C2S3 A X 8 C2S3 A Y 9 C2S3 A Z 10 C1S1 A Y 11 CIS1 A Z 12 C1S3 A Y 13 C1S3 A Z 14 C3S1 A Y 15 C3S1 A Z 16 C3S3 A X 17 C3S3 A Y 18 CSS 3 A Z 19 C1M1 A Y 20 C2M1 A Y 21 C2M1 A Z 22 C3M1 A Y 23 C3M1 A Z 24 C1S2 S X 27 C1S1 R Z 28 C1S1 R Z 29 C2M2 0 Y 30 C2M2 0 Z 31 C2S2 S X 32 C2S2 S Y 33 C2M1 0 Y 34 C2M1 0 Z 35 C2S1 R Z 36 C2S1 R Z 38 C3S2 S X 39 C3S2 S Y 40 C3M1 0 Y 41 C3M1 0 Z 42 C3S1 R Z 43 C3S1 R Z 44 C1S2-Upper MS-B X

, 45 C1S2-Upper MS-B Y l 46 CIS2-Lower MS-B X 47 C1S2-Lower MS-B Y 48 CIS2-Axial MS-A Z 49 CIS1-Inside MS-T X 1

l l Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 28 of 63

TABLE 4.2 (concluded)

Data (2)

Channel (1) Measured (3)

No. Location Variable Direction 50 CIS1-Outside MS-T X S1 C2S2-Upper MS-B X 52 C2S2-Upper MS-B Y 53 C2S2-Lower MS-B X 54 C2S2-Lower MS-B Y 55 C2S2-Axial MS-A Z 56 C2S1-Inside MS-T X 57 C2S1-Outside MS-T X 58 C3S2-Upper MS-B X 59 C3S2-Upper MS-B Y 60 C3S2-Lower MS-B X 61 C3S2-Lower MS-B Y 62 C3S2-Axial MS-A Z 63 C3S1-Inside MS-T X 64 C3St Outside MS-T X (1) C = conduit number, M = mid-span number, S = support number, Upper = upper location on load ce*l, Lower = lower location on load cell, Axial a mid-point on load cell, Inside = on S2 side of Support S1, Outside = on elbow side of S1.

(2) A = acceleration, 0 = displacement, S = slip, R = rotation, MS-B = microstrain-bending, MS-A = microstrain-axial, MS-T = microstrain-torsion.

(3) X = longitudinal, Y = transverse, Z = vertical.

l l

l l

Conanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document flo. A-000197, Pane 29 of 63

+

TABLE 4.3: INSTRUMENTATION FOR SYSTEMS 18 THROUGH 20 Data (2)

Channel (1) Measured (3)

No. Location Variable Direction 1 C2S2 A X 2 C2S2 A Y 3 C252 A Z 4 C2S1 A X 5 C2S1 A Y 6 C2S1 A Z 7 C2S3 A X 8 C2S3 A Y 9 C2S3 A Z 10 C1S1 A Y 11 C1S1 A Z 12 C1S3 A Y 13 CIS3 A Z 14 C3S1 A Y 15 C3S1 A Z 16 C3S3 A X 17 C3S3 A Y 18 C3S3 A Z 19 C1M1 A Y 20 C2M1 A Y 21 C2M1 A Z 22 C3M1 A Y 23 C3M1 A Z 24 CIS2 S X 27 C2M2 D Y 28 C2M2 0 Z 29 C2S2 S X 30 C2S2 S Y 31 C2M1 D Y 32 C2M1 0 Z 33 C3S2 S X 34 C3S2 S Y 35 C3M1 D Y 36 C3M1 0 Z 37 C1S2-Upper MS-B X 38 C1S2-Upper MS-B Y 39 CIS2-Lower MS-B X 40 C1S2-Lower MS-B Y 41 C1S2-Axial MS-A Z 42 C2S2-Upper MS-B X 43 C2S2-Upper MS-B Y 44 C2S2-Lower MS-B X 45 C2S2-Lower MS-B Y 46 C2S2-Axial MS-A Z 47 C3S2-Upper MS-B X 48 C3S2-Upper MS-A Y 49 C3S2-Lower MS-B X Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Parle 30 of 61

TABLE 4.3 (concluded)

Data (2)

Channel (1) Measured (3)

No. Location Variable Direction 50 C3S2-Lower MS-B y 51 C3S2-Axial MS-A Z (1) C = conduit number, M = mid-span number, S = support number, Upper = upper location on load cell, Lower = lower location on load cell, Axial = mid-point on load cell, Inside = on S2 side of Support St.

(2) A = acceleration, D = displacement, S = slip, MS-B = microstrain-bending, MS-A = microstrain-axial.

(3) X = longitudinal, Y = transverse. Z = vertical.

3 1

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document flo. A-000197, Paqe 31 of 63

TABLE 4.4: BASIC FEATURES OF THE CVTAS SYSTEM

1. ECLIPSE S-130 Chassis 2, 256 k-byte Memory and CPU

3. 96-Mbyte Disk Drive With Adapter

4. 9-Track Digital Tape System

5. Data General G300 Graphics Terminal

6. DEC Writer !! Printing Terminal

7. G300 Graphics Printer

8. Computer Products Real Time Peripheral (RTP) System with 128 channels of A/D converters and 4 channels of O/A converters. The maximum sample rate with a full compliment of channels is 625 points /sec.

9. 64 channels of STI different amplifier / anti-aliasing filters and 64 channels of frequency devices (FO).

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document flo. A-000197, Page 32 of 63

1 l

. -+ . :

~

I

~ ( L ._ f ._ l : l - _

. t . , . .I ~I  ;

gg [h-.. ,, .'

I b

5 o .q:.. ) w : ,. ,_

c:s r rn p i j

m I!t- p l

i i , i ti c i r ly i . . l . , , , I , , , , I! , , r ,- 1,i, ,-

Longitudinal (L)

-] g +

h 25 dc =

g.  :. -

2.5 inches N{ rh q !Ni

• f')

j gyg i.

j'l 1. ' [i ill *

9

,,,il i[bi r,tiriilT U b, ,j..~f i Transverse / Vertical (T/V)

I,,,,1,,.,1.,,,1,,,,1 ,,,!,,,,I,,,

0 10 20 30 33 Time (seconds)

Figure 4.1: Typical Shake Table Actuator Drive Signals (T/V and L)

Conanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document !!o. A-000197, Pace 33 of 63

[ '53 es* !?!' :c i 41 u. t' i * ;;) .:C);f iri*i14 :asti ?. L :1 *! ' ' ;2 ? Ne . iii

?,tf 132  ;'i  !>ht C2i2. a  ;'.

1.53?Q0

• C .83020 -

J l

H U A

I>

N .15740 I Lonaitudinal I l f (+ x-direction)

- 54549 L , l l i

t Id l

-1 25120 I l j' ,

i 1 37:03 . -

1 H00) L E030 li i0:00 24 N0(0 12 H 00) 4) 1GM'  !

ELA7IED flmE 11 iE5 0NDi XPt0C fest 5227 8n 1 2

6' 4'i? 11 41 l'.

i'JG:0 C01 J!i $Y!iE9 4 CASE 3 5.9.!! ilif 5 22 7 FUM i SSE 3ri 112 0*i INFiji C25!( A T1 1.'323)

• y- rction)

HM0 9 00003 16 00000 24 60600 12 01000 to OH00 ELAP$El flME IM S E C ') H 3 i XP900 Test- 5227 Iva- ! 6, 4,t? 11 41 15 70:00 CCHIVII Sf$ FEM 4 CASES 5,$,11 TE$f 5 22.7 RUM 1 Sit 3Yi 116 G'i INPUI C2$224 G'i

• ~

1.57108 *

. H?20 C

[ t

{ ,

A Ih N .35548 t Vertical l N (+ z-direction)

L 25240

. % 024 0 1 ,

I

-1 46900 .

h (004) 1 JH00 16.000?) 24 0;004 12 0030) 40 ,iAl i t, aPiEI iidi iN ifC0*Ii ,

Figure 4.2: .

Typical Acceleration Time Histories Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Docunent No. A-000197, Pane 34 of 63

==

r- Cd LLJ CCe ca. Ce "llll". CCs LaJ o I I I I I E I E IE I I I I I E I o

• I IE I I I E E I C#

~ ac===

, _ W eis -

S C o -

Cu A _

M - .M C5 .

03 _

A 0 k

rN +J O _ m as

• M w

] CM LJ LLJ O m

O LaJ M CCe --e CCe M m p

~ p g w .. Co o -

ei - e .. ,a g u ao Z ele C. t j Q C

=e C Q g 9 CM C to e

CE D m g

. _C g &x

. O 8~*J "

e74

./ e l

c

• 5 e

C, Op w 8.s* e _

o t

_ -e Q ]

6--- -

Co e ,/

• 2 m LaJ - g-W -

R aJ O 4

V' _  :=s  %

. --e .. \ O

% C -C c e.*I e lll:e >c ~ C Ca.: CQ  %

N w O tt'. (_Ce '

CQ - Cg e.' e .e a; :n -

m LA.J La,_ CL Co o H E

-c  :'"l e i

U O

Ce F% Ca. _

e-Q = _

e e-Q m ..

t.s e M E

LA I .

\,,g% #

&--- +- \ 4; s'. e*a t.rg e L

- sie  :"3 Ce".s t--- o O

.IIE I I

&- c.e a I I E E EI I E E E E I I I II I I E I I 4::"*

o (*

• --*

• C

<=== c Ce C.n. ce c. o .===W O o e'

c.

• C::D aC::D * :>

Co- *-- O **=*

C :s e"Q

- .U.

Ce uo e.

s-c_

r_,.e >-- w >-

Ce CCs >-- Ca er_Ce LaJ =s A Ca H ;> C s::a C rMe Ce W J LaJ Ca.:: C._9 Conanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document tio. A-000197, Page 35 of 63 e

0 7 RE3 oNSE 0 _: _ . - - .

E: . - - 0

.J: - - - 0 0

, 0

, 1 g , t n in ,

i ,

o p P ,

ta k

I , a ,

t s

e r T e

Z v

B ,

E

\ I ar S

S t R E c ,

S S 2 e E R p R S

1  : S

'g .

S e

H d n

l ' s , a N eG n S l

l n o N R R n p T a ~ s e

. h e I s

.C R r 2 0 e v

2 -

5

./ ) * ,

0

0. Y s

n 0 a 1 C r T

T ,

S E "\, ,

N f r

o T -

1 E n 3 U o

/

1  ;

nA / Q S uV , a

,R2 p

E 5

S 8

2 ,

/'// R "

r n.

C ,

E S

A T

U

/ F 4

C 7 P ,

4 2l 2 l i -.- ,

4 e

5 -

r l

l u

E g T t ," i F

S s -

Y e S T 0

- - - - - - E: - -

, 0 T S f : ~ - . 0 l ' 9 0 t

l 0 0 C 9 0 1 0

9- 0

- 0 g.

g.

9 0 0 C 1 1

C 2 1 5 1 0L 1 C T GET UB Y P ;. E l I. D0 T X. D n..CE L Ef pJ eaam ;~ g R- E:. o j r s e m I mm 0-  % ,-

0 7 R E S p O H 9- E 0 _: . _ _ _ _ :_: : -

0

_:= - _ _ - - " 0 0

' , 0

, 1 t

g n

i n

o i '

p P ,

a ' k h a e

r t Z s B

e a T T

% r

' t R E s S f

E t S p E S 3 S S ~ S H R s e R 1  : S s ,

d l ' n n N eC U n

!. n

. V o p X S a

s R a e I T 2

2

,h

. C s./',_ R

- 0 0

l a

c i

5

\,.. ,

0. Y t

' 0 r T '

/ , 1 C V

e S

E T

' ~s.

v N f o

E 1 n

^'[l/

3 U o s

1  :

i

, nA Q r S u2 ' ,

a

,R2 / E p 5 8 / m o

S 2 '

C

/ /. ,

R C E

S T

/

F A

C 7 P '

2 N U

// ,

4 5

4 2 I e 5 /' r M u E  :

g i

T t F

f"-

S s Y e ST 0

_: - . - - _  ;': : : - 0 T S

_ _ - " ~ 0 I '

0 0 0 J 0 C0 0 0

[) 1 0 aU 0 0 pJ 0 0 0 nU 0 1 1 j.

1 0 6 .

5 1 0l 1 C T C E T UB V p g- En5 0- n T X D ..L C EL [ R C g=;. ; eE ~ a:_ e2a$ y8a3~;$* O S C ,

o TUGn. .i u. . i.lli .:;7::.J. EH y i.s.;E '.-: 5. f

^ 13. IEST 5... E.. RllH I 0; .

X,BEIL5 T e.- t 5233 Run: 1 Ehannel: 1 Danpin9: .070 D.. il 10.. b. . 0 L,

,It F,l.l,i 1.,,..,.;a.

carn .

b. . , .

o ' '

g li.li.i.n. i.i ...

a o P - -

c- - -

X [ -

e il

~

a.

s -

a D

o 10.000  :

f. -

R

" ,s

./  : E

,f' .  ? '

. ~/

a s

- r -

/ -

P

.S 2

i.

r' 1,.

/ 0

= .

s hi i E -

1 0000 -

~ ./ ' - -

c h L s

a e

t i

f 4 E

N / -

/

p'. -

y -

.l -

a .

a g

~

O

-+n

" .10009 . , , , , , , , . - Response Spectra Break Point 1.0000 10.000 100.00 FRE0llEHCY IN HERTZ Figure 4.6:

Comparison of Longitudinal TRS and RRS Maximum Fragility Test

0 7 f' E $ P 0 i1 f A'-

0  :.. - . . .

' 0

,  ::.0 0

, 0 g , t

, 1 n t n i s .

o i ,

e p P ,

T D

u ,

k a ,

t y

e i h.s-l r 2 i B , g I a

.~- a r r

- t R F

- c ,

m e E u 2 p m

S 1

- S

, 'i< _ e H i x

a i

l l ' . s ,

M U eC n R n o S R

n p 1

. a -

_~~~

s e

1 R

h l I d

~ .. C F n a

2

~-

• 0 0

S 5 ,

0. Y R T

T 0 S - ,

1 C e E

s

, l r e

T ,

/^ i v

P E s 3 1 1

~/ 0 n

a r

8 nA , T

, uV ,/ 0 f

5 R2 / /

E o S /

S 2 , i -

n E 0 R o S

s A T

/./ F i C U /., r a

4 3 3P , f p l

l /~ m o

1. 2I ,

C 5

U /

T E

S s Y e t

/'/, 4 7

S T e i S l ..

0 0

u r

0 g l ' 9- 0 U C 9- Q i

- Q 0- 01 F 9 h 0- 0 l~

9 Q. l l

0

f. 1 l-

- 0 C 2 }

{ 1 5 1 0 l 1 C T G E T U B Y p O*. E l p g-T XD l 4H C r- [ E 0 e3g ?m 2~w AE g* ". 0og:n 5 >68- 2yoa

Il.ici.:n. r.3. I.IIT R.y:'IEH !J. i.sSER. 5.,..>.,13. TES.T 5. 2... . RUN 1

if:ETL5 Test: 5233 Run: 1 Channel: 3 Damping: .070 DYi116 C'S INPUTC2822e C'S o pg g[

1 1 i i iii 1

. . > >1 1 i, 3

S r

f ~

~

m .

o w { .

9 N ~

a p

~

'y r, '

I ~~ '/ . p

n-10.000 :

a. . / ~

~' ~ .

g n  : ,~ .. . :.

l c.

g .- -

4

,/

o . -

- P s 1.:

g .

/ ' .

/ l)

<o l '

5  ;- N E /

1000ft - ' 0 r t sa -

/ c

["

G g -

~

" .J -

p' -

/ '

y -

'a

/

u o fJ .

O

,, g Response Spectra Break Point 1.0000 10.000 100.00 l

FREQUEHCY IH HERTZ Figure 4.8:

Comparison of Vertical TRS and RRS flaximum fragility Test

l (0 - Designates input placement A - Accelerometer 9 (CN) - Designates condust placement x.y,z - Designates direction 9 O Designates LVDT f

g D - Displacement Transducer 4 Designates Celesco a x.y.z - Designates dkection y

Superscript 1 - Designates _ upper pairs _of_s_ train gauges SS at S2 (load celo M j

w M - Moment Sensing Guage -

v Subscript 2 - Designates lower pairs of strain gauges 9 at S2 Nad ces)

SS h Subscript x.y,z - Designates dwection S 2 F - Force Senssng Gauge v x.y,z - Designates direction 9' pD Sj

-4 M

a

~

r *[D.

~

1. f e "9 9 j g /4 $ *@ $

~

E

/d y+o o +s g4 S*s N:.:Or 2 f* + 0

<; ;S 4 s

[ pij of 3' +" 4 yh*g'$

1. • ME o A* o, ho*

Sy c;

&p ,3 2

O*j ' W(G f 4op #gM *'f O*/

of O j cM e

v., h s+j " -

+fkr#

Y l hj kl G%

Figure 4.9:

Instrumentation Layout, Test Specimens 1 Through 13,16 and 17

(0 - De:ignates inputgiscoment A - Accelerometer G (CN) - Designates conduit placement x.y.z - Designates direction O Designates LVDT D - Displacement Transducer 4 Designates Celesco g x.y,z - Designates direction g

Superscript 1 - Designates _ upper pairs of strain gauges 2

o at S2 (load celo

@j M - Moment Sensing Guage v M Subscript 2 - Designates lower pairs of strain gauges .

n at S2 (load ces) @j

@ M S Subscript x.y z - Designates direction F - Force Sensing Gauge V x.y.z - Designates directen Ng N

w

>* [ M FS3 M

5 Gy f

{

a op p h 8 Gy Ua (

$ hr 0 0 l 'r

1. st

' 'Y

- s @p  :

h* +~sY 0 :Oy

? t 9j Og f

S p$ 0 f

e

~

gs D):.

M 9 5W

>*:t f 5 ho*

MO ~ r n #y D ,-

p O*y

~

p h ,Y OE p%*

e, } h s

>+3 C

[

G J cs Figure 4.10: Instrumentation Layout, Test Specimens 18 through 20

[l

.Z

'l {

~~,

f N

( l

?% v_ .$h

^

Yl, q' ~ -h '

i i

O Figure 4.11: Load Cell Conanche Peak Conduit Tests. Docunent flo A-000197, Pace 43 of 63

s t

9 l, S l Displace.

y Transducers

' cv w .

n -

Signal Signal Signal 3 Trunk Low-Pass Signal

• Accelero- - Trunk Cond. Fil ters A/D

, @ meters Inter- Fan Out Instr. * ~ A*Ps + Mini-

? -- IdCe Gain: 16-256 Computer i 1-200 Hz 1-1000 Channels Y Strain -

" Gd9es S

i E

, a" i

3 b O b

i 8 Gw

) l l m Ch nnel nnel CRT N-9 Digital mg.

Tape Plotter i

t Strip FM Tape Printer Disk Recorder Recorder R ~

j $ Figure 4.12: Data Acquisition / Instrumentation Flew Chart l

y _-- , e --. _ , -

l l

5.0 TEST RESULTS Test results are in the form of resonant frequencies bnd their corresponding damping ratios from random dwell testing, resonant frequencies and their corresponding mode shapes from modal testing, and achieved clamp loads prior to failure, clamp rotational capacities and clamp slip capaci-ties from earthquake, and fragility testing. The data which are summarized in this section are contained in Volume V, Appendix 0 and Volume VI, Appendix E.

Clamp / attachment hardware failure modes were discussed briefly in Section 1.0 and will not be discussed here.

5.1 Random Dwell Test Results Table 5.1 summarizes the resonant frequencies and their corresponding model damping ratios identified during random dwell testing. Recall that testing was performed using band-limited (5 - 33 Hz) white-noise support-point input notion at amplitudes approximately equal to SSE levels based on comparisons of calculated TRS with SSE RRS at or near the lowest specimen modes of vibration. Random dwell testing was not performed on Test Setups 1 and 6 (Test Specimens 1, 2, 9, 18, 19 and 20). Further. Test Specimens 14 and 15 were deleted from the program.

Resonant frequencies of the lowest modes of vibration were closely spaced (lowest vertical and lowest transverse modes) but separable in the data. These were found to range from 9.6 Hz (4-in. conduit on 14-ft support spacing) to 31.6 Hz (2-in. conduit on 10-ft support spacing). Dampings for the lowest modes ranged from as great as approximately 8.4% to as little as 2.4% of critical. The table indicates that (generally) the lower the first mode frequency the higher the modal damping ratio. Second and higher order modes were (generally) found to be somewhat less damped than the lowest modes of vibration. Application of least-mean-square curve fitting techniques to the data contained in Table 5.1 suggests that damping could be expressed in terms of frequency by the relation, A = 7.81 - 0.18f4 (g),

where fi is the frequency of interest and 9.6 1f 5 31.6 Hz.

5.2 Modal Test Results Table 5.2 summarizes mode shape, natural frequency and damping ratios obtained from modal tests performed on Test Specimens 3 and 6. For Specimen Comanche Peak conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 45 of 63

3, three modes were identified below 33 Hz, two horizontal (X-Y) modes and one vertical mode. For Specimen 6, two modes were identified, one horizontal (X-Y) mode and one vertical mode. Table 5.2 describes the modes obtained and compares the frequencies with those obtained from the Random Owell test results. The mode shapes are shown in Figure 5.1.

5.3 Earthquake and F__raatlity level Test Results Recall that the intent of this effort was to determine axial and rotational slip characteristics of the conduit within the clamps and to establish the ultimate capacities of the clamps and their related hardware.

This section sammarizes the results which are discussed in greater depth in Volume V, Apperdix D and Volume VI, Appendix E. The relative magnitude of I

the fragility level tests remained the same for Systems 2 through 6. The relative level for the three seismic tests performed, using SSE RRS as 1.0, were as follows:

1. SSE Level' - longitudinal a aplitude = 1.2 transverse amplitude = 1.0 vertical amplitude = 1.0

2. 1st Fragility - longitudinal amplitude = 1.5 transverse amplitude = 3.0 vertical amplitude = 2.0

3. 2nd Fragility - longitudinal amplitude = 1.8 transverse amplitude = 4.0 vertical amplitude = 2.7 For System 1, several tests were performed to allow iteration on the i

gain and equalization settings to achieve the desired response. The rela-tive amplitudes of these tests are documented in Table 5.4, Footnote 6.

5.3.1 Axial Slip i

l Axial slip was sensed at the center support location (S2) on all test specimens by axially-oriented displacement transducers. During the majority of the test effort, these were LVOTs with a maximum range of 1/8 in. to yield the highest possible data resolution, hence data on slip > 1/8 in, is not available. The LVDTs were incapable of withstanding significant off-axis displacements. When clamp / attachment hardware failure occurred at the $2 location, the conduit sagged downward causing slip Comanche Peak Conduit Tests Document No. A-000197, Page 46 of 63

measurements 2 1/8 in, to be sensed by the LVDT and often causing damage to the LVDT.

Tcble 5.3 summarizes the available data (from Volume V, Appendix D) on axial slip characteristics. The table indicates the test number and test description where the maximum axial slippage at the S2 location was sensed and whether or not conduit clamp / attachment hardware failure occurred during that test. Data were not available on Test Specimen 11. Clamp / attachment hardware failure occurred on eight of the remaining 17 test specimens. On the eight specimens where failure occurred, there was no evidence of slippage during the prior tests. Where no failure occurred, slippage rang-ing from 10 to 70 mils, was noted in Table 5.3.

5.3.2 Clamp Torsional Capacities Rotational displacements and strains measured on either side of the clamp closest to the cantilevered elbows (Support S1) were reviewed to determine the clamps' rotational restraint capacities. These data are discussed in Volume VI, Appendix E and summarized here in Table 5.4. The table gives two torque values (T1 and T2) for each test specimen for all earthquake and fragility tests performed. The value, labeled T1 in Table 5.4, represents the peak torsional moment restrained by the clamp prior to rotation of the conduit (if rotation occurred) . The value, labeled T2, represents the peak torsional moment restrained by the clamp dur'ng rotation of the conduit, if rotation occurred.

No rotation occurred if the values of T1 and T2 are reported as equal. If rotation commenced at the onset of the test, a zerorotation torsional capacity could not be determined. Occasions when this happened are noted by Footnote 5 in Table 5.4 Clamp failures or instrumentation failures are conspicuous in the table by the absence of values for T1 and T2.

Data scatter in Table 5.4 is large. A discussion of the rotation phenomenon is warranted. Data presented for Test Specimens 1, 2 and 9 are extreme examples and in our opinion should not be used. During the testing of these specimens, several clamp / hardware change outs were made. The rotational phenomenon was found to be largely unpredictable and dependent on the following:

• The mechanical state of the other two specimen clamps.

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 47 of 63

e Previous rotational history, e

Flexibility of the test specimen (prying action).

If one of the other two clamps (at S2 or $3) or both had loosened significantly or failed during a test, additional axial and vertical demand was placed on the clamp where torsional strains were sensed (at S1).

Further, failure or loosening of the remaining clamps increased test speci-men flexibility, hence increased prying action on the clamp of St. It is believed that increased prying action often loosened the attachment hardware at S1 permitting rotation to occur at a lower applied moment.

Clamps and their related attachment hardware were not replaced if rotation occurred without clamp / attachment hardware failure. When this occurred, the conduit was put back to its initial (pre-rotation) position and the attachment hardware retorqued to its initial value. Once rotation had occurred, it seemed more likely to do so again at a lesser value.

Adding weight to the test specimen not only increased the downward inertial loads (not sensed) at $1 which increased the tendancy to loosen attachment hardware, but, more importantly, increased the prying action (again not sensed) at the S1 location. It is believed that the increased prying action due to increased test specimen flexibility lead to lower peak torque values during testing with added weight.

5.3.3 Clamp Ultimate Capacities Strain data acquired at the load cells located at the center support (S2) were reviewed and combined to determine the ultimate (peak) load capacities of the clamps. These data are summarized in two ways on Tables 1

5.5 and 5.6. The numerical methods used to generate the values given here are contained in Volume VI, Appendix E.

Table 5.5 indicates the peak resultant load sensed at the clamp and the components which were combined by the square root of the sum of the squares method to determine the resultant. Also noted in Table 5.5 is the time in the data set when the peak resultant occurred and the estimated time when clamp failure occurred. In all cases where failure occurred, the peak resultant was sensed just prior to clamp failure.

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 48 of 63

l t

In Tables 5.5 and 5.6, the indicated peak resultant force, the compo- '

)

nents making up the resultant, and the peak component forces have been cor-  !

rected for inertial loading effects due to additional weight of bottom plate (s) on the load cells.

Specifically, Soecimens 5 through 7, 16 and 17 have these corrected values. Appendix E contains the calculations used to '

arrive at the inertial loading contribution. The method used assumes that the peak inertial loading occurs at the peak input acceleration: hence, con-servative numbers are generated for the inertial effects. All other speci-mens tabulated have not been corrected for inertial effects, due to the insignificance of these effects.

(Worst case error less than 5%.)

Table 5.6 indicates the peak x-direction shear, the peak y-direction shear and the peak 2-direction loads that the clamps experienced during the highest level tests prior to clamp failure. The times that these peak load components were sensed within the data sets is also indicated along with the remaining two components sensed at that instance in time. None of the peak components were sensed at the same instance in time for a given test specimen.

It is interesting to note that the resultants, which can be computed from the peak values at given instances in time from Table 5.6, are all less than or equal to the peak resultants presented in Table 5.5.

Test Specimen 16 appears to have its ultimate load capacity established by x-direction (longitudinal) shear since the SRSS load case including the peak x-shear was the largest of the three possible SRSS load

, combinations. The majority of the test specimens' clamp failures or ulti-mate load capacities (Test Specimens 1, 3 through 6, 9 through 13 and 18 through 20) appear to be established by the peak y-shear component for the same reasons. Finally, Test Specimens 2, 7, 8 and 17 appear to h- e had their ultimate capacities established by the 2-direction (vertical) load component.

I i

i Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 49 of 63

TA8tE 5.1:

SUMMARY

OF RESONANT FREQUENCIES AND DAMPING RATIOS IDENTIFIED DURING RANDOM DWELL TESTING c3 Test Setup / Span

$ Specimen Conduit Diameter Length f #; f 2

g (1) (2) i 42 f 3 83 No. No._ (in.) (ft) Location Direction S

(Hz)_____1%)_ (Hz) (%) . (Hz) 1%)

3 2/C1 3 14 CIM1YA T 27 14.8 7.1 21.6 2.1 7e 4 3/C3 2

• 10 C3M1YA T g3 31.6 -2.4 33.2

• C3M1ZA V 29.2 O -2.9 5 4/C1 E{ 1-1/2 10 C1M1YA T 16.4 e -8.4

_a 6 5/C1 1 10 CIM1YA T 0 14.4 7.3 16.4 4.1 18.0 3.3

$7 7 5/C2 3/4 10

• C2M1YA T 13.2 6.7 18.4 4.8 C2M1ZA V 5 12.4 3.7 2 10 2/C3 4 14 C1M1YA T 15.6

• 5 18.4

• 20.8

• 3 11 3/C1 3 14 C1M1YA T 21.2 2.4 24.0 2.3 h 12 3/C2 2 10 C2M1YA T 31.6

• 2, C2M1ZA V 27.2

• o 28.8

• E3 13 4/C3 2 10 C3M1YA T

• G$ 31.6

." C3M1ZA V 28.8 3.3

,3 16 5/C3 3/4 10 C3M1YA T 13.2 4.4 19.4 *

$. C3M12A V 12.8 4.9 14.4 3.5 E; 17 2/C2 _4 14 CEM1YA T ~

15.6

• o __ 20.4 4.7 24.8

• C2M1/A

-o. V i.C 6.1 17.6

• O '

(1) Refer to Section 4.2.1. _.

(2) T = transverse (y-direction), V = vertical (z-direction).

Could not be estimated from data.

~

-r . - , - - -

r - ,

/

h, ( ,

TABLE 5.22 MODAL TEST RESULTS (3 ,

\ ;, -

/< n .,

{ Specimen Frequency; y Damping' '

p. ' ' , , 'i No. *(Hz)

(%) Dese ption _ ,,j, , [;

, 3 12.6's 1.ph Y spans out-of-phase. Compares r with 14.8 Hz mode from random.

i

., 16.30' O.93 Y spans in-phase.

\ N 1.02 Z spans in-phase. Compar{es

' )(21.84

with 21.6 Hz mode from y+t402.

6 15.2e /l,' >>

0.85 Y spans out-of-phase' ' '. ,

• f;.' i 13.44 '

O.88 2 spans out ,of-phase. ' ' '

/ ,

y 4 S i (1) Damping estimated at very low respo,ps<u amplitudes. ,

)

1 l/ / '

f I

\/ ,

4 i

t t

,e i

t u

\

i i.

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests Document No. A-000197, Paqo 51 of 63

TABLE 5.3: PEAK AXI AL SLIP AT SUPPORT 2 Peak Sprimen Test Test Axial No. No. Descrintion. Slip (in.) Comment -

1-101 ST1.10, Run i 1st Fragility 0.125 Failed, p With Added Mats p

2-t, iT1.10, Run 1 1st.F,ri g flitV 0.125 Failed. ,<

Wir.fi Added Mass

. 10, Rur. 1 1st ragil.)y -

0.04 No failure. '

Wi+b node,d Mass

/e '

j ,

I 4 - 3 t., 18.3, Run 1 2nd Fragility 0.01't .t No failure.

5-4C1 5.23.3, Run 1 2nd Fragility 0.025 I'No failure.

6-5C1 STS.21, Run 2 2nd Fragility 0.045 , No failure,y With Addd Mass r'i 7-5C2 STS.21, Run 2 2ndFradili,ty 0.070 No failure. s

/

With Added Mass 8-4C2 ST4,21, Run 1 2nd Fragility 0.035 No failure.,

With Added Mass "' / ' ,4 9 ST1.10, Run 1 0.125 #

1st Fragility Fai1N. /

With Added Mass # I f ,,

10-2C3 ST2.10, Run 1 1st fragility 0.125 'Fa ilh _

With Added Mass !j l '

11-3C1 *

}*

i

,, f i . 1

\,

12-3C2 5.18.3, Run 1 2nd Fragillth ;r.e 0.03 No fa J 4. '

t, Ie Y '

13-4C3 ST4.21, Run 1 2ndFragility} 0.018 With Added Mass No frfl ure. ' 's

\

16-5C3 STS.21, Run 2 2nd Fragility 0.10 No failure.

With Added Mass I

17-2C2 ST2.10, Run 1 1st Fragility 0.125

./

Failed. ' s With Added Na ; o < ' '

t' '

18-6C1 ST7.21, Run 1 2nd Fragility 4

', 0.125 Failed. f, ll With Added Mass ,

19-6C2 ST7.21, Run 1 7r.d F 7 3gility 0.500(1) Faile!-; I Wit'r dded Mas's 's 20-6C3 ST7.21, Run 1 2nd ibagility 0.500(*) Failed. I With Added Mass '

Y (1) LVOT with a range of 11/2 in. used. 3 i., .

.')

Conanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No A-000197, Par e 52 of 63 /l ,

/

. _ _ _ . N " '

- ~

a L

.a . , .

f

~

TABLE 5.4:

SUMMARY

OF CLAMP TORSIONAL CAPACITIES w _ _ _s -

1

~

=

c) Test Setup /

Conduit Bolt (1) h Spec-13en Conduit Diameter Clamp (2) -

Diameter Bolt Test No.,

',, (3) (4) g j$3_ No. (in. ) P/N Type T1 T2

=r (in.) Run No. Tesg 0escription m .

__[in.-lb) (in.-lb)-

,, 1 1/C1 5 P2558 3/8 NS g 5.2.7, R1 SSF,(6) *

• 7c 5.3.2, R1 1st Fragility * - , * '

[? 5.3.3/~N1' znd rfagility * *

-- 5.3.3, R2 ~1 R 3rd Fragility *

• 5.3.3, R3 4th Fragility SL 5.3.3, R4 1200 10180 x

'o ST1.5, R1 5th Fragility 6400 6400 ,t g SSE With Added Weight *

• g ST1.10, R1 ,

1st Fragility With Added Weight * *m g, ST1.1 R1 2nd Fragility With Added Weight

___________________________________________________________9, *--

• 2 ._

c, 1/C3 4 P2558 3/8 NS _____________________________________________________________

5.2.7, R1 g SSE ,

5840 - 5840 5.3.2, R1 g 1st Fragility 4]40 4740 m 5.3.3, R1 2nd Fragility 5.3.3, R2 ~3yGO ' 3200 r' 3rd Fragility 7900 7900 g 5.3.3, R3 4th Fragility

. 99?.0 9680

- 5.3.3, R4 Sth Fragility ST1.5, R1 ---2440 2440 -

i' SSE With Added Weight 6020 6020 ST1.10, R1 3 1st Fragility With Added Weight (5) 14100 53 2nd Fragility With Added Wei *

$)

______________________________________________________ST1.19, 3

R1_____________________________________

• 2/C1 3 P2558 3/8 NS ________________________

- 5.12.7, R1 SSE 5.13.2, R1 3940 3940 y 1st Fragility 6120 6120 g 5.13.3, R2 2nd Fragility ST2.5, R' (5) 6720 (n SSE With Added Weight 3560 3560 ST2.12, R1 1st Fragility With Added Weight (5) 6120 c) ST2.2 R1 2nd Fragility With Added Weight

____________________________________________________________1, 4 3/C3 2 P2558 3/8 5.17.7,____________________________________________________________

3 w NS R1 SSE 5.18.2, R1 1400 1400 1st Fragility 2000 5.18.3, R1 2840 2nd Fragility 3400 ST3.5, R1 3400 SSE With Added Weight 3400 3600 ST3.12, R1 1st Fragility With Added Weight ST3.21, R1 3380 3380 2nd Fragility With Added Weight 3460 4610

TABLE 5.4 (continued) I c3 Test Setup / Conduit 3

Bolt (1) (2)

Specimen Conduit Diameter Clamp Diameter Bolt Test No., (3) (4)

No. No. (in.) P/N Type T1 T2 (in.) Run No. Test Description x (in.-lb) (in.-lb) 5 4/C1 1-1/2 P2558 1/4 NS 5.22.7, R1 SSE 2?

5.23.2, R1 500 500 SE 1st Fragility 1000 -

1380 5.23.3, R1 2nd Fragility c3 1300 1300 ST4.5, R1 SSE With Added Weight 0 ST4.12, R1 800 900 EI 1st Fragility With Added Weight 1000 1000 ST4.21, R1 2nd Fra

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ g i l i t y W *i t h Added We *i g h t

_a 6 5/C1 P2558 -______-____________________-______---_______

1 1/4 NS 5.27.7, R1 SSE

$ 5.28.2, R1 267 267 CE 1st Fragility 300 1370

• 5.28.3, R1 2nd Fragility *

• STS.5, R1 SSE With Added Weight

• Ef

• STS.12, R1 1st Fragility With Added Weight O 575 575 Q

STS.21, R1 2nd Fra With Added Weight 300

_____-__-___________-___-______-_-__-___-___--_-___-________-___-__---___-_gility 800 S 7 5/C2 3/4 P2558 -_-__-__--________--____--_-______-__________

1/4 NS 5.27.7, R1 SSE

== 257 157 5.28.2, R1 1st Fragility

. 475 475 5.28.3, R1 2nd Fragility 33 620 620 STS.5, R1 SSE With Added Weight 5 STS.12, R1 340 340 E$ 1st Fragility With Added Weight 230 230

STS.21, R1 2nd Fra

__-______-______________-_--______________-_____-_______________-___-______gility With Added Weight 300 350

.'" 8 4/C2 2 P2558 ________-________________----_-_________-__-_

5/8 NS 5.22.7, R1 SSE 1630

,3 5.23.2, R1 1630

$ 1st Fragility 2000 2000

• 5.23.3, R1 2nd Fragility 5100 5100 ST4.5, R1 SSE With Added Weight

$2 4380 4380 ST4.12, R1 1st Fragility With Added Weight o 3000 7120

% ST4.21, R1 2nd Fragility With Added Weight 5000 5640 O

La

1 TABLE 5.4 (continued)

Test Setup / Conduit (1)

Bolt (2) (3) (4) 9 Specimen Conduit Diameter Clamp Diameter Bolt Test No.,

2 No. No. T1 T2 (inj P/N __(in.}___ Type Run No. Test Description S _{in.-lb) (in.-lb)

$ 9 1/C2 5 C708S 3/8 NS 5.2.7, R1 SSE (6)

,o 5.3.2, R1 (5) 13600 1st Fragility 11340

• 11340

" 5.3.3, R1 2nd Fragility 7280 7280 5.3.3, R2 3rd Fragility 9 5.3.3, R3 (5) 27800 4th Fragilit) 1400 23400 5 5.3.3, R4 Sth Fragility i 6740 6740

" ST1.5, R1 SSE With Added Weight (5) 8d40

1. ST1.10, R1 1st Fragility With Added Weight (5)

• ST1.19, R1 2nd Fra o

---

---_--------------------_-----~~---------------------------- gility ----------_----------------------------------

With Added Weight * *

. 10 2/C3 4 C708S 3/8 NS 5.12.7, R1 SSE 2280 2280 g 5.13.2, R1 1st Fragility 5500 5500 o

5.13.3, R2 2nd Fragility 5660 5 6400 ST2.5, R1 SSE With Added Weight 2500

$ 3900

• ST2.12, R1 1st Fragility With Added Weight (5) 5420 ST2.21, R1 2nd fragility With Added Wei (5)

~

5 -------_---------_------------------------------------_----------------------------------------_ght ---------_--------------

5880 11 3/C1 3 C708S 3/8 NS 5.17.7, R1 SSE Y 5.18.2, R1 1st Fragility 4240 4240 8 5.18.3, R2 2nd Fragility 5060 6020 3 ST3.5, R1

$ SSE With Added Weight (5) 2900

• ST3.12, R1 1st Fragility With Added Weight *

• ST3.21, R1 2nd Fragility With Added Wei

7 _-_-___-_-__-___-_-----_-__--_-________---_-_-_---_------_-_----__--_-_----_----_----------_-_-_ght

$ 12 3/C2 2 C708S 3/8 NS 5.17.7, R1 SSE (n 1500 1500

• 5.18.2, R1 1st Fragility 3040 3040 5.18.3, R1 2nd Fragility 3800

,, 3800 ST3.5, R1 SSE With Added Weight 3540 as 3540

" ST3.12, R1 1st Fragility With Added Weight 3000 3480 ST3.21, R1 2nd Fragility With Added Height (5) 4860

TABLE 5.4 (concluded $ 1 c3 Test Setup / Conduit y Specimen Bolt (1) (2)

Conduit Diameter Clamp Diameter Bolt Test No., (3) (4) g No. No. ( i n ._} P/N Type T1 T2 (in.) Run No. Test Description 13 (in.-lb) (in.-lbJ 4/C3 2 C708S 5/8 NS 5.22.7, R1 2 5.23.2, R1 S3E 1288 1288

$ 5.23.3, R1 1st Fragility 3440 '

3440 c3 2nd Fragility 3000 ST4.5, R1 4620 0 SSE With Added Weight 2500 2500 ST4.12, R1

$ 1st Fragility With Added Weight 4900 4900 ST4.21 o -------------------------------------- - ------------------, R1 2nd Fragility With Added Weight 4000 4320

-a 16 5/C3 3/4 P2558 1/4 A307 5.27.7, R1

$ SSE 193 193 N 5.28.2, R1 1st Fragility 447 447

• 5.28.3, R1 2nd Fragility 720 720 0 STS.5, R1 SSE With Added Weight 200 200 STS.12, R1 E 1st Fragility With Added Weight 500 760 STS.21 Q ----------------------------- --- - ------------------------, R1 2nd Fragility With Added Weight 5 17 2/C2 4 C708S 3/8 A307 5.12.7, R1 SSE

== 2040 2040 5.13.2, R1 1st Fragility 4040 4040

= 5.13.3, R1 2nd Fragility ST2.5, R1 5640 5640 E> SSE With Added Weight 3560 3560 ST2.12, R1 1st Fragility With Added Weight h

u) ST2.21, R1 2nd F' agility With Added Weight 5660 9180 (5) 6500 y

• Gage failure.

a

• (1) NS = Nelson Stud, A307 = A307 Bolt and appropriate nut.

(2) See Test Procedure, Volume IV, Appendix C.

$ (3) Peak torque recorded prior to rotation.

o (4) Peak torque recorded during rotation.

(5) Rotation commenced at beginning of test.

w (6) For System 1, Specimens 1, 2 and 9, follows: the tests can be ordered from lowest level input to hig 'st level input as 5.3.3, R4 - L = 0.7, T = 1.2, V = 1.2; 5.3.3, R1 - t = 1.0, T = 1.8, V = 1.3: 5.3.2, R1 - L = 1.2, T = 3.5, V = 2.0; 5.2.7, R1 - L = 1.8, T = 4.0, U = 2.8; 5.3.3, R2 - L = 1.8, T = 4.0, V= 2.8; 5.3.3, V = 2.0;R3ST1.19,

- L = 1.8, R1T- L = =4.0, 1.8,V T= =2.8; 4.0,ST1.5, R1 - L = 1.2, T = 1.0, V = 1.0; ST1.10, R1 - L = 1.5, T = 3.0, V = 2.7.

1 TABLE 5.5: PEAK RESULTANT FORCE

SUMMARY

(1,2) c3 Conduit Peak Time of Saecimen Components 3 Size Clamp Resultant Occurrence X-Shear Y-Shear Z-Tension

@ No. (in.) Type Bolt Type (lb) (sec.) [lb) 11b)__,____,__]lb}__ Comments O-

• 1-1C1 5 P2558 3/8", Nelson Stud 4460 6.68 1100 4050 1520 Failed at - 7 sec.

A

$[ 2-1C3 4 P2558 3/8", Nelson Stud 4170 7.01 538 3060 2780 Failed at - 10 sec.

3-2C1 3 P2558 3/8", Nelson Stud 3540 5.95 150 3490 585 5 Failed at - 8 sec.

$ 4-3C3 2 P2558 3/8", Nelson Stud 1590 20.80 379 1450 527 No failure.

-e 5-4C1(2) 1-1/2 P2558 1/4", Nelson Stud 1237 3.55 52 1216 O 222 Failed at - 22 sec.

6-SC1(2) 1 P2558 1/4", Nelson Stud 718 32.80 472 527 121 8 No failure.

g 7-SC2(2) 3/4 P2558 1/4", Nelson Stud 370 34.70 227 169 238 No failure.

jhg8-4C2 2 P2558 S/8", Nelson Stud ;317 22.10 45 1270 347 No failure.

9-1C2 5 C708S 5/8", Nelson Stud 5470 5.94 273 5240 1550 Failed at - 7.5 sec.

20 d> 10-2C3 4 C708S 3/8", Nelson Stud 4060 0.94 101 3960

$ 906 Failed at - 3 sec.

$ 11-3C1 3 C708S 3/8", Nelson Stud 3090 3.23 68

." 3080 263 Failed at - 20 sec.

y 12-3C2 2 C708S 3/8", Nelson Stud 1470 16.50 5 153 1460 No failure.

13-4C3 2 C708S 5/8", Nelson Stud 1650 6.49 41 1450 780 O No failure.

o 16-5C3(2) 3/4 P2558 1/4", A307 Bolt 831 22.60 774 151 263 No failure.

83 17-2C2(2) 4 C708S 3/8", A307 Bolt 5465 1.88 353 3434 4237 Failed at - 4 sec.

I TABLE 5.5 (concluded)

I I

(1,2) p Conduit Peak Time of Components j 2 Specimen Size Clamp Resultant Occurrence X-Shear Y-Shear Z-Tension R No. (in.) Type Bolt Type (lb) (sec.) (lb) (lb) (lb) Comments 5 3/8", Nelson Stud 3690 218 3530 1050 Failed at - 5 sec.

y 18-6C1 3 P2558 4.31

" 19-6C2 4 P2558 3/8", Nelson Stud 4000 4.23 1030 3370 1900 Failed at - 6 sec.

9 1130 2670 281 Failed at - 28 sec.

R 20-6C3 5 P2558 3/8", Nelsnn Stud 2910 20.70 S.

o

-4 (1) Peak Resultant = max [Vx(t}2 + Vy(t)* + Fz(t)*] ! .

(2) Values corrected for mass added below load cell. All other specimen loads were not corrected, due to insignificant n effects on the tabulated values.

5 2

n 2

c3 O

3

'S h

• Q O

O

. -~ . ,ww . u . ~ .n . . . a . =

.e~. AJwa

seen .m m amm, w w _ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ . _.

1 TABLE 5.6: INDIVIOUAL PEAK FORCE

SUMMARY

n Peak X- Time of Y- Z- Peak Y- Time of X- Z- Peak Z- Time of X- Y-

$ Specirnen Shear Occurrence Shear Tension Shear Occurrence Shear Tension Tension Occurrence Shear Shear k No. (lb) (sec.) (lb) (lb) (lb) (sec.) (lb) (lb) (lb) (sec.) (Ib) (Ib) 1-1C1 1300 4.88 2900 1110 4050 6.68 1100 1520 2900 5.16 836 2180 2'

$$ 2-1C3 1410 7.69 1320 1440 3910 9.69 13 94 3380 7.90 0 1010 3-2C1 1250 2.34 137 1080 3490 5.95 150 585 1960 4.50 694 904 2 4-3C3 627 6.25 602 946 1540 3.09 146 479 1210 21.80 105 21 5-4C1(1) 487 3.32 43 121 1216 3.55 52 220 685 21.10 216 124

?

~

6-SCl(l) 469 29.50 406 101 527 32.80 472 121 304 32.70 217 293 8'

7-5C2(1) 296 30.50 87 20 286 35.00 67 108 278 34.60 106 188 S 8-4C2 379 21.50 45 190 1270 21.20 45 347 1071 22.10 187 130 9-1C2 1080 5.77 1970 230 5330 5.33 520 834 3650 7.19 237 1320 m

o 10-2C3 1040 1.14 3010 2160 3960 0.94 101 906 3280 1.32 982 1290 11-3C1 1240 11.30 1650 556 3080 3.23 68 263 2140 6.66 381 1030 y 12-3C2 424 26.10 60 35 1280 5.43 148 450 1460 16.50 5 153 13-4C3 733 5.95 807 527 1620 6.68 3 20 1450 22.20 269 108 0

-an W

1 TABLE 5.6 (concluded)

[? Peak X- Time of Y- Z- Peak Y- Time of X-2 Specimen Shear Occurrence Shear Z- Peak Z- Time of X- 'Y-Tension Shear Occurrence Shear Tension R No. (sec.) Tension Occurrence Shear Shea (lb) (lb) (lb) (Ib) (sec.) (Ib) (lb) (sec.) (lb) l (lb)

(lb]

$ 16-5C3(l) 774 22.60 151 263 554 32.60 205 263 409 27.20 441 8 17-2C2(I) 957 3.49 3112 2411 4147 3.72 219 1572 4237 E 1.88 353 3434-EL 18-6C1 1330 5.35 1380 702 3530 a 4.31 218 1050 1640 5.25 639 - 2080

l 19-6C2 2650 4.46 2640 604 3750 4.24 1760 3710 4510

$ 4.39 1850 2550 Y' 20-6C3 1810 13.00 1010 281 2670 20.70 1130 281 1970 23.00 484 205 8

o 8 (1) Values corrected for mass added below load cell.

8 et 8

e

.N 2

S S

Specimen 3 - 1st Z Mode Mode #3 Damp: 1.02%

Freq: 21.84 Hz View : < - 5,3,2 >

z x a Y

Specimen 3 - 1st X-Y flode Mode di Damp: 122%

Frea: 12.85 Hz Vie w : < - 5,3,2 >

r ~

Y a

C 2-x Specimen 3 - 2nd X-Y fiode Mode #2 Damp:.92%

Freq: 16.30 Hz Vie w: < 0,0.8 >

l l

l y

a fWx Figure 5.1: Experimentally Obtained liode Shapes Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document flo. A-000197, Pane 61 of 63 w -

C f

Specinen 6 - 1st Z tiode Mode #1 D amp: .8 8 %

Freq: 13.4 4 Hz View: < - 5,3,2 >

z X d y

Specimen 6 - 1st X-Y ibde Mode #2 Damp:.65%

Frea: 15.28 Hz Vie w: < - 5,3,2 >

Y a

,G-*x l Figure 5.1 (concluded)

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Paqe 62 of 63 l

l

r- .

6.0 REFERENCES

References are Eba'sco Services' test specifications and memoranda which are contained in Volume III (Appendix B) of this report and the test procedure which is contained in Volume IV (Appendix C).

l l

Comanche Peak Conduit Tests, Document No. A-000197, Page 63 of 63

_