ML20091R561: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, LEGAL/LAW FIRM TO NRC | | document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, LEGAL/LAW FIRM TO NRC | ||
| page count = 1 | | page count = 1 | ||
| project = | |||
| stage = Request | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 05:01, 25 September 2022
| ML20091R561 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1984 |
| From: | Horin W BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Bloch P, Jordan W, Mccollom K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20091R570 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8406150169 | |
| Download: ML20091R561 (1) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:f-;. 7 .N a , LAW OFFICES UF El5 HOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS b l 1200 S EVENTE ENTH STR E ET, N. W. IN NEW YOMM .,# WASHINGTON, D. C. aOO3e alsHOP, ListRMAN & COOM as mRoAoWar , taCa) es7 osoO New YORR N EW YO R R 10004 / TcLex 44os74 iNTLAW us (aia)a4e-osoo veLen saater June 2, 1984 Peter L. Bloch, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Division of Engineering, Architecturo &-Technology i Oklahoma State University i Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 Subj: et al. Texas (Comanche Utilities Peak Electric Steam Company, Electric StatIon 7 N Units 1 and 2); Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 Gentlemen: ? ! Applicants transmit herewith Applicants' Motion for l Summary Disposition Regarding the Design of Richmond Inserts and Their Application to Support Design. This motion addresses ! Items 10 and 11 of Applicants' Plan. Sincerely, Wil .' , Counsel for Applicants WAH: paw l cca Board and Parties - Express Delivery Remainder of Service List - First Class Mail ( Q FDR
!. A- N i 6.
C/,
'N i f June 5f *
,[1984' h
~
Ey; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g/ s - BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
. In Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446 COMPANY, ~~et al. )
1
) (Application for 4
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating Licenses) Station,. Units 1 and 2) ) j APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION REGARDING DESIGN OF RICHMOND INSERTS
, AND THEIR APPLICATION TO SUPPORT DESIGN Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. { 2.749, Texas Utilities Electric 4
Company, et al. (" Applicants").hereby move the Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board for summary disposition of the Citizens Associa-tion for-Sound Energy's.(" CASE") allegations'regarding the-design of Richmond inserts and their application to ~ support' design.- As a demonstrated in the accompanying Affidavit of ' John C. Finneran,. Robert-C.'Iotti and~R. Peter Deubler Regarding Design of Richmond-Inserts and Their-Application.to Support Design.(" Affidavit") (Attachment.1) and Statement of Material Facts-(Attachment 2),' there-is no . genuine issue of- fact to be heard regarding this ,. issue. Applicanta c urge the Board .to so find, to. conclude that-Applicants are entitled to a favorable decision as a matter'of law, andito dismiss this issue from the proceeding. ,
/
W W
\
- l l
I. BACKGROUND In August 1982, intervenor CASE deposed Mr. Jack Doyle, a former employee of Applicants, with respect to certain allegations Mr. Doyle had regarding the design of pipe supports at Comanche Peak. Mr. Doyle's deposition was subsequently admitted into the record in this proceeding as his testimony (CASE Exhibit 669; Tr. 3631).- One issue raised by Mr. Doyle concerned the adequacy of design practico regarding Richmond inserts. All parties presented testimony on this issue, e.g., CASE Exhibits 659 at 1-2, 4 and 659H at 3; Applicants' Exhibit 142D at Attachment C; and NRC Staff Exhibits 207 at 17-22, and [ 208 at 7. Following litigation of the pipe support design allegaticas, each of the parties submitted proposed findings addressing, inter alia, allegations regarding Richmond inserts. (See Applicants' ; Proposed Findings of Fact Concerning Pipe Support Design Questions (August 5, 1983) at 28-40; NRC Staff Proposed Findings of Fact (August 30, 1983) at 36-46; CASE's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ( August 22, 1983), Section VIII; and Applicants' Reply to CASE's Proposed Findings of . Fact and ' Conclusions-of Law (September 6, 1983) _ at 28-30. ) In its Memorandum and Order of December 28, 1983, at 60-66, concerning. design issues, the Board stated that the record was not adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate design practice regarding Richmond inserts. ~By Memorandum and Order of February 8, 1984, at.30-31, the Board reaffirmed its earlier decision.
M D a. 2 This motion addresses CASE's concerns regarding Richmond inserts, as set forth in its Proposed Findings of Fact at Section VIII. In responding to these concerns, Applicants respond to the Board's December 28, 1983 and February 8, 1984 Orders, and provide the information which they committed to generate as part of Applicants' Plan to Respond to Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design) (" Applicants' Plan"), items 10 and 11 (February 3, 1984). II. APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION A. General Applicants have previously discussed the legal requirements applicable to motions for summary disposition in their " Motion for Summary Disposition of Certain CASE Allegations Regarding AWS and ASME Code Provisions Related to Weld'ing," filed April 15, 1984 (at 5-8), incorporated herein by reference. B. CASE's Allegations Regarding Richmond Inserts Should be Summarily Dismissed In Section VIII of- its Proposed Findingc, - CASE makes i allegations regarding Applicants use of Richmond' inserts that may be categorized into six basic areas, viz.,-(1) the' factor of safety used for Richmond inserts, (2)' testing of Richmond inserts, (3) ability to resist axial' torsion,'(4) methods used to analyze connections, (5) bending moments in the bolts, and (6)
- sharing of shear loads.
i l i l l
'I
4-4 In responding to these concerns, Applicants committed to the following analytical and testing program (see Applicants' Plan at items 10 and 11):1
"(10) Provide evidence of the capability of Richmond inserts to accept the maximum loads to which they will be subjected in tension, shear, and combined tension and shear, with ample margins of safety. This evidence will be generated by a combination of tests and analy-ses.
(11) Provide evidence of the tension in the bolt employed by-Richmond inserts and the correct load distribution in the concrete, washer, tube steel, and bolt occurring when a torque is applied to the tube steel. This evidence will be generated through the performance of finite element analyses." The results of this analytical and testing program and
- associated evaluations are set forth in the attached Affidavit.
As set forth more fully below, none of CASE's si'x concerns, raise-an issue that reflects.- a breakdown in Applicantu' Quality 7 Assurance ("QA") Program or a safety concern in the plant. Accordingly, no genuine issue-of material fact exists with respect to these allegations, . and the Board should find that the Applicants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- 1. Factors of Safety Used for Richmond Inserts and : Tests This issue raises the concern that Applicants had employed a safety factor of 2 for Richmond inserts instead of'the f.
manufacturer's recommended value of 3. (See.the Staff's Proposed Findings of' Fact and Conclusions of Law (August 30, 1984) .atz37-39 adopted in the Board's-December 28, 1983 Memorandum and Order ? , 1 In addition, Applicants have addressed CASEs tartI An' dial iconcern that Applicants failed to considerf the Ai-307; bolt = in their calculations submittedras Applicants.' EkS_ bit 142D. Affidavit.at 43-46.
+ . ..? ,
c $- - e- [ N.
\
* \
at 60-62). The two key aspects of this concern are (1) the appropriateness of Applicants' use of a safety factor which could be viewed as lower than that recommended by the manufacturer, and (2) the lack of certain test data regarding Richmond inserts. Affidavit at 3.
' Sased on testing, the manufacturer of the Richmond inserts specified the ultimate loads associated with the various sized inserts. Id. at 4. In addition, the manufacturer selected a factor of safety and back-calculated the corresponding allowable loads, i.e., the ultimate load divided by the safety factor is equal to the allowable load. Id. It should be noted that this factor of safety and corresponding recommended allowable loads specified by the manufacturer applies only to the Richmond insert itself and not to the threaded rod (sometimes used interchangeably with bcit) which may be procured separately. Id.
Allowables for the threaded rod are those set forth in-appropriate Codes, e.g., for A-36 threaded rod the allowed load in shear is 17.7 kips. Id. In its design calculations, Applicants used higher allowable loads for the inserts than specified by the manufacturer. Id[. Accordingly, if the ultimate loads listed by the manufacturer were applicable to Applicants' use of the inserts, it could be viewed that . Applicants had reduced the factor of safety recommended by the manufacturer. Id. However, this is not the case. Taking into consideration relevant factors (e.g., the differences between the conditions of the tests from which the Richmond insert manufacturer obtained its recommended ultimate
loads and the conditions known by Applicants to exist in the actual applications of the Richmond inserts at CPSES), the ultimate loads for the inserts _used at CPSES are much higher than those specified by the manufacturer, and the actual safety margin for Richmond inserts in CPSES is essentially equivalent to that recommended by the manufacturer. Idl. at 4-11. Two sets of tests have been conducted that verify Applicants' position. Id. at 11-17. First, at the request of the NRC Staff, shear tests were conducted at CPSES on 1-1/2 inch Richmond inserts in March 1983. Id. at 11. The results of these tests demonstrate that the performance capabilities of the Richmond inserts in shear exceed the design allowables by a ratio in excess of 3.3 to 1. Id. at 12. -Because the. tests were terminated before failure, the actual ratio is higher, and tdu-results are conservative. Id.2 In addition, a second series of tests were conducted in March and April 1984. Id. at 13. These tests were perforrued to determine the load-carrying characteristics of 1 and 1-1/2 inch Richmond inserts (inserts of concern here)-when' subjected to tension only, shear only and combined shear and-tension loadings.- jgl. The test results confirm the judgment of Applicants that the actual ' factors of safety for the Richmond inserts used at - CPSES 2 It should be noted that the test results for the specimens with and without 1 inch washers-installed were comparable, , indicating that the presence of the washer has little f effect on the performance of the threaded connection / bolt or the Richmond insert. Id. If any bending _ stress is introduced in the bolt as'a result of the 1 inch thick washer,~the-test
~
results show-that it is not significant. Id,. at 12-13. l 1 l
i are in excess of 3.0 for shear, tension and combined shear- ' tension loadings. Id. at 13-14. In sum, from the foregoing, Applicants conclude that the margins of safety for Richmond inserts for loading in shear, tension and combined shear-tension for the conditions at CPSES are in excess of a factor of 3.0.3
- 2. Ability to Resist Axial Torsion This issue refers to a concern by CASE regarding the ability of the Richmond assembly (including the threaded rod) to resist
" axial" torsion. The Board concurred with CASE's view that the Applicants' manner of computing the tension force in the bolt of the Richmond insert assembly, resulting from torsion in the tube steel, was incorrect. Id. at 18.
In computing the torsion force in the bolt of a Richmond insert, Applicants used formula T = Fd; where T = torsion applied to the steel tube, F = tension in the bolt, and d = the distance from the bolt to the force acting on the washer. Id. The Board believed that Applicants were using an incorrect calculation to determine the distance "d," i.e., 2/3 of the one half of the width of the washer. See December 28, 1983 Memorandum and Order at 62-66. Affidavit at-19. 3 As to CASE's concern that the concrete used in the tests has more rebar than that found at CPSES, Applicants have conducted a review of a representative sample of test reports of concrete used at CPSES to assure that such concrete is essentially the same as that used in the tests. Id. at 16-
- 17. In addition, Applicants have reviewed NCRs regarding concrete at CPSES to provide. additional assurance that the concrete used in these tests was representative of that used at CPSES. .Id. at 17. In short, with regard to concrete, the~
test conditions are representative of, and even more conservative th -n, the conditions at CPSES. Id. i
While Applicants, in general, did not use this calculation to determine the value of "d," Applicants conducted an evaluation of the methodology used in calculating "d" to determine whether it accurately reflected the appropriate load distribution. Ijl . at 19. As a result of the evaluation, Applicants conclude that while the method used to calculate "d" is valid if the pro'blem were truly two-dimensional, and is generally employed for solving problems of this kind, the distribution of strains within the assembly is a tri-dimensional complex pattern and without further analyses the issue could not be resolved with certainty. Ifl. at
~
20-21. To study this problem further, Applicants performed detailed finite element analyses utilizing the STARDYNE computer program. Id. at 21. The results of the analyses indicated that the methods used by Applicants, as described above, did not precisely model the resulting forces. Ifl. Further, the formulas used by Applicants resulted in a calculated force that was low for virtually all supports by as much as 18 percent (for six specific 4 x 4 x 1/2 inch tube steel sections, the calculated force was low by a factor of 33%) . Id. at 21. However, because of conservatisms in the methodology and process used by Applicants. in the initial calculations, the finite' element analyses and confirmatory testing reflected that in all cases-allowables would not have been exceeded. Id. at 21-24 and Attachment F. In the process of performing the finite element analyses, Applicants noted that when it was assumed that no clearance 1 existed between the tube steel and the bolt, a shear _ couple is l
" ~ _9-l created which. places the bolt in bending. Id. at 24-5. The 1 effect becomes pronounced _when the bolt holes are offset to their largest values. Id. at 25. To investigate the possible adverse effects on the connections of this condition, Applicants developed a screening criterion which was based on very conservative assumptions. Id. Testing revealed that the assumptions were exceedingly conservative and contained factors of safety in excess of 10. Id. at 25-8. Based on Applicants' evaluations, only 12 supports exceeded the conservative criterion. Id. at 24-30. Subsequent testing revealed that with regard to the 12 supports, there is no safety concern, and an
- . adequate margin of safety exists. Id. at 28-30.
In sum, from the foregoing Applicants conclude that the Richmond inserts-have adequate capacity to withstand the effects of axial torsion with adequate margins of safety and without any adverse impacts.
- 3. Method Used to Analyze Connection CASE criticized the method used by Applicants'to' analyze 1the connections of the bolts, tube steel and Richmond inserts in that Applicants assumed the release _of all moments except the torsional moment (M ). Id. at 31._ While CASE agrees that th'e-moment in the tube about the axis of_the bolt'(M.Y)'cannot.
develop, it1 contends that the moment (Mg ), which would tend to _ produce a prying action,Eshould either be considered-(i.e.,
" coupled out") whenever the torsional moment (M,) is considered , !1 or both Mx and M g should be_ released. CASE Proposed Findings at VIII-6.
4 -
, , ,g ,
9 4 - - - ~ -. r,- , + - - -
Applicants performed a finite element analysis in response l to these concerns. The results of the analysis reflect that Applicants' method of calculation (i.e., the release of all moments except the torsional moment (M x )) is appropriate, and no increase in bolt tension is experienced. Id. at 32-40. In addition, a parametric study was used to analyze if any prying action would occur from a bending moment (Mz) produced due to a torsional load. Id. at 33. The results of this study indicate that there is no prying action. Id. at 33-37, n. 12. Applicants also reanalyzed several support configurations , selected at random to test the effect of assuming the release of f all moments, as CASE recommended. Id. at 39. The results of i ~ this analysis indicate that adequate margins exist even considering fully released moments. Id. i In' sum, from the foregoing Applicants conclude that with i j regard to this issue, the method used to analyze connections is correct and assures adequate margins of safety.- i
- 4. Bending Moments i
CASE has also. expressed concern with allegedly high bending
~
moments' caused by chear forces on a bolt that is offset from the1 concrete surface by the use of a one-inch washer between the concrete and the support steel'(see the discussion in Applicants' Proposed Findings at 35-37). Applicants have utilized.a finite element analysisLto- , evaluate the effected supports which are highly loaded in shear.
' Affidavit.at 40.
The results-df this analysis reflect!that such-bending moments- do not present a safety concern (13. at 40-42) . .
~
l
, . . , - . ,-,c._, , . , . . . , , - + - , , , ,
~
These results were reinforced by testing which demonstrated that deflection of the supports at the design loads are very small regardless of whether the load is applied torsionally or as a shear load, and that ample margin against failure exists. Id.
- 5. Sharing of Shear Load CASE has also raised a concern with the sharing of a shear load by all the bolts in a particular support. CASE's Proposed Findings at VIII-lO. More specifically, CASE alleges that because of the presence of oversized bolt holes, only half or fewer of the bolts would accept the shear, and these would exceed allowable values before the remainder of the bolts could take up the load. Id. at 42.
Since this issue is common to all connections, not just Richn nd inserts, Applicants have elected to address it in a separate Affidavit and Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding the Effects of Gaps on Structural Behavior Under Geismic Loading Conditions, filed in this proceeding on May 18, 1984, _and, as appropriate, incorporated herein by referer.ce.
l e III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Applicants request that the Board grant Applicants' motion for summary disposition. , Respectfully submitted, Nichola( f. Reynolds William A. Horin Malcolm H. Philips, Jr. BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants June 2, 1984 - 4
m b h
) Attachment l' -
t .
- l. _
cr i 15' June
.dr 1, \ 984 r,Q3
?>
\ ., '/
'jfg11),j \
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,_ BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) 50-446 COMPANY, et al.
-- ~~
)
) (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2) ) AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN C. FINNERAN, JR., ROBERT C. IOTTI AND R. PETER DEUBLER REGARDING DESIGN OF RICHMOND INSERTS AND THEIR APPLICATION TO SUPPORT DESIGN j We, John C. Finneran, Jr., Robert C. Iotti, and R. Peter Deubler, being first duly sworn hereby depose and state as < follows:1 (Finneran) I am the Pipe Support Engineer for the Pipe Support Engineering Group at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. In this position, I oversee the design work of all pipe support design organizations for Comanche Peak. I have previously provided testimony in this proceeding. A statement of my professional and educational qualifications was received into
~
evidenceLas Applicants' Exhibit 142B. 1 Except as ~ otherwise indicated, eachl Affiant attests to'all parts of this affidavit.. ,f,, _
0 , c
-2~
(Iotti) I am the Chief Engineer, Applied Physics for Ebasco Services, Inc. I have been retained by Texas Utilities Electric Company to oversee the assessment of allegations regarding the design of piping and supports at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ("CPSES"). A statement of my educational and , professional qualifications is attached to Applicants' letter of May 16, 1984 to the Licensing Board. (Deubler) I am the Project Manager for the Comanche Peak Project and-formerly Director of Engineering for NPS Industries, Inc. In this position, I oversee the design work of Nuclear Power Services on Comanche Peak including work related to the Richmond inserts. A statement of my profescional and educational qualifications is submitted as Attachment G. Q. What is the purpose of this Affidavit? A. This Affidavit responds to six CASE allegations (see CASE's Proposed Findings at Section VIII) and two Board concerns (see Board Memorandum and Order of December 28, 1983 at'60-
- 66) regarding the design of Richmond inserts. In addition, this Affidavit provides information in. compliance with Items 10 and 11 of Applicants' Plan to Respond to Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance'for Design) (" Applicants' Plan")
1984). (February 3, CASE's six specific allegations are related to (1) the factor of safety used for Richmond
' inserts,'(2) testing of Richmond inserts, (3) ability to resist axial torsion, (4) methods used'to analyze connections, (5) bending moments in the bolts, and (6)
k s sharing of shear loads. Each item is addressed in the following sections of this Affidavit. In responding to CASE's concerns regarding items (1), (2) and (3) above, Applicants also address the two Board concerns and provide the information to comply with Applicants' Plan. I. and II. FACTOR OF'SATCTi USED FOR RICHMOND INSERTS AND TESTS Q. Please state the concerns raised regarding the factor of safety used for Richmond inserts and associated testing. A. This issue deals witn a' concern set forth in the Special ! Investigation Team's (" SIT") Report 2 that Applicants had-employed a cafety factor of 2 f or Richmond inserts instead of the manufacturer's recommended value of 3. ( The SIT and Board's concern is expressed in the Staff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law- ( August 30, 1984) at 37-39. The two key issues regarding this area are (1) the appropriateness of Applicants' use of a safety factor which is lower than that recommended by the manufacturer, and _ (2 ) the lack of-certain test data regarding Richmond inserts. A. Factors of Safety Q. Describe your evaluation of the safety factor used by Applicants as compared to that recommended by the ma nu f acture r. 2 NRC Inspection Report 50-445/82-26; 50-446/82-14 dated 2/15/83 at 17-23.
.,v
4 A. In the manufacturer's literature regarding Richmond inserts, based on testing the manufacturer specifies the ultimate loads associated with the various sized inserts. In addition, the manufacturer selects a factor of safety and back-calculates the corresponding allowable loads, i.e., the ultimate load divided by the safety factor is equal to the allowable load. It should be noted that this factor of safety and corresponding recommended allowable loads specified by the manufacturer apply only to the Richmond insert itself and not to the threaded rod (sometimes used interchangeably with bolt) which may be procured separately. Allowableo for the thrended rod are those set forth in appropriate AISC Codas, e.g., for A-36 threaded rod the allowed load in shear is 17.7 kips. In its design calculations, Applicants used higher allovable loads for the inserts than specified by the manufacturer. Accordingly, if the ultimate loads recommended by the manufacturer were applicable to
~
Applicants' use of the inserts at CPSES, it could be viewed that Applicants had reduced the factor of safety recommended by the manufacturer. However, this is not the case. As set forth more fully below, taking into consideration all relevant factors (e.g., the differences between the conditions of the tests from which the Richmond ~ insert manufacturer obtained its recommended ultimate loads and the conditions known by Applicants to exist in the actual 3
1 applications of the Richmond inserts at CPSES), the ultimate loads for the inserts are much higher than specified by the manu facturer, and the actual safety margins used by Applicants are essentially equivalent to those used by the manufacturer. The current allowable recommended loads for the inserts by the Richmond Screw Anchor Co. are based on tests conducted at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in 1957. Richmond's recommended allowable (working) loads are based on the average ultimate test loads divided by a factor of safety which has varied over the years. Tests were conducted for 3/4, 1, and 1-1/4 inch diameter inserts in shear and 1 and 1-1/2 inch diameter inserts in tension. (However, at issue at CPSES are 1 inch and 1-1/2 inch inserts.) For tho shear tests, the concrete strength was 3220 psi, while for the tension tests the concrete strength was 2850 psi for the 1-inch diameter insert and 2950 psi for the 1-1/2 inch diameter insert. Data from'the manufacturer's tests reflect.that failure in all insert shear tests and the 1-1/2 inch insert tension-tests occurred due to failure of the testing anchor stud bolt. Failure in the 1 inch tension test occurred due to failure of the insert by concrete cone pullout. -It should be noted that failure of the insert can generally be equated with failure in the concrete resulting in a cone of concrete being pulled out (" concrete cone I
^
1
, 1 3
1 1 l pullout"3.) Table A specifies the manufacturer's recommended allowable loads, and in parentheses the associated factor of safety for each relevant size insert, ! as they evolved over the years. TABLE A Recommended Allowable Loads in Kips (Factor _of Safety) Richmond Bulletin Shear Tension 1" 1-1/2" 1" 1-1/2"
#6,1961 10.0 (2.3) 25 (2.6)
#6,1971 10.0j2.3) 25 (2 6)
#6,1975 8.0 (3.0) 19* (3.0) 8.27 (3.0) 21.674 (3.0)
- Estimated (apparently unsupported by manufacturer's tests)
+ Failure occurred in the testing anchor stud bolt-
++
Failure occurred due to concrete cone pull-out
** Ultimate shear load was in excess of 27,000 lbs.,
hence allowable could be 9.0 kips From the foregoing, it can be seen that the failure modes of concern are either failure of the insert through concrete cone pullout or failure of the threaded rod or bolt used with the insert. -As noted above, allowable loads and - 3 Even if failure by internal damage of the insert occurs instead of concrete cone pullout, the load at which it occurs is essentially the same at which concrete cone pullout would occur _(see the results of the 11 arch 1984 tests set forth in Attachment B). l
j factors of safety concerning the threaded rods used with the inserts are established by Code, adhered to by Applicants and not an issue here. The major factor affecting cone pullout is the strength of the concrete in which the inserts are placed. Significantly, the manufacturer's tests were conducted with concrete which had a strength of between 2850 and 3220 psi (approximately 3000 psi). While the concrete at CPSES is designed for 4000 psi, it actually ranges from 4500 to above 5000 psi. We believe that the additional strength of the concrete results in a much higher ultimate failure load. Accordingly, it was Applicants' position that use of allowable loads higher than recommended by the manufacturer wts juatified based on the higher ultimate loads for the l particular circumstancen at CPSES, and the safety factor specified by the manufacturers would be essentially met. Q. Have there been any analyses which verify the appropriate-A ness of Applicants' position? A. Yes. First we would like to discuss the safety factors in tension. The basis for Applicants' position that the ultimate load is much higher than established by the manufacturer's test has been verified by a simple comparison with the manufacturer's test results. The mechanism of tensile failure of Richmond inserts and concrete cone , pullout is no doubt a complex mechanism difficult to
l
)
precisely analyze. However, the increase in the ultimate insert tensile capacity due to greater strength concrete can be conservatively calculated using the following equation:4 T = 4 9 (f ) 1/2 where: T = ultimate tensEle capacity
@ = emperically derived constant f' = compressive strength of concrete c
To determine the value of $, we applied the above written formula to the manufacturer's test data (i.e., ultimate loads and compressive strength of concrete) and back calculated $. The values for %, calculated as noted above, are set forth in Table B. While the computed values relate only to the 1 and 1-1/2 inch inserts (the ones of concern), they compare favorably with values computed from other sized inserts. TABLE B Richmond Insert Din'. (in) 3/4 7/8 1 1-1/4 1-1/2 Value of $ .85* .81* .84 77* .84**
- Deduced from manufacturer's allowable and a factor of safety of 3.0, not from direct test data, with f-' c
= 2850 psi.
** This value is an estimate since the failure mode.in the manufacturer's test was rod failure and not concrete failure. However, it is above .79 which is the value calculated assuming concrete failure occurred at rod failure.
4 This equation is well recognized in industry and extensively used in numerous text books and learned treatises.
- k. a
Applying the imperically derived values of $ in equation, and factoring in the range of actual strengths of concrete used at CPSES, the ultimate tensile loads can be calculated. These calculated ultimate tensile loads along with the allowable design loads used at CPSES and the associated safety factor (ultimate load divided by allowable load) are set forth in Table C. TABLE C Estimated Ultimate Tensile Loads & Safety Factors For Richmond Inserts Allowable insert Richmond Loads Used in Estimated Ult? mate Size G Des 1gn at CPSES Loads L (Safety Factors) 4000 ost 4500 gst 5000 pst 1" .84 11 5 29 8 (2.6) 31 6 (2.7) 33 4 (2.9) 1-1/2" .84 31.3 80.9 (2.6) 85.8 (2.7) 90.4 (2.9) Thus, the estimated minimum safety factors for Richmond inserts in tension which result from the design approach employed at CPSES using actual conditions existing vary in reality between 2.7 to 2.9. (Even had a value of % = .79 been used, comparable safety factors would result, e.g., 2.7 instead of 2.9.) It should be noted that out of 912 supports reviewed in Unit 1 and common areas employing Richmond inserts, 865 utilize low strength threaded rods (864 SA-36 and one SA-307 (bolt)). The remaining are high strength threaded rods (45 i
_~10 - SA-193, one SA-108, one SA-325). The low strength threaded rods / bolts have lower allowab!e loads than the allowable loads for the Richmond inserts used in the CPSES design, noted above. Accordingly, while Table C sets forth the allowable loads for the Richmond inserts for pure tension or shear loads, the governing limits on design would not be the allowables for the inserts, but rather the allowable loads of the threaded rods. As a practical matter, however, since inserts and their rods are seldom loaded in pure tension or shear, but are loaded in combined loadings, the governing limit on design will be the interaction ratio ~for the insert.5
, O. On what basis was the shear allowable value established for the 1-1/2 inch insert in the absence of a shear test for'
- that size insert?
A. The shear value was based on an extrapolation from the existing test data. The test on the 1 inch insert showed that the shear ultimate capacity was approximately equal to the tension ultimate capacity. It also showedothat the ultimate shear capacity of the testings anchor studbolt governed rather than the insert's capacity.- There fore, the insert's capacity was actually higher than the-shear. failure 5 The' interaction ration ~ discussed.later in this affidavit?for eitger the ninsert or-the threaded rod is expressed as S-- L+ T S
< l.0 A A 5, '
.sh0ar, alkowable' tension.and shearcin the' insert or' threaded
' rod, and n = 4/3 for the insert and 2 for the. rod.
t load of the test. This prompted the Applicants to set the shear allowable for the insert equal to its pullout (tensile allowable). Applicants further reduced the shear allowable by multiplying its tension allowable by the ratio of the ma nuf acturer's working shear load (18 kips for 1-1/2 inch insert), to the manufacturer's recommended working tensile load (21.67 kips for 1-1/2 inch insert). B. Verification Tests O. What tests have been conducted to demonstrate the effect of shear loads on Richmond inserts? A. To comply with the directives of the SIT, shear tests were conducted at CPSES on 1-1/2 inch Richmond inserts in March 1983. The test report summarizing those tests is included as Attachment A to this testimony. The salient conclusions of these test, are summarized beJow. A total of nine specimens were tested. All utilized 1-1/2 inch type EC-6W inserts in concrete representative of the strength and reinforcement found at CPSES. For the test the concrete strength was approximately 4600 psi. lon six specimens a 1 inch thick _ washer plate was inserted _between the shear plate and the insert to represent the washer which is used in pipe hanger installations._ Three specimens without washers' employed A-490 bolts. Three more specimens with washers also used A-490 bolts, and finally the three remaining specimens (with washers) utilized SA-36 threaded rods.
(. In no case was the test permitted to go to ultimate failure. Loading application was halted where the load had reached a magnitude considered to be suf ficient in comparison with the design load values. (At this point the NRC representative witnessing the test indicated his concurrence). In spite of the fact that the test did not take the inserts to failure, the results indicated that the performance capabilities of'the Richmond inserts in shear exceed the design allowable by a ratio in excess of 3.3 to
- 1. Because the tests did not go to failure, the actual ratio is higher and the results are conservative.
Moreover, test results for the specimens with and without the 1 inch thick washer were comparable, indicating that the presence of the washer has little effect on the performance of the threaded connection / bolt or the Richmond a insert. If any bending stress is introduced in the bolt as a result of the 1 inch thick washer, the test results show that it is not significant enough to distinguish the difference. These results justify the shear allowables regarding Richmond inserts used by Applicants in the design of CPSES. Q. Have other tests been conducted on the Richmond inserts? 2 e
i G A. Yes. As a result of the allegations by CASE that the preceding tests were not sufficient to address combined tension and shear loadings 6 and the Board's concern with the absence of test data, Applicants proposed a plan 7 which stated that Applicants would:
" Provide evidence of the capability of Richmond inserts to accept the maximum loads to which they will be subjected in tension, shear and combined tension and shear, with ample margins of safety. The evidence will be genera ted by a combination of tests and analyses."
To fulfill this plan Applicants performed another series of tests in March and April, 1984. A final-report summarizing these tests is included as Attachment B to this testimony. In summary, these tests were performed to determine the load carrying characteristics of 1-1/2 inch type EC-6U and 1 inch type EC-2W Richmond inserts when subjected to tension only, shear only and combined shear and tension loadings.
! The strength, deflections and type of deformations produced by these loadings were determined. The tension and shear testing conformed to the requirements of ASTM-E488-81,
" Standard Test Methods for Strength of Anchors'in Concrete and Masonry Elements." The number of samples of each diameter Richmond insert was in accordance with Section 7 of-ASTM-E488-81. However, Applicants are not aware of any.
6 CASE Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of. Law at Section VII and VIII. 7 Applicants' Plan at 7.-
l 14 - ' l standard method or test for combined tension and shear. For such tests, tension and shear loads were applied to the test specimen in equal increments, i.e. the tens on load was always equal to the shear load. (For a detailed description of the apparatus refer to Attachment B.) The tests utilized a total of 30 Richmond inserts (fifteen 1-1/2 inch and fifteen 1-inch). To prepare for the tests these inserts and several more spares of both sizes were cast in concrete slabs which utilized the minimum type of surface reinforcement encountered in the field (#7 grade 60 bars at 10 inches on center in each direction near the surface). The concrete strength was also typical of that encountered in the field, having an average compressive strength in excess of 4900 pai. To ensure that the tests actually tested the inserts' capacity (and not the capacity of the threaded rods), high strength threaded rods / bolts were utilized in all cases. As previously stated, in field installation it is the threaded rod which most of ten has the lower allowable load in pure shear or tension. In this regard, in its Proposed Findir.gs at Section VII, CASE has alleged that the wrong allowables; for inserts-have been used at Comanche Peak.. *his is not so.- The proper allowables for the inserts have been used. The results of the tests are presented in Attachment B and summarized in Table D, below.
5 i TABLE D Ultimate Shear, Tensile and Combined Capacities of Richmond Inserts Richmond i nsert Tension (T) Shear (S) Dia. Allowable (T ) Ultimate (T ) FS Allowable (Sg) Ultimate (S FS V U 1" 11.5 41.27 3.59 11.5 40.28 3.50 1-1/2" 31.3 101.96 3.26 27.0 94.34 3.49 Combined Shear and Tension 1" 28.35 (4.15) 1-1/2" 63.47 (3.68)
+ Utilizes interaction formula (T/T )g + (S/S "t*
U Factor of Safety in this case is computed from T 1
\ 4/3
Q[TfS)4/3+fSGS) The test results confirm the judgment of Applicants that (1) shear and tensile ultimate capacities are nearly the same and (2) the actual factors of safety are in excess of 3.0 for shear, tension and combined shear-tension loadings. An important concomitant result of this series of tests is the confirmation of the conservatism of the tension-shear interaction formula utilized for design. This formula, which is suggested by the PCI Design Handbook, Precast and Prestressed Concrete, 1971 at 6-20, states that the interaction between tension and shear goes as the 4/3 power. This formula is verified-by the results of these
D 16 - 1 l tests. See Attachment C which shows that all test points fall outside the interaction curve, thus providing evidence of the conservatism of the interaction formula. O. What would you conclude from the result of these and prior i tests? A. We would conclude that the margins of safety for Richmond inserts for loading in shear, tension and combined shear-4 tension for the conditions expected in the field are in excess of a factor of 3.0. O. In addition to the general concerns raised about testing of , Richmond inserts, are there specific concerns about the tests which you wish to address? A. Yes. Apparently faced with results of the 1983 shear tests which indicated the significant capacity of the Ricnmond inserts over design, CASE challenged the validity of the test by alleging that the conditions of the reinforcement in the concrete tests labs did not represent the conditions in the field. As stated in Attachment A, however, the concrete used in the tests was. representative of concrete in the plant. Indeed, in Attachment A is the actual test report on the concrete used in the tests. Applicants have conducted a review of a representative sample.of test reports of concrete used at CPSES to assure that such concrete is essentially the same as that used in theitests. In addition, Applicants have reviewed NCRs regarding concrete at CPSES to provide additional-assurance that the concrete
4 used in these tests was representative of that used at CPSES. From our review, we conclude that test conditions are representative of conditions at CPSES. Moraover, to be very conservative, the new tests conducted in March 1984, employed two layers of reinforcement rods rather than 4 layers used in the prior test and at CPSES. As seen in Attachment B, the capacities of the Richmonds were not impaired. In any event, the difference in reinforcement in the concrete (the concern expressed by CASE) is not significant when compared to other factors. If rebar was a dominant factor, it would be evident from a comparison of the results of the March 1983 tests (using 4 layers' of rebar) and the March 1984 tests (using 2 layers'of rebar). However, a comparison of those results (including bolt deflections) indicates that the amount of rebar is not a significant factor. See also Tr. 6495-6500 wherein the cognizant Staff witness concurs with this assessment. III. ABILITY TO RESIST AXIAL TORSION Q. Are you familiar with the issue regarding the' ability to resist axial torsion?
T o A. Yes. This issue refers to the concern by CASE of the ability of the Richmond assembly (including the threaded rod) to resist " axial" torsion. In the Board's Memorandum and Order of December 28, 1983 at 62, the Board states that this concern is important because "The Richmond was tested without being connected to a steel member that could induce torsion into the bolt. Consequently, the safety of the Richmond depends in part on the test described in subsection 1., [8] above, and in part on the engineering analysis of the effects of torsion on the bolt." The Board concurred with CASE's view that the Applicants' manner of computing the tension force in the bolt of the Richmond insert assembly resulting from torsion in the tube steel is incorrect. Id. O. Describe Applicants' method of computing the' torsion forces in the bolt. A. In computing the torsion. force in the bolt of a Richmond insert, the formula T = Fd is used where-T =.the-torsion applied to the steel. tube (see Figures;1 and 2 of' Attachment D), F= the tension in the bolt, and d = the distance from the bolt to the force acting on.the washer. The Board believed that Applicants were using-the distance d as equal. to 2/3 of the.one half of.the width.of the. washer. .See December :28, 1983 Memorandum'and Order at 62-66.
'8 .This quote refers to .the-March 1983 ; test required by the- - -
SIT, completed by Applicants, and discussed above. _ -i
6 l l 1 Applicants, in general, did not use this distance, but instead relied on predeveloped charts which use the distance from the bolt centerline to the centroid of a triangular compressive load distribution, offset from the bolt centerline. When configurations were encountered that are not covered by the predeveloped chart, and for designs perfor.ned prior to the development of the charts, Applicants did use the distance questioned by'the Board, i.e., 2/3 of the distance between the center of the bolt and the edge of the washer. The distance derived f rom this calculation is always smaller than that which would be obtained from the predeveloped charts, which is the distance from the centerline of the bolt to the centroid of the triangular compressive load distribution defined between the neutral axis and the edge of the washer. (See Attachment D.) Since the distances from the charts predeveloped would , result in smaller calculated tension in the bolt, we have chosen to focus our discussion on the effects of using this distance (i.e., that obtained from the predeveloped charts) in order to determine whether it accurately reflects.the appropriate load distribution. To illustrate why the Board might be confused as to what distances were used, we will make use.of a similar figure (Figure 1 of Attachment D) to that utilized by the Board in its-Memorandum and Order of December 28 at 77. 'The major difference between Figure 1 and the Board's figure
-l I
'l l
m . l ; l l (which is included as Figure 2 of Attachment D) is in the meaning of the distance d2 This is the distance the Board believes Applicants used in the formula T=Fd. As shown in Figure 2 of-Attachment D that distance is equal to 2/3 of the washer half width because it is shown as starting from the center of the bolt. Applicantsgenerallyhaveusedthedistancedjfrom figure 1 of Attachment D, which represents the distance between the centerline of the bolt and the centroid of a triangular compressive stress distribution defined between th'c location of the neutra l axis of bending and the edge of the washer.- This axis is not located in the center of.the bolt but it is shifted toward the edge of the washer placed in compression by the applied torsion. The location of the
- neutral axis and the tension in the bolt can be derived by solving the static equilibrium and strain compatibility equations. Such a solution is provided in. Attachment D, where it is shown that d 2 is generally greater than d'.
This clarifies the circumstances which may have confused the Board. The-solutionfordjprovidedinAttachmentDis correct only if 'the equation expressing strain compatibility between the concrete and the bolt is valid.: While that ) equation is valid if the problem were truly two dimensional, i and is generally employed for solving' problems of this kind (see CASE Exhibit-903, Excerpts from.Blodgett's1 Column Base i Plates), one cannot say. with certainty whether the lsame form n
would apply in the three dimensional problem which is present in the field. Because there is no preload (other 4 l; than snug tightness) of the bolt and hence, no continuity' between the tube steel,-the bolt, the lower washer and the
- j. concrete, the distribution of strains between the bolt and the concrete is a tri-dimensional complex pattern.
j Q. Had Applicants performed any additional analysis to evaluate this complex situation?
, A. Yes. To study this pattern Applicants performed detailed i
i finite element analyses utilizing the STARDYNE computer program. A description of the model and results of the i analyses is given in Attachments El and E2. The results of - the analyses indicate that the formulas used by Applicants f I as described above did not precisely model'the resulting forces. The-formulas used by Applicants resulted in a i-l calculated force that was low for all but six. supports 9 by as much as 25 percent. (As noted later in this Affidavit, the finite element analyses refined this calculation and i only predicted an 18 percent increase; in addition, because j of conservatisms in the methodology and process used, in.all cases allowables would not have been exceeded.) Q. What did the results of the finite element analyses show? 1 l 9 There'are six 4'x-4 x'1/2 tube steel sections' loaded
.primarily in torsion or shear for which this effect would. ', . result in a calculated 33 percent increase. This~ increase: ; , Lhas been factored into-the interaction formulas-in Table l' ~
J (attached) and has been found to be acceptable for.the six~ ! l
~
supports.- i- , l + - ~ _..-...__-.:~.. . 4. s. .. - - , . . _ , , , . _ ,
A. The results of the finite element analyses showed the following: a) The transfer of moment (torque) into the couple which results in bolt tension and concrete compression occurs at the tangent point between the tube and the washer. In this respect Mr.'Doyle (and the Board) were correct. However, due to the stiffness of the steel, the transfer is along a line and is not spread over an area. b) The compressive force distribution in the concrete is reasonably linear and extends to the edge of the washer. Here, Applicants were right as explained in e) below. c) The quasi-linear force distribution in the concrete, however, is not the same at different locations parallel to, but away from the line drawn from the bolt centerline to the edge of the washer (this is due to tri-dimensional effects) and this is what causes the difference between the original approach used for design and the present results. The centroid of the triangular distribution existing in
, the center of the washer (line between center of bolt and edge of washer) coincides vertically with the tangent point of the tube steel and_the washer, i.e., the neutral axis adjusts accordingly.
d) The increase in bolt tension for the worst configuration is less than 25 percent _ for bolt holes located along the tube steel centerline (see note 9) and this can be calculated by using the expression T=Pd, where d3 is the - distance between the bolt centerline and the tangent point of the tube steel and the washer. e) Applicants ran.a sensitivity study and the stiffness of the concrete was varied. For the stiffness existing in the field, the distribution of compressive stresses _is essentially linear-and extends to the washer as shown in Attachment E2. As the stiffness of the concrete is decreased, the distribution of compressive forc es in _ the concrete becomes non-linear, with the peak of the .) distribution coinciding vertically with the tangent point between the tube and the washer.. f) Although not raised as an issue in this case, the finite i element model was also executed for the cases in which ' the bolt holes are offset from the centerline of the tube , steel. The-offset in'the model was equal:to the maximum value permitted by the design criteria. This was done to assure-ourselves that-the largest possible increase in
tension over that computed initially would be determined.
~
Applicants could have used the same method outlined in d) above, i.e., using the lever arm defined as the distance between the bolt centerline and the tangent point of tube steel to washer, to compute the increase in tension on the bolt for offset bolt holes. However, the finite element analyses indicate that this coupling method is not applicable for the bounding eccentricity (which is for 4" x 4" tube steel, 3/4 inch from the center or 1/2 inch from the tangent point of tube steel and washer) which is the worst case that exists in the field. g) The finite element analyses discussed in f) above shows that the torsion does not result in a concrete compression / bolt tension couple as discussed above, but rather results in a shear couple at.the top and bottom of the bolt which puts the bolt in bending. O. Is there an adverse effect on the safety of the plant from these results? A. No. As discussed-below, this wi2'. result in no adverse-effect on the safety of the plant. Table 1 (attached) lists (Unit 1 and Commor.) supports using tube steel with Richmond inserts which are safety related and which may be primarily loaded in torsion or shear. This table also lists the existing eccentricities and the loads for the inserts. It is evident that the preponderant number of supports (90%) have tube steel connected to Richmond inserts at the centerline of the tube steel.(zero offset) or with small eccentricities.; Cases of-extreme eccentricities are few (only in about-18 cases _out of the 102 cases of 4" x 4" tube steel (mostly loaded in
- torsion or shear)l do eccentricities equal to or exceed 3/8 inch). For the other 53_ supports' loaded primarily in torsion or shear,1only three have offsets equal to or?in U
excess of one inch (one inch in six and eight inch TS would give a comparable effect as the 3/8 inch in the four inch TS). For these, the maximum possible underestimation of the tension resulting in the bolt is about 25 percent. (See note 9.) The finite element analyses which will be discussed later actually indicate that the maximum experienced increase is only 18 percent. This 25 percent corresponds to the difference between the proper lever arm, 1 1.e., that between the bolt centerline and the tangent point of tube steel to washer, and that used in design for the most common 4" x 4" tube steel (thickness = 3/8 inch). $ Other tube steel dimensions will have lower differences. r (See note 9.) -The 25% increase (and the 33% increase for the 4"x 4" x 1/2" tube steel cases) can be accommodated by the supports. In the process of_ performing'the finite element analyses, described in Attachment E, Applicants noted that when it is assumed that no clearance exists between the tube steel and the bolt, a shear couple is created which places the bolt in bending. The effect becomes pronounced when the bolt holes are offset to their largest values. The prior manual or chart methods of analyses cannot account for'the bending effect. To investigate the possible adverse effects on the connections Applicants developed a screening
l l criterion, based on a very conservative analysis, by which we could judge which particular supports require closer scrutiny. This criterion requires that any connection where either the insert interaction exceeds unity or the bolt interaction equation exceeds 1.75 must be listed as a candidate f or further evalua tion. The' factor of 1.75 for the bolt derives from two factors, each having a value of 1.33, which represent, respectively, the difference between the bolt bending stresses predicted by finite element analyses and those predicted by simple flexure manual calculations (the latter are 33 percent higher, as indicated in Attachment E3), and the difference between values of .75 P (the allowable bending stress) and F (where F is yield strength of bolt material). For establishment of the criterion, Applicants allow the outer fiber stresses of the bolt to reach yield, because the manual method of analysis employed to compute such stresses has been shown by the tests discussed in Attachment F to be extremely conserva tive . The factors of safety inherent in the methods of calculation employed to establish the interaction ratios needed for the criterion are shown in Table 1 of Attachment F (method D) and are shown to be in excess of 10. The method of computation o'f the interactions is summarized below.
i A portion of the torsional moment is applied to the bolt as a bending moment, which accounts for the internally created shear couple. Depending on the offset of the bolt hole, different fractions of this moment are inputted as direct bending moment of the bolt. For any offset exceeding 1/4-inch, all the moment is inputted as bending moment of the bolt. Even with zero offset,-38.4 percent of the external moment for 1-1/2 inch bolt (17 percent for the 1 inch bolt) is applied to the bolt as a bending moment. The moment in the bolt induced by the shear is determined by multiplying the shear value by the distance from the center of the tube steel to the concrete and multiplying this times 0.58 for 1-1/2 inch-bolts with no offset (or 0.72 for'l inch bolts with no offset, or 1.0 for bolts.with offset).10 Any fraction of the moments not inputted into the bolt as bending is. coupled out into bolt tension as described for the traditional method. The Board 10 The fractions of the_ moments (where these fractions are p' O.58, 0.72'and 1.0 for11-1/2 inches with no offset, 1 inch i- with ru) offset and 1 inch with offset,'respectively) that i are assumed to go into bending are extrapolated from the ! recent worst' case shear finite element analyses conducted on j a single. size tube steel ("TS") (4" x 4" x 3/8") and prior i analyses (also conducted on 4" x 4" TS) performed in _ September of 1982. (SIT Report at 21.) Since none of these analyses were conducted at' intermediate. offsets,.a linear
- distribution'of the fraction of external moment going _into
;- the. bolt as bending is' assumed from zero offset Co'an offset 3 'of'l/4 inch. Above 1/4 inch offset all the' external moment is assumed to go into bending the-bolt.- 'Also, f or ' a ng -.
of fset all of the bending due to' shear is assumed -to go into the~ bolt. 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ______._.___.___._.____.______________._____i____.___.___._______________
o should recall that in the traditional method of analyses discussed previously, all of this moment would be coupled out as tension in the bolt. Any external pull is added to this tension-to give the total tension. The resulting tension, applied shear, and bolt bending are used in the following bolt interaction equation: (T/T A + " " *#"# " ##
+ I8/8A} ("b !"ba
+ where M ba is the allowable bolt bending moment as computed from M bac /I = 0.75 Fy, T g is the allowable bolt tension and Sg is the allowable bolt shear. The tension'(T) equals the applied external tension plus any coupled-out tension s resulting from torsion. The shear (S) is the applied external shear, and M (the applied bolt bending moment), b has been defined above. The bending moment in the bolt is converted to a couple within the bolt (moment arm = effective diameter of the bolt). The total pull of the insert, T yp, defined as the equivalent total axial load, is calculated by adding the tension component of the bolt internal couple to the tension, T, calculated above. This total insert pull and the applied shear are used in the insert interaction equa tion, noted below, l l I
. _ . ~ -
l l 6
! + S
/3 = insert interaction 7p AI AI w'here T AI is the allowable insert tension and S AI is the allowable insert shear, T yp is the total insert pull and S is the shear on the insert.
The manner in which these interaction ratios are computed is based on very conservative assumptions (see e.g., note 10), which were not borne out by the testing noted in Attachment F (e.g., the tests indicate that larger offsets are needed for these limiting conditions to be valid and that even at the largest offset not all of the moment goes into bending). For the larger. tube steel sizes (i.e.,
- greater than 4" x 4") the conservatism is compounded since the same percentages were used whereas the effect of the offset would be progressively smaller.
Table 1 (attached) summarizes the results of the evaluation of the interaction ratios for the safety related supports which can experience loads primarily in torcion. From Table 1 (attached) there are a total of 12 supports which exceeded the interaction ratio. These mostly fall in the following categories: (a) tube' steel connections with relatively large offsets, and
O
-b (b) tube steel connections with smaller or zero offsets which employ 1 inch bolts, which by virtue of the small section modulus of the bolt are less capable of withstanding bending loads.
Although Applicants are concerned with the conservatively calculated bending stresses in the bolts, from the results of testing noted below, there is no safety concern with these connections. Of the tests reported in Attachment F, the most adverse test is the torsional test of the 4" x 4" x 3/8" TS insert with the 3/4 inch offset which indicated failure (or near failure) at approximately 10,600 lbs (applied 2 inches above-the top of the tube steel). The configuration of this test is designed to encompass many of the supports listed in Table 1 (attached). If the 4" x 4" x 3/8" connection with a 1-1/2 inch bolt having the highest torsion and shear is examined against the test results the following is noted. This support, CT-1-053-408-C62R, is computed to exceed the interaction ratio criterion when subject to a shear load of 2.479 kips and a torsion of 9.249 in-kips, with no offset. The test conducted for the 4" x 4" x 3/8" tube steel with a 3/4 inch offset (which is worse than that of the related i support) loads.the connection 'in-torsion and shear. When 1 the shear equals 3 kips, the' corresponding torsion'is121 in-kips. At this loading condition, the measured deflection i of the assembly is 0.05 inches, which is-6 percent of the j l
.J
s . i ultimate deflection. The factor of safety to failure for the support (load = 2.479 kips shear and 9.249 in-kips torsion) is greater than 4 based on the test results. Thus, even though the interaction ratio criterion indicates that the worst case support, CT-1-053-408-C62R, may be suspect, the test shows that there is no safety concern, and that an adequate margin of safety exists. Applicants recognize that the criterion and method employed to determine whether the bolts can accept the loads in these instances is not covered by the Code. The Code does not provide for such eventuality, as it assumes bolts to be loaded in shear and tension only. The bolts can indeed accept the shear loads, but tension has no real meaning when greatly offset holes are present. As is evident from Attachment F and also the finite element analysis of Attachment E, the shear couple generated in such instances gives rise to a combination of bending, tension and shear of the bolt, for which the Code makes no provision. The tests support-the conservatism of the chosen approach. (It should also be noted that from the test results shown in Attachment F, one can verify-that tube steel deformations for the applied' loads are low.) l
IV. Method Used To Analyze Connections 11 Q. Have you reviewed the issue regarding methods used to analyze connections? A. Yes. In Section VIII of CASE's Findings, Messrs. Walsh and Doyle expressed concerns over the methods used to analyze the connections of the bolts, tube steel and Richmond 1 inserts. Specifically, this concern focuses on the acceptability of release of all moments except for the torsional moment (Mx ). CASE agrees that the-moment in the tube (M ) about the axis of the bolt cannot develop, but they state that the other moment (M ) (which would tend to produce prying z action, if any), should either be considered whenever the moment which produces torsion (M ) is considered, or both M x X and M should be released. CASE states further at VIII-6 z that "the ability to rotate about the local Z axis is inhibited; the re fore, prying (moment coupling) exists." (Refer to Figure 1 for an explanation of the coordinates and i moments.) l I 11 In the area, CASE's concern regarding the method selected by Applicants to react the shears is addressed in the preceding discussion of the ability to resist axial torsion.
~32- i i- =
FIGURE 1 EXPLANATION OF COORDINATES & MOMENTS i i 4 1 'l 8 4Y ddC# d b
, f/
' lp
, - el ] f i
' == G, D '~ #
/ l h , 'l 's/'/ Moc i
Ax.: 4*' >E y L k--.L J.W9' a
I s i To examine the validity of this concern we have ; utilized a finite element analysis which employs the same model and method as the analyses described in Attachments El and E2, and which examines the behavior of the joints under the combired influence of axial (parallel to the insert bolt, M g ) and torsional loads or purely axial load. The purely torsional load was addressed separately via another finite element analysis, referred to previously. Clearly for single tubes loaded in torsicn, the restraint of torsional moment is required for stability. Similarly, for single tubes loaded torsionally and axially, the axial displacement resulting from the maximum permissible axial load in the tube is insufficient to prevent the torsion constraint as discussed below. Moreover, the single tubes are all lightly loaded, further pointing to the correctness of modelling the torsional moment constraint. The resistance of the attachment assembly under pure torsional loading was demonstrated to develop bearing between the tube and upper shim plate solely along the line of tangency at the corner of the tube. The-couple between the bearing area and the bolt tension equals the applied torsional moment; therefore, the prying action in the bolt can be calcuitted directly.
n o due to bolt elongation (along the Y direction) is sufficient to cause loss of contact with the washer. Thus, there is no prying action. For pure, axial loads, i.e. loads applied to the tube steel between Richmond inserts in the y direction, there-is no prying action and their release of the moment about the Z axis is the correct way to model the joint. A parametric study of the loading was performed to analyze the effect of bending moment M, on the prying action which occurs due to the torsional load. For the study, a 4 x 4 x 3/8 inch tube with 1-1/2 inch diameter inserta located 20 inches on center was analyzed. The bending moment is introduced by the addition of an axial load at the center of the attachment assembly. Two parameters were analyzed
- a. Variable applied bending lond with constant torsional load.
- b. Variable torsional load with constant bending load.
Analyses were performed for the load cases shown below in Table E. Additional data presented include the fixed end , moment (" FEM") calculated fot the applied pull load had the l connection beon modelled an fixed with respect to the M, in STRUDL, and the ratio of the FEM to the applied torsional load (" FEM / Torsion").
o TABLE E LOADING TORSIONAL AXIAL FEM FEM / NUMBER LOAD (in-lbs.) LOAD (1bs.) (in-lbs.) Torsion ! 1 4000 2000 5,000 1.25 2 4000 8000 25,000 5.0 l 3 4000 20000 50,000 12.5 4 4000 40000 100,000 25.0 l 5 1000 40000 100,000 100.0 6 0 40000 0 0 Each load case was analyzed to identify the mode of l resistance of the assembly. Results for the first five analyses showed the area of bearing between the structural I tube and the top shim plate to be limited to the line along the tangent point of the tube corner. Any bending resistance is developed by the eccentricity due to translation of the torsional resistance toward the end of the tube. The sixth analysis showed that no bending resistance weg developed in the absence of a torsional-moment. l Table F summarizes the results for each load case. f Information tabulated includes the following items:
- a. Loading-torsion (in-lbs.) pull (1bs.)
( b. Expectedboltreacg2 ion neglecting bending in the ( bolt proper (1bs.) l 12 In computing the bolt reaction, the axial load was added to the tension computed from the torsion by the point-of-tangency method.
- c. Bolt reaction from analysis (lbs.)
- d. Maximum possible bending resistance with torsional loading governing prying action (in-lbs.)
- e. Bending res.istance from analysis (in-lbs.)
TABLE F Loading Loading Expected Actual Bolt Max Bending I3 Actual Bending - No. Torston Pull Bolt Loed Reaction ResIstence Rettstence 1 4000 2000 2600 2600 3200 1618 2 4000 8000 5600 5600 3200 2684 3 4000 20000 11600 11500 3200 2966 4 4000 40000 21600 21400 3200 2886 5 1000 40000. 20400 20300 800 600 , 6 0 40000 20000 20001 0 0 The flexibility of the connection under bending is due to the elongation of the bolt from the tensile loads. Loading No. 6 demonstrates that there is no bearing between the tube and the Washer plate if torsion is not present. 13 This moment resistance is established by assuming '. (from finit'e element analysis) that the roaction to the combined torsion and axial load (which results in'the M moment) occurs at'the intersection of the line'of tangency aEd the edge of-the. H washer (point C of Figure 1). The distance between!that point and the center of the bolt is 2 inches in the x direction (M* lever arm). For example, the reaction due to the applied torsion at that point is'1600 lbs..for a 4000 in-lb. torsion (this is computed'from 4000 ). Thus, the resistance to the 2(1.25) moment about the z axis due to the torsion reaction for. this case is 3200 in-lbs. No increase in bolt tension would occur until this resistance is exceede'd as a result of-'the pull. However, when the actual', bending resistance ^ (obtained . from the finite element analyses which considered both torsion and bending (M " pure tors 15n)),it is is compared to thethe seen ' that max-bending actual value resistance is 'always ' due t'o-lower, indicating g prying action'from-tho' bending. ; j s
(> ) Based on the results of this study, it is evident that any additional bolt tension need only be considered when torsional loads are present. The increased tension can be calculated directly from the ratio of the torsion and distance from the bolt centerline to the tangent line of the corner of the tube. It is also evident that modelling the joint with the 21, moment released is a more correct manner than modelling it as fixed because of the low bending resistance of the joint. Applicants recognize, and calculations demonstrate, that modelling of the joints as pinned instead of fixed would result _in stresses and deflections of the member steel tubes which are higher than those which would be cniculated on the basis of fixed < connections. On the other hand, fixity of the connection results in higher loads on the inserts. Analyses indicate that the percentage increase in member loads resulting from releasing all roments is not nearly as large as the decrease in load of the insert. Design of the connection with the assumption of a M,. moment constraint produces conservative loads for the Richmond inserts, which are generally the limiting factors, while producing loads on member steel which are minimally unconservative. Table C, below, shows the M, _ moment carrying capacity of the lightest tube steel section for large bore piping and of the 1-1/2_ inch insert connection based on the equation
- l 9
x Section Modulus; Insert = M,,, Tube Steel = .6 F y M,,, Allowable Tension x Lever Arm from bolt centerline to tangency point. TABLE G TS Size Section Modulus Tube Steel M , Insert M (in-kips) (in-kips 73x 4x4xl/4 4.11 92.22 42.16 6x6x1/4 10.1 226.64 84.33 8x8xl/4 18.8 421.87 112.44 10x10xl/4 30.1 675.44 140.55 This shows that the insert is the limiting factor by ! at least a factor of 2. The difference in the bending moment between a member with pinned ends and a member with fixed ends is less than 2. Therefore, if a support was modelled with Mz fixed, releasing Mz would lower the insert loads, increase the tube steel bending moment, but not overstress the tube steel. Prior to beginning the as-built program, NPSI began analyzing the joints as pinned. If the designer was not sure whether the pinned model was correct he would check if there was sufficient elongation in the bolt to allow the rotation of the tube steel. The use of the pinned assumption is normal structural design practice. In fact, the 8th Ed. AISC Specification, paragraph 1.15.4, states that inelastic action in the connection is permitted to accommodate end rotations. I
1 4 o PSE leaves it to the designers' judgment to decide whether the moment should be released and, therefore, has not always reanalyzed the joints during the as-built program as pinned. PSE has in some cases still retained constraint on the Mg moment. Even though the finite element analyses indicate that this is an appropriate modelling assumption, we would like to place in perspective the effect of this assumption on the steel member stresses. Applicants have reanalyzed several support configurations selected at random assuming that all moments would be released. Table 2 (attached) provides a comparison between the maximum stresses and deflections of the members calculated with and without the constrained moment. Also shown in this table are the margins to allowable loads which exist. As can be readily seen, adequate margins exist, even with the fully released moments. As a final point, the effect of modelling on the support stiffness should also be addressed. CASE contends that the difference in modelling can result in substantially different stiffnesses, and hence, invalidate the assumption of generic stiffnecs being applicable to the piping analysis. ' Applicants have addressed the issue of generic versus actual stiffnesses under a separate affidavit,' see Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Use of Generic Stiffnesses Instead of Actual Stiffnesses In Piping Analysis,. filed on
O
.O May 21, 1984. However, it is important to state here that significant effects from differences in stiffnesses do not occur unless the differences between adjacent supports or groups of supports are fairly large. As seen from Table 2 (a t ta ched ) , the difference in stiffness is not great enough to have a significant impact on the piping analyses.
4 V. Bending Moments Q. Are you familiar with the issue of bending moments? A. Yes. In section VIII of CASE's Findings, CASE is' concerned with allegedly high bending moments in the bolt resulting i from the imposition of a shear force on the bolt offset from the concrete surface by the use of a one-inch washer between the concrete and the support steel. Bending of the bolt is not considered by the ASME Code, because in convencional bolt connections, bending is not significant. In reality, however, bending can occur. This problem was addressed by the SIT 14 which had indicated that Applicants' preliminary calculations showed the bending moments to be insignificant in all but one of 60 cases reviewed. The NRC in the same report requested that the total stress (including the bending stress) in the bolts should be evaluated to assure that the value for allowable stress has not been exceeded. 14 SIT Report at 21.
- 1 1 ,
There are two possible ways for the joint to react ~ to the bending moment and, therefore, two ways to analyze-them. One way is to compute the increased tension in the bolt by
-the same method is that used for the applied torsion moment ,
I (only now using the lever arm from the center of the bolt to the pointaof tangency). This is not an entirely correct. manner because the bending moment would also be reacted by a couple internal-to the bolt. This approach would then be an approximate approach, perhaps non-conserva tive, which would resolve the bending moment into an increased tension to be included in the shear-tension interaction formula.of the Code. The second, conservative approach is to compute the bending stresses from the Mc/I formula or-finite element analyses, then add the bending stress ra tio-to-the-allowable (conservatively assumed'as 0.75 F y where F y is the yield
. stress) to the Code interaction formula -in linear ' fashion. -
As discussed previously in Section III (Ability To Resist Axial Torsion), Applicants have used the'latter approach in evaluating the supports of Table 1 (attached) which are highly loaded in shear . (which include those among the- 60 supports. mentioned by the SIT). The results of these :i analyses are set forth in, Table 1 (attached), .and, . as discussed in Section III, reflect that due to the conservatism of the calcu2ational methodology bending does l not present a safety-concern with these connections. f L_--._=__ .
o r The results of tests reported in Attachment F reinforce Applicants conclusion in this regard, (i.e., that deflection of the supports at the design loads are very small regardless of whether the load is applied torsionally or as a shear, and that ample margin exists. It should be further stated that about fif ty percent of the bending moment in the bolt (from shear loading) is contributed by the shear at the tube steel flange next to the concrete. The shear tests conducted in March 1983 without tube steel (but with the washer) would also have contributed a bending moment to the bolt, and hence, those results provide corroboration that there is ample margin against failure. VI. Sharing of 9 hear Loads Q. Are you familiar with the issue regarding sharing of shear loads? A. Yes. CASE's allegations in this regard are concerned with the sharing of the shear load among all of the bolts in a particular support. CASE alleges that only half or fewer of the bolts would accept the shear and would exceed allowable values before the remainder take up the load because of the presence of oversized bolt holes. He believe that their concern is not valid. Since this concern is common to all connections, not just to Richmond inserts, we have chosen to discuss it more fully in a separate Affidavit and Motion for
.,4 o
Summary Disposition Regarding the Effects of Gaps on Structural Behavior Under Seismic Loading Conditions filed in this proceeding on May 18, 1984. VI. Additional Matters O. Does this complete your testimony on matters relating to l Richmond inserts? A. Almost. As a final point, we would like to address the concern (raised on VIII-il of CASE findings) that Applicants failed to consider the A-307 bolt in their calculations submitted as Applicants' Exhibit 142D. Applicants did not fail to consider the A-307 bolt; they purposely did not include the strength of the A-307 (A-36) bolt because the purpose of the analysis was to demonstrate that even the stiffest anchorage possible would considerably relieve the thermal expansion stresses resulting from LOCA and that the resultant load on the anchor would be considerably smaller than that computed for a fully restrained structural member. This was the purpose of Applicants' Exhibit 142D. It should be clear to everyone til that the highest load on the anchorage system results from assuming the least flexible member of that system. If a high strength bolt were used for the Richmond insert, the least flexible member may or may not be the insert. However, both the test data obta'.ned from the manufacturer and that obtained by Applicants (Attachment B to this 1
D testimony) certainly indicate that the failure occurs in the bolt rather than the insert, pointing to the latter as being the stiffer and stronger member of the anchorage system. Thus, use of test data acquired via high strength bolts is appropriate if one wishes to determine the maximum load on the Richmond anchor, so that this load can be compared against the insert allowable. This, of course, was not the purpose of Applicants' Exhibit 142D. Nevertheless, just to make the obvious point, Applicants recognized that A-36 rods are more flexible than high strength bolts, and that they have lower allowable values than the Richmond inserts, i.e., 17 kips instead of 25 kips. Applicants, however, also recognized that the thermal expansion load that would occur had an A-36 rod been used, is lower than that calculated for the high strength bolt. This load would then be the one that should be compared against the allowable load for the A-307 bolt. To put this concern in perspective, the thermal expansion load that would have resulted from the use. of an A-307 bolt is seen from Figure 2. Also shown in this figure is the load computed for a high strength bol't. Figure 2 is developed using the March 1983 and 1984 test data (Attachment B) using the methodology employed in Applicants' Exhibit 142D.
'4 s'
) .
i.. . l. ' s _ lt{J, > ~ p PIGURE 2
" STRAINED THERagL LOAD Vs. DISPLACEMENT J00 .
bad
&fs) 200 .
_lk Atchmag f,3yy
/*O ~
-P 72 *
~t
."s- ..
g W 1"O $ "x('x 2/g V90
~~~~~~~l 19 5 ~~~ ~ ,. _ !
- er o ~~~~~_~~~~-. -
~~.~.Re c4 Joy +
- - s .== : ..~.: :- :-:= = c -~ ~_~._~ ~ ~ _ -
- 7,~e
- - =
.4 a oy -\ ,
O 'O/ '#2 ,og Nec$onQl}
r i P The load resulting from the thermal expansion for the stiffest connection employing A-36 threaded rod is 5.0 kips. ' This load is below the allowable 17 kips for the A-307 bolt. When the maximum allowable mechanical load (17.7 kips) is added to the thermal load (per procedure of Exhibit 142D), the resulting deflection would bc 0.4 inch. The ultimate deflection is about .95. Thus, there is a margin of saf-ety of 2.4. The ultimate load is approximately 61 kips; hence, the safety factor on a load base is also 2.7. To finish this argument, it is appropriate to again place the purpose of Applicants' Exhibit 142D in perspective. Its purpose was to demonstrate the self-limiting nature of the thermal expansion load and why it need not be considered since anchorage slippages are minute with respect to the ultimate slippage capacity. o s .
/
L Robert C. Iotti Sworn to before me this 1st day of June 1984. i& Y U Notar Q lic Q Av Commisates U;:!:43 [ grucry 14, 1986
' YJ .
panC. Finneran, Jr. Sworn to before me this 1st day of June 1984.
) -
WA w 0V) Lum , - Nota. ublic Y C.r-'t:ici F-eires Tchruary 14,108S 81 R. Peter Deubler Sworn to before me this 1st day of June 1984. ( d N Nota g c
'e I
- r..1 M :21 Tabruert T4 DM I
l
4>" LIST OF ATTACHMENTS I. Documents A. Test Report - Shear Tests of Richmond Inserts - March 1983 B. Test Report - Shear and Tension Tests of Richmond Inserts - April 1984 C. Combined Shear and Tension Test Results Summary - Shear / Tension Interaction Curve
. D. Original Design Approach - Three Equation Methed E. Finite Element Analyses El - Finite Element Model E2 - Finite Element Results E3 - Finite Element Model and Results for Bolt Bending F. Test Results for Inserts and Tube Steel Loaded in Shear and.
Torsion G. Qualification Statement of ?_ay Totor Denbler II. . Tables
- 1. Richmond Inserts Subject to Torsion
- 2. Tube' Steel and Richmond Inserts Comparison of Results obtained With STRUDL With and Without Releasing Mz-l l
l l I
-l
_.A
- 1
.?, 1
,_ _ s . ,
l
- l /
ATDCHMENT A _.,m- w------- w - . 4 -" * *** TEST REPORT SHEAR TESTS ON RICHMOND 1 1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS MARCH 30, 1983 Prepared by Approved by
' J.C. Gilbreth R.M. Kissingtfr Civil Engineer Project Civil Engineer
- .a
i k [ TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 REFERENCES
2.0 GENERAL 2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2.2 RESPONSIBILITY 2.3 TEST APPARATUS 3.0 PROCEDURE 4.0 RESULTS
5.0 CONCLUSION
S 4 6.0 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 - - DRAWING NO. FSC-00464, SHT. 1 .
- - CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE TEST REPORT
-APPENDIX 2 - - TEST DATA SHEETS APPENDIX 3 - - LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES' t
i l l 1 i
- 1. l TEST REPORT l
l I SHEAR TESTS ON RICHMOND 1 1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS
1.0 REFERENCES
1-A CP-EP-13.0 Test Control 1-B CP-EI-13.0-8 1 1/2" Richmond Insert Shear Tests 2.0 GENERAL 2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE These tests were perfomed to detemine the characteristics of Richmond 11/2-Inch Type EC-6W Inserts when installed in concrete representative of that used in the power block stmetures at CPSES and subjected to shear-type loading. The strength, deflections, and type of deformations produced by this loading were the qualities to be detemined. This series -
.of tests employed only 1 1/2"-Inch Type EC-6W Inserts subjected to shear loads.
- 2. 7. RESPONSIBILITY The tests were perfomed under the direction of the CP. Project Civil Engineer. Witnesses to the tests were: A. Nuclear Re-gulatory Comission (NRC) Representative from the Arlington, Texas Regional Office, the NRC Inspector stationed at CPSES, a TUSI site Quality Assurance representative, and other site engineering personnel.
(
2. 2.3 TEST APPARATUS The arrangement and details of the test apparatus are shown on Drawing No. FSC-00464, Sheet 1, included in Appendix 1 to this report. The insert specimens tested were taken at random from the Constructor's stock on site and were; therefore, represent-ative of those installed in the plant structures. They were placed in a thick concrete slab cast specifically for these tests and which was composed of materials and reinforcement similar to those elements of the plant buildings. This is "4000-pound concrete" (28-day strength). The laboratory test report on the concrete of which this slab is ccmposed is in-cluded here in Appendix 1. An apparatus for applying shear loads to the specimens was de-signed and built on site. This facility employed a 60-ton capacity manually operated hydraulic ram whose. thrust against a crosshead was transmitted by tension rods to a 11/2-inch thick shear plate bolted to the insert specimen. Base reaction of the ram was transmitted through a structural steel grillage to the outer face of the concrete slab. Ram thrust was deter- , mined by multiplying the fluid pressure (PSI), as indicated by , a gauge on the pump, by a number equal to the ram piston area in square inches. Deflections were measured by a dial indica-tor mounted on a remotely anchored bracket and with its spring-loaded probe in contact with the specimen bolt head or bottom nut where threaded rods were used. These instruments bore valid stickers showing them to be currently in calibration. 3.0 PROCEDURE
'In perfonnance of the tests, inserts were cleaned of concrete mortar and other trash that would affect bolt thread engage-ment. The shear plate was attached to the specimen insert by a suitable length bolt or threaded rod of type shown on the test data sheets, Appendix 2. A new and different bolt was ; used for each insert. These fasteners were tighteded " snug l tight". On three specimens the shear plate was attached in direct contact with the top of the insert._ On six other spec-mens a 1-inch thick plate was inserted between the shear plate i and the insert, representing the " washer" used frequently at '
this location in pipe hanger installation. Shear loads were 1 i applied by the ram by operation of the manual pump. As the load increased from zero (o), indications of fluid prassure (later converted to load) and bolt head deflection were read at regular intervals . These intervals were~at 400 PSI on the-pressure gauge, corresponding to 5300 pounds thrust.. Load' ._ application on each specimen was halted before failure occured j and when the load had reached a-size considered to be suffi - cient in comparison with the design load-values. At this-point in each test, the NRC Representative indicated his ' con-currence with this consideration. Afterl.this , the load'was ! removed, the apparatus detached,' and observation was made of the condition of the specimen, i
- -- - =-
. a.. . ~.-
4 .
. 3.
4.0 RESULTS As can be seen on the test data sheets, the maximum load appl-ied to specimens on which ASTM A490 bolts were used ranged from 88,110 lb. to 95,400 lb.. The . bolts could be seen, after removal from the insert, to be slightly bent. By measuring the distance of the bolt tip from a line perpendicular to the bolt head these deflections were approximately as follows: Fastener Specimen No. Bolt length Deflection of Tip Type A-490 1 4 1/2-in. 0.0 in. A-490 2 5 1/2 in. 0.05 in. A-490 3 5 1/2 in. 0.10 in. A-490 4 41/2 in. 0.05 in. A-490 5 5 1/2 in. 0.10 in. A-490 6 4 1/2 in. 0.0 in. Other than these deformations, no bolt showed signs of inci-pient failure. Loading of the three specimens employing a double-nutted SA-36 1 threaded rod for attaching the shear plate and including the 1-inch washer plate produced a reverse curve in the threaded rod. The offset between the approximately parallel ends of each rod was approximately as follows: Specimen No. Offset 7 0.4 in. 8 .4 in. 9 .4 in. i The fact that the end portions of rods were not truly parallel accounts for'the difference in deflection measured at the bot-tom nut on the rods.- Although these deflections were expe-rienced, there was no sign of imminent failure of either the - threaded rod, the insert, or the concrete. There was small .spalling of concrete around the top of some-inserts. This allowed the top of . insert to deflect laterally and in the case of Specimen No.1 to deform to a small extent. However, in no part of any test specimen did breakage or com-l plete failure appear to be' imminent. In eachl case at the , i time operation of the hydraulic pump was halted, the applied load was increasing, showing.that neither the insert-nor
~ fastener had reached its maximum load carrying capability.
\. I
.., 4.
The factor of safety for each s.oecimen based on these maximum applied loads is shown in thh following table. FACTORS OF SAFETY BASED ON MAXIMUM APPLIED LOAD Maximum Factor o f Gs,*efu Specimen Apolied Fafener Number Shear Losd 'c ' g, , Max. Apo/ted Lead _ (Kips) Design A//orable I d
/ 88. /
- 88Ns.st
= 3.32 A-490 Ba/f gg, gogg g, 3 = 3_4g W//" Shkn 8 5 95.4 95ffg.51 = 3.60 2 95.4 SSj/}g,57 = 3.60 A:490 Bo/f 4 95_4 95f;g5, , 3 gg Y6 /" Shim M 6 . 90.jfg ,,
~
90./ . , 3,49 7 58.3 #0'$re7= ^3.30. Rod 8 63.6 60' '/[7. e 7 ^= 3.60
"//" Shihr $
9 63.6 63.6f_,7 , 3, g9 ,
- Load halfed due to dia/ indicafor for. def/ecfion .
having reached ife /knif of' fravel. _w w e.- -, s -+ - - - - - ,
- c .. _ .. .- - - ---
4 .
. 5.
5.0 CONCLUSION
These test results show that the performance capabilities of the Richmond Insert in shear exceed the design allowable by a ratio of more than 3 to 1. Thits, a minimum. factor of safety of 3 is indicated. The test results for the specimens with the 1" thick washer are comparable to the test results for the specimens with-out the washer. This indicates that the presence of the washer had little effect on the performance of the bolt or the Richmond Insert. If additional bending stresses are introduced into the bolt as a result of the presence of the 1" thick washer, the test results show that it is not significant enough to distinguish the difference. Based on this test, the design allowables for shear loading are acceptable for use without further investigation or additional calculations. 3
JL a s . e e i ) APPENDIX 1 4 1 1
)
e 1 4' 1 a }- j .; n m n m - Si
i *
/Jord: . APP. - /
'r - ' eWCHE 77AN STEAM E!.ECT.'tf C STATION g/ 7,,, g g ., g / cATE O '!/~'b pCUR NO. b# bN- I
. RFv4 7 Cte CC.* PRE 331Vi TEST 3 Of CCNCNETI R 3;5 - i s C':::'PS ?$0.0 l'Yl fgf hhg*
, :.)vesy r. A. Ngo F A. C. A. Mao c. A TOTAL wATEa/sATC>e Type Cr CuRtNo e g..
- AII,is" **
d- / 2.0 tas / 2.0 tes N60 tss. O ts2 // # tas /Yl}txf 5 A5 .: A$i .E 2 j s g;.. ,g;7 ,,, ,g.,{NT / ;J v3. Ngo AO:E3 H2 0/CEPJENT AAT10 Cu. l AIR TOTAL JJ $PEC FIED GE31GN STRENGTH
** o$76 //. b oz. M Cz. -NCC ess OS l 3/[7 .es ff C:L. cAvs BRAND GF W2TER REDUCING ACMIXTURE uAx ;2E C.A.
M ' #ANL CF EV67 TYPE CF E'. LENT EMAND OF AIR ENT*A4NING AOMtXTURE ew F
*(k 5 YbY
- 1 t- ::.Scs C A. 59 Cn. CA. SOURCE f.tk SP.CA. FL F;NENESS MCCULES FA.
TM/ i ('le'0 Qw '~ 0*03 % D $ $ W.?" C " SY S. 0 l TV.M CF Mix?r, 3A*:H loa TICMET NO. 5 AMPLE TAKEN AT
. AN / [ e,y, [2Mb 1 M ' WET +JD C# placing [ puur O soCxET caTE s2 atto wouR wEATsen Air TEMa. C ac.TEua. stuu.
SM r,'; D eucGiEs O 2Ett O CHUTE a -,/-a,3 /g8 det go r 4/r T!vE OF bedeNG AT UNIT wf. C'J. FT. MIX LD. SPECIMEN TAMEN SY SPECIMEN CAST SY alt .' C /ff[h Les. $b). 0$00 k&C?'~~~ l$h~- lh$ . b~- . %
~
1 -. .=0Ea a ct i l bEAsu*Ec Avo. DA jag !: A. N. IN. CATE CA7 PED CAPPED l TIME av { TESTED DATE TESTED MAX.LCAO CQwRESSVE L9. STAENTTH d# ev g C SY TYPE C# F#E#'t Y 3i 5*% ) YT G .bo t.o 7'l3'93 & C 722 218~h94sco 334D WC!&hQ _ i!pws 7 M R q u.co7 is-as # o 73 2 >3-sW ess:o S57c %;.yV~ l ? l23e S-C
, ?3(&L.cen 3-9 %5 %) s 70 6 g.n- W3 /g o.,c sc /o $Y/[ / -d I .,
. '0
- b #~0 G . m i. W-0 h.Q () 70 .2. $ ~H'Y /4"f ect. f4* 7 C i f if$fs 234$[ O .$ 1, 00$ f.4 -4.3 D:d c6Sg 50h ).1 gen R fC fh- )
l 5i $' N . CC': h-3-i5 A 06f f 3*A' !.]f fe a VHO /[ m ,x ' : : , , e I4 ! e ( I h I l I l []'! MS . Oct as TwE STastp !
- EW Axx3 U-l5-93 /Z30 0 CURING CONTROL TEST RESUt.TS FOR 28 DAY BREAX
. AlatAT*,Af C',2 C cvLtNCEAt;;) ..
FIELD C'JAE3 CYLINCE708_ , 3**ECTM I A 3.t.! IS/# (C) S TRtNCTN ( P. 3 8.) N $~O (g S S70 rd) 'W 70 t b1 L : .eib: - 6:leib dM *
- 2. (0)e(b) + 2 s [ 6' / O
* %JTE- DJ A27,E . N"JST BE EQUAI. TO C4 GAEATER THAN C.S$; CA (2) A50VE NEED MOT EXCCE3 THE CES:0N STR!%GTH 97 tJORE THAN 500 Psi EVEN THOUGH THE 0.85 CMITERICN 13 NOT MET.
I.Y *I /.)'7~,5- /N d g lf c. 1.s; . [i. .e.E :..t:.g - 303 / r CAT prep.ago at DM ChECxto Sv_ _ NL t : . ,, , ,.m N.3 oc,- ou ,, ,, ,,,,,,,, ,, pg , , , , , ,, . m , L ! - t. e .: ,,. r . a e
. 7,,.,,v y g .,s.:-.-.ei O O fc~se.
=
b foxm s es} dubt! . - U*. ,- MNN~ - e - i
g86: A PP. /\
' '-"'ANChE PEAX 37EAM ELECTRIC STATION g gg / e47g .Q //-8 3 p---g,g)
#C"" ""
REo0,47 C.'l COMP.diss:vE OF CON 07.ZTE CYL. SET No d3].F enocE:u=E __QBPH /-W.S
..y .., , w v:a7 F. 4. a,o r A. C. A. w2o C A. TorAt wArEReaar:w TYaE. Cr CuRmo
=
- 9A 6~
, => st...a.E
^*
6 l 20 tsi /20 tss F4Gotas o Las //f7 tas 704-id )
- s n 5. :- crut . < C; vs. s,o A :Ea Mace:E.,ENT RATro s.=ECiFiEo cEs CN sTaENcTw l Aia . Cu.g 7""57 Sir 7 tss 4 / c e.L. ,376 //.6 oz. TOTAL Sro pf#cco 'asi. z8 ons
> *R1*.O s CF 0:7 TYPE CF CEM1ti SRAMo CF AIR ENTRAINING ACufXTURE BRANo CF WATER RECUCIN3 ACW1XTURE uaX $1:E C.A.
$ $& Yk O lh
'i 8.*CI 37. CR. C.A. SCU5tCE F.A $P. CR. F A. FINENES$ MCCUtE3 F. A .
h C 4. , TsN ?ACQ.}*CY b %) < %Rr 'cT'
- 31 .,e L;;.0 TiCWET NC. 5 AMNE TAKEN AT:
l TYSE CFM*x:.NG t Ad / [ C.Y. k ' METMCO CF
- TAC;hG a PUWP BUCXEi CATE SAMPLED Hour WEATHER AIR TEMP. CONC. TEM 7 STUMP, f
O evasiEs O sitT O CHUTE a.sje jgg Ehy So r 4pi r f[y m. TNE CF MixN1 AT UNIT WT. CU. FT. MIX 80. SPECIMEN TAKEN SY SPECMEN CAST SY AsR
'5&* , /tfy.
i 5% tes. I32 DSbo wa--- f6-ItM S~ 2
- I :rtmoe.,io.l,,c:u!2.A. Awes Ave. oA. oATE CApeEo TsuE oArE max.LoAo Coup Essvc J.6 cgg- Tys cf 1 I.N . W. CMPED BY TESTE3 TESTED L9. STRENCTH gy gy fiRCAaC l l t i I
- z ' _j377 ! t
- c. : 4 e 2
3i A)/l : . i
. = . i i
! i[_l00 s a r i 7 E8*lMA Li i . t i i J, .cc F l l
~-
tZ3 W l, '; .,@~j , 8.0// 2-/ 4-33 TAS /. :S9., 2 211h3-3lSSSco l%O 1J"+S 'Dts f?C lz'iR* 4 $$ (a.cos 2 is-83 (2 6:s-$ z-w 99 c,il,co ,'h6c& h kL h ! S~ ' 5 h(.c ca. Y-/51.s & 8!.M Z~iL 33 GOk ,Q3 7O $ bS M
.N MA I :47E S Ti ,d
$'?A:/*ES j
. I e , s l REMAR*$
I 2-l?-93 f.t!cdb CURING CONTROL TEST RESULTS FOR 28 DAY B.9EAX t a.'a4 aT097 CuAEC CTLtN0ERf3) FIELD CUSED CYLINDEJC * *
!!4 E.1:~4 'P 3.t) (C) STRENGTH ( P.S.I.) 10)
'd) rs) i.1 N 01 - I:)-(d)s 2. (c) *(b) 1 2 a
'%0 ?!* .;) at0VE WST BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 0.85: CR (2) AaQVE NEED j NOT EX EED THE oESIGN STRENGTH SY MORE THAN SCo PSI EVEN THOUCH
! THE C. -35 CRITERICN IS NOT MET.
, a / 42 P. ht"I' 6 "" b Y E 8
- C mss.es s.m: .E .a adir .sc3 / -*-c'Y FR5'#REO 8Y -
CHECMD 8Y
- A, po G 4 a.c N1. -- / * / ,'/
- U O s
CAY IMEPAREo GY CHECxEO 3Y 3 p yge.r4ID /89-7
-CMi$C.tllr."O g IM 3;a - ~u m -w y t= n.n m
___ ( - N cyt/* /{$k 0 Y f . - . 9 TUGCO LAR SUPAdelkom
W i 4 i - . , 1 k 9 APPENDIX 2 TEST DATA SHEETS s k 4 I i } 4 5
=~am n wwy m -- cu. , n n ,n _
. 1
. APPE/YDDj h R!CHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
CP-EI-13.0-8 4 SPECIMEN NUMBER: / DATE # 2 -#N w A B J BOLT SPEC: ,4 - 4'/6 W/ SHIM PL. [ W/0 SHIM PL. DEFLECTION GAUGE JACK * (IN.) PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE (P.S.I.) (LBS). a - i?c- sw
.8 s-c __,
s ;; .: :
..r2y feo rsco
- a. ,w sec to, cos >
.ccr /2ec /s90s
.ch /cc c 24 too
,tef 2cc o Ec.o co
. ./.38 d4w 34 doo
./6 8 2fue JZ foe
,2x 3dec 44 pc
; ,2Je Jeto 4% 7eo 2 *?C 4000 .f3, oco
.30& 44:00 58 300 55bt' Ys e/d - sLzed ,k &W c . d G c' +fta 43 400 6 p.454 ,$ pu,,, f C' .
4.:rt 6~2ec 6a,too s r3o rceo 74 sco .
.6 /3 4 se c 79Sm f *7 C +'ce 84100 t ? ,t ag n e f(ca ff//C 2.s viqC .'-4 [ '"" 'M W W
a~ , m,- + w l
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
JACK THRUST (LSS) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES M2 JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER /fC N 4704 PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER /#?/ DUE.DATE: s 9 b 83 DIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUM3ER 2491- DUE DATE: 20 M NJ PERFORMED BY: WITNESSED BY: ( :\
) 22'/ Hand'.? y & /* f f ]* 5 $5 DATE QA REPRESENTATIVE .DATE 1 l
, MPENDIX 2 RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS
~ SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
CP-EI-13.0-8 s SPECIMEN NUMBER: 2 DATE 8 2 #4au2 NJ BOLT SPEC: A - 4 96 W/ SHIM PL. W/0 SHIM PL. l. OEFLECTION GAUGE JACK * (IN.) PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE (P.S.I.) (LBS). i t. D M) $c.c $~ Joe
.O2i f40 /0,600
.oc2 /2 00 /f ??co 094 / Goo 2/,Eco
./9D 24dC '24,500
, / '72 EWo J/, Ace
. 2/E- 2 80s Jg/cc 2 54- 3Eco 92460
.29r 24co 92 700
{' 3fc6 4 eso f3, coe
.324 4:foo f4 Joo 948 4200 GJ, Goo i
37/ .f260 64foo
. ft'0 Shee 74,200
; Af4 Cfc 0 '72 S00
.4 72 6440 PAdeo
. S 73 C: Boo 90, /00
- ,f g* o '7Eco 95 400 ccmu a/ e 's A L y . m , c --p1.~
L //.1<thv.~. t- rL k HZL. ' }
.&2.M - amt%7'%. .
i .
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
JACK THRUST (LBS) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES /I 2 f JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER d C// 406 d PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER --
/82/ 00E DATE: 9 M h.7.
{ , DIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER 849Y' DUE DATE: fo A .E B 2 PERFORMED BY: . WITNESSED BY:-
~ '
, / Lab d b'M~ DATE.
.7 -zz c 1:% 4;u,k. ,x5ng
~QA REPRESU TATIVE DATE
APPit%2lX E RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS i
REFERENCE:
CP-EI-13.0-8 1 l 8 SPECIMEN NUMBER: 8 DATE ld M #3 BOLT SPEC: A - f-- 94 W/ SHIM PL. V W/0 SHIM Pl. OEFLECTION GAUGE JACK * (IN.) PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE (P.S.I.) (LBS). p,$/2 9 00 5000 1 0,DS3- Bcc /0, 000 D, 68G /200 /J~foD D, /JD / Sco 2/ Ecc
. /+%~~ 2see E4,Sco
./7f 2400 J/,600 a207 28cn 38 /00
.24 8 32cp 44fM
. 3c4 300e f7 700
, S c; f ~ aND ff, oao
. Al'7 H oo fdJoe 4 ftD 62 6cc 963
.fe8 f2CD 48, foo ff7 S*6 00 74,200 OM AQ Jes.dl_
. 6/2 G,64 04 72 J'Co 642 644 C D 6HBM
. ?E J~ 6 BDO ft)/ce .
%~CL .dpM M upp n as.Jd M y=#: M
's'e,/4 &
7 Am. '
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
JACKTHRUST(LBS)=GAUGEPRESSURE(P.S.I.) TIMES /3,a f-l 1- JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER 8CN 644 PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER M2/ DUE DATE: ? , Ary_, DIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER Jeff OUE DATE: E s M BJ PERFORMED BY: WITNESSED BY: l L e AN$$2:$ 3'l2-T1 f/%,t 9/10.. .Q T 11-f.5
/ DATE QA. REPRESENTATIVE DATE
APPENDM 2
~
RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
CP-EI-13.0-8 o SPECIMEN NUMBER: ,d DATE 2 2 M 4+ h3 BOLT SPEC: ,4 - 4 90 W/ SHIM PL. W/0 SHIM PL. F DEFLECTION GAUGE JACK * (IN.) PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE
- (P.S.I.) (LBS).
6.M9 4Aod fJoe
.C9 / Foo /C,' Goo 1
. ed'3 /Eco /3~, .@c
.67s / Cod 2/,E k -
,/C6 2pos- E4 J~eo
- ./32 2+cc 7/, Boo
/ST EfeD .TZ /Cd
./ 98 7EDd WE, fGO
,&? 34 do f 7fac
.3D8 4ttee .d~g cco 3po 14tos So,300
?f'A f'80D 688'"
,b'// 1~2 C &A,?CO
-2.]L, $~G40 7f, ECD s%A Hb Z J4,-7 .
. S"7f kDD0 79, 9 0 5 2 .&' ML *
.- L.
- ,&o4t Qts 84600 j . S9'-6 60/0 ?0,/00 i .G88 '7dC0 95"*400 .
fe'v A u -s/ / A e i m w Mscald46<W rp & - *
!Qar f 1 ,
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
! JACK THRUST (LBS) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES /J.dJ~ JACK: EQUIPMENT-NUMBER /fCN 40 & PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER /88/ DUE DATE: ?[M 2PJ DIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER 2d 944 DUE DATE: # # M N3 ,
. PERFORMED BY: WITNESSED BY:
l ' c l$'(hEa'.)/ DAIL 3 -d2 F1 f /et e 2 M R j-p y..yy QA REPRESENTATIVE DATE l 4
1
- i AfPPENOtX l ,
t RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
CP-EI-13.0-8 s SPECIMEN NUM8ER: [ DATE 2 2 M W 2 h I BOLT SPEC: A - 4 94 W/ SHIM [L. V W/0 SHIM Pl. Ng/J ! DEFLECTION GAUGE JACK * (IN.) PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE l i (P.S.I.) (LBS). , 1
- 0. 0/ "I YOO MMM .
,M2 Bee /o Geo
. C 9/ /2do /f. f 60
./JL /6 00 2/ 200
. /80 2aco 24.soo 220 2dee 3/, fGo -
,265~ 2ast 37./co
.303 32co 42,4eo
- .334 Joe 42 7es i45' 4Deo s], coo
- 3'f/ M ce so,sso 4/f 41 860 as, coo
,9 4;A J2oo 6s,9so
.+79 s?sno 74, pos a _2 , ,, go_ g__ , 734, ;z.
509 Gefe 79, Soc . sad.u. ,7 4'~-+ '
& l "., y
. S38 64&c 84 Boo
. .5 70 6000 90,/C0 ' _ l
. /., t6 7dte 95, fue -Mi .4, d, ?. ss.A,,4 .a a '
+k s'-wA A M; M ieu '
w-- W f i s.
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
JACK THRUST (LBS) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES /.f. 8C JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER 8 CN 404 PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER //d/ DUE DATE: 9 M B7 f DIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER Eo9# DUE DATE:E0 M '85 ! cr ! j PERFORMED BY: WITNESSED BY: 1 i i
; h. d*EE-A3' ffQdeuk**0 A/ 3-22-f; DATE QA' REPRESENTATIVE DATE I
'. ,4PPE N D/X A RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
CP-EI-13.0-8 s SPECIMEN NUMBER: 6 OATE 22 */~" A '#J BOLT SPEC: A - # 90 W/ SHIM PL. W/0 SHIM PL. 7 DEFLECTION GAUGE JACK * (IN.) PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE (P.S.I.) (LBS). o.o 34 9ce r300
. Oco7 800 /4 400
. c99 /Em /S", 900
/39 i' c,ce 2/, ?-00 .
./ 7 7 2 wo 26,500 22f 2 4 'c J/, 900
.i aF* 2Bec 37 /06
, 3>~2 3Zec $2,400
.xc7 J coe $7,700
.M2 doco f], o co
. a ,0c Moc ff,360 62f Asco 43,Geo
, d 74 floc 48,900 &c M gefz, a w
.?df fCsw 74 200 4 / w a c" & . 2 J r1. Ed
. .6 f Geca 79,feo .
1
.Sc? 4foo 8f800
.253 C)<co 90,/po e" %.M wAc i, de <s% '
.W w - r#-.-y.-
M Adds I~ c: Spu pnc , a, e
~
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
l-JACK THRUST (LBS) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES /.7, JF JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER R C// 6 o 4, 1 l PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER /Bd/ .DUE DATE: 9 d m '# 3 DIAL-GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER 2499 OUE DATE: N M '# 3 PERFORMED BY: WITNESSEDBS:
$bh.5Y ~7-22-f3 f/h6e 24~k..k 3 .:n $3
/ DATE QA REPRESENTATIVE . DATE 1
APPEIV D/X E' RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
CP-EI-13.0-8 4 SPECIP.EN NUMBER: 7 DATE 2 8 M #3 BOLT SPEC:/4 56 #o,/ W/ SHIM PL. V W/0 SHIM PL. @pg i , DEFLECTION GAUGE- JACK * (IN.) PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE (P.S.I.) (LBS). C. DE/ 4co 5 300 i , d .72- foo /D,400
.$D /dDO /J,9se.
93 /Geo 2/,200
< .S/6 2tW 26,5K
..)~4 8 24M 3/,Beo a447 2806 f7, /ce
. .'J2 Jaco 42,voo
.8// Jd;co 4z7so
.BK9 4 000 S.E d**
,- Mos f43" .944.; w .&teisa n x j
I au daw.e,A .4/6AM
~ .dni& q M f
i
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
JACK THRUST (LBS) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES /J.25-JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER A' C N 4od PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER /82/ DUE DATE: 9 'M 'B3 DIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER 849% DUE DATE: 24 M '#J PERFORMED BY: WITNESSED BY:
, b, . W J - 2 1-13 FA % 2rn A 3 a.y
. .DATE QA (EPRESENTATIVE -DATE
. . ~ . - . .... . . . . .
A P P Elv D/K 2 RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TEST.i
REFERENCE:
CP-EI-13.0-8 s SPECIMEN NUMBER: 8 DATE 2 2 f4e5<M b . BOLT SPEC: Of 54 A'od W/ SHIM PL. 7 W/0 SHIM PL. DEFLECTION GAUGE JACK * (IN.) PRESSURE THRUST ~ NOTES - FAILURE MODE
'(P.S.I.) (LBS).
Ad29 4 00 f300
./9e Be M 4x
.343- /2ce M'900 -.
.9ea b eo suco -
.4r7 2cw EQ M
.[26 29 oe JLBw
- .4, / 8 26to J7)Mc 6fB nw +2de
. 74r" 34 e0 47,7so l 2/r~ 4MC SJ, **o 890 9 900 SA 3k N snAD ers A \ .992. 4:Bcc 43f2* & s L 2 $ff/
au m,A % 4 4. . &, *W M t .dk,/-s-t.,., a
- It i h .
, { .
. u
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
JACK THRUST (L$s) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES /-.E, M JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER- #CN do/o PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER //2/ DUE DATE: 9 c.2u ,_ E r
./
DIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER 8494 ' DUE DATE: 20 dem . . /7 . f. l PERFORMED BY: WITNESSED BY: 0' , ! 3 - 2 z -d'3 2Vh % :1>7 0< 2 3.s r-gy DATE QA REPRESENTATIVE DATE
. APPEND // 2 w - .
RICHMOND 1-1/2-INCH TYPE EC-6W INSERTS SHEAR TESTS
REFERENCE:
CP-EI-13.0-8
+
SPECIMEN NUMBER: 9 DATE 2 2 97d'- d M BOLT SPEC: JA -34. A =d W/ SHIM PL. [- W/0 SHIM PL. DEFLECTION GAUGE JACK *, (IN.) PRESSURE THRUST NOTES - FAILURE MODE (P.S.I.) (LBS).
.a o 2 7 4'00 f3M a OJ/ 700 /0, M
.12 n / > ue lii fC#
l *7 '1 in c o 24 200
.225 .2 c c e, 24,5@
< 2. C- C- > vco 36 o'M o3YO 2700 37/00
.Ho 32ec Saf"
< S'1 6 3Gco 97,700 60Y Voco SSM e is 9 7 VVuo .fB,3x s .V 2. / $3 00 G2 cAo AAA dd/ito. ww m,A -
Mn .we e,?
& of /=s2A a sg-A-C.B h f'.
r
- JACK THRUST EQUAL SHEAR LOAD ON INSERT.
JACK THRUST (LBS) = GAUGE PRESSURE (P.S.I.) TIMES _ / i. BT , i i JACK: EQUIPMENT NUMBER A' cN dot, I PRESSURE GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER /8d/ DUE DATE: 97u y7 DIAL GAUGE: M&TE NUMBER 84fV DUE DATE: 2d b '/J
/
PERFORMED BY: WITNESSED BY: l~ ,0,Li. b
" 3-n. D DATE rwM w >n.e-t QA REPRESENTATIVE DATE
- 9 9
APPENDIX 3 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES 9 67
1 n 0 0./ o.2 0.3 o.4 0.5 0. 6 0.7 0.8 0.9 /. O
/OC 2 ,@ ,@
90 ' '
/ / #) /
/. i f,/_-<' ,
/ -
-g.
^___
80
/ ,
/ / -7
% . / -f'".-
/ /
Q / /- '/ I . -@ .a 60 ,. - yy
/ -
/
,s V /
~~
Sn s ,/ s_ - f' _ff) -
. @'/A' / , , ~ ' ' ,/-'
n40
/ ,
,y ,/
, N/ y-
/~ _/ ~~' /
Y~ T j
/ -
/_ /_j-
_/ k 30
//
// ' ., '. / . .-
/ ~/ '
? //' .
l ,/ J ,
-l . LEGEND N // .~
/
f ' A-490 Bo/f W) /"Jhim8
/ .'
~
~ '~
~~ -
?s' .- ---- A-490 Bo/f, W//"Shhn 4.
0
/0 // -- /
- - CA-36 Rod > Wl /"ohim 8
- .. ' ~~ --
O Speciinen Nutnber
.o
'. . / . e -
l l 0 0./ O. 2 0. 3 0.4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 0.8 0.9 f. O DEFL E CT/ ON --
/NCHE3 L h
t l OAD - DEF*L E CT/ 0N CURVES k b N a
^
-A ..
l , ~ , ,[- - ,
)D t gf 4 s . l l' .. ,
kN1 N b I }.*.I ," jh f
- 4 .n 3. ;
- ydi '~M,rnn- my?.T.i yn fi-
- d .'. : e$?.
i b O ' 5 r'r 4..,
- nrj b ... d.
- 1
.9,I
%. .l
!yh-
.s . -
/ '-
a I)
;' ie 'jQM?,,,, l 1
2 [ id d %;.!w I# / PkQ$Ed S -k. ti ! i i-
'.i S W E ae c~3' e; n E:
n
. %. a.%.1.v=q'
=" t-t d.c w 4 1
3 I :-5 p i g I , b - I 6 l ) o'
': tv :.f.aP .! I;j',*. - (Y. *l.S..i '.m.
u a
.- '44 3.c- .'L . 3_ .
,t e 6
?
s ; w g z g ; I i..- n [ '$, ; y, h 4. h kb ' f[:Q l 5 [ h l.,,(j, ,1' I O $ !", l 11 i- '!- v,h.). .ylJC. ' 4
$ Oj
- g .; ;
; g
'& s w e m e W w =J e .,; ;
3 o :: n ; . 4 g . :in t h h la b W - l f r"
-r- ,
l 8
-lH:;1tP.,--
M'2
? l j
=
~ we c=r - 3 ,,
M, 6
~~ +
3 , s qp ' .~ 77 a ' io 9 I rT B e P ~TJ". s g,y; -; }
,, .~ ~ . . , .
3 ; I j
.. aw < g T-h'
~
4 l7 ' k* ' i i j e . g
~'l', .. .
; I k--h- I d .
Q lEdY h # t
! "l
; NkI j y 4 c-
/* ,
.F g
4 . t .! l ] 2 4 l ;,g 1 . A i L 4: g 10.r.___ {:, i .: ni ,.
, Li ;n
]
. 75' y -
"a '
j ie
/
'g
?
t pq Im k , 3 :
='-
*, /
l C.l.{.,f ,{%34( .=s , p I-s f s ': s^
. I llLhl Y g * .['
4 ' 5 & b i l i llN k3 g g. ,: v. W, W . . . . T'l<l .. N, h ~Ih ) .g; - No "'- 4 i-t)%T g-
=
5
- j. .
Tj ; __ 1 i .
. i. }e s .
s - E* I ll-l { ,
.p . ' '
l!!
. ji l } ) i i
- l*
1 f ] ;- 1 N (-h 5' " i
'}
I
.,.7 , .5.
- i. !! 9 : -
i
'k k
()
.\
N I J .! 4-ll ll s;
/s
's r. -
h I l ' '. -- h y ,fl , ,, f f
=
l H i-.~ 43 \ '.. .J.? ) c g . t n ry- 'l
- t ;
3 - V. " ' .i b : i . 3 .<' 4):I (f (t w s
? I 4 z U !,
) I l L ii i P li 2:
- w. i i i.j,
;[ I L ' -
i.j t e . 4 l L, olil I: ,t
- C *l 1
!i ,...u..,,, , _ . <g . ><:1 . {
. e .
, _. ,i _ ",, .
t. y
.. , s._ .
i t li! g.. l
.p,,___
- l,l ij m!,!_..gl!". ._.lip ._.g
':!! .__ .. O f .h:;:: .r ,
I g ... ,. .. _.... . _,a.. .y _. . . . . r_ _ ..: . .y... . .. .. ..
;t. 3, t - _
, , , um i . =
79.'fr.1* ie M
- 8.
} . ,
* :.s & ~'*
{.
.o - e
** . n e e.es* *e,tooau.gs m .*
.o o.
_} Q
.p.4 8' ,,,
i
- M,-
- i w
m 4 t. ..> ;g n .u:r. .. Hi L? .: i
,l
.. i s E l
in n 2 g:%e w M IIv 'c",/ e i,
}ljn w h ;q ugy ;ngu N-i +
(g>ti-tb "L - a j l r
====#c e, p 7(, M,b h.iis@
,l EN , = ~-
1:yi f.rj4,, ;
,j
.e
=3 t i l.l i I r
hl
, f,. - a r! v%%,
l '" m i 4 . ' 5ell=ve ' e p-M1 l%-ti3, j i.
=v a
.E a$ -
g;y-
.~ , t t
n 13 mo , bed,i , ~ ,i ,, -te.!.,. gt% ,
,- u,rs o
.~
, f' s'"i4g.~
0 g a=p1
,pyl
;, 4 3
o e 3 4 3 g
- =g ,
h' ! Nb.W E ! '
- Q,- 4 f a P ! ! ',
ah I?N'U p[pLuhf$fi jM i t o 5
? J- i i d j .
i r rm.4, 4 = > +i g 87Ji 0t s c :: lb c .
'y 3 1 g
- b: el.m.%m!ue 4 e%!&=
e3 ' Af
) g 2 j
2 : j[ Jin t l- N a H w r l } he@3 i
--m@ =
; s t
Iki'
.'I i;p! ! ? . ' iTW9 xi, (g
- !l!s,Ij;[
t , i l ! q :r ;, - {. p l u . , . x 2
; y % .
t , ;. .~ jl l ' i ' ' ' ~ ~ pp e 1 i e hw.w . a , p m~-3' m e h,lj{ o i 7 c g,,l }
~
j
.. 9 r y a
- a l
i i b : f., PV , [ M K %
- t.
[:. s_ N 3 . 3 5",t' # i 52 <a a .d. ' %@ i " j l 4-.)i i ig y ,t, ,.J g kI
~
m h # I y 8 h ,
}q ,
rg ,7 4 a ; ; ; ., g 3 . g a
/ ,p) _ji -
i f.'i % p m[h, N L'h '
,y1 5 _9,.__i ll. i.i 7< ,
,! a 3 3
p 6 , 3
- ,g
. ) i I l+ !=
H kl !' = I 1
=
n
- i. p s
'=
t* r
= t 4'f jg- p, s
[. (-mm f -, y [ f h i ng $,s .-
, p- .
- 2 6 .u o 3-1 s m.:
=6
,s $1 L*. P 3, ,,e5 ,op _ d 4ut i + .
<b
<. ,. = g = s, t m-[
.. : :: si s ;. -
g ; - = : lk.
~
k [
) !,! .E E ,! . , i j :: h.: 3 Ji dg @
x 0 ._ l 0 i t 5 ,_].
---'j :
f1 s i
.s p t-
".-Cs i
ji l I :'!
! 4 5 ,' .I .. -E m E i si 1 '. :i. I.:,
4: :> N ,
) Ld h 6 e! l, x k J4
; 3
' p s a ,.
. . p. + 4. :, a D:
A 3: .p. e - rj . 4 s t.
]
- i ,
i 1 3f l IKf qj
'f $; --
a ('I 7' =
. - l ' j ^
p N o91 ~' gl J)%.4) ,% d,;;. - .h> g e
< ,s lll 9
, c l ' k,,, t
.s ., '.
i l
- t . *
- f. ;
p L k a
,w 1
- i w) -
V, - ee- e r4, % s 1
~
a, nt .~ 14
<* L-a g
s g
,b
,? ",j
,J,.* 1 t I .I I Y {4 p ii , 's ti .
' ;; g; .l *f 6 4
[ d 'I d !.! ! i'b.e
! l !! ll C !! $.3 l 6 .
<. J: : -
- l ll i: il c i: 9:. : a
- ]j 4' s.
- i n n e n r ....... . , . . < ,w ._, ,, t ti i h,, .{
i n k H-. - - - - e, -- I, ii. '3 .m. - gli l'! j ( u ,* tt c -
' ll 4
=
" {e p! a[qlo
.. U g!!.....!. ! '..!p. !,
..l,.l...:p. !
- !l!. .g ..
4
* ?j* *:: .A <
u 5 4 _ __.plI , '-4
.1 g -..
q___ , [ ],
+
... L. y'- . _ 9 _. .y . . . g _ _ _ .;1. ~.s . .-.. . . , g, f'b 4, v) a
, , d .,
.i 2r .u-II .
3;) - .. . y, . 4,n e , _ . ~, ... . .,
.,_s,e, ... ,-__, m,q . . , .
j , , , 6
~ a , ,3 7g ~
ATDCHMENT B TEST REPORT SHEAR ~ AND -TENSION LOADING OF RICHMOND INSERTS i 1 1/7_-INCH TYPE EC-84 . 1-INCH TYPE EC-2W APRIL 19, 1984 k
. Prepared by -
t -1ved by t /+ 4- w i/ // j$4^--W" R.M. KissingerJ P.E.
..S.04 McBee Civil Engineer Project Civil' Engineer-
-l l
1 I + 1 o -
( g-, _. p. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 REFERENCES
2.0 GENERAL 2.1 DEFINITIONS 2.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2.3 RESPONSIBILITY- .
?.4 TEST APPARATUS 2.4.1 EMBEDMENTS 2.4.2 SHEAR TEST APPARATUS 2.4.3 TENSION TEST APPARATUS 2.4.4 COMBINED SHEAR AND TENSION TEST APPARATUS 3.0 TEST PROCEDURE 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 1 1/2-INCH RICHMOND INSERTS 4.1.1 SHEAR TESTS 4.1.2 TENSION TESTS 4.1.3 COMBINED SHEAR AND TENSION TESTS ~
4 ~. 2 1-INCH RICHMOND INSERTS 4.2.1 SHEAR TESTS 4.2.2 -TENSION TESTS 1 . 4.2.3 COMBINED SHEAR-AND TENSION TESTS-
'5.0 'CONCLUSIONSI ,
- ,e, ,: . 22 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
6.0 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 - DRAWING NO. FSC-00464 SHT.1, 2 & 3 - APPENDIX 2 - CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE TEST REPORT TEST DATA SHEETS APPENDIX 3 - LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES APPENDIX 4 - PICTURES OF ACTUAL TEST APPARATUS eea h e
.K h .. 5
, ,~. e , - , , . , ) # j.--. ,
--.s..
__m...___,
- r. . . . _ _ ...
- ,. .,~a.- . . . .. .. :. .
1. i TEST REPORT SHEAR AND TENSION LOADING OF RICHMOND INSERTS 1 1/2-:NCH TYPE EC-6W AND 1-INCH TYPE EC-2W
1.0 REFERENCES
A CP-EP-13.0 Test Control B CP-EI-13.0-13 'l 1/2" and 1" Richmond Insert Shear and Tension Tests 2.0 GENERAL 2.1 DEFINITIONS Ulimate Load - The load _ applied to the specimen which caused a physical rupture of the specimen. Failure Load - The load applied to the specimen beyond which, deflections increased considerably'without substantial increase in the applied load. 2.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE These tests were performed to determine the characteristics-of 1 1/2-Inch Type EC-6W and 1-Inch Type EC-2W Richmond Inserts; when installed .in concrete representative of that used in. the power-block structures at CPSES. The test. specimens were sub jected to: shear, tension,.and combined shear and tension loadings. The strength . deflections, and type of deformations produced by. these loadings were the_ qualities to .tse determined. '
~
w . 4
^ '
*. _t
, 2.
2.3 RESPONSIBILITY' The tests were performed under the direction of the CP Project Civil Engineer. Witnesses to the tests were: A TUGC0 site Quality Assurance representative and other site engineering personnel. 2.4 TEST APPARATUS 2.4.1 CONCRETE SLAB & EMBEDMENTS The arrangement and details of the test apparatus are shown on Drawing No. FSC-00464, She.tt 1, 2 and 3, which are included in Appendix 1 to this report. (Note ti at only MK C-14, C-15, C-16 and Assembly 'D' on Sheet-1 were used in this test.) -- The insert specimens tested were taken at random from the Constructor's stock on site and therefore, were representative - of those installed in the plant structures. They were placed in a concrete slab cast specifically for these tests and which was composed of materials and reinforcement similar to those elements of the plant buildings. The concrete used was based on having a minimum design strength of 4000 pounds per square inch at 28 days. The laboratory test report on the concrete . of which this slab is composed is included here in Appendix gl, Sp/pypaw
~
2.4.2 SHEAR TEST APPARATUS An apparatus for applying shear loads to the specimens was designed and built on site. This facility employed a 60-ton capacity, manually operated hydraulic ram whose thrust against a cross head was transmitted by tension rods to a 11/2-inch thick shear plate bolted to the insert specimen. The base reaction of the jack was transmitted through a structural steel
" bridge" to the outer face of the concrete test slab. - This arrangement, as shown in Appendix 1, provided a horizontal shear load on the vertically positioned insert without pro .
- ducing secondary or reactive concrete stresses in the vicinity of the specimen. - Ram thrust was determined by multiplying the fluid pressure (PSI), as indicated by a calibrated gauge on the pump, by a. number equal to the ram piston area in . square
. inches. Deflections were measured by a calibrated dial indi .
- cator mounted on a remotely anchored bracket and with its spring loaded probe in contact with a lug welded-to the shear plate directly behind the bolt head or threaded rod.
f w--
c ~ u 3. l l 2.4.3 TENSION TEST APPARATUS An apparatus for applying tension loads to the specimens was also designed and built on site. This facility employed a 60-ton capacity, manually operated hydraulic ram which serves as an end loading on a built-up steel beam. The other end of the beam was bearing against a well-supported round bar which served as a fulcrum and provided the other end reaction of the beam when the jack was operated to load the specimen. A threaded rod protruded through the beam.at mid-span, through a nut and bearing plate on the beam with the opposite and threaded into the Rich-mand Insert. This arrangement caused the load on the rod to be equal to twice the force applied to the jack. Location of 'the . base plates for the reactions of the beam provided clea'rance from the insert of at least 4 times the overall insert height; i.e., at least 391/2 inches for the 11/2 inch inserts and 23 inches for the 1 inch inserts. Ram thrust was determined by mfltiplying the fluid pressure (PSI), as indicated by a calibrated gauge on the pump, by a number equal to the ram piston area in square inches. Deflections were measured by a calibrated dial indicator. mounted on a remotely anchored bracket and with its i spring loaded probe in contact with a bracket which was securely-clamped to the nut on the threaded rod, as shown in the sketch below. . M [ usAno La I- 3 EAT IAR i BeActsT l , un- = i
....,.....]..........,.a
.fl .
I
~
m .. 4. 1 l 2.4.4 COMBINED SHEAR AND TENSION TEST
~ The apparatus for the combined shear and tension test utilized the same equipment as that used on the individual shear and tension tests. For the shear portion, the equipment was set up identically to the individual shear test. For the tension portion, the equipment was arranged in a slightly different ,
fashion. The hydraulic ram was not placed under the end of 1 the beam, but instead, on the center of the beam on top. The ram thrust was applied directly to the threaded rod, which passed through the center of the ram, by means of a plate which was placed on top of the ram. The base reaction was resisted by the tension beam, loading which was supported by two wide flange stands at sufficient-distance from the insert so as not to induce secondary or reactive concrete stresses in the vicinity of the specimen. This arrangement caused the-load on the rod to be equal to the ram thrust. Both rams (one applying tension and one applying shear) were operated by a single hand pump with a calibrated pressure gauge. In this fashion, the shear and tension loads applied to the test specimen would be equal at all times. 3.0 TEST PROCEDURE In performance of all of the tests, inserts were cleaned of concrete mortar and other trash that would affect bolt thread engagement. A new bolt (A-490) or threaded rod (SA-193 Grade
- 87) was used for each insert. The fasteners were all tightened
" snug tight". The application of all loads was applied by the ram by operation of the manual hydraulic pump. As the load.
increased from zero (0), indications of fluid pressure (later converted to load) and simultaneous bolt head deflection were - read at regular intervals. These intervals =were at 400 PSI on the pressure gauge, corresponding to 5300 pounds thrust with the exception of the direct tension tests. On the direct tension test, these intervals were at 200 PSI on the pressure gauge, which also corresponded to 5300 pounds. thrust on the specimen due to the configuration used. The load as indicated by these gauge pressures was maintained as constant as possible for a period of two (2) minutes. - At the end of this time period, the deflection was again observed and noted. Load application on each specimen was carried out until ultimate-failure of the , specimen occured (except specimen no.1, which was tested in shear). - At this point, observations were'made of the condition of the specimens and the failure mode.
- ~
e, , 6 5. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 1 1/2-INCH RICHMOND INSERTS 4.1.1 SHEAR TESTS , As can be seen on the test data sheets, the ultimate load applied to the specimens ranged from 90,100 lbs, to 106,000 lbs.. The failure loads ranged from 84,800 lbs. to 106,000 lbs.. All bolts sheared abruptly (except specimen #1; test was halted prior to ultimate failure), with minor spalling of the concrete on the compression side of the Richmond Insert. All five (5) specimen >; were utilizing A- 0 bolts. SPECIMEN NO. ULTIMATE LOAD (lbs) FAILURE LOAD (lbs) 1 90,100 84,800 2 95,400 90,100 3 95,400 90,100 4 106,000 100,700 5 106,000 106,000 Average 98,580 94,140 Using the allowable inscrt laods given in specification 2323-SS-30 for 11/2-inch Richmond Inserts, the factor of safety is determined. Allowable Shear = 27.0 k Factor of Safety (F.S.) = Average Failure Ld. Design Allowable Ld. SPECIMEN NO.'s AVERAGE FAILURE LOAD (k) FACTOR OF SAFETY 1 thru 5 94.34 = 3.49 e
l 6. 4.1.2 TENSION TESTS
- The ultimate load applied to the tension test specimens ranged from 87,6E9-lbs. to 114,150 lbs.. The failure loads ranged from 87,650 lbs. to 108,850 lbs... The failure mode for specimens 11 and 12 was by striping the threads between the threaded rod and the Richmond Insert. Specimen 13 failed in the Richmond Insert by a failure of the welds between the axial strut rods to the upper threaded coil. Specimens 14 and 15 failed by concrete shear cone failures. All specimens were utilizing SA-193 Grade 87 threaded material.
SPECIMEN NO. ULTIMATE LOA 0 FAILURE LOAD 11 106,200 103,550 12 114,150 108,850 13 114,150 108,850 14 87,650 87,650 15 100,900 100,900 Average 104,610 101,960 Allowable Tension = 31.3k-FactorofSafety(F.S.)=.f,{ag gn A a e d. SPECIMEN NO.'s AVERAGE FAILURE LOAD (k) FACTOR OF SAFETY 11 thru 15 101.96 101.96/31.3 = 3.26 4.1.3. COMBINED 2 HEAR AND TENSION' TESTS The shear and tension loads applied-to the: specimens under this loading concition are equal and the ultimate loads _ ranged from 60,950 lbs. to 68,900 lbs.. The failure loads ranged from 58,300
-lbs to-67,575 lbs.. Specimens 6 through-9 failed by_an abrupt shearing of the threaded rod. There was some deformation of the red in bending at the shear zone (ranging for 20' to 45* bend).
Upper insert washer moved from 1/2 inch-to 3/4 inch with some concrete- spalling on the compression side of the insert. . Spec-- imen 10 failed by striping the threads between the. threaded rod and the insert. This -failure _ lifted the upper insert: washer. from-the struts, but the insert remained in place.
( ,, ,- a: , 7e SPECIMEN NO. ULTIMATE LOAD (1bs) FAILURE LOAD (lbs)
- 6 68,900 67,575 7 67,575 67,575 l 8 60,950 58,300
, 9 61,613 61,613 10 64,925 62,275 Average 64,793 63,468 Allowable Tension = 31.3k-Allowable Shear = 27.0k Factor of Safety (F.S.) (Average Failure TensionDesign Allowable Tension x F.S.)4/3 , (Average i SPECIMEN N0's. FACTOR OF' SAFETY
- AVER E I E 0A (k) 6 thru 10 63.47 63.47 63.47 (31.3 x F.S.)4/3,(27.0 x F.5.)4/3
=1.0 1
F.S. = 3.68 4.2 1-INCH RICHMOND INSERTS. d 4.2.1 SHEAR TESTS - From the test' data sheets, the ultimate load applied'to the specimens ranged from 39,750 lbs. to 50,350 lbs.. The failure loads ranged from 37,100 lbs. to 42,400 lbs.. Specimens 16 thru 19 failed by shear-failure of the A-490 bolt. The. top portion of the inserts deflected ofran 1/8 inch to 7/81 ich with some spalling.on the compression side of thejinsert. fpecimen 16-showed some' rotation of Lthe top of.the insert. Spe;imen 17
- and 18 showed no apparent sign of rotation.: Specimen;19 failed by breaking the weld between the upper coil and_-the struts. The:
bolt then failed in bending after rotating ~with the upper portion of the coil. Specimen 20 failed by crushing the concrete on the compression side of the-insert. The insert then rotated intact
.and the bolt ultimately failed in bending.
7 L H T v 4 9
- 1
r - '- s . .+ 7 , 8. SPECIMEN NO. ULTIMATE LOAD (1bs) FAILURE LOAD (lbs) 16 46,375 42,400 17 43,060 37,100 18 50,350 42,400 19 46,375 42,400 20 39,750 37,100 Average 45,182 40,280 Allowable Shear = 11.5k 9 Factor of Safety (F.S.) = , nA b e Ld. SPECIMEN N0's. Average Failure Load (k) Factor of Safety 16 thru 20 40.28 40.28/11.5 = 3.50 4.2.2 TENSION TESTS -
- The ultimate load applied to the specimens ranged from 41,270 lbs.
to _43,920 lbs. . The failure foads ranged-from_39,950 lbs. to 43,920 lbs.. Specimens 26, 28.and 29 failed by concrete shear cone; failure. Specimens 27 and'30 failed by Richmond Insert fail-l ure. The inserts failed by a failure of the welds between-the t struts and the lower coil. There was some surface spalling assoc- , iated with these failures. l SPECIMEN NO. ULTIMATE-LOAD (1bs) FAILURE LOAD (lbs) ; 26 42,600 42,600' i -27 43,920 43,920
.28 42,600- =39.950 29 42,600 39,950-30 41,270 39,950,
! Average 42,598 41,276: i t 1
- 4
T- .
.,j ,
9. Allowable Tension = 11.5k Factor of Safety (F.S.) = Average Failure Ld. Design Allowable Ld. SPECIMEN'N0's. AVERAGE FAILURE LOAD (k) FACTOR OF SAFETY 26 thru 30- 41.276. 41.276/11.5 = 3.59 4.2.3 COMBINED SHEAR AND TENSION TESTS The shear and tension loads applied to the specimens under this loading condition are equal and the ultimate loads ranged from 27,825 lbs. to 30,475 lbs.. The failure loads ranged from -- 27,825 to 29,150 lbs.. Specimens 21 thru 25 failed abruptly due to shear failure of the threaded rod. All inserts remained intact with only. surface spalling of the concrete. SPECIMEN NO. ULTIMATE LOAD (1bs) FAILURE LOAD (1bs) 21 27,825 27,825 22 29,150 29,150~ 23 30.475 29,150. 24 29,150 27,825 25 -- 28,487- '27,825 Average 29,017 28,355
. Allowable Tension = 11.5k Allowable Shear = 11.5k .
Factor of Safety (F.S.-)'. (Average Failure TensionDesign Allowable Tension x F.5.-)4/3, (Average F SPECIMEN N0's FACTOR OF-SAFETYL AVE I E OAD (k)
* ~ ,
~
28e36- 28.36- ~ .l 21 thru 25 28,355 (11.5 x F.5.)4/3,-(11.5 x F.5.)4/3 ..
.=1.0 F.S. = 4.15 l
4'
- - - , , - . , +
. . . - , .c ,
' e <. > '
10.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S These test results show that the performance capabilities of the 1 1/2-inch type EC-6W and the 1-inch type EC-2W Richmond Inserts in shear, tension and combined shear and tension exceed the design allowable by a ratio of more than 3 to 1. These conclusions are valid for the design allowables snown in Spec-ification 2323-SS-30, based on a spacing of the Richmond Inserts
- such that a full shear cone can develop.
Based on this test, the design allowables for shear, tension and combined shear and tension are acceptable for use without further investigation or additional calculations. Richmond's recommendation of a minimum safety factor of 3 has been complied
, with.
.; e ..
[t. APPENDIX 1 DRAWING NO. FSC-00464 SHT. 1, 2 & 3 e e
- v.
e7 , , .. .. . : . . .
.: g l
- q. S::!
; 9 9 1 9. 'h b- W 9:7 h l j 1 1 1 1 f 7 r . M r 1
j 1 b[c ) sj h 3 N. . ,! l 1 i a E 3 - Sg ' j]'j!3 0 ' OE
.: ji ' D,,]ijmn315 I aw- -5 ', ' dq @ 5 %-
4 ; er 1 ,, i l
%t.m , bpg[ng y7{,.aa.pyRM"udsk
;i I' ~gd 'i g i
{I
= yf >'
Qp~slf SIl m *% g
; ? b
*f;.5 w . : a id [i%hh]2
.: 7 o 9d 9 4.9 .b \
!, ! t r Sli g'7 5;s E *g :
h, p g t i ! i, !,,$ - Y e'r%'ik, ,_,h. f@e f'.ps $ ,
.a,. E Y E h if a i !
- I a... $c~$+,.-.4i'b-, s,,.q_ i Qx, ,t u > i s -
!Is ,
h b, k Pa Hr,, 3 OJ 3 i j m" "
, e. a {! h jf r _
1.p e;t -; ga y 5 kl I , , d: l 'gW1 i 3 4. A ,
$ , ll!Q['l.L i
?
T q-
, !uur},I ,+M W
m\,e - I H r> 8-me n$e. . P, we hN g jZd 'l
~
~ '"
fFj 3
'[3'j } J fG3I M
~
~~
F F ] '}iF" l' , (, ""'" l i I Pc j gl ) l y .y - r 'N l.
^
a f. j t,
? ;
ll 3) 1
,'l , ;
' i f W3 :- ' 'a
. :: .i 4
.i r
'g f,
}= 1~ s %
s; ; j ;
]
' %. .. ,g t u k. .=.r I .s
- x -3 3 a- N! M -h r.'v!f . , d[ j "l
- f. * "
i i g , 6 I.; h (Myh( .p v1 i
- t t Y
1l
- l. 'I W s
5
> d .
2~ S' l.
] g . g I e
' ' " e
- il t.;
.! L.)e .1pg l e Ng i @j i
l
,. a,
.a
- N 3 m u-{ [. 6 0g t !
,k
- i , -
') 4 ; I
- l p ; jp @ yaw- ( n . .a ti t 1 4 g' Y* olk 4. b
~
Y ._ N i . i , u,, v .. . >- : c y #f i 1, , j! -
.t e '
"P "7"s" gj
;k %
1 ." .w I fIN 6' .I (l
)
s
.j .
l .. l 1
.I' 1- :
t i . s i,. i : 1::
- r!
i:
! i
- - !a!!
!.! t i
- . I
} ,j i.; :: n n :s c+ . ..
s
,_ :,, 1:t g tat}
n ,, ~-
; s ,.
.. n. n.
- i . :n...y ....e n )g:,
g ..-p::.y I, i,pI t i: i
-- p:..+ -;.:f---.;:.: ....p... -n;;... .:p;-w ; --+- J. !g..a.
9 5 .. ...
, \__ --
.. . I ~ .
i ; 25l %l t
. l':
,4 r ,oe it
.- n.......~ ~
. o.
ls
.o.or ..
,e 9 9 4 q h k b b a e
? .. ~. ,-* y_= .
J. .L*- - . . . . . .
9 1 1 4. o . - . I; --~- 1.
, , 1 . .. . . , 1 1., . . \ ' -
1- -! 1 '_ 1
. ~ t;
W 8
!... ...... .t.. . t wpp j, l 4
%)ljjliglijl]hmmm. !Il!lllllll e !
& 3 i et,
;[ 1 1 3. .m '
N; i - erM i-llp,x 3
; g .- L ., ,g..k.
*i .e . ,
p.su.nw- .u q. T T1T g q . g
, *Y b*I-- ; y -9 ~;%:s s,
~q. O a.- -
r
,, j ,
) ~
d y 1
- r. 1: .raew,#.wn m-irm_A._ +
Le I 3 i
. %I i b .
s a L;~ D ' b h i-p.5g i! G { f/ b b. b '{ a b
;g .h,t n[ d 3 6 't h g g s g < t
,.,q M-t EE p i@ j do.. i va t
- { sl q;E g ,>~, Mds ho r . y a 4
s i ! ! ! @. g L mg' sp y ! , sa t -i E+3 , 9 s
- l Ar.lh 4, H4
- m. , ,I f. - i
. . !. .q...
i.L-- - - a i m . . , 1 -s .)g4 5 -c 1 '4 i g 11. ..f ( '_ l g p. j ' j t ! w -;* . 1
~ ~
lT --{
,s < 4%,'i
- E_h.c~q]_a
.. i- - .
, i - .,
M k 4
& P 'M.
.{ v i in i
{ 4 ] g' 1 EM.o_ %,
< 1, 7 dij pU j ! E
@M b,.i.
[ _f 31' - a
> c: u,.1,m ,
,1, rge ( +
_1 i - !
.ii1 W r
~
r
~
e-W W-. :- - %, - }~ } pr,
~~~
m.].- - <
. t g
f"
~'
3., 0 l --l gr - "i e : o
! y
] " q,._
j
;rx.l if P . ,
n t y g,t.1 :
~
-- h <% $.$!&. g :3;;3 g
- r g o t k . - -
- x. ,-
h jbp ' i fa, 8, 1 w" h o, . P,ni y e J ,
! I1 3 4 1 4 n : e p n. ,
0 F r ; u e di C ,
. . 3 .
1 g-pl : r Y, nti'd e.
. ; y p,
\ b.
q 1 sg 3U
$54 4 sp iT~T g ;
i yr .. bi
%q
.L 1
g a_ t
- Mb',k g ;
ur.. _
~
LrJ 2, ., * .Q i
- r. ,
d - w : .-::3
- Pre: 'I -i CC 5:2 i ,} It @y ) r - L !
%! m ai cy in i } *id l
l L-L-. C::3 }g
- Z - 6l 4
3 li s
, . . . . _ . . . _ h4 ,4 e i da i i c:t:: W ,I dt
- E 2d M h.t-L.a...a.n .
' - wr.n) *P ur;
}p R'h I ~{ '%
Qi y 1 Fd!)l n i F i 'r-
'J r.
- s. s ..; - a ] 0 t
- '--w'
, : :F 4.
I L ,J s gg
"'%**tl7 '-%'7 ;lg'l4L
; i :,- $ T UI k *:
l : ,I
- irr '
I ; I L i 4 'ilhi -
- l b, i -
g_gpc.ph(l ]- - Q -)- i +e1 -[.; r , i
,1i 1-Q [rpr;c-c:; p pg:p -
.c: ,.f i ! .A/- Q J,% , h .T,f_} .'jl'MjF 'i @:: @'j
; :- ~ ~::: = =er --..~. q_,~ s,,, 3 i y3 m b h $ $ h h 9 9 4 '
Q ,
.. g h In -
h
- la.7 -
=_
}
~ - - ' - - -
_-e 9
' ens
$ ;s t sg 'e
. .K 1, t k, 3
j p g I; o .
, , ',j, ~- , .-.
l TN 73 B i i' - h a g Q W l i I I B E MI l E' g . I I
'5 j s =J
, j 1 r' 4 g
, a - 1 I e 7 3 > E 4 ,
? s a g -'
l l @ 9 -E- j I g G E
- A ! 3 5 i ;
1 1-s ,9
'I I. I !, j E k $ k p i , 1 g 3 = o 1
I 3 f l g {
, 'l*
E 3,, t 1 - I $. s 3 g W g r-* r ;L=nr e i I kl 3 a 1 l' G
- g {
r g
, ? :
.l j
- DT -
I i i ch ' p
-e- 1 1 N 1, l l
l ? > e 'I 1. > . p.:.a.1.. !L 4 4_. ; 5 w .1
- e s
. ,. I,
- =
f ,
- i 4j s bj*
f '*3 i
- .= i g<
.!?_.
.6,_ q r.. a r
f .
,g '.""""""""'
*.- LJ 3 w i I .
.2C 8
t 8 3 j C.c I e
- ac i 4 .
3 W j _l 1 i 1 IBM _i C , i l ! I i F { f b j 1 o 5 ! :
- l H4-4 ias -4 + e.i --'
6 i 3 .
.q- .
s. g 1
- _l
' I e I
- i I g I t /
J i
. i 5 "fT [.[: ld l T il T- ,9 ..- r3 ,3
, gO}1 s g.. ;l ...
/ y l / j !
l ; i
' _. , C.
7 e n N: ' r ~ ;lM ] '- h a
< r 6 - \l ec i;1.
l , ,
..f g %~ .s+2 j-
.2 .
APPENDIX 2 CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE TEST REPORT
r -
~ .. . _, _
l e i COMANCHE PEAK SES yg_ I"# F07f CN bC upmE SivEE b P- M / ', / TESTS F CONCAETE C's. sef No 2V73 oCEcunE ' ' (ra sr mock \ te) uosst ra my 0 Fa Ca !wy0 C a forat =arte/safCm Tvrt or CumiNC Cat AcC"
$(.eOS tes 4 37 tes l W.C tasj O tes I'l W Las NW A/
u- ae v aatt ngo/ClutN1 s TO f at aan 59tCtvsto CtsuGn sintNGfn 2 vnou garCn ClutMrrCu 10 n:0 AOClO "c"(' sw i tes O ca< c . Su natainur ;ase zCu%o 13Nr 9 /eeo ,s, 2 f oars 8eaNO 0F as4 (NinasseiMG A0wrfunt l8aaNO OF waf te etOUCassG 60astatung was slZt C A ) wt 1 speaNO CF CCn4NT G-H fret CF ClutNT E neihe , & W 1 sp Cm Ca. saueCE F a. 58 CA. FA FretNESS WCCult3 FA. h sounct Ca .
- 2. 6 5~ e2. 6 3 <>?. 7 I rxt n A. rop r u - 7;a To p TYPE OF wres3 SATCH L0a0 TICKtf MQ $aMPLC faKEN aft PLndiI 5 e, &2 M9 0 cc"'"*' ""'" Q '**"' W '*'"' *'*c"***
# aim f tM*. CONC.ftW8 Stunsp titin 00 0F 8 LACING 84J MP Suctif Qaft saas8tto Noue *Cafute O eUGaits O etLT [CNutt 2-y-g fank ce ,3,i: 4r 60 r 5 f/ ,, ,
fiant OF uixissG af UNIT WT. CU. FT. MfM 10 SPECladEN TANtN Sf SPEOastN CAST Bf afft CCNTR AL Plat 47 en h WIN L OS- /d(Y d CTLesotA LA jg utA3Unto avg. Da. Daft CAPPt0 Tsast Daft hoax.Loao C&__ _Z C g' 8 TYPE O' IN. Cappt0 SY TESTtO TESTCO STwtssSTM gy gy BREAft Dia. sas ts. , g 9sro g T/73A ~1 Cc66'S. Yk> t4$ h D710 3-7-ff o rto e o o it I.t.0 t if , !Ea Ru 5 2473 B ? U5 L Cih A L-14 W ouU 3-7-fY n ua 800 UL IC UC- C RY . 5 2475d 22 $5-L a=c 2 nsM & rfn. 3-LS-fY fctcoo O.90 of/ C Wo( 2473 b 12 WWL,sd9 "A na W /M id 3 .21-ff 1GcDo cu a t] tb tb il_b 2Y73E .28 bNS~$(o.lb2 2 Etst & A f, ca 5-12-fyr ,. ., cy us er y rac,. f. s &. u l .1173f 2.9 N ' W l. ,e m 4 3.238 % 0s n, 3-21-8'l r ,>-r oct U a'; O oc. In P$ c 9 A.)A w , MA e i Oatt a faut sfmeg A tuanet s 3-I- b'Y 91.t** 'M. CURING CONTR0( TEST RESUI.TS FOR 28 OAY 8REAK LaSamafoaf Cu#to CfuMotRfSS FitLO Custo CvLissotice STRtNGTW I P S.I.) bD IC) STRtNGTN ( P, $.l l kM\ f0)
!"h.<> 6 ,d 4.-T'20 ,b t toi. 0> - (Cs.(da. OAI *
- z. con,thi , a e # %~C
- N0f t. II) 440vt MUST 88 touaL 70 CA GAtatta fMass 0.83: CA (2) amovt sett0 ,
NOT EXCCCO THC Otssoas statNGTN sv asOnt twaN 300 Psi tytN TNousa tnt 0.8$ CRif tM80*e tS 000f het f ..
- stm CAu,outqns f No tm on M 3_ 'T'l f 2 4_, .
Conspecssion waCweNt se0, 'v'.k ET *t om F oaf Patmaat0 af s Catcat0 av _M/ Cipetase WOLO NO _ t-M - ** ' i f) te Def Petpaat0 Of b Oettat0 ST ia N t ,,.. ~_ ,. ri ,,,a,~,, _ n f/ 1 bwe
. _tusC.D t i - atevdad
_~ %
- APPENDIX 2 TEST DATA SliEETS
_= -
* . . . . . . . . . . ~ , . . .
COMANCHE PEAK SES r SHEAR TESTS EC-6 Rf RICHMOND /d -INCH, TYPE INSERT j
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-t /Jp e ar. Specimen Number: / Bolt Spec: A 99O Date: 8 Ari $# (FNJf thserf 4B wes?' end of conc. s/eb) i i DEFLECTION (IN.) GAUGE JACK
- PRESSURE THRUST NOTES-FAILURE MODE INITIAL l AFTER 2-MIN. (P.S.I.) (Lbs.)
; 1.003 0 l o.co3 l .f 400 l S300 l 027. l . CJJ" l doo /c Goo l l j 0C0 i .oGo f /200 /f fco l l
. 0 76 i
,0 79 l /*Cem l 2/ 20e l l'
. 0 *.T ! 0 99 l 2000 l 24 foo
./// l . /// l 2 400 l f/ded l
./EB i ./.32 I EBoo 37 /C0 l l . /M i ./50 l 32 0e I $24Co l t
. /Go l ./C '7 l 24on l .$7700 l
.!78 l ./85 ; .dooo SJ coe l l l ./9G l . fos l 44** I SBJto l l 4
\
.EEC i .2 23 l 4 800 l 43 Sco I
> ; ,2 50 i .2&y- I fado ! fe 9eo l l 277 i .297 l SGo o l 74 ? co I
. l
.304 l .348 i deco l *19 Sep l So// clebrmea'
. JBo i .fa9 i f.; 4* o l 89 /m f Cn/sh ing of conce e/e wcrs a f,'o I /,/2 r f 68m l 90 /c0 l orthc/ca/ 7'a'i '/ore. ~/% iherca11<.
! I l !m /ced w M7 therence def7ec - l i 7%n. Did nef /ced /c dehvencA i I l l Burr,co! of/ l'c// head' fc/ s e.n.n e/. /k.se.4s/med he \
i i i en cu e,.e/c. 1 , 1
- Jack Thrust equal Shear Load on Insert.
Jack Thrust (Lbs.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /J. JS Jack: . . . . . . .Ecui pment Number gc// 400 Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number B S E.r Due Date: /6 egai. pp Dial Gauge:......M & TE Number E949 Due Date: E r vee. F y i Performed By: Witnessed By: Namt! (/ 6? . lW J *pc4 F# Date
/fAu QA Representative' lJ Date 4-3 j
+
- i. . . . _ _
COMANCHE PEAK SES SHEAR TESTS
<Tc-G V RICHMOND /'/l_-INCH, TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-Wtjeh Specimen Number: 8 Bolt Spec: A - #fd Date: p /lau [ 8 9 l (fsw frwr we.sf end) l DEFLECTION (IN.) GAUGE JACX
- PRESSURE THRUST NOTES-FAILURE MODE INITIAL AFTER 2-MIN. (P.S.I.) (Lbs.) l r.s o a t o.coe l 4 00 s',3co l
. c E/ i .o12 f Boo /0,400 l 1
. .QJ4 l 02G l /200 l //,900 l l l 049 l . DS/ l / Coo l 2/, 200 l 042 l .ocG ! 20cc l 24, SCD l l 000 l . oss l 2400 l 3/,doo l l . o w, : . /o2 l 2 900 l 3 7 too l I . //S ! . /2 / i 32m l 42 400 l
.23 ; ./42 I Jaco l 47700 I
.M7 f
. /Gc f -foco l S3 tw l
\ . /20 ! ./92 ' ccso l fBJco l
! .2C8 ; .2/7 ' </sco l 4 3. <,' 00 l 237* .247I S2m l 46,9w I
.243 1 .2 76 i Stoo l 7f too l l 273 l .3/ + i G000 l 79,500 l
.338 ! .37o l wo l 89 se i
; . <2e ; .SSS - G 8e l 90 /00 i
. 77o l /, // o 7200 l 97 400 lSo/t'~ .rbeared abrupf/ct. ConcrerQ*
I i iros//ed' on comprers J>, .sion oirsaus i Arn6 /4 'deez, r u>,,,; n,i ear /\ss ' -~.c o A .r'sw.w. c,,. ,,/ ,,,, m e
~ ' I 9 Whfo~ nf n~ /M1 Er f?
- Jack Thrust equal Shear Load on Insert.
Jack Thrust (Lbs.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /J. /f Jack:....... Equipment Number aca dos / Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number e 7+ 94'Jff Due Date: /G ,*r p<,< /"> c -# ##" M' Dial Gauge:......M & TE Number E 94 9 Oue Date: 2 9 <A m w d *' f f'~ Performed By: Witnessed By:
$- ! 6/x'lBe w > ?< 4 ~ 4 -d f-Name Date (TA Representative' Oate
* .. . .. ~. . . _ . . .
l COMANCHE PEAK SES SHEAR TESTS EC- G W RICHMOND / -INCH, TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-X /5 f d Specimen Number: ,8 801t Spec: # ff4 Date: 4 ger// #9 (IW from We.c/ &d)
' DEFLECTION (IN.) GAUGE JACK
- PRESSURE THRUST NOTES-FAILURE MODE ZNKTIAL AFTER l 2-MIN. , (P.S.I.) (Lbs.)
- s. cod l .co/ l 4 00 .5300 l l
.oor i .sez I soo so ceo l l
.o03 ! .os3 l / 2 00 l /S 900 l 1 f
00 6 007 l /&oo 2/ 200 l ( I .0/2 l .ct8 l 2 cos l EG5co l l 032 i .03G i 2400 l 3/ Boo l l
. o +' 9 I , err i 2 Boo ! 37/co l \
.0#7 i .os 9 i Szeo i # Sea i
.0 78 I . os s I 2doo l 477m l
.o96 \ . lo? l 4 00o l SJ em l
./26 i ./3/ I ddoo l ff 30* i l ,iMl _t54 f 4 800 l G3 dse !
i ./74i ,/82 l S200 l ca yao I i ,206 i .2/8 i .fdoo l 74 2ee l l ,242 l 259 l Good l Mfoo l
.283 l .3/f l G4co l 84'800 l l . 3cr l .3n ! 68co l 9a /co l
,9ol (/.Tp l 72cc \ Pi doo :sorf .r/>ea -ed shrunM/. concre/
i tScaHed /"o% @ du bry ;%erino fs rero desh, I s S ou/ fon; c.cmoceu% .sWe J4dd) /n.teeA l Weforrned wherk w)ib/s f/m;As), /mer/ seemin.r/o iMid dere .rN7/ M"d/' a #* 3 o Jack Thrust equal Shear Load en Insert. /" ' Jack Thrust (Lbs.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /S,2r \ Jach: . . . . . . . Equipment Number A'cw 406 7 Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number JJff Due Date: A6 doe B9 Dial Gauge: . . . . . .M & TE Number 4949 Due Date:49 via #4 ggf)) / Performed By: Witnessed By:
$l Y W $E^E 09-- W, b
' 9-/ 8$.
Jame- L7 ate QN Representative Date
COMANCHE PEAK SES SHEAR TESTS EC-6W RICHMOND #_ /F-INCH, TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-X/J, eA Specimen Number: # Bolt Spec: 4 -4fC Cate: 4 84r/ 4 (4t6 from WedEnd.) l DEFLECTIO!1(Ifl.) GAUGE JACK
- PRESSURE THRUST NOTES-FAILURE MODE IMITIAL AFTER 2-MIN. (P.S.I.) (Lbs.)
l .ocos l- .ecos-. l 40s .r sco l
\ .o03 l .cos i 800 la 4c0 l
.0/2 f
.0/3 l /200 /.C9Ce l t .024 '
.626 l M00 l El200 l t
.03r ,oJ8 l 200o 24 500 l l .od7 ; .o48 l 2 400 34 Bw \
. ore . o.:pr I taco 32 too l
- . 0G 7 i 070 .I 2200 f 42,fod l n
.0 78 l .o 91 3 400 l 47 700 l
.os9 I
. ora 4 000 l .ft ex l i . /M ./ ffec l a - M A L op ,, i A z s a h
- . tog I . /d f I 4400 l fBJCo l
.//G l ./20 ! 4 Boo l G3&27 l
! ./28 ; . /3.7 l s'aco l GB 93 l s , /42 i ./dC l 560c i 7f los l
\
./5C l . /G $ l G000 i 79,Sco I i ./7; I . / 8/ l G4co l Bf fse !
.292 i .3c3 i &800 l 90, /cs l
.3/F ; .333 l 7200 Ps~f o* t
. 3Cc l .389 i 7Gre~ l /Co , 7ao I
. )i't) l ; &ooo /06000 ' fo#.she.3rehr/ytid/u. Camre/e .sagr) e I
- Jack Thrust equal Shear Load en Insert. ~ #"## d'"" #* #"# F ## *M## # "*"'c E d '*
! Jack Thrust (Lbs.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /4 2.5-
'" e Jack:.......Equicment Number Bcp tiod Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number ESSS Due Date: /4 Af or #ft " '" ^ M d l+r Dial Gauge:......M & TE Number spcr9 Oue Date: Er uh Bd ,e ,, g Performed By: Witnessed By: l'A
flag
~$ & 4 A/A5' B4 Date un OA Representative' Date Y-4~$$
l l
~ COMANCHE PEAK SES SHEAR TESTS RICHMOND / -INCH, TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-K/.ffM Specimen Number: .6~ Solt Spec: 4-WO Date: # 4,on / d v (SC4 from Wed and) DEFLECTION (IN.) GAUGE JACK
- PRESSURE THRUST NOTES-FAILURE MODE INITIAL AFTER 2-MIN. (P.S.I.) (Lbs.)
!0.002 I c. co 2 l foo l S 3co i 004 i .005 ! 800 l /0 Goo l i
.0/3 I
. c /.s~~ \ /200 l // foe l l . O Js~~ ' 037 l /400 l 2/ Edo l l . o S*7 i .063 ! 2000 l 24 600 l
\ .o9o i ,o9J ! 24o0 l 3/ aco l
. //7 !
. /24 I 2 800 l 37 /Co l i ./50 l /r1 ! S300 l 4.2 4 oo t
l l
.i74 ! . /d3 l 3400 l 47700 l l .200 I .209 l 4'000 l f3 000 l
\ .22 3 I .23g l 44co l fBJa l
\ .248 '
.261 l 4tpoo l 43. po l
.2 74 ,
.2 97 ! S*2co i G 8, foo f i
307 l 322 i .d'600 l 74 300 l
.338 i .3S61 4000 l 77,foo l
.370 I .387 l wo l Bf 200 i
! 4o2 ! .9L28 f 6 80o \ yo,/00 l
.#7! .+79 1 7200 I 9f;&o l
.506 ! . s.t s i 7600 '
/M.fo* I
..gs-- ! .
! eou /0htJ// .rt&s ect abi .uprYy. ces,eieA. ,sgu i /. /**
- Becak i /%ep 9 Mue/ /* o W"o ut, 4"w&e
- Jack Thrust ecual Shear Lo'ad on Intert.
l 4 '. / '"# N ** Jack Thrust (Lbs.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) v /S, d f Jack:....... Equipment Number /rcN cos J"
/f Pressure Gauce: M & TE Number Estr Due Date: /S 4 -0 #, 5e l Dial Gauge:......M & TE Number 2uy Due Date: er vuo W Perfomed By: Witnessed By:
l N.ame k$ Adpr. FF Date
/A s .
&x (7A Representat1ve "
Date 4-4-94 l
'f j
/ .
COWJICHE PEAK $ES COMBINED SHEAR & TENSLON SIS EC- W Richmond Inch. Type _ nsert g Refer e: CP.E I.13.04r /JJ *
- Specimen Number: 4 [4 4 h as,/) Inserted Load Rod: 4 - /75 Date:__ /d Aon*/ [rs.
(mme, $ HEAR TENSION
. ... z.. .. ...
l Gauge Jack Deflection Gauge Jack Het Insert Deficction Press. Thrust (Inch) Press. Tierust Jack Load '-(IE67 Notes - failure Mode 8 After Thrust After (PSI) (Lb.) Init. 2-Min. (PSI) (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) Init. 2-Min. g f** S 34t* o.oo 7 8. o* 7 ) f*foo } l o*sr o.**ir
.r- to c - .oz.r . ou l so sa. 1 i . **.c .o s-szoo /ry o _ o s/ .ou ? /r r ( \ . corr at l
/4 ** 2/ 20e .042 .osf l El 2*O h h DM .o/9 l .
2 oes zc so. .oso , ors ( a: roo \ \ . o.1/ 03t , zn . rum . /.gs .tr3 5 .r/ ao L_ k .oes .ovs zroo a i.. .i rs irr a spoo u % . ors ors . l- _.3tdoo +<*** 23s .evs r?, +o t .o cz .scir
.Noe 977m .tro .3D4 l 97,7/0 .h b .97/r 079 i 90*O s1.*** . 339 .382 l S.S.0 0 0 h ) ,o&F .co 7
+ 23* rd.J/J . 9 a.
- l ff3/3 ( )
4.300 K [7s ,9&o l rf 97f ( )
~ ~ ~
ee - rr 3 - .srs .:cy V ss..ro* 1 ) .nr .r.rr nu rrcar .rr ) szczr ) { w- > so. rro . sn l so. rso 1 i 10 Jack Thrust = Shear Load on Insert. Shear Apparatus: Jack---Equipment No:jfo/ 60s 12 Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /J.?f for Shear Load. Pressure Gauge-M&TE No:_gffy Due Date:/g a- M. 20 - Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x _/J.dS for Tension Load. Dial Gauge-H&TE No: Jrer Due Date:g M y Total Wt. of Tension Load Beam
- Lb. Tension Apparatus: Jack-Equipment No: g cd_ oS 7*
** -.J._'
hi !:.. M - '^
- 4 TM T
- H ' __ ue ar a m. Pressure Gauge-H&TL No: Due Date: i
*** Insert Load a.ilet Jack 1hrust-a-3e 4# # Dial Gauge.M&TE No: fo94 Due Date:fg v g" i Performed By:
Name_ 9 -/# - / V Date Witnessed By: u 7A Representative' 3A 4 44-d f Date
% g m
_ . _ - * .- . l
% l 1 44 4 s{ oi i 2 ss ss A as aa t 43 a
t 11 11 4 3 t N Ak .kih ) ' s
, e "" g 1 j =
t 3
. % .kT.s un.uiE
-n a e i
lta* = laIg aE
;; :
- ij =
+a =
e a
,e viaevajiel m . i s
t s o iaa ::2 a
- 4:a t
423 2 4 .t ::
\ tk ts 4 l! $
As ti S s
- m. y e
_3 Lee -~ 3 : : est s,s; ;8 y - e ir i
- 5 =s- E ,I x 1 .
~ n .. %<
w s3 .e,, N..3i
;g g o
- 1g.e 4
~~w g m~v . ~-
.i
- :2 3 ja .
8 a." i E .:- : 4 - 3
- 34jg - q - --- - ~- 3,;
4- , 88
+a i
- 2 -M
.,gy 4 y i. - -v ~~ %.a
~4
~4- io w w+ q.t W ,.
. . n
- i. ad = EE Ay s NE .- .- s. m- ~
;!;ai p. s
~l s I !
seps: t.
. t o g. ti ga a.a j j .
_ _:S -
---~ .
s.- - .n t t -: gIe; I;. - e t..y4
~- - -
.-es nf.
. g i .
I g.. , j '41 a $!$ $ $ 1I]2q -
- %. ,%, t u -. . . .csie.t s
- = 444%ns
%. gIsa a t s
.e _c y g g _._ ~ ......:
3 q s__
r .. ,. . . , . . .. . .
.t < w f qt'4El;l s
- 6 w
.i 3 e 44 +
x Ed %
! \' 4 , .!
5s !s ,i
- s. gg s aa sa 3 1 1 11 11 3 A
i )e l,t(j +l $ 4. v i ( '4 .p~ab%g, P 9') ,,* ks $1..
. , a t .
+ 5 8
4 .. . i
,l i .t a k :
q g b Qo M'keki.m-1 a L $0 n
,1 j
' .. . e i di t si E .j itH13
- 2 s u _13 kie a f W,2< a o,l .e n.. .i nau-t =d, s us -
' u s .. i-2 s
(~6s
.N 0' ; 3 h \d h ,3 1
1 3 i # s.,.,a. ma..
. - .e e,
.n.,-4 ~
s.e, % ;s ,i un; i
. , . . e. .
2, w *
$ ~
9 %e}ct u s := {
=
A i;=g i 3 t n u 'qL.% et 2 ., a b .. *'. . r 1 33 g5 5. 3 t, -
! 33 g ~~~ ~
p s~~~ - 4 go.g4.e;,c s - 4a r la g 5 3" g.tp a "i a 3 - : e :-
~~~~~ : -
33g g .~ s~-- a3 3, aa 3 98 T .es W*
- 4 4 14 thq,uU1 B 8 %$
n bg 63p u a b,a n hW.f
'f p=
J$ $
~~~'v'~~
$@k
==
cer , gist MV
- (3 vss -
g< JQ 3 ~ Ng 1, Issi-c\ l tv..s t . N, si _ti e ,%,?,
. y e s tai.E D,s . u.
b.,e.sv.!, s =2a, <. 3 . . 3 t,o .- - ,.. th Jd' " e t -- g Ws s% = *
;4 5 j a g ( g g+ l . t i b '
- E.
- 8 "" J s N4 % l
=
g -
.- 'ty .g m. g . . .
. ..e.c =.'..'3 jg .. l 1 N iel
%*2 41 Alltalga u t 4 5 d6 h jijY1 e u; wy :S k
- Mij
- l I g:i= s $ 2 f : 4435d' j e A
e as s u i @gt:d'.{H t i tc?u lia : t
L . , l
/
=. , ,
f v k ,.U 44 , - F' 4,'* a x g e
! 4 4gtT whi 4
?
4 1 4 i N}k (4
.T "E aa ma UU
%~
a s . . N.N % g 5 i .e / BA al a
- k ChW B e 5. d \
y I f 4N 4fi*(ht'g jj
%)N,Np*d t .N .t 'O N %g$ he 9 3 - I Q 3 . e % ..
- t Q' 1 ) i :% 8 - .. E E~g h
- E 6
4 a \
\ T * *!:ReEN I E
".I h t t t
. %=It. i rE la - e
. x
. .'iss t -> t 'd :. . .v. ..ea. -
gwy I }e . 0 4 e a .. N k d 'k k3 f 5 I
,1 '
s j ap , a ap-s 5 . g2e a s em 1e o arteral-r i-a ehs u 64
- ' N te<~
- 2. '
- 7 gM 3 4
e w E k.. j["" 3
! =. ~3 2 ..
- s. . . :.; h.: ) .t.
$44;3 t, -
If'$j } , I55 5 % ~ 4 %s .m, n y
-ps: .
2. 8s" e
~
=- k$
gg y l .
? *$$$d --
~~ ~-^%
} ~ w~nss~
o5 w' % .
-- i to g
o N5 s e
*j kSMek g h
' E 4
'h d Nl A $
} (t y*!R, h?HkR C 1 .
n
= =*W'-
t 15 5 -
-- _-- g ,~-s~-
r 7, at 3 e 5 5 5.NM $ di .! 4. "4 ifioi.: ',i,'
.. Q th, I.,,
. u.ie o
, % _3Ln
-a<~ q-y f = } '
=8.g3*>g ~
;- % W 33a3]it $.\
f .: i. 4 'A. 'Qs.W, t.h. .< m..su4 g
] s = .
*
- i
* y <* 'o g t
}'$$314 1
f S y
. g ,
!= 4'
'< Iu w*t* { , 5dkq t % :a;!1
$ g, a.. S .% h
,$ ~43 e; S
.+
s d 4 ee -
- s ,4 ,
d4 , [ DD % tit s I o I' l
*
- 4444~5h' 4~
l.: y ke d$.I f J.y sg w
's;
.- 4 el %,M 'P ,+i M 111 :i
g,> [pi COMANott PEAK SES COPWINED SHEAR & TENSION TESTS f L dC- 6 eV Richmond d .-Inch, Type ___ insert
Reference:
CP-fi-13.04-/.7f=# Specimen Number: f [9khin we.o/am/) Inserted Load Rod: A-/9y Date: // aC hyt ,_ , g,,,,,,,, SHEAR TENSION 1* 2* ** *" Gauge Jack Deflection Gauge Jack het insert Deflection Press. ' Thrust (Inch) Press. Thrust Jack Load l inch) Notes - failure Mode After Thrust After (PSI) (Lb.) Init. 2-Hin. (PSI) (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) Init. 2-Nin.
~~~t;*=
.poo a oo.
coor o.soa .) s ig.rw 1 L o.os o o.ooo , soo r ww "ggr
; pra y ( .oes ooo -
d,9SS- -%%SS A% -'
.%is-Mj Ain
-ss- -vn 55- -4H93m *F
- H .,
3, nz- d
-f $*A,
(
. 'y .
y y ofs
-fstS- .r Hit '.- o
+#oo -}s.roo -
.6 36
[
- t a
N
- qi
.A 60710 4 #._
f&** . 72 0 "/s "/b "/n .36 DW gzy., 7-erm. et_ A, z ,e w s,+ rdemy. 4670 t/4/3 o77 6 4/,4/1 c ,
- 3foo 9f G J7f \ M 373~ { ') Brook! JAeor fs/vse or f sva'. Mod .s4ea ,.e
( l ) ro, e toAm4 / sL .,+ 4rf
- f/rufs an
( ) % eoms, ,c fen,j.,n .uye., o/ ohseer'- iroAe I
~
. \ { /oose. /ron, av a n er- e, sve//s.
sslkc.r -
) ( ) ris*Ved 'he her sgg//_d. /rried jeg(ono l ( % voJ//tro- .rsm1 ,/. be irrr'i d As/ ffir-tv5 /c/_
] $ \ * ** l 1/dn+He dirfor/e./ Cone. .RsAd /yx C" ew cs
.s.
- I* Jack Thrust = Shear Load on Insert. Shear Apparatus: Jack T-Equipment No: g g /_g OG
~
^
l* Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) a f4gj-for Shear Load. _ Pressure Gauge-M&TE No:_EJfj"_ Due Date:gs_ f _g. ##p 2* Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) m /Zgg-for Tension Load. Dial Gauge-M&TE No: ffff__Due Date ffg/p Total Wt. of Tension Load Beam = _3 b.'" Tension Apparatus: Jack-Equipment No: RCtr_'_8 JI e$ m ?M T'
- t - Tet:? TN _-In t.,"'g_L" -
. ;M . Pressure Gauge-H&lE No:Jy a Due Date:
*68 insert Load =-Wet Jack Thrust it-t--- ,P Dial Gauge-MAIE No: E d ys Due D te:/f__,/ A Perferimed By:, , Y #-//-/P Date 1_ .
Witnessed By:~hA Representative / 4 -s t- 8 tC Date T .
~.
O
l [I
. ~
/
COMANCHE PEAK SES COMillNED SHEAR & TENSION TESTS A~C-Richmond -Inch Type __GW Insert -
Reference:
CP-El-13.0 /Jjech' Specimen Number: /h [/# d [ra*M _ kFKd'w) . Inserted Load Rod: 4-/YJ Date: // M _ f (4 , Gwn,,,n SHEAR T[MSION 1* 2* ** *** Gauge . Jack Deflection Gauge Jack Net Insert Deflection 71EhT-- Press. Thrust Press. Thrust Jack Load '~{lncET~ Notes - Fallure Mode After Thrust After (PSI) (Lb.) Init. 2-Hin. (PSI) (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) Init. 2-Min. - o . ** * ~D M ~
'~***
- po sa - irsea-g jo, wr l fjoo vrar y
- wo-d ooo
_tre. 75or a m . .,ft
.ws .
n5 _eg ( sr son 1i zo* ( .ogs a. oo_j'
.. f eo l
-. t e g -
.- y $. -
-Q f,3-- $
)
agir,- - soj7
-- ba.
oo 3,glan-
-f,gg -
4 f,- - . - pyf,- r -.1,,15. a.er0~**i,4~_ r.~:*.<a u s,s u ,. w,. rN- 2 ..Mgf"s
*. > _,n_ > n --t
_gpe_ .jna,,
. s t' j sJa**
sa,seo } } m.sT .1se
~~7EY
. r18 ,
J se. torso ,27e NA so yse N/A N/4 ' _er-* czzis . iso e stars $ s ~ ess, sw. . nr ( 4,y gg ) ) ./<r-4t*- 0 4** .SID i 43 Ge ) ) .
~
+r*- o so, .s- .ur ( n.s c.m ) ) . z.to 41~ Thre.r/s sf,Jses. . tli%s suers' av.ase-44*e sy rls'
_( G4 9ss l 8 /oese fr*m ifra/s. /ruArf r ewned i;.a pfges, Y . 18 Jack Thrust = Shear Load on Insert. Shear Apparatus: Jack---Equipment No: g g gg g , 1* Jack Thrust (Lb.)
- Gauge Pressure (PSI) x j),gf_for Shear Load. Pressure Gauge-H&TE No: f / f/ Due Date:/(g@
2* Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x ggfor Tension Load. Dial Gauge-M&TE tio: 3949 Due Date:g y g g Total Wt. of Tension Load Beae = N/A to. Tension Apparatus: Jack-Equipment No:ggjg gay 7-
** E'_ M'_!L.J M .; E.. d .. '"~
1/2 "^ Pressure Gauge-H&TL ho:grgmDue Date:
*** Insert Load =. Net Jack Thrust-a-+. ,,PM Dial Gauge-M&TE No: eof # Due Date:/g_g/aer SE Performed By:_ .
ame [ " - /'Date A Im Witnessed By:__QA~ Represent
) ~ /> #-/#-8/
Ive Date
.~
g. __.____.__m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
C0ftANCHE ?EA< SES TENSIO:: TESTS A~C- 6 W RICHMOND /Il-IflCH, TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0 '* /Jf <x Specimen Number: //. ._, Load Rod Spec: A /93 Date: .f Aar & l (//8 frern n'a.rf i$ 00m eat.sf
* ** *** I GAUGE JACK NET INSERT DEFLECTION (IN.)
PRESS. THRUST JACK LOAD THRUS ,i NOTES-FAILURE MODE AFTER
.S.I.) (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) INIT. 2-MIN.
goe l
;rGro /+ar ; e r.ro o.co o o o.n foo i J~3 ao 4 orf f 8 fro 0. oo => - * - ** o Cr *
- l 7 150 4 72f /34f" **** **##
Boo l /c c;oo 9 37F /a 7JD AC/ *00I l
/pco /225e /A ett 2+ 070 ,poy 00]f /EA'f ff9&o /**J 67J~ 29 SfC . DOS .00 6 /9eo l id ifo /7 325' Jf Gro ocof
- Q //
/600 i 2/ EM /9977 1f fro .0/3 .0// /200 23 ffe 224;df v3 AFC ,0/ff .0/7 2C60 24De 2S 2 75 so ffo ,o/95 .020 29tG Ef /fC 27125 ffff* o022 ,0/3 ;
2400 f/ Add 30f7f 4/ /fe .02'7 *
.024 ' .2 600 1 3+r 4s fo JJ Mr c;4 tr* . 0 2 2. .c3f 2800 I 17/ce 3ff7J~ 7/ 7/0 . 0 7] . 0 78 seco l 3175o Ja RF l 77050 .074 *099 3.20e l At400 at /77
- 82 3sb ./b3. #M ./off
.!400 l ffOfp l Y38Er 37 CfD ./ef ,///
.IC00 t 47 :w I *4 47f 92 950 . /CJ ./83 jgde f0,3fC 4't /2f f/ ETO , f.ff ,,/9 8 4000 $3' tt;e f/ 77r /03 f*fo ./90 2/Y . .; i.
a;;'iOO v&G eneenqF fos' 200 sq Vupr rd//vro or ff/co Mrmahl/m ert ano' red'). / nrr-w' enew ff 327
/'r G n f ' W y "f u // ,* Trrread.r ces bois{
' 1 toa' / duerf we -e rfr heeo'. Comee.h l .Co a//he to <w /11depu,d// 'x /f'*w_ c concrehe- on/u. - A h si- n exa-w I I 1 A o'ensmotri aico-~ Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /.2 2/~ , Total Weight of Load Beam = J##o - - - . - - - - - - - - _. 'L'f* . "'ve M
~
4/r /7 f rS s'8' e /f 5
** -Net Jack Thrust = Total Thrust Minus 1/2 Weight of Beam.@ iri e/ 4,2r. = /d/f)
Insert load = Net Jack Thrust x 2. Jack: . . . . . . . . . . Equipment Number #c// e,or, Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number IJff- Due Date: /# 4er 89
-Dial Gauge: M & TE Number 49#9 Due Date:Ef v'un '49 Perfonned By: Witnessed By:
Name fDate'$dfr- , V
-QA f,epresentativl '
Y . Datcg 4 ~ i~W - 1
-^ ^ ~
e , - . - COMANCHE PET 3ES TENSION TEITS EC- 6 VV RICHMOND /d-INCH, TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-3 /.7,cy , Specimen Number: // Load Rod Spec: AT-/9S Date: 5' Afgr/7 $ff (/2 fro -- Wa.rt , -12 from shd) \ GAUGE. JACK NET INSERT DEFLECTION (IN.) PRESS. THRUST JACK LOAD NOTES-FAILURE MODE THRUST AFTER P.S.I.) (Lb.) '(Lb.) (Lb.) INIT. 2-MIN.
,a l scro i+ar ,
zero p. coo e-con 400 i floe d o 73~ l 8/fc #.*** *000 g.co 7 9FG G72i / 3 fSb 000 s o oo Po o / e C e* 937f // 7/b
- C D/.f ***A i r o ao / .5 AfD /202f Ef Ofe ap93r *OOff
/200 /f 900 /d C 77 29350 .007 ***A
/ 7 S3.3
/A'00 // frD .'d 9 4.M ,009 0/0
/600 2/ ?Cs /9975 _? ! ffe .o//6~ O/2 foVw 23 fro 22627 f 32JD , g/9 0/ff 2C00 26 foe 2r 877 fof3D .D/7 aDI7f 22po 2y/fo a 7 9ar FJ 630 ,0/95 ,edp a
??oe J/ SM 30 f7f' 4 / ife r 0 EE .022S I 24eo l Jf fro 33 als l & & +.M 0 26 S 28co l 37 foo 3r975 l 7! 7Sb 02%
n21 l * .o295 Joco 3 9 7.m 28 rif 77 ofG ,osa a 0.54l 32co a2 Ac a t / 75 92 350 .03G 037
.7400 l ff Of* 94G3/25 d's 6 70 ,090 .993 36C0 t a7 70o 47f 92 9fc .098 ,0.57 Jodo l CD Jf' 49 /Er l 91 270 .057 .06df~
4000 i ff om 7/ 77r i /e 3 fro .o'70 . o '73~ 9 400 l ff CSD 4-4c0 i ffsoc ff f2r /D G oro ryo rf //a:iro
.08y
. (20 a
\
'092 in-s/7ure 6y ,;/r/ hoed A'ao' to sq.ceer. 7n ead enyfemeni Waf i'/ YU/'/
ired.r
- J'hioned /enO4h was 7
Con Gre/c Jur/*d C<:: //* cf/f7. 8re.3. - drD2//in.7 ado,.rr enNl .f,00//dd u /'nr e* r/./ N - e f / / ? v D w c / l
,2$$$o YY$e. goo.it / he /$W tvas ' /*l D/cf neif ridw/~.
i
- Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /f,8f Total Weight of Load Seam a If>D l
** Net Jack Thrust = Total Thrust Minus -1/2 Weight of Beam. -(8 WA = /FIS 2
*** , Insert load = Net Jack Thrust x 2.
- Jack: . . . . . . . . . . Equipment Number A'C // 4 4 6 Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number ESSS' Due Date: /6 Ae, B9' f Dial. Gauge: M & TE Number E?ff Due Date: If </un Bf Perfanned By: Witnessed By:
0f rame Y o^te SY b" 4;$wa t' $~T-9Y L _ _
?Represntatwe' ;Date
COMANCHE PEAK .'ES l TENSION TESTS :
.4 d'C - 6 n/
RICHMOND /2 -INCH, TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.04 /.7.ve*' Specimen Number: /.8 Load Rod Spec: M -/R7 Date: 5" Apr lM (/3 M fro ,.,. wad, JO'&o- cxf) GAUGE JACK NET ItlSERT DEFLECTI0tl(IN.) PRESS. THRUST JACK LOAD THRUS, NOTES-FAILURE MODE AFTER 9.S.f.) (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) INIT. 2-MIN. gop aGCo / f E! 2 Bfe e,aa= Oo M Ace ff 0t9 407f h /[o C. C o o 0*o00 (,, 0 0 7 ffC 4727 l /2 fie Po c o O O s00 ' l 80D /0 GCC 937f I /d 7FD O. Coo d.Q o o r
/ca.
- l / 2 .a s o /Z oar 29 oro n.oo/ o. co/
l l200 l sf Poo /4 C77 ?? 350 .oc/ .6d/ f i 4 c. t. /d rfo l 17327 Jt &fD ,ee/r .c o/T
/G u El200 l /9 977 3995o .003 0c4
// o 22 8fo 22 C21" f 3 etid ,009 r ,po4r 2coc_ 2 f, 5 0 0 2f aff fe $~fa , c e ff" . c o'7 Z?co at //'o 27 92f ffdfo 007f , cod l 24co 1/ BQr) 30 f7S 4/ /S*C .06 9 0/0
- 24.00 1 Jf f.ro JJsilf l 4,6 ffV . o // e o/2 2 000 l 37 /00 .OB7f l 7/ 7fD anot9/~ 0/f Seca 2 y 7sv JB rar 77070 ,ct77 .otes~
3 co 93 9'm J/ /75 Bd3SV .02/ , c23 39po 9,)'est
+ 7 roo
.fa 82r J.4 477 87&;f0 ,02rf .carr 2G** Pa 9sa ,o 33 .os/J~
Jtoo I S0JD 4'7/fr l yh 250 ,,oys- , oft
.aeoo I F3 coo it 7 'r i to 3 Sfo .o ry ,o63 azco ff Gro 74 917 toe dro ;o7+ ,o8o duo
- l FAJoo $7077 //43 /50 ~ Con cre/e fat'/co!
or, tur rsc e in area .c a ,e /g. x /a> , YC /Y7e.1! fd/?d/~e= h/1afl dll* 4edl . /k,aj Wds 7:ss/ura. of tha m rro' rh a u h/ sfruf ro a'.i l to N7e connN7/ ec7iny en c'ee/ co/Y i /1is yer en /H co'
~
rurto ce .rodt/Arg g af' 7/2 c. eon cre k . h'o we , m- theh- war no ds'jeem - l ab'a .ogn of a cwe raiture in rne c o -ic ecx Ce n e'r e /e. w'/.Ir/b/e. 6u /~dbdr Cr'enfh /cokc*c/ i}7fac/ . anet rnere, was n4 .rouno' ofat'e a voro' s'** ,
?JCnes' s*/s hb ,,7 m e/4l eki*c' e*$
l o Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x / ids ~ Total Weight of Load Beam = Eff/> o* tiet Jack Thrust = Total Thrust Minus 1/2 Weight of Beam. (d. W/ : /28# Insert Load = Net Jack Thrust x 2. Jack:.......... Equipment Number a c,4 60/, Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number EJJ~f~ Due Date: /# 4pr l99 Dial Gauge: M & TE Number- Efff Due Date: I P /vn d 9' l 1 1 Performed By: s Witnessed By: 1 N[ jfame dM [M Date N %o QA Represenfative '
'I,2. d Date 4'T'M
..\
l l COMANCHE PEAK SES TENSION TESTS EC - G W RICHM0fl0//-INCH, 2 TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-? /.7 ,,g,, Specimen Numbar: /f Load Rod Spec: ,4-/fF Date: # 4ae B4 (/4U Aw= we.t/EnA 2?fivm ew)
- we +,,
l
' GAUGE JACK NET If1 SERT DEFLECTI0f!(Ifl.)
PRESS. THRUST JACK LOAD NOTES-FAILURE MODE : THRUST AFTER l( P .S. I . ) (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) INIT. 2-M!N. 200 l 24fo /927 2 ff0 p, coo .. ec a
.. , .,soo , or, e iro , ...,
, Cec l 79fD 4 72f /3 AfD d*/r a d e/ /~ Do l foi2400 yJ77 sd 7SV sood . co d
/cre I 250 /2 Off 2" CfD .Def .oe4
/ scc l /r 909 /f Gff .29 JJD a cc aft , c o d.r" l
/*Mce f /8 fro /"'ffr 24 4fo .ded . 0 0/r I
/dce 4/ 200 l /i Y7f .7? tfD . co '7f . G
- Ya"
/Foo . 23 f.pD \ 22 4'!! 432fD 0/o . c/o i 2000 d4 276 2f273 faSfo ao/d , 0/0 i E200 sf /f'O 27 f!F fj~ffe .C/0 ,e/0 s Lto s l 3//09 J0 /77 6/ /ro . o/2 0/2 l 2600 1 3? 4.sv JJ22f 64 dio .0/35 .et? , Jfc0 l J 7 /C0 Jfd'/~f l '7/ 7AD .e/d ,c/GS sere l 39 73v 38 ffs i 770fo .0/8 .c//
3Ecc . 4: geo y/ / 7s" l rd $r0 .cfo l ,c24
!. 5.sco l Af cro 438271 8 7. 6 5 0 .c28 l ,off Correre/e 0/YdW 8
L. J/re.rr Corld g /*ype .p o f c orr s:, I eeun/ fu// o'em%l 7~2i/are.s'n]epr/p r, y!" eus-A ~7~e n ad i l l c'on e /4 n u'co' hr J/7e L~y re6ersl{@ to A'.m)
\ I A Ger /M ria/ A%see reiars // Red l
cover con c refs s crac,+vs 4,y d's; dres abo v' 3 ' x s. Ne /w e/k - c sa m ., - l j/a> er-'ena'dy//o _o
%6 e. o/A> Ec/s on rebai.
of %'tc r i l l l 8 i i
! I' i !
i g 5
- Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /J, dr Total Weight of Load Beam = E#Io Net Jack Thrust = Total Thrust Minus 1/2 Weight of Beam. ( f ivA = /t/S#)
- *
- Insert load = Net Jack Thrust x 2. a
! Jack: . . . . . . . . . . Equi pment Number / fen' 404 Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number BJff Due Date: /v //v. 'v<r Dial Gauge: M & TE Number 2'/4f Oue Date: Ef v'n u '49 l l Performed By: Witnessed Sy: _ _ _ yefne
$b. YYY S & Date
& m. a QA Representative '
- WO Date T-&$Y
. :.:: . 1.
l COMANCHE PEAK SES TENSION TESTS EC ~ 6 W I RICHMOND / E -INCH, TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13. 0 '.?'/gjf Specimen Number: M~ Load Rod' Spec: 4 -/93 Date: # Ap</ [f<,' (/f0'/~#~ kvesi er,d - /seo w / a d) r 1
* ** *** l GAUGE JACK NET INSERT DEFLECTION (IN.)
PRESS. THRUST JACK LOAD NOTES-FAILURE MODE THRUST AFTER < (P.S.I.) (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) INIT. 2-MIN. 200 26/0 /f2f l ddf0 o, m o, c.ec ao0 3300 lI Y e 7d' l dif0 o r acw o* o@ l l
$.eo l 7 9ra 472f I /2 *2'fC o o-o / o. o o / l 300 t 0 <J oo 9 373 /d 730 0,003 D. o 3
/orO /3 afo /2 02f 29 Ord 0,o04 0.00 6
/2oo l /f Poo /4 47T 29 SfD 008 .co8
/aco l /d ffe /7 32f 24 4Ja , pay .o/0
/ d.o e 2/200 / / f 77 ff 950 . Off . o/ g l
/Su 238fo 22 42F 422sb .c/3 .o/F zoco 2:co 24 foe l 2f275 27 pjf ref.sv ffg3c
,of f
,op/
. ospy.;
, pg.y y 29 fro l 2400 3/ doo Jo f75 di/fo 026 . o 2 '7 l 24Ce g 4 d fp qf??y gg atso , ,pgg .p3/ l 2fpc 37/Co ff87f i 7/ 7f9 ,p34 , o3 &
Joeo 39750 38S?f" 77 OSb a o8 C'fC Jgco l 429og 4;/7f ye yso ,99/ .ofg l JJoe i 4FOSo s.*'y 92f 87450 . ca ? .oS3 s
; .5600 l 97700 44+7Fl 93 ffo , ofd . o c,f-7Fco i fo Sfo 49 /ZS l 98 2.9 ,es9 . cst '
.JVCo 5/, 47f fa tfo l /G0,5?6t?
i , 7e caer er e.i'c. r os/so,<
- l. s/re ar cohe / usa. /6 .',/./ . _ : in s,,a ha re b s-r- so *HErn . re6>, f
\
lne//ed in a vs/ 3 Con
's 4t '.cvs r'e c~ fe=+ abo be/wve cu.
'f% e abour f0" o'st af YDp. I cVe,oN7 : in terf l r* ~.- ,. . t > ,A > ,.,.
' l (^ 4 4 &f3F Ca91.b' f eGV96 /'ofd <d [ C W (. , .f'Q G[TJ4ef 1 I* i *l r , l' '
i i . ta \ ter r an s t.. rt r cm.t or s n a pr t', (sqLit. Gi, j i l l l'
- Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x ,'.7, 8S' 4r' a'FnJmo 4 M.
Total Weight of Load Beam = E d f o d . ( + f = / z e.:q - -..- 4r / rf /p J z Net Jack Thrust = Total Thrust Minus 1/2 'leight of Beam. ef'.,, ,qp,. /g 'ff, )
*" Insert Load = Net Jack Thrust x 2.
Jack: . . . . . . . . . . Equi pment Number ercw 4e6 Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number E JSS- Due Date: /4 4 /'* d9' Dial Gauge: M & TE Number /ff9 Due Date: 2 f </m' #F Perfenned By: Witnessed By: 0b.$38W Date P :. d'p: w QA Representatrve o Date
/ 4'M JFime - - - .
A COMANCHE PEAK SES SHEAR TESTS
~
c c-2W RICHMONO / -INCH, TYPE, INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-X// pes Specimen Number: /6 Bolt Spec: ,4 <'f E # fo Date: 4Mb (/U n we.cf ens) OEFLECTION (IN.) GAUGE l JACK
- INITIAL PRESSURE THRUST NOTES-FAILURE MODE AFTER 2-MIN. (P.S.I.) (Les.)
i 0.0c0 l 0,000 l @C f300 l I .00/ \ . 00/ ! 800 /c 6 00 l i
.0/97 l 02/ l /2** /f9M l
\ .092
. cw l /600 l 2/,2co l l ,0C2 i .0Crf I 2^^t- = l 26 f60 l l ,085 .09/ I 2foo l yb goo i 42//2 l ./27 l 2800 l 37,/c0 l ./S2 i ./70 l .7200 l 42.4c0 i
! .22 .
$SD*4&:&
l 4 G,376~ t l O Hure of bo// /h .rheaf-i ! l :: : l l I i !/n res-/ So //eckd l V8 " by cru. chine of Uwer I l no&hn ef henere76=) W# hor 7%/r u/E'lo' FMWern '. i i [Ade /co of Ynaer! rehfed n 7"o w Sent,=es. ~ i l l l l I ! i l I i l i i i ! l I l I l I
- ! i : l I
l . , Jack Thrust ecual Shear Load on Insert. Jack Thrust (Lbs.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /J,2 f Jack: . . . . . . . Equipment Number //ca co d Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number Estr Due Date: /s der #& Dial Gauge:......M & TE Number 2raf Due Date: zy 4 - w Perfcrmed By: Witnessed By: k 6 plame Yh ' G ds,it k cate l u, QA Representa-ive /
*) Date 4-6-64
COMANCHE PEAK SES SHEAR TESTS EC-2W RICHMOND / -INCH, TYPE IflSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-%/J,pvS r' A-4fd Specimen Number: /7 -Beh Spec: ,4
, , J -je N Date: 6 Ap r 8 7 (A.2*'fr We.c/ End) l OEFLECTION (IN.) dC#4MdGii
- =- - u M*
NOTES-FAILURE MODE INZTIAL AFTER 77/ru.rF ' '"' / ore:ha)4 2-MIN. (as) 7.:.: ', (pjj LM . '
- o. o u ! o.a-o V- no, .po o l
.020 ! .020. l /0, 6 co 800 l I
.037 i .e2y. l
. pf, pg, / goc l
; C'O -
.c6ffl 2 / 2 00 l / God l l 087 l ,093 l 24 SCO l 2000 l
\ ,/27i . /27 l 3/ Boc 2400 l l /d6 : ./86 l 37/00 290 l
; .]/3 i .332 l 92 foo l Jaco !
t .
; l 43 odo 2270 l /~d/hre by bc// .f/7eer-I l /n_re ef n/ef/er/bn' /J ors ro n1,_y),, 1 3/jo ggy,,
s ! l pormIA4/ Ay chorhinn ' fake? J Noner:4. t i I
! A4 aboarpn/ Aonr/4n nf m- fon e /' 47_tei-f . I I I ! I l i , I i l I ' I ! l i i l l i I ! l l , ! l I i t l I : !
I I l
- Jack Thrust eaual shear Load on Insert. l Jack Thrust (Lbs.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /S. E#
Jack:....... Equipment Number sca dos Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number ESff Due Date: /S Mar bf' Dial Gauge:......M & TE Number B99 Oue Date: 2r van '44 l ! Performed By: Witnessed By:
#ame b YbW 6 4 94. S9' Date kj> ,
QA'Recresentative t
/ Date 4~6-84 J
l l
COMANCHE PEAK SES SHEAR TESTS 4~C-2 W RICHMOND / -INCH, TYPE INSERT
/3
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-Xf4 a' Specimen Number: /B Bolt Spec: A - #90 Date: 6 Af ar- 2 4 D '- b~oH1 WeJ/crrd) - DEFLECTION (IN.) GAUGE JACK
- PRESSURE THRUST NOTES-FAILURE NODE ENITIAL AFTER 2-MIN. (P.S.I.) (Lbs.) l 1
l C. 000 l C.000 l Goo l J~JD0 l
! .C03 I . co Y l Boo l /c Goo f i .DZ2 l .02fJ'l /200 l /4" 900 l l i .Cd! l . c ff* l / Goo l 2/ ECO l l .060 l 043 l 2 c00 l 2Gd~co l
.o8e I .c8S l 2400 '
3/ BCe l l
! ./04 '
109 l zess 37/co l
! . /x ! .if8 l .1200 l 92 foo l l .200 i .132 l Jtoo l 47 7co l i 9a l l 38 en l S0.3 50 l n o 'u r e & 4 9 .she w \ l l l l buar-/ As de//ec/ed crbe<4 Ys? rro i I l l \ acosmnt ro bfibn af / .re d *
- l l l l 75s a /* e o n e < - /e crushe</fnun) i i l l l2beJ 2" sh &c~/ J stre d
' I l l l777e / ,ser/ Wo.rher sheared off l l l Ifrom r%e rhvAt. N7us Mre $"
i l l l !de f/e ek,, an UAe M'r _rA o n-l t l lrGi% ire. r:o r h # .s h u ti s,w I I I ric/ mov . i l I ! i
! ! I i o Jack Thrust equal Shear Load on Insert.
Jack Thrust (Lbs.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /.7,d.5" Jack:....... Equipment Number Ben'606 Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number 2.ps ,- Due Date: /cser 37 4< Oial Gauge:......M & TE Number 2949 Que Date: 29 </u r & Performed By: Witnessed By:
$ $ h Y' { 6 d a s. f tL / _ ,
QA Representative e' '
' Date 4-6'04 v0ame Date
,. :g - , ~ . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .... .. . . . . . . . . .i ' i I l COMANCHE PEAK SES SHEAR TESTS CC-dW RICHMOND / -INCH, TYPE INSERT U
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-Yfdd Specimen Number: /9 Bolt Spec: 4 -f '/o Date: f du '/*,c (,9 '*' fron, wes/ and) l t DEFLECTION (IN.) GAUGE JACK
- PRESSURE THRUST NOTES-FAILURE MODE INITIAL AFTER f
2-MIN. (P.S.I.) (Lbs.)
- e,co4 l o.co2r l 40" l SJm i I , oSt
- i .o2C i foo /0 Geo !
l . o so I
.odbrl /Eco // ?oo
,080
, e8/ \ / Goo l 2/ ECo
.09/? ! ,off l Zooo l 24 fue i ./EZ l ./27 l 2400 3/ BM h
. i:d7 ' ./rf I 2 90o 37 /co l i ./90 .22271 32eo l 92 ftv l i i l J J -. I l i , 4.70 s l .3 row l 4c 37r l /n.re rs'- 19//co' by bros /< dig i
I I l i weM besween unper coil snd t i i l l .rfruhr, B // NHei aOce refdar i i l l l wih4 N>e envaced <. tow co,*/ , i l l l 7%rv Jevem/ o'soreer. T/re l l I I Ac# A'r/A/ in Aenspu wi/J, l l l lg / esse,- /c gar t'), g,, A/r .o l l I l dc Prr /fr. I l ! l
! l ! l
! I t t
, I i . !
- Jack Thrust equal Shear Load on Insert.
Jack Thrust (Lbs.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /S,25 Jack:....... Equipment Number Reu coc Pressure Gauge: M & TE Numoer BJer Due Date: / 4 Apr '#a. Dial Gauge:......M & TE Number 2749 Oue Date: #1 </<.<n'gf 1 Perfomed By: Witnessed By:
$ $ AYY ?Qm. '04;
'0 ate ca QA Representative /
b Date 4 'l- 8 $ jdlame i l
( + . . - . .- . - . . .. . .. - . . . . . COMANCHE PEAK SES SHEAR TESTS EC -2 k/ RICHMOND __/_-INCH, TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13. 0-r% /3.Fe '/ Specimen Number: 20 _ Bolt Spec: A - 4 9a Date: 9 p B4 (SN So-n I.ste.,/ a,,d) - DEFLECTION (IN.) GAUGE JACK
- i PRESSURE THRUST NOTES-FAILURE MODE AFTER l INITIAL 2-MIN. (P.S.I.) (Lbs.)
^ ::' 7-l- e m l -;" : : 6 ; I I
- I
-^=n. ,
- a. M , n uu- lf. flee /( rrof op/ o/ sppsygfe/J i nee-3 wui : :=a l l1 I i l 'I ~ l Y I o.oo 3 i 4. a<> 3 l Sao l fJfc l
.0 2.i~ l ,o y2 I 6' 4 /0 C00 l
.c44 i , o 4c4 f /Eco l /s* Teo l
\ ,0 C3 l .4 W l /600 l 2/300 l
; .oas* ! 087 l 2000 l 24 J~Ce l
. //i l N/22 l 2900 l 3/84 l
, ./S4 i . f73 i 2800 l 37isp l
,2 70 l \ M Jooo l .19 730 i Cericre /e arush ed th.r eid 1 i i l l remah?ed 47fac/ by/ upper-I l l l porfion rofafed thru o few I l l l c/cere es . Af/sc.fion of wer
! l l I kr/ of Auerf- (pai/rcr) 3/8" l l l l Bo/f broke in ' d e n a'in g a f
, I i l l/owee /c 4f fhan //ze .mox
! ' l 29 7J~0. Aofdfien c/dJer/ C M c. ,f M N i I Ifa $ TAo . ru si side /G O .-%-i sw
' Jack Thrust equal Shear Load on Insert.
- F" ' #" ###' O'" ^ '#'a9e (r)
Jack Thrust (Lbs.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /J, df Jack:....... Equipment Numcer A'cN dos Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number /_rfr Due Date: N h 'e u Dial Gauge:......M & TE Number M49 Due Date: Er ,A,,,'gu Perfomed By: Witnessed By: 9 e2 m .'A th Date QA Representative Yr Date
</-T-94 f ehame
i .4 t.
~
- s --
~ '
COMANCHE PEAK SES COMBINED SHEAR & TENSION TESTS N Rictunond / -Inch. Type Ysert
Reference:
CP-El-13.0 *F/Jj,g Specimen manber: 2/ h/4 /m,n w/Ew)lnserted Load Rod: 4-/93 Date: 9 Ms- d.;c p,,n 4 SHEAR TENSION 1* 2* ** Gauge Jack Deflection sge Jack t I ert Deflection Press. Thrust 7MiI P ss. Ihrust ck L d llnch) Notes - Failure Mode After < It ist After (PSI) (Lb.) Init. 2-tii n. (}5I) (ib.) (L .), ( .) Init. 2-Min. foo Sjw o.* ~ o. o~ l s .roa { { o. o ea o.oaa Boo sotoo .o*/ .o0/ ( /c,Gac \ ) , 00o .e**
/Zar ty p ,, , o gr. yy { //yao ) .o/Z . of J~
B ae z/ 2 * * . /73 affL L . ff, Z *
- I ( 0f9 952J 2 eo, Ze 700 33 * ,J74 \ 24,/00 ) { ./// . /.79
'W=
2762r'
.f** ) 2762S l [ .lf /wnd * / o we/d br.e afdn.,. D a e 2,-a/
f __ _p 4'f t e r n = to o =< x 12r # 4eus w.r.usar. senQ. ed La/er_ns/s YA Aar,&% of s of ( _ _ _ l A.,/ //wi-Air ed _r, us-Porn, Arge rhd,%/O a l l } .rh am- br aaf ~7so of inter./ rndr/c.s/
-- ( M/u
_ _ C L { .ceacals ,m/As..// wome m 6 t__: L \ ) n~ eir #2~ d- ~ m in n ,.i p ia_ d a /1 4 - ( ( ) t p l ) ( l* Jack Thrust' ='514r Load on Insert. Shear Apparatus: Jack---Equipment No:AcN 404 1* Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /3,dS"for Shear Load. pressure Gauge-M&TE No: # 3 54~ Due Date:fg % h 2.* Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /Agfor Tension Load. Dial Gauge-M&TE No: 2f47 Due Date: 29 4* #V Total Lb.
.. . u Wt.n.- of Tension toad Beame = gg L"
Tension Apparatus: Jack-Equipment No: MgfjoJr
. . roemt m t ._ ." r.4 .,2 'g - Pressure Gauge-H&lf ho w g _ _Due Date:
Insert Load =.ne4 Jack Thrust.= th Dial GaugayM&TE No: J+neir5lgDue Date:Edn.jpyt Perfonned By: .. ,, f ,2 M f #- 6 ate Witnessed By ~: .2 3 __, kNM 4A kepresentatfie
#-f-df Date
_. ___._______-_______m_- ___ ___m_ t_
t 4 I
.i.
? ^-
t* COMANOtE PEAK SES EOMBINED SisEAR & TENSION TE TS J Richmond / -Inch. Type _C- nsert
Reference:
CP-El-13.0-*rr s, ,, Specimen Number: N [7 N e ~ We.,q) Inserted Load Rod: Af-/9J Date: P A2,f,/ b
- c,ffsfy,4fp SHEAR TENSION 1* 2* *
- Gauge Jack Deflection e Jack t Ins rt Deflection Press. Thrust (Inch) Pr s. Thrust ct L d l loch) Notes - Failure Nde After T st After (PSI) (Lb.) Init. 2-iti n. ( I) (Lb.) ( .) (L .) Init. 2-Min.
4..
#oo
.422n e. .. a 0. ,.
i( sa 8 ( ...i ..i
/0,Geo 037 .oSt /O 'N Q l . ors . o/4
/200 /J~skso ./03 ./Of ( /J" fM / \_ .0fff . 0f4
~h5"co 2/,20e ./94 ./07 { 2/ JM ) { . 0ff 0 J~J
( 2coe 24 52to . 14.E 42? ) 2C f** l * . /fr ./97
'1*2e* 27 /fo .f2 I
29ffo ( ) ./C is,. rs eso a zisua J. .L - - -- ' Ases I aia.e,-e. w
]s *-o /fB7f /987f h TA A** =! .IJ e aree!. avae/ /r d rA/alet/ t? .flr e r 1
)
s o - . ,v. ~ _ e . s w e..
) ) Cen srv/e so.*// eor =rsseme /r"o's L afe ,
\ ) ) *
\ ) Je <k a u' n fe-.s.k na'e.,su.<>< J' .7 o n cmfn s
\ sin <isac) .sa' . zwaas er N ) /n se r->* r w h ea/ sh/.s e f.
1 )
!. 5 )
)
1* Jack Thrust = Shear Load on Insert. ' hear Apparatus: Jack---Equipment No: g C L c o g 1* Jack it. rust Lb. = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /r,3f__for Shear Load. 2* Jack Thrust Lb. = Gauge Pressure (PSI) a _f2 g for Tension Load. Pressure Gauge-MATE No:JJpf Due Date: /c 4 /3r Dial Gauge-MATE No: 2PfLDue Date:2f r.7 car op L b. Tension Apparatus: Jack-Equipment No: McN (eJr-Total y_ t E-- Wt. of Tension a them load Beam t . n td-!r.71m ".. = g: , ... '2t ;f ?:r Pressure Gauge-M&Tf Ho:/zgDue Date: Insert Load =.alet Jack Thrusth /dM Dial Gauge-M&TE No: Eohs Due Date:/Je/nis Isha Perfonned By: O.O UMN f% h</ ' Witnessed By: a r 4-7-/f f/ Rame Date A Tcepresentat v( Date
~
y
d Ii t
. e'
.' I CDMANCHE PEAK SES
' COMBINED SHEAR & TENSION TESTS s
Richmond / -Inch, Type _c-2W_ Insert
Reference:
CP-El-13.0-Fj a g
~
Specimen Number: 8.1 / [/4 /fe-ww/ Q Inserted Load Rod: ,4 - /9.Y Da[e: a.oa. b
,. cor,w ,, SHEAR TENSION l* 2* ** ***
- Gauge Jack Deflection Gauge Jack Net Insert Deflection Press. Thrust --[lpr.h) Press. Thrust Jack load 7Incii)~ Notes - Failure Mode After Thrust After (PSI) (Lb.) Init. 2-Hin. (PSI) (Lb.) (Lb.) (L b. ) Init. 2-Min.
40* fJoe J. co t o. *
- 4 ) f 300 { { ****r
. *. *~r f** /4 doo 015" ,437f { /0 600 ( ) .co? .4/p
_/204 /f foo ./Z2 af,lf_. l / S 9.?O N \ .0]k __a gt/__
/40* 2/ foo .2 La2Q l 2/ 20*
) ( 07.f .d89 Eoon 24.fo .sro .4/* ) 24 foo ) { ./go ./r8 22-*o 29/JD .930 k 2f /fo t ( .20 DeBec/ son ,actsnact r.goia/'y.
- 13. o 30 97.r .cle '/A Jo 47/* M N/, 46vvp/ fai/w-e Av .r/rw of k roo'. /mer/
J
~*-
a ' l washer movea' horiraab//,< frei N. bre.rfme
/ / (_ of huern A'od ro/.r/ce . rome ro= s4* n
) ) l thre M o/ ausef. T/n:s .oeenaWres' &
\ )_ ) cowGn,y of cenar.a /c .rd M eQged, -
( L { m. fa n ~of yyrreafaar corY. Ro.o' fai/use I I J w.u sv .A~ s/Vc,- com/se~w den---
, . __ _) ) ) ns.ss' ion
) ) L ~
1
- Jack Thrust = Shear Load on Insert. Shear Apparatus: Jack---Equipaent No: g c u o o
.- I* Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x f/jf* for Shear Load. Pressure Gauge-M&TE No:#2ff_-Due Date: q , m 2* Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) a _ggfor Tension Load. Dial Gauqe-H&TE No:J ppy Due Date:#F vurr gst.
Total Wt. of Tension load Beam = N/q LN. Tension Apparatus: Jack-Equipment No:gegg;oy7-
.31 44et-dee6Jhrnet = Te n ! !;.. .a "' = ! /2 Z . i 0.. -.,r- Pressure Gauge-H&Tr. Ho: /yfpe Due Date:
"* Insert Load =%4 Jack Thrust & ,PC# Dial Gauge-M&TE No: toff #
Due Date:f # deft 8 f Performed By:. d d '
/ Name M ' /# des Date b Witnessed By:_} A_epresentatlwe 4,s efs.ld 4-/3- ti f
. Date 9
^
. t U ';
CDMANCHE PEAK SES y , COMBINED SHEAR & TEMS
,Tg5 ~,.
Richmond / -Inch. Type _ Insert i
Reference:
CP.El-13.0-9"p # Specimen Number: // [fM ffwa d e,r) Inserted Load Rod: 4-/91
- Date: /o M, em SitEAR TENSION g.. 7 .. ...
Gauge Jack Deflection Gauge Jack Net Insert Deflection Press. Thrust -(InM)-~ Press. Thrust Jack Load linch) Notes - Failure Mode - After Thrust After (PSI) (Lb.) Init. 2-iti n. (PSI) (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) Init. 2-Min. * ' 4** JGJeo *. cot a. oor l f.CA' k { 4MA 46*2.
' 6%e /6 coe .one .oor \ fo c.** > $ .ms- . cots-
_ /Z" /r 9ao .odo ,e7g _,__h _ /F f.no ( {! 027 03*
/ Goo 2L2 #* . /K1 I'7/ L / ' ** S #'E *'!
2 *** 24 foe .123~ . ffL b # # ~** 5 ' 'SS */19 *
}/co~ Uf . 4* *
, j~os
) 27 BZr 4 i ./7 2. tow vs&4/av b er an. %
._2tep_ 9_ N/~~'
27Bdf N/A Sb o5O 2 2oo $$/D .J40 , 27/Co l n .227
'23- 21t.sv .rn i 29 av ( ( .2 v
.2 on o 24foo ( ) )
24, fee fra<L A6-vo/ A csrs- fDrs/c/ n s of red. _ \ \ ) Jorne %* hor'Ironfe/ defle_cfjon o[h
~ \ \ l o f A u rv' flerr5d//es & C/vs/2/N _
\ \ $ of conc,e c/e oss/ 'E ?
of c/M r N b l Ce o'/ of sr/ed. [ooeotnGr Jo.rla/ 2 **cfe<o e .
\ l { %.i. 1%34 2'./ orred seer * /* han- AHe/ f*lfJ. /mr/ 4M t
1* Jack Thrust = Shear Load on Insert. Shear Apparatus: Jack---Equipment No: g g co g 1* Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x J,gfrfor Shear Load. Pressure Gauge-M&TE tio: 2333- Due Date:/s h Ae ; 2* Jack ihru.t (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x _/ 4 //f,for Tension Load. Dial Gauge-M&TE No: Total Wt of Tension load Beam = ja LE. r. Due Date: n / A Tension Apparatus: Jack-Equipment No: g a gg 7-
.. u.a u n m *_ [
i ' M N t " E_n !!" Insert Load = %.4 Jack Thrust a ## # ' " " - Pressure Gauge-H< No:sformLDue Date: Dial Gauge-MATE No: to94 Due Date: //4, Pf/ Performed By: , 'dfut[ /o /Lu'> '4rp. Witnessed By: st a 4 Id-# tiame Date 7 f Representat We' Date e
. 8 i
___ __ _--___- l
1
=
. I
, <.a _
CDMANOiE PEAK SES CDNBINED SHEAR & TENSION TEsfs E Richmond / -Inch. Type _C ~ 2W,___lasert
Reference:
CP-El-13.0-9'p var I Specimen Number:. Ef //s4 A gr,er,m/J e inserted Load Rod: 4-/9 A Date: / o p ,*/ h e
,'. C ,,na., SHEAR TENSIGH g.. g.. .. ...
. Gauge Jack Deflection Gauge Jack Net Insert Deflection Press. Thrust (Inch F Press. Thrust Jack Load 7 Inch) Notes - failure Mode AfLer Ihrust After (PSI) (Lb.) Init. 2-nin. (PSI) ___
(Lb')
. (Lb.) (Lb.) Init. 2-Min.
+oo s.roo r.oer s.e/r 5 s.rw t 1 o,**- s.---
_po to e= o.on . ore 8 to 'm 8 / . **4r .oo +
/ oo a' Poo . jff ,jg2_ \ /.c 9x ? l (-) *
- r
/4*o 2/2M ,2/7 .22 9 i 2/ 2M ( l .co d .6/o .
Zw 24 fo 260 . _7o'4 % 2C.90 > < .o ry .acy ' yjo
- 27/27 a 32 e f gyggf 4 , , y',
1/se 299'47 . fa
- N/A 2/S'17 N/A N/A ,oss Abr.-s s' ka s/< . /5rser/ de//cc/d 4 ' :'H .
V'
.' I t i A'oof r& */e</ Jr .r/ rear.
i
!. I b s ) $
/ 5 5
( ) ) -
~
- 7 ( )
. I 5 ') ^
I ) 1 l* Jack Thrust = Shear Load on Insert. Shear Apparatus: Jack---Equipeent IGo:gC// 40p l* Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x g/ffor Shear load. Pressure Gauge-M&IE No: ffff Due Date:/Lgb 2* Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) a g,(,/rfor Tension Load. Dial Gauge-MSTE No: _Jy4 y Due Date:j f ,X,,, A
'.L
--Total Wt. of Tension Load Beam = _eV/4_Lo.
n;
- 9. Y%i Tension Apparatus:. Jack-Equipment No: g p g_ go yr-ve_st p Thmi ;;; . ifi i. vi k .- Pressure Gauge-n&TE Nu:#dma~Duc Date:
*** Insert Load = Met Jack Thrust-a-4, /d# Dial Gauge-M&TE no:Jpyg Due Date: @ fr%.
Performed By:_ / s. Naime M /* Da
* #e- Witnessed By: p /.
4-fJ-1( epresentative r Date
/
g . - _. _-. - T .A _ -
C;;'.-73E PEAK SES TE:.SION TESTS
, EC-EW i RICHMOND / -INCH, TYPE INSERT
- i.
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0 /Spes . Specimen Number: 84 Load Rod Spec: A-/f? Date: 4 ,4pr ## re-
// Q" frorn west er,o,' f 4 fr~ cin e zer- f GAUGE JACK NET INSERT DEFLECTI0ff (IN.)
PRESS. THRUST JACK LOAD NOTES-FAILURE MODE THRUST AFTER P.S.I.). (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) IrlIT. 2-MIN. E#0 26f0l /.ars l 2860 csua o,cao j
#as fsco giro 003 ..., l l fon Goo 7 950 4 7.9~ /2 ffo .007 0 07f 8co l fo Sco ff7f l /J TfD . ola .0/2f
- /000 /3 250 /2 off 29 Of0 0/75 o/7 i i /200 /4~fx /4 G?r 29350 ,o37 ,oJB
/foo l // fro /733r Jf CSC .o 7e l .070 l
/G00 El200 /t977 29 y/D 0 78 . /Of i .
l YOO $2 $df f/]00 $f 400
- l$Y fd/h!*t-l
/MJerb /~G'778/n ed Erykel $/Near c'ent fine l l &/% ire of conerede. /nur/ was /o en A d' l
M e ds= t'On/t!*r* !.7 eb me_rv s-w & sy -J ,-e b rs-s , I CCrye wa- s-+_r /n'e /e d s e i n el w h & bu d'- b ar.r ' '
- j 2 - a c,'r wa -
Jo-m. L/ * //w >%l ce os Aw_, eawes Corn e re/ct &E9 _fod// I
- f l e 7. 3/bie_ c ls}ueA .
c)% eor cane d 'e n 4/r :- fuH nes}/r 4 e/ /hsertl 4 .
/k?) k.
0 bC ?l COT.
- Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /J. df-Total Weight of Load Beam = Effe -
** Met Jack Thrust = Total Thrust Minus- 1/2 Weight of Beam. [d W/ = /42f/4.) *** Insert Load = t!et Jack Thrust x 2.
! ' Jack: . . . . . . . . . . Equi pment Mumber ac// cor., Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number Efff Due Date: / s A fo r 19 9 Dial Gauge: M & TE Number E 94 ? Oue Date: Er a'ka Bf Perfonned By: Witnessed By:
$bhl$f6& L._, b', 4 - 6 ~ 1:14-QA Representative. '
Name 72_ . Date
.-- '. ... Date _
= . COMANCHE PE.a SES TENSION TESTS tc-2w RICHMOND / -INCH, TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13. 0 /7, , Specimen Number: 27 Load Rod Spec: ,4-/93 Date: 4 Ava '84 l
/25 W fr*"r West c af ./M frano ess/l GAUGE JACK NET INSERT DEFLECTI0tl(IN.)
PRESS. THRUST JACK LOAD NOTES-FAILURE MODE THRUST AFTER P.S.I.) (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) INIT. 2-MIN. gro l r cro l /4ss adro o. o co c. coo 4eo - t 5 foo l do 77 //ro .sco . coo Goo l 7 fro G 7.?S l t 3 f 30 .oco .ono
, o c o r~
l 800 t toCao 9371 ( // 7SO .coor I seco i 3 2 ro /2 od? 29ofo .coGF .*e77
/2co /f Aw /4 G 77 2 9.TfD , o /dr . o /7S' /4co sa Sfo li /7.32 3 39 4fo , pro . o rG l /400 2/2co /9 97F 39950 . 0 8 0.4 4.o. .o 99 I .
m / 7g o I ./qd s'~stfare l Soco l 23,/88 l 24PGo $7 920 l
,a a i/ d r e. o c a wa red sy A,uso-e o r' owe m.re et. s Wp/d Ae/wem /hwer coU bnd ver/ie2/ I l
l rt r u t.t / pro,t*e. 77,$ -enraca,, upper, con can, e
- I ouf ad nrrried Iffre- two tr/> u/> w//h l
\ Con crefe .r a v d/ eres abour er' pe//ed anenn idenN, 242 m ee/.
- i /. r' x <.?
Ecposed 'o n e !~clier /o d a ted y c . c. ren iM e f IRehar i%/ di.duMed. a n/u con - -- cre/c do ver re'm o vect. l l l l 1 I ! i I I ! l
- Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x -
/J. /S Total Weight of Load Beam = 2pIO ** Net Jack Thrust = Total Thrust Minus 1/2 Weight of Beam. a (P Wd : /225) *" Insert load = Net Jack Thrust x 2.
Jack: . . . . . . . . . . Equipment Number d' CN 604 Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number 2.7S.7 Due Date: /4 .4or M Dial Gauge: M & TE Number 8M/ Due Date: 89 <./hn '#:V Performed By: Witnessed By: 4Name h hf 4% Date
' /' .
QA Representative /
/y Data
I COMANCHE PEAK .2 TENSION TESTI GC-2W RICHMOND / -INCH, TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-4 /J,p e.N Specimen Number: 8# Load Rod Spec: Af- /93 Date : /4 Ar/ f/ #<.e {J'" from eo. / end) GAUGE JACK NET INSERT DEFLECTION (IN.) PRESS. THRUST JACK LOAD NOTES-FAILURE MODE THRUST AFTER (P.S.I.) (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) INIT. 2-MIN. 20* l 2Gfo / 42f l ff.:m 4 *** o opo foo rsoo 4 off 8/fo .m *** l l &eo 7 fra 4 7?f /312fo , coa soo l foe l /cGoo 9 SIS /d ffe oof ;ool foco l JS 250 /2. 02f 2t;' Ofo . 00 f ,ocf l /200 /.G900 /4t,47f 29,350 l .009 ,c/o M** l /2 fro /7125 l 39 Gro , o /S .off
',,& 20 rio /f S/2 384M . o sr ~ ; / C r0 l 2/,200 /9.975 29 150 ,oC7 0 82 ' &#* l22S'2f 2/ a s. #2,4 co ,/f M eone /bIfur'e .
b7J er/ and tvd iu.. i i 1 l remath edl thfercf Cone /r e,uhh C003l / dr=/ /78/b' k $ /h 6 o f CONC.
/0/1 //sn
/ b y /~ts ,_
L. , , /?1ab. l lRedars & #ed w/11 con e snd /iWeo' area 4S~k J.f.' Reboer G 9"o. c. E.w.
- Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /J, .d f Total Weight of Load Beam = Eftfo
** Net Jack Thrust = Total Thrust Minus 1/2 Weight of Beam. (h w/. : /Stf t6)
*** Insert load = Net Jack Thrust x 2.
Jack : . . . . . . . . . . Equi pment Number A'C// 604 Pressure Gauge: M & TE Numoer EJff Due Date:/4 der bVe Dial Gauge: M & TE Number 2049 'Due Da :e: /B vom '89 Performed By:, Witnessed By: ff.6 ft $. c -so Fu a Yr? 4 94-tj,ame . Oate QA Representative r Date
COMANCHE FEAK SES TENSION TESTS EC-EW RICHMOND / -INCH , TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0 * /3 I P At l Specimen Number: Ef Load Rod Saec: 4 -/93 Date: 6 "s#/>r/ / 6 9-(2 '2" iGo~ E.uf, /9'6 th. we.t/) GAUGE JACK NET INSERT DEFLECTI0ft(IN.) PRESS. THRUST JACK LOAD fl0TES-FAILURE MODE THRUST AFTER
'(P.S.I.) (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) INIT. 2-MIN.
g 200 24fo / #df l .E/nD 0.000 0. 0 o o _ 4 ao $300 4 07s I o /So . CCF a o c s 6 ao 7 fro as 7 s /Jaa.9 .oo7 ,Ce7 l l r00e l /0 600 9373 // ?R , o (4 f ,o/f i
* /oco / J 2fD /2off Jf ofo ,og( 022
., l /200 /f?CD /d C 77 E9 ffD . e 3,3 .037 a900 l / s.ra / 7.rsr i .rt < ro /4y , /e4
/doo ! 2/ foe /9 977 .f? fro .13f .Iffr r; -
/7'o 3 2,f2T + 2, 640 e fa faV'fe o' f.o.y tba NM on su ,/ /%t*Jcosce i 2a,' 3 po
' is w A4e r&Aar- md An
' Gre a Jam.c .7.c'% 6. c ' fd'feo'ldlf/E '*' ihr #!",fnr1//
w *r l 4h e n //11e rh m2//s**/ a J/ .
/op r eb dr* Wd.t ~p' /gCe*0'
~
C or,e y's.f}7 pl ' l 'h con duc/ )s ~j//r A?ser/. 7%s centrilw/- l /I19 7e /*//dfarCdW w, .re C F f/7/.T /Brfd* cfred con ci- e/e i- e , I i 1 l
! ! I i I i e
! l l c l l l l l 4
- Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI).x //,2T l Total Weight of Load Beam = J#/P 1 Net Jack Thrust = Total Thrust Minus 1/2 Weight of Beam. [d WX = //25 )
*** Insert Load = Net Jack Thrust x 2.
- Jack: . . . . . . . . . . Equipment Number #ch 444
) Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number EJrr Due Date: /t h '# p Dial Gauge: M & TE Number EfW 9 Due Date: Jf ,) >fa Perfomed By: Witnessed By-08 5 C Ansk' 4%' (? $ i-$Y _ P' . _ _ Oate' __ QA Representative ' Date . _ _ ,
r . . COMANCHE PEAK SES TENSION TESTS Ec-2W RICHMOND / -INCH, TYPE INSERT
Reference:
CP-EI-13.0-Ppet/ Specimen Number: Jo Load Rod Spec: v-<95 Date: 6~ /@d/ 'B9 - (/// on s.af end GAUGE JACK NET INSERT DEFLECTION (IN.) PRESS. THRUST JACK LOAD NOTES-FAILURE MODE THRUST AFTER (P.S.I.) (Lb.) (Lb.) (Lb.) INIT. 2-MIN.
; ,- ,1, 9 en. & - ee.&
W . c= ;J l 200 2 6fC /4 fy A.$f0 0.000 0.000 t 4co o rycp 1977 8 /fo 0. o s' d .000 dor.) 7 9fD '.6 7?r /S #fo 00/ .oo/
$ o co l fo Gco y 77S /d 750 . o e s~ 006
, oE/
/o 0o I / 5 2fC /3CEF 24 OfC .0/Y
/2oo i F feo /f 6 7J~ 29.RfD ,oq7 04'y
/Jeo / 8 fro / '7 f!f 24 CUro c./n.: ' ./07
/6eo 2/ 20e / f f 7.S~ .yf ffo . /ff ,/79 E'0v6
/ <ia 2/8CO 20cor 4/ 270 .ASO 2
- del Ae dk'eal Cud
//s.1es f- 6!H6W by 'Nvredh'/nf VV'C/49' he/ Wen /c w.n ? c s h .d*nd Wem> .hc 2/
l ytrutt. upper (rhremed coa) cam e OU/ w/ rod afre rr0ur'r enme &. 7& c wc s~eit .r l J'Ws*fd ce inn // cn/p//ew u. dM //~ c//&rtr. Wi*ne . H & /d f' CF,f no
.'wcd. 6f rarm&of de/s em e d' of cover *. See Concreb l ! I I I I , I
- Jack Thrust (Lb.) = Gauge Pressure (PSI) x /.9,25 Total Weight of Load Beam = (1f0 / ,
** Net Jack Thrust = Total Thrust Minus 1/2 Weight of Beam, hh'M : /S.E.i") l Insert Load = Net Jack Thrust x 2. i Jack: . . . . . . . . . . Equi pment Number M'cN soo !
Pressure Gauge: M & TE Number 4357 Due Date: /d ev - 8f Dial Gauge: M & TE Number E949 Oue Date:_ f? </an 'df l Perfomed By: Witnessed By: )
/2.6JAA'es' Nome Date '
sw A /Aw Mo)
@ Regrecentative '
+ +g 4 Oato
. , 1 APPENDIX 3 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES
4 W e a
'E
%h 4
@ 44 kgZ QO
$ p) $ \
s Q M -a %w. 4
\
41 b m
\
W ~Q 2I m s
\.0 g
\
8 < w,O
\
\ \ '
41 \
~~.
1 1 1
\ O #
(f) g s . N \
%> Q
% 8
$ \
% ~
% ~
Dkg '
\' \
E ?> b g_ s
\
'!\ '
s
~
o 1
+9 g 5
\
'kg N<
Q D, ( ,
\
\
~. \
%U a \.u.
w" QQ N @ '
\
\ }
s x N '
- \sQ~D y '
Qb Ns '
' s.
O :t. s' N s
' ~
"v R -
- %~ _ _ ,.
s% . e -
%h
~ -
9 [ - R S O a e e 4 e- o' O N \ 3
- # N e 6 M f g . a tf 0 1
'8 g Of 8$528 , r$ =
8 a , wn 2 5 ,_; 5 y
-50$J F
d -E g C d c p *- e J .;oe -4 r 8 a- 0 4 g 1 3 . i .. . e
\; o
\~
e O bi 3-d W 2 Y a - 2 h i-
- F k ,!
y
.2 .
hI O s
*h
-S '
d d y gy a Ns -9 D v- - 0 , w 2 2 O I . 52 g I U ul s N 'S N o 2 P.- UWY . , , . . , , , , k. saiw c.vo ,
'5 3
/,
0 2
).
s
.i s
s Lu rv 5 Fu E <z n u E S 0 D> c V
)
D R U z U E L A@ u C G I o E T t.s z R 7'0 A . L Ir aE 0 A e eH
)
3 I. c rS B H C
- 5 7
I L
/~~
- @ aW 0 I
~
/
/
L O 0 I
, 6 T W 0 C 6 E
- L C- 7 F E E# 5 D l 4 Eh PE , 0 1 , Y f TI C E 0 l i P . 3 KS . 0
)
I /
's l / ,
5
. !. f/ 1 O.
I! /, 7 /l }: l
'lifl /.' O 2
7 D u fo 2 n 4_ (o / O _ Qu? a%O4
, . I . . _
?,
COMBINED 3 HEAF 5 / TEMSIOM YEST CURVES
-ik IAICH , TYPE. EC-6W -
gg SPECZMEU # 8 T 50 f-3
/
f' / 99 , 30 LEGEMD
'y .
g l f ,.
.THITZ A L. OEFL.
---- DEFL. @ 2 b11UUTES O
n 20 ", ,/ ~ L \D TEU5 IOU CURvf
, . .b SHEAR CURVE
- l. -
4 O . - --. . . . . . _ . . _ . _ _ O.0 0./ O.2 0.3 0. 'l D.S 0. 6 0.7 0.8 DEFLECTICAI - IHCHES i ___ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_. .# F 8 e N e $. <L 2E a
-D -
d d 5d a e d - 0 0
% 'l e r~ c
") C Q 'J .,2 A 3 243 (L a 7 O d a
. .~ o o *2 P-Mtb !' @ > d uJ2 -
L-tu I
< d 4 #
>I H < u
~
d k hfd d \ FW 5 7 c ' G
< # B u 0 < .
d 2
!O
.p '
sg@ 5ea c. i e uj 1 t- _L a H g p l 0, 0 2
--i eo -
d2 eH ;
\ a t- 2 s
\ < - -
o Oh e I E a
.$a(
'dj
]
.s , g 9 y 20 } Q o ... , s NI g ,
p . l-
\
\
J \ d E ' s
. s '
\
N x V 0 . 'N , 1 j , 'N, - 1 1 g-- s
~.
, ; 'u--
t
-l . k i S, h h- 9 l'
n w a - ovom u s. t k h >
4 d 5i O
,o 2gg s N<3 d; N O
1 g O$( * - u-d O 2 C e
>*+
ew o 2 V C N w29 O o J
<k J
- a m
s e a k# o - a a w g 7
- w a (d<y 2 a 53J fa ..
oga# ez 4
.o co
.o < esa3 o a' 4
loy i e W
.0 2JYe W i
I I L -.1 1 ,J N c . 1
) L H 6
.N P
@ <8 OI 1
e W ~5 W t O
- d. 9 1 \ 34y b I d h w.
<n o
..a . -
\ .c
#3 ..
_t
@ b f W T 8 -
W jI(a . ee C d &> o 3 7 O
-1 - m H
& C. s
= '
N ~ s
'~~~~. ,
2 - ~
~~
\ l
^: 's a.
3 3 2 , _1 N - I j l 9 b l
$ O m 9 s $ '$ 0_
Tcl I 7 - G YO~1 7 Y 1-Q,1 1 l l l L: s -
,_J
9 9 4
/d h \
2 g \ k4 =3, m 2 6 o 1 8, t
%m o @k 8
w -Q e D
~ 1 s\m
&~
L B .o
\
'>u Q \ \ 4 cc q D q\ T Q ^
a3 s .
's , %
o1 m - E z su T huN a
~
Qc c s
' e N >t Qb s
\ w
, \'ss s b-4 Q
x\x's
\ .
O =a 4 NQs s N. s
. \. s 's~
x ' t R . e "i1 o
" 8 e
\
g n w' g e
, q v0 7 i
L OAD- DERECT/0N CU/?/E5
/-D/CH 77PE EC-2//
SHEA R TEST 60 50__ _ g , T% 00
h
~
4o- - ,,
/ - a.,a ra u
/ swcomm ude
// ,
'- . acroce wnwar wn raaw.
/ ,
s v 30 V- - 4 ' N l'i ' 2O___ , N
.k '
LEGEND 10 _. , INITIAL DEFl. f
- ~ -- DEFl. 8 2 MINons <
o sgrcwru ua
.25 .}O .35 .4O
.D5 80 .16' .20 DEFLECTION - INCNrS
'I .l l m b 58 h d 5- -f #
- u. :r O' 9 3 7 i-k y_
d 2 d 4g5I J
; s1 w c cwWaw 4 w d 2 p f @-
P g2 J .'I e- 0 - W W
< lo 1 I3 i e 0 bN \,
2 3 - - _0. u *l . _ a. W o ~2 ad0 0
\- P lul >-
*F .
\ g o V
W M -
\ -m j 4 yN d.
la. g e I3 a p
'k*j3 \ -
a0 \
.9 23 W
2 <0 g 9go 's 's < I y d . 0 - p. , N N \0 , , W) N
-; 1
_; 2 2 a p$S1 s W :->h o F 0 ;e! -o N W 2 W 4335-twSJ
& EbY5 Ph d
W 3
- o ee
_J 43 - 6N4 I d 1 7g o V 0 *~ -
-T 2
'~
Qd 2 4 i
.g. 7 ls l' o o y - 9 -
1 F d kV W 2__ N N g
\
d i I - o k
\ ~n a
\n 0" f \ 0 0
e1a 2 0 '
, .o-s W I-3 y
17 d N o25
\) N \P 1
l
. . . . . ~. .
=
Q sa t > c.v o t I g - iw-a
COMBIMED SHEA R / TE)23.TOA) TEST CUR VES
/IUCH, TYrr EC-zw SPECIMEH #-23 40 3Z
/
! 8 , x# 4 , LEGEUD . IU.TTIAL DEFL. g . ---- DEFL. @ 2 MIUUTES y @ reusrou cuevEs b SHEAR CURVES O o 0.1 0.Z o.3 o. 9 o.s o.6 o.7 DEFLECT.ECA)- 7AJCHES -
F-7 a y 2 g
< J c
G tJ
)$$ eo 0 "
$ o'
'l z 4 3d I
> 7
} " x -
a o r e O 4y <L k 1 - N % >. G 3 3 0 e i D <T E a e+ Iw 5 e J y *1 i s e e e F 70a 9 0 + a d 0-
<o 0.
33 I g h A2' 's
!O O e
~
\@ kNI h o $~
~
W , d +e \ o
- u. I e
H t b a - F e O . d
> 2 e d 0 d 3 3 \
- Q
\ <
{ d M 6 1 -
+
1 . O 7 o** O - 5 a , N 3 7 t e x s 2' N O M N
< \ N \
c 's I NN g s l o o O e N - 9g g cVol 9 V101
0 4 . I
~
1!!!! : n^ O y9,\ a e D 9 % u x%gN & (
.A g Nk% % .g v , T QN % .
F
%q b 3 4 g e
%q m 9 -
64% ~ r ,
~Q '
x , s ' ' , s - N ~ l s
- a. _
k y
~ M. e
&/# ~ gy
6 a
@ E .t 41p fk a
hk - m Ciit b k ~e&. k&E Dh $
~ s$$$
,o
$7um m jO
- Wm% \@
g% Qk \s .. -- . w y% FR N r s - w~ D
~
m Q~ \' k 0 i
\\
QY k@% 8
\ kN r,
%s
\
o u o D s
\ \
\
0, xs ~, s
\
_~ Wi Q $ e m' o 0
. en _. ggig- 0007 - ._ , a _. -,-
e . l
~
l j APPENDIX 4 PICTURES OF ACTUAL TEST APPARATUS b
.5/
. . S d/ E A R .L 4
..y . g.,
- ~ g l# N, M 57 9 1 s i & E % N M ie M d iniy r3 per:. u
..ssREEliLIIimgivrAiffs8:MlS2.' KI
;m.. . m_ 2 -
- p swh:~
r ,, -
+:.s ~..~ -..s .,._..;p 1
=.
(
- . .. )
.=.m
_M. .m_ _- n r"e k.T~ hf* . l , s-m ..
- a. . .
N i
. -y -
Mer.idEgg ~
- T ,uv. aw
, ' '~
WST APPARATUS f
f
?b - ~L gh~ e
~
c W3. .uc'up ....a :.s,$;,: .." " .
. ,. ,, a w ~ r* . . . .. .'
. u. - ed.*W.Q .
..W
*s~ p ~Y.* ***).; a ..
~
muummessf8
.P...~ :. i::.M.T6-$c t- .-y 4 m.C - c'*3..?t4.-
- .:f7:7"-
~~t. -; . ~
~,
~..~
- "W *
;7...x.-- .2 y.~~*
. ~ ~ *..* * * * *' ~ . l *. .
..d;; : . .* .. an
, . .;. . S., . . .,, s . - - - - _ .
.. . . . dk.*. -
.. ...........r....
u . s.
'S
+ g:g wppengdjigg ,
uv. ... s.
. . ~
" '
- 2. .=a. .
. ..; ~ -
- u,
. qm '
- D/AL. /N D/C ATOR ARRAA/GEtvfENI un ~, "ws w ie::.c s gr ,
% % b f.h@ h $'iW,uf';)
an
.!}h').d6d
,.9. at 'c.. t.::
p 2,, . . _ ,, ..- s q. l.. e ;'. .
- q:' .?. .
@L. r*
' 5.;. .g. '.n . .
- Q
.h- -
.;.Lf,.-
. ~,,s t , \,.c.. i.
7
.- n .O ,. .
.t. , g. g;.;..,. .,
.. r:
- i .. .. . . . .. .. -
~ .
u;..f.v.,q.,;. .. . . s
..y, ? .
. s.. . N.
5 :$ ,i[ 4.d.M.>'.:3., ,
- j .g1 -
tcJh.h
.2
"),
{0gg. .' p. . 'ff'"j'.j .[?g$.')i:
~
.. : Jg" hC s. .%: ?:' .' */, C, as vei
, ,..h3.......E;.ipS?ps
,. . . . . . , . ..u...........e .,.i.. - -
WF $na$ic.:-Q:.
.. . w.-,sM..a..
n.il.., .".s W...,w.k .'!,b.f3r.e
.. .. . . . ..U.n[9.:,,
. .L . . ,n. Y
. ".*.'iki.*' 6. d I
TYP/ CAL .5HEA R F~A /L uR.E
--,.,,p,,, ,,----- , ------------------g--_--,
d ,
/rus/o/v 7Asr I
l tr , l se .m , . .. i-a - D. L h dha TES 7~ A PPA RA TU.S
r *
- w- a:, .
r
'1.
M>- .'T . y -'
.J' lr e' '
- .u 1
-k o*:
h;g
- i. - g
-4
!f
; . ~,' . \v t r'L l } *
[ u ,
.x :S' D
- p. y- 4 tr s
4% ' > i i p e==_;__
- g
.g (
q
' b *S . M' _
g . _ _ _,; f- _ _ ,[. h f nun ~M.}-y me%w - - , e n %: : 1 g gg s:>-m.g,.v . .- , N _ Dj L, / /l ll.- ~0N' b. 5 ? S N 5 'L 5 ' ~ G
% eg .- -
5?'.:h 5 b.f ~d&& a f'
% ,1h*
W%2%4e - -
&E 7& &-l ? w ;
l Y. .-# ..,~ .
.k.,... ....
h?ES-%.hkf .
- p y$ g$?!gQ ,, n ,*.
.M*
M. a. n .1Ly=. .
.. <g . -ea - g e:, >. w . , . ,s y %.- '- ~,* T;W, M5.
.c *W ~
R, ,f ,- ; L >Qi S*TO L'{ # l
.e lY / tY ,,, , ,
*/ 'o .
'~
l l l
. .= .~ . ....=._ .
i
. OMB/NED.. h' EAR AND EN5/ON E S 7~
l l I l i r ----- 1 y 1 .
. . . ., 1 p_m , ~
N< p.$.<-
, , , , r,. .
..~. . ,
[ ,,, , .' 4 . ~ C w ". ,.. _ . aa. . s r. ;
~
== mm . ,
.@N'5 c: / #d *
..<,...n .w ". 21
.gesryi
.z:c.b ..y e'tj.1 A %)fs,.z m ;r.%. # ". %r.;s! n y, -
..e:.ma.c.,;
, .. 2 w
g - ~ .v. w:r;.43 . ) ;w@. .c p. :> i
. lag-A .. r. . ; t k $ b?$ h)h$?N hh .
4
-'"" A
-. /5 S T_.. M P RA R A T u S l
I ! l i l l l l 1 i
, . _. . .. . . . . . _ . . . _ _ . . . _ . . .. = _ . - - - . . = . . _ . . . . . - . t , s% G2JF W 1 f' i i b l A t
. . ng... - rg (k.T _. ~
3 _., c c t"
~
~;..
' N .:.: d%w- h. , ,y,
- p. . , ,
s --
.r * . e. ,;
b'. ;.9%y 6- . x- -::-
, . }$y,p,9 ._
--. EST Anas na rus
)
l I l i i i l i -l ,. I
~
j g. - .
- r. ,.
V. ... 11, cts #D-3 .' 4 _,;s'. **. . . s. . . $*b.. ; .
. . '.T' '?' ; i ;.,.,.,.u, -C.%c.
' * :.. .. . {.w.* . ;
' ~
, :h . gs4g ,
. ~ ~ ::: ccer, .,. . ,
_, yi _ _ . . . ._.. _ -w. . ; ... Da /.9 o i u m ;; A;:rmv&ws r 1
. ..---- - =--- ^
- - ^ - - - -
l i 1 k l l 1
~.
\
h + . n .,'
. e ,. , _
l .. g.u.y , .
. - g_._- , .
.. ,. y-
! g i
E
?$
i u n
#f;li Puth -
-o . ~_ m:g96 u{.:i'T i'
l /!6.- INCli SPECw/EN . 70sc PRIOR 70 FA/L unE l I. ~ i
,> . .:it ...
, t .. i .. ) Lj,p ,
'O?
' y.
~
.Ii
#"',i?[1:yy - ,
. ..e My :
.h.q T**. .
.... ~
- h. ?
- ( athh. . .
me I I l fz -INC.4 SPEC /lviEN A7 R4/ LURE l
i , t i
*h..
( :. 3
- l. '['M l
l i l 4 I. w ,,. . ,
.v , .
,Y.$Q m.g g.:. '.V .h.w.dx =.jnt' h&. .g 1
e s .- . :., . , um . - _ . . , ". .. . . . . ~ . ,
., .a
\ W .
.. .c.
~ -=" . :
=
t 1 1 1 I A-/NCH FAIL. E O SPEC / NfEN _~
..._.........,;.. . - - - r
- W..g ~:. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
~
j "w . h . .e e D. ti l ni . .j en t; p- e
- i.c !
. ' 1]
ti it . e n
**_-+ .. ,,
l ' I i 1 al.,. ...
. . s- .
~ d vb% :.
. .. f . . .
y- .
,. . . ,.... ... ... . ~..
~.
,a .- :.e ..
. ....+
s ..
',..yo
'g p. % m'* * , * .m.
. . c. . s.
s 2.u.
,r w.
> .y= -. : . y, . '
- fe
. , s
_.... .,.j
..+~. -
TYP/ cal FA / LURE
r-ATTACHMENT C i COMBIMED SHEAR AND TENSION TEST SIT"?'ARY B e r T1 ; isE n legend
- I$ ',' MG o i mf.s A ee e
De$ - ( ]tV2bu%'I
/ p W
' ^ * * -
O ' ' * - - '
- 0. 5 ~ ^ l.o * ' fj3
-4f. ,
1 ATTACHMENT D ORIGINAL DESIGN APPROACH AND COMPARISON WITH MEMORANDUM AND ORDER When a Richmond insert assembly (tube steel, washers, bolt and insert) is subjected to a torsion in the tube steel, T, the additional tension P resulting in the bolt is computed (original design) as follows assuming that the. bolt is originally tensioned to a value equal to O Equilibrium equations (for symbols refer to Figure D-1) i F-o a=P-c The force O can also be written as f, Ab where f, is the stress in the bolt and Ab the bolt effective cross sectional area. l Similarly the force C which acts at the distance of d fr m the 3 neutral axis can be written as 3'Fc b where fc is the average
.H' T compressive stress of the concrete (for a triangular distribution), b is the width of the washer and 3/2 d is the 3
distance from the neutral axis to the edge of the washer (d 3 8 the distance between the neutral axis and the centroid of the triangle which is at 2/3 of its base). Thus f u f,[ p g f g 4 (1) Lh=0 T: dz = ch -Q: y (c sc;,(y_ g (7y
o s f The third equation employed is strain compatibility between the concrete and the bolt (note that this assumes that the distribution of stresses in the concrete is uniform and equal to that shown at all locations across the washer plate
-- Es , fs lEs _ F3 /Gs _
Yo3
~
2 b/g - },d> '
% dy -
b/7 -% d. Where E and E, are the concrete and steel (bolt) moduli of elasticity. This leads, using n = E,/E c to: . _O EC _ f5 _ (3)
~
3/2cI3 b/g - % da If one then replaces 3 d 3 (the distance from the neutral axis to Y the edge of the washer) with X, and substitutes (1)'and (2) into i (3), the following equation is obtained. 3
+ b7 y*- 7 n T$b Y 4 h T1. An = c ")
Equation (4) is a cubic equation- in X, which when solved yields j the value of X and hence the location of the neutral axis. . Once , that value is known, the solution for the additional tension in- ! the bolt can be solved from equation (1) recalling that X=3 d 3
- Y For the particular instance in which the bolt is subject to no i
preset tension, but the tube steel is subject to torsion, i.e. Q=o, equation (4) reduces to X 't $ b V-h 6 (5)
l which can be solved for X, and yields x= h f-( -l 2 ] I +Q h Only one of the roots of equation (6) is appropriate. The solutions for X were tabulated by NPSI in their design methods and the tables were employed to compute the resulting bolt tension. For instance for E,/E = 8 and a 4 x 4 tube steel (b=4) with a bolt having an effective area of 0.606 in (1-inch bolt) one would obtain y :- ), 3 0 1 (or - 3. ~7 t v kes This means that the-neutral axis is shifted from the bolt
- centerline 0.699 inches in the direction of the applied torsion.
! Another interesting fact about equation (6) is that the location of the neutral axis is independent of the applied torsion. If there had been continuity between the bolt, the washer and the concrete (as for instance in an embedded plate with welding between the washer and the plate) the condition that the neutral axis is purely dependent od the moduli of elasticity of steel and concrete would probably be satisfied. In retrospect, after the Board's Order, it was this result that led us to suspect the validity of the strain compatibility equation and the development of the finite element model solution. The difference brought about by the finite element analysis is best explained by the following: in the original design calculation, the computation of the tension in-the bolt by 1 l
equation (1) is entirely equivalent to taking a lever arm from the center of the bolt to the centroid of the triangular compressive stress distribution in the concrete. This can be verified by noting that with the assumptions made in equation (1), (2) and (3), that centroid occurs at a distance (b - x) = d2 2 3 From eque. tion (2) and equation (1) we can write 3/y Ec. bc/3
- Es MbY I o.sd T~(fsh*?)(h~ h Owt 'X~~ V i 03 , tu r.- (9, A +PM, 1
Hence for the case in which O = fs A b = 0 we have T = Pd 2 This is what Applicant had used. What the finite element analysis indicated is that the correct formula should be T = Pd 4, where d 4 is the distance from the bolt to the point of tangency between the tube cteel and the washer. 1 ( i
.:,.s = e ~: a ~ - - . . - - - . . . ~
..s a n. ~
-... ~.. ., . a L.,.. . s ...,.n.. . .
e _:f Q ' j cr \-\
/v ,,
A st ./
, 1 W --
a
- x. , . ; .. .>. .
V 'd' '; ../ s,'/s
., ./ .
~
ff _ 7 - 4 - f ,
~
p
.- (
' ~
Q , A
, -sJL u fV
,, g-[ a, h y,
y
. \
Ct
\.
M . u a v<n 1 z a ,~.-,
.' p y 4 9 7 / .
.a g
y y,p les^t yr f,
=
3 .di y p,-
'e f N' '
M i f' 4 1 s,,.c Q 'i y(. l eminum l6 ygg}(y)l/
- t / / / l l V i'l / / / / /
Qw -
@"** Y /""] - . . .
3q4 ATTACHMENT E-2 I RICHMOND INSERT - TUBE STEEL ASSEMBLY ' FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS A.- Analysis of Richmond Insert Assembly Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 Tube with 1 1/2" Dia. Bolt - Radius = 2t Eccentricity = 0" INTRODUCTION ! I Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 with 1 1/2" Dia. Bolt is used for the analysis because, except for a few 1/2" thick tubes Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 represents the worst condition with respect to torsion. A Richmond insert- assembly was modeled with a 1 1/2" dia. Bolt at the center line of assembly as shown in Figure E-2. The purpose of this model is to study the behavicr of the assembly and also concrete reactions for various loading , conditions. The analysis is performed using 'STARDYNE' computer program. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL i
- A finite element model consisting of a Ts 4 x 4 x-3/8 tube i with two inserts is used. The1 spacing between the two inserts is taken to be 20" and the tube"is modeled with an l
l outer radius of'2t (= 3/4"). 1 Advantage is taken of the symmetric nature of the geometry and loading. Therefore, only half of the complete geometry is used. However,' proper boundary conditions are enforced in the plane of the~ symmetry. The tube and the two 1" washer l plates are modeled using either triangular or quadrilateral-plate elements. The model is shown in Figure E-1, (a) i through (f). The concrete reactions are'obtained.from the. ,
' SPRING' subprogram of 'STARDYNE' whichLuses non-linear
, springs. The. spring constant for concrete is' calculated j based on the theory of' elastic half space. These ground springs are tied to the '3000' series nodes and are shown on 4- E-1 (d). This drawing also'shows the-rigid beams that
- - connect.from the center line of the top washer plate to the j- surface of the! tube steel given tur '1000' series beams and from the center line of the top washer ~ to the concrete
! surface by '2000'Eseries beams.- Rigid' beams numbering'B-1 to
-B-99 extend from the center line of top of tube _and are shown-
.on E-1 (c). The top, bottom and sides of the tube are.
1: modeled with triangular.or quadrilateral plate elements and I are shown on E-1 (a)'and E-1--(b). The bolt is'modeled by using beam' elements. But-in practice the bolt will behave l
~
b
, -. , .. ,, -,e, --.,,v.?--- , ,- --..,wi, ,, - -
7__ 1 i differently because of its very small span to depth ratio. This is discussed in Attachment E-3. The interface between the top of tube and top washer plate is modeled in such a way that only compression is transferred. If any-rigid beam in this interface is foued to carry tension, they are softened and removed so as not to transfer any. tensile load. This is an itterative process and is used to obtain the final solution. The three loads (1) Pure torsion (2) Shear at center line of tube along 'Z' axis and (3) Shear ('Z' axis) and torsional moment are applied at the center of span (=20") shown as center line section on E-1 (c). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of the three cases namely (1) Pure torsion (2) Shear at center line of tube, and (3) Shear and torsional moment at center of tube are detailed in Figure E-2 pages (a) through.(e). PURE TORSION (Load 1) A torsional moment of 4000 in. lbs. is applied at center of 20" span through nodes 544, 555, 560 & 564 shown in center line Section on E-l'(c). Two conditions are analyzed: (a) There is a clearance between the bolt and tube (b) There is no clearance between the bolt and tube (i.e. bolt bearing against the tube). The results are compared with case (c) which is the value obtained by using three design equations of_ Attachment D and ~ are shown on Figure E-2 (a). ANALYSIS OF THREE CASES LOAD 1 Case (A) (Bolt with clearance)
~
The applied torsional moment is resisted by a couple produced by_ compression in the. concrete and tension in the' bolt.. The' arm of the resisting couple being_the distance between the center _ line of =the bolt and the tangent point of _the round corner. With a radius of 2 xothickness, arm = 2. '2x.375 =- 1.25". .
~
The transfer ofLforces between the tube and top. washer-plate
. takes place along a line corresponding to the. tangent point
~
of the interface. These forces are plotted in Section D-D, on E-2 (c). Except for the extreme two spikes the contact forces are relatively uniform. The concrete reaction forces are shown in Section (1)-(1), (5)-(5) and (9)-(9) on E-2 (b). Maximum forces being at the edge and reducing toward the center. LOAD 1 Case (B) (Bolt bearing against the tube - no clearance) The applied torsional moment is resisted by the combination of a bolt tension / concrete compression couple and a moment in the bolt. The arm for the couple is same as in Case (A). The transfer of forces between the tube and top washer plate,
.. top washer plate and concrete is similar to Case (A). This condition is an extreme case and provides an upper bound value for the moment in the bolt. Normally the bolt would not contact the tube steel because the lateral displacement of the tube steel at node 261 shown on E-1 (b) is only 0.0035" whereas there is a nominal all around gap of 1/16".
LOAD 1 Case (C) The axial value shown is obtained by the use of three design equations. The value obtained from the, finite element analy-sis (Case A) is 18.3% higher than the value for Case C. Shear at Center of Tube (Load 2) A shear load of 1000# is applied along 'Z global' axis at nodes 546 and 561 shown in center line section on E-1.(c). Because of the applied shearing force, the clearance between the bolt.a'nd the tube is assumed to have closed. Applied shear causes a turning moment which is resisted by the combination of the couple produced by compression of concrete and pull in bolt and by_the moment in the bolt itself. These results are shown in Case (a) of E-2 (d).
, i A comparison with the current design method of analysis is shown in Case (b). In the current design method, an equiva-lentipull based on the three design equations and calculated from torsional moment' of 1500 lb. in. caused by the lateral force would be ured. The 1500 in-lb torsional moment: is caused by the shear force of 500 lb acting f 3 in above the
~
concrete on each bolt. 4 1 '^ ah
- 1) y,
Y .
-\
'N[ ,
'4_
Transfer of forces between the tube and top washer plate, top
, washer plate and concrete is similar in nature to Load (1) as shown in E-2 (b) & E-2 (c).
y Shear and Torsional Moment at Center of Tube (Load 3) A shear force of 1000# is applied at center- of 20 in. span through node 566 shown in center line section on E-1 (c). The node 566 is 2" off the face of Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 tube. This case is basically a combination of Load 1 & 2. The torsional moment caused by the lateral load is resisted by the combina- - tion of the couple and the moment in the bolt similar to Load
,t 2. Transfer of forces between the tube and the top washer
. plate, the top washer plate and the concrete is similar in f nature to Load 1. These results are shown in E-2 (e) Case (A). '
A comparison with the current design method of analysis are shown on Case (B). In the current design method an equiva-lent pull based on three design equations and calculated from a torsional moment of 3500 lb. in is used. b B. Analysis of Richmond Insert Assembly I) , Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 Tube with 1 1/2" dia. Bolt Radius = 2t
, h Eccentricity = 3/4" The finite element model and its method of analysis is the same as in part (A) except that model is modified to move the.
bolt hole to an eccentricity of 3/4". W Load points and the three load cases are same as in Part (A). , 3/4" eccentricity is'used to understand the behavior of the assembly and to determine the limiting value of eccentricity.- Results and Discussions 1 For all three cacos of loading, all.the; applied loads are ., resisted by-the bolt.itself. . The resisting couple provided ! by the compression in concrate and tension in bolt, which is 4 evident in non-eccentric condition has disappeared ~ due to the - 4 very small lever arm. The applied torsional moment is trans-it ferred by shear couple produced by-lateral forces due.to rotation.of tube against the bolt.- i , e ..:. <',. ;.: 4 . . , ", ,_ ; _ i ,i d. , , , ._m . h . ,
Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 with It" Dia. Bolt (e = 0") . Figure E-2 4__ - e . ' "s -
,x dowegmTe (verAcr
~
~'
- 66 3000
-] ,
'ff'
^
MOO & , W H H4 f~ ,
/ .
* ~
%I Ptsis(JoeA
- god 0 MCCS o V (TYPT
,((p_q ' 4. er raar co me ' ,,) ~
l NT5 4xiX /g l
-l l 4 BOLT l -
I I ! l I I l .
\< Jl' J_
a -
' . .k Whswfx
\ )" PLATE 1 < w ,-
(BoTTcM) 1 l I . i I- ! I i
. < l- ~.
, - s s 8 esw a --,e
Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 Tube with l}" Dia. Bolt .
~
e = 0" l E - 2 (a) 3o LT R.rAcTIchr O4" f) LOAD i huRE Toesex) C*sE AxlAL McMsvr fIe r g [ LS) [LG IN') dM
@ l600 0 O ro '
P .
\
b 934 767 O
- ru-N,b Mr = 4000 .
@ Issa o ;e Ratio of @ to h is 1.18. The 18% increase is less than what would have been obtained by ratioing the lever arm from bolt centerline to the tangent line to the old lever arm used (neutral axis to center of triangular distribution) which is 25%'.
1 Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 TUBE WITH li" dia. BOLT - e = 0" E-2 (b) CONCRETE REACTION (Case A) Load i These values are obtained from the finite element analysis for ground ! spring nodes shown on E-l (d). Reactions for two boundary sections (1)-(l) and (9)-(9) and the center line section (5)-(5) are plotted to , show the trend of compressive forces. The values shown are not tc. scale. These sections (1)-(I), (5)-(5) and (9)-(9) are shown in E-l (a) & E-l (e). i br$p a 4, ((*, # -( .* ,,7 2
- s l (m oes).9 m .ier.s 2:s3 32e M73 sus sace e-o sex e-x seews-e NOT TO SCALE Only Two End Nodes Are shown For All Sections Due to three dimensional nature of the problem, the concrete-reaction forces goes around the bolt.
4 1, - 4-
Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 With l}" dia. Bolt ' e = 0" E-2 (C) Force Transfer Between Top of Tube and Top Washer Plate l Case (A) Load i These values are obtained from the beams connect!ng the tube to top i washer plate interface. Only compressive forces are transferred through these beams. These beams are shown in E-l (d) and the nodes are shown in E-l (c). The values shown are not to scale. Beams ll60 to 1340 exists in Section D-D between beam l130 & 1370. b i
> F7 e- '
. .. s
., , 5 .:. .
l :;,:' .': '..:; f-
,r ! 'l a
s~ u' r n
' rs4x4xg 4
4T I Sr* g "q.::u,f ~ ,. ,.
%s j ar* nro!
- I MOTES ll3o 1860 1l4 0 It:0124IW lho 8340 GTO
-A SEcN 'b - 3) l- @ BOLT ALOMC, LENGTH OF TOBE The spikes shown at the ends are from the fact that concrete reactions are not uniform and are higher near the end section as shown in (1)-(l), (5)-(5) and (9)-(9) shown in E-2 (b).
The finite element analysis shows that only the beams (1130 to 1370) along the tangent line carry the compressive forces. ; 1 l
Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 Tube with it" Dia. Bolt , j e = 0" ! E - 2 (d) { 3C LT N E ACTio g (lk# $) Ax hEA (g A' MWENT (6HA-R AT GENTER, OF 'TLGE) (g iu) (W (.M3L g 607' 866 E00 4
/
3'
. /
\y/
' s '#0
. m GCQ
@ lol5 -
- Moment in bolt is set up by a shear couple with approx-imately 85 percent of the shear going to the upper tube steel face and 15 percent going tothe lower tube steel face.
p
Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 with 11" Dia. Bolt e = 0" E - 2 (e) LoAp s 7 BOLT 12 E AC.TioM ( l[96) AXIAL MOMENT SWEAR hHEA-R, 4 rociouAL xeen) G58 (Ls.) (.L6 - v) M')
's, .
* \, '620 *
@ leco g- ,
S
/
%, /
/
e
* @ 2'O b 0 ~
goc e
't
i
- r. .-
i e ATTACHMENT E-3 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BOLT (1 " DIA.) FOR Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 TUBE USING SOLID ELEMENTS INTRODUCTION A Richmond insert assembly has been analyzed using a finite element model whose analysis and results are provided in Attachment E. The purpose of the model was to determine the behavior of the assembly for various loading conditions. The li" diameter bolt is modeled as a beam element. The finite element result for all three load cases in Attachment E,(1) Pure torsion but bolt leaning against the tube,(2) Shear at center of tube and (3) Shear and torsional moment at center of tube, show some moment being , resisted by the bolt. Because of small span to depth ratio the behavior of the bolt will differ - from the condition where simple theory of flexure for a cantilever beam can - be readily applied to determine bending stresses, in order to determine the magnitude of stresses caused by lateral loading of the bolt, a finite element analysis of the It" dia. bolt is performed using solid elements via. STARDYNE program. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
~
The bolt length between the center of (tube) bottom flange and face of
- concrete is divided into seven slabs of varying thickness and shown in E-3 (a) through (i). The last slab near the concrete face is i" thick and shown on E-3 (h) & (1).
The base of the bolt is connected to the insert through springs with same spring constant used in the Attachment 'E' model le Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8.with It" dia. bolt and zero eccentricity. A typical connection at base is shown on E-3 (1). A 1000# lateral load is applied along global 'Z' (X,) direction thrcugh nodes 24, 25 & 26 shown in E-3 b) to represent I6ad from bottom flange. RESULTS S DISCUSSIONS Applied Moment = 1000 x 4.8125
= 4812.5 lb. in.
I O
- , _ . - - - - _ ., ._ _ ye_,-.-- . , . . .
l Using simple bending theory Moment Bending stress = Section Modulus For 14" O Bolt based on gross area Area = 1.7671 in.2 Diameter = 1.5 inch Section Modulus = 0.098175 x (1.5)3
= 0.331 in.
4 812. 5 Bending stress = e 14539 p.s.t. 0.331 Based on finite eieraent results the average stress across the furthest node (311) shown on E-3 (i) is about 10,836 p.s.t. This stress value is obtained by averaging _the results of the elements (287), (297), (307) & (317). Comparing the results it can be seen that stress obtained from finite
- element analysis is much less than that obtained from simple flexure theory. Hence it can be concluded that simple flexural behavior is not the case in this bolt and MC alone, without modification should not be used to I
calculate bending stress. Actually the 14524 p.s.l. stress calculated would which is 1.687 In. 2beand higher notif1.7671 it was calculateo in, as usedonfor thecomparison. bpsis of finite element model area 1 1 I
1 % FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR It" DI A. BOLT For Ts 4 x 4 x 3/8 Tube Using Solid Elements E - 3 (a) 6
,'a. * .-- , , s, .
,. ./
e ,- , r . g
,3 -
g , a 4, , W-a . -
~ .
o .o
. . . . . 3 o u ,3f, M p t h2 . - 4 Si25 o
I gou ps T x1 = A. Szeg " l g gt I gyog
' ~ ' '
, -rx 2" 4* 3'2s "
3 i !
,, t _ _,__ _ __.. _ _ _ _ ,-- ,
qs --7---- -----
% r v, = 5,gg g Soubs ---, ,
3 . i e o 1 I
~
Y l l I2 X 2 9375 j so t.os l Il l l I i
,r.
l ~ F . ., . . I T X2 *I9375
! l-s SOL 1)&
C. l ! o I . .
.c a n -o.ms m
.s l Souns m
- O l
<;i y
s; \ - - - - - -
$),, ,
, _s.___ _ _ _ -. _ .
, z.
(T.) I
. .. t I
I
'*W amM4
i l i FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF I " DIA. BOLT E - 3 (b) 31
. 3, at
@h @
@ n Sb 14 w ..
Q g @. ..-- Q - -
. g, @ @.
,".,4- - .i,.
2 .
.. _2g. . g g O!
@ @ % ... j
^ ~
7 . .
~h- -Q-.
m
.Q Q .c t-
.l.
p ; .- - N.
.g e ,
.. s
@ e. ; 4.1 u
v u .-
... a ff '
Af f-x3
.. ,. s Pt_ AN E X=O0 2
i 0
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF l}" DIA. BOLT E - 3 (c) 74 7 71 19 h sq
@; e
't
@ *Ts
@ @ g -l @ -
g,@ e"g i d ul
\ ei a
sa g @ @ @'
@ye g *@ I e G e,
@ @ .@ p 0
e O 'h u, O@ '+
,6F e
Pt.ANE ' Xl= 0 9375 s g u e -m
.-- -. . .=
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF I " DIA. BOLT E - 3 (d) lit ggo tic .
@@ a @ dB
~
Id e e, - 113 g 90 g g,, i en @ 02 , 0,i
- jol e y e '
'6 '
10 2 i s
@ @ @i -
h 67 h h '
,,, O 16
@- @ , O- 'c k#3 g w ;g g@ @g 10 6
. . . . '1OT e i M
. . PLANE X2 = l 9 375
, ~ - . , y. y se f.- y* P + -"
rewv'
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF 11" DIA. BOLT E - 3 (e)
\$l 150 151
@@ mi e@ @ 137 15 3
-h--
Q @ @' ;
'@m O O"W ,
I e e a e -@ ,s
~
! g @ @ @-
22 ,1,g g '** G '
, 47 S O s @ ', i s ,
ig 7 g nr
~ 9 y4
@@ @@ \
-g g w-l
. s i
a > PLANE X 2= 2 T375 __ . l
. - - - - - ,y , , - - a . - - , , , , - - , . ,-e
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF li" DI A. BOLT E - 3 (f) t 191
't 19 0 ist f
CD @ ni 8@ o' 8
~
its no I,3 g ,
@ a, @ @ p !
.; i
@ @ l'8
@ 04-Igg I'1 lat.
@ Id @ @ @i
) @ :
@ ,y g . g in @ @ @ e S 183 Iss g 16F iib .
@ @O 18 4 .
isr-s
- o ~
. PLANE X 2 = 3 42s
-i l
._ -__ _ _ - - . ~ . . . _ _ . . _ . . .
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF lt" DI A. BOLT E - 3 (g) $ .em.=. as eso us
@ 295 6 6
& zu 0 :
125 g zio g g ,g zS3-
@y@ 6 *'" :
,o w
@ 2os
@h .m.
@ @ O @-
~
@ 2,.7 9 @
227
@ @ @ w 25 2a6 O tor
@@ 1,+ - -
11G* 4
~
PLANE ' X$ = 4-3125 I-
, - . - a ,- . - , , - . - - - , - - ~ - ,, - - , ,
f FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF It" DIA. BOLT E - e (h) til 27 271
@@ w us g 4, g g m
@, @ G 2" g) 7&5
@ O '@ @
E 246
@ @ / @. @ , @we e "' @
w @ 8 @
- O u, au g
9 stor. 6@ @8 2G4 u s- l l I 9 H PLANE X= 4 5425 i a - e e
l FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF lt DIA. BOLT E - 3 (i) [Ill) 3I qill) (TYFftAL d o b M E CTrekr 68TwfGW (411) all 300 $.400 Sd2lEg } s ' u (.m 2) yo/y >o GiD e \ *, *@e "*
- S'1 q g , u. g S'S (4is) 257 7g @ g 347 sac
"' 6*@ 2 aa.2(ez) t.4cs) g 'It g g g
@ 2n @ @ '*3 8
@ @ @ u. O c 4,3j7 2r6 , 5** (q O @
Sa' 6@ 6 O s.4 (4c+) c<.as) sar(4er) ! PLANE X2 = 4 si25 _ O
F- -
- e. e ATTACHMENT F RICHMOND & TUBE STEEL LOADING IN SHEAR
& TORSION MAY 1984 I
i l 1 1
- s. .
- 1. Test Description The following tests were performed on four Richmond Inserts / Tube Steel connections:
o Shear load applied to 6"x6"xl/2" Tube Steel with bolt hole on TS centerline - Test No. 1 o Shear load applied to 4"x4"x3/8" Tube Steel with bolt hole offset 3/4" from the TS centerline ~- Test No. 2 o Torsional load applied to 4"x4"x3/8"' Tube Steel with bolt hole on TS centerline - Test No. 3 o Torsional load applied to 4"x4"x3/8" Tube Steel with bolt hole offset 3/4" from TS certerline - Test No. 4 Figure 1 shows photographs of the test set up and the final configurations of the assemblies-after the test. Attachments F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-4 provide results for the four tests.
- 2. Summary of Results Table F-1 presents a comparison of the test results with the ,
a following 4 Insert Design Methods. Columns A through D refer to each of the methods listed below: Method A. This method assumes the torsion is resisted by a couple whose moment arm is-2/3 the half width of the washer plate. Method B. . This method assumes the torsion is resisted 1a( a couple whose moment arm is that predicted by straia compatibility as described. earlier in Attachment D.
Method C. This method aasumes the torsion is resisted by a couple whose moment arm is the distance from the bolt centerline to the point of tangency between l the tube steel and the washer plate.
- Method D. This method assumes the torsion is resisted partially as described in Method C above, and 2
partially by bending of the bolt. This is the method utilized in generating the interaction ratios shown in Table F of this Affidavit. Table F-1 also contains the Design Loads based on the insert and bolt capacities for the four methods and a factor of safety for these Design Loads based on the test results. The table also provides the tube steel deflection for the various loads. r
- 3. Conclusions From Test Results The test results indicated that little or no deformation of the tube steel occurs at loads corresponding 1to the design loads. .
The tests also indicate that the initial design methods have a
~
, factor of safety in excess of 3. They further indicate that the point of tangency. methods has a factor of safety in excess of ~4 when bolt bending is neglected and a factor of safety in= excess of 12 when bolt bending stress is considered by calculating.it using'MC/I where M is the bending moment, C the bolt diameter and I the bolt moment of inertia. .Tae test results indicateLthat the failure. mechanism-is by shear type deformation for.the 6x6.TS
1 . shear test (Case 1) and by bolt bending for the 4x4 TS with 3/4" i eccentricity (Case 2 and 4) and Case 3 (4x4 TS with 0 eccentricity loaded in torsion). 4 Cases 2, 3 and 4 were designed to be analogous to the finite element analysis discussed previously in Attachment E so that they could be used to validate the following conclusions reached from the analysis.'.. The finite element analysis predicts that for the 4x4 TS with high eccentricity loaded either in shear or torsion, the bolt bending governs the design. The test verified that this is the failure mechanism, however, the failure load predicted by the test is considerably higher than that predicted by the finite element analysis. The analysis predicts that failure of an elastic-perfectly plastic round section loaded in bending is 2 1/4 times the load which produces a bending stress of .75 Fy (Fy is the yield strength). This load is defined as the Design Load. The test results indicate that the actual load for the bolt is 12.5 to 12.8, or about 5 times higher than the Design Load. This discrepancy is due in part to the conservatism involved in using MC/I to calculate the bending stress in the bolt. This-conservatism is determined by comparison with the results of the i bolt finite element analysis. It is due in part to the assumption of-elastic perfectly plastic behavior of the bolt-material, which in reality strain hardens, and it is also due in part to the assumption.that all the torsional moment is carried by.the bolt in bending. Although this is what the finite element l l
analysis predicts, some of the torsional moment is taken by a bolt cension/ concrete compression couple, particularly at the higher loadings where the deformation of the tube steel provides a compressive area that establishes the couple. Since the finite element analysis is purely elastic, once some local yielding occurs, the analysis would not predict the redistribution of the torsional moment to the tension / compression couple that would result in higher load capacities. The discrepancy is also due in part to the fact that the finite element analysis, in predicting the bolt moment due to shear, does not account for redistribution of the shear between the upper and lower tube steel as deformation occurs. In addition, the discrepancy is due in part to the fact that friction is not included in the analysis. In smnmation, all of the above factors show why the test results verify that the calculation of the design capacity using a method
-based on the finite element analysis is very conservative.
The other two test cases also demonstrate that the calculation of the design load based on finite element analysis is also very conservative regardless of tube steel size and eccentricity for the same reasons as stated above. When the test results are compared to either of the initial J design methods (A or B), the test shows that the design load capacities of these methods have reasonable-factors of safety and, therefore, there is no safety concern with the initial design methods.
In addition, comparison of the test results with method C which neglecta bending of the bolt, shows that there is no concern if bending of the bolt is ignored. In summary, the test results demonstrate that the original design methods used for the design of the connections were adequate and that the design method based on the finite element analysis is very conservative. e
- T
TABLE F-1 TEST METHOD A ETHOD B ETHOD C ETHOD D IA.TIMATE STfRIN POINT OF TANENCY POINT OF TANGENCY CASE CAPACITY 2/3x1/2 WIDTH C0hPATIBILITY W/0 BOLT BENDING W/ BOLT BENDING 6dx1/2 46.37 11.00 12.04 11.00 2.45 Max. Design Capacity
- 1. 0 Offset FS = Test Ulttaate Capacity +
Shear 4.2 3.8 4.2 18.9 Design Capacity Tube steel deflection at design '
.09 .10 .09 .31 capacity based on test curve.
4x4x3/8 23.85 7.14 NA* 4.53 1.91 Max. Design Capacity
- 2. 3/4 Offset FS = Test Ultimate Capacity
- Shear 3.3 -
5.2 12.5 Design Cepacity Tube Steel deflection at design
.07 - .02 .01 capacity based on test curve 4x4x3/8 25.17 5 124 5.62 4.828 1.38 Max. Design Capacity
- 3. 0 Offset. FS = Test Ultimate Capacity
- Torsion 4.9 4.4 5.2 18.2 Design Capacity Tube steel deflection at design
.07 .07 .07 < .01 capacity based on test curve 4x4x3/8 .10.6 3.28 NA* 1.99 .824 Max. Design Capacity
- 4. 3/4 Offset FS = Test Ultimate Capacity
- Torsion 3.23 -
5.32 12.8 Design capacity Tube steel deflection at design
.02 -
.07 < .01 capacity based on test curve Loads are in kips, Deflections are in inches
- The etrain compatibility method was used only for eccentricities 4 3/8"
, ,--------.~...--m w. ,a n_.-_,s.n-a, ..-asm.- w m. _ - ~ - . - - - +-,..a. ae_.--s.-.--.a- - a s- -nm ..a- .-. a-.a.
4 - _-s , m 4. .,3,.> . 3- ...._,*. t
.; . . s ; w}'I ,-- - ;. , T
'I ,' f m -
N v_+ = w.sf & [, 4 n
- I N .,. ., :! f. ;-
xSWW - _ _ , . - .
~- "'?" Y, .?. .;' .
,. . . . A ~'e- 4 -
.a
a?"-. ..,
- i. .*St
_% - w f - . , . , ' 9 == a
,, g , ...s.",-4;.. . . . ..--
e '
.-p., .-
..... s s , ~
7 M,giggy. , ,, V f ~. ,e '
, _ _ l -Y'-; 'd^s...
- Y;. E '
~k('_ ? - l
- e. _
1 .- -
~:
- ,.r . . .. .. ..
,,f":) w...,-
$. ..e..,d
) .
I I TES Y /9Ss Esn 8 LIES . toAjoA T'O 'rSW/tV6-- S////By y- _ ,_ .Qg ; .. 4 - .'.9 - r.
- p...
e; / .
,. _g
~.,,s. -
< .t
.~* .
4 %y &.~Jr: ._&Q$..[. % .= g,..,, g ~W.~~~'f.:;$ c m>+;,p v . c .~
~ ...
1 1 *y, y f".
?
$ ~ ,N .RG QOSM.;,, %.
. 5.7l .
L.: -1 c, f-l}n w;. s.m f.. ~ f
~ '
? .._ %l* *}, ..'
- ~.
5gW .l.;'g
+
y
.,p %.
s. 4 y
.& 4:.n r
l-
+
~ l(?"
] ' .: 'f
- 7* -
5 8e ' ..i _3 _y 31M [..
% ,7 .
t -r.s : s ,y y*'=
- w .- . [, - ' '
7-
~
(N , . , v :. l .
, M,; *:.<.x.,-
;s '
- f= v d. -
i ' G W. , -'~v . .- .? y l s-m 7~, , t _- ,." Q
~~'~A -= '%e *- . ~, _,. g l
-}.. ..
-~%.
- " w . . . . . . . . f . , , _ , . , , , _,
-., . Q. f
, ,g,-
M uou rss r on yyy 75 ,,,g wirk Mot d CN TS 4-_ 7g,7. , m y,, miry pyoug og 75 g TEST * *3 . rssrs/ bgure l
l l l l
.. ^
n.. 1
~ -
wy l T~ -- M' _Li.
; tx<: .., . .
- . a 2. ,.. ke.
, . & '
- T- ,,
.. s~ **W, __
_w,
~
. . . ...,y c m s.
;"3 sal
- *$ .f"y. .'. *, & ,&w 2.
y u . s, M r. 4
>4
- 4. < -
e-.
.. - g% l e .w,; .
TES r~ i9 s s d=rn Bu ES
/? F 7~E A? 7~E S 7~wG -
. S&/99' .
, [ __ . ..-..y .: a ' . ? $ ',, 1'
' : % ' ' .j' Q. Q .g; '.:..,_. , ?_ _. * ' '- % ' ' . i
- R ' . ', _[:. . ; * , . ,. .
.l*fA^5 , W*?'f W* *W "*
l y;%$ .- .+ ?,..
.E
, C + - ) .q.s ' $ f" ': A ' N' \ _.'yy'. .,, , ', & =%r?
. , ,. *c+
'N,. ..
,.s',]- . -
l? -
- 4. -
..p a ..
. ,- , sa e f., f y p ". y a
,, [ ' .. ' . Y, h 's ;, 44 .f ,
=
.._.,i.
'h *%'-
. -; ( . 5 '*- ,'-
7 .- . ~ -= d s 1-
.,:~.. ,. }~... *, g. .. . . ~ . * -.
g - (
,5 . ..
.,_.w.'. %
. p ' /, M.-
9,..-
.' . g ; , 'p t
..
- l *'
.-;. _x ?
y, .
* *a , - :
$,g. g . .y ..,, .l ~. - s.; ..
[_%'.,_k-. .
I'
'h . . ._
1;N _ _ ',
". ' ., e 2-y . . p .;
- s. . v . ,.
, s.wW'
.. ; g .+:- ...e
" ' '..-:-~
k +~
.m e'~
ary -
-s-
*- .- _P'k , . -. +
p 's
- 91.. ;., .v y ; .. j: ;_?. '
c 3". $ y.7, .-. g.y'J. 1..
< e T < ;.p.( .i.p
, . .' -1...gf?ev,
- e. .r;gv.I._
' x , ,,; p>W ' " w.;- pw.W,' , ;
I
*. :+,f
,i Lt}Z[* -
. v. :l- .' :
; %V.(* ;e.^V"
~ .- ,'h%,R..;p' s' :l '..*T l -?Q:y'C'j.% 'l' . ,$:. } Q .', M.:.,
L_ . -. v . lh* .m . . , o, 3 t ly
; :g w .:.: +* - - .% '~~
*N ,g; :
.. n a.. a r w:;g;. ;. ,'A. .
l %x.. .-.; W m. m. M;'Q,.y_
+s m, .. .
BA S .O N yx4 M yng g,0^/ 7"65 Y ON h!Y 4 TS wth' MOLE % " OPP - W 7' m TM MOLE O FF - 5 27~ 1h " 7657~ W2. 72s7 N Apure / ccod7)
\ tc>t y - A'77x;VMENT*F-/ 8'/I
~
BROWN & ROOT, INC. ENGINEERING DIVIS10N SHEET NO. !f CLIENT TWS5 305 NO. suanEcr R16HMOND /MS&n?~ SMSAA Y2C r DRAWING HO. BASED ON COMPUTER [ CHK'O. 8Y AP.**D. BY DATE MdF /
'~;.-
c . D/tiLL /Og # Hoe E - *
-q
- , E1V . ~. .:
@ =
l
, A .
~;
i
'"u, I PV \ ,
'y
/ /. ._
C g , -* , g . v ~ 4si - r_ ,
+ ..
Q fl ..~ 4
/'
I . ,
+
@ g o . ** e g o
9 -
- e
.I 4
# 'z, a
~
9 O W f f , B 6 g a.,. _ A*3b TMM f.l @ OO lN
~
}$ LOM '
*1-Ed Y tl ts RO W N & K O u i, s t% t.. A77MGVNad~ f- / \
$NEET NO, / OF ENGINEERING DIVISION / M3 cutNT TMII J05 NO. l suantcT SNd'9R 7~2sr o // C * (= TS wt 'rH 4- Not s *N 75 d-ORAVING NG, IASED ON COMPUTER 7 CHK'O, BY APP *0. BY OAft r#8 F //
6- u d6 g "w-e-P/?Fsture E Att s A kiu G- 3 rs+ r ReprAndT I So o si sr 1%.2 G L l'i G 25 # . oy6 " .097" 1,000 rs2- / l a 2 s ,, n_ 13,2.T0 * , jo g " , j 3 g
/, T oo P S L- l T.1;Qr 17,87s** , 7 7 7 ,23G" 2;ooo PSE' /1.2G,, 26, 700 * ,2g&" , 3 p s- "
2,soo est / 1.2- Q u 31,12 7 * ,y30" , (, / 7 " 3,00o r sr /5 2 Q 3'!, 7 FO " ,&78" /, o y / 3, 7 o0 PSE I 3
- 2 (pt 'f 3, 725~ # / ,, 2 T 4 /. 8 (p G"
sxeaeo r ie a v s e 3i 'I O o P s.Z~ / 3. 2 T st 96i 77C * /. 8 2 7 i ousoweA war Coc<t.O /vor i;77&/o4/ 1, Goo PS a yv i l , l Ars - TAK6H(f ? $ 0 F 7~S he - r8xee e 4. or= u-en w r . I
I '~/ E.- T W F ATT)M"4NEWff/ BROWN & ROOT, INC. /' #43 ENGlHEERING DIVISION SHEET NO. 2 OF q CLIENT 7#3 f JOB NO. oM 1b-SUBJECT WMA T5 b 7 CW 6Yb T S t v / 7W Y M* ' E ~7~ S BASED ON ORATING NO. COMPUTER TN CHA*0. BY APP'O. BY DATE M d V // IS 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,i
&O,000 .
W, MO. f
/
s,
'/0,000 . [,)
~
k 30,000 - N v . 0
- k -
D . N 2 0,00 o .
/0,r00 .
. .. . . e i .
0 *f /,0 f. f _ 2.O
. D E BLfr;%910 N (nr?))
. f25 T~ #2 -- '
Afmrwirm*F-2. BROWN ROOT, INC. /*' ENGINEERING DIVISION SHEET N3.' :!- CLIENT N II JOB NO. sus >Ecr R 16h!MGHD /NSEM7~ S//GifA TECr ORAWING NO. BASE 0 ON C04PUTER CHK'O. BY APP'O. BY OATE MME / e e
~
- OR IL t. 10 "h Not 6 ~
zi,y , g h x l l ! 4 . . -; - 4 g I/ \
.. l vg l l';.' .
a : - I "f . vf n ~ '
~
*~ , . '
W L
'4 f l . - c
^
3 .
- b:
=
9 a : ~e
, ,. ~
v'
; . s
,e
- a g I l '
I I -
~
f ; t 7 , O t g .l e W -
/9 - % PL & 7~5 l' A l','- S*" L oM-
- l Y
}}\ - & flsf7"Ei 5/y"glVy." Lf'LOWh .
,l.
- A " '2 f. T~M f? c~AD Gb /7 0 D 1 l1 k _ i i s // , , , s_, '
c
.._. ....,,.:,...v.,_.;,.+.,......
. . ._. _ , m.w, .. _ , _, _ _ _ . _
g.;.u._. .,
. . . ' eV ,
.v'*
r gg;g,py p.g . l
/ zy BROWN & ROOT, INC.
ENGINEERING DIVISION SHEET NO. 2-1 CLIENT MI ' JOB NO. Su82tCT A' E C W A!!NO /W SEA l~~ 7~'O 'E .I'/OW 7~5 s 7 8ASED ON ORAWING NO. COMPUTER TO CHK'O. 8Y APP'O. SY DATE 1444 Y /
. -1
.. = . .. -..e
?t
- s :
b
~ ,
l .
. , . : '..'a.
. ...G e
7 - y - .r - , ., ,, . 1 l 1 4. I
- l. l '
. -( .
L =l,. . l I __. :: :._=.'l- .:=. u7 I . .
,I ' - - -
t . . , l I
-l~
.l.'
g I 1 I l
.v. . .
, g . . . , . v. ,,:
I
.~..
s l -l t . l .] , i l ' i l I ' i .. .. I l l 1 cr '. I . . .
. .i l .
[ [ - t- - - - p-l- l . I i i
! .I i .
I l . i i -- 9 g g h
/
I . j # 4
@ d
,vi
. . . .'. *j l
,- ]
. . . l
, ,., .1>
- .!- l
,~ . ..l
- ,k l- .
w .
- v. .
, p,. '
I
,g
l- T6S Y #L EROWN & ROOT,1NC. A77McMEWrF-2 ENGINEERING DIVISION g , [ / SHEET NO. / 04 Ct.l ENT TMT JOB ND.
'wA TG s v~ o ^/ 'I x 'l Ts ~ ' TH '? 4 " o F F - S F 7 ~ of MoeE 4k-l suanEC1
' ORAWlNG No. l BASED ON C0MPUTER 7N _CHK'O'. SY APP'O. BY DATE #87 //
1 6 W d6- ei- e g "a+r l 7 \ P/12s!at5 Att2A c-oAc. 2;;- A rs Re rn AM.r , l l roo o sst i L 2.5~~ya 6) GZ s~ * . 06S " ,o9f"
/,00o PSr Ila 2 s ,pr ti, 2 5 0 * , jgo " ,228"
/,Too PSE /5,2 Q 17,87f# , 4 39 " f, //6 " \
excesoco w' '# # # l)Q00 PSZ 'l r 2 ~2; S15
/ E n 2 IN .60l" o N 2 o w 2A NH lj600 PSE / 3, L f~~g t 2 3, 6 % * ,qjg" - ----
- + cous.o svor" nrrs
")( " psr * / 5 . 2- Qi x * ),yjo" *##
2 f I t
, e W Ors - 7 4K GA ' @D O f= T'$
bwr~ ~74KGN @ k e=s c w CA pic,,L7"~ 1
. s
~
A77Mc4He;vrf-2 BROWN & R@@T, INC. yA ENGINEERING DIVISION 5 ET NO. 2- OF q CLIENT IN JOB NO. su8 stet SNGAtt 7257 ON 4X4 TS ~!rH % " oFF-3& T" O f Ho L E k 8A:LD ON DRAWING NO. COMPUTER 7N CMK'D. BY APP'D. 8Y DATE M d V // 13 i
&O, coa .
50, eno . 90,0ao . k 30,000 ~ N v . Q - t .
~
D . N 20,000 ; loi soo . . 0 f I.O l. 5" 2.0 D B Ft. E c .*T / 0 N (lN,)
g BROWN & RC@T, INC. 8' # ENGINEERING DIVISION SHEET NO. [@ Cl. l E N T TM JOB NO. sualECT A I 0 NM O ^/ D M SEA 7 70 M s'O W T217~ 8ASED ON DRAWING NO. COMPUTER WM CHK'D. 8Y APP'D. BY DATE /9/A Y /
, s y4y W
^ As 4 4-' ry / \
4 i I l i I Rq
\
' v l
_____.2___ ______ k . S . l x e r x-
- 'l'f l
_ . _ _ 7 ._. _____7____
'i ! !
i i l I I '
. l I 2 .
pxru 1%"d Hoce e
~
A"](o /d Ls+ M l 4 ~ 4 L. 0 N4- , (2. Raig 'D)
& A-20 jourrs I" r " _ 9 " t one. . (2. as a 'o.) ,
<a . , . ~ . . . - . - , ,,. w . . . . , ,
, ?SSY-.. . ;. ha A 7yu cMawy- J'- .:5 BROWN 5' ROOT, INC. /- #/3 / OF ENGINEERING DIVISION SHEET NO.
l CLIENT TMII JOB NO. SUBJECT 7~0R S / 0N 7'E $ 7- oW W t/ rs wi TH h o t E d os 75 $ i 8AsEO ON ORANING NO. COMPUTER 7 CHK'O 8Y APP *O. 8Y DATE #87 // 1 6-ct d c 5- A 6 " *^r
- pp?pSsaire /)/t & se r-o/tc G- 3 r's- RE ?" As* A' r y no ,csr ) g,2. G.2 2, le 70
- 001" . ot 9 "
500 /sr /5 2 G1 (p,&25"** , itg " ,/S6" 700 i sr I 1. 2 Gu n '7, 2. 75^ * . 2 oo " .s12 "
/,00 0 tosE /1,2 (4 1 l 5, 2 f0
- 2 fl " , s*/6 "
l J,2oo PSE /3,2-S~g~ I S, */0 0 ** 380 .71/"
/, f*00 /*SE 15. 2- Q l7, 8 7 C # . ST/ " /. 2 c. 6 "
/, "?oo psr i 3
- 2 Gv' 22; S2 S* . 74& " /. & 8 8 "
Ex c6 fo EO 7.Ent' -
/ 3,2 S~ ip u L%' on otAL- / ^' O!c A r "
) BS0 *
/) 9 0 0 P SZ' ,952" -
ow i o ~ c/2 pst Y
), 700 P3E I 3. 2. 5~is ' 25 I ? S*
- j, p 3 9 * -
W
-h- COC4 4 D M * *1' if7'Ts90 X " ,0)[ /* 3, if sp L *Y" f, 3 $~j '! Ej 000 SI l
A# M [ /
c...... .. .. . - ..-- -
-"'"~):Ei'j- # j ~ ~
gmycyr f 3 BROWN & ROOT, INC. f.3/3 ENGINEERING DIVISION SHEET NO. 2- 0F 4 CLIENT IN3 A JOB NO. suenEcf To R S/0 ^! 7'esr ok 'f x 'I TS wir// HotE $ ok TS $ l BASED ON ORAWING NO. COMPUTER IN CHK'O. 8Y APP'O. BY DATE M/9 V / / Id
/
GG, coa . 70, oco . 40,000 .
~
k 30,0c0 - 9 v . Q -
~
N 20,000 ,
/o, sos . , ,
i 0 5~' l.O l. S~ 2.0
.** TES r # V AmeyNgr F-4 4-BROWN & ROOT, INC. jp,//ySHEET NO. / 0!
ENGINEERING DIVISION - CLIgNr TMSZ son nn, sus 2Ecr RICHrAor/D INSEA 7 ro/2C/0 M TE: 17~ BASED ON CRAWING NJ. COMPurER d N CHK'O. SY APP'O. BY OATE #974 Y /
, s yyy V'/'
M
^
/n 4-' ry / \
--= ---
I l l 4 I I I q I ! e i l l ___x 4 l i x m m-3 .
'/v /
_ _ _ _r- - -- -- r - -- -
'I ! !
- 4 4
.l l
'! ' I
. I 2 .
{c pw 1%"& How
@ s-u ~ re cg-.cn.. cwa.o>
c _
@ n-30 fue rs 1 "x c"- a " i ous. c2. xe a 'o)
& l1-36 h ers I" x z V z "- 7'6 t oxc.
0 n -n ' rim eso ao a o o I z"$ V - iq " i. aan. _.N
_- _ < n.. _ G.. E . - J _ _. ._ ' -
- 1. <a-_sw N . guAsm--m
! Y. , * [SS Y. - Q(ggf.fy
~ '
BROWN & RCOT, INC. )5: @ ENGlHEERING DIVIS10N SHEET NO. 1 6 cu Eni ru sr ,,, no. SuasEci A ICH A'MO /WSEA Y R 2 5/0# 7~5 5 Y BASED ON ORAWING N0. COMPUTER Tk CHK*D. SY APP'O. BY DATE #4 Y / i
. e 4
-3
.<^~,' .
f e [ ~
.l .
- -.e'C -
.s .
- e q
'v,m w .n#
F - r -'t ' ~ ti- - -
- 7 .
I I I -
, i P y=- i
- - =
.i . . . .,,.
.e g l
.T- ~Y
, 1[ -
1 l , 1 .l l- l - g l - .-- . g [ j I l ' [ l . I l 1 g " i j i 1 I i .
- r I k_.1.__,.__..__: I e I i ! '
l (( . . r I j r i .
- s .
g sgo . pgIL L / kg" M O6 8 - L. S 9 O >
'P ..
e
' f b ,O S
p - . _ - . _ _ _ __
-, . f ., :.: -
g y g y p4- . m" BROWN & ROOT, INC. ENGINEERING DIVISION [* y7N SHEET NO. / 07 CLIENT TMII JOB NO. suasECT 7~0 R $10N T'S S 7' ON S'X W T5 t 't rH Af o acp - s 2 r of po.:.E $ BASED ON ORAlflNG NO. COMPUTER [N CHK'D. BY APP'O. BY DATE /f /8 7 // 1 s-u 9c- e-P/7Es w e A/t 219 ,=otte G. A r+s r b a u>e- R e m a A',e.r
.200 ,osz / L 2. f* TAP 2,6 W # .ov3" .097 "
l yoo i-sr /5 2 s mz 5,'300 " . ioy " . 2 io " 500 fsr i 1. L GL 6, 6 2r
- 2SY" . S zo" .. ;
600 est /1 2 'iTat 7, ? SD .y&9" t . at t " l T,2 ? S'" /.ES3"
~
~70 0 Psr / h 2- s"Tu' .608" 800 PSr Is.1 Q l0,600 * .80&" /.929" 7 cout D MO T
/ \ , 2 (p r *y" j, 2 0 $~ " - /97'I'9 /N 900 /**I~
- g " p33 ft" l l
T$ b$N 0$ f$
- o n-r - rs xe,v p d or u-M wa, -
e
?9 l-
. *~~.'
k&dNWSY BR5WN & RSST, INC. g.Srpe ENGINEERING DIVISION SHEET NO. OF CUENT '7~4 3 f 108 NO.
~
sueJEcf M 3' *N VEtY ok 4x4 YS W!TH '/V oscF- s e r
- F # #'- E $l sASED ON ORAWING NO.
c0mpu1ER TA CHK'D. BY APP'O. SY OATE M d V // 19 1 30000 . 2Gooo . zo, co* . k / Goop. N v . Q ~ S - D . N *
/0,oco .
$~,ono .
1 i o 5" /0 /. f 2.0 l DB Ft-f c.7 9 0 N (IN.)
.. .~ - . . . . . . . -- _ - . . -
Y ATTAGMENT G RAY PETER DEUBLER j PROJECT MANAGER - NPS INDUSTRIES I EDUCATION B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Cornell University, 1969. ! i M.E., Mechanical Engineering, Cornell University, 1970. 4 EXPERIENCE Mr. Deubler has 14 years of experience in the area of Mechanical Engineering. Mr. Deubler is currently Project Manager for NSPI.for the Comanche Peak Project. As such he is responsible for all NPSI Design and Fabrication activities for. . this project.- Previously Mr. Deubler was Director of Engineering at NPSI , and as such he supervised the engineering, development and qualification of standard pipe support components, field service activities, and.the design and fabrication of supports including j 4 their conformance to ASME Section III. Earlier at NPSI, Mr. Deubler supervised the design and fabrication of piping supports for various projects in both the
- nuclear and fossil industries. His responsibilities included the overall supervision and management of the design, fabrication,
{ and detailed engineering work on all phases of the design, 1 fabrication and quality assurance aspects of component supports. i Mr. Deubler was an Instrumentation Engineer at Gibbs and l Hill. Principal work was performed in control valves, ; j instrumentation, control systems,.and components for power plants. Other work included the selection, specification, and j procurement of components as well as the designing of j instrumentation and control loops for fluid systems.
- At the American Electric Power Service' Corporation, Mr. Deubler was Mechanical Engineer in charge of specifying, selecting,,and purchasing piping equipment for major power plant projectn including valves, piping, supports, and miscellaneous i piping systems components. He also designed plant fluid systems.
i , other experience includes design work in the areas of-
- plumbing and HVAC for Buchart and Horn.
I PROFESSIONAL Professional Engineer, New York.
- Member'of ASME and AWS.
J ' ' Member of working group on component supports of Subcommittee III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee. Member of Committee 8C3 - Pipe Hangers and Supports of Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Fitting Industry (MSS).
, y y . .-. , .,.- . , , . - - - - , , . - - . . - s-,. y
. TABLE 1 1 of 5 -
PART A SUPPORT 'IUBE SPEEL mnRNIRICITY BOUP SIZE INSERT BOLT MARK NO. SIZE INTERACTION IN1HUCfION AF-1-006-010-S33R 8 x 4 x 3/8" 1 3/4" 1" .51 2.45 FE OC-1-008-013-S33K 8 x 4 x 1/2" 7/16" 1" 1.53 4.32 FE OC-1-197-005-C52R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .21 .924 T-1-197-014-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .1% .3786 OC-1-197-019-CS2R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/8 11/2" .32 .53 CC-1-197-020-C52R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .143 .309 OC-1-197-034-C52R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/16 11/2" .19 .89 OC-1-204-003-C52R _4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .239 .673 OC-1-205-016-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .059 .779 OC-1-206-001-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .259 .779 OC-1-207-014-C53R .4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .029 .171 OC-1-207-021-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .102 .031 OC-1-212-001-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 5/8 1 1/2" . 12 .70 CC-1-215-032-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .07 .30 OC-1-215-033-C53R .4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .03 .17 OC-1-217-003-C53K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .21 .43 OC-1-217-012-C53 S 4 x 4 x 3/8" 3/8" 11/2" .10 .995 OC-1-218-009-C53K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .15 .33 OC-1-218-010-C53K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .011 .07 OC-1-218-012-C53K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/8" 1 1/2" .75 .14 OC-1-218-013-C53K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .223 1.74 OC-1-218-014-C53K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .04~ .38 OC-1-226-004-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .31 .61 OC-1-226-005-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .13 .42 OC-1-227-003-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .26 .56 OC-1-231-002-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .015 .06 OC-1-233-001-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 3/4" l 1/2" .084 .7 OC-1-233-004-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .073 .27 OC-1-234-016-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .18 .44 OC-1-237-001-C53R OC-1-235-001-C53R 0 11/2" .06 .41 OC-1-237-004-C53R OC-1-233-001-C53R - - - - OC-1-239-005-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/4 11/2" .03 .30 OC-1-239-008-C53R OC-1-233-001 3R - FE - Requires further evaluation.
TABLE 1 2 of 5~ PART A
.SUPEORT 'IUBE SIEEL BOCENERICITI BOLT SIZE INSERT BOLT MutK NO. SIZE INTERACTION INITRACTION i CC-1-242-002-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 3/8" 11/2" .03 .32 OC-1-242-003-C53R 4 x-4 x 3/8" 1/2" 1 1/2 .02 .32 OC-1-245-010-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2 .03 .38 CC-1-245-018-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2 .009 .16 OC-1-249-003-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2 .26 .35 OC-1-249-700-C53R -3 x 6 x 5/16" 0 1 1/2" .12 .48 '
OC-1-255-007-C53R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 3/8 1 1/2" .37 1.17 OC-1-271-008-C53R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .26 .81 OC-1-272-008-C53K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .024 .176 CC-2-040-401-A33K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/16 1" .27 .52 OC-2-040-405-E33R 6 x 4 x 1/2" 0 1" .54 1.72 OC-2-048-402-A33R 6 x 6 x 1/2" 0 1" .52 .70 OC-2-048-403-A33R - 6 x 6 x 1/2" 0 1" .08 .52 OC-2-048-408-A33K ~6 x 6 x 3/8" 0 1" .29 1.17
- OC-2-105-406-E23P 6 x 6 x 3/8" 0 1" .06 .43
! OC-2-107-403-E23 S 4 x 6 x 3/8" 0 1" .23 .52 ' G-1-001-003-C42K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .008 .058 CS-1-001-Oll-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 3/2" .16 .44 CS-1-001-012-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .36 .61 G-1-001-024-C42 K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .15 .45 G-1-001-027-C42 K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .15 .386 CS-1-001-035-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .24 .67 G-1-012-003-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .11 .39 G-1-077-004-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .0315 .1498 G-1-077-005-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 5/16" 11/2" .03 .30 CS-1-077-006-C42R 4 x 4 x 1/4" 0 1 1/2" .05 .31 CS-1-078-003-C42R 4 x 4 x.3/8" 0 1 1/2" .24 .92 G-1-078-018-C42 K 6 x 6 x 3/8" 1 1/2" 0 .048 .43 G-1-079-006-C42R 6 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .062 .6 CS-1-079-007-C42R 4 x.4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .48 .65 G-1-079-020-C42R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .13 .51 CS-1-079-037-C42K 4 x.4 x 3/8" 1/4 11/2" .09 .64 G-2-033-408-A42R _4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .073 .037 G-2-085-402-A42S 4 x 4 x 3/8" 5/8 1" .06 .31 CP-1-018-005-S22R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1" .17 .8 CP-1-038-003-CS2R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .037 .15
-CP-1-038-402-C52R l 4 x 4 x 3/8" l 0 1 1/2" .037 .15 l
i FE - Requires'further evaluation.
TABLE 1 3 of 5 PART A SIFEORT 'IWE STEEL B002HRICITI IOLT SIZE INSEE HLT '
#RRK 20. SIZE INTERACTION INTERACTION -
CT-1-038-415-C62R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 13/16" 1" .30 .15 Cr-1-038-430-CE2K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/4 11/2" .25 .59 CP-1-038-431-C52R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .053- .18 CT-1-039-008-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .07 .21 CP-1-039-020-C42R 4 x 4 x 1/2" 3/4 11/2" .112 .81 CP-1-039-402-C42S 5 x 5 x 3/8" 13/16 1 1/2" .02 .17 CF-1-039-405-C42S 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .2 .144 CT-1-039-407-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .19 .31 Cr-1-039-413-C42A 10 x 6 x 1/2" 0 1" 1.4 3.03 FE CP-1-039-415-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .24 .93 CP-1-039-424-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1" .28 .69 CP-1-039-432-C42 K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/8 11/2" .09 .086 CP-1-039-433-C42 K 4 x 4 x 1/4" 0 1 1/2" .358 .506 CP-1-039-434-C42R .4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .209 .477 CT-1-039-435-C42 K Cr-1-039-402-C42S 0 - - - CP-1-039-436-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 5/16" 1 1/2" .07 .58 Cr-1-039-445-C42R 4 x 4 x V8" 0 1" .21 .82 CP-1-039-447-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1" .351 .99 CP-1-051-406-C72K 4 x 4 x 3/S" 1/2" 11/2" .024 .285 CP-1-053-408-062R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" 2.13 3.88 PE CT-1-053-418-C62R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 0 11/2" 1.48 4.12 FE CP-1-054-401-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/4 1" .17 1.26 CT-1-054-404-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/2 11/2" .083 .616 CP-1-054-406-C42R 6 x 6 x V8" 1 13/32 11/2" .06 .21 CP-1-054-409-C42K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .26 .364 CT-1-054-413-C42R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 1/2 11/2" .09 .86 Cr-1-054-420-C42R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 1" 11/2" .17 1.49 4 x 4 x 3/8" Cr-1-054-424-C42R 0 1" .54 .61 Cr-1-054-429-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 5/8 11/2" .0975 .51 CT-1-054-430-C42R 4 x 4 x V8" 3/8 " 1" 2.78 8 41 FE Cr-1-054-431-C42A 6 x 6 x 3/8" 1/2" 1" .55 3.39 FE CT-1-054-438-C42R 4 x 4 x V8" 0 1" .23 .63 CP-1-054-442-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .03 .219-CP-1-ll7-403-062R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/8" 1 1/2" .11 .80 FE -~ Requires further evaluation.
l TABLE 1 4 of 5 PART A S[FPCRT 'IUBE SIEEL fry'RMfRICITY BOLT SIZE IEERT BOLT MMtK NO. SIZE INPERACTION INPERACION 0-1-ll7-404-062R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 1/8" 1 1/2" .05 .22 O-1-ll7-405-G2 K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .077 .394 O-1-117-410-062K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/2" 11/2" .07 .52 0-1-124-412-C72 K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .026 .21 EW-1-097-018-062R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 0 1" 1.39 7.'3 FE E-1-002-004-C72K 6 x 6 x 1/2" 0 11/2" .34 .44 E-1-002-005-C72 K 6 x 6 x 1/2" 3/4" 11/2" 2.22 6.36 FE E-1-002-006-C72K 8 x 8 x 1/2" 0 11/2" .47 .38 E-1-002-013-C72K 8 x 8 x 1/2" 0 1 1/2" 1.22 1.38 FE E-1-073-007-CS2K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .145 .434 E-1-074-001-CS2K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/8" 11/2" .16 .43 E-1-074-002-CS2S 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 3/2" .1% .25 E-1-074-003-C52 K E-1-074-002-C52S - - - - E-1-074-010-CS2 K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .072 .33 E-1-074-012-C52K 4 x 4 x 1/2" 0 1 1/2" .28 .52 E-1-150-002-C52S 4 x 4 x 3/8" 3/16" 1 1/2" .15 .5 E-1-150-004-C52S 4 x 4 x 3/8" 1/2" 11/2" .19 1.48 E-1-150-025-CS2 K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .095 .354 4 E-1-150-029-C52K 4 x 4 x 1/2" 3/16" l ]/2" .05 .4 E-1-150-044-CS2R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .16 .68 E-1-150-045-CS2K 4 x 4 x 1/2" 1/16" 1" .187 1.56
- E-1-150-058-CS2 K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .18 .53 E-1-150-059-C52K E-1-151-043-C52 K - - - -
E-1-150-064-CS2 K E-1-150-024-C52K 0 11/2" .65 .275 E-1-151-002-CS2R 6 x 6 x 1/2" 1/8" 1 1/2" .37 1.11 E-1-151-005-C52R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 5/16" 11/2" .27 1.15 E-1-151-008-CS2R E-1-150-010-C52S 0 1" .34 .39 E-1-151-018-CS2R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .23 .67 E-1-151-019-CS2R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .34 .95 E-1-151-038-CS2R 5 x 5 x 1/2" 0 , 1 1/2" .18 .74 E-1-151-043-C52K 4 r 4 x 3/8" 1/2" 11/2" .23 .66 E-1-345-005-CS2K 4 x 4 x 3/8" 3/8" 11/2" .07 .71 E-1-416-005-S33R 6 x 6 x 1/2" 11/16 " 1" .64 3.42 FE RC-1-008-002-C41S 4 x 4 x 1/2" 3/8" 11/2" .24 1.2 BC-1-018-020-C71R 6 x 6 x 1/2" 0 1 1/2" .03 .31 BC-1-016-021-C71R 4 x 4 x 1/2" 0 11/2" .17 .45 BC-1-075-044-C51K 6 x 6 x 1/2" 3/16" 11/2" .22 1.09 RC-1-075-052-061R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 0 1 1/2" .6 1.66
- FE - Requires further evaluation.
4 TABLE 1 5 d 5-PART A SPPORT TGE SIEEL N CITY BOLT SIZE INSERT BOLT BWtK NO. SIZE INFERACTION INFERACTION HC-1-087-004-C81K 6 x 6 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .386 1.63 BC-1-088-006-C81K RC-1-087-001-C81S 0 11/2" .17 .61 RC-1-162-004-C81K 6 x 4 x 1/2" 0 11/2" .21 .67 BC-1-164-001-C81K 6 x 6 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .1426 .412 RH-1-005-007-C42R 4 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .023 .14 RH-1-005-013-C42R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 1-3/8" 11/2" .07 .94 RH-1-006-010-C42 K 6 x 4 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .37 .77 SI-1-051-012-C42 K 6 x 4 x 3/8" 1/2" 1 1/2" .11 .37 SI-1-087-009-C42R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 1/8" 1 1/2" .89 1.72 SI-1-095-Ol7-C42R 6 x 6 x 3/8" 0 11/2" .46 1.22 SI-1-102-007-C41R 6 x 6 x 3/ti" 0 11/2" .38 1.24 SI-1-103-008-C42K 6 x 6 x 3/8" 0 11/2" 1.54 4.63 FE SI-2-178-714-A32R 4 x 4 x 1/4" -0 1" .26 .61 FE - Requires further. evaluation. I i 1 I~ l 3 1 4
- - _ . - _ . . . . _ - - - - _ - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ - -- a ~ , w - _ _ _ - _ - - - - -
TABLE 1 1 of 5 PARI' B SUPPOPT REV. TENSION SIEAR KNENP MARK HO. (KIPS) (KIPS) (KIP IN) AF-1-006-010-S33R 2 1.398 .694 - OC-1-008-013-S33K 5 8.633 .46 1.021
- CC-1-197-005-C52R 3 .113 .889 11.911 CC-1-197-014-C42R 3 6.0 .444 4.0 OC-1-197-019-CS2R 2 2.0 .246 4.0 CC-1-197-020-C52R 3 2.0 .246 4.0 CC-1-197-034-C52R 3 1.0- 1.0 4.0 OC-1-204-003-C52R 5 2.0 1.0 8.0 CC-1-205-016-C53R 4 2.0 2.0 2.0 CC-1-206-001-C53R 5 2.0 2.0 2.0 OC-1-207-014-C53R 4 -
.243 2.189 OC-1-207-021-C53R 4 1.0 1.0 4.0 OC-1-212-001-C53R 3 2.0 .247 2.0 CC-1-215-032-C53R 5 -
.256 4.0 CC-1-215-033-C53R 3 .25 0 2.5 CC-1-217-003-C53K 2 1.0 .5 4.0 OC-1-217-012-C53R 1 -
.319 5.583 OC-1-218-009-C53K 2 -
1.0 .5 4.0 OC-1-218-010-C53K 4 -
.144 .335 CC-1-218-012-C53K 2 6.0 .02 2.0 CC-1-218-013-C53K 2 -
1.0 7.98 OC-1-218-014-C53K 2 1.0 1.0 4.0 OC-1-226-004-C53R 2 1.0 .5 8.0 CC-1-226-005-C53R 3 -
.487 5.511 OC-1-227-003%sR 3 6.0 .17 4.0 CC-1 231-002-C53R 3 .235 -
.883 OC-1-233-001-C53R 2 .651 .337 2.321 OC-1-233-004-C53R 6 .4 -
4.0 CC-1-234-016-C53R 4 -
.879 5.264 T-1-237-001-C53R CC-1-235-001-C53R 2.917 .765 2.16 OC-1-237-004-C53R OC-1-233-001-C53R - - -
OC-1-239-005-C53R 3 l .22 ; 1.87 CC-1-239-008-C53R CC-1-233-001-C53R - -L -
. TABLE 1 2 of 5 PARP B SUPIORT REV. 'IENSION SHEAR MENENP MARK NO. (KIPS) (KIPS) (KIP IN)
CC-1-242-002-C53R 3 .273 .273 .956 CC-1-242-003-C53R 3 0 .338 1.01 CC-1-245-010-C53R 2 1.0 1.0 4.0 CC-1-245-018-C53R 2 .204 .373 .714 CC-1-249-003-C53R 1 6.0 - 4.0 CC-1-249-700-C53R 1 1.408 .817 4.496 CC-1-255-007-C53R 2 .433 1.59 0.0 CC-1-271-008-C53R 1 1.0 1.0 10.0 T 272-008-C53K 2 -
.15 1.882 CC-2-040-401-A33K 2 2.0 .073 1.751 CC-2-040-405-E33R 1 .266 1.3 5.65 T-2-048-402-A33R 2 3.0 -
5.0 CC-2-048-403-A33R 2 -
.493 0.0 CC-2-048-408-A33K 5 .04 .678 4.066 CC-2-105-406-E23 P 4 -
.395 0.0 T-2-107-403-E23S 2 1.0 -
5.0 CS-1-001-003-C42K 6 .076 .127 .67 CS-1-001-Oll-C42R 6 .50 1.0 2.0 G-1-001-012-C42R 6 6.0 1.0 6.0 CS-1-001-024-C42 K 3 1.0 1.0 2.0 G-1-001-027-C42K 3 2.0 1.0 4.0 CS-1-001-035-C42R 5 2.0 1.005 8.0 CS-1-012-003-C42R 2 .356 - 5.6% G-1-077-004-C42R 3 .626 - 2.2 G-1-077-005-C42R 3 .474 - 1.6 G-1-077-006-C42R 3 .287 .114 3.957 G-1-078-003-C42R 4 - 1.591 11.0 CS-1-078-018-C42 K 3 - 1.028 0.0 CS-1-079-006-C42R 4 .5 .05 3.0 G-1-079-007-C42R 6 2.0 1.005 8.0 CS-1-079-020-C42R 4 1.0 .50 4.5 CS-1-079-037-C42 K 3 .975 0.0 3.862 G-2-033-408-A42R 4 .98 .086 .667 CS-2-085-402-A42S 3 1.0 .895 6.0 CP-1-018-005-S22R 2 .186 0 3.314 CP-1-038-003-CS2R 4 .50 .50 - CP-1-038-402-CS2R 4 .5 .50 -
.. - - . _ = _ = . .
. TABLE 1 3 of 5 PARP B SUPPORT REV. 'IENSION SHEAR MNENP MARK NO. (KIPS) (KIPS) (KIP IN) C-1-038-415-C62R 5 -
.38 2.115 CP-1-038-430-C62K 3 6.0 .035 2.0 C-1-038-431-062R 3 .8 .4 2.0 CP-1-039-008-C42R 4 1.0 -
3.0 CP-1-039-020-C42R 2 1.394 .25 4.52 CP-1-039-402-C42S 4 .37 0 .674 CP-1-039-405-C42S 4 2.0 - 2.0 C-1-039-407-C42R 4 4.0 - 4.0 C-1-039-413-C42A 4 1.441 .55 1.0 CP-1-039-415-C42R 4 2.0 2.0 4.0 CP-1-039-424-C42R 3 .144 .425 2.676 CP-1-039-432-C42K 3 3.0 .20 2.0 C-1-039-433-C42 K 5 6.0 .180 6.0 c-1-039-434-C42R 3 2.0 .48 6.0 G-1-039-435-C42 K CP-1-039-402-C42S - - - CP-1-039-436-C42R 1 .515 .44 1.76 CP-1-039-445-C42R 3 .102 .72 2.458 CP-1-039-447-C42R 3 - 1.0 1.5 CP-1-051-406-C72 K 4 .328 .031 1.312 a-1-053-408-062R 3 1.82 2.479 9.249 CP-1-053-418-C62R 3 3.0 1.72. 46.068 a-1-054-401-C42R 3 -
.304 1.357 CP-1-054-404-C42R 2 .50 -
2.0 C-1-054-406-C42R 4 .383 0 1.186 CP-1-054-409-C42K 3 6.0 .187 4.0 G-1-054-413-C42R 1 .1 .152 4.15 G-1-054-420-C42R 3 1.5 1.025 3.0 CP-1-054-424-C42R 2 .523 - 4.7 CP-1-054-429-C42R 2 3.323 -
.786 CP-1-054-430-C42R 1 6.581 .274 9.889 CP-1-054-431-C42A 3 .227 .407 3.608 G-1-054-438-C42R 2 -
.5 2.0 CP-1-054-442-C42R 2 -
.5 1.0 CP-1-117-403-C62R 3 .370 1.482 4.627
TABLE 1 4 of 5 . PARP B , SLPPORP REV. 'IENSION SHEAR KNENP E RK ND. (KIPS) (KIPS) (KIP IN) CT-1-ll7-404-C62R 2 .429 0 2.014 CP-1-ll7-405-C62 K 5 .225 .04 5.43
- cr-1-117-410-062K 2 2.0 -
2.0 CP-1-124-412-C72K 4 -
.687 2.06 PW-1-097-018-52R 3 1.46 1.95 36.941 E-1-002-004-C72K 9 12.16 1.0 2.3 :
E-1-002-005-C72K -7 19.37 2.37 9.80 E-1-002-006-C72K 7 4.069 .455 2.048 E-1-002-013-C72K 9 23.975 4.301 3.295 M-1-074-001-C52K 4 2.128 .757 - E-1-074-002-CS2S 5 2.0 - 4.0 ; I E 074-003-C52K MS-1-074-002-052S - E-1-074-010-C52K 2 .031 .372 4.253 , E-1-074-012-C52K 3 1.0 1.0 6.0 E-1-150-002-C52S 2 .477 .'09 6.55 E-1-150-004-C52S 3 .246 .839 8.461 E-1-150-025-C52 K 5 .5 - 4.0 i i' E-1-150-029-C52K 4 .8 .2 2.2 , E-1-150-044-C52 K 5 1.0 1.0 4.0 ! E-1-150-045-C52K 4 -
.274 1.436 i
E-1-150-058-CS2K 3 2.0 1.0 5.0 E-1-150-059-C52 K E-1-151-043-C52K - - - E-1-150-064-CS2 K 4 6.0 .059 2.0 E-1-151-002-C52R 5 6.0 .605 5.0 E-1-151-005-C52R 4 3.0 1.3 5.62
- E 151-008-C52R 6 .186 .318 4.364 L
E-1-151-018-C52R 6 2.0 1.0 8.0 E-1-151-019-C52R 4 1.0 .2 13.0 i E 151-038-C52R 4 -
.71 7.174 i E-1-151-043-C52K 2 .014 1.64 6.614 E-1-345-005-CS2 K 4 -
.27 3.309 i E-1-416-005-S33R 3 .812 -
5.027 j RC-1-008-002-C41S 3 1.939 2.169 5.899 ' RC-1-018-020-C71R 6- 1.497 .742 - RC-1-018-021-C71R 4 1.373 1.308 6.0 BC-1-075-044-C51K 4 2.25 .334 7.821 l [ a0-1-075-052-C61R -3 l .998 2.291 10.212 l ; l
O-4 TABLE 1 5d5 PARP P S(PPORT REV. 'IENSION SW%R KNENT MUtK NO. (KIPS) (KIPS) (KIP IN) RC-1-087-004-C81K 8 .095 1.5 15.0 ' RC-1-088-006-C81K 4 .327 .68 7.808 RC-1-162-004-CSlK 5 - 2.36 10.0 BC-1-164-001-C81K 6 1.83 .082 5.49 RH-1-005-007-C42R 2 -
.18' l.27 Rif-1-005-013-C42R 2 2.08 .05 5.253 RH-1-006-010-C42 K 3 1.961 1.124 6.11 SI-1-051-012-C42K 3 1.497 1.655 .749 SI-1-087-009-C42R 3 2.67 1.55 9.84 SI-1-095-017-C42R 7 .2.855 3.678 16.687 SI-1-102-007-C41R 7 -
798 13.59 SI-1-103-008-C42K 5 3.933 10.63 2.306 SI-2-178-714-A32R 2 .664 .227 2.512 I f
O' & I TPELE 2 TUBE STEEL & RICEND INSERTS COWARISON OF RESULTS OBTAINED WITH STRJOL WITH AND WITHOUT ELEASING M z A. GENERIC STUDY Problem l Problem 2
* '
- All tube steel is 4"x4"xl/4" #
@ y' , r
- N /po# @
g f + 0 0 9,- go @ l All moment constrained g s 2 All moments released
/ @
8 s 4
- e. Member results i -
Member Max. Stressl Max. Stress 2 Member Max. Stressl Mex. Stress 2 5 448.6 448.6 7 2729 2902 . 6 448.6 44 8.6 8 2729 2902 7 640.9 897.2 3 1453 1477 8 649.9 897.6 4 1453 1477 j 9 448.6 448.6 5 540 497 10 448.6 448.6 6 579 384 i Max. Increase 1/2 40% Mex. Increase 1/2 6%
- b. Deflections et Pt. 5
.000902 .001184 .00569 .00607 Max. Increase 1/2 = 315 Mex. Increase 1/2 = 75
- c. Tension in Each insect 838f 250d 1113d 500d 1
Max. decrosse 1/2 = 3405 Mex. decrease 1/2 = 220$ !
-ll I
,.- ..~ -.. - -: : :. : .
9 - -- , , . . _ _ . , . .- ; . TABLE 2 (cont'd.) B. ACTUAL SUPPORTS The following tube steel frames have been STRUDL analyzed with tube steel to Richmond connections considered pinned in,all directions. These frames were originally analyzed with the joints pinned in,two directions, but resisting rotations about the member's axis. INSERT AS INSERT AS ONE DIR. FIXED PINNED INSERT HILTI INSERT HILTI SUPPORT NO. INTER. BOLT IN. INTER. BOLT IN. CC-2-323-ll2-A43R 0.54 0.27 0.03 0.24 DD-1-016-700-S33R 0.56 N/A 0.45 N/A FW-1-019-700-C42K 0.44 0.95 0.086 0.85 FW-1-095-700-C62K 0.34 0.74 0.12 0.89 FW-1-096-706-C62K 0.66 N/A 0.62 N/A FW-1-098-700-C62K 0.22 0.79 0.05 0.86 SF-1-004-700-C46K 0.37 N/A 0.22 N/A INSERT AS INSERT AS ONE DIR. FIXED PINNED SUPPORT NO. MAX 4 MAX 0' MAX 3 2 3 CC-2-323-712-A43R 0.021 8179 0.0477 8179 DD-1-016-700-S33R 0.0019 5333 0.002 9918 FW-1-019-700-C42S 0.0042 4752 0.052 6400 FW-1-095-700-C62K 0.0002 5388 0.0004 8423 FW-1-096-706-C62K 0.0028 7702 0.00231 7757 FW-1-098-700-C62K 0.0018 5651 -0.0019 , 5916 SF-1-004-700-C46K 0.032 4950 0.032 4816 (INCH) (PSI) (INCH) (PSI) _ _}}