ML20094F149
| ML20094F149 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1984 |
| From: | Doyle J, Mary Walsh Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094E903 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, OL-1, NUDOCS 8408090503 | |
| Download: ML20094F149 (39) | |
Text
,_
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of i l
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING I Docket Nos. 50-445-1 COMPANY, et al.- l and 50-446-1 I
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station i Station, Units 1 and 2) l CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF FRICTION FORCES IN THE DESIGN OF PIPE SUPPORTS WITH SMALL THERMAL MOVEMENTS in the form of AFFIDAVIT OF CASE WITNESSES JACK D0YLE AND MARK WALSH
- 1. Applicants stai:e:
"All pipe support design organizations for Comanche Peak consider friction forces in the design of pipe supports where piping thermal movements are greater than 1/16".
"Two of the pipe support design organizations (PSE and ITT-Grinnell) do '
not consider friction forces if the piping thermal movements is less than or equal to 1/16". (Finneran Affidavit'at 1-2.)"
We challenge Applicants' first sentence. Gibbs & Hill does not consider any friction in the design of their supports, as can be shown from the Applicants' 6/28/84 response to Mr. Walsh's question during the 6/6/84 conference call between Applicants / Staff / CASE. Applicants stated:
"Gibbs & Hill only designs moment restraints. For these supports the friction forces induced from deadweight plus thermal loads are small compared _to the other support loads, and therefore, are neglected .
s This statement the Applicants have provided poses a new problem.
As the Board is already aware, Gibbs & Hill designed the upper lateral restraint, yet the Applicants have stated here that the only supports they are doing are moment limiting restraints. In addition, the STRUDL group was under Gibbs & Hill supervision, and we were told not to consider friction unless told specifically to do so. The inconsistency of Applicants' statement is obvious and puzzling, to say the least.
With regard to Applicants' second sentence, although we do not agree with their philosophy, we agree that what they are stating here is correct. In addition, as shown above, Gibbs & Hill does not consider f riction at all, no matter what the movement is.
- 2. Applicants state:
"The true friction load for piping movements less than 1/16" is the lesser of:
"1. The normal load on the support times the coefficient of friction, or "2. The amount of force needed to deflect the support a distance equal to the thermal movement of the pipe."
Item 1 as stated above represents the maximum load that can be transmitted from the pipe to the support through friction. Item 2 l
represents a more liberal approach to the problem, when the amount of force required to deflect the support a distance equal to the thermal l
movement of the pipe is less than the normal load on the support times the coefficient of friction.
l l
! 2
s.
4 When one uses item 2 (i.e., the load to deflect the support a distance equal to the movement of the pipe), and this load is greater than the normal load on the support times the coefficient of friction, the results are then unrealistic. Therefore, one must consider item 1 first, and use item 2 of the Applicants' statement to decrease the friction load on the support, as will be shown below in item 4.
4
- 3. Applicants state:
"The support configuration which exhibits the most significant effect i
from friction forces is a relatively short, stiff tube steel cantilever beam."
We agree with this statement for the limited purpose of the 1 Applicants' omission of considering friction forces when piping movements are less than 1/16".
- 4. Applicants state:
" Application of the second procedure for consideration of friction loads in that support configuration produces unrealistic loads."
We disagree with this statement to a certain extent. (See discussion under answer 2 preceding.)
I in addition, consider the following examples of a piping system that moves 1/16" at a support and that support has a stiffness of 16,000 lbs. per inch. That is to say, applying 16,000 lbs., the support will displace (or move) 1", or applying 1,000 lbs., the support will displace 1/16".
3 I
- k. .
Consider in Example 1, a load of 1 lb. normal to the support.
Whether this pipe were to move 1/16,000" or 6", the maximum friction force imparted to the support would equal .3 lbs. using a coefficient of friction of .3. (This is item 1 discussed in Applicants' statement number 2.) If one were to consider the stiffness of the support alone (without considering item 1 in Applicants' statement number 2) due to a pipe movement of just 1/16", the friction force would be 1,000 lbs.
instead of .3 lbs. and this would be an unrealistic load.
Now consider Example 2, a support where the normal load is 6,000 lbs. and the pipe moves 1/16". Using the coefficient of friction equal to'.3, the friction force on the pipe is 2,000 lbs. This 2,000 lbs.
would exceed the criteria of 1,000 lbs. per 1/16" (stiffness);
therefore, one only needs to consider the maximum load of 1,000 lbs.
for a deflection of 1/16" pipe movement, since the pipe is actually only going to move 1/16".
It is highly improbable to have a support where the amount of force needed to deflect the support a distance equal to the thermal movement of the pipe would equal the normal force from the pipe times l the coefficient of friction (i.e., it is highly improbable that you would have a condition where item 1 and item 2 of Applicants' statement exist at the same time). But what is more probable is that item 1 controls. But using item 2 will decrease the load from item 1 when properly used and is unconservative. Item 2 would be unrealistic when used by itself when item 1 is not considered.
l 4
i
t
- 5. Applicants state:
"Use of the first procedure for calculating friction loads indicates that the maximum friction force which could be transmitted into the beam in reality is much less than that calculated using the second method."
As demonstrated in Answer 4 above, Applicants' item 5 is correct, as far as their statement goes. But the Applicants do not consider friction when the support moves less than 1/16". As Mr. Doyle stated in his testimony (CASE Exhibit 843, admitted at Tr. 6824):
"In conclusion, I believe that my objection to the friction exclusion for minor pipe movements is not based as much on the fact that is (sic - should be "it") was excluded, as much as it is on the basis for that exclusion- particularly when one considers the principles of static versus dynamic friction."
- 6. Applicants state:
"Mr. Doyle's recommended guideline for consideration of friction forces (stress ratios greater than .900) is not necessary because the forces from friction are small contributions to total support loads and because the allowables Applicants use for support and Hilti anchor bolt design are much less than could be used if friction forces were
- considered."
In his affidavit attached to Applicants' 5/16/84 Motion for Summary Disposition on the question of friction, Mr. Finneran quotes Mr. Doyle entirely out of context and twists the statements Mr. Doyle made for his (Mr. Finneran's) own purpose (pages 2 and 3 of Finneran affidavit). Mr. Doyle never inferred that friction of 1/16" should not be considered. What he was stating is that, of the two ways to analyze for friction, the use of the coefficient of friction was the more 5
u e
i .
rational method and had to be addressed if the result would cause the stress ratios to exceed 1. (See Tr. 6826.)
In answer to Chairman Bloch's question, Mr. Doyle atated that it (friction) was not a safety hazard, but we both believed then and believe now that this (nonconservative elimination of friction loads) combined with other nonconservative engineering judgements will present safety hazards. (See also more complete discussions at Tr. 6759-6780 and 6825/5-6829/13.) Our concern is not that the supports are going to fall off the wall as soon as the plant is put into operation, but rather with the survivability over the period of time during which the plant must operate safely.
Mr. Doyle never stated that you only consider friction when the stress ratio is .900, but used .900 as an example rather than' a recommendation, and that was only for one particular type of support.
Mr. Doyle also made a recommendation of using a stress ratio of .6 and said that would prove to be academic relative to the allowables for this condition when comparing the allowables for an emergency or faulted condition for some supports. These stress ratios were used as examples for stresses within the main members and not to be construed to include allowable stress ratios for welds, anchor bolts, and all l .
pipe support members.
An additional point that should be remembered is that, in general, the pipe supports at CPSES which are fillet welded do not have weld systems that are effectively 100% efficient (for example, full penetration welds).
6 l
4 e
At pages 4 and 5 of his Affidavit, Mr. Finneran states that if i
friction were included in calculations, the ASME Code at NF-3231.1 allows for an increase in allowable loads to 3 times the basic allowable. This defies all logic. If this were a fact, friction could be included in all structural analysis where friction is present to
~
reduce overstress in members, welds, etc. And this is a rather ludicrous stretch of the imagination (but no worse than is offered by Applicants).
For example, if the stress ratio for the normal upset condition were .900 without considering f riction (because pipe novement was less than 1/16" and the Applicants' do not consider pipe movement when it is less than 1/16") and the stress ratio for f riction alone were .775, the a combined effect would be*1.675, and this would exceed the allowable of
- 1. In response to a discovery request from CASE, Applicants provided the attached document (with Applicants' 6/28/84 letter) regarding the effects of thermal friction force only for the six supports referenced in Applicants' affidavit (see attached 6/26/84 handwritten memorandum from John Finneran, TUCCO, to John Fair, NRC). Referring to the fifth page, Table la. , for support SIl-029-055-S32R (sic -- should begin SI-1- etc.), for the weld stress calculation, the stress ratio is ?464 divided by 3181 = .775. This stress ratio by itself does not exceed the allowable of 1, but only allows a stress ratio of .225 for the t-mechanical loads by themselves.
4 7
T The .225 reserved for the mechanical loads independent of friction is of importance when one considers the Applicants' statement that the code permits the allowables to be increased by a factor of 3 (Finneran affidavit at page 5). Mr. Finneran is in error; Regulatory Guide 1.124 (CASE Exhibit 743, admitted at Tr. 5901) states (B.1.b. " Allowable Increase of Service Limits", page 1.124-2'):
". . . the increases permitted by NF-3231.1, XVII-2110(a), and F-1370(a) of Section III are not directly applicable to allowable shear stresses and allowable stresses for bolts and bolted connections. The increase permitted by NF-3231.1 and F-1370(a) of Section III for shear stresses or shear stress range should not be more than 1.5 times the level A service limits because of the potential for non-ductile behavior."
This is also reflected in the Regulatory Guide under C. Regulatory Position, 4., (page 1.124-5) which states, in part:
"Any increase of limits for shear stresses ubove 1.5 times the Code level A service limits should be justified."
In addition, the Applicants direct the Board to an allowable factor of safety of 5:1 for Hilti bolts that they claim is being utilized, compared to the 4:1 ratio authorized by IE Bulletin 79-02 i
(page 5 of Affidavit). Two points can be taken from this position the Applicants have provided. The first is by reviewing the PSE Manual; it is evident in Section XII, pages 12 through 15 (see copy attached),
that the allowables for the Hilti bolts are listed utilizing a factor l of safety of 4. The second point is that one cannot make a statement that the " movements of the pipe would not cause actual allowables of the Hilti's to be exceeded;" for example:
8
A pipe support acting as a cantilever is 6" from the floor. The pipe is attempting to move a distance just less than 1/16". This support has a base plate with Hilti bolts, and the anchor bolts are located such that the moment arm due to bending is 6". Because this is a short member, bending deformations are neglected; i.e., it is a short stiff member. The. restraining load is in the vertical direction. Dead plus thermal load is vertical down and dead plus thermal plus seismic is vertical up and down. The vertical up load was used to size the anchor holes since the Applicants' criteria does not require them to consider the effects from friction.
Because this support is short and stiff and bending deformations are neglected, when the pipe moves, it will tend to pull one anchor bolt out- an amount equal to the pipe movement, as shown below.
Il
,j ,_ .
I
! A i a
i t
IO 2R
- 1. --
! I g ls % r D l
[
! 9 l
i l
i
t Reviewing the load displacement diagram for a 1/2" diameter Hilti bolt at 1/16" deflection, the load on the bolt (labeled A in the drawing above) would be 4,900 lbs., with the shear load equal to zero and 4,000 psi concrete (see attached 4/15/74 letter f t :c2 Robert D.
, Dalton, Jr., President of Abbot A. Hanks Testing Laboratories, to Hilti Fastening Systems, Inc., under Subject of Combined Shear and Tension Testing: KWIK-Bolt). But the allowable is listed as 1,100 lbs. for 2-1/4" embedment, as shown in the PSE Manual (see attached page 8 of 10 of Section V, Hilti Concrete Anchor Bolts, Rev. O,1/8/82). Now in the event of a seismic load, this support will only have one anchor bolt (labeled B in the drawing above), since the bolt A exceeded its capacity for predictable behavior.
This example demonstrates two important topics. The first is that when the Applicants neglect friction, they are neglecting an important loading condition. The second and most important is the reason i Applicants gave for not considering it. Mr. Finneran stated that the factor of safety for the Hilti bolt was 5 and not 4 (Finneran Affidavit at page 5). As shown in the above example, the Hilti bolt would have been sized for a vertical upward load only, and this would be ,
independent of the effects caused by friction. Mt. Finneran's conclusion does not form a logical basis for not considering friction, in regards to Hilti bolts.
10
- 7. Applicants state:
" Inclusion of friction forces in the design of the support referenced by Mr. Doyle results in maximum member stresses, weld stresses, plate etresses, and Hilti interactions that are all within the applicable allowables."
We disagree with this statement. On sheet 1 of 6 (of Attachment A to Finneran Af fidavit), the math model is shown. There are a string of dimensions underneath the math model which are 8", 18.0625", and 18.0625". Following page 6 of 6 of the Attachment is the drawing for this support. The centerline of the pipe is 2'3" from the face of the wall, or 2'2" from the face of the base plate. The centerline of the pipe to the edge of the tube steel member is 15.0625" (30"/2 + 1/16").
~
When the pipe moves, it will be in contact with the face of the tube and therefore the moment arm which the Applicants should have been using would be 2'2" minus 15.0625" = 10.9375". But the analysis which the Applicants used had a moment arm of just 8"; they did not consider the point where the pip'e comes in contact with the support. This will result in the loads and stresses for the cantilevered member, as well as the base plates and anchor bolts, increasing by the amount of 10.9375" divided by 8" = 1.37 or a 37% increase of all tabulated values.- This error would put the stress ratios above 1 for the welds and anchor bolts.
It should be further noted that on the drawing the centerline of the tube steel member is shown to be l'6" from the centerline of the pipe. For a 30" diameter pipe end a 6" tube steel member, the distance from the centerline of the tube to the centerline of the pipe can be tabulated as 30" divided by 2 plus 6" divided by 2, and this would be i
11
I'6"; but the drawing indicates there is a 1/16" gap between the pipe and the tube steel member. This igap cannot exist with the dimensions shown on the drawing, or the dimensions on the drawing are in error.
The weld referenced on sheet No. 3 of 6 (of Attachment A to Finneran Affidavit) exceeds the allowable. The resultant weld the Applicants have tabulated is referenced as 3.118 kips / inch. The Applicants claim the allowable is equal to .6 Sy times the weld size of 3/16". This is a gross error. The allowable for the base metal as indicated above in answer 6. is .4 times Sy (the allowable shear strength of the base metal) times 3/16". This value is .4 times 30.5 kai times .1875 in. = 2.29 kips / inch, which is less than the applied load of 3.118 kips / inch. Also, it is less than the Applicants' arrived-at allowable value of 3.431. The Applicants' method of arriving at the base metal allowable not only is in violation of the ASME, AISC, and AWS codes, it does not make much sense, and appears to be a method arrived at by the Applicants to make a support acceptable (although it violates codes).
The .4 times Sy referenced above can be shown in the AISC Specification in Table 1.5.3 Allowable Stress, under Fillet Welds (see attached page 8 from Supplement No. 3, AISC Manual, Effective 6/12/74, Revised 10/30/75) where it states:
" Allowable Stress:
"0.30 x nominal tensile strength of weld metal (ksi), except stress on base metal shall not exceed 0.40 x yield stress of base
! metal (Emphasis added.) -
4 12
t i
Applicants are committed to this revision of the AISC Manual, according to Design Specification MS-46A.
It is apparent that the Applicants have not consulted Regulatory Guide 1.124 in Applicants' statement (indicated on sheet 3 of 6 of the attached calculation), which states:
"Since this support has been shown acceptable for DW + TH loads-only, the resultant force can be compsred (? -- not certain about spelling) to three times the stress limits of XVII-2000 (per NF-( 3231.la)."
Regulatory Guide 1.124 does not allow an increase in allowables in 4
welds due to shear above 1.5 (see discussion in answer 6. preceding)
I which the Applicants have neglected to consider. Applicants only reference ASME, not the modifications to the NF code which the NRC l
Regulatory Guide 1.124 recommends; at page 1 of the Reg Guide, it is stated (footnote, bottom of page 1):
"USNRC REGULATORY GUIDES
" Regulatory Guides are issued to describe and make available to the public methods acceptable to the NRC staff of implementing specific parts of the Commission's regulations, to delineate techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, or to provide guidance to applicants.
4 Regulatory Guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them is not required. Methods and solutions different from those set out in the guides will be acceptable if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the
,!- issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the Commission."
1 (Emphasis added.)
Since Applicants have not provided the necessary basis to be able to ignore the recommendations set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.124, they I
should have to abide by it.
i 13
B
- 8. Applicants state:-
"Five other supports of the kind considered to be most significantly effected (sic) by friction forces were selected at random by Applicants for ranalyses (sic).
"All stresses were shown to be within the regular normal and upset allowables used by Applicants."
We disagree with these statements; see discussion in Item 7.
preceding.
With regard to the first sentence, we do not know how random Applicants' saeple was or the criteria used for their selection; sufficient information was not supplied with the Motion for Summary Disposition to make this determination.
With regard to Applicants' second sentence, we do not agree with the implications of this sentence, which is obviously designed to complete Applicants' arguments that they have now adequately addressed and resolved all problems associated with the specific supports of concern to us.
In their support analyses, ITT Grinnell and PSE generic 4Lly omit inclusion of friction when it is less than 1/16", with the blessings of the NRC Staff (see discussions at Tr. 5756, 6759/17-25, 6760/1-25, 6762/18-24, 6764, 6765/16-20, 6771-6772). However, inclusion of friction alone results in increased stresses in the weld, particularly to the limits of the margins allowed, as will be shown below.
A simple dissection of Applicants' calculation No. SI-1-029-055-
, S32R (which is one of the five supports referenced in Applicants' item 14
8., and in Table 1 attached to the Finneran Affidavit -- a copy of the drawing and caiculations was supplied with Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition) will illustrate the shortsightedness of neglecting assumed minor effects.
(1) See page 1 of attachment to Motion for Summary Disposition of Squation noted above.
(2) It will be noted that Applicants found that the load out-of-plane due to f riction was 4,972 lbs. This resulted in an additional stress in the suport of 9,067 psi. The stress ratio without friction was .155; however, the stress ratio with friction became .58, or almost 4 times as high.
(3) For the weld at level A, the load without friction was 797 lbs. per inch of weld. The load considering friction was 3,042 lbs. per inch. Based on the allowable given of 3181 lbs. per inch, the stress ratio without friction was .25; the stress ratio with friction increased to .96. As can be seen, the weld with friction can take very minor increase in loads without exceeding allowables. Some of these increases could come about as a result of including this U-bolt as a two-way constr. int, utilizing actual stiffnesses instead of generic stiffnesses, including masses on supports, etc. In addition, when considered as a two-way constraint, this would add an additional friction force at the tangent point of the pipe to the U-bolt.
i 15
(4) The calculation for the U-bolt itself at page 3 of 7 indicates an allowable of 23,326 lbs. with a load on the U-bolt of 21,087 lbs.; considering only the one direction of the load, the stress ratio is .904. As can be seen, it would take very little side load to cause this support to fail.
- (5) Beyond this, there is a note on page 1 (near top of page on right) of the calculation which indicates that it would only take a 24 lbs. load acting at the top of the U-bolt to move it 1/32". If this were true, the stiffness of the U-bolt for axial load applied at the top of the bolt would be 780 lbs./in. This has not been the prior position of the Applicants insofar as the capability of U-bolts for taking side loads and axial loads. See Applicants' 5/23/84 Motion for Summary Disposition of CASE's Allegations Regarding U-Bolts Acting As Two-Way Rastraints; see also Applicants' 5/21/84 Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Use of Generic Stif fnesses Instead of Actual Stiffnesses in Piping Analysis.
In a related matter, Cygna Energy Services, in its Phase III Report (" Final Report, Independent Assessment Program, of Comanche Peak i Steam Electric Station (Phase 3), Prepared by Cygna Energy Services, July 16, 1984"), stated that Applicants did not consider friction. On page 1 of 1 of Attachment A, Observation Re. cord Review PS-08 (Appendix G), Cygna states as part of 2.0 Resolution (see copy attached):
l "d) Friction is only considered in the normal load case; for l
t poet (dynamic) conditions, friction need not be considered l
- 16 L
Both Applicants and Cygna are incorrect in their assumption that friction need not be considered. This is not in compliance with ASME .
NF-3231.1, which states, in applicable part:
"(a) Design, Normal, and Upset Conditions. The stress limits for Design, Normal, and Upset Conditions are identical and are given in Appendix XVII. The allowable stress for the combined mechanical loads and effects which result from constraint of free-end displacements (NF-3213.10), but not thermal or peak scresses, shall be limited to three times the stress limits of XVII-2000."
As can be seen from the above code citation, the Applicants are required to consider friction with upset (dynamic) conditions.
Further, any statements made by the Applicants indicating the inclusion of the upset (dynamic) condition as being conservative are misleading, since this is a code requirement.
Attachments:
6/26/84 handwritten memorandum from John Finneran, TUCCO, to John Fair, NRC, regarding effects of thermal friction' force only for six referenced supports (see answer 6, page 7)
PSE Manual,Section XII, pages 12 through 15, regarding factor of safety of 4 for Hilti bolts (see answer 6, page 9) 4/15/74 letter from Robert D. Dalton, Jr., President of Abbot A. Hanks Testing Laboratories, to Hilti Fastening Systems, Inc.,
Subject:
Combined Shear and Tension Testing: KWIK-Bolt) (see answer 6, page 10)
Page 8 of 10, PSE Manual,Section V, Hilti Concrete Anchor Bolts, Rev.
O, 1/8/82 (see answer 6, page 10)
Page 8, Supplement No. 3, AI?C Manual, Effective 6/12/74, Revised 10/30/75, regarding Allowable Stress for Fillet Welds (see answer 7, page 12)
Observation Record, Checklist No. General, Observation No. PS-08, Sheet 1 of 1, and Observation Record Review, Attachment A, Checklist No.
N/A, Observation No. PS-08, Sheet a of 1, Final Report, Independent Assessment Program, of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Statior. (Phase 3), Prepared by Cygna Energy Services, July 16, 1984, Volume 1 (see answer 8, pages 16 and 17) 17
9 The preceding CASE's Answer to Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue was prepared jointly under the personal direction of the undersigned, CASE Witnesses Jack Doyle and Mark Walsh. We can be contacted through CASE President. Mrs. Juanita Ellis, 1426 S. Polk, Dallas, Texas 75224, 214/946-9446.
Our qualifications and background are already a part of the record in these proceedings. (See CASE Exhibit 842, Revision to Resume of Jack Doyle, accepted into evidence at Tr. 7042, and CASE Exhibit 841, Revision to Resume of Mark Walsh, accepted into evidence at Tr. 7278; see also Board's 12/28/83 Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design), pages 14-16.)
We have read the statements therein, and they are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. We do not consider that Applicants have, in their Motion for bummary Disposition, adequately responded to the issues raised by us; however, we have attempted to comply with the Licensing J
Board's directive to answer only the specific statements made by Applicants.
na h L S gheO Jyk 1)ople Date: [ (JA 4 Nhk STATE OF M c, w h u ,. b COUNTY OF 3 v u On this, the N k day of b eA , 1984, personally appeared Jack J. Doyle, known to me to be 4he person whose name in subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes therein expressed.
Subscribed and sworn before me on the Nk day of ( ,
1984. O N e~ -
c Notary Public in and fpr the State of T e._., w _ d b My Commission Expires:
7.N COMMISSION EXPIRES JANUARY 9,1937
The preceding CASE's Answer to Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue was prepared jointly under the personal' direction of the undersigned, CASE Witnesses Jack Doyle and Mark Walsh. We can be contacted through CASE President, Mrs. Juanita Ellis, 1426 S. Polk, Dallas, Texas 75224, 214/946-9446.
Our qualifications and background are already a part of the record in these proceedings. (See CASE Exhibit 842, Revision to Resume of Jack Doyle, accepted into evidence at Tr. 7042, and CASE Exhibit 841, Revision to Resume of Mark Walsh, accepted into evidence at Tr. 7278; see also Board's 12/28/83 Memorandum and Order (Quality Assurance for Design), pages 14-16.)
We have read the statements therein, and they are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. We do not consider that Applicants have, in their Motion for Summary Disposition, adequately responded to the issues raised by us; however, we have attempted to comply with the Licensing Board's directive to answer only the specific statements made by Applicants.
! l s-(Signed) Mark Walsh STATE OF TEXAS On this, the 9A day of /D- s M , 1984, personally appeared Mark Walsh, known to me to baffhe person whose name is subscribed l to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes therein expressed.
I Subscribed and sworn before me on the #8 day of 1984.
-.1 8 bun
~
lEirEry Public in'and for the l
L State of Texas My Commission Expires: <A /J/ /fV F
9 4
0 I I
e e
0 0
t w
a g
e' !
e 8
f 1
I
\
\
1 i
r
^ _ _ _ _ _
,,, ;. );L Wnue<a- TMco
(, - :2 g - 89' l & /'fr. bl,, Tair - /bfC ,
I A t+acLa J lira,a +. <ree N , a Rec.fs 4 Me,--
Sea M ,. -fcece anly Ac the 4 s yp, fs rderes j i~ Ga.,s 'J' ara i%-
4 p p / c'a u. h d f fi W a W rap a< da a, De39,..i Ap Sg o<
o-l >~?,a'n, X ,aa> i:, +he a ll e.Y/ Sm , // 7~bari,.. / /%e ,.ae ts. X,- f 4.e
.c sy,..<t- !,if</ a, 7h L/e 1 ..f f L' aFGd..,it y oev hace a C e L d. .< s a,,. % ,- p Al< / Tal=/e f a.
w 4a 4 14..o fLe a f-feef a .c ' frsa A.. fa<ce 0 -fy a+
- p -fhe s y < ts. X, /A. syps care, / 4 , M ac.1-c
! A fo tha a f fi d . t f/ we Me a /Aza.4,d Affac Am.
b <.1 , w b 5 k is a ** 4 SFeC<ne 7'~ d-f. frecho'-* fo r<e **-
ll a YL saLj.<et .s g .<t.
i dn.e su.:. s. f he ea, -fu / wL a ,,
rev,Zwe, Mase te ><
A fric%, -fcce e c.a ., n eve, re.c //y s.cf a /s - o ll <- s.yy. .< t , It '
><ust act 1epe/4ee ~W fA*
\\
ru,,~ a./ fora .e -fe..- .w M.4 ' ;f e a.~ e . 7~L ,. -fa
-Prie fra / cree ala-<., a d tL t i. . d a ssa > te i 1 b.< r*vi a wa d sla. /J be fA. /s ve/ A + f .dah l s /rea /, fur.,ts' L./ i, /3 4/a. 1 & FL a:.ffN~.tf _
- Ala e < the /es, we 4-ae .s y /de/ th- ia 6 , a n . ..
l, repaesta1. A ps e d e ea.-.,/, o ,e FL aho.- 1 a'. ,
i r.s .S.r -1 02 7- o s s- s 2.2. ic , w G. / 4., a L. /t i, te<a.
ll s/ .77 5 fro- frlc6.*a a. /. . . p /La aase +4.
a.,s.esafd </aa J we ) Af 1,.<~/ fa<c es a, fle s a,,..< f I
- i. feud.d t. offsa f f4. Fria % f.<ca e./Ya.t.
t . ..
i., . , , , . . _ .
ss str u e . . . . . .l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cr . c i . sv..... 8.. d.. ....oArt.4..!.E .$ c su sa ser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
w ... z ....o m .M A . ....... r...v..s . r........... ,,,,, m ,.......... ... ............. .;
i cus1 recascT .. 9. 9.do.O.?....CS.d..$ oTHea to...M....i.7.7.5.... .....,
lO ii .
I 1 o(376c7IV6l
- a 7' o AG(DJAI 5 7 lEJDL .'A ebE L. I RJ _
ls F01: TEE cAsG cF i~!:! C T * -d edly /3 ASG b o r/
s D W f ~7~H . TN(( Ei Q A 7, j tit &- c A . ~(_ : a)/Li- kC R*JY ls
- pg y A /?,( .
7 .g ff()(7/cr/ A ~T~ .7 T'. 2 ja g.aA f7 g 2,k_
E f ff e L. v D y
,( j
, s f (< t c 7 / ) d A7' sJ 7'. A o7 l9 c- T R i e l / 3 r! A T TT S. 2 d' S #) l
?,o At.c vt t ri b c r/<!. ::l A *!^ 7 'lli. LD!.!?> ANb T~M (
" f LA7 d U ll '- DI. l'.E: f CA / ND A5 ! I - l M i. Y ~ ~ ;
i
) 11 Tf t/ SIL G A N D Sy ( A ll. T oficL S. .
t1 .'13 jatursi.5 L O Abl W(.r 3 FAs crio d A T .TTS 2 4 6 l,< l
$ 15 s so to " M4 X \ 3
}_ ,g TH G ^^. + / I ,2 t'<.:s v: .A : - c - : i.; e e 5 .- N
- ,. g eg.n a ,wrs.
l i
]
- 19 20-5 l' J) f- :. i, h Q .' ' ! ! ! * $
tg - i 7. c, 2 + !
j.m y 2 22 _. SW -
- 5. I '7 d \ -
l23 i T .:. + 3. 'i 5 6 ~ - r I' d -
2 . c b U y.s 24 us -- E '
i
! 2s .
'E g .
cCm &. I 9 ~7 E '
i 3
2s C !
I . i i
N. 'Y
. 2s27 l ,
i l
l
.! 29 f o ra D iN G G 7 0 IN F 1 l
, so l' g AA A
- . i s(:, - -s - kip s l.c si j AA g - i s,+ 3 Tr tg - ki t's 22 -
l P s 25 p ,- 1.5si )cif's AA - O .
i 7,9
IIl.Wmnett Corputuuun l" ~ su zsr no.. . . . . . . Z. . . . . . . . . . . .
nv. . . !3. .d . . . . cart . 6//. d.?.+ sus;scr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i " su rpa ar to. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
caxo.sv .m..... cars.a.,4 ,r# /e.4. custou ca . . .'. .T. .V. .-5.r. . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . .
{'- . .. .. OTHEat.o..... .~.. . 7.. . ......
I PROJECT . . .(..D. .[D. .... <
1 3
1 1
25.457 'p, 7 7 6 g / ' M j 2 $f: ,
3 s 1
Ti * -
3' +
-5u_zi . __
,IL33 x/w -
1 2 , 6 ?., + 3,3 3 7
j 5 F_+T (
i 0e 2 , I L 3 5 -- ] b : 2.1 1 0 p W v
~
l 7c:
i
-I I 7 -
{ ?.9 9 6 i i
8 t
3o [3 A5 g (' . An; ANb BM (Fv6II R3)
.'j.
. 11
/4 f ,75' d-k/ /f
{} ,, p j, _
lF,4 3 E vs ~/<It'f s 's a Fs
'O\A-D 14
. .A M D w I . G :.>
... l k l f a, v-15 F <a a -
a.c.4 o-
,9 1s F #- T. 6F/8 .
h 57-bij \
fi a 4qg ( o.
0.
00 01 S 19 f
- T ,l' O. 02 2
M . O. 03 21 400. 04 o y 7 r t/ 7' Q"q n 500. 05
, e 600. 06 i $g 4 23 4000. 07 F MRX 2,
5000. 08 1880.60 6000. 09
@]/
- 25 3* 10 P STR i .r?' <9 2s 4. 1,'
65o1'70
.6 5. 12 R 27 6. 13 y 2s . 4. 14 SHEAR 4? 5. 15 418.00 j)d' 29 6. 16 .
437.75
'. Q so 7. 17 .
449.16
,- ;1j 3, O. 18 465.71 u; 0. 19
- O. 20 FUB H R3
.Yl*33 41 .
- 2. 33 o-21 oo h<ya M.
- 3. 23 is-F ss. O. 24 -
'Wx ,a 0.75 25,,
9
.a ,1,o.. . . . . . . .g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o , q
.v... 8,nd.....oire.Q.2
! ". w /.3 4 ,u ,; c1 ..................................custou
' su, ,.o m.o. .ca . . . .. .. ... .. .:. . ..
com.v%....oin..dif.f.
enoa sc1. . .(.+. e.m. . . .(.M. .C 01s
. ea i.o.. . . . .s.s. . . . . n . .?.s7 l
! t l, F1tJ(9L. KVN .
< l,
- 3 .
00 !
!4 g- D. !
i s 0. 01 3 0. 02 i
.!' 0. 03 j
7
/[Q
/ 0, 04 gy7fff Is*
- 0. 05 1631. 06 38 756. 07 F MRX
- to 15438. OS 1002.36 O. 09
$" . 6. 10 P STR
- 11
?* 5003.00
- i. '* e. 1 ,-
N '8 6. 13 1u 6. 14 '
SHEAR
- 6. 15 430.02 jg3 6. 16 430.02 4ts 6. 17 430.02 O. 18 430.02 tr O. 19 H ta 0' 20 FUB E R3 .
- ,j 1. ,1
.;, 3, Ji '.97 i 22 t 20- 2. 23
- f 2
$. 0. 24 i; 1. 25 -
4" 1. 26 1
- .1 n O. 27 '
.1 0. 28 .
24 C
sg)
- 0. 29
.. b y
i."t 28 ,
. p.
di E ,
$,l 2a. R [5 J f.T 5 29 b-1 ao f t g7; .crRi~2: . 50 03.0 0 f s c (qj= '
h u . too2.sw a s .
33 C N & [k ". o . 0 2 L k .".
h _
,'3J 34 g.s 35 eN 3a
. ! . i , i i i ; i
_g in o = i i i , l
' ' i h @g ' t. "
2 j j
._\Ay_ g'.T j l ! '
q, _< _,:- o.h. M g : t l- l
' i1 $ ~1 O .p o i
. g : . i .
g hi~ M. i i !
~
- ; % kd'("- i .
, i
.W l l
, , -O-6Q
$ h 0' 'J
~
y=
.1 -'0- ,
i I '
gN ;
T* ~O '3 M
] h- . ,
i
. . ,c
. I i
i :
h2 1
' 6 . I <f@in
%tn w d<w%-
QLQ ! ! ! ;
2 i ' -
. f + -
6 i l ; e i- ,
l l l 6
S_ _g _ $,.i 1
tr g- __t'--
j ! t : i m- ;! [
o- -
-w- ,- '
--.- .4,i . - t. . ,,_.,
i l u ' e a' '
. * * - f I !
~Q' [u
~
. . i C: ! l
,' ' .; t : I l _g-E- .- _w _w Ws- _8_ r g '@o- _
_'g- : .8_.-F _c !8
!y l
( N' l
-Q- i h. _l !-- ;. l
~
l N j i l l .
t l l
'
- I lW- l I
l ie i : I l l i . I !
Y' :
, I
-@ N- O h i a 7 t. y
- 4' CO N- i I
, --N 00-- ;
i d
I
_. O _ __G __ _O_ .. o _
_O_ '
_ ct @v_.g'_.
N -
.<c _m_ o 'Q-- O_ V; o m_
__ os_ o __Nm_ . O 6
_w. ._
4_ m ._ e_ ._ m_ :
, -h --- [ D- , , _$- -f ,D- .b -Sd-- -$- --h- ._
f
--g '
N '
g 6 B. * -Q- s '
Yi i Q' 8
! t 'ii ! I
- I l t
E5*i ! o o - _ -
~
o.-
_E.-
- i - o-
.--- i
_ u.s - ..y - .-
Q-y -}_ . .
} . g. _. 2., _ _% y
_D- Q.d. _q. .(_h. .k. h .._h k . __. "':1._ _Q.g. p. '
I Q/ M
- . Bd I itt ;
'Qz i : w 8 i im i I i._ N m . , m . m , ,
m m '
'p I i im i . . . I i __N -
$' R . @ i l
, j i l
.O Q .
-{ g ' I Q ! ! ,
l t i
! '{
l O 6 ;. ! , .. ; i .. t l D h 0 : .
w ,
$., i t j !
1
. c-- : 9. , i i ; 9 i : 9 : ;2 -
i i i , i
}- - i ,
- ] i i '
t 3 .
i sj .,
m N
%) .
'.O -
i I i i i . .
i i i
- I 3 i !
+
- I I l ! ; !. i ! ! l l I I i 8
! l f l i l !
.c =dsrs.c m
- m ,.sr M v o .
'E Pddv/IP.m ANYdMO31HorI T Ewod SYX31 jo mig ANYdMO3 33tAH3S 3rd233T3 SYX31 ds =3 ANYdNO31HDTI 7 E%Od SYTIYG nos sen ad asRY "o
'S IS XY3d 3H3NYNO3
- 3NI S33!Awas SIIlrIIla SYX31 f-3HG N103
. - - - . . - - - . _ . -~-
l ... . . . . -- .. _ . . . . _
~
l l
TEXAS UTILITIES tssuE ;
AGE 1 SERvlCES INC. DATE ENGWEERINC GulCELNE TITLE ! COVER SHEET 1 (f-J.f& 10F7 FOR A M CvF.De szcnON III GUIDELINE g'.- -' '
NFSI and ITI-Grinnen Load Capacity Data Sheets /
REVISIONS g
M 57#
Certified Design Report sumaries PSE PROJ. ENGR.
I. INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING GulCELINE PAGES
~ ' - - ~ ^
-1.'
- i.dd".6..4~e.d.E15 sed page' 65 f,' Rev. '1.
-- - - - . . - . _ - . . . . . - -'~_.'.-------
~~ --
- 2. Pemove the- esistissi ~ddVei'sheits, jia'ge 1~th617- Rev. O and -
. ~ Tylace r vitfi the eE6 fos'ac~soVer' Ta'aaes-~ pags e T thrd' 7 Rev. 1.
~~~~
N0T,E T N is revision addsd'~page'~63 1.~. 7 End'or psge num'ars c have !
-noGeen changed ann EBEsequencIy "ti6"p~ age numbers usuany
~ -- dg-g, 3, g shet.
'--~~
....'-~~~---'-~ . --
II. STATUS OF GUIDELINE PAGES PAGE M PAGE REVlPAGE REVlPAGE REVlPAGE REY!PAGE REV 1 2 11 3 21 N/A 31 0 41 0 51 0 2 N/A 12 3 22 0 32 0 42 0 52 0 3 N/A 13 3 53 0 33 0 43 0 53 0 4 0 14 3 24 0 34 0 44 0 54 0 5 0 15 N/A 25 0 35 0 45 0 55 0 6 0 16 N/A 26 0 36 0 46 0 56 0 l
l 7 0 17 0 27 0 37 0 47 0 57 0 l
l 8 0 18 N/A 23 0 38 0 48 0 58 0 9 N/A 19 N/A 29 0 39 0 49 0 59 0 10 N/A 20 N/A 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 l
? . -
$FGlo a R 7A4f 12 ef 364 Reference No. Page 2 Revision Nc. 3
- Revisic.- Date 1/23/81 E L7 KW K-3CLT ALLOWA3LI "'I1!S2LI & S*c~.d.R WCPII!G LOAOS (L35 . )
9 100*T, 200*T, 300*? & 400*T C2NC7.I*"I STRE:IGTI 2000 PSI 4000 PSI 6000 PS:
Disse e ?-hed=an: Tensien Shear Tensi=n Shear Tens un Shea:
2-3/4" 1352 2799 1650 2190 1925 3375 5/8" 3-1/2" 1562 2799 2275 2890 2390 3375 4-1/2" 1750 2799 3000 2S90 3625 3375 5-1/2" 1887 3344 3575 3859 5075 3259 6-1/2" 2006 3344 4000 3859 5250 3859 7-1/2" 2250 3344 4250 3859 5250 3559 3/4" 3-1/4" 2038 3314 2537 4233 2715 4525 4" 2425 3314 3350 4283 3425 4525 5" 2925 3314 4125 4283 4400 4525
~
6" 3450 3798 4500 4616 5625 5252 7" 3950 3799 5250 4616 5900 5252 8" 4000 3793 5750 4616 5900 5252 .
9" 4000 3798 5875 4616 5900 5252 1" 4-1/2" 3500 6838 4000 6719 5125 8023
$* 3875 6838 4725 6719 5860 3023 6" 4400 6838 5860 6719 5?60 5023 7" 4550 6838 5860 6719 5860 802* e 3" 4550 6339 5860 8622 5360 9093 9" 4550 6838 5860 3622 5860 9098 10" 4550 6838 5860 3622 5260 9090 t
" 2=dicates See ica Z7:2 - 2460 all=wahle s resses govern w=rking load.
All =ther values c=ve==ed by a 4 to 1 Fae :: Of Safety applied := the average ulti= ate sensile and shea: loads.
~ '
Srcr?w TIT PA4c~ 13 of sq
' Reference No. Page 2 Revision No. 3
- Revisien Case 1/2S/81 ECLT K42K-3CLT ALLOWA3LI TINSILI & SEIA.R WORICNG LCADS (LES.)
9 100*T, 200*r, 300*r & 400*r 2000 PSI 4000 PS: 6000 PS
CONO2I-I STRINGTE Tensien Shear Tensi=n Shear Tensi=n Shea:
Oia=e:s ?-weinenn 5750 8920 7300 11298 1-1/4" 5-1/2" 4750 9137 9187 6775 8920 9125 11293 6-1/2" 5400 7775 8920 10500 11298
- 7-1/2" 5900 9187 8650 3920 -11100 11774 8-1/2" 6275 9960 9450 8920 11100 11774 9-1/2" 6550 9960 10225 8920 11100 12299 10-1/2" 6700 9960
.3*f c 77ct) f Q(46~ /4 H~ Jg.y
~ ~ ~
m Referenes Nc. Page 4 Rev sien No.,3 Revisien Date 1/2S/91
~
ICLT! 3C7IR KWII-3CLT ALLOWA3LI "' INS:~I & SEIAIL WOPJ._".IG LOA 05 (~ 35. )
8 100*r, 200*7, 300*7 & 400*?
COI:CP.ITI STRINGTH 2000 75: 4000 PSI 6000 PSI 2:anese: *-hed=ent Tensien Shear Tensien Shear Tensien Shear 1754 2466 2496 2728* 3496 272S' 1/2" 3-1/4" 4-1/4" 2211 2466 3695 2729* 3750 272S*
5-1/4" 2462 2466 3695 2723' 3750 2723' .
6-1/4" 2709 2466 3695 2728' 3750 2723*
4853 8741 6884 9383 S;91 l' 6-1/2" 5737 8-1/2" 7207 4853 12439 6884 13329 8191 10-1/2" 8706 4853 12439 6884 14400 8191 8-1/8" 7243 9389 10675 10369 11067 9934 1-1/4" 10-5/8" 7742 9389 13420 10369 14933 9934 13-1/8" 9312 9389 16230 10369 17276 9934
- Indicates See-ica X72: - 2460 allowable stresses govern werking Icad.
All c her values governed by a 4 to 1 Fa==== cf Safe y agglied := the average ul 3 mate tensile and shea icads.
e
- e
9
? .. ... . . _ . . . .. _ _ . _ -
$ 6C?~/cA) ~?CT fA4e~ /3 ef Scq m.
.; NPS !!:005TA' ' "'/CORS I?!OEX .
Sec-ion G -
Page 1 of 1 Data 09/08/91 GRRDT OBSOL_O LCOS/ CURS R Ef .
LCUS/CDRS REY.
- LOS G-2 0,t O
9 0
4
"""""""" ABBOT A. HANKS ESTABLISHED 1868
""""""" 1115 INDIANA STREET, P. O. BOX 77265 F I L E. *iG . H 2139- S 1 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 (415) 282 8600 REPORT .0. POS9 April 15, 1974 HILTI FASTINING SYSTEMS, INC.
360 Fairfield Avenue Stamford, Connecticut 06904
SUBJECT:
COMBINED SHEAR AND TENSION TESTING: kVIK-BOLT At your request, we have conducted a test program to determine the effect of combined shear and tensile loads on the Kwik-Bolt anchor embeded in concrete. Tne following anchor diameters and embedments were selected for testing:
1/2" Diameter 0 2 1/4" Embedment 1/2" 0 5 1/4" "
3/4" 0 3 1/4" "
3/4" 0 6 1/4" "
Anchors, drills and drill bits were furnished by Hilti from rcgular production runs and are considered to be indicative of that material normally used for installations of this type.
Concrete was supplied by a local batch plant and placed by Abbot A. Hr.ks personnel. Two, non reinforced, 7'-0" x 9'-6" x 10" slabs were used for testing. The concrete mix for the test slabs used limestone aggregate in accordance with ASB! C-33 (3/4" maximum) and Type II cement. The ccncrete was placed in a typical construction manner and finished with a bull-flest.
Compressive strengths were verified from standard 6 x 12 cylinders from each slab, prepared in accordance with ASDI C-31 and tested in accordance with ASIN C-39. Actual compressive strength at the time of testing was 5570 psi.
Under observation by Abbot A. Hanks, Hilti personnel drilled holes and installed the anchors in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Prior to installing the anchors the hole diameters (top and bottem of hole) and hole depths were measured.- Anchors were spaced at 18" o.c. each way.
l Tensile and shear loads were applied using hollow-core hydraulic jacks equipped j with calibrated pressure gauges. Tensile loads were supported by a three-legged reaction tripod which distributed the reaction outside a 30" dia.mter circle.
Shear loads were supported by a fixture attached to the edge of- the slab, at least 30" away frcm the anchors tested. Loads were transferred from the jacks to the anchor using high strength steel rods equipped with various couulers.
Loads were applied at a rate of 20% of the expected failure load per minute.
/
1 A SUBSIDIARY OF SERNCO, INC. h C-10 l
i L
. Each diameter-embedment combination was tested by applying a constant shear Icad while applying an increasing tensile load until failure occurred. A dial indicator was used to record the vertical displacement of the ancher.
Horizontal oisplacements were not recorded. Initial horizontal displacements were noted to be the same as previously determined (our report 48784, Hilti
- TR-111A). It was also noted that additional hori: ental displacements while the tensile load was applied were minor, the tensile lead tended to prevent horizontal displacement.
'Ihe shear loads applied corresponded approximately to 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of the average ultimate shear capacity of the diameter-embedment combination. A series of three tests at each level were run to establish an average value.
The results of the testing are recorded on the attached data sheets. Figures 1 and 2 are a plot of average ultimate shear vs. average ultimate tension for each diameter-embedment combination. Figures 3 and 4 are a plot of tensile load vs. vertical displacement for two of the anchors tested. Each figure has three curves corresponding to the three levels of shear and two additional curves corrtsponding to :cro shear levels previously tested in 4000 psi and 6000 psi concrete (refer to our report #8785, Hilti 41R-111B).
ABBOT A. HANKS TESTING LABORATORIES ROBERT D.' DALTON, JR. , PidSIDENT I-ABBOT A. HANKS TESTING LABORATORIES, SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94107 C-11 f
l
i ;.
- k. -
File No. 2189-S1 .
Report No. 9059 7000 :
- Concrete 6000 ..___- ~_ _ . . . . . . . _ - . . . . . _ - - , - _
/
i* e f'V 4000 = 0PSI A
f- Concrete 5000 _ ._. ..__ . _ _ _ _ . _
. . . . _ l .. . . . , . . . . . . . .. . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . _ _
V = 4100#' -
. V = 6250#
T. V = 2150# .
s l .,.=-*-
a n -
02
' 4000 --- . , <j... . - _ . . - - - . d._ _ . . _ __ - - - _ - - . -
i <
/,p -l - . . . .. ' i
.z ,-
0 -
l 3000 -
F
,/
_/.i/ 1
,'/
/ ,.
2000 - - . - . , ._ _ . . .- _
[ TENSION LOAD V@. ANCHC R DISPL/, CEMENT tj# . ,
1000 _. . [f,' . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . _ .____.
FOR A h" DIAME'TER KWilf-BOLT i
EMBEDDED t
g, i 2%"IN THE CON ORETE 1 'I 0
0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18 .20 .22 DISPLACEMENT-INCHES g *5570 PSI Concrete NOTE: All anchors were installed according to V = Shear Load the normal procedures except the nut was not torgued flig;htwe0 0 (te 6 (tumdL__
O -
TEXAS UTILITIES ISSUE
(~' .: SERVICES INC.
REV- MTE l PAGE ENGNEERING GUICELNE TITLE COVER SHEET o f g g2 ; I OF 1 FOR amon ,
SECTION V GUIDELINE . c '- . .
HILTI CONCRETE -
REVISIONS d [#
ANCHOR BOLTS .
j j PSE PROJ. ENGR.
I. INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING GUIDELINE PAGES
- 1. Remove Section V in it's entirety from the engineering manual and replace with the enclosed pages 1 thru 10. ,
- 2. Place this cover sheet directly in front of page 1 Rev. 4.
( e..
e- .' ..,
"b f
l II. STATUS OF GUIDELINE PAGES PAGE REVPAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REVlPAGE REV 8 3 1 4 l 5l9
~
2 3 :
3 3 !10 2 l 4 3 5 3
{t 6 4 .
7 3
Page 8 of 10 ' Rev. 3 SECTION ~V
)='/ 6 UR E 6
. . . ~ ~-
TEZ.L5 UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
(*.
Agust For DALLA 3 POWER & IJGHT COMPANT
- y TEZA3 ELECTRIC SERVICE COMPANT .
COMANCHE PEAE 313., ,..#- , ,
ALLOWA GO J 0A Cs foM MILTI MW/M A NO .$t/PRA HILTI MW/A 60Lir.L usixc sacooss caucasrs, .r.t sarery sa cron, A.A.Hawes rss riac, dd'AEMr Afd. U7SR AND M48 TI LETTIM. DATED Cc7 37;ltgG Wk:"PPk-74/9C'out4 Lciren H/L7~/S '
. SUPER H/L 77S BELT EMS $4LT RN8.
DsA Lfn4TM TMN$leN SHEAR DIA. f,sMd7N Yd N $to M .$HEA R yg* 2.5" // o 2 /443 Yg
- 34" /997 228s 2 %", /440 -
44" 2154 34" /890 V 3 74 " assG A Ys" 2. z4 5 204G .- &n" so29 Y SYz" 24IC /" G Ys~ G993 SSa 7
&* 24GO
- BM" 9151
?"8 EW l32* E3'*'
'QN" M' "
3 Y2" /820 /4" 8){p" 8 540 929G 4W 2400 4
/O'Jg" /0734 Sh" 2BCO 3087 197s* /2984 9
_ 45" 3200 7 Ye" 3400 Y
(. V"4 34~ 203c 3417 4" 2cso 5" 3300 1 G* scoo 3493 -
7" 4200 B" 4 Goo 9" 4 7e o "
/* 44" szoo $375 S~ 3780 G" 4488 n 7"
8' 4898 1"
/O" Y "
/$* 54* 4600 7/S4 Gn" $4to 74~ 422o e4" s92o 14" 7s6o
/0Yz " "
9/90 r-
-r,, , , , ,y - - - - ---r---,-.-,e , , - - - -
< : ...- . . . . . . ~ . _ . . . , . . . . m. . ..::;. . . . . -
. 34 .,,n %.
m-
< ,s g 4
- q;;
a . .
- ... SUPPLEMENT NO. 3
- )"
TO THE SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION .
- & ERECTION
~
OF i -
STRUCTURAL y1 STEEL FOR .St BUILDINGS d
' i-l (ADOPTED FEBRUARY 12, 1969)
J
. 4 Effective June 12,1974 f L' '
Revised Effective October 30.,1975 ij i
(INCLUDING ADDENDA TO THE COMMENTARY ON THE SPECIFICATION) l
,, i a
I i AMERICAN INSTITUTE I 0F STEEL CONSTRUCll0N !j 1221 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10020 N Price: 51.00
/
1 9
i e ,
- w . ,; i .+ ~ . . ....,.,...c. n- ~.~.e. . ,, n. ..a w,.m n.uy. -
)
~
L II 8 e AISC Specification t i l
1 g:. ,
1.5.2 Rivets, Bolts, and Threaded Parts , ,
o H l 1.5.2.1 In Table 1.5.2.1, under the column headed " Description of Fastener", inunediately after "A325" in the fifth and sixth items, delete f; 7"
i "and A449". '
r Delete Table 1.5.3 in its entirety and substitute new Table 1.5.3.
l .
TABLE 1.5.3 ALLOWABLE STRESS I l'
Type of Weld and Strese* Allowable Stress Weld.
3 ,,
I Complete Penetration Groove Welds i!
Tensaan normas to the efectave Same as base metal " Matching" weld metal must be area used; see Table 1.17.2.
l Compression normal to the of. Same as base meta. Weld metal with a strength level factive area equal to or less than "matchmg" weld metal may be used.
Tension or compression parallel Same as base metal to the amas ef the weld 1
Shear on the esc:tive oru 0.30 x nommal tensale strength
. of weld metal (kai), except stress on base metal shall not exceed 0.40 x yield stress of base metal Perual Penet-stson Groove Welde*
Compression normal to efective i Same as base metal Weld metal with a strength level area 4 equal to or less than matttung" l
' weld metal may be need. ,
Tension or compression parallel i Same na base metal l to amas of the weld
- i i t i
, Shear parallel to amis of weld 0.30 x nominal tensile strength l of weld metal skai). except stress i i on base enetal shall not exceed 1 .
e 0.40 x yield strema of base metal I i 1 e
' Tensson normst to effective area 10.30 x nommal tensde strength i of weld metas (kai?. except strees 4
i on base metal shall not exceed d
I 0.60 x yield stress of base metal J Fillet Welds l
Strome en efective area
- 0.30 x nominal taasile strength I Weld metal with a etrengtn level e of weld metal (kai). escept stress . equal to or less than "matchmg" e on t,ase metal shall not exceed ' metal may be used.
10.40 x yield streme of base metal i ! Tension or compreasson perallel ! Same as base metal to amas of weld
- l l } Plus and Slot Welda I
I t
j Sheer parallel to faying surfaces l 0.30 x nommal tensile strength ; Weld metal with a strength level ~
! ton efective area) , of weld metal (kai), except strea.t e equal to or less than "matchmg"
! } I on base metal shall not exceed a weld metal may be used.
l ; I 0.40 x yield stress of base metal l
- For de6nstion of efectave area see Sect.1.14.7.
8 For "metchmg" weld metal. ese Table 1.17.2.
- Weld n.etal one strength level stronger than "matchmg" weld metal will be permitted.
,
- See Sect.1.10.8 for a 1 mutation on use of partial penetration groove welded Joanta.
l
- Fillet welds end partial penetration groove welda jomer the component elementa of built-up members, l
l such as Sange to-web connections, may be designed without regard to the tensde or compraasive strena in these elementa parallel to the asis of the welds.
l I l 1
k
- I I
i
Observation M L'h' Td Record
!Iltt!!iiiingiiiiiiiijill!!!!
Checklist No. General R evision No.- 0 Observation No. PS-08 _ ,
sheet 1 of 1 Originated By C.K. Won 9 pf { Q ( d q Date 7/1/84 ,
Reviewed By 6. BjorKman jy,pggg0Date j g / f/ h 1.0 Description
\k In supports designed by the CPSES Pipe Support Engi neering (PSE) organization, loads due to friction are neglected if the piping tnermal movement is less than 1/16".
2.0 Requi rement 2.1 Paragraph NF-3124 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsection NF, " Provisions for Movement of Supported Comoonent".
3.0 Document Reference TUGC0 Pipe Support Calculation CC-1-028-044-533R, Rev. 2.
4.0 Potential Design Impact Failure to consider all applied loads may result in tne inability of tne support to perfonn its intended function.
Attachment A. Observation Record Review r
l l
l L
l Extent isolated l Estensive A l Other (Specify)
Texas utilities Electric Company; 84042 Independent Assessment Program, Phase 3 _-_
- - - , - . . --+e- .--- - - - - y-- . w, --- - --
Observation l Wh' i Record Review
""""""""""""""" Attaehment A
. Checkilet No. N/A Revision No. O Observation No. PS-08 sheet 1 or i Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X
[.0To'bable Cause Assumption that the failure potential is negligible for small defomations/ loads.
2.0 Resolution As noted by TUGC0 in their response to Cygna (6/8/84 letter), neither ITT nor PSE include frictional effects if the pipe movement is less than 1/16".
Based on a review of pipe support design guide documer.:s of other A/E's, Cygna has concluded that -not considering frictional effects for pipe movements of less than 1/16" is consistent with industry practice. Further, Cygna fi nds that thi s practice is substantiated by the technical points presented in the " Affidavit of Jonn C. Finneran, Jr., Regarding Consideration of Friction Forces in the Design of Pipe Supports with Small Thermal Movmements."
These points may be summarized as follows:
a) The load is due to thermal expansion of tne piping and, therefore, is self-limiting, i.e., if tne pipe does not try to move, friction loads do not exi st; b) The ASME Code does allow the use of 3 times tne nomal allowable for loads resulting from constrained cisplacement; c) TUGC0 nas used a safety factor on Hilti bolts of 5:1, where the NRC accepted f actor is 4:1; d) Friction is only considered in the normal load case; for upset (cynami c) conditions, friction need not be considered; e) TUGC0 has used tne normal allowable for upset condition loads, wnich are nigher (by the addition of 1/2 SSE) than the nomal condition 1 cads; f) TUGC0 has reanalyzed 6 of the support geometries for large piping, wnich would tend to have higher nomal condition loads due to higher weignts.
TUGCO's reanalysis shows no overstress conditions exist.
Based on industry practice, the TUGC0 sample reanalysis and the factors of safety available for normal conditions. Cvona considers this observation invalid.
1H Aporovals one='or & K ( d no, D
7/?/N Proket Eng6neer Q [ f.[qkA Date g/Jg er*= a-ar vP) 84-%L /Lme . o ' 7k #9 sensor novsew Teuf ' QJ'f, Q / Igy-f., , - Da'e '7 {lL )'7 L J
~
~
/
Texas Utilit1es'dectric Company; 84042 Independent Assessment Program, Phase 3
. ._ . _ _ _ .__