ML20236S128

Forwards Communications Repts Associated W/Civil/Structural Audits.List of Communications Repts Encl

ML20236S128
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/13/1987
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
References
NUDOCS 8711240237
Download: ML20236S128 (46)

Text

__ _.

h.wvp M

^

M

- 5ND

,. -! % /n ' - \l/d-3/ ~7 L 2121 N CaMornia Blvd., Suite 390 Wahut Creek. CA 94596 415/934-5733 L November 13, 1987

[ 84056.129 .

Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, TX 75224

Subject:

Comnumications Report Transmittal No. 36 Independent Assessment Program - All Phases Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station TU Electric Job No. 84056

Dear Mrs. Ellis:

Enclosed please find communications reports associated with the civil / structural audits. ,

A list of the enclosed communications reports appears in Attachment 1.

If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not  !

hesitate to call.

Very truly yours, N. H. Williams Project Manager NHW/amh Attachments cc- Mr. J. Redding (TU Electric)

Mr. W. Counsil (TU Electric)

Mr. J. Muffett (TU Electric)

Mr. L Nace (TU Electric)

Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe)

Mr. C. Grimes (USNRC) ems. - Ar Vietti-Cook -(USNRC)

Mr. S. Stamm (SWEC) 8711240237 871113 A

PDR ADOCK 05000445 pyg h _

.1 l

(

San Francisco Boston Chicago Parsippany

\TUE\84056\LTR.129 i

nn ,

1 l N_ m.

a-  !

o \

r

5. ,

+

' ATTACHMENT 1-

. List of Enclosed Communications Reports -

l

';;  ?

TIME DATE uy

'03/31/87 1:30 p.m.

04/01/87' 1000 a.m.

2:45 p.m.

. 06/12/87 07/31/87 10:30 a.m.

. 08/18/87 1030 a.m.  !

08/24/87 1030 a.m.

08/25/87 1010 a.m.

08/25/87 ~ 1:45 p.m.

09/01/87 11:15 a.m.

09/02/87 200 p.m.

1 4

4s i

l-l i

l l? \TUE\84056\LTR.129 1;

a____:____.____:

s

('

y <

Communications iy MLni i 11lllllllll1lll1111111111lllll -

Report Company:

CES -

T econ X conference Report

. Projecte

_ Job No.

CPSES IAP Phase '4 . o ,ie:

03/31/87 subject:

Civil / Structural Audit - Embedded Plates 1:30 p.m.

Richmond Inserts ,

- pi,c,:

CPSES Site

"' " P'"' * ; '

B. Crowe , TU Electric o

G. Dean, M. DiLorenzo, S. Shah Stone & Webster J. Russ, C. Wong Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna ' met with Stone '& Webster (SWEC) to discuss the

qualification methodology to be used for WEB program as well as various limitations of the WEB program.

According to SWEC, WEB uses the equations that are listed in appendices 4W and SW of Specification 2323-SS-30. These equations were developed in the Westinghouse report WCAP 10923.

WEB is used for the evaluation of all strip plate installations and  ;

for sheet plates which' do not have any violations of the 2323-

SS-30 Specification. WEB internally. accounts for the directional load phasing as the foot print loads are applied directly to the program without regard to sign (i.e., the loads are input as ,

absolute values). WEB also allows the use of reduced allowables  !

which must be specified by the user. WEB will assume the locations of the studs if the stud locations are not known. The ] <

studs are assumed to be located 12" away from the face of an l attachment on either side of the attachment. Additionally, the  !

required spacing from loaded Richmond Inserts and any existing Hilti expansion anchors is . assumed so that any anchors of this type within the specified spacing can be accounted for.

In the qualification process, SWEC will use the BAP program to qualify WEB. BAP, a preprocessor to ANSYS, is used for base plate analysis. SWEC will use the allowables for WCAP 10923 is the qualification.

signee Page of

._ fj ~

l 2 Distribution: 'SEE ATTACFIED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.

' 1020 01a

____ ._ __.._ _- -- --- d

Communications c 4L t i Raport

.7 pmumm!"" "";;;l Requwed

- Item - Comments Action By Cygna asked for and received a copy of the WEB manual for use

.during the audit and was shown a copy of an echoed input from

, the WEB program. Cygna also requested and received a copy of Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323 S-0786 and assorted Design Change Authorizations (DCAs), all of. which dealt with the fabrication 3' and installation of embedded plates. These were for use during the audit. -

l 4

1 4-i TUE\033187-A. CON sub A11 ACHED D151KIBUTION SHEET Page 2 of 2 1020 010

c ;. -

DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pi Ms. A.,V=gott -

• • Mek '

' Mr. C Grimes -

~ Mr. S. Stamm -

i Mr. J. Muffett

Ms.' N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Perikh Ms. D. Ieong Project File 9

_ _-- - - _ - _ - - -- - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - -

[

Communications I

.E 4 f. n i ll11lll11111111lllllll11111111 -

Raport-i

[![ I J

Company:- Teiec n x Conference neport ES l' . Project: Job No. l L 84056 1 TU Electric -

1 o ,te:  !

CPSES IAP Phase 4 04/01/87 Civil / Structural Audit - WCAP 10923 1000 a.m.

Place' CPSES site Participants- of

]

Bill Crowe TU Electric n Richard Orr - Westinghouse John Russ, Chun Wong Cygna Required item Comments Action By 1

In order for Cygna to receive direct answers on any questions regarding the Westinghouse WCAP 10923 and the WEB program, a telephone conference was arranged with Mr. Orr, the author of the WCAP document. ,

Cygna asked if there was any higher priority version'of the WCAP than the' one that was reviewed. Mr. Orr replied that there wasn't.

Cygna began the conversation by stating its interpretation of how the WCAP document, Appendices 4W and SW, and the WEB program ! were related. . The interpretation was as follows: the  !

.WCAP document is n' report on a series of baseplate analyses which were used to determine the behavior of embedded strip and sheet plates. . These analyses indicated which were the controlling parameters (i.e., forces, moments, plate stresses or stud tensions and. shears) for the embedded plate. Based on an evaluation of i the controlling parameters, simplified equations were developed '

which closely approximate the- actual stud tensions, shears and

. plate stresses.. These equations were then reproduced in Appendices 4W and SW of Specification 2323-SS-30. These same equations are used in the WEB program. Mr. Orr concurred with this interpretation. .

Cygna then began a series of questions which dealt with specific l sections of the WCAP document.

I Signed: Page of Distobution:

SEE A'ITACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.

im o,. .

i'<

7 f,

. Communications i i R3 pod II :"' ..... ...;;ll!!ll!

<t :

Requwed item Comments Action By l

Section 1.0 - Introduction Q. Does the WESPLAT program reinsert the springs after it has

. removed them? Should the plate again make contact with

. the concrete substrate?

A. Yes.

i Section 2.0 - Summary and Conclusions

- Q. What is the reason for considering the moment arm of the  !

attachment used in calculating the resultant force couple as the width of the attachment'plus 2" ?

A. The moment arm, which is 2.5 times the plate thickness, was based on the results of the analyses which are illustrated in Figure 5-3 on Sheet 5-32. These plots show the point of contact closest to the attachment is usually 2".

Q. What is the meaning of " studs per attachment"?

A. These are the ' studs that are on either side of the attachment.

Q. .Why are shear loads assumed to be resisted only by the row of studs behind the attachment?

A. This assumption is only used in the analysis of embedded sheet plates where the row of studs near the edge of the plate may not be known and is assumed as non-existent.

Section 5.1.1 - Number of Bavs

- Q. Were the directions of the individually applied loads considered so as to maximize the responses of the plate and studs?

A. Yes. l l

Section 5.2.1 - Location l Q. The moments used in the analysis had a magnitude of 10 in-kips. Several of the allowable moments, which were calculated by multiplying the 10 in-kip moment by the ratio of the allowable plate stress over the actual plate stress had L magnitudes of approximately 70 in-kips. Given the inherent i l

l I

sub Ai1 ACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET Page 2 of 4 l

f. mo m

W' Communications 4L t i Report

[ lilllL ,

Regwed nem comments Action By j non-linearity - of the solution process, were any analyses performed which used the final allowable moments?

. 'A. ' No. ~Such analyses do not:need to be performed given the inherent linearity of the system being analyzed.  ;

Section 5.2.1.2 - Out-of-olane Load; The curves in Figure 5-15 seemed to have been developed Q. .

based on two data points. Is this true?

A. Although the test of the WCAP does not indicate it, other analyses were performed which provided the data points at Ey_ = 2 and Ey = 4. Proof of this is found in Figure 5-17.

' Section 5.2.2 - Size Q. -What is the definition of Ex in Table 5-9, Case 37 i

A. This is . the eccentricity of the attachment from the centerline of the embedded strip plate.

Section 6.6 Q. How is the linear equation for determining plate stresses and stud tensions justified? )

A. The = premise of the linear interaction ' is that the plate behaves as a simply supported beam. For example, the plate stress is the greatest for Fz when applied at midspan, but is a minimum when applied - at the stud locations.

Consequently, the addition of any other forces and moments, when applied at locations other than at midspan will not combine to provide higher stresses than predicted by the equation.

Cygna asked Mr. Orr to explain the derivation of the equations for the analysis of the emtedded strip plates which were developed in WCAP 10923. Mr. Orr stated that if the attachments were not separated by more than 12" (as they were in the two-bay models used in -the WCAP), the worst location for stud tensions for Fz is at the studs and slightly off the stud line for Mx. This shows that there is little effect from other attachments. Mr. Orr then discussed the limits that were used in deriving the equations.

1' 5th Al'1 ACHED DI51RIBUTION SHEET Page 3 of 4 1020 01D hi

+ >

Comm~unications uni Report y lllllll11111lll111ll1111111111 Required item Comments Action By Eauation 63 Equation 63 is composed of three components that result in 7

' tensile loads on the studs. The component for Fz has limits based on Ex = 0 and Ex = 2.5 which places the attachment on the plate

centerline and along the - ' stud centerline, respectively. The equation for Mx is based on looking at the data derived from the analyses'in the WCAP (Table 5-3 is representative) and applying a curve. The equation for My is based on assuming the moment as

. an equivalent eccentrically applied force and shifting that force between the plate centerline and the stud centerline (Ex = 0 and Ex = 2.5, respectively).

Equations 6.4. 6.5 and 6.6 The upper curve given in Figure 5-20 for the results of placing the load at point 3 is . conservative. . The conservatism was intended only to allow the equation to be a simple function of the equation for the stress at the centerline. In Figure 5-21, higher values for point load by looking at the basis for Figure 5-19.

Cygna asked -if the -WCAP considered the possibility of the attachments in the vicinity of a butt joint between two embedded strip plates. Mr. Orr stated that WEB presently does not have the

. .- capability, of evaluating this situation. Additional work by Westinghouse, performed at the request of TU Electric, investigated the situation. Mr. Orr stated that if a 12" spacing between attachments is maintained across the butt line, without the. attachments being located in the cantilever region,. the formulations in the WCAP are acceptable. If the spacing is less than 12", the studs must be evaluated individually.

TUE/040187-A. CON Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 4 4 IO20.01D

_z-. - - _ -_ - _ _ _ --

i

\ l ,

1

. DISTRIBUTION LIST i

Mr. J.' Redding:

. Mr. L Nace Mr. W. Counsil

~ Mr. D. Pigott .

iMs. A VeP h k

.Mr. C Grimes -

. Mr. S. Stamm

. Mr. J. Muffett - )(

- Ms 'N, Williams

Mr. J. Russ i I

- Mr. W. Horstman I Mr. K. Parikh -

.- Ms. D. Leong B . Project File t

~b i

4 l

l 4

1 l

4

.\

$' Communications 7>d(ni d.o ic. -  ::mme Report Company:- X Conference Report Tele n ES-c Project. Job No.

-TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 cate:

06/12/87

Subject:

Time:

_ Civil / Structural Audit 2:45 p.m.

Place:

SWEC, Boston Participants; of

.I. Russ, C. Wong Cygna

M. DiLorenzo - SWEC Required item . Comments Action By Cygna had discussed two procedures with Stone & Webster (SWEC) earlier in the audit. Cygna had raised some concerns on procedures CPE-FVM-CS0-075 and ECE-3.06-15. The former procedure, which deals with the . as-built walkdown to identify anchorage spacing violations, was discussed first.

-In regard 'to Cygna's concerns on the identification of anchorage types which use threaded rods, SWEC suggested a proposed change to the procedure which required the Structural Embedment Group (SEG) to review any design documents and/or drawings should questions arise on the identification of a support . using threaded rods. Cygna noted that the language of the proposed procedure passage would not preclude the possibility of an error in the identification of supports which employ threaded rods. Cygna suggested that the procedure require a check of the applicable design ' documents if possible ambiguities may result in the identification process.

SWEC also noted that the term " appropriate action" will be revised to read " deficiency resolution." This process is applied to the walkdown drawings and will occur prior to O.C. sign-off.

SWEC stated that all measurements will be taken to a maximum and 4 minimum tolerance of 1/8".

\

f

- Signed Q Page of msinbution:

SEE A ' TTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. I 1070 0 t a

z Communications I' ^ A (. i i Report lllllllll1111lllllllll1111lll!

1 i

stem comments [c7eT*8v e

In regard to procedure ECE-3.06-IS, SWEC noted that all equipment j and support numbers are to be included on the DCA's reporting i spacing violations. Additionally, the procedure requires that each individual organization affected by a spacing violation consider

" defensible" spacing tolerances- when evaluating the spacing violations.

f. I t

l l

TUE\061287-B. CON j Sbh Al~1 ACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET Page 2 of 2

' 1020 010 '

o c,

j., .

DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding

'Mr. L' Nace J ~ Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pigott eh A.cNietti Cook Mr. C. Grimes -

l

. Mr. S. Stamm 1 Mr. J. Muffett l Ms. N. Williams

' Mr. J. Russ -

' Mr. W. Horstman 1

..,. Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Project File i

i l

i 1

1 1 l s

4

G

~

1

%* Communications

c. ,

h ci Report

[ 1i11llllll11lll1111111111111111 '

l Company; Telec n Conference Report CES l Project: Job No.

CPSES IAP Phase 4 onto. {

07/31/87 l

"* i sumect" Civil / Structural Review Issue No.1 1030 a.rn. I Place:

Walnut Creek R. Ciatto, T. Lynch Stone & Webster J. Russ, C. Wong Cygna 1

Required item Comments Action By i

Cygna spoke to Stone & Webster (SWEC) regarding the open items for Review Issue No.1 in the civil / structural area. The following topics were discussed:'

1. Phi factor'of 0.85 Cygna noted that the ASCE State-of-the-art Report on Steel Embedments recommended that a phi factor of 0.85 is to be used .when the connection has a ductile failure, which is not always true for. the anchorages at CPSES.

SWEC stated that they would address this concern.

2. Cygna stated that they were internally discussing the factors of safety and the cone overlap evaluation procedures being used by SWEC.

3. Cygna noted that the 5/3 interaction exponent used for Hilti expansion anchors should be limited to those anchors which fail in a ductile manner and for anchors where the applied shear is less than 40% of the allowable tension load of the anchor. SWEC stated that they would address Cygna's concern.

TUE/073187-A.TEL

, n _

Signed. . Page of Distribution: ' SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET. '

1020 01a

i w

l

l

' DISTRIBlmON LIST Mr. J. Reddin Mr.' L Nace ; g -

- Mr..W. Counsil

' Mr. D. Pigott Ms.:"Al Vietti Coo' k'*

Mr. C Grimes Mr. S. Stamm Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Willianu

. Mr. J. Rum Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Imag Project File '

)

a i-

<i -

'l

• y Communications-h Li o (. t i gpimimmisaliglgglgl .

Report

'. Company:

Teiec n C conference Report ES.

Project: Job No,

! .TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase-4 oat :

8/18/87

Subject:

Time:

. Civil / Structural Open Items 10.10 p.m.

Place '

Indianapolis. IN of Participants. - . R. Ciatto, T. Lynch Stone & Webster J. Russ Cvena Required item . Comments Action By

' Stone & Webster (SWEC) spoke to Cygna to solicit comments on their_ response to Cygna's concerns prior to the scheduled Cygna

. audit in the SWEC Boston offices. The following items were discussed:

1. : Cone overlap evaluation procedure.

'SWEC stated that the allowable capacities of two or more anchorages which have overlapping ' stress cones are governed by the capacity of the group. Procedure FVM-CS475 addresses the administrative end of the evaluation process which would control the distribution of the anchorage capacity reduction for any one bolt in an overlap situation where anchors from different disciplines j are involved. This . procedure requires all disciplines j affected by an anchorage overlap to sign off on the i appropriate form, showing concurrence with the evaluation  !

calculations.

{

l

2. Factors of safety of 2.0 and 4.0 for Hilti expansion l anchors in overlap configurations.

j SWEC states that there is no need to reconcile the l differences in the factors of safety since their approach is l based solely on concrete governing. In a group action, the

' signed. U ' Page OI D*ub "E S$E NITACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.

e ' 1020 014 i

m e

• Communications L

t i- Repod

,; IE  ;;!!!llli i

-l ;

Required l ttom Comments Action By (

. behavior is based on the entire projected area of the bolt  !

group.

{

1

3. Limits on allowable shear stress for threaded rods and  !

bolts for the factored load condition.  !

l l

After a review of DBDCS-15, SWEC noted that the limit j of 0.5 x F ,yon the shear stress had been included in the -

tables showmg allowable shear stresses for threaded rods f and high strength bolts. The capacities were based on )

.the gross area of the high strength bolts as directed by i AISC.

f

4. Minimum edge distance requirements of 3 and 5 bolt diameters for Hilti expansion anchors subjected to tension )

and shear.

l SWEC has revised DBD-CS-15 to reflect the requirement i of 5 bolt diameters. )

5. . Nelson stud substitution and relocation.

SWEC is continuing their evaluation of this issue, but f noted that the studs are acceptable if they are installed j at the drawing specified spacing. l j

6. Load factors. l SWEC is addressing Cygna's concerns on the load factors.

7. Richmond Inserts in tension zones.

SWEC is addressing Richmond Inserts in clusters as such.

SWEC has also prepared a position paper that discusses the results of some testing in the literature which shows that wedge anchors exhibit greater capacity if they are located in the tensile regions of concrete members. The l paper also offers qualitative conclusions on anchors in l tensile regions.

l l 8. Ambiguities in assigning concrete attachments to l- structural elements.

Procedure PP-210 has been revised to remove the L possibilities of ambiguities in assigning concrete l' . attachments to structural elements.

-TUE/081887-A.TEL l SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET Page 2 of 2 1 1020 01D 4

[. __ _

I 4

,' Ag',

4 DISTRIBUTION LIST Mr. J. Redding

Mr. L Nace '.

Mr. W. Counsil Mr. D. Pipott Ms AVatti<cok

'Mr. C Grimes Mr. S. Stamm Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams

- Mr. J. Run -

Mr. W. Horstman i Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Project File l-

.i f

\

lia Communications y t i Report k' lllllllll1111ll1111111111llll1 -

p. - ~ Companyp CES Teiecon conference Report

- Project. Job No CPRES IAP Phase 4 cate:

08/24/87 t

' Civil / Structural Review Issue No.1 1030 a.m.

Place:

.SWEC, Boston

-,. ' Participants of R. Ciat'to, J. Conly, T. Lynch Stone & Webster J.' Russ, N. Williams, C. Wong Cygna 1

Hequired item Comments Action By -

Cygna met with Stone & Webster (SWEC) to discuss SWEC's

.. approach to the calculation of anchorage capacities at CPSES and the resolution to Cygna Civil / Structural Review Issue No.1.

1. Anchorage in Tension Zones SWEC presented a position paper which detailed the results of a literature review on anchorages in tension regions (Attachment 1). ' The paper . concluded that the Richmond Inserts were acceptable and that wedge anchors exhibited ,

greater capacity when located in tension regions. This  !

behavior was attributed to the anchor shank becoming more  !

fully engaged between the wedges. Cygna stated that they j would review SWEC's response on anchorages in tension zones.

2. Factors of Safety for Richmond Inserts Cygna asked if there was a basis for the selection of a factor of safety (FS) equal to 2.0 used for extreme loading

(- . conditions. SWEC replied that using a factor of safety of f'

2 was normal practice. SWEC believes that the use of an FS equal to 2.0 for Nelson studs, which behave in a fashion similar to Richmond Inserts, is added justification as well as the results of the tests at site. In response to Cygna's i

1 I

Signed. Qf Page of Distribution: SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.

mo oi. l

w L.,

Communications

' ~

4L JL 1 Report

. lll1lll1111111111ll11111ll1111 d

nem - commena [EoT*By question as to why'an FS equal to 2.0 wasn't used for Hilti expansion anchors, SWEC stated that they felt there was not sufficient justification for the factor of safety.

3. Load Combination SWEC' presented a response to Cygna's concerns on the controlling. load combinations used in determining the capacity of the anchorages (Attachment 1). Cygna asked why an FS equal to 2.0 was used for the design of the Hilti expansion anchors. SWEC replied that this was not really a

i. " factor of safety" but rather the load factor from the ACI equation used to calculate the applied load in an ultimate

' design. SWEC divides the calculated anchorage capacity by 2.0. The value of 2.0 is rounded up from the load factor of 1.9 which is applied to the OBE term in the load equation.

The reduced capacity of the anchor is compared against the working- stress loads supplied by the contractors. Cygna stated that they would review SWEC's response on load factors. .

4. Anchoranes with Overlacoing Cones Cygna asked how an analyst would calculate the capacity of  ;

an anchor .whichLhas a cone that is lapped by an adjacent capacity. SWEC stated that they allow an analyst to

- assign full capacity to one of the anchors in the overlap configuration and assign the full reduction to the other anchor. This is acceptable since the capacity of the

' anchor group is governed ' by the projected area of the group. This method .is acceptable since the disciplines that are affected by the anchor overlap must concur on the reduction assignment.

Cygna asked how Hilti expansion anchors were dealt with.

SWEC noted that the failure mechanisms of an expansion anchor in tension are failure in the concrete, failure of the

. anchor by slip-through or pullout, or failure of the anchor material. SWEC has determined that the test data from Hilti International shows that the anchors fail in slip.

SWEC has calculated the capacity of the anchors when they are spaced at 10 bolt diameters (at this spacing, the anchors could have overlapping cones, depending on embedment depth) and has shown that the concrete capacity does not govern, but rather the slip failure does.

"'S' '

SEE ATI' ACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 5

m c.:-

Communications

4 s. t i Report llllll11llll11111111ll111ll111 item ,

comments [c*tfoT*B$

When calculating the capacity of the expansion anchors for overlap situations, i.e., less that 10 bolt diameters, SWEC -

calculates the concrete capacity of the group and checks

.this value against the published ultimate values for the Hilti anchors divided by an FS equal to 4.0. Cygna stated that .

the- Hilti test reports. show that not all ~ anchors fail in slip,

~

but that some fail in' the concrete, especially those in lower strength concrete and those with shallow' embedments. For-these cases, Cygna felt that SWEC should apply a capacity reduction due to spacing to the test values divided by an FS

, equal to 4.0. Cygna asked if SWEC had made a comparison of the values when such a reduction was applied. SWEC replied that they had not.

Cygna asked SWEC how their approach conformed to the requirements of IEB 79-02. SWEC replied that their approach exceeds the requirements of 79-02. SWEC also noted that they had employed this methodology at other plants.

5. Interaction Exponent of 5/3 for Hilti Expansion Anchors Cygna noted that SWEC was using that data from Teledyne's response to IEB 79-02 as a justification for use of the 5/3 exponent for Hilti expansion anchors. ' Cygna noted that the report. indicates that some anchor diameters will not have

-an FS equal' to 4.0 when an interaction exponent 5/3 is used.. Cygna noted that the ASCE State-of-the art Report on Steel Embedments recommends that the 5/3 exponent be used only when the failure mode of the anchor is ductile .

and when the applied shear load is less than 40% of the allowable tension load. SWEC stated that the reduction in the factor of safety was acceptable.

6. Concrete Canacity Reduction Factor (Phil Cygna asked SWEC for the basis for their use of the phi factor of 0.85. SWEC replied that the code of record for CPSES is ACI 318-71. This code specifies that a phi factor of 0.85 is required for evaluation of punching shear. The behavior of anchors in concrete is similar to punching shear; therefore, SWEC felt that a value of 0.85 is  ;

appropriate. . Additionally, a report in the literature by i Klingner shows that a phi factor of 0.85 is appropriate. )

SWEC had evaluated the data presented in the Klingner i paper and determined that for anchors with short embedment, a' phi' factor of 0.85 was more than adequate.

s SEE ' ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET "'S' 3 '5 g .. 1020 o to

N Communications

"~

4 f. t i Report 4lllll111111111111llll111ll1111

• Required i Item Comments Action By Their review also indicated that for larger embedments, the phi . factor. reduces for larger embedments. Cygna then expressed. concerns that anchors at larger embedments be evaluated using a lower phi factor of 0.65 as recommended j in the literature'or determine if the anchors are 'beyond a i second la er of reinforcing. SWEC stated that they would evaluate ygna's concern. ] 3 1

. 7. . Limits of 0.9 Fv and 0.5 Fv on Tension and Shear for Bolts l SWEC stated that'the values in DBD-CS-15 for tension and shear on bolts and threaded rods used in' Richmond Inserts were - limited to 0.9 Fy and 0.5 Fy, respectively. These ,

values had originally been incorporated in the DBD l (Attachment 1). '

Cygna stated that they would review the l DBD. 1

8. Limitation of Five Bolt Diameters for the Edge Distance of Hilti Exoansion Anchors Loaded in Shear

(

SWEC stated that DBD-CS-15 will be revised the reflect minimum edge distance of five bolt diameters for Hilti expansion anchors loaded in shear. j l

9. Canacities of 1/2" Hilti Kwik-bolts l SWEC is testing -1/2" diameter Hilti Kwik-bolts to address recent NRC concerns on the reported capacities. The tests are being conducted on site in accordance with ASTM E-488. Only tension tests are being performed.

10. Radius of Influence Cygna asked for a definition of the radius of influence used for some anchors. The radius of influence is the radius which yields a projected concrete area where the calculated concrete strength equals the strength of the anchor.

SWEC stated that the radius of influence was desired I because a uniform approach in the field and office was l needed to address the anchors. i l

11. Evaluation of the Groun Canacity of Grouted Anchors l l

Since grouted anchors are governed by a failure in the bond between the anchor and the surrounding concrete, Cygna asked how group action was evaluated. SWEC replied that g the group action was calculated based on concrete capacity.

Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 4 3 1020 Cib .-

l

.n 1

. Communications AL.ci Report i E' llllllllllllill111111111111111 -

Requwed I Item . Comments Action By j

'12. Boundaries Between the Civil / Structural Discioline and Comoonents from Other Disciplines p

' Cygna asked SWEC . to provide. the locations of the boundaries- between the civil / structural group and other i disciplines. SWEC replied that the Richmond Inserts, the bolt and the ' insert, were civil / structural items. Thru-

. bolts and any . bearing plates were the responsibility of the discipline using them, but the concrete was the responsibility of ' the civil / structural discipline. All other anchors were. within the scope of the civii/ structural e discipline.

13. Hilti Kwik-bolts Installed in Diamond Core bored Holes-In response' to Cygna's concerns on the installation of Hilti Kwik-bolts in diamond core-bored holes, SWEC provided a position paper which stated that the Hilti carbide tipped bits are manufactured to the same ANSI standard as Drillco diamond core-boring bits (Attachment 2). The paper concludes that since both suppliers manufacture to the same standard, the diameters of the bits will be the same, and there is no impact on the bolt capacity. Cygna stated that they would review SWEC's response.

i

\TUE\082487-A. CON j Page '

SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 5 5 ioao oio .

n:.

NM#7N I.

J.o. oft INTEROFFICE ' MEMORANDUM w.o. no.

a w.= 16345/16346

'f SUBJECT - CYGNA' CONCERN.REGARDING DATE August 24, 1987 RICHMOND INSERTS.

FROM A.Y.C. Wong TO S.t. Sta cc 7,,, ty,c3 R.D. Ciatto 4 ,

DC/ Chrono CAG/ESG DC/ Job Book CAG/ESG Enclosed is SWEC's ' response ' to three open Cygna concerns. One'of Cygna's concerns is.l that a : reduced '. capacity may be required for Richmond Inserts installed in clusters or ~in- beam sides. Another Cygna concern is that a limit 'of 0.5' . times' the yield stress for shear and 0.9 times the yield

. stress - for s tension. may not have - been used when determining the capacity

• , cf Ebolts used 'with.' Richmond Inserts. The third Cygna concern is that  ;

- inappropriate load factors may have been used for embedments in concrete.

n c b .

A.Y.C. Wong L/ j i

i L J 1

l

\

l l p

{ l

r . .

. CIVZL-STRUCTURAL'RZL No. A.

b ISSUE:

h

. Cygna has expressed concern that a reduction in capacity may be required L for Richmond Inserts' installed in clusters or in the sides of beams.

L,

RESPONSE

-Clusters of Richmond Inserts are treated in the same manner as other Richmond Inserts. The minimum spacing and free edge distance requirements.are provided in Specification 2323-55-30 Revision 3.

q DBD-CS-015 Revision 1 provides the design criteria for determining Richmond ' Ins e rt allowable capacities. The criteria addresses reductions  ;

in capacity for spacing, free edge distance, and thickness.of the concrete element.  !

l LAt this. time there is no available data concerning a reduction in  !

capacity for Richmond Inserts located in high moment regions. A paper by James D. Copley and Edwin G. Burdette (" Behavior of Steel-to-Concrete Anchorages in High Moment Regions", ACI Journa.,

March-Apr11'1985)' discusses the behavior of certain types of anchors (grouted bolts, self-drilling anchors'and wedge anchors) in high moment ,

.regione subject to dynamic loadings. The paper shows a reduced i capacity for the grouted bolts and self-drilling anchors and an increased capacity for the wedge anchors. The reduced capacities are attributed to the fact that the grouted bolts and self-drilling anchors depend on friction as the holding mechanism. The increased capacity for the wedge anchors is credited to the wedge becoming more firmly seated as the tapered head moves through the wedges as cracks open.

Richmond Inserts are cast-in-place and do not depend on the same holding mechanism as the anchors addressed in the paper. Richmond Inser+s have

.a concrete failure mode similar to a punching shear. ACI 316-71 does i not combine the effects of the local punching shear with the global effects of moments. Considering the general conservatism of the 0 methods used to evaluate Richmond Inserts. the mode of concrete failure and:the data available concerning anchors.in moment regions. there is nc j

^

need te.further reduce the capac)ty of Richmond Inserts installed in the sides of1 beams to account for being in a moment region.

I II

'N . CIVIL-SIRUCIURAL RI2., No. --1 .

c.

ISS'UE:

Cygna has expressed concern that a limit of 0.5 times the yield stress-for shear and 0.9 times the yield stress for tension may not have been

. used when ~ determining the capacity of bolts used with Richmered Inserts i

RESPONSE

The allowable capacities provided in DBD-CS-15 Revision 1 were determined using a limit of 0.5 times the yield stress for shear and 0.9 times the yield stress for tension as shown by the following tables.

TABLE 8 DBD.C3 015 ALLM ABLE CAPACITIES FOR BOLTS OE THREADED ROUS USED WITH RICHMOND INSERTS (KIPS)

Bolt or Threade'd Rod Service load Extreme Imad used with Insert CRADE SIZE - Ta Sa Ta sa A-307 Soit or 1" Dia. 12.11 7.85 18.15 12.56 A-36 THD Rod 1 1/2" Dia. 28.11 17.67 42.17 28.27 A 325 Bolt or 1" Dia. 31.42 11.78 50.27 18.85 A-490 Bolt i 1/2" Dia. 70.68 26.51 113.09 42.42 1

i I

1 l

l l

l

\

l 1

l l

l

-_____________________________J

,! l q, - _

?r

? 4

~ - _.

f- b' j- '

~

l l -

. = ^

} :. . "

' l -

t

]' ,:n _( ,

.~

.A y '8 2

- 3 7

,F 0 4 1 5 ~

- T5 . ~

I 3 9 6 1

M0 1 2 3 7 I

' , L '

S -

• SA Ey 2

5 7 3 8 l RF 1 1 0 -

T9 '. . 8 S

8 2 5 2 f

.O 1 4 6 1 I

'D A

O 'a

. 6 7 5 2 LS 5 2 8 4 Q -

E 2 8 8 2 C 1 2 1 4. ,

3 I V

R ~

E S

9 x 8 8 7 0 L a 3 9 2 r a

3

6. T "

1 9 4 0 1 e 1 4 5 1 h -

S

~

r o

Q , ~ -

e 3 3 0 0 l -

i y 3 3 2 1 s F 3 3 9 8 n '

e -

T

) )

4 1 4 1 i*

r 5 7 5 7 sn

• a 8 6 8 6 Ki

.e h 7 7 7 7 ( ( "

^'

y-S 0 1 0 1 l r eo) eh s A~ t c p)

E e S nis Rl 7 3 4 1 AK p Ai 5 5 5 7 r ( i '

s 0 0 8 6 oe K

.n 6 .4 7 7 hh y(

e -

cTt T 0 1 0 1 n i y Af ct oai e pc '

h aaa '

TeC p

. . r a

. a . a fA eC -

a i a i o l

~

E i D i D l i r Q Z D ." D " h asa I

S 1

\1 " t nne 1 1 goeh nits et d

rcee t el l o SSbb -

t r t t aa l

o d l

o l

o d sww -

l soo B h B B eol l T irl l .

E 7 r 5 r0 YCAA D 0 o6 2 o9 A 3 3 3 4 = = =

R - - - - y= aa G A A A A FATS

- u

^ -

t

~

lCIV31-53RUCTURAL RIL No. 1 l; s'

ISSUE:

h Cygna has. expressed concern that appropriate load factors may not have been used'for embedmonts in concrete. Cygna was particularly concerned with the use of a load factor of 1.0 for extreme loads when there is an extreme load combination containing a load factor of 1.25 for OBE.

RESPONSE

DBD-CS-015 Revision l' addresses this. concern. The' allowable tensile and shear. capacities are generally calculated by dividing the ultimate l capacity (including. appropriate O factors) by an appropriate load factor.

The load factor as based on the largest load factor found in the governing load combinations. A load factor of 1.9 is used for service loads and a load factor of 1.0 is used for extreme loads. If the contributions of the types of' load-(e.g., dead load, live load and seismic load) are known.

~

the allowable capacity may be calculated using the applicable load factors.

The only exceptions to the above method are Richmond Inserts and expansion anchors. The allowable' capacity of a Richmond Insert is the lesser of the ultimate test value divided by a factor of safety'of 3.0 for service load and 2.0 for extreme load or the calculated ultimate capacity divided by a load factor of 2.0. The allowable capacity of an expansion anchor

is the lesser of the ultimate test value divided by a factor of safety of 4.0 or the calculated ultimate capacity divided by a load f actor of 2.0.

The following extreme lond combination that contains the load factor of 1.25 for OBE is not a governing load combination.

U = D + L + Ta + Ra + 1.25 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Yj + Ym)

• 1.25 Fego The following extreme load combination envelopes the previous load combination for pipe supports. This is due to the fact that the SSE N411 accelerations are more than-1.25 times the OBE accelerations as shown in the attached table.

U = D + L + Ta + Ra + 1.0 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Yj + Ym)

• 1.0 Fegs For other systems, such as electrical supports, the load combination in

-question would be enveloped by the following service load combination.

U = 1.4 D + 1.7 L + 1.9 Fogo i l'

B '

~

l

%!M COMPARATIVE LIST OF' MAX ACCELERATIONS FOR CODE CASE N411

-r i

, 53-:

I 6 LBldg. L ElevAt' ion .  % SSE 1.25 ( SSE) SSE

Ft. Acceleration- Acceleration Acceleration (g). (g) .(g)'

~

Internal' .905.75: 'AX = 1.976 1.25AX = 2.47- AI = 2.733

.Contet. AY = 1.424 1.25AY = 1.78 AY = 2.453 JUE = 2.627 '1.25AZ = 3.284 AZ = 3.730

. Internal! 832.50. AI =-0.7628- 1.25AX = 0.954 AX = 1.18

Contat'- . AY = 1.10. 1.25AX = 1.375 AY = 1.913 AZ = 1.331 AZ = 0.8844 1.25AX = 1.11-l' AK = 3.383 Auxiliary; '899.50 JAX =-2.306 1.25AK = 2.88 AY = 1.934 1.25AY = 2.42 AY = 2.814 AZ = 1.890 1.25AZ = 2.36 AZ = .2.929

Auxiliary '831.50 -AI'= 0.9767 1.25AX ='1.221 AK = 1.463 3, AY = 1.405 1.25AY = 1.76 AY = 2.486 AZ = 1.059 1.25AZ = 1.323 AZ = 1.690 e-i

'Safequards 873.50 AI = 1.801 '1.25AX = 2.25 AX = 2.829 AY = 2.127. 1.25AY = 2.66 AY = 3.295

.AZ = 1.785 1.25AZ = 2.231 AZ = 2.549 g Safeguards 810.50 AX = 0.5418 1.25AX = 0.677 AX = 1.179 Eb < AY = 1.123 1.25AY = 1.403 AY = 2.127 ,

AZ = 0.5637 1.25AZ = 0.705 AZ = 1.104 i

l 1

i 1

r

.l K '

g[Qg 2.

.CYCNA' CIVIL-STRUCTURAL REVIEW ISSUE NO.7 a , ,

Installation of Expansion Anchors in Diamond Cored Holes j CYCNA CONCERN From y the Cygna Civil-Structural Review Issues List, Revision 0 (7/21/87).

thelcurrent concern regarding.this issue is:

"Cygna believes that the use of diamond cored holes will increase i the' variability in the anchor bolt capacity and potentially result in inadequate bolt installations".

BACKGROUNDS s 4 2

- When. Hilti. expansion anchors were replaced, diamond core drills were used to remove the' existing, anchor-.from the concrete in accordance with section 3.1.4.2.3 of Brown & Root Procedure CEI-20, " Installation of Hilti Drilled In' Bolts". Revision 9 of this document states:

"The bolt being replaced has been removed from the concrete using a diamond core bit of the same nominal outside diameter as the. replacement expansien bolt. The replacement bolt shall.be'one diameter size larger than the bolt being' removed".

In discussion with.'Hilti Inc., Cygna was told that expansion anchors

' installed ' in holes drilled with diamond core drills may provide ultimate strengths less than those published in the "Hilti Design Manual". . This position stems'from Hilti's experience that diamond core bits have slightly

' larger diameters than-Hilti carbide bits. Cygna's Review Issue List states:

"In~ order to avoid any such. reductions, careful control may be ~ established by measuring the core bit diameter of the hole- diameter.

~

Cygna has not observed any QC procedures which impose such control".

INVESTIGATION

' In a - letter to Cygna (February 3, 1987) Hilti presented results of tests performed on 1 inch diameter anchors installed in core-bored holes. The

- drill diameters were measured by Hilti and SWEC observed that some of

- the larger diameter lis t h" re sulted in reasonably high pullout forces. /

However, Hilti's data is somewhat limited for installations in diamond cored holes.

CPSES uses DRILLCO diamond core bits. In discussions with DRILLCO, SWEC was ' . informed that their bits are manufactured in accordance with ANSI ,

$4.12-1977-CarbideTippedMasonaryDrills, p b

l 3

i l- l l ..

r;; y

7

' ,1. i, i= This is th'e.same' standard to which Hilti manufa ures their masonary bits.

This? ANSI. standard impose a tolerance on s diameter _ which ranges from

.003 .~ inchi to; .030L inch ' depending on nominal .' diameter. .Hence, Hilti and ,

DRILLCO are-manufactured with the'same tolerance on bit diameter. I s

r SWEC POSISTION

.ti = '_- .

, Hilti ma ' carbide lists and.DRILLCO diamond. core drills are manufactured

9'.

. to the; @ standard. Therefore, hole size'is the same and anchor capacity l is not'affected by using DRILLCO diamond core bits.

i y

j i

}

.j 10

]

,- j j

1

'h.' I

p , i

1.

i 1,

DISTRIBUTION LIST i' Mr. J. Reddin

Mr. L Nace g -

n Mr. W. Counsil-

.w-Mr. D. Pigott -

,h A.+Vietti Cook -

Mr. C Grimes Mr. S. Stamm Mr. J. Muffett Ms, N. Williams

. Mr. J. Russ -

' Mr. W. Horstman

Mr. K. Parikh .

Ms. D. Leong Project File:

I l

l i

i, i

l l

v l

t I

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

3

,s l Communications 4L Illilli;l;..

u, Report

..:::!llll11

~ Company: Teiec n Conference Report ES ..

' Project.

Job No.

TU Electric 84056

)

CPSES IAP Phase 4 o ,ie; j 8/25/87 sumect '**

Secondtry Wall Displacements 1010 a.m.- 3 Stone & Webster Audit pi,c,-

SWEC, Boston Participants' .

of J. Russ Cygna j Required 1 Item Comments Action By i

Cygna requested, and received for use during the audit, a copy of DBD-CS-019, Revisicu 1. This document lists the relative displacements of secondary walls at CPSES relative to the structure directly. above them, e.g., bottom of floor slab or beam. The displacements were requested by the other disciplines, e.g., cable trays, conduits, piping, so that they could determine the effects of the displacements on the respective systems. The DBD contains interpolation schemes so that displacements at any point in the

. secondary wall Jnay be calculated.

l 1

I l

1 i

l TUE/082587 B. CON i Signed V q{gl b I Idi11E

/g M Page of b oistnoution- SEE')Cf"fACITED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.

1020 014

l .. .

I

'T DISTRIBUTION LIST Mrl J. Redding -

Mr. L. Nace L. Mr. W. Counsil 1: Mr. D. Pigott lT Ms. A.ViettiCook Mr. C. Grimes l-Mr. S. Stamm

- Mr. J. Muffett ,

Ms. N. Wilhams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong Project File 1:

l l

l-l l

l l

\

a T/ .

Communications M

EO 41 ii

- lllllllllllll111111lllll111111 Report L

l Company: conference neport f" Teiec n ES.

. Project: Job No.

L TU Electric 84056 (O CPSES IAP Phase 4 oete:

b 08/25/87

. Subject. Time:

l Commodity. Clearances 1:45 p.m.

Civil / Structural Audit piece:

SWEC. Boston

Participants:

of N. Kennedy, J. Conly Stone & .'Jebster a

R. Hooten TU Electric J. Russ, C. Wong _ Cygna Required

,7, item Comments Action By Cygna met ' with Stone & Webster- (SWEC) and TU Electric to

' discuss the commodity clearance evaluation program that has been set up to evaluate the acceptability of the spacings of the various commodities at CPSES.

Previously, Cygna had received for use during the audit copies of CPE-SWEC-FVM-CS-068, revision 0 and CPES S-1021, Revision 0. >

.The former document is the walkdown and evaluation procedure for commodities while the latter document is the specification for the commodity clearance effort.

After reviewing these documents, Cygna requested the following references:

1. NUREG/CR4306

2. CPPP-22

3. ECE-2.24

4. CPE-SWEC-FVM PS-080 Cygna received a copy of NUREG/CR4306 for use during the audit.

SWEC noted that CPPP-22 is the commodity clearance program procedure for a prior program instituted by the piping discipline.

CPE-SWEC-FVM-PS-080 is the walkdown procedure for this effort. 1 ECE-2.24 relates to the damage studies, such as 2/1 criteria. SWEC noted that 2/1 was not within the scope of this effort and that the piping' commodity clearance evaluation effort was superseded by the '

Page of signed. Q l 4 I

' Distnbution: SE'E' ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET.

l

_ .. t

______-_____ __-_________ a

7T ,

p g -,

p -

m, x

c  ;- Communications

%'- AL c i Report liiiiiiiiiiiillllllilllillitli Regwred item . ,

Comments . Action By

. present. . Cygna stated that they would request the documents. if 7 Leeeded after the present discussions with SWEC.

SWEC noted that 'the purpose of .the present program is to evaluate the possibility ofL impact of objects and to evaluate the extent of damage should such impact occur.

Clearances between objects are . measured from the surface of any existin,g insulation.-

F Cygna remarked that the walkdown and evaluation procedure noted '

.that the : requirements Lof t the program could be implemented at various times. . SWEC explained that the program was going to lx:

implemented by :the SWEC commodity clearance evaluation group when construction. activities in the' particular area were essentially

'* complete. When SWEC declares that an area is going .to be

. checked:for commodity. clearances, all subsequent work in the area must meet the spacings listed . in the clearance criteria, or the installing discipline must show that any reduced - clearance is SWEC stated ithat the walkdown and evaluation acceptable.

procedure allows work in the particular area to be guided by the clearance . requirements, but that SWEC would not use any i measurements- taken prior to their declaration that tne area must  !

meet clearance - criteria. Additionally, SWEC noted that the clearance criteria becomes a QC attribute once an area has been declared ready for commodity clearance evaluation.

The walkdown and ' evaluation procedure states that a deviation is J any clearance that does not meet the clearances given in the criteria - and evaluation procedure. A violation is termed any instance where the clearance requires a modification of the physical plant to prevent predicted damage. During the walkdown phase, 1

-SWEC engineers record - all deviations.

These deviations are i f , evaluated by the engineers to show that commodity impact cannot  !

occur between two items (e.g., a column separates the two items); j that the. impact will 'not result in any damage; or that a violation  ;

- has occurred and that modification'n is required. However, in all l cases, the deviation evaluations, as well as any violations, will be  ;

attached to -.a DCA and routed to the affected disciplines for concurrence with any proposed resolution by the SWEC engineers.

In cases where modifications may be required, SWEC will act as arbitrator between the contractors should conflicts occur.

l The walkdowns are being performed by a group of engineers who will have the responsibility for recording the commodity clearances in the field as well as evaluating any deviations. The walkdowns  !

are not subject to QC acceptance. SWEC feels that the program j Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 4

'm m - - -. - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _

yy m f:

c:,,,,.

Communications i?

.A L n i

' 111llll11lll11111ll1ll11111111 '

Report L stem - comments ((0o$*By will work adequately with one engineer acting as'a preparer of the ,

s' dimension recording, with another engineer acting as a checker. i Periodic surve-illances of ~ the process : are planned to assure that qua'lity will not be affected.

. Cygna- had the following ' questions of CPE-SWEC-FVM-CS-068, Revision 0:

1. If a- component. cannot be identified as belonging to any b

general category of components, . i.e., control, electrical, etc., what does tiie walkdown team classify it as pending identification?

Any such component is classified as " equipment". An

" equipment" category is . listed ~in the clearance martrix.

- SWEC added that junction boxes are to be identified 'as conduit.'

2. . What loadings comprise the displacements listed in the clearance matrix? l The displacements listed in the matrix are the total of the seismic and' thermal displacements, as applicable. SWEC ,

stated-that they requested the maximum displacements for i

-the components - under review by the respective contractors. . SWEC added that they would reverify the clearances in the field if . any of the displacements reported by the contractors _ would increase. The documentation on the reported displacements will be completed by October 1,1987.

.3. Will the displacements from DBD-CS-019 be considered?

Displacements listed in DBD-CD-019 will be considered.

Cygna - had the following question on Specification CI$S-S-1021, l Revision 0: i

4. ' Are the clearances listed in Attachment 2 based on environmental considerations?

SWEC stated that the clearances are based on environmental considerations, especially derating of the cable. The clearances, which include those required for seismic, are based on a bare cable above the main steam line. SWEC expects that the clearances will be revised.

Page of

. SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET __3 4

.o ;

Communications c* Al n ri Report 11llll1111111lll11111111111111 Required item Comments Action By Cygna stated that the program looked acceptable but would need to review the displacements provided by the contractors as well as internally discuss the acceptance criteria.

l' l

l l

l TUE/082587 A. CON Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 4 4 V i m e,.

g

\ i is

1!. DISTRIBUTION LIST ,

Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace '

Mr. W. Counsil e

'. Mr. D. Pigott

Ms.; A. VMti Cook

. Mr. C Grimes Mr. S. Stamm Mr. J. Muffett Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ

. Mr. W. Horstman -

Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Imag a Project File 1 1

l 1

?

?- Communications  ;

i atL t i Report

k. . l 'nuin!!! lgggggglllgglggl _

Company:' Teiec n x conference Report ES:

~ Project.

. Job No. l TU Electric- 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4 - cate.

9/01/87

' Subject; Time:

7 C'ategory I Structures on Category II Structures 11:15 a.m. i ro Place:

Stone & Webster Audit CPSES site

Participants:

. of 'i M. DiLorenzo, S. Shah Stone & Webster r

J. Russ Cygna

-. .j I

Required item . Comments Action By Cygna met with. Stone & Webster (SWEC) to discuss SWEC's review of the Gibbs & Hill calculations of the firewall to which cable tray support 3136 is attached. SWEC stated that 'they reviewed the calculations and determined that they were acceptable as is.

. Alternate calculations were not. generated. This process was used

because SWEC was interested in only responding to Cygna's concerns

' at the time. SWEC noted that the firewa!! is being reviewed as part of the overall civil / structural design validation program (DVP).

In that program, the review of the design would be documented to show that the Gibbs &' Hill calculations were acceptable "as is"; were acceptable with some additional calculations by'SWEC; or, that the  ;

calculations were not acceptable and required a total requalification 1 by SWEC. i SWEC' stated that they could provide Cygna with the calculations ,

from the DVP. Cygna stated that the scope of the their structural '

audit was the electrical raceways and issues related to them. These related issues are those such as Richmond Inserts, embedded strip plates and the design of the firewall which supports cable tray 3136, to be handled by SWEC. SWEC stated that they would provide separate answers to Cygna's concerns on the firewall evaluation in order to be consistent with the approach that they had originally undertaken for responses.

l:

unGh),df L '

1 2  !

- Distribution: ' $Ed'A'TTACHED DISTYBUTION SHEET.

i

, _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ i

Communications L4 L i i Report lililllilllilllllililllillllit Requned i: item ' Comments Action By Cygna discussed th'e following concerns with SWEC:

1.  : One anchor ' bolt in- Revision - 1 to the Gibbs & Hill calculation had an interaction value of.1.06. Cygna asked how SWEC determined that this value was acceptable and how it matched with the requirements of DBD-CD-15.

SWEC J replied 'that they .had orginally accepted the interaction .value, because the method of analysis was quite conservative. SWEC felt that a more refined approach, e.g., a finite element analysis, would show that the plate was acceptable.

2.L Cygna noted. that a base plate analysis on page 95 of the -

Revision:1 calculations employed a rigid plate method toL determine ~ the bolt forces and plate - stresses. Cygna

. stated - that . they had not . specifically mentioned these points before in their review of the Gibbs & Hill analysis

because the methodology was in question as a . generic concern. Thus, . when the generic concern was to be addressed, this plate analysis would be addressed.

Cygna th~ e n asked SWEC 'for the basis of the acceptance

- of the calculation. SWEC stated that the geometry of the base plate and the direction of the applied loadings were conservative. Cygna noted that the moments on the members may lead to local bearing of the plate beneath the concrete and redistribute the loads to the anchorages, j I

SWEC- agreed to provide written responses to the Cygna concerns j noted above and will assure that similar occurrences have not i occurred in the Gibbs & Hill calculation.

' TUE\090187-A. CON 1

I l

V Page of SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 2 1020 01b

3

'y:~

-l-m DISTRIBLTTION LIST -

Mr. J. Redding Mr. L Nace

. Mr. W. Counsil i Mr. D. Pigott ..

MarA.'Vietti Cook '

. Mr. C Grimes Mr.' S. Stamm Mr. J. Muffett..

Ms. N. Williams Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K.' Parikh .

Ms. D. Leong j

Project File '

\

4 -

1 l

l l-

,. i

v Communications Y 4 L., c a Raport h -- lHl!llilllillllilllilllllllli J.

Company; -

Telec n X Conference Report ES

' Project- Job No.

.TU Electric 84056 CPSES IAP Phase 4. cate:

09/02/87

~

Civil / Structural Review Issue No.1 2:00 p.m.

Stone & Webster Audit: piace;

. CPSES site ,

Participants:

' . of

-R. Hooten, R. Mysore TU Electric T. Lynch ' Stone & Webster i Russ, N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna met with Stone & . Webster (SWEC) to discuss Civil / structural Review Issue 1.

1. Load Combinations Cygna asked SWEC to describe why the load combinations were acceptable for both loading conditions specificed in the FSAR.

. SWEC used the example of Hilti expansion anchors to discuss the issue. Hiltis are governed by the following load combination:

U = 1.4 D + L7 L + 1.9 Fego where :

U = Ultimate load D = Dead load L = Live load Fego = Seismic load due to the operating basis earthquake The calculated ultimate capacity is divided by a factor of 2.0 which is essentially the load factor for the Fego term in the equation above.

This reduced ultimate' capacity is used for all loading conditions, including those for factored loads. SWEC noted that the controlling factored load combination uses load factors of 1.0 for all terms.

Additionally, SWEC noted that DBD-CS-81, which is used for the design validation of the structural elements, considers all attachment loads from any discipline component as part of the Ro and Ra terms.

l In all FSAR-specified load combinations, the load factors on Ro and K .Ra are 1.0. Cygna stated that they would review the load l Signed. - Page of 2

c:stneutionn SEE AfrACHED DISTRTI'lUTION SHEET.

1020 0t s

f M" Communications

[ ( ei Report 4' : 18111llllll1111tlllllllllll111 :

. Requred

- ltem Comments Action By combinations and discuss this issue with SWEC at a'later date.

L 2.- - Jurisdictional Boundaries -

SWEC ' reiterated that the jurisdictional boundary between the civil / structural . discipline and any others is from the anchor bolts' back to the structure. This is the reason that they are able. to use the AISC allowables which are based on the gross area of the bolting - material. Cygna stated that they would review available documentation on the location of . the jurisdictional boundary.

3. Capacity Reduction Factor (Phi) for Anchors Cygna- expressed. their position that a phi factor of 0.65 is warranted for the calculation of the concrete capacity for anchorages. SWEC stated that a phi factor of 0.85 was shown to be acceptable in a paper by Burdette. SWEC added' that the basis for ' phi ' = 0.65 is unknown and probably due to the conservatism of committee decisions. Additionally, SWEC noted that the paper by Klingner showed that the 0.85 was appropriate for the' methodology employed for the anchors at CPSES. Cygna noted that the Klingner paper concluded that phi .= .0.65 should be used. 'SWEC agreed that . that was true, but that the use of phi = 0.65. was to account for other factors such as tension zones.

4. Reductions for.Hilti Expansion Anchors for Overlapping Cones SWEC ' explained . the process by which they calculate the capacity of - Hilti expansion anchors which . have overlapping cones. SWEC calculates the capacity based on the group action of the anchors and divides by a factor of safety of 2.0, which is based on the load factor for OBE. The capacity is compared to

- the test values for the Hilti anchors (which SWEC states show the capacity 'of the anchors for behavior under a slip failure) divided by a factor of safety of 4.0. The lower of the values is used for the anchorage capacity. SWEC feels that this method is acceptable because it differentiates between the failure modes of the anchorage, i.e., slip failures do not depend 'on anchorage spacing, concrete failures do. Cygna noted that the tests for the Hilti anchors show that the failure is not always slip; therefore, SWEC should consider the reduc- tion in the test values due to spacing for those anchors that exhibit concrete failure mecham,sms.

Cygna and SWEC agreed to continue this discussion at a later date.

TUE/090287-A. CON SEE ATTACHED DISTRIBUTION SHEET 2 2 1020 01D L

.-3 , '

,b',I',

i; ,  ;( ,

' l F. ,

y DIS'111B1 MON LIST

Mr. J. Redding Mr. I Nace .

. Mr. W. Counsil

' Mr. D. Pigott hA Vietti4ook Mr. C. Grimes Mr. S. Stamm Mr. J. Muffett Ms..N. Williams

Mr. J. Russ Mr. W. Horstman Mr. K. Parikh Ms. D. Leong -

Project File i ..

a

\-

_