W912P522R0003 RTA TSpecs AppB-7.pdf
PDF 7 MB Posted
- Attached to
- Old Hickory Turbine Generator Rehabilitation
- Solicitation number
- W912P522R0003
About this file
This solicitation is for a firm fixed-price construction contract to rehabilitate turbine generator units at Old Hickory Power Plant in Hendersonville, Tennessee. The estimated value of the project is between $25 million and $100 million. The scope of work includes rewinding the generators on Units 1, 2, and 3 to increase maximum output to 45 MW each. This will require replacing the stator windings, rotors, and performing model verification. The turbine runners on Units 1, 2, and 3 will also be replaced to increase rated output to 61,600 hp at 54 feet of net head, along with replacing the wicket gates. An optional scope is replacing the turbine runner on Unit 4. Additional mechanical, electrical, and civil scope includes upgrades and refurbishment to systems such as brakes, bearings, controls, and plant infrastructure. The term of the project is estimated at two years for the first unit, followed by 18 months for each subsequent unit. A site visit is scheduled for May 5, 2022, with request forms due by specified dates depending on citizenship. Technical questions must be submitted through ProjNet and the question period is open.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 51 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
≔Iw =⋅2 ――― ⋅b13 twe
6.363 in4
≔Ph =⋅P ――― d4
+d3 d4
3283.669 lbf
≔Fv =――― ⋅0.6 Exx
⋅1.2 Nd
17.5 ksi
≔Mv =⋅d1 P 23024 ⋅lbf in
≔σwv =⋅―
⋅Mv b1
⋅2 Iw P
Ae
7.314 ksi
Fv σwv 1 1
≔Mh =⋅Ph (( +h2 d2)) 42523.517 ⋅lbf in
≔σwh =⋅―
⋅Mh b1
⋅Iw 2
Ph
Ae
2 ⎞
0.5
10.054 ksi
Fv σwh 1 1
≔n1 ― in
≔n2 ― in
≔As1 0.969 in2
≔As2 =⋅ π
-D2 ―― .9743 n2
2.892 in2
≔D2' 1.899 in
≔Le 1.759 in
≔Knmax 1.928 in
≔Esmin 1.938 in
≔As2' =⋅⋅⋅⋅π n2 Le Knmax
⋅2 n2 ⋅0.57735 (( -Esmin Knmax))
6.065 in2
≔Ft1 =――― Fub
⋅1.2 Nd
70.833 ksi
≔Ft2 =――― Fy
⋅1.2 Nd 15 ksi
≔Fvt2 =――― ⋅0.62 Fy
⋅1.2 Nd
9.3 ksi
≔Pt1 =⋅Ft1 As1 68637.5 lbf
≔Pt2 =⋅Ft2 As2 43375.484 lbf
≔Pvt2 =⋅Fvt2 As2' 56407.018 lbf
≔Fv1 =―――― ⋅0.62 Fub
⋅1.2 Nd
43.917 ksi
≔Fv2 =――― ⋅0.62 Fy
⋅1.2 Nd
9.3 ksi
≔Pv1 =⋅Fv1 As1 42555.25 lbf
≔Pv2 =⋅Fv2 As2 26892.8 lbf
≔Fp =――― ⋅2.4 Fu
⋅1.2 Nd 58 ksi
≔Pp =⋅⋅Fp D1 t2 54375 lbf min (( ,,Pt1 Pt2 Pvt2))
P 1 1 min (( ,,Pv1 Pv2 Pp))
Ph 1 1
≔fv1 =―― Ph
As1
3.389 ksi
≔fv2 =―― Ph
As2
1.136 ksi
≔Ft1' =⎛⎝ -Ft12 ⋅2.6 fv12 ⎞⎠ 0.5
70.622 ksi
≔Ft2' =⎛⎝ -Ft22 ⋅2.6 fv22 ⎞⎠ 0.5
14.888 ksi
≔Pt1' =⋅Ft1' As1 68432.974 lbf
≔Pt2' =⋅Ft2' As2 43051.111 lbf
≔Fe =―― Mh
D4
28349.012 lbf
Pt2'
Fe 1 1
≔D5 =+D4 ⋅⋅2 t2 tan((30 deg)) 3.866 in
≔Ac =⋅― π
⎛⎝ -D52 D2h2 ⎞⎠ 8.189 in2
≔kb =――― ⋅As2 E t2 ⎛⎝ ⋅1.959 1010⎞⎠ ― kg s2 ≔kc =――
⋅Ac E t2 ⎛⎝ ⋅5.547 1010⎞⎠ ― kg s2
≔Fe' =⋅――― kb
+kb kc Fe 7398.31 lbf
≔μ 0.33
≔m 1
≔Fi1 =⋅⋅0.7 As1 Fub 115311 lbf
≔Fi2 =⋅⋅0.7 As2 Fy 72870.813 lbf
≔Ps1 =―――― ⋅⋅m Fi1 μ
⋅1.2 Nd
15855.263 lbf
≔Ps1' =⋅0.7 Ps1 11098.684 lbf
≔Ps2 =―――― ⋅⋅m Fi2 μ
⋅1.2 Nd
10019.737 lbf
≔Ps2' =⋅0.85 Ps2 8516.776 lbf
Ps1'
Ph 1 1
Ps2'
Ph 1 1
≔K .18
≔T1 =⋅⋅K D1 Fi1 2162.081 ⋅lbf ft
≔T2 =⋅⋅K D2 (( -Fi2 Fe')) 1964.175 ⋅lbf ft
≔Fimin1 =―――― ⋅⋅Ph 1.2 Nd
⋅⋅m μ 0.7
34116.045 lbf
≔Fimin2 =―――― ⋅⋅Ph 1.2 Nd
⋅⋅m μ 0.85
28095.566 lbf
=>Fimin2 Fe 0
≔Fimin3 =+Fimin2 ⋅――― kc
+kc kb Fe 49046.268 lbf
Fi2
Fimin3 1 1
≔T1' =⋅⋅K D1 Fimin1 639.676 ⋅lbf ft
≔T2' =⋅⋅K D2 Fimin3 1471.388 ⋅lbf ft
≔D3 1.875 in
≔D6 2.5 in
=t2 0.75 in
=b1 6 in
=b2 6 in
≔D7 =+D6 ⋅t2 ――――― ⋅2 tan((30 deg))
2.933 in
≔Ft =―――
1.25 Fy
Nd
22.5 ksi
≔d5 =― b2
3 in
≔l =-d5 ―― D3
2.063 in
≔M =⋅― P l 8250 ⋅lbf in
≔S =――― ⋅D7 t22
0.275 in3
≔σ =―― M
⋅2 S
15.002 ksi
Ft σ
D I-
2- N
-T -0
F
R -E
N R ev .B
N° H1039500 MEI 82‐313 F ED‐01
DOCUMENT TECHNIQUE
TECHNICAL DOCUMENT
Titre / Title COMPLEMENTARY WICKET GATE LIFTING DEVICE‐ CALCULATION NOTE
Édition / Issue March 2019 Rév. / Rev. ‐ Date 2019.03.06 Par / By Venumadhav Inamdar
A 2019.04.03 Venumadhav Inamdar
Contrat / Contract N°: W912P5‐17‐C‐0002 CLIENT : U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Réf. / Ref. N° : SECTION 01 10 10 , item 43
Projet / Project : 1584‐ OLD HICKORY TURBINE‐GENERATOR UNIT 4 REHABILITATION
Préparé ou révisé par / Prepared or revised by
Venumadhav Inamdar
Revu et approuvé par / Reviewed and approved by
Secteur responsable / Responsible Department Engineering
DISTRIBUTION (CODE)
Copie non contrôlée / Uncontrolled copy Client, M, N, O, S x Copie contrôlée / Controlled copy
≔P 10000 lbf
≔Ptool 2000 lbf
≔Nd 2
≔Fu1 58 ksi
≔Fy1 36 ksi
≔Fu2 65 ksi
≔Fy2 50 ksi
≔E 200 GPa
≔ν 0.3
≔Exx 70 ksi
≔Dp1 0.44 in
≔Dh1 0.625 in
≔R1 0.75 in
≔be1 =―――― -⋅2 R1 Dh1
0.438 in
≔r1 R1
≔a1 =―――― -⋅2 R1 Dh1
0.438 in
≔t1 0.5 in
≔ϕ1 =⋅55 deg Dp1
Dh1
38.72 deg
≔Z1' =-r1
-r1 2 ⎛
Dp1 sin ((ϕ1))
2 ⎞
0.5
0.013 in
≔Cr1 =-1 ⋅.275 -1 ―― Dp1
Dh1
0.5
0.805
≔b_eff1 =min
,⋅4 t1 ⋅⋅⋅be1 0.6 Fu2
Fy2
Dh1 be1
0.5⎞
0.408 in
≔Av1 =⋅⋅2
+a1 ⋅―― Dp1
(( -1 cos((ϕ1))))
Z1' t1 0.473 in2
≔Dp2 1.02 in
≔Dh2 1.50 in
≔R2 2 in
≔be2 =―――― -⋅2 R2 Dh2
1.25 in
≔r2 R2
≔a2 =―――― -⋅2 R2 Dh2
1.25 in
≔t2 1.75 in
≔ϕ2 =⋅55 deg Dp2
Dh2
37.4 deg
≔Z2' =-r2
-r2 2 ⎛
Dp2 sin ((ϕ2))
2 ⎞
0.5
0.024 in
≔Cr2 =-1 ⋅.275 -1 ―― Dp2
Dh2
0.5
0.798
≔b_eff2 =min
,⋅4 t2 ⋅⋅⋅be2 0.6 Fu1
Fy1
Dh2 be2
0.5⎞
1.324 in
≔Av2 =⋅⋅2
+a2 ⋅―― Dp2
(( -1 cos((ϕ2))))
Z2' t2 4.658 in2
≔Pt1 =⋅⋅⋅⋅Cr1 ――― Fu2
⋅1.20 Nd 2 t1 b_eff1 8889.085 lbf
Pt1
Ptool 1 1
≔Pb1 =⋅⋅Cr1 ――― Fu2
⋅1.20 Nd
+⋅1.13
-R1 ―― Dh1
⋅0.92 be1
+1 be1
Dh1 t1 7967.165 lbf
Pb1
Ptool 1 1
≔Pv1 =⋅―――― ⋅0.70 Fu2
⋅1.20 Nd Av1 8969.572 lbf
Pv1
Ptool 1 1
≔Fp1 =―――― ⋅1.25 Fy2
Nd
31.25 ksi
≔σbearing1 =――― Ptool
⋅Dp1 t1
9.091 ksi
Fp1 σbearing1 1 1
≔Pt2 =⋅⋅⋅⋅Cr2 ――― Fu1
⋅1.20 Nd 2 t2 b_eff2 89384.985 lbf
Pt2
P 1 1
≔Pb2 =⋅⋅Cr2 ――― Fu1
⋅1.20 Nd
+⋅1.13
-R2 ―― Dh2
⋅0.92 be2
+1 be2
Dh2 t2 68871.411 lbf
Pb2
P 1 1
≔Pv2 =⋅―――― ⋅0.70 Fu1
⋅1.20 Nd Av2 78789.409 lbf
Pv2
P 1 1
≔Fp2 =―――― ⋅1.25 Fy1
Nd
22.5 ksi
≔σbearing2 =――― P
⋅Dp2 t2
5.602 ksi
Fp2 σbearing2
=Dh1 0.625 in
=R1 0.75 in
≔L1 1 in
≔d1 2.5 in
≔twf1 0.25 in
≔twe1 =⋅twf1 0.707 0.177 in
≔I1 =―――― ⋅d1 twe1
0.46 in4
≔A1 =⋅⋅2 d1 twe1 0.884 in2
=Dh2 1.5 in
=R2 2 in
≔L2 4 in
≔d2 8 in
≔twf2 0.4375 in
≔twe2 =⋅twf2 0.707 0.309 in
≔I2 =―――― ⋅d2 twe2
26.395 in4
≔A2 =⋅⋅2 d2 twe2 4.949 in2
≔Fv1 =――― ⋅0.6 Exx
⋅1.2 Nd
17.5 ksi
≔Pvw1 =⋅Fv1 A1 15465.625 lbf
Pvw1
Ptool 1 1
≔M1 =⋅Ptool L1 2000 ⋅lbf in
≔σweld1 =
⋅M1 d1
⋅I1 2
Ptool
A1
2 ⎞
0.5
5.884 ksi
Fv1 σweld1 1 1
≔Pvw2 =⋅Fv1 A2 86607.5 lbf
Pvw2
P 1 1
≔M2 =⋅P L2 40000 ⋅lbf in
≔σweld2 =
⋅M2 d2
⋅I2 2
P
A2
2 ⎞
0.5
6.39 ksi
Fv1 σweld2
≔L1 186 in
≔L2 24.04 in
≔L3 51.04 in
≔L4 198.323 in
≔L5 33.86 in
≔L6 6 in
≔h 12.34 in
≔w 6.52 in
≔tw 0.26 in
≔tf 0.440 in
≔A 8.8 in2
≔Ix 238 in4
≔Iy 20.3 in4
≔Sx 38.6 in3
≔Sy 6.2 in3
≔rx = Ix
A
0.5
5.201 in
≔ry = Iy
A
0.5
1.519 in
≔J =191000 mm4 0.459 in4
≔rt 1.77 in
≔λ =―― w
⋅2 tf 7.409
≔λ1 =⋅0.38 E
Fy2
0.5
9.153
=<λ λ1 1
≔Lp =⋅⋅1.76 ry E
Fy2
0.5
64.386 in
=<Lp ―――― ⋅0.67 E
⋅Fy2 ―― h
⋅tf w
=L1 186 in
=L2 24.04 in
≔Fb1 =――― ⋅1.1 Fy2
Nd
27.5 ksi
≔M =⋅P L2 ⎛⎝ ⋅2.003 104 ⎞⎠ ⋅lbf ft
≔σ1 =―― M
Sx
6.228 ksi
Fb1 σ1 1 1
≔M1 =⋅-P L2 ⋅-2.003 104 ⋅lbf ft
≔M2 =-M1 ⎛⎝ ⋅2.003 104 ⎞⎠ ⋅lbf ft
≔Cb =++1.75 ⋅1.05 M1
M2
⋅0.3 M1
M2
≔Lr1 =
⋅⋅⋅3.19 rt E Cb
Fy2
0.5
76.145 in
≔λ2 =―― L1 rt 105.085
⋅⋅3.19 E Cb
Fy2
0.5 λ2 1
⋅⋅17.59 E Cb
Fy2
0.5 λ2 0
≔Cltb 1
≔Fb2 =⋅Cltb ―――― ⋅⋅π
E Cb
⋅Nd L1 rt
12.963 ksi
≔Fb3 =⋅Cltb ―――――― ⋅⋅0.66 E Cb
⋅Nd
⋅L1 ―― h
⋅tf w
11.965 ksi max(( ,Fb2 Fb3)) σ1 1 1
≔Fb4 =―― Fy2
Nd 25 ksi
Fb4 σ1
≔L7 =-L3 L2 27 in
≔h2 =h 12.34 in
≔t3 0.5 in
≔d3 8 in
≔M3 =⋅Ptool L7 ⎛⎝ ⋅5.4 104 ⎞⎠ ⋅lbf in
⋅L7 h2 t3
⋅0.08 ―― E
Fy1
⋅L7 h2 t3
⋅1.9 ―― E
Fy1
≔M4 =⋅Ptool L7 ⎛⎝ ⋅5.4 104 ⎞⎠ ⋅lbf in
≔M5 =⋅-Ptool L7 ⋅-5.4 104 ⋅lbf in
≔Cb =++1.75 ⋅1.05 M4
M5
⋅0.3 M4
M5
≔Fb =⋅⋅Cb
-1.52 ⋅0.274
⋅L7 h2 t3
Fy1
E
Fy1
Nd
19.203 ksi
=<Fb 1.25 ―― Fy1
Nd
≔S =――― ⋅d3 t3
5.333 in3
≔σ =―― M3
⋅2 S
5.063 ksi
Fb σ
=h 12.34 in
=w 6.52 in
≔twf3 0.25 in
≔twe3 =⋅twf3 0.707 0.177 in
≔I3 =⋅――――― +⋅⋅3 w h h twe3 143.097 in4
≔A3 =⋅(( +⋅2 w ⋅2 h)) twe3 6.667 in2
=h2 12.34 in
=d3 8 in
≔twf4 0.25 in
≔twe4 =⋅twf4 0.707 0.177 in
≔J4 =⋅⋅―――――― +⋅⋅3 d3 h2 d3 twe3 2 245.483 in4
≔A4 =⋅⋅4 d3 twe4 5.656 in2
=Fv1 17.5 ksi
≔M6 =⋅P L2 240400 ⋅lbf in
≔σweld3 =+
⋅M6 h
⋅I3 2
P
A3
11.865 ksi
Fv1 σweld3 1 1
=Fv1 17.5 ksi
≔M7 =⋅Ptool L7 54000 ⋅lbf in
≔σweld4 =+―――――――
⋅M7 h
2 ⎛ d3
2 ⎞
0.5
J4 Ptool
A4
1.971 ksi
Fv1 σweld4 1 1
=h 12.34 in
=w 6.52 in
≔twf3 0.25 in
≔twe5 =⋅twf3 0.707 0.177 in
≔I5 =⋅――――― +⋅⋅3 w h h twe5 143.097 in4
≔A5 =⋅(( +⋅2 w ⋅2 h)) twe5 6.667 in2
=L6 6 in
≔L8 =+L6 ― h
12.17 in
≔L9 5.846 in
=Fv1 17.5 ksi
≔M8 =⋅Ptool L8 24340 ⋅lbf in
≔σweld5 =+
⋅M8 h
⋅I5 2
Ptool
A5
1.349 ksi
Fv1 σweld5
≔P1 775.3 lbf
≔d4 18.3252 in
≔M9 =⋅P1 d4 14207.528 ⋅lbf in
≔P2 669.4 lbf
≔d5 21.4118 in
≔M10 =⋅P2 d5 14333.059 ⋅lbf in
≔P3 1444.7 lbf
≔d6 0.0863 in
≔M11 =⋅P3 d6 124.678 ⋅lbf in
≔d7 67.734 in
=atan d6 d7
0.073 deg
=tan d6 d7
%0.127
H N
-D I-
-N
-T -0
F R
-E N
R e v .B
N°
H1039500 MEI 82-313 F QC-01
Titre / Title Lifting Devices - Wicket Gates & Servo
Édition / Issue September 2021 Rév / Rev. - Date 2021-09-27 Par / By E. Marcotte
Contrat / Contract: W912P5-17-C-0002 Client/ Customer: US Army Corps of Engineers
Ref Contrat / Contract Reference: Sec. / Sec: 05 50 03.20 Article / Item: 1
Projet / Project: 1584- Old Hickory U4
Kaplan Turbine Refurbishment and Generator Rewind
Etienne Marcotte, Eng.
Secteur responsable / Responsible Department QA
Copie non contrôlée / Uncontrolled copy Client- I-O
X Copie contrôlée / Controlled copy
2018-07-20
Stéphane Trudel Cartes de qualifications
Page - 1 -
Opérateur qualifié Transport matière dangereuse
Autre
Stéphane Trudel Cartes de qualifications
Page - 2 -
�0�
2�
#Po :
Rev:
A load test was performed on the lifting device, according to the required procedure.
(17000lbs for 30 minutes duration - wicket gate servomotor handling device) (12000lbs for 30 minutes duration - wicket gate handling device) A welding inspection was carried out after the test and the part was accepted.
Vérifié et approuvé par /
Verified and approuve by: Date: 2018-07-20
Rapport de Conformité / Compliance Report
No. Dessin / Drawing number:
G.E. - OLD HICKORY
Projet / Project: LIFTING DEVICE - WICKET GATES & SERVO.
4000038501 L.10 # Po Labmétal: 004-01690 Client / Customer:
N° H1039500 MKB 83-200 F ED-01
Titre / Title ROTOR LIFTING BEAM FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Édition / Issue Juin / June 2018 Rév. / Rev. - Date 2018.06.01 Par / By S. Gingras
A 2018.09.19 S. Gingras
B 2018.10.18 S. Gingras
Contrat / Contract N°: 158400 CLIENT : U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Réf. / Ref. N° : SECTION 01 10 10, PARAGRAPH 1.18.5, item 32
Projet / Project : OLD HICKORY POWERHOUSE
TURBINE - GENERATOR UNIT #4 REHABILITATION
Sébastien Gingras, Eng.
Secteur responsable / Responsible Department Hydro Products / Engineering Department
Copie non contrôlée / Uncontrolled copy Client, B, S
X Copie contrôlée / Controlled copy
N° : H1039500 MKB 83-200 F ED-01
Cont. N° : 158400
Rev. : B
DOCUMENT TECHNIQUE Date : 2018.10.18
TECHNICAL DOCUMENT Page : 1 / 1
Titre / Title : ROTOR LIFTING BEAM FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
1.0 SCOPE
The purpose of this document is to present the Rotor Lifting Beam Finite Element Analysis performed by GapoS engineering. The calculations are performed as per ASME BTH-1 ‘’Under the Hook Lifting Devices’’ Category A Design
Class 0.
N° : H1039500 MKB 83-200 F ED-01
Cont. N° : 158400
Rev. : B
DOCUMENT TECHNIQUE Date : 2018.10.18
TECHNICAL DOCUMENT Page : APPENDIX A
Titre / Title : ROTOR LIFTING BEAM FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX A
Rev. A, B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY 3
FEA Modeling 5
FEA Analysis Results/Overall Stress Contours 15
FEA Enlarged Stress Contours 19
FEA Buckling Analysis 41
FEA Stress Checks 43
APPENDIX A - Traditional Analysis 48
Traditional Bending & Shear Check 51
Pin Plates & Hook Pins 53
Hook & Trunnion s 58
Discussion of Loads Carrying Mechanism at beam center 60
Stiffeners at Beam Center 61
APPENDIX B -Dispositioning of NDE Indications 64
ROTOR LIFTING BEAM ANALYSIS CALCULATION
SUMMARY
PURPOSE Verify the lifting beam can lift 275 tons while meeting the criteria of
ASME BTH – 1 “UNDER THE HOOK LIFTING DEVICES” Category A, Design Class 0
CONCLUSION: Conditioned upon weld and base metal repairs being made per
Appendix B (see discussion point no. 4 below) and load testing per ASME B30.2 the lifting beam complies with ASME BTH-1 for a rated load of 275 tons. The items discussed below were taken into account for this conclusion.
1. The evaluation has been conducted based upon the assumption that the structural steel is ASTM A7. This assumption is based upon a 1952 design date and review of AISC Design Guide 15 which for this time period leads to no other conclusion than A7. There is enough material available at the end of the top flanges for testing if desired by the USACE.
2. The trunnion support blocks are designed to transmit vertical load only directly bearing on the beam top flange. These very rigid blocks were welded rigidly to the top flange and also welded rigidly to adjacent stiffeners. The blocks and the stiffener plates act similar to a huge cover plate in affect adding strength to the flange. The triangular stiffener plates
(page 36) at both ends of the trunnion become loaded due to this phenomenon. Although The plates has hotspots of around 25 ksi, the average stress across the section is about 15.5 ksi.
3. The hand verification calculation (which was based on a 4% load increase) produces combined stresses of 17.03 ksi in the top flange at the beam centerline. This is 3% above allowable. The ¾”x7.5” cover plates on the bottom flange were not included in the analysis. Neither does the hand calculation include the effect of the welded trunnion blocks discussed in number 2 above. The FEA Analysis produced -11 ksi in the top flange (page
32), 19.9 in the web (page 28 & 30). Ignoring normal stress concentrations around holes, the bottom flange stresses run 13.8 to 15 ksi. Because the
FEA models in the effect of the welded trunnion, the stresses produced are considered more accurate. Thus the bending stresses are within the BTH-1 allowable. The web stresses are primarily direct bearing from the trunnion support plate above and thus not representative of the combined bending and shear stresses referred to in the code. The beam stresses are within the BTH-1 limits.
4. Twenty-one indications have been noted in the NDE inspection report provided by IVEY COOPER to ACME. The indications can be classified in two types. Seventeen are clearly fillet weld failures and most are longitudinal.
These welds are stressed anywhere from 4 to 15 ksi and some of the stresses are compressive. None of these failures are due to stresses that would have been produced by the design load. The weld failures are likely due to temperature shrinkage during fabrication or poor quality welding.
The repair would be to excavate the cracked area down to sound metal and fill the excavated area with 60 ksi minimum filler material. Refer to page 62 for weld defects and repairs.
The other 4 weld indications are longitudinal cracks in the web base metal all in low stress regions. In general, these cracks are more likely defective base material possibly laminated. Excavation completely through the thickness and then full penetration welded is conservatively specified. This is due to the somewhat critical location of indications number 2 & 4. These are adjacent to the two stiffeners adjacent to the lifting pin hole at one end of the beam. The cracks located just above the 3.5” pin plate (patched into the ¾” web) are in a compression zone. Thus they are likely due to either defective material or temperature loading during fabrication.
1 FEA CALCULATION DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this calculation is to evaluate the adequacy of the existing rotor lifting beam for an increased load rating. The design load rating is 275 tons. The report conservatively uses 286 tons a 4% increase.
2 ANALYSIS METHOD
A finite element analysis (FEA) of the lifting beam was performed using Staad.pro. Two separate analysis’s models were created. These models are listed below –
• Lifting Beam Stress Analysis – Static analysis of the lifting beam
• Lifting Beam Buckling Analysis – Eigenvalue buckling analysis of the lifting beam
2.1 Analysis Details
2.1.1 Material Properties
A screen print of the material data used in Staad.pro is shown below –
2.1.2 FEA Criteria
• ASME BTH-1 Design Code
• Nd = 2 Category A Design Factor
• Fb = (1.1 Fy)/Nd Allowable bending stress
• Fv = (Fy)/Nd(3)0.5 Allowable Shear Stress
• F cr = Fy/Nd Allowable combined Shear & Bending
2.1.3 Boundary Conditions
The boundary conditions for the model are indicated below –
Boundary Conditions
Support A
Support B
Center Hook Load Location
Area Enlarged
Below
Overhead Crane Hook Attachment Points -
Support “A” and support “B” represent the overhead crane hook attachment points. The only restraint difference between support “A” and support “B” is support “B” is released in the Fx-direction (axis indicated above and below) at the hook support pin. Therefore, only support “A” is detailed in full. An enlarged view of support “A” is shown below -
Support “A” Area Enlarged (Iso – Downward perspective)
Rigid links provided at the pin/beam interface for force transfer to pin. Rigid links released in direction tangent to the pin circumference to allow for rotation about pin.
Hook Pin Support – Restraint Direction: FX, FY, FZ, MX
Pin – Pin released in the FZ direction to prevent beam sidewalls from being falsely “tied together”.
Center Hook Attachment Point -
An enlarged view of the center hook load location is shown below –
Enlarged View of Center Hook Load Application Point
(Iso – Downward perspective)
Slave Nodes – Slaved Direction: FY
Note: Slave nodes used to “link” the master node shown below with the trunnion support blocks in the FY direction.
Master Node – Controls Y-Direction displacement of slave nodes at the trunnion support block shown above.
286 Ton hook load application point at hook eye elevation
Trunnion Support Block Master/Slave Node Configuration –
Plate elements were used to model the trunnion support block. Since the centerline of the trunnion support block coincides with the centerline of the beam web all of the load, analytically, was transmitted directly to the web and the effects of the 6” wide trunnion support block bearing on the web stiffeners was lost. To account for these stress concentrations the following master/slave node configurations were incorporated -
Slave Nodes – These slave nodes are placed directly over the beam center stiffeners and represent the 6” bearing length of the trunnion support block over top of these center stiffeners. A picture of this area is also shown below.
Note: The master node for these slave nodes is at the hook eye location. This is shown in the previous section, “Center Hook
Attachment Point”, above.
Exterior & Interior
Center Stiffeners
6” Bearing width over stiffeners represented by slave nodes. (Yellow Line)
Slave Nodes – Restrained in all directions (rigid) relative to the master node shown above. These slave nodes, shown in red, represent the welded connection of the 6”x6” trunnion support block to the ¾” stiffener running perpendicular to the beam web. A picture of this area is also shown below.
Note: This master/slave node configuration occurs at each end of the two trunnion support blocks. Four places total.
Master Node
2.1.4 Loading Details
The following loads were applied to the model –
• Primary Load Case 1: Hook Assembly o The hook weight was calculated based on shipping weight provided by ACME Industrial.
• Primary Load Case 2: Lifting Beam Self-Weight o The beam self-weight is calculated by Staad.pro using the material properties.
• Primary Load Case 3: Hook Lift Load o 286 tons
• Load Combination Case 4: Combined Loads of Primary Load Cases 1 thru 3
The hook assembly weight is calculated below –
Shipping Weight = 15.4 kips
Beam Self Weight = 8.4 kips
Welded connection locations represented by the slave nodes shown above.
Hook Assembly Self Weight = 15.4 kip − 8.4kip = 7.0 kips
Note: For the Buckling Analysis only primary case 3 (the hook lift load) was applied. The reason for this is during the buckling analysis the applied loads are increased until buckling occurs. Since the self-weight of the beam is constant it would not be appropriate to increase it in addition to the lifted load. It should also be noted that the self-weight of the beam and hook only account for 2.6% of the total global load.
2.1.5 FE Mesh Settings and Details
The majority of the plate elements used for the analysis, 20,950 out of 20,958 plates, were 4-noded
(quadrilateral) plates. The other plates used consisted of eight 3-node triangular plates. The following parameters were used for the FE plate mesh –
• Target mesh sizes ranged from 0.5” to a max of 3.5”
• Approximate aspect ratio of 1:1
• Maximum allowable plate internal angle of 120 deg
3 ANALYSIS RESULTS
3.1 Stress Contours
The loading and geometry of the lifting beam are symmetrical in both the Z’ vertical plane and the X’ vertical plane as shown below -
Plan View
Given the loading and geometric symetry the stress distributions are also symetric. Therefore, only the section in the dashed box (shown above) will be presented. The Von Mises stress contours shown are based on the enveloped maximum stresses of top and bottom plate surface.
3.1.1 Overall Stress Contours
Z’
X’
Iso – Downward perspective (From inside of beam)
Iso – Downward perspective (From outside of beam)
Elevation View
Top Plan View
Bottom Plan View
3.1.2 Enlarged Stress Contours
The following labeled areas correspond to the stress contours in this section.
Stress Contour Areas (Elevation View)
Area “A” Area “B”
Area “C”
Area “D”
Area A: Iso – Downward perspective
Area A: Iso – Downward perspective
Area A: Elevation View
Area A: Top Plan View
Area A: Bottom Plan View
Area B: Iso – Downward perspective
Area B: Iso – Downward perspective
Area B: Elevation View
Area B: Top Plan View
Area B: Bottom Plan View
Area C: Iso – Downward perspective
Area C: Iso – Downward perspective
Area C: Elevation View
Area C: Top Plan View
Area C: Bottom Plan View
Area D: Iso – Downward perspective
Area D: Iso – Downward perspective
Area D: Elevation View
Area D: Top Plan View
Area D: Bottom Plan View
3.2 Support Reactions and Statics Check
The support reactions are shown below for each load case –
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .