ML070080416

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Licensee Handouts for Oconee, Summary of December 12, 2006 Meeting
ML070080416
Person / Time
Site: Oconee  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 12/12/2006
From:
Duke Energy Corp
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML070080446 List:
References
TAC MD2129, TAC MD2130, TAC MD2131
Download: ML070080416 (24)
v • d • e


Text

I Duke PoEnergy.

Response to Request for Additional Information: Proposed Use of Fibeir-Reinforced Polymer System at Oconee Nuclear Station 1-4", 1,, " ýz I I

,-, ýt, ý, ýý - ý -F '4-, 1 'r, " Z, I ý1 -141.,

1ý., I ý.

I

ý-, "4 ý, ý,

, [-', -,

ý I

, P ý- ý I f".

ý11ý!ý,-,ý-'ý-V I-I'lýwl,ýl.!-'?ýýfiý-,,-.Zý;ý,,-ýEý,-,I,ýlt'1,4rt!Zýll.liý"ýmtýPSII Presentation to United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville,, MD December 12, 2006 I

Duke Duke Participants PREnergy o Rich Freudenberger, Tornado-HELB Design Basis Group 0 Stephen Newman, Regulatory Compliance 0 Clifford Davis, Major Projects Group o Lawrence Llibre, Major Projects Group Speaking on behalf of Duke:

o Ed Fyfe,, Fyfe Company,, LLC

" Zach Smith,, Fyfe Company., LLC December: 12, 20062

Duke Agenda Energy

  • Introductions
  • Purpose of Meeting
  • Brief Description of Natural Phenomenon Barrier System (NPBS) Modifications

" Proposed Solution Using Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)

System

" Discussion of Response to NRC Request for Additional Information (RAI) on FRP License Amendment Request (LAR)

  • Closing Remarks December'12, 20063 3

mýDuke rOEnergy_

Purpose of Meeting.

Briefly review NPBS modifications.

o Review proposed use of FRP system within NPBS modifications.

  • Discuss Duke's draft response to RAT on FRP LAR and obtain NRC feedback.

DecemberJ212, 20064 4

Brief Description Modifications of NPBS PDukie OEnergy Unit 3 Control Room North Wall

  • SSF Elevated Trench (5 locations)

December 12, 20065 5

Duke Proposed Solution Using FRP System r

Eneirgy 0 Application: Bond-critical application for flexural strengthening of non-load bearing, infill masonry walls to resist higher design loads.

Note: Application is similar to traditional technique of employing externally bonded steel plates.

0 Loading Condition: Uniform pressure on masonry wall resulting from tornado-induced differential pressure and possibly tornado wind causing tensile stresses in FRP system.

Note: FRP system will not be relied upon as a compressive reinforcement.

December 12, 20066 6,

Duke Proposed Solution Using FRP SystemEn gy e Example Location: Exterior surfaces of selected Units 1, 2., and 3 West Penetration and Cask Decontamination Tank Room walls.

Note: FRP system will be shielded from sunlight (i.e.,

U;V) by siding.

  • Environment: Ambient temperature and humidity conditions associated with local climate and Auxiliary Building equipment rooms.

Note: FRP system will not be located in a high radiation environment or exposed to high temperature gas and/or liquid.

December '12, 20067 7

PDuke OEnergy Proposed Solution Using FRP System

--qý -

I Typical FRP Application Existing Unreinforced Masonry Wall Vertical FRP Reinforcing, I-Horizontal FRP Reinforcing December 12, 20068 8

Discussion of Response to RAI Question 1 Duke I

Areas Identified by Reviewer:

  • ualification Testing Program
  • Variables Influencing FRP-Strengthened Masonry Walls Smethod of masonry construction

)~wall end conditions Swall aspect ratios December 12, 2006 9

Discussion of Response to Question 1 RAI

ý.Duke

'Energy@

Oualification Testinci Procira m:

" ICC AC125 qualification testing and reporting for selected FRP system

  • Relevant industry performance testing of FRP systems December 12, 2006 110

Discussion of Response to RAT Duke Que~stion 1 F Energy Qualification Testing Program.

  • ICC AC125 qualification testing and reporting for selected FRP system

)~Establishes minimum set of acceptance criteria for issuance of ICC-ES evaluation reports for proprietary FRP systems

)';o Acceptance criteria are developed by ICC-ES technical staff and approved by the Evaluation Committee

)~Meets ACI 440.2 R-02 requirement that sufficient test data is available to demonstrate adequate performance of FRP system December ý12, 2006 1I I

Discussion of Response to RAI Duke Question 1Enry Qualification Testing Program (cont.):

  • Relevant industry performance testing of FRP systems -

Carney et al. (2003)

>construction: twelve URM walls, 3 ft. wide x 4 ft. high, 4 in. two-core hollow concrete block SHeight:width aspect ratio: 1.3 SEnd conditions: simple, top and bottom SFRP composite (two schemes): vertically placed laminate strips of varying width and rods

>Loading: out-of-plane, static, uniform (air bag)

SResults:

  • strengthening URM walls with FRP composites improves ultimate static strength
  • URM walls reinforced with glass FRP laminates result in a more ductile system
  • primary identified mode of failure due to delamination propagated by tensile failure of masonry near location of FRP (for Oconee both field testing during installation and in-service inspection of FRP system will include tension adhesion testing as per ASTM D4541 or ACI 530R-02)

December, 12, 2006 112

Discussion of Response to RAI Dukery Question 1Engy Qualification Testing Program (cont.):

e R 'elevant industry performance testing of FRP systems -

Hamilton et al. (2001)

SConstruction: six URM walls,, four 2 ft. wide x 6 ft. high and two 4 ft. wide x 15 ft.-4 in. high, 8 in. hollow-core concrete block SHeigiht:width aspect ratios: 3.0 and 3.8,. respectively SEnd conditions: simple, top and bottom SFRP composite: vertically placed laminate strips (under-reinforced condition)

>Loading: out-of-plane,, static,, uniform (air bag)

SResults:

  • used conventional reinforced concrete design equations to predict flexural strength (derived from basic mechanics principals)
  • ratio of predicted to actual flexural capacity ranged from 0.73 to 1.0 (application of environmental-reduction and strength-reduction factors as per ICC AC125 and ACI 440.2R-02 reduces analytically predicted capacities to values well below test results)
  • demonstrates use of conventional flexural strength design equations to predict flexural capacity of FRP-strengthened masonry walls is valid December ý12, 2006 113

Duke Discussion of Response to RAI lwEnergy Question 1 Qualification Testing Program (cont.):

  • Relevant industry performance testing of FRP systems - Hamoush et al. (2001)

SConstruction: fifteen URM walls, 4 ft. wide x 6 ft. high, 8 in. hollow-core concrete block SHeight:width aspect ratio: 1.5 SEnd conditions: simple, top and bottom SFRP composite (two schemes): two layers of unidirectional bands (TYFO SEH51), one in horizontal direction and one in vertical direction, and two layers of continuous, bi-directional web fabric SLoading: out-of-plane, static, uniform (air bag)

SResults:

  • employed simplified analytical method to predict flexural strength (derived from basic mechanics principals)
  • ratios of predicted to average test results for unidirectional and web FRP-strengthened walls were 1.26 and 1.56, respectively (application of envi ron mental -reduction and strength-red ucti on factors as per ICC AC125 and AdI 440.2R-02 reduces analytically predicted capacities to values well below test results)
  • strengthening of URM walls with FRP composites predictably increases flexural strength; however, premature failure by shear at support(s) must be controlled by maintaining stresses below Code allowable values
  • demonstrates use of conventional flexural strength design equations to predict flexural capacity of FRP-strengthened masonry walls is valid December 12, 2006 114

Discussion of Response to RAI Duknery Question 1 Enry Qualification Testing Program (ot) 0 Relevant industry performance testing of FRP systems - Tan et al.

(2004)

> Construction: thirty URM walls, 3.28 ft. wide x 3.28 ft. high, 2.75 in. x 3.94 in. x 9 in. solid clay bricks SHeigiht:width aspect ratio: 1.0 SEnd conditions: simple, four sides SFRP composite (multiple schemes): unidirectional fabrics oriented at varying angles (0, 45, 90, and 135 degrees) to mortar joints and bidirectional fabrics; varied number of layers and anchorage methods SLoading: out-of-plane, static, concentrated (spherical platen) or distributed (air bag)

SResults:

  • developed analytical models to predict ultimate load-carrying capacity (based on principals of strain compatibility and force equilibrium)
  • ratios of test to predicted capacities ranged from 0.81 to 1.15 for flexural compression failure and from 0.74 to 1.44 for flexural bond failure (application of environmental-reduction and strength-reduction factors as per ICC AC125 and ACI 440.2R-02 reduces analytically predicted capacities to values well below test results)
  • general load-deflection response of FRP-strengthened masonry walls remains unchanged and use of conventional flexural strength design equations to predict the flexural capacity of FRP-strengthened masonry walls remains valid even when method of masonry construction (i.e., solid clay brick versus hollow-core concrete block) and wall support configuration (i.e., simply supported on four sides versus simply supported at the top and bottom) are varied December:; 12, 2006 15

Discussion of Response to RAI Duke Question 1 PoEneiogy@

Qualification Testing Program (cont.):

0 Relevant. industry performance testing of FRP systems - Tumnialan et al. (2003)

>Construction: four existing URM walls (decommissioned building), 8 ft. wide x 8 ft. high x 13 in., double-wythe (interconnected) consisting of cored clay units, solid clay bricks and clay tiles SHeight:width aspect ratio: 1.0

> End conditions: simple, top and bottom FRP composite: vertically placed laminate strips

> Loading: out-of-plane, static, two-point loading mechanism (at mid-height)

> Results:

  • developed analytical model to predict ultimate load-carrying capacity (takes into account restraining forces in supports, originated by arching action, leading to increased out-of-plane resistance of URM walls)
  • ratio of predicted to average test result was 1.04
  • general load-deflection response of FRP-strengthened masonry walls remains unchanged and use of analytical models based on rigid body and material linearity to predict flexural capacity of FRP-strengthened masonry walls remains valid even when method of masonry construction is varied (i.e., double-wythe construction using a combination of cored clay units, solid clay bricks and clay tiles versus single-wythe construction using hollow-core concrete block) and other load resisting mechanisms are present (i.e., arching action)

December! 12, 2006 116

Discussion of Response to RAI MDuke Question 1Enry Qualification Testing Program (cont.):

0 Relevant industry performance testing of FRP systems - Portland State University (1998)

SConstruction: three URM walls, 4 ft. wide x 11 ft. high, 6 in. x 12 in. x 4 in.

hollow clay tile units SHeight:width aspect ratio: 2.75 SEnd conditions: simple, top and bottom SFRP composite (multiple schemes): vertically placed laminate strips - 12 in.

on tension face, 48 in. on tension face, 48 in. on both tension and compression faces SLoading: out-of-plane, static and reversed cyclic, two-point loading mechanism (at third points)

SResults:

ratios of predicted to actual flexural capacities were 1.086 (12 in. strip) and 1.017 (48 in. strip) under static loading wall response for reversed cyclic loading was hysteretically stable response (i.e.,

nearly linear with relatively minor energy dissipation) demonstrating that FRP-strengthened wall maintained its integrity even when subjected to cyclic loading up to 85 percent of ultimate capacity further demonstrates that the general load-deflection response of FRP-strengthened masonry walls remains unchanged and that the use of conventional flexural strength design. equations to predict flexural capacity of FRP-strengthened masonry walls is valid for various types of masonry construction December 12, 2006 117

Dicusin f esoneto RAI Duke Disuession of RespnseEnerogy influencing Variables - Wall End Conditions:

  • Walls idealized for analysis (and correspondingly strengthened'using FRP system) as:

);; simply-supported, one-way spans Ssimply-supported plates based upon actual wall construction

  • Hence, type of wall end conditions (e.g., fixed, hinged, or guided) will not be a variable.

December 12, 2006 118

Discussion of Response to RAI Duke Question 1Enry Influencingi Variables - Wall Aspect Ratios:

" Test data show that neither application method of FRP composite systems (i.e.,, unidirectional or bidirectional) nor minor differences in wall aspect ratios alter general load-deflection response of FRP-strengthened masonry walls.

  • These factors only influence distribution of stresses within masonry wall.

December!12, 2006 119

  • Repone toRAIDuke Discussion of EepnetoRIPknergy I nfluiencing Variables - Method of Construction:
  • Test data show that differences in method of construction (i.e., single or multiple wythe, hollow or grouted concrete blocks or solid concrete bricks, and type of mortar) do not alter general load-deflection response of FRP-strengthened masonry Walls.
  • M~echanical properties (egg.,, tensile properties, compressive properties,, etc.) and geometric properties (e.g.,, masonry unit thickness (solid brick)., face shell thickness (hollow bl~ock),, face-shell or full mortar beds, etc.) must be accurately q.uantified to design FRP strengthening system.

December! 12, 2006 220

Discussion of Response to RAI Question 1 Duke

'Energy@

==

Conclusion:==

  • Qualification testing and reporting for selected FRP system will be performed as per ICC AC125.

e Duke selected the previously discussed investigations because of their relevance Oconee's proposed use of an FRP system areas of:

to in the method of masonry construction, Swall end conditions, and Swall aspect ratios.

December i12, 2006 221

Discussion of Response to RAI

"'Duke Question 1 rEnergy

.Conclusion (cont.):

  • In addition, these tests:

Semploy FRP composite systems comparable to the specific FRP system that Duke plans to use - Tyfo Fibrwrap; Ssimulate tornado differential pressure and wind induced loading conditions (i.e., static, monotonic, and uniform ); and, validate use of analytical methods, derived from basic mechanics principals,

to predict flexural strength of FRP-reinforced walls.

" Together, these tests evaluated seventy URM w alls of varying:

Smasonry construction (single-and double-wythe, 4 and 8 in. hollow-core concrete block, cored clay units, solid clay bricks and clay tiles),

Saspect ratios (ranging from 1.0 to 3.8), and

>ý FRP-reinforcing schemes (vertically and/or horizontally oriented unidirectional fabric and bi-directional web fabric applied using a range of anchorage methods and number of layers).

  • Test data support utilizing the methodology proposed for application of an FRP composite system at Oconee.

December 12, 2006 222

Duke Energy@

Discussion of Response to RAI

-1 !1-II A

  • Responses to RAI questions 2 and 3 revised to address NRC concerns identified during 9/14/2006 teleconference.

SQA Condition 1 application of FRP system SProcess for establishing the required total number of FRP sample sets December '12, 2006 223

,Duki

'Enerogy Closing Remarks

  • Additional Questions

" Action Items December 12, 2006 224

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML070080416&oldid=5353232"