Text

Florida Power & Light Company Turkey Point Unit 3 Containment Dome Report
	ML093010433
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	12/24/1970
From:	; Florida Power & Light Co
To:	; US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
	Jesse Robles 415-2940
References
	Download: ML093010433 (116)
	v • d • e

- .

Re.:' *!~ "" ---*

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50- 250 CONTAINMENT DOME REPORT 414 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-1 2.0 DOME AND CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION 2- 1 2.1 Dome Description 2-1 2.2 Construction Description 2- 1 3.0 FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND INVESTIGATION 3-1 3.1 Initial Observations 3-1 3.2 Dome Concrete Coring and Removal 3-2 (Before Detensioning) 3.3 Detensioning of Tendons 3- 3 3.4 Results of Instrument Readings 3-3 During Detensioning 3.5 Dome Concrete Removal 3-6 4.0 MATERIALS INVESTIGATION 4- 1 5.0 ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION 5- 1 5.1 Crane Loading 5-1

5. 2 Temperature and Moisture 5-2 5.3 Sheathing Filler Pressure 5-2 5.4 Radial Tension Caused By Prestressing 5-3 5.5 Unbalanced Loads from Prestressing 5- 4 5.6 Construction Joints 5-5 6.0 CONCRETE REPLACEMENT 6- 1 6.1 Compatibility of the Original and 6-1 Replaced Concrete 6.2 Surface Preparation 6-2 6.3 Additional Reinforcement 6- 3 6.4 Repair of Reinforc i ng Steel, Tendons 6- 3 and Sheathing 6.5 Instrumentation 6- 5 6.6 Method of Concrete Replacement 6- 5 6.7 Post-Tensioning Sequence 6- 6 6.8 Criteria 6- 7 7.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 7-1 i

LIST OF TABLES Table Title 2-1 Tendon Tensioning Sequence 3- 1 Containment Structure Dome (Sheets 1 Coring Log Summary 2 &3 (Before Detensioning) 3- 2 Coring on Construction Joints (Sheets I & 2) 3- 3 Coring After Concrete Removal (Sheets I & 2) 4- 1 Tabulation of Design Mix Quantities 4- 2 Chemical and Physical Tests Of Cement In Accordance With ASTM C- ISD 4-3 Fine and Coarse Aggregates Tested In (Sheets 1 & 2) Accordance with ASTM C- 33 4- 4 Water Analysis 4- 5 Ice Analysis 4-6 Air Entraining Agent 4-7 Water Reducing Agent 4- 8 Concrete Physical Characteristics 4-9 Compressive Strength (Uniaxial Compression) 4- 10 Tensile Strength (Split Cylinder Test) 4- 11 Tensile Strength (Uniaxial Tension Test) 4- 12 Uniaxial Tension Tests 4-13 Uniaxial Compression Tests 4- 14 Biax ial Compression Tests ii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title 2-1 Containment Dome Geometry 2-2 Construction Sequence 2- 3 Tendon Layout 3- 1 Dome Coring Results 3- 2 Contours of Deepest Delaminations 3- 3 Tendon Liftoff Values 3- 4 Instrumentation Locations 3- 5 Sensor In 42 3- 6 Sensor ID 82 3- 7 Sensor ID 63 3- 8 Sensor ID 43 3-9 Sensor ID 20 3- 10 Sensor ID 64 3- 11 Sensor ID 44 3- 12 Sensor ID 84 3- 13 Sensor In 21 3- 14 Sensor ID 85 3-15 Sensor ID 22 3-16 Sensor ID 66 3- 17 Sensor ID 417 3- 18 Sensor ID 418 3- 19 Sensor ID 419 3-20 Sensor ID 420 3-21 Coring on Construction Joints 3-22 Coring After Concrete Removal 3-23 Contours of Deepest Delaminations Verified By Concrete Removal and Coring 3-24 Sections Showing Delaminations iii

Figure Title 3-25 Sections Showing Delaminations 3-26 East Side of Dome During Concrete Removal 3-27 West Side of Dome During Concrete Removal 3- 28 Detailed Pictures of Concrete Removal 3- 29 Detailed Pictures of Concrete Removal 4-1 Concrete Specimens 5- 1 Crane Location 5-2 Thermal Gradient 5-3 Radial Tension 5-4 Unbalanced Loads From Post-Tensioning 5-5 Loading Areas 5-6 Meridional Stress at the Outer Surface From Dome Post-Tensioning 5-7 Circumferential Stress at the Outer Surface From Dome Post-Tensioning 5- 8 Meridional Stress at the Outer Surface From Dome Post- Tensioning 5- 9 Circumferential Stress at the Outer Surface From Dome Post- Tensioning 5-10 Nonuniform Bearing Case 1 5-11 Nonuniform Bearing Case 2 5-12 Plexiglass Dome Without Load 5- 13 Plexiglass Dome With Load 5- 14 Axisymmetrical Simulation of the Meridional Cons truc tion Joint 5- 15 Meridional Stresses at the Outside Surface From the Post-Tensioning Load at 50% Completion. All Joints Assumed Hinged With Membrane Forces Act ing at Center of Section.

5- 16 Circumferential Stresses at the Outside Surface From the Post- Tensioning Load a t 50! CQ~le tion. All Joints Assumed Hinged With Membrane Forces Acting at Center of Section.

iv

Figure Title 5- 17 Meridional Stresses at the Outside Surface From the Post- Tensioning Load at 50% Completion. All Joints Assumed Hinged With the Membrane Forces Acting at t he Top of the Circumferential and Meridional Joints.

5-18 Circumferential Stresses at the Outside Surface From the Post- Tensioning Load at 50% Completion.

All Joints Assumed Hinged With the Membrane Forces

~cting at the Top of the Circumferential and Meridional Joints .

6- 1 Compatibility Analytical Model 6- 2 Compa tibility Analysis Stress Distribution 6- 3 Compatibility Analysis Stress Distribution 6- 4 Compatibility Analysis Stress Distribution 6- 5 Illustration of Concrete Removal Area 6- 6 Illustration of Concrete Anchors 6- 7 Illustration of Typical Instrumentation 6-8 Illustration of Concrete Replacement v

1.0 I NTRODUCTION This report describes the Turkey Point Unit 3 containment dome, delamination of the dome concrete during post tensioning of tendons, the subsequent in-vestigation and analysis of this phenomena, and the repair and test program.

When about two thirds of the dome tendons had been tensioned, it was noted that concrete cracking and she athing filler leakage was developing and that in some areas of the dome, the concrete felt springy when walked on.

The dome was struck with a sledge hammer and, in some areas, it sounded as if it were hollow. The concrete was locally removed in some of these areas and shallow (approximately 1/2" to 4") delamination planes were fotnld running almost parallel with the surface, but eventually intersecting it. A full investigation was begun to determine both the extent and cause of the delaminations, and to cover the following:

1. Construction Procedures

2. Core Sampling

3. Concrete Removal

4. Materials Properties

5. Analysis of Loads During Construction As a result of the investigation, it has been determined that insufficient contact area in the southern portion of the meridional construction joint and around the ventilation blackouts, together with unbalanced post - tensioning loads, were the major causes of the delaminations. After the post - tensioning was complete, there was no evidence that the dome was not capable of indefinitely resisting the applied loads. From de tensioning there was no detectable loss in the tendon forces due to the delaminations.

Concrete replacement procedures have been prepared and will include modifi-cations to the original placement procedures shown to be desirable during the analysis of the delamination causes.

The compl eted dome will meet performance requirements and the adequacy will be demonstrated during structural tests.

The firm of T. Y. Lin, Kulka, Yang and Associate, the consultant in the design of the containment, has participated in the investigation program and the concrete replacement method selection.

1- 1

2.0 DOME AND CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION

2. 1 DOME DESCRIPTION The containment is described in FSAR, Section 5 . 1 . 2 and shown in FSAR Figure 5.1- 1 (2 sheets).

The dome design geometry and dimensions are shown in Figure 2- 1.

2. 2 CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION Locations of construction joints and dates of concrete placement are shown on Figure 2-2 . Concrete placed between October 21, 1969 and March 3, 1970 inclusive consists of the top portion of the dome and the construction bl ockouts . These locations are where delaminations (discussed later) were found . A work stoppage of seven weeks duration resulted in the time lapse between the two largest pours.

Expanded metal was used to form the construction joints. The concrete was placed with buckets and pumps and vibrated for consolidation .

Some of the concrete was pumped through aluminum pipe, a practice subsequently discontinued although tests indicated no significant reduction in strength of this concrete .

A white pigmented concrete curing compound meeting ASTM C-309 was applied on all exposed surfaces. However, a rainstorm occurred shortly after coating the east half of the dome, placed October 21, 1969, and washed away most of the curing compound . A work stoppage the next day, October 22, 1969 and lasting seven weeks, prevented reapplication of a curing compound.

The dome post- tensioning tendons are composed of 3 groups oriented as shown on Figure 2-3 . The tendons are arranged in five layers. The tendons in Group I are in a single layer and are spaced approximately 1' - 8" from center to center, whereas the tendons in Groups 2 and 3 2- 1

are in 2 layers for each group spaced approximately 3'-4" from center to center of tendons in a layer . Tensioning of tendons utilized con-ventional equipment and techniques. The tensioning sequence is gi ven on Table 2-1 and discussed in Section 5.5. Sheathing filler pumps, with a pressure capability of between 200 and 250 psi, were used to inject the sheathing filler for tendon corrosion protection .

2-2

TABLE 2-1 TENDON TENSIONING SEQUENCE I~'Y 27 ID50 . lJJ~ 6 2032 2D28 3D50 3D46 ID54 28 lJJ14 lJJI0 lJJ6 lJJ2 2036 2D24 2020 3D10 3D6 June 1 lJJ30 lD26 ID22 lJJIB 2D16 2D12 208 3D26 3D22 3D18 3D14 2 lJJ~2 lD38 lJJ3~ 2D~8 2D4 3D30 lJJ53 3 2D25 lD51 lD49 2D4~ 2D40 2D27 2D23 3DI'2 3D3B 3D3~

4 2021 2D17 3D53 lJJ~7 lD~5 lD43 lJJ41 lD39 lJJ37 2D19 2D15 3D55 3D51 3D~7 lJJ35 5 2Ii13 lJJ33 lJJ31 lJJ29 2D11 8 2D9 2D5 3D~5 3D~1 3D37 2D7 2D3 3D39 3D~3 9 201 3D33 3D29 3D25 2055 2D53 3D35 3D31 3D27 10 lJJ27 lJJ23 lJJ25 lD21 2D51 2Dl17 3D21 3D17 3D13 2D~9 2D45 3D23 3D19 3D15 3D11 15 lD19 lD15 lJJ17 2DI13 2D39 2D31 3D9 3D5 2D37 3D7 3D3 2D~1 16 lDll 17 lD7 lJJ9 25 3D52 3DJ,ll 26 3D~O 3D36 3D32'3D28 3D24 3D20 3D16 29 3D12 3DB 3D4 30 lD3 2D30 lJJ5 2D26 2D22 2D18 2D14 July 1 2D10 2D6 2D2 lJJ8 lJJ4 2 2D42 2D38 2D34 lD13 lJJ24 ID20 lJJ16 lJJ12 3 2D50 2D l16 6 lD32 2054 8 lJJ52 lJJ~8 lJJ44 lJJ~O 1036 2D52 13 14 lJJ1 2D35 3D2 2D33 ,c, 21 3D54 22 3D48 3D 49 Aug. 25 lD28 11)55

iI !'-.

I I , I j '"!'-.,

I I

ii I- --+----- -+--+-----11I --t- * '

J!;i! I

-::i i ,,

I I

" , I fit;,'1 '<

~

i I

I

'" I I

I

~Ll CClfTAINMEMT DCKE GiOMETIY FIG. 2- 1

( I 10-2/-"9 12-11-1#9 -

8-22-t!i9 --<-... I R - <le.S'

~- ventllillion Bloc.ktlvf 8-19-169 /

PLAN t;;-24-~9 2.!tti.7D 341#*

6-25-til9 MfiI- Tt'J 41;;-

""'1---_. ~ to- ZM -Ii!!} 4/#. To /0(;"

7- 2. - (,p~ 2.2..* Ttl 281;*

7- 3 -~~

7 Ii.!!J I"*

/or;*70 /lit;*

r;. 2Slt;"

SECT/ON

CONSTlUCTION SEQUENCE FIG . 2-2

/ ,

\ \/ \

. '" -------~

. ,~~--\//

\

",tt; :?f-.

PLAN

,1".-

SECTION TENOON LAYOUT FlG. 2-3

3. 0 FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND INVESTIGATION 3.1 INITIAL OBSERVATIONS On June 17, 1970, when 110 out of 165 dome tendons had been tensioned, sheathing filler was observed leaking from a crack in the dome surface.

Nine sheaths had been filled on June 16, 4 were filled on June 17, and this work was considered to be the source of the sheathing filler leak.

The leakage location was at azimuth 216 degrees and a radius of 35 1 from the dome center. A small amount of concrete was chipped away adjacent to the crack. A crack plane parallel to the surface (delamination) was found within an inch or so of the surface . There was evidence of sheathing filler flow on the surfaces created by the delamination .

On June 22, 1970, a small bulge in the dome surface was noticed at azimuth of 296 degrees and radius of 25 feet . The concrete was broken through in one small spot with a hammer and a delamination was discovered at about ~ .. depth. The exploratory chipping was expanded laterally and towards the center of the dome, revealing that the delamination became thicker as the dome center was approached. This stage of chipping was stopped at about 15 feet radius, at which point the separated layer was about 4" thick.

The initial investigation to determine the extent of the concrete separ-ation below the surface was performed by soundings with a Swiss hammer and a steel sledge hammer . The steel hammer was found to be more effective in finding separations deeper into the concrete, and is considered reliable up to a depth of about 10 inches.

Sonic investigations with a V- scope were considered. The pulse velocity technique does not lend itself to a concrete mass with large numbers of embedded conduits and a 'liner plate on the underside of the dome .

3-1

Moreover, the presence of an intentional construction joint 8 inches from the liner plate further diminishes the reliability of the pulse velocity technique. The reflection method of ultrasonic examination used in metals has not been perfected for a heterogeneous mass such as concrete. A method of sonic induced vibratory resonance of concrete surfaces was tried but proved unsuccessful.

3.2 DOME CONCRETE CORING AND REMOVAL (BEFORE DE TENSIONING)

In order, to estimate the depth and extent of the delaminations 65-4" diameter concrete cores were removed from the Unit 3 containment dome prior to destressing the tendons . The percentages of cores to various depths are as follows:

77% to the 1st layer of tendons 71% to the 2nd layer 22% to the 3rd layer 17% to the 4th layer 11% to the 5th layer A summary of the information obtained from coring is given in Table 3- 1.

To help visualize the extent and depth of the delaminations inferred from coring, Figures 3-1 and 3- 2 have been included. Figure 3-1 shows the core locations together with the depth to the delaminations and the core hole depth . Figure 3-2 is an estimate, from coring infor-mation, of the depth and area extent of the delaminations.

Concrete in an area approximately 7' x 7', with its northwest corner near core 23A. was removed to determine the condition of the meridional construction joint. The concrete was removed to a depth of from 12" to 15" so that the difficulty of concrete removal could also be determined.

3- 2

The following is a summary of the information obtained from both coring and the 7' x 7' concrete removal area:

(1) The depth and extent of the delaminations has considerable symmetry about the meridional construction joint with major delaminations occurring on the south side of the dome.

(2) The delaminations appear to have originated at the meridional construction joint and then progressed away from the joint getting closer to the surface with eventual outcropping or termination at a circumferential construction joint.

(3) The adequacy of the meridional construction joint varied through-out the joint because of the small voids and other evidence of lack of proper consolidation found. Also sheathing filler was found on the joint to within about 6" of the concrete surface.

(4) Some of the core holes show multiple delaminations with gaps between delaminated surfaces of as great as 1".

(5) Many of the core holes had sheathing filler in them after coring, indicating that the delamination plane is continuous over areas other than those immediately around the sheath which was the source of sheathing filler.

3.3 DETENSIONING OF TENDONS The tendons were detensioned to allow safe concrete removal from around them and so that the replaced concrete will assist the remaining concrete in resisting the prestressing forces_

All but two tendons, out of 165 , were tensioned and therefore detensioned.

The liftoff readings for tenSioning and de tensioning verify that the delaminated dome did indeed withstand the prestressing loads for over 3- 3

two months without greater than the normally anticipated losses in tendon forces.

The predic ted prestressing forces loss, with assumptions given in the FASR, but for the period that the dome was prestressed, is calculated to be approximately 13% of the minimum ultimate strength of the tendons.

The average actual loss was found to be 7.1% qased on the liftoff readings. The effective prestr ess at the time of detensioning was therefore equal or greater than calculated. Figure 3-3 shows the tendon force distribution based on the de tensioning liftoff readings.

The delaminations did not result in a detectable effect on the pre-stressing forces. Further, the full prestressing forc e did not result in con tinuing delamination attributable to the forces.

3.4 RESULTS OF INSTRUMENT READINGS DURING DETENSIONING Strain, temperature and deformation measurements were made during tendon detensioning. Strain and temperature measurements were auto-matically recorded on the magnetic tape of a data acquisition system.

The measurements were reduced and plotted by use of a digital computer.

The deformation measurements were manually made using a level and level rod.

The measurement locations are on azimuth 256°. Figure 3-2 shows the azimuth l oca tion relative to the delaminated areas. Figure 3-4 shows the radial location of sensors on azimu th 256°.

The strain sensors are mor e completely described in the FSAR . They .

consist of electric resistance str ain gages mounted and waterproofed on 3 foot long sections of No.4 r einforcing steel. The sensors were installed before concrete placement with their measurement axes 3- 4

perpendicular to dome radii. Circumferential sensors have measure-ment axes parallel to the base slab of the containment. Measurement axes for meridional sensors are in planes which pass through the dome axis and which are perpendicular to the measurement axes of the adjacent circumferential sensors.

Figures 3- 5 to 3- 16 show strain change measurements made prior to and during tendon detensioning . The measurements are related to time and the percentage of completion for detensioning is shown with the same time base. Strain change measurements prior to detensioning are shown to illustrate the stability of the measurements when environmental changes and small prestressing losses affected the structure . Sensor measurements are not available for situations where defective sensors were disconnected . Strain measurements at completion of detensioning were hand plotted in advance of periodic computer handling of the acquired data .

Figures 3- 17 to 3- 20 show temperature measurements from thermocouples installed and grouted in holes drilled after concrete placement. The time base for the Figures 3- 17 to 3- 20 is identical to that for Figures 3-5 to 3- 16.

Temperature changes affected outside strain measurements to a greater degree than was the case for inside strain measurements. For exampl e see Figures 3- 5, 3- 7, 3- 17 and 3- 18 . The magnitude of strain change, on diurnal and other cyclic bases, can be seen for periods when deten-sio ning was not being done. Diurnal strain changes are on the order of 20 micros train (micro inches per inch) for outside sensors and 10 micros train for inside gages.

The strain change from detensioning tendons may be determined by noting the strain change during a particular time period and the change in 3- 5

percentage of completion of de tensioning for the same period. The strain change in some instances was affected by the delamination planes nearby . For examp le sensor 21 (Figure 3-13) was located at a delamination plane and was exposed by chipping which started about day 335 (Dec . 1) . At that time, compression strain again started to increase although detensioning work had been halted by a work stoppage .

The cause of the delaminations cannot be independently proven by the strain measurements . Symptoms of unusual strain patterns are shown.

The symptoms include the nonuniformity of strain at radii 2 . 5 and 46 feet (Figures 3- 5 to 3- 7 and 3- 10 to 3- 12). The measurements show a general trend to circumferential strains that are larger than merid -

ional strains. They also show nonuniform strain patterns that are indicative of nonuniform force distribution in planes that are parallel to the shell middle surface and/or bending perpendicular to the middle surface .

Elevations at the dome apex were measured before placement of concrete; after completion of dome tendon post- tensioning; and after completion of dome tendon detensioning. The dome apex moved downward l - 3/B"+/-1/S" as a result of dome tendon post- tensioning and concrete dead load, shrinkage.

creep and temperature changes . The apex moved upward 7/8"+/-1/8" as a result of de tensioning dome tendons, any creep recovery. and temperature changes. As expected, the upward movement of 7/8 11 was closest to 2/3" of movement predicted by calculations which assumed material elasticity and did not consider the effect of delaminations. Further. the small movements confirm that the effective prestress should be, as measured, within the range expected .

The small measurements and measurement di fferences, show that the cause of delaminations cannot be independently identified from the measure-ments. They further show that the delaminations did not contribute significantly to the dome deformation.

3- 6

3. 5 DOME CONCRETE REMOVAL The delaminated concrete was removed using chipping guns and jack ham-mers. During concrete removal the construction joints were further examined for adequacy by concrete coring . The results of this coring program are shown in Table 3-2 and Figure 3- 21. After the known delaminated concrete was removed additional concrete cores were taken to check for the existence of deep delaminations . The results of this program are shown in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-22. Figure 3-23 shows the depth and extent of the delaminations as indicated by concrete removal and coring . All delaminated concrete had been removed prior to pro-ducing Figure 3- 23. Figures 3- 24 and 3- 25 are cross sections through the dome which show the variation in the delaminated planes . Figures 3- 26 and 3- 27 show the east and west sides of the dome during concrete removal . Figures 3- 28 and 3- 29 show detailed pictures of both the construction joints and delamination planes .

The following are observations made during and after concrete removal:

(1) Delamination planes - as shown by a comparison of Figures 3- 2 and 3-23 the extent and depth of the delaminations were essentially the same as indicated by the initial coring program. Figures 3-24 and 3- 25 show that the delamination pattern varied at various locations. In some locations the delaminations had a stepped pattern from tendon to tendon whereas in other locations a rather smooth plane intersected the surface or a construction joint.

(2) Extent of sheathing filler on delaminated planes - approximately 50% of the delaminated planes had a coating of sheathing filler present. This percentage was not an even distribution; some large areas did not have evidence of sheathing filler . However, only 20% of the delaminations at a depth of 3- 7

of 15" to 19" showed evidence of sheathing filler . The maximum amount of sheathing fil l er was found on delaminated planes that intersected the center of the tendons.

(3) Construction joints - Figures 3- 21. 3-28 and 3- 29 show conditions found at construction joints during concrete c oring and removal .

At the south side of the meridional construction j oint, grease was found on the vertical surfaces in a band va r ying from about 3" to 6" or more in width. The band started approximately 10' f rom the apex and was approximately 2S feet in length . A portion of the band is shown on Figure ) - 28 . Voids were found, with the

~void8 located in the joints for the ventilation blockouts .

There was evidence of lack of concrete consolidation in the north-west blockout .

3-8

3-1 (Sheet 1 )

TURKEY POINT UNIT 13 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE DOME Coring Log Summary (Before Detensioninq)

Depth to Delamination Depth Sheathing Filler Examined Hole & Separation Distance of Hole Present at with Photograph No. Azimuth Radius (in. ) (in. ) Delamination Baroscope Taken Comments 1 233 0 -00' 17'-10" (8',,\) (9\,1 /8) 16 Yes No Yes (10\,1/8) (13,~)

2 70 0 -00' 36'-3 " (9, ) 13 Yes Ye s No Hit Sheath 3

4 354 0 -30' 30'-2 " None 16 No No 5 142 0 -00' lS '-8" (11 3/4 ,~) 16 Yes Yes Yes Hit Sheath SA 158 0 -50' 13'-11" (10, ~) (11~ , ~) 24 Yes Yes No Hit Sheath , on C.J.

6 270°-00' 16'-10" (6~ , 3/4) 16 No Yes Yes 7 83 0 -00' 15'-4" (9 ,~) 16 Yes No No 7A 91 0 -00' 10'-0" (8, ~) 10 No Yes Yes Hit Sheath 8 227°-30 ' 39'-10" None 15\ No Yes Yes 9 243°-00' 8'-5" (12,~) 27 Yes Yes Nd 10 173°-30' 35'-3" (10 3/4, 10 3/4 Yes No No Hit Sheath lOA 170 °-03' 43'-10" None 26 3/4 No No Hit Sheath lOB 163 0 -04' 43'-0" None 5 No No On C.J.

10C 160°-19' 43'-0" None 21~ Yes No Hit Sheath, on C.J.

11 29 0 -30 ' 9'-8" None 17~ Yes No Hit She.ath 11A 9So-15' 5 ' -3" None 29 3/4 No No 12 lOgO -3D ' lS'-O" (11,~) lS~

Yes Yes Yes 12A 116°-50' 20 ' -7" (9, ) , (11 , 11 Yes Yes No 13 322 0 -30' 41'-9" None 15 3/4 No No 14 2So-30 1 37 1 -0 " None l S~ Yes ,~

No 15 20So-00' 24 '-10" (11\ , 1) 16~ Yes Yes Yes lSA 215°-20' 26 ' -1" (7~ , 1) 24 Yes Yes No Hit Sheath, on

C.J .

3-1 ( Sheet 2 I TURKEY POINT UNIT 13 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE DOME Coring Log Summary (Before Detensioning)

Depth to Delamination De p th Shea thing Filler Examined Hole & Separation Distance of Hole Present at with Photograph No. Azimuth Radius (in.1 (in . I Delamination Baroscope Taken Comments 16 B3 0 -30' 25'-0" (10",3/41 (12,"1 15" Yes Yes Ye s 17 90° - 09 ' 35 ' -10 " (4, I 11" Ye s Yes No 17A 78°-20' 36 ' -3" None 9" No No Hit Sheath 11'>"

9 IB 106 0 -51' 30 ' -11" (7",3/41 (9" ,,,I NO Yes Yes 19 121°-51' 36'-2" (11", I Ye s No No 19A llBo-OO' 43'-0" None 10'> Yes No On C.J .

20 127 0 -30' 26'-4" (9 3/4, 3/ 41 10" Yes No No 20A 122°-15' 23'-1" (10 3/4, "I (14, l/BI 20 Ye s No No 21 114 0 -06' 8'-3" (10 3/4 , l / BI 16 No No No 22 147 0 -11 ' 30 ' -6" (7,"1 (9", 11 10 3/ 4 No Yes Yes 23 177 0 -15' 24'-6" (14, I (15, I 29 3/4 Yes Yes Yes 23A 161 0 -57 ' 24'-1" None 10 No No On C . J.

23B 161 0 -37' 21 ' -10 " (11",11 (12","1 24 Yes Yes No (2nd Delam. East Side on C.J.)

24 191°-15' 33 ' -8" (14 , 14 Yes No No 25 26 210°- 5 4' 35'-~1" (5","1 29 3/ 4 Yes Yes No 27 230° - 03' 30'-1" (4", l/BI (6,3/41 11 Yes Yes Yes 1st Delam. East Side IB

2B 29 30 251°-42' 243°-37' 254°-40 I 45'-11" 36'-4" 25' - 2" None (3",

(5 3/4, "I I 16 5 3/ 4

No Yes No Yes No No No No 31 264°-40" 34'-9" (1 3/4, ~) 14. Yes Ye s No Hit Sheath 32 33 284°-54' 297°-06' 25 ' -3" 33'-7" (2, 11 None 11" 16 No Yes Yes Yes No 34 326°-00' 12'-10" None 29" No No

3-1 ( Sheet ' 3 - 1 TURKEY POINT UNIT #3 I CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE DOME Coring Log Summary (Before Detensionih9.)

Depth to Delamination ,Depth Sheathing Filler Examined Hole & Separation Distance of Hole Pr e sent at with Photograph No. Azimuth Radius (in .1 (in. 1 Delamination

Boroscope Taken Comments 35 317°-35' 32 ' -1" None 16 3/ 4 Yes No 36 3310-00 ' 23'-8 " None 16 Yes No 37 338 0 -19 ' 35'-111t None 17 No No 38 359°-13 I 18'-10" None lB~ No No Hit Sheath 3BA 353 ° -40 I 16'-4" None 29~ Yes No Hit Sheath, on C.J.

39 18°-00' 28'-4" None lS~ No No 40 10°-25' 40'-2" None lB~ No No 41 3So-30' 21 ' -6 None 17 No No Hit Sheath 42 43°-40' 31'-9 None 16 No No 43 61°-13' 38'-5 None 16~ No No 43A 49,° - 20 I 43'-0 None 29~ No No On C.J.

44 64°-08 I 26'-4 (4~, .,1 16 No No No 45 77°-45' 40'-6 None 17 No No A 320/ 0 -00 ' 16'-5" (5, .,1 lB 3/4 No Yes B 30So-1B' 28'-6" None 12 Yes Yes On C. J.

B' 310 0 -30 I 27'-7" None 19., No No On C.J.

C 62°-50' 17'-0" (5, 1 15~ No Ye s No

D 233 0 -46 ' 29'-3" (4~, 1 (5~, 15 No Yes No E 294 0 -21' 13'-4" (6, 1 16~ No Yes No F 27°-30 ' 20'-5" None 16 No No

3-2 (Sheet 1)

'i'URKEY ?Onr UHIT #3 CONTfl.! NHEN'::; ~ 'lRUC'IURS oo..\fE Coring L-( g Summary Depth to Delamination Depth Sheathing Filler Examined

¥.o le & Separation Distance of Hole Present at ;"'ith Photogl"aph No. Azi.;"uth R9.dius (in. ) ( in. ) Delamination Earoscope Taken C:omments 46 350°-07 ' 30 '-5" None 23 No Yes No 47 332°-32 ' 28' - 3" None 30-1/4 No Yes No Very Poor Bond Around Top Layer of Rebar Four Consolidation 48 3470-2 ' 42'_6" None 20 No Yes No 49 333°c 18 ' 42 '-11" None 20 No Yes No Large Void Around Top Layer Rebar 50 3190- 52 ' . 45'-6" None 35 No Yes No Hit Sheath a.t 9",23"&26" 51 301° - 24' 42'11" None 21- 3/4 No Yes No Very Poor Bond To a Depth of 7" 52 2850 -27 ' 42' - 9" None 19 No Yes No 53 26~ -1 7 ' 42'-10" None 21- 3/4 No Ye s No Hit Sheath at 21" 53-' 2720 -18 ' 42' - 7" None 22 538 2690-56 ' 42 '-9" None 20 11 54 255 0 - 28 ' 42'-8" None 20 No Yes No Hit Sheath at 13 55 23~ - 35 ' 43'-0" None 20 No Yes No 56 2240_12 ' 44'-10" None 31- 1/2 . No Yes No No . of Voids in Concrete, Hit Sheath at 9" 57 191°-10' 42'-3" (15, 1/16) 32 Yes Yes No Hit Sheath at 9" 58 145°-33

42'-9" (12, 1/16) 31 Yes Yes No 59 90°-11' 42'-3" None 34 No Yes NO Hit Sheath at 12" Large No . of Voids in Concrete.

60 740 _55 ' 42'-5" None 20 No l es No Hit Sheath at 19";

Large Voids in Concrete.

3-2 ( Sheet 2)

TURlEY PCJ Nf UUIT #3 C Of'j""'!'A]~NMEN T ~ 'I~UC 'lU RE DOME Coring Le g Swnmary

.Depth to De l al11ination Depth Sheathi ng Filler Examined i{cle & Separation Distance of' Hole Present at with Photograph

?lo . Azir.lUth Radius (in . ) (in . ) Delamination Boroscope Taken COlIlll".ents 61 45°-11' 42' - 10" None 32 No Ye' No Hi t " Sheath At 22".

62 300-Q9' 43' - 0" None 20-1/4 No Ye' No 63 130 -06 ' 42'-9" None 19- 3/4 No No No 64 3580 - 52 ' 42 ' -8" None 31 No No No 65 357"-43 ' 10 ' _0" None 23 No No No 66 124 0 -44 ' 2' -9" None 23 No No No

3-3 (Sheet 1)

TURKEY POI IT UNIT #3 CONTAIN'I'1ENT S * ~RUC'IUP.E DOME Coring Lo, ~ Sununary (Coring After Concrete Removal )

Depth to Delamination Depth to Sileathing Filler Examined Hole & Separation Distance Top & Bot. Present at with Photograph i~o . Azimuth Radius (in . ) of Hole Delamil".ation Boroscope Taken CD.'llffiE.:nts i in. )*

67 126°- 38 ' 24 '_ 7 1 " None 18, 26 les i';o Hit Sheath 68 19~ - 16' 18 ' - 7;: (17 , 0) 13, 17 No Ye, No

68. 1910_11' 19'-1" (17 , 0) 13, 19 No Yes No Hit Sheath 68B 1900 -4 1 ' 18'-5" (17,0) 13, 23 Ye, Ye s No Chipped to Delamination 69 1640 -54 ' 18' - 9!" (17 , 0) 13, 22 Ye, Yes No 70 2260 . 41 ' 26' -10" None 11, 23 les No 71 191°- 42 ' 9' - 7" None 11, 23 Yes No 72 194° - 20' 21 '_ 1 1" (19, 0) 17, 29 No Yes No 73 222°- 58 ' 20 '- 5" Noru::: l~, 22 Ye, No 74 69°- 04 ' 28 '- 5" None 10, 21 Yes No 75 168°-04 ' 30' - 6" None 9 , 27 Yes No 76 170°- 38 ' 22 '- 2" (15! , 0) l2, 23 No Yes No Chipped to De l amination 77 156°- 18' 31 '-2" None 16, 3~ Yes No 78 175°- 56 ' 15'-2" None 19, 3 2 Yes No 79 148°- 27 ' 22 '-4" None 1~ 30 ,es No 80 109°-29 ' 32 '- 2" None 1 ,15 'es No Hit Sheath 81 157°-40' 28 '- 0" None 14, 18 'es No 8lA 152°-43 ' 29 '-2!" None 15 , 32 l e, No 82 1860 -27 ' 28 ' . . 5" None 12, 30 Yes No 83 84 lO~- 52 '

14~~OO '

32' - 2" 14 '- 9" None None 10, 15, 29 31 Yes Yes No No -

85 126 -16' 0 12'-3" None 10, 20 Yes No 86 6~ - 27 ' 27 '- 9" None 10, 26 Yes No Hit Sheath 87 74°- 07 ' 28 '- 5" None 10, 17 Yes No Hit Sheath e7A 76°-13 ' 28'-10" None 11, 30 Yes No

~These ho le s were cored after concrete removal . Top and bottom of hol e are relative to the original conc re te surface .

3-3 (Sheet 2)

TURKEY POI! ~'I' UNIT #3 CONTAINMENT s'~nucroRE DOME Coring Lo,i Summary (Coring After Conc rete Removing)

Depth to Delamination Depth to Sheathing Filler Examined Ecle & Sepatation Distance Top & Bot . Present at with Photograph No . Azimuth Radius (in . ) of Hole Del.amination Baroscope Taken Comments (in. l' 88 2190 - 36 ' 9 '-9" None 12 31 Yes No Good Bond at 8" Slab 89 2290 -32 ' 14 ' - 10" None 1~, 31 y., No No Bond at 8" Slab 90 245 0 -00 ' 11'- 6" None 1 2, 33 'les No Good Bond at 3" Sl ab 91 2570 -00 ' 22 ' -0" None 7, 30 Yes No 92 2490 - 55 ' 25 '-0" None 61'4t Yes No Hit Sheath 92A 251°-20 ' 26' - 0" None 42 , 31 Yes No 93 289": 47 ' 9' -5" None 7, 19 Yes No Hit Sheath 94 2880 -33 ' 15' -7" None 4, 31 Yes No Good Bond at 8:' Slab

The se ho l es were cored after concrete removal. Top a nd bottom of hole are relative to the original conc rete surface .

o*

2-1/2.

IXME COUIIG IESULTS FIC. 3-1

\L

.T CONSTFrt/CTION JOINT - -

180" PLAN VIEW Cl>>lTOURS OF DEEPEST DELAMIHATlONS FIG. 3-2

r--

40.

!JS Average = 65.5%

f--

10 5

o r -

60 61 62 "3 "4 65 ~ 67 66 69 70 Defens/oning Liftoff Forces

£xprt1$secl .s /I I7rc~nf89s of Ulfimefe (AvertJg8 of Bofh Ends)

'l'ENDON 1,,\ F'l'OFF VALUES F1l. ~ . 3- ?

rI R= 45Cld'~ Ifi-lZC$Hr R-Z i 20 85 84 SilfAIN G-AGE LOCAT/ONS

. ,-!'fE81C1/0NAL GAC;C 4 *

,-. CIRCU/,,/FGRENrIAL GAGE Ii: /S~o"t r

.TIIE~"'OCo</PLE 4 18 LOCATIONS

. ... 6'

'0 *

~

SECTION AT 256-FIGURE 3-4

,* **o I

~ * *

., . f\,

+I~ "~__

i fi _ _ _ _ _ ~- ~

I it.**

.~

! 1 c.

+-J I

-+-

,I 1-+- 1 _---it j ~

0 "k/"""\,.---"..,---j _ ~

.l'

+----.

~

'i-"

"( I 1 I, , : . I : . : ll-~

oC ':} " o 0

8 OJ '9 (1.1

" Q]/'-O/S'P.:L3(j

. -I':,.. .....,.,,~"/

." . . .... '.~

-'c

.J 3!J;'-..LN3-:J~3d - ~

~

0 0

0 0

~

0 0

0

0* *

"* 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0

- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

~

0 0 0 0 0

"

7 *, ",

FIGURE 3- 5

- ~I')

' . >. i

0 0

!l<!

-~~ ..,..,

- 0 I

- 0

"" I

,@ *

0

w r

-, I

~-

D.:

.~

0

~

~ 0

... ...-:.). ~ -- ,

'ra .,.~

/, ,

~

0 0 LiJ 0 <>

'" " 3(,7

'" "C2*", '('/S /0(.?L 0

0

.. , *SfVcO//~i ~"": 'o

~!) /71 I, I3-:;'-".9 0 '

0 0

~,

~

~

w

-* { **

0 z

0 u

, *, *, * *~ *

> 0 0 0 0 0

0 *0 0

0 0

0*

0 0

0

, > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

" * - -, ~ ", f

'W'",* -nI-NIV'II.J.$ -

FIGURE 3-6

0 *"*

-0 +

w*

* ~, ,

0

~. *

~.*

I 1

I

~.'

., ~ .

j

t/

C>

~

0 C Q 0 OJ "

"(]J7/VO/S// 2LS(]

. SN~XM/=:L 391/-L/./3:: N Jd

.::10

~

> * **

i *

I-J *

0 u

~ ** *** ** *** ** **

f

- -0 w

- ** *0 * * **

0 0 0

~ * * * * ,,

0 0/",. W-Nll'Y.LS

FIGURE 3- 7

0

", 0

-0 I~

0

z ~

w ,

0 1'*

~:

0 if*

_:f,

"" \1

- * .or

.~ 0

-+$+

.".f. >.

.... . 1 "-0 0

8 OJ ~ Q

". ~ Q

" a:;;/Vo/S/V?.L20

- - Slo/OON~ .::r'O 0

0 35"'-LN3~~3d "

w

-* 0

~

0 u

z 0

x 0

0 x

0 0

x 0

0

-x 0

0

0 x

0 0

x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2*

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "v.

. w, w'*NltlJ:I.L$

FIGURE 3-8

0 o +

- I, I' " *,

~

i

~

1 *"

~~

~

~ *

,~

1

.. ,... .-..-.+ "

...... I

~...

I . ., : :

0 c:

\1

.. ;$' 1 "*

~ "'"

0 0

.,* * (j _~NQ/S/V?L

-~/"-CON-EL .dO S(]

~b'J.N3:>>l3'd "

.. *+ **

" +.

-.+ ** #

1-______________.l______________.J____-'.~:~*"'.'_*_'*Cl________________L.______________.L__________-----'--------------'"i~

~

.z u

- ~ ~ 2

2 o

~

o *** **

~

o FIGURE 3-9

- a

~ 0

-0 +

0

w Z * -

_. ."" II I

0 t-0

** I I j

- .. ~,

.' +....

..?1 ..,

~.

I ** 0

~

\

~,

~ .* * , *

.. *#l.

. . t. **

1 I . . .. ! : ::,., J "

0 B '

C C- O

" Q3/'/O/S/'f.2.L -70

* - SfV07N?L .:20

"*

3'$ b'.L1'/3' -:; Jr'3d "

0 0

z '.***

-~

0

~

W

-z -0 0

0 **-*

0 ***-

0 0

0 **-*

a

0 w*

0 a

0 0

0 0 a 0

0 0

0

0 0

0 0

~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

~¥'" .,,{-NIV~J.S' -

FIGURE 3-10

,, . :J;"

-:(~'" *0* **"

e* .

~~

~

w

~-

l..

"'" I

~ I l::,. * * ..:' ~

." -II...,

~'. I **"

~

0 OJ 0

()

"(]:;yvo/S/'f'3L'=O 0

~

. Sr.lCrJII?L ~O

~

Z w

.'{.'

3'9V..LN3~.Js'Jd ".

zw z

0 '*.

w

- * ** ** * *e * ** e

" * - 7 ** "* f

'%,. ..,y*NWI:I.LS' FIGURE 3- 11

, > 0

- * +

zw~

~

0

- r.***.

I

~.

.l.

0

~

f **

~ .. *

.~

0 "r* ,

c c

~ '" '" ... '"

.\

() ~.

0

* ~

'<~:

0 C3NO/S/t'B.L5'O

. Sr.,oaN?,t .30 0

0

_~b'.LN3::){3d z

l~

-r

~

't. 0

~

w

-*z ~*-

0 0

0 0 .,***

0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

~

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

-, ,0 0

0 0

"y'!' -..{- NI't'I:I.J.S FIGURE 3- 12

"'~ #.."~ ; *" 0 0

- . ~~-

0

~ <un)

wz .(,l 0

- ** * , 0

!'"fo * "

0

..... -01'

_ 4 * "

0

~

- ~ * *

*

0 0

I. **

0 0

~ * * * *

-*zw z

-z z

- i *

*

0 0

--w z .

0 0

0 ***-

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

z*

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

'!\f 1<, W"NIt'~.i.S FIGURE 3-13

- I, *>

c *> **"

0

. I

-0 +

~*

I~ I ,

I, I

I,

( -,

~ ',.

I ,, 1 , **

I 'r 't, ,

Ie I

.,, . 0

. ~

.:J 0

\ '0 "0

'f i "

00 '\.'-

'" 50

j 2!'/O/S' /,-.?.L

NCG'/(~t." .: ;'0 I

"5*/T. . {/.13 -

J>t3d

~'

~

-* i~

Iiu

-*i 0 ** ;

0 0 * *,- *-*,

0

,-0 0

> *0

0 0

- 0

- - *** *0

"* ** 0 0

0 0 0

< 0

" " * , ~ ",

..*Y~/* .....-N/~JI~$

FIGURE 3- 14

.~~ **

0 0

- t-~

0

§

w

~'"

,<.I I

~ ,

0

I

.~.

I 0

I

,.. 4".

+*

~

** , 0

+t **

* ~,

r*

.1'

f 1-" 0 8 g "" ".c ~ 0 (J 5'/IO/.:""/v.?... EO SNOVI/::"~*

~

. ;10

- . ~5'i>'~"/3 =- ;,tSd

,*~ * +.",

0 w

-*f u

- - ~.-* ***-

0

-0 0

0 0

0 0

u 0

0 0

0 0*

0 0

0 0 0 0

- ** 0 0

~

0 0 0 0 0

- -, ~ ", *,

':'Ya" W-NltlJI.J.S' FIGURE 3- 15

- I

0 0

-0

z~

" -- ~ I ,

0

t

- I

-, .. '. ," 0

.... t:* ~

.. 0

- -):

8 0 I

\1.

i; 1 -" 0

&l 0

" G:?.NO/S/I.:.L3(7

",' - S /l.-QON':?'L' .:;10

" 0

.?!>b'.LN3 :-JJl3 d 0

*.f -

~

(*

z

- t', 0 0

z ~

0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

-0 0*

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

~

0 0

0 0 0

-, ~

0 0

, ,0 0

":--,,'. w'-NI"~.LS FIGURE 3- 16

> 0 0

0 0

0 0

o '* J' * *

0 -

0*

o.

0

0

.0 * *

0 0

..*- 0 0

~ * * * * *

,.~ ..

0

.; 0 0

i-0 0

0 0

0*

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

- 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

..7. - 3J1/J.i.;'JI:3<:11t':3~

FIGURE 3- 17

- 0

,*- 0

-0

wz~

0

z

.)

0

~ .... 0

~

0 I

0 0

-rz z

I /

0 0

V 0

0 0

0 0*

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 w

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

~

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

~ -.3Yfl.L.¥Y.3dAl3.L FIGURE ) - 18

> 0 0 *"

-0 0

z

--

0 z

.. 0

.. -

0 0

0 0

~

-z "j

- ~

*

0

-u

-z .-

0 -

0 -*

0 0

0 0

0 ,-

0 0 0 0 0

-* 0 0 0

~

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

- - ,; * " *

z

-"'. - 3 yn./. ~YjclJ./g.L FIGURE 3-1 9

o o

+i*

.:. +* * - ..

~ .... +

1---------------1---------------1'---------------1r-----,,'-------1--------------'-j---------------1:--:------------~~

~ :-:~

>: +

1---------------+---------------4----------------1"--",:.,,'.'----,,---1----------------1---------------+----------------1"

~

.I:

~,

1----------------1----------------t---------'-i~--f----------------r---------------t----------------f---------------i~

z Z

Z it*

0 z

0 v

-z ~ * - -. - -* - -,

0 -.

0 0

0

0

-0*

0 0

0

0

-0*

0

-0

0 V* 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

FIGURE 3- 20

- -- --~ - - - - --- -- - - -- - - - --

, 0-32 0-1<

0-34 0-2.0 1l.-31 x)v-z

)( _ 1ST DC&..AMINA.TIOfrt,I y- 2 toI°DELA.M INATtON Z - DEPTH OF" HOLE' ,eo* O' 5' 10'

.seA,-"

IS' CORING ON CON S'fRlf,"I' I,'N JOINT FIGURE 3-21

~.

~()

~

... 0-10,2/

0-/0-17 0- ",.JO

--+90-w,x- Y,Z W- 1 ST DELAMINATION 180'"

X -/? ND D£LAMINATfQN Y - STARTIIVG HOL e DePTH PLAN VIEW

~-STARr/NG HOi.E D£PTH

... CORI'NG AFT!!.

CONCRETE ~

FIGURE 3-22

caNS'TflfUCTION

.JOINTS PLAN VIEW CONTOURS OF D EF.Pr.:~!'

DELAMINATIONS

~ VERIFIED BY CQNCtu:;'1'r:

o ~ 10 15FT. ' REMOVAL AND CORING

SCAL£'

FI GURE 3-2 3

Z' f' w' .' 10' Cd 10' .f0' SECTION

-- WE.sT~/~ OF c.Y

- - - I£MT.,t:¥~ c.t1.

SECTION SHOWING DELAMINA.TIQNS FIGURE 3- 24

2' 4' 6' 6' /0' #0' tIC'e"

DOME .suRFAC.~

DETAIL 1 SECTION SHOWING DELAMINATIONS FIGURE 3- 25

4.0 MATERIALS INVESTIGATION An extensive study was made to recheck the adequacy of the Turkey Point concrete to perform its intended function. The study involved document-ing the physical and chemical properties of const ituent materials, together with standard testing of specimens prepared with the concrete design mixes and tests not normally r equired . To establish a compara-tive basis, information on other concretes within Bechtel's experience are also included.

Table 4- 1 shows the concrete design mixes for Turkey Point and other structures. The 2P5 mix is applicable for concrete placed before October 21, 1969. The delaminated dome concrete was formulated to the 2P6 design mix.

Table 4-2 shows the chemical and physical tests for the cements. The Turkey Point Cement conforms to the r equirements of Type II cement.

Low heat of hydration cement (comb ined limit of 58% on tri-calcium silicate and tri-calcium aluminate) was not specified for Turkey Point.

(The ASTM limit of S8% is optional and applies only when specifically requested by the user). However, cont rol of the concrete placement temperature at 70 F was specified and "Retardwell" was used to slow down the rate of hydration of the cement.

Table 4-3 shows the properties of the fine and coarse aggregate for Turkey Point . The coarse aggregate was specified as 1" minus since larger sizes were considered too absorbtive.

Tables 4- 4 and 4-5 show the chemical analyses for both the water and ice used in the mixing of the concretes. In all cases the water and ice are suitable for their intended purpose.

Table 4-6 lists the air entraining agents used in the various concretes and Table 4-7 lists the water reducing agents . . All are within specifi-cation requirements.

Table 4-8 shows the physical concrete properties based on initial testing which was performed to verify the adequacy of the design mixes for their 4-1

/

EAST SIDE OF DOME DURING CONCRETE REMOVAL FIGURE 3- 26

WEST SIDE OF DOME DURING CONCRETE REMOVAL FIGURE ) - 27

Looking south along West side. Note step effect of Looking S.E. along delamination through top group 3 first delamination in region of top group 3 tendons. tendon on eas t side. Note same depth on both sides of tendon.

~

w, N

co Meridiona l construction joint 10'-15' south of apex Meridional construction joint 15'-20' sout h of apex to a depth of 18". to a depth of 18".

West side of dome in region of azimuth 256°. Note Multip l e delaminations at ax i muth 316° and radius 8 ' .

grease stain on delamination and out cropping .

H

~

w I

N

~

Northeastern corner of the S .W . bla ckout . Note void Lo oking southeast at radial cons truction joint of the at co rner and lack of bond along sides. N.W. blackout. Note poor consolida tion and separation f ... ,.,m ~vn<>nrlprl mpf"", 1 .

intended use and to obtain design data for creep, shrinkage, etc. With t he exception of the lower splitting tensile strength on Turkey Po i nt all other properties are comparable. However all calculated tensile stresses are considerably lower than the values given in Table 4- 8 .

Table 4- 9 shows the comparison of uniaxial compression strength for concrete cylinders cast during dome concrete placement and also fo r concrete taken from the delaminate d area of the Turkey Point Dome. All cylinders sampled from concrete when cast show strengths exceeding 5000 psi.

Table 4- 10 shows additional splitting tensile strength results for the various concretes. Comments are the same as for Table 4- 8.

Table 4- 11 shows the results of direct tensile tests on concrete taken from the dome. The average of 8 tests was 352 psi. As is common, the di rect tensile strengths are less than thos e calculated from the results of the cylinder splitting tests.

Another series of tests were performed to determine the stress and strain values for uniaxial tension and compression given in Table 4- 12 and 4- 13.

To provide evidence that a state of biaxial compressive strain would not lead to a condition more critical than that indicated by uniaxial com-pression tests, a series of tests were performed. The tests were made by placing a concrete cylinder with a membrane around it in a pressure cham-ber. The chamber could apply an essentially frictionless pressure load to the cylindrical surface while the ends remained free of load. There was a test technique problem in preventing oil from causing a premature failure due to penetration of the membrane or collapsing of subsurface voids and creating a longitudinal tension force. As shown in Table 4- 14, it was difficult to cause a failure, resulting from radial pressure alone, however ~he results do show that the biaxial capability of the con-crete strength is equal or greater than the uniaxial capability.

In both biaxial and uniaxial compression the failure mechanism was by formation of crack planes parallel to the applied loading direction fo r

the Turkey Point and other concretes . When loading a cylinder in uni-axial compression, first cracking would occur in the longitudinal direction. Individual columns would then form and eventually fail in shear on inclined planes with resulting multiple failure surfaces .

The texture of the compression f~ilure surfaces were much closer to that of the dome delamination surface than were those resulting from uniaxial tension . Figure 4-1 shows a delamina ted surface of a core together with both a tension and compression failure specimen. This fact, together with the knowledge that multiple delaminations existed in the dome, confirms the conclusion that the dome delamination resulted from large compression forces essentially parallel to the surface. These large forces resulted in a concrete strain failure on surfaces parallel to the dome. The testing was for short duration loads, and strengths for long term loads are typically lower . Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the delaminations occurred because of long term loads that caused relatively widespread compressive stresses of approximately

.75 to . 85 f~ parallel to the surface. (For the Turkey Point concrete

.75 f~ is typically equal to 4500 psi).

Petrographic analyses of concrete have been performed by 2 independent laboratories, namely: Erlin Associates of Northbrook, Illinois through Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory and by Dr. Richard C. Mielenz, Vice Presi-dent of Research and Development, Master Builders Company of Cleveland, Ohio .

The result of their examinations shows the concrete to be a competent material with:

(1) A low water- cement ratio .

(2) A good air void system.

(3) No sign of alkali- carbonate reaction.

(4) A good distribution of sound coarse aggregate .

(5) No sign of metallic aluminum or hydrogen gas formation due to pumping through aluminum pipe.

4- 3

t

~_ 0 a - .; ~

W~ -

0

~

, 'a Jl i ~

~

8 W "

~

~--~----+---~---4----+---~----+---~--~s 1~

'l'ABll: '-2 CHDaCAL

PHYSICAL TESTS OF CD£H'l' 1M ACCOR/lll'lCE WITH A8D! C- 150 AVERAag OF USEFI TESTS HIm ON THE SITE WRING THE Al'PROX . PERIOD OF T-~ TIlE (X)M£ WAS POURED (EXCEPT FOR CALVERT ciD'FS ) ALL USER Tzsom RI.IM J!l' I1ID£l'£IfDEm'

'ft!S'l'IHO L.\OOJtATOIlIES.

8 10 2 l21~)

Cbeil i cal Pro rUe.

Ali>3 "'i>3 'i' I ~) I ~) ( )I) I'.'"

SO, ""',

~

lnoIo!.

Re *.

....'") (.""

CJ' I 01)

AS'Jl.I Tn'!!:

&g~J

( 501 )

1,0>0 r

pcc U'lc

~,2fr.

SlIl'he.

Bll1001 1,0>0 Q42/G)

RF.CIJD\EMENTB LISTE:D Iff PAREII'l'IIESIS h le al Pro rtie a

-Autoclave bpalldoo-(O.~)

Glllaore IIliUal)F1D/IJ.

(£() 101111.) (10 or Hr Sett1.D,g Vieat 45 MiD)

Air Cooteut

~ by Vol .

( l~ Max.)

!~

Calp. at t'engtb 3d 7d . 260:1

,0>0 PSI (J500)

PSI I Te ll..11, streDgt 3d I"'!

I'"

(250)

(PSI)

".) I.... ) I.... ) (Max) ( Max) lMu ) lMu ) I.... ) I"") (MID) ( """ ) ( HID I .m I Min ) KIn

"" ( >Un

. ("" (MiD)

I'nmKEY PT. 1')610 21*1 1. .13 3 . 16 ,.,. 2.12 1.1 6 .22 5.57 4 70 . 9 ",,0 ,.., 0.0011> , ". , ". 1 ....

1] Hln. 26 MID.

7*510 3322 kli56 .,00 111

!lnult of 2 "1:>

teat *.

'l'fPE I I C>>IEItl' dab DOt re-que.ted.

OOIU'AIlll.£!rr A

'l"O'f! I I CD£II'l' 22 ., I ." 1. 02

." " . 39 '-7

0 -- ]500 "0 Min . 8.0; 1517 "51 OOIrt't.UIl+:!!T

21.8 b." -I '.22 --

J .... , ". .

8;O~

TYPE I I <>>tIl' '.00 1.15 . 10 5 *74 "' .J 3367 .""~ 55 Min . 56 MiD. 2363 B75

"" lJ'" ,.."

C rorrrAIl lI¢1I'l' 1"O'E I I CD!f!HT 22.' 4. J J .' 2."6 2.21 1. 2) .IJ ' .J " *1 -- lJ" 33 Min . 7. 3~

I OOlrrAlllMENT Tn>l: 11 QJ£H'1' D

I 15 4.J b."

. ].0' '.J 0.8 0." b.'

" - )655 0."" -

32 Mil> .

7* 1 ; 1715 ,~IJ J""

a Eacb Uller Tett Value .. bg. ot all Tnt. exceed .axlaDl. S Ince IiIOderlllte beat or Hyl!rattoa Ce_nt ft' DOt req\le.ted aDd tbe t benal co-effIcient ot e~toa 1. low ID "o.par1_

t o otber 1I t.ze I , tbl a 1t aD &eeept.able value.

~.

H , ,

~.

":0 I

1I';<t cici

~j.

g§'

'.0 Ii. <li.

e

~

~~~~

~

<;1;:::1: ::1:

! e":":":

IU

~ ~

OUl

<e<

r ~ ...S~

--~

.... ":0 -;:::;"

<t1!l dd

§.

~g .

~.

gA' :i1 . <tS.

":0 ~

i

"" .... ..,\D o ,,:,~,":"

, (\I t- t-

" J;;~

us <<<~ tns

~ ..............

!~ ~

_ 0

--~

o

~.

TABLE 4-3J!~

FIt!! 8: OOARSB AGGREGATES 'lES'IED IN ACCORIlAJtCE WITH ASTM C-33 fie..:! 'lUl.e l/OIn1 For Each Job AVERAGE OF USER TESTS SIflIUTreD B,( EACI! JOB FROM rESTS R\JtI OK TIlE SITE BY All' IIfDEPENDEH'I' TESTING LAB 1fl'l'H THE (ASDI Req ' t at Right) D:CEPTIOU OF THE FETROGRAFHIC TESTS. PE'IROORAPIf1:: TESTS RUII BY BECHTEL CORPORATION ' S GEOLOGY IlEPIIR'lW!Ifl'.

AS'l'M TEST DESlGNATIOH 'lUllKEY PI'. 15610 OO trI'JlItQ.!E:rr , _~ r ""n"""", , , I RF.Q'T. Ft AS'I'H C-Specific Oravity aDd ootrrAlt~rrr Abaorptloo for FIDe c-l28 S,O, ~ 2,52 S.G . .. 2.69 S.G . .. 2 . 83 S,G, .. 2.63 S,G. ~ 2.62 Spec . Grav - ~o Lt::'tt .

Agg. Al'IS .. 3.~ ABS .. 1 .8J; AM .. 0.51- AM .. 0 . 51- AM ~ 0.7'10 Absorption -

Petrographic ~yeia C-295 Manutactw-ed Alluvial Floe Agg: Manufactured Alluvial FiM Agg: Alluvial Flee Ags:

riM Aggregate: Alluvial Glac I al Fine AW'f!gate: Que.rtz - 861-C&1clte - 80j L1Jn!eto",, -IOO1i Cruehed Dolomite' Alluvial River Sand. Sand.tOGa - 5.5; Quartz - roi ' 001- Quartz - 501- Slltatone - 3.~

Fe l dapar - 351- . ClayDtODe - 5 . 51-Manufactw-ed Mftnuf'actured Manutactured .... b'" oruy Coe.ne Aggregate: Coarlle Age: Coe.ne Aggregate: Muscovite M&gnltlte Claystone c<:elPl'l.ad caJ.clte - 6'J1, Crushed Quarried Kyan1te, A ct1no11te1 15~ of Kaollll I\, Mont -

"""", - 3'"

Chalcadony OolQ:lite - 1001- - Ilia - Garoet '" Expodlte ) morillontte Expend-Ing Claye Manui'act ured Coarse Aggregate: Alluvial Coarse A.a:

QuarrIe d DolOXlllte-~ - SIII!Ie -

Talc , Quartz } 2'1>

Me.gn.ltlte

'" ""mottte

8" -"

8-*8

<~

- *o o

"'~.

o.~

8-If

8*

~

A

*3

'II. A

~

~ *

~~

~

8 **

If~f ~

rs;f I~

~

li~f ";

I~

-S 0 ~

0

8

~

8 *0

~

> 0

~

ci

- 0 I; !~f ~ ~

~~ !

Ii ~

l ; -ci II

~

s* '",

0

~

A~

is::

~! . a i*

l ~

!Ji~ ~ ~

\R 0

0 0

~ ~ ~

I"

~

t I ~ ~

i"1 "

~ i1 ~

~ 8 8

_ L..

8 8 _ ,, .

TABLE 4- 6 AIR ENTRAINING AGENT Supplied in JOB BRAND NAME - SUPPLIER Accordance with ASTM Specification TURKEY PT. #5610 "AlRECON" - UNION CARBIDE C- 260 Containme nt "SIKA AIR" - SIKA CHEMICAL CO C- 260 A

Containment "M.B.V.Ro" - MASTER BU ILDERS C-260 B

Containment "SIKA AIR" - SIKA CHEMICAL CO C-260 C

Containment D

IIAlRECON II - UNION CARBIDE C-260

TABLE 4- 7 WATER REDUCING AGENT Supplied in JOB BRAND NAME - SUPPLIER !Accordance wi th

~STM Specification TURKEY PT. #5610 " RETARDWELL" - UNION CARBIDE C- 494 TYPE D Containment "PLASTlMENT" - SIKA CHEMICAL C- 494 TYPE D A CO.

Containment B

"POZZ OL ITH 8 "

IMPROVED

- MASTER BUILDERS C-494 TYPE D Conta inment "PLASTlMENT" - SIKA CHEMICAL C-4 94 TYPE D C CO.

Containment "RETARDWELL" - UNION CARBIDE C-494 TYPE D D

TABLE 4-8 CONCRETE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Turkey Point* . Containment A I Containment B Containment C I Con tainment D Remarks

Mix 2PS Compo Strength ps i 280 7780 5900 7240 5617 6420 0

1800 7760 8000 8620 7925 70 3650 6790 8720 7810 t Splittlng Tensil e & Comp.

I Compo Tensile ! Tensile Compo Ten sile t2 8 day test in Tens ile Compo Te ns il e ! Comp.

Compo psi 6340 473 I' 7040 585 5980 555 6100 580 5670 560 accordance with 6050 390 6370 560 6140 525 5980 563 5450 560 ASTM 39 & 496 5980 359 ' 6170 515 5910 520 6150 485 Elastic & Creep Strain x 10+6 in/in 10 272 277 175 245 336 180D 388 372 224 332 (Load applied 14600D 543 387 28 a t 28 da s ) \ Reference t o I ap pl ication of Po isson Ratio i 0 . 24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.18 (28 da~ s_)_L load at ~80

~

days, 70 "Ell x 10-6 psi except as noted Inst. 10 6.2 6.4 8.9 7.32 Sust. 1800 3.9 4.1 6.7 4.52 Sust. 14600D 2.8 3.2 5.4 3 .70 Auto. Vol. xlO+6 1800 -2 -15 -17 - 120 -2 @700F 3650 -4 - 23 -32 - 145

'l1term. Exp.xlO in/in £er OF 5.1 6. 3 6.9 6.8 7.4 Spec. Heat BTU/ "°F 0.268 No Da ta 0 . 257 No Data Diff. Ft . 1./ hr 0.0340 0.048 0 .0513 0 .0395 .067

-0' liE" x 10 Static ps i Refe rence t o 10 4.2 7. 3 5.5 4.9 application of 1800 4. 6 6.6 8.3 5.8 (Load applied load at 180 146000 8.8 6.5 at 28 days ) days. 70 0 except as noted

TABLE 4- 9 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION)

Compo Strength For Cylinder s Compo Strength Avg. 28 Day Compo Cor ed From Dome For Cylinders Strength For Test Concrete - 40 hr. Cored From Dome Cylinders From Water Cure Prior Concrete - Tested Dome Conc r ete To Testing In A Dry State (psi) (psi) (psi)

ASTM C-39 ASTM C- 42 -

Turkey Point 6724 (24 Tests) 6020 1 bve 627C 9Mos Ave.

6810}9 Mas.

, ( Unit 3 ) 4910 55701 0 ld 6710 old 5280 5840J AVG.=6760 AVG. 564S i I Containment #l 6968 (28 Tes ts)

A #2 7137 (32 Tests)

Containment 5510 (28 Tests )

B i Containment H 5493 (36 Tes ts) c Containment 6155(7Tests) not ~~~~ldome D From ed

TABLE 4-10 TENSILE STRENGTH (SPLIT CYLINDER TEST)

Tensile Strength Of Tensile strength Of Cylinders Cored From Test Cylinders Made Dome Concrete From Same Mix As Dome Concrete (psi) (psi)

ASTM C- 496 ASTM C- 496 743 - w (7 mo.old) 390-w (20 days old)

I 740-w (10 mo . old) 360-w (20 days old) 753 - W (12 mo . old) 746-W (28 days old)

Turkey Point 652 - 0 (9 mos . old) 473 - W (73 days old)

(Unit 3) 719 - 0 (9 mos . old) 785 - 0 ( 28 days old) 562 - D (9 mos. old)

Avg. = 7 45 - W Avg. 492 W Avg. = 644 - D Avg. = 785 - 0 58S-W, 615-W all 28 560 - W, 620-W Containment days SIS-W, 595-W old A

Avg . 58 0 - W 575- W )

590- w ) all 28 Containment 6l0- w ) days old B 590 - W )

Avg . 590 - W 580-W )

563 - W ) all 28 347 - w ) days old 345 - w )

Avg. 459 - W 5 60 560 all 28 days Containment 485 old o Avg. 535 - W W = Tested wet D = Tested Dry

TABLE 4 - 11 TENS I LE STRENGTH (UN I AXIAL TENS I ON TEST )

Maximum Job Cy.linder Tensi l e Tensile Source Age Remarks Number St r ength stra~n (psi) xlO- in/

i" Turkev Poi nt Test made on 2 "x6 " 1185-2 329 ~¥s About 80% of aggregate broke cy l inders cored t h rough; 20% pu l led off f rom 6x12 std. 11 85 -1 347 31 About 50% of aggre g a t e broke t est cylinders th r ough ; 5 0 % pu ll ed off made on jobsite 1177- 2 24 1 38 About 7 5 % of aggreg a t e b r oke wi th same design through; 25% pulled off mix as in dome. 1177 - 1 394 38 About 1 00% of aggr ega t e b r oke through 1183-2 34 1 33 About 90-95% of agg r egate b r oke through; 5- 1 0% pu l led off 11 83 -1 392 112.S@ 33 About 90-95% of aggregate broke 371psi thro ugh; 5-10% pul l ed off 11 86 - 2 368 1 02.S@ About 90-95% of a re ate b rok e 340ps i 31 th roug h ; 5- 1 0% pu 11 edg off 1186 -1 405 112.S@ ' 31 About 90 - 95% of aggregate broke 4 02psi through; 5- 1 0% p ulle d off AVG.=352

TABLE 4- 12 UNIAXIAL TENSION TESTS Age a z - Stress £,z - Strain E f - Strain Project days psi 1.l in/ in* \.l i n/in*

Turkey Po i nt 28 +405 ) +105 ) -20 )

6" x 12" Cyl. 28 +370) +392+ +110 ) +108 - 20 ) - 22 28 +400) +110 ) -25 )

Tur key Point 11 rno +330) +80 ) - 22 )

NX core- From 11 rno +365) +347 +105 ) +93 - 25 ) - 24 Dome Concrete Containment 42 +490) +90 ) - 20

+4 55 +12 5 ) + 108 ) - 18 21 +420) - 16 )

A 6" x 12" Containment B

I Containment 80 + 404) +70 ) - 15 )

C 75 +410) +408 +75 ) +72 -16 ) - 16 6" x 12" 13 +4 1 5) +72 ) - 16 )

I Containment iI 28 I +340) I +76 ) - 08 )

0 28 +300) +3 21 +64 )+69 - 08 ) -9 6" x 12" 28 +324) +66 ) -12 )

Smallest strain at ultimate load. Some specimens continued to strain while maximum load was held.

c;:

+ Average

TABLE 4- 13 UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION TESTS Project Age a z-:--Stress E -Strain £~-Strain days ps~ \Jz in/in u in/in Turkey Point 28 -5500 - 27 00 +450 @ 5000 psi

, 6" x 12" cyl. 28 - 6030 - 2650 +4 00 @ 5000 psi Containment 21 - 6700 - 2000 +350 @ 6000 psi

-700 0 -2 000 +475 @ 6000 psi 6" xA 12" 21 Containment I B ,

6" x 12" i I

iI Containment 61 - 7050 -1 850 + 550 @ 6000 psi C 56 -660 0 - 1850 +4 ()n @ fiOOO psi 6" x 12" Containment 48 - 6550 - 1 850 +550 @ 6000 psi D 48 _6800 - 1750 +400 @ 6000 psi 6" x 12" oz

./

+Ez i- ~

'- ./

TABLE 4-14 BIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEETS Project !l Age I O'r-Stress £ z- Strain £~-Strain' Remarks

, days l psi

\.I in/in \.I in/in I I

Turkey Point 26 -6000 +545 Indicative 6 " x 12" cyl. of ultimate biaxial con-crete stress 25 -5300 +300 Possible failure due to hydraulic fluid in void 25 - 4700 Cracked near end due to failure of membrane Turkey Point 11 rno - 4700 Tensile NX c ore break,pos-From Dome sible fluid Concrete penetration 11 rno - 6000 +1200 Good failure of concrete Containment 45 - 4600 +700 No fa ilure A No cracks 6" x 12" 28 -7500 +1200 No failure No cracks Cnn tainment Membrane 40 -5550 +530 -103 0 failure cause o cra ck in con-6" x 12" crete r-...

./

~

r't -- --

+ --

. ~e:z

-<II

INITIAL COMPRESSION FAILURE FROM DOME VERTICAL DELAMINATED CRACKING SURFACE ON BOTTOM OF SPECIMEN FIGURE 4-1 CONCRETE SPECIMENS

5.0 ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION In order to determine why the containment structure dome delaminated various analyses were performed. These analyses covered all the known items which could have caused the delaminations or been a contributing factor.

5.1 CRANE LOADING A 50 ton Bay City truck crane was set up at the apex of the dome 1 month after completion of concrete placement and 4 months before the start of post- tensioning, for handling tendons and tendon installation equipment.

The crane location is shown in Figure 5-1.

The crane loads were resisted by the outriggers. The dead load for a single outrigger is 13K. Considering the rated 5.5K lifted load at a radius of 70 ft. an outrigger downward load of l7.5K results. The dead load, together with a 50% impact factor on the lifted load, yields a maxi-mum downward load of 39K. "Local Stresses In Spherical Shells From Radial Or Moment Loadings" by Bijlaard, Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 34 was used to estimate the stresses from the 39K concentrated load.

In the analysis the shell was assumed to be 31" thick with the initial 8" pour neglected. A dome radius of 89 1 and a 21 diameter loading area was also assumed.

The predicted stresses are as follows :

Maximum Meridional Flexure: +/- 86 psi Maximum Hoop Flexure: +/- 26 psi Maximum Meridional Membrane: _ 11 psi Due to the low magnitude of the calculated stresses the crane is not considered a Significant contributor to delamination causes.

5- 1

5. 2 TEMPERATURE AND MOISTURE An assumed worst temperature gradient (for compression on the outer surface) is shown in Figure 5- 2.

Using the following formula the peak compressive stress on the outside face is predicted to be:

-6 +6 l!.ToE 36(5 . x10 ) (4. 5x10 ) =

cr = - 1080 psi 1- v (1- .25)

The stress distr ib ution will be similar to the temperature gradient plot with a tendency to reduce to very small values within 4" from the surface.

To simulate a condition of wetting for a prolonged period of time, the following tests were performed . Four concrete specimens, approximately 10" x 10" x 4", removed from the dome were soaked in water. Using a Whittemore strain gage, 3 of the specimens were found to expand to a strain of 167 ~ in/in after 14 hours1.62037e-4 days 0.00389 hours 2.314815e-5 weeks 5.327e-6 months of soaking . After 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months of soaking the specimens remained constant with an accumulated strain of 233 ~ in/in. One of the 4 specimens had very little change in dimensions.

Converting the strain to stress yields EE (233x10- 6 ) ( 4.5 x10 6 )

cr = (l- v) '" - 1400 psi

. 75 if the specimen would have been fully restrained.

The stresses from temperature and moisture do not peak simultaneously since one tends to reduce the other. Both are primarily surface effects and they would not cause delaminations 15" in depth. However there is a poss-ibility that these two items could have been a contributor in causing shallow delaminations.

5. 3 SHEATHING FILLER PRESSURE One of two pumps used for sheathing filling had a stall pressure of 250 psi with the other lower. With all vent valves closed the pressure in 5- 2

the sheaths would not have exceeded 150 psi due to head losses. In a few isolated cases the vent valves were closed, however with only a few tendons affected, this is not of concern. Since the lowest known temperature of the filler during pumping was 90 F, it was assumed that the filler had zero pressure at 85 F. Thermocouple measurements have indicated a temperature of 97 F at an 11" depth when interpolating between the inside and outside readings. Through past testing the filler pressure has been found to rise 8 psi for each 1 F change.

Therefore it is possible that a 96 psi pressure could have existed in the sheathing. A finite element analysis was performed subject ing a portion of concrete with a 4" diameter hole 11" deep to a pressur e of 100 psi. The analYSis indicated that the peak radial stress would be 80 psi at the edge of the hole with the stress rapidly decreasing away from the hole. The radial tension is not high enough to case delamina-tions and a direct tension load of this kind would not have caused the multiple and shallow de lamin ations actually found above the sheaths.

5.4 RADIAL TENSION CAUSED BY PRESTRESSING Since the tendons are not located on the outside surface, radial tension will exist near the outside face of the concrete. To estimate the magnitude of radial tension th e analytical calculations were done in two parts and s uperimposed . The maximum radial tension should exist near the upper layer of tendons, which are 11" from th e outer surface, because this is the maximum thickness of concrete without direct radial compression from the t endons.

The first part of the solution considered the effects of all tendons other than the first layer. Since the prestressing essentially loads the shell with a pressure of 100 psi then the pressure from all tendons other than the first layer will be 5/6 (100) = 83.3 psi. Due to displacement compat-ibility the following relationship must exist 6 = = or 5- 3

Where PI is the tension in the top II" of concrete, P 2 is the applied pressure, tl is the thickness of the top layer and t2 is the total 11 thickness . Then the radial tension is PI ; 39 (83 . 3)

23.5 psi .

A finite element analysis of a small portion of the dome was made to evaluate the local effects of the top layer of tendons . The analysis indicated that the peak radial tension was +68 psi occurring near the edge of the tendon sheathing void . The radial stress reduced greatly a few inches from the hole . Superimposing the two results lead to the radial tension distribution shown in Figure 5-3.

The analysis indicates that radial tension is not a major concern due to the magnitude and distribution . In addition a failure from radial tension should not lead to multiple de laminati ons close to the surface as were found in the investigation of the structure.

5. 5 UNBALANCED LOADS FROM PRESTRESSING A study was made to determine the force distribution on the dome due to the reported prestressing sequence. Each tendon group was divided into 2 zones giving a total of 6 zones . At various times, such as when 50%

of the total tendons were tensioned , each zone was examined to determine the amount of normal pressure f rom the tensioned tendons within a particular zone . The normal pressures from each zone were then super-imposed . Since the normal pressure from a l l the tendons being tensioned is approximately 100 psi, then the resulting pressure also indicates the percentage complete for a particular area . Figure 5- 4 shows the results for 40, 50 and 60% completion of prestressing. When 50% of the total tendons were tenSioned, one area had effectively 73 . 8% of its total load whereas another area only had 28 . 4% .

In order to determine the effect of these unbalanced loads an analysis was performed for a homogeneous containment structure dome . The analysis did not include the effects of concrete cracking or construction joints . The dome was analyzed for the most severe case when the pre stressing was 50%

5-4

complete . The triangular areas shown in Figure 5- 4 were further sub-divided by using one large and three small circular areas as shown in Figure 5. 5.

Solutions were obtained by loading a dome at the apex by loads distri-buted over the same areas as those shown in Figure 5- 5 . After obtaining this data a final solution was obtained by superimposing the effects of any loaded circular area which appreciably affected the location under consideration . The following table shows the maximum calculated stresses on the outside surface, together with the results of applying 100% of the prestressing load (100 psi pressure) distributed uniformly over the dome surface.

Calculated Stresses (psi)

Unequal 50% Uniform 100%

Loading Loading Meridional Membrane - 727 - 1389 Bending - 974 - 300 Combined - 1701 - 1689 Circumferential Membrane - 876 - 1450 Bending - 660 - 200 Combined - 1536 - 1650 As indicated above the bending stresses are great enough, so that when combined with membrane stresses, the combined stresses at 50% loading are slightly higher than the stresses under full uniform loading. These loads are considered to be a contributor .

5.6 CONSTRUCTION JOINTS In the analysis of why the delaminations occured the construction joints deserved special attention because of the following:

(1) As shown by the coring results, the delaminations reached a maximum depth adjacent to the meridional construction joint.

5- 5

(2) The delaminations appear to have some degree of symmetry about the m~ridional construction joint with a tendency to approach the surface as they progress away from this joint .

(3) Sheathing filler is present in the meridional construction joint indicating that separation existed.

To establish a base case for the dome stress distribution and magnitude, due to dome prestressing, a shell computer program was utilized . The program handles axisymmetric loads and uses a classical solution after the shell has been divided into sma ll cone frustums. The results of this analysis for a homogeneous containment structure are given in Figures 5- 6 and 5-7 . The maximum combined meridional stress was found to be -1689 psi at the outer surface. And the maximum combined circumferential stress was found to be -1650 psi at the outer surface.

To determine the effects of the circumferential construction joints in conjunction with dome prestressing an analYSis was performed using the shell program previously described. The construction joints were simu-lated by hinges . The line of

thrust was through the center of the elements and therefore the results do not consider the effects of an eccentric thrust.

Figures 5-8 and 5-9 show the distribution and magnitude of stress at the outside surface. The analysis indicates that this case is even less severe in the meridional direction, than the base case since the stress at the outside surface of the dome is -1620 psi . Due to the assumed hinges the circumferential stress increased considerably at a radius of 42 feet with a magnitude at the outer surface of -2600 psi . This stress increase could have been a local contributor to the de1aminations.

As the field investigation progressed more evidence became available that many areas surrounding the meridional construction joint were not 5-6

of the quality necessary to resist the applied loads without considerable redistribution of load. Figure 5-10 shows a condition which could have resulted in the formation of delaminations . Since expanded metal was used as a form for the joint, voids or soft spots could have resulted.

As the structure was prestressed high compressive stresses would result at localized areas. As shown in Section 4 a high compressive stress will result in a strain failure in a plane parallel to the load. If the jOint area was effectively reduced to 1/3 of the dome thickness then the resulting stress would be 4,500 psi, enough to cause failure.

Figure 5- 11 shows another case which could result in delaminations.

In this case, the joint had poor tensile capability due to the lack of bond. When the prestressing loads occurred the joint would rotate due to the unbalanced loading. This condition would force the structure to carry high loads near the upper surface. Again high stresses would result and the strain failure would occur. Eventually equilibrium would be obtained.

Two plexiglass domes were obtained to help visualize the phenomenon of the joint rotation. One of the domes was a hemisphere and the other was a hemisphere cut in half and then taped together so that only shear could be transmitted through the joint. Figures 5-12 and 5-13 show the split plexiglass dome before and after applying a load across the joint. Two plexiglass tabs were mounted normal to the surface, pointing inward, on each side of the simulated joint. The photographs indicate that as the load is applied the joint rotates, opening at the bottom.

An analysis was performed (using the shell program previously described) to simulate the effects of having the membrane force distributed over a small area near the surface with resulting eccentricity. In order to simplify the analysis a hemisphere was used with its equator as the construction joint . The geometry of the shell together with its compar-ison with* 'the" real shell geometry are shown on Figure 5- 14 . The shell was loaded with 100 psi in the area included by the 52 0 angle. The re-sults which are also given in Figure 5-14 illustrate that both the 5- 7

reduce joint area and eccentricity of membrane load leads to large calculated stresses. This analysis illustrates how faulty construction joints lead to stresses high enough to be considered one of the main contributors in causing the delaminations.

An analysis was performed which considered both the effects of the unbalanced loads from post- tensioning together with eccentric thrust at the dome construction jOints. The analysis was performed by using a finite element program for non-axisymmetrical structures with non-ax1symmetrical loads . The analytical model considered the portion of the dome inside the 42.5' radius circumferential construction joint shown in Figure 2- 2. The model considered this joint hinged. The meridional construction jOint and the construction joints around the ventilation blockouts were also hinged . A radius of 89' and a thick-ness of 39" were assumed in the analysis.

In the first part of the analysis the structure was loaded with the unbalanced load resulting when post- tensioning was 50% complete as shown in Figure 5- 4. Due to the assumed boundary conditions all the forces at the construction joints acted through the center of the sec-tion with no eccentricity. The stresses resulting at the outer surface from this loading condition are shown on Figures 5- 15 and 5- 16 for the meridional and circumferential directions. The peak meridional stress is - 1420 psi (compression) and the peak circumferential stress is -

1220 psi.

In the second part of the analysis the membrane forces were assumed to have a line of thrust at the top of the circumferential and meridional construction joints. The membrane forces at the joints from the first part of the analysis were multiplied by one-half the dome thickness to 5-8

generate moments. The moments were then applied together with the post-tensioning loads. The results of this analysis are given in Figures 5- 17 and 5- 18 for the meridional and circumferential direction.

The peak meridional stresses at the outside surface occur at the circumferential joint with the maximum value being - 2900 psi. The peak circumferential stresses at the outside surface occur at the meridional construction joint with the value being - 2880 psi .

This analysis shows that the unbalanced load from post- tensioning together with rotating construction joints (eccentric thrust) would lead to large predicted stresses. These two items acting in con-junction with each other are considered the major cause for the concrete delaminations.

5- 9

CRANE LOCATION FIG. 5- 1 I

, I I'oulside 5urface t~

r,,

t

, II : *

--~-t/ite ;J I

Lines I,

II , --

j ~B"h;-; ...;,; Lin IJ

- r-- I '- ' -

BO !!JO loo 110 let> 130 Teml'er4fUr6

r THERMAL GRADiENT FIG . 5-2

/sf LilY." of Tendo s

!!N.S ~

V-------'i*ur-----"i--- RADIAL TENSION FIG. 5-3 UNBALANCED LOADS FROM POST- TENSIONING FIG. 5-4 LOADING AREAS FIG. 5 - 5

Membrane + Bending

-j.,--+++-

j

-rt-

-'.-+/I -l-

-()

..9

." H-l lI) '.

~

MERIDIONAL STRESS AT THE OUTER SURFACE FKOH DOME POST-TENSIONING FIG . 5- 6

Memhrane L

Membrane + 8en ding CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS AT THE OUTER SUIYACE FROM DOME POST- TENSIONING FIG. 5- 7

Assvmecl Hinges - c-

\

/ / /tMembrane

...--/

--- !r1embnsne + IJending I

.' I

,'? l I{) ~~ .

it!

MERIDIONAL STRESS AT THE OUTER SURFACE FROM DOME POST- TENSIONING FIG. 5-8

//~6?7brane 7,

/ (Membrane + Bendinq CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS AT THE OUTER SUJFACE FlaK DOME POST-TENSIONI~G FIG. 5- 9

. ' . *' ", . "-'1 . *

. (y . 0

. ' : . D

. -'. 1.. : .- .-.

. ~

. ()

~

. . ** '. ' D

. ' (> * <I - . 1:-' - - .

VOID BEFORE FOST- T£NS'OVING

$C.J.

.' t:JELAMINA17ONS

. 0 . 0 * ~ *.

. . .. ,:'n~ MOV$r1ENT

--" . ;"A~* . ~ ., .. "

. 0

~ . ...

(

.(:j

... I b :. .' 0 "

A

,0..,

.* ,401 *

~ " :D': .<>-' * "

,...-A AFTER fl/6T- T£/I/.S/ONING N(lfUMlJOIt! IEAIIIIG CAS!. 1 FIG. 5- 10

" . h n'-' . . o*

*

II D _ *

, .' . ()

0.'. , C,J,

J\'

A

_.\"I.fI *' . !

i I ' .. ' ;

' . l:::.: .. -

--....:t*

. ... (, .

- * ~9

- J '" ~. " *

~~------~'~'~"D~J

' -..I \""~~'-~:'~'

0;:..; * * ------~~I+-_ ... -

DURING POST-TeNSIONING

. , . - ..~ '

. .0 . . -........

~

~ .

~.

MOY£MEN'i'=.

:A

~.

0

,0 1)£t..AMINAiIONS

. ~ "..

<)< , . . OJ' ; * '" '. ,

tl . : ,0. . ' ',', .0," . .... ..

~~.-;......: . ~ ~~-L POST- TENSIONING NONUNIFORM BEARING CASE 2 FIG. 5- 11

I FIGURE 5-12 PLEXIGLASS DOME WITHOUT LOAD

FIGURE 5 -1 3 PLEXIGLASS DOME WI'rH LOAD

~ 9I(ETCH 6£UJW --------

'-"~Rin9 Ginler lU

/

. . . '!o "' :'.

/ ,

/

AXISYHHETRICAL SIMULATION OF THE MERIDIONAL CONSTRUCTIQN JOINT FIG. 5-14

{N

/'

/

/'

/

CONSTRUCTION

/

/ ( ,jOINTS (T': _-"--+O"--,--.__

-. . A* - 910 6

-120 6

6

-950

-780 A 6 -1170 A -1110

-IO~

-%0 - 1000 6-1220 6 -7+0 A A-/ooO . 6 -1090 6_ /290 \

,I \

' A -':'30 4-770 I A-IZ40

' - 1040 A'\

l>~880 ~

/ A-70 0 - 1400

{ 6-(. /0 4-/070 \

270't- _ _ ____ ____ ~_-="0 l

__ _ i t.-80 .- _ __ !i.350_ _-_tzo - //00 "t I A-540 I

~ -550 A-4-90 A-105o I

1 A-SOO 6- 12Z0 !

.1 6-800

~--~

~ \ -520

.----' 6-520 \

'\

4 -520 A-/ 030 6

A-570 \ -b70 A-540 ) 820

(

MERIDIONAL STRESSES AT THE OUTSIDE SURFACE FROM THE POST-TENSIONING LOAD AT 5~ COMPLETION. ALL JOINTS ASSUMED HINGED WITH MEMBRANE FORCES ACT-.

ING AT CENTER OF SECTION .

UNITS- PSI FIGURE 5- 15

C CONSTRUCTION

.JOINTS ( TY~)

0'

. /I-~20

/I

,-48 0 "

-770 1>-870 A- 9zo

-550 6-1020 6 " - 8'-0 " -990 \

I '-

6\.

" - 1120 -8:30 \

6

/1 -380

/I -4to 6-1020

- 1130

\

6 -250 6 -820 A

-1;';0

6. - /02.0 * - - ..

- /220

- --= .'

6. - 1140

,, _~

.r 61 6

- 460 f 6-1050 / '

6 - 790 A

-250 A - '130 ,I 6 6 - '110 /

6-300 -580 I

6 I A-790

-SbO I -":0/

-400

-57~/

A __

d CIOCUMFERENTIAL ST)lESSES AT THE OUTSIDE SURFACE FROM THE POST- TENSIONING LOAD AT 50% COMPLETION .

ALL J OINTS ASSUMED HINGED WITH MEMBAANE FORCES.

ACTING AT CENTER OF SECTION.

UNITS- PSI FIGURE 5- 1 6

.: -: -::~-.---

..... ~ - ---

~,

/'

/

\

/

- l.ooo 6 - 6'10 ~Z.IIO \

I .

I

/ A - 22/0 - 2770 \

h.\

A \.

I " - 70

" - / 270 - 2 1/0 \

6. - 1810

"- /OEo

" - 1380 l!. - I bfio - 2090 f

-- * ---- - .. . - --.,\ !.J. - <0O

r. -_.. -_._- _... -.-- .- 6. - Z760 6..:

- ZO/ O " - / 850 j

"- /:>20

" - 12 0

t. -eoso

,,{

t

- 2610 /

" - / 240 .

A - 20/ 0 A-390

- /730

" - 2 /90 MERIDI ONAL STRESSES AT '!HE OUTSIDE SURFACE FROM THE POST- TENSIONING LOAD AT 50'% COMPLETION . ALL JOINTS ASSUMED HINGED WITH THE MEMBRANE FORCES .

ACTING AT THE TOP OF THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL AND MERIDIONAL JOINTS .

UNITS- PSI FIGURE 5-17

0"

. ~-----t-~

6~2.QO 6 ---

" - 1810

~ - 2 / 40

\ 6

. - /~80 - /820 6

-/BEo -/720

\

6 -ze70 6 6

- Z540 -1750 \.

,i

6 -9So I 6-21180 ,

,I j 6

-790 I -~620 \

i

'**"-,0", - t - - - 6- 790 , ,- 2Uo - Iezo .

~: f '. - -- - -- - -- - - - - -- - -1 c. -- - - 6. -/770':"

'- .. '~ ,.

!': 980 1'. - 5/0

.( 6

\ 6

\ -550 -/<>30

"-2o~o 6

6-/630 /

-2360 CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESSES AT THE OUTSIDE SURFACE FROM THE POST- TENSIONING LOAD AT 50% COMPLETION .

ALL JOINTS ASSUMED HINGED WITH THE MEMBRANE FORCES ACTING AT THE TOP OF THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL ANI MERIDIONAL JOINTS.

UNITS- PSI FIGURE 5-18

6.0 CONCRETE REPLACEMENT 6.1 COMPATIBILITY OF THE ORIGINAL AND REPLACED CONCRETE An analysis was performed to determine the compatibility of the replaced and the original concrete. Due to the difference of concrete age when loaded the replaced concrete should creep more than the original concrete.

The replaced concrete may be loaded when it is 28 days old. whereas the original concrete will be reloaded when it is over one year old. To simulate this difference in creep the original concrete was assumed to have a modulus of elasticity of 4 x 106 psi and the new conc rete was assumed to have a modu lus of elasticity of 2 x 10 6 psi.

The analytical model is shown in Figure 6- 1. The amount of replaced concret e was assumed to be a worst case based on the concrete coring information obtained before detensioning. Figures 6-2 to 6- 4 show the stress distribution at various section , in the meridional direction.

Section B shown in Figure 6- 2 will be discussed in detail since it involves the greatest volume of replaced concrete. At this cross section the replaced concrete had a thickness of 15 in. and the original concrete had a thickness of 24 in. in the figure. The dotted line shows the stress distribution for an analysis assuming the same modulus of elasticity throughout the thickness. As shown on Figure 6- 2 there is a samll amount of flexure at Section B. The average stress in the top 15" is - 1700 psi and in the bottom is - 1450 psi. The solid line shows the stress distri-bution with the modulus of elasticity of the top portion as 1/2 of that of the bottom. The average s tress in the top 15" is - 1500 psi and the average in the bottom 24" is - 1800 psi. The analysis indicates an increase of - 350 psi in the bottom portion due t o the effect of replaced concrete. Since the modulus of elasticity for both the top and bottom portion were based on creep data for a - 1500 psi load, the analysis is yielding conservative results since creep is considered linearly 6- 1

proportional to applied stress. In reality the bottom portion with the higher stress would creep more than indicated by the analysis and this would increase the stress in the top portion and reduce it in the bottom.

With the exception of Section A the increase in str ess is quite small in the original concrete. In Section A the stress increase is - 700 psi ,

however only a small volume of concrete is affected. As shown by the analysis the dome should respond to load essentially the same as it would if the top concrete had not been delaminated and replaced.

The original concrete has been subjected to a larger por t ion of its or iginally anticipa t ed creep cycle. The tendons have been subjected to a large portion of the originally anticipated relaxation cycle. The combined magnitude of creep and relaxation to date is illustrated by the tendon and anchor liftoff measurements shown in Figure 3-3.

Future tendon relaxation is therefore expected to be somewhat less than the total originally anticipated. Future creep and shr inkage is expected to be about the same or slightly larger than originally anticipated. The effective prestressing forces at end of pl ant life are expected to be larger than originally anticipated since steel relaxation is the predominant factor in the total long term losses.

The effect of the changes i n force resulting from materia l compatibility do not have a significant effect on the analyses discussed. The pre-stressing forces assumed are those at completion of restressing and will become smaller. The predicted stress levels will therefore become smaller. Further, the expected change in losses, from those originally anticipated, are small compared to the effective prestress assumed, and almost negligible .

6.2 SURFACE PREPARATION After the comp l etion of the removal of loose delaminated concrete, the removal depth will be increased so that the minimum depth of concrete replacement is 6". Figure 6- 5 shows an illustration of how 6-2

the final removed area of concrete will appear. This type of final configuration will allow membrane loads to be transferred to the new concrete by direct bearing. The surface will be cleaned by using a high pressure air water blast technique to remove all foreign material such as grease . The reinforcing steel will also be cleaned by high pressure air water blasting .

6.3 ADDITIONAL REINFORCEMENT As an added conservative measure, rock anchors will be used to pro-vide radial forces on the replaced concrete . The radial force will provide for displacement compatibility between the replaced and the new concrete. The radial force from the rock anchors will only be effective if the bond strength between the replaced and the original concrete is not sufficient to carry the load. An illustration of the rock anchor system is shown in Figure 6-6 .

6.4 REPAIR OF REINFORCING STEEL, TENDONS AND SHEATHING Any reinforcing steel, tendons and sheathing in the area where the concrete has been removed by chipping or coring will be repaired in accordance with the following criteria:

(1) Any reinforcing steel which was severed, partially severed or has an indentation greater than or equal to 1/8" will be repaired by lapping or cadwelding an additional piece of #9 reinforcing steel . The preceding requirement will not be inforced if there is enough other reinforcement in the area to satisfy the original design criteria . The l ap length will be in accordance with ACI - 3lS- 63. Four specimens will be removed (with indentations equal to 1/8" or greater) and tensile tested to verify the acceptability of indentations less than 1/8".

(2) Visible holes in the sheathing will be sealed to prevent concrete leakage during placement.

6-3

(3) An inspection window shall be opened in the sheathing for tendon inspection when the following conditions are found :

(a) A hole in the lower half of the sheathing exceeding 3/8 "

in diameter.

(b) A hole in the upper half of the sheathing exceeding 3/4" in diameter .

(c) A cut sheath where it is apparent that the cutting edge of the coring barrel entered the l ower half of the sheathing .

The window shall be at least 2" x 211 in size and sealed by a patch after the inspection.

(4) The original criteria allows 2% of the wires to be damaged during tendon installation and tensioning. One third of this number is allotted to damage due to concrete removal and coring.

Two percent of the total number of wires for 165- 90 wire dome tendons is 297 wires . Therefore up to 99 wires. damaged by concrete removal and coring may be left in place . If more than 99 wires are found to be damaged then enough tendons shall be repaired so that the 99 wire allotment is not exceeded.

(5) Where the sheathing damage was extensive enough to allow dust, dirt. concrete chips etc. to enter the sheath then the material shall be removed. For any hole greater than 3/4" the tendon shall be examined and the foreign material r emoved .

6- 4

(6) All damaged sheathing vent lines shall be repaired so that they will function during regreasing of the dome tendons.

6.5 INSTRUMENTATION Instrumentation will be provided in the replaced concrete. Instru-mentation installed earlier but damaged by concrete removal will be replaced. Strain gages and thermocouples will be installed on both the east and west side of the dome . There will be two lines of gages and thermocouples, a typical line is shown in Figure 6-7. The purpose of the instrumentation is to provide verification that the replaced concrete is carrying a portion of the applied load.

6.6 METHOD OF CONCRETE REPLACEMENT After all repairs are completed and the sur face has been air - water blasted then the surface will be saturated and maintained in that condition for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months prior to concrete placement. At the time of concrete placement the surface will be in a saturated. surface dry condition. A 1/ 4" to 1/2" thick layer of grout will be applied to the surface immediately before the concrete is placed. The concrete will be placed as illustrated in Figure 6-8. The first lift will be placed and vibrated and allowed to stand approximately two hours.

It will then be revibrated before placing the second lift. Other lifts will then be placed in the same manner as the first lift. i.e.,

placed, vibrated let stand and wait two hours. revibrate and then apply the finish. The curing will be accomplished by a cont inous flow of water. The concrete will be covered with burlap, cotton matting or a similar material. The water curing will last a minimum of 14 days. When the surface is in a saturated surface dry condition it will be coated with a curing compound.

6- 5

The previously described method is being used to obtain maximum bond of the replaced to the original concrete and also minimize shrinkage of the replaced concrete .

The aggregate used for the original concrete is no longer available and the replaced concrete will use a new aggregate source. The new aggregate is essentially the same as the old aggregate . Both aggrega t es are mined from Oolite limestone and pr evious tests have verified the similarity.

The original concrete used a Type II Cement whereas the replaced concrete will use a low heat of hydration Type II Cement to mini-mize shrinkage. The concrete placement t emperature will be kept as low as practical to also minimize shrinkage.

The concrete will be placed in accordance with specification 5610-C-61 (proprietary).

A consultant on the concrete replacement plan was Mr. Lewis H. Tuthill, retired, formerly of the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Design and Construction.

6.7 POST- TENSIONING SEQUENCE A new post-tensioning sequence will be used when retensioning the dome tendons. The sequence will be similar to that used on other contain-ments already prestressed. The new sequence will require that the loads be applied more uniformly than for the original tensioning sequence .

Prior to retensioning, a set of drawings will be issued showing the detailed sequence.

6-6

6.8 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR REPLACED CONCRETE Test demonstrations will provide evidence of the adequacy of the rep laced concrete acting in composite with the originally placed concrete. The forces, applied during test~ will be those originally specified and consist of prestressing and prestressing plus 1.15 t imes design pressure (P) along with changes in environmental condi-tions which occur during testing.

The demonstrations will show that the completed dome satisfies the original design criteria. The effective prestressing force measured at tendon end anchors. will remain equal or greater than that speci -

fied by design. The increase in effective prestress, resulting from containment pressurization to 1 . 15 p. will be less than 4% of the initial prestressing force as measured by load cells at tendon end anchors. Measured strains will remain within ranges that the resisting materials can withstand as demonstrated by testing. Maximum defor-mations will remain within a range of values that are small compared to the radius of the dome and that show consistency with the measured strains .

6- 7

~

'" ~.

0

...0....,,-

I

_. ?" .5~ _ __----l !

_-.jO

~-

35..5' E

4- 5 '

IT"! Rep/aced Col1cnde-E= z,,/O"PSI I==l t'Jrigil1""/ COI1~fe - E =4~ /O"PSI 5t!!8 ;:/g£;, (, -Z To .,-4 For 9fr~1M> 8cn~~ thickness l17' Sec-t/ol1.5 A, B, C, [) ~E i

FI~'URE 6- 1

Of/fer r4ce

-- - -I

~I

~

tiI

~ I I

I Replaced

~

I:::

Cbncrefe I I

+-..L.....-- - L

~ I

'I I

~

, I I

,, 'I - I

{ I I

I

<10"

- --- "£' 0/ Repl15ced -£'0/ t::Jrlginl:11 Concrete -4 )flO*

FIGURE 6- 4

11LUSTnA.'l':;:OH OF C.ONCRETE lli:.1-!OVAL AF..!:A..

FIC,'UP.E 6 - 5

~

\

ILLUSTRATION OF CONCRETE ANCHORS nGURE 6-6

I t / T T YPICAL THRI'fOCOUPI..S

~

~;:::--::~l'o=-------JW-.___ _

/ TYPICAL MERIDIONAL GAGE

/ TYPfCAL CIRCUMFE"'ENTIAL .......
F,.=---..:....-f-_-::~ ":""= TYPICAL RADIAL GoIG£ 1 . -.
. 4.'
.. 0
~.
___ ~.. rYPICAI. .EARING GAGE to' *
*
Q
-11'11
' . . _6' g'
~
. 8-.
ILLUSTRATION OF TYPICAL INSTRUMENTATION FIGURE 6-7
. 0 .
" .~o."
\ I LLUSTRATION OF CONCRSTC
. REPIACEMENT FIGURE 6- 8
7.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE The Quality Assurance program described in FSAR Section 1.9.7 will be in effect as usual during the time while dome concrete is being removed and replaced .
Specifications for concrete removal and replacement and specifications covering materials testing will be enforced by site quality control personnel supplemented by engineers from Bechtel's San Francisco and Gaithersburg offices. Qual ity Assurance Engineers of Bechtel and Florida Power & Light will monitor the overall operation. Written procedures will be i n effect. and be enforced by appropriate quality control methods. for the replacement program.
Engineers were present for concrete removal to observe and document "as found" conditions, and to ensure that the steel, sheathing and tendons received proper protection . The engineers will oversee pre-parations for replacement of the concrete and the placement of new concrete .
7- 1

ML093010433

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Navigation menu

Search