ML16341F751
| ML16341F751 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1990 |
| From: | Rood H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-74142, TAC-74143, NUDOCS 9007120114 | |
| Download: ML16341F751 (46) | |
Text
DOCKET NOS.:
50-275 and 50-323 June 27,. 193.0, LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
SUBJECT:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E)
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2
SUMMARY
OF JUNE 6, 1990 PUBLIC MEETING ON SEISMIC DESIGN OF MASONRY WALLS AT DIABLO CANYON (TAC NUMBERS 74142 AND 74143)
On June 6, 1990 the NRC staff met with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or the licensee) in Rockville, Maryland to discuss the above subject.
Attendees at the meeting are given in Enclosure 1.
Slides presented by PG&E at the meeting are given in Enclosure 2.
The PG&E presentation summarized the material included in the PG&E submittal of May 21, 1990.
In addition, PG&E presented two additional items for consideration by the staff.
These were:
1.
A derivation of the relationship between the displacement ductility ratio and the length (height) and rigidity (EI) of the walls, and 2.
An empirical formula using allowable wall deflection as a criterion.
The formula was based on test data and engineering judgement.
PG&E agreed to submit this material on the docket for NRC review.
During the meeting, PG&E stated that the seismic shear forces on the dry pack concrete at the top of the masonry walls is relatively small, because the yield bending moment is small, and thus the shear is limited.
The staff indicated that it may pursue this issue at a later time.
At the conclusion of the the meeting, the licensee agreed to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of testing the compressive strength of the dry pack at the top of the walls.
PG&E indicated that it would report the results of the feasibility study to the staff in the near future.
/s/
Harry Rood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects
Enclosures:
1.
Meeting Attendees 2.
Licensee's Viewgraphs cc: w/enclosures
- see next page DRSP/PD5 D
- PD5 HRood L
'ns 06~/90 06+7/89 27 R
PgO P
9007i20 CK 0500nDC 900622 P
DISTRIBUTION-Doc et s e)
NRC
& LPDR FMirag1ia JPartlow PDV Reading JLarkins HRood OGC ACRS (10)
JMa DJeng GBagchi NChokshi RRothman
- MSlosson, 17G21 SRichards, Region V
- PNarbut, Region V
EJordan
\\
tl
DOCKET NOS.:
50-275 and 50-323 June 27, 193.0. ~
LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
SUBJECT:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PGImjE)
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS I AND 2
SUMMARY
OF JUNE 6, 1990 PUBLIC MEETING ON SEISMIC DESIGN OF MASONRY WALLS AT DIABLO CANYON. (TAC NUMBERS 74142 AND 74143)
On June 6, 1990 the NRC staff met with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGSE or the licensee) in Rockvi lie, Maryland to discuss the above subject.
Attendees at the meeting are given in Enclosure 1.
Slides presented by PGSE at the meeting are given in Enclosure 2.
The PGtmE presentation summarized the material included in the PGSE submittal of May 21, 1990.
In addition, PGImE presented two additional items for consideration by the staff.
These were:
1.
A derivation of the relationship between the displacement ductility ratio and the length (height) and rigidity (EI) of the walls, and 2.
An empirical formula using allowable wall deflection as a criterion.
The formula was based on test data and engineering judgement.
PGIIE agreed to submit this material on the docket for NRC review.
During the meeting, PGIIE stated that the seismic shear forces on the dry pack concrete at the top of the masonry walls is relatively small, because the yield bending moment is small, and thus the shear is limited.
The staff indicated that it may pursue this issue at a later time.
At the conclusion of the the meeting, the licensee agreed to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of testing the compressive strength of the dry pack at the top of the walls.
PGSE indicated that it would report the results of the feasibility study to the staff in the near future.
/s/
Harry Rood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects DRSP/PD5 HRood 06/90 D
- PD5 06~/89
Enclosures:
1.
Meeting Attendees 2.
Licensee's Viewgraphs cc: w/enclosures
- see next page DISTRIBUTION NRC 81 LPDR FMirag1ia
, JPartlow PDV Reading JLarkins HRood OGC ACRS (10)
,JMa DJeng GBagchi NChokshi RRothman
- MSlosson, 17G21 SRichards, Region V
- PNarbut, Region V
EJordan
,C I
ENCLOSURE I ATTENDEES Public Meeting on Diablo Canyon M'asonry Walls Wednesday, June 6, 1990 NANE R.
H. Atkinson Goutam Bagchi Shan Bhattacharya Thomas Cheng Nilesh Chokshi Robert Kennedy Armand Lakner John Larkins John Na John O'rien David Ovadia Raman Pichumani Harry Rood Robert Rothman Bimal Sarkar J.
E. Tomkins Wen S.
Tseng W.
H. White ORGANIZATION Atkinson-Noland (NRC)
NRC/NRR/ESGB PG&E NRC/NRR NRC/RES/PRAB RPK Struc-Mech-Consulting (PG&E)
Viking Systems (NRC)
NRC/NRR/PDV NRC/NRR/ESGB NRC/RES PG&E NRC/NRR/ESGB NRC/NRR/PDV NRC/NRR/ESGB Bechtel (PG&E)
PG&E PG&E Consultant Bechtel,(PG&E)
0
,f
ENCLOSURE 2 VIEWGRAPHS PRESENTED BY PG&E Public Meeting on Diablo Canyon Masonry Wall Seismic Design Wednesday, June 6, 1990
J
SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEWOF DCPP MASONRYWALLS JUNE 6, 1990
- 1. OVKRVIEQ' CHRONOLOGY OF DESIGN EVOLUTION o
DESCRIPTION OF %VALLS o
%VALLFUNCTION 2.
ISSUES
'3.
CONCLUSIONS
I I
~
CHRONOLOGY 1970 1979 1980 -81 1981 1983 84 1984 -85 ORIGINALDESIGN HOSGRI EVALUATION(NODS INCORPORATED)
IE BULLETIN80-11 EVALUATIONBYPG&E (MOBS INCORPORATED). SUBMITTED REPORT TO NRC.
NRC ACCEPTED PG&E'S EVAL.(IE B 80-11)
WITHCONDITIONS (SSER 13)
PG&E UPDATED BLOCKWVALLEVALUATION INCORPORATING RESULTS OF ID%'P.
SUBMITTEDCRITERIA, EVALUATION METHODOLOGYANDRESULTS TO NRC.
%'ORKING STRESS DESIGN &ENERGY BALANCETECHNIQUE PERMITTED.
NRC ACCEPTED PG&E'S EVALUATIONSWVITH ONE LICENSE CONDITION(SSER 27, 31, 32).
MARCH 86 PG&E SUBMITTEDREPORT TO NRC CONFIRMINGADEQUACYOF EBT.
NOV. 86 NRC ACCEPTED PG&E JUSTIFICATION LICENSE CONDITIONREMOVED.
0 a
~ l
~
RECENT DEVELOPMENT OCT. 1989 SAMPLE CALCS AZ6) QUALIFICATION METHODOLOGY%VERE PROVIDED PER NRC REQUEST MARCH 1990 NRC RFI ON 5 ISSUES APR. 1990 NRC RFI ON 4 ADDITIONALISSUES MAY1990 PGAE SUBMITTEDRESPONSES TO RFIs.
0
,I
DESCRIPTION OF WALLS TABLE2-2 DIABLO CANYON POHER PLANT UNITS 1
AND 2 SUGARY DESCRIPTION OF SAFETY-RELATED CONCRETE HASONRY HALLS No. of walls in auxiliary building ko. of walls in turbine building Type of construction Hall thickness, inches Cel l s Reinforcing bars in 8-inch walls Reinforcing bars in 12-inch walls Hall height, feet ko. of walls qualified by EBT ko. of walls supporting Class I systems and equipment ko. of walls sub)ect to HELB pressure 28 121 Single wythe, running bond Predominantly 8
(7 walls are 12 in.)
Fully grouted 1-¹4916 vertical 2-¹4832 horizontal l-¹5816 vertical 2-¹5832 horizontal 8 to 20 91 74 38
I I
WALLFUNCTION o
. %'ALLFUNCTION:
PARTITION NOT PART OF BLDGSTRUC SYST MAYSERVE AS FIRE BARMER 38 %VALLSSUBJECT TO HELB PRESSURE&
o SAFETY-RELATEDATTACHMENTSON 74 WALLS CONDUITS, CABLETRAY,TUBING,FIRE PIPING STARTERS, TRANSFER SWITCHES (6 WALLSUNIT 1)
(5 WALLSUNIT2)
POWER PAIN'LBRACING (1 WALLEA UNIT)
I
~t
~
CONNECTIONS o
TOP ANDBOTTOMARELATER'YSUPPORTED BY CLIP ANGLES o
1' 1/2" COMPRESSIBLE MATERIALON TOP TO PRECLUDE LOADFROM UPPER FLOOR o
DRY PACK TOP 4"-6" FOR CONSTRUCTIBILITY REASON o
USE OF DRYPACKFOR NON LOADBEARING%VALLIS A COMMONCONSTRUCTION PRACTICE.
0 P
CONCRETE OR STEEL BEAM l
TO lt/g IN. JOINT FILLER CLIP ANGLE ORYPACK MASONRY CELL GROU REBAR
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
+ ~
~ ~
~
~
~
t
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~
ie ~
~ 0
'r (o
~
~
~o
~ ~
~ ~\\
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~o i
~
~
~
~
~ i ~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~
VARI ES, 61/6'AXI MUM I IN..
VARIES'/j MAXIMUM 7/e'O I l/g' I GURE 3-I 9 TYPICAL MALL WITH DRYPACK TOP CONNECTION
J'
RESPONSE TO ISSUE NO. 1 PART 1: DCPP BLOCK%'ALLACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ASSOCIATED WITHTHE USE OF EBT PART 2; JUSTIFICATION OF DCPP BLOCK%'ALL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIAUSING TEST DATA AVAILABLEPRIOR TO 1986 SONGS TEST RESULTS PART 3: JUSTIFICATIONOF DISPLACEMENTDUCTILITY RATIOLIMITOF 5 BASED ON TEST RESULTS AFTER 19S6 HAMID'STEST RESULTS
PART 'J; JQSTIFIgATIONFOR CE CMTEMA
~ 5 GLOBALSTASILITY LOCALBENDINGDEFORMATION ESUL
~
91 WALLSQUALIFIEDUSING EST A. DISPL. DUCTILITY:
o 65%ALLS v
s 3 va
~
o 26%'ALLS 4 s v~ s 5
~
< 1,10hches a/a s.0073 vg s 5
B.
DISPLACEMENT:
o 84
%'aHs o
7
%'alls 1ll
~
+ 1" (dam.Q17)
All7 walls are in turbine buBding 1 of the7walls
>max= 1.10 inches p
= 4.64 3 of the 7 walls
> max = 1.97 inches p
= 1.86 3 of the 7 walls <, max = 2.43 inches "p
1 o27)
Horizontal span C.
REBAR DUCTILITY:
o 82 Walls o
9 Walls p,
< 6 6< p,
< 124, <2)
11
e PART 2:
STIFICATIONUSING TEST ATAAVAILABLE PRIOR TO 1986 o
AVAILABLETEST DATAPRIOR TO 1986 SONGS TEST' SCRIVENER SEASC TESTS p~~3.4; p, ~ 15 pg5 8 AS 2 NONE OF THESE TESTS REACHED PERFORM~ANCE LIMITSOF SPECIMENS o
COMPARISON OF ~max/a RATIOBETWEEN DCPP WALLSAI'G) SONGS TESTED WALLS DCPP WALLS(4 < p~ <5); ~maxla < 0.0073 SONGS TESTED %VALLS(2.3 ~ p~ < 3.4);
~max = 10.5 12.4 inches 0.0364~
>max/a
~ 0.043 o
COMPARISON OF INELASTICROTATION( eP )
BETWEEN DCPP WALLAI'63 SONGS TESTED WALL DCPP WALL (4 < p~ < 5);
eP <0.011 SONGS TESTED WVALLS(2.3 ~ p~ ~ 3.4);
or 0.042 <ep
< 0.061
'\\
~
I 4
1
PART 3:
STIFICATIONBASED'ON THE NEW TEST SULTS BYHAMID ET AL o
HAMID'STEST PROGRAM 14 WALLSPECIMENS, STATIC AI'6)CYCLICTESTS RESULTS OF 12 WALLSTESTS %VERE USED o
RESULTS:
p> VAMESWVITH% OF STEEL z = 4.6 8.4 INCHES eP =.047
.13
0 28 24 22 20
]8 CC l4 o
12
]S 8
APPLIES CEHERALLY TO APPROX.
2SX OF OCPP IIAI.LS DCPP DUCTILITY LIHIT lpbi5)
DCPP Ml4 p
Wl 3 N I~ji pN5 W4~)
APPLIES GENERALLY TO APPROX.
'tSX OF DCPP lltALLS B
~ B]
82 83 B4 B5 F 88
~ 87
~ 88 F 89
]B
~))
~ ]2
]3 REBAR INDEX
{g P@~
}
F l GURE 5-I 6 DISPLACEMENT DUCTlL1TY RATlOS OBSERVED lN HAHl0 '
TEST
( REF. 23)
< RANGE OF '7'OR TYPlCAL DlABLO CANYON MALL SPANNlNG VERTlCALLYO
o DRYPACKTOP CONI'&CTION CONCRETE OR STEEL BEAM I
TO I/g IN. J01NT FlLLER CLIP ANGLE DRYPACK MASONRY CELL GROU REBAR
~ ~
~ 0
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
~
~ oi
~4
~ +
o
+
~
~~~ $
~
~
~
~
~
~ i ~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~O
~ ~
~
~ ~y 4 g
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
~
~
~
'ARl ESi 6'/6'AXlMUM l
1N.
VARlES, 3~/~'AXlMUM 7/g'o l I/$'
I GURE 3-I 9 TYPICAL MAI L MITH DRYPACK TOP CONNECTION
0
SPONSE TO ISSUE 0 o
CONFIGUID,TIONOF THE DRYPACKTOP CO%'&CTION(REFER TO FIGURE 3 19) o CONSERVATIVEASSUMPTIONS AI&USED IN THE EVALUATIONOF LOADTRANSFERMNG CAPABILITY AI'A'ENEFICIALEFFECT DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF REBARS WAS DISCOUM'ED f'm = 1950 psi WAS USED INSTEAD OF f'c = 4000 psi CODE ALLOWABLESTRESSES FOR UNREINFORCED MASONRYWALLSWERE USED (e.g fct=3/Pm
< 120psiINSTEADOF fct= 6ffm)
O.
C J
o ALLSTRESSES AI'G)MODES OF RESISTANCE %ERE CONSIDERED SHEAR, DIRECT TENSION, ANDFLEXULARL TENSION STRESSES O'ERE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF INTERACTIONEQUATIONS FOUR POTENTIALCRITICALSECTIONS THROUGH DRYPACKQ'ERE CONSIDERED (REFER TO FIGUI&',
3 -21)
MINIMtMFACTOR OF SAFETY DIVAS CALCULATED
f
~
ag
POT EH L
CRlTlCAL SECTlONS 1ESCRlPT10N Qi
~ ~
~
~
~ ~
~0 ~ 4
~
ko
~ ~ ~
~ ~~q ~
~ ~
~
~ g
~
~
~ ~y
~ 01 q ~
~ I ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
~ ~ a
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +
~
~~,
o
~t
~
~
~ y ~
~
~ ~
~ +
<<pg ~
~ t ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
~
I ~ a
~ ~
~ ~ ~ 1 ~
~ 4
~
~
~ ~
~ j
~ )
fo
~
+
~
~
~
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~w o~
~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~t
~
~
og ~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
g
~
~
~ ~
~
J
~'t w~t f0 ~
~ ~
~
~ tlat% ~
~ ~
~
~ o
~ +
~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ 1
~ ~
~ ~ ~ 0 ~
~
~~,
~
t ~
~ ~
~ Q
.gag
~
~
~
FIGURE 3-Rl EVALUATI ON OF TOP CONNECTION CAPACITIES
0
~ ~
~
~ ~
RESULTS AUX.BLDG:
(24 WALLS)
FACTOR OF SAFETY ~ 4.7 TURBINEBLDG:
(83 WALLS) 34 WVALLS 34 WVALLS 15 %VALLS FS 3
1.8 PS<3 1.4 FS 1.8 (7 WALLS HAVECOLUMNS; 8 WALLS NO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCE)
w ~
I
)
t i
Sa.
CONCLUSION DCPP MASONRY'O'ALLSARE ADEQUATEFOR THEIR INTENDEDFUNCTION.
0 0
v4 s ~
r