ML17254A697
| ML17254A697 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1985 |
| From: | GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY GILBERT ASSOCIAT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17254A696 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512310225 | |
| Download: ML17254A697 (78) | |
Text
December 6, 1985 R. E. GINNACONTAINMENTVESSEL TENDONS REVIEW OF NRC SAFETY EVALUATIONREPORT1 BY GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH,INC.
INTRODUCTION The overall conclusion from the NRC Safety Evaluation of the Ginna containment vessel tendons is that the structural adequacy of the containment vessel is assured.
The Safety Evaluation concurs that excessive stress relaxation was reasonably established as the cause of past larger-than-expected tendon force losses and that lift-offdata from the July 1981 and July 1983 surveillances indicate that the tendon forces are stable and there are no abnormal force losses.
However, the staff suggested that four (4) recommendations from the FRC report (below) be
'ncorporated into the tendon surveillance program, and that the results of the 1985 surveillance be submitted to the NRC for review.
Recommendations:
1.
Since there are insufficient data upon which the refined relaxation prediction methods are based, the licensee should maintain lift-offforce surveillance of the wall tendons to offset the deficiency.
2.
"Continue the experimental investigation of tendon wire relaxation using a larger and broader sample of test specimens.
This would provide a better foundation of knowledge to guide future lift-offsurveillance programs and aid in the explanation of any further unexpected behavior.
3.
Introduce more accurate measurement and recording methods for tendon elongation and stressing jack displacements to enable comparative estimates oftendon system behavior in an effortto discern rock anchor slippage.
4.
Re-examine previous analysis for rock creep and provide analysis based upon more comprehensive methods including shear mode effects and extrapolation of ro'ck test data.
1Letter from J. A. Zwolnski of NRC to R. W. Kober of RG&E, dated August 19, 1985,
Subject:
Safety Evaluation Containment Vessel Tendon Surveillance Program, R. E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.
512310225 85i220 PDR ADOCH, 05000244
December 6, 1985 The following discussion addresses these recommendations, which are in three main categories:
(1) the stress relaxation tests; (2) tendon elongation measurements; and (3) the rock creep calculations.
The results from the 1985 surveillance are also included, along withthe 1981 and 1983 surveillance results.
1.0 STRESS RELAXATION The first NRC recommendation, to continue the lift-offforce surveillance of the tendons, will be implemented as part of the current containment vessel surveillance program as defined in the Technical Specifications.
As part of this program, three surveillances have been performed since the tendons were retensioned in June 1980.
The surveillances were in July 1981, July 1983, and August 1985.
Future surveillances will be conducted at 5-year intervals.
In the completed surveillances, a total of 57 lift-offtests were performed on 31 different tendons ofthe 160 tendon total. In each test, the measured lift-offforce was compared with its predicted value.
The results are presented in Table 1. The predicted force is equal to the lock-offforce at either the June 1980 or May 1969 retensioning, minus specific predicted losses in tendon force. These predicted losses include stress relaxation ofthe tendon wire, which accounts forthe largest force loss.
The stress relaxation loss was calculated for each tendon based on the methodology and test data described in GAI's final report on the stress relaxation test program (GAI Report No. 2499).
As indicated in Table 1, the measured and predicted forces are in good agreement.
This would seem to indicate that both the Base stress relaxation curve and the retensioning ratios applied to this curve provide for an accurate prediction of the stress relaxation experience by the actual tendons and the additional recommended laboratory testing does not appear to be necessary.
The second NRC recommendation, to continue and expand the stress relaxation test program, appears to be based on two findings in the FRC report concerning the number of specimens tested.
One finding pertains to the retensioned wire tests, which maintains that only three test specimens from the same tendon wire were involved.
Actually, as Table 1 of GAI Report No. 2499 indicates (Reference 14 in the FRC report), there were seven specimens that were retensioned.
These specimens covered all three test wire heats for temperature conditions of 68'F and 104'F, and for three time December 6, 1985 decades.
Figures 3-E through 3-K in GAI Report No. 2499 indicate that confirming test data was sufficient to establish the retensioning ratios for the retensioning times of interest, nominally 1,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> and 100,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> after initialstressing in 1969.
The second FRC finding pertains to the number of specimens used to establish the Base relaxation. The concern is whether the test results based on test specimens from two tendon wires, representing two wire heats, sufficiently represent all six wire heats used in the tendons.
The balance of Section 1.0 addresses this concern.
Base Stress Relaxation Tests The Base test results refer to the stress relaxation curves, and 40 yr.
extrapolations, obtained prior to retensioning seven of the specimens.
The Base relaxation values were used in the "investigation-of-cause" phase and, later, in the construction of the retensioning ratios.
These ratios were applied as multiplying factors to the Base values in order to account for the effect of retensioning on stress relaxation in future tendon force predictions.
As pointed out above, the FRC review questions whether the test results from two tendon wires (76 and 51) that represent two wire heats (430091 and 419477, respectively) sufficiently represent all six heats of wire material used in the tendons.
As indicated in GAI Report No. 2347 (Reference 10 of FRC report), the results from the third remaining tendon wire specimen (tendon 150) were also used in the "cause" investigation, except that the test data required evaluation and could not be used directly because ofthe atypical behavior from'one specimen, namely 150-B.
The relaxation test results which FRC has questioned have been used in the Factor Method and with the 16% Base relaxation curve to predict the forces in the 31 tendons involved in the 1981, 1983, and 1985 surveillances, with very good results.
This was demonstrated by the comparison of measured and predicted tendon forces in Table 3 and Figure 6 of GAI Report No. 2499 for the 1981 surveillance (Reference 14 of FRC's Report) and in Table 2 and the Appendix D figures of the GAI Report No. 2512 for the 1983 surveillance (Reference 9 in FRC's Report). A similar comparison was developed for the recently completed 1985 surveillance.
These results, along with those reported previously for the 1981 and 1983 surveillances, appear in the December 6, 1985 attached Table 1. In addition, a comparison of the measured tendon forces with the predicted force-time curves is provided in attached Figures 1
through 31. These results indicate that the forces measured in all tendons, regardless of wire heat, can be predicted and monitored to an acceptable degree of accuracy using the existing test results and force prediction methodology. A closer examination of the surveillance results is provided below.
Table 2 tabulates all 160 Ginna tendons by the wire heat comprising the tendons.
A total of 73 tendons (45.6% of the 160 total number of tendons) contain wires from the same heat as test heats ¹30091 and ¹19477, and 60 of these tendons are made up of wires solely from either heat ¹30091 or from heat ¹19477.
The test heat which contains the one questionable specimen (150-B) is heat ¹10355, and the next-to-smallest number of tendons, 14, are composed of wires solely from this heat.
The 31 tendons which have had lift-offforces measured at the 1981, 1983, and 1985 surveillances are identified in Table 2. Of these 31 tendons, 24 are each made up from wires from only one (identifiable) heat.
These 24 tendons are tabulated by their respective wire heat in attached Table 3.
In Table 3, the tendons are arranged according to the percent difference between measured to predicted forces.
For example, for the seven (7) tendons containing wires solely from heat ¹30091, the measured forces ranged from 5.0% greater-than-predicted to 2.9% less-than-predicted.
The tendons which appear twice have been involved in more than one surveillance (see Table 1).
As another example, consider the three (3) tendons composed of wires solely from the heat¹10355.
This heat contained the questionable
- specimen, 150-B. The forces in these tendons exceeded their predicted values within the narrow range of 3.2% to -2.9%.
Moreover, these results are entirely consistent and within the range of values for tendons made up solely of wires from heat ¹30091 and from heat ¹19477, the heats which were used to establish the 16%
Base Relaxation curve used in the predicted force calculations.
The same can also be said for all the other tendons shown in the table. This would not be the case ifthe 16% Base Relaxation curve were not representative, as the FRC finding suggests.
December 6, 1985 Stress Relaxation - Conclusions The stress relaxation tests, including both the number of different heats tested and the number of specimens involved, appear to be sufficiently adequate., These results were evaluated in detail and were used to establish the 16% Base Relaxation curve and the retensioning ratios, which have in turn yielded predicted tendon forces that agree very well with the forces measured at the tendon surveillances performed thus far.
The data and methodology continue to provide an effective means of monitoring the tendon forces, and additional tests are not needed.
The Code governing concrete containments, ASME Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC, contains the rules for stress relaxation testing of prestressing elements (wires). These rules appear in paragraph CC-2424 ofthe Code. The rules state:
"A minimum of three relaxation tests of 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> duration shall be performed..." and "...the tests shall be performed on material previously manufactured to the same ASTM or other applicable specifications, and produced in the same plant utilizing the same procedures that will be employed to produce the prestressing elements for the production tendons."
The Code rules do not require stress relaxation tests on each different heat of wire to be used in the tendons.
From this standpoint, the stress relaxation tests performed on the Ginna tendon wires have significantly exceeded the Code requirements.
2.0 TENDON ELONGATIONMEASUREMENTS The third NRC recommendation is based on the conclusion in the FRC report that the accuracy of tendon elongation measurements, taken during the surveillance lift-offtests, can be improved.
Actually, in "stressing" a tendon during a lift-offtest, the bearing force between the 'upper anchorhead of the tendon and the bearing plate is merely transferred to the stressing ram, which reacts against the bearing plate.
During this process, no significant tendon elongation occurs, as the FRC review comment seems to suggest.
A small amount of ram piston displacement does occur (1/4" maximum) as the ram is loaded from 0 to the lift-offforce, which was in the neighborhood of 700 kips at the 1983 surveillance.
However, the 1/4 inch ram extension under the 700 kip load December 6, 1985 increase occurs primarily within the ram system and is accurately measured to the nearest 1/16 inch.
During the history of the tendons, accurate rock anchor and tendon elongation measurements have been taken at various times.
During the stressing of the rock anchors in 1969, the ram position was measured at seven (7) points up to maximum load for every rock anchor.
This allowed accurate load-elongation curves to be plotted for each rock anchor.
In addition, one rock anchor (No. 46) was taken through a complete loading d
I di g yl.Th I
p dp i
tyi~R USNRC Review Comments on Tendon Evaluation (Reference 13 of FRC's Report), and they demonstrated the linear response and integrity of the anchors. Again in 1969, when the wall tendons were stressed, displacement measurements were taken which showed the tendon elongations to be predictable and again demonstrated the integrity of the rock anchors, as discussed previously in GAI Report No. 2347 (FRC Report Reference 10).
In the June 1980 tendon retensioning, the wall tendons were stressed from the force level existing in each tendon at that time to the final lock-off value.
In this retensioning, the tendon elongations were measured and found to be in the neighborhood of 2 inches versus 7-1/2 inch elongations when the tendons were stressed originally.
The June 1980 retensioning elongations were compared with their predicted values in Appendix A of GAI Report No. 2347 (FRC Reference 10), and good agreement was shown to exist. This again demonstrated the integrity of the rock anchors.
Tendon Elon ation - Conclusions The FRC comments on increasing the accuracy of the tendon elongation measurements are not applicable for the lift-offtests.
- However, past tendon elongation measurements, as recent as the June 1980 retensioning, tend to demonstrate the integrity of rock anchors.
3.0 ROCK CREEP The fourth NRC recommendation is based on the finding in the FRC report that the creep extrapolation previously reported is not correct, and that consideration of rock creep in a shear mode would increase the calculated tendon loss, above that previously reported.
The FRC conclusions are based December 6, 1985 on the review by their geotechnical consultant, Geotechnical Engineers, lnc.
(GEI), appearing'n Section 3.4 ofthe consultant's report.
We concur with the comment that the creep extrapolation in GAI Report No.
2347 (FRC Reference
- 10) is not correct, but there is reason to believe that the tendon loss due to rock creep is much closer to the 8 kip value rather than 122 kips, the range given in GEI's report. An explanation follows.
GEI's report includes Figure 4.5 from Farmer's text En ineerin Pro erties of Rock (1968), which was the basic reference used for the rock creep strain calculations in GAI Report No. 2347 (FRC Reference 10).
This figure is reproduced as Figure 32 herein, and it indicates that the creep exponent, n, used to determine the creep strain in the rock increases with increasing compressive stress in the rock. Two curves are shown in the figure which bound test data from different types of rock at various stress levels.
From the figure, and as GEI reports, at the 472 psi (33 kg/cm>) compressive stress used forthe creep calculation, the upper bound curve gives a value of 1.4 for n while the lower bound curve yields a value of 1.1 for n. For n = 1.4, a rock creep strain is calculated which would result in an 8 kip loss in the tendons.
For n = 1.1, the tendon force loss is calculated to be 122 kips. Actually, the type. of rock at Ginna would appear to exhibit a creep characteristic more closely represented by the upper bound curve that gave 8 kips as the calculated tendon loss. This is seen from the creep data discussed in Section 2.2 of GAI Report No. 2347 (FRC Reference
- 10) ~ Here, a value of n = 1.91 was obtained from a creep test on Ginna site rock under 10,000 psi (703 kg/cm>)
sustained compressive stress.
Ifthe value for n of 1.91 is plotted on Figure 4.5 from Farmer at 703 kg/cm>, th'e data point lies close to the upper bound curve (see Figure 32). Consequently, based on the existing calculations, the tendon loss would likely be much closer to 8 kips than 122 kips.
A value for tendon loss due to rock creep in the neighborhood of 8 kips is larger than the 0.08 kip value reported previously.
But this difference does not alter the previous conclusion that stress relaxation of the tendon wires is the primary reason for the larger-than-predicted tendon force losses.
One reason for maintaining this conclusion is due to the fact that the excessive relaxation (in excess of the original 12% curve) accounted for much more than 8 kips loss of tendon force. Another important reason has to do with the conservatism of the rock column model which yielded the value of
II December 6, 1985 472 psi compressive rock stress.
This model was originally chosen because it was convenient and, at the same time, would yield conservatively high values of compressive stress in the rock, and consequently conservative values of rock creep strain, which at the time were determined to be insignificantly small based on the calculations that resulted in the 0.08 kip value.
The rock column model, in effect, uses the 472 psi bearing stress under the ring footing on the rock surface and assumes that this level of stress exists uniformly along the entire 34-foot height of the rock anchors.
This conservatively ignores the fact that the force corresponding to the 472 psi bearing actually spreads out in the rock below the footing. This effect would reduce the creep strain in the rock, and consequently the tendon loss; below that determined using the rock column assumption.
This assumption is also expected to be conservative enough to overcome any additional loss that might be calculated by including the shear deformation of the rock in a less conservative, and more realistic, calculational model forthe rock.
Rock Cree
- Conclusions Correcting the error pointed out by GEI in the previous rock creep calculation appearing in GAI Report No. 2347 increases the calculated value of tendon loss from that reported previously. But the revised value is based on a very conservative calculational model for the rock; and still, its magnitude is not large enough to alter the previous conclusion that stress relaxation is the primary reason for the larger-than-predicted tendon losses which occurred prior to the June 1980 retensioning.
This point is further emphasized by the fact that subsequent to the June 1980 retensioning, the tendon forces measured on three separate occasions at the 1981, 1983, and 1985 surveillances are predictable even ignoring rock creep.
This is to be expected since any rock creep that may still be occurring would be doing so at a creep rate that is insignificantly small considering that the rock has been stressed by the rock anchors for 16 years.
TABLE 1.
Gft(NA SURVEILLANCE TENDONS(PAGE 1
OF 2)
Et( TEHDOH HO.
HEAT HO.
~
~
nO SURVEILLANCE
}98}
1983 PERIOD 1985 t(E ASURED FORCE KIPS)
PREDfCTED FORCE (KIPS)
PERCENT DIFFERENCE I
2 5
6 7
8 9
fBll 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22.
26 27 28 29 30, 31 32 35 36 37 38 39 48 41 42 45 52 13 17 17 18 10 21 21 33 33 35 35 36 3&
48 40 5}
51 53 53 60 68 62 62 63 63 71 73 74 74 19477
}9477 ttlr ED.
t(IZED 30091 38091 21504 21584 10355 10355 18355 (0355 t}IXED HIrED 30091 38091 19477 19477 19477 19477 21584 21584 21584 2}584 21584 21504 HIXED 30891 10355 10355
~75 76 76 76 77 84 84 93 93 183 l}l llf 11&
1}6 120 120 125
!25
!26 128 128 38091
)}IXED t(IZED t(IXED 2}504 21504 21584 39377 39377 21584 UNSPEC UNSPEC UNSPEC UHSPEC Ut(SPEC UNSPEC 38891 30091 38B91 38891 38891 75 -~ 30091 730 738 727 717 727 705 725 723 679 673 662 653 657 664 731 724 710 709 734 731 711 702 716 715 722 713 705 654 731 710 723 518 7}3 780 703 723 714 718 713 706 703 646 643 690 693 688 679 705 7D2 692 789 711 721 711 734 715 721 714 723 704 678 665 658 648 664 661 711 784 723 712 722 711 787 780 730 720 730 711 707 624 788 698 709 460 714 784 696 702 7}3 695 721 711 699 647 642 658 656 6&1 659 726 716 659 783 696 1.2X 2.7X
-}.BX 8.3X 8.8X
-1.3Z 8.3X 2,7Z 1.3X 1.2X 1.8'X 8 ~ BX
-f.}X
- 0. 5X 2.8X 2,8X
-1.8X
-0,4X 1.7X, 2.8X 8,6X 8.3X
-1. 9Z
-8.7X
-}.IX 8'X
-0.3X 4.8Z 3.2X 2,9X 2.8X 12,6X
-8.}X
-8,6X
- 1. BX 3.0Z
- 0. }X 2.2X
-8 ~ 7X 0.6X
-8.2X 0.2X 4'Z 5.6X 2.9X 3.0X "2.9X
-2.0X 5 ~ BX 8 ~ 9X 2.2X
TASLE 1, 61HMA SURVEILLANCE TENDONS(PAGE 2 OF 2)
EH TENDON HO.
HEAT ND.
S U R V E I L 1. A N C E
P E
R I 0 0 HEASUREO PREDICTED E
~
~
.0 1981 1983 1985 FORCE FORCE (KIPS)
(KIPS)
PERCENT OIFFE.".ENCE 53 54 55 56 57 133 39377 155 19477 155 19477 168 19477 168 19477 734 71&
2.2X 738 713 3 ~ 5X 745 783
'6.8X 721 789 1,7Z r
785 782 8.4X TOTAL 57 18 18 21 782 693 1.38Z AVE AVE AVE l Tendon no.
75 retensioned to 518 kiqs subsequent to uire breakage accident.
Predicted force of 468 kiqs based on 16X Base stress relaxation curve uithout Retensioning Ratio.
I h
TABLE 2.
GINNATENDONS - BYWIRE HEAT
¹30091(76)
¹19477(51)
(Test Heat)
(Test Heat)
¹10355(150)
(Test Heat)
¹21504
¹39377
¹22332 UnsPecified Heat 46 23 3*
25) 1 145 4
(2 2
149 16 127 5
152 17 283 6
153 18 129 7
154 30 130*
8 5~5'1*
9 156 32*
10 157 39 11 158 40 12 159 41*
13 60 45 14*
3*
14*
83 29 15 19
. 84
~ 31*
17~i 20 85 32*
33'i '1 86*
6 34 22 87*
86*
35 41*
90*
87*
36 42 101 88 37 43 102 89 38 44 03 90*
71*
~
50 104 '1 72 59 134*
92 74 60
- 146, 93 6*
61 147 94 47*
49*
110 112 113 114 115 16 117 118 119 20 121 122 47*
24 107*
62 148 95 49*
26 55 27 56 28 S7 S1) 123 63k 124 64 139 65 140 66 150 67 96 97 98 99 100 58 52 1
53 73 54 75 137 6
138 106*
141 107*
142 151 68 105 69
. 106*
70 130*
77 131 78 132 79 33 80 134*
108 143 81 135 109 144 82 136
- = Tendons with mixed wire heats Bold Face ='1, '83 or '85 Surv. Tendons (circled)
TABLE 3.
WIRE HEATAND 1981, 1983 and 1985 SURVEILLANCETENDONS **
430091(Test) f19477(Test) 410355(Test) 421504 439377 Tendon Tendon 6
Tendon 6
'endon 6
Tendon 126 50 155 60 74 32 77 30 133 22 73 48 155 35 35 18 21 27 93 11 40 2.8 53 2.8 33
-1.3 84 2.2 93 0.7 40 2.8
- -13 2.7 33 1.2 103 0.6 128 2.2 53 1.7 35 0.8 60
" 0.6
'5 2.0 160 1.7 74 2.9 60 0.3 128 0.9 13 1.2 18 0.8 160 0.4 18 1.3 51 0.4 63 03 21 03 84 0.1 125 2 9 62 1.9 125 2.0 51 1.8 62 0.7 63 1.1 Ave.
1.37 Ave.
1.78 Ave.
0.9 Ave.
0.5 Ave.
0.1 NOTES
= % Difference in Tendon Force:
Measured - Predicted Predicted X 100%
- Predicted tendon forces are based on stress relaxation values from the 16% Base Relaxation curve multiplied by applicable Retensioning Ratios
850 FIGURE 1
COMPARISOH OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED TEHDOH FORCES INCLUDINGRETEHSIOHING FOR TENDOH NO; 13 tWff-tttlll-ftt1lftfttlitNffttttflfttflftt QO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF 800 Q
750 Nu OCO X,
OA 700 IJI I
0RI LOCK 0 SUR LOC IL E
A 0
FT 0 ALUE I-X
.. I C4 WX W W U
<L.
uJ lo Vl (2) 'l65o RELAX, WITH RT 650 600 OX Vl w
ILI-X OOX I-I-X O
WUX l!J IL' I
WUX w
CL W
X llJ lL '
~
WUX wbw Up>
sn llJ I, CL R
O I-X gg W
W W,
T LI
-I I -
. IL llJ I-W a
FT OFF VALUE JL
~
w.
ooo I o
I t
gg I
I >.'-
l o'4
( I) E. S. R.
WITH RT I I I I II I IIIIIIIIII 95fo X (2) 95% X (I)
IoIIIJJIJIJIJIJ E.S.R.
WITHOUT RT I-W
~
2.0 2.5 4.5 9.6 12.0 13.6 I5.6 17.6 22.6 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6 12.6 TIME AFTER CONTAIHMEHTWALL CONSTRUCTIOH (YEARS)
~ I
,p
850 FIGURE 2 COMPARISOH OF PR EDICTED AND MEASURED TENDOH FORCES INCLUDIHG R ETENSIOHIHG FOR TEHDOH HO. 17
.HMNt&ffl 0 fftfttfffflfiffffflllllllllll QO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF 750 III0 X
O 700 IJI I
650 ORI GIHAL LOCK OFF VALUE RT LOCK OFF VALUE SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF
,- IIJVX IIL'
.. I-CV WX D QJ V CL' Lo an o
aaaaaaaaa
~
(1) E.S.R.
WITH RT a ~ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (2) 16% RELAX WITH RT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 95%o X (I)
I E. S.R.
WITHOUT RT
~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ aa ~ aa 95% X (2) 600 Z
an W
OO 1Z
~
~'-I 1.4 T
0 IUVX W
D an IU I
I
~
IUUX W
IL 2.0 2.5 f:-
IU l VX )- lg AI an W I.", IL CL'e W
an "o RT LIFT OFF VALUE IIJUX IIJ IJ:'--
IY CL
~
IU.
an I
~ r a ~
0 I-anZ CL IU w
IL I I-Ct:
tU an I
IL Ill 0-I a
IL
~ W
~
~ )-
~
a
~
IL W
I-4.5 9.6 12.0 13.6 15.6 I1.6 22.6 27.6 12.6 TIME AFTER CONTAINMENTWALL COHSTRUCTIOH (YEARS)
I-CC I W I >-
EM I
W
~
I co CV 32.6 37.6 42.6
850 FIGURE 3 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TEHDOH FORCES INCLUDING RETEHSIOHIHG FOR TEHDOH HO. 18 ttW15 tttttttttttNHINlttttlflllltllllltl Oi PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF ORIGINAL LOCK OFF VALUE RT LOCK OFF VALUE 750 Wu OCO
Ão Ci 700 W
I (2) 16% RELAX.
WITH RT 650 WU (1) E.S.R.
WITH RT I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIII 95% X (2) 95% X (I) 600 an I-X0G 1
wx
~ I-rI-
~ X O
WUr W
IL' lL' I
CC I W WUZ W
J l..
W I"W R
X O
I-aX WI-I W W,
T LI I
I I
W FT0 I ffI-FF YALU
'I ~
E I-
~
C W.
vl I l-.
g r j W I
o'v
~
I CI.
2.0 2.5 4.5 12.0 9.6 TIME AFTER CONTAINMENTWALLCO 13.d 12.6 CTION HSTRU 15.d Il.d 22.6 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6 (YEARS)
850 FIGURE 4 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TEHDOH FORCES INCLUDING R ET EHSIOHIHG FOR TEHDON NO. 21 tff3 flfttfltftf1lfftftNf ffNtfffffflfffflflt Q1 PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF 0 RIGINA LO RT LOCK OF ALUE R 750 oIL 700 I-SU RV IL IF OFF WX IL g D W u
g(.
Ill lo
(/I (1) E.S.R.
WITH RT I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIII (2) 16% RELAX.
WITH RT 650 600 LlX WCI-
'X O
Cl
('
0 2.0 2.5
-W U
'X R
LIFT 0 FF LUE-W WuX W
(Y x I-X O
I-IL X
g WI-13.6 12.6 CT ION 9.6 12.0 TIME AFTER COHTAIHMEHTWALL CONSTRU I-I lY (
W.
7.6 W
15.6 11.6 22.6 2
(YEARS)
I 1I- '.
II I
o'V 32.6 I-0 31.6 42.6
((IIII((~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~
95% X (I) 95"/0 X (2)
I I I I I ~ I I I II( III S.R E.
WITHOUT RT
850 FIGURE 5 COMPARISOH OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED TENDOH FORCES INCLUDIHG R ET ENSIOHIHG FOR TENDON HO.
33 IMtWttllhtt'ttNttmtttttttttttttttllltlt QO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF ORIGINAL LOCK OFF VALU RT LOCK OFF VALUE E
P 750 III0 OIL K
O 700 I
RT T OFF IF U
AL E
'X cv WX D W V g W I,o
~n t g y
650 600 L7X an I-X O0
] X I-1.4 X
0 WVX W
EL W
I 2.0 2.5 WUX W
W
.. WUX wI ~ w V r- ~
x, I-tt.'n wing K
W
~
a anl. ~
X X0 I-anX WI"i W W
I-le
't:
tll 4.5 9.6 12.0 13.d 15.d 17.d 12.6 TIME AFTER COHTAIHMEHTWALL CONSTRUCTION (YEARS)
(I) E.S.R.
WITH RT IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (2) 16% RELAX.
WITH R T IIIIIIIIIIIII 95% X (I)
I I IIIIIIIIIIII 95% X (2) 0t I- ~
tt:-
ill.
I I le.
l W I ~
I cv.
I o 22.6 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6
850 FIGURE 6 COMPARISOH OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED TEHDOH FORCES INCLUDINGRETENSIOHING FOR TEHDOH NO. 35
- t ttTttl0 ttiltttttlltttlit11ttilttlat t tltltlltfl OO PREVIOUS SURVEILLAHCE LIFT OFF RT LOCK OFF VALUE 750 JJJU CJCO X
C) 700 O
I ORIGIHAL LOCK OFF UE
. I-WX CC g D W CJ Cg W go a/l 650
-.R TOF F VALUE IIIIIIIII (1) E.S.R.
WITH RT I I I I I I IIII I IIIIIII (2) 16(a RELAX, WITH RT 600 UlX an
~n lIJ CL 1-
'XO' II gl
~ 1-X 0
WUZ W
CL'D CC!
IU I
I WUX ill 2.0 2.5 UJ Ui-y ZI-cL dI an lU I., CL CC a
tU a
an 1-OX IL I-IL'
-I-I CL Ca'U O
1-anX gg Wl-I W UJ 4.5 9.6 12.0 '3,d IS.d Il.d 12.6 TIME AFTER COHTAIHMENTWALLCONSTRUCTIOH (YEARS)
~
I I--
CL',
Illllllllllllll 95$o X (I)
I IIIIIIIIIIIIII 95Ãe X (2)
W an I I
I >.!
l o'V.
22.6 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6
4
~ ~
850 FIGURE 7 COMPARISOH OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED TEHDON FORCES IHCLUDIHG RETENSIOHING FOR TENDOH HO. 36 tffTflMAll fftfflufffilffflflftlllffflllf fill QO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF CK RT LO 0
VALUE 750 Wu OCOIL X
O 700 I
0 CK0FF SURYEI NC E LIFT 0 FF r
I co wx V ~
w go Ill (I) E.S.R.
WITH RT 650 RT LIFT OFF YALU (2) 16% RELAX WITH RT 600 X
~ X.
O' VX w
tLD 2.0 VX w
2.5 w
I
(
X w '
X w
Vx I-D I:, oc w
I. o 4.5 9.6 12.0 TIME AFTER CONTAINMEHTWALL COHSTRU O
I-X lg wI-I w w
i
~
I3.6 15.6 17.6 12.6 CTIOH (YEARS)
I-w 22.6 I-
~
IL o C
w.
~L
-l-7.6 I-
'C
~
EC '
w.
gg t I
w I )-'-
I o'2,6 37.6 42.6 I I I I I I I ~ I ~ II III 95oro X (I)
IIII1IIIIIIIIII 95%o X (2)
,I 4 ~
t
850 FIGURE 9 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TEHDON FORCES INCLUDINGRETEHSIOHING FOR TENDOH NO. 51 ttWtt tlttlltt11lN$1iittttlltttltltltllllllt Qi PREVIOUS SURYEILLAHCE LIFT OFF 750 III U
r Or 700 III I
650 RT LOCK OFF VALUE RT LOCK OFF VALUE SURYEILLAIICELIFT OFF
.- W
.U I-X
.. I A~
WX C g D W U CC In
~Il (1) E.S.R.
WITH RT I I I I I I I I I IIIIIIII (2) I6% RELAX.
WITH RT 95% X (I)
E.S.R.
WITHOUT RT 95% X (2) 600 X
XO' IX
- XI-
~ X0 W
I WUX Ill ILD W
W iw Ux I-e
~ ~
~
I-tL X
WI-I W W.
CC:
I I
I lL RT LIFT OFF VALUE I-i CCl:
0:-
W.
vl I jw I-CI 2.0
- 2. 5 4.S 9.d 12.0 13.d IS.6 17.6 22.d 12.6 TIME AFTER COHTAIHMENTWALL COHSTRUCTIOH (YEARS) 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6
850 F IGUR E 10 COMPARISOH OF PREDI TED AND MEASURED TENDON FORCES INCLUDING R ETEHSIONIHG FOR TENDOH NO. 53 I tWfM11tl.tttill.N1llt 1 lNttltltlttllllttl Oi PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF
, IL R
150 Wu x '
O 700 W
I 650 0
IGI C
LO 0
F YA UE RT-LOCK OFF YALUE URYEILLAHCELIFT OFF X
I-X
.. I WX tt: g
~ W LJ tg tU Io
~n II I IIIUl (2) 16% RELAX WITH RT 11lllllllllllllll WITH RT llllllllllllllll 95% X (2)
E.s. R.
WITHOUT RT 95% X (1) 600 an X00
] X I.4 I-X0 WUX tU OO an W
I 2.0
- 2. 5 Wu'X IU D
an X0 X
lUI-l W
RT I
LIF I
I-.,
T OF 1 llI-4.5 9.6 12.0 13.6 I5.6 17.6 12.6 TIME AFTER CONTAINMENTWALLCOHSTRUCTIOH (YEARS)
LUE YA tt:
CC tU o
22.6 I
Ct".
IY-Ol.
-l-27.6 1~-:
I I
I >-'-
I o' W
I >-
a CV I-tL OC W
~
32.6 37.6 42.6
850 FIGURE 1'I COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED TENDON FORCES INCLUDING RETEHSIOHING FOR TENDON.HO. 60 94Mt.lfftftlfttftfff f1Nlflffflfffffftlfl Ot PREVIOUS SURYEILI ANCE LIFT OFF 800 CL 750 M
X O
700 I-0 HAL IGI LOCK 0 FF V UE R
C 0
0 LUE IIL'
.. I Ay WX C g
~ W V Cg
<o I/l IIIIIIIIII
.S.R.
WITH RT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III (2) 16.o'ELAX.
WITH RT 650 600 I.
I X
IL I..
I I
X' OX I-'-I
'l,4 XI-0 wk-VX IU IU 2.0 2.5 WVX lU IL I
~
tU IUV.
'X tU D
X
I-X CL'U I-W W
I-CL'L lU F F VALU I:
I-I'I
~
12.0 13.6 15.6 11.6 22.6 12.6 TRUCTION (YEARS) 4.5 9.6 TIME AFTER COHTAINMENTWALL COHS E
I I I I I I I I I I I IIII 95% X (I)
I I I I I IIII I I IIII 95% X ('2)
IL'-
IU 0
I-IU tV IL' IL cv 27.6 32.6 37,6 42.6
850 FIGURE 12 COMPARISOH OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TENDON FORCES IHCLUDIHG RETEHSIONIHG FOR TENDON NO. 62 0-f-flyftflftltflttftffllffllllttflllffflllllf OO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF A
Y 750 ICIU OCOIL X
O x
700 0
IUI-650 ORIGINAL LOCK OFF VALUE RT LOCK OFF VALUE SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF I
CL'
.. I CV WX CL g QJ U Ig IU I,.
(1) E.S.R.
WITH RT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(2) 16% RELAX.
WITH RT I IIIIIIIIIIIIII 95% X (1) 95% X (2) 600
~ -
C
~ r.
OO
..1 wr
~
I 1.4 O
IUU'z IU CL'U I
2.0 2.5 W
OX QI CQ QI WUX
.. WUz QI)iW V ~-y r I-IQ Cg IU
~L. >.
RT O
I-'L z
UlI-w IU, IL ~
1~l LIFT OFF VALUE
'I ~
I- ~
CL' C
IU
~l I-
'Q I
I W,
I o'w CI 22.6 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6, 4.5 9.6 12,0 13,6 15.6 17.6 12.6 TIME AFTER CONTAIHMEHTYlALLCONSTRUCTIOH tYEARS)
E.S.R.
WITHOUT RT
850 FIGURE I3 COMPARISOH OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TENDON FORCES INCLUDING R ET EHSIOHIHG FOR 7EHDOH,NO.
63 fff f llf f f l Ilf f I fllf11ffllffflllfllllllllf IIIIII OO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF 800 R 750 W0 CI X
O Ch 700 ttI I
650 ORIGINAL LOCK OFF VALUE RT LOCK OFF VALUE SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF
~ Ilt UX X
I WX
- ILJ
~ W I Vcr W Ie an IIIIIIII (2) I6% RELAX.
WITH RT IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (I) E.S.R.
WITH RT I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIII 95% X (2)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 95,o X (I) 600 x
0O I X l.i i X I
- x0 WVX W
2,0 a
gg
~
W I
I WU
'X W
tL WUx I-IL J
an J
WUX lu tL '
X0 I-OC X
WI-w W
I I-IL'
-I-a I
W I
I-4.S 9.6 12.0 13.6 1$.6 12.6 12.6 TIME AFTER COHTAIHMEHTYIALLCOHSTRUCTIOH (YEARS) s
-I 22.6 I-
.'L a
W.
~n I
~
I-'1.
6 I
I I ~:
I oa.
32.d llllllllllllllll I-W CI
- 42. d tL
~
tL' W.
CV 1.4 E.S.R.
WITHOUT RT
850 800 R 750 IJJu X
O 700 I
650 600 X'U I-.
XO, OX 1.4
!I i(sI ll
- Illl, I
I s'.'l
.s.
, ~
il,'rl l l'I t~:
ll',
I 5
I; s
fi.
I!,
i'.l
!il
(.'I l!
Il,'III l(s, s,"
}I
',ll
]r
'I!
l ll I
l'lll
':lI'!
'll l r.l i'!
,I:;~
,i,"
QO PREYIOU L
ANCE YEILL FF 5 SUR IFT 0 si s( I:I
~ I I
illll}: )}l!I! 'l" },sli ~ ) rli sl s ~ r r !'I,'! I .Ili.,'}f' 'e l 'I.' I, I I}:f. I lj I
- III, s:
I il ( I I! ji ls.,,I !If}44 l jil ! I Ili', ~ ( ls ~'I ~ s ,. - sJ ORIGIIIALLOCK OFF VALUE llj Ili Ils! I ~', r ls r s i sl s I I 'I 's ( 'i'I (II! .jill ( ,la
- II',l
(()i, (TT'I'll'IL) llel !!li! Jtl RT L OFF VALUE OCK ll "i lll: lli. Iili s, I" jll: j(ll r I l.'I
- jl I
I l ll I ( I ll i I(I !l ,'}},' j}}f (I- 'I s I I.'si I sl:i s Iijll }I I ,Ill I I} I}ll jl sr II fll (ijl s I i fl I:,I ~ s s ~ ~ slsl I ~ is III:::::,': ...s. s I'I I I ~ ) r S s ~ as i I.'li a(s) s s s s ~ Ii I l f I I I s I s I I s (2) Id/0 RELAX. WITH RT ~~ ~I ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Ir I [s I I li ~ ~ s i i I ~ I ~ I I i
- il
!;I OFF s s (~ ) I ( J.; } l.i s I I ls I I s ~a s ~ s ~a ( ll,l 'll I lrlr .lli, l i' ~ I X (21 I ~ ~ I ~ 957/ I
- I'.ll
- I, l ~'I I
I( I ,'I UJ LJ
- I
}.'I I". II! il II ~ s ~ ~ ~ I I X 1" I ~ I s ~ ~ I I ~ s ~ s ) } RT UJ I Q ~ x I-c Ji UJ ~ CL Jg"' an I r I'fsl li ',!s) ll "ii -I l(l! UJUX ~ wl UE YAL FT LI )!, s'ii ~ r ~ I
- s UJ )i
~n Xli Oi I "l X I-IL i I-Sa) ~ I. 37.6 II s I I X I'X O ss ~ I ~ l ~ I ..sl ~ I assr ~ s ~' ~ . )I ~ ~ L(s I I,l', ss ill I l UJ ~l s I o i ~ s I-w - -'I.' 1 l,lr "s s ~ ~ ~'r( ~ I 32.6 r -I ~.- 42.6 ls 22.6 27.6 12.0 'I3.6 15.6 17.6 12.6 CTION (YEARS) 2,0 2.5 9.6 HSTRU L CO L TIME AFTER CONTAIHMENT WA FIGURE 14 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TEHDOH FORCES IHCLUDIHG R ET EHSIOHING FOR TEHDOH HO. 71 jtl Ql"'t"Il"IM'it't'tt:"l'.t:'!t'.l'.!:
i}j !!II! I'I.: t I!I.! IIII i'ii! '}ll s} II, tl., I! t I!1 "I'I 850 !i'I lt I !1 ll
- Il'!
I lt 800 t,' I ji; .'j IilI I R 750 CXO 'K O
- 700, Ltt I
ORIGINAL LOCK OFF VALUE i':, II! Ill ll t ~ RT LOCK OFF VALUE. 'I, ',I ll i1! I l: .I 'I'l Ii II I 1!,! I II'I ':,!'I I!Ii! If!i lf RT LIFT OFF VALUE 'l j, ji '!Ij 650 I ~ t t 'I'.I'l III l:I i,t', I !'I I iltl I:}I I II," ti iti. ',l ',I I ii Il ~ ~
- I ~
LI. 'X. CC I I 'X O. O z'- I'i Ilj! il,I .Il. ll I I., I:~' ~ l Ol Z I gl UJO 'X IU OI z f-"a: <i.~ J! Ig IJJ o II I ~ I It ~ 600 'll' ~ "I';.", IIII' Ic X I'X O O'- I/Oz-UJI-UJ CL I I ~ I !I~I ~ t tt ~ Qt UJ tt: I/l ~ II~ ~ III I II I tt I ~ ~ ..a,.I 13.6 12.6 CTION 1.4 2.0 2.5 12.0 9.6 NSTRU TIME AFTER COHTAIHMENTWALL CO LI. I; I i! I I I I! It ll ~ I I ~ ~ I! I ~ I: ~II I ~ I jil I,I tj 'I il, ~ ~ I ili I iI I I ~ ." Iji I ~ I !I .! I: I .;;Ij: ~ ~ I ~ ~ ', I,:li ~ I I ~ le ~ ~
- I/ii
~ ~ ~ ~"I III I !I ~ I ji'.}: I ~Ill .'I;-
- IIII,
- t.l
-;li ~ ~ I Il.l ~ I,t I.t, I,.I ~" Ill ~'t ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ lt ~ I ~ lt I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I!l. ~ ~ ~ ~ i! IIII;II .Jill:::'. I t % RELAX ITH RT (2) 16 IN IUt 15.6 I7.6 UJ ~ I,'"I 22.6 I l I.- 27.6 I-32.6 I 37.6 95% X (2) IU CI ~ I' ~ I 42.6 (YEARS) FIGURE 15 COMPARISOH OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED TEHDOH FORCES INCLUDING R ETEHSIONING FOR TENDON HO. j'Ll&llt-.j i"I.'-' i.=i.',"t":i';tittit!!tlijl;ii!ll!, OO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF
850 FIGURE 16 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED-AHD MEASURED TEHDON FORCES INCLUDIHG R ET EHSIOHIHG FOR TENDOH HO. 74 ttWthtt ItttttittttNH1tNttttttltttlttltt OO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF R 750 ILI U X O x 700 I ORIGINAL LOCK OFF VALUE RT LOCK OFF VALUE llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!IIIII!l I;I:I SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF .. I CV WX C g W W IJ Ig W Lo I/l 650 (2) 16% RELAX. WITH RT lU UX 95oo X (2) 600 O WVX lUlL'C LU 1 WUZ LU IL:D \\ LU W 'J X LU WI-w Up> I" W o X O I-Z WI-W W IL ~ I-LU I- ~ IY. C-lU ~ Il P I I p-e W I >-: ! A' CV (I) E.S.R. WITH RT llllllllllllll 2.0 2.5 4.5 TIME AFTER I5.6 17.6 (YEARS) 9.6 12.0 13.6 12.6 CONTAIHMEHTWALL CONSTRUCTION 22.6 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6
850 BEFORE ACCIDENT F IGUR E 17A COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED TENDOH FORCES IHCLUDIHGRETEHSIOHIHG FOR TEHDOH NO. 75 .tff A~fftftfllfttlfltffNfffflffflffffllf 01 PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF 800 LL R 750 X CIO 700 I 0 OC 0 ALUE LOCK 0 FF UE AL X ., I >>c C g VW Io ~II IIIIIIIII X RELA (2) 16% WITH RT IllI I IIIIIIIIIIII (1) E.S.R. WITH RT 650 600 0 CC I I i. X '. 0OX I-XI-X0 WUZ W WV 'X W WUZ W WVX WU I CCD XI IL: W Ig: W T LI I I-FT0 I 1 I'- ALUE I-I CC ill Ct C-ill Ml I CL'L W I O ~ CV -4 I I I II II I I IIIIII 95% X (2) I IIIIIIIIIIIIII 95% X (I) I-lL'L ' ID 1.4 2.0 2.5 4.5 9.6 12.0 13.6 15.6 17.6 22.6 12.6 TIME AFTER COHTAINMENTWALLCONSTRUCTIOH (YEARS) 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6
4
AFT E R R E PAIR FIGUR E 178 COhIPARISOH OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TEtIDOH FORCES ItICLUDltIGR ETEHSIOtIIHG FOR TEtIDOH tIO. 75 'ttt<llh.fkllltff fll'ff tlHllflHfllffIIIIIIIIIII 'QO PREVIOUS SURYEILLAIICE LIFT OFF 550 REPAIR LOCKOFF AT 3.43 YRS. AFTER RT (11-17-83) 531 KIPS R 500 Ill0 O LJ O 450 I-11-17-84 16% RELAX (1) 400 95/ x (1) X LU IKI-X.0' I i O 2.0 IJ' UJ0X UI I I I Pl I 4.S TlhIE AFTER W ~U I: ~ W an IL UJ UJVZ UJ D o I-2 UJ W IIJ I a..I
- 9. 6 12.0 13.6 12.6 HSTRVCTIOtI COI1TAI!IhIFHTYIAI.I CO I
IJ'LI Pl I-OC W + 15.6 17.6 (YEARS) IL IC W a O 22.6 I-i LL-'i. rL UJ, MI I a -I-27.6 ~ I I qr I I >.! a o'aa 32.6 I-CC EL UL e CI 31.6 42.6
850 FIGURE 18 COMPARISON OF PR EDICTED AND MEASURED TENDON FORCES INCLUDING RETENSIOHING FOR TEHDOH NO. 76 .1tWfftftflHtHtfttHlttftffl fffffflfIllflftf PO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF 800 v. 750 IJI0 X, O x, 700 I 650 ORIGINAL LOCK OFF VALUE RT LOCK OFF VALUE SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF I-X I WX OC g aJ V gy aJ Io ~Il (2) 16% RELAX. WITH RT (I) E.S.R. WITH RT IllllllllllIIIIU 600 X0d I as ~ I-xI-O lUVZ W D W I IUVZ IU OCd aJ W Z tU OC VX Zg~a We;OC + I CCI W . o z ]'ll X0 I-OC X OC lU ~.I W W, OC ~ OC IK aJ I RT LIFT OFF VALU I- ~ OC ~ OC: IU. ~I l ~ W I )-'5%o X (2) IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 95%o X (I) E.S.R. WITHOUT RT I-W ~ CI 2.0 2.5 f 4.5 9.6 12.0 13.6 15.6 17.6 22.6 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6 12.6 TIME AFTER CONTAINMENTWALLCONSTRUCTIOH (YEARS)
a 850 800 750 UJU IX O 'X C) C) 700 I 650 600 X. X0O ~, Z IZ0 V2. ~ ~ ') 'L'J
- I le
>'I I an '~s l.4 2.0 2.5 ORIGINAL LOCK OFF VALUE i, I.e ,s. FIGURE 19 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TENDON FORCES IHCLUDIHG.RETENSIOHING FOR TENDOH HO. 77 lfj ) II.'Ntt'I.';t I-.:I'-;t;-:I:.I;:I:,:t.,'t.'ti.'...'!.i.'! tell!: 'III ] till "!I a il s I, i;i,: l. 'I'i 1 it!le )'ll:ji ilj j 'ij, i,',C.} 11 I OO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF lj I I li is.' '.i thI' I e ~I ~ s I ~ I ~ I ~ s ,Ilail 1 e ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 It'e'. s ~ 'i'I I-it':, e I ) ~ ~ ~ la) ~ Il "I .1 ~ ~ ~ ~ des ~, sl ~ 1 e ~ I( ~ I
- 1st, I!It ll!1 111
- I
II a) s 1 a
- 1)I I
I I I I II l I.e
- .I sa I
S I I e ~ 1 Ile a) )mi,l sl ae RT LOCK OFF VALUE II 1 s e ita: "ie .1!. '11 ,'!): tl a ,a i;ti as., a I I ' ll, a I!et I,!1 a a ~ 'I ',:!,I IS~I se,e a',I aea' .',ll! as
- ,I a
,al'I a" ..1! I';a a C. I... .).1,",il litl:.'- U.l I!i, ]lil III, a 11 ~' CS le ~ ~ a ~ I le I eas 1 I e ~ ~ ~ ~ i I.:I ~ It) 1 I ea e lie) a ~ ~ I Il (I i 'j;i I f
- .'ili',
i 's I Ia ,;t ji':: 11 s '.I.; Isa a .II' ...I... ll-I' ~ ~ 1al
- I p
~ C ~ I'; I I" ~ I.... I 0 1 I 1 I a ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I jl I 1ij a ill 1', e I 1 a I I I (2) ]6e,'ao RELAX. WITH RT I ~ I I;.j;i
- !.'I I'!i
- al'..
I a 1 e 1 1 1 I \\ I a I ',,',i: "'I 1 a e, see al.a ..'I ) ~e 'a 's s I J.s s I e~a i"'I'::I::-: ~ 956 X (2) 'l a II Is ilii; a) I,,il ~ ~ ~ ~ s = 1 >> ~ ) ~ ~.a'I".I it sll .",. It I tl t.': ill) )! It I I 1 IIi Is,l 'ji j s),a .:..I lIl'l.;I )11 ~ 'll.LI..: a.! s a L,I
- I a
1 1 ~ a)l , II'I slt:I:I. a ~ 1 .I.....: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .:..I. 1 ~ a a ~ ~ I UJ'J Os ~ ~ Zj IL J;, an UJ; Ig" Ul 0- ~nl I el i)i'. s ,e,1' .):, tl,' I I I ~ ~ ~ UJUZ IU a 1 a g RT LIFT OFF VALUE f ) a ~ I s I IL UJ ~n Zsl 0,'I-Z IL IU I UJIL I-I CL UJ j 0 27.6 I UJ Q a a I ca) I 37.6 I 0-32.6 l. I 1 a ';I I a 1 a ~ ~. 1s e, ~ ~ (!i! ~ ~ UJ ~ I o I'..I.! 1' ~ ~ e aa s 42.6 22.6 s'il '~ I-"4 4.5 9.6 I2.0 'I3.6 15.6 17.6 I2.6. TIME AFTER COHTAIHMEHTWALL COHSTRUCTIOH (YEARS)
S
850 FIGURE 20 COMPARISOH OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TENDOH FORCES IHCLUDIHG R ET ENSIOHIHG FOR TEHDON HO. 84 .ftMtttt fltttftflttff1flNffft tfftttttftlflft Oi PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF 800 750 IJJu X CI 700 O I 650 ORIGINAL LOCK OFF VALUE RT LOCK OFF VALUE SURVEILLANCELIFT OFF I X .. I EV WX IJ: g N W O IL' Io Vl (2) 1doro RELAX WITH RT I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIIII (1) E.S.R. WITH RT 95% X (2) 95% X (1) 600 ~ f w 1.4 X I 0 IU OX lU IL D IU I lU OX lU 2.0 2.5 E.S.R. WITHOUT RT W' X IIJ EJ!D ~ RT LIFT OFF VALUE %pi~ Wl-:~ IL' I I-IY J W. MI I rO I-E Ig Ql I-IL IU CI I I IL IL IU I-IL' ILr IL W. I >-'- ! A'. I W I" I w W I I'I ~ Ul I CV ~I-22 d 2lod 32 d 31od 42 d 9.d 12.0 13.d 15.d Il.d 12.d TIME AFTER COHTAINMEHTWALlCOHSTRUCTIOH (YEARS)
a
850 FIGURE 21 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED TENDON FORCES INCLUDIHG RETEHSIOHIHG FOR TEHDOH HO. 93 11tttlt-l.l31ttt111tltttttttltlltllttltllttlllllt PO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF 0 750 O OCO X CI m 700 O I 650 ORI HA Gl LOC OF F VALUE RT LOCK OFF VALUE SURVEILLAIICELIFT OFF I-CC X I CV LI X D III V IL'II gn Vl IIIIIIIIII WITH RT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PP (I) E.S.R. WITH RT 95% X (2) IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 95% X (I) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 600 III OOt5 1,4 O III VX III IL IU I 2.0 2.5 VX IU D IL' III 4.5 TIME AFTER III VX IL' (7' IIL'T LIFT OFF o I-X IU III III I I-IL IU I-IL IL'I. 9.d l2.0 13.d 15.6 Il.d 12.6 CONTAIHMENTYIALLCOHSTRUCTION (YEARS) VALUE I... III I- ~ IL ~ IL III. Ml l I I- 'gP t I o'l E.S.R. L WITHOUT I-III. CI '2.6 22.6 32.6 37.6 42.6
850 800 R '750 'X O 700 I 650 600 VX OO X'- I,i I 1.4 I!T! ll'll 'll! lj FIGURE 22 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED TENDON FORCES INCLUDING R ET EHSIOHIHG FOR TEHDOH NO. ]03 Lt1/Lipid;iLl/AAi ~.If !I jj e!e 1!ail ~ illa>i ljf, ellij fi ii.:I I'ii!1
- j!l:-
OO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LfFT OFF I ~I ~ ~I. 1 ~ I I !. I I lel! llf! lij,'! L','I 1! ,jl! II!; II! ii!1 il,j I: e lj!i ii!1 l,le I ! 111 ',I ';:j I;'Ile 'I!i ,jl! I !I e.j I,! !I,'! ll'-!'I, jjle j j I ~ ii ~ ie ll! Ill l l .Ii I'lli jli! I I' ~ jil 1 '1'i I iw K OFF VALUE I RT LOC A . !e ~ ~ IP !" '1c !j.", Ij! il!1 II. I!Il Ii: Ijc I!,i Il!I I,'.
- I.'!i, 1
!'l:.:i: jii,i .':j li;
- le
,le Ill! I 11 li!I:ij, ~ ' I:lil ~ 1 1 e ~ ei j!Ie I..'!1! Il! 'Jj! i 1I: Iil I 1I I: 1 I ~ I.II I ~ e I ORIGINAL LOCK OFF VALUE ~ 1 I ~ il II I 1'! I.I e I ~ >> ~ I> ~ ~ I ';I I ~ ~ ~. ,i,l ~ I I ~' ', ice 'l.le I 1,! .I;<< 1' il'I
- ,.I e
a ~.-1 I ' ~ I I I I I II I I I I 1 1 1 ~ 1 !I'. I a. I I, I Qf>> ,:l; ~ ~ I i ,I I 1j!I Ij. ill! il1 1 I el ! el 'I'I I .I i jl j il I ,IjI' ~ 1 I I I I II!'ll
- I
- I>
1 ~ ~ 1 i ~ 1 !I I ,' l: II alai I!Ii ',ll! ll;1 'I e i j1I,",I 1 1 1 ~ Ii'! Ij:I 'llj I!i I; 1 ~ ~ I'i lj 1 e ~ j I I I I ~ ~ ~ I 1' I Ii (2) 16,o RELAX. WITH RT !II, l.. I.I'. ,!.'1....I,.a 95% X (2). ~ ~ ~ !I: li I ~ 1.Ij ~I 1 ijli 11!'llj !I!Ii ~ 1I ~ 'If!
- I l
1 ~ '1 Ii 1 Ili 1 ~ I IU OX I WO I = AA J; 1>t Ig W ~el i O I.":,: III! ~ 1 ~ I 1, e
- \\ d I'
I, 1 I I O ~ X ~Cl lU I IY: I I al e !'I,'ILI.! lU OX lU D ~ ~ I 1 'I' e ai ~ I ~ I ~ > ~ I ~ Ilia I: eg I{3 O RT LIFT OFF VALUE I I ~ I I 1 I ~:I I I I ~ I { II 1 XII I 'f o.'- cc CC CC X CC I-W W IU n I-~ -I' I I w a I 27.6 l~ I ~ O I .j.~i. X IX0 I-(L cv 37.6 I cc EL'U O CAI - I-32.6 I -.Ii li I'.ll il I 'I
- !.i';. Ii CC.'U
~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ O ~ fi lie Il lU j.': 1 1! jil W i{le ~ 'id'! I 'I3.6 15.6 17.6 22.6 12.6 CTIOH (YEARS) 12.0 42.6 0.0 2.5 9.6 4.5 HSTRU TIME AFTER COHTAIHMENTWALL CO
850 FlGURE 23 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AHD MEASUR ED T EHDOtl FORCES It(CLUDlt(G R ET EHSIOHIHG FOR TEHDOH HO. 111 t! t t Ilt It]lfl I lillNtilttHlltllllttllllllltll OO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF P .750 Wu Q 700 D I LOC ORIGINAL ~ ~ RT LOCK OFF K OFF VAL VALUE I-IL' .. I-F4 3 wx D w LP iL go rrl 650 600 IF 0 wUr w IL D X I r0 I EL' I 2.0 2.5 wuZ D TIME A SU ILLANCE LIF OFF I l Ur I I w 4.5 TER ti-.l-"i UjI'i Q ~ tU I.I u rL W w r w CL',' O I-r. UlI-w .r;.l 13.6 1$.6 12.6 CTIOH (YE 9.d 12.0 'ISTRI.I CO)HThltIMEHT WAI L CO I-11.6 ARS) I lC OC w 'Or
- 22. d I-r EL' w.
~l ~ g 27.6 IIIIIIIIIIIIII 95% X (I) IIIIIIIIIIIIII 95% X (2) I f s-' t I I- 'L' w ~ ~-l-32.6 37.6 42.6 (I) E.S.R. WITH RT I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIII (2) 16'ELAX. WITH RT
850 FIGURE 24 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TEHDOH FORCES INCLUDIHG RETEHSIOHIHG FOR TENDON HO. 116 . ff&fftttffftftftftfttftfftmtffft1lttlltllff OO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF 800 R 750 III V K O x 700 0 lUI-RT LOCK OFF VALUE --NlHlt ORIGINAL LOCK OFF VALUE. S~EILL NCE LIFT OFF X .. I EV WX IL' W I W Its Ill P 650 600 X ) 0O ~ '- gI. 1.4 X I 0 WUX IU 2,0 RT LIFT OFF VALUE WVX 2.5 I W ~ O 'X D -. W0 W IL W C) ~ L" IL f IL 0X X0 I-IL Xf W 4.5 ~ 9.6 12.0 13.6 12.6 TIME AFTER CONTAIHMEHTWALLCOHSTRUCTION I-I IL; . W ~') ~-)- I-- IL. C IU., IL CL lU ') 'v
- I-I gg IL cv I-IL IL'U C)
IIIIIIIII (I) E.S.R. WITH RT I I I I I I I I I I I I III I ) (2) 16% RELAX. WITH RT IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 95% X (1) I 95% X (2) (YEARS) 15.6 17.6 22.6 27.6 32.6 37,6 42.6
I'g 1)
850 FIGURE 25 COMPARISOH OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TEHDOH FORCES INCLUDINGRETENSIOHIHG FOR TENDON HO. 120 NCltttt 0tH.tttllHtNtttlttttffttlltttlllll QO PREVIOUS 5URVEILLANCE LIFT OFF g 750 JJJU O 700 I-I GIN OR LL0 RT LOCK OFF VALUE OF ALUE I ca.' .. I-cv g QJ x JJ: g D Ql IJ JJ:, JJJ J,o an E.5.R. WITH RT IIIIIIIIII (I) RT IFTOF U E 650 600 X OC a I-X OO I-X O QlVX Jll ~n Ql I 20 2.5 QlUX Ql D an a QJ Ql i UX lJ c Xi-JJ: ~n Ql a EL JJ: QJ a o 0 1-anXill 1" I Ql Ql a JJ: ~ a 9.6 12.0 13.6 12.6 TIME AFTER CONTAIHMEHTYIALL'ONSTRUCTION 95% X (1) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (2) 16% RELAX. WITH RT Illllllllllllli 95% X (2): I-- Ql. an I g I-I I ~'. ~ t ~ QJ I ! A. I-QJ I-IL JL Ql -I. I-Ql CI ~ P an , n (YEARS) 15.6 11.6 22.6 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6
3
850 CK 0 F YALUE FIGURE 26 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TENDOH FORCES INCLUDING RETENSIONIHG FOR TEHDOH HO. 125 MffTttflft ftffffttiltiffffllllftlfllH O1 PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF I-I CL .. I cv WX C g D W V Z W Io Vl A R 750 Wu x O 700 I 650 0 Rl IN LO KO F Y LUE SU N IFT OFF ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l (1) E.S.R. WITH RT 95oo X (I) IIIIIIIIIIIIIII (2) 16% RELAX WITH RT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E.S. R. WITHOUT RT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~I 95>>; X (2) 600 t5X CL' rODX l~ L4 ': X I 0 WUX W D CC W 20 2.5 WVr W CL' UX W CC ,.-WUX f-W U ~ M ill),; RT LIFT OFF I EC X 'X O I-CC X,illI-W ill I I CC EC Ill PI I 4.5 9.6 12.0 13.6 15.6 17.6 12.6 TIME AFTER COHTAINMEHTSALL COHSTRUCTION (YEARS) YALUE I W'I I EL' W. IA I ~ t ~ W I >'- I o'o I 1>-'- W ~ CI 22.6 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6
850 800 750 2:O 700 I RT LIFT OFF VALUE 650 600 'X Oo X, Ii 1.4 ~ 'r X IX O UJ CL 2.0 us z'l -j I Q ~ CU j Ct:; I 2.5 ~ I I I I I I ~ I I I.. Il, II, tUU X, IU D 4.5 ~l !I jlll Is sl II Il.I IIl I,li I I I; sl II I I Ill I Ill ls,' I I !I l II II! !II! ~. ~ Ili s s i>>i s I ~ I iiI'; I j !Ii
- lj!
!I,'I !I! I I ~ , I.' ' l II ~ I'sls Is ls TIME AFTER COHTAIHME ORIGINAL LOCK OFF VALUE RT LOCK OFF VALUE j;I ill!i .!lj i'li JJl
- I,",'ili.
i!!i, .;!!l lji I!! li I IS III II '!I'tl lif I I.
- !i.
Il OO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF I I ~ I ~ ~ Isis illI ~ I Ij* ~ I s..l ll:. I l.'.IIII., I III II ~ fit ~ III ~ I 'il e I I I I I I I. sI,I I, ~ I l, ~ I I I I ~ ~ I..:' I I I I I ~,' ~ ' I ~ s I I:I
- I
- I I
Iiil I!;! ill I!! I!II I' Il'l l, 'I llll lll'sll 'lil!! Iij! IIII lls! Ill! !!Ii I'
- ,",I I::.li,l lil'!I
- I',"
I ~ Il I I I'I!!,I \\ '.,!!ll,
- !!ii
- 1i.l
'.ll,', .I I: i!ll I II)
- " Ill I I
~ I Is>>. I i! lil: I jis I i I Ili I. ~ ~ ~ ~ I I II ~. II":. s ~ ~ I I II I s I I Ii I .l I I I! !ill I ~ i"! I Il I I I I II: I Iji!:
- Il Isl I
'il ,I I "ll
- I.-
".I.. I ~ -*~ ~ ~ ~ I I I:I I I II' IIII I .l I))< '!Il tl i.'ll llil I
- ,I
'I'sij Ill ,"I':!!I ls '..I;.I
- !'If!
I'l ll, ,"I':i. ,I I tl Is ','ll'I'. list I ~ ~ Ill.: itsl >>.ls (2) l6% RELAX WITH RT 'l: i::I::::i, 95% X t2l II ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ s I I I I ~ I I I.LL I'I ll'.'. Ills ill; llII III II .Is CU I " CU Q ~ I tit I tlt s ',I'. tU > ~,. I cx Ct' I -'-I-- 22.6 I-37.6 I- >> Ctr CU cvI" 32.6 O>> I-Or Ct: i,'- CU >- I! I>>l - -.I I-I"j' I 27.6 li II
- l'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 12.0 . 13.6 15.6 17.6 12.6 HSTRUCTIOH (YEARS) 42.6 9.6 T WALL CO FIGURE 27 I COMPARISON OF PR EDICT ED AND MEASURED TEHDOH FORCES I t II II I ~~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~I I ~I ~ ~l I ~ H I II ~ ~ I~ ~ III I fI II~ INCLUDING R ET EHSIOHING FOR TENDON NO. gL Qil I. l t III ~I ILL!II I r >>I.I IL>iss jglf4!I~ ~IIIIII, ~ ~
850 FIGURE 28 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TENDON FORCES INCLUDINGRETEHSIONIHG FOR TENDON NO. 128 Wttf-ttttffttttlftftflNNtt tft>Ntttttlflt OO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF 800 750 Wu IX CI K CIo~ 700 I-650 ORIGIHAL LOCK OFF VALUE RT LOCK OFF VALUE X .. I CV WX tL' W V CL W go Vl IIIIIIIIIII (1) E.S.R. WITH RT IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (2) 16 ia RELAX WITH RT I I I IIttillltU 95% X (I) IIIIIIIIIIIIII 600 t.. X I-j.. X '. OOX 1 l.4 X X ,0 WVX tU CL' WI 20 2.5 ...- 1IJV 95% X (2) RT FT 0 VALUE WV 'X tU D 4.5 TIME AFTER COHTAI X tU. V ~ XLCC 4 i. ve lUI IL tL tU lh ~ I I lL ~ tU. IA .I-I- ' ~ I-CL tL I- 'L tL lU Illn CU tL lU CI C4. I-CL CL'I g lU ~ IlU "-IW O -I-9.6 12.0 13.6 12.6 CTIOH 15.6 17.6 22.6 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6 (YEARS) NMEHT WALL CONSTRU
850 FIGURE 30 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TENDON FORCES INCLUDINGRETENSIOHIHG FOR TENDON HO. 155 ~tHfftftffftftfle ffitlffffffflfffliltl OO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF 800 750 LL)u X O 700 O LLL I 650 ORIGlNAL LOCK OFF VALUE SU RT LOCK OFF VALUE YEILLANCELIFT OFF I OC X I A ~ WX D W V ~ Io an )IIIIIIIII 1 E.S.R. () . WITH RT I I I I IllI IIIIIIIIII (2) 16io RELAX. WITH RT IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 600 LlX LII I X O C1Z LLII-XI-Z0 WVZ W EC W I ltl UX W tLD 2.0 2.5 95% X (I) IIIIIIIIIIIIII 95% X (2) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ YALU RT LIFT OF ~.- W uX III CCD WuZ X X I-r EC-C- III 'n 1 1 W 1 I-CI 0 anX gg W I W W,~l Wl'lL W I l o'cv 9 O atl , cv f 4.5 9.6, 12.0 13.6 15.6 17.6 22,6 27.6 32.6 37.6 42.6 12.6 TIME AFTER COHTAIHMENTWALL COHSTRUCTIOH (YEARS) E.S. R. WITHOUT RT
850 FIGURE 31 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AHD MEASURED TEHDON FORCES INCLUDINGRETEHSIOHIHG FOR TEHDON HO. 160 0+ttN. ttflftftttttNffttfNtftltffflftffftl QO PREVIOUS SURVEILLANCE LIFT OFF 800 750 X O 700 I-650 ORIGINAL LOCK OFF'VALUE 0 C 0 A UE I X .. I cv WX OC g D W u CC W go Ml IIIIIRIII (1) E.S.R. WITH RT C lC ~ ~ III~ IIIIICII (2) 16% RELAX. WITH RT IIIIIIIIIIIIII 95% X (1) ~ ~ 600 QX X OO i X I-X IX O lUu'X IY IL'U WU lU IL' ~ Fl lUVX. lU lL' WuX CC XrO xf cL'U c lU I l W a.g I-CC 'U g ~ RT LIFTO VALUE IlL 'U ~ 0 lL. CL-IU. Icl l ~ ~ CC c ~ Wv I-0 CI 95% X (2) 2.0 2,5 4.5 9.6 12.0 13.6 15.6 17.6, 22.6 ~ 12.6 TIME AFTER COHTAINMEHTWALL COHSTRUCTION (YEARS) 27.6 32.6 37,6 A2.6
3 e pc 0 lssC 2'Ã0 3CCO cm 700 Sucss kg lcm Figurc'.q Re!azionship beaveen creep exponent md stress. Reo"oauce8 rod: W. Pa ~e=, "-nc'ee='c R"ooe" 's o Rock, '68 FIGURE 32, CREEP EXPONENT VERSUS STRESS
Attachment (B)
Lt I I t P C N P' I I
1985 GINNA TENDON SURVEILLANCE Lift-OffResults Tendon Number 17 18 21 33** 35** 40 60 63 71 73** 74 75* 76 77 84 103 111** 120** 126** 128 160 Force (Ki s) 717 705 723 673 653 724 702 713 705 654 710 518 703 723 710 703 643 679 692 711 705
- Tendon damaged during 1983 Surveillance
- Tendons retensioned in 1969 Page 1 of 2
/ 0 IC i k k P i II'
Weighted Average Lift-Off Force (all tendons) A) Average Lift-off force> tendons retensioned in 1969 666 Kips (Note: 23 tendons total) B) Average Lift-offforce> tendons retensioned in 1980 711 Kips (Note: 136 Tendons total> excluding No. 75) C) Lift-offforce for Tendon No. 75 518 Kips Weighted Average Lift-Off Force: F = (23 x 666 Kips) + (136 x 711 Ki s) + (1 x 518 Ki s) 160 F = 703 Kips Page 2 of 2
0 J I/ Ci t lf tg I I fa
Attachment (C)
)( I Y}}