ML18046A899

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Draft Evaluation of SEP Topic III-7.A Re Inservice Insp Including Prestressed Concrete Containments W/Either Grouted or Ungrouted Tendons.Evaluation Identifies Tech Spec Deficiencies Re Tendon Surveillance Program
ML18046A899
Person / Time
Site: Palisades Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 08/25/1981
From: Crutchfield D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Hoffman D
CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
References
TASK-03-07.A, TASK-3-7.A, TASK-RR LSO5-81-08-045, LSO5-81-8-45, NUDOCS 8109040107
Download: ML18046A899 (18)
v • d • e


Text

,,

-~~~~.

~do-

. *-:.:a August 25, 1981 bee.:

O. Rothberg Docket. No. 50-255

.LSOS 08- 045 Mr. David P. Hoffman

. 'Nuclear Licensing Administrator Consumers Power Company 1945 W Parna 1 f.. ~Road.

Jackson, Michigan. 49201

Dear Mr. Hoffman:

SUBJECT:

STSTEMATIC EVALUAtION PROGRAM TOPIC III-7.A., INSERVICE INSPECTION INCLUDING PRESTRESSED CONCRETE CONTAINMENTS WITH EITHER GROUTED OR UNGROUTE:D TENDONS - PALISADES Enclosed is a copy of our draft evaluation of Systematic Evaluation Program Topic III-7.A.

Tne evaluation identifies deficiencies in the technical specifications which currently govern the tendon surveillance* program at Palisades.

You are requested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based its....

eval uation~~~)d respond either by confinning that the f'acts are correct,,.or: *.

by identifying errors and supplying the corrected information.

We encourage_

you to supply any other material that might affect the.staff 1*s evaluation

  • of these ~opi cs or be si gni fi cant in t be integrated assessment of your faci 11 ty.

Your response is requested within 30 days of receipt of this letter. If no.

response is received within that time, we will assume that you have no com:nents or 'corrections..

1'

Enclosure:

As stated Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfi e 1 d, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5

  • Division of (icens1ng

- - --*----1 8109040107 810825 PDR ADOCK 05000255 cc w/enclosure: _ P PDR.

1

  • See next.oacie 11*

f dd". 1 See prev1buS-

~e ow*

or a 1t1ona _concurrences *.

I

  • \\

~~:~m*k~: d'k:Ern~~~~ "~ ~~:~~~ ~*~.. *~1t!!/!.:J: * *

~~m.;;:.... Wk~~~~\\r, :.: *.~~~~r~..

- DATE~ *.-.*.~/~*-~!.~.~-.-... ~.*.*: :.*~.~~?!.21:(:~.~-*.*: :~!~7!.~:1::::::: :::.*.*_*(41!~*~*.-.*.*.*.*.*.* :'~:~:?~~::::::::: :*~(\\.~/~~-.-.*/*.-.*~:. ~*!i!.~X:~;:~~.. *.*.* :.

NRCP'ORM31811fl/801NRCMil2'4{)

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY.

  • *USGP0:1980-329:S24

v OFFICE.

pURNAME.

SATE *

. /

D~ket No. 50-255 LS05 Mr. David P. Hoffman Nuclear Licensing Administrator Consumers Power Company 1945 W Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201

Dear Mr. Hoffman:

SUBJECT:

SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC III-7.A, INSERVICE INSPECTION INCLUDING PRESTRESSED CONCRETE CONTAINMENTS WITH EITHER GROUTED OR UNGROUTED TENDONS - PALISADES Enclosed is a copy of our draft evaluation of Systematic Evaluation Program Topic III-7.A~

.-~----*--~

You are requested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based its evaluation and respond either by confirming that the facts_are correct, or by identifying errors and supplying the corrected information.

We encourage you to supply" any other material that might affect the staff's evaluation of the~e topics or be significant in the integrated assessment of your facility.

Your response is requested ~ithin 30 days of receipt of this letter. If ~o respons~ is received within that time, we will assume that you have no comments or corrections.

Enclosure:

As stated I

cc wfenclosure:

See next page S EPB: DL t)\\-'... ~~-~~- :.Q~b;JJ.

SEPB :DL

  • 1wers*1 iii<a *:di KHerring
      • kHerma*rfri******
  • 7tl3t8~******** ****7~ijf'8~***...... *7t*.. f'8i***.....

Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing AID :SA: DL GLainas 7 I /81,

SEPB d3L QRB#S: BL: PM, 0RB#5: BL: C

  • nl!s"tiii r-* * * * * * * * * **wRus*se1r***** **i:wamb*aerc***-~. "C\\"Cftt'h"f 1"~1"d"
      • N****/81******* **N****/81*****'.**... 7.;.... {-&3:l *:.***...1.;.... ;.ai:......

>.JRC fORM 318 11J/80l NRCM 02~V OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

    • USGPO: 1980-329-824

e e

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTOl'i,,P. c,~o~q5 August* i::'.~,

1 Yts+

Docket No. 50-255 LS05 08-045 Mr. David P. Hoffman Nuclear Licensing Administrator

.Consumers Power Company 1945 W Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201

Dear Mr. Hoffman:

SUBJECT:

SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC I II-7.A., INSERVICE INSPECTION INCLUDING PRESTRESSED CONCRETE CONTAINMENTS WITH EITHER GROUTED OR UNGROUTED TENDONS - PALISADES Enclosed is a copy*of our draft evaluation of Systematic Evaluation Program Topic III-7.A.

The ~valu~ti6n ideritifies deficiehcies in the technical spetifications which currently govern the tendon survei 11 ance program at Pali sades.

You.are requested t~ examine the facts upon which the staff has based its evaluation and respond either by confirming that the facts are correct, or

  • . by identifying errors and supplying the corrected inforrriation.

We encourage you to supply any other material that might affect the staff's evaluation of these topics or be significant in the integrated assessment of your facility.

Your response is requested withi'n 30 days of receipt of this letter.* If no response is received within that time, we will assume that you have no comments cir corrections.

  • Enc 1 ostire:

As stated cc w/enclosure:

See next page Sincerely,

.~c<<rchW~

  • operating Reactors Branch No. 5

. Divisi'on of licensing

Mr. David P. Hoffman cc M. I. Miller, Esquire Isham, *Lincoln & Beale Suite 4200 One First National Pl~za Chicago, Illinois 60670 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary

  • Consumers Power Co~any 212 West Michigart Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. B~con, Esquire Consumers Power Co~any 212 West Michigan Avenue Jack son, Mi chi gan 49201 Myron M. Cherry, Esquire Suite 4501*
  • one IBM Plaza

. *Ms. Mary P

  • Si nc 1 a i r
  • *Great Lakes En~rgy A 11 iance.
  • . 5711 Summerset Ori ve Midland, Michigan '48640
    • . Kalarnazoo Public Library 315 South Rose Street Ka 1 amazoo, Mi ch igan -49006 Township Supervisor
  • . Covert Township Rout~ 1, Box 10 Van Buren County, Michigan 49043 Office of the' Governor (2)

Room 1 - Capitol Building Lansing,_~ Mi chi gan 48913 Wfl 1 i am J.* Scanlon, Esquire.

2034 Paulin~ Boulevard..

AnnA!"bor, Michigan 48103 Pa 1 i sades P 1 ant.

ATTN:

Mr. Robert Montross

  • **. Plant Manager Covert,. Michigan 49043 PALISADES
  • Docket No. 50-255
u. s. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Activities Branch Region-V Office ATTN:

EIS COORDINATOR 230 South Dearborn Street Chicagor Illinois 60604 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman At6mic Safety and Licensing Board Pan~l

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington, o. c.

20555 Or. George C. Anderson Department of Oceanography

. University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Or~* M. Stanley Li vi ngston

. 1005 Calle*Largo --

  • .Santa.Fe, *New Mexico 87501.. -.*

Resident* Inspector...

-.. c/o U. S. NRC

. i>. a. Box 87..

South Haven, Michiga~ 49090

  • *.I

~

PALISADES SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM BRANCH TOPIC III-7.A TOPIC 111-7.A INSERVICE INSPECTION INCLUDING PRESTRESSED CONCRETE' CONTAINMENTS WITH EITHER GROUTED OR UN GROUTED TENDONS Io Introduction This topic reviews the inservice inspection program of all Category I

  • structures including steel, reinforced concrete and *pres.tressed concrete containments.

The objective is to as~ure that the licensees inspection

  • program will detect any structurally significant deterioration of Category*

I structu~es in order that the structures ~ill be capable of performin~*~.

th~i (necessary functions.>

II. *Review 'C~iteria:

  • Review criteria for this topic is Regulatory Guid*e 1.35~ Revision 2,
  • .. "Inservice Inspection of Ungrouted Tendons in Prestressed Concrete Con~

. ~..

.taifllJlent Structures,"* as. ihterpreted in the Standard Technical Specifica-tions dated August 15, 1979.

Also, ISi requirements*are descdbed in 10 CFR; Part 50, Appendix J, Part V.A.

III. Related Safety Topics

1.
  • Topic III-7.c, "Delamination of Prestressed Concrete Gontaih~ent
  • Sfructures.n
2.

Topic III-7.D, "Containment Structural Integrity Test."

.. IV.

Review Guidelines With the exception of Containment, there currently exists no inservice inspection (ISI) requirements for safety"."related structures. lU CF~,

Part 50, Appendix J,Section V.A, requires a general inspection.of accessible interior and exteri.or surfaces of containment structures for any structural deterioration prior to performing Type A leak ~tests."

No othe~ guidelines are* given.

10CFR, Part 50, Appendix J is curr~ntly being rewritten in TAP *A-23 to clarifY ISI requirements.

ASME Section XI is currently considering ISI requirements for steel and concrete *

  • containments.

The extent to which this section of the code will be implemented on existing nuclear *power plants win be detennined when

    • .the code. is *issued-and receives NRC *endorsem.~nt.

Therefore~ the_ o~l y -. *

~.

'applicable portion of this topic is that *part.dealingwithISI require-*.*

ments of. tendons in pres tressed concr~te containments with. current' crit~ria defined in.Regulatory Guide 1.35,*Revision 2 *

. Since there.has been much discussion, disagreement and inte.rpretation

engineers, the NRC has recently contracted with Oak Ridge Nationa.1 Lab~

oratory {ORNL)

~o cond.uct a study and make recommendations concerning.

ISI requirements for *prestressed* containments.* The purpose is* to use.

ORNLs results to assist the NRC iri issuing a revised :Regulatory Guide i.35. *The ORNL report is expected to' be completed by the,end of 1981

  • . ~'*

,:* and the revised 'Regulatory Guide 1.35 is expected to be issued byniid to late 1982.

Implementation of the revised Regulatory Guide 1.35 on existing plants will be determined etfter the revised guide is.issued~.

V.

Evaluation.

Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 2 pr~vides guidance on tendon surveil1ance

. in the areas.of sa~ple selection, visu~l* inspection, prestress monitoring,

~ateri~l tests and inspections and atcepta~ce criieria~

The approximate time frame-' fo 11 owed by the_ l i c~nsee concerning the con..;

tainment: at Palisades is shown below:

Initial 'Pres tressing * *

.stFuctural* Integrity Test r,_*

  • .. May-Sept_eniber March

.19_69.

. 1,970.

  • . : 1st Tendon I.SI Cl year* tes~J *.. *

.*

  • April.*. **

197.l 1974 '.

  • .2nd Tendon ISI (3 year.test)
  • Februar}; *.
  • .
  • 3rd Tendon ISI ( 5 year test)

September-December

  • 1975
  • The lOyear ISI will be performed later.th1s year.* The time intervals between inspections conform with current criteria *. The l iCensee, *
after ~eviewing :the results of the l, 3, and 5* yecir
  • t~sts, concl_uded that the tendons at Palis'ades.' are experie_ncing no abnormal degradation and are continuing to perform their required function;.*
  • 1**;--

-:..: A.. Current Criteria. *

  • For the 1, 3, and 5 year inspections, current criteria requires the ins~ection and liftoff testing of 6 dome tendons (2 from each.

60° group),. 5 vertical tendons randoil!ly and representativaely

. distributed and 10 hoop tendons randomly and. representatively distributed. If these.results indicate no problens i.n.the tendons, sample-Size.for the,-0 ye3.*i~ :1nct :iubsequent itispections is decreased

~.

to 3 dome tendons, 3 vert~~al fendons and l hoop tendons~. Vi~ual *

  • inspection of tendon_anchorage-assembly hardware and surrounding

.. concrete is required.

The concrete around the ~~chora9e should be

.*

  • checked during the* integrated 1 eak ~es ting while Jhe c6nta.i nment is at maximum pressure.

Liftoff testing requires measure~en.t of jack.ing

.f~rce and: elongation and comparison of these to predetermined allow-

  • ables.

Tendo.n detensioning is regl!iied to *identify*b-roken or damaged,

~' -

- l"

  • wires>

Wires from one tendon of each type (do~e, _hoop, vertica 1) should be remo*.1ed for exarilination*f~r corrosion a*rid tensile.testing_. *Three.

  • tensile tests are required from* each wire *.
  • Sheathing filler 'gr*ease __

. must be i n_spected for-grease coverage of the anchorage system,

  • influence of temperature variation*s,. voids in the trumpet, and..
    • .**.*.requirements_ imposed by grease specificat_ions. :*,....

. ~ *... :

. ***Acceptance criteria are. that the prestress force fo~- each tend~n

  • .*----.-*snould-*be "within the *1;m-its-pr*edicted for the-time* of the test. 11

.. ~-, I'

~--.

-~

~:.:.... --

.

  • There should be no more* than one-te~don value outside of these* 1 imits *. -.

. If one tendon* is found O\\Jtside these limits, qne 'tendon on eac_h side

  • snould be tested~ - If *both of these are found acc'eptable, th~ low

.. reading tendon is considered 'unique; and: not indicative-of a probl eni;.

however, if either of these adjacent.tendons also reads lo~ 6r more than one tendon in the entire group, of 'similar (dome, hoop, vertical) tendons reads below set 1 imits, it is considered. un-*.

acceptable *. All tensile test values shouJd be greater* than or equal.

to the guaranteed ultimate strength *of the material *.

.'.B *.

Testing Requirements at Palisades.

  • The techrii~al *specifications at Palisades were originally written before the issuance of Regulatory Guide L35. After the.three )ear test,* the specification.s.were changed to conform with Regulatory Guide 1.35 and *were used during the. fiv.e year tes.t~

-:* L I

.During.the one year inspection: by thelicen'see,.three 'hoop ten.dons,*

20 vertical tendons*. ( thre~ initially, two addi ti anal. to account* fa~*;

. one. 1 ow reading, and 15 chosen at random), and three dome tendons

(~paced 120 *apart) \\tier~ tested for liftoff and wire continuity~

End ancnorage ass em~ 1 i es were i hspected.. Wire inspect iOn arid mech-.

anicaf tests were performed on one wire from 11 tendons> Sheathing** *

. filler was laboratory tested for deleterious mate~ial *... The three

  • year inspection by the licen.see consisted of Jiftoff te.stirig 16
  • ... '
  • v.erti cal tendons, three *hoop tendons and. three *dome tendons.
  • El even of these tendons.were. the. same ones. tested during. the one-yea*r test.

Wire '1nspecfion and mechaniC:al tests were agai.n performed on wires from the original 11 tendons~. End.anchorage. assemb 1 i es and* sheathing

.fll ler *grease was fospected as before.

~ -- -.-.....- -

I~ the 5 year inspection, the number and location of tendons tested forl if to ff and wire continuity confonned with current criteria..

None.of the tendons. selected had been tested previously. Wire inspection and mechanical testing was performed in accordance withe Regulatory Guide 1.35~ Revision 2.

Tendon-anchorage hardware and surrounding concrete.was inspected. Sheathing.filler was labora-

  • tory tested for contamination.

C *. Discussion The tendon surveillance program now in effect at Palisades is in

  • sub~tantial conformance with current criteria defined in. Regulatory*

Gu1de 1 ~*35, Revision.2; however~ there are deyiations,. some of which

  • ~re.not a~ceptable and discussed below.
For all three tests, acceptable 1 iftoff test 1 imits were the minimum

~ffective d~sig~ prestress as the lower limit and.73fs as the upper *. ***

The upper limit is required as it is an indication of an abnormality if tendon prestress 'for.ce is too high.and also some concrete deg:rada-

  • tion may o~~ur if tendo~ prestress is too high.

The lower limit is the force relied 'on to resist design loads.

Regulatory Guide*

1.* 35, ReviSion 2 requires that the prestress for~e measured* *for each tendon be within limits 11 predicted for the time of the test.

11 Regulatory Guide.1.35~.Revision 3 and 1.35.l that were issued for comment clarify the intent of the present Regulatory Guide 1.35.

  • The intent of Regulatory Guide,* Revision 2 is that the limits for

. each tendon vary with tiine so that one can identify trends i.n the rate of*prestress loss *. Measured tendon forces for each tendon* should be within these limits and not average tendon force.

_7.:.

The objective is to track prestress force loss with time so that rates Of prest~ess loss can be determined and compared to these assumed in design, thus identifying potential problems before. they actually occur.

Results of the on.e year and three year liftoff.

tests were plotted showing norinalized force per wire versus time;*

however, acceptance criteria remained constant with time. *.The normalized liftoff force is the measured liftoff force which has been modified to account for elastic stress los.s during initial installation and for 1 iftoff forc;:e.. deviation from the base value.

By normalizing. the measured liftoff force, a common base is established for comparisons.

The results of the five year 1. i ftoff tests were presented in a. bar graph, thus losing the time.di~ension completely.

For future tests*,*

plant technical* specifications do not. require acceptance limits. which vary with time.

For Palisades, th~* minimum* effective design *prestress value*

\\*"

and the predicted prestress value converge as time progresses.

There~

fore,. the range between the expected lo~s curves and the minim~ril effective desigry prestress cu~ves decreasesa~ time approaches 4o years.. As a result, it i~ expected_ that more tendons wi 11 ex hi bit values below. the minimum effectivedesignprestress value in the future.

This may *require that future' inspections of tendons.be conduct.ed. at more frequent intervals. thancurrently required.

In addition,.remedial action may be required.if the actual losses wer*e not appropriately enveloped* by those considered. in the containment design.

J --

As stated, the liftoff test

  • res'ul ts for* the one and three year tests are presented on a graph whose axes are normalized force per wire versus time.

Presentation of results'. in this manner does not show problems associated with wire breakage. _ It is-possible to show an acceptable wire force in a tender. that has an unacceptable_ tendon force.by dividing the unacceptable tendon force by the number of

_effective wires when there is excessive wire breakag.e.

Therefore, liftoff test results should be shown as tendon force versus time.**

Even with wire breakage, wire stres~ must still be maintained below an upper accep:table limit during al!Y ~et_~~~i~~ing.

The one and three year inspections deviated-by liftoff testing

a. sinaller*sample size of dome and hoop tendons and.. by,*testi-ng* t~e same tendons in both-tests *. The sample size was in agreement with current criteria for the five year test.

Current criterfa requires. visual inspection of the concrete surrounding the tendon anchorages *. - The visual inspection is to *

-- take place during the integrated leak test while the tontafoment _

is at maximum test pressure._ The technical specifications* at Palisades (section 4.5.5.b') do not require this inspection during the.integrated leak test. -

VI~ Conclusions

_ The_containment tendon surveillance program at Palisades largely conforms -

with current criteria but has some unacceptable.deficiencies~

- A method of che~king prestress-loss ~ith time and a graphical presentation of the results is necessary.

Force at the time of the test for-each tendon

-should-be compared to that assumed for that particular tendon in the design *

  • 1f1'.-.'

. * ~ *"*..

Palisadesl Technical Specifications, Section 4.5, Page_4~3~~ state that force-time.records will be established and mafotained for each tendon gro*up (i.e., dome, hoop, vertical).

This was totally disregarded. in the five year test.

The results of the* one, three, five year and any ~ut~re inspections should be included on these graphs.* the graphs should show tendon force not wire force versus time for-reasons given in the evalua.tion.

The staff has done this from some of the values and shown them in the attached Figures. 5-1, 5-2, 5-3.

A norma 1 i za ti on factor of O. 97 was..

  • assumed for the five year test data* by averaging previously given

. normalization factors' for other tendons which" had never been 1 iftoff.*...

  • tested. _Al SC?,: the three year"va*l~es forverti,cal tendonwhiCh _were *..

concluded to be questionable due to method of testing were not included.

The graphs to be. ~repared by the li~ensee should use actual calculated "normal izatfon factors excludi_ng the term to account for missing wires.

Acceptance criteria shoul_d be established. which vary with time.

An acceptable* method for-future inspections would be to specify upper and I

. ' 1 ower acceptance 1 imits. for tendon _forces which' vary* with time' envelope-

.. the expectedJoss curve*, and maintain the lower l_imitabove the minimum effective design pre stress *. *. Current pl ant technica 1 speci_fic.~tions i should b~ changed to reflect thfs.

  • Since th~ e~pected loss ~urves a~pr6ach the mi~imum effective design prestress at 40 years, more frequent inspections may be necessary *in the. future than now required *. This should be determined after reviewing*

the results of each futur~ inspection.

e.
  • . The one and three year inspections liftoff tested sm~ller samples than currently required, but this deviation is not.judged to be significant since all five year test values were highe~ than the minimum effective design prestress values. Also, one and three year prestress values

. would have a 1 arger margin _between expected and minimum effect design

.values.* The one and three year test results should be viewed with some caution because the method of determining 1 iftoff was* changed from detecting changes in sound when striking shims with a hammer to actu~lly

  • knocl<tng one shim loose *. Additi9nal one ~nd ~hree year data would have*

been useful to establish trends in prestress loss, but had additional..

tests been performed the results would have to beviewed with cautiOn

  • al so and would be marginally useful* since they would have been tested us*i ng'. the* or.i gi nal method.

To es ta bl i sh re Hable trends, *the method of testing must re_main constant. Therefore, using smaller o*ne and three

. year samples is not judged to: be significant.

Concrete surrounding the end anchorage of prestressing tendons 1 iftoff.

tested during the previous tendon jnspection should be visually inspected -

during the integrated leak rate tests -while the containment is at maximum test pressure.

The surrounding concrete should be viewed for any unusual.

cracking.,* Cracks larger than.01 inch as* describe~ 1n ASME Section III,*

Division 2,_Subsection cc~6000 should be noted.and evaluated.

Any changes should be noted and* evaluated during subsequent i.nsped:jons.*

In addition to the random tendons required to be inspected during the ten year test per. Regulatory Guide l.35, Revision 2, tendons BF-65, DL-38 and one additional dome tendon selected at random should be tested for-lJftoff~ _ JF-65 and DT-3& appear to 6e losing prestres~ at a substantially

  • )..

faster rate than. expected.

Even viewing orie and three year dome tendon results with ~aution, it appear~ that drime tendons may be losing prestress faster than predicted *. This would be even more-1 ikely if the one and three year results were actually higher than

. shown as they very likely would be* had the 5 year testing metho~

  • been used.

Testing these additional dome_ tendons would focrease th~ data base to determine if this i~ really the case~

The above changes should be implemented but they may be changed when

  • Regulatory Guide 1 ~35, Revision 3 is issued. and decisions on implementing this revised Regulatory Guide on existing plants ar~

made.*

.,_ _____. ___ l_... __ J_!~:.!--l-J

. L,__! -:..__!--:-~-- 1

. 0* Tendo.

BF 65

'

  • j *. *

.. *, --- !..l I

I I

I.

n 7($

I t'

  • -.-~**--:

-.~~---.-.-

  • -~--

[!]

____.:.. *;*-*~.. ***:---~~----7~-*:i_-1-;-:-**-~-:*-~j--.-. r~-,--.---:.A 1-_..;..__1_*_. _1_*_i ___ L_, ___.l 1

  • I. 1_1 _ _(~------

I

. I I

I 1*

I.~

I I

!*I ---

7z..o*----------*----:----*-.,...~------,--.--.-,-!

-~~---'*

_L_J__j_

....._1,__ ___

Tendon'BD-22

't

--~-.

Tendon*DF-84

-~.

j I

I

.L* -~-----_,,_

L.

-:--: -*-. -*-f-L--.,_

I 1'.

I I.

I I

__J.

  • -+'---< - -

I --. l..

.__ _______..._ ___..,...,. *-.-11 I

I

  • '[.
  • I * ~l--

I Expected IDss Curve i

_ _j

~

  • ~.

.. __; __ : ____ '..~_!. -*-'.-i-. '.

L.:._

-"---*-----:*-*--* - !**2'. ___ l__

.. 1.. I...*

cto75.

~....

1

--1*_1 **.
  • j.
  • r.;,J 1-. -* I. -*-

ft

~-~~*.... ~.

-~-*..*. !

i pl I

I I

_4 __ ; *-'-:--~---.

El i

.. I.

. I... I j

i

. c..

  • ------- ----~--- _ __.,_*r-*-**r--*-!-.J... _____

I

. \\,,!/

I I

§ '~--. ----. ~:'_-**:~-* ***-. *--~-:~--~---~--t-~--i : ;--:-: *;

Minimun Effecti:~ ~~-~i=~:~~~:*~~~-

£.

~-----_--_* ---- -*--*-* '--~---*:**-i-r-;* *~~

Prestress ~ 'nc: /-1....,,LA!

~

-- -==-=-~ -~-=r-7-:;==-T~:=J=i=.C pe.-5 c:b.rr i0k~'":F741*~-*

-~

-~-

1 j __ j__!_J~t--., -I:,-1.

t___~_=J:-::::::'. __ ::_c~~:*L.

. ~ 585 -**-*-*--,'**---=-----~~~--~~~--* -*..*

. '.-!-i-

. {---.. --;--.. -**, -** T - :-:-:_

£

  • . -~-----4=~~-

-*-1--u;,.*-~-**,**-r-*1-* -*rr-1-H,,--;

1

=-_

r--*-r~'"-r--i--;--:=~*--*

~ l l

. I I.

.L__;_:_..;..**...

'..;..__._..;..__;_....:_ __________ ~-:------t

  • -----=-:-----: Ji;: I 1 Pl

.. *" *.Ii-:--____ ! -'-i _._! -~i_ !-__ :-__ :ri J~~::-*_*'-F-4:6.___-----...-~

2

  • ~i-.. -:. ! Lt=i--*l I

I !

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

+---l I.. t I

i

.FIGURE 5-1 3

4 5

10.

20 Time. Af~r Initial* Tensionirig * (years)

Average Norrnalized~~n Force vs, 'J'irne -

Hoop Tenc)c;:>ns

... \\f 30 40

. i'

  • ' *. /

I,'.

(.,

.* t

}

-~:..;.;:../:.**.\\":'-""...

//\\~

I

  • (!)
  • Terrlon V-84.

i.*

I I

  • 1 I

-***--~-*-.r-*-* --~

I..,

I i

____ :_--*~_:__:_._ -- *'

A Terrlon V-104 7?0

--~---~~-~--------=--~=~--~~------:*-

1--=-*-~-.-_-. '--_=*--~-*: --:-_----i_-_-j*========-. 8 ~=~ ~=~.~~.

-.L._,,.. __

.. __ J G.. Tendon v-*324

~l : I

! ~

U:>ss CUive. *

>< Tendon V-206 1 ____

1 ______ J___

________ -: + Additional Vertical

  • . ~7S-

--~-:--.-**

__,-<!}-~--~*'-*-*--.*.

.*Tendons

...... a*

  • r-f

~

§.**

-~

§

'8 N

  • ---- ------'---.,.-----..!----..._..~-,,,_.---+.-*-+------t f

~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~!~~,~~;-~'~:*~*:*:t!~~~--~~*~~!~*~*~~~~!*~~:~j~-~~i~~~~;;;;~~tl*===~~~~~~~~~~~

.,.---i----;.-*T-~

!_ L~----*- ~ :

I I

I 1

~1---**-*.-*--.,.. __ _____.__... __ ~--r--*--**----'--~-*-1 i

. *.i

.; tit'

  • i I*

1-----,.---"---

~

_: __._.* _; --~ ___. _. ~--_:_* _. -*

~

..,.-~---

I 0

_...__~

i I

I I

t

~~

I I

I 1**j 'jj.

I z

_:_~-:-*-* l~-1--1-r:-1--*;-

1-1 1---- *-*-. i

,,~

1 I

-*1

!-:-~----.-----:**

I I

I j

I 1-------------=*-.

--~*:-:-*-.t~ *.--;.-~-

405,-------,.;.._--__._-

i

'I*. I t----------~*--~----i1~~t---t---t--J---rl-*--1_*-..--~--.1------

I L--**-: _, ___ : __ ! __ '._ __.!.;...._:!

I

  • I I

1---------!-----.---i---4-....;.....L---+--.--.;..-..~_.;..--_.;_..;...: __________ ----------**-*

.*I I.

I.. ;

.._ __ =_ -**-:--.

-+ --,--'

T-* ---;* -. --*

i I

1'*-~'.;...* --------i-:--.

-,~ --.. i-~! --~--*. -.. --

  • 1..

I I.

.I

>+-------'

--,.--::-+-------ti-*----~--.__.__....

1.--..

. i.

l I

I -

A---i---

2 3

. 4 5

10 20 30.

40

. Tine A£ter Ini_tial -Tensioning (years)

\\

FIGURE *s-2 NormalizedTe.ncbn Forc,e vs. -.T.lme - *Vertical Tendons i'

I

~.

t-----------*---*--- ---***---'-r--**-*------------- ----~ 0,. Tendo._ n 01.-3e*

I

. i i*.

~/c.l-:-----~-~-+-~-.-~--~ll-*f1-+-f---;--....~~-~t-1~----i1

/(p..J 1

1 i

1 1 '-'-----1. C:::J Tendon o~::-s3

.l--~*.___! __ l.:,..*. _...:! _ _..: __

'* --~

L~.*'.-~-*

  • 1 ___.._i....... _ _ _

1-----

I

.1 I'.

1--....._,,....--.-....--*------:--!, _____,i.. I !

I I

i :

8, Tendon 03-11.* *

  • Time
  • A.rte.r *Initial* 'l'ensionina (v~

- FIGURE. s-3

  • Averaqe
  • Normalized Tendon Force vs~* Tim~ -. Dome;! Tendona

. \\).

.. ~. !*-

  • ~

r.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18046A899&oldid=5024393"