ML18047A656
| ML18047A656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1982 |
| From: | Johnson B CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-SSINS-6820 IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8211150199 | |
| Download: ML18047A656 (72) | |
Text
,---------
General Offices: 1945 West Parnall Road, Jackson, Ml 49201 * (517) 788-0550 November 8, 1982 Dennis M Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactor Branch No 5 Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Commisssion Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR-20 PALISADES PLANT - RESPONSE-TO-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL*INFORMATION.REGARDING IE BULLETIN" 80-11, nMasona*ry-Walls" NRC letter dated September 7, 1982 requested additional information regarding Consumers Power Company's responses to IE Bulletin 80-11 submitted by letters dated July 9, and November 6, 1980 and Palisades License Event Report 81-004 dated February 11, 1981.
Consumers Power Company response to the NRC questions transmitted in the September 7, 1982 letter are provided in the attached report which includes a supplemental report performed for Consumers Power Company by Bechtel Power Corporation, the architectural engineering firm for Palisades.
Brian D Johnson Staff Licensing Engineer CC Administrator, Region III, USNRC NRC Resident Inspector - Palisades
-a211 fscn-99-- 02 fi oef -
PDR ADOCK 05000255.
G PDR OC1182-0006A-NL02
- J ATTACHMENT 1
- 1.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE NRC IN RESPONSE TO IE BULLETIN 80-11, MASONRY WALLS -
PALISADES PLANT Indicate whether walls are stacked or running bond.
If any stack bond wall exists, provide sample calculations of the stresses for a typical wall.
RESPONSE
All masonry walls at the Palisades nuclear plant are of running bond construction.
- 2.
With respect to multiple wythes, clarify whether the collar joint strength was used in the analysis.
If so, justify by any existing test data the value of 8 psi for allowable shear and tension of collar joints.
Also, provide sample calculations illustrating the analysis of a multi-wythe waJJ.
RESPONSE
Collar joint strength was not considered in the analysis of multi-wythe block walls at Palisades.
(Refer to Supplement 1, Response to NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 for CPCo Palisades Plant, May J9Rl)
- 3.
Indicate whether the construction practice for masonry walls at the Palisades plant conformed with the provisions specified for the special inspection category in ACI 531-79.
If not, explain and justify the use of allowable stresses~
RESPONSE
The records of onsite inspection during the original masonry wall construction could not be located.
Therefore, reduced allowable stresses were used in the analysis in accordance with ACI 531-79, Section 10.1.5.
- 4.
With respect to Section 4.B, Appendix A of Reference 3, justify the use of an increase factor of 1.67 for masonry shear and tension.
SEB criteria allow only 1.3 for shear and tension normal to the bed joint and 1.5 for tension parallel to the bed joint.
If any existing test data will be used to justify this increase factor, the Licensee is required to discuss the applicability of these tests to the masonry walls at the Palisades plant with particular emphasis on the following:
-boundary conditions
-nature of loads
-size of test walls
-type of masonry construction (block or mortar type, groutea or ungrouted).
REGUl.ATDRY DOCKET FILE COPY 1
The Licensee is also requested to indicate if the SEB criteria were used, how many walls cannot be qualified, and to identify these walls.
RESPONSE
The SEB criteria for increasing the allowable stresses, as identified in SRP 3.8.4, Appendix A, Rev 0, were issued for use in July 1981.
The reevaluation for the block walls was completed prior to issuance of the SEB guidelines.
The allowable stress values identified in AC.I 531 have a safety factor of approximately 3.
In addition, the lack of construction inspection records required additional reduction factors to be taken into account in accordance with Section 10.1.5 of the code.
These considerations result i~ actual safety factors of 4.5 to 6.
In light of the aforementioned safety factors, it is beli~ved that the 1.67 increase in allowable stresses for extreme loading combinations is reasonable in that it still provides a safety margin of 2.7 to 3.6.
The following table summarizes the qualification of the block walls at the Palisades plant.
2
QUA~CATION STATUS OF BLOCK WA T THE PALISADES PLANT
' J Walls Not Walls Requiring Requiring Modification Modification Meets Meets Palisades Palisades Walls Criteria Criteria Justified Walls Meets Not Meets Not By Removed Latest Latest Latest Latest Relocating From NRC NRC NRC NRC "Q"
Scope of Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Equipment Bulletin 3 C-107.4 C-104.7 C-104.3 C-107.11 C-303.8 C-107.10 C-107.17 C-104.13 C-104.5 C-107.12 C-304.19 C-107.28 C-107.18 C-104.14 C-104.6 C-107.16 C-305.19 C-107.31 1 C-109.4 C-104.15 C-104.8 C-108.5 C-305.21 C-108.11 1 C-109.7 C-104.16 C-104.10 C-108.7 C-306.13 C-303.3 C-104.17 C-104.11 C-109.5 C-306.14 C-303.6 C-104.18 C-104.12 C-302.9 C-303.7 C-104.22 C-104.20 C-303.9 1 w
C-304.35 C-107.5 2 C-104.23 C-321.2 C-305.20 C-107.14 2 C-104.25 C-321.6 C-108.3 C-107.1 C-321.1 12 C-107.29 C-107.34 C-108.2 C-108.6 C-108.8 C-108.12 C-109.2 C-304.22 1 C-304.33 1 C-321. 3 C-321.4 Total 10 12 22 10 6
4 Notes:
l 2See Section 9 on exterior walls 3Passed under arching criteria Walls removed or to be removed due to new construction
1~1 1
- 5.
In Reference 3, the Licensee indicates that the energy balance, arching action, and rocking action techniques have been used to qualify some of the masonry walls.
The NRC at present does not accept the application of these methods to masonry walls in nuclear power plants in the absence of conclusive justifying evidence.
The Licensee is requested to indicate the number of walls which have been analyzed by each of these techniques and to provide sample calculations for each technique.
RESPONSE
Of the analysis techniques listed above, only the arching action technique was used to quaJify masonry.walls at Palisades.
There were three walls that used the arching action analysis technique.
These walls include 107.5, 107.14, and 321.1.
See Appendix A for a sample caJculation using arching action.
5.1 Energy Balance o
For the walls which were analyzed by the energy balance technique, provide a technical base to..
RESPONSE
The energy balance technique was not used in the masonry wall anaysis.
~.2 Arching Action o
Explain how the arching action theory deals with cyclic loading, expecially when the load is reversed.
o Provide justification and test data (if available) to validate the applicability of arching action theory to the masonry structures at Palisades, with particular emphasis on the following areas:
- a.
nature of the load
- b.
boundary conditions
- c.
material strength
- d.
size of test walls o
If hinges are formed in the walls, the capability of the structures to resist an in-plane shear force will he diminished, and shear failure might take place.
This in-plane shear force would also reduce the out-of-plane stiffness.
Explain how the effect of this phenomenon can be accurately determined.
RESPONSE
Arching action was used at the Palisades plant for evaluating the behavior of three block walls.
In the evaluation of these block walls, the following assumptiorts were made.
4
1-
-~
/ *.
- a.
Only rigid arching action was used: that is, no gap exists between the block wall and its support locations.
- b.
The boundary conditions of the block wall are rigid and have sufficient capacity to develop the compressive line loads exhibited during arching.
- c.
The deflection of the block wall at the point of maximum displacement is limited to t/3 (where t =thickness of the wythe), thus ensuring an adequate safety margin to prevent npop-throughn of the block wall.
- d.
The deflection of the block wall due to arching action will not affect the integrity of safety-related systems/components because these systems/components are not attached to the block wall.
Appendix E describes the applicable equations used in the arching action analysis method.
Calculated deformations for the three walls analyzed by arching action are considerably less than the limits defined above.
The ratios of the calculated deflection to the deflection limit (6 calc/6 limit) for the three walls are as follows.
Wall C-107.5 C-107.14 C-321.1 6 calc/6 limit 0.04 0.45 0.06 Only rigid arching (no-gap) was used in the analyses.
Based upon the nature of rigid arching action, no out-of-plane displacement at the support locations will occur.
In addition, the axial compressive loads in the block wall have been limited to prevent spalling of the concrete masonry.
Therefore, the block wall would be expected to behave in the assumed manner under cyclic loading.
No testing program has been established at Palisades for the arching walls: consequently, no test data are available.
However, the controlling loading condition is a uniform load resulting from out-of-plane seismic acceleration.
The peak of the 7% damping spectra for safe shutdown earthquake conditions were used for both the wall 5
/
~-.
and any attachmenta.
As indicated in Appendix E, the boundary conditions were taken under consideration by factoring in the boundary stiffness (Ks).
Block walls with inadequate boundary stiffness were not considered for arching.
The Palisades Final Safety Analysis Report requires that the response of a horizontal earthquake in only one direction be comhined with the response of the vertical earthquake; therefore, only out-of-plane forces are considered during arching.
However,.no in-plane shear forces from the structure are transmitted to the hlock wall other than interstory drift.
5.3 Rocking Action o
Provide the technical basis for the safety factor of 2 for OBE and 1.5 for SSE loads used against overturning forces.
RESPONSE
The rocking action technique was not used in the masonry wall analysis.
- 6.
Show, by sample calculation, how the effect of higher modes of vibration was considered in the analysis.
RESPONSE
The effects of higher modes of vibration were considered in calculating seismic loads from attachments on the block walls.
These effects were taken into account by multiplying the peak applicable response by 1.2 for singly supported attachments, and by 1.5 for multiply supported attachments.
Refer to Appendix B for a sample calculation.
In the block wall analysis, the effects of higher modes of vibration were not specifically taken into account.
Wall frequencies, however, were adjusted to account for variations in structuraJ properties and mass.
The following procedure was used to account for these effects of possible frequency variations:
Use 10% below the calculated lower-bound frequency if it is on the high-f requency side of the peak of the response spectrum.
If the calculated upper bound frequency is on the low-f requency side of the peak of the 6
response spectrum, use 10% above the calculated upper-bound frequency.
For nonreinforced hollow masonry walls, frequency variation shall be taken as
+10% and -20%.
See Appendix B for a sample calculation.
- 7.
Indicate how earthquake forces in three directions were considered in the analysis.
RESPONSE
The Palisades Final Safety Analysis Report requires that the response of a horizontal earthquake in only one direction be combined with the response of the vertical earthquake.
Subsequently, only the horizontal direction causing out-of-plane response was considered and would be expected to govern the structural adequacy of the block wall.
- 8.
Indicate if block pullout was considered in the evaluation.
If it was, provide a sample calculation of the block pullout analysis.
RESPONSE
Block pullout was considered in the analysis for heavy concentrated loads attached to the block walls.
Refer to Appendix C for a sample calculation.
- 9.
Specify the numher of masonry walls analyzed for impact and suddenly applied loads.
Provide the results (stresses, displacements) of these analyses.
In addition, provide a sample calculation illustrating the analysis for impact and suddenly applied loads.
RESPONSE
There were six masonry walls analyzed for impact and suddenly applied loads.
All six of these walls are exterior block walls; therefore, all were analyzed for tornado missile impact.
The following table summarizes the results from the analyses.
Refer to Appendix A, Section 3.A.3 of Supplement 1 to the 180-Day Response to NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 for *a description of tornado missiles.
7
I f.._
Wall Number 107.31 108.11 303.9 304.22 304.33 321.1 Results Wall fails Wall fails Wall fails Wall fails Wall fails Wall passes Remarks Wall to be removed to provide access to new electrical equipment room Wall to be removed to provide access to the new auxiliary building addition No modification*
Wall protected by structural steel missile barrier Wall replaced by reinforced concrete Arching action used in the analysis; see calculation in Appendix A for results For calculations illustrating the analyses for impact and suddenly applied loads see Appendix A.
- Wall 303.9 is a 6' x 6' x 2' thick solid block wall, serving as a blackout in a major structural wall separating J
the auxiliary and service buildings.
The block wall is considered an exterior wall in tha~ the surrounding service building is not designed for tornados.
It is noted, however, that there is no safety-related equipment in proximity to the block wall.
The service building side of the wall is almost entirely covered by a massive junction box containing security circuitry.
Although the circuitry is not safety related, continuous surveillance of the plant area would be required as the security equipment is handled during any anticipated modification.
The auxiliary side of the wall bounds the el 602'-0" pipeway where the radiation field is very high.
The block wall could conceivably be modified by replacing it with reinforced concrete.
This modification would expose the service building to radiation fields from the pipeway during construction.
An alternative modification would he to install a thick steel plate over the service building side that would provide a tornado protection already provided to a limited extent by the junction box and service building.
In view of ALARA considerations and in consideration of the fact that the service building and junction box do indeed provide some tornado protection, a modification would provide onJy a marginal increase in safety.
8
- 10.
In Section 4 of Reference 3, it was indicated that the reevaluation was expected to he completed by Decemher 1980 and that Reference 3 would be reissued at that time.
Provide this reissued report.
RESPONSE
Supplement 1, Response to NRC IE Bulletin 80-11, is attached to this response.
Note that this is a supplement to the 180-day report.
- 11.
Provide a description and the current status of the required modifications.
Also, provide detailed drawings of some sample modifications and a sample calculation to show that the modified walls will be qualified in accordance with the working stress design method.
RESPONSE
See the following table for the description and current status of block wall modifications.
Wall Number 104.3 104.5 104.6 104.8 104.10 104.11 104.12 104.20 104.23 104.25 107.l 107.11 107.12 107.16 107.29 107.31 107.34 108.2 108.5 108.6 108.7 108.8 108.11 108.12 109.2 109.5 302.9 304.22 304.33 321. 2 321. 3 321. 4 321. 6 Modification Description l
2 1&2 2
l l
1&2 l
l 1&2 2
l l
l l
2 1&2 1&2 1&2 l
1&2 l
1&2 1&2 1&2 3
4 1&2 1&2 l
l Status Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Wall to be removed Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Wall to be removed Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete 9
==
Description:==
- 12.
- 1.
Modification consisting of adding boundary supports.
Refer to Drawing FSK-C-107.29(Q), Appendix F, for an example.
- 2.
Modification to prevent flexural failure of masonry wall.
Refer to Drawing FSK-C-104.S(Q), Appendix F, for an example.
- 3.
Modification consisting of structural steel missile barrier.
- 4.
Wall replaced by reinforced concrete.
Sample calculations for block wall modifications are contained in Appendix D.
The following drawings illegible:
Page A-78, Page A-86, walls C-46.
drawings.
in Appendix A of Reference 2 are walls C-109: Page A-85, walls C-306:
Provide legible copies of these
RESPONSE
Refer to Appendix F for legible copies of these drawings.
- 13.
Since the plant is a part of the systematic evaluation program (SEP) for "seismic analysis," the Licensee is requested to clarify* whether SEP loading~ have been used.
If
~ not, provide justification.
RESPONSE
SEP seismic loadings were not used in the reevaluation of masonry walls at the Palisades plant.
SEP loadings were not a requirement of Bulletin 80-11: subsequently, FSAR seismic loadings and load. combinations were used in the reevaluation.
10
i '
APPENDIX A SAMPLE CALCULATION ILLUSTRATING THE ANALYSIS FOR IMPACT AND SUDDENLY APPLIED LOADS ANALYSIS OF BLOCK WALL C-321.l FOR MISSILE IMPACT
-Tornado-generated missiles to be checked include a 4" x 12" x 12' long wooden plank, traveling end-on at 300 mph, and a 4,000-pound passenger automobile flying through the air at 50 mph.
The block wall is 8'-0" wide by 12'-5" high by 54 inches thick.
The wall consists of four 12-inch wythes and one 6-inch wythe.
All cells are filled with grout.
The wall is doweled into the surrounding concrete wall with #5 vertical dowels at 16 inches each face and #5 horizontal dowels at 8 inches each face.
Assumed boundary conditions:
o Pinned connection at top and bottom o
Fixed connection on east and west sides
- 1.
Determine the maximum amount of penetration of the wooden plank based on the conservative assumption that the plank acts as a solid, non-deformable missile.
(Note:
The wooden plank will be the controlling case for penetration.
Subsequently, no calculations are required on the automobile missile.)
A.
T = (F.S.) 427 W o.s 1.8
= Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) formula (Reference A-1)
[f'cl D
where T
= Thickness of wall in which perforation will take place (inches)
F.S. = Factor of safety = 1.25 w
D f I c
=
=
=
=
\\
Weight of missiles (pounds)
Diameter (inches) of missile (equivalent diameter for irregularly shaped missiles)
Striking velocity of missiles (ft/sec)
Compressive strength of concrete (psi)
[Use the compressive strength of the masonry assembly (f'm)].
A-1
/
.i.
T = (1.25)(427) (140#)
= 16.9 inches o.s (1,350) 1 8 (7.8").
[
440 1,000 Check the depth in which a "rigid" missile will penetrate a concrete target of infinite thickness.
B.
x = 12 Kp Ap log10 [l +
Vs 2 J = Modified Petry formula 215,000 where x
=
Depth of missile penetration into concrete of infinite thickness (inches)
= Penetration coefficient for reinforced concrete (Reference A-1)
=
Missile Weight (psf)
Projected Frontal Area of Missile Vs
=
Striking velocity of missile (ft/sec)
Therefore, x = 12(0.005)(140/0.33) loglO [l +
- (440) 2
]
(215,000)
=
7 inches The equation used to determine the thickness of the block wall at which perforation will take place (Equation A) is for a relatively thin concrete target.
Equation B is used to calculate the penetration into an infinitely thick concrete target.
Since the actual block wall falls somewhere between these two wall conditions, the actual penetration into block wall C-321.l is approximated by averaging the above results.
Therefore, the estimated penetration equals (7 + 16.7)/2 which equals 11.9 inches or approximately one 12-inch wythe.
It should be noted that tests have shown wooden missiles are, in general, incapable of producing local damage to reinforced concrete barriers 12 inches and greater in thickness (References A-2 and A-3).
Subsequently, no local damage (e.g., spalling, penetration) to the block wall would be expected.
- 2.
Check the Capacity of the Block Wall to Withstand 'the Impact of the Wooden Plank The block wall will be analyzed using rigid arching action.
Refer to Appendix E of this document for justification of the equations used below.
A-2
A*
Hmax = R [ 0
- 8 5 f 'm + ( T-1 ) ( 6 ) ( f ' m) 0 5
]
1.414 where
=
Allowable compression force due to rigid arching action (lb/in) f 'm
= Masonry strength (psi)
R
= Reduction factor for unfilled cores
= 1 - unfilled core length/block block length T
=
Wall thickness Therefore, B.
= 1 [0.85(1,350)
'*']
Hmax
+ 11(6)(1,350)
= 2,862 lb/in for 1.414 T = 12 inches MR = 0.625Hmax [ T-a-( L Hmar )
(
1
+ ~. ) ]
4(T-a Kw where MR
=
a
=
L
=
Kw
=
=
=
Therefore, Maximum moment resisted by Hmax Contact width of Hmax (assume 1 inch)
Wall length (inches) 2 Stiffness of wall = E (lb/in )
s L
1t 2
1.35 x 10
= 1.4 x 10 lb/in 96 Stiffness of support
~ (by inspection)
MR= 0.625(2,862) [12-1 -( 96(2,862)) (
1
.)]
4(11) 1.4 x 10
= 18,878 in-lb for one wythe of wall in A-3
where
= Maximum applied moment P
= Maximum force exerted by missile FcR
=
Crushing strength of wooden missile (psi)
Am
=
Missile contact area DLF
=
Dynamic load factor (maximum value = 2) p
= (3,000)(4" x 12")(2) = 288,000 ]b Therefore, 6
MA = 288,000 (96)
= 6.912 x 10 in-lb 4
D.
Resisting moment of*3 wythes =MR x N x 12 E.
where 12
=
wall height (inches)
N
=
Number of wythes Resisting moment of 3 wythes =
18,878(3)(149 inches) 6
= 8.44 x 10 in-lb 6
6 8.44 x 10 in-lb > 6.91 x 10 in-lh.
Therefore, the maximum resisting moment is greater than the maximum applieo moment.
(T-a)~ + MA L
_4.,....,..,(T=---a-.....) L,,...._2 N= [ iw where ~ = deflection at center
+_L]= 0 Ks of wall (inches)
~
2 (11)~ + ( 6. 91 x 1 0 6
) ( 9 6 ) [--~--1-0-.. J = 0 4(11) (149) (3) 1.4 x Therefore:
~ = 0.22 inches 0.22 inches <
t
= 4 inches 3
Therefore, "pop-through" of block wall will not occur.
A-4
/
F.
Hactual =
6
=
6.92 x 10
= 1,436 lb/in (149) ( 3) (12-1-0.22) 1,436 lb-in.< 2,867 lb-in.
Therefore, there will be no crushing of the block wall due to arching.
- 3.
Check Wall for Auto Missile Impact A.
Ft = 0.625 Vs Wm sin 20t; (0 < t
< 0.0785) (see Reference A-1) where Vs
= Velocity of automobile (ft/sec)
Wm
= Weight of automobile t
= Impact time (use 0.0785 sec)
Ft
= time dependent force on target (lb)
Therefore, Ft
= 0.625 (73.3) (4,000) sin [20 (0.0785)]
= 183,325 lb Since it is assumed that the wall reaches an inelastic state (i.e., arching), the dynamic load factor applied to the force CFt) will be a maximum of 1.4 based on a quarter sine wave forcing function.
Therefore, maximum equivalent static load will be:
1.4(183,325) = 256,655 lb This value is less than the maximum impact force caused by the wooden plank (288,000 pounds); therefore, the wall is acceptable.
A-5
I
- APPENDIX A ef erences A-1 Design of Structures for Missile Impact, Bechtel Topical Report BC-TOP-9-A, Rev 2 A-2 Vassallo, F.A., "Missile Impact Testing of Reinforced Concrete Panels," prepared for Bechtel Power Corporation by Calspan Corporation, January 1975 A-3 Stephenson, A.E., "Full-Scale Tornado Missile Impact Tests," EPRI NP440, Scandia* Laboratories, Tonopa, NV, prepared for Electrical Power Institute, Palo Alto, California, July 1977 A-6 l
/
APPENDIX B
~
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR FREQUENCY VARIATIONS
- 1.
The following is a sample calculation for determining seismic loads acting on block walls due to attached items.
Calculate attachment load from pipe support which is supporting 4.8 feet of 1-1/2-inch diameter pipe plus a 50-pound valve.
P = l.5(2)(Ae)[Valve weight+ Pipe weight]
where p
= attachment seismic load
- 1. 5
= factor for higher mode effects from multiply supported attachments 2
= factor for SSE loadings Ae
= Peak OBE acceleration Valve weight
=
50 lb Pipe weight
=
( 4. 8 feet) ( 3. 6 0 lb/ft) = 17.3 lb Therefore, P = l.5(2)(2.55g)[50 + 17.3) = 515 lb (Note:
The attachment seismic load "P" will be applied as a point load in the horizontal direction.
A similar procedure would be used for vertical response.)
- 2.
The following is a sample calculation for revising calculated frequencies to account for frequency variations.
Calculation will be for block wall C-303.7.
A.
Calculated Frequency:
- 1)
Uncracked Wall 3 [ : (°* ::
+
B-1 2
2 2
h b Reference B-1
I where f n
=
frequency (cps) h
=
wall height = 72 (inches) b
=
wall length = 92 (inches)
D
=
EI
= 5.20 x 10 7 lb-in b I
( 1-µ 2 )
b'
= width of section being analyzed (inches) 2.
3 P
= unit mass = 0.00158 lb-sec /in
µ
= Poisson's ratio = 0.2 Therefore, fn
[
7
= 1T 5.2 x 10
- 0. 00158 (
It
( 7 2 )
2 2
(72) (92) 0.75
+
2 J
o.s
+
12 (92) 4
)
= 93.3 cps Frequency used for analysis = f n -
10%
= 93.3 -
0.10(93.3) = 84.0 cps
- 2)
Cracked Wall 6
DcR =
EI
= 1.91 x 10 lb-in Therefore, 2
b I
( 1-U )
[
l.91 x 10 6
(
3 0.00158
= 17.9 cps 0.75 +
( 7 2) It 2
+
(72) 2 (92) 2 Frequency used for anlaysis = f 10%
. n
= 17.9 -
0.10(17.9) = 16.1 cps The accelerations corresponding to the above frequencies will be obtained from the applicable response spectra.
B-2
APPENDIX B References B-1 Magrab, E.B., Vibration Testing -
Instrumentation and Data Analysis, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1975 B-3
APPENDIX C SAMPLE CALCULATION OF THE BLOCK PULLOUT ANALYSIS Checking block pullout for concentrated loads attached to walls
- 1.
Calculate Shear Area
[Note:
Assume that only the horizontal surfaces of the hollow block (i.e., top and bottom) resist shear.]
Shear area= Av= 2[2(15.625")(1.25") + (5.125")(1.0")(3)]
108.9 in2/block
- 2.
Calculate Allowable Shear Stress o.s Allowable shear stress= fv = 1.67(0.5)(1.l)[f'mJ where 1.67 0.5
[
I 0.5 1.1 f mJ f I m
=
stress increase factor for extreme load conditions
=
stress reduction factor for lack of inspection, ACI 531-79, Section 10.1.5
=
allowable transverse shear stress
=
compressive strength of masonry wall assembly = 1,350 psi o.s Therefore, fv = 1.67 (0.5)(1.1)(1,350]
= 33.7 psi
- 3.
Calculate Allowable Pullout Force Allowable pullout force = F = f v x Av
= 33.7(108.9)
= 3,670 lb
- 4.
Check Pullout Force of a Concentrated Load of 120 lb = actual attachment on wall C-104.33 Pullout force= l.5(2)(Ae)(W)
C-1
where 1.5
=
acceleration increase factor to account for multimode frequency effects from attachment 2
=
factor for SSE loading Ae
=
peak OBE acceleration (g)
W
=
attachment weight (lb)
Pullout force= 1.5(2)(2.55)(120) = 918 lb 918 lb < 3,670 lb = allowable pullout force; therefore, the attachment would not be expected to pull out the block.
C-2
APPENDIX D SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR MASONRY WALL MODIFICATIONS TYPE I:
BOUNDARY CONDITION SUPPORTS ANALYSIS OF WALL C-107.29
- 1.
Existing Boundary Conditions:
A.
Top -
Free, 2-inch gap between block wall and ceiling B.
Bottom -
Fixed C.
Sides - Free, dovetails into concrete _walls, neglect any support from dovetails Based on the above boundary conditions, the block wall will act as a cantilever about the base.
Preliminary calculations showed that the block wall will fail under these existing boundary conditions.
Therefore, tie the sides of the block wall into neighboring concrete walls so that the block wall is now free at the top, pinned at both sides, and fixed at the base~
See Drawing FSK-C-107.29(Q), Appendix F, for actual modifications of this block wall.
Analysis Assumptions:
A.
The block wall must remain uncracked because it is unreinforced.
B.
Plate analysis will be used with modified boundary conditions as described above.
- 3.
Block Wall Properties:
It A.
Igross = 335 in /ft 2
B.
Unit weight (y) = 44 lb/ft C.
Block dimensions (nominal) = 8" x 8" x 16" D.
Reinforcement = None 2
3 E.
Unit mass (P) = 0.00079 lb-sec /inch F.
Wall dimensions = 58" long x 120" high D-1
- 4.
Allowable Stresses:
- 5.
A.
Flexural tensile stress normal to mortar bed joint (FTN) 0 5 FTN = l.67[0.5(m0 )
](1/2) where 1.67 1/2 0 5
- 0. 5 ( m0 )
= stress increase factor for extreme load conditions
= stress reduction factor for lack of inspection, ACI 531-79, Section 10.1.5
=
allowable tensile stress normal to mortar bed joint for hollow block m0
= mortar strength (psi)
Therefore, FTN = 1.67 [ 0.5(1,800) 0"'] (1/2) = 17.7 psi B.
Flexural tensile stress parallel to mortar bed joint (FTp)
FTP= 1.67 [ 1.0 (mo)o.s](l/2)
- c.
where 0.5
- 1. O ( m0 )
=
Allowable tensile stress parallel to mortar bed joint for hollow block Therefore, FTp = 1.67 [l.0(1,800)L 5
] (1/2) = 35.4 psi Transverse Shear Stress (Fv)
F v = 1. 6 7 [ 1
- 1 ( f ' m ) o.
5 J (1/2 )
where 1
- 1 ( f I ID) 0.5 f I m
=
allowable transverse shear
= Compressive strength block wall assembly of masonry Therefore, Fv = 1.67 [ 1.1(1,350) '*'Ji1/2)
=
Calculate Wall Frequency:
33.7 psi
+
+
Reference D-1 D-2
where
= frequency of wall (cps)
= wall length (inches)
= wall height (inches)
D 6
7
=
EI
=
- 1. 35 x 10 (335)
= 3.93 x 10 2
2 b' (1-µ )
12 (1-0.2 )
µ
= Poisson's ratio b'
=width of section being analyzed (inches)
Therefore, fn=TI [3.93xl0 7
(
- l 0.00079 (58) 4
+
0.608
+
0
- 12 6 4)~o.s (120) ~
= 112 cps -
20% = 89 cps
- 6.
Calculate Moments Due to Seismic Loadings:
2 Unit weight of block wall = 44 lb/ft Seismic unit weight= 44(2)(Ae) where
= Horizontal acceleration at el 607'-0" corresponding to frequency > 33 cps (OBE conditions) 2
= factor for SSE loading Therefore, seismic unit weight= 44(2)(0.15) = 13.2 lb/ft 2
Since:
h =.58" b = 120" 2
Unit weight = 13.2 lb/ft Boundary condition = free at top, pinned at sides, fixed at base D-3 lb/in
- 7.
Then maximum forces are as follows:
(Reference D-2)
Mxx
= 501.6 in-lb/ft (moment about vertical axis)
Myy
= 465.7 in-lb/ft (moment about horizontal axis)
Rx
= 39 lb/ft (reaction at sides)
Ry
= 48.5 lb/ft (reaction at base)
Check Flexural Tensile Stresses:
A.
Stress perpendicular to mortar bed joint Moment
~ Myy = 465.7 in-lb/ft Section modulus = s =
It 3
335 1n
= 88 in /foot of width 3.8125 in Therefore, ft= 465.7
= 5.3 psi < 17.7 psi 88 B.
Stresses parallel to mortar bed joint Moment = Mxx = 501.6 in-lb/ft 3
Section modulus = S = 81 inches /foot of width Therefore, ft = 501.6 = 6.2 psi < 35.4 psi 81
- 8.
Check Shear Stresses A.
Shear stress at base of block wall Shear = Ry = 48.5 lb/ft Transverse shear stress = fv = Shear Av where Av = ~~ t~ [ 3(5.125 in)(l in) J 2
= 11.5 in /ft Therefore, fv = 48.5
- 11. 5 = 4.2 psi < 33.7 D-4
B.
Shear stresses at sides of block wall Shear = 39 lb/ft 39 lb/ft < 48.5 lb/ft Therefore, by comparison, the side wall shear is acceptable.
- 9.
Design of Support for Both Sides of Block Wall Maximum load per side = 39 lb/ft (10 feet) = 390 lb Try four 6 x 6 x 3/8 clip angles evenly spaced on each side of the block wall connected with 1/2-inch diameter Hilti expansion bolts and 1/2-inch diameter thru bolts with 6" x 8" x 1/2" backing plates.
See Drawing FSK-C-107.29(Q),
Appendix F.
Allowable load per clip angle assembly = 715 lb Therefore, total allowable load= (715)(4) = 2,860 lb 2,860 lb > 390 lb Therefore, the clip angles will adequately support the sides of the block wall.
D-5
TYPE II:
BEAM BRACE MODIFICATION CALCULATIONS The following is a sample calculation of a beam brace modification for block walls.
The beam brace is used to strengthen a block wall that would otherwise fail under excessive bending and shear stresses.
ANALYSIS OF BLOCK WALL C-104.5
- 1.
Existing Conditions:
A.
Dimensions = 4'-0" long by 10'-0" high B.
Wall thickness = 24" (3 wythes)
C.
Boundary conditions = fixed at base; free at top and two sides Based on the above conditions, the block wall will act as a cantilever about the base of the wall.
From preliminary analysis, it was found that the block wall would fail in both tension and shear.
Therefore, the block wall will be braced as shown on Drawing FSK-C-104.S(Q), Appendix F.
- 2.
Analysis Assumptions:
A.
Block wall must remain uncracked because it is unreinforced.
B.
Plate analysis will be used for frequency calculations.
C.
Beam strip analysis will be used for calculations of bending and shear stresses.
D.
Individual wythes act independently.
E.
The beam brace will provide a pinned connection at the top of the block wall; therefore, use the following boundary conditions for frequency calculation:
fixed at base, pinned at top, free on both sides.
F.
Stiffness of beam brace will be neglected when calculating frequency of block wall.
D-6
- 3.
Wall Properties for One Wythe of Block:
It A.
Igross = 444 in /ft of width 3
B.
S = 116 in /ft of width (solid wall) 2
- c.
Unit weight (y) = 88 lb/ft D.
Block dimensions (nominal) = 8" x 8" x 16" solid block E.
Reinforcement = None F.
Unit mass (P) 2 3
= 0~0016 lb-sec /in G.
Wall dimensions = 48" long x 120" high
- 4.
Allowable Stresses:
A.
Flexible tensile stress parallel to mortar bed joint (FTN) 0,5 FTN = 1.67 [l.5(mo)
](1/2) where 1.67 1/2
=
stress increase factor for extreme load conditions
= stress reduction factor for lack of inspection, ACI 531-79, Section 10.1.5
= allowable tensile stress parallel to mortar bed joint for solid block m0
=
mortar strength (psi)
Therefore, FTN = 1.67 [1.5(1,800) 0 5
] (1/2) = 53.1 psi.
B.
Transverse Shear Stress Fv = 1.67 [ 1.1 (f'm) 0
~]c1/2) where 1
- 1. ( f I m ) 0.5
= Allowable transverse shear f 'm
= Compressive strength of masonry wall assembly Therefore, Fv = 1.67 [1.1(1,350)~
5
](1/2) = 33.7 psi D-7
- 5.
Calculate Wall Frequency:
fn = 0.78n 2
(see Reference D-1) h where:
fn
= frequency of wall (cps) h
=
wall height (inches) b
= applicable wall length (inches)
D
=
EI 6
7
= 1.35 x 10 (444)
= 5.2 x 10 (lb-in) 2 2
b I
( 1-µ )
12(1-0.2 )
µ
=
Poisson's ratio b'
= Width of section being analyzed (inches)
Therefore:
fn = 0.78n 5.2 x 10
[
7 } o.s (120) 2 0.0016
= 30.7 cps minus 10% = 30.7.- 30.7(0.10) = 27.6 cps
- 6.
Calculating Moments and Shears Due to Seismic Loadings:
2 Unit weight of block wall = 88 lb/ft (one wythe)
A.
Seismic unit weight= 88(2)(Ae) where Ae =
2
=
Horizontal acceleration at el 601'-0" corresponding to OBE conditions and a frequency of 28 cps factor for SSE loading Therefore, seismic unit weight= 88(2)(0.16) = 28.16 lb/ft 2
B.
Corresponding moments and shears on a 1-foot wide horizontal beam strip Maximum moment = 1,468.8 in/lb Maximum shear
= 115 lb D-8
- c.
Calculate tensile bending stresses (parallel to mortar bed joint) on one wythe ft = 1:1
= 1468.8 s
116
= 12.6 psi < 53.1 psi D.
Calculate shear stress on one wythe f v = v b'd where V
= applied shear (lb) b'
=width of section being analyzed (inches) d
= depth of one wyt~e (inches)
Therefore:
fv =
(115)
= 1.26 psi < 33.7 psi
- 7.
Design of Beam Brace 2
Moment = wL 8
where (12)(7.625) w
=
uniform load from wall (lb/ft) 2
=
(3 wythes) (4 feet wide) (88 lb/ft ) (2)(0.16g)
=
338 lb/ft L = brace length 2
Therefore, Moment = 338 (10) = 4,225 ft-lb 8
Try TS 4 x 4 x 1/2 Bending stresses = M (12) s
=
3 s = 5.7 in r = 1. 36 in 2 A = 6.14 in 4 I = 11.4 in 4£225 (12)
=
5.7 8,895 psi D-9
4 Deflection = 5 wL
=
384 EI 5(338)(120) 4
= 0.23 inches 6
384(29 x 10 )(11.4)(12)
Allowable deflection=
L
= 120
= 0.33 inches> 0.23.inches 360 360 Note:
See Drawing FSK-C-104.S(Q), Appendix F, for connections of the beam to the block wall and surrounding concrete.
==
Conclusion:==
Block wall C-104.S will pass after modifications as shown on Drawing FSK-C-104.S(Q), Appendix F, are made.
D-10
APPENDIX D
~
D-1 Magrab, E.B., Vibration Testing -
Instrumentation and Data Analysis, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1975 D~2 Moments and Reactions for Rectangular Plates, United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation D-11
.APPENDIX E DERIVATION OF EQUATIONS USED FOR.ARCHING Assume the arbitrary lateral loading indicated below causes the maximum moment at the center of the block wall.
Assume no initial gap at the wall supports.
- P p
where P = loading due to the attachments w = loading aue to the block wall As indicated in the free-body diagram, about the corner is:
the summation of moments MR -
Hmax(T-a-~) = 0 Equation E-1 E-1
(
where
=
=
a
=
=
Hmax
=
maximum moment resisted by Hmax (in-lb) wall thickness (inches) contact width of Hmax (assumed to be 1 inch) displacemen~ of the wall at the center (inches) allowable compressive force of the masonry due to rigid arching action (lb/in)
From geometry:
+
~w)
Equation E-2 L/2 2(T-a) where Kw
= stiffness of the block wall use E for block walls supported by floor slabs L
use E for blockouts 2L Eliminating b.
MR =
Based on the
=
stiffness of the support
=
1 l/Ks floor + l/Ks ceiling (Support stiffness is the stiffness of a point-load on a beam.)
from equations E-1 and E-2 while solving for Hmax l T-a- [
L Hma~ ( +w
+ ~. -) J I 4(T-a deflection of the block wall, the moment has 1
l/Ks
+
L MR yields:
Equation E-3 limits; therefore, Equation E-4 Applying a safety factor of 1.6 to Equations E-3 and E-4, gives the maximum allowable moment as the lower of the following two equations.
E-2
MR = 0. 6 25Hmax I T-a - [ LHmax
( _:__
_:___ )]
4(T-a)
Kw +
Ks MR = 0. 6 2 5 ( T-a) 3
[
1
]
l/Kw
+
l/Ks L
Hmax is defined as:
Hmax = R [ 0.85f 'm + ( T-1 ) ( 6 ) ( f 'm) o.sJ _
J.414 y(l+0.13)L(T) where f I R
y m
=
applicable for vertical arching only
=
masonry strength
=
reduction factor for unfilled cores
=
1 - unfilled core length/block block length
= unit weight of the block wall Equation E-5 Equation E-6 Equation E-7 (1+0.13) = coefficient to account for dead load plus vertical seismic load The calculated applied moment (MA) at the midspan of the block wall (assuming simply supported end conditions and using the peak of the 7% damping spectra for both the block wall and the attachments) must be equal to or less than the lower value ~erivea from equations E-5 and E-6.
The actual deflection of the block wall at the midspan was determined as follows:
From Equation E-1:
therefore, MA = Hact<T-a-~)
L2N Ha ct =
E-3 Equation E-8
Where
=
maximum applied moment
=
width of wall
=
number of wythes Substituting Equation E-8 into Equation E-3 yields:
fl 2
fl ( T-a) +
L MA
[--=-
4 ( T-a) L 2N Kw
+
Therefore, fl can be found using the quadratic equation.
Equation E-9 The actual compressive force per inch of wall for each individual wythe can now be determined using the actual wall deflection.
Hact =
Equation E-10 E-4
APPENDIX F LIST OF ATTACHED DRAWINGS The following drawings are attached as requested in Questions 9 and 12.
- 1.
FSK-C-107.29(Q), Modification Sample of Addition of Boundary Supports
- 2.
FSK-C-104.5(Q), Modification Sample of Beam Brace to Prevent Flexural Failure
- 3.
A-78, Location Plan of C-109 Walls
- 4.
A-83, Location Plan of C-306 Walls
- 5.
A-85, Location Plan of C-45 Walls
- 6.
A-86, Location Plan of C-46 Walls F-1
- 0
'~I en
- co,,
(\\I
- Ill
(\\!
b
-**-~
.. --:;;- - =--,-*:-
.!-:- -:---:..: -~--*
/
~
\\ '-
DET
--~---: ----~
.l j
j L.. i... "'"*.O ELEVATION LOOKING SOUTH fsl'*O"
~
~
....... -.. -... -.------... *-----*-------------....:.----.. ~--~----------~~~~-------
~
PARTIAL PLAN EL.611'-0" NOTES-
- 1. foll <:ie.l.leR..M..
~o;e~ ~ee..
t>Wlir..
F~I'
- C:
- 100 BECHTEL ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN PALISADES PL.ANT CONSUMERS l'OWER COMPANY GW05160 AUXILIARY BUILDING 1----M;:;;ASONRY WALL REPAIR
- ~-*--------
1 - - * -
r-. *-*.
' I
-~ dl 0
-~
4-~o*
=t'-~4-'--' -:"
1~.ei*
I f ¥ ¥'.
.1 I
/"
I
. *- 4: ~. -.., \\
, *.*..9. '
\\..
~I *'... --
I 2
FS -C-100
... *~
-.~*..
I
~**
- ,'I
\\4 o/4..- C:oNC.. '-x..f All. A.J~~. (1'fr.)
... : ELEVATION LOOKING SOUTHEAST
.... ~.*------.... ---*"'-* -.-
\\.J I...
- ,.::~ i j4
~-- ~
PARTIAL PLAN EL.590'-o*
NOTES-I. toi. Ei!i:"3~UL tllo1"U ";f£.
ii~t.r. f~lf.- '-* 1'10 0 ft-Al ~~to fol G.O*llPT. oft;. /.U !!W;<Z.
~...
.,CWl.CdO -*
_.'6lrlO'fltla...
11 A. *.c.f'f4SoAl20 ~
L.&a l"N BECHTEL ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN PALISADES PLANT CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY GWO 5160 AUXILIARY BUILDING MASONRY WALL REPAIR CJ' I -..
I 12MfOfJ' l~sK*c-104.sta>j 0.
I
... *~ **--...
~
i °!'
! 3 i
.--1-~-
c
- I j I
@)-1.1-
- -5
- - ~---**-- -
~****-
-~~.De*.'
a-.e**--
I I
t
_7_ ____ _
~'
__ i_.....,
~.~_ *.
_a.-,.,..._.... - -
- r 0 ~
ao *~
~
le*ll'_ ----***~-
- j
"*~
LEGEND:
0 I
~
tj
-*.r:~*-*J#I
""...,........:~.1 ~*If,
~--~
6
-* -- -" "-~ I. __ _;_ __
~..S..:....--...:.-...1-..... -- _...._.& *.,--.. - ' _ _i_ ____. ---"""'-----
~
- ..;L
..,.~---
&:.T-D-
~
- NJ
'!.?
"l I
Pl\\Ll~l\\OES Pl.A.WT M'Pl!t.ll>\\X 'A~,RASE r4*78
]
I al I
J
- ,* ~:,
s 0
9
~*
- .~* -.
L I
'{
v*-
I I @
~
11 l &
r~
'I
- r.
-~i I
- r.
_j1
~--
,I,.,.
a.1..
!I..
ll 11 :!
'I J ;t,,
~
Ii
!J H
~
H G
F D
c I
~
'.~3
- ..
- :~-*-
ad7~
--:i_- -
~--....
=:..J '15;
~.*-
~::..' 7-
-*t'
~ j(~..
!*c***.i.
-r
,..... ~*
~
I I e! I* I
-~\\*_
.* *;'>\\.!'
~
-l
~ ft ~ I I!
- I
~
- - -~*
- l
-** --~*
-~--..,.---.
l
.I:
LEGEND:
0
~...... -... ~**
- . o
~
... ~...... -........
WALL j
I j
I::..*
- ~*
~*
i-@'
I -t
=
- t::.
!>>k.~TC:.H Fofl.
N~c;_
tta buu.a1'"rfJ b"'*H DAT~t) S *b* &O
-PAL~A-t>I!.~
Pl-At..)T A.Pt-e~l>l>I.. A" P..a6E..4*BS H
G F
D c
I
.. f
.:-~ ~--*-*-* -
,~\\~.\\ _, __._ ---*---*---~------*---------------
G._;i' D
c I
6)_.;
~~!., ;_
- ~-..
- I
,,.... -I*
- ~~:-*.*--.- --
I~
. ~-r
*~{;?
--~f----*- - ;I.-
- l--
' l -'*----
- "!7--,.~.,.
-.:t** o*
)~
_(1_.--.-~~w
_f - -
- -*-1 -- --
I'
.-:~
~?~
,-c..J
r-- - *,i.*
e\\
-~ti
~~
-u--*.-
~------
- ..__r..
--~
--- - -+<?
-:G-.
---~-:
..-:~
- o----~*'"'
I
-*-_ _s_;__
I "==--*
~
.L
~------..
! ----~--, --
- 1' e>@
0
©
.:.:1' ::.
_T.._ _
-*-~.
~)
Q LES END~
0 T _ ~_l __ _:.:;___l ____ T
-I-
,.,:.O'... i-J
@l@
--r' *@
e u-o'
- _i.e.'
e
©
_G 0
~K~~C.H C::!)(..,,_,t:.
If '1llLU:1'1oJ
!'>0-11 t>"'"ftll
!io I t:>f l>:'
WA.LL~ C..
- 4 fli1 PAL.l!>AP~~ PLANT A.r'Pf.>J1'1X. ¥# FAGE A */JG
- 7 SUPPLEMENT 1 RESPONSE TO NRC IE BULLETIN 80-11 FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT SOUTH HAVEN, MICHIGAN
~
BY BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION ANN ARBOR POWER DIVISION JOB 12447-047 MAY 1981
RESPONSE TO NRC IE BULLETIN 80-11 CONTENTS
- 1.
INTRODUCTION
- 2.
RE-EVALUATION PROGRAM
- 3.
RESULTS OF RE-EVALUATION
- 4.
REFERENCES APPENDIXES A.
Re-Evaluation Criteria 12447/047-DC-l, Rev 3-B.
Wall Information Tables
- c.
Figure C-1, Wall Plan for Walls C-51 i
Supplement 1 Job 12447-047
- May 1981
RESPONSE TO NRC IE BULLETIN 80-11 Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981
- 1.
INTRODUCTION
- 2.
This report has been prepared as a supplement to Palisades 180-Day Response to NRC IE Bulletin 80-11, issued in October 1980.
Through continuous verification, it has been concluded that a total of 66 masonry wall segments requiring re-evalu.ation fall within the scope of the bulletin.
The process of re-evaluation followed the guidelines set forth in the re-evaluation criteria submitted to the NRC together with 180-Day Response.
RE-EVALUATION PROGRAM Analytical" evaluation of masonry walls has been supplemented with continuous field verification and constant updating of the re-evaluation criteria to include the most valid information and design tech-niques.
Where there was any doubt regarding the design assumptions,* the most conservative approach has been taken to account for the uncertainties.
The revised re-evaluation criteria is attached in Appendix A.
The following assumptions have been made in the re-evaluation:
A.
Collar joint shear capacity across the boundary of
'multiwythe masonry wall is assumed to be O psi.
B.
Allowable fl*exural stresses are reduced by one-third due to inability to locate the original
. c.
.field inspection records and allowable shear stress is reduged.. by one-half *.
Walls with dovetail anchors along the edges shown on the drawings have been evaluated with and without dovetail anchors at the boundaries because field x-ray shows that the dove-tai'l anchors may not exist.
1
3
- RESULTS OF RE-EVALUATION supplement l Job 12447-047
- May 1981 Continuous investigation after the submittal of Palisades 60-Day Response concluded that the following walls be added to the scope:
Cl07.31, ClOS.11, C303.9, C304.19, C304.22, C304.33, and C306.14 (see description given in Appendix B) and the following walls be deleted from the scope:
A.
Turbine building walls were not designated as Class I in the FSAR.
Therefore, walls C45.15, C45.16, C45.21, C45.31, C45.49, C45.51, C46.4, C46.29, C47.l, C47.2, and C47.3 were deleted.
B.
Wall~ C303.l0, C304.25, and C304.26 inside auxilaixy building had been verified to.be without safety-related attachments and not in proximity to safety-related items.
Wall Cl09.9 has been redesignated as CSl.l and CSl.2 (see Figure C-1, Appendix C).
Safety-related systems associated with the added masonry walls are includ~d in Appendix B.
As an integral part of the tornado shelter housing the safety-related systems, exterior walls are checked for controlling tornado load.
Among a total of 66 masonry walls requiring re-evaluation, 23 walls have passed the re-evaluation criteria.
one wall was repaired under NRC 79-02 bulletin work.
The remaining 42 walls, which have not met the re-evaluation criteria, can be further categorized into the f~llowing groups:
A.
Seven walls would have passed if dovetail anchors had been considered.
B.
One wall would have passed if the allowable stresses had not been reduced.
- c.
Three multiwythe walls failed in collar joint shear.~*
D.
Five exterior walls failed in postulated tornado load.
E.
Seven walls could be deleted from the scope by the relocation of safety-related systems.
2
Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 F.
Ten walls evaluated by the arching method would have passed the re-evaluation criteria if the effect of nonuniform support had not been considered.
G.
All other walls exceeded allowable flexural stress.
- 4.
REFERENCES A.
U.S. NRC, IE Bulletin 80-11, dated May 8, 1980 B.
Palisades Nuclear Plant, Final Safety Analysis Report, Docket 50-255 C.
Palisades 180-Day Response to NRC IE Bulletin 80-11, issued on October 31, 1980 D.
Palisades 60-Day Response to MRC IE Bulletin 80-11, issued on June 30, 1980 3
'r APPENDIX A DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION OF MASONRY WALLS IN RESPONSE TO IE BULLETIN 80-11 A-1 Supplement 1 Job 12447-047
- May 1981
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
4:.
- s.
- 6.
- 7.
Design Criteria 12447/047-DC-l, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047
~
May 1981 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION
- OF MASONRY WALLS IN RESPONSE TO NRC IE BULLETIN 80-11 CONTENTS GENERAL CODES AND STANDARDS LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS MATERIAL PROPERTIES DESIGN ALLOWABLES ALTERNATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ANALYSIS FIGURE 1
1 1
3 3
5 6
l Coefficients for Moment of Inertia of Cracked Sections APPENDIX A
(Graphs)
A-2
Design Criteria 12447/047-DC-1, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION
. OF MASONRY WALLS IN RESPONSE TO NRC IE BULLETIN 80-11
- 1.
GENERAL A.
PURPOSE
- 1)
The purpose of this document is to establish design requirements and criteria for use in re-evaluating the structural adequacy of
- .. reinforced masonry walls as required by NRC IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design, dated May 8, 1980.
B.
SCOPE The re-evaluation shall determine whether the masonry walls and/or the safety-related equipment and systems associated with the walls are capable of performing their intended function under the loads and load combinations prescribed herein.
Verification of wall adequacy shall include a review of local transfer of load from block into the wall, global response of the wall, and trans-fer of wall reactions into supports.
- 2.
CODES AND STANDARDS A.
The American Concrete Institute Building Code*
- Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures (ACI 531-79) shall be used for the evaluation and repair of reinforced masonry walls.
Supplemental allowables as specified herein shall be used for cases not directly covered in this code.
- 3.
LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS A.
The re-evaluation shall addres.s the following loads and load combinations:
D + R + E D + H + E A-3
D+B+W D + R + E' D + B + E' D + W' where:
- Design Criteria 12447/047-DC-1, supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 D
= dead load of structure and equipment plus any other permanent loads contributing stress, such as soil or hydrostatic loads (In addi-tion, a portion of "live load" is added when such load is expected to be present when the plant is operating.
An allowance is also
- made for future permanent loads.)
R
= force or pressure on structure due to rupture of any one pipe (This is defined by Report SR-6, Analysis of Postulated High-Energy Line Breaks outside of Containment, Rev 3, dated June 30, 1975.)
H = force on structure due to thermal expansion of pipes under operating conditions E = design seismic load for Class 1 structures and equipment (defined by the response spectra in Appendix A)
(This is defined as the operating basis earthquake (OBE).)
E' = maximum seismic load for Class. 1 structures and equipment (defined by twice the response spectra in' Appendix A)
(This is defined as the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) *. )
W = wind load due to a 100 mph sustained wind (The loading shall be calculated in accor-dance with ASCE Paper 3269.)
W' = tornado effects Loadings due to a tornado are as follows.
These loads are to be applied to external walls of the auxiliary building, including the radwaste addi-tion:
- 1)
Differential pressure between inside and outside of enclosed areas -
3 psi (bursting)
A-4
- 2)
Design Criteria 12447/047-DC-l, Supplement l Job 12447-047 May 1981 External wind forces resulting from a tornado funnel having a peripheral tangential velocity of 300 mph whose center is traveling at 60 mph
- 3)
Missile equivalent to a 4 11 x 12" x 12' long wood plank traveling end-on at 300 mph or a passenger auto (4,000 pounds) flying through the air at SO mph and at not more than 25 feet above ground
- 4.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES A.
Masonry block conforms to ASTM C 90-66, Grades U-I and U-II.
The minimum compressive strengths of masonry walls are as follows:
Compressive strength of masonry, f 'm Mortar, m0 Grout, F'c Palisades 1,350 psi 1,800 psi 2,000 psi B.
Poisson's ratio for the masonry walls is given as 0.2.
- c.
Blocks have full mortar coverage on horizontal masonry faces.
D.
The density of the solid masonry wall shall be taken as 140 pounds per cubic foot.
- 5.
DESIGN ALLOWABLES A.
Inspection records have not been located for the masonry walls.
Design allowables shall be adjusted as specified in Section 10.1.5 of AC! 531~79.
B.
Design allowables for load combinations which contain dead, operating the::-mal, OBE, or wind loads shall be as follows:
- 1)
Masonry -
The allowable t"ension, compression,
- shear, bond, and bearing stresses shall be as given in the code.
- ~. ~.
- Design Criteria 12447/047-DC-l, Supplement -1:.~
Job 12447-047 May 1981
- 2)
The allowable shear or tension stress shall be 0 psi at block wythe and concrete core interface and at multiwythe collar joint.
- 3)
Seismic and Wind Loading -
The 33% increase in allowable stresses specified in the code for seismic or wind loadings is not permitted.
- c.
Design allowables for load combinations which contain pipe rupture, tornado, or SSE loads shall be as follows:
- 1)
Masonry - The allowable masonry stresses shall be 1.67 times the values given in Subparagraph 5.B.l.
- 2)
Impact and Impulse Loads -
Load combinations
- .. which consider missile impact, jet* impinge-ment, or pipe whip may utilize the allowables in Subparagraph S.F, provided there is no loss of required function of any safety-related system.
D.
The damping values to be used for seismic analysis of the walls shall be as follows:
- 1)
For uncracked.sections use 2% for both OBE and SSE.
- 2)
For cracked reinforced sections use 4% damp-ing for OBE, and use 7% damping for SSE.
E.
Seismic forces shall be applied simultaneously in the vertical and any horizontal direction.
The vertical component of acceleration at any level shall be derived from two thirds of the horizontal F.
ground response spectra.
Load combinations which contain loads due to missile impact, jet impingement, or pipe whip may exceed the allowables, provided there shall be no loss of required function of any safety-related system and the following provisions are satisfied.
- 1)
Reinforcing steel strains are allowed to exceed yield, provided that the structure can
- deform in a ductile mode with sufficient strength and deformation capacity and come to rest in a stable condition.
To ensure duc-tility, the amount of steel in a section must A-6
- 2)
- 3)
- 4)
- 5)
Design Criteria 12447/047-DC-l, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 be sufficient to resist the cracking moment of the gross cross section and less than that which would produce flexural compression failure of the concrete masonry.
In addition, the shear capacity of the section must be at least 20% greater than the flexural capacity.
In determining section strengths, a rectangular stress block with a maximum masonry compressive strength of 0.85 f' shall be used.
Other allowable masonry s~resses shall be limited to those specified for extreme environmental and abnonnal loading conditions.
Section strengths shall be based on a steel stress of 0.9 times the ASTM minimum speci-fied yield strength of steel (0.9 f ).
_y Maximum displacements shall correspond to ductility ratios (ratio of maximum displace-ment to yield displacement) of 3 for jet force (or step pulse) loads and 10 for impact loads or impact loads combined with jet force loads.
For combinations involving jet force loads, the available resistance of the wall (con-sidering other concurrent loads) shall be equal to or greater than 1.2 times the peak jet force load.
- 6.
ALTERNATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA A.
ARCHING ACTION l)
The resistance of the wall to out-of-plane forces shall be determined by assuming that a three-hinged arch is formed after flexural cracking.
Consideration shall be given to the rigidity of the supporting elements and their ability to restrict rotation of the wall about the supports.
The masonry com-b~==~i~~ :t~=~~a~~i;rb:~!:!t~~o~~-O-~~ef'm tensile stresses along the diagonal failure plane in the vicinity of the hinge locations
- shall be limited to 6 tt' m.
A-7
r.~.. *- :. --** ~. *..*,.
... Design criteria 12447/047-DC-l, Supplement 1
.Job 12447-047
- May 1981
- 2)
Arching with uniform supports a)
The deflection at the interior hinge of the arch after full contact with the support shall not exceed 0.3 times the thickness of the wall (0.3 t).
b)
The vertical or horizontal (in-plane) line load capacity along the hinge lines shall be equal to or greater than 1.6 times that required to resist the imposed out-of-plane loads at an assumed displacement* of 0.3 t.
c)
A determination shall be made as to whether the total displacement of the
- wall would adversely impact the function of safety-related systems attached and/or adjacent to the wall.
- 3)
Arching with non-uniform supports The non-uniform line load associated with the variation of stiffness of supporting elements along the length of the wall shall be accounted for in evaluating walls subject to arching.
B.
ROCKING ACTION
- 1)
Walls which are considered to be unrestrained at the top and sides and have insufficient flexural capacity at the base to be analyzed as cantilevered walls may be evaluated by considering rocking action.
For these walls, the safety' factor against overturning shall be equal to or greater than 2.0 for OBE and 1.5 for SSE loads.
7..
ANALYSIS A.
STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF MASONRY WALLS
- 1)
Masonry walls are assumed to be isotropic for solidly grouted block walls and orthotropic for hollow block walls.
Masonry walls are treated as a plate for assessing forces and
- moments in the wall under various loading conditions.
Where uncracked section capaci-ties are exceeded, a cracked section analysis.
A-8
- 2)
- 3)
- 4)
Design Criteria 12447/047-DC-l, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 is performed.
The resulting stresses are checked against allowables.
Coefficients for moments of inertia of cracked sections may be taken from Figure 1.
Wall seismic loads can be determined by -
calculating the wall frequency with appropriate boundary conditions.
Seismic loads are then obtained by ref erring to the seismic response spectra.
Attachment seismic loads are treated as concentrated loads and are determined in accordance with guidelines stated in Subparagraph 7.B.
The resulting mome~~s contributed from those
.concentrated loads (Q) are conservatively
- taken as follows :
L'\\.4Q M
Q b
I a
.L I
Q Q
~
'\\//
A-9
- ~1 Moment Diagram M = Q{b-aL (b+a)' L > (b+a)
M = Q{b-a l. L < (b+a)
L
, Design Criteria 12447/047-DC-l, Supplement l Job, 12447-047
~ May 1981 B.
ATTACHMENT SEISMIC LOADS
- 1)
Seismic loads acting on masonry walls due to attached items shall be derived from existing analyses.
If these analyses are not available, the seismic load may be taken as l.2 times the peak of the applicable spectra for singly supported items and as 1.5 times the peak of the applicable spectra for multiple supported items.
The damping shall be 1/2% for piping and 2% for other attachments.
These loadings include an allowance for possible attachment thermal loadings.
- 2)
Seismic load combination
- .a) b)
If attachment seismic responses are known, the.overall response shall be taken as the absolute sum of the responses of wall and the attachments.
However,.if the frequencies of the wall and attachments differ by more than 10%,
then take square root of the square sum (SRSS) for overall response
- If attachment seismic responses are not known and wall frequencies falls outside the range of the peak response by more than 10%, then the overall response shall be the greater of the following two cases:
o Assume peak response for the attach-ments and take SRSS of wall and attachments for overall response.
o
"'Assume attachments and wall have the same frequencies and take the absolute sum of wall and attachment loads for overall response.
C.
FREQUENCY VARIATIONS
- 1)
Uncertainties in frequencies of the masonry wall due to variations in structural prop-erties and mass shall be taken into account.
To account for the effect of possible frequency variations, use 10% below the calculated lower-bound frequency if it is on the high-frequency side of the peak of the A-10
Design.Criteria 12447/047-DC-l, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 response spectrum.
If the calculated upper bound frequency is on the low-frequency side of the peak of the response spectrum, use 10%
above the calculated upper-bound frequency.
For nonreinforced hollow masonry walls, frequency variation shall be taken as +10%
and -20%.
D.
INTERSTORY DRIFT EFFECTS
- 1)
Interstory drift effects shall be derived from the original building seismic analysis.
These effects are secondary.
The in-plane strain (.l:i/H) shall be limited to the following:
a) b)
Walls confined by a minimum of two opposite edges:
l:i/H< 0.001 Unconfined walls:
fi/H.s, 0 *.0001 where ti = relative displacement between the top and bottom of the wall H = height of the wall A-11
1.0 F
10"1 z
w u M.
- u.
w a
u Design Criteri"a 12447/047-DC-l, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 FIGURE 1 I
I I
I I
I I
I lcr = F bd3 ro.
0.75-""
(l) 0.50~ ~
p 0.25 :..:::: S1,~
-~
o.oo,
~~
~
~
A'V-
~
/
/
As p= bd*
~
./..'" _,, ~
~>>.J' I~ ~
Lt-7
~v
,..,... 'tJ
~;i' 10-1 RATIO pa A's Es P'=bd
- n=-e c
K3 F =r + pn (1-K)2 2n-15!19 d'::..
0 n
er- 0.1 '
K = -m + (m2 + 2q)~
p' p'
- m = pn (1 + 1.9-p ),
q = pn (1+0.19-p)
COEFFICIENTS FOR MOMENT OF INERTIA OF CRACKED SECTIONS A-12
.t. ~
~ "'
~
~
~ "
~
~
1.0
\\
Design Criteria 12447/047-DC-l, Supplement 1 Job 12447~047 May 1981 APPENDIX B WALL INFORMATION TABLES The following lists identify the safety-related equipment and systems associated with safety-related masonry walls and are supplementary to those discussed in Appendix A, Palisades 60-Day Response, issued on June 30, 1980.
The lists in this appendix reflect changes since the first submittal.
The locations of walls are shown on the wall plans in Appendix A, Palisades 60-Day Response.
B-1
Function
- Exterior wall WALL C-107.31 Loading Appendix B, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 Subjected to tornado load B-2
/
Function Exterior wall WALL C-108.11 Loading Appendix B, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 Subjected to tornado load B-3
Function
- Exterior wall
\\ *,
WALL C-303.9 Loading Appendix B, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 Subjected to tornado load B-4
Item Cable tray
- WALL C-304.19 System Radiation monitoring system B-5 Appendix B, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981
Function Exterior wall WALL C-304.22 Appendix B, supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 Loading Subjected to tornado load B-6
Function
- Exterior wall WALL C-304.33 Loading Appendix B, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 Subjected to tornado load B-7
WALL C-306.14 Item System Appendix B, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981 (This wall does not have safety-related attachments but is integrated with Wall C-306.13, which has safety-related attachments.)
\\
\\..
B-8
- Item Piping
\\
WALL C-51.2 System Engineering safeguard B-9 Appendix B, Supplement 1 Job 12447-047 May 1981
w I Item Piping
\\.
WALL C-51.1 System Engineering safeguard system B-10 Appendix B, Supplement 1 Job 12447~047 May 1981
H
©-:-.., -.. i.
- I l;
~'.l *:.
D c
FW.l.1
_(.. w
- t,..
I I
~o1't~..
H.
D t: fol \\.E.(lf~~~ ~t.'- fM(,l.r\\ 1 i
- 1*~*,. "'.:{---*-. ~--* ;:.~
..* ~
.* ~.
,~,;,_~*.*:?*;:..
=.... t-:~-
s.. :::.
~ :-...... "?""
~.::. *
'.'..'\\' J
. \\
- I *
. ~-('~~*~*