ML19150A451
| ML19150A451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/2019 |
| From: | -NeedNewValue, Exelon Generation Co |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19150A453 | List:
|
| References | |
| Download: ML19150A451 (66) | |
Text
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS APPENDIX 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS by JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION Page 704 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS BM Containment Insulation SP-5290 Ginna Plant Page 705 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 2 of Cover Letter Page 706 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Report No. E455-T-268, VINYLCEL (4 pcf) - Water Vapor Permeability and Humid Aging Tests Page 707 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 2 of Report No. E455-T-268 Page 708 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 3 of Report No. E455-T-268 Page 709 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 4 of Report No. E455-T-268 Page 710 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Report No. E455-T-266, VINYLCEL (4 pcf) - Effect of Heat and Pressure Page 711 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 2 of Report No. E455-T-266 Page 712 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 3 of Report No. E455-T-266 Page 713 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 4 of Report No. E455-T-266 Page 714 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 5 of Report No. E455-T-266 Page 715 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 6 of Report No. E455-T-266 Page 716 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 7 of Report No. E455-T-266 Page 717 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Report No. E455-T-258, VINYLCEL - Resistance to Flame Exposure Page 718 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 2 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 719 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 3 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 720 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 4 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 721 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 5 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 722 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 6 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 723 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 7 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 724 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 8 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 725 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 9 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 726 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 10 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 727 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 11 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 728 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 12 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 729 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 13 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 730 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 14 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 731 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 15 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 732 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 16 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 733 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 17 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 734 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 18 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 735 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 19 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 736 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 20 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 737 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 21 of Report No. E455-T-258 Page 738 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3E CONTAINMENT LINER INSULATION PREOPERATIONAL TESTS Sheet 22 of Report No. E455-T-258 1.
Page 739 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON APPENDIX 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON BY THE FRANKLIN RESEARCH CENTER Page 740 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 3F.1 Introduction 3F.1-1 3F.2 AISC 1963 Versus AISC 1980 Summary of Code Comparison 3F.2-1 3F.3 ACI 318-63 Versus ACI 349-76 Summary of Code Comparison 3F.3-1 3F.4 ACI 301-63 Versus ACI 301-72 (Revised 1975) Summary of 3F.4-1 Code Comparison 3F.5 ACI 318-63 Versus ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Division 2, 3F.5-1 1980, Summary of Code Comparison Page 741 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 3F.1 INTRODUCTION The Franklin Research Center, under contract to the NRC, compared the structural design codes and loading criteria used in the design of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant against the corresponding codes and criteria currently used for licensing of new plants at the time of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP). The current and older codes were compared para-graph by paragraph to determine what effects the code changes could have on the load carry-ing capacity of individual structural members.
The scope of the review was confined to the comparison of former structural codes and crite-ria with counterpart current requirements. Correspondingly, the assessment of the impact of changes in codes and criteria was confined to what can be deduced solely from the provisions of the codes and criteria.
In order to carry out the code review objective of identifying criteria changes that could potentially impair perceived margins of safety, the following scheme of classifying code change impacts was used.
Where code changes involved technical content (as opposed to those which are editorial, organizational, administrative, etc.), the changes were classified according to the following scheme.
Each such code change was classified according to its potential to alter perceived margins of safety a in structural elements to which it applied. Four categories were established:
- Scale A Change - The new criteria have the potential to substantially impair margins of safety as perceived under the former criteria.
- Scale AX Change - The impact of the code change on margins of safety is not immediately apparent. Scale AX code changes require analytical studies of model structures to assess the potential magnitude of their effect upon margins of safety.
- Scale B Change - The new criteria operate to impair margins of safety but not enough to cause engineering concern about the adequacy of any structural element.
- Scale C Change - The new criteria will give rise to larger margins of safety than were exhibited under the former criteria.
This appendix is the summary of the code comparison findings. It has been reproduced directly from Appendix B to the Franklin Research Center Report, TER-C5257-322, Design Codes, Design Criteria and Loading Combinations (SEP Topic III-7.B), R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, dated May 27, 1982, which was transmitted by letter to RG&E from the NRC, dated January 4, 1983.
- a. That is, if (all other considerations remaining the same) safety margins as computed by the older code rules were to be recomputed for an as-built structure in accordance with current code provisions, would there be a difference due only to the code change under consideration.
Page 742 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Table 3F.2-1 AISC 1963 VERSUS AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Subsection AISC 1980 AISC 1963 Structural Elements Comments Potentially Affected 1.5.1.1 1.5.1.1 Structural members under ten- Limitations Scale sion, except for pin connected members Fy 0.833 Fu C 0.8333 Fu < Fy < 0.875 Fu B Fy 0.875 Fu A 1.5.1.2.2 Beam and connection where See case study 1 for details.
the top flange is coped and subject to shear, failure by shear along a plane through fasteners, or shear and tension along and perpendicular to a plane through fasteners 1.5.1.4.1 1.5.1.4.1 Box-shaped members (subject New requirement in the 1980 Subpara.6 to bending) of rectangular Code cross section whose depth is not more than 6 times their width and whose flange thick-ness is not more than 2 times the web thickness 1.5.1.4.1 1.5.1.4.1 Hollow circular sections sub- New requirement in the 1980 Subpara.7 ject to bending Code 1.5.1.4.4 Lateral support requirements New requirement in the 1980 for box sections whose depth Code is larger than 6 times their width 1.5.2.2 1.7 Rivets, bolts, and threaded Change in the requirements parts subject to 20,000 cycles or more 1.7 & 1.7 Members and connections Change in the requirements Appendix B subject to 20,000 cycles or more Page 743 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 1.9.1.2 & 1.7 Slender compression unstiff- New provisions added in the 1980 Appendix C ened elements subject to axial Code, Appendix C. See case study compression or compression 10 for details.
due to bending when actual width-to-thickness ratio exceeds the values specified in subsection 1.9.1.2 1.9.2.3 & Circular tubular elements sub- New requirement in the 1980 Appendix C ject to axial compression Code 1.10.6 1.10.6 Hybrid girder - reduction in New requirements added in the flange stress 1980 Code. Hybrid girders were not covered in the 1963 Code. See case study 9 for details.
1.11.4 1.11.4 Shear connectors in compos- New requirements added in the ite beams 1980 Code regarding the distribu-tion of shear connectors (eqn.
1.11-7). The diameter and spacing of the shear connectors are also introduced.
1.11.5 Composite beams or girders New requirement in the 1980 with formed steel deck Code 1.15.5.2 Restrained members when New requirement in the 1980 1.15.5.3 flange or moment connection Code 1.15.5.4 plates for and connections of beams and girders are welded to the flange of I or H shaped columns 1.13.3 Roof surface not provided with sufficient slope towards points of free drainage or ade-quate individual drains to pre-vent the accumulation of rain water (ponding) 1.14.2.2 Axially loaded tension mem- New requirement in the 1980 bers where the load is trans- Code mitted by bolts or rivets through some but not all of the cross-sectional elements of the members 2.4 2.3 Slenderness ratio for columns. See case study 4 for Scale 1st Para. 1st Para. Must satisfy: details.
Fy 40 ksi C 40 < Fy < 44 ksi B Fy 44 ksi A Page 744 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 2.7 2.6 Flanges of rolled W, M, or S See case study 6 for Scale shapes and similar built-up details.
single-web shapes subject to compression Fy 36 ksi C 36 < Fy < 38 ksi B Fy 38 ksi 2.9 2.8 Lateral bracing of members to See case study 7 for details.
resist lateral and torsional dis-placement Appendix D Web tapered members New requirement in the 1980 Code Scale B 1.9.2.2 1.9.2 Flanges of square and rectan- The 1980 Code limit on width-to-gular box sections of uniform thickness ratio of flanges is thickness, of stiffened ele- slightly more stringent than that of ments, when subject to axial the 1963 Code.
compression or to uniform compression due to bending 1.10.1 Hybrid girders Hybrid girders were not covered in the 1963 Code. Application of the new requirement could not be much different from other rational method.
1.11.4 1.11.4 Flat soffit concrete slabs, using Lightweight concrete is not per-rotary kiln produced aggre- mitted in nuclear plants as struc-gates conforming to ASTM tural members (Ref. ACI-349).
C330 1.13.2 Beams and girders supporting Lightweight construction not large floor areas free of parti- applicable to nuclear structures tions or other source of damp- which are designed for greater ing, where transient vibration loads due to pedestrian traffic might not be acceptable 1.14.6.1.3 Flare type groove welds when flush to the surface of the solid section of the bar 1.16.4.2 1.16.4 Fasteners, minimum spacing, requirements between fasten-ers 1.16.5 1.16.5 Structural joints, edge dis-tances of holes for bolts and rivets Page 745 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 1.15.5.5 Connections having high shear New insert ion the 1980 Code in the column web 2.3.1 Braced and unbraced multi- Instability effect on short buildings 2.3.2 story frame - instability effect will have negligible effect.
2.4 2.3 Members subject to combined Procedure used in the 1963 Code axial and bending moments for the interaction analysis is replaced by a different procedure.
See case study 8 for details.
Scale C 1.3.3 1.3.3 Support girders and their con-nections - pendant operated traveling cranes The 1963 Code requires 25% The 1963 Code requirement is increase in live loads to allow more stringent, and, therefore, for impact as applied to travel- conservative.
ing cranes, while the 1980 Code requires 10% increase.
1.5.1.5.3 1.5.2.2 Bolts and rivets - projected area - in shear connections Fp = 1.5 Fu (1980 Code) Results using 1963 Code are con-Fp = 1.35 Fy (1963 Code) servative.
1.10.5.3 1.10.5.3 Stiffeners in girders - spacing New design concept added in 1980 between stiffeners at end pan- Code giving less stringent require-els, at panels containing large ments. See case study 5 for details.
holes, and at panels adjacent to panels containing large holes 1.11.4 1.11.4 Continuous composite beams; New requirement added in the where longitudinal reinforc- 1980 Code ing steel is considered to act compositely with the steel beam in the negative moment regions Page 746 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Table 3F.3-1 ACI 318-63 VERSUS ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Section ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 Structural Elements Comments Potentially Affected 7.10.3 805 Columns designed for stress Splices of the main reinforcement reversals with variation of in such columns must be reason-stress from fy in compression ably limited to provide for ade-to 1/2 fy in tension quate ductility under all loading conditions.
Chapter 9 Chapter 15 All primary load-carrying Definition of new loads not nor-9.1, 9.2, & members or elements of the mally used in design of traditional 9.3 most structural system are poten- buildings and redefinition of load specifically tially affected factors and capacity reduction fac-tors has altered the traditional analysis requirements.*
10.1 & All primary load-carrying Design loads here refer to Chapter 10.10 members 9 load combinations.*
11.1 All primary load-carrying Design loads here refer to Chapter members 9 load combinations.*
11.13 Short brackets and corbels As this provision is new, any exist-which are primary load-carry- ing corbels or brackets may not ing members meet these criteria and failure of such elements could be non-duc-tile type failure. Structural integ-rity may be seriously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these requirements.
11.15 Applies to any elements Structural integrity may be seri-loaded in shear where it is ously endangered if the design inappropriate to consider shear fails to fulfill these requirements.
as a measure of diagonal ten-sion and the loading could induce direct shear-type cracks 11.16 All structural walls - those Guidelines for these kinds of wall which are primary load-carry- loads were not provided by older ing, e.g., shear walls and those codes; therefore, structural integ-which serve to provide protec- rity may be seriously endangered tion from impacts of missile- if the design fails to fulfill these type objects requirements.
18.1.4 & Prestressed concrete elements New load combinations here refer 18.4.2 to Chapter 9 load combinations.*
Page 747 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Chapter 19 Shell structures with thickness This chapter is completely new; equal to or greater than 12 therefore, shell structures designed inches by the general criteria of older codes may not satisfy all aspects of this chapter. Additionally, this chapter refers to Chapter 9 provi-sions.
Appendix A All elements subject to time- New appendix; older Code did not dependent and position-depen- give specific guidelines on tem-dent temperature variations perature limits for concrete. The and which are restrained such possible effects of strength loss in that thermal strains will result concrete at high temperatures in thermal stresses should be assessed.
Appendix B All steel embedments used to New appendix; therefore, consid-transmit loads from attach- erable review of older designs is ments into the reinforced con- warranted.**
crete structures Appendix C All elements whose failure New appendix; therefore, consid-under impulsive and impactive erations and review of older loads must be precluded designs is considered important.**
Scale B 1.3.2 103(b) Ambient temperature control Tighter control to ensure adequate for concrete inspection - upper control of curing environment for limit reduced 5 (from 100F cast-in-place concrete.
to 95F) applies to all struc-tural concrete 1.5 Requirement of a "Quality Previous codes required inspection Assurance Program" is new. but not the establishment of a Applies to all structural con- quality assurance program.
crete Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Any elements containing steel Use of lightweight concrete in a with fy > 60,000 psi or light- nuclear plant not likely. Elements weight concrete containing steel with fy > 60,000 psi may have inadequate ductility or excessive deflections at service loads.
3.2 402 Cement This serves to clarify intent of pre-vious code.
3.3 403 Aggregate Eliminated reference to light-weight aggregate.
3.3.1 403 Any structural concrete cov- Controls of ASTM C637, "Stan-ered by ACI 349-76 and dard Specifications for Aggregates expected to provide for radia- for Radiation Shielding Concrete,"
tion shielding in addition to closely parallel those for ASTM structural capacity C33, "Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates."
Page 748 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 3.3.3 403 Aggregate To ensure adequate control.
3.4.2 404 Water for concrete Improve quality control measures.
3.5 405 Metal reinforcement Removed all reference to steel with fy > 60,000 psi.
3.6 406, 407, & Concrete mixtures Added requirements to improve 408 quality control.
4.1 & 4.2 501 & 502 Concrete proportioning Proportioning logic improved to account for statistical variation and statistical quality control.
4.3 504 Evaluation and acceptance of Added provision to allow for concrete design specified strength at age >
28 days to be used. Not considered to be a problem, since large cross sections will allow concrete in place to continue to hydrate.
5.7 607 Curing of very large concrete Attention to this is required elements and control of hydra- because of the thicker elements tion temperature encountered in nuclear-related structures.
6.3.3 All structural elements with Previous codes did not address the embedded piping containing problem of long periods of expo-high temperature materials in sure to high temperature and did excess of 150F, or 200F in not provide for reduction in design localized areas not insulated allowables to account for strength from the concrete reduction at high (> 150F) tem-peratures.
7.5, 7.6, & 805 Members with spliced rein- Sections on splicing and tie 7.8 forcing steel requirements amplified to better control strength at splice locations and provide ductility.
7.9 805 Members containing deformed New sections to define require-wire fabric ments for this new material.
7.10 & 7.11 Connection of primary load- To ensure adequate ductility.
carrying members and at splices in column steel 7.12.3 Lateral ties in columns To provide for adequate ductility.
7.12.4 7.13.1 Reinforcement in exposed New requirements to conform with through concrete the expected large thicknesses in 7.13.3 nuclear related structures.
8.6 Continuous nonprestressed Allowance for redistribution of flexural members. negative moments has been rede-fined as a function of the steel per-centage.
Page 749 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 9.5.1.1 Reinforced concrete members Allows for more stringent con-subject to bending - deflection trols on deflection in special cases.
limits 9.4 1505 Reinforcing steel - design See comments in Chapter 3 sum-strength limitation mary.
9.5.1.2 Slab and beams - minimum Minimum thickness generally through thickness requirements would not control this type of 9.5.1.4 structure.
9.5.2.4 909 Beams and one-way slabs Affects serviceability, not strength.
9.5.3 Non-prestressed two-way con- Immediate and long time deflec-struction tions generally not critical in struc-tures designed for very large live loadings; however, design by ulti-mate requires more attention to deflection controls.
9.5.4 & Prestressed concrete members Control of camber, both initial and 9.5.5 long time in addition to service load deflection, requires more attention for designs by ultimate strength.
10.2.7 Flexural members - new limit Lower limit on B of 0.65 would on B factor correspond to an f c of 8,000 psi.
No concrete of this strength likely to be found in a nuclear structure.
10.3.6 Compression members, with Limits on axial design load for spiral reinforcement or tied these members given in terms of reinforcement, non-prestressed design equations.
and prestressed.
See case study 2.
10.6.1 1508 Beams and one-way slabs Changes in distribution of rein-10.6.2 forcement for crack control.
10.6.3 10.6.4 10.6.5 Beams New insert 10.8.1 912 Compression members, limit- Moment magnification concept 10.8.2 ing dimensions introduced for compression mem-10.8.3 bers. Results using column reduc-tion factors in ACI 318-63 are reasonably the same as using mag-nification.
Page 750 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 10.11.1 915 Compression members, slen- For slender columns, moment 10.11.2 916 derness effects magnification concept replaces the 10.11.3 so-called strength reduction con-10.11.4 cept but for the limits stated in 10.11.5 ACI 318-63 both methods yield 10.11.5.1 equal accuracy and both are 10.11.5.2 acceptable methods.
10.11.6 10.11.7 10.12 10.15.1 1404 - 1406 Composite compression mem- New items - no way to compare; 10.15.2 bers ACI 318-63 contained only work-10.15.3 ing stress method of design for 10.15.4 these members.
10.15.5 10.15.6 10.17 Massive concrete members, New item - no comparison.
more than 48 in. thick 11.2.1 Concrete flexural members For non-prestressed members, 11.2.2 concept of minimum area of shear reinforcement is new. For pre-stressed members, Eqn. 11-2 is the same as in ACI 318-63.
Requirement of minimum shear reinforcement provides for ductil-ity and restrains inclined crack growth in the event of unexpected loading.
11.7 Non-prestressed members Detailed provisions for this load through combination were not part of ACI 11.8.6 318-63. These new sections pro-vide a conservative logic which requires that the steel needed for torsion be added to that required for transverse shear, which is con-sistent with the logic of ACI 318-63.
This is not considered to be criti-cal, as ACI 318-63 required the designer to consider torsional stresses; assuming that some ratio-nal method was used to account for torsion, no problem is expected to arise.
Page 751 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 11.9 Deep beams Special provisions for shear through stresses in deep beams is new. The 11.9.6 minimum steel requirements are similar to the ACI 318-63 require-ments of using the wall steel lim-its.
Deep beams designed under previ-ous ACI 318-63 criterion were reinforced as walls at the mini-mum and therefore no unrein-forced section would have resulted.
11.10 Slabs and footings New provision for shear reinforce-through ment in slabs or footings for the 11.10.7 two-way action condition and new controls where shear head rein-forcement is used.
Logic consistent with ACI 318-63 for these conditions and change is not considered major.
11.11.1 1707 Slabs and footings The change which deletes the old requirement that steel be consid-ered as only 50% effective and allows concrete to carry 1/2 the allowable for two-way action is new. Also deleted was the require-ment that shear reinforcement not be considered effective in slabs less than 10 in. thick.
Change is based on recent research which indicates that such rein-forcement works even in thin slabs.
11.11.2 Slabs Details for the design of shearhead through is new. ACI 318-63 had no provi-11.11.2.5 sions for shearhead design. This section for slabs and footings is not likely to be found in older plant designs. If such devices were used, it is assumed a rational design method was used.
11.12 Openings in slabs and footings Modification for inclusion of shearhead design.
See above conclusion.
11.13.1 Columns No problem anticipated since pre-11.13.2 vious code required design consid-eration by some analysis.
Page 752 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Chapter 12 Reinforcement Development length concept replaces bond stress concept in ACI 318-63.
The various 1d lengths in this chapter are based entirely on ACI 318-63 permissible bond stresses.
There is essentially no difference in the final design results in a design under the new code com-pared to ACI 318-63.
12.1.6 918(C) Reinforcement Modified with minimum added to through ACI 318-63, 918(C).
12.1.63 12.2.2 Reinforcement New insert in ACI 349-76.
12.2.3 12.4 Reinforcement of special New insert.
members Gives emphasis to special member consideration.
12.8.1 Standard hooks Based on ACI 318-63 bond stress 12.8.2 allowables in general; therefore, no major change.
12.10.1 Wire fabric New insert.
12.10.2(b) Use of such reinforcement not likely in Category I structures for nuclear plants.
12.11.2 Wire fabric New insert.
Mainly applies to precast pre-stressed members.
12.13.1.4 Wire fabric New insert.
Use of this material for stirrups not likely in heavy members of a nuclear plant.
13.5 Slab reinforcement New details on slab reinforcement intended to produce better crack control and maintain ductility.
Past practice was not inconsistent with this in general.
14.2 Walls with loads in the Kern Change of the order of the empiri-area of the thickness cal equation (14-1) makes the solution compatible with Chapter 10 for walls with loads in the Kern area of the thickness.
Page 753 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 15.5 Footings - shear and develop- Changes here are intended to be ment of reinforcement compatible with change in concept of checking bar development instead of nominal bond stress consistent with Chapter 12.
15.9 Minimum thickness of plain Reference to minimum thickness footing on piles of plain footing on piles which was in ACI 318-63 was removed entirely.
16.2 Design considerations for a New but consistent with the intent structure behaving monolithi- of previous code.
cally or not, as well as for joints and bearings.
17.5.3 2505 Horizontal shear stress in any Use of Nominal Average Shear segment Stress equation (17-1) replaces the theoretical elastic equation (25-1) of ACI 318-63. It provides for eas-ier computation for the designer.
18.4.1 Concrete immediately after Change allows more tension, thus prestress transfer is less conservative but not consid-ered a problem.
18.5 2606 Tendons (steel) Augmented to include yield and ultimate in the jacking force requirement.
18.7.1 Bonded and unbonded mem- Eqn. 18-4 is based on more recent bers test data.
18.9.1 Two-way flat plates (solid Intended primarily for control of 18.9.2 slabs) having minimum cracking.
18.9.3 bonded reinforcement 18.11.3 Bonded reinforcement at sup- New to allow for consideration of 18.11.4 ports the redistribution of negative moments in the design.
18.13 Prestressed compression mem- New to emphasize details particu-18.14 bers under combined axial lar to prestressed members not pre-18.15 load and bending. Unbonded viously addressed in the codes in 18.16.1 tendons. Post tensioning ducts. detail.
Grout for bonded tendons.
18.16.2 Proportions of grouting mate- Expanded definition of how grout rials properties may be determined.
18.16.4 Grouting temperature Expanded definition of tempera-ture controls when grouting.
Scale C 7.13.4 Reinforcement in flexural slabs Page 754 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 10.14 2306 Bearing - sections controlled ACI 318-63 is more conservative, by design bearing stresses allowing a stress of 1.9 (0.25 f c)
= 0.475 f c < 0.6 f c 11.2.3 1706 Reinforcement concrete mem- Allowance of spirals as shear rein-bers without prestressing forcement is new. Requirement, where shear stress exceeds of 2 lines of web rein-forcement was removed.
13.0 to end Two-way slabs with multiple Slabs designed by the previous cri-square or rectangular panels teria of ACI 318-63 are generally the same or more conservative.
13.4.1.5 Equivalent column flexibility Previous code did not consider the stiffness and attached torsional effect of stiffness of members nor-members mal to the plane of the equivalent frame.
17.5.4 Permissible horizontal shear Nominal increase in allowable 17.5.5 stress for any surface, ties pro- shear stress under new code.
vided or not provided
- Special treatment of load and loading combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.
- Since stress analysis associated with these conditions is highly dependent on definition of failure planes and allowable stress for these special conditions, past practice varied with designers' opinions. Stresses may vary significantly from those thought to exist under previous design procedures.
Page 755 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Table 3F.4-1 ACI 301-63 VERSUS ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B Referenced Section ACI 301-72 ACI 301-63 Structural Elements Comments Potentially Affected 3.8.2.1 309b Lower strength concrete can ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) bases 3.8.2.3 be proportioned when "work- proportioning of concrete mixes ing stress concrete" is used on the specified strength plus a value determined from the stan-dard deviation of test cylinder strength results. ACI 301-63 bases proportioning for "working stress concrete" on the specified strength plus 15 percent with no mention of standard deviation. High standard deviations in cylinder test results could require more than 15 percent under ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) 3.8.2.2 309d Mix proportions could give ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires 3.8.2.3 lower strength concrete more strength tests than ACI 301-63 for evaluation of strength and bases the strength to be achieved on the standard deviation of strength test results.
17.3.2.3 1704d Lower strength concrete could ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires have been used core samples to have an average strength at least 85 percent of the specified strength with no single result less than 75 percent of the specified strength.
ACI 301-63 simply requires "strength adequate for the intended purpose." If "adequate for the intended purpose" is less than 85 percent of the specified strength, lower strength concrete could be used.
Page 756 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 17.2 1702a Lower strength concrete could ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) specifies 1703a have been used that no individual strength test result shall fall below the specified strength by more than 500 psi.
ACI 301-63 specifies that either 20 percent (1702a) or 10 percent (1703a) of the strength tests can be below the specified strength. Just how far below is not noted.
15.2.6.1 1502b1 Weaker tendon bond possible ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires fine aggregate in grout when sheath is more than four times the tendon area.
ACI 301-63 requires fine sand addition at five times the tendon area.
15.2.2.1 1502e1 Prestressing may not be as ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) gives 15.2.2.2 good considerably more detail for 15.2.2.3 bonded and unbonded tendon anchorages and couplings. ACI 301-63 does not seem to address unbonded tendons.
8.4.3 804b Cure of concrete may not be as ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides good for better control of placing tem-perature. This will give better ini-tial cure.
8.2.2.4 802b4 Concrete may be more nonuni- ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides form when placed for a maximum slump loss. This gives better control of the charac-teristics of the placed concrete.
8.3.2 803b Weaker columns and walls ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides possible for a longer setting time for con-crete in columns and walls before placing concrete in supported ele-ments.
5.5.2 Poor bonding of reinforcement ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides to concrete possible for cleaning of reinforcement.
ACI 301-63 has no corresponding section.
5.2.5.3 Reinforcement may not be as ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides good for use of welded deformed steel wire fabric for reinforcement.
ACI 301-63 has no corresponding section.
5.2.5.1 503a Reinforcement may not be as good ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides 5.2.5.2 when welded steel wire fabric a maximum spacing of 12 in. for is used welded intersection in the direc-tion of principal reinforcement.
Page 757 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 5.2.1 Reinforcement may not have ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) has more reserve strength and ductility stringent yield requirements.
4.6.3 406c Floors may crack ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for placement of reshores directly under shores above, while ACI 301-63 states that reshores shall be placed "in approximately the same pattern."
4.6.2 Concrete may sag or be lower ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides in strength for reshoring no later than the end of the working day when stripping occurs.
4.6.4 Concrete may sag or be lower ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides in strength for load distribution by reshoring in multistory buildings.
4.2.13 Low strength possible if rein- ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires forcing steel is distorted that equipment runways not rest on reinforcing steel.
3.8.5 Possible to have lower ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) places strength floors tighter control on the concrete for floors.
3.7.2 Embedments may corrode and ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires 3.4.4 lower concrete strength that it be demonstrated that mix water does not contain a deleteri-ous amount of chloride ion.
3.4.2 Possible lower strength ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) places 3.4.3 tighter control on water-cement ratios for watertight structures and structures exposed to chemically aggressive solutions.
1.2 Possible damage to green or ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides underage concrete resulting in for limits on loading of emplaced lower strength concrete.
Scale C 3.5 305 Better strength resulting from ACI 301-63 gives a minimum better placement and consoli- slump requirement.
dation ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) omits minimum slump which could lead to difficulty in placement and/or consolidation of very low slump concrete. A tolerance of 1 in above maximum slump is allowed pro-vided the average slump does not exceed maximum. Generally the placed concrete could be less uni-form and of lower strength.
Page 758 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 3.6 306b Better strength resulting from ACI 301-63 provides for use of better placement and consoli- single mix design with maximum dation nominal aggregate size suited to the most critical condition of con-creting.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) allows waiver of size requirement if the architect-engineer believes the concrete can be placed and consol-idated.
3.8.2.1 309b Higher strength from better ACI 301-63 bases proportioning proportioning for "ultimate strength" concrete on the specified strength plus 25%.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) bases proportioning on the specified strength plus a value determined from the standard deviation of test cylinder strengths. The require-ment to exceed the specified strength by 25% gives higher strengths than the standard devia-tion method.
4.4.2.2 404c Better bond to reinforcement ACI 301-63 provides that form gives better strength coating be applied prior to placing reinforcing steel.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) omits this requirement. If form coating con-tacts the reinforcement, no bond will develop.
4.5.5 405b Better strength and less chance ACI 301-63 provides for keeping of cracking or sagging forms in place until the 28-day strength is attained.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for removal of forms when speci-fied removal strength is reached.
4.6.2 406b Better strength and less chance Same as above but applied to of cracking or sagging reshoring.
4.7.1 407a Better strength by curing lon- ACI 301-63 provides for cylinder ger in forms field cure under most unfavorable conditions prevailing for any part of structure.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides only that the cylinders be cured along with the concrete they repre-sent. Cure of cylinders could give higher strength than the in-place concrete and forms could be removed too soon.
Page 759 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 5.2.2.1 Better strength, less chance of ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) has less 5.2.2.2 cracked reinforcing bars stringent bending requirement for reinforcing bars than does ACI 318-63.
5.5.4 505b Better strength from reinforce- ACI 301-63 provides for more 5.5.5 ment overlap in welded wire fabric.
12.2.3 1201d Better strength from better ACI 301-63 provides for final cur-cure of concrete ing for 7 days with air temperature above 50F.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for curing for 7 days and compres-sive strength of test cylinders to be 70 percent of specified strength.
This could allow termination of cure too soon.
14.4.1 1404 Better strength resulting from ACI 301-63 provides for a maxi-better uniformity mum slump of 2 in.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) gives a tolerance on the maximum slump which could lead to nonuniformity in the concrete in place.
15.2.1.1 1502-c1b Higher strength from higher ACI 301-63 requires higher yield yield prestressing bars stress than does ACI 301-72 (Rev.
1975).
15.2.1.2 1502-c2 Higher strength from better ACI 301-63 requires that stress prestressing steel curves from the production lot of steel be furnished.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires that a typical stress-strain curve be submitted. The use of the typical curve may miss lower strength material.
16.3.4.3 1602-4c Better strength resulting from ACI 301-63 requires 3 cylinders to better cylinder tests be tested at 28 days; if a cylinder is damaged, the strength is based on the average of two.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires only two 28-day cylinders; if one is damaged, the strength is based on the one survivor.
16.3.4.4 1602-4d Better strength, less chance of ACI 301-63 requires that less than substandard concrete 100 yd3 of any class of concrete placed in any one day be repre-sented by 5 tests.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) allows strength tests to be waived on less than 50 yd3.
Page 760 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON 17.3.2.3 1704d Better strength could be devel- ACI 301-63 requires core oped strengths "adequate for the intended purposes."
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires an average strength at least 85 per-cent of the specified strength with no single result less than 75 per-cent of the specified strength. If "adequate for the intended pur-pose" is higher than 85 percent of the specified strength, the concrete is stronger.
Page 761 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Table 3F.5-1 ACI 318-63 VERSUS ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980,
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI 318-63 Structural Elements Comments 1980 Potentially Affected CC-3230 1506 Containment (load combina- Definition of new loads not nor-tions and applicable load mally used in design of traditional factor)* buildings.
Table 1506 Containment (load combina- Definition of loads and load combi-CC-3230-1 tions and applicable load nations along with new load factors factor)* has altered the traditional analysis requirements.
CC-3421.5 Containment and other ele- New concept. There is no compara-ments transmitting in-plane ble section in ACI 318-63, i.e., no shear specific section addressing in-plane shear. The general concept used here (that the concrete, under cer-tain conditions, can resist some shear, and the remainder must be carried by reinforcement) is the same as in ACI 318-63.
Concepts of in-plane shear and shear friction were not addressed in the old codes and therefore a check of old designs could show some significant decrease in overall pre-diction of structural integrity.
CC-3421.6 1707 Peripheral shear in the These equations reduce to region of concentrated forces normal to the shell when membrane surface stresses are zero, which compares to ACI 318-63, Sections 1707 (c) and (d) which address "punching" shear in slabs and footings with the factor taken care of in the basic shear equation (Section CC-3521.2.1, Eqn. 10).
Previous code logic did not address the problem of punching shear as related to diagonal tension, but control was on the average uniform shear stress on a critical section.
See case study 12 for details.
Page 762 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON CC-3421.7 921 Torsion New defined limit on shear stress due to pure torsion. The equation relates shear stress from a biaxial stress condition (plane stress) to the resulting principal tensile stress and sets the principal tensile stress equal to . Previous code superimposed only torsion and transverse shear stresses.
See case study 13 for details.
CC-3421.8 Bracket and corbels New provisions. No comparable section in ACI 318-63; therefore, any existing corbels or brackets may not meet these criteria and failure of such elements could be non-ductile type failure.
CC-3532.1.2 Where biaxial tension exists ACI 318-63 did not consider the problem of development length in biaxial tension fields.
CC-3900 Concrete containment* New design criteria. ACI 318-63 All sections did not contain design criteria for in this chap- loading such as impulse or missile ter impact. Therefore, no comparison is possible for this section.
Scale B CC-3320 Shells Added explicit design guidance for concrete reactor vessels not stated in the previous code.
Acceptance of elastic behavior as the basis for analysis is consistent with the logic of the older codes.
CC-3340 Penetrations and openings Added to ensure the consideration of special conditions particular to concrete reactor vessels and con-tainments.
These conditions would have been considered in design practice even though not specifically referred to in the old code.
Page 763 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Table CC- 1503(c) Containment-allowable ACI 318-63 allowable concrete 3421-1 stress for factored compres- compressive stress was 0.85 f c if sion loads an equivalent rectangular stress block was assumed; also ACI 318-63 made no distinction between primary and secondary stress.
ACI 318-63 used 0.003 in./in. as the maximum concrete compres-sive strain at ultimate strength.
CC-3421.4.1 1701 Containment and any section Modified and amplified from ACI carrying transverse shear 318-63, Section 1701.1.
- 1. factors removed from all equations and included in CC-3521.2.1, Eqn. 17.
- 2. Separation of equations applica-ble to sections under axial com-pression and axial tension. New equations added.
- 3. Equations applicable to cross sections with combined shear and bending modified for case where < 0.015.
- 4. Modification for low values of will not be a large reduction; therefore, change is not deemed to be major.
CC-3421.4.2 2610(b) Prestressed concrete sections ACI 318-63, Eqn. 26-13 is a straight line approximation of Eqn.
8 (the "exact" Mohr's circle solu-tion) with the prestress force shear component "V" added.
(Ref. ACI 426 R-74) ACI 318-63, Eqn. 26-12 modified to include members with axial load on the cross section and modified to reflect steel percentage. Remain-ing logic similar to ACI 318-63, Section 2610.
Both codes intend to control the principal tensile stress.
CC-3422.1 1508(b) Reinforcing steel ACI 318-63 allowed higher fy if full scale tests show adequate crack control.
Page 764 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON The requirement for tests where fy
> 60 ksi was used would provide adequate assurance, in old design, that crack control was maintained.
CC-3422.1 1503(d) All ordinary reinforcing ACI 318-63 allowed stress for load steel resisting purposes was fy. How-ever, a capacity reduction factor of 0.9 was used in flexure.
Therefore, allowable tensile stress due to flexure could be interpreted as limited to some percentage of fy less than 1.0 fy and greater than 0.9 fy.
Limiting the allowable tensile stress to 0.9 fy is in effect the same as applying a capacity reduction factor of 0.9 to the theoretical equation.
CC-3422.1 All ordinary reinforcing ACI 318-63 had no provision to steel cover limiting steel strains; there-fore, this section is completely new.
Traditional concrete design prac-tice has been directed at control of stresses and limiting steel percent-ages to control ductility.
The logic of providing a control of design parameters at the centroid of all the bars in layered bar arrange-ment is consistent with older codes and design practice.
CC-3422.2 1503(d) Stress on reinforcing bars ACI 318-63 allowed the compres-sive steel stress limit to be fy; how-ever, the capacity reduction factor for tied compression members was
= 0.70 and for spiral ties = 0.75, applied to the theoretical equation.
As this overall reduction for such members is so large, part of the reduction could be considered as reducing the allowable compres-sive stress to some level less than fy; therefore, the 0.9 fy limit here is consistent with and reasonably similar to the older code.
CC-3423 2608 Tendon system stresses ACI 318-63 Section 2608 is gener-ally less conservative.
Page 765 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON CC-3431.3 Shear, torsion, and bearing ACI 318-63 does not have a strictly comparable section; however, the 50% reduction of the ultimate strength requirements on shear and bearing stresses to get the working stress limits is identical to the ACI 318-63 logic and requirements.
Table Allowable stresses for ser- Allowable concrete compressive CC-3431-1 vice compression loads stresses are less conservative than or the same as the ACI 318-63 equivalent allowables.
CC-3432.2 1003(b) Reinforcing bar (compres- ACI 318-63 is slightly more con-sion) servative in using 0.4 fy up to a limit of 30 ksi. The upper limit is the same, since ACI 359-80 stipu-lates max fy = 60 ksi.
CC-3432.2 1004 Reinforcing bar (compres- Logic similar to older codes.
(b), (c) sion) Allowance of 1/3 overstress for short duration loading.
CC-3433 2606 Tendon system stress Limits here are essentially the same as in ACI 318-63 or slightly less conservative; ACI 318-63 limits effective prestress to 0.6 of the ulti-mate strength or 0.8 of the yield strength, whichever is smaller.
CC-3521 Reinforced concrete Membrane forces in both horizon-tal and vertical directions are taken by the reinforcing steel, since con-crete is not expected to take any tension. Tangential shear in the inclined direction is taken, up to Vc by the concrete, and the rest by the reinforcing steel. In all cases, the ACI concept of is incorpo-rated in the equation as 0.9. While not specifically indicating how to design for membrane stresses, ACI 318-63 indicated the basic prem-ises that tension forces are taken by reinforcing steel (and not concrete) and that concrete can take some shear, but any excess beyond a cer-tain limit must be taken by rein-forcing steel.
CC-3521.2.1 1701 Nominal shear stress Similar to ACI 318-63, with the exception of , which equals 0.85, being included in the Eqn. 17.
Page 766 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Placing in the stress formula, rather than in the formulae for shear reinforcement, provides the same end result.
CC-3532 Where bundled bars are used Bundled bars were not commonly used prior to 1963; therefore, no criteria were specified in ACI 318-63.
In more recent codes, identical requirements are specified for bun-dled bars.
CC-3532.1.2 918(c) Where tensile steel is termi- Similar to older code, but maxi-nated in tension zones mum shear allowed at cutoff point increased to 2/3, as compared to 1/
2 in ACI 318-63, over that nor-mally permitted. Slightly less con-servative than ACI 318-63. This is not considered critical since good design practice has always avoided bar cutoff in tension zones.
CC-3532.1.2 1801 Where bars carrying stress Development lengths derived from are to be terminated the basic concept of ACI 318-63 where:
bond strength = tensile strength If then With = 0.85 No change in basic philosophy for
- 11 and smaller bars.
CC-3532.3 919(h) Hooked bars Change in format. New values are 801 similar for small bars and more conservative for large bars and higher yield strength bars. Not con-sidered critical since prior to 1963 the use of fy > 40 ksi steel was not common.
Page 767 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON CC-3533 919 Shear reinforcement Essentially the same concepts.
Bend of 135 now permitted (ver-sus 80 formerly) and two-piece stirrups now permitted. These are not considered as sacrificing strength. Other items here are iden-tical.
CC-3534.1 Bundled bars - any location Provisions for bundled bars were not considered in ACI 318-63.
Bundled bars were not commonly used before the early 1960s. Later codes provide identical provisions.
CC-3536 Curved reinforcement Early codes did not provide detailed information, but good design practice would consider such conditions.
CC-3543 2614 Tendon and anchor rein- Similar to concepts in ACI 318-63, forcement Section 2614 but new statement is more specific.
Basic requirements are not changed.
CC-3550 Structures integral with con- Statement here is specific to con-tainment crete reactor vessels.
The logic of this guideline is con-sistent with the design logic used for all indeterminate structures.
ACI 318-63 did not specifically state any guideline in this regard.
CC-3560 Foundation requirements There is no comparable section in ACI 318-63.
These items were assumed to be controlled by the appropriate gen-eral building code of which ACI 318-63 was to be a referenced inclusion. All items are considered to be part of common building design practice.
Scale C CC-3421.9 2306 (f) Bearing ACI 318-63 is more conservative, and (g) allowing a stress of 1.9 (0.25 f c) =
0.475 f c < 0.6 f c CC-3431.2 2605 Concrete (allowable stress in Identical to ACI 318-63 logic.
concrete)
Page 768 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019
GINNA/UFSAR Appendix 3F
SUMMARY
OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN CODE COMPARISON Appendix II Concrete reactor vessels ACI 318-63 did not contain any criteria for compressive strength modification for multiaxial stress conditions. Therefore, no compari-son is possible for Section II-1100.
Because of this, ACI 318-63 was more conservative by ignoring the strength increase which accompa-nies triaxial stress conditions.
This section probably does not apply to concrete containment structures.
CC-3531 All Rather conservative for service loads. Using of 0.9 for flexure, for ACI 318-63. By using the value of 2.0, the upper limit of the ratio of factored to service loads is employed.
- Special treatment of load and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.
Page 769 of 769 Revision 28 5/2019