ML19247B160

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Responses Prepared by Bechtel Power Corp to Addl 14 of 50 Questions,Re .Submits Info Re Connection Interfaces of Addl Walls to Existing Structures.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML19247B160
Person / Time
Site: Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date: 06/29/1979
From: Rachel Johnson
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To: Schwencer A
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7908080067
Download: ML19247B160 (60)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:l' ? R A k i, a gED 0 W# 3 9e ; )- a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA { $# cgm / E I' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION / goWpth c3 h BEFCRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N In the Matter of ) ) Docket 50-344 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) et al ) (Control Building Proceeding) ) (Trojan Nuclear Plant) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 29, 1979, Licensee's letter to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation dated June 29, 1979 and an attachment entitled " Request for Additional Information, Trojan Nuclear Plant, Proposed Control Building Design", have been served upon the persons listed below by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail with proper postage affixed for first class mail. Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Joseph R. Gray, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Counsel for NRC Staf f U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comaission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingcon, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Division of Engineering, Toll Architecture and Technology 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Oklahoma State University Suite 1214 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Washington, D. C. 20036 Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Richard M. Sandvik, Esq. 1229 - 41st Street Assistant Attorney General Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 State of Oregon De partment of Justice Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 500 Pacific Building Panel 520 S. W. Yamhill U.

3. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portland, Oregon 97204 Washington, D. C.

20555 William Kinsey, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bonneville Poter Administration Panel P. O. Box 3621 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portland, Oregon 97208 Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary f 1 '/ m JV' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 nososoo67

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ms. Nina Bell Mr. Eugene Rosolie 728 S. E. 26th Avenue Coalition for Saf a Power Portland, Oregon 97214 215 S. E. 9th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97214 Mr. John A. Kul.lberg Route 1, Box 250Q Columbia County Courthouse Sauvie Island, Oregon 97231 Law Library Circuit Court Room Mr. David B. "aCoy St. Helens, Oregon 97051 348 Hussey Lane Grants Pass, Ortoon 97526 Ms. C. Gail Parson P. O. Box 2992 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 lC r Ronald W. J nson Corporate -t'torney Portland General ulectric Company Dated: Ju..e 29, 1979 j } j'

ua 4sb66.27B8

.,p =-, um 3' 2 u.2ca!crd Ger.ercl E:eddc Ccn;cr.y

l M Es June 29, 1979 Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 License NPF-1 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ATTN:

Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton, D. C. 20555

Dear Sir:

Enclosed are responses prepared by Bechtel Power Corporation to an additional 14 of the 50 questions submitted in your letter of May 10, 1979. In accordance with our discussion wit'i your staf f, we expect to transmit responses to the rer.aining questions by July 6. Sincerely, R. W. Johnson / Corporate Attorney Portitud General Electric Company RWJ/4sb5B16 Enclosure \\t G 3m

t 0, 3. Page 1 of 4 pages Provide clear, detailed sketches and descriptions of the con-nection interfaces of the additional walls to the existing structure. Additionally, describe the methods by which the effects of concrete creep and shrinkage (causing tension in the walls and/or a reduction in assumed dead weight) have been factored into.he design of these additional walls. Describe and Justify in detail the design and the procedures for the connections of the new valls to the existing structure. Answer: Detailed sketches of the connection interf aces between the new walls and the existing structure are attached. The final design may require sora minor revisions tu the actual sizes and spacings of the robar and studs. The sketches show repre-sentative connection details that will be used. The connec-tion interfaces are discussed below. Typically, where steel beams occur at a horizontal interface, studs are used to transfer shear forces and vertical rebars are used to transfer tension forces. At horizontal interfaces where steel beams do not exist, vertical rebars make the connection. In some cases friction type A-490 bolts are also used in the connections between th-new walls and the existing concrete. C \\! a b L.

O. 3. Page 2 of 4 pages The typical treatment for vertical interfaces is to expose the columns and weld studs c. o them. New rebars are spliced with the exposed horizontal existing rebars by cadwelding. Drilled and grouted horizontal rebars are also used to make the connections. The effects of the concrete creep and shrinkage have been considered in the design of the new walls. Creep is a gradual increase in strain with time when concrete is under sustained stress. The nature of the new walls for the mocifications of the Complex is such that, except for their own weight, they will be under stress only during a seismic occurrence, which is of short duration. Therefore, the creep effect on these walls is not considered to be significant. The shear strength provided by the concrete, V is calculated c, in accordance with equations (11-33) and (11-34) of ACI 318-77, where N represents the tension due to shrinkage. Also in the g same equations the beneficial effect of the dead weight of the new walls and the walls above them is neglected, resulting in a lower value of Vc' The design for *.he connections of the new walls to the exist-ing structure is in accordance with ACI 318-77. The tension connection provided by the rebars is calculated by the strength design method. i r, 3<i0 b0l

O. 3. Pege 3 of 4 pages The shear connections are designed by one of the following means: 1) Shear studs welded on to the structural steel members transmit shears between concrete and steel, The design value for the studs is considered to be one-half the value given in Table 15 of the !blson Division of TRW Inc. publication, " Des ign Da t a 16 - Embedment Properties.7f Headed Studs." (The design value of the shear studs is further elaborated in the answer to question No. 7), ii) ASTM A-490 f riction type bolts transfer shear from structural steel members to concrete, or from an exist-ing wall to a new wall. They have _ne capacity of transmitting 52.5 kips of shear per bolt. (This value is furtner elaborated in the answer to question No. 6). iii) The design of the vertical shear transfer mechanism between the existing wall and the new wall poured against it is based on the provisions of ACI 318-77. bd2 l l

O. 3. Page 4 of 4 pages The procedures to be followed in the construction of the con-nections are: a. Surface preparation of the existing concrete will be in accordance with paragraph 11.7.9 of ACI 318-77 and paragraph 6.4.1 of ACI 349-76. b. Surfaces of the steel to receive studs will be cleaned and studs will be ;elded in accordance with the stud manufacturer's recommendations, c. Reinforcing bar splices will be in accordance with Sections 12.15 and 12.16 of ACI 318-77. The splices will also comply with the requirements of Sections '.S and 7.6 of ACI 349-76, excepc as noted in Response to Question No. 4. Mechanical connections will be made by the CADWELD method. d. All work will be performed in accordance with the specifi-cations listed in Paragraph 3.2.2.4 of pGE-1020. All of the work, including the above procedures, will be per-formed in accordance with the applicable Codes and Standards and with conventional construction methods. s - la C i o - c.

I 4/) J t exis r "c e u a c., x l I r~2- # 6 % /Gr24' l~~ a,o r. f m-l TAP s w A'-

  1. ,,YK O Y 677-@S 3 l

~ ~ ~ - - REPtACE Eg /$~J" /I 'l 'a f. r.hl,- l 8 8Y 4 *9 4.y- ^L ^- / 'r ** m (rre ~ vezr eeeses ,1 / ,i y a R 1 i caowao exisr \\

  1. 6 G 24 TO NEkl N

d l l D

  • 7 's.

9 4s= r_, I a 4 s' i n '\\

9 n@

s -c y,' s i e. .J s <;, \\!/ - \\ A

  1. 9 I'0', min

@g-- ~ ~ I i ~ I i i DETAIL AT COL.UMN L/AES 2 AA/O 4n 8E / WEEA./ EL cid' 4ND EL & 5: 0 Figure 3-1

I 4I T., i i exisr 2-% e 24 i . -f 4 1, / 2-5 S 24', O C. ~' n r. t / s/ MY. ,: 4 'r}., g' 2 & P L A C 6 E Y./6 f V E 2 f l /l 2E8A2 BY 2 # 9- ^ 2EPLACE E4tSim YEllT 25bn26l l l', / ,5 g _/ 6 @ 24' 70 net f UDwno als7 a 5Y d 09 l t , =L..... = 7fQ%' ' I / \\b k', / j g ~ .e:hb.. g*4 O! ,- EXIS" "Ge 1N Ys U L s I -i X n i L\\ 'i j j 'n s.i i 1. I i cAowE( O EX/Sr ( j f s

  • SG 24' TC NGw"5h,y

%Q ( /- \\ ] ',,' / \\ q ' = = '. = ll L*l [I r] 3 y ,,, j,, t R dj _~ // 'n l f -w ] V / /. ).' /. /, n ,f 's d d M t i J i' -J \\' 6 /b l / = = o_ I ,1 %'hoW sruas \\i L 3 O. LAP

  1. ]

\\ ) ..._ G G"*, T Y P. I Nl L s DETA/L AT cot UMAl L/A/E5 @ AND '4/ 827WEEh/ EL c;;5:O' AkJD El 77'd Figure 3-2

y EX/Sr 2 *G G 48 ' /r /' !/ ! '/ ;j/ /,d// /' / //V "9 ~_. / d 1 7e /00'6 s s l-l. e =.- j i

  1. 9 i

Y p s 4 @l - s u v 5_-- 4 z--. V / / / ,' / \\ e o e e o p e - '/ i / l W / v / / i t 0; *r e og {.. s.g-- / ] f __ ! _/ T/ / / 1 l l// V "$ sha. STUDS G 6,ITYP -' jlog \\ ,I././, 8 y,g a, _,g e @ csDwEl D / L

  1. 11 x 9 O' l

70 EXIST RE/NP. ,$ g Gx/5r,5@2 a i ~

mo "or "

( gu. i ,j k-DETA /L AT COLUMAI l WES @ A A]O @ - bETWEEhl El 15;O'uto EL 6510 Figure 3-3

l L B O' EMBEDMENT (62C0T IN PL/M2)! I ' / / 7',/ / / / / i,./ t'/', ~ /// / /{ ,4. ' ( D ' [ ~///!^y a / /_ f v r k 's e e t. i ; ' ', i s t i.i 4 U 4j ,6 7 g - - s. - - ~ ~, -_q s f^ j g 'u_L~ i I i \\ s o e g = .7 y l /,./ / I '7 L ' '7&t4's6 O'\\ ^ " S G t2"x GL ' l O g SgTgE'.sruosJ 2L s" e 6 *, YYP. L-y DETAIL ATCOLUMel Lik/ES @ AND 46 8ETWE&l El 65!O'4 AfD EL 77'0" Figure 3-4

e l. i.s ,9 R f e 8'x 7LO' 47 ^T' ' y/ / 4 e e ) //// u //// 8 / 'a $ /,/ h $'/ / /v/ l-a '5' o j u e e 3 ('I'*=' Vg"$x 8 /j( S rubs ' ^' W W ,i i j/l I .=; s- "50 ro uarcu - . i i i venr. RE/HF. \\ \\ { 1 I + .f ![.[-$*.'.'v"f "f, s'" T .,, g ^ NON-Sh AINK GRour ~ V'g/ G Yg' sruDs -

  • II 2

e e ' /

  • 9

[ *9 >.~ g. f_ FK/C T/CN TYPE BOLTS NOT SHOWN SEC T/ON A7' LINE @) EL.G5'-O" Figure 3-5

l i. /g /' n / '. o '. l !. _ * * ,/ f '. '~. +y d/ 'x. x / / / : / / m l EL.77 O' / a . t.

  • 7gi2%7W m

~'.. N. NON-SHRINK Gl'Ou1~ -.(Yg 'p% h, k s oeiz h S ws, ew sruos a= 3 o= 2 1 Q-o e / // // // / G C / / f /

  1. 9-N f

b I y An / s r i FRIC7~/CN TYPE BOL 7~6 Nor SHOWN S EC TION A T L/AIE' @ El.. 1 77 0" Ficu"o

"7 G /2

  • s 7 ' 0 "

l / 4, ~, g,/// 1 f/' /- / o f(/ / \\- ~ -c y / / ~' ~ y / Q / 2 -./ . /. N o -o en ' .= // ', 3t f lG/' M EL / ll-/ l q ,-P. .',s>' s .o o 6 O, g Y i Q h NON-SHRINK ~ l 5 \\ GRour i A d 5 Q e I2' / i A x N a i L-%"px8%,sn ~4 " il I ~ I 4 W J / ><7 ,/ e s t Y a., -i '93 m // /p/ ~ i 3 FKlC TION TYPE BOLT 5 Nor SHOWN L 6EC TION A T LINE (R) EL GI O" Figure 3-7

'I- ! l F ?! I'{ 'l

.'h >

_,,n

. j,. *.

EX167~ W/4x17G l ' 9 '5 S ~ STuos oVx 8h'($/G"CC.- e,43 3 _1 ',o .J G )f Y-V^ [j 'n 4;. \\ p r /) 'mi \\ ( 'a,- ,e

  1. ,$ U c /7
t. 4 $* I 2

1 en S 4 h REPLf?CE EK167 \\ "Y'Ss" N9l '43 ygg7 SLcc L -YB /C' STUDS ! aeme sys,g N d x ed"0c,m u"a L*h[ : _ _t (. 1 CAD WEf.0 " 7 @ h4 " C40 WELD

  • 7@ 24'
    I d \\

RETAth/ ExST *!W N E $, \\ %

2. "5 '

\\ e za" M s N

N EXIS 7" "G G 24' EXIST "d @ 24' 1q..

iuv s ,m DE7A/L AT COLUMM LiuE5 (U) AMD @) SE TWEEM El 53 'O"AMO EL &5 '0" Figure 3-8

sv .c,' t. c. i 'l L G G' { CACMCLO # SG 24" 4 9 3 7 @ /5 "-. p#7 TO EXIS77N6 f!E SA 2 S ll '\\ q l >s.

g.'

y

  • )
  • \\

%( ^ L i 2

0

/ ,/ /,/ / _/ N j %( R 1 f,/ /,/ yff '//f] UN,' l / ,/ / ' / //,/,4 f 2o0 ' g ' '^ i I 1 ^. ... ',, / / // / /,k / v 1 -9 9. yg*psoissruos,.//,i y ( L y 'p;n { y

  1. 7g 12',

3, e a' o c, rre ';)t 1 oowets 3 / ~, k ( (' / \\ \\ /~ EXIS TING .l ^ ') / /. se er %iJ / / , / / ~

f/

/ _ 3 3 .!'t L. DETA/L A T COL UMAl L/k/ES Al A hlD @ 8ETWEEM El 65 'O' A AID El 77 'O" Figure 3-9

' It, :f: a !! EK/W Wl4x $% W/ QOc f<6'" COVER Pl. A TES 49G/fi;

  • ll@ 12Ex(S7~,

- s9 CAO W&l O 3G N E lg j% 7fg" ~ TO 24!$7/.% .REjBARS II , 1 _/ I i \\* f \\ _..m

-. c, i,

\\ ' TY: ,I

1. \\f l
a..

1 f IC 4 s w; a \\ ~

  • E 8 CAD WEl.Df

.t " - ^ ' ' / 3 ] /) \\ 4 '2' h ~ '. u ij s ,"'? / C ! l ' conc reuc rtoAt )g

/ E',$

Ase x\\ l "' T 2: --, 7_--? M T m < x x 4 i 4l'x7h" l < i' '., Exist "Se24' / N i-I Vg"px8 sc"5ruuS l q 4 O.c., rYP.

  • 5/

\\G y ,gg e g 2 '- 10 " \\ l ~' 2 ' 70 EXISTIN V \\ ~ CESA RS l {_ ) ) I g !_. u t DETAIL 4 T COL UMM L/AMS @ AMD (lO') 8E TWEEM El 45 L6 4 h/D El. 53 'O' Figure 3-10

4 46 5/g'px8'd 57uoS e n ' o. c., rYP. ggo gyggygy7 ~ (TYP) s L

  • 5 g G x S 4" 0.C.\\

~* \\RK mecarin pace l} N i '.

  1. 9

\\ 'y l x '4. i g %l ~~~ - t a / h4 i t t 2 g y --- f,W( t ~, e.. -, / k, l \\ l /,.%1 / Al l /> // r c. M _8 M T}t. N 'N

  • e o xs yx 4.

i ' } ~J s u i f J unvew a wemo a asto" Figure 3-11

.Vw -m vwe's sruos .s. o N,x sx' e e ' O.c. s, d5g 4 's. S '-a' \\., '.['y N., ' (' /-8'EMBEDMEM =

  1. 7-

\\ N '\\ '(' s \\ \\ 's s .k \\.m, e, < 1 !. t, - - _ _; ?_ L..f, l \\ L-- a;b <o 4.p* *./< i 7 r l l _/ i i f L J /, e- ^ -/, ,/ s' -! i { ',4 .: y'.3 / / / .i ,/. ' /, ', i Ty 's ~, > w. DE7%/L ATCOLUMM UA/ES Q /4L/D 1 8E 7~WEEA/ El G S D' AhlO EL 77 0" Figure 3-12

N

  1. 79 B's 7-O" A

l, /A / u >/ o 3 // / } l /V,/,/ N / 3 0 L EL.. & 5 O %, /1/,/ z *s 7.,. p a ye / h -- lS l 65 0 TO MA 7 / 'f V6 47' RE/Nf-s. ~.w.. j i I r, ~ 3 ( \\ c t s. ' Q J ' a , ' ^ 5*~' 'f N @4 0.C. fb StuCS / / Y"h.*heSTUD5 2

  • 9
  1. C)

,~ Y- ^ , _, - g S EC TIO Al AT L /NE @ a.G5 c" Figure 3-13

~ /p / ,/ q- / a ~ j / / / // ::: ll/ 'mE / , h. 5: / h. ~ ~ / / R u~- / l t 1

  • ~

EL. 77 0

  • lM

\\ C' ~ / / t b. "., - l.,. ( _,,, : _. y j " reiz, dc . o T

mL

,N@V-SHR/NK GL 3*9 Vs"$18NG S1 [*5 0 TO MA ~. -.Nl \\ / _f ", b,- VERR. REINF .f ~ x - y .. ~ lV/$ A 490 w M/CTION TYPE EOLTS 'l l // 1 / 3 0 / ,n h ' , ft l

  1. c)

/.A eq S E'C T/ON A T L/NE @ EL. 7'7' O Figure 3-14

41 i } t t ja' MAX. j, \\ ~ N 5/g"p r8$c"sruus \\ t'sawcur n % /(OMIT BELONe G"o.c.; rya y R ?. 'i,. > R / 1- / u sa ' o') /~g9 7 (rYPICAL) r f5e 24'x 2' to LMG i RT v S$5 A!OT& #5) 0 O' (R E P L A C E 2 4 f.S 7" n N9 i'u ~ V&2T Re&A2 JW N f Sy' 4 *9 l a 1 ,u Q [ s 4 V ns 7 EdM[IVMx/42 d f 4y

{

i n M U t .. = U 49 ~ I n K n 4' J .'g y's. j I EXIST

  • 4 e 24 - N

~ \\ \\ \\ tuconc N /. \\\\ CADWELO \\ h

-l D

7 G 2 4" .J d s EXIST. 'G e 24, \\ - p ~'NN '\\ PROVIDE l, 2'/g N \\ N N N VERYlCALLY SLOTTED N1 Q-HOLE F*OR RESAR .N s "W 4, p ,#1 .I \\ l DETA!L. ATCOLUVlhl L/^/ES & J HO @ 8ETWEEU EL 45'O" AND EL & 510" Figure 3-15

i l'SA WCy7" \\ ~~ (TYP. ) n ,w i l G ' 10" tap i 'N j,d9- \\ W/ST W/4 x 16' ___ l ! - 1 f; R l ~ 4 #+ ## ?'$(- x. ( !\\ M ^ co-s i l i i z. i 4 l l x , ob .l l s l hl ^ M,, ~ ,N l ' Q,$/l + ? l u \\ \\ g g k i'/41 '\\ s 4 7f:.h 4 av \\ Gk'OUT L! n4 N L' 9 -l %'6 x 8$'srooS \\, M ce) ~ \\ _G G"o.c.,7ye (7D EL G.5 ' G) 6 '- to" y ly sm OEML AT COLUMh/ UUE5 @ mg @ BETWEEM EL 45 LO' AAfD EL G5 La" Figure 3-16

^ n$ I o 9 ~ .C l' C m W Ng 4 W gI i m 4'5' r-f'i 5 '$ TOPP/N6 ~ a = (24/677NC7 s i 1P

  1. , w.f

...Nl' f 9 rlt s-I 'P28CA ~ S T: b....- b s 3

r-1 e

e a NOFJ-6HRINK GRour~ = .4 "Y @ /f Th4U DE/ [ 8 V,- 'Es b HOL.66 /*Y SL. A o l I 49G12 EF;&W g 4 4 3, ; .m SECTIOAl. A T LiuE. @ EL 65'0" Figure 3-17

Q. 11. (a) Page 1 of 6 pages Provide the shear capacities of the column connections vs. the required shear resistance under the combined loadings to support your claim in Section 3.4.2.2 that the derived flex-ural capacities of the Trojan walls are conservative in that the building walls will not slide. Answer: Section 8 of the report " Trojan Control Building Supplemen-tal Structural Evaluation", September 19, 1978, describes the mechanism by which the shear forces carried by the walls of the Complex are transferred to the rock foundation. Resist-ance to sliding is provided by friction at the grade beams to rock interface as well as friction between the steel columns and the concrete spread footings. Table 8-1 of the above-referenced report lists the sliding resistances and the base shear forces and the f actor of safety against sliding for each major wall of the unmodified structure. The modifications will not significantly change the total base shear forces. Furthermore, the new walls will provide additional sliding resistance and hence factors of safety will be further increased. Calculations are also made to obtain the sliding resistance as provided by the steel columns and the shear friction 1 'U t

O. 11. (a) Page 2 of 6 pages developed by the continuous vertical reinforcing steel cros-sing the wall-slab interface at each floor level together with the dead load. These two individual resistance mechanisms are calculated as follows: 1. Column Resistance The shear resistance provided by steel columns is given by: Vi=A c v f where: Ac = cross-sectional area of steel columns (inches 2); typically one end column and 50% area of other end column is neglected. f = yield shear stress (ksi) y The value of f is taken as (1/3)0.5f where for f = 36 ksi, y y y f = 20.78 ksi. y The shear resistance of a steel column is checked against the bearing in core concrete. Concrete bearing stress is assumed to vary linearly from 0 to 0.85fc' ver a height equal to twice the depth.of the column. The lesser of the column resistance and concrete bearing governs. .) iQQ -s

Q. 11. (a) Page 3 of 6 pages 2. Shear _ Friction _by Vertical Reinforcing Steel Shear friction at the wall-slab interface as provided by the mechanism of shear friction is taken ast V2 f (As y + N) where u apparent coef ficient of friction = 1.4 = (See response to Question No. 16) A = area of vertical reinforcing steel (inches 2) 3 f = yield stress of rebar = 40 ksi y N = direct dead load on wall reduced for the effect of vertical earthquake (kips) The ultimate shear resistance against sliding at wall-slab interface is V=V1+V2 For the unfactored OBE condition the sliding resistance is obtained by multiplying V by the capacity reduction factor of 0.85 and dividing by the load factor of 1.4. ', 1 0 Jw s

Q. 11. (a) Page 4 of 6 pages Analysis of Test Result The above criteria for sliding resistance is applied to the data obtained from testing the specimen L2, described in Appendix A of PGE-1020. Test parameters: 2x4- #4 bars = 1.60 in2 A = 3 31.4 psi ; N= 31.4 x 17.25 x 80 = 43.33 kips = on 2 nos. W 10 x 25 columns A = c =2 x 7 30 = 14.72 inn t = 51.8 koi (See table A3-3 of Appendix A, PGE-1020) y Vy = 14.72 x 20.78 = 305.9 kips V2 = 1.4(1.60 x 51.8 + 43.33) = 176.7 kips 11 m , [_ _ 'N \\ t

Q. 11. (a) Page 5 of 6 pages V=Vi+V2 = 482.6 kips Shear resistance = 482.6 x 1000 17.25 x 80 = 350 psi The specimen did not fail in sliding. The failure shear stress was 367 psi which shows that the analytically obtained results provide for a realistic assessment of the resistance against sliding. Table 11-1 shows the calculated resistances and also the OBE shear forces at various floor levels in the west wall along column line R of the control building. The factor of safety against sliding is also presented. Similar results are ob-tained for other walls of the Complex. The results of the analysis, therefore, confirm that an adequate amount of sliding resistance exists both at the foundation level and also at all wall-clab interfaces so that the walls will develop their flexural capacities as described in Section 3.4.2.2 of PGE-1020. O 'I) r

(a) page 6 of <,Foges SLIDING RESISTNJCE MJD SliEAR ft]RCES IN KIIS IrN L AIffC COInti LINE R Ibsistance against sliding-ultirate WE Bt-sistance Shear Ebrees

  • Factor of Elevation Safety Shear Steel

'Ibtal = V Vg = 0.85V E = 0.15 ; s= 2% 9 Friction Colm m 1.4 45' 6480 2730 9210 5590 2140 2.61 61' 4050 2730 6780 4120 2650 1.55 77' 3840 2060 5920 3590 2480 1.45 93* 4390 2080 6470 3930 2260 1.74

  • Results of latest STARDYNE run - to le included in the forthcanity revision of PCE-1020 TOTE: 'Ihe table above dces not incitrie elevation 117' since slidirn does not occur at that level; the shear transfer nechanism between the slab and the wall, however, has toen investigatni and found to be adeqmte.

TABTI 11-1

c. 11.

(b) Page 1 of 2 pages Additionally, for all walls discuss the causes of (e.g. shrinkage) and the effects of the observed separation be-tween the bottem of the steel beams and the concrete along the west wall of the Control Building and limitations on the rotational restraint of the in-situ wall on the appropriate-ness of using the double curvature specimen test results. Answer: A detailed survey of the shear walls of the Control Building has been made to determine the locations and extent of any separation between the steel beams and the composite walls. The only place where such a separation was observed is on the west wall along column line R between column lines 41 and 46 and below the tottom flange of the steel beam supporting the floor slab at elevation 77 f t. The wall at this location is ccmposed of two wythes of grouted reinforced masonry blocks without any core concrete. At other locations in the west wall and in all the other n.agor walls of the Control Building at least a portion of the masonrv, and in some instances the core concrete, continues beyond the floor steel beams. But in this particular location of the west wall the outside wythe stops Just below the steel beam flange. Concrete was poured from the inside face of the wall to fill in the space between the top of the inside wythe of masonry and the bottom of the floor slab. It was expected that the concrete would m, ' a ]

c. 11.

(b) Page 2 of 2 pages flow to the outside face of the wall thus filling in the in-terspace between the bottom of the beam and top of the out-wythe. Thic did not happen throughout the length of the panel and some amount of gap, especially in the center portion of the panel, remained open. Physical examination shows thrt that the gap extends to a depth of about 8 inches, which is the thickness of the outside wythe. There is no visual crack or gap on the inside face c' the wall at the beam location. It is therefore concluded taat the unique geoc etry and cons-truction adopted to build this portion of the wall is the reason for the separation between the bottom tlange of the beam and top of the outside wythe. Shrinkage is thus not the cause of the separation, otherwise, not only the inside face of this particular portion of the west wall but the other walls would have exhibited separations of similar nature. Limitations on the rotational restraint of the in-situ wall the appropriateness of using the double curvature spe-o r. cimen test results are discussed in Cuestion 43. r \\ ') ")" JJL v

Q. 11. (c) Significant separation of the concrete away from the beams or tension induced in the walls where there is no separation could impact the consideration of the " box effect" or confine-ment as suggested by PCE-1020 thereby reducing the shear capacity assumed f or the wall. Quantify the extent of and effects of this unbonded conoition for all walls. Answer: The separation between the beam flanges and the wall panels is addressed in response to Question Fo. 11 (b). The " Lox effect," as it exists in the Complex, enables the side walls to act as webs while the cross walls participate in providing the flange action when the Complex is sub ected to an over-3 turning mcment due to lateral load. The " box effect" is realized when the n.echanism exists to transfer the vertical shear forces from the side to the cross walls at their coran.on interfaces. This capability of shear transfer has been anal-yzed and found to be adequate as explained in response to Question No. 16. i '. g

O. 11. (d) Also, in addition to considering the concrete strength of 5000 psi, discuss the effects of the interfaces with 3000 psi cesign strength concrete. Answer: The existing shear wall core concrete and -he concrete block wall cell fill grout are 5,000 psi design n.ixes. In many areas, the concrete slabs are a 3,000 psi design mix. The mechanism of shear transfer at the floor levels is described in response to Question No.11 (a). The portion of the shear force which is transferred at the wall - slab interface is cbtained frem the shear-friction of the fully embedded vert-ical reinforcing steel and the direct dead load stress. Because the " coefficient of friction" along the joint is independent of the concrete strength, sc also is the shearing strength, provided the shearing stresses do not exceed some limiting value. This limiting shearing stress, as suggested by Mattock, Jchal and Chow in " Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete with Moment or Tension Acting Across the Shear Plane," PCI Journal / July-August 1975, can be taken as 0.2f c which for 3,000 psi slab concrete is 600 psi. The ultimate shearing stress used in the analysis of the Complex shear walls is well below this limit. a .w

t

o. 14.

Page 1 of 2 pages Discuss in detail why the dead load.eting for the SSE is gteater than that acting for the OBE, thereby resulting in greater shear capacities for the SSE than considered for the OBE. Answer: Due to the construction sec, of the Complex, the dead Iced carried by the steel frame under static conditions con-sists of its own weight and the reinforced concrete floor slabs. The walls carry their own weight. During an earthquake event, however, when the structure undergoes any lateral deformation, the axially stiff steel column will tend to deform less than the adjacent wall panel in the vertical direction. The displacement compatibility between the encased stecl frame and the concrete walls causes redistribution of axial loads in these elements. The tension side of the wall will pick up additional vertical load thus unloading the preccmpressed column. The actual vibratory motion during the SSE will be more severe than the OBE. The lateral deformation for the SSE is greater than for the OBE. Therefore the precompressed columns will be unloaded more during the SSE than the r. 3 j b L. L- ~5

Q. 14. Page 2 of 2 pages OBE, thus resulting in a greater increase in the SSE dead load ora the wall panel. For the purpose of determining the capacities of the existing wal'? of the modified Complex, however, the increase in the dead load has been conserva-tively neglected for the OBE. Ao indicated in PGE-1020, the CBE controls the design of the modified Complex and only the direct dead load is used for capacity determination. ' 0 ~i C ') =-

O. 19. (a) Page 1 of 2 pages Provide the basis for your claim that, in lieu of the test program results, there are no UBC requirements addressing the type of walls in the Trojan Complex since Sec. 2417 of UBC-1963 specifies that for combinations of units, materials, or mortars, the maximum stress shall not exceed that permit-ted for the weakest of these. Answer: The ma]or shear walls of the Complex are constructed of high strength concrete core, bota reinforced and unreinforced, (nonmasonry units) sandwiched between two wythes of rein-forced grou"2d concrete blocks (masonry units). The Uniform Building Code, Chapter 24, is devoted solely to masonry con-struction that employs the units, materials and mortars specified in Section 2403. Section 2403 does not include the concrete core which is covered in a different chapter of the UBC. Section 2417(a) places allowable limits on design and construction that uses a combination of the masonry units, materials and mortars specified in Section 2403. How-ever, when the combination includes a non-masonry element such as the concrete core in the Complex walls then the allow-able stresses of Section 2417 (applicable solely to masonry) no longer apply. Thus the the major shear walls of the Complex are not addressed by Section 2417. J k

Q. 19 (a) Page 2 of 2 pages Cince the PSAR did not specifically address the composite shear wall construction of the type used in the Complex, it is understandab? that ambiguities could have arisen as to the intent of the reference in the FSAR as to the UBC. Section 3.8.1.5. indicates that " concrete block walls" in Category I structures are designed to the UBC requirements for masonry; and such requirements were in fact observed *or those walls constructed solely of masonry. However, there was no intent to apply those requirements to the composite masonry-concrete wall construction of the type used in the Complex; and, as discussed above, those requirements would not be applicable to such construction. j ;, c _l i

O. 19. (b) Page 1 of 2 pages Provide the basis for your statement that the UBC did not envision the use of a model such as SD4RDYNE, therefore, higher allowables are appropriate. UBC Section 2417 merely states that forces be determined from the principles of con-tinuity and relative rigidity, which is what SZ4RDYNE does. Answer: The Trojan FSAR went beyond the minimal requirements of the UBC by calling for response spectrum analysis to determine the dynamic loads for Category I structures. As discussed in Section 3.6.3 of PGE-1020, the original evaluation of the Complex was done by performing a response spectrum analysis on beam-stick mathematical model which, was an adequate approxi-mate representation of the physical structure. In the re-evaluation study, the detailed three dimensional finite element modeling of the Complex was a more accurate representation of the structural system, and therefore the STARDYNE response spectrum analysis on this model more accurately determined the dynamic response of the Complex. The Uniform Building Code, along with several other codes, while maintaining that the forces in the structural elements be determined from the principles of continuity and relative rigidity, does not specifically call for applying techniques as sophisticated as an extensive finito element analysis. A simpler static analysis based on relative rigidities of the ,.n ~ b d u) /_' I d S

g. 19.

(b) Page 2 of 2 pages participating structural elements is adequate to satisfy the code requirement. However the STARDYNE analysis, which is a rigorous finite element analysis, takes into consideration not only the rigidities of the structural elements for combi-nations of their deforcation modes, but also provides a tool for evaluating structural discontinuities and their effect on the system behavior. This kind of analysis, theretore, provides far better knowledge and consequently a higher level of confidence by eliminating analytical uncertainties that cay be present in a relatively simpler analysis. PGE-1020 did not state that higher allowables are appropriate in light of SIARDYNE. Section 3.6.3 indicated that, on the basis of the fact that such an improved analysis was per-formed and the better understanding it provided of the Complex, the need for design margin was reduced. However, in PGE-1020 credit is not taken for this additional conservatism. n1. L

O. 25. In Section 4.2.3, ref erence is maa? to the tensioning of bolts after concrete has attained ".tdequate strength." Define " adequate strength" and describe how it will be determined. Answer: Adequate strength is defined in this context as the design strength of the new concrete. Determination of when the con-crete has attainod this strength will be made with cylinder tests conducted in accordance with ACI standards. The bolts attaching the plate to the wall will not be fully tensioned until development of the design strength has been demonstra-ted. Prior to this time, the bolts will be made snug to remove any play between the plate and the wall. F : ') ^/ I$ 'l sou

Q. 26. Verify that the static and dynamic effects of the rigging and the steel plate on the Turbine Building above elevation 93 feet have been considered. Answer: The structural elements that will be af fected b:: rigging the steel plate on the Turbine Building above elevation 93' are the floor steel beams at elevation 93' and the crane girder at elevation 130'-11" to which the chain hoists will be attacheo for handling the plate. An analysis of these elements has shown that the static and dynamic loads that will be imposed on them during the handling of the steel plate result in stresses below AISO code allowed values. The eccentric loading on the crare girder has been considered in the investigation. -l L. I

Q. 27. What strength concrete was used to model the new walls in the St\\RDYNE Analysis of the modified complex? In Section 3,2.5 a concrete strength of f'c = 5000 psi at 90 days is specified for the new walls. Will the qualification of the modified complex be affected while this strength is being developed after concrete placement considering both in plane and out of plane wall loadings? Provide the basis for your response. Answer: The capacity of the walls is based on a design strength of 3500 psi. The STARDYNE analysi used a stiffness based on a concrete strength of 5000 psi which is the expected long-term capacity of the new concrete. The structural qualification of the modified Complex, as affected by the capacity of the new walls as their strength increases from zero to the full design values, is discussed in the response to Question No. 31. ') 9

Q. 30. Page 1 of 2 pages Provide your evaluations of the effects of the proximity or configuration of hole patterns, including the effects of any cracking which is present in the walls. Answer: The capacity of the walls is controlled by flexure which is dependent upon the vertical reinforcing bars. Since none of the reinforcing steel will be cut, the 21exural capacity of the panels will not be reduced. Except for the separation discussed in the response to Question tJo. Il(b), only hairline cracks are present in the walls where holes will be drilled. For the same reason discussed above such hairline cracks will not affect the panel capacity. In resisting either the horizontal or vertical shear forces along a line of bolt holes, there are three important factors to be considered. First, the 3" diameter holes are spaced a minimum of 8 diameters which results in a small amour.t of material being removed. If a bar is encountered wh.ile drill-ing, the hole will be abandoned and fully grouted before the replacement hole is drilled. Since the reduction in shear area owing to any such abandoned holes would be insignificant, the replacement hole may be drilled even if the grout in the t

Q. 30. Page 2 of 2 pages abandoned hole has not yet developed its designed strength. Second, the resistance being relied upon is produced by the reinforcing steel and the e.a. cased column or the beam-column connection, none of which is sensitive to the small amount of concrete and block being removed. Third, the reduction in area due to the bolt holes is less than 4% in the horizon-tal shear plane, less than 64 in the vertical plane and less than 5% in any diagonal plane. These reductions in shear areas have been considered in evaluating the shear capacities of existing walls. Along these planes, the row of bolt holes does not traverse the entire structure and any tendency for a crack to develop along the bolt holes will be resisted by portions of the wall without holes. After the new structural elements are bolted into place, they will bridge across the holes. 7j ij L 'l\\ i t

Q. 32. Summarize the loads and load combinations and corresponding acceptance criteria for which the diesel generator air intake will be designed. Include a discussion of how the effects of the Turbine Building, a non-Category I structure han been considered. Answer: The new diesel generator air intake through the north wall of the Turbine Building consists of a louvered opening in the wall. The purpose of the louver is to keep wind, rain, and debris from entering the Turbine Building. The louvers need not be designed for abnormal loads since their collapse would not preclude air supply to the air intake located on the East side of the Diesel Generator Room. In any event, the air intake on the north wall of the Turbine Building has been sized to allow blockage of 50% of the area. The attached figure shows the location of the louver and the air supply path to the Diesel Generator Room. The fact that the Turbine Building is not a Category I struc-ture has no effect on supplying air to the Diesel Generator Room because it has been designed to resist a Safe Shutdowa Earthquake (FSAR Sec. 3.8.1.1.6). The siding and the connec-tions have been analyzed and it has been determined that the siding will not become detached during a safe Shutdown Earthquake. l ,e

NOR TH @l ->A -. new cwcrc wat 1: _- m- ~.1 ~ $ '. NETAL SIDING H7 Y '- - + i = la s l [ l I I 6

A l.I i'l il H

o . 1 h. (Y ~ I[I < jl r j p j i-l i J + u v .L e. l4[ i i ,' i T ( , I.. ' h 'l j$r . 'l,l ' t gl' Q l ',, l l q i y D. }t l 1llQ#re c - m w r4 4:r m m Z3 ( _4

  1. I-l[Tl I,

-- - - l f ^ sh DIEGEL =Lir way -- a -l -Of i w -s _ j g _t % LouvfM6 GENERA M .- l R ooM Mimpr2L54t!

=:'L m e*'

~ f,a o e,,; ;. m_ __i 'j / \\ \\,,- P g-3, e :.. .1 1 r 4 v .. t _. 'curin comwri c@% ) ro seainoeconeoycw aws,nrx wm an.s \\, RflC<AnrD N d gg. l AAfD AUR OF MCr/L DOCAS '-> A \\ INSTAL LED. tott.-up M ?. PART/AL PLAN SHOW/NG VI E W A-A AIR SGPPLY PATH TO DIESEL. GENERATOR ADOM (ATTACHMCMT TO RESPONSE th 52)

O. 33. Provide the basis for your determination that removal of the face masonry bJock and a portion of the concrete core at columns lines 41 and 46 on column line N' will not signifi-cantly affect the shear capacity of these walls. Answer: The sketches provided in response to Question No. 3 show the portions of the existing shear walls which will be removed during modification work and filled in later to make nt essary connections to the new concrete walls. All of these existing walls, including those at column lines 41 and 46 and on column line N' have been evaluated to assess their shear capacities during such modification work. The shear capacities have been calculated both on the basis of the criteria established in the report "Tro3an Control Build-ing Supplemental Structural Evaluation September 19, 1978" and also Section 3.4.2.2 of PCE-1020. It has been found that the walls with the portions removed will be capable to with-stand an SSE level greater than 0.25 g, and also an CBE greater than 0.08g. This demonstrates that the shear capacities of the walls will not be significantly affected during performance of the modifications. , g

Q. 34. Provide the capacity assumed for the dowels used to perform the wall modifications and the basis for this arsumed capacity. Answer: The capacity of the dowels used to perform the Jall modifica-tions is calculated in accordance with the requirements of ACI-318-77 and it is basically a function of the capacity reduction factor, yield strength of reinforcing steel, and the amount of steel present, modified as required for the type of application (e.g., tension or shear). The design of the connections between the new walls and the existing walls and slabs is discussed further in response to Question No. 3. jd

O. 39. Page 1 of 3 pages De f ine "repres' itative" as used in defining the struts used in specimens El, F2 and H2. Include a discussion of the similarity between the way in which the struts were anchored into the bulkheads, thus encasing the wall vs-the way the walls are encased in the frame formed by the colunas and beams in the actual structure. Expand this to include a sim-ilar discussion for specimens L1 and L2. Also, discuss the similarities between the horizontal steel anchorage at the edges of the test specimens vs. that of the actual walls in-terrupted by openings, and those which intersect cross walls (e.g. the wall intersection at the intersection of column lines R and 55. Answer: The specimens El, F2 and HJ had two steel struts each, located externally on either side as shown in Figure A 3-1 of PGE-1020. The struts were ttached to the top and bottom bee.ms through hinged connections with 3/4" A-325 bolto. The steel struts were used to simulate the axial resistance behavior of the steel columns in the Complex walls where the columns would be assumed to act as external members without any vertical shear trans-fer at the column-wall interface. The struts also provided a deformation-controlled rotational resistance (as opposed to a force-controlled rotational resistanco) at the ends of the specimens. The external steel struts increased the thear capecity of wall specimens by inducing additional dead load. J

O. 39. Page 2 of 3 pages The specimens L1 and L2 had the two steel columns fully embedded in the core concrete as shown in Figure A3-2 of PG E-10 20. These columns were anchored to the top and bottom beams by an embedment length of about 3'-0". These steel columns in the test specimens simulated the embedded steel columns which are continuous through adjacent floors of the Complex. The area of the steel column in the test specimen was dimen-sionally reduced to simulate an average column size in the Complex. The ratio of the column to the wall cross section was approximately the same between the test specimens and a typical wall panel. It should be noted that the specimens El, P2 and !!2 with steel struts and the specimens L1 and L2 with embedded col-umns were tested to investigat' the behaviour of Complex walls with embedded steel frames. h. ined, two extreme condi-tions for bond were simulated sinct che exact conditions of Complex walls are difficult to create in test specimens. As shown in Figure A 3-2 of PGE-1020, in order to simulate interrupted reinforcement in the actual walls, the horizontal reinforcing bars of tne test specimens were not anchored at their ends. Only the norizontal reinforcing bars in the masonry blocks of L1 and L2 specimens had U ties simula-ting the Tuity of block reinforcement in the actual walls. Als it can be seen from the test results that the s, /

Q. 39. Page 3 of 3 pages horizontal reinforcement is not an important parameter for the shear capacity of specimens unless tne specimens failed in the classical shear mode. The horizontal reinforcement helped to control the width of major diagonal cracks in specimens which had a shear mode of failure. 0 t t ") (N l-1 J ' _, L

Q. 41. Page 1 of 3 pages Discuss in detail the error band associated with each of the test resti;s (e.g., stiffnesses, strengths, degradation, etc.). Ex" lain and 4ustify how these were factored into your evaluation of the complex. Answer: Tablea 7 s and Al-2 of PGE-1020 list the test program and the specimon desc-iption respectively. As can be seen, the test parameters were not duplicated, therefore restricting a direct assessment of error associated with the test results. However, the following discussion provides the basis to esti-mate conservatively the probable error associated with the test results and the procedure to account for such error in the evaluation of the Complex. The probable error from the quality of materials such as mort-ar, masonry blocks, grout, concrete and reinforcing steel and from the fabrication of test specimens was minimized by implementing a good quality control program. The effect of such an error is negligible because the behavior _and capacity of specimens were predominantly governed by the most reliable parameter, namely, the vertical steel reinforcement. There-fore, the probable error from the quality of materials and from the fabrication of test specimens can be reasonably estimated to be + 1%. [ 'J U L

Q. 41. Page 2 of 3 pages The specimens were loaded using calibrated hydraulic rams and pressure gauges. The nerformance of hydraulic pumps was con-tinually monitored to assure the steady application of inten-ded load on the specimens. The deformation of specimens under load was measured using dial gauges, linear variable differen-tial trannducers ( LV DT) and X-Y recorders. The dial gauges and LVDTs can indicate deformations up to an accuracy of 0.0001' and 0.0005", respectively.There were duplicate pressure gauges, dial gauges and LVDTs to measure and monitor the important quantities suc. as ram pressure (load) and lateral deformation. There were at least two technicians to read and record gauge readings. Also, at least two test engineers were engaged to check the test set-up and measurements. Thus, adequate pre-cautions were taken to minimize the probable error from test set-up and measurement. A + 3% would be a conservative esti-mate for such an error. The accuracy and consistency in the test results are demon-strated in Figure 41-1 by the small scatter among the ultimate strength of all the 23 specimens. This type of experimental scatter is common among the results of concrete test specimens. Such a scatter can be attributed to various sources as discussed above and other probable sources such as the construction joint at the beam-specimen interface. The consideration of error bacd associated with the test results is not applicable to the capacity evaluation because the test results were not used directly, as explained in Section 3.4 of PGE-1020. -{; .m. 9

Q. 41. Page 3 of 3 pages As explained in Appendix B of PGE-1020, the test results were used to evaluate the stiffness of the Complex walls as a function of axial stress, shear stress and vertical reinforce-ment ratio. During this evaluation, the uncertainties associated with the test results are considered conservatively in response spectra broadening, as explained in response to Question No. 47. '\\ ' o<. _a l- ,o

s 500 r

  • A4 400 ;-

L2 .A7

  • HIff

.H2 Id.2 300 A5 Fl .h 02 o m .c a. 'o Et 3 AS A E 'O 200-- Gl 1 -v = 1.28(pfy+o) Kt E2 u n 85 62 1002-r s. E 0 50 ?$0 150 200 250

300 350 (pf

+ a ) psi y n FIGURE 41-1 ULTIMATE STRENGT[I OF SHEAR WALL SPECIMEtiS. [ g, r

Q. 49. Page 1 of 2 pages Compare the slopes of the sides of the peaks in floor response spectra for the complex frequency shift vs., stress (therefore, ground acceleration) level as derived from the test data results to verify that the floor response spectra are conservative for all earthquake levels for both the OBE and the SSE spectra. Justify any non-conservative deviations. Answer: In considering the adequacy of the OBE response spectra, a review of stiffness reduction factors was made to determine the largest earthquake that could occur before significant -.s reduction in f r, equency r.esulted. It was estimated that for.. +..,.. va,- an earthquake of approximately 0.10g the stiffness reduction would be approximately 2% resulting in a 1% shift in frequency. The response spectra associated with the 0.10 9 earthquake was estimated oy assuming the same general shape as for the 0.15g OBE except the frequencies associated with the peaks are increased and the ordinates are reduced by the ratio of 0.10/0.15 = 0.67. The estimate of the increase in f requency was made by considering several of the StARDYNE analyses involved in the overall stiffness iteration process. This resulted in an increase of 5 to 7 percent. This is the shif t of the first mode in the N-S direction, and the sh2ft associated with the other modes is less. Since the peaks of the response spectra have sloping sides, the width o o e S o s b

i-Q. 49. Page 2 of 2 pages of the peaks increases with decreasing acceleration. As shown in Figure 49-1, the width of the peaks of the response spectra for an 0.15g OBE varies between 15 and 20 percent at 0.67 of the peak ordinate. This will allow the frequency shift of 5 to 7 percent, plus approximately 10 percent curve broadening, with the resulting spectra for an 0.10g earthquake still being within the 0.15g OBE response spectra. As the earthquake level increases from 0.10g to 0.15g, the stiffness reduction factors decrease gradually which will result in a gradual transition to the 0.159 response spectra. In the event of an earthquake greater than the OBE, there is expected to be a gradual transition from the 0.15g OBE res-ponse spectra to the 0.25g SSE response spectra. Designing safety-related components, equipment and piping to the OBE and SSE criteria provides a high level of confidence of being able to withstan3 an earthquake between 0.159 and 0.25g. 5 a f }ij g iJI

, y 7, v. ....1,, e.e. 6 PERIOD-SEC, 10 0 1.0 0.1 0 01 1Ii I ; I I a 7iI-I I i 4 eT I 6 I I I e 6 6 ! j-- l l I i i i i l i l i I 5 -+ 1 i + 0. 5% a;AM@NG t 7/ oo 4 I i th 5-l k t i sf, f /s - 2p % i F l' i cr w 3 l (0.G7'QF Pf} K l. 'd r O I O t I l l 1 t s i / 3 e 2 l / I f-- - -7 i I 1 -f - g / ) im l 5 / M/tNG ~S % Dh f ,<I, iLA ,.1 l i a 7 8 o-_ 8 2 4 6 8 100 l 0g 2 4 6 3 3o 2 4 6 f.10 0 FREQUENCY-CPS Figure 49-1 Representative Floor Response Spectra : 0.15g OBE 6}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19247B160&oldid=4891495"