ML19262A949

Evaluation of Tests of Tensile Bond Strength of Concrete Block-to-Fill in Trojan Nuclear Power Plant Near Portland, Or. Supporting Documentation Encl

ML19262A949
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	11/24/1979
From:	WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML19262A944	List: ML19262A945 ML19262A948 ML19262A949
References
79731, TAC-12369, NUDOCS 7912110346
Download: ML19262A949 (28)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:B P Pf!!T.N D I X b EVALUATION OF TESTS OF TENSILE BOND STRENGTH W i 0F k CONCRETE BLOCK TO FILL ~ J IN THE a n TROJAN N'JCLEAR POWER PLANT f, NEAR PORTLAND, OREGON E [ WJE NO. 79731 s t n e I a n d A 5 5 0 C i a t e S. I n C. WISS, JANNEY, ELS*iER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 330 ",.ngsten Road Northbro,k, Illinois 60062 312/272-7400 1528 183 November 24, 1979 r3 l'Lll0 3%

l EVALUATION OF TESTS OF TENSILE BOND STRENGTH 0F CONCRETE BLOCK TO FILL W IN THE i s TROJAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT s. NEAR PORTLAND, OREGON a WJE NO. 79731 e Y. E November 24, 1979 l S t n INTRODUCTION e I At the request of Mr. Don Broehl of the Portland General Electric a n d Ccmpany, an evaluation was made of the results of 15 tests on the com-A s posite block and concrete fill walls in the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. 5 0 c These tests, conducted by Northwest Testing Laboratories, were intended i a to provide a measure of the tensile bond strength between the block and e S.

fill, I{

Following the notice on November 19, 1979 to proceed, an inspection of the locations where the tests were perfor=ed was made on November 20, 1979 by Dr. John M. Hanson of Wiss, Janney, Elstner and Associates, Inc. in the company of Mr. Frank Rogan of PGE. A copy of a letter from Northwest Testing Laboratories, dated November 19, 1979, sum =arizing the test results was received at this time, along with a copy of the test data and a set of photographs showing the locations of the tests and the pieces removed from the walls. 1528 184 e

At a subsequent meeting on November 20, 1979 with Mr. Don Broehl and others at the PGE office in Portland, background information relating to the tests was reviewed. We were instructed that this evaluation was 97 to provide a review and interpretation of the test data, and was to be limited to consideration of the tensile bond strength between the concrete ~ L J block and central concrete fill of the composite walls in the Trojan a S Plant. e Y. E BACKGROIR.'D 1 5 i n Walls in the Auxiliary Building at the Trojan Plant may be sub-er jected to normal loads due to the reactions of piping or to seismic inertia aj forces. The walls which are considered in this evaluation consist of two A wythes of concrete block joined by a concrete fill, as illustrated in 5 s a ' Fig. 1. 9 a The concrete block in the walls are reported to typically be t stsilar to corner block with two interior cells, except that the shell f at one end is open. These block were =anufactured under quality controls c liniting the linear shrinkage to 0.05 percent and the density to between 130 and 135 lbs per cu ft. The specified compressive strength of the concrete block was apparently 2000 psi. Cells within the block were filled with grout having a specified minimum compressive strength of 2000 psi. The concrete fill between the two wythes of block varied in thickness. Its specified compressive strength was 3000 psi. No. 3 reinforcing bars serving as tension ties were required at 4-ft centers each way between the block wythes..15 28 185

r4- ,.s .6 ' c,. - N o. 3' TIE.S y .AT 4' SPACING EACH WAY s' =.. =.= =. D s'.. CELLS 6 m s GROUTED Y. *. -=--

=

b

=

=z e's 4 6 s u s s,

r:

s =,2-a.'. .] 4 g 5 "7 8" VARIES 4 1 :

-78">

BLoCKI FI LL IBLOCK' Fig. 1 - Section through walls 1528 i86.

Tests were conducted at nine selected locations on Levels 5 and 25 in the Auxiliary Building. The testing was carried out, as illustrated in Fig. 2(a), by using a hollow-co~e drill with a diameter of approxi=ately 12 in. to make a cylindrical cut on a horirontal W j axis into the walls. This cut was made up to 1 in deeper than the L junction between the block and the concrete fill. A horizontal pull-a n out force, P, was subsequently applied using an hydraulic jack to the n e y, exposed surface of the core. In most of the tests, this force was E g applied by means of a 1-in. dia. expansion anchor set along the axis Sj of the core. However, in three tests, the force was applied rhrough er three 3/4-in. dia. expansion anchors and a plate coupled to a 1-in. rod. a n At six of the nine locations, a second test was conducted, as d 4 illustrated in Fig. 2(b), by extending the coring through the concrete sj . fill and about 1 in. into the far block vythe. The procedure described C i in the preceding paragraph, using a centrally located L-in. dia. expan-a t e sion anchor embedded in the concrete fill, was then repeated to obtain 5. I a test at the junction of the fill and far wythe of block. n C REVIEW OF THE TEST DATA The letter from Northwest Testing Laboratories reporting the 15 test results is reproduced in the Appendix. It is our understanding that documentation of the tests, including theit location and a descrip-tion of the surfaces where the co.es were broken under the applied pull-out loading, will be provided in a acparat e report. . 1528 187

r4 .s e L p ~ 'l i,2." 4 CORE ~ i[ [,, 7.C.. _s _ 1 y I"4 EXR ANCHOR. g _a) - FI RST TEST NEAR B'OCK 1AR BLOCK r s A .9 _-,,,d _.._.._ J o f. u b) - SECOND T EST "A" Fig. 2 - Pullout Tests 1528 \\88

The test data and photographs of the locations of the tests and the pieces removed from the walls were carefully reviewed and the r,esults of this review are su=marized in Table 1. In avamining the test results, it should be noted that pullout W i loads are not reported for two tests, Nos. 1 and 6, because they are not ~ s 3* applicable to this evaluation. J For the reasons given in Table 1, only three of the rensining n y, 13 tests were considered to provide a valid neasure of the tensile bond E strength at the bicck/ fill interface. The other 10 tests are considered 1 S t to provide a lower bound esti= ate of the tensile bond strength, and for n this reason these results are enclosed in parentheses. a n d INTERPRETATION A s The application of the pullout load to the near block did not a cj develop the tensile bond strength of the block / fill interface in any test a [ except No. 3. Rather, the strength was linited by conditions relating s. } to the anchors and to stress distribution within the near block. n C In Test No. 3, the strength was developed because the interface was only partially bonded, apparently as a result of lack of consolidation of the fill concrete. Although only two of the tests intended to develop the tensile bond strength of the fill with the back block were considered to be valid, all of the other tests, except No. SA, provide a reasonable lower bound estimate of the strength. Test SA is excluded because the anchor split the core, and the remaining portion of the core was broken out with a wedge and hamner. The results of these tests, excluding No. SA, - 1528 i89

s Table 1 - Review of Test Results Pullout Nominal Test Load (2) Tensile Bond Strength (3) Mark (l) (lbs) Remarks (psi) 1 Invalid test, because dore did not cut reinforcing bar in block. 2 9,820 (94) Core sustained 5 cycles of applied nominal leading to 5000 lbs, before failing during first cycle while holding peak load. Test considered to be invalid because the core broke in the block and not at the block / fill inter-face. 2A 17,670 (170) Core sustained 11 cycles of nominal lending - 5 to 5000 lbs, 3 to 7500 lbs, and 3 to 10,000 lbs - before splitting and breaking under increased loading. Test considered to be invalid because break occurred in fill concrete about 2 in. from block. Splitting of core apparently caused by anchor bolt. 3 4,500 43 Failed before reaching intended peak load on first cycle. Valid because separation occurred at block / fill interface. Apparently fill con-crete did not bond to block on about one-half of interface. 4 7,120 (68) Core sustained 5 cycles to 5000 lbs nominal loading and failed as peak lead was reached during second cycle to 7300 lbs nominal loading. Test not valid because break occurred in block. 4A 24,500 236 Core sustained 11 cycles of nominal loading, as described for Test No. 2A, before failure occurred under increased loading pri=arily at block / fill interface. Valid test, although the observation that the break surface departed from the block / fill interface around the peri-phcry of the core is considered tu show that the applied tensile stress at the interface was higher at the center of the core than near the periphery. 5 4,730 (45) Failed during fif th cycle af ter reaching peak nominal load of 5000 lbs. Test invalid, because break occurred in the block. \\S28 \\%

Table 1 - Review of Test Results (Continued) Pullout Nominal Test Load ( ) ensile B nd Strength (3) Mark (1) (1bs) Remarks (psi) SA 14,460 (139) Core sustained 11 cycles of nominal loading, as described for Test No. 2A, before splitting under increased loading. Subsequently, a wedge was ha=mered between core and wall, causing separation at the block / fill interface. Test not valid as stress causing separation is not known. 6 Not applicable, because wall was not composite at this location. 7 15,890 (153) Core sustained 16 cycles of nominal loading, including 11 cycles as described for Test No. 2A plus 3 cycles to 12,500 lbs and 3 cycles to 15,000 lbs, before failure under the first cycle of an increased nominal loading to 20,000 lbs. Test invalid, because break occurred mainly within block, although a small portion of the piece that pulled out crossed the interface and extended into the fill con-crete. 7A 21,790 (210) Core sustained 23 cycles of no=inal loading - 5 to 5000 lbs, 5 to 7500 lbs, 5 to 10,000 lbs, 5 to 15,000 lbs, and 3 to 20,000 lbs - b fore failure under increased loading. Test invalid, because break appears to have begun at the junction of the inside face of the block and the cell concrete, near the center of the core, and progressed outvard through the block. 8 3,790 (36) Failed before reaching intended peak load on first cycle. Test invalid because core broke in block. Result was low because of void in block cell concrete. 8A 14,850 143 Core sustained 19 cycles of nominal loading following the same pattern as in Test No. 7A, before failing just prior to reaching the inteided peak load of 15,000 lbs in the 20th cyclt. Valid test, because break occurred main.y along block / fill interface, although it did extend into the fill concrete on a small portion of the' area. )h}0 \\ \\ s Table 1 - Review of Test Results (Continued) Pullout Nominal Test Load (2) Tensile Mark (1) Bond Strength (3) Remarks (lbs) (psi) 9 15,000 (144) Core sustained 17 cycles of nominal loading, follow 1.-- the same pattern as in Test No. 7A, before. <iling as peak loading was reached in the 18th cycle. Test invalid because core broke in block. 9A 21,790 (210) Core sustained 21 cycles of nominal loading, following the sa=e pattern as in Test No. 7A, before failing under increased loading. Test invalid because core broke mainly in block, although a small portion of the break surface occurred at block / fill interface. Cora was apparently split by anchor bolt. (Fill is not as thick as other locations.) Notes: (1) Tests were conducted at nine locations, as indicated by the first number of the = ark. At each location, designated by a number, the test was intended to apply a-tensile stress to the interface between the back face of the near block and the concrete fill. 'Jhere another test is indicated by the letter A, a second test was conducted at the same location. This test was intended to apply a tensile stress to the interface between the near face of the back block and the concrete fill. (2) As reported in letter to PGE from Northwest Testing Laboratories dated November 19, 1979. (3) Determined assuming pullout load was uniformly distributed over 11.5 in. dia. Values in parentheses are considered to be results of invalid tests, core. although in every case they represent a lower bound estimate of the tensile bond strength at the block / fill interface. }92 __.

are plotted in Fig. 3. The average bond strength developed in these 5 tests was 194 psi. In assessing the 5 test results shown in Fig. 3, it may be noted that they have a characteristic variation that is expeer.ed in tests W j dependent on the tensile strength of concrete. Furthermore, the L average bond strength of 194 psi is approximately one-tenth of the a n specified compressive strength of the block, which is a reasonable value n e y. for tensile strength. This result is also consistent with the observa-E g tion that the break surface in the valid tests, Nos. 4A and 8A, appeared S t to depend on the strength of the block concrete rather than the fill n er concrete. a n It is considered desirable to establish a basis for using these d 4 test results within the framework of the provisions of the ACI Building sj . Code Require =ents for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-77) and the ACI e i Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures (ACI 531-79). a t e The conditions at the interface of the block and fill concrete s. I are further considered to be similar to the conditions at a vertical n construction joint in monolithic concrete construction. With sufficient reinforcement across the joint to accon=edate the internal force system, there is usually no need to provide any special treatment other than that the joint be clean and have some roughness. In the Trojan walls, structural integrity of the interface is required, and the amount of reinforcement across the joint is nearly negligible. In resisting shear, the provisions of ACI 318-77 allow the use of flexural members without shear reinforcement if the factored shear force, V, does not exceed one-half the shear strength provided by the 1528 N

Ave. Bond = 19 4 psi 236 // / ( 210) (210) __i_ / [/ '/ 200 / / / Nominal (17 0) '/ / / 7 / 7 Tensile / / / / / 143 Bond / Strength / / / / / / / / / / (ps.) / / / / / n / / / / / I00 7 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /,/ / / / l / / / I / / / f / / / / / l/ / / / / / /' / / / /.- / 2A 4A 7A 8A 9A Test Mark Fig. 3 - Results of tests on far block interface 1528 194

s concrete, $ V, where $ is the strength reduction factor. This may be considered comparable to requiring a strength reduction factor of 1/2 $ where strength without reinforcement is required. Since $ for yy shear is specified to be 0.85 in the Code, the equivalent strength i ~ s reduction factor is 0.425 for a flexural menber without shear reinforce-s. J ment. When shear is being resisted without reinforconent, the strength a is dependent on internal tensile stress in the concrete. e [' In our opinion, the conditions at the block / fill interface are L {

ore critical than for shear as considered in the previous paragraph.

t n Based on the limited test data and our knowledge of the conditions in er the composite walls at the Trojan Plant, a strength reduction factor of aj 0.2 is judged to be appropriate. On this basis, the 72xi=um tension A permitted across the block / fill interface under factored loads should s 5 a be 0.2 x 194 = 39 psi, or say 40 psi. C a By using a strength reduction factor of 0.2, it may be noted that t the bond strength is taken to be slightly less than the bond strength of f 43 psi obtained in Test No. 3. If there are other areas where there is c little or no bond between the block and fill, they are believed to be small and scattered, since the walls at the Trojan Plant were constructed under a quality control program that is understood to have required thorough consolidation of the fill concrete. In addition, assuming that the ratio of factored to service loads is 1.5, the stress at the block / fill interface should not exceed about 25 psi. It may be noted that this level of tensile stress is allowed normal to bed joints in masonry construction containing hollow units in ACI 531-79. . 152B 195

l Considering a cubical element at the block / fill interface, with one face parallel to the interface, states of stress varying from pure normal stress to pure shear stress are theoretically possible. W The resistance of a monolithic mass of concrete to shear is greater g S A than its resistance to tension. Sirce the tests demonstrated that J a the bond at the block / fill interface was comparable to the tensile a o e strength of the block concrete, it follows that tension at the inter-Y. E face will be more critical than shear. However, states of stress that I s include shear at the interface may have a ;rincipal tensile stress n e acting at an angle to the interface. By limiting the maxi =us principal a tenrion at the interface to 40 psi, the potential for initiation of a d a crack that might change its direction and propagate along the inter-A 3 face is mitigated. O C In this regard, it should be recognized that application of I a t forces that cause stresses exceeding the tensile strength of the e S. walls at their boundaries will cause cracking that may penetrate the E block / fill interface. In this state, the stress at the interface will be mora. dependent on local conditions; i.e., reinforcement in the wall or location of supports on the wall. However, Ibnication of the tensile stress under factored loads at the block / fill interface to 40 psi, along with consideration of the local effect of the crack-ing, is believed to be sufficient to assure integrity. . 15'!B 196 ~~ e. --m- .o om

CONCLUSIONS Review of test data obtained from core pullout tests on the composite block and fill concrete walls in the Trojan Nuclear Power YY Plant has shown that a high level of bond exists at the block / fill i s s. interface when the construction is as intended by the project specifi- ~ J a cations. This bond strength is believed to be closely related to the n tensile' strength of the concrete in the block. The average bond in Y. g 5 tests selected as providing a reasonable =easure of the bond strength 1 5 was 194 psi. t n e In view of the lack of bond encountered at one of the 13 locations I a where rests of the interface were perforned, as well as the recognition n d that structural integrity is required in the absence of reinforcement, A 5 it is our opinion that a conservative strength reduction factor must be O C applied to the bond strength. A value cf 0.2 is reco= mended, which I a t limits the tensile bond stress to 40 psi under factored loads. This e s. limit is consistenc with the level of tensile stress that is allowed in I { concrete masonry construction. Respectfully submitted, WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. d*A i

...,,o

'<,<*Sp'. John M.. Hanson Project Manager .' /./ O 5 it *- ~ Registered Professional Engineer P, I

• State of Oregon No. 10110 I.

j: j O ,t-JMa:rg ..... g.;g - 1 . 1528 197>

q es t-e8 e 0 e APPc7pty e 1528 198

NORTHWEST TESTING LABORATORIES 4115 N. M I S S I S S I P P I A V c N U C P. O. B O X 1712 6 nom.ossinuenvs vasnmo constmenom ensesenom

• s'aimo caertricanon marsmiats insesetio" P Q R T L A N D. O R E G O N 9 7 217 so;6 nsn=o cmsueca6 amatvese as sa nno eutsec46 tesn=e November 19, 1979 Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Portland, Or gon 97204 Re: Trojon Nuclear Power Plant Report Of: Composit Wall Masonry Block - Concrete Core interface Bond Testing Load Application Equipment Test Loads were applied by a calibrated hydraulic Jacking system consisting of the following: Enerpac hand pump (SN11754), Enerpac 30 Ton Ram (SN11752), Ashcraft 3000 Psig hydraulic gage (SN 11755), Ashcraft 6000 psig hydraulic gage (SN11757), Multi-Port hydraulic coupling and 25 feet of hydraulic hose.

. Test Site No. blimate. ailure Loads (Pounds)

• Gage tised (PSl6) 1 Not Applicable / Hit Rebar in Block 2

9820 6000 2A 17670 6000 3 4500 6000 4 7120 6000' 4A 24500 6000 5 4730 3000 5A. 14460 6000 6 Not Applicable /Not Composit Wall 7 15890 6000 7A 21790 6000 8 3790 3000 8A 14850 3000 9 15000 3000 9A 21790 6000

• Note :

Failure Loads determined by Mathmatical Interpolation between adjacent calibration points. 1528 199 ee i-# =++-e .-+eee- -m-esupee

Portland General Electric Company Page Re: Trojan Nucelar Power Plant The test loading system, including hydraulic ram, couplings and pressure gages were calibrated on a Tinius Olson Testing Machine. Certified accuracy of this machine was established December 7,1978 by Cal-Cert Co. By hand pumping, a wide range of loads were applied to the test machine. ~ These loads along with the associated gage pressures were recorded. This was done for both the 3000 Psig PCE gage and the 6000 Psig Northwest Testing laboratory gage. Results of this calibaration follows: Ac:ual Load (pounds) from Tinius Olson 3000 PSIG Gage 6000 PSIG Gage 320 100 200 950 200 30 0 1,699 300 375 2,390 400 475 2,500

430 500 5,000 800 875 7,500 1150 1225 10,000 1500 1575 12,500 1860 1925 15,000 2200 2275 17,500 2540 2625 22,000 2900 3000 22,500 beyond range 3350 25,000 beyond range 3725 27,500 beyond range 4075 30,000 beyond range 4425 Re:,, octfully, NORTHWEST TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.

A Charles R. Lane, P.E. CRL/lz Report No. 211094 1528 200

ATTAC11 MENT 4 FIELD SURVEY OF COMCRZTE WALLS, PLCOR SLABS AND STRUCTURAL SMT-A field survey of ccacrate walls, f1cer slaba, and structural steel at Trojan was conducted by two licensed civil engineers, one frcm Bechtel and one frca PGB, and one PGB mechanical engineer who had detailed knowledge of the Trojan Plant piping systems. The puspese of the field survey was to Identify, fcr further detailed evaluation, specifio insta11atiens where the loads frcm a safety-related pipe support were judged to be high relative to the capacity of the supporting structure. In preparation for the field survey, preliminary calculations were made for typical structural configurations. In addition, pipe support details for large pipelines were studied to deter-mine the range of possible 1 cads. The criginal floor system design criteria had an allowance of 50 pounds per sguare foot to account fer pipe loads and a 5000 pound Icad applied anywhere to beams to provide for lifting and pipe supports. After studying this information, it was apparent that only certain adverse Icading conditions could overstress the various structural members. Fce example, weak axis bending, torsion or local distortion are the most likely adverse loading conditions for steel members. For concrete walls and floor alabs, the most adverse leading condition is the normal load and bending moment at the base of a pipe support. During the field survey, particular emphasis was placed on any area where such conditions could exist. !4ultiple supports on a structural member was also of special interest. The supports for the safety-related piping In the Containment, Auxiliary I, Fuel. Buildings, Main Steam Support Structure, 1528 201

D to Supplement No. 2 hhb DObONQ 0 Page 2 of 3 ~ &[ie.uba*7.'.;.yMlQ:QgpraissiBc'ndn>MzML

u- ; <.

... :,v,. - F

...... - c '.,

- ; c.. . l-. M** n MG6 ~ w .,.:p:7.r..>. '?cus En' to..m~b. m:,,.an.- -.a istahe,.structuce.uptc o g q e d.., y: n i.b;. a % s .t Control Building' and,. ESP' W1tchijiar

• Enc.lo.3,n.

sun c, ~ ~ sure mere'. riot - insp.ected since drawings indicated the piping in these /r , areas').s,small'and;incapab3e of overioadinrj.the =tructural. ' elements to'shich the. pipe supps.i.s are atitached.. ~ The follcwing items were considered in identifying structures more heavily loaded relative to their capacity: 1. Number of piping restraints on the structural ele =ent. 2. Size of piping and piping restraints. 3. Location and type of restraint reaction, i.e. tension, compression, bending or shear, and relationship to principal axes of the structural element. 4. Dead land on the structural element. S. Live Ioad, other than pipe restraint reaction, on the structural element. 6. Seismic. responsd of the structural element. 7. Ploor slab thickness, span to thick.nes= ratio, and reinforcing for concrete slabs, 8. Size of framing for braced systems, and span to depth rat.io for beam-girder systems. Based on the alleuances in the original design criteria de-seribed above, it was obvious that the majority of the supports could not contribute significantly to the overall loading of the supporting structural elements and that resultant loads fell well within these design allowaar%s. 1528 202

. to Supplement No. 2 Page 3 of 3 Such supporting structures were detecnined to be adequate by inspection. The survey identified fourteen supports for further evaluation. Of these 14 suppcrts,' 5 involved structural steel ::te.ders and 9 involved concrete ficor slebs. No supports on ecncrete ualls were identified for further evaluation. 6 a m e 1528 203

( j ATTACHMENT 5 MORTAR BETWEED WT.OIES OF CcUBLE-BLCCK WALLS Recent inspecticas in the fleld have found that scme 14-in. and 16-!7. thick double block walls are not fully acrtared between wythes. This information contradicted information de-veloped frem drilling for thru-bolting masonry walls which in-dicated approximately 901k mortar between wythes. A review of construction records indicates that the above walls were erected during a limited time period in 1972 As a re:sult, walls constructed during that time period which rely upon mortar for interf ace shear transfer w11.1--be inspected. Where mortar is inccmplete the inter-wythe space Will be filled alth non-sbrink grout. In performing a tensile-bond test of ccmposite and ecrtsred double-block wall interfaces in November 1979, PGE found one double-block shield wall at Elevation 5 ft in the Auxiliary Building where mortar was inccmplete in the inter-wythe space along three courses of block. This discovery led PGE to investigate whether there were any significant void areas in the mortar of the three mortared double block masonry walls which are major shear walls in the control-Auxiliary-Puel Building Complex. Tests were done.on these three 1salls (Control, Building 2-Line wall ,, f.,between Elevation. 65, it aha'. 77. f t., ' Control.Bu. ild. irg. N-Line u. -.

.'j.

$$.y. 6,.*f.(1(hn

' llevgf .G %p w.. % "Jl.I t f.2 h Y 3 D.>[. ' BN. g${nh',.'.. fd ',MWJ.. ',s;. t.. s m -w - =..~. ~ 5,hG.Ah . y. ~.. m ~ ...x V . T *M'# p' ' *; ';,. U.fL' g .'3. =p.3G;2:f +06 I S' 1M'tedi.MEo W2'IBt'er-48yf,h(. s@IdIdeTisfowed'-. - l'.Q-* '* i~..=..W-h_ .. m-r.... <. g.-: - e.' .s- '"l-w.' 1

.~T M a:

~-l ~.i-

.d,p.:.' %.

.,. :..,.,R:".x rT..,'. ,7 r%,.?) T% '.' b:- ..:. : M.,-;4;t. 4.t.:.... .t *-;

• y,
• a :;.......,2.. '... s..,q..e.:. #.

. i.< :. : l..,.e ' 'c. C,.h .g g..i=. se;.~ ~ a. . :. ~ u -e a- .~. % :. ~ * * ;; u%.n.:: y. + a. . w..,, ;...- ^. .%. - ;t...: c ^ . i.,.J T. -c 4: +.n. g.~ ; u n ,~ w. :.

p

. }.".:. 1528 204

Attachment S to Suoniemene No. 2 D " 'D D n O 'U Page 2 of 3 a only one of these walls (the R-Line wall) had void areas in the mortar space. The voids found in the R-Line wall and the test holes on all three walls were f111ed with non-shrink grout. A cheek of CA records indicated that the n-Lino wall was the only one of the three which was erected during 1972. During similar tests on walls of the emergency diesel generator enclosures, the north wall. (column line 45) was found to be mortared between.wythes; however,' the south vall (column line

52) was found to contain significant void spaces betueen wythes.

h utruction records indicate that erection of these walls was ccmpleted in ear.ly 1973 and mid-1972, respectively. Review of the construction contractual history provides an ~ explanation for the lack of mortar between wythes of double-block watla erected in mid 1972. The original architectural drawings-upon Phich the contractoen bid the work did not clearly indicate that' mortar was to be placed in the ncminal 3/8-in, space between vythes, of double block walls although the hid - specifications, required comp.lete '. filling.of all r:ortar. -joints. 5. However,.the constiruction drawings issued' in March -1972 - ' T +._-5.""c.10krly ' indicated.t: hit 'thefinter+wythe-spaicer.was-tcd contain.c f.N.,- v.. ~~ ~ mortar. In April 1972, before work was beg'an, the. contractor-indicated that his price was based on'the bid drawing and u e -ki. $ 4.-had nottincluded: sanf alldatace.fbrj t_he. ints;ryythe:.r.ortar,g.g.g., -. - -*;..- Od'hFrecialest5'd an 3idjustment in 'thewatracted'lpr1be for ~ ' '- c ~ placement of this mortar to compensate for what he considered .to be a change in design. Erection of 16-in and 14-in, thich double-block walls began in'May 1972. The adjustment in the contract was negotiated between PCE and the contractor 1528 205

. to Supplement No. 2 Page 3 of 3 9 and was settled in September 1972. Because of this dispute and the evidence'we found, we have le-a confidence tha:. the inter-wythe space is properly mortared in walls built hatween April and September 1972. Although mortar should have been placed between the wythes in compliance with the drawings through the entire period, we recogni=e that contractural disagreements between ccatractors and construction :nanageant are sometimes reflected in the quality of the work. Since testing of two of the wans constructed during the period between April and September 1972 disclosed some large voids in the inter-wythe mortar, we are proceeding to est all double-wythe walls built during l this peried to verify the adequacy of mortar in the inter-wfthe space. Where voids are found[ they vill be filled with non-shrink grout, as have all voids found to date. 1 Mortared double wythe masonry wa'us built daring the period frem May through September 1972 are listed on the attached tabl+: i 1528 206

-- to supnlement No. 2 TABLE S-1 Mortared Couble Wythe Walls Erected Mid-1972 Column Between Masonry Duilding Elevation __Line Lines Inscection Date Centrol 61/65 R 41-4G 6/27/72 Auxt11ary 5 46 D-B 6/13/72 Emergency 45 S2 U-s* 6/29/72 Diesel 45 52 X'-Z 7/10/72 ~ Generater 45 52-W' 6/29/72 Rocm SSF 69 46 U-Y' 6/9/72 Switchgear 69 S1 x*-Y' 6/9/72 69 51 X'-Y' G/9/72 69 $1--W' 6/9/72 O e se 1528 207 ~ ~

ATTACHMENT G APPLICABILITY OF THE 1.8E LOAD COMBINATION In response to a question from the NRC staff, this dis-cuesion will explain uhy the equation found in Section 3.3 1.3.2.1 of the FSAR, which requires that " structural ele-- ments carrying mainly earthquake forces, such as equipment support

• be designed for 1.8 times the CBE loading is not appli=able to the design of walls in the Trojan Plant, but rather in applicable only to the design of concrete pedestals for equipment.

Section 3.8.1.3.2.1 contains a list of equations which are ap-plicable to all Category I concrete structures. It is logical , to assume that the additional equation _ cited above was not included within that ilst because it was intended to apply only to a limited subcategory of concrete structures, i.e. those "caerying mainly earthquake forces, such as equipment supports." It is appropriate to apply a higher load factor to equipment supports than to walls because the seismic capability of the equipment support could more directly affect the performance of an important piece of equipment. Earthquake forces are one of the main forces normally considered in the design of equipment pedestals. This is not the case for walls supporting piping where piping dead loads and thermal Irwin are generally much more significant than their seismic contribution. Purther, the piping suppud.s, being spread along a run, are inherently more forgiving if one should Iail. Hence, the safety factor need not be as conservative for piping as for equipment supports which are directly dependent on pedestal integrity to maintain functional capability. We e Me 1528 208

~ .. to Supplement No. 2 Page 2 of 3 believe this is the basis for the additional conservatism for equipment supports. We have researched the origin of this equation and its application in the design of supporting structures in o, her t piants licensed in thE pericd curing which Trojan was. licensed. This research did not ccnclusively establish the origin of this equation for Trojan nor did it provide a precise definition of the spec.ific structural elements to which it shculd be applied. However, the research did develop some useful infer mation ref.lecting hcw the Atomic Energy Wissio[("AEC") may have interpreted the equation at the tioe Trojan was being licensed. A paper, dated August 11, 1970, entitled, " seismic Design Criteria for !!uclear Power -Plants", written for the ABC contains a load combination which includes the 1.8E facter for the desiga of concrete equipment pedestals. This-paper does not contain any other reference to the use of ~ a 1.3 factor for CBE loads. Therefore, in the absence of further evidence, it would appear that when Trojan was being licensed, the AEC would have interpreted the equation in Section 3.8.1.3.2.1 of the FSAR to only be applicable to concrete equipment pedestals. We have reviewed the design of concrete Category I equipment supports at Trojan and have found only six supports where this load equation would be applicable, i.e., only six concrete pedestals. These are supports for the containment spray pumps, RRR pumps, and RHR heat exchangers. We have analyzed these supports using the equation containing the 1528 209 ~ %eg. -n..-moop.-

1. to supplement No. 2 Page 3 of 3 1.8 E loading combination and have found that they ratisfy the acceptance critaria.

It should be acted that major equipment supports such as for the reactor vessel, steam generators, etc, are structural steel and, therefore, the subject Ioad equation is not applicable. For the above reasons, we believe that the referenced equa-tion has been apprcpriately applied fer Trojan. Y O l ,J J O W m O m we 9 1528 210 I

s. ATTACHMENT 7 SHEAR-TENSICN INTERACTION Where a composite wall is subjected to a combination of out. of-plane loadings which include concentrated pipe restraint reactions and the wall's own inertial loading, it is theoret-ically possible to develop states of stress at the block-concrete interface which vary from pure normai stress to pure shear stress. Results of investigations carried out on con-crete have indicated that the resistance of a monolithic mass of concrete to shear is greater than its resistance to tension. However, the state of stress that includes both tension and shear may have a principal tensile stress acting at an angle to the interface. Thus the criterion that is used to evaluate the composite walls is based on conservatively limiting the principal tensile stress to 40 psi (See Attachment 3). The interaction equation that will be used for evaluation of shear and tension acting together will be as given in the paper, " Behavior of Concrete Masonry Under Biaxial Stresses", by Hagemier, Nunn an.1 Arya, which was presented in the North American Masonry :anference (August 14 thru 16, 1978, Univer-sity of Colorado). The equations are as follows: 2r tan 2G = - O X

1. X o

= Cos 29 : i sin 2s 1,2 2 2

Where, 8

= tensile str ess normal to block-concrete interf ace x r = shear stress el,2 = principal stresses e = angle of plane on which the principal stress develops BY-8 1528 211}}