ML19269D190

Forwards Addl Info Provided by Bechtel Re Proposed Control Bldg Mod:Suppl Info on Shear Wall Specimen Test Program & Addl Info Re Lateral Stiffnesses & Response Spectra Determination.Plans Submittal of Design Mod Rept in March

ML19269D190
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	02/28/1979
From:	Broehl D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-07551, TAC-11299, TAC-12369, TAC-7551, NUDOCS 7903070245
Download: ML19269D190 (41)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. y. PORTLANn GnxnnAL ELucTurc Co31rm ial S.W SALMCN STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 972O4

• w. m.m v.c r. m sin c e February 28, 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 Coninission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Sirs:

Enclosed is the following additional infonnation provided by Bechtel relating to the proposed modifications of the Trojan Control Building: (1) Supplemental Information on Shear Wall Specimen Testing Program; and (2) Additional Inforration Concerning Lateral Stiffnesses and Response Spectra Determination. We plan to submit in mid-to-late March a supplement to the " Report on Design Modifications for the Trojan Control Building" (PGE-1020), which will update and complete such Report. That supplement will contain, as appropriate, information set forth in Enclosures (1) and (2) and the results of the additional analyses which are being perfonned, including: (a) The shear wall criteria and capacities based on results of the Shear Wall Specimen Testing Program (including the results of the final three test specimens reported in Enclosure (1)); and (b) The final floor response spectra reflecting the factors discussed in Enclosure (2) (as typified by the four floor response spectra shown therein). This is also to inform you that since the submission of PGE-1020, we have been able to obtain from the installing contractor the rebar cut sheets for the core concrete of the Control Building walls. This information has been used to substantiate that the continuity and anchorage of the core rebar exceeds or equals that assumed in development of the wall capacities specified in the Supplemental Structural Evaluation, dated September 19, 1978, with a single limited exception: This is in one area between Elevations 77' and 93' on the west wall of the Control Building, Q t( 790307c M f i

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ATTN: Mr. A. Schwencer where core vertical reinforcement has been determined to be unanchored. This will be considered in the seismic analyses of the modified Control Building and will not adversely affect the ability of the modified Complex to satisfy pertinent seismic requirements. In addition, reevaluation of this wall section based on the criteria as outlined in the September 19, 1978 report, has confirmed that the wall section's capacity is adequate for the loads developed from the SSE and OBE values of 0.259 and 0.089 respectively, as presently approved for interim operation. Very truly yours, / j /

s 8 Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON THE SHEAR WALL SPECIMEN TESTING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION This report supplements the information on the Shear Wall Specimen Testing Program (Testing Program) submitted in Appendix A of the " Report On Design Modifications for the Trojan Control Building" dated January 1979. Test results for the final three specimens (K1, L1, and L2) are contained in this supplement. TEST OBJECTIVES In addition to the basic objectives outlined in the Testing Program, specific objectives of tests of the final three specimens include: a) Determination of the effect of core thickness for speci-mens without core reinforcement (Type B specimen). b) Determination of the effect of embedder steel columns in both the Type A and Type B specimens. c) Determination of the effect of discontinuous vertical core reinforcement which is lapped with steel studs attached to the bottom beam of the test specimen. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Specimen testing was performed in accordance with construction H-67

• test procedures described ii the Testing Program.

The test pro; ram impleme,n ted is contained in Tables Al-1, Al-2, A3-1, AJ-2, A3-3, A3-4 and A3-5. a) Specimenklwasdesignedtosimulatetheeffectof increased core thickness for Type B specimens. b) Speci.nen L1 was designed to simulate the effect of steel columns embedded in the walls of the Complex which contained core reinforcement. In addition, the effect of discontinuous core reinforcement, which is lapped with steel studs, as exists in some locations in the Complex, was simulated. c) Specimen L2 was designed to simulate the ef fect of steel columns embedded in the walls of the Complex which do not contain core reinforcement.

SUMMARY

OF TEST RESULTS A summary of results of the Testing Program is given in Table A2-1 and is graphically presented in Figure A2-1. Photographs of the test specimens are shown in Figures AS-40 through AS-43. Results and conclusions obtained from the final three tests are as follows: a) The maximum shear stress capacity for each specimen has been established along with the elastic range and failure mode. This information is contained in Table A2-1. b) None of the specimens showed evidence of significant cyclic streng til degradation, including specimen L2 which was subjected to extensive cycling in the elastic range, c) Specimen M1 did not show an increase in shear strength !!-6 7.

9 I as an effect of increasod thicknessof unreinforced core concrete. The K1 speciw.n attained a maximum shear strength along the same tailure plane as identitled with test specimens B3, B4, and B5. Failure mode for K1 was sliding due to flexure induced cracks which reduced the available shear area at the base of the specimen. This is attributed to the lack of vertical reinforcement in the core concrete. d) Both specimens L1 and L2 showed a large increase in shear strength which is attributed to the presence of embedded steel columns, attaining shear capacities of 428 psi and 367 psi respectively, e) The difference in strength between specimens L1 and L2 (61 psi) is significant. This increase is attributed to the presence of core rebar in L1, its effective mobiliza-tion by the studs and the fact that the studs maintained the integrity of the interface. f) Shear carried by the steel columns in both the L1 and L2 test specimens at the instrumented column section (4 inches abcVe the wall-beam interface) was approxi-mately 7% of the total shear force applied. The shear resisted by the columns at the wall-beam interf ace would be greater. g) Hysteresis curves and loop envelope curves for each specimen are shown in Figures A5-35, A5-36 and A5-37. Figures AS-38 and A5-39 show the ax.al forces in the steel columns for the L1 and L2 specimens at a section 4 inches below the top of the specimens. The column forces were calculated from the strains measured at these locations. DEVELOPMENT OF CAPACITY CURVES Figure A2-1 si ows " TYPE A", " TYPE B" and " TYPE C" curves t H-67.

which are developed on the basis of the test results. Development of,the " TYPE A" and " TYPE B" curves is presented in the above referenced report. For the " TYPE A" and "TYPh i '. ' curves, the mode of failure was sliding as a result of reduc-tion of available shear area due to flexure-induced cracks. The " TYPE C" curve is partially based on the test results of the specimens (L1 and L2) with embedded steel columns which show significant increase in shear capacity. This increase is attributed to the presence of the steel columns which, acting in conjunction with the shear wall, prevent premature sliding by acting as tension steel and shear dowels. At ultimate capacity these specimens developed shear cracks; however, the columns and vertical reinforcement reached their yield stress and the shear failure followed. The " TYPE C" curve also reflects results obtained from test specimens F1, F2, H1 and H2 in which shear cracks developed following flexural yielding. The " TYPE C" curve represents a lower bound where sliding is precluded. Had the vertical steel (reinforcement, column, strut) not reached yield point, the shear carrying capacity would have ' een higher. For example, the additional rein-forcement the tast specimen J1 and the increased vertical load in the test specimen A4 led to classical shear modes of failure at stress levels significantly above the " TYPE C" curve. H-67 S

TABLi Al-1 l Shear Wall Specimen Test Program' Externally Embedded ~~~ Applied Columns Vertical or Type of Test Specimen Load

• External Auxiliary Load **

One-way Two-way ID (psi) Struts Double Curvature Cyclic Cyclic Al 106.4 No Yes X A2 181.4 No Yes X A3 106.4 No Yes X A4 281.4 No Yes X A5 181.4 No Yes X B1 106.4 No Yes X B2 181.4 No Yes X B3 106.4 No Yes X B4 181.4 No Yes X B5 31.4 No Yes X D1 68.9 No Yes X l El 62.8*** Struts No X E2 63.0 No Yes X F1 106.4 No Yes X g -hl F2 31.4*** Struts No X G1 68.9 No Yes X G2 0.0 No Yes X H1 106.4 No Yes X l H2 23.3*** Struts No X J1 50.0 No Yes X K1 50.0 No Yes X L1 31.4+ Columns No X / L2 31.4+ Columns No X Notes:

• Includes weight of Test Frame and upper reinforced concrete beam.
  • See Section 4.2.2 of this appendix for description.
    • Strut load must be added to external applied load to Abhl

/ calculate total vertical load applied to specimen. Strut loads are given in Table A2-1. +The embedded steel columns develop additional vertien1 fjhh load on the specimen as shown in Table A2-1. AP-2 Supplement #1

e f TABLI: Al-2 Suhmary of Specimen Description Reinforcing *** Number Ratio (%) of p p Specimen Specimens v h Description * /I\\ A 5 .21 .191 Base reinforcing B 5 .12 .130 No core reinforcing D 1 178** .196** No core concrete E 2 .21 .191 1.0 aspect ratio F 2 .43 .191 Ileavy vertical reinforcing Base Reinforcing with total-G 2 .21 .191 ly discontinuous core rein-forcing 11 2 .228 258 23-1/4" thick, base rein-forcing ratio J l .649 .353 23-1/4" thick, heavy verti-cal reinforcing Zb K 1 .133 .095 23-1/4" thick, no core rein-forcing Basically an A Type with L1 1 .21 .191 embedded steel columns and shear studs along base. L2 1 .12 .130 Basically a B Type with embedded steel columns Notes:

• All Specimens have a 0.5 aspect ratio (40" high by 80" long) and have a thick-ness of 17-1/4" unless otherwise noted.
  • Based on block area only
    • Based on gross section of the specimen AP-2 Supplement #1

TABLE A2-1 Summary of Shear Wall Test Results Vertical Inading Test Results Load on E:r1xxkjed Column First Crack or External x Specinen Strut Load Ultimate Vi End Test Bl Specimen H one two (kips) Vu (psi) V A 0.6 ID L (psi) way way East West (psi) flexure shear (psi) (inches) Vu Al 0.5 106 X 278 232 X 164 6.20 167 A2 0.5 181 X 341 257 X 232 2.99 205 A3 0.5 106 X 258 232 X 100 1.90 155 A4 0.5 281 X 457 207 384 278 0.91 274 A5 0.5 181 X 308 207 X 242 3.00 , 185 B1 0.5 106 X 248 232 X 130 3.00 149 ' B2 0.5 181 X 303 207 X 207 3.00 185 B3 0.5 106 X 230 155 X 104 2.05 138 B4 0.5 181 X 316 156 X 182 3.00 190 B5 0.5 31 X 141 105 X 80 0.52 85 D1 0.5 69 X 200 161 X 114 3.00 120 S El 1.0 63 X* -47 +108 264 90 X 190 0.91 158 E2 1.0 63 X 183 89 X 106 0.92 110 F1 0.5 106 X 308 156 308 232 3.00 185 F2 0.5 ~ 31 X* -93 +94 318 156 232 83 0.88 191 G1 0.5 69 X 192 103 X 85 2.97 115 G2 0.5 0 X 105 80 X 27 3.00 63 H1 0.5 106 X 312 172 285 131 0.88 187 Ogf H2 0.5 23 X* +15 +280 323 96 172 255 0.90 194 J1 0. 5 _ __ 50_ _ X_ 475 172 285 163 0.92 285 K1 0.5 50 X 165 131 X 75 0.89 99 .b L1 0.5 31 X* -63 +244 428 126 377 203

0. 96 257 L2 0.5 31 t

.X* -17 +294 367 126 351 203 0.94 220 Specimen tested with struts or embedded columns +" sign represents tensile force "EE " " # -V* sign represents compressive force

TABLE A3-1 SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION REINFORCEMENT DIMENSIONS (IN) EACH BLOCK WYTHE CORE SPECIl1EN HEIGHT LENGTH THICKNESS VERTICAL HORIZONTAL VERTICAL HORIZONTAL-A 40 80 17k 4#4 4#3 4#5 4#3 B 40 80 17k 4#4 4#3 None None D* 40 80 17h 4#4 4#3 None* None* E 40 40 17k 2#4 4#3 2#5 4#3 F 40 80 17k 4#6 4#3 4#7 4#3 G** 40 80 17h 4#4 4#3 4#5 4#3 H 40 80 23k 4#5 4#4 '4#6 4#4 J 40 80 23k 8#7 4#5 8#5 4#4 K 40 80 23k 4#5 4#3 None None b Ll*** 40 80 171-4#4 4#3 4#5 4#3 L2 40 80 4#4 4#3 None None Notes:

• No concrete core in this specimen
  • Discontinuous core reinforcement in_'this_ specimen
    • Base steel plate with vertical studs in this specimen Supplement #1

3 3 3. TABLE A3-2

SUMMARY

OF MATERIAL STRENGTHS MATERI AL STRENGTHS OBSERVED RANGE AVERAGE VALUE TARGET RANGE DURING TEST STRENGTH ITEM PARAMETER NOTATION MINIMUN MAXIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMLN N Concrete Blocks Masonry f' 2500' 3000 2250 2650 I compressive strength (psi) Mortar Mortar f 3000 4000 3300 4100 cm compressive strength (psi) 2 di Cell Grout Concrete f' 5000 6000 5200 6200 e compressive strength (psi) 2 2 Core Fill Concrete f' 5000 6000 5200 6000 c Concrete compressive strength (psi) Reinforcing Yield stress f 40 50 47 55 Steel (ksi) Y J I ased on net cross-sectional area. Notes: B ~ 228-day compressive strength. Supplement 71

TABLE A3-3 SUMARY. OF REINFORCING 3 TEEL PROPERTIES TEST RESULTS TO ASTM: A615 GR.40 FOR p SHEAR WALL l'OUR GROUPS

1. VERAGE TENSILE PROPERTIES BAR HEAT NOMINAL SECTI0ft t10. OF SIZE NO.

AREA (SQ. IN.) YIELD (PSI) TENSILE (PSI) ELONG. (%) SAMPLES 3 323C614 0.11 55135 82699 18 33 4 322E210 0.20 51804 83714 17 14 4 322C280 0.20 49909 78432 19 22 5 323E093 0.31 47579 80186 18 7 bj5 323C325 0.31 50429 83266 16 12 6 323C806 0.44 47193 80000 17 3 7 322C938(1) 0.60 49543 86915 16 4 7 322C938(2) 0.60 48438 86708 16 8 3 27849 0.11 50400 71490 23 9 N 322E665 0.20 52500 84850 18 7 5 322E769 0.31 46260 76610 19 5 .b l

1. 3-323C614 All groups except Group VI-requiring #3 bars.
2. 4-322E210 Group I*
3. 4-322C280 All remaining groups except Group VI requiring #4 bars.

'b

1. 5-322E093 All groups (except Group V and Group VI) requiring #5 bars.

'5-323C325 Group V. ~

1. 6-323CC06 All groups requiring #6 bars.
2. 7-322C938(1)

All groups (except Group V) requiring #7 bars.

1. 7-322C938(2)

Group V.

1. 3-27849 Gro,up VI.
2. 4-322E665 Group VI.

b l

1. 5-322E769 Group VI.

• For shear wall pour groups, see Table A3-4.

3-7 Supplement #1

TAllt.E A3-4 O DEFINITION OF SliEAR WALL POUR GROUPS GROUP TEST SPECIMENS 1 A1, B1, A2, B2 II A3, B3, A4, B4 III AS, 85, G1, G2, IV D1, El, E2, F1 V F2, H1, H2, J1 sl VI K1, L1, L2 b b Supplement #1 a

TABLE A3-5 Concrete Material Strengths at Time of Test Specimen Cell Upper Lower ID Mortar Fill Core Beam Beam Al 3311 5627 5485 5471 5569 A2 3525 5781 5770 6190 6015 A3 3790 5770 5217 5941 6142 A4 3757 5346 5345 6086 6352 A5 3905 5398 5698 5906 5758 B1 3548 5545 5675 5523 5676 B2 3950 5884 5870 6190 6087 B3 3855 5629 5305 6319 6205 B4 4164 5345 5335 6288 6300 B5 3975 5690 5415 5949 5813 D1 4025 6030 5825 5710 El 4095 6070 5370 6350 5778 E2 4125 6205 5990 6435 6220 F1 4165 6050 5290 6113 6220 F2 4042 5240 5190 5562 6258 G1 3988 5720 5750 6150 5980 G2 3755 5814 5790 6270 6085 11 1 3758 5390 5680 5916 6477 11 2 3618 5330 5485 6300 6380 J1 3800 5450 5875 6425 6190 K1 3900 5242 5393 5735 6435 Ai ts L1 3867 5437 5605 6236 6545 L2 3688 5164 5308 5907 5968

• • No core on Specimen D1 AD-2 Supplement #1 S

9

500 ,Ji i .. v. A60 I <l e,, n 4 'y A00 4 h! . Lz 0 / 1 7ype c a g 350 A2 / ' 'o / J2#.g ~ 1 .Fz g, p- 'F, /;-As j,' y 300 \\02 /,[ - 9 v Ai I Ag /7"'. I 3 *_~ /s, / a_ f d 2 / / f zoo / D '. / N'Tyee A~ oc4 s' / w 61 T K i-w iso. / " ryPa e> ~ 6 _. / / ~* IO O 7

2 I

l l l I I i l l l t l O so ico iso zoo eso 3co TOTAL VERTICAL LOAD APPLIED TO SPECIMEN (6'n, Psi) PLOT OF TEST F,66ULTS d FIGLlRE A2-1 SUPPLE MENT I

A TYPE l B TYPE (No Core Reinforcement) - I _ ) [ l ,I il 4 T i i i i i T I v i i r; =l l l I Jy 49 N' -0 0 d = = = L r m M N l l l h I I t i l i I a g g a ) i i l ii i f I i 1 l! 1l1 i t I f 1 ,6 it 8 g s a O M C M C C .c .C .C .C-O O cn m cn i m. (- si a 2 ! 2 21 2 E'.El C .C r C Specimens A Through K = < x L1 L2 ~ t d I If i e i a i i >la L i i e i w .e {r - o - e_e - +.- e - e - .f. - - ( R =w e': 6 (- L_,-....,...., i is i i li i r i i i i i 1 e l I i t j t i / / Embedded W10. x 25 _ 3/4" x 8" Studs Steel Column on 3/4" x 6" Anchor Plate at base of L1 only Sperimens L1 & L2 -- Figure A3-2 Supplement #1

) 0 4 TN EM E ) ] C 5 0 A E 3 L H P C S N I I 3 4 L A 0 T 1 N ( b J i 0 Z 2 I R OH se b v 0 r 1 u C y R s i 1 E S T s 5 0 H b 1 S e 2 5 2 5 5 S i5 E r - W e 2 1 7 7 1 / ts , [/, y 0 0 0 1 T H 0 0 0 / S 0 0 0 1 A 6 4 2 E 2 3 / / 5 / A M E M R e J ) r / S 0 / u N S 1 g I E i A R F M P / ' / 0 ) 2 / ' /- 1 K N O E ] F 3 I C E P S ] 0 4 ~

'y 0 ) / 4 T N 1 E 5 M E ) A S L E P H S C 0 I N 5 J ( 3 L 4 A T 0 N 1 ) f Z A I RO 0 H 0 p 2 j / [ 7 ) s 0 I e 2 5 v 1 P r ( u C u S T V S S s i 6 W s 3 4 e 2 3 7 0 0 0 0 r 3 2 0 2 3 e 1 t s y d ! H 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 1 / 3 6 4 2 ? 3 j / S A 5 M E / E A A R / R U) 0 e >i 3 r u N Sl 1 / I ES u g A RP V i F M P( 6 0 0 2 2 1 L N E. 0 0 I / / I 3 C E P S 0 ) / / 4 /

f 0 0 2 / 4 N E 4 M V' A l E ) / C S. f L H P C S N / I I 0 D / 3 L 1 A 0 1 T 1 N ( / / O A / I RO / / H 2 2 0 0 / 3 2 T- /' /'/, l/ 3 s 0 e b v n V I ru / m / i i 6 C S T 0 S s 2 /7/ W s / 3 2 2 3 4 e 1 g 0 0 0 S 0 ' r $/ 3 2 1 2 3 e ts // M' T, 4 f 2 / y 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 4 2 3 A' / E S A / Un 0 f u e I 1 ur I / S 6 g P i 0 F ( y / 0 Q 4 h 2 7 / 2 L N 0 E 0 I C E P S / 0 0 / / / 4 /j

3 0 e e p - o l e v 2 n ~ E 0 ) H p C o N o I w ( L - s NO i s I T er C e E t L s f y E - H D 1 L K A 5 3 R N E E T 5 A l N / I L C e E ru P S g 1 i ~ F 0 ~ ~ / ,/ f f 0 5 ~ 1 0 2 1 hh N $ Wnr 1

4 ? 0 e m po 2 le N 0 ) v S n E E H C. p I' o o 1 ( L L N s O N is K T e C r I C E e E L t P F s N I y C H LA 6 R I 3 T e A r L ug 1 i l F 0 / / / l. 0 5 0 5 0 2 1 1 0 4 3 2 1 C$ i 0 EM q u5

~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ e po l ) e v S ~ n E H E C 1 p 1 o 2 ( o L L N 1 O s f E I i T T s I C ~ e C E r E L e P F t S r. s e y D S H L ~ A R 7 1 3 T ' e AL r ~ ug i F ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ / I ~ 0 ,5 0 5 0 ~ 2 1 1 0 4 3 2 1 r ~ Eh = ~ ~

E T A t M 2 E C I r l C I K R T O O S R F A P O-L P L N E A T I n U Yr L O C 0 u h ~ / ~ \\ O k S 2' 1 L E 4 W 4 ne 2 m ic I / S e P p S 0 ) J b 2 2 P' n Z 1 I I I I K / c ( s S S K e P P 8 2 A N' r = ) [ Il u R M o 2 5 C U F 4 3 L L 0, O n J m / S N I S M l T N o E U I I N C R L I E T. O L C d R e E N O d T I F d A e M D. 0 L b m U E / T E 1 I X L I A U V 8 3 1 l 1 l' l', 5 i L r / 1 T 1 S g l', 1 l'. 1 A 6 S 4 3 2 1 c e 6 4 c r 4 J n u r r _i / i F / 0 0 0 0 4, / 1 / / \\ b 0 ~ 0 0 ( 0 n 0 \\ / 1 2 \\ 5 L n \\ 1 i k R k S' ) I E aEI = T tRS A nTP L aS( 0 'k 6 ' 3 6 T SA E 0 0 1

LATE R.nl 3!17. AK STRES5 (PSI) 400 ULTIMATE STRESS = 37 PSI / f 294 k f / YIELI) FORCI: 300 r EAST / d YIEl D IN ( OLUMN' / WEST $ 4-1.l 278 P:,I / 1 [ ~ COLUMt FORC[S 200 / ELASTIC V --- APPROKIP TE A \\ / P IN ITIAL CRACK 127 PSI '100 / 4 2-l'.1 e \\ / c i-l',' e o -f 0 0 50 100 15,0 200 200 300 3N AXIAL FORT E IN l'OLUMNS (KIP!l} Figure A5-39 Embedded Column Forces In Specimen L2

,8-, l< 4,4 17/ w', [Nig},Nii$,,~W' ' y4f? ,j : f i " C'l # 61,#. W)h.- t-::. ' h '[;' u "#g e':,, " J, i W f(.r'%-{c..5.x ti * \\ i h,\\l i L Figure A5-40 Specimen K1 (florth Face) After Test i M i ,jy$04ItGE. fan.f$x jY&n4nj$$ t, i. 'i UG. + 2 .,s. > ,,. q.,.ea. 'N f ~.a., ~,. g -- Q i,.; % P..'..~#.. 1T. - =#.

i. 1 1

Figure AS-41 Specimen K1 (South Face) Af ter Test

s,-, g-.-, .y...,-.-.... y,%* g_.. - ,t. 8..,. ."'b,._,. wiy, Ys s u. :,.f. ~ 3 1 e.

• ^:'

G. _, \\ _,r 4 e 3, e 's JA '*3 w

f5_

.7. x r, .s s. .x-... ,A ajq. ifg{.P ,4.. i:( [ Q

p e9 y...

M.i .,:w e,.. w, r .f. ^, e' .., *. yn :. $)* y *, ;

• t e

.' ). . ~. _n.. y,,9 d,; :-, g: J' 4 97^ < e_. oa : ; s *.- -. ny g >-. w -w, I _m.-..__ -.-------J Figure A5-42 Specimen L1 Af ter Test . :;;: ; yg.s.; y ;..- gy :. ; ,z. y.,; t.

, t. l-T.w'fh$hkl.97.fpg &

k Q,2.: '_ T bQ 'U e,s;,awy A 1 y. N 5 LI ...~. e i. t,.,..jl,',f, ,g k [r i h),, .W';

m W

., s4 ,,f j f,l.p.T", P. 'k., d,n.!. !;.. 2 .v g .O 1+m f': h .. :f ';;- f' 7pge==mm=====# fy :.,f l'g-(Tp p kq'9;4? % w,.s % y ?iflg..g*

J:j2

p.,iIk ** 1 M [ b [ $ 39

'.dP#1% j g, 2 W ~% ~r:'+ s T" Figure AS-43 Specimen L2 Af ter Test 4

Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 ADDITIONA!. INFORMATION REGARDING LATERAL STIFFNJ:SSI:, AM,D RESPONSE SPECTRA DETERMINATION GENERAL Appendix b, Section 2, of the Report on Design Modifications for the Trojan Control Building presented the general proce-dure for determining the floor response spectra. In order to implement these procedures, detailed information concerning the stif f nesses of the wallsof the modified Complex and the variation of mass and stiffness is required. The following presents this information. INTRODUCTION The lateral stiffnesses of reinforced concrete walls, rein-forced concrete block walls, or composite walls, such as used at the Trojan Nuclear Plant, depend on the stress levels. The initial lateral stiffness of these types of walls depends on tensile strength of material. Until the tensile strength of the material is exceeded and some minor flexural cracking occurs, the stiffness will remain essentially constant. As the lateral load increases and the resulting flexural stresses exceed the tensile strength, the lateral stiffness will de-crease. In a seismic analysis which uses a stick model of the structural system, this reduction in stiffness can L: ac-counted for by using the reduced properties associated with the " cracked" section in conjunction with the initial clastic modulus. In a seismic analysis which uses a three-dimensional finite element model, the analysia is simplified by using a reduced elastic modulus while maintaining the initial uncracked sect. ion properties. H-67 a s STIFFNESS OF TEST SPECIMENS In the seismic analysis of the modified Complex, the reduced elastic modulus of the composite walls and concrete block walls has been obtained from the Testing Program. The secant modulus of each specimen is calculated by using the following formulas: = g g + 1.2PL PL ^ GA and E= 2(1 + V )G lateral deflection of the test specimen where A = P= shear load in the test specimen L= height (40 inches) I = moment of inertia A= cross-section area E= reduced elastic modulus or secant modulus G= shear modulus V = Poisson's ratio The moment of inertia is for the total uncracked section. This results in values of E and G representing the total com-posite section, which is consistent with the approach used in developing the finite element model. INITIAL ELASTIC MODULUS In order to develop the reJuced elastic modulus relationship as a function of stress conditions, the initial clastic modu-lus roust be obtained. Since the initial clastic modulus is difficult to determine experimentally, it is calculated on 11 - 6 7 the f0110 wing basis: "o^t Ecore ^ core

• Ccel1^ cell

" block ^ block + where E initial elastic modulus of the com- = posite section A total cross-sectional area = initial elastic modulus of the E = core concrete core A rea of the core = core E initial elastic modulus of the cells = cell in the block A area of the cells = cell E initial clastic modulus of the block = block A = area f the block block For this evaluation, E is taken from the recommendation of core y the Aiaerican Concrete Institute (ACI 318-77), and E is block taken f rom !! alm. 2 For E a specific recommendation could

cell, not be found in the technical literature.

Several possibili-ties were considered and the selection was based on a compari-son with the experimental results ot the shear wall test pro-9 ram. These relationships are summarized as follows: 33(w3[')0.5 E = (3) core c 3 22(w f')0.5 E = cell e E (" c} block where w = unit weight in pounds per co' ic foot f ', = ultimate compressive strengtn in pounds L per square inch elastic modulus in pounds per square inch E = 11 - 6 7 a-

9 STIFFNESS REDUCTION FACTOR The typical test results indicate that the ;ecant modulus is primarily influenced by the shear stress (1) and axial stress (o). This influence is shown b;r the hysteresis loop envelopes for specimens G1, B5, and G2 in Figures 1, 2, and 3, respec-tively. These specimens were chosen because they represent the range of dead load within the modified Complex. To sim-plify the use of this information, the secant modulus for a given stress level is divided by the initial clastic modulus to form the ratio f(T,c). This ratio is shown in figure 4 for these three specimens. With this ratio, the secant modulus of the composite walls of the modified Complex at a9 iven stress level is determined by E( T,0 ) =E 1(T,c ) (4) g where E is given by equation (2), and f(T, o ) is given f rom g Figure 4. In applying the reduction factor f(T,o ), the average shear stress from an analysis based on the uncracked initial ;cif fness is used together with the direct axial stress at the top of the wall. In cases when the reduction factor is 0.6 or less, a slightly larger reduction ratio is used. Since the lateral shear force in a wall depends on its lateral stiffness relative to parallel walls, a reduction in stiffness for a wall will normally result in reduction in its shear force. This reduction in shear force would result in a higher reduction factor than was predicted by using the shear force obtained from the analysis based on the uncracked ini-tial stittness. By using the slightly higher reduction factor, this effect is reduced. A final check is being made of the stresses and associated stiffnesses. The stiffnesses input to the finite element model are based on 11 - 6 7 -

an clastic modulus given by N N-EST = E( t, o ) eff where t full total composite wall thickness = effective composite wall thickness, t = ggg t -8 inches full DEVELOPMEtJT OF FLOOR RESPOtJSE SP8CTRA The floor response spectra are developed from a fixed base analysis of the modified Complex. The seismic criteria are as stated in Reference 3. The clastic modulus for the steel pla te innd the new reinforced concrete walls are taken as 30,000 ksi and 33(w'1 f ', respectively. The stiffness re-0 *5 c duction is negligible for the new reinforced cone.:ete since the stresses are low and the reinforcing steel ratios are relatively high. The stiffness reduction is also negligible for the existing reinforced concrete such as the floor and roof slabs, holdup tanks enclosure structure, and spent fuel pool, because the stresses are low. RESPOtJSE SPECTRA BROADEtJItJG The broadening of the response spectra considers variation in the mass and stiffness of the modified Complex. Since the structure exists, the weight car, be estimated with more accu-racy than can be done f( r a structure under design. The variation of the weight is estimated to be,+ 51. The variation of the stiffness is considered in two cate-yories. First is the variation in the i'nitial stiffness, and second is the variation in stiffness reduction factors H-67 due to the stress level. The initial stiffness is related to the compressive strength f the material by equation (3). The variation of the compre :ive strength with time in relte-sented in Appendix A of Reference 4. In Reference 4 it is pointed out tila t th compressive strength of mixes C1 and E2 used in the containment structure (6000 psi design compres-sive strength) increased up to 90 days and then remained constant. In arriving at an estimate of the compressive strength for an age of six to seven years for mixes D1 and D2 used in the Complex (5000 psi design compressive strength), the strength is considered to continue to increase from the 90-day strength of 6000 psi to 6600 psi ( corise rva t ive for response spectra determination) even though El and E2 showed no increase. Therefore, the compressive strength is taken as 6600 psi. The variation in the elastic modulus due to a variation in the compressive strength can also be as-sessed by using the standard deviation of compressive strength test data. For mixes D1 and D2, the standard deviation is 800 psi. This results in a change of +5.9% and -6.3% in the initial elastic modulus. For the purposes of this evaluation, the variation in the initial stiffness is taken as +6.3%. The variation in the stiffness due to the stress levels is obtained by considering the variation of the dead load and shear stress. The stiffness reduction factors for the various stress conditions range from 1.0 to 0.7.5, with the majority of the walls in the 1.0 Lu 0.8 range. To estimate the variation in the stiffness reduction factor due to variations in the axial load and shear stress, 20% and 10% variations in the dead load and shear stress, respectively, are assumed, and considered 'O be conservative. It is further assumed that the vari i on in the dead load and the 5 heat stress are inde-t pend u )r the variation of 20% in the dead load in the rano v t. _ u in,cludes the majority of wails, the stiffness 11 - 6 7 reduction fo" the total str mture is estimated to ba 35. Con-sidering the variation in t shear stress, it is estimated that a stiffness reduction ut 5% would resuit for the totai structure. The stiffness of some elements in the finite ele-ment model will change by more than 5%, but the influence of these elements on the overall structural stiffness is not significant. Uncertainties associated with an experimental investigation could also cause variation in the stiffness reduction factors. It is estimated that a 15% variation is adequate to account for these. These variations are summarized in Table 1, and are considered variations about a mean value. When foregoing variations are combined by the SRSS, the resulting frequency curve widening is lot. RESPONSE SPECTRA CURVES Using the above procedures, the Complex was analyzed for both the OBE and SSE. Since the seismic loads are approximately equal for the 0.15g OBE with 2% structural damping, and the 0.259 SSE with 5% damping, the stiffnesses are the same for each analysis. Typical response spectra curves are shown in Figures 5 through 8. 11 - 6 7 REFERENCES 1. American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-77) 2. Holm, T. A., Proceedings of the North American Masonry Conference, " Structural Properties of Block Concrete", August 1978, Boulder, Colorado. 3. Bechtel Power Corporation for Portland General Electric Company, " Report on Design Modifications for tne Trojan Control Building", (PGE-1020), January 1979. 4. " Supplementary Response to NRC Questions", November 22, 1978. (NRC Docket 50-344, Control Building Proceeding Licensee's Exhibit No. 21.)

9 0 s m .~ O / / 160 / /' / = / 120 / m = 7 m Eg 80 spr rIMrn r,1 m s. 40 0

0. 01

0. 02

0. 03 LATE RAL Di FLECT) ON (INCH) 4 Finorn 1 Hvctorosis I000 Fnvelone

~ / 120 / P S / SPEC IMEN ES S 80 u b; e6 I 40 f 0 O.01 0.02 0.03 LATERAL DEFLECT ION ( INCH) 4 f $ e t e t s es O Il*

• e 4 o g
• o r* ie lnon {n ten) pnn

l 120 S / O 80 /' m / w / SPECIMEN G2 ^ ? E / Y A0 l w 0

0. 01

0. I)2

0. 03 LATE RAL DE LECTI )N (IN :H) 4 f k v1lpVn ]

ll1t f f D V O C k V, l000 f f]'!O 000

-w- ~ - ~ ~ - ^ ~ " ' 1.0 s\\, o 0.8 \\ w \\ g O N 3 o = axial stress m cc 0.6 . c O D \\ Ua g"O t i G1 a=70 psi w m, 0.4 a E G2 o=0 psi w B5 o=40 psi 0.2 0.0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 - - - - - -. - - ~ ~. -.------.---------------------*------r-- i l Shear Stress, T(Psi) i i - l - ~~ r + 1 Figure 4 Stif fness Reduction Ratio

P E. moo. scc. 19 o C 0 01 24 j i ' i TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT ' I F0DIFIED COMPLEX I 20 - i HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA i; l DIRECTION: N-S l i ELEVATION: Control, 93' (Envelope) i i 16 l EARTHQUAKE: OBE. O.15. N-S r 9 ea

0. 5,4 z.

l l 7 i c l l H i l , l c: j i i l e u l l ! i i d 12 - j v i, I., l f i s i i ^i, i l I ! l I i l - l i t l i i i l x 1 i j i i i l l i t I 8 l s i l j ' I i

l O

l l i i I 8l i j 'e 0-I

. l i

i W ^ l l ! e I i a i Il Ig !! -,j i ll.. i.

i. i I

l l;,, 5% I I 4 l 1 i !,;j! i l' l i i I I [ i i i i i ! i l' i I i i i ; N i I i I l l! l l l I i ; i 0 O.; 2 4 6 8 3.o 2 4 6 8 t o. o 2 4 6 8 goo FREQUENCY-CPS Figure 5

PEP DD ZEC. ic o c-1 c o; ~ ~ 0.5% i, l i t TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT l 1 MODIFIED COMPLEX i,, 10 - HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA l l i 't l l l DIRECTION: E-W I l ELEVAT,0N: Control, 93' (Envelope) l' l I s I EARTHQUAKE: OBE, 0.15, E-W 9 j e-8 '- c-5 e l l i i ~. l C i l I'. i i P l l i i i e 1 i. i i li .i I m i d 6-i i i l l i i l l i ! i i i i I l i! I I i j l l c: i l 1l i - i H l I ! i I 0 l i g 4 l i m. m l l j i i i i l l' 5 ".' l l l t l f ' l. l l j !' l it 2 I l l i ii i ! j !' ' ~ ; i, 1 i i I l l .I . 1 i i i i J I ! l l I l I 0 O.1 2 4 6 8 3.0 2 4 6 8 go o 2 4 6 8 100 FREQUENCY-CPS Figure 6

PER!OD-SEC. IO C LC C' 1 g, 12. t i l !i; TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT i j I is i MODIFIED COMPLEX l l;,I' i HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA 1 lo r T-DIRECTION: N-S r'i i j i j i ELEVATION: Control, 93' (Envelope) ll I ! i l l !,' ! lll l l i EARTHQUAKE: SSE. 0.259 N-S I s e i i 6 ;- s c i ', l j M ,I ll j i i i l 9 ii l i i j l' r ,i. ,I l i i j ! l! l C li j W I l I t i ! ; l i y G O l l -, i i l l o i r i l l I s i' !l f l ! _.J I l 1 I ! I I I - I i g i l 1 C l 1 i b l !' i'2 l l H 8 I i [ l l O i E' 4 t !, ll i i I l l ! 'i ' i l I jil I j i j I i j I i i ! ll t * / i i 2 j j j 7

j i

i I \\ l i I [ i i l M l l l. ll lIl 0.1 2 4 6 8 io 2 4 6 8 to o 2 4 6 8 ion FREQUENCY CPS Figure 7

PERiCD SEC. 10 0 '. C G 0 01 i i /g r-i i i i TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT I i MODIFIED COMPLEX i /0 HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA id.5 '% j i DIRECTION: E-W / j f

}I ELEVATION

Control, 93' (Envelope) I EARTHQUAKE: SSE, 0.25g, E-W e s S l } 5 I I e. va s e a [ l tu C l 1 S i i i l ( i C i I I H i ' i. 'l ii i O i i t 4. i i 1 ~ U) l l'i I ! 5 c% i l l i l i l i _ _ _. _l i l i t f I i i I l i l 1 i !!ll i i t i l j 01 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 to 9 2 4 6 8 3er FREQUENCY-CPS Figure 8 _ _.__}}