ML19337A581
| ML19337A581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1980 |
| From: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton, Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009290303 | |
| Download: ML19337A581 (12) | |
Text
f DUKE POWER COMPANY Pows Bv waxo 422 Socin Causcu Srazzi, CnAnwitz. N. C. asa sa wiwam o. **aa ra.sa.
September 23, 1980 Vscs Pets. ogee, TELCp=oset: Asta 704 Secame Paoouctios.
373-*oe3 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention:
Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Projects Branch No. 1
Subject:
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-369, -370
Dear Mr. Denton:
As requested by Mr. Robert L. Tedesco's letter of August 29, 1980, please find attached additional information on Category I masonry wall design at McGuire Nuclear Station.
i In addition, it has been determined that the wording on Revision 1, dated September 16, 1980, of our response to the original information request on Category I masonry walls was incorrect. Please find attached Page 3 of this response. This page incorporates our corrections to Revision 1.
Please advise us if you have any additional questions.
/
Ve truly yours, N w s Lf. c /
L.*.
William O. Parker, Jr. [
k k
LJB:scs 9
9 Attachment
\\
'?
4 q.
8 e
ges-
safety related with very few exceptions. All nuclear safety-related masonry walls are reinforced both horizontally and vertically with the exception of the Battery Room. This room contains 354 linear feet of grouted, single wythe (8 foot high) walls reinforced horizontally at every course with Durowall. The non-safety related walls are located in the shower areas and around stairwells. The non-safety masonry walls have no safety equipment attached to them, nor does there exist any safety piping and/or equipment in their proximity. Loads loading combinations and applicable design codes for the design of the concrete masonry walls are included in Attachment 1.
l l
4.
Indicate the method that you used to calculate the dynamic forces in masonry walls due to earthquake, i.e., whether it is a code's method such as Uniform Building Code, or a dynamic analysis.
Identify the code and its effective i
date if the code's method has been used.
Indicate the input motion if a dynamic analysis has been performed.
I Earthquake loadings are considered in the design of the concrete masonry walls (See Attachment 1).
The masonry walls are designed using the results of the seismic analysis of the Auxiliary Building as outlined in the McGuire FSAR (Section 3.7).
The walls are assumed to be rigid and the building accelerations at the masonry wall supporting floor are used with an added design factor of 1.875.
The design factor is utilized to account for 4
different boundary conditions and physical properties.
5.
How were the masonry walls and the piping / equipment supports attached to them designed? Provide enough (numerical) examples including details of reinforcement and attachments to illustrate the methods and procedures used to analyze and design the walls and the anchors needed for supporting piping / equipment (as applicable).
i i
The Auxiliary Building concrete masonry walls and the piping / equipment supports attached to them are designed utilizing sound structural engineering techniques.
i Loads and Load combinations employed in the design of the masonry walls, as j
well as applicable building codes are outlined in Attachment No. 1.
A very small amount of piping / equipment supports, e.g. approximately 14 piping supports, are actually attached to the masonry wal's.
The reinforcing details and methods of supporting a typical wall are included in Attachment 2.
Attach-ment 3 shows a numerical evaluation of a masonry wall for a piping support l
which is attached to it.
Also included in Attachment 3 are some typical pipe support attachments to masonry walls. No expansion anchors were used in attaching safety-related piping supports to masonry walls.
6.
Provide plan and evaluation views of the plant structures showing the location 1
of all masonry walls for your facility. includes a series of drawings showing the location of masonry j
walls within the Auxiliary Building.
e Revision 1 _ _-
MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 & 2
RESPONSE
to Request for Infonnation on Masonry Wall Docket Nos. 50-369/370 USNRC Structural Engineering Branch September 19, 1980 Question 1 In response to Staff's Concern No. 3 you stated implicitly that no tornado missiles are to be considered because the masonry walls are located inside the Auxiliary Building and therefore are shielded from the effects of this type of missile. However, in load combinations (1) and (3) listed in Attachment 1, wind loads are included. An explanation shculd be given for the discrepancy in your basic design consideration.
Response 1 All the masonry walls are interior walls within the Auxiliary Building and are therefore shielded from tornado missiles and wind loadinn.
Load combinations (1) and (3) of Attachment #1 to the original Duke response include the full load combinations applicable to these walls in accordance with the McGuire FSAR Tabies 2.8.4-1 and 3.8.4-2.
In the actual application of these load combinations 2
to the design of the masonry walls the terms W and W are equated to zero, consistent with the fact that these walls are interior to the Auxiliary Building complex.
Question 2 In Attachment 1 you stated that allowable stresses, S, are as outlined in ACI 531.
In section 10.1.7 of ACI 531 for load combinations involving wind or earthquake the allowable stresses may be increased 33 percent. However for seismic Category 1 structures in nuclear power plants such increases are not permitted (see SRP section 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 for concrete structures).
In view of such a criterion your consideration of the load combination D + L + E is requested.
Response 2 The masonry wall design for McGuire is based on the allowable stresses as given in " Concrete Masonry Structures Design and Construction" Title No. 67-23, ACI Committe 531. The 33 percent increase in the allowable stresses for loading combinations which include earthquake effects are used as reccomended by the ACI 531 Code. The 33 percent increase was applied to the allowables for both operating basis and safe shutdown earthquakes. This procedure is consistent with the McGuire FSAR provisions when concrete working stress design method
I I
Response 2, con't.
is employed for the operating basis earthquake load combinations. This procedure does result in additional margins of conservatism for the safe shutdown earthquake load combination when compared to the ultimate strength provisions for concrete design delineated in the McGuire FSAR.
Standard Review plan 3.8.4 entitled "Other Seismic Category I Structures" does not allow a 33 percent increase in stresses due to earthquake for service load conditions. This SRP was issued by USNRC subsequent to the completion of masonry wall design activities on McGuire.
Question 3 In your response to Staff's Concern No. 4 you stated that for the dynamic analysis the walls are assumed to be rigid and the building accelerations at the masonry wall supporting floor are used with an added design factor of 1.875.
For the in-plane seismic forces the assumption of rigid wall appears to be reasonable.
j However for out-of-plane seismic forces the assumption of the rigid wall is far from the truth.
In your sample calculation on page 4 of attachment 3 the natural frequency of the wall is computed to be 14.8 cps and a response of 0.415g under OBE is obtained. For SSE the response is obtained by multiplying the OBE response by 15/8. Provide the justification for assuming the wall as rigid and also indicate if the added design factor 1.875 is used for both the OBE and SSE designs.
Response 3 The anlaysis approach employed in the original calculations is considered to be very conservative. All walls were assumed as simply supported beams spanniy from floor to ceiling. Actually the vast majority of walls are positively supported on all sides and span in two (2) directions. Typical wall aspect ratios are such that the simply supported beam assumption leads to sizeable overestimates of the actual applied moments and shears. These walls are reinforced in both directions with 1
actual reinforcing which is substantially in excess of the amount that was required for flexure and shear. The SSE Building accelerations were used with an added
]
design factor of 1.875. The aforementioned design office approach was utilized in lieu of a more rigorous response spectrum type analysis to yield design accelerations.
Considering these different parameters, (i.e. oneway action, simply supported, generous reinforcing versus two way action, minimum reinforcing and an additional e
l design factor on the SSE building accelerations), it is reasonable to concluda the masonry wall design approach is reasonable, adequate and conservative.
l Question 4 The following items relative to seismic analysis of the walls should be provided:
(a) For the multi-wythe walls, indicate how the out-of-plane seismic loads i
were calculated and how the shear transfer mechanism through which the composite action of multi-wythe was ascertained.
(b)
Indicate why only the bottom floor response spectra were used in obtaining 1
the seismic loads for the walls, and the top ficor response spectra were not considered.
(c)
Indicate how the in-plane and out-of-plane forces due to interstory drift were accounted for.
(d) Discuss how the effect of the three components of earthquake were considered.
i Response 4(a) j For multi-wythe walls, out-of-plane seismic inertial loads were calculated by assuming the wall to be rigid in the out-of-plane mode. The zero period acceleration at floor level was applied to give an equivalent unifom pressure due to the self-weight of the wall. The shear transfer r.,echanism between wythes was assured as indicated in Note 4, Drawing MC-1200-2.01: "For collar joints in multiple wythe walls, apply mortar to adjoining faces of both wythes and press together fimly to insure full bond between wythes". Subsequent checks of the resulting shear stresses due to the inertial loads cited above indicate that these stresses are less than 11 psi.
Response 4(b)
In the absence of more exact knowledge of the detailed variations in force distribution over the surface of the wall under seismic loading, the floor response spectrum was chosen to represent the complex loading function in lieu of more rigorous analysis techniques.
Response 4(c)
Interstory drift effects were considered to be negligible in the original design of these wall panels since all are non-structural "In-Fill" walls.
A subsequent review was made of the seismic motion of the Auxiliary Building.
Considering in-plane effects on the basis of gross panel shear strain under S.S.E., and conservatively neglecting the confining effects of the structural components of the building, a factor of safety of at least 1.88 exists against this type of failure. The walls were designed as simply supported top and bottom, and thus out-of-plane drifts of the order anticipated at McGuire Nuclear Station will not introduce significant loads into the walls.
Response 4(d)
The earthquake specified in the McGuire FSAR consists of one vertical component and one horizontal component. The horizontal component may be oriented in any direction. Since the walls are orders of magnitude stiffer in-plane than out-of-plane, the out-of-plane (purely transverse) loading will govern in all cases. The vertical component of earthquake will only serve to change the axial load in the wall. The maximum vertical acceleration is.25g under SSE. The vertical compressive stresses under SSE are negligible compared to flexual compressive stresses.
Question 5 A more clear copy of Attachment 2 should be provided.
Response 5 is enclosed as clarification of Attachment 2 in the July 2,1980 response.
Question 6 With respect to attachment 3, provide the following information:
(a) On p. 5 provide the response spectra used (b) On p. 6 indicate the coordinate system used on this page and page 16.
(c) On p. 7 reference is made to page 8a of the calculation AB-200-09, Rev. #20, for the maximum allowable moment.
This calculation should be part of this package. Discuss how the composite action was considered. Effects of other relative interstory drifts and other loads components of seismic forces, he overall behavior of the wall.
should also be considered on t (d) On p. 8 thru 15, discuss the effects of the combined action of local and global loads using the appropriate load combinations.
Response 6(a) provides the response spectra used in the sample calculation.
Response 6(b)
The coordinate system referenced to plant coordinates is shown on the plan view and location plan of sheet 16 of Attachment 3.
Sheet 3 of attachment 3 shows the same view of the attachment.
In summary, the coordinate system is as follows:
x - North y - Up z - East Response 6(c)
Page 8a of calculation AB-200-09, summarizes the allowable moments for each thickness of wall based on working stress design. A copy is attached as.
The consideration of composite action is discussed in 4(a) above. The consideration of other earthquake components and interstory drift effects are discussed in Sections 4(.d) and 4(c) above, respectively.
Response 6(d)
The effect of local loads on the overall structure is considered by superposition on Sheet 7 of attachment 3 to the original response. Local failure in the vicinity af the connection is investigated on Sheets 8 through 15 of the same attachment.
The moment loading whose resultant is directed normal to the wall is taken in bearing on adjacent blncks, as indicated on Sheet 9 of attachment 3.
Depending on the direction of the one-way span considered, this can bear on an adjacent one-way span or produce compressive stresses which add to inertial flexural
l i
Response 6(d) compressive stresses. Since the capacity of all walls is controlled by tension in the reinforcing steel, a compressive stress reserve is present even when the wall is stressed to its allowable moment by inertial loads. Since a conservative effective area was taken to resist the canpressive stresses due to out-of-plane moments and the corresponding in-plane force load, this consideration will not control. Local in-plane force loadings are taken in bearing on adjacent blocks and do not interact with global inertial loads except as noted above.
When they are of'significant magnitude, they are considered as global in-plane loads. As analyzed on Sheets 10 and 11 of attachment 3, direct transverse loads and m: rents whose resultants are directed in-plane will create' transverse shearing st: esses. These shear stres is will interact with global shears due to inertial loads.
In lieu of a more detailed analysis in which these stresses would be superimposed with global stresses, only partial credit was taken for the available shear area. Excess shear capacity exists for inertial loads on the walls under consideration.
Question 7 Drawings supplied with attachment #4 are not legible. Provide a set of full size drawings.
Resoonse 7 A set of full size drawings is enclosed as outlined on Attachment 10.
1
...-.g.n-.c..
~..-.,-. g n.;..
_,.._. :., - m.,
,__;----..-..a.=..,
)
T MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION RESPONSE ACCELERATION SPECTRA.
DAMPING = 0.050 AUXILIR9Y BUILDING, N-S DIRECTION, EL.,750+0 s
MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION OBE (8%
rg
_ _ _. l.,
l o
/
2 a!ED E
1
.o b
ui s
=
=u
\\.--
Q og. _..,s.
c==
~
~
l
$,'. __j.
\\
/
g",/
W s a
D ~\\
u:Cf s
L
.y A
h
\\
N s
' ~
1 N
8 4
N
^
ckl.05 O.10 0.00 0.50 t.00 2.00
!,'. 0 0 l'.00 O
PERIOD IN SECONDS
.'\\*
/
b...%-_. W g.g f-~_,.~
Form 184
_____.__:_._==,._
r CeVelCpment
_d_
M f_ See Dwg Ci!c Na b[
b evL 6 ptc14 4 % o n y Mx s_sn=c,~-
ea sa,cc _ -
O
-huELMVhs..SYCdI_fYbfb'.5fm.t).ei WO on ]O:IS:?b A _ _. g_1,
. RA%tde,mek._d_g. -f.o_
s>r f9e S
. c_e. _j.o/<f, 7/,l' 7
- c. %..-S$5
$ h h? l h :
i b
-^
U O
..a. L_j.
T w;
w%
+6
--. p - g W 4 _ - t-r---------
.__.)Q S i l MK-T f'2,'T- &7]g.t]NPM l l
! N%
i i
i l
h O **
r
(
i i
l l
I i
i
.. - _. __ _ _k.-
4l IN i
I w
o es
,n ts
, ki
_N A
_._.. g i
l
[ 4l 4!
4 4
v i
s g_.--_______..
N!
S>--__c s
i v w
y
.g-
- o... _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _
gi b
u g
___.1.g M
r4 u
I-
- ~ _ _ - _. _
_m._.__-_-_.._._
en
_____.g
(
k_._
- s ;y>d,_& _d.O Mg____pO_.-
y-.
a g
B u.
upk:.
' ' 38. Q-W,C;--M-c---_----- -- -- -- O g -Q-m' e-s -
z p
..v,
=-
i 4
4
.m l
=.
R N 4 aN 4 9 J N 4,'-@% - N o $ ~'$w S
34--*%
~ - - - - ' - - - - --- M *) -- -
4 - - - -
r ow
.o L
3e
,w
_. _ i
__. A._ ___ ___.._-
w I
II
(
m o
N 1~
Q q-
-q
_m _ 3,E m t
s
,c
- %n 9_.z
,Yy 4
34
, 6..
- N 1
- x. g_k,... a. _ _ _
due_. _ t y
v) ',
_x. +
g a
4 4
+m
.y3 _._y g
_ p y-g
_ g _-__.. g._ _
g.__
e.
M
..g.__.
.t:_. Q.N.. u __.. -_.
.b._.
A _ g 1._ q. __. _._ _
w.
.4
+
q x
E_ _ g
__T.__. _._.. _.__. g
- g. t M1.
%y
____g.____% __ g.
s.
4.
4 6
N N
m s, ct ?.(...
,b.. -... _ -
p l}.
v **
._~ g. q_ n {_g CQ.
l t
t-
%h D,,
wr
.3.
.. =
=..
- ==
,.,.= __=.:__ _. =. =. = _ -
mm
o i
g
_EQiO' 20'O'
- j
- d. -
.5 t
U E+3 7 O
se4 p.
t*5 k
7 El. 7;4'.
3'.3'='i t u.a,( r.,sra.
j W Cf* j
- ~
E EF 1
l e
39 y q- (g o,
.o 8
E E
rs*5b ((F El %4'.G' p
j--
El */G4** G
_*J
^
~~
s
=
r~ El. 7G 4' o*
. W - -- '
L E t. 7G4.o-l i
D.7G3'*o' j
El. 7G 3'* o-l I
S'3 % * " 2" _{
I
~
~'
T 4.S b s e s' l
- _c_._
b
- r. 'l (4 ?.- PS 4 j[
a
'i+s so e
El. *7 5 8'* o' l
I l
's."
I ci semEt c.ol I
-s I
i 1
i t
w.
I--
tj..
-t 3 (" ' *B "
l m
4 l
E
)
oc Ic 2
~
l j
o l
O l
g
=
I l
9 l
f
,A 1
El '756+ 0*
1 El. ?50'. o-j a5' er e.4eo,se 4 y
^
NC3 ELEVATION Atous cot. uuE M M REIN FORCING c
9 SCALE.'$gsfO LOOKING SOUTH SC ALE Q' = I-C' i
g ATTACH M ENT # 4 (REPLACES ATTAC H M E NT ** 2 )
6 9
TYPICAL MASONRY M
BLOCK WALL MCGUIRE W
MEED NUCLEAR STATION Sheet I of 2
b5 I'm 0
.llt.B NJ, f,,
it]_"_ {h/ a Gs e C4%
f~
7, g Eutt -Hose I
Tgt hee.g GS'aT.VL Cont.
Conc.15tocn G o.* all vdds as eceh
\\
Z.
I,7d op'IY i (
- [ \\(* tic, g o, Joint
~
C5 a ll.
[
gwale ce v.besta.
, y Uj ' N 't' the te r Joint pg cA.g s
]~l y
" \\., h-r' Reinforcing bars q-I P aced G5 Shown on as s,hc,wn on runh. aced re.,inf. d q s.
_ w Reinf. bar9 l L'I.j A
g dg.
i,,. ':
l l
t.Sp.cn gewt Lt-.
MC I ( conc. block, g{c_t
_ s'
_ p,n (E
" Qf
, !za<%e0 7.c !dni c 7
'"'u "'* *
~"v-vs m y-c,a. A >e. CAs. O E4'Os -
\\
g SECTION A-A SECTION B-B SECTION C-C Scnic:}'al:O' f,Orrier OctCLil Scale:T
- l~ O' Scole: {s l'-O' I
f 6
t M
kD 6
0 ATT AC H t1E NT # 9 m
(REPLACES ATTACHMENT # 2)
G 9
TYPICAL MASONRY W
BLOCK WALL 6d McGUIRE W
NUCLEAR STATION EEE3 si-+ e er e U
Attachment #10 List of Drawings Showing Location of Masonry Walls I
Within the Auxiliary Building Drawing No.
Rev.
Drawing No.
Rev.
MC-1200-1 8
MC-1203-2 4
MC-1200-2 4
MC-1203-4 4
MC-1200-2.01 10 MC-1204-1 9
MC-1200-2.02 4
MC-1204-2 20 MC-1200-2.04 21 MC-1204-3 16 MC-1200-2.05 13 MC-1204-4 9
MC-1200-2.06 27 MC-1204-5 9
MC-1200-2.07 25 MC-1205-2 15
~
MC-1200-2.08 20 MC-1205-03 12 MC-1200-2.09 20 MC-1204.4-1 15 MC-1200-2.10 16 MC-1205-4 7
MC-1200-2.11 27 MC-1206-6 7
MC-1200-2.12 25 MC-1206-7 7
MC-1200-2.13 20 MC-1201 A 25
(
f MC-1200-2.14 18 MC1205-4)
MC-1200-2.15 24 2
MC-1200-2.16 21 l
MC-1200-2.17 19 MC-1200-2.19 6
MC-1201-1 7
MC-1201-2 25 MC-1201-3 26 MC-1201-4 15 MC-1202-1 6
MC-1202-2 19.
MC-1202-3 20 MC-1202-4 5
MC-1202-4.1 5
MC-1202-5 8
_ _ _ _.,