ML19345B299
| ML19345B299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1980 |
| From: | Furr B CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, NO-80-1632, NUDOCS 8011280040 | |
| Download: ML19345B299 (29) | |
Text
7
,/
y* d 4
k
,o f*t f# f~
"$ d Mb 8
Carolma Power & Light Come November 5,1980 4
FILE: NG-3513 (B)
SERIAL:
NO-80-1632 12 30 1
- E Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director I
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission bj Region II 3
101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100
,I]
Atlanta, GA 30303 N
.c BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 LICENSE NOS. DPR-7L AND DPR-62 7~
DOCKET NOS M D 325 AND 50-32 O RESPONSE TO IE BULL $T'ITFlio-TI~(150-DAY RESPONSE)
^
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Enclosed you will find Carolina Power & Light Company's response to IE Bulletin 80-11 concerning Masonry Wall Design.
This response addresses Item 2b of the Bulletin as required by Item 4.
The information provided in this response covers only the BSEP Control Building in responding to Item 2b.
The delay in providing information on the Reactor Building and Diesel Generator Building is due to problems in obtaining these buildings' floor response spectra analyses. The Reactor Building informaticm will be provided by November 25, 1980, and the information for the Diesel Generator Building will be provided by December 9, 1980.
Also included with this response is a correction to our original submittal of July 7, 1980.
In Table 80-11-3 of the original response, wall number 7C in the north direction should be listed as safety related (i.e., yes). You will also find attached to this report a list of equipment attached to and proximate to the Unit 1 Reactor Building walls 2A and 2B.
mm~imm.: z.n aa.:.
411 rayettm.pe stre et P O P u 15(1 e n,
o<
a 9 0,, n a o90
Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Jr. November 5, 1980 s
Should you have questions regarding our response, please contact my staff.
Yours very truly,
/
p
. J. Furr Vice President Nuclear Operations DCS:kbb*
Enclosure cc:
Mr. Norman C. Moseley Sworn to and subscribed before me this the day of i
..l-,
19
' / i!.:n an < j <;
~., ">., ;. a Notary Public r
liy Commission Expires g.
f e
e
0 s
t>BE Seismic
': f r e -
for_
Dead plus Live plus DBE Scismic
- 1. Ul' Dead plus Live plus DBI: elsmic plue Alm o r ru l 1.1U c
Temperature
'M MASONRY WALL ANAL.YS_lS TECILNIQUES toundary Conditions Sir ple supports were assumed at top and bottom of walls having a Irn th - inirht ratio greater than 1.5.
For length - height ratios less than 1. 5 s imli yports were assumed on two, three or f our sides where c onst ruct ion met ionis werc <
esis-tent with this assumption.
Shtar transfer at edges was obtained l'y re,r t.. i ut angle;, w-i i r
.ic t i
,l a.i :
+
in t h e mo r,t a r j o in t.
A fully-beddtd
.t tar j int } nn ! led 1:n m
ir
,cr at the bottom, support, hequency of Masonry Walls frequency of the masonry wall was calculated.ctuminy >ne-way b.hivior cpt for the walls.previously noted.
For one-way behavior with simple supports, the fre-quency was:
K lE I f
=
o V
where f,=
fundamental frequency (cycles per second) modulus of elasticity of masonry E
=
1 moment of inertia, depending on wall construction
=
K a constant which depends on geomet t:,, boundary eenditions and loading
=
Foi two-way behavior the f requer cy was calculat ed u:,ing :1 e a v a i '. i b 'o pla t e ";ua-tions.
The y,eneral foin of the frequency wan r--
f=K sf D
The Nuclear Regulatory Commicsion in IE Bulletin No. 80-11 dated May 8, 1980 required that the response to Item 2b be reported by November 4, 1980.
Con-tained herein is a res tatement of the N,RC tasks and our response.
ITEM 2b Submit a written report upon completion of the re-evaluatibn p rog ram.
The report shall include the following information.
(i)
De sc ribe, in detail, the function of the masonry walls, th configurations of these walls, the type and strengths of the materials of.which they are constructed (mortar, grout, concrete and steel), and the re i n fo rceme n t de-tails (horizontal steel, vertical steel, and masonry ties for multiple wythe construction).
A wythe is con-sidered to be (as defined by ACI Standard 331-1979)
"each continuous vertical section of a wall, one masonry unit or grouted space in thickness and 2 in. minimum in 6
thickness."
(ii)
Des c ribe the cons truction practices employed in the con-struction of these walls and, in particular, their ade-quacy in preventing significant voids or other weaknesses in any mortar, grout, or concrete fill.
(iii)
The re-evaluation report should include detailed justi-fication for the cricera used.
Re fe rence s to existing codes or test data may be used if applicable for the plant conditions.
The re-evaluation should specifically.
1 1
address the. following.
l 1
(a) All postulated loads and load combinations should be evaluated against the corresponding re-evaluation acceptance criteria.
The re-evaluation should con-sider the loads from safety and non-safety-related attachments, dif ferential floor displacement and thermal ef fects (or detailed justification that these can be considered self limiting and cannot in-duce brittle failures), and the ef fects of any poten-tial cracking under dynamic loads.
Desc ribe in de-tail the methods used to account for these factors in the re-evaluation and the adequacy of the accep-tance criteria for both in-plane and out-of-plane loads.
(b) The mechanism for load trans fer into the masonry walls and postulated failure modes should be reviewed.
J For multiple wythe walls in which composite behavior is relied upon, describe the methods and acceptance criteria used to assure that these walls will be-i have as composite walls, especially with regard to i
shear and t:r.r. ion trans fer at the wythe inte rfaces.
]
With regard to local loadings such as piping and equipmen t support reactions, the acceptance criteria should assure that the loads are adequately trans-1 ferred into the wall, such that any assumptions re-i-
4 1
m ~ : - -. ~ _ - - - _.,,, _ -. _.
'L
~
s garding the behavior of the walls are appropriate.
Include the potential for block pullout and the necessity for tensile stress transfer through bond at the wythe interfaces.
RESPONSE
Item 2b (1)
The safety related concrete masonry walls at Carolina Power and Light Company's Brunswick Plant are non-bearing with hollow, solid or filled blocks for fire protection er shielding.
All fire walls except eight are reinforced vertically and horizon-
, tally. All shield walls are multiple wythes except those in Diesel Generator and Control Buildings. All multiple wythe walls except four have truss reinforcing in the horizontal joints and vertical mesh in the collar joints. Walls in Contrul and Diesel Generator Buildings are faced with steel plates to pro-
- ,tect against bullets or missiles.
Table 80-11-3 categorizes the data for safety related walls.
Further detail is shown on the drawings attached to our July 7, 1980 response.
Materials for concrete masonry walls were procured and installed according to project specification 9527-01-29-1 tbsonry and Caulking April 21, 1972. Hollow concrete block is load-bearing type, two-core conforming to ASTM C-90 Grade N-I (Waylite or allaydit e).
Block for fire barriers have a minimum face shell of 1 3/8 in, and minimum webs of 1 in, for a 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> rating.
Solid.
-w
o concrete block conforms to ASTM C145 Grade N-I.
Mortar conforms to ASTM C270 Type M, 1:1:6.
7 Vertical reinforcing bars are deformed bars ASTM 615-68 Grade 60 for sizes Number 6 to Number 11 and Grade 40 for smaller sizes.
Horizontal joint reinforcing is standard Dur-0-Wal galvanized, collar joint reinforcing (vertical) is velded wire fabric, neitber based on ASTM.
Item 2b (ii)
Masonry walls were installed in accordance with project speciff-cation 9527-01-29-1, Masonry and Caulking.
This specification called for fully bedded joints, Dur-0-Wal every second course, special reinforcing above openings, etc.
The construction drawings have special details concerning filling cells at ver-tical reinforcing with grout or pea - gravel concrete including vibration or puddling.
Minimal records were kept beyond the construction stage.
Item 2b_(iii) (al Concrete masonry walls at Brunswick were designed in 1972.
The design followed the National Concret c Ma onry Associat ion Code which was based on the working stress theory.
The horizontal seismic accelerations were selected from floor response spectra curves based on time-history analysis f or each building.
i I
The construction drawings were compared with the calculations to.
e e
determine if there were any inconsistencies.
Following this an on-site survey was initiated to ve ify whether or not the.afety
'I related masonry walls were built in accordance with the drawings and specifications. The results of the field surveys are reported under each building report below.
Acceptance Criteria (Appendix 80-11-A), developed as a response to IE Bulletin 80-11, encompasses increased requirements for re-evaluating the safety related walls.
New floor response ~ m tra curves for multiple levels were developed from time-hist on analyses for both OBE and DBE conditions for each building.
New computations were made for all safety related walls for the loads listed in Table 80-11-3 in compliance with the Acceptance Criteria (Appendix 80-11-A).
The computed stresses were com-pared with the allowable working stresses given in the Acceptance Criteria for both OBE and DBE seismic loadings.
Report for Control Building The on-site survey revealed the following:
(1) Halls Ic, le, 9a, 9d have conduit 3" and larger passing through the wall. These were not shown on the drawings.
(2) Walls 8a and 8b, seven feet high, should have channels at the top of the walls to provide lateral support.
Channeln were installed but not as required by the drawings. Ilowever, additional framing was added later which has been determined to provide short term support.
(3) Walls 6b, 6d, 6g, 7d, 9a, 9b and 9d should have restraint angles at the top of the wall. These angles are missing.
Further analysis using the " energy balance technique" showed these walls would not i
suffer a loss of function as a result of the angles being omitted.
(4) No safety related pipe was attached to the walls but some electrical equipment, such as control panels, is attached.
Repair sketches for items (2) and (3) have been sent to the plant for implementation.
All safety related masonry walls were re-evaluated using floor response spectra curves specially developed for this report.
The calculation followed the Acceptance Criteria (Appendix 80-ll-A) and embraced both OBE and DBE seismic input. Without the top restraint angles, walls 9a, 9b, 9e and 9d had stresses in the masonry slightly above the allowable. The results of the calculations were recorded as a stress factor; i.e. as a ratio of actual stress to allowabic stress. The range of stress fac-tors is given below.
Reinforced Walls OBE DEE Masonry - Compression 0.04 to 0.87 0.01 to 0.65 Reinforcing - Tension 0.06 to 1.0 0.01 to 0.46 Reinforcing - Bond 0.08 to 0.61 0.03 to 0.44 Mortar - Shear 0.01 to 0.63 0.01 to 0.39 o.
6
m h
Non-Reinforced OBE DBE Masonry - Compression 0.01 to 0.04 0.01 to 0.02 Masonry - Tension 0.07 to 1.0 0.08 to 0.88 Mortar - Shear 0.01 to 0.06 0.01 to 0.06 Conclusion All safety related concrete masonry walls in the Control Building have structural integrity.
A e
0
~ __
APPENDIX 80-11-A MASONRY b'ALL RE-EVAll'ATION ACCEPTANCE LRITERIA PL'RPOSE AND SCOPE This acceptance criteria provides the analysis and desirn r erpii r en.e n t s for rasonry walls and lists the allowable stresses for masonry and reinforcement that were con-1 sidered acceptable for use in re-evaluating the structural adequacy of concrete block walls as required by NRC IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry b'all Design. dated May 8, 1980.
This re-evaluation was addressed only to the masonry walls that are in proxinity to or have attachments from safety-related equipment.
No safety-relatec piping is supported from masonry walls. Both reinforced and non-reinforced masonry walls were included in the re-evaluation.
As no masonry walls are used as shear or load bearing walls, this criteria is pri-marily intended for use with out-cf-plane behavior caused by seismic loads.
No increase in stresses were allowed for seismic load.
MATERIALS Specified pompressive strength fm' for net area of masonry composed of solid or hollow unit s were taken f rom Table 80-11-A-1.
Values were interpolated based on laboratory test of block samples. Variations in naterial properties were con-sidered.
LOAD _CopB1 NATIONS Load conbinations were based on NRC Standard Review Plan for the Elast ic Design Method. The comparable allowable stresses are listed in Tables 80-11-A2 and A3.
OBE S~eismic Stress Fact s Dead plus Live Load 1.0S Dead plus Live Load plus OBE Seismic 1.0S Dead plus Live plus Abnormal Temperature 1.5S W
e 9
DB$ Seismic
, Stress Factor _
Dead plus Live plus DBE Seismic 1.0U Dead plus Live plus DBE Seismic plus Abnornal 1.1U Tgpperature T
MASONRY WALL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES Boundary Conditions Simple supports were assumed at top and bottom of walls having a lengtL - height ratio greater than 1.5.
For length - height ratios less than 1.5 simple sum orts were assumed on two, three or four sides where construction methods were consis-tant with this assumption.
Shear transfer at edges was obtained by restraint angles, vedging acticn or shear in the mortar joint. A fully-bedded mortar joint provided the shear tran.;ier at the bottom. support.
Frequency _of Masonty Walls r
Frequency of the masonry wall was calculated assuming one-way behavior except for the walls,previously noted.
For one-way behavior with simple supports, the fre-quency was:
K g[E I f
=
g where f
fundamental f requency (cycles per second)
=
g modulus of elasticity of masonry E
=
moment of inertia, depending on wall const ruction 1
=
K =.a constant which depends on geometry, boundary conditions and loading For two-way behavior the frequency was calculated using the available plate equa-tions. The general form of the f requency was:
f=K dli 0
where D is the flexural stiffness, and K isia constant defined soove.
The modulus of clasticity was taken as 1000 fm' for both hollow and solid or filled masonry.
Attachment Inertial Loads The stresses due to attachment inertial loads were combined with the call in-ertial stresses in an absolute sum method.
ALLOWABLE STRESSES Severe Environmental For the doad combinations specified previously, stresses in the reinforce-ment and masonry were computed using working stress procedures.
For normal and severe environmental loads, the stresses designated as S in Tables A-2 and A-3,were.used.
No increase in stress was used for seismic loads.
A Abnormal Environmental For abnormal and extreme environmental loads the stresses designated as U in Tables A-2 and A-3 were used.
Provisions for Special Analysis In general, the derivation of load intensities, evaluation of wall response, and comparison to allowable stresses were by linear elastic analysis and working stress procedures. However, the following exception was employed:
In determining an appropriate equivalent static load for impactive and
_3_
4 impulsive loads, elasto-plastic behavior was assumed with appropriate ductility ratios for reinforced masonry.
The yield displacement was based,'on rectangular stress distribution as in the ultimate strength theory for reinforced concrete. The compressive stress in the masonry was limited to 0.85 fm'.
Deflections were determined in order to assure that excessive deflections would not result in a loss of function of safety-related systems.
Damping Values for Seismic Analysis The following damping values were used when re-evaluating the walls using am-plified response spectra.
Out-Of-Plane Loading Unreinforced Walls OBE Earthquake - 2%
SSE Earthquake - 4%
Rein' forced Walls OBE Earthquake - 4%
SSE Earthquake - 7%
Unreinforced Walls - Archine Action i
OBE Earthquake - 10%
i SSE Earthquake - 10%
Operabil"ity This procedure utilizes the energy absorbing capability of a wall beyond its clastic limit and provides a method of evaluating the safe-capacity of rein-forced and non-reinforced masonry walls in this range. -
Reinforced Masonry Where the bending due to out-of-plane inertia loads caused flexural stresacs in the will to exceed the allowabic working stresses for reinforced wall, the wall was evaluated by the " energy balance technique".
The energy balance technique assumes that the maximum energy (Ep) attained in the clasto-plastic spring that is the wall, is equal to the maximum elas-tic energy attained as if the system is elastic.
Effects on Equipment if the deflection calculated by the " energy balance technique" exceeded three times the yield deflection, the resulting deflection was cultiplied by a factor of 2,and a determination made as to whether such factered displacements would adversely impact the function of safety-related sys-tems attached and/or adjacent to the wall.
Effqcts on Walls The maximum deflection in the wall due to out-of-plane inertial loading was limited to 5 times the yield displacement.
The yield displacement was calculated by reinforced concrete ultimate strength theory, and the masonry compression stresses of 0.85 fm' based on a rectangular stress distribution was used.
Non-Reinforced Masonry When the bendit e to out-of-plane inertia loading caused flexural stresses in the wall to exceed the allowable working stresses for non-reinforced masonry, 1
the arching theory for masonry walls was used. The arching theory assumes that the wall in bending become equivalent to a three-hinged arch.
The method e
\\
of virtual work (unit load method) was used to compute the deflection at the-arch interior hinge.
1 Deflection Limit The calculated deflection was limited to be not more than 0.3 the thick-ness of the wall. Deflections were determined in order to assure that excessive deflections would not result in a loss of function of safety-related systems.
Allowable Stresses The total resistance of the wall (f ) was calculated using the following g
stresses:
Tensile stress through assumed tension 6 \\[ fm' crack f
=
Crushing stress of block material = 0.85 fm' e
The allowable load on the masonry wall is that value that will produce an axial force less than fE_.
1.5 BOUNDARY SUPPORTS The boundary supports were checked on the drawings and at the site to de-termine if they were capable of transmitting the reaction forces applied to them.
l -
m TABLE 80-11-A-1 VALUES OF fm' FOR MASONRY Compression Test Strength Compressive Strength of, Masonry Units, psi, on of Masonry fm't_ysi the* Net Cross-Sectional Area Type M Mortar 6000 or more 240')
4000 2000 2500 1550 2000 1350 1500 1150 1000 900 W
4 O -
u APPENDIX 80-ll-A Table A-2 Allowable Stresses in Reinforced Masonry
-.i I
u s
Allowable Maximum Allowable Maximum Description (psi)
(psi)
(psi)
(Psi) l Compressive l
Axial ( }.
O.22f; 1000 0.44f; 2000 Flexural 0.33f;
- 1200 0.85f; 3000 Bearing On full area 0.25f; 900 0.62f; 2250 On one-third area 0.375f; 1200 0.95f; 3000 or less Shear 1.7 [
Flexural members (21 1.1/f 75 50 Shear Walls (3 d)
Masonry Takes Shear 1.5 /f; M/Vd>l 0.9 /f; 34 56 M/Vd = 0 2.0/f; 3.4}f; 123 74
' Reinforcement Takes Shear 2.5)f; M/Vd>l 1.5ff; 125 75 3.4ff; 180 M/Vd - 0 2.0 120 Reinforcement Bond Plain Bars 60 80 Defomed Bars 140 186 4
Tension Grade 40 20,000 0.9F y
Grade 60 24,000 0.9Fy Joint Wire
.5F "30,000 0.9F y
y I
Compression 0.4F O.9F y
y 1,
g, -- - _ _ - - -
APPT.NDIX HD-11-A Table A-3 Allowable Stresses in Unreinforced Masonry
.l 5
U Allowable Maximum Allowable Maximum Description (psi)
(psi)
(psi)
(psi)
Compressive II) 0.22f; 10C0 0.44f; 2000 Axial Flexural 0.33f; 1200 0.85f; 3000 8 earing On full area 0.25f; 900 0.62f; 2250 On one-third area or less 0.375f; 1200 0.95f; 3000 Shear Flexural members, (3) i 1.1/f 50 1.7jf; 75 Shear walls (3}
0.9/f;
/fs 34 1.5 56 Tension Nomal to bed joints H'ollow units 0.5jm 25 0.83 jm 42 g
g Solid or grouted 1.0[
40 1.67 {
67
}
Parallel to bed joints Hollow units 1.Q/m 50 1.67/m 84 g
Solid or grouted 1.5/m 2.5/m 134 80 g
g 2.5/f' 4.2/f' Grout Core c
Collar joints Shear 8
12 Tension 8
12
-9
. -.. ~.
3 NOTES TO TABLEF These values should be multiplied by (1 - / h 3 }
f g,,,,g (1) 140t has a significant vertical load.
(2) This stress should be evaluated using the effective conpression area which has a width equal to the grouted cell plus adjacent webs and a depth equal to the effective depth.
(3) Net bedded area shall be used with these stresses.
(4) For M/Vd values between 0 and 1 interpolate between the values given for 0 and 1.
O O
i i
l 1
' 1 l
Page 1 ef 6 vanre an_st.s DATA CM EArETV RT?A M MA}Qq Y WAI,[3 cowTPct. sen.atwc ( %, e,52 7.r,,7008 g TYTE VYt%
991%T.
KluD FIFE PE$5 W Al.I.
M.
VTTWE 131cr F Uw sot.tD F ItfED FI RE
$RIrth Yt3 MO S FI$w!C g kJg q$ 3 !I,g Jywy p! ry,
Ib 49 4 1
8" I
X X
le 49-0 1
8" X
X X
Id 49-0 1
8" X
X X
le 49-0 1
8" X
r I
2 49 4 I
8" 4
I X
3 23-0 1
8" I
I X
4 49-0 1
8
I X
X 23-0 1
8 '*
I I
X 6b 49-0 1
8" X
X X
X 64 49-0 1
8" I
X X
6g 49-0 1
8" I
X X
X 7c 23-0 1
8' X
X X
X 7J 23-0 1
8" I
X X
7, 23-0 1
8' X
X X
X 8a 70-0 1
8" All X
X X
L?
8b 70-0 1
8" Al!
X X
X h
'I Ac 70-0 1
8" Ail X
X X
8J 70-0 1
9" All X
X X
8, 70-9 1
8" All X
X X
ass J
- At Reinf.
b-
e Page 2 of 6 TAB 12 80-11-3
, KTA (W S AFTTY RfuTED MAS (*RT WALLS C'wTmt. suit. Dim: ( %. # 9527-F-7008 )
(ContInved)
TYPF FLNCTION RF1NF.
(OAD FIFE W4 t.L ELEV WTTRE THICF HOLLnW SMID FILLED FT PF SRIF1b Yt3 W
SEtsMfC B RU K MIS $f t2 TF#P.
.P!F7.
- FarsS, 9a 23 4 1
12" I
I I
I 9b 23-0 1
12" I
I I
I 9e 23-0 1
12 **
I I
I I
94 23-0 1
12" I
I I
I 10e
- 23-0 1
8 '*
I I
I I
10b 21-0 1
8 '*
I I
I 10c 23-0 1
8" I
I I
I
@ED C@
Wee)
V. e)
A.
..t.r.
,J t
f%)
h li
O A-E$
= =
= -
x a m m[
a d
3 J
E
$1 n
~
x ir a
1 M
~
o 7
u u
u - x u
u n
u u
u w w
u w
t e
(z
.,I M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M w
M M
M w
y y
art V
C S
T f
b g
E" 5
2 b
W s
E O
a t
g g
x =
w x = = w x = = s x - - x x x x x
%o E
,2 Q
N aa 6
0 8.
p
- x e
N N
e eD k
l-__________
se eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a
Y:
2 : A A 3 : $
TASt2 80-11-3 rage 4 of 6 DATA C41 SAFETT REtATED MSONFY WALL 5
- =
DIETEL CFl8TRATOR B1'11S1% ( Dws. # 9527-F-1926 )
tcoatineed) g N ie4 Pfin?.
WS para russ.
W M.
WYTME NTCK RollOW SOLTD r1112D M
SM1Elb E
g ETSMIC B REA K MTSSTLE M.
- D177, 3
7s 23-0 1
8*
I I
I I
X X
X X
7b 23-0 1
8" 7e 23-0 1
8*
I I
I I
74 23-0 1
4" I
I I
I 7e 23-0 1
ga I
I I
I 8a
(-)l-6 1
12" I
I I
I I
I eb
(-)!-6 12" I
I I
+
ec
(-)l-6 1
12a x
X X
9c 23-0 1
8" X
X 1
9d 23-0 1
8" I
I I
10a 50-0 1
8
I I
I 10c 50-0 1
8" 6
0 0
0 E?PJ C3
- At Reinf.
- Fue! 011 leak c~
b
+
TA8tr 90-11 3 Fese 5 of 6 F ATA rm SAFFTY PEATD MA594tY WALT.S FF.ACMP BU11bl% LHIT.1 ( %, # 9527-F-25001 )
_TTP_t n"MCTIO4 RE!*F.
tilAD FIFE FRESS.
W3 p JJ.
WTTTM THICE ROL11W
$0 LID Fif. LED FIRE
$RIELD TFS m
SFi$MIC B RF.A t M1511LE TDer.
DIFF 1
(-117-0 3
24" I
K
+
g 2a 20-0 5
64" K
I
+
x Zb 20-0 6
36" X
2
+
x 3
20-0 4
32" X
X
+
x Sb 20-0 4
32" I
X
+
x 6.
50-0 4
36" X
X
+
X 6b 50-0 4
36" X
X x
6e 50-0 6
48' I
X
+
x Sa 20-0 6
48" I
X X
x Bb 20-0 6
48" I
X X
X 10b 20 0 1
8*
X X
H X
10e 20-0 1
8
I X
H X
12a 20-0 1
8" X
X H
I 12e 20-0 1
6" K
X X
X g-12b 50-0 1
8" X
X H
X 12c 50-0 1
8' X
X H
X w
+ In Joints, H & V H In H. Jointe only m
2EE3 P
=
1
- u
.n. e i
u
)
2 D{"
- D TTA 4
F l
vof c.
..k n
h
- 2 2
e.
w 22 m.
e
+
b b
~2 u
E m
M m
M x
M M
x x w M
x x
x v
N O
+
M M
0 i O
m' g) +
+ + + + +
r r x x =
r t.a E
t j
6 9
e w
w w w w w
.c w
p T
S T.
P 5
.o S
3 Y
Y b
N
'E h
e t
=
f'
=
M M
M M
M x
E 0
2 3
s 2
x kJ e
g u - n u n - -
n Bad M
M M
M M
M M
u 6
I r
I t
I r
2 2
?
g E
N n
n n
4 e r; E *
.c
- o l.i ".
~ e - -
a 4
- 1 E C C m
e.*
42 O 9 9 ? g? 9 T ? ? T T T T E 32 2 R R R R R R R R R R m
d R J $ 3 J $ $ 53y$$
3
- a
g a;
~
m
=
95 2 ' q' a
e EA
~!
REF.
9 52 1-F-7 ro o L-5 ia 3
(
BUILDING REACToe I'm d WALL N P nim!gTmm1rdDRAWINGS r!
NODEITEM SAFETY ATTACHED PROXIMATE EU SYSTEM EQUIP. TAG No DESCRIPTION No
.N RELATED TOWALL TO WALL REMARKS go j
i.R k E G
N ilgE C.o N pu iT5 C A S LE Fo (L No N E5 NES b
i5 n
?CAGCT F I t. e ('RoTecnov 6
gg g
, o.
o s
]
- d.
g blE.SE L C o U Du (T C /18Les FO R-M HIlBB Ho Th e CO M T~fbL f
C. E d T E (2 F o C E
~
DlES EL GLD(.
g h
'IESEL 20 M Ou 1T CASLE6 FOR
~
A ATij GB o l e s E L D'f%,
3 y
0.c, distr.
f 5
8 i
PA9 ell'8 P
O y
s O
M 9
30 1
D3gl y
7 :
}
9 oA E
'\\ E ~1
?
.,l'.T 3' k 5
~
,l g:
~
J 5
SI b'g$
REE 9 521-P 2 ro oz-
!?
.i
^
BUILDINGRE Acroc. U e ~.I WALL No2.dM9AcT_9acc@RAWINGS r
NODE ITEM SAFETY ATTACHED PROXIMATE
$ P 4 rn g l; 4 SYSTEM EQUIP. TAG No DESCRIPTION No N
RELATED TOWALL TO WALL FEMARKS g
- o l E E.
"I' Pd LL STA-F 1R E P ( OTE CT.
' 3 ~5lg
{LDTEcT NO NEs ME5 3
~
P TsurXi' 6 Q 41 PT.
p o
@$ g 1 Y k' 3
elf 2MBELL 3 s
Cov D u1TS p
9 j
I f)g E c.o uou(T Flow swncn Mo YES MES g
G 7
7toTEcT. DPFllC6 FS -3972 5
5 g
s "o n dus)- e ovou nT C. h B L G FOR.
MD b) O N $.$
~
~
CAT 70,)
So s a u ulc Go<4 j $ $ 5 l cn n
3 MES ND ME5 DIES 6L Co d D u i T~
G AG LES Fo R.
4 A Hf/G8 H oTD R CouTrot g
e 3'
C D v TEL Fof~
D I E s st B L D6,.
FEE D EC 5
ud f I i DIESEL CDP Du lT
A BLE S FOR MEs No NE5 A AII/66 picsEL SLO 4 t ]
=
- 0. c. o i.sra.
E PAR EL 16
{
3 t
c s. s
d p
8I Z. *%.
e tu
't REF.
9 52.1 - F-2 fod 7_
6 it i
BUILDINGPEACTn/> U)"7 I WALL N ZUIMPAmornvFt/ DRAWINGS _
r NODE ITEM SAFETY ATTACHED PROXIMATE
?D
>YSTEM EQUIP. TAG N DESCRIPTION No N
RELATED TOWALL TO WALL REMARKS g
go y
a m g, Ea lE N.5 WTBi-C wou rr C A 6 L ES FoR IJ O UO MES n
CD ID7 C. E. D. pccu M -
p
!g o
!g ?
Du)E u L AToPs M
gy m
}EE LINES LitJES Fod NO N ES N'E 5 p
g g!
- n toTEC.- 2Ctl-2k TZ Fic e PfoT&c77a) ai orJ z 47-4 -J-7.
N s
s 8
a 6
o e
c g
Ln n
O c
S
- 3 0
E EI z
h i
i h l
j
.