Text

Forwards Response to Items 2b & 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design. Final Rept Will Be Submitted by 810601
	ML19345B327
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	11/04/1980
From:	Crouse R; TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:	James Keppler; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
	1-169, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8011280089
	Download: ML19345B327 (81)
	v • d • e

__ -..

a

=.

gas TOtEDO

+4:a EDISDN Docket No. 50-346 bN["

License No. UpF-3 Serial No. 1-169 November 4,1980 u

'1 Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Director, Region III Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J

799 Roosevelt Road

~j 2

Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 M

if e.,

u a

Dear Mr. Keppler:

IE Bulletin No. 80-11, dated May 8, 1980, requires all power reactors with an operating license (except Trojan, Sequoyah Unit 1, North Anna Unit 2 and Salem Unit 2) to evaluate for structural adequacy all masonry walls which are in proximity to or have attachments from safety-related piping or equipment such that a wall failure could affect a safety-related system.

On July 14, 1980 we submitted to you our response to Items 1, 2a, and 3 of the bulletin. Attached is the response to Item 2b and expanded response to Item 3 of the bulletin for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.

As indicated in our July 14, 1980 letter the final report for tc.ase Items will be submitted by June 1, 1981.

Yours very truly, f f

=_-

RPC:CLM Attachment mj b/1 h

(4Ldb didM16 0$ Y0 b'N cc:

NRC Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement

_ g - {-g g/gi >g Division of Reactor Operations Inspectien piplONM Ob.

Washington, D.C.

20555 NRC Davis Besse No. 1 Resident Inspector NOV 6 S30 THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EO; SON PLAZA 300 MADISON AVENUE TOLEDO, OHIO 43652 8011280 Q

License No. NFP-3 a

Serial No. 1-169 s.

Novembe r 4, 1980 Masonry Wall Re-Evaluation Response to NRC IE Bulletin No. 80-11 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Item i

" Identify all masonry walls in your facility which are in proximity to, or have attachments from, safety-related piping or equipment such that wall failure could affect a safety-celated system. Describe the systems and equipment, both safety and non-safety-related, associated with these masonry walls.

Include in your review, masonry walls that are intended to resist impact or pressurization loads, such as missiles, pipe whip, pipe break, jet impingement, or tornado, and fire or wate r ba rriers, or shield walls. Equipment to be considered as attachments or in proximity to the walls shall include, but is not limited to pumps, valves, motors, heat exchangers, cable trays, cable / conduit, HVAC ductwork, and electrical cabinets, instrumentation and controls.

Plant surveys, if necessary, for areas inaccessible during normal plant operation shall be perf ormed at the earliest opportunity."

Response to Item 1 A.

Summary and Conclusions A walkdown of the safety related structures was performed to identify all masonry walls in the station and to identify the attachments of systems and equipment bot h saf ety and non-safe ty rela ted.

A total of 267 masonry walls were identified, of which 168 walls were walked down.

The remaining 99 walls were excluded f rom the walkdown because a review dete rmined there were no safety-related components attached to the walls e r in the rooms bounded by these walls.

Our July 14, 1980 reponse to item 1 (Serial No. 1-150), indicated that 256 masonry walls were identified and that 53 walls were excluded from the walkdown.

Since that time, some of the larger walls were divided into smaller units to enhance the data collection and analyses, thus the new total of 267 walls. An additional 46 masonry walls were excluded f rom the analyses because a walkdown of the area in proximity to walls having no safety related attachments determined there were no safety related components in proxinity to those walls, thus the new total of 99 walls excluded from the walkdown.

The scope of the walkdown for this report did not include identification of safety-related components within proximity to the walls with the exception of walls which had no safety related attachments.

(Proximity is defined as within a distance equal to the height of the wall).

In the event that the analysis determines a wall to be inadequate, an extension of the walkdown will be performed in proximity to that specific wall.

This walkdown will consist of determining whether the wall is in the proximity to a safety related system not attached to the wall. Systems f alling in this category will be identified and approximate location with respect to the wall will be described. This approach is also consistent with "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" practices in that it will minimize exposure of personnel performing the walkdown.

Page 1 Revision 1

E The walkdown was divided into two (2) stages; initial and final. The initial walkdown stage was for the purpose of identifying the significant attachments for the response submitted on July 14, 1980. The final walkdown stage was for the purpose of identifying and locating all masonry wall penetrations and wall attachments to support the wall re-evaluation program.

The initial walkdown began on May 27, 1980 and was completed on June 27, 1980.

The final walkdown began on May 27, 1980 and was completed on Septenber 5,1980.

B.

Walkdown Packages During the initial walkdown stage, walkdown personnel recorded f or each wall all significant attachments, both safety-related and non-safety-related. This stage included identification of large pipe, small pipe, cable tray, conduit, wireway, instrument tubing, equipment, etc.

ttems that may have been attached to the wall but were not recorded (due to an insignificant weight) included grounding conduit, lighting conduit, communication equipment, exit signs, wall outlets, welding receptacles and security card readers.

In addition, color photographs werc +aken of all accessible walls, except for those walls having no attachments. ihe photographs were provided to illustrate the location and quantity of components associated with the various masonry walls.

(See Appendix A submitted on July 14, 1980, Serial No. 1-150).

The data recorded from the initial walkdown were compiled onto a " Wall Attachment Identification Table" (See Appendix B, submitted on July 14, 1980, Serial No. 1-150, which describes the wall attachments, associated piping systems and the associated safety-related systems for other components where applicable).

The data collection for the final walkdown stage involved identification of all masonry walls and details of the associated attachments and penetrations for those walls in proximity to safety related components or that have attachments from safety-related piping or equipment.

Design drawings detailing the location and construction of the masonry walls were utilized, and a field inspection verified that all walls were properly identified. The walls walked down for this bulletin are located in the auxiliary building and intake structure. There are no masonry walls in the containment. The walls are shown on the attached Figures 1 through 7.

Those walls that are excluded from the walkdown are noted on these figures.

C.

Walkdown Procedure All masonry walls were walked down during the final stage in accardance with walkdown procedure, PDL-1, entitled "Walkdown Procedure for Concrete Masonry Walls, IE Bulletin 80-11." The procedure contains guidelines, measurement tolerances and steps to be followed for the field walkdown and completion of the detailed data packages to be used for the wall re-evaluation.

The field inspection activities were audited by Bechtel Project Quality Assurance to assure compliance with the procedure.

D.

Walkdown Teams and Training A team of one or more qualified personnel was responsible for the identifica-tion and inspection of each block wall. The field effort was directed by two alternating supervisors having ten and eleven years of nuclear industry experience respectively.

Page 2 Revision 1

Extensive classroom and field training was given to all the walkdown team members by the field supervisors. The items covered in the training included elements to be checked, methods of checking and documentation of existing conditions.

The qualifications, experience level and training for each member of the walkdown team is documented and available for review.

E.

Masonry Wall Identification Appendix C'(revised) contains in tabular form, an identification of masonry walls that are subject to applicable impact or pressurization loads including pipe whip, pipe break, jet impingement, and tornado induced pressures; and walls that serve as fire, flood barriers, shield walls, and negative pressure boundaries.

Item 2a

" Establish a prioritized program for the re-evaluation of the masonry walls. Provide a description of the program and a detailed schedule for completion of the re-evaluation for the categories in the program. The completion date of all re-evaluations should not be more than 180 days from the date of this Bulletin. A higher priority should be placed on the wall re-evaluations considering safety-related piping 2 1/2 inches or greater in diameter, piping with support loads due to thermal expansion greater than 100 pounds, safety-related equipment weighing 100 pounds or greater, the safety significance of the potentially affected systems, the overall loads on the wall, and the opportunity for performing plant surveys and, if necessary, modifications in areas otherwise inaccessible. The factors described above are meant to provide guidance in determining what loads may significantly af fect the masonry wall analyses."

Response to Item 2a A.

Prioritization for Analysis The safety-related and non-safety related components on each face of each wall were identified. This identification provided an indication of items associated with each wall, and it was assumed that the greater the number of large attachments, the greater the loadings to the walls. The priority for analysis of the walls, based on attachments to the walls, in descending order, is as follows:

1.

Large safety-related pipe and large conduit 2.

Large safety-related pipe only 3.

Large safety-related conduit only 4.

Other safety-related components by number of those components 5.

Non-safety-related large pipe and large conduit 6.

Large non-safety-related pipe 7.

Large non-safety-related conduit 8.

Other non-safety-related components by number of those components 9.

No attachments related to station operation.

l Page 3 Revision 0

)

The current schedule for analysis of the walls places prime emphasis upon completion of those walls in the first four priorities as the data taken from the field walkdown confirms that these walls are the most heavily loaded and have the highest intensity of significant load contributing attachments.

Priorities one thru four, which contain all attachments for safety related components are scheduled to be completed by March 1981 and the remaining priorities will be completed by May 1981. A final report on this analysis l

will be issued by June 1, 1981.

Item 2b(i)

Submit a written report upon completion of the re-evaluation program. The report shall include the following information.

(i) Describe, in detail, the function of the masonry walls, the configurations of these walls, the type and strengths of the materials of which they are cons tructed (mortar, grout, concrete and steel), and the reinforcement details (horizontal steel, vertical steel, and masonry ties for multiple wythe cons truction). A wythe is considered to be (as defined by ACI Standard 531-1979) "each continuous vertical section of a wall, one masonry unit or grouted space in thickness and 2 in. minimum in thickness."

Response to Item 2b(i)

The function of each wall and applicable accident loading is shown in Appendix C.

The primary functions of the masonry walls are fire, radiation shielding, negative pressure and flood barriers with a secondary function to provide structural support of minor platforms, pipe, conduit and instrumentation.

Double wythe walls are provided for radiation shielding and as fire barriers with the composite thickness not required for structural purposes. No masonry walls are provided to expressly resist tornado or pipe break effects, however some masonry walls experience pipe break loads because of their location. No masonry walls are provided in Category I structures to resist primary building stresses, i.e., building dead and live loadings and horizontal shears.

The locations of the masonry walls are shown in Figures 1 through 7.

Typical masonry wall details and edge conditions are shown in Figures 8 through 23.

The edge conditions (by figure number) as applicable to each wall are shown in Table I.

The types of reinforced masonry and the associated material properties are shown in Table II.

The applicable standards covering material properties, testing and cons truction practices are shown in Table III.

he reinforcement details for the masonry walls are shown on Figures 8 through 23.

The vertical reinforcing consists of deformed bars of the sizes shown in Figures 24 and 25.

The horizontal reinforcing consists of extra heavy truss type as shown in Figures 24 and 25.

Item 2b(ii)

(ii) Describe the construction practices employed in the construction of these walls and, in particular, their adequacy in preventing significant voids or other weaknesses in any mortar, ' grout, or concrete fill.

Page 4 Revision 1

.m

--is+

m P'

~

Reponse to Item 2b(ii)

Construction phase records show that regularly scheduled inspections of the walls were performed. These records verify that the materials supplied for construction were in accordance with the project specifications.

In addition, the following items were verified during the construction / inspection phase:

(1) The installation area was acceptable.

(2) The latest approved drawings were in use.

(3) That the correct material was used.

(4) That reinforcing bars were properly in place.

(5) That wire reinforcing was properly in place.

(6) Proper grouting was completed.

(7) Overall appearance check.

(8) That proper curing of the walls was completed.

The cons truction/ inspection phase records are traceable directly to the placement of the walls. A sample copy of the " Completed Installation Inspector's Clearance Card" for Wall Number 1467 ir included as Appendix D.

In addition to tne above requirements, the project specifications required the materials be supplied to the codes and standards listed in Table III and certificates of compliance were provided.

Construction of the walls utilized a stacked bond, which required the open cells of the walls to be in vertical alignment, thus enhancing the placement of vertical reinf orcement and the infilling and vibration of grout as required. The details which provide the location and size of reinforcement and grout requirements for the walls are shown in Figures 8 thru 25.

Full bed and head joints were specified for masonry placement.

Concrete required to fill masonry openings was poured in lif ts not to exceed four feet. Rodding was used to assure that each cell was completely filled with grout as required by the wall construction details. The specified strength of the concrete was 2500 psi at 28 days. Concrete cylinders were prepared and tested to verify that this specified strength was attained.

Item 2b(iii)

(iii) The re evaluation report should include detailed justification for the criteria used. References to existing codes or test data may be used if applicable for the plant conditions. The re-evaluation should specifically address the following:

(a) All postulated loads and load combinations should be evaluated against the corresponding re-evaluation acceptance criteria. The re-evaluation should consider the loads from safety and non-safety-related attachments, differencial floor displacement and thermal effects (or detailed justification that these can be considered self limiting and cannot induce brittle failures), and the effects of any potential cracking under dynamic loads. Describe in detail the methods used to account i

for these factors in the re-evaluation and and the adequacy of the

~

acceptance criteria for both in-plane and out-of-plane loads.

Page 5 Revision 1

n

=..

(b) The mtchenism for load. transfer into the masonry walls and postulated failure modes should be reviewed. For multiple wythe walls in which composite behavior is relied upon, describe the methods and acceptance criteria used to assure that these walls will behave as composite walls, especially with regard to shear and tension transfer at the wythe interfaces. With regard to local loadings such as piping and equipment support reactions, the acceptance criteria should assure that the loads are Adequately transferred into the wall, such that any assumptions regarding 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 interf aces.

Response to Item 2b(iii)

(a) The basis for the acceptance criteria for the re-evaluation of the masonry walls is the Uniform Building Code, 1970 edition. A summary of the allowable stresses is presented in Table IV.

The first section of the table contains the working stress allowables from the Uniform Building Code. The second section of the table has been constructed by multiplying the Uniform Building Code allowables by appropriate factors. The justification for the allowables shown in Table IV is presented in Appendix E.

Appendix E, containing the " Recommended Guidelines for the Reassessment of Safety Related Concrete Masonry Walls", is a compilation of technical data for use in serving as guidance criteria in the evaluation of masonry walls which are being evaluated under the NRC IE Bulletin 80-11.

This appendix represents the results.of a literature search regarding codes and design criteria ariginally prepared by an informal Utility Owners Group, and is representative of the current state of the art.

It is presented as justification for the re-evaluation criteria contained in this report.

However, should information become available through ongoing research or study that significantly af fects the re-evaluation criteria, we reserve the option to modify these criteria.

The load combinations considered and the load definitions are presented in Table V.

All attachments and penetrations both safety and non-safety related, through each masonry wall have been identified by the walkdown. All loads imposed on the walls have been identified and combined in accordance with the load combinations, and the corresponding wall stresses compared with the allowable stresses. The loads from attachments-are transferred into the masonry walls by means of clamps and expansion bolts, and base plates with either expansion bolts or thru-bolts with backing plates.

Penetrations through the masonry walls either open or sealed with silicon foam or elastomer impose no load or insignificant load respectively, and are neglected for load calcula tions. The live load from penetrating items sealed with grout is considered for load calculations.

Differential floor deflections were not considered significant for the following reasons. The walkdown did not identify any cracks in the walls in locations which would indicate they were induced by floor displacements.

Dead load floor displacements caused by the weight of the masonry walls would have been compensated in part as the walls were constructed. The majority of the floor loads imposed by equipment, piping and other floor attachments would have been present before the masonry walls were constructed.

Page 6 Revision 1

Therm 21 sf fects cruced by accidant conditions have been analyzed. Moments inducsd by tharm21 gradients are combined with other loads in accordance with the load combinations and the resultant wall stresses compared to the allowable stresses.

Cracking under dynamic loads has been analyzed as follows. The uncracked moment of inertia (I ) of the masonry wall is obtained from a transformed t

section consisting of the block, mortar and core concrete.

If the applied moment (M ) due to all loads in a load combination exceeds the uncracked a

moment capacity (Mer), the wall is considered cracked.

In this event, the equivalent moment of inertia (l ) is computed as follows:

e l\\"

~

q~

(Ma (Mg, J s

M t

u k

/

where, Mer = Uncracked moment capacity M

= Applied maximum moment on the wall a

I

= Moment of inertia of the transformed section t

Ier = Moment of inertia of the cracked section f

= Modulus of rupture r

y

= Distance of neutral plane from tension face If the use of I results in a total moment, M, which is less than '1er, then e

a the wall is verified for M Either It or I, whichever is appropriate, er.

e is used to calculate the natural wall frequency, which in turn is used to obtain the seismic accelerations from the floor response curves. These calculations have been performed using computer code " BLOCK WALL".

A generalized description of this computer code is contained in Appendix F.

In addition, the computer code determines masonry and reinforcing steel stresses induced by out-of plana bending and axial loads.

In plane stresses due to interstory drif t have been considered by limiting the in plane strains (A/H) to the following:

Wall confined at top and bottom d /H 0.001 Wall f ree at top A /H 0.0001 where A is the relative displacement between top and bottom of wall, and H is height of wall This criteria for in-plane ef fects leaves a reasonable margin for out-of-plane loadings and is consistent with the information presented in Appendix E.

Where the bending due to out-of-plane loading causes flexural stresses in the reinforced masonry wall to exceed the working stress allowables shown in Table IV, the wall has been evaluated by the " energy balance technique".

Page 7 Revision 1

9 Reinforcing steel strains are allowed to exceed yield, provided the wall will deform in a ductile mode with suf ficient strength and deformation capacity.

To insure this, the ductility of the wall (deflection due to all loads in a load combination divided by deflection at yield) is limited to five or less and the masonry compression stress is limited _ to less than 0.85f'm based on a rectangular stress distribution.

If the deflection of the masonry wall due to all loads in any load combination exceeds three times the yield deflection, the deflection has been multiplied by a facte

? two and a determination made as to whether this factnred deflection wilt adversely af fect the function of all safety related systems attached to the wall.

The final results of the analysis of each masonry wall is presented in Table I, which presents the maximum stress ratios based on the previously described loads, load combinations and allowable stresses.

(b) Whenever load calculations have been made, a determination has also been made to show adequate transfer of the load into the masonry wall. This has been done by showing the punching shear stress is equal.to, or less than, the allowable for masonry or mortar, as appropriate.

The shear stress at grouted blockouts has also been considered when load transfer into the masonry wall from penetrating items have been evaluated.

The cor,etruction of the multi-wythe walls is shown in Figure 10.

The multiple

. wythe w,lls have been provided for shielding and as fire barriers, and the.

composite thickness is greater than required for structural purposes.

In view of this, the multi-wythe walls have been evaluated as single wythe walls, with the appropriate loads contributory to each wythe. The bond and shear strengths for the concrete fill between the wythes has been neglected in this simplified structural evaluation.

Item 3

" Existing test data or conservative assumptions may be used-to justify the re-evaluation acceptance criteria if the criteria are shown to be conservative and applicable for the actual plant conditions.

In the absence of appropriate acceptance criteria a confirmatory masonry wall test program is required by the NRC in order to quantify the safety margins inherent in the re-evaluation criteria. Describe in detail the actions planned and their schedule to justify the re-evaluation criteria used in Item 2.

If a test program is necessary, provide your commitment fc.r such a program and a schedule for submittal of a description of the test program and a schedule for completion of the program. This test program should address all appropriate loads (seismic, tornado, missile, etc.).

It is expected that the test program will extend beyond the 180 day period allowed for the other Bulletin actions.

Submit the results of the test program upon its completion."

Response to' Item 3 Justification for the re-evaluation criteria is presented in Appendix F.

This justification is considered sufficient, and that a test program is not necessary, except as required to determine project unique structural properties such as collar joint strength, and any other properties for which construction test data is not available or can-not otherwise be determined.

i Page 8 Revision 1

TABLE I EDGE CONDITIONS GOVERNING f NTE RACTION RATIO OF RATIO OF DUCTILT Y WALL WALL PRIORITY LOAD FOR M ASONRY TENStLE STEEL MASONRY RATIO OF Nt TOP BOT N/E S/W COMBINATION COMP STRESS (w)

STRESS (W)

SHEAR STRESS (W)

WALL (3 ()

ACCEPTABLE 1477 1

22 14 20 20 2

0.90 0.72 0.39 N/A YES 2247 1

11 14 20 12 3

1.80 1.54 0.51 0.97 YES i

2317 1

1 t_

14 20 12 2

200 2 99 0.80 2.27 YES 2447 1

22 22 FREE 20 2

3.10 4A8 1.00 4A9 YES

3016, 1

11 14 20 20 3

2.70 3.98 0.74 3.65 YES 3267 1

11 14 18 18 3307 20 20 20 20 3447 1

8 14 20 FREE 3457 1

FREE _ 14 20 FREE 3467 1

FREE 14 FREE FREE 5307 1

11 14 20 12 2

1.50 2.25 O.37 2S3 YES m

CO97 1

22 14 18 FREE 2

0.60 0.728 0.097 NIA YES 1M 2

1277 2

22 14 20 20 S

0.70 0.39 0.27 N/A YES 1467 2

15 22 20 17 5

0.10 0.09 0.04 N1A YES 2016 2

8 14 20 FREE 2

0,70 1.04 0.39 0.71 YES 2047 2

FREE 14 FREE FREE 2107 2

11 14 12 12 5

0.05 0.10 0.14 N/A YES 2227 2

11 14 20 20 2

3.40 3.38 0 04 2.73 YES 2257 2

LOAD COMSMATIONS utrvice load combinations factored load combinstrofts (e) WORKING STRESS P4THOD 1.

D+L 5 D+L+E' +To +H +R o

(O *) ENERGY BALANCE METHOO

2. D+L+E

& D+ L

E ' *T4 +H4+R

3. D+L To +Ho + E 7.

D + L + W' +To +Ho 4

D+L+To +Ho+W

P L

1 E

M E

s L

n

.d B

ito lA S

S S

S a

lT AP E

E E

E n

WE Y

Y Y

Y R

R t

C m

+o o

C o

H H

H A

c

+

d o

4 o

a T

T T

S l

+

o F )t N d 'E

'W E

Y O4 O e

+

TL 5

A A

5 0

A A I

o D

r L

L L

T I

C 1

8 7

A L

7 8

T

/

+

/

t TO N N N c D

D D CI L 0 2

N N

0 1

a I

f UTA B

5 7

D AW R

MO sn C o

)

it m

D a A n

(

S O

i b

FY S L

O 7 E m

N R 0

5 3

7 4

4 8

4 o

E W 2

5 5

0 c

T O O 2

8 1

+

1 S

I S 0

0 0

0 0 O d

o o

TA AR a

H H

RMA lo

+

E o

o E

T T

H e

+ +

+

S ic L

L L

L.

v

+

L r

D D D D E) e FEW s

2 34 1

OT(

S 4

5 1

0 4

7 3

O S

0 3

2 4

3 5

1 1

I E

3 TLS 3

Q 0

2 0 0 1

At E 1

S R R N T ES T

I

)

Yw NR(

E O N S I

OS L

T SE O

0 0

0 0 0 B

CA AR 7_

5 2

3 9

7 1

2 T

A RMS Q

0 0

0 0 0 1

2 T

E T

P IN RO M FOC N

G O I

N T

I DA N AN 2

2 5

6 3

3 3

5 R OIB EV L M O O G C W

E E

S 2

2 2

E 0 0

2 E 0 2 0 2 4 8

/

2 1

1 1

R 2 2

1 1

R 2

1 N

S O

F F

I T

E I

E D

7 2

0 0 0 E 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 2

0 0 2

2 2

R 2 2

1 2

2 2

2 1

2 2

D

/

1 1

N N

F OO O

O H C

H T T E T

4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 E M O

1 1

B M

E E

l S C G

S N P

D 9

5 9

1 1

,#- 1 6

8 8 8

8 E A O

1 1

1 t

E 1

1 i

1 R

1 L

T T

S A B

Y G

T I

N Y I

G R

2 2

22 2

2 2

K R O

I R E R

O N P

WE

)

L 7

7 7

7 D 7 7

7 7

D 0 D D 7 8 8 */D D0*/478 2

3 7 0 4 5

8 4 8 9 0 0 9

(

La 7

3 AN 7

0

(

1 1

1 2

2 2

2 3

3 3

4 7 0 0 fU 0

W 2

2 4

1 3 3' _3_$ 3 3

2 3

3 3

3 4 5 5

2 2

2

a E

n L

o i

B ta lA S

n lT ib R

R E

^P Y

WE m

+o o

C o

H H

H C

c

+

A d

o 4

o a

T T

T S lo

+

N d 'E

'W E

F )t O e

+

Y Oa I

r L

L L

T p

A T

o

+

I 0

A t

L L

N c D D

D

/

TO a

L N

I f

CI B

5

&7 UTA D AW M

R O sn C o it D

)

a w

A n O

i

(

b S

L S

m FY O R E o

E W N R 9

c

+

T 5

o o O O S d

H H

I S

O a

+

TA AR o

RMA l

o n ET T

E e

+

H S

ic L

L L

L v

+

r D D

D D-L e

E) s.

2 3

4.

1 FEW OT(

S 4

O I

E S 5

TL S 0

E AtS R R N T ES T

I

)

Yw NR(

E O N S I OS L

T SE B

C 0

A AR 8

T A RMS O

T E

T P

N RO M u

I FOC 1

i N

O G

I N

T j

I DA N AN 5

R OIB E L V M O O G C W

E S

E

/

R N

S O

F u.

I E

0 I

T D

D OO

/

2 N

N O H O

HT C

T E 4

MM T

m, O

1 P

B E

i_

i S C E

S N d

G P

E A

+

D

~

R O

8 L

E T

A T

S B

G Y

Y N

T I

G R

3 33 3 33 3 3 33 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 33 K R I

R E O

I O N R

WE P

)

4 *

(

6 66 7 7 7 77 ll8 7

7 77 7 7 7I 6 6D 7 7 7 6 2 34 8 9 C 1 2

(

T 77 3 9 2 3 5 67 2 34 6 8 2 100 0 0 5 5 0 66

N 8

0 M7 2 2 3 3 3 33 0 00 1

1 2 4 A~44 4 4 4 44 w

2 2 2 2 2 22 3 33 3 3 3 1

1 1 1

\\

1l1L ll lllIlllIllllllllllll fIllllll ff Ill l1

m E

s L

n B

o i

LA S

ta LT E

n AP Y

ib R

R WE m

+o +.

o CC o

H H

H c

+

A d

o o

a T

T T

S l

+

o F )t N d 'E

'W E

Y O e

+

O4 A

I o

r L

L L

T T

tL

(

I

+

L A

t TO N

N c

D D

D CI L I

fa UTA B

5 67 D AW M

R O sn C o

)

i t

m D a A

}

(

r S

O e

b FY S L

E m

OR o

E W N R 1

O O 0

T c

+

S o

o I S O

d A AR a

H H T

RMA lo

+

o o E

E T

T H

e

'+

+

S ic L

L L

L v

+

r D

D D D LE) e 4

s 2.3 FEW 1

OT(

S 6

O S

0. _

I E TL S 0

AI E S R R N T ES T

I

)

Yw NR(

E O N S I

OS L

T SE B

C 0

+

A AR 1

A RMS 0

T T

E T

P N RO M I FOC N

O G

I N

T I DA N AN 2

R OIB E L V

M O O G C W

S 2

/

1 N

S O

I T

I E

0 D

O

/

2 N

N DO O

OH C

H T T E T

4 E M O

1 M

B E

E S C G

S N P

D 2

E A O

2 R

E L

T T

A S

B Y

G Y

T N

I I

G R

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 K R I

O R E R

ON P

WE

)

7_7

m L

7 7

(

L 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 6 7

7 7 7 8 7 6 7 5 6

(

A N' 4 5 8 9 3 8 9 8 4 W

6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 3 0 9 2 6 9 3 2 5 1

1 9 2 2 2 3 4 4 0 O 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

2

)

s E

n L

o B

i t

LA a

LT n

AP ib R

R WE m

+o

+

C 4

o o

H H

H C

c

+

A

+

d o

o a

T T

T S lo

+

'W N d 'E E

F )t O4 O e

+

Y I

r L

L L

T T

o IL

+

(

A t

L D

D D TO N

c L

a CI I

f UTA B

5 6

7; D AW M

R O sn C o

)

it D

em a

A n

(

S O

i b

S L

FY m

O R E N R o

E W T

c

+

O O S o o TI S d

HH a

A AR o

+ +

RMA l

o o E

E T

H e

T.

+

S ic L

L L

L v

+

r D

D D D L

e E) s 2 3 4.

FE*

1 OT(

S O

S I

E TL S AI E S R R N T ES T

I

)

Yw NR(

E O N S L

TI OS a

SE B

C 4

a A AR T

A RMS T

E T

P N RO M I FOC N

G O N

TI I DA N AN R OIB E L V

M O O G C W

S

/

N S

O I

T I

E D

D

[

OO N

N 7

O H H T T E T

E M O

M B

E E

S C G

S N P

D E A O

R E

L S A T

T B

Y G

T N Y I

G I

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 K R 4444_4 44 4 4 4 R E 5

8

_ ~

O N R

P WE

)

L7 L

7 7 D 0 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 7 7

(

7 7 0 2

(

Lt 7

7 7

6 7

0 8 2 6 7 0 4 6 6 M2 0 4 279 0

AN 4

6 1

1 2 6 6 8 6 9 2

4 0 0 2 3 4 4

0 1 1 1 1 1 1

W 1

1 1

2 2

2 2 2 2

3 3

3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 S 5 5 l

l l

i E

s n

L o

B i

LA S

ta LT E

n AP Y

i R

R b

WE m

+o C

o o H H H C

c

+

A

+

d o

o a

T T

T

+

S lo

+

'W

'E.

N d E

F )t 3

4 7

O e Y

+

O*

I o

L.

L L

r T

8 T

IL

+

(

A t

L c

D D 0 TO 0

NI f

L a

CI UTA B

5

&7 D AW M

R O sn C

)

io t

D m

a A n

(

S O

i b

L FY S 3

m O R E 8

N R o

E W 3

c

+

T O O 0

o o

S I S da H

H TA AR

+

RMA lo o o E

E T

T.

H e

+

S ic L

'L L

L v

+

r D

D D D u

e F) s 2 34 F E "c 1

OT(

S 2

O S 3

I E 1

TLS AI E S R R N T ES T

I

)

Yw NR(

E O N S I OS L

T SE B

C 4

A AR 1

A RMS T

T E

T P

R NI M

OFOC N

G O I

N T

I DA N AN 2

R OIB E L V M O O G C W

0 s

/

2 k

S O

I E

TI E

E D

R D

[

F OO N

N O

O H H T C

T E T

4 E M O

M 1

B E

E S C S N G

P E A D

1 O

1 R

E L

T T

A S

B Y

G Y

T N

I I

G R

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 M R I

R E O

O N R

P WE

)

4

L

(

Lt 7

7 7 / 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 7 7 7 2

2 2 2 0 0 3 3 5 9 4 01 69 6

(

AN 3

5 8 9 3 3 3 0 3 1 2 22 3_

W 5 5 5 5 6 6 1 3 3 1

1 1

2 2_3 3_

22

t s

E n

LB e

t LA u

LT AP d

R R

e WE m

+o C

o o

H H

H C

c

+

A d

o o

a T

T T

S lo

+

'E. 'E 'W F )t N d Oe O e Y

+

I r

T s

T o

L.

L L

IL 0

+

A t

O M c D D

D L

T I L a

W

z. TA 5

7 f

t AW M

r f

R O s C ~n

)

io t

D W

a A

n

(

S O ib FY S L

m E

OR o

E W N R T

c

+

O O S o

o I S da H

H.

TA AR RMA to

+

o o

E.

T T

EH e

+

S k

L L

v

+

r D

D D D L) e E

s 2

3 4

FEW 1

OT(

S O

S I E TL S AI E S R R N T ES T

I

)

Yw NR(

E O N S I

OS L

T SE B

CA AR T

A RMS T

E T

P N R I

O M FOC N

G O I

N T

I DA N AN R OIB E L V

M O O G C W

S

/

N S

O I

T I

E D

D

/

D O N

N O

OH H T C

T E T

I O

W M N

B E

E S C S N G

P D

E A O

R E

L T

T A S

B Y

G Y

T N

G I

I R

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 8 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 8 M R O

M E I

O N R

P WE

)

4

7 7

7

(

L 7 7 D 7 7 77 S 4 9 7 8 7 0 9 9 3

7 7 7 8 8 5

Lt 7 0 8 4 6 7 O 0 7 5 0 0 3 1

(

AN 0 3 1 8 8 9 9 D 0 0 1

1 1

2 2

0 M 3 3

4 3 3 1

W 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 I

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3

o

~

s E

n L

o B

i S

t LA a

E n

LT AP Y

u R

R t

+

WE m

+o o

C oH H

H C

f+

+

A d

o 4

o a

T T

T

+

b S

'W N d 'E E

F )t O e

+

Y A

TI o Oe r

L L

L T

1 f

+

L N

A t

TO N

c D D D L

L a

CI W

f E

5 a7 UTA D AW M

R O sn C o it D

)e a

a A

n

(

O i

b S

L S

3 m

FY 0

W E

OR o

E N R 0

c

+

T O O 0

o o S

d I

S a

H H

T

+

A AR o

RMA l

o o

E.

T T

E e

+

H S

ic L

L L

L.

+

v

+

r D

D D D L) w 2

3~4 E

1 FEW OT(

0 S

0 O

S 0

I E TL S AI E S A 9 N T ES T

I

)e Yt NR(

E O N S I

OS L

T 0

SE B

C 1

A AR T

0 A RMS 4

T E

T P

N RO M I FOC N

G O I

N T

I DA N AN 2

R OtB EV L M O O G C W

2 1

S

[

o N

S a

O I

T 8

D ID E

1

[

D O N

N O H O

H T C

T E 4

E M T

1 O

M B

E S C E

S N G

P 5

E A D

R L 1

O E

T T

A S

B G

Y Y

T NI G R

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 K R I

O R E I

O N R

WE P

)

4 4 8 7 7 77 7

7

(

L 7 7 6 7 7 7

7 7 7

8 7

8 725 2 3 7

5

(

Lt 7 5 9 0 2

5 7

7 8

2 3 8 0 67 8 9 1

1 3 AN D 6 6 8 9 2

0 0

1 2 1

1 1

1 1 1 2 44 4 4 5 5 W

4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5_6.

.n.

1 i

l.

TABLE 11 - MATERIALS AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES i

Reinforced Masonry (Grouted Solid or Solid Units) f'm = 1500 psi 6

E,' = 1.5 x 10 p,1 4

f'c = 2500 psi t

6 E

= 2.88 x 10 p,1 e

f

= 1125 psi e

Reinforced Masonry (Partially Grouted or Hollow Units) f'm = 1350 psi 6

E,

= 1.35 x 10 psi f'c = 2500 psi 1

6 E

= 2.88 x 10 psi c

f

= 1125 psi e

Vertical Reinforcing 1

f

= 40,000 psi y

E

= 30,000,000 psi s

3 l

Horizontal Reinforcing

("Dur-O-Wall" Extra Heavy Truss Type) 1 f

= 65,000 psi y

E

= 30,000,000 psi s

where:

f'm = Ultimate compressive strength for masonry j

f'e = Ultimate compressive strength for concrete Em = Modulus of elasticity for masonry 1

Ec; = Modulus of elasticity for concrete E

= Modulus of elasticity for steel s

'f

= Design yield strength for steel y

f

= Allowable concrete stress in' compression e

Revision'l

.......___.._.~.;. __

... ~.....

TABLE III - LIST OF APOLICABLE STANDARDS ASTM A-82 Specification for Cold-Drawa Steel Wire for Concrete Reinforcement ASTM A-307 Specification for Low-Carbon Steel Externally and Internally Threaded Standard Fasteners ASTM A-615 Specification for reformed Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement ASTM C

Specification for Hollow Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry On ASTM C-91 Specification for Masonry Cement ASTM C-109 Test for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement !!ortars (Using two (2) inch Cube Specimens)

ASTM C-150 Specification for Portlaad Cement ASTM C-404 Specification for AggreFates for Masonry Grout ASTM C-476 Specification for Mortar and Grout for Reinforced Masonry AWS D-1.1 Structural Welding Code, Steel AWS D-12.1 Reinforcing Steel Welding Code F F-S-325 Federal Specification, Shield, Expansion; Nail, Expansion; and Nail, Drive Screw (Devices, Anchoring, Masonry)

Revision 1

TABLE IV - ALLOWABLE STRESSES IN REINFORCED MASONRY Working Stress Allowables Ultimate Stress Allowables a

\\

Allowable Maximum Allowable Maximum Description (psi)

(psi)

(psi) i Compressive (1)

Axial 0.20 f'm 1200 0.44 f'm 2000 Flexural 0.33f'm 900

0. 85 f 'm 3000 i

Bearing

'On full area 0.25 f'm 900 0.62 f'm 2250 On one-third area 0.30 f'n 1200 0.95f'm 3000 or '.ess j

Shear Flexurai members 0.02 f'm 50 1.7 75 Reinforcement Takes Shear m

M/Vd 1

0.04 f'm 75 2.5 f'm 125 M/vd - 0 0.05 t',

120 3.4 80

.c j

Reinforcement Bond Deformed Bars 140 18 6 Tension Grade 40.

20,000 0.9 F 4-y f

Joint Wire

.5F 30,000 0.9F y

y Compression 0.5F r30,000 0.9F y

y Note to Table IV h

(1) These values should be multiplied by [1- (40t)3],

i Revision 1

1 TABLE V - Load Combinations Service Load Combinations a.

D'+ L b.

D+L+E i

c.

D+L+To+Ho+E d.

D+L+To+Ho+W Factored Load Combinations a.

D + L + E' + To+Ho+R b.

D + L + E' + TA+HA+T c.

D + L + W' + To+Ho where,.

D

= Dead load of wall and attachment.

L

= Live load.

R

= Force or pressure on wall due to rupture of any one pipe.

T

= Thermal loads due to temperature gradient through wall under o

operating conditions.

H

- Force on wall due to thermal expansion of pipes under operating o

j co ndi tions.

t TA = Thermal loads due to temperature gradient through wall under accident conditions.

HA = Force on wall due to thermal expansion of pipes under accident condi tions.

E

= Maximum Probable Earthquake (OBE) resulting f rom ground surface acceleration of 0.08g.

E'

= Maximum Possible Earthquake (SSE) resulting from ground surface ' acceleration of 0.15g.

W

= Wind load on wall.

f W'

= Tornado load on wall including differential pressure and missiles.

Revision 1 y

o

~.

--,en-,,

y-m,-

-.,n,-

e e,

e-

-r-<

~pw,-

, - ~. -

y er,.

--r

l i

APPENDIX C TABLE OF WALL FUNCTIONS AND APPLICABLE ACCIDENT LOADS

(

Revision 1

\\

$ FEN D' I X**C Cour.- ConTAinuEnr C.C.

- CABLE CHASE K E Y-P C.

- FIPE CHASE SI

- STAIRS PAGE sc 8 J

- El KVATOR sm5 APPLICABLE LOADING REMARKS on FLOOR ROON VALL FIRE SHELD FLD00 TORNADO PIPE BREAK R N BREAK PIPE

-D ELEVATION NQ NO.

WALL VELL VR'1 DEPRESS-COMF%RTMENT JET BREAK WYTE URi7ATION PRES 9)E NPINGEENT WHIP il

' 4 5 - O-101 1028 5

4 103/1044 1o58

a X

II IO(,,/ 04pA l o r,$

S X

o 645'-O-t ors /lO(sA 1078 X

ij

$ 5 5 '- o-iso los7 5

x 5 4 S' o' 180 6037 S

X l

S5 5' o' isoA 1157 1,

x 555'-o-18 3 A 1:47

d.,

x 54 Slo' 120 1157 0

x

~

i 410/122 l i f,7 0

x fl7A ff77 D

X il7A in97 o

x 125/12r, 1227 O

X IIS/12f, 1237 p

x 1

120/122 12 r,7 D

X l

142 /ti) 1277 D.

X lit 1268 5

X fil (298 5

X lit 1308 S

X 10 /112 1317 D

X ll 4

18 7

' I S 37 D

x 54 T-O '

107 iS46 D

x I

" CONT. - CONTAINMENT C.C.

- CABLE CHASE K E Y-P C.

- PIPE CHASE APPENDIX C

S T.

- STAIRS PAGE 2 05 8

.E.

- ELEVATOR SINGLE S APPLICABLE LOADING REMARKS OR FLOOR ROOM MLL FIRE SHIELD FLOOD TORNADO PIPE BREAK PIPE BREAK PIPE b

ELEVATION NO.

NO.

MLL WALL MLL DEPRESS-COH%RTMENT JET BREAK WYTE URIZATION. PESSURE MPINrAENT WHIP I

~

54 *f - o-109 / s i t i+7s o

x 545.O*

ilo i4 57 S

X 655'-o-ilo A e467 S

x ll 545 -o' t iO A 6477 o

x t

565'-o*

205 2 018 S

~

225 2047 o

x 1

22G A /227 2057 D

X X

226A/227 2 OG7 D

X X

227 2077 5

)(

217 2067 S

X 227/252 2097 x

227/ 252 2 07 o

X l

252 /244 2:47 5

y 23 /241 2i67 0

x 240/244 2197 5

x 1

24S 2207 D

X

$(,5'-O" 243/244 2217 O

x 1.

CONT.- CONTAINENT C.C.

- CABLE CHASE APPENDIX ' C l

ME Y-P C.

- PIPE CHASE ST.

- STAIRS PAGE 3 os 8

. E.

- ELEVATOR

]

$1NGLE-S APPLICABLE LOADING REMARKS OR FLOOR ROOM M FIRE SHIELD FLOOD iuRNAD0 ' PIPE BREAK RPE BREAK

' PIPE

-D ELEVATION NO.

NO.

W u.L WALL WALL DEPESS-COMF%RTNENT JET BREAK WYTE URIZATION. PRESSURE MPINGEENT WHIP l

5(m 5' o' 240 /244 2227 o

x 731/252 2237 D

X i

2 SI /240

?? '7 O

X l

i 240/244 2257 5

X 241/245 2247 x

240/24l 2277 5

x 240/244' 2267 0

x 234/2?S 2297 0

X 255 2307 D

x 236 2367 5

X 234 2327 X

236 2357' S

X 236 2347 S

X 4

234 2357 D

X l

5 G 5 '-O '

221/292 2S67 3

X l

6 fe G'- O

45 2511 S

X S G S'- O' 227/252' 2597 S

X 4

2 4CV240 2407 5

X 189 /742 2417 D

X 225 2427 6

X j

u 225 2437 5

x SG3-o*

227/57.

2447 5

x 685-o*

372e524 30 4 5

x 5 6 *i-O' 322/324 302w b

X 585'.o" S22/ 324 5034 5

x l

l l

=

~ CONT.- CONTAINMENT C.C.

- CABLE CHASE APPENDIX C

NEY-P C.

- PIPE CHASE S T.

- STAIRS PAGrr 4 os s

. E.

- ELEVATOR si m s APPLICABLE LOADING REMARKS OR FLOOR '

ROOM MLL FIRE SHIELD R.000 TORNADO PIPE BREAK PIPE BREAK PIPE b0 ELEVATON NO.

NO.

MLL WALL MLL DEPRESS-COW %RD4ENT JET OREAK WYTE

'JRIZATON W SURE lO N WHIP

'545'O' St9 /St9 A 3040 5

X d

' 318/52 f A 3OSD X

3d5/ 32s A

"> Or.0 5

x Si9/ St9 A SO70 X

316/ CONT SOS D D

X Si8 / CONT 309 D D

X 1

Ss S/C ONT.

SiO D D

X 5 9 S'- O" Si8/ CONT.

Sil D D

X 58 % O" 317/370 Sito 5

x i

324/572 3:3D S

x St4 /C C.

3 t c,7 5

X X

X

$ 4 / C.C.

3117 5

X X

X Sl4/C.C.

3487 5

X X

X 3006/57 319 8 S

X X

X 300/309 320s t

300/505 3288 5

1 310 / 562 3227 X

5t O/ E S237 S

X X

510 /3 2 3247 S

X 58 2 3257 S

X 387/'313 3 2 r,7 X

X St2/E.

3277 3

X 310 / 5T.

3287 S

X X

312 /ST.

3297 5

X X

328 3507 5

X l

$28/529 3337 S

X 328 3347 A

ti? / 51.

35S7 5

.x g

X 9 8 S '- O' 360 / 312 33w7 X

X

CONT.- CONTAINMENT C.C.

- CABLE CHASE APPENDIX C

NE Y-P C.

- PIPE CHASE ST.

- STAIRS

,. E.

- ELEVATOR PAGE 5 Or 8 sims APPLICABLE LOADING RE:AARKS OR FLOOR ROOM VALL PRE SHELD FLD00 TORNADO RPE BREAK RPE BREAK RPE

~

ELEVATON NQ NO.

VALL WALL VALL DEPRESS-COP 4%RTMENT JET BREAK WYTE UR1ZATION PRESSURE lO-N VHP ll S 9 0 O' 3 L8 /CowT.

538D D

x D 6 's' O' 528/S29 5197 S

X d

stb 3407 S

X 382 / 31S 3417 5

X X

I Bo

'or 3:0 3447 S

x x

x 6 65' o" Sio

'3457 s

x x

x s u $'.d 310 34r,7 5

x i

x x

l I

D O S'- O '

426/474A 4016 5

X 478/428a 402G S

x 478/4786 4056 5

x 478/4 toe 4044 S

x 407/411 4097 5

X 4 08 4048 0

X 4 01 4078 0

X l

4 04 4807 X

X X

4 04 4187 5

X X

X U

404/PC 482-1 5

x X

X 405-O*

424h/411 4157 5

X i

l

" CONT. - CONTAINME*:T CC.

- CABLE CHASE NE Y-P C.

- PIPE CHASE APPENDIX

'C 5.

- STAIRS

.[.

- Et FVATOR PAGE G oc 8 51NCAE-S APPLICABLE LOADING REMARKS FLOOR ROOH VALL RRE SHELD FLOOD TURNADO PIPE BREAX RPE BREAK PIPE ELEVATON

. NO.

NO.

~

VALL WALL VALL DEPRESS-COP 4%RTMENT JET BREAK WYTE UR12ATON lW SSURE t%"M'ENT WHIP

$ 1 F-G" 42? a/427 4587 S

X l

4 27/C C 4597 5

X 47?A /C C 4GO7 X

422 A /427 4G17 X

421 A/4723 4677 x

ll 427A/C.C 4647 5

X 427A/E 4G17 5

x 422A/E 4467 5

x 422A/L 4G77 5

X 4 8 3'- G*

4??A/E 4 G87 5

X 40)'-O' 481/4lS 4G97 5

X G s 5 '- G' 4ftA/57.

4707 5

x i

G l3'- G' 4 Z2A/s 4777 5

X GI3'-G" 421 A /C.C 4757 X

l 605' O' 424 &477 4786 X

427/428 4 79G S

X 4 2 7/ C.C. 4806 S

X ll 4 27/ C C 4817 5

X 427/( C 482G S

X 477/c c 4857 5

X l

n 42 7/c c 4647 5

X GOV-O' 4 2 7/C. (: 4867 S

X r i S'- 6" 4 22 AA404 4847 5

X e

G I T-G' 4 27 A/404 4877 S

X

"CONV.- CONTAINMENT j

C.c.

- caste CHASE M E Y-P C.

- PIPE CHASE APPENDIX C

S T.

- STAIRS E.

- ELEVATOR PAGE 7 0C 8 5tNGLE-S '

APPLICABLE LOADING REMARKS OR FLOOR ROOH VALL FIRE SHIELD FLOOD TORNADO PIPE BREAK PIPE BREAK PIPE ED ELEVATION NO.

NO.

WALL WALL WALL DEPRESS-COP 4%RTMENT JET BREAK WYTE URIZATION - lTESSURE m-N WHIP GO5'-O' 427/475 dass S

x 4

475/c c 4 a 9(,

S Y

4288/c c 4 9a(.

S X

4 8 8/5T.

4987 S

X

~

415 4977 5

x I

GOS O' 411/E 4%7 S

/

6 i 5'- 4' 472AAf76 4177 5

A GIS' G' 427A 4967 5

A l

l I

G7 5' o*

ST.

5097 5

x l

50 VST.

5107 S

X

~

o il SO(e/SO7 5827 5

1 5 0(.

SIS 7 5

507/SO4 S#47 s

x SO7/ 604 5157 S

X SOS /504 S I (. 7 S

505/504 SI77 5

X SO S/ 5o4 Sl a 7 5

x 505/504 St 97 S

x 502/510 5707 S

X SOZ 5177 5

ll G R 3 0" 507 5257 5

i i

CONT. - CONTAINENT C.C.

- CABLE CHASE APPENDIX C

NE Y-P C.

- PIPE CHASE ST.

- STAIRS F-a, S E & OE 8 E.

- ELEVATOR SINGLE-S APPLICABLE LOADING REMARKS OR FLOOR ROOM MLL FIRE SHELD FLOOO TDRNADO PIPE BREAK RN BREAX PIPE O

ELEVATION NO.

NO.

MLL WALL M U.

DEPRESS-COP 4%RTMENT JET BREAK WYTE URIZATION PRESSURE N

WHIP re 2 6 0' 5>O4 5257 5

4 502 5277 5

X

$o5/507 5287 605/50m 5297 5

i SOS /SIO

' S 347 5

X 505

$3S7 5

x o

G23 oa 505 5%7 5

x 645'-o' reoS / E.

6087 5

X ll G43-O*

reOWST.

re037 5

X 1

AS P 3*

r 0 3 /r OSA (e087 5

x GST-3*

GO S/51 r.097 5

X

)

G 5 7 '- 5' GOS 6107 X

f

APPENDIX D SAMPLE COPY OF COMPLETED INSTALLATION INSPECTOR' S CLEARANCE CARD Revision 1

S. A. STORER & SONS CO.

COMPLETED INSTALLATION INSPECTOR'S

/24 g(

CLEARANCE CARD FORM No. 2 W A LL tJo. Idb l l ~gMBER QN DATE LOCATION REON/ SPEC. NO.

BUILDING 471 EL E V Arov.# 3 7749111-$2 VI2-]3 19ux

,y gg.r w gu._

ESCRIPTION I2 "c mo Ez 355 REFERENCE INSPECTION EXCEPTS QUAL. CONT.

DATE DOCUMENT PROCESS NOTED INSPECTOR Q. C. Records for Material Complete M

SASP REY 4 including User Reports 3-/ M 3 i M W A'<t-b r

SASP REV 4 Installation Area Acceptable 3-ie-ll -ht#A N -

/)26 /A Latest Approved Drawings Used

'h -/ A- )3 A n$*

~

Correct Material Used

,3 -1 0 0 7, M

-tW O

d Rebars in Place b -/ 04.3 dea-2 f,

Wire Reinforcing in Place 3 -/0 ~13

-r.

<- %'6 B2 Grouting Completed 3 /0Q3. t N_ t v%

B2 (7

Check for Appearance 3 - / O C3 on f[

Curing Completed d-p M VM -

Reviewed by O.C. E.

A. B. & S. Company Accepted by Proj. Mgr. ( A. B. & S. Co.)

" }&

s COMMENT DISTRIBUTION 1.

T. E. Co. Rep.

1 2.

Bechtel O. C. E.

1 3.

Bechtel O. A. E.

1 CEEDBACK 4.

A. B. & S. Co.

3 Page 1 Revision 1

1

\\

/

S. A. STORER & SONS CO.

124 s

DAILY INSPECTION REPORT FORM No.1

(

'e ldALL. NO. Id.(el

/

DATE LOC TION REON/ SPEC. NO.

BUILDING Q NUMBER ELEV 774 i~8 b U' I' 2A7/

$~10 %

W U5T kHs t L-DESCRIPTION es g

1 V

=$

l ?

A U

S E

E E

hf TYPE OF MASONRY UNIT g g INSPECTOR o

u ;

7 u

y, 1

Rebars in Place

/

Y-10{

S J A.d e.GW-.~

Wire Reinforcing in Place f

j 7,,

{

g

(-1-]3 t'

0 sting y

/

A hR.stW4 o,

~

Check for Appearance

/

p.- ) D -?';

h 9A.Ota v-c~-

Reviewed by O. C. E. ( A. B. & S. Co.)

Accepted by Proj. Mgr. ( A. B. & S. Co.)

d 0.,! c y&

/

y COMMENT DISTRIBUTION 1.

T. E. Co. Rep.

1 2.

Bechtel O. C. E.

1 FEEDBACK 3.

Bechtel O. A. E.

1 4.

A. B. & S. Co.

3 m -

Page 2 Revision 1

APPENDIX E RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR THE REASSESSMENT OF SAFETY RELATED CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS

'i Revision 1

~~

COMMENTARY ON CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION 0F CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS i

1.0 GENERAL 1

j 1.1 Purpose 1

1 On May 8,1980, the NRC issued I&E Bulletin 80-11 entitled,

" Masonry Wall Design", to certain Owners of operating reactor facilities. One of the tasks required by the bulletin was to establish appropriate re-evaluation criteria.

A detailed justi-fication of the criteria along with quantified safety margins are also to be provided by the Owner.

This commentary serves as justification of the criteria used and provides a discussion of the margins of safety.

1.2 Scope The concrete masonry walls are evaluated for all applicable loads and load combinations.

Calculated wall stresses are first compared against an allowable stress criteria.

In general, wall stresses are maintained within the elastic 3

range of the load carrying components.

If allowable stresses are exceeded, then wall stability is checked using ultimate strength or inelastic design approaches and safety systems on or near the wall are evaluated to determine if the displace-ments might adversely affect the intended function of safety related piping and equipment.

Page 1 Revision 1

I Anchor bolts, embeds and bearing plates provided for support of systems attached to the walls are the subject of another NRC bulletin and are not considered to be within the scope of this evaluation.

2.0 GOVERNING CODE Projects have the option of using the code referenced.in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) applicable to masonry or ACI 531-79.

These codes do not address the abnormal loads typically applied to nuclear power plant design.

Therefore, supplemental allowables and alterna-tive design techniques 'are specified in the' criteria for cases not directly covered by the code.

3.0 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS The loads identified and defined in the SAR for safety related struc-tures form the basis for licensing of the plant and are used in the evaluation of the masonry walls. The load combinations listed in the SAR for safety related concrete structures e used except if licensing commitments related to load combinations re not identified in the SAR or other project documents, then applicable icads with a load factor of unity are combined and form the basis for the evalua-tion.

4.0 MATERIALS Material strengths are largely detennined by review of project speci-fications, drawings and field documentation.

It may also be necessary, in some cases, to perform in-situ tests or to test samples taken from Page 2 Revision 1

the as-built structure to supplement data obtained from project docu-ments.

I 5.0 DESIGN ALLOWABLES 5.1 Allowables in this section apply to loads and combinations of loads which are normally encountered during plant operation or i

shutdown, and include dead loads, live loads, normal operating thermal effects, and pipe reactions.

In addition, this section covers allowables for loads infrequently encountered, such as operating basis earthquake and wind loads.

The loads in the various load combinations have no' increase factors and stresses are maintained well within the elastic range.

In general, the governing code allowables are applied.

Ho wever,

for cases not covered by the code, such as collar joint shear and tension, and grout tension, allowables are based on a factor of safety of 3 against failure.

The strength of mortared or grouted collar joints, 3 inches or less in thickness, is highly dependent on the degree of consoli-dation of the mortar or grout, the moisture content of the mix and the block, and the construction workmanship.

There fore, tension and shear strengths are established by tests performed on the as-built structure.

The statistical determination of ultimate strength is consistent with methods used to verify f'c in ACI-318 and reflects a probability of less than 1 in 10 that a random individual strength test will be below the ultimate strength.

l The 30% stress increase for load combinations containing normal operating thermal effects or displacement limited loads has been typically accepted in the industry for reinforced concrete and Page 3 Revision 1 l

~

i

.d r

is considered reasonable for masonry.

The factor of safety against failure of the masonry reduces from 3.0 to 2.3, still

'well within the elastic range.

)

In-plane strain allowables for interstory drift effects for non-l shear. walls were established well below the level of strain 4

r i

required to initiate significant cracking.

The allowable i

strain for a confined wall was based on the equi. valent compres-l sion strut model discussed in Reference 1 and modified by a I

factor of safety of 3.0'against crushing.

Test data (References i

1 through 7) was reviewed to detennine cracking strains for corJined masonry walls subjected to in-plane displacements a

and cefirms the predicted strain as given by the equivalent strut model.

5.2 This section deals with factored loads and other abnormal loads which are credible but highly improbable such as the safe shut-down earthquake, tornado loads and loads generated by a postu-lated high-energy pipe break accident.

Code allowable stresses for masonry in tension, shear and bond are increased by a factor of 1.67.

In general, this provides

{

a factor of safety against failure of 1.8 (3 + 1.67).

Masonry compression stresses are increased by factors ranging from 2.0 to 2.5 with a minimum safety factor of 1.2 (3 + 2.5).

Reinforcing steel is allowed to approach 0.9 times the yield strength which is typical for reinforcing steel which is re-

)

quired to resist factored and abnormal loads.

Stresses due to the local effects of abnormal dynamic loads, such as missile impact, jet impingement or pipe whip, may exceed the allowables. However, safety systems attached or Page 4 Revision 1

adjacent to the wall are evaluated to determine if severe cracking, local spalling, or excessive deflections will result in loss of required function of the system or equipment.

Where gross failure of a masonry wall must be precluded, the provisions of ACI 349-76, Appendix C, or applicable theoretical techniques or experimental evidence is used to evaluate wall acceptability.

5.3 Damping for unreinforced uncracked walls was conservatively

' set at 2% for OBE and SSE corresponding to stress levels ranging from approximately 0.3 to 0.6 of ultimate.

Damping for reinforced walls which are expected to crack due to out-of-plane seismic inertia are conservatively set at 4%

for OBE and 7% for SSE.

These values are typically recognized as being realistic for reinforced concrete, yet conservative for reinforced masonry.

5.4 The modulus of rupture of concrete, grout and mortar was assumed to vary by 20%, therefore, a lower bound modulus of rupture is determined by applying a reduction factor of 0.8 to the theoretical concrete modulus of rupture of 7.5/ f'c or to the modulus of rupture determined by testing samples taken from the as-built structure.

For masonry, the modulus I

of rupture is approximated by increasing the code allowable i

flexural tensile stress by the factor of safety of 3 and'1 hen applying the 20% reduction to arrive at a lower bound value.

(0.8 X 3 Ft = 2.4 Ft, where Ft is the code allowable tensile stress.)

I Page 5 Revision 1

-i

.r, r--

6.0 ALTERNATIVE ACCE/TANCE CRITERIA Masonry walls (a) that are not relied upon to provide strength of the structure as a whole, and (b) that are subjected to out-of-plane seismic inertia loading causing flexural stresses in excess of design allowables may be evaluated by means of the " energy balance technique" for reinforced walls. Reinforced masonry walls evaluated by the " energy balance technique", (Reference 8 and 9),must have i

sufficient capability to preclude brittle failure and allow rela-tively large ductile flexural deformations.

Tests (Reference 13) indicate that when flexure is the dominant action, ductilities are 2

in excess of 25.

Other tests (Reference 14) show that even when compression failures occur, ductilities in excess of 5 can be achieved. When reinforced masonry has adequate shear and compres-sion capability, its behavior is expected to parallel that of reinforced concrete where allowable ductilities for predominately non-structural elements are conservatively set at 10.

It is reason-able that for out-of-plane seismic loading on non-shear walls con-structed of masonry where brittle failures are precluded that a permissable ductility of 5 is acceptable as long as the safety s stems are not jeopardized.

c Masonry walls confined within a rigid frame or structure can develop substantial resistance to out-of-plane loadings after flexural crack-ing and may be evaluated by use of the theory of arching (Reference 10 through 12).

Particular attention is given to the rigidity of the wall boundary and to the effect of a gap between the wall and its support.

Operability of safety related equipment and systems as a.ffected by excessive deflections of the masonry walls is of primary importance in this alternative criteria.

Therefore, due to the uncertainties involved in calculating the displacements, a factor of 2 is applied to the calculated deflections and system operability is evaluated accordingly.

Page 6 Revision 1

7.0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 7.1 The structural response of the masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane seismic inertia loads is based on a cone.'a..t value of gross moment of ?nertia along the span of the wall for the elastic-(uncracked) condition.

If the wall is cracked, a better estimate of the moment of inertia is obtained by use of the ACI-318 formula for effective moment of inertia used in calcu-lating immediate deflections. (Reference 15)

The effects of higher modes of vibrati'an and variations in fre-quencies are considered on a case-by-case basis.

The use of the average acceleration of the floors supporting the wall is considered suffiuiently accurate for the purpose of this evalu-ation.

7.2

.The determination of the out-of-plane structural strength of masonry walls is highly sensitive to the boundary conditions assumed for the analysis. Fixed end conditions are justified for walls (a) built into thicker walls or continuous across walls and slabs, (b) that have the strength to resist the fixed end moment, and (c) that have sufficient support rigidity to prevent rotation. Otherwist, the wall edge is simply sup-ported or free dependir.g on the shear carrying capability of the wall and support.

Distribution of concentrated loads are affected by the bear-ing area under the load, horizontal and vertical wall stiff-ness, boundary conditions and proximity of load to wall sup-ports. Analytical procedures applied to plates based on elastic theory are used to determine the appropriate distribu-tion of concentrated loads. A conservative estimate of the localized moment per unit length for plates supported on all Page 7 Revision 1

~_

edges can be taken as:

Mt = 0.4P L = L calized moment per unit length (in-lbs/in) i where:

M P = Concentrated load perpendicular to wall (1bs)

For loads close to an unsupported edge, the upper limit moment per unit length can be taken as:

ML = 1.2P For predominately one-way action, an effective beam width of 6 times the wall thickness for distribution of concentrated loads is conservative for the following conditions:

a)

Concentrated load at midspan; simple supports:

L :r9.6T i

b)

Concentrated load at raidspan; fixed supports:

L 719.2T

]

c)

Concentrated load on a cantilever:

h r2.4T d) Couple at midspan; simple supports:

a r4.8T e)

Couple near a support; simple supports:

a 7 2.4T where:

L is the beam length h is the distance from the fixed end to the point of load application a

is the distance between the concentrated loads producing a couple T is the thickness of the wall Page 8 Revision 1

i Interstory drift values are derived from the original dynamic i

analysis. Strain allowables depending on the degree of con-

-finement are applied for in-plane drift effects on non-shear walls and are set at sufficiently conservative levels for in-plane effects alone that a reasonable margin remains for out-of-plane loads.

Out-of-plane drift effects are considered if some degree of fixity exists at the top and/or bottom of the wal l.

I J

?

f a

4 i

j 4

1 4

Page 9 Revision 1 e

m y

.,y c

t-,,.-,

g

l REFERENCES 1.

Klingner, R. E. and Bertero, V. V., "Infilled Frames in Earthquake Resistant Construction," Report No. EERC 76-32 Earthquake Engineer-ing Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, December, l

1976.

1 4

2.

Meli, R and Salgado, G., "Comportamiento de muros de mamposteria su-jetos a cargas l'aterales," (Behavior of Masonry Wall Under Lateral Loads.

Second Report.)

Instituto de Ingent'eria, UNAM, Informe No.

237, September,1969.

3.

Meli, R., Zeevart, W. and Esteva, L, "Comportamiento de muros de mamposteria hueca ante cargas alternades," (Behavior of Reinforced Masonry Under Alternating Loads), Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM, Informe No.156, July,1968.

4.

Chen, S. J., Hidalgo, P. A., Mayes, R. L., Cl ough, R. W., McNi ven, H. D.,

" Cyclic Loading Tests of Masonry Single Piers, Volume 2 - Height to Width Ratio of 1," Report No. EERC 78-28. Earthquake Engineering Re-Search Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, November,1978.

5.

Mainstone, R. J.,

"On The Stiffnesses and Strengths of Infilled Frames,"

Proc. I.C.E., 1971.

6.

Hidalgo, P. A., Mayes, R. L., McNiven, H.D., Cl ough, R. W., " Cyclic Loading Tests of Masonry Single Piers, Volume 1 - Height to Width Ratio of 2,"

Report No. EERC 78/27, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,1978.

7.

Hidalgo, P. A., Mayes, R. L., McNi ven, H. D., Cl ough, R. W., " Cyclic Loading Tests'of Masonry Single Piers, Volume 3 - Height to Width Ratio of 0.5." Report No. EERC 79/12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,1979.

Page 10 Revision 1

l

'o 8.

Bl une, J. A., N. M. Newmark, and L. H. Corning, " Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Motions," Portland Cement Association, IL.

1961.

9.

Newnark, N. M., " Current Trends in the Seismic Analysis and Design of High-Rise Structures," Chapter 16, Earthquake Engineering, ' dited by E

R. L. Wiegel, McGraw-Hill,1970.

10.

Gabrielson, B. L. and K. Kaplan, " Arching in Masonry Walls Subjected to Out-of-Plane Forces," Earthquake Resistance of Masonry Construc-tion, National Workshop, NBS 106, 1976.

pp.'283-313.

11.

McDowell, E.

L., K. E. McKee, and E. Savin, " Arching Acticn Theory of Masonry Walls," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE Vol. 82, No. ST2, Parch,1956, Paper No. 915.

12.

McKee, K. E. and E. Savin " Design of Masonry Walls for Blast Load-ing," Journal. of the Structural Division, ASCE Transactions, Proceed-ing Paper 1511, January 1958.

13.

Scrivener, J. C., " Reinforced Masonry-Seismic Behaviour and Design,"

Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 'lol. 5, No. 4, December 1972.

14.

Scrivener, J. C., " Face Load Tests on Reinforced Hollcw-brick Non-loadbearing Walls," New Zealand Engineering, July 15, 1969.

15.

Branson, D.

E., " Instantaneous and Time-Dopendent Deflections on Simple and Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams," HPR Report No. 7, Part 1 Alabama Highway Department, Bureau of Public Roads, August 1965, pp.1-78.

Page 11 i

Revision 1

)

i i

l d

APPENDIX F COMPUTER RE-EVALUATION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS PROGRin; ~ BLOCK WALL" Revision 1 4

l 1

l J

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

Introduction 1.1 Determination of Section State (Cracked vs. Uncracked) 1.2 Seismic Analysis 1.3 Stress and Deflection Calculations 1.4 Governing Codes 2.

Analytical Procedure 1

2.1 Block Wall Stress Calculation 2.2 Eigenvalue Solution and Response Calculation 3.

Computer Program 3.1 Flow Chart of the " Block Wall" Program 3.2 Hand Calculation for Computer Verification 3.3 Computer Calculation 3.4 Comparison Between Hand Calculation and Computer Calculation i

e

1.

INTRODUCTION A fortran computer code " Block Walls" has been developed to analyze block walls for axial load and flexural effects due to external and/or seismic loading. The block wall is analyzed as a simplified three degree of freedom beam model. The modal analysis technique is used in conjunction with the response spectrum method to obtain the seismic response of the wall model. An iterative method is used to determine the actual stress and section properties (ef fective moment of inertia) of a wall section. Convergence criteria is established to verif y that the assumed section condition results in the same inertial loading for two seccessive iterations.

The working stress method for concrete analysis is used f or stress calculations.

Finally, the calculated stresses are checked against the established allowables.

1.1 Determination of Section State (Cracked vs. Uncracked)

Iteration Procedure 1.

For the first iteration, the wall is assumed uncracked.

2.

As a result of Step 1, and based on the calculated inertial forces, the section is checked for cracking.

3.

If cracked conditic.ns exist, an ef fective moment of inertia is determined using the following ACI Formula:

fMer) 3

[M I 3l er Icr "

I

+

1 -

I I cr t

(Ma j

{Ma j j

fI t der " f r i

\\ I l

where, H

= Uncracked moment capacity.

er M

" Applied maximum moment on the wall.

a I

= Moment of inertia of transformed uncracked section.

t I

= Moment of inertia of the cracked section.

cr f

= Modulus of rupture r

y

= Distance of neutral plane from tension face.

4.

A new iteration is initiated to recompute the frequencies, mode shapes and modal participation factors.

5.

The procedure is repeated until convergence is achieved.

1.2 Seismic Analysis The wall is represented by a three degree of freedom simplified beam model.

A response spectrum analysis is performed yielding th-inertial loading to be imposed on the system.

Page 1 Revision 1

Four types of end conditions are allowed for the beam model used to perform the analysis as shown sch a :tically below:

Mass Point

M M

M g

2 3

0 0

0 g

p.

L/4 __

__ L/4 L/4 L/4 j

g_

M M

M i

2 3

g n

r

</,<<<<<<

J l

g 1

"2 "3

ff

/

4 y

M j

1 2

3

(;

}

j L /3,_, _

_ L/3

__. L/3 j

1.3 Stress and Deflection Calculations The stress calculations are performed for the final configration of the section using working stress methods.

Based on inertial loade, applied external loads, and the computed section stiffness, the beam codel deflection is determined.

1.4 Governing Codes 1.

ACI 531-79 and commentary.

2.

Uniform Building Code, 1970 edition.

3.

Other codes as specified.

2.

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE 2.1 Block Wall Stress Calculation The governing equations for block wall stress calculations are developed using a working stress approach.

~ ~ Effective Qidth

~

Effective Widtf-~ ~,]A'SP-j DP N.

\\

A A

YrCR g

-AS

.L 1__"

-e Cracked Section Uncracked Section DS Idealized Section for Analysis Pa e2 Rttision 1

The section properties are calculated based on a transformed section with the block material as a base. Using the standard concrete analysis equilibrium concept namely:

}$ FORCES=0 or Tension = Compression

{, Moment

=M Section Internal Moment

=

The following equations for stress calculation for bending are obtained:

Case A : Uncracked section fMB = (M/IUCR) x YCU fST = NS!! x (M/IUCR) x (YTU-DS) fSC = NSM x (M/IUCR) x (YCU-DP)

Case B: Cracked section fMB = M/[0.5xACx(0.67xYCCR+YTCR-DS)+(YCCR-DP)xASPxNStix(D-DP)/YCCR) fST = 0.5xFMBxAC/AS+FMBx(YCCR-DP)xASPxNSM/(YCCRxAS) fSC = NSMxFMBx(YCCR-DP)/YCCR Note

1. For both Case A and Case B the axial compression stresses are calculated and interaction is checked.

(fttA/FMA) + (fMB/FMB)$1.0

2. For axial tension it is assumed that the reinforcing steel only carries the tension.

Definitica of variables used in the above equations:

= BendiTg moment Fl!B = Allowa%1e masonry compressive stress due to bending FMA = Allowab?e masonry compressive stress due to axial force fMB = Masonry (9mpressive stress due to bending fMA = Masonry co'pressive stress due to axial force IUCR = Uncracked moment of inertia ICR = Cracked moment of inertia YCU = Distance to extreme fiber in compression (uneracked)

YTU = Distance to extreme fiber in tension (uncracked)

YCCR = Distance to extreme fiber in compression (cracked)

YTCR = Distance to extreme fiber in tension (cracked)

AC

= Transformed compressive area of section NS!! = Modular ratio for steel 2.2 Eigenvalue Solution ard Response Calculation The following two matrices are determined based upon boundary conditions and structural properties.

Flexibility matrix

[F]

=

Mass Matrix Nf\\]

=

1) Calculate transformation matrix N1*N] = Ni\\-1/2 }

Page 3 Revision 1

i

2) Using Gauss elimination technique with column pivoting, calculate the structural stiffness matrix.

[k] = [F-I]

3) Calculate transformed stiffness matrix [k] such that:

[k] = Nt*\\] [k] Nt%]T

4) Tridiagonalize [I] usiag Householder's method and evaluate the characteristic value equation:

2

[k] (Q ) + W 1(Qg)=0 1

5) Calculate eigenvalues using Sturm sequence on the tridiagonal matrix.

6) Calculate eigenvectors using Wilkinson's method on the tridiagonal matrix.

7)

(W ) are the eigenvalues for the untransformed stif fness matrix [k].

i Calculate the frequencies:

i = W /2 F f

i Q Eigenvectors { Qif must be transformed into the vectors { {il of the untransformed natrix:

l i i =

Nt*N1 14 }

i 1

9) Compute modal participation factors:

n (R ) =

i

10) The modal values of the inertia forces lP( at the dynamic degrees of freedom for the i th mode are given by:

{Pl1 = (R ) (at) @ {ftl I

th P.i

= Participation factor for the i mode th ai = Acceleration for the i mode

{fl=ModeShapefccthei th mode t

11) Using the calculated inertial loads and the seismic moments, shear and the corresponding deflection are calculated using the SRSS method since the modes are not closely spaced.

Page 4 Revision 1

. -. -. -. =. -

I L

I i

3. 0'

_C _OMPUTER PROGRAM 1

l 3.1 Flow Chart of the " Block Wall" Program

'l 4

i Start j

l i

i Read Problem Title i

j 1

l Define Initial Conditions of Section No External Load Type 0

)

External Load Applied Type 1 I

i i

If KType EQ. 0 YES 102 f

4 Read Axial Load P

)

Read Shear Force V l

Read Bending Moment M i

I j

Kead Section Properties:

102 Read Material Properties:

Read Properties for Stress Calculations 3

i If Seismic Consideration is Not Required YES 103 4

l Input Floor Response Spectrum as a 2 D Array FRS (I, J) Frequency versus i

Acceleration l

Page 5 Revision 1

103 Input Boundaay Conditions for Simplified Beam Element 1)

Calculate the first three Frequencies of the beam model 500 11)

Extract the "C" values lii) Use SRSS to compute final inertia loads.

Determine Total Bending Compare with moment from previous step.

Is convergence satisfied?

YES 600 Calculate Stresses Go to 500, next iteration.

Maximum number of iterations = 10 600 Calculate masonry compression stress, tensile steel stress, compression steel stress.

Print Stresses. Compare with allowables.

Flag overs tressing.

Stop Page 6 Revision 1

~_

3.2 Hand Calculation for Computer Verification Assume two core masonry units, 44% solid by volume with running bond.

Nominal thickness is 12 inches, with two number 5 vertical reinforcing bars at 16 inches spacing. Exact dimensions are:

11 5/8" x 7 5/8" x 15 5/8", ts = 1.25,"

tv = 1.12" i

A.

Uncracked section properties 3

f Transform all materials to block material:

6 steel E, 29x10 grout E 1.4x10 c

l

29 n2

1.4 ng

=

6 6

block E, lx10 block E, 1.0x10 Tensile steel area As = 0.31 sq. inches I

Tension steel cover D's = 3.375 inches Thickness of the wall H = 11.625 inches i

Effective width of beam b rr = 15.625 inches e

i r

i I

15.625 t

d i

I n

80 e

g U

g q

h',

.I J

A o

a p

~

t a

6".

t t======r.=

4.

j i

l 3

[

A 4

I' u

3.30 8.59 15,625 1-l Assumed Section Transformed Section Uncracked moment of Inertia = I = 1096.2 in' t

Page 7 Revision 1 t

,----n.

+--_--r,

.~.-r

,,e,,

_,.m.

-.. ~, -

--1

B.

Cracked section properties

_15.625" y

i I

I II E

s' i f

l

'su f -

n..

m - A

.s a.. 1 11.95

-Ji j

Cracked moment of inertia = l 326.7 in'

=

er C.

Calculation of Effective Area (Axial & Shear)

Reference ACI 531-79 Code i

AAXIAL = 2(1.12 + 6.1325 + 1.12) 1,25 + (9.125x1.12)3 + (6.1325n9.125)x1.4

+ 2 x (6.1325 + 1.12) = 144.4 in2 D.

Calculation of Shear Area Reference ACL 531-79 Code i

ASl! EAR = (11.625 - 3.875) 1.12x3

+ 2x (6.1325+1.12) + 1.4 (11.625 - 3.875 - 1.25) 6.1325 4

l 26.04 + 15.33 + 55.8 = 97.2 in2

=

b eff 1

i i

i

' \\\\,

5\\

\\.

=[

1 J

s s\\';

h, 'a'N,

.g

.s

.s M

O i

l l'.. A s

i g

,y v

s n

c_.

1 x

._._.4 c

l 1

N a

6 132

__.__._.5 Note: The above calculations are for uniform inertia loadings.

1 Page 8 Revision 1

E.

Dy1'amic Inertia Loading For a 12 inch wall grouted at 16 inches on center, the average weight of a completed wall is til lb/ft2 wt/ unit length = lilx16 = 12.3 lb/in 144 7

fl 7I

[ EIR 2(240)2)h.6x10 x1096.2x386.4 2(L)2 / Ay 12.3 5.98 cps

=

Accele ration = 0.28g Inertia loading intensity Wt - Acceleration x wt/ unit length

= 0.28x12.3 Seismic moment = (0.28x12.3) (20)2(12)2 24.79 in-kips 8

F.

Determine the maximum bending stress Tension = 29 x 26. 79x (5. 5383-2. 625) = 1.9 ksi 1096.22 Compression = (24.79x 4.8397) = 0.109 ksi 1096.22 Page 9 Revision 1 i

i 3.3 Computer Calculation i

l seeeBLOCK UALLS PROGRANees seee00ESTIONS $NOULD DE A8 DRESSED T0e***

eees E. AKK0USH SPD X 319e e**e sees S. CLOSE OPD X 3194 sees ee*e T. JOSEPH SPD X 3192 esos esse VERSION 3 08/08/80 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees e

e e UNITS XIPS INCHES

e e

seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessee l

INPUT PROBLEN TITLE (UP TO 10 CHARACTERS)

>EIAMPLE DEFINE INITIAL CONDITION OF SECTION IF NO EXTERNAL LOAD APPLIED TYPE 0 IF EXTERNAL LOAD IS APPLIED TTPE 1

>0 INPUT SECTIONS PROPERTIES AS,Af*,'a,DP,H,L,BEFF,HEISHT IN.

).31,0.,2.42,0.,12., 240.,15.4 "10.

INPUT IUCR,ICR,YCU,TTU,YCCR,YTCR,AAXIAL,ASHEAR,AC WHERE: IUCR=UNCRACKED INERTIA ICR= CRACKED INERTIA TCU=3IST. TO EXTREME FIDER IN CONP.(UNCRACKED)

YTU=9IST. TO EXTEEME FISER IN TENSION (UNCRACKED)

YCCR=DIST. TO EXTREME FIBER IN COMP.(CRACKEB)

YTCR=91ST. TO EXTREME FIBER IN TENSION (CRACKED)

AAXIAL= EFFECTIVE AXIAL AREA ASMEAR= EFFECTIVE SHEAR AREA AC=TRANSFORNED COMPRESSIVE AREA 0F SECTION

>1094.22,324.74,4.84,5.535,2.520,7.844,144.4,97.2,34.0 i

INPUT YOUNG NODULUS AVERA6E UT. PER UNIT LENGTH AND N0DULAR RATIOS

>1400.,0.0123,29.,1.4 3

l Page 10 Revision 1

INPUT COMP. STRENGTH OF MASONRY COMP. STRENGTH OF GROUT AND TIELD STRENSTH OF REINFORCIN6 STEEL

>1.,1.0,40.

DEFAULT ALLOUABLE STRESSES ARE ACI 531-7 tee IF ACCEPTABLE TYPE 0 IF UNACCEPTABLE TYPE 1

>0 CHECK IF SEISMIC LOADING !$ TO DE CONSIDERED IF OBE SEISMIC CONSIDERATION IS REGUIRED TYPE I IF SSE SEISMIC CONSIDERATION IS REQUIRED TYPE 2 IF SEISMIC CONSIDERATION IS NOT REQUIRED TYPE 0

>2 INPUT FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRUM SPECTRUM INPUT IS A 2-D ARRAY DEFINING FREQUENCY INCPS VS ACCELERATION IN 6 TYPE *No NUMBER OF POINT USED TO DESCRIBE THE CURVE ?

>9 INPUT 9 SET OF FREQUENCY VS ACCELERATIONS ENTRIES EACH ON A NEU LINE

).2,.12

>1.2,.34

>2.,2.45

>2.4,2.45

>2.8,.75

>3.5 75

>5.99,.28

>d.,.28

>1000.. 28 INPUT ABBITIONAL WEIGHTS AT MASS PTS. 1,2,3

>0.,0.,0.

SOUNDARY CONDITIONS ASSUMED FOR SIMPLIFIED BEAM MODEL S.S DOTH ENDS TYPE 1

!.S ONE END ?!!ED THE OTHER TYPE 2 BOTH ENDS FZXED TYPE 3

$1MPLE CANTILEVER TYPE 4

>1

" age 11 Revision 1

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee sees DATA FROM INTERNAL STORAGEssee seee3 LOCK WALLS PROGRAMees seeeGUESTIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED T0e**e see E. AKK0USH 6PD X 3196 ese*

ese* 5. CLOSE SPD X 3196 sees esee T. JOSEPH GPD X 3192 sees sees VERSION 3 08/08/80 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees e

e e UNITS KIPS INCHES e e

e seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.

- e* PROB. TITLE: EXAMPLE

- ee eees SECTION PROPERTIES

- e*

AS=

.31 ASP =

.00 95= 2.62 DP=

.00 He 10.4 L=240.0 3= 15.6 B=

7.8 ese!NPUT FOR STRESS CALCULATIONe*e IUCR=UNCRACKEB INERTIA =

1996.22 ICR= CRACKED INERTIA =

323.74 TCU=DIST. TO EXTREME FIBER IN COMP.(UMCRACKED)= 4.040 TTU=DIST. TO EXTRENE FIDER IN TENSICN(UNCRACKED)= 5.535 YCCR=DIST. TO EXTREME FIDER IN COMP.(CRACKED)= 2.528 YTCR=DIST. TO EXTREME FIDER IN TENSION (CRACKED)= 7.846 AAXIAL= EFFECTIVE AXIAL AREA =

144.40 ASMEAR= EFFECTIVE SHEAR AREA =

V7.20 AC= TRANSFORMED COMPRESSIVE AREA 0F SECTION=

34.80 Tage 12 Fevision 1

- - - MATERIAL PROPERTIES ****

YOUN6 MODULUS =

1400.00 AVERASE WT. PER UNIT LENGTH =.41230000 NODULAR RATIOSs 29.0 1.4 CONPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF NASONRY=

1.0 COMPRESSIVE STREN6TH OF GROUT =

1.8 YIELD OF REINFORCING STEEL =

40.0

- SSE SEISMIC CONSIDERATION FOR THIS PROBLEM **

FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRUM DEFINITION F

G

.20

.12 1.20

.36 2.00 2.45 2.60 2.45 2.80

.75 3.50

.75 5.??

.28 A.00

.28 1000.00

.28 ADDITIONAL WE!GHTS AT MASS PTS. ARE:

ABDW1=

.000 ADDW2=

.000 ADDW3=

.000

- BEAM MODEL IS S.S AT BOTH ENDS **

- - FRESENCIES ARE ***

5.909 23.790 50.511

- - MODAL PARTICIPATION FACTORS ARE***

.07

.00

.01

- - ACCELERATIONS ARE ***

.280

.280 Page 13 Revision )

- - SEISMIC'M0MENTs 18.2 KIPS.IN

- - - - RESULTS OF ANALYSIS *****

MASONRY COMPRESSIVE BENDING STRESS =

.0002KSI ALLOWABLE =

.825KS!

MASONRY AXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRESS =

.0000KSI ALLOWABLE =

.454KSI' TENSILE STEEL STRESS =

1.4010KSI ALLOWABLE =

36.000KSI COMPRESSIVE STEEL STRESS =

.0000 KSI ALLOWABLE =

36.000KSI MASONRY $NEAR STRESS =

.0031XSI ALLOWABLE *

.050KSI MAXIMUM DEFLECTION =

.071026 IN.

30 YOU WANT TO RUN BLOCK WAL'. AGAIN YES TYPE 1 NO TYPE 0 30 i

1 Page 14 Revision 1

3.4 Comparison Between Hand Calculation and Computer Calculation Block Wall Program Hand Calculation Natural Frequencies (CPS) 5.98, 23.79, 50.51 5.98 Seismic Acce'lerations (g's) 0.28, 0.28, 0.28 0.28 Seismic Moment * (in-kips) 18.2 24.79 Masonry Compressive Stress *(psi) 80.2 109 Reinforcing Steel Stress *(psi) 1400 1900

Note: The hand calculation predicts a higher value since the total mass of the wall is used to predict the response of the wall. This assumption is introduced to account for any effect of higher modes in the single mode analysis used for hand calculation.

Page 15 Revision 1

i 1

l i

APPENDIX G FIGURES ONE '111RU TWENTY-FIVE i

Revision I

~ I

,[

. S"d. PHILUPS RED HEAO_

BE.LF DRILL.ING ANC402

' ' ~

/.

OR APPROVED EQUA.~

l

/-

.,. d.

.\\

u u.

.s

.p'...;..

. 6:

.'*'*}:

u, o

.., s -

j,

,f -

d Y.

3 2

BOTTOM OF CONC ~ SLAB COMDRESSIBLE..SEALAN T.

,/

,1[

f.INPLACE~

~

pyp) c-h m

8 5 x 24' ALL THREAD BAR IN ANC40R - LOCATE

'4 TO MATCH VERT REINF

?-

r. i-4 t= o- -- - #

/

I FOR REtup SEE Flc.15 4.j-t= p-[, - -. a ce s t-,)

f 6ECTION e COMC. SLAES rGURE 8

w

1 e

)

l I

1 FCQ EE!AjF. SEE FIG. 25 t

i t=: e===== 1 M i i

?5 x 24' K C7HREAR BAR li IN 5GEvs~NUTF 1.00 ATE ~~

I<

7.CL.MAIC&JYERI_REINE. ;.

i e._

m I

Sk

.. =

, a ---

S'6" E EEVE NJT vrV i

Q

.h; br2= '//' LL V)STL. Ls.

1 r

NOTE.C CONC' FILL IN ALL". CELLS. OF FlEST SW MEEL BEM L*DDR5E~

~

4 i

SECTIOkJ

@ STEEL ESEAM rGURE 9.

PHILLt F's RED HEAD SELF

\\

D21LLIM6 AudWCCS CE APPROVED

\\

EQ;.lAL TO MATC.H VERT.TEIMF.

IM SITE _4 LccATioM(TYP ToPd ecT.)

s..

.i. ! ". V.

}

' r'.'.b'$.,-

\\ \\t\\lI

\\,1 \\,f t o-ce ww

,, u.,.,3

[/

3 3

~/

r. ; a.

1ll l I

i

(.AU LV.(TYR,)

l

! g{gy, 3.

l e..

1," '

.._.. y

=... _., _ _

Jm""

?? LONG AL\\.-Tre,AD -

Q" g%'f 24270MoTCH VERTIGAL Tfi 7

SEEIMF. IM 6!ZE 4 N

i h

\\

Location. (T'f P.

EXTRA MEAvYWEIGuT FORIZ p %,.,.,.,,.- b Truss -EEE ' FIG. 75 TOP d EcT.)

=

6,. 9..

I TR',C.X.ME% VAEL E9

+ ; 0.-

=l e," cR' I?.' WEravWEIGHT vs2T. Ritt4FMEE F16. 24 G4NC.. Blof Ks b

~

_ I I'[

a 3 Ties E IGio c BoTW FILL W/GOMC. CR GMT M

~'

i Wns,To PREVEbtr MEADYa FCE (AvtTT OVER G" WuEra coHC. FlLL t"o PMR

_.1

=,..y=_

WtDTH (MAX C& LIFT l

/

(F ')

vee ecue')

a.L.,!

. -...=

/

, ~-

e.g ',

hh h 4

'9 ' 'a,.-

m.

<~ p '~~

pgyp jpll\\

SECTlOM THRU 5HIELDibJG INALL.

GURE'O

I

i

..a;-

6 b

,3 t'

_-I e.

M g

I,

- i s

i, min 3.1r gg n

,i L

j CONT coHpagsstagg Tc 4

BEALANT (?YP)

(N:' fi (TYP) d

~

W/

\\ 24 l

f

. i. y?

S/8, S:.EEVE NUT y4 V w

[

t= aien..a

\\

L--

)

W" x se' cyg g P5= 24" ALL Tggao agg is

}

SLEEVE KuT - Locg7g 7o ~

4 MATCH.~ VERT. REINF a r

=ami.m i

FOR REIMF. SEE FIC '25 7

~,

'l chd.6 m f %.

g SECI1ON A AiETAL SECK a

rlGUN

1 2

5 BAR VERT,REtNF

. 6.C.O R H E R.

, ~ / // /f' ' / / / / / // /J

/

~

^

' f J.'..m. ' - g } l G [~ ? g s~, g$

Zi' IU

/

l

' k --

2

,t p

- / /,/ / / //,' 1 /////

A/A iLY

~

\\/

/

d

)

y

HECAMANN v.ASONRY go..-

' [.-,GI +/

WALL ANCHOR No 271 7.'-T Y PE RIGID ST L. ANC HO R - l m.

e i v c. c.

,/ i.

/

F02 REIMF SEE FIG '25 x_

< l\\

N 7

)/

A</

y]h,

,1 c,i. /

, U PLAbJ @ WALL CORNER rGURE 2

O

709 OFCONC ~ BLOCK ~WALEO i./s ;y/

s c

CCNT BOND BEAM i'

/

W/ 2.

6 BAR5 5 ' TOP BLOC.C COURSE __.

/

1

.i. -_ _ -.e c-

/

./

)'

l FOR REINF. SEE FIG 75 -

~<4---,=

. m %.-

b.

g

.c :

._.

v..> -

q, *

.-4 SECTlON e TOP OF BAFFLE LNALL rGLR 13 s

O J

ih

.'d 7

? 5 < 14 AU.. THREAD _DAR

/

IN ANCHOR

. LOCATE j

d,

."iO MATCH. VERT __REJMEN

,' ~sl/

/

d

.6

'~

',i Fo2 EENF. SEE FIG '2B 4 (-' *

,/

x.

y

7. _ _ _

L.-

/

=

(.

/

A F L. O O P, LEVEL 1

_, y -c r

a -;..

..sy;. -

(,9 5@~@ phi LIPS RED HEAD 5 LF DRILLING ANCHOR g

CR APAROVED ECOAL s SECTION @ FLOOR LEVEL i

I GE 4

l

_.3 BEAM CONT COMPRESSISLE 52A ANT (TYP) g Y m-g' l

J j'

+ ;.

- l" Mgm 5/5~ 5LEEVE NUT o

%V 5 s 24' ALL THREAD.BAR.LN Y

ELEEVE NOT - LOCATE To

"$$~

MATCH VER'r REINF

{'-.

ci i

.i POR REINF SEE FIG 75

.l x

j A=. _1< -

/

f...

.9 5ECTIObJ e STEEL BEAM rGLRE 5

f

/

p e

/Z' PREMo' PED rf A *._I_4 8

3 7[

CEMENTONE" EXR JT.

\\

d g

/

MATERIAL BY NRSKE CO.

>[M,y (TYP

/

\\,g',

~

9 o

4 OEA M' v'e pe y4

.- -,7 7' *.

i' iNI If 8/2' GDRK EXP MATERWl-esAu..TuREAR N/

e 4

52Cya uuT5 WELDED TO

/

3 Ft.AWC,~.iS To REPt. ACE

/

f o W; INTERRUPTED REINF.

/ f~

, NZ-FOR REIMF.555 F16 25

_Z

- AT" SECTIOkJ e EbJCASED BEAM i,

_GUR_

6

I

~FOR REINF. SEE FIG '2 5 f

i

.\\

1

'/ '

/

]

<//

./

.]

_/,/ /,i y K i d

. / m _. /

/

~

. q\\::.;r.,

aer

/

m.. g JK

,$;p-

.s, p

4, v p4 j

p-l e

6 h*,

g,,

- f'f-

}

/

Q-/

N

/

N N

v

. [ 1,.' / / / ' /

t

'l '

/

./ / i

\\

. ;.... >: > u.,' ;

._3" FILL WITH GE007 IN ELEEvi NOT @ if C c.-

' # C -};

^

03 x 2 4 Aa THREAD 8AR I

4 * "4 TURN D3WN IN 8 OCK

~

00 NOTTILb W/GROOT j ' ' " ')

WHEN COI-16 IN C AviTY y

~r/ar 1

ALT ERN ATE F05 MON 11

%'.5LEEVE NJT 11

).

he V v'

J G

L AL

E T N A~ E.

DDSITION OF CO'.dM.N PLAM e "COLlJMkl l

TGLR=

7 L.

L..

2

5 B ARS VERT REINF e WAut IN TERSECTIO N -

\\\\

l l

-l

)i,w].

2.,

1 m

e.

,/

=_c

_m_;_

c., P.d.

e x

r.. ;

e.

f

- p-

.g a8

.g...

,g t.

4..

4...y

'g

.,s

+,, yp.-__

C 3d?s-

'W

'A s

...w 3

v.-

, p' t /

o' I ig I lN

. "l%, _ ' N -MECAMANN. MA50NRY WA L ANCHOR No. 2 72.

'['[

EfE ANCHOR FOR REINF SEE FIG. 'lS

(

_. [iT

, g, F

gg As ssowm

n.....a x

N,

.j

.// d PLAN

@ WALL INTER 5ECTION luum e.

I VARIES w

s

'f41_ ~ CON T..~ (

CONT.COMPRE%lSLE

'/2 '

't

\\'

SEAL ANT (TYP) ---

-N N

o

~Y * .-- (

),l 2..

g* ggy

/, la.

e a,

.(

.!V8'5LEEVE NUT v'

~ g V i-l1 E5i14" ALL THREAD SAR IN jf ll, 5L E F YE.. hut. ~ L.DC.AT E -

er

_70_ M ATCWV ER T ~ ~ REIN F N

r+2 FOR REll4P SEE FIG. '25

[ y,T.Ej i

. s.

f

~4 m

_,-4.

d '.'

UI:. I SECTION @ OFFSET STEEL BEAM l

lGLRE 9

O

~

l I

03 h 14' alt. 7HREAD._J!!AR_

' i. l' -

Cor< WALL OR ~ COL

^

IN ANCKOR @ 24" C C -

4:

?,!.

t.

_- V8"$ /HILuPS G?ED MEAD fj.'

6 /'

SELF. DRILLING ANCHOR cg/

. DR APPROVED ~Y.GDAC

. /.l.1 /' f /_ /]

(._

/

e. >-

/

3' Ke / f N

, sq

.. y :,

x

~[.

. gk

~ ', ~

~

}~IR7T,.

./

y;,

d 9

l

,I

f..

MoGTAR.

':k;

\\

w

\\

FOR RENF SEE. FIG. '25 PLAM X_ CONC 1_ WALL 1_.OR COLUMN ihJT ERSECTIOM r GL RE 20

i l

3/6" 51 EEVE,' NUT ITYP)

ETEEL COL' N

i

// N V' N

g

//

4 J/}

A

~.; f.c; d.h'/ ',,

l.

1

-- +i a

y 24 m.

r.g

',. 7 N,

p r_

i g,_N h

j Ay;N, qf Mf N

g.'

N-M h d-h'

~~ 't

A

~

j_

A_ g.g

\\

I i.

p

~i

\\

PSIT GTouT IF dim..

r/' A'

'r I c--

i 15 G REATE R TH AN Y.

.U.

g I

_a /\\

S/6'SLEivE NU.T (TYP).,l' V I;

t

'h-.T4. )--

3 x 2.4' At.L THREAD BAR IN SLEEVE NOT

@ IV CC p

l SEN D DOWN @ FIRST VETT'.

4p?. L REINF (TYP) --

' ~

--j # {

[

FOR REINF.5EE FIG. 25 l

l

._ m _j_ 3

'PL A bJ @ STL COLUMN FIGL9E 2

A I

~

l fx-,. g 95124". A.L THREC._AAR -

.g.g y

}NANCh.)R.lTYP). LOCATE- -

L,

?

~~~ ~~_.

i.

XS_ MA1CM..y E RT_RFa N E.

-+

m,.

4 a' 3/ff 6 PHILUPS RED HElAp

' [.,

i

$ ELF _ DRii L'MG ANCHOR ~.

.y

-g DR APPROYED E. QUAL.lTYP)

.s;; e 'a

/

s e

9 l

x

/

E Yyd,~. */;\\ 9,* i,-

7.i y

ll\\.** o: I \\'.t

..., e...

g

.g4.

.,p, f.

sg,[h..f5 t M u.. VENEER _ --

4-r.#

.\\.s *r e

,,, < cA T l

J *. 2 r e rc

/-

4

\\/l NJ., \\ l !.

& 1 % #.. ~T'

/

/.__,

--s-

.i

./

e,,

Y.....

2-FOR REINF. SEE FIG. 25.r' '..t

~

s

~MM C T.

l,"l = ~ lU f,'l r

.'5ECTJON @ stale EARDJNG~

7 GURE 22

o O.U Ojan O O CD o O -

/

NO. 3 RE - BAR PLANJ 6 4" C.M.U.

WALL h

IIGURE 23

3 o

MOTE' FOR HORIZ. TRUSS RElMF. SEE FIG. 25 6" OR 12" 3

LLOC K.

WALL THICKNESS VERT. REINF/WYTHE l'-C 2 *5 @ IG" MAX 2.'- O' 2

G @ 16" M AX 2 '- G" 2 *7 C IG" MAX 3'-O 2 *7 e I G" M AX 3'-C 2 '8 e

IG' M AX VERTICAL d MORII. REINF. TO E5 SPLtCED

'50 EAR DIAMETER 5 ( Mihj. = '2W)

REIN FORCING SCHEDULE FOR SHIELDING WALLS OVER 12" THICK rlGJRE 26

S.._.

~

I I\\iN_.L VERT l CAL HORIZONTAL RElkJF.

THIC KM ESS REI M F.

EXTRA HEAVY TRUSS WIRE REINF.

8" 7'5 e IG.

l'8 6 8"c/c & 2 84 e 48'c/c EXTG HEAW TRuS5 NIRE REIN!:.

12" G ASS I 2d5 6(G.

H 12 e 8-(yc 4 2'G E 48' C/c It' 8%lG h EXTRA HEAVY TRJS5 NIRE R:.IN:.

74 3 g,g,,

I'1716-C/c 4 7 eG G 4S' C/c SH6AR REINFORCINIG SCHEDULE BEARihJG NALLs SHEAR INALL,4 CLASS ! NALL i

r GL RE 25

..

ML19345B327

Contents

Text

Dear Mr. Keppler:

29 n2

1.4 ng

._.

Navigation menu