ML20002A565
| ML20002A565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1980 |
| From: | Counsil W NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| A01021, A1021, IEB-80-11, TAC-42894, NUDOCS 8011200142 | |
| Download: ML20002A565 (90) | |
Text
_ _ _.
- e. A h y
7e NORTHEAST UTIEJTIES 7-lL"Z C "J" f00ciE CONNECTICUT 0610'
- ===~"-"
an =*ii k
k UU'5 November 4, 1980 Docket No. 50-245 A0102,1 e4 u
U r
,s Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director J
N N.
Region 1 Mi 3
-d Office of Inspection and Enforcement
- }nrp; 5j
}ig U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7
j; 631 Park Avenue
!?
EH
~
3 King of Prussia, PA 19406 8
0 G
bi g
References:
(1) B.H.GrierlettertoW.G.CounsildatedMa78,1980, forwarding I&E Bulletin No. 80-11.
(2)
W. G. Counsil letter to B. H. Grier oated July 7, 1980.
Gentlemen:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 I&E Bulletin No. 80-11 Masonry Wall Design In Reference (1), the NRC Staff requested that Northeast Nuclear Energy
~
Company (NNECO) provide information concerning the design and construction of concrete masonry walls at Millstone Unit No. 1.
NNEC0 provided the response to Item 1 of Reference (1) in Reference (2).
This included log sheets describing the masonry walls at Millstone Unit No. 1 and the safety-related systems and equipment in proximity to these walls. Additional walls have been identified as a result of the detailed data collection required by Item 2.b of I&E Bulletin No. 80-11.
Revised log sheets describing the masonry walls at Millstone Unit No. 1 are pro-vided as Attachment 1.
Included on the log sheets is the priority by which these additional walls will be re-evaluated in accordance with Item 2 of Reference (1).
The acceptance criteria by which the re-evaluation of the concrete masonry walls will be based, is provided as Attachment 2.
As was reported in Reference (2), these criteria have been extracted from existing building codes and test data.
These criteria, while developed specifically for Millstone Unit No. 1, were derived from generic methodologies obtained through literature searches, existing codes and data, and extensive work by our consultant in the area of concrete masonry. The acceptance criteria consists of tables of allowable stresses for reintorced and unreinforced concrete masonry utilizing linear elastic behavior, and allowable strain for in-plane load due to building storey displacement.
8 o212 0 o THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUAUTY PAGES
O The justificaticr. for these acceptance criteria, required by Item 2.b.111 of Reference (1) are also provided in Attachment 2.
Arching action analysis as a methodology for evaluating masonry blockouts is currently under development. The acceptance criteria has not yet been finalized but it is expected that it will consist of an allowable line load bearing stress including an appropriate factor of safety and an allowable maximum displacement for the wall.
Should acceptance criteria for this analysis technique, specific to Millstone Unit No.1, be developed, additional information with respect to the acceptance criteria and justification for use of the technique for Millstone Unit No. 1 will be provided to the Staff.
NNEC0's philosophy, with respect to the masonry re-evaluation program, is to ensure that a conservative margin of safety exists for all concrete masonry wails at Millstone Unit No.1 when analyzed for the loading conditions described herein. This is achieved by performing ' preliminary' l
re-evaluation analyses utilizing conservative assumptions and acceptance criteria to estimate the margin of safety in the masonry walls. The conservative nature of this approach will result. in the modification of masonry walls that could be illustrated to perform satisfactorily if these walls were submitted to additional, sophisticated analyses to eliminatt. unquantified margins of safety.
In this way, resources are directed toward design and modifications to increase the margin of safety in the masonry walls rather than into additional analyses.
The curren'. refueling outage permitted the opportunity to complete detailed walkdowns in normally inaccessible areas of the plant. The scope of the program at Millstone Unit No. 1 includes 68 masonry wall groups, and approximately 54 masonry blockouts.
None of the masonry walls at Millstone Unit No.1 support any safety-related Diping systems nor are they utilized as resisting elements for horizontal building inertial forces.
The scope'of the effort required to adequately respond to I&E Bulletin No. 80-11 in terms of the preparation of as-built data and the development of design criteria has resulted in a commitment of formidable engineering resources throughout the industry.
It has become evident that the re-evaluation of concrete masonry walls for the postulated loads and load combinaticas described herein will require an extensinn of the completion date beyond that documented in Item 4 of Reference (i).
The effort to develop design criteria has required extensive research into existing code acceptance criteria.
This was necessary in order to divest the conservatisms inherent in design procedures from factors affecting the ultimate structural behavior of the masonry walls.
NNECO notes that had a masonry wall test program been selected as a means of quantifying safety margins, an extension beyond the 180 day reporting requirements would be acceptable. This is documented in Item 3 of Reference (1). The lack of a commitment to such a program for Millstone Unit No. I should not be construed to mean that criteria development and re-evaluation of the effected walls is any less complex.
NNECO anticipates that the re-evaluation of the concrete masonry walls at Millstone Unit No. 1 and any modifications to these walls as a result of the re-evaluation will be completed by March-2, 1981. A final report is scheduled to be docketed at that time.
To date, the re-evaluation effort is approximately 20% complete.
We trust you find this inforn.ation responsive to the Reference.(1) requests and concur with our request for an extension as outlined above.
NNEC0 remains available to discuss any of the information provided to the Staff to date.
Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY W. G. Counsil Senior Vice President
o'
~
STATE OF CONNECTICUT )
)
ss.
Berlin C-w' -(+. '/, ! 9/D COUNTY OF HARTFORD
)
Then personally a1.peared before me W. G. Counsil, who being duly sworn, did state that he is Senior Vice President of Northeast Nuclear Energv Company, a Licensee herein, that he is authorized to execute and file the foregoing information in the name and on behalf of the Licensees herein and that the statements contained in said information are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
O
.v m h q L a-".
Notary Public V,( 5 ~ ~ 5;.p-+ F % (3.;,.4P;.'
g
- F'
_m m
Docket No. 50-245 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 i
I&E Bulletin No. 80-11 November, 1980
NOTE:
REV S CHANGE 5 IDEN TIFIG_ O BY AN A S T E R f S K (ekt)lN TH E prior ITY C OLufv1 N.
BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin,80-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company i
Masonry Wall System, equipment or*
Safety-ralated Wall I, cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
components in waj l Floor Col.
Safety-relei;d (S) proximity to walls function BldI*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
R-l REACT 14 5 P472 ELEVATOR SHAl=T LPci - A Loop -(S)
PARTITION i
VENT DUCT (S)
R2 REACT
- 14. 5 N492 PRYINELL FMTcH (S) f%RTITioN I
service M4ATER RAD i
MONITOR (S')
i
~
R3 REACT 14.5 P$loY PUMP (S)
PARTITION S
VENT plJCT(S)
R4 REACT I4,5 J 4 loY drive MEci-MNISMS (js) PARTITloH 2
TIP RootA DETECTOR 5(s).
R. 5 REACT 14 5 H48E SHUT I MN REACTOR PARTITION 3
cool (S)
IPACK 22o(5)
VENT PucT (NS)
RG REACT 14 5 H 472 REACTOR SHLIT DoWN PARTITION 2
PLlMPS (S)
CRD P'i PIN C, (S)
EMER4ENcY coNDENSME TF"ANSFER; PIPINC,[S)
R7 REACT 42.S P$j7E FIRE SYSTEM PIPING [N5)
VENT DUCTS (S) l ELEVATOR SikFT (NS')
ysn BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 EARTHOUAKE T
8 D
"ta Unit I Job No. 80014 EN0lNEERING SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company asonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related b ""*
ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
components in wall Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function Bld8' Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
R8 R W.T 42.5 L t.llY SHUT DoWrd HFAT PARTITION 2
ExcH. loo 3A (s) d a p HEADEig (NS)
R. 9 REACT 4E.5 1 4 IlY l'dPiPING (NS)
SHLiT PoNW HEAT PAfRTITlobl E
E>(CH loo 3 A4IS. ('5)
RIo REACT 4 2.5 i<472 gEAcTc* SAMPLING PereTiriorJ 3
STA (S)
CL UP Ti?ANS FLOW Ack (NS)
UP PIPING (5)
R II REACT 42.5 M&7Z INST RACK C5)
ResieN HEAT EycH PARTITiot4 3
VENT DL] CTS ( NS) 12 o 3 (5)
CordputT (NS)
Nobl FtEGerd HEAT G" $ o o PIPE (Ns>
F~xcH 12o4 (S)
R 12 REACT G5,75 f$ 72 VENT PLlcT (S)
CL IJP FILTER SYSTEh1 [34RTliford 2
ELEVATog SHAFT [NS) RAc.K (5)
FIRfE SYST era (PIPINC,)
(N5)
CoNodlT (NS)
- ' 4/57 \\
~
BLOCK WALL LOG SilERT NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 EARTHQUAKE Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS. lNC.
Client.
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Wall System, equiperat or Safety-related L cation ID components on alls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority-No.
components in wa.11 Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldE-Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
R I.9 R F_Ac7
<>5,75 rJ 4 9 E c t U P itJs r P.A c N (55 REAcTog cm, Lit 4Gi P4RTITIoN a
15o CONDENSER Fir'iMGi(S) HATEg SURC,E. T4NK(5)
PENiN WTit Pir'stJG (t45) vat _vEs (s) vet 4T ih3G.T (N S)
FILT BR (N S) l
)
lt 14 KFAcT G9 75 _J+87 lNSTRLIMP-t4TATioN (5')
SPE t4T Fue L rzeL PARTITION
.3 FILTEg (5) ft 15 FEAcT G5 75 K4. 7 Z INST F' Ace:.5 SPENT FUEL fLoL PARTITION 3
AIR PdMf'6 (NS)
PEMIN (S)
SPE t4T FtJsL f'ooL FI LTE R. (5)
SF'ENT FUEL Pock I"lPit G (5h
)
J PErMibJ HTfC PIPIN6 (5) p'lG RF-Ac.T G5 75 L 4 GY ct JP DErmra lEoa(15) PAgripcara 3
4 SPENT FdEL rl. L DEMitl(S)
CL EAN oR Fe_J iec pjMP j
GU%S T&W (6?
11
Ef6}
BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Misonry' Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related
- I 10 components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
components in w a.l l,
F1 r
'Co l.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldE.
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
M 17 KEAcr GS-7 5 L47z c.oNTPA Fcop5 (5) grAcrcm. c L tJf' seTEt* l'A RTiriot4 3
IW-K. (5)
N I ric o ci E W [5:>r r L E S (t4 Q d
I dE.L fbot l'sf"it Gi (S )
R 18 REAcr-62.75 F' 4 7 2.
F~ IRE SY ST EMS (f'sht Gd I5c>L CSNDS%L (.5) pfitT iriotJ E
4 (tJ 6) 15cL cordp
(_5)
ELE vATcit SriAFT d46)
P l9 KEAcT' 108 5 l't7E vet 4T DdCT.
REFLiiEL FLmF. Map l'AC.I~i nord P.
FIRE SYSTEM 5(P:P'iWGd t<oNrrog. (s) d4 5')
FiLT E R Pack Wel E LEVA FOR 5FAFT(NS)
T K. C N 5')
STAIR PMY' (. fL4TF(145) FADidriota MC'rJiioR (s)
R 20 REACT 65.75 K ( 7Z INST RACKS SPENT FUE L PO C> L PAR TiTiON 3
f air PU tvn P 5 (N S)
DEMIN
($)
SPENT FOCL POOL FI LT E R (S) 5 petit FUEL POOL PI P I N G ( 5).
DEMIN WTR PIPING ({
~=
. d/S~
pan BLOCK WALL LOG SilHET NRC 12.Bulletin 80-11 EARTHOUAKE Project:
Millstone P o i ri t, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 ENGINEERING SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry PModty No.
components in wa.11 Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function Bld8-Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
RB-1 f'W. r' 14.5 L 4-12Y CABLE. T' FAY (S) 14cc# -otJT l
RB-2 KEAM l4,5 k 4.l2Y CAttc TRA'(
(5) g3po -vdT l
Lft f'iPiNCa AtJD vat _vE 0 (5)
RB-3 RFAc.T-14. 5 J &la-(
c At3L c. T K e y (s) t3L.oc.c oJ1-l CoNPLl T' OdS) i 2"96 f'll'15. (rd 5)
RB-4 pacx i4.S J412Y eA IE E. Tf'A f (5)
DLocK-odT' I
8B-6 KFAc-T'
- 14. 8 IO12Y CAB > lei TFEAY (S)
BL.oc.1-oJ r i
t f
7/59 BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin.80-11 Proj ect :
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC, Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related L cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
components in wa.ll Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldR.
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
RB-G REAc.T 14.5 H & lev SEtcNDARY ccNTAld-3 g
MENT BOUNDARY SAFETY RELATED A$
RB ;
REACT 14 6 J 41 ty TI P MACHINES 3
y yE TY RELATep 4.A RB-8 REA:T I4. 5 K&IlY TIP M AcHINES b
2 3RM SAFETY ICELATED g $.
g SHOT LOWtd COOLIOG PIPIN G g e>-e teeAcT 14 5 H 4 lOY M Athi STG AM LiblES 1
g Feeb WATER LarvES WEW REuTEp SHOTbadh/ Cool thl6 N
9191MG
. '6 BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin.80-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related L cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
components in w a,) 1 Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldE.
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
Re-lo Re.AcT 14.5 H 412 SEcoMbARY coWTAlh)-
g SAFETY RERJEp gy I
Re-l i geect 14.5 H40Y SEcordDRQN CoNTAld-csy Laa s-3 g
NENT Boob)b8RY SAFETY RELATED ge>-le geAcT 14,5 H 4 co Y Seco9DARY cot 0TAltJ-cst' Li N E 3
p MENT BooMDAR'f SAFETY lt'EL ATED g
F?8-13 REACT 14.5 H$72 secoubRPS/ CNTAIM MAIN STE:AM LtNES 3
W SAFETY 8F.1ATED Q
'9/51 BLOCK WALL 1.0G SilEET NRC IE Bulletin.80 Il EARTHOUAKE Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 ENGINEERING SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Well System, equipment or Safety-related L cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry No.
components in wall Priority Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function Bld8' Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
RB-lo React 14 5 J472 SHM,lotAhJ COOL-?OG P_
PlPET SAFETY RELATED RB-15 REM T 14.5 J48E Sl4tJr DO W M cooLaOG 2
SAFETY RELATED A$
R D-lG REACT 14-8 J482 SHOT bouuM coOLthjG 2.
SAFETY RELATED d$
.t R S-17 REAcr GS.75 N$6Y Nord-SAJ:ET Y lEELATED 1
f
/6g.1 BLOCK WALI. LOG SilEET HRC IE Bulletin 80-11 EARTHQUAKE r
5 n
n n
Job No. 80014 ENGINEERING SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company
""' "#Y "I
Wall System, equipment or Safety-related L cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No, components in wall Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function Bld2*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
R&-IS f26 M T 65 75 N % ~12 y
Nord - c,N= ETY F. ELATE D
~
H FOR ADDITIONAL _ REACTOR BLOCKouM SEE P6: 1.i !
se w w 9
4 e
I
!!/sj BLOCK WALL LOC SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 85-11' Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 R
SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company
~
Maso Wall System, equipment or Safety-related Lo in ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority components in wall No.
- Floor, Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldE.
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-reinted (NS)
~
gp 19 REAcToit (-) Ero' P, I IY tor 05 1
.g crogos)
LPcr POMP 5 SA. d TY 8 ELATED.,.
ge-zo seecron ('-> zo' H,7 z Tba.os i
(Tof'JJ5)
LPc1 QumP3 SAFETY FEELAT. ED 4$
T'ROS.
2' N
fts-al Rxrog
(-)8'-2' It,1CY o
SAFE.TY ftELATED FOR ADDmcNAL QEAcioG'BultD% Blockout 3 SEE PGS 414 48 Fr #-
12h BLOCK WALL LOG Sl!EET NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 EARTHOUAKE Pr j t:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 ENGINEERING SYSTEMS,1NC, Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company asonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related L cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
components in wall Floor
- Col, Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldE*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS) 6 3-7 c At*t E T R Ay 5 (5 )
EMER.. DIE.5EL GEt4(s) DiF nriord l
T-l Tumt3 14 5 5
J puc T E5ANr<. ( P S)
SW PIPING (S)
Et+1Esnc. Wra PJMPs(r s:
a LIF'c. cot TKOL. Cords.4LE.
cAeE e. TRAYS (.5)
PEAg. LNG
.3 J
T-2 TLJ RB 14 5 Gol2-14 cra s>
tdt'c>i rJf' OANFL.E <,FATiod G45')
DE.Mit4 FWJEL (N5')
l T-3 TdRB 14 5 GrA 14 ci P EwsT'EK f'UN1f'5(s PAFnnoN e
3 cat 3L.E. TVAY'S (s) i c.oeJP PdtvlPs (5) l coarmcwre priraca (c.)
T-4 TURo 14, 5 p,13. ~1 HTiN'o6eN At481YZER (5) cat 3LE TRAYS (5)
FAltnTi oN p
cor4PC NSATE. Pil'IN6(5) 2 T-5 rdF's 14 5 13 6-F cot P R FING (G) cotJP N' STER. FJNes f7AT:.ririorJ p
4 3
(S) coWP PEJ5hrJmA4 incs (5')
j T-G TURt>
14 5 Bsl3 -14 corJDEt45 ATE Snr4 (s) olt cordPrnoNER QJ5) Fifts $LL p
TUR.B oil STA TnJK(N5'
~
44
!0 0']
BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin.80-11 EARTHOUAKE Proj ec t :
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 WEMM SYSTEMS,1NC, Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company 1
asonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
components in wall Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function Bld8*
Elev.
Lines No n-s a f e't y - r e l a t ed (NS)
T7 TsJitB 14 5 13.7, A-B TdrIB OIL STA TANK (Ns3 PAKTirior4 g
cot 4DENSATE f'iFid4 (SS T-8 Tuge l4 5 A,le-14 LolBE pit. TRMsv RUMP (tri pag.riT ior4 E
Trig 6. 01L SiA TK GJs) coNMSATE r". PING ('s)
T-9 TURB 14 5 D 412 GTEAM I:lEED Exc4-1 PARTlTlord S
T K. (53 T-to TtJRB 14 5 o t i 2.
cotJP vu 6.lMP 045) reari noN z
COMPENSAT6 fJtqFi 6($1 d
T-- 1 I T ule s 14.5 D 4-1 C.
C C'N D D E M'rIE k ^' 'Z E # S l5\\ IPEI'Tiet4 8
c nJCara454.TE f'ar,NG (5)
T-lC Td gt3 l4 6 E 4.1 a c.oND PEMidEPM.izr1:s(5' l'AftTITior4 E
VALVE STATiot4 (S)
CONDENSATE fiF.4G (S)
T-13 TtJRt3 14 5 f= 4 12 coWD DEt41rJef'Auzcas(s) FART Tion E
MISC STEArvt 4 ct4DS l45)
KAc-t< 228 7 (r4 s) corJDENSATP-f"ihNG(s)
14/5 0 BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin,80-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Safety-related Well System, equipment or b ""
No.
~
components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry ID Pdodty components in wa,11 Floor Col.
Safety-related (F' proximity to walls function Bld8*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
T-14 TU Re>
14.5 D t lo MoisTuge scPARAToR(els) PARTITION
-W $-$
Mo#STURe. SEPARATOR ollT OF NotJ-SAFETN ReLAT ED pa Tg (NS) scam T-15 TURe 14,5 D410 Moisture. SEP/ GATOR (t45) PARTITION
- ogg4 T-lG TURB 14. 5 B,3 -G STATOR Wir4DiNC, (19 5 )
PETITION
.S COOLING NATER UNIT (Ns i
enc, LIFT PUMP (Ns)
GEtd-MNN LEADS He4T4 EXCHG'R t13LoHiaR QJs)
NEllTRAL GRP TPMS 4 KE5lSTog Cr45) cat 3LE TRA'(5 ('s)
T-r7 TURB 14. 5 B-G,
' Cog BOTTLES (NS)
PA R T IT io N S MW 3-4 NITKoGEN P:>TTLes(NS) ouT or* f5coPt T-18 TdRS 14 5 F8,5, INSTg AIR ogyER sump PUMP (r45)
FIREWM L l
B>oTTLES (fd S')
EMEl% DIESEL GErJ (S)
Duct eANK (tJ6')
SW PIPING (5) cAe>LE. TRAts (S)
INSTR AIR RECEIVER ("NS')
STATION AIR Rec civeR.(tJS) i
/8 f]
BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bu11etin 80-11 ONE Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 I ENGINEEFtlNG SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Mas ry W Wall System, equipment r
Safety-related
,9n ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry PMod ty No.
components in wa,11 Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldE*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
T-19 TdRB 14 5 E,3-4 MoTog coNTeoL CENTE8/5) l'AFTIT iord 3
T-zo TURB i4, S E, co i=%ta (Ns')
f'F'IMARY DRAIN TANK ('5)
PA8TITlor4 3
T-a l
- Tuge, I45 ca - F=,
EMeRch plesEL ciEN (S)
P^gTITioN 11 4 sk
- s-4 T-2 2 TuR8 4
D,12-14 CWDs F'UNP.s (s) entriTlora 3
T-2 3 (A8Lc 25.5 L,13 - 15 CABLE TRAYS (S)
FIRE NALL l
VAtiLT (TuRe.)
i 7 - 24 cotJTFA 3G.5 L,1 2 cot 4 TROL 1%M fM4EL5(s: fMRTITioN 3
(TUR8 )
.T-25 Cor&gol 36 5 L,13-15 CONTROL FhM fMcLS (5) fNtTITiord 3
(Tdge)
T-ZG corJrgot 36.5 H,13 cont 8oL F?ooM (McLs(s) fMTiTior4
'3 (Tuge> >
T-2 7
$NirCH 34.5 G.3-7 Allt INTAKEi l'lLTER(tJ5) !"ARTITiard l
ca r A R CAf3Lli TSAYS (5)
AIR exhaust SILENcng(pls' AftcA DIESPL o: L TK (S)
(TURB) 4 l<V SNITCH GEAR '5) i
N BLOCK WALL LOC SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 80-11
^
^
Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 ENGINEElilNG SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company asonry Wall Well System, equipment or Safety-related b #"EI "
ID components on walls systems., equipment or Mason y Priority No.
components in wall Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldI*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety. elated (NS)
T-23 PATrcRY 34.5 6,4 eWTTrRY Room (5)
FA' ttTinoid l
RocM AIR. IrJTAKE. FILTcg. (rds)
(.T d g s )
T-2 9 fkTTEKY 34 6 F: - c, cat 3LE TgAYS (5)
BATTURY R:ooM (s)
FIMEb!ALL i
Rei PATTER.Y C#RGEF5 (5)
(Tuged T-3o
[SATTERY 34,6 Ca y3-4 BATTERY CHARGiE.R5(5') AIR cx4MJsT 5tLerJccie.(asi PARTiTior4 i
Room (TURt>)
T-31 t'ATTCKY 34 5 G,3-4
[%TTERY Room (5)
I(:18ENALL l
)
MooM DIESEL olL tat 4K (5)
'j6 $
(TdSLM T-se cATreci 34 5 3, F -G WLE. TRAYS (s)
BATTEs.Y te.oorn (s3 f' g Tiriora 4 l
e Room F.5-4 BATres.y c44ec,ERS (5)
FigE WALL (TURB)
HTC, (Bo: Lee: STACK (tas)
T-33 SWITCH 34,5 5,F-6 CAfM E TRAYS (5) 4 KV SWITcN GEAR (5) FigE. WALL -
l c,e A g.
E-G,
AREA 5-G (TLIRB) f a
s
$~1 BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bu11etin.80-Il E^
,NQ"EEFI NO 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Well System, equip.nent or Safety-related L cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry No.
components in wgil Priority Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function Bld2*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
T-34 5Hircel 34,5 G.F-6 4 KV SWITCH GEAR (5) FIRE. NN.L l
c.EAg CABLE TFAYS (5)
AREA (Tuge)
T-35 5 HITCH 34.5 7 2 y-6 4 KV SWITCH GEAg (5)
FIRE ALL l
caEAR cat 3LE TRAYS Age ^
(TURcA
^
T-3G SHITcH 34.6 7.2; F-6 48o#5 WITCH 6 EAR. (s)
FIRE NALL l
GEAR E40V SWITol GPAR (5)
AREA (Tdf'fB)
T.37 TURr5 34 5 9, F-G GENEICATOFt (5)
FigE WLL 3
T.38 TURS
."4. 5 92, G LMITERYS S cWGens(tJs) FIRE WALL 3
TFAr45FvFMER (5)
T-3 9 TLIRB 34 5 6.12-14 FEEPATER STATior4(5) AC.lO TAf TANK (I 5) f"AftriTicud 3
d
h.)
BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRCIBBulletin80ki Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 N
SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related L cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No, components in wa,11 Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function Bld8*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
T-4o TURe 3G.5 14,A-G FEEONATEg. STATpr4(5) DELLIGE STATloN (NS)
FART Tiod 3
Acip DAY T^t4K < td 5)
CAUSTIC DAY tat 46(NS)
MAKE uf PEMN TMr(NS)
NEATER. (N S)
Ha At4ALYzER (NS)
T-4i TEL 34-5 e> -D CIPrdLATiNGi FAN 645)
FigE PhtL ME Ead P 13 -14 ELECTl4c lhlELS (N5) g>y7 op PccM scoPg; (TLil<B)
T-4 2 gEsird 34.5 c l3 -1 4 ItJ S T P G CNsi P/ 8 TiTiord 4+*l i
sToiu=.
ELEc.mc UANEL 5 (Nsh OUTof R~s score crimed Nok)-sAFA RELATEb h78 A Q
~B,3-G Bf'G LIFT PsJMP GEN. -lMAIN LEArb HFJA
-v 0J m Wi
- s aee emouse.)
(THI S WALL NOW PART OF T-16 ys GRo TMSF 4 F15:$Tc6 cat >LE TRAYS (S)
.3 BLOCK NALL LOG SIIEET NRC IE Bulletin 30-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS. INC, Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related b
- "*I ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority
~
No.
components in w a,11 Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldR-Elev.
Lines hon-safety-related (NS)
T-44 SHITcH 34 5 E - f:,
4 K.V SWIT. H GEAF:. (S)
FIRE WL.L l
seag 4-s CABLE TRAYS (S)
AREA (TURS)
T-45 SHrTcH 34.5 P - C,,
CAINE TRAYS (5) 4 KV 5 HITCH CaEAR (S')
FIRE NALL l
GEAR 4-5 AREA
{TURS)
~T-4G SRITcFr9'h-fikQ 4 KV SWITCH GEAR (5)
- \\/O D --
"'RT:Ti"r*
IW GeAg.
5-G.
)
~~
g._
~~
T415 W4Li NOV PA7,T OF T-33 AREA
~
T-4 7 SHITcH 34.5 F-C,,4
!"ATTERY Rc&l (s)
FN',.T ITlet4 l
GEAR l'ATTER'( CHARGaER. (S)
ARBA (TURB)
T-48 TURB 34.5 A,13,14 DELud:E STATiotJ (t45)
FNtTITioW 8% LIPT f' UMP (N si OgTog g o T-49 TURB 34 5 A.12,13 OFF-G,As INST F%c.Ks W:TirioN
- -)ks
7O/Q BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IB Bulletin 80-11 EARTHOUAKE Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 gg SYSTEMS,1NC, Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company
""" "#Y "Il Wall System, equipment or Safety-related L cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
components in wa,11 F l o'o' r Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function Bld.A*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
T-S o TURB E5. S' 14, A-G coND Boosreg. ftMPs(s PARTITION a
CAi*LE TF'AY'S (5) h COND PdMPS (5) coNPENSATE P PING (5 T-51 TdRB 36.5 L,iS coWTFlol 8'M PANEL-5(si PMTiTioN C
T-5 E TURB 94.5 E-F.4 DC-I PANEL 4 KV SHITcJ-i GiEAFt (G)
FIRENALL l
pc-HA - 3 FANEL M
T-53 TUR8 CS.5 15, F-Gi CAEN E TRAVS (S)
PAF.TlTioN 2,
I
,n-..
3 8, BLOCK WAl.L LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 0
SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Woll System, equipment or Safety-related L cation equi ment or Masonry ID components on walls
- systems, l
Priority No.
components in wall F l g o. r Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function Bid 8' Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
TB-l Tuge 14 5 F,G EtNERG5NCy CcNDEhl-2 g
SAFE 17 RELATED
/
SATE TRANSFER 1
PIPitdG TB-2 TtJR6 14 5 P,9 Feeb:DATG9. PiplMC, i
g 6AFE fY RELATEP pg m Q PdMPS
~$ $
FeebWATER ttEATEFS TB-3 TUR8 14.5 F r 12 CONDEMSPrTE 1
SAFEfy RELATEP g
gqg TB-4 TUR6
- 14. 5 f: - IS CONDEMSPrTE:
1.
g.
SAFEU RELATER bem1N ERA L17 E-/L5 4.*
BLOCK Walt. LOG SilEET l,l.
NRC IB Bulletin 80-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Mason Wall System, equipment or Safety-related 9 n i ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No, components in wall Floor Col.
Sofoty-related (S) proximity to walls function BldR-Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
CaJDh5 ATE PUMP 5 '
1 g
TB-5 TURB 14 5 c 13
.5AFE f7 RELAFEP eNbadseTG PIPI E STEAM dET R f A INd Ec.TO R TB-G Tuge
- 14. 5 By13 cowbEN SBTE NMPS 1
w SAFETY RELATEP cc,Jb,EuserTE PnPING M*
SrEAM dET NR.
Ita d e c T o R.
TB -7 TURB 14.5 B la,5 gp y g I_.
y i
SAFET)/ RE.L ATE)
WSU'O R TB-8 TURe>
14.5 B,12 w
w*
NON - SN= E TT N LATEED j,g
y 33/57 1 i
BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company I
Masonry Wall Well System, equipment or Safety-related.
j Location ID components on walls systems., equipment or Masonry P iority No.
components in wall Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldR.
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
ITB-13 TURe 14 5 P4G GST mAZEOP O
w SAFE rY RELATEP n*
h Te> -14 Tuge 34.5 F,G 5 cst rnet EOP
?_
g SAFETY RELATED somTcH c eA A gy l
TS-IS TURe>
3 4.: S P, ~1 sm:Tt#4 G ER R 2.
W SAFETY RE,_ATEP
-g-W-TB-Iro TLIR6 MS i=,1 1 NOM--SAFETY REf A /t
,#-X-4 e
a
GAlf".}
~
BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 60-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company N"5 "#Y "II Wall System, equipment or Safety-related I. cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry P rio d t'/
No.
components in wall Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls fu'nction Bld2*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
TB-17 TURB S4.5 G,lo M
NON-S4FETy RELATEP
-X M TB-18 TUR8 34 5 G lo.5 g
i NON.5 AFETY F.ELATEt>
- -x.
TB-19 TUR6 34.S i= G 5toiTc % ERR 2
SAFETY RELATEp
- W re-zo rugs 34.s 6, eo c.s r wuop a
8-SAFE"Y RELATE)
W-X i
l
~
0 6-]
BLOCK WALL LOG SIIEET NRC IB Bulletin 8Q-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS, lNC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Wall System, equipment or Sa fe ty-re l a t ed l
Masonry Wall L cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Pdd y No.
components in wall Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function Bld8 Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
TBe5
- Tuge, 34.5 A 12 COND80sRTE PiplNG
.i.'
SAFE'Y RELATE.D g$
(
i t
w8%
FM ADDmoNAL TordB BLtd. BleG'oM5 SEE PG6 5'2 53,Mp5 &BG i
I
o 47,(5g NRC IE Bulletin 80-15 BLOCK WAI.L LOG SilEET Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Wall Syste, equipment or Safety-related C"*I""
ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry P&dy No.
components in wall Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldI' Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
~
g8-22 KliACT 14 5' 11Y,J TlP m AC Hit 0ES 2.
6N*l5TY F ELATet>
4 Ae $.
RfS-23 FEACT I4 5' ilY,G SEcotJb6RY COMTalN' 3
trienir ecoNbnRy
@ FETYf1 ELATE O
$ $f -g h8-24 REMT 4 2,$'
i l Y, K.
SHOT botoM c. cot.trJG M*
g H f T excnnyJGE%.s W FE.TY FzE1.ATGCP g
I ge>-25 8 FACT 42.5' loy, L Shur Dot 00 NurJC, 2.
WETT PELA~ED HGay acHywGC--AS, y.3e g T
48/&7 BLOCK WALL 1.0G SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 Project:
Millstone Point, tin i t 1 Job No. 80014 E
E SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Mas nry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related
""*I ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priodty No.
components in wall Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldN' Elev.
f.ines Non-safety-related (NS)
X*
RB-26 gEACT 42.5' 82,M IMST(&UMENT RACK L
I 64=ETY W L A T E5. r '
CLEA10 0 9 H EAT
+
exCHP,W GE R.5 coR.E 59RA4 919\\\\\\%
R8-27 gEAcT 42.5' 72, M MSA Fl=iTT FMiLATE o d,$ M F6-28 REACT 42.5' 72,H k*
WM PETY FEi ATt= o
-)iN46M RB-29 fee.Ac.T 42.5' GY,H MGA FETY FELATE t$
$ $ 3K-
4Ws, ~ -
BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 EARTHQUAKE Pr ject:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 89014 ENGINEERING
^
SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company
- ' "#Y "*II Wall System, equipment or Safety-related "ocation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function components in wall Bld8*
Elev.
Lines No n-s a fe t y - re l a t ed (NS)
R B -3 0 PeACT -8' H%H Toros A-*
- Ev"#2TT RELATESt?
- 2. -
8 B-31 NAcT
-8' 12.Y.H secooted cmmiu-2***
SA F ETT FIELATE" ta mEMT 6DOOD6N.Y f
l
~
so/s,.
1 BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry hall Wall S y s t r.m, equipment or Safety-related L cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
components in wall Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function nld8' Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
T-9 i TLJ8B 14 5' 11,F NON-SAFETY RELATE D MNM~
T-92 TURe' 14, s' lo, F NON-N E TY PE_ LATED
&,M M T-93 TURB 14, B '
D, to mph-NoH--SAFETT F-f=.t.ATED T-94 TtJFe 14.5' C lo WMM i
SAFE TY RELATED oD SAT.E 1
-s/5,J-BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 EARTHOUAKE Proj ec.
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS. INC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company 0n11
- "#Y System, equipment.or Safety-related L"#"*1 ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
components in wall Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function Bld8*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
T-95 TUKt>
14.5' Eb ilO
&$ -M 9AFE :TT RELATtip CONDENSATE i~
PIPlHG(S')
T-96 T UFE B l4.S' B,10- 11
@-Mt $
NON-SAFETY RELATE.D
~~
T-9 l TUF'O 14.6' A Ii gg$
NoH-SAFETT RELAT ED f-98 TUFe 64,6' F, to
-)k -h- $
~
Ff3.TT R.EtATED
[1CC f%NMS)
i
~
52/5 1 BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 Project:, Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 l
E G
SYSTEMS,1NC, Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related b C"tI "
ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry No.
components in wall Priority Floor Col.
Safoty-related (S) proximity to walls function I
Bld8*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
TB-2G Tuge 14.5' l 2, A doMD@dsa7Cr
{
W#
PipiWG Ca,ana-;on)
_og i
MFfiTY FLELLATEac TB-E7 Tuge 14 5' 12,A
~N ON --SAFErt' RELArgo g.y g [
TB-28 Tuge 14.5' is, p coubeesnTc=
- *e y
Pum9S SAFELTY RE_LATEt>
pq j
I T8-29 TURB
- 14. 5' le,G egggg7g.
n SAFf TY MiLATer) gy ggg gt.gte e gg
~
B
(
DDfb RLOCK WALL 1.0G SilEP.T NRC IE Bulletin 8,0-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS. lNC.
Client:
Northenst Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related
- "*I ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry No.
components in wall Prio @
Floor Col.
Safety-reinted (S) proximity to 'Aalls function DIdg.
P. lev.
Lines Non-s a fe ty-re l a t ed (NS)
TB-So Tulem 14.S' II,G SEcoWDFrRN Cl-QSE-3 MM cooLuJG 00V+TE R.
SAFETY RE LATC.C PipitJC.
@-*. M; TB-31 TUgp 14.S' lo, G secoNbRRN Ci-osE-3 BAFl:.TY FELATFD cooLirJ6 t.o RTER
-5 * -*
PIPING T8-Se TLlRB I4,5' 7,F pea m veR M FFSTT MEELATED PQv\\P5
._ ~ W - X -; #.
TB-33 TugB
- 14. 5' S,E NON-SAFSTY FIS LATED
s
$k BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IB Bulletin 40-11 EARTHOUAKE
- 3" J b No. 80014 ENGINEEnlNG SYSTEMS, lNC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company asonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related L cation ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry PMoriy No.
components in wall Floor Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldE.
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
To-34 Tule8 34 5' 13,5 d.oW Eft.)
N ot4-MFETf FEL ATED
.$ g 4 TB-35 TuleB 34,5' 13, E -
(UPPEg) t40r4-SAFET ( FELATE.D
$-y5 TB-36 T UIR B 34 5' 13, F peneTRnTioM FoR 1
BAPf5T Y F.eSATe to FEEbwATER.
gy9 PIPING T8-37 TLJieB 34.5' l I, F PENETR.ATtoM i
@FE TY Fe LATEit:
FDP--
FEEbldATEA.
gg PIPINC I
es/s, BLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 80'-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Well N"* "#X."*II System, equipment or Safety-related I'
""E*
ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
components in wall Floor
, Col.
Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function Bld8*
Elev.
Lines Non-safety-related (NS)
TD 2 TUFte) 3 +. B' GB
~
~~
~
~'~ik -*
i NON - SAFErf PtELATBD E *.R TB-38 TUFb I 4. 6' Il P
'-' ~ iPitik i
N oN-SAFETY F-Bt.ATED RM. M T e-40 Tuse) l 4. S' ca, I E coobEuseTE L;ts.pf. A -
S A FirTY MtiL ATEt2 1EM LNERP,L11ER TD-41 TUFE>
14 O' tP lS ccoDewserTE iiM rk #
i EAFIETY MELATED DEfAW ER Pr LilER
~~
~
1
~
1 m/s,'
l DLOCK WALL LOG SilEET NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS,1NC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related b
C" Masonry' ID components on walls systems, equipment or Priority No, components in wall Floor Cor Safety-related (S) proximity to walls function BldE-Elev.
Lines Non-sa fe ty-re l a t ed (NS)
Ter-42 -ruse 14.5' E
G i
NON-SPFET Y f2-E.LATEED To-4e Tutto B+.5' Ai8 coubetaseTE g M W SAFETY PELATED Pt9tfV G To-44 T tJ 8 e St. S' A,7 ccMDetusATF L M M-SAF t ITYleE LATt5to piAex Te-45 Tuse.e 14.s' 6 IC SECO9DPrRN GEE R
I 3~
cool)rMo uMYTEQ SAF tiTY FtB L.ATis t TIPl%
.l
e,/si.
BLOCK WALI. LOG SilP.ET NRC IB Bul1etin 80-)1 A
HO E
Project:
Millstone Point, Unit 1 Job No. 80014 SYSTEMS, lNC.
Client:
Northeast Utilities Service Company Masonry Wall Wall System, equipment or Safety-related
~
I' ention ID components on walls systems, equipment or Masonry Priority No.
components in-wall Floor ol.
Safoty-related (S) proximity to walls function BldR-I!! c v.
,ines Non-safety-related (NS)
M" OOD
- k VS-l VEtJT IS'- o' N/A S
STACK ynoogora.
SAFD T Y g.ELAT tsio g4w VS-2 VENT 19 '- o" N/A gg g 3
MS STACK rnof0tT o R.
SAFi=.T Y FR.E;LATEC yR#
M VENT IS '- o" [
M-M THESE. HALLS Nob[ PAF.T OF VS - l 6 V'S-2.
M VENT 15'-o" [
- N +.
M
[
N 7
N
Docket No. 50-245 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 I&E Bulletin No. 80-11 November,1980
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 General 1
2.0 References 1
3.0 Assumptions 2
4.0 Natural Frequency Requirement 3
5.0 Analysis and Design 3
6.0 Material Specifications 5
7.0 Loads and Load Combinations 6
8.0 Acceptance Criteria 8
9.0 Exhibits Exhibits A through I 8
DESIGN CRITERIA EES 80014 DC-1 MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Rev. 1 NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page i of i
1.0 GENERAL This Design Criteria provides the technical basis for the re-evaluation of masonry walls and the design of modifica-tions at the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit i required to satisfy the requirements of NRC I6E Bulletin 80-11 (Ref. 2.1.).
2.0 REFERENCES
2.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, ISE Bulletin No. 80-11, dated May 8,
- 1980, 2:2 Report on the Earthquake Analysis of the Reactor Building for the Millstone Point Nuclear Power Station, prepared by John A. Blume 5 Associate 3, Engin:ers (Project Document No. M1-80014-DI-02) 2.3 Specification for the Design, Fabrication 6 Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, New York, New York, dated February 12, 1969.
(Including supplements 1, 2, 6 3) 2.4 Masonry, EPASCO Services Incorporated Specification toi H11 stone Nuclear Power Station, issued Sept. 21, 1967, revised October 5, 1967.
(Project Document No. M1-80014-DI-06)
\\
2.5 American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Specifications:
C90-66T Hollow Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry Units C129-64T Hollow Non-Load Bearing Concrete Masonry Units C145-66T Solid Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry Units
-C270-64T Mortar for Unit Masonry A305-65 Minimum Requirements for the Deformations of Deformed Steel Bars A15-66 Billet Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement A36-67 Structural Steel
-77A DESIGN CRITERIA 80014 DC-1 EES MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Rev. 1 NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 1 of 9
2.6 Final Safoty Analysis Report, Millstone Nuc1 car Power Station, Unit 1,Section XII (Project Document No. M1-80014-DI-01) 2.7 Letter from D. Robinson of Northeast Utilities to C. T.
Pitts of Earthquake Engineering Systems, Inc.,
f dated September 11, 1980.
(Project Document No.
M1-80014-DI-07) 2.8 Letter from T. L. Gould of EBASCO Services Incoror-ated to L. A. Chatfield of Northeast Utilities dated October 30, 1979.
(Project Document No. M1-80014-DI-03) 2.9 Reinforced Masonry Design, Robert R. Schneider and j
Walter L. Dickey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
- Cliffs, N.J.,
1980.
3.0 ASSUMPTIONS 3.1 The cutoff frequency for rigid range seismic acce-1eration values for buildings other than the reactor containment is 20 CPS.
3.2 Seismic displacement profiles and differential floor displacement values (story displacements) for the reactor building envelope those of other buildings.
3.3 There are no pipe whip, jet impingement, m i s s i l e,-
flood, or pressurization loads acting on the masonry walls covered by this design criteria unless specifically 1
mentioned herein.
3.4 All components supported on or near masonry walls are rigid for the purposes of this evaluation, and therefore do not impose amplified loads or impact loads on the wall due to seismic displacements.
3.5 Unreinforced masonry walls do not carry building structure dead loads.
3.6 Masonry walls are not part of the structural load resisting system and, therefore, do not carry seismic shears or vertical seismic loads due to building inertia forces.
3.7 Masonry walls were constructed in accordance with masonry specifications and original drawings.
3.8 Surface mounted attachments which project no further from the wall surface than the wall thickness contribute only in plane loads to the wall.
DES!.GN CRITERIA 80014 DC-1 EES MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Rev. 1 NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 2 of 9 i
3.9 Tha compressive strength of concrote in existing structures is at 1 cast 3,000 PSI.
3.10 Out of plane story displacements on unreinforced masonry walls will not affect the flexufal strength g
of the wall.
4.0 NATURAL FREQUENCY REQUIREMENT All mnsonry walls covered by this design criteria shall be shown, by analysis, to have natural frequencies greater than 20 CPS.
Satisfying this requirement allows the use of rigid range acceleration values in evaluating seismic loadings (Ref. 2.2).
Seismic rigid range acceleration profiles are contained in Exhibit F.
5.0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 5.1 Unreinforced Walls 5.1.1 Natural frequencies of, and stresses in, unreinforced walls shall be calculated using linear, elastic ana-lysis assuming an uncracked section.
Finite element 1
analysis may be em31oyed in special cases.
Face shell areas shall be used in computing the section properties.
5.1.2 Support conditions for unreinforced walls shall be considered as hinged in the analysis.
Necessary modifications shall be made to the supports to ensure that adequate shear transfer mechanisms exist.
All unreinforced walls shall be considereo free across the top edge unless otherwise indicated on the original design drawings.
Control joints shall be considered as free edges.
Further guidance on support condition classification is included in Exhibit E.
5.1.3 Unreinforced walls shall be analyzed as beams spanning horizontally between existing supports wherever existing support conditions permit, or be-tween new intermediate supports where required.
Maximum span lengths satisfying both a natural fre-quency of 20 CPS and stress requirements for various wall thickness are tabulated in Exhibit A-1.
Maximum span lengths satisfying both a natural frequency of 15. CPS and stress requirements for various wall thicknesses are tabulated in Exhibit A-2.
5.1.4 Unreinforced walls having only one vertical edge supported shall be stress analyzed as a plate on a case by case basis provided the natural frequency DESIGN CRITERIA EES 80014 DC-1 j
MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Rev. 1 NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 3 of 9
requircmsnt is mot.
Maximum pieto dimensions satisfying natural frequencies of 20 CPS and 15 CPS are contained in Exhibits B-1 and B-2.
5.1.5 The effect of in plane story displacements shall be evaluated.
5.1.6 The effects of boundary structure flexibility, wall group interaction, and wall openings shall be eva-luated on a case by case basis.
5.1.7 Masonry block pullout due to concentrated inertial loadings imposed by attached components shall be evaluated.
5.2 REINFORCED WALLS 5.2.1 Stresses in reinforced walls shall be calculated using the working stress method of analysis as described in Chapter 6 of Ref. 2.9.
5.2.2
..upport conditions for reinforced walls shall be as shown in Exhibit E unless reinforcing bars pass through the support interface and are anchored in the adjacent structure.
In this case the support con-dition shall be clamped for doubly reinforced sec-tions and hinged for singly reinforced sections.
5.2.3 Reinforced walls shall be analyzed considering one-way or two-way behavior, whichever is appropriate for the boundary conditions, wall dimensions, and rein-forcement configuration.
Finite element methods may be employed in the analysis.
5.2.4 Reinforced walls shall first be analyzed using an uncracked, transform <a moment of inertia (It).
If the applied moment (Ma) resulting from this analy-sis exceeds the uncracked moment of of inertia (Ie)pacity (Mer) an ca effective moment shall be calcu-lated as shown below.
,3
-3 Ie =
Mcr I t +
1-Mcr Icr
[a, ya, Mer =
F "I
1 t
_ _t t Y-)
DESIGN CRITERIA 80014 DC-1 Ej"["
MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Rev. 1 NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 4 of 9 e
Mer
= Uncracked moment capacity Ma
= Applied maximum moment un the wall It
= Moment of inertia of transformed section Icr
= Moment of inertia of the cracked section All wable masonry tensile stress (M')
Ft
= for extreme envirormental loadings y
= Distance of neutral plane from tension face The wall shall then be re-analyzed using Ie.
If the g
use of Ie results in an applied moment Ma that dif-A fers from the pr viously calculated Ma by more than 10%, a new Ie shall be calculated and the analysis repeated.
5.2.5 The effect of in plane and out of plane story displacements shall be evaluated.
5.2.6 The effects of boundary structure flexibility, wall group interaction, and wall openings shall be eval-
~
uated on a case by case basis.
5.2.7 Masonry block pullout due to concentrated inertial loadings imposed by attached components shall be evaluated.
5.3 Modifications All modifications to masonry walls shall be designed in accordance with Ref. 2.3 subject to the limita-tions stated in Section 8 of this criteria.
Selection of concrete anchors shall be in accordance with Exhibit D.
Designs shall be based on conven-tional methods of structural analysis of linear elastic materials.
6.0 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS S PROPERTIES 6.1 Existing Construction 6.1.1 Concrete Block (Ref. 2.4)
Exterior Walls ASTM C-90 (Ref. 2.5)
Battery Room Grade U-1 DESIGN CRITERIA 80014 DC-1 EES MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Rev. 1 NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 5 of 9
Emorgency Diesel Lightweight, Hollow j
Generator Room Load Bearing
{l Boiler Room i
Interior ASTM C-129 (Ref. 2.5)
Partitions Lightweight, Hollow Non-load Bearing 1
Shielding Block ASTM C-129 (Ref. 2.5)
Solid, Load-Bearing l1 6.1.2 Masonry Reinforcement (Ref. 2.4)
Horizontal Dur-0-Wall Extra Heavy Weight Vertical ASTM A-15, Grade 40 l[
ASTM A-305 (Ref. 2.5) 6.1.3 Mortar (Ref. 2.4)
ASTM C-270 (Ref. 2.5)
Type
'S' 6.1.4-Concrete f'c = 3000 PSI (Refer to assumption 3.8) 6.1.5 Structural Steel ASTM A-36 (Ref. 2.5) 6.2 Modifications Structural Steel, ASTM A-36 (Ref. 2.5)
Threaded Rods Welding 21ectrode E70XX Drilled-in Concrete Hilti Kwik-Bolts Expansion Anchors (Refer to Exhibit D) 7.0 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS The loads and load combinations in this section are based on the requirements for Class 1 structures of Paragraph 1.1.2 of Section XII of the Millstone Unit 1 FSAR (Ref.
2.6).
7.1 Loads to be considered in evaluating the masonry walls are described below.
DESIGN CRITERIA 80014 DC-1 EES MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Rev. 1 NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 6 of 9
l D(1)
Dead load of wall and attached equipment, plus any other sustained loads.
E (Ev,E ){ ) Design earthquake loads.-
(Ey and Eh h
are vertical and horizontal components of the design earthquake loads, respectively.)
E'(E},E6)(2) Maximum earthquake loads.
(E'yand E'h are vertical and horizontal components of the maximum earthquake loads, respectively.)
li4 W' (3)
Tornado load.
7.2 Masonry walls shall be evaluated for the following load combinations.
EQ 1 D + Ev + Eh (4)f 20 CPS and Flexural Tension Stress < Fe A-2 Natural Frequency >f 15 CPS and i
Flexural Tension Stress < F t B.
Maximum Plate Dimensions for Unreinforced, Hollow Masonry Walls Supported on One Vertical Edge and the Base:
B-1 Natural Frequency > 20 CPS B-2 Natural Frequency g 15 CPS DESIGN CRITERIA EES 80014 DC-1 MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Rev. 1 NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 8 of 9
C. Allowabic Strossos in Concrete Masonry:
C-1 Unreinforced Walls d
C-2 Reinforced Walls D. Allowable Loads on Hilti-Kwik Concrete Anchors E.
Support Conditions for Unreinforced Walls j
F.
Rigid Range Seismic Acceleration Values G.
Reactor Building Seismic Displacement Profile H.
Attached Component / Equipment Weights for Dead Load Calculations I.
Allowable Block Pullout Loads DESIGN CRITERIA 80014 DC-1 EES MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Rev. 1 NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 9 of 9
.T Woll Wall Attachment Maximum
~
Building Elcymtion 7hickness Weight Neight Span (ft.)'
.(in.)
(psf)
(ps f)
(ft.)
4 17 4
6.7 6
26 5
8.3 14.5 8
34 7
9.6 12 48 10 11.6 4
17 4
6.7 6
26 5
8.3 34.5 8
34 7
9.6 12 it 10 11.6 Turbine Building 4
17 4
6.7 6
26
.5 8.3 54.5 8
34 7
9.6 12 48 10 11.6 4
17 4
6.7 6
26 5
8.3 104.75 8
34 7
9.6 12 48 10 11.6 4
17 4
6.7 14.5 6
26 5
8.3 6
8 34 7
9.6 42.5 12 48 10 11.6 4
17 4
6.7 65.75 6
26 5
8.3 6
8 34 7
9.6 82.75 12 48 10 11.6 Reactor
. Building 4
17 4
6.7 108.5 6
26 5
8.3 6
8 34 7
9.6 11.6 129.0 12 48 10 4
17 4
6.4 6
26 5
7.8 147.0 8
34 7
9.0 12 48 10 10.7 Maximum Horizontal Span Lengths for Unreinforced, Hollow Masonry Walls Supported on Both Vertical Edges (Natural Frequency >,20 CPS and flexural tension stress < F )
e Exhibit A-1 DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1
[
80014 Rev. I j_
MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Exhibit A NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 1 of 2
Elevstien KcIl Wall Attachment Maximum Buildin3 (ft.)
Thickness heigLt height Span (in.)
(ps f)
(ps f)
(ft.)
4 17 4
7.7 6
26 5
9.5 14.5 8
34 7
11.1 12 i
48 10 13.4 4
17 4
7.7 6
26 5
9.5 34.5 B
34 7
11.1 12 48 10 13.4 Turbine Building 4
17 4
7.7 6
26 5
9.5 54.5 8
34 7
11.1 12 48 10 13.4 4
17 4
7.3 6
26 5
8.9 104.75 8
34 7
10.3 12 48 10 12.1 t
4 17 4
7.7 14.5 6
26 5
9.5 6
8 34 7
11.1 42.5 12 48 10 13.4 4
17 4
7.7 65.75 6
26 5
9.5 6
8 34 7
11.1 82.75 12 48 10 13.4 Reactor Building 4
17 4
72 108.5 6
26 5
8.7 6
8 34 7
10.0 129.0 12 48 10 11.9 4
17 4
6.4 6
26 5
7.8 147.0 8
34 7
9.0 12 48 10 10.7 Maximum Horizontal Span Lengths for Unreinforced, Hollow Masonry Walls Supported on Both Vertical Edges (Natural Frequency )15 CPS and flexural tension stress < F )
g Exhibit A-2 DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 EES 80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Exhibit A NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 2 of 2 O
Exhibit B-1 PLOT or d F
Fo R Eo Hs s
UJEt6HT OF ATTIDIA61JTS f
g
\\McLubED p
/l.o '-
S a
/0.o' 4
8.d-as 6.o'
/E'NALL 4.o' 8'5/ALL 6 " WALL g,c' 4" WALL o_
l t
I i
i l
o E.o '
40'
- 4. C '
6O'
/do' h 20' Maximum Plate Dimnnsions for Unreinforc'ed. Hollow Masonry Nalls Support a n One Edge and the Base DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 EES 80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POINT UNIT 1 Exhibit B NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 1 of 2
a Exhibit B-2 PLOT OF */6 FoR\\GHe y
wEtGHT OF 6TTAdlMElJT2
/
IMcLu be=D A
3 F
a b
/40-
=
/Z.0
/o. 0 86 dL, d.o
\\2" Vl All 6" W ALL
~
(.," WALL 4" WALL 2.0 o
o Eo
- 4. 0 GD dO
/00 EQ O*0
_b Maximum Plate Dimensions for Unreinforced, Hollow Lsonry Walls Supported on One Edge and the Base DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 EES 80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POINT UNIT 1 Exhibit B NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 2 of 2
Exhibit C-1 Allowable Stresses for Unreinforced blasonry Allowable Stresses (psi)
(6) bl (1) hi' (1)
ASIh1 Block Type AS'lhi Block Type C90 C129 C145 C90 C129 C145 65$*
grg@
Description
.a.a
.a.a
.a.a
.a.
.a.a
.a.a gg gg gg gg gg gg ug Related to Related to g
,o n
88 88 88 28 88 88 M
f'm 6 m f'm a mo o
SE N
5e
$a Se
$a 58 ceis e
bh COMPRESSION (3) l I
to i
j 277 i
@~
Axial (4)(2)
F 0.22 f'ns 297 i
139 1
238 0.44 f'm 594 I 475 a
g Flexural Fm 0.33 f'm 446 208 0.66 f'm 891 l
416 l 713 l
g 356 m
8 I
I I
I sg BEARING (3)(5)
F 0.25 f'm 338 158 270 0.50 f'm 675 315 540 a
e l
I l
4 SilEAR (3) l l
l l
Walls in I
l l
l flexure v
1.1 (f'm 40 28 36 1.70ff'm 62 43 56 m
0.9/f'm 33 23 30
- 1. 35 / f' m 50 34 44 Shear walls vm I
i i
l i
i TENSION (3) l l
l l
l 21 l
l l
Normal to 0.75k bed joints F
0.5[m 21 21 32 32
~W" Parallel to l
l l
l 32 t
o Pt. o bed joints in l
42 l
42 1.50/m 64 l
64 l 64 running bond F
1.0[m 42 u
t o
o l
l l
Exhib_it C-1 (cont'd)
Notes:
(1)
M and M' shall be used for evaluating stress in accordance with Section 7.2.
(2)
Multiply these values by (1-(h/40t)3) if the wall has significant vertical load at the top edge.
(3)
The net area to be used for evaluating compression, bearing, shear and tension stresses is shown below.
This area applies to wall sections on verti al planes as well as sections (shown) on horizontal planes.
_ _fwppwn s,;.gua2;x :v/nz////z;v 9 Whp//2;9;3mm.9_
x e
n:2 %.w $sz W/,&h: ;, ;fdiriun% r//yyfyWe H Ol. l 0 L4/
M& SO A,/K y
)
F 4N/
V A[V At A
A Sc4/O M4 ScA/2 >'
(4)
The effective length to be used to evaluate axial compressive stresses under concentrated loads is as given in Note (2) of Exhibit C-2.
(5)
Allowable bearing stress may be increased to 0.375 f'm for M and 0.75 fdm for M' if load is applied on one-third of the compression area or less.
(6) Values for the moduli of elasticity and rigidity for all masonry strengths f'm are as follows:
Modulus of Elasticity E
= 810,000 psi s
Modulus of Rigidity F
= 324,000 psi y
DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 EES 8001d.
Rev. 1 Mill.b10"T. POINT UNIT 1 Exhibit C NORTHEAST LTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 2 of 7
Exhibit C-2 A11owabic Stressss for Reinforced Masonry Walls
- Allowable Stresses (Masonry)
(psi)
(11)
Description M (1)
M' (1)
Related to ASTM C90 Related to ASIM C90 f'm f'm=1350 psi f'm f'm=1350 psi l
I COMPP"3SION l
F 0.22 f'm 297 0.44 f'm 594 Axial (2) (3).
F, 0.33 f'm l
446 0.66 f'm I
891 i
a Flexura)
(4) l BEApBG (5)
F 0.25 f'm l
338 0.50 f's j
675 a
I I
oHEiO l
No special shear 3
l' reinforcement I
Walls in flexure (6) y, 1.1(f'm l
40 1.7/f'm j
62 Shear walls (7) y, M/Vd h1 y
M/Vdy =0 (8) 2.0 (f'm 73 3.0 ff'm 110 I
I Reinforcement i
taking shear l
I f
Walls in 40 1.7/f'm l
62 1.1[f'm flexure (6) vm Shear walls (7) y 1.5 f'm l
55 2.25 /f'm l
83 M/Vd A1 (8) y M/Vd
=0 2.0 f'm 73 3.0 /f'm 110 l
y 2
Allowable Stresses (Reinforcement)
(psi)
Description M (1)
M' (1) l BOND Deformed bars u
140 140 DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 EES 80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POIhT UNIT 1 Exhibit C NORHIEAST UTILITIES SERVICE CO@ANY Page 3 of 7
I i
Exhibit C-2 (cont'd)
Allowable Stresses (Reinforcement)
(psi) 1 Description j
M (1)
M' (1)
{
TENSION 6
p >RESSION Reinforcing steel Fs Grade 40 bars 20,000 0.9 fy (9)
Joint wire reinforcement 0.5 fy (10) 0.9 fy Notes:
(1) M and M' shall be used for evaluat_ag stress in accordance with Section 7.2.
(2)
The effective area to be used for evaluating axial compressive stress is shown below:
.o.
,l '
..y,h h
,L Effective length L depends on
(%<f,, //e
,l ;# - -
type of bond and loading (see
{
r next page).
y WMA Effective area for axial compressive stress calculations on net section of masonry units plus grouted cores.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 I
80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POIhT UNIT 1 Exhibit C h0RTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE CCMPANY Page 4 of 7
Exhibit C-2 (cont'd)
(2)
(cont'd)
LO A D LOAD LO A D gf snan.ua.
w. o r.
r j
g/
'.?
f
' /
,<v '
v v
f.., 4
. ' '. /
. r-3 J
2 y -,,,...;j as, u.
v I S4X Fjdi! lll 1[i!
'.;-h I
~
[d, "Fh*.[h.h b 3
.... f v,.
- ....=.p -.
n.
f"f CTF 2
.i tere c,.v e /
trewcwve /
I3 z'
..,. i -d.
Ci grsective, / Q /'
EFF ECTIVE. 2 2 ScARI.JG mDTal + 4 t Loan tono z
, [manaeua 8 PLATE.
ict
.!NNAst.j i F..MWiXl45-if G:--:d;.
.r.. r*
p.
gg d
1.p m
<i. dl i - %
d ro -
-tm 1-t Y-? D..- Drf E1l
- k. .\\
gr
.c Ti.
A gW i/
creactive J rescevive 1 Load
- )
J 'fk 2, - [/
jo
- f., ' ~
. W, urrev ve 4 usco on s
s oc-s cast assisru4ce.
Effective lengths for axial compressive stress evaluation.
DESIGN CRITERT.A DC-1 EES 80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POINT UNIT 1 Exhibit C NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE C04PANY Page 5 of 7
-a
Exhibit C-2 (cont'd)
(3)' Multiply these values by (1-(h/40t)3) if the wall has significant vertical load at the top edge.
.(4) The effective area to be used for evaluating flexural compressive stress is shown below.
6: or stud spacing 8
31for l
whdever as less for stack bond l
running bond i
o 5#$W
- Off, h
G#*N'X:
lzoo/bs///////>o&ngy,
=<:
y I
'u yDUy ss m
s F
t Aras assumed etfective in flemural compression, force normal to face l
/
(5)
A11cmable' bearing stress may be increased to 0.375 f'm for M and 0.75 f'm for M' if load is applied on one-third of the compression area e
or less.
(6) The effective area for evaluating shear stress for walls in flexure is shown below.
$$$??'$$'
N $' &' # u..r0 me r
ly[615L:. t_____. A Y Y; if
. q, u
X W
' i I=
rswmew& Sree/-
- l l
g Area assumed effective in shear, force normal to face DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 EES 80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POINT UNIT 1 Exhib2.t C NORDE.AST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 6 of 7
+
Exhibit C-2 (cont'd)
(7) n e effective area for evaluating shear stress for shear walls is shown below.
g//,;;p(,,,,,,p,;g) c.
29,x
/,isan
~
m> L t
maswo,c 0/vsxcws: ;Tr:4 s, Area assumed eHective in shear, force parallel to face (8) M is the maximum bending moment ocurring simultaneously with the shear load V at the section under consideration.
d is the length of the y
wall in the direction of shear.
Interpolate by straight line for M/Vd values between 0 and 1.
y (9) f is the specified yield strength of the reinforcement.
y (10) 0.5 f r.at to exceed 30,000 psi.
y (11) Values for the moduli of elasticity and rigidity for all masonry strengths f'm are as fo11cws:
Modulus of Elasticity E 810,000 psi
=
s Modulus of Rigidity E,= 324,000 psi DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 EES 80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POINT UNIT 1 Exhibit C NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE CGIPAW Page 7 of 7
c.
e q
Exhibit D Allowable Loads on Hilti Kwik Bolts
^
Bolt dia.
Embedment (inches)
(inches)
Tension (1b.)
Shear (1b.)
(Ta)
(Va) 2 1/4 951 2018 2 3/4 1218 2018 3 1/2 1541 2018 1/2 _
4 1/2 1733 2391 5 1/2 1902 2391 6
1996 2391 2 3/4 1750 3400 3 1/2 1918 3400 c
4_1/2 2375 3400 5/8 5 1/2 2731 3600 6 1/2 3002 3600 7 1/2 3250 3600 3 1/4 2359 4968 4
2887 4968 5
3525 4968 3/4 6
3975 4968 7
4600 4968 8
4875 4968 9
4937 4968 DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 EES 80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POINT UNIT I Exhibit D NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page-1 of 2
Exhibit D Allowable Loads on Hilti Kwik Bolts (cont.)
^
Bolt Dia.
Embedment (inches)
(inches)
Tension (1b.)
Shear (16.)
4 1/2 3750 6777 5
4300 6777 6
5281 6875 1
7 5712 6875 8
5712 7730 l
9 5712 7730 10 5712 7730 7
i 5 1/2 5312 8150 m
i 6 1/2 6087 8150 l
7 1/2 6837 8150 l
5 1 1/4 8 1/2 7462 8496 9 1/2 8000 8496 i
i 10 1/2 8462 8496 i-I i
e A11oitable Loads are based on a Factor of Safety of 4.0 and concrete strength of 3000 psi, eCombined Tension and Shear shall be evaluated as follows:
T (actual)
V (actual)
Ta Va o A minimum edge distance of 6 inches shall be used.
- A minimum center to center bolt spacing of 10 bolt diameters or 2 times the embedment length, whichever is largest, shall be used.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 EES 80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POINT UNIT 1 Exhibit D NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 2 of 2
INTERLOCKIMG BLOC K MORTA R JeixT 7
/t
/
N,,
\\
7
\\{
-N N
N'
\\
/
N N
y/
/
'N N
N X
N/
7 O,)
IMTERLOCKlMG JOIMT BOND JOlWT C HINGED )
(FREE 1 CEILING (SL AB SEAMS OR DECKING ).
N40RmR Jo:MT
[
\\
/
/
/
/-/
r e
3 y Q
/
/
I
\\
( ls l
V
(
W 4
FLOO R FLOOR JOlklT C ElLIMG JOINT
( HIMGEO )
(FREE)
FREE ENO Support Conditions
/
/
/
/s for i
l p
/
Unreinforced Walls h
/
/
c Exhibit E FREE JOiMT
( F R E E. )
DESIGN CRIYERIA DC-1 80014 Rev.
1 EL[
MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Exhibit E NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 1 of 1
i l
\\
Exhibit F Rigid Range Seismic Accelerations for Re-evaluation of Masonry Walls
- Design Earthquake Maximum Earthquake Building El.
E_ (acc.in 'g's )
E_' (acc. in ' g 's)
Turbine Bldg.
14.5'
.093 Horiz
.226 Horiz
.067 Vert
.146 Vert (Ref. 2.8)*
34.5'
.146 Horiz
.346 Horiz
.067 Vert
.146 Vert 54.5'
.186 Horiz
.452 Horiz
.067 Vert
.146 Vert 104.75'
.333 Horiz
.798 Horiz
.067 Vert
.146 Vert 6
Reactor Bldg.
14.5'
.931 Horiz
.226 Horiz (Ref. 2.6)*
.067 Vert
.146 Vert c
42.5'
.106 Horiz
.253 Horiz
~
.067 Vert
.146 Vert' 65.75'
.160 Horiz
.386 Horiz
.067 Vert
.146 Vert 87.75'
.200 Horiz
.479 Horiz
.067 Vert
.146 Vert 108.5'
.279 Horiz
.678 Horiz
.067 Vert
.146 Vert 129.0'
.346 Horiz
.838 Horiz
.067 Vert
.146 Vert 147.0'
.426 Horiz 1.04 Horiz
.067 Vert
.146 Vert
- Tabulated Accelerations are 1.33 times those in Refs. 2.6 and 2.8.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 80014 Rev. 1 L[
MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Exhibit F NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 1 of I
' Exhibit G Reactor Building Seismic Displat
.t Profile (Ref. 2.6) i i
i i
EL I47 fr-21/2in 15C e
EL 179 ft D in 170 EL 105 f - 5 en U
w E
9, 5
EL 87 ft 9 -
75d EL 65 ft - 9 sa 60 EL 47 ft 6 en 30 -
EL 14 ft - 6 :n 0 -
EL O ft. 0 n BASE EL-76 ft. O in I
I I
-30 0
30 60 90 120 150 Displacement in Mils Note:
Profile shown is for the Design Earthquake (E).
For Maximum Earthquake IE') multiply displacements by 2.4 DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 EES 80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Exhibit G NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 1 of 1
Exhibit H Attached Component / Equipment Weights for Dead Load Calculations Seismic Conduit Support Standards Conduit Nom. Size Steel Aluminum (in.)
(Lbs./Ft.)
(Lbs./Ft.)
~
1 2.0 1.0 2
5.0 2.5 3
11.0 6.0 4
16.5 9.5 5
24.0 14.0 6
32.5 19.5 Lb Electrical Panels Surface Area of Panel x 3.50
/Ft2 Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipes, Piping Crane Co. Technical Paper No. 410, copyright
]
1979--Crane Co., New York, N. Y.
(Appendix B)
DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 EES 80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Exhibit H NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY Page 1 of 1
~
Exhibit I Allowable Block Pullout Loads
////f/
4 Wa i t..
AS 7~M Aziownaar Bt ocx Twcxurss 3soce Type Pu u our-Zoxo 6 a)
( w. )
c-vo 2so2 swee C-/29
/ & O '/
2372 C -/95 2093 3069 C - 90 3090 965.2 S
C /29 2/40 3/63 C - /ss' 279/
4099
~~
C - 90 3 F3 G S f?/ 2 F
C-/29 267V 3952 C /s's 3977 5//6 x
G - 90 96 Ce/
4976 I2 C -/2 9 3.209
-77 +'</
C -/ 4' f 9/74 6/31 Refer to Section 7.2 for description of M and M' DESIGN CRITERIA DC-1 EES 80014 Rev. 1 MILLSTONE POINT, UNIT 1 Exhibit I NOR W EAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPAhY Page 1 of 1
PART II COMMENTARY ON THE CRITERIA FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION 1.0 GENERAL This commentary is written to discuss the requirements set forth in the foregoing criteria.
The literature, codes, and standards that serve as the basis for the design crite la are summarized in the references listed at the end of this commentary.
2.0 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS The loads and load combinations given in this section are taken from the Standard-Review Plan, Section 3.8.4: "Other (than containment) Seismic Category I Structures" (Ref.
103).
They are meant to provide-a general list of the types of loads to be considered and the appropriate stress limits which apply to them.
Since many of the plants answering IE Bulletin 80-11 were designed prior to the SRP, many of these loads are not part of the design basis for the structures containing masonry walls.
In cases where the 71 ant FSAR con-tains different loads and load combinations, t,1e FSAR provi-sions should govern.
Further the loads in the original design (e.g., earthquake spectrahmaynot have been developed in accordance with the latest regulatory requirements for new plants.
In this case the loads from the FSAR should be used, but care should be taken that load evaluations subsequent to the FSAR have not imposed additional design considerations on the plant.
When the load combinations in the FSAR do not correspond exactly with those listed, the FSAR combinations should be evaluated to see whether they are normal or factored and evaluated against the appropriate stress limits.
The symbols S and U have been chosen to correspond with the terminology for rein-forced concrete structures in the Standard Review Plan.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 0 EES l
FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 1
3.0 ANALYSIS 3.1 Unreinforced Walls 3.1.1 Due to the lack of sufficient test' data, there is uncertainty associated with the strength of masonry walls in tension normal to the bed joints under dynamic loading.
Consequently, no wall should transmit loads via a-primary load path which is dependent upon ttnsion stresses in this direction.
However, if the tensile stresses are low, and if cracking would not jeopardize the integrity of the-structure, then tension normal to the bed joints is permitted to the levels specified in Section 4 of the criteria.
3.1.2 Free boundary conditions are chosen as the most appropriate for ceiling joints since shrinkage and separation of the mortar from the support is most likely to occur at these locations.
Vertical mortar joints between walls and adjoining structures are chosen as free since shear transfer along this joint is very sensitive to bond between the mortar and structure and the quality of workmanship.
A plain mortar joint at the bed joint may be con-sidered as simply supported since the dead load of the wall will effect sufficient shear resistance due to friction.
Upl-ift forces on the wall should be considered if this support con-dition is chosen.
3.1.3 The moduli of elasticity and rigidity specified in the criteria are lower bounds of these material properties.
Hence, fundamental frequen-cies of walls calculated based on these values may be higher than anticipated, and a wall whose fundamental frequency is calculated to be lower than the frequency corresponding to the peak of the ARS may, in actuality, be at or near the peak.
To rule out this possibilit the peak value of acceleration (times 1.3) y, is used for static analysis.
EES GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 2
On the other hand, if the fundamental frequency of a wall is calculated to be higher than the frequency of the peak response, the acceleration value-corresponding to that frequency will be
~
conservatively large, provided that the ARS has no secondary peaks at higher frequencies.
The amplification factor of 1.3 is used to
-l account for possib1: multi-mode effects.
A fac-tor of 1.05_has been recommended by the committee on masonry analysis techniques of the ' owners and engineering firms informal group on concrete masonry walls' (Ref. 102), based on a finite ele-ment parametric study of walls of varying sizes and edge conditions.
The value of 1.3 chosen is certainly conservative and is also in keeping with the factors typically used throughout the industry.
3.2 Reinforced Walls keeffectivemomentofinertia, Ie, accounts for 3.2.1 variations in the moment of inertia as a function of stress throughout the wall.
The uncracked moment capacity, Mer, is expressed as a function of the allowable tensile stress, F, under factored loads.
More correctly, t
F;le stress at cracking,should be she modulus of rupture, or t si in the masonry.
However, since the modulus of rupture under dyna-mic loadings is not well quantified, the maximum allowable tensile stress is used.
Use of this value will conservatively result in lower fun-damental frequency values and larger calculated deflections.
3.2.2 Considerations for boundary condition selection for reinforced walls are, in general, the same as for unreinforced walls.
For singly reinforced walls with rebar passing through the boundary joint, the rebar serves as a mechanical interlock to carry shear.
For doubly reinforced walls, the rebars also serve to transfer a force couple across the joint.
However, if a crack is present, the masonry will not contribute to the moment resistance.
Therefore, the effective moment of inertia at the boundary shou 1d be based on the moment of iner-tia of the rebar pattern itself.
EES GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 3
4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The acceptance criteria have been expressed in terms appli-cable to nuclear plant design, and similar to those used for concrete evaluation.
It is therefore important to differentiate between normal load conditions and factored load conditions.
Normal, or unfactored, loads are loads encountered during normal operation of nuclear plants.
' Included are antici-pated transient or test loads during normal and emergency startup and shutdown of the nuclear steam supply, safety, and auxiliary systems.
For masonry structural elements this includes loads which might be imposed during main-tenance operations, sometimes referred to as construction loads.
Also included in this category are those severe environmental loads which may be anticipated during the life of the facility, such as the operational basis earthquake.
For concrete structures, these loads are eva-1uated by ultimate strength methods using appropriate load
,ractors.
Factored loads, on the other hand, are those hypothetical loads which have a very low probability of occurrence over the life of the facility but which are evaluated because of safety considerations.
These loads include extreme environmental and abnormal loads, such as the safe shutdown earthquake.
The ultimate acceptance criteria for these load confitions is that operability of critical plant systems not be impaired.
For concrete structures, these loads are generally evaluated by ultimate strength methods using load factors of unity.
a It is difficult to use building code values to develop criteria for factored load evaluation because masonry design is based on working stress methods rather than ulti-mate strength techniques.
At present, the state of the art has not progressed sufficiently to embrace the more sophisticated precepts of ultimate strength design, prin-cipally because of the lack of knowledge of many of the fundamental _ material properties (e.g., ultimate strain of the masonry assemblage), the performance characteristics of reinforced masonry systems, and the wide scatter of variable values reflected in much of the test data.
Therefore, EES has reviewed the literature for testing relative to the various stress values, determined reason-able lower bounds.on ultimate loads, reduced them by appropriate amounts, and applied them to working stress design methods.
For evaluation of factored loads, GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O EES FOR
' CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 4 j
i
allowable stresses have been taken as one half the lower bound ultimate while a factor of four is used for normal load allowables. Thus there are three levels of conser-vatism inherent in the evaluation criteria: use of lower
- bound ultimate values, capacity reduction factors of two and fo'ur, and use of linearly calculated stress.
In cases where not enough test data is available to deter-mine a. lower bound ultimate, the building codes have been used for guidance in selecting values for normal loads.
Stress limits for factored loads have been determined by applying increases consistent with those for similar conditions.
4.1 Unreinforced Masonry 4.1.1 Compression Allowable stresses which relate to the masonry compressive strength are expressed in terms of f'm, the ultimate compressive strength of the masonry assemblage.
This strength may be determined by test or may be conservatively estimated using the table below.
Compressive strength Compressive test strength of masonry of masonry units, psi, on the f.', psi net cross-sectional area Type M and Type N S mortar mortar 6000 or more 24C0 1350 4000 2000 1250 2500 1550 1100 2000 1350 1000 1500 1150 875 1000 900 700 Values of f'm for Masonry F
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 0 FOR CONCRETE MASONRY ~ WALL EVALUATION Page 5
The building code values for axial compression fall around 0.22f'm.
This is consistent with a factor of four under ultimate (assuming a lower bound of about 0.9f'm) for normal loads.
For factored loads, a value of 0.44f'm gives a factor of two under the lower bound ultimate.
For compression due to bending, the peak stress is computed on an elastic basis by working stress methods and assumes a triangular stress distribution.
In reality, the stress distribu-tion is more uniform, especially at high stress levels.
The building codes recognize this by allowing a 50% increase in the allowable for peak compression under bending.
Since there is no test data contradicting this well established practice, a value of 0.33f'm is used for normal loads. Applying an increase consistent with that for uniform compression gives a value of 0.66f'm for factored loads.
For walls which support significant vertical loads, the effects of slenderness should be considered.
There is a good deal of test data on this subject, and the capacity reduction factor given in the note is well su1 ported.
This should apply to all the allowa ale compressive values including those for factored loads.
In evaluating vertical loading, con-sideration of bending due to load eccentricity is required.
4.1.2 Bearing The value for allowable bearing stress is taken from the building codes for normal loads and is the same as for concrete under ACI 318-63.
It gives a factor of four on ultimate.
Increasing this value the same as for other compressive stresses gives 0.50f'm for factored loads.
Actually, this value is rather conserative, as concentrated loads will either bear on a block or on mortar, so that use of the composite strength is not really aapropriate.
It would be more correct to use t.1e block or mortar strength for bearing calculations and use the composite strength when evaluating compressive stress over the effective tributary length.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev.'0 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 6
When the bearing surface is less than the total surface, confinement effects will permit higher bearing loads.
The codes allow a 50% increase if the bearing area is less than one-third the total area.
This increase is permitted only when the least distance between the edges of the loaded and unloaded areas is a minimum of one-fourth of the parallel side dimension of the loaded area.
The allowable bearing stress on a reasonably concentric area greater than one-third, but less than the full area, may be interpolated between the values given.
4.1.3 Shear The allowable value for flexural shear given in the building codes is the same as the concrete value in ACI 318-65.
However, this is intended for beams rather than walls and thus is not applicable to walls in flexure.
For unrein-forced walls, moreover, the limits on tensile stress preclude any significant shear stress.
However, peripheral shear at the boundaries should still be evaluated.
Since no code value for peripheral shear exists it is reasonable to use the value for plain concrete; i.e., 2/YTc. The ACI 318-63 value for allowable flexural compressive stress is 0.45f'c while the allowable for masonry for normal loads is 0.33f'm.
Making a similar ratio for the peripheral shear yields a masonry allowable of 1.5/f'm.
Since there appear to be no tests on
~
peripheral shear in masonry walls loaded out of plane, and the nature of shear failure is non-ductile, it seems prudent not to increase this allowable by more than 50% for factored load conditions.
For in-plane shear (shear walls) there is test data available.
However, most unreinforced walls are in-fill walls; i.e.,
they are not there to resist shear forces in the structure.
Even so, there are shear distortions imposed by relative displacements between floors.
In this case it is more appropiate to evaluate the effect of shear distortion on the ability of the wall to carry out of alane loads.
Since t
flexural shear is negligi)1e in wall flexure, i
EES GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 7 i
l
it is only necessary to assure that cracking does i
not occur which will-interrupt tensile stress in i
the. face shells of the blocks.
Test data show t'
that confined walls can sustain shear distortions greater than 0.1% of the wall height.
A wall must be confined for the structure to be able to impose uniform shear distortion; therefore, this l
serves as a good acceptance criteria for both normal and factored loads.
4 For unreinforced walls which must resist in-plane shear forces as part of the structure, the test data for reinforced walls without horizontal or
~ hear reinforcement is applicable.
The data s
shows that the code value of 0.9/TTm is reason.
1 i
able although not always a factor of four below failure.
Moreover, tests done on bond failure in the bed joints indicate that the higher values for large length to height _ ratios may result from 4
the confining effect of vertical reinforcement.
i Therefore, the code value of 0.9/T9i is.used for normal loads without regard to length to height ratio, and only a 50% increase is used for fac-j tored loads j
4.1.4 Tension For unreinforced walls analyzed on an elastic i
basis, the resistive capacity is evaluated on the basis of an allowable' computed tensile stress.
For vertical tensile stresses, the critical sec-tion is through the mortar bed. joints.
However.,
for horizontal stress in running bond, the actual load path is not tension through the mortar but-rather shear transfer up and down along adjacent Courses.
i For vertical tension normal to the bed joints, test results indicate a factor of safety of four for the value of 0.5/m where no is the mortar compressive strength, ho,r service loads.
This is j
about one-third the allowable value for plain concrete under'ACI 318-63 and one-twentieth the value based on the formula for modulus of rupture in concrete.
However, some dynamic tests on unreinforced, vertically spanning walls showed i
initiation of cracking at stresses close-to i
0.5/m, although only after several load cycles.
f Theu$timatecapacityofthewallswerequitea bit greater, though n,t quantified, than the-i cracking strength.
Hence,-the allowable value i
1 GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O FOR
. CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 8 1
-~.
for fcctored loads is not incrossod more than 50%
over that for normal loads.
Moreover, the use of tensile capacity normal to the bed joints is limited to cases where horizontal spanning, as in two-way action, or arching capacity can provide an assurance that local failure in the bed joint will not cause collapse of the wall.
For horizontal tension, on the other hand, the resistive capacity is not a function of the mor-tar tensile strength but of the interlocking effect of the running bond pattern.
Test results show a capacity for horizontally spanning walls of twice that and more compared to vertically spanning walls.
For this reason, the service load allowable of 1.0/mo is quite conservative.
However, the increase for factored loads is kept at 50% to be consistent with the shear allowables, insofar as the interlocking effect is achieved by shear transfer in the bed joints augmented by joint reinforcement.
The testing reported in the literature clearly shows that a higher allowable could be derived using a safety factor of two criterion.
However, there is not much dynamic data, and it is prudent to be more conservative in this area.
4.1.5 Moduli of Elasticity and Rigidity These values are lower than the current building code values and reflect the latest research.
They are lower bound values and are used since this provides a conservative bounding.
In cases where..a lower bound does not provide a conser-vative bound, the effect of modulus variation should be addressed.
The value of meinlus as a function of the masonry compressive strength is based on tests of load bearing block such as those of ASTM designation C-90.
Therefore,.use of this formula for non-load bearing masonry (ASTM C-129) is an extrapo-lation well outside the range of correlation.
It is felt that for the stress levels in walls meeting this criteria document, the modulus for non-load bearing block will not vary signifi-cantly from that for ASTM C-90 block.
Therefore the numerical values of 810,000 and 324,000 psi are used for both.
This also applies to ASTM C-145 solid block.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 9 e
1 4.2 Reinforced Masonry 4.2.1 Compression and Bearing Allowable stresses for compression and bearing on reinforced walls are the same as those for unreinforced walls and have the same basis.
4.2.2 Flexural Shear The data used to develop building code values for flexural shear apaears to have been from tests of 4
masonry beams.
T1e use of this data for walls is difficult in that the depth to reinforcement is much less a percentage of the cross-section ti..m for the beams which were tested.
However, since this fact minimizes the computed shear area, use of the code allowable of 1.1/f'm for service loads is conservative.
This is also the same form as the ACI 318-63 code allowable for concrete beams.
The factored load allowable value of 1.7/ITEI, which is a 50% increase, gives at 1 cast a factor of safety of two against lower bound ultimate.
The building codes allow a much larger flexural shear stress when special shear reinforcement is provided.
In walls, however, the only reinforce-ment which would contribute to shear resistance is ladder or truss type joint wire reinforcement.
It is doubtful if this will really act like shear reinforcement; therefore, the criteria is not changed.
It is-not expected that flexural shear will be a controlling factor, although the peripheral shear should be evaluated using the same allowables as unreinforced masonry.
The in-plane shear stress value
'or shear walls for normal loads are taken from the building codes.
The values for factored loa 6.x provide a factor of a least two against lower ocund ulti-mate when compared to test data for reinforced walls.
The allowable values for walls with spe-cial shear reinforcement for normal loads are again taken from the building codes, with the same increase for factored loads as for the case of no special reinforcement.
From the test data, it appears that for horizontally reinforced walls with low height to length ratios, allowables can be higher than 3.0/ITm and still provide a factor of two on ultimate.
However, this would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
EES GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 10
For rainforecd wells which cro not part of tho main structural system, the offcets of in-plane shear displacement may be evaluated using the same deformation criteria as for unreinforced walls.
The reinforcement in the wall will serve as an extra confining mechanism.
However, the building must be checked to make sure that the shear stiff-ness of the wall, even if allowable shear stress is exceeded, will not affect the overall structural response.
4.2.3 Bond There is little data on bond.
The values here are taken from the building codes.
There does not appear to be a basis for picking an increase in the allowables for factored loads even though not taking any increase is very conservative.
4.2.4 Steel Reinforcement The allowables for steel reinforcement are from the building codes.
The use of 0.9Fy as the allowable for factored loads is well established for rein-forced concrete in nuclear plants.
In general, joint wire reinforcement is more ductile than rebar, thus justifying the same type of application.
i v.
l
- A GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 11 l
5.0 REFERENCES
~
1.
- Arya, S.K.,
"A Method for Incorporating Interface Discontinuities in Finite Element Analyses with Application to Concrete Masonry Rheology,"
Weidlinger Associates Report No. R-75 22, pre-pared for the University of California, San Diego, 1975.
2.
Becica, I.J. and H.G. Harris, " Evaluation of Techniques in the Direct Modeling of Concrete Masonry Structures," Drexel University Structural Models Laboratory Report No. M77-1, June 1977.
3.
Benjamin, J.R. and H.A. Williams, "The Behavior of One-Story Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls,
" Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Proceedings, Paper 1254 Vol. 83, No. ST3, May, 1957, pp. 1254.1-1254.39.
4.
Benjamin, J.R. and H.A. Williams, "The Behavior of One-Story Brick Shear Walls," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Proceedings, Paper 1723, Vol. 84, ST4, July, 1958, pp.
1723.1-1723.30.
5.
Benjamin, J.R. and H.A. Williams, " Behavior of One-Story Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Containing Openings," Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings, Vol. 30, No.5, November 1958, pp. 605-618.
6.
Bertero, V.V. and Ve11anas, J., " Confined Concrete Research and Development Needs,"
Proceedings, Workshop on Earthquake-Resistant Reinforced Concrete Building Construction, University of California,. Berkeley, July 11-15, 1977.
7.
- Blume, J.A., N.M. Newmark, and L.H. Corning, i
Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Motions, Portland Cement Association, Ill. 1961.
8.
Blume, J.A. and Plummer, Harry C., Reinforced Brick Masonry and Lateral Force Design, Structural Clay Products Institute, 1953.
9.
- Blume, J.A.,
and Prouix, J., " Shear in Grouted 5
Brick Masonry Wall Elements," Western Clay i
Products Association, San Francisco, Aug. 1968, 139 pp.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O CONCRETE MASO WALL EVALUATION Page 12
10.
- Borchelt, J.G.,
"" ' lysis of Brick Walls Subjected to Axial Compression and in Plane Shear Proceedings of Second International Brick Masonry Conference, Stoke-on-Trent, April, 1970.
11.
Converse, Frederick J.,
" Tests on Reinforced Concrete Masonry," Building Standards Monthly, Feb. 1946, 13 pp.
12.
Copeland, R.
E., and Saxer, Edwin E.,
" Tests of Structural Bond of Masonry Mortars to Concrete Block,"
ACI Journal, Proceedings V, 61, No. 11, Nov. 1964, pp. 1411-1452.
13.
- Cox, F.W.,
and Ennenga, J.L.: " Transverse Strength of Concrete Block Walls." ACI Journal, Proceedings, Vol. 54, No. 11 p. 951, May 1958.
14.
Dickey, W.L. and R.W. Harrington, " The Shear Truth about Brick Walls," Report for Western States Clay Products Association, Inc., San Francisco, California, 1970.
15.
Dickey, W.L. and A. Mackintosh, "Results of Variation of "b" or Effective Width in Flexural Concrete Block Panels", Masonry Institute of America, Los Angeles, 1971.
16.
Esteva, Luis, " Behavior Under Alternating Loads of Masonry Diaphragms Framed by Reinforced Concrete Members, " Proceedings, International Symposium on the Effects of Repeated Loading of Materials and Structures (RILEM), Mexico City, 1966, Vol. V.
17.
- Fattal, S.G.,
" The Capacity of Unreinforced Masonry Shear Walls Under Membrane Loads",
Earthquake Resistant Construction Proc. National Workshop at Boulder, Colorado, 1976, NBS Building Science Series 106, pg. 177.
18.
- Fattal, S.G., and Cattoneo, L.E.,
" Structural Performance of Masonry Walls Under Compression and Flexure", Building Science Series 73, National Bureau of Standards, 1976.
19.
Fishburn, C.: "Effect of Mortar Properties on
' Strength of Masonry." National Bureau of Standards, Monograph 36, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., November 20, 1961.
EES GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 13
20.
Gabrielsen, B.L.,
" Response of Wall Panels Subjected to Blast Loading," ASCE National Structural Engineering Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland, April 1971.
21.
- Glogua, 0.A.,
" Masonry Performance in harthquakes", Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vel-7, No. 4, December, 1974.
22.
Hamid, Drysdale, and Heidebrecht, " Shear Strength of Concrete Mason y Joints," Journal of the Structural Division - July 1979.
23.
Hatzinkolas, M., Longworth, J.,
and Wararuk, J.,
" Evaluation of lensile Bond and Shear Bond of Masonry by Means of Centrifugal Force, " Alberta Masonry Institute, Edmonton, Alberta.
24.
Hedstrom, R.O.: " Load Tests of Patterned Concrete Masonry Walls." ACI Journal, Proceedings, V. 57, p.1265; PCA Development Department Bulletin D41, April, 1961.
25.
- Hegemier, G.A., " Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete Masonry:
A Literature Survey," Report No.
AMES-NSF TR-75-5-S, University of California, San Diego, 1975.
26.
- Hegemier, G.A.,
M.E. Miller, and R.O. Nunn, "On the Influence of Flaws, Vibration Compaction, and Admixtures on the Strength and Elastic Moduli of Concrete Masonry," Report No. AMES-NSF TR-77-4, University of California, San Diego, 1977.
27.
- Hegemier, G.A., R.O. Nunn, M.E. Miller, S.K.
Arya, and G. Krishnamoorthy, "On the Behavior of Concrete Masonry under Static and Dynamic Biaxial Stress-States," Report No. AMES-NSF TR-77-3, University of California, San Diego, 1977 28.
- Hegemier, G.A.,
et al, "Ee.rthquake Response an/
Damage Prediction of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Multistory Buildings: A Major Study of Concrete Masonry Under Seismic - Type Loadings", UCSD Report, January 1978.
29.
Hidalo, et,al, " Cyclic Loading Tests of Masonry Single Piers, Volume 3, Height to Width Ratio of 0.5", University of California, Berkeley, EERC Report No. 79/12.
EES GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page M
30.
Holm, Thomas A., "Engincorod Masonry with High Strength Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units,"
Concrete Facts (Expanded Shale, Clay and Slate Institute), V.17, No. 2, 1972, pp. 9-16.
31.
- Holmes, M.,
" Steel Frames with Brickwork and Concrete Infilling," Prc eedings of the Institution of Civil Engi..sers, Vol.
19, August, 1961, pp. 473-478.
32.
Holmes, M.,
" Combined Loading on Infilled Frames," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
=
Engineers, Vol. 25, May, 1963, pp. 31-38.
33.
Kariotis, Kesler and Allys,
" Mi c) gation of Seismic Hazards in Existing Unreinforced Masonry Wall Buildings, March 1978.
34.
- Klasen, J.,
and Hale, E., "A Study of Masonry Compression Failure," MSc Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, June 1974.
35.
Klinger, R.E. and Bertero, V.V.,
" Infill Frames in Earthquake Resistant Construction," Report No.
EERC 76-32, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1976.
36.
Klinger, R.E. and V.V. Bertero, " Earthquake Resistar.cc of Infilled Frames," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, June 1978.
37.
Lamar, Simon and Fortoul, Celso, " Brick Masonry Effect in Vibrations of Frames," T/oceedings, 4th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
II, pp. A-3, 91-98.
38.
- Liauw, T.C.,
" Elastic Behavior of Infilled Frames," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 46, July, 1970, pp. 343-349.
39.
Livingston, A.R.; Mangotich, E.; and Dikkers, R.,
" Flexural Strength of Hollow Unit Concrete Masonry Walls in the Horizontal Span," Technical Report No. 62, National Concrete Masonry Association, McLean, Va.,
1958, 18 pp.
40.
Mackintosh, Albyn, " Tests of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Beams," 1956.
41.
R.J., " Discussion on the Composite Behavior of Infilled Frames," Tall Buildings, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1967, 493-494.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 0 CONCRETE MASON WALL EVALUA'4' ION Fage 15 M
42.
Mainestono, R.J., "On the Stiffness and Strengths of Infilled Framos," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Surplement (iv),
l Paper 73605, 1971.
43.
Mainestone, R.J.,
" Supplementary Note on the Stiffness and Strengths of Infilled Frames," BRS l
Current Paper CP 13/74, 1974.
44.
- Mayes, R.L., "Scismic Behavior of Masonry Piers and Seismic Single Story Houses", Advances in Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, Ca., June 1980.
45.
- Mayes, R.L.,
and R.W. Clough, "A Literature Survey - Compressive, Tensile, Bond and Shear Strength of Masonry," Report No. EERC 75-15, University of C.:lifornia, Berkeley, 1975.
46.
Mayes, R.L. and Clough, R.W.,
" State-of-the-Art in Seismic Shear Strength of Masonry - An Evaluation and Review", Report No. EERC 75-21.
Earthquake Engineering Research Cer.ter, University of California, Berkeley, 1975.
47.
- Mayes, R.L.,
Mostaghel, N.M.,
Clough, R.W. and
- Dickey, W.L., " Cyclic Tests on Masonry Piers,"
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3, September 1974.
48.
Mayes, R.L.; Clough, R.W.; et al, " Cyclic Loading Tests of Masonry Piers" 3 volumns; EERC 76/8, 78/28, 79/12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley, California.
49.
Mayes, Omate, Chen, Clough, " Expected Performance of Uniform Building Code Designed Masonry Structures", 1976.
50.
- Mallick, D.V., and Severn, R.T.,
" Dynamic Characteristics of Infilled Frames," ICE, Jan./ April 1968, Vol. 39, pp. 261-287.
51.
Mallick, D.V. and R.T. Severn, "The Behavior of Infilled Frames Under static Loading,"
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. 39, February 1968, pp. 261-287.
52.
Mayrose, Herman E., " Tests of Reinforced Concrete Block Masonry Lintels," National Concrete Masonry Association, McLean, Va.,
1954.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O CONCRETE MASON WALL EVALUATION Page 16
53.
- Mali, R., " Behavior of Masonry Walls Under Lateral Loads, " Proceedings,Fifth Floor Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, 1972.
54.
Moss, P.J. and Scrivener, J.C., " Masonry Wall Panel Tests," New Zealand Concrete Construction, Apr il, 1968.
55
- Nemark, N.M., " Current Trends in the Seismic Analysis and Design of High-Rise Structures",
Chapter 16, Earthquake Engineering, Edited by R.L. Wiegel, McGraw-Hill, 1970.
56.
Omate, et al, "A Literature Survey, Transverse Strenght of Masonry Walls", University of California, Berkeley, EERC Report No. 77-07 57.
- Polyakov, S.V., " Masonry in Framed Buildings (An Investigation Into the Strength and Stiffness of Masonry Infilling), Moscow, 1956. (English translation by Cairns, G.L., 1963).
58.
- Polyakov, S.V., "On the interaction between masonry filler walls ar.d enclosing frame when loaded in the plane of the wall."
Translations in Earthquake Enginee/ing. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Fan Francisco, 1960.
59.
Richart, Frank E.; Maorman, Robert B.; and Woodworth, Paul M.,
" Strength and Stability of
. Concrete Masonry Walls," Bulletin Nc. 251, Engineering Experiment Station, University of Illinois, 1932, 38 pp.-
60.
Ruthroff, Englekirk, and Hart, " Earthquake Design of Concrete Masonry Shear Walls", Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada, October 1979.
61.
- Saemann, J.C.,
"Inve;tigation of the Structural Properties of Reinforecd Concrete Masonry, Report No. 53 National Concrete Masonry Association, McLean, Va., 1955', 167 pp.
62.
Sahlin, Sven; Structural Masonry, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
63.
Saxer, E.
X.,
and Dikkers, Robert, " Flexural Stength of Plain and Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," National Concrete Masonry Association, McLean, Va. 1957, 18 pp.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O CONCRETE MAS NRY WALL EVALUATION Page 17
~
64.
Schnoidor, R.R., " Lateral Load Tost on Reinforced Grouted Masonry Shear Walls,"
University of Southern California Engineering Center, Report No.70-101, 1959.
65.
Schneider, R.R., " Tests on Reinforced Grouted Brick Masonry Shear Panels," California State Division of Architecture, Los Angeles, 1956.
66.
Schneider, R.R., " Summary Report of Lateral Load Tests on Reinforced Grouted Masonry Shear Walls,"
Southwest Building Contractor, Nov. 27, 1959 67.
Schneider, R.R., " Shear in Concrete Masonry Piers," California State Polytecnic College, Pomona, California, 1959.
68.
Schneider, R.R., and Dickey, W.L.,
Reinforced Masonry Design, Prentice - Hall, Inc., Englewood
- Cliffs, N.J.,
1980.
69.
Scrivener, J.C.,
" Static Racking Tests on Concrete Masonry Walls," Designing, Engineering and Constructing with Masonry Products, Edited by F.B. Johnson, May, 1969.
70.
Scrivener, J.C., " Concrete Masonry Wall Panel Tests," New Zealand Concrete Construction (Wellington), V. 10 No. 7, July 1966, pp. 119-124 71.
- Shank, J.R.,
and Foster, H.D.,
" Strength of Concrete Block Pilaster; Under Varied Eccentric Loading," Bulletin No. 60. Engineering Studies, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1931.
72.
- Stang, A.H., Parsons, D.E. and Foster, H.D.,
" Compressive and Transverse Strength of Hollow-Tile Walls," Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards, No. 311, Vol. 20, February 1926.
73.
- Smith, B.S.,
" Lateral Stiffness of Infilled Frames," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 88, No. ST6, December, 1962, pp.
183-199.
74.
- Smith, B.S.,
" Behavior of Square Infilled Frames," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. ST1, February, 1966, pp.
381-403.
j GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O CONCRETE MASON WALL EVALUATION Page 18 l
B
a 75.
Smith,' B.S., "Model Tost Results of Verticci and t
l Horizontal Loading in Infilled Frames," Journal l
of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings, Vol. 65, No. 8. August, 1968, pp. 618-623.
76.
Smith, B.S. and C. Carter, "A Method of Analysis for Infilled Frames," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 44, j
September, 1969, pp. 31-48 i
77.
Vallenas, Jose M.,
- Berero, V.V., and Popov, E.P.,
" Concrete Confined by Rectangular Hoops Subjected to Axial Loads," Report No. EERC 77-13, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1977.
78.
Va11enas, Jose M.,
"Hysteretic Behavior of R/C Structural Walls", PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley 1979.
79.
Whittemore, Stang, and Parsons " Structural Properties of Six Masonry Wall Constructions,"
Buildi.ng Materials and Structures Report No.
5.,
NBS 1938.
80.
Whittemore, Stang, and Parsons " Structural Properties of Two Buch-Concrete Block Constructions and a Concrete Block Wall Construction Sponsored by the National Concrete Masonry Association," Building Materials and Structures Report.
81.
Whittemore, Stang, and Parsons, " Structural Properties of Concrete Block Cavity Wall Construction" Building Materials and Structures Report 21, NBS 1939.
82.
Williams, D.W., " Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls," PhD Thesis, University of.
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
83.
Yokel, Felix and Fattal, S. George, "A Failure Hypothesis for Masonry Shear Walls," NBSIR 75-703, Ce'aer for Building Technology, National Bureau of ltandards, May 1975.
84.
Yohel, F.Y. and Dikkers, R.D.,
" Strength of Load Bearing Masonry Walls," Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of ASSCE, No. STS, May 1971.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O CONCRETE MASO Y WALL EVALUATION Page 19
85.
Yokol, Felix Y.; Methey, Robert G.; and Dikkers, Robert D.,
" Compressive Strength of Slender Concrete Masonry Walls," Building Science Series No. 33, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1970, 28 PP.
86.
Yokel, Mathey, and Dikkers, "Strenght of Masonry Walls under Compressive and Transverse Loads",
Building Science Series 34, National Bureau of Standards.
87.
- Yokel, F.Y., Robert, G.M.
and Robert, D.D.,
" Compressive Strength of Slender Concrete Masonry Walls," Building Science Series 33, National Bureau of Standards, December 1970 88.
1974 Masonry Codes and Specifications, Published by Masonry Industry Advancement Committee, California, 1974.
89.
Tests Prove Concrete Masonry Beams Effective",
Concrete Masonry Age, Dec. 1956.
90.
" Earthquake Response and Damage Prediction.of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Multistory Buildings:
A Literature Survey", University of California, en Diego, September 1975.
Uniform Building Code, Interna ti ona1 ' Conf erence 91.
of Building Officials, 1979.
92.
" Evaluation of Structural Properties of Masonry in Existing Buildings," National Bureau of Standards.
97.
Proceedings of the North American Masonry Donference, August 14, 15, 16, 1978; University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
94.
ACI Standard, " Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures," (ACI 531-79).
95.
Commentary on " Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures," (ACI 531-79).
96.
" Specification for the Design and Construction of Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry", NCMA, 1979.
97.
Research Data and Discussion Relating to
" Specification for the Design and Construction of Load Bearing Concrete Masonry", NCMA, 1979.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. O CONCRETE MASON WALL EVALUATION Page 26
98.
ACI Standard " Building (ACI 318-63).
Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete",
99.
"A State of the Art Review - Masonry Design Criteria", Computech, 1980.
100.
" Tentative Provisions for the Development of Celsmic Regulations for Buildings", Applied Technology Council Chapter 12 A - ATC 3-06-1978.
101.
"The Masonry Society Standard Building Code Requirements for Masonry Construction" First Draft.
102.
" Recommended Guidelines for the Reassessment of Safety Related Concrete Masonry Walls", Prepared by Owners and Engineering Firns Informal Group on Concrete Masonry Walls, October 6, 1980.
103.
NUREG - 75/087, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition, May 1980, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulartory Commission.
Section 3.8.4, "Other Seismic Category I Structures".
/
/
/
?
?
P" GENERIC CRITERIA Rev.0['
h FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page,7
/
/