ML20002A567

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Provides Addl Info Re IE Bulletin 80-11.Two Temporary Walls Removed & Another Wall in Auxiliary Bldg Will Be Removed & Replaced W/Design Utilizing Different Fire Barrier Matls. Complete Rept Will Be Filed by 810109.Bechtel Comments Encl
ML20002A567
Person / Time
Site: Calvert Cliffs  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/06/1980
From: Lundvall A
BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To: Grier B
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8011200148
Download: ML20002A567 (49)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:F T0 i i o BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY P. O. BOX 1475 BALTIM ORE". M ARYLAN D 21203 Antwun C. LUNOVALL,JR. vice Passiormt Su p*6v November 6, 1980 G l E3 ,~: M {2 u,, f- ; wm Mr. Boyce II. Grier, Director ci Region I, Office of Inspection and Enforcement . [.,% ((,8 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Q 7 gj 631 Park Avenue

n E 6i King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

$[ CD C ta $2

Subject:

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ~ Unit Nos. 1 and 2 IE Bulletin No. 80-11

Reference:

(1) BGCE' Letter dated July 3, 1980 from A. E. Lundvall, Jr. to Boyce !!. Grier (2) BGCE Letter dated September 23, 1980 from A. E. Lundvall, Jr. to Boyce II. Grier Dear Mr. Grier. Since the transmitting of reference (2) above, ino wells in the yard area have been removed because they had outlived their tempo. ary function. These were indicated in Attachment B on page B.34, Walls A and B. One additional wall has been added to the re-evaluation. It is wall A33, located on Elev. 45', six (6) feet high; function blockout. Another wall in the Auxiliary Building listed on page B.23 as wall A4, Elev. 45'-0" was identified on November 6, 1980 as not meeting the re-evaluation criteria (constructed waout vertical reinforcement) and which could have a possible impact on safety-related systems. As a corrective action, this wall is being removed and will be replaced with another design utilizing other fire barrier materials. Of the 162 walls to be re-evaluated, 42 have been completed and satisfy the criteria. Enclosed are attachment D - Re-Eva'.uation Criteria, and attachment E - Commentary to the Criteria used in this review effort. The schedule for 8011200 /T,V-I

A' ] f-l .Mr.LBoyc3 H. Grier, Director Novmbar 6, 1980 ~ Re-Evaluation of Masonry Walls, page G.1 is also attached and was revised . to coordinate with our regest for an extension. A complete report in response to item 2b will be made' on January 9, 1981. Very tru'ly yours ~ / t l /_ f % w d s.st i r. j ' A. E. L 'd,vall, Jr. f l 9 l RCE/sf-cc: J.'A. Biddison,. Esquire G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire' Messrs. E. L. Conner, Jr. - NRC J..W. Brothers - Bechtel Office af Inspe'ction C Enforcement U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission 4 Division of Reactor Construction Inspection Washington, DC. 20555 i Mr. R. E. Architzel, Resident NRC Inspector, Calvert Cliffs i i-I l l i .--= +*-*, zw q

y w. w- .we w -m-w w .w-5 o e. G ATTACHMENT D RE-EVALUATION CRITERIA i a

D.1 l 1i 11 ii $b $5 -1 E.2 l e. IE =5 gi gi g CRITERIA IOR THE RE-EVALUATION j8 OF CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS e! .8 -E .a fF n= " 3i 31 BALTIl0RE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ie eE gg CALVEKr CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT w .. = ua EU n -1 3 ?? n-Jt 21

i ug

By

5 S. Daulat 3-Civil Group Supervisor 2

13 App roved / x = Z W. Brothers 3g Project Engineer '"i j-Bechtel Peter Corporation 1 -j Gaithersburg, Maryland

5. O 3

7Ya o E8 a I ^ 4i a iE A 10/31/80 Issued for itse. rew on-in9A

  1. MdvsAdeVM No.

oAYE R EVISIONS b SY 3GDr. AP9R ORIGIN sos No. 11865-134 [# b n Ev. Jkj n SHEET 1 OF 14

D.2 LATEST LATEST LATEST LATEST LATEST LATEST LATEST SHEETJ REV. SHEET REV. SHEET REV. SHEET REV. SHEET REV. SHEET REV. SHEET REV. l l l l 1 0 I l l I l 2 o l I l l 3 0 1 i i t I 4 0 i 5 0 l l l l 6 n 7 n 8 ._0 I l l 9 0 l 1 10 0 l l l 11 0 l l l l l 3e n l l l 13 0 14 0 l l l l l l l l l l l l I I l l N l co e TAny l-l l l 1 o l l l ll l 2 o I l l 3 0 4 0 l l l 5 0 l l l I 6 0 I l l l 7 0 l l l 8 0 l l l l 9 0 l l 10 0 l l l 11 0 l l l l 12 0 l l l l l \\ l l \\ \\ l l l l l l l l l l l l l l i l l I l s I i I I I I i REVISION STATUS SHEET JOB No. 11865-134 REV. b fC 5 ':,,f 0 i DAGE 2 of 14

W -3 h .ye-ki n. >5 .i o S1 c n I6 3x tc 3 a: 5a u2 CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION Ie 0F CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS e.r j~g CONTENTS S.E I 1 1.0 GENERAL 11 3j 2.0 COVERNING CODE 5

  • _2 3.0 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS 2*

[Q 4.0 MATERIALS =. * =a gy 5.0 DESIGN ALLOWABLES f3 .t 6.0 ALTERNATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRuERIA ~ an W 3 E.* 7.0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN uI w LS n [E w.E IE I 'd E3 5* 2 I O $.Y = x$ &=

i

$E 53 i '5 a? eS i s' a3 8 4 Y O. NUM8ER 11 c A %1 u k p 3 14. n + N c w

D.4 E

{i ma2 CRITERIA POR THE RE-EVALUATION

>3 'J n0 0F CONRETE MASONRY WALLS Ii

2 1.0 General 1}5 1.1 Purpose I' g E6 This criteria is provide,i for use in re-evaluating the struc-cural adequacy of conrete masonry walls as required by NRC I&E j! l Bulleting 80-11, Masonry Wall. Design, dated May 8,1980.

i-oI 1.2 Scope 38 y% The re-evaluation shall determine whether the concrete masonry walls and/or the safety related equipment and systems associated I 1 with the walls will perform their intended fitnction under the 31 loads and load combinations prescribed herein. Verification ~ 1 of wall adequacy shall include a review of local transfer of )! load from block into wall, global response of wall, and trans-far of wall reactions into supports. Anchor bolts and embed-i s-ments for attachments to the walls are not considered to be {3 within the scope of the evaluation. nu b 2.0 Governing Code 1k The American Concrete Institute " Building Code Raquirements for Con-Ci crete Masonry Structures" (ACI 531-79) shall be used. Supplemental E5 allowables, as specified herein, shall be used for cases not directly 1 S.E covered by the governing code. m. -4 {g 3.0 Loads and Load Combinations .- 2 &D The following load definitions and load combinations are provided in EU FSAR Appendix 5-A, Section SA.3: II y{ Norual Operation

4 i

I 2 For loads to be encountered during normal plant operation (including operating fj basis earthquake loads), Class 1 structures are designed in accordance with g, e design methods of accepted standards and codes insofar as they are applicable. 'a 4 i LOCI. Seismic and Tornado Loads ))& The Class 1 structures are in general propertioned to maintain elastic behavior when subjected to various combie ttions of dead inads, thermal loads, LOCI loads, -ll seismic and tornado loads, s kb ..c 2 x1 &N v-NUMSER 11865-134 gCH,L K SHEET OF

2
  • g a ?

4 14 "m w

D.5 .23 igl' mi Rs .P j j$ 5 The final design of Class 1 structures (except the Containment Structure) satisfies the most savere of the following load combination equations. f Y D 1/d (1.25D + 1.0R + 1.25E)

j>

) Y E 1/6 (1.25D + 1.25H + 1.25E) Y D 1/4 (1.0D + 1.OR + 1.0E') 0$ { Y E 1/$ (1.0D + 1.0H + 1.0E') I e. a:~ fI The final design of the Containment Structure satisfies the following load combinations and factors (factored load cases): 5P 8 *> Y D 1/$ (1.05D + 1.5P + 1.0TA + 1.0F) ?, jj Y 3 1/g (1.05D + 1.25P + 1.0Tg + 1.25H + 1.25E + 1.0F) eE i $i Y E 1/0 (1.05D + 1.25H + 1.0R + 1.0F + 1.25E + 1.0T ) s o ~ c.s Y A 1/G (1.05D + 1.25H + 1.0F + 1.25W + 1.0T ) E o n2 r y Y A 1/$ (1.0D + 1.0P + 1.0T 25 g 1. 0H + 1.0E ' + 1.0F)

  • n Y 3

.J n 1/9 (1.0D + 1.0H + 1.0R + 1.0E' + 1.0F + 1.0T ) o w m y3 (Wind, W, is to replace earthquake, E, in the above formulae where wind 3j stresses control) 'd E (0.90 D is used where dead load subtracts from critical stress in the u-I E above equations.)

21. &

cu &8 However, limited yielding or erosion of barriers is allowable under load E] conditions including the design basis earthquake (E') and under jet or missile forces, provided the deflection is checked to ensure that the affected Class

  • 8 1 systems and equipment do not suffer loss-of-functions and the structure re-53 tains its required integrity.

8.i_5 ~~g j Y = required yield strength of the structure. s.g D = dead load of structure and equipment plus any other permanent 42 23 loads contributing stress, such as soil or hydrostatic loads. In addition, a portion of " live load" is added when such load is oT 3} expected to be present when the plant is operating. An allowance 4 is also made for future permanent loads. !I li j& >L NUMBER 11865-134 L g SHEET OF gfC 5 14 N Ow

D.6 .b } o2 e-D1 n. t 5 ES EI E* ,5 E = force and/or pressure on structure due to rupture of any one pipe. E

3 H = force on structure due to thermal expansion of restrained pipes under operating conditions.

~ Tu E = operating basis earthquake load. "5 E'= design basis earthquake load. .hj W = tornado wind load. }* P = LOCI pressure load. gE F = final prastress load. 3j T = thermal load due to the incident temperature gradient through the A 2; vall and expansion of the liner. It is based on a temperature corresponding to the factored LOCI pressure. a c 5 T = thermal load due to the normal operating temperature gradient 5 's through the walls. 1I e 3g 0 = yield capacity reduction factor as follows: 22 3,j 0.90 for reinforced concrete in flexure. E-S$ 0.85 for tension, shear, bond, and anchorage in reinforced ge concrete. eO

i (Note

For working stress design, load factors = 1.0 and 6 = 1.0.) _N ?_ b 4.0 Mate rials Un-s u>s Strengths of materials are as defined in Specification No. 6750-A-2, Q3 " Specification for Furnishing Delivery and Erection of the Building o 11 Masonry, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Uni ts 1 & 2. " ae em E2

  • 3*

5.0 Desien Allowables

=2

=83 5.1 Design allowables for load combinations 3 which contain unf actored dead, live ad operating thermal, operating basis earthquake and wind loads iE shall be as follows: 55 ili 2h 5". 8$ '2 -2n S. NUMBER 11865-114 L SHEET OF 7 h 8 6 14 w

D.7 'g)a '2 w.I s,, >E 5S ^ ~ c.t 5.1.1 Masonry e Ed 3> The allowable tension, compression, shear, bond and fj bearing stresses shall be as given in the governing code. R6

g. g 5.1.2 Coliar Joint 5l s"

A collar joint strength of zero shall be assumed in the absence of in-plant test results. Ei 2> If test results become available, allowable shear or tension Ij stresses shall be the lesser of: A 3 a) 1/2 the lovar bound ultimate stress as generally determined 1j by the mean minus 1.28 times the standard deviation _! t

2. s b) 1/3 the mean ultimate stress 2=

I5 ei 5.1.3 Core Concrete or Cell Grout ,25 y [.4 The allowable tension stresses shall be 2.5 f' c or d8 0.33 times the modulus of rupture as determined by y; test. u I. w.=; 5.1.4 Reinforcing Steel and Ties >C g{ The allowable tension and compression stresses shall au be given in the governing code. ii. U 23 5.1.5 Secondary Ef feces Design allowable stresses may be increased by 30% when considering thermal effects or displacement 84 limited loads. xa 5.S

i In-plane effects due to interstory drift may be determined 43 by analysis or in-plane strains ( d /H) shall be limited to 5.!

0.00012, where A is the relative displace =ent between the j 5T top and bottom of the wall and H is the height of the wall. I a 5 U lY 4f 2 c. r-2 ES1865-134 L SHEET OF 9o w

D.8j 3 Rf. t 'f* v.i s. >5 2o A confined wall may be limited to a strain of of 0 4G8 pro-E; vided the structural shear resisting elements bounding each S1 vertical side of the wall have a shear resisting capability 2 E,IS larger than the wall and the wall wi'dth to height ratio is at least 0.5. Il 5.1.6 Seismic and Wind Loading E .{3 A 33% increase in allowable stresses for masenry and rein-E j forcing steel due to operating basis earthquake or wind 3; loadings is not permitted.

  • /

=3j 5.2 Design allowables in this section are for the following load jp combinations: A Class 1 serucrures 1 ]j Y = 1/6 (1.25D + 1.0R + 1.25E) 3* iI Y I 1/0 (1.25D + 1.25H + 1.25'd) .t *nty Y => 1/0 (1. 0 D + 1. 0R + 1. 0E ' ) E va yy Y => 1/0 (1. 0D + 1. 0H + 1. 0E ' ) .c. 3y Containment Structure

  • 1 5j Y => 1/0 (1.05D + 1.5P + 1.0TA + 1.0F)

Y 1/0 (1.05D + 1.25P + 1.0T + 1. 25H + 1. 25E + 1. 0F) 3.E 33 Y ? IX 1/9 (1.05D + 1.25H + 1.0R + 1.0F + 1.25E

  • 1.0T )

o i4 Y3 1/0 (1.05D + 1.25H + 1.0F + 1.25W + 1.0T ) Ss g I Y E 1/d (1.0D + 1.0P + 1.0TA + 1.0H + 1.0E' = 1.0F) = jj YE 1/0 (1. 0D + 1. 0H + 1. 0 R + 1. 0E ' + 1. 0F + 1. 0T ) za o 5, S. (Note: For working stress design, load factors = 1.0 and 0 = 1.0) -i 43 yg 5.2.1 Masonry aigg The allowable masonry stresses given in Paragraph 5.1.1 Eg through 5.1.3 shall be increased as follows: I } }L l +- 2 NUMST.R 11865-134 -( 8 14 SHEET OF i s h one e a" b ~

D.9{ .sw 8- =1 m. >s $C af f STRESS INCREASE FACTOR Ef [s Compression

  • 1 axial:

2.0 Ig Flexural: 2.5 ..O %n Bearing: 2.5 g3 Shear and Bond 1.67 _E o' ~ Tension i :3 No tension rebar S$ tension normal to bed E 1 joints 1.67 %? 1 5 tension parallel to the 5! bed joints; in running bond: 1.67 es E-Collar Joint e* shear and cension: 1.67 .a >T 14 % 5.2.2 Rainforcing Steel and Ties d The allowable steel stresses shall be 90% of minimum ASTM E.e specified yield strength provided lap splice lengths and S,E embedment (anchorage) can develop this stress level. Allow-u,, j able bond stresses may be increased by a factor of 1.67 in {g deter.nining splice and anchorage lengths. 3E gg. 5.2.3 Impact and Suddenly Applied (Step Pulse) Loads a0 4s y{ Load combinations which contain loads due to missile impact, jet impingement or pipe whip may exceed the allowables pro-vided there will be no loss of function of my safety re-laced system. sc g, a; 5.2.4 Secondary Effects s3 32 in lieu of a more rigorous analysis in-plane strains due to $;g. incerstory drif t may be limitec to 1.67 times the values in 3{ paragraph 5.1.5 ES lI 3V

  • 1

.Ia >= U NUMBER 11865-134 (hCy(L SHEET OF 7 gi 9 14 v. bw

D.10 J 1*j 5.3 Damping Ig.E 5.3 1 52 The damping values to be used shall be as follows: ~3 1) For uncracked sections, use 2ll damping for OBE and SSE 5)g 2) For cracked reinforced sections, use 4% damping' for OBE and 7% damping for SSE. Igif (Higher damping may be used if justified on a case-by n *g. case basis.)

8. -

0N 5.4 Modulus of Rupture C8 IE 5.4.1 The extreme tensile fiber stress fur use in determining {$I the lower bound uncr;. Led moment capacity is 6 6 or 6E 0.8 tims the modulus of rupture as determined by test for the core concrete or cell grout and 2.4 eines the code 5j allowable flexural tensile stress for masonry. m E 5.5 Non-Category 1 Masonry Walls ye 3. 5.5.1 3 Concrete masonry walls not supporting safety systems but jC whose collapse could result in the loss of required func-tion of safety related equipment or systems shall be evalu- .j ated the same as walls that support safety systems. Alter-ad natively, the walls may be analytically checked to verify 2*g that they will not collapse when subjected to accidant, g _t tornado or safe shutdown (design basis) earthquake loads. w w g;

6. 0 Alternative Acceptance Criteria yE w

E{ 6.1 Where d. i bending due to out-of-plane loading causes flexural un stresses in the wall to exceed the design allowables given in E.C Section 5.0. 8' a. The wall =ay be evaluated as follows:

3. e 6.1.1 Energy Balance Technique A. i~.

e? The deflection of the fully cracked reinforced wall subjected to seismic loading may be determined by the " energy balance i 's technique". If the predicted displacement exceeds three 8 4 times the yield displacement, the resulting' displacement {j shall be multiplied by a factor of 2 and a determination 42 made as to whether such factored displacements would adversely j a,- I.! impact the function of safety related systems attached and/or adjacent to the wall. Y "I } In any event, the midspan displacement shall be limited to 5" $1 five times the yield displacement, and the masonry compre- .l sion stresses shall be limited to 0.85f'm based on a rectan-gular stress distribution. a. rR NUMSER 11865-134 .a E gCHp SHEET OF g 10 14 c ~v

  • m W

D.11 25 ~ Arching Action 3t 6.1.2 DE [2 The resistance of the wall to out-of-plane forces may be jo deter aned by assuming that a three-hinged arch is forrad -3 after flexural cracking. Due consideration shall be given 5I to the rigidity of the supporting elements and their ability g~ to restrict rotation of the wall about the supports. The E5 effects of a gap at the supports shall be considered. The j,I maximum allowable uniform load shall be the lesser of: .c -2 3V a) One third of the predicted load based on a maximum masonry $5 compression of 0.85f'm. C8 }" b) Two thirds of the predicted lgad based on a maximum tension E! stress of 6 Vf'm along the 45 diagonal failure plane and 3j one inch bearing width at 0.85f'm in the vicinity of the 2y hinge. The deflection at the interior hinge of the arch af te'r full I3 contact with the support shall not exceed 0.3 ':imes the thick-1I ness of the wall. 5: 2L .2. s A deter =1 nation shall be made as to whether a displacement of i ', 2 times the calculated displace =ent would adversely impact E,, j the required function of safety related systems attached and/or 3& adjacent to the wall. i4l; 7.0 Analysis and Desigr i ii

  1. 1 7.1 Structu.ral Response of !!asonry Walls 1=ug lg,;

7.1.1 Equivalent Mocent of Inertia (I,) p.E To detemine the out-of-plane freqv_ncies of masonry walls, g,g the uncracked behavior and capacities of the walls (Step 1) gg and, if applicable, the cracked behavior and capaci:les of y7 the walls (Step 2) shall be considered. ~. 3 33 Step 1 - Uncracked Condition a5 The equivalent moment of inertia of an uncracked wall (I ) aj shall be obtained from a transformed section consisting of .!= *. the block, mortar, cell grout and core concrete. Alternt-ji cively, the cell grout and core concrete, neglecting blo.:r.

3 and mortar on the tension side, may be used.

j ~ ti Si Step 2 - Cracked Con 4AtDn 5 8 E j' If the applied usua (M i due to all loads in a load com-g g ]V bination exceo ' M neracked moment capacity (Mer), the wall shall be w.:, ied to be cracked. In this event, the g@ equivalent matcnt of icirt.ia (I,) shall be computed as follows: NUMSER 11865-134 N (L 7 y SHEET OF , S.,, - 11 14 e -n

3 h 3 3 D.12 I,=[M j M I cr er gj I + 1-er g s.- 7 5 k l M M gO \\a / a ~3 e 'd Ei [It\\ ic M =f cr r a> i Fg

where, y /

IO a-M = Uncracked moment capacity 0x cr i! IR M* = Applied maximum morant on the wall '~g-I 4 a t = Moment of inertia of the transfor:ed section E$ I = Moment of inertia of the cracked section 5> cr ]'n f,

Modulus of rupture (as defined in Paragrai e 5.4.1) 3 T

5 y = Distance of neutral plane from tension face Ji! If the use of I results in an applied moment, M which l is less than Mc, then the wall shall be verified,for M 2 i{- er* 7.1.2 Modes of Vibration .E 5 "h dd i'.e effect of modes of vibration higher than the fundamental tt>de shall be considered. For this purpose, a modal analysis $.E may be performed. Alternatively, the inertia load on the S,$ wall due to its own weight for the fundamental mode may be $2 considered as a uniform load in lieu of determining an !j e f fe ctive mass. The corresponding bending moment and reac-Eg tion will account for the higher mode effects. @O 7.1.3 Frequency Variations '.. ~. j{ Uncertainties in structural frequencies of the masonry

g wall due to varistions in structural properties and mass I

f j: shall be taken into account. Significant variables include mass, boundary conditions, modulus of elasticity, extent g, 3 of cracking, vertical load, in-plane and out-of-plane loads, 's i i two-way action, and composite action of =ulti-wythe walls. E -l To account for the effect of frequency variations, it is considered conservative to ure the lower bound frequency j'"y if it is on the higher frequency side of the peak response spe ctrum. If the levar bound frequency is on the lower l[. frequency side of the peak, the peak acceleration shall a3 8s be used unless a more detailed analysis is performed. =1 -E & i 4 :.: NUMSER 11865-134 J SHEET OF R0 ~ s' 12 14 "~ dw

D.1$

  • 33s 5o et 7.1.4 Accaleration3

=.8 s. >E For a wall spanning between two floors, the effective accel- .f the accelerations as given I! erations shall be the averacc %.i by the floor response spect.:a corresponding to the wall's 'dj natural frequency. !a E ^~ 7.2 Structural Strength of Masonry Walls g^ 3p .rA 7.2.1 Boundary Conditions u6 U! Boundary conditions may be determined considering one-way a -{8 or two-way spans with hinged, fixed or free edges as appro- )e riate. Conservative assu=ptions may be used to simplify g.:E the analysis as long as due consideration is given to fre-ei quency va..icions. s 5E g *,. 7.2.2 Distribution of Concentrated Out-o f-Plane Loads m^ cT jj o Two-Way Action eE .!i Where two-way bending is present in the wall the local-gj ized moments per unit width under a concentrated load can be determined using appropriate analytical pro-

n E fj cedures for plates.

Standard solutions and tabular OE values based on elastic theory contained in textbooks yj or other publised documents can be used if applicable for the case under investigation (considering load loca-JI tion and boundary conditions). N?

== o One-Way Action u 12 w= an

g For d)minantly one-way bending, local moments can be yI determined using beam theory and an effective width of

@E six times the wall thickness. Hos;ever, such =oments a E shall not-be taken as less than that for two-way plate action. =.. ~. n a 35 7.2.3 Interstory Drift Effects

~1

{j Interstory drift effects shall be derived from thr original 2.2 dynamic analysis. 5.E iT 7.2.4 In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Effects '.,o .c 3 The combined effects of in-plane (e.g. seismic) and out-of-plane (e.g. piping) loads shall be considered. n i,- 7.2.5 Stress calculations s5 8s =1 All stress calculations shall be perforned by conventional jg methods prescribed by the Working Stress Design or other NUMSER 11865 734 SHEET OF c .ggC c: 13 14 i ? 6w

D.14' .8[ iI-cceept d princip100 of cuginscring mechanien. Tha collcr EN ' joint shear stress shall be determined by the relationship f5 VQ/Ib for uncracked sections and in the compression zone j2 of cracked sections. The relationship "" jd shall be used n: for collar joints in cracked sections '3etween the neutral n} axis and the tension steel.

6 n

E 7.2.6 Analytical Techniques W "> 5j f, In general, classical design techniques shall be used in b the evaluation. Simplified analytical assumptions may be

aj used. However, more refined methods utilizing computer y

..: g analyses or dynamic analyses may be used on a case-by-case i basis. ' u 55 u E I 11 3rE 5aE 2*3 . n E3 .s M? N2 JI Y

.

uE w.: me %5 >.E tE SU B. O me S

== U4 -= S, E ai i2 55. I. g" c3 8= '? -2 g NUM8EA r 11865-134 { Nf SHEET OF I2 ,,/ 14 14 N 6 w

9 h ATTAGIENT E C010ENTARY ON RE-EVALUATION CRITERIA i

2.8 1j'. =g3: -3 se 2c D**D "D 3\\ yy . J,k a .co o -25" En m 5 a = u> 5.; 3 e e '8 85

== o-8 CC"#ENTARY ON CRITERIA FOR THE RE-EVALUATION E OF CONCRETE MAS]No.? WA :.5 E E 1, j CONTENTS 7.Tl! _a

i. 3 1.0 GENERAL

= E ;", e -E 2.0 GOVERNING CODE 2 R?

E 4 3.0 LOADS ANO LOAD CM31 NATIONS

_J V =, 4.0 MATERIALS

t. x

-= M3 5.0 DESIGN ALLOWABLES en _s 6.0 ALTERNATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

E

$3 7.0 ANALYSIS & OESIGN a. j,i REFERENCES n

  • 3 58 2

4 03 e2 5 .b.

=

mE S.S, ? ?, Ih !w E m. 3U 4j 2s i NUMBER 11865-134 1 L SHEET 1 OF 12 b

E.2 ' I l -l lj f $ oQMm D oc d g sc C0K*.ENTARY ON CR!ifa'A FOR THE RE-EVALUATION j -l OF CCC r%53NRY WALLS i .x 5a e5 EI ll e2:n

3. e 1.0 GENERAL

.= $8 1.1 Puroese 3E oa 5 On May 8,1933, the NRC issued !&E Bulletin 80-11 entitled, 8gf " Masonry Wall Design", to certain Owners of operating reactor 1! E facilities. One of the tasks required by the bulletin was to eE 3i establish appropriate re-evaluation criteria. A detailed justi-s. j3 fication of the criteria along with quantified safety margins $.)- are also to be provided by the Owner. This com.entary serves ,', f as justification of the criteria used and provides a discussion ew [g of the margins of safety. $~5 !: e 9j 1.2 Sccce b5 (( The concrete masonry walls are evaluated for all applicable [j loads anc load combinations. Calculated wall stresses are 33 first com. pared against an allowable stress criteria. In .= o3 general, wall stresses are maintained within the elastic lj range of the load carrying components. If allowable stresses u ~ x =} are exceeded, then wall stability is checked using ultimate 51 1E strength or inelastic design approaches and safety systems on .ag3 or near the wall are evaluated to determine if the displace- ]?{ ments might adversely affect the intended function of safety 58 related piping and equipment. 53 4i .e - if$ 11865-134 SHEET OF a.- ~

J3g \\ g-m.5 1 s i , >3 S2 -3 Anchor bolts, embeds and bearing plates provided for support ',ji of systems attached to the walls are the subject of another NRC bulletin and are not considered to be within the scope of E 5 ^$ this evaluation.

  • R

=e u* "~ e!c .= o Ie 2.0 'Governinn Code (5 mi The governing code is ACI 531-79. This code does not address the Sy abnormal loads typically applied to nuclear power plant design. g ', Therefore, supplemental allowables and alternative design techniques ]' are specified in the criteria for cases not directly covered by the code. 3'E _a

  • a

_3 2 .n E-2E ua jj 3.0 Loads and Load Combinations .iY The loads identified and defined in the SAR for safety related struc-tures form the basis for licensing of the plant and are used in the Gj evaluation of the =asonry walls. The load combinations listed in 0-the SAR for safety related concrete structures are used. N 2 E t E. &U

5. E

-m En= CB 4.0 Materials ?$ j Material strengths are largely determined by review of project )i[. necessary, in some cases, to perform in-sira tests or to test specifications, drawings and field documentation. It may ale,: be 4y samples taken from 28 I. 3 E EU E m' 3* E$ -2 1 >- t NUMBER 11865-134 (L SHEET OF 7 S I S 3 12 c w

-3h ae jj the as-built structure to supplement data obtainsd from project docu- [j ments. E2

5 l!

5.0 DESIGN ALLOWABLEf Ei I5Q 5.1 Allowables in this section apply to loads and combinations of g$ leads which are nomally encountered during plant operation or yj shutdown, and include dead loads, live loads, normal operating i$ thermal effects, and pipe reactions. In addition, this section s= "E covers allowables for loads infrequently encountered, such O2 j=$ as operating basis earthquake and wind loads. The loads in g *, the various load combinations have no increase factors and .] h stresses are maintained well within the elastic range.

3. :

3! g In general, the governing code allowables are applied. It: wever, jj for cases not covered by the code, such as collar joint shear 3j and tension, and grout tension, allowables are based on a jj factor of safety of 3 against failure. M aaE' The strength of mortared or grouted collar joints, 3 inches or -y* less in thickness, is highly dependent on the degree of consc1i- ]j dation of the mortar or grout, the moisture content of the mix [} and the block, and the construction workr.anship. Therefore, C u 5.5 tension and shear strengths are established by tests perfomed en js on the as-built structure. The statistical determination of lj. ultimate strength is consistent with methods used to verify f'c jj in ACI-318 and reflects a probability of less than 1 in 10 that {g a random individual strength test will be below the ultimate j ], strength. E5 E s. The 30% stress increase for load combinations containing nonnal ff-operating themal effects or displacement limited loads has been typically accepted in the industry for reinforced concrete and di NUMBER 11865-134 g (L SHEET OF , $ (,,, 4 12 ~ fN

37 ..Il

j. '.1 is considered reasonable for masonry.

The factor of safety ^ j3 against failure of the~ masonry reduces from 3.0 to 2.3, still jf well within the elastic range.

-*]

In-plane strain allowables for interstory drift effects for non-lj shear walls were established well below the level of strain h required to initiate significant cracking. The allowable 5.s' strain for a confined wall was based on the equivalent compres-h! sion strut model discussed in Reference 1 and modified by a .c =* c8 factor of safety of 3.0 against crushing. Test data (References Rcj'j 1 through 7) was reviewed to detemine cracking strains for { confined masonry walls subjected to in-plane displacements ,a g *,, and confirms the predicted strain as given by the equivalent ,]' s strut model. 1l1 .9a ii 5.2 This section deals -with factored leads and other abnomal loads }} which are credible but highly improbable such as the safe shut-

  • i dowr. earthquake, tornado loads and loads generated by a postu-Z q{=

lated high-energy pipe break accident. $ ~$ -3j Code allowable stresses for masonry in tension, shear and bond }j are increased by a factor of 1.67. In general, this provides 5 ? a fac :r of safety against failure of 1. 8 (3 + 1. 67 ). Masonry h.h com;:ression stresses are increased by factors ranging from c. Jj 2.0 to 2.5 with a minimum safety factor of 1.2 (3 + 2.5). .= 4a Ij Reinforcing steel is allowed to approach 0.9 tir.as the yield hf strength which is typical for reinforcing steel which is re-N- quired to resist factored and abnomal loads. 58 53

?l Stresses due to the local effects of abnormal dynamic loads, a 5.

38 such as missile impact, jet impingement or pipe whip, may !I exceed the allowables. Howyer, safety systems attached or b:ba. wc NUMBER 11865-134 y } SHEET OF A 5 19 n 3 p r -g.- y, s.-. +-

.E.@ - 2 l.,

5 g.

$b 'i. >s E2 .55 j.ii adjacent to the wall are evaluated to determine if severe .aj4 cracking, local spalling, or excessive deflections will [j t result in loss of required function of the system or equipment. E Where gross failure of a masonry wall must be precluded, the 3l provisions of ACI 349-76, Appendix C, or applicable theoretical ,4 j{ techniques or experimental evidence is used to evaluate wall j j acceptability.

  • i 3 1 5.3 Damping for unreinforced uncracked walls was conservatively

] set at 2% for OBE and SSE corresponding te stress levels ~ g! ranging f om approximately 0.3 to 0.6 of ultimate. 51 u= s3 Camping for reinforced walls which are expected to crack due ..ey to out-of-plane seismic iaertia are conservatively set at 4%

E5 for OBE and 71 for SSE.

These values are typically recognized jj as being realistic for reinforced concrete, yet conservative 55 for reinforced masonry. Ei ?2 $.s 5.4 The modulus of rupture of concrete, grout and mortar was ff assumed to vary by 20%, therefore, 3 lower bound modulus of M rupture is deter rined by applying a reduction factor of 0.8 sagj to the theoretical concrete modulus of rupture of 7.5f f'c jg' or to the modulus of rupture determined by testing samples jj taken from the as-built structure. For masonry, the modulus }j. of rupture is approximated by increasing the code allowable jj flexural tensile stress by the factor of safety of 3 and then $? applying the 20% reduction to arrive at a lower bound value. f.. f (0.8 % 3 Ft = 2.4 Ft, whers Ft is the code allowable tensile []. stress.) Ei: &e NUMBER 11865-134 SHEET OF 3 y' 6 12 R

_.3 s D**D

  • 0 T

h 3$. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA oo oJ 1AWo gj sc {;; Masonry walls (a) that are not relied upon to provide strength of n toe structure as a whole, and (b) that are subjected to out-of-plane i l! g2 seismic inertia loading causing flexural stresses in excess of j design allowables may be evaluated by means of the " energy balance =5 technique" for reinforced walls. Reinforced masonry walls evaluated = Qu by the " energy balance technique" (Reference 8 and 9) must have jj sufficient capability to preclude brittle failure and allow cela-jj tively large ductile flexural deformations. Tests (Reference 13) jj indicate that when flexure is the dcminant action, ductilities are EE in excess of 25. Other tests (Reference 14) show that even when e~I compression failures occur, auctilities in excess of 5 can be 4) achieved. When reinforced masonry has adequate shear and compres-C fk sion capability, its behavior is expected to parallel that of ?! reinforced concrete where allowable ductilities for predominately n. Ej non-structural elements are conservatively set at 10. It is reason-y able that for out-of-plane seismic loading on non-shear walls con- -#e; structed of masonry where brittle failures are precluded that a .-dj pemissable ductilig of 5 is acceptable as long as the safety -5j systems are not jeopardized. Eif o pE Masonry walls confined within a rigid frame or structure can develop h[ substantf al resistance to out-of-plane loat.:ngs after flexural crack-y ing and may be evaluated by use of the theory of arching (Reference 10

  • {

through 12). Particular attention is given to the rigidity of the wall !T boundary and to the effect of a gap between the wall and its support. !! 4 Operability of safety related equipment and systems as affected by j excessive deflections of the masonry walls is of primary importance 7i in this alternative criteria. Therefore, due to the uncertainties 3I involved in calculating the displacements, a factor of 2 is applied !f to the calculated deflections and systen operability is evaluated O 5 ]E 5 accordingly. NUMF,E R 11865-134 R [ gfil SHEET OF 7 12 3 .s., 2 6 i

~ g 7.0 AMLYSIS AC DESIG': g3

  • -2

.jj 7.1 The struct. al response of the masonry walls subjected to out-gj of-plane seismic inertia loads is based on a constant value of -j gross moment of inertia along the span of the wall for the ji elas:ic (uneracked) condition. If the wall is cracked, a better ?f estimate of the moment of inertia is obtained by use of the [.D A01-313 formula for effective moment of inertia used in calcu-

  • i lating imediate deflections. (Reference 15)

,o t $5 jj The effects of higher modes of vibration and variations in fre-5!? quencies are considered on a case-by-case basis. The use of C JE the average acceleration of the floors supporting the wall is e 0.s considered sufficiently accurate for the purpose of this.tvulu, eE gg ation. $0 ~l 7.2 .The determination of the out-of-plane structural strength of E [j masonry walls is highly sensitive to the boundary conditions e 4* assumed for the analysis. Fixed end conditions are justified d3 for walls (a) built into thicker walls or continuous across -5j wa Is and slabs, (b) that have the strength to resist the fj fixed end moment, and (c) that have sufficient support rigidity y_E to prevent rotation. Ov 5erwise, the wall edge is simply sus-h$ ported or free depending on the shear carrying capability of $3 the wall and supp:rt. ~,. 5 aa $i Distribution of concentrated loads are affected by the bear-3$ ing area under the load, horizontal and vertical wall stiff-if-ness, boundary conditions and proximity of load to wall sup-ij ports. Anatytical procedures applied to plates based on s;y elastic theory are used to detemine the appropriate distribu-3$ tion of concentrated loads. A conservative estimate of the ~Y localized moment per unit length for plates supported on all b$ x-5$ i

  • "11865-134 SHEET OF g

c. s

E.9 edges can b2 taken as: - y;i 5 2x ja ( = 0.4p r= s2 ,% j where: ( = Localized moment per unit length (in-lbs/in) Ei P = Concentrated load perpendicular to wall (lbs) &' E ,}l For loads close to an unsupported edge, the upper limit moment ]! per unit length can be taken as: 3j 5[ Mt = 1.2P 5> l 's 4s For predominately one-way action, an effective beam width of 2E 3i 6 times the wall thickness for distribution of concentrated i! loads is conservative for the following conditions: "E [ eE

    • ?

a) Concentrated load at midspan; simple "l.. C supports: L >9.6T JV

  • ?

5i b) Concentrated load at midspan; fixed

==

  • 2..

supports: L >19.2T o E c) Concentrated load on a cantilever: h r2.4T

5. ?

O u E: 2j d) Couple at midspan; simple supports: a >4.8T .= j e) Couple near a support; simple supports: a 72.4T of .** 4 N-where: L is the beam length j! h is the distance from the fixed end to the point 13. of load application 3 E8 a is the distance between the concentrated loads ff producing a couple 031 T is the thickness of the wall d$ NUMBER 11865-134 5 ' gpff(1, SHEET OF g 12 c .a n"

eaar 3h .j 2 E3 Interstory drift values are derived fre th3 original dynamic -s s ,M ; analysis. Strain a!Iowables dependint an the degree of con-finement are applied for in-plane jrift effects on non-shear e3 ji walls and are set at sufficiently conservative levels for in- . j~[ plane effects alone that a reasonable margin remains for out-j Il of-plane loads. Out-of-plane drift effects are considered if ..[9 some degree of fixity exists at the top and/or bottom of the u=*3 wall. 't U ?4 *j (Note: A description of the computer pregram used for masonry '-all re-evaluation follows this commentary.) 8~ ,= 5? ? =E c _33a 20= .n E% n2 ~

E

?m?~ JE

  • ?

C'E w= m.5 o >.E AE iu &2 n5, . = 04 blf E1 =- .-m 42 23 ?. ?. a eS Ii "3 a ei NUMBER 11865-134 ff9pp 8(gpTI{ SHEET OF 10 12 l 3

/

l N 6 \\ l l

RETERENCES ,3l %2 e-E3 ma >= 52 1. Klingner, R. E. and Bertero V. V., "Infillec' i rames in Earthquake il Resistant Construction," Report No. EERC 76-32. Earthquake Engineer-5f ing Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, December, EMI 1976. i 5 !6 ".3 2. Meli, R and Sa~ gado, G., "Ccm,7ortamiento de muros de mamposteria su- ${ jetos a cargas l'aterales," (Behavior of Masonry Wall Under Lateral Loads. Second Report.) Instituto de Ingenieria UNAM, Informe No. S5 237 September,1959. ,sE 5'>

7. $

3. Meli, R., Zeevart, W. and Esteva, L, "Comportamiento de muros de } j-mamposteria bueca ante cargas alternades," (Behavior of Reinforced {jh Masonry Under Alternating Loads). Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM, j Informe No.156, July,1968. E-ri 4. Chen, S. J., Hi dal go, P. A., Mayes, R. L., Cl ough, R. W., RNi ven, H. D., a.[t ' Cyclic Leading Tests of Masonry Single Piers, Volune 2 - Height to aa y] Width Ratio of 1," Report No. EERC 78-28. Earthquake Engineering Re-Sj Search Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, November,1978. l$ >s E a. 5. Mainstone, R. J., "On The Stiffnesses and Strengths of Infilled Frames," a ij Proc. I.C.E., 1971. 51 ., = 33 Hidalgo, P. A., Mayes, R. L., McNiven, H.D., Cl ough, R. W., " Cyclic

,j, 6.

l y Loading Tests of Masonry Single Piers, Volune 1 - Height to Width -j Ratio of 2,* Report No. EERC 78/27. Earthquake Engineering Research j j' Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,1978. 2.1 I 7. H algo, P. A., Mayes, R. L., RNiven H. D., Cl ough, R. W., " Cyclic j [". Loading Tests of Masonry Single Piers, Volune 3 - Height to Width jy Ratio of 0.5,* Report No. EERC 79/12. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1979. 4 i: :: 11865-134 [ 11 12 a ~e m" O' w ^

' j li l sl: 8. Bl.une, J. A., N. M, Necars and L. H. Corning, ' Design of Multistory a3 E. Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Motions

  • Portland Cement s i Association, IL.

1961. ME2 ~e .c n .ii 1. Necark, M. M., " Current Trends in the Seismic Analysis and Design of {i f, High-Rise Structures," Chapter 16. Earthauake Engineering, Edited by 5'$ R. L. Wiegel, McGraw-Hill,1970. 35 S' E 10. Gabrielson, B. L. and K. Kaplan, " Arching in Masonry Walls Subjected ,lf to Out-of-Plane Forces," Earthquake Resistance of Masonry Construc- ,lj tion, National Workshop. NBS 106, 1976. pp. 283-313. EE c* 11. McDowell, E. L., K. E. M:Kee, and E. Savin, " Arching Action Theory 1.s

]

of Masonry Walls," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE Vol. 82, f[ No. ST2, March,1956, Paper No. 915. $'= 12. McKee, K. E. and E. Savin, " Design of Masonry Walls for Blast Load- {dj [E ing," Journal. of the Structural Division,'ASCE Transactions, Proceed-

E[

ing Paper 1511, January 1958. JV %? aj 13. Scrivener, J. C., " Reinforced Masonry-Seismic Beh.<f our and Design," $j Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5 C

  • yE No. 4, December 1972.

cI &3 E ", 14. Scrivener, J. C., " Face Load Tests on Reinforced Hollow-brick Non-g= g{ loadbearing Walls," New Zealand Engineering, July 15, 1969. Ei

  1. j-15.

Branson, D. E., " Instantaneous and Time-Dependent Deflections on }f. Simple and Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams," HPR Report No. 7, ij Part 1. Al abama Highway Depart;nent, Bureau of Public Roads, August .c _ jy 1965, pp. 1 78. m 'Q N NI 88 \\ ay NUMBER 11865-134 5 ' gf( SHEET OF SI 12 12 y -

E.13 COMPUTi.R RE-EVALUATION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE MASONRY WALLS PROGRAM: "BLQCK WALL" l

E.14 4 1 TABLE OF C0!:TE::TS 1. Introduction 1.l' Determination of Section State (Cracked vs. Uncracked) 1.2 Seismic Analysis 1.3 Stress and Deflection Calculations 1.4 Governing Codes 2. Anal'ytical Procedure 2.1 Block Wall Stress Calculation 2.2 Eigenvalue Solution and Response Calculation 3. Computer Progran 3.1 Flow Chart of the " Block Wall" Progran 3.2 Hand Calculation for _ Computer Verification i 3.3 Computer calculation 1 3.4 Comparison Between Hand Cilculation and Computer Calculation I W -r

1. INTRODUCTION A fortran computer code " Block Walls" has been1 developed to analyze block walls for axial load and flexural effects due to external and/or seismic loading. The block wall 11s analyzed as a simplified three degree of freedom beam model. The modal analysis technique is used in conjunction with the response sp'ectrum method to obtain the seismic response of the wall model. An iterative method is used to determine the actual stress and section properties (effective moment of inertia) of a vall section. Ccnvergence criteria is established to verify that the assumed section condition results in the same inertial loading for two soccessive iterations. The working stress method for concrete analysis is used for stress calculations. Finally, the calculated stresses are checked against the established allowables. 1.1 Determination of Section State (Cracked vs.'Uncracked) Iteration Procedure 1. For the first iteration, the wall is assumed uncracked. 2. As a result of Step 1, and based on the calculated inertial forces, the section is checked for cracking. 3. If cracked conditions exist, an ef fective moment of inertia is determined using the following ACI Formula: M ;) 3 jMer } 3 c I,_= I+ 1 i

I er

\\M 'M a j \\ a u II t Mr" fr e 1 (y

where, Mr = Uncracked moment capacity.

e M = Applied maximum moment on the wall. a I = Moment of inertia of transformed uncracked section. t I = Moment of inertia of the cracked section. er f = Nodulus of rupure. r y = Distance of neutral plane from tension face. 4 A new iteration is initiated to reco=pute the frequencies, mode shapes and modal participation factors. 5. The procedura is repeated until convergence is achieved. 1.2 Seismic Analysis The wall is represented by a three degree of freedom simplified beam model. A response spectrum analysis is performed yielding the inertial leading to be j imposed on the system. i

E.16 Four types of end conditions are allowed for the beam model used to perform the analysis as shown schematically below: Mass Point

  • M M

M 1 2 _3 l g l sisi L/4 _.L/4 ,. L/4 , L/4 j. M' M M 2 3 g n f <,risisi, M M M g ,1 ,2 ,3 j 4 M M M 3 g 2 3 .L/3._,.j,,_.,,L/3 y ,, LL3 g 1.3 Stress and Deflection Calculations The stress calculations are perfor=ed for the final configration of the section using working stress methods. Based on inertial loads, applied external loads, and the computed section stif fness, the beam =odel deflection is determined. 1.4 Governine Codes 1. ACI 531-79 and com=entary. i 2. Uniform Building Code, 1970 edition. 3. Other codes as specified. 2. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE 2.1 Block Wall Stress Cal'eulation The governing equations for block wall stress calculations are developed using a working stress approach. - ~ 'fective' Witch ~ E#fective Width ,_ ASP DP Ef = f. _ L. \\ A T ~] f A ~ N. .s es e s YICR e -e + -AS I Cracked Section Uncracked Section I pg

Lf.15 The section properties are calculated based on a traeJformed section with the block material as a base. Using the standard c:ncrete analysis equilibriun concept namely: FORCES =0 or Tension = Compression Section Internal Moment Moment =M = The following equations for stress calculation for bending are obtained: Jase A : Uncracked section fMB = (M/IUCR) x YCC f ST = NS:t x (!!/Il*CR) x (YTU-DS) f SC = NSM x (M/IUCR) x (YCU-DP) Case B: Cracked section fMB = M/[0.5xACx(0.67xYCCR+YTCR-DS)+(YCCR-DP)xASPx:;S!:x(D-DP)/YCC?,i fST = 0.5xFM3xAC/AS+FMBx(YCCR-DP)xASPx';5"/(YCCRxAS) f SC = NSMxFMBx(YCCR-DP)/YCCR Note

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

(fttA/FMA) + (fMs/FMs) $1.0

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

Definition of variables used in the above equations: M = Bending moment FMS = Allevable masonry conprestive stress due to bending FMA = Allowable masonry compressive stress due to axial for e fMS = Masonry compressive stress due to bending fMA = Masonry compressive stress due to axial force ICCR = Uncracked moment of inertia ICR = Cricked moment of inertia YCU = Distance to extreme fiber in compression (uncracked) YTU = Distance to extreme fiber in tension (uneracked) YCCR = Distance to extreme fiber in compression (cracked) YTCR = Distance to extreme fiber in tension (cracked) AC = Transformed compressive area of section NS:t = Modurar ratio for steel 2.2 Eigen Value Solution and Desponse Calculation The following two cutrices are determined based upon boundary conditions and structural properties. (F] Flexibility matrix = (\\M\\] Mass Matrix =

1) Calculate transformtion matrix N!*N] = (\\'i\\~1/2]

_A

E.18~

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

[k] = [F~I]

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

IEl = Nt%] (k] Nt%]T

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

(E] (0 ) + w2t(9),a i 1

5) Calcu' ate eigenvalues using Sturm sequence on the tridiagonal matrix.
6) Calculate eigenvectors using Wilkinson's method on the tridiagonal matrix.

7) (W ) are the eigenvalues, for the untransfomed stif fness = atrix [kl. i Calculate the frequencies: 1 - W /2 F f i Eigenvectors {0 } must be transformed into the vectors { 3 } of the 8) i 1 untransformed matrix: {5)- NtN lQl t t 9) Compute modal participation factors: n =1 ij i

10) The modal values of the inertia forces lP}*. at the dynamic degrees of freedom for the ich mode are given by:

lPli=(R) (ai) M {ht} i ch = Participat on f actor for the i mode R i g = Acceleration-for the ich mode a 1 {fg}=F.odeShapefortheich mode

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

r0&20 d0 . d$m

E.19 3.0 COMPUTER P)%xAM 3.1 Flow Chart of the " Block Wall" Program Start Read Problem Title Define Initial Conditions of Section No External Load Type 0 External Load Applied Type 1 If KType EQ. 0 YES 102 Read Axial Load P Read Shear Force V Read Bending Moment M Read Section Properties: 102 Read Material Properties: Read Properties for Stress Calculations If Seismic Consideration is Not Required YES 103 Input Floor Response Spectrum as a 2 D Array FRS (1, J) Frequency versus Acceleration

103 ' Input Soundse" Conditions for Simplified.ieam Element ~ 1) Calculate the first three Frequencies of the beam model 500 11) Extract the "G" values iii) Use S'.SS to compute final iner.1, loads. Determine Total Bending Compare with monent from previous step. Is convergence sat'sfied? YES 600 Calculate Stresses Go to 500, next iteration. Maximum number of iterations = 10 600 Calculate masonry compression stress, tensile steel stress, compression steel stress. Print Stress'es. Compare with allowables. Flag overstressing. Stop l

..3.2 Hand Calculation for Computer '.* 2 ri fica t i on Assume two core masonry units, 44% solid by volume with running bond. Nominal thickness is 12 inches, with two number 5 vertical reinforcing bars at 16 inches spacing. E.*a c t dimensions are: 11 5/8" x 7 5/8" x 15 5/8", t, = 1.25," tw = 1.12" A. Uncracked section properties Transform all materials to block material: ni- "2 *, grout E 1.4x1M steel E, 29x10' e = ~" 6 6 block E, 1x10 block E 1.0x10 3 Tensile steel area As = 0.31 sq. inches Tension steel cover D's = 3.375 inches Thickness of the wall H = 11.625 inches Effactive width of beam befg = 15.625 inches 15.625 l k l l 1 s k* p d } ) i e t 1 O 4 i t a { l 3

  • e P

3.36 8.59 = ~ 15.625 l Assu=ed Section Transformed Sectic-Uncracked moment of Inertia - I = 1096.2 in' t

B. Cracked section properties 15.625" l 1 I a O NA I .I 11.95 _j 326.7 in' Cracked moment of inertia = I = er C. Calculation of Effective Area (Axial & Shear) Reference ACI 5}1-79 Code AAXIAL = 2(1.12 + 6.1325 + 1.12) 1.25 + (9.125x1.12)3 + (6.1325x9.125)x1.4 + 2 x (6.1325 + 1.12) = 144.4 in2 D. Calculation of Shear Area Reference ACI 531-79 Code ASHEAR = (11.625 - 3.875) 1.12x3 + 2x (6.1325+1.12) + 1.4 (11.625 - 3.875 - 1.25) 6.1325 = 26.04 + 15.33 + 55.8 = 97.1 in2 b eff i g -s l. ? ' *j. m s s s* n N{ 6.1325 : ~ _ - Note: The above calcula..ons are for uniform inertia loadings.

e. E. Dynaalc Inertia Leading For a 12 inch wall grouted at 16 inches on center, the average weight of a completed wall is 111 lb/ft2 wt/ unit length = 111x16 - 12.3 lb/in 144 II 1 EIz II 1.6x10 x1096.2x386.4 6 2(L) ' Ay " 2(240) 12.3 5.98 cps = Acceleration = 0.28g Inertia loading intensity Wi = Acceleration x wt/ unit length = 0.28x12.3 Seismic moment = (0.28x12.3) (20)2(12)2, 24.79 in-kips 8 F. Determine the maximum bending stress Tension = 29 x 26. 79x ( 5. 5383-2. 625) = 1.9 ksi 1096.22 Compression = (24.79x 4.8397) = 0.109 ksi 1096.22 4 s 1 i ~ l O

l 3.3 Computer Calculation seee3 LOCK WALLS PROGRAMees seee00ESTIONS SNQULD DE A3 DRESSED TOeses sees E. AXXOUIN SPD I 3194 esse

        • 5. CLOSE SPD X 319e esse sees T. JOSEPN SPD I 3192 esse esse VERSION 3 08/08/10 eeseessessesseessessee e

e

  • UNITS IIPS INCHES e e

e .eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees INPUT PR03LEM TITLE (UP TO 10 CHARACTERS) >EIAMPLE DEFINE INITIAL CONDITION OF SECTION, IF NO EITERNAL LOAD APPLIED TYPE 0 IF EITERNAL LOAD IS APPLIED TYPE 1 >0 INPUT SECTIONS RAOPERTIES AS,AfP,35,3P H,L,3EFF,HE!8HT IN. ).31,0.,2.42,0.,12., 240.,15.4,240. INPUT !UCR,1CR,7CU,TTU,7CCR,TTCR,AAXIAL,A$NEAR,AC VMERE: IUCReUNCRACKE3 INERTIA ICR= CRACKED INERT!A TCUs3!57. TO EXTREME FIDER IN COMP.(UNCAACKED) TTUst!BT. TO EXTREME FIDER IN TEMS!ON(UNCRACKED) TCCR=3157. TO EXTREME FIDER IN CORP.(CRACKED) TTCRel!ST. TO EXTREME FIDER IN TENSION (CAACKED) AAI!AL* EFFECTIVE AXIAL AREA ASHEAR= EFFECTIVE SHEAR AREA AC= TRANSFORMED COMPRES$1VE AREA 0F SECTION >1094.22,324.74,4.84,$.535,2.528,7.844,144.4,17.2,34.8 INPUT 700NG MODULUS AVERAGE WT. PER UNIT LENGTH AND MODULAR RATICS >1400.,0.0123,29.,1.4

cmx ~ INPUT COMP.81iENGTH OF NA50NRY CORP. STRENGTH OF 9t0UT AND T! ELD STRENSTN OF REINFORCING STEEL >t.,1.8,40. BEFAULT ALLOVAILE STRESSES ARE ACI 531-7t** IF ACCEPTABLE TTfE 0 IF UNACCEPTABLE TTPE 1 >0 CHECX IF SE!SMIC LOADING IS TO BE CONSIDERED IF OBE SEISMIC CONSIDERATION IS REGUIRED TYPE I IF $$E SEISMIC CONSIDERATION IS REQUIRED TYPE 2 IF SE!$MIC CONSIDERATION !$ NOT REQUIRED TYPE o >2 INPUT FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRUM SPECTRUM INPUT IS A 2-D ARRAY DEFINING FREQUENCT INCPS VS ACCELERATICM IN 6 TTPE eNo 4 UMBER OF POINT USED TO DESCR!)E THE CURVE ? >9 INPUT f SET OF FREQUENCY VS ACCELERATIONS ENTRIES EACH ON A NEW LINE ).2,.12 >l.2,.34 >2.,2.45 >2.4,2.45 >2.8. 75 >3.5,.75 >5.99,.28 >4.,.28 >1000.. 28 INPUT ADDITIONAL VE!6 HTS AT MASS PTS. 1,2,3 >0.,0.,0. l SOUNCART CONDITIONS ASSUMED FOR f!MPLITIED 3EAM MODEL l 8.8 30TN INES TTPE 1 l 8.$ ONE END FIIED THE OTHER TTPE 2 BOTN ENDS FIIED TTPE 3 81MPLE CANTILEVER TYPE 4 >1

M.h eseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.......eeeeeees.....eeeeeeeee. esse DATA FROM INTERNAL STORAGEeese eess3 LOCK UALLS PROGRAnese seseGUESTIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED T0 eses sees E. AKXOUSH SPD I 3196 eene sees S. CLOSE SPD I 3196 ese* see T. JOSEPH 6PD I 3172 esse sees VERSION 3 08/08/80 essesseessessessessees e e e UNITS K!PS INCHES e e e eseesseesseessesse.... esse PROB. TITLE: EIAMPLE esse se*e SECTION PROPERTIES see. AS= .31 ASP = .00 BSe 2.42 DPs .00 N= 10.4 L=240.0 3= 15.4 3= 7.8 l ess!NPUT FOR STRESS CALCULAT!0 Mees !UCR=UNCRACKE3 INERTIA = 1994.22 ICR= CRACKED INERTIA = 324.74 TCU=DIST. TO EITREME FIBER IN COMP.(UNCRACKED)= 4.840 YTUeDIST. TO EITREME Fi3ER IN TENSIOM(UNCRACXED)= 5.535 TCCR=8IST. TO EITREME FIRER IN COMP.(CRACKED)= 2.528 TTCRsDIST. TO EITREME FIDER IN TENSION (CRACKED)= 7.846 AAI!AleEFFECTIVE AXIAL AREA = 144.40 ASHEAR= EFFECTIVE SHEAR AREA = 97.20 AC= TRANSFORMED COMPRESSIVE AREA 0F SECTION= 34.80

E.27A i seee NATERIAL PROPERTIES sees 70UNE NODULUS= 1400.00 AVERAGE WT. PER UNIT LINSTHs.41230000 NODULAR RATIOSs 29.0 1.4 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF NASONRTs 1.0 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF EROUT= 1.8 TIELD OF REINFORCING STEEL = 40.0

    • SSE SEISMIC CONSIDERATION FOR THIS PR03LEn se FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRUM DEFINITION F

6 .20 .12 1.20 .36 2.00 2.45 2.60 2.45 2.80 .75 3.50 .75 5.?? .28 6.00 .28 1000.00 .28 40DITIONAL WEIGHTS AT MASS PTS. ARE: ADDU1= .000 ADDW2s .000 ADDW3= .000 seBEAM MODEL IS S.5 AT SOTH END$se l ese FRE9ENCIES ARE *** 5.fGi 23.790 50.511 eseMODAL PARTICIPATION FACTORS AREsse .07 .00 .01 ese ACCELERATIONS ARE see .200 .280 .280

L4.W

      • SE!$MIC ROMENT*

15.2 KIPS.IN esse *RESULTS OF ANALYS!$***** NASONRY COMPRES$!VE SENDING STRESS = .0002KS! ALLOWAILE = .825KS! NASONRY AIIAL COMPRES$1VE STRESS = .0000KS! ALLOWAILE = 454KS! TENS!LE STEEL STRESS = 1.4010KS! ALLOWAILE = 34.000ks! COMPRES$1VE STEEL STRES$s .0000 KS! ALLOWABLE = 34.000KS! MASONRY $NEAR STRESS = .003tKS! ALLOWABLE = .058kSI MAI!AUR SEFLECTION = .071026 IN. 30 YOU WANT TO RUN BLOCK WALL AGAIN TES TYPE 1 NO TYPE 0 30 i G 0 e

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

  • Note:

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

,0 O e ATTACHME:TI G SGEDULE FOR RE-EVALUATION 1

e e s SCHED11E FOR RE-EVALUATION OF MASONRY WALLS CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR P0tlER PLANT, UNITS 1 & 2 RE-EVALUATION C0!TLETION PRIORITY DATE DESCRIPTION 1 10/31/80 tialls Supporting Large Safety-Related Cottduit 2 11/14/80 tialls Supporting Safety-Related Equipment Other Than Large Piping or Large Conduit 3 tialls Supporting Both Large Non-Safety Related Piping and Large Non-Safety Re-laced Conduit 4 11/14/30 lis11s Supporting Large Non-Safety Re-laced Piping 5 11/21/80 tialls Supporting Large Non-Safety Re-laced Conduit 6 12/ 5/80 Italls Sumsortine. Non-Safetv Related Equipment Other Than Ltrge Piping or Large Conduit 7 12/19/80 IJalls Supporting None of the Above, But Ilhich are in Proximity to Safety Related Items

  • No walls fitting'this description have been identified.

O e w / N _}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20002A567&oldid=4686162"