ML20003E343
| ML20003E343 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1981 |
| From: | EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003E342 | List: |
| References | |
| BM-0105, BM-0105-R01, BM-105, BM-105-R1, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8104030036 | |
| Download: ML20003E343 (100) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.-.-.. ., -- .. ..: a.
- BM-0105
*$* 3/2/81 ATTACHMENT 1 Rev. 1 GENERIC CRITERIA FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION l .
l
~ ~~
Prepared by: 82I/ Date
/
SD - 3/3/n Date 1 Earthquake Engineering Systems, Inc. 600 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MassaEhusetts~~ 02210 ( - -.--..- - . - . . . . . . . . .
I a The authors wish to acknowledge the following persons for their contributions to the development of this criteria: Mr. Ben K. Kacyra Mr. Sanford Tandowsky i Dr. Jose Vallenas ) Prof. Robert R. Schneider ' Prof. Theodore C. 2sutty I W O e i e i Page i of ii e i r.- , ,--._,.....n- . .,,.u... ,,; , ., l e r _, , , _ _ _ _ , __ _
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Part I: GENERIC CRITERIA FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL
< EVALUATION 1.0 General 1 2.0 Loads and Load 1 Combinations 3.0 Analysis 4 4.0. Acceptance Criteria 9 Part II: COMMENTARY TO THE GENERIC CRITERIA FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION 1.0 General 18 2.0 Loads and Load Combinations 18 3.0 Analysis -
19 4.0 Acceptance Criteria 21 5.0 References 30 GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page ii of ii
.1 . _ _ _ [ _ _ _. _ PART I GENERIC CRITERIA FOR CONCRETE MASONRY NALL EVALUATION 1.0 GENERAL
- This criteria provides the technical basis for analysis and evaluation of reinforced and unreinforced concrete masonry walls in nuclear power plants. To develop this information, EES technical personnel have performed an extensive survey of the several codes and standards applicable to the subject and the appropriate literature concerned with research and experience in masonry construction. Further, because the design bases which have developed over the years for nuclear plant structures are very specialized in their application, it has been necessary to reformulate existing criteria for buildings to match the unique nature of the design loading conditions.
The criteria also differs from ordinary building code cri-teria in that the scope of the Bulletin 80-11 project is to assess the probability and consequences of failure under hypothetical load conditions rather than provide a basis for construction of common. residential or industrial buildings. Using the literature as a data base, the degrees of conser-vatism inherent in the building code requirements have been identified and adjustments made to reflect the qualities of materials and construction in nuclear plant structures and the intent of the various plant design bases. 2.0 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS 2.1 Loads - The major loads to be encountered or to be postulated in a nuclear power plant are listed below. All the loads listad, however, may not be applicable in every plant.
~ ~
Only those loads given in the plant F. AR should be considered. Normal loads, which are those to be encountered during normal plant operations and shutdown, include: D-- Dead loads or their related internal moments and forces including any permanent equipment loads and hydrostatic loads. GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 1 of 39 m-m 6e a s8=-*m6- . m. ,e., ._
L-- Live loads or their related internal moments and forces including any movable equipment loads and other loads which vary with intensity and occurrence, such as soil pressure. To- Thermal effects and loads during normal operating or shutdown conditions, based on the most criti-cal transient or steady-state conditions. Ro- Pipe reactions during normal operating or shut-down conditions, based on the most critical tran-sient or steady-state conditions. Severe environmental loads include: E-- Loads generated by the operating basis earthquake W-- Loads generated by the design wind specified for the plant Extreme environmental loads include: E'--Loads generated by the safe shutdown earthquake. Wt --Loads generated by the design tornado spe-cified for the plant. Tornado loads include loads due to the tornado wind pressure, the tornaco-created differential pressure, and to tornado missiles. Abnormal loads, which are those generated by a postu-lated high-energy pipe break accident, include: Pa--Pressure equivalent static load within or across a compartment generated by the postulated break, and including an appropriate dynamic load factor to account for the dynamic nature of the load. Ta--Thermal loads under thermal conditions generated by the postulated break and including To. Ra--Pipe reactions under thermal conditions generated by the postulated break and including Ro. Yr--Equivalent static load on the structure generated by the reaction on the broken high energy pipe during the postulated break, and GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 2 of 39
- including an appropriate dynamic load factor to account for the dynamic nature of the load. ~
Yj--Jet impingement equivalent static load on a struc-ture generated by the postulated break, and including an appropriate dynamic load factor to account for the dynamic nature of the load. Ym--Missile impact equivalent load on a structure generated by or during the postulated break, as from pipe whipping, and including an appropriate dynamic load factor to account for the dynamic nature of the load. Normal loads and severe environmental loads are also referred to as service, or unfactored, loads in this criteria; extreme environmental and abnormal loads are referred to as factored loads. 2.2 Load Combinations The load combinations listed below should be evaluated. However, where loads and load combinations given in the specific plant FSAR differ, those given in the FSAR should be considered. (1) D+L (2) D+L+E (3) D+L+W (la) D + L + To + Ro (2a) D + L + To + Ro + E (3a) D + L + To + Ro + W (4) D + L + To + Ro + E' (5) D + L + To + Ro + Nt (6) D + L + Ta + Ra + 1.5Pa 1.25E (7) D + L + Ta + Ra + 1.25Pa + 1.0(Yr + Yj +Ym)Ym)+ +1.0E' (8) D + L + Ta + Ra + 1:0Pa + 1.0(Yr + Yj + Load Combinations: Limit: 1, 2, 3' S* I la, 2a, 3a 1.3 S 4, 5,6,7,8 U l
- Note: If the plant FSAR allows the 33% increase in
' stress for wind and seismic for concrete structures, stress limits for load combinations 2 and 3 may be increased likewise. 1 i GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 3 of 39 i e
2.3 Provisions for Special Analysis In general, the derivation of load intensities, eva-luation of wall response, and comparison to acceptance criteria shall be by linear elastic analysis and working stress design methods. However, the following excep-tions are permitted. 2.3.1 In determining an appropriate equivalent static
, load for Yr, Yj, and Ym, elasto-plastic behavior may be assumed with appropriate ductility ratios for reinforced masonry provided that yielding occurs in the tensile reinforcement prior to the elastica 11y calculated masonry compressive stress reaching .66 f'm. Also, it must be shown that excessive deflections will not result in loss of function of any safety-related system.
2.3.2 In load combinations (6), (7), and (8), values of Pa, Ta,may Yj, used Ra,be Yr, andif Ym other than instituted by amaximum time-values history analysis. - 2.3.3 Combinations (5), (7), and (8) should be satisfied first without the tornado missile load in (5) and without Yr, Yj, and Ym in (7) and (8). When considering these concentrated loads, local reaction strength capacities may be exceeded pro-vided there will be no loss of function of any safety-related system. 2.3.4 Both cases of L having its full value or being completely absent should be checked. However, when plant administrative procedures prohibit L from reaching its full value, a lower value should be used. 3.0 ANALYSIS Masonry walls are analyzed to ensure that the acceptance cri-teria is satisfied for all loading conditions. The analysis applicable to a particular wall depends on whether the loading is static or dynamic in nature, and the level of stress or deformation in the wall resulting from the loading.
- Finite element methods as well as hand calculations may be employed in the analysis.
3.1 Unreinforced Walls 3.1.1 Natural frequencies of, and stresses in, unrein-forced walls shall be calculated using linear, elastic analysis assuming an uncracked section. GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 4 of 39
Face shell areas shall be used in computing the . section properties for hollow masonry; the net masonry section may be used for solid or grouted masonry. If the initial analysis indicates that the allowable tensile stress normal to the bed joints in running bond is the only limit that has been exceeded, (see Table 1), the wall may be analyzed as a beam spanning horizontally. Proper support conditions must exist to permit this behavior. 3.1.2 Support conditions for masonry walls should be selected with due consideration given to relative stiffness between masonry walls and their sup-ports as well as to details of the interface bet-ween the walls and the supports. Unreinforced walls should be considered as free at ceiling joints, at control joints, and at mortar joints between the wall and adjoining structures unless there is an interlocking mechanism across the joint. The mortar joint between the wall and the floor may be considered as hinged. Support conditions selected shall be used consistently throughout all subsequent analysis. 3.1.3 In general, loads which are dynamic in nature are applied to the wall as static loads multiplied by an appropriate factor to account for dynamic effects. However, in lieu of combining maximum values of loads or responses, time-history analy-sis values may be used. Earthquake loads are evaluated in accordance with available data. If amplified response spectra (ARS) or floor motion time histories exist, the walls may be analyzed using modal analysis techniques. A static analysis may be performed based on an acceleration value of 1.3 times the spectral acceleration corresponding to the fun-damental frequency of the wall if that frequency is shown to be greater than the frequency at the peak acceleration of the ARS. If the frequency of the wall is not calculated, static analysis may be performed based on 1.3 times the peak spectral acceleration. ARS corres?onding to the dampings for concrete s.1ould be used in the analysis unless specified otherwise by the plant FSAR. If walls span between floors, the envelope of the two floor response spectra should be used. GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION page 5 of 39
If no ARS is available, earthquake loads may be evaluated based on a rigid range acceleratior value as determined by the original buildir seismic analysis. In this case the wall must be shown to have a fundamental frequency greater than the rigid range cutoff frequency value. 3.1.4 The effect of imposed in-plane displacements on
" unreinforced masonry walls, that are not struc- ,
tural shear walls, due to relative floor motion - during an earthquake is evaluated by calculating the shear distortion ey as follows: ey =6/h a = relative in-plane displacement between top and bottom of wall h = height of wall Allowable shear distortions ey for confined and unconfined walls are contained in note 7 of Table 1. 3.2 Reinforced Walls 3.2.1 Stresses in reinforced walls shall be calculated using the working stresss method of analysis. Section properties of reinforced walls for use in determining wall deflections, natural frequencies, and earthquake acceleration values may be calculated using any of the thr.ee methods outlined below. Orthotropic behavior due to dif-fering reinforcement details and masonry tensile l strengths in the horizontal and vertical direc-tions shall be taken into account, if necessary, by calculating the properties in each direction. Wall responses under earthquake loading are typi-cally evaluated using response spectra. l Therefore, guidelines are given for modification of the spectra for each method. If time-history analysis is chosen as the earthquake input, a non-linear analysis should be performed using section properties as given in Section 3.2.1.3. 3.2.1.1 Reinforced walls may be analyzed using fully cracked section properties over the entire wall GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 6 vf 39
I This method results in the lowest bound surface. wall stiffness. The response spectrum shall be modified to reflect the peak acceleration value at frequencies less than the frequency of any peak of the spectrum. 3.2.1.2 Reinforced walls may be analyzed using an effec-tive moment of inertia as a function of the maxi-mum moment in the wall as defined below. This
, value shall be used for the entire wall.
3 Ie = Mcr 3 1 8
+ 1 -
Mct Icr Ma Ma Mcr = Ft [ j Note: for Ma < Mer Ie " I g y where: Mer=Uncracked moment capacity Ma = Maximum applied moment Ig = Moment of inertia of the uncracked section Icr= Moment of inertia of the cracked section Ft = Allowable masonry tensile stress (U) for factored loadings y = Distance of neutral plane from tension face An iterative procedure must be employed to deter-mine the correct value of Ie. The procedure should start by assuming the uncracked section, I If the use of I g results in applied moments 1$s.s than Mct, solution has been achieved. If not, a new value of Ie shall be calculated and the analysis repeated. The process continues until the applied moments differ from those of the previous iteration by no more than 10%. Since this method results in a lower bound wall stiffness, the spectrum used shall be modified as described in Section 3.2.1.1. 3.2.1.3 Reinforced walls may be analyzed using an effec-tive moment of inertia as a function of the GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. I CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION
? age 7 of 39
. variation of applied moment in the wall as defined below. Finite element methods must be used to account for the variability of the sec-tion properties.
4 Ie = Mer 4 Ig + 1 - Mcr Icr Ma y Ma
~
Mer = Ft 1: Note: for Ma < Mcr, Ie = Ig l Y where: Ma = Maximum applied moment in each element. Mcr> I g> I Section3.3r,F,andyareasdefinedin t
.1.2.
The iterative procedure discussed in Section 3.2.1.2 shall also be used for this method. i i The response spectrum need not be modified if the above method is used. However, if the fundamen-tal frequency so obtained falls below any peak of the spectrum, the frequency shall be increased 10% prior to selecting an acceleration value for evaluating earthquake loads. 3.2.2 Support conditions for reinforced walls shall be the same as for unreinforced walls unless reinforcing bars pass through the support inter-face and are anchpred in the adjacent structure. In t!.is case the support condition shall be c]amped for doubly reinforced sections and hinged far singly reinforced sections. 3.2.3 In addition to the dynamic loading considerations set forth in Section 3.2.1, the considerations set forth in.Section 3.1.3 for unreinforced walls also apply to reinforced walls. 3.2.4 The in-plane distortion criteria of Section 3.1.4 for unreinforced, non-shear walls also applies to reinforced, non-shear walls. GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 8 of 39
)
4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
- 4.1 Allowable stresses for unreinforced masonry are tabu-lated in Table 1.
4.2 Allowable stresses for reinforced masonry are tabulated in Table 2. 1 I l l l Il 1 l l l l l GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 _P_ age 9 of 39 CONCRETE-4'ASONRY- WALL EVALUATION e*.* eemW w .w .m am, e,. .
,,.,--3.-=-
a,.____,, Table 1 Allowable Stresses for Unreinforced Masonry Walls Allowable Stresses (PSI)* (6) Description
.- 3(1) U(!}
COMP RESSION (3) Axial (4)(2) F 0.22 f'm 0.44 f'm Flexural F ,, 0.33 f'm 0.66 f'm 0.25 f'm 0.50 f'm BEARING (3)(5) Fa SHEAR (3) Out of plane vm 1.5 /f'm 2.25[fT E In ??.ane (Shear walls) (7) vm 0.9 /f'm 1.35/f'm TENSION (3) Nermal to bed joints (8) Ft 0.5 5 0.755 Parallel to bed joints in running bond Ft 1.0 $ 1.505
- f'm and mo are the masonry strength and mortar strength, respectively, in pounds per square inch.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EE,S FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION _ Page 10 of 39 uw --4 .M &e em. a em
Table 1 (cont'd) Notes: (1) S and U shall be used for evalunting stress in accordance with Section 2.2.
~
(2) Mu} tiply these values by (1-(h/40t)3) if the wall has significant vertical load at the top edge. (h = wall height, t = wall thickness. (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 vertical planes as well as sections (shown) on horizontal planes. hollow insonry _% _&%gx'pwng,b gmg.g.wassgt.ngqvpqsg/n n//g , s 7::%7&n ;&%. ,, ,lm%,,/4, r7,/,4yWi- - l~ solid masonry (4) The effective length to be used to evaluate axial compressive stresses under concentrated loads' is as given in Note (2) of Table 2. (5) Allowable bearing stress may be increased to 0.375 f'm for S and 0.75 f'm for U if load is applied on one-third of the compres.; ion area or less. (6) Values for the moduli of elasticity and rigidity are as follows: f'm 4 1350 psi f'm > 1350 psi E s 810,000 600f'm Ey 324,000 240f'm GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. I EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY h'ALL EVALUATION Page 11 of 39
Table 1 (cont'd) (7) For.ncn-shear walls which are confined in the structure and sub-jected to shear distortion due to relative floor disp sce:ents, 2 the allowable relative displacement ( A) is 0.1% of the height of the wall (h). s For non-shear walls which are subjected to shear distorticas due to relative floor displacenent but cannot be classified as confined walls, the allowable relative displacement is 0.01% of the height of the wall. . Confined walls are bounded by adjacent steel or concrete prirary structures. As a mini =r., confined walls are bcunded tcc and bottc= or bounded on three sides. F.xamples of confined walls are shown schematically below. 7 rirn , , _ . . , , ,
- ,isi., , -,
/
A
/
i ?
- a. . - . . . ,
Confined walls: e.s = A/h 4 0.001 Unconfined walls are not bounded by adjacent steel or concrete primarv stnsctures sufficientiv to create a ccnfininz effect. An exazple of an unconfined wall is shown schematically ' below. Unconfined wall: ey = a/h 4 0.0001 (S) Flexural tension nor=al to the bed joints nay be used only where failure of the bed joint will not cause failure of the wall; i.e., there nus; be an alternate load path available. / C'dNfRIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE ILASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 12 of 39 w
l I Table 2 A_2cwable Stresses for Reinforced Masonry Walls
~
l Allowable Stresses (Masonry) (PSI)* (11) Description 3(1) 'J CI) I COMPRESSION Axial (2) (3) Fa 0.22 f'= 0.44 f'= Fleraral (4) F 0.33 f'= 0.66 f'= BEARING (5) F 0.25 f'= 0.50 f'm a SHEAR i No special shear reinforce =ent Out of plane (6) v 1.5 5 2.25 5 In plane (12) (Shear walls)(7) y,,, M/Vd y *1 (g)
~
0.9 /P = 1.35 5 . M/Vdy =0 2.0 /f'= 3.0 /f': Reinforce =ent taking shear out of plane (6) vm 1.5 /f'= 2.25/f'= In plane (12) (Shear walls )(7) vs 1.5 ff'= 2.25/f'= 3.0 /f's M/Vd)*1() M/Vd, =0 2.0 /f'= Allowable Stresses (Reinforcement) (PSI) Description S I - U BCND 60 60 Plain bars u 140 Deformed bars u 140 GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY h*ALL EVALUATION Page 13 of 39
Table 2 (cont'd) Allowable Stresses (Reinforcement) (psi) Descriptit.: S (1) I' (1) TENSION 6 COMPRESSION Reinforcing steel F s Grade 40 bars 20,000 0.9 f, (9) Grade 60 bars 24,000 0. 9 t'y Joint wire A t s b 00b. . f l
- f'm is the masonry strength in pounds per square inch.
Notes: (1) S and U shall be used for evaluating stress in accordance with Section 2.2. (2) The effective area to be used for evaluating axial compressive stress is shown below: o h gh l.' l 5 4' . 7 L Effective length L depends on I 4%'
.! ;(. 3 - ~
.c.7 type of bond and loadf. (see
' next page).
l ' 7(;' d S! v
*** Effective area for axial compressive stress calculations on net section of masonry units plus grouted cores.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. I EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALWTION Page 14 of 39
Table 2 (cont'd) (2) (cont'd) LO A O LO AD to A D e-g# (StatendS ed e O Yae [ ,,C - z
.. Y ;.O-- s! N UI;M.4s* El
-j'5EEE il a b/ ' .i-Q
.oldH'!i40.x I'
..J pr.
_. c..,
.rfi-f, ,.
,,.",i.,.i , r--
6,
,t 4 er ee.c / I errrev..r /
.i t.,.:,..e
/
i-vj t., . L i-arreevive / 2 l' uncetivr. / 2 acamie wintu + 4 t LOAD Leap
, / maa=.wa P L AT E.
f,! ffNJ Av e -~ -) H. r
. spa s .N 4s* -ij
[a,.; .n-
. ., . . ?. .=
- n. 1 4- ----,, ,
- m. f w
- 4. . p,-
,?4' ~.').'" .--..
1- ( -
** f.
.4..' - -l: . 4 .)
E"'.l . t-u
..i : i F *w -. M~ . ,.{t; - .79- ,.-
. .; y . p..
- p. >
G.i. . . (FftC?tVC 2 Er1CCT3*E 2 Loa D
- f
%[p
%j
, 3-i eercerive 4 a4sts ou s-N e4 Aa=4 smtAR atta STAmdCf.
s c vesticA 6.Aos ) Effective lengths for axial compre.5sive stress evaluation. GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION FOR Page 15 of 39
Table 2 (cont'd) (3) Ftultiply these values by (1-(h/4C2)3) if the wall has significant vertical load at the top edge. h = wall height and t = wall thickness. (4) The effective area to be used for evaluating flexural co:pressive stress is showm below. e-1 31 for _I ! -!
-t whdeve' is less f or ,
, g l , ! r6 ung bond l l
.nyM7 '" UH $
'w~ %;i L'.nxsM'//g'""
/ ;v))
s . . .. ; : s Wu h u y( s' n!
',-y -
n- ~ l Area amrne 1 effectwe in f;en wral ccmprass on, force norr.aI to face (5) Allowable bearing stress r.ay be increased to 0.375 f' for S and 0.75 f': for U if Icad is applied en one-third of the cc=pression area or less. (6) The effective area for evaluating shear stress for walls in flexure is showm below. I _f s o p - a >yys 4 -g_qwege,;S s x y o ns o y t qwyJgr b Reinforcement -- i ! Area awNd effectrue in spear, force norrnal to face GENERIC CRITERIA Rev.1 EES CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION FOR Page 16 of 39
Table 2 (cont'd) (7) The effective area for evaluating shear stress for shear walls is
- hown below.
ypi {,,tf/ ung.7,pyf/~u'/ ,1, /- au, y,/ ,y, /g;y,
% d' *,J
& :f" gg M,*/WIC q - ,,n
,a ,, _ , 4 ,,w,y 7$9 &/,quh
; s
. i i- Reinforcement ;
Area assumed effective m shear,
~~ ~~~
_ force carallel to face (8) M is the maximum bending moment ocurring simultaneously with the shear load V at the section under consideration. dy is the length of the wall in the direction of shear. Interpolate by straight line for M/Vdy values between 0 and 1. (9) f yis the specified yield strength of the reinforcement. (10) 0.5 'y not to exceed 30,000 psi. (11) Values for the moduli of elasticity and rigidity are as follows: f'm 1350 psi f'm 1350 psi Es 810,000 600 f'm E 324,000 240 f'm v (12) The in-plane distortion considerations discussed in note (7) of Table 1 also apply to reinforced walls. GENERIC CRITERIA Rev.1 EES , CONCRETE MASONRY h'ALL EVALUATION FOR Page 17 of 39
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 criteria 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 plant FSAR con-tains different loads and load combinations, the FSAR provi-sions should govern. Further, the loads in the original design (e.g., earthquake spectra) may not 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 tne FSAR do not correspond exactly with those listed, the FSAR combinations should be evaluated to see whether they are nornal or factored and evaluated The symbols S and U against the appropriate stress limits. have been chosen to correspond.with the terminology for rein-forced concrete structures in the Standard Review Plan. 1ENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRcTE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION
\
Page IS of 39
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 tension 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 Led 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. Uplift forces on the wall should be considered if this support con-l dition is chosen. l 3.1.3 The moduli of elasticity and rigidity specified in the criteria are lower bounds of these material properties. Hence, fundamental frequen- ' i cies of walls calculated based on these values may be higher than anticipated, and a wall whose l 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 possibility, the peak value of acceleration (times 1.3) is used for static analysis. GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 19 of 39
w -. -. ._ 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
, account for possible 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 c,. 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 3.2.1 The effective moment of inertia, Ie, accounts for variations in the moment of inertia due to the variation of applied. moment, and hence, the extent of cracking throughout the wall. Two methods of accounting for this variation have been proposed by D. E. Branson and are presented in the criteria. Both methods utilize an equation based on the ratio of the cracking moment to the applied moment in the wall. The method given in Section 3.2.1.2, originally pro-posed for analysis of beams, determines a single moment of inertia value for the entire wall for use in stiffness calculations. The method given in Section 3.2.1.3 accounts for the extent of cracking in different areas of the wall through I the use of finite element analysis. The 'one-value' approach results in a lower bound estimate of the overall wall stiffness. It is l therefore recommended that response spectra used in the analysis be modified to reflect the lower natural frequency values obtained. i The finite element approach results in an l' accurate representation of the wall stiffness. In the case of slab structures, the one-value for- i mula significantly under-predicts the natural frequency. However, since lower estimates of the Rev. 1 ES GENERIC CRITERIA FOR CON CRETE _ MAS ONR Y_WAL L _ EVAL U A_T I ON Page 20 of 39 M M ^ e- M4*.emi m , , , .
- moduli of elasticity and rupture of masonry are used in the analysis, it is recommended that the '
natural frequency of the wall be increased by 10% - if this results in a more conservative accelera-tion value. The uncracked moment capacity, Mcr, is expressed as a function of the allowable tensile stress,
, F , under factored loads. More correctly, t
Fg should be the modulus of rupture, or the ten-sile stress at cracking, 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 i 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 should be based on the moment of iner-tia of the rebar pattern itself. 4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The acceptance criteria hav.e 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 GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. I EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 21 of 39
life of the facility, such as the operational basis earthquake. For concrete structures, these loads are eva-luated by ultimate strength methods using appropriate load factors. 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 conditions 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.
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, allowable stresses have been taken as one half the lower bound ultimate while a f actor of four is used for normal load allowables. Thus there are three levels of conser-vatism inherent in the evaluation criteria: use of lower l l bound ultimate values, capacity reduction factors of two and four, 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 l conditions. j 4.1 Unreinfor~ced Masonry 4.1.1 Compression GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 22 of 30
I 1 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 ' l estimated using the table below.
" TABLE 4.3 VALUES OF ( ' FOR MASONRY l 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 2400 1350 4000 2000 1250 2500 1550 1100 2000 1350 1000 l 1500 1150 875 1000 900 70 4 Values of f'm for Masonry 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. GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 23 of 39
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 supported. This should apply to all the allowable 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 appropriate. It would be more correct to use the block or mortar strength for bearing calculations and use the composite strength when evaluating compressive stress over the effective tributary length. 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 318-63. However, this is intended for beams rather than walls and thus is not applicable to walls in flexure. For unrein-forced walls, moreover, the limit.s on tensile stress preclude any significant shear stress. GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 24 of 39
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/T7 c. 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 thear 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 ? lane loads. Since flexural shear is negligible in wall flexure, it is only necessary to assure that cracking does not occur which will interruat tensile stress in the face shells of the blocks. Test data show that confined walls can sustain shear distortions greater than 0.1% of the wall height. A wall must be confined for the struc-ture to be able to impose uniform shear distortion; therefore, this serves as a good acceptance criteria for both normal and fac-tored loads. For unreinforced walls which must resist in-plane shear forces as part of the structure, the test data for reinforced walls without horizontal or shear reinforcement is applicable. The data shows that the code value of 0.9/f'm is reasonable 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 the confining effect of vertical reinforcement. Therefore, the code value of 0.9/ITm is used for normal loads without regard to length to height ratio, GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 25 of 39
._.m....- . .- - -
7...___. and only a 50% increase is used for factored loads. . 4.1.4 Tension For unreinforced walls analyzed on an elastic basis, the resistive capacity is evaluated on the Sasis of an allowable computed tensile stress. For vertical tensile stresses, the critical section is through the mortar bed joints. However, for horizontal stress in running bohd, the actual load path is not tea-sion through the mortar but rather shear transfer up and down along adjacent courses. For vertical tension normal to the bed joints, test results indicate a factor of safety of four for the value of 0.5/m3, where mo is the mortar compressive strength, for service loads. This is 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 initiation of cracking at stresses close to 0.5/mo, although only after several load cycles. The ultimate capacity of the walls were quite a bit greater, though not quantified, than the cracking strength. Hence, the allowable value for factored loads is not increased 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 For this reason, to vertically spanning walls. the service load allowable of 1.0/m3 is quite conservative. However, the increase for fac-tored 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 1 GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 CONCRETE _ MASONRY _ WALL EVALUATION _ Page 26 of 39 n em em. .
~ reinforccment. The testing reported in the literature clearly shows that a higher allowable could be derived using a safety fac-tor of two criterion. However, there is not much dyna =ic data, and it is prudent to be more co'nservative 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 conservative bound, the effect of modulus variation should be addressed. The value of modulus 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 for-mula for non-load bearing =asonry (ASTM C-129) is an extrapolation 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 significantly from that for ASTM C-90 block. Therefore the nu=erical values of 810,000 and 324,000 psi are used for both. This also applies to ASTM C-145 solid block. 4.2 Reinforced Masonry . 4.2.1 Compression and Bearing Allowable stresses for co=pression 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 appears to have been fron tests of masonry bea=s. The use of this data for walls is difficult in that the depth to reinfcreement is much less a percentage of the cross-section than for the beams which were tested. However, since this fac: =ini=izes the computed shear area, use of the code allowable of 1.1/f'm for service loads is conservative. This is also the sa=e for= as the ACI 318-63 GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 27 of 39
code allowable for concrete beams. The fac-tored load allowable value of 1.7/f'm, which is a 50% increase, gives at least a factor of safety of two against lower bound ultimate. The building codes allow a much larger flexural shear stress when special shear rein-forcement is provided. In walls, however, the
, only reinforcement which would contribute to shear resistance is ladder or truss type joint wire reinforcement. It is doubtful if this will reall~y 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 values for shear walls for normal loads are taken from the building codes. The values for factored loads provide a factor of a least two against lower bound ultimate when compared to test data for reinforced walls. The allowable values for walls with special 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 reinforce-ment. From the test data, it appears that for horizontally reinforced walls with low height to length ratios, allowables can be higher than 3.0/f'm and still provide a factor of two on ultimate. However,. this would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. For reinforced walls which are not part of the main structural system, the effects of in-i 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 stiffness of the wall, even if allowable shear stress is exceeded, will not affect the overall struc-tural response. 4.2.3 Bond There is litt'le data on bond. The values here GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 28 of 39
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 reinforced concrete in nuclear plants. In general, joint wire reinforcement is more ductile than rebar, thus justifying the same type of application. GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 29 of 39
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. Wil'iams, " 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 Concretc Building Construction, University of California,. Berkeley, July 11-15, 1977.
- 7. Blume, J.A., N.M. Newmark, and L.H. Corning, 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 Brick Masonry Wall Elements," Western Clay Products Association, San Francisco, Aug. 1968, 139 pp.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 CONCRETE MASOS WALL EVALUATION Page 30 of 39
0
- 10. Borchelt, J.G., " Analysis of Brick Walls Subjected to Axial Compression and in Plane Shear," Proceedings of Second International Brick Maronry 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.
- 1. 4 . 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 Stiuctures (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 Mcsonry." National Bureau of Standards, Monograph 36, Department of- Commerce, Washington, D.C., November 20, 1961.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 31 of 39
- 20. Gabricisen, B.L., "Responso of Wall Panels Subjected to Blast Loading," ASCE National Structural Engineering Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland, April 1971.
- 21. Glogua, 0.A., " Masonry Performance in Earthquakes", Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
7, No. 4, December, 1974.
- 22. Hamid, Drysdale, and Heidebrecht, " Shear Strength of Concrete Masonry Joints," Journal of the Structural Division - July 1979.
- 23. Hatzinkolas, M., Longworth, J., and Wararuk, J.,
" Evaluation of Tensile 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.
7E. 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, " Earthquake Response and 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.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev.1 FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 32 of 39 4-M New
- w
- 30. Holm, Thomas A., "Sngineered 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 Brickt:ork and Concrete Infilling," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 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, " Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in Existing Jnreinforced 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 Resistance of Infilled Frames," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, June 1978.
- 37. Lamar, Simon and Fortoul, Celso, " Brick Masonry Effect in Vibrations of Frames," Proceedings, 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. Mainestone, R.J., " Discussion on the Composite Behavior of Infilled Frames," Tall Buildings, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1967, 493-494.
GENERIC CRITERIA l Rev. 1 CONCRETE MASON WALL EVALUATION Page 33 of 39
- 42. Mainostone, R.J., "On the Stiffness and Strengths of Infilled Frames," Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Supplement (iv),
Paper 73605, 1971.
- 43. Mainestone, R.J., " Supplementary Note on the Stiffness and Strengths of Infilled Frames," BRS :
Current Paper CP ~2/74, 1974. '
- 44. Mayes, R.L., " Seismic Behavior of Masonry P'.ers 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 California, 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 Center, 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. 1 CONCRETE MASONR WALL EVALUATION Page 34 of 39
- 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, April, 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. Wi egel, 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 and enclosing frame when loaded in the plane of the wall." Translations in Earthquake Engineering. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, San Francisco, 1960.
- 59. Richart, Frank E.; Moorman, Robert 3.; and Woodworth, Paul M., " Strength and Stability of Concrete Masonry Walls," Bulletin No. 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., " Investigation of the Structural Properties of Reinforced Concrete Masonry, Report No. 53 National Concrete Masonry Association, McLean, Va., 1955, 167 pp.
- 62. Sahlin, Sven; Structural Masonry, Prentice Hall, Inc. , Englewood Clifis7 New Jersey.
- 63. Saxer, E. X., and Dikkers, Robert, " Flexural Stength of Plain and Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," Na tional Concrete Masonry Association, McLean, Va. 1957, 18 pp.
GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 CONCRETE MAS 0 RY WALL EVALUATION Page 35 of 39
- 64. Schneider, R.R., " Lateral Locd Test 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," Calif orr:in 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 Tea:s 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., sad Foster, H.D., " Strength of Concrete Block Pilasters 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 T.tansverse 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 Infilied Frames," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 88, No. ST6, Lecember, 1962, pp.
183-199.
- 74. Smith, B.S., " Behavior of Square Infilled Frames," Journal of he Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, No. ST1, February, 1966, pp.
381-403. GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 CONCRETE MASONR WALL EVALUATION Page 36 of 30 e
l
.' s
- 75. Smith,' B.S. , "Modol Test Results of Vertical and Horizontal Loading in Infilled Frames," Journal 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," Precaedings of the Institution of Civil Engin,crs, Vol. 44, September, 1969, pp. 31-48 a
- 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,"
Building Materials'and Structures Report No. 5., NBS - 1938.
- 80. Whittemore, Stang, and Parsons " Structural Properties of Two Buch-Concrete Elock Constructions and a Concrete Block Wall Construction Sponsored by the National Concrete Masonry Association," Building Materials and Structures Report.
- 81. Whittemere, Stang, and Parsons, " Structural Properties of Co crete 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, Center for Building Technology, National Bureau of Standards, May 1975.
- 84. Yokel, 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. 1 CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 37 of 39
y- : , ._y. 3 - ,
- 85. Yokol, Felix Y.; Mathey, 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, San Diego, September 1975.
- 91. Uniform Building Code, International Conf er2nce of Building Officials, 1979.
- 92. " Evaluation of Structural Properties of Masonry in Existing Buildings," National Bureau of Standards.
- 93. Proceedings of the North American Masonry Conference, August 14, 15, 16, 1978; University of Coloraco, Boulder, Colorado.
- 94. ACI Standard, " Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures," (ACI 531-79).
- 95. Ctsmentary 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.1 CONCRETE MASON WALL EVALUATION Page 38 of 39 hei =e 49ew e m-e .aw e e.mm.mmum - ee ,
98. ACI Standard Reinforced " Building (Code Concrete", Requirements for ACI 318-63).
- 99. "A State of the Art Review - Masonry Design Criteria", Computech, 1980.
100. " Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic 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. I 102. " Recommended Guidelines for the Reassessment of Safety Related Concret.e Masonry Walls", Prepared by Owners and Engineering Firms Informal Group on Ccncrete Masonry Walls, October 6, 1980. 103. h'JREG - 75/087, Standard Review 'Plen for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LKR Ecition, May 1980, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulartory Commission. Section 3.8.4, "Other Seismic Category I Structures". 104. " Deflection of Two Way Reinforced Concrete Floor Systems: State of the Art Report", ACI Committee 435 (ACI 435.6R-74). 105. " Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members", ACI Committee 435 (ACI 435.2R-66). GENERIC CRITERIA Rev. 1 EES FOR CONCRETE MASONRY WALL EVALUATION Page 39 of 39
p ' * '- Job No. 80034 DC - 1 Rev. O February 27, 1981 ATTACHMENT 2 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION
~_
DESICN CRITERIA FOR RE-EVALUATION OF MASONRY WALLS BOSTON EDISON COMPANY BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS Approved: Group Leader Date Approved: 2 7 /
'Ir(dependent Reviewer Date Approved
- 1/ / ), b_ 2/27!3/
Froject En'gineer Datd [ E! EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC. ~ ~ - -
"~600 Atlantic Avenue - - - ~ ~ ~
Boston, Massachusettr
* ~ - ~ ~
. .. . . c .
(*; ' table OF C0N_ TENTS l Section Page 1.0 General 1 2.0 References 1 i 3.0 Assumptions 2 4.0 Analysis and Desiga 3 l l 5.0 Material Specifications and Properties 7 l 6.0 Loads and Load Combinations 8 7.0 Acceptance Criteria 10 l 8.0 Exhibits 11 l l DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. O BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page i of i
. .. _. - . .. . _ 1 7 .'
1.0 GENERAL This Design Criteria provides the technical basis for the re-evaluation of reinforced masonry walls and the
, design of modifications at Unit 1, Pilgrim Nuclear g Power Station. l
2.0 REFERENCES
2.1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Offi'ce of Inspection and Enforcement, ISE Bulletin No. 30-11, dated May 8, 1980. 2.2 Final Safety Analysis Report, Unit 1, Pilgrim Station No. 600. 2.3 Specification for the Design, Fabrication, 5 Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, 1 New York, New York, dated November 1, 1978. 2.4 Reinforced Masonry Design, Robert R. Schneider and Walter L. Dickey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1980. 2.5 " Generic Criteria .for Concrete Masonry Wall Evaluation", by EES, dated October 24, 1980. 2.6 " Specification for Furnishing, Delivery and Installation of Concrete Unit Masonry" for Unit No. 1, Pilgrim Station No. 600, Boston Edison Company, Spec. No. 6498-A-1, Revision 1, dated February 1, 1972. 2.7 Theory of Plates and shells, S. Timoshenko and S. Woinowsky-Krieger, se.cond edition, McGraw-Hill Book Ccmpany, 1959, Chapter 11. 2.8 American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. Specifications: C90- 70 Hollow Load Bearing Concrete Masonry Units l. C145-71 Solid Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry Units I C476-71 "c r t a r n r. ' C . - for Reinforced Masonry t DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1 EL.,(( PILGRIM "JCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. O BOSTON EisISON . COMPANY Page 1 of 11 e g n - ,w ,
. .. . . . .. .s ., .. .' s '.'
A82-70 Cold-Drawn Steel Wire Tor Concrete RcInTorcement
/
A615-68 Deformed Billet Steel for (formerly Concrete Masenry A15)
~'
A36-67 Structural Steel 2.9 Boston Edison Company--Pilgrim Station No'. 600 Reactor Building Seismic Analysis, Bechtel Engineering Corp., August 1969. 2.10 Boston Edison Company--Pilgrim Station No. 600 Turbine Building Seismic Analysis, Bechtel Engineering Corp., September 1969. 2.11 Boston Edison Company--Pilgrim Station No. 600 Radwaste Building Seismic Analysis, Bechtel Engineering Corp., September 1969. 2.12 " Civil and Structural Design Criteria for Unit No. 1 for Pilgrim Station No. 600, Boston Edison . Company", Bechtel Corporation, Job No. 6498, Rev. 3, January 30, 1970. 2.13 " Analysis of the Consequences of High Energy Piping Failures Outside the Primary Containment," Final Safety Analysis Report, Amendment No. 34, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS 3.1 All components other than piping supported on or near masonry walls are r_igid for the purposes of this evaluation, and therefore do not impose amplified loads or impact loads on the wall due to seismic displacements. 3.2 Masonry walls that are not part of the structural load resisting system do not carry significant seismic shears or vertical seismic loads due to building inertia forces. However, the effect of imposed displacements due to story drift will be evaluated. 3.3 Masonry walls eie uunstiutccd in accordance with masonry specifications and original drawings. t
+
DESIGN CRITERIA i 80024 DC - 1 EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev. O
, Page 2 of 11
3.4 Surface mounted attachments which project no further from the wall surface than the wall thickness contribute only in-plane loads to the wall. 3.5 Linear elastic stress-strain behavior in the compression zone is assumed for masonry. s4 . 0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN sr . 4.1 Reinforced Walls 4.1.1 Stressesrin reinforced walls shall be calculated using the working stress method of analysis as described in Chapter 6 of Ref. 2.4. 4.1.2 Support conditions for reinforced walls shall be as shown in Exhibit H unless rein-forcing bars pass through the support interface and are anchored in the adjacent structure. In this case the support con-dition shall be clammed for doubly rein-forced sections and :linged for singly rein-forced sections. Control joints shall be considered as free edges in the analysis.
, 4.1.3 Reinforced walls shall be analyzed con-sidering one-way or two-way behavior, whichever is appropriate for the boundary conditions, wall dimensions, and reinforce-ment configuration. Finite element methods may be employed in the analysis.
4.1.4 Reinforced multi-wythe walls shall be ana-lyzed in the same manner as single wythe l walls, providing the horizontal steel ties l connecting the wythes satisfy shear transfer l at the collar joint. (No credit is taken for collar joint mortar shear capacity.) 4.1.5 Seismic loadings on reinforced walls may be analyzed at three levels as described below. The results at each level shall be compared to the acceptance criteria before proceeding to the.next level. 4 1.c.1 1.e v al 1 a. a s .1
- e i s The natural frequency of the masonr.y wall shall be determined assuming fully cracked DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1
((" j"" PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. 0 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 3 of 11
,.- , ~.
~_... -: _
.. e. - section properties throughout the wall. Orthotropic properties resulting from dif-fering steel reinforcement details in the horizontal and vertical direction shall be taken into account in the analysis as follcws: Ee I:x Cxx = ._ 5, (1-v2) Ig . s .- Ec I ty CYY = (1-v2) Ig vEc (I tx
- I ty)b Cxy = ,
(1-v2) Io Ec (I tx
- I ty)b Gxy " ,
2(1+v) Io Where: C Cxx,ies pert of an orthotropic,yy, Cxy, and Gxy are the elastic pr reinforced masonry wall for use in computer programs that compute stiffnesses based on a solid section. Io = Uncracked moment of inertia of solid sgction ger unit length of wall (t3/12 where t = wall thickness.) I tx
= Cracked, transformed moment of inertia per unit length of wall in the x direction.
I ty
= Cracked, transformed moment of inertia per unit length of wall in the y direction.
y = Poisson's ratio = 0.2
= Modulus of Elasticity of masonry Ec
= 810,000 psi Values of Io, I t x, and Irv to be used in the analysis are containe8 in Exhibit D.
DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1 EE _ _ _ _ . . PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY Rev. 0 Page 4 of 11 e e - -
.. ., . . . . l The' spectral acceleration corresponding to j
~
the natural frequency so determined shall , be extracted from the appropriate response spectra given in Exhibit A. Damping values of 2% (Design Earthquake) and 5% (Maximum Earthquake) of critical damping shall be used in the analysis. The spectral acceleration sha11'then be
- applied to the mass of the wall and
;..r attached components, and a static cnalysis performed. Wall and attachment mass / weight information is contained in Exhibits D and E, respectively.
4.1.5.2 Level 2 Analysis If the level 1 analysis fails to meet the acceptance criteria, level 2 analysis may be performed. An iterative procedure employing finite element methods shall be
- used in the analysis.
Using the moments in each element in the x and y directions obtained from the level 1 analysis, effective moments of inertia for each element in the x and y directions shall be determined as follows: r - - cr Ie = cr Ig + 1- I Ier Ma [Ma
- - g >
I8 Mer = Ft _, V w -) where: Mer = Uncracked moment capacity. Ma
= Moment at each element.
1 8
= Moment of inertia of uncracked section.
T c; = Mnment of inertia of the cracked section. 5 DESIGN CRITERIA
~ ~
80034 DC - 1 Rev. O EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 5 of 11 4 #
Ft All wabic masonry tensile stress (M') for extreme environmental conditions. y = Distance of neutral plane from ten-sion face.
-- The appropriate values in the x and y direc-tions for Mcr and I t are tabulated in Exhibit D.
T Any set of initial moments of inertia Judged to speed the solution process may alternatively be chosen. The wall shall then be analyzed using the effective moments of inertia in the x and y directions. A response spectrum analy-sis shall be performed using the curves given in Exhibit B. The resulting moments shall be used to determine the next set of Ie'3. When all moments are within 10% of those of the preceeding iteration, con-vergence is considered to have been achieved. The procedure may be terminate 1 prior to convergence if a conservative bound on the results has been established. 4.1.5.3 Level 3 Analysis Level 3 analysis may be performed if level 2 analysis fails to meet the acceptance criteria. For level 3 analysis, non-linear behavior of the masonry wall shall be taken into account. 4.1.6 The effect of in-plane loading on rein-forced walls shall be evaluated in accor-dance with the criteria specified in Note 12 of Exhibit G. Imposed displacements due to story drift shall be evaluated using the floor displacements given in Exhibit C. The effect of inertial reac-tions from adjoining walls shall be con-sidered in the evaluation. 4.1.7 The effects of boundary structure flexibility, wall group interaction, and wall openings shall be evaluated. 4.1.8 Out of plane wall displacements due to trans-verse loadings shall be evaluated for their effect on operability of attached ~ equipment. DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1 EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR ?0WER STATION BOSTON EDISON CCMPANY Rev. O Page 6 of 11
i . 4.1.9 Masonry block pullout due to concentrated inertial loadings im;osed by attached com-ponents shall be evaluated using the allowable loads tabulated in Exhibit I. 4.2 Modifications
~- All modifications to masonry walls shall be designed in accordance with Ref. 2.3 subject to
- the limitations stated in Section 6 of this i5 criteria. Designs shall be based on conventional methods of structural analysis of linear elastic materials.
5.0 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS S PROPERTIES 5.1 Concrete Block (Ref. 2.6) Hollow Block ASTM C90 (Ref. 2.8) Grade U-1 Heavyweight Solid Block ASTM C145 (Ref. 2.8) Grade U-1 Heavyweight 5.2 Masonry Reinforcement (Ref. 2.6) Bars ASTM A615 (Ref. 2.8) Grade 40 "DUR-0-WAL" ASTM A82 (Ref. 2.8) Heavyweight, truss type 5.3 Mortar (Ref. 2.6) ASTM C476 (Ref. 2.8) Type PL Compressive Strength a 28 days = 2000 psi 5.4 Grout (Ref. 2.6) ASTM C476 (Ref. 2.8) Coarse Compressive Strength 8 28 days = 2000 psi 5.5 Concrete Reactor Building: f'c = 4000 psi All other poured in place concrete (unless shown et'er "- en the drawings): f'c = 3000 psi (Ref. 2.12) DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1 EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev. O Page 7 of 11
5.6 Stcol ASTM A36 (Ref. 2.8) 6.0 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS The loads and load combinations in this section are
~~
based on the structural loading criteria given in Appendix C of the Pilgrim FSAR (Ref. 2.2).
=- 6.1 Loads to be considered in evaluating the masonry L5 walls are described below: '
D(1) Dead load of the structure and related equipment plus any other permanent loads contr ib-uting stress, such as soil. or hydrostatic loads; live loads expected to be present when the station is operating; and the loads due to thermal expansion under normal operating conditions. R(3) Loads resulting from jet forces and pressure and temperature transie-ts associated with rup-ture of a single pipe within the primary containment. R'(7) Loads resulting from jet forces and pressure and temperature transients associated with rup-ture of single pipe outside the primary containment. E (Ey, Eh )(2) Loads due to the design earthquake. (Ey and Eh are vertical and horizontal com-ponents of the design earth-quake loads, respectively.) E' (E'y, E'h){ ) Loads due to the maximum earth-quake. (E'y and E'h are vertical and horizonth1 components of the maximum earthquake loads, respectively.) T(4) Loads due to the effects of a tornado. 6.2 Masonry walls shall be evaluated for the following load combinations: DESIGN CRITERIA P GRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION y 0 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 8 of 11
EQ(1) D o Ey o Eh(5) < 3(6) , g(8) EQ(2) D + R + E y + Eh (5) s,. g EQ(3) D + T < 1.5 S(9) , M'(8) EQ(4) D + R + E'y + E'h(5) < 1.5 S(9), M' EQ(5) D + R' < 1.5 S(9) , M' Notes:
- (1) Dead load on each wall due to attachments 95 shall be calculated using the datu con-tained in Exhibit E.
(2) Response spectra to be used to evaluate seismic inertial loads per :evel I and 2 analysis are contained in Exhibits A and B, respectively. Differential floor displacement values are given in Exhibit C. (3) (Later) (4) The effects of tornado winds to be con-sidered for Class 1 structures are given in Section 12.2.3.3 and Appendix H of the Pilgrim FSAR (Ref. 2.2). These effects are summarized in Exhibit J. (5) The effects of one horizontal component and the vertical com:3onent of earthquake loading shall be combined in all loading combinations which include earthquake loads. (6) S is the normal allowable stress in struc-tural steel sections, bolts, and welds permitted by Ref. 2.3 (excluding the pro-visions of Section 1.5.6). (7) Loads on masonry walls due to pipe break outside containment are given in Ref. 2.13, and are summarized in Exhibit F. (8) M and M' are the allowable stresses for evaluating (including existing masonry reinforcing steelw) alls as given in Exhibit G.
, (9) 1.5 S not to exceed the material yield
- tr ::.
E DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1 EEqJ'O PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. 0 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 9 of 11
. ~_
7.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 7.1 Reinforced Walls Allowable stresses and in-plane distortions for reinforced masonry are tabulated in Exhibit G. Allowable block pullout loads are tabulated in Exhibit I. ir 7.2 Modifications ' Stresses in structural steel sections, bolts, and welds shall conform to the requirements of Part 1 of the A.I.S.C. Code (Ref. 2.3). DESIG : CRITERIA 80034 DC - 1 ES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev. O Page 10 of 11 w - m +4,e e _ e -
~
8.0 EXilI BITS
. 1 A. Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic ,
Analysis l B. Response Spectra for Level 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis C. Differential Floor Displacement Values (later) it D. Masonry Wall Section Properties , D-1: Single Wythe walls D-2: Multi-Wythe walls E. Attached Component / Equipment Weights for Dead Load Calculations F. Loads due to Pipe Breaks Outside Containment (later) G. Allowable Stresses in Reinforced Masonry Walls H. Support Conditions for Masonry Walls (later) I. Allowable Block Pullout Loa <.is (later) J. Tornado Loads (later)
~
DESIGN CRITERIA 5 80034 DC - 1 EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev. O Page 11 of 11
w phibit A: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Scismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: R 1A EARTilQUAK E :' Design BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 2% ELEVATION: -17'-6" MASS POINT: 1 Ref: 2.9 8! .
~
- m. _ l o .
W> E : e .
*o .
zd 3 l (5.0,0. 56) H ..
$: "Io.. 7 i 5
u -- i
< v i
d H \ z \ cm . (12.0,0.31) y (14.0,0.31) y& - 9
~
n d (17.5,0.16) (26.7,0.12)
~. _.
o
- o. ~ . , , . . . . , ,
o O.I 1.0 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) t DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit A Page 1 of 27
Exhibit A: Response Spect ra for 1.evel 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPFCTRUM NO: R la EARTlfQUAKE: Maximum BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: St ELEVATION: -17'-6" MASS POINT: 1 Ref: 2.9 kU i es . o '. m . f _--- - - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .
~
i s" . l
@o- ! _ (5.7,0.68) e v
i
~
f z c. o
.o. ..
E-- _ Nm-- m
\ -
.d C -- i (14.0,0.47? (16.0,0.47)
G y
~
3d g E (18.0,0.31) ! N m.
- o d i (30.0.0.23) 9 I
N
' l o j .
3 i i . I
~. l...__...._._____
o o . .. O.1 1.0 10.0 1 00.0 F.REQUENCY (CPS)
$ DC - I DESIGN CRITERIA 80034 Rev. O EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POKER STATION
. BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit A Page 2 of 27
. . . . . ...u.. . .._;. .L.'.. .. .. . .
rshibit A: Response Spectra for I.evel 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPl;CTRllM NO: R 2A EA RTilQllA KE :'_, Desi gn__. 14til l.111 NG : Reactor DAMPING: 21, El.E\'AT I ON : 23'-0" MASS POINT: 2 Ref: 2.9
! ___I i
I
- o. -
N . j 1 I - g --
~
- 7. -
C ~ i m t h- . I . I
- _. i
~~
5 (5.0,1. 30) 5 \ - E ; u y .'. . I
< o ~
i
~
i-- Z ! C I i t4 o g - 9
- .i d j (6.5,0.46) i (15.0,0.39)
~
a (12.0,0.39) i
~~ ~~
0,0.18) , o . (28.3,0.14) g ,
. . .. l O1 1.0 10.0 1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
P DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR - P0h'ER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit Page 3 of 27 A'* -
Exhibit.A: Response Spectra for Level 1 M.ssonry hall Scismic Analysis SPECTRUh! NO: __ R 2B EARTl!QllAKE: Maximum BUILDING: Reactor DAA1PI NG : 54 l ELEVATION: 23'-0" MASS POINT: 2 Ref: 2.9 a., . e - - . .. -. . . . - v: O m z ~ C l
- (5.0,1. 30)
H
=
3 G u
< t c.
H z o i N ce g (7.0,0.62) 14.0,0.60) m (10.1,0.60) c' i , !
! ! 18.0.0.36) !
l l 1 i (30.0,0.29)
- o a.' 1." 10.0 1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit A Page 4 of 27
... __ _ _.-.a . _ . . . _ .r;xhibit A: Response Spectra for f.evel 1 Masonry wall Scismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: R 3A EART11 QUAKE: Design _ BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 2% ELEVATION: 51'-0" MASS POINT: 3 Ref: 2.9 g ,
- y. ___ _. .
_ l I oJ t l
.; . g 3
. t v: -
1 z o. - om
- - J.
,Q --
(5.3,2.37) G - 4 ! 1 u --
< c -
N H z .- ! : O i I N ! C - I 5_
.o i
ene ., 8 1 i i (6. 6",0. 73) i (25.0.0.21)
~ I
- c. _*
. , , t
, o a >
0.1 1.0 10.0 100D FREG'O W (CPS) t DESIGN.CRITERIP, DC - 1 (C L,. L S0034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR PONER STATION Rev. O Exhibit A BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 5 of 27 y'e 6 m . .M _ _m A g w v r- 7 . p- M v-er-t=-
- +
.l . .
Exhibit A: Response Spect ra for ' Level 1 Masonry sall Seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: R 3B _ EARTilQUAKE: f. taxi mum BU3LDING: Reactor DAMPING: 55 ELEVATION: 51'-0" MASS POINT: 3 Ref: 2.9 e ir-2 - - - . - - . - . 3
*~ . i w -- .--
eb enB
~~
m . m .. o v z e. C n - e
>== .
5 \ (5.0,2. 50)
\
m . = ib u --
< o i l O ,
< t z !
c . t 8 N i C , 5-
=
I o- (7.0,1.04)
.; i
- 1 1 I x .
(22.0,0.42)
- o. -- --
. o 0.1 1.0 10.0 100D FREQUENCY (CPS)
=
~ ~~~
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034- Rev. O EE PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit A Page 6 of 27
.m . _ _
r.shibit A: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: R-1-4A EARTilQUAKE:' Design BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 2% ELEVATION: 74'-3" MASS POINT: 4 Ref: 2.0 G i M v - m _. O _ v . z - o" - U Z y ~ (5.0,2.52) a _. c2 _ u u --
< a Y
E . c N 9__ o-d ! (6. S;,0. 73)
~
l. (14.5,0.31) ( 22. 5 ,0. :'3) , o . O.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 i FREQUENCY (CPS) i T.* . DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 C j_ 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. 0 Exhibit A BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 7 of 27
~ .. ..
Exhibit A: Response Spectra for Level 1 Maruary Wall Scismic Analysis SPFCTRUM NO: R 4B EARTilQUA K E :' Maximum BU1LD1NG:_ _ _ Reactor" DAMPING: 5 '. ELEVATION: 74'-3" MASS POINT: 4 Ref: 2.9 VG-i i I o I - g __ e v Z . O " ~ I (5.0,2[83) I< 2 l a: -- . W E :: ! O -- t
<o-- ,
a d- ! z i O . N I O E (6.5 ,1,17) I o - I 13.0,0.55) (19.0,0.47) C - . . . . . b 100.0 A 0.1 1.0 10.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1
-80034 Rev. O EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit A Page 8 of 27
Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry hall Seismic Analysis Exhibit A: l SPECTRUM NO: R SA EARTilQUAKE: Design BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 2 *. ELEVATION: 91'-3" MASS POINT: 5 Ref: 2.9 G , e-e> m g _. o z (5.0,2.%) om m E-- ._ c: -
- .a f --
G g
~
< e --
N 1-z i N i t. , E - o - ;
= ,
o~ l (6.5,0.85) (13.5,0.36) (26.7,0.23) o - . . . . . ..
- b 01 1 0 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. 0 EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POh'ER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit A Page 9 of 27
Exhibit A: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Scismic Anaiysis SPECTRUM NO: R 5B EARTliQUAKEi Maximum BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 5 '+ ELEVATION: 91'-3" MASS POINT: 5 Ref: 2.9 Q~& 1 i I
~
o l ! 4 .
? ) I (5.0,3?28) c -
t v ~~ l t o, a m
'. L 5
9 . l 5 :- l 0< l
?
l
,, c. .
t
-n !
[ i 3 1 I Q . r 4 5 , (7.0,1.33) l l 0- .. e f -
~ '
1 ' l '
! I I . :
I ~ l l' (13.0,0.70) l (30.0,0.47) o .. l 0.1 1.0 10.0 ItT.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 PL IM NUCLEAR POWER STATION : FbtA Page 10 o:, 7 BOSTON EDISON. COMPANY
, . . , . . .~ - --
^
~~~ "-#~ Eih%WX: Response Spectra for Level Olason h all Scismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: _ R 6A EARTl! QUAKE : Des _ign BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 2 *. ELEVATION: 117'-0" MASS POINT: 6 Ref: 2.9 kN t o ' M
- 2 (5.0,3.61)
I m m . o v o l z *- -
- c. .
H - g ...
~
R
-- - l G '
u --
- e. _-
- n !
< l E--
z l C ; r4 O 1 l i 5-
, _ ((6.5,1.08) i I
~
i l $ .0,0.38) :: (19.0,0.34)
- o. '
o E 0.1 ~ 1n 10.0 1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit A Page 11 of 27 4*rw N N=me w4ee wee.
^
~
Response Spccera for f.evel 1 ?tasonry Wall Seismic Analysis
' Exhibit ^:
SPECTRUM NO: R 6B EARTilQUA KE : Maximum EUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 5% El.EVATION: 117'-0" MASS POINT: 6 Ref: 2.9 I (5.0,4 .06) o -- e . j j - l m m .. 3 o i z " - c
- 3 g _.
x -- o g -- i j
<o - l .
- 4 1 I-= (6.9,1.66) z ,
i s w 5 -
= !
o- i
~~
~
, l(12.0,0.S3) l
' e t l (21.0,0.68) l
~
o a 0.1 1.^ 10.0 100D FREQUENCY (CPS)
- - + >
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 CQ V 80034 PILGRIM-NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Rev., 0 Exhibit A
--Page 12 of 27 4
' Exhibit A: Response Spectra for 1.evel 1 Masoary Wall Seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: R 7A _
EARTilQUAKE: Design _ BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 2 *a ELEVATION: 138'-0" MASS POINT: 7
~~"
Ref: 2.9 [- 1" C, . . . _ _ _ _ - - m -
~
i i o ' I e
~
(s.0,7.44) l o 1 N ' .. C - d . s< :: A sn .. W . U U i
< e - i
.3 d H i z -
Sc . yn .
@ (6.3 ,2.28)
O '*
. \(19.U,U./W) w (27.1,0.49) o, , , , . . . .
E 0.1 1.n 10.0 1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. 0
~. EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION BOSTON EDISON. COMPANY Exhibit A Page 13 of 27
m . _ . - _ Exhibit A: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: R 7B EART11 QUAKE: Maximum BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 5 '. ELEVATION: 138'-0" MASS POINT: 7 Ref: 2.9 p o e . I (5.0,8!19) o ! t ! cd - 4> eP g E ~ Z~ . oc c
~
5o- , 3 m, 1 ; u" y -- i.
< a --
I N z ((6.5,3.33) , i Mo \ !
- e.
o I :
= i (10.0,2.34) (13.0,2.34) o - l l (17.0,1.64) l : (28.0,1.17) o l t s a
; e -
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0l FREQUENCY (CPS)
~+
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit A Page 14 of 27
.\
Exhibit A: Response Spectra for Level 1 flasonry h'all Seismic Analysis R SA EARTilQUA KE : Design SPECTRUM NO: BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 2% 164'-6" MASS POINT: 8 ELEVATION:
~~
Ref: 2.9
., a-
! (5.0,S.'1) 6 o, _.
w - o , O - v .
$d H --
cc u.2 o.
$^~~
u u --
<o --
- 3
- v .
H i; z c l M ?'?_o? N . . n
% (14.0,2.34) '
o - (12.0,2.34) { d i
~ l 15.5,1.24)
I o N l
- (21.7,0.81) l
,-
- 100.0 0.1 1.n 10.0 l
FREQUENCY (CPS) I l "" DC - 1 DESIGN CRITERIA Rev. 0 80034 Exhibit A PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Page 13 of 27 ! BOSTON EDISON COMPANY i L
Exhibi8 A: Response Spectra for 1.evel 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: R-1-88 EARTIIQUAKE: Maximum BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 5% ELEVATION: 164'-6" M. ASS POINT: 8 Ref: 2.9
.- s-
-- (5.0,9.49)
O.1-.. . - - . . . . . .- - . . . . . . - . I
- o. ~ _.
o'
^
C - v - I o- t Z ' C
~
e i e, -- i
~:
l u ~' U .
.- [C . 0,3. "< 3) l 1
$ (14.0,3.33) i 2 (12.0,3.33) o, __ ,
- m i 2 . e C i !
= ; I O 1 c:n !
o ( 1 "? 4 I. N I (27.0,1.72) l o* l :
** 1
~
. C. , . . ,
u o , 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
+
- DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR PO'e ER STATION BOSTON' EDISON COMPANY Exhibit A Page 16 of 27
.- . .; _ .- : .. :: y . . .. - - .. ,u ... ; ,
Exhibit A: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Scismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: T 1 - 2A EARTilQUAKE: Desinn BUILDING: Turbine DAMPING: 2 *. , _ o. ELEVATION: 23'-0" MASS POINT: 2 Ref: 2.10
.- er' _
1 i l 1 0 1 N (5.0,1!. 89) l
- 1
! i i
m - g _. l c v 2 m. _. .- - - . _ C i __ i (7.0,1.33) (7.8,1.33) ! l k-O ~ u - t
<=- ) ,
=d }!' l i
j. z -. i C N t- i e
- I' E f l t i m \
o . (10.0,0.43) ,
-.- . 6 I
_._ ~ i (26.7,0.23) I
. e. . . .
- o .
0.1 1.0 10.0 1004 FREQUENCY.(CPS) h DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. O EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION
--BOSTON-EDISON- COMPANY Exhibit A
--Page 17 of 27 h ae 4*-.44a N p g .gg ,4.m _w
" Y
l E.shibit A: Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry hall Scismic Analysis Maximum SPECTRUM NO: T 2B _ EARTilQUAKE: DAMPING: 5% BUILDING: Turbine MASS POINT: 2 ELEVATION: 23'-0" Ref: 2.10 s
++-
I i I (5.0,2 05) .. e
~ ,
m - I, \ e v , (7. 2,1. 56) (8.3,1.56) I - z9 o- - l--- .. d 't : 9
- .. l
=a U ~
U
< c -
'. ' l(9. 3,0. 94) e-t' l M
I, cc o +
- (13.0,0.62) -
i w. C i (23.3,0.47) t O , , . . , ci 10.0 1 00.0 0.1 1.0 , FREQUENCY (CPS) DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O 80034 EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR PO'.-lER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit A Page 18 of 27
,Ex_hibit A: Response Specj;ra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPl!CTRUM NO: T 3A EARTilQUAKE: Design l'UILDING: Turbine DAMPING: 2%
El. EVATI ON : 372.0" MASS POINT: 3 Ref: 2.10 C~" l
~
I
. i l ;
O
". l l l I
m .. O . v ~ z o. _ ._.. . .. .. om ..
~~
'$ \(5.0,2.60) s: .. ;
- .1 .
- 2. l O
- <e- \ .
"$ (7.1,1.82) (Sb0,1.82)
E-- z C i N
""" . l
=: . . .
i 9_
. i i
o - 1
- i
" s l
' [9.0,0.69) !
I (23.3,0.26)
. o, . . .
o C. 1.C 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) 2 DESIO: CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY-Exhibit A Page 19 0f 27 1 y , , .w. , -
., , - - , , , , - , - - g .- -,c ,,
Exhibi2 A: Response Spectra 'for Level 3 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis 51'FCTRUM NO - T 3B EARTliQUA KE :' Maxir::um BU)LDING: _ Tu_rbine DAMPING: 55 ELEVATION: 37'-0" MASS POINT: 3 Ref: 2.10 T
--.- ~ .-- - - - . . ._ . _ _ _ . .. _ . . . . . , _
i l
- e. - - - __ -- ._.
t
! ,i tn t c
_. t
$o,,; p Up.91) q __
y _. tu . g, _ u l
~_~ (7.0,2.13) (8.0,2.13) :
E o , . p4 l 1 t . 5 N i I x - , 9 i
~
(11.0,0.83)
. i l (27.5,0.52) o~ . , ,
_ o 0.1 1.C 10.0 1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) .
'l DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 C 80034 Rev. 0 L PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Exhibit A Page 20of 27 !
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
1:.shibit A: r csponse Spectra for 1.cyc1 1 1.;asonry wall Seisa.ic Analysis SI'l!CTPUM NO : T 4A ,_ EARTilQUAKE: Design BUILDING: . Turbine PAMPING. 2% El.EVATION: 51'-0" MASS POINT: 4 Ref: 2 10 g a_ _ __ . . 4 , i c- ,
! i
~
(5.0,3.71)
. .. i f
\\
b
-~
l U~ - t 2 a c. _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . , c n i- .. : (6.9,2.67) (h9,2.67) j
=. :
S -- P. .. q .. ! J N ' 5 z c ' N C t. E ; i j ( j (S.75,1.09) !
-~ '
8 (11.35,0.70) i \ i (23.75,0.36)
- o. ' '
. o .< r .
0.1 1.0 10.0 1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 8003.: Rev. O Ej_C PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION Exhibit A
- - BOSTON EDISON COMPANY .-- - ---._ - - - - Page 21 o f 27 m -w --
-r- e .- -
-4 d -4 " --
e fxhibit A: Response Spectra for I.evel 1 tasonry Kall Scismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: T-1-4R EART11QlJAKE: .Maximu DAMPING: 51, BUILDING: Turbine ELEVATION: 51'-0" MASS POINT: 4 _R s f : 2.10 g -- l I (5.0,4.05) l c -.1 . . . . i l l
. {
..--l g
,a c -
v
* -{6r6,2.91, --{?.b2191) z .
f OM I f I
+
Q x .- g U u -
<a
- j
- i (9.7,1.66)
E ' n i C e i 5 ,
= I (18.0,1.04)
=~,
_.(13.0.1.04) ' i (25.S,0.73) i i i i : t
~
o , , i o - 100.0 10.0 0.1 1.0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
- I DC - 1 DESIGN CRITERIA Rev. O C
j_ 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR PONER STATION Exhibit A BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 22 of 27
_r.nhibig A: Response Spectra for Level 1 P.asonry Wall Seismic Analysis SI'l-CTRt!M NO: RW 3A EARTilQUAKN: Design BUILDING: Radwaste DAMPING: 2s ELEVAT]ON: 23'-0" MASS POINT: 3 Ref: 2.:: 14 __ o g9- _ _ . . - - - . . _ _ _ .. . __ ..__ _ _ __.. _ ________ _ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ , _
! l(11.0,0.85) l t t e
_ --f
- _ ___ _ _ _ _I I
- t r,- l --
.x t.': -
* . l z e. -_
C C .
~.-s E
N e-
=5 E
s- t i
~
U t i. u- -- *
< v. - l !
- O' l
l u ' (15.5,0.33) ! N ' M-o 7 . I 5
=
N.
- O J
\
(25.5,0.15) ; l
- s l
l C C . [ 0 1- 1.0 10.0 100.C FREQUENCY (CPS) F DESIGN CRITERIA DC-- 1 C ,k 80034 Rev. O A~ L b# PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION ~ Exhibit Page 23 of 27, BOSTON EDISON COMPANY u
Exhibit A: hespo:e.e Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Leismic Analysis l SPECTRUM NO: nw I - 3a EARTliQUAKE: Maximum BUILDING: nadwaste DAMPING: ss ELEVATION: 23'-o" MASS POINT: 3 _Pcf: 2.11
~
W o" l W> c - Z ~ O - m . H .. m
. li (12.0,1.12)
D u '
\
l
< o. - t \
Y H z . C I '! N , (15.0,0.65) o I. g . c' ,0.44) (30.0,0.36) i
. i
- o. - . . . . . .
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) i-DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 C 80034 Rev. O
~~
EJ- %# PILGRIM NUCLF.R POKER STATION Exhibit A Page 24 of 27 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
- e v-- . ~ . - - - -
Exhibit A: Respor se Spectra for Ltvel 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPFCTRUM NO: _aw _ 3 _ at EARTilQllAKE _Muism_ BUILDING: Radwaste DAMPING: ss ELEVATION: 37. MASS POINT: 4 _Ref: 2.11 p
~
~ .-______.
o, - v . eq> E 3 a.. Z E o . m . E-- . x - s:.2 U g ..
<: o--
- N h
Z (14.0,1.77) C . N
~
- 5
=
0'
'" 1 l
17.0,0.52) l (32.0,0.36) ' o
- 0.1 ;.; 10.0 100.0' I
FREQUENCY (CPS) ,
+ -
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. O EL,b#Ck PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Exhibit A BOSTON EDI. SON COMPANY Page 25 of 27
s . . -
~<--:..
,.3 ..-:-. . . .
,.7.,_ Exhibit A: Response Spectra for Lovel 1 M sonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPFCTRUM NP ' ._ pw - 1 _5s EARTilQi!A U. : Maximu., BUILDING: Radwaste DAMPING: Ss ELEVATION: 51'-o- MASS POINT: 5 _ECf: 2.11 W L - - - - - - . - . . . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ I 4 o 1 e4 . l
~
(14.0,1.77) n m '.' l c -- c - I Z
- C - I
~ ..
r- .
]
-- 1 i U ~~
U l
< o- i a . }
z , O !' , N !
- 4 L g
=: I C
(19.0,0.57)
*~
l (21.0.0.55) O I.
. . . _ j s
l (55.0.0.31H o , , 0.1 - 1.0 10.0 100.0l FREQUENCY (CPS) l DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 C. -Q(* SO93.: Rev. O J b# PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION Exhibit A BDSTDN EDIS0W COMPANY Page 26 of 27 .
.E.xhibit As Response Spectra for Level 1 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPl!C'li u': NO: _pg__ _
_3 _ es._,__,, __ EARTHQUAKE: _y,qxjmym , BUILDING: Radwaste DAMPING: Ss ELEVATION: sie-0" MASS POINT: 6 _Ref: 2 .1.1 W
~
-____..l o '
i J . j m g . c v o ' Z o - o 5_ .
- -: I (14.0,2.34) g --
U g ..
< c-
- 3 N l--
Z. C N s.- - i c: i 9
~ 17.0,1.07)
. ,,n
-,n----e.-
i l (44.0,0.49) O. - . . . . , , , u o 1 00.0 0.1 1.G 10.0 I FREQUENCY (CPS) i-DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O EES - - 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION
-BOSTON-EDISON ~ COMPANY Exhibit A Page 27 of 27 w 7 7
s Exhibit B: Response Spectra for Leuci 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: R 1A , EARTHQUAKE: Desian BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 21 ELEVATION: -17' MASS POINT: 1 Ref: 2.9 5
. ~~- - -- - ' - - - ---- -.
o ~ s
, t l' '
e- , j j d._ ,-- -
- l l
.. i !
r- -' l
^ .. I Lf) s
~
~.
v I c-- i g-- z t c l
- l i :
- m. -- -
- C .. .
(4. 3,0. 4 3) (5.0,0. 4 3) - 5 --
< ,-- l a i M ".
2 ~ 14.0,0.24) b
- ( 3. 9,0. 2 3 )j' ( 12. 0,0. 2 4 ) j q / .
?
i c , i
~
(17.5,0.12) l 1 $ . (.l_ 1.,.0 nl.11. C3 .
~
j (26.7,0.09)
'(0.1,0,01) 0.3,0.02) !
o 1 , I I s c- a 10.0 100.0 0.1 1.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) i-DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit B Page 1 of 14
6 e T.xhibit IB: Response Spectra for Level 2 Masonry Wall Scismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: a 2A EART!fQUA KE :"_nesien DAMPING: 2s BUILDING: Reactor ELEVATION: 23'-o" MASS POINT: 2
.Ec f : 2.9 c
b
- e. . . .. . . _ _ _ _ _ - ._ _.
M e~ l y _~.
~
m , ' . .. O -
~
n-* z. o 1-- _ 9
, C. ~ (. 7 7_00) (5.0.1.001 3
U
~-: -.
< C' -
_: = - i-- z h~C 2 5 (6.8;0.35) (15.0,0.30) (12.0,0. 0) ( 3 . 9,0. 24). d (1.9,0.15 Q O,0.141 , (26.3,0.11)
- (0.1,0.005 )
o , , , , .. a
- C 100.0-0.1 1.0 10.0 1 FREQUENCY (CPS)
DC - 1 DESIGN CRITERIA CCk L-L LJ 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POh'ER- STATION Rev. 0 Exhibit E Page 2 OI 14 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY _
Exhibit B: Resitanse Spectrc for Level 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: R 3A EARTHQUAKE: c,sien BUILDING: peactor DAMPING: 2s ELEVATION: 5 3 . _0 - MASS POINT: 3 Bef: 2.9 4
-~
i l o ~ !
~ .
(4.3,1.821 l(5.0,1.82) l ! 2 c e c -
~
<~ -
9 ~' i 2 ,. 3 t vE ..
<e '
T I i an \
*~
i k 5 i N g
.=
=
- (6.6,0.56) i c
c - ' c' (4.0,0.40: , I i i T E 8,T. YOT - j (25 0,0.16)
-(0.1,0.01)
C. .
- o n 0.1 1.0 10.0 1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) >
n DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 F
- 80034 Rev. O PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Exhibit B J- Page 3 of 14 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
.. I, Exhibit is : Responso Spectra for Level 2 Masonry Wall seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: a-2-4A ,
EARTHQUAKE: ' oesign BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 2s s
~
ELEVATION: 74. MASS POINT: 4 _Ref: .: . 9 i O. I i .
" - (4 . 3 ,1. 94 ) (5.0,1.N) l '
- i I l .- ..
v: -- l ! t l; C t ! i !,
- e. l z -
c
~ --
i ; 1 l Q z l' G 3
- o. _- -
. z ' c N
= .
=
c .
*- k(6.8,0.56) I e
. 1 (4.0,0.30) ,
l 1 (3.4,0.18) l
\
(25.0.0.18)
- e. _- , ..
. o .
D.I 1.U 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
- 4 DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h*ER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit B Page 4 of 14
- w- g--e- w w - - - - - ~ 4 & T y- -
^ ^
. . . . - .: .~< . -': ;..-.- .. -j .. - . L. -
Exhibit B : Restonne Spectra for 1xvol 2 Masonry Wall Scismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: R 5A EARTHQUAKE: cesign BUILDING: Feactor DAMPING: 2s ELEVATION: 91. MASS POINT: 5
-Ref: 2.9
. i I f
- - I i j T l l w ~
- 7. -
" _. i
--~
g4 .
- .. i E- _. .
l 5 _. i' D _i 7 . E 7 (4.3,2.27) (5.0,2.27) I d -- l !
< cy *
} i
< l i 3 i n -
i:5
=
- t C ~ [
* ~
i
.. i(6.5,0.65)
-. y \'
, (3.8,0.39) 1
!, (13.5,0.28) i 3
l ( 2 . 6 ,0.17 4 _ .- o.-(0.1,0.01) (26.7,0.1=1 u;1 1.0 10.0 103.0 FREQUENCY -(CPS)
- - . - - .- - - - . . -. . . .. g DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80031 Rev. 0
- BIS.-. .PILGRDLNUCLEAR_ROKER_ STAT. ION Exhibit B Pige 5 o f 14 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY eum * -m MWg *" >-g ah-m -a= *. Vma 9 -
=
.
- 1 . ,
1.xhibit B:, Besjonse Slectra for Level 2 .OS.oary Wall Seismic Analysis SPECTPUM NO: a 6A , EARTHQUAKE: o,,sion BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 2s ELEV1 TION: 117'-o- MASS POINT: 6 Ief: 2.9
- i. - .
Y 1 . I l i t 2 c~
.T. .
v:
*g - >
c-- (
= A .
. l (4.3,2.78) _ (5.0,2 78)
%r-5 -,
i i p
=... -- l
-- ; i r t.
w .. ,
< c ~r d . l
~
a
. z .
3 j o_. . :
'I c ~~
~
(*(6. 5 ,0. S 3 ) i
?
- I
~ ~ ~
(3.8,0.39).
- ( "
- 0
- 19 (19.0,0.26) 9 i(0.1,0.02) . I o n .
0.1 1.0 10.0 1004 FREQUENCY (CPS) > DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O
~
EES - - - - 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION TOSTON~ EDISON COMPANY-Exhibit B Page 6 of 14
. . r. Exhibit B: Response Spect.ra for Lcvel 2 P.asonry Wall Seis:-ic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: a 7A EARTliQUAKE : Lesien BUILDING: Reactor DAMPING: 2s ELEVATION: 13a'-o- MASS POINT: 7 _Ref: 2.9 i- , 3-t c 1 . t i
- I :
C. i . t
- .. i i
- j; '
- i .
o " ! .
@,' - i j
- r. -
e w i i o- . ; z j - __. O (4.3,5.72?7(5.0,5.72) ;
- o. i
- in _L '
= ,
l U u -. ,
< I
- o. T s Emms Y
< !j z '
b *.m e O
~
f o' >
'(6. 3,1. 7 5 )
i i o - ,
~ (3.8,0.75) (19.0,0.61) t .
(0.1,0.05) (2.5.0.30' (27.1,0.35)
. o. .
c' s u.1 1.0 10.0 1004 FREQUENCY (CPS)
' DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O EES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit- B Page 7 of 14
- y. . . --
Exhibit Bt Response Spectra for Lovel 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: R 8A EARTHQUAKE: Dosisn BUILDING: neactor DAMPING: 2s ELEVATION: 164' MASS POINT: s
-Ref:
2.9 < _a
. s -- - ...-..-...-.7. . . . . .. ._ . . . ._ . __ _ ____ __
C. I
= -
m f T (4.3,6.62) _ (5.0,6 ,62) c . c.. h g .. M
~
og C. a * .. t= U .- y
< e. -
A w s
< 1 i-- t z :
O i N o. M m e O
.2. 25 )
*~ (6. 2,I N .
(14.0,1.60) (12.0,1.80) (3.8,1.19) o _ rim 5 n om,
~
N * (2.5,0.30'
- e. (0.1,0.02) g . .. ,
0.1 2.u 10.0 1004 FREQUENCY (CPS) DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 ! 80034 Rev. 0 EEdO PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit B Page 8 of 14 f'
~ ' --
.. . . -^ .
Exhibit D Response spectra for Level 2 Masor.:y Wall Saismic Analysis SPEC 1 RUM NO: _ T 2A _ EARTilQUAKE:'2 sign BUILDING: Turbine DAMPING: 2s ELEVW ION: 23'-0" MASS POINT: 2
-Ref: 2.10 9 SW
~
, p. _ - _ _ _ . - _ .
c'
~
(4. 3 ,1. 4 5 ) (5.0,1. 35) T = 1 g o m Z o M -
=
l (7.0,1.02) e o. " ; -
\/.6,L.U4)
J ,,,. p b u ~~
< m i
$b b*O '
{- O i b . I
=
( 4 . 0 ,0. 41). I 3~ (10.0,0.33) e N
~
o , (26.7,0.18) (0.5, ).06) v.A 2.v 10.0 '1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. O
. b PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Exhibit B BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 9 of 14
- - ~
Exhib_it B: Responso Spectra for Level 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPl;CTRUM NO: T-2-2a EARTilQUAKE: Maximum BUILDING: Turbine DAMPING: ss ELEVATION: 23'-0" MASS POINT: 2
.-Re f : 2.10 '
'+I e
; 4. . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . _ _ . . _ - _. . __ . __ _ ._. . .. _ _
(4.4,1.60) (5.0,1 ,60) _ - - a w, -- m e-t g .. O -
'~
N f 7.:!.1.20) 7 " o - (0.3,1.20) i-- .. A C. M . tu o y ..
< x --
2d I (9.3,0.72) z e _ t yo (4.0,0.56) i 13.0,0.48) O n N d l (23.3,0.36) m / O - u.1 1.0 10.0 1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) DESIbN CRITERIA DC - 1 yp - Rev. O 80034 bb PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit B Page 10 of 14
, , , ..__...,.7--
...a-;.
,. ; . 7 ,.
Enhibit B: Response Spectra for Lovel 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: T 3A _ EARTilQUAKE: oesign BUILDING: Turbine DAMPING: 2s ELEVATION: _
- 37. o- MASS POINT: 3
-Ref: 2.10 '
7.- .
~
m
.' (4.3.2.00) (5.0,2.30) m .
n m _. e g.. 2 O A \ (7.1 ,1.40) H (8 .0,1.40) g _. a A _ W . O g ..
< o 3
- i
< l H !
Z. o N c:: 9 m, - Q(9.0,0.53) o (3.4,0.40) -
~
x (23.3,0.20)
- (0.1,0.
o-g, , 0.1 1.0 10.0 1004 FREQUENCY (CPS) DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. 0 EES-- __._RILGRIM NUCLEAR P0h'ER_ STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY _lxhibit B Page 11 of 14
- e. .se guage e. p &4
..p- .
Exhibit B: Responsa Spectra for Lovel 2 .%sonry Wall Scismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: T 3B E ARTilQUA KE : Maximum BUILDING: Turbine - DAMPING: ss ELEVATION: 37. o- MASS POINT: 3
;Ref: 2.1o ,
._(.4, 3 ,_2 , 2.4 ) ( 5 ._o , 2 . 2 4 )
* ~
N . m M 7.o ,1.64) _ T C -
.(8 ,0,1.64) m -- 1 z
o;4
- .l.
1-= ..
~~
l
- d -- i O
g .~.
< o-- j
- J j
?
2 C ! N
~
(3.9,0.68) g (11.0,0.64)
=
m - (1.7,O.36
\ (27.5,O.40)
I o- (0.1,0.002) g . . . . . . u.1 1.u 10.0 1 00.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) ; DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1
~ p' C 80034 Rev. 0
___bM PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Exhibit B
-BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 12 of 14 - ~ - _:. . _ - . - ____: . _ _ _ _
a . Exhibit D: Response Sp2ctra for Lcval 2 Masonry Wall Seismic Analysis SI'ECTRUM NO: _T 4 A EARTliQUAKE: Desian BUILDING: Turbine DAMPING: 2s ELEVATION: 51' MASS POINT: 4
.-R e f : 2.10 '
'C W .
W> 0 -
o-.
z ,.; O - (4.3,2.855 (5.0,2. 35) . i-- __ g _ seu a .- b u
~
-~
< o- 6.9,2.05) a $ (7.9,Z.05)
Z C N - e--e l c: 9_. l e~ E (8.8,0.84) (4.2,0.69) !
/ }(11.4,0.54)
- (3.4,0.32)
(23.8,0.28) !
-(0.1,0,001) p O
0.1 1.u 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY (CPS) DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O Ckk b l %# 80034 PILGRIM' NUCLEAR POWER STATION Exhibit B Page 13 of 14 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
m . . _ - Exhibit 3: Responce Spectra for Levol 2 Masonry Wola seismic Analysis SPECTRUM NO: T-2-4b EARTilQllM E : Maximum BUILDING: Turbine DAMPING: 5s ELEVATION: 51'-0" MASS POINT: 4 Ref: 2.10 .
,r '
- o. ~ ..
n . Q (4.3,3.14) (5.0,3.14) 3 ~
\
z m o
~ ..
f-- _. f .. m 3 .. l (6.6 ,2.24) U U
; (7 ,8,2.24)
< o- l N
H z C e N k9.7,1.28) C ~ ! ( 4 . 0,1. 00 ) m \ V 13 . 0,0. 80 )
\(18.0,0.80)
' (2.7,0.55 \
'25.S,C.00) f
-(0.1,0.02 o-g= , . . . . . .
U.1 1.0 10.0 100D FREQUENCY (CPS) DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O ES 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit B Page 14 of 14
a_ . . .- . , . i 9 EXHIBIT C (LATER) l DC - 1 DESIGN CRITERIA Rev. O 80034 l EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISOl' COMPANY Exhibit C Page 1 of 1
Exhibit D-1 , Single Wythe Masonry Wall Section Properties
. . D-la: Definition of Reinforcement Cases
, Vertical Reinforcement ,
a A Shield Wall 1#5 bar B Shield Wall 2#5 bars C Partition Wall 1#5 bar D Partition Wall 2#5 bars Horizontal Reinforcement E* Shield Wall Dur-o-wal E** Partition Wall Dur-o-wal F* Shield Wall Bond Beam F** Partition Wall Bond Beam E* F* Shield Wall Combination E**F** Partition Wall Combination D-lb: Wall Mass Density and Equivalent Static Pressure Equivalent Wall Static Mass Case Thickness Pressuge+ Density (in) (1b/in-) (1b-sec4 /in4 ) A 8 .579 1.872x10-4 12 .868 1.872x10-4 B 8 .579 1.872x10-4 12 .868 1.872x10-4 C 8 428 1.383x10-4 12 .567 1.222x10-4 D 8 428 1.383x10-4 12 .567 1.222x10-4
+ Due to a 1.0 g horizontal acceleration
\
b DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. O EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit D Page 1 of 5
~ ' a, .- Exhibit D-1 (cont'd) D-Ic: Orthotropic Section Properties Reinforcement Wall Case , Thick. Cxx Cxy, C yy Gxy a Vert. Ilo r i :: ._ (in) (psi) Jpsis (psi) Jpsi) A E* 8 99600 20800 108000 41500 A Fa 12 55700 13500 81000 27000 A E* F* 8 163700 26500 108000 53000 B E* 8 99600 30500 235600 61100 B F* 12 55700 18200 148500 36450 B E* F* 8 163700 39300 235600 78600 C E** 8 99600 20800 108000 41500 C F** 12 55700 13300 81000 26700 C E**F** 8 163700 26500 108000 53000 D E** 8 99600 30400 232000 60800 D F** 12 55700 18100 145000 36100 D E**F** 8 163700 39000 232000 78000 D-Id: Cracking Moments Wall M ct Case Thickness (in) (in-lb/in) A . 8 379 12 765 B 8 329 12 765 C 8 281 12 615 D 8 281 12 615 E* 8 649 E** 8 452 F* 8 649 12 1508 T 8 452 12 892 DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 Rev. O 80034
-EES--' BOSTON PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION EDISON-COMPANY Exhibit D
--Page 2 of 5 m- mee . e 6 ee g
Ex h i b i,t D-1, (cont'd) D-le: Allowable Moments (1)(2) Allowable Moment
' (in-Ib/in) y Vertical Wall Design '
Maximum
- Reinforcement Thickness Earthquake Earthquake Case (in) Myy Myy' A 8 1230 2260 12 1963 3534 B 8 1814 3266 12 2888 5198 C 8 1214 2277 12 1982 3568 D 8 1826 3286 12 2915 5247 Allowable Moment (in-Ib/in)
Hor i::on t al Wall Design Maximum Reinforcement Thickness Earthquake Earthquake Case (in) Mxx Mxx' E*, E** 8 763 1375 F* 8 668 1336 12 1317 2371
~
F** 8 645 1331 l' 1406 2403 E*F*, E**F** 8 763 1375 (1) Applicable to load combinations (1), (2), and (4) if
'D' imposes only bending on the wall.
(2) Maximum earthquake limits are applicable to load com-bination (3) if both 'D' and 'T' impose only bending on the wall. E DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. O EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit D Page 3 of 5
.)
Exhibit D-_2 Multi-ljythe Masonry Wall Secti_on Properties
- D-2a: Wall Mass Density and Equivalent Static Pressure Cr Equivalent ,
Wall Static Mass Thickness Pressugc+ Densjty (in) (1b/in-) (1b-sec /in4) 18 1.414 2.122x10-4 24 1.906 2.122x10-4 30 2.367 2.122x10-4 36 2.859 2.122x10-4
+ Due to a 1.0 g horizontal acceleration D-2b: Orthotropic Section Properties Wal:
Thi ckr. : s s Cxx Cxy Cvy Gxy (in) _ psi) ( (psi) ( p's i ) (psi) 18 82500 19400 115000 38900 24 87300 20400 119000 40300 30 81000 22100 151000 44200 36 100900 23900 141600 47800 DESIGN CRITERIA I DC - 1 80034 Rev. O Exhibit D EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 4 of 5
. . . .. . , ...e .
- j. . :._ i, .__._ .
Exhibit D-2 (cont'd) D-2c: Cracking hfoments Wall Thickness 51cr hier i (in-lbfin) is (in) (in-Jb75n) 18 3,323 1686 24 6036 3063 30 9310 4725 36 13581 6892 D-2d: Allowable bioments (1)(2) Allowable Ffoment Wall (in-lb/in) Design Earthquake htaximwn Earthquake Thickness (in) 5fxx Ff yy Fixx ' hfyy' 2712 3973 4882 7152 18 24 4439 6357 7990 11442 5741 11613 10333 20902 30 10061 14718 18108 26490 36 (1) Applicable to load combinations (1), (2), and (4) if ,
'D' imposes only bending on the wall.
(2) hiaximum carthquake limits are applicable to load com-bination (3) if both 'D' and 'T' impose only bending on the wall. DESIGN CRITERIA I DC - 1 Rev. O 80034 Exhibit D EES PILGRIFf NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON C0h1PANY Page 5 of 5 em eukw eW meewe % e *Wm' e
EXIIIBIT E PIPING ATTACHED COMPONENT / EQUIPMENT WEIGHTS ~ STEEL COPPER PIPE FILLED FILLED NOM. SIZE WITH WATER WITH WATER (O . D . , IN.) (LBS/FT) (LBS/FT) 1/4 0.57 0.49 3/8 0.8 0.7 1/2 1.2 1.1 3/4 1.7 1.5 1.0 2.5 2.1 1 1/4 3.6 3.3 1 1/2 4.4 4.0 2.0 6.3 5.6 2 1/2 9.5 8.0 3.0 13.1 11.7 3 1/2 16.4 15.3 4.0 20.0 18.0 5.0 28.7 24.1 6.0 39.9 30.7 8.0 63.2 51.4 10.0 95.4 77.3 12.0 132.5 100.5
' ~
DESIGN CRITERIA DC- 1 80034 Rev 0 EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit E Page 1 of 3
* "M e e ,
Exhibit E (cont'd) CONDUIT CONDUIT PLUS CONDUCTOR WEIGHT STEEL ALUMINUM NOM. SIZE (IN.) (LBS/FT) (LES/FT) 1.4 0.7
,- 3/ . ,
Y 2.1 1.0 1 3.0 1.4 1 1/4 1 1/2 3.6 1.8 5.0 2.5 2 7.9 4.1 2 1/2 11.0 6.0 3 4 16.5 9.5 5 24.0 14.0 6 32.5 19.5 I E DC- 1 DESIGN CRITEEIA nev o CCO 80034 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Exhibit E LLQ BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT E (cont'd) EQUIPMENT
- WEIGHT (LBS)
JUNCTION BOXES SURFACE AREA x 5.0 LBS/FT 2 SWITCHES 5 EMERGENCY LIGHTS 50 q; STEEL PLATES PER AISC i RECEPTACLES 15 DOOR 100 SPEAKER 25 HOSE REEL 75 2 FIRE PROTECTION PANELS SURFACE AREA x 16 LBS/FT FIRE EXTINGUISHER 30 GAITRONICS BOX 20 PRESSURE GAGE 10 FUSE BOX 30 LADDER 8 LBS/ ET. UNISTRUTS 3.8 LBS/FT GRATING 13 LBS/FT 5 LIGHTS AIR TANK 10 HOT WATER HEATER TANK WT AND WATER WT WT WAYS PER AISC REMOTE VALVE OPERATOR SUPPORT PLATES 50 UNIT HEATER 400 CABLE TRAYS 50 LBS/FT
- NOTE: For equipment weight not specified above consult group leader DESIGN CRITERIA DC- 1 80034 Rev 0 EES- PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit E Page 3 of 3 l
T .
'.. g ,
EXHIBIT F (LATER)
>i DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. 0
-EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit F Page 1 of 1
Exhibit G Allowable Stress;c in Reinforcrd Masonry Wallo Allowable Stresses (Masonry)* (psi) (11) Description g gy) g, 1) Related to f'm=1350 psi Related to f'm=1350 psi f'm & mo mo =2000 psi f'm & mo mo =2000 psi i
' COMPRESSICN Tr Axial (2) (3) Fa 0.22 f'm 297 0.44 f'm 594 Flexural (4) 0.33 f'm 44( 0.66 f'm 891 Fm BEARING (5) Fa 0.25 f'm 338 0.50 f'm 675 SHEAR No special shear reinforcement 83 Out of plane (6) vm 1.5/f'm 55 2.25[f'm In plane (12) (7)
(Shear walls) vm M/Vdy >l (8)
- M/Vdy =0 2.0 if'm 73 3.0 /f'm 110 Reinforcement taking shear Out af plane (6) 1.5 (f'm 55 2.25/f'm 83 vm In plane (12) (7)
(Shear walls) vm M/Vdy >1 1.5 (f'm 55 2.25/f'm 83
=0 2.0 / f'm 73 3.0 / f 'm 110 M/Vd y l
(13)
~
TENSICN Normal to bed 34 joints Ft N/A 0.75/mo Parallel to bed joints in running
- 1. 50/ mo 67 bond Ft N/A ,
*f'm and me are the masonry strength and mortar strength, respectively, in pounds per square inch.
e DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. O EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit G Page 1 of 7
. --- - .g
. Exhibit G { cont'd) .
Allowable Stresses (Reinforcement) (psi) Description M (1) M' (1) BOND u 140 140 (.Deformedbars TENSICN E. COMPRESSION Reinforcing steel Fs Grade 40 bars 20,000 0.9 f y (9) Joint wire reinforcement 0.5 fy (10) 0.9 f y Notes: (1) M and M' shall be used for evaluating stress in accordance with Section 6.2. (2) The effective area to be used for evaluating axial compressive stress is shown below: F1 Effective length L depends
,g on type of bond and loading p* ' . . . ,
L (see next page). M .- b' ft /
\.- /
y.- y 4 /}
'O-
= V/////M Effective at:.. f--.._'.
compressive stress calculations on net section of masonry units plus grouted cores. DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. O Exhibit G EES _ PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Page 2 of 7 W6 J-* 6WP e w- eg
Exhibit G (cont'd) (2) (cont'd) Lo A D Lo&D toad 4 5 j e g /g~ s tu.aa.uc ora g)^ -
-/s 3 ?
8 g/. % F M 43 lg 4s, I k 5 iil[ .I[g.,: :[ .I, ~i- l} 4 , ll "J N- , }'
~"
.h-
_e: ' - 7_
/,
l.v....,..., , .
. . ..,. . ... .e; '._ \
.. .m...<
~ ~ - -
e r- l, ( trecctive f 2 / rre activt / I scaniwo motu + 4 t ' toad Loao
,} [ aaan.us PL aT E.
IL p i:
?f av l '. l U, . - . {& as' t
ll li
,k. . il. 'v
, . 4 . ii . .
($.7'C-]g.-Jr:~~I]. w s-. ;
.- . . , t .
w m __ - - . . mammin g I h.; = -.' ~.'[ -- l .'- ! . t. ; l ,. e I creactive 2 Q,,h eires..e l_ Lea D v s P' ~;
,,f ?o '
Is'/, < .
-s 4}/
s ,, J s,( k,crtreteva/SAstoow ecam satan ots.st4 wee.
, < vr=vicaw 6o.os )
' Effective lengths for axial compressive stress evaluation.
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. O EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit G Page 3 of 7
Exhibit G (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.
i 4 61 or stud spacing
! 3tfor I ,
whichever is fess for 6 stack bond g running bond l
' N ,, '" W h M&,; L'- 45w/ 2//f ~ is
* ..,e** %
D, G o G
* ****w "Y y t
Area assumed etf ective in flea ural compression, force normal to face (S) Allowable bearing stress may be increased to 0.375 f'm for M and 0.?; f'm for M' if load is applied on one-third of the compression area or less. (6) The effective area for evaluating shear stress for walls in flexure is shown below. t
} 4
[Vf<,,x/ ,'g i , Q} ?'4M%',:41 , _9'ynr
.2 4 ' h; . g + - @,
,2
. ,( . m 4 7. , t \
Y& h l 9 i [ ' REINFORCEMEN. , 1 Area assumed of fective in shear, force normal to f ace r li-
'rr DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. O EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit G Page 4 of 7
- Exhibit G (cont'd)
(7) The effective area for evaluating shear stress for shear walls is shown below. S
- I A?" 'M'gs[' ' i'--
'/,C'<:)
h klI I 1%< ) Y y.\'k h*k, e ,l' Vg
).A h -/ ~ si n,+
\
& ' h , ,?
'+
.k < W lSW j. Wl'5 si 4
p REINFORCEMENT q Area assumed ef f ective in shear, force parallel to face (8) M is the maximum bending moment ocurring sieultaneously with the shear load V at the section under consideration. dy is the length of the Interpolate by straight line for wall in the direction of shear. M/Vdv values between 0 and 1. (fy = 40 KSI (9) f y is the specified yield strength of the reinforcement. for grade 40 reinforcement) (10) 0.5 f ynot to exceed 30,000 psi. (11) values for the moduli of elasticity and Poisson's ratio to be used in the analysis are as follows: 810,000 psi Modulus of Elasticity Ec = v = 0.2 Poisson's Ratio (12) For non-shear walls which are confined in the structure and subjected to shear distortion due to relative" floor displacements, the allowable relative displacement (6) is 0.1% of the height of the wall (h). For r.on-shear walls which are subjected to shear distortions due to relative floor displacement but cannotj be classified as confined walls, the allowable relative displacement is 0.01% of the height of the wall. Confined walls are bounded by adjacent stoel or concrete primary 2 structures. As a minimum, confined walls are bounded top and bottom E DC - 1 DESIGN CRITERIA Rev. O 80034 Exhibit G EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Pace 5 of 7
Exhibit G (cont'd) or bounded on three sides. Examples of confined walls are shown schematically below. m inizi ri s i s i. I f h h $'
'q j '
'..... . . . . ',, i Confined walls: e,= A /h ( 0.001 Confined walls that are subjected to in-plane forces as well as displacements, but are not building shear walls, shall satisfy the following:
A f Od h
+
H 4 .001 and V/A ( vm for h/D f 1.0, O f = V/80,000A h 3.0, O for 1.0 < h ( f = V/20,000A D h htere: Ad = imposed story displacement Ag = displacement due to imposed ferees H = story height h = wall height ; D = wall length A = area of wall under in-plane loading vm = allowable shear stress u:ider in-plane loading V = applied in-plane load Unconfined walls are not bounded by adjacent steel er concrete primary structures suffi-iently to create a confining effect. An example of an unconfined wall is shown sche::stically below. A /h 4 0.0001
)m e Unconfined wall: =
r y (13) Allowable masonry tensile stress for extreme loading conditions (M') is used to define a lower bound cracking mcment (Mer) in
,?
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. O EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit G Page 6 of 7
o Exhibit G (cont'd) . masonry walls for use in level 2 and 3 analyses (see Section 4.1). The tensile capacity of masonry is otherwise neglected in the evaluation of reinforced walls. i
.f DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. O EES PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY Exhibit G Page 7 of 7
t"*. . EXHIBIT H (LATER) i
- -- ~___
+
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 80034 Rev. O EES --- PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON-COMPANI Exhibit H _Page 1 of 1
* "~W4'W 9
- w4 , ee - ,
O 4 5 EXHIBIT I (LATER)
/
?
DESIGN CRITERIA DC - 1 ( L 80034 PII. GRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Rev. O Exhibit I Page 1 of 1 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
, , i
.-# t er* $
EXHIBIT J (LATER) l l l I. DESIGN CRITERIA $C-1 l 80034 Rev. 0 l Exhibit J l PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION BOSTON EDISON COMPANY lPage1of1 e
~^
.- .' ATTACHf1LNT 3~ ~~
)
l PILGRIM I MASONRY WALL ANALYSIS Status - 2/24/81 ANALYSIS OTAL NUMBER NUMBER OF NUMBER OF LOCATION GROUP OF WALLS SAFETY RELATED WALLS ANALYZEI NO. BLDG. ELEV. WALLS TO DATE
? '
~
1 Reactor 23'-0" 17 11 11 Bldg 51'-0" 19 7 6 74'-3" 23 9 9 91'-3" 8 1 1 117'-0" 4 1 0 Pipe Chase 2 2 2 Elevated 4 2 2 Trough 2 Aux Bay 23'-0" 21 10 7 37'-0" 5 3 2 51'-0" 3 0 0 3'-0" 5 4 2 Radwaste 23'-0" 3 1 0 Bldg. 37'-0" 4 2 0 Turbine (-) l ' -0 " 22 0 0 Bldg 23'-0" 11 6 5 37'-0" 1 1 1 51'-0" 7 1 0 3 Diesel 23'-0" 5 5 0 Gen Bldc. Intake All 8 4 4 Struct Reactor 23'-0" 3 1 0 Bldg 51'-0" 7 2 1 74'-3" 4 1 1 91'-3" 1 0 0 Pipe Chase 2 0 0 Aux Bay 3'-0" 1 1 0 HPCI Rm -17'-6" 5 0 0 Radwaste (-) 1 ' -0 " 37 15 3 Bldg 23'-0" 37 0 0 37'-0" 21 0 0 51'-0" 20 8 2 Pipe Chase 10 0 0 Turbine (-) l '-0 " 2 0 0
- - - ~ - - - - - --
-Bldq - - - - --- - -
PILGRIM I MASONRY WALL ANALYSIS - Status - 2/24/81 TOTAL NUMBER NUMBER OF NUMBER OF SIS ^ WALLS ANALYZED P OF WALLS SAFETY RELATED ELEV. WALLS TO DATE . _BbDG.
~
" 12 b
Roactor .l' 7 5 5 Bldg 74'-3" 0 117'-0" 1 0 10 4 Drywell Pent 18 3 0 0 Elevated Trough 2 2 Aux Bay 3'-0" 5 0 0 23'-0" 1 0 0 37'-0" 1 1 0 Radwaste -l'-0" 24 2 0 0 Bldg Pipe Chase 3 2 2 Turbine 37'-0" 0 4 1 Bldg 51'-0" 0 10 0 (-) l ' -0" 0 0 23'-0" 1 421 130 72 TOTAL WALLS
- - . ~ - - .- -- - . .
N'MW
, e 7,,, e v
- v v* r *-v -N"a
. . ~.'. '
ATTACKMENT 4 PILGRIM I MASONRY WALL ANALYSIS Status Summary ~2/25/81 Analysis Total Number of Number of Group Number of Safety Related Walls Number Walls Walls Analyzed to Date 1 77 33 31 2' 82 28 17 3 163 37 11 4 99 32 13 TOTAL ALL WALLS 421 130 72 l l I i l
e e9 -.=>-e.m '- O, m.eGi J e < s
; prrennwr 5 iiI u q #:w.s q % vi.n 1 e nn n 3 4 ;
i _g 4_ l i. l .t l ui . o + . in 1.: m i .i . ] n .i -4; --
. a # me t - i- .
_.1.1 .l. y .y
.;v) 4.;;p q. .p
_a.. 7._
% i- t 4 .4' vj. i..
>b -l
~.
- 1 . l' o o ..
g 1. :l t l if . 4 1 i a :< r 1 1 # w, r % 8 m,,,. i
+ l, s_
+-
i i ! i --l ! l- i 'l it !- Ag 9 g r I-- " l ~l 4 ' q f -Q } g l at_
.es ;
1 i :
-i
.i i i
;i i
N _pi s .e o
%p 2y ::
. . .._ A L '
-'+ -
l ^ _ 14 i- hg 5 gM i . , I i- ! _4 i t d ao i
%$*q3,._R, gj.j i
s ; j i i _A ! 1_4.
~ a a.4
,u em gig u_.
p, t '- QJ_
;4; 1 .
.Q l . :4- jL i.-. :n ; iq 6 g3
% 4 p zi ; e p+yw r; ggwp !. g !
4 l l l l -l !!it -i { l- $3' !.= 'i--a-1
- -h
; ny +
*:s
- p. ; i= , p . ;g.
+ m w ; g e- g3 =wum e pagp ;;.qw i
% i j 24-...; .:. 4 ii yw p;;i n ;y=g g m = = E-3;e.; = s. a.. g g 2.N y__ q _ 3,
]j]~2'j [..
up, v 1
, , _j. . .] . ;.; 4.i6 . . _j . , [..L.. .
k hi EN i~5MW1 9 ~~~?!
~
l: Fj 151 I
.i l
-s=tgrf ggq.q w,__i Mx*-- ;;,.
ys isp n ;g _ ism 4 m _j
- r:rm=4 i N ,.
m om A~
. ia
.d b w
- i:
.I L i: 4 i
A '" w Nt :
#e l g! R i im_ r :Md: ==El $ 'i-o um @7 ! :D
~~d t- ,A IN i h -9 l 1@ i llb q ! :s ! VO qa -
a = [yta M:g ; 41 d 9 ji! 1 g q;,,g!!i : t j @s - r . t > ' TQik*
~th m ~
i
;o- ,;= c- -151' 6 : -l -44 Q -i!II gS t l' N
-34 i4 - dl pJ l d i: ':t iciW ! lI [10 D -i -Id 9 4$
tfg
- l'1 -l '
--a 4' I -i ii iM'
.-b iW m .l l F @eq l i l-I tM: : I tw oR ! q%-
i - q. J .l..l. 7 :- t +. . ; j q -i - l1- i Q_,' a % aio r i ii Lt L _.... Q _ lq [! t!
! ! !I !
l ! ! ! I i i 11 i i 4 i
' f
"%~
IQ .i l l I i
!i I
. l. i l :-I'*
a I -i =i d:n U l
" :-i I
i _ Wig .!! .i li
! i r !
--i : ::-ir ? -l -
b . 4 .
.; e -i- i..T gi !
l V) -
- l i 1 I .- .L_J : :i ih i 4- _
N iI i *) t I i- I
- i. M i ._
@Q
% ~~~ .qg - ! --. I :2 iN i; r--_JQ.
i i 4) -.Q; i ! I uq 2 g , y s- g A T@ 4 ;k . O'. k. j - L l,
...q .i.-.y; <
_., , 4 g j.. . g_..4 ._ :
.,- ,w,, ,..,,y.- -
y.---p-.*w.,, -g- - , - - , - ,y.-y.. ,-y- . , , g.-g,ww, , . - . w--wy--w .y , w ,,,g- y ,,wy}}