ML20010C380

Vol 1 of Effect of Natural Phenomena on Existing Pu Fabrication Facilities,Response of Structures to Extreme Wind Hazard at Bmi Columbus Labs,West Jefferson Site, Columbus,Oh

ML20010C380
Person / Time
Site:	07000008
Issue date:	08/03/1981
From:	Alikhanlou F, Mcdonald J, Mehta K TEXAS TECH UNIV., LUBBOCK, TX
To:
Shared Package
ML20010C374	List: ML20010C373 ML20010C378 ML20010C380
References
REF-PROJ-M-3 NUDOCS 8108200031
Download: ML20010C380 (43)

Text

'

l l

EFFECT OF NATURAL PF ENOMENA ON EXISTING l

PLUTONIUM FABRICATON FACILITIES i

i Respense of Structures to Wind Hozord j

or the Octielle Memorial Institute Columbus Laboratories West Jefferson Site Columbus, Ohio Volurre I 4

2 ns':i:u:e for Disaster Aesearc, 1

i EXAS TEC-1 Us VETS Y l

_ubbocs, exes 792.09 l

• $8""888R*o?58888e C

PDR

J l

THE EFFECT OF NATURAL PHENOMENA 4

ON EXISTING PLUT0NIUM FABRICATION FACILITIES

(

RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES TO EXT 9eME WIND HAZARD l

l at the BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE COLUMBUS LABORATORIEL i

WEST JEFFERSON SITE Columbus, Ohio i

i i

VOLUME 1 by i

Kishor C. Mehta j

James R. Mcdonald Faribor: Alikhanlou I

r Institute for Disaster Research iexas Tech University 4

l Lubbock, Texas 0

1981 l

L

. ~.

FOREWORD The U.S..'luclear Regulatory Comission has undertaken a oroject to analyze the effects of natural pr.enomena upon existing plutonium crocessing facilities.

The work is being accomolished by a task force of exoerts who l

l are contributing to tne various phases of the project.

This report is one of a series of i eports produced by Texas Tech University, which exanines the resoonse of structures and the damage consequences to an existing olutonium proces-ing facility caused by severe wind.

The Battelle Memorial Institute Colunaus Laboratories, West Jefferson site located at Colu.abus, Ohio is the subject of this report.

Volume I of this report ocesents the methodology, the basic data, the results and the conclusions of the study.

Volume II contains the structural calcu'ations on which the results are based.

The project tasks are perfcmed b/ Texas Tech University under sub-contract from Argonne flational Laboratory (Contract tio. 31-109-38-3712).

l l

i Mr. James E. Carson, Division of Environmental Imoact Studies, Argonne flational Laboratory, is the project manager.

Dr. James R. Mcdonald and Dr. Kisnor C. Mehta of Texas Tech University are the principal investigators for the project, tir. Fariborz Alikhanlou of Texas Tech University served as research assistant. The project is coordinated through the Department cf Civil Engineering and the Instituta for Gisaster Research, Texas Tech University.

1 l

l i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD..........................

.i LIST O F FIGURES...................... i i i L I ST O F TAB L ES....................... i i i 1

i INTRODUCTION........................

1 II. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES.........

3 A.

JN-1B Hot Cell Laboratory....

3 1

B.

JN-1B Structural System................

5 C.

Ma te ri a l P ro p e rti es..................

13 i

III.

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE AND DAMAGE CONSEQUENCES........

19 A.

Threshold Wind Speeds to Produce Damage........

19 3.

Atmospheric Pressure Change (APC)........... 23 C.

Comoined Wind and Atmospher1c Pressure Change..... 25 O.

Wi ndborn e Deb ri s.................... 25 E.

Damage Consequences.................. 28 IV. THRESHOLD WIND SPEET.S AND FAILURE MODES.......... 29 A.

Wind Damage to JN-18 Building............. 29 j

B.

High Energy Cell (HEC).................

33 i

i C.

S umma ry o f Fa i l u re Modes................ 34 V.

DAMAGE SCENARIOS

..................... 35 A.

Damage Scenario for Nominal Wind Speed of 75 mph.... 35 B.

Damage Scenario for Ncminal Wind Speed of 95 mph... 36 l

C.

Damage Scenario for Nominal Wind Speed of 115 mph... 36 i

D.

Damage Scenario for Nominal Wind Speed of 200 mph... 36 l

REFERENCES......................... 38 i

l ii 4

.a

I LIST OF FIGURES t

Figure Page 1

JN-lu High Energy Cell Facility Floor Plan.......

4 2

Exhaust System of JN-18 High Energy Cell........

6 3

JN-1B Roof Framing Plan.........

7 4

JN-18 Nqrth Wail Framing Elevation...........

9 5

JN-1B South Wall Framing Elevation...........

10 i

6 JN-18 West Wall Framing Elevation............

11 7

JN-1B East Wall craming Elevatier.............

12 8

Masonry Wall Details..

14 9

JN-1B Detail of Metal Wall Panel............

15 l

l 10 JN-1B Diagonal Bracing Along Column Line Q.......

16 I

11 Wind Pressures on 3 Flat Roof Building.........

21 i

LIST GF TABLES Tan.e Pace I

Material Properties..................

17 II Tornadic Wird Speeds, Atmospheric Pressure Change and Requirements for Venting.............

24 l

l III Windstorm Generated Missile Velocities [11]......

27 i

l IV Thre hold Failure Wind Speeds for JN-1B Building....

30 i ii i

• • p-

-q-

+

e-m w

-e y

F-

+-tr

-Jm"P-*-

re-

• --*-**7 m-em+=-*

=

Tf T*

r

d l

I.

INTRODUCTION This report is part of a study sponsored by the.V.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1

Connission to assess: the potential radiological consecuences of natural phenomena (flood, earthquakes, and severe winds) on existing olutonium processing facilities.

The study involves determination of hazard risk, structural response, source term, dispersion, demographic catterns, and I

dose levels. The paper by J. A. Ayer and W. Burkhardt, " Analysis of Effect of Abnormal Natural Phenomena on Existing Plutonium Fabrication Plants" [1]*

provides background on the overall hazards evaluation. The resconse of structural systems and components to wind hazard at the Battelle Memorial J

i Institute (BMI) Columbus Laboratories, West Jefferson site located at Columbus, Ohio is the subject of this report.

i l

The windstorm risk assessment was made by Fujita [2] based on tornado i

and other severe wind records from the geographical region surrounding the i

plant site.

The windstonn hazard at the site consists of straight line i

j winds or tornadoes and is excressed in terms of expected value of wind speed for a given probability of occurrence.

Associated with tornadic wind soeeds f

are implications of atmosaheric pressure change and windborne debris.

Structural response of the building and the potential damagt ' rom windborne debris are expressed in terms of threshold values of wind soeed to produce postulated damage to the building enclosure. The damage postulation i

i is based on eleven years of windstonn damage investigation experiences i

involving more than fifty windstorm incide-s by the senior authors.

The

}

structural response and missile i.1 pacts are subsecuently translated into

• Numbers in brackets certain to references i

i

consequences of damage to the High Energy Cell (SEC) and its filters.

These consequences then pecvide information to the source term evaluators wno, in turn, determine the amount and form of olutonium that would be available for dispersion into tne atmosphere.

The type of structural systems and construction material properties at the site are discussed in Section II of this report.

The structural systems and the material properties are documented from the plant drawings and specifications, the EDAC Task I report [3] and a site visit.

A generic discussion of structural response to the windstorm hazard, including the effects of wind, atmospneric pressure change and windborne debris, is contained in Section III.

The consequence of damage to filters is also defined in Section III.

Section IV contains postulated failure modes, calculated threshold windspeed values, and a summary of postulated damage to the structure.

Calculations presented in Section IV are conta ned in i

Volume II of this report [4]

Scenarios of expected structural damage and the consequences of damage to plutonium containment for selected wind speeds are presented in Section V.

6 1

2

l II. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES t

i As determined by Mishima [5], the on!y area of concern at the BMI West Jefferson site is the JN-18 Hot Cell Laboratory. The structural system of the JN-1B buildin) is d.escribed in this section and material properties required for potential damage evaluation are defined. Only those features of the Hot Cell Laboratory that are critical to potential damage assessment l

are presented herein.

A.

JN-1B Hot Cell Laboratory l

The JN-1B Laboratory was built in 1971 to expand and complement the i

capability of the JN-1A Laboratory. This addition, which is adjacent to f

the west wall of JN-1A, consists of a one-story, high roof steel frame structure which houses the High Energy Cell (HEC) with its ancillary functions l

and a low roof pool mechanical equioment room located at the northeast corner of the main building. The general layout of the JN-18 building is i

shown in Figure 1.

ine main portion of the building, which is 86 ft by 74 ft in plan and approximately 62 ft high, is constructed of a three-dimensional steel frame with metal roof deck and double-layered metal i

exterior panel with several inches of insulation.

From ground level up to 10 ft above grade, the 12-in thick walls are constructed of 8-in.

unreinforced concrete block and a 4-in. brick veneer. An 8-in. concrete floor slab is poured on grade.

The High Energy Cell (HEC) housed in JN-1B is constructed of reinfcrced

{

cast-in-place concrete walls and ceiling with steel liner attached to all l

l walls. The exterior dimensions of the HEC are 47 ft long by 19 ft wide by 20 ft high. The walls on the west and south sides are 4 ft thick; on the north and. east side they are 6 ft thick. The roof of the HEC is a 4 ft thick reinforced concrete slab. The HEC is connected to a fuel handling l

3

ae=.. -

-s l.

,,.... ~

l N

l N

N l

WL VEcH. '

' :AC'.N 4 EC:;17. 2:0M ;

vim *V.L i

si i

9!

/

i 4

ei

'- W i

M 9

j l

%\\

i If j

.la.snt.n a*

l x

.m e n l

i q;

i

.N j

I-

~

o w

MK'/tc1 ACA i$

~i l Ansa ce cow u M l A

%js l

gi li

?

t-

.i in

S t

D m

N. g fCdt.

f (Ac t.

i l

l j WA6MIM 9

i f%N b

j l

E.'

4-wa%

i

{

.i..

t:;..,

< ne:i AF s;

I. ' 'l s

. l3, Q wsGw l

j Cave t.r l

.i

.t l... w ll %ed.

cd%.

• • 't v

t.

t l

g'.

I j

_i ;..,

Nrd.,t:1 v.

V..:,\\ f ~3 '.'!

==:===

="l:===

-+ -

.'C I 5, N TING ART.\\

f. ' '

AgsA ce cancept j

L$..'

.I I \\d 1

0

,. c.

FIGURE 1.

JN-18 HIGH ENERGY CELL FACILITY FLCOR CLAN l

.1

and examination pool (20x20x45 ft deep) via a transfer canal. A mezzanine area, used as the HEC mechanical equipment room,is located between the south wall of the JN-1B building and the south wall of the HEC at 18 ft 8 in.

above tne ground level. A 50-ton bridge crane which can travel the full E-W length of JN-1B is used to handle casks and the solid steel door of the HEC.

The area of primary concern in this laboratory is the High Energy Cell with additional attention given to features whose failure may cause loss of containment of hazardous materials.

The JN-1B building has its own ventilation rystem, which is designed so that all air in the building is exhausted through the High Energy Cell.

Conditioned outside air is suoplied by two air conditioning units in the HEC mechanical equipment room. All the air is exhausted through three sets j

of prefilters and primary high efficiency filters recessed into the rear i

j wall of the HEC and three sets of final high efficiency filters located outside the cell in the mechanical room. Eight-in. diameter exhaust pipes connecting the primary and final filters are embedded in cell walls and i

1 ceiling. A section through the cell depicting the exhaust system is shown in Figure 2.

The High Energy Cell provides the primary confinement barrier for hazardous materials in the JN-1B facility while the building enclosure provides the final barrier.

B.

JN-1B Structural System The roof framing plan for the JN-1B building is shown in Figure The primary structural system consists of steel roof girders that span 71 ft 2 in. in the N-S direction at 20 ft on center. The W33xil8 roof girders i

connect to W?ax68 exterior columns by means of nine rows of 3/4-in. dia.

A325 high strength bolts (two bolts per row).

In the E-W direction, 'C f.x22 steel beams span between the main girders along exterior column lines. Open 5

p 'd l

\\ 7==== = = = =- -

';g;rew4

+.

t wx.st n.cx.

I:

'M F

/

[j

,,,tx--n

,r, - 7,,

f.: w u i,

/

....,. L...m 1,

. w. -- -

I,i '< q'J 4--f

, ; /#..a ia, 3

l(vammw ies w no u

en un act

.i t.

,t cr-. we.

L l l--

6 N5fl e4 t G H RM f(

is t e 9.c 1 l

CrEQ7tNG AGk CJf(" t'.3 l c g g;,

'N g

i c:mr:p i. -

l l

.. a

\\v.ww n'.::t l rr i 0 117 I

r 5

4i sg j'r

\\l r s

FIG;'RE 2.

EXHAUST SYSTEM OF J.'l-1B HIGH E.'IERGY CELL 1

1 i

O

.. ~, -

O O

+

s m

93 O7 5

1 N

w 0-

-a "e

k 3

W 0

2 id f

22 is o

• 2 n

a u "t i

ME

$a c 3' d S

S y

5 s

ce

o c

w S 1 '!$ *i E

2g b

S 2

bu 14WL m.!cc.w Y,

m E

n

=

C +i w

i ix i

i u

i.a.

pi i

s.

I' Cls ' 3;g I l sia Vi fit adr T

l l

l l

t

'\\

a e e

s

. ' a-s i

g I

1 {t y..

, Chdl

=

3l al v i

i w -- l<y-l i

c i

n i iE, s 5

c I

i 5

l I

l l

l l

l"21 wI l

C

' z. 'l

@g

$le

• tim e

'a

{C'

{

C

N ihK,g 8

i n

i i

i S

l j

j.2 l O

,e t

i ii E

o i

~

l l

i i

i I

!;l s l

7

n. I c

y S

~:

m a

x l

~

l t

l

l l

a e

st a

=a Al a

=

/

" c:;

i l l3 l

=

/l' g ;6 3.1.

l I

i i

n s i

i g

I (),

l l

\\

l

==* $

~a i

I l

[

~. k.,

f f

.u i

l I

i aa ap::,ni :gi si 7,

i i

O I

{

"~

D l

g W.WW'+f A l 3g 3-w-

@ gO F.::.,* :

i

.nse i

.a. si i

0.a i

P ::

i

[

1 web steel joists 14H3 scan between the major roof girders at approximately six ft on center. Joists are welded to the girders that support them.

Cross bracing is provided to assure diaphragm action in.the plane of the i

roof. _ The cross bracing elements are constructed of L4x3xl/4 and are bolted to the main structural members with a minimum of 2-3/4 in, dia. A325 high strength bolts at each end.

The exterior walls on the north, south and west walls have W24x68 steel f

columns that extend from the top of reinforced concrete footings to roof level where they frame into the main rocf support members (Sec Figures ?,

5 and 6 ).

Each column is secured to its footing by means o# four 1-in.

c dia. x 2'-O' long anchor bolts. Horizontal girts mace from 8-or 9-in.

]

channel sections span between columns at a vertical spacing that rar.ges from 7'-5" to 9'-2".

The girts are supported at one-third points by sag rods that are suspended from roof elevation.

The east wall, which is located above the existing JN-1 A building, is i

hung from the roof girders and is net attacied to the existing building (See Figure 7). The crane girder at the mez:anine also helps support this wall. The vertical tension members are W18 x 40 steel shapes. The rest i

of the framing is siniiar to the other three walls.

Lateral wind loads are primarily resisted by diagonal bracing members located in the plane of the exterior walls. The bracing elements are L31/2 x 31/2 x 1/4 and are bolted to the main structural members with a minimum of 2-3/4 in. dia. A325 high strength bolts. Where possible, the angles are also welded to the girts.

The lower 10 ft of the north, south and west walls is con;tructed of 0

8-in, unreinforced concrete masonry blocks and 4-in. brick veneer to make i

a 12-in. (nominal) thick wall. The wall stops just below the bettem girt, 8

I I

I t

i(

e s

3 u

s Til

i 1::

, i

.,,.. - se,

a g,

,.>...... :., J n.

s:-

-*p

>U l

l l

0l

?

,3

t. f I

• h 4

. i.

i

/:

ix s i,

}

1 y

l!/l

/l g1 x

1 A.

i si -/

l 3

I!

's>

y ij d13

/.! \\,

.r,

t.

.l h

(,e/,

.n

~

s

=

-Ji q

>w g

2 Z

d,,

I.**!I

'l

, x".

,)

4 l

E t

'e

.l "w,,

rr C

g; j i,

l i/

~!

?

.f -

I SY 3

j; v

1 V

lil l

l e.

g

-/

=

i i

=

da!! j ~ ;

i

(

I

=

l, 3

1.-lE e,

4 "L

uw! 0,t j

n-g

(

or l

2 i

.'I

~

e 4

i

N...

l.'.

i.

I-s i.

.I

}

g

.'.'e e **.s m,

J Z

'.'*W

'lll !

f 3

.., o C

U,

.j 5

I

. 4 oE' { i

}'

8 l

j

=

d in >

i ll

'l

• t I

a i

e :-

gn y

i i

2i i i - ~.,

i i

ll

.' y i

'l 11

• I.I 1

j 3IPI I

t

I f

i l

(

1.,

r (i

t

..r g

5' d!

.2 *. 3,'1 l

dl

.7.'9

. + *.-ws i

.c 3

,r.p p.

4 I

r si !

I lltf

.l q;

r 1

w

' m..

3i i

..l i

9m

}

d

.w m:u

!-l I.

a' l

tg.i l

.a _

' l-

.i.t i

i

=

L

.k.

llv l

l I

t

/ l i

11 q

i l

w b

l I

j

.! I i

ve.w

3..

h 3

t jl l

a, I

a a a

,?

a:

i (:d

3. l i

e-

=4 y: :

=

w.

l 2

=

,t j

a.

!l i

,,

• Q l

-\\

,}

g e

i

'i !

=

i

@ :i l

i vz m i I

l l

4f

[.'

U I

"M '*.*s'

'2

?

i 3

Ic s>

Y il

.e! I 5'

5

.j T

d

A I

t Y

4 i k

ji ji 3'

i.i 9

~'

(

j Wj i

\\

[

S N_

i; Ng h,

=

i f

s!],jhl '.

.j i j

ec e s

.g

d

.I l

1

.m

.I w

D.4 la

'4 3 a t.,

g 1 h3 I

I W*

m tj '>J a

I j

m p.+

u 2

3 x 4

t

,a

\\.ia!

s, *.

Ei y.-+

1 l

I a

ur m..

s 1

t 8

l 6

f N.

4 vf %

jj r

i l

,j l si

. e4.316

?- ',

Y.J.-I.

Ya g

.'4*

t j

A t

/

2 I'i j

b ff s.I -

4

.4 l

t le !

r alw l 'g 3

=

~

I m

I le ef l

.~*

g,,.

.. i n

I.

1 e

e f.

31 v

l h, 4

,,% e =, C?

.[

I e

i 3 ~.,.~.,

.zr.

.~ g>

x

.n n

i 1

i t

j I,

v:-

tu. 3, I

n

+

=

Q':l

.;9 S

1

! *: '^

t. i, Dl t

t

.~

.d3 i

g

.'9 h

4 e

a. g?

n m

H 4

de I

r, y

l j

i l

l f !

II i

.=s l " l.~

%.A 1

l O

E

's l

1

=

i 1

y.

d'

• l

'e i

.?

1.!.

J 17

.i

}

'A 5

D.

~

_ '. i t

1 1

y g

i:

=

o,l l

.J i,.

T~

i t

i e

CI -f='=

4,

,sa A

'M i.- / l 1

l 5;

l f' M'A ! fTE:

I

~

l l

J

..';4

.N T

d.

T

'I ' 1

• w s4 DjT d

8

.i

/* '- T 1 T f!

r,Q*

9 Nu. u O.

f l

~~

m j

i

.1 l %-

I i

,J

,s

,,.m

~

..e 5

.m l

i,7 e

1

.=

~

i i'

.-7 is T T

I T s;

~%

w s

o z

l

.,(

a}

• e J

4 4

l 11

D 8

e

.- n.

,P J.*

,O I 1

'h f $ $'e r.

tos.t v,

g[.3n:

j Ipi s d

(!

3w 4

~t o..-

.r i

\\

~

.h

,,4. Q

• J E '

.= 1

• M

• -1

,9-9 g

" i 1

l

}

g 3*N i

s'I. t. l. t 1

i i,b w,y

.. r-w.

3 4

M.3I l

rg 7

u y

O l

1 I.I dd ic

, l g

(

,1 a de '

=

a' aq-1 kJ f

• n e i

a 4 5

, c.,

i l

LaJ a.

4

1. l

[

• NJ**I a i

If

,y

'?

T w

l 5

l yl k,l *;

!!h

't i

.N, 5

4 1

,u

'h

• u l

?"

e5 5

9 kf '

N, 55 f

/, f$N, J

1 v

l.,

A N, I ly:

u e

e

>=

'd i

p p

y

.?'

~

g4 i

q

,~

i u*i,,j.,

l l

!. -;;5'. iP, e.

=

.=.

d E

[

,O l6

?

g

'.a l cQ x

{

+

... ;j V er J'.

4 M e

M

[

mV w*

I

!r N

=l l

'l,,v l#

-2.qp

-:n e

c (g-:

5 4.

'"a 5n !

i C

E. l.r':s Xht j J

~

s N

f _ b _g$ $

4 t

Oh) l

l

'O 2

4

• j li, rl

'2 2

N A

i V

iI

' ! ' ;li,',

!l l

s

.,.,..,~.,.x.,,,

C~*,e,,P

. g

,a

.A=M.--

j g

s 8

r=

t i d

1' ET I

I j

7 7 *.

I 2

s i

5 fi i

y 22 e

}

ht

~2 u:

uas i

12

1 l

l l

but is nat attached to the girt (See Figure Sa). The concrete masonry blocks fit between the exterior columns. One-half inah plastic is used as a sealer between concrete blocks and steel columns (See Figure Ob).

l H. H. Robertson metal wall units that are 31/4 in, thick are located above the masonry wall. These vertical panels are canstructed of a roll-formed 13/G in.

deep by 24 in, wide 22 guage interior liner and two 12-in. wide by 1 1/2 in.

deep 20 guage exterior liners connected through 3/8 in. dcep 18 guage subgirts (See Figure 9 )

Fasteners are blind No.14 self-tapping screws through the unit gir:s. The girts are tack welded to angle supports which are, in turn, tack welded to the columns.

The roof systen consists of 1 1/2 in. metal roof deck,1 1/2 in rigid insulation and bu ilt-u p roofing. The metal deck spans approximately six feet between root joists. The deck is attached to top chords of the joists by means of 3/4 in. dirneter fu sion welds spaced not more than 16 in. on c ent er.

The mezzanine is located between the south wall and the HEC at an r

elevation accroximately 18 ft above the finished floor (See Figure IQ. The mezzanine floor framing is attached to the wall of the HEC and orovides lateral support to the south wall at the 18 ft level.

Franing designed primarily to provide bracing for the crane girder of the 50-ton bridce crane also provides lateral supoort to the south wall.

C.

Material Properties Properties of the building materials that are significant to wind damage assessment are listed in Table 1.

The Table lists median values of material croperties and a range of low and high values.

The variation of the material procerty values is assumed to be log-normal; the maqnitudes of the ranges of strength are based on judgment.

The crim.ry source of I

13 L.

i l

J

_I l I,

METAJ., WML P44EL CwNtGL M o

b.,

__FCWEO to ct.:Atus SE(cup q

/..

./--

\\

l CONCRE.'QE M Cf %CLL

)::.

5R14K #.-..

.i. -

V6NRR 3

l. 13f' l y,,,

a) closure at too of masonry wall FC FLAsilt JOINT Fit.QR 24 W 08 COWM.4

~

t l.

,'.- Q f '.. '..

.M

's w w. 3. ]. -}

~

/

ffff/

i b) column in exterior block ws!1 i

l J

FIGURE 8.

PASONRY WALL DETAILS u

'q.

/- -

g N O %@.s

~

w<.

u,.

8 A c.

%g,j %.: -

1, d h.

7.=; > N icx

p

<.t

.;r fit nosoceo ve-i

[ s== = e.0 =et l n,(\\l\\{hlE _/:\\{\\bl$ h_'] Y_w$..,0 E,N I.

5 l, ~(\\ \\/ i,h.

l- -

, i.,

t--

s w

-..J

'e ;.@

I

,,... a l

~

.. ~

. ~,.. m.

4,,,...,,--.. n

-,........, ~...

FIGURE 9.

JM-la OETAIL OF METAL WALL MNEL 15

o i..u.

g W 'n-=a,

<6.,,. c c..,w.gg

-9

[2 i

..... ~.

~~c>>~

....c 3 ve...m a eje-s

• / ese, n er*

• tu,i J.,, :.,,. rgg 7.lj

- i

1. u

, u.- -i y,,i.

.i g

m. _ _. u n -t /. 1

..iu i :

t:.:

I

,- f/

ll:

r.awr 14 L3*s.q;,3

, A.

,,,l.,f

' l l n..,.. m.~,o.

"*".$. Y%. g { /_1',,,,,, [3 j i

er.

, s.,,,4~6

,n

• q;p}

l-- --, H'.p c.-

l:1

~

r i.u --

r a.

s.,.a-

-I;l Tw.,, _>2;,;

s-a

"..-.a

• p!i, I

5 n

!I t

s n

<ns a w; L t.i

s..

p!q

- i.

i i'..,-

73i T

~:,w-

,M qi,

t. t, i

l

. i. !,l i

i 8

i 4

l.i ;

r/,...

,s i

L-c.,,,.m a

a i

.u ru,<

.i I

I FIGURE 10.

JN-IS DIAGOTIAL SOACING ALCflG COLU..'l LINE O 4

w 14

. _ _ ~

TABLE 1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES Median Range Material Property

alue Lpw liigh Source Structural Steel ASTM A36 Yield Strength 44 ksi 40 ksi 48.5 ksi EDAC [3]

Hetal Deck Yield Strength 38 ksi 33 ksi 45 ksi EDAC [3]

Ultimate Tensile Strength 46 ksi 40 ksi 54 ksi EDAC & Judgment Reinforcing Steel Yield Strength 66 ksi 62 ksi 71 ksi EDAC [3]

Ultimate Tensile Strength 102 ksi 97 ksi 109 ksi EDAC [3]

Welding E70 Shear Strength 47 ksi 40 ksi 56 ksi Judgment Structural Bolts & Anchor Bolts 114 ksi*

110 ksi*

119 ksi*

EDAC [3]

Ultinate Tensile Strength 130 ksi**

125 ksi**

136 ksi**

EDAC [3]

Structural Concrete 9 28 Days Compressive Strength 4.6 ksi 4.2 ksi 5.0 ksi EDAC [3]

11 Series Joists Yield Strength 57 ksi 54 ksi 61 ksi EDAC [3]

Mortar Vertical Bending 20 psi 10 psi 40 psi EDAC [3]

llorizontal Bending 40 psi 20 psi 80 psi EDAC [3]

Shear Strength 40 psi 20 psi 80 psi EDAC [3]

• Greater than 1" diameter

• • Less than 1" diameter

naterial property values is EDAC Task I Report [3].

In cases where material oroperties are at available in documents, standarcs o' professional cractice are used.

For steel and weld metals, the ultimate shear strength is taken as 1/YT times the ultimate tensile strength of the material. This relationshio is based oit the maximum distortion energy theory for ductile material [6].

9 18

i i

III. STRUCTURAL RESPONSE AND DAMAGE CONSE0VENCES The effect of wind loads on a building and its components is referred i

to herein as structural response. This section cresents a generic discussion j

of structural response and damage consequences.

In order to predict the i

structural response of the buildng and its components, the three effects of windstorms, namely wind, atmospheric pressure change (cni; in case of torna-does), and windborne debris must be evaluated.

The wind and atmoscheric pressure chance effects may be combined under saecific circumstances.

The general analytical aporoach for detemining a threshold value of wind speed that will produce significant damage to a building or its components is cresented in this section.

In addition, discussions concerning damage from windborne debris is also cresented.

4 The JN-18 building itself provides the final containment for hazardous material s.

The only material outsiae of the HEC are the final filters

}

located in the mechanical equipment room on the mezzanine (See Figure 2).

Loss of building cladding due to wind oressure or missile imoacts could l

allow wind to circulate through the building and affect the final filter.

1 Total collapse of the building frame could have a similar effect.

The massive concrete walls of the HEC preclude any loss of hazardous materials due to wind forces.

1 Fire, as a consequence of windstorm damage, d0es not apoear to be a certinent hazard.

In more than 50. major windstorm events investigated by the authors, not a single one produced a fire as a consecEnce of windstorm damage.

A.

Threshold. Wind Speeds to Produce Damage Threshold values of wind soeed to oroduce damage to a building and its ccmponents are obtained by applying basic technicues of structural 19

analysis.

These techniques are utili:ed by the authors to determine wind speeds in tornadoes [7].

Damage, as used here, imolies the renowl of cladding due to outward acting forces or the collapse of a member or the structure due to outward or inward acting forces.

Wind interacts with a flat-roofed building and produces inward-acting external pressures on the windward wall and outward-acting external oressures on the sidewalls, the leeward wall, and the roof (Ref. Figure 11).

In addition, relatively high outward acting pressures are produced on localized areas at wall corners, roof corners and eaves (Ref. r'igure 11).

In cases where there are opening in the walls or the roof of a. building, internal pressures are also produced.

These internal pressures may combine with external pressures to produce a more severe loading condition.n a building component.

Since wind can come from any direction, the failure mode of a building component should be evaluated for the inward-acting pressure as well as the outward acting cressures.

Knowing the strengths of the materials and type of structural system, principles of mechanics are aoplied to determine structural resconse and the wind pressure to oroduce a postulated failure. The structural rescanse of a building compcnent is made up of a static and a dynamic cart.

For low-c:se buildings and relatively stiff components, the contribution of the dynamic part of the response can be neglected.

The fundamental frequencies of low-rise buildings or their components such as masonry walls or metal roof decks have fundamental frequencies greater than 3 Hz, while most of the free field wind gust soectrum energy is in the frequency range that is less than 0.5 H: [3,9].

The disparity between fundamental frequencies of building componeits and gust frequencies of the wind suggests that the dynamic part of the response is negligible for ordinary structures.

20

2 4

,m m-A-a e

4

.a

- _. *-. +

t dii>

tyi:

N"

' il q\\

fj 4

j

/

5, :

]

ExTE.9xe.t. win 79E574RE3 1

J 1

A Ah tv-Tl

- r.n

.i:-a

.a

.s.

08 E'4Ctwc

~

h N, th:Er.,

m c.t

- 7::

r-s

..s

,?,=_

• nTig'Mf59; i

~. : ps.=

vqe#e

, : :': c %

' A.:. 5.-

• p l

t.0 cat.:no viso poESTGRE a

1 t

FIGURE II. WINO PRESSURES ON A FLAT RCCF BUILDING J

g e

A r

i 21

i l

j Once the wind pressure required to oroduce the postulated failure mode is obtained, the corresocnding wind speed V is calcualted using aoprocriate equations that relate wind speed to aerodynamic oressure.

The general form of the eruation is 2

o = 0.00156V C (1)

I where p is the wind pressure ir, osf V is the wind soeed in mph C is a shfce factor or cressure coefficient 2quation (1) is the stagnation pressure nultiplied by an accropriate pres-sure coefficient.

Pr?ssure coefficients are obtained primarily from wind l

tunnel tests of model structures.

Coefficients from the American National t

Standards Institute Standard A58.1-1972 [10] are used in this study.

The li1SI A58.1 Standard [10] defines three types of pressure coeffi-l l

cients:

1 (1) External pressure coefficient, C p (2) Internal cressure coefficient, C g$

(3) tiet pressure coefficient, C f

l l

External pressure coefficients are applicable for external wind pres-l sures acting on enclosea buildings.

The equation for externally acting

(

wind pressure is p = 0.00256V (C,)

(2)

If the building has windows, doors or other openings that allow the l

wind to get inside the building, interal pressures act on the walls and ro,i in addition to the external pressures.

The equation for comoined external and interal wind pressure acting on a building conpanent is:

2 o = 0.002F6V (C -Cpg)

(3) p 22

The sign of the interal oressure coefficient C is a function of w:nd direction and opening iccaticas in a given building.

Itet pressure coefficients are used for structures such as chinneys or towers.

The wind pressure is the net horizontal cressure and is cbtained from the equation 2

o = 0.00256V (C )

(4) f With knowledge of the wind pressure p calculated from structural mechanics precedures, and with appropriate cressure coefficients determined frcm.he literature, the tnreshold windspeed V can be calculated utilizing the above equations.

The threshold wind soeeds that procuce camage as determined using the above equations include wind gusts. The calculated wind sceeds are equivalent to " gust speed" given in Co umn 3, Table 13 or " tornado wind speed" given in Column C, Table 13 of Reference 2.

Whether the threshold wind speeds are straight line winds or tornadic winds decencs ucen the probability of occurrence of that interisity M nd.

8.

Atmospheric Pressure Change (APC)

If a tornade is the windstorm hazard, then the e#fect of atmoscheric pressure change (APC) may also contricute to the damage. A region of reduced pressure exists near the core of a tornado. As the tornado passes over a bisflding, the pressure inside the building becomes greater than that on the outside, thus oroducing a differential cressure across the walls and the roof of the building. Table II gives.he APC values asscciated with tornadic wind speeds for different probabilities of cccurrence at the SMI, West Jefferson site.

The probabilities of occurrence of tornadic wind soeeds at the site are ubtained fecm Reference 2.

The APC values are calculated using the cyclostrophic equation [11].

23

4 6

+

es.h N

N N

N 4 he e

s e

6

.4

< 3:..

.O.

.O.

O.

.O.

s a

e e

e a

a a

e M

8 9

0 0

Iw t

9 e

e e

.o %,t 9

S S.3 N

m.

g O

O 3

an es "I=

esf 4

w t

u 3B 3

s e

3 S ee h

• el

{

A e-

• i e

e e

i as

=P 4

2 2

• • p' e

L i

e e

a m

a a

8 9

8 t

4 aus N

"3 I

e, u

'd b

f.2 '+ wI

-2, a

L i

=

4 e

k 4l 5

E A

A I

w s,'

o.

N

- Lea 2

7 yl J

g e

a e

w d

3

=

==

c,

.m.

s si e

a a

e

=

m

=

y 4

i e

e t

J=

N N

N y

2 A

f u.

- ]:

.w 3

(

u

~

s.

m g

A 31 1

ed L

4

-2

~s 4;

3

~

--e g

~.

est O

N N

E 4

.I.

4 3

6 E

J

• b.p e,

so n.

W o

.e s.

- a

~sv

-m

- ~

e e

a : u

=.

)

9,1 3

w 4

a

@I m

"3 3

3l w

S 3

.a.m o

an%

9*

3 85

-I c

w W

', i.

w 2

- u,

. a a

a 9

3.* f 3

a we s w.

es sum 3.

• J e

3 6

Jn 3

n

- as 1

3 3

l u

- us

- e N

, o 4

a.

== $ l 3

.O. e - - -

as I

m o

w =

C e

e t

e e

2 s o e o e o I

-a ul J -

g w x

a=

Jw M

V 3 =

w w4 G

d s-l.- -=

w 3

w

=

i j

If a building is sealed, it will experience the effect of APC as the tornado passes over it.

However, most industrial buildings are not totally l

1 sealed (air tight).

If there are enouch openings in the walls or the roof 1-i j

to allow air inside the building to escape, the differential pressure will be equalized. The venting aread necessary per cubic feet of building volume are giveri in Table II for values e f ADC.

i j

C.

Cc-bined Wind and Atmospheric Fressure Change Fcr bulidings which are sealed, the comoined effects of wind and atmo-i spheric pressure change may produce the most c.ritical loading condition on j

the t;uilding components. The highest load could be due to outward-acting j

j presst.*e caused by the maximum wiad speed in a tornado and the associated f

atmcspheric pressure change at the location of the maximum wind speed.

It a

j is possible to express the value,f the atmospneric pressure change in terms i

of maximum wind speed if certain assumptions are permitted. This information j

[

is given below.

T5e maximum wind speed, V, in a tornado is a cembination of the tangen-l tial, V,g and translational V wind speeds:

tr

)

V=Vt+Ytr (5)

Fujita [2] assumes that translational wind speed is 20% of the maximum wind j

speed, hence i

V = 0.8V (6) t 1

The cyclostrophic equation suggests that atmospheric pressure change (APC) at the point af maximum wind speed in a tornado is I

2

]

APC = 0.5 aV (7) t where a is mass density of air. The total outward acting pressure at the.

i l

point of maximm wind speed in a tornado due to combined effect of wind and 1

i 25

~

APC on a building comoonent would be 2

2 p = 0.00256V C + 0.5 : V (3) p Substituting the value for o and utilizing V = 0.8V, the total outward g

acting pressure will be p=V (0.00256C + 0.00164)

(9) p The value of C would depend on the type of component such as side wall, p

roof corncr, etc.

For example, the pressure coefficient for the roof is l

C = 0.7, hence, the uplift pressure would be p

2 j

p = 0.00343V (10)

]

A thresnold value of a tornadic wind speed can be deter.nined that would fail 1

l a building component. Two requirements are essential to consider combined 1

j effects of wind and APC; they are (1) the bt'lding is sealed, and (2) the

.1 i

threshold wind speed is in the tornadic wind speed range as specified in Table II.

1 D.

'.41ndbcrne Debris 1

'4indstorms tend to pick up aru transport various types of locsedebris.

The kinds of debris range in size from roof gravel to automobiles. Most of the debris consists of objects such as sheet metal, timber frem damaged i

houses or Jther lightweight objects.

In a very intense tornado (wind speeds 1

greater than 200 mph), debris can be propelled to high velocities to become damaging missiles.

Velocities attained by typical pieces of debris whien I

can cause damage are shown in Table III. The major effect of missile impact,

}

in this case, is breach of building containment. The probability of a missile impact on the final filters is extremely small, because of the small l

l size of the filter.

i 7

26

,-y-,

m

.v-.

..v._y

_.,y.y.

--,s

,,.o

---

r

e g

d 0

5 0

0 S

e

_0

,.0 l

6 2

1 0

4 w

3 1

1 1

1 on k

h e

4 0

5 O

5 h

p

)

m (V 0 5

2 0

8 C

2 t

2 1

1 f

s h

o e

p m

e i

t t

c d0 8

0 5

a i

t e 0 9

9 6

s 1.

e 2 p

t V

s n

d e

e n

r l

i r

)

i W 0 0

0 u

1 s

5 7

6 c

1 s

1

[

i e

M h

s t

e h

i t

00 t

i i

w c

1 o

t le n

V e

t e

s i

I l

s I

i 7

n I

s t

s ca) 4 9

6 9

o 0

9 a e2 0

2 c

E i

L M

prt B

mAf 0

0 0

0, 0

2 d

J n

A d

I T

e a

t a

e r

l e

b n

a e

n G

o tl s

n h s n

gb 8

5 6

0 0

a e

il 2

1 7

9 0

e 4

0 r

t e(

1 1

4 s

W s

d i

n i

d W

eep s.

d n no ii t

wt t

f a

t f

f r 2

e f

oe 5

1 p

n it 5

1 ne x

Pf 3

og e

x i

l5 x

l t e

.n e1 s

k n ki e

ea al i

li s

ni n

t x li i

a a2 S

od e

os ps M

l4 l1 a

P l

ri i

P P

di x

x rd yn b

em r

a ti o

t i

m nn r

d e

e.

I o o

5 bn bn nn l

t mi mi ai i

i i

t t3 u

T2 T4 S3 U1 A

O

l 1

l E.

Damage Consequences The building damage and its consequences to the hazardous material con-tained inside the HEC are presented herein. Failure of roof or wall panels would permit circulation of wir.d inside the main building and may cause some damage to filters located outside the HEC. Should the structure of the main building collapse, the mechanical equipment located on the mezzanine could be crushed.

In addition, the 50 ton capacity crane could come off the rails and fall down.

Consequences of the impact of the bridge of the crane impacting.

the dEC roof are discussed in the next section. The wind induced pressures are not likely to damage the structure of the HEC.

9 1

i l

i l

l

(

-23 l

l l -

IV. THRESHOLD WIND SPEEDS AND FAILURE MODES The threshold values of wind speed that cause failure of building com-ponents and the structural system are calculated.

Detailed calcula*

's I

are contained in Volume II of this report [4].

The failure mode that occurs at the lowest wind speed is the critical failure mode for a given building component.

Critical failure modes of components and structural systems and i

their associated threshold wind speeds are summarized in this section. These j

data are then used to formulate damage scenarios in Section V for selected wind speeds and associated probabilities of occurrence.

Calculated threshold wind speeds are considered gust speeds.

In addition, the threshold wind speeds that produce damage are considered to j

be nominal wind speeds :,ince they are based on median values of material strengths. Wind speed ranges are provided for each calculated threshold wind speed to reflect variation in material properties.

In cases where the material properties are not the governing failure criteria, wind speed ranges are based on subjective engineering judgments. All wind speed ranges

)

are assumed to have a log-normal distribution.

Critical failure modes, threshold wind speed values for damage, atmo-spneric pressure change effects and missile impact damage are described i

below.

A.

Wind Damage to JN-1B Building i

The framing and construction details of the JN-1B building are described in Section II. Calculated threshold wind speeds to fail roof components, wall components, and the structural frame are shown in Table It/ and are dis-cussed belcw.

j The exterior doors in the building are directly exposed to wind.

The overhead door in the south wall could fail outward at a calculated wind speed 29

e s

p a

fl ol oo h

rc t

a a

d e

e i

rar e

we a

aea s

s e

r p

t p r

t af a

f a al e

f o

l l

l l

7l ea d

eo o

7d r o

o d w i

c f c i

M xweeee o

we rrrr d

d r

m tti uuug gg r

er ti ee u

ee fi tl l l s nn eae sae ft ss i

rr niiii ii sws pws n

pp H

uu 77 eaaal ll pt p aip 7 e aa i

a ll fffk kk aua l l a

ll cl l

l nn l l f

ii nnn c cc l

orl oo aa iii nnni au l

l ii a

ff ooot bb oro coa cc gggiii coc c

gg dd nn l l dd nnnt ttl ll rr iii ccca aa ddd rrd ii aa aa ddd eeer rr rrr aar dd rr lll nnne ee aaa wwa ee ww l l t t eeennnt t l www t t w ee t t uu iii oooa aa nnn uun ii aa OOi YY LL OO YYYCCCI i i I t t G

lph 51 7421 731 06.

901 21 1

! 3 62 i

1 4

1 l

1 1

93 1 4 674643 71 1 06 1 1 1 3 1

mg 1

l

)

121 1 21 12 -

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 f.

_j 11 1

,g l

l e

U g

n a

8 R

1 d

t e

f J

ep R

S I 1391 6054 -

504 691 4

1 3 1

O w

50 1

F d

o 02 O431 401 41 -

451 S69 71 02 1

1 nl 1 1 i121 1 21 11 1

1 1 V S i

D W

1 E

E.1 pE S

1 1A l

l it 0l d

op i

W h

m, s

E e,

R rt t

U li e L

l e 05 81 09330300 31 9 938 42 82 0 9

12 0552522 600 671 782 82 03 0 I

121121 123 1

1 1

1 1 3

A l $

1 1 1

F a

nd D

i n L

mi 0l luu i

i S

E t

i l

i l

h s

t ut

)

l m

r l

os o

o a

se hsw w

o i

t e

R r

tl sr e

yrl t l or n

l e

ed t

roas l

o n

vd p

n nnwe s

ah o

r e

ai i

i o

w as Wt t cm u

(

snt sca rs p

r ee l

l l - e roa q

gaisdl m

e e

l ned nm enaerr ane o

z ned rvd iin E

l l C

i rvd oairli t llli swawn a e n

c

.l aad er ar hmm s

oaiccme timu hawwl t edhhp er Soo g

cem d

n dd nnnraad cw ennt t ne rr l

ar n n n iiii e e e

ihurrarul rh dff l

i gbbl Mt t tl co ooaot i d

ea iii l

s hd ttt a

sru nC NSt CO ass l

i rn kkk sssfff r l

eoono e

dd oooi oWNSiC M

snn u

ea cccl i l svt eeeoooooop so a

eii lf rOS fDDDJJJHt t

p M

iWW o

o I I S l

l n

C o

o a

r E

D I

W f

l t

l y

i

of 110 mph.

The standard size door could fail at a calculated wind speed of 125 moh.

Metal deck at the roof corners experiences sufficient uplift to cause yielding of the material at a threshold wind speed of 108 moh; however, the l

welds around the perimeter of the deck would prevent removal of the deck by the wind.

The yielding is due to bending of the metal deck.

The roof deck l

would yield at the threshold wind speeds of 151 mph at eaves and 250 moh in other areas of the roof, but removal of the deck is not expected.

I Uplift forces due to niitd on the roof deck are transferred to open web joists and from the ioists t; wide flange girders. The uplift forces cause 1

l the bottom ccrds of the jcists and the bottom flanges of tne roof girders t

to experience compressive stresses. The joists and girders twist as the bottom elements experience lateral-torsional buckling. When the uplift forces reduce and gravity loads are again carried by joists and roof girders, the twisted joists and girders tend to resist the gravity loads by bending

(

about their weak axis, rather than their strong axis.

Plastic hinges develop I

with respect to weak axis bending and mechanisms form, which result in downward colhpse of the roof comoonents.

The critical component is the roof girder spanning 71 ft between columns. At a threshold wind speed of j

120 mph, there would be sufficient uplift on the roof system to cause lateral-torsional buckling of the bottom flange of the roof girders. This lateral buckling causes the girder to twist. Since the mcment capacity about the weak axis of the roof girder is smaller than the moment due to weight of l

the roof, the entire roof including joists and matal deck is likely to collapse downward at this threshold wind speed.

Metal wall panels located at the corners of the building yield at a threshold wind speed of 34 mph. Plastic hinges develop at mid-height of the 31

panels. However, the metal does not tear away from the fasteners at this wind peed, so even though yielded, the panels are 1.ikely to stay in place.

Panels not located in the corner areas yield at 122 mph.

The concrete masonry block wall located at the corners of the north and west walls of the main building collaose at a thresnold wind speed of 79 mph. They fail in bending moment at the ::ottom of the wall. At wall corners, a 7 ft wide strip collapses outward. The masonry part of the north and west walls collapse inward at a wind speed of 83 mph.

Collapse of the j

masonry in the south wall would require a wind pressure associated with a wind speed of 128 moh.

Concrete masonry in the north and west walls of the pool mechanical equipment room collapses outward at wind speeds of 71 moh and 63 mph. Since the north wall suoports the roof, collapse of this wall also causes dcwnward collapse of the roof of the pool mechanical equipment room. The south wall, which is an interior wall, resists wind speeds up to 119 mph.

1 The shear walls and frames of the main building could collapse under lateral wind load at a calculated wind speed of 108 mph for winds blowing from the north or south and 132 mph for winds blowing from the east or west.

1 At these wind speeds, most of the metal wall panels are likely to remain in place, hence there would be significant lateral wind pressures acting on i

the structure. The concrete masonry walls collapse at lower windspeeds, i

but these walls are only 10 ft high and do not contribute significantly to the lateral load. The roof diaphragm has diagonal bracing of sufficient strength to distribute lateral loads to the shear walls and frames.

j Collapse of the frames and shear walls would derail the 50-ton overhead I

crane and cause the crane bridge to fall.

Atmospheric pressure' change (APC) pressures would be of concern in i

tornadic wind speeds of 130 moh or higher.

Since most of the structure of 3

32

the JN-18 building collapses at wind speeds lower than 130 mph, APC has no effect on the structural damage.

Windborne debris that could cause threshold damsge is insignificant below the threshold wind speed of 150 mph (See Table III).

Since the structure of the JN-1B building is likely to collapse below the wind speed of 150 mph, windborne missile impact on the building is of little l

l concern.

l S.

High Energy Call (HEC)

The massive steel-lined concrete walls and reinforced concrete roof of the HEC are able to resist wind pressures, APC induced pressures and windstorm generated missile impacts associated with tornadic wind speeds of 300 mph without structural damage of any consequence. Atmospheric pressure change could pull out one or more single viewing porc units or one manipulator plug unit, creating an opening of about 7 sq ft.

Leakage of air could subsequently occur because of failure of the air handling l

system, which normally maintains a negative pressure inside the HEC, or because of a lower pressure outside the HEC created by the tornado.

It is possible that the 50-ton overhead crane bridge could fall 18 ft and l

l land on top of the HEC roof slab. The 4 ft thick reinforced concrete l

slab is able to resist the impact of the crane bridge weighing 15,000 lbs (estimated) without collapse. The HEC roof slab is likely to crack i

l l

(a deflection of about 3 in. is necessary to absorb the energy of the l

falling crane bridge), but the cracks are not likely to provide signifi-cant leakage of air from the HEC.

33

1 C.

Summary of Failure Modes Calculations of threshold values of wind speed that cause damage suggest the following sequence of failure modes:

63-71 mph North and west walls of the pool mechanical equipment room collapse. The roof of the pool mechanical equipment room collapses downward when the support of the north wall is lost.

79-84 mph The concrete masonry block walls on the north.and west i

sides of the main building collapse. The metal wall panels in wall corner areas yield, but remain in place.

108 mph Snear walls and frames collaase laterally, cestroying the entire structure of the JN-1B building. Lateral collapse of the structure cocid collapse the overhead crane frame or derail the crane bridge, thus collapsing the brid e.

The HEC structure is likely to remain intact.

1 J

1 34 i

v V.

CAMAGE SCENARIOS Damage scenarios for selected probabilities of occurrence of wind speed are formulated from the calculated th:eshold wind speeds presented in Section IV. The damage scenarios are used for subsequent identification of source terms.

Four damage scenarios for selected wind sxed values are presented to formulate a trend of increasing damage with reduced orobability of occurrence.

t Fujita [2] developed the relationship between wind speed values and their probability of occurrence at the BMI Columbus Laboratories - West Jefferson i

site. The values used herein and presented in Tcble II are taken from curves 3 and C of Figure 10 in Reference 2.

The wind speed values are gust speeds in the case of straignt line winds and maximum tornadic wind speeds in the case of tornadoes.

Damage causing threshold wind speeds are eitner gust speeds er maximum tornadic wind coeeds. Since damage is based on median material strengths, the threshold wind soeeds are tenned ncminal wind speed.

Variation in material properties or subjective engineering judgment, based on the type of damage, establishes the wind speed range i

for each damage scenario. These wind speed ranges may be used to nrovide error bands on potential damage to the facility.

A.

Damage Scenario for Nominal Wind Speed of 75 mph Probability of Occurrence:

1.5x10 j

Wind Soeed Range:

63 mph to 90 mph, based on masonry wall failures HEC: No damage Main Building: No damage Pool Mechanical Equioment Room: Loadbearing north wall and non-loadbearing j.

west wall collapse inward or outward. The roof, which is supported by the north and south walls, collapses downward. Collaose of the. roof crushes equipment in the room.

35

B.

Damage Scenario for Nominal Wind Speed of 95 mph 4

Probability of occurrence: 4x10' Wind ~,oeed Ranci: 77 mph to 118 mph, based on masonry wall failures HEC: No damage Main Building: The exterior masonry walls on north and west sides collapse inward or outward. The metal wall panels in corner areas of the walls yield, but remain in place. Collapse of masonry walls create openings in the bottom 10 ft of the north and west walls.

These openings would permit winds to blow through the building.

Equipm e t located on the mezzanine floor could be displaced and ordinary connections may be severed. However, the equipment is not likely to crush or break apart.

Pool Mechanical Equioment Room: The building is destroyed; see Damage Scenario A.

C.

Damage Scenario for Nominal Wind Speed of 115 mph Probability of occurrence: 3x10~4 Wind Saeed Range: 93 mph to 142 mph, based on snear walls and frame failures HEC: Wind-induced pressure does not cause any damage. The overhead crane bridge could collapse on the rnof slab of the HEC. This impact could crack the concrete, thuugh the cracks are not likely to permit significant leakage through the 4 ft thick concrete slab. Hence, hazardous materials are not expected to escape.

Main Building: The structural frame is likely to collapse. Most of tne metal wall panels and roof decking would be attached to the struc-tural frame prior to the collapse of the frame. The impact of the collapse could tear some of the roof decking and crush all equipment and filters located outside of the HEC. However, the radioactive

]

material is not likely to be exposed to the full impact of the wind.

Pool Mechanical Ecutoment Room: The building is destroyed; see Damage Scenario A.

D.

Damage Scenario for Nominal Wind Speed of 300 mph Probability of occurrence:

1x10~7 Wind Speed Range: 250 mph to 360 mph HEC: The structure is able to withstand wind and APC induced pressures and windborne debris impact loads. The atmospheric pressure change could pull out some single port units or one manipulator plug unit, creating an opening of about 7 sq ft. The radioactive material may escape from this opening, though the filters housed inside the walls are not likely to be pulled out.

The equipment and filters (g structure is destroyed; see Damage !cenario Main Building; The buildin located outside of the HEC) are crushed.

Roof deck and wall panels are likely to tear apart exposing crushed equipment and filters. Winds could pick up small equipment and filters and blow them away.

4 5

Pool Mecnanical Ecuioment Roem: The building is destroyed; see Damage Scenario A.

l l

l l

l L

I i

a 37

4 j-VI.

REFERENCES i

1.

Ayer, J. A., and W. Burkhardt, " Analysis of the Effects of Abnormal Natural Phenomena on Existing Plutonium Fabrication Plants," United i

States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC,1976.

1 i

2.

Fujita, T.

T., " Review of Severe Weather Meteorology at Battelle Memorial i

Institute, Columbus, Ohio," Technical Report prepared for Argonne National.

Laboratory, Argonne, IL,1977.

1 L

3.

GAC, " Structural Condition Document: tion and Structural Capacity Evalua-tion of the antelle Memorial Institute Columbus Laboratories - West Jefferson Site," Task I--Structural Condition, Technical Report prepared a

for Lawrence Livermore Labaratory by Engineering Decision Analysis Co.,

Inc., Irvine, CA, 1979.

i 4

Mehta, K. C., J. R. Mcdonald, and F. Alikhanlou, " Response of Structures i

to Extrama Wind Hazard at the Battelle Memorial Instituta Columbus i

Laboratories - West Jefferson Site," Vol. II, Te:hnical Report prepared i

for Argonne National Laboratory by the Institute for Disastar Reiaarch, l

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 1981.

i 5.

Mimm, J., " Identification ot Features Within (Battelle Memorial Institute i

Columbus Laboratories - West Jeffer son Site) Plutonium Fabrication i

Facilities Whose Failures May Have a Significant Effect on the Source 2

ierm," Working Paper on Increment of Analysis prepared for the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the dattelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, January 1900.

i j

6.

Higdon, Onisen, Stiles, Weese and Riley, " Mechanics of Materials," Third j

Edition, published by John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Somerset, NJ,1976.

)

7.

Mehta, K. C., J. E. Minor, and J. R. Mcdonald, "Windspeed Analyses of l

April 3-4,1974 Tornadoes," Journal of the Structural Civision, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. ST9, September, 1976, pp. 1709-1724.

8.

Kim, Soo-II, " Uplift Wind Loads on Flat Roof Area," a Ph.D. Dissertation, 1

Department of Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, August 1977.

3, 9.

Morris, Nicholas F., " Wind Effects an Air-Supported Structures," Preprint 2860, ASCE Spring Convention and Exnibit, New York, NY, April 25-29, 1977.

I

10. American National Standards Institute, " Building Codo Requirements for Minimum Design Loaos in Buildings and Other Structures, ANSI A58.1-1972, j

60 pp.

11.

" Design Guidelines for Wind Resistant Stru:tures at the Argonne National icboratory Site," Institute for Disaster Research and Department of C1vil Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 1975, 68 pp, t

4

.-