ML20027E406
| ML20027E406 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1982 |
| From: | CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027E404 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211150179 | |
| Download: ML20027E406 (75) | |
Text
CONTAINMENT ANNULUS CONCRETE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION and TESTING ,
for the PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT North Perry, Ohio Rev. 1 i
i i
i The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company November 1, 1982 4 CK ohh00kko PDR
- Geert/Comr.amese
l TABLE OF CONTENTS Title P_ age Section 1
1:00 INTRODUCTION 4
2:00 NODELLING CONSIDERATIONS 4
2:01 Introduction 4
2:02 Containment Vessel - Annulus Concrete Interface 6
2:03 Basemat Foundation - Annulus Concrete Interface 2:04 Shield Building - Annulus Concrete Interface 7 12 3:00 DESIGN 3:01 Load Combinations 12 3:02 Vertical Reinforcement 12 3:03 Horizontal Reinforcement 12 3:04 Transverse (Radial) Shear Reinforcement 13 3:05 Tangential Shear Reinforcement 13 3:06 Reinforcing Steel Strain Limits 20 21 3:07 Concrete Strain Limits 4:00 MATERIAL, TESTING AND CONSTRUCIION CONSIDERATION 22 4:01 Reinforcing Steel 22 4:02 Concrete Supply 22
' :03 Testing 23 i
24 5:00 CONCLUSION 25 6:00 REFERENCES 27 7:00 LIST OF FIGURES i
28
- 8:00 LIST OF TABLES APPENDIX A - Comparison of SRVD Response Spectra for the Containment Vessel with and without the Annulus Concrete Geert/Comumeneenth
CONTAINMENT ANNULUS CONCRETE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING 1:00 INTRODUCTION
. The Perry Nuclear Power Plant is located in North Perry, Ohio, 35 miles northeast of Cleveland, on the south shore of Lake Erie.
The plant consists of two identical units, each powered by a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), nominally rated at 1200 Megawatts, electrical output.
Each of the reactors is housed in a separate Reactor Building and contained by a steel Containment Vessel. The containment vessels are free-standing right cylindrical steel shells with ellipsoidal steel domes, designed and fabricated by Newport News Industrial
- Corporation of Ohio. The cylindrical steel shell and steel done comprise the pressure boundary for the sides and top, and were designed and built in accordance with Section, III, Division 1 of the ASME Code (l); but, the bottom of the pressure boundary is formed by a reinforced concrete basemat. For this reason, the steel portion of the containment was not "N" stamped, even though it was built in accordance with the rules of ASME.
Originally, there was a five (5) foot wide annulus between the Containment Vessel and the Shield Building for the entire height.
(See Figure 1.1). With the inclusion of safety relief valve (SRV) vibrations for the BWR Mark III, it was necessary to fill this annulus with concrete for a height of 23'-6" above the top of the basemat in order to dampen vibrations in the Containment Vessel due to the SRV actuations. Safety relief valve discharge response
~
spectra are presented in Appendix A to this report for three locations on the containment vessel. Two sets of response spectra are provided for each location. The response spectra are shown for the containment vessel with and without the annulus concrete in order to provide an indication of the changes in response which I are caused by the annulus concrete. Since the annulus concrete Ghmit" 1
was only required to provide stiffness to the Containment Vessel and was initially not required for strength, the design philosophy I
was to design the annulus concrete to ACI 318-71(2). This was the same design criteria used for the concrete Shield Building.
However, since the original design, several conditions have developed as a result of increased loads, the methods of applying load calculations and construction problems. These conditions have dictated that the annulus concrete be used for strength and that ASME Code Case N-258 " Design of Interaction Zones for Concrete ContainmentsSection III, Division 2"(3) be followed.
Accordingly, the annulus concrete has been evaluated against the ASME Code,Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC, 1980 edition with the Summer 1981 Addenda (4). The design meets all Code provisions as interpreted by ASME Code Case N-258(3) which states that the steel containment vessel shall be designed to
! Section III, Division 1 and the annulus concrete shall be designed to Section III, Division 2. The annulus concrete also complies with NUREG-0800, SRP 3.8.1 Concrete Containment (6) with one exception. The exception pertains to the allowable tangential shear stress to be resisted by the concrete (v e) which is limited to 40 psi and 60 psi, depending on the load category, in SRP 3.8.1. These allowable values for ve are more stringent than the values in the ASME Code. Section 3:04 herein provides the justification for using the higher values for the Perry concrete. In Section 3:04 it is concluded that the present reinforced concrete design has sufficient strength and stiffness to resist the design tangential shear forces and that the acceptance criteria for concrete, reinforcement and the adjacent steel containment vessel are met.
Geert/r-2
The following discussion is divided into four sections:
Modelling considerations Design Materials, Testing and Construction Considerations Conclusion e
I t
Geert/Commemseeth 3
2:00 MODELLING CONSIDERATIONS 2:01 INTRODUCTION One of the first steps in the design process is to define the model to be used for analysis. The model, to be complete, must include the Containment Vessel, Shield Building, basemat foundation, as well as the annulus concrete being designed.
Because the annulus concrete is to be placed after all surrounding structures are complete, some unique modelling problems concerning the interface between these structures and this new concrete are introduced.
The manner in which each of these interfaces was considered is discussed below.
The annulus concrete was analyzed using two computer programs -
ASHSD2 and ANSYS. The ASESD2 program was used to analyze the Containment Vessel, annulus concrete, and Jhield Building for static loads, suppression pool dynamic loads and seismic loads.
The finite element model used for these analyses is shown in Figure 2.1. Because the ASHSD2 program does not have thermal load capability, a second finite element model was required to analyze the response to thermal loads. The ANSYS thermal analysis avdel is shown in Figure 2.2 2:02 CONTAINMENT VESSEL - ANNULUS CONCRETE INTERFACE l
The interface between the Containment Vessel and the annulus concrete is represented in the ASHSD2 finite element model with j common nodes for the axisymmetric solid elements and the axisymmetric shell elements. This representation is selected for j
the mechanical loads because these loads do not produce a tendency for significant slip at the interface, compared to the thermal loads discussed below. Some of these loads also are l
_ r_.
4
non-axisymmetric or dynamic and ASHSD2 does allow these types of loads. -
Because ASHSD2 did not have thermal load capability, an ANSYS model was developed for the thermal loads.
The interface between the Containment Vessel and the annulus concrete is represented in the ANSYS finite element model by modelling the vessel and adjacent annulus concrete with separate nodes which are connected by " gap" eleaents. The vessel is anchored in the annulus concrete at the embedded circumferential stiffeners. The gap elements are used because under the accident temperature condition, the vessel experiences a temperature increase while the concrete through most of its thickness does not. This discontinuous temperature distribution creates thermal forces and moments in the vessel and in the annulus concrete which depend on the degree of bond at the interface between the two structures. The Containment Vessel and annulus concrete are analyzed for this condition by using a feature of ANSYS which considers the vertical shear stress between the vessel and between the annulus concrete to be a function of the normal stress between the two structures at the interface (Gap Element). If the vertical shear stress is less than or equal to a constant multiplied by the normal stress, no slip occurs between the two structures. If the vertical shear stress is greater than a constant multiplied by the normal stress, the surfaces can slip and a sustained value of shear stress equal to the constant times the normal stress is developed. This constant is similar to the static coefficient of friction between concrete and steel. Two different values of the constant, 0.7 and 0.0, were used for the design. A parametric study indicated that for values of the constant as large as 2.0 the forces and moments in the annulus t
concrete did not change significantly from those corresponding to a 0.7 value for the constant. This approach conservatively bounds the actual degree of bond at the interface since a bond breaker is Geert/Commemmesth 5
applied to the Containment Vessel before the annulus concrete is placed. The analysis using each value of this constant produced l different critical stress values; thus creating an envelope of maximum values for design.
As discussed above the design uses ANSYS model results with the non-linear " gap" element for the thermal loads and combines them with the linear ASHSD2 model results for the mechanical loads. To determine the acceptability of this approach, a study was made to evaluate the effect of combining the results from the two different finite element models used in the design. A finite I element analysis was performed using the ANSYS model with gap elements and the dominant loads from the controlling load combination: pressure, seismic, and thermal. Since the model is limited to axisymmetric loads, an equivalent seismic load was used for this analysis. The results from the above approach were compared to a second approach which combine results from two ANSYS f models. The first model did not include the gap elements and I
! analyzed the pressure and equivalent seismic loads. The results from this model were combined with the thermal results from a second model with gap elements. This is the same approach used for the annulus concrete design, s
Comparing the two approaches, reinforcing steel stresses at each -
section were calculated from element stresses generated by each approach. The maximum or design reinforcing steel stresses from each approach are within 11%. Observation of Table 3.1 indicates that these small differences will not effect the final design.
2:03 BASEMAT FOUNDATION - ANNULUS CONCRETE INTERFACE The basemat had been placed without considering the annulus filled with concrete; therefore, there is no mechanical connection (dowels) between the basemat and the annulus concrete. The ,
original ASHSD2 analysis for mechanical loads conservatively cansIconman win 6
modelled this condition with the base of the annulus concrete being independent of the basemat with no restraint against either upward or downward vertical movement. However, the Shield Building and vessel were fixed at the basemat. This model required the vessel and Shield Building to carry all the transverse shear forces. The results of this analysis indicated that the Shield Building was overstressed. The next logical step was to more realistically model this interface area; therefore, the basemat stiffness was added to the model removing the fixed conditions of the vessel and Shield Building. The results of this analysis indicated that the Shield Building was marginally within allowables for the shear forces. Although the shear stresses were within allowables, the decision was made to mechanically protect the Shield Building. To achieve this, the basemat was prepared for the new concrete by cutting a shear key to resist some of the radial shear being transferred through the annulus concrete.
Therefore, in subsequent analyses this shear key was modelled as a radially fixed condition at the basemat.
The analysis for the thermal loads with ANSYS incorporated a
" gap" element to create the effect of a compression with no
]
! tension capability boundary between the basemat and annulus concrete. The " gap" element accurately models the actual interface.
i 2:04 SHIELD BUILDING - ANNULUS CONCRETE INTERFACE The Shield Building - annulus concrete interface was modelled as a monolithic section, in other words, no slip is assumed to occur along the interface. To evaluate this assumption, the interface shear and normal stresses were reviewed for the critical load combinations. The variation of these stresses along the height of the annulus concrete is shown in Figure 2.3 for the abnonnal/ extreme environmental condition, which is controlling.
From this figure, it is seen that for the region starting above Geert/Commoneesth 7
section 1 and extending above section 7, a distance of approximately 12 feet, the normal stresses are entirely compressive. Over this region the maximum vertical shear stress is 108 psi with the average stress of 55 psi. For the region starting just above section 7 extending through 9 (4 feet), the normal stresses are tensile with a peak value of 60 psi accompanied by small values of shear stress (25 psi maximum).
Above section 9, (5 feet) the shear stresses increase to a maximum of 227 psi, but these are accompanied by normal stresses at the interface which are compressive. In the lower portion, below section 2 (2.5 feet), the shear stresses increase to a maximum of 212 psi in conjunction with a tensile normal stress of 60 psi.
The likelyhood that these stresses would cause debonding at the annulus concrete - Shield Building interface is discussed below.
The Corps of Engineers' report " Investigation of Methods of Preparing Horizontal Construction Joints In Concrete"(5) presents the results of an experimental research program on construction ,
joints. This report presents individual test results of tension and shear capacity across a construction joint that is rough, clean and dry. The age of the specimens at the time of testing was 17 days, at which time the concrete had achieved a compressive strength of approximately 1300 psi. The specimens contained 1-1/2 inch crushed limestone coarse aggregate, which is the same size and type of coarse aggregate to be used for the annulus concrete. The tension values from nine tests ranged from 130 psi to 80 psi with an average of 105 psi. The shear values ranged from 150 psi to 240 psi with an average of 195 psi. The minimum test values were used to establish a reduced Mohr's failure envelope for the interface, and the combined shear and normal stresses from the curves in Figure 2.3 were evaluated with respect to this criteria. From this evaluation it is expected that debonding of the interface will not occur, except perhaps in a local region at the base of the annulus. However, the slip in Cdbert/Commoneesth 8
this area is expected to remain small due to restraint provided by the bonded joint above and the basemat below.
i The Corps of Engineers' report (5) also gives conclusions which are useful in defining the surface preparation of the Shield Building for the placement of the annulus concrete. The report concludes ;
that the surface should be rough, clean and dry for best results.
To obtain these conditions the Shield Building surface in the annulus was bush hammered to produce a roughened surface with a 1/4" amplitude which will be air cleaned before placement of the annulus concrete.
For composite flexural members, ACI 318-71(2) contains design requirements for shear transfer across the interface of the components which comprise the member. Generally, these provisions permit a shear stress as large as 80 psi to be transferred across the interface without ties, if the interface is intentionally roughened and clean. An exception to this allowable is if tension normal to the interface exists. In this case ties are required to
{
i provide a normal clamping stress necessary to develop the shear stress. The interface between the annulus concrete and the Shield Building differs from the interface in a composite flexural member in several respects.
First, for a composite flexural member, if the calculated interface shear stresses exceed the shear strength of the joint, debonding occurs. Slip at the interface occurs and without ties, no clamping mechanism exists to limit the slip or to develop any significant portion of the calculated shear stress at the interface. Consequently, composite action between the components is lost across the entire width of the member and along its length where this condition exists. However, this condition would not occur at the untied interface of the annulus concrete and the l
Shield Building. The annulus concrete and Shield Building can be visualized as an inner cylinder contained within an outer l
' _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ . , _ . _ _ _ _ _ .9_ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ . .
cylinder. If debonding of the interface occurs, vertical slippage at the roughened interface between the two cylinders will develop a compressive clamping stress at the interface due to the i axisymmetric geometry of the cylinders. This condition will limit slip and transfer shear without ties across the interface.
Another difference between the composite flexural member and the annulus concrete is the variation of the calculated shear stress at the interface. The annulus concrete interface normal and shear stresses plotted in Figure 2.3 are peak values. These values may occur at one location around the circumference, and they decrease away from this location. This differs from a flexural member in that the maximum calculated stresses are uniform across the entire width of the =*=her, and if these stresses exceed the joint capacity composite action for the entire cross section is lost.
Based on the above discussion it is concluded that significant slip at the annulus concrete - Shield Building interface is not expected to occur. Therefore, the assumption in the analysis model that the annulus concrete and Shield Bui1 ding act as monolithic concrete is reasonable.
The preceding discussion provides the basis for the assumption in the finite element model that the Shield Building and annulus l
concrete act monolithically. However, an analysis was performed to demont? rate that the stresses in the Containment Vessel are not significantly influenced by this assumption. For the purpose of the analysis, the vessel stresses produced by the long tern LOCA
! load combination were compared for the case of including the 3 ft.
Shield Building as a monolithic part of the 5 ft annulus concrete and for the case where the Shield Building is removed from the model.
For the long term LOCA load combination the largest stresses are caused by the accident pressure and temperature loads. By 1
Geert/Commanuseth 10
performing a plane stress analysis for these loads, the vcssel stresses were obtained. The design pressure of 15 psig was used with a temperature of 115 0F applied to the vessel. The value of 115 0F corresponds to the vessel experiencing a temperature increase from its 70 0F stress free value to the maximum design LOCA temperature of 185 0F. For these combined loads, the net vessel stress in the hoop direction is compressive and was calculated as 17422 psi for the 8 ft monolithic model and 15693 psi for the model consisting only of the vessel and the annulus concrete. This represents a 10% reduction in vessel compressive stress, which is not significant. However, as seen from the above results, use of the monolothic model actually gives a greater calculated hoop stress in the vessel.
s Geert/Cammenmeath 11 L
3:00 DESIGN ,
3:01 LOAD COMBINATIONS \
The loading conditions used for the annulus concrete design were the containment loading combinations presented in the FSAR including Appendix 3A and 3B. However, the' design has been evaluated using the load combinations specified in Table CC 3230-1 of the ASME Code (4) and the Appendix to NUREG-0800(6),
3:02 VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT The vertical reinforcement was designed to carry the vertical forces and moments along with the tangential shear forces as defined by ASME Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC 3521.1.1 c.
The final design is #18 Grade 60 reinforcing bars on 15 inch centers on both faces. To insure that the vessel and the annulus concrete act together and to spread the reinforement, the vertical reinforement next to the vessel is to be placed through holes in the horizontal stiffeners. Figure 3.1 is a copy of a reduced construction drawing of this steel layout.
Table 3.1 gives steel stress values for each section of the annulus concrete for the critical load combination. The table shows that the stresses in the vertical reinforcement range from small compresei.on to 35.5 kai in tension. These stress values do not include the tangential shear stress that is transferred to the orthogonal reinforcement. This is discussed later in Section 3:05.
3:03 HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT The horizontal reinforcement was designed to carry the hoop forces and moments and the tangential shear force as defined in Geert/Commenmeelth 12
- , . - . . _ - _ - . _ . . _- . . - . .- .. . ._- -- ~ _... - _.-.- ._.-- - .-_
ASME Code,Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC 3521.1.1 c. The final design is #18 Grade 60 reinforcing bars spaced from 6 to 12 inches on centers on both faces. See Figure 3.1.
Table 3.1 shows that the horizontal reinforcement stresses range from small compression to 50.8 kai tension. Again the tangential shear stress has not been added.
3:04 TRANSVERSE (RADIAL) SHEAR REINFORCEMENT The horizontal ties (shear reinforcement) were designed to carry the transverse shear force in excess of what the concrete can carry. Although the original design was to ACI-318, it meets the criteria of the ASME Code,Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC 3421.4.1. The ties are #7 bars spaced circumferentially at each vertical bar in the bottom and every other bar in the top section. The vertical distribution of shear ties is as follows:
Below horizontal stiffener #1 - 4 tie elevations Between horizontal stiffeners #1 & #2 - 4 tie elevations Between horizontal stiffeners #2 & #3 - 4 tie elevations Between horizontal stiffeners #3 & #4 - 3 tie elevations Above horizontal stiffener #4 - 3 tie elevations 3:05 TANGENTIAL SHEAR REINFORCEMENT 1
3:05.1 Code and SRP Requirements Using the shear friction provisions of ACI 318-71, the original design included tangential shear in determining the reinforcement requirements in the vertical and horizontal directions, and inclined reinforcement was not provided. However, based on SRP 3.8.1, inclined reinforcement is required if the tangential shear stress is greater than 40 psi for abnormal / severe Geert/r-i 13
4 environmental loads and 60 psi for abnormal / extreme environmental loads. These limits are very conservative when compared with the ASME Code.
For the minimum reinforcement provided in the annulus concrete, CC3421.5.l(a) of the ASME Code allows 107 psi before inclined reinforcement would be required. However, the maximum calculated tangential shear stress is 83 psi, which occurs for the abnormal / extreme environmental condition; therefore, inclined reinforcement is not required by the Code. The SRP 3.8.1 requirements would result in inclined reinforcement consit.!.ng of
- 5 bars at a 12 inch center to center spacing. This amount of reinforcement seems rather inconsequential relative to the fl8 bars provided in the vertical and horizontal directions. This conclusion is confirmed by the reeults of the analysis described in Section 3:05.3. Here it is shown that the stresses in the orthogonal reinforcement and the strains in the concrete are not significantly reduced by the addition of the #5 inclined bars.
The design of the annulus concrete for tangential shear was based on the shear allowable of the ASME Code rather than the reduced allowables presented in SRP 3.8.1 for two reasons. First, the l
magnitude of the tangential shear stresses are not as severe as those for a typical concrete containment subjected to the same seismic input. More importantly, the results of recent research indicates that the tangential shear allowables of the ASME Code are conservatively low considering the magnitude of the stresses in the orthogonal reinforcement in the annulus concrete, as discussed below.
3:05.2 Tangential Shear Research Tests on reinforced concrete specimens containing orthogonal reinforcement and subjected to simultaneous loads creating biaxial ,
tension and tangential shear stresses have been performed at the Geert/Commoneenth 14
l Construction Technology Laboratories of the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and at Cornell University. The PCA tests were conducted on two (2) feet thick specimens containing #14 and
- 18 reinforcement. The Cornell test specimens were smaller than those tested by PCA. The results of the PCA tests are reported in Reference 7. The Cornell test results are presented in Reference 8 and summarized in a recent paper (9). This paper compares the Cornell and PCA results with others performed in Toronto and Japan. Table 3.2 presents a comparison of the calculated tangential shear stresses occurring in the annulus concrete with tangential shear strengths based on the conclusions from the Cornell and PCA tests.
In Reference 9, the following expression is proposed as a conservative estimate of the allowable tangential shear stress in
! orthogonally reinforced concrete:
l vp= jfI (2.7 + 0.006 pfy (1-fs/fy )) (1) where vc = allowable tangential shear strength (psi) fe = compressive strength of concrete (psi) p = minimum steel ratio of the two orthogonal reinforcements.
f y= reinforcement yield access (psi) f, = reinforcement stress due to the biaxial forces (psi) l This equation was developed from equal biaxial tension tests.
( Equation (1) was conservatively applied to the annulus concrete using the stresses and reinforcing ratios presented in Table 3.1.
The largest reinforcement stress was taken to exist on both faces Geert/F-6 l
15
and used as f, in Equation (1). This resulted in the tangential shear strength values shown in columns 3 and 4 of Table 3.2. The tangential shear strength of the section is the minimum of these two values and is shown in column 5. By comparing this with the calculated tangential shear stress appearing in column 2, it is seen that the shear strengths are in excess of the calculated shear stresses by the factors shown in column 9. At the critical section 2, the strength exceeds the calculated shear stress by 172%.
Reference 7 (the PCA tests) concludes that the following expression provides a lower bound estimate of the shear strength of orthogonally reinforced concrete subjected to cyclic loads:
v eo = 0.90 pfy (lifs/fy) (2) where v eo = lower bound tangential-shear strength (psi) p = minimum steel ratio of the two orthogonal reinforcements fy = reinforcement yeild stress (psi) fs = reinforcement stress due to the biaxial i
forces (psi)
To limit shear distortions and strains in the reinforcement, a factor of 0.6 is recommended in place of the 0.9 appearing in equation (2).
Geert/Commommenith 16
3 The report also establishes an upper limit on shear stress resisted by orthogonal reinforcement as:
veo = k(7.5-fs/14300) (3) where v eo = upper limit tangential shear strength (psi) fc = compressive strength of concrete (psi) f, = reinforcement stress due to the biaxial forces (psi)
The shear strength for each section of the annulus concrete was calculated using the above expressions. These are presented in columns 6, 7 and 8 of Table 3.2. Column 6 represents the minimum directional shear strength determined by Equation (2). Column 8 presents the shear strength corresponding to limiting shear distortion. Column 7 is the upper bound on shear strength determined by Equation (3). The controlling limit on tangential shear stress is considered to be the distortion limit shown in Column 8. When these values are compared with the calculated shear stress values shown in Column 2, it is seen that, as a minimum, the shear strength exceeds the calculated shear stress by 63%.
The results of these tests reported in References 7 and 9'are considered to be applicable to the evaluation of the ability *of the annulus concrete to resist the calculated tangential shear stresses without inclined reinforcement. From these test results it is concluded that sufficient shear strength exists and the shear distortion's will be small using only orthogonal reinforcement in the annulus concrete. The conclusion that the shear distortions will remain small was confirmed by applying Duchon's(10) analytical.model to the stress conditions shown in Table 3.1. This is discussed in Section 3:05.3 below. The Duchon model was selected because the research (7) has concluded it to Geert/Commoneenth
[ 17
i be a reasonable approximation of the shear distortions experienced by completely cracked elements even for a large number of stress reversals.
3:05.3 Duchon Model To confirn for the current design that the shear distortions remain small without inclined reinforcement, Duchon's (10) analytical model was applied to the stress conditions of the annulus concrete. The input to Duchon model includes the following:
Forces - Vertical Horizontal Shear Concrete Area Steel Modulus Concrete Modulus Reinforcing Ratio - Vertical j Horizontal
! Inclined Angle of Inclined Steel The vertical and horizontal forces were input as the maximum of the inside or outside face reinforcing bar stress values at the section from Table 3.1, multiplied by the appropriate reinforcement area. At each section, the shear force was input as the product of the tangential shear stress from column (2) of Table 3.2, times the concrete section area.
The Duchon model was also used to evalute the effect of the addition of the #5 inclined bars which would result from the requirements in SRP 3.8.1. The results from these analyses are shown in Table 3.3. Columns (2), (4), and (7) are the results for the current design with no inclined reinforcement. Columns (3),
(5), (6), and (8) are the results with f5 bars at a spacing of Geert/Commonuesth 18
12 inches and inclined 450 in both directions. Adding the inclined reinforcement reduces the vertical and horizontal reinforcement stresses by an averge of 7%. This reduction is not large enough to justify the addition of inclined reinforcement considering that the orthogonal reinforcement in the current design is not overstressed. For the #5 inclined bars in the model, some reach yield locally as shown in column (6) of Table 3.3. This means that the stress carried by the inclined reinforcement would not be as great as that indicated in Table 3.3 for sections where the inclined reinforcement yields. To be theoretically correct, the Duchon model would have to be revised to set all inclined reinforcement stress levels above yield (60 kai) to 60 ksi, and then re-evaluate the equilibrium equations. This correction was not considered important and was not made for these analyses.
The lower allowable concrete shear stresses in SRP 3.8.1 produces a requirement for inclined reinforcement. This reinforcement is intended to control shear distortions, which in turn limits the strains in the reinforcement and containment liner. It is believed that this intent of the SRP is met by the current design.
The distortional shear strains predicted by the Duchon model are shown in columns (7) and (8) of Table 3.3. The PCA test results from Reference 7 indicate that the Duchon model gives a reasonable approximation of the shear distortions experienced by completely cracked elements even for a large number of stress reversals.
Column (7) shows that the distortional shear strain values range from 0.00147 rad to 0.00331 rad, with an average of 0.00217 rad for the current design. These values are small, and the 0.00217 rad average value is less than one-half.of the ultimate values of shear distortion measured in the PCA tests in Reference 7. Comparing these results with those in column (8), it is seen that the effect of the #5 inclined reinforcement is to reduce the distortional shear strains by approximately 8%. This reduction is not significant considering that the distortional GeertICammanuseth 19
w shear strains in the current design are not large. The addition of the inclined steel would only slightly improve the distortional shear strains, but not enough to offset the problems associated with placing the inclined reinforcement.
3:05.4 Conclusion on Tangential Shear i
As discussed above, the current annulus concrete design for tangential shear meets all of the requirements of ACI 318-71 and ASME Section III, Division 2. The design does not meet the reduced allowable shear provisions of SRP 3.8.1. However, it has been shown that the current annulus concrete design meets the intent of the SRP to require a design with adequate shear strength and limited shear strains. This was demonstrated from an evaluation of the design using tangential shear test results l
obtained by PCA (7) and Cornell (9), and by applying the Duchon analytical-model (10).
3:06 REINFORCING STEEL STRAIN LIMITS i
The ASME Code Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC 3410 generally limits reinforcement strains to the elastic range for factored loads, allowing the strains to go to twice yield only in specified cases. This constraint is more severe than ACI 318 which generally allows the steel to yield under factored loads.
Even though the annulus concrete was originally designed to ACI-318, a check of the critical loads indicates that the strain limits of CC 3422 are not violated. Interaction diagrams were developed using the ASME strain limits. Service and factored load combinations were plotted for each section on the interaction diagrams. Figures 3.2 to 3.7 are interaction diagrams with only the critical sections plotted. They show that all strains are within ASME allowables.
/
20
3:07 CONCRETE STRAIN LIMITS
~
Table CC-3421-1 and CC-3431-1 define the concrete stress limits for the ASME Code for Section III, Division 2. The stresses in the annulus concrete are smal1 and fall below the allowables presented. Figures 3.2 through 3.7 also show the concrete stresses to be less than ASME Code allowables.
I l
l l
m y_.
21 j
E 4:00 MATERIAL. TESTING AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 4:01 REINFORCING STEEL Purchasing, placing, and the mechanical (Cadwell) splicing of reinforcing steel bars in the annulus area was performed utilizing the Safety-Related PNPP specifications for concrete and reinforcing steel, without consideration of the ASME Code,Section III, Division 2 rules. However, to demonstrate that essentially all ASME Code,Section III, Division 2, rules were me t, a third party, an Authorized Nuclear Inspector, will be brought on-site by the Constructor. The ANI will review all material certification and construction procedures to confirm ASME Code compliance with the exception of several miner items delineated in Table 4 " Reinforcing Steel and Splicing Code Comparison." It will further be demonstrated that the requirements of ASME Section III, Division 2, NCA-3461, which -
requires the Constructor to survey, qualify and audit certain suppliers, has been met with respect to the Code's intent, as related to reinforcing steel and Cadweld splices. This will be accomplished by producing combined Owner and Contractor records
, showing numerous inspections and audits of these suppliars.
4:02 CONCRETE SUPPLY The concrete supply, placement, and curing will be performed in compliance with ASME Section III, Division 2. Table 4.2,
" Concrete Code Comparison," is a compilation section-by-section of comparisons between the ASMS Code Section III, Division 2 rules and the present PNPP construction specification requirements. The last column in this comparison table shows the action required by CEI to meet Code rules. The concrete testing requirements are compared in Table 4.3. Additional review of Code sections including Quality Assurance, Personnel Qualifications, Vendor Surveillance, and third party Authorized Nuclear Geen/Commanuesth 22
Inspection, revealed CEI's ability to meet Code mandated practices.
4:03 TESTING s<
'.i The Perry containment is scheduled to undergo a Structural Integrity Test (SIT) in accordance with the rules of ASME Section III, Division 1, Subsection NE-6000. .There are currently
~
no rules in the ASME Code for the structural testing of the annulus concrete portion of the containment shell. However, rules !
for such a test have been proposed as e revision to the ASME Code Case N-258, and the Perry Containment SIT will comply with these proposed rules in addition to those of NE-6000. The proposed provisions require that displacement measurements and concrete crack inspection's be performed to a limited extent. The displacement requirements call for radial displacements to be measured on the vessel-near che top of the annulus concrete at four azimuths. The crack inspections are to be performed on a 40 square ft. area of the annulus concrete. The acesptance -
criteria are to be in accordance with ASME Section III, Division 2, Subsection CC-6000. Also, strain measurements are required in the region of the annulus concrete near the base slab and in the vicinity of the largest penetration in the annulus concrete, t
I
\
s GeertICommemmesma l
l 23
s s 5:00 CONCLUSION u
The concrete and reinforcing steel individually and collectively
'I as a usic meet fully the ASME Code,Section III, Division 2(4),
except purchasing, placing and the mechanical (Cadwell) splicing of reinforcing steel bars. As indicated in Section 4:01 the full intent of the Code has been followed with respect to these areas.
The design approach presented here is the best possible considering the specifics of the Perry Containment Vessel, Shield Building and annulus concrete. The final design developed from this approach is a safe and economical structural system capable of safely carrying all postulated loads and load combinations.
i l
'k l
l Geert/P-24
..-. - - - _ . . . - - - - - - - , , , . ~ . -.. _-_-- .---_-_--
6:00 REFERENCES
- 1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,1974 Edition with Summer 1974 Addenda.
- 2. ACI 318-71 Bulding Requirements For Reinforced Concrete.
- 3. ASME Code Case N-258 " Design of Interaction Zones for ,
Concrete ContainmentsSection III, Division 2" March, 1980.
- 4. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1980 Edition with Summer 1981 Addenda.
- 5. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station -
" Investigation of Methods of Preparing Horizontal Construction Joints for Concrete" Tech. Report No. 6-518 July 1959 - Corps of Engineers.
- 6. NUREG-0800 - SRP 3.8.1 " Concrete Containment" Rev 1, July 1981.
- 7. Oesterle, R.G. and Russell, H.G. " Shear Transfer in Large Scale Reinforced Concrete Containment Elements."
Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association - NUREG/CR-2450, Dec 1981.
- 8. Perdikanis, P.C. ; White, R.N.; Gergely, P. " Strength and Stiffness of Tensional Reinforced Concrete Panels Subjected to Membrane Shear, Two-Way Reinforcing" - Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University - NUREG/CR-1602 July 1980.
- 9. Cowley, White, Hilmy and Gergely " Design Considerations for Concrete Nuclear Containment Structures Subjected to Simultaneous Pressure and Seismic Shear" presented at Session 53, 6th SMIRT Conf. Paris, 1981.
Geert/Commoneenth 25
- 10. Duchon, N.B. " Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Membrane Subject to Tension and Shear", ACI Journal, Proc. Vol. 69, No. 9, Sept 1972 pp 578-583.
I l
(ieert/Commenneenn 26
7:00 LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Containment - Shield Building 2.1 ASHSD2 Model 2.2 ANSYS Thermal Model 2.3 Factored Load - Shield Building / Annulus Interface Stresses 3.1 Annulus Concrete Reinforcing 3.2 Vertical Steel - Service Loads Interaction Diagram 3.3 Horizontal Steel - Below Elevation 590'-6" Serivce Loads - Interaction Diagram 3.4 Horizontal Steel - Above Elevation 590'-6" Service Loads - Interaction Diagram 3.5 Vertical Steel - Factored Loads Interaction Diagram 3.6 Horizontal Steel - Below Elevation 590'-6" Factored Loads - Interaction Diagram 3.7 Horizontal Steel - Above Elevation 590'-6" Factored Loads - Interaction Diagram t
! Geert/Comenmeseth i
27
,- El. 757' 0" l
- r .
a,
, i-I F 4 El. 664' 10" 1
5 F .
. ~
f- - 4 -
El. 610 ' 5 "
[
h m -
4 El.592' 2"
.s.
- h
- 1. . i.y 4 El.587' 2"
- F M s Q., ,- d i El.584' 2" E l.581' 2" h ,1. .'. .
H -
.'.3. 4- .s.. '
- * *I
- - .-- .2
' l.
i i
Figure 1.1 Containment - Shield Building .
28
I . t . i o i . i -
4 . i . t . i - i . I -
d !r'F lI'E{ X }ll0:- 2./
t .
i !
!' \iU l'i
_J r!fJ i if s
I' il r' i i O IIi.:
1 a
I!
j; 1g s;:'! < t . i .-.ny. i
.g sj :1 ib Ift !! ON lu n I I HW!O.
W! :
. 2
- =
. =
l 5ej*i . .
] ,i1ll11lili611lll It
~
d (g illisiilitilli:i lisiilliel Illin ittil:
l it
- wl k) g= i i l '! ll1 !st i 1',iiti i: ej s.
m i ni in i ni, i e
6 "J al I D IT i ;,
t l- 1 I i t *_~ g
_, d ! I ',= .1 *. e ~
0 qyL"a j n"? <J *& o
@@ ES 6' "L"ej
. E
- a t ,' I s~as em^-
UJ UJ e
~
E
. s us 4 '; 4 t :
i E , i E s.
N 4
m C > CO
+ a I I 4
_ . I. '(y q ..
m '
- r,
=
,, y j ( gr j) j' i i-1-
- M a
7 I # 3 c
1 ' ?
I l
' l 2
as an
.Ii a
i l i =
l
- I -
t -
t = 3
=
1 i =
l 29
. 1 - I . l . I .
4 - I . I a I . l .
I 8' O O G 9 Section No. O
'l
. u = ..
@ e
. %=
- 8 e 8
=
> - @ @ e @
- . , . _ . . ,_ m. -
@ ef_ss__ae_.... s s e e s e s e .
j . . _ . _._._ __, _ . . . _ _._. -
s' -
4 2
j --. =
s esls
,_ s__.
K
.=f.:.y_ - -
~
~,
M_. . -
._._s, .
L ._.L .
u.
8 g -
s
. . , _ r _r % , -
6 --- M _
' ' E - -
6' L.--S' '! l """ @ e ii ieieieie . - l- ,
@ arle + coleele el N Y Y ~~I * * ** '
- w w '
4s _
... N. _r,m w t-r+- M -9 u
- I -
.-~ x___ a_s ---
eh. e e l e l e Lgm.~_.
e 1 e
[n.@c'Lc' x e4Lx a*
- g. e-#a.e =S .=w a Ag N
.g -L* =
.--e rv m. _ _
i:2 1
~ - _- -- -, -
e'.ggs; p,% 45,*% +- ' '
g_k e sk. e ,-l e l,,- e l.,%m4 + -
3
- g. g .
r.o.ee w u .-
g ge d -
g e e s . -
. ._ v m._-
3 e e E
_ h e ss e ss es s e 9 9 9 9 @ 9 e S
} v*-;fffgpij g '" ' ' ' ~ s. . ****~n ~
- i Iii3iiii I i I i .
I i I i i i
- ~ ~ . _
- Figure 2.2 ANSYS Thermal Model E.M lM 1 91 1i IlIl_Ii
' ll.lr 3_I R i jan
!l lig i 34'il 'I lI I 3
- qIl l.- , -
I sti !! I
- !,!j'lji i
1 I
i r-e.
1 p_i .3 - .-
T.d d I-8 l4',/
3 i
NiltilYi I.in m F = . j - * - .
g , , i , o . . . i i
yy c
h e 7
\ / k
/
P
- ~
\
l
\ k >
l --Q h i< l
\ / E D i*
M'?" i 1 I a
-o \
/
7 hg
]
1 k
\
% / $6 c
, \ N / -
-9!
4[k-
"a #
\
/
/ % V '
b 8
h k/
c v' . .
4-!
Ec;._a '
k $ Es l! 4 e ns w u nou g
I e @ r3 --%
Ii g m s G-C
-6 C
1 a
Q h '$ $ ? -
-}h it & e ea
% \
%n .
y 4 31
(401I[I RAD.70k M-lof t' RS At c>LDlr.
~
6 BIS 7& M* *. .
WP OF CONC.EL.593' 4' [# ,. , .;~ ,,
thTHK.CONiMNMENT VESSEL 6
.] .
S RD WAR v
7 7, .
I ,
4 g
d.'I i
88 c Sl8 @l6k' 6 C 7= 1 14-75 C1.
3.
h-2
--- {'CL.
.U
~~
l'THK. COMPRESSIBLE ga C v$
3 b IL: D MAT'L. (TYP. E ACH yk >- M= C.
$8
~ '
"w $1tFFENER RtNG) 3 3 ,t v q-
".S*
o i ,
,\
wb c i g _ q f_
_ - ;; v 1 g ,
A 3/4*THK.STIF F.(TYR)Q' J .y ,
I
.$ ,D ,
,g
=
=
~9 2 i
~
du' "
C-:
$l. (' _
4 I il
- C 9
=
b
'Wr'-_, 1
, " Q ,
e @
- E 2' "Q QV -
( -6 c7 Blu2S' lies (TYR)
{ )
I D
-1 = ,
] _
p
.Qto' . g.
O - Ig
- q
{
-4 ,
I py r.*-
h :
.98 G
e= - - . J - t
'g3 o,y, s g y- g i
g b .
/
'y TURN S4 EAR'TLES i .
= , AS REQ'O.TO CLEAR "
"g
@ 4- t/4*7HK.STtFFENER5- ^
9 '
4
=
~ [
~
0 i
f f 'IS'S 0.F. Y-A
= '*
[q EL. 574 '- Ch ,
4 9,
e u
- 4. *18 -5
, --eU n :I % <
.. i <
.i "_+i D 9,";. u / V
/ .
, / ~9:
- ~,/ ,
PROVIDE El*WiOE d*tP SHEAR KEY tu COWTAINMENT B%F M AT.
j SHE AR KEY TO BE CEWTEREO - Figure 3.1 SETWEEN SHIELO WA\.L ( CONT. Annulus Concrete Reinforcing VESSEL P. FOR Futt CtRCou .
FERENCE. OF RE ACTOR BQG.
32
~
Mi'97 JW4899-i 7]NZS 7F?/2JJ,A 3T 31/7fu
,NGSfpj (GF07 7f0f 2 /
V?/V0ff)
,,g,_ _
$$??!!!Ypho)3 EJR/V/7V
/
p-- 5#
Uf9?7 FJ9/f077F JNSF-SOU07 Jyrd,/0?ff dpf J.yVM/// / og o&
, 00 4 --
oubr-v) wm of 0003+ 0
% 0003- o 9- 9006-fp
= ' '
l . ! l l l 1 l lq' ! -
l l A
-- 00/-
/ SWAlOYO o"8 y an,varre cay'o7 Jyyggd f0559yd/VO?
U (uM) d sosauev$'A555$$9h?.$$N$$s#b
,va a ss , m a/ as.u n - n i ,e 9>u
- 32C/V
l fl jfk k N\ )$k !
1 18 a o A tt l p
)
x hh- l
) ,f i*
na ,
7 i i5it i l 49 ff!
~
l fI I. 1 a
l , llA3) io mt J~g_ '
&4
33 e
i s
'A
),
~ '
..1
{a ,,
1 ,s;i l
s* INah~ , g s
a .1 t .:
e 6 .
.a 1.= -$
%40$
u __'
y i sti fg ge si ) %
40 4
v(
t
-v
~n H
e i
{
-y 3 .
Q ti
'$ ,,- t
4 .
i B i a e h
{o{
e
\$
$ g i lil 112 kk_)kbkkk
~
g 2 i 'y k
I' lj';skII
, v i o
M T 4e' >e
90 11 4 9,1 -
J
~
t
'9 h
3Il 5
- s (v'+
n{
g k' . n k
)i* }4
, )i i T .- s-L::::: R1--T ... 1 g . i6i;e4 a --
?
{>\ \, y1
.., 1 h~~ a 4
~
31 V d1, ; 37
bl4 5 [
, 4 s tf
'h i :
D1 i El
) h
+
%5...' t b
a w .a, 9-h % =! i l l i l l al l 3 6. i g l l l l l l ! l l l f 4 ki ilEli v i llM a hI-
~~
3 t i 38 xa e
8:00 LIST OF TABLES 3.1 Reinforcing Steel Stresses Excluding Tangential Shear 3.2 Calculated Tangential Shear Strength Based on Cornell (9) and PCA(7) Tests 3.3 Results of Duchon (10) Analyses with (w) and without (w/o) Inclined Reinforcement 4.1 Reinforcing Steel and Splicing Code Comparison 4.2 Concrete Code Comparison 4.3 Modified Table CC-5200-1 (ASME Code PNPP Spec. Comparison of Concrete Related Test Requirements) 1 ) (Whert/Commoneesith 39
1 Table 3.1 Reinforcing Steel Stresses Excluding Tangential Shear Section Reinforcing Stress - Tension (ksi) No (1) Vertical (2)' Horizontal (3) Inside Outside Inside Outside Face Face Face Face 1 14.9 41.2 C C 2 35.5 15.2 0 0 3 31.2 27.1 6.1 3.7 4 29.1 25.4 8.3 6.6 5 26.9 24.0 12.9 10.2 6 26.7 23.0 17.0 13.0 7 24.2 21.8 20.8 16.1 8 24.4 18.5 29.4 11.2 9 19.0 16.2 33.4 13.0 9A 16.3 C(4) 40.1 16.0 10 26.3 C 50.8 14.6 Notes (1) See Figure 2.2. (2) Reinforcing ratio is 0.009. (3) Reinforcing ratio is 0.011 for Sections 1-7 and 0.017 for Sections 8-10. (4) Small compression. I ) Geert /Commoneenth 40 i t
Table 3.2 Calculated Tangential Shear Strength Based on Cornell (9) and PCA(7) Tests Section Perry Cornell Tests PCA Tests Ratio-Tangential Shears No(a) Tangential Tangential Shear Strength psi Tangential Shear Strength psi Tests / Perry Shear (b) psi Vertical Horizontal Minimum Minimum Minimum Limited Cornell PCA (c) Upper Distortion Minimum Limited Bound (d) Distortion (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 1 57 203 365 203 152 253 102 3.56 1.79 2 81 220 365 220 199 275 132 2.72 1.63 3 81 233 343 233 233 291 156 2.88 1.93 4 82 239 335 239 250 299 167 2.91 2.04 5 82 246 318 246 268 308 179 3.00 2.18 c-f6 7 83 83 246 254 303 290 245 254 270 290 309 318 180 193 2.96 3.06 2.17 2.33 8 82 253 319 253 288 298 192 3.08 2.34 9 78 269 296 269 332 283 222 3.45 2.85 9A 62 277 259 259 305 257 203 4.18 3.27 10 41 248 199 199 141 216 94 4.85 2.29 Notes: (a) See Figure 2.2 (b) Peak Values (c) Minimum value of vertical and horizontal (d) Conservative bound of minimum values J
TABLE 3.3 - RESULTS OF DUCHON(10) ANALYSES WITH (W)* AND WITHOUT (W/0) INCLINED REINFORCEMENT Section Vertical Reinforcement Horizontal Reinforcement Inclined Reinforcement Concrete Distortional
** Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) Shear Strain (Rad)
W/0 W #5 W/0 W #5 W #5 W/0 W #5 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1 49.6 47.2 14.4 12.8 87.3 .00208 .00192 2 39.6 37.9 9.16 7.97 66.1 .00147 .00134 3 37.3 35.3 14.5 13.1 65.1 .00174 .00161 4 35.2 33.2 15.7 14.3 64.9 .00174 .00161 5 33.2 31.1 19.0 17.6 56.5 .00184 .00170 6 34.4 32.0 23.3 21.8 54.7 .00207 .00192 7 32.7 30.2 26.6 25.1 49.1 .00214 .00199 8 33.7 30.7 34.6 32.9 47.2 .00246 .00228 e 9 29.6 26.4 40.3 37.8 47.5 .00249 .00227
$ 9A 26.6 23.3 45.6 43.2 42.4 .00250 .00227 10 37.5 33.1 57.5 54.3 57.8 .00331 .00301 -
C @l Avg. 35.4 32.8 27.3 25.5 58.1 .00217 .00199 9 % Decrease - 7.3 - 6.6 - - 8.3
- Inclined reinforcement is at 450 and spaced 12" on centers, both directions. **See Figure 2.2 for location of sections, o
TABLE 4.1 REINFORCING STEEL AND SPLIC1dC - CODE COMPARISON OM CORRESPONDING i SECTION SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCIION SPEC. + = - REMARKS CC-2300 Haterial (Reinforcing Systems). CC-2310(a) tbterial used for reinforcing systems shall conform SP-663 2:05.1, 2:06 X to ASTM A-615 CC-2310(b) Haterial to be used for bar to bar splices shall SP-202 1:07.3 I conform to ASTM A513, A519, A579 . CC-2320 Reinforcing system shall be traceable to CHTR SP-663 2:07 X during production and transit
- CC-2330 Special material testing. ,,
CC-2331.1 One full diameter tensile bar of each bar size shall SP-663 2:06.1 I be tested per each 50 tons or fraction ' CC-2331.2 Acceptance standard is ASTM A615 SP-663 2:06.1 X If specimen fails - two retest. SP-663 2:06.3 X Single retest. Review of all
*- material test reports show no
'# failures.
CC-2332 Bend test , CC-2332.1(a) Per ASTM 615 SP-663 2:06.1 I ! CC-2332.1(b)(1) One full size specimen per heat SP-663 2:06.1 X l CC-2332.1(b)(2) Tested at ambient ASTM A615 X l CC-2332.1(b)(3) Tested around a 9d pin Not Addressed X Tested around an 8d pin CC-2332.2 Acceptance standards CC-2332.2(b) Absence of transerve cracking SP-663 2:05.1 X l l If specimen fails - two retest. SP-663 2:06.2.1 X Single retest - review shows no 4 failures. i l CC-2333 Chemical analysis - reported in accordance with A615 SP-663 2:05.1 X i (+) Exceeds Section III, Division 2l Requirements (=) Meets Code Requirements (-) Construction Specification Insufficient
------ - - , - , , , - - - - - - ,,-----.,n --
TABLE 4.1 REINFORCING STEEL AND SPLICINC - CODE COMPARISDN (Continued) O 'DE CORRESPONDING SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC. + = - REMARKS SICTION CC-4300 Fabrication and Construction (Reinforcing Systems). CC-4320 Bending or reinforcing steel SP-663 2:08.4 X CC-4321.1 Standard Hooks SP-663 2:08.4 X CC-4321.2 Diameter . SP-663 2:08.4 X CC-4322 Stirups, tie hooks, and bend other than standard hooks l CC-4324 Bending . SP-663 2:08.2 X CC-4 323.1 All bars shall be cold bent Examination of bends SP-663 2:08.6 X Inspected once per sh11t. Tolerances per Fig CC-4323-2 or 3 SP-663 2:08.4 X Final acceptance is based on CC-4323.4 a as-built field condition. ICC-4330 Splicing or reinforcing bars SP-202 1:07.1 X CC-4331.1 As required or permitted by designer SP-202 1:07.2 X CC-4331.2 Permitted types of splices SP-202 1:07.2 X i CC-4332 Lap Splices CC-4333 Mechanical Splices SP-202 1:08.2 X CC-4 33 3.1.1 Required qualification - splicers Not Addressed X PNPP utilized ERICO's proven Required qualification - splicing procedure splicing procedure SP-202 1:08.1.10 K CC-4333.1.2 Maintenance and certification of records SP-202 1:08.2 X CC- 4333.1.3 Splicing prior to qualification is not permitted Not Addressed X ERICO's long history of accepta-CC-4333.2 Splice system qualification requirements ble test results is an industry standard. SP-202 1:08.2 X CC-4333.4 Initial qualification test 2 per splice position CC-4333.5 Continuing splice performance tests (+) Exceeds Section III, Division 2 Requirements (=) Heets Code Requirements (-) Construction Specification Insufficient
TABLE 4.1 REINFORCING STEEL AND SPLICING - CODE COMPARISON (Continued) . 4 CORRESPONDING . 000). PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC. + = - REMARKS SECTIOri SUBJECT SP-202 1:09 X CC-4 3 3 3. 5.1 Conintuing series of testing shall be performed SP-202 1:09.1 & 1:09.2 X I CC-4333.5.2 Splice samples SP-202 1:09.3 I CC-4 333. 5. 3(a) Frequency - 1 test per 100 splice SP-202 1:09.4 X CC-4333.5.4 Tensile testing requirements SP,202 1:09.4.1 X CC-4 33 3. 5.4 (a) Tensile strength shall equal or exceed 125% yield - SP-202 1:09.4.2 X CC-4 333. 5.4 (b) Running average of 15 shall equal or exceed minimum tensile i CC-4333.5.5 Substandard tensile test result Failure in bar - investigate with fabricator SP-202 1:09.5.1 X Report to owner - only difference. CC-4 333. 5.5 (a) SP-202 1:09.5.2 X CC-4333.5.5(b) Failure in splice SP-202 1:09.5.3 X CC-4 333. 5. 5 (c) Running average tensile strength failure SP-202 1:09.5.4 X CC-4333.5.5 When splicing is resumed, frequency started anew SP-202 1:08.1.10 X CC-4 333.6 Recording of tensile test results CC-4340 Placing reinforcing SP-202 1:06.4 X CC-4341 Supports SP-202 1:06.5 X CC-4342 Tolerances t CC-4350 Spacing of reinforcement SP-14 5:07.2.3 & ACI 301 X CC-4351 Layers SP-202 1:07 - X CC-4352 Splices SP-202 1:06.3 & 1:u6.4.4 X CC-4360 Surface condition (+) Exceeds Section III, Division 2 Requirements (=) Heets Code Requirements (-) Construction Specification Insufficient i
1 TABLE 4.1 4 l REINFORCING STEEL AND SPLICING - CODE'OOMPARISON (Continued) CORRESPONDING 0 0h + = - REMARKS SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC. 51'ct ion 4 CC-5300 Construction Testing and Examination (Reinforcing System)
; CC-5300 Examination of reinforcing system CC-5320 Acceptance criteria for mechanical splices SP-202 1:07.3 & 1:08 X j CC-5321 Siceve with ferrous filler metal splices One sleeve per crew visually examined daily for Not Addressed X Const. Spec. to be revised.
CC-5321(a) Contractor's procedure required fit-up at least one visual examination daily., CC-5321(b) All completed sleeves shall be examined for ..
- filler metal at end and tap hole SP-202 1:08.1.9 X
- check for allowable maximum void SP-202 1:08.1.9 ,
X
$ CC-5340 Examination of bends SP-663 2:08.6 X Performed at fabricator facility.
The bent or straightened surface of bars shall be visually examined for 1,ndication of cracks 4 (+) Exceeds Section III, Division 2 Requirements (=) Meets Code Requirements (-) Construction Specification Insufficient I
TABLE 4.2
, CONCRETE - CODE COMPARISON CORRESPONDING Cone + = - REMARKS SECT 10N SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC.
CC-2200 Material (Concrete and Concrete Constituents). CC-2220 Concrete Constituents. CC-2221 Cement Riterial Requirement - shall conform to ASTM C-150, SP-14 5:06.1 I CC-2221.1 Type II CC-2222 Aggregates. . CC-2222.1 Aggregates shall conform to ASTM.C-33 SP-14 5:07.1 & 5:07.2 X 1 CC-2222.1(b) Flat and elongated particles - 15% CRD-C119 SP-14 5:07.2.5 I CC-2222.1(c) Optional - Potential Alkali Reactivity of Cement SP-14 5:07.2(c) X
, Aggregate Combination Agg. ASTM C-227 Optional - Potential Reactivity Aggregates SP-14: 5:07.2(c) X ASTM C-289 -5 Optional - Potential' Volume Change of Cement SP-14 5:07.2(c) X Aggregate Combination ASTM.C-342 Optional - Potential Alkali Reactivity of Not Addressed X Not Applicable - Code Optional Carbonate Rocks for Concrete Aggregates Test.
ASTM C-586 SP-14 5:07.2(c) X Required - Petrographic Examination Water Soluble Chloride Content of Aggregates Not Addressed X Const. Spec. will be revised to CC-2222.1(d) include. ASTM D-1411 Tangential Shear (L.A. Abrasion) Max. 40% SP-14 5:18.3.3(1) X Const. Spec. Ibx. 50%, Const. Spec CC-2222.1(c) will be revised. Review of mate-ASTM C-131 rial Test Repcrts - Max. = 324 SP-14 5:07.2.3 & ACI 301 X Revise Specification. Aggregate CC-2222.1(f) Max. Size of Aggregate being used meets Requtkements. CC-2222.4 Aggregate fo,r Crout - Conforms to ASTM C-33 SP-14 5:07.1.1 X (+) Execeds Section III, Division 2 Requirements (=) Meets Code Requirements (-) Construction Specification Insufficient s
,~
J
' TABLE 4.2 CONCRETE - CODE COMPARISION (Continued)
- CORRESPONDING _
CUDl. + = - REftARKS SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC. SLCTion CC-2223 Hixing Water SP-14 5:09.1 X
, CC-2221.1 Water Shall be Clean with Max. Total Solids of l
2000 PPH. ASTM D-1888 SP-14 5:09.1.3 X Water shall be tested for Chlorides ASTM 512 SP-14 5:09.2.1(b) X CC- 2223.2(a) Time of setting ASTM C-191 SP-14 5:09.2.1(c) X CC-2223.2(b) Compressive Strength CC-2224 Admixtures Not Addressed X Const. Spec. will be revised, CC-2224.1 Construction Specification Shall Specify Type, j Quantity, and Additional Limits. Each Admixture shall not contribute more than 5 PPH, by weight , i of Chloride Ions to total concrete constituent . SP-14 5:08.1 X c CC-2224.2.1 Air Entraining Admixtures shall conform to ASTM C-260 o3 X j Chemical Admixtures shall conform to ASTM C-494 SP-14 5:08.2 CC-2224.2.3 CC-2230 Concrete Mix Design X CC-2231.1 Properties of Concrete which influence the Design shall SP-14 be established in the Construction Specification Not Addressed X Const. Spec to be revised. CC-2231.2 Chloride Content of Cement Paste shall not exceed 400 ppm by weight Not Addressed X Const. Spec. to be revised, CC-2231.3 Applicable Concrete Properties in Table CC-2231-1 shall be defined in Const. Spec. Not Addressed X Code Option Testing not required. CC-7231.4.1 Hechanical Properties Const. Spec. to address. Not Addressed X Code Option Testing not required. CC-2231.4.2 Physical Properties Const. Spec. to address. Not Addressed X Code Option Testing not required. CC-2231.4.3 Thermal Properties Const. Spec, to address. (+) Exceeds Section III, Division 2 Requirements (=) Heets Code Requirements (-) . Construction Specification Insufficient
i
~
TABLE 4.2 CONCRETE - CODE COMPARISOk (Continued) 0800 CORRESPONDING SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCIION SPEC. + = - RF21 ARKS STCTion CC-??32 Selection of Concrete Mix Proportions Trial Mix Design Proportions SP-14 5:04.2 X CC-2232.1 CC-2232.2 Strength Tests SP-14 5:04.2 X CC-2232.3 Durability . CC-2232.3.1 W/C shall not be exceed 0.53 for Concrete SP-14 5:10.1 X Expose to Freezing Temperatures. CC-2240 Cement Grout
~*
CC-2241 Constituent for Cement Grout CC-2241.1 Cement shall conform to ASTM C-150 SP-14 5:06.1 X CC-2241.2 Aggregate shall conform to ASTM C-33 SP-14 5:07.2 X CC-2241.3 Water shall conform to CC-2223 SP-14 5:09 X S , CC-2250 Marking and Identification of Concrete Constituents SP-14 5:06.5.4 X Const. Spec. to be revised. Cement shall be sealed and tagged before leaving supplier showing lot number, specification, grind date and type Aggregate shall be identified to size, source, and Not Addressed X Presently, Addressed in nonmetallic CC-2257 material Manufacturer's QA Program. specification CC-2253 Admixture tanks shall be labeled with name, Not Addressed X Nonmetallic material manufacturer's specification, and storage requirements. . QA program will be revised to address labeling of storage requirements. (+) Exceeds Section III, Division 2 Requirements (=) Meets Code Requirements (-) Construction Specification Insufficient O
TABLE 4.2 CONCRETE - CODE COMPARISON' (Continued) . s i CORRESPL* DING . WOL + = - RDIARKS SFCTIO!4 SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC. CC-4200 Fabrication and Construction (Concrete) CC-4770 Storing, batching, mixing and transporting. SP-14 6:09.1 & 6:11.10 X I CC-4221.1 Stockpiling and storing aggregate. ACI 301 CC-4221.2 Storage; Cement & Admixture. SP-14 6:09.1 & 5:07.4 X CC-4222 Batching CC-4222.1 Distribution SP-14-6:11 X Per Const. Spec., ACI 301, not i
- 1) Conform to ACI-304 ACI 304 is used. Upgrade to ACI 304 requirements.
- 2) Only accepted material used Not Addressed , X Material must be accepted prior
- to use. Const. Spec. to be revised.
CC-4222.2 tkasuring vi O 1) By weight - Cement & Aggregates SP-14 6:11.3 X l
- 2) By volume - H 2O SP-14 6:11.5 K
- 3) Free moisture correction shall be accounted for, SP-14 5:11.5 X
- 4) Tolerances per ASTM C-94 SP-14 6:11.9 ACI-301-72 X Aggregate - ACI 301-72 gives 2%
tolerance ois all drops. ASTN C-94 l gives 2% tolerance on 1st drop and 1% therafter. Const. Spec. will be revised. i Hixing per ASTM C-94 SP-14 6:11.10 per ASTM C-94 X Const. Spec. allows modification , CC-4223.1 per ACI-301. Revise Const. Spec. s as modified by ACI-301 to meet ASTM C-94 in it's entirety. SP-14 6:11.10 X ACI-301 Sect. 7.2.2 gives same CC-4223.2 Operation of mixer per ASTM C-94 requirements as ASTM C-94 Conveying from mixer to point of placement SP-14, SP-201 & ACI-301 X Specs satisfy code requirements. CC-4224.1 Conveying equipment SP-2011:12, SP-14 6:09 X Specs satisfy code requirements. CC-4224.2 (+) Exceeds Section III, Division 2 Requirements (=) Meets Code Requirewnts (-) Construction Specification Insufficient
a 6 TABLE 4.2
~
CONCRETE - CODE COMPARISON (Continued) Coln. CORRESPOflDING SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC. + = - RatARKS SICTlotl CC-4225 Depositing CC-4225.1 Ceneral SP-201 1:12.1 T.ef. AC1-301 X Continuity SP-201 1:09 X CC-4225.2 CC-4226 Consolidation CC-4 226.1 Ceneral - y AI-309 SP-201 1:12.1 Ref ACI-301 X . , ,
-, J CC-4240 Curing *
(A) Mote ... red through minimum curing per oid SP-201 1:15 X (D) When mean thily temperature is.below 40'F, conc SP-201 1:15.4 X Const. Spec to be revised, to be at least 50'F & moist for 7 days , CC-4250 Formwork and Const. Joints Ceneral properly designed braced and tied SP-201 1:07 . X ,
$CC-4251.1 CC-4251.2 Design of formwork - ACI-347 SP 201 1:07.3 Ref ACI-301-72 X ACI 301.72 Refs ACI-347.
Use of liner as formwork Not Addressed X Const. Spec to address this CC-4151.3 situation. CC-4252 Construction joints located as shown on drawings SP-201 1:09.1.1 , X , s CC-42tiG Cold and hot weather conditions SP-14 15:3.1 X -
~^7 SP-201 1:06.3 CC-4270 Repairs to concrete - as directed by designer and SP-201 1:07.7.2 X per CC-4252 of code. 1:18
(+) Exceeds Section III, Division 2 Requirements (=) Meets Code Requirements (-) Conytruction Specification Insufficient 9 Y j .4*m4
TABLE 4.2 COflCRETE - CODE COMPARISON'(Continued) ' ~ v - ,, r 2 wl)h CORRESPONDING SUBJECT PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC. + = - RE!! ARKS SECTION CC-5200 Construction Testing and Examination (Concrete). 1 0C-5200 Concrete examinations CC-5210 General Not Addressed X We will have an Autho .eed Inspector. CC-5220 Concrete Constituents CC-5221.1 Cement Requirements SP-14 5:18.3.7 X CC-5221.2 Testing frequency See modified Table CC-5200-1 X SP-14 5:18.3.5 X Will revise Const. Spec. to CC-5223.1 Admixture requirements ASTH C-494 5:04.Ic address Code requirement. CC-5223.2 Testing frequency See modified Table CC-5200-1 X SP-14 5:04.1.8, 5:18.3.3 X Will revise Const. Spec to address ' u CC-5224.1 Argregate requirements N prior to use Not Addressed X passing agg, tests prior to use. CC-5224 Tescing frequency See modified Table CC-5200-1 X Not Addressed X Will revise Const. Spec. to address CC-5225.1 !!!xing water requirements this requirement. Testing frequency See modified Table CC-5200-1 X Will revise Const. Spec. to address CC-5225.2 Code requirement. CC-5231 Concrete, sampled to ASDI C-172 SP-14 5:18.3.Ib X CC-5232.1 Slump requirements to ASTM C-143 SP-14 5:18.3.1.E X Testing frequency SP-14 5:17.2.1 1 CC-5232.2 CC-5233.1 Temperature requirement SP-14 5:18.3.1.G X Air content to ASTM C-173 or ASDi C-231 SP-14 5:18.3.1.F X Unit weight to ASIti C-138 SP-14 5:18.3.1.H X See Modified Table CC-5200-1 X CC-5233.2 Testing frequency CC-5234.1 Compressive strength cylinders ASTM C-31 or ASDI C-39 SP-14 5:18.3.D X SP-14 5:18.5 X CC-5234.2 Evaluation and acceptance (+) Exceeds Section III, Division 2 Requirements (=) Meets Code Requirements (-) Construction Specification Insufficient
-~
l TABLE 4.3 i . MODIFIED TABLE CC-5200-1 ASME CODE /PNPP SPEC. COMPARISON OF CONCRETE RELATED '4EST FREQUENCIES ~ CORRESPONCING [ FREQUENCY PNPP CONSTRUCITON SPEC. + = - RDtARKS IIA ll.R I AI. REQUIREMENTS AND ffET110D CErtENT Standard chemical prop. ASE C-114 Each 1200T SP-14 5:18.3.7 X Each 1200T SP-14 5:18.3.7 X Fineness ASTM C-204 or ASTM C-115 Auto clave expansion ASTM C-151 Each 1200T SP-14 5:18.3.7 I Compressive strength ASTM C-109 Each 1200T SP-14 5:18.3.7 K Time of setting AS E C-266 or Each 1200T -SP-14 5:18.3.7 I I AS m C-191 AGGRECATE Cradation ASTM C-136 Each 1000 C.y. SP-14 5:18.3.3.A X floisture AS E C-566 Twice Daily SP-14 5:18.3.3.5 X during production . Material finer than #200 ASIM C-117 Each 1000 C.y. SP-14 5:18.3.3.C X Organic impurities ASTM C-40 Each 1000 C.y. SP-14 5:18.3.3.D X I tre md elongated particles Monthly SP-14 5:18.3.3.1 X SP-14 frequency; every 6 months.
-u . . . .
CRD t-119 Friable particles ASTM C-142 Monthly SP-14 5:18.3.3.E X Light weight particles ASTM C-123 Monthly SP-14 5:18.3.3.F X Monthly SP-14 5:18.3.3.M X Absorption not addressed Specific gravity and absorption Specific gravity meets code. ASTM C-127 or ASTM C-128 L.A. Abrasion AS E C-131 or AS M C-535 Every 6 months SP-14 5:18.3.3.H X Potential reactivity ASTM C-289 Every 6 months SP-14 5:18.3.3.J K
~
Soundness AS E C-88 Every 6 months SP-14 5:18.3.3.K X Every 6 months X Not Addressed. Water soluble chloride ASTM D-1411 Every 6 months Not Addressed X . WATER 6 1CE Effeet on compressive Str. ASTM C-109 Every 6 months Not Addressed X Ef fect on setting time ASIN C-191 Every 6 months Not Addressed X Total solids ASTM D-1888 Monthly Not Address X Chlorides ASE D-512 (+) Exceeds Section III, Division 2 Requirements (=) Meets Code Requirements (-) Construction Specification Insufficient
TABLE 4.3 MODIFIED TABLE CC-5200-1 ASME CODE /PfiPP SPEC. CO!!PARISON OF CONCRETE RELATED TEST FREQUENCIES (Continued) CORRE.Sl'ONDING FREQUENCY PNPP CONSTRUCTION SPEC. + = - REMARKS tt'fil'H I Al. REQUIREttENTS AND METil0D Attilrit'RE IInt formity - infrared spectrophoto- Each load SP-14 5:18.3.5 X metry, Pil and solids per ASTil C-494 CONCRETE Mixer uniformity ASDI C-94 Initially and SP-14 5:18.3.1.A X every 6 months Compressive strength ASTM C-39 or 1 set every 100 cy _SP-14 5:6.1 X CRD C-84 1 set a day for each class Slump ASDI C-143 1st batch & cvery SP-14 5:17.2.1 X 50 cy. . Air Content ASDI C-173 or C-231 1st batch & every SP-14 5:18.3.F X Code every 50 cy/ spec every 100 cy 50 cy Temperature 1st batch & every SP-14 5:18.3.1.C X 50 cy to Weight /Yleid ASul C-138 Daily during SP-14 5:1 0 . 3 . 1 . 11 X
- production
(+) Exceeds Section III, Devision 2 Requirements (=) Meets Code Requirements
. (-) Construction Specification Insufficient
APPENDIX A Comparison of SRVD Response Speectra for the Containment Vessel with and without the Annulus Concrete Response spectra are presented for Elevation 579'-5" (node 155), Elevation 664'-10' (node 272), and Elevation 749'-4" (node 311) in the radial (direction 1), vertical (direction 2), and tangential (direction 3) directions for the General Electric safety relief valve discharge (SRVD) random loading for 19 valves, load case 23. Figures 1-3 cre the response spectra for the SRVD analysis which does not include the annulus concrete. These response spectra curves are envelopes of GE random loadings 19 valves - load case 23, 19 valves - load case 32, and 19 valves - load case 46. Load case 23 provided the largest response of the three load cases and therefore these curves can be compared to the response spectra curves presented in Figures 4-6 which are generated from random load 19 valves - load case 23. Some problems may arise since the response spectra from three enveloped load cases are being compared to one individual load case; however, the comparison provides a good indication of the changes caused by the addition of the annulus concrete. Mode 155 is located in the suppression pool, node 272 is located on the cylindrical portion of the vessel above the pool, and node 311 is located on the dome. As an example, if Figure 3a is compared to Figure 6a, it is observed that the peak acceleration response for the 1% damping curve was reduced from 10.7 g to 0.44 g. A frequency shift caused by the addition of the annulus concrete occurred. The center of the peak for the analysis which did not include annulus concrete is located at approximately 18.0 Hz (figure 3a) while the center of the peak for the analysis which did include the annulus concrete is located at approximately 25.0 Hz. The additional stiffness provided by the annulus concrete caused a substantial reduction in the acceleration response of the Containment Vessel and a frequency shift in the location of the peak response. Al
O O PERRY PROJECT S 5 f' _ SRVA O 33 cAratNo a 0.010 sC e 1 i<
..- car *!Ns= 0.020 WC j' car *!No = 0.030 U O g UN '
C" cAs*'Ns = 0.040 _i \_ C cc"*!NG 0.070 r
~ .r_. .. -i
/
8 J# 5 s7 s 9 I0 i 5 i sS i 9910' 2 3 4 5$ FREQUENCY fCPS) ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT ISS IN DIRECTION 1 FOR LOAD CASES 19231. 19321. 19461 FIGURE la RADIAL RESPONSE SPFCTRA AT EL. 579'-5" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A2
R 2 PERRY PROJECT E SRVA o f L _= 1 co (
,, . cAPP!NG = 0.01@
E h gg cara!NG = 0.02@ j DAra!NG a 0.03@ Ue. g - f-k ,
\
carp!NG a 0.04d
/
f t carp!NG = 0.07@ l(
$ - /
\
f f @EEt s E _
$ 6 7 $ 9 IO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8910' 2 3 is 6 FREQUENCY (CPS 1 ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 155 IN DIRECTION 2 FOR LORD CASES 19231, 19321, 19461 FIGURE lb VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 579'-5" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A3
?
8 a PERRY PROJECT 8 i SRVA 8 b I DarP!NG = 0.01@ o
! care!=o = 0.02@
x W ll carp!No = 0 03s: g r
, care!=o 0.04@
/--9 care!wo . 0.07@
~
f -] M
,V Nw 8 J 5 6 7 $ 9 IO 2 3 A 5 6 78910' 2 3 4 5S FREQUENCY (CPS 1 ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT ISS IN DIRECTION 3 FOR LOAD CASES 19231. 19321. 19461 FIGURE le TANGENTIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 579'-5" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A4
l 1 8 E PERRY PROJECT 8 5 [ SRVA
~
g , GE i 7 __ cara!NG = 0.01D I [ . onna!No . 0.02G e I onra!No . 0.03Q $ I__\. T
/
cara!NG = 0.04Q oara!No . 0.0:e M L p
"f %
8 s 5 5 i S S I O* 2 $ 4 ss7e$ 10 2 i i ss FREQUENCY (CPS) ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 272 IN DIRECTION 1 FOR LO AD C ASES 19231. 19321. 19461 FIGURE.2a RADIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 664'-10" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A5
?
j 8 PERRY PROJECT 8 5 SRVA 8
? l \
2 f CARPING s 0.01@ o cama!NG a 0.02@ x
\
,I ORPPING s 0.03Q
- y. C
_ l carerNG s 0.04@ onne!NG s 0.07s 8 jf o o t Il
!-s <
s
"$ $7 $ $ IO 2 3 4 s s 7 e 9 10 5
2 3 i ss FREQUENCY (CPS 1 ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 272 IN DIRECTION 2 FOR LORD CASES 19231. 19321. 19461 FIGURE 2b VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 664'-10" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A6
8 a
~
PERRY g , PROJECT e I \ f SRVR i j i
; om 4 ( \ II
\"
z carefas = 0.010 Qd, . l
-- ' ^
cara!No = 0 020
. x f
~
LW ll ,f cAra!NG s 0.'030 i 88 g, 7 7 T \ carerNs= 0.040 i caratNG = 0 070 N A w W \ w E j i s s i 89 10' 5 $ 4
$6 i 8910' i 3 4 5$
i FREQUENCY (CPS) ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 272 IN DIRECTION 3 FOR LORD CASES 19231. 19321. 19461 FIGURE 2c TANGENTIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT ! EL. 664'-10" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE , A7 _ , . . _ _ - __ , . _ . . . _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . . ~ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ , , .. ., _ -_ - .
A i i- , 8
- U PERRY. l o PROJECT e l SRVA 8
-. I h c*
.2 Der *!NG a 0 010 C
{ coralNG a 0.020 0: I g f l Dara!NG a 0.030 ua
/ -\} /
g'8 //, mM // \- cer*!No a 0.040
// f',f ~ ,
T
/ % onra!NG a 0.070 L
8 ~ 4 \ T
/'/ %.
e o s 5 6 i 8 $ I O" i a 4 5 sie6 10' i 3 4 55 FREQUENCY (CPS) - } ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 311 IN DIRECTION 1 FOR LOAD CASES 19231, 19321. 19461
! FIGURE 3a RADIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT j
EL. 749'-4" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE i
^
A8
8. PERRY i 1 PROJECT o 8 SRVR 8 b l c4FPf NG . 0.010
=
Y y2 ;I \' c4FotsG = 0.C20 .b a CArarNG a 0.030 uJ r
! \. Car *!NG = 0.040 F \ 04Fa!NG = 0.070 -
8
= s e s 67 $ 9 IO3 2 3 4 seiaS 10' 2 3 4 56 FREQUENCY (CPS)
ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 311 IN DIRECTION 2 FOR LORD CASES 19231. 19321, 19461 FIGURE 3b VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 749'-4" NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A9
. - _ . _ = .. .
3 I i 4 4 4 i l 8 *
~
PERRY
, PROJECT 9
~
i SRVA 8
-c5
~
I 4 z _ CAPMNG a 0 010 ! 8 {* OAra!NG = 0 020 5 a
\_
l OAra!NG = 0.030 uJ 1
$4 .,
~\ /' ,\- CAPPING . 0.040 I \ '
, OgrarNG a 0 070
,\ ,
~
r si w l 8 s
- 5 s 7 $ 9 I O* 2 3 4 s s7e5 10 2 3 4 s e FREQUENCY (CPS)
ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 311 IN DIRECTION 3 j FOR LORD CASES 19231. 19321. 19461 i FIGURE 3c TANGENTIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT l EL. 749'-4" ' NO ANNULUS CONCRETE A10
r 3 ! 5~ PERRY PROJECT S a SRVR S i
,6~ ,
j r I g on 'sc = c.01: E_,
-. a ,
. y .
-~l
- ce.mc . a .=0
==' .
% i
/ 1
- r=ruc. 0 003
==
. < ' / \ r.,~c o.cao j ,
N i
]{aarmo t
f k o , f ? S /
)[7 "s s t 9 i $ 0' i $ i
$ 6 i9$ 10' i 3 i 5 S FREQUENCY fCFS)
EN/ ELOPED SPECTRR FOR JOINT 155 IN DIRECTION 1 FOR LORD CASES 22222 FIGURE 4a RADIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 579'-5" AN'1ULUS CONCRETE All
g ._ .. .- PERRY PROJECT 73 6 / i
/ SRVR R
86
/ \ 1
) cAra!NG = 0 01@
H ' I I
/
carp!NG a 0 02@
\ onrotnc. 0.030 Qg .
k1 cararno 0 040 ra'No = 0 070 e
/ -
< w 8 - #l
)
5 e t 6 $ I O* i $ 4
$ 6 78310' i 3 4 5$
FREQUENCY (CPS) ENVELOPED SPECTRR FOR JOINT 155 IN DIRECTION 2 FOR LORD CASES 22222 FIGURE 4b VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 579'-5" ANNULUS CONCRETE A12
PERRY PROJECT A SRVA eth R w C C 2 OAPPfMG a 0.010 C,
~O g CAP *!NG 0.020 c:
I camarNG a 0 030 3
'g j ,
car *!NG z 0.040 [ \ s i omne'NG 0 070
/
- '{ -
h A '\
\
o --.
, ,- o ,
a y \ Q%
. s.
i 8 - > l
~
4 ei$3IO: i 3 4 $ s i e 6 '10' i 3 i5 $ j FREQUENCY fCPSJ ENVELOPED SPECTRR FOR JOINT ISS IN DIRECTION 3 FOR LORD CASES 22222 f FIGURE 4c TANGENTIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT l EL. 579'-5" ! ANNULUS CONCRETE l i A13 i
PERRY PROJECT
/ \
r 3 g SRVR T - o m , I \ h coo \ 1
~
\
g {) ore *!NG a 0.01Q 3 a i i : DAr*!NG = 0 02@ cc w [ \ oar"NG = 0 035
. . . . 04ra'NG z 0.045
/ \\\y Onra?NG = 0 070 s
f
- J %
8 8 $ 7 $ $ IO 3 2 3 4 $ s7s$ 10' 2 3 4 5$ FREQUENCY (CPS 1 ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 272 IN DIRECTION 1 FOR LORD CASES 22222 FIGURE Sa RADIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 664'-10" ANNULUS CONCRETE A14
8
& PERRY PROJECT S
b SRVA Gd
= care!NG 0 010
=
l \ { e i oar tmo- 0 0:0 oar *'NG . 0 030
/ \
a$ d / 'I b car rso . 0.04g 5 .
.[
t b,_
\
- ne rna 0.070 6;
i [/
- k
=
5 s 7 8 9 i0 3 i 3 i s s s l e s 1 o' i 3 A ss FREQUENCY (CPS} ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 272 IN DIRECTION 2 FOR LORD CRSES 22222 FIGURE Sb VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 664'-10" ANNULUS CONCRETE A15
s 0 PERRY PROJECT 8 SRVR 8 ' CC
. . _ _ , , 04Pr!NG = 0.010 Oc
- DAF8fMG a 0 020 x
j DAFP!NG a 0.030 bO ui 17 \ OAPP!NG s 0.040 Co OAretNG a 0 070 k i
?
4/
] \ EEENk 8
[' [ N
"$ 6 7 $$Ij 2 3 4 $ 6 78910' I 3 4 5 S FREQUENCY (CPS)
ENVELOPED SPECTRR FOR JOINT 272 IN DIRECTION 3 FOR LORO C ASES 22222 FIGURE Sc TANGENTIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 654'-10" ANNULUS CONCRETE A16
8
& PERRY PROJECT S
5, SRVR
? f Go \
~
' onrarNo. 0 01@
- s. / !H
[" r anratNG = 0.026 C 1
% }
W id i t 04rarNG 0 036
=
1 [ \ / Car *!NG = 0.040 ( (_ f( cara!No = 0 070 k L . , -4 s
/ v NL o
s s i s s IOo 2 s 4 $ e t 8 9 10' S 3 A S$ FREQUENCY [ CPS) ENVELOPED SPECTRR FOR JOINT 311 IN DIRECTION 1 FOR LORD CASES 22222 FIGURE 6a RADIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 749'-4" ANNULUS CONCRETE A17
l 8 4 PERRY PROJECT 5 a SRVA E - 54
= _
caratsc . 0 0t? 39 gj car 'No . o.0:6 x car *!NG = 0.03@ e: g_ /1 \ 1 cararso . 0.G40 one=!so . 0.070
./
// 1
/ -
8 "5 s 7 $ $ IO 3 i 3 A 6st66 10' I 3 4 5$ FREQUENCY (CPS) ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 311 IN DIRECTION 2 FOR LORO CASES 22222 FIGURE 6b VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 749'-4" ANNULUS CONCRETE A18 L
5 5 I
's PERRY PROJECT 3
o SRVA oo
/ \
w m u = 3 310 ea 5
-/ \' w ..s,,o.o:o
" l l %\ di! w e,n ,0.c03 $c - i Q'] f \ -
, w e u a.aea
;( \. i
;/ )N J l we'% = 0 070
- Yf1 f.,
\
l/ ll % 9 I
's j
s s i s i \0^ i $ i $ 6 i9$ 10' f 3 A 5$ FREQUENCY (CPSJ ENVELOPED SPECTRA FOR JOINT 311 IN DIRECTION 3 FOR LORD CASES 22222 FIGURE 6c TANGENTIAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT EL. 749'-4" ANNULUS CONCRETE A19}}