ML20030B594
| ML20030B594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1981 |
| From: | COMPUTECH ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030B586 | List: |
| References | |
| R553.03, TAC-42896, TAC-42897, NUDOCS 8108180336 | |
| Download: ML20030B594 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- OUT-OF-PLANE DRIFT EFFECT ON WALL 19/9 Prepared for Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 ar'a 2 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWEP COMPANY Milwaukee, Wisconsin Prepared by COMPUTECH ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Berkeley, California l August,1981 REPORT NO. RSS3.03 fjjB180336810814 o ADOCK 05000266 PDR
w 6 e TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTPODUCTION. 1 2 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY.... 1 3 ANALYSIS RESULTS......... 1 4 CONCLUSION.......... 2
1 INTRODUCTION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff on June 9-11, 1981 reviewed the criteria and calculations performed on IE Bulletin 80-11 Masonry Wall Evaluation " for the Point Beach Nuclear Powdr Plant. Action item 18 resulting from the review meeting stated that with regard to Wall 19/9. the licensee shall evaluate out-of-plane drift effects resulting from the addition of knee braces used to strengthen the wall. This short report is in response to Action item 18 and describes the analysis methodology. the analysis results and Conclusions. 2 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Originally. Wall 19/9 was analyzed in accordance with the procedure glven in Criteria for the Re-evaluation of Concrete Masonry Walls for the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. Specifically, plate analysis was used to assess the out-of-plane respons9 of the wall. The computer program SAPSA was used to perform a finite eleme.nt dynamic analysis ultilizing the response spectrum method. The stresses resuiting from equipment attached to the wall were added absolutely to those from the dynamic out-of-plane analysis. Consideration of the effects of the out-of-plane drift is unique to Wall 19/9 in that the braces shown in Figure 1 are attached to the mid-height of the wall and to the floor above the wall. This system imposes the floor displacements above the wall at the attachment points at the mid-height of the wall. T, examine the behavior of the wall under the combined actions of the l out-of-plane dynamic forces, the equipment loads and the out-of-plane drift. the response from each action must be added. The results from the three load cases (out-of-plane dynamic analysis equipment loads and out-of-plane drift) were performed independently and combined as follows: (1) Absolute sum of the stresses resulting from each load case. (2) SRSS of the stresses resulting from the out-of-plane dynamic analysis and out-of-plane drift combined absolutely wnh the stresses from the equipment loads. I l 3 ANALYSIS RESULTS l The analysis is composed of three parts (namely. dynamic out-of-plane analysis, out-of-plane drift. and static equipment loads). A summary of l the detailed results are tabulated in Tables 1 and 2. I 1
In each table. the five finite elements which develop the largest moments in terms of the absolute-Sum Combination are selected, and the values are presented in Column 5. The results of the SRSS and absolute sum combination are given in Column 6 of Table 1 and 2. The ai!Cwable moments are as follows: M x. the allowable moment for horizontal strip is 334 lb-in/In My, the allowable moment for vertical strip is 132 lb-in/in TABLE I Bending Moments Developed in Horizontal Strip Element Dynamic Drift Equipment l2l+131+14l J2'+ 3'+141 Numoer 2 3 4 5 6 71 37.80 72.14 -2.63 112.57 84.07 83 17.66 86.73 -3.58 107.97 92.09 105 21.72 50.69 -1.57 73.98 56.72 108 20.74 -43.81 -2.60 67.15 51.07 72 21.66 42.86 -1,40 65.92 49.42 69 46.96 12.15 2.53 61.64 51.04 TABLE 2 Ber. ding Moments Developed in Vertical Strip Element Dynamic Drift Equipment l2l + 131 + [4l J2' + 3' + 14l Number 2 3 4 5 6 39 118.9 5.91 5.01 129.82 124.06 83 64.07 52.52 -3.27 119.86 86.12 28 109.9 3.90 4.93 117.83 114.00 50 99.96 8.58 4.73 113.27 105.06 40 103.0 5.08 4.55 112.63 107.68 29 95.04 3.43 4.98 103.45 100.08 4 CONCLUSION Moments resulting from out-of-plane drift effects due to the addition of knee braces to Wall 19/9 have been evaluated and added to those resulting from equipmeni loads and out-of-plane dynamic forces. The absolute sum of moments from all loads are less than the allowable. Therefore the fixes as designed for Wall 19/9 meet the re-evaluation criteria. i l 2 1
i %T & 1 / ',.uV 4..gos I -i ,Io..owo gi 'o '. le...ve b Oi i _ _ f; e c' Q - o...tAQ u .o ~4 \\ 5 ~ pgT, 8 l.==W1 -6 e s M.C 10 ' I d m f lc.copt'o = e l,, ty l _(V / ri o.enttt m/y i, y ,t O ,d ' f.coMit ~g e ~ .d I.qto o.e n l li O f oo+43 o s _d g f ...M e ~,s 4 0 l S t.4 n H E ~ u -l....a\\\\ \\,~ o e i - ecM ) \\ l.'k _3 es o W I.,..- "n 4 o FIGURE 1 l v5. l l I I
i 4 e-m e /. / / / N u.,.{-;- Q M " } % I / / s $= %, l, * ~ s' r7 ,% / lN (. j (D s J < e; ' s_., s. s !i ,-A i l r
- y,3 b
IT'.: 't-- y. M I -ai I 93 3, - e 2-t.- -@,NO.. l .c 9 X. i ',j 3 ON 9<. C-l% J
- [
i 1'- C-{ %
- }
s ~Z s'.0 * }3 C-o ed. i. e.o-
- Q o
= ..s..:. a an-
- % y(ju t(;..,
23; %l{ ) 3 2 c. d.'O n 0 t' 3 ' c. 97 E ~ ~ m.,>i s a N. o e- ,x -+- e. L 8 f o V ~.. ', kf- ~\\ T o 1 _d q /(e ~w W , 1. \\ V DET M f'- { {j u-%I < e.! : ' g m e v er 6 D =\\ 4_.. ~ e n
- o. I w
y-i -e _e ( h v ui O u pl i. o. m 2._ _e .c +. m r ~ O o s ..s e s ~"' ~( G Q s,,. n. v v .I .I ELEi/ATION LOOKING NORTH .}}