ML20039A115

Masonry Wall Design:Ia Electric Light & Power Co,Duane Arnold Energy Ctr, Interim Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20039A115
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	12/10/1981
From:	Con V FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:	Leu K NRC
Shared Package
ML20039A116	List: ML20039A115
References
CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 IEB-80-11, TER-C5506-162, NUDOCS 8112160244
Download: ML20039A115 (13)

Text

c. _ _ . _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

% g INTERIM TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT MASONRY WALL DESIGN ,

IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER NRCDOCKETNO. 50-331 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81-130 FRC ASSIGNMENT 6 FRC TASK 162 Prepared by V. N. Con Franklin Research Center Author: N. Subramonian The Parkway at Twentieth Street S. Triolo Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: V. N. Con Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: K. C. Leu December 10, 1981 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of l the United States Government. Neither the United States Govemment nor I any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, ex-l pressed or implied, or assumes sny legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information. =pparatus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

1

! t O. Franklin Research Center Dqe O f11 R Ifo O A d ye A n.Division of Th,e.4..,.

. -, n.,oe Franklin, m._ Inst,itute

.. i in a i,, o.. i om 1

TER-C5506-162 i

CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 1NTROouCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Purpose of Review . .. .

. . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Generic Issue Background- . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 Plant-Specific Background . . . . . . . . . 1 2 REVIEW CRITERIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . .' . . . . . 5 5- REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 APPENDIX A - INTERIM CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION ,

f i

e 4

Am . iii u000 er.okiin a rca c ne.,

A Onamen af The Frerden buseme

, ,. . , - - - - - - , . ,,n.- -~,,.-.-,--n.,----,-. . . - , , , - - ~ . . c .n . , , , , , , -. -- --- . . ,,

t .

TER-C5506-162

1. INTRODUCTION

.l.1 PURPOSE OF REVIEW The purpose of this review is to provide a technical evaluation of the Licensee response to IE Bulletin 80-11 (1) with respect to compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) masonry wall criteria. In addition, if the Licensee plans repair work on masonry walls, the planned methods, procedures, and repair schedules are reviewed for acceptability.

1.2 GENERIC ISSUE BACKGROUND In the course of conducting inspections at the Trojar. Nuclear Plant, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) determined that some concrete masonry walls did not have adequate structural strength. Further investigation indicated that the problem resulted from errors in engineering judgment, a lack of established procedures and procedural details, and inadequate design criteria. Because of the implication of similar deficiencies at other operating plants, the NRC issued IE Bulletin 80-11 on May 8, 1980.-

IE Bulletin 80-11 required licensees to identify plant masonry walls and their intended functions. Licensees were also required to present Leevaluation criteria for the masonry walls with the analyses to justify those criteria.

If modifications were proposed, licensees were to state the methods and schedules for the modifications.

t l- 1.3 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND In response to IE Bulletin 80-11, Iowa Electric Light and Power Company provided the NRC with documents describing the status of masonry walls at Duane Arnold Energy Center. Based on the available information regarding r Duane Arnold Energy Center, the Franklin Research Center (FRC) has conducted a I

review of the status of the masonry walls at this plant. Specifically, FRC has reviewed the information in Iowa Electric Light and Power's letters [2, 3] .

j- Additional information is requested from Iowa Electric Light and Power Cor .

't'v i

to permit completion of the evaluation (see Section 3) .

l 0000 Franklin Research Center A Dunen of The Fransen Insense

w TER-C5506-162

- 2. REVIEW CRITERIA The basic documents used for guidance in this review were tha Standard Review Plan,- Section 3.8.4, Appendix A, " Interim Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation" [4} , developed by the Structural Engineering Branch (SEB) 5f the NRC, and the Uniform Building Code [5]. ACI-531-79 [6),'ATC 3-06.

[7], and the NCM*. masonry specification [8} were also used.

I l

l s

l l

l t

L l I

00) Franidin Research Center A Dnmen of The Fronten trumeuse

r I

• s TER-C5506-162

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION Based on the Licensee's submittals [2, 3}, a technical review was conducted. Before a final technical evaluation report can be issued, the Licensee is required to provide the following in' formation:

' l. With regard to the material strength, the Licensee should identify

, the type of mascary and mortar used and justify their compressive strengths as given in Attachment 3, Section 4 (3].

2.' In Section 5.1.1 [3], the allowable shear or tension stresses at the concrete core / block wythe interface was stated to be 8 psi. The Licensee should provide technical justification for this value.

3. With regard to shear and bond stresses for factored loads, a factor of 1.67 was introduced. SEB criteria [4] allow a factor of 1.3 for shear carried by masonry. The Licensee should justify the use of a

. factor of 1.67.

4. With regard to tension stress, a factor of 1.67.was introduced for factored loads. The Licensee should indicate if .this factor is used for tension normal or parallel to the bed joint. SEB criteria [4}

allow a factor of 1.3 for. masonry tension perpendicular to the bed joint (for unreinforced masonry) and a factor of 1.5 for masonry tension parallel to the bed . joint. In view of this, the Licensee should provide justification for-the factor of 1.67.

5. In Section 5.2.1 [3], for factored loads, a factor of 1.5 was given-

'for the shear and tension of the collar and core /wythe interface.

The Licensee should justify this factor.

6. In Section 5.2.1 [3], the Licensee discussed the stress values used for walls without inspection. The Licensee should indicate-if any walls at the Duane Arnold plant fall into this category.

7. With regard to the in-plane strain allowable for nonshear walls, the Licensee should provide the technical basis for the value used for the unconfined wall.

8. The Licensee introduced (a) the method of nonlinear analysis, (b) the energy balance technique, and (c). the arching theory. .The Licensee is advised not to resort to these techniques, if possible..

9. With regard to damping, the Nuclear Regulatory Guide [4] allows 44 for reinforced concrete subject to the safe shutdown earthquake.

The Licensee should justify the.use of St.

nklin Research Center A Dhnson af The Fransen teemane

_ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ I

TER-C5506-162

10. -With respect to modes of vibration that are higher than the fundamental mode, the Licenses should indicate how the higher mode effects are accounted for.

11. ~ With regard to seismic analysis, the Licensee should indicate how the components of seismic load in various directions.are accounted for.

[ 22. The Licensee should indicate how pipe and equipment loads are accounted for.

13. .'With regard to'the composite behavior of multiple wythe walls, the Licensee limited the shear and tension wythe interface to 22.4 psi for normal-loading cases and 37.3 psi for extreme loading cases.

2 The Licensee should provide the technical basis for these values.

14. 'With respect to the load combinations, the Licensee's' submittal (3]

did not provide any factor greater than.1.C for co=ponents of the co binations. This seems.to deviate from values in the plant's FSAR.

The Licensee should resolve this discrepancy.

15. The Licensee should discuss how the value of Young's modulus was selected for various calculations.

7 O M A h of The Fm haamuse t

TER-C5506-162

4. CONCLUSIONS Although some areas still' need clarification, the general approach and design criteria presented in the Licensee's submittal appear to be adequate.

As soon as the Licensee supplies the additional information specified in

Section 3, a final technical evaluation report can be prepared.

t b

I i

1

)

e nklin Research Center A Dessen of The Franseninsamme -

~

TER-C5506-162

5. REFERENCES

1. IE Be'_letin 80-11

" Masonry Wall Design" NRC, May 8, 1980

2. L. D. Root (Iowa Electric Light and Power Company)

Letter with Enclosures to J. G. Keppler (NRC)

July 7, 1980

3. L. D. Root (Iowa Electric Light and Power Corpany)

Letter with Enclosures to J. G. Keppler (NRC)

November 10, 1980

4. Standard Review Plan,.Section 3.8.4, Appendix A

~

" Interim Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation" NRC, July 1981

5. Uniform Building Code International Conference of Building Officials, 1979

6. ACI 531-79 and Commentary ACI 531-R-79

" Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures" American Concrete Institute, 1979

7. ATC 3-06

" Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings" Applied Technology Council, 1978 8 " Specification for the Design and Construction of Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry" National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA), August 1979

9. Standard Review Plan, Section 3.7.2

" Seismic System Analysis" NRC, July 1981 e

1R: n Re ,e ceme, A Daemon of The Fraseen truence

4 TER-C5506-162 APPENDIX A INTERIM CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION

's.d Franidin Research Center A themen of The Pere hamnar

TER-CS506 ,162 APPENDIX A TO SRP SECTION 3.8.4 INTERIM CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RELATED MA50tiRY WALL EVALUATION The purpose of this appendix is to provide minimum design considerations and criteria for the review of safety-related masonry' walls which will meet the design standards specified in subsection II of this SRP section.

1. General Recuiremerits The materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspection related'to the design and construction of safety-related concrete masonry walls should conform to the appitcable requirements contained in Uniform Building Code - 1979, unless specified othenvise, by the provisions to this criteria. -

The use of other industrial codes, such 'sa ACI-531, ATC-3, or NCMA, is also acceptable. However, when the provisions of these codes are less conser-vative than the corresponding provisions of these interim criteria, their use should be justified on a case-by-case basis.

In new constru'etion, no unreinforced masonry walls will be permitted.

For cperating plants, existing unreinforced walls will be evaluated by the provisions of these criteria. Plants applying for operating licenses which have already built unreinforced masonry walls will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

2. Loads and Load Combinations The loads and load combinations shall include consideration of normal loads, severe environmental loads, extreme environmental load, and abnormal loads.

Specifically,'for operating plants, the load combinations provided in the plant's FSAR shall govern. For operating license applications, the following load combinations shall apply (for definition of load tenas, see SRP Section 3.8.4, subsection II.3). *

, (a) Service Load Conditions (1) D+L (2) 'D + L + E (3) D+L+W .

If thermal stresses due to T, and R, are present, they should be included in the above containment, as follows:

(la) D + L + T,+ R, (1b)D+L+T[+R,+E . .

3.8.4-19 Rev. 0 - July 1981 ranklin Research Center A Denseon af The Fransen insumme

TER-C5506-162 (Ic) D + L + T, + R,.+ W Check lead combination for controlling condit.fon for maximum 'L' and for no 'L'.

(b) Extreme Environmental, Abnomal, Abnormal / Severe Environmental, and Abnormal / Extreme Enviremental Conoitions .

(4) 0 + L + T, + R, + E' (5) D + L + T, + R, + Wg (6) D + L + T, + R, + 1.5 P, (7) D + L + T, + R, + 1.25 P, + 1.0 (Yr *Yj + Y,) + 1.25 E (8) 0 + L + T, + R, + 1.0 P, + 1.0 (Yr +Yj + Y,) + 1.0 E' In combinations (6), (7), and (8), the maximaa values of P,, T,, R,,

Y , Y ' ""d Ya, including an appropriate dynamic load factor, should j r be used unless a time-history analysis is performed to justify other-wise. Combinations (5), (7), and (8) and the corresponding structural acceptance criteria of should be satisfied first without the tornado missile load in (5) and without Y,, Yj , and Y,in (7) and (8). When cons 4dering these loads, local section strength capacities may be exceeded under these concentrated loads, provided there will be no loss of function of any safety-related system.

Both cases of L having its full va.lue or being completely absent should be checked. .

3. Allowable Stresses Allowable stresses provided in ACI-531-79, as supplemented by the following

- modifications / exceptions, shall apply. ',

(a) When wind or seismic loads (CBE) are considered in the loading combin-attons, no increase in the allowable stresses is permitted.

(b) Use of allowable stresses corresponding to special inspection category shall be substantiated by demonstration of compliance with the inspec-tion requirements of the NRC, criteria.

(c) When tension perpendicular to bed joints is used in qualifying the unreinforced masonry walls, t5e allowable value will be justified by test program or other means pertinent to the plant and loading condi-tions. For reinforced masonry walls, all the, tensile stresses will be resisted by reinforcement.

(d) For load conditions which represent extreme environmental, abnormal, abnormal / severe environmental, and abnormal / extreme environmental conditions, the allowable working stress may be multiplied by the factors shown in the following table:

3.8.4-20 Rev. 0 - July 1981

& . A-2 k!lFranklin Reseacch Center A Dm on of The Frenten suunne

-. , ~

., a.

TER-C5506-162 Type of Stress Factor Axial or Flexural Compression 1 2.5 Bearing 2.5 Reinforcement stress except shear 2.0 but not to exceed 0 ' fy

< Shear reinforcement and/or bolts 1.5 Masonry tension parallel to bed joint 1.5 Shear carried by masonry 1.3 Masonry tension perpendicular to bed joint for reinforced masonry 0 ,

for unreinforced masonry 2 1.3 Notes -

. (1) When anchor bolts are used, design should prevent facial spalling of masonry unit.

(2) See 3(c).

4. Design and Analysis Cens;derations .

(a) The analysis should follow established prificiples of engineering mechanics and take into account sound engineering practices.

(b) Assumptions and modeling techniques used shall give proper considerations to boundary conditions, cracking of sections, if any, and the dynamic behavior of masonry walls.

4 (c) Damping values to be used for dynamic analysis shall be those for reinforced concrete given in Regulatory Guide 1.61.

, (d) In general, for operatfig plants, the seismic analysis and a Category I structural rtquirements of FSAR shall apply. For other plants, corresponding SRP requirements shall apply. The seismic analysis shall account for the variations and uncertainties in mass, materials, and other pertinent parameters used.

(e) The an'alysis should consider both in plane and out-of-plane loads.

(f) Interstory drift effects should be considered. ,'

(g) In new construction, no unreinforced masonry wall is permitted; also, all grout in concrete masonry walls shall be compared by vibration.

I. (h) For masonry shear walls, the minimum reinforcement requirements of ACI-531 shall apply.

l (1) *Special construction (e.g., multiwythe, composite) or other items not covered by the code shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for their acceptance.

(j) Licensees or applicants shall submit.QA/QC information, if available, i fur staff review.

3.8.4-21 Rev. 0 - July 1581

, _nidin Rese_ arch._ . Center

.~. - . .. - - -_ . . . - _ _.- - ---. ._ ___ -

. . , - Ia f

TER-C5506-162

. In the event QA/QC. information is not available, a field survey and a test program reviewed and approved by the staff shall be implemented to ascertain the conformanct of masonry construction to design drawings and specificiations (e.g., rabar and grouting).

(k) For masonry walls requiring protection fres spalling and scabbing

, due to accident pipe reaction (Y,), fet impingement (Y3 ), and missile impact (Y ), the requirements of SRP Section. 3.5.3 shall apply. Any deviation,from SRP Section 3.5.3 shall be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis.

5. Revisien of Criteria The criteria will be revised, as appropriate, based on:

(a), Design review meetings with the selected licensees and their A/Es.

(b) Experience gained during review.

(c) Additional information developed through testing and researches.

6. References (a) Uniform Building Code - 1979 Edition.

(b) Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures ACI-531-79 and Conumentary ACI-531R-79.

(c) Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings-Applied Technology Council ATC 3-06.

(d) Specification for the Design and Construction of Load-Bearing Concrete-Masonry - NCMA August, 1979.

(e)~ Trofa1 Nuclear Plant Concrete Masonry Design criteria safety Evaluation Report Supplement - November, 1980.

~

(f) Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants."

3.8.4-22 Rev. 0 - July 1981 nklin Research Center A omanen of The Frerden huomme

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