ML20040D087

Technical Evaluation of Licensee Response to IE Bulletin 80-11, Request for Addl Info

ML20040D087
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	01/15/1982
From:	FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:
Shared Package
ML20040D086	List: ML20040D087 ML20040D088
References
IEB-80-11, TER-C5506-161A, NUDOCS 8201300118
Download: ML20040D087 (2)

Text

.

7_ .

• n 7- ,

• ARKANSAS UNIT 1 ,

TER-C5506-161A

. TECHNICAL EVALUATION .

Based on the Licensee's submittal [2), a technical review was conducted. ,

Before a final technical evaluation report can be issued, the Licensee is

~ required to provide the following information.

1. Explain'why 'the frequencies of some of the walls presented in Tables 4, 5, and 6 of Reference 2 are widely different from the frequencies of other walls of comparable dimensions. Also explain why some of the frequencies in these' tables are indicated as OBE or DBE.

2. With_ reference to Section 6.1.4, Appendix A [2], iustify using the average acceleration.rather than the envelope of the response spectra

• for walls supported by two floors.

3. With' reference to Section 5.8 [2), justify neglecti'n.g out'of-plane interstory drif t in the analysis and explain whether the predicted in-plane interstory drift of 0.0006 in/ft of height applies to confined or uncenfined walls.

4. With reference to Section 6.1.2, Appendix A [2), provide sample calculations to show that analysis using-only the fundamental mode is adequate and is comparable to a multimode analysis.

5. With reference *to Table 5 (2), briefly describe the techniques used for (a) verification by curves, (b) effective inertia analysis, and (c) dynamic analysis. Also clarify whether pipe reactions due to thermal expansion are considered in the analysis. "

6. Provide more information on seismic analysis in different directions and explain how the equipment weights and pipe weights were accounted for.

7. With reference to Section 5.0, Appendix A.[2), provide the values for allowable stresses in axial compression, bearing, tension normal to the bed joint, and tension parallel to the bed joint.

~.

8 With reference to Section 5.2.1 of Appendix A [2], justify the proposed increase factor of 1.67 for shear, bond, tension normal to the bed joint, and tension parallel to the bed joint. The SEB criteria [3] suggest an increase factor of 1.3 for masonry shear, 1.5 for masonry tension parallel to the bed joint, and 1.3 for unreinforced nL conry tension normal to the bed joint.

9. Indicate the present status of walls which were inaccessible and hence excluded from the original field survey.

g O obf3 N@ranEn Research Center r..e.r.,

% .e it,

/: ' ' .

.t .

TER-C5506-161A REFERENCES .

1. IE Bulletin 80-11 ~

" Masonry Wall Design" NRC, May 8, 1980

2. D. C. Trimble (Arkansas Power and Light Company)

Letter and attachments for Unit 1 to K. V. Seyfrit (NRC)

January 29, 1981

3. Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix A

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

4. Uniform Building Code

- International Conference of Building Officials, 1979

5. ACI 531-79 and Commentary 7.0I 531R-79

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

6. ATC 3-06

" Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings" Applied Technology Council, 1978

7. " Specification for the Design and Construction of Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry" ,

National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA), August 1979 i

b) Franklin Research Cer,ter

. I" ____ - - _ - _ - _ _ - _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - . - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- J