ML20040D088

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

ML20040D088
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-C5506-161B, NUDOCS 8201300123
Download: ML20040D088 (3)

Text

r~ .

+

? *

[j . ARKANSAS UNIT 2 - -

. n-TER-C5506-161B .

TECHNICAL EVALUATION -

Based on the Licensce's submittal [2], a technical review was conducted.

.Before a final tech'nical 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 comparabl.c. 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], justify 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 neglecting out-of-plane interstory drift in the analysis and explain whether the predicted in-plane interstory drift of 0.0006 in/ft of height applies to confined or unconfined 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 the cover letter and Table 5 of the attachment [2),

provide a description of the bracing system installed for two Unit 2.

cantilever walls and indicate whether out-of-plane. drift effects were incluced in the analysis.

6. With reference to Table 5 [2), briefly describe the techniques usdd .

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.

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

8. 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.

9. 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 f actor of 1.3 for masonry shear,1.5 for masonry tension parallel to tne bed joint, and 1.3 for unreinforced masonry tension normal to the bed joint.

8201300123 820115 -

PDR ADOCK 05000313 d2h

!,h'; FrankLn Research Cer.ter G PDR A(Ws.ca of The Fianna inswe ,

• o -

[k .

TER-C5506-161B

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

.p-

• P bO*)[ Franklin Research Center .

A 0.cs.on of The From inseevee

r- .

f b- ,

TER-C5506-161B ,

REFERENCES - .

1. -IE Bulletin 80-11

" Masonry Wall Design" NRC, May 8, 1980

2. D. C. Trimble (Arkansas Power and Light Compan'y)

Letter and' attachments for Unit 2 to K. V. Seyfrit (NRC)

January 29, 1981 .

3. Standard Revie,w Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix A

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

4. Uniform Building Code International Copference of Building Officials, 1979

5. EI 531-79 and Comme,ntary ACI 531R'-79

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

-6. A'IC 3-06

" Tentative Provisions for the Developmenti 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 l .

l l

l i

1

~

l l

4'J. c.,h Franklin Research Center A Dmn.on of The Fsanua insuture

. -. -