ML20052B581
| ML20052B581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1982 |
| From: | Stilwell T FRANKLIN INSTITUTE |
| To: | Persinko D NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052B582 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-79-118, CON-NRC-3-79-118, TASK-03-07.B, TASK-3-7.B, TASK-RR TER-C5257-320, NUDOCS 8205030319 | |
| Download: ML20052B581 (200) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ - . _ _. - .. -. - . - - . -- - - -- l y ! ENcuca;te .i. ; i TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ! l DESIGN CODES, . DESIGN CRITERIA, AND LOADING COMBINATIONS (SEP, III-7,B) l JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY l OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION l l NRC DOCKET NO. 50-255 FRC PROJECT C5257 l NRC TAC NO. 41498 FRC ASSIGNMENT 11~ l NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-79-118 FRC TASK 320 i Preparedby E. Stilwell, M. Darwish, Franklin Research Center Author: E. M. Et110, R. Kcliner, ; 20th and Race Street P. Noell, R. H. iicilinger j Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: T. C. Stilwell ! Prepared for i Nuclear Regu!atory Commission I Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: D. Persinko ;
, l April 28, 1982 l
;t This report was pre'psred as an account of work sponsored by an agency of i the United States Govemment. Neither the United States Govemment no- !
any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, ex ' pressed or impliod, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any lIl
' third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, !'
product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by 'I , such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. , i l I ab .
.. 0. Franklin Research Center .
A Division of The Franidin Institute !
- 2m lhe Benstrun Franen Partmey PMa Pt 19103(215) 448-1000 +
/ -"
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT DESIGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA, AND LOADING COMBINATIONS (SEP, III-7,B) JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION NRC DOCKET NO. 50-255 FRC PROJECT CS257 NRC TAC NO. 41498 FRC ASSIGNMENT 11 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-79-118 FRC TASK 320 Preparedby T. Stilwell, M. Darwish, Franklin Research Center Author: E. M. Wallo, R. Koliner, 20th and Race Street P. Noell, R. H. Hollinger Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: T. C. Stilwell Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: L. Persinko April 28, 1982 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, ex-pressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report, cr represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. , 4 j i
. .L Franklin Research Center
' A Division of The Franklin Institute The Bernarrun Frankhn Parkwey. PNia. Pa. 19103 (215)448 800o l
, ., , _ , . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . , --~ .- -. -
- . - . . . . - - - . - . - - ~., -- - - - - - - - -
s s TER-CS 257-320 CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 REVIEW OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 SCOPE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 MARGINS OF SAFETY. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 CICICE OF REVIEW APPROACH. . . . . . . . . . 9 7 MSTHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1 Information Retrieval . . . . . . . . . 11 7.2 Appraisal of Information Content. . . . . . . 12 7.3 Code Comparison Reviews . . . . . . . . . 12 7.4 Assessment of the Potential Impact of Code Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.4.1 Classification of Code Changes . . . . . 16 7.4.1.1 General and Conditional Classifications of Code Change Impacts . . . . . 17
~
7.4.1.2 Code Impacts on Structural Margins . . 18 7.5 Plant-Specific Code Changes . . . . . . . . 20 8 OYSTER CREEK SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES . . . . . 21 i 9 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . 22 10 IDADS AND LOAD COMBINATION CRITERIA . . . . . . . 24 10.1 Description of Tables of Inads and l Load Combinations . . . . . . . . . . 24 00$ronwiina..,chconter A Dhemen of The Frenten innesuse _.~:_,- _ _ , , . _ .
--..-7. . __ . - , . _ . - . _ - . , _-. , . . . .
l I TER-C5257-320 CONTENTS (Cont.) Section Title Page 10.2 Load Definitions . . . . . . . . . . 28 10.3 Design Load Tables, " Comparison of Design Basis Loads" . . . . . . . . . . . 30 10.4 Load Combination Tables, " Comparison of Icad Combination Criteria" . . . . . . . . . 39 11 REVIEW FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 11.1 Major Findings of AISC-1963 vs. AISC-1980 Code Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . 52 11.2 Major findings of ACI 318-63 vs. ACI 349-76 Code Comparison . . . . . . . . 55 11.3 Major Findings of ACI 301-63 vs. ACI 301-72 (Revised 1975) Comparison . . . . . . . . 59 11.4 Major Findings of ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII,1962 vs. Section III, Subsection NE, 1980 Code Comparison. . 60 12
SUMMARY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 13 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 ~
14 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 APPENDIX A - SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES x DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE TO OYSTER CREEK PLANT APPENDIX B - SUMMARIES OF CODE COMPARISON FINDINGS APPENDIX C - COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS AND MODEL STUDIES APPENDIX D - ACI CODE PHIIDSOPHIES APPENDIX I - CODE COMPARISON REVIEW OF TECHNICAL DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTS DEFINING CURRENT LICENSING CRITERIA FOR SEP TOPIC III-7.B (SEPARATELY BOUND) nklin Research Center A Dhemon of The Franien inessute
. ~. - . . . . - -
l TER-C5257-320 ! a CONTENTS (Cont.) r Section Title APPENDIX II - CODE COMPARISON REVIN OF AISC SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION, AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL FOR BUILDINGS FOR THE YEARS 1980 VS.1963 (SEPARATELY BOUND)
. APPENDIX III - NOT APPLICABLE TO OYSTER CREEK PLANT 4
j APPENDIX IV - CODE COMPARISON REVIN OF CDDE REQUIREMENTS FOR I NUCLEAR SAFETY-RELATED CONCRETE STRUCTURES ACI j 349-76 VS. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR
' REINFORCED CONCRETE ACI 318-63 t
(SEPARATELY BOUND) APPENDIX V - COMPARISON REVIEW OF THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRCTE FOR BUILDINGS, ACI 301-72 (1975 REVISION) VS. ACI 301-63
, (SEPARATELY BOUND)
APPENDIX VI - NOT APPLICABLE TO OYSTER CREEK PLANT APPENDIX VII - NOT APPLICABLE TO OYSTER CREEK PLANT APPENDIX VIII - NOT APPLICABLE TO OYSTER CREEK PLANT APPENDIX IX - CODE COMPARISON REVIEW OF CDDE REQUIREMENTS 10R ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 VS.
; ASME B&PV CODE SECTION VIII, 1962 (SEPARATELY BOUND) i APPENDIX X - NW APPLICABLE TO OYSTER CREEK PLANT APPENDIX XI - NOT APPLICABLE TO OYSTER CREEK PLANT l
l APPENDIX XII - NW APPLICABLE TO OYSTER CREEK PLANT I l V nidin Research Center j A Denemen of The Franien innaeuse ,
TER-CS257-320 EVREWORD i
; This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (Office of i'
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by ' the NRC. b I 3 f [ vii i N Franklin Research Center a co .e n. rom m
TER-C5257-320 i l
- 1. INTRODUCTION
! l
\
For the Seismic Category I buildings and structures at the Oyster Creek [ Nuclear Power Station, this report provides a comparison of the structural design codes and loading criteria used in the actual plant design against the corresponding codes and criteria currently used for licensing of new plants, i The objective of the code comparison review is to identify deviations in , design criteria from current criteria, and to assess the effect of these l l deviations on margins of safety, as they were originally perceived and as they ; would be perceived today. The work was conducted as part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's i (NRC) Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) and provides technical assistance for Topic III-7.B, " Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Load Combinations." t The report was prepared at the Franklin Research Center under NRC Contract No. NRC-0 3-7 9-ll8. '
+
o i i b t i I i i 4ll00U Franklin Research Center A Dommen of The Franhan insonne
TER-CS257-320
- 2. BACKGROUND With the development of nuclear power, provisions addressing facilities for nuclear applications were progressively introduced into the codes and standards to which plant building and structures are designed. Because of this evolutionary development, older nuclear power plants conform to a number of different versions of these codes, some of which have since undergone i
considerable revision. There has likewise been a corresponding development of other licensing , criteria, resulting in similar non-uniformity in many of the requirements to l, which plants have been licensed. With this in mind, the NRC undertook an l extensive program to evaluate the safety of 11 older plants (and eventually I all plants) to a common set of criteria. The program, entitled the Systematic l Evaluation Program (SEP), employs current licensing criteria (as defined by NRC's Standard Review Plan) as the common basis for these evaluations. To make the necessary determinations, the NRC is investigating, under the SEP, 137 topics spanning a broad spectrum of safety-related issues. The work reported herein constitutes the results of part* of the investigation of one of these topics, Topic III-7.B, " Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Load Combinations." l This topic is charged with the comparison of structural design criteria in effect in the late 1950's to the late 1960's (when the SEP plants were o constructed) with those in ef fect today. Other SEP topics also address other aspects of the integrity of plant structures. All these structurally-oriented I tasks, taken together, will be used to assess the structural adequacy of the SEP plants with regard to current requirements. The determinations with l respect to structural safety will then be integrated into an overall SEP evaluation encompassing the entire spectrum of safety-related topics. l l *The report addresses only the oyster Creek plant. nklin Research Center A Chemen at The Franhan kweasse
~~
____________T. ^~
TER-C5257-320 I
- 3. REVIEW OBJECTIVES The broad objective of the NRC's Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) is i
to reassess the safety of 11 older nuclear power plants in accordance with the intent of the requirements governing the licensing of current plants, and to provide assurance, possibly involving backfitting, that operation of these plants conforms to the general level of safety required of modern plants. Task III-7.B of the SEP effort seeks to compare actual and current structural design criteria for the major civil engineering structures at each SEP plant site, i.e., those important to shutdown, containment, or both, and therefore designated Seismic Category I structures. The broad safety objective of SEP Task III-7.B is (when integrated with several other interfacing SEP topics) to assess the capability of all Seismic Category I structures to withstand all design conditions stipulated by the NRC, at least to a degree sufficient to assure that the nuclear power plant can be safely shut down under all circumstances. The objective of the present effort under Task III-7.B is to provide, through code comparisons, a rational basis for making the required technical assessments, and a tool which will assist in the structural review. Finally, the objective of this report is to present the results of Task III-7.B as they relate to the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Station. i _nklin Resea_rch _ _. Center
' ' ' ~ ^ ^ '
~^L__" ::Tr^=~~:=~
^^
~ ~ .
.. . - .----- - T ^'
1 TER-C5257-320 1
; 4. SCOPE l
3 In general, the scope of work required comparison of the provisions of the structural codes and standards used for the design of SEP plant Seismic Category I civil engineering structures
- against the correspondire provisions governing current licensing practice. The review includes the containment and all Category I structures within .and exterior to it. Explicit among the i criteria to be reviewed are loads and loading combinations postulated for these structures.
I The review scope consisted of the following specific tasks:
- 1. Identify current design requirements, based on a review of NRC Regulations; 10CFR50.55a, " Codes and Standards"; and the NRC Standard Review Plan (SRP) .
q
- 2. Review the Ltructural design codes, design criteria, design and analysis procedures, and load combinations (including combinations involving seismic loads) used in the design of all Category I structures as defined in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for each SEP plant.
- 3. Based upon the plant-specific design codes and standards identified in Task 2 and current licensing codes and standards from Task 1, 4 ,
identify plant-specific deviations from current licensing criteria
; for design codes and criteria.
t
- 4. Assess the significance of the identified deviations, performing (where necessary) comparative analyses to quantify significant r
deviations. Such analyses may be made on typical elements (beams, , columns, frames, and the like) and should be explored over a range of I parameters representative of plant structures.
- 5. Prepare a Technical Evaluation Report for each SEP plant including:
- a. comparisons of plant design codes and criteria to those currently accepted for licensing I
, b. assessment of the significance of the deviations
*In general , these are the structures nonna11y examined in licensing reviews under Section 3.8 of the SRP (but note the list at the end of this section of structures specifically excluded from the scope of this review) .
I r g . UUUU acm Franklin n.en.r. .Resea.r.ch
- n. . C. enter F
=y e,-=-, _ _ _ e-=-_-* -~
,-==w-.-=.w_ r,___.- d - ., - ,_ - . .-T--y-t-,r * * * # ' M N =? TWer *e "
. ~ - . - - -
. e i TER-C5257-320
- c. results of any comparative stress analyses performed in order to make an assessment of the significance of the code changes upon safety margins ;
i
, d. overall evaluation of the acceptability of structural codes used l l at each SEP plant. l t
)
A number of SEP topics examine aspects of the integrity of the structures ! composing SEP facilities. Several of these interface with the Task III-7.B l effort as shown below: 1 Topic Designation ! III-l Classification of Structures, Components, ' Equipment, and Systems (Seismic and i Quality) ' i III-2 Wind and Tornado Loading ( III-3.A Effects of High Water Level on Structures l III-4 Missile Generation and Protection ! III-5 Evaluation of Pipe Breaks III-6 Seismic Design Considerations 1 III-7.D Structural Integrity Tests VI-2 Mass and Energy Release for Postulated Pipe Break Because they are covered either elsewhere within the SEP review or within ! other NRC programs, the following matters are explicitly excluded from the l scope of this reviews Mark I torus shell, supports, vents, Reviewed in Generic Task A-7. ; local region of drywell at vent penetrations Reactor pressure vessel supports, Reviewed in Generic Task A-2, steam generator supports, pump A-12. supports Equipment supports in SRP 3.8.3 Reviewed generically in Topic l III-6, Generic Task A-12. _nklin Resear_ch _ .C_ enter r p ., ,,...e ~ + - - - -* - - - - * * -
e . TER-C5257-320 Other component supports (steel Specific supports have been and concrete) analyzed in detail in Topic III-6. (Component supports may be included later if items of concern applicable to component supports are found as a result of f reviewing the structural codes.) Testing of containment Reviewed in Topic III-7.D. Inservice inspection; quality Should be considered in the review control / assurance only to the extent that it affects design criteria, design allowables. Aspects of inservice inspection are being reviewed in Topics III-7. A and III-3.C s Determination of structures that Not within scope. should be classified Seismic Category I Shield walls and subcompartments Reviewed in Generic Task A-2. inside containment Masonry walls Reviewed generically in IE l Bulletin 80-11. Seismic analysis Being reviewed *.,y Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. I 001; er.nwiin aese.rch center A m es n. Fr m. v sma.
e 0 l l TER-C5257-320 t
- 5. MARGINS OF SAFETY i
l There are several bases upon which margins of safety
- may be defined and j discussed.
! t The most of ten used is the margin of safety based on yield strength. !
t This is a particularly useful concept when discussing the behavior of steels, and became ingrained into the en,ineering vocabulary at the time when steel ' was the principal metal of engineering structures. In this usage, the margin r t i of safety reflects the reserve capacity of a structure to withstand extra !
'i loading without experiencing an incipient permanent change of shape anywhere throughout the structure. Simultaneously, it reflects the reserve load >
carrying capacity existing before the structure is brought to the limit for j which an engineer could be certain the computations (based on elastic behavior of the metal) applied. This is the conventional use of the term and the meaning which engineers take as intended, unless the term is further qualified to show something else ' is meant. Thus, if a structure is stated to have a margin of safety of 1.0 under a given set of loads, then it will be generally understood that every load on the structure may be simultaneously doubled without encountering 4 , (anywhere) inelastic stresses or deflections. On the other hand, if (under load) a structure has no margin of safety, any increment to any load will I cause the structure to experience, in a least one (and possibly more than one) , location, some pennanent distortion (however small) of its original shape. i Because the yield strengths of common structural steels are generally i i well below their ultimate streng ths, the engineer knows that in most (but not ! all) cases, the structure possesses substantial reserve capacity--beyond his computed margin--to carry additional load. j There are other useful ways, however, to speak of safety margins and these (not the conventional one) are particularly relevant to the aims of the systematic evaluation program. , I
- Factors of safety (FS) are related to margins of safety (MS) through the relation, MS = FS - 1.
ranklin Research Center A DMmen of The Manaan inseue
.; ~ . . . -- - T
~^
T
^^~ ^
TER-C5257-320 i One may speak of margins of safety with respect to code allowable limits. This margin reflects the reserve capacity of a structure to withstand extra loading while still conforming to all criteria governing its design.
; one may also speak (if it is made clear in advance that this is the intended meaning) of margins of safety against actual failure. Both steel and concrete structures exhibit much higher " margins of safety" on this second basis than is shown by computation of margins of safety based on code allowables.
These latter concepts of " margin of safety" are very significant to the SEP review. Indeed the basic review concept, at least as it relates to structural integrity, cannot be easily defined in any quantitative manner without considering both. The SEP review concept is predicated on the assumption that it is unrealistic to expect that plants which were built to,
- and were in compliance with, older codes will still conform to current criteria in all respects. The SEP review seeks to assess whether or not plants meet the " intent" of current licensing criteria as defined by the Standard Review Plan (SRP) . The objective is not to require that older plants be brought into conformance with all SRP requirements to the letter, but rather to assess whether or not their design is sufficient to provide the general ic, vel of safety that current licensing requirements assure.
With respect to aspects of the SEP program that involve the integrity of structures, the SEP review concept can be rephrased in a somewhat more , quantitative fashion in terms of these two " margins of safety." Thus, it is not expected or demanded that all structures show positive margins of safety based upon code allowables in meeting all current SRP requirements; but it is demanded that margins of safety based upon ultimate strength are not only positive, but ample. In fact, the critical judgments to be made (for SEP plants) are:
- 1. to what extent may current code margins be infringed upon.
- 2. what minimum margin of safety based on ultimate strength must be assured.
i j The choice of method for Topic III-7.B review can be discussed in terms i of these two key considerations.
.ePStw Ubb rarddin Remarch Center -
A Chemen of The nonsen insames
. - -. --. .~ - . .r i
TER-CS257-320
- 6. CHOICE OF REVIEN APPROACH The approach taken in the review process depends on which key questions (of Section 5) one chooses to emphasize and address first.
One could give primary consideration to the second. If this approach is chosen, one first sets up a minimum margin of safety (based on failure) that will be acceptable for SEP plants. This margin is to be computed in accordance with current criteria. Then one investigates structures designed in accordance with earlier code provisions, and to different loading combinations, to see if they meet the chosen SEP margin when challenged by current loading combinations and evaluated to current criteria. This approach gives the appearance of being efficient. The review proceeds from the general (the chosen minimum margin of safety) to the particular (the ability of a previously designed structure to meet the chosen margin) . Moreover, issues are immediately resolved on a "go; no-go" basis. The initial step in this approach is not easy, nor are the necessary evaluations. One is dealing with
- highly loaded structures in regions where materials behave inelastically.
Rulemaking in such areas is sure to be difficult, and likely to be highly controversial. The alternative approach is taken in this review. It proceeds from the particular to the general, and places initial emphasis upon seeking to answer (for SEP plants) questions as to what, how many, and of what magnitude are the i infringements on current criteria. No new rulemaking is involved (at least at the outset) . All initial assessments are based on existing criteria. Current and older codes are compared paragraph-by-paragraph to see the effects that code enanges may have on the load carrying ability of individual elements (beams, columns, frames, and the like) . It should be noted that this i process, altnough involving judgments, is basically fact-finding -- not
; decisionmaking.
This kind of review is painstaking, and there is no assurance in advance that it in itself will be decisive. It may turn out, af ter examination of the l 000 ranklin Research Center A Dhman of The Frannen insesute
m - TER-CS 257-320 dacts, that designs predicated upon the older criteria infringe upon current design allowables in many cases and to extensive depths. If so, such information will certainly be of value to the final safety assessment, but many unresolved questions will remain, i on the other hand, it may turn out that infringements upon current criteria are infrequent and not of great magnitude. If this is the case, many issues will have been resolved, and questions of structural integrity will be sharply focused upon a few remaining key issues. i n I nklin Research Center A Oheeman d The Franadn humuse
g 0 TER-C5257-320 In addition, a separate file was set up to maintain past and present structural codes, NRC Regulatory Guides, Staff Position Papers, and other relevant documents (including, where available, reports from SEP tasks interfacing with the III-7.B effort) . 7.2 APPRAISAL OF INFORMATION CONTENT Most of the information sources were originally written for purposes other than those of the Task III-7.B review. Consequently, much of the information sought was embedded piecemeal in the documents furnished. These sources were searched for the relevant information that thef did contain. Generally, it was found that information gaps remained (i.e. , some items were not referenced at all or were not specific enough for Task III-7.B purposes) . The information found was assembled and the gaps were filled through the information retrieval efforts mentioned earlier. 7.3 CODE COMPARISON REVIEWS The codes and standards used to represent current licensing practice were selected as described in Appendix I of this report. Briefly summarized, the criteria selection corresponds to NUREG-800 (NRC's Standard Review Plan) , the operative document providing guidance to NRC reviewers on licensing matters (see Reference 1) . Ne xt, the Seismic Category I structures at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power . Station were identified (see Section 8) . For these, the codes and standards which were used for actual design were likewise identified on a structure-by-structure basis (see Section 9) . Each code was then paired with its counter-part which would govern design were the structure to be licensed today. Workbooks were prepared for each code pair. The workbook format consisted of paragraph-by-corresponding paragraph photocopies of the older and I j the current versions laid out side-by-side on 11-by-17-inch pages. A central column between the codes was lef t open to provide space for reviewer comments. The code versions were initially screened to discover areas where the text either remained identical in both versions or had been reedited without _nklin Rese_ arch._ Center
, , _ . . - . - - , . - ---- -- -- ~
. b TER-CS257-320
- 7. METHOD A brief description of the approach used to carry out SEP Topic III-7.B follows. For discussion of the work, it is convenient to divide it into six areas:
- 1. information retrieval and assembly
- 2. appraisal of infoonation content
- 3. code comparison reviews
- 4. code change impact assessment
- 5. plant-specific review of the relevancy of code change impacts *
- 6. summarizing plant status vis-a-vis design criteria changes.
7.1 INERMATION RETRIEVAL The initial step (and to a lesser extent an ongoing task of the review) was to collect and organize necessary information. At the outset, NRC forwarded files relevant to the work. These submittals included pertinent sections of plant FSARs, Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.8, responses to questions on Topic III-7.B previously requested of licensees by the NRC, and other relevant data and reports. These submittals were organized into Tcpic III-7.B files on a plant-by-plant basis. The files also contain subsequently received information, as i well as other documents developed for the plant review. A number of channels were used to gather additional information. These included information requests to NRC; letter requests for additional infor-mation sent to licensees; plant site visits *; and retrieval of representative structural drawings, design calculations, and design specifications. l
- *A walk-through inspection of major Category I structures at the Oyster Creek l
Nuclear Power Station was made by SEP Tbpic III-7.B reviewers on May 12, 1981, and the Parsippany, NJ, Engineering Office of Jersey Central Power and Light Company was visited by team members on May 22, 1981. _nklin Resea_rch._ _ . Center
~
l (. TER-CS257-320 j changing technical content. Code paragraphs which were found to be essentially the same in both versions were so marked in the comments column. The review then focused on the 'emaining portions of the codes where l textual disparities existed. Pertinent comments were entered. Typical comments address either the reason the change had been introduced, the intent of the change, its impact upon safety margins, or a combination of such considerations. As can be readily appreciated, many different circumstances arise in such evaluations--some simple, some complex. A few examples are cited and briefly discussed below. Provisions were found where code changes liberalized requirements, i.e., less stringent criteria are in force today than were formerly required. Such changes are introduced from time to time as new information becomes available regarding the provision in question. Not infrequently, code committees are called upon to protect against failure modes where the effects are well known; but too little is yet clear concerning the actual failure mechanism and the relative importance of the contributing factors. The committee often cannot defer action until a full investigation has been completed, but must act on behalf of safety. Issues such as these are usually resolved with prudence and caution--sometimes by the adoption of a rule (based upon experience and judgment) known to be conservative enough to assure safety. Subsequent inves-tigation may produce evidence showing the adopted rule to be ovarly cautious, and provide grounds for its relaxation. On the other hand, some changes which on first view may appear to reflect a relaxation of code requirements do not in fact actually do so. Structural codes tend to be documents with interactive provisions. Sometimes apparent liberalization of a code paragraph may really reflect a general tightening of criteria, because the change is associated with stiffening of requirements elsewhere. To cite a simple example, a newly introduced code provision may be found making it unnecessary to check thin flanged, box section beams of relatively small depth-to-width ratio for buckling. This might appear to be a relaxation of requirements; however, elsewhere the code has also introduced a require-nklin Research Center A Dhemen af The Frennen inouwe
TER-C5257-320 ment that the designer must space end supports closely enough to preclude buckling . Thus, code requirements have been tightened, not relaxed. i Whenever it was found that code requirements had truly been relaxed, this was noted in the reviewer's comments in the code comparison review. Because liberalization of code criteria clearly cannot give rise to safety issues concerning structures built to more stringent requirements, such matters were not considered further. ' Cn the other hand, whenever it was clear that a code change introduced more stringent criteria, the potential impact of the change on margins of safety shown for the structure was assessed. When it was felt that the change (although more restrictive) would not significantly affect safety margins, this judgment was entered as a reviewer comment. When it was clear that the code change had the potential to significantly affect the perceived margin of l safety, this was noted in the comments and the paragraph flagged for further consideration. Sometimes the effects of a code change are not apparent. Indeed, l depending upon a number of factors,
- the change may reflect a tightening of requirements for some structures and a liberalization for others. When doubtful or ambiguous situations were encountered in the review, the effect of the code change was explored analytically using simple models.
A variety of analytical techniques were used, depending on the situation at hand. One general approach was to select a basic structural element (a beam, a column, a frame, a slab, or the like) and analytically test it, under both the older and the current criteria. For example, a typical structural element and a simple loading were selected; the element was then designed to the older code requitbehtis. Next, the load carrying capacity of this structure was reexamined using current code criteria. Finally, the load carrying capacities of the element, as shown by the older criteria and as
- Geometry, material properties, magnitude or type of loading, type of supports--
t to name a few. l nidin Research Center A Osmeson of The Frenten ineaeuse _ _ . . . . _ ;_...__ __ _;__._._____. _,_,____y._._.
TER-CS257-320 determined by the current criteria, were compared. Examples of investigations performed to assess code change impacts are found in Appendix C. t In making these studies, an attempt was made to use structural elements, model dimensions, and load magnitudes that were representative of actual s tructure s. For studies that were parametized, an attempt was made to span the parametric range encountered in nuclear structures. Although one must be cautious about claiming that results from simplified models may be totally applicable to the more complex situations occurring in real structures, it was falt that such examples provided reasonable guidance for making rational judgments concerning the impact of changed code provisions on perceived margins of safety. 7.4 ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF CODE CHANGES : As the scope of the Task III-7.B assignment indicates, a limited objective is sought in assessing the effects of code changes on seismic Category I structures. The scope of this review is not set at the level of appraisal of individual, as-built structures on plant sites. Consequently, the review does not attempt to make quantitative assessments as to the structtual adequacy under current NRC criteria of specific structures at particular SEP plants. To the contrary, the scope is confined to the comparison of former
, structural codes and criteria with counterpart current requirements. Corres-
~
pondingly, the assessment of the impact of changes in codes and criteria is confined to what can be deduced solely from the provisions of the codes and ' cri teria. Although the review is therefore carried out with minimal reference to actual structures in the field, the assessments of code change impacts that can be made at the code comparison level hold considerable significance for , actual structures. l l A U00EIranMn am an.n. . Ruea.n:h Center i i I
e . TER-C5257-320 In this respect, two important points should be noted:
- 1. The review brings sharply into focus the changes in code provisions that may give rise to concern with respect to structural margins of safety as perceived from the standpoint of the requirements that NRC now imposes upon plants currently being licensed.
The review simultaneously culls away a number of code changes that do not give rise to such concerns, but which (because they are there) would otherwise have to be addressed, on a structure-by-structure basis.
. 2. The effects of code changes that can be determined from the level of i code review are confined to potential or possible impacts on actual '
structures. A review conducted at the code comparison level cannot determine ~ whether or not potentially adverse impacts are actually realized in a given structure. The review may only warn that this may be the case. For example, current criteria may require demonstration of structural integrity under a loading combination that includes an additional load not specified in the corresponding loading combination to which the structure was designed. If the non-considered load is large (i.e., in the order of or larger than other major loads that were included), then it is quite possible that some members in the structure would appear overloaded as viewed by current criteria. Thus a potential concern exists. However, no determination as to actual overstress in any member can be made by code review alone. Actual margins of safety in the controlling member (and several others*) must certainly be examined before even a tentative judgment of this kind may be attempted. 1 In order to carry out the code review objective of identifying criteria changes that could potentially impair perceived margins of safety, the following scheme classifying code change impacts was adopted. 7.4.1 classification of Code Changes Where code changes involve technical content (as opposed to those which are editorial, organizational, administrative, and the like), the changes are classified according to the following scheme.
*The addition of a new load can change the location of the point of highest stress.
l l _nklin Rese_ arch._ . Center
TER-C5257-320 Each such code change is classified according to its potential to alter l . perceived margins of safety
- in structural elements to which it applies. Four categories are established:
i Scale A Change - The new criteria have the potential to substantially impair margins of safety as perceived under the former criteria. Scale Ax Change - The impact of the code change on margins of safety is not immediately apparent. Scale Axcode changes require . analytical studies of model structures to assess the I potential magnitude of their effect upon margins of safety. , Scale B Change - The new criteria operate to impair margins of safety but not enough to cause engineering concern about the adequacy of , j any structural element. i . Scale C Change - The new criteria will giv ? rise to larger margins of safety than were exhibited under the former criteria. t' 7.4.1.1 General and Conditional Classifications of Code Change Impacts Scale ratings of code changes are found in two different forms in this report. Fcr example, some are designated as " Scale A," and others as " Scale C." Others have dual designation, such as " Scale A if --- [a condition state-ment] or Scale C if --- [a second condition statement] ." ' , In assigning scale classifications, an efficient design to original criteria is assumed. That is, it is postulated that (a) the provision in question controls design, and (b) the structural member to which the code provision applies was proportioned to be at (or close to) the allowable limit. The impact scale rating is assigned accordingly. If the code change is Scale A, and it applies (in a particular structure) to a member which is not highly stressed, then this may afford excellent grounds for asserting that this particular member is adequate; but it does not thereby downgrade the ranking to, say, a Scale B change for that member. The
*That is, if (all other considerations remaining the same) safety margins as computed by the older code rules were to be recomputed for an as-built structure in accordance with current code provisions, would there be a difference due only to the code change under consideration?
i I g i tanWin ! UOOU.7m .Rewar.ch
., C.e.nter
4 . TER-C5257-320 scale ranking is neither a function of member stress
- nor a ranking of member adequacy. The scale system ranks code change impact, not individual members.
, However, a number of code provisions are framed so that the allowable
- limit is made a function of member proportion. When this kind of a code
.l provision is changed, the change may affect members of certain proportions one way and members of other proportions differently.
j For example, assume a change in column design requirements is introduced into the code and is framed in terms of the ratio of the effective column length to its radius of gyration. 'ihe new rule acts to tighten design require-ments for slender columns, but liberalizas former requirements for columns that are not slender. This change may be rated Scale A for slender columns, and simultaneously, Scale C for non-slender ones. Although some columns now appear to be Scale A columns while others appear to be Scale C columns, the distinc-tion between them Lesides in the code, and is not a reflection of member adequacy. Clearly, it is still the code changes that are ranked; but, in this case, the code change does not happen to affect all columns in a unilateral way. 7.4.1.2 Code Impact on Structural Margins This classification of code changes identifies both (a) changes that have the potential to significantly impair perceived margins of safety (Scale A) and (b) changes that have the potential to enhance perceived margins of safety (Scale C). Emphasis is subsequently placed on Scale A changes, not on Scale C changes. The purpose of the code comparison review is to narrow down and bring into sharper focus the areas where structures shown adequate under former criteria may not fully comply with current criteria. Once such criteria changes have been identified, actual structures may be checked to see if the potential concern is applicable to the structure. Depending upon a number of structure-specific circumstances, it may or may not pertain. YThere are exceptions, but these are code-related, not adequacy-related. 4 nklin Research Center A DMeson af The Frerudin Inseause
~
n _ _,_ ; ( TER-C5257-320 I The same thing is true of Scale C changes, i.e., those that may enhance [ perceived structural margins. Specific structures must be examined to see if - t the potential benefit is actually applicable to the structure. If it is !
, applicable, credit may be taken for it. However, this step can only be taken at the structural level, not at the code level.
A simple example may help clarify this point. Assume a steel beam exists j in a structure designed by AISC 1963 rules for the then-specified loading l
, combination. Current criteria require inclusion of an additional load in the I loading combination (Scale A change), but the current structural code permits a higher allowable load if the beam design conforms to certain stipulated I proportions (Scale C change) . Several, circumstances are possible for beams in f
j actual structures, as shown below. ' l New Load Higher Stress Limit Results , Maximum stress in beam Applicability Beam adequate under i ; under original loading immaterial current criteria i l conditions was low with ; ample margin for addi-
' l tional load I
Maximum stress in beam Beam qualifies for Beam may be under original loading higher stress limit adequate under current ! l condition was near former criteria ! allowable limit ; Maximum stress in beam Beam does not qualify Beam unlikely to be i
; under original loading for increased stress adequate under current :
condition was near former limit criteria ' allowable limit i It is clear from this example that the function of the code review is to i point out code changes that might impair perceived margins of safety, and that assessment of their pertinence is best accomplished at the structure-specific i level. I 1 : 1
+
A d203' h*1D
4 . 1 TER-C5257-320 l 7.5 PLANT-SPECIFIC QDE CHANGES i l There is substantial overlap among the SEP plants in the codes and stan-I dards used for structural design. Several plants, for example, followed the
; provisions of ACI-318,1963 edition, in designing major concrete structures.
Thus, the initial work of comparing older and current criteria is not
; plant-specific. However, when the reviewed codes are packaged in sets containing only those code comparisons relevant to design of Seismic Category I structures in a particular SEP plant, the results begin to take on plant-specific character.
The code changes potentially applicable to particular structures at a particular SEP plant have then been identified. How ver, this list is almost surely overly long because the list has been prepared without reference to actual plant structures. For example, the code change list might include an item relating to recently introduced provisions for the design of slender columns, while none actually exist in any structures in that particular plant. In-depth examination of design drawings, audit of structural analyses, and review of plant specifications were beyond the scope of the III-7.B task. Accordingly, such activities were not attempted. Occasional reference to such documents was necessary, however, to the review work. Consequently, it was possible to cull from the list some items that were obviously inappropriate to the Oyster Creek plant structures. Wherever this was done, the reason for removal was documented, but no attempt was raade to remove every such item. Code changes that may be significant for structures in general but did not appear applicable to any of the Category I structures at Oyster Creek were relegated to Appendix A. The Scale A or Scale A changes that remained are g listed on a code-by-code basis in Section 11. l nklin Research Center A Ceumen of The henwh heensee
- ~- -
o b TER-C5257-320
- 8. OYSTER CREEK SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES SEP Topic III-1 has for its objectives the classification of components, l
structures, and systems with respect to both quality group and seismic designation. The task force charged with this responsibility has presented its findings in Reference 5, and the following structures have been determined to be Seismic Category It o Reactor building, including: Spent fuel pool
. Fuel storage facilities o Drywell, torus, and vents o Control room o Intake structure.
In addition, the following emergency electrical systems, among others, have been designated Seismic Category It i o Batteries o Diesel generator o Emergency buses, etc. The diesel generator vault is not listed in this classification. Review indicates that, since it houses Category I equipment, it too is to be considered Seismic Category I. Likewise, the vent stack is treated as a Seismic Category I structure in this report. At the Oyster Creek plant, the I stack is located in close proximity to other Category I systems and structures. Consequently, if stack failure is postulated, it has the
, potential to impair some vital function of these systems or structures. The turbine building houses two battery rooms (in different and widely separated parts of the building), the switchgear room, and the control room. The seismic classification of the turbine building was not indicated. The following structures were unlisted or were otherwise classified:
Radwaste building Non-Seismic Category I Screen house Status not shown Turbine building Status not shown Service building Unlisted Office building Unlisted Offgas building Unlisted. nklin Research Center A Dhenson of The Frenhen innaeuse
6 . TER-C5257-320
- 9. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA l
The structural codes governing design of the major Seismic Category I structures for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Generating Station are detailed
- in the following table, i
i Design Current Structure Criteria Criteria
- 1. Drywell, torus, and ASME Sect. VIII (1962) ASME Sect. III, Div. I vents and Nuclear Code cases: Subsection NE (1980) 1270 N-5, 1271 N, 1272 N-5
- 2. Reactor building Concrete Structures: Concrete Structures Spent fuel pool ACI 318-63 ACI 349-76 ACI 301-63 ACI 301-72 (Rev. 75)
Steel Structures: Steel Structures: AISC Building Code AISC Building Code (1963) (1980)
- 3. Portions of the Same as Item 2 above Same as Item 2 above turbine building housing the control room, battery rooms, switchgear room
- 4. Intake structure Same as Item 2 above Same as Item 2 above
- 5. Diesel generator Same as Item 2 above Same as Item 2 above vault
- 6. Ventilation Stack ACI 50 5-54 ACI 349-76*
(ACI-307)
*Although the provisions of ACI-349 currently govern design of all Seismic Category I structures external to containment, nonconflicting provisions of ACI-307 also apply. A complete reanalysis of the stack to current criteria will be carried out within the SEP program.
r:klin Research Center
~ ~ - - .
, e TER-CS257-320 REFERENCES
- Identification of original design codes:
- 1. Primary Containment Design Report, Amendment 15 to FDSAR for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant (Identifies codes for Item 1 above) 4
- 2. Burns and Roe letter of April 23, 1981 to MPR Associates (Chou to Schmid t) (Identifies codes for Items 2 through 5 above) .
f i o O I n nidin Research Center
. - ~ . - -
.n
6 , TER-C5257-320
- 10. [ DADS AND IDAD COMBINATION CRITERIA r
10.1 DESCRIPTION
OF TABLES OF IDADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS The requirements governing loads and load combinations to be considered
, in the design of civil engineering structures for nuclear service have been <
revised since the older nuclear power plants were constructed and licensed. Such changes constitute a major aspect of the general pattern of evolving design requirements; consequently, they are singled out for special considera-tion in this section of this report. The NRC Regulatory Guides and Standard Review Plans provide guidance as to what loads and load combinations must be considered. In some cases, the required loads and load combinations are also specified within the governing structural design codes other structural codes have no such provisions and take loads and load combinations as given a priori. In this report; loads and load combinat, ions are treated within the present section whether or not the structural design codes also include them. Later' sections of this report address, paragraph by paragraph, changes in text between design codes current at the time the plant was constructed and those governing design today; however, to avoid repetition, code changes related to loads and load combinations will not be evaluated again although they may appear as provisions of the structural design codes. Tb provide a compact and systematic comparison of previous and present requirements, the facts are marshalled in tabular form. Two sets of tables are used:
- 1. load tables
- 2. load combination tables.
Both sets of tables are constructed in accordance with current require-ments for Seismic Category I structures, i.e. , the load tables list all loads that must be considered in today's design of these structures (as enumerated in NRC's Standard Review Plan), and the load combination tables list all combinations of these loadings for which current licensing procedures require demonstration of structural integrity. As ~ i ranklin Research Center A w at m vr. man m l
. . . . _ _ . _ . .___.------ --_-----T TER-C5257-320 In general, the loads and load combinations to be considered are determined by the structure under discussion. The design loads for the structure housing the energency power diesel generator, for example, are quite different than those for the design of the containment vessel. Consequently, structures must be considered individually. Each structure usually requires a load table and load combination table appropriate to its specific design requirements.
The design requirements for the various civil engineering structures within a nuclear power plant are echoed in applicable sections of NRC's Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.8. The tables in the present report correspond to, and summarize, these requirements for each structure. A note at the bottom of each table provides the reference to the applicable section of the Standard Review Plan. Section 10.2 of this report lists, for reference, the load symbols used in the charts together with their definitions. The loads actually used for design are considered, structure by structure,
; and the load tables are filled in according to the following scheme:
- 1. The list of potentially applicable loads (according to current requirements) is examined to eliminate loads which either do not occur on, or are not significant for, the structure under consideration.
- 2. The loads included in the actual design basis are then checked against the reduced list to see if all applicable loads (according to current requirements) were actually considered during design.
- 3. Each load that was considered during design is next screened to see if it appears to correspond to current requirements. Questions such as the following are addressed: Were all the individual loads encompassed .by the load category definition represented in the applied loading? Do all loads appear to match present requirements (1) in magnitude? (2) in method of application?
- 4. An annotation is made as to whether deviations from present requirements exist, either because of load omissions or because the loads do not correspond in magnitude or in other particulars.
- 5. If a deviation is found, a judgment (in the form of a scale ranking) is made as to the potential impact of the deviation on perceived margins of safety.
- 6. Relevant notes or comments are recorded.
A ranklin Research Center A Dmeson W The Fm W
TER-C5257-320 Of particular importance to the Tcpic III-7.B review are comments indicat-i ing that the effects of'certain loadings (tornado and seismic loads, in 1 particular) are being examined under other SEP topics. In all such cases, the
! findings of these special SEP topics (where review in depth of the indicated loading conditions will be undertaken) will be definitive for the overall SEP effort. Consequently, no licensee investigation of such issues is required under Topic III-7.3 nor is such effort within the scope of Topic III-7.B (see Section 4) . Licensee participation in the resolution of such issues may, , however, be requested under the scope of other SEP topics devoted to such 1
! issues. Af ter the load tables have been filled out, the load combination tables are compiled. Like the load tables, the load combination tables are drawn up to current 4:aquirements and the load combinations actually used in the design basis are matched against these requirements. Current criteria require consideration during plant design of 13 load combinations for most structures, as shown in the load combination tables. These specific requirements were not in effect at the time when SEP plants were designed. Consequently, other sets of load combinations were used. In comparing actual and current criteria, an attempt was made to match each of the load combinations actually considered to its nearest counterpart under present i requirements. Mr example, consider a plant where the safe shutdown earthquake was addressed in combination with other loads, but not in combination with the effects of a IDCA (load combination 13) . The load combination tables would reflect this by showing that load case 9 was addressed, but that load case 13 l was not. If six load cases were considered, only six (nearest counterpart) i load cases are indicated in the table--not partial fulfillment of all 13. Mr ease of comparison, the load combinations actually used are super-imposed on the load combinations currently required. This is accomplished in two steps: l 1. Currently specified load combinations include loads sufficient for ! the most general cases. In particular. applications, some of these i are either inappropriate or insignificant. Therefore, the first step i 1 l , Franidin Resea
- A on.mn r n. nn.rchmCenter l
l ! ' ~ T. ~ T ~ ~ ^ _ ' _ _ _ _ _ l _1_
^
_ _ _ . _ '_ZT -
~~~~
Z~ ~ ~ EE ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ 1-
l l TER-C5257-320 is to strike all loads that are not applicable to the structure under consideration from all load combinations in which they appear. . 2. Next, loads actually combined are indicated by encircling (in the appropriate load combinat' ions) each load contributing to the ' summation considered for design. Thus, the comparison between what was actually done and what is required t today is readily apparent. If the load combinations'used are in complete l accord with current requirements, each load symbol on the sheet appears as f either struck or encircled. Load combinations not cons!.dered and loads ; i omitted from the load combinations stand out as unencircled items. t E A scale ranking is next assigned to the load combinations; however (unlike i the corresponding ranking of loads), a scale ranking is not necessarily assigned to each one. When the load combinations used for design correspond closely to current requirements, scale ratings may be assigned to all ; combinations. However, when the number of load combinations considered in design was substantially fewer than current criteria prescribe, it did not I appear to serve any engineering purpose to rank the structure for each ;
, , currently required load combination. Instead, a limited number of loading cases (usually two) were ranked.
l The following considerations guided the selection of these cases: l'
- 1. For purposes of the SEP review, it was not believed necessary to ,
require an extensive reanalysis of structures under all load : combinations currently specified. 4
- 2. SEP plants have been in full power operation for a number of years.
j During this time, they have experienced a wide spectrum of operating
; and upset conditions. There is no evidence that major Seismic i l Category I structures lack integrity under these operating conditions. ; 3. The most severe load combinations occur under emergency and accident conditions. These are also the conditions associated with the greatest consequences to public health and safety. ; 7
- 4. If demonstration of structural adequacy under the most severe load I combinations currently specified fer emergency and accident conditions is provided, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the '
structure is also adequate to sus:ain the less severe loadings associated with less severe consequences. I 00hranklin Research Center J A Chemen of The Fransen inesiuse
, . ..m,,
TER-CS 257-320 The scale rankings assigned to loads and load combinations in tables are
! intended as an appraisal of plant status, with respect to demonstration of i 1
compliance with current design criteria, based on information available to the f l NRC prior to the inception of the SEP review. A number of structurally related SEP topics review some loads and load combinations in detail based upon current calculational methods. In order that a consistent basis for the 1
- tables be maintained, they are based upon load combinations considered in the '
l original design of the facility or, in the case of facility modifications, they are based upon the combinations used in the design of the modification. Loads that were not included in the original design or that have increased in magnitude and have not been specifically addressed in another SEP topic should be addressed by the Licensee. 10.2 LOAD DEFINITIONS D Dead loads or their related internal moments and forces (such as permanent equipment loads) . E or Eo Loads generated by the operating basis earthquake. E' or Ess Loads generated by the safe shutdown earthquake. F Loads resulting from the application of pre-stress. H Hydrostatic loads under operating conditions. Ha Hydrostatic loads generated under accident conditions, such as post-accident internal flooding. (FL is sometimes used by others* to designate post-LOCA internal flooding.) L Live loads or their related internal moments and forces (such as movable equipment loads) . Pa Pressure load generated by accident conditions (such as those generated by the postulated pipe break accident) . Po or P y Loads resulting from pressure due to normal operating conditions.
*See, for example, SRP 3.8.2.
A -2 8-ranklin Research Center A DMuson of The FrenMn husewe
TER-CS 257-320 P3 All pressure loads which are caused by the actuation of safety relief valve discharge including pool swell and subsequent hydrodynamic loads. Ra or Rr Pipe reactions under accident conditions (such as those generated by thermal transients associated with an accident) . Ro Pipe reactions during startup, normal operating, or shutdown conditions, based on the critical transient or steady-state condition. Rs All pipe reaction loads which are generated by the discharge of safety relief valves. Ta Thermal loads under accident conditions (such as those generated by a postulated pipe break accident) . To Thermal effects and loads during startup, normal operating, or shutdown conditions, based on the most critical transient or steady-state condition. Ts All thermal loads which are generated by the discharge of safety relief valves. W Loads generated by the design wind specified for the plant. W' or W t Loads generated by the design tornado specified for the plant. Tornado loads include loads due to tornado wind pressure, tornado-created differential pressure, and tornado-generated missiles. Yj Equivalent static load on the structure generated by the impinge-ment of the fluid jet from the broken pipe during the design basis accident. Y, Missile impact equivalent static load on the structure generated by or during the design basis accident, such as pipe whipping. Yr Equivalent static load on the structure generated by the reaction on the broken pipe during the design basis accident. The load combination charts correspond to loading cases and load defini-tions as specified in the appropriate SRP. Each chart is associated with a specific SRP as identified in the notes accompanying the chart. Guidance with respect to the specific loads which must be considered in forming each load combination is provided by the referenced SRP. All SRPs are prepared to a standard fonnat; consequently, subsection 3 of each plan always contains the appropriate load definitions and load combination guidance. l nklin Research Center A Dhamon et The Fransen Insaname
. e TER-C5257-320 10.3 DESIGN LOAD TABLES
" COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS IDADS" A 00hbranklin Research Center A Chmeson of The Frenh8n losetute
e a TER-C5257-320 STRUCTURE: CCMPARISON OF CESIGN BASIS LOADS DRYWELL (steel) PLNIT: OYSTER CREEX Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicable Included Reviewing Magnitude Deviation Impact ! Basis To This In Plant This Loed Correspond Exist Scale Coments Loads Structure 1 Design To Present In Load Ranking Basis t Criteria? Basist D Tes Yes Yes No - 3 L Tes Yes Yes No u F No - - H Tea Tee
- III-5.A * *
- P, Tes Yes No Yes C 1.
*. P, Yes Yes VI-2.D, III-7.5 *
- P, Tes No - Tes 6 T, Tes No - Tes 5 4 k, T, vee No VI-2.D. III-7.5 * *
- 4.
N Tg Yes No 6.
- Yes 4. '
R Tes Yes No Yes 2. e i p.e j R, Tes Yes No Yes A 2. R, Tes No Yes A, ' E' Yes Yes III-6
- e
=
A, , E Tes Tes III-6 * *
- k W' No - *~
III-2. III-4.A * *
.a.
5 W No - III-2. III-4.A * * *
- S 3
T, Yes - III-5.A * *
- s y Y)
Yes Yes'* III-5.A * *
- W T, Tes No III-5.A *
- Ag Ref. ; SRP(1981) Section 3.8.1 or 3.d.2 Comen ts To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic items are independent '
judgments, based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.
- 1. Design pressure was used i.e., P, = P d = 62 psig
- 2. Vent thrust only.
- 3. Flooding condition reported to have been investigated but it was considered only as an independent load (FSAR contain= ant report).
- 4. No indication of thermal consideration in C5 & I calculations except metal properties are taken at temp.
l S. Not analytically considered. However, a sample plate, locally loaded in a static testing nachine, sustained 3-inch deformation without cracking or rupture.
- 6. Reviewed in generic Task A-7, effects of hydrodynamic loads, Mark I containment.
4 Ubd Franklin Research Center A Demmen of The Franien busesse I
r TER-C5257-320 ' STRUCTURE: COMPAR!$0?4* 0F DESIGN BASIS LCADS REACTOR BUILDING PLAf17: OYSTER CREEK Current is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicabli Included Reviewing Magnitude Deviation impact Basis To This In Plant This Load Correspond Exis t Scale Comments Loads Structure Design To Present In Load Ranking Sasts? Criteria? Basis? m 3> D Tes Yes Yes No - l L Tes Yes Yes No A 3. o K
. F No - - - -
w l 8 Tes H Yes III-3.A * *
- g P Tes No 11*-3.B * *
- T, Neglig. No - Yes 5 1.
- T Tes No *
- III-3.3
- 6 *
, j R Tes No No Yes B 2.
x Yes No R, No Yes A, 2. E' Yes Yes III-6 e e Ag l E Tes Yes III.6 * *
- 2 W' Tes Yes *4.
- III-2. III-4.A A, j W Tes Yes III-2. III-4.A e e
- Y, Yes No III-3.8 * *
- g T) , Tes No III-5.5 * * *
~ Yes Y, No III-3.3 e e
- Ref. ; SRP(1981) Section 3.f.4 SP.!Ef"!.8
- To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic items are independent judgments, based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.
- 1. Ordinary thermal stress in concrete structures are comonly neglected.
- 2. Some pipes and supports typical of installation are likely to have experienced major transients (e.g. turbine trip).
- 3. Roof loads have increased per $EP Topic II-2.A and any increase per SEP Topic II-3.5 for parapet roofs.
- 4. Attachment B of Amendment II states; metal siding can withacand 150 MPH winds but cannot provide protection from tornado missiles.
Obranklin Research Center A Omemen of The Frenten ineshme
- - - - - ~----- ~
TER-C5257-320 4 i STRUCTURE: COMPARISON OF DESIG'4 BASIS LOADS SPENT FUEL POOL (Concrete) f PLAT!T: OYSTER CREEK Current Is I.oad Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicabli Included Reviewing MaEnitude Deviation Impact Basis To This In Plant This Load Correspond Exist Scale Commients l Loads Structure' Design To Present In Load Ranking Basis? Criteria? Basis? 3.
. 3> D Tes Yes Yes No L Tes Yes Yes No u
, F No - - - -
i l H Yes Yes III-3.A * * , a l g P No - III-5.5 *
- a T Negl. - - -
- T a
Yes - Yes III-5.8 *
- e
, ; R, No - - -
R, No - - - E' { Tes Tea III-6 * *
- I E Tes Yes III.6 * *
- W' Tes
- No III-2. III-4.A * *
- 4.
j W No - III.2. III-4.A *
- T, - -
III-5.5 * *
- 3.
$ Y)
III-5.5 * *
- 3.
k T, - - III-5.3 * *
- 3.
Re f. : SRP(1981) Section 3.8.4 _Consonn es
- To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic items are independent j udgments , based on isformation in the FSAR or other original design documents.
- 1. Thermal load from cask drop accident is referenced in Jersey Central Power & Light Co's.
Answer to Question 5, Rev 1 to ADD.2 to supplement 1 of Am. 18.
- 2. Applicable only since steel structure over spent poci is not tornado resistant.
- 3. Pipe break external to containment is evaluated in SEP Topic III-5.3.
- 4. SEP Topic III-2 will determine whether or not pool exposure to possible tornado effects is an alloweble spent fuel pool load.
nklin Research Center A Dheean of The Fransen insenuse >
l TER-C5257-320 STRUCTURE: CONTROL ROOM & COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS LOADS CONTINGENT PARTS OF TURBINE BUILDING PLNIT: 0YSTER CREEK Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicab1< Included Reviewing Magnitude Deviation Impact Basis To This In Plant This Load Correspond Exis t Scale Coeunents - Loads Structure' Design To Present In load Ranking Basist Criteria? Basist m y D Tee Yes Yes No - 3 L Tee Tes Yes No A, 2.
. F No - -- - -
". H No - III-3.A * *
- 3 1 g P Tee - III-5.5 * * *
", 7 Neglig. No - Tee -
2 o
- 1 T Tes No III-5.5 * *
- 6 *
, j R No - -- - -
g No - _. - - E' Tee Tee III-6 *
- A g
l E Tee Yes III-6 * .
- 8 'd ' Tee Tes III-2, III-4.A *
- A, j W Tea Tee III-2 III-4.A * *
- T - -
III-5.5 * *
- e '
$ T)
III-5.5 * * *
=
W T, - - III-5.3 * *
- Ref.; SRP(1981) Section 3.8.4
_ comments
- To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic items are independent j udgments , based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.
- 1. Not a structural concern but might affect control room habitability.
- 2. Roof loads have increased per SEP Topic II-2.A and may increase per SEP topic II-3.3 for parapet roofs.
4 u00u Franklin Research Center A Denman of The Fransen inesswee
. .. - _ . ... - n . . . . . - . - . . , . - - . ~ . - - - -- -- -- -~- -- - - ~ ~
TER-CS257-320 STRUCTURE: BATTERY, SWITCHGEAR COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS LOADS ROOMS AND CONTINGENT PARTS OF TURBINE BUILDING l PLNIT: OYSTER CREEK i Carrent Is I.oad Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicabl< Included Reviewing Magnitude Deviation Impact Basis To This In Plant This Load Correspona Exis t Scale Comments Loads St ructure' Design To Present In Load Ranking,, Basis? Criteria? Basis?
~
w D Tes Yes Yes No D 2 L Tes Tee Yes No o
, F - - -
E H - III-3.A * *
- g *
- P, - III-5.8
- i g T, Negl. No - y, j T, - No III-5.8 * *
- i R
e i o R, No - - E' Tes Yes III-6 *
- A l8 E W
Tea Tee III-6 * * *
- - III-2, III-4.A * * *
[ j W - III-2, IIT-4.A * *
- Y, III-5.8 * *
- y T III-5.8 * *
- a
== T III-3.8 * *
- a Ref. ; SRF(1981) Section 3.8.4
_C_ommen t s
- To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale ranking shown' for SEP topic items are independent j udgments, based on information in the T5AR or other original design documents.
. A' ! Ubranklin,m
-e Rese ar.ch_ Center
-- .. . . ==
= r TER-C5257-320 STRUCTURE:
COMPAR_ISON OF DESIGN BA515 LOAD 5 INTAKE STRUCTURE PLNIT: OYSTER CREEK 1 Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicable Included Reviewing Magnitude Deviation Impact Basis To This In Plant This Load Corresponc Exis t Scale Comments Loads Structure Design To Present In Load Ranking Basis? Criteria? Basist m
% D Tee Yes Yes No -
L Yes Yes Yes No - o e F No - k H Tes Yes III-3.A * *
- O P, No -
III-5.B * *
- T, Negl. No -
! T No -
III-5.8 *
- C:
a
, j R, Yes - -
2 *
- e. .e 2 R, No - -
E' Tes Yes ?II-6 *
- A g
I E Yes Yes III-6 * *
- 8 1 W' Tes Yes III-2. III-4.A **
- Ag j W Negl. - III-2, III-4.A * *
- Y, No -
III-5.8 *
- g No -
III-5.8 * * - Y) a
~
Y, No III-5.8 *
- l l
Ref.; SRP(1981) Section 3.8.4 Comments
- To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale ranlLing shown for SEP topic items are independent judgments, based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.
- 1. Attachment 8 of Amendment 11 to FSAR states; intake structure can withstand 300 MPH wind but does not provide missile protection.
j i il00Gr nxiin a. .rCn cent ,
~~~
_ . _ _ _ _ -. - - . . - _ . _ . . _ - ..-_.l.._. . . _ . _ . _ . . _ . . - _ _ , - _ . ..
TER-C5257-320 STRUCTURE: DIESEL GENERATOR { COMPAR, ISO'l 0F DESIG'l BASIS LCADS ; VAULT (HOUSING CLASS I EQUIPMENT) PLATIT: OYSTER CREEK t i Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicabl, Included Reviewing Matnitude Deviation Impact Basis To This In Plant This Load Co rrespond Exis t Scale Comments Loads Structure Design To Present In Load Ranking Basis? Criteria? Basist m D Tes Yes Yes No - y L Tes Yes Yes No A 1. g
. P No - -- - --
E H Tes - III-3. A * * *
- 2 P, so - 111-5.5 * * -
T T No - - 0 0 e T No - 111-5.5 * * -
, j R No - - -
g No - -- - - E' Yes Yes III-6 e e Ag X E Yes Yes III.6 * *
- a .
P. W' Yes No III-2, III-4.A e e A, j W Tes Yes III-2, III-4.A * *
- i .
T No - III-5.3 e e - e f i No - III-5.5 * * - Y) a
+
Y, No - III-5.3 * * - Ref.; SRP(1981) Section 3.8.4 Comments
- To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale rank.ing shown for SEP topic items are independent judgments, based on information in the ITAR or other original design documents.
- 1. Roof load have , increased per SEP Topic II-2.A and may increase per SEP Topic II-3.A for parapet roofs.
i nklin Research Center A Dween of The Fransen inessues i
.- . - ~ . - -
TER-C5257-320
\
STRUCTURE: COMPAR!S0!4 0F DES!GN BASIS LOADS VENTILATION STACK PLArtT: OYSTER CREEK Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicab1< Included Reviewing Magnitude Deviation Impact Basis To This In Plant This Load Correspond Exis t Scale Comments Loads Structure' Design To Present In Load Ranking Basis ? Criteriaf Basist m 0> D Yes Yes - 2 L Tee Yes - o
. F No No -
!* H No No III-3.A e e n' P, No No III-5.8
- e e T, Tee Yes - - 8 g, j T, No No III-5.8 e * -
, j R, No - - -
R, No - - - - y E' Yes Yes III-6 e e
- l E Yes Yes III.6 * *
- j W' Yes No III-2,III-4.A e e 2.
A, j W Yes Yes e III-2, III-4.A e e 2. Y, No - III-5.8 e e g T j No - III-5.8 e e t Y, No - III-5.8 e e Ref.; 3RP(1981) Section 3.8.4 commenee
- To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic itees are independent j uognents, based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.
- 1. Stack design is based on 100*F maxianan temperature gradient - as per Attachment F Docket 50-219.
- 2. Maximum vind velocity considered is 100 MPR - as per Attachment F Docket 50-219 and maximum vind velocity the stack can withstand is 180 MPH as per Attachment 3 Docket 50-219.
A- U00 ranklin Research Center A Dnumen of The Fe kwamme l
, '.' ~ *~'~~ ^ ~ ~ ^ ~ '
_?_~___I ?_?_~? '_ ? ~_?
I > + t i I TER-C5257-320 I i t ! ; i ! } l Y
, t ! , c 1
- f .
r 1 1 k I i i I I I 10.4 IDAD COMBINATION TABLES I
" COMPARISON OF IDADING COMBINATION CRITERIA" ! l t
i F i i t 4 i i i i I r 5 4
- l t L i
- b i
I i t i6 l t i Uh0 Franklin Research Center A Onamen of The Franseninsamme - '. r
. - . . _ . - _ . , . . . . --r e e r .- .v.
TER-C5257-320 COMPARISON ** LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE PLANT: OYSTER C 2 UNNEL Combined Gravity Natural Impulsive Scale Loading Dead. Thermal Pressure Mechanical Phenomena Loading Ranking N em tive 4 1 D+L T P R
- o o o I 2 D*L T P R j s e a
- 3 D+L T P R 2 a a a t 4 D+L T a
+T P +P R +R n e a s a e a
; 1 D+L T F R E
, a a a i 2 3
e+o D+L T T o @ @'- @ h, e P e R s g S 4 l D+L I, + I, P, + P, R, + R, j 1 D+L T, P, R, R'
=
j 2 D+L T, P, R, E' 3 3 D+L T +T P +P R +R ge a e a s a s e 1 D+L T, P, R, t' 7e+Tj +T,
* # *I * **
- a s a 3 s r j a t 2
i t @4. m 1 D+L E Ag 8. p:; 28 ac a. Ref.: SRP Section 3.8.2 Steel Containment Notes
- 1. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design per PSAR.
When load factors different from those currently required were used. l the factor used is also encircled.
- 2. Vent thrust due to 35 psi pipe cap force considered; but no other pipe reactions were investigated.
- 3. Y) considered independently of other loads.
I
- 4. Static load tests showed ring supported plate could be dimpled 3 inches by load applied over 20-inch dia, area without fracture S. Static g-loads used in load combinations.
- 6. Design pressere 62 osi used for P,.
l
- 7. Only primary membrane stresses were computed for this load combination.
[ l 8. For purposes of the SEP Review denonstration that structural integrity is maintained for load cases indicated above (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. nklin Research Center A Ommon of The Frannan insomme
l TER-C5257-320 l
'l' COMPARISON OF LOADING COMINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE:
l CONCRETE STRUCTURg5 REACTOR BUILDING (CONCRETE) PLANT: OYSTER CREEK i
# Combined Leading ' I" *i'*
. Gravity Dead. Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical pf" h Scale Cases Ranking
! , 1 1.4D + 1.7L
, 2 l 1. @ 1. $
1.$ l 3 l 1.@+1.$ 1.$ l l 4 ,
.75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 g .75 x 1.7 R, 5 ; .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 g .75 x 1.7 1, .75 x 1.9E 6
) .75 (1.40 + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 g .75 x 1.7 R, .75 x 1.7W 7 i 1.2D 1.9E
.! l i 8 1.2D 1.7W
- l
! i
@+@ N m o 0 10 l D+L % R, W
, g x
11 D+L T, 1.5 P, R,
; 12 D+L T, 1.25 P, R, 1.25E Y, + Y) + Y, 13 0+L T. O R, t' A Y, + T3 + Y, r 4
< - 4.v , -m
; Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Ot.-.c Cat- g;3 I structuras (concrete)
Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by 4CI-349 (1977).
- 2. Methods used in design {"*N8***I'_s consequently no load factors were used
- 3. Ioads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
- 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factors different from those currently required weit used, the factor used is also encircled.
- 5. Snow load coefficients in accordance with ANSI A58.1 any be used. or provisions of USC Section 2311 (j) invoked.
- 6. For purposes of the SEP Review. demonstration that structural integrity is main-tained for load cases 10.13 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria.
As UOO ranklin Research Center A Oheson of The Fransen eneshme
COMPARISON OF STRESS LIMITS IM E a , STEEL CONIAIWtENT STRUCTURES
/ PLANT l OY$1ER CREEK l j
k SERVICE CURRENT CRITERIA DE$tGN CkIIERIA LEVEL (REF. . TABLE NE - 3221-1. ASE SECTION Ill.1980) (REF.. F E STRESSES-PRIMARY CONTAINE NT. J tt CRiiERIA VALUE. Psi CRITERIA VALUE. psi Q P 1.0 5"' 19.300 SHELL MATERIAL
@ p g,$ $ F 3.950 P +P b I.5 5 28.950 SPEC. NO. A212 GRADE: 8 (see note 7.) ,?. P + P, + Q 3.0 5,, 67.500 VIELD STRESS (5 ) = 38,000 psi , ' ' " # ' 'I '
ULT. STRENGTH "(5 ) = 70.000 pst P, I.0 5,c 19,300 p a 1.15 19.250 P g 1.55, 28.950 CURRENT S ac = 19.300 pst Pg*Pb 1.55, 28,950 P +P b 1.5(I.15) 28,875 h INTEN5fiY p 300 Pg*Pb+Q 3.0 5,, 67.500 3.05 t1MIT f5ee note 11 PL*Pb+Q 52.500 tsee note 6) DESIGN PRIMARY
$ . I?*500 P58
, P, 1.2 5, or 1.0 5, 38.000 HLMBRANE p 300 og 4 STRESS LINIT H C P g I.8 5 , or 1.5 Sy 57.000 i
P +P l.8 5, or 1.5 sy 57.000 b (see notes 3. 4 5 6) P, 1.0 S g 41.650 S P. y 38.000 P g 1.5 S g 62.475 PL*Pb 1.5 S g 62.475 15ee notes 2, 5 & 6) (seenote8) Posi- P, 1.2 g or I .0 S y 38.000 FLOODING P t 1.8 5, or 1.5 S y 57.000 CONDIIION Pg+Pb I.8 5 or 1.5 5 57.000 Pg*Pb+Q 3.0 5 , 67.500 f5ee notes 4 B 6)
- Nt00'5 f I $ L N D 8 R HE G Ei A I 1I5 APPROPRIATE FOR LESS MODERN ANALVIICAL PROCEDURES.
l 2. THE COMPARA8t E CURRENT CRiiERIA ASSUMING ELASTIC METHODS WERE USED FOR THE ORIGINAL DE51GN ANALYSIS. 8 i
- 3. VALUES 560WN PERTAIN 10 INTEGRAL AND CONTINUOUS SIRUCTURES ONLY.
- 4. {HE LARGER OF THE IWO LIMIIS IS APPLICABLE.
hl l 5. f 15 8510F THE GENERAL PRIMARY MEMBRANE ALLOWABLE PERMIITED IN APPENDIX F OF SECTION Ill. ASME CODE. O
- 6. IN All INSTANCES FATIGUE AND BUCKLING CRITERIA MUST ALSO BE Sail 5FIED. Ut
- 7. IN ACCORDANCE WI.'H ASME 8&PV CODE SECTION III. DIVl510N 1. SUBSECTION NE. SUBPARA. NE 2121. THl1 MATERIAL ISun NOT Li$iED AMONG THOSE CURRENTLY PERMITTED. REF.: APPENDICES TABLE I.10.1
- CURRENT
- STRES$ "C
= VALUES LISIED ARE DERInED USING 4 S 1.1 I 1/4
- 8. STRtSS I $ . NG EXCEED and 59 YlEL g
3000F FROM TABLE N-421 ASME 8&PV CD')E $[CTION lit. CLASS A. (1965) 8 PERMITIED IF CALCULATIONS SiOW ENiRGY A850RPil0N CAPACITY ADEQUATE (REF. PG. V-3-2 0F F5AR). U O
^ - ~--
f TER-CS257-320 s i t i , i ! l
, L I
i COMPARISON OF LOADING CONINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: l I CONCRETE STRUCTURES SPENT FUEL POOL CONCRETE L l -! ! PLANT: 0YSTER CREEK ; Combined Natural Impulsive Loading Gravity Dead, Livs Thermal Pressure Mechanical Phenomena loading '** Cases , Ranking , i l 1 1 1.4D + 1.7L [ 3 I
' 2 - 1.4D + 1.7L 1.9E a
3 1.4D + 1.7L 1. M l 4 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 $
.75x1.7% (
i 5
, .75 (1. @ + 1. $ .75x1.7% .75 x 1.7 % .75 x 1.9@
L 6 .75 (1.40 + 1.7L) .75x1.7% .75x1.7% .75 x 1.hi 7 1.2D 1.9E l 8 1.2D 1.M s l @+O %. %. O ! I 4 l 10 D+L
\ % Wg A 1
11 D+L \ 1.5 g \ 12 D+L
\ 1.25 g g 1.25E Y, + Ty + Y, D+L $
13
$ $ E' Y, + Y) + Y, A 4
?
Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977).
- 2. Methodsusedindesignf Ds strees consequently no load factors were used.
- 3. 14ada deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations. '
- 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factors different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled.
- 5. Licensee states criteria and loading cases for Spent Fuel Pool correspond to Table I-A-4 of Am. 22.
- 6. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstracion that structural integrity is maintained for load case 10,13 (per currant criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure asets the intent of current design criteria.
i b 000 Franklin Research Center i A Dhemen of The Freeman insense w . - -+
-==--e*_+ w ,g <---,+=-e - - = .-
5 TER-CS257-320 COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: STEEL STRUCTURES (Elastic Analysis) REACTORBUILDING(STEEL) PLANT: OYSTER CREEK Combined Gravity *E" ' i Pressure Mechanical #'1' Loading Dead, Thermal p a n Cases Live 1 D+L i i 2 I @+@ @
- 3 @+@ @
4 D+L $ $ 5 l D+L 5 g E 6 D+L y 4 W 7
@+@ % g @
8 D+L g' g W e A 3. 9 l D+L T, P, g 10 D+L T, P, g E Y) + Y, + Y, 11 D+L T, P, y E' Y) + Y , + Y, A g
. Ref; SRP (1981) SECT. 3.8.4 other Category I structures (steel)
Notes
- 1. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factors are different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled.
- 3. Por cases where the load combination reduces to D + L + W assessment of structural adequacy will be made within SEP Topics In-2 I,In-4.A.
- 4. Snow load coefficients in accordance with ANSI A58.1 may be used, or pro-visions of UBC Section 2311 (j) invoked.
- 5. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural inte'grity is j amintained for load cases 8,11 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of i current design criteria.
l t nklin Resea
- rch._ Center .
TER-C5257-320 1 i l t' COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: BATTERY, SWITCHGEAR ROOMS AND l CONCRETE STRUCTURES CONTINGENT PART OF TU4INE BLDG. ! PLANT- OYSTER CREEK ig Cravity Dead, Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical S**1* Ph a i Cases Rankina i 1 1..D + 1.7L f I 2 ; 1.Q 1.$ . 1.90 7 3 1.4D + 1.7L 1.7W i i 4 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 %
.75 x 1.7 g f 5 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7% .75 x 1.7 % .75 x 1.9E l
[ 6 I .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 % .75x1.7% .75 x 1.7W 7 j 1.2D 1.9E i 8 1.2D 1.7W < l t i - l .
' ! @+O % % @ l 10 l D+L $ $ $
11 D+L T, 1.5 P, 4 . 12 D+L Y, 1.25 P, g 1.25E Y , + Y) + Y, 13 D+L T, P, y E' Y, + Y) + Y, A Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977). consequently no load factors were used.
- 2. Methods used in design {vorkingstresser
- 3. loads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
- 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factors different from those currently required were used, the factor i used is also encircled.
- 5. Por purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrit- is maintained '
for load case 13 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing .rzonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. nklin Research Center A Dhemen of The Fransen m ,
- --.---4 - .,_ . . . , _ .. . . _ . . _ . . _ __. . _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _
TER-C5257-320 i COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: CONTRCL ROOM AND CONTINGENT CONCRETE STRUCTURES INE BUILDING PtJNT: OYSTER CREEK
' " *
- Scale g Gravity Dead, Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical p ," g Cases Ranking i
j 1 I 1.4D + 1.7L f 2 f ,1.@+1.$ 1.9D j -! 3 i 1.4D + 1.7L 1.7W j 4 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 g
.75x1.7%
5 ; .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75x1.7% .75 x 1.7 g .75 x 1.9E' 6 ,
.75(1.t@+1.Q .75 x 1.7 % .75 x 1.7 % .75 x 14) 7 i 1.2D 3,9g i
8 1.2D 1.7W j 9 l @+@ $ $ @ 10 D+L g $ W g A 5. 11 D+L T, 1.5 P, g f 12 0+L T, 1.25 P, g 1.25E Y,+ Y) + Y, 13 D+L T, P, g E' Y, + Y) + Y, A,- l j Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 other category I stru'etures (concrete) i { Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977) . king stress consequently no load factors were used
. 2. Methods used in design {
- 3. Mads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
- 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factors different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled.
. 5. For cases where the load combination reduces to D + L + W , assessment of structural e
adequacy will be made within SEP Topics II-2 & II-4.A.
- 6. Snov load coefficients in accordance with ANSI A38.1 any be used, or provisions of UBC Sec: ion 2311 (j) invoked.
- 7. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is maintained for load cases 10,13 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria, nklin Research Center A Dheuere of The Frereen buemee
TER-C5257-320 4 i i
! COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: DIESEL GENERATOR CONCRETE STRUCTURES VAULT (HOUSING CI. ASS I PLANT: OYSTER CREEK EQUIPMENT) l i
i d g Cases Cravity Dead. Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical Ph a bjin S**1* Ranking j 1 l 1.4D + 1.7L 2 ! 1.4@+ 1. AQ 1.90 I 3 l 1.4D + 1.7L 1.7W 4 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x.1.7%
. .75x1.7'g
.75 x 1.7 g .75 x 1.9E' 5 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 %
6 .75(1.4@+1.Q .75 x 1.7 % .75x1.7% .75x1.$) 7 j 1.2D 1.9E 8 1.2D 1.7W 9 l @+@ % % @ D+L 4 10 4 Wg A, 5. i D+L $ 1.34 11 l 4 12 D+L
$ 1.25 g g tr06E g+ +g 13 D+L y 4 $ E' 4+3+%
- i Ref.s SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) l
? Notse 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977).
- 2. a stress consequently no load factors were used Methods used in design (Wo l 3. b ads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
- 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factors different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled.
5. For cases will adequacy where be the madeload combination within SEP Topicsreduces III-2 & D+L+Ut ******"*** 'I ***""*"#*1' to III-4.A
- 6. Snow load coefficients in accordance with ANSI A38.1 may be used, or provisions of USC Section 2311 (j) invoked.
- 7. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is maintained i for load case 10 (per current crieeria) may be considered as providing reasonable l assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. '
i 4 i A N rank!!n Research Center A Chenon of The Franhan kwieum
~
I . . ~ . - _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . , . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _
- l. . . .
TER-C5257-320
-1 i
i COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: CONCRETE STRUCTURES INTAKE STRUCTURE PLANT: OYSTER CREEK
" 1* Scale g Cravity Dead, Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical , , ,
Cases Ranking i 1 1.4D + 1.7L
- 2 l 1.4D + 1.7L 1.9E 3
1.4D + 1.7L 1. A t 1 4 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7% .
.75x1.7%
.75(1.@+1.Q .75x1.7% .75x1.7% .75x1.9{)
5 6 .75(1.@+1.Q .75 x 1.7 % .75 x 1. g .75x1.$ 7 1.2D 1.9E l 8 1.2D 1.7W
't 9
l 1 1 . [ 10 0+L % % Wg A, 5.s % ,ag 11 D+L % 1.2 g % _ 12 D+L
~$ 1.25 g g 1.25E g+%+T 51sta.=3 13 D+L $ % E' g+%+1 5 l
Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) l
! Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977) .
- 2. Methods used in design { w rking stress / consequently no load factors were used
- 3. Imado deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations.
- 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load
, factors dif ferent from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled.
- 5. Reduces to combination considered in another SIP Topic.
- 6. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is maintained l for load cases 10.13 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable ,
assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. l 9 h A Dhemon af The Fransen kwamme
TER-CS257-320
- 11. REVIEW FINDINGS I
The most important findings of the review are summarized in this section
} in tabular form.
l The major structural codes used for design of Seismic Category I buildings
, and structures for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Station were: , 1. AISC, " Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," 1963
- 2. ACI 318-63, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete," 1963
- 3. ACI 301-63, " Suggested Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings," 1963
- 4. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, "Unfired Pressure i
Vessels," 1962. Each of these design codes has been compared with the corresponding structural code governing current licensing criteria. Tables follow, in the order listed above, summarizing impoitant results of these comparisons for l each code. These tables provide: i 1. identification by paragraph number (both of the original code e.nd of
; its current counterpart) of code provisions where Scale A or Scale Ax deviations exist.
- 2. identification of structural elements to which each such provision
, may apply.
Some listed provisions may apply only to elements that do not exist in i the Oyster Creek structures. When it could be determined that this was the case, such provisions were struck from the list. Any provisions that appeared to be inapplicable for other reasons also were eliminated. Items so removed are listed in Appendix A to this report. Access to further information concerning code provision changes is l provided by additional appendixes. Each pair of codes (the design and the current ones) has a tabular summary within the report (Appendix B) which lists all code changes by scale ranking. nklin Research Center A Dhemen of The Frankeninessuse
1 TER-CS257-320 I I COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: CONCRETE STRUCTURES VENTILATION STACK PLANT: OYSTER CREEK g Cravity Dead, Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical S**I* Ph i Cases Ranking 1 1.4D + 1.7L
; 2 f 1.4D + 1.7L 1.9E i
3 l 1.4D + 1.7L 1.7W 4 j .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 T,
.75x1.7%
5
.75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 4 .75 x 1.9E 6 I .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) .75 x 1.7 T, .75x1.7% .75 x 1.7W l 7 j 1.2D 1.9E 8 1.2D 1.JW ! 9 l @+@ @ 4 @
- 5.
f 10 l @+@ @ g W e
- 5.
"Il D+L % 1.5 g g 12 D+L ~$ 1.25 g g ME 3 +} +%
i 13 D+L g g g E' % +g +T
- 5.
f l Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 other Category I structures (concrete)
, Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977) .
consequently no load factors were used
- 2. Methods used in design {workingstress
- 3. Loads deemed inapplicable or nemligible struck from loading combinations.
- 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load
, factors different from those currently required were used, the factor ! used is also encircled.
- 5. The principal loads on the stack are = D E. E , W & W . Reanalysis of all ventilation
, stacks for these loadings is being carried out within ,the SEP Program.
L b Franklin Research Center A DMoon of The Fransen Inseeuse
. .. .. - ____.-,.xm_______ --m,_m.. - . -
, TER-CS257-320 k
L In addition, a separately bound appendix exists for each code pair. The
, appendix provides:
i'
- l. full texts of each revised provision in both the former and current versions L l
- 2. comme :ts or conclusions, or both, relevant to the code change
- 3. the scale ranking of the change.
t , i k Y I i :, t b 4 r h
+
)
a
?
anklin Research Center
. - ~ - - .
e, TER-C5257-320 i i l 1 i 11.1 MAJOR FINDINGS OF AISC-1963 VS. AISC-1980 CODE COMPARISON 1 P UDDER nkiin Research center A Denman of The Franadtn anesause
TER-C5257-320 MAU'OR FINDINGS OF AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) SS. ale A Referenced Su bsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments t
- 1. 5.1. 2. 2 --
Beam end connection See case study 1 where the top flange for details. is coped and subject to shear, or failure by shear along a plane through fasteners or by a combination of shear along a plane through
, fasteners plus tension along a perpendicular , plane
- 1. 9.1. 2 1.9.1 Slender compression unstiff- New provisions added and ened elements subject to axial in the 1980 Code, Appendix compression or compression Appendix C l C due to bending when actual
{ width-to-thickness ratio See case study 10 ' exceeds the values specified for details. in subsection 1.9.1.2 l 1.14.2.2 -- Axially loaded tension New requirement members where the load is added in the 1980 transmitted by bolts or Code rivets through some but not all of the cross-sectional elements of the members 1.15.5.2 -- Restrained members when New requirement 1.15.5.3 flange or moment connection added in the 1980 1.15.5.4 plates for end connections Code of beams and girders are welded to the flange of I or H shaped columns A 000 ranklin Research Center AOmasonaf the Franseninesame
TER-C5257-320 Scale A (Cont. ) Referenced i Subsection 1 AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments Scale 2.9 2.8 Lateral bracing of members A 0.0 < M/Mp < l.0 to resist lateral and C 0.0 > M/Mp > -1.0 torsional displacement i l See case study 7 I for details. 1 s A d00 ranklin Research Center A Daemon of The Frennen insomme a' __ _ t r := r _ _ __ : __ __ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - -- - .- a_,. . ._,__1
4
- TER-C5257-320 i
1 11.2 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON T l l A Ohhbranklin Research Center A Chesion of The Fm %
TER-CS257-320 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 34 9-76 CDDE COMPARISON
$ (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly
- Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety)
Scale A Referenced Subsection ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 3 7.10.3 805 Columns designed for stress reversals Splices of the main with variation of stress from f y in reinforcement in compression to 1/2 fy in tension such columns must be reasonably limited to provide for adequate ductility under all loading conditions. 11.13 Short brackets and corbels which are As this provision primary load-carrying members is new, any existing corbels or brackets may not meet these criteria and failure of such elements could be non-ductile type failure. Structural integrity may be seriously endangered if the design fails to l fulfill these requirements. 11.15 -- Applies to any elements loaded in Structural integrity shear where it is inappropriate to may be seriously consider shear as a measure of endangered if the diagonal tension and the loading could design fails to ful-induce direct shear type cracks. fill these require-ments. _nklin Resea_rch._ _ . Center [ _ . .
TER-C5257-320 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON (Sunnary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety)
, Scale A (Cont.)
Referenced Subsection ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 11.16 -- All structural walls - those which Guidelines for these are primary load carrying, e.g., shear kinds of wall loads walls and those which serve to provide were not provided by protection from impacts of missile- older codes; there-type objects. fore, structural integrity may be seriously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these requirements. Appendix -- All elements subject to time-dependent For structures sub-A and position-dependent temperature ject to effects of variations and restrained so that pipe break, espe-thermal strains will result in thermal cially jet impinge-stresses. ment, thermal stresses may be sig-nificant (Scale A) . For structures not subject to effects of pipe break acci-dent, thermal stresses are unlikely to be significant (Scale B). (!N Franklin Research Center A C2mean of De Fruen meanne
TER-C5257-320 i MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON (Su:anary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly j Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A (Cont.) i Referenced Subsection ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments Appendix -- All steel embedments used to transmit New appendix; there-B loads from attachments into the rein- fore, considerable
', forced concrete structure, review of older designs is warranted.
Since stress analysis I associated with these conditions is highly dependent on defini-tion of failure planes and allowable stress for these special conditions, past practice varied with designers' opinions. Stresses may vary signifi-cantly from those thought to exist under previous design procedures. i 5 l ~~nklir,rch.
.<esea center 1-
..._ _ . - . . ...=__. _ . . _ . _ _ .. . . _ . _ __
TER-CS 257-320 i I 4 i i l 4 i 1 f 11.3 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975) COMPARISON i No Scale A or Axchanges were found in the ACI 301 comparison. f i
}
i i i 1 f i 5 t l I f N Franklin A ce= a.a n.Resea.rch
- r. an m Center ;
.- . .._... .. . ~ .. .. ,. _-. - -..- ,----- . .-._-,m.-.., - , . . . - . . -- , - - _ -
1 T.ER-CS257-320
?
~l .1 i 'i i I i i k i i 11.4 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON, SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 I, 9M
~~ . - -
' " '^ '
'"' " " ' ~ ' ~ ^ ~
______________.Il________~__
l TER-C5257-320 l MAJOR FINDINGS OF ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON, SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. 4 SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A Refere nced subsection Sec. III Sec. VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3112. 4 UG-23 Vessels of materials no Section III, 1980 Code longer listed as Code references materials acceptable identical to those referenced in Section VIII, 1962 Code. However, I several materials which were referenced in Section VIII, 1962 are no longer given in Section III, 1980. Verification of
. the allowable stress values and validation of the materials used are required.
UG-25(d) Vessels containing telltale The removal of this pro-holes vision from Section III, 1962 Code, bans the use of telltale holes, par-ticularly since the only non-destructive test methods are recommended in Section XI of the Code, Rules"Yor Inservice Inspe'ciiion. Moreover, a more recent version of Section VIII specifically excludes using telltale holes when using lethal substances. NE-3131 --- Containment shells designed Section VIII, 1962 Code by formula calls for the design of the vessel by formula, while Section III,1980 Code requires that the _nklin Rese_ arch._ . Center _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .. . . . - - _ - . _
TER-C5257-320 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON, SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety)
, Scale A (Cont.)
Referenced Subsection Sec. III Sec. VIII Structural Elements Comments 1980 1962 Potentially Affected NE-3131 rules of Subsection NE-3200 Cont. (Design by Analysis) be satisfied. In the absence of substantial thermal or mechanical loads other than pressure, the rules of
" Design by Formula" may be used (substantial loads are those loads which cumulatively result in
- stresses which exceed 10% of the primary stresses induced by the design pressure, such stresses being defined as maximum principal stresses). The Scale rating for a Containment Shell where substan-tial thermal or mechanical loads other than pressure are absent, is Scale B. Otherwise it is Scale A.
, NE-3133.5(a) UG-29 Stiffening rings for The requirements of the 1980 Code cylindrical shells for defining the minimum moment subject to external of inertia of the stiffening ring pressure as compared to the requirements of the 1962 Code may result in a lower margin of safety.
Scale Is' > 1.28 Is C Is' > 1*22 Is B Is' < 1*22 Is A nklin Research Center A Oswesen of The Frannen W
_.. _ _ _ --_.---- _ . . - - - - - - - - - -z- - - - . _ _mm - .. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . TER-C5257-320 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON, SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 l (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A (Cont. ) Referenced Subsection Sec. III Sec. VIII Structural Elements j 1980 1962 Potential ;r Affected Comments NE- UG-29 where Is is the minimum 3133. 5 (a) required moment of inertia Cont. of the stiffening ring about its neutral axis parallel to
. the axis of the shell. I' s is the moment of inertia of the combined ring-shell section about its neutral axis parallel to the axis of the shell. The width of shell which is taken as contributing to Is ' shall not be greater than1.1]D/T. o NE-3133.5(b) ---
Different materials used This new insert in Section fcr the shell and the III of the 1980 Code l stiffening rings requires using the material chart which gives the larger value of the factor A. This may result in a larger stiffening ring section needed to meet the requirements of the Code. Scale A for ring-stiffened shells where (1) the ring and the shell are of different materials and, in addition, (2) the " factor A" (as computed by the procedures of NE-3133.5) for the two materials differs by more than 6%; otherwise Scale B. Fig. Fig. Vessels with a reducer The effect of the change in 3324.11 UG-36(d) section with " reversed" the requirements of the code (a) (6)-1 curvature code on the margin of safety depends on the R L/t ratio nklin Research Center A Denman of The Franten kneense
TER-C5257-320 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON, SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE,1980 i i (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsg,j on
, Sec. III L c. VIII Structural Elements 2 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments Fig. Fig. Limitations Scale 3324.11 UG-36 (d)
(a) (6)-1 RL /t > 24 C (Cont.) Rr/t < 23 A where RL = radius of the large end of the reducer t = shell thickness NE-3327.1 -- Vessels with positive New requirements in the locking devices - 1980 Code Quick actuating closures NE-3327.4 -- Pressure indicating devices Safety-related provision for vessels having quick requires that the pressure actuating closures indicating device be visible from the
. operating area NE-3331(b) UG-36 Openings and reinforce- Requirements for fatigue ments analysis of vessels or Provisions for parts which are in cyclic fatigue analysis service are provided in Section III,1980 Code.
No specific guidance was given in Section VIII, 1962 Code. NE-3334.1 UG-40 (b) Reinforcement for openings New requirements in the NE-3334.2 UG-40(c) along and normal to vessel 1980 Code limit the rein-wall forcement measured along the midsurface of the nominal wall thickness and normal to the vessel wall nklin Research Center A Dmman of The Fransen insuue
TER-C5257-320 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON, SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 i t (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly j Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) 1 { Scale A (Cont.) , i Referenced Subsection Sec. III Sec. VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments
. i NE-3365(f) ---
Bellows expansion joints Provisions regarding the over 6 inches in diameter internal sleeve design (for sizes over 6-inch diameter) and flow velocity limitations (for all sizes) are introduced in the 1980 Code. NE-3365.2 -- Bellows New design requirements specified in the 1980 Code l 1 nklin Research Center
~ ~ - -
TER-C5257-320
- 12.
SUMMARY
i The table that follows provides a summary of the status of the findings from the Task III-7.B criteria comparison review of structural codes and loading requirements for Category I structures at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Station. The first and second columns of the table show the extent to which all Category I structures external to containment comply with current design l criteria codes. The first column applies to the concrete portion of these structures; the second column applies to the portions which are of steel frame construction. The third column applies to concrete structures with regard to original and current specifications for structural concrete. The fourth column applies only to the containment building, including its liner. The salient feature of this table is the limited number of code change impacts requiring a Scale A ranking. Consequently, resolution, at the structural level, of potential concerns with respect to changes in structural code requirements appears, at least for the Oyster Creek plant, to be an effort of tractable size. 1 l l I i A u00#ronaiin..,ch a cent , A Ohemen of The Frannan W
. o TER-C5257-320
SUMMARY
, NUMBER OF CODE CHANGE IMPACTS EVR OYSTER CREEK CATEGORY I STRUCTURES ACI 318.63 AISC 196'3 ACI 301-63 ASE BM CODES SCALE RANKING VS VS
. , 62 ACI 349-76 AISC1h80 ACI 301-72 VS. SECUM IU (Rev. 1975) Subsec. NE, 1980 TOTAL CHANGES FOUND 82 33 37 27 A or A Not E e ApplicaNie to o
1 OYSTER CREEK 2+4* 14 0 3* E U cc co a$* B 63 10 21 9 85,5 C 7 4 16 3 3
% A 6 5 0 12
%3 a fi #
oyy A X 0 0 0 0 smc SCALE RATINGS: Scale A Change - The new criteria have the potential to substantially impair margins of safety as perceived under the former criteria. Scale Ax Change - The impact of the code change on margins of safety is not immediately apparent. Scale A xcode changes require analytical studies of model structures to assess the potential magnitude of their effect upon margins of safety. Scale C Change - The new criteria will give rise to larcet margins of safety than were exhibited under the feawr criteria.
*These changes are related to specified loads and load combinations.
Loading criteria changes are separately considered elsewhere. nk!!n Research Center A Dhemen of The Franhan hoonme
, . , . ~ . , ,-. - ...-.
TER-CS 257-320
- 13. RECOMMENDATIONS Potential concerns with respect to the ability of Seismic Category I buildings and structures in SEP plants to conform to current structural
; criteria are raised by the review at the code comparison level. These must ultimately be resolved by examination of individual as-built structures.
It is recommended that Jersey Central Power and Light Company be requested to take three actions:
- 1. Review individually all Seismic Category I structures at the Oyster
, Creek plant to see if any of the structural elements listed in the following table occur in their designs. These are the structural elements for which a potential exists for margins of safety to be less than originally computed, due to criteria changes since plant design and construction. For structures which do incorporate these features, assess the actual impact of the associated code changes on margins of safety.
- 2. Reexamine the margins of safety of Seismic Category I structures
, under loads and load combinations which correspond to current cri teria. Only those load combinations assigned a Scale A or Scale A xrating in Section 10 of this report need be considered in this review. If the load combination includes individual loads which have themselves been ranked A orxA , indicating that they do not conform , to current criteria, update such loads.
Full reanalysis of these structures is not necessarily required. Simple hand computations or appropriate modifications of existing results can qualify as acceptable means of demonstrating structural adequacy.
- 3. Review Appendix A of this report to confirm that all items listed there have no impact on safety margins at the Oyster Creek plant.
i i I
-_ nklin arch Rese
_ Center l
+e-TER-C5257-320 LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS 'IO BE EXAMINED Structural Elements to be Code Change Af fecting These Elements Examined New Code Old Code Scale Compression Elements AISC 1980 AISC 1963 With width-to-thickness 1.9.1.2 and 1.9.1 A ratio higher than speci- Appendix C fled in 1.9.1.2 Tension Members AISC 1980 AISC 1963 When load is transmitted 1.14.2.2 -* A by bolts or rivets Connections AISC 1980 AISC 1963
- a. Beam ends.with top flange 1.5.1.2.2 --
A coped, if subject to shear
- o. Connections carrying moment 1.15.5.2 --
A or restrained member 1.15.5.3 connection 1.15.5.4 g mbers Designed to operate i.ISC 1980 AISC 1963 in an Ini,lastic Regime Spacing of lateral bracing 2.9 2.8 A Short Brackets and Corbels ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 having a shear span-to- 11.13 -- A depth ratio of unity or less Shear Walls used as ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 primary load-car rying 11.16 -- A members Precast Concrete Structural ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 Elements, where shear is not 11.15 -- A a measure of diagonal tension I
- Double dash (--) indicates that older code had no provisions.
I g 00bhranklin Research Center l 4%.eNr- %
e t TER-C5257-320 LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED (Cont.) Structural Elements to be Code Change Af fecting These Elements Examined New Code Old Code Scale Concrete Regions Subject to ACI 34 9-76 ACI 318-63 High Temperatures Time-dependent and Appendix A --- A position-dependent temperature variations Columns with Spliced ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 Reinforcement subject to stress reversals; 7.10.3 805 A f in compression to 1/y2f y in tension Steel Embedments used to ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 A transmit load to concrete Appendix B -- Containment Vessels
- 1. Containment vessels of ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A materials no longer listed NE-3112.4 UG-23 as code acceptable
- 2. Containment vessels ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A containing telltale holes ---
1962 UG-25(d)
- 3. Containment vessels ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A designed by formula and NE-3131 ---
subject to substantial lords
- 4. Stiffening rings for ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A cylindrical shells subject NE-3133. 5 (a) UG-29 to external pressure 4
- 5. Different materials used ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A for the shell and NE-3133. 5 (b) ---
stiffening rings
- 6. Vessels with reducer ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A section with " reversed" Fig. 3324.11 Fig. UG-36 (d) curvature when RL /t < 23 (a) (6)-1
- 7. Vessels with positive ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A locking devices - Quick NE-3 327.1 ---
actuating closures A O ranklin Research Center A Ommen of The Fransen kuumme
~.. - . -
TER-CS257-320 LIST OF SIRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED (Cont.) 1 Structural Elements to be Code Change Af fecting These Elements Examined ,New Code Old Code Scale
- 8. Pressure indicating devices ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A for vessels having quick NE-3327.4 ---
actuating closures Shell Openings and Attachments i 1. Openings and reinforcements ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A Provisions for fatigue NE-3331(b) UG-36 analysis
- 2. Reinforcement for openings ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A NE-3334.1 UG-40 (b)
NE-3334.2 UG-40 (c)
- 3. Bellows expansion joints, ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A over 6 inches in diameter NE-3365(f) ---
- 4. Bellows - New design ASME Sec. III, ASME Sec. VIII, A requirements NE-3365.2 ---
{lbd Frenidin Research Center am wmre w
,g ,_ , -w e * - "
.- - .. ~ -
I i TER-C5257-320
- 14. REFERENCES i
- 1. Standard Review Plan NRC, July 1981 NUREG-0800 (Formerly NUREG-75/087) , Rev.1
- 2. AISC Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., New York, NY 1963
- 3. " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI,1963 ACI 318-63 '
, 4. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII "Unfired Pressure Vessels" The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, 1962
- 5. Codes and Standards for Category I Structures, Attachment E Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station December 1979 Docket No. 50-219
- 6. Appendix I to Technical Evaluation Report, " Design Codes, DesiJn Criteria, and Loading Combinations" i
Contains List of Basic Documents Defining Current Licensing Criteria for SEP Topic III-7.B Franklin Research Center, 1981 TER-C525 7-327 _nklin Res,e_ arch._ Center
, o ;
)
, l I
APPENDIX A i I
; SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES X
DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE TO OYSTER CREEK PLANT I l i
. . . . Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Bengen Frasen Perm.ey. PNia , Pe 19103(21SI448 1000
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . - . _ ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _. .- -
TER-C5257-320 APPENDIX A-1 i AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 QDE COMPARISON (SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE TO OYSTER CREEK OR CODE CHANGES RELATED TO IDADS OR IDAD COMBINATIONS AND THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE) f 8 ) erMn Resea
.-~ rch. Center .
TER-C5257-320 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CCDE COMPARISON Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments i 1.5.1.1 1.5.1.1 Structural members under Structural tension, except for pin steel used in connected members Oyster Creek Cat. I structures is A-36. Thus, Fy < 0.83 Fu Therefore, Scale C for Oyster Creek.
! Limitations Scale Fy 10.833 Fu C 0.833 Fu < Fy < 0.875 Fu B Fy 1 0.875 Fu A 2.4 2.3 Slenderness ratio ist 1st for columns. Must satisfy:
Para. Para. 1 232E I< Fy Scale Scale C l Fv 140 kai C for Oyster Creek. 40 < Fy < 44 ksi B See case study 4 Fy 144 ksi A for details. 2.7 2.6 Flanges of rolled W, M, Scale C or S shapes and similar for Oyster Creek. built-up single-web shapes See case study suoject to compression 6 for details. Scale ' Fy 136 ksi C 36 < Fy < 38 ksi B Fy 138 ksi A nWin Research Center
~ ~ - . - .
f .._ __ .._ . . . _ .
a o TER-C5257-320 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.5.1.4.1 1.5.1.4.1 Box-shaped me'mbers (subject to bending) Box-shaped mem-S ubpara. of rectangular cross section whose bers not found 6 depth is not more than 6 times its to be used in width and whose flange Oyster Creek Cat. thickness is not more than I structures; 2 times the web thickness therefore, not applicable New requirement in the 1980 Ccde 1.5.1.4.1 1.5.1.4.1 Hollow circular sections Hollow circular Subpara. subject to bending sections not 7 found to be used New requirement in the 1980 Code in Oyster Creek Cat. I struc-tures; therefore, not applicable 1.5.1.4.4 -- Lateral support requirements Box section for box sections whose depth members not is larger dian 6 times their found to be used width in Oyster Creek Cat. I structures; New raquirement in the 1980 Code therefore; not applicable 1.5.2.2 1.7 Rivets, bolts, and threaded Cat. I struc-parts subject to 20,000 tures are not cycles or more subject to such cyclic loading; therefore, not applicable l 1.7 1.7 Members and connections Cat. I struc-I and subject to 20,000 cycles tures are not Appendix or more subject to such B cyclic loading; j therefore, not l 1 applicable nklin Research Center
~ ~ - . - .
, -e n n s w r
TER-CS257-320 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.9.2.3 -- Circular tubular elements New requirements i and subject to axial compression added to the Appendix 1980 Code C Circular tubular elements are not found to be used in Oyster Creek Cat. I struc-tures; there-fore, not appli-cable 1.10.6 1.10.6 Hybrid girder - reduction Structural in flange stress material used is A-36 steel. , No hybrid girder found in
. the reactor building; therefore, not applicable 1.11.4 1.11.4 Shear connectors in composite beams Shear connectors are not found to be used in the reactor building; therefore, not applicable 1.11.5 --
Composite beams or girders Composite beams with formed steel deck or girders with formed steel decks are not found to be l used in the reactor building; therefore, not applicable 1.13.3 - Roof surface not provided with sufficient slope towards points of free drainage or A-1.4 nklin Research Center
~ ~ - . - .
~
TER-C5257-320 4 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 (DDE COMPARISON i Referenced Subsection
, AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 M3 Potentially Affected Comments ,
1.13.3 adequate individual drains to (Cont.) prevent the accumulation
- of rain water (ponding)
Appendix -- Web tapered members New requirement D added in the
, 1980 Code Web tapered i c abers are not found to be used in Oyster Creek Cat. I struc-tures; therefore, not applicable
_idin, _Resear_ch_
. _ Center
TER-C5257-320 A I I i APPENDIX A-2 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON i (SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE TO OYSTER CREEK OR CODE CHANGES RELATED 'IO IDADS OR IDAD COMBINATIONS AND THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE) t s 4 I O O WW SO$W
~ ~ --.-.
_ , . < , , , , - ,~ .., . .
l TER-C5257-320 l ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 34 9-76 CODE COMPARISON ' Referenced
- Section
- ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments Chapter 9 Chapter 15 All primary load-carrying members 9.1, 9.2c or elements of the structural
& 9.3 system are potentially affected.
most specifi- Definition of new loads not normally cally used in design of traditional build-ings and redefinition of load factors and capacity reduction factors have altered the traditional analysis requirements.* 10.1 -- All primary load-carrying members and 10.10 Design loads here refer to Chapter 9 load combinations.* 11.1 -- All primary load-carrying memoers Design loads here refer to Chapter 9 load combinations.* 18.1.4 Prestressed concrete elements No prestressed and elements outside 18.4.2 New loadings here refer to primary contain-Chapter 9 load combinations.* ment; therefore, not applicable. Chapter -- Shell structures with thickness No shell struc-19 equal to or greater than 12 in ture except primary This chapter is completely new; containment; therefore, shell structures designed there fore, by the general criteria of older not applicable. codes may not satisfy all aspects of this chapter. This chapter also refers to Chapter 9 load provisions.*
*Special treatment of loads and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.
p< A-2.2 N nklin Research Center A Dhauen af The Frenwen beenwee
~ . . . .
._ -_______-____--- -.~-__.___-_-
o - TER-C3257-320 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 34 9-76 CODE COMPAR'. SON Referenced Section i ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 1?otentially Affected Comments Appendix -- All elements whose failure under C impulsive and impactive loads must be precluded New appendix; therefore, consideration and review of older designs is consid-ered important. Since stress , analysis associated with these condi-tions is highly dependent on defi-nition of failure planes and allow-able stress for these special condi-tions, past practice varied with designers' opinions. Stresses may vary significantly from those i thought to exist under previous design procedure s.
- i i
A A-2.3 uCD U ,.nxiin a .,ch ceni., A Ommen of The hwuen m
.~ _ _. . . - . _ _ . . . -- _ _- -
e . TER-C5257-320 4 i APPENDIX A-3 ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975) No Scale A or AX changes were found in the ACI 301 comparison. i i t l l 1 l [ l-t l A-3.1 t l ON Frankhn Research Center l A on=== w the r= m
- , , --4
TER-C5257-320 r l-APPENDIX A-4 ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII,1962, VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 (SCALE A AND SCALE A, CHANGES DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE TO OYSTER CREEK OR Q DE CHANGES RELATED TO T. DAD COMBINATIONS AND THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE) f P I l i h I
. - ~ . - .
- - . -. .~ .
TER-C5257-320 ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON i SECTION VIII, 1962, VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 i Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements
, 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3111 UG-22 Loading as applied to Section III, 1980 Code, load-carrying compo- specifies new loads to be nents* considered in designing the vessel. These are o dynamic head of liquids o snow loads and vibration loads o reaction to steam and water jet impingement NE-3112.2 -
Design temperature as The effect of heating the applied to the vessel vessel by external or and its components
- internal heat generation is to be considered in establishing the vessel design temperature NE-3112.3 --
Design mechanical loads In codputations involving as applied to the design pressure and design vessel and its compo- temperature, the values of nents* dead loads and any hydro-static loads coincident with design pressure (designated as design mechanical loads) should be used l
*Special treatment of load and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.
l A-4.2 l i u000 er.nxiin ae,..rch center 4 % .a w rr an m _ _ . = . . - _ . _ _ . . - . _ _
I, APPENDIX B SUMMARIES OF CODE COMPARISON FINDINGS
?
e
. .0. Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Bengtrun Frankan Perm sy. Phda.. Pa. 19103 (215)448 1000
o . APPENDIX B-1 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON O B-1.1 0000 Frank!!n Research Center A % v w r,-ea m
. . k AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Af fected Comments 1.5.1.1 1.5.1.1 Structural members under Limitations Scale tension, except for pin connected members Fy < 0.833 Fu C 0.833 Fu < Fy < 0.875 Fu B Fy 2,0.875 Fu A 1.5.1.2.2 -- Beam end connection See case study 1 where the top flange for details. is coped and subject to shear, failure by shear along a plane. through fasteners, or shear and tension along and perpendicular to a plane through fasteners 1.5.1.4.1 1.5.1.4.1 Box-shaped members (subject New requirement in the Subpara. to bending) of rectangular 1980 Code 6 cross section whose depth is not more than 6 times their width and whose flange thickness is not more than
, 2 times the web thickness 1.5.1.4.1 1.5.1.4.1 Hollow circular sections New requirement in the Subpara. subject to bending 1980 Code 7
1.5.1.4.4 -- Lateral support requirements New requirement in the for box sections whose depth 1980 Code is larger than 6 times their width 1.5.2.2 1.7 Rivets, bolts, and Change in the require-threaded parts subject to ments 20,000 cycles or more ! Idin Research Center
~ ~ . - -
l
~ -
-~- -- . . . . ~ 1
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) ! Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.7 1.7 Members and connections Change in the require-and subject to 20,000 cycles ments Appendix or more B 1.9.1.2 1.9.1 Slender compression unstiff- New provisions added in and ened elements subject to axial the 1980 Code, Appendix C. Appendix compression or compression See case study 10 for C due to bending when actual details. width-to-thickness ratio exceeds the values specified in subsection 1.9.1.2 1.9.2.3 -- Circular tubular elements New requirements added and subject to axial compression in the 1980 Code Appendix C 1.10.6 1.10.o Hybrid girder - reduction New requirement added in flange stress in the 1980 Code. Hybrid girders were not covered in the 1963 Code. See case study 9 for details. 1.11.4 1.11.4 Shear connectors in New requirements added composite beams in the 1980 Code regard-ing the distribution of shear connectors (egn. 1.11-7). The diameter - and spacing of the shear connectors are also introduced. 1.11.5 - Composite beams or girders New requirements added with formed steel deck in the 1980 Code 1.15.5.2 - Restrained members when New requirement added 1.15.5.3 flange or moment connection in the 1980 Code 1.15.5.4 plates for end connections of beams and girders are welded to the flange of I or H shaped columns fy B-1.3 b0 Franklin Research Center 4cm .e w r n w
. . . . . . . - . . ~ . . . . . - - - . - - . . . -. -:---- - . - - - -- -..w-2.
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.13.3 -- Roof surface not provided with sufficient slope towards points of free drain-age or adequate individual drains to prevent the accumulation of rain water (ponding) 1.14.2.2 -- Axially loaded tension New requirement added members where the load is in the 1980 Code transmitted by bolts or rivets through some but not all of the cross-sectional elements of the members 2.4 2.3 Slenderness ratio See case study 4 Scale 1st 1st for columns must satisfy for details. Para. Para. 1 C
< 2 w2E F{
4 <
<F40 <ksi 44 ksi B r Fy Fy 2.4 ksi A 2.7 2.6 Flanges of rolled W, M, See case study 6 Scale or S shapes and similar for details.
built-up single-web shapes subject to compression Fy S.36 ksi C 36 < Fy < 38 ksi B Fy 2.38 ksi A 2.9 2.8 Lateral bracing of members See case study 7 to resist lateral and for details. torsional displacement Appendix -- Web t.apered members New requirements added D in the 1980 Code B-1.4 000d Franklin a cm .s n. rr Research C. enter
- t. u. -
AISC 1963 VS. A1SC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments i 1.9.2.2 1.9.2 Flanges of square and The 1980 Code limit on rectangular box sections width-to-thickness ratio of uniform thickness, of of flanges is slightly
; stiffened elements, when more stringent than that subject to axial compres- of the 1963 Code.
sion or to uniform compres-sion due to bending l.10.1 -- Hybrid girders Hybrid girders were not I covered in the 1963 i Code. Application of the new requirement could not be much different from other
. rational method. ! 1.11.4 1.11.4 Flat soffit concrete slabs, Lightweight concrete is using rotary kiln produced not permitted in nuclear aggregates conforming to plants as structural ASTM C330 members (Ref. ACI-349) .
1.13.2 -- Beams and girders supporting Lightweight construction large floor areas free of not applicable to partition.1 or other source nuclear structures which of damping, where transient are designed for greater vibration due to pedestrian loads traffic might not be acceptable 1.14.6.1.3 -- Flare type groove welds when i flush to the surface of the solid section of the bar i 1.16.4.2 1.16.4 Fasteners, minimum spacing, requirements between fasteners 1.16.5 1.16.5 Structural joints, edge distances of holes for bolts and rivets ranklin Resear ch Center 4 cm a w w r, .%
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.15.5.5 -- Connections having high New insert in the 1980 shear in the column web Code 2.3.1 -- Graced and unbraced multi- Instability effect on 1 2.3.2 story frame - instability short buildings will
, effect have negligible effect.
l 2.4 2.3 Members subject to combined Procedure used in the axial and bending moments 1963 Code for the interaction analysis is replaced by a different l procedure. See case study 8 for details. I nklin Research Center A Onamen af The Fransen % ___~.._
AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale C Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.3.3 1.3.3 Support girders and their connections - pendar.t operated traveling cranes
. The 1963 Code requires 25% , The 1963 Code require-increase in live loads to ment is more stringent, allow for impact as applied and, therefore, to traveling cranes, while conservative.
the 1980 Code requires 10% increase. 1.5.1.5.3 1.5.2.2 Bolts and rivets - projected area - in shear connections Fp = 1.5 Fu (1980 Code) Results using 1963 Code Fp = 1.35 Fy (1963 Code) are conservative. , 1.10.5.3 1.10.5.3 Stiffeners in girders - New design concept added spacing between stiffeners in .'980 Code giving at end panels, at panels less stringent require-containing large holes, and ments. See case study 5 at panels adjacent to panels for details. containing large holes 1.11.4 1.11.4 Continuous composite beams, New requirement added where longitudinal reinforc- in the 1980 Code ing steel is considered to act compositely with the steel beam in the negative moment regions . Anwin ae e rch center A DMmen of The Frauen kwamme
\ l l APPENDIX B-2 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON 1 l l O B-2.1 0000 Franklin Research Center s w a m em m
o . ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 7.10.3 805 Columns designed for Splices of the main rein-stress reversals with forcement in such columns variation of stress from must be reasonably limited fy in compression to to provide for adequate 1/2 fy in tension ductility under all loading conditions. Chapter 9 Chapter 15 All primary load-carrying Definition of new loads 9.1, 5.2, r, members or elements of the not normally used in 9.3 most structural system are design of traditional specifically potentially affected buildings and redefini-tion of load factors and capacity reduction factors has altered the traditional analysis requiraments.* 10.1 - All primary load-carrying Design loads here refer and members to Chapter 9 load 10.10 combinations.* 11.1 -- All primary load-carrying Design loads here refer members to Chapter 9 load combinations.* _ 11.13 - Short brackets and corbels As this provision which are primary load- is new, any existing carrying members corbels or brackets may not meet these criteria , and failure of such elements could be non-ductile type failure. Structural integrity
*Special treatment of load and loading combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.
A B-2.2 rank!!n Research Center - A Onemen of The Frecean bueue
..--...-.:.~ :--.i..... .~...--.
O O ACI 318-63 vs. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affecte_d Comments 11.13 may be seriously (Cont.) endangered if the design fails to fulfill these requirements. 11.15 - Applies to any elements Structural integrity loaded in shear where it is may be seriously inappropriate to consider endangered if the design shear as a measure of fails to fulfill these diagonal tension and the requirements. loading could induce direct shear-type cracks 11.16 - All structural walls - Guidelines for these those which are primary kinds of wall loads were load carrying, e.g., shear not provided by older - walls and those which codes; therefore, struc-serve to provide protec- tural integrity may be tion from impacts of seriously endangered if missile-type objects the design fails to fulfill these require-ments. 18.1.4 - Prestressed concrete New load combinations and elements here refer to Chapter 9 18.4.2 load combinations.* Chapter 19 -- Shell structures with This chapter is com-thickness equal to or pletely new; therefore, greater than 12 inches shell structures designed by the general criteria of older codes may not satisfy all aspects of this chapter.
*Special treatment of loads and loading combinations is addressed in other secticns of the report.
i i fy B-2.3 000ll er.naun ae-arch cent , A Denauen af The benaan insamme
\ ~ _
o e i t ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON
. Scale A (Cont.)
Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments Chapter 19 Additionally, this (Cont.) chapter refers to
. Chapter 9 provisions.
Appendix A -- All elements subject to New appendix; older Code
, time-dependent and did not give specific position-dependent guidelines on temperature temperature variations and limits for concrete. The which are restrained such possible effects of that thermal strains will strength loss in concrete result in thermal stresses at high temperatures should be assessed.
Appendix B -- All steel embeaments used New appendix; therefore, to transmit loads from considerable review of attachments into the older designs is reinforced concrete warranted.** structures Appendix C -- All elements whose New appendix; therefore, failure under considerations and impulsive and impactive review of older designs loads must be precluded is considered important.** 1
**Since stress analysis associated with th,ese conditions is highly dependent on t definition of failure planes and allowable stress for these special conditions, past practice varied with designers' opinions. Stresses may vary significantly from those thought to exist under previous design procedures.
I nkhn Research Center
~ ~ - - .
I l i ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B 1 Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements - 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 1.3.2 103(b) Ambient temperature control Tighter control to for concrete inspection - ensure adequate control upper limit reduced 5' of curing environment (f rom 100*F to 95'F) for cast-in-place applies to all structural concrete, concrete 1.5 -- Requirement of a " Quality Previous codes required Assurance Program" is new. inspection but not the Applies to all structural establishment of a concrete quality assurance program. Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Any elements containing Use of lightweight con-steel with fy > 60,000 crete in a nuclear plant psi or lightweight not likely. Elements concrete containing steel with fy > 60,000 psi may have inadequate ductility or excessive deflections at service loads. 3.2 402 Cement This serves to clarify intent of previous code. 3.3 403 Aggregate Eliminated reference to lightweight aggregate. 3.3.1 403 Any structural concrete Controls of ASW C637, ; covered by ACI 349-76 and " Standard Specifications expected to provide for for Aggregates for radiation shielding in Radiation Shielding addition to structural Concrete," closely capacity parallel those for ASTM C33, " Standard Specifi-cation for Concre*a Aggregates." g B-2.5 UUUU Franidin
* %.a w n. r. Resea.rch m Center
e . l l ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 3.3.3 403 Aggregate To ensure adequate Control. 3.4.2 404 Water for concrete Improve quality control measures. 3.5 405 Metal reinforcement Removed all reference to steel with fy > 60,000 psi. 3.6 406, 407 Concrete admixtures Added requirements to
& 408 improve quality control.
4.1 and 501 & 502 Concrete proportioning Proportioning logic 4.2 improved to account for statistical variation and statistical quality Control. 4.3 504 Evaluation and acceptance Added provision to of concrete allow for design specified strength at age > 28 days to be used. Not considered to be a problem, since large cross sections will allow concrete in place to continue to hydrate. 5.7 607 Curing of very large Attention to this is concrete elements and required because of the control of hydration thicker elements en-temperature countered in nuclear-related structures. 6.3.3 - All structural elements Previous codes did not with embedded piping address the problem of containing high tempera- long periods of exposure ture materials in excess to high temperature and B-2.6 ULO Franklin.m Resear.ch Center A%wmn
. -_. _ . _ . _ _ - . _ . __. . . . _ , ._ j l
l l l ? l 1 , 1 ACI 318-63 vs. ACI 349-76 SIMMARY OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) - Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 6.3.3 of 150*F, or 200*F in did not provide for (Cont.) localized areas not reduction in design insulated from the allowables to account for , concrete strength reduction at high (>150*F) temperatures.
! 7.5, 7.6, 805 Members with spliced Sections on splicing
& 7.8 reinforcing steel and tie requirements amplified to better l
control strength at i splice locations and provide ductility. 7.9 805 Members containing New sections to define deformed wire fabric requirements for this , new material. ! 7.10 & - Connection of primary To ensure adequate 7.11 load-carrying members and ductility. at splices in column steel 7.12.3 - Lateral ties in columns To provide for adequate 7.12.4 ductility. 7.13.1 -- Reinforcement in exposed New requirements to through concrete conform with the 7.13.3 expected large thick-nesses in nuclear related structures. 8.6 -- Continuous nonprestressed Allowance for redistri-flexural members. bution of negative moments has been redefined as a function l of the steel percentage. J 9.5.1.1- - Reinforced concrete members Allows for more subject to bending - stringent controls on deflection limits deflection in special Cases. G e ranklin Research Center A Onamma of The Feuen m
. _. _ . _ . . ~ . . - . . _
= .
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 9.4 1505 Reinforcing steel - design See comments in strength limitation Chapter 3 summary. 9.5.1.2 - Slab and beams - minimum Minimum thickness
, through thickness requirements generally would not i 9.5.1.4 control this type of structure.
9.5.2.4 909 Beams and one-way Affects serviceability, . slabs not strength. 9.5.3 -- Nonprestressed two- Immediate and long time way construction deflections generally not critical in structures designed for very large live loadings; however, design by ultimate requires more attention to deflection controls. 9.5.4 & - Prestressed concrete Control of camber, both 9.5.5 members initial and long time in addition to service load deflection, requires more attention for designs by ultimate strength. 10.2.7 - Flexural members - new Lower limit on B of limit on B factor 0.65 would correspond to an f'c of 8,000 psi. No concrete of this strength likely to be found in a nuclear structure. 10.3.6 - Compression members, with Limits on axial design i spiral reinforcement or load for these members tied reinforcement, non- given in terms of design prestressed and pre- equations. stressed See case study 2 _nklin_Resea_rch_ _ . Center
. O \
l ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale _B_ (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 10.6.1 1508 Beams and one-way slabs Changes in distribution 10.6.2 of reinforcement for 10.6.3 crack control. 10.6.4 10.6.5 -- Beams New insert 10.11.1 915 Compression members, For slender columns, 10.11.2 916 slenderness effects moment magnification 10.11.3 concept replaces the so-10.11.4 called strength reduc-10.11.5 tion concept but for the 10.11.5.1 limits stated in ACI 318-63 10.11.5.2 both methods yield equal 10.11.6 accuracy and both are 10.11.7 acceptable methods. 10.12 10.15 .1 1404-1406 Composite compression New items - no way to 10.15.2 members compare; ACI 318-63 con-10.15 .3 tained only working stress 10.15 .4 method of design for these 10.15 .5 members.
- 10. 15 .6 10.17 --
Massive concrete members, New item - no comparison. more than 48 in thick j B.2-9 000 ranidin Research Center
~~~
o = ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 > SIMMARY OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments , 11.2.1 -- Concrete flexural members For nonprestressed ! 11.2.2 members, concept of minimum area of shear reinforcement is new. For prestressed membert, Eqn. 11-2 is the same as in ACI 318-63. f RequireRent of minimum l shear reinforcement l provides for ductility and restrains inclined crack growth in the event of l f unexpected loading. 11.7 -- Nonprestressed members Detailed provisions for j through this load combination, 11.8.6 were not part of ACI 318-63. These new sections provide a conservative logic which requires that the steel i needed for torsion be j added to that required for i transverse shear, which is l consistent with the logic I of ACI 318-63. This is not considered to 'l be critical, as ACI 318-63 required the designer to consider torsional ! stresses; assuming that some rational method was used to account for torsion, no problem is expected to arise. nklin Research Center
~ ~ - . - .
~ . . . . ..-
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON i Scale B (Cont. ) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 11.9 -- Deep beams Special provisions for through shear stresses in deep 11.9.6 beams is new. The minimum steel requirements are similar to the ACI 318-63 requirements of using the wall steel limits. Deep beams designed under previous ACI 318-63 criterion were reinforced as walls at the minimum and therefore no unreinforced section would have resulted. 11.10 -- Slabs and footings New provision for shear through reinforcement in slabs 11.10.7 or footings for the two-way action condition and new controls where shear head reinforcement is used. Logic consistent with ACI 318-63 for these conditions and change is not considered major. nklin Resear
~ ~-.ch. Center
4 . ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 11.11.1 1707 Slabs and footings The change which deletes the old requirement that steel be considered as only 50% effective and allows concrete to carry i 1/2 the allowable for l
. two-way action is new.
Also deleted was the i requirement that shear reinforcement not be considered effective in slabs less than 10 in thick. Change is based on recent research which indicates that such reinforcement works even in thin slabs. {. 11.11.2 -- Slabs Details for the design through of shearhead is new. ACI i 11.11.2.5 318-63 had no provisions for shearhead design. The requirements in this section for slabs and footings are not likely to l have been used in older - plant designs. If such devices were used, it is assumed a rational design method was used. 11.12 -- Openings in slabs and Modification for inclusion footings of shearhead design. See above conclusion. nklin Research Center . A Chienen of N Fransen %
, o ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Af fected Comments 11.13.1 -- Columns No problem anticipated 11.13.2 since previous code required design consideration by some analysis. Chapter 12 -- Reinforcement Development length con-cept replaces bond stress concept in ACI 318-63. The various ld lengths in this chapter are based entirely on ACI 318-63 permissible bond stresses. There is essentially no difference in the final design results in a design under the new code compared to ACI 318-63. 12.1.6 918(C) Reinforcement Modified with minimum through added to ACI 318-63, 12.1.6.3 918(C). 12.2.2 -- Reinforcement New insert in ACI 349-76. 12.2.3 12.4 -- Reinforcement of New insert. special members Gives emphasis to special member consideration. 12.8.1 -- Standard hooks Based on ACI 318-63 bond 12.8.2 stress allowables in general; therefore, no major change. 1 B-2.13 P-. , 1 0000 FranWin Renan:h Center A t>=ea ar m r nn %.
- ~
o . t 3 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale 8 (Cont. ) Referenced Section { ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 12.10.1 - Wire fabric New insert. 12.10. 2 (b) Use of such reinforce-ment not likely in 4 Category I structures j for nuclear plants. i
! 12.11.2 - Wire fabric New insert.
Mainly applies to pre-
'l cast prestressed members.
1
,i 12.13.1.4 -
Wire f abric New insert. Use of this material for stirrups not likely j in heavy members of a
! nuclear plant.
t l 13.5 -- Slab reinforcement New details on slab [ reinforcement intended to produce better crack
, control and maintain i ductility, i Past practice was not inconsistent with this in general. ! 14.2 -
Walls with loads in Change of the order of the Kern area of the the empirical equation thickness (14-1) makes the solution compatible with
; Chapter 10 for walls
{ with loads in the Kern j area of the thickness. f i 4 l i D-2.14 l O Udbranklin,nesearch 4%. R
. r- - Center
* -o l
ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) i Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 15.5 -- Footings - shear and Changes here are in-development of rein- tended to be compatible forcement with change in concept of checking bar devel-opment instead of nominal bond stress con-
, , sistent with Chapter 12.
15.9 -- Minimum thickness of plain Reference to minimum footing on piles thickness of plain foot-ing on piles which was in ACI 318-63 was removed entirely. 16.2' -- Design considerations for New but consistent with a structure behaving the intent of previous monolithically or not, code. as well as for joints and bearings. 17.5.3 2505 Borizontal shear stress Use of Nominal Average in any segment Shear Stress equation (17-1) replaces the theoretical elastic equation (25-1) of ACI 318-63. It provides for easier computation for the designer. 18.4.1 -- Concrete immediately after Change allows more prestress transfer tension, thus is less con-servative but not considered a problem. ranklin Research Center
~~~
o . ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 18.5 2606 Tendons (steel) Augmented to include yield and ultimate in i the jacking force requirement. 18.7.1 - Bonded and unconded members Eqn. 18-4 is based on more recent test i data. j 18.9.1 - Two-way flat plates Intended primarily for
< 18.9.2 (solid slabs) control of cracking.
18.9.3 having minimum bonded l reinforcement 18.11.3 - Bonded reinforcement at New to allow for
! 18.11.4 supports consideration of the j redistribution of
. I negative moments in the design.
, 18.13 -
Prestressed compression New to emphasize 18.14 members under combined details particular to 18.15 axial load and bending. prestressed members not 18.16.1 Unbonded tendons. previously addressed in
- Post tensioning ducts. the codes in detail.
i Grout for bonded tendons. t 18.16.2 - Proportions of grouting Expanded definition of
. materials how grout properties may l be determined.
18.16.4 - Grouting temperature Expanded definition of temperature controls
, when grouting.
1 i B-2.16 0 ranklin Research Center
~~~
, .._, _s . . . . , . . . . _ _ . . . . . _ . _ . .
e e i l ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 l
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON
?
Scale C
.f i
Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 7.13.4 - Reinforcement in flexural slabs 10.8.1 912 Compression members, Minimum size limitations 10.8.2 limiting dimensions are deleted in newer Code, 10.8.3 giving the designer more freedom in cross sectional dimensioning. 10.14 2306 Bearing - sections ACI 318-63 is more controlled by design conservative, allowing a bearing stresses stress of
=
1.9 (0. 25 f 'c) 0.475 f'c < 0.6 f'c 11.2.5 1706 Reinforcement concrete mem- Allowance of spirals as bers without prestressing shear reinforcement is new. Requirement, where shear stressexceeds64/f'e, of 2 lines of web reinforement was removed. 13.0 - Two-way slabs with Slabs designed by the to end multiple square or rec- previous criteria of ACI tangular panels 318-63 are generally the same or more conservative. 13.4.1.5 -- Equivalent column flexi- Previous code did not bility stiffness and consider the effect of attached torsional members stiffness of members normal to the plane of the equivalent frame. 17.5.4 - Permissible horizontal Nominal increase in 17.5.5 shear stress for any allowable shear stress surface, ties provided under new code. or not provided B.2-17 nklin Research Center A Chiesan of The Frenner.ineseuse
, . _ . , n. . . - , , -,
# %- e es k
s i i 6 APPENDIX B-3 ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975 )
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON t i e B-3.1 nklin Research Center A Dwom of N Franean ensaawe
- e ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B i Referenced
, Section ACI ACI Structural Elements
. 301-72 301-63 Potentially Af fected Comments
; 3.8.2.1 309b Lower strength concrete ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) bases l 3.8.2.3 can De proportioned when proportioning of concrete t " working stress concrete" mixes on the specified is used strength plus a value determined from the standard
; deviation of test cylinder j strength results. ACI 301-63 bases proportioning for 1
" working stress concrete" on i the specified strength plus
. 15 percent with no mention of 3
standard deviation. High standard deviations in
, cylinder test results could
., require nore than 15 percent under ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) 3.8.2.2 309d Mix proportions could ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) 3.8.2.3 give lower strength requires more strength tests concrete than ACI 301-63 for evalua-tion of strength and bases
, the strength to be achieved on the standard deviation of strength test results. ! 17.3.2.3 1704d Lower strength concrete ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) l could have been used requires core samples to have an average strength at least 85 percent of the specified strength with no single j result less than 75 percent of the specified strengtn.
ACI 301-63 simply requires
" strength adequate for the intended purpose." If
" adequate for the intended purpose" is less than 85 percent of the specified strength, lower strength concrete could be used.
nk!!n Research Center A Ohemen of The Fransen twemme
~ ~ ~ * * ~ "
__~ '_L________:_: r ~ L _: _= '
4 . ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.)
! Referenced I Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments i
17.2 1702a Lower strength concrete ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) 1703a could have been used specifies that that no individual strength test result shall fall below the specified strength by more than 500 psi. ACI 301-63 specifies that either 20 percent (1702a) or 10 percent (1703a) of the strength tests can be below the specified streng th. Just how far below is not noted. 15.2.6.1 1502bl Weaker tendon bond ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) i possible requires fine aggregate in grout when sheath is more
. than four times the tendon area. ACI 301-63 requires ; fine sand addition at five times the tendon area.
15.2.2.1 1502el Prestressing may not be ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) gives 15.2.2.2 as good considerably more detail for i 15.2.2.3 bonded and unbonded tendon anchorages and couplings. ACI 301-63 does not seem to address unbonded tendons.
; 8.4.3 804b Cure of concrete may not ACI-301-72 (Rev.1975) be as good provides for better control i of placing temperature. This will give better initial cure.
8.2.2.4 802b4 Concrete may be more ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) nonuniform when placed provides for a maximum slump loss. This gives better control of the character-l istics of the placed concrete. B-3.3 l A i ranMin Reea j 4m n.n m.h Center '
l 0 . l ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON I Scale B (Cont.) l Referenced i Section ACI ACI Structural Elements t 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 8.3.2 803b Weaker columns and walls ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975)
- possible provides for a longer setting time for concrete in columns and walls before placing concrete in supported elements.
5.5.2 -- Poor bonding of reinforce- ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975)
- ment to concrete poasible provides for cleaning of reinforcement. ACI 301-63 has no corresponding section.
5.2.5.3 -- Reinforcement may not be ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) as good provides for use of welded deformed steel wire fabric for reinforcement. ACI 301-63 has no corresponding section. 5.i.5.1 503a Reinforcement may not be ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) 5.2.5.2 as good when welded steel provides a maximum spacing of wire fabric is used 12 in for welded intersec-tion in the direction of principal reinforcement. 5.2.1 -- Reinforcement may not have ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) has reserve strength and more stringent yield ductility requirements. 4.6.3 406c Floors may crack ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) provides for placement of reshores directly under shores above, while ACI 301-63 states that reshores shall be placed "in
, approximately the same pattern."
i 9 _n__N b
._kn ef Y
l ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975) l SLNMARY OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont).
; Referenced Section , ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 4.6.2 -- Concrete may sag or be ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) lower in strength provides for reshoring no later than the end of the working day when stripping occurs.
4.6.4 -- Concrete may sag or be ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) I lower in strength provides for load distribu-e tion by reshoring in l multistory buildings. i e 4.2.13 -- Low strength possible if ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) i reinforcing steel is requires that equipment i distorted runways not rest on reinforc-ing steel. 3.8.5 -- Possible to have lower ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) places .! strength floors tighter control on the concrete for floors. 3.7.2 -- Babedments may corrode and ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) 3.4.4 lower concrete strength requires that it be demonstrated that mix water does not contain a deleterious amount of
, chloride ion.
3.4.2 -- Possible lower strength ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) places 3.4.3 tighter control on water-cement ratios for watertight t structures and st c uctures exposed to chemically aggressive solutions. 1.2 -- Possible damage to green ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) or underage concrete provides for limits on resulting in lower loading of emplaced concrete. strength t k A Onnman af The Fransen kunnae
ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON
- Scale C Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 3.5 305 Better strength resulting ACI 301-63 gives a minimum from better placement and slump requirement.
consolidation ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) omits minimum slump which ' could lead to difficulty in placement and/or consolida-tion of very low slump concrete. A tolerance of 1 ' in above maximum slump is allowed provided the average slump does not exceed maximum. Generally the placed concrete could be less uniform and of lower strength. 3.6 306b Better strength resulting ACI 301-63 provides for use from better placement and of single mix design with consolidation maximum nominal aggregate size suited to the most critical condition of concreting. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) allows waiver of size requirement if the architect-engineer believes the concrete can be placed and consolidated. 3.8.2.1 309b Higher strength from ACI 301-63 bases propor-better proportioning tioning for " ultimate strength" concrete on the specified strength plus 25%. ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) bases proportioning on the specified strength plus a value determined from the standard deviation of test I cylinder strengths. The requirement to exceed the specified strength by 25% gives higher strengths than the standard deviation method.
ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON j Scale C (Cont.)
+'
Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 4.4.2.2 404c Better bond to reinforce- ACI 301-63 provides that form ment gives better strength coating be applied prior to
, placing reinforcing steel.
ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) omits this requirement. If form coating contacts the rein-
+ forcement, no bond will develop.
j 4.5.5 405b Better strength and less ACI 301-63 provides for chance of cracking or keeping forms in place until sagging the 28-day strength is attained. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) provides for removal of forms when specified removal strength is reached. 4.6.2 406b Better strength and less Same as above but applied to chance of cracking or reshoring.
; sagging 4.7.1 407a Better strength by curing ACI 301-63 provides for longer in forms cylinder field cure under most unfavorable conditions prevailing for any part of structure. ACI 301-72 (Rev.
1975) provides only that the cylinders be cured along with
. the concrete they represent.
Cure of cylinders could give higher strength than the in-place concrete and forms could be removed too soon. e nklin Research Center A Cheen of The Fransen m
ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975) SQiMARY OF CODE COMPARISON Scale C (Cont.) Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 5.2.2.1 -- Better strength, less ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) has 5.2.2.2 chance of cracked rein- less stringent bending forcing bars requirement for reinforcing bars than does ACI 318-63. 5.5.4 505b Better strength from ACI 301-63 provides for more 5.5.5 reinforcement overlap in welded wire fabric. 4 i 12.2.3 120ld Better strength from ACI 301-63 provides for final better cure of concrete curing for 7 days with air ! temperature above 50*F. i ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) l provides for curing for 7 days and compressive strength of test cylinders to be 70 I percent of specified streng th. This could allow termination of cure too soon. 14.4.1 1404 Better strength resulting ACI 301-63 provides for a from better uniformity maximum slump of 2 in. ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) gives a tolerance on the maximum slump which could lead to nonuniformity in the concrete in place. 15.2.1.1 1502-c1b Higher strength from ACI 301-63 requires higher higher yield prestressing yield stress than does bars ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) 15.2.1.2 1502-c2 Higher strength from ACI 301-63 requires that better prestressing steel stress curves from the production lot of steel be furnished. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires that a typical stress-strain curve be submitted. The use of the typical curve may miss lower strength material, nklin Research Center A Dhamon af The Frenen kwamme ,
ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)
SUMMARY
OF CODE COMPARISON Scale C (Cont.) Referenced section ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 16.3.4.3 1602-4c Better strength resulting ACI 301-63 requires 3 from better cylinder tests cylinders to be tested at 28 days; if a cylinder is damaged, the strength is
. based on the average of two. , ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) requires only two 28-day cylinders; if one is da.naged, the strength is based on the one survivor.
16.3.4.4 1602-4d Better strength, less ACI 301-63 requires that less chance of substandard than 100 yd3 of any class concrete of concrete placed in any one day be represented by 5 tests. ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) allows strength tests to be waived on less than 50 yd 3. 17.3.2.3 1704d Better strength could be ACI 301-6'. requires core developed strengths " adequate for the intended purposes." ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) requires an average strength at least 85 percent of the specified strength with no single result less than 75 percent of the specified strength. If " adequate for the intended purpose" is , higher than 85 percent of the i specified strength, the concrete is stronger. I nklin Research Center A Chusen of The Fransen insamme I i
. - - . . . . .m-_. .-s.p ,e. , . --
t
. - -9 3,
1 1 i s 1. .l 4 1 1 .I h F j i APPENDIX B-4 ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 SUM 4ARY OF CODE COMPARISON l i 4 h l 1
-e i
i B-4.1 anklin Research Center A Dammen of The Proceen w r . . _ , - - .. .: , . - , , - - ,- ~~.~ ~ - .-----': , ~ . - - - - - ~ . - - - - ..?. -
.m.: -,
ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale A Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3111 UG-22 Loading as applied to Section III, 1980 Code load carrying compo- specifies new loads to be nents* considered in designing the vessel. These are: o Dynamic head of liquids o Snow loads and vibration loads o Reaction to steam and water jet impingement NE-3112.2 --- Design temperature as The effect of heating the applied to the vessel vessel by external or and its components
- internal heat generation is to be considered in establishing the vessel design temperature.
NE-3112.3 --- Design mechanical loads In computations involving as applied to the design pressure and design vessel and its compo- temperature, the values of nents* dead loads and any hydro-static loads coincident with design pressure 6 (designated as design mechanical loads) should be used. , NE-3112.4 UG-23 Vessels of materials no Section III, 1980 Code longer listed as Code references materials which acceptable are identical to those referenced in Section VIII, 1962 Code. However, several materials which
- . were referenced in Section VIII, 1962 are no longer given in Section III, 1980.
*Special treatment of load .nd load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.
nklin Research Center A Opne an af The Fransen m
~~ -- ~^
ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII,1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3112.4 Verification of the allow-(Cont. ) able stress values and validation of the materials used are required. UG-25 (d) Vessels containing The removal of this provi-telltale holes sion from Section III, 1962 Code, bans the use of telltale holes, particularly since the only non-destructive test methods are recommended in Section XI of the Code, Rules for Inservice Inspection. Moreover, the more recent version of Section VIII specifically excludes using telltale holes when using lethal substances. NE-3131 --- Containment shells Section VIII, 1962 Code designed by formula calls for the design of vessels by formula, while Section III, 1980 Code requires that the rules of Subsection NE-3200 (Design by Analysis) be satisfied. In the absence of substan-tial thermal or mechanical loads other than pressure, the rules of " Design by ( Formula" may be used ! (substantial loads are I those loads which cumulatively result in stresses which exceed 10% of the primary stresses induced by the design pressure, such stresses j being defined as maximum ! principal stresses) . l l l nklin Research Center A Osaman cd The Fw insensee a
o . ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale A (Cont. ) Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements
, 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3131 The scale rating for (Cont. ) containment shells where substantial thermal or mechanical loads other than pressure are absent is Scale B; otherwise it is Scale A.
NE-3133. 5 (a) UG-29 Stiffening rings for The requirements of the cylindrical shells 1980 Code for defining the subject to external minimum moment of inertia pressure of the stiffening ring as compared to the require-ments of the 1962 Code may result in a lower margin of safety. Scale I's > 1.28 Is C I's > l 22 Is B I's < l.22 Is A where Is is the minimum required moment of inertia of the stiffening ring about its neutral axis parallel to the axis of the shell. Is ' is the moment of inertia of the combined ring-shell section about
- its neutral axis parallel to the axis of the shell.
The width of shell which is taken as contributing to Is' shall not be greater than1.l/D/T. g o ranklin Research Center A Chenen of The Frarven m
_ l
. o l l
I l ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale A (Cont. ) Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3133.5(b) -- Different materials This new insert in Section used for the shell III of the 1980 Code and the stiffening requires using the material rings chart which gives the larger value of the factor A. This may result in a larger stiffening ring section needed to meet the requirements of the code. Scale A for ring-stiffened shells where (1) the ring and the shell are of different materials and, in addition, (2) the
" factor A" (as computed by the procedure of NE-3133.5) for the two materials differs by more than 64; otherwise Scale B.
Fig. 3324.11 Fig. UG-36(d) Vessels with a reducer The effect of the change in (a) (6) -1 section with " reversed" the requirements of the code curvature on the margin of safety depends on the Rgt ratio Limitations Scale Rg /t > 24 C Rr /t < 23 A where R t , = radius of the large end of the reducer t = shell thickness A B-4*5 UDDFFran93!n Research center A m w w rr en m
i l l I
)
ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON j SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3327.1 --- Vessels with positive New requirements in the 1980 locking devices - quick Code actuating closures NE-3327.4 --- Pressure indicating Safety related provision devices for vessels requires that the pressure having quick actuating indicating device be closures visible from the operating area. NE-3331(b) UG-36 Openings and reinforce- Requirements for fatigue ments analysis of vessels or parts Provisions for which are in cyclic service fatigue analysis
- are provided in Eection III, 1980 Code. No spe:ific guidance was given in Section VIII, 1962 Code.
NE-3334.1 UG-40 (b) Reinforcement for New requirements in the NE-3334.2 UG-40(c) openings along and 1980 Code limit the rein-normal to vessel wall forcement measured along the midsurface of the nominal wall thickness and normal to the vessel wall. NE-3365(f) - Bellows expansion Provisions regarding the joints over 6 inches internal sleeve design (for in diameter sizes over 6-inch diameter) and flow velocity limita-tions (for all sizes) are introduced in the 1980 Code. NE-3365.2 -- Bellows New design requirements specified in the 1980 Code.
*Special treatment of load and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.
A B-4.6 b -,e_ ranklinarch Res Center e
l ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON i SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale B (Cont.)' Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments 4 NE-3328 --- Combination units This new insert gives the design requirements for pressure vessels consisting of more than one independent pressure chamber. These requirements are standard practice for designing such vessels. NE-3335 UG-40 Reinforcement in These new provisions in ;
. nozzles and vessel Section III, 1980 Code <
walls detail specific requirements which are usually considered in good design practice. NE3365 --- Bellows expansion This new section provides joint - general specific requirements requirements usually considered in the design and selection of bellows. NE-3367 --- Closures on small This new insert gives penetrations details used in common practice. However, compliance with the standards listad in Table I NE-3132-1 is covered in SEP l Topic III.l. NE-3700 --- Electrical and Provisions usually adopted i mechanical penetration in standard engineering assemblies design of such assemblies. s I j B-4.8 OO0hrank!!n Research Center i
~~~ ;
\
-l
s 0 l l ASME B&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale B Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements __ 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3133.1 UG-28 Components under The design rules as given in external pressure Section VIII, 1962 are nearby identical to those specified in Section III, 1980. The differences will have little effect on the margin of safety. NE-3133.6 --- Cylinders under axial This new requirement is compression based on standard methods of analysis which do not differ much from those previously used in the analysis of cylinders under compressive loads. NE-3324. 8 (c) --- Torispherical heads The allowable stress for made of materials such a material should not having minimum tensile exceed 22 kai at room strength exceeding temperature as specified in 80 ksi the 1980 Code. ratowable stresses for those materials specifiee to the 1962 Code could be slightly higher, giving somewhat less conservative results. NE-3324.12 --- Nozzles The specified requirements imposed on the wall thickness of the nozzles or other connections are considered to be within the limitations of standard practice. nklin Research Center A Dmun d Dw Frewh hmue !
)
ASME 3&PV CODE COMPARISON SECTION VIII, 1962 VS. SECTION III, SUBSECTION NE, 1980 Scale C Referenced Section Section III Section VIII Structural Elements
, 1980 1962 Potentially Affected Comments NE-3332.2 UG-37(b) Area of reinforcement The introduction of the
- vessels under correction factor F in internal pressure Section III, 1980 Code will render the applicable equation to be the same or less conservative.
NE-3325. 2 (b) UG-34 (c) Flat unstayed heads, The applicable revised covers, and blind equation (2) will have a , flanges minor effect in the calculation of the thickness. NE-3362 (b) UG-42 Bolted flanges and The requirements for length studded connections of stud engagement are relaxed in Section III, 1980 Code. B-4.9 A 000hranklin,m Res
-. ,earch C.e.nter
1 1 i l i l APPENDIX C l COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS AND MODEL STUDIES l t i I i p i i i i I I l i i 1 1 4
.. O. Franklin Research Center !
A Division of The Franklin institute The Benamn FrarMn Parkway. Phila.. Pa. I 9103 (215) 448 1000 i
[ Proiect Page 11 C5257 C- 2
- u. . ] Franklin Research Center 3 o,,, 3 .,., o,,, g ,,, o,,,
$,0D"82fM"D0?cf Mo o c. 'a /9/.#, s///
' CASF STt.lDT i.-
Th c. cJ.&, wcQr?.c,. st< egg g st<mit <a (. Stu.f., t, b'yct k sL,4e. is syec4% 't% ScM t.T. l. 2. oj tL< AtSC co de_ M i g tlc. L'Nb o.wd (# 80 eM t a.s K, = 0 4 0 V g,) basal es th see Q a.e e D *((4.64.4 .% cc5iary sk '<. Mo w k,<.s , 'sw tka. M2a Cedi o. w M (,7.t.2.2 ' i <,
' wtvod, >_ sy tu;
" AT, be% e4 c,w.wcQ g(g % t pf%e. h c peJ.,
%A A d& WW A @ m;3 0t.occ-r b) thea< a. a. gA P,.
tk p sb w- , ,e b% g b op She4< o. o. g b % *% h7% L rendL o Uju t-
- a. a. i?
A e y k y tL n.<m_ c -M: q,. = 0. *Lo Q whc<c. tL c % o.<ta to t .L.c. -
, w ch p . 0 . . ._ l
,su <!y ., B.,~.J r a g -tL. bf_t Reb . "
, Rt[eu'q ti & 19eo c%,,,c, e /~j. c. t.s. /.2.
ne. co,-estat aAEewelAa yq r ch %* fl% A ca,. h.c W O.So Av- Fw + o.So Ae E. C2.) whea. P, M Q are % net shew a d ~eC % wtt.u J
% ade.c % <A oG. % s{fut of fhe c-k chuja ,
3 sett ofeae),; MatQ , baa,., suje.g coa.f' O Ji -/d' ueA- % nt- ( rud 1 4 ga. 4.11 of 74. pisc straf l m a ) a s se. M. rhe asati obQ by usa'-g ef M 4 a ab" ohdiean. % c W <*3a codc f k a l <es a s . sw - m tue. p a , ra m . l wh, s c o.0e_ A_
M PrG'iect C5257 Page C- 3 l J 0. J Franklin Research Center
,l o,,, c,w o,,, , , , o,,,
A Division of The Franidin insatute n.e r, r 7 % r. neici MD O F. .ft @II L7F/ BEAft Ehn CnMMECTIGt' kHERE TCP FLAP.GE IS COPED, CASE STUDY FY, PSI FU, PSI H , I t! C1 C2 ALLOWARLE LOAD,LR PCT. 1963 Cone tor 0 CCCF 36000 60000 12.00 1.00 0.74 172800 104400 40 36000, 60000 17.00 1.50 0.74 172P00 134400 22. 36000 60000. 24.00 1.00 0.74 345600 194490 70 36000 60000 24.00 1.00 2.4R 345600. 20SP00 40 36000 60000 24.00 1.50 0.74 345000 13^400. 61. . 36000. 60000. 24.00 1.50 2.4F 345600 23CP00 31 36000 60000 24.00 2.25 0.74 345600 179400 4R. 3600C. 60000 24.00 2.25 2.10 345600 793800 14 36000. 60000 30.00 1.00 2.4a 51o400 208400. eo. 36000. 60000 36.00 1.00 4.81- 518400 348600 33. 36000. 60000 36.00 1.50 2.40 510400 236900. 54 36000 60000 36.00 1.50 4.R1 518400 378600 27 36000 60000 36.00 2.25 2.40 516400 283800 45 36000 60460 36.00 2.25 4.81 51R400 423600 tR. 50000. 7v000 12.00 1.00 0.74 240000 121800 49 50000. 70000 12.00 1.50 0.74 240000 156600 35 50000. 70000 17.00 2.25 0.74 240000 209300. 13. 50000. 70000. 24.00 3.00 0.74 48n000 121800 75. 50000 70000 24.00 1.00 2.46 480000 243600 49 50000. 70000 24.00 1.50 0.74 480000 156800 67 50000 70000 24.00 1.50 2.48 480000. 270600. 42. 50000 70000 24.00 2.25 0.74 480000 209300 56. 50000 70000 24.00 2.25 2.48 4R0000 331100 31 50000. 70000 36.00 1.00 2.48 720000 21Je00 66 50000 70000 36.00 1.00 4.91 720000 406700 44 50000 70000 36.00 1.50 2.4R 720000 278600 61. 50000. 70000 36.00 1.50 4.41' 720000 441700 39 I 50000. 70000 36.00 2.25 2.4W 720000 331100 54. 50000 70000 36.00 2,25 4.41' 720000 494200.* 31 65090. 80000 12 00 1.00 0.74 312000 139200 55. 65000 R0000 12.00 1.50 0.74 312000 179200 43. 65000. 80000 12.00 2.25 0.74- 312000 23n200 23 65000. 80000 24.00 1.00 0 . 7.* 021000 139200 7e. 65000. 80000 24.00 1.00 2.4R 624000 278400 55. 65000, 80000 24.00 1.50 0.74 624000 179200 71. 65000 80000 24.00 1.50 2.4R 624000 31R400 49. 65000. 80000 24.00 2.25 0.74 624000 239200 '62.
. 65000 80000 24.00 2.25 2.48 624000, 370400 39
. 65000 , R0000, 36.00 1.00 2.46 9J6000 27R4no. 70
- 65000. R0000 36.00 1.00 4.81 936000, 464R00 50 65000 80000 36.00 1.50 2.48 936000 310100 66.
65000, 80000 36.00 1.50 4.81 936000 504R00 46 65000 R0000 36.00 2.25 2.48 936000 376400 60 65000 E0000 36.00 2.25 4.01 936000 564800 40
~
NOTES: i= ALT.OJAbt.E LnADS ARE GIVEU PFP INCM OF WEB THICW:ESS 2- PCTE PE8 CENT OF THL REDUCTIO?. OF PERCEIVED MARGIN OF SAFLTY eew . m l
=
Pr ject Page n C5257 C. 4 l U. J Franklin Research Center o,,, o., o,,, ,,,, o,,, W W E 2 Y.'"N N ?c? ,, Ru/m c to las lO/1 4, r: csse. Srvey 2 .. COM PGRitJG swept C OLO MN R 25 EV 'Ho-63 nun q u a. n- , , Ag 625 IN S O . ,.. O , x.oi = P
. 3.s .' 25 e 6.25 IN *
's , w . f,
.O#
[- 4 "ll = 6.2 4 (N" CLoSE TO IPo Fg SHORT COLUMNS S EC.19o3 @ ( AND 19o2 ACI '318-6 3)
~
(. {c = 3,oco t i PSI T P=. 85 jA 3C25 fd + r .P s )3, \ fs " " x *o o = # 6, = ce P SI J
~ ~
= .85 [6 25 IN'( .25 h,000} t 16,00 0 (.01)}
^ 85 }625 (750t 160f,, = 9 8 3 000 * (stavic.E Lone) av s99-74 SEc.lo.a.6
~
- P = p .80[.85 r7( A3 - As g) + yf Ast[
=
. i(.8)"(.B5X3,cooX625- 6.24)t Hopco(6.24(
~ ~
1518,o00 + 299,600 = 1,023 coo (utT. t.o A D)
.56 ,
USING LORD factors OF- D. L. = L. L. l.4 t 1.7 = 1.55
- - . . . ? _
o23,000 66O.OCo THEN SERVICE LO AD = i.s 5
=
sso uon x 100 vo a.6. o' F= i INCREASE OF q g ,3 l couci.usi w: i ..t s o. a.T caurus 'me Petvious cons 5 wees l mucH mea e c. 4 n e va riv e l l . -. . . - -
Project Page 5 c. 5 O. J Franklin Research Center
~
L* & 2 2 ?. k ' L" W O Y 'k<lmo .a ?g, ;$'??? . 1
Is CASE STuoT Sam p le Comparison Betwee.n Steenc3+h
( UHrwate) anet At+ernare. ( Work.tng stress) Desrgn, Savn pie SeetTon AlloWo.ble STeesses -
- -is* H t 2',,. .3oco s Concrete : ib/7n rac{e
., gy (-fd=3,000 j fc = l3S0 , n=3 )
60" s ..
' I
< . Rei4ccing .
j~
- ,: ,d '
stee.1 : 6Teacle It 0 ( -fg = A.oicco Ib{rn' , -fs =.20,000 lbftd) A s = t o _* l o bars = 13.. b 6 In2-I. By Strenph Design ( There Ts a \ Twit of . orts'
- 13. LL =
f= i p x g.) 01234 But a.
- reasonable ' clesrp is half of this.)
4 = , ot 2.34 ( j ) . # Ms-
, M v = . 9 [(.lF')(5 7'f ( 3 */t#){ !6+5.)( l 59 ( '445b' 21, +50 "
- L .t_. = c. i-A ssoming ,
U=i+{l1=i.55-(ott)
%e moment 4 Hen is equiva\ent 4v o. ' Servic e
l momeni of .u,4 50 ' *,f, gs = 15, I 3 0' *
. + en m an.
e - 84m a
,w
.% Proi.et r
[ .
] Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 6
~ '~
L*O221.[il"L"I"11Yo? Nelao .clg? , &. k ?; T. BY Alternate DesIS " finding % e locafron of the meutral axis X (= kJ ) t e x ( X ) = 9 (12.K X 5n- X.) sa\ving , x. = Y d = >\ . W
-he wo ment c\rm = Jd = 5*7 M*[-494['
then to o = V2. (. \ 35 ^/WX18")( 11 2T) (9 9 W) = l2.,900"" and tAs = i1.g, w ( 2.ow /q)(4 9, c') = p.,f yo
- A c soverns)
T1 Com prison : ts , t 3 0' * - n_ , (,4o ' ' x 100 '/, = 19. I */, AoveJT%e
\L,Wo,,s Conclusion : For Rech 3v\ar Beams, The. W ork'm Stress Designs d
( Com monly used When ToIIoW I"j 4ht earlie.e AC.T. sis codes) Wert. considera.bi7 vnoce conservative. e
- m. .m
___.-m ._.___m. . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
A eni.ct Page 11 U. . J Franklin Research Center
- C5257 C7 -
1 O ?2lll'"2 s'iiM' N.o n".'E ,,$2')> h/ CASE STUDT Rd ALSC 1980 CODE Subsectron 2. 'i Colu m s L Ae p ayse l of bewd'y of columns WhIch would ,levelop a plas4rc h'mge at ultiva te lo act'm& , de slemderness ratio r1 shuffwt O ceed Ce,--" W here Ce= 2es D E = 19 x 102 lcSI r3 = yield Stress
-1.L.
Therefore 756 6 Ref AISC (96 3 Cocle Subsectim 2S Columns L the plane of bending. of colutnm s QhQ 7 would cleVelop a. I PAstTc hhge at Ultivate loadmg , the slenderness rah shall wob Deed Ilo s - 6 12,0 m 4
4 Prriect Pg [ ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 8 By an. A Division of The Franklin Institute Daje Wk.d Date Date N e w resannaren y.N Paistos MC SWT. 3 8 [f/,el ///// I wweh of the tLo coacs a u mon. <otmo m64 coil. depemds .m t.ka. y'e(d sin g% of . .
% sTed used -{u A col w.
l} Both codes t.s hen efve h==110
,cs.c Ce =
6=e ihen, Fu d
-. 40 KSI p) ige 1980 Code. IS S J % .s % 3c.<o Q d e.n, d . = llq ~7 75 4 Y 4F 4he.n, g = <+ 9 kst c.ece- st.m scale F3 6 to kSI @
l.
~
% =
1 sh "*i*' CS257 C- 9 [ ] Franklin Research Center ,, o. a. .. o.,, n, o 1, LM,?21.f!*,"f.fMis' mo se'T 93 Oul h/// i CASE STUDY Pef Alsc M80 Code
$Ubsection ( . l 0. F. 3 In g7rderS dedigned on the bdS7S of den 570% (Teld ACh?on , Nf SfClng beiWeet)
Stifferers at e nd pa nels , at fAvels Conkwng large holes , ad at pan els adyacent +o pawels centatning lage ho\es shall he Such %+ fv eloes mot e ceed +he value gNew " below Fv -= F 4_ c , f g,q p"( 2 29 Where cy= "0 E wheh Cv ( o.s Fg(h/Q'- s - g + p';,. M ahw .
= y.3y 4 -
("lh? 4., % v.o 1 ause m
, ,_, ,. ,-%. -we.a w*f= " " " * ' " " " -~ ^ ~'
sA Niect Page
- ll J Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 10
,, o,,, en., o,,, , , ,, o,,,
A Division of The Franklin Instatute ne om r,m r.,sm m.re ssac2 HD SEPT. /gl j ,ff .Jy
, , Jol7l r =
i i i Ref AISC M63 code. Subsectron 1 10.s.3 rhe spettg between s4t%ners at ed enweis amd p2nds Containtm y- targe holes shatt be sUch tnt the synaller pnel dimens7m a or h Shall not RXCeed iI 006t, me 3e S S 5 6 9 9 ,w->w-, e m+--e , , w-< e y
e, . A PrEiwt Page 257 c- 11
] Franklin Research Center NoMrbId2D'iN$' O SEP T, t ,7 ! /* /
RC-F AIsc sub sec+ ion 1 10. S 3 pg g.93 8XAmat.t
-~ - -
h = 68" /
/
a t u . 37 5'* ' l CY Pu = Cs x f- = 255 TE ',
/
V = .MO KifS /
= 'I. 06 Ksl / 0
-[v. = 2<
-from I6063 1963 Code t ilceo x 3/s or h $ it _
, 93 73 4-fu- / 9. oGx1000 Which is +he edWm Em tk. emd o}%c pk w ac p<st t<o.succm sty fe-u.
8 consicle4 3 ik' L2h h " M 7 as spcified in l980 Cocle . x b .5 e M i 1 0 7 3 -
-fir = q.o6 kst _h
= .'3,5 = IS I
$ 9. n = 68B .'618
-e
(= 4. + s.2% s.3+ (a/h.)^ , 9 + 6618f ,g7,qs Cu = '5 = + " *'7'98 .6e6 h(4/tr)* 36 (18 O' Fu- = % c a. 2.s3 G .+Q
= L x . 42 6 = e. s9 xsi
.2.n
/ -fr..m -+o.ble to.3C %
A f.6 a bA t s hco.<- d<cn
- 2 Co k'SI-(Ch*d5 fM bb)
Howe.t , Aower thw f, o.f 9.o (a Ilsi
- Sea.fe 8 -{u t % e.9 4 h '"- *w. -e *
- que - - - . w .e,e u-,- ==
. s
.A Project Page l J Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 12
,, o, . .,., o,,, n ,,, o ,,,
A Division of The Franklin insatute .
- n. a.a,- a r wea r== ,. m.Pa mc3 MQ SEP T. #dI g #. />
) i
-= -.
l Remarks 7he show Fv VC. h/T follow'rng -bwo frjures fr vanovs valve s of A/H ad Fr . By knowing +he shear s+ress Fv or 1:~v ' we A/r value con be abtaN ed Awcl compared wWh +be design A/r. -rhus cempr7 son should be, epwined on a case by case- haSIS-w e e
)
O e M a N *? . T T WW w $ # 6-"
4 , Prei.ct P.g.
] Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 13
,,' o., aya o... n o. .
A w DMsion of Th,e Franklin Institute
% r, % .p.isio3 MD STpy. dte g.yg 7,/,. p/'
G e 0, O Y4 w' E 's?
..f V
~ 3 E WM h &
f 2
- t#
hy? E '2 '8
& ufr *
*i l
W
.I ; c . x.
2 31 1 [ ' .k g- si I ! f- f i i S S 9 20e 9 e
+w-1 -, -- - -
,& Prd at Page C5257 C 14
[ . ] Franidin Research Center ,, o,,, . . . , o,,, ,,,. o,,, A OMsion of The Franklin Instatute N a - e re ar== = N .raisica MO SEET 'dI [2M /pI) f O Q T i n,
.y N Ec
$ 0 ? Q $. h.
* $7 g a. a: s 8 uz s 3 135 >
u ' e d- . 9 4 L i i S l l - i Y i 5 i Y 8 i n g ..
~
4 I h 1
- 2,- e i
o o o 0 9 N '
- '2 oC
~1 5v lu l
l I i i l , l
,4 erzi.ct Page C5257 C- 15
[ . ] Franklin Research Center ,, o,, o .s., o,,, g ,,, o ,,
^ Pita?L" .f'"EaMgr mo .sm 'si /Aa /se CASE STup'r Ref AISC (420 Code Schon 2.9
" %e widS - thickmess ratio -fbe flange op
; rotied W, M, or G shapes aW similar built- up shgle- Web shapes %cd would be.
subjec4ed to comp ressTon TmvolvNg hhge rotation under ultimate. loadtng shall mot
-exceed +he -followbg values : "
Feu M/2u
% g. 5
- 42. a.o 4.s '7 4 70 'I 0
, 55 bb i- go (3 dv (.o
" 'The width - thic kness ratio of sTmthcly compressed fla"6e l
Pates 73 box seetus and m er f
- 5
, shall mot exceeci (90[J Fg 6xample ai F+ b/t I l 6_ &
j g yp M 31 7 l sro %.9 l ~75 3. 2. I too 19 l l l
.A Preject C5257 Pg i
l J Franklin Research Center
- C. 16 By oa Wk.d Date R w. Date l
A DMsaon of The FrankJin Insutute m em v, r.,sm nm.r mos HO StPT.je3l ,sf'ff) Jy/q l 1 -r
~
6 Y UD TaiIO of Webs f wembers su%eded 4o plasuc bendmg
=k\\ not exceed . "
When d 0.27 t = I F (3 ( - l. 4 Pa Py F3 ' d jq,
% 62 7 i
M !- = a. a go gg . 3 75 476 l00 A t .2. .-- - when
% = y,7- g>o.17 Fg. a/s 36 428 sro 36 3 7F 30 lW 25 9
- l l
l i
+ . .-,,... .e,_,, . -- . . - , . . . . ~ _ - - . _ ~
A mi.ct e.e.
- 0. ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 17
,, o ,,, . .,. , o,,, ,,,, o,,,
UM82lMDD$$$' so n*T. 'ti g.'As./ ng/ Ref AISC (963 Code Secitan 2..& Preec41e3 element, ** wouw be sobrec4ea l' -h compresit.n Tnvolv7ng pla.s+tc h7nge coration under vltimate Icodrog shall have w teh - - i +hickness ratto wo greder than 4he Silowhg: brfq 4 2,5 Rolled Shapes k/'g 632 Sox Sectiovis
\\
~Ihe de - thYckveSS ratio df beam ,
ond gicder webs sutGeded to plas+Tc, bendThg' rs gNen by Yhe followig
-Forwula P
9S 6 d[v] 6 ~70 - (Ooy
~
Remarks The 1963 code -hke Inb amouni water?d Or- A36 of Fh =36 Ksl or less ( note + hat
'the -two codes are -fhe Same -for Q= 34 ).
J'f 4he structure was desTgned using traterial ho m vg htqher yield , the Jesg n m g ht w t be aq1ab&. wwdce presc4 wpveme,ts. I. 3 d 8I M 4 Fy ( 39 WSI $ 7:& 2 32 kSL @ l f -
. m w% hojut 257 Page c- 18
. J Franklin Research Center "~'
^ 2 " ,? 2 1.f 0 " O d is '
. No sepr. $g f$$$1 f$y*j CASE- Sr0DT -r[-
f2ef MSc 1980 Code
$cctTon A9 kie ra\ Scachg u
"Illevnbers shall he adequately braced +o resist lateral cmd tockmal dis pfacements .
6 "IfTN!y UmSufforted dTEMe , SCr , - shall not exceed +he, valtre detertnNed from " M ., 1375" + 25 Whm ( O 2- > ~ 0 f g
. r>
or f.cr , t375 ggen ._ ,, y 3 M y 1,o r} Fg MP
-ewmpie kr/c, ry=st Kst to , s- 10o I>R>s 62 2 s2 r es s .e s. ,s-
. 7), %> -l.o 3F. 2 M 5- ii S I3 75' i
__u- m e -e r ---~~,w-vw- - w_ w r- -,+ -w-
~ ,
s% Project Page
] Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 19
,l o ,, e..,., o,,, n o, o,,,
A Division of The Franklin insctute fg . Ref AISC (%3 Cocle See b 2.e Lateral BracTg Whm the. vo m mt defrntbn Ts: cemp=Mble with 4he tqro codes the -formula -for Jcr/rg becomes
- 3s(A'=Go+40h j tump\e m Jc, WP %
( (00 0 bc 40
~
,5 -
coucus .us rhe fTkvre whtch
. a, e.r.r -Fol).ws (hOJcfry A- H. SGd @ 8' vs. "/se )
d [a Scs\t. O( dl @
~
o > Ng 2 ~l @ Nde: "Ik sutnwrg 75 b6 Sed 07) MferiAl WIFh Fg=36, other waterTal shoold he t%0ay17ned M A CASE by CASc basts. l
1 Project Page l C5257 C- 20
. J Franklin Research Center ,, o,,, o,,, n ,..
A DMsion of The Franklin Institute - .,., . o ,, MD The Senessewe Franamn Pen.ey. Pue Ps 19:03 0 IT. hI f . f/,,#/4 g . ', ( [ t e. i [
.- .. . -- we . - - . - ~ .
O f . -.. a, n + ucq n- -
\%1 caos.
- /
Fi t 24 Ksl Se J . - Pt*TD ($1 _.,. e f
/ ~ e1 4.a.
35
/
hm - 3c -- MwT - - - - - - le - - - -
-l ,5" M
O . S* I MP S b
" " ^
4
, 4 PrEject Page c- 2l l J Franklin Research Center ,, o ,, . .,., o,,, n ,,, o,,.
A DMsion of The Franklin Insutute g gp7 - Chse sTupy -S-Comparison of sedron 2 3 , Celumms ( Alst ,19 61) wi+h Sedron 2 4 ,, Co lum ns ( MSC ' 1930) AISc 1963 AISC 19 8o
- t. 51enderness caito -for columns t. Slenderness ratio for 7n contrnvos- -frames where Columns in conhnvas sideway I's wot preventect , Ts -frames where Erdesway is Limited by Formula. ( 2o) mot prevenied, mo+ lim 4ed 4o only '70 . Gut Itailed
- 2. P , .f. c i.o by Formulas Q.9 - la ) and Py 7o r 6 9 t b) yven below and 7 bis limits slenderness y not +e exceed Ce s as given beloW i Ratio h 4. 10 and avtal
) - toad m ot -to o ceed o.s- Py AISO Iimited for h = 0. by brmula (2 6) gWen below. 4
- 2. For columns in bro.ced 2 The. axial lead Tw frawes the wax 1 mum co\vmns in braced frames ayTal lead P sbail nd mot +o ex ceed o. g( Py l o . (c, oceed Py.
( see Case Shly 4 also, -for l slenderness enito) ,
i s% Project C5257 Page C- 22 l' J Franklin Research Center L
- O Y l i k " M W ii"E RA SEP7 TI .$N.b /s$
3 a) Slenderness ratio 3a.. a slenderness raito 4 not 4e exceed llo h to+ *0 EFC*ed Oc whe re. Cc = RM b) The allowobie 7 lederdy unsvPPorted drs+ance and &c Fy = 36 KSi, f.c7 = (fo-so [g)r7 , Cc = (26.I
~
Grmula ( 2.b) But dec(35r7 3 b. The (Aterally unsupported C) M Ida way 4, exceed M"C6 Acr Act
- WCed
% -follcWIng Mo Th ony Case ,fe[, , ,gtLT- + 2.6 ry (2.9-ia)
Psf Whem + l.0 ) g 'y ~ 0 5" And
.J.cc _ l 37f (2 q - ib) ry ry M
\Nhen - o T 3 y - l. 0
. MP 3c. ren A wet to exceed Aoo in any case.
j p q e g3-1*b w
- p pg*,yWhte - r*** *
- y
9 t
.A Project 257 Page -[ ] Franklin Research Center a os,te care an.
c- 23 Date A Division of The Franklin insatute k (.4) bierat.Iion fr7nulos $e d, Interaction hrmulas GrF_ Shgle CurVq-ture. Qre. Feemula C2 4 Formvla C 24-2.) [P B-%(h)6l0 i 7 l + Cm F1 - Per (t g)M, g ,, g H6M P and Rrmula (.13) and Formula. (.2 4 -O sg 6 l 0 -- H(Ip y )-If/py) y + i. i Mg 5 I' 3 M' MP valves of 3; (n H and y d ere Per = (.7 A Fa irsied in tables as a p, , n 3 pg ratto '* functron of slenderness and Fy fa gNen by (l.s -t) and Fe pen h Seckon I61 C.b) Interachan -fonnulas -for deuble Curvqture are. Hm- He ( braced % +he Ermula (2.1) Weak drrecbn )
. M 4 Mp fr P/py 6 o.iEr = [ (.o l -h/ry )J Fy { M p 6 qP g 31so "P 61. W-1 13 ( P/P 7 )i I 0
( Unbraced in weak drrech)
-for P/Py2015-and Formula. (2.2.) o,) Fec single curycdvre M P 0 6 .6 Cm 61 0 Mg g g_ q(Py ) g l,9 b) %c clovble corva+vre g&g g o.9 e em & o. 4
/, ,
es te n e eme="4 " - * * " ' " -
"'""'****""# ~ " " '
) .
Project Page
~ '
J Franklin Research Center s/ a, x o o. . w. A Division of The Franklin Insutute o. ., o.t. g For comparison of 4bese spectftcatrons , graphs of P/g vs Mj'g are drawn -for slenderness ratto
@ 20,,o and (co.
Ty preal Column I 4 V F 15'o with Fy - 36 ksi has been -faken as an example
~
-for our purgeses sepamte graphs are drawn -fee s~mgle curvaivre (O. 6
- C,n & L o) and double Carvadure ( o.4 4 cm 6 c. 6 ) cases.
For -frames with sides way ( Cm =. c.as9 an owed ., - Graphs of P/p yg e Hlp, are dravin for
'No +ypes of column s 14 # 15 o ancl 12. # 45, W r+h fi = 36 ks 7,. Columns assumed +o be braced Tw % Weak duccfion ,
It can be 'mfe.neA -frem the graphs thai-7% all cases , 4he vnaJoe cha."6e Ts the Irmri-of allowable o.xta.1 (cad; whrch rs 7ncreased from o.s- Py % 0.,s- Py -for wn braced columns ( srdesway a.tlewed .) and o.6 Py
- o.es- Py fer 6mced c.olumns. Sur % a.cceptable design reg?on '
~
N both Codes i~S o.lmo st same. Se synge j curvdure we notice {er k - . go 4g gcw; (,14-1) ( rne for Cm =- 1. o 7s bel.o +he
', -fermvic e (.M) line., but- for k :. 7 o , they over l9 anci -for p = ico, The formula c.a.., 2) -Sc c>n=l.o is A ve h Ermula. (2-3) I?n e - ' rhus -for
_ KA = 30 t93o cecte be?ng more conserva+Tve.; dhile -for %=Ico s 1963, c.ocle seems += be were_ ccw see vat-rve . Thts change can +hus be. clasGfreJ best as a. .},, chany. l
a -
,4 Preject Page .
C5257 C- 25 l . . J Franklin Research Center 3 o,,, a.,., o,,, n ,,, o,,, A w Division of .The% .Franklin, Institute . , i a- r,- e ma RA SEPT fl /JOf ~D
/- / {
l r - 36 ut r 11 r . so t w iso s:scu cerem,ut 1963 Code 1990 code Formula (22) 1 5-C(P/Py)
- 1.0 (2.42) 3 1 1.0 her+ (1 p )M, y,-
e 0.6 1 C, 1 1.0 Formula (23) 1 1.0 - s(P/Py) - J(P/Py)2 (2. 43) + 3,3,3 1.0, M i M, p n. n<x u. u. TTFTCAL EIN7tES
-L f o v A e n n n x<n to Py 9.v . -
M D C002 (Jastf enf==* g.1 ..- t
#r N
e4 IM'a Coce W\ -- 4 '$ 05-- . bj 4
'9g ,
J t --
?
s sv-J O.t ** ej.,. .
\
s g as at s. 5 66 e.T 04 H W Mp I '( e,
1
. ~ . . - - - 1
- 1
,% Project Page C5257 C 26
- l. J Franidin Resea.ch Center ,, o,,, .... o,,, n ,,, o,,,
A Divisjon of The Franklin instrute h amn,anen Frenann Part-sy. Na. Pt 191G3 S T .?) /s, M /,r/fj ,, I e I 4 Fy = 36 ka t Ue = 30 14 # 150 00nLE CO2 VAT;1E 4 1943 code 1960 code EM Formula (21) M = M, when F/Fy 10.15 1, s g 1,0 y er (1 e p 1 1.18 - 1.la(F/Fy) 1 1.0 1).*Y I s 0.4 i C, i o.'6 P P w Formula (22)f13-C(P/Py)i1.0 (2.43) +
- 1. g 1.0, x g up P
MiMy
- v. v < ar.
h I mtCAr. ttxetts y f )fA 7 u n < x. v.
.2 i..
g - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . . 1 6 C802 CM*3. b, Fo8tudWs.4 2J
&'s 0.1 . 'Jj -
- ?
te&5 coot LawT 05-- " y
@e9 bJj
- , 23 -
, 2 0,1 ei t .
Jj og as og &$ ST 84 e'? 08 gj 30 . ._. . MlMy i l r l i
f .
,4 Prrject Page C5257 C- 27
. J Franklin Research Center ,l o,,,
c.,,,.,., o,,, ,,,, o,,, A Division
- r,- of
- Th,e
~. . Franklin, inst.tute RA SEPT g) /J,'d ,M/
n,. i . a i i b i r
- 3. ui n.0 r
- 1. - 13 0 stscu cavan:n 1963 Code 1980 code 1 5-G(F/Py) i 1.0 (2..-2)
' i l' O Tormula (22) [P [ er+ (1 F )tt,
- It i It, e 0.6 1 c, i 1.0 Formula (23) f i 1.0 - B(P/Py) - J(P/Py)
- 1.15M, i 1.0 M i g .
P t M. M < M. M. : M. TYPTCAL EXAMPt!S
.f ,g g 'l
{
,L
.v x
v. 4 1' 5-u M<& 10 1 tegs toes trMr N a. 4 e.1 f 4% 3tk '9 g j ami 05 .
- o. .
. #YJ ;
e.+ f a*J ,
. a-- e.,#
3 s Ne i as. - Al- - i o .i o.a. s t e.s o.s e.7 as e4 8o
~
w ws- -
- 9 s% Project C5257 Pag.
C 28 l . ] Franklin Research Center av o. cn w o.i. no. o. . A DMsion 4 m m r.~of The r Franklin
,.n ro insa,tute m RA SEPT.CI r.#., ,, n/a-.
Fy = 36 bl = 70 14 # 130 DOUBLZ CIVAnu 1 Code 1990 code (2.42) i 1.0 Formula (21) M=N when P/Fy
- 0.15 P [er+ (1 7).g ,
e 0.4i C, i 0.6 f i 1 18 - 1.18(P/Py) 11.0 P 1*1 % 1b reruuta(22)[13-c(r/p)11.o y P M i M, M. uts TTPICAL EXA M t3 f "h4"# 4 . 2 La .- .
}
== u-c .
64 l t.
- 0..
%a 'E)
.: au c,a wMeT
. s_ r 4 9, a) t-sr- - 4 O
e4
4 4)
, as._
3 e.t __ 0.l - . ,
.'.e o.a an *t a.c e.6 at ar o.1 M
P
4 o a Ptsiect page c5257 C- 29 [ ] Franidin Research Center av A DMsion of The Franklin Institute Det Ch'k'd Date R ev. Date N o-waa Feween Pmesy, Na. Pa 19103 kh ${f f,e{l pj#. /gp 7f F, = 16 ke t = 100 14 v 50 $I:sCLE CCIVATT;1Z 1963 cod. ),no code Formula (22) ,1 1 3-C(P/Py) i 1.0 (2.4-2) + , 1 I'0 p er (1 7)M, MiM y e 0.6 i C, i 1.0
- w , (2.6-3) 1Fy + 1.101,
< 1.0. M =-yM Formula (23) 11.0 - u(P/ry) . J(y/yy)*
M. M t M. M. g TYPtCAL IIMfPtts . o' -#
==
I J'[ lOV x N M. y, ung 3 l.3 U ,+ I W C00e O wit , e2 . s.1 g,g n u ecct uwt 0.I -
' s. g M "
(J., '2) 2 43' , O
,4 4 0.1
- I
&g, **,3 6 &l
- e e.s e.s e.b e.1 M e.g e,1 e. 0 e.9 lO P
e om
~ " " ' ~ *'
_em. --- swn.n_.,._.. . . _ _ _ __ ,_ ,_ ,
. p .
s4 Prtject Page C5257 C- 30 [ J Franklin Research Center By Date Ch.k'd Rev. Date A DMsion of The Franklin instrute Da,te The gemenen Freaman Pere y. Phs Pa 191C3 RA 3 IEr7 g) g';e.g. <gg i F, = 36 kat = 100 14ve 150 doc 3LE C:ItVA*;TRE 1963 Code 1990 Code P z (2.4-2) Formula (21) M*M when P/Py
- 0.15 P pcr+-(1 = {p}M p -< 1.0 .
e 0.4 <
~C"~< 0. 6 f i 1.18 - 1.18(P/Py) i 1.0 P
(2. 4- 3) f+g,g i 1.0. M i My Y Formula (22) 7 i 8-C(P/Py) i 1.0
- p M e M, Af. Mtx TTPtCAL C W m.f$ f
- e
... D.
, t.e e itse cone u -
e6 < e.1
,, . sso ceos L t"' T
%'4. g 9.( <.
- 3, 9 e
'4 e4- e 3, e t~
p *) 9.$ .,
%y e.11. <.
01--
- t 0 43 d4 88 44 Of Ai N e,g M 47 f
. w wa--
4 - sA Project C5257 Page 31 C l .
] Franklin Research Center By Dat Ch.k.d Date R ev. Date A Division of The Franklin Instrute w a m v. m o m ,. m os ssaas 0k $27f eflf,7 p,
;J/.?j p
y 3 asi h7
- 30 1 2. # 45 310E3*='AY ALIaiED 1963 Code 1990 Code Formula (21) M=M when P/Py
- 0.13 P cy , ,
- n 11.18 - 1.18(F/Py) 11.0 (2.5-2)F 1+ 5 1 1.0 .
ct (1 - f).g e C,s o.85
; Fomula (22) f i 8-C(F/Py)
- 1.0 p y P (2.b3) ,- + g, g g 1,0, x ;
Mig 7 7 2 Fomula (23) Pf e 1.0 - g(p/py) . Jgpfyy3
. . M < M.
TYFICAL LTAmts f-V -- 4 4 -- 14 p.T < - fp7 1963 Code Alse laposes the Following Limit e.: - 2,
, 1930 (e9t' Lasii p"
- 1yg i 1.0 Formula (20)
T 31-- as - % 9, 4 0 4 .- ' 9 .,
, e4-gg. te 6B cece LJ MIT ..
^3o,
&L =
g (4 OJ A & 4 I $ , a.g i.e 0' ,a z ..g , 4.7 e.s 87 39 l "l. H r l l 1 l ~
9 sh Puiect C5257 Page C- 32
. Frankl.in Research Center By Date ch'k'd Date Rev. cate A Division of The Franklin insutute N 8easema Fwesa Pwmosv. PNa Pe.19103 h hkfl [ [g // /
I
- y 30 **1 30 14 vf 130 SCISiAT ALIJJED 1963 Code 1990 Code Formula (21) M=M when F/Py 1 0.13 CM f' yi 1.18 - 1.18(P/Pv) i 1.0 (2.4-2)
*p i 1.0
- pcr+ (1 ', 7)M, Formula (22) f 1 5-G(F/Py) i1.0 m P
(2.4-3) + g, i 1.0. M i g Formula (23)fi.0-H(F/Fy)-Jf7/Py)2 1 P ,ygg
--f' TTricAt. tumts a , f
-e uM. i M.
g Go D . . . . . . og,- 1963 Code Also Impo.es gg yogg e.8 -- , Mirecace uauf 2P y~ *yyi 1 1.0 Formula (20) 7 e.t- 4 _ . . . .
$/r- 9p sg. . .
e.t , a 3 g.. 14 6 2 C00l*= LJeat? ,, 4j
~ ~~
0.L. th. u._
<,t s
- 0 .
; au o ..c J .., e, .., ,,
nu, I c, e 4 . --n ~ .w.,,,. v ,,-w,..,.
....,w.__ _ , _ , _ , , _ _ , _ _ _ , _ , _
,' -~ -
~
4 .
.% Pnject C5257 Page C- 33
- ( . ] Franklin Research Center y o,,, o .,., o,,, , , ,, o,,,
^??:2"Q:.!:Pi"122 RA oc:r*tI /W n/n cAss stvoT Coyrwr1 of AlSC -l't8 S" ttm l t o - (> wim .
AISC -19 b Sec+ Ton (. lo. 6, ReductTen In Flan 3e. Stress, HYbetd (rTrders only. The only change beiween the -hvo codes Is 4he Inh oduc4 Tom of Ennula. ( l.10 -6)
-for case of ~hybetd gTederj in 4he Icf 80 cod d. .
For > nolo. ( l. Io -s) of 19 $o Cale With Fb (v ksi is 7 den 4rca.l -fo f6onula. Cl 2.) op 1q63 w r+ h F 6 rn Psi. S7brid 0Teder destened in (4 b w uld v be desiped Tn accordance wr+h Formula. C b.) Which i's identica.I -fo ( ( .10 -5) in (qso Gode, . Gut a hybrid girder cleciped in accordance. wi+h (qso dasto confhem fe beh Fonnula s Cl.Io-s-) ond C l. Io -0. For Fb =AS IfsT Awd s so ksi- We cleaw r smehs ef reduction
\/s. Arew cf web 4e ac+ce(*E')(h*/AF) rarto -
using Fee malas Area-C l to-s-( )Flage
, 6wd C i-to -6) -Por gwen 4 - o.1, oG,W o.q ad der gken 4[t mtios ( (62. , in E If 2. , -Se Fb = 25/si owd ti7, 127 & t37 7,c 7=3,.50 gs r) . We -frnd in all 3rx ca:es depending on */g nato
.[;> < g = o. + s j for mula- C 1 to-f) 7n the tq go code rs qut+e censereafue..
A e ,e -
-ae e.m.m -
.-h* .v..-._.% .a _- , ...w - . . - m. - - ,,
.b sA Project Page-L' ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 34
,, o ,,, 3.x., o,,, ,,,, o,,,
A Dividon of The Franklin insatute M 0M'n gf as But -for o.9 T 4 o( 4 o.75 - Formvic^ C. t 10 -6) .. . oc For,mula C l 10-@ could be cmservative. As compreA to fach other dependtng on h[t ratto i
-for cjven T-b . But -Sc a 'y o . ,s , u o.sg case, Formula. C I t o -5) rs more cowseevative . -
Thus we can vnake The -follow?9 godtgvnent 6w 4 hem. OLD -Formu\as /, sea %. a) Formulo (12.) , t q 63 Code _
'N Ff 6 Fb [ i.o - o.ooos Af
& (j 20 )" l 4> i and A wi+h Fw Tn Psi. 4ew b) Fmmula C l.10-5) 19 8o code f h
Ff 4 Fb [ 10 - o.coor m A * ( r m76o f - , wr+b Fb 7n ks'i o.4s+o g 4ew Forwula. o. 75-focmula. (l. to -6) 19 go code
)035' (
g 4 p3 -u.+(Il)04-#)--
- n. + 2 C +^w f )
4 - sA Prtjut C5257 Page
- [ J Franklin Research Center A DMsion of The Franklin Institute
,, o,, . . , , o,,, ,,
C_ 35 o ,,, m m ram enren, w m s.rsassc> % OCTei) &N s/'ft j i AISC 1.10.61963/1980 CODE C079ARISON l.0 _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a = 0.9 l g,3 y_.. a = 0.6 . 5 0 I g osy -- N g
~ a = 0.3 5 .
w (',,, 0.25-- r, o
*/,
*se ,
00 .
\N
$3 s$o ~A
. WED/ FLANGE AREA RATIO SENDING STRESS = 25KSI ALPHA =0.3. 0.6. 0.9 H/TRATio=162 o
G e 6
~ 4 _
,A Project Page ,
l C5257 C- 36
} Franklin Nesearch Center sy Date an.
A Division of The Franklin Insttute Daje 9,.u. Dare N a ma r,- P ,. e=a, re s 9:03 ,b DCT @ y#/M i i AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - 3
- 0.9 035~-- a = 0.6 g
~ _.
c.5~- y -
-__-_______ ~
5
~
a = 0.3 y - M g'*r NY ~ f 'o,
*1, ,
Co,*C 0.C -- - 20 go 60 88 . . . _ __ - 0 WED/FU:;~E AREA T10 2 01NG STRESS = 25KS1 ALPHA.O.3. 0.6. 0.9. H/T RATIO = 172 6 Y b D
.WED e
6 ________m._ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - - - - . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - .
4 - Ag Preiset ease O. J Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 37 By Date Ch'k.d Date R ev. Date A Dr.vis. ion of The Franklin Insttute m--- r, wi r ,. % e. inics k4 Cd7 g) //(y, ///// AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISCN l.0 - -- __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s a 6 0.9 ,
. , ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ - - -
o.8 -- a = 0.6
~~
o.G 5 0 -
~ ~
2 , ~~~~~____
! a = o,3 g 04- -
- o,,
'o,
*/,
0.2 e - c*s, i 0.C - 6 I I i i O (0 10 30 A0 50 60 WES/FLNIGE AREA RATIO SENDING STRESS = 25K51 ALPHA =0.3, 0.6. 0.9. H/T RATIO = 182 I e
- e
Project Page C5257 C 38
. Franklin Research Center ey ca o.u. care R ev. cate A Division of The Franklin Institute m m e, n e - n o. w a RA ocT,teTI//RM, dy AISC 1.10.61963/1980 CODE CCMPARISON r.o - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._
a = 0.9 07F-- . a = 0.6 3 Q 05-- - - - _ 5 a = 0.3 o-N . -'4f -- y e ,4 0.":5:-- -
*/p S/-
4 00 so 15 0 200 - 0 WED/ FLANGE AREA RATIO _ _ BENDING STRESS = 50K3I ALPHA =0.3. 0.6. 0.9 H/T RATIO = 117 - 9 2 4 m ---++~,w , w- e ,yww, . .=4- - , - * - c e-- -w - - - w - -
i
.A Prtjoct Page
- C5257 C- 39
[ . ] Franklin Research Center 8# U* *. U' ""* U* ** A OMsion of The Franklin Insotute m m v~ rm.was ssnu .S h OCT[*Tl /J/2/ ///7/ AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON I.0 - a = 0.9 o = 0.6
= 0 6- .
2 4 g - C
- a = 0.3
,$ oa- .
0.2.- 'o,
*/,
C*r 40 i I ' g so 4h so l's 100
'dE3/ FLANGE AREA RATIO SDIDING STRESS = 50KSI ALPHA =0.3. 0.6, 0.9. H/T RATIO = 127
~
5 l
~ '
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ z r --- 2 1'- '
~- ~# - - - " ~
g Project Page C5257 C 40 l . ] Franklin Research Center o,, o,,, n ,,, A DMsion of The Franklin Insutute 3, n A e 2 .,,, o,,, n.a - r w a m ,. m .p. is m K rT DC7 f/ /*Jr.d , AISC 1.10.61963/1980 CODE COMPARISON l.0 - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a = 0.9
\ ,'-
! a = 0.6 I
8 0. G-. - 0 5
~~-
g - 3 - a = 0.3 _
= o.e
*/,
#8 0.1- -
s
#*O
- 4 i ( l i 0 10 ao 30 io 50 2 WES/ FLANGE AREA RATIO SENDING STRESS = 50KSI ALPHA =0.3. 0.6. 0.'J. H/T RATIO = 137 j 3
O e I l l
db # C5257 C. 41 [ , J Franidin Research Center u o. em o. . n o. .
^m D g ? O ff!*af,la R5,jjuf RA SEPT'g) //p.A n)/
CASE stuoy - to - Comparison of sedron C 1 9. i 2.) and APfendrx C (Alsc 1980) wrib 5e' cnon I. 9.1 (Aisc,1963) J wid+b-ihickness ra+io of unsilffened e\emenk Subj~ect +o Gxta.\ ~ ccmeression and cenyessten c(ve -fu tendrng . L both seckons ae. Irwii- cf wid+h -
-thickmess ratio is given -$r % e @llow7wg vartous cases.
CAss I : s7ngle -angle struts ; deoble -angle struts wi+h seprders CASE I: Struts comprisTng cicubie angles In conh ef; awcles ce pktes emJeding -fem gTeders, co iumns, or other c.empressten wembers J Ccmpression ;Clanges 0[ beams ; 57tiMners on plo,te gTeders CASE E : S+ ems cf 'I*ees L MSC , 1980 , a.a.ocem3t
- b SP"if'*"th" f" 4he cNbove cases , w hen compre ssten l
wembers exceed ~ +he cut owa6t<. w tcHh ~
'thickwess ratto ,
%e catawa.ble stresses ope _ reduced by a Mer bsed on
-femulAs gNen 'tn appendik C which depends on yteld siress Ug ) omd l
4he width - +hickmess r4io,
. 6 ,
s Project Page
--4 C- 42
. ] Franklin Research Center ,l o,,, ,,,,
A DMsion of The Franklin Instatute i
.,.x., o,,,
o,,. g ,, But accercline d iu hlSC, ict63 $pe ct-fications, - - - When Compress 7on wembers exceed h cat ev>oJole. u'ta % -%ideness ratio ; the. >nember is acceptabk if it satisfies the attewabk scess requiNwnis uT% A. poet 7en of wTd4h ie, ffecitJt. Width weets stress rejuTremenh; . Er the case, stud 7., Ywo va. lues of 3(, ksi and 50 k 5i are chosen- fie the F7 YvJo Valt466 he picd angle Seckton (AMC} T sec+ tans given rn Alsc, Mod. graphs -PWVE been plotted forReduch Fac+er ys Width -thickmess entro. . Reduttrm Factor for Alsc , 1980 code rs lased on forwulas given tn efpendrX C and for Alsc M6 L . reduc 4 Ton facioe is +he. rab of e$ective_ wid+h +o ac+ val width of
%e. se c+tcy .
Based on +he grubs > the chap.
-Sc case I cwi Case. Y. at highee
, Width / thickness ratio would be a. $ cha.ge, As Seecifrca+. ' ions were. w re con serva.ttve_ rn t963 code - Lt fc Casel +be chage. rn Spectftcxtran is 1 Chage. os It 6 more.
~
Tn R to Code, a.+ Ccnser va.tTVe. kT3h er-- wid th - %ickwss eq% .
4 . s% Preict C5257 43 C-J Franklin Research Center ,, o,,, . .,., o,,, ,,,, o,,, A n.DMsion
- r,-of Th,e~,.%
Franklin, Institute i
.mm RA J:EPT fl /5t A N///
t e i.. -- W m 9'S- '
~
N ' m 8~8
\
g : e .7 ' T - I - 0 - N - r _ x 8%3
, A - . .
c . - T . 8.5 . , , , , , 12 14 to 18 29 22 24 WIDTl+-THICKNESS RATIO e i i em 6 5 0 e s e==,w L . .
. no s on. . . . - - - .e o.
.e.
. ...-.e--
)
~' '
Project P ge l C5257 C- 44 J Franklin Research Center ,, o.,, cya.. o.1, n ,.. o. . A DMsion of The Franklin Institute oa ggg7 gg ffM.[, /6 p/ [ 8 N W Fransen Part=ey. Pha Pa 19103 6/T *, i FY=50KSI ANGLES SEPARATED -. - - ---- 1.8 s
, 6+
ee- en - m x N R E .
~ --- ' --,
D . (J C T I 88 \ ; 0 * -' -- - - - - N F - A C . - - - - - -- T . g 84 a i a a i i i
, ,. [
la 12 14' to t$ 29 22 24
, WIDTH-THICKNESS RATID i
{ l
. I
- I
- i
.1 l
1 l 1 _;_-__-_;_- - . , _ . _ . .. - - -
..- I 4 .
,4 Prei.ct Page C5257 C 45 l . .l Franklin Research Center o,,, c ,,,,, o,,, ,,,, o ,,,
A n,Division
- r,-of Th,e
~.~Franklin,
.ma Institute ,lRA
- SEfr O r
/;v/ /o///
t 4 E i l l FY-38KSI ANGLES IN CONTACT I
; l8 g\ - -
a.o s 3 R - E a.8 s x u c - T . o N 8.7 MH F . A c - - T -
- O a.e , , , , ,
R t4 ie ts as 22 24
, WID % THICKNESS RATIO
.m.
m 3
- =+- ~ . . .*- -- -. ;,-... es . m , .%.,
- k C. 46
-l J Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin insatute C5257 om, cuo o.,, n o. .
jSm a - me a rr ar ,.m ra isic E-A SEPT Cl ee w/n _. P k l l FY=5BKSI ANGLES IN CONTACT I', . . _ . _ _ __ _ N
~
0.8 x R E D -- -
'3
?
I
' x x ,
O - i N - i%a N R - T . . I . - 8.5 . . . . . . 12 14 to 18 20 22 24 . _ , , , , , WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIO I i 1 e 1 i I Wh h
- s,- -- -
4 , s% N ject Page
. Franklin Research Center C5257 C- 47 A Division of The Franklin Insutute 8V 0 Md Date Rev. Date Na-r aem.m.==me RA SEfT,7) /)/.24 n/p/
1 1 FY=36KSI T SHAPES ia
; g .
W 88
'x '.
l- N
! g -
C T A 9.8 y . A C y .
; .4 .
29 22 24- 26 28 38 32 34 WIDTH-THICKNESS RATIO , 3 9 m e l l
, k a% eniect rm
-(
- C5257 C- 48
. ] Franidin Research Center By O .k.d Date R ev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute Date, the s.nism i r,a,ena Pers ,. PMa, Pa 191o2
.RA SEPT fl //#//J /s/f/
o-FY6 T SHAPES
! . 9 ---
0.8 x N - 0 \ \ q3 C ~ T - I - - - - - 0 N 8.4 % 3
.1 N
A - C T _ 0 8.2 . .. .... .. .... . .. .... .... 17.5 20.9 22.5 25.8 27.5 38.8 32.5 35.8 ilIDTH-THICKNESS RATIO 3 i l I l ,
0 - db
-1 J Franklin Research Center C5257 C 49 o... cava o. . a.
,, o. .
LDl2?MTDEI 8A CCT'f! ffW ////'/ CASE SrvDY -)i-Comparison of MSC 1980 Sec+1m I. \\ H- wi+h Alse (943 Secem 1. u.4 ; S6e conmec+oes $r C ornposite beams - Where (ogth>dinal retn$rcing sfee.) Sc4s with beam . Ace.o<d%g % AISC t 9 80, F~rmula C I st -5)
\/g = Ase Fe/7_y (, l . i, -s.)
is Siven 6r con +Tnuous corn gesite beam where , longi +vdinal etI%rc.ing stee.{ T5 C071sidered Yo GCY Co m foSItd!/WIN Yhe SYeeI beam In the. Wf4YIVd
% cment re}7 ens, do Co.lculait Yhe dotal hori y nfo.}
shear 4o be. resis+44 by shear conmectors betaen l an in4erior support and eack adgacen+ point of con +ra-flexure . Whereas in MSC M63 spec 7ficatrons , the +o4al horiynto.1 chear +o be res7sted between ihe polni c{' wav7 mum Posi+tve. mowent and each end or o. point of con +rafle8vre in Con +inuous beame 7s given as the smo.Iler v a.l u e o f f~ormul a. ( t g ) and CIO
\/h= o. s s. Ac q,g) and \/ h = b* b CO 2.
m - , ame - 4..-m..,.
+ ...__p--r_
e--___ ,w,_
. - ~
, 3 sA Praect Page 50 C
-d ) Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franidin insutute g ,, .
Rev. Date I 1 l' %ere Ts no separate -furmulo. -[er 71egafNe womenY region ih AIStj 1963 The ctbove -formvIqs are 4he same TM AISC , Iqgo ; Grmula. (l. II-3) l and ct.u-4) -for '+he positive moment region. l He reover- Tn AISC , 1963, +here Ts no consideration of reityforcing steel ih concrete acting compoGely with +be steel beam rn negatwe woment regions. This rmp i res 4 hat in compuftng +he Section 'ModulvS at ihd poi"ts of nega+ive bending, reinforcement parattel +o 4he s+ eel beam , and lying wi+hin +he effectWe. ,wid+h of siab vnay be included according +o A IS C ., 19 8o . But it is not allowed 4e include reinforcing Steel Tn computing 4he section wodulus -for +he above case as Per the specificdrons of AlSc. 1963. Thus design criferia. rs being liberalized Tn AIS C l980 . Since 4he juantr{ica+ ton of ibis
, liberal criteriq rs un knowy) , -this ch ange Can toest be. classified as 1 Any Coynposite beam desigtied as Per A1SC l963 Specifico.tions Will Show/ w1ere woment Capeity when calculo.ted accordrng +o AIse, Icl80 Seeci-fr cation.s.
s . A mi.a C5257 51 C-U. J Franklin Research Center ,l o ,, c,,. .. o,,, g ,,, o,,, L O ? 2 1.f" 2 P ais' rp# /s/p/ n/~3 t./s i 4 9 l CASE STUDY ! i i The allowable peripheral Shear S+ress ( Purching Shear S+ress ) as s+ated Tn +he
- 8 ' Pv AsMe code sec+ron l!I. D tv. 2. ,
l (980 C ACI 359 - 8o ) Paca. CC - 3 H.I . C rs limited Yo "LIc. Where Fe Shall be Calculated
; as +he wet 3hted average of Fch awd Vcvn Te k = 4) f,' } \ + CS "'/4jfr )
l \ + ( El41S' )
~
U~cm = %le.f <- The AC,I 318 -63 C. ode sec+ren 17 07 sfq+es -that-the Ul4rmate Ghear S+rength $ shall tot
;_ o ceed U~c. = 4-f-f'c -
l CornparNg +be above +wo cases +he i
-following Ts concluded ;
i When : S cab
- l. Membrane stresses are. compressive 317 - 63 Ts more conservative CC-)
2 hiembrane Stresses are -tenstle 3)& -b3 IS (eSS conser Va+IVe (A ) l
. ')
Pr ject Page 11 C5257 C- 52 U. . J Franklin Research Center 8VA Date Ch'k'd Date R ev. Date A Division of The Franklin Insetute n.a - r aa v.nws.ra mas /, M/N /o/// gg/g ,,/gg sea 3 Membrane stresses are aero 3is - 43 Ts i& ntic al
- rating 4- Membrane 5+eesses are opposi4e ik sip 3W -63 could be tess conserva+Ne (A)
G O J f w
- 4 l l
q - -. -ya9,w,ww g-- w -e,y-w=w.u+'-- --
4 - i A' s N wt C5257 Page C. 53
- 1. JO Franklin Research Center ,, o,,, c3.,., o,,, g ,,, o,,,
^
m *OIO?!'"O,1YE $2/?(/ p/A ew/mo ,oIss o Case sTuor the 3a PV ksMe Code Sedron 'E DTersTon 2. M 80 ( ACI 359 -so) Para. c c-3+2: . 7 s+a+es -4 the shear stress faken by
.l ihe concrete resulting -from pure +erston shall l wot exceed lJet where Vee = 6 /-f' I+ O '
Y* + J{ (44'7' W hile 4he ACI Sts-66 Code Sec+ren l7o 7 limits +he vi% ate Sheu- Strength $ -+o We = 4lSe From . h. o.bove -huo cases 4he
-fillow?ng Ts concluded ;
Lohen : sed I
- 1. Mernbrane s+resseo are com pressNe
, 318 - 6 3 Ts w re conservofwe (c. )
t 2 Membrane skresses are 4 ensile 31F - 6 3 Ts l<s s c,nservatNe (A ) 7 ens s
^ '
s' t l
* . f --__ .
t y - * - ,
sf Project Page
- l. C5257 C- 54 J Franidin Research Center
~
o,,, a .,., o,,, ,,,, o ,,,
^n Dv?.,.$?!$"$b $$' ,,lllAl
/ h/fl R e/an sofst
. ScA 3 Membrane. Mresses are reco str-63 Ts more conservatNe (C)
- 4. Membrane sivesses are OPPCSMC IY1 stp Sir -63 could be less conservahYe (A) 4 e
e P e me e 4_ _
. x APPENDIX D ACI CODE PHIIDSOPHIES l l l i o l l l al
. 0. Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute lhe Ben errun s Franknn Parkway. PMe.. Pa. 19103 (215)448 1000 l
< ~b ACI CODE PHIIDSOPHIES The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete delineate two philosophies of design which have long been I
in uses the so-called working stress method, which was in general acceptance and predominant use from early in this century to the early 1960's, and the ultimate strength method, which has been rapidly replacing working stress since about 1963. Working Stress Method The working stress method of design is referred to as the " alternate design method" by the most recent ACI code. By this method, the designer proportions structural elements so that internal stresses, which result from the action of service loads
- and are computed by the principles of elastic mechanics, do not exceed allowable stress values prescribed by the code.
The allowable stresses as prescribed by the ACI code are set such that the stresses under service load conditions will be within the elastic range of behavior for the materials involved. As a result of this, the assumption of straight line stress-strain behavior applies reasonably for properly designed structural members. The member forces used in design by this method are those which result from an elastic analysis of the structure under the action of the service loads.
, Ultimate Strength Design The ultimate strength method is referred to as the " strength method" in 3
the most recent ACI code. By this method, the proportioning of the members is i based on the total theoretical strength of the member, satisfying equilibrium and compatibility of stress and strain, at failure. This theoretical strength is modified by capacity reduction factors which attempt to assess the variations to be encountered in material, construction tolerances, and calculation approximation.
- Service loads are defined as those loads which are assumed to occur during the service life of the structure.
D-1 I du Franklin Research Center i A Chaman of The Frennen ansamme / l
4 - Strength Reduction Factor In the present code, the capacity reduction factor ($) varies for the
, type of member and is considered to account for the relative seriousness of j the member failure as regards the overall integrity of the structure.
Load Factors Also, by this method, the designer increases the service loads by applying 1 appropriate load factors to obtain the ultimate design load's in an attempt to assess the possibility that the service loads may be exceeded in the life of the structure. The member forces used to proportion members by this method are based on an elastic analysis of the structure under the action of the ultimate design loads. 4 i Importance of Ductility A critical factor involved in the logic of ultimate strength design is the need to control the mode of failure. The present ACI code, where possible, has incorporated a philosophy of achieving ductility in rainforced concrete designs. Ductility in a structural member is the ability to maintain load carrying capacity while significant, large deformations occur. Ductility in members is a desired quality in structures. It permits significant redistribution of internal loads allowing the structure to readjust its load resistance pattern as critical sections or members approach their limiting capacity. This deformation results in cracking and deflections which provide a means of warning in advance of catastrophic collapse. Under conditions of loading where energy must be absorbed by the structure, member ductility l becomes very important. r This concern for preserving ductility appears in the present code in many ways and has guided the changes in code requirements over the recent decades. Where research results have confirmed analysis and intuition, the code has i provided for limiting steel percentages, reinforcing details, and controis-all directed at guaranteeing ductility. In those aspects of design where ductility cannot be achieved or insured, the code has required added strength to insure potential failure at the more ductile sections of structures. D-2 000 er.nioin ae.e.,ch c.n , A Chemen of The Frenten kaumme
- - - - ~ ~ - - _:= ,
-- , := =.m : ^.- . - -
e J. Examples of this are evident in the more conservative capacity reduction factors for columns and in the special provisions required for seismic design. I Strength and Serviceability in Design i There are many reasons for the recent trend in reinforced concrete codes toward ultimate strength rather than working stress concepts. Research in reinforced concrete has indicated that the strain distributions predicted by working stress computations in general do not exist in the members under load. There are many reasons for this lack of agreement. Concrete is a brittle, non-linear material in its stress-strain behavior, exhibiting a down trend beyond its ultimate stress and characterized by a tensile stress-strain
- curve which in all its features is approximately on the order of one tenth i
smaller than its compressive stress-strain curve. ! Time-dependent shrinkage and creep strains are often of significant magnitude at service load levels and are difficult to assess by working stress methods. While ultimate strength methodc do not eliminate these factors, they become less significant at ultimate load levels. In addition, ultimate l strength methods allow for more reasonable approximations to the non-linear concrete stress-strain behavior, i In the analyses of structures, the designer must, by necessity, make l certain assumptions which serve to idealize the structures. The primary
- assumptions are that the structure behaven in a linearly elastic manner, and that the idealized member stiffness is constant throughout each member and constant in time.
Working stress logic does not lend itself well to accounting for variations in stiffness caused by cracking and variations in material properties with time. Although the ultimate strength method in the present code requires an elastic structural analysis to determine member forces for design, it recognizes these limitations and, in concept, anticipates the redistribution resulting from ductile deformation at the most critically stressed rections and in fact proportions members so that redistribution will occur. A D-3 ranklin Research Center A Cnemen of The Fransen innsame
In addition to strength, a design must satisfy serviceability requirements. In some designs, serviceability factors (such as excessive deflection, cracking, or vibration at service load) may prove to be more t important than strength. Computations of the various serviceability factors are generally at service load levels; therefore, the present code uses elastic concepts in its controls of serviceability. Factors of Safety Factors of safety
- are subjects of serious concern in this review. For working stress, the definition of the factor of safety is of ten considered to be the ratio of yield stress to service load stress. This definition becomes i
suspect or even incorrect where nonlinear response is involved. For ultimate strength, one definition of factors of safety is the ratio of the load that would cause collapse to the service or working load. As presented in the present code, a factor of safety is included for a variety of reasons, each of which is important but has no direct interrelation with the other. The present ACI code has divided the provisions for safety into two factors; the overload factors and the capacity reduction factors (considered separately by the code) are both provisions to insure adequate safety but for distinctly different reasons. The code provisions imply that the total theoretical strength to be designed for is the ratio of the overload factor (U) over the capacity reduction factor (9). The present ACI code has assigned values to the above factors such that the ratio U/$ ranges from about 1.5 to 2.4 for reinforced concrete structural elements. l
- relation, Factors ofMSsafety = FS - 1.
(PS) are related to margins of safety (MS) ' through the A n m8K enW A Dumen of The hensen humano _ _ -}}