ML20054D628
| ML20054D628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1982 |
| From: | Jackie Cook CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0800, RTR-NUREG-800 16643, OC0482-0070A100, OC482-70A100, NUDOCS 8204230210 | |
| Download: ML20054D628 (11) | |
Text
_....
s CODSUm8IS Power James W Cook C0mpany wa na,uc.,- noucfa.si. a s a.J Co.structio.
General offices: 1945 West Parnali Road, Jackson, MI 49201 + (517) 788-0453 April 19, 1982 s.0
/t t
S Harold R DentCn, Director IVED Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation t
APR 2219b [
Division of Licensing 8!sca n;m 8"32 h
US Nuclear Regulatory Commiss? ion g
. Washington, DC 20555
/f 1>
MIDLAND PROJECT-4 MIDLAND DOCKET'NO 50-329, 50-330 INFORMATION ON SEISMIC CATEGORY I MASONRY WALLS FOR THE STAFF'S SAFETY EVALUATION REVIEW N
FILE:
B3.8.1, 0505.16 SERIAL:
16643
REFERENCES:
(1) S A VARGA GENERIC LE' ITER OF APRIL 21, 1980 CONCERNING INFORMATIONAL REQUEST ON CATEGORY I MASONP.Y WALLS (2) J W COOK LETTER TO S A VARGA, SERIAL 9406, DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 1980 s
(3), J W COOK LETTER TO R L TEDESCO, SERIAL 9864, DATED OCTOBER 21, 1980 ENCLOSURES:
(1) COMPARISON OF BLOCKWALL CRITERIA (2p REVISE 7 RESPONSE TO APRIL 1980 NRC QUESTION 5 s
In April 1980, the NRC forwarded a request for information on Category I reasonry walls. This request for information was contained in the enclosure to Reference 1.
We responded to this NRC information request with our correspondence of September 3, 1980 (Reference 2) as supplemented by the correspondence of Reference 3.
References 2 and 3 contained information on loads and load combinations, applicable codes, and criteria for the attachment of piping and equipment which were used in the analysis and design of Category I masonry walls.
To further assist the NRC Staff in its safety evaluation review of Midland Category I masonry walls, we are forwarding the enclosed comparison. contains a comparison of the Midland design' criteria for l
Category I masonry blockwalls with the NRC's interim criteria for safety-l related masonry walls contained in Appendix A to the Standard Review Plan l
(NUREG-0800), Section 3.8.4.
The differences identified in this comparison are not significant, and are justified in the notes included in the enclosure.
l 890423 01C ngo\\
oc0482-0070a100 1 9L hI g
i f
2 L
l i
In addition to the comparison of Enclosure 1, we are forwarding a revised
[
response to the'NRC's Question 5 which we forwarded originally to the NRC'with Reference 2.
This revised response provides an update on the capacities for i
anchors in blockwalls which support small piping and equipment.
i The enclosed information along with the information previously forwarded by _
i References 2 and 3 provides a complete response to the safety evaluation review criteria established in Appendix A to Standard Review Plan 3.8.4. and l
.should allow the Staff to complete its safety evaluation review for blockwalls.
[
ll W
t JWC/RLT/dsb i
l CC RJCook, Midland Resident Inspec or, w/o RHernan, NRC, w/a FRinaldi, NRC,'w/a i
i t
i i
l i
+
s 4
t l
4 i
i i
oc0482-0070a100 t
~
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Midland Units 1 and 2 Docket No 50-329, 50-330 Letter Serial 16643 Dated April 19, 1982 At the request of the Commission and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended and the Commission's Rules and Regulations thereunder, Consumers Power Company st.bmits additional SER-related information concerning Catagory 1 masonry blockwalls.
Included as Enclosure 1 is a comparison of the Midland design for Catagory 1 masonry blockwalls with the Staff's criteria contained in Appendix to Standard Review Plan 3.8.4.
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY By
/
N J W Cook, Vice President '
Pro'ects, Engineering and Construction Sworn and subscribed before me this 19th day of April 1982.
Notary Public Jackson County, Michigan My Commission Expires September 8, 1984 i
b miO382-0052a100 i
~
r Midlend Plant, Units 1 and 2 Dockat Nos: 50-329 (Page 1 of 4) 50-330 COMPARISON OF BLOCKWALL CRITERIA NUREG - 0800 Midland Standard Review Plan Description Design Criteria (SRP) Section 3.8.4 Remarks
-1.
LOAD COMBINATIONS Normal Conditions Service Load D+L D+L D+L+W D+L+W D+L+E D+L+E D+L+To + R.
See Note 1 D+L+f
+Ro+E See Note 1 o
D+L+To+Ro+W See Note 1 Severe and Extreme Environmental, and Abnormal Conditions D + L + E' D + L + To + Ro + E' See Note 1 D + L + W' D + L + To + R
+W See Note 1 o
D+L+R D+L+T
+R
+
See Notes 2 8
1.5P, and 3 D+L+R+E D+L+T
+R
+
See Note 2 1.25P 1.0 SeeNote3{or a
difference in (Y
+Y.+Y) load factors; 3
Also see
+ 1. 5E Notes 4 and 5 D + L + R + E' D+L+T
+R See Notes 2, 4 and 5
+ 1.0P + 1.0 a
(Y + Y. + Y )
r j
m
+ 1.0E' 2.
STRESS INCREASES Normal Conditions No increase of stresses For wind or opera-ting basis earth-quake loads, no in-I crease is allowed (Section 3a).
Inspection required Inspection required
(
ciO482-1823a112 u5 l
e (Page 2 of 4)
NUREC - 0800 Midland Standard Review Plan Description Design Criteria (SRP) Section 3.8.4 Remarks 2.
STRESS INCREASES (continued)
Direct tension perpen-Tension perpendicu-dicular to bed joints lar to bed joints resisted by reinforce-requires testing for ment; no unreinforced unreinforced masonry.
masonry is used on the For reinforced proj ect.
masonry walls, all the tensile stresses shall be resisted by reinforcement.
Severe and Extreme Environmental, and
]
Abnormal Conditions Axial or flex-2.5 2.5 ural compres-sion Bearing 2.5 2.5 4
Shear and bond 1.33 1.3 Masonry tension 1.5 1.5 parallel to bed joints Shear and ten-1.33 None specified sion at block wythe to concrete or block wythe to grout core interface i
Masonry tension 0
Reinforced masonry 0 perpendicular to Unreinforced masonry bed joints 1.3 j
Reinforcement 2.0 f 0.9 Fy 2.0 f 0.9 Fy stress except shear Shear -
1.5 1.5-Reinforcement Bolts 1.5 1.5 (No increase is allowed for expansion or grouted anchors.)
i l
ciO482-1823a112 l
(Page 3 of 4)
NUREC - 0800 Midland Standard Review Plan Description Design Criteria (SRP) Section 3.8.4 Remarks 3.
ALLOWABLE STRESSES As provided in ACI As provided in ACI 531-79 with the 531-79 following additions Direct Tension and Shear at:
a) Mortor collar 0
Not specified joints b) Block wythe to 12 psi
'Not specified See Note 6 concrete or block wythe to grout core interface Direct and flex-2.5 Vf'c Not specified See Note 7 ural tension for cell and core concrete acting alone 4.
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS Interstory drift Consideration Consideration effects required required Unreinforced None used Not allowed masonry walls in new construction Masonry shear None used Minimum rein-walls forcement per ACI-531 Special protection Considered Required to See Note 8 for masonry walls meet SRP 3.5.3 from accident pipe reaction, jet impingement, and missile impact ziO482-1823a112 i
l
1 (Page 4 of 4)
NOTES:
1.
Thermal effects T are not considered in the analysis of masonry walls.
o Thermal gradient effects do not have a significant effect on reinforced masonry because sustained temperatures are limited to about 150 to 200F.
The predicted thermal compressive stresses are conservative because masonry creeps under sustained loads, which reduces the ef fective modulus and stress. Thermal loads are therefore not be considered in the analysis and design of masonry walls.
Piping reactions (R ), including thermal effects, were added into the design live loads (L).
2.
Thermal effects T are short term transient loads and are not considered in the analysis of masonry walls (see Note 1).
Piping reactions (R including thermal effects, were added into the design live load (L)'),P, is included in R as a pipe break effect.
3.
For concrete structures (strength design), the SRP criteria includes 1.25 P and 1.5 P under certain load combinations, but the Midland FSAR (Sections 3.$.4.3 and 3.8.6.3.3) does not include these increased load factors. The same condition exists with the masonry walls (ie the masonry walls are designed with a 1.0 Load Factor applied to P,).
4.
The 1.25 E load requirement in the SRP load combination for OBE is enveloped by the Midland criteria load combination for SSE, since E' = 2.0 E.
5.
Masonry walls shall not be used to resist jet forces or pipe whip restraint supports; therefore, Y., Y, and Y are not considered.
J r
m 6.
Allowable stress for block wythe to concrete or block wythe to grout core interface: The Midland criteria allows 12 psi; Uniform Building Code, 1979 (Page 180, Table No 24-B) allows 12 psi for a hollow unit net mortar (unreinforced) and also allows 25 psi for grouted masonry area (unreinforced).
7.
Stress due to direct flexural tension for cell and core concrete acting alone is considered to be one-third of the value of the modulus of rupture for concrete, which ensures a safety factor of 3.
Modulus of rupture for normal weight concrete is F = 7.5 Vf'c (ACI-318-71).
8.
Barriers and/or pipe whip restraints are provided to protect blockwalls from jet impingement, missile, and pipe whip loads when the failure of the blockwalls could prevent other safety related structures, systems, or components from performing their intended safety functions.
miO482-1823a112
Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos: 50-329 50-330 REVISED RESPONSE TO APRIL 21, 1980 NRC QUESTION 5 Question 5 How were the masonry walls and the piping / equipment supports attached to.them designed? Provide enough numerical examples including details of reinforcement and attachments to illustrate the methods and procedures used to analyze and design the walls and the anchors needed for supporting piping / equipment (as applicable).
Response
Items supported by Seismic Category I masonry walls are limited to small piping and light weight equipment. They are attached by expansion anchors, grouted anchors, or through bolts.
The design information for expansion anchors is shown in Attachment 1.
The design information for grouted anchors is shown in Attachment 2.
4 The design information for through bolts is shown in Attachment 3.
These attachment loads were considered in the design of block walls.
5 i
i P
miO482-1823b112 l
ALLOWABLE DESIGN LOADS FOR WEDGE AND STUD TYPE ANCHORS IN MASONRY BLOCK WALLS j
Minimum Embedment (E)
Anchor Before Tension Shear Diameter Torquing (T)
(S)
Spacing (in.)
(in.)
(kips)1 (kips)1 (in.)
3/8 1-5/8 0.4 0.5 4
3/8 3-1/8 0.6 0.8 4
1/2 2-1/4 0.7 1.4 5
1/2 3-3/4 0.8 1.6 5
5/8 4
1.2 2.2 6
5/8 5-1/2 1.6 2.4 6
NOTES
- 1) Values based on " Report on the Testing of Concrete Expansion Anchors in Masonry Blockwalls" at Midland Michigan.
- 2) When an anchor is subjected to both tension and shear loads, the following method of combination shall be used to assess anchor capacity:
S T
applied +
applied < 1.0 S
T allowable allowable y.:
.y.:
e. :
, _ y,
- 7
' p..
- o = 9:
. g_
- p,.
a
.c?,p.
.4, 4
.. - ;. -p:
, t
- .g.,.
o r,...-
~
- w. t
,o s.-
, p...,.. r <,
_y.
Ir i
miO482-1823b112
ALLOWABLE DESIGN LOADS FOR GROUTED ANCHOR BOLTS IN MASONRY BLOCKWALLS Anchor 1
Diameter Hole Size (d)
Embedment D = 2d + 1/2" Tension (T)
Shear (S)
(in.)
E (in.)
(in.)
(kips)1 (kips)1 5/8 6
1-3/4 2.2 3.0 NOTES
- 1) Values are based on testing of grouted anchors in concrete block walls at Midland, Michigan
- 2) When an aiAhor is subjected to both tension and shear loads, the following method of combination shall be used to assess anchor capacity:
T S
applied +
applied < 1 T
S allowable allowable Nonshrink Grout i
' /
/ / // /
// / //
/.;,/
.... s c
,/
- .:1,...+
/
y
..L
. ~, - f
/.
6 a
/
..-,/
- 1
/ :8..'-.
. /
.a
//
- '/
/////
v Grouted Anchor Bolt miO482-1823b112
ALLOWABLE DESIGN LOADS FOR THROUGH BOLTS IN MASONRY BLOCK WALLS Anchor Diameter Tension Capacity Shear Capacity (d)
(T)
(S)
(in.)
(kips)
(kips) 5/8 2.5 2.5 NOTE
- 1) When an anchor is subjected to both tension and shear loads, the following method of combination shall be used to assess anchor capacity:
T S
applied +
applied
<1 T
S allowable allowable M
\\\\
b wh w
N :..:- l<
sN 3
3
\\NN N
Nonshrink Gront.
4 Y E
/
\\\\
\\
- v..'.'
~.
\\ *'[.. *'
\\
ll
-Through Bolt E
miO482-1823b112