ML20063C743

Masonry Wall Design, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20063C743
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	06/25/1982
From:	Con V, Subramonian N FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:	Nilesh Chokshi NRC
Shared Package
ML20063C748	List: ML20063C743
References
CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130 IEB-80-11, TAC-42920, TAC-42921, TER-C5506-165, NUDOCS 8206300163
Download: ML20063C743 (37)

Text

. . . . . _ . . _ _ _ _._ _ _. _ . _ .- . -

. , Enclosure 1 i TECHNICAL EVALUATION RE.: ORT I

MASONRY WALL DESIGN (B-59) i GEORGIA POWER COMPANY j i EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 1

- NRC DOCKET NO. 50-321, 50-366 FRC PROJECT C5506 NRC TAC NO. 42920, 42921 FRC ASSIGNMENTS-3 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81-130 FRC TASK 165 i

$j I

Prepared by Franklin Research Center Author: N. Subramonian -,

20th and Race Street V. N. Con .

Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: V. N. Con . .i:

Prepared for -'

Nuclear Regulatory Commission . 5, Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: N. C. Chokshi  ;.]

1

'i June 25, 1982 l '

l' l This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Govemment 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.

l product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

1 -

8h s f-w) ,. :

l IJ Franklin Research Center i

A CMsion of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franen Parney, PMa.. Ps. 19103 (215) 44810co 7

-.~. . . _ . . . . - . , - . - -. - - -_... ...- .. _ _ . . - - ~

.I e 4 TER-C5506-165

,. l .

) .

1

. CONTENTS i

Section Title Page

, 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Purpose of Scope . . . . . . . . . . . 1 i

i  : 1.2 Plant-Specific Background . . . . . . . . . 1 1

,i 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I

a

! 3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . 3 t.

! 3.1 Evaluation of Licensee's' Criteria . . . . . . . 3 t

l' 3.2 Evaluation of Licensee's Approach to Wall Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1 , Licensee's Criteria . . . .. . . . . . . 9 4.2- Wall Modifications. . . . . . . . . . . 9 i

l

! 4.3 Modification Schedule . . . . . . . . . . 10 i  !

j 4.4 Safety Evaluation Findings. . . . . . . . . 10 i

! 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 i

! APPENDIX A - INTERIM CRITERIA FOR SAF3TY-RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION

APPENDIX B - NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPENDIX C - TYPICAL SKETCHES OF WALL MODIFICATIONS i

i I

i i

i

' 4N iSU Franklin Research Center iii j ,

, A C wson of The Fraren insutee 8

_. . . . . ._ ..- _ ...... . m_... .

t '

j TER-C5506-165 i

i FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center l under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of 1

3 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical s

! assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The 1

.- technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by j the NRC. -

1 3 i

-,' 2 a

f n

i i

t i

I .

i i

t i

i t

f i

i 1

l gh .

v JCJ Franklin Research Center .

A Cms.on of *be Franann mantuve 8 eg g. y. ,.

.- _ . - - . - ~ ~ - - - . . - . - - . . . .  :.- ---w~ - ,s i

'l TER-C5506-165

1. INTRODUCTION i

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE I

l The purpose of this review is to provid'e a technic &l evaluation o'f the j Licensee's response to Items 2 and 3 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) IE Bulletin 80-11, " Masonry Wall Design" [1], which required Licensees to present reevaluation criteria with justifications and to submit a written

-i report upon completion of the reevaluation program. The evaluation included a

. review of any Licensee-proposed modifications of masonry walls an'd the

proposed methods, procedures, and repair schedules.

I i

1.2 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND i

In response to IE Bulletin 80-11, Georgia Power Company provided the NRC

with documents [2-7, 8] describing the status of masonry walls at the Hatch

-t . .

Nuclear Plant. Reference 4 indicates that 102 safety-related masonry walls have been evaluated. Reference 8 indicates that ten walls had calculated i i

,' stresses exceeding the criteria allowables. These walls have been reanalyzed f

} and qualified af ter introducing the proposed modifications in the analytical model. All the walls in the Hatch' plant are non-load-bearing walls, intended to function as partition walls, fire walls, and shield walls. None of the

~

walls is intended to resist impact or pressurization loads such as tornados, i

missiles, pipe break, pipe whip, or jet impringement. The walls of the plant I

have running bond construction and are reinforced vertically and horizontally.

All the walls belong to the Special Inspection Category. The Licensee has responded (8] to all the questions contained in the request for additional information (9].

e i

i I

i g4 $d0 Franklin Research Center A Onmon of The Frannan lesatute 's t

I

.v ln l

l TER-C5506-165 l

t ,

L

2. EVALUATION CRITERIA i-j- '

The basic documents used for guidance in this review were the Standard 0 -

Review Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix A, " Interim Criteria for Safety-Related

[j-l Masonry Wall Evaluation," [5] developed by the Structural Engineering Branch (SEB) of the NRC (attached as Appendix A to this report), the Uniform Building l.

l' Code [6], and ACI 531-79 [7].

. In genetral, the materials, testing, analysis, design conatruction, and l . inspection of safety-related concrete masonry walls should conform to the SEB

~ '

l. criteria [5].. For operating plants, the loads and load combinations for l

1 qualifying the masonry walls should conform to the appropriate specifications

. in the FSAR for the plant. Allowable stresses are specified in Reference 7 and the appropriate increase factors for abnormal and extreme environmental loads are given in Reference '5.

t

. l ,

et

i. j s

I j

]

i

-~~-- _ .

nklin Research Center A Dewson of The Fratudn insonde ,

e

"~

• * *~ -

~^

,~ ? ~ s ' - 'EM MM

l.

j lER-C5506-165 i

! 3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION i

This evaluation is based on the Licensee's earlier responses [2-7] and 1

3 sybsequent response (8] to the 12 questions contained in the request for additional information [9]. First, the Licensee's criteria [4] were evaluated with regard to design and analysis methods, loads and ic:d ccabinations, j allowable stresses, construction specifications, materials, and relevant test f data. Then, the Licensee's approach with regard to walls that do not satisfy l the criteria was carefully evaluated using the modification drawings. The Licensee's response to the questions contained in the request for additional information was also reviewed.

t 3.1 EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S CFJTERIA t

i a. The Licensee has used the American Concrete Institute's " Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures" (ACI 531-79) [12]

for the purpose of reevaluating masonry walls.

i

b. The working stress method has been used to evaluate the walls.

c. Loads and load combinations used in the analysis were specified in the plant SAR for concrete design.

! d. Concrete blocks are hollow concret'e masonry units made from Portland cement conforming to ASTM C90-70, Grade N, Type I. Horizontal wall reinforcement is extra-heavy (3/16" diameter) Durowall single wythe j trusses conforming to ASTM A82. Vertical reinforcement consists of deformed No. 5 and No. 6 bars, grade 60, which meet the requirements of ASTM A615-68.

i

e. The Licensee used 3% damping for OBE and 5% damping for SSE.

In general, the Licensee's criteria are in compliance with the SEB criteria (10] and are acceptable. The Licensee responded to all the questions i contained in the request for additional information (9] . These responses (8]

, are reviewed below: -

l A -

J2 Franklin Research Center A o- at n. n non ,wan. e,

.]

'1

• 1 .

TER-C5506-165 l

Question 1:

In response to this question, the Licensee provided qualification for using a minimum compression strength of 4000 psi for the gr'out. The Licensee I stated that the original plant specifications required the grout to be tested to ensure a minimum compressive strength of 4000 psi. Samples of all concrete and grout were routinely tested to ensure compliance with the specifications.

Bared on this information, the Licensee's use of the value of 4000 psi for the compressive strength of the grout is justified.

Question 2:

In response to this question, the Licensee stated that all the masonry walls at the Hatch plant are confined walls and that' a conservative value 'of 0.001 in/in was used for the allowable strain in this case, based on several tests reported in the literature. Se allowable strain used by the Licensee is acceptable.

Question 3:

In response to this question, the Licensee provided details of the

-) proposed wall modifications. The field modifications are complete for 8 of the 10 walls for which the calculated stresses exceed the allowables.

Basically, one or more structural steel columns were erected to provide j ,

additional support for these walls. The remaining two walls will be removed l

l in the near future. For all the modified walls, the adequacy of the wall modifications has been confirmed using a STRUDL-DYNAL analysis. These _

modifications have been explained using appropriate sketches. The Licensee's response to this question is considered adequate.

Question 4:

In response to this question, the Licensee provided a set of more legible J

! copies of pages D-1 through D-3 of Appendix D, Reference 4. The Licensee's I

) response is satisfactory and acceptable.

._-{ .J

, ,sg b ;g J-j

.]

, ' 4 S db Franklin Research Center

.. -24 Acw atmrr=wn %

7

. ";7

~

-__l___.---___ ____~__-__ _I_

n-. . .- . . -- . ---u.-- =-- .-

i

' I l TER-C5506-165 I i

.I Question 5:

[ In response to this question, the Licensee provided justification for using increase factors of 1.67 for masonry tension and shear. For the case of I

] shear, the Berkeley tests [13]' indicate a factor of safety of at least 2.22.

For a case of tension normal to the bed joint, the Licensee indicated that

• I tests conducted by NC4A [14] showed a factor of safety of 2.61 to 3.87

,- 'I

] depending on the type of mortar. However, the masonry walls at the Hatch j plant are reinforced; hence, the increase factor for tensile stresses is not l applicable in this case. For the case of shear stress, a sample calculation

] illustrated that the shear stress is very small compared to the allowable; it could very well be qualified for the SEB factor of 1.5. In addition, it was

determined th'at the walls at the plant are not shear walls; thus, in-plane shear is not the governing mode of failure.

I i This question has been resolved satisfactorily.

i

Question 6

'

, In response to this question, the Licensee provided the results of a I

parametric study conducted to determine the effects of the participation of higher modes. For different types of boundary conditions, the results of the f

4 finite element study show that the 'first mode contributes at least 99% of the

, displacement and moment as compared to the first 8 modes. These results I

i sufficiently justify the Licensee's claim that the first mode contributes at least 99% of the total response.

Question 7:

. In response to this question, the Licensee identified the references used for evaluating the shear strength of concrete blocks walls. The Licensee's response is adequate.

Question 8:

In response to this question, the Licensee indicated that the horizontal earthquake loads were applied in only one direction at a time, as required by the plant FSAR. For vertical earthquake, the inertial load moments due to the 3

J' J Franklin Research Center A Cecs.on of The Franabn insonde ,

e

, - - - , . ~ , , . . . - - , , - . , , , - - - - , - , . . . . . _ ~ . _ , - . . _ - , , _ - . . . . . . - . . . -

. . _ - . . . , ~ .

t

} .

-. ;f

,- TER-C5506-165 1,

i attached equipment were applied to the wall. The Licensee's approach to seismic analysis is in confor:nity with the provisions of the plant FSAR and is hence acceptable.

l' .

l Question 9:

a In response to this question, the Licensee stated that the out-of-plant

.;. drif t effect was included in the analysis. The internal wall moments due to j end deflections caused by out-of-plane interstory drift were compared to the

'} allowable moment for each wall and found acceptable. The Licensee's response l- '

l. is acceptable.

1 l, Question 10:

In response to this question, the Licensee stated that the following four ,

modes of failures were considered:

1. failure of masonry mortar resulting in a single block pull-out

.; 2. shear failure of the masonry around the bolt backing plate j

3.

shear cone failure around an individual bolt

.z, .

, ; ;. . 4. local crushing of the masonry under the bolt dua to the shear loads on the bolt.

Bach of these failure modes was investigated to ensure 7that local stresses did not exceed the allowable stresses for any of these failure

. .','. modes. The Licensee's approach is considered acceptable.

,o Question 11:

g In response to this question, the Licensee indicated the source for the

.i

- ' formula used to calculate allowable grout core tension to be ACI-318. Since this has a factor of safety of 3, the formula used is acceptable.

Question 12: ,

l ,1.. .,,~,* ?.)'j, , g In response to this question, the Licensee stated that no major piping

t ,

systems were found to be attached to concrete masonry walls at the Hatch plant. _

..Q.i

^

1 -: V'- ~ l . i MJ Franidin Research Center 1 a.- A cm.m or rh. rr.n oni m I ;Q. j $ **

l.Y - -

. l TER-C5506-165

. I

All systems attached to the walls were sufficiently rigid. Attachment loads

• were multiplied by the walls acceleration to calculate the inertial load from

~(  ;

j the attachment which is combined with wall inertial loads esing the absolute

! sum method. The Licensee's approach to accounting for equipment weights in l l the wall analysis is considered acceptable. ,

i j EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S CRITERIA Based on the information contained in References 2 through 7 and Reference 9, the Licensee's criteria for reevaluating masonry walls are evaluated as follows:

^For the 102 safety-related masonry walls in the Hatch plant, the Licensee used the working stress approach and the allcwables were based on the ACI 531-79 code (12]. Samples of all concrete and grout used in construction were routinely tested to ensure compliance with the specifications. All the safety-related masonry walls in the Hatch plant are confined walls and the Licensee used a conservative value for the allowable strains. The Licensee considered the first three modes in the dynamic analysis and provided evidence

, to show that the first mode itself represents at least 99% of the total response. This approach is sufficiently conservative. The Licensee's

, approach to seismic analysis is in conformity with the provisions of the plant FSAR and is hence acceptable. The Licensee included the out-of-plane drift effects for calculating the stresses in the masonry walls. The Licensee considered four different modes of failure to ensure that local stresses did not exceed the allowables. There is no major piping system attached to any wall and all the wall attachments are considered to be sufficiently rigid. -

The Licensee added the inertial load due to attachment to the wall inertial load using the abcolute sum method. To summarize, the Licensee's criteria for nasonry wall analysis are considered to be sufficiently conservative.

SU Franklin Research Center A Cimsson of *he Fratman sesoMe ,

8 n , - - -

7 C ]

t I

t

{ TER-C5506-165

,i 3.2 EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S APPROACH TO WALL MODIFICATIONS i 1

,. The Licensee has completed modifications for 8 of the 10 walls for which 1

the calculated stresses exceeded the allowables.

The remaining two walls need

.- '1 -

no modification since they will be removed by September 17, 1982. The Licensee's approach to wall modifications is acceptable since the adequacy of

.. , l these modifications has been verified using STRUDL-DYNAL analysis

' '- .l , incorporating the modifications. In some cases, the modifications were aimed to reduce the effective horizontal span of the wall using one or ,more structural steel columns. The columns were designed to withstand the applied loads and were used to brace the wall. Bolts, plates, and welds for the

-. . ;,' f

, support having angle braces were checked for critical load combinations. '

"E Detailed sketches of the typical wall modifications are shown in Figure 1-11

.i [ Appendix C].

s. .

.[

~

~.

l -t ..:.

l -lt-Q

. q.r '.~

i

. g e.

a.

.: /

96

~::

.:n,

• 1 :,

k*-3 3

- if.4:'.

?, e*::;;}i 6 ~ ~j .

$[' ;

a ,

-g-

~ . ." .

d,pl Franklin Research Center

:: s com,an a n, rma 3:

-; .- y--- .. --

i .

i TER-C5506-165 d

4

4. CONCLUSIONS s '. A detailed study was performed to provide a technical evaluation of the i

j

.f masonry walls at Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. Consideration of the

_j Licensee's criteria and additional information provided by the Licensee leads d to the conclusions given in Sections 4.1 through 4.4 below.

1 4.1 LICENSEE'S CRITERIA

! 4.1.1 General Assessment l

The criteria used for reevaluation of the masonry walls, along with the i additional information provided by the Licensee, indicate that their 1

/; provisions conform with the SEB criteria.

4.1.2 Acceptability or the Criteria i

j The Licensee's criteria are in compliance with the SEB criteria and are j found to be satisfactory.

4 j 4.2 WALL MODIFICATIONS

,' The Licensee's approach to wal1 modifications is acceptable since all l eight modified walls have been verified for the adequacy of the modifications using STRUDL-DYNAL analyses. All these modifications have been completed.

Typical wall modification sketches are included in Figures 1 through 11 of Appendix C.

I 4.3 MCDIFICATION SCHEDULES I

The Licensee has already completed field modifications for eight walls.

In a conference call with the NRC cn June 23, 1982, the Licensee indicated that the two walls that do not meet the' criteria will be removed by September 17, 1982. The Licensee also indicated that these walls, walls C164-4A&B and C130-39C&D, are operable.

4 i

t 4 NMnkiin Research Center ,

A Crus.on of The Franun lesuture 8 1

l -

, . , , , - . - .--n e

' :+ L. ,. . . . . .

i," *

a -

.s ._ .

~Y'- TER-C5506-165

, eA.

'M.- 4.4 SAFETY EVALUATION FINDINGS

.  : }

} The use of (1) the evaluation criteria defined by applicable codes, '

'y,, -

standards, and specifications, (2) applicable loads and loading combinations 4y- and design and analysis procedures, (3) materials, (4) quality control, and 41.iti .

(d:/

(5) special construction techniques and testing can provide reasonable

'l,;> ; , {- . assurance that, in the event of winds, tornadoes, earthquakes, and various

?!{.'gf postulated accidents occurring within Category I structures, the safety-related masonry walls will withstand the specified design conditions without

' ' .a

, .a

i. ..g {j impairment of (a) wall integrity or (b) the performance of required safety

-t'L ur functions. Conformance with these criteria, codes, specifications, and

'j l standards constitutes an acceptable basis for satisfying, in part, the u requirements of General Design Criteria 2 'and 4.

Z, %. . -

. /.y JM, These safety evaluation findings form the basis for concluding that Items

-: ?; M .

@;lJ.2 2 and 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11 have been fully implemented subject to the

.u .

,Q, R.; following confirmatory actions walls C164-4A&B'and C130-39C&D will be removed M u.'

,g by September 17, 1982 as indicated by the Licensee in a conference call with

,;I% the NRC on June 23, 1982.

v

? . ,>i.

',rp;& r;?s 7M. - **

m

.i.t .i #

• r n

' *:.. n,

' :98^ ... ,

' *n.e:  :' "c

lf y. . -

, c.:ir:1

. :. , d

}!ij i

. . ..a

, :n

\

l.i

~

. -- b' w;

.;. . a.1 .e

.... 3

~ ~Qi .-]

^

ae

. ? &.i Q ENbpb

, _ +n.wTu- _ __ ._. _

'My iTM 9Asht A k.

b.cw.

fhh dd Franklin Research Center A N.onav m Frenien =

p'.

w t: ,8 O f, %l'

._)

c.a a .- ~- .

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

'l

-1 TER-C5506-165

5. REFERENCES l

1

.{,

. l. Masonry Wall Design j NRC, 08-May-80

IE Bulletin 80-11 i .

i 2. W. A. Widner and S. Head

,l Letter to J. P. O'Rollly. NRC.

Subject:

Response to Items 1, 2a, and 3

• } of IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design - Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant j Units 1 and 2.

i Georgia Power Co., 03-Jul-80 i 3. W. A. Widner

Letter to J. P. O'Reilly, NRC.

Subject:

Schedule for Reevaluation of

,_j Masonry Walls

-j Georgia Power Co. ,16-Sep-80 i

j 4. W. A. Widner i Letter to J. P. O'Reilly, NRC.

Subject:

Response to Item 2b of IE

'! Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design - Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units

! 1 and 2 - 180 Cay Response

Georgia Power Co., 04-Nov-80 i

1 5. M. Manry I Hatch Unit 1, Notification of Reportable Occurrence j 03-Nov-80 .

.j 50-321/1980-115-

~

6. M. Manry Letter to J. P. O'Reilly, NRC.

Subject:

Licensee Event Report, j 50-321/1980-115 j Georgia Power Co. , ll-Nov-80 j PM-80-1126

7. J. T. Beckham, Jr., Georgia Power Company Letter to J. P. O'Reilly, NRC l 18-June-1981 50-321/50-366

8. J. T. Beckham, Jr., Georgia Power Company Letter to NRC,

Subject:

NRC IE Bulletin 80-11, " Masonry Wall Design" Response to NRC Request for Additional Information, Edwin I. Hatch j Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 l 20-April-1982 1

9. John F. Stolz, NRC j Letter to Georgia Power Company,

Subject:

Request for Additional Information, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 4-March-1982 l

(

l- e l

A .

.L 0 Franklin Research Center 4 Dmsrort of The Franahn insature '

..,- ..m < - . , ~ .

TER-C5506-16'5

. rc.. <

.e

10. Interim Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation

$ NRC, 00-Jul-81

'/ . SRP 3.8.4, Appendix A

.- 2 n .

11. Uniform Building Code 1:': ' International Conference of Building Officials,1979 -

. ;s v3

.'. r>;

'~. ;- 12. Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures f ' _ ;.$; Detroit: American Concrete Institute, 1979

^

,D.r' : . ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79

'Xff

_ M 13. R. L. Mayes, R. W. Clough et al. , " Cyclic Loading Test of Masonry Piers,"

'"M' 3 volumes, EERC 76/8, 78/27, and 79/12, Earthquake Engineering Research

~ 5:. Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA

. .,.,d-:1 s. .

gf(f, 14. Research Data and Discussion Relating to " Specification for the Design A- d, f w

and Construction of Load Bearing Concrete Masonry," NCMA-1970

.n:

....,..4p

_ : ,1,": .

N5

_<s

, T:7

-M N -

r

1 rr

+ -

, 3 #1

. :. l

w%i.

1. 9gjl g., 7. .,9 w

' b.h 1

.]

- t. w '.h

.,I

-,::Q i l _E ;:,

.D

. ee -

.~.,

'j;if, s  :

_-f l

',..#.) , ;..1 i .

%C1.; -Cd M?%Il

.. c . 31

, .4 . W f -

,, ~G u L%:t JT,&

%,.'J::

.1 w.

3

;-;:

': ^[' 1 *U" 4'& -- -'

du Franklin Research Center A camen ce Th. Fr.nnan ma,.

k.j,iEl

.S:7:}.x.  ; :- .

i '

i I

l l 1

1 t

3 l -

6 i

t ,

i ,

'I I

! k .

APPENDIX A i

i

i. I INTERIM CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION I

l l 4

, a i

i -

t i

'I e

i

{

l i

A Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franen Parx.ay, Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215)448 1000

'o

i .

!  ! l APPENDIX A TO SRP SECTION 3.8.4

\ -

j . INTERIM CRITERIA FOR 1

~ SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION -

j The purpose of this appendix is to provide minimum design considerations and i criteria for the review of safety-related masonry' walls which will meet the design standards specified in subsection II of this SRP section.

}

'! 1. General Requirements a

i The materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspection '

related*to the design and construction of safety-related concrete masonry walls should conform to the applicable requirements contained in Uniform

Building Code - 1979, unless specified otherwise, by the provisions to a this criteria. -

I.

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

1 l In new construction, no unreinforced masonry walls will be permitted.

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

, a case-by-case basis. ,

i 1 2. Loads and Load Combinations

! The loads and load combinations shall include consideraticn of normal loads, i severe environmental loads, extreme environmental load, and abnormal loads.

l Specifically, for operating plants, the load combinations provided in the i

plant's FSAR shall govern. For operating ifcense applications,.the following load combinations shall apply (for definition of load terms, see SRP Section 3.8.4, subsection II.3).

j (a) Service Lead Conditions I (1) 0+L (2) ~ 0+L+E I

i (3) 0+L+W If thermal stresses due to T, and R, are present, they should be

included in the above containment, as follows:

, (la) 0 + L + T, + R a (1b) 0 + L + T, + R, + E -

l

! 3.8.4-19 Rev. 0 - July 1981 A-1 -

O

/J$ Franklin Research Center '

A Onasson of The Frannan insotute ,

7,,

m_

<c (Ic) 0 + L + T, +.R,.+ W .

. . Check load combination for controlling condition for maximum 'L' and

. N-l ' for no ' L' .

.y- -

.O + '. (b) Extreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnormal / Severe Environmental, and

.q Abnormal / Extreme Enviremental Conoitions l

j. . -

(4) D + L + T, + R, + E' .

s f:

M.E

7. c f. q (5) D+L+To +Ro +Wt JP J , (6) 0+L+T+R +a 1.5 Pa  %

_ ; . y.. a

'(

(7) D + L + T, + R, + 1.25 P, + 1.07(Y +Yj+Y,)+1.25E

$ (8) 0 + L + T, + R, + 1.0 P, + 1.0 (Yp + Y) + Y,) + 1.0 EL

..N!j In combinations (6), (7), and (8), the maximum values of P,, T,, R ,

.v.(T Yj , Yr* ""d Yo, including an appropriate dynamic load factor, should I " M{h.'

' N.d;[J

- be used unless a time-history analysis is performed to justify other-wise. Combinations (5), (7), and (8) and the corresponding structural acceptance criteria of should be satisfied first without the tornado -

, .g.

missile load in (5) and without Yp , Yj , and Y ,in (7) and (8). When

,.9 f3 considering these loads, local section strength capacities may be Ma exceeded under these concentrated loads, provided there will be no

. ~}},,,s 7 , loss of function of any safety-relited system.

TE.7 +Sj' Both case.s of L having its full value or hcing completely absent should k.e' checked. .

z'93;

• 7JQ

3. Allowable Stresses 4-@fO, g ,' Allowable stresses provided in ACI-531-79, as supplemented by the following

.y m.s modifications / exceptions, shall apply. '.

E (a) When wind or seismic loads '(OBE) are. considered in the loading combin-j@fb

, attons, no increase in the allowable stresses is permitted.

.J. :

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

l . ]4: m ., (c) When tension perpendicular to bed joints is used in qualifying the

. 2.Li unreinforced masonry walls, the allowable value will be justified by

%N r ' test program or other means pertinent to the plant and loading condi-tions. For reinforced masonry walls, all the tensile stresses will

, . .... _ be resisted by reinforcement.

y .; . . <

"'d (d) For load conditions which represent extreme environmental, abnormal, M:9 abnormal / severe environmental, and abnorma1/ extreme environmental l O .C.' conditions, the allowable working stress may be multiplied by the l ?,Ery; factors shown in the following table:

. ;&M

, j~;; ..l r.; c, e

. tv -?

,w

,w?.

lbd

\.m, 3.8.4-20 Rev. 0 - July 1981

\

dA.3 A-2

' ' ,.',Mf gyd m

' r y,3 ;

if:M$

W DTdu~ Frankrn Research Center

,c;@W .'"

GM 4 W ^ ow n, vmn en m

, % w ;>~ e'

~

. .wriFtmC"vF- --

t v

Type of Stress Factor

Axial or Flexural Compression 1 2. 5 Bearing 2.5 Reinforcement stress except shear 2.0 but not to exceeji 0.9 fy Shear reinforcement and/or bolts 1. 5 j Masonry tension parallel to bed joint 1. 5 Shear carried by masonry 1.3 Masonry tension perpendicular to bed j joint for reinforced masonry 0 for unreinforced masonry 2 1,3

Notes (1) When anchor bolts are used, design should prevent facial

spalling of masonry unit.

(2)' See 3(c).

l 4. Design and Analysis Considerations (a) The analysis should follow established priticiples of engineering 1

mechanics and take into account sound engineering practices.

(b) Assumptions and modeling techniques used shall give proper considerations to boundary " ~ 1ons, cracking of sections, if any, and the dynamic behavior .y walls.

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

i

., (d) In general, for operating plants, the seismic analysis and Category I structural requirements of FSAR shall apply. For other i

plants, corresponding SRP requirements shall apply. The seismic analysis shall account for the variations and uncertainties in mass, 4

materials, and other pertinent parameters used.

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

(f) Interstory drift effects should be considered. .

t (g) In new construction, no unreinforced masonry wall is permitted; also,

, all grouc in concrete masonry walls shall be compared by vibration.

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

(i) Special construction (e.g. , multiwythe, ccmposite) or other items

,, not covered by the code shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for their acceptance.

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

3.8.4-21 Rev. 0 - July 1981 i

A-3 d%

dddd Franklin Research Center .

A cm on w n. rrin e ,ane. '

,j,'c.j l

J, "

' In the event QA/QC. information is not available, a field survey and

-e

'. a test program reviewed and approved by the staff shall be implemented

%-. .J1 to ascertain the conformance of masonry construction to design drawings

. ,f ' and specificiations (e.g., rebar and grouting).

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

,. , u ' due to accident pipe reaction (Yr ), jet impingement (Yj ), and missile

'W+ impact (Y , the requirements of SRP Section 3.5.3 shall apply. Any deviation,) f rom SRP Caction 3.5.3 shall be reviewed and approved on a 9Ql-e,': case-by-case basis.

.h y;t ,, .

5. Revision of criteria

,y

• The critaria will be revised, as appropriate, based on: '

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

~ Uh5, (b) Experience gained during review.

. ,3 . .?.

e( (c) Additional information developed through testing and researches.

6. References

, ..~., ., , ,,_,'

.;c -

(a) Uniform Building Code - 1979 Edition. r

' t '- (b) Buf1 ding Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures ACI-531-79

., and Commentary ACI-531R-79.

% (c) Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for.

. ,_ Buildings-Applied Technology Council ATC 3-06.

27 . . .

'p % (d) Specification for the cetign and Construction of Load-Bearing Concrete

'd Masonry - NCMA August, 1979.

X.? (el Trojan Nuclear Plant Concrete Masonry Design Criterf s Safety Evaluation

' ' :r%} 1 Report Supplement - November, 1980. .

i

(f) Regulatory Guide 1.51, " Damping Values for S'eismic Design of Nuclear 0, .

Power Plants."

. ' 1 l t: ,

,p-4

.ga

' . .i '

l ::,. e

o y

>~ ;,rh

,.k.

.6 !% a

, _ l@

(f, . r'; .:

,g ,4 s- -

e, .e 'l '

(3 k'h. i

,9

- u .2 M Fran! din Research Center e

., 4 o% a n. re-am m u. ,,

e - ,

l - . _

.. a--..... -

. . - . - . . . , .. . . . .. ~ ..~,.n. .. . ~ ~ , . . _ ..~...u I

' n ,

i  !

I I I L i i i

APPENDIX B 1

'l l

,i NBC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1

1 i

5 i

9 "

i t

I e

l . .

Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Frankhn Parmway. Phila.. Pa 19103 (215)448 1000 l

u t

..-.. _ _ .. ,__. _..___ . - . _ _ , . . _ , _ . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . _ , . .m... ..... . . . . . . . _ .- ._, . . . - . .

. ~ . . . . . - . . . . . ~ . .

_ _ . . . . - . . . . . . . - - . .  ;.. . - . .. . - - ._ x

. 'l .

.. , l t

Based on the Licensee's submittals [2, J], a technical review was

! conducted. Before a final technical evaluation report can be issued, the 1

Licensee is requirdd to provide the following information

l ' 1. In Section 4.3 of Reference 2, the grout used to fill the masonry cells was given a minimum value of 4000 psi for its compressive streng th. Provide justification for the use of this value.

i 2. With respect to interstory drift effects, Section 3 of Appendix F

[2] stated, " examination of tne test data indicates that the gross shear istrain of a wall is a reliable indicator." Identify these ,

test data sources. Also provide and discuss the acceptable level of strain for unconfined walls.

f

,l 3. Provide details of modifications for all walls that do riot satisfy

, the design allowables. Technical discussion should be provided l detailing how these modifications will correct this deficiency.

. Also, provide the modification schedule.

j

4. The data presented in Appendix D [2] is not legible. Supply a legible copy of this appendix.

. 5. With regard to the allowable stresses for factored loads, a factor

, of 1.67 was used for tension, shear, and bond of masonry. The SEB criteria (4] allow factors of 1.3 for shear carried by masonry, 1.5 for masonry tension parallel to the bed joint, and 1.3 for masonry tension normal to the bed joint. Justify the use of a factor of 1.67.

6. With respect to modes of vibration, Section 5.2.2 of Reference 2 indicated that the first mode of vibration accounts for over 99% of the total moment and displacement of the walls.. Provide sample calculations (with different boundary conditions) to justify this position. ,

7. Identify the test sources used for evaluating the shear strength of concrete block walls (Section 4 of Appendix F (2]).

8. Incicate how seismic loads in different directions were accounted for in the analysis.

i 9. Indicate whether the out-of-plane drif t effect was included in the analysis.

10. Indicate wtether3 the potential for block pullout was considered in the analysis.

B-1 -

mr--

Ed Franklin Research Center ,

4 cm.on om. rr.n.e m u. .

m - g

, t .g. ' .* f -

. 2 * . ,

J .

, - 4 s

.?

A

' . - 11. Justify the formula given in Section 4.1.2 of Appendix E [2] for

, allowable tension stress in cell grout.

& , .. 4

. '],.

12. Indicate how equipment weights were accounted for in the seismic

'. analysis.

-J

, , . 8 e*

6 9 e

. 't . -

q,

. .L

..d i

s. 9 ) .,e P.....

.*e 9 ' N

. '. ) ,

• f .e ?

Th .'.\

• u.

ss

. 54

..e Syg .

• b' ,4 s 6

- a .% .,

us . .' 5,e'f .

• h e

.c.>, <

. " ;; ? .

.'- 1$$b

.' ' ] ?.*. i e r.,. _

< g ,.lf' ;

-w . , y _.

? d.'

- . 1._*-+

' 15. , '

' Mk.Y: c.

" .. e 2

..,.b.

, ed"' .

l n .4 "

9 4 J e Ag* F

{

.y

-.3.*

4

'S J

yt a ..;

i

..'~.l "t

. - . . .~.

a,r . ! -

B-2

,- .::3 .. , v

'* Y 1

l'.' ..i &

's '

.l dbranklin Research Center

,.,~,! ,

A c% .s m r- men ,

. -?. - .; t e 4

.i [l,#. lQ s

_ 9_ _ ,, . . , . . - .,.-c-- -- --

i

.l REFERENCES l

1. IE Bulletin 80-11

' " Masonry Wall Design"

.l NRC, May 8, 1980 l .

l 2. W. A. Widner (Georgia Power Company) .

Letter with enclosures to J. P. O'Reilly (NRC)

]i November 4, 1980 *

3. J. T. Beckham, Jr. (Georgia Power Company)

Letter to J. P. O'Reilly (NRC)

June 18, 1981 I

4. Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4, Appendix A l " Interim Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation"

! NRC, July 1981 I

l S. Uniform Building Code

_) International Conference of Building Of ficials, ,1979 i

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

" Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures" American Concrete Institute, 1979 5

3-3 Os dM Franklin Research Center ,

A CMoon of The Frannan lesande 8

i 1

, i 4

I e

1 1

I

, 1 APPENDIX C l

TYPICAL SKETCHES OF WALL MODIFICATIONS

'l t

i l

I i

i i

i I'

i i

i ,

'l  ;

i.

A i

i . . . . Franklin Research Center

! A Division of The Franklin institute 1 The Benjamin Frannhn Parm.ay. Phila.. Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000 n

e-*rw ,, v,-y-y,,m --,.e vw. - - - , +~---.e,w-e-,c-r y we, , , --*-wee ----+--e---- -- -- - *f*-,-- - - , - - - . C - -

I a

- 1 t

I

<'ej n (9t. g, .

n

.y g :s. 0 i ,

1F.

c. '

51 -

s  :

p 3- 3.- A - .

,r 2-1 1 11.

e o f U ..

c tr ,.

t,- . -.

ti' ct vi ..

57 i

.c J  ;

- v.,:

.. m 3 t.- -

r a 4 vi . ;. s 4 -

.ir m l_

1

[E ! -1

-[ PiLASTE e. d;.'7p' l l-SEE DETAll 'C e-- - -

I

. ~. - .r-N ,T ix -i$

... < ). 'tE l TF e ti WALL ti l- ;,.. p, ll' ll SEE DETAILU

• 3 ,

U  :-

,. 4 j r-  ::

6 * .

5, -k .

~

t.

~  ;

u e -

v o .. e

)

< l- -

- u,

us

.: 4: 'm; O 9

'.) .' ,

" S S .

[

o -

TEl l30*-0' D E li

<i d

ti-1 li s' s* _ li T-ioi h 0-9 t

=

e "j 11 s-t a h-U8s R

r Q', v. c

3. lv c-

. . e

~4

, e 29-3 .

o <1 9 S', m er e l N#

hE

g. g EEF

11-12629 n i 4.a y ,i 39 aE - 3(li soum

, g' '

- e u >

,}u.a.

• a; I

e e L

. i e

e e - he g e+ -e"g' @ . en* * * * * '*P " ' ' " "

c.}

m .. -

..~ .

.m -

t'1

. ,t , j 4

• f

- y?, e,h:sn esculasens M G E SouthemCcmp::nySenices 21.

I' ". 2' 1&2 ' TIIIIE f . 919CA Il*l 21 'n Q,'". y.,,W.A Tc u- Ur iIT i !.

c. .

~.. .

aI r.-t n w rra ri'.t1 l .v. -

- . . . . . . . - u. a. s 3

..Gwf.  ;

C-FO @C & 3CO PSC'- 0-CCSf"~*" . l'" 3 ., 7

. ..1.k. '. .'.

.6.? , .. a n w .. 87-3,s _

. . l- -

V

,w f.Q

-  :" e y . *

.n w u. 4

- " ll

=..  %.bf

..sc. c . '. c C.o tn~ 3

. ._n

V. ?

-r{7. . :.O

~. e.. O 1. ., .y

p jn.e.

M:7.. * -, w,

- r,o.- e.x ,I  : . .

ie l , ..e . l-

.. .r.

i  :. .e N v-' '

'~~n. -

is3 p':' ' A'.  :

' . .J? N. 6 N-I' l , I E X 8' GEE ELEV.

FOR P C"TAILC A yg CYP N DLID AS'

?.f!J' '

F . E c- ;

'd s >

- -TAC ( 't . .' C ' MTE.R

'h . CITAIL Ib-]i II G H IIIII E '

.a- >

+ . , .@;k. w /;

i c..-..:c:.

.- 9 n

a s. 1 -mi ,

.:v 6  :::

g e

.=,. . o. ..

t - *y e I ' en . .

f*- .$ .

. It, . h:. C W IGGER 1 {-jt-g;f-l 4

• . FCR P GEL 54.CUTRIGG

' .' ,;.s{.' . '.

gi -- L =J i

. C: C2 TAIL T em '.cj ,

\

.-e-

g. . @i i,

=J

... } .-r

..., i e

I L O'. .

N

. LT uapCge i u..- - -

. -J WAt!-En

.A=g7g:i.:2ERELEMENT it:-h- l y L '.' 7 s:ECL75.I

--j J c. .

/ '

E

('EL.13 0'-O"

'Ou .... ., :.v.. -w.c>-

,  ;. > 0' - -

..r;

. .o. . . .

w $- _

I

.k. GECUT

-4 1 5..>

c.te

.:.:. .~

..CC CC p , ,, . a. n ra c, n

.n CT.ri..l L.. a-a -

Attachment 1

' - _I',.

.-d J

. 2f,

. a:  %

m3 i

C-2 . _ ,

. .s i

f

~

O

~.

, ,:J 300d Franklin A cms.on or Th. Fren. Resear.ch

. insona. Center ,,

.) .

-1

. , , - - . . - m -- ._,-.,.- __

l' o .

I, 1

1,

) -

c. sign curaens PI & 3 ScuthernCcmpnysenices da j $"'HAR'M- U i!T I c. l & 2 l~fYUE e car c c Hl-21-0..

m.,our...

-i sie r.1'n r:7( aTTarr: la<. -L.., A.-.. lcm. i. 3 . 5 o

'C-PC-?'c 5 ?co (FC3C :0-9 M"'"*""" I""r! . 7 I I-1

~

' [' iy, - -

l , [

i h.^ +

h N} "'i'i--

s-- C T 6

-I 1e ~ el.,. :-e. r .e.

n 3 1 '

i, 17 I.

• g.3 4 aa:-- T: "

the HCLES ' '

i e

-WLES IN FLANC-E g

gg h)

NEXT TO C0 llc. CNLY. 17! ll h.

3

) I'm $~l sn a- m

.' $7CIICI'l E-9 y,b l

DET AT1_ *a' ,.

-I I' 2 g, 5

h'Fi! GlP. 4 FLC5.)  !([4 2- KLES 4 ECLT5 FCR i.

18 oFCLES

$ - -w -l l

I~FU C WIDTH '

!! # 'I

'i- fNIEONL e :

SI~

.+ ::

F

,t, -

,j.-i A h:LL-e t:L."RCUSOa -

q :q:O .

l'-

..=.) .ALL . A f6 ,

4KELDFILLET)

D ci AIL .8 C (~Tt_N '

- C-(~. y . -

i- 3 /siYP 4'. ^2 . l \b l l .f. 'C! k'. FETE ELCCX

1. __; i! . .

n. .: h'ALL D ,

~ l ,~

~

4, , - - . - -

31 i , , , gtg3 : ,--

',til fu  : u-7: ,- 432 c.5...CCNC q.., . ,.ss auCK R5 i .

_ ,y .

n, U2 l ~

Ags M./7529 r --- r.I n.n .....,.... .

.i l

C-3

.i L

EUU Franklin Research Center

• cm.on a rh. rr n n m aa.

• l -

44 ces!;n ca::u'a:ic.-s F:IG i ' ScuthrnCempnySc vices A

~

, em

- ,,, ,HATCM -UNTT NO.1 & 2 INAe, ( C af C; A ii-?I :n

- .' :1 p. y...

l .v.~'.,

.,c _. i.,lat t M.TTMCATION "'....:,

lcm. '. 3 . ., .

- - t- 110-%C & MD (F5CC-EO-0C:f"*"*""*"" l'""1' ., 7 B*

W

<.- I,4HCLES

, .c.

i. Sc 33

.["IhcHCLE5

.q:1 2 THK.t '

(,4 REGt.0 w

~

I

_ f.! " s. E T'

/

-1 q

l .: .

=

(i Ago'cyi

• 7 -

/ e v

%, ,e

.- 1 e

- .. <a.. ,.  ; i

_ .i 4

=. .

s -l 1 1

.- n .

l

. 3 .

DETATL .C. .. DETAIL 0

.m. . .

I- WS X 35 LENGTH IS,-93q ~

n. ,'.

.i-27 ;-]4 .

4- R.ATES B, X S X 2 -

.< f ,

2-R.ATES ^ __.

8' X 16 Y [

i 4-R_ATES 8' X ( X h. ,

8-STIFFNER PLATES

[ X 3[x 7g . .

~

-;, ... C, 2-WS X 35 .8.LONG .

2- PLATES 9' X l ih.X [.

n.,, .' 12 y4 GCLTS 16' LCNG C 2 g,. THREAD) 8 .

834 4 CCNC. ANC. HILTI CATALOG u* '5:00105 CR EG.

NOT <:

~

- ? .', ', I. ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL EE ASTM A 36

- ^ 5] 2.ALL 5TRUCTURAL STEEL IS TO ,EE Cff-LT~Y CLASS "D"

.1

'l 3.ALL ECLT5 ARE TC EE ASTM A 307 1

Attachment 1 Rui N-12GI9 1

1

. G.

_.1 .

J \ 1

's C-4

. . .. 3 y

-4 k O t

b d Franklin Research Center

'! A Cwman of The Frannha insonde i e'

. . :; ,.==m= -- u =..x. -. -=.- . .w . - . - . . - - . - .

i- . .

a .P I

'S 1

} iessn ca:cutaens FI6 6 Southem CcmpnySeMees ch.

.,- -i

.., H.A Tr u t) mot N o. It? i ~o .,

ie. .

e& c a.,c< .a rr1-2R-81

- Ocyrx ta ., . -

,  %/ALL Moot C fca r ,ON I R. L Wu , v e .e ( lc.i./t.- 9.P/

n .' (_-/30.rua r, tu 6 f ALOC bO-004) lC,asswa.i.n f*=,ns.r l pees A .<

m.

- . ..- it . r-

+, c. . ~ - - -

?N ta.GQ C 3--

Y g

"~C' ~ 7 L e_ i "< 9 n i'

... n

' ' '.j -

4 cs T

i secr e. s

.M9" /-

u _

a

'A i l O:4:a"=,.f., // -

. . . .. ; e e.=, ,.

ws ,35 /

.J /, e, 3

o - -

'j; -O o c/ // % .

.. s .-s ^ // // %

~ waggS ,.) - -

y/

c-

.% Y k- -A: mI -Q

.i -p- ' i j .4/ -

. j,

, . .,a ,

c

-n ,

p-

., n '

c~ -

. .j .

s , ./' -r , sec7 Looxi.<

~

g) p " -- -li, ~

N O RTH

== . _ _._ - .

s

.

.t i.y  %

L3 ' .a':) .

L oura,u.a ..

J.

z. *.TH W '.

T ..

7

~. P t.AT S .

d -"-

~ M

, -d

~

's SEE DET.X . -a,, ,m, ,

o.t.,

-:;- Cg , u e.

p. = d: = e--- u - a c i

. 1

..) -~~

'f]  % ..

SCC 7 A-A

-. 4 C - Q.

]<

- a

.. s .

Ej A  ? ly $y35 l@$."

l=~~~ e~-=.

r,u~u w hr C 4. .. .,

l sicEs i t_. o '< 1. x // i

; cmR. 3,-cwl P

.l ACER S EC.bL l3 t

! s smar -p mest s

JNTL FCR'.!NC ES ,

l lW b *&.# .

1

/ _ _ .

f'EL f .20'-CC .'

1 .

i ,- i 1

.y C-6 1

O

!j00U Franklin Research Center 4 % or n. rrinnan v.one.

, w qu. - - - - 2'N- N - - -

r- T

. . . . . . - __z., .s,_.. . _ . _ _ . . - . . . ..._ . . _ . . . .

I l 1

.i-I

{ resign, cue;!a:: ens F1 Cr 5 -

SouthemComparySeyces 1 i

j ' H lYSff c. car c; :; ly.4. q Ovr.ATCH v. -UNIT NO. I & 2

_t . i Mca:TraTirN l Y. L .- -. ., u/~ , . , , - l,Y. 6 M C- RO - NA & NE (FSCC- 80-COT **"""*"

--- ja= & .* I I 1

n .kz ' . .

9 -

i tri .

)Q m M m

(nrl=

mN m- m 21 g=9. o

.I m- -_ - a. 4-

-8 m oi R,N-x N

rt O

W' -

N  %

r#- I 'H #-

m 9

, v. 3 rd,' Ph C, 0 r-d % 8:-V.!. I o (hI -c.19

.1 -

I a, r.

.i ..:

j g w m i

w ::s . .. . . rv . A h 7- Ad f-Id I'-I f TT2-CSI f dI-HII- "' N ~

i 4 .

__ _i? u d,

. +

1 i n l ,r b -

,- i --

E -

e4 9-

)  ;

• 6' & 2 '

,  ! 5 . mg, pa i

n my i

n

. SN N.

H yN- '6=

. _x r wx - .

o.-.

g

, ,CD, og m,J'-l w ' - '

• i }p e

. m .i.

1.

.I

• 80, -

, 2 l i,- i t n, .- .

l m I

i l:.

F to -

' c-

v Q Co.

At:ac.ne.sc $

S t , <

t . ,

i l

1 I

1 i

C-5

.i

}

F 4 l  ! h

( -

d Franklin A cm.on at n.Research. Center i

Fr .u. ne. .

l t

.{ _- , , , m. - - ,_ , .- _ ,,- - -., . ...,..-.- .-,e . . . ,-

4.* - -* -

t 4

cesgn ca:curatens ,

FI G 7 , Southem Ccm;:::nySenices .=4 f.

,,. .a WATCH -uni NO.1 & 2 I _

l~T !N A2.... a ( Caf 9 A lc...12 -l -r-O

,' p.un.u. .

a-..,

was s mnni=iCATTCN K. t. . 0/ , - er lc,n .;e

(_-nO -NA & M 8 (F50C-EO-OOM I"'"'""~'"""- I""4 ., //

i

-  %,,./I2

,, g 7yp, ___

- . ,, {,g,)t7g 1 -

.: fCCU' "L'; 7 i c Su j

[WELCED'i0 y i ,. .

.:V 2 Tsx. rt eac< c=

h

a_.

l - ,r - i-/-

- ' -'r ie i-:tEs ;. R r I / ,, _}/s,g 'c3

'II.EEOk,

• I l l 'T y*

tu :M. 4-hCCNC ANC . l . . . . . .

. .s .'

(TYP 2 PLCS) - la

i. g g 7;-- g-y3 TYP -

2 --N--',3 gc7 o _'D . te -

. e,

. . .. io

, ,i. 7g,. p _ . . . . _ . . . _ . . . .

4 ECLT5g

~

1 g, -(3 RECD)

~

+-

i g

.,' " ED I,

ee ._.1 *e ' e-N 2a

-*-* t. ,C  : ")

CF. P - l  ;%9- ei

. r_ -; p

[7; t_ .=.: -

.2 .

I l /.. s v316 #-

- ECLTS

. TYP.  ;-

te a TFX CETAIL 'E' SECTICN E-E r ,. .

.nl d 3

rel 1.-- }i!6 l. l 9 2 _'dCLES FCR 2o CCNC.

.' 4-a -

4 -

a -

- o I .

anc.,

2 .

I 6' i-O I . 0" I-O' ' 2 '-

^~ ~

L22i X2 2i X I

i '

(2 nEG'C) $ X " >

I'-O' 2' :4' I 2-4' 2 l O'

. <- STI: NE . P (T'. A l 4'- O.

d'#' '.-

l 4 REO.'O 7,_:,. : . L.'. I '_' (.7. 9

......,_.., 4 C-7

• O

!'.!O0 Franklin,n. Re Fr.nsearchn mana. Center

, 4 cm.on e '

i l __.______'___m..-sm

-..-._.,--.-.-~=+e*** " * * * * ' * * ' * " ' * - ' ' ~ * ' - ' ' * * * " ' ' ' " ' * * ^* ' '

-s.v. =r~-

f I  %

. .{

d

~

, cesign cawa:iens p i q .g ScuthemCom;:c-f5enices 1 15'- p en

• • ',*"H lYYsYr cai cc:t

. .an... ATCH - UNIT NO. I & 2 l.k' t . ., O/- . , .r. e

.7 , O/At L MODI IC ATION lc. .12-6-?C

] t-G0 - 14 A & 49 G:5CC- EO-CCW l"'~*~'" l"I's ., //

.v >

"q T" < J(P

'd Ib -

,  ; 3-h.eHCLESFCR{~e

^

-l +,,

.e

, CCNC.ANC.

t;

' r I i L22X 22 X X4 9 -

42 f.0? I 2' O' I W,1 (2-REO'D)

,, ~l* 2; O* l' - 9* 6

'~

p- STIFFNER P. (Typ.)

4-q' F : 1 G REG'Q) 3

^

3- DETAIL 'G: .

w

( - CLIP CCRts TO l AVOID Fn ! T

, 'j ,, m l

% <(y 'r -l sa .

7 V g PLATE i

1 _

if i

l -

CECTION F-F l .. .

R O =: u -o w o Tj g.

~

] ,,. ..-

Q'if 9

- - ^j "N l g

?:: *- 4 r l' -N 8 CONC. ArJC.

1 $

.)

.*- Ic, 19 Y

k z1"[-

1 u ^

!v:-t_. '

I .NC.9LCCX y,

,V l

2

..'OTE ! NO CCNNECTICN l

, c CTICN (..r, E~TbEEll AIG_E

, AND WALL.

i usun=.,e s l t l

t i

i C-8 O

dd Franklin Research Center I A Onasson of "he Frannan insatute l ,*

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

. i .

- ~

i j "cisign 'ca:curdens pi c, q Southem Ccmi::mySenices 2.,

3

' ' ,,...n .u, ,

s A T c u. t>ty iT N o i r,7 pl ..~. o eau c.cw lc.i.

i.: . 9 _ e.,

, ...e.. . , i c. .

i j (J tVa t_ t MontctCaticM rR L n/sev~ m t 1 17 .9 o .4 / ,

,,-13 0- lu A 1. r u A f A S oc 9,n. 00 LA lea wsi..n e.-..a ls .,,e .e h . . . . .

.o -

& * -  : W R. / 2 . , ,,/ ~I. x l- 8 . .. .

10

-s

'q gh Mcc.E Fc4 act1- .

' po4 Fear coo E -

s o

H C, A. (N O-'c v W S <U l .*

3 ~ ~ *

, . . N EC E SS A AYS m , -l -

3 , Wf!.D

,w -

m,a -

i Q 9 '

• • /b bT (7 Y N .4 . .

'I . , .

u t Y Jl }- l .

l W ( r w' # #o aro.0 -

1 .

' P

. vb 'YTh) c I../. .

I }

^t e. s 'x 4"x S %" ,

l' i

FOR 7a j

e. WCLES 3d i ~. -

S O L1 [ TYs A)

! l l n r- V A t t a c.".2.a t 6 t

i i

d i

4 l4

)

C-9 -

i

[ O l.

Edd FrankJin Research Center

! A c.mian er n. rr.n.u.n man,i.

i l i

. _ _ _ _ _ ... m

- . y .,

I . .

=

• l ,

t

.i f

?'

.. .h

1, .

.,- . ~ ~.

p, g , g Scuthem Com;;;:nyScnices c-.

e,

. .. H. A Td H - O N t 7 N? I&Z l *.w..

<? < u o c c u. lcu.. a .12 . p r u.,.wr.u. . pi -.. er - icn.

' ~"

s tVA L L

• M o n t C re AY,* Cr4 1 k' L  % r~~.u e _

If2-ta.8/

,

• m, ,

be (-lh o. lu A l t u R f P S QC R 0-00 bcm.u. lp.n l, .o x ,

^

Y'$

dT' o

l'

& WEx55 .

' .e e

,'e

• t s /Cg=

~ a b/s CON Cuff A NOTC t N CTL M A t.L

-] W9x351in READAGb a ,

-i. .

-5 '- Oi,&) 6' s

l \

? plo rE : P CR .

BAccup PLATES

^" ' '

se e .S ccr A A ~ D 0 0 A'

, OPEN IN <r -

~

I 1

.- -1

, 1 l

(

. .)

l :-x: ,

. S Ec T Y-Y t .- ,

l .-l l

4 l

1 l- .

,l 1 .

.).

i l;  ;

l  !

i AttacMent 6 1

. C-10 i:-

t -

l;.  ! JJUd Franklin Research Center l; , A em aa at n. Fr un in.a

-' ,f , r. , , _ - - , - - - , - - -, ,r-, . , ,,_e ---

.. - . . .a. . m ..-

i n

i  ;

t l_ cestn ca::ufacens (=16 . Il ScuthernCompc.nyScrvices d

. *...o s,

} l-l J1 Yf I I t) ^ ! t T N O . I 1A la.w C <puceu lc. .12 . gg .g/

i  ; an.ti. . ., . c.,,

j .

\1/a s / . M 9o. r e-s e 4 r r o M ;i v. L . w/,., , ,. , , ,,. l a.7c.; f

, 6/3 0-/44 t /ud f oS cc Ao-oev)lcanswauen reeser l0s...n e, c

i ,

f i

EL /u!L l" /

f i .

31 k " -

Rit) _ h,"W:Lb i i

' i .

I i,v ' -

.) , . . .

, , e .

l se e or .

. u WSw35xl-to - -

^

. N 0 7 i .* A L L. W E't b.S

~

'Au j;'I t.:. s T

[W EL D A L L

• ARou n )

i O O dl '

., /( \V Ox 33 x & - Y i +i

, IIS,

@- s2=

cc N

l f

,e *

. 'D E T Y

/- m .e_... .

2

+

C-ll

?&

MJ Franklin Research Center A Cens.on of The Franubn insatute 'e I{ _ __ . . . - - --