ML20076C511
| ML20076C511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1983 |
| From: | Con V, Subramonian N FRANKLIN INSTITUTE |
| To: | Nilesh Chokshi NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076B530 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130, FOIA-83-255 TAC-42866, TER-C5506-246, NUDOCS 8303230279 | |
| Download: ML20076C511 (20) | |
Text
j 4
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT j
. MASONRY WALL DESIGN (B-59)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY i
SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 I
NRC DOCKET NO. 50-272, 50-311 FRC PROJECT CE506 FRC ASSIGNMENT 6
}
NRC TAC NO. 42366 FRC TASK 246 NRC CONTR ACT NO. NRC-03-81-130 Prepared by Author:
N. Subramonian Franklin Research Center
- v. N. Con 20th and Race Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader:
V. N. Con Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer:
N. Chokshi March 18, 1983 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Noither theUnited States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-ratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third l
l party would not infringe privately owned rights.
- 90 3D,]/
r Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
mA
- . ~-
vm v m b uh."tD.)
Principal Author:
Group Leader Department Director 3 flT/ 2%
- I W) i Date:
$ -lf-7 3 Date:
Date:Nd a
- 0. Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute E[p The Ben 9 min Frankhn Parway. Phda Pa 19103 (215) 448 1000
- J037 XA Copy Has Been Sent to PDR
TER-C550 6-24 6 i
CONTENTS Section
. Title Page 1
1 INTRODUCTIOti 1
.l.1 Purpose.and Scope.
1 1.2 Plant-Specific fuckground.
3 2.
EVALUATION CRITERI A 4
.3
. TECHNICAL EVALUATION 4
3.1 Evaluation of Licensee Criteria 3.2 : Evaluation of Licensee Approach to Wall Modifications.
6 8
4
- CONCLUSIONS.
9 j
5 REFERENCES.
APPENDIX A - SGES CRITERI A FOR SAFETY-RELATED MASONRY WALL EVALUATION DEVELOPED BY THE STRUCTURAL AND GEOrECHNICAL ENGINEERING.
BRAbCH (SGES) OF THE NBC r
iii
$bd Franklin Research Center A thes en of The Freaehn eng j
g TER-C550 6-24 6 FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of 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.
i.
i O
v b' dd Franklin Research Center A h of The Fran6An esseuse
. TER-C5 50 6-24 6 1.
INTRODUCTION
'l.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this review is to provide a technical evaluation of the Licensee's response to Items 2 and 3 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NHC) IE Bulletin 80-11, " Masonry Wall Design" (1), which required licensees to present reevaluation criteria with justifications and to submit a written report upon completion of the reevaluation program. The evaluation included a review of any Licensee-proposed modifications of masonry walls and the proposed methods, procedures, and repair schedules.
1.2 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND In response to IE Bulletin 80-11, Public Service Electric and Gas Company provided the NRC with documents [2-10,16] describing the status of masonry walls at the Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2.
Based on the information provided by tne Licensee [2-10, 16] and the related NRC documents [11-15], a review of the status of masonry walls at this plant was conducted, and it was determined that some aspects required clarification.
Therefore, a telephone conference call was arranged in September 1982 to request the Licensee's clarification.
The Licensee has responded to this recent request, and through this response [20] and the earlier responses (7, 9], the Licensee has addressed all the items in the requests for information issued by the NRC.
References 9 and 30 indicate that the Licensee has completed the following actions required by the NRC [13] for considering operation above 5% power:
"a.
Submit the information requested during the November 20, 1980, mee' ting, b.
Complete. the w'all capacity strengthening program, c.
Confirm that _ die proposed remedial actions do not preclude the option of implementing additional modifications which would, if ' dictated by future staff review, render the masonry wall design to meet the zero tensile stress requirements under OBE and SSE conditions, Prior to startup following the first refueling, PSE&G shall resolve the dif ference between the staff criteria and that of the licensee's i WUtl Franklin Research Center a w w n., r.
r-e*
e TER-C550 5-24 6 to the satisfaction of the staf f and implement the required fixes that might result from such a resolution."
There are nine safety-related masonry walls in Salem Unit 1 and eight in Un it 2.
The Licensee has indicated (20) that, with the exception of 'two walls in Unit 1 and one in Unit 2, all the walls meet.the NRC criteria. The Licensee has performed field tests (7, 9] for all of the walls analyzed except for die walls in the controlled facilities building, which have been adequately modifled.
The following materials were used in the masonry wall construction, and their properties were used in die analysis (7, 9]:
1.
Masonry units "Waylite" concrete block manufactured to ASTM C-90.
2.
Mortar ASTM C-270, type M - field tests of mortar joints were performed.
3.
Core fill - normally used block mortar or cement grout. Where field inspection revealed empty block cores, these cores were filled with 5-Star Grout if the wall stresses exceeded dae Licensee's criteria allowables.
4.
Structural steel - steel used in original construction or to strengthen the masonry walls as a corrective action is ASTM A-36 material.
5.
Dur-o-wall truss-type masonry reinforcing (manufacturer's standard produc t).
6.
Reinforcing steel - ASTM A15, intermediate grade, deformed bars as per ASTM 30 5.
7.
Expansion anchors, such as WEJ-IT, or approved equal.
8.
Phillips RED-HEAD Anchor s, or approved equal cast into concrete.
1 The functions of the masonry walls at Salem Units 1 and 2 are shielding, fire protection, security, and weather protection.
None of these walls are load-bearing structural walls, nor are they part of the lateral load-resisting system.
l l
l 4 bb) Franklin Research Center A Dog,on of The F+aanha keesuse
TER-C5 50 6-24 6 2.
EVALUATION CRITERIA The basic documents used for guidance in this review were the "SGEB Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall D/aluation" [17] (attached as Appendix A to this report), developed by the Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch (SGES) of the NPC; the Uniform Dailding Code [18); and ACI-531-79 [19].
In general, the materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspection of safety-related concrete masonry walls should conform to the SGES criteria [17).
For operating plants, the loads and load combinat' ions for qualifying the masonry walls should conform to the appropriate specifications in the FSAR for the plant. Allowable stresses and the appropriate increase factors for abnormal and extreme environmental loads are given in Reference 17.
. I.bd Franklin Research Center t
4 c.~.s n, r - %
f TER-C5 50 6-24 6 3.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION a
t This evaluation is based on the Licensee's earlier response [2-6] and I
subsequent responses [7-10, 16, 20] to the requests for additional information. The Licensee's criteria were evaluated with regard to design and analysis methods, loads and load combinations, allowable stresses, construction specifications, materials, and relevant test data.
In addition, the Licensee's modifications and response to the request for additional information has been evaluated.
3.1 EVALUATION OF LICENSEE CRITERI A The Licensee has reevaluated the masonry walls using the following criteria [7,'9]:
Allowable stresses for analysis of masonry walls were based on ACI o
531-79 Code specifications [19].
However, the increase factors for abnormal loads in the Licensee's criteria are higher (1.67) than those in the SGEB criteria [17].
Loads and load combinations used were those specified in the plant o
Safety Analysis ' Report.
The working stress method is used for all of the walls analyzed, and -
o the walls were assumed to be unreinforced.
o-A 21 damping for operating basis earthquake (OaE) and 54 for design basis earthquake (DBE) were assumed.
In general, walls are not subject to missile impact, jet impingements, o
~
pipe whip, or pressurization loads, and the walls in the controlled '
f acilities room ~ are free also from loads =due to pipe reaction and ~
thermal loads.
In general, except for the increase factors, use Licensee's criteria are in compliance with the SGEB criteria [17]. The Licensee has responded to all of the questions in the requests for. additional information. These: responses are incorporated in References 7, 9, and 20 and are found to be technically adequate as explained below.-
In Reference 20, the Licensee has indicated that, withithe exception of :
three walls.(wall No. 9 in Unit 1, wall' No. 2-9 in Unit 2, and wall No.' 14 in.
I
_4_
nklin Research Center A Osne n et The 7,en nn w -
TER-C550 6-24 6 f
l the SGEB Unit 1), all safety-related masonry walls in Galem Units 1 and 2 meet Hence, the concern regarding higher increase factors in the criteria 117).
Licensee's criteria applies only to these three walls.
With regard to wall No. 9 and wall No. 2-9, which are walls between the control equipment room and corridor and between the janitor's closet and that the mortar stress in maintenance room, the Licensee has indicated [20) the joints for DBE is 8% above the SGED criteria (although well below the Since a conservative damping value of 5% has been Licensee's cr iteria).
assumed and a lower bound value of Young 's modulus has been used, the Licensee has satisfied the intent of the criteria; the Licensee's approach is technically adequate.
With regard to wall No. 14 (walkway and truck bay), the Licensee indicates (20) the following corrective actions:.mny bracing members have been added to reduce the stress to the extent that the Licensee's criteria are i
satisfied as shown in Table 1.
Since only the lower section of the wall does l
not meet the SGEB criteria, the Licensee has proposed to install a wire mesh structure for the lower section of the wall in order to protect safety-related structures in its v'icinity. The Licensee's approach provides adequate protection since the upper section of the wall is fully supported by a steel beam and the wire mesh is adequate to prevent the lower section of the wall I
from hitting safety-related structures nearby.
Table 1.
Summarf of Results of Walkway Wall (Wall No.14)
Lower Section Upper Section (Moment Capacity / Actual Moment)
(Moment Capacity / Actual Moment)
Licensee's SGEB Licensee's SGEB criteria' criteria Criteria criteria Horiwntal 1.82 1.42 8.19 6.37 Span Vertical 1.10 0.85 2.17 1.68 Span is From the results, it is seen that the lower section of wall No.14 Notes:
weaker in the vertical span. The Licensee will be installing protective netting to prevent the lower section of this wall from Since the collarsing onto safety-related structures in its vicinity.
upper section of the wall is fully supported by a ' steel beam, the Licensee's approach is adequate. nklin Research Center s
- A Cmesen ed The Fransen h=setune 1
--._J
TER-C5 50 6-24 6 3.2 EVALUATION OF LICENSEE APPRCACH TO WALL MODIFICATIONS The Licensee has provided details of wall modifications in Reference 20 and in Appendix D of References 7 and 9.
Modifications have been proposed for all of the safety-related masonry walls except two which meet the SGEB criteria vithout modifications (one each in Units 1 and 2).
These modifications primarily consist of attaching structural steel (wide flanges, angles, and channels) to the faces'of the existing walls. The Licensee's approach to wall modifications is satisfactory since confirmatory analyses
[20] have shown that all of the walls except two in Unit 1 and one in Unit 2 meet the SGEB criteria. Wall No. 9 (Unit 1) and wall No.'2-9 (Unit 2) indicated stresses which are 8% higher than the SGEB criteria allowables.
However, these walls have been analyzed using a conservative value for damping and a lower bound value for the modulus of elasticity, and therefore no 1
modification is required; the Licencee's approach is considered adequate.
Wall No. 14 (Unit 1) does not itself carry any safety-related component but is in the vicinity of the refueling water storage tank and the auxiliary feedwater storage tank.
Therefore, braces were added to this wall to bring the stresses within die Licensee's criteria allowables, as shown in Table 1.
Though this does not satisfy the SGEB criteria allowables (because of the lower increase factors), the following considerations eliminate any safety-related concerns:
1.
The Licensee has used a conservative value for damping and a lower bound value for the modulus of elasticity.
2.
In order to preclude the possibility of the wall collapsing onto safety-related structures, the Licensee is committed to install a wire mesh cargo netting by June 1933 [20].' Because of this netting, the lower 'section of the wall can tip outside only until it encounters the net's restraint and then fall vertically into a pile at the base of the wall. The upper section of the wall is fully supported by a steel beam.
In Reference 20, the Licensee also has committed to corrective actions with regard to steel framing of the walkway. The walkway and truck bay structure will be physically cut at the point at which the foundation conditions change in order to preclude warping of the structures due to possible seismic motion. Since there will be a structural steel frame on both 4 dJ Frankjin Research Center A Drae.an of The reenksn w
TER-C5506-246 l
l sides of this cut, the structural integrity of the walkway and truckbay walls will be maintained. The Licensee had ccmmitted to installing this l
modification by August 1,1983.
The Licensee's approach is considered technically adequate.
i
< A UUdd Franidin Research Center w.o m ram.ma.
L
t 4
i TER-C550 6-24 6 4.
CONCLUSIONS A detailed study was performed to provide a technical evaluation of the masonry walls at Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2.
Review of the Licensee's criteria and additional information provided by the Licensee led to the conclusions given below.
A rev?.ew'of the information presented in References 7 and 9 for reevalua-tion of the masonry walls, along with the additional information provided by the Licensee [20), indicates compliance with the SGEB criteria except for minor deviations with respect to the proposed increase factors for allow 5ble tension normal to the bed joint. However, the results of the wall analysis indicate that stresses are within the allowables (with SGEB increase factors) except in the case of three walls, wall Nos. 9, 2-9, and 14.
In the case of wall Nos. 9 and 2-9, the overstress, as compared to the SGEB allowables, is only abcut 8%; this does not warrant any wall modifications due to conservatism in using a low (51) damping value and a lower bound value of modulus of elas-ticity.
In the case of wall No.14 (walkway and truck bay), the Licensee's approach has brought the stresses to within their criteric allowables and any concern due to the higher increase factors is eliminated by the conservatism in the Licensee's analytical approach (low damping) and by the proposed struc-tural netting to prevent possible wall collapse onto safety-related structures.
The Licensee's criteria are considered technically adequate and meet the intents of the SGEB criteria (17].
The Licensee's modifications are considered adequate based on sketches of wall modifications, which are provided in Reference 20 and in Appendix D of The protective netting designed by the Licensee for' wall' References 7 and 9.
No.14 is adequate since only the lower section of this wall is overstressed as compared to SGEB criteria allowable, as shcwn in Table 1 and the upper section of the wall is fully supported by a steel beam.
The Licens9e has committed to complete all modifications by January 1981, as indicated in References 7 and 9, and all additional modifications by August 1983. $U Franklin Research Center
% a w r, nm
w j
se TER-C550 6-24 6 5.
REPEazNCES l.- IE Bulletin 80-11
" Masonry Wall Design" NRC, 0 8-May-81
. f e
%~
2.
F. W. Schneider
.s Letter to B. H. Grier, NRC.
Subject:
NRC IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry
- Wall Design - Salem Generating Station Unit 1 Public Service Electric & Gas, 02-Jul-80 3.
R. L. Mitti
~
Le tter to F. J. Miraglia, NBC.
Subject:
Masonfy Wall Design - IE Bulletin 80-11, Salem Nuclear Generating Statiod Unit 2 Public Service Electric & Gas, 05-Sep-80
~
a f
4.
Computech Engineering Services, Inc.
Criteria for the Re-Evaluation of Concrete Masonry Walls Salem Nuclear Generating Station; Draf t Public Service Electric & Gas, 00-Oct-80 P8060/08 5.
H.'G. Berrick Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 - Design Change Request Public Service Electric & Gas,15-Nov-80 2EC1049, pkg. 1 s,
6.
F. P. Librizzi
['
Letter to B. H. Grier, NRC.
Subject:
Reportable Occurence-80-56/0lT,' Salem Generating Station Unit 1 s
Public Service Electric fr Gas, 24-Nov-80 I
s 7.
Salem Generating Station Unit 1 - Report on Re-Evaluation of Masonry Walls
'f Public Service Electric & Gas, 28-Nov-80 s
~
8.
H. J. Midura g
Letter to B. H. Grier, NRC.
Subject:
Reportable Occurrence
'_h 80-56/0lX-1, Salem No. ) Unit Licensee Event Report s._ ~
Public Service Electric- &, Gas, 01-Dec-80 w
Salem Generating Station Unit 2, Report on Re-Evaluation of Mtsonry 9.
. Walls Public Service Electric & Gas, 03-Dec-80 m
s s
~
e.J 3
10.
F. W. Schneider
Subject:
IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wa'ly
4 Letter to B. Grier, NBC.
)
Design - Salem Generating Station Unit 2
- (
,~
Public Service Electric & Gas,10-Dec-80 NU ' '
k
.R nklin Research Center Q '.";, '
- e;.
i A Omanean af The Frannhainnende s
+
1 x
.~
y f
n 4
4 TER-C550 6-24 6 J. Kerrigan Masonry Wall Meeting Summary - Salem Muclear Generating Station Units
- 11. -
1 and 2 USNPC, ll-Dec-80 Summary of Meetin; Held on December 5,1980 with Representatives of W. J. Ross 12.
+
Licensee to Discuss Seismic D.: sign Deficiencies of Masonry Walls in Two _ Recently Constructed Structures USNRC, 3 0-Dec-80 13.
H. R. Denton Consideration of Full Power Operating License for Memo, subject Salem Nuclear Generating Statio::, Unit 2, including pages 3-3 to 3-9 of attachment (Masonry Walls)
USNRC, 3 0-Dec-80 i
14.
F. P. Schauer IE Bulletin 80 Design Kn ight, NRC.
Subject:
Memo for J. P.
Review Meeting of First Group Operating Plant Masonry Walls USNRC, 07-Jan-81 15.
R. L. Tedesco Letter to R. L. Mitti, PSE&G.
Subject:
Request for Information -
f Masonry Walls, Salem Unit 2 USNRC, 08-Jan-81 16.
R. A. Uderitz Letter to B. H. Grier, NBC.
Subject:
Reportable' Occurrence 80-56/01X2, Supplemental Report Public Service Electric & Gas, 00-Mar-81 SGEB Criteria for Safety-Related Masonry Wall Evaluation 17.
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch (SGEB) of-the NRC July 1981 Uniform Building Code i
18.
Internal Conference of Building Officials,1979 4
J Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures
' 19.
De troit: American Concrete Institute,1979 ACI 531-79 and ACI 531-R-79 20.
E. A. Liden Le tter to S. A. Varga, NRC 1
. Additional Information - NRC IE Bulletion 80-1
Subject:
08-Dec-82 P
4 10
_nklin Rese_ arch Center
r- -
}
k
\\
i i
l I
i APPENDIX A t
s _.
LL EVALUATION SGEB CRITERIA FOR SAFETY-RELATED MASCNRY WAHNICA (DEVELOPED BY Tile STRUCTURAL AND GEOTEC (SGEB) OF THE NIC) 1 t
I r
I I
f t,
l'
\\
l l'
b uu.n Franklin Research Center l
A Division of The Franklin Institute 19103(2 The Benjarmn Frankhn Parkway, Phite. Pa.
l egps# hA
l APPENDIX A
- = _ _
SGEB CRITERI A FOR SAFETY-REIATED MASCNRY WALL EVALUATION (DEVELOPED BY TIIE STRLCTURAL AND GEDIECliNICAL ENGINEERING BRAtCH (SGEB) OF THE NIC) ah
.00.J Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Ph te., Pa. 19103(215)448 l000 l
i
TER-C5506-24 6 4
CONTENTS 4
Section Title Page 1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A-1 2
IDADS AND IDAD COMBINATIONS.
A-1 a.
Service Load Combinations A-1 b.
Extreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnormal / Severe Environmental, and Abnormal / Extreme Environmental Conditions.
A-2 3
ALLOWABLE STRESSES.
A-2 4
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS.
A-3 5
REFERENCES.
A-4 E
iii' A
Of Frenidin Research Center -
a w rner. - -
w
~. -.. -
=
+.
s s
TER-C5506-24 6 l'
1.
General Requirements
, ~5 The materials, testing, analysis, design, construction, and inspectica 4
related to the design and construction of safety-related concrete masonry walls should conform to the applicable requirements contained in Uniform s
Building Code - 1979, unless specified otherwise, by the provisions in
~'.
this criteria.
The use of other standards or codes, such as ACI-531, ATC-3, or NCMA, is also acceptable. However, when the provisions of these codes are less conservative than the corresponding provisions of the criteria, their use y-should be justified on a case-by-case basis.
In new construction, no unreinforced masonry walls will be permitt'ed.
For operating p1' ants, existing unreinforced walls will be evaluated by dbe provisions of these criteria. Plants which are applying for an operating license and which have already built unreinforced masonry walls will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
2.
Loads and Load Combinations The loads and load combinations shall include consideration of normal loads, severe environmental loads, extreme environmental loads, and abnormal loads. Specifically, for operating plants, the load combinations provided in the plant's FSAR shall govern.
For operating license applications, the following load combinations shall apply (for definition of load terms, see SRP Section 3.8.4II-3).
(a)
Service Load Conditiens (1) 7 + L (2) D + L + E (3) D + L + W If thermal stresses due to T and R are present, they should be o
o included in the above combinations as follows:
(la) D + L- + To + Ro (2a) D + L + To+Ro+E
. (3a) D + L + To+Ro+W Check load combination for controlling condition for maximum
'L' and.
for no
'L'.
A-1
.nklin Rese_ arch Center
- ~.
vc M
-T
+
t y
t y
9 eNT'
TER-C5506-24 6 (b)
Extreme Environmental, Abnormal, Abnormal /$evere Environmental, and Abnormal / Extreme Environmental Conditions (4) D + L + To + Ro + E (5) D + L + To+Ro + '4t (6) D+L+Ta+Ra + 1.5 Pa (7) D+L+Ta+Ra + 1.25 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Yj + Y ) + 1.25 E m
(8) D + L + T
+Ra + 1.0 Pa + 1.0 (Yr + Yj + Y ) + 1.0 E' 3
m In combinations (6), (7), and (8), the maximum values of P, T '
a a
R, Yj, Y, and Y, including an appropriate dynamic load a
r m
factor, should be used unless a time-history analysis is performed to justify otherwise. Combinations (5), (7), and (8) and the corresponding structural acceptance criteria should be satisfied first without the tornado missile load in (5) and without Y
- Tj a r
and Y in (7) and (8). When considereing these loads, local m
section strength capacities may be exceeded under these concentrated loads, provided there will be no loss of function of any safety-related system.
Both cases of L having its full value or being completely absent should be checked.
3.
Allowable Stresses Allowable stresses provided in ACI-531-79, as supplemented by the following modifications / exceptions, shall apply.
(a)
When wind or seismic loads (OBE) are considered in the loading combinations, no increase in the allowable stresses is permitted.
(b)
Use of allowable stresses corresponding to special inspection category shall be substantiated by demonstration of compliance with the inspection requirements of the SEB criteria.
(c) When tension perpendicular to bed joints is used in qualifying the unreinforced masonry walls, the allowable value will be justified by test program or other means pertinent to the plant and loading conditions. For reinforced masonry walls, all the tensile stresses will be recisted by reinforcement.
(d)
For load conditions which represent extreme environmental, abnormal, abnormal / severe environmental, and abnormal / extreme environmental conditions, the allowable working stress may be multiplied by the factors shown in the following table:
. - ~ - -.
l TER-C5506-24 6 Type of Stress Factor l
Axial or Flexural Compression 2.5 Bearing 2.5 Reinforcement stress except shear 2.0 but not to exceed 0.9 fy Shear reinforcement and/or bolts 1.5 Masonry tension parallel to bed joint 1.5 Shear carried by masonry 1.3 Masonry tension perpendicular to bed joint for reinforced mason'ry 0
for unreinforced masonry 2 1,3 lbtes (1)
When anchor bolts are used, design should prevent facial spalling of masonry unit.
(2)
See 3 (c).
4.
Design and Analysis Considerations (a)
The analysis should follow established principles of engineering mechanics and take into account sound engineering practices.
(b)
Assumptions and modeling techniques used shall give proper considerations to boundary conditions, cracking of sections, if any, and the dynamic behavior of masonry walls.
(c)
Damping values to be used for dynamic analysis shall be those for reinforced concrete given in Regulatory Guide 1.61.
(d)
In general, for operating plants, the seismic analysis and Category I structural requirements of F3AR shall apply.
Pbr other ' plants, corresponding SRP requirements shall apply. The seismic analysis shall account for the variations and uncertainties in mass, matetials, and other pertinent parameters used.
(e)
The analysis should consider both in-plane and out-of-plane loads.
(f)
Interstory drift effects should be considered.
l l
A-3 L
nklin Research Center ac=.ew r e. -
F l
TER-C5506-246 (g)
In new construction, grout in concrete masonry walls, whenever used, shall be compacted by vibratien.
(h)
For masonry shear walls, the minimum reinforcement requirements of ACI-531 sl.all apply.
(i)
Special constructions (e.g., multiwythe, composite) or other items not covered by the code shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for their acceptance.
(j)
Licensees or applicants shaJ 1 submit QA/QC information, if available, for staff's review.
In the event QA/QC information is not available, a field survey and a test program reviewed and approved by the staff shall be implemented to ascertain the conformance of masonry construction to design drawings and specifications (e.g., rebar and grouting).
(k)
For masonry walls requiring protection from spalling and scabbing due to accident pipe reaction (Y ), jet impingement (Yj), and missile r
impact (Y,), the requirements similar to those of dRP 3.5.3 shall apply. However, actual review will be conducted on a case-by-case basis.
5.
References (a)
Uniform Building Code - 1979 Edition.
(b)
Building 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.
(d)
Specification for the Design and Construction _ of Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry - NCMA August, 1979.
, (e). Trojan Nuclear Plant Concrete Masonry Design Criteria Safety Evaluation Report Supplement - November,1980.
1
/
l l
A-4 Nnkrin Research center A De of The Free km i
_