ML20077J930

Design Codes,Design Criteria & Loading Combinations (SEP, III-7.B),RE Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Final Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20077J930
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	05/27/1982
From:	Stilwell T FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:	Persinko D NRC
Shared Package
ML17256A455	List: ML17256A454 ML20077J930
References
CON-NRC-03-79-118, CON-NRC-3-79-118, TASK-03-07.B, TASK-3-7.B, TASK-RR TAC-41500, TER-C5257-322, NUDOCS 8206030123
Download: ML20077J930 (200)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.. .,.~. a. .. z., g, s..y ..g, ~ TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT DESIGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA, AND LOADING COMBINATIONS (SEP, III-7.B) ROCHESTER GAS..AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION ~ ..,u w. m,, w m.s.;. m%;. 1 ROBERT EMMu L GINNA.n ~ CLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 ?, ~NU ~ 2

3. w.+. g m.: n...

.... :. L_ :_ . :s 30-244.a.If 9. ; - .n. a,.;..,,...

4. : n,... a

.g,;. 9- 'c.;: r. e..".%v. 'g**.n.dM)? .... J -.~ n.! - - -i. FRC PROJECT CS257 NRC DOCKET NO. ':50 '.._ f:KQ% % W ).F*?.' Q'- , O c NRC TAC NO. '41500 FRC ASSIGNMENT 11 ..:.' :4 ...m y 'M FRC TASK 322 NRC CONTRACT NO. N. RC.03-79118

,.:c e

_'L Prepareciby_ n_.. hl.': '^ ~ a, .r :. m m. a,,.: FRC Group Lecder: T. C. Stilwell

9.... e. u.

r M> w~1.Fran...... kiht Re.s..ea.rch Cente..-

• y.,

~.,.....;.... ~ ~, . ~ a. ' '20th and Race Street. 'en - ~ Phila. de.lphia,.PA...19,103, +;.~ y 1 w g. w n.9... %;a M.A.*g....,.;..v &. ~- - o - - ~2 .a 7 .a ....a..,....,;.....,.atb.9..a...wa.=..w...~.c..+n-w.-<.+......... - - ~ 's,,- ..t. 6. ^ i " Vn SNPreparedfor. '. M.G=; ~ ";:d:: , y..w,;, 8..:: :-w:. ' :..*Cs!ii,J11?. - *. = - vc.. " ' - ,,.c..M., Nuclear Regulaton Commission i.;.. I..T... Wash.ington, D.CU20555

+

. Lead NRC Engineer: D. Persinko .,.s. . m::::..L..'!%5+:%c.v: ;f;;;1YQi.;; ~'.y e,.: 11,

..%.

...:. r t;r3

.t 4 i ..;.g. --.,. y , ' ~. 5y i^r.C - ,,a = ' ' *JN._, ^

> ~ ; t

'. ;,;:. ;.g:w} G., ' Yd.* *^ '_

May 27, 1982 s < \\,.,. U .:. b.*: L

,r.

• );W'9pDN,.4.E,-

..:.[..W.,: ' ? ; Q,t:. '.:!,;. w ', l .a p y.:. ;- N.Nj.k'This rMrtwas' prepared'as an account of work sponsored by an agency of y.h N yM@$qTQh?tfE United States Govemment. Neith $1C.J 5,Q S$5C %31".).y. NNManOgency thereof,'or any of their employees, makes any warranty, ex. MN 0 l}. pre'ssed orimplied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any - ': m-:.;..,; third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus. ' N.: Jproduct or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by l

such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

'-~;,,y: ..,.; : g y. y.-- -p **y % p _,,. ' 9 - :. *. : J..,;.:.,;, -)..y;4.g(),$. $,,^.:;.2&. - .y -.~.'; - we..,. .s [- ' 1 ; 5. :..( P '., l.. * ~'.h * :. ....; < 0.'g.p;,. w. .*. ;".t. :.s..-.7,iN 7 D.d 'I.NP ~., ".* . c.'." i s;.: .,.; ;: 2; :: z'.:.,a:*:A :f.. ' .... + .,.=,y.,., f ..6 c ..g. n .n..3z.... w w... nN.... n..:.. +. _.... . m.. - $.c3 0..(oO. 3 0l N. M X. i N ,im,q;...... m.... .:.u... e w... . -w m.;.,g..m.,.: Cl Franklin Research Center = =. . m..;p.....,, gg.g m... .7,,_. p ,p, A Dm...sion of The Franh..n Institute 3 7 g.. .- re.,.u-c.f-. r. .x ;. The Bernarnm Fraren Perimey. Phila Pa. '9103 (215) d48 lCoo u . - 9.. Y A Coo..Ho-.. Bee.,..e .x. = m rTdnttO.PDR y s- .m + -w w.

3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT i i DESIGN CODES, DESIGN CRITERIA, AND LOADING COMBINATIONS (SEP, III-7.B) i l ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION I ROBERT EMMETT GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 NRC DOCKET NO. 50-244 FRC PROJECT C5257 NRC TAC NO. 41500 FRC ASSIGNMENT 11 i ) NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-79-118 FRC TASK 322 Prepared by Franklin Research Center FRC Group Leader: T. C. Stilwell 20th and Race Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lead NRC Engineer: D. Persinko May 27, 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, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. A bb Franklin Research Center A Divisien of The Franklin institute i i The Ben armn Franen Persway. Pfula. Pa. 19103 (2156448-1000 _..m

I i TER-C5257-322 j CONTENTS + ] Section Title Page I 1 INTRODUCTION. 1 i 2 BACKGROUND 2 3 REVIEW OBJECTIVES. 3 4 SCOPE. 4 4 5 NGRGINS OF SAFETY. 7 6 CHOICE OF REVIEW APPROACH. 9 7 METHOD 11 7.1 Information Retrieval 11 7.2 Appraisal of Information Content. 11 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 snd Conditional Classifications of Code Change Impacts. 17 7.4.1.2 Code Impacts on Structural Margins 18 i 7.5 Plant-Specific Code Changes. 20 8 GINNA SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES 21 9 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA 23 10 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION CRITERIA 25 10.1 Description of Tables of Loads and Load Combinations 25 iii dddd Franklin Research Center > w or m vm ma.

~ TER-C5257-322 i CONTENTS (Cont.) i .1 Section Title Pm i 10.2 Load Definitions 29 10.3 Design Load Tables, " Comparison of Design Basis Loads" 31 10.4 Load Combination Tables, " Comparison of Load Combination Criteria" 42 11 REVIEW /INDINGS 54 11.1 Major Findings of AISC-1963 vs. AISC-1980 1 Code Comparison. 56 l 11.2 Major Findings of ACI 318-63 vs. ACI 349-76 Code Comparison. 59 't 11.3 Major Findings of ACI 301-63 vs. ACI 301-72 (Revised 1975) Comparison 63 3 11.4 Major Findings of ACI 318-63 vs. ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Division 2, 1980 Code Comparison 64 12

SUMMARY

68 t 13 RECOMMENDATIONS 70 14 REFERENCES 74 APPENDIX A - SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE TO x GINNA PLANT ij APPENDIX B - SUMMARIES OF CODE COMPARISON FINDINGS APPENDIX C - COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS AND MODEL STUDIES APPENDIX D - ACI CODE PHILOSOPHIES APPENDIX I - CODE COMPARISON REVIEW OF TECHNICAL DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTS DEFINING CURRENT LICENSING CRITERIA FOR SEP TOPIC III-7.8 (SEPARATELY BOUND)

1. a iv J.Snklin Research Center

~ ~ ~ ^ a o-w w ne r-on mau.

s TER-CS257-322 CONTENTS (Cont.) Section Title APPENDIX II - CODE COMPARISON REVIEW 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 GINNA PLANT APPENDIX IV - CODE COMPARISON REVIEW OF CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED CONCRETE STRUCTURES ACI 349-76 VS. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REIN-FORCED CONCRETE ACI 318-63 (SEPARATELY BOUND) APPENDIX V - COMPARISON REVIEW OF THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE FOR BUILDINGS, ACI 301-72 (1975 REVISION) VS. ACI 301-63 (SEPARATELY BOUND) APPENDIX VI - CODE COMPARISON REVIEW OF CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III, DIVISION 2,1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE ACI 318-63 (SEPARATELY BOUND) APPENDIX VII - NOT APPICABLE TO GINNA PLANT APPENDIX VIII - NOT APPICABLE TO GINNA PIANT APPENDIX IX - NOT APPICABLE TO GINNA PLANT APPENDIX X - NOT APPICABLE TO GINNA PLANT APPENDIX XI - NOT APPICABLE TO GINNA PIANT APPENDIX XII - NOT APPICABLE TO GINNA PLANT V d% Jb nklin Research Center - -.~,. w or m vrmeasaue

s TER-C5257-322 FOREWORD l 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. Principal contributors to the technical preparation of this report were s T. Stilwell, M. Darwish, and R. H. Hollinger of the Franklin Research Center." Dr. E. W. Wallo, Chairman of the Civil Engineering Department, Villanova University, and Dr. R. Koliner, Professor of Civil Engineering, Villanova l University, provided assistance both as contributing authors and in an l advisory capacity as consultants under subcontract with the Franklin Research' Center. i i -4 I l 4 i m - yg JkJ Franklin Research Center vii 4 am.oa.t n. n.ne.a,. t.

6 TER-C5257-322 1. INTRODUCTION f For the Seismic Category I buildings and structures at the R. E. Ginna Plant, this report provides a comparison of the structural design codes and loading criteria used in the actual plant design against the corresponding 'l codes and criteria currently used for licensing of new plants. The objective of the code comparison review is to identify deviations in j design criteria from current criteria, and to assess the effect of these ~l deviations on margins of safety, as they were originally perceived and as they would be perceived tioday. The work was conducted as part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) and provides technical assistance for Topic III-7.B, " Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Load Combinations." The report was prepared at the Franklin Research Center under NRC Contract No - NRC-03-79-ll8. I s I t t ! 4. 3 --m LWJ Franklin Research Center 4 won es n. rr u # u. f L

a. t i TER-C5257-322 2. BACKGROUND j With the development of nuclear power, provisions addressing facilities j for nuclear applications were progressively introduced into the codes and ) standards to which plant building and structures are designed. Because of i j this evolutionary development, older nuclear power plants conform to a number ,j of dif ferent versions of these codes, some of which have since undergone considerable revision. 1 1 j There has likewise been a corresponding development of other licensing criteria, resulting in similar non-uniformity in many of the requirements to whicn plants have been licensed. With this in mind, the NRC undertook an extensive program to evaluate the safety of 11 older plants (and eventually all plants) to a common set of criteria. The program, entitled the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP), employs current licensing criteria -(as defined by NRC's Standard Review Plan) as the common b(sis for these evaluations. a 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." 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 constructed) with those in effect today. Other SEP topics also address other aspects of the integrity of plant structures. All these structurally oriented tasks, taken together, will be used to assess the structural adequacy of the SEP plants with regard to current requirements. The determinations with respect to structural safety will then be integrated into an overall SEP evaluation encompassing the entire spectrum of screty-related topics. 4

• The report addresses only the Ginns plant.

Ag wi.e Franklin Research Center nomucen.nwonen== c 1 TER-C5257-322 I i 3. REVIEW OBJECTIVES 4 i The broad objective of the NRC's Systematic Evaluation Program ISEP) is .i to reassess the safety or 11 older nuclear power plants in accordance t ith the ^ j intent of the requirements governing the licensing of current plants,. nd to d provide assurance, possibly involving backfitting, that operation of these plants conforms to the general level of safety required of modern plants. g Task III-7.B of the SEP effort seeks to compare actual and current I 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 oojective of the present effort under Task III-7.B is to provide, through code comparisons, a rational basis for making the required technical i 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-7.8 as they relate to the Ginna plant. i g / ..O Franklin Research Center s :> men ao n.e Fren.u mm. /,e

j + TER-C5257-322 l 4. SCOPE i In general, the scope of work requires comparison of the provisions of l the structural codes and standards used for the design of SEP plant Seismic Category I civil engineering structures

• against the corresponding provisions

) governing current licensing practice. The review includes the containment and ) all Category I structures within and exterior to it. Explicit among the ) criteria to be reviewed are loads and loading combinations postulated for 1 j these structures. ? The review scope consists 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). i 2. Review the structural design codes, design criteria, design and

• analysis procedures, and load combinations (including combinations involving seismic loads) used in the design of all Seismic Category I 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, identify plant-specific deviations from current licensing criteria for design codes and criteria. 4. Assess the significance of the identified deviations, performing (where necessary) comparative analyses to quantify significant deviations. Such analyses may be made on typical elements (be ams, columns, frames, and the like) and should be explored over a range of 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 tnose currently accepted for licensing l b. assessment of the significance of the deviations l

• In general, these are the structures normally 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).

4 ~4-gg -m .L;J Franklin Research Center s ou,s.on ne rran.se m.aue

TER-C5257-322 l c. results of any comparative stress analyses performed in order to assess the significance of the code changes on safety margins d. overall evaluation of the acceptability of structural codes used j at cach SEP plant. i 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: ] Topic Designation l' (' III-l Classification of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems (Seismic and j Quality) III-2 Wind and Tornado Loading i j III-3.A Effects of High Water Level on Structures III-4 Missile Generation and Protection III-5 Evaluation of Pipe Breaks III-6 Seismic Design Considerations III-7.D Structural Integrity Tests j VI-2 . Mass and Energy Release for Postulated i Pipe Break. I 1 Because they are covered either elsewhere within the SEP review or within other NRC programs, the following matters are explicitly excluded from the ) scope of this review: 'i i 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 III-6, Generic Task A-12. } 1 ~ i 3d Franklin Research Center ,l w.en at n. Fr.,*nn in ae.

~ ii TER-C5257-322 Other component suppotts (steel Specific supports have been and concrete) analyzed in detail in Topic III-6. (Component supports may be included later if items of j concern applicable to component j supports are found as a result of j reviewing the structural codes.) l . j Testing of containment Reviewed in Topic III-7.D. I i Inservice inspection; quality Should be considered in the review control /a'surance only to the extent that it s affects des ign criteria and design allowables. Aspects of inservice inspection are being reviewed in Topics III-7.A and III-3.C 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 Bulletin 80-11. I Seismic analysis Being reviewed by Lawrence Livermore Lab. oratory. I I 2 1 s<flis ~~ Js!Enklin Research Center ~ ~ " ' ~ A m at ne nonon m.au,

f f TER-C5257-322 1 5. MARGINS' OF SAFETY q There are several bases upon which margins of safety

• may be defined and discussed.

The most often used is the margin of safety based on yield strength. This is a particularly useful concept when discussing the behavior of steels, and became ingrained into the engineering vocabulary at the time when steel 1 3 was the principal metal of engineering structures. In this usage, the margin I of safety reflects the reserve capacity of a structure to withstand extra 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 i 4 l 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 (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 cause the structure to experience, in a least one (and possibly more than one) location, some permanent distortion (however small) of its original shape. l Because the yield strengths of common structural steels are generally well below their ultimate strengths, the engineer knows that in most (but not all) cases, the structure possesses substantial reserve capacity--beyond his computed margin--to carry additional load. There are other useful ways, however, to speak of safety margins and the se (not the conventional one) are particularly relevant to the aims of the systematic evaluation program.

• Factors of safety (FS) are related to margins of safety (MS) through the relation, MS = FS - 1.

4& _._ m, 20 Franklin Research Center sc~uesn.reanmau.

1 I TER-C5257-322 4 One may speak of margins of safety with respect to code allowable limits. ) This margin reflects the re' serve capacity of a structure to withstand extra i 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 1'] intended meaning) of margins of safety against actual failure. Both steel and -4 ] concrete structures exhibit much higher " margins of safety" on this second j basis than is shown by computation of margins of safety based on code s allowables. q

i l

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 quantitadive manner without considering both. The SEP review concept is predicated cn the i assumption that it is unrealistic to expect that plants which were built to,

i and were in compliance with, older codes will still conform to current 4

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 l l 1 be brought into conformance with all SRP requirements to the letter, but I rather to assess whether or not their design is sufficient to provide the general level 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 4 quantitative fasnion in terms of these two " margins of safety." Thus, it is not expected or demanded that all structures show positive margins of safety l" based upon code allowables in meeting all current SRP requirements; but it is demanded that margins of safety based uoon 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 .I assured. The choice of method for Topic III-7.B review can be discussed in terms l l j of these two key considerations. N-__. __ _ m J J Frankjin Research Center aom.onav m rr.a.e m u. l

TER-C5257-322 i 6. CHOICE OF REVIEW 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 infringements on current criteria. No n'ew 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 changes may have on the load carrying ability of individual elements (beams, columns, frames, and the like). It should be noted that this process, although 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 I ' fe JM Franklin Resear.ch Center acm ono m.rr.n. 7-- v w w-

i i TER-C5257-322 facts, that designs predicated upon the older criteria infringe upon current design allowables in many cases and to extensive depths. If so, such i i information will certainly be of value to the final safety assessment, but many unresolved questions will remain. t 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 i issues will have been resolved, and questions of structural integrity will be i j sharply focused upon a few remaining key issues. 1 t l t i 4 l 1 Os __ dW' Franklin Research Center J a mm.on or m Fr a m.

i i + TER-C5257-322 i k 7. METHOD 'I } 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 the approach 4 into six areas: 1. information retrieval and assembly j 2. appraisal of information content q 3. code comparison reviews a 4. code change impact assessment j 5. plant-specific review of the relevancy of code change impacts j 6. summarizing plant status vis-a-vis design criteria changes. i 7.1 INFORMATION RETRIEVAL q 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 Topic III-7.B files on a plant-by-plant basis. The files also contain subsequently received information, as 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. 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). l ) 7.2 APPRAISAL OF INFORMATION CONTENT i Most of the information sources were originally written for purposes j other than those of the Task III-7.B review. Consequently, much of the i 4 J -11 ~~ _nklin Rese_ arch Center ~,-

I i TER-C5257-322 f l; information sought was embedded piecemeal in the documents furnished. These i sources were searched for the relevant information that they did contain. -} Generally, it was found that information gaps remained (i.e., some items were 1 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. R 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). ..j Ne xt, the Seismic Category I structures at the Ginna plant 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 counterpart 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 the current versions laid out side-by-side on ll-by-17-inch pages. A central column between the codes was lef t open to provide space for reviewer comments. i The code versions were initially screened to discover areas where the li text either remained identical in both versions or had been reedited without 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 remaining portions of the codes where l textual disparities existed. Pertinent comments were entered. Typical ai comments address either the reason the change had been introduced, the intent l l I 1 !.j JO mFranklin Research Center Ac>=icaet m rrnon m u.

s t TER-CS257-322 - }; ] of the change, its impact upon safety margins, or a combination of such j considerations. 1l.j As can be readily appreciated, many different circumstances arise in such i evaluations--some simple, some comple*:. A few examples are cited and briefly discussed below. Provisions were found where code changes liberalized requirements, i.e., -j 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 fa!. lure modes where the effects are well known; but too little is yet clear concerning the actual failure mechanism and the j 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 overly cautious, 'I and provide grounds for its relaxation. i 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 ( l liberalization of a code paragraph may really reflect a general tightening of I criteria, because the change is associated with stiffening of requirements j elsewhere. l t [ To cite a simple example, a newly introduced code provision may be found j making it unnecessary to check thin flanged, box section beams of relatively j 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-

1 that the designer must space end supports closely enough to preclude 4

ment j buckling. Thus, code requirements have been tightened, not relaxed. ..I 0 1's

4. - q uLLU Franklin Research Center a m.on er n. Fr.nen ww.

a n_ a 4 TER-C5257-322 s 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 I concerning structures built to more stringent requirements, such matters were not considered further. On the other hand, whenever it was clear that a code change introduced more stringent criteria, the potential impact of the change on margins of J ~l safety shown for the structure was assessed. When it was felt that the change I (although more restrictive) would not significantly affect safety margins, this judgment was entered as a reviewer comment. When it was clear that clac code change had the potential to significantly affect the perceived margin of safety, this was noted in the comments and the paragraph flagged for further consideration. 00metimes the effects of a code change are not apparent.

Indeed, j

depending upon a number of factors,* the change may reflect a tightening of requirements for some structures and a liberalization for others. When i doubtful or ambiguous situations were encountered in the review, the effect of the code change was explored analytically using simple 'models. I A variety of analytical techniques were used, depending on the situation .1 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 y the older code requirements. Next, the load carrying capacity of this l structure was reexamined using current code criteria. Finally, the load carrying capacities of the element, as shown by the older criteria and as determined by the current criteria, were compared. Examples of investigations i performed to assess code change impacts are found in Appendix C. 1

• Geometry, material properties, magnitude or type of loading, type of supports--

to name a few. i i I j A g p _.. m. W Franidin Research Center j Ao m.ano m.rre enwi an. E _-._y-

i TER-C5257-322 I l In making these studies, an attempt was made to use structural elements, model dimensions, and load magnitudes that were representative of actual structures. For studies that were paramatized, an attempt was made to span I 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 j real structures, it was felt 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. i 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 structural 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 i 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. 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 ~ ~ -qt3bs d2J Franklin Research Center ~ ~ ~ Acw==cm.n= am.en,. ~

TER-C5257-322 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. J 2. The effects of code changes that can be determined from the level of 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 exmaple, 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. 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, l 7.4.1 Classification of Code Changes l 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. t

• The addition of a new load can change the location of the point of highest stress.

l i l l l l ( > 025nidin Research Center ~ ~

• l A em or n. nown,.

I

- l 1 i i TER-C5257-322 . I, 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:

1 J Scale A Change - The new criteria have the potential to subst,antially impair ] margins of safety as perceived under the former criteria. Scale A Change - The impact of the code change on margins of safety is not x immediately apparent. Scale A code changes require x analytical studies of model structures to assess the potential magnitude of their effect upon margins of safety. 1 l Scale B Change - The new criteria operate to impair margins of safety but not l enough to cause engineering concern about the adequacy of any structural element. Scale C Change - The new criteria will give rise to larger margins of safety l than were exhibited under the former criteria. 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 l report. For example, some are designated as " Scale A," and others as " Scale C." Others have dual designation, such as " Scale A if --- [a condition state-I 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 l question controls design, and (b) the structural member to which the code j provision applies was proportioned to be at (or close to) the allowable limit. The impact scale rating is assigned accordingly. l If the code change is Scale A, and it applies (in a particular structure) l 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 i

• That is, if (all other considerations remaining the same) safety margins as computed by the older code rules were to be rece auted for an as-built structure in accordance with current code provistons, would there be a difference due only to the code change under consideration?

I l l [bu Franklin Research Center A %.a n. Fr=mn mann. I w w--- w-w e - me mm w- -r w

TER-CS257-322 i scale ranking is neither a function of member stress

• nor a ranking of member adequacy. The scale system ranks code change imoact, not individual members.

However, a number of~ code provisions are framed so that the allowable j limit is made a function of member proportion. When this kind of a code provision is changed, the change may affect members of certain proportions one way and members of other proportions differently. ) 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. The new rule acts to tighten design require-ments for slender columns, but liberalizes 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 'i to be Scale A columns while others appear to be Scale C columns, the distinc-tion between them resides 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 ch,ange does not happen to affect all columns in a unilateral way. 7.4.1.2 Code Impact on Structural Margins 1 This classification of code changes identifies both (a) changes that have the potential to significantly impair perceived margins of safety (Scale A) and t (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 l 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 1 l structure-specific circumstances, it may or may not pertain. i

• There are exceptions, but these are code-related, not adequacy-related.

. db _ _. m ; MU Franklin Research Center 3 A mon or The Fr.e

1 i l TER-C5257-322 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 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. j A simple example may help clarify this point. Assume a steel beam exists in a structure designed by AISC 1963 rules for the then-specified loading ? combination. Current criteria require inclusion of an additional load in the s i loading combination (Scale A change), but the current structural code permits l a higher allowable load if the beam design conforms to certain stipulated proportions (Scale C change). Several circumstances are possible for beams in actual structures, as shown below. 4 New Load Higher Stress Limit Results Maximum stress in beam Applicability Beam adequate under under original loading immaterial current criteria conditions was low with ample margin for addi-tional load Maximum stress in beam Beam qualifies for Beam may be under original loading higher stress limit adequate under current condition was near former criteria allowable limit Maximum stress in beam Beam does not qualify Beam unlikely to be under original loading for increased stress adequate under current condition was near former limit criteria allowable limit It is clear from this example that the function of the code review is to point out code changes which might impair perceived margins of safety, and that assessment of their pcrtinence is best accomplished at the structure-specific level. 0 i 4 i __ JLLU Franklin Research Center 4 c on a n. re.w.

e' r TER-C5257-322 i } 7.5 PLANT-SPECIFIC CODE CHANGES i There is substantial overlap among the SEP plants in the codes and stan-dards used for structural design. Several plants, for example, followed the provisions of ACI-318, 1963 edition, in designing major concrete structures. 1 ^ Thus, the initial work of comparing older and current criteria is not P ant-specific. However, when the reviewed codes are packaged in sets l containing only those code comparisons relevant to design of Seismic Category j I structures in a particular SEP plant, the results begin to take on plant- } specific character. f ] The code changes potentially applicable to particular structures at a particular SEP plant have then been identified. However, this list is almost I 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; 1 accordingly, such activities were not attempted. However, occasional -l j reference to such documents was necessary to the review work. Consequently, 1 it was possible to cull from the list some items that were obviously ( j inappropriate to the Ginna plant structures. Wherever this was done, the -j reason for removal was documented, but no attempt was made to remove every l such item. i .4 l l .1, Code changes that may be significant for structures in general but did not appear applicable to any of the Seismic Category I structures at the Ginna plant were relegated to Appendix A. The Scale A or Scale A changes that l remained are listed on a code-by-code basis in Section 11. l l t l -t 'i .<C31, - bdd Franklin Research Center ~ - " ' A om.an a n. Fr n.en mw.

._~ } i TER-C5257-322 I 8. GINNA SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES l i SEP Topic III-1 has for its objective the classification of components, 1 i structures, and systems with respect to both quality group and seismic designation. Based upon the review of the Ginna FSAR [5] and Gilbert Associates, Inc. drawings [6] showing the location of Seismic Category I l equipment, the present report considers the following to be Seismic Category I 1 structures: / i A. Containment j Includes: Cylindrical wall, dome, and slab Liner (no credit for structural strength under mechanical loads) Equipment hatch - i Personnel locks B. Internal Structures - j Steam generator / reactor coolant pump compartments (reviewed in i Generic Task A-2) i Biological shield (reviewed in Generic Task A-2) Puel transfer canal C. External Structures 1. Auxiliary Building i Contains the following Seismic Category I structures: Spent fuel storage pit New fuel storage area 480-V switchgear room Portions of the fuel transfer tube Houses the following Seismic Category I equipment: Safety injection pumps and residual heat removal pumps (in pit beneath basement floor) l Refueling water storage tank Boric acid tanks Containment spray pumps Waste holdup tanks 480-V switchgear i 4 t i t 4-h M' Franklin Research Center J A Omson of The Frannan irtsutwee

1 ^l 4 i TER-C5257-322 2. Control Room Building ,i I Contains: 'j Control room

l Battery room

- :J Relay room 1 .1 3. Portions of the intermediate building J1 (which house auxiliary feedwater pumps) b 4. Cable tunnel .i 'l qj 5. Intake / discharge structure and screen house 'i { 6. Diesel generator annex. i' ' Major structures not classified as Seismic Category I are the turbine 'i \\ l building and the service building. d I 3 i ll 'i .i i .I i 3 l l -) 2 -i ~ 1 i 4' ( i 4 7 A q gg l -j Ndi Franklin Research Center ~~ A N.on or n. Fr n.nn n iu I I

~ ". I I i TER-C5257-322 1 ] 9. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA i1 The structural codes governing design of the major Seismic Category I structures for the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant are detailed in the following table. f Design Current i j Structure Criteria Criteria dj 1. Containment ,- j a. Concrete ACI 318-63 ASME B&PV Code, j (including shell, Section III, dome, and slab) Division 2, 1980 1 (subtitled ACI j 359-80) l ACI 301-63 ACI 301-72 (specifications for (Rev. 1975) concrete) i b. Liner ASME B&PV Section III, 1965 ASME B&PV Code, (Provisions of Article 4*) Section III, ,j Division 2, 1980 ASME B&PV Section VIII (Subtitled ACI (undated), (Fabrication Prac-359-80) tices for Welded Vessels Only) ASME B&PV Section IX (undated), (welding procedure and welders qualifications only) c. Personnel locks and ACI 318-63 for Concrete ASME B&PV Code, equipment hatches ASME B&PV Section III, Section III, 1965, for steel Division 2, 1980 (subtitled ACI 359-80) 7. Auxiliary Building AISC-1963 AISC-1980 ACI 318-63 ACI 349-80

• The two significant applications of this article are:

1. determination of thermal stresses in the liner 2. analysis of pipe penetration attached to the liner. #m AdErank!in Research Center

• m.on er n. n.non in w.

.:~~ TER-C5257-322 Design Current Structure Criteria Criteria l 3. Control Room AISC-1963 AISC-1980 Building ACI 318-63 ACI 349-80 4. Portions of the AISC-1963 AISC-1980 ) Intermediate ACI 318-63 ACI 349-80 i Building 1 5. Cable Tunnel ACI 318-63 ACI 349-80 [ 6. Intake / Discharge AISC-1963 AISC-1980 I Structure and ACI 318-63 ACI 349-80 Screen House 7. Diesel Generator AISC-1963 AISd-1980 Annex ACI 318-63 ACI 349-80 1 'I REFERENCES IDENTIFYING MAJOR CODES USED FOR THE ORIGINAL DESIGN: 1. Final Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report for the Robert Emmett Ginna Nuclear Power Plant No. 1. 1 j 2. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation's response to NRC's Request For Information letter, Topic III-7.B. 4 1 e b ~ ~ 4_ AZ Franklin Research Center A Dnas.on of N Freeman insoture

TER-C5257-322 10. LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATION CRITERIA I

10.1 DESCRIPTION

OF TABLES OF LOADS 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 code; other structural codes have no such provisions and i take loads and load combinations as given a priori. In this report, loads and load combinations 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. l l To provide a compact and systematic comparison of previous and present i requirements, 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. A i l O nklin Research Center l , ~ - -. l

r l l TER-C5257-322 l 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 emergency power diesel generator, for example, are quite different than j those for the design of the containment vessel. Consequently, structures must t be considered individually. Each structure usually requires a load table and Iq load combination table appropriate to its specific design requirements. 'l The design requirements for the various civil engineering structures 4 l 1 within a nuclear power plant are echoed in applicable sections of NRC's a l j 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, f and the load tables are filled in according to the following scheme: .I 1. The list of potentially applicable loads (according to current j 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 t 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 l if it appears to correspond to current requirements. Questions such l 3 as the following are addressed: Were all the individual loads i j encompassed by the load category definition represented in the .J applied loading? Do all loads appear to match present requirements j (1) in magnitude? (2) in method of application? q 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. l 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 l

Inargins of safety. 6. ? Relevant notes or comments are recorded. l 4 i l

• .4 F*nk:in Research Center

~ ~ * - a wa a w ne r. a mnw. I -- -9.

TER-CS257-322 Of particular importance to the Topic III-7.B review are comments indicat-ing that the effects of certain loadings (tornado and seismic loads, in particular) are being examined under other SEP topics. In all such cases, the j findings of these special SEP topics (where review in depth of the indicated i { loading conditions will be undertaken) will be definitive for the overall SEP l effort. Consequently, no licensee investigation of such issues is required under Topic III-7.B nor is such effort within the scope of Topic III-7.B (see l Section 4). Licensee participation in the resolution of such issues may, I however, be requested under the scope of other SEP topics devoted to such 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 requirements 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 1 comparing actual and current criteria, an attempt was made to match each of the load combinations actually considered to its nearest counterpart under present requirements. For 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 LOCA (load combination 13). The load combination tables would l reflect this by showing that load case 9 was addressed, but that load case 13 i was not. If six load cases were considered, only six (nearest counterpart) load cases are indicated in the table--not partial fulfillment of all 13. For ease of comparison, the load combinations actually used are super-imposed on the load combinations currently required. This is accomplished in two steps: 1. Currently specified load combinations include loads sufficient for the most general cases. In particular applications, some of these are either inappropriate or insignificant. Therefore, the first step l A Jud Franklin Research Center m a m v m aue

n

,w..

.nm4m,. p TER-C5257-322 is to strike all loads that are not applicable to the structure under consideration from all load combinations in whica they appear. 2. Next, loads actually combined are indicated by encircling (in the appropriate load combinations) each load contributing to the summation considered for design. j Thus, the comparison between what was actually done and what is required l today is readily apparent. If the load combinations used are in complete j accord with current requirements, each load symbol on the sheet appears as i either struck or encircled. Load combinations not considered, and loads .:j omitted from the load combinations stand out as unencircled items. A scale ranking is next assigned to the load combinations; however (unlike 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 l design was substantially fewer than current criteria prescribe, it did not appear to serve any engineering purpose to rank the structure for each ,1 currently required load combination. Instead, a limited number of loading cases (usually two) were ranked. .j The following considerations guided the selection of these cases: 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. i 3 2. SEP plants have been in full power operation for a number of years. ] During this time, they have experienced a wide spectrum of operating i and upset conditions. There is no evidence that major Seismic '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. ] 4. If demonstration of structural adequacy under the most severe load combinations currently specified for emergency and accident conditions is provided, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the structure is also adequate to sustain the less severe loadings associated with less severe consequences. l l ! 4% _ _.m; du Frank!in Research Center 4 cm on or w reau. ~

1 TER-C5257-322. s 1 The scale rankings assigned to loads and load combinations in tables are intended as an appraisal of plant status, with respect to demonstration of compliance with current design criteria, based on information available to the NRC prior to the inception of the SEP review. A number of structurally j related SEP topics review some loads and load combinations in detail based upon current cal'culational methods. In order that a consistent basis for the 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, 1 j they are based upon the combinations used in the design of the modification. l 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. .i t 10.2 LOAD DEFINITIONS j D Dead loads or their related internal moments and forces (such as permanent equipment loads). E or So Loads generated by the operating basis earthquake. E' or E Loads generated by the safe shutdown earthquake. sa F Loads resulting from the application of pre-stress. i H Hydrostatic loads under operating conditions. H Hydrostatic loads generated under accident conditions, such as a post-accident internal flooding. (F is sometimes used by others* g to designate post-LOCA internal flooding.) L Live loads or their related internal moments and forces (such as movable equipment loads). P Pressure load generated by accident conditions (such as those a generated by the postulated pipe break accident). P or P Loads resulting from pressure due to normal operating conditions. o y

• See, for example, SRP 3.8.2.

i , 3 L Franklin Re. sea.rch Ce.nter A cm.an a n Fr. e

-~ TER-C5257-322 P All pressure loads which are caused by the actuation of safety s relief valve discharge including pool swell and subsequent hydrodynamic loads. Pipe reactions under accident conditions (such as those generated by R, or Rr j thermal transients associated with an accident). l I R Pipe reactions during startup, normal operating, or shutdown o conditions, based on the critical transient or steady-state condition. .I 4 R All pipe reaction loads which are generated by the discharge of s safety relief valves. i T Thermal loads under accident conditions (such as those generated by a a postulated pipe break accident). T Thermal effects and loads during startup, normal operating, or o shutdown conditions, based on the most critical transient or steady-state condition. All thermal loads which are generated by the discharge of safeth T i s relief valves. i W Loads generated by the design wind specified for the plant. a W' or Wt Loads generated by the design tornado specified for the plant. l Tornado loads include loads due to tornado wind pressure, tornado-created differential pressure, and tornado-generated missiles. 3 Equivalent static load on the structure generated by the impinge-Y 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 a l or during the design basis accident, such as pipe whipping. Y Equivalent static load on the structure generated by the reaction r i 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 comoination is provided by the referenced SRP. All SRPs are prepared to a standard format; consequently, subsection 3 of each plan always contains the appropriate load definitions and load combination guidance. l M ~ I NU Franklin Research Center } J Aom.onornerrmanwi.ou.

TER-C5257-322 10.3 DESIGH LOAD TABLES " COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS LOADS" l l l l l 1 l ~~. l ..js Frank!in Research Center l + ca en n. re.wa in v. I

TER-C5257-322 STRUCTURE: COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS LOA 05 CCNTAINMENT STRUCTURE (concrete) PLANT: GINNA 9 Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code l Design Applicable Included Reviewing Magnitude Deviation Impact Basis To This In Plant This Lead Correspond Exist Scale Comments j Loads Structure: Design To Present In Load Ranking i Basis? Criteria? Basist i i i j D Yes Yes Yes No 2 L Yes Yes Yes No I F Yes Yes Yes No H Yes Yes III-$.A 5. P Yes Yes Yes No p P, Yes Yes VI-2.D, 111-7.3 P, No No T, Yes Yes Yes No 1. ~' T, Yes Yes VI-2.D III-7.8 1. ig No No s R Yes Yes Yes No e =. o

• .j R

Yes Yes Yes No n. a y No ~ No ~ E' Yes Yes III.6 A 6. 3 E Yes Yes III-6 I tJ' Yes No III-2. III-4.A A x 'J Yes Yes I 2* III-2. III-4.A Y Yes Yes III-5.A 3. o Y Yes Yes III-5.A a 3-m. Y No Yes III-5.A 3. m Ref., SKP(1981) Section 3.d.1 or 3.3.2 Comen t s a To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic items are independent j uds; men ts, based on information in the TSAR or other original design documents. 1. TSAR (Pg. 5.1.2-56) states penetrations were analyzed for these loads. 2. FSAR (Pg. 5.1.2-6) indicates wind loads were considered. " hey do not appear in Table 5.1.2-4I. (75 MPH used). 3. These loads were reviewed in all operating plants. 4. FSAR (Section 5.1.2.8) states that all sources of internal missiles are shielded from containment walla. 5. K C3E engineers report hydrological soil pressure var considered. Water tatrie raken at elev. 250 f t. 6. Equivalent static analysis used for original design and checked by response spectrus analysis using hauanar spectrum. A. _ _ _. 40 Franklin Research Center s m,a n r m meu.

TER-C5257-322 STRUCTURE: CCPPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS LOADS SPENT FUEL. POOL (concrete) i PLANT: GINNA 8 Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code i Design Applicabl< Included Reviewing Magnitude Deviation Impact i Basis To This In Plant This Load Correspond Exist Scale Comments j Loads Structure' Design To Present In Load Banking Basis? Criteria? Basist j h D Tes Yes 3 L Tes Yes A 4. u I v F No H Tes Yes III-3.A g P, No III-5.5 I } T, Negl. 5. y T, Yes III-5.8 I No e j o R, No Z y E' Yes III-6 A, l E Tes III-6 j W' Yes 2. III-2. III-4.A

• 1.

A j W No III-2. III-4.A Y, III-3.3

g Y)

III-5.3 s Y, III-5.3 Ref.; SRP(1981) Section 3.8.4 l Cpeneents

• To be determined per results of SEP copics. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic items are independent judgments, based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.

1. SEP Topic III-2 vill determine whether or noc pool exposure to possible tornado effects is an allowable spent fuel pool load. 2. Applicable only since roof over spent fuel pool is not believed to be tornado resistant. 3. No information on design loads specific to the spent fuel pool was found. However. loads an load combinations for the auxiliary building (in which the pool is located) were provided by Roc' aster G & E's response to NRC III-73 inquiry. These are assumed to apply to the spent fuel pool.lso. l 4. Roof loads have increased per SEP Topic II-2.A. and may increase per SEP Topic II-3.3 for,arapet roofs. l 3. Fuel pool temperature (high density rackJ. fully loaded) is limited to 90*F for all reactors. #-A- --._ w ; 2dd Franklin Research Center

• cx aatn.r w a m.

f

s TER-C5257-322 4 STRUCTURE: COMPARISO4 OF DESIG's BASIS LOADS AUXILIARY BUILDING i (Concrete)

]

PLAT!T: GINNA 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 Correspond Exis t Scale Comments Loads S t ructure' Design To Present In Load Ranking 4 Basis? Criteriaf Basis? -l -- l 3 D Yes Yes Yes No -[ C L Yes Yes Yes No A 4. y u E F No No ) H Yes Yes III-3.A 3* p No III-5.5 l t } T, Yes No Yes 5 Effectsar$small j T, No III-5.5 w . j R Tes NO NFORMATION FOUNI Av 5 f

• =

R, No No d { E' Yes Yes III.6 e e A, 2. l E Yes No III-6 2. I W' Yes No III-2. III-4.A AX W Tes Tes III-2. III-4.A g T Tes No III.5.3 A, 1. e T) III 3,3 e e A I, Tu No x s T Tes III.5.B A 1. a x Ref. g SRP(1981) Section 3.8.4 C,pamen ts

• To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic items are independent j udgmen ts, based on infcrmation in the FSAR or other original design documents.

1. Effects of pipe rupture outside containment is being addressed in another SEP topic. 2. Initial design used static earthquake loading (g-loads). 3. Water table taken at elevation 250 feet. 4. Roof loads have increased per SEP Topic II-2.A. and may increase per SEP Topic II-3.8 for parapet roofs. CENERAL NOTE: There are a number of masonry walls in this structure. This subject is addressed in IE Sulletin 80-11 and other SEP Topics. 5 1 J l 4 Ll db Franklin Research Center a w or ne Fr aun m 9 e s

TER-C5257-322 1 STRUCTURE: C0f'PARISO'i 0F DESIGN BASIS LCA:l5 AUXILIARY BUILDING (steel) .t i PLNIT: GINNA 1 .e Current Is Ioad Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicabl. Included Reviewing MaEnitude Deviation Impact Basis To This In Plant This Load Correspond Exist Scale Coments Loads Structure Design To Present In Load Ranking j Basist Criteriaf Basis? l l x j O D Yes Yes Yes No 2 L Yes Yes Yes No A 3. u 8 1 F No No w 3 No III-3.A ~ j g P, No III.$.3 } T, Yes No Yes 3 T No III-$.3 E ' l j R No NO INFORMATION POUND 2.e $ a-2: R, No No E' Yes Yes III-6 A 1. l E Yes No III-6 l-r j V' Yes No III-2. III-4.A A j V Yes Yes III-2. III-4.A I Y, Yes No III-3.3 A 2. i g I u* j g Y) A, 2. Yes No III-3.3 i e t Y, Yes A, 2. III-3.3 Ref.. SRP(1991) Section 3.8.4 Co-ments

• 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. Seismic loadings for design were taken as scacic (g-loads). ,j 2. Pipe break outside containment is being considered as a separate SEP Topic (SEP III-$.3) 3. Roof snow loads have increased per SEP Tapic II-2.A. l CENERAL NOTE: The auxiliary building employs a number of masonry walls to be investigated in IE Sulletin 30-11 and other SEP Topics. .,1

4 n

4; - NJ Franklin Research Center s A w a n. r, u n mone.

.b TER-C5257-322 i r STRUCTURE: COMPAR, ISO'i 0F CESIG 4 BASIS LOADS CCNTROLBUILDING(concrete) 1 Pt/JIT: GINNA l Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicable Included Reviewing Magnitude Deviation Impact s Basis To This In Plant this Load Corresponc Exis t Scale Consents Loads Structure Design To Present In Load Ranking j Basist criteria? Basis? l' O D Yes Yes Yes No 2 L Yes Yes Yes No A 5. u X F No No 5, 4. H Yes Yes III-3.A e $l' P No III-5.5 a 1 T Yes No Yes 3 2. ~' f. o 2 T No III-5.8 'j E No R No 5 5 8 E*2 g No No a E' Yes Yes III-6 A, 1. l E Yes No III-6 1. j "J ' Yes No III-2 III-4.A A j '4 Yes No III-2, III-4.A Y, No 3. III-5.5 Y Yes III-5.8 3. E. 1 -a Y, Yes III-5.3 3. Ref.; SRP(1981) Section 3.8.4 Comen t s

• To be determined per results of SEP Top /cs. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic items are independent judgments, based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.

1. Ireated earthquake loadings as static (g-load). 2. Effects small. Building has experienced a broad spectrum of them. 3. Shares vall in connon with turbine building, missile and jet reaction barrier is understood to have been installed. 4 'Jac'iir table taken at elev. 250 FT. 5. Roof loads have increased per SEP Topic !!-2.A and may increase per SEP Topic II-3.3 for parapet roofs. A, g- --m i MJ Franklin Resea ch Center

• om.on at n. Fran mau.

-l

1 J i 1 TER-C5257-322 5 I s .I STRUCTURE: PORTIONS OF COMPARISON OF DESIGN BASIS LOADS INTERMEDIATE BUILDING ' 'i (Concrete) PLNIT: GINNA 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 Exist Scale Comments Loads Structure Design To Present In I. cad Ranking Basis? Criteria? Basis? m 2 O D Tes .I L Tes = i o h F No = R Tes III-3.A g t P No III-5.8 a 1, d } T Tes 0 t w ,j j T, No III-3.3 g s. . ii j R, Yes e R, Yes 1. 7 E' 'Yes III-6 A, l E Tes III-6 j 'J ' Tes III-2, III-4.A A 14 Tes III-2, III-4.A ,a Y, Yes III-5.3 1. t T Yes III-3.3 1. y E' T, Tes III-3.5 2. = i 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. Mainosteam, feedvater piping, and relief valve discharge piping. 2. Intermediate building shares comon well with turbine building. No information was found on design loads for the intermediate building. A reasonable assumption is that it was i designed to the same conditions as the rest of the building complex. On this basis, design [ i is comparable to that of the auxiliary building. l l l ? ) l 4 _ _ _. 230 Franklin Research. Center 1 4 om on or Tw. Fr.n.sn I i l

3 I s TER-C5257-322 4 t i STRUCTURE: PORTIONS OF C0ftPARJSC'10F CESIG'I BASIS LCADS INTERMEDIATE BUILDING (steel) PLAflT: GINNA I i Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code i Design Applicabl< Included Reviewing Magnitude Deviation Impact 1 Basis To This In Plant This Load Correspond Exist Scale Comments Loads Structure Design To Present In Load Ranking ~j Basis? Criteria? Basist 9i .] j j D Yes 2 L Yes t F 3a i H No III-3.A In j 2 P No III-5.8 a T Yes ~~ j T, No III-5.3 i-1 R Yes , j I R Yes 1. a 3 E' Yes III-6 A j m x l E Yes III-6 j '4 ' Yes III-2. III-4.A A E '4 Yes III-2. III-4.A w Y, Yes III-5.3 1. ?, ,1 Y) Yes III-5.3 1. a Y, Yes III-5.3 2. 1 i Re f. ; SRP(1981) Section 3.8.4 Comen t s

• To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale ranking shown for SEP copic items are independent judgments, based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.

1. Main steam and feedvater piping pass through intermediate building. Relief valve discharp'. piping also. 2. Intermediate building shares common vall with turbine building. No information concerni ng loads specific to the intermediate building. A reasonable assumption is that design was to same criteria as other structures of the building complex. On this basis, design is comparable j to the auxiliary building. t 4 -4 .1a 1, g f J Abnklin Research Center ~~ 4 Dms on of The Frenuhn mantute

s .' I 1 i TER-C5257-322 i I ? i STRUCTURE: 1 COMPARISON OF CESIGN BASIS LOADS 4 CABLE TUNNEL i . j PLNIT: GINNA f Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Load Does Code Design Applicabli Included Reviewing Magnitude Deviation Impact l Basis To This In Plant This Load Correspond Exis t Scale Comments j Loads Structure' Design To Present In Load Ranking i Basis? Criteria? Basis? b 4 x 8 D Yes .-l l L Yes u 'l F No d u Yes III-3.A i Eg P, No III-5.B 'l l ~ T Yes t l o T No III-5.5 j 1 j R No R No i 3 E' Yes III-6 A 1. i a x 1, E Yes III 6 1. i c 2 W' No III-2, III-4.A A 1 l i x j W No III-2, III-4.A Y No III-5.B 3 t I y Y No III-5.B 3 .a" Y No III-5.B = m Ref. ; SRP(1981) Section 3.8.4 _connents i

• To be determined per results of SEP topics. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic itens are independent j udgmen ts, based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.

1. No information on the design of the cable tunnel was found. i l ) l 1 4 _ _, U$d Franklin Research Center A cm w w=en w. I l

i t TER<5257-322 STRUCTURE: INTAKE / DISCHARGE COMPARISO4 0F CESIGN BASIS LOADS STRUCTURE & SCREEN HOUSE l. (concrete) .j PLNIT: GINNA i 1 l 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 Exist Scale Comments Loads Structure Design To Present In Load Ranking .) l Basis? Criteria? Basis? D Yes Yes Yes No E Tes Yes Yes No a 3. g, a x F No 30 i j g Yes Yes tit.3. A E g P No III-5.5 a l ~ Tes 5 2. T Tes No l l o 4 = T No III-5.5 t G 'k . ( Yes 8 2. R Tes No I i 0 I' * :2 g No No t 3 E' Tes Yes III-6 A 1. = x l E Tes Yes III.6 la W' Tes No III-2. III-4.A A, ,E W Tes Yes III-2. III-4.A Y, Tes III-5.3 A Ag T Tes III-5.3 y A, a T, Tes III-5.8 A, Ref. ; SRP(1981) Section 3.8.4 gmeents

• To be determined per results of SEP tootes. Scale ranking shown for SEP topic items are independent judgments, based on information in the FSA1 or other original design documents.

1. Earthquake loadings taken as static (g-load) in original design. 2. Small effects. 3. Roof loads have increased per SEP Topic II-2A and may increase per SEP Topic II-3.5 for parapet roo fs. 4 -...m. UL5J Franklin Research Center 4 cm.on or ne r. an e. ne.

T TER-C5257-322 STRUCTURE: DIESEL GENERATOR CCMPARISO'i 0F CESIG*4 BAS!$ LCADS BUILDING (concrete) PLANT: GINNA 1 1 -{ Current Is Load Is Load SEP Topic Does Loed Does Code j Design Applicab1< Included Reviewing Magnitude Deviation Impact j Basis To This In Plant This Load Correspond Exist Scale Comments Loads Structure' Design To Present In Load Ranking i Basist Criteriat Basis? 3 h y D Tes Yes Yes No [ L Tes Yes Yts No A, 5. F NO NO H Tes Yes III-3.A J' P No III-5.5 ] Yes 5 3. T Tes No l 0 w T* No III-5.3 3:: 2 , j R, h R, No No z ~ } E' Yes Yes III-6 e e A, 1. f E Tes Yes III-6 1. W' Tes No III-2. III-4.A A X W j Tes No III-2. III-4.A Y, No III-5'.8 i T) a 2. NO INTO III.$,3 e g-2* Y, Yes No III.3.5

== Ref.; SRP(1981) Section 3.8.4 panen t r,

• To be determined per renlts of SEP copics. Scale ranking shown for SEF topic items are independent j udgmin ts, based on information in the FSAR or other original design documents.

1. Earthquake loads treated as static (s-load). 2. D/G bids. shares common wall with turbine bids. 3. Iffeet is small. 4 Considered for wall panels only. 5. Roof loads have increased per SEP Tonic II-2.A and may increase per SEP Topic II-3.3 for parapet roofs. w- ' 1, y Franklin Research Center w a ne wwun me

/ 4 f* TER-C5257-322 ) -1 1 1 i J.' 4 l t I 10.4 LOAD COMBINATION TABLES I " COMPARISON OF IDADING COMBINATION CRITERIA" I ,4 l t i I s 1 i 1 4 b l l l l l l l l l l l 1 l l l I l i 1 OS'J Frank!!n Research Center ' ' ~ ~ - s w or n. vrma mu. .~- - ~

.e e 4 TER-C5257-322 STRUCTURE COMPARISON OF LOADING COMl! NATION CRITERIA CONCRETE CONTAINMENT PLANT: GINNA Combined Gravity Prestress Severe Natural Scale Category Loading

Dead, load Pressure Thermal Environment Phenomena Mechanical Ranking Cases Live Normal 1

gg y it 2 D+L F F T E R knirIreronmental O 3 D+L F P, T, W R Ssvare 4 D + 1.3L F P, T, 1.5E, R, Environmental 5 D + 1. 3L F P, T, 1.5W R h@ P' Q Extr e 6 R Environmen tal 7 D+L F P, T, W R A, 8 @+@ h R, 1, Abnormal 9 D+L F P, T, 1.25 R, n 1/ 10 h@ {1.25 E} R Environmental 11 D+L F 1.25 P, T 1.23W R 3. a a 12 @+O O na 13 D+L F H, T, W Abnormal / i' e+o e G e.._, = +- '^ a r x Ref.: 1. SRP Section 3.8.1 Concrete Containment 2. ASME Section III, Div. 2 Article CC-3000 I Notes 1. Encircled leads are those considered in the design. When load factors different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled. 2. Loads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations. 3. FSAR (Pg. 5.1.2-6) indicates that wind load was considered; but the loading combinations actually calculated do not include it (See Table 5.1.2-41) thus, it may be that stresses from load ceabination 11 are less than those from case 10 and 12 evervwhere in the structure; but explicit documentation of this was not found. It i is understood that 75 MPH wind was used. 4. R, = R +R +R . For this containment, according to FSAR (Ps. 5.1.2-83a), R_ may be taken as sero in this expression. 5. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is maintained for load case 7, 8 & 14 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. I l 4 _ _ _ ^ * ' Mu Franklin Research Center som.oaetneer a w e

. ~ _., TER-C5257-322 i STRUCTURE .'l CCMPAR!$0N OF LOACING CCM8! NATION CRITERIA t CCNTAINMENT LINER PLANT: GINNA i l ned Gravity Prestress Severs Natural Scale Category ,8 gg, ' Load Pressure Thersel Environment Phenomena Mechanical Ranking l Normal 1 @+@ F, R, .{ i, .j Severe 2 D+L F F, T, E, R, Environmental 3 D+L F F T W R y o o o I 4 D+L F F, T, E, o En onnental (Factored) D+L F F, T, V R Extreme 6 @+@ F, R, Environmental 7 D+L F F, T, "t I x o, @+Q S I A, Abnormal a 9 D+L F F, _ T, R, @+@ R, rmal/ 10 I Environmental 11 D+L F F, T, W a 12 h@ H, 13 D+L F I T, W s i Abnormal / I Extreme 14 h@ h E

• I A

a r x Enytennmenest U Ref.: 1. SRP Section 3.8.1 Concrete Containment t 2. ASME Section III. Div. 2 Article CC-3000 i NOTES 1. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factors different froa chose currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled. 2. Loads deemed inapplicable or negligible when struck from loading combinations. a 3. Tha liner may have been considered non-load-bearing in the case of some of the mechanical loads. 4 The liner should be shown leak-free under tornado load and its missiles and under credible events generating R, + R loading concurrent with loading combination 14. 5. For purposes of the SEF Review. demonstration that structural integrity is maintained for load cases 7, 8 & 14 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. 4 l l l i dJU' Franklin Research Center ~ d ~~ 4 Dmmon of the Franen Wsenee I

TER-CS257-322 i COMPARISON OF LCADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: CONCRETE STRUCTURES SPENT FUEL POOL (concrete) J PLANT: GINNA 2 Combined lap e _l Loading Gravity Dead, Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical 3,,g, y g Cases Ranking q i ] ! 1. Q 1. ( 2. 1 l

I 2

! 1.4D + 1.7L 1.9E j 3 1.4D + 1.7L -tr7W-- I 4 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, 7:., 1.' N, .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, 7" '..' 2, .75 x 1.9E 5 6 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .7 1.' 2, T' . 7% 7 1.2D 1.9E 8 I 1.2D -+rf#- I 9 ! @+h k \\ h 6. f @+@ \\ W A, 10 g i 11 D+L T, M i +k j 12 D+L T, +rM-P-K 1.25E + I 1 l 13 @+@ T, K h 6. +k A, + Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.3.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) i Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977). { ins stress {c usequently no load factors were used 2. Methods used in design 3. Loads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations. 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. '4 hen load factors different from those currently required were used. the factor used is also encircled. 5. No information on design loads specific to the spent fuel pool was found. However. loads and load combinations for the auxiliary building (in which the pool is located) were provided by Rochester G & E's response to NRC III-73 Inquiry. These are assumed to apply to the spent fuel pool also. 6. MetMd of seismic analysia does not correspond to current criteria. 7. For purposes of the SEP Review. demonstration that structural integrity is maintained for load cases 10 and 13 (per current criteria) may be considered i as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. i 1 i

1. A !

ENnklin Research Center l m nen.r,==w w.

i { TER-C5257-322 } COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: CONCRETE STRUCTURES AUXILIARY BUILDING (concrete) PLANT: GINNA Lo d ng Gravity Dead, Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical Scale p Cases Ranking h

t. c + 1 0

.,5. 2 1 a f1.4D+1.7L 2 1.9E 1 h k.'$ 1.$ 3 l 4 [.75 (1.4D + 1.7L) 75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, 5 j .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) 75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, .75 x 1.9E 6 l .75 (1.4D + 1.7L) 75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, . 75 x 1. 71J 7 l 1.2D 1.9E l 8 1.2D 1.7W '5 9 l @+@ 5. T, R, @ 6. l 10 D+L T, R, W A 1 11 D+L K 1.5 $ g l 12 D+L 7,+Y)+Y, 1.25g 4 1.25E 13 D+L g E' Y,+ Y) + Y, A g l Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977). 2. Methods used in design f $[ E*![***_ " "**S"*"" 7 " l 3. Loads deemed inapplicable or negligible hruck from loading combinations. 4 Encircled loads are those actually considered 1 che design. When Joad factors different from those currently require were used, the factor used is also encircled. 5. B included in D+L. 6. Earthquake loading taken as static g-load. 7. Snow load coefficients in accordance with ANSI A58.1 may be used, or provisions of e j UBC Section 2311 (j) invoked. 8. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is maintained for load cases 10 and 13 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. '8 ~ l d _nklin Rese_ arch _ Center - ~ .1 - - - - - ~,, -, - -, - 1---r err-,- ,w

^ ^ ^ ^ ? 4 4 TER-C5257-322 l - 5 COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: STEEL STRUCTURES (Elastic Analysis) AUXILIARYBUILDING(steel) PLANT: GINNA Combined Gravity Natural Impulsive Loading Dead. Thermal Pressure Mechanical S**1* Phenomena Loading Cases Live (D)+(f) d 1 2 D+L E - r 2 @+@ l D, + L T, 4 l D+L T, ( E 5 l W D+L T, X 6 f @+@ T, @ 3. j ~ 7 l W A D+L T, - 8 g 9 D+L ( \\ \\ Y) + Y +Y E I 10 D+L r e t' I 11 D+L g '( 'R E' Y) + Yf + Y A I t Ref; SRP (1981) SECT. 3.3.4 other Category I structures (steel) f ( Notes l. FMircled Nais are those actually considered in the design. When load ( factors are different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled. 2. Loads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations. 3. Earthquake loading taken as static g-load. 4 Snow lead coefficients in accordance with ANSI A58.1 may be used, or provisions of U3C Section 2311(j) invoked. 5. For purposes of the SEP Review, desenstration that structural integrity is main ' tained for load cases S and 11 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. f L j / ~47- @e .m 2

1. .' J Franklin Research Center v'

men or n. Fr.~a3n in iu.

y ~ TER-C5257-322 ~i COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: CCNCRETE STRUCTURES CONTROL BUILDING i PLANT: GINNA l g Gravity Dead, Live. Thermal Pressure Mechanical - p a u ~ se,1, 'd p Cases Ranking a1 1 l l ' i 1 l 1.4D + 1.7L 'I f l i 1.4D + 1.7 L 1.9E l 2 .? 3 1.4D + 1.7L 1.7W ^) 'i 1,' 4 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75x1.7g 1 k 5 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75x1.7g .75 x 1.9E i 6 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75x1.7% .75 x 1.7W 7 1.2D 1.9E 8 1.2D 1.7W 9 l D+L T D 5. o 10 D+L T, g W A, g i 11 D+L g 1.5 % g a 12 l D+L g 1.25 4 g 1.25E Y,+ Y) + Y 6. m A 6. 13 D+L g E' Y, + Y) + Y, l l Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) i Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977). f w rking stress / consequently no load factors were used 2 2. Methods used in design 4 L ; errr :-- ;t' 3. Loads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations. l 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load factors different from those currently required were used, the factor s used is also encircled. 4 5. Concrete walls were originally designed by applying an earthquake loading of 0.2g .j (SSE) to midspan of wall panel. .j 6. Missile barrier has been installed. [l 7. Snow load coefficients in accordance with ANSI A58.1 may be used, or provisions of UBC Section 2311(j) invoked. 'S 8. 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 =eets the intent of current design criteria. n'l & l d!.%nklin Research Center ~~ j 4tw aaatTh rr.ne m.au. 'l

4 1 j TER-C5257-322 i 1 COMPARISON OF LOADING CCMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: PORTIONS OF THE INTERMEDIATE BUILDING ~ l CONCRETE STRUCTURES (Concrete) l , Pt. ANT: GINNA . Imp e ig Gravity Dead, Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical se,1, g c I Cases Ranking i 1.4D + 1.7L l 1.4D + 1.7L 1.9E . l 2 .l 3 l 1.4D + 1.7L. 1.7W 4 I 4 .75 (1.4D + 1,7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, .1 3 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, .75 x 1.9E j 6 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 2.7 R, .75 x 1.7i4 t 1.2D 1.9E 7 l S I 1.2D 1.7W 'I 9 D+L T, R, E' l W A D+L T, R, 10 g 11 D+L T, 1.5 P, R, 12 D+L T, 1.25 P, R, 1.25E Y, + Y) + Y, . ) i ^ i 13 D+L T, P, R, E' Y +Y +Y r j m 1 Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 other Category I structures (concrete) t h 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977). consequently no load factors were used {vorkingstress '{ 2. Methods used in design 3. k ads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations. Encircled loads are chose actually considered in the design. When load l 4. factors different from those currently required were used, the factor used is also encircled. 5. No information found on building design basis. A reasonable assumption is that I design was to same basis as rest of building complex. Consequently, intermediate building is taken as the auxiliary building. 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 i reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. \\ { g d Franklin Research Center ~ ~ ~ ^ 4 Ocason of The Franen insatute

TER-C525i7-322 1 COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: PORTIONS OF THE STEEL STRUCTURES (Elastic Analysis) INTERMEDIATEBUILDING(steel) PLANT: GINNA e Combined Gravity Natural Impulsive 'j Loading

Dead, Thermal Pressure Mechanical S**1*

Phenomena Loading .}. Cases Live 1 1 D+L 2 D+L E t 3 D+L W 4 D+L T, R, 5 D+L T, R, E 6 D+L T, R, W 7 D+L T, R, E' I, 8 D+L T, - R, W 9 D+L T, P, R, 10 D+L T, P, R, E Y) + Y +Y r a ~ l I 11 D+L T, P, R, E' Ty + Y, + Y, A Ref; SRP (1981) SECT. 3.8.4 Otaer Category I scructures (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. 2. Loads deemed inapplicable or negligible struck from loading combinations. 3. Information not found. A reasonable assumption is that the design was to the same basis as other structures in the building complex. Consequently, intermediate building is taken as the auxiliary building. 4. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is maintained for load cases 8, 11 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasor.able assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. l . ddb0 Franklin Research Center I w. l h atTh Fr=enmau, i i

7 1, I i TER-C5257-322 f COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: CABLE TUNNEL T CONCRETE STRUCTURES PLANT: GINNA g Gravity Dead, Live . Thermal Pressure Mechanical

• i S**1*

p h J Cases l Ranking 2 i 1 1.4D + 1.7L 2 l 1.4D + 1.7L 1.9E J 3 1.4D + 1.7L 1.7W I f .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, 4 l 5 l .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, .75 x 1.9E .75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, .75 x 1.7W 6 .75 (1.4D + l.7L) 7 l 1.2D 1.9E 4'I 8 1.2D 1.7W ~j l f D+L T, R, E' '9 I ] 10 l D+L T, R, Wg l 11 D+L T, 1.5 P, R, e l 12 D+L T, 1.25 P, R, 1.25E Y, + Y) + Y, i l l \\ j 13 D+L T, P, R, E' Y +Yj+Y A r m x I 4, .} Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) l Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977). ( w ging stress { consequently no load factors were used I 2. Methods used in design ? 1 3. Loadsdeemedinapplicableo$negligiblestruckfromloadingcombinations. l 4. Encircled loads are those actually considered in the design. When load e i factors different from those currently required were used, the factor 1 l used is also encircled. 4 5. No infor=ation on design of the cable tunnel was found. t 6. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is l maintained for load case 13 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current l design criteria. A ].3 d 2 1 MU Franklin Research Center 3 4o-e or m n nun m.one.

u TER-C5257-322 COMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: INTAKE / DISCHARGE CONCRETE STRUCTURES STRUCTURE & SCREEN HOUSE (concrete) Pt. ANT: GINNA Lo d g Gravity Dead, Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical Scale p g, Cases Ranking 1 1.t@+1.$ 2

1. @ 1. $

2. 1.@ 3 l

1. Q l. g 2.

1.$ 1 4 i .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, 5 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R .75 x 1.9E ~ 6 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 R, .75 x 1.7W 1.2D 1.9E 7 l 8 1.2D 1.7W 9 @+@ T, R, f D+L T, R, W A 10 g Z 11 D+L 4 1.5 g g 12 D+L y 1.25g g 1.25E Y, + Y3 + Y, 13 D+L g g ( E' Y, + Y3 + Y, A i Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977). { $[ ing st{ess/ consequently no load factors were used. 2. Methods used in design 3. Loads deemed inapplicable oY negligible bruck 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. Snow load coefficients in accordance with ANSI A38.1 may be used, or provisions of UBC Section 2311(j) invoked. 6. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is main-tained for load case 10 & 13 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. A d nklin Research Center A Onamon of The Frannan insatute O

2 TER-C5257-322 i CCMPARISON OF LOADING COMBINATION CRITERIA STRUCTURE: i CONCRETE STRUCTURES DIESEL GENERATOR ANNEX j PLANT: GINNA (concrete) d g Gravity Dead, Live Thermal Pressure Mechanical Scale p .l Cases Ranking 4 s 1 1.4D + 1.7L l 1.l@+ 1.Q 2. 1.sqQ 5. 2 1 3 l 1.4D + 1.7L 1.7W !j 4 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75x1.74 5 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 g .75 x 1.9E 6 .75 (1.4D + 1.7L).75 x 1.7 T, .75 x 1.7 g .75 x 1.7W j 7 1.2D 1.9E 1 i 8 1.2D 1.7W 9 l @ T, g g 5. j 10 l D+L T, g W A g e i l 11 .I D+L 1.5 $ l 12 D+L g 1.25g g 1.25E Y,+ Y) + Y, i 13 D+L g g g E' Y +Y ^Y A r j e x Ref.: SRP (1981) Sect. 3.8.4 Other Category I structures (concrete) Notes 1. Ultimate strength method required by ACI-349 (1977). 2. Methods used in design { ** ,$$$_s consequently no load factors were used 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 used is also encircled. 5. Earthquake loadings taken as static g-loads. 6. Snow load coefficients in accordance with ANSI A38.1 may be used, or provisions of U3C Section 23110) invoked. 7. For purposes of the SEP Review, demonstration that structural integrity is maintained for load cases 10 and 13 (per current criteria) may be considered as providing reasonable assurance that this structure meets the intent of current design criteria. , 4g ~ ~ * - JJ Franklin Research Center Ac =.onen w,, w. m.

4 1 TER-CS257-322 11. REVIEW FINDINGS The most important findings of the review are summarized in this section j in tabular form. The major structural codes used for design of Seismic Category I buildings I and structures for the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant were: 1. AISC, " Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of j Structural Stee'l for Buildings," 1963 l 2. ACI 318-63, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete," 1963 3. ACI 301-63, " Suggested Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings," 1963. Each of these design codes has been compared with the corresponding i structural code governing current licensing criteria. Tables follow, in the order listed above, summarizing important results of these comparisons fo2 each code. 4 These tables provide: i l 1. identification by paragraph number (both of the orginal code and of its current counterpart) of code provisions where Scale A or Scale A deviations exist. x 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 the Ginna structures. When it could be determined that this was the case, l 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 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. JOU Franklin Research Center

==-= - 4 Omton of The Franaen *st nee ^

r 1 1 '1 i r 1 TER-C5257-322 In addition, a separately bound appendix exists for each code pair. This provides: l. full texts of each revised provision in both the former and current versions 2. comments or conclusions, or both, relevant to the code change 3. the scale ranking of the change. 4 i 1 5 i i i s .l i l i l i i 4 i i a f 4 2 't ~ ~ Q j J' dJ Franklin Research Center a

• W on at ne r n a in.ca.r.

~ i t t TER-C5257-322 i ,) 4 1 .- j i i 11.1 MAJOR FINDINGS OF AISC-1963 VS. AISC-1980 CODE COMPARISON i f l i 1, 3 9 t I

g

..L. Franklin Research Center a w a m Frmamau.

b TER-C5257-322 i ~l MAJOR FINDINGS OF AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON -J i (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly l Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) Scale A 3 Referenced j Subsection l AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments i Beam end connection See case study 1 1 1.5.1.2.2 where the top flange for details. s is coped and subject to shear, or failure by shear along a plane l 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 ar.d Appendix C ened elements subject to axial in the 1980 Code, compression or compression Appendix C due to bending when actual width-to-thickness ratio See case study 10 I exceeds the values specified for details. [ in subsection 1.9.1.2 1.10.6 1.10.6 Hybrid girder - reduction New requirement added in flange stress in the 1980 Code. Hybrid girders were l not covered in the 1963 Code, i See case study 9 for details. i 1 1 Ab l s mJ Franklin Research Center ( 4 cm.on as w.m.w. i

j 11 ) TER-C5257-322 - I l MAJOR FINDINGS OF AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON q'j (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly 3 Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) b lj Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements - 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments /

d 1.11.4 1.11.4 Shear connectors in New requirements added l

composite beams in the 1980 Code regard- 'j ing the distribution of j shear connectors (eqn. 1.11-7). The diameter I and spacing of the 5j shear connectors are j also subject to new controls. 1.11.5 Composite beams or girders New requirement with formed steel deck added in the 1980 l Code

i Axially loaded tension New requirement

,j 1.14.2.2 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 j 1.15.5.4 plates for end connections Code i of beams and girders are j welded to the flange of I i or H shaped columns l L Scale t 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 l I i See case study 7 for details. I i ^ $ ' l ! i ___,m UJ J Franklin Research Center A N an or m r.

insaw, i

l l

TER-C5257-322 i 1 11.2 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON .. O& J.LJ Franklin Research. Center a c-a n. rr.ne.

TER-C5257-322 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON i (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrada Perceived Margin of Safety) I'j Scale A i Referenced Subsection j ACI ACI Structural Elements ,i 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments i j .j 7.10.3 805 Columns designed for stress reversals Splices of the main 'j with variation of stress from f in reinforcement in y compression to 1/2 f in tension such columns must y be reasonably limited to provide for adequate ductility under all loading conditions. 1 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 i type failure. Structural integrity may be seriously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these i requirements. } 11.15 Applies to any elements loaded in Structural integrity shear where it is inappropriate to may be seriously j consider shear as a measure of endangered if.the i j l diagonal tension and the loading could design fails to ful-j induce direct shear type cracks. fill these require-ments. i i.i i 1 1 l, MU Franklin Research Center ,J s woon or m vreen wew. o ~,_,_.

e l TER-C5257-322 1 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degr:de Perceived Margin of Safety) 1 Scale A (Cont.) Referenced i Subsection I ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 11.16 All structtral walls - those which Guidelines for these j are primary load carrying, e.g., shear kinds of wall loads i walls and those which serve to provide were not provided by protection from impacts of missile-older codesj there-type objects. fore, structural integrity may be l 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 b^reak, espe-thermal strains will result in thermal cially jet impinge-stresses. ment, thermal ( stresses may be sig-l nificant. Scale A for areas of jet impingement or where the conditions could j develop causing concrete temperature l j to exceed limitation of A.4.2. For structures not subject to effects of pipe break acci-dent, thermal stresses are unlikely l l to be significant (Scale B).

gy jd Franklin Research Center A Ommon of The Franun msatute

~ TER-C5257-322 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly i Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) i .{ Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsection ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments i Appendix All steel embedments used to transmit New appendix; there-i B loads from attachments into the rein-fore, considerable forced concrete structure. review of older designs is warranted. Since stress analysis associated with these j conditions is highly dependent on defini-tion of failure planes and allowable stress for these i special conditions, j past practice varied with designers' - ~j opinions. Stresses l may vary signifi-l cantly from those ,j thought to exist under previous design procedures. i s Appendix All elements whose failure under C impulsive and impactive loads must U be precluded _i i New appendix; therefore, consideration and review of older designs is consid-l ered important. Since stress analysis associ.ated with these condi-tions is highly dependent on defi-l nition of failure planes and allow-l able stress for these special condi-j tions, past practice varied with 2 designers' opinions. Stresses may vary significantly from those thought to exist under previous design i procedures. k -..m. LJ Franklin Research Center { A cw en or n. re in.a,. l

t TER-C5257-322 'l 1 i t i 1 i ' 1 'l 'I 1 cj .i .h j 1 i .i I j 1, i 11.3 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975) COMPARISOW No Scale A or A changes were found in the ACI 301 Code comparison. a ~ t i I l i l I l l i i ) l l l r p- _,. [000 Franklin Research Center j s cum or m vrwen m. - -,, -.. - - - -. -.. _ _ _ _ _ - - - - ~ - - - -

r TER-C5257-322 11.4 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ASME 3&PV CODE, SECTION III, - DIVISION 2, 1980 CODE COMPARISON , g _.m, uub Frank!in Research Center A Dnne.on of The Frer*hn insutute

TER-CS257-322 MAJOR FINDINGS OF ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 CODE COMPARISON (Summary of Code Changes with the Potential to Significantly Degrade Perceived Margin of Safety) l Scale A .t Referenced { Subsection Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments l CC-3421.5 --- Containment and other New concept. There is no com-elements transmitting in-parable section in ACI 318-63, plane shear i.e., no specific section addressing in-plane shear. The general concept used here (that the concrete, under -i certain conditions, can resist i some shear, and the remainder must be carried by reinforce-ment) is the same as in ACI 318-63. j Concepts of in-plane shear j and shear friction were not ~ addressed in the old codes and therefore a check of old designs could show some significant decrease in overall prediction of

• 8 j

structural integrity. CC-3421.6 1707 Regions subject to These e uations reduce to l peripheral shear in the Ve = 4 f'c when membrane l region of concentrated stresses are zero, which com-forces normal to the shell pares to ACI 318-63 [ Sections 3 ] surface 1707 (c) and (d)] which address " punching" shear in slabs and footings with the j 9 factor taken care of in the basic shear equation l (Section CC-3521.2.1, Eqn. l 10). l l l . ( id Franklin Research Center 4 Onroon of The Franean insature

O B TER-C5257-322 ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont. ) j Referenced j Subsection ] Sec. III ACI Structural Elements -j 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments CC-3421.6 Previous code logic did not j (Cont.) address the problem of punching shear as related to diagonal tension, but control was on the average uniform shear stress on a critical Section. See case study 13 for de_ tails. CC-3421.7 921 Regions subject to New defined limit on shear torsion stress due to pure torsion. The equation relates shear l stress from a biaxial stress condition (plane stress) to I the resulting principal tensile stress and sets the principal tensile stress equalto6(f"c. 7 Previous code superimposed only torsion and transverse shear stresses. t CC-3421.8 Bracket and corbels New provisions. No comparable i section in ACI 318-63; there-l fore, any existing corbels or t 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 fulfill these requirements. . Om CUJ Frankfin Research Center 4 Onnten of The Framahn insoeute

TER-C5257-322 ASME B&FV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80)~ VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) Referenced ,i Subsection Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments All concrete elements New limitations are imposed CC-3440 (b), (c) which could possibly on short-term thermal loading. be exposed to short No comparable provisions term high thermal existed in the ACI 318-63. loading CC-Where biaxial tension ACI 318-63 did not consider f 3532.1.2 exists the problem of development length in biaxial tension.. fields. d 'l i .i i t 1 I i 1 3 i 1 i i ' g !,db Franklin Research Center ~ ~ * ~ 4 % orn.rr ma m u.

TER-C5257-322 4 12.

SUMMARY

The table that follows provides a summary of the status of the findings 1 from the Task III-7.B criteria comparison review of structural codes and loading requirements for Seismic Category I structures at the Ginna Nuclear i i Power Plant. I l The first and second columns of the table show the extent to which all 7: -j Seismic Category I structures external to containment comply with current design 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 chanie 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 Ginna plant, to be an effort of 1 tractable size. i i i i i I i l i l l l l l l 4 A 4 ~~ MEnklin Research Center 4 Onmon of The Franen insoue l

l ~ TER-C5 25 7-322

SUMMARY

Nt24BER OF CODE CHANGE IMPACTS FOR GINNA CATEGORY I STRUCTURES i ACI 318-63 AISC 1963 ACI 301-63 ACI 318-63 ^ '! SCALE RANKING VS. VS. VS. VS. '4 ACI 349-76 AISC 1980 ACI 301-72 ASME B&PV SEC.III { (1975 Rev.) Div. 2. 1080 Iotal Changes Found 82 33 37 40 A or A Not 8 ApplicIble 1 + 4* 11 0 3* e 2 3 en nw, ? [g$ B 63 10 21 27 3] S(* g S53 C 7 4 16 4 } A 7 8 0 6 u.$ vE$ l mtg x A 0 0 0 0 $53 SCALE RATINGS: Scale A Change - The new criteria have the potential to substantially l impair margins of safety as perceived under the former i criteria. i Scale A Ch ang e - The impact of the code change on margins of safety is x not immediately apparent. Scale A code changes x 1 require analytical studies of model structures to assess the potential magnitude of their effect upon l margins of safety. l Scale C Change - The new criteria will give rise to larger margins of l safety than were exhibited under the former criteria.

• These changes are related to specified loads and load combinations.

Loading critecia changes are separately considered elsewhere. - - - - mu Franklin Research Center sc m arm vrmaa m e

TER-C5257-322 13. RECOMMENDATIONS I Potential concerns with respect to the ability of Seismic Category I k buildings and structures in SEP plants to conform to current structural 3 criteria are raised by the review at the code comparison level. These must j ultimately be resolved by examination of individual as-built structures. 'I 'l It is recommended that the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation be i requested to take three actions J 1 i" 1. Review individually all Seismic Category I structures at the Ginna 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 i j 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 s criteria. Only those load combinations assigned a Scale A or Scale i A rating in Section 10 of this report need be considered in this x review. If the load combination includes individual loads which have themselves been ranked A or A, indicating that they do not conform x q to current criteria, update such loads. 1 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 Ginna plant. 'I I l g l ON!i Franklin Research Center ~ ~ q 4 % a etn re.aa I m

s

{

TER-C5257-322 I') LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED 3 14 Structural Elements to be Code Change Affecting These Elements Examined New Code Old Code Scale

1

' I Beams AISC 1980 AISC 1963 'd a. Composite Beams id ] 1. Shear connectors in 1.11.4 1.11.4 A .] composite beams l it dj 2. Composite beams or 1.11.5 A l girders with formed "ij steel deck i f b. Hybrid Girders [ Stress in flange 1.10.6 1.10.6 A ,,t j Compression Elements AISC 1980 AISC 1963 'i '] With width-to-thickness 1.9.1.2 and 1.9.1 A u ratio higher than speci-Appendix C I , 'a fled in 1.9.1.2 l1 Tension Members AISC 1980 AISC 1963 -i When load is transmitted 1.14.2.2 A by bolts or rivets Connections AISC 1980 AISC 1963 !,j a. Beam ends with top flange 1.5.1.2.2 A , -i coped, if subject to d shear ) j b. Connections carrying moment 1.15.5.2 A or restrained member 1.15.5.3 connection 1.15.5.4 (

• Double dash (--)

indicates that no provisions were provided in the older code. d l i Qw --w J d Franklin, rh. %=, m.ou, Research Center A c==. t

i 1 TER-C5257-322 LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED (Cont.) i I Structural Elements to be Code Change Affecting These Elements i Examined New Code Old Code Scale l] 1M Members Designed to Operate AISC 1980 AISC 1963 ] in an Inelastic Regime

j Spacing of lateral bracing 2.9 2.8 A

i Short Brackets and Corbels ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 having a shear span-to-11.13 A depth ratio of unity or less Sheer Walls used as a ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 primary load-carrying 11.16 A member Precast Concrete Structural ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 Elements, wh1re shear is not 11.15 4 a measure of diagonal tension Concrete Regions Subiect to ACI 349-76 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 suo]ect to stress reversals; 7.10.3 805 A l f in compression to y 1/2 f in tension y Steel Embedments used to ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 A 4 transmit load to concrete Appendix B Elements Subiect to Impulsive ACI 349-76 ACI 318-63 A and Impactive Loads whose Appendix C failure must be precluded Containment and Other B&PV Code ACI 318-63 A Elements, transmitting Section III, In-olane snear Div. 2, 1980 CC-3421.5 i i 3 nklin Research Center t

f. 1 I 1 TER-C5257-322 1 (Cont.) LIST OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE EXAMINED l Structural Elements to be Code Change Affecting These Elements .j Examined New Code Old Code Scale I i Reqion of shell carrying B&PV Code, ACI 318-63 A concentrated forces normal Section III, 1707 to the shull surface (see Div. 2, 1980 case study 13 for details) CC-3421.6 l l - f Region of shell under B&PV Code ACI 318-63 A torsion Section III, 921 1 Div. 2, 1980 L' CC-3421.7 I I Elements Subiect to B&PV Code, ACI 318-63 A Short-term High Section III, Temperature Loading Div. 2, 1980 CC-3440 (b), (c) I Elements Subiect to B&PV Code, ACI 318-63 A Biaxial Tension Section III, 'i Div. 2, 1980 CC-3332.1.2 I Brackets and Corbels B&PV Code, ACI 318-63 A Section III, Div. 2, 1980 l CC-3421.8 Roofs A(1) Extreme environmental snow loads are provided by SEP Topic II-2.A Regulatory Guide 1.102 (Position 3) provides guidance to preclude adverse consequences from ponding on parapet roofs. Failure of roofs not designed for such circumstances could generate impulsive loadings and water damage, possibly extending to Soismic Category I components of all floor levels. 1. Not shown in tabular summary of code change impacts. nklin Research Center ~ ~ " " ' f

v -l I TER-C5257-322 I; i ) 14. REFERENCES 1. Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800 (Formerly NUREG-75/087), Rev. 1, ~3j NRC, July 1981 4 f 2. Specification for Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural { Steel for Buildings American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 1963 r American Concrete Institute,1963 ,,'l 3. ACI 318-63, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" j 4. ACI 301-63, " Suggested Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings" American Concrete Institute, 1963 t f 5. Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. l l Final Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report for Robert Emmett Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 6. Gilbert Associates, Inc. Drawings Nos. 04-4750-D-024-002 through 04-4750-D-024-020 l 1 7. Appendix. I to Technical Evaluation Report, " Design Codes, Design Criteria, and Loading Combinations" Contains List of Basic Documents Defining Current Licensing Criteria for SEP Topic III-7.B. Franklin Research Center,1981 TER-C5257-327 i 1 1 i l l s 4 1 Uh%nklin Research Center ~ ~~ A omen or n. nun m.m.

i l. I 1 APPENDIX A SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES x DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE 'IO GINNA PLANT l r l l l l I 4 l Franklin Research Center i A Division of The Franklin Institute The Bengrrun Frannlin Partrway, Phila. Pe 19103(215)448 1000 -_.m, l 1

s 1 i TER-C5257-323 i m ( i ,i i J i 1 APPENDIX A-1 r AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON (SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE 'IO MILLSTONE UNIT 1 OR CODE CHANGES RELATED TO LOADS OR LOAD COMBINATIONS AND THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE) s T t L P i J 1 ] A.1-1 .-.j h ddd Franklin Research Center s o,m,an er m vrum mme s.

=. - 4 ] l TER-CS257-322 4 j AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON i i Referenced .) Subsection 'i AISC AISC Structural Elements A 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.5.1.1 1.5.1.1 Structural members under Structural tension, except for pin steel used in connected members Ginna Cat. I , }_, structure .j is A-36.

Thus,

. lj Fy < 0.83 Fu 1 Therefore, scale C ] for Ginna. Limitations scale j Fy <, 0. 83 3 Fu C j 0.833 Fu < Fy < 0.875 Fu B 1 Fy 2,0.875 Fu A s .. } 3 2.4 2.3 Slenderness ratio 1st 1st for columns. Must satisfy: I ] Para. Para.

• }

l w2E l d i r Fy i Scale Scale C 40 ksi i Fy <IF C for Ginna, i 40 I < 44 kai B See case study 4 l Fy 3,4 ksi A for details. 2.7 2.6 Flanges of rolled W, M, Scale C l or S shapes and similar for Ginna. J {; built-up single-web shapes See case study l

{

subject to compression 6 for details. Scale Fy <,36 ksi C 36 < Fy < 38 ksi B l .' l Fy >_ 3 8 k s i A Ji l i A-1.2 9 ut l ci

l MU Franklin Research Center I

.w; % n et n. Fr en in.nu. i d

TER-C5257-322 l AISC 1963 vs. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON [; Referenced 1 Subsection 'l AISC AISC Structural Elements ,fj 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.5.1.4.1 1.5.1.4.1 Box-shaped members (subject to bending) Box-shaped mem-Subpara. of rectangular cross section whose bers not found 6 depth is not more than 6 times its to be used in =n w n r..n. 'S l

l I TER-C5257-322 3 f AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 CODE COMPARISON Referenced { Subsection j AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments Circular tubular elements Circular tubular 1.9.2.3 and subject to axial compression elements are not 3 Appendix found to be used C New requirements'added in Ginna to the 1980 Code Cat. I struc-A tures; there-j fore, not appli-cable Roof surface not provided 1.13.3 with sufficient slope towards points of free drainage or adequate individual drains to prevent the accumulation ' ~ j of rain water (ponding) i Appendix Web tapered members Web tapered D members are not New requirement added found to be used in the 1980 Code in the Ginna Cat. I struc-ture; therefore, not applicable 1 i I i I l l c l I A-1.4 nklin Research Center ~ ~ -. -. \\ l L

.. - ~. = -- ^ ~ ? 'I aj i i l

.1, 1

s ..l APPENDIX A-2 i ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON r 1 4 (SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES DEDLED INAPPROPRIATE 'EO GINNA OR CODE CHANGES RELATED TO LOADS OR LOAD COMBINATIONS AND THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE) 4 t 4 I f 1 0 'i .1 1.j g A-2.1 300 Franklin Research Center a c>=.on a n. r nw.a m.eu. I 1.

ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 CODE COMPARISON . 1 Referenced i Section l ACI ACI Structural Elements j 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments l Chapter 9 Chapter 15 All primary load-carrying members 9.1, 9.2, or elements of the structural & 9.3 system are potentially affected. 4 . 1 most specifi-Definition of new loads not normally i cally used in design of traditional build- . i ings and redefinition of load factors l 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 members 4 Design loads here refer to 'hapter 9 load combinations.* C 18.1.4 Prestressed concrete elements No prestressed and elsments 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 dr.an 12 in ture except primary This chapter is completely new; containment; therefore, shell structures designed therefore, by the general criteria of older not applicable. l 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.

i -fgg3 A-2.2 . b Frank!in Research Center ~' A Nsion of The Frarmhn machte 3

4 1 4 1 i i J a l i i d i 4 ) i APPENDIX A-3 { ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, 2 DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON (SCALE A AND SCALE A CHANGES DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE TO GINNA OR CODE CHANGES RELATED TO LOAD COMBINATIONS AND THEREFORE TREATED ELSEWHERE) s: 4 4 1 -J + 1 T e i i A-3.1 4 NLU Franklin Research Center -- w-A w w w Frm.m.. I

~ o ACI 318-63 VS. AMSE B&PV CODE, SECTION III, } DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON I p Referenced i Section Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 'i ] CC-3230 1506 Containment (load combinations Definition of new yj and applicable load factor)* loads not normally ] used in design of >t4 traditional 'd buildings. -1 i Table 1506 Containment (load combinations Definition of } CC-3230-1 and applicable load factor)* loads and load ,} combinations along with new .a load factors have altered the traditional 3 analysis i requirements. C'oncrete containment

• New design CC-3900 All sec-criteria.

ACI l tions in 318-63 did not this contain design chapter criteria for loading such as impulse or missile impact. 5 Therefore, no comparison is possible for this t section.

I e

S

• Special treatment of loads and load combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.

'i ',.) 4 Ul M A-3.2 _nklin..Res,ea_rch._ Center ~ ~ ~ ~ t "i _r

P i \\ I .j APPENDIX B i }

1 St.EMARIES OF CODE COMPARISON FINDINGS i

4 4 4 ah . Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Bengman Frankhn Parmway. PNia. Pt 19103 (215)448-1000 I e

e e * , e a e S e

• 1 i

h i f I I .a 6 a I i s APPENDIX B SUMMARIES OF CODE COMPARISON FINDINGS i .j i -4 f t I a l l 1 l l l l 2 m, .{ B-1 p Ibh nklin Research Center - - w i i J t m m r,.- ~~.

i + i i f 4 I I i' 1 APPENDIX B-1 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 1

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON i i \\ f l i 1 l l l B-1.1 4 ddd Franklin Research Center A Neun of The Fraruen insonate r I

1 AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 I

SUMMARY

OF CODE CCMPARISON l i Scale A l Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments 1.5.1.1 1.5.1.1 Structural members under Limitations Scale tension, except for pin connected members F < 0.833 F C u 0.833 F <F < 0.875 F B u u F > 0.875 F A y, u

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 l Subpara. subject to bending 1980 Code 7 Lateral support requirements New requirement in the 1.5.1.4.4 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 B-1*2 O

UdJ Franklin Research Center Acewnrm %

1 AISC 1963 VS. AISC.1980

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON: I Scale A Referenced j Subsection 4 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 Ji]

1. 9.1. 2 1.9.1 Slender compression unstiff-New provisions added in j

and ened elements subject to axial the 1980 Code, appendix C. l Appendix compression or compression See case study 10 for -i C due to bending when actual details. width-to-thickness ratio exceeds the values specified in subsection 1.9.1.2 3 -l 1.9.2.3 Circular tubular elements New requirements adde,d ] and subject to axial compression in the 1980 Code Appendix C 1.10.6 1.10.6 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. t 1.11.4 1.11.4 Shear connectors in New requirements added l composite beams in the 1980 Code regard-ing the distribution of shear connectors (egn. 1.11-7). The diameter and spacing of the j shear connectors are i 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 l.15.5.4 plates for end connections of beams and girders are I welded to the flange of I or H shaped columns j B-1.3 [d!.')M Franklin Research Center

• D~~ Wm mana.

I

AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Ponentially Affected Comments t Roof surface not provided 1.13.3 with sufficient slope towards points of free drain-age or adequate individual drains to prevent the .j accumulation of rain water (ponding) 1.14.2.2 Axially loaded tension New requirement added memoers 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. i F < 40 ksi C 1 2w2g Y -- 40 < F < 44 ksi B Y Fy' - r F > 44 ksi A y

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 F < 36 ksi C y t 36 < F < 38 ksi B Y F > 38 ksi A y, } 2.9

2. 8 Lateral bracing of members See case study 7 l

to resist lateral and for details. l torsional displacement Appendix Web tapered members New requirements added l D in the 1980 Code l l l i B-1.4 nklin Research Center ~~ n - ~ -.~. l l L

+*** i AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 l

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON i' Scale B \\ Referenced Subsection AISC AISC Structural Elements 1980 1963 Potentially Affected Comments

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. j sion or to uniform compres- -l sion due to bending i 1.10.1 Hybrid girders Hybrid girders were not covered in the 1963 Code. Application of the new requirement 1 could not be much j different from other _. i rational method. 1 1.11.4 1.11.4 Flat soffit concrete slabs, Lightweight concrete is using rotary kiln produced not permitted in nuclear j aggregates conforming to plants as structural j ASTM C330 members (Ref. ACI-349). 1 1.13.2 Beams and girders supporting Lightweight construction a large floor areas free of not applicable to partitions or other source nuclear structures wh'ich a of damping, where transient are designed for greater ( i vibration due to pedestrian loads l traffic might not be l acceptable I 1.14.6.1.3 Flare type groove welds when flush to the surface of the I i solid section of the bar 1 .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 l 'i l B-1.5 ~ ~ ~ nklin Research Center ~ ~ - -. t i

n j a f l AISC 1963 VS. AISC 1980 i

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 Braced and unbraced multi-Instability effect on ~J 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 i

interaction analysis is 'l replaced by a different i procedure. See case ] study 8 for details. u ) -I i 'i i 1 .i -t

• :4 l

I .i a, il I i + l l 1 B-1.6 nklin Research Center ~ ~ * ~ ~. - i l l

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 - pendant 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 F = 1.35 Fy (1963 Code) are conservative. p 1.10.5.3 1.10.5.3 Stiffeners in girders - New design concept added spacing between stiffeners in 1980 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 ~

n i l i l f. 1 .i 1 i i i APPENDIX B-2 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 i 1

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON I e i l 4 4% B-2.1 . t ' U Franklin Research Center -~~a s m ao m vruun unau, e O

l ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON i Scale A i Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements

• l 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments j

7.10.3 805 Columns designed for Splices of the main rein-4 stress reversals with forcement in such columns l variation of stress from must be reasonably limited f in compression to to provide for adequate y 1/2 fy in tension ductility under all loading conditions. I Chapter 9 Chapter 15 All primary load-carrying Definition of new loads i 9.1, 9.2, & 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 requirements.* 1 j 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 I members to Chapter 9 load j combinations.* l 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 3 elements could be non-ductile type failure. l 1 Structural integrity i I l l

• Special treatment of load and loading combinations is addressed in other sections of the report.

nklin Research Center --G A Oms.on of The Fre W

u. .l d -l 1 ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 ]

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) Referenced Section 4 ACI ACI Structural Elements it 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments ~.2 11.13 may be seriously

)

(Cont.) endangered if the design n fails to fulfill these requirements. ,) ] 11.15 Applies to any elements Structural integrity ] loaded in shear where it is may be seriously i inappropriate to consider endangered if the design I shear as a measure of fails to fulfill these diagonal tension and the requirements. !j loading could induce 7,'i direct shear-type cracks

hj 11.16 All structural walls -

Guidelines for these 1) those which are primary kinds of wall loads were load carrying, e.g., shear not provided by older i walls and those which codes; therefore, struc-ij serve to provide protec-tural integrity may be i; tion from impacts of seriously endangered if .fi missile-type objects the design fails to i fulfill these require-f ments. } 18.1.4 Prestressed concrete New load combinations l and elements here refer to Chapter 9 i 18.4.2 load combinations.* I 'l Chapter 19 l Shell structures with This chapter is com-i thickness equal to or pletely new; therefore, d 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 sections of the report.

a 4 k !/ A B-2.3 Ub0d Franklin,rh.r,-% Research Center - ~ * - A cm. 1

i ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE CCMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) i Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements j 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments } .g Chapter 19 Additionally, this (Cont.) chapter refers to ,j Chapter 9 provisions. .i Appendix A All elements subject to New appendix; older Code time-dependent and did not give specific position-dependent guidelines on short-term temperature variations and temperature limits for which are restrained such concrete. The possible that thermal strains will effects of strength loss in result in thermal stresses concrete at high tempera-tures should be assessed. Scale A for any accident temperature or other thermal condition exceeding limits of paragraph A.4.2. Appendix B All steel embedments used New appendix; therefore, { to transmit loads from considerable review of attachments into the older designs is -{ reinforced concrete warranted.** t structures Appendix C All elements whose New appendix; therefore, failure under considerations and 1 impulsive and impactive review of older designs .l loads must be precluded is considered important.** ~l 4 t

• • Since stress analysis associated with these conditions is highly dependent on definition of failure planes and allowable stress for these special conditions, l

past practice varied with designers' opinions. Stresses may vary j significantly from those thought to exist under previous design procedures. d I d B-2.4 -TI2sd EJU Franklin Research Cen,,ter ,c,

• o, onorn.r e.a, 4

^

i 1 l l ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 l

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON i Scale B 1 ll Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 1.3.2 103(b) Ambient temperature control Tighter control to l for concrete inspection - ensure adequate control I upper limit reduced 5* of curing environment t (from 100*F to 95'F) for cast-in-place i applies to all structural concrete. concrete Requirement of a " Quality Previous codes required 1.5 Assurance Program" is new. inspection but not the ) Applies to all structural establishment of a k concrete quality assurance program. Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Any elements containing Use of lightweight con-i 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 ASTM 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 Concrete i l Aggregates." ] i 4 4 B-2.5 k db Franklin Research Center % atThe n= wa m. I

ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) l Referenced l Section e l ACI ACI Structural Elements t 349-76 319-63 Potentially Affected Comments 1 1 l l j 3.3.3 403 Aggregate To ensure adequate control. l j l i I 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 improved to account for 4.2 statistical variation and statistical quality control. 4.3 504 Evaluation and acceptance Added provision to of concrete allow for design specified strength a't 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-countered in nuclear-temperature related structures. All structural elements Previous codes did not 6.3.3 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 __.~,;.. O 002 Franklin Research Center A OMoon of The Frenamn lesonde

i ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON j Scale B (Cont.) 1 Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements l 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 i insulated from the allowables to account for [ concrete strength reduction at high i (>150*F) temperatures. f 7.5, 7.6, 805 Members with spliced Sections on splicing & 7.8 reinforcing steel and tie requirements amplified to better control strength at splice locations and j provide ductility. 7.9 805 Members containing New sections to define deformed wire fabric requirements for this new material. 1 Connection of primary To ensure adequate 7.10 & I 7.11 load-carrying members and ductility. j at splices in column steel i } 7.12.3 Lateral ties in columns To provide for adequate i 7.12.4 ductility. i Reinforcement in exposed New requirements to 7.13.1 through concrete conform with the ] expected large thick-7.13.3 nesses in nuclear related structures. Continuous nonprestressed Allowance for redistri-8.6 flexural members. bution of negative moments has been redefined as a function of the steel percentage, i Reinforced concrete members Allows for more 9.5.1.1 subject to bending - stringent controls on deflection limits deflection in special Cases. l l N -..Q, TbFranklin Resear.th Center A cm.en or n, rmn. n u.

i .? 'j ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON } Scale B (Cont.) I i 1 Referenced 'i Section 9 ACI ACI Structural Elements ~ 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 9.4 1505 Reinforcing steel - design See comments in i strength limitation Chapter 3 summary. l j j] Slab and beams - minimum Minimum thickness 9.5.1.2 1 through thickness requirements generally would not i 9.5.1.4 control this type of l -] structure. 9.5.2.4 909 Beams and one-way Affects serviceability, 4 slabs not strength. l .5 l 9.5.3 Nonprestressed two-Immediate and long. time H way construction deflecticns generally not critical in structures designed for very large l live loadings; however, design by ultimate -} requires more attention to deflection controls. j 9.5.4 & Prestressed concrete Control of camber, both 9.5.5 members initial and long time in addition to service load i deflection, requires more attention for designs by j ultimate strength. l 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 spiral reinforcement or load for these members tied reinforcement, non-given in terms of design l prestressed and pre-equations. stiressed See case study 2 l 5 .3 B-2.8 N$ Franklin Research Center 1 4 ~- A D=.aa at n. Fr n.en m.mm.

1 f i ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON / Scale B (Cont. ) Referenced 1 Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 10.6.1 1508 Beams and one-way slabs Changes in distribution a 10.6.2 of reinforcement for 10.6.3 crack control. i 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 i 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 i 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. l 10.15.6 10.17 Massive concrete members, New item - no comparison. more than 48 in thick 1 i l 1 1 l l l B-2.9 l .- - - s d'dd Franklin Research Center A On. neon d The Fearwen m

-i i j i t j ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 j SINMARY OF CODE COMPARISON i l Scale B (Cont. ) ~ Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments Concrete flexural members For nonprestressed 11.2.1 11.2.2 members, concept of minimum area of shear ~ reinforcement is new. For prestressed members, Eqn. 11-2 is the same as l in ACI 318-63. j Requirement of minimum shear reinforcement provides for ductility and' restrains inclined crack i .l growth in the event _of unexpected loading.

l 11.7 Nonprestressed members Detailed provisions for 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 needed for torsion be added to that required for transverse shear, which is consistent with the logic of ACI 318-63. This is not considered to l be critical, as ACI 318-63 i l required the designer to consider torsional j stresses; assuming that some rational method was used to account for torsion, no problem is expected to arise. 1 4 ) i l ? d B-2.10 .j i D2l Franidin Research Center - ~

• a om.on es m rr.aun man E

a e e 4 'l t ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 I SLHMARY OF CODE COMPARISON i Scale B (Cont.) t i Referenced 1 Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments Deep beams Special provisions for 11.9 ,j through shear stresses in deep 11.9.6 beams is new. The minimum i steel requirements are j similar to the ACI 318-63 requirements of using the wall steel limits. Deep beams designed under previous ACI 318-63 -l criterion were reinforced as walls at the minimum and therefore no-unreinforced section would have resulted. Slabs and footings New provision for shear 11.10 .j through reinforcement in slabs 'j 11.10.7 or footings for the two-1 way action condition and l new controls where shear head reinforcement is .4 used. ) Logic consistent with ACI 318-63 for these conditions and change is not considered major. ? 'i r i r B-2.ll. ~~ nklin Res.,e_ arch C_ enter l l ?

I

.4 1

i I d 1 i j ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 i

SUMMARY

OF CODS COMPARISON Scale B (Cont. ) il Referenced ~.l Section ACIc 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 1 allows concrete to carry l 1/2 the allowable for two-way action is new. Also deleted was the i requirement that shear reinforcement not be I considered effective in slabs less than 10 in j thick. ,l Change is based on recent .] research which indicates that such reinforcement j4 Lt works even in thin slabs. i l 1 Ji 11.11.2 Slabs Details for the design i through of shearhead is new. ACI 11.11.2.5 318-63 had no provisions l for shearhead design. The requirements in this section for slabs and l footings are not likely to j have been used in older plant designs. If such devices were used, it is i assumed a rational design method was used. 11.12 Openings in slabs and Modification for inclusion footings of shearhead design. See above conclusion. 1 1 'i B-2 12 A i dU Franklin Research Center ~- ,j A %.e w rr-en m n,. l

-e t 4 I ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 SLDLMARY OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) I Referenced j Section .) ACI ACI Structural Elements i 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments t 1 j 11.13.1 Columns No problem anticipated j since previous code 11.13.2 required design consideration by some analysis. Chapter 12 Reinforcement Development length con-cept replaces bond stress concept in ACI -j 318-63. .) The various ld leng ths i in this chapter are based 4 entirely on ACI 318-63 permissible bond stresses. .i There is essentially no difference in the final j design results in a design under the new code compared to ACI 318-63. t I l 12.1.6 918(C) Reinforcement Modified with minimum } through added to ACI 318-63, 12.1.6.3 918(C). j 12.2.2 Reinforcement New insert in ACI 349-76. 12.2.3 4 12.4 Reinforcement of New insert. special members Gives emphasis to special member j consideration. 12.8.1 Standard hooks Based on ACI 318-63 bond 12.8.2 stress allowables in i l general; therefore, no [ major change. 1 i I i B-2.13 -<C31s ~ UUUd Franklin Research Center ~ 3 acam.on w m rr.non %

j -i I 4 l ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 f

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON ] Scale 8 (Cont.) d j' Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 3'49-76 318-63 Potentially Af fected Comments 12.10.1 Wire fabric New insert. 12.10. 2 (b) Use of such reinforce-y d ment not likely in ] Category I structures i for nuclear plants. Ij Wire fabric New insert. 12.11.2 1 Mainly applies to pre-I cast prestressed } members. 12.13.1.4 Wire fabric New insert. l Use of this materia'l l i for stirrups not likely in heavy members of a nuclear plant. 13.5 Clab reinforcement New details on slab reinforcement intended _j to produce better crack ( -j control and maintain ductility. i Past practice was not inconsistent with this in general. 2 i l i 14.2 Walls with loads in Change of the order of the Kern area of the the empirical equation ~' thickness (14-1) makes the sciution compatible with Chapter 10 for walls d with loads in the Kern area of the thickness. i i i i l k B-2.14 I il

j. Q~

1 ..J Franklin Research Center A cw=.an or m neou.

7 -~ .a I i 4 ) ACI 318-63 VS ACI 349-76 Il

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON a Scale B (Cont.) ' l Referenced i Section ] ACI ACI Structural Elements AJ) 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments s - Footings - shear and Changes here are in-15.5 development of rein-tended to be compatible -q forcement with change in concept q of checking bar devel-1 opment instead of H nominal bond stress con-sistent with Chapter 12. ..a i j 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 i j entirely. 16.2 Design considerations for New but consistent with a structure behaving the intent of previous 1 monolithically or not, code. ~ ;l as well as for joints and bearings. 17.5.3 2505 Horizontal shear stress Use of Nominal Average in any segment Shear Stress equation (17-1) replaces the 'l theoretical elastic ~; equation (25-1) of ACI f} 318-63. It provides for j easier computation for { the designer. Ej 18.4.1 Concrete immediately after Change allows more l prestress transfer tension, thus is less con-servative but not considered a proniem. s 4 Ji B-2.15 100 Franklin Research Center ~~ acam.onor n. rr. e u.

.. -. l a \\ A l 'l i 1 1 i -ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 3

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) i 't Referenced Section ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 'k 18.5 2606 Tendons (steel) Augmented to include c yield and ultimate in

j the jacking force j

requirement. Bonded and unbonded members Eqn. 18-4 is based 18.7.1 on more recent test data. i Two-way flat plates Intended primarily for 18.9.1 { 18.9.2 (solid slabs) control of cracking. 18.9.3 having minimum bonded reinforcement i Y Bonded reinforcement at New to allow for 18.11.3 i 18.11.4 supports consideration of the redistribution of 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 l 18.16.1 Unbonded tendons. previously addressed in Post tensioning ducts. the codes in detail. Grout for bonded tendons. t l 18.16.2 Proportions of grouting Expanded definition of materials how grout properties may ? be determined. I Grouting temperature Expanded definition of 18.16.4 temperature controls when grouting. i t I t t B-2.16 Mw d' Franklin Research Center ~~ J ^ oreman er ne vamen muu. - - ~.

v (. a 'j s 1 a j ACI 318-63 VS. ACI 349-76 .{

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON '.j Scale C m a Referenced d Section }l ACI ACI Structural Elements 349-76 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 7.13.4 Reinforcement in flexural slabs l , $j 10.8.1 912 Compression members, Minimum size limitations 4 10.8.2 limiting dimensions are deleted in newer Code,

d 10.8.3 giving the designer more 3

freedom in cross-sectional dimensioning. ) 10.14 2306 Bearing - sections ACI 318-63 is more -j controlled by design conservative, allowing a j bearing stresses stress of 1.9(0.25 f'c) = .1 0.475 f'c < 0.6 f'c ij 11.2.5 1706 Reinforcement concrete mem-Allowance of spirals as .1 bers without prestressing shear reinforcement is new. l Requirement of two lines j of web reinforcement, -j where shear stress exceeds j 64,/f'c,wasremoved. l 13.0 Two-way slaos with Slabs designed by the to end multiple square or rec-previous criteria of ACI i tangular panels 318-63 are generally the s same or more conservative. 1 13.4.1.5 Equivalent column flexi-Previous code did not bility stiffness and consider the effect of i attached torsional members stiffness of members normal to the plane of the equivalent frame. 4 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 .' ) 1 i B-2.17 N nklin Research Center .3 m, n er m somm m.m .Q

o .~. t i l l 1 i f J i 3, I I .a JJ<j j !-{ I 4 t i APPENDIX B-3 2 4 ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON i f 1 i, i i i I . l. l 1 t i B-3.1 ps EU Franklin Research Center l A c~sen or ne vwn s a i l

ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B Referenced Section 4 ACI ACI Structural Elements ,.] 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments 4 3.8.2.1 309b Lower strength concrete ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) bases "3 j 3.8.2.3 can be proportioned when proportioning of concrete Jt " working stress concrete" mixes on the specified j is used strength plus a value determined from the standard 1] deviation of test cylinder strength results. ACI 301-63 bases proportioning for l " working stress concrete" on the specified strength plus 15 percent with no mention of i standard deviation. High standard deviations in.. cylinder test results could require more than 15 percent under ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) 4 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) could have been used requires core samples to have an average strength at least 85 percent of the specified strength with no single result less than 75 percent of the specified strength. ACI 301-63 simply requires " strength adequate for the intended purpose." If " adequate for the intended purpose" is less than 85 'l percent of the specified strength, lower strength concrete could be used. B-3.2 b 4.J Franklin OrD, R nter ^ % of

ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON f Scale B (Cont. ) Referenced Section I ACI ACI Structural Elements j 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments .1l 17.2 1702a Lower strength concrete ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) 1703a could have been used specifies that that no ? individual strength test j result shall fall below the specified strength by more than 500 psi. ACI 301-63 i specifies that either 20 percent (1702a) or 10 percent ' (1703a) of the strength tests can be below the specified strength. Just how far below j is not noted. j { 15.2.6.1 1502bl Weaker tendon bond ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) j possible requires fine aggregate i in grout when sheath is more i than four times the tendon area. ACI 301-63 requires j fine sand addition at five times the tendon area. 1 15.2.2.1 1502el Prestressing may not be ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) gives 1 15.2.2.2 as good considerably more detail for 15.2.2.3 bonded and unbonded tendon ( anchorages and couplings. ACI 301-63 does not seem to l f address unbonded tendons. l l 8.4.3 804b Cure of concrete may not ACI-301-72 (Rev. 1975) l . l be as good pcovides 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-istics of the placed concrete. s ) 4 B-3.3 -.m a2J Franklin Research Center i. A cam.on e rh. r non m u.

9 ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) Referenced Section l ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments i 8.3.2 803b Weaker columns and wall. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) ] possible provides for a longer setting time for concrete in columns and walls before placing concrete in supported elements. 1 Poor bonding of reinforce-ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975)

5. 5. 2 ment to concrete possible 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 j welded deformed steel wire l fabric for reinforcement. ACI 301-63 has no corresponding section.

5. 2. 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 l

ductility requirements. 4.6.3 406c Floors may crack ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) l l provides for placement of l i reshores directly under shores above, while ACI 301-63 states that reshores shall be placed "in approximately the same pattern." 4 1 e i ,j B-3.4 ~~ nklin Res h Center -.,earc,- -. i ^ ^

4 ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont). Referenced 1 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) .j lower in strength provides for reshoring no l later than the end of the working day when stripping occurs. t 4.6.4 Concrete may sag or be ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) lower in strength provides for load distribu-tion by reshoring in multistory buildings. l 4.2.13 Low strength possible if ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) 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 Embedments 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-l cement ratios for watertight structures and structures 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.

streng th 9 I B-3.5 fW i . w Jdt.' Franklin Resear.ch Center J aN awn.rr.a.am u. i

v 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 j from better placement and of single mix design with l 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 cylinder strengths. The requirement to exceed the specified strength by 25% gives higher strengths than the standard deviation method. ~* -etSP>s ' SL@nklin Resea.rch Center J 4 c% or n. n. .m u.

-e '-e-I T ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975) l

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Scale C (Cont.) Referenced Section I ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potencially Affected Comments ..j [,;-f 4.4.2.2 404c Better bond to reinforce-ACI 301-63 provides that form i 1 ment gives better strength coating be applied prior to l j placing reinforcing steel. 4 ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) omits this requirement. If form l coating contacts the rein-forcement, no bond will develop. l 4.5.5 405b Better strength and less ACI 301-63 provides for chance of cracking or keeping forms in place until t 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. l Cure of cylinders could give higher strength than the in-place concrete and forms could be removed too soon. l l l l d l I i i i B-3.7 i -<f*s UCL nklin Research Center ~~ t ~ w-l a l

ll 1 6 4 [ ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975)

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON 1 i l Scale C (Cont.) J -j 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 < ]l bars than does ACI 318-63. j

5. 5. 4 505b Better strength from ACI 301-63 provides for more j

5.5.5 reinforcement overlap in welded wire fabric. .!l 12.2.3 120ld Better strength from ACI 301-63 provides for final l better cure of concrete curing for 7 days with air 1 temperature above 50'F. _d ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) .Q provides for curing for 7 days and compressive strength i ll{ of test cylinders to be 70 percent of specified 1 strength. This could allow l termination of cure too soon. 1 .,I ~ 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 k nonuniformity in the concrete i in place. d,l 15.2.1.1 1502-clb Higher strength from ACI 301-63 requires higher { higher yield prestressing yield stress than does j bars ACI 301-72 (Rev.1975) i 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 j stress-strain curve be t submitted. The use of the j typical curve may miss lower strength material. ~i 1a B-3.8 j As ' d) Franklin Research Center i d a ca n.e Tw. Fr noa in.oiwie i-5 n

o e 4 -i ACI 301-63 VS. ACI 301-72 (REVISED 1975) j

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON Scale C (Cont.) j Referenced I Section 'I ACI ACI Structural Elements 301-72 301-63 Potentially Affected Comments t 16.3.4.3 1602-4c Better strength resulting ACI 301-63 requires 3 j from better cylinder tests cylinders to be tested at g 28 days; if a cylinder is damaged, the strength is {, based on the average of two. ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) i requires only two 28-day cylinders; if one is damaged, 4 the strength is based on the one survivor. I 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 3 on less than 50 yd. 17.3.2.3 1704d Better strength could be ACI 301-63 requires c-e developed strengths " adequate for the intended purposes." ACI 301-72 (Rev. 1975) requires an average strength at least 85 percent of the j specified strength with no i single result less than 75 i percent of the specified strength. If " adequate for the intended purpose" is higher than 85 percent of the l specified strength, the concrete is stronger.

l I

i 2 'i '} B-3.9 p% --a. JLd Franklin Research Center 4 on a e n. rwa m.

p m e ) 5 e ? l;) 'l i k i I ,i APPENDIX B-4 t ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980

SUMMARY

OF CODE COMPARISON I B-4.1 p% - - -a-s 7 Jduu Franklin Research Center A N an a# n. Frma m.aa.i.

ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON Scale A ~; Referenced lj Subsection 1 Sec. III ACI Structural Elements .(j 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments l CC-3230 1506 Containment (load combina-Definition of new loads not i tions and applicable load normally used in design of l j factor)* traditional buildings. 1 i Table 1506 Containment (load combina-Definition of loads and load j CC-3230-1 tions and applicable load combinations along with new 4 f actor)

• load factors has altered the traditional analysis require-ments.

J .i CC-3421.5 Containment and other New concept. There is no elements transmitting in-comparable section in ACI plane shear 318-63, i.e., no specific section addressing in-plane shear. The general concept 4 used here (that the concrete, under certain conditions, can resist some shear, and the r remainder must be carried by l [.) reinforcement) is the same as N in ACI 318-63. .a t Concepts of in-plane shear and shear friction were not addressed in the old codes J and therefore a check of old ] designs could show some i significant decrease in 'j overall prediction of j structural integrity. l l s

• Special treatment of load and load combinations is addressed in other i

4 sections of the report. i B-4.2

1. A dd Franklin Research Center

~~ A % a as n. rw w. 6

~. . 1 e i ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, 1 DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON i i Scale A (Cont.) - I Referenced { Subsection Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments 1 CC-3421.6 1707 Peripheral shear in the These equations reduce to l region of concentrated Ve = 4g[f'c when membrane forces normal to the shell stresses are zero, which com-surface pares to ACI 318-63, Sections 3 -i 1707 (c) and (d) which address " punching" shear in slabs and footings with the 4 factor taken care of in i the basic shear equation .i (Section CC-3521. 2.1, Eqn. 10). Previous code logic did not address the problem of punching shear as related to diagonal tension, but control was on the average uniform shear stress on a critical section. See case study 12 for details. CC-3421.7 921 Torsion New defined limit on shear stress due to pure torsion. The equation relates shear stress from a biaxial stress condition (plane stress) to the resulting principal tensile stress and sets the principal tensile stress equal to 6 yrf'c' Previous code superim-posed only torsion and transverse shear stresses. See case study 13 for details. ' t B-4.3 h ddL Franklin Research Center 4om ae n.r m in u. 1 I

.i f i ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON Scale A (Cont.) 4 _r Referenced Subsection 4 Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments i CC-3421.8 Bracket and corbels New provisions. No comparable section in ACI 318-63; therefore, any existing corbels or brackets may not i meet these criteria and failure of such elements i could be non-ductile type failure. .t.l Structural integrity may be !I seriously endangered if the design fails to fulfill these requirements. j CC-All concrete elements New limitations are imposed 3440 (b), (c) which could possibly be on short term thermal loading. ~ -j exposed to short-term No comparable provisions q high thermal loading existed in the ACI 318-63. + 3 ml CC-Where biaxial tension ACI 318-63 did not consider 3532.1.2 exists the problem of development i length in biaxial tension fields. q 4 CC-3900 Concrete containment

• New design criteria. ACI

( All sec-118-63 did not contain design I j; tions in criteria for loading such as ( j this impulse or miss!1e impact. j chapter Therefore, no comparison is q) possible for this section. .q 1 ]

• Special treatment of load and load combinations is addressed in other sections j

of the report. 1 '.4 I 1 '~ _nklin Rese_ arch C_ enter D

u l ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON 1 Scale B l j Referenced ] Suosection J Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments

l CC-3320 Shells Added explicit design guidance for concrete reactor vessels j

not stated in the previous J code. 3 i.j Acceptance of elastic behavior as the basis for analysis is consistent with the logic of the older codes. j CC-3340 Penetrations and openings Added to ensure the consid-l eration of special conditions .j particular to concrete reactor vessels and containments. j These conditions would have i been considered in design j practice even though not specifically referred to in j the old code. J Table 1503 (c) Containment-allowable ACI 318-63 allowable l CC-3421-1 stress for factored concrete compressive stress compression loads was 0.85 f'c if an equiva-i lent rectangular stress block was assumed; also ACI 318-63 made no distinction between l primary and secondary stress. l ACI 318-63 used 0.003 in/in as the maximum concrete com-I pressive strain at ultimate strength. CC-1701 Containment and any Modified and amplified from 3421.4.1 section carrying trans-ACI 318-63, Section 1701.1. verse shear I 1. $ factors removed from aJ1 equations and included in CC-3521.2.1, Eqn. 17. i 1 I t B-4.5 4 i Ub Franklin Research Center 4 4 cw.,an.# n. r,. nan m.

l ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont. ) l Referenced Suosection Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments CC-2. Separation of equations 1 3421.4.1 applicable to sections under (Cont.) axial compression and axial tension. New equations added. 3. Equations applicable to cross sections with combined shear and bending modified for case where P < 0.015. 4. Modification for low values of P will not be a large reduction; therefore, change is not deemed to be major. CC-2610 (b) Prestressed concrete ACI 318-63, Eqn. 26-13 is a 3421.4.2 sections straight line approximation of Eqn. 8 (the " exact" Mohr's i circle solution) with the { prestress force shear ( component "Vp" added. (Ref. ACI 426 R-74) ACI 318-63, Eqn. 26-12 modified to include members with axial j load on the cross section and modified to reflect steel percentage. Remaining logic similar to ACI 318-63, Section 2610. Both codes intend to control the principal tensile stress. CC-3422.1 1508 (b) Reinforcing steel ACI 318-63 allowed higher f if full scale tests show abequatecrackcontrol. B-4.6 4 bfJ Franklin Research Center ~~ A Dramon d The Frannsn insature L

u l .j I i ) I i ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 4 ( ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont. ) I J Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI Structural Elements i 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments CC-3422.1 The requirement for tests j (Cont.) where fy > 60 ksi was used would provide adequate j assurance, in old design, that crack control was j maintained. I CC-3422.1 1503(d) All ordinary reinforcing ACI 318-63-allowed stress for steel load resisting purposes was f. However, a capacity y reduction factor 4 of 0.9 was used in flexure. l Therefore, allowable tensile-stress due to flexure could j be interpreted as limited to some percentage of f less y than 1. 0 fy and greater i than 0.9 f. y } Limiting the allowable tensile stress to 0.9 f is in y effect the same as applying a capacity reduction factor $ of 0.9 to the theoretical I equation. t CC-3422.1 All ordinary reinforcing ACI 318-63 had no provision j steel to cover limiting steel strains; therefore, this section is completely new. ( Traditional concrete design practice has been directed at control of stresses and limiting steel percentages to control ductility. i i i B-4.7 db Tranklin Research Center 4 % at n. Frennan m.mw. i

t 5 i, 1 ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont.) d 1 Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments CC-3422.1 The logic of providing a (Cont.) control of design parameters at the centroid of all the i 'l bars in layered bar arrange-ment is consistent with older codes and design practice. CC-3422.2 1503 (d) Stress on reinforcing ACI 318-63 allowed the bars compressive steel stress

i limit to be f ; however, y

j the capacity reduction factor ~ ; for tied compression members was $ = 0.70 and for spiral ties 4 = 0.75, applied to i the theoretical equation. As - this overall reduction for such members is so large, ~I part of the reduction could be considered as reducing the d allowable compressive stress i to some level less than f ; limkt i therefore, the 0.9 fy here is consistent with and reasonably similar to the -l older code. f CC-3423 2608 Tendon system stresses ACI 318-63, Section 2608 is i generally less conservative. l Shear, torsion, and ACI 318-63 does not have a CC-3431.3 bearing strictly comparable section; however, the 50% reduction of the utimate strength require-ments on shear and bearing stresses to get the working stress limits is identical to a the ACI 318-63 logic and i requirements. 1

]

) 'q B-4.8 Q'h Franklin Research Center -,;2 J ? A Ome.on of The Fransen kaamme ]

l l, i ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont. ) ) Referenced j Subsection Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 3 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments Allowable stresses for Allowable concrete compressive Table ,j CC-3431-1 service compression loads stresses are less conservative I than or the same as the ACI i 318-63 equivalent allowables. CC-3432.2 1003 (b) Reinforcing bar ACI 318-63 is slightly more (compression) conservative in using 0.4 f up to a limit of 30 ksi. Tbe upper limit is the same, 4 since ACI 359-80 stipulates j max fy = 60 ksi. i CC-3432.2 1004 Reinforcing bar Logic similar to older codes. I i (b), (c) (compression) Allowance of 1/3 overstress ,i for short duration loading. )) CC-3433 2606 Tendon system stress Limits here are essentially the same as in ACI 318-63 or I slightly less conservative; l ACI 318-63 limits effective prestress to 0.6 of the ultimate strength or 0.8 of the yield strength, whichever is smaller. Reinforced concrete Membrane forces in both CC-3521 horizontal and vertical directions are taken by the reinforcing steel, since concrete is not expected to take any tension. Tangential shear in the inclined direction is taken, up to V, by the concrete, and e the rest by the reinforcing .-} steel. In all cases, the ACI concept of $ is incorporated i 1 'i .y B-4.9 MfJ Franklin Research Center y 2 --s- % or m n n a m w. o

i i 1 ACI 318-63 VS. ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, j DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) CODE COMPARISON s 1 i Scale B (Cont). l Referenced i Subsection 1 Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments CC-3521 in the equation as 0.9. .] (Cont. ) While not specifically j indicating how to design for .j membrane stresses, ACI 318-63 1 indicated the basic premises that tension forces are taken by reinforcing steel (and not concrete) and that concrete can take some shear, but any { excess beyond a certain limit l must be taken by reinforcing steel. CC-1701 Nominal shear Similar to ACI 318-63, with i 3521.2.1 stress the exception of 4, which equals 0.85, being included in the Eqn. 17. Placing & in the stress formula, rather than in the l formulae for shear reinforcement, provides the same end result. CC-3532 Where bundled Bundled bars were not bars are used commonly used prior to 1963; therefore, no criteria were specified in ACI 318-63. 1 if In more recent codes, identical requirements are s specified for bundled bars. 4 i i t i I B-4.10 ,,g udd Franklin Research C, enter I --4. ; A D=.on et the rresa mm w. O .0 -.

I e ASME B&PV CODE, SECTION III, DIVISION 2, 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON Scale B (Cont). Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments t l CC-918(c) Where tensile steel is Similar to older code, but j 3532.1.2 terminated in tension maximum shear allowed at zones cutoff point increased to 2/3, j as compared to 1/2 in ACI 318-63, over that normally i pe rmitted. Slightly less con-servative than ACI 318-63. This is not considered critical since good design practice has always avoided bar cutoff in tension zones... CC-1801 Where bars carrying stress Development lengths derived I 3532.1.2 are to be terminated from the basic concept of ACI 318-63 where: bond strength = tensile strength IyL=Afby o L = A f /(M

• D) l by If u = 9.5,/f'c/D then L = 0.0335 A f /./f'c by With $ = 0.85 L = 0.0394 A f /'/f'c by No change in basic philosophy for #11 and smaller bars.

i CC-3532.3 918 (h) Hooked bars Change in format. New values 801 are similar for small bars and more conservative for large bars and higher yield strength bars. Not considered critical

j since prior to 1963 the use of j

fy > 40 kai steel was not Common. t 1 B-4.ll Adj Franklin Researcnin u. h Center %.e n. r,

] ~i l t ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III DIV. 2 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON } Scale B (Cont. ) i

7. l Referenced j

Subsection 9 Sec. III ACI Structural Elements j 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments CC-3533 919 Shear reinforcement Essentially the same concepts. .I Bend of 135' now permitted j (versus 180' formerly) and two- ~j piece stirrups now permitted. These are not considered as sacrificing strength. Other items here are identical. t CC-3534.1 --- Bundled bars - Provisions for bundled bars any location were nct considered in ACI 318-63. Bundled bars were not commonly used before the early 1960s. 1 Later codes provide identical provisions. CC-3536 Curved reinforcement Early codes did not provide detailed information, but good design practice would consider such conditions. CC-3543 2614 Tendon end anchor Similar to concepts in ACI reinforcement 318-63, Section 2614 but new statement is more specific. Basic requirements are not changed. t CC-3550 Structures integral Statement here is specific to with containment concrete reactor vessels. The logic of this guideline is consistent with the design logic used for all indetermi-nate structures. e f nklin Research Center ~^ A Dlmhan of The Frennan insolute =

r c '4 + / - s 4 i ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III DIV. 2 i - 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON \\ t " Scale B (Cont.) / g 1 Referenced Subsection ' Seci III; ACI Structural Elements ,.{ 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Coniments <3 3 ~4

f.._CC-3 5 50,#

ACI 318-631did not specif,.i-. 4 4 J' s (ContQ cally state-any,quideline l. in this regard.' '~s i s /- s ,~ CC-3560 Foundation requirements There is no corpar'able section in ACI 318-63, s s These items were assumed to'be ^' controlled.by the appropriate; ~ T general building code of which-s ACI 318-63 w,ac, to be a i -t.. j referenced inclusion.. All ~' items are considered _to. tv 'E be part.of common' building-design practice. ' N N ~' .f .c f i' x l-n t ^; .y r

• g

~ J ~ / 9 jr m ~ ~ s /t w-A .X 1 T t B-4.13 A. 00bEa,nklin Resear.ch Center ~ ^*^ % w w n m,. ~ s l

j 4 -1 -1 1 ^!.' ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III DIV. 2 1980 (ACI 359-80) VS. ACI 318-63 CODE COMPARISON 1 ij Scale C Referenced Subsection Sec. III ACI Structural Elements 1980 318-63 Potentially Affected Comments CC-3421.9 2306(f) Bearing ACI 318-63 is more conserva-and (g) tive, allowing a stress of 1.9 (0.25 f'c) 0.475 f'c < 0.6 f'c CC-3431.2 2605 Concrete Identical to ACI 318-63 I (allowable stress in logic. concrete) -l 4 Appen-Concrete reactor vessels ACI 318-63 did not contain any j ~~ dix II j criteria for compressive strength modification for l multiaxial stress conditions. 1 Therefore, no comparison is possible for Section II-1100, Because of this, ACI 318-63 y j was more conservative by ] ignoring the strength increase which accompanies triaxial stress conditions. ,'i This section probably does not l apply to concrete containment i structures. All Rather conservative for CC-3531 service loads. Using $ of 0.9 for flexure, = t = 1.67 to 2.0 0 09 for ACI 318-63. By using the value of 2.0, the upper limit 4 of the ratio of factored to service loads is employed. .i ~f B-4.14 _nkHn Rese_ arch._ Center n s

1 i .k I i 1 I APPENDIX C 1 ) COMPARATIVE EVALUATION 3 AND MODEL STUDIES i i l t l 8 l s% c i l . Franklin Research Center l A Division of The Franklin Institute The Bengrrun Franun Parm.ey. PMa. Pa 19103 (215)448 1000 1 i. ~..;; l

..e l A Proiect Page 11 C5257 C-1 u. . J Franklin Research Center 4 g o,,, 3.,., o,,, g,,, o,,, A DMsion of The Franklin Insttute n em rema,a r.m r. u r. mas MO 3LT. ' 8 j'NlN-J/f/ 8 j

• CAsrr.

ST s> DT i.-. ed.&cwak $D<en p sE<ait yal st'ut s. b}ed k shear.

The, q

{ is Sgec4% 's 5ch t.T. t.2. oj tke. Atsc co cl.,,, m l M i tkc l' W h o. 4 LR 8o~ ed%.cw.s 4 g .I ]i F"' F'B g) touJ <w m 3,cW a,e = o. 4o eft-ca e,<uary s 6 j N ew, tw % Mt o C.a._ o. w n t.5.t.2.2 .i l ' wtvoh A s% tLa.,t ; " A c. be% e,4 cow.scQ age,., w t:-p.fge. n c. pea., M & i k si % & W -:ger.oee-r 3 ska< a.Gow AW o{g a. g% %t %..{uh,,,- b % b j g j skeo.< o.% o_ gh 0,.% p,% l @ C w' a.%a.te},;y S A e yk,o th a.<~ u e.% A i g = o. 3e q_ wk<< A c% cm t. eA,_ J-- _ - seh % su.< %., &,~ 4fA g -tt._ b e.t %." Cefe n' y 'G, L 19eo C ~,e-. a f). c. t.s. t.2. JE<wd4 q q Atkno' fi% w cos-c& t M% h, -4de,, ~

l o.So A.

F +. o.so /7e C. G.) \\ wk e, a, e pe ar % -et skew J ~c% % j - W-cat" **^k O kC, Cm e. C h gTdg,f Cj 3 seh ofeae),; Mat Q,bm sge.)caef D y ueA- &~ d ( r:u,b 1 G ga. d 11 of 74. pisc stret i ma) a u c-a. -nc mar; au a s,.,9 ep ou e ah-o h d.ie. ate %c L-l93o code-fb M

1. sat,

e..

sw-mtu p6,ra m. my, s co.0c _A-

U l l A Projut Pp 11 C5257 C-2 U ..I Franklin Research Center ,l o,,, o.,.,9 o,,, o,,, A Division of The Franklin Insttute n.e rr. rear.m ,.en

p. isies WO OCT.,31 o74-th/

't BE5M EhD Cn"UECTIGP' kHERE TCP FLAP.GE IS COPED, CASE STUDY ~l FY, PSI FU, PSI H,IN C1 C2 ALLOWARLE LOAD,LR PCT. 1963 CODE 1C80 CnDF 36000 60000 12.00 1.00 0.74

172800, 104400 40 36000 60000 17.00 1.50 0.74 172F00 134400 22.

36000 60000 24.00 1.00 0.74 345600 194490 70 l 36000 60000 24.00 1.00 2.48 3456C0 206900. 40 36000 60000 24.00 1.50 0.74 345600 134400. 61. 36000. 60000 24.00 1.50 2.dF 345600 23CP00 31 36000 60000 74.00 2.25 0.74 345600 179400 43 A

36000, 60000 24.00 2.25 2.18

345600, 783800 1R.

1 36000. 60000 3o.00 1.00 2.45 51o400 29M400. 69

36000, 60000 36.00 1.00 4.81-

$15400 348600 33. I 36000. 60000 36.00 1.50 2.40 510400 236900. 54 ~l 36000 60000 36.00 1.50 4.81 516400 378600 27 36000 60000 36.00 2.25 2.48 514400 203800. 45 .j 36000

60000, 36.00 2.25 4.81

519400, 423600 19 j

$C0vo. 7v000 12.00 1.00 0.74 240000 121800 4 '3 2 50000. 70000 12.00 1.50 0.74 240000 15h600 35. 50000 70000 17.00 2.25 0.74

240000, 209300.

13. l 50000. 70000 24.no 1.00 0.74 480000 121600 75. 50000 70000 24.00 1.00 2.46 460000 243600 49 50000. 70000 24.00 1.50 0.74 480000 156800 67 50000 70000 24.00 1.50 2.48 480000 270600. 42. .1 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 213000 es. i 50000 70000 36.00 1.00 4.R1

720000, 406700 44 i

50000. 70000 36.00 1.50 2.49 720000 278600 61. I 50000 70000 36.00 1.50

4. R 1'

720000, 441700 39 I

50000. 70000 36.00 2.25 2.48 720000 331100 54. I 50000 70000 36.00 2.25

4. R 1-

720000, 494200.

31. 650v0. 80000 12.00 1.00 0.74 312000 139200 55. J 65000 R0000 12.00 1.50 0.74 312000 179200 43. i 65n00. 80000 12.00 2.25 0.74' 312000 239200 23. l 65000. 80000 24.00 1.00 0.73 024000 139200 78 65000. 90000 24.00 1.00 2.4R 624000 276400 55. I 65000 90000 24.00 1.50 0.74 624000 179200 71. i 65000 90000 24.00 1.50 2.48 e24000 31A400. 49. I 65000. 90000 24.00 2.25 0.74 624000 239200 62. 1 65000 80000 24.00 2.25 2.48 674000 370400 39 65000. R0000 36.00 1.00 2.46 93o000

278400, 70 65000.

80000 36.00 1.00 4.81 936000 464800 50 65000 80000 36.00 1.50 2.48 936000 310100 66 65000 90n00 36.00 1.50 4.81 936000 504A00. 46 65000 90000 36.00 2.25 2.48 936000 376400 60 65000 E0000. 36.00 2.25 4.91 936000 564800 40 'I j 80TEs: I 1-ALLOJAbtE LOADS ARE GIVE:: PFP INCH OF WEB THICW.'ESS 2-PCT = PEaCEST OF THE S E[.U CTI C ?, CF DERCEIVED FAPGIN OF 3AFETY i m --6

.o Project Page C5257 C-3 . ] Franklin Research Center o,,, en. o,,, n,,. o,,, ^ ti"#!lh'.,0.'"R" Mis * // rzd ///> 7c.S 4/92 f CASE STUDY 2 AXIALLY LOADED COLUMNS Maximum allowable axial load on tied columns by working stress design criteria I is defined by .I P =.0.85 [Ag (0.25 f' + f, p )] g i A and allowable f, = 0.4f d 30,000 psi where p = st g y A 8 that is, max f 5 75,000 psi /l therefore, the maximum load could be expressed as: ~ P = (0.21 A f + 0.34 f Ast) allow g c y Maximum allowable axial load on tied columns by strength design criteria is defined 4 by 4 j P,11gy 4P =&0.8[0.85f[(A - A,g) + A f] = g g st y for a tied column in axial compression & = 0.7 and P = 1.4 D + 1.7 L Reducing these equations to be comparable to working stress limits and i considering all extremes of steel % and D. to L. load ratios, we get 1 if A = 0.01 A P = &P = $ (0.673 f A + 0.8 A f) st g u o e g st y 1 if A = 0.08 A P = $P = $ (0.626 f A + 0.8 A f) st g u o e g st y and to bracket extremes, consider the following three cases. (a) D=0 (b) L=D and p (c) L = 0 with P = allow .F. r -.-4 FORM C5-FIRL-81

3 e !.j ""'i"' cs257

• c-4 J.

. J Franklin Research Center e, M(A J//rp Tcs 4-82 o.,, cy o,, n,,, o,, A ^22f.,1b'.2"?,J."l%%' 4 I (a) for L.F. = 1.7 ') P = 0.28 f A + 0.33 f A or allow c g .y st -j P = 0.26 f A + 0.33 f A allow c g y st .l ~ ~ ~ j (b) for L.F. = 1.55 '4 _ _ _ _ ~ 1 P = 0.30 f A + 0.36 f A or ~~~ allow c g y st P = 0.28 f A + 0.36 f A allow c g y st + 1 (c) for L.F. = 1.4 -1 l P,77gy = 0.34 f A + 0.40 f A or y P = 0.31 f A + 0.40 f A i allow c g y st .? Comparison of these resulting equations to the P by working stress g design criteria shows that the new code allows from 1.24 to 1.62 times more load on the concrete in a ried column and from 0.97 to 1.18 times more load on the a longitudinal steel in a tied column. j{ Therefore, Scale C . I. ._.m E 4eu. m.- 4-ea.e-M

m m-e

w e.mpue-m 4 .wM -+-w-ome m h 6

• M FORM CS-FIRL 41

c 1 Projm Page l . J Franklin Research Center C5257 C-5 1*.J " 21.,1*%."diPJ' de/mo io[ i ;$ $f[/ P a CASE STUDT j 'i ] Sampe Comparison Betwee.n Steenc3h l ( VHiwate) omd A\\%rnate. ( Work.tng 5 stress) DesTjns d Sample SecdTon ]i Atiowa9e Steesses __. is* W 7 t-T- Ib /'7p ,.ade Concrete : .3oco 5 a 2 ( -fd = 3,000 fc = 1350 j n = 'i ) j gg, 60" 4 6, ret 4ccing j_ stee.\\ Greacle It 0 ( -f = A-os oco Ib[72, -fs =20,0co thftd) { f j As = to_*to g;afs,i:t.g 7n.2 i t I. By Stren3% Dest <3n lrmit of.or7s, ( There l's a g, g f ~ 12xs1 = 012.34 Got a.

• reasma.We
• cJes73n half of ibis.)

is g =, olla 4 ( $ ) .sfa-s-M u =. 9 [(.lF')( 5 7".)* ( 3 */r#)( iWF.)( l 59 ( '*d)= 23, +50 "

• 1

() = 8 + + 1 ~7 -= i.55-(Ot L) A ssuming L.L.= D.t-i -equivalent 4u a 'servrce* %e woment + hen is moment of .u, q.so *,1. gg = IL I30'

• h e

-m

j sA Project Page [ . J Franklin Research Center c5257 c-6 SY De Nk'c! Date Rn. Date A Division of The Franidin insttute R C/ e-4D t o/ 51 [p/ /s/2/

n. % r - r ~. %.e. asics j

1 BY Alternate Desty finding 4he location of the meutral axis X (= kJ ) g i 19 Y. ( h ) = 9 (12 66 X 5' 1-X) { so\\ v'mg,

x. = K d - Al. 2'7' 9%e no ment c\\rm = JO = 5'1 2*'[ = 49 Al 1/2. ( t.35 ^/rn'XI8".)(11.27) ( 4 q.W) = 12.,90o""

-Then W\\ 0= j t and As = t1 4 r# ( 2.o k/-4) (4 9. S t ') = p.,4 4o c Governs) i TL Com prison : is ' t 3 o' * - 11' (Ao x t00 % = 19 7 % AoveJrwe tt, Mo,s Conciusion - For Rech v\\ar

Beams, 3

l The. wormg stress Desi ns 3 ( com monly Used When fodCWIdj Mf. earlie.r-l Ac.1 31s

c. odes.)

Wem censderabi7 were conservatwe. i ( O e

• * ~ "
• g e

1 ~

,A Proi.ct Pese ( . ] Franklin Research Center ,l C5257 C7 o, o,,, o,,, WO?21.['*"L"NTa? m.D s c'r. 'ss pit.M is/g 1 1 'i i CASE STUDY.. I Ref AISC 1980 CODE subsectron M Columns j L Ae p aws of beW'y of calv*ns which l would develop plas4rc h'mge at ultivde. a Io ad m&, the slevderness raso hskff.wt r o ceed Ce,--" v>here Ce= /2es J T=t E = 2 9 x to' l<S t i q = yield stress j Therefore JL 4 7sg.6 l q r Ref AISC (96 3 Code Subsectren

2. S Columns l,

L the plane of berhng. cf coluvnn s Q}$ plastTc hinge at ul+rnte l would develop o. loadmg, the slenderness ra% shall wh 1 c.eed t ro, h 12.0 s e

s 3

-s ~ -

w& Niect Poe. C5257 C8 . ] Franklin Research Center 8v Date W Date R w. Date i A DMsion of The Franklin Instt' te Tw eenianaa rreamma rm. % rs 19 c3 MQ SEPT. '81 [///fg/ jf/// 9 M %i C.h Ch Nkt. (We C ob e.S i 'a \\% L W of t. YLbs iLYR evs kg <cL'o depowels m tkt. jckd STft*gTh of l % sTe d w >e 4 -{w t6. c.Lm os.

== 110 Lohen 1) Both codes cpve 7rd,6 Ce = = m 1 Fg =. 40 !<SI 3) rge nao coas is 52 -.s useeh ehew l l 4- = u * = * ' r 4 +sen, v3 = e ul C.ncEm si.e - Scale Fg 6 'to kSI J h I kN O 6 '. d 1 l i ~ p A I l i 1

e g Project Page n CS257 C-9 u . ] Franklin Research Center o, a., o,,, n,,, o,,, k.Neiba Mk 2Nc3 MD 8EPT '83 MM /e[// i i -t ChSE STuoY. I Pef Alsc 1980 Code i I Subsection I.10. F. 3 'L girders clesigned on the bas 7s of +ensten dew ac4 ton, +be spacing between strffemers at end panels, at fuels con +nining large holes, ad at panels adyacent +o pnwels cawtatntng lar ge holes shall be such ht fv cloes mot e ceed +he value gNew " beloul - cv 40 9 F [y ).84 Where c, = yac ay,q c, { n,g l rgC%) C., - OS "[h<l0 4= 4 + (*/h) (%T e r s ~5 i

,A Pnjut Page C5257 C-10 . j Franklin Research Center 3 o,,, o,,, g,,, o,,, A Division of The Franklin Insttute neo m vem mar.rs, m re senos HD SEPT. e l ffX/A Jo/f/ 8 I u. -j j Ref AISC [963 code. 'i Sobseehon l to E 3 %e Spacing between 54Tffeners o.t B vnd pqwels amd panels conth7,tg laqe holes shall be sbch that -the smaller panel dimension a or h shall "not RXCeed IIcost. I l j i j J _ _.-a ; i 4.,e ,se e 'eN

• • • • • • • • 64e 9

a Project page, l . ] Franklin Research Center - c5257 c-11 By Date Ch'k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute m e.a,.ma rreaua rem-.y. w r. Sics MD SEP"T. 21 [/Ql gg/ = RE Alsc sub sec+ ion l 10. 5 3 y, g93 mmea f, h = GR" Y, *. 375'" / Aw = (s xf- = 2.f. 5 rn' V =.MO Kifs 10' d -fu. = j,f = 906 Ksi IAy a. -frem t. t o. is. 3 is 63 code a or b $ ^#/8 - <+ 3 in 4 {u- / 9.o V tcco u hTch is ne clisha. f<m tlc e d owe guar t & f at bmmucee stC(( cme.c. By c.nsicicd~y N % Y m S N ** speified Ty) (980 code sab.sc h 1.Io.5.3 as

h. =. "3,5 =

( B. = E =.'G8 -[v = q. e6 kst ISI n 68 g 6 3+ -k =

4. + 5 3+

(4/af = + + 6 6i# = t 7 9 s '5

+ 5"o * '7 9 8 Cu.

6% h (4/tr)* 36 (18 0^ Fu- = N Co. G.4Q f -frorn -to.ble LO.3G % = 35 x,,6 2 6 = e. 59 Ksl 2 89 A d u c.g A s he.a e sbcn

• T Co M SI ( C hetE.1 b y M O c)

Horseur, -Qawe< tho m .f, o f 9.o G, Il d Scofe s Qre %<3 e.g4 e. m, u

sA Pr@ ject Page C5257 C-12 . J Franklin Research Center o, o,,, g,,, o,,, A Division of The Franklin insatute ne e.n,.ma rrenum r nr ,.ri .ps istes MQ SEP"T, 'd! /s 4 Reneks -follow'q fwo -frgures now Fe vs. */ r rhe fr Various Valves of A/H awl Fr. 6 7 knowing +he shear s+ress Fv or Fv' ~ ~ ~ ~ %e A/r value can be abtah ed ed compred with +be design A/T. -rhus should be. e p7nined on a case _ Cemprison by case-ha5IS- .m.m I t l o { e M ~ _______________j

6 s% Pm.ect Page C5257 C-13 . J Franklin Research Center By Dam W Date Rn. Date A DMsion of The Franklin Insttute m awwann F amin pers.sy. P%.Pa 89103 %9 $fr9T.h[ ((/[ /) [/ e 4 i 1 i,I o. O P .e 4 ** ~ l $k y' Q< 1 [' rd i l f I HO5 3 y N b a E V O r 1 J 2 .t n E ~z .O p# u,. w = $i I by e MS* a"4 8 1-T2, I 2 y s I 'y a .j. .I 9 4 a i I 8 1 O 0 h o ") I wd t { -S 1 i s] -.- a i l I

r l j% Prtject Page.. _ _ l . ] Franklin Research Center CS257 C. 14 By Date QW Date R w. Date A DMsion of The Franklin Institute N s apan Fr *na perm.sy. PW Pa,19103 Mh Sb P T 'd l f,M, [d/[) [ een. i ( . en, l o 'j Q M ~ ~ E Ti fV e i .o

• 3 I

t _g-- e b ~ r $.c E.

• ~

q$.u ~ $7 a

a. T a t s

o 8' $2 3 y ij$ D u es .9 l ~ n- ,,c i, X I l l ? )v 1 4 i w i 82 9 i' i-8 u. h e l i O o o O A N ~

• rbb

~1 5v L Ponu sos-sume i m.m %Mg ,e egew _A

Prrject Page C5257 C 15 O...I Franklin Research Center 1232?.,@"2diff bo seer. s:[3)/0/b' 4 CASE STuor. Ref AlSC M80 Code Section

2. 'T

" The wid th - thickness mtio -fbe flange of .-o ned W, M, or G shapes ad similar built-up shgle-Web shapes ht would bt. SVbjected to cmpressTen }nvolv7w hbge rotation Under vitimate. Ioadtng shall mot 4xceed +he $110#rng Values : ' Fw t W/2e e e.r 42. 2.o 4-5 74 70 'l 0 hTr b$ go

d. 3

$5 d.0 " The width - thickness ratio of 37ynbly Ccmpre5 Sed lange plates Ih box SectYows and c.over p6tes shall not exceecl (90 jd p g Eurnple o.17 7 l i I Fy. d/s 36 42.s 5D .26 3 7F 3o (ou 2g. ? e 1 I 3 fi ( l __ t

e i j s% Project Page.. _ [ . ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C 17 o,,, o.,,, o,,, g,,, o,,, l WCv21.2*"2DYa sa sen. 'a f ju.W q (n 1

i 4

{ Ref AISC (%3 Code See:tran 2..G ] Preestag elemed, +h* wovia be sceaea i 46 compress 7.n Tnvolving plas+7c h7nge rotation under vlFTmate foodreg shall have widt+1 - i +hickness ratto tio greder than %e F tio sins : " bffy 4 25 Rolled Sh"F#5 k 'q 6 3 2 / Box Sections 'The depth -thickvess ratio of beam ] u d girder webs sukgected h plas+Tc., bendThg* Ts given by the followig -Formula P ss s cl/w 6 70 - MoK Reynarks the I%3 code -hke 7%+e acc.ount watertal -for-A36 of Fg' = Sf Ksl or less ( note that -ihe -two codes are 4he Some -for Q= 34 ). If % s-tructure was desTgned us7ng vratertal havw g hrs er yield, the elesg n mght wot-h be aqtabfe. wder Prese*T "Na-eJ5. f 56 XSI D N (Fg(3gksi Fy232 Ksl i w v

U a 1 { SAN Prsjut Page C5257 C 18 4 . ] Franklin Research Center By Date M Date R w. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute i m % r,. m ae n,.ena r. isies MO FT '8i g//) /;p) '. f l 4

i j

r I

case stoor -rf - kef hlSC [q80 Code Ij Sectron 19 Late cal Bracing dy ~ Dembers shall be adeqUdely braced +0 die F ceets -. resis+ lateral and +ersbal 6 Ye laterally unsupported dTsbrice,.Scr, Shall not exceed Oe. Valtre cletermNed -from " M j Ar (375 + 25 den 10 >g > - 0 F p

.)

rw Or.1ce. 1375 Aen -05 2 > -l 0 MP l ry Fp b -exocmple Acr/rg F =3C Ksl 50 75 /w y } I > Q >.s ca.2 s2.r es. s 3 8., s- 'l .r),47-i.o ag. 2

n s-12 S IS 7F

.1 .j 1 l t ) 1 l j

)

e ~} Project Page [ . J Franklin Research Center C5257 C-19 o,,, o,,, g,,, o,,, ^ C#2fM"D*?A'* n Mo seeT.'8i gpafd /a/// l i 1 Ref AISC (%3 Code t l Sec%n .2.e kateca\\ BescTng } When the. vovnte defrntbn rs cempattble with 4he tqro

code,

-the -Poc,nvla. -for Ace /rg becones * < A ' = Go + '+ 0 j 35 \\ 2 ** P t m . Ace E P h ( (00 0 bo ,5 40 ~ coacuusi.us The -fT vre Whtch -follows (kr0 [rp Vs. "[xg.) ikdicer r J [,r A - 3c. 5Er.l (5' 3'mie. o<%4i O o > N 2 -l g based o7) ynaterEAl N ofe }he sV7nworg 75 WTFh =36, other edtrial shoulcl he tyoantned em A CA5e by case ba sTs, -s.

) Project Page s J C5257 C: 20 l J Franklin Research Center o,,, o,,, o,,, A Division of T.he Franklin Insttute

n. s.,,

re.a. a p ,. sw ra ieics M.C) S E T, 91 [g, y, /j((/ ....e I ~ \\ \\ -1 ry ( 1 u,,a he -~ - - - s-

• %1 coce-7 F1
• 2/. (21 ys f$$ $$$

[ l Pg e 7!i kst / i.. 7 j 35 r, m _ ?3. ;5^ i -1 .f o . 5" 1 N P i ~ 6 I 4 3 esp e l ( l a 1 1 I I _.,m l

e .c g% Prcject Page C5257 C-21 . ] Franklin Research Center o,, o,,, n,,, o,,, Lt$*"?21.[:'%MM' RA suT 'tl 6;nJ. i,)rj ~ l ) Chse sTupy ' Comparison of Secfrom 2. 3, Columns ( Alsc,196 s) 'q wtA Sectron 24,, Co lum ns (AISC, 1930) j AISc 1963 AlSC 1980 1. Slenderness caito -for columns 1 Slenderness rcdio -for j 7n con +rnucos -f'ra.mes where Columns in conhnvous sideway is wot prevented, Ts -frames where Erdesway Ts limited by Formula. ( 2o) not prevenied, no+ limtfed j fo only 70. Gut liraited 2-P, l_ 6 i.o by Fcemulas (a.9 - La ) and Py 7o r 6 9 - 1b) givin below and 2. wot 4e exceed Ce s r 7his limtis slenderne55 as given beleW h 4. 70 and 0YTAI Raiso ioad mot 4e exceed 0.c Py -fo r h=0 AISO IimIIed by %rmulos (2 6) gIVeri belov/. i 1 2. l'or columns 7n bro.ced 2 Thd axial load TY1 frames the m a xI m V M Columns Tn braced frames crat load P shaii nel mo+ +o ex ceed

o. M Py exceed o.ro Py.

l'~~ r (See Case Stud7 4

also,

-for sienderness caito) l -1 q; __ _. m. l .1 4, '.. +. e

[4 Pniect Page CS257 C-22 ] Franklin Research Center L O *"2 2 iR*"2 W,iis' ,'RA o,,, 3.,., o,,, n,,, o,, sa97'ql (MA Wp 6 4 t ij 3 a) Slenderness ratto

34. a Slenderness rairo

] 4 not 4o exceed Ito h wo+ t exceed Cc 1 l 1 l W he re. Cc =

1. E

.) b) The oJ1owoMe Fy d Iderally unsupported disfance and C-Fy = 36

Ksi, j

j ier= (so-4 $ )r, Ce= (26.l P 7 .1 I fdemula ( 2.6) But 4,cc(35r7 3 b. The laterally unsupported j c) kA nd -to exceed distance der wot + exced j re %. pott cwryg j u m any ese g, m,79 (7,q_1a) 'j ry Fy when +t.O> > - 0 5-1 I; And i .] 4 " = 132f (29-ib) IY F7 -J H When - 0 5 3 y - 1. o M P I l 3C. hok to f%Cted 200 in q ren q any case. i 4 4 ese e M ye .e

v u nklin Research Center -2 o. 3.,., o,,, o,, A DMsion of The Franklin Institute i I i(4) InteraCI' Ion $rdulas -[cr

4. InferactTo'n hemu\\qs Gre l

SIh$ e CurV440ff. Gre. Formula (2.0 Formula C 2 + -1) 3 M S B-6 { h ) 6 l 0 P Cm M t 3,, g j gP Per (t - Pe ) % M 4 Mg 4 omd Formula C 2.3) o.wd Formula. (.2..<1 -a) j mg & t. o -- H (fP ) ~ /y +18M \\' 5 M ' "P P y g 7 Values of 3; fra H and J where Per = (. 7 A Fo. ~ irsied rn tables as a. p,, n 3 pg functren of slenderness entro ' 2. o.wd F9 E gNen by (l.s - t ) and 1 (.b) Interac.% -formulas -for Fe gNen Tn Sechran I. b.1 Mm= MP ( braced tn the dcuble curvqiure are. weak drrectron ) %rmula (2.1) =[l.ol-h/cy)JFy{M6q l M 4 Mg fer P/gy 6 o. i s' p p 31So g

61. \\t-\\.tS ( Plp7 ) 61 0 "P

( Unbraced in weak dreecWen) Or P/g 2 o,ig-c.nd RemuIa. (2.2.) os) Rc single curvcdure M P 0 6 6 Cm 61 0 gg_q(Py)g[,g. M b) For clovble curva+vre g yz g y o.4 s= Cm S= 0 5 - -. y ~~~MT' ~

~ ,,A Project Page c-24 , J Franklin Research Center D A DMsion of The Franklin Ins 0tute y D Rn. Dam I For comparison of 4bese speciftcatrons, graphs of l P/g7 vs M/s, are drawn -Gr slenderness r atto ~ j y 2o,70 and 100. Ty preal Column 14t# leo with Fy - 36 ks7 has been -4aken as an example -fee our purposes 3eparate graphs are drawn fee j s7ngle curvature (0,6

• C.n & (.o) and doubit.

j C6cvedure ( o 4 4 cm 6 o. (:,) cases. For frames with sidesway ( Cw = o.8s9 anowed f graphs of' F/p Vs M/M are drautn -for 1 g 7 -ttao +[ pes of column s 14 W'Is o and 12.t#4 5, 'j W r+h Q = 36 ks 7,.. 61umns assumed +o be. braced Tw h weak ducc+ Ton, & *tt ygh5 l It can be infe.ned. from %e (caphs h t-1 m all cases, +be wager change Ts the Irmrt-of dlloWJAble AXYa.1 (00 > (.AJbik 76 'm crea,Se hr0 i o.s-Py o.,s-Py -fee wn braced columns ( srdeswa.y l, g,t t owed .) and o.6 Py

• o.es-Py fr 6m.ced

[ c.o(umns. But-a.cceptabfe destp reg?on i j Tm both codes is. almost same. For s7"6 e I l 'j curvaivre we notice foc ke. go .,g,, g.,, k j (,1.q.-1) lrne for Cm =- 1. o is beiw -the -fermvlA. (.1.3) line., but' for =. 7 o, -they over ly % =% awd -for t oo, rhe. feemula.c2.t -2) -pr em - t. o rs alcove gemula. (2 9 Irne. rhus -for s j _ KA = 30 1%o cede betng more conserva+7ve.; t Sk-te -{oe Q = \\ co, t9bs c.cde seems +e> be. w c<e. ccw ser ecd-rve. Th7s change can thus be. clasGfrel best as a- _B, change. ,9.

'l; ah eniect page - -- l . J Franklin Research Center C5257 C-25 i By Date Ch'k.d Date R ev. Date A DMsion of The Franklin Insatute % men,enu pearenn 9erum pres. 9s l9103 RA SEPT gi f)t.'s2 M/r) i l f i ) i ) F = 36 kat U = 30 la v e s50 sIscLE C;17 Art 1tz A swm. 5,.ua ;3 M d4,th . 7. Mm a My I 1963 Code 1980 Code Formula (22) 1 3-G(F/Py) e 1.0 [ + (1 p).3 s i 1.0 (2. M ) er x, g,

0. 6 e C, i 1.0 e

4 Formula (23) i 1.0 - 3(P/Py) - J(F/Fy)2 (2.43) + t,t 1.0, x g x, .i 'w. M<x M. u. TTPTCAL DCM?tEs ""i 8 i g ,h -N Q~ -a n A A g M<4 o 60 Py e.&- iecace uuit ew, o,4, g,,,q (g,4,g) a s--- g.i,..., t 8963 CCCe La**rT\\ e4 i c c.5 -- 4'9 'jj '4 '9

• 4 4

ge-- 4 J T J e g.- 8.1<= sk< w 1 e us "lMp I ~ _ = =. M I = m--

4 eni.ct P o. l C5257 / C.: 26 ,. ] Fmnkfin Research Center s .om, c3.,., o,,, n,,, o,,, A Division of The Franklin Instrute tw s re.rien F., m.r= isics g gg gl ,,,g /,,*/r,/ \\ ~ ?- s l ~ r. 36 kat U = 30 16 a' 150 Dontt C EAT.RE Auwme h w i weafde* M F 3 . %= %. l _ i 1963 c$d* 19so coe, Permula (21) N

• M, when P/Py 1 0.13 (2.4-2) 1.+

s 1 1.0 'er (1 1).=? P. 0.4 3 c, 3 o,'6 7 1 1.la - 1.as(7/Py> 1 1.0 P Pormula(12)f15-4(P/Py)i1.0 I* II

• 1.1 1 1*0' M i M

~ P P N1My M. u<x ~' ? r f TTFTCAL EU.wP t3 1 4 J m<a ar. s.e i U ege cacep Cmas.6, M*.ou(s.+-af

4. t.-

+, 0.1 -- 'JJ te &B c ow wait

0. g..

0.1 No, 0.3 - o.1 Al. at .i as as at er 4

• ?

08 o.1 88 -- M i i 1- - - - - - - - - - ' ~ ~'-' ~ " ~ ~ h

l j ,,A Project Page CS257 C-27 '.I Franklin Research Ce!>er i By Date Ch*k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of Th,e Franklin,insa.tute RA SEPT gl //, a2 N/// i m % r,- % u in 3 i'i .,t 1 y 36 kai U = 70 14 we 130 $1NCLE CURVA*URE Anw besaJ k 4tAk E*M. F Y

. M,. Mg 1963 Gde y,

1980 code .l Formula (22) [15-C(F/Fy) 11.0 h + (1 # )n, 1 1.0 s (2.4-2) .{ P cc Mi5 e 0.6 1 C,11.0 4 s Formals (23) f 11.0 - 8(P/Fy) - J(P/Py)

• 1.13M, 1 *
• 1b'

,1 I r ) u. u < x. w. w. NM NEO

==f f J I'l a i a'o 3 ,-L .v .m 9 4 4+ 4-M<4 .I 6 j I ) M l C. = tens c os uvit ..i 9 l e.1 'I ( j a a q,3 r '9. i .J M t f s. t' J t. 9.4 - Q ?s' yg r - /, \\ 43'- .g . 3j - o n Al- ? u ..s u.o k i ,3 --. 4

I eniect lree. C5257 C '28 Franklin Research Center 8# U'" D.W U E' U#' A DMsion of The F.ranklin Institute RA SEPT.$1 f?/W /s/7/

n. w n - a w r. ma i

i' I t ) f F

• 36 hat

= 70 14 # 130 DOUBLE C:'IrATnE y AMums bmcaJ .*y hk JAM M,= % 1963 code 3,80 cod. e .i ex 1 1.0 (. 2) + Foruuta (21) M=M when P/Py 1 0.15 t ~ a.sz e < a.s r M a- ) p i 1.18 - 1.18(P/Py) i 1.G 3 + P t " 3 t.g, 3 g 3,p (2. 43J + s 1,1,,Y y 7-s Formula (12) 7 1 3-C(P/Py) 1 1.0 P ~%.~ ',., Mig MtK p 's i j fj TTFTCAL EXR'!'t!S b <= m s ) 3 ~ .f. La ) s s m-- ress one uwt 4 ? \\., N N' g._

• o..

i [ %,4 ,s le M C#03-umT g, W~ 4, N-= f" t 4) '9 M-- IJ 3 L' 0.I. w I l '... u e,s ..+ e-e.s s, .r o., eo

• r t

~ M/sp 1 -- - - a : V* M 4' "e**-*****wga em-mew ,g

A Mi*ct Page ___ C5257 C-29 Frankl. Research Center 1 in UV U** CWk'd Date R ev. Date TN 8eewmn Fmean Pa*=ey. % Pa 69103 h ${ff,eQ p gf /0 / A Division of The Franklin Institute s ) r d l a y.100l'et20 ~ F - 36 les at:::L2 cavmu y E'E& A%m braud In ~,j 2%% , l 1963 Code 1980 Code i 1.0 ~ Formula (22) f 13-G(P/Py)

• 1.0

[ + (1 7)M (2.&-2) P er p M1M e y 0.6

• C, 1 1.0 (2.4-3) 1+

~< 1.0, M

• x, y

I 1* 1D Formula (23) 7 1 1.0 - M(P/Py). J(P/Py)* y p ~ P I M. M < M. M. g TYPTCAL EKn ?.IS ._? -(* ~ -A V "U gy i s A M. M < M. f.o 3 l U .3 iew ooe om o.f. a.7 ' 9 62 cect u=t ,, g l o.s.. -i N,,,,

• 'N (49

~ o )

• I g

p 'O di Q1* 2, ~43 C. l ~ 0' h6 alt 95 89 84 a.C 67 8f e.1 l'O P i 'i t 9 4 e l

s% Praject Page C5257 C-30 . ) Frankh. Research Center n BY O.k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute Dag The Ben,sen Frenamn Parh=sy. PNa.Pa l9tC3 Nfh [gM // ~~ l e i F = 36 n.si U = 130 la w 150 DotzLt C;1tvAnRI AS$w bcd U Weak. d *WM. S o '. ht = W .j i 1961 code 1960 code P C,M I2*'"I3 ~* ~e 1.0 J ruula (21) M = M, when P/Py 1 0.13 P ,1 Fe 0.4 < C < 0. 6 fi1.18-1.18(P/Py)*1.0 ~ "~ P f + g,g

• 1.0, M i M (2.4-3) y Y

formula (22) 1 3-G(P/Py) i 1.0 P l "Ib 4 M. M<M. i 'TPfCAL EIA m ts \\ Y f A 1t 1.0 81" iese con u=.- 48 ' ib l ,,. a e,c, u~ir 6.,

1. 14 3 ~.,

l a.e l 'd

• =,,

r e4

1. +,y 4.

g,, e.s -- g.1 i I aus.m e.: es a3 a.+ 84" e4 a.7 ot "i 8 **

• l** ?

t . I s yh

==*-% I

,4 Project Page L. . ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C 31 o,,, en.., o,, n,,. o,,, A DMsion of The Frankfin Institute k SfF7.fl ffg2/ ////'/ 1,, The e r,-raa r.%pa isios a h ni i Ib

• 30 [2. # 45 SIDES'.'AY ALIRJED r = 36 kai W a taJ k tJeadt, de'ft h,

j F F AMM P. M%. W, 1963 Code 1980 code Formula (21) M=M when P/Py < 0.13 t P CM n (2.&-2) 2-- + 5 11.0 f i 1.18 - 1.18(P/Py) i 1.0 P (1-f)M, er P C,=0.35 e Formula (12) E < 3-G(P/Py) ~< 1.0 p y "p ~ (2.'-3) f + g, g g 1 1.0. M < Mp Mig F 7 Formula (23) f i 1.0 - H(P/Py) - J(P/Py)2 P M < M.* .f TYPtcAr. tu.m ts v y n 5 y 7 1963 Code Also laposes the Following Limit e.g - 2P uM39 <!!t twt f*

• 1i 1.0 Formula (20)

b F

p.1 -= ~ %,3 M-O 9.f., ' I.j l .4-. a g te65 cece L4Mit 'J') O "4g (g = .a ~ n _s o* e,z e.1

e.,

o.c o.s

• 1
• 3

'A l0 M.e a .-=e I l.

\\ l Pnject Page j l . ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C-32 u o,, a.,., o,,, n, o,,, A Division of The Franklin Institute M NU D [f/M NM/ i n e e n.,*wi P.,= ,. 7% ps 19:o3 1 J ~j r,-3+--t 11 - 30 16 < u0 sl::sur u.tme Assu

e. b M.'3 wed.4<e%

i

>% = Mr f

1963 Code _1980 Code Formula (21) M-M when F/Fy 1 0.13 A < 1.18 - 1.18(F/Fy) i 1.0 CM i (2.6-2) - - + 1 1.0 5 (1 - f)M, -j er I 2* Formula (22) 1 3-G(F/Fy) i 1.0 " 1 "P <2.-n 4. " : 1.0. M 1 M,

1. 3 Formula (23) f < 1.0 - H(F/Fy) - JfF,/Py)

~ P .M<E i (~ TTFICAL EXA m Is J g h u .s. ~ M. M. C. Pl 1963 Code A1so Imposes the Following Limit e.5-. 27 * $11.0 I secoco use.T F Formula (10) T e.t-4 g

1. 4.

9 p ag.. 6.b. w Ies2 cats us.,r 4j SL-e, &l-- x 1 0 gg ,,3 at e.r

e. g e.7

a. g e.9 f.a m.,,

e m e = -3.e- -wv. y ay-- m-m mw-wv.-e-9-----.----r*".7%- 9 wen

• -w*..w-er.--

-mr-w,-m----

s%

• i"'

~ l J Franklin Research Center C5257 C-33* L t*,L"?L"i.[L*,'2"h? ,lRA o.,, cuo o.,, n o.. ot.T'tI f.&W WM !j CA SG SrvDT ! l Cowearwn of AISC -198 5" fim I ' ' o - (> wim AISC -19 G3 Sec4 Ton ( lo. 6,; ReductTen In Flan 3,.

Geess, HYberd

@rrders only. The only change beiween the -hvo codes is -the Tnkoduc4 Tom of Fen-ulo. C l io -6) -fer case of ' hybrid gi< der; in +he 1980 cod e-- f ormulo. C l. lo -s) of Iqso Code with Fb cv ksi ts iden+rca.1 do &mula. (12.) of IqG with F6 ru Psi. Sy brid Steder dest [nedin (q63 evid ~ be desiped 'in a,ce.ordance wi+h i ccmula. C (1.) Which is identico.1 to ( (. t o -s) in Iqso code.. bybrid girder ciestped in accordance. (3vt a wi+h (450 4.as to comfarm -fo both Fonnulo-.s (.1.Io-s-) and C l. to -(:0, For Fb =15' k'sT Awd so ksi, we draw gea.phs ef reduction Vs. Area. cf web h ihc.+ce(%)(A/ Acex { ')FWye carro w A;)> using For mulas C 1 t o-s-ad C 1-to -6) -fBr gwen 4 - o. L o6;W o.q ad -4 gleen -A[t mtios ( 162., in 2 If2.,fr p3= 253 ed l17> I27 & (37 Se M -5D f<si)- We frnd dependrng M/g mtro in all srx ca:es on .[o < f = o.45 j for mulx ( (. t o -6) In the (q go code. gurk ccnservattve.. rs e -e

tr 3 i i ,,,A Project Page i C5257 C-34 . ] Franklin Research Center o,,, o.,., o,,, n,,, o,,, LC""1"?!3?f*TiaMiW* RA 0cT'gi f,w a/g j i i j But -fbr o.+r 4o(4 o'75, kwula. C t.10 -6) ] oc bmula C l 10-@ could be ccnservative. As .j compred to each ohr depeMT^% h[t ratto on I -{o' r @ven T-b. But -fc o( ) 0.75-M og 1,

case, Formula C l t o -O rs mue cowservative.

i Thus we can make. the -fo'llowtg god $ ment i 6w 4 hem. i \\ ll OLD -Eemulas d sed _ f a) i crmula 02.), iq 63 Ccde_ Ff h F6 C t.o-o. coag An[.h Mcoof-' Lo.+5 Af 4 F3 g l l W+h Fb Tn Psi. qu jfMho b) & mulo. C l. to-o 19 80 code I F4 6 Fb [ 10 - c.coor A"--( b -76o )~ Af -e. q;; WI+h Fb ih l<si O.45+o 8 New Formula. g,77 feemula.(t.to-6) t9 go cede y o,T C pj t p3

u. + (AJ) ( u -#.) -

t

n. + 1 ( ** )

^f i

__u, e

d Przyct P ge [ . ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C 35 o wao

o..

n o.

o..

A DMsion of The FranMn institute N > Fremen Pet =sy.PNa Pa 191C3 g gg'g fpp .i 1 AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON i j g.o -~ a = 0.9 i g,.g y_.. a = 0.6 4

j -

g = .c o,5 -. 5 a = 0.3 4 M ~ w O.15"-- k !/ 9 e sq 50 tbo t$o

• JO

- l ~ { WED/ FLANGE AREA RATIO i ~' BENDING STRESS = 25KSI ALPHA =0.3. 0.6. 0.9. H/T RATIO = 162 't e 4 1 -. ;z

t.j e I Pr ject Page s C5257 C-36 i Franklin Research Center By Date Ch.k'd Date R ev. Date A Dm.. ion of The Franidin Institute A s 8 [e /M // [/ DC7 h ne % Frwean Per==sy. Phda Pa 19103 , #T g i k + AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON ~~ 3 1.0 j a = 0.9 6 - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - _ - _. - _ _ _ _ _ a = 0.6 i i = e C..,,- . ) g I g a = 0,3 C e M a n I ,C e

1. //.

} C't, e i ^ o.c I .g 90 Go 80 10 0 O WE3/FL/413E AREA RATIO BENDING STRESS = 25KSI ALPHA =0.3. 0.6. 0.9 H/T RATIO = 172 4 4 3 s e I. d -M. -w 7 .~-m -.a hu- .w., m.._ h .y--e --ew

==wMD-** N**

m. -m Preiect Page j [ ..I Franidin Research Center C5257 C 37 4 BY A Division of The Franklin Insutute Dag Q.W Date R n. Date k4 CC'7 g) [f,/, ///// 21 N a.a, mn Freren Per Na p. isic3 i 1 i 1 i AISC 1.10.61963/1980 CODE COPFAAISCN .] i l I.0 's a 6 0.9 ei s, o.a-- ~7______---~~------- l 7 a = 0.6 i'l q

e. s_._.

g U 3

5 J

8 a = 0. 3 .{ g 0.'t-- - ? 0+ '}

• /,

O.1 - - t i 0.C 6 i e j 0 to 20 30-40 50 40 l WED/FLNIGE AREA RATIO -I B D OING STRESS = 25KS! A1.PHA=0.3, 0.6. 0.9. H/T RATIO = 182 b N i i i h = 3 _-o i a

== We 'w

• • ww4e e

.) Prriect Page s l . ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C-38 ,,g4 om 2.,., om n,,, om A Division of The Franklin insutute Oc7 0 //Yd //8/ i i ne ew r==ma rew.r% P ieici f 4 AISC 1.10.61963/1980 CODE COMPARISON l i.o i* a = 0.9 i j l 0 75'-- a = 0.6 .h g l t; 05'--- g 5 a = 0.3 ~ -4 I 4,P 7 M 0.X o* l

• E/

k*r. l f 00 ~ 0 50 loo 15 0 200 _~ ~ s WEB /F1.ANGE AREA RATIO BENDING STRESS = SOCI ALPHA =0.3. 0.6. 0.9 H/T RATIO = 117 O ensD D smaa t

a-Project Page 0, . J Franklin Research Center C5257 C-39 A DMslon of The Frank!in Ins,t,it,ute ,lRh o,, cs., o,, n,,. o,, OCT:tl //,e!

n. w r,- on. n o.

a i a

l AISC 1.10.6 1963/1980 CODE COMPARISON

,:t t .0 i a 0.9 ' 1 1 1 n, g _, ~ ~ ' ' ' ' - - - - j a = 0.6 1 4 -j g O. G.-- w 0g g ~ a 0.2 'I k o.q-lit i '4,t 0.2.-' 'o# i c*t, -l e ( I i g,g o as 40 so So 100 1 l 'dED/ FLANGE AREA RATIO i i . BENDING STRESS = 50KSI ALPHA =0.3. 0.6, 0.9, H/T RATIO = 127 ) i t e i O .f i j -Ma s. e -w w-

n J 'f 4 Project Page l . ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C-40 By Date Ch*k'd Date Rev. Date 1 A DMsion of The Franklin Instrute nA e n, e ,.ma r-ena r.a,. pu ra mc3 K rT D C7 f) [jy/d ///// 1 i-l i 1 fl 1

t AISC 1.10.61963/1980 CODE COMPARISON Ik I.0 a = 0.9 1

N s~~ a = 0.6 ~ 8

0. 5--.

t! g s a = 0,3 u

f 8W 0.t--

%'o, 5 l/. i 4,4 t 0.1.- i .I I a I ~ 0.0 t 6 l l 1 g to ao 30 40 EO Q i ~! 'n'E3/ FLANGE AREA RATIO a 8ENDING STRESS = 50KSI ALPHA =0.3, 0.6. 0.9 H/T RATIO = 137 1 a ~-m 1

s .] 1 sO [ . ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C lI~ u o... cm

o..

n o.t. l ^ D O, L" 7 1 0 " 1" R Tef RA SEPT't) //## #)/ } 4 CASE stuo'r. / ~ Comparison of section C 1 9 1 2.) ami APfendrx C (Aisc 1980) wi4h Sectron l 9. I (AIsc, l963) J wicHb-ihTckness

)

m+ro of unsitffened elemenit Sugeet to 02a.1 ccfnpresnan awd ccmpressten due+o hendrag. 1 L both sectrons %e. Irwil cf wicHh - .j ihrckmess mtio ts 97Ven -$r 4he -fellcW7wg i varicus cases. 1 CASG I s?ngle - Angle struts J deoble -angle struts wi43 se prators j CASE IE : Struts comprising deble angles ih Codefj j amcles ce plates peoJecting -fece greders, [ Co,umns, or other ccmpress7crn wembers J ] compression -flanges of bear.s ; C+:ifeners on plate gTeders CAss E : s+ ems af -Fees L h)SC, t 9 80, c.cc.oedim3 a b Specif'caU" }" t ihe Above crASes, w hen compre ssion % embers exceed %e cJt o wabl<. w rdh - hickwess ratto, 'the cultowa.ble stresses cwe. reduced by %e bsed on ct -formulas given 'tn appendrx C which depends y? eld siress CFg ) aul on --the widh - +hickuss ratio,

t 1 Project Page j c-42 . ] Franklin Research Center 8' .{ ggp,gpy,y A civision or The Frankrin insutute OUI aCCorckin -hp kISOj lCl h3 hpeci-[rcatTons, Whan compression wembers exceed h cut ewoMe_ i v'ta% -%1deness rntro., -the. >n evnber is ~ } acceptabk if it Sutisfies the cutoWabk stress { rejutNnwents w7+h. a. Port 7en y wTdih ie, (fecitde. width weeis stress regvTrements. Er Me c se, Stud 7, bo Vcdues of F7 a % Wst and 50 ksi are chosen-f~ e the. Do values -for ypted angle sec4 ten And T sec+ tans given rn AISc. M c~a.R. graphs -hve. been plotted fe<Reductr n ~Fac+cc v_s e Wicith -th7ckmess entro.

Reductro, Factor

-for AIsc, 19so ccde rs based on forwulas given rn r^FPendrx C and for Alsc., M6 L .reduciron facioe Ts +he. ratto of e(Feettve_ wTd+h +o ac+vaI width ofl -the sec+7ay. l Gesed on +he graphs, the chage. -Per-ca.se I cww.i Co.se 'E. o.t htghee widi-h / thickness rutto would be a. _C_ cho.g e, as Speciftca+7 ens uerc. were. con serva.tfvt. Tn l963 code - Lt -Gr-CaseFL +he chage Tn Spectftco.tren is 1 Chaje as tt 6 more_ ht her-Ccn3er VatI#f. Tn (c3go Cede, o.t 3 widS - thickwss entio. ~.,M

3 ,A Project Page l . J Franklin Research Center C5257 C-43 o,,, 3., o,,,. o,,, A DMsion of Th,e Franklin,Insutute RA SEPT fl /7tA i

n. % r,- ~ %. ma i

a 1 1 } f 1 n-sexsr mars ssnurso 1 i.e k m em W 9E N w a 8.8 l '98 D U C 9.7 y I D 8.6 F A r%3 A C T 85 i i a a i a l iz 14 is is ze ze 24 l uzom-Tazamess urzo b l l l ~ l l -..-a. 1 t

m .i [4 Prei.cr Page 3 CS257 C-44 . ] Franklin Research Center l o,, cy, o,,, g,,, o,,, A Division of The Franklin Institute RA SEPT ti f/2;st p);7 s m m v. - e n. m r. m a i i d' a,m=* I me t W6 ANE MARAE 1 e 1.8 i I I ~ o l O* 98 N N R E D U C T \\ 1 x y l Y r N T 8*4 R 19 12 14' 18 18 29 22 24 iCDTH-TKECKNESS RATID 9 4 ' 1 I i 4 1-. -~m ~.-m -._,_,,_,,_~---,,-~._~,__..a,,._.____m_. e +

Project Page s [ . J Franklin Research Center C5257 C 45-By Dps O.k.d Oate R ev. Dato A Division of The Franklin Insutute

RA SEPT C f242 toliv

n. - r-~. - r. m a t

a i i i R=38KSI ANE.ES IN CONTACT I.9 y a.s \\ \\ N a.s 3 s u C T N'I ~ O N 8.7 F A C T 0.8 6 4 14 18 18 29 22 24 l llIDTM-THICKNESS RATIO t ein e ( .-a ; 9 + 'M--

• r7,-

r r7 'mw-i'cir. y +v.s --1w,,_,,,-,gm_ g ..,.w

j Project Page . ] Franklin Research Center C5257 C-46 o,,, o,,, n,,, o,, A DMsion of The Franklin Institute n w r

s. r.~

,. m os mas 9-h SEfT Cl jf'fj/ /s//) i 'j 4 , i. n: ..j .1 1 FY=EBKSI ANGLES IN CONTACT .1 1.9 ' .r t 8.9 i 4 N g 8.6 R ~ E $3 ? x x i N N \\ * \\ R A l T l Z O 8.5 5 i i 6 4 a 12 14 to 16 22 22 24 EDTH-THICKNESS RATIO s e 5 e e c'. --.w. / .y -o -+ m-- c -.w.. -g -.,,..,,,,w-.....----,g

---

.pm,.,-~e,p-e

-,,,-m-y,-

i sA Pmiect hge l . J Franklin Research Center C5257 C-47_ _ _, o,, o,,, n,,, o,,, A Division of The FrankJin insutute i 8A. SEfT fl /)/S /i/// w % rr-ea r== rna pa tein h FY=38KSI T SHAPES 1.9 e. 0'8 ~ N N % N c \\ 8.8 F A C T 84 6 s 6 4 a a g l 29 22 24. 26 28 38 32 34 WIDTH-THICIC4ESS RATIO a e e m e i .,4 e

[% Pmject Page. _ _ _ _ C5257 C-48 . ] Franklin Research Center ,l o,,, a.,., o,,, n,,, o,,, A Division of The Franklin institute i ,RA SEPT f) //#/44 m e-r,.,ma ra,. w e. m es .i i _,l $ 'y n sam r sawes l.9 E 9 9.8 -g E g N N C ~ T O N N 8.4 w \\ 1 A C T 0 8.2 eaie iaai isi ,aias i6 6 i sia i i5 a6 17.5 29.9 22.5 25.8 27.5 38.8 32.5 35.8 ICDTl+-THICKNESS RATIO \\ i amo a 4 I . -l ~ _ --.m ^ r A s m-e e m emA m em emm e "**M

s% Project Page [ . ] Franidin Research Center C5257 C 49 bD02IMDi!E' A. MT gl f* /// / CASE Srv oY Comparison of MSC 1980 Sectton I. 11 9 - wi+h Alsc 1963 SecFren 1. nsa.; 5%w coneches for Composite beams, Lohere. (og7hsd?nc.I rein $<cing sfee,) Sc4s with beam - Acued7mg AISC ( R 80, 6cmula ( (. st -5) \\/g= Asr F r/2. ( l. n -s-) y Ts given -for con +Tnuous com posite 6eam wkere longi +vdrwal reinforcing s+ee.1 is considered to acf compositely wi+h +be sfeel kam Th the. mega+ive. %oment region s, +o calculate +be 4o+al ho rtynfal shear ha be. tesis+ed by shear convectors betmen an Inkerior support Gnd Back adjacenk foInt i of covi+raflexure. Whereas in AISC M63 spectfreatrons, -the +o+al horiyntal shear Yo be resisted between -the polni cf wohnum posi+IVe. moment and each end or ct point of con +rafle8vre in I Con +inuous beame Ts gNen as the smo Iler j value of f'ormul a. C I S ) and (19) A' \\/h= o.95-(tr) l &D h= fk l l .w. \\ ~ ~ ~~ .,_n,,

e e .A PrIject Page [ . ] Franklin Research Center c so By Date D R ev. Date A Division of The Franklin insttute ~There Ts mo separate -furmulo. -[er viega+rve moment -fo m ulas region ih

AISc, 1463 rhe above r

are 4he same TM AISC., 1470 ; Formula. ( l. Ii-3) and C l 11 -4) -for 'the PositTve moment region. Hereover Tn AISC, 1963, +bere Ts to consideration of reTwforcing steel Tn concrete acting compositely WI+h +be steel beam tw negative >noment reg 7cus. l "This imp ies 4 hat in compuftng +he SeCYIoM ' Modulus QY ihe poi"ts of mega+tve bending, reimforcement parallel +o +he s+ eel

beam, a.nd lying wi+hin +he effective,wid+h of siosb rnay be included according

+o A IS C, 19 8o. But it is not o.tt owed +o include reinforcing steel ih computing 4he section modulus -for +he above case as Per +he seecTficaFrons of AlSC.

1963, Thus l

des 7371 criteria. Ts being liberalized In AIS C (980. Since fhe quantifica+1on of this Iihera\\ ccTteris Ts un \\enown. -ihrs ch ange can best be. classifred as 1 Any l composite beam destped as Per AISC 1963 $peci((co.tTonS WIll shoW mcre. '>noment Ca.pacity when calculated accordtng fo

AISG, l

[9 80 Spect-fr cations. l l - - ~.

s% Projut Page [ . ] Franklin Research Center c5257 c 51 By Date Ch*k'd Date Rev. Date A Division of The Franklin Institute The Sempemn Frankhn Peresuey. Phim. Pa 89103 / f/ gg g g,[j j 1 i ij CASE STUDY ] The allowable peripheral shear S+ress ( Purchtng Shear W ess ) as s+aied in +he 8 Pv Asse code sec+ran J1 D t v. 2., Mgo C Act as9 -so ) Para. cc - 39 2.t. c rs (tmited fo Uc. where 1re shall be ccJeviated as fhe wet 3 ed average of Itch awd ITcm ht lTes = 9}-[' ] l+ (-Fv'/4j.g; ) ~ tren = +]-F ] \\ + ( fd4Ri~ ) ~~ e The Ac.I 3lE-63 Code sec+ren 17 07 s+a+es -that-the ul h ate shear shength UL shall wt i o ceed 1.)~c, = 4 ].fe Comparing 4he above YWo cases +he -followTng Ts conc \\vded ; when : s caQe. a l. Membrane stresses are compressNe 317 - 63 Ts wore CcnservatNE (C-) 2 Membrane Stresses are -tenstle 31e - 63 Ts less conser va+t ve @) i \\

i sA Prejut Page C5257 C-52 [ . J Franklin Research Center Sy Date Q.W Date R n. Date j A Division of The Franklin Institute / $l$ fo}ff gsfe oejgl neo m vmr.mr.mosmu 1, f Il 1 i s coefe_ 1 ] 3 Membrane sh esses are aero 3is - 43 Ts i&wtical No mting ( 4-Kembrane 5+resses are opposT4e in sTp 3W -63 coulci be less con servative b) - 4 e \\ 4 O O

=

e M' m-seese-wwa-e-e-,e- -,emeheh m. ,e.>+gm ,eamme. m - ,.e-mg

3 1 Project Page s [ . ] Franklin Research Center CS257 C-53 o,,, oy,., o,,, n, o,,, L*C?$iNWEYe? $2Afd, p//7 twlm o nelst Case sTuor l

1 j

'Th e 'S a PV ASME Code Seetrovi X DTvision '2., M SO (ACI 35cl-80) Para. c c-3+2.i. 7 s+cdes 4 hat 4he. shear Stress fal<en by i Yhe concrete resultirig -from pure forsion sho.ll vot exceed 17et where l + O W" + (4/fl )' Vet = 5/-f' 'T W hile 4he ACI 3ie-63 Code Sec+ron i7o7 limMs +he vihate Shear Strength ?X 40 Y" From +he. csbove -fwo cases 4he -fellew?ng Ts concluded ; Lahen ; scA i. Mernbrane s+resses are com pressive 318 - 6 3 Ts were conservakive (.C ) 2 Membrane s+resses are +enstte 312 - 6 3 Ts les 5 conser,/ative (A ) T

== -r.-

3 sA "I" [ . J Franklin Research Center C5257 C 54 A Division,cf Th,e FranWin, Institute ,,gjp j,/y/' g4go,,j g o. cava o... n o.i. m -,_,, . ~. i i e i i 2 3 l

1 2;;

sea. t

-]

3 Membrane. G+resses are teco j 31g - 63 Ts more conservatNe @) ) ' i 4. Membrane siresses are cPPCSMC I" s?p 3ir-63 could be less conservativ'e (A) 2, i 4 h } I ? l i P J m E ~m -~m, e -4 = 4 e wM me, N L

l I I I I 1 l 1 l APPENDIX D i I 1 4 ACI CDDE PHIIDSOPHIES l i i i 3 1 4 i I l i A j .. 0. Franklin Research Center i A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benjermn Frankjin Parkway. PMa.. Pa. 19103 (215)448 1000 -.s

j o i 4 i ACT CODE PHIIDSOPHIES I i I l The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Building Code Requirements for 4 l Reinforced Concrete delineate two philosophies of design which have long been in uses the so-callad working stresu method, which was in general acceptance and predominant use from early in this century to the early 1960's, and the s j ultimate strength method, which has been rapidly replacing working stress since about 1963. 11 1 j workina stress Method q 3 l. 1' The working stress method of design is referred to as the " alternate l design method" by the most recent ACI code.- By this method, the designer I .t l proportions structural elements so that internal stresses, which result from i the action of service loads

• and are computed by the principles of elastic s

j mechanics, do not exceed allowable stress values prescribed by the code. 1 The allowable stresses as prescribed by the ACI code are set such th$t the n;r stresses under service load conditions will be within the elastic range of i behavice for the materials involved. As a result of this, the assumption of

)

i ~i l straight line stress-strain behavior applies reasonably for properly designed i structural members. The merbar forces used in design by this method are those I which result from an elastic analysis of the structure under the action of the i i service loads. t Ultimate Strength Design { The u'.timate strength method is referred to as the " strength method" in the most recent ACI code. By this method, the proportioning of the members is 1 j based on the total theoretical str.ength of the member, satisfying equilibrium and campatibility 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. e t j

• Service loads are defined as those loads which are assumed to occur during the

] service life of the structure. J .i p_1 1 O Udd Frank!in Research Center ~ ~~ A Osaman of The F*anada bussuee i

o Strength Reduction Factor

i 1

In the present code, the capacity reduction factor ($) varies for the 4 j 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.

J nd Factors ~ Also, by this method, the designer increases the service loads by applying appropriate load factors to obtain the ultimate design loads in an attempt to l assess the possibility that the service loads may be exceeded in the life of q 3 the structure. The member forces used to proportion members by this method 3 are based on an elastic analysis of the structure under the action of the ~, .j ultimate design loads. Importance of Ductility ) A critical factor involved in the logic of ultimate strength design is the 4 need to control the mode of failure. The presest ACI code, where possible, has incorporated a philosophy of achieving ductility in reinforced concrete designs. Ductility in a structural member is the ability to maintain load ) carrying capscity while significant, large deformations occur. Ductility in 1 members is a desired quality in structures. It permits significant -i j 7; redistribution of internal loads allowing the structure to readjust its load resistance pattern as critical sections or members approach their limiting I capacity. This deformation results in cracking and deflections which provide a means of warning in advance of catastrophic collapse. Under conditions of l loading where energy must be absorbed by the structure, member ductility becc.es very important. f 1 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. i 'i l Where research results have confirmed analysis and intuition, the code has Provided for limiting steel percentages, reinforcing details, and controis-2 all directed at guaranteeing ductility. In those aspects of design where ductility cannot be achieved or insured, the code has required added strength I to insure potential failure at the more ductile sections of structures. v} 4 _nklin Research._ Center ~~ 's-~--p l N &+-- yl -,et.+ w. -w. .w-

1 1 Examples of this are evident in the more conservative capacity reduction factors for columns and in the special provisions required for seismic design. Strength and Serviceability in Design .i

]

There are many reasons for the recent trend in reinforced concrete codes r sI toward ultimate strength rather than working stress concepts. Research in reinforced concrete has indicated that the strain distributions predicted by j 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 a j 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 smaller than its compressive stress-strain curve. q Time-dependent shrinkage and creep strains are often of significant i 'j magnitude at service load levels and are difficult to assess by working stress 3 me thods. While ultimate strength methods do not eliminate these factors, they become less significant at ultimate load levels. In addition, ultimate strength methods allow for more reasonable approximations to the non-linear ) concrete stress-strain behavior. In the analyses of structures, the designer must, by necessity, make certain assumptions w'hich serve to idealize the structures. The primary assumptions are that the structure behaves in a linearly elastic manner, and that the idealized member stiffness is constant throughout each member and 4 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 sections and in fact proportions members so that redistribution will occur. q. .:q i D-3 s dgud Franklin Research Center __.. - a A DMeson of The Frarden inesame _. _, _. _ _. ~.

v a J i 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 i 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 j 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 j

be the ratio of yield stress to service load stress. This definition becomes 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 l 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 l (U) over the capacity reduction factor ($). The present ACI code has ( assigned values to the above factors such that the ratio y/$ ranges from about 1.5 to 2.4 for reinforced concrete structural elements. 1 i 1 I i i

• Factors of safety (FS) are related to margins of safety (MS) through the relation, MS = FS - 1.

i 1 D-4 O bd Franklin Research Center ~~ 4 %.a w n. re - - - - - -}}