ML20081J243
| ML20081J243 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1983 |
| From: | Fiedler P GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-SSINS-6820 IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8311080382 | |
| Download: ML20081J243 (81) | |
Text
<-
ENuclear "f""aT"" "
Route 9 South Forked River, New Jersey 08731-0388 609 971-4000 4
Writer's Direct Dial Number:
Novmber 2,1983 Mr. D.M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Crutchfield:
Subject:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 IE Bulletin No. 80-11 Reevaluation of Masonry Walls The enclosed report provides responses to your request for additional information (Reference 1) concerning masonry wall design at Oyster Creek.
In a previous correspondence (Reference 3) several of the items in your request were addressed. The report herein addresses the remaining items and either reiterates or revises our prior responses.
A masonry wall failure consequence analysis (References 5 and 7) has identified those walls which will require modification during the current refueling / maintenance outage and walls whose failure during a seismic event will not jeopardize the safe shutdown of the plant. 'Ihe walls for which modifications are not planned during the current (Cycle 10) outage will be modified subsequent to restart and/or during the next (Cycle 11) refueling outage.
In addition, our previous submittal (Reference 6) which provided the stress analysis results for each affected masonry wall will be revised and forwarded to you by April 30, 1984.
If you should have any questions, please contact Mr. James Knuoel at (201) 299-2264.
Very truly yours, e
R. A $
S%E W &
Pefer' iT. Fiedler Vice President and Director Oyster Creek PBF:PFC: dam
/* gl g Enclosurec k1 8311080382 831102 3
i PDR ADOCK 05000219
\\
G PDR GPU Nuclear Corporatien is a subsidiary of the General Pubhc Utahties Corporation j
Page 2 cc: Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Administrator Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cbmmission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 NRC Resident Inspector Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Forked River, NJ 08731
l References As indicated on page 17 of the enclosed report.
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIO5 i
REEVALUATION OF MASONRY WALLS PER IE BULLETIN NO. 80-11 RESf0NSE TO US - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REVI.EW (DOCKET NO. 50-219, JUNE 8,1983)
PREPARED B
/o-24-8 5 T. H. CHANG' DATE REVIEWED BY:
p p/
1
/#-F#-@
L.
loinn DATE 8#
APfROVALS:
A M ROCHINO DAlt s
b kb"? *b3 D.
K.' WONEBER 1K DAit t
e t
f
(
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No
{
INTRODUCTION 1
ITEM NO.1 INCREASE FACTORS FOR ALLOWABLE STRESS 2
ITEM NO. 1-1 SHEAR IN FLEXURAL MEMBERS 3
ITEM N0.1-2 SHEAR IN UNREINFORCED SHEAR WALLS 3
ITEM NO. 1-3 REINFORCEENT TAKES ENTIRE SHEAR 5
ITEM NO.1-4 TENSION NORMAL TO BED JOINT 6
ITEM NO. 1-5 TENSION PARALLEL TO BED JOINT 6
ITEM N0. 2 SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR STACKED BOND WALL 8
ITEM NO. 3 IMPACT OR TORNADO LOADS 9
ITEM NO. 4 EARTHQUAKE IN TMEE DIRECTIONS 10 ITEM N0. 5 MULTI-WYTHE WALL 12 ITEM NO. 6 NON-LINEAR TECHNIQUES (ENERGY BALANCE AND 13 ARCHING ACTION)
ITEM N0. 7
' DUR-0-WALL' AS REINFORCEMENT 14 ITEM N0. 8 INFORMTION RELATED TO SYSTEMATIC 15 EVALUATION PROGRAM ITEM N0. 9 CURRENT STATUS OF MODIFICATIONS 16 REFERENCE LIST 17 ATTACHMENT LIST 18 ATTACFf4ENT 1 - RESPONSES FOR ITEM N0's.1-4 and 1-5 ATTACHMENT 2 - REVISED CALCULATION FOR WALL NO. 2.
f (1)
- p. ' O INTRODUCT g The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) review of the Reevaluation
(
of Masonry Walls at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, per I.E.
I Bulletin No. 80-11, resulted in a request for additional infonnation.
The nine item request was submitted in a letter dated June 8,1983 (Ref.
- 1).
l The response for each item is presented in this report.
4 D
(1)
[
Item No. 1:
With respect to allowable stresses for factored loads, the licensee uses the following increase factors in excess of the values allowed by the staff criteria (Ref. 2) which f
are listed in parentheses:
1-1 masonry shear in flexural members 1.5 (1.3) 1-2 masonry shear in unreinforced shear walls 1.5 (1. 3) 1-3 reinforcement takes entire shear 1.7 (1.5) 1-4 tension normal to bed joint 1.67 (1.3) 1-5 tension parallel to bed joint 1.67 (1.5)
The licensee's justification of these factors is based on various test results.
The licensee is requested to discuss the applicability of these tests to'the masonry walls at the Oyster Creek plant with particular emphasis on the following areas:
boundary conditions nature of loads size of test walls type of masonry construction (block and mortar type, grouted or ungrouted).
I The licensee is also requested to indicate the number of walls that could not be qualified (if staff increase factors are used) and to identify these walls. Also, identify any conservative measures used in the analysis which could be claimed for using a higher increase factor.
S i
(2)
- p. 9h Item No. 1-1: Masonry shear in flexural member 1.5 vs.1.3 Item No.1-2: Masonry shear in unreinforced shear walls 1.5 vs.1.3.
Response
The shear stresses in both directions (in plane and out-of-plane) are small. Table 1-1 and Table 1-2 list the out-of-plane shear stress and in-plane shear stress and their r
(
allowables (Ref. 2). These shear stresses are all under the allowables even with the smaller increase factor suggested by SGEB's criteria. Therefore, the requirement of using the increase f actor of 1.3 for the abnormal / extreme environment condition is met.
Table 1-1 Shear Stresses for Running Bond Walls Wall Out-of-Plane In-Plane Shear No.
6.6 9.9 6
6.6 9.9 7
6.6 9.9 17 9.3 12.8 2.7 5.3 18 7.0 11.3 21 3.7 6.3 22 7.7 12.1 23 11.1 15.3 24-1 3.6 7.9 24-2 (3)
(3) 25 8.9 13.3 26 11.2 17.0 27 7.8 11.9 28 11.1 17.1 44 6.3 10.3 l
l Allowable 38.1 31.2 OBE f
Stresses 49.5 40.6 1.3 OBE (PSI)
(1) The critical span length, loading, properties are identical for Wall Nos. 5, 6, a:xl 7.
(2) In-plane shear stress is not critical wherever it is not given (See Item No. 4).
I (3) Flexural shear stresses are less than for Wall 24-1.
l (3) i
w
[
{
TABLE 1-2 SHEAR S'IRESSES FT]R STACKED B0tO WALLS Out-of-Plane In-Plane Shear Wall Flexural Shear (PSI)
(PSI)
RD1 ARKS No.
OBE SSE OBE SSE 2-1 12.7 19.3 2-2 (2)
(2) 2-3
'(2)
(2)
~
7.4 12.8 2-4 8
8.2 13.3 15 4.0 7.3 19 5.3 9.3 20 5.2 9.1 nation 29 &
10.0 16.0 17.0 27.0 model included 30 the drift effect Will be analyzed 31 later. See last paragraph of 32 page 11.
33 45 43 4.9 3.1 Allowable 25.4 20.8 OBE Stresses 33.0 27.1 1.3 OBE (pg7) 31.2 1.5 one 38.1 Notes: (1) In-plane shear stress is not critical wherevar it is not given (See Item No. 4 on page 10).
(2) Flexural shear stresses are less than for Wall No. 2-4.
(4)
! p. to)
Item No. 1-3: Reinfort:ement takes entire shear 1.7 vs.1.5
)
Response: The vertical rebar and the horizontal "Dur-0-Wall" are designed to take the tension only.
The concrete block is strong enough to carry the entire shear. The staff's requirement in this case is met.
(5)
,p..
Item No. 1-4: Tension nonnal to bed joint 1.67 vs.1.3 Item No.1-5: Tension parallel to bed joint 1.67 vs.1.5 Response: Table 1-3 lists the tensile stresses normal and parallel to bed joint and their allowables for the unreinforced running bond walls.
Table 1-4 outlines the tension normal to bed joint for the unreinforced stack bond walls.
No tension parallel to bed joint for unreinforced stack bond wall is allowed due to the fact of the weak and continuous vertical joints. The affected wall no's. 8,15,19, 20, and 43 were reanalyzed and will be reinforced accordingly.
Ten Wall No's. 8,17,18, 20, 22, 23, 24-2, 25, 26 and 44 will be overstressed for tension normal to bed joint if the increase f actor suggested by the staff is adopted.
Attachment I describes the detail justification for using the higher increase f actor by a probabilistical approach. The factors of safety resulting from that study seem to be quite acceptable.
If so, the staff's concern for this subject is met.
Table 1-4 Tensile Stress for Unreinforced Stacked Bond Walls Tension Normal to Bed Remarks Wall No.
Joint (PSI)
OBt SSE Intennediate Bracing 8
21.8 40.2 p m ired 15 5.6 15.7 19 11.6 24.4 20 18.0 33.6 43 25.4 43.1 bolig2{loNc balls Allowable 25.0 OBE Stresses for 32.5 1.3 OBE H
Block 41.5 1.67 OBE Allowable 40.0 noF Stresses for 52.0 1.3 OBE Solid Block (PSI) 67.0 1.67 OBE (6)
~
s
/
J TABLE 1-3 TENSILE STRESSES ER UNREINERCED RUNNING BOND WALLS TENSION NORMAL TENSION PARAT.TEr.
Wall TO BED JOINT (PSI)
TO BED JOINT (PSI)
REMARKS No.
OBE SSE OBE SSE 17 25.2 38.7 19.1 27.0 See Note (3) 18 18.2 36.4 16.3 28.6 Horizontal Bracing 21 15.9 29.6 succorts are recuired Vertical unistruts at 22 21.1 33.4 free edae are needed Steel frame supports 23 25.1 35.6 35.2 50.1 t n M r, m r4 w 24-1 6.4 13.6 24-2 25.0 35.7 One Way Action 25 25.6 36.0 See Note (3) 26 24.1 35.5 3.8 11.6 27 20.5 29.6 One Way Action 28 23.4 32.2 44 23.1 33.7 25.0 50.0 OBE e
Stresses 32.5 NA 1.3 OBE (PSI)
NA 75.0 1.5 OBE 41.8 83.5 1.67 OBE Notes:
(1) Wall No's. 8,15,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24-1 were originally qualified by Non-Linear Technique. The stresses presented here are calculated presuming that the walls are modified.
(2) Wall No's. 21, 22, 24-1, 24-2, 27, 28 and 44 are designed tb span vertically after being modified.
(3) The stress restilts are based on the seismic response spectra frcm the original reevaluation. These stresses will be much smaller if SEE curve is used.
t (7)
- p. 'N Item No. 2:
Provide Sample calculations of the stresses for a typical stacked bond wall.
Reponse:
Along with the referenced letter (Ref. 3), we submitted a sample calculation of Wall No. 2.
This wall has been reanalyzed because the floor response spectrum of
(
NUREG (Ref. 4) yields much higher seismic acceleration fon: e.
An additional and revised calculation for Wall No.
. 2 is attached ( Attachment 2).
(8)
Item No. 3:
Indicate if walls are subject to impact or tornado loads.
If so, provide sample calculations for impact and tornado analysi s.
Response
All concrete block walls are located inside main structures. No impact or tornado loads, except seismic, have been considered in the analysis (See Ref. 3).
(9)
Item No. 4:
Indicate how earthquake force in three directions were considered in the analysis.
Response
Our previous reevaluation for the masonry walls was based on the assumption that the out-of-plane and vertical seismic forces occurred at the same time.
In-pl ane seismic nomally is not the major stress contributor to the walls. However, in order to take the three dimensional earthquake effects into account, we have extended our analysis and taken the following steps:
(A)
For the singie panel walls, the drif t effect has been i gnored. The bottom and edge boundaries for each wall are assumed to be a pin in the out-of-plane direction.
Interstory drift in that direction has no effect to the wall.
The in-plane interstory drift in both the Turbine Building and Reactor Building is small. For the Reactor Building, the maximum drift for masonry walls is 7.16 x 10-5 in/in, while for the Turbine Building, the maximum drift for the masonry walls is 2.69 x 10-5 in/i n SSE.
The " Criteria for the Reevaluations of Concrete Masonry Walls - Oyster Creek Ibwer Plant", specifies the allowable in-plane story drif t as 1.067 x 10-4 in/in for confined walls for SSE.
A wall is considered confined if, as a minimum, it is bounded on top and bottom or bounded on three sides.
Otherwise, the wall is considered unconfined.
Tne calculated interstory drif t given above is in all cases less than the allowable drift.
Interstory drift for the single panel walls is therefore not considered " critical".
The in-plane seismic produces a smaller inertia force than the out-of-plane seismic due to the zero period response from the walls in that direction.
In-plane acceleration force generates mainly in-plane shear and tension normal to the bed joint. For resisting the in-plane seismic, the grouted and reinforced wall perf orms better than the non-reinforced one simoly because the fomer has larger shear drea and section modulus. Wall No.17, a non-reinforced wall, having the highest tensile stress normal to the bed joint under the out-of-plane seismic, was examined as the most critical case for the in-plane seismic. As a result of this analysis, the shear and tensile stresses nomal to the bed joint due to in-plane SSE seismic are 5.3 psi and 1.7 psi, respectively.
(10)
They are so insignificant that it will hardly change the values in the previous analysis if we use the square root of the sum of square (SRSS) stress combinations method for the three d.mensional earth quake. Therefore, we conclude that the in-plane seismic has almost no effect to the single panel wall s.
(B) For the taller walls (ranging from 27' to 39' high) around the Reactor Building stairway case, namely, Wall no's. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 45, we have to take advantage of the combining action from each adjacent wall.
The analysis for the combination model of Wall No's. 29 and 30, undertaking the drif t effect and the acceleration force in two horizontal and vertical directions, was performed. SRSS stress combination method is adopted. As a result of this analysis, we will reinforce Wall No's. 29 and 30 by providing edge supports and two horizontal L-shape steel frames to reduce the vertical span.
The reanalysis for Wall No's. 31, 32, 33, and 45 for using similar approach will be performed later.
In the meantime, we have finsihed a " masonry wall failure consequence analysis" for containment spray system (see Ref. 7) "or Wall No's. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 vicinity, a 14")y st/ety-related pipe system in that and 45. The onl cratainment spray line, will not lose its function f the walls around the stairway collapse under seis tic event.
4 (11)
Item No. 5:
Provide sample calculations illustrating the analysis of a multi-wythe wall.
Response
Only one multi-wythe wall (No. 43) was identified in previous submittals.
Due to lack of collar joint, this wall was analyzed as a single-wythe wall of thickness of one wythe (12 inches) (See Ref. 3).
9 (12)
- f. Ib Item No. 6:
In a meeting between the licensee and NRC staff on March 31,1983, it was indit.ated by the licensee that non-linear techniques, such as energy balance technique and arching action, are no longer relied upon to qualify masonry walls. The licensee is required to confirm this indication. Otherwise, these issues will remain unresolved until the establishment of the final staff position on them.
Re sponse:
During the first stage of calculations, Wall No's. 8,15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 29 have been qualfied by operability calculation.
Subsequently, additional supports were designed for these walls and new calculation perfonned, taking into consideration the new supports to be provided. AlI walls are now qualified using linear techniques.
The stress report submitted to you, per reference 6, has been revised accordingly.
9 (13)
P^ &
Item No. 7:
The licensee is requested to indicate if "Dur-0-Wall" joint reinforcing has been used as structural reinforcing in qualifying any of the masonry walls at Oyster Creek.
If so, provide the details of this usage for each affected wall in tems of reinfort:ed or unreinforced, steel ratio, bondage / anchorage,etc.
Response
Wall No's. 2, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 45.
are qualified as per i.wc way cracked section method.
In such case, the "Dur-0-Wali" steel has been utilized as the tensile rebar in the horizontal direction.
The above walls with "Dur-0-Wall" are all reinforced vertically.
One No. 5 rebar in a grouted cell for every 16" long block is specified.
The following table shows the infomation for this concern.
TABLE 7-1 DUR-O-Wall AS REINEDRQMENT E'lexture Anch. Bond Wall Wall D-O-W Steel Bond Stress Stress Ihick.
Remarks No.
Iccation Ratio (PST) fP9Ti OBE SSE OBE SSE 2
2-1
.00172 124 188 8"
2-1
[
2-2
.00219 64 103 6"
2-3 29 Every Lano1 nation Bed
.00345 14 29 89 136 8"
Model of 30 Joint 29 & 30 31 Every 2 32 Bed
.00172 8"
ed 33 Joint later 45
" Allow-140 186 140 '
186
)
(14) l,
Item No. 8:
Since the Oyster Creek plant is part of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP), the following information is requested regarding the masonry wall aspects of SEP review.
-Indicate the current status of evaluation and schedule, if not complete.
-Indicate the criteria used in the SEP evaluation.
Are they different from IE Bulletin 80-11 evaluation.
Compare criteria for SEP Evaluation with staff acceptance criteria (Ref.2) and assess the impact of any deviations.
-Frovide pertinent infonnation such as seismic input.
Response
The, structural integrity evaluation of the safety-related concrete masonry walls was performed in accordance with the following criteria:
(a)
" Reevaluation for Safety Related Concrete Masonry Walls" submitted to NRC on November 14, 1980.
(b)
The seismic floor spectra curves generated for SEP-NUREG/CR-1981 UCRL-53018.
The evaluation of the plant structures by GPUN in response to SEP has been limited to the scope prescribed in the NUREG 0822.
(15)
Item No. 9:
Indicate the current status of the required modifications and provide detailed drawings of some sample modifications.
Response
We have revised the current status of the required modifications since we had submitted the first response (Ref. 3) to you as follows.
(1) Walls completed: Wall numbers 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 3 4, 3 5, 3 7, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, an d 47.
( 2) Walls to be completed during the current refueling / maintenance outage prior to restart: Wall numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 16, 21, 22, and 23.
(3) Walls to be completed after restart and/or during the next refueling outage: Wall numbers 8, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 28, 29, 30,4 3 a n d 44.
If these walls fall, they will not cause the safety-related systems to lose their function to bring the plant to safe shutdown (Ref. 5&7).
(4) Walls that require furtner analysis: Wall numbers 31, 32, 33 and 45. Any necessary modification resulting from the stress analysis for these combined walls will be completed during the next refueling outage (Ref. 7).
(5) Walls which did not need modification: Wall numbers 5, 6, 7, 25, 26, and 27.
In addition, we have also revised the proposed modification for Wall numbers 29 and 30 from the first response to you ( Attachment 2 of Ref. 3).
The significant effect of the three directional seismic (including drif t) causes the need of providing two additional L-shape frames and bracings to reduce the vertical scan.
A e
(16)
REFERENCES (1)
" Request for Additional Information - Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Masonry Wall Design, I.E.Bulletin 80-11", from D. M. Crutchfield of NRC to P. B. Fiedler of GPUN, June 8,1983.
j
( 2)
"SGES Criteria for Safety Related Masonry Wall Evaluation", by Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch of the NRC, July 19 81.
(3)
Letter from P. B. Fiedler to D. M. Crutchfield of USNRC, "0yster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Additional Information Regarding Masonry Wall Design (I.E. Bulletin No. 80-11)
August 11, 1983.
(4)
" Seismic Review of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant as Part of the Systematic Evaluation Program", Appendix B NUREG/CR-1981, UCRL-53018 by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
( 5)
" Masonry Wall Failure Consequence Analysis Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station", prepared by Impell Corp. for GPU Nuclear, August 1983.
(6)
Submittal from I.R. Finfrock to Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region I, "0yster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 1.E.Bulletin 80-11", April 30,1981.
( 7)
"0CNGS - Containment Spray System Assessment Associated with the Postulated Collapse of the Reactor Building Southeast Stairway Masonry Walls", prepared by Impell Corp. for G PUN, October 1983.
e (17)
\\
{ f 0*
ATTACtNENTS (1)
" Reevaluation of Masonry Walls Response to NRC Review Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station", prepared by Computech Engineering Services, Inc. for GRI Nuclear Corp, September 1983.
(2)
Additional and revised calculation for Wall No. 2.
f 8
(
(18) 4
.-wee c,,
-.-g+-
._.-y-v-- - - * -,*=--
w--
ey q,m f
.--+-,-~%w--w--.m---g g--,,mw-m--.,----ryw w--ryp r y - p-3m--
g war-
...wwe--~v--yg-we w
ATTACHMENT 1 RESPONSES EDR ITEM No's.1-4 and 1-5 t
6 e
9
l I
ATTACHMENT 1 REEVALUATION OF MASONRY WALLS RESPONSE TO NRC REVIEW (Letter 50-219 dated June 8,1983)
(LS05-83-06-015)
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Prepared for:
GPU NUCLEAR CORP.
Parsippany, N.J.
Prepared by:
COMPUTECH ENGINEERING SERVICES. INC.
2855 Telegraph Avenue Berkeley. C.A. 94705 Report RS64.01 Revision 0 September. 1983.
t s
1 J
S TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
INTRODUCTION..............................
1 2
OVERVIEW OF OYSTER CFEEK WALLS 2
3 TENSION NORMAL TO BED JOINT....................
3
....... 3 3.1 Overview of Test Programs 3.2 Appilcability of Test Results 3
4 3.3 Evaluation of Test Results 5
3.4 Description of Statistical Analysis 6
3.5 Results of Statistical Analysis 3.5.1 Sample Statistics.......................
6 3.5.2 95% Confidence Intervals on the Population Mean.....
7 3.5.3 olscussion of Normal vs. Gamma Distribution 7
8 3.5.4 95% Confidence Intervals 3.5.5 Safety Factors Based on the Mean.
8 3.5.6 Probabilities of Exceedance 9
10 3.6 Discussion of Results 4 TENSION PARALLEL TO BED JOINT 14 14 4.1 Overview of Test Programs........
14 4.2 Applicability of Test FP ;lts 14 4.3 Evaluation of Test Resuas 15 4.4 Description of the Statistical Analysis
. 15 4.5 Results of the Statistical Analysis 15 4.5.1 Sample Statistics 4.5.2 95% Confidence intervals on the Population Mean 16 4.5.3 Discussion of TJormal vs. Gamma Distribution 16 4.5.4 95% Confidence Intervals 17 17 4.5.5 Safety Factors based on the Mean 18 4.5.6 Probabilities of Exceedance 18 4.6 Discussion of Results 5
CONCLUSIONS..............................
21 6
REFERENCES
..............................22 (1)
1 INTRODUCTION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review of the criteria and reevaluation of the masonry walls at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in compliance with NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 resulted in a request for additional information on a number of items. The request was submitted in a letter dated June 8.1983.
Computsch Engineering Services. Inc. (CES) was retained by GPU Nuclear Corporation to provide the response to one of the NRC requests for additional Information.
The request is stated as:
- With respect to allowable stresses for factored loads, the licensee uses the following increase factors in excess of the values allowed by the staff criteria 5 (which are listed):
GPU VALUES NRC STAFF Tension normal to 1.67 (1.3) bed joint Tension parallel to 1.67 (1.5) bed joint The licensee's justification of these factors is based on various test results. The licensee is requested to discuss the applicability of these tests to the masonry walls at the Oyster Creek plant with particular emphasis on the following areas:
Boundary Conditions Nature of Loads Size of Test Walls Type of Masonry Construction (Block and mortar type, grouted or ungrouted).
The licensee is also requested to identify any conservative measures used in the analysis which could be claimed for using a higher increase factor.
The sections that follow provide a justification for using thE higher increase factor (1.67) on factored loads and addresses the applicability of test results (refered to in the justification) to the masonry walls at the Oyster Creek plant.
1
1 1
2 OVEIWIEW OF OYSTER CFIEEK WALIS l
The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station has a number of masonry walls that fall under the safety related category of the NRC IE 80-11 Bulletin. These walls are all constructed with hollow concrete block units (ASTM - C - 90) and -mortar type M as specified by proportions in ASTM C270. Of these walls three are fully grouted. Seven partially grouted, one constructed of solid blockr and the remaining walls ungrouted.
The construction of the walls is both in running bond (which can span horizontally and vertically) and in stacked bond (which can only span vertically). The wall height is mostly in the 8 - 15 feet range but some walls reach as high as 38 feet.
The width of the walls is generally less than 21 feet. The wall thicknesses are 6 and 8 Inches (single wythe) with the exception of Wall No.
43 which is 24 inches (double wythe). However. Wall No. 43 is qualified as single wythe.
,2; All the masonry walls at the Oyster Creek plant are Interior walls and therefore the only loading type considered is seismic. All boundary supports are considered pinned (simple).
2
F x
3 TENSION NORMAL TO BED JOINT The following is a justification for using a stress increase factor of 1.67 for The evaluation addresses tension normal to the bed joint for factored loads.
hollow concrete masonry construction.
3.1 Overview of Test Programs The results of six different test programs regarding the tensile strength of All the test mortar normal to the bed joint are evaluated in this report.
programs reported in References 1 through 6 Involved static, monotonic load tests.
The test programs provided results for 81 unreinforced test specimens.
Involving four different mortar types, namely M. S. N and O as specified by proportions in ASTM C270. Also varying between the six test programs Some tests were performed was the way in which the walls were loaded.
loading. some used concentrated center using a uniform pressure (alr bag) point loading. and others were performed with concentrated loads at the The uniform load produces a parabolic moment quarter points of the wall.
distribution over the height of the wall. the central loading condition produces a symmetric triangular distribution with a maximum moment at midspan. and the quarter point loading produces a region of constant moment over half the helght of the wall. In one series of experiments (Ref. 3) the walls were tested after only 15 days of curing.
3.2 Appilcability of Test Results The results of the 81 tests performed in the six static test programs, in our opinion, are applicable in determining the tensile strength normal to the bed joints, for seismic loads. for the following reasons:
An unreinforced masonry wall responds elastically 1.
to seismic loads provided it is not cracked. This was demonstrated in shake table tests performed at the Earthquake Engineering Research Center of the U C Berkeley (Refs. 7 and 8).
There are no test results available indicating that 2.
dynamic loading reduces the tensile strength normal to the bed joint. In fact. the only test data available for any type of cyclic loading on masonry structural elements indicates that the in-plane shear strength of masonry shear walls tested pseudostatically is 8-23% less than that of a 3 cps equivalent dynamic test (Ref. 9).
3
h l
3.
Cyclic or shake table tests are essential to determine the post-cracked or inelastlC performance of structural elements. However, they are not essential to determine the ultimate of cracking strength of structural elem60ts.
4.
Points 1. 2 and 3 above Indicate that the uniform or point load tests are reasonable methods to
~ ~ ~ ~
'~
determine the cracking or tensile. strength of an
~~
unreinforced masonry wall subjected to out-of-plane loads.
5.
The size of the test walls was generally 8 feet hips and 4 feet wide and they were generally constructed of hollow concrete block units. 8 inches thick.
The test walls were single wythe.
ungrouted and constructed in running bond.
6.
Boundary conditions used for the test walls were pinned (simple). (h!s is the assumption used on
~
the walls at the Oyster Creek plant.
3.3 Evaluation of Test Results The results from six different monotonic test programs (Refs.1. 2. 3. 4.
- 5. 6) on the tensile strength of mortar normal to the bed joint from the basis of the statistical analysis presented in this section. In total, data from 81 tests were available, involving four different motar types. namely. types M. S. N and O.
Only the results of tests with type M mortar. as specified by proportions in ASTM C270. are used herein as this was the mortar type specified for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
Tests reported in References 2. 3. 4 and 5 contain no data for type M mortar and thus have no further part in this study.
Table 3-1 shows a summary of the tests involving type M mortar.
TABLE S--1 l
SUMMAFW OF TESTS INVOINING TYPE M MORTAR l
No. of Reference Tests Loading Comments 1
3 Uniform Section Modulus Based on Mortar Bedded Area 6
4 Uniform Section Modulus Based on McMar Bedded Area Tensile strength normal to the bed joint is influer.ced by several variables.
4
perhaps the single most important of which is tP3 mortar cube strength.
The 7 samples with type M mortar cover a range of cube strengths from 3800 psi to 5100 psl.
3.4 Descripdon of Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was performed for the uniform load data.
A plot of the tenstle strength normal,to the bed joint against the corresponding mortar cube strength was then made for all the data. This plot is shown in Figure 3-1.
Two least squares fits to this data w6te then made.
The first was of the form:
n y=k=x and the second was of the form:
y=k* S where y = tensile strength normal to bed joint x = mortar cube strength The resulting curves are also plotted in Figure 3-1. The two curves differ considerable.3which is not surprising considering the close grouping of the available data, especially the lack of low-strength data. In view of a study of all available data for type N mortar (Figure 3-2) the use of the tensile strength as a function of the square root of the cube strength is reasonable.
In addition the ACI-531 code uses functions involving the square root of the mortar cube strength. As a result the second curve will be used herein.
Accepting this relationship between tensile bond strength and mortar cube strength, all data can then be normailzed by dividing the test tensile strength by the square root of the corresponding mortar cube strength. The following parameters were then computed:
a.
Sample Mean, x b.
Sample Standard Deviation, s These statistics were then used as the parameters for the distribution of the population.
Two underlying distributions were assumed, and the effect of the choice of distribution on the results was examined.
The more reasonable distribution was then accepted. The two underlying distributions were the Normal distrubution and the Gemma distribution.
The 95%
confidence interval for the mean of the population m was calculated. assuming that the normalized variable:
x-m s / Vn 5
I is t-distributed. and that the actual population standard deviation, c. Is unknown.
Here n is the sample size.
For the case of the underlying distribution being Normal, confidence intervals on the parameters m-lo, m-20 and m-So are estimated from the confidence Interval on the mean and the sample standard deviation.
For the case of the underlying distribution being Gamma. a different approach is taken. The m-lo corresponds to a value of the C'Jmulative distrubution function equal to 0.1587 for the Normal distribution.
This means that a little under 16%
of the area under the probability density curve lies to the left of m-lo.
Similarly, m-20. and m-So correspond to values of 0.02275 and 0.00135 on the cumulative distribution function respectively.
Based on the confidence interval for the mean, confidence Intervals are calculated for values of the Gamma distrubution for which its cumulative distribution function has v.:ues of 0.1587. 0.02275 and 0.00135 for m-lo, m-20 and m-So, respectively.
The actual selected distribution was then compared with the criteria specified for the OBE allowable tensile stress normal to the bed joint, l.a. 0.5$ng event and 0.83$ng (a ratio of 1.67) for the SSE event.
Probabilities that the criteria specified allowable stress would exceed the actual joint strength based on the test results and scaled to a mortar cube strength of 2500 and 3600 pal were calculated under two assumptions: firstly, that the population mean was equal to the sample mean, and secondly, that it was at the lower end of the 95% confidence Interval.
These conditions are termed A and B. respectively, in Table 3-4.
Finally safety factors based on the 95% confidence interval for the mean were calculated.
3.5 Results of Sandsecal Analysis l
The sections below outline the results of the statistical analysis of the test data on tension normal to the bed joint.
i l
3.5.1 Samp*e Statistics in Table 3-2 below. the test tensile strengths normal to the bed joint have been normalized by dividing each strength by the square root of I
the corresponding mortar cube strength.
6
I
)
TABt.E 3-2 Normaltzed Parameter Uniform load data Sample Size 7
Sample Mean 1.479 Sample Standard Deviation 0.141 Coefficient of Variation 9.5%
3.5.2 95% Confidence intervals on the Population Mean The normalized variables analyzed in Section 3.5.1 are transformed to real tensile strengths normal to the bed joint by mu;tiplying the normalized variable by the square root of the actual soecified cube strength of interest.
In the case of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station the aporopriate cube strength is in the range of 2500 - 3600 psi considering that this is not new construction.
The following confidence Intervals result:
mo = 3600 psl:
80.91 m 196.5 psi mg = 2500 pal:
67.5 1 m 1 80.5 pal Specifying a 95% confidence interval is equivalent to stating that there is a 0.95 probability of the Interval containing the sample mean.
3.5.3 Discussion of Normal vs. Gamma Distribution The Normal distribution is well known and requires no discussion other than the fact that is is a symmetric distribution with possible values in the range
(-e.+a).
We are concerned in this study with data that can only assume positive values (tensile strength) and therefore this is a potential problem with using the Normal distribution because it can assume negative values.
The Gamma distribution, on the other hand.
can not assume negative values and its shape may be adjusted by varying the parameters k and A.
f (x) = (A(Ax)k-1 g-Ax) / (k-1)I for x10 x
The distribution has a mean value of k / A and a coefficient of variation of 1 / W.
Thus the value of k is adjusted to give the coefficient of variation observed from the sample. and then A is calculated to give the correct mean value.
The following values of k and A arise:
7
h k = 111
- - - ~ ~ ~ -
= = -
A = 75.05 z; -
For large k 0 15) the Gamma distribution and Normal distribution are extremely close.
Thus the normal distribution is used for-the-data. -
~a.
it should be noted that there is no physical reason why tensile strengths.
normal to the bed joint should have ani,3 articular distribution. However.
the Gamma distribution can assume a wide varlety of shapes -by varying _ _ _ _
r the parameters k and A.
3.5.4 95% Confidence Intervals Below are listed the 95% confidence intervals calculated for the m-
- 10. m-20 and m-30 levels:
At Cumulative Distribution Function = 0.1587 a.
(10 level):
me = 3600 psl:
72.5 f m-lo 1 88.1 psi o = 2500 psl:
60.4 1 m-lo 1 73.4 psi m
b.
At Cumulative Distribution Function = 0.02275 (20 level):
mo = 3600 psl:
64.0 1 m-20 3 79.6 ps!
mo = 2500 psl:
53.4 3 m-20 1 66.4 psi c.
At Cumulative Distribution Function = 0.00135 (30 level):
mo = 3600 psl:
55.6 1 m-30 1 71.2 psi mo = 2500 psi:
46.3 I m-30 1 59.3 psi These Intervals are displayed graphically in Figure 3-3.
3.5.5 Safety Factors Based on the Mean The reevaluation criteria specifies that the cube strength for type M mortar shall be limited to mo = 2500 psi.
This leads to allowable tensile stresses normal to the bed joint of 25 psi for an OBE event and 41.5 psi for an SSE event.
Using the above values for the OBE and SSE events. and the 95%
confidence interval for the mean strength from the tests, scaled to a cube strength of 3600 psi and 2500 psi the following limits arise for the safety factor based on the mean:
I 8
)
l I
TABLE S-3 l
SAFETY FACTORS ON THE RAEAN l
l UnNorm Load Data OBE l
SSE l
mo = 3600 psi 3.24 1 SF 13.86 1.95 3 SF 12.33 mg = 2500 psi 2.70 1 SF 1 3.22 1.63 1 SF 1 1.94 l
3.5.6 Probabilities of Exceedance The probabilltles that the criteria specified allowable stress will exceed the available strength based on the test results are as shown in Table 3-4:
. TABLE S-4 l
PROBABILITIES OF EXCEEDANCE l
Norm I on.orummon Case Key OBE l
SSE Uniform Load mo = 3600 psi A
5" 10-14 8
- 10-s B
7
- 10-11 2.4 = 10-6 ma = 2500 psi A
5 " 10-12 2.8
- 10-6 B
1 = 10-9 1.6 " 10-4 NOTES:
the Key A gives the probability of exceedance assuming that population mean equals the sample mean.
the Key B gives the probabilities of exceedance assuming that population mean is at the lower end of the 95% confidence interval.
A probability of exceedance equal to 1.6
- 10-4 Indicates that on the average 1.6 walls out of 10.000 will have lower capacity than specified in the criteria.
9
T l
)
l 3.6 Discussion of Results
-;---...- : :- =.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The key results for the confidence intervals are plotted in Figure 3-3 toge5er ~'
~
- - - ~
with the OBE and SSE allowable stresses from the reevaluation : criteria. - -- -
The confidence Intervals for the data are relatively narrow although tha._ sample ;__=__
=r--===~--
size is small. It is seen that both the OBE and SSE stresses lie well below the "mean minus three standard deviations
- 95% confidence interval for both Cube strength projections.
This is consistent with the very low probability
' that the reevaluation criteria stresses will exceed the actual tenslie strengttr===:-==
as presented in Table 3-4.
It can be stated that criteria specified allowable stresses will practically never exceed the actual tensile strength of the mortar normal to the bed joint during OBE events and at most 3 times in 1.000.000 during SSE events if the population mean strength is taken at the center of the 95% confidence Interval.
If one considers the extreme case where the population mean is taken to be at the lower end of its 95% confidence Interval, then these probabilities hardly change for an OBE event. but. change to about 3 in 20.000 during an SSE event.
These exceedance probabilities are deemed very satisfactory.
Alternatively. Instead of calculating probabilities of exceedance, one may take the same data and calculate factors of safety based on the mean. ~ If this'
~
'~
~
is done for the OBE events. using the full range of the 95% confidence -
Interval for the population mean, and taking the extremes from both cube strength cases, the safety factor lies in the range of 2.70 1 SF 1 3.86 Similarly, for SSE events. the range is:
1.63 f SF 1 2.33 10
O h
O E
i
~
O O
O 2
O e
2 g
f l
E g
W Z
e o
o a.
E Q
c c
0 O
u 2
o z
g E
~
ct 3 3 x
e
~
e z a a
ll gg W*
O-U O
1 O
2
~
4 1
s W
e x
z O
H 3
0 g
O z
y
_O W
O C
Z e
O W
2 m
W 3
E O
O g
g a
OO-i n
O Z
3 O
O O
O E
o Yn W
5 o
8 sa a
u.
O O
O w
,l l
l l
l o
o O
O O
e e
T O,=
(Isd) 1NIOP G38 3H101 'lVrtWON 1410N3W19 371SN31 I l n
7 9
l A o
\\
o
\\
I e
y e
a 4:.\\ s
'i
=
- e..,
t.
=
7px(
- 2 2
E 1
- ) kl EE Z
m
.\\
- \\
O O g
g
- t
\\
s a
r g
~
\\
\\
O 8
6a
\\
t O
o
\\
g
\\
O 2
0 3
m O
\\
g 3
3 m
1 O :.
O b
bg h
g g
O
\\ \\
Ee O
\\.\\
Pg O=
O e
0 O
\\\\
~
o 2
8 $o 00 O \\g O
0
\\gG g
>5 Ogg g
\\
OS o
z OO x
=
O s
0 3
O t
W o
G
\\\\
E
=!
O g
gs
\\ \\
o
\\ \\
E g\\
\\
\\\\s f
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
E s
s g
s s
c
\\
\\
N
\\
~
s N
\\
s s%
e t
e e
i e
_% m_
4 S
o.
o o
o o
n
~
(Isd) INIOl* G3G 3H1011YVtHON H10N3819 311SN31 -
8 12
If
- l) j, Il!
i l
I 1
]
i l
1 3
L l
i.
a p
o oo o.
6 a
T;
)
=,
=
is i
p
(
m t
3 f
, C n-l IT S
IT 0
A 2
T 1
1 S
t N
f O
N I
O T
A S
L 0
L U
0 A
P T i
11 V
O N I
R P O Ml l
T R
1 1
l E
J 1
a N
O DE I
r g
F i
B e
g E
S E 0
C g
t L H ir 8
N i
A T c
g E
V n
g D
O R
g F
E o
I T
i t
N T L a
l I
O N A u.
M a
C I
v E R 0
C O e
[
6 5
N N e.
9 E N R
D O I
I F S N N O E le C T p
0 I
4 5
1 4
3
-3 isp ER 5
2 0
U s
G 2
IF
- .2
_O eOU one
,mD bN" en e Oo*
uOU g
$U 3
l I
- 1'
,li
i
}
t 4 TENSION PARALLEL TO BED JOINT 1.67 for The following is a justification for using a stress increase factor of tension parallel to the bed joint for factored loads. The evaluation addresses hollow concrete masonry construction.
4i1 Overview of Test Programs The results of two different test programs regarding the flexural strength of masonry in the horizontal span, parallel to~ the bed joint are evaluated in this report. Both test programs given in References 10 and 11 involved static monotonic load tests.
The test programs provided results for 36 test specimens involving three different types of mortar namely M. N and O as specified by proportions In' ASTM C270.
All 36 specimens were loaded using concentrated center line loading which produces a symmetric triangular moment distribution._with a maximum moment at midspan.
4.2 Applicability of Test Results The results of the 36 tests performed in the two static test programs. In our opinion. are applicable in determining the tensile strength parallel to the bed joints, for seismic loads. for the same reasons given in Section 3.2.
4.3 Evaluation of Test Results 11)
The results from two different monotonic test programs (Refs 10 and on the tensile strength of mortar parallel to the bed joint form the basis of the statistical analysis presented in this section.
In total, data from 36 tests were available, involving three different mortar types, namely types M.
N and O.
Only the results of tests with type M mortar as specified by proportions in ASTM C270 are used herein as this was the mortar type specified for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
The specifications for the test series reported in Reference 11 called for a type M mortar for all 12 specimens.
Due to a failure of a mason to follow the specifications. the mortar used was much richer and thus can not be defined as a type M mortar.
Therefore the tests reported in Reference 11 have no further part In this study.
The test series reported in Reference 10 contains results from 24 tests.
six involving type M mortar and 12 and six involving type N and type O The six tests involving the type M mortar are. although mortars. respectively.
14
few in numbers. analyzed statistically herein.
Tensile strength parallel to the bed joint is influenced by several variables including the mortar shear strength, mortar cube strength and the block modulus of rupture. The code writing committee specifically ACl-531, choose to relate the design allowable a, tresses to the mortar cube strength.
The statistical analysis in this section is directed towards the same.
l The morter strength reported for the specimens was just the average. of results obtained in tests of three 2-in. cubes at an age. of 28 days. Thus.
there is only one mortar cube strength value to work with. This limits the generality of the analysis somewhat. but because the reported cube strength (2743 psD is close to the minimum code specified value (2500 psi) for type M mortar, the analysis is considered justifiable.
4.4 Description of the Stadsecal Analysis The statistical analysis of the test data parallel to the bed joint follows the same procedure as is described in Section 3.4 for tension normal to the bed joint with the following exception. For this analysis the ACl-531 assumed relationship. l.a.:
y = const. = W ls accepted.
For a description of the analysis procedure refer to Section 3.4.
I l
4.5 Results of the Statistical Analysis The sections below describe the results of the statistical analysis of the test data regarding tension parallel to the bed joint in hollow block masonry construction.
4.5.1 Sample Statistics in table 4-2 below,, the test tensile strengths parallel to the bed joint normalized by dividing each strength by the square root of i
have beert f
the corresponding mortar cube strength.
l l
15
f TABLE 4-1 Normeltzed Parameter Censor load does 6
Sample Size 4.175 Sample Mean 0.311 Sample Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation 7.5%
4.5.2 95% Confidence intervals on the F-C ^ -i Moon The normalized variables analyzed. in Section 4.5.1 are' transformed to real tensile strengths parallel to the bed joint by multiplying the normalized verlable by the square root of the actual specified cube strength of interest. In the case of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station the appropriate cube strength is in the range of 2500 - 3600 psi considering that this is not new construction.
The following confidence intervals result:
mo = 3600 pal:
230.9 1 m 1270.1 pal mo = 2500 psl:
1 2.5 I m 1225.1 psl Specifying a 95% confidence Interval is equivalent to stating that there is a 0.95 probability of the Interval containing the sample mean.
l 4.5.3 Discussion of Normal vs. Gamma Distribution The two distributions. Normal and Gamma, have been discussed in Section 3.4 and that discussion will not be repeated here. It is sufficient to say that when the Gamma distribution is considered the following values of k and 1 arise:
1 k=
178 A = 42.63 l
For large k O 15) the Gamma distribution and Normal distribution are Thus the normal distribution is used for the data.
extremely close.
It should be noted that there is no physical reason why tensile strengths l
However.
)
parallel to the bed joint should have any particular distribution.
the Gamma distribution can assume a wide variety of shapes by varying the parameters k and A.
16
4.5.4 95% Confidence Intervals Below are listed the 95% confidence Intervals calculated foF the m-
~~
~
- -r._--.:
- 10. m-20 and m-30 levels:
At Cumulative Distribution Function = 0.1587 a.
(lo leveD:
- - - ~ ~ ~ - - - -
~~
ma = 3600 pal: 212.3 1 m-1o 1251.4 psi r
mo = 2500 pal: 176.9 3 m-lo 1209.5 psi
(
b.
At Cumulative Distribution Function = 0.02275 (20 leveD:
mo = 3600 psl: 193.6 1 m-201232.7 psi mo = 2500 psl: 161.4 3 m-20 1 194.0 psi c.
At Cumulative Distribution Function = 0.00135 (30 leveD:
mo = 3600 pal: 175.0 1 m-30 1 214.1 psi mg = 2500 psl: 145.8 I m-So f 178.4 psi These intervals are displayed graphically in Figure 4-1.
4.5.5 Safety Factors based on the Mean The reevaluation criteria specifies that the cube strength for type M mortar shall tu limited to ma = 2500 psi.
This leads to allowable tensile stresses para!!al to the bed joint of 50 psi for an OBE event and 83.5 psi for an SSE event.
Using the above values for the OBE and SSE events, and the 95%
confidence interval for the mean strength from the tests. Scaled to a l
cube strength of 3600 psi and 2500 psl. the following limits arise for the safety factor based on the mean:
l TABLE 4-2 l
l SAFETY FACTORS ON THE MEAN l
l Center Load Deta l OBE l
SSE l
o = 3600 psi 4.62 f SF f 5.40 2.77 I SF f 3.23 m
mo = 2500 psi 3.85 1 SF f 4.50 2.31 1 SF f 2.70 l
17
4.5.6 Probabilities of Exceedance The probabilities that the criteria specified allowable stress will exceed the available strength based on the test results are as shown in Table 4-3:
TABLE 4-3 l
PROSABluTIES OF EXCEEDANCE l
Normal Distribuelon Case Key OBE l
SSE Center Load mo = 3600 psl A
0 0
B 0
10-15 mo = 2500 psi A
0 10-16
~
B 0
10-12 1
NOTES:
the Key A gives the probability of exceedance assuming that population mean equals the sample mean.
the Key B gives the probabilities of exceedance assuming that population mean is at the lower end cf the 95% confidence Interval.
A probability of exceedance equal to 10-12 indicates that on the 12 walls will have lower capacity than average 1 wall out of 10 specified in the criteria.
A probability of exceedance less tnan 10-16 is considered to be zero.
4.6 Discussion of Results The key results for the confidence Intervals are plotted in Figure 4-1 together the OBE and SSE allowable stresses from the reevaluation criteria.
l with The confidence intervals for the data are relatively narrow although the sample It is seen that both the OBE and SSE stresses lie well below size is small.
the 'mean minus three standard deviations
- 95% confidence interval for both This is consistent with the very low probability projections.
cube strength that the reevaluation criteria stresses will exceed the actual tensile strength as presented in Table 4-3.
It can be stated that criteria specified allowable stressas will, in all practicality, neither exceed the actual tensile strength of the mortar parallel to the bed joint for an OBE event nor an SSE event.
18
Alternatively. Instead of calculating probabilities of exceedance, one may take the same data and calculate factors of safety based on the mean.
If this is done for the OBE events. using the full range of the 95% confidence interval for the population mean, and taking the extremes from both cube strength cases the safety factor lies in the range of 3.85 f SF 1 5.40 Similarly, for SSE events. the range is:
__ 2 _-
r:
2.31 1 SF 1 3.23
~
l l
l l
l l
t l
19
-.7 4
i l
1 i
+-- Re-evaluation Criteria l
l
- 60. pel 83.6 pel I
I I
I i
2 l
I i
l l
i
- u. m D
e g g KEY:
O 9 m, = 3600 pel 4
g l
- 2 m
80= 2600 pel O N$
l l
l eo 8
M l
I l
E s.
i I
u.
a-oo w
. 9 1
1 M
n n
.x n
n n
60 100 160 200 260 300 g
g,,gg i
i 96% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS ON,f t
i
{
FIGURE 4-1 CONFIDENCE INTEFIVALS FOR POPULATION STATISTICS TENSION PARALLEL TO THE BED JOINT i
s-i I
i s concLussous
~
The purpose of the analysis presented in this report was to provide a detailed
~ analysis of the available test data for tension both normal and parallel to the
_ bed joint to justify the allowable tensile stresses used for the two cases in the i
j reevaluation criteria.
[
f The values specified in the criteria for tension normal to the bed joint are for an SSE event.
A limit of 2500 l
0.5 Vm for an OBE event and 0.83Vmo a
l psi was placed on the mortar strength, m. Thus the allowable tensile e
l stresses normal to the bed joint were limited to 25.0 psi and 41.5 psi for OBE I
and SSE events respectively. In view of the statistical analysis presented in Section 3 this cut-off at 2500 psi for the mortar strength is very reasonable.
The range of safety factors for the tension normal to the bed joint based on ___
the test data and scaled to a mortar strength of 2500 psi is 2.70 to 3.22 for
- an OBE event and 1.63 to 1.94 for an SSE event. These factors of safety are based on the 95% confidence interval for the mean strength of the Test _ data.
~~
~ Considering the low probabilities of exceedance given in Table 3-4 these factors of safety are considered very adequate.
The values specified in the criteria for tension parallel to the bend joint _-are for an SSE event.
With the limit of for an OBE event and 1.67Vma 1.0 Vmo the allowable tensile 2500 psi that was placed on the mortar strength, ma stresses parallel to the bed joint were limited to 50.0 psi and 83.5 psi for OBE and SSE events respectively, in view of the statistical analysis presented in Section 4 this cut-off at 2500 psi for the mortar strength is very reasonable.
The range of safety factors for the tension parallel to the bed joint based on the test data and scaled to a mortar strength of 2500 psi is 3.85 to 4.50 for an OBE event and 2.31 to 2.70 for an SSE event. These factors of safety are based on the 95% confidence Interval for the mean strength of the test data.
Considering the low probabilities of exceedence given in Table 4-3 these factors of safety are Considered very adequate.
It is therefore concluded that the allowable tensile stresses normal to the bed joint of 25.0 and 41.5 psi for OBE and SSE events respectively and, parallel to the bed joint of 50 and 83.5 psi for OBE and SSE events respectively are resonable values to use in the reevaluation criteria for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
l l
I i
j l
21
I 6
REFERENCES 1.
Copeland. R.
E.. and Saxer. E.
8... " Tests of Structural Bond of Masonry Mortars to Concrete Block *. Proceedings. American Concrete Institute. Vol. 61. No.11. Nov. 1964.
2.
Hedstrom. R. O.. ' Load Tests of Patterned Concrete Masonry Walls".
. Proceedings. American Concrete Institute. Vol. 57. p.1265. 1961.
3.
Fishburn. C.
C.. *Effect of Morttr Properties on Strength of Masonry". Monograph 36. National Bureau of Standards.1961.
4.
Whittemore. S. L. Stang. A. H. and Parsons. D.
E..
- Structural Properties of Six Masonry Wall Constructions". Building Materials and Structures Report No. 5. National Bureau of Standards.1938.
5.
Richard. F.
E.. Moorman. R. B. B. and Woodworth.
P.,
" Strength and Stability of Concrete Masonry Walls".
Bulletin. No. 251.
Engineering Experiment Station. University of Illinois.1932.
6.
"Research Data and Discussion relating to "Specificat!on for the Design and Construction of Loadbearing Concrete Masonry **. NCMA.
1970 7.
Gulkan. P.
Mayes. R. L and Clough, R. W.. " Shaking Table Study of Single-Story Masonry Houses. Volume 1: Test Structures 1 and 2*. EERC Report No. 79/23. September 1979.
8.
Gulkan. P.
Mayes. R. L and Clough, R. W.
" Shaking Table Study of Single-Story Masonry Houses. Volume 2: Test Structures 3 and 4*. EERC Report No. 79/24. September 1979.
9.
Mayes. R. L. Omote. Y. and Clough. R. W.. *Cycile Shear Tests of Masonry Piers Masonry Piers Volume 1: Test Results". EERC Repon No. 76-8. May 1976.
10.
Livingston. A.
R., Mangotich. E. and C;kkers.
R..
- Flexural Strength of Hollow Unit Concrete Masonry Walls in the Horizontal Span".
Technical Report No. 62. NCMA. 1958.
11.
Cox. F. W. and Ennemga. J. L.
- Transverse Strength of Concrete Block Walls". Proceedings. ACl Vol. 54
- p. 951. 1958.
22
i O
ATTACHMENT 2 i
g gg) W TION FOR WALL NO. ?,,
d I
l l
L i
f
(
i f
l l
i I
l l
l
1 i
Nralear catc. noC.d42?'.-!Ke.-Gda<> -se s SHEET NO.
./.. OF. 3./.
suBaecrQ.C.:./ELWUMa.V.fE.Mst@A' r.n'AMs.
oare.
EESA2&'SE. 10... &'M+...ADJ.+. 99447/'.M.S.
cHg.a. BYiorra.M.G's'[.1/4
/
COMP. BY/DATEI
... /.4 ?.4/d 3
/
W R / Z.
No.
2 tcW/4. No. *2, a p?mRNon coate
,-17' 7//6 SGW/7/ S/D6 of COJ7&ct
/2 cow /
Csasn)"r op s</s< c.
xc.t.
z-/,
2-2, n - B Awt> 2-4,
7/ff isMJ.d'S N MD 70 86 l
//A/// 4 YZsg?
$ N AIGfS6" O f 7//S ///G/N/2 *.IUSW/A SAW f/&& YtY$ r{fffgjdj
& U/J$'V$n* C/'/A'Vd $,
CtJ/u ao 2-/,
ist g " ggi,.jp as>4./,
- E o a s x o f ".vt s t)
<4u'y' Motht:rcti'7~a rd J.{t!)jdt) (W 4 /.;f 5/kyd S/~1/24Y S"/'//'[GD k'WSS.
/$uf, f*o,4 ov'///-L goj 2 a 2-3, 2 -4,
A&"
,egiuf,
.v91.t, 7N75rouuw)76 44ypo c 7 i s4isoe C 7//6-Tects wW N//t Nadtist.).
l l
l l,
AOOO 0016 s a-s o
M Nu212 r cAtc. No.Qtdv2:.',1.e.:.#.*-SOS suBaecr..Q.C
.EMI'dd/d.t?c&. rte 'V41?.:.ei.i'x..asiC".'.':.::..
/.k/2N
/
COMP. BY/DATE
~
EN/"CMSE. 70.'VECS..dAf?t 4.""NA cun 0. eviorreTEC..!.ots.</c A
'~
& /bch;' '}AEj/ C.6N)'$6/V$
h,4).- p 0/5 N/U A.l:
d W > MsM z-f Q),dfg,/q,4/h,e: k/cbEd'.C,./'Kf roA
/s.2 % w/a a na /= s-v 54, Acicy /92o k) }H'C d WllC Y $/-
7
@ ~7l1bs),~9512(
f/Al A/l-4/oDdd ?-/, i.(gj$ov @'iboI-fl'aokJ x t)s/c/ c/Si,. dw,Fb,e 7//E 07V/6e.S,
& /2&/.,c,C. dtsJr-6-ftJ.L. EGen //Olvy N"fJD GV69#A co,/Lfe; *f ve'n/ R4L 66 /6 " Mix., DEA 3W9s W/d * 'Af2* NL NW'b^/
'/' "
ki/4LlS As L=' J/Ao10/zdy /V-eA4,,5 D, 24/67// "/*Me DEd5..
/
,y A /e.~4& l 2 - /,' lA.
b)bJ'V *I'# "~ ' !'i l##
M/
vv>f// D-321 154c '&i ;/i cn l,26E hhtej </f y 40th'! 2-(t'. /t,L( W, / h,C,t, e p c c r : w u o o p hplfs f ${if'b'sd V/[Of.'l' ty: C / V Cb~
f //,*
l b'/0f)$b l'Vf N
zapusaf witz 'I.e;% cow %/
fc oA-i A si h K'k//E&nWc~/5/lG/No.1,
&/o pels 2-z e 2 - 5, Wrrff lsa lekt,v;Yr, DO 0lN b C.(A/ !)/
/ C *'.5 kV l ~,l/'
C ti/v4 & C/]*'iv G C/.?c'> '.' w/)/fg xsc,./29/,vy j>,Pe,c pwp c,tf,'fl AOOO 0016 s a-a o l
~
Nucl cr CALC. NO.f.~.(h($.'${,'l,$f.'dS'-Nf'
.3.
. or. 3L suBaeGr. Q c..
.lcmbs&a.cp..aga,_apy,g'"eer no COMP Y/D E
,,,,f f*y
- EfMJE To 442Cs' m 1 duc57/0y3 CHK'D. BY/DATe.7//(...(0/g/fgj C//Vb4A-)/ [ON
/
Os> S @ $ R gf
&&, Ats pa >>v91 yuy._
l C./k had-f GN.i)/
C* 5* D " f L C.
% Zsen aA n.dap wiv9gopg a
]c/iA. / of Dwcf goyf 4.Lc<> pen
.)'W6f $4(&f
~
Adb d/U WASN, NbD&ds 2-2 r//ac, 2-y WML
//A ve d;aw m4,5 3;g./ 4g,,,.
c & M aic,. op f N h?'.
l i
l AOOO 0016 s a.so
i k
Nuolz r cAta. NO.C.--l4.@.-A G.#4;e-etis SHEET NO....... O F. 3 [..
SUBJECT.'.
.(.
..d d.k<.Y.d[/ d M iYa:'..Cp'..d /I[dN d[.W I [ [ DATE.
COMP. BY/DATE[
/.[*..b Y[
.SES/MWSA. 7h?.. AWCb..//DD...&f/E47<PW4.
can o. BrioATEY//G..!.0/4/,ALs w/d4.d Q -/
Mo16f
)
2./
2 2.
2.J
- 2. p 2.(-
,k r
u a y s
%)
Vfi
's'J' '
\\'4) bO
'If
/f
/f
/f r
w
,r
.lj (l
I i;
/ 2.
If og
/ i-5 b)
Y
\\?)
_j
\\
/c 7
p 7
,/
i2 ij').
( 4,
\\..
~-
/
5
}
V l $~'
y n
a., n /
x 44Y r0.t Ett 't l' U
L
- NONYScd/dc(H.p'g)gtel(Jk;y-ff, /, f /4: W)db
!. Y-Eb5? ' /2/' f.
J AOOO 0016 12-40
). ~ 9 = 8 ffs2. ///) /W/J E*.
Nucle r CALC. NO.N.N5h.M# (d@-6#8 7
..k.. OF. 3.[..
SHEET NO.
suBaeCr.QC..
$fARYhtdl77aAl.02..&/dfw27...W4At.
DATE.
/
COMP. BY/DATE..
. [,e(T
....TO
/
CHK'D. BY/DATEi'((d...<. M//dd 8NF86r
'W9E. Aff./. A(#A77.9th 4...
9 wou 2-4 uaua a
h.
if 35 fj-j'@3/
D 27
.a
.ir
.a Q..8 s
N 2/
22
}
4 2P (Y
p.4 r,
r-u.
L u
v+
a@.
a@
lb
,f7
/A
/9 2o
\\
~
/ @
w 4
JM or A
//
l2
/3 O
'S 9
to 6-7 8
O tI 1
2 l3 4
i
/
_ae i ? v./ "
/
sx2=3.a" / an:At"./ (DSI) x fph/Nris./)&"uroc6 e
e a
,f f
g ww,,,,.,. +,,\\
+\\
c a
?)& 4)7~rAcHEh Mil 5 5 4 ) -(TI TNT. L2pvacf
C Nu Iccr CALC. NO.(.~.(d@~~[4.6.~.N78 ~66J.T SHEET NO....
.OF.3/.
SUBJECT.
dd.M..
(.
...h[.
DATE.
.. b.Z f,((
COMP. BY/DATE
/
f N S/*f4. 70 R &EF.d MS. &"e 2.0.WA.
..%... inf.u/a i Cun o. BrioAT
~
/WOMI H/dlL 2-/
~ ~~bcA?hoAn ley (y,si coiv/xol wcw 4 Jac/ e//mr N
Si2e c les9in'x 4'/ = /A'.$
>< / <l. t 77/>E: A'e my: Rov n.u4., 5znc.ee9 &v) 3O/2/JfT:
- M.' s C
/ o yi.:
/
&jc EirY xxtQ eld calc */= Wall W CEAcbs,C, nyu/;l= Lff
= O$g
^
~~ ^ ^ EsYt.in/a k/4;f. & cst / = /2co
== /k/4
/Wex 3
3
~
Lf9
- - c.o off
=
/W4
/2 o o cx=77.Il* NC= W'*~v wgt6n 7e-b I. = to!""
I c
V Ic7 = z.c /6' /4
_Tg,.=- }27 '" ' (4,/ arc w/a ~)
g,tp </va Sec/ic u:
Te = c. cc '/7'.Ze; + (t - 0. 0 a 7 y) I
~
c
- d. C O } f f $ t l 4 { I ' C ' O U l 'l-D
- 32. 3 m '
=
i, g/Ai,PufYl/n/MH=[
= j/ft = o,2/r i&pc,1 7eAir. -
- c. H7 < = L s.tg y 4-:% -
c.1 G t-AOOO 0016 2-s o
l 6ilfi Nuclocr CALC. NO.(..Y.dkN.YrT.IM ~86
. 2... O F. 3.[..
SHEET NO.
SUBJECT.
d[h /// CM.6[I dh/8.V. f!/((oATE.
/
........ /..k.(..
/
/
/
COMP. BY/DATE Y
NE h '?E.. $00?. Od3EC'^/5 Cua o. BrioATE 7/-/c.../rfa)./yj
//(l/C/
WK== f00
= lJY3 Xfo Jf OcT/,ec# S q).= 4 f4 y 5
k En Cf. 2 4 N f,g_ f k== 6s do c,A 5 (' CMTP'*7" &/LG V, '7/t /ss i
(J$=t.<<o-/j:: hee,os Mosc oc cuem, st'g.2 ca.
/
7f
//*C95/
7 07/
R 7'dteC&,=c.Pt/jlM07f=
f 07/
on c =.a.az m
kh,C:
4
- bkVf o, p 7 fe^4b Qsf "A2 V{ XofJf=
o, cs ?
47,=c.ftf
- 0. Zo 3 SE Cc4 $, /4rf]ti7~
9; =-A c f.e s. 7/ v'
-2fo '
fu '
y=(/-o.f.i)f-"1/fo Nl.rac' R
7//ma r &c bz n,ouz q, = poia ces thA= 5 WM4 Colc. /7 s/:g's-VNS
$h5C &lcA/f 5 No h -
u
=
' !/
l ~{C f
/&f)y T Y = N /-c.fL)-
y j _.
g_,4,, f /J
=c
~
y d
c/f 7
AOOO 0016 12 ao
i Nu:Iccr CALC.N 7.M4.Tfdh.IddEY *#88 SHEET NO...... O F...h.[..
(,
.. dd N. (/d MM..#[.(
Ibii.Up'.l//((DATE.
SUBJECT.
COMP BY/DATE[.CC..[././ ((
f
..$5.h$$$.,.
..(VNC.$..hk
...hWNV!05..
CHK'D. 81/DATE. ijg...fcjgyg3 h
g~ 0()A)/
l h 'sI
{a,=-Aergr?p=-d9j9fbc" (9
y = (i-s,i o>p = 2 r 7 g n / a c '
ys u,-o-s.u>7G;g]= [y]sa e ll}
v AOOO 0016 e 2.s o
m NucIc r CALC. NO. $~ /.M.90.~ #.'7.7..44N~ ##8 l
SHEET NO.,.Y.
. OF. 3[..
/[
LJ/..@...
d.[O/.I/.
.. I DATE.
d[.
SUBJ ECT..
/
COMP. BY/DATE.[.
/..k. //.h
/
/
?EMWSE.. 72. MGK..tfeel G7E4Z~/P^/.4..
' f//c...sc/.ti/63 Cun o. BYioATE
~
~~
\\
/=2 (If )
h/ rS
/kM4R4'.s
/lo ])2 N o, 4
SSE CaNB.
ode CON $
/
/. MAS $ *D4l'A lpE/t 7
4.y/
wat 2 a,nc, y
. u-cac. gir op sr,
- d. $1Alci QH=
6
/dr fak Rn, THE*'
/b
- f0 1J No ygsivfsiT 4
/.t/
Recu.
J%t)Lt. Alo. ;2- /
M4 >.5 g //Vnc//Atd'T f.06 /Aynf A000 0016 i z.a o
- O h2JNuciocr C!
.C{f
[#~ W CALC.NO.
SnEET NO....!..... OF..
' SUBJECT.Y
~..
Q$N8 $N.$.N8$W
..Wh DATE.
/
COMP. BY/DATE [.
.. n N.
/y
..[ ES t oits E. 7.D Nfl.C.S A:bb 't QUESTicMs Cua 0. BYiDATETA/C..f.?/?l/E3 l l
% FALL 2 62AC14GO SECTICMS Icv lW $Altb> ' Wh SBCh IL
.v y
e' y.h>m Q~
for izw M rwp.
n t-2/*P, b=n*
N f
t 'n t. = r
- 3 h h 2 [.I//*
O 4, = 4,. '=
'%eup o.ozop d
//
g#
an.a.nai. nom
. f)(, =
4hMftsc/e;p s st" bd fC
' 2
- E
- 9
= o.co di r l2.W le$15 l3-
)
b*,/ f "t1 p >r - yn = } o.eo// r'+ 2 x o.oodiy ' o, oofi4-
= o./oy9 kg/= o./o y94 c.ra =. o. 7jy " < t '-A u '
9A' f-/
E z.
cy = 3-N + f dr {c/- M
-I
* x o, yi/ v 8x o.o def x (d,ett - c.7'h = Lo./6 '"
~
s J
tot.
$ty//Adk//h)bfcT-f Wh
/MthA k
/?l Nk'l*b lfC4
$hV fsII.}
A*
derd A 6,g a St.
f 6 l[Fhr14)= KP/g
o.o2o[
3-9 l)?!=
=. c\\ o o f y
/?. X y;E//
fz.
h*0./25Y, hc/ = q/2.l g ySG= o,ff f < t{j #
f et 8
' c y = y/ dx q t y y +,' u xo.eaql,7(V.C!!-c.rW)
.T Sp b
AOOO 0016 i s.a o
=~ 7 7 9 '^' f
('e: M4lLf. $,,..i:,.y &),
,p,.
.../-e
l
(,
$ Nuc! ear cate.uO.Q.7,@cz.;.(6.Teo-- vo.r-SuEET NO.... N... OF.. /......
'susaEcr....Q.C
- ...&Ddu'n Goss. o/a. st/4 towny.... oxrE......................... y...
COMP. BY/oATE
.s.
}......ma..<.4.. evNase ro nee'.c,10s't. avesriaus...... eaa.o. oriox,,
..whi/sy S ENE &lbS V h/A/,'M/Ad, CPACA Ef ~fEC7/ons 6M? ~
., ' t
_ VGR f)?A-/\\/-ourorriA"c rm r'..
mg y
h5 /d 55/,0 Y W W h
A
'..'2 l
A r 6 * /d +
E i
b'z 2 +.5 = l' i,
~
I
/
.4
./
c/= dl2 = 7: d'2Vlg. = 3.'9/.3 g- ' }. --
W ~W C24CNED-SfGk $
1
, Ag = 0. $a 7 0 t fe a
3
- fg, m.
z *.2 kt7
\\. &
- ?f =
f = AE g/ =* 0 A*f/4' x f.hf '
y.A\\
'tr
= o. o o l'o d
. ; >1f = 0. /2 /d g
- -{gg
~
.. [ = jo,/:/f' + 2.Voh/4' - 04/6' 5 7x e rr b ac; a u
=c?.324 Ncl= c,ffdx 3. 6/] =- / VJ2- >(
7' /Imru Acben
'7Ej. A~c' o V0, M c-/'a /, N r
lEb 7%
T Te w n (ci p o in.c.z c= r a~pa. m ca 7
]
Ifd f== c)c7 2%'7x R'Q?fc
.. S
= A, 7 =. 4,>i.'
= w s tc c' = -fAf A. i.s - (.s-d.(kct-d)%]
= l { a y -- r ( i. w /., 0 4,J h
hI*h h Tey.A4As.N 7
@i@Nucicar CALC.NO.
E ~~
$~
~OT
!b... OF. k..
SHEET NO.
SUBJECT...
.C.
- r.. $$ W.'$. k!/d. I'.h.H. Q^ &it'!DN.0)/.12A ll-DATE.
COMP. BY/DATE [4.h..
. i5' A
/
WPCAS,E TO Ng.g_'s Mh 't. D_d6s90gs..
cHn O. av10ArWNC..M/At/13 V (OUT OF PtANG SME&
n i k= o,iJf 'k d.
i.ysi
=
/
~
72 s. ta 7 / 417 x * #'l,'j##- 8 = //. K lc
\\
~
C+ f (it xi.as3 - ii < ri,421.orbivrshy/dd4 0 '~ '
Z l[ A kd - (4-4 ')(kc/- d)J n A -(d'- k)*
r
. [a a i.n/- u x a.us -pr>fn 4?x 0 aMi.+1-<not g-i.
.f7.G3'NN6"S&/o
=
_ 9 = l- [h ke -- (b-L'W/cg - C f i
= f (it xi. srs '- is -(/. yss -/. ir.f]
= /l $0 lN
/$ S /NI,0 v' G 17.0 V V
=
1L' ryrx r idy Cht4KINC AfE4,
- Y $
G CD v G*
7
[
= i s. s c '" % g ".z r w YOti l$
C T2)
A v =~ idSV x 97t =/2,47 '"Yfh Sie 0 '" AG7kai w4a. cMcheD.FecAw of e72bM/.Gpess.
V ACOO 0016 I t-e o
..t
1
[ WE Nuo100r cat.c.no..t.'.'"?..'Eer.P.20-car sneer so...#.... or.#/..
suaaecr...#.G.
. / M M ( m f. f o.a..v,/+.. # # ta u e y.
oArE..................
COMP. SY/DATE
.[, UE I Abb L CdvGSyggg,,, gpg,0. BYIDATE&[ C..,.9 Y/ E3 Y
]..........wd.4 4..R ESPONSE 70 $/Ed!S Dur OF PLANE 6M4g, GK Nb3R of
$ 3 J+'4 4/ CAAC&h.
JacAew op MwAesL CPAw bk.s-En'c//cc no7' 37/owy,, DwbA. A; Rwlw/.
//
W lh.5"?Af Cf Obb.
P-f :l /[
[z[
A c/ =.66'zf/s. = d Pid
fu, /
'l
~
A,'= o 3c7 C w
s ~r A.r 2.*]xq367 W VS
~
S.~ b c/
At x /g x2fis'
)
(},L fostos t 2 x aisve'-o,ita = 092.2.
c
~
~k*c/= off a x %,2/ f = /.' a if " > d '
- 7. iffm i ctios.'
4
~e n k = 0 4 2,7 tg = x22 7 "
[= 0,$d/ s1r L-f /} M f
?
o/c p*
c =
ht( x Aisf - /> < o.2 tyget.7-]= 9 4'o [
s' f.
r
-l-
$ Yl1? f ~ // / O, t L f f L f /} M d$C]W f),[,)./,g L
= a f 9-7 m Vi6 'r ta y l$ Yl' E E ? -- / / / o.;L f
- llSo IN g "[h z
i, lx[=,,,5,.: yya '"Xctrn o
'=
s e c a n ii,,u : a n,, a, ei u, / o u,g y g,,,,,,
id
= c Q f v /4 cf = fc mXy y
A000 0016 s a.s o
d3 Nucloar
~
CALC. NO..
SHEET NO
.[.... OF. d!.
c u satic i. 0. 0 h/$ 4/dsh/A0f./YbWhl'.. A%ddboATE.
COMP. GY/DATE..[.@. /..k..dl.8I A FSPONSE TO IVRd'S bbb 'L tttJ5s7tofS
~
cenD.Bv/DATEf/6.{.WI/83 \\.
7-
~
bA2 CAVict.69 J'EC//oM hat /2 bha ~AM4L Re)= od-c. o,p sv/'eu-.,c6cr6 se 9a c,e.seke-i> Pecdon.Y
,.zie w3,,f,
- p. n m @
E, = z f x /o ,or1, &c=?* *'"'P "*
I c/ = ?.//t "
te/ = a.12f x f.fif-A YPi
- gr.
< e/- kc/ = fp t - 991 = 2. U p/),,q' uoa7'- '"> N$9t' fqtif7/oM a,e d&n2>iaq, s/72errEI.No/WAl76 /Typ fe/As',
s i,Yh*tz/A/ykgka!)
Er _
- n. x u3 x a. 7 ' Nh, z,
' g, 933z x t. 2.
~
kAtl'
- /OMlN l R V""'"" FPS L.)
y f =
12 /Mv/.kW n x i. <et jx
~
c
.z, v.r. a 5 9 t//2./W/y/'
ix, c.oy,e. (7 s r)
~
/Vdk.r s y w y a a n, n a m u m s,,r.a,e..
i.
ilN Cf CORNM 5,0f blls'/byp y
$hC, h/klCWS0h/, $X,W CYffYER. /3 C&/f/Co4-[
l' AWiAL CokI,pR.
& 1.4 y /f c a c c7 e e,t,_y,,o A x 14 L d
a
[EN$1o N,. sf ANf, wi// //8 7A" /cfg &.5*Tcr/
- 000 00 8 is se e4 W&rc// ff *47 7NA
. ojo- & A 4.fS T / C CNf
cpu service CALC.NO..h.%..N.
.2[
Oyster Creek Mlear SindUn SHEET NO. /. 0F 3/---d Reevaluation of Concrete Masonry Wall D AT E..........
SusJECT
. NBC IE Bulletin 60 - 1.1
, O,V COMP. BYlDAT
,,A...hd @.M
.W.Y i..
CHK'D. SYlDAT
. /[.(/[/
l.t.Y u
.M I/M[ kN" [7?C 6
l l __ __
// bag. g.pm awnis Yh h,<<-
~
h Y$ f WN.
'i'~
mr
,e.
kf *,
/ 0.95))= 'O 05 0 a-i <za a>= o w'"
4 a
y:
= p, [/pL /N k
d 1l, 0
/ 2-o,00h/ Y b
g tz / Otr
$ s O*0A iY S YesC obi
- O 9 0 $1 f ;l~ 0, /g fof. y,o.,n v7 =..;,y ;~
- u. u ~. 4.
p g
6,}*Y 0,[0L t
(,) 4j% o, ) o ki)
=s ],,p /f 'Y CA E y
fi'.)k4 lN ! _k.. b$!1L..Gl0 '^'
N
&c14.YH of kW'"(7
- "" M
- 'U U
[= ~Z o, / t/= 7
x tM= -0. +2r/ f/'
h
- cwe, ikE N.. _.
ff f Af, a
a (a,r
.l'%.aa (se itta r 2-/. s
~..
4000 0016
M Nucioar
~
CALC.NO.@2. Of.~.
.~
[.#~#OE l
saccr uo...lk... or.. 3.l......
suaseCr...Q.C b
.. P f E W /d N 4!pp..A N 2 M y.... W 44/-carn................
./ 41#1 COMP. DY/DATE.[U8sc...LP.)M/Ej
............ @6SP0//G -70 Afec 'S ifbb 't QUESrtogr
.:nK O.avioAre h/?JL CRAc,le2 b
S&T/ oN d /2D *'/ WNAd-
~
~ ~
71x 62.Ryr/p-2/.rt-'<fff_
~
~_
J
- 2. sis
- uw d-kg /17s "
m a.,sa,-
a-a un n
. at= "L';:!':l'kr/ = u7/uj^w'e r
wsa.[ j; = a; y. u,j= a n uy
^
~~
h W'0 W $
/%y WA/ L.
.l - I! ON'f I f
AOOO 0016 Ia so
f cAuc. nO.G6 der..tne.-fd2r-d'E Nuclo r
~ ~ ~ ~
SHEET NO....!.... OF. 3[..
suBancr RC
.EfMA4WdZ~ldNQMMM*A)'. WALL. oArn..........,.
2 COMP. BY/DATE g
~
....V E5foVSE To Nytb 4DD'l llUE'iH OMf..
can a.Briorre.ep pje...,.a y,
a...
WALL 2-I,.Mnn? '. i :.,
/
S.44.l-T Couc. TCerun f%n/J tioL 7s $t D f
.s.
Av) s//E4nis 9 a'7%rrers @ Ve74/ saip;fs p ~
~~
~ ~~
4.52 448, (avif ]s.r)
(ccer57 hemww '
\\
. vfyz;,
11 s s.
13 a.y s.t-
/s vik ap+b k u 4 4 F l y x m
%-- z Q.
y i.tr-(
~
if"
'1 qu 'qf r
't L
'tg;%
g p sen>
.I N N0%,
3\\%# @
~
~
P p
j IIIj.1f\\
';g h bsb 'fg/,
'l /
p g s c
~
gab (c
- 'p; -
4.ayt a
S j pis i
g q gI,b O
0 4
i lL-(,g,-f i
z
.t y
X. = //.J W t
/
Ok' iD 2 Stf ll~ f ys s s < n a a w ~ a c..-, n -,e c a s.
?. V r>6e su,op 6.
AOOO 0016 t a-s o
l dh) NUC0GGI' CALU.NOh I-?.T[M"Id28"#8*E SHEER NO.
.. OF.. N.f,
suBJeci. 5?.C.'
.'l $t414 Z. Lid.. q :. si.OiJ.hu' V.W4 L :. DA1 C.
,, A'(6 PO,4 /5Y 70 f) flC h,. fab l,.8.(,'hT/6YQ'. CHICD. UY/UAl -.
g' COMP. DY/DAT I[ (,.. /.v.b'//[,',
I t ' A'.i 2- /, A fob GL Sb
/
&_kg[ g CoWC. Sh' 6CD L f04 hk'(Of ?[ 4$l'
'l'
^T
/k D >Wf[?Qf?'(??r @ H/ f &,pfc gv C/96 CoAs C (4 W PJs) a]
2, 2/
Ll, 4]
zL
~ ~ ~ - - - - -
h(Nl
(
.y y (i.i )
()
N'k Vi) k
(
g
~
f-
/
g N
l
//
/y
/y /
A, Y
- ^
9/p g
pt NAck)S)J l
t!
@ADE M
"qY (h) b V.!)
./
$k4h gghyq $u /'
fV 7ppr}-
P T
i
< w f,. lb f
~
C
.i e
g ig.
q
.mid Q.)
3
- 7)
U';
/,
7 y
7 to b
~
se.
/ L g,y, '
i z
?
y K...
//. 3 ff,
'h.h5 4 ak' r.,4 n i H[
(. $
/, 5, / h /4: {}/ ldb.
- f..* s v4 Co u Y/p d rg (g,.,,y p(,(..l.jf j..
/
- . !/ O>G.
- 1cyy> Cr i
AOOO 0016 t a.a o 2.
p = anb.syu M1R.
~
1 l
Nuciocr cruc.no.Ch@.02-AM.:. 3M-/cs 5
SHEET NO...b.. OF..d.l..
l SUBJECT.'.
.(.
[d.((/ d ((# M. % M /[#Md.W / /[.DATE...............,.........
- "*~"*^'
%E6 POME To N8d 'S AnL QVESncys c"" "~ c
^* /u war % w,n=.e n.
~5/Egl' yceise 27Hcui5 yazAmL E &b.a Zh-w g//cyniTffi6xdiETW77o'bs.~s45Nfi ~
h5
@ s 52 con /8 (Unid 5 T p
'hya
/q k
r 1-ry: I'l-t 4 n
84.
u a
7 L
/ra SY/Ofw9 3://<tssu & i%xe h,iN G" 00f' QoAnf., (c/and k.: > ~ ~ ~ ~ zy - a-1.sg49 .1.i u. , vpiry /q r u tr =/z.]
- k y
7 4 4 n /" \\ !1' ('l ? 19 y'P G ic y is 9-ie f,- 76$" y itf--f& fD&8 &for ! @,zien 6 -$/od z0/ R3 //o a] I =t45 garf k S @) D D . "7 s 7 L i.- -ly. t} ,, y' . y, = M Q Eckha .LQg-Q,) Q +MM x "Wu pg,n i ,V j '- 5.':..p + 4, c q
- 4. /hid cu;n<deanm &<g1;).'f' y,jjlh,rg(,ygg.-
..e & n < < <,. + - y,.. i. ;s //.,7_.. z 7 y.si. 3 p r.
- "^"
- . -i = /
e.
1 Nuciccr e,Lc ucc.49_,gf.ppp_._g4(g,.,,g .. OF..h,. SHEET NO.. SUBJECT.'.NC.. ../. 64.$ [///[..c.4),cf.g[,4fgg6C ///4[ HATE. "" ""^*' NY E' EY . 2....E.. 6.. P.. O..N.. S.E.....T..O N.C.w...o. A..d..a..b.. i f.u..i.s..t.i.c..it/cHK.D. BY/DATC P[,/ h.../.Q/ / Y/Dd* ////4bb 5 ~ ~ ?S0[' l'i'7E*$ E (d'{ c' N,' /$6 val CP4l40f.200&i & SVyG/infoni c' iti~, /$6, /h )</$.2 (NO ~ , $ c 4 m,c & ~. w t, > r-n iz,a. Asc~p ca Will sh,spf. i aiie sw,ec c .e E- &th (/E J Sk, blV&S N~ll C Y ff. f Q/t'cTld'(EC _Z~ = If.2.ff k y)= ll g # 5 = 28 'F7 //z/g = t/$ i/ X 0101C5E/Pa'f ' c Y = (RU, t" y r weu;ryno k = t7!^' Y &lsr~ 2*""M ,g /./f 9j /R ./' i s i !t. Y ' /c = x : c/2/ic,f m 9. gjp,,r'._ c il x l' $ 2 J-f 'I Y lb $$~ /A/sh f[b A l ~_ f fj'- L j C/C. C' 0 $f = N/A J L gz ~t fW / f 5 1-( / - o. o f / ll 0 Y /N 25 = J. NlAll l}f/l'hAfffj =, j lshg = y ],,j { '~ p~ 4 lb ~ l/\\'f ti h.}J$, ;- y AOOO 0016 i z-s o
1 ) NucIocr cate.no4ydf> g.cy.g -ooc SHEET NO.. M... OF. 5/.. ( SUBJECTN(.. ~[I ./// 4:'.#[Cd' M d'd.... g//.I DATE. 3 / COMP. BY/DATE [ C4./. /O /- -r [.,eT / ,[t /f,[Jh/,kh//fff',.f'*f[,'/- /,h*7t'l-CHK'D. BY/DATE f.... ,tf /j,, fry 7; nle !C2,"/ Add 6/RAMMSp? Ec4IovV Mkb MacP Ws:. *2 / -;G / 06 fo, hfS/ $ ~~ b E Y10 l [ J.. f = 9.' / C / 1 I Ai/,Ai f ll g- / b/= 9lz.//ll'* = //f ' 'Y ' d y ac ui -s z&n re. ,Gy=".71/ cJ~t~- Yo 71~ = 6 )/ $ DF fgd,l-ct,,,- oyqf s Cfd V= 0 hj.',",- l ) pe;u,q,4gxwjss.y-ll o r y a. +F c - lAl')l-/ N (iy = -/ ofy < aff =-/f{o RC f I /= ( l-o, fc) / = u t V L Ci 0 5 ( C'N I /Wl) t s q, = -f, c f j v'q f V = ~ D V G,, = li - o. i'i ) y = 2 6 0 &' A000 0016 2 so
1 Nu21ccr cite. so.G.tyg.-gg.c, 54;p -ac,v-SHEET NO..N.h.. OF. 3).. suasecr'..dC.. ... 4d'.&l'A&MLa..o,E.&/,4.rLw,5y. WJ//pATE. .M...E.. 6..P...C.W...O.c.". . 7.p.../.././d6 $*,.M b /. (d..CES/h..w.. s '"."o., ',o,{f.?. y?g;l..'.jff,,,i, 3
- ^
/ l(//\\ l L &.'l NAS6 ilai 70666 /dPUT* Abbe No' P2 (lb ) l b/ifSS on ccoic. ; S&/v/4L'k.c ~~n agw ou s s e e a.ia. / t- /,Neu M D /cic
- y iz
. yg> /7 ol'b eM c Dr19', 3/ /f
- /6 V
S /Nj):o')~ t=0n ft/G 2y 17 .fp'
- 2. 0
/5 b+sup 2.dGm?icu ci: Fi zg /[
- Jy
~[ if..-~~ iniwr sa 4-6, ~ /o 7 3 p.cy,147nT to .20 .y) y zf z( 7p -g- / ME NE6/c < fu $/N Cf & y < < } A k b Lf %f e2 4 f._ ) lE2 alb Calc [c,r j-},1 ~ FZ= hty,,;] [n#,7fl &!"u] i {$ $? G Ol$ G' ) c.en,j
- l 9
9 AOOO OO16 :.so e ^#
SHEET NO..k.*/... OF..d[.. SUEJECT.. M.. [$ ..M DATE. GUES/ u }'$......COMP. BY/DATE../d..... 2ESPONSE TO 'YkC 'g' AbD 'l Walt *7"k ' Mobet.' WL'l . !L ?d. )0'"$L ---- i \\ __ 5l64b # C R'_ ?Y'El'.$i.'t N9/ d !. Y AuD T//l'A'U^ '7 t e H;'3. F '/8 S~vo Cs TEE cos/8, ---fr u i. icp,4 v,e '@ @ j'" "v" @ .,,,, sa, ore @a,ac w,o, ya C. ',,, 4. 4 b e! =67 1 '? q. u ir 1 a .r. } @ @ y- .'l.n - - [g,- c A n n1 n y,.,np6 g> er g f g bb0 180
- V hip l 'I N i, (firU
(, V ** ~ it a a u 4// @ s Q Co/ZNEA s OP 8 4 fj ,, i U- >M-t,j i ,y es-I m s y V Q{fg::d 9 to f. 7 s= r y ~ O @ ga.y 1 (.vy=Sc fp3e\\ .A Icoana \\ d d' h \\ 4 f. f g j y ux, e v.i n / a s i.,e / <xi u.t" f ca sf) +0 + 4
Nu Iccr CALC. nod 7[8487MY.".Cd.7/l * #Cb~ SHEET NO...k... OF. 3[. suenc,..QC ;... fgnflu477pxg..gstway..wta... on,,.. EE' WSE..k'@E.$4 sh)ft,h4 ti $oj{.... c5o'.BN?c?,e5/ b /k 3 f skL.s ar c. rnurn ysiviu 77 ire 2, n,.nn-gyp. 9 r/c s.,/>ph a oBE coxiB. G As = ) rHeninasri:n _ _ _ _ _ "_ t.f-u 3; ' JL R~ 35 D p. a n a 27 s,. M i, @ =/u ? N kly/\\. .y-n tor to1,n igf ist,, ay ir-- m 1sy 't>5 " ny nf M F/ /29 w( s11* nee 4 si4 it is i9 e @~ \\ + sy st-d // oa s3 3, 0 // / 6-7 g 9 /c <r" @t v,o D ,\\ \\ \\ / f }9 Id /f g f. w y ux, e v.i n / nn. i., e / sxiu.t" f (ag-) e' e e g 4 +
Nuciocr extc. ngr.4fpg,/_5."..g.pp caz-SHEET NO..Nh.. OF N/.. SUSJ ECT... . MM.N.. M[4N((...MIM. DATE. /466PCH2 70 /WdC5 4DD'/ M S@ Q g g( l .o*,',',9{,, j ih ..? HEALNft-RD0..$. NNShh E'!/'/'h A ? f c / g;,,I., pf; ) Ncti/L /A Yiti:. REA< fier us STE Cu < tis. 31 ~~~ ~ " ' QL ff 35 JJ- _/' @ w2 u a r } @e,n.o @.,yn.e .,a .n-h;ccm.u) /N' d \\,,n m in,n ze.- '"O iv u- .u.
- g g.
is . g va S e'" yu ' c :Iz l$ // /S /9 go \\ \\ t / n h sa is se <r 3, @ 4 6-7 y 9 /c x 5 _h P s f Jax Ca v./ t' / <xa - 3.a / axt:J.t " f (p g/ ) i e c
i l Nuslocr CAtc. no.4-??M.'.-50. -9NP - dor SHEET NO...N... OF. 3f/. SUBJECT ;. . #M.M.. d44/ ...M I M.. DATE. COMP. BY/DATE../d*-:.(.. .K9/4.2d MtHK'D. BY/DATE.. 7/.k.../..#.d. E.F?6#E @.dN.h A N N ./.'.JN///J l_Shmt.cu.<7 5Ynti1 (~' !"k.Vt./. Supt > f.r A r* l' ('tTortir />t i' ' ~...... waiia. u han. sem fas ce a x e a ^ rs' 31 - h ir ~~ 35 s.t-qil__ 4 Q. 24 27 29 E? Jo i D @ y i., 4:ar H&;g n ff'd /23 ti l2V 1L ty Lf' _ gj ' , 22 ? /$V //f s Ph d7 S tr7 5 l$ // /A /9 to \\ h 4 A // ta sj \\ 'M 't-A, @ s Y \\ \\ 9 to 6 7 g-s \\ 8 i a s o ,x Wf axi:J.t'9' f (ggf) f J ex, @ v./ H ' / ax2.:3.o e u 4 f'
1 Nuciccr CALC.N
- /N.7. /N.~.8I7d - /8[
SHEET NO.. Mb...OF. 3.f.. C f 4 /A O M M.. M k M [ [.. M M M.. sueJECT. DATE. 7'O NBC '614bb't. QC55710NS . K/illid / CQSYCOMP. BY/DATE. '[ ..../0 s.h .9/ s /dESPR%^E.f ~~Shf!.c cac C&c64>'.:s pts:& aL Ys /sD Ds,s,M-.,/ /.H cug.o.Briorre H oy sitacin.; sxe., a w WDs.ruppr: Civ ss&= ccsua (sup.sr) = y - ~~g - - E /' @ D _-2 .a a I @ N Cost A Rfh g tt_ ... 2/' l0b 22 & \\ ,25 ty LT 7 4 n ~ a@y;yu@ u @ f 5 u' ,p j ge,qr, eN fesO' 'bi a si a i9 @g fI @ \\a,- fp +6; @ a. , y' qy# p k g #e i u p d // % JC sa i3 o4t og-9 .l
- D 4
6 7 g 9 to Des @we & 33$N./ s. pc ' f}-f$ \\ ~. I7 "3 f n 2' 2 3 4 e k f (pgf) f J ax @ v./ tt / <xa - 3.o / e xi : s.t i e e f +' f
( Nuclocr CAtC.uC G /S(2 d @.-E R M -C G C* SHEET NO.
- 7... OF..N[..
C R E H fl u A W p M e.. d M w a y.. w w.. Dx,:. SUBJECT : .........~........,, COMP. Bv/DATEh./ " l'f5P015d= 7C NEd,'S AbbL. cffUESj~tO//6 gyll2-/tMcMg I cHK,0. BY/L' ATE. /... f.Q Z ll}' L ~' } Ak.b S?Ed.l c Cs At SXee rw c PAe.a t/.:.: ' ist> 70 n n.- (/fsz) 3//912ina', J k sus in bh 6 [st/>,nX 65 082' Cedi8 4 3/ k /i .if J.t-p? -,,e w 2 a r a a L, @ @f O v.v A a .y-U,, n " /, c .,21 ,, 2 4 ir -7 7 6 a 4. u a @w 2@ p @v v Il si if 19 ao e \\ es f*g j WJ 4*8 / 14 is-A h <dt n i3 D I / 3 4 7 P \\ f /o O \\ s\\ x i c y .s a x,. e v.i n / s x s i.a e/ axi-i.t" f (agf) e s Y .l ' p'
/ l NucIocr c,tc. yo,$,d.@, ?.E'v-N~ SHEET NO..h OF.N (( [I ((/[ [ M 6[./I/M [Cd ./M[M dd DATE... SUBJECT ,ersaccu n.v:w.9 son...i egusaw,;.. co"" av'o^'c %g'a ~/ '9'?O c CHK'D. BY/DATE 7 d../A/s//gr] NA/A0VdY CE' EEJulI3^ 9 J'K4.lL 2 ~ TEW E~l 2~2 ~# 2 '* Y ~ ... _.h jgg,,,i ,, fY y A y_}'^' y !!d'" iyRd' /d' p '" id F " / 46 '" /,lyg,y 7' i y' p-d" -3 l .f ' 7//ubusr.s S'* l C* Bs.<ti L,,?A rVii,ey s7A' c <DG b l T$A C k i b //52bcA L Afix/' ~
- I' Go '6 '^'
W @ /d'" ),/c,y,g c,y n / e/&,e= ks.s m.Le w .hua-o-W C F M '" ~ ~~ ~ 2 l \\ g ' x 7,.o p o o jz c)pa r./.v 6; Atoav.c ( .Gl-L O G E Su,p/> w / ya5 ya5 / [ 9 '7 '*pc..ie lo m hv7.efuein/>;/e upp e A 6 s ivona /~~A'89 RAA/6E,(cioO d.6o f>o2 g g j - y,zg p' M5,Pom? 4ccel, dEG -47
- 3(A
(?) cre 7/ ft h ([l ffCf.(( // $l$6~' LO2bO d $4 a IC'WOTY T S ?.. . -. N O. h 0.-... _. Y0 Gx. sA en r c, ge- - 79 - 3 !f z y ~ ~ S7222 s,%us.L o 86 21& 2-257o { iTep 7m7's(psz ) Tr& MK 222a 0L/f0f .'A A 5 Gl$$ ' lb.f fa Y fC TJ/ra rrbw(ps='> Sre iy:; ,y fkt'.L L.:/, j U, n.in /' i /[$ (ff t /ZeAc/fes-uA rn /c g; k ~.... - - AOOO 0016 t 2-e o
i G-tgo2-160-Bro-cef @ Nuciocr ^'y" f,", g, ",, ';" ' ',yJ ', ",, ,u,,,er...o c .24MMMnm*9""- );'; ;;,;;; ""sa.yju g yt ~ \\ ...........&.f.4 % ^'*T !" M ? " ' " " " &A d*'3 < Q 'rVM > 4-w m e-uyour ce 4 82AC/MGS ( h hg 4 g s 4 3 p e% a 4 k '* m c 4% s IP4 %V C-g o r v u g l-p o qq s {aa v3 4 9i u p ? m \\l5 %[9 57 bzs e ,.4 s Irl b M i 2 8 il s s n tt %. 3,~, w o x a as .s N N g w b n 'g M 'ls]3 he$ R 4 2,, L 4 4.,-- A s g m k k i k $e$ s4 ,, o L
- > u..
e44 "43 h s ~ m a % 4 <g f Q f g 4 0 >c %s. g x s ~i v m,- o 4 AOOO 0016 12 40 --}}