ML20086U101

Containment Bldg Post-Tensioning Sys Three-Yr Surveillance

ML20086U101
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	10/31/1974
From:	Katanics G, Eric Kim, Pfeifer B BECHTEL POWER CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20086U063	List: ML20086U062 ML20086U070 ML20086U079 ML20086U085 ML20086U094 ML20086U095 ML20086U101 ML20086U104 ML20086U111 ML20086U117
References
NUDOCS 9201070207
Download: ML20086U101 (26)

Text

J GrLY.

. _mw s

i' 1

],

i

?

I (O

]

T i

i-6 I

e bl WISCO!JSIll ELECTRIC POWER

[f COMPANY (r:

e

.h WISCOtlSIN MICilIGAN POWER j

COMPANY POIllT BEACH NUCLEAR POWEP PLANT UNIT NO. 2 i

r sv h

CONTAINMENT BUILDING POST-TENSIONING SYSTEM TilREE-YJAR SURVEILLANCE

)

By M k.

E. Y. Kim m

'N, Reviewed By c-

.u.'. pi b~ =

I b

W. I ifer i d

Decht.el Power Corporation N'

m4 l

San Francisco, California Approved By _VG. Katanica 8

October 1974

. s.b l O7Y['O7 91 ! !'[; ]

w nn --

v g.,(.

P prir(

t

. +f h*[T9',

. f j t,L.

s%istll':7-%{Qg}4Q: p,i, ~,

.g

.w.,

s I

}

1 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS g.s i

t Section Paqc l

1.n INTRODUCTION 1-1 I j i

2.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 1-1 i

f 2.1 Summary 1-1 I

3 2.2 Conclusions 2-1 l

t f

1. 0 GENERAL 3-1 1

i 4.0 TENDON FILLER AND END AC110 RAGE ASSEMDLY 4-1 4.1 Sheathing Piller 4-1 4

4.2 End Achorage Assembly 4-1 5.0 DETENSIONING AND WIRE REMOVAL 5-1 5.1 Lift-Off Forces 5-1 5.2 Wire Inspection 5-2 a.)

Discontinuous Wires 5-2 6.0 o

WIRE TESTING 6-1

'/;

6.1 Specimen Selection and Preparation 6-1 p

6.2 Test Equipment 6-1 j

6.3 Test Equipment Calibration 6-2 6.g Wire Test Procedure - Long Samples 6-2 g

6.5 Test Results 6-3 6.5.1 Percent Elongation at Ultimate Strength 6-3 g

3 6.5.2 Yield Strength 6-3 6.5.3 Ultimate Strength 6-3 6.5.4 Comparison With Original Acceptance Test Data 6-3 6.5.5 Fracture Characteristics 6-4 6.5.6 Specimens with Surface Defects 6-4 7.0 RI: TENSIONING AND FILLER INSTALLATION 7-1 t

k 4

^

i w

+w

); y*;

u

. [07 Y.k,(il x

('

I I

I i

i l

LIST Ol' l'IGUltES O

1 i

Tit 1e 2

l' i.,<t u r e---

l i

1-1 Location and Identification of

~

Surveillance Tendone

's - 1 Averago Normalized Wire Force vs.

Time - 1toop Tendons i

N(>rmalized Wiro Force v3 Titre -

'.-2 Vertical Tendons 6-1 Average Nortaalized Wire Force vs.

pj.

Time - Dorte Tendons

')

Wire Test Machine Assembly 61

1. f D-1 theu D-9 Wire Inspection Data Sheetr.

1:- l t br u 1:-9 Tendon End Anchorage Sketches 8g9. '

y n

V

.I

g l.

l I

2 r

a

/

P A

y zs "9

Ph O

9 54'l lii k

hy

,, ~

p...

.at

g,___

.....-._....%4 N

LIST OF TABLES Table Title l

4-1 Sheathing Filler and Anchorage Assembly Surveillance Data

's - 1 Detensioning and Wire Removal Data l

"-2 Normallred Lift-Off Forces for Three-1 Year r,urveillance 1

}

6-1 Test Results - 100-Inch Gage Length Wire Specimens 6-2 Acceptance Test Data on Wire Used in Fabricating Tendons 7-1 Retensioning and Sheathing riller

{

Installation Data c-1 Laboratory Analysis of Sheathing riller W:

\\ ;o

)

[yl' a

t

~s

) $"

i Fi l

'i f:1

e-a

,g-N IP L

o-iv f

M***"'

"' ~

n, + e.

u s u.a w.

i s

1 1.0 I NTlqET IM 1he Teotion Surveillance Program is a systematic means of cs-

=ensing th

'ontinued quality of the post-tensioning system.

The nutvet nee consists of periodic inspection of a mini-1 rum of nine pre-selected surveillance tendons (three hoop, three vertical and three dome) for physical condition.

This provides a measure of confidence in the condition and func-

- j t lonal capability of the system and an opportunity for timely j

I corrective measures should adversu conditions (such as severe t

l tendon wire corrosion, where the reduction in the cross-sec-f tional area due to corrosion is so substantial, that the citi-mate tendon wire strength falls below the required minimum ultimate strength) be detected.

This report covers the three-year tendon surveillance fer Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. 2 as specified by Plant rsAR, section 15, paragraph VII, Tendon Stress surveil-lance.

This report was prepared under the continued Technical j

Service Agreement designated under Purchase Order No. 10447.

)

2.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS

{Il 2.1 Summary 1

Lift-off forces in all tendonc exceeded the minimum d i effective design puestrers force, which considers I

j.

losses due to ent. crete creep and shrinkage and steel f

relaxation.

(

f:nd anchorage assembliet were found to be in accept-I able condition with r.o sign of development of adverse conditions surh as progressive cortosion.

Some mill-scale and a minor amount of corrosion were present on shima and bearing plates this is presumed to have p

been present at the tipo of installation.

The tendon wires were found to contain minor scratches, die marks, heat treating discolcration and some minor g

'ocalized corrosion sparsely distributed along the length of the wire.

This was also observed during the one-year surveillance and is presumed to have been present at the time of installation.

All tendon wires inspected woru continuous.

a 1-1 0

= -

i i

i e

Mechanical tests of specimens, with and without sur-l faen irnperfections, indicated the physical properties t

(yield strength, ultimate strength and percent alonga-l t ion) of the wire exceed initial neceptance require-l ments.

No abnormal discoloration was observed in sheathing

?

Iiller sampics.

Laboratory analysis of samples from I

f each tendon sheath showed the amount of deleterious constituents to be well within established acceptanco l11 levels.

i 2.2 conclusions 11ased on the tests and investigation described herein, and on comparison of data contained in this report with data contained in the one-year tendon surveil-lance report, it is concluded that the post-tensioning system in the Containment Duilding for Point Beach Nu-clear Power Plant, Unit 11o. 2 shows no evidence of 4

l progressive adverse 'ilslerioration.

O

.(

vp 1

-t av d

1 h

(\\

i a

a

p a

L

+

2-1 7

)

~ ~ - - - - -

(*

c T(

4c idi&h,.

1;

% g

,_ _g 7

1 i

1. o cl.H r,RAL I

The three-year surveillance of point Deach Unit No. 2 Contain-tunt Du11 ding Post-Tensioning System began in July, 1974 ap-prcximately three years after completion of the containment ntructural integrity test performed in March, 1971.

t This surveillance was conducted in accordance with " Surveil-

{

lance Procedure for Containment Building Post-Tensioning Sys-tem", Revision 4, and modifications thereto, now incorporated into itevision 5, included in Appendix A.

I t

The identification and location of surveillance tendons are shown in rigure 3-1.

i 4s,,

r,"

l?

4 i

b Y

- s*

i 3-1

_ _ =

3

, II

+] O.I f.

,N,

______-_______-___________________L___

i G

H J

K L

M A

350' 2%'

250' 17 0*

11 0 '

50' I

i MH54

EL.105'. O' i

E L70'-3':

4 HK22 4 EL,40'-l" l

i e

i I

Top of tose slob E L. 6 '- 6 '

HOOP TENDONS DEVELOPED ELEVATION ii N

3 0*;,-y. 278 q

V o

h

( GMW 3 3

s

\\

k 2

Dl-223 3

'N

/

w

/

N.

~ 225

[, GROUP V-339 l

2 V 226 0

227 0

GROUP 2 a>;

PLAN-VERT TENDONS

_ PLAN-DOME TENDONS _

9[TQ hl P2GURE 3-1 LOCATIO!! AND IDENTIFICATION OF SURVLILLANCE TENDONS h [a?m?..f' ',.

M

m. f a p. _

9;;r?

I ( h._,

.t #

i 1

4.0 TtNDON TILLER AND ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY l

The results of field inspection of the tendon sheathing filler I

and the end anchorage assembly are shown in Table 4-1 and Appendix E, t

4.1 Sheathing Filler I

b f'

sampics of filler were removed from each end of the tendon sheaths and visually examined.

All samples were dark brown, I

indicating no discoloration caused by excessive amounts of foreign ma*ter such as water.

Laboratory examination (see Appendix C) revealed that de-loterious product content of all samples tested was within established acceptance limits.

The sheathing filler coverage of the anchorheads, bush-ings and shims of the tendon end anchorage inspected was found acceptable.

4.2 End Anchorage Assembly 1

The end-anchorage assemblies were found to be in acceptabic condition.

Two very small buttonhead splits were found at the field-end of dome tendon D3-225 which were n"t recorded d

during the one-year surveillance.

The difference in off-l size buttonheads recorded during the ors-year and three-year 1

4

(~

surveillance is not appreciable and results most likely f rom the use of dif ferent, c6:ibrated "Go, No-Go" gages.

j

\\

N i

i A

f I

w.

k i

W I

4-1 t

/2?

i

,cox w i

e l

l i

w

?

t t

t t t t t

t t

l y

64 **

d a it 6 6 i t i t 6 t k t t

8

,e i.....: g i

4 a s s a

\\

p%

C C

0 f-.

~*"i c s a r d. :

z i s e s a s tr e r 8

a

{

i 9

,Iu

.....,t a_.e. _t e _ss s e s

_e c

_c l

m g

i i.

g h

r

-}

O MC s

.,na3 3 til 1

'.l 4

a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a n

W i.. y.. i..u., g

'E l

k.

et

$.3;,

f.

g i

.. a a a a a a

. a

. a aa a a

.c Y

s i.

_g a

,m j

i e

l,.

p'

{

. a a

b

• 1.

'I,'

dr p.

2 1,

j g

j c

l pgggg g

- a a _

_ a -

. a _

3 111.t_

e

,. i i t i. l!.y j { { {p*

.s t s llo

'*p e

• *

• 0 *

• c

.n

.... a a 1

L.

i.., i..u., a

- a a a a a

_ a a

lJy99I j W'

4VVV

.r.. *e i. re.. a C 3 t C : 0 t t 1 1 &

t & L t t I

a i

.J 4 si 4 4.

4 pp g

.m (C

a g

h 5

. a,4.. p...,

2 p'

g 1,

ja, y

a,.

(g g

g 3j p.

..wy 3,f S

i y).

...,,,,, a w

c 11

$$s l+

.2

,...,,,,....4, a

,I d

h

. au r

m h

i y

?

3 en E

E 9

L 9

ja e

a I

i

.....,...a I

f.

E E ;e e

vis s

'r.;

• l E

r PJ l

t e0 l

l a

l 7

j

>*3

9 m

8 Im uium i N h h&iar'

muh asia l

l

\\

4 i

5.0 DETENSIONING AND WIRE REMOVAL h

s es The data and observations obtainod during dotcasioning and wire removal are shown in Table 5-1.

5.1 Lift-off Forces Tendon lift-off forces obtained during the one-yor..

t and three-year surveillances are listed in Table 5-1 (columns 3 and 5).

To provide a common basis for com-l parison, tendon lift-off force is converted to lift-i i

1 off force per wire and normalized to account for the following effects:

a)

Structural deformations (a function of the post-tensioning sequence).

b)

Initial lift-off force deviation from seven-tenths of minimum ultimate tendon wire stedngth, j

c) changes in lift-off force resulting from doten-i sioning and retensioning of the tendon during the wurveillance.

d)

Removal of wires during the surveillance.

s Normalized lift-off force in obtained by multiplying jg measured lif t-off force by the normalizing f actor (see ga 4

74 formulae in Appendix D).

These factors are listed in 0

Table 5-2 along with the normalized lift-off force per G

wire for each tendon.

t; ror double-end-stressed hoop and deme 6endons, an av-3 erage of the lift-off force at each end is used.

The normalized lift-off forces are plotted on the Force vs.

s Time charts (Figure 5-1 through 5-3) which provide a direct comparison of measured versus predicted loss trends.

The predicted loss trend is based on a stress loss of l

27.3 Asi over a period of 40 years (for hoop, dome and g

vertical tendons - from plant FSAR, Fection 5), assum-s

/

ing lossen diminish expot.entially with time and 70%

i, of the losses occur in the first year.

i With an average stress icve? at installation of 0.7 fpu (8.25 k/ wire), the predicted average forces after one year and at the end of 40 years are 7.31, and 6.91 kips per wire respectively.

(See expected loss curve - Figures T

5-1 through 5-3.)

qj

(-

r f

e 5-1 m

,.i

f' 1

N

-i i

t 5i 1

\\

The trend of prestress losses, based on average values

\\

l O

f or each tendon group for the or.3-year and three-year wrveillances, indicate that the actual prostress loss-1 g[, <

es correlate closely with the predicted prestress loss-l 1 3

+

es.

r P

ky The normalized lift-off forces for all nine tendons a

f ",

exceeded minimum effective design prestress.

N N

q 5.2 Wire Inspection, f.,

3 The results of inspection of each tendon wire removed for surveillance are shown in Appendix D.

a fa; I

soma minor surface imperfections (abrasions, die marks, and discoloration) were found on all wires removed.

l corrosion level for all wires wac classified in cate-l' gory 3 or less (pitting less than 3 mille in depth).

4 F

/

The results of a microscopic examination of pitted Jy/,

wire are shown in Appendix F.

Examination of the pit-l/

ted wire showed no evidence of strees corrosion. hydro-gen embrittlement or cracking.* Since the reduction in

'5 wire cross-sectional area was not significant and no J

cracking or embrittlement was observed, no significant

?b C'

decrea a " ta=i2a "rasth dua to laa or a"*2 wou2d

'i be expected.

5.3 Discontinous Wires

),

f>

No discontinous wires wer6 found during this surveil-j @

lance.

i a m

(

4 l

s' n

b

.?E j C

a kJ i

,! e l

Iv y q

j-l f_,[

y.

9 l

T[

5-2

[M e v 41 (y -

JL '.,; -

!.. T&

~

4

i l

al

• 2 f

f f

f f

I

[{

4.'- ;4 4

?. 4 c

4 4

1

.p

~~"":::; n 3

,i I

a j

1 a

e g i

n

'I 13 j

~.

i j

i y

.......n,,3 a

1

,I 1

i r

u, ~....., a i

1r I

P l

i e

a

3. 3 -4

.e,. :

y 3

let fl r

-. s a

2 c

ir g@;

ls!)

g I

• 'l M

5 I

[!. a

' " t }

r A

i 2

8 E

3 m

'. i e

in~..'.".;t s

s e

i i ;

5 s

s

~~

g i,,

i

[

i.;

s c

,,,,,,,..,1 2.

f K.

O.

E.

t.

t.

g 0

,...,o,i

~

l i

1 m

e

......o....:

t e

t t

t t

t p! v' 6 r

c t

8 :

8 i18 i iI,

" :t!:

: : = =

c s s 2 2 : s

,,gy 3

, ' q{

e.)}:

3 e

. I c

: s tit a

t s a a s t c

y

. u..

l 1rer I g

o

!)10'

!!'u n 1 1 1 1 1 !

l

- 1

! ! H i t 1

< ] j i. j :

.o 3.VVV s

?.n i

.$-3)u-st :s h

< " * ~ ".

s : : :: :

s t

x : : : ; ::

h 2

-""~n p :

5.-.

o.

.i

':2:1 -

1 1 1 111 1 !

+'

1

! ! EC 1 1 g

w M)

&- b o

R 3 2R R R R

R RR i R R R I

tieo i

. rq ae i

n u n

a a

n s u Cl I

....~o..'

2n n

e s

: : : : 4 p

g

-. !s..g

".i.",,. ;

. ;-

.. s-s

! ".88 3 5 e

-,2 i

l I;

e tan P 9 0 2 9

. [

3 c re rS 9

.3 d4.

1

s

i I0 s s s

: 2 s.:

ab I

i 1

- L.

g g-e. s_

_R e.g i !

....... n.u.'i 8 42.e b.

e r.

.,31 i,

s r

Ii i

i.

2b k

i L

to l[

pI

,27-i l

i i

.i

) a L2 i

~

e j

ii L33l e e

i-f

s I sI

k.,1 E

E F-ie i e di:.w j ?- h f, ' " t 4q ?AO:s; ; - %, Lid;.:dnudf $' N($QN.Y&%$. *

/ l ') \\ O TAliLE 5-2 NORMALIEED LIFT -OFF FORCES t4 FOR TilIZE-YEAR SUP.VEILLANCE je k I 'd Tendon Shop or Normalizing Nppalt red Litt-Of f Force Per WlEd ~ l No. Field End Factor Each End (KIPS) Average (KIPS) k 11K-12 S 0.958 7.20 7.28 F 0.961 7.35 .r e .I ME-39 5 0.965 7.31 7.23 I. F 0.940 7.15 i f., ? N Mll-5 4 S 0.918 7.13 7.31 k P P 0.977 7.48 k

• l V-226 S

0.932 7.13 7.13 F 4 [ l V-J'8 S 0.974 6.97 6.97 F '( (~ .__. d i V-339 S 0.992 7.42 7.42 4 I / r l 1 01-223 S 0.943 7.09 y7.08 F 0.938 7.06 D2-227 S 0.915 7.27 7.34 F 0.921 7.40 D3 225 S 0.966 7.07 6.98 ,-( F 0.961 6.89 y l D,, k ?~' ( .5 0 1 I k.)gy.

j. 3,, 3:T7 m..=-

• \\
• 1

-_,g, ?. ?;,

• s.9

- '.- Y, -+s a

• "w

)_ g

m M l l l l h l A L)4 i f l4 4 I y;a' T 9' I i a k 1 e e .-j y h o u. e ~ / _4, mg mi >. 4 g ? N N d 4 m I M E q* ts gg i V

n t

be gg 6 I m e o e .g r g e j { Qo gr ? n a c \\ = o \\ / U ba 5.e p e m -g ( I O i e i l ~ 2 A W. eJ i ) 8 5 t u 4 m I 9 4a r s B e k' I t O & ( i c 2 e. s e e e m s e e ,f (S 11X) 3HIM E3d 3310J E. '4 t ? 'g' f x, gw we +- *

• f * ""

,,.w+ h . ~,, p c-. i ,a i g

i 6 v c4 I 4 i i O n. i 1 o a m 8 10 H r: i i o 2 h4 t e g l n h I CO m m Ul S. S. . "3 "b d i i a. C 3 4 g. b N h h .d -13 a 'N 3,.! l lq go L o + 7 ,i g s w l b Y U 1 o oc fy / !7, 2 i 6 2-H W O Y lfi ~ l ~ I E g a = W .J s ..t- ,a 4 s j @Id l v O 3 0 ho a' = i it i N } -!') Yd 4. N 2.- .-26

y

. t. s. 1 4 (w a.. O h, i i A 9 M k h o e o e o 9 e a a l Lv (SdIX) 2Hiti 13d 23E01 y l[ g l1 a 4. N

l.,

t gay ep.4=. 4 -

• w'*** * ' ' _..

{ k p ('yj$$,ld -n. , - ;' ifj(hA;p%Pi$v"d' d$ddf//,T.

p%O N Q At 4;ary;. a 4,f,w..% v M :A ce, _~ y -T > raf ~+, ; fg w g,;. a tTw y.l t 9.0 I b DI-223 f 8.5 hD2-227 G D3-225 8.0 i i 7.5 n m p. tif - U w - y-DCPECTED. LOSS - -. - - g a D WW h55 El / }

\\

pt. y B 6 = 4~P1 7.0 4 w -9 m f kC

• ^

., M K 1 4 MIN. Er eu,IIVE -t + J'.. ?.

1. 3

~ u DESIGN FRESTFE S h. W* p j 6.5 i l I l 4 1 I 6.0 10 2G 30 40

1. J g

TIME AFTER INITI'l. TENSIONING (YEARS) FIGURE 5-3 NOK!iALIZED LIFT - OFT FORCE *... ilyI Fes ? M IENDONS t s m m~s ~

• -~

l. ~ ~ .... _.__ - ~ __.. _ _ _ %4

1 I 6.0 WIRE TESTING o \\ t 6.1 specimen selection and Prepatation j I Appendix D identifies the specimens selected for testing. A typical section of wire (approximately 10'-0" long) was cut from each end and from the middle portion of cach wire. The specimens were trimmed to a length of 101 inches, fitted with stressing washers and button-i headed to provide a gage length of approximately 100 inches (clear distance between buttonhchds). As j specimens were removed from the wire, they were tagged l with the following information: 0 (1) Tendon identification number. I (2) Sample number indicating location of r.peciinen. -3 These tags remained with the specimens through compic-tion of testing. 6{ 6,2 Test Equipment The test assembly used for testing nominal 100 inch ,k: <[- gage length wires is shown in Figure 6-1. Q t A tensile force was applied to the wire through the 'k stressing washers inserted in the pulling adaptors, t l-one adaptor was screwed onto a threaded 1-1/8" diam-P eter rod anchored to the end of the reaction frame. 4 4f The other pulling adaptor was screwed onto the threao ed portion of tne ram plunger. The 10"-stroke two-l j way ram was bolted to the pulling end of the reaction ] o iO frame. Tension was applied to the wire by pressuris-i t'i ing the " pull" side of the two-way ram with a hydrau-PV lic pump. The force applied to the wire was obtained from calibrated pressure gage readings. l,j o l + O ,s i rx c;4 r 6-1 ti s p,. ?)Q -

N e i i l 4 4 Displacement to one percent elongation was measured uti- } ( liring one dial extensometer (having a two-inch travel and lowest diviuion of 0.001 inches) mounted as shown in rigure 6-1. The dial mounting bar was anchored rigidly to the reaction frame at its midpoint. The extensometer was positioned on the mounting bar to 1 measure the displacement of the index rod attached to I the pulling adaptor. This, after proloading to s'est i buttonheads into pulling washers, enabled measurement of wire elongation. The elongation under load at failure (ultimate strength) was obtained utilizing a rulo attached to the gage mounting bar at the ram-end to measure the relative displacement between the index rod and the dial mount-ing bar. Measurements were read to the nearest 1/64 i inch. h.3 Test Equipment Calibration g The pulling assembly (gage and ram) was calibrated in a testing macnine accurate to +0.55% and -0.11% of f load reading prior to tho testing of specimens. 6.4 Wire Test Procedure - Long Samples ' Q The test procedure used rurallels that of ASTM Speci-fication A 421-65 with the exception of gage length. A nominal 100 inch gage length (instead of 10") was chosen to obtain a longer sample more representative of the actual in-place strength of the wire. The 100 inch gage length specimens may indicate a lower ulti-mato strength and less ductility (elongation) than 10 inch specimens, since failure will occur at the weak-est point in the wire (equivalent to the lowest value that would be obtained from ten 10 inch specimens). Elongation ander load at failure will also tend to be less due to distribution of elongation at the neck-down area over a length of wire ten times that of the nomi-nal 10 inch gage length specimen. D i br I ($/ 6-2

1 ] s ti , e..,-., y ~. s .. o,4 } l i \\ 6.5 Test Results /~1 i The resulta of tests on 100-inch gage length samples are shown in Table 6-1. 1 6.5.1 Percent Elongation at Ultimate Strength Due to the effecta discussed in paragtaph 6.4, wire t tested using 100-inch gage length specimens is ex-pected to exhibit less elongation at failure than { 1 identical wire tested using 10-inch gage length speci-l I mens. Based on other test data (1), a wire exhibit-ing a 4% ultimate elongation by 10-inch gage length tests is expected to exhib't a 3% ultimate elongation l by 100-inch gege length tests. All wires from the ntne tendons exhibited elongation i { exceeding 4.0 percent.

• [

\\{ G.5.2 Yield Strength sg The yield strength of all wire specitiens tested ex-ceeded the specified minimum yield strength of 192 ksi g at it elongation. j 6.5.3 Ultimate Strength

p The ultimate strength of all wire specimens tested

>d ? exceeded the specified minimum ultimate strength of I; 240 kei. E y 6.5.4 comparison With Original Acceptance Test Date i The range of ultimate strength of the samples toeted i, compares well with that obtained in acceptance testa j p (see Table 6-2). i u ) (1) The test results comparing elongation at failure of 10-inch and 100-inch specimens are reported in Consumers power Company, containment Building g F post-Tensioning System One-Year Surveillance, Falisades plant unit 1, Docket No. 50-255. b e a. Nsl 9 6-3

~ { \\ b l l f s \\ i l 6.5.5 Fracture Characteristics All breaks indicated a necked down cup-and cone The ultimate stress of all tested wire samples with breaks at the buttonheads -xceeded j fracture area. f: tne minimum specified ultimate strength of 240 hsi. Approximately 50% of all breaks occurred at tho buttonheads and the majority of these breaks revealed 4 ,i p(? typical fracture characteristics resulting from com-bined ficxural and axial stresses. The flexural stresses are resulting from a night eccentricity of I (!{ the buttonhead, p E 6.5.6 Specimenn With Surf ace Defects p< A comparison of wire test results for 100-inch spe-cimens with and without surface defects indicates that there is no detectable decrease in strength and physical properties of wire specimens with surface defects. f k '. .r, s j c 4 Ii i 0 o s n 3 s ?* O 4y 6-4 1iy

.- - - - ~ - - - - 3 _,D i g y .4 ) i g i O TADLC 6-1 TEST RESULTS FOR 100" GAGE LI:NGTil WIRE SPECIMENS I h l':y 1 Q tenden Sample

17. Yield Stres dlUmate Stress Percent Location oI No.

flo.(1) (KST) {KSI) Elongation Pailure (2), f ur-22 1 201 253 5.3 M a 2 205 255 5.8 M 3-3 212 255 5.9 M J My-39 1 199 247 4.3 n11 N. 2 203 251 5.7 M ,/ 3 210 252 5.4 M hNt-b 1 205 253 4.9 M [ 2 208 251 4.0 Bil + 3 208 253 4.8 Bit g /, v-226 1 204 250 4.2 Bit 2 203 248 5.6 M [ 3 201 248 5.5 H u v-278 1 208 255 5.5 M

h 2

204 251 5.7 M 11 3 210 253 6.3 M g,, O V-339 1 205 251 5.1 Bli 2 203 249 4.4 Bil j 3 203 251 4.6 Bil 'A D1-223 1 207 250 4.6 Bil 2 208 253 5.1 Bil 4 3 203 2:0 5.0 B}l t D2-227 1 205 264 4.0 M 2 218 263 4.6 Bil 3 218 263 4.3 M a- [/ D3-225 1 208 254 5.5 M 2 201 251 5.4 M 3 200 253 4.6 Bil jd [ NOTI:S p p( (1) See Appendix D for sample location on wire. 11, (2) 0 11 - Failure within 1" of buttonhead.

J M - Failure within r., adle portion of wire.

b y l / p 'l f Vy-w e

6 _,. i t i N 4 i TADLE 6-2 ACCEPTANCE TEST DATA ON WIRE USED IN FABRICATING TENDONS O I TJ Elon Ultimate St::ength (ksi) Yield i hark coil No. Heat No. sample A sample D Strength (KSI), n HK22 281 40320 255 256 215 291 40320 254 263 215 E, 755 28459 251 248 214 i y MK39 176 16858 253 258 219 '1 187 16858 249 251 219 3 731 40319 251 254 210 MuS4 362 40066 255 247 222 370 40066 254 249 222 470 40066 252 252 222 v-226 468 15493 247 251 213 t 469 15493 240 249 213 8 470 19493 242 252 213 V-278 250 15493 247 254 212 257 15493 244 251 212 i i V339 704 27503 248 252 2 f7 ' .e 709 27533 240 255 217 { 722 27583 246 251 217 + {t 737 27583 251 y 249 217 i D1-223 696 15492 247' 245 211 713 15492 249-251 211 720 15492 247 i251 211 D2-227 761 15492- =247M h 6248 211 p ~f 261 21' 763 15492 257 4 v i 872 34158 253~ 247 23' D3-225 46 34155 251 253 215 j 150 15401 252 253 215 165 15401 251 255 215 i .j NOTES: w] 1) The minimum ultimate strength is 240 kai. D .? 2) The minimum yield strength is 192 kai at in clongation. 3) Samples A&B are the results of the two tests to deterr.8 ne ultimate O-strength of each coil d.uring tendon fabrication. 1 1 4) The yield strength is determined for each heat during wire l 3 manufacture, s h, 4 ' g.___.. N =Y' '$E fN'

e n n - m c;y: m : n = n {' I r O 3 7 0 h [ i h 7 Dial Gage j E Mounting Bar ,r Indicator Needle s Rule Anchor End Threaded Rod g/ >st Frame - Stressing Washer 2-way Ram l f p' Index Tab Pulling Adaptor Index* Rod Test Specimen 4 t / ) + Pulling Adaptor f y Stressing Washer ! l' l l I - Pressure Gage [ Adjustable Eypass Valve g '7 Hydraulic Electric Pump ) FIGURE 6-1 Wire Test etachine Assembly

• ~w o

e vs~ m*--, s' + - - -^^ ~~ ^ ~

1 sI ! : -- i } s ,1 i,0s ;,ffeJO /;.Q.'d * ; % b s.- v. .,n ,~w,. 1 i g i 5 7.0 RETENSIONING AND FILI.ER INSTALLATION 5, O. ~~ The data obtained during retensioning and filler install-ation are shown in Table 7-1. i I i 1 The tendons were retensioned to approxit*;.ly the same e stress level indicated by lift-off1 force data ottsined during this surveillance. Additional elongation stas { mcarured as indicated by data. The volume of shecthing filler removed and replaced was recorded. l The retensioning information provides input data for use in the next scheduled surveillance. k 4 .O b w N =d; U;' b O 7-1 uW'~ ,5 ~9gl fgg,1. ~ ~ s ..u.%e,4NQ ? +'0-

m.. 7 7 g 7. A e g ll 1 l l o**) .. e a { u s * * * * *

• d

a d' H id 8 l I I I C 1 d,, ' 32 2 0, 3.. R R P. I '" n =.a 4.N 'a f 4, i ,t e I N a (

4. H P. s. t e s 164 d

i d J l i. i m.. . wA

- R R 2

'

• 2

~a a Yl 'k 'a jf ' E 3 t.* 2 2 2 I'

• ?? ;*

? ? ? ? ) i, ~ a 9 a a =.

• • l o d '
• i I

g q n! .,...., e 4,I ~~

• [

I..tj s 'l c t l: 2 2; 0 t t 2 ". t : ! : 4 ,1 g. ?! j' ? c 3 o 4 $l

>, s en L,

j ....u. a s s s e zj j{i j t o n a.t e a e o o o o d ie a ss : : z

:: : =

m .: a.:. s a w h d lE ~ ~ ~ c' I: C a w ( '. o o.d ia). 23 22 +2. 2 2 5 3 3 : 3 3 O. I,~ g a f,. 2 g 4 ..4-Dj .c s fi t' ow) - g} 8 g r g a g r R 3 g 8 9 m 3 : 0 j .**2 -1 4 3. 3. ~ .c M i -ne < u, _y o e o o 8 .n, .,3 - 4 e o e o o os nian C ? 7 2 3 3 : a S 3 3 : c ~ a 3 .4 E, a.... - 4 s4 4 4.. r c a L c O l }

R y

o.*u' 8 ) R 2 3. : 2 R 2 3 2 ". j g hj i v t i "'a = 1 1 11 1 1 i i i l i l i l l t I' I m i -oa-o. e s E h N~ ? I i i ? Y ? i d -E I)., e :o .3 ~.-

2 2 : :

F. r o 2 a e i l '"J'l - 4 I a) e e a.s. y g a.g g a 8 g g s g gg 1 3 k i i 3 r ?; jr i t > ~ a,..o 5 i E E i i i E E t le 1 5 1 i. i 4 4_ 4 4, p 4'l 4 4 4 2I l 2 2 2 S-j 2 4 4 2 2 by e, j ,......n...a. ~, 'I i ) 3 i' ,f 1 ..m m n.. -

l i

• t r

l s L G3 g i ... m - is l

• I i

4. pl a 3:* g g deg j. t ?g ?g ph na v n.o - ?.

• n 1

i pr. i s t e &k p %m p.a a ' ; 4,- ,,Ib GJ , _ -.,,Tn s[M/. p.mL ' Nd,j@3a a ____ t}}